X5000 systems

[kirk_m]

I am sure to get flamed on this but, I'll say it anyway.  I just checked out the US vendor's site that was posted earlier today.  Is it just me, or, is anyone else just not overly impressed with the specs for the machine?  USB 2.0?  The whole thing seems to be a decade or more behind PC and Mac hardware specs and it costs twice as much.  What would anyone buying one of these actually use it for other than just a hobby perspective?  Pleas enlighten me, because I can't really see the point.

[wawrzon]

i think you have answered your question yourself: it simply is a machine for ppc hobbyists.

[Iggy]

i think you have answered your question yourself: it simply is a machine for ppc hobbyists.

 
 Frankly, I'm not sure what you think the last decade has brought us in terms of technology, as I can update a decade old PC to run current operating systems and software with no problem.
 
 My G5 PowerMac has PCIe slots and runs a fairly current version of Linux.
 I can use it relatively interchangeably with the i7 laptop I am typing on right now.
 
 So what are we missing?
 DDR4, USB 3.0, Intel cpus?
 Go play with your PCs and pretend you have something superior.
 
 I've been using computers since the '70's and I'm SO tired of this kind of bull%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!.

[LiveForIt]

Well they trying to keep price down, it's small production run.
The hardware is for AmigaOS4.x,

if you want to run Linux or Windows you can buy a normal PC, this not for you.

[Iggy]

Well they trying to keep price down, it's small production run.
The hardware is for AmigaOS4.x,

if you want to run Linux or Windows you can buy a normal PC, this not for you.

Well said sir!
 Its an apples and oranges situation.
 PC hardware is a cheap commodity.
 
 This stuff isn't badly priced for a small run of specialized boards.
 
 I'm completely happy with it.
 
 And I'm sure we can adopt things like USB3.0 (which is available via PCIe plug in cards) once the software to support it is developed.

[wawrzon]

Frankly, I'm not sure what you think the last decade has brought us in terms of technology, as I can update a decade old PC to run current operating systems and software with no problem.
 
 My G5 PowerMac has PCIe slots and runs a fairly current version of Linux.
 I can use it relatively interchangeably with the i7 laptop I am typing on right now.
 
 So what are we missing?
 DDR4, USB 3.0, Intel cpus?
 Go play with your PCs and pretend you have something superior.
 
 I've been using computers since the '70's and I'm SO tired of this kind of bull%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!.

another time, you have answered your own question in advance i guess, plus others will correct you. it rather justifies my kallikles like position here.

[Iggy]

another time, you have answered your own question in advance i guess, plus others will correct you. it rather justifies my kallikles like position here.

"you have answered your own question in advance i guess"
 
 Curious reference to Kallikeles there, but I'll leave sophistry out of this.
 Your 'guess' is way off, that list was sarcasm.
 
 I'll leave it to other to follow the continuous regime of updating hardware that brings no significant improvement to the table.
 I can't think of anything in the software world that requires the over the top power that todays best hardware has.
 And I'm certainly not going to upgrade in order to play DX11 or 12 games (then again, I'm frankly not much of a gamer - its kind of a silly activity for an adult).  
 
 So, again, the question IS, what in the last ten years has been introduced that requires an upgrade to gain productivity?
 
 Sure, legacy Amiga hardware is obsolete, even if it has its retro appeal.
 
 But anything produced in the last ten years will run software that has adequate utility for the real world.
 So short of playing 'mine's bigger than yours' in some weird ego contest, what does following your logic offer me?
 
 I have PCs.
 And I'm no longer stupid enough to pay for the absolute best, most current, or top of the line hardware.
 And I have my alternative equipment, where the main problem is software availability, the hardware is entirely adequate.
 This is the same problem we had in the '80s and '90s (and it ain't changing).
 
 So if you want to point out the fallacy of trying to justify the use of NG systems, you ought to be attacking us on the software front, because the hardware is fine.

[wawrzon]

yawn.. whether the world answeres or not. if you dont need the current technology, 64bit, 32bit , 16bit or 8 bit or no computer at all, including no utilities and games at all, even if not the recent ones, be my guest. simply dont advertise it as all of above.

[klx300r]

& kirk_m

it's very simple, I want to run AmigaOS natively on new hardware.  I'm here for AmigaOS news only! I already have Windows and Linux boxes and emulation doesn't interest me.

[Iggy]

yawn.. whether the world answeres or not. if you dont need the current technology, 64bit, 32bit , 16bit or 8 bit or no computer at all, including no utilities and games at all, even if not the recent ones, be my guest. simply dont advertise it as all of above.

I don't think you've noticed it, but sometimes your posts are nearly indecipherable.

I have been using computers since 8 bit systems were the norm, I worked for a company that built 16/32 bit 68K systems, and I'm using modern hardware.
And btw, I had 64 bit AMD based hardware, when the majority of PC buyers were still dumb enough to be considering Intel crap like 32bit Pentium 4s systems.
I just don't see the point in continuing to march along pretending that the last ten years have really continued to prove Moore's law when I fact all they've really proven is that manufacturers need continued sales .

Honestly, has Windows improved since Win7 (which is really just a polished NT derivative)? Win8, horrible. Win8.1, only VERY slightly less. Win10, makes me wish I was using Win7.
And 8 or more core cpus, ridiculous. Software still doesn't make use of more than two to three at best and single user OS' are still really bad at threading processes to do much better.

And software. Office productivity apps, browsers, utilities...what real improvements do you see in these? Because frankly, the improvements seem incredibly minimal to me. In fact, sometime learning to adjust to the changes in their interfaces is a far bigger PITA than is justified by those minor improvements.

So, like I said, you want to pretend that I need to follow your lead, you go right ahead, but don't look back behind you, because I have a mind of my own and its served me well in the choices I've made so far, so I won't be there.

[Faerytale]

I don't think you've noticed it, but sometimes your posts are nearly indecipherable.
 
 I have been using computer since 8 bit systems were the norm, I worked for a company that built 16/32 bit 68K systems, and I'm using modern hardware.
 And btw, I had 64 bit AMD based hardware, when the majority of PC buyers were still dumb enough to be considering Intel crap like 32bit Pentium 4s systems.
 I just don't see the point in continuing to march along pretending that the last ten years have really continued to prove Moore's law when I fact all they've really proven is that manufacturers need continued sales .
 
 Honestly, has Windows improved since Win7 (which is really just a polished NT derivative)? Win8, horrible. Win8.1, only VERY slightly less. Win10, makes me wish I was using Win7.
 And  8 or more core cpus, ridiculous. Software still doesn't make use of more than two to three at best and single user OS' are still really bad at threading processes to do much better.
 
 And software. Office productivity apps, browsers, utilities...what real improvements do you see in these? Because frankly, the improvements seem incredibly minimal to me. In fact, sometime learning to adjust to the changes in their interfaces is a far bigger PITA than is justified by those minor improvements.
 
 So, like I said, you want to pretend that I need to follow your lead, you go right ahead, but don't look back behind you, because I have a mind of my own and its served me well in the choices I've made so far, so I won't be there.

I thought many cores was good for multitasking when using many apps at the same time. So the system doesnt get clogged.

[Iggy]

I thought many cores was good for multitasking when using many apps at the same time. So the system doesnt get clogged.

 Up to a point, but in most situations they sit unused.
 I am breaking up the components of a dual quad core Xeon system right now for sale on eBay.
 While it was in use, if you observed the cpu metering software, the majority of time only two cores saw significant loads.
 
 Software under single user OS' just is not threaded well enough.
 With the number of modules typically running, Windows and OSX should do a much better job of this, but the simple fact is they don't.
 
 This situation has been gradually improving, but right now the real performance gains of going above a four core cpu are fairly minimal.
 
 As to other 'developments' in the personal computing world...
 Well Apple is still developing its version of NextStep, OSX, while Microsoft continue to pass off OS' based on further polishing on the NT kernel.
 Nothing really significant has happened in cpus since AMD created the X64 instruction set, except that Intel got its act together.
 And we're all still in the same camps we we've been in for the last ten years.
 
 Progress...yeah right.
 
 So I should continue to regularly replace perfectly useful hardware and software why?
 
 So I can keep up with some pompous braggart who's using thousands of dollars of hardware to play Crysis while living in his parents basement?
 
 I think not.

[gertsy]

Up to a point, but in most situations they sit unused........
......
 Software under single user OS' just is not threaded well enough.
 With the number of modules typically running, Windows and OSX should do a much better job of this, but the simple fact is they don't.
.......

Obviously not doing any video encoding.  And a fact is always simple if you just make it up.

[Iggy]

Obviously not doing any video encoding. And a fact is always simple if you just make it up.

Most of the time, no, I'm not and neither are the vast majority of users.
Occasionally I will re-encode something so that it will run better on my cell phone.

And even then, the delay time between high end hardware and lower end hardware hardly justifies spending several times more for hardware that will not remain top of the line for long.

I'm sorry if my facts don't jive with your perceptions, but I've been using computers since the mid-70s and most user don't use them for the crap you want to tout.
We use word processors, web browsers, spread sheets and other software that has broad utility and frankly was fairly well developed ten or MORE years ago.

You want to pretend you spend all day re-encoding video?
By all means, do so, but don't expect me to believe you.

And don't try to pass that BS of on my friends or customers, because they don't need what you're selling.

[zylesea]

Software under single user OS' just is not threaded well enough.
 

What has a "single user OS" to do with threading Programs? It's up to the programmer to enable multithreading of an application. For example on Windows I used
HANDLE WINAPI CreateThread( lpThreadAttributes, dwStackSize, lpStartAddress, lpParameter, dwCreationFlags, lpThreadId)
more than a decade ago already. And windows balances the threads quite well.
If the developers don't slice their apps into threads, the OS cannot do much about that.