The ultimate Amiga One (what it should be)

[BIG-IRON]

The ulimate Amiga one deserves better hardware, like it or not the ppc/g-series is hardly what we shold be depending on. The Athlon 64/Opteron is the future even Intel has adopted AMD64 for its future instruction set, and as for speed the 64 is faster than cpus with almost 2 times the speed.
    I worry that by going with the g-series the Amiga has chosen a loosing horse. If you think this is a raw speed choice when I say the 64 I would argue against that, the 64 is quite elegant do some research if you arent familiar with it. The 64 uses less power than the intel making it ideal for laptops and has the 64 bit instruction set, and its cheap at 200 bucks for the 3200. If I had my way the new Amiga would look like this. The parts listed below could be purchased from the pomona computer show for around 1,500 bucks (I actually just built this rig to run XP) so price is not a problem.

Athlon 64-3400
1 gig DDR 400 ram
2 WD Raptor 74 gig 10,000 rpm serial ata hd's in raid 0
1 WD 160 gig 7200 rpm hd for mass storage
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro or ATI X800 video card
Sound Blaster Audigy sound card
52x cd burner
8x dvd burner
Full tower with 450 watt ps
21 inch monitor (viewsonic etc) flatpanels still arent good for games due to slow refresh rates.

[mikrucio]

Intel sux HARD!

Everyone with a brain knows
G4 powerpc's architecture is miles ahead of intel.
they dont have the clock speeds
but they dont need it.

POWERPC kicks intels ass

[gizz72]

Hello,
  Yes I agree! Very powerful 3d graphics engine you got there. Though It reminded me of the first Amithlon came out using AMD   CPU and Chipsets.
  Price wise too. I'm just not sure if Linux runs best here? Then, Aros would be good running on it as well.

AMD is not INTEL, It is their competitor.

Good day to all Amigans! :-D

[BIG-IRON]

LOL umm yea and the Athlon 64 isnt Intel.....um did you even read the post?

[mikrucio]

Wooops hehehehe

Oh well AMD sux too.
Poo to intel and AMD.

hehehehehehe

seeee ya later amigans

[gizz72]

by mikrucio on 2004/6/1 16:07:58

Wooops hehehehe

Oh well AMD sux too.
Poo to intel and AMD.

hehehehehehe

seeee ya later amigans

 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[sir_inferno]

The ultimate Amiga One (what it should be):

Value for money

Not an overpriced headgehog (donno where that came from  :lol: )

[Linchpin]

The ultimate Amiga One (what it should be)

/me thinks you are refering to a PC.

www.pc.org?

[mikeymike]

Also, 64-bit CPUs do not run twice as fast as 32-bit CPUs.

Infact, the move to 64-bit CPUs isn't a particularly required or useful upgrade right now, especially for the average customer.  In a 64-bit length of code, some of it is the instruction, and the rest is the data to be processed by that instruction.  In some applications, having a long data stream is useful, like say database processing, but for many other applications, small instructions regarding small amounts of data is the norm.  Even a well-implemented 64-bit port of an application may not yield signifcantly better performance, because at the end of the day, the amount of 'work' hasn't increased (ie. a bigger calculation isn't necessarily a better thing).

There is also little or no support for 64-bit CPUs, and Hyperion does not have the time or money to take on a project where not only a move from 32 to 64 bit code is required, but a complete change of architecture is also required.

It would be nice if AmigaOnes were better value for money, but personally I would rather see them be more expensive and survive (in a business sense) for longer.  I think time has yet to tell for the A1 or Pegasos.

[HopperJF]

I think the decision to make new amiga hardware based around the PowerPC processor was the right one.
I strongly believe these are the best processors on the market, quality wise, and through efficiency and speed.
It is also worth noting to traditionalists that PowerPC is the next natural step up from 68k. If Commodore didn't go under, we would more than likely be running PowerPC based Amigas today they introduced, probably not a far cry from today's Macs in terms of specs.

Secondly it is worth noting that the AmigaOne is not intended to be a mass market machine, it is just used as a machine which is more powerful than the old PPC accelerators which will run AmigaOS 4 and open a new path to expansion - classic Amiga hardware isn't going to be working forever, and I believe AmigaOne is a good machine to get the Amiga started into coming back, and into the 21st century.
These first of the new generation Amigas do not really need to be very powerful, it is just a starting block into hopefully getting the Amiga some commercial market recognition in upcoming years. Once Eyetech believe there is a user base, and indeed hope for our platform (providing we don't all grudgingly hold onto our old hardware and get AmigaOne's sooner or later) then they will start producing better machines aimed at the general public. The current generation of AmigaOne is NOT aimed at the public, it is aimed at the existing user base.

This should hopefully start to happen around the same time that Hyperion start work on AmigaOS 4.2, which is when it is speculated they are going to start developing for people outside the Amiga community.
AmigaOS 4 is just AmigaOS ported to native PPC for existing Amiga users.

And you can bet  your bottom dollar Eyetech wont suddenly change processor after Hyperion and everyone going to all that hard work into getting AmigaOS onto PPC!  :lol:

[Acill]

The X86 CPU has been push way to far and is at the end of its life. The PPC is much more advanced and had lots more room to grow. Its a great procesor when used. I has OSX panther running on a Powerbook G3 Pismo and it just flew. I think the decision still stands as good.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

BIG-IRON wrote:
The ulimate Amiga one deserves better hardware, like it or not the ppc/g-series is hardly what we shold be depending on. The Athlon 64/Opteron is the future even Intel has adopted AMD64 for its future instruction set, and as for speed the 64 is faster than cpus with almost 2 times the speed.
    I worry that by going with the g-series the Amiga has chosen a loosing horse. If you think this is a raw speed choice when I say the 64 I would argue against that, the 64 is quite elegant do some research if you arent familiar with it. The 64 uses less power than the intel making it ideal for laptops and has the 64 bit instruction set, and its cheap at 200 bucks for the 3200. If I had my way the new Amiga would look like this. The parts listed below could be purchased from the pomona computer show for around 1,500 bucks (I actually just built this rig to run XP) so price is not a problem.

Athlon 64-3400
1 gig DDR 400 ram
2 WD Raptor 74 gig 10,000 rpm serial ata hd's in raid 0
1 WD 160 gig 7200 rpm hd for mass storage
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro or ATI X800 video card
Sound Blaster Audigy sound card
52x cd burner
8x dvd burner
Full tower with 450 watt ps
21 inch monitor (viewsonic etc) flatpanels still arent good for games due to slow refresh rates.

Do I hear cursing in the church?
Where's the custom chipset? where's the dedicated h/w? where's the Motorola chips? Where are the innovative attributes?

[macto]

@big-iron:

Writing any OS for x86 hardware is suicidal.  If you don't believe me, then count the carcasses.  If you only count the number of serious attempts to capture a piece of the market, the results remain bleak.  Why is this the case?  I have my theory: people tend to dual boot between the alternative and predominant OS on x86 hardware.  Eventually, support dwindles for the alternative or the user gets tired of dual booting.  In either case, the hardware serves as more of a migration path to the predominant OS than anything else.

The other fatal flaw is hardware support.  Just because it runs on x86 processors doesn't mean that it supports the hardware which you would choose to run.  Even rather popular platforms, like Linux, doesn't support everything -- and Linux has a large pool of developers and code to work from.

On the issue of speed, I would also argue that the problem is with software developers rather than the hardware itself.  Yes, there are a few things which need fast processors (such as video compression and climate modelling).  On the other hand, a lot of things shouldn't require much of your processor.  (Consider how long it takes your web browser to render one or two pages of material -- if you think bandwidth is the main problem, try using an older computer.)  If you don't think software developers are an issue, compare how long it takes to get things done on your 3.2 GHz monster and an A500.  Is it really 400 times faster, as the clock speed suggests?

[MAD]

Hoya!

I agree with HopperJF.

"Speel

I dunno why but I LOVE your new avatar... ;-)

Be funky

M A D

[Speelgoedmannetje]

MAD wrote:
Hoya!

I agree with HopperJF.

"Speel

I dunno why but I LOVE your new avatar... ;-)

Be funky

M A D

tnx :-)
I modified the original pic to fit as avatar.
here's the original:



've had a good laugh about it :lol:

(our new lesbian members? ;-))