Well, now that Piru has cleared that one up I feel relieved.
Pascal's statement did seem questionable. He'd also made a statement about other things he knew that he couldn't talk about. And his statement seemed to bolster his own position and endeavors.

Oh, and on the world ending in 2012, it would do us all good to remember that the world may not end during the time our species is on it. However, since the vast majority of species that have existed are now extinct, we may not continue to inhabit it indefinitely.

One day, when the PPCmacs are growing really old and slow, of course they need to make a jump to another CPU-family. And Iḿ pretty sure it will be X86. But now?
No, Morphos is superfast even on a Peg 1. with a G4 or G5 there is more speed than a MorphOS user will need.
Only support for newer graphic-cards needed.

@ jcmarcos

True, you have a great variety of components in the PC sector.
On the other hand, the amount of different chipsets has declined over the years since PCs conquered the marked and a lot of companies were founded. Today, there are few left in comparison.

But development is fast and therefore time is short to support new components (drivers), especially for small market companies in the Amigaoid sector.

Even for Apple this seems to be the point, they select hardware for each line of their products, so in model x is always the same hardware which can be supported thoroughly. The product cycles are not so fast like in the Wintel world, the same with consoles etc.

Quite the strategy like in the good old home computer times

To put it all into a nutshell, I see no problem to switch to
specific X86 systems and to support it. And...why not profit again from Apple?s efforts and after their PPC-machines support their well tested X86 machines in the future?

I think that idea, to support Intel powered Mac computers if/when the MorphOS Dev. Team makes a switch away from PPC to any other architecture will very likely be met with several loud cries against such a move, from those that do not like Apple products, usually because they do not like the company, or Steve Jobs, but also because the price of Intel Macs is higher than similar hardware used to build a generic PC, or PC's manufactured by other high volume PC manufacture's, such as Dell, HP/Compaq and others.

I like Apple products, so I would not mind being able to continue dual booting into MorphOS and MacOSX on an Apple computer w/Intel inside, but I fear I am in the minority and most would prefer a cheaper option to build their own x86 MorphOS machines than pay the high prices of new Intel Mac computers, or to have to repeat the process of purchasing used first generation Intel hardware, instead of what ever is current at that time.

jcmarcos wrote:
[QUOTE] But development is fast and therefore time is short to support new components (drivers), especially for small market companies in the Amigaoid sector. [/QUOTE]

I don't quite understand your statement quoted above, as I believe the opposite. I think that due to the small size of the MorphOS Dev. Team, it will take an extended time for the MorphOS Dev. Team to support the latest x86/x64 hardware, compared to the other mainstream OSes, and we will always be using hardware that is some months, or perhaps even years behind the latest and greatest, just released hardware that has Windows, or MacOSX support and to a slightly lesser degree, hardware supported by Linux and other niche x86/x64 OSes that are already established.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are meaning, or trying to write?

Hey Dave, that quote isn't from me! I don't understand it, either. We should all be very aware of one thing: Compare people's personal taste about a component they actually don't know (the CPU) with the HUGE job of rewriting software for a different one. People's likes simply don't compute.

Oops! Sorry for the mistake with the name of the poster of that quote. I see that it was a response to you, not from you.

You are right, specially with Amiga users, people's likes DO NOT COMPUTE!

Quote:

I assumed he was trying to say that component development time (and hence lifecycle) is short, not MorphOS driver development time - consequently there is not much time available for MorphOS development team to write drivers for newer chipsets.

@ boot_wb and others

Ehmm, sorry if I failed to express myself more clearly...

I meant that supporting up to date hardware on the PC side is quite difficult because product cycles are short and manpower on the MorphOS side small.

Therefore, it makes more sense (I think) to choose Apple X86 machines as targets for MorphOS (if there was a decision to switch to X86 some day) than to pick a short lived PC-Setup from the shelf.
Each Apple X86 line of computers has a defined and well tested setup of components. In the future these models could be bought second hand and some specific ones (with appropriate setup) chosen to be supported.

To make it short, I meant to use Apple X86s as a target platform for MorphOS in the future like Apple PPCs are used at present, with the same advantages.

I hope to have made it more clear now...

Thanks for clearing up my confused head. Your idea to have the MorphOS Dev Team choose a few x86 Mac models to support if/when they decide to move on and away from the PPC architecture and to the x86/x64 architecture, is not a bad idea and I for one would support that idea, as I like MacOSX almost as much as MorphOS2.5 and AmigaOS3.9 and would not mind buying Intel powered Macs in the future to run MorphOS on. I could then install MorphOS2.x, Amithlon, AROS, MacOSX, Windows7 and Linux Ubuntu on different partitions and Sextuple boot into any of the 6 OSes I want to run at that time, and also use WinUAE to boot AmigaOS1.3 to 3.9 for yet another AmigaOS choice.

I already have a Black 2.16GHz Core2Duo MacBook that I used to use more than any other computer I own. I say used because I am typing this message on my "New-to-ME" 17" 1.67GHz G4 PowerBook which will be my most used computer from now on and I am going to sell my MacBook tomorrow (it is not that I don't like my MacBook, it's great, but I love the screen size of this 17" PowerBook and I can hardly wait to put MorphOS2.? on it as soon as it is released some time in the future. This PowerBook looks like new and I think will resist wear better than the black MacBook, which works great, but could use a new keyboard, trackpad and wrist rest (top of inside case which surrounds the keyboard) as they have worn smooth and shiny in contrast to the flat black of the rest of the case, so it is very noticeable.

The 1.67GHz G4 is noticeably slower than the 2.16GHz Core2Duo while browsing the Internet, but I don't know if that is only due to the CPU difference, or if part of the difference could be caused by weaker video card and wireless network card inside the older G4 PowerBook?

Lucky for all of you that I can't keep my eyes open one more minute, so I am not going to finish my thoughts here tonight. I'll ramble on more about this thread tomorrow.

Quote:

You are right... But only in part! See, the Team is actually supporting a very important part of the system, relying on, precisely PC hardware: Those old but nice ATi graphics cards.

Quote:

Thant's not required, thankfully: Products from that brand are known for excellent engineering and build quality, but outrageous prices for the functions they feature.

If. If. If. If. If MorphOS for PCs ever exists, the team won't ask you to buy a certain PC model. They'll just say which chips MorphOS 4.0 supports, and you'll have to find a computer that has them all finely soldered or plugged in. If you think about it, it's no different from the current sittuation.

Quote:

WOOOHOOO! x86 being ditched for PowerPC! Now the world has turned upside down! Go Dave! Is that suporting a pltform or what?

My new motto is going to be;

Think Change

Morph your computer experience into something special.

After two days of consideration, I have removed the entire posting I made as I feel it was a rant full of personal opinion that isn't worthy of the usually high standards that most of you hold yourselves to.

From now own, I'll try to restrain myself and remain civil rather than offer my prejudices.

I can understand how difficult it would be to embrace all the hardware used in the X86 market. Frankly, the development team lacks the time and resources to create all the drivers and attendant software necessary to do so. I'm really unsure how the backers of AROS think they're going to deal with this issue when it plagues the Linux community and they have a larger base of users and developers.

To the point, rather than focus on the products of one specific company, if MorphOS were to move to an x86 base it would make more sense to select specific chipsets and hardware to base systems around.

Then we would be able to select components and assemble systems at a more reasonable cost than those built by Apple.

I not only found the idea of having to overpay for Apple products troubling, rather, being tied to the choices made by the executives of that company was particularly foreboding. Unlike many of you, over the years I have not always been impressed with some of the choices Apple has made.

I wish I could say, like so many of you have, that you will follow in whatever future direction the development team decides to move to.

Currently, I truly enjoy what has been created and look forward to the support of the hardware that has probably been mentioned prematurely.

If there is a move after the G5, it isn't my place to point where we go, but I fear it will never makes as much sense and that I might not be as sure of that direction we're headed as I do right now.

Any of you that want to continue to argue for a shift to an X86 or an ARM platform can feel free to argue your points, but I'd just like to thank the developers for their current focus and congratulate them on continuing to remain focused on a successful, logical expansion of their original concepts.

I feel comfortable with what has already been accomplished and no matter what happens in the future, even if MorphOS falters and dies (which many good ideas in computing do), what the developers have managed to do so far impresses more than anything else I've seen in the post Commodore Amiga community.

Thanks again, guys.

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/8/8 21:20 ]

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/8/8 21:27 ]

deleted to conserve your patience. sorry.
Jim

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/8/7 4:21 ]

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/8/8 21:21 ]

> While I think the PA6T is one of the most interesting chips out there
> I think there a few things to consider: It is a dual core chip.

There's a recent statement by Trevor Dickinson which seems to indicate that the AmigaOne X1000 will initially use PA6T CPUs with only one functional core (and with the second one broken and thus cheaper to source?):

"the intention is for multi processor support to be added although the first AmigaOne X1000 will not support this."
http://www.commodorefree.com/magazine/vol4/issue43.html#ARTICLE3

Creepy that you posted that as I was just reading that interview last night.

I didn't draw that inference from that statement, but its a good guess as to the reason for not supporting both cores on the X1000.

Otherwise wouldn't "although the first AmigaOne X1000 will not support this" be "although at first the AmigaOne X1000 will not support this"?

> I didn't draw that inference from that statement

How did you understand it when you first read it?

> but its a good guess

Yes, I think so :-) But maybe it's meant to say something completely else and was just very badly worded.

> Otherwise wouldn't "although the first AmigaOne X1000
> will not support this" be "although at first the
> AmigaOne X1000 will not support this"?

Hmm, I can't really see how the last would make a difference to the first regarding my inference. Care to elaborate?

I assumed that he might be stating that dual core operation would not be supported at all on this AmigaOne system (only on future motherboards).

It had never occurred to me that the processors might have one dysfunctional core.
That's a brilliant theory.

I'd just assumed Trevor was either misquoted (and that they weren't supporting dual core operation yet) or that they just didn't want to attempt to support dual core operation on this version of the X1000 motherboard. A hardware issue hadn't crossed my mind.

An alternative explanation could be that the current MB doesn't correctly support both cores. But your pointing to hardware, no that hadn't occurred to me.

Good thinking. That was my point. Any other questions?

> I assumed that he might be stating that dual core operation
> would not be supported at all on this AmigaOne system (only
> on future motherboards).

This would mean that their "dual-core processor" marketing has been bogus all the time. That would be really bad.

> It had never occurred to me that the processors might have one
> dysfunctional core. That's a brilliant theory.

...unless Trevor didn't actually write what he meant to express ;-)

> I'd just assumed Trevor was either misquoted

I guess the interview was done in written form, which makes misquoting hard (if not done deliberately that is).

> or that they just didn't want to attempt to support dual core
> operation on this version of the X1000 motherboard. A hardware
> issue hadn't crossed my mind.

How could it be anything else than a hardware (chip level or board level) issue? Do you mean firmware level maybe?

Quote:

They only sold the ODW later. The first few batches of PEG-2's were quite a bit more. I paid over $1000 for mine, before the "OWB configuration existed". I think I got the 2nd or 3rd batch.

Also the PEG-2 was produced in at least one order of magnitude higher than X1000. X1000 is 100 to 125 units for beta test program.

PEG-2 production was >1000 units I believe, maybe far more. I don't know numbers have never been released.

But the same may hold true. You could find the end-user X1000 boards are a bit cheaper. Also as time goes on, companies need to reduce the price to spur sales, as the technology becomes outdated. (Not so much in the AmigaWorld though, since nothing really moves so fast in this market to make the older stuff obsolete...)

> You could find the end-user X1000 boards are a bit cheaper.

"we are making 100 Rev 2 motherboards available to Beta testers under a special discount program."
http://www.a-eon.com/news.html (under "27 May 2010")

Quote:

Yes. Final pricing hasn't been announced yet. But the final systems will be full computers, not just boards/cpu/ram.

We will see!

Yes, I assumed that they were unwilling or unable to overcome software incompatibilities or a firmware issue and therefore they were putting off addressing the issue for the current product.

And, yes, regardless of the reason, it seriously affects how they've marketed the system.

> But the final systems will be full computers, not just boards/cpu/ram.

I don't think that's what "special discount program" means here. Paying less for less doesn't classify as a discount in my book.

> I assumed that they were unwilling or unable to overcome
> software incompatibilities or a firmware issue

I still don't get what "software incompatibilities" would mean in this context, other than a firmware issue.

> If MorphOS moves to the X86 platform, I will stay with Windows.

"If the MorphOS developers decided to move to X86, I'd probably follow."
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=577460

Seems you changed standpoint, eh? ;-)