TrevorDick,
Quote:

Wow! That is the first I have heard about more boards being on their way already. That will make many anxious buyers very happy, that did not get their orders in fast enough to get one of the "First Contact" X1000 computer systems. I hope that your next production run sells out almost as fast as the "First Contact" computer systems did.


@ASiegel,

pega-1 and other MorphOS Dev. Team members have already said that bounty money would not make any difference regarding the speed or direction future development of MorphOS will take. Why would a benefactor be any different than bounty money?

[ Edited by amigadave 11.03.2012 - 23:29 ]

Quote:

Had the X1000 customers put in at least part of all that money into the (since long derailed) "8610 open source motherboard" series of bounties instead, we would have had a nice little desktop motherboard that *anyone* (Acube, DCE, whoever with money wanting to go to a manufacturer) could produce, quality design by bplan, with a good support/price on the Freescale CPU, and AFAIK there would have been a sponsored program providing motherboards to developers, etc. It would have had what probably is the fastest "G4"/e600 CPU ever made (thanks to its 533MHz/1066DDR memory, also making Altivec shine brighter than ever), a 32-bit single core system for our 32-bit single core OS, all the peripheral connectors there, 4x SATA 2 connectors, 4x USB2 ports, 2x Gigabit Ethernet ports, Sound ports (Audio Out, In). That would have been cool, two years ago at least. But now I think PPC had its time, its days are over, it can only prevent progress and platform development, IMHO...

Quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFzRigSk_o0&t=3m02s

Quote:

In the beginning, when MorphOS was being developed for the Pegasos 1 and Pegasos 2, some developers were actually employed (or contracted) to do the development. If a benefactor would yet again enter the scene with a similar offer, it could mean people could take a leave of absence from their day jobs and work full time on MorphOS, to work on ISA migration, 64-bit support, SMP support, Memory protection, resource tracking or whatever deemed necessary. I think you could come quite far in, say, only six months.

I agree that any resources should be spent on moving MorphOS to greener pastures, the current pasture can't support a future...

> I wouldn't mind a statement from Andreas Wolf as to his preference

I'm not decided yet as I'm not sure I'd want a G5 Mac over my current G4 Mac (mini), which is slower and less expandable, but also less bulky, less noisy and less power hungry.

> There have been considerations to produce new desktop
> Power Architecture hardware

Do you refer to Genesi in particular here? Some months ago there was an interesting statement given by BBRV here on MorphZone, but unfortunately my questions regarding that went unanswered.

> it still does not make any economic sense given the price to
> performance ratio offered by used or unused / "new" PowerPC Macs.

Is that your personal stance or also Genesi's? (You might find that I'm trying to get the answers BBRV failed to give me from you now, knowing that you're a representative of the company ;-)

> rather than pay [...] hardware engineers [...] who have no real stake
> or interest in the project that brought all of us here together.

I guess that's why some people said they preferred hardware developed by a company like bplan rather than, say, Varisys, because the former is/was assumed to *have* a "real stake or interest in the project that brought all of us here together" ;-)

amigadave,
Quote:

My name happens to be listed on the MorphOS development team website.


Quote:

I was specifically referencing the amount of money it would take to develop and manufacture new Power Architecture desktop hardware. Any prior statements about bounty money clearly did not refer to sums exceeding 100.000 EUR / USD...

> "8610 open source motherboard" [...]
> It would have had what probably is the fastest "G4"/e600 CPU ever made

The MPC8641 with 1.5 GHz core and 600 MHz bus is even faster than the MPC8610 with 1.33 GHz core and 533 MHz bus.

> I was specifically referencing the amount of money it would take to
> develop and manufacture new Power Architecture desktop hardware. Any
> prior statements about bounty money clearly did not refer to sums
> exceeding 100.000 EUR / USD...

To be fair, the entire MPC8610 open source hardware bounty was "only" 65,500 EUR (86,000 USD currently) ;-)

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:

Please note the words "develop and manufacture." The bounty effort did not include a full production run, just basic sampling.

> Please note the words "develop and manufacture." The bounty effort
> did not include a full production run, just basic sampling.

Indeed. Thanks for pointing it out.

Quote:

IMHO 2.1Ghz iMac G5 has a good compromise between noise/power consumption/features/bulkyness.

ASiegel,
Quote:


Quote:

My quote did not indicate that "ALL" MorphOS Dev. Team members felt the same way, or had made comments that money was not the issue, only that pega-1 had and IIRC, some others. I did not intend to slight your importance as one of the Team members. I was only commenting on what I had previously read and thought I had read from one or two others on the Team. I apologize is my comments were interpreted to mean everyone on the Team, as that was not my intent. (I see how it could have been interpreted that way)

He did not specify what amount of money would make him change his view on the subject, or that there was a certain threshold, that once surpassed, would make a different outcome possible regarding which direction the next port of MorphOS would go, or that any amount of money could influence the Team's decision on which platform to support next.

I understand that there could be differences of opinions between Team members, where some would agree to work on certain projects, if paid well for their time and efforts. Others might be resistant to working on certain projects, no matter what amount of money was offered for the work.

[ Edited by amigadave 12.03.2012 - 06:39 ]

ASiegel,
Quote:

Yes, I spent a lot of time researching it.
The company I worked for in the '80s and 90's built 68K based systems.
But times have changed and the entire endeavor is an order of magnitude more difficult.
I would love to be able to pursue that course, but after months (actually it might be years by now) of research I came to the conclusion that the developers had made a very wise choice.
Supporting existing Mac hardware eliminates the need to spend a fortune on development of a new system.

And I must agree that your point about where the money would be most useful is also dead right.

While I'd like a G5 port or a new PPC system, I also find ARM boards like the $200 PandaBoard to be very attractive. And not re-inventing the wheel makes sense.

So whatever you guys decide to do, I'll follow and continue to promote it.
You've made good decisions so far and I believe you'll continue to do so.

Jim,
Quote:

I agree with all three of the statements you just made above. They are right on the money.

>> I'm not decided yet as I'm not sure I'd want a G5 Mac over my current G4 Mac (mini), which
>> is slower and less expandable, but also less bulky, less noisy and less power hungry.

> IMHO 2.1Ghz iMac G5 has a good compromise between noise/power
> consumption/features/bulkyness.

True, G5 Mac doesn't necessarily mean G5 PowerMac. But problem with the G5 iMac is that I wouldn't want to downgrade to a 20" screen from my current 22" screen.

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:

Wow! Here I am struggling to read text on a 19" monitor and Andreas has a 22" screen.
I just missed our local Best Buy's sale on a 23" Dell LCD monitor so I'm going to have to wait to upgrade.

And I'm glad to see that some people realize that G5 support doesn't have to mean a Powermac.
I like the Powermac, but its dual or quad processors would go wasted under MorphOS.
Aren't G5 iMacs single processor machines?

> Here I am struggling to read text on a 19" monitor

Using a larger font should solve that one :-)

> Andreas has a 22" screen.

I think that's quite a standard size today.

> I like the Powermac, but its dual or quad processors would go wasted under MorphOS.

There're single-core ones as well:

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g5/stats/powermac_g5_1.6.html
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g5/stats/powermac_g5_1.8.html
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g5/stats/powermac_g5_1.8_2.html

Admittedly, using sub-2.0 GHz G5 machines wouldn't offer much advantage in performance over currently supported G4 Macs.

> Aren't G5 iMacs single processor machines?

Yes, all of them.

Thanks you Andreas.

I would not be surprised if you could run a dual G5 machine with one processor missing as well.

I have a dual 2.5GHz G5 PowerMac (early model) that has a defective G5 CPU socket on the motherboard, and it runs MacOSX on the one remaining good 2.5GHz G5 CPU without any trouble. It would make a perfect MorphOS computer, if MorphOS is ever ported to any of the G5 Mac models and this model were to be one of the models supported.

There has also been some discussion on the LowEndMac G3-G5 mailing list about running a dual G4 PowerMac with one of the two G4 CPUs clocked at the minimum speed it can run at to reduce heat production and energy use, when running an OS that can only use one of the two G4 CPUs. It was suggested that one of the two G4 CPUs could be clocked as low as 300MHz, while the other G4 was running at the full speed of 1.25GHz, or 1.42GHz (depending on which model it is). One member on that mailing list had tried over clocking a dual G4 CPU PowerMac and found out later that he had only overclocked one of the two G4 CPUs, so this shows that they can be run at different clock speeds, while still running MacOSX correctly.

I would guess that it is probably possible to down clock one of the two G5 CPUs (or possibly 2 of the 4, G4 CPU cores in a quad core, dual G5 PowerMac model), to reduce heat and power consumption, if you are only going to run MorphOS on that computer and have no need or desire to run it in a dual boot setup with MacOSX.

He suggested that I down clock one of my two 1.25GHz G4 CPUs to the minimum speed to reduce heat and energy usage, instead of trading my dual 1.25GHz G4 CPU module for a single 1.25GHz G4 CPU module.

I have decided to do the trade anyway and will overclock the single G4 CPU module when it arrives, instead of taking his advice to keep my dual 1.25GHz G4 CPU module, because I also have a dual 1.42GHz G4 CPU module to swap back to, if I decide to revert to a dual booting G4 PowerMac.

I also just found and purchased a stock Apple Copper heat sink that was provided in the dual 1.42GHz G4 PowerMac MDD FW800 models, so this heat sink will provide better cooling efficiency than my other stock aluminum heat sink, or the Tin heat sink that was originally provided on the single G4 PowerMac MDD models, or the slower speed dual G4 PowerMac MDD models. The better Copper heat sink should arrive a few days before I receive the single G4 CPU module, so I will have everything I need to install the single G4 CPU and attempt the overclocking. I think I will try running it at 1.5GHz first and see how hot it runs at that speed, before I consider trying to push it faster. I am not sure that anyone has pushed the 1.25GHz G4 CPU faster than 1.5GHz, but I was hoping to match the speed of my G4 PowerBook at 1.67GHz, but that may be asking for too much and cause trouble, or failure, and may not be worth the risk of damaging the G4 CPU.

Considering recent comments by some of the MorphOS Dev. Team members, it looks like I probably will never be able to try MorphOS on my damaged 2.5GHz G5 PowerMac that only has one recognized G5 CPU, or working G5 socket on the motherboard (I have swapped the G5's from side to side and confirmed that both G5's are working properly, because it is always the same side that does not work, so it has to be a motherboard problem that is preventing both G5's from being seen as working).

That is okay, as it is their decision and only they know how much work is involved to complete a port of MorphOS to any G5 model, so I must respect their decisions and reasons behind those decisions. As Jim has pointed out earlier. The Team has made all the right decisions so far (as far as I can tell), and I expect that they will continue to make all the right decisions in the future. They are smart guys, even if they might not be the best at marketing and promoting their work to potential users and other developers. I know that they are trying to do everything they can to make MorphOS successful and self-sustaining.

[ Edited by amigadave 12.03.2012 - 16:52 ]

Quote:

Even though supporting Mac G5 isn't high on our priority list, I still wouldn't completely rule out support for specific models
that some of the MorphOS devs own. I just don't see a point to support a wide range of G5 models like we did with G4 for example.
Even though it might look easy to support all models for someone who does not know much about the internals, the released models are quite different in terms of cooling management, bus architecture and so on which is one of the basic showstoppers to have most of them supported.

DiscreetFX has a boat anchor, I mean a dual CPU G5 PowerMac that cost over $3000 and was all that back in the day (2004). We created the first and only issue on NewsTek Magazine (Collectors Item) on it. It needs a little TLC and repair but if MorphOS supported the G5 we would be all over that with a bag of potato chips. MorphOS is a nice OS no matter what machine it runs on.

[ Edited by discreetfx 13.03.2012 - 07:22 ]

Hey Frank,
Aren't you due to go on your vacation soon?

BTW - It nice to see a G5 port isn't completely ruled out.
While I like those massive Powermacs, an iMac is also attractive.

And lower speed G5s seem kind of pointless. Why would I want to move from a 1.53GHz 7455 to a 1.6 or 1.8 GHz G5? It's not enough of a jump.
On the other hand, with the PCI slots in a 2.0, I could move most of my current cards straight into a a G5 Powermac.

pega-1,
Quote:

That is encouraging news. Like Jim said, this statement from pega-1 at least sounds like there is still hope that at least a few models might get supported. Not that it is probable, but at least it is still possible in the future.

I wish BigFoot had not sold, or given away his dual 2.7GHz G5 PowerMac. I think I read that rumor somewhere, and if none of the Team members own a dual 2.7GHz PowerMac, then the chances of it ever being supported are close to zero.

I also wish there were other developers outside the MorphOS Dev. Team that could be hired with bounty money to complete certain parts of the port to some of the G5 models, such as help with the programming for controlling the cooling system(s) on which ever models the Dev. Team decides they will port MorphOS to. I don't know if that is possible for outside programmers to work on certain parts of MorphOS ports to certain G5 models, or if programmers from the Linux world could be found to help on non-MorphOS (non-Amiga-Like) parts of the port? The reason I say this, is because the number of programmers on the MorphOS Dev. Team is limited, and the number of hours they can work on porting MorphOS to any new hardware is also limited. If we can add any new programmers to the team from outside our community, just to work on the non-MorphOS (non-Amiga-Like) parts of any ports being done to any new hardware, it would lighten the load for the rest of the MorphOS Dev. Team, and allow future ports to any hardware happen faster.

Maybe this is a naive perception of mine and this is not possible to use outside programmers that are not familiar with any part of the Amiga API and MorphOS API to do any work on any part of future MorphOS ports to G5, or even x86, or ARM architectures?

This idea is moot, until and unless the MorphOS Dev. Team decides to announce a port of MorphOS to any G5 model(s), or any other architectures.

[ Edited by amigadave 13.03.2012 - 17:12 ]

> I wish BigFoot had not sold, or given away his dual 2.7GHz G5 PowerMac.
> I think I read that rumor somewhere

Probably there:
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=8313&forum=11

pega-1,
Quote:

My instinct is still that G5 support seems a bit like delaying the inevitable architecture jump (and falling even further behind the big 3 OSes in the process). The G4 spread seemed natural, and comprehensive to cover minis, expandable boxes, and laptops (and eMacs as a bonus).

Is 1080p playback really that killer a feature? What else would be the benefit except a temporary pulling even/ahead in the OS4-MOS benchmarking race (in more areas)?

Only a couple of 3rd party devs (DaveAE, Neil Cafferkey) outside the MorphOS team have given us modern hardware drivers, so I can't see a sudden glut of PCIe card support coming as a result, especially since as soon as G5 support is out people will still be pushing either for architecture changes or more diverse hardware support. Just like today.

At some point the team is going to have to piss some people off by saying 'no' and drawing a line under PPC. G4>G5 seems like a natural stopping point to me, given how the time could be invested instead, but then I'm pretty happy with what's currently available (even more so when 3.0 is released).

PS - If you've got a super-secret project name for MorphOS_ARM/x86 (like Marklar/Star Trek for OSX), I suggest "Project Chrysalis."