Quote:

I like the fact you are involved with this project Jim. That means that I only need to stay partially awake and vigilant regarding looking for news about progress of this project, as I am sure you will keep us updated on how it is going (along with a certain other members here who is adept at relaying all kinds of information).

I'm a bit surprised to read that this project will be "only slightly slower" than your current i7 powered laptop, and less surprised that it "should be more powerful than an X5000/40". I am not as up to speed on how powerful the T28xx series of CPU's are, as I had thought that they were a fairly low end, to middle of the road PPC CPU.

Maybe next month I can donate some money toward this PPC laptop project. I wonder if ACube's involvement in the hardware design has any effect in increasing the possibility that any of the Amiga NG OSes could be ported to this design some time in the future.

Too bad A-Eon is not also involved in helping this project come to life, as it seems like a natural choice for a future AmigaOS4.x and MorphOS laptop port, and Trevor support both of those OSes.

Thanks David,
This has been a long process, and there is no guarantee that it will reach completion.
On the other hand, I can guarantee the money being raised isn't just going to end up in one of the project leaders pockets (everyone in the project is contributing as well).
Basically, it an international collection of individuals, many with different interests (a lot of whom are deeply into Linux), that want a more powerful PPC system.
The laptop was decided on by consensus (Lord knows I didn't think it was the easiest or most practical idea), but its what seemed to fit most of our uses.

And if your computing is evolving like mine, portable IS the way to go.

The T2080 is a uses four Freescale/NXP e6500 cores. These are dual threaded, so that means that the cpu supports eight concurrent threads (or twice as many as the P5040).
The T2080 is slightly slower than the highest speed P5020 and P5040 cpus, but has a higher mips rating and includes AltiVec instructions.
So yes, it should outperform a P5040.

The comparison to the i7 I'm typing on now is a bit of hyperbole on my part.
My Lenovo has a dual core i7 that operates at a relatively low frequency.
But X64 cpus have multimedia instructions and other features that give them an edge over PPCs.
HOWEVER, I was NOT exaggerating about thread count.

The proposed laptop will be capable of running TWICE as many concurrent threads as the quite capable laptop I am typing on right now.

Frankly, I would have preferred to have been able to draw Bill Buck into the proposed T1042 micro itx board we were discussing, BUT this endeavor could produce something with even broader appeal.
And if its going to be a project that makes limited commercial sense, well than it damned well better appeal to the limited target market its aimed at and be the best device we can realistically consider.

Honestly, every step of this is being thought out very carefully, with constant discussion.
The chassis is a standardized component. The video cards that will mount into in it are industry standard components.
We even have the list of motherboard components winnowed down (with some input from Acube).

And finally, we're not talking out our ass when it comes to engineering.
We have a VERY good deal with people who CAN help us get this built.

Consider that number Andreas mentioned. Frankly, I think its on the low side, but it IS the total for funding of the stages necessary to get everything designed and the initial prototypes built (as currently estimated).

If I had the entire amount, I'd fund it myself as a commercial project, I'm that comfortable with this team.


[ Edited by Jim 24.06.2017 - 22:29 ]

> I'd caution you not to expect either of those figures to be "hard" numbers. [...]
> I don't know that [...] 60250 (which is oddly specific) will be the end figure

I'm just going by the hard numbers that have been officially announced:

"we have identified four [sic!] phases:
1. Hardware components research, analysis of the architecture, and design of the electrical schematics [12600 euro, 30 net days];
2. Printed Circuit Board (PCB) Gerber format delivery of the electrical schematics [11950 euro, 30 net days];
3. Production and delivery of five working prototypes [ 8800 euro, 40 net days];
4. Hardware testing using software provided by the producer (ACube) [14400 euro, 30 net days];
5. Pre-certification CE certification [12.500 euro]."
https://www.powerpc-notebook.org/campaigns/electrical-schematics-notebook-powerpc-motherboard-donation-campaign/#final_goal

(12600 + 11950 + 8800 + 14400 + 12500) EUR = 60250 EUR, specifically, even if it seems odd.

> If we get this done, I will have a PPC laptop [...]

As I understand, if all 5 phases are accomplished, there's still no production hardware, beside the 5 prototypes of phase #3. There'll still have to be a company manufacturing and selling the product. I couldn't find claimed anywhere that ACube will be this company.

> this portable device should be more powerful than an X5000/40 (once SMP is factored in).

...for use cases where 5 or more concurrent hardware threads can be completely utilized.

> The T2080 [...] should outperform a P5040.

...for use cases where 5 or more concurrent hardware threads can be completely utilized.

> micro itx

http://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=7001&start=766

> every step of this is being thought out very carefully, with constant discussion.

Shouldn't the thinking-out of the steps (aka phases) already be completed, considering ACube already put a price tag on them?

> The video cards that will mount into in it are industry standard components.

So it will definitely be a (replaceable) plugin card (e.g. MXM), not a GPU soldered to the mainboard? The currently published specs of the board do not mention this.

> We have a VERY good deal with people who CAN help us get this built.

The 5 prototypes or production level hardware?

> If I had the entire amount, I'd fund it myself as a commercial project

Even then you'd need a much higher amount for pre-financing actual production.

From what i read in the project page, is it based on the tabor board?. Then it is a wrong choice because the wrong fpu could give problems even in linux. What do you think?

> is it based on the tabor board?

No, it is not. The core of the SoC of this project is 3 generations newer than the core of Tabor's SoC.

Hi Andreas, sorry for the delay, I took a break and I have been playing around with Ubuntu Mate, and I'm doing some yard work (its Sunday after all).

All good points in your posts.
Yes, the goal at this point is just to obtain 5 prototypes.
The agreements with Acube do not include manufacturing (I don't believe they actually manufacture their own boards), it just for engineering/design. That IS a really good question btw, that has not occurred to anyone from outside the group.

The current goal, in reality, if anyone read the posts I referenced, is for the motherboard of the system.

The board, once designed, can be manufactured by any firm with the capacity to handle something this complex.
And assembly of the systems does not have to be done by the firm that manufactures the boards.
Further, if you really want to break it down, the company that makes the boards does not have to be the same company that populates them (with the obvious point that this is NOT a design that a hobbyist could populate at home).

You've made the correct assumption on the graphics boards.
An onboard gpu would have limited us to one solution, and I'm one of the people pushing for AMD gpus, while some others would prefer Nvidia.
This solution will increase the end price, but it will also be more flexible, allow upgradability and extend the long term utility of the system.

I am reasonably sure that we will get the schematics paid for.
You must admit, that is a bargain price that we have been quoted.

There are still discussions that we need to hold as to what we are going to do with this as a property (NDAs, etc).
The group is working as a non-profit organization, but I myself, am not in favor of just dumping the design into public domain (at least not at first).
BUT, I can't speak for everyone, so...

Hey, to summarize, the goals are set for now.
And we will just have to pursue this one step at a time.

In every further step of this, I assume we will work out and discuss the details before acting.
Its proven to be a successful strategy so far.

Believe it or not, many of you that wouldn't necessarily think of yourselves as having been involved in this, have provided useful ideas and input.



[ Edited by Jim 25.06.2017 - 16:06 ]

> I'm one of the people pushing for AMD gpus, while some others would prefer Nvidia.

The current specs say "VIDEO: Radeon HD" anyway, implying that to be the default.

> There are still discussions that we need to hold as to what we are going to do
> with this as a property (NDAs, etc).

Isn't this supposed to be open source hardware?

> In every further step of this, I assume we will work out and discuss the
> details before acting.

How was ACube able to put price tags on the individual phases if the details of phases 2 to 5 still have to be worked out and discussed internally?

Quote:

This confirms what I had assumed about the project, and that it would be an "Open Source" hardware design.

Quote:

Why are you against the Open Source hardware design philosophy that this project has promoted from the beginning? What are the downsides to releasing the design as open source, in your opinion?

Quote:

It's good that the group are reading forum posts like the ones found on this forum site, to get potential user feedback and ideas from outside the group responsible for the decisions for this laptop project.

Keep us updated, as much as you can, before any NDA's get put into place (hopefully they won't go that direction).

I double checked with Roberto Innocenti and got this reply on video "Yes we still planning on using a MXM based video board".
So that is pretty straight forward.
The posts that have mentioned Radeon HD graphics are no doubt related to the boards that will be incorporated into the prototypes.

I've also seen comments from other mentioning the idea of releasing the details of the hardware design after completion of the prototypes.
I don't know that the issue has been decided yet, so I have posted a few questions to others.

I, myself, could see the release of the schematic info.
After all, anyone that can obtain NXP information can obtain reference design info, and while this isn't based on a reference design, documenting the board would be a normal thing to do.

And to address your earlier comment about production Andreas, yes the cost of production would be much higher than this initial work.
Even in batches of only 10-25, that's a pretty big expense, and in previous projects I have always made estimates based on lots of at least 50.

But that isn't a current issue, for me, the focus is the initial schematics.
After all, we have a legitimate offer for the design work, so I'd like to see a start.



[ Edited by Jim 26.06.2017 - 08:16 ]

>>>> So it will definitely be a (replaceable) plugin card (e.g. MXM) [...]?

>>> I'm one of the people pushing for AMD gpus, while some others would prefer Nvidia.

>> The current specs say "VIDEO: Radeon HD" anyway, implying that to be the default.

> "Yes we still planning on using a MXM based video board". [...] The posts that
> have mentioned Radeon HD graphics are no doubt related to the boards that will
> be incorporated into the prototypes.

I see no reason why the "Radeon HD" spec wouldn't also refer to the default MXM card of the non-prototype boards. Or do you mean the prototype boards will have onboard GPU instead of MXM slot?

> I've also seen comments from other mentioning the idea of releasing the details of
> the hardware design after completion of the prototypes. I don't know that the issue
> has been decided yet [...]. I, myself, could see the release of the schematic info.

Isn't releasing the details of the hardware design mandatory to qualify as open source hardware, be it after completion of phase #2, phase #3 or phase #5?

>Isn't releasing the details of the hardware design mandatory to qualify as open source hardware, be it after completion of phase #2, phase #3 or phase #5?

Good question. I'm not even sure how to approach the idea. And no doubt will default to however Roberto wants to handle it.
But paying for all this work, just to have someone make a profit from it would seem...wrong.
As would asking people to contribute, and reach the same end.
Not that I'm against the suppliers making a normal margin.

But I'd like to see the units sold as close to cost as possible.
Of course, these are all my opinions.

And worrying about it is premature.

I'd just like to focus on the first step.
And if we publish that before we go further, if someone else wants to pick it up, I'd have to say that isn't a bad thing.

My point, again, is just to get going.
Talking has gotten us this far, now we need to start acting.

[ Edited by Jim 27.06.2017 - 11:44 ]

>> Isn't releasing the details of the hardware design mandatory to qualify
>> as open source hardware [...]?

> I [...] no doubt will default to however Roberto wants to handle it.

Hasn't that been clarified a while ago already?

"At the end of this past year we started to consider the possibility of making our motherboard Open Source Hardware (OSH). After discussing the idea with the hardware producer, both sides agreed that this was a good idea. We announced this new challenge at the beginning of the year and now we think is the perfect time to clarify the implications of making the motherboard Open Source Hardware. [...] A complete and detailed explanation can be found on the OSHWA definition page, but simplifying it even further, we can say that OSH is hardware made in such a way that its design is publicly available. Not only that, the documentation provided to understand and reproduce the device should be friendly, in terms of allowing its edition and improvements. So a PDF file containing the schematics is not enough to describe a hardware device as open source hardware. To open source a hardware project, the complete set of CAD and description files should be provided, enabling for instance the edition of the circuits. Of course if any firmware is used to make the hardware work it should be also available as open source code."
https://www.powerpc-notebook.org/2016/10/about-open-source-hardware/

This sounds unambiguously clear to me.

As with some Open Source licenses, there must be a way to prohibit the commercial use of the hardware designs, while still allowing other parties the ability to produce and sell the motherboards and other components needed to assemble the proposed laptop, or completed laptops, at cost, or with a predetermined small profit amount added on.

I'm not an expert regarding any Open Source licenses, but I'm pretty sure that there are any number of ways to write a license, to make it fit what you are trying to accomplish. And I agree that the designs should not be just given to anyone without any restrictions, so that the manufacturer can make all the profits, without having to pay for any of the design costs.

Quote:
One would expect the rights issue to be settled and clearly communicated before one were to ask for financial contributions.

Quote:
You vastly underestimate how much funding is needed to finance even small production runs for this type of hardware (as well as set aside funds to cover warranty cases and pay for waste management / recycling, which is mandatory in the EU). The whole purpose of this project is to lower the bar so much that at least one company can be convinced to manufacture a PowerPC laptop device, which has not happened in many years for a reason.

> there must be a way to prohibit the commercial use of the hardware designs

Prohibiting commercial use would be incompatible with the open source hardware concept:

https://www.oshwa.org/faq/#noncommercial

> while still allowing other parties the ability to produce and sell the motherboards
> and other components needed to assemble the proposed laptop, or completed
> laptops, at cost, or with a predetermined small profit amount added on.

Who would be such party? I doubt there's any company willing to manufacture the hardware, or pre-finance its production, when commercialization is prohibited or restricted.
Even if this fundraising campaign succeeds throughout its final phase, it won't be easy to find anyone willing and able to manufacture this niche hardware, or pre-finance its production, even with full commercialization allowed, so the license should be as unrestricted as possible.

> the designs should not be just given to anyone without any restrictions

Should the Power Progress Community adopt this stance, then good luck to them finding an interested party.

> so that the manufacturer can make all the profits, without having to pay for
> any of the design costs.

At that point, the design costs will already have been paid for. After all, that's the purpose of this fundraising campaign.

Quote:

"One would..", I love it when some uses third person in reference to themselves, its so glaringly pompous.

As to the rights issues, I'm sure Roberto has those worked out, and Andreas (who, as always, provided useful input) has pointed out, funding as an open project appears to require full disclosure.

On the purpose of the project, I don't believe it has anything to do with convincing anyone to commit to production.
The goal is as stated, to complete the design, produce five prototypes, and test those thoroughly.

If the design was complete, and the testing had already been done to uncover any necessary redesign work, I could obtain the boards.
Populating them is trickier, as I only have one connection with a company that has that kind of equipment (they build medical monitors), but that could get done in small volume.
Or, alternatively, Acube could source small board run for us.

The other components are off the shelf items.

If I wanted to do it the expensive way, there are already X64 laptops that use this same case that I could gut for installation of a board.

I don't think large scale production is practical. Bill Buck apparently does not think PPC boards make good economic sense either. So why would you insinuate that this involves encouraging companies to commit to production (outside of what we have committed to paying for)?

Or are you just making that assumption?
Because it really wouldn't bother me if someone used the design and sold them, NOR would it bother me if we only got the initial STATED goals completed.
And if I had board layouts, I'd have ten boards produced right now (with my existing contacts), just to have them.

So...Andreas offers facts, David offers encouragement, you offer opinion.


[ Edited by Jim 28.06.2017 - 13:39 ]

> I don't believe it has anything to do with convincing anyone to commit to production.
> The goal is [...] to complete the design, produce five prototypes, and test those thoroughly.

Either way, production should be the ultimate goal after completion of phase #5. If nobody will commit to production eventually, the fundraising will have been in vain. There may be one or more companies that wouldn't want to be involved in manufacturing a PPC laptop if the NRE costs were yet to be accounted for, but wouldn't be averse to being involved if that financial burden (and risk) was already covered.

> If the design was complete, and the testing had already been done to uncover any
> necessary redesign work, I could obtain the boards.

Yes, you could commission PCB production then, which someone would have to pay for.

> Populating them is trickier, [...] but that could get done in small volume.

...which someone would have to pay for.

> Acube could source small board run for us.

Yes, ACube could be that party, but so far I haven't read anywhere that ACube would stay involved after successful completion of phase #5.

> there are already X64 laptops that use this same case that I could gut for installation
> of a board.

Yes, "a board" as in "one board" ;-)

> NOR would it bother me if we only got the initial STATED goals completed.

Really? 5 tested prototypes for 60250 EUR would suffice in your opinion?

> if I had board layouts, I'd have ten boards produced right now [...], just to have them.

Ten boards? Just to have them? Have you won the lottery? I doubt even Linux would be maintained for these 10 boards plus 5 prototype boards.

> Andreas offers facts

To be fair, the middle part of my previous comment was pure opinion (as are some statements in this very comment) :-)

Quote:

I misunderstood the purpose of the design group. I incorrectly thought that after the design was completed and tested, which confirmed that it was ready for production, then the community interested in having such a laptop would fund the production through Kickstarter, or some other crowd funding mechanism. That to me seems like a more likely way to get the laptops produced, since no sane company is going to go out on a limb and produce hundreds of PPC laptops, unless they are done on a prepaid, pre-order basis, with a minimum number of committed buyers, before the manufacturer would agree to the production run.

ACube might be crazy enough to fund a small production run, if they have a commitment from Hyperion to port AmigaOS4.1FE to it, but seeing how long it takes Hyperion to complete a port of AmigaOS4.1FE to new hardware, like the X5000 and Tabor A1222 boards, any company would have to be worried that they might be waiting years before AmigaOS4.1FE for their product was completed.

I don't know if the MorphOS Dev. Team members would be interested in porting MorphOS3.10 to a new PPC laptop, or if they are instead going full steam ahead working on porting MorphOS to x64 hardware, and don't want to spend any more of their time working on yet another PPC piece of hardware. I guess if the work to port to the new PPC laptop was minimal, they might be interested, or if the port to x64 is so far out that having MorphOS3.10 on a new laptop design makes good sense, the team would wish to do the port as a last stop gap hardware choice, while the community waits for the x64 port to be completed.

So, IMO, crowd funding of some kind, is the most likely way to get a PPC laptop produced. I hope the group working on this design has not only chosen a layout that fits a currently produced x64 laptop, but they have talked to the company producing the laptop cases, LCD displays, keyboards, track pads, etc., etc., to determine that they can purchase those components, without the x64 motherboard, at a reasonable price, in low quantities. To go through all this work and request funding from the community just to end up with 5 or 10 prototype laptops, is a waste of time, money and effort, as well as good will from the community, who obviously wish to have one of these PPC laptops for themselves.

This whole endeavour does not sound too convincing to me (MorhOS user POV).
W/o a clear way into a serious production this will very likely become a still birth.

Day after day I really thank the MorphOS-Team for their decision to support the old Apple kit. The Powerbook does its job quite fine and my next Morphbook will hopefully be driven by an x64 and be obtained from some mass market retail channel.

David's idea, seems plausible.

But you are all still talking about goals past those already set.

And yes Andreas, the is a lot of money for five pre-production prototypes, but YES, if it got that far I'd be really satisfied.

But then, that's just my opinion too.
And you did offer some useful references (as always).

I mentioned this entire brouhaha two days ago to Bigfoot.
He seems to think Andrea's caution is valid (but said he hadn't read the posts), but we did exchange some thoughts about talking vs doing.

I'm hope he won't mind this quote (the first part is my input).

>> But you either DO, or you just TALK.
>>
>> And while I'm far too verbose, I like the doing part too.

>Nothing wrong with a bit of talking, as long as you also get to the doing part :)

"...as long as you also get to the doing part", hmm.

So yeah, five goals (incorrectly labeled four), just to get short of ready to produce.
I'm cool with that.

Then, whatever direction it goes, we'll have to see.
But I rather like David's idea, instead of presuming on any one company to fund it.

[ Edited by Jim 28.06.2017 - 17:58 ]

Addendum: A quick note, Roberto Innocenti contacted me to clarify that while the gpu will not be soldered onto the prototype mainboards, that they don't want to explicitly promise MXM yet (until the design analysis is complete).


[ Edited by Jim 28.06.2017 - 18:52 ]

> I incorrectly thought that [...] the community interested in having such a laptop would
> fund the production through [...] crowd funding mechanism. [...] IMO, crowd funding
> of some kind, is the most likely way to get a PPC laptop produced.

Nobody has said that crowdfunded production can't or won't happen. Quite to the contrary, crowdfunding will be the only possibility if no particular party (commercial entity or whatever) shows a willingness to manufacture the hardware or pre-finance and commission its production. To date, the Power Progress Community has not made any public statement I'm aware of as to what they think is supposed to happen after successful completion of phase #5.

> I hope the group working on this design [...] have talked to the company producing
> the laptop cases, LCD displays, keyboards, track pads, etc., etc., to determine that
> they can purchase those components, without the x64 motherboard [...].

Considering that said company just produces the laptop shell and accessories, the purchasability without any motherboard should be a given.

> To go through all this work and request funding from the community just to end up with
> 5 or 10 prototype laptops, is a waste of time, money and effort, as well as good will from
> the community, who obviously wish to have one of these PPC laptops for themselves.

Fully agreed.

>> To go through all this work and request funding from the community just to end up with
>> 5 or 10 prototype laptops, is a waste of time, money and effort, as well as good will from
>> the community, who obviously wish to have one of these PPC laptops for themselves.

>Fully agreed.

Did I say I didn't want to see them produced?
I want one.

But they have to be designed first, so that is the initial goal.
And, the community has full input where this goes, so whatever 'will', good, ill, or nil...
...at least they'll have their say.

Which is more than they have had in many recent projects.

>>> To go through all this work and request funding from the community just to end up with
>>> 5 or 10 prototype laptops, is a waste of time, money and effort, as well as good will from
>>> the community, who obviously wish to have one of these PPC laptops for themselves.

>> Fully agreed.

> Did I say I didn't want to see them produced?

No, but you said in comment #67 that it wouldn't bother you if only "the initial STATED goals" (i.e. everything pre-production) were completed. Besides, you are mistaking me declaring consent with amigadave's statement as something having to do with you.

> I want one.

Yes, you stated you would have ten boards produced just to have them.

> they have to be designed first, so that is the initial goal.

Yes, of course, nobody denies that.