> The original Pegasos fell foul of a northbridge with cache coherency bugs
> and the fix was expensive and hammered the system's speed.

Fully correct, the fix of the bugs came at a cost.

> The original AmigaONEs did not fix the issue and much of the board's
> functionality was replaced by extra cards to avoid triggering them.
> The hardware had unadvertised bugs.

Exactly. In contrast to almost all other PPC hardware of the past 20 years, the Eyetech AmigaOnes were overly buggy.

> The Efika was almost useless for desktop because it's SoC had
> never been designed for it.

The whole board had never been designed for it. In my opinion, even more restricting than the low CPU performance was the laughable amount of RAM, although the SoC could handle at least twice the amount (which would still have been poor).

> The hardware was insufficient for intended use.

Intended use according to Genesi: "embedded, thin client, industrial applications [...]. Example product solutions include: Thin-Client for X or Windows Terminal Server (rdesktop) displays; Home Theater satellite, to relay recorded or downloaded TV shows and movies around the home; High power-use/performance-ratio cluster node; Industrial control and robotics; VOIP/Video Phone connected to a TV; Webcam Security solution".

> the Marvell just wasn't as advanced as the Articia.

The Marvell had a GbE controller and could handle DDR RAM while the Articia was stuck at SDR RAM :-)

> The hardware was limited.

Yes, biggest problem in my opinion was that it took the Peg2 until the last board revision to remove the 1 GiB RAM limit.

> every time the board is finalised, some component or another is no longer available.

The Tabor had been finalized for years. It was only when OS4 for the board (not the board itself) was recently finalized by Hyperion, A-Eon realized that some (unspecified) component(s) was/were no longer available in the quantities required for production run so had to be replaced, which in turn required a board redesign to unspecified extent.

> PowerPC, as a direction for MorphOS, failed because of these reasons:
> price, availability, power and robustness.

Can you elaborate on the "robustness" part of that statement?

> Completely sound analysis

Biggest part of the "analysis" I agree with, just some minor objections (like intended use of Efika 5200B and Marvell vs. Articia advancement) and a request for elaboration ("robustness").

> prepare to be ignored by the true believer.

He isn't being ignored by me at least :-)

> desktop ARM is likely to have the same problems as desktop PPC, namely
> that those using them are big companies who can design their own support
> chips and quickly work around any hardware bugs. And will promptly close
> off their own designs so MorphOS would take years to run on them anyway.

I'm not sure that "desktop ARM", in contrast to old "desktop PPC" (aka G3/G4/G5), will necessarily have "their own support chips" given the trend towards more and more integration. As a result, "desktop ARM" could simply lack those means to lock out any not their own OS as the I/O controllers etc. are part of the "desktop ARM" SoC documented by its vendor for 3rd parties.
Also, I'm not sure that, in case of "desktop PPC", "their own support chips" were a real obstacle for porting any not their own OS to it ;-)

Quote:

IIRC it was advertized to be available in configurations up to 1 GiB RAM. Dunno, if such a configuration was ever tested - and I rather doubt it (would have needed changes in smart firmware).
With 256 MiB the board would have been way more usable. But it's all void and grey theory now, the Efika is EOL and since Apple kit support there aren't many that cry actual tears about it anymore.
I still like my Efika though.

>> the SoC could handle at least twice the amount

> IIRC it was advertized to be available in configurations up to 1 GiB RAM.

This would have been dishonest advertising then, considering this:

"256-MByte addressing range per Chip Select (Two CS lines available)"
https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/reference-manual/MPC5200BUM.pdf (p. 15)

"256 MB addressing range per CS, two CS available"
https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/data-sheet/MPC5200BDS.pdf (p. 1)

"256 Mbyte addressing range"
https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/product-brief/MPC5200BPB.pdf (p. 3)

So the maximum could have been either 256 MiB or 512 MiB.

Quote:

Maybe my memory is mixing this up with the Efika512x announcements. Which, eventally doesn't matter the slightest, as Efika5200B is EOL and Efika512x never did it (and the show stopper "cache coherency" wouldn't have been too much of an issue for MorphOS AFAIK)... Pity as it held really some potential back in ints time. But wel, long ago and my stance is not to look back too much, but rather forward! Thing is ppc is in limbo/coma and IMHO not a path worth to pursue any further. The Raptor boards could be worth a _little_ thinking though, but *I* would put all efforts into MorphOS NG on x64. Current MorphOS is just pretty polished and should still get some love for the next couple of years (i.e. some updates of this and that), but focus should be the inevitable break and switch to x64.
It's shitload of work but eventually one thing is cystal clear: On PPC MorphOS will not have a future, on x64 there's at least a little prospect for some sustainability.

Quote:
Yes, that's the point.

I also do 'like' ARM/ARM64 more than amd64, but I don't expect any other person to feel just the same or write some code for it.

Quote:

It doesn't matter what I write because your response always looks like this:

Quote:

I have actually already written something that, if you'd had bothered to read, would mean you didn't need to ask this. But because you don't actually read anything, you haven't noticed.

Like, in my last post I already I proved you don't read what you reply to before you reply to them. Otherwise you wouldn't question posts that answer your question in the next sentence.

Hint: Read posts all the way from the beginning to the end, only reply after you finish doing that. Otherwise you're just interrupting before you understand, guessing at it's meaning and getting it wrong, and asking questions of it that are answered by it.

[ Edited by khorse 01.03.2019 - 18:14 ]

>>> you miss that your point of interrogation is answered in the next few words.

>> My point of interrogation was your "buggy hardware" claim referring to any (not
>> some) PPC hardware of the past 20 years, thus including the Apple, bplan/Genesi,
>> ACube and Varisys/A-Eon PPC hardware. I don't see where you answered this.
>> If you did and I missed it, you can surely quote it. (Honestly, your claim is so
>> ridiculous that I cannot even imagine how it could be proved seeing as it could
>> be falsified by no more than one single counterexample.)

> It doesn't matter what I write

As long as you refuse to back up your ridiculous claim, it really doesn't matter what you write in your attempt to further distract from it. This has been true since your very first reply to me in this thread. It was never about anything else than your ridiculous claim in my replies to you.

> There is no interrogation because we are not at a police station.

You introduced this word to this discussion. I should better have put it in quotation marks to reflect that I merely adopted it.

>> I don't see where you answered this.

> What don't you?

I don't see where you answered my point of "interrogation".

>>> If you did and I missed it, you can surely quote it.

>> Quote what?

Your answer to my objection of your "buggy hardware" claim.

> I have actually already written something that, if you'd had bothered
> to read, would mean you didn't need to ask this. But because you
> don't actually read anything, you haven't noticed.

I just re-read everything you wrote in this thread and I surely can find "something" (whatever thing that is) but I can't find your supporting arguments for your "buggy hardware" claim. Can you please be so kind and point me to them?

> in my last post I already I proved you don't read what you reply
> to before you reply to them.

I don't think this is what you did (proved anything, that is). What I sincerely believe is that you didn't properly read what you replied to in your first reply to me and are now too ashamed to admit it, thus trying your best to distract from the original point of disagreement (i.e. your "buggy hardware" claim and my objection to it) and to turn this into a nonsense discussion about me instead.

> Otherwise you wouldn't question posts that answer your question in the next sentence.

Please point me to that "next sentence" that answers my objection of your "buggy hardware" claim.

> Read posts all the way from the beginning to the end, only reply after you finish doing that.

That's exactly what I do. Thanks for approving my approach.

> you're just [...] guessing at it's meaning and getting it wrong,
> and asking questions of it that are answered by it.

I repeat my question from comment #28: What is the meaning of the word "buggy" you used with regard to PPC hardware, if not the presence of bugs?
My objection to your ridiculous "buggy hardware" claim surely isn't answered by the claim itself. I'm sure you can see the logical fallacy of this.

Quote:

This has nothing to do with this thread, so please take your arguments about how some member replies to your posts to private mail, and out of this forum thread. Same goes for you Andreas_Wolf, replies to this line of arguments does not add to this discussion.

Can a moderator please step in and stop this nonsense?

[ Edited by amigadave 01.03.2019 - 12:00 ]

> Maybe my memory is mixing this up with the Efika512x announcements.

Could be. I don't remember if the RAM amount was part of the announcement, but yes, the MPC5121e can address at least 1 GiB RAM.

> the show stopper "cache coherency" wouldn't have been too much of an issue
> for MorphOS AFAIK

Support for cache-incoherent SoCs was added with MorphOS 3.8 for the PPC460EX, so I think that yes, this support could as well have been implemented years before for the MPC5121e.

Quote:

You don't need to worry, in his last post he didn't notice when I did an impersonation of him, even though it was in a quote block and directly demonstrated a behavior of his that I'd described in depth three times. He just replied to it like it was my own voice.

It's only then I realized he's got a disability or sickness or something, it'd be unfair of me to pick on him any further.

It is time to stop this old crap "ppc is dead".

This whole discussion is simply stupid.

It is obvious that after breaking binary compatibility with 68k future Morphos should be made hardware independent.

Make Morphos open source on LGPL and let everyone use Morphos on whatever hardware they want.

> I [...] demonstrated a behavior of his

Only that you did it wrong. You can PM me for instructions on how to do it right.

> He just replied to it like it was my own voice.

And I could easily answer every single point of it, whereas you keep refusing to answer mine.

> he's got a disability or sickness or something

I think what you've been exhibiting in this thread is called intellectual dishonesty or something.

> it'd be unfair of me to pick on him any further.

Don't worry, I don't feel picked on me by you. I just feel you're making a complete fool of yourself by refusing to back up your ridiculous "buggy hardware" claim and trying your best to distract from the original point of disagreement (i.e. your "buggy hardware" claim and my objection to it) and to turn this into a nonsense discussion about me instead.

Quote:

I don't think there'd be any point in going multiplatform and breaking 68k compatibility. None of the features that could be gained would outweigh the damage of losing the software library.

Besides which, an intel port would mean multiplatform by definition. It wouldn't make sense to throw away the existing work and alienate the entire user base.

The problem isn't so much the processor architecture, it's the platform.

You need hardware that's available, that you can get up and running on, and will be around for a while.

For desktop and laptops thats mostly x86.
There are some Arm laptops, they're not as powerful as PC laptops yet but they are improving rapidly. The first gen Windows 10 laptops used tablet processors but the next get will have proper laptop processors.

Arm has now announced a high end processor (the snappily titled Neoverse N1) but that's really for servers so I don't expect you'll see them in laptops, but who knows.

However, computing isn't just about desktops or laptops these days. There's computers of one sort of another in all sorts of form factors for all sorts of prices.

There's lots of little machines around these days like the Android TV boxes which are probably rather more powerful than your G5s by now.

Then there's the Raspberry Pi, they've sold 25 MILLION of those things! I think they'll be around for a while and they're really cheap.


There's platforms available for x86 and Arm so it really comes down to what is desired, do you just want new faster machines for the existing user base or do you want to grow the user base. I expect Raspberry Pi would be a better choice for growing the user base as you'l have lots of young people happy to experiment.

Quote:

I didn't realize how "out of touch" you were with the MorphOS community, and the several discussions that have taken place regarding the announcements several of the MorphOS Dev. Team members have made about the decision to break away from AmigaOS 68k compatibility (except perhaps through the inclusion of EUAE in some form), as well as moving on to 64bit on the amdX64 architecture. The decision has already been made, and probably some work in that direction has already been completed. This discussion is for people who want to point out the Pros and Cons of choosing to support the ARM64 architecture (or others), instead of, or in addition to the already made choice of x64.

Quote:

Finally a useful reply!

I had been thinking "either or", for the most part, instead of making the next generation of MorphOS cross platform with a simple recompile. Different drivers would still be needed, but I'm pretty sure that the MorphOS Dev. Team will create an OS that is much more flexible than the constraints we have been tied down with, by starting out with AmigaOS3.1 API compatibility.

Your comment about Android (ARM) TV boxes that are probably more powerful than our current G5s by now, and the 25 million Raspberry Pi boards sold (for a price of $35 or less), is the part of the argument that I'm trying to stress. I would like to see MorphOS grow into something widely used by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people (edit: and to do that we need cheap, widely available hardware), but that is probably NOT what the MorphOS Dev. Team members are aiming for, or really want, which is too bad. I think that most team members rather want just a better OS for their personal use, that will have the basics of software written for it by a few friends and maybe a few more interested alternative OS programmers. Without strong growth and a much larger user base, we will never get all the software we need or want for the next generation of MorphOS, unless the team can also invent a translation layer (or something) that will allow the NG MorphOS to also run Linux software (or Windows software for that matter).

I think we all want the next generation of MorphOS to have an Amiga-like structure (just like our current MorphOS) and appearance, but also want a full library of useful software and games, with an up to date web browser. If the NG MorphOS starts out with almost zero software to run natively, and it can only run old Amiga 68k software through emulation, it will have a very difficult time gaining a user base, or programmers willing to create new software for it.

[ Edited by amigadave 03.03.2019 - 09:12 ]

Quote:

I wouldn't bet on it. They were getting faster for a bit there, and seemed to have levelled off. As far as Android TV box goes, if it can throw A/V over to hardware decoding, then they don't need to be fast.

In fact, it's downright a problem if they are, because it needs beefier power supply, more room for cooling, perhaps even a fan, etc - none of which people want for a TV box.

Quote:

And really low power. Launching anything close to a modern browser on one, for example, is a hideous experience regardless of OS. Once you start doing things like trying to turn one into a desktop-like experience, its limitations show very quickly.

If that wasn't enough, many AArch64 processors, like x86-64 processors, lack big endian mode while the cheap RasPi 2 and 3 models retain compatibility to the ARMeb big endian support. Since AROS developer Dr. Michal Schulz has already gotten a Trance-style JIT working on his RasPi, I can't imagine people being willing to register their OS for pay.

Breaking 68k compatibility is the best opportunity to solve most Morphos problems.

Future Morphos should be hardware independent.

Make Morphos open source on LGPL and let everyone use Morphos on whatever hardware they want.

@ Samurai_Crow
Quote:
So, why port MorphOS to either ARM or x86-64 at all? Based on your logic, since AROS is free and has been running on these for years, there is clearly no reason anybody would ever (pay to) use it, right?


@ amigadave
Quote:
Firstly, as KennyR pointed out, the ARM hardware you can buy for 35 USD is not currently fast enough to properly run MorphOS and a truly modern web browser either.

Secondly, the 35 USD price is a bit of a mirage. If you plan to compare apples to apples, you need to list the price of a complete Rasperry Pi 3 system that includes a power supply, decent-looking case, and Wi-Fi. The prices for complete kits on the Amazon USA website tend to be closer to 80 USD. You can buy x86-64-based mini PCs with 4GB of memory (vs. 1GB offered by the Pi 3) and a fanless quad-core processor for around 100 USD, which clearly provide far superior performance.

Quote:

Fair points, I guess I am looking further forward, rather than what is available right now. The next iteration of the Raspberry Pi is said to include WiFi, as well as being considerably faster. I was not aware that running any web browser was a "painful" experience on the current versions of the "Pi", but seeing how well MorphOS runs on something as weak as the Efika 5200b, if it only had more RAM, I assumed that MorphOS would run fine on the Raspberry Pi 2 and above.

Getting, and keeping up to date, a modern web browser for MorphOS appears to be something that will always be a difficult challenge for a community as small as ours, no matter what hardware we are running on. The main point of my argument for supporting the AArch64, is that it appears that it is growing faster, has cheaper prices at levels of performance that should be more than adequate to run a lightweight OS like MorphOS, and Android, or iOS don't seem to be as dominant as Windows is on x64, so it might be easier to sway new users to MorphOS on ARM devices, than it will be to gain new users on x64.

We desperately need new users and programmers, if MorphOS is going to grow and survive, specially since we will no doubt lose some users who will not follow the MorphOS Dev. Team to the x64 architecture, because they do not want to leave the Amiga compatibility behind and switch to emulation for running their old Amiga 68k software. I think that we have a better chance for getting new users and programmers by supporting AArch64 and the next Raspberry Pi, than we do by supporting only one or two models of an x64 laptop and desktop.

Raspberry Pi owners are more likely to try out MorphOS, than people who will need to buy (or who already own) a specific laptop or desktop computer, which they can more easily run Windows, and all of it available software and games, or Linux, which is free, and will have infinitely more software than MorphOS NG when it is released.

It is a matter of who the Dev. Team targets as potential new users and programmers, or just trying to satisfy themselves, and the few hundred users we currently have.

The only other alternative I can see working, would be IF the Dev. Team can somehow come up with a way to run all existing Linux software on the NG MorphOS natively, or with a very simple recompile, plus provide all the tools Linux programmers currently have to make new software (or some tools which are even better than what Linux has available), so that we can convert thousands of current Linux users and programmers, and convince them it is worth their money to purchase MorphOS NG, and leave Linux behind.

I think the MorphOS Dev. Team are fantastic programmers, but I don't know if the team is up to the task of accomplishing all of the above goals, and convincing the thousands of Linux users and programmers, to become MorphOS NG users and programmers.

They might be able to convert the many dissatisfied AmigaOS4 users and programmers (which is probably only a couple hundred people), and if the team is really lucky, they might convert a few thousand existing and former Amiga 68k users and programmers, and maybe that is the best we can hope for. All I know is that we must find a way to grow our user base, and find new programmers, or all of this is just a waste of time and effort.

[ Edited by amigadave 04.03.2019 - 08:38 ]

Quote:
The people looking for bargain bin hardware are the least likely to spend any money on software, i.e. niche operating systems and applications that are not free of cost. Of course, that is not to say that you should aim for Ferrari-priced hardware because that might ensure every user has proven to have plenty of disposable income.

Nevertheless, targetting the most price-conscious users seems misguided. People who would rather trade 70% of performance to save 20% on cost are the ones who will spam these forums complaining about anybody daring to charge any amount of money for MorphOS. We have seen them in the past and we would see them a lot more in the future.

Quote:
Linux is also available on the Rasperry Pi.

Technically, even Windows is available for it, albeit a cut down version aimed at embedded uses.

Quote:
MorphOS targets people who are dissatisfied with the other available choices regardless of what hardware they currently own.