Quote:

I have not followed this entire thread, or even other similar threads about open sourcing the Peg2 design, so I do not know if it is physically possible to make a new production run of Peg2's, or slightly improved Peg2's, but it seems obvious to me that:

1. with the newly released AmigaOS4.x for the Peg2 and;

2. the existing MorphOS user base, some that already have Peg2's, but would like an upgraded CPU card, and

3. other existing MorphOS users with Peg1's and Efika's that might be interested in getting a Peg2, specially if it were upgraded to a faster CPU w/other minor enhancements to the original design if possible, which would hopefully make it faster and more expandable than getting a G4 MacMini,

could possibly create enough potential buyers to make it feasible for bPlan to consider making a small production run of Peg2's and/or upgraded Peg2 CPU cards.

MorphOS for the MacMini is a good thing for the community IMHO, but it is not really a great replacement for the Peg2 or a great flagship for running MorphOS. Since there does not seem to be any full desktop replacement to run MorphOS on, none that have been announced yet anyway, having a new run of the best computers to run MorphOS on that just happen to also be able to run AmigaOS4.x would be a good thing to possibly increase MorphOS users and license sales, which will help encourage more future MorphOS development. The only other alternative that exists today that I know of is for some dealer, or group buy to fund the minimum 300 orders for a production run of expanded EFIKA's with 512mb of RAM, which I guess would include paying for the modification to the OF to allow MorphOS to recognize the extra RAM, and that is not an ideal proposal either. It would be nice to have new hardware to run MorphOS on available that is better than the currently available 128mb RAM EFIKA's, but I guess things could be much worse.

Quote:

I don't really want to get into this discussion (again), but I cannot disagree with the above statement.

> I had pretty much just received my Pegasos at the time interest in
> new cards was first being examined - must have been two and a half
> years ago.

The *real* first for the Pegasos II was 5 years ago (MPC7447A):

https://morph.zone/modules/news/article.php?storyid=369
http://web.archive.org/web/20050208185222/www.genesi.lu/press.php?date=20040225

2nd "first" was 2 months later (PPC750GX):

https://morph.zone/modules/news/article.php?storyid=440
http://www.genesi-usa.com/press/2004/4/23/

3rd "first" was 4 years ago (MPC7447A):

http://www.morphos-news.de/index.php?lg=en&nid=995&si=1

4th "first" was 3.5 years ago (MPC7448):

https://morph.zone/modules/news/article.php?storyid=880
http://www.pegasos.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=671

5th "first" one month later was the "Free Developer Workstation Program" where 1.4 GHz MPC7447A prototype cards were indeed delivered to some and 1.7 GHz (MPC7448?) cards announced.
I already provided an extensive amount of links covering that one before in this thread.

This 5th "first" and at the same time last attempt got cancelled nearly 3 years ago:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=11&topic_id=4498&start=35


Should there have been attempts/announcements I'm not aware of right now, please add as you like.

The last and most flexible CPU for the Pegasos II CPU card.

> G3 thru G5 processors and dual processors? I didn't know the
> Pegasos design supported the last two options.

Regarding "G5 processors":
At first you have to take into account that this video was shot 5 months *before* IBM even announced the PPC970, so "G5" probably refers to Motorola's much fabled "G5" (MPC7500) instead. As no definite details whatsoever were ever known about this anticipated Motorola chip, claims of G5 support in Pegasos (and thus by Articia S) must be considered pure bollocks. And of course the Articia S does also not support the PPC970, nor does the Discovery II of the Pegasos II.

Regarding "dual processors":
Although I'm very much in doubt considering the technical problems bplan/Thendic France/Genesi faced in employing even just a single G4, the Articia S (as used in the Pegasos I which this video refers to) may be capable of supporting dual G3 or G4. At least Hyperion have a dual MPC7410 card from MAI Logic for Articia S based Teron/AmigaOne; the card was never put to test though. The Discovery II of the Pegasos II however explicitly supports SMP in both 60x and MPX modes, so no problem there with dual G3 or G4.
The Pegasos I (and later also II) was advertised as being dual CPU capable right from the start in year 2000.

as the pegasos2 is open... where is the cpu card schematics?

bye, MarK.

Quote:

THAT is a question I've made on these forums repeatedly.

@ Andreas_Wolf

Gosh, am I delusional? I distinctly remember a formal announcement asking users to write in to Genesi if they were interested in a 7448 or 7447A card - can't recall which - that would definitely have been produced if a certain threshold was met (the threshold was not met). I can't seem to find any info on it now, either. Maybe my brain is playing tricks on me.

Neko, can you vindicate my brain? Timeframe would have been late-2006/early-2007.

A completely different route that might benefit we end users is if Genesi were to buy back the 1.4GHz and faster modules they produced for corporate customers when those corporations decide to retire them (assuming the retirement is due to "We need something newer" rather than "It's fried". Resold to people like us, there's (hopefully) a chance for profit, lower cost to end-users, and minimal financial risk. I wouldn't mind having a second-hand CPU, provided it's been thoroughly tested.

Quote:

It doesn't. I don't know whether or not it's technically possible to put 2 CPU's to the Marvell Discovery 2 at all, but I think there are some bottlenecks in that controller that becomes more apparent at higher CPU speeds, and dual CPU's would probably *not* make sense even if it would be possible to do so. That's why Genesi turned to Tundra for its dual CPU design, using the Tundra Tsi109TM northbridge. The original idea was to use dual 7448's, but that changed when the 7448 didn't live up to the promised specs in practice, so the whole 7448 dream was scrapped in favor of 7447/7447A (as was it for the Pegasos).

Their G5 efforts came in the shape of "Tetra Power", and hadn't the project been shelved it would have turned out quite similar to the Power Station.

Neko, will the motherboards ability do deal with newer CPU models depend on what board revision number it has? Obviously it matters for memory modules, but for instance can a rev 2B1 motherboard (my first Peg2) handle a 7447A @ 1.4GHz as good as a 2B5 revision?

> It doesn't.

Because?

> I don't know whether or not it's technically possible to
> put 2 CPU's to the Marvell Discovery 2 at all

You just said it's not. Right answer is already given here.

Quote:

Because the G5 is a completely different architecture altogether, with a different set of system controllers, etc; you can't just clutch a G5 onto the current system controller of the Pegasos. And the Marvell Discovery II in the Pegasos 2 has limitations when it comes to FSB speed that would take away most of the fun even when using a *single* CPU at higher speeds, like a 7448 which is supposed to go up to 200MHz FSB. You would pay the full high price as all the other 7448 buyers, but you would only get *a part* of the possible maximum performance for your money. And add a second 7448 to it, and sit back watching how your two CPU's take turns in sitting on their ass waiting for data to transfer through the bus, memory controller, etc. So even if you would manage to actually get two CPU's working with the Marvell in the Pegasos2 (which I doubt is possible), and even if you manage to solve the heating problems of two high frequency 7448's in such a narrow space, etc, etc, it simply wouldn't be worth it. So no G5 and no dual CPU's in the Pegasos2.

Quote:

Correct, there was a reason to why Genesi went for the Tundra for their dual CPU design. And there was a reason to why they had to wait for the TSI108 that was supposed to be capable of dual CPU, and then a second revision of the TSI108 that was supposed to be capable of dual CPU, and then the TSI109 that *finally did* become capable of dual CPU's.

Looking at specs in marketing materials is one thing, but the reality is often something else.

Quote:

Thanks for pointing to the web archive site, it gave me the chance of having a look at this old picture again. What you see in that picture is the ancestor to the Pegasos 1 over at b-plan, it is an ArticiaS development board with dual CPU sockets. But again, promises in marketing materials does not always correspond to what's delivered in reality, as the ArticiaS later showed in several ways; the AGP 2x was merely an AGP 0.5x, the memory bandwidth was piss poor, the DMA coherency was broken, etc, etc, and it had a general unpredictable behavior that made it impossible to use. SMP? Yeah, right. But again, "support" and "specifications" in marketing materials doesn't by any means guarantee support and delivered specs in real life, as there has been many examples of (and I think the 7448 turned out to be another example of that BTW)...

[ Edited by takemehomegrandma on 2009/2/25 23:29 ]

I find it funny that bbrv suddendly acts as if he is a Amiga friend by posting hundreads of answers on amigaworld.net, then suddendly just vanish from the scene.

Amiga people and MorphOS have all had a dream that someone came and took them serious and started to work with the community instead of against it.

If bbrv wants to show the hero which he claims to be, then there should be actions. bbrv talks about that community is important, but he doesnt really listen to its users. I am creating Amitopia TV. I might not have millions of viewers, but there are users of those 400 that watches my show that sends me e-mails and asks about Amiga and MorphOS situation.

I wish that I could reply to them that bbrv have got PegasosIII out or the promised G4 cards or anything. But I just feel emptyness. So if VisCorp became a reality or if Genesi got the Amiga rights we would see the same actions with no action?

End-users usually look at Genesi as the MorphOS maintainer. MorphOS-Team is rather new. Why cant you bbrv makes relations in a better form? Now MorphOS 2.2 is out with tcp/ip stack, it got OWB and much much more. Why dont you help out and inform the world that MorphOS is here? Or is it that your to affraid to admit that you dont believe in Amiga or MorphOS anymore?

Macmini version of MorphOS might be on its way soon, but the home for MorphOS is a PegasosIII alike motherboard. Its seeing Genesi or bPlan providing support for its users which would gladly help to promote you.

Doesnt Genesi have any competition eyes to Acube etc? Cant you make a motherboard that beats sam440p or have bbrv started to listen to Nekos anti MorphOS propaganda? Ok. I know MorphOS isnt a massproduct, but just look at 95% of all Nekos posts. Theyre not really positive against MorphOS.

An interesting poll would be.

Which of these 2 people have helped Amigas reputation?
1. Bill McEwen
2. Bill Buck


Anyway. Bill Buck should stand up and tell the truth here. And why havent you provided schematics of the CPU cards? There are so many questions here just not beeing answered... I hope that someday I can reply to my viewers with a smile when they ask about Genesi and its efforts.


Sigh...

@ MorphDelf

Quote:

Why don't you check the recent donations to the MorphZone maintenance fund or the amount that was contributed to have AROS ported to the EFIKA. It has also been publically announced that Genesi *paid* for MorphOS to be ported to the EFIKA.

Your accusation is without any merit whatsoever.


Quote:

The MorphOS developers have been around for far longer in the Amiga niche than Genesi and the people who directly work for this company.

> End-users usually look at Genesi as the MorphOS maintainer.
> MorphOS-Team is rather new.

Only if you call 4.5 years "rather new".

https://morph.zone/modules/news/article.php?storyid=542
http://www.morphos-news.de/index.php?lg=en&nid=809&si=1

> is it that your to affraid to admit that you dont believe
> in [...] MorphOS anymore?

Genesi (Neko *and* BBRV) have been telling the past years that they don't consider MorphOS commercially viable any more. Payment for porting MorphOS to Efika happened more than 2 years ago.

> Bill Buck should stand up and tell the truth here.

Only because you didn't want to listen when he did doesn't mean he didn't.

> Because the G5 is a completely different architecture altogether, with a
> different set of system controllers, etc; you can't just clutch a G5 onto the
> current system controller of the Pegasos.

Oh please, don't try to teach me on things *I* explained to others before in this very thread. To cite myself from there: "of course the Articia S does also not support the PPC970, nor does the Discovery II of the Pegasos II".
In my question to your denial I refered to the "dual processors" part, not the "G5 processors" part.

> the Marvell Discovery II in the Pegasos 2 has limitations when it
> comes to FSB speed that would take away most of the fun even
> when using a *single* CPU at higher speeds, like a 7448 which is
> supposed to go up to 200MHz FSB. [...] And add a second 7448 to it,
> and sit back watching how your two CPU's take turns in sitting on
> their ass waiting for data to transfer through the bus, memory controller, etc.

I never disputed that. I merely disputed your denial of the fact that "the Pegasos [II] design supported" "dual processors". This has zilch to do with things like speed or fun. And again, I already wrote about the Discovery II's FSB speed limitation myself.

> even if you would manage to actually get two CPU's working
> with the Marvell in the Pegasos2 (which I doubt is possible)

I'll cite my statement I already pointed you to: " The Discovery II of the Pegasos II however explicitly supports SMP in both 60x and MPX modes".
Marvell are with me on this: "The Marvell Discovery II MV6436x devices [...] support Symmetrical Multi-Processing (SMP) in both 60x and MPX modes".
I hope you don't mind I'll stick with their truth rather than your's.

And just FYI an example of a board with Discovery II and dual PPC750GX (1.0 GHz, 200 MHz bus):

http://www.xes-inc.com/Products/XCalibur1000/XCalibur1000.html

>> You just said it's not.

> Correct, there was a reason to why Genesi went for the Tundra
> for their dual CPU design.

That reason was not that "it's not" "technically possible to put 2 CPU's to the Marvell Discovery 2" as you claim but rather that the Tundra chip might be better suited for this and/or be cheaper than a newer Marvell chip. That's a difference.

> they had to wait for the TSI108 that was supposed to be
> capable of dual CPU

No, the Tsi108 (announced in March 2005) was never supposed to be dual CPU capable, the Tsi109 (renamed from Tsi108A) was. That's why Genesi waited for the Tsi108A/109 to be announced in June 2005 before announcing their HDB.

> then a second revision of the TSI108 that was supposed to
> be capable of dual CPU, and then the TSI109 that *finally did*
> become capable of dual CPU's.

That "second revision" would be the Tsi108A, later *just renamed* to Tsi109. And it definitely had been dual CPU capable right from the start when named Tsi108A, even if being restricted to 167 MHz FSB clock in dual CPU mode, which didn't magically change by renaming. You once knew these things 3 years ago (see link above).

> Looking at specs in marketing materials is one thing, but
> the reality is often something else.

You're implying Marvell have been lying regarding the SMP capability of their Discovery II?

>> Right answer is already given here.

> having a look at this old picture again. What you see in that picture
> is the ancestor to the Pegasos 1 over at b-plan, it is an ArticiaS development
> board with dual CPU sockets.

Yes, I well know this one with ZIF sockets and Sonnet CPU card. This is, in addition to the existing dual G4 card for Teron I already refered to before in this thread, a further indication that the Articia S *might* be dual CPU capable. But as mentioned before, I very much doubt it as well as you for reasons I already explained.

> promises in marketing materials does not always correspond
> to what's delivered in reality, as the ArticiaS later showed in
> several ways; [...]

No news to me, which you'd know if you had *read* my linked posting instead just glancing.

> SMP? Yeah, right.

I'll cite myself: "I'm very much in doubt considering the technical problems bplan/Thendic France/Genesi faced in employing even just a single G4..."

> "support" and "specifications" in marketing materials doesn't
> by any means guarantee support and delivered specs in real life,
> as there has been many examples of

And this is as well true for the SMP capability Marvell claim for the Discovery II?

OK. We just need 34 people to do a group purchase.

http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Freescale-Semiconductor/MC7447AHX1420LB/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMvu0Nwh4cA1wbHBpJl%2fV4fQV0J8tXeXZm4%3d

1.
With schematics of the CPU cards, in theory it would be able to make CPU cards for PegasosII with DDR3 slots etc?

So in theory you could add an CPU card like for A4000 with 2GHz G4 + DDR3 RAM slots?

... but then, where is the schematics for Pegasos II CPU card schematics?

2.

Would there be any interest in 2GHz G4 cpu cards at all? How much would it cost comparing to getting a MacMini G4 etc?


Thanks for keeping this thread alive :) BBRV ---- where is the CPU schematics???? ..

It's getting tiresome. For once, try to check your facts.

> in theory it would be able to make CPU cards for PegasosII with DDR3 slots etc?
> So in theory you could add an CPU card [...] with 2GHz G4 + DDR3 RAM slots?

There is no 2 GHz G4, as well as there is no G4 compatible memory controller with DDR3 interface, neither discrete nor integrated on a G4 SoC.

> Thanks for keeping this thread alive :)

I urge you to read and understand the facts stated within.

Addendum:

> Hyperion have a dual MPC7410 card from MAI Logic for Articia S based
> Teron/AmigaOne; the card was never put to test though.

Some more information on that card:

"IIRC the demo dual-CPU module had no arbitration HW and it was up to SW to stop one CPU while the other did something."
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=34850&forum=33#645143


Edit: Hyperionmp in March 2015 pretending the card was used by Hyperion for anything meaningful:

"It seems many have forgotten that a dual CPU module existed for the original AmigaOne from Eyetech which was never commercialised but did nonetheless exist for other purposes."
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=39959&forum=14&start=100#753297

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 23.10.2015 - 10:21 ]

I'll never understand why you periodically rise old old threads..

@Miky060

The more info, the better, isnt it?

Andras has such a good memory... and his thread recursivity is legendary! ;)

One day he will disappear up his own infinite loop of links, I'll miss him.

Let's buy him a DeLorean..

FrankBrana,
Quote:

A Wiki would be much better for this than a forum (which is meant for discussions)...

Start a Wiki, Andreas!

> I'll never understand why you periodically rise old old threads..

That's strange considering that I always state the reason. In this case it's "some more information" regarding something that was discussed in this thread (you might have noticed that the AW.net posting I quoted from and linked to was mere 4 days old). In other cases it's updates, corrections, specifications, clarifications or other kinds of addendums. So I guess I don't understand what it is you don't understand with me rising old threads ;-)