> the next Nintendo will use X64
We don't know, it may just as well be ARM based.

> Manufacturers of lightweight devices and manufacturers of servers hardly overlap.
> Lightweight devices and servers are distinct markets. Even if the same ISA was prevalent
> in both, it would be completely different SoCs/chips and even microarchitectures.
I think you're both right and wrong. While it if obvious the same IC is not going to be used for both servers and lightweight devices, VHDL code is being reused. When they design a new IC, they reuse part of the existing code, modify it and combine it with new code, so it is part reuse and part new. And they are trying to make servers containing Intel Atom processors, which is officially a mobility-oriented processor, which means they are trying to put low-power processors in servers. Companies will reuse when it doesn't compromise another aspect.

> A single-core SoC would run worse with the popular operating systems,
Not necessarly, a single core p6600 running at 2ghz would have similar performance to a triple-core i6400 running at 1,33ghz and probably wouldn't cost more. There would be no reason for a board designer intending to run linux on a board to prefer the triple core i6400 or the p6600 before carefully looking at his specific application, at which time, he may find that one of the other is more suitable for him. Also, the p6600 supports hyperthreading so it can be run as multiple slower "virtual cores" if one needs to do so. It is worth noting that enabling SMP makes it more difficult to optimize an operating system's setting for low latency operation.

> What is the legal structure of this alleged registered "MorphOS Development" company?
Well, I'm not sure.

> and more and more tablets use it. Sure Intel and X64 in not dead for long time.
I made an error and should have said that Windows based computers will remain x86 based. The only reason the number of x86 based tablets is growing is poeple are stupid enough to want to run that windows garbadge operating system. Apple based tablets are ARM based and so are most Android based tablets. Finally, never said x86 will be dead, the office oriented, windows running computer will remain x86 based, there is no reason for this to change.

> Except in phones Intel chips are efficient for the calculating power they deliver.
They are not efficient, they are inexpensive, they offered the best performance per dollar, this is the reason why they are popular. They are inexpensive because they are made in huge numbers and they are made in huge numbers because only x86 runs Windows and people are dumb enough to want to run that garbage operating system by the hundreds of millions. ARM is also made in huge numbers and as such has become a contender. However, performance per watt is more important than performance per dollar in mobile applications, it will soon be true also for servers. This means non-x86. Once some non-x86 architecture(s) becomes popular for both servers and mobile devices, other non-windows machines will switch over. It fact it is already happening with the ARM architecture.

@ Amiga believer

Personally, I am rather ambivalent about what ISA is running the software I use as long as that software runs well.
As such MIPS, ARM, whatever.
We ARE going X64 and we currently support PPCs.

I see no massive advantage in changing that.

>> A single-core SoC would run worse with the popular operating systems

> Not necessarly, a single core p6600 running at 2ghz would have similar performance
> to a triple-core i6400 running at 1,33ghz

I was comparing single-core SoC vs. multicore SoC using the very same core(s), of course.

> There would be no reason for a board designer intending to run linux on a board
> to prefer the triple core i6400 or the p6600

In most cases, it would be reasonable for a board designer intending to run Linux on his board to prefer a multicore SoC to a single-core SoC, with both using the very same core(s). Usually, the decision for one or the other wouldn't even have an impact on the actual board design as the SoC variants with different core counts are interchangeably usable as pin-compatible drop-in replacements.

> the p6600 supports hyperthreading

How "to make sure no one develops software depending on unofficial capabilities which would be removed in successor machines" in this case? :-)

> Imagination has stated that the MIPS market is growing.

"Imagination Technologies Group plc [...] announces that it intends to sell its MIPS and Ensigma businesses. [...] While the Group has continued to invest in its MIPS and Ensigma businesses, it has now decided to actively market these businesses for sale [...]."
https://www.mips.com/press/year-end-trading-update-apple-dispute-resolution-procedure-and-planned-sale-of-mips-and-ensigma/

More info: http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1331694


Edit: Sale completed and MIPS re-established as (Tallwood) MIPS Inc.:
https://www.imgtec.com/news/press-release/completion-of-sale-of-mips/
https://www.mips.com/press/mips-returns-to-silicon-valley-to-drive-next-generation-of-intelligent-applications/

Edit2: MIPS Tech Inc. sold to Wave Computing:
https://wavecomp.ai/wave-computing-extends-ai-lead-by-targeting-edge-of-cloud-through-acquisition-of-mips
https://www.mips.com/press/wave-computing-extends-ai-lead-by-targeting-edge-of-cloud-through-acquisition-of-mips/

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 18.06.2018 - 15:45 ]

>> Imagination has stated that the MIPS market is growing.

yeah...growing legs apparently

Update:

> MIPS Tech Inc. sold to Wave Computing: [...]

"Wave Computing [...] announced it will open source its MIPS instruction set architecture (ISA) to accelerate the ability for semiconductor companies, developers and universities to adopt and innovate using MIPS for next-generation system-on-chip (SoC) designs. Under the MIPS Open program, participants will have full access to the most recent versions of the 32-bit and 64-bit MIPS ISA free of charge – with no licensing or royalty fees."
https://www.mipsopen.com/press/wave-computing-launches-the-mips-open-initiative-to-accelerate-innovation-for-the-renowned-mips-architecture/
https://wavecomp.ai/wave-computing-launches-the-mips-open-initiative/

More info:
https://wavecomp.ai/mips-open/
https://www.mips.com/mipsopen/

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 02.04.2019 - 13:00 ]

MorphOS 4.x for selected x64 boards and PPC64 (G5, x5000, Tabor maybe?) with real SMP, 64-bit memory map and modern Radeon drivers and FAT32/NTFS/EXT4 support would be awesome. Yes, OS3 and WOS/PUP/MOS 1-3.x apps could be boxed and Crysalid pack ported to be native. Some AROS x64 backporting only if needed fore some more Amiga x64 apps and one can have stylish and modern OS. Some "dual" application format could be used for installs, like Macs did once or mixed m68k/PPC apps were.

E-mail client indicate what kind of applications could be developed and userbase could make some OS4 developers "do the blue too" (as some did, Vampire could be m68k flavour where applicable) and some x64 developers might come with proper development tools Vamp and OS4 currently lack of.

Thats a nice wish, and alternatives are nice too exist, but I dont see where e.g.
MorphOS 4 for ARM64 would lead without tablet scaling and extensive touch screen support. And would I or you use it then? MIPS would even fare way worse.

[ Edited by vox 18.12.2018 - 20:41 ]

> PPC64 (G5, x5000, Tabor maybe?)

The e500v2 cores inside Tabor's QorIQ P1022 CPU are 32-bit.

> Crysalid pack [could be] ported to be native.

...as long as sources are available.

> I dont see where e.g. MorphOS 4 for ARM64 would lead without tablet scaling
> and extensive touch screen support.

http://linuxgizmos.com/catalog-of-116-open-spec-hacker-boards/

40 of those are 64-bit ARMv8 (AArch64, "ARM64").


Edit: new list (43 of those are 64-bit ARMv8)

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 04.01.2019 - 12:26 ]

Quote:
Really? AmigaOS 4 anyway has nothing to do with 64 bit beside patching file sys.

Quote:

True. Sources and people willing to recompile, bugfix and continue development will be critical.

Quote:

I do understand ARM64 exists, as well as Linux and Android for it. I just dont see MOS with no touchscreen support there yet. Or even with it. Kind of backward retro enthusiasm - would love to see MOS advance to convenient desktop/laptop system, but not that far.
Its up to MOS team to decide.

[ Edited by vox 19.12.2018 - 07:38 ]

>>> MorphOS 4.x for [...] PPC64 (G5, x5000, Tabor maybe?)

>> The e500v2 cores inside Tabor's QorIQ P1022 CPU are 32-bit.

> Really?

Yes, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_e500.

> AmigaOS 4 anyway has nothing to do with 64 bit

You were talking about "MorphOS 4.x" at that point, not about OS4.

>>> Crysalid pack [could be] ported to be native.

>> ...as long as sources are available.

> [...] and people willing to recompile

It's not even clear if a simple recompile will suffice when porting current MorphOS programs to a future MorphOS with modernized API.

>>> I dont see where e.g. MorphOS 4 for ARM64 would lead without
>>> tablet scaling and extensive touch screen support.

>> http://linuxgizmos.com/catalog-of-116-open-spec-hacker-boards/
>> 40 of those are 64-bit ARMv8 (AArch64, "ARM64").

> I do understand ARM64 exists, as well as Linux and Android for it.
> I just dont see MOS with no touchscreen support there yet.

What you don't seem to understand is that those 40 "ARM64" boards do not need any touchscreen support, and that anybody is free to port whatever OS to them.

> Or even with it.

Why even bring the matter of touchscreen support up then?

> Kind of backward retro enthusiasm

I see nothing retro about multiple 2+ GHz Cortex-A72 or newer cores.

I am still all for the x64 switch as long taerm goal. But as a stop gap I would welcome power9 support (i.e. Raptor blackbird) in the meantime. Would bring us one up to date hardware at a still rather reasonable price tag.
But x64 is the key for future hardware supply (well designed laptops, powerful desktops).
And a Power9 machine would make a nice development system for a 64 bit little endian MorphOS. To me the backbird seem like a good step between the generations (from current 32 bit big endian PPC to future 64 bit little endian/endianess indipendant x64/multi ISA system).

Well, Intel expect Apple to move MAC to ARM as soon as 2020.

https://www.axios.com/apple-macbook-arm-chips-ea93c38a-d40a-4873-8de9-7727999c588c.html

Quote:
As Apple use their own custom chips, it seems important to acknowledge that this step would not necessarily have wider implications for the larger ARM ecosystem.

I found Torvald's recent comments on the relationship between developer hardware and cloud / server hardware to be interesting:
Quote:

Source: Real World Tech

Will MorphOS 4 recycle old Mac x86 hardware?

Quote:

Well Macs will be ARM by than so it would make perfect sense ;)

Quote:

But surely ARM are far more heavily slanted toward SoC than PPC ever was, so Apple may not even need custom chips?

We know people trying to adopt PPC found it difficult to get support chips. When it came to NB and SBs, generally it was a case of a. capable b. available c. bug-free: pick any two.

The situation was similar but different for low power x86 like VIA and Atom, where the problem was getting support chips that were as super-low power as the CPU was. Put a standard chipset in there and you might as well just put a Celeron in too.

ARM desktop might be a different beast, but to my understanding ARM desktop never really took off anyway. ARM netbooks disappeared quickly and Chromebooks haven't made much impression. I don't think this was a factor of any unsuitability of ARM CPUs or their support chips, but I could be wrong.

Edited: wow, something broke the formatting! :O

[ Edited by KennyR 23.02.2019 - 17:34 ]

Quote:

No (and I wouldn't want them to), I believe the team stated that they would target 1 or 2 chipsets that would have several years of continued mainstream lifespan, so that by the time they complete the port of MorphOS to specific hardware, it will still be available to purchase new at retail locations and online (hopefully), or at worst case, would still be available new from overstock warehouses.

I'm hoping that they choose to support popular combinations of support chips and components, so we will have several desktop and laptop computers to choose from, that are made by different manufactures, but that might not be possible in the beginning, and only one laptop, and one desktop will be the first officially supported MorphOS4 systems.

Edit: I understand why the MorphOS Dev. Team has chosen x64 as the target to port to a new architecture, but given the ever increasing power and popularity of ARM boards like the Raspberry Pi 3B and beyond, and the lack of a clearly dominant OS for such ARM boards at this time, I think a lightweight OS like MorphOS might have a great chance for expanding its user base, if it were ported to the Raspberry Pi. Certainly many (maybe most) of the remaining AmigaOS3.x, AROS and MorphOS community, would applaud and buy such a version of MorphOS. ARM SOC boards are only going to continue to get more powerful and support more features and peripherals, so perhaps in 3 to 5 years, ARM systems will be able to provide all the power and speed that the average desktop computer user needs and wants.

[ Edited by amigadave 23.02.2019 - 10:16 ]

Quote:
By "custom chips", I was referring to ARM-derived System-on-Chips that Apple has developed in-house and absolutely nobody else is using.

Quote:
Again, I was not making any statement about support chips.

ARM Chromebooks have been largely replaced with Intel-based versions on store shelves because the performance simply was not competitive. Every single review of ARM Chromebooks I have ever seen over the course of many years made a point to mention that the speed was sorely lacking and people should consider buying a version with an Intel chip for this reason.

For people who are interested to run Android apps on ChromeOS, ARM models might provide a smoother experience. But if you plan on running Linux apps on ChromeOS, you will notice various precompiled packages are only available for Intel-compatible architectures.

> people trying to adopt PPC found it difficult to get support chips.

...except when adopting a PPC SoC :-)

> When it came to NB and SBs, generally it was a case of
> a. capable b. available c. bug-free: pick any two.

This was never true for southbridge chips.

> to my understanding ARM desktop never really took off anyway.

Funnily, it was the desktop where ARM started ;-)

Quote:

PPCs SoCs sucked. They were full of bugs (being mostly untested), hard to get a hold of in any quantity, horribly underpowered, incompatible with desktop PPC instructions, or all of the above. There's a reason everyone in embedded moved on from PPC to MIPs (then ARM) in the early 00s.

Quote:

Sure it was. Even the VIA chip the Pegasos used was a buggy piece of shit. No bugs quite as fatal as Articia, but a lot erratas to be worked around. And certainly it was never high end.

Quote:

StrongARM maybe, but not ARM as we know it. And StrongARM CPUs, while interesting, provided no real advantage over Intel, AMD, and Motorola CPUs of the era. An Acorn Archimedes was really no faster than an Amiga 500.

>>> people trying to adopt PPC found it difficult to get support chips.

>> ...except when adopting a PPC SoC :-)

> PPCs SoCs sucked.

More or less than the support chips needed for discrete PPC chips? :-)

> They were full of bugs (being mostly untested)

Certainly not true.

> hard to get a hold of in any quantity

Only true for PA6T and maybe PPC47x-based SoCs.

> horribly underpowered

Indeed, as they were not intended for desktop use so never had to compete with x86 chips in that regard.

> incompatible with desktop PPC instructions

This has only been really relevant for PPC SoCs with e500v1/e500v2 core(s). All other PPC SoCs have either been compatible with "desktop PPC" in both user mode and supervisor mode (e300, e600, PA6T) or have some differences solely in supervisor mode (PPC440/460/470, e500mc, e5500, e6500), which is no real problem as shown by existing OS4 and MorphOS support for some of those SoCs/cores.

> There's a reason everyone in embedded moved on from PPC to MIPs
> (then ARM) in the early 00s.

There was no general move from PPC to MIPS in embedded in the early 2000s, but embedded MIPS was there since the mid-1990s and a more or less constant contender to embedded PPC since. (Nice, with discussion of MIPS this thread comes full circle ;-)
There are indeed reasons for the move in embedded from PPC/MIPS to ARM starting in the 2000s, but none of them had, at least with regard to PPC, anything to do with bugs, availability, performance or incompatibility with "desktop PPC instructions".

>>> When it came to NB and SBs, generally it was a case of
>>> a. capable b. available c. bug-free: pick any two.

>> This was never true for southbridge chips.

> Sure it was. Even the VIA chip the Pegasos used was a buggy piece of shit.
> [...] a lot erratas to be worked around.

I don't think the VT8231 was significantly more buggy than southbridge chips from other vendors of that time. But even if pretended for a moment that it was, many x86 boards of that time used that same southbridge chip so this alleged problem couldn't have been PPC-specific.

> certainly it was never high end.

At that time, the VT8231 was a decent and capable southbridge chip that offered features some of which had to go unused on a PPC platform.

>>> to my understanding ARM desktop never really took off anyway.

>> Funnily, it was the desktop where ARM started ;-)

> StrongARM maybe

No, StrongARM, although used in some later (1996+) RiscPC models, was not primarily intended for the desktop but for PDAs and set-top boxes.

> Acorn Archimedes was really no faster than an Amiga 500.

Yet, this is where ARM really started in 1987.

Update:

> https://www.mipsopen.com/press/wave-computing-launches-the-mips-open-initiative-to-accelerate-innovation-for-the-renowned-mips-architecture/
> https://wavecomp.ai/wave-computing-launches-the-mips-open-initiative/
> More info:
> https://wavecomp.ai/mips-open/
> https://www.mips.com/mipsopen/

MIPS Open now online:

https://www.mipsopen.com/press/wave-computing-releases-first-mips-open-program-components-to-accelerate-innovation-for-next-generation-system-on-chip-designs/
https://wavecomp.ai/wave-computing-releases-first-mips-open-program-components-to-accelerate-innovation-for-next-generation-system-on-chip-designs/

Quote:

Actually, the only decent Southbridge components that worked well with PPC cups and Socs were from ULi and ATI. When then X1000 was announced it was no big surprise that it utilized an SB600. That component was well documented, fairly compatible with the ULi Southbridges used on Freescale's evaluation boards, and relatively big free.
I've always favored ATI/AMD components and hope at least one of the systems supported by MorphOS NG is AMD based.

I'd still like Power9 support, though.

>>>> When it came to NB and SBs, generally it was a case
>>>> of a. capable b. available c. bug-free: pick any two.

>>> This was never true for southbridge chips.

>> Sure it was. Even the VIA chip the Pegasos used was a buggy piece of shit.
>> [...] a lot erratas to be worked around. And certainly it was never high end.

> Actually, the only decent Southbridge components that
> worked well with PPC cups and Socs were from ULi and ATI.

You are referring to a later time frame starting around 2005, when you'd connect a PCIe southbridge to a PCIe-based PPC SoC or to a PCIe northbridge. KennyR's and my debate was about the time around half a decade earlier when you'd connect a PCI southbridge (or a southbridge supporting a fast but proprietary connection plus PCI as legacy fallback) to a PCI(-X) northbridge. And as far as I can tell, the VIA southbridge has worked rather well on the Pegasos in PCI fallback mode.

I got such a throbbing headache reading pages of everyone trying to proof a point of the other and throwing terminology and technicalities and so forth...

personally...that is just my opinion....

I love MorphOS in it's current hardware choices. Apple PPC laptops and desktops and I wouldn't want it any other way. I prefer the resources taking to making it appealing for developers and easier for developers to develop applications and games for the MorphOS PPC current hardware than to invest in porting it into other hardwares and tugging back and forth which hardware is the best to go. I love my iBook G4 laptop...I love my MorphOS 3.11 and I want to write fresh apps for it.

By the way...I am unsure what is the final conclusion? Where have we reached or is it an endless on-going discussion that no one will agree on?

[ Edited by MorphOSUser 03.04.2019 - 07:48 ]