My desired computer is MorphBook and perhaps a custom Pi Device Apricot, Blueberry, Cherry, Cocunut, Pecan, Peach, Pumpkin, Strawberry Rhubarb, ... any is possible.

The old software should not be abandoned entirely. But forcing OS to be limited to this software prevents OS from growing. Instead, place in The Emulator or update it properly. So if AROS's philosophy is going to liberate itself so AROS can grow, I am delighted. And I think if original company still existed, they would introduce new functionality (and be the first to do so) for the SMP and increased bit computers. They would update the software properly.

Also is there a way to have MorphOS launch everything previously open before shut down or restart? This feature is useful with Vintage Mac OS, and also since Windows 7. Vintage Mac OS also has extensive features to Start Up, Shut Down, even on Schedule, all by itself! . And they have sleep mode. Windows has Sleep Mode and also Hibernate Mode.

A MorphOS Developer said no to the request of introducing Sleep Mode, Hibernate Mode, and scheduling to MorphOS. But with these features introduced, they will attract and increase Audience. Not having these features will repel and decrease Audience. Why Shut Down as only option to save energy, and thus have to reopen same things every time?

And Collapse To Panel function will also be useful and enjoyable for Audience.

Quote:

But doesn't G5 also have multi core?

[ Edited by In_Correct 17.08.2017 - 14:47 ]

Quote:

Multicore in the last PCI-E models, multiprocessor in all, and there are multiprocessor G4 systems.
A situation that just plain cries for SMP.

> if a dual cpu extended ATX board can be built for $2700,
> couldn't a single cpu ATX board be built for less?

Definitely, as the single-CPU bundle with the same dual-CPU board is just $2300 (the board without CPU is just $2100). I can't imagine a single-CPU board with single CPU would be more expensive than the dual-CPU board with single CPU.

> Multicore in the last PCI-E models

PowerMac12,1 is single-core only :-)

> multiprocessor in all

PowerMac8,1, PowerMac8,2, PowerMac9,1 and PowerMac12,1 are single-CPU only :-)

Quote:

OK, OK...insert 'available' before those adjectives, sheesh!

In the meanwhile....SMP....any real negatives here?

I want a quad core (or better) system, so I'm all for it.

BTW - I the reason I didn't think about the 12,1 is its an iMac, which while its still a Powermac I just didn't consider...

> the reason I didn't think about the 12,1 is its an iMac

...as are the 8,1 and the 8,2. In_Correct just wrote "G5" and you also included the PowerMac11,2, which MorphOS is not available for, so I saw no reason to exclude the iMacs :-) (And inofficial versions of MorphOS have been shown on PCIe-based PowerMac and iMac, i.e. PowerMac11,2 and PowerMac12,1.)

Quote:

Yes iMac support would be nice. All-in-one designs are compact, clean, and take up no more room than a monitor.
PCI-E PowerMacs would offer new video card possibilities.
And the development teams primary argument?
That they are already supporting a lot of different systems.

BUT, what systems are most of us using?
I'd be willing to bet that 95% of us are using G4 and G5 Apples, with Mac Minis and G5 PowerMacs now becoming the dominant base.
And, as I've repeated to many times, the AGP slot in our current G5s is a limitation.

The X5000 will help (for those of us willing to pony up for one), and the SAM460 would have (IF they were available), but the PowerMac 11,2 would offer us a more economical, and easily obtained solution.

Also, It benefits MorphOS to be on as many computers as possible, even if it is "just the silly PowerPC". If they feel it is more importance for the X 86 64 (AMD Version is requested.) and also adding the Multi, and the SMP, and the Whatever, then they should do so but then release MorphOS for the PowerPC systems and also including the New Functions such as SMP and Memory Protection and More Than 31 Bit and More Than 32 Bit and Multi Processor. ... Also Better Power Management etc. is desirable.

But if it takes less time to support the additional PowerPC, it makes sense to do that first. And if it takes less time to support New Functions on Power PC compared to X 86 64, it makes sense for Morph to work on New Functions for Power PC first.

Morph has said that "It will upset everybody. So we need to add New Functions only once." It should not be that upsetting if New Functions were added for PowerPC,

especially if these systems, Power Mac, ... Amiga One, ... have more than one processor or core and also more than 31 or 32 bit. Even if it takes less time to add New Functions for PowerPC compared to support different architecture + add New Functions after much time and much effort to support different architecture.

It takes much time already to releasing MorphOS 3.10.

FYI hyper threading

[ Editiert durch polluks 20.08.2017 - 00:01 ]

> I'd be willing to bet that 95% of us are using G4 and G5 Apples, with
> Mac Minis and G5 PowerMacs now becoming the dominant base.

I'm inclined to think that the mobile solutions have become the most dominant by now. The Mac mini has been supported for as long as 8 years, so while it surely was dominant for a while in the past, I see no reason why it should be becoming dominant now.
The MorphOS team could always publish new statistics :-)

> New Functions such as SMP [...] and Multi Processor

;-)

> especially if these systems [...] have [...] more than 31 or 32 bit.

There are no 31-bit hardware systems.

Quote:

Hmm, Powerbooks did seems to surge in popularity...
But even you, when it was time to upgrade, switched up to a G5.

> Powerbooks did seems to surge in popularity...

Exactly, and they, alone or at least together with iBooks, have surpassed the Mac mini, I think.

> But even you, when it was time to upgrade, switched up to a G5.

Even the fastest PowerBook wouldn't have been that much of a performance upgrade over the 1.5 GHz Mac mini. And for my mobile needs, a laptop/notebook is still too bulky. I have a tablet computer for this, unfortunately not with MorphOS, of course. Fun fact is that the PowerMac G5 is even older than the Mac mini, and its reliability shows (severe soft boot problems).

Quote:

I am currently having lockup issues with my Quad G5 myself and have ordered the parts to rebuild the cooling system. I think one of my processors is freezing.
The reliability issues with G5 are just another reason I want an X5000/40.

Quote:

> I meant Multi Core and Multi Processor. Whatever they are

An OS can't tell the difference anyway.

AROS x86 was shit when first time 20 years ago was published on aminet, AROS x86 is shit now,
and AROS x86 will be shit 20 years from now.
It is very simple.
Old Amiga Os 1.x API is hardware depended. It may work only on cpu which has 32 bit big endian mode.
Change to cpu working in 32 bit low endian mode made API not compatible with old 68k amiga software.
No compatibility with old 68k amiga software and no memory protection?
It was and still is extreme stupid.
There is no reasons to use this crap.

Quote:

Who is "Morph" that said this? Do you have a link to your quoted text?

Quote:

That doesn't make much sense, when we have such a small group of developers on the MorphOS Dev. Team, all doing this work in their spare time (which has been drastically reduced, as they get older and have families, which take up most of their free time now).

It does not make any sense to me to ask this small team of programmers to "back port" their work which ports MorphOS to the x64 architecture and gives us memory protection, smp, and "whatever", to the PPC architecture, unless doing so is as simple as flipping a switch on the code compiler, from x64, to PPC. If it is any more difficult to give us the new features of MorphOS for x64 on our existing PPC hardware, I don't think it is worth it, and I would rather have the MorphOS Dev. Team concentrate on our future by improving things on x64, instead of looking backward and continuing to work on PPC.

PPC was great for us, for a time and served its purpose, but once we make the switch to x64, I see no reason to look back (and if I want to look back, I'll use original Amiga hardware, or probably a Vampire), as there isn't enough PPC specific software that I will miss, and I expect we will very shortly have much superior software on our x64 MorphOS systems. (Edit: If the MorphOS Dev. Team does their job right, and makes it easy to port software to the new MorphOS for x64)

Modern x64 hardware that I hope the MorphOS Dev. Team will target, will be SO much faster than any PPC system, I just think it will be a "no brainer" to leave my PPC hardware behind, with regard to running the new MorphOS features you are asking them to back port to MorphOS3.9, and just enjoy those new features on the hardware they were written to run on.

[ Edited by amigadave 24.08.2017 - 11:58 ]

Quote:

I'd like to see whatever can be backported, make it into future revisions of MorphOS PPC.
I also don't expect the X64 shift to completely eliminate the PPC OS, just deemphasize it.

Quote:

> Change to cpu working in 32 bit low endian mode made API not compatible with
> old 68k amiga software.

What does API have to do with endianness here?

> the new MorphOS features you are asking them to back port to MorphOS3.9

I don't think such version would be 3.9, but rather the same version number as the then-current version for x64, just for PPC64. I mean, with 3.10 release for PPC being imminent (and maybe some more versions planned), why should the new features of an even later x64 version be backported to 3.9 of all releases?

Quote:

Because 3.9 is our current latest version, so instead of writing that he would want it back ported to what ever was the most current PPC version, I used our current "latest version", which is 3.9. (and as usual, I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant, but you just love to find any grammar or content fault, and point it out. I guess that is one way you get your "kicks" for the day)

> 3.9 is our current latest version, so instead of writing that he would
> want it back ported to what ever was the most current PPC version,
> I used our current "latest version", which is 3.9.

You know very well that 3.10 for PPC (and at least the usual follow-up bugfix release which should be 3.11, if not even more releases) is supposed to be released before any x64 version, so you knew that "3.9" would be wrong. Besides, the severe changes that go with such a backport would surely warrant a version number increase for the PPC version anyway (hence "such version would be [...] the same version number as the then-current version for x64, just for PPC64"). Furthermore, I can't see how "back port to MorphOS3.9" is any shorter or easier to write than "back port to PPC".

> you just love to find any grammar or content fault, and point it out.

As I'm sure you have realized, I make every effort to ignore grammar faults (as well as orthographic ones), not least because I'm sure I make many of those myself when communicating in a foreign language.
As to content faults, yes, I don't like them go unchallenged, so I point them out. And I hope everybody does so when I make those myself.

> I guess that is one way you get your "kicks" for the day

...as much as you seemingly get your kicks from writing things you know are wrong.