Yokemate of Keyboards
Posts: 11762 from 2003/5/22
>>> the MorphOS Team should concentrate the whole forte in [...] Polaris or Navi GPU drivers
>> Why Polaris (GCN4) or Navi (RDNA), but not Vega (GCN5) [...]?
> why making drivers for an old architecture then?
You are the one who suggested making drivers for Polaris (GCN4). I just wondered why make drivers for GPU architecture n-1 and n+1, but not for n. There may be good reasons for skipping an intermediate generation, but you've yet to explain them.
> some words to comment #21: [...] Why should we stay in the PPC niche forever
> and make the life harder as it needs to be???
As comment #21 says: transparent backwards compatibility. It may not be your opinion, or mine, or that of the MorphOS team (which is the opinion that counts ultimately), but it's a valid opinion nonetheless.
> The 68k JIT on x86 works great in UAE so i think MorphOS for AMD64 will have
> no Problem with 68k JIT. [...] i think most of the PPC Software that is used every
> day will get an x86 Port. And the rest i think will run good and fast enough on x86.
For those who hold the opinion as presented in comment #21, it's not about JIT compilation vs. interpreted emulation but about transparent emulation (like MorphOS/OS4 does on PPC) vs. boxed/encapsulated emulation (like UAE).
The publicly shown proof of concept of MorphOS on x64 does have a transparent PPC emulation and via this, also a transparent m68k emulation, but as far as we know, this is done in an Amithlon-esque way running the x64-compiled A-Box in big-endian mode on the little-endian CPU. I doubt it will stay this way for the release version, especially given that the A-Box itself will have to be replaced as the main MorphOS environment anyway if modern OS features like memory protection and SMP are to be provided.