>> "G5" is usually considered as belonging to PPC970 microarchitecture family.
>> However, the PA6T is a unique microarchitecture of its own, developed from
>> scratch.

> True, but actually all G designations are Apple designations for chip generation

"G5" is the name Apple has used only for the PPC970 family, which the PA6T doesn't belong to (even though the PWRficient was originally intended to be for the Apple notebooks what the PPC970 was for the Apple desktops and workstations). So I wouldn't call the PA6T a "type of G5 CPU".

> Its kind of PentiumPro or 64-bit modern arhitecture designation.

Sorry, I don't understand this, and especially not as a reasoning as to why the PA6T should be called a "G5".

> Mint PPC G5 64-bit [...] does work on PA Semi.

The PPC64-compiled *userland* running on top of the Linux kernel works on any PPC64 CPU, but you need a special PA6T Linux kernel as the PPC970 Linux kernel doesn't run on the PA6T as is (nor on any other PPC64 CPU). That should tell you that the PA6T is no "G5".

> PA Semi is great chip

No, it was a company that was purchased by another company. The chip is called PWRficient PA6T-1682M (full name).

>>> It seems Pa Semi on Nemo is downclocked to 1.8GHz from 2Ghz

>> No, according to Varisys and A-Eon it isn't:
>> https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=7183&start=472

> I don`t believe them a bit.

Fortunately what you do or don't believe doesn't change the facts. I for one trust Varisys in their statement, and EETimes agrees with that:

"Apple sent a letter to the DoD saying it will assure production of the 1.8 GHz PWRficient processor for three to five years, said one source who saw the letter but asked not to be named."
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1309557

> originally it was introduced as 2Ghz only.

No, the PA6T was introduced (read: announced) as running *up to* 2.0 GHz, but they didn't follow through on that announcement. That's what Varisys and A-Eon have said in the link I gave you, and what Kronos has told you right here in this thread.

> Its now possible to buy it at 2Ghz at selected dealers.
> http://forum.hyperion-entertainment.biz/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=2199

No, it's not. It's still running at 1.8 GHz. Trevor even clarifies that right in the thread you link to. May I propose that you go out of your way and read your own link?

>>> OS4 doesn't support nearly half of board features now.

>> I think it supports more than half.

> Trust me

I won't, that's for sure. You utter way too much false statements and also outright nonsense ad nauseam, even after confronted with evidence, for me to trust you.

> less then half. DOnt let me count em.

Please do count them. Else I won't believe you but instead maintain my opinion that OS4 supports more than half of the Nemo features.

>>> A real DSP on board would be way more Amigish, like Falcon had.

>> Atari computers are "Amigish"? Interesting note :-)

> Falcon is. more then crippled A600, A1200, A4000 and CD32.

Your statement that the Atari Falcon is more "Amigish" than Amiga 600, Amiga 1200, Amiga 4000 or Amiga CD32 is laughable at best. It may work if you define Atari as "Amiga" and Amiga as "non-Amiga", but why should anyone do such nonsense? Amigas are "Amigish" by definition, that's the meaning of the word. The Falcon is clearly "Atarish".

>>> they did false advertising with its comparison to Transputer

>> Let's see what "they" actually claim with regard to Transputer: [...]
>> I can't really see anything "false" in these claims.

> Don`t let me find all adverts from that time.

Please do, else I will continue to refute your claim of "false advertising with its comparison to Transputer".

>>> and adding more Xena cores (how when Xorro isn`t it? Via USB? PCI?)

>> http://amigakit.leamancomputing.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=1135

> I have wrote only review of Xena and X1000, thanks.

Sorry, I don't understand.