|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:23 ]

> you only make yourself look bad and childish with your rudeness needling.

While I respect your opinion I think that you make yourself look stubborn with your... well ...stubbornness. Or why else do you keep on confusing things you've been corrected about numerous times? Is that some kind of ludicrous humour?

Velcro was slightly wrong, and Andreas very rude. Don't like.

Andreas, we all tell mistakes, wrong things, bad informations or convictions, this is sadly human, something that seems out of your comprehension. Don't be so rude and straight sharp, there's nothing wrong with correcting mistakes, on the contrary, but i suggest you take it easy, and stop making such rude comments.

@ jcmarcos

There is still room for low end solutions. I think if you would offer a 99 US$ mini computer it could sell. Those ultra low priced things are currently only able to get realized with ARM or PPC.
Applied micro just has introduced the APM801xx family. A series of ultra low priced, low power ppc SoCs (SoC w/o gfx or Audio, but offers PCIe and comes with SATA, usb2.0 and GbE). They are clocked up to 800 MHz (enough for simple things, just the Power of a SAM board and well above the Efika 5200B) and sell for less than 10US$!
Chips like that have the potential to establish a market for very, very cheap, ultra low wattage small devices (of cleverly designed). That would be a product of a kind not available yet.
More or less like the cherrypal/Efika2, but cheaper? and with more power.

--
?) For the Efika2 there was never a price confirmed, but probably it would have got an attractive price tag, since Genesi was always pretty price sensitive.

You can compare this debate to vehicles.
@X86 advocates

Lets say I have a '97 MR2 I love, I use it for racing and such. Now I get my spark plugs from one exclusive manufacturer. Now, you're telling that manufacturer to stop making parts for that car and to make them for a new car, such as the Honda S2k (which already gets parts from Honda), because you want cheaper parts for it. Problem is, you are alienating the millions who depend on this company. Same here, We have AROS on X86, why can't that be enough proof to show you x86 is not good? (If windows and Snow leopard don't already convince you) Because of you're unwillingness to see that the end of development on PPC is the end of Amigas, because you will be helping the very companies that destroyed them. Amiga, is 68k and PPC, anything else, is an abomination that will never be Amiga.

> They are clocked up to 800 MHz (enough for simple things, just the Power of a
> SAM board and well above the Efika 5200B)

Do you happen to know which kind of CPU core the APM801xx has? A PPC460 based core like the APM821xx has? A PPC405 based core? Or something else? Strangely, this information is omitted from Applied Micro's press release.

@Dreamcast270mhz
Ah well... good luck with that, I prefer things that work for me, if something else comes along that serves the purpose, I have no objection to that. Sure, I have 4 PPC systems here, not because of some attachment to PPC, but because I like MorphOS. I suspect that wouldn't change with a port to another architecture, even if that architecture killed your pet (it didn't ;)).

> Velcro was slightly wrong

Describing the SoC concept as several chips cooperating with each other on a board is not being slightly wrong but not understanding the SoC concept at all.

> and Andreas very rude.

That's just because he is a repeater :-)

Quote:

No, you can't. Car analogies are always stupid.

Quote:

So, by your definition PPC must be crap too, as AROS runs on it. The quality of an OS doesn't make the CPU any better or worse.

Quote:

I corrected the line for you ;)

> we all tell mistakes, wrong things, bad informations or convictions, this is sadly
> human, something that seems out of your comprehension.

No, that's not out of my comprehension. To err is human, right, but to repeatedly make the same mistake over and over again and ignoring the corrections on this over and over again is outright stubborn. This is at least the 3rd time here on MZ that I correct him on making that same mistake (confusing boards and chips). May you enlighten me what's so hard in telling computer chips from computer boards? I really don't get it.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:29 ]

Quote:

I don't know, but it seems to be a rather slow ALU. 800 MHZ are expected to deliver 1216 MIPS i.e. only 1.5 MIPS/MHz. IIRC the 460 core should do about 2 MIPS/MHz (like the e300). But I don't know any particular details, only picked up some noise from the net and http://investor.appliedmicro.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=78121&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1424482&highlight= .

Could you guys grow up a bit? This bitching around doesn't seem to productive too me. This a a forum of talk - not a scientific report nor politics or a court procedure. Just some talk.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:22 ]

Quote:
The prob is when a discussion starts to turn into an argument or gets too childish it isn't always clear to decide who actually started and whose fault it was. It just happend. It is wise then to just cut it, leave out any accusations and just move on to the topic again. It's not always easy, but most of the times the best approach.

>> May you enlighten me what's so hard in telling computer chips from computer
>> boards? I really don't get it.

> You're the only one who doesn't.

That's rather unlikely. I even dare to claim that here on MZ there is no one besides you that cannot tell computer chips from computer boards.

>> A PPC460 based core like the APM821xx has? A PPC405 based core?
>> Or something else?

> 800 MHZ are expected to deliver 1216 MIPS i.e. only 1.5 MIPS/MHz.

Thanks for the pointer. I overlooked this important piece of information in the press release. A value of 1.52 DMIPS/MHz clearly points to a PPC405 core (compare: PPC405EX, PPC405EXr). So I think we have it. Thanks again :-)

> IIRC the 460 core should do about 2 MIPS/MHz (like the e300).

Yes, PPC460 (as well as PPC440) delivers 2.0 DMIPS/MHz. But e300 delivers slightly less, namely 1.9 DMIPS/MHz.

> I'd love to discuss the substantive comment I made about
> energy consumption and X86 v. PPC.

Nobody's stopping you from discussing your own comment.

> I can't entirely ignore when someone blows off the substantive talk

As far as I'm concerned, you are free to discuss whatever you feel is substantive (e.g. "energy consumption and X86 v. PPC"). Don't act as if I was somehow hindering you from doing that. I'm definitely not.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:31 ]

If you both were able, somehow, to end up the discussion in a friendly way (take your time, gentlemen), it can be very good both for you and this place.

It has happened to me a couple of times, a technical fight became a great friendship some months later.

You both now that this bitterness can't last forever.

I'm dropping this and leaving it alone, we're nowhere near a switch but when we do, I will fight against x86 and suggest ARM or G5

> we're nowhere near a switch but when we do, I will fight against x86 and
> suggest ARM or G5

I wouldn't call porting to G5 a "switch". PPC970/G5 offers an optional 32 bit mode which is binary compatible to "G2"/G3/G4.

PP970 is still ppc, yes but in one thing i read back when 2.4 just came out was that the devs didn't want to touch it because of "incompatibilities" with current software may happen. I have faith in the team, and I will be patient and stop whining about Power Mac G4 support. If I were worried about incompatibilities, maybe a 64-bit kernel, 32-bit userland setup would be better than a full 64-bit OS?

> i read back when 2.4 just came out was that the devs didn't want to touch it because
> of "incompatibilities" with current software may happen.

Quote from the Bigfoot interview about the chances of G5 Mac support:

"These machines are a bit more troublesome: They use 64 bit CPUs, which would require quite some modifications to Quark to support. Other than that, they don't have much in common with earlier Macs when it comes to hardware, so the driver circus starts from new again."

So there seem to be two obstacles pointed out by Bigfoot : (1) 64 bit CPU and (2) need for new drivers for the remaining onboard components.

Regarding (1), my naive understanding of the matter is that the kernel would be able to run in 32 bit mode but somehow would have to tell the CPU to switch to that mode upon system start. Given that Hyperion seem to have managed to overcome the obstacle of switching a 64 bit CPU into 32 bit mode and running a 32 bit OS on it, I can't imagine it would be that hard for the MorphOS Team's kernel wizard to achieve the same ;-)

> If I were worried about incompatibilities, maybe a 64-bit kernel, 32-bit userland
> setup would be better than a full 64-bit OS?

Yes, probably. Or even both kernel (Quark) and userland (ABox) in 32 bit?