> Are you the spokesman for the Morhos Team now?

No, I'm just relaying what MorphOS Team members said in public, which makes me a non-spokesman by definition.

> I'd love to know what you are basing this on.

I know you hate my hyperlinks, but if you can bring yourself to click the reference in the posting you just quoted from and go from there, you'll end up with the MorphOS Team member's statement I'm basing my statement on.

> if the man invested 200k pounds in x1000 project whats another 100k eu
> to port morphos to x1000? ;-)

Are you the spokesman for Trevor Dickinson now? ;-) At least I'm not aware that he even hinted at considering to pay the MorphOS Team for porting to the X1000 or any other hardware that only comes bundled with OS4.

Quote:

I am aware that comparisons have been made in the past and that more will be made in the future. From what I have seen from Fab, he is one of the least confrontational MorphOS Dev. Team members, so I am not saying that he is guilty of any of the things that I am about to mention. It is inevitable that such comparisons and more and different comparisons will continue, but they do not always have to be made with negative comments from MorphOS users/developers, as has happened in the past. Too often, OS4 users get upset, even when no accompanying negative comments are made toward OS4 during comparisons, just because they are hyper-sensitive to any comparisons, as they remember past insults and injuries, so they lash out against any comparisons these days, even when no insult is included and the person doing the comparison is trying to be completely neutral and unbiased.

I know that there will always be a few people that react negatively toward any comparison that reflects badly toward OS4, but I also think that there is more tolerance now than there was in the past and that if done correctly and without malice, there are more people that will see such comparisons for what they are, just informational to help people that are interested in such comparisons make their choices between hardware platforms and which OS they want to run for specific purposes.

So, I agree with your assessment that my hopes and goals are somewhat contradictory, but if done correctly, they can be less so. No one can please all the people all the time, but I think progress can be made toward greater tolerance and acceptance between OS4 and MorphOS users and developers. It will most likely never be full cooperation and friendship, but it can improve from what we have had in the past, or even what we currently see in the community.

I have noticed on many forums that less OS4 users argue about MorphOS
performance advantages over OS4. No performance advantage is going to change their minds about which OS they want to use and they do not want to read about the performance differences every day in the forums they are reading, but there are less and less OS4 users claiming that the MorphOS users are spreading FUD with these discussions and comparisons. We can continue to publish comparative data in the future and will raise less conflict if that data is presented in a way that is sensitive to the people we are presenting it to and not like some kind of challenge, or insult that we are forcing down their throats "in their minds eye". Perception is important and if we wish to win the hearts and minds of more current and former Classic Amiga users (and even a very few OS4 users) to become a user of multiple platforms, one of which is MorphOS, we need to act, write and speak with this sensitivity in mind.

I know not everyone will agree with me and my philosophy on how to win new MorphOS users, but hopefully some people will see merit in what I am trying to do.


Quote:

You may be right, and keeping OS4 and MorphOS on separate and distinct hardware probably would result in less confrontation, but I am optimistic that we can make progress toward more tolerance and cooperation in the future with MORE hardware that both systems can run on, but it won't be easy and won't always be pretty. There will still be those few that will always want to fight and argue. We just cannot avoid some conflicts. Hopefully we can lessen their affects and frequency.

I think it will be a good thing to have more users and third party developers using both OS4 and MorphOS platforms and that it will lead to more cooperation and better tolerance between the opposing user bases. Only time will tell which of us is more correct. Just getting to a point of having more hardware that supports both OS4 and MorphOS will not be an easy task, so this whole conversation may be moot, without such hardware.

I can only hope that some of the people that are in charge of making some of these decisions will agree with me and see some benefit for everyone, through future collaboration on hardware to be supported.

I am sure the MorphOS Dev. Team members have no doubts that their product will show itself well on common hardware, so they are more likely to support the idea of more common hardware than some of the OS4 developers, but they have other reasons to resist a common hardware platform. It may never happen and there are probably more things going against such a thing happening that there are going FOR a common hardware platform ever happening, but I continue to hope.

Edit: The MorphOS Dev. Team will only support new hardware if it makes good sense to them and their goals. Porting MorphOS to the X1000, or SAM boards does not make any sense (unless something drastically changes in price and numbers of boards, or systems that get sold to Amiga users), but maybe something in the future will be appealing to both the MorphOS Dev. Team and the OS4 developers.

[ Edited by amigadave 11.12.2011 - 15:23 ]

Dave

Interesting posts and good reads. Thanks..

I think you are understanding the whole "war" from a user perspective. The real problem is the old history and things that were done or said that can never be taken back. This is the primary cause for bad blood still to this day. imho

Whats funny is that way more os4 ppl hate on morphos than vice versa. The ironic thing I found was that a lot of these haters never even used morphos!

oh and Andreas Wolf

When your posts start to make sense may be i'll respond.

> When your posts start to make sense may be i'll respond.

What is it specifically you don't grasp this time? If you point it out I'm willing to reword it for you.

just a few words. I was trying to persuade more cooperation on amigaworld regarding the different NG-platforms but I found out that this is not possible. There is so much hate between the different camps that I think real cooperation is impossible, and I think there expecially of OS4-users/supporters. They often seem to be fanatics, sentences like "OS4 is the only true and real amiga-successor, all other are just copies" and such shit. Cooperation needs accepting others and see them on the same level and as partner. I think many in the OS4-camp are far away from that. Cooperation between individuals on all platforms is certainly possible, cooperation with the OS4-camp as a whole is impossible in my view. Realistic is in my view some sort of cooperation between the other "Copies" Aros and Morphos.

That is my personal view after the discussions over a couple of months.

+1

But OS4-fanatics not only hate Morphos, they hate all that use other NG-platforms. F.e. 68k are retros (stupid, playing old games), Aros is far away from being useful (I do not think that they have ever tried it out), Morphos is not "amiga-like enough and it is not called AmigaOS so it is not Amiga". They have never real facts just "emotions" and when you ask what is the advantage of AmigaOS compared to others (why buy it) you get no answer.

OlafSch,
Quote:

From the developer side I don't think a majority of the MOS Dev Team want to cooperate with Hyperion, they hate Ben Hermans through and through and despise anything that is related with him, including Hyperion.
The Frieden boys, together with some multi-OS project devs like the MUI classes, did try to work on common tools in the adtools but afaik there was no cooperation from MOS side.

Personally I am a little bit disappointed about the lack of support I got for getting a (gcc) MOS cross-compiler going under Linux[*]. Personally I see cross-compilers as a first step to give developers the ability to support more amiga platform than the one they run on their desktops; and this counts in all different directions (MOS->AOS4, AOS4->MOS, Linux->MOS, Linux->AOS4, xxx->AROS, AROS->xxx, ...).

Please prove me (and Olaf) wrong ! I am happy to be the bridge between OS4, MOS (and AROS) devs to get more cooperation going in between the platforms.

greets,
Staf.

[*] This is exluding the vbcc guys, Volker and Frank, which were very helpful.

IIRC a simple ./configure --target=ppc-elf && make for both binutils and gcc worked fine for me when I need to build a C cross-compiler some years ago.
Patching is cool when you need to use funky extensions but is otherwise not required to produce working code.

@OlafSch & Fats,

I don't know either of you, or your experience with MorphOS, or anything Amiga, so please don't take anything I write here personally. I will only share my own experience and opinions on the topics of cooperation, the attitudes of some OS4 users/developers and the helpfulness of MorphOS Developers.

I became interested in MorphOS just shortly before version 2.0 was released. It took me a little while to understand the MorphOS community and it's differences from what I was used to, mostly from my membership at Amiga.org in previous years and the Riverside, CA Amiga User Group many years before. When I joined MorphZone.org, I was surprised and did not understand the lack of activity, when compared to Amiga.org. Although there was a lot of helpful people at A.org back then, there was also a modest amount of just "Noise", which has only gotten worse over the last few years. The responses to questions posted on MorphZone.org were usually much slower and fewer in coming, and there were some that did not show much patience for new users who asked questions that the person asking could have found the answers for themselves with a little effort. It seemed to me at the time that there were not many MorphOS users who were interested in helping new MorphOS users with simple or stupid questions that I was guilty of asking, so it took some adjusting on my part to understand the culture here. I think that more users are helpful here now than when I first started with MorphOS, which is a good thing. It appears to me that most MorphOS users are busy doing things with their systems, instead of hanging out on forum sites all day just to express their opinions, like some users on other sites.

On the topic of OS4 users being so hateful, I must agree that there are a handful of them that appear that way. But I would not agree that it is the majority, it is just the vocal few that make the majority of forum posts and get all the attention, which makes it appear that most of the OS4 users are this way. Having a few MorphOS users that seem to like to play the Devil's Advocate and stir up the OS4 users hornet's nest occasionally does not help the situation. We have bad apples on both sides.

I don't agree that there can be no cooperation between OS4 users and developers (third party) and MorphOS & AROS users and developers. There are some exceptions, but I think that the majority of users and developers now want at least tolerance and some are actively involved in cooperation and cross platform programming.

As for getting help from the MorphOS Development Team members, I think that many of the team members do provide help to a lot of people, but they are busy people and only help with specific projects when their time permits. They cannot help all the people requesting their time and assistance. The attitudes and methods used by the people asking for help greatly influence the outcome of them receiving help, or not.

Just my 2 cents, for what it is worth.

Answer to myself:

> I'm not sure if Mamba is really less capable than Gemini. For instance,
> Mamba has a DDR3 memory controller whereas Gemini only has a DDR2
> memory controller. Is there even one single technical spec where Gemini
> outdoes Mamba?

There maybe is: It seems like Applied Micro is not able to push its PPC465 core based processors above 1.2 GHz, let alone the announced 1.5 GHz for Mamba, which is still only available at 1.2 GHz max.

@AmigaDave

I would not say responses to peoples problems are that slow.. it usually takes only minutes to an hour to get help by what I have seen. Granted, most users seem to be living in Europe so posting a question during our beautysleep might cause a delay which is kinda expected.

Update:

>> It is more likely that the 4240 is canceled for 2012 (delayed to 2013, 4320).

> What's speaking against a cancellation though is that in a
> Freescale press release from 6 weeks ago, i.e. 2 months
> after the latest roadmap, the T4240 got mentioned prominently.
> This leads me to think that the roadmap depiction from August is
> flawed and they just missed to put the T4240 in or something.

Affirmation that the T4240 is neither cancelled nor (substantially) delayed (but apparently relegated from 2.0 to 1.8 GHz):

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=11&topic_id=7901&start=7

magnetic,
Quote:
Strange that to me it seems the opposite is the case: It is extremely rare that any OS4 user on AW.net will mention MOS in a bad light, as long as they are not provoked by "trolls" into reviving ancient flamewars... On the other hand, it seems quite common here (a MOS-only site) for some users to bash OS4, or otherwise get angry about something related to it. And yet on Amigans.net (an OS4-only site) you won't see any bashing of MOS at all.

Please note that I am only pointing out my observations, and not suggesting any explanations for them. It is simply that my observations contradict the above quote.

I mean, off the top of my head, I can't think of any OS4 users who actually hate MOS, certainly not to the extent of frequently making anti-MOS posts. So I would say that "OS4 users hating MorphOS" is a phantom, a myth, and the sooner it stops being perpetuated, the sooner both "sides" might get along.

[ Edited by ChrisH 25.01.2012 - 15:17 ]

Quote:

No, you are pointing out your *perception*, which explains a lot actually...

Quote:

That's - again - a perception.

AmigaDave is right in stating that it is a vocal minority who actually 'hate' (such a strong term). True on both sides.

There's also people who are genuinely not interested in the otherOS for whatever reason, and don't like to be challenged every 5 minutes to justify their viewpoint. Back them into a corner with benchmarks, or with evidence of direct lineage from AmigaOS3.x etc, and ram it down their throat enough and you will get told where to go. Fair enough really - it's a bit like having bible-bashers knocking on your door every 5 minutes.

My perception is that the majority of (both OS4 and MorphOS) users are open to trying both, sick of the petty arguements, and frankly put off by the perceived childish behaviour of BxFs from the 'other side' of the fence.

@takemehomegrandma
Please point of some RECENT examples from AW.net to back-up your claim. I would be interested to see what you *percieve* as "hate on MorphOS".

[ Edited by ChrisH 30.01.2012 - 18:31 ]

@ChrisH
Ah well, it seems there aren't any recent examples (as I thought), but rather just bad old memories that sadly haven't faded away yet.

[ Edited by ChrisH 02.02.2012 - 09:28 ]

Update:

>> Just for the purpose of overview I compiled a list of the DMIPS/MHz per core
>> figures for various PPCs in ascending order (AltiVec capability is generally
>> ignored, obviously):
>> [...]
>> e5500: 3.0

> The table on page #2 of the QorIQ AMP fact sheet PDF indicates that
> the e6500 core didn't improve in that regard (comparing e6500's per-thread
> performance to e5500's per-core performance).

The QorIQ AMP T4240/T4160 fact sheet claims "6.0 DMIPS/MHz per core" and at the same time for dual threads "1.7 times the performance of a single thread". To me this sounds strange as I think it should be either still 3.0 DMIPS per MHz and core or about 5 DMIPS per MHz and core at best in case of dual-threaded execution. Or does the Dhrystone benchmark really scale linearly with the amount of executable threads?

Still following your posts Andreas, but I'm as tired as I could possibly at the thought of considering any more blue vs. red camp discussions.

And Applied Micro doesn't seem to be able to get anything to run reasonably fast.

Hopefully we'll still get 2.5GHZ T5s.

> Applied Micro doesn't seem to be able to get anything
> to run reasonably fast.

True for their Power Architecture offerings. It seems they can't even get their chips above 1.2 GHz.

> Hopefully we'll still get 2.5GHZ T5s.

I hope so. As we can see with the T4 that went from the originally announced 2.0 GHz down to 1.8 GHz, nothing is set in stone.

And don't forget, we're talking about FreeScale

Update:

> It seems they can't even get their chips above 1.2 GHz.

Now it's official: only up to 1.2 GHz for Mamba.

https://myapmold.apm.com/MyAMCC/jsp/public/productDetail/product_detail.jsp?productID=APM86190
https://myapmold.apm.com/MyAMCC/jsp/public/productDetail/product_detail.jsp?productID=APM86290
https://myapmold.apm.com/MyAMCC/retrieveDocument/SNP/APM86190_PB_20120216.pdf
https://myapmold.apm.com/MyAMCC/retrieveDocument/SNP/APM86290_PB_20120216.pdf

Well Andreas,
Looks like we've got two threads in one here.
I lost interest in the blue vs. red thing a long time ago.
And David is a friend so I'm inclined to side with him and state my desire for increased cross platform cooperation.

Now as to APM, its a pity they can't get anything to scale up.
The successors to Gemini aren't bad, but they're slow.
Even if the T5s only operate at 1.8-2.0 GHz (when introduced), they'll have a solid 50% lead over Applied Micro's best.
It makes picking a favorite manufacturer a no brainer.

> Even if the T5s only operate at 1.8-2.0 GHz (when introduced),
> they'll have a solid 50% lead over Applied Micro's best.

True, and even a much bigger lead if we regard not only the clock frequency but also the per-clock performance of the e6500 core vs. the PPC465 core. This should amount to an overall performance lead per core of at least 150%.

> It makes picking a favorite manufacturer a no brainer.

I wonder what ACube will do for the successor to the 1.15 GHz Sam460ex, if there'll be one that is. Let's see if they'll stay with Applied Micro and opt for the 1.2 GHz Mamba and maybe overclock it like they did with the PPC440EP and PPC460EX chips on the previous Sam boards so they can get it to some 1.4 GHz, or turn to another CPU vendor.

> It's incredibly complex designing any core but it'll be a lot simpler
> than trying to design an x86. It is a frighteningly expensive business:
> [...] Intel and AMD and the likes of Nvidia each spend around $500 million
> to design a new core. - All that before they go into production.

Applied Micro share that estimation:

"to develop a core from scratch would be a $400 million to $500 million type of investment, minimally"
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/711065/000119312512164604/d334600dex992.htm