> I would have to disagree that they are planning on making a profit. Hoping to make
> back their investment of time and money is more like it

To just make back their investment they'll have to make a profit on each machine sold.

Your perception that your definitions are always the only ones recognized, is incorrect.

>> To just make back their investment they'll have to make
>> a profit on each machine sold.

> Your perception that your definitions are always the only ones recognized,
> is incorrect.

Which "definitions" are you talking about specifically?

Why do you guys bother to mail or phone this Altman guy? If you don't like the thing, don't buy it. It is their business, let them get their bloody nose themselves or eventually get rich with their plan. I couldn't care much lesser. Heck, I am even not much entertained by the aw.net threads regarding this topic...

At least they are giving the guy who wrote "Over the Edge" some new stuff to write a sequal.

Quote:

Title: "Rotting in the canyon"

Quote:

Actually it is .....

If their whole study had been about OS-design they would (could) have come out as experts. With single (half year ?) lecture they only learned what to they need to learn to design an OS.

Comments made on ann.lu and early design concepts of OS4 clearly showed that they lacked the experience to see the difference between "cool concept" and "will work in real life".

>> "Crash course" is an improper term to describe a regular
>> university lecture, I think.

> Actually it is .....

Yes, improper that is.

> If their whole study had been about OS-design they would (could) have come
> out as experts. With single (half year ?) lecture they only learned what to they
> need to learn to design an OS.

I never said that their attendance of one (or more) OS design lecture(s) made them experts on that topic. I merely objected to the usage of the term "crash course" as that clearly doesn't fit into the concept of university lectures at all. On the one hand you have one (or more) basic lecture(s) on certain topics and on the other hand advanced lectures which build upon these basic lectures and go deeper into different sub-topics. I have still no idea how an alleged "crash course" at a university would relate to that.

Quote:
I'm curious - did you go to university? I took a couple of courses on operating systems back in the days, and I think "crash course" covers them quite well.

[ Edited by kolla on 2010/9/6 4:05 ]

> did you go to university?

Yes, that's where my experience regarding university lectures comes from. Although I didn't graduate in computer science but in another area my schedule contained some compulsory and elective computer science lectures as well (no "OS design" though ;-)

> I took a couple of courses on operating systems back in the days,
> and I think "crash course" covers them quite well.

It seems the quality of lectures can vary between universities ;-) Just to present one random definition of the term "crash course" (note the text in brackets):

"a rapid and intense course of training or research (usually undertaken in an emergency)"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/crash+course

Quote:

Sure, but I used the generic term "computer" with intention. Why targetting that specific CPU? Who cares about CPUs nowadays? Or it's a firm sales guarantee?

Also, I mention bPlan because, what a coincidence, Gerald Carda and Thomas Knabel designed glorious hardware for the Amiga back in the day. I thing that would indeed be an incentive for die hard amigans, if used in marketing. In fact, it would mean the only connection to that glory days every one wants to take a buck out of.

Quote:

Indeed. Is the PA Semi part the thing that's making the X1000 so bloody expensive? Then, it's not an advantage, it's the biggest mistake of the whole project. Is it a very fast CPU? Heck, who needs that in an Amiga? To brag about againts PC friends? That'll be so childish it hurts even thinking about it.

Quote:

Another mistake. Who really believes this weirdo coprocessor is going yo mean anything useful? You are going to plug in a GPU a dozen times more powerful anyway. Oh, but you can't code it to its limits, pity.

Quote:

I wonder about how much time they took to decide the hardware specs. Perhaps it was in a ten minute rush, on one of those nostalgia afternoons with other amigan pals. It usually ends up in something like "grab the biggest there is, whatever it costs".

Quote:

Nor anything good. No amiga market experience, for a start. But yes, of course, there are many computer design firms. But bPlan's experience might have been the only sane part of the project.

Quote:

I don't know, but I seem to recall comments from Matt "Neko" Sealey on "powerdeveloper.org", saying they indeed had problems with the first version of the MPC5200. It's possible I'm putting those into the MorphOS port, and they weren't.

Quote:

Yes, MorphOS started as a pure software project for phase 5's PowerUP accelerators (made by the same people that formed bPlan afterwards). Then, bPlan made the Pegasos computer, and for a while, this Pegasos/MorphOS combination existed withoout the Thendic term existing. Soon, Bill Buck and Raquel Velasco (BBRV), known from the VisCorp affair, came into scene. But could it be that bPlan made the Pegasos out of Thendic's wallet, to some extent?

Quote:

Indeed. It looks as if we just wanted to be cruel to some guys. That attitude come out of frustration many times, and I don't see it much in this MorphOS land. In that regard, we're no amigans.

@ Andreas_Wolf

A lecture does not have to be officially labelled "crash course" to become one.

This depends entirely on the intention of the attendees to use the gained knowledge in real-world situations despite the fact that most people would consider the completed lecturing to be insufficient (to complete the tasks at hand in an adequate manner).

If somebody attends a cooking course for beginners and then decides to open a restaurant and do all cooking, it is fair to call the cooking course a "crash course" as long as you specifically refer to the education of this particular individual.

> I used the generic term "computer" with intention. Why targetting that specific CPU?

You don't have to, albeit it's fast in terms of Power Architecture (but expensive also). For other Power Architecture CPUs see the sentence I wrote next, starting with "likewise...".

> Who cares about CPUs nowadays?

The OS does, as well as its transparent m68k emulation. That's why it must be a Power Architecture CPU, for now at least. And additionally, the CPU shouldn't be too underperforming. I consider the performance of my 1.5 GHz G4 the absolute minimum for my needs in terms of desktop computing (while a netbook or similar could go as low as an 800 MHz e300 to satisfy me).

> I mention bPlan because, what a coincidence, Gerald Carda and Thomas Knabel
> designed glorious hardware for the Amiga back in the day. I thing that would indeed
> be an incentive for die hard amigans, if used in marketing.

Remember, these "die hard amigans" chose relabelled Teron boards over bplan's Pegasos. I doubt it would make any difference to them if a new "AmigaOne" board was developed by bplan instead of Varisys as long as it (or the full system containing that board) is labelled "Amiga something". And honestly, it wouldn't make a difference to me today either (except for the name part of course, which has never mattered to me). A commissional work is really just that, no need to get emotional. If Varisys is as good as bplan at designing a board to the predefined specs, then I see no advantage in not choosing Varisys. And as I can see, Varisys has past experience with PA6T and MPC86xx, which bplan may not have.

> Is the PA Semi part the thing that's making the X1000 so bloody expensive?

In the interview you've linked to it's said that "just the CPU is 400-450 euro". So it definitely has it's part in the high price of the X1000. But I must admit that I really don't know why the beta Nemo board alone (including RAM) is as much as 1400 EUR, which is a discounted figure even (according to A-Eon). Can we assume that the insane price is mainly due to A-Eon's high profit margin (in addition to the small batch size)? I don't know. In any case, I doubt that the price is due to Varisys (and not bplan or else) being the board developers.
Let's imagine for a moment that they'd get the PA6T part for free. Then the board would still be barely below the 1000 EUR mark. Still no sane figure for a mainboard with RAM.

> Is it a very fast CPU? Heck, who needs that in an Amiga?

If you intend to use this "Amiga" as your everyday computer (like I do with my MorphOS Mac mini, which is easy because I can temporarily switch to MacOSX or Linux for applications MorphOS is lacking) then a CPU as fast as possible can't hurt for sure. See my arguments there:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7186&forum=11&post_id=74398#74398

>> with or without XCore

> Another mistake.

Yes, probably. I only mentioned the XCore because you wrote: "insist in making them solder down one of those rare Transputer things, to have that "unique" spec no one else has".

> I wonder about how much time they took to decide the hardware specs.

According to Trevor Dickinson at the VCF in June, Hermans got the very rough idea for an own hardware at (or shortly before) the time Hyperion was sued by Amiga Inc., i.e. around or before April 2007. About one year later they decided for the CPU and the (still unknown to us) CPU supplier, who suggested Varisys as a design company with experience regarding that CPU. In early 2009, Varisys was commissioned to develop the board according to the specs and the real development began.
Just for comparison: Sampling of the PA6T started in February 2007, volume production in early 2008 (at TI's fabs, I believe), but only for a very short time, because in April 2008 P.A.Semi was purchased by Apple. In July 2008 it became known that Apple would supply the PA6T for at least 3 years (and upto 5 years) and explore selling the design to a third party after that time. In September 2008, Apple started volume production of the chip again.

>> I don't see anything bad per se in choosing Varisys over bplan.

> Nor anything good.

But there is: past experience with the PA6T.

> No amiga market experience, for a start.

That's not needed for the company designing the board as a commissional work according to predefined specs. The "amiga market" is to be entered by A-Eon and AmigaKit.

> bPlan's experience might have been the only sane part of the project.

Why do you think so? AFAIK, bplan don't have any past experience with the PA6T.

> I seem to recall comments from Matt "Neko" Sealey on "powerdeveloper.org",
> saying they indeed had problems with the first version of the MPC5200. It's possible
> I'm putting those into the MorphOS port, and they weren't.

As you probably remember, in early 2005 there was an internal MorphOS port to Freescale's Media5200 system with Lite5200 board, which at that time had the MPC5200 (without "B"). The switch from MPC5200 to MPC5200B took place in the second half of 2005, and the Lite5200 became the Lite5200B. There's a chance that MorphOS had the problems you remember on the Media5200/Lite5200, and not on the Efika 5200.

> for a while, this Pegasos/MorphOS combination existed withoout the Thendic term existing.

But only as an announcement, not as a product. There was no Pegasos/MorphOS combination as a product before Thendic entered the game. And even after that, it took a while for the Pegasos/MorphOS combination to become a product.

> could it be that bPlan made the Pegasos out of Thendic's wallet, to some extent?

"Made" as in "manufactured in more than single prototype batches"? Sure. "Made" as in "developed"? Not quite. Thendic began financing bplan, who had announced the Pegasos one year before, in November 2001, presumably after them visiting the AMIGA 2001 show in Cologne where bplan were publically showing their non-prototype (i.e. microATX) Pegasos board for the first time (and running MorphOS). I'm sure though that without Thendic's (and later Genesi's) money bplan wouldn't have survived the Articia/MAI/April mess which began in September 2002. They would have been economically forced to either close down without releasing the Pegasos at all or release the Pegasos without the expensive but required April fix (and close down subsequently due to warranty claims). Thendic/Genesi were the ones making bplan and the Pegasos survive this mess, no doubt about that.

Quote:

Understandable. But also, one can't choose the amount of bloat in the information received everyday. For example, many times I'd settle with a slower computer, but some bloated document gets in, or some inefficient process has to be done, and I need more power than neccesary, if things were better done.
Think about that guy stuck on an error message, and instead of copying and pasting the text, sends you an e-mail that contains a two megabytes file that contains a Word document that contains an uncompressed screen capture that contains the error.

That's why the phrase "I need a faster computer" has always made me smile. With nostalgia.

Back on topic...

Quote:

Sure. In fact, I was trying to point out that the chosen CPU is a mistake. Powerful (for what?), but very expensive, hard to get, and already at its end of life: I forgot something that, thankfully, you mentioned:

Quote:

Where is this CPU used in volume? I thought it was kept because of some contracts with US army, that have systems that use it, and thus the manufacturer is forced to keep the part in stock.

Quote:

Sure? Would love sources about this.

Quote:

Indeed, there's something very wrong about this. It's almost impossible not qualifying the X-1000 as a cash-in trap.

Quote:

WHAT? That would be a computer designed by a lawyer!? Just joking, I've seen that "very rough idea" words. But couldn't resist... Now, really, that would explain why the specs can't be the ones chosen by a sensible engineer.

Quote:

That's my way to insist in taking that fantaaaaastic CPU out of the picture.

Quote:

That's why I mentioned Thendic/Genesi in my previous post. That was a way to do things:

1.- Realistic specs.
2.- Proven Amiga experience.
3.- Both hardware and software running.

Not to mention something still more important: It was TEN years ago.

Quote:
PA6Ts are used by many mil products (more than 10 different ones). E.g. by Lockheed Martin or Raytheon. There is demand for several 10s of thousand of these processors. No big volume production, but still volume production. The different wars and fear of terrorism/phantom menace keeps demand steady.

>> Varisys has past experience with PA6T and MPC86xx, which bplan may not have.

> I was trying to point out that the chosen CPU is a mistake.

That's why I also mentioned Varisys's experience with MPC86xx. Or would you consider that choice a mistake as well? If yes: What Power Architecture CPU wouldn't be a mistake in your eyes?

> Powerful (for what?)

See my posting I linked to for some examples.

> already at its end of life

Probably there won't be any other PWRficient CPU than PA6T-1682M, yes. But that wouldn't stop A-Eon from using a newer Power Architecture CPU (QorIQ P5 for instance, see what Varisys responded to Jim's inquiry) in an X1000 successor (should there ever be one, that is). I think PA6T will continue to be manufactured for some years to come, at least until mid-2011 (to mid-2013 maximum) on behalf of Apple, and on behalf of someone else after that.

> Where is this CPU used in volume? I thought it was kept because of some
> contracts with US army, that have systems that use it

Yes, with US DoD (that includes army as well as navy and air force), and exactly that's where this CPU is used in (rather low) volume (see Zylesea's reply). It seems you answered your own question ;-)

>> In September 2008, Apple started volume production of the chip again.

> Sure? Would love sources about this.

See the link in:
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=7001&start=127

At least in July 2008 that was said to be the plan. I don't have any reasons to doubt that they did what they said they'd do.

> really, that would explain why the specs can't be the ones
> chosen by a sensible engineer.

As I wrote, the exact specs were decided not until one year after Hermans had his rough idea. According to A-Eon, it was the OS4 development team (it was not said who in person) who decided the exact specs. (Mind you, A-Eon was founded in April 2009, i.e. some months *after* Varisys had started the board development.) With one exception: As you might remember, A-Eon said that the suggestion to include the XCore came from Varisys.
Unfortunately, we'll probably never know to what extent the May 2007 announcement of Amiga Inc.'s and ACK's 'Power Design' had an influence on the design decisions for Nemo/X1000 ;-)

>> AFAIK, bplan don't have any past experience with the PA6T.

> That's my way to insist in taking that fantaaaaastic CPU out of the picture.

Same question as above: What suitable Power Architecture CPU is in *your* picture then which bplan has more (or at least the same) experience with than Varisys?
There's really only one coming to my mind: the PPC970(MP), see the TetraPower/Bimini board. But I doubt that the PPC970MP, which is not a SoC and thus requires the CPC945 northbridge (50 to 100 USD), would be a better solution than the PA6T, neither technically nor economically. To quote Neko:

"The BOM cost for a 1.5GHz quad-core board was over $900 (reaching 750 EUR at the time!) including processors for the complex dual-sided PCB. For >2GHz it hit $1500. Genesi would not sell a single unit at that price. Given that it had to use expensive RAM, expensive disks, weird cases (BTX pretty much got abandoned halfway through).. we would have to sell systems at the same cost as an Apple G5 (nearing $3000).. which defeated the whole object of the project."

Using only one instead of two PPC970MP CPUs wouldn't save that much, 250 to 300 USD at 1.8 GHz and 200 to 250 USD at 1.5 GHz.

Quote:

In my opinion, as I've expressed many times, the MPC8610 is the sensible choice. There's only two drawbacks:

1.- Every CPU looses value as time passes: This little clever MPC8610 isn't exactly a wonder nowadays. Not to mention what it would look like by the time you finally start selling a board with it.

2.- My opinion isn't worth a dime, of course.

Hey, what the hell happened to the (Nec?) RedTail?!

Quote:

I see recent videogames and high definition content. Fine. In my opinion, these aren't absolute requirements for our little world. Moreso if meeting them complicates things as much as it does (once again, this statement is void if we could use a certain very popular brand of CPUs).

But opinions are like asses: Everybody has one

And I like PowerPC, but like many others, only for breed reasons. Nothing rational. Other CPUs are as clever, if not more, tha "ours".

Quote:

And yet they use it as the standing stone for a revolution.

Quote:

Noticed the ROTFL of many at reading the last three words?

Quote:

Then, it would be using a "dead" CPU as the standing stone for a revolution which will be the standing stone for a second revolution. All sounding very real.

Quote:

If only making a new computer would take half a year... See, even the humble Efika 5200 took years to mature.
Then, I die with envy at those computers being made so easily (in comparison) just because they use "normal" CPUs. Heck, even the whole rest of our computers is made with "normal" components, and yet the biggest problem is connecting them to the weird CPUs we love.

Quote:

Very, very nicely spotted, Andreas, as always. More interesting is that, even back then, you cared to use Wayback's Machine cache...

Quote:

Fantastic trip in time with those links, mate. The most complete information about the mythical G5 computer Genesi wanted to make, please guys take a look, even at the first link Andreas collected back then.

I also remember Matt "Neko" Sealey saying the 970 was basically an expensive bitch, and thus project didn't make sense.

That kind of sensible reasoning is completely absent in the X-1000 project. Not that I care much about it, but when one thinks the Amiga name has been dragged in the mud enough already, yet another guy is able to do it once more. Amazing.

> the MPC8610 is the sensible choice.

There you go. As I mentioned, Varisys claim to have experience with MPC86xx, which bplan doesn't have to my knowledge (I doubt that the Efika 8610 exists in more than on paper only). That's why I'd see no sensible reason to chose bplan over Varisys in commissioning an MPC8610 based design (unless Varisys would request too much money). And yes, I know that the 'MPC8610 Open Source Mainboard' is supposed to be developed by bplan once the required bounty cash is there (which will never happen IMO).

> what the hell happened to the (Nec?) RedTail?!

Really don't know. I've never come across anything else than this Japanese NEC webpage mentioning the board and having a picture of it and Lonelywildone's Youtube video showing it in action.

> I see recent videogames and high definition content. Fine. In my opinion, these
> aren't absolute requirements for our little world.

I didn't label them "absolute requirements", but rather said these are *my* requirements. And I can very well imagine that I'm not alone regarding these.

> Moreso if meeting them complicates things as much as it does

That seems to be the case on the OS4 side, yes. In MorphOS realm, where I reside, there's plenty 1.5(+) GHz G4 hardware available :-)

> I like PowerPC, but like many others, only for breed reasons. Nothing rational.

Fair enough. If you are interested, my own stance on Power Architecture can be read there.

>> Probably there won't be any other PWRficient CPU than PA6T-1682M, yes.

> And yet they use it as the standing stone for a revolution.

To be fair, the PA6T-1682M is what it is. It's currently available (though A-Eon's supplier is still a mystery) and its specs don't suddenly change just because there'll be no successor to this chip. As I said, an assumed future X1000 successor could have quite another Power Architecture CPU and still be superior to the X1000.
Going by your reasoning, the EOL fact could have as well been used against anything e600 based (MPC8641/8640/8610), at least from January 2009 on when BBRV revealed this sad fact.

>> that wouldn't stop A-Eon from using QorIQ P5 for instance, in an X1000 successor

> Noticed the ROTFL of many at reading the last three words?

You can ROTFL as much as you want. That won't change the fact that the PWRficient being EOL'd certainly wouldn't stop A-Eon from having an X1000 successor developed. There's a million reasons which are better suited to stop them from ever making a successor.

>> should there ever be one, that is

> Then, it would be using a "dead" CPU as the standing stone for a revolution
> which will be the standing stone for a second revolution.

With "one" I was referring to "X1000 successor", not to "X1000".

> All sounding very real.

You assume too much. I don't say that there'll ever be an X1000 successor. I don't even say that there'll definitely be a commercial release of the X1000 itself. The point I try to make is that it won't be the PWRficient being EOL'd that would stop A-Eon from making a superior successor to the X1000.

>> I think PA6T will continue to be manufactured for some years to come,
>> at least until mid-2011 (to mid-2013 maximum) on behalf of Apple, and
>> on behalf of someone else after that.

> If only making a new computer would take half a year...

What does "half a year" refer to in context of PA6T availability?

> even back then, you cared to use Wayback's Machine cache...

Look closer, there's an edit notice. It's not that I foresaw amiga.com going offline or losing content :-)

> I also remember Matt "Neko" Sealey saying the 970 was basically an
> expensive bitch, and thus project didn't make sense.

I think it wasn't so much for the price of the PPC970 CPU itself (see my quote of Neko's statement), else Genesi wouldn't have dared to start the project in the first place.

Quote:

Ah, sure. But we're talking about future hardware, not present. A new computer that has chosen a "wrong" CPU just because it's fast, and MorphOS is useful on not fast computers. Fast computers are nice, but not at any cost, not to mention as the opening of a new era.

Quote:

I think you didn't catch my sarcasm: That new computer barely exists, and yet one has to think about a succesor! That's a new twist on the "Osborne Syndrome"!

Quote:

I'm saying that, by the time you finish the new computer, the CPU will no longer be available.

Quote:

Sure, my rude adjective applies to something that not only is expensive in itself, it also demands expensive companions...

By the way, in further posts, I'll use your classic quoting with the ">" sign, which is much more space-wise efficient than the standard one I've used. Heck, when quotes take more space than actual answers, there's something wrong!

> we're talking about future hardware, not present.

I look forward to PowerMac G5 support in MorphOS. While being present hardware in general it's nevertheless future hardware in terms of MorphOS ;-) But you're right that due to their target market's special nature most new Power Architecture CPUs (especially the more affordable ones) probably don't (and won't) meet let alone exceed a 1.5 GHz G4 in raw performance.

> MorphOS is useful on not fast computers.

Sure. It's certain applications that require raw performance, not MorphOS in itself.

> That new computer barely exists, and yet one has to think about a succesor!

I was trying to make a certain point. For that I needed a hypothetical X1000 successor for illustration purposes. Look at it as some kind of thought experiment.

> That's a new twist on the "Osborne Syndrome"!

Nobody's announced an X1000 successor as far as I can see. The computer hardware principle that a successor should be superior to its predecessor surely wasn't invented by me.

>>> If only making a new computer would take half a year...

>> What does "half a year" refer to in context of PA6T availability?

> I'm saying that, by the time you finish the new computer, the CPU
> will no longer be available.

Apple will have the PA6T manufactured until mid-2011 at least. By that time and assuming the X1000 will still not be commercially available the actual development time will have crossed the 2.5 years mark. That's as much as five times "half a year" ;-)
But you're right in that A-Eon could get into hot water if they don't get the X1000 to market soon. That's assuming Apple really choose the minimum time they're obliged to have the PA6T manufactured *and* don't find anybody to buy the design from them.

Quote:

I'd be surprised if no other company will produce them under Apple's license later on. Demand from the military market is there. And this market is a good market to earn money. Probably too little fish for Apple, but for a smaller company a good catch. But I wouldn't bet on falling prices though.

If I had to design a ppc board today, I'd probably go the QorIQ route now. Nevertheless, the 86xx cpus are still kind of attractive, but of course they haven't gotten better over the years. But still I would like to see an 8610 board.
QorIQ offers a modern process, brillant throughput, rather reasonable prices and at least some future plan (if they just decided to shrink the process for the e600 and did an e600 QorIQ - I would like that).

On the software side I hope that one day MorphOS can somehow utilize additional cores. But I think with the upcoming support for maschines having more than one cpu/core, the developers will sooner or later get bored enough to do some CoreUp.library or such (or will some other company do some WarpCore.lib...?).

Quote:

Who actually makes the chips for Apple?

Quote:

Reading "apple" and "license" on the same line gives me the creeps...

Quote:

This phrase has sparked a wild dream in my head: Why don't we make our own PowerPC CPU? No, I'm not crazy, it's those guys with FPGAs and Verilogs who are crazy. Really, could it be possible, at least as an initial step towards fereing ourselves from the CPU shortage (that we chose ourselves, precisely)?

I've crazily wrote "opencores.org" in my browser, and the first thing I've seen there is... what's that, "zorro" word? Heck, amiga infests everything

Quote:

Sure, looks like a nice CPU family. But more importantly, it's almost the only one we can "choose"...

> under Apple's license

As far as I've understood what became public in 2008, Apple won't license the PA6T design but they're supposed to *sell* it. Or do you have any new information on that?

> Who actually makes the chips for Apple?

I guess it's still the same company that manufactured the PA6T on behalf of P.A.Semi and which I mentioned 3 days ago. But there's a chance that they switched fabs. The Apple A4 is produced by Samsung for instance (A4 has (ex-)Intrinsity's/Samsung's Hummingbird core (enhanced ARM Cortex-A8 core) with on-chip peripherals probably designed by the former P.A.Semi team (except for the GPU)).

> Why don't we make our own PowerPC CPU? [...] Really, could it be possible [...]?

Last time I looked you had to acquire an architectural license from IBM to do that in a legal way.

Quote:

Well I wrote about boards rather than cpus. There is a shortage of new ppc boards suitable for MorphOS, but not of cpus.
The 86xx still would do nice, the QorIQ, while designed for communication stuff, has some options and there is also?the ibm 476 which seems rather nice. For low cost Applied Micro has nice offerings, probably their Titan will be nice, too.
Okay, ppc is currently not on par with Core i7 or the likes (well, there are the server chips by IBM, but that's another story...)., but there are plenty useful PPCs. What is not plenty is boards - boards that are interesting for general computing and not inside some high or low end router, car electric, game console, deadly missile or laser printer.