> Other than programmers that write assembly code for one
> architecture or another, I don't see why anyone would have
> any preference for one CPU type over another

If we want to retain compatibility to m68k Amiga software (rexxsyslib.library comes to mind as a necessity*, but also gtlayout.library as shipped with MorphOS is still m68k) we'll have to stay with an architecture that can operate in a true big endian mode. That's purely a technical constraint and doesn't have anything to do with personal preference. I don't know if it would be feasible to go an Amithlon-esque way though, i.e. have a big endian ABox running on a little endian Quark kernel running on a little endian CPU, part of what Zylesea outlined. That's something someone with the insight of laire would have to comment on.

* There're possible ways out of this dilemma, as discussed here on MZ: http://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7711&forum=12

> I don't see any change of plans or direction in which platforms will be supported
> in the future. Maybe if the Team adds one or more wizards of OS development
> that know the x86, or Arm architectures expertly, then we might see a change
> in direction for the future, but until then, I don't see anything changing from what
> they have told us will be supported & hinted at with screen shots of G5 systems.

I don't think the discussion is so much about MorphOS going x86 or ARM *instead* of going G5 Mac but more about going x86 or ARM *after* having put the G5 Macs to use.

> Long term future plans are too far off to worry about

Yes, maybe we should just be looking forward to G5 Mac support and not discuss what could or should come after that ;-)