> The man in question isn't apparently aware of what the processor
> on the X1000 mainboard is.

I guess that even Reimer may get a clue now. At least Holwerda obviously has:

http://www.osnews.com/story/24151/A-EON_Reveals_AmigaOne_X1000_Processor_Through_Cake ;-)

There're some other people out there who I'm eager to see if they'll stick by their word:

"If they have a P.A Semi chip with Altivec and even if it's only a 1.6GHz version I will apologize in every forum about being skeptical, about calling the X1000 an over-hyped product and about calling the AOS4 fans naive." (*)
http://moobunny.dreamhosters.com/cgi/mbmessage.pl/amiga/169942.shtml

Anyway, I'm eager to hear the "quite a story" :-)


* Edit: So far he seems to have forgotten his promise he made 9 months ago:

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=32910&forum=33#593514

(and he even keeps on with his "according to records the first CPUs in the A1X1K were used chips" story when in fact A-Eon said it was *sample* chips they used in the beginning)

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf on 2010/12/21 15:11 ]

Now fully official:

http://www.a-eon.com/news.html

Still, no word on who the PA6T supplier, who A-Eon said they have their NDA which prevented them from revealing the identity of the CPU earlier with, is/was. So I guess there're still some information to be revealed to get the whole "quite a story".

Nevertheless this is good reading though! my question is without touring a.org/aw.net is how many units and how long of a production will this be?

The PA6T CPU paves the way for the introduction of SMP with AmigaOS4.x. Also check out the new multi-core CPUs being developed by Freescale, in particular the 64-bit dual core, 2.2 GHz P5020 and the 8-core, 1.5GHz P4080.

It would also appear they have a future plan together dispite what many have suggested, so with the socks/cake eating and all, what's ours?

> what's ours?

For now it seems to be this:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7264&forum=3&post_id=75228#75228

> OS4 on one core of a 1.8 GHZ PA Semi

1.5 weeks ago A-Eon changed the X1000's official specs from 1.8 GHz to 2.0 GHz.

http://www.a-eon.com/x1000.html

Nice! An over 10% improvement in clock speed. If they do figure out an SMP (or ASMP) scheme, this could really give us some competition (finally).

this could really give us some competition (finally).

370 days since the first puzzle item revealed. Counter still running.

Quote:

Wow, its been over a year?
Considering how much you guys have accomplished in that time frame, maybe they'll always lag behind.
Wouldn't it be ironic if you managed to get G5 support completed before the x1000 was available for purchase?

Quote:

Ironic ???

More like buisness as usual if you asked me.

Quote:

I would not be surprised at all if G5 support were finished and released before the X1000 was available for sale to the general public (if that ever occurs). What will surprise me greatly is if AmigaOS4.x gets any kind of multi-core support (which they claim to be working on), before the MorphOS Dev. Team completes support for any G5 models. I am also very confident that any kind of hacked multi-core support by AmigaOS4.x will be quickly surpassed by the MorphOS Dev. Team, if not outright beaten to a release date of some kind of multi-core support within MorphOS.

I think the AmigaOS4.x developers and Hyperion have done themselves a great disservice by announcing features so far in advance and making their users wait for months, if not years for any tangible results, but then it is a pattern of theirs, when you look at how long it took them to finally release OS4.

Quote:

Whatever they do, it's wrong. If they don't announce anything, people moan, if they announce they will moan as well. Like Trevor said, they "can't win" in this regards. Nevertheless, Kronos already said it, it's "business as usual"...

I'd say the difference is in how you "announce" something.

In the past years the MorphOS-team has "announced" several ports to various Apple-HW, not by making bold statements like "most ambitigious project" or " you don't have to wait till summer" but by simply showing the current state of affairs while stressing that the can't commit to any fixed release date (or a release at all).

That way everybody knows that there will be support for PowerBooks and various G5-models some time in the future, everybody can make up his own mind on when those will be ready based on what can be seen on the internet and/or user-meetings.

With OS4 it's more like "what pig are they gonna chase down the street today ?" Will it be USB2 ? Gallium ? (A)SMP ? XMOS ? Some more *nix-crap ?

> "most ambitigious project"

Hi bernd_r ;-)

Quote:

Ola Mr mk ......

(no idea whats this about, just thought I'd play around anyways)

> no idea whats this about

Well, "ambitigious" has been one of bernd_r's various spellings of the word "ambitious" on amiga-news.de :-)

Update:

> Still, no word on who the PA6T supplier, who A-Eon said
> they have their NDA which prevented them from revealing
> the identity of the CPU earlier with, is/was.

In the coming Amiga Future issue #89 Trevor Dickinson writes:

"we were able to secure a supply of CPUs through Varisys"
http://www.amigafuture.de/album_pic.php?pic_id=16353

Could a native English speaker please comment on the likelihood of this phrase meaning that none other than Varisys is A-Eon's mysterious PA6T supplier?

>"we were able to secure a supply of CPUs through Varisys"

That's a direct contradiction of what I was told.
I was discouraged from pursuing the PA6T and told that A-eon had to source its own chips.

When Trevor says "through Varisys", does he mean from Varisys or via a connection made through Varisys?

Quote:

Does it matter?

> When Trevor says "through Varisys", does he mean from Varisys
> or via a connection made through Varisys?

That's exactly what my question has been about. And I had hoped that you being a native English speaker could answer it ;-)
However, assuming the phrase means "via a connection made through Varisys" would be more consistent with what we've been told so far (the dubious NDA story etc.). On the other hand, Trevor Dickinson told at VCF that it was the PA6T supplier who suggested Varisys as a design company to A-Eon. So to me, neither interpretation seems going without any contradiction.

> Does it matter?

It seems to him it does. But does it really matter to you if it matters to him? ;-P

It matters to me as this is the first really questionable statement I've heard from Dickinson.
I trust the folks at Varisys, but I can't expect them to clarify a statement made by a business partner.
I'm still inclined to think the PA6Ts are sourced from another company and that Trevor hasn't been very forthcoming about where they're getting them from.

I still think Andreas' idea of these being potentially flawed Dual cores (that only use one core) is possible.

> I still think Andreas' idea of these being potentially
> flawed Dual cores (that only use one core) is possible.

I'm more inclined to believe that Dickinson's statement is flawed. Else, A-Eon probably won't be able to handle the outrage, considering they've presented the X1000's CPU as being dual-core all along (except for that single statement that is).

Yes, Trevor indicated that this version would not work as a dual core, which might lead you to think that the processors or the design are flawed.
But maybe its just his statements (that are flawed).

I find this issue over the sourcing of the processors to be troubling.

[ Edited by Jim on 2011/3/2 21:45 ]

Quote:

They (devs) have been talking so much about multicore that it would be weird. Apparently they are trying to do some interesting tricks there. Another question is whether they can get it working and hence this statement (as I see it) "first X1K will not support multi core".

But when I said "does it matter" I was thinking A-eon can't win this game anyway.

> They (devs) have been talking so much about multicore that it would be weird.

Yes, that's why Dickinson's statement has been puzzling me so much.

> Apparently they are trying to do some interesting tricks there.
> Another question is whether they can get it working and hence
> this statement (as I see it) "first X1K will not support multi core".

I take it you refer to the OS level here, right? The reason I find Dickinson's statement odd is that it seems to refer to the hardware level, not to the OS level. If A-Eon really have fully functional dual-core PA6T chips (which I believe to be the case) then there shouldn't be any "tricks" needed to get both cores working properly on a hardware level.

> when I said "does it matter" I was thinking A-eon can't win this game anyway.

First, we should define what this "game" is about at all and what "winning" should mean in this context ;-) I'd say that if A-Eon manage to release even a single batch of X1000 machines to real end-users (as opposed to beta testers) then this could be called a "win" for them to some degree.