A possible future for MorphOS
  • Just looking around
    Posts: 15 from 2016/1/22
    > the next Nintendo will use X64
    We don't know, it may just as well be ARM based.

    > Manufacturers of lightweight devices and manufacturers of servers hardly overlap.
    > Lightweight devices and servers are distinct markets. Even if the same ISA was prevalent
    > in both, it would be completely different SoCs/chips and even microarchitectures.
    I think you're both right and wrong. While it if obvious the same IC is not going to be used for both servers and lightweight devices, VHDL code is being reused. When they design a new IC, they reuse part of the existing code, modify it and combine it with new code, so it is part reuse and part new. And they are trying to make servers containing Intel Atom processors, which is officially a mobility-oriented processor, which means they are trying to put low-power processors in servers. Companies will reuse when it doesn't compromise another aspect.

    > A single-core SoC would run worse with the popular operating systems,
    Not necessarly, a single core p6600 running at 2ghz would have similar performance to a triple-core i6400 running at 1,33ghz and probably wouldn't cost more. There would be no reason for a board designer intending to run linux on a board to prefer the triple core i6400 or the p6600 before carefully looking at his specific application, at which time, he may find that one of the other is more suitable for him. Also, the p6600 supports hyperthreading so it can be run as multiple slower "virtual cores" if one needs to do so. It is worth noting that enabling SMP makes it more difficult to optimize an operating system's setting for low latency operation.

    > What is the legal structure of this alleged registered "MorphOS Development" company?
    Well, I'm not sure.

    > and more and more tablets use it. Sure Intel and X64 in not dead for long time.
    I made an error and should have said that Windows based computers will remain x86 based. The only reason the number of x86 based tablets is growing is poeple are stupid enough to want to run that windows garbadge operating system. Apple based tablets are ARM based and so are most Android based tablets. Finally, never said x86 will be dead, the office oriented, windows running computer will remain x86 based, there is no reason for this to change.

    > Except in phones Intel chips are efficient for the calculating power they deliver.
    They are not efficient, they are inexpensive, they offered the best performance per dollar, this is the reason why they are popular. They are inexpensive because they are made in huge numbers and they are made in huge numbers because only x86 runs Windows and people are dumb enough to want to run that garbage operating system by the hundreds of millions. ARM is also made in huge numbers and as such has become a contender. However, performance per watt is more important than performance per dollar in mobile applications, it will soon be true also for servers. This means non-x86. Once some non-x86 architecture(s) becomes popular for both servers and mobile devices, other non-windows machines will switch over. It fact it is already happening with the ARM architecture.
  • »19.04.16 - 23:45
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4134 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    @ Amiga believer

    Personally, I am rather ambivalent about what ISA is running the software I use as long as that software runs well.
    As such MIPS, ARM, whatever.
    We ARE going X64 and we currently support PPCs.

    I see no massive advantage in changing that.
    "Magnetic was troubled by my avatars and 'satanic' references" - Jim Igou

    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »20.04.16 - 00:20
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 9218 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    >> A single-core SoC would run worse with the popular operating systems

    > Not necessarly, a single core p6600 running at 2ghz would have similar performance
    > to a triple-core i6400 running at 1,33ghz

    I was comparing single-core SoC vs. multicore SoC using the very same core(s), of course.

    > There would be no reason for a board designer intending to run linux on a board
    > to prefer the triple core i6400 or the p6600

    In most cases, it would be reasonable for a board designer intending to run Linux on his board to prefer a multicore SoC to a single-core SoC, with both using the very same core(s). Usually, the decision for one or the other wouldn't even have an impact on the actual board design as the SoC variants with different core counts are interchangeably usable as pin-compatible drop-in replacements.

    > the p6600 supports hyperthreading

    How "to make sure no one develops software depending on unofficial capabilities which would be removed in successor machines" in this case? :-)
  • »11.12.16 - 14:06
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4134 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    >> Imagination has stated that the MIPS market is growing.

    yeah...growing legs apparently ;-)
    "Magnetic was troubled by my avatars and 'satanic' references" - Jim Igou

    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »07.05.17 - 01:52
    Profile