@mr_white

Quote:

I think the EETimes article was about chips for iPod nano. BTW: There was a follow-up on this article at EETimes as Apple seemed not to happy about Samsung commenting on the deal in public.

Yes, you are indeed correct, but it's not Intel nor will it be Intel for ANY iPod model for obvious reasons relating to Intel's decision to depart the embedded market.

Quote:

Snipped from: Intel to sell XScale business Quote: It's critical to understanding the switch that you not underestimate the importance of Intel's XScale to Apple's decision to leave IBM. The current iPods use an ARM chip from Texas Instruments, but we can expect to see Intel inside future versions of the iPod line. So because Apple is going to become an all-Intel shop like Dell, with Intel providing the processors that power both the Mac and the iPod, Apple will get the same kinds of steep volume discounts across its entire product line that keep Dell from even glancing AMD's way.

What you should have quoted out of this article was the following paragraph right after the paragraph you quoted, by same author by the way, mentionning that the above quoted statement, which he had posted previously, was obviously flawed given Intel's decission on Saturday to dump its XScale ARM business.

Quote:

Given this past Saturday's revelation that Intel plans to sell off its XScale and IXP units, it's pretty clear that the above argument is flawed. (The only thing that could rescue it is if Apple bought XScale, which won't happen.) So Apple is not using XScale, and XScale almost certainly did not factor in any substantial way into Apple's decision to move from PowerPC to Intel.

Last edited by elatour on 09-Jun-2006 at 04:08 AM.

_________________
When swimming with sharks, make sure to bring lots of band-aids...

@falemagn

Quote:

falemagn wrote: @wegster Quote: you mean it's common (?), not at all in the US at least. I expect T-Bone's ref was to the singer..or whatever he is..? No, I don't mean it's common, quite the opposite actually. Deborah and Luana are considered quite uncommon, exotic and even associated with erotism of some sort, in Italy.

oops, sorry, misunderstood!

Fabio is definitely a 'rare'/uncommon name in the US as well. 'Fabian' (somewhat similar) I've heard, but quite rarely..

Deborah or Debbie, on the other hand, very common.

Have yet to hear 'Luana' before your post...

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

@elatour

Quote:

But I though the ones used by Apple for its iPods were made by PortalPlayer, which according to something I read recently will be switched to Samsung.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/columns/mac/mac-20050710.ars talks about the ipod CPU as well, and mentions "current" (as of July 2005) ipods using ARM chips made by Texas Instruments and that the Intel Xscale chip woudl be a great choice for future ipods. This articla also mentions the G5 speed and latop issues.

I've seen discussion of the x86 Mac to help ipod Intel chip pricing other places as well, probably on slashdot and such, so it's not just me and Rogue spouting this conspiracy. Granted, it does fit into the rumor category as we'll likely never hear Apple or Intel confirming the conspiracy, but it's a popular rumor/conspiracy out there.

_________________
All glory to the Hypnotoad!

@billt

Read the author's subsequent article (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060605-6987.html) commenting on his flawed logic regarding the presumption he had made before. Of particular interest is the following paragraph.

Quote:

Given this past Saturday's revelation that Intel plans to sell off its XScale and IXP units, it's pretty clear that the above argument is flawed. (The only thing that could rescue it is if Apple bought XScale, which won't happen.) So Apple is not using XScale, and XScale almost certainly did not factor in any substantial way into Apple's decision to move from PowerPC to Intel.

All of this talk about the PPC to Intel move for Apple being related to their iPod was pure speculation.

_________________
When swimming with sharks, make sure to bring lots of band-aids...

@Hammer

Quote:

I recall, UBOOT has a light weight X86 emulation...

Yes, and as soon as kickstart is loaded that emulation is gone. As soon as OS4 "starts", that emulation is gone. For classic Amigas, it's not present. OS4 of A4000 with Prometheus uses the same driver source code but has a little extra to do the same thing that uboot emulation does for us on AmigaOne. For AmigaOne we can remove that code from the driver, but it already exists, works, and shows that the x86 emulation is not required for OS4 after OS4 is actually running. This emulation is a convenience to alow youto see the BIOS settings menues before any OS is running, be it OS4 or Linux or whatever.

Actually, OS4 would be in a better state without this emulation than LinuxPPC would be. Why? Because Linux Radeon drivers do not know how to do the chip setup stuff, they assume that the BIOS has already done that, and there is no driver code to replace that work if the BIOS doesn't do it. This early startup work was the first thing we had to do, since the driver was originally developed on A3000 with Prometheus and we could not use the x86 emulation. No one at Forefront had an AmigaOne until later, after this stuff already worked. We parse the Radeon BIOS directly in the driver and don't require any x86 emulation to do it for us, but if it's already done there's no need to repeat it, so on AmigaOne we don't. This should be true for any graphics chip usable on Classic machines with PCI.

Alas, x86 emulation in Uboot is not absolutely required for anything, as the only thing it does is run graphics BIOS so uboot menues are visible onscreen before it loads any OS.

Last edited by billt on 09-Jun-2006 at 04:58 AM.

_________________
All glory to the Hypnotoad!

@Helgis

We DONT need X86!!

What we DO need is a cheap G5 (optional Dual G5) MoBo with current PCI-E GFX support (eg. X1900 ) a port of BF2, WOW, CS source and Open office with good M$ datatype.

This would kick the system up a gear not realy feasible but hey it WOULD work.

how about a Amiga original game "Super Frieden Bros." ????

Last edited by Panthro on 09-Jun-2006 at 06:29 AM.

_________________

@all

As per thread . . "SHOULD AmigaOS Be Ported To x86..."

NO . . .

It hasn't even been finished on PPC yet, and porting it will make the final release that much farther away, besides there are some very interesting PPC Tech coming like P.A.Semi Power Core Processor . .

And - There's no license for it . . . So get over it. . . .

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@wegster

Quote:

The only chance of _good_ 'different' is in the PS3 or a Cell board. The rest is irrelevant hardware-wise..

I agree with you, weggy.

Quote:

That one remains yet to be seen, while they have many times more users than OS4.

Some of the Zeta users are ex amiga users

Quote:

OS/2 sold. I think I bought at least two versions of it. It made money, again, unlike OS4.

I was OS/2 warp beta tester as wel as Visual Age for c++ Beta Tester and when i ask to the many Ibm employee that work with me: why Ibm do not put more effort in OS/2 developement? They answer: OS/2 is strong and powerfull os that never had the mass flavor.

For Linux we can discuss more...

But i love this sentences: Quote:

I think that's the first sane thing I've heard you say recently!

Champagne!!!!! Weggy wrote that i say something sane.

Thank you Wegster.



At least we are in agreement for the PS3 or the Cell

_________________
retired

@Panthro

Quote:

We DONT need X86!! What we DO need is a cheap G5 (optional Dual G5) MoBo with current PCI-E GFX support (eg. X1900 ) a port of BF2, WOW, CS source and Open office with good M$ datatype.

Part of the problem is that the "cheap G5 (optional Dual G5) Mobo" is probably never going to happen. Should we really better keep on dreaming about stuff that is never going to happen than to move on and find a solution?

@wolfe
Quote:

It hasn't even been finished on PPC yet, and porting it will make the final release that much farther away, besides there are some very interesting PPC Tech coming like P.A.Semi Power Core Processor . .

Hyperion could have released the "final" version around Christmas when there had been hardware. Prerelease 4 would have been 4.0 final. With no hardware available, Hyperion surely uses the time for further improving the OS.
When talking about porting to x86, most ppl are not referring to OS 4.0 and Hyperion, but about what might happen after OS 4.0 final is released (there are multiple scenarios, e.g. Hyperion abandoning the desktop market and another company picking up development).

@elatour

Quote:

elatour wrote: @jorkany Quote: ...because an Intel version of OS X has always been built in parallel with the PPC version. When one considers that the work on a x86 version of the MacOS began five years ago . . . . .

I think that it can be safely said that it began far longer than "five years ago"-

Star Trek: Apple's First Mac OS on Intel Project
Quote:

The project to bring the Mac OS to the Intel 486 began on Valentine's Day in 1992 and was named "Star Trek". The project was blessed by Intel's CEO Andy Grove, who feared Microsoft's power in the PC market. The task was a tedious one. Much of the software was written in assembly code to make the computer faster and use less disk space. All of this code had to be totally rewritten for the 486. Other parts of the operating system were easier The group missed their deadline by a month and had a functional demo ready by December 1, 1992. Apple executives were amazed to see the Finder run on an ordinary PC.

_________________
-vortexau, who's A1 XE-G4 remains at half-RAM !
A2000HD (from 1991) 060 64Mb PicassoII with OS3.5 . . . still working.

@Helgis

It should not be ported. Have you ever thought about piracy? My idea is that if you want to get out some money of the project you have to sell it bundled with a specific hardware. Otherwise, ported to an existing plattform, I think it will be copied. Remember the good old Commodore 64 times ...

naz

@Helgis

Quote:

Why not do like this? Support PPC/Cell for Embeddet, and x86 for Amiga desktop?

Probably because it's twice the effort!!!!

I have an OS4 Workbench, and i don't see that changing.
It runs at 666mhz, and it beats the cr4p out of any windows Desktop.

Os4 may not (yet) have the required applications to replace a Win PC, but the win desktop on a 2.6ghz processor is slower than workbench on my a1.

_________________
Peter Swallow.
A1XEG3-800 [IBM 750FX PowerPC], running OS4.1FE, using ac97 onboard sound.

"There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't."

Quote:

billt wrote: @Hammer Quote: I recall, UBOOT has a light weight X86 emulation... Yes, and as soon as kickstart is loaded that emulation is gone. As soon as OS4 "starts", that emulation is gone. For classic Amigas, it's not present. OS4 of A4000 with Prometheus uses the same driver source code but has a little extra to do the same thing that uboot emulation does for us on AmigaOne. For AmigaOne we can remove that code from the driver, but it already exists, works, and shows that the x86 emulation is not required for OS4 after OS4 is actually running. This emulation is a convenience to alow youto see the BIOS settings menues before any OS is running, be it OS4 or Linux or whatever. Actually, OS4 would be in a better state without this emulation than LinuxPPC would be. Why? Because Linux Radeon drivers do not know how to do the chip setup stuff, they assume that the BIOS has already done that, and there is no driver code to replace that work if the BIOS doesn't do it. This early startup work was the first thing we had to do, since the driver was originally developed on A3000 with Prometheus and we could not use the x86 emulation. No one at Forefront had an AmigaOne until later, after this stuff already worked. We parse the Radeon BIOS directly in the driver and don't require any x86 emulation to do it for us, but if it's already done there's no need to repeat it, so on AmigaOne we don't. This should be true for any graphics chip usable on Classic machines with PCI. Alas, x86 emulation in Uboot is not absolutely required for anything, as the only thing it does is run graphics BIOS so uboot menues are visible onscreen before it loads any OS.

I'm aware of "light weight" x86 emulation reationship with AmigaOne's BIOS i.e. some Alpha workstations do a similar trick.

Last edited by Hammer on 09-Jun-2006 at 12:17 PM.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

@Hatchi

Amiga was actually a leisure computing platform number one in the end of the 80-ies and early 90s. It can do it again by doing it in the right way as i mentioned...

@Swoop

Quote:

Os4 may not (yet) have the required applications to replace a Win PC, but the win desktop on a 2.6ghz processor is slower than workbench on my a1.

For business, those Windows titles are built on certain middleware APIs which Os4 lacks.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

@Helgis

I think it is a bad idea.. Amiga was a computer for people who wanted something different than PC`s... Besides, PPC is still using in servers. x86 seems to be powerfull CPU but if you try to use it in the same way like you do on Amiga, you will se that it is less then power ;)

@All

The issue about having AmigaOS ported to x86 or not is very complicated. I still believe this should be a wise alternative path.

Don't get me wrong. I also hope that PPC hardwares get cheap, better and just as much volumes as with x86. That was never the case. I do hope it will happen, but it's hard to believe that when seeing where other platforms have gone...

I do appreciate greatly the work Hyperion has put into developing AmigaOS4 for PPC. Yes, they do a brilliant job and i don't want Hyperion to fall away from the Amiga community. If they only could do the same by porting it to x86. Well, well...

If it happens that PPC hardwares actually become cheaper and easier to get just like with x86 hardwares, then i shall change my mind and then i will fully believe PPC really is the way to go for the Amiga. As it stands now, we still believe x86 is the most ideal choice here, no offense...

@tjindy

Don't all of you think that i really want PPC instead of x86? Actually i do. I love PPC so much, but it's very hard to see how it can be as cheap and easy to get as x86...

If this really happens in 2007, with new hardwares, and that they become as cheap and easy as x86 hardwares, then i shall finally wave goodbye to the whole x86 thing and say they can go jump in the lake. I'll keep a close eye on this process...

@Naz
Quote:

Otherwise, ported to an existing plattform, I think it will be copied. Remember the good old Commodore 64 times ...

Yes, I remember the C64 times. The world's most popular home computer. There are _still_ games being developed for it and _bought_. Then there is Microsoft, with Windows as the worlds _most successful_ desktop OS.
Not particular good examples for proving your point, don't you think?

_________________
This signature is in the middle of a much needed facelift!