@agami

in my view hardware is not that important anymore. But moving to X64 brings some differences. First nothing like Petunia, so it will feel very different. Something that often was used against using Aros. 68k can be emulated in UAE though. Old software will have to be recompiled, in case of a 64bit OS sources will have to be changed. And that will be even more the case, the more modern features you implement so if you have a 64bit OS with SMP and MP you will certainly need heavy adapted sources. The MorphOS members already admitted that in such a new MorphOS no 3rd party software except their own will work anymore. So people should be aware what they ask for...

on the other hand there is the advantage of different choices:
MorphOS NG with modern features but dropped compatibility running on X64 + old MorphOS on PPC
AROS that aims for compatibility and at the same time adding modern features and being opensource and crossplatform
AmigaOS aiming for offering the Amiga feeling running on PPC
and of course the different options regarding 68k including FPGA and emulation

the disadvantage... all are developing in different directions so cross-platform development is increasingly difficult to impossible

my personal view

There should be one Amiga platform only is my view. That would minimise compatibility issues substantially, the companies should pool together and set aside there difference to create the new Amiga, the true successor to the Amiga 4000 T.

This will reduce costs of production, increase sales due to a lower price, and stop the further fragmentation of the user base which will ulitimately result in the platform's extinction.

Get Amiga OS 4.x running on it, decide on a CPU to use and go from there.

If it is PPC, then so be it, though whatever is decided will need to be future proof and open to further upgrades in the future, i.e. not a processor that is stuck in 2006 and cannot go any further.

My two pence, let the flaming commence

_________________
Founder of NWAG - North West Amiga Group

Night Operations

A1200 020/28MHz + 64Mb / 4Gb CF / OS 3.1.4.1 / 1438S
A500+ / 2Mb
A600

@spudisgood

gratulation... registered a few days... 4 posts and already flaming

good job

@iggy

Quote:

If we move to X64, we just become an alternative to Windows, OSX, and Linux.

I have nothing again moving to x86_64 — I think it would be a good move for Amiga overall — but I think a move to ARM would be a better option, specifically the Raspberry Pi, which has two major advantages:

1. There are already a few million of them out there, and only a few configurations. As a software developer I like targeting a few specific configurations rather than the millions of hardware combinations that exist in the x86 world.

2. It's underpowered, which is a great way to avoid bloated software.

Last edited by bison on 03-Sep-2015 at 07:12 PM.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@pavlor

Quote:

I use WinUAE, but both emulators share relevant code. 500-1000 MHz G3 in integer operations (depending on application), 100 MHz G3 in FPU operations (on Core i5-2500 3.3 GHz). Other limitations: 128 MB RAM, 4 MB VRAM, 10 Mbit LAN, no Compositing, no 3D, no USB etc.

What kind of hardware are you using for the host system, and does AmigaOS 4 run via emulation well enough, or is it slow?

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@Nibunnoichi

Quote:

I have a SAM and i really enjoy it, but the problem is that when it will eventually break i'm not so sure i could/want to afford a >1000€ computer.

Having one's last Amiga die is a terrible feeling.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@bison

Quote:

What kind of hardware are you using for the host system, and does AmigaOS 4 run via emulation well enough, or is it slow?

As I wrote, Core i5-2500 3.3 GHz. OS is fast, but mentioned limitations are severe (mainly 128 MB RAM). Using higher resolution (1680x1050 in my case) is also slower, because GFX card driver is 68k (to be fair, it is not that bad, but it is really visible in comparison to UAEGFX). GFX slowdown is most noticeable in video playback (lack of overlay) - CPU decoding part is faster than SAM.
For 30 EUR, you may try yourself.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @iggy I did most of the work of making schematic and layout symbols for T1 (with T2081 support built in, as it is basically a reduced feature set except for some new power pins) yesterday. Had already split out pin listings from datasheet and run them through my awk scripts to make eagle scripts, now I have all the symbol pins (allthough most symbols are still just a row of pins, as sorting them in sensible functions groups is a tedious but simple job and not necessary until the symbols actually get put in a schematic) and the complete device with connections from pin to physical pad. DDR controller is 100% done, as I usually like to start with that. So at least one percent done towards my own T1/T2 design I agree with most of the assessments here, T2 makes the most sense from a core perspective, but T1 for entry level really is very good. T1024 would be a good idea if it wasn't a dead end, design wise. With T1020 and not using QE and DIU, you have an altivec in the upgrade path.

The biggest problem with the T2081 is the lack of SATA support.

And to the rest of the thread, I have the luxury of being able to consider one more PPC based system, knowing that the development team I depend on for my OS is working on a path to an alternate ISA.

And, yes, not only do I like PPCs but as this will be my last link to anything outside the PC market I'm going to hold on to that indefinitely.

In any case, a shift will HAVE to occur eventually.

I recently received a message from a Freescale service representative that stated that the e5500 IS a dead end (no more revisions or new products based on that core).
I still like the e5500 cored T1024 as an entry level product, but the e6500 is the only core they are currently considering for a future chip (and that plan is not formalized yet).

In the future, Freescale obviously intends to focus on ARM (as their competitor AMCC has done).

So, whether you prefer the PPC over other alternatives is a moot point.

The Power PC will live on in the Power 8 line, but for desktop PCs there seems to be only one logical choice.

Last edited by iggy on 03-Sep-2015 at 06:58 PM.

@spudisgood

Quote:

spudisgood wrote: There should be one Amiga platform only is my view. ..................................................................... If it is PPC, then so be it, though whatever is decided will need to be future proof and open to further upgrades in the future, i.e. not a processor that is stuck in 2006 and cannot go any further. My two pence, let the flaming commence

The only part of your post I see as impossible is "future proof", at least until we can see the future.

I absolutely agree with hardware stability. Hardware makers do not, of course.
For a hobby system in a small market jumping around to whatever the flavor of the day is IMO is a sure path to death.

Am I wrong(?). Unknown, can't see tomorrow.

_________________
Tinkering with computers.

@pavlor

Quote:

For 30 EUR, you may try yourself.

I just sent a sales email to Amigakit.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner