Is the firewire port now able to use storage mediums?. Also, are the low vram modifications made?.

_________________
Amiga 1200 desktop. Apollo 030/50 Mhz 8mb ram + ClassicWB + Wb 3.1
Amiga 500 + ACA500plus 8mb + 30gb CF
Raspberry Pi 3b+ and Amibian 1.4
Mac Mini G4 1GB Ram with the butterfly!!

@kas1e

Quote:

There is lack of fast and good hardware for morphos.

There's not. There may be a lack of new native applications but hardware speed&availability don't stop development of any application.

Quote:

By fast i mean not 1.5ghz, but 3ghz.

Do you think that fastest hardware is automatically supported by any OS? MorphOS has been shown running on a dual 2.7Ghz G5. As I say, that's enough fast for me.

I'm happy with my 1.5Ghz Mac Mini. You can even find dual 2Ghz 7448 G4 accelerators for powermac. I don't mind waiting a little to get my powerbook supported, I don't mind waiting some more time for G5 support, but it seems you negate the fact that supporting G5 requires far less effort than switching to x86-64 right now. Supporting ppc right now doesn't predate future developments since all the sources can be designed to be portable to 64bit and little endian.

Quote:

if you want to do something very heavy, raw-power are must, and, 1.5ghz are not enough.

You have dual cpu cards, you even have tetra-G5 machines. 4 G5 running at 2.5Ghz with ~1Ghz bus is enough fast and can be accomplished fast. Stopping powerpc development and switching to x86 without improving current version is a suicide in terms of user base because x86 version would take quite a lot of years and a G5 version is much easier/faster to do and it already runs on top of that hardware. They can even switch to 64bits

If you left os4 due to both lack of performance&poor hardware it doesn't mean MorphOS users have to do the same. If I wanted a 2Ghz MorphOS machine I would already have it.

_________________
The only spanish amiga news web page/club: CUAZ

@_ThEcRoW

"yes" to both questions.

_________________
The only spanish amiga news web page/club: CUAZ

These are great news for MOS. Looking forward to the X64/ARM version. I do believe that X64 would make more sense(for the forseeable future), but I wouldn't pass on an ARM port either.

_________________

@kas1e

Quote:

Invest to classic version of aros ? And swith to classic version of aros ?

whatever (version of aros), its a free world and its everybodys own choice. for me x86 aros was never that much of a subject up till now. it might become but i have better productivity systems for that hardware now. we will see how it develops.

Quote:

i accept only what i want to accept.

same for everybody else. working together compromises have to be made though. deal with it,;)

@scabit

Quote:

I don't see hardware compatibility with the AmigaOne MicroA1. Is there anything special involved in making that happen or would that be just minor "tweaks" to MOS to get it to work?

Let's do a list, why it might not be that good idea:

1)It's not manufactured anymore (not that much of an issue without the next item)
2)It was sold in really low quantities, some of which are already broken.
3)As it was requirement for using what could be seen as direct comptitor to MorphOS, it's not likely THAT many people would buy it.
4)Those who REALLY want to try MorphOS can buy a sub-GHz (or faster) supported PowerMac for few dozen euros. As an added bonus, it might be faster than the A1 he already has.
5)Involvement of some people, who haven't had very good relationship with MorphOS team (to put it very nicely), could mention Ben Hermans, for example.

And these two matter the most, in my opinion:
6)Availability of cheaper, faster, more widespread, more reliable hardware, which should be supported first ("Anything PPC" from Apple).
7)Availability of new device category (along with everything from the previous list) that hasn't been supported at all yet: Apple laptops.

Let's add one more:
8)Availability of currently unsupported devices, that are more rare or worse than currently supported models, that should be supported before any niche hardware, (like A1 / uA1 / A1X1000 etc.) - f.ex. MacBooks and G5 PowerMacs.

Of course this is just my opinion.

@Crumb

Sorry, but i can't understand why you trying to put OS4 in the talks. I leave os4 because they not make me betatester, that all, there is no other reasson, and all the pluses which i found on AROS (cheap and fast hw) i found even 2 years ago.

I do not know how you can say that 1.5 ghz is fast, and 3ghz are not need it. I want to edited videos (fast), i want to browse internet even faster in 2-3 times than on 1.5ghz. I want decode audio/video fast. I want save big gfx files fast. I want DosBox which will works fast-fast (faster than on 1.5ghz). But not on windows/linux/macos, but on something new and interesting like morphos.

For me its seems strange that someone will not agree with the fact, that faster hardware are better than slower hardware.

And that have nothing to do with aos4, its general , as we discuss just "how good to have cheap and _very fast_ HW". Of course one can explain why for him 68k with 020 are enough, another one can explain why for him 1.5ghz are enough. But , have 3ghz, or 5ghz, its always better, than have 20mhz, or 1ghz, or 2ghz.

Quote:

Stopping powerpc development and switching to x86 without improving current version is a suicide in terms of user base because x86 version would take quite a lot of years and a G5 version is much easier/faster to do and it already runs on top of that hardware. They can even switch to 64bits

Pretty possible, but still, 1.5ghz are slower than 3ghz. No ?:)

Last edited by kas1e on 14-Nov-2011 at 05:20 PM.

_________________
Join us to improve dopus5!
zerohero's mirror of os4/os3 crosscompiler suites

I think its a good move to move mos to another architecture, specially more modern and cheaper ones. i would vote x64 but ARM sounds good to specially as its used in alot of devices today. Ditching 68k compatibility is very welcome if it means memoryprotection and other new and better/faster stuff. Not for many people but for folks like me. Ok im an OS4 user but i think the same for OS4.

Problem would be replacing 68k software we like with new native ones. Some could be run under an emulator. For example on summer vacation i use hd-rec under winuar on my windows laptop to control my hardware synthesizer. But that i can thank to winuae and drivers in windows.

But it wouldnt make everyone happy. However some things needs to be removed to get forward.

@kas1e

Quote:

For me its seems strange that someone will not agree with the fact, that faster hardware are better than slower hardware.

I think we misunderstood each other. You said development for next PPC machines should stop and focus on other things e.g. x86-64. I say current plan is ok as it's better to support G5 because it can be done with little effort (it's running there already) and later port to other architectures.

You claimed that m68k compatibility would affect negatively to 64bit and multi-cpu support and that may be true on other OSes but not on MorphOS since they can add that features to Q-Box and can already make 64bit portable code as it's done right now with AROS (the sources compile ok on both m68k and amd64)

Quote:

Pretty possible, but still, 1.5ghz are slower than 3ghz. No ?:)

If it means waiting a few months for a 3Ghz G5 version it's great, if it means waiting 4 years stopping ppc support completely for a future x86-64 version that may or may not come to x86-64 it's not good for me.

MorphOS Team plan sounds very reasonable for me.

Quote:

i can't understand why you trying to put OS4 in the talks

I can't understand that you think that leaving MorphOS users stuck a few years waiting for a vapourware x86-64 version and not releasing the G5 versions they already have working in some months is a good idea. Perhaps it's because in you experience the hardware has been very limited, I don't know.

Quote:

I do not know how you can say that 1.5 ghz is fast, and 3ghz are not need it. I want to edited videos (fast)

I don't have interest in editing video otherwise I probably wouldn't be using any Amiga "NG" since we lack software. Anyway that requires software, not hardware. If it was a hardware problem then a QuadG5 is quite fast for that. I prefer a G5 version on less than a year than waiting 4 years without updates for a totally incompatible x86-64 version like you seem to propose

Quote:

, i want to browse internet even faster in 2-3 times than on 1.5ghz.

My equipment is quite fast, the bottleneck is not the hardware but the software (we don't have a Javascript JIT).

As I tell you a QuadG5 machine is probably enough fast, I would think that faster than some of the machines you have at home.

Quote:

I want decode audio/video fast.

My Mac Mini can almost play 1920x1080 mpeg2 video and I'm pretty sure a 1.8Ghz G4 can. That's right now with MorphOS. Not waiting for dreams.

Quote:

I want save big gfx files fast.

Rest assured, DMA works on Macs.

Quote:

I want DosBox which will works fast-fast (faster than on 1.5ghz).

I don't care much about a crappy pc emulator. If I wanted to run pc software I would use a pc.

Quote:

But not on windows/linux/macos, but on something new and interesting like morphos.

whatever. My comment was mostly because I prefer MorphOS-Team plan of giving good support to Apple Hardware and in the long term porting to x86-64/ARM instead of your idea of showing the middle finger to current users and leaving them stuck without updates 4 or 5 years waiting for a vapourware version that may or may not come. As I told you, MorphOS users like enjoying stuff right now instead of dreaming about vapourware.

I prefer MorphOS Team to port to G5, then add 64bit, then perhaps improve qbox, then maybe port to other architecture, etc instead of leaving PPC completely and switching to x86-64 forcing users to wait many years (and that without counting loosing all compatibility)

_________________
The only spanish amiga news web page/club: CUAZ

If you're going to lose compatibility with existing software then X86 makes much more sense than ARM. At the moment most ARM devices are tablets, for which an Amiga like OS UI isn't suited to, and the desktop systems that are starting to filter through are thin client systems with specs which wouldn't appeal to most Amiga fans.

AMD and Intel are the kings of high performance desktop computing and I don't that's going to change in the next couple of years.

@KimmoK

ABox has been always running in a co-operative sandbox (drivers are inside ABox and many more) and it doesnt have to run under Quark specifically.

And I dont think ABox is going away because it is what Amiga developers know best. You dont really define new OS from the scratch and expect to have applications for it.

@kas1e

Just dont expect MorphOS to be new Amiga messiah bringing light and joy to every home on the earth.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@Rob
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss ARM. One factor to bear in mind is that Windows 8 is going to support ARM. With support like that, there's definitely the possibility for low power desktop ARM PCs. I'd imagine it'll only be after the launch of the Cortex-A15 that you'll see such devices in sizable numbers, as it should prove powerful enough for a good chunk of desktop computing tasks. Shouldn't be long now before the first Cortex-A15 based devices are released:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4976/arm-cadence-tape-out-20nm-cortex-a15-test-chip

@HenryCase

For average Joe having an ARM inside his peecee won't bring many advantages, he'll try to run Windows7 software without success then he'll return the ARM box to the shop and will exchange it by a much more compatible x86 one.

I don't expect ARM to replace x86 on desktop, companies may be interested if it brings very big savings of power but if companies were concerned about that we would be using low-power laptop-like x86 cpus on desktops, much more compatible.

For me the availability of Windows8 for ARM is as relevant as the availability of WindowsNT for PowerPC well, seriously, it may be interesting since tablets/smartphones could use the same binaries and it could make development and testing more comfortable but I think it won't make a big impact on x86 sales.

Last edited by Crumb on 14-Nov-2011 at 08:59 PM.

_________________
The only spanish amiga news web page/club: CUAZ

@Crumb
Seeing as its common knowledge that Windows 8 will support ARM, you can expect developers of Windows 8 software to target both x64 and ARM. Why would they limit their market unnecessarily? ARM devices outnumber x86/x64 devices by a large margin, x86/x64 may be the market leader in the desktop and server space right now, but you can expect ARM to make inroads in these areas soon, it's already starting in the server market:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15540910

@WolfToTheMoon

Don't expect the switch to come rather soon. It was *not* an official announcement, that MorphOS will switch ISA at date x, but only that once ppc desktop supply dries out another ISA may get considered. Nothing new for those following MorphOS a little closer.

_________________
My programs: via.bckrs.de
MorphOS user since V0.4 (2001)

@HenryCase

Quote:

you can expect developers of Windows 8 software to target both x64 and ARM. Why would they limit their market unnecessarily?

Because it's extra work that requires extra time and developers time costs money. It depends on the app and the tools used, with .net perhaps it's easier.

We'll see if anything more than MS Office is ported.

Quote:

ARM devices outnumber x86/x64 devices by a large margin,

And commodore64 outnumbers many other devices I can think about but it doesn't mean anything because mobile market is not the same as desktop market. There are powerpc chips embedded in many other devices like cars but that doesn't mean anything in desktop computers

Quote:

x86/x64 may be the market leader in the desktop and server space right now, but you can expect ARM to make inroads in these areas soon, it's already starting in the server market:

Can average Joe go to a shop, buy an ARM desktop, install WoW or Starcraft2 and a pirate copy of photoshop and have his cheap old windows usb printer working? Without basic compatibility with x86 there are little chances ARM takes over x86.

Can companies replace their pcs running 10-year old apps that can't be recompiled? Is there any advantage for them?

Many talks about ARM but you still can't buy an ARM system that competes with 5 year old Quad-G5 machines...

there are also various super-computers using ppcs, IBM still uses POWER cpus on servers, and WinNT ran on MIPS, Alpha, PowerPC, intel... if you ask a customer if he wants to be able to run all the x86 available software or he prefers to have an incompatible computer with much less software what do you expect the answer to be? people is not interested on "cool" cpus much, they care about the software they'll be able to run x86 runs much more software and is compatible with their crap windows-only printers and so on.

According to the link you posted "He said the ARM-based chips would be suitable for delivering static web pages, but not tasks that involved heavy number crunching." and also "HP also plans to offer Intel's energy-efficient Atom processors as an alternative."

Anyway... I don't care much about the future cpus, I care about inmediate releases for Mac hardware and MorphOS 3.x looks very interesting.

Last edited by Crumb on 14-Nov-2011 at 11:44 PM.
Last edited by Crumb on 14-Nov-2011 at 11:43 PM.

_________________
The only spanish amiga news web page/club: CUAZ

@Drako

WoW! Big step ahead for MOS with 3.x
Looking forward to reviews and sounding more and more tempting.

Wi-Fi and NTFS driver and Radeon 9800 support are just great as well as full Mac hardware support! A real v3.0!

_________________
Future Acube and MOS supporter, fi di good, nothing fi di unprofessionals. Learn it harder way!

Great news! IMHO, release 3.0 for any already chosen, targeted and existing Mac hardware and then make the switch happen. Most G5 I have seen have a suggested pricing around 350USD (for single core and below the 2Ghz point). I don't think that the amount justifies the expense for an outsider of our community, because you have to add up the cost of MOS as well. IMHO for 99.99% of ppl a 450USD hobby system is as rational as the forthcoming low end ppc nettbook for AOS. But since the decision for port has already been discussed better hurry up and instead of targeting filling the needs of existing users, just start making the migration and perhaps the user base expands more. ARM suits for mobile computing currently. Just go for the x64. Imagine a small footprint OS sitting on a hardware beast ;)

Last edited by Cool_amigaN on 15-Nov-2011 at 08:18 AM.
Last edited by Cool_amigaN on 15-Nov-2011 at 08:17 AM.

_________________

@HenryCase

Quote:

ARM devices outnumber x86/x64 devices by a large margin

That's very true but...

How many of those are:
1)Really usable at ALL for desktop OS (remove from list "obvious devices", like everything without (a way to add) display, for example)
2)Don't have any prevention mechanisms againist users installing own OS (f.ex. many phones have those)
3)Would be useful for average user (f.ex. tablets aren't really, as MorphOS isn't really that usable without a keyboard, touchscreen controls would need adjustments too (lack of RMB) but that would be easier to solve than the lack of keyboard - phones aren't that good candidate too, as most users would expect being able to make calls etc. and many have same issues as tablets)
4)Are available in same configuration in large enough amounts? As with PowerPC, porting to certain architecture doesn't mean the OS will automagically work with any hardware configuration that happens to have the same CPU.

And last but not least: porting to ARM would put MorphOS in direct competition againist not only Microsoft Windows but also RiscOS!1!

(just kidding, that's non-issue, of course)

@Crumb

Quote:

Crumb wrote: Quote: you can expect developers of Windows 8 software to target both x64 and ARM. Why would they limit their market unnecessarily? Because it's extra work that requires extra time and developers time costs money. It depends on the app and the tools used, with .net perhaps it's easier.

Actually, that's not necessarily true. It's possible to develop software that is compatible with more than one CPU architecture, it's a matter of making portability a priority at the start, so that getting the new arch supported isn't much more than a few tweaks and a recompile. Look at what happened when OS X switched from PPC to x86, developers supported both during the transition.

Of course it helps to build software with portability in mind from the start, but to state it's going to be expensive for all developers to support ARM is completely false.

Quote:

Crumb wrote: Quote: ARM devices outnumber x86/x64 devices by a large margin, And commodore64 outnumbers many other devices I can think about but it doesn't mean anything because mobile market is not the same as desktop market. There are powerpc chips embedded in many other devices like cars but that doesn't mean anything in desktop computers

Except that the plan for Windows 8 is clearly for the mobile and desktop space to converge. The worlds won't merge, but they will get closer.

Quote:

Crumb wrote: Quote: x86/x64 may be the market leader in the desktop and server space right now, but you can expect ARM to make inroads in these areas soon, it's already starting in the server market: Can average Joe go to a shop, buy an ARM desktop, install WoW or Starcraft2 and a pirate copy of photoshop and have his cheap old windows usb printer working? Without basic compatibility with x86 there are little chances ARM takes over x86.

I didn't say take over, I said 'make inroads', you don't become no.1 in an established market overnight. My point is, the momentum for ARM in the desktop/server space is growing.

Quote:

Crumb wrote: Can companies replace their pcs running 10-year old apps that can't be recompiled? Is there any advantage for them?

How many of those companies are likely to upgrade their OS any time soon either?

Quote:

Crumb wrote: people is not interested on "cool" cpus much, they care about the software they'll be able to run x86 runs much more software and is compatible with their crap windows-only printers and so on.

Average consumers may not care much about the CPU, but they do care about the features it can unlock. For example, imagine having a laptop with a 24 hr battery life. Considering most computer users spend their life on the Internet, having a smartbook (ARM-based netbook) would not limit their computing, and may end up enhancing it.

You can ignore the growth of ARM if you want, but the industry certainly knows that the momentum for ARM is growing. Suggest you think about why that is.