@Loki1

The desktop market is a dyin breed, manufacturers know this, and are heading towards the convergance markets. Y do u think M$ and Sony are putting to much emphisis on 'entertainment machine' not 'games console'.

There will be no desktop market in a number of years.


Edit -Typo

Last edited by treblesix on 07-Jun-2005 at 03:15 PM.

_________________
Dark Lord Design Wicked Solutions For Damned Problems

@Hammer
We (Mac users) were sold on PPC as a superior
CPU architecture. Now we are being told that the
PPC roadmap won't allow Apple to create some
undefined next generation stuff just as 3 other
rather large companies have decided to use the
PPC processor family in their next gen devices.
I suspect it's more about supply and price than
any supposed technical merit, but I know you will
find some obscure X86 spec that will refute this.
It's all rather depressing really.

Job's actions remind me of a quote I remember
from a Woody Allen flick. Something about never
wanting to join a club that would have him as a
member.

@Hammer

I don?t understand why these fanatics can?t view Apple as equal to Microsoft or SUN in relation to multiple ISA support?

Because it's simple; When Mac users think of Intel, they think of Microsoft (hence Wintel). It's about the same as when rumors started circulating about the Xbox 2 (hence Xbox 360) was going to be PowerPC-based, people were in denial of it (saying that AMD would use IBM to fab the mysterious Athlon for Xbox, etc...) because when people think Microsoft, they think Intel (hence Wintel). I guess the Xbox gang is as fanatical as the Mac gang

I'll admit, it's a hard pill so swallow with the idea of Apple going Intel. It would be like you going to church one sunday and the preacher says, well we've decided to do a transition; God hasn't been delivering what we really need, so we're going to worship the devil instead since he seems to have a better roadmap. Sounds crazy, yes, but the feeling is sort of the same. Of course I don't worship my PowerPC-based Macs or BeBox. I use and abuse my PC as well (AMD Inside). And speaking of which, I would have preferred Apple to have chosen AMD over Intel, but I guess Apple must have gotten a sweetheart deal with going Intel over AMD.

I guess it would be the same as Chevrolet saying that Ford Motor Company has a better engine roadmap than say General Motors, so we'll be slamming 302s into new Chevys rather than the usual 350s because they have more horsepower per cylinder or something. You know Chevy fans would go ballistic on such a thought. If you're in a different region of the world, just replace Chevy and Ford with Honda and Toyota and/or BMW and Mercedes and/or whatever 2 cars that rival in your part of the world.

_________________

@AmigaMac

Quote:

I guess it would be the same as Chevrolet saying that Ford Motor Company has a better engine roadmap than say General Motors, so we'll be slamming 302s into new Chevys rather than the usual 350s because they have more horsepower per cylinder or something. You know Chevy fans would go ballistic on such a thought. If you're in a different region of the world, just replace Chevy and Ford with Honda and Toyota and/or BMW and Mercedes and/or whatever 2 cars that rival in your part of the world.

Ford hasn't made the 302 for quite a while. It was surplanted by the 281.

@falemagn

Quote:

I'm astonished no one apart from me noticed those incongruencies.

they are speaking for themselves not for the company, and each can have their own opinions

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@smithy

Quote:

Remember, that the Amiga wasn't just about good multimedia. It was about putting that capability into the hands of the ordinary person.

well said !

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@BrianK

Ford hasn't made the 302 for quite a while. It was surplanted by the 281.

When did this happen? The Mustang 5.0s were 302s if I'm not mistaken. Of course I pay as much attention to Ford as I do the Oprah Winfrey show (pretty much no attention).

_________________

@AmigaMac

Quote:

AmigaMac wrote: @BrianK Ford hasn't made the 302 for quite a while. It was surplanted by the 281. When did this happen? The Mustang 5.0s were 302s if I'm not mistaken. Of course I pay as much attention to Ford as I do the Oprah Winfrey show (pretty much no attention).

Short answer - almost 10 years ago.

The Mustang 5.0s were 302s. However, Mustang 5.0s haven't existed in quite a while. Ford changed to a modular engine and in 96 the 281 replaced the 302. In 96 it was a Single Over Head Cam 281, 4.6L, instead of the push-rod 302 making very similar horsepower and torque w/ slightly better mileage and lots better environmental pollution. Ford 4.6LSOHC are from 200-300HP depending on year and application. Ford 4.6L DOHC are 280-390HP depending on year and application. As it's a modular V8 the 5.4L is closely related. Ford GT is a 550 HP 5.4L and the 2006 Mustang Cobra is a 450HP 5.4L.

The modular 4.0L V6 in the current Mustangs make 210HP a bit higher then what the last releases of the 5.0L V8 Mustangs put out.

EDIT -- DOH! So I don't get yelled at for being off topic I would like to say the Ford computers run an embedded PowerPC... So PowerPC has a future, perhaps not in desktops..

Last edited by BrianK on 07-Jun-2005 at 06:27 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 07-Jun-2005 at 06:25 PM.

@BrianK

Ford LIES!!!
302ci= 4.9 Liters! (4.94889333)
305= 5.0 liters!

They claim they "round up", but if that's the case, WHY do they say "5.0" instead of "5"???
Chevy 305, the TRUE 5.0!

Last edited by T_Bone on 07-Jun-2005 at 06:38 PM.
Last edited by T_Bone on 07-Jun-2005 at 06:32 PM.

_________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde

@nicholas

Quote:

I see, but that still doesn't detract from the fact he said he won't be making any new ones anytime soon.

Who makes the "mystery device"? We don't know. It may not be Eyetech. Judging by Alan's answers, I'd wager it's someone else. If Eyetech does not produce any more products for consumption by Amiga users, perhaps someone else will. It may not be called "AmigaOne", big deal. I think it'd be somewhat silly to see every single Amiga related computer until the end of time be called "AmigaOne". I'd hope that someday even Eyetech would have something worthy of distinction to call an "AmigaTwo" or something else. Surely even if they would stick with Mai and everyone survives and they build a 970/Articia-I board it would be enough of a step to deserve a new name...

How many serious proposals have come up to make an alternative? I've heard about two items. One was a set-top and things didn't work out, I understand they're looking at AROS now. The other was the guy who was silling to pony up the cash to try and license OS4 to Pegasos2. That didn't work out either, but it's not new news that there's been bridges burned long ago that are likely responsible for that situation.

OK, what else? Anyone? Maybe thre's something out there not publically known about. Maybe there's more than one mystery device. Maybe not. Maybe someone has a skunkworks project going on that hasn't been talked about at all, maybe not.

Point is, it seems plausible at this point to believe the mystery device isn't from Eyetech, though there is some possibility of this being incorrect assumption. Meaning if Eyetech moves on to green pastures and leaves this burnt droughted one behind, that may not necessarily be the end of everything. Similar to what Yoda said, there may be another...

_________________
All glory to the Hypnotoad!

@nicholas

Quote:

But as I said, all these embedded boards etc are purely exercises in academic thought as we have been repeatedly told you do not have permission to release OS4 for anything other than an Eyetech AmigaOne, and Alan said there will be no new hardware branded as AmigaOne, just the same one's already available.

That's not what I've got ut of any postings on this topic. Hyperion can't do whatever they want on their own, a license from Amiga Inc. is also required. Anything that can get a license from Amiga Inc. can have OS4 ported to it at that point, as permission would then be granted in this case.

_________________
All glory to the Hypnotoad!

@SHADES

Quote:

I don't know of any chipsets that are available for CEL to run standards, i.e. AGP PCI or PCIx etc.

That doesn't mean there aren't any. Or that there aren't any in development. How much do you personally know about Cell specs, interconnects, pin descriptions, or companion devices? Not enough to say they don't exist or are not on their way. They may very well have used the same interconnect as they did on the PPC970 and can use the same northbridge. Maybe they didn't and have or are working on an equivalent. It's silly to make such assumptions there won't be such a thing at all, ever...

_________________
All glory to the Hypnotoad!

@T_Bone

Quote:

I WANT to find a reason, desperately, to be able to buy an Amiga desktop system, but I feel it's being marginalised into something unreasonable. Eyetech is apathetic to another production run, and Hyperion is apethetic to the desktop... so how am I supposed to feel anything but apethetic to the combined offerings?

I think you're reading entirely too much into the statements that were made.

EyeTech said they will not be able to produce the uA1-I or XC without external sales. So what? That has nothing to do with continued production of existing uA1-Cs, although I think he could have been a bit clearer on this, as evidenced by the confusion.

Hyperion realistically said as ONLY a desktop OS, it couldn't sustain growth/profit etc, in it's current state, so are also targetting the embedded market. Again, so what? Embedded systems _need_ development environments...care to guess what that would be? HINT- uhh...AOS?

Bear in mind also that some types of embedded systems are not very far from a desktop computer- STBs may hide underlying OS functionality, but that doesn't mean it's not there, and needed in the development environment. STBs can certainly need 3d drivers among other things...so, where's the problem here?

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

@wegster

Quote:

Bear in mind also that some types of embedded systems are not very far from a desktop computer- STBs may hide underlying OS functionality, but that doesn't mean it's not there, and needed in the development environment. STBs can certainly need 3d drivers among other things...so, where's the problem here?

To add to what you said, the Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8000 DVR that was provided to me by Time Warner takes several minutes to cold boot, even before loading the channel guide software. I'd imagine an OS that boots in under a minute (definitely NOT talking Linux here) would be an asset in this market.

_________________
Tony T.

People who generalize are always wrong.


1989 - 500 / 1991 - 3000 / 1997 - Genesis Flyer 1200T / 2003 - A1XE

@syrtran

Quote:

To add to what you said, the Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8000 DVR that was provided to me by Time Warner takes several minutes to cold boot, even before loading the channel guide software. I'd imagine an OS that boots in under a minute (definitely NOT talking Linux here) would be an asset in this market.

Good point - I don't have the DVR, but their normal cable boxes do much the same....although I wonder how much of it is network communication and waiting for a response? (IOW, something that may not be able to be changed by a different OS?)

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

@AmigaMac

Quote:

AmigaMac wrote: I guess it would be the same as Chevrolet saying that Ford Motor Company has a better engine roadmap than say General Motors, so we'll be slamming 302s into new Chevys rather than the usual 350s because they have more horsepower per cylinder or something. You know Chevy fans would go ballistic on such a thought. If you're in a different region of the world, just replace Chevy and Ford with Honda and Toyota and/or BMW and Mercedes and/or whatever 2 cars that rival in your part of the world.

Blasphemy!

I wouldn't consider a Ford engine worthy enough. And a honda engine doesn't have enough to torque my lug nuts.

A Chevy with a FoMoCo prime mover is just wrong.

The 350 is the auto world's equivilent of the PPC. Whatever you could throw at it, it could handle it...

The Ford "302" and "5.0" are different engines, different casting etc. They're both rubbish (name another engine that physically splits in two when you get up over 400 horses), the 351 Windsor is far superior.

Of course arguing over Ford and Chevy engines on an Amiga board is just plain dumb, as everyone knows Mopar engines kick their asses

Oh yeah, the 350 Chevy is more like an x86 processor - massively developed from an ancient design!

(sorry, couldn't let this pass without comment )

@wegster

Quote:

I think you're reading entirely too much into the statements that were made. EyeTech said they will not be able to produce the uA1-I or XC without external sales. So what? That has nothing to do with continued production of existing uA1-Cs, although I think he could have been a bit clearer on this, as evidenced by the confusion.

I took this (17)

> q> If a large China, or other large, deal doesn't come through, is the current demand for
> Amiga One boards enough to support continued manufacturing and investment?

> a>No. there never was (or will be) enough demand alone from the 'Amiga Enthusiast'
> market to support manufacturing and investment, either in the past or in the future.

To mean that as of now, there is not enough current demand to support continued manufacturing. he then went on to talk about how maybe in the future they'd sell to other markets, but that's a maybe, and the now he implied was stasis.

If manufacturing is actually continuing, he certainly doesn't make that clear at all, he didn't even make it blurry, he painted it black, hinting maybe they'd find a way if they make volume sales.

> We will continue to support the Amiga Enthusiast community provided it continues to be
> fun and, overall, pays its direct costs.

He already said it's not paying it's direct costs.

> Hyperion realistically said as ONLY a desktop OS, it couldn't sustain growth/profit etc, in
> it's current state, so are also targetting the embedded market. Again, so what?
> Embedded systems _need_ development environments...care to guess what that would
> be? HINT- uhh...AOS?

At such a time as they can sell volumes of these, that would help. This product itself though, is of little interest to anyone here interested in the desktop.

Even those that have come close to success in the embedded/STB/etc market have finished the desktop first, and used that to launch the embedded endeavors, not the other way around. BeOS, QNX, even AmigaDE, all established desktop developement workstations to launch their embedded activities from. Even something as mundane as a Kiosk needs a browser, you almost HAVE to finish the desktop, browser, media codecs first, before you can be a multimedia embedded OS. I don't see how this works in reverse.

> Bear in mind also that some types of embedded systems are not very far from a
> desktop computer- STBs may hide underlying OS functionality, but that doesn't mean
> it's not there, and needed in the development environment. STBs can certainly need 3d
> drivers among other things...so, where's the problem here?

A conditioned reflex, which may well be a personal thing, when I hear this it's like walking through the woods and hearing the tune "dueling banjo's", which I admit may be a personal thing that only effects me, but every time I hear "STB" I want to run.

But it's not this specifically that scared me, it was this, timed perfectly with HyperionMP's "The desktop is dead" post, together, that made things go all gloomy in my mind. The OS isn't finished yet, the hardware appears to be in stasis, and he already proclaims it dead, what reaction do they expect?

edit: and then a thread follows this blaming customers.

Last edited by T_Bone on 07-Jun-2005 at 11:31 PM.
Last edited by T_Bone on 07-Jun-2005 at 11:30 PM.
Last edited by T_Bone on 07-Jun-2005 at 11:22 PM.

_________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde

@T_Bone

Strange ?

The Australian Holden 5.0 Litre is a 308.

The new Gen III 350 (5.7 Litre) could really do with four Valves per cylinder too.

all they've done with the new VRX Monaro (and hence Pontiac GTO) is increase the stroke and now claim its a 6.0 Litre ?

There is no replacement.. For Displacement !!

_________________
******************************************
I dont suffer from Insanity - I enjoy it

******************************************

@T-Bone
Quote:

I took this (17) > q> If a large China, or other large, deal doesn't come through, is the current demand for > Amiga One boards enough to support continued manufacturing and investment? > a>No. there never was (or will be) enough demand alone from the 'Amiga Enthusiast' > market to support manufacturing and investment, either in the past or in the future. To mean that as of now, there is not enough current demand to support continued manufacturing. he then went on to talk about how maybe in the future they'd sell to other markets, but that's a maybe, and the now he implied was stasis. If manufacturing is actually continuing, he certainly doesn't make that clear at all, he didn't even make it blurry, he painted it black, hinting maybe they'd find a way if they make volume sales. > We will continue to support the Amiga Enthusiast community provided it continues to be > fun and, overall, pays its direct costs. He already said it's not paying it's direct costs.

RE: costs, manufacturing etc. Yes, I wish this was clarified a bit..big time. You'll note other parts of the response however, where he said he'd look into going to 512MB RAM for subsequent board runs.

I'm _mostly_ sure this all means the design, prototyping through production is completed on the uA1-C, so they will continue to produce them. Obviously, this is not the case for the uA1-I and XC at this point, so would require external funding/sales for those to ever see the light.

I THINK where you're seeing it as 'not paying it's direct costs' he meant the cost of going from design to production, which is understandable...but not just producing new batches of what is now a fixed design and in production (uA1-C).

Regarding embedded systems, AFAIK, VxWorks developed both their dev environment and their embedded OS simultaneously, or at least released them to the public that way (dev environment is hosted on another OS in that case). The embeddable OSes you mention may have seen _some_ sales as a desktop OS, but how many people have purchasd any version of QNX to run as their primary desktop? The market obviously has changed as more and more devices become available that have CPUs and some form of embedded OS at this point...so I don't see a huge issue here with thinking that the embeded version (of the OS) has a larger commercial ($$) chance of success...?

Regarding 'the desktop is dead.' Again, perhaps bad choice of phrases...but it comes down to $. If there is more chance for growth in the embedded market vs 'purely desktop only,' which is likely true, then the statement makes sense, but I don't think that was meant to mean we will never see desktop improvements, as they really are complementary- if an environment isn't productive to develop under or to use, what's the point of trying to get it onto embeded devices?

Last edited by wegster on 07-Jun-2005 at 11:37 PM.

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