Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
5782 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

(Uses JAVA Applet and Port 1024)
Visit the Chatroom Website

Who's Online
 76 guest(s) on-line.
 3 member(s) on-line.


 Rob,  zzd10h,  Mimifan

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 Mimifan:  7 secs ago
 zzd10h:  51 secs ago
 Rob:  2 mins ago
 michalsc:  9 mins ago
 Frank:  13 mins ago
 cip060:  22 mins ago
 amigakit:  26 mins ago
 BSzili:  51 mins ago
 Everblue:  53 mins ago
 Raziel:  1 hr 3 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga OS4.x \ Workbench 4.x
      /  Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 Next Page )
PosterThread
pavlor 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 18:42:13
#21 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 10-Jul-2005
Posts: 8807
From: Unknown

@cdimauro

Quote:
From 2000 to 2003 it was an agony for Apple, since it had no flagship product to compete with the PCs.


I wouldn´t call it "agony", but G4 clockrates did indeed rise slowly than competition.

Quote:
We already discussed it: go for a more powerful architecture, and with a much brighter future.


So, in 1995 PowerPC wasn´t powerful CPU architecture with bright future?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 18:44:13
#22 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 2021
From: Germany

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote:
@cdimauro

Quote:
From 2000 to 2003 it was an agony for Apple, since it had no flagship product to compete with the PCs.


I wouldn´t call it "agony", but G4 clockrates did indeed rise slowly than competition.

And performance in general.
Quote:
We already discussed it: go for a more powerful architecture, and with a much brighter future.


Quote:
So, in 1995 PowerPC wasn´t powerful CPU architecture with bright future?

I was referring to the 2001, when the port of Amiga o.s. 3.1 on PowerPC was started.

Last edited by cdimauro on 10-Dec-2015 at 06:44 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
pavlor 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 18:46:31
#23 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 10-Jul-2005
Posts: 8807
From: Unknown

@cdimauro

Quote:
I was referring to the 2001, when the port of Amiga o.s. 3.1 on PowerPC was started.


Community was not prepared for such move back then, PowerPC looked still too good to be passed by in favour of "evil" x86.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
PhantomInterrogative 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 18:49:30
#24 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 10-Sep-2004
Posts: 749
From: The Interrogative Lair

@cdimauro

I don't doubt that Apple wanted to ditch PPC around 2000. My point was that I don't remember any Amiga users who argued against Hyperion porting the OS to PPC. At present, many users, even PPC AmigaOS users, find the price of new PPC systems unbearable. Most of the arguments we have against Escom, Gateway, Phase5, and Hyperion's choice of CPU is hindsight. We have the advantage of time showing it to be a poor choice.

Who is to say that if Hyperion was to port AmigaOS to ARM, that it would be dead in another ten years? (It is a good thing that Amiga was not ported to Alpha.) Planning for the future is not easy. It is easy to condemn the planning that happened in the past.

_________________
I sold my SAM460ex lite... waiting for money to buy the X5000... or Amiga Reloaded... or an A1222... and OS4.2 FE update 9000

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
bison 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 19:18:37
#25 ]
Super Member
Joined: 18-Dec-2007
Posts: 1172
From: N-Space

@PhantomInterrogative

Quote:
When Gateway announced an x86 Amiga that would run Linux, I don't remember a single Amiga user who wanted it.

I did!

I was very disappointed when the whole thing collapsed. I switched to Linux and went off Amiga entirely for quite a few years.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
itix 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 19:29:31
#26 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 22-Dec-2004
Posts: 3398
From: Freedom world

@PhantomInterrogative

Quote:
I don't doubt that Apple wanted to ditch PPC around 2000. My point was that I don't remember any Amiga users who argued against Hyperion porting the OS to PPC.


You remember wrong. There was strong opposition against PPC.

By the way, did you know that OS4 was first developed for the 68kand then ported to PPC? Think it was as late as 2003 when the PPC port happened. I knew few OS4/68k beta testers at that time who stopped due to lack of PPC hardware. (Not sure about years, this was over a decade ago...)

Quote:
Who is to say that if Hyperion was to port AmigaOS to ARM, that it would be dead in another ten years? (It is a good thing that Amiga was not ported to Alpha.) Planning for the future is not easy. It is easy to condemn the planning that happened in the past.


Maybe you are looking it from wrong perspective... If you can't control or predict the future of your hardware platform then it should not depend on that...

Last edited by itix on 10-Dec-2015 at 07:35 PM.
Last edited by itix on 10-Dec-2015 at 07:34 PM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
pavlor 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 19:33:43
#27 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 10-Jul-2005
Posts: 8807
From: Unknown

@itix

Quote:
You remember wrong. There was strong opposition against PPC.


Not that strong as against x86.

Quote:
By the way, did you know that OS4 was first developed for the 68kand then ported to PPC?


True, at least for non-kernel components.

Quote:
Think it was as late as 2003 when the PPC port happened.


Even the first pre-release (2004) was mostly 68k (eg. Picasso96). 68k parts were gradually replaced, now only ARexx, some classic drivers and few tools (IconEdit ) are 68k.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
ExiE 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 19:46:34
#28 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 18-May-2004
Posts: 449
From: Czech Amiga News

@PhantomInterrogative
Quote:
When Gateway announced an x86 Amiga that would run Linux, I don't remember a single Amiga
user who wanted it.


@bison
Quote:
I did! I was very disappointed when the whole thing collapsed. I switched to Linux and went off Amiga entirely for quite a few years.


Actually this idea changed quite soon to use of QNX as base (POSIX system but not Linux, actually far superior to Linux at that time)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
PhantomInterrogative 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 19:56:13
#29 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 10-Sep-2004
Posts: 749
From: The Interrogative Lair

@itix

I did know about the 68k OS4. I thought it was a transitional step to PPC, rather than a plan for 68k AmigaOS4.

Certain parts of my memory are faulty, that I admit. However, the opinions I heard from the Central Ohio Commodore User Group, AmiCON, and the opinions I read in the Amiga magazines at the time led me to believe that most Amiga users were onboard the PPC wagon. There were a few people who wanted further 68k development. There were also a few who wanted the Amiga to migrate to the Coldfire (that is something my memory did not access earlier in the thread thus proving that my memory is indeed faulty). Yet, the majority of the opinions that I heard was for the PPC. I did not hear any strong opposition to PPC until well after the release of the Eyetech AmigaOnes.

Perhaps this has more to do with the people with whom we associate, and the Amiga magazines we read, than with how my memory works.

_________________
I sold my SAM460ex lite... waiting for money to buy the X5000... or Amiga Reloaded... or an A1222... and OS4.2 FE update 9000

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
PhantomInterrogative 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 20:01:54
#30 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 10-Sep-2004
Posts: 749
From: The Interrogative Lair

@ExiE

I actually tried QNX for a while. It was small and amazingly fast (real time OS). I did not like the user interface; yet, for an OS for an x86 system, I thought it was quite acceptable... but not a replacement for Workbench

@bison

I used Ubuntu 8 for a while. Again, I preferred AmigaOS.

One thing that we all agree with on this forum is that we are discontent with how our current state of affairs has come about. Perhaps we should stop dwelling on what went wrong in the past. I'd like to see more threads on what can be done in the future.

I like seeing plans for FPGA 68k. I like seeing proposals for x86 MorphOS. I even like hearing about plans for less expensive PPC solutions (even if they are more expensive than x86/ARM/etc.). Despite the differences, people are moving their respective platforms forward. Time will tell what plans work and what plans will fail. Perhaps in another ten years, we will all be using a smart watch sized device emulating MorphOS, Workbench3.9, AmigaOS4.x, and AROS. Who knows?

Last edited by PhantomInterrogative on 10-Dec-2015 at 08:17 PM.

_________________
I sold my SAM460ex lite... waiting for money to buy the X5000... or Amiga Reloaded... or an A1222... and OS4.2 FE update 9000

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
pavlor 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 20:05:05
#31 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 10-Jul-2005
Posts: 8807
From: Unknown

@PhantomInterrogative

Quote:
I thought it was a transitional step to PPC, rather than a plan for 68k AmigaOS4.


True. Last real 68k AmigaOS 4 idea was from Commodore (4.x should have RTG).

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
pavlor 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 20:07:36
#32 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 10-Jul-2005
Posts: 8807
From: Unknown

@ExiE

Quote:
Actually this idea changed quite soon to use of QNX as base


No, it was otherwise: QNX first (1998), then Linux, then Amiga OE (1999), then TAO (2000), then OS4 from Haage/Partner+Hyperion+Eyetech, then current OS4 (2001). Turbulent times.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Fransexy 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 20:13:07
#33 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 8-Jun-2004
Posts: 2324
From: Elche (Alicante), spain

@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote:
@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote:
@cdimauro

But they dumped MacOS for MacOSX.

Yes, but MacOS X came directly from NeXTSTEP, where the primarily supported architecture was x86.


WRONG!!!! as usual, you spreading lies. NEXTSTEP first architecture was m68k

_________________
No PowerPC, No Fun
Make Amiga Great Again

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
pavlor 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 20:18:57
#34 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 10-Jul-2005
Posts: 8807
From: Unknown

@Fransexy

Quote:
WRONG!!!! as usual, you spreading lies. NEXTSTEP first architecture was m68k


Calm down, history is not cdimauro´s strong side.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Fransexy 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 20:20:33
#35 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 8-Jun-2004
Posts: 2324
From: Elche (Alicante), spain

@PhantomInterrogative

Quote:

PhantomInterrogative wrote:
@ExiE

I actually tried QNX for a while. It was small and amazingly fast (real time OS). I did not like the user interface; yet, for an OS for an x86 system, I thought it was quite acceptable... but not a replacement for Workbench


QNX would have not been replacement for workbench but for the kickstart. QNX neutrino, Blackberry10 and Apple car (for put a few examples) all uses QNX kernel and all of three have different user interfaces. i don't know if you understand what i meant?

_________________
No PowerPC, No Fun
Make Amiga Great Again

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 21:24:38
#36 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 2021
From: Germany

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote:
@cdimauro

Quote:
I was referring to the 2001, when the port of Amiga o.s. 3.1 on PowerPC was started.


Community was not prepared for such move back then, PowerPC looked still too good to be passed by in favour of "evil" x86.

So the community was as much blind as the company...


@PhantomInterrogative

Quote:

PhantomInterrogative wrote:
@cdimauro

I don't doubt that Apple wanted to ditch PPC around 2000. My point was that I don't remember any Amiga users who argued against Hyperion porting the OS to PPC.

I wasn't present, because I left the Amiga market after my 1200 died, and discovered the post-Amiga community only some years ago.

Fortunately, I missed another bunch of craziness of the Commodore's heirs...
Quote:
At present, many users, even PPC AmigaOS users, find the price of new PPC systems unbearable. Most of the arguments we have against Escom, Gateway, Phase5, and Hyperion's choice of CPU is hindsight. We have the advantage of time showing it to be a poor choice.

Well, at the time there were enough data, for people interested on computer architectures, to see that such path was wrong.
Quote:
Who is to say that if Hyperion was to port AmigaOS to ARM, that it would be dead in another ten years? (It is a good thing that Amiga was not ported to Alpha.) Planning for the future is not easy. It is easy to condemn the planning that happened in the past.

It wasn't Hyperion's fault, but Amiga Inc. one.

Anyway, ARM wasn't a good candidate. On 2001 x86 and MIPS were better candidates.


@itix

Quote:

itix wrote:
@PhantomInterrogative

Quote:
I don't doubt that Apple wanted to ditch PPC around 2000. My point was that I don't remember any Amiga users who argued against Hyperion porting the OS to PPC.


You remember wrong. There was strong opposition against PPC.

Interesting: I never heard that. So there were a bunch of wise guys in the community. Nice to know.
Quote:
By the way, did you know that OS4 was first developed for the 68kand then ported to PPC? Think it was as late as 2003 when the PPC port happened. I knew few OS4/68k beta testers at that time who stopped due to lack of PPC hardware. (Not sure about years, this was over a decade ago...)

And that's even more interesting, because only a brain-less would have chosen to begin the PowerPC port on late 2003, when the x86 supremacy was overwhelming.

Only Amiga makes it possible...


@PhantomInterrogative

Quote:

PhantomInterrogative wrote:

I'd like to see more threads on what can be done in the future.

There were several discussions on that. It's a recurring topic.


@Fransexy

Quote:

Fransexy wrote:
@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote:
@NutsAboutAmiga

Yes, but MacOS X came directly from NeXTSTEP, where the primarily supported architecture was x86.


WRONG!!!! as usual, you spreading lies. NEXTSTEP first architecture was m68k

Before starting your crusade against me, with a completely invented argument, I invite you to take a look at the words which I've marked...

Ah, just to avoid any ridiculous discussion about that, I add (again) the context of that part: I was talking about 2000, just before that MacOS X 1.0 was released.

Now you can go outside venting your enthusiasm...


@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote:
@Fransexy

Quote:
WRONG!!!! as usual, you spreading lies. NEXTSTEP first architecture was m68k


Calm down, history is not cdimauro´s strong side.

Vision seems to be not your one: see above. May I suggest to you and your passionate friend to take a good pair of glasses?

BTW, the mistake was macroscopic, and I usually expect for historians that they should careful read and analyze writings, before puke sentences.

But it's quite evident that it's not your case...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
pavlor 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 21:37:00
#37 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 10-Jul-2005
Posts: 8807
From: Unknown

@cdimauro

Quote:
So the community was as much blind as the company...


Exactly.

Quote:
because only a brain-less would have chosen to begin the PowerPC port on late 2003, when the x86 supremacy was overwhelming.


Port began in 2001. However, G5 had in 2003 better performance ratio towards x86 than G4 in 2001.

Quote:
Vision seems to be not your one:


True, 7 dioptre lens on both eyes.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 21:38:16
#38 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 472
From: Kansas

Quote:

cdimauro wrote:
We already discussed it: go for a more powerful architecture, and with a much brighter future.


RISC processors like the Alpha, PA-RISC, MIPS, SPARC, m88k and PPC which were supposed to replace CISC never lived up to their hype. The 68k was dropped by Motorola due to their own hype and marketing while the inferior CISC evil sister x86 became the dominant high performance CPU for desktops and laptops. So are you saying Amiga should abandon the superior 68k CISC processor and Amiga classic compatibility and to adopt an inferior CISC design on the dark side? Is that now or back when Motorola was shoving PPC down everyone's throat including C=?

Quote:

PhantomInterrogative wrote:
Certain parts of my memory are faulty, that I admit. However, the opinions I heard from the Central Ohio Commodore User Group, AmiCON, and the opinions I read in the Amiga magazines at the time led me to believe that most Amiga users were onboard the PPC wagon. There were a few people who wanted further 68k development. There were also a few who wanted the Amiga to migrate to the Coldfire (that is something my memory did not access earlier in the thread thus proving that my memory is indeed faulty). Yet, the majority of the opinions that I heard was for the PPC. I did not hear any strong opposition to PPC until well after the release of the Eyetech AmigaOnes.

Perhaps this has more to do with the people with whom we associate, and the Amiga magazines we read, than with how my memory works.


I went to a developer meeting at a show in the U.S. There were Motorola reps telling us that PPC was the future and 68k would not be developed anymore. I don't know if that is acceptance of PPC so much as lack of options.

Last edited by matthey on 10-Dec-2015 at 09:48 PM.
Last edited by matthey on 10-Dec-2015 at 09:47 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
pavlor 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 21:41:50
#39 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 10-Jul-2005
Posts: 8807
From: Unknown

@matthey

680x0 lagged at least one year behind x86 since late 80s.

1989: 80486 (1990: 68040)
1992: 80486DX/2 (no comparable 680x0 CPU)
1993: Pentium (1994: 68060 on much lower clock speed)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC?
Posted on 10-Dec-2015 21:59:35
#40 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 472
From: Kansas

Quote:

pavlor wrote:
680x0 lagged at least one year behind x86 since late 80s.

1989: 80486 (1990: 68040)
1992: 80486DX/2 (no comparable 680x0 CPU)
1993: Pentium (1994: 68060 on much lower clock speed)


The 68k was usually a little later and didn't clock as high but was more powerful for the clock frequency than the last x86 iteration. I believe new 68k designs would not clock quite as high as x86 designs while potentially giving better performance at a given clock rate (lower frequencies have advantages). The 68060 was a very good superscalar base design. It would have been interesting to see where it would have gone after being clocked up and with a few bottlenecks removed.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright © 2000 - 2017 Amigaworld.net.

Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle