Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6073 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
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
52 crawler(s) on-line.
 13 guest(s) on-line.
 0 member(s) on-line.



You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 BigD:  14 mins ago
 Mobileconnect:  16 mins ago
 hardwaretech:  19 mins ago
 Comi:  31 mins ago
 Rob:  32 mins ago
 bennymee:  35 mins ago
 miggymac:  40 mins ago
 amigang:  1 hr 9 mins ago
 Zylesea:  1 hr 46 mins ago
 Zeus:  2 hrs 1 min ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga OS4 Hardware
      /  Is it game over for OS4
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 )
PosterThread
Rose 
Re: Is it game over for OS4
Posted on 17-Oct-2021 18:06:09
#181 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 5-Nov-2009
Posts: 935
From: Unknown

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:
Apple switch back to RISC, instead of PowerPC, they went with ARM, for laptops, M1 chip, does kick puch, and is running with good battery life in laptops. Intel now has to compete with that. So now Intel is making ARM chips.


If you actually would have understood the article you linked other day you would know that Intel ISN'T making Arm chips. They are just expanding their fabbing services to build em to customers without fabs.

StrongArm from earlier picture is from -95. They also made xscale family which was pretty good arm on mid 00's but that one has been discontinued ages ago too.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: Is it game over for OS4
Posted on 17-Oct-2021 18:32:12
#182 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 11921
From: Norway

@Rose

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU2MHsRMtZE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG4Vg4W9LrQ

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 17-Oct-2021 at 06:34 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Rose 
Re: Is it game over for OS4
Posted on 17-Oct-2021 18:49:59
#183 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 5-Nov-2009
Posts: 935
From: Unknown

@NutsAboutAmiga

"To be clear, Intel isnt switching over to ARM and selling those to manufacturers. As part of its new Intel Device Manufacturing model or IDM 2.0, it is establishing a new line of business of manufacturing silicon for other chipmakers. In other words, this new Intel Foundry Services or IFS will be competing against the likes of TSMC, providing semiconductor manufacturing services for companies like Amazon, IBM, Microsoft, and even Apple."

https://www.slashgear.com/intel-wants-to-build-arm-chips-for-apple-third-parties-24665220/

First of many I found...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: Is it game over for OS4
Posted on 17-Oct-2021 19:11:59
#184 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 11921
From: Norway

@Rose

Yes, I know it shocking. But this is happening.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
agami 
Re: Is it game over for OS4
Posted on 18-Oct-2021 1:18:08
#185 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 30-Jun-2008
Posts: 658
From: Melbourne, Australia

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:
Desktop computers is more or less dead now

OK, so you finally admit that AmigaOS 4.x is dead.
Was that so hard?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hammer 
Re: Is it game over for OS4
Posted on 18-Oct-2021 2:27:11
#186 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Mar-2003
Posts: 4270
From: Australia

@cdimauro

Quote:
@cdimauro
Let's see if you finally stop your ridiculous AMD propaganda.

It's Anandtech's article. Your "AMD propaganda" attribution to me as a personal attack and would be treated as such.

FYI, My cited Anandtech's 3DSmax 2.5 benchmarks didn't use "MAXScript bench.ms".

https://www.anandtech.com/show/399/14


You didn't factor in Pentium III-E's improvements. LOL.

You omitted the design changes for Pentium III-E. Your cited benchmark lacks transparency.

Pentium III-E has a FULL-SPEED L2 cache while K7 Athlon has a half-speed or one-third speed L2 cache until K7 Athlon Thunderbird (and K7 Duron).


As for Adobe benchmark with Intel optimizations, Intel Compiler caught cheating.

Adobe 2D paint benchmark doesn't concern me when my interest is raytracing.

https://wccftech.com/intel-settles-15-year-class-action-lawsuit-faking-benchmarks/
Intel Caught Cheating, Gets a Slap on the Wrist 14 Years Later
Quote:

It's a bit sad, almost funny when you read news like this. Intel has evidently fabricated benchmarks for their Pentium 4 processors back in 2000. The benchmarks were set against AMD's Thunderbird at the time. According to the official site of the class action lawsuit Intel is expected to pay $15. This payment will out go to each person who completed a purchase of a Pentium 4 processor between November 20th of 2000 and December 31st of 2001.


From
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/061-0247/intel-corporation-matter
an old FTC investigation from 2009-2010 that determined, not only did the FTC order intel to STOP doing exactly what they're doing today, but they call out Intel's Math Kernel Library by name (which can be found in the last page of the conclusion):

Quote:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall not make any engineering or design change to a Relevant Product if that change (1) degrades the performance of a Relevant Product sold by a competitor of Respondent and (2) does not provide an actual benefit to the Relevant Product sold by Respondent, including without limitation any improvement in performance, operation, cost, manufacturability, reliability, compatibility, or ability to operate or enhance the operation of another product; provided, however, that any degradation of the performance of a competing product shall not itself be deemed to be a benefit to the Relevant Product sold by Respondent. Respondent shall have the burden of demonstrating that any engineering or design change at issue complies with Section V. of this Order.


The only way Intel can avoid guilt from this statement is by either proving that the version of the compiler Matlab uses is from before the settlement, or by falling under this exception:

Quote:

Provided, however, that the fact that the degradation of performance of a Relevant Product sold by a competitor of Respondent arises from a bug or other inadvertent product defect in and of itself shall not constitute a violation of Section V.A.1. Respondent shall have the burden of demonstrating that any such degradation of performance was inadvertent.


In terms of the U.S. court of law, Intel was found guilty.

https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49
The legal battle
AMD have sued Intel for unfair competition at least since 2005, and the case has been settled in November 2009. This settlement deals with many issues of unfair competition, apparently including the Intel compiler. The settlement says:

2.3 TECHNICAL PRACTICES

Intel shall not include any Artificial Performance Impairment in any Intel product or require any Third Party to include an Artificial Performance Impairment in the Third Party's product. As used in this Section 2.3, "Artificial Performance Impairment" means an affirmative engineering or design action by Intel (but not a failure to act) that (i) degrades the performance or operation of a Specified AMD product, (ii) is not a consequence of an Intel Product Benefit and (iii) is made intentionally to degrade the performance or operation of a Specified AMD Product. For purposes of this Section 2.3, "Product Benefit" shall mean any benefit, advantage, or improvement in terms of performance, operation, price, cost, manufacturability, reliability, compatibility, or ability to operate or enhance the operation of another product.

In no circumstances shall this Section 2.3 impose or be construed to impose any obligation on Intel to (i) take any act that would provide a Product Benefit to any AMD or other non-Intel product, either when such AMD or non-Intel product is used alone or in combination with any other product, (ii) optimize any products for Specified AMD Products, or (iii) provide any technical information, documents, or know how to AMD.


This looks like a victory for AMD. If we read "any Intel product" as Intel's compilers and function libraries, "any Third Party" as programmers using these compilers and libraries, and "Artificial Performance Impairment" as the CPU dispatcher checking the vendor ID string; then the settlement puts an obligation on Intel to change their CPU dispatcher. I will certainly check the next version of Intel's compiler and libraries to see if they have done so or they have found a loophole in the settlement.

Interestingly, this is not the end of the story. Only about one month after the AMD/Intel settlement, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Intel. The accusations in the FTC complaint are unusually strong:

Intel sought to undercut the performance advantage of non-Intel x86 CPUs relative to Intel x86 CPUs when it redesigned and distributed software products, such as compilers and libraries.


[...]
To the public, OEMs, ISVs, and benchmarking organizations, the slower performance of non-Intel CPUs on Intel-compiled software applications appeared to be caused by the non-Intel CPUs rather than the Intel software. Intel failed to disclose the effects of the changes it made to its software in or about 2003 and later to its customers or the public. Intel also disseminated false or misleading documentation about its compiler and libraries. Intel represented to ISVs, OEMs, benchmarking organizations, and the public that programs inherently performed better on Intel CPUs than on competing CPUs. In truth and in fact, many differences were due largely or entirely to the Intel software. Intel's misleading or false statements and omissions about the performance of its software were material to ISVs, OEMs, benchmarking organizations, and the public in their purchase or use of CPUs. Therefore, Intel's representations that programs inherently performed better on Intel CPUs than on competing CPUs were, and are, false or misleading. Intel's failure to disclose that the differences were due largely to the Intel software, in light of the representations made, was, and is, a deceptive practice. Moreover, those misrepresentations and omissions were likely to harm the reputation of other x86 CPUs companies, and harmed competition.
[...]
Some ISVs requested information from Intel concerning the apparent variation in performance of identical software run on Intel and non-Intel CPUs. In response to such requests, on numerous occasions, Intel misrepresented, expressly or by implication, the source of the problem and whether it could be solved.
[...]
Intel's software design changes slowed the performance of non-Intel x86 CPUs and had no sufficiently justifiable technological benefit. Intel's deceptive conduct deprived consumers of an informed choice between Intel chips and rival chips, and between Intel software and rival software, and raised rivals' costs of competing in the relevant CPU markets. The loss of performance caused by the Intel compiler and libraries also directly harmed consumers that used non-Intel x86 CPUs.

The remedy that the FTC asks for is also quite farreaching:


Requiring that, with respect to those Intel customers that purchased from Intel a software compiler that had or has the design or effect of impairing the actual or apparent performance of microprocessors not manufactured by Intel ("Defective Compiler"), as described in the Complaint:

Intel provide them, at no additional charge, a substitute compiler that is not a Defective Compiler;
Intel compensate them for the cost of recompiling the software they had compiled on the Defective Compiler and of substituting, and distributing to their own customers, the recompiled software for software compiled on a Defective Compiler; and
Intel give public notice and warning, in a manner likely to be communicated to persons that have purchased software compiled on Defective Compilers purchased from Intel, of the possible need to replace that software.


The settlement compensates AMD, but not VIA and other microprocessor vendors, and not the customers who have been harmed by insufficient competition and by the "defective" software produced with the Intel compiler.

Your "Let's see if you finally stop your ridiculous AMD propaganda" flame war can f**koff.

Quote:

@cdimauro
Why you didn't picked AMD? Simple: because its processors sucked compared to the PentiumPro:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/55/3


Your AMD K6 benchmark is a RED HERRING when K6 is not part of my argument when K6's X87 FPU is NOT pipelined.

Pentium Pro's X87 FPU is partly pipelined! LOL.

Since you argued against K6,

https://www.anandtech.com/show/207/6



With graphics card.


For software render.

For transparency, AMD K6-III has 3DNow 64 bit SIMD and Quake II supports 3D Now (pack math dual FP32/INT32, pack math INT8, and INT16).

You're a hypocrite when you attached "AMD propaganda" attribution to me.

For the record, I didn't buy AMD K6 when my X86 CPU was an Intel Pentium II and I can still prove I owned this PC since I stored this PC in my garage.

Hint: my loyalty is my own self-interest, NOT AMD nor Intel.

AMD K7 Athlon's 3D Now has 64-bit FADD units and 64-bit FMUL units.
Intel Pentium III's SSE has 64-bit FADD and 64-bit FMUL units.
AMD K7 Athlon XP's SSE has 64-bit FADD units and 64-bit FMUL units.

AMD K8 Athlon 64's SSE has 128-bit FADD units and 64-bit FMUL units.
Intel Core 2's SSE has 128-bit FADD and 128-bit FMUL units.

PowerPC Altivec SIMD was 128-bit hardware from the start but has other issues for Quake III e.g. GPR to SIMD register transfers hits the frontside bus and C++ function (stack) performance issues.

PS; I have budgeted and plan to buy Intel Alderlake Core i9's 8C+8c (24 threads) or 8C+4c (20 threads) to replace my Core i9-9900K (8C/16T) PC. You are wrong to attribute "AMD propaganda" to me.

Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 03:46 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 03:40 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 03:31 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 03:25 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 03:20 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 03:18 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 03:15 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 03:14 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 03:09 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 03:08 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 03:05 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 03:03 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 03:01 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 02:58 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 02:57 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 02:51 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 02:49 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 02:47 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 02:44 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 02:34 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 02:34 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 18-Oct-2021 at 02:28 AM.

_________________
Core i9-9900K, DDR4-3800 32 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 3080 Ti
Ryzen 9 3900X, DDR4-3200 32 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 2080 Ti
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, TF1260, 68060 @ 63 Mhz, 128 MB)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, KS 3.2, 68K 50Mhz, 12 MB RAM)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Is it game over for OS4
Posted on 18-Oct-2021 4:46:03
#187 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 2287
From: Germany

@terminills Quote:

terminills wrote:
@cdimauro

I'm not going to go into your Intel propaganda

There's no Intel propaganda, and it's quite clear that you don't know how Hammer behaves in the forum.

Let's say that there's a discussion X. He finds some words which caught he's attention. He reply writing Y, which has some words related to X, but adding his AMD propaganda (selecting and cherry-picking what he likes to put AMD in good shape and Intel on the opposite side). However X and Y are two completely different things.

What I simply do is using the same method to dismantle his writing: cherry-pick what shows the exact contrary.

This isn't Intel propaganda: it's a way to ask him to stop is AMD propaganda, and stick to what was really discussing. As you can clearly verify by reading again this thread, and other were he jumped-in.
Quote:
I'll merely state what was happening at the time.

You first should have understood what I've written. And, especially, what Hammer has written before, that caused my precise reply. See below.
Quote:
Being a system builder at the time I can tell you $ for $ the Athlon at the time demolished the Pentium III as the Pentium III was close to twice the price.

Sure, on average Athlons had better performances compared to Pentium IIIs. Pentium IIIs won when there was code which tool advantage of their SSE SIMD extension.
Quote:
However Hammer is correct Intel did strong arm shops into downplaying the value of the Athlon at the time.

Hammer didn't stated. Let me report his precise writing:
"AMD should have won in the market place but Intel was guilty of anti-competitive practices in the court of law."

First, it's AMD which sets the price of its products, and not Intel.

Second, and to be more precise, Intel made anti-competitive practices with exclusive contracts with OEMs to cut out AMD. BTW I never said this wasn't true: I'm absolutely aware of it, and blame Intel for what it did.

Third, and it's the center of my reply, take a look at part which I've highlighted. I report my reply here as well, so you can understand why I've replied in that way saying that it was wishful thinking:
"That's only the wishful thinking of an AMD fanatic."

I think you should know the meaning of wishful thinking, right?

The question is very simple: it's just what he likes to have seen if Intel had no anti-competitive practices. However this isn't the reality, and it might have happen or not, and nobody can say if this would have really become true.

His assumption is wrong because he might have though that if Intel would have sold less of its products, then automatically this would have been compensated by AMD selling its own production.

It looks logic, right?

However the reality is different and this might not come true, because it depends on the CAPACITY of AMD to supply a bigger quantity of products to fill that gap.

We simply don't know that, so this cannot be determined.

But what we know by history is that AMD had problems with its fabs and using newer processing nodes. AMD had so many problems with its fabs that, at a certain point in time, she decided to move them to a new company (Globalfoundries) and finally get rid of them once she reached the agreement with Intel.

So, it's easy to argue, looking at that, the AMD could have had enough capacity to fill the gap.

I hope that it's clear now.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Is it game over for OS4
Posted on 18-Oct-2021 5:11:07
#188 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 2287
From: Germany

@NutsAboutAmiga Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote:
@cdimauro

Quote:
and out-of-order execution was the last trick which has definitely put a tombstone

The compiler can arrange the instructions, so they run out sequence before run time.

This simply means that you do NOT need an out-of-order processor.

Which is clearly NOT the case, if you take a look at processors which have been produced since 25 years now.

Yes, even your PowerPCs which are supposed to be RISCs (but they aren't, as they don't fit all 4 RISCs pillars).
Quote:
the task of talking a CISC instruction and braking it down to microcode (RISC) instruction before run time,

Processors with complex instructions do NOT break them to micro-CODE, but to micro-INSTRUCTIONS (usually called micro-ops), which are two completely different things.

And I reveal you another secret: there are RISC processors which either break down their instructions to micro-op and/or use micro-code to execute them.
Two notable examples? ARM and PowerPC.

BTW, for its first processors ARM has micro-coded all of its instructions and not only the most complex ones. This was a very interesting detail that was revealed a few years ago.
Quote:
is a unnecessary/useless action.

Then please ask ARM and PowerPC vendors why they had to use micro-ops and/or microcode with their processor, since you said that it's unnecessary/useless.

Maybe they can hire you and fill your pockets with gold...
Quote:
Anyway concept of microcode, you kind find in JIT compilers, like EMU68, its interesting how can ignore setting flags for example, because knows the flag is not read.

This isn't about microcode neither micro-ops: there's no such kind of concepts when we talk about JIT compilers (EMU68 included): there are only instructions of the original ISA being converted to instructions to the native one.
Quote:
Not sure micro code is dead,

Absolutely no: it's still alive and kicking.

And it's also usually used when a processor has to "walk" the PMMU table to convert the virtual address to the physical one, if there's no entry in the TLB table for it.
Quote:
but maybe risc instructions is too complex as well.

It might be, sure: above my examples.
Quote:
But this thing keeps changing as new idea comes and goes. Im sure JIT compilers will continue get insperation from hardware, and hardware will continue to get insperation from software.

Sorry, I don't understand what you want to say with that.

@NutsAboutAmiga Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote:
@Rose

Yes, because intel innovated, the beat was agents Intel in the 90s.

Sam here: what do you mean with the second part of the sentence?
Quote:
but then they implemented RISC style microcode.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Microcode

What the CPU does is translate CISC into micro code, and execute that instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro-operation

See above: you mixed to completely different things.
Quote:
Backwards compatibly is a major feature, throwing out instructions, starting over, is complicated. creates incompatibilities, and is where time consuming, anyway I believe emulation techniques has improved lately, Apple being able to switch x86 quickly overnight, shows software companies do not need to be so faithful. (IBM was argonaut and did focus on desktop, they focused on Power chips for servers, the PowerPC chips was cut down version of that.)

Apple does NOT support ALL x86/x64 instructions neither ALL x86/x64 features that you can find in those processors.

Otherwise performances of such Rosetta 2 would have miserably fallen down.
Quote:
Now microcode is also costly because adds another layer, that is not need on a pure RISC, like ARM64, or POWER chips. As POWER mostly focusing on servers, the ARM chips found its way into mobile phone, where they can't have large heat fans, and battery life was important.

Apple switch back to RISC, instead of PowerPC, they went with ARM, for laptops, M1 chip, does kick a puch, and is running with good battery life in laptops and tablets. Intel now has to compete with that. So now Intel is making ARM chips.

I've already said to you that Intel was/is already making ARM chips from VERY LONG TIME. So, it's NOT a new thing.

Why don't you read what people says?
Quote:
Desktop computers is more or less dead now. Its all mobile/tablets and laptops (lets not forget smart TVs), thats where the focus is.

Completely wrong: desktops are here to stay, and BTW they increased a little bit the sells.

@NutsAboutAmiga Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote:
@Rose

Yes, I know it shocking. But this is happening.

It's shocking for you, which don't know the reality, the history, and Intel is doing since SEVERAL YEARS.


@Hammer: no time now to dismantle the other pile of (wrong stuff) that you reported.

As usual, you don't even remember what YOU, not me, stated.
You haven't understood what I've written to reply to your precise words.
You haven't understood the antitrust sentence about the issue with Intel had with its compilers. And it's also clear that you don't understand how a modern compiler works when it has to generate code which is optimized as much as possible.
And you continue to cherry-pick what you like.

I'll reply with precise details about all the above, because this requires time and, as I said, I've none now. However if you take a look at my reply to terminills I've already proved the first two above sentences.

P.S. No time to read again, sorry.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Srtest 
Re: Is it game over for OS4
Posted on 18-Oct-2021 6:52:40
#189 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 15-Nov-2016
Posts: 258
From: Israel, Haderah

@cdimauro

Hammer pretty much exposed and owned your ass. Intel tried its best to monopolize the market just like its sister on the software side but failed. First they failed from an all-around performance job and then when they had got their little head start with the core line of products, AMD soon responded with better pricing and reading the needs and understanding that the old laws of advancement no longer apply. I've been using a Ryzen 5 six core for about the longevity of it being out and I have no motivation to replace it. For most of its existence Intel had no real competition and when it did it resorted to dirty tactics. Then finally when they did something right (probably happened by accident) they got stuck in the past as far as what peeps today are willing to spend and what are the midrange needs of users.

Go do a better job trying to lurk over this site and find whatever tidbit you can to support your obsessed posting.

Last edited by Srtest on 18-Oct-2021 at 09:24 AM.
Last edited by Srtest on 18-Oct-2021 at 06:53 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
paolone 
Re: Is it game over for OS4
Posted on 18-Oct-2021 13:01:11
#190 ]
Super Member
Joined: 24-Sep-2007
Posts: 1100
From: Unknown

Hey guys,

exactly, what kind of very sick mental issue is turning you towards this utterly long, neverending, futile and pointless argumenting about processor architectures of ancient CPUs?


All the ####in' old silicon-based crap you're talking about is long gone and almost forgotten. Not counting that all these boringly extensive posts are as exciting as cutting nails.


It wouldn't even be so bad, if only ANY DAMN DISCUSSION here wouldn't get hijacked into this sort of crap.


Please stop this attitude.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Is it game over for OS4
Posted on 18-Oct-2021 21:26:24
#191 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 2287
From: Germany

Continued on this thread: https://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=44312&forum=17

@paolone: I've already explained what's happened above, when I've replied to terminillis.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
paolone 
Re: Is it game over for OS4
Posted on 19-Oct-2021 10:44:37
#192 ]
Super Member
Joined: 24-Sep-2007
Posts: 1100
From: Unknown

@cdimauro

Thanks.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
ppcamiga1 
Re: Is it game over for OS4
Posted on 24-Oct-2021 18:11:36
#193 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 23-Aug-2015
Posts: 366
From: Unknown

ppc was choosen in 1995 as next cpu for Amiga.
It was good decision.
At that time it was cheap and fast and because of big-endian Amiga Os may be binary and source compatible.
Big endian was important to keep compatybility
best proof is that after 25 years of development AROS still has hot working mui clone.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
ppcamiga1 
Re: Is it game over for OS4
Posted on 24-Oct-2021 18:22:10
#194 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 23-Aug-2015
Posts: 366
From: Unknown

2006 was last year when dumb port to x86/arm has any sense.
Since that year multicore cpu was used, graphics cards provide important computing power.
Everything of that is missing on AROS x86/arm.
Aros x86/arm is since 2006 just worse uae.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: Is it game over for OS4
Posted on 24-Oct-2021 19:05:16
#195 ]
Super Member
Joined: 20-Aug-2003
Posts: 1869
From: Trondheim, Norway

Watching members of this go-cart enthusiast club discuss formula one racing and dump hauler engines is fascinating.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: Is it game over for OS4
Posted on 24-Oct-2021 19:08:25
#196 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 11921
From: Norway

@ppcamiga1

AROS exists for PowerPC and 680x0, so its not as simple as saying its just because of x86.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
OlafS25 
Re: Is it game over for OS4
Posted on 24-Oct-2021 19:20:23
#197 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-May-2010
Posts: 5942
From: Unknown

@ppcamiga1

MUI works in Aros 68k

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle