»

[Jupp3]

Originally Posted by Digiman

I suspect you are someone who can't separate x86 (ic 64bit) and Microsoft Windows computer.

No, personally I mostly use X86 nowadays with linux (my ARM-equipped phone being on secondary place), although that would be Atom in most of the cases, as I don't really need that much CPU power for "most things", and it definitely makes sense for any "always on" system (Yes, I know ARM could save even more on the electricity bill). PowerPC (with MorphOS) comes as third, sometimes when you have to spend entire day fighting with certain system, you might want to use something different at home

Basically I just find it funny how someone considers PowerPC's "90's design" to be a bad thing, as the CPU it's most often (f.ex. in this thread) compared to, is based on 1978's design. Unlike in many other areas, in CPU design, I'd say "newer == better". Of course that won't automatically make it fast, popular or good choice (usually due to lack of previous point)

-EDIT-

And as for Microsoft windows, I know that earlier NT versions (3, was it?) supported several processors, including PowerPC. Current (desktop) Windows only runs on X86 / X86-64, but next version will add ARM support. Windows Mobile / Phone of course runs on other hardware, but that's almost totally different story.

-EDIT-

And where "official" Windows doesn't run, wine will run windows binaries compiled for the platform it's running on. Which is quite useless, as even if a program is 100% open source, if it depends on some (X86-only, as most) library which isn't, no chance running it. Of course wine itself provides own versions of some "Windows internals".

[spirantho]

To be fair to X86 (and I'm as much a critic of it as anyone) the current processors are entirely different to the 1978 architecture. They don't even run the same code any more (the 8-bit part was taken out when they went 64-bit).

Essentially the current processors are a 2000's design with backwards compatibility externally, that's all.

[OlafS3]

I think the whole "my system is better than yours" is wrong. Aros has some advantages (like supporting different platforms, processors and hosted versions and it is good in 3D). It also has weaknesses that all Aros-Developers are aware of and working on it (like me and others working to integrated sophisticated 68k integration and distributions, Zune-Updates, Scalos to replace Wanderer as Workbench-Replacement etc.). In some areas like 68k integration it can not reach MorphOS level, but that is a price for using modern hardware. Some say they will only support and use Aros if it is better than MorphOS or AOS in all areas, I myself have decided where can I do more, commit directly and what has the best chances in the world of today and that is clearly Aros (for me). But that can everybody decide for himself/herself. The question is do we waste time and energy to "prove" each other that the own choice is the "best and only true" or discuss if and where working together is possible?