»

[dougal]

Is the most powerful G4 the 1.67Ghz from the Powerbook G4?

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by dougal

Is the most powerful G4 the 1.67Ghz from the Powerbook G4?

The fastest G4 is the 7448 dualcore cpu with a frequency of 2Ghz.

I would prefer to see some real tests instead of "Meaningless Information Processor Speed".

Show me some ARM machine I can buy that is faster than a Powermac G5 QuadCore from 7 years ago. If there are no faster ARM machines available in the mass market then ARM is 7 years behind PPC.

Those complains about cpus usually come from ex-amiga users or people who doesn't use amiga at all. My powerbook G4 at 1.67Ghz runs MorphOS nicely and MorphOS would fly on a 2.5-2.7Ghz G5.

If MorphOS had to switch architecture in 6 years I would always choose x86, there are millions of computers available and all them are way faster than anything ARM that exists.

[Ratte]

(next) new arcitecture without new software .. why ?

[commodorejohn]

Originally Posted by Crumb

Show me some ARM machine I can buy that is faster than a Powermac G5 QuadCore from 7 years ago. If there are no faster ARM machines available in the mass market then ARM is 7 years behind PPC.

Yeah, this is really the crux of the issue: there just isn't any good ARM platform out there, not for general-purpose computing. Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to the Raspberry Pi and everything, but I've spent the last two years watching semiconductor manufacturers pour quadzillions of dollars into ever-better ARM cores for tablets and smartphones and screaming "Give it to me in a laptop already!" at my screen. (And no, tablet + keyboard is not the same thing. Give me something I can put 4GB RAM and a 320GB hard drive in, damn it.) Even the couple attempts at an ARM netbook I've seen are based on old cores that don't come close to matching my old, janky P4 laptop from 2004 for horsepower, let alone my trusty Eee.

Those complains about cpus usually come from ex-amiga users or people who doesn't use amiga at all. My powerbook G4 at 1.67Ghz runs MorphOS nicely and MorphOS would fly on a 2.5-2.7Ghz G5.

Quite. My PowerBook/Linux attempt may have been abortive, but one thing I did find is that a 1.67GHz PowerBook is perfectly satisfactory for everything except streaming video; if there were one based on a newer chip with a faster FSB I can't imagine I'd have any complaints at all.

[freqmax]

What graphics should go with it?

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by freqmax

What graphics should go with it?

If I'm right, just about anything (but the MOS team would probably prefer an ATI solution - me too).

BTW - Thank you all for the support on retaining PPCs (for the time being).
I can get a G5 mac cheap. They're fast and still fairly up to date.

AND, they'll run my current software without recompilation or emulation.

ARM or X86 eventually?

Why not?

But, for the time being, why not continue follow the course which has brought a lot of new users to MorphOS?

[Heiroglyph]

I see a couple of pros and cons.

It takes time to move to a new platform. Look at how hard it is to get drivers for existing systems, even 68k. As good as they are at our specific platform, our OS guys are slow compared to Linux, BSD or even Haiku teams.

It's not easy to emulate PPC yet, PPC isn't quite that outdated but it's getting there, so that software would probably be a loss unless it is recompiled. Many of these are either ports already or still actively developed, so it might not be terrible. Many users never moved to PPC, so it doesn't harm 100% of the userbase.

That said...

When you see that the platform is essentially dead, you've got to move asap or get caught without hardware available. PPC has been done for since Apple moved to x86 whether we want to admit it or not.

Personally I'm tired of scrounging for old hardware and always being a decade or more behind the performance curve just because I like a certain OS.

Any current platform would be a plus.

[SamuraiCrow]

Originally Posted by freqmax

What graphics should go with it?

The Raspberry Pi has a SoC so it comes with the OpenGL-ES graphics core on the same chip as the CPU. Since OpenGL-ES can support fixed-point maths, it might be tricky getting some Mesa support since that requires floating-point maths. We'll see how it goes.

[yssing]

Originally Posted by freqmax

What graphics should go with it?

Exactly, why add yet an other architecture, on an already small and divided market?

[SamuraiCrow]

Originally Posted by yssing

Exactly, why add yet an other architecture, on an already small and divided market?

In a word: Cost!

The original post of this thread reveals that ARM based netbook can plow the streets with a SAM 460 yet cost much less.

Personally, I'm holding out for the NatAmi MX and the Raspberry Pi. I've got a Micro-A1c but I'm not going to shell out that kind of money ($1400 for a complete system) again.

[SamuraiCrow]

@CommodoreJohn

There was BBRV's blog post about a new Efika MX model coming sometime this year. It might not be so powerful as what you're looking for, but it should be a bit faster than the existing Efika MX.

[commodorejohn]

Originally Posted by SamuraiCrow

There was BBRV's blog post about a new Efika MX model coming sometime this year. It might not be so powerful as what you're looking for, but it should be a bit faster than the existing Efika MX.

Huh, that's definitely an improvement over the current model. If they'd go with one of the multi-core variants they might actually be getting somewhere...

Of course, there's still the problem that the Efika has zero RAM/storage expandability.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by SamuraiCrow

...In a word: Cost!

Which is exactly why I've argued for support of more PPC Mac models (like the G5).
They are extremely inexpensive and still offer competitive performance (doubt me? go look at the X1000 benches again).

And now that I think about it, the Natami is going to be rather expensive (not to mention not that great a performer - FPGAs have there limits).
The 68K had its day and that day is gone.

[ppcamiga1]

Your problem is that this question is simply wrong.
PowerPC is a technology that we Amiga users use in our Amiga 15 years.
15 years of history, 15 years of memories.
PowerPC is a technology that we know, technology that we love.
For many of us, Amiga users only Amiga with PowerPC is a true Amiga.
68k is (was) ridiculously slow.
And a PC with x86 will never be Amiga.
You should think for themselves.
We Amiga users will not resign from 15 years of history for peanuts.

[_ThEcRoW]

PPC history? don't make me laugh.