Moo Bunny Amiga - thread "WTF?"
the statue (1993)

WTF?

Direct link to this message

WTF?

minator. @@@.

(78.105.201.193) [78.105.201.193]
What's with all the random trolling all of a sudden?

It seems to be related to the settlement news and the firefox port.

It may on the other hand have rather more to do with the Mac mini port of MOS being surprisingly popular. A lot of people were waiting for it and those with it are noticing it pretty damn fast, considerably more so than even the G4 based A1.

Despite the news from the Hyperion camp, MOS has got the biggest advantage it's had in years, if not ever. They are running on a much faster, and much cheaper system than the current Sams.

How Hyperion will fight back is anyone's guess, I'm guessing they'll be pressing Acube for something faster. That isn't exactly difficult as there's plenty of other PPCs around even from AMCC (who just finally announced the Titan chips).

BTW I have learned now that Acube do indeed have customers other than Amiga users, ironically they're selling to one of exactly the same markets we were looking at way back in 2003 at Thendic.

Hyperion are in a difficult position, If they can't get something competitive with the Mac mini soon they will have no one left to sell their newly disencumbered OS to.

MOS on the other hand have a different problem, as someone else pointed out. By going to the Mac mini they've killed any hope of getting new PPC hardware. Apple doesn't make PPC macs anymore.
They'll have no choice but to start looking at where to go next - or try and make friends with Acube.

This soap opera just runs and runs...

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

RED. ..

(67.159.44.51) [67.159.44.51]
On Wednesday, Oct 21, 2009, minator wrote:
> What's with all the random trolling all of a sudden?

It seems The BLUE cant get enough of that. Always picking a fight

>
> It seems to be related to the settlement news and the firefox port.

It all started when someone posted the "Fuck Hyperion" tread.

>
> It may on the other hand have rather more to do with the Mac mini port of
> MOS being surprisingly popular. A lot of people were waiting for it and
> those with it are noticing it pretty damn fast, considerably more so than
> even the G4 based A1.

It was more like the news of the settlement ruined their celebrating of the macmini port. They shudden realized without ever getting the reconition the brand Amiga could give it was all over.

>
> Despite the news from the Hyperion camp, MOS has got the biggest advantage
> it's had in years, if not ever. They are running on a much faster, and
> much cheaper system than the current Sams.

By going to the Mac mini they've killed any hope of getting new PPC
hardware. Apple doesn't make PPC macs anymore.

>
> How Hyperion will fight back is anyone's guess, I'm guessing they'll be
> pressing Acube for something faster. That isn't exactly difficult as
> there's plenty of other PPCs around even from AMCC (who just finally
> announced the Titan chips).

I would not call it a fight back, but more a roadmap of things to come. Like 4.1, Firefox and faster new PPC hw to run AmigaOS4 on.

>
> BTW I have learned now that Acube do indeed have customers other than Amiga
> users, ironically they're selling to one of exactly the same markets we
> were looking at way back in 2003 at Thendic.

This have been well known fact a long time now.

>
> Hyperion are in a difficult position, If they can't get something
> competitive with the Mac mini soon they will have no one left to sell their
> newly disencumbered OS to.

It is morpos that is in a difficult position, it is stuck on the macmini without no hope of getting new PPC hardware. Apple doesn't make PPC macs anymore. With the settlement done, 4.1 and firefox on their way the future for Hyperion looks very bright.

>
> MOS on the other hand have a different problem, as someone else pointed
> out. By going to the Mac mini they've killed any hope of getting new PPC
> hardware. Apple doesn't make PPC macs anymore.
> They'll have no choice but to start looking at where to go next - or try
> and make friends with Acube.

mos pretty much signed their own death certificate when genesis left, and the move to macmini didnt help either. No serious company will now touch them.

>
> This soap opera just runs and runs...
>

It will end when the morphos lovers are gone for good with their obsolete os.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

Jorkany. Jorkany.

(67.8.225.222) [67.8.225.222]

> How Hyperion will fight back is anyone's guess, I'm guessing they'll be
> pressing Acube for something faster. That isn't exactly difficult as
> there's plenty of other PPCs around even from AMCC (who just finally
> announced the Titan chips).

Acube appears to be pulling up stakes from the OS4 market. Their recently announced projects have nothing to do with OS4. No surprise really, they seem on the ball enough to realize there's no profit in OS4 Land.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

RED. ..

(67.159.44.51) [67.159.44.51]
On Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, Jorkany wrote:
>
> > How Hyperion will fight back is anyone's guess, I'm guessing they'll be
> > pressing Acube for something faster. That isn't exactly difficult as
> > there's plenty of other PPCs around even from AMCC (who just finally
> > announced the Titan chips).
>
> Acube appears to be pulling up stakes from the OS4 market. Their recently
> announced projects have nothing to do with OS4. No surprise really, they
> seem on the ball enough to realize there's no profit in OS4 Land.
>

I dunno what drugs your on but planet earth are calling. Acube are making profit of OS4 as we speak, Acube is a big company and have side projects every companies have that. The only one that have NOT made any profit is the deadbeat and now obsolete morphos Land.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

zee. z@z.z.

(67.8.82.95) 95.82.8.67.cfl.res.rr.com
On Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, RED wrote:

> I dunno what drugs your on but planet earth are calling. Acube are making
> profit of OS4 as we speak,

Yeah, given the mindset of fanbois like you, that's not very difficult for them.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

dammy. damocles@thenostromo.com.

(68.142.7.184) dsl-7-184.cofs.net
On Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, RED wrote:

<snip>

With the settlement done, 4.1 and firefox on their way the future
> for Hyperion looks very bright.

Why? Nothing has changed other then legal issues being resolved, they have the same old 1990s OS issues going on now as they did before the settlement.

Dammy

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

Kronos. ich@hier.kom.

(217.236.124.245) [217.236.124.245]
On Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, RED wrote:
> Acube are making profit of OS4 as we speak,

Define "profit":
a) SAMs sell for a little more then the cost of production
b) SAMs sell for so much more then the cost of production that it pays for it's development cost the costs, the ones for it's successor and still leaves enough for all the partners in ACube not to need additional income.
Do your math ...

> Acube is a big company

By your definition, the average family-farm could be described as a corporate-giant.

Facts:
ACube is smaller than Thendic/Genesi/bPlan ever was, and thats still damn small for a HW-firm, it's probraly even smaller than Jens with his retro-stuff.

Income from OS4-related SW and HW couldn't pay for a single person living an aveage west-european lifestyle (let's say 20.000Euro/year AFTER all taxes ,and expenses).

A Titan-based SAM would just be on par with the MacMini in terms of real performance and even if all things go perfect it won't be available before late next year and it'll cost about twice as much.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

sad. sad@amiga.com.

(165.86.81.20) 165.86.81.20
On Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, Kronos wrote:
> On Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, RED wrote:
> > Acube are making profit of OS4 as we speak,
>
> Define "profit":
> a) SAMs sell for a little more then the cost of production
> b) SAMs sell for so much more then the cost of production that it pays for
> it's development cost the costs, the ones for it's successor and still
> leaves enough for all the partners in ACube not to need additional income.
>
> Do your math ...
>
> > Acube is a big company
>
> By your definition, the average family-farm could be described as a
> corporate-giant.
>
> Facts:
> ACube is smaller than Thendic/Genesi/bPlan ever was, and thats still damn
> small for a HW-firm, it's probraly even smaller than Jens with his
> retro-stuff.
>
> Income from OS4-related SW and HW couldn't pay for a single person living
> an aveage west-european lifestyle (let's say 20.000Euro/year AFTER all
> taxes ,and expenses).
>
> A Titan-based SAM would just be on par with the MacMini in terms of real
> performance and even if all things go perfect it won't be available before
> late next year and it'll cost about twice as much.
>


This is sad but probably true.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

itix. sdfsd.

(194.142.156.79) viconsys-static-route.jsp.fi
On Wednesday, Oct 21, 2009, minator wrote:

> Hyperion are in a difficult position, If they can't get something
> competitive with the Mac mini soon they will have no one left to sell their
> newly disencumbered OS to.
>
> MOS on the other hand have a different problem, as someone else pointed
> out. By going to the Mac mini they've killed any hope of getting new PPC
> hardware. Apple doesn't make PPC macs anymore.

Do you mean PPC hardware vendors go out of business because MorphOS was ported to Mac PPC? Or that PPC manufacturers refuse to have MorphOS ported on their hardware? You make no sense.

> They'll have no choice but to start looking at where to go next - or try
> and make friends with Acube.

If they have new competitive alternative PPC hardware then why not. I dont see problem. Acube must stand on their on the HW business.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Wednesday, Oct 21, 2009, minator wrote:

> MOS on the other hand have a different problem, as someone else pointed
> out. By going to the Mac mini they've killed any hope of getting new PPC
> hardware. Apple doesn't make PPC macs anymore.
> They'll have no choice but to start looking at where to go next - or try
> and make friends with Acube.

Killed any hope of getting new PPC hardware. The dire need of new PPC hardware failed to result in any real progress for years, any 'blame' levelled at MOS because of this hilarious.

I don't think its MOS's job to create or find the hardware, either there is reasonably open PPC hardware that can be used, or there isn't. MOS will choose based on what is available.

The mini mac is one excellent choice, albeit about 2 years two late IMHO.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

Rob. ..

(82.21.187.151) cpc2-neww1-0-0-cust918.cdif.cable.ntl.com
On Wednesday, Oct 21, 2009, minator wrote:
> What's with all the random trolling all of a sudden?

Random trolling hasn't happened all of a sudden, just random trolling against MorphOS.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

minator. @@@.

(78.105.201.193) [78.105.201.193]
On Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, itix wrote:
> On Wednesday, Oct 21, 2009, minator wrote:
>
> > Hyperion are in a difficult position, If they can't get something
> > competitive with the Mac mini soon they will have no one left to sell their
> > newly disencumbered OS to.
> >
> > MOS on the other hand have a different problem, as someone else pointed
> > out. By going to the Mac mini they've killed any hope of getting new PPC
> > hardware. Apple doesn't make PPC macs anymore.
>
> Do you mean PPC hardware vendors go out of business because MorphOS was
> ported to Mac PPC? Or that PPC manufacturers refuse to have MorphOS ported
> on their hardware? You make no sense.

If you make machines in low volumes it's going to be very difficult indeed to compete with the Mac mini, in which case where does MOS go next? (other than other Macs)

> > They'll have no choice but to start looking at where to go next - or try
> > and make friends with Acube.
>
> If they have new competitive alternative PPC hardware then why not. I dont
> see problem. Acube must stand on their on the HW business.

Sure. With SMP apparently now a feature for OS4.2, it looks like their next board will be multicore. Given they've been using AMCC to date that'd make it the Titan, it is supposed to be pretty cheap and at 1.5 GHz should give the Mac mini more than a run for it's money (and potentially disprove my point above).

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

XraalE. moo.

(82.40.25.245) 82-40-25-245.cable.ubr04.uddi.blueyonder.co.uk
On Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, minator wrote:
>
> If you make machines in low volumes it's going to be very difficult indeed
> to compete with the Mac mini, in which case where does MOS go next? (other
> than other Macs)

Onto the next cheap, powerful, available and non-embedded board - oops, I forgot: there isn't one. And there won't ever be.

> Sure. With SMP apparently now a feature for OS4.2, it looks like their
> next board will be multicore. Given they've been using AMCC to date that'd
> make it the Titan, it is supposed to be pretty cheap and at 1.5 GHz should
> give the Mac mini more than a run for it's money (and potentially disprove
> my point above).

Hahaha - SMP for OS4? What idiot announced that?

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

megol. .@..

(90.233.226.208) [90.233.226.208]
On Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, minator wrote:
>
> If you make machines in low volumes it's going to be very difficult indeed
> to compete with the Mac mini, in which case where does MOS go next? (other
> than other Macs)
>
> Sure. With SMP apparently now a feature for OS4.2, it looks like their
> next board will be multicore. Given they've been using AMCC to date that'd
> make it the Titan, it is supposed to be pretty cheap and at 1.5 GHz should
> give the Mac mini more than a run for it's money (and potentially disprove
> my point above).
>
If Hyperion succeeds in adding SMP support using the normal API or a simple extension of the API I'll eat my hat*. Given their previously stated position that any kind of sandboxing is evil I can't see how it can be done.

(* full disclosure: I haven't got any hat)

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

itix. sdfsdf.

(194.142.156.79) viconsys-static-route.jsp.fi
On Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, minator wrote:
> On Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, itix wrote:
> > On Wednesday, Oct 21, 2009, minator wrote:
> >
> > > Hyperion are in a difficult position, If they can't get something
> > > competitive with the Mac mini soon they will have no one left to sell their
> > > newly disencumbered OS to.
> > >
> > > MOS on the other hand have a different problem, as someone else pointed
> > > out. By going to the Mac mini they've killed any hope of getting new PPC
> > > hardware. Apple doesn't make PPC macs anymore.
> >
> > Do you mean PPC hardware vendors go out of business because MorphOS was
> > ported to Mac PPC? Or that PPC manufacturers refuse to have MorphOS ported
> > on their hardware? You make no sense.
>
> If you make machines in low volumes it's going to be very difficult indeed
> to compete with the Mac mini, in which case where does MOS go next? (other
> than other Macs)

I dont see any reason why ACube HW can not be used in the future. I dont see problem with that. Do you?

> > > They'll have no choice but to start looking at where to go next - or try
> > > and make friends with Acube.
> >
> > If they have new competitive alternative PPC hardware then why not. I dont
> > see problem. Acube must stand on their on the HW business.
>
> Sure. With SMP apparently now a feature for OS4.2, it looks like their
> next board will be multicore. Given they've been using AMCC to date that'd
> make it the Titan, it is supposed to be pretty cheap and at 1.5 GHz should
> give the Mac mini more than a run for it's money (and potentially disprove
> my point above).

Pffft. So, why waste time with current SAM models when there is better HW coming from Acube? ;-)

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

itix. sdfsdf.

(194.142.156.79) viconsys-static-route.jsp.fi
On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, itix wrote:
> On Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, minator wrote:
> > If you make machines in low volumes it's going to be very difficult indeed
> > to compete with the Mac mini, in which case where does MOS go next? (other
> > than other Macs)
>
> I dont see any reason why ACube HW can not be used in the future. I dont
> see problem with that. Do you?

Though, if Acube can offer only very low end HW (like current SAMs) it is not going to help MorphOS. Going from 1GHz+ machines to L2 cache free 500MHz+ machines is not solution. My 400MHz Efika works fine but from G4 it is downgrade. Like going from A1200 to A600. (I liked my A600 very much btw.)

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, itix wrote:
> On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, itix wrote:
> > On Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, minator wrote:
> > > If you make machines in low volumes it's going to be very difficult indeed
> > > to compete with the Mac mini, in which case where does MOS go next? (other
> > > than other Macs)
> >
> > I dont see any reason why ACube HW can not be used in the future. I dont
> > see problem with that. Do you?
>
> Though, if Acube can offer only very low end HW (like current SAMs) it is
> not going to help MorphOS. Going from 1GHz+ machines to L2 cache free
> 500MHz+ machines is not solution. My 400MHz Efika works fine but from G4 it
> is downgrade. Like going from A1200 to A600. (I liked my A600 very much
> btw.)

Does PPC offer anything viable, even short term?
Even if someone built and developed a top line G4, in todays computing. its questionable wether this gets you anywhere.

On the other hand, you could simply offer more support for back catalogue PPC systems (old Macs), which I guess would get you 5 years, maybe a few more beyond in terms of a populace.

If you do that, the question then becomes, what will MOS be in 5 years? - if the MOS team generally believe it will have reached its evolutionary end, perhaps that is a sort of acceptable 'life' plan for the OS and hardware.

5 years from now, the outlook is 64 bit and beyond, multi-core, IP v6, and probably very serious changes in terms of storage, devices, and IO.

Initially, I'd guess that wider support for older PPC (read mainly Mac) equipment would fulfill the basics.

But, perhaps also in 5 years, there may be other platforms, or cpu systems, or mobile devices that might open the door. In the meantime, the fact MOS can be put on some relatively nice hardware, is probably the best combo presented to the public in years, and they deserve the success I hope they get for their hard work. Basically, the combo that people craved for many years. A new(ish) OS tied to decent hardware.



Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

Kronos. ich@hier.kom.

(217.236.97.200) [217.236.97.200]
On Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, XraalE wrote:

> Hahaha - SMP for OS4? What idiot announced that?

The usual one(s).

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

Don Cox. hkjhkjhkjh.

(82.17.144.36) cpc3-stkn4-0-0-cust35.midd.cable.ntl.com
On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, AdmV wrote:
>
> Does PPC offer anything viable, even short term?
> Even if someone built and developed a top line G4, in todays computing. its
> questionable wether this gets you anywhere.
>
It doesn't. G4 Macs are obsolete machines which are given away or sold for peanuts.

Bear in mind that on AmigaOS, many programs have to run under emulation. So you need twice the speed to get the same result.

I do find a 1.4 GHz machine fast enough for Amithlon, but Bernie's emulation is I suspect more efficient than the one in AOS4. How good is the 68k emulation in MorphOS?


> On the other hand, you could simply offer more support for back catalogue
> PPC systems (old Macs), which I guess would get you 5 years, maybe a few
> more beyond in terms of a populace.
>
> If you do that, the question then becomes, what will MOS be in 5 years? -
> if the MOS team generally believe it will have reached its evolutionary
> end, perhaps that is a sort of acceptable 'life' plan for the OS and
> hardware.
>
> 5 years from now, the outlook is 64 bit and beyond, multi-core, IP v6, and
> probably very serious changes in terms of storage, devices, and IO.
>
> Initially, I'd guess that wider support for older PPC (read mainly Mac)
> equipment would fulfill the basics.
>
> But, perhaps also in 5 years, there may be other platforms, or cpu systems,
> or mobile devices that might open the door. In the meantime, the fact MOS
> can be put on some relatively nice hardware, is probably the best combo
> presented to the public in years, and they deserve the success I hope they
> get for their hard work. Basically, the combo that people craved for many
> years. A new(ish) OS tied to decent hardware.
>
>

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

Kronos. ich@hier.kom.

(217.236.123.49) [217.236.123.49]
On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, Don Cox wrote:
> On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, AdmV wrote:

> I do find a 1.4 GHz machine fast enough for Amithlon, but Bernie's
> emulation is I suspect more efficient than the one in AOS4. How good is the
> 68k emulation in MorphOS?


Comparing my old Amithlon-Setup (AthlonXP running at real 1.4GHz) to the Peg2 I allways found the Peg to be somewhat faster. This might be due to:

- 1GHz x86 != 1GHz PPC
- no endian-issues
- 68k-apps calling native PPC-code

And thats before taking Altivec or the MacMini into the consideration.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, Don Cox wrote:

> It doesn't. G4 Macs are obsolete machines which are given away or sold for
> peanuts.

They are obselete, however, the later models are usually not given away. Check Ebay and you'll see that prices on things like Mini macs are still 'costly'.

Other models may get tossed out, sub 1Ghz boxes, which again is why MOS should try and cover more models. Even if they were at the stage of being tossed out, this would be a huge boon IF MOS supported the units, not a negative.

> Bear in mind that on AmigaOS, many programs have to run under emulation. So
> you need twice the speed to get the same result.

Why you raise this I have no idea at all. Is Amiga OS available for Mac boxes? If so, I was not aware of it. If you mean under MOS, then maybe, but most junk Macs will outrun the SAM440 that is 'official'.

> I do find a 1.4 GHz machine fast enough for Amithlon, but Bernie's
> emulation is I suspect more efficient than the one in AOS4. How good is the
> 68k emulation in MorphOS?

The original 68k chips ran from 7Mhz, to 50Mhz, I'm willing to say that you won't be worse off on a minimac. Support for Amithlon is now so long in the tooth that its going the way of the do do anyway, its no more a path forward than any of the other strugglers.

No, MOS + a MiniMac is basically the only viable open pathway - thats where and what it looks like to me. Personally I wish it had happened 2 years earlier.

I've heard third hand that traffic and interest is up a reasonable chunk for MOS. Good for them. Maybe it will be enough to enthuse them into support for more models.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

Don Cox. jjjhhjh.

(82.17.144.36) cpc3-stkn4-0-0-cust35.midd.cable.ntl.com
On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, Don Cox wrote:
>
> > It doesn't. G4 Macs are obsolete machines which are given away or sold for
> > peanuts.
>
> They are obselete, however, the later models are usually not given away.
> Check Ebay and you'll see that prices on things like Mini macs are still
> 'costly'.
>
> Other models may get tossed out, sub 1Ghz boxes, which again is why MOS
> should try and cover more models. Even if they were at the stage of being
> tossed out, this would be a huge boon IF MOS supported the units, not a
> negative.
>
> > Bear in mind that on AmigaOS, many programs have to run under emulation. So
> > you need twice the speed to get the same result.
>
> Why you raise this I have no idea at all. Is Amiga OS available for Mac
> boxes? If so, I was not aware of it. If you mean under MOS, then maybe, but
> most junk Macs will outrun the SAM440 that is 'official'.
>
> > I do find a 1.4 GHz machine fast enough for Amithlon, but Bernie's
> > emulation is I suspect more efficient than the one in AOS4. How good is the
> > 68k emulation in MorphOS?
>
> The original 68k chips ran from 7Mhz, to 50Mhz, I'm willing to say that you
> won't be worse off on a minimac.

A 50Hz 68060 is really much too slow for any serious work. Amithlon is OK.

I can't see that I would gain anything from going to MOS on a Mini-Mac.


> Support for Amithlon is now so long in the
> tooth that its going the way of the do do anyway, its no more a path
> forward than any of the other strugglers.
>
> No, MOS + a MiniMac is basically the only viable open pathway - thats where
> and what it looks like to me. Personally I wish it had happened 2 years
> earlier.
>
> I've heard third hand that traffic and interest is up a reasonable chunk
> for MOS. Good for them. Maybe it will be enough to enthuse them into
> support for more models.
>

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, Don Cox wrote:
> On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, AdmV wrote:

>
> A 50Hz 68060 is really much too slow for any serious work. Amithlon is OK.
>
> I can't see that I would gain anything from going to MOS on a Mini-Mac.

MOS on mini mac has a level of support.
If your Amithlon box has an accident, what will you do?

I do like the fact that you apply a theory of 'serious work' though. Laughable, but I am sure you actually believe it.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

Don Cox. jhkjjh.

(82.17.144.36) cpc3-stkn4-0-0-cust35.midd.cable.ntl.com
On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, Don Cox wrote:
> > On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, AdmV wrote:
>
> >
> > A 50Hz 68060 is really much too slow for any serious work. Amithlon is OK.
> >
> > I can't see that I would gain anything from going to MOS on a Mini-Mac.
>
> MOS on mini mac has a level of support.
> If your Amithlon box has an accident, what will you do?
>
Repair it. It already had one hard drive failure.

> I do like the fact that you apply a theory of 'serious work' though.
> Laughable, but I am sure you actually believe it.
>
>
If I get paid, it is "serious".

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

Fab. .@..

(83.195.151.25) [83.195.151.25]
On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, Don Cox wrote:
> > > I do find a 1.4 GHz machine fast enough for Amithlon, but Bernie's
> > > emulation is I suspect more efficient than the one in AOS4. How good is the
> > > 68k emulation in MorphOS?
> >
> > The original 68k chips ran from 7Mhz, to 50Mhz, I'm willing to say that you
> > won't be worse off on a minimac.
>
> A 50Hz 68060 is really much too slow for any serious work. Amithlon is OK.
>
> I can't see that I would gain anything from going to MOS on a Mini-Mac.
>

A 50Hz 68060 certainly sounds slow. :)

I haven't measured on Mac mini, but on Pegasos2, the JIT 68k emulation (called Trance) already reaches *several* times 060 speed (it already reached it on bppc).

So I expect it to be at least twice as fast on mini.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> On Wednesday, Oct 21, 2009, minator wrote:
>
> > MOS on the other hand have a different problem, as someone else pointed
> > out. By going to the Mac mini they've killed any hope of getting new PPC
> > hardware. Apple doesn't make PPC macs anymore.
> > They'll have no choice but to start looking at where to go next - or try
> > and make friends with Acube.
>
> Killed any hope of getting new PPC hardware. The dire need of new PPC
> hardware failed to result in any real progress for years, any 'blame'
> levelled at MOS because of this hilarious.
>
> I don't think its MOS's job to create or find the hardware, either there is
> reasonably open PPC hardware that can be used, or there isn't.

A-HA! A-HA, A-HA, A-HA!!!!!!!

THAT is why I've designated motorola as "MOTOSCUM" and IBM as "IBuM"!!!!!! (And deservedly SO!)


(Really faggy voice.) "Hey, look at us.... we made these REALLY REALLY REALLY _cool_ CPUs (92 variations (that no one uses anway!)!!!! No one _understands_ their number designations, sorry 'bout that), we have great speeds, 600 MHz, 800MHz, 1.25 GHz, 1.42 GHz, 1.8GHz then it's back to 400 MHz, neat 'o, eh? Make desktops and conquor the win-intel for us, please..... oh, too bad, there ISN'T ANYONE making northbridges, there isn't no one making southbridges, or motherboards with our CPUs and we don't know how to either, but what would be REALLY REALLY REALLY cool is you writing an OS for us", stern voice, "thank you for your co-operation."


> MOS will choose based on what is available.

Phone motoscum, phone IBuM, I'm sure they're churning them out at a fever pitch as we type and read.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

AdmV. AdmV.

(94.194.202.229) [94.194.202.229]
On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, Don Cox wrote:
> On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> > On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, Don Cox wrote:
> > > On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > A 50Hz 68060 is really much too slow for any serious work. Amithlon is OK.
> > >
> > > I can't see that I would gain anything from going to MOS on a Mini-Mac.
> >
> > MOS on mini mac has a level of support.
> > If your Amithlon box has an accident, what will you do?
> >
> Repair it. It already had one hard drive failure.

Box not hard drive. If your motherboard fails, are you in position to recover your 'business'.


> > I do like the fact that you apply a theory of 'serious work' though.
> > Laughable, but I am sure you actually believe it.
> >
> >
> If I get paid, it is "serious".

Yes, if you get paid, it is serious. And not being paid is also serious, so perhaps you should consider MOS and a mac mini afterall.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

Don Cox. hjjkjkj.

(82.17.144.36) cpc3-stkn4-0-0-cust35.midd.cable.ntl.com
On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, Don Cox wrote:
> > On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> > > On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, Don Cox wrote:
> > > > On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > A 50Hz 68060 is really much too slow for any serious work. Amithlon is OK.
> > > >
> > > > I can't see that I would gain anything from going to MOS on a Mini-Mac.
> > >
> > > MOS on mini mac has a level of support.
> > > If your Amithlon box has an accident, what will you do?
> > >
> > Repair it. It already had one hard drive failure.
>
> Box not hard drive. If your motherboard fails, are you in position to
> recover your 'business'.
>
Sure.

>
> > > I do like the fact that you apply a theory of 'serious work' though.
> > > Laughable, but I am sure you actually believe it.
> > >
> > >
> > If I get paid, it is "serious".
>
> Yes, if you get paid, it is serious. And not being paid is also serious, so
> perhaps you should consider MOS and a mac mini after all.
>
Not really.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: WTF?

megol. .@..

(90.233.135.95) [90.233.135.95]
On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, Don Cox wrote:
> > On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> > > On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, Don Cox wrote:
> > > > On Friday, Oct 23, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > A 50Hz 68060 is really much too slow for any serious work. Amithlon is OK.
> > > >
> > > > I can't see that I would gain anything from going to MOS on a Mini-Mac.
> > >
> > > MOS on mini mac has a level of support.
> > > If your Amithlon box has an accident, what will you do?
> > >
> > Repair it. It already had one hard drive failure.
>
> Box not hard drive. If your motherboard fails, are you in position to
> recover your 'business'.
>
>
> > > I do like the fact that you apply a theory of 'serious work' though.
> > > Laughable, but I am sure you actually believe it.
> > >
> > >
> > If I get paid, it is "serious".
>
> Yes, if you get paid, it is serious. And not being paid is also serious, so
> perhaps you should consider MOS and a mac mini afterall.
>
There have been people earning money using C64 for critical parts of their business, should they too upgrade just for the sake of it? Getting old Amithlon-compatible hardware shouldn't be that hard if the need should arise.

Reply to this

Short list view

Previous thread - Next thread

Back to Moo Bunny

It is now: 12:02:30 GMT.
Moo Bunny brand Message Boards
[General Stuff (10:30:54)] [Space (Aug 2009)] [Anime (2007)]
[WalkingFish (Oct 3)] [Cabinet of Curiosities (2007)] [Portland (2008)]
Retro and Exotic Computing
[Atari ST (2007)] [WeirdMac (Jan 2009)]
Amiga Boards
[Amiga Section (11:37:14)]
John Shepard's Projects
[Rastport (Tuesday)] [Squid's Amiga Page & Rumor Mill (n/a)] [Art by John Shepard (Sep 2009)]