| From: | Steffen Haeuser |
| Date: | 14 Dec 99 at 20:52:54 |
| Subject: | [warpup] Something about G3/G4 cards |
owner-warpup-list@haage-partner.com wrote :
Hi!
ow> The last news from Phase5 is that they will use the same PCI/Memory controller
ow> as IBM (including AGP) and that LinuxPPC will be available for this cards
ow> shipping 1st q 2000.
How should that be ? Last i heard is that there is absolutely *NO* chance of
finishing the hardware even in December (and i am not refering to P5 claims
here), how would they want to adapt LinuxPPC in such a short time ? LinuxPPC
for POP is *available*. And even more, POP is a *open standard*. If you go on
P5 hardware you always have to be aware, that if P5 decides to go in a
different direction, they'll shut down everything else... very high risk...
in the best case support for these Boards could be ADDITIONALLY. But we need a
strong Standard-Hardware with open documentation. I guess even some of the
driver-source-code of Linux could be used in developement, if i am not wrong...
Then there is also the thing, that it does not really make sense to try ONCE
MORE extending the overall OUTDATED architecture, when a usable COMPLETE
SYSTEM with the needed hardware and all is available. And you also can be
sure, a LOT of firms will manufacture POP Hardware... all these would
automatically support AmigaOS, *if* AmigaOS gets ported to POP. As i
understand it, we don't can count this as a 100% chance yet... but we all
certainly hope :)
ow> Now why should we think (like Mr. Haage does) about licensing a "free" LinucPPC
ow> Box from IBM with a G3 proceessor. We could do better in supporting the P5
ow> concept. First of all i think that P5 will still deliver good work (they are so
ow> far the only one who BUILD PPC-cards for Amiga and not only announce them)
Better work than IBM who were co-inventers of the PowerPC ? I doubt. And
still, if the recent Amiga history teaches us one thing: It is *bad* to be too
dependent of Phase 5. That would give them too much power, if they are the
only option... and if they have too much power, they tend to mess up things,
trying to push "ad-hoc"-APIs with many problems, against nicely done software
developement, using nasty FlashROM-Tricks and such... i am sure you get the
message...
of course it would be a nice idea if POP *and* P5 Hardware
could be supported... but i think POP should have first priority... also i
think P5 should in this case drop the whole QNX bullsh*t, to show THEIR part
in cooperation. If they showed cooperation, this of course would be a good
thing for the whole Amiga Market.
ow> On the LinuxPPC box from IBM, amiga OS wont run, as it probably wont on
ow> P5-G4-boards. It is about UAE to do the job(68k only). So why suggesting a non
A PowerPC Native solution is to be preferred over UAE. I know Phase 5 has this
idea... but this really would be the death of the Amiga on how we know it. The
problem of P5 of course is they have nearly no software developers and a
MASSIVE time problem... and they appearently don't want to get other
Amiga-people involved. QNX is a different story OF COURSE ... (that was
sarcasm ... i don't understand why they prefer to work with QNX than to work
with Amiga-people...)
ow> of a G4 processor. I also believe that a QNX-version of UAE will be much faster
ow> that a Linux-version.
I see no reason why this should be the case... in fact i see the opposite more
likely. If this P5 Board ever sees the day, they will be very TIGHT in the
timeframe between finished QNX-OS for PPC and delivery of the product... no
time for optimization... LinuxPPC exists on current hardware, developement
about it could be done RIGHT NOW. Still, i don't think a UAE-only solution is
ideal. If it *can* be done, the AmigaOS should go to PPC Natively... but only
time can tell, what will be happening.
ow> Lets stop complaining about all things and enter a common path for the future
ow> of the spirit of Amiga.(I think no programmer is willing to support 3 standards
ow> if escena, P5,metabox and maybe H&P will do separate incompatible solutions for
ow> G3/G4 implementation)
Yes. In this i can agree. And even more: Most programmers i know will simply
ignore any Board which is not complying to H&Ps standards... Escena will
comply to it... M@tabox maybe... what about P5 ?
And why should a future AmigaOS be "P5-Board-only" if P5 is doing everything
they can do to oppose H&P, even now (the whole sad QNX-story...).
I think it would be a very good idea, if this future OS (if it will be done,
that is...) would have drivers to run on WarpUP-compatible Boards (from
whomever they come...), yes... this also would remove the need to write
drivers for every Board, i guess, and work could concentrate on the
POP-developements, if only one additional driver would have to be done.
Steffen Haeuser