| From: | David LAROCHETTE |
| Date: | 07 Dec 99 at 16:37:46 |
| Subject: | [warpup] Re: Test |
> The problem is only that M@tabox says "why should we license WarpUP if we have
> our own solution". They don't see that incompatibility is a big problem.
> (Maybe now more, as probably a lot of people requested it ?) H&P offered them
> (and Phase 5) from the start "Look, license our 68k Emulation, it is tested
> since a very long time, and it is 100% compatible and stable." Both M@tqbox
> and P5 told they would not be interested, but preferred to do something
> themselves, even if it is totally incompatible. They think they can still sell
> more Boards on a slightly cheaper (and the license fee H&P want is really not
> much, it is just that adapting the 68k Emulation to a new Board is work and
> they have of course to pay their programmers for the time they work on this...
> you do not get software for no money...) instead of a slightly more expansive
> compatible solution.
This doesn't prevent H&P from getting a developper card and port it's
own kernel
on the stuff.
We're not in the case of first P5/H&P battle. There's already some soft
running
under WarpOS and won't be any on Met@box's, so people will make a better
choice.
Moreover, that doesn't prevent Met@box from developping another solution
which
will be 100% compatible with WarpOS.
Then the AmiJoe Card is far different from the original P5 PPC card: no
68k, L2
cache, therefore no cache flush prblem when involving two different
processors
accessing same memory, etc.
Of course, WarpOS can adapt to that new architecture, but it won't work
the better
way with just no change at all.