Opinion: PPC, 68080 and other

[TCD]

Originally Posted by Pyromania

They are way too busy selling/shipping Vampires to radically change the website which is already functional.

I take your word for it

[pix]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

What would a 'higher power' OS 4 'Amiga' offer developers that other platforms don't?

Thanks for your comment, you make some good points.
"That other platforms don't" with higher power is a bit of a tricky one, There is nothing conceiveable that any platform offers over say Windows on x86_64. At least on the surface it has is all anyone would ever need and has better support for a wider range of software, development tools and hardware.

Yet people still use and develop for Mac OS despite its meager market share. I guess my answer is that developers will develop for an Amiga if Amiga were a viable platform and they like Amiga?

In the 90's Mac enthusiasts used to cite FPU performance? as a reason to use their machine instead of a PC and justify the cost. There no longer exists any such hardware distinctive. Yes, the modern custom ARM designs of Apple have some impressive performance characteristics, but the Intel CPU's have more support, still maintain a slight edge in raw power and are the only real choice for gaming outside consoles.

I agree that x86 and ARM are boring. But OS 4/PPC isn't any better IMO - still the same exploitive business model that keeps you on the treadmill, running faster and faster just to keep up. That's why I choose to continue using my A1200 with 50MHz 030. I also have an A600 with Vampire, but I find the higher power systems less interesting. Finally I have a stock A500 with 1084 monitor to preserve that true retro experience.

Personally I like the idea of keeping PPC going as well and I love the polish of Amiga OS4. Some Amiga accelerators employed PPC, so to me its a somewhat legitimate bloodline.

What you say about the treadmill is right. Being realistic, the distinctives that made the Amiga chipset groundbreaking cannot be repeated today. 3d, video and AI acceleration are becoming part of the instruction set for almost all computers. I think a new Amiga chipset should support these innovations so it can push these kinds of projects around. If I had an excuse to do AI development on an Amiga, I would take it. But I'm not expecting a modern Amiga development to overturn ARM, Apple or Intel in raw performance.

There are things an Amiga chipset COULD IMO sport to offer value. High quality audio and DAC's for music production. Also, I think it would be kickass if Amiga supported voxel acceleration on the chipset. This would be one of the few real distinctives that could give Amiga a unique feature set.

Your original Amiga setups are great. I had an Amiga 500 which I rescued from a skip at the council dump several years ago. Sort of wish I had kept it now I have a bit more appreciation for the accelerator boards that are available.

Personally, after listening to everyone here, I am leaning toward that Amiga 600 and Vampire combo myself.

For me, nothing beats real 1990's Amiga hardware doing the stuff we were doing (or wanted to do) back then. So many games, so many programming challenges, so many hardware projects I want to do - I doubt that I will live long enough to complete a fraction of them!

Definitely, I share your sentiment. My own experience was just the few years in the late 80's with our family Amiga 500+ and I have fond memories of going to the local Amiga club as a kid. Later we bought an Amiga CD32 instead of a Playstation or Saturn .... whoops!

If you chase the high end you will never be satisfied. No matter how high powered an OS 4 'Amiga' is it still won't match a PC. The OS and apps will always be a little clunky and not do the job quite as well, and you won't be able to do half as much despite spending megabucks on it. So why not just use a PC for that stuff?

I think you are absolutely right, I just wondered when I came across the 68080 and its extensions if it couldn't develop into something more.

ChromeOS is a piece of crap which runs on cheap hardware, but some people choose to use it and work with purely cloud based applications, however slowly despite most people having superior Windows machines as well. The Amiga doesn't need to be ultimately powerful in the way the original was, it just needs to be usable. Someone started an Amicloud service years ago which I still pay for to this day just because I appreciated the initiative and hoped the Amiga community would get behind an Eco system.

[pix]

Originally Posted by amifan

I had been thinking for a long time about a Vampire V4 Standalone and now after over half a year I am happy I got one. It feels like a real Amiga but has awesome new features such as the SAGA and 16 BIT audio but it still feels very much like a real Amiga.

Thanks, I am definitely leaning heavily toward the 68080.
After listening to all the comments. I feel like there is almost a consensus on the PPC.
That's not to say the A1222+ doesn't interest me, but it is without doubt fairly expensive.

[amifan]

That was one of the swaying factors for me, the A1222+ looks quite interesting but the entrance price is a bit beyond what I can afford for my hobby. The V4SA on the other hand has replaced my A1200 completely, I still keep the A1200 off to the side for testing purposes but bit by bit it's falling apart (the PCMCIA plastic tabs have finally fallen off). Plus having the ability to easily switch to any Amiga OS via ApolloBoot with the click of a button has proven very helpful when checking how WhatIFF? looks like on other systems.

[pix]

Originally Posted by clebin

I don't think anyone has asked what the OP actually intends to the do with this computer?

I like Amiga and keeping it alive.

I like emulation, but I prefer hardware implementations. Soundchips are the easiest example for me. There is no comparison between a 100% emulation of SPC700 in Higan/bSNES and an SPC module in a SNES. None.

I like AmigaOS and OS4. I like the look of MorphOS also.(PPC)
I like AROS (x86/ARM)

I'd ultimately like an Amiga which can approach daily usability somehow.
Daily browsing, video, smb/cifs, emulators and so on. PPC has adequate grunt to do this.

It seems that a classic Amiga is off the table, so it would be useful to know what his/her expectations of a "next-gen" Amiga are.

I like classic Amiga, but I have limited space and resources like almost anyone. I don't like having to choose between PPC and Classic. If I have to choose from the current state I like the look of a Vampire 68080 in an Amiga 600, or a standalone vampire.

It is a shame however that the 68080 remains mostly constrained to mid-90's performance, but its an amazing option to have.

Without wanting to put a dampener on things (well maybe a bit.. ), it might be that no hardware or OS is currently going do what they're hoping for and it'll end up in the attic within weeks. It happens.

It won't, but your point is true, that if I can't use it for some daily things it will become little used after the novelty has worn off.

We can all play favourite CPUs, but surely any hardware purchase is going to be driven by the software you want to run on it.

Yes, in a sense it is, but I don't like having to choose between PPC and boosted Motorola. I don't like that this means also choosing between OS3 and OS4. If the 2 projects combined so that the PPC boards carried the 68080 with SAGA and a proper Amiga sound implementation, hence no emulation, that would be ideal. I get my little bit of grunt and I get my hardware Amiga in one. Its a real Amiga ... Yay!

[jbenam]

Originally Posted by pix

I like emulation, but I prefer hardware implementations. Soundchips are the easiest example for me. There is no comparison between a 100% emulation of SPC700 in Higan/bSNES and an SPC module in a SNES. None.

Unless you have VERY high end audio equipment and the ear of a musician I am pretty sure nobody would be able to find differences.

Emulation these days is 99.9% accurate - preferring hardware these days is just a matter of taste. If you like clunky, failing equipment that needs to be sent in for repair every 6 months, then hardware is for you!

Originally Posted by pix

so that the PPC boards carried the 68080 with SAGA and a proper Amiga sound implementation, hence no emulation

Errr. SAGA is emulation. Done in hardware, but still emulation. Literally anything that hasn’t come out of Commodore’s factories back in the 80s/90s must be considered so since the schematics aren’t available so every reimplementation is on a best effort basis.

Which fits perfectly the dictionary definition of “emulation”:

Originally Posted by “Cambridge Dictionary”

the process of copying something achieved by someone else and trying to do it as well as they have

Unless they copied from the original documents (and they haven’t, otherwise compatibility would be perfect and it isn’t) it’s emulation.

Heck, even copying from the original docs and THEN adding to it would still be considered emulation. It’s either the real deal or it isn’t. Everything else is emulation.

[Chucky]

I cannot understand why people have this issue with "emulation"

if it is not on the CORRECT hardware but on something that pretends to be something. IT IS EMULATION period..

I MIGHT accept "implementation" if it is made EXACTLY after original but unless original schematics is used. it IS emulation.

why is this so damn hard to understand?

as it pretends to be something. but you cannot be 100% sure it is correct...

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by jbenam

Errr. SAGA is emulation. Done in hardware, but still emulation. Literally anything that hasn’t come out of Commodore’s factories back in the 80s/90s must be considered so since the schematics aren’t available so every reimplementation is on a best effort basis.

Which fits perfectly the dictionary definition of “emulation”

Well, this is pretty much fighting over words without practical implications. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck. No matter what's inside if the outside experience is right the same.


The problem is not whether it is emulation, the problem is that it is incomplete emulation. WinUAE is also incomplete, though in a different direction - I need to boot up windows, with a PC keyboard, and no legay mouse and joystick and serial ports.



Or put differently, this is not quite like a duck. It's a goose, not a duck. (-;

[swoslover]

It's up to the individual. Why does everyone get so hot under the collar? I prefer using the original hardware but also enjoy UAE if I want to try something that doesn't allow me to do.

[Don_Adan]

Of course this is implementation, not emulation.
Because has things which dont have original AGA chip.
Then cant emulate things unsupported by AGA.
This is easy to understand.
BTW. Implementation not must based on original documents.
Same like M1 chip from Apple, is ARM implementation, not ARM emulation.

[pix]

Originally Posted by jbenam

Unless you have VERY high end audio equipment and the ear of a musician I am pretty sure nobody would be able to find differences.

Emulation these days is 99.9% accurate - preferring hardware these days is just a matter of taste. If you like clunky, failing equipment that needs to be sent in for repair every 6 months, then hardware is for you!

I would say the same for Amiga and for SPC. I am a musician, but the sound out of an emulator being called 99.9% accurate and actually sounding like the original hardware would appear to be 2 different things. Heck, if you fire up Top Gear 2 on the peak SNES emulator it is not even the same pitch as the original hardware, let alone accurate. The SPC has a very distinct, punchy sound which emulators do not really capture. The Sega Megadrive and Amiga also have a warmth and punch that is lost in emulation upon computers with far superior sound hardware.

Errr. SAGA is emulation. Done in hardware, but still emulation. Literally anything that hasn’t come out of Commodore’s factories back in the 80s/90s must be considered so since the schematics aren’t available so every reimplementation is on a best effort basis.

Which fits perfectly the dictionary definition of “emulation”:

It may fit the dictionary definition of emulation, but not the concept in software which always implies running non-native software upon an alternate computing system which always necessitates a cost penalty. A hardware implementation of known registers and instruction sets is not emulation anymore than a 68060 is an emulation of a 68000 or an AMD 5x86 is an emulator of a Pentium. That isnt emulation. It is either (as Chucky said) an "implementation" or it is a clone. Likewise, SAGA is a reimplementation of AGA + enhancements - perhaps it is incomplete, so in that case I might also call it a clone? But definitely not an emulator, which is again, interpreting non-native code to produce outputs upon another computing platform.

Unless they copied from the original documents (and they haven’t, otherwise compatibility would be perfect and it isn’t) it’s emulation.

I have no idea where they copied from. It does however NATIVELY support the original hardware code.

Heck, even copying from the original docs and THEN adding to it would still be considered emulation. It’s either the real deal or it isn’t. Everything else is emulation.

I respectfully disagree with this definition, but of course I concede that a clone is not the original hardware so the accuracy of the clone is of course important and worth thinking about.

[grelbfarlk]

It's strange to say something like 68K is open, but it's basically open to pirate for anybody that can make semi-compatible system.

OS4, if you're talking about making something that can boot on it, you'd have to steal some code, build it for your system, but actually selling this would probably be a bad idea, because the owner of OS4 is highly litigious.

Or you could do it the same way and try to pretend to be an X1000 or X5000, so all the drivers still work. Probably not reasonable to do, outside of emulation.

There's no particular reason the PPC PCI cards wouldn't run OS4, it's just that if there's nobody to pay for the privilege, nobody is willing to do it.

[Chucky]

Originally Posted by Don_Adan

Of course this is implementation, not emulation.
Because has things which dont have original AGA chip.
Then cant emulate things unsupported by AGA.
This is easy to understand.
BTW. Implementation not must based on original documents.
Same like M1 chip from Apple, is ARM implementation, not ARM emulation.

but the "SAGA" etc emulates AGA just as on the M1 they emulate the X86 chipset (ok there they do it in software. and on fpga in hardware) still emulate. they try to mimic something already existing. == emulation

[Chucky]

Originally Posted by pix

I
I have no idea where they copied from. It does however NATIVELY support the original hardware code.

They have from documentation (that is kinda reverseengineered from the beginning aswell) made an asumption of "this is how it would be done"

it iis kinda lika if you look at a car. and construct one similiar out of it. but without the possability to check diagrams etc. not even really a possability to take measurments from parts. you have to assume how it is done..

you can make something very simiilar. yes. but it will not be the same.

[Chucky]

HOWEVER my point is: What you call it doesnt matter.

software emulation (ie: UAE), hardware emulation (fpga) doesn't really matter. it is all "the same"

but a fpga can be used as a exact implementation aswell if it is done using the original schematics then I can thnk it is ok to call it a "reimplementation" (OR you do a completly own design then it is a implementation. but that would not be a thing mimicing a diferent hw solution. so outside if those scope)

however. is it so bad with emulation? no. it doesn't matter what you call it. it is all about how it performs in the end. you know. Does it do its job? that doesn't matter if you emulate or not.

but this cry of "it is not emulation" comes from people who are afraid of critics and want to fool people that "this is perfect as we do not use softwareemulation" making some people think that if it is on a fpga it is perfect. while "no". just 2 differnt ways to emulate a endresult anyway..

so enough of repeat and clearification of my opinion .. but unless it is based on original data. it is emulation as it is usually made out of assumptions how the original design is..

[kamelito]

Some Amiga schematics leaked, IIRC WinUAE at least Blitter cose is based on it but it is still emulation.

[Chucky]

Some have leaked yes. software will always be emulation as it is not a gate by gate handling..