🚀 go-pugleaf

> On Tue, 12 Dec 1995 16:08 EST  Dave Haynie wrote:
> 
> > Albert Koellner <albert.koellner@aut.alcatel.at> writes:
> > i fully agree with you that AT would make a big mistake no to do
> > multiprocessing, but i fear that they won't support it, because of
> > the additional efforts needed, and they already have a lot to do to
> > make the OS work on single-processor PPC machines.
> 
> I don't know. Well, I do know that one of their current consultants is
> a big proponent of the multiprocessing idea, and believe it's not much
> extra work, given the need for an Exec rewrite in the first
> place. What I don't know is whether this guy is in it for the long
> haul or not. 
 
Let's all pray that this guy has some strong influence. Multiprocessing is THE 
way for AT to distinguish themselves from all the other CHRP-machines, and 
gain a competitive advantage. Go for it AT!

> > IMO the multiprocessing is the one BIG and STRONG point of the BeBox
> > which is making it somehow "superior" to other PPC-systems.
> 
> Of course it does. Relatively speaking, CPU power is cheap. New CPUs
> are not; they're expensive to design, and they're pricey when
> introduced, since the designers have lots of development to pay

Single processor machines are a perfect way for CPU-makers to earn more and 
more money, nothing else.

Mr. Customer, you want more CPU-power? Well, here we have our new ABC6-CPU for 
only 100 bucks, you buy it and throw away your old ABC5... (Anyhow this ABC5 
is only costing 30$ nowadays so it cannot be useful anymore, hm?)

A CPU-upgrade on a single processor machine can never match the 
price/performance ratio of increasing the number of CPUs in a multiprocessing 
system.

I don't know yet which will be the next computer I'll buy, but it definitely 
won't be a single processor machine. If the PowerAmiga will do multiprocessing 
and will be out in time it's a good candidate. Otherwise I would bet my money 
on the BeBox. Best would be to get both - a BeBox beginning '96 and a 
PowerAmiga in '97 - hmm.. now i just have to look for the money... someone can 
lend me a few thousand $$$$ ;-) ? 

> > My idea was more that AT could take the BeOS as an existing PPC-OS, and 
> concentrate
> > on adapting it for their needs. (i know this somehow sounds strange, but 
> it would
> > definitely mean a great reduction in development time).
> 
> That doesn't really work well. They have no obvious lead-in to the
> Amiga that way. Meanwhile, most Amigas can run a hostile port of the
> AmigaOS, and still have their Amiga apps. If Apple Europe is on the
> ball (and I have reason to believe they might be), they could grab the
> whole Amiga market, should AT go for BeOS, simply by making an
> official MacOS for the Amiga release. This could happen overnight,
> they could easily buy ShapeShifter or something like it. With no more
> AmigaOS, they'd offer today's users a way to get lots of software, and
> tomorrow they'd have a couple million new PowerMac users. 

I didn't mean that there should be no more AmigaOS, but that AT should take 
the BeBox-hardware, and all the BeOS functions which are supporting the 
hardware, and build the PPC-AmigaOS with these ingredients, therefor coming 
out with a PowerAmiga with AmigaOS much earlier than if they start to cook 
their own soup.

> > So let's put a rather provocative :-) question:
> 
> > what if AT would just take the BeBox hardware and BeOS as it is and
> > concentrate on adopting it to look like AmigaOS, to run current
> > Amiga-apps and support the custom chipset (on a PCI-card?).
> 
> Even if you do a port of the Amiga user-mode API (eg, the software
> socket that every Amiga application plugs into) to run under the
> BeOS, you have some problems. For example, the system this runs
> on. That's a fair amount of new code on top of the existing
> BeOS. Sure, you can use the Be's low-level services, you might even
> host Intuition windows in Be Windows (though I suspect the first shot
> would have an Intuition screen, much like the Mac screen with
> ShapeShifter), but it's still a port of the AmigaOS. Or a 68K
> emulation, even, not all that much different than what you're doing on
> a native Amiga. Now this system runs, though maybe a bit heavy, in
> 12-16MB of RAM. You can't sell $500 machines like that. 

That's true, but I wasn't thinking of the $500 market segment for the 
BeOS/AmigaOS solution. In the near future I don't see any chance for a 
PowerAmiga in this price segment, and I believe that the customers for a $500 
machine won't care too much about the CPU being a 68k or a PPC (as well as if 
it's CHRP-compliant or not).

I was rather looking at the >$2000 market segment and I don't expect too many 
new customers to invest this amount into a 68k-machine.

IMO it would be fair enough by AT to offer beginning/mid 96 a PowerAmiga with 
68k-AmigaOS emulation and tell the customers: yes, this won't run as fast as 
it could run natively, but on the other hand it's still faster than on an 
68k-machine, and you don't have to change the hardware in one year. IMO this 
would be also accepted by the customers (at least the PowerMac-example gives 
some reason to expect a big acceptance).   

> > this would maybe safe a lot of development effort, and definitely
> > would make a big difference on the market in case a PowerAmiga would
> > be out mid 96 instead of beginning 97."
> 
> It's some less work, but on the other hand, running as a virtual OS
> might introduce new complications. I wouldn't bet on it happening all
> that much faster this way. On the other hand, they have to pick some
> PPC system to start porting to, why not a BeBox? 

Yah, why not? Can AT hear this? ;)

Albert

E-mail: albert.koellner@aut.alcatel.at
Date    12/14/95
Time:   17:09:22