16-Apr-2024 13:38 GMT.
[News] Explanations from Fleecy, part 2ANN.lu
Posted on 01-Apr-2001 10:41 GMT by Christian Kemp49 comments
View flat
View list
Fleecy writes: AmigaOS4 will only run on hardware that conforms to the zico specification - currently that is the Eyetech AmigaOne (which also offers full backwards compatibility with AA chipset access applications) and the bPlan AmigaOne, which will run AmigaOS4 apps and older apps which use retargetable coding. We look forwards to other Amiga hardware companies developing zico based solutions and are actively talking to them.
List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Anonymous31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 2Daniel Allsopp31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 3Bertrand PRESLES31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 4Keith Blakemore-Noble31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 5Roj31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 6Bertrand PRESLES31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 7Keith Blakemore-Noble31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 8David Scheibler31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 9Ralph31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 10Darrin31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 11Martin Baute31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 12Bill Toner31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 13Ben Hermans/Hyperion31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 14Sinan Gurkan31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 15Steve31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 16ike31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 17David Scheibler31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 18Amifan31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 19Tony Gore31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 20Keith Blakemore-Noble31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 21Darrin31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 22Darrin31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 23Steve31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 24Tony Gore31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 25Darrin31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 26Kay Are Ulvestad31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 27Anonymous31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 28Donovan Reeve31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 29Ian Shurmer31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 30Amifan31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 31Darrin31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 32DAVIE DAVO31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Explanations from Fleecy, part 2 : Comment 33 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Amifan):
> We are talkin about cpu's with a total of more then 10 GIPS cpu power
> (motorola likes to call them 10 giga multimedia instructions per second).
Shame that only applies in certain situations. However the PPC architecture whoops all over the x86. However, AMD and Intel are ramping up the clockspeeds (2GHz by the end of this year), and brute force is leaving all elegance behind. How can a 1GHz G4 compete, honestly? Especially when the price is taken into consideration.
Luckily, people don't need a 2GHz CPU in general.
> What about AGP?
'bout friggin time. I hope it is AGP 4x.
> 64 bit 133Mhz (but only usable as 100Mhz) SDRAM
Catching up with the abandoned technology in the PC arena. DDR is modern. However, the PPC won't be able to take advantage of it properly yet, so no great loss. There need to be better PPC bridge chips really. the IBM CPC710 is nice (dual CPU support!, shame that the OS won't support it until Amiga OS 5.0).
> UDMA66 IDE.....we are talking about 20mb/sec at least (try to reach that with > a Powerflyer)
UDMA100 is standard now. IDE RAID is common. The AmigaOne is way beyond the old Amiga, but behind the current PC market technology wise. This is fine if it reduces costs significantly, but I doubt it will.
Nice. What about USB2? Firewire? Both were promised, but support will only appear in Amiga OS4.2 (what about 4.1? 4.3 and 4.4? Strange version numbering again...)
> 6 (!) pci slots.....
Standard on PCs these days. At least there isn't an AMR slot!
> and last but not least....a CPU slot, just like th old commodore days...not a
> soldered CPU, but upgradable....
Good. However, surely a socketable processor would be the best solution - it reduces costs. I do not know if IBM or Motorola are making standard PGA CPUs though, only BGA which require surface mounting, hence the requirement for pop in cards. At least L3 cache can be added, which will make up for only having PC100 memory. Also dual CPU cards might be a possibility.
Erk, that came out very negative - it wasn't meant to be.
#34 Graham #37 Anonymous
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 34Graham01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 35Mee01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 36Remco Komduur01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 37Anonymous01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 38Kresimir Rogic01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 39Christophe Decanini01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 40Andy01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 41Francisco01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 42Ian Otter01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 43Graham01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 44Ian Shurmer01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 45Odin01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 46Donovan Reeve02-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 47Donpovan Reeve02-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 48Donovan Reeve02-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 49Donovan Reeve02-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Back to Top