|In reply to Comment 265 (Phill):|
"It seems very unlikely that all POP boards are indeed compatible, even if that was the intention when the standard started. "
Eyetech don't seem to think so...
To test their own motherboard, they used drivers written for the Barbie. They considered their board to be "working" by installing and running linux on the A1 with barbie drivers.
The fact they used these drivers, written for another board, to gauge how well their own board works, would suggest compatibility with the other board.
As for the "intention when the standard started" the specs are still verbatim the same they've always been. It's a very clean design, the POP standard.
Contrary to what Mr. Hermans says, the POP design is application agnostic, it wasn't "designed" for embeded platforms, as a matter of fact, IBM created the spec itself to be agnostic with regards to application. Why else would it be of such value to Eyetech who are developing a desktop board? (It is however a fact that it happens to be a good choice for embedded applications, but obviously it's not limited to that area, certainly not by design)
Also contrary to what Mr Hermans says, the MAI chipsets themselves were intended to be used in desktop systems as well as embeded applications, in fact most of the people who ordered the evaluation boards from MAI requested that they be in an ATX configuration so they could be demonstrated in a desktop, rather than the older evaluation boards (not available now, due to demand) which were PCI cards meant for developement. I still have a photo of one of the previous evaluation boards that existed before the ATX version was available.
The reason, (That Mr. Hermans eluded to) that MAI doesn't mass produce these boards, is because they don't make boards, not because of lack of demand. MAI never intended, and never intends to make boards. That's not what they do, it's not their business. This is why MAI, when asked by Eyetech, referred them to someone else for the manufacturing of the boards themselves.
Why he made those statement's I'm referring to above I'm not sure, as they really dont dispute the point he was responding to, that to follow an advancing technology is a good thing.