flypig (+2.0)
11/8/07 1:33PM |
It's interesting that in day-to-day use the speed of the A9Home stands up well against the Iyonix (in my opinion), even with its currently slower processor. I suspect this is down to the graphics, so the impact of the clockspeed may not be so significant.
I do feel that the A9Home has yet to reach its full potential, but having said this, an improvement in the raw speed is always going to be good and it's good to see new chips being considered. |
hubersn (+3.0)
11/8/07 3:54PM |
The article is a slightly bit misleading: it says "USB 2 provided as standard", however it is only a USB 2 Device that is provided, the USB Host is still 1.1, so no real progress when thinking about using it in a new A9-type computer.
However, an increase in clock speed is surely welcomed.
Looking at the Samsung roadmap however it all strikes me as "too little, too late" concerning the RISC OS desktop market. I wonder why they cancelled their Halla/Sorak projects - they initially promised a 3 GHz ARM10 in 2004... |
hEgelia (+3.0)
11/8/07 5:13PM |
In reply to flypig:
"I do feel that the A9Home has yet to reach its full potential..."
Indeed, which I believe is to come in no small measure from finalising its version of RISC OS. I think it's quite disappointing to many people that after a reasonably long period of time the A9home version of RISC OS is still unfinished. Let's just hope it won't take too long anymore, since this market simply can't withstand another big disappointment. I feel the RISCOS Ltd 'side of the fence' is taking too large risks at times, when taking so much time to complete so early announced projects.
Though interesting news, it remains quite unpredictable whether anyone in the RISC OS market is willing to take a chance with this. |
AW (+3.0)
12/8/07 1:34PM |
Let's see 533MHz and 400MHz - hardly worth the effort is it? Might as well get an Iyonix which is superior in virtually all ways.
What disgusts me is the fact that Castle won't indicate if its worth getting an Iyonix NOW in case they produce some new hardware or if the Iyonix will be upgradable alternatively/as well.
I can either save up now for their next machine or I can save up a bit longer for an upgradeable Iyonix but as far as you can tell from assessing the current situation it seems its the end of the road. |
markee174 (+3.0)
12/8/07 5:10PM |
In reply to AW:
All computer companies will always have a better machine waiting in the wings. I bought my last Mac just before the new ones came out.....
You can't reasonably expect Castle to say they are about to release a new machine - thats the mistake Acorn made and their sales dried up. If they start telling people it would get out.
Its 5 years since the Iyonix so either they are working on something new or its the end of the line.
MArkee |
AMS (+3.0)
12/8/07 5:52PM |
In reply to markee174:
Not preannouncing something is an important consideration Acorn, if my memory serves me right, caused itself no small amount of trouble by "preannouncing" Pheobe - this (virtually) killed RPC sales.
Trouble is future developments are funded by current sales. If no-one buys so that they have the money to buy the "future" hardware then the current stuff will ultimately fail and future developments won't happen.
The analogy between the A9Home and Iyonix is, however, a weak one. The A9Home has a CPU+Memory on a daughterboard that plugs into the small mainboard. It would be feasible to replace that board with an updated one that takes the new CPU and appropriate RAM (assuming both mainboard and CPU use compatible voltages). Also from a software viewpoint how compatible is the new and old Samsung processor? If they're identical then work on completing RO6/Select (or whatever) on A9Home will work with either.... if they're not exactly identical then there may be some software/OS development work *as well as* new hardware design to support the processor. Both will cost (and take time)
The Iyonix IOP80321 is soldered to the mainboard. To replace it with something else would (in effect) require a new mainboard - this is a taller order. But both paths for A9Home (or Iyonix) does involve some hardware development, (probably) some software development and both entail additional costs which will be passed onto the end user.
If Ad6/Simtec do provide an updated CPU+RAM board for A9 then it'll cost (as a retrofit) it'll also up the price of any new A9 incorporating it - as someone else pointed out the performance difference with the Iyonix will narrow - but the A9 still won't be as expandible and it's advantage on price will be considerably eroded it may (almost counterintuitively) make it less attractive - unless of course Ad6/Simtec can do the upgrade without effecting the price. That would be a big ask though. |
AW
12/8/07 8:14PM |
In reply to AMS:
the point is it's been 4-5 years since the Iyonix without a processor upgrade and the reason I didn't buy one at the time was because I couldn't. I bought one of Castle's Acorn RPCs some years before that. Spending £1000 on a machine that is superseded in the space of a year would be exasperating.
|
markee174
12/8/07 9:50PM |
In reply to AW:
But that is the nature of every computer platform. You should buy a machine when you want to use it/can afford it. Do you need a new machine? MAybe an A9 would be a good interim stopgap. OR buy a cheap PC and run Virtual Acorn.
MArkee |
AMS (+2.0)
12/8/07 10:18PM |
In reply to markee174:
The presumption here is that a new Iyonix will happen and that it will do so with no-one willing to buy the existing kit.
Don't quite see how that works if everyone wanting a hypothetical Iyonix II buys A9 or VA as the makers of Iyonix make no money out of such sales.
Also surely having spent 3/4 the price of an Iyonix on an A9 - AW surely would be 3/4s as upset if the new Iyonix were released within a year of his having bought the newly obsoleted A9?
|
markee174
13/8/07 8:29AM |
In reply to AMS:
Given the A9 has several USPs it would seem a good halfway house to someone wanting more power now.
no-one knows if 'Iyonix II' will happen so the original point to buy a machine when you need it is still valid.
MArkee |
mrtd (+1.0)
13/8/07 9:18AM |
Why do we need a faster Iyonix? What software is there that will take advantage of the extra speed? It is true that a faster processor might encourage the development of a media player for Iyonix (which probably can't happen because of licencing issues anyway), and Firefox would perhaps run a bit better, but apart from that, I can't think of anything I use that would benefit much from slightly more speed. I do a fair bit of digital photography, and faster display of JPEGS would be nice, but the main thing that that needs is a faster graphics card. I think the next jump in processor speed needs to be a big one, up to something like 2GHz or more, and accompanied by applications that use the extra power to make upgrading worthwhile. |
druck (+2.0)
13/8/07 9:37AM |
Having just moved from a 2.1 megapixel camera to a 7.1 mega pixel camera, a faster Iyonix would be very welcome to make up for the increased processing times of the larger pictures. I'd buy one like a shot. |
jess (+2.0)
13/8/07 11:50AM |
Since dramatically more powerful arm processors appear unlikely, how viable would a co-processor on a PCI card be?
I'm not thinking of running RO itself on on, more for accelerating OS functions. You would presumably have replacement modules that use the card to process rather than the main CPU.
Would PCI be too big a bottleneck? |
epistaxsis (+3.0)
13/8/07 12:15PM |
In reply to jess:
There is one - its called the GPU 
Which is a very, very untapped resource... |
fwibbler (+1.0)
13/8/07 2:25PM |
Anyone who's tried to print an A4 photo using Guten-print would benefit from a faster machine as would anyone who works on large images or gets fed up waiting for web pages to render.
A computer can never be fast enough, only as fast as possible. |
sa110 (+1.0)
13/8/07 2:40PM |
If AD6 were able to offer this as an upgrade to existing owners, I would certainly buy it (price being acceptable). As fwibbler states. "A computer can never be fast enough, only as fast as possible". |
fwibbler
13/8/07 5:01PM |
Incidently, how much would A9 owners be prepared to pay for a 533mhz upgrade with say 512MB ram? |
rjek (+1.0)
13/8/07 5:19PM |
In reply to fwibbler:
I doubt 512MB would be feasible due to the parts needed - you need to use very dense RAM as the CPU module is so tiny. Perhaps 256MB. I think if you look at it as a CPU and RAM upgrade, you could use the approximate prices of RiscPC upgrades as a guide. Say, perhaps the cost of a 710 upgrade and a 64MB SIMM? If you take the costs of back then, adjust for inflation, and apply Moore's law, you end up with a price around 150-200 quid. Give the list price for something very similar to what the A9 already has ([Link: www.simtec.co.uk]) is 115 quid, I don't think 150-200 quid would be unreasonable, given you'd need to also pay for work to be done to RISC OS to support the new CPU, as well as to send your A9 back to Advantage 6, as it is not user-serviceable. |
hEgelia (+1.0)
13/8/07 5:24PM |
To be frank, speculating about any new hardware is largely academic. There's nothing from both Castle or Advantage Six to firmly indicate new machines are on the way. It simply remains a (rather remote in my opinion) possibility.
I think the software side, i.e. RISC OS itself, deserves much more attention in my opinion. The A9home's version of RISC OS needs to be completed. It's taking too long and a completed and refined OS is crucial to appreciating the machine fully. Personally, I think speculating about hardware is reminiscent of (self-built) PC's. RISC OS machines are quite different in that there's a very specific combination of hardware and OS. Like on a Mac, the software is the computer. RISC OS is the computer and the whole reason why people pay a little bit extra for the experience.
In other words, RISC OS needs all the attention it can get and I think a good place to start is asking when the current A9home gets 'its better half' completed, so to speak. |
sa110
13/8/07 6:11PM |
In reply to fwibbler:
I am happy with my 128Mb. But certainly would not say no to it being doubled as part of a processor upgrade. |
sa110
13/8/07 6:36PM |
In reply to hEgelia:
It maybe academic, however I beleive speculating is something we are all good at. Especially users of RISC OS. |
druck (+2.0)
13/8/07 7:11PM |
I haven't checked, but if the new chip is pin compatible and software compatible, there would be very little reason for STD not to use it in the production of new A9s. It may not offer a big speed increase, but I'm sure enough existing A9 owners would be willing to upgrade to make it worth while offering new processor cards, particularly if it was combined with a memory increase.
However, if its not pin compatible and requires a board redesign, it wouldn't be worth it for a small clock increase unless a big client demanded it. Otherwise its then in the same territory as the Iyonix where Castle have stated its not worh producing an upgrade until they can offer a system performance increase of 2x to 3x over the existing hardware. |
rjek (+1.0)
13/8/07 7:23PM |
In reply to druck:
My understanding is that it's not pin compatible, and not entirely software compatible (although I don't know if RISC OS uses the features for which there are differences.) I agree with the doubt that the market isn't big enough to warrant creating an upgrade exclusively for RISC OS users.
However, I suspect if building a machine from scratch, it should be pretty easy* to build a machine that's 2x times faster than the Iyonix. The parts are available. What's missing is money, and unless Castle can find a client who wants such a device, I don't see it happening. And there isn't a big market for such motherboards even outside the RISC OS world. Advantage 6 have been sailing on the back of the embedded business: a large ATX board such as the Iyonix's doesn't fit in there. |
AW
13/8/07 8:26PM |
The lack of a media player is something I just don't understand. What's holding people back that can't be surmounted or circumvented? |
rjek (+1.0)
13/8/07 9:14PM |
In reply to AW:
Time, expertise, will-power, and a RISC OS box that's actually fast enough to play what people want to play. |
epistaxsis
14/8/07 12:06AM |
In reply to AW:
cost |
sa110 (-1.0)
14/8/07 8:28AM |
In reply to rjek:
I'm sorry but that is a load of rubbish.
Available already we have as separate applications:-
Mpeg 1 and 2 player
MP3 player
Shoutcast Radio Player
Ability to convert CD's to mp3's
At it's basic level, a media player application could simply integrate all of the above into one application. |
rjek (+1.0)
14/8/07 9:47AM |
In reply to sa110:
This thread is going dangerously off-topic. Do you really think an application that can play MP3s and play MPEG 1 and 2 video covers anywhere near as much as a media application that people want should? It's missing DivX, WMV, RealVideo, Flash Video, QuickTime, and dozens of other common formats. If people can already play everything they want to, why do they keep asking for media players? Why do you need to merge several applications into one? How does that make them more useful?
I don't think it's me talking the rubbish, here. |
nijinsky (+1.4)
14/8/07 10:01AM |
Ohhh dear. I'm going to get totally flamed here. But my interest is in the future of the OS.
Now I know that there will be people that will always use RiscOS for the next ten years, just like there are specky users just now. However IMHO GenuineHO, for RiscOS to survive it has to be ported to a platform that is mainstream. Now that can be two things. A well known games machine. The plus point of this is that it is there in tens of millions of homes; the neg. point is how many home gamers are likely to want to potentially bust their games console.
The second alternative is to port it to the mainstream computer hardware platform. IE x86. Now I know that there are people that think this is like sleeping with the devil, however, I see it more like the band playing courageously while the titanic went down.
This must be a boot time option. IE partition the hard drive and chose an OS.... Lets call it LIVROS (linux with virtual RiscOS for lack of a better name).... you chose that and it boots a linux kernel with RiscOS running as the default and only app. This would be a temporary situation until the OS is ported to run natively.
If that was realised then there would be tons of people out there who would give it a try. If they need ARM HW then they would not buy a new machine just to run it and the OS will slowly dwindle into obscurity.
An example of an OS from scratch on x86 is SkyOS and there are a lot o people that are using this.
Best regards
Bob |
polas (+0.1)
14/8/07 10:41AM |
Interesting point nijinsky, but there has been much discussion about porting and the issues and cost associated with it in the past. What I wonder about its feasibility is that if an emulator such as RPCEmu were to be combined with the Linux kernel (like you suggested) - to the uninitiated user it would look transparent and with modern hardware and emulators then it might outperform a RiscPC. |
| Use the forum for more comments on this article |
