[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#382129: Beta3 won't boot on OldWorld PowerPC Mac



Hi,

Hello people, i think this is my first mail to this list. :)

On 2006.09.03, brian wrote:

>> sorry, um correcting myself
>> 
>> 1) amiga is still in business, you can buy many
>> kinds of 68k, g3, and g4 systems from dealers online
>> as well as upgrade. (for those disgusted with apple
>> needed newer machines or old/new machine whatever).

You can't buy any thoose systems as new any more, only 
second hand. There might be a new Amiga system announced 
soon by some Italian company. But we still have to see that, 
and it will most probably be built on some embedded/SoC PPC. 
So it will be a low-end machine.

Apart from that, I'm not so sure classic Amiga systems (68k) 
with PPC expansion board (known as Amiga PowerUp System, APUS), 
still runs recent Linux kernels, as these systems are quite
rare nowadays, and even less ones are used for Linux, so the
support of these might be dropped/broken lately. 
 
>> ***note amiga advertises g3/4 come with debian
>> preinstalled !!!

AmigaOne boards never ran Linux systems out of the box with
all hardware enabled, due to heavy flaws on the mainboard.
(Mainly around the infamous Articia northbridge, and the VIA
southbridge) Some of the problems were already discussed on 
this list as well, a few times.

AmigaOne systems are roughly equal to MAI's Teron CX and
PX boards, also sold/advertised by TerraSoft Solutions for
a short period of time (before they discovered the flaws
of the board).

The point is: never believe an advertisement, especially
if it's from an A-name company. :)

(Ps: i also have PowerMacs, PPC classic Amigas, and an AmigaOne
next to the machines in the signature, so i know quite well what
i'm talking about. :)

Bye,
-- 
Charlie/iNQ
[    Genesi Pegasos ][ G4e/1000 512MB 140GB IDE Radeon 9000 ]
[ Commodore Amiga 2000 68060/50 128MB 20GB SCSI PicassoIV   ]
[     Escom Amiga 1200 68060/50 96MB 6GB 2,5" IDE           ]



Reply to: