Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?

[David Ogg <davidogg@nc.rr.com>]

In article <tlcvenh9gb1d9a@corp.supernews.com>, tthai@mindspring.com 
says...
> 
> "David Ogg" <davidogg@nc.rr.com> wrote in message MPG.13dd9c209377d2c989684@news-server.nc.rr.com">news:MPG.13dd9c209377d2c989684@news-server.nc.rr.com...
> > In article <PXD47.853$bl.47003@news.siol.net>, brankob@avtomatika.com
> > says...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Besides, isn't the 6502 limited to 64kB chunks.  Apple simply
> > > > implemented some sort of paging mechanism to access the 128kB found
> > > > in later models (IIe/IIc).  Likewise for the 192kB card which I
> > > > have lying around here, somewhere.  (Though my understanding is
> > > > the 1MB card for the 8-bit machines used some sort of window into
> > > > memory.)
> > > >
> > > > Byron.
> > >
> > >
> > > Why not using 80386, then ? It has it all- MMU and segmented adressing, and
> > > one
> > > even gets a several 100's bytes of cache ? ;o)
> >
> > How about Transmeta's Crusoe? This would outsell everything mentioned
> > thus far I guarantee it. It can emulate anything, including x86 at
> > native speed!
> 
> I dont think thats true. The transmeta chip only deliver a fraction of the performance
> of a core like the thunderbird at the same mhz.
> And you can go in a shop and buy a single chip for under 90$ (the 1.2 gigahertz part).
> But then you can get a 750mhz similare core (Duron) for 25$... thats your price.

A notebook CPU costs more than that, heck I can't even find a price for 
comparison. You just couldn't use one of those furnaces in a book-size 
unit.

> I dont see the point in using a much slower chip like the transmeta crusoe for a desktop/booksize PC.

But it would be a HELL of a lot faster than the 68000/Timex 
Sinclair/6502 relics others are suggesting, and it runs without a
heatsink. You ever felt the CPU in a notebook? imagine the temp a 
thunderbird would be!
 
> just to give you an idea, a crusoe TM5600 600MHz running at max power usage deliver
> 46 sysmark2000 , a 500mhz P3 laptop deliver 115 sysmark2000.

Thats under the x86 codemorphing layer with the optimizations set to 
"don't cache code", The Crusoe is a tricky beast to benchmark, 
especially against it's own codemorphing layer. The codemorphing tends
to cache the benchmark loops giving unrealistically high scores, so for
simplicity, it's turned off.

> > Can you imagine UAE ported to Crusoe as its code-morphing layer?
> > incredible.
> 
> No so sure about that...

It would be wild, a codemorphing layer that abstracts a 68040, and the 
chipset! come to think of it, I wonder if UAE would even be needed?

> > Modules could be made for just about ANY old school CPU/platform, and an
> > OS wouldn't need to be developed for it, as it could run these platforms
> > OS's natively, maybe even in addition to a custom OS.
> 
> Their is already so many core running on the x86... From the most obscure to
> C64 & amigas.

But those are "emulators", Crusoe's codemorphing is a much different 
beast, even x86 is just "codemorphed". c64/Amiga's are running on top of 
Windows/linux on top of x86. The Crusoe wouldn't need a host OS.

> > Marketing would be a piece of cake, as you could use it from anything
> > from a Kiosk to a webserver, an Amiga emulator to a Unix portable.

And it looks like they beat me to it, it's now available, albeit at a 
higher price, running linux 2.4.5 w/Netscape 4.7 (shudder)

> > Computer do alot nowdays in term of multimedia because of the power they have.
> > I'm not so sure intel/amd etc.. just develope for people to run half life at 500FPS.

On the contrary, they'll market them for dumber things, like Intel 
saying it's "New Pentium 4 processor will enhance the web" and going
on about how the internet will be faster. I always get a kick out of 
that :)

> > Linux Geeks would love it! (if only because Linus works for transmeta).
> > Slashdot would pimp the hell out of it, you wouldn't even need to market
> > it :)
>
> > Hell, I'd buy one and just run it as my mail/webserver and
> > router/firewall. transmeta already has a custom linux distribution
> > available for it. Not only that, but it could be offered in several
> > packages, you want WinXP on it? No problem!

> Why would you want to pay for low performance?
> Run x x86 version of the major OS... run Ti calculator or c64 class stuff under emu

Because emulation would /be/ low performance, the Crusoe running a 
platform under codemorphing is faster than any emulator I've ever seen.
Show me an x86 emulator that can run Windows faster than the Crusoe can 
under codemorphing/x86. Remember, this is a hobby box, if I want to toy 
with an OS, I want to run it natively, (or a codemorphing facimile 
thereof.)

Plus it's upgradeable (the codemorphing), meaning the platforms it can 
morph will increase over time.

> > The market could even be expanded to commercial vendors, it would be a
> > viable replacement for say, the hardware TiVo uses now. Cable
> > descramblers, Sattelite receivers, hell, I can think of very little
> > you couldn't make this thing do.

> You would need native code to do software encoding on that chipat a decent speed.
> Who would write all that code?

In the case of the Tivo, it's already been written. the Linux/x86 
package is already available customised for the Crusoe, tailored by
Linus Torvalds himself. In the case of the Satelite reciever, you can 
find the GPL'ed code from a link off of www.satmatrix.com. Kiosk 
software has already been made available for the Crusoe under GPL, so 
has PDA codemorphing for the Palm platform.

The beauty is, if code isn't available, as long as you can produce the 
codemorphing layer, you just reuse your existing code! Case in point, 
Windows. Windows doesn't run on the Crusoe, because the Crusoe isn't 
x86, it simply pretends to be through abstraction via the codemorphing.
Hence Windows can run "natively" on a CPU it isn't written for.

> > R&D required? very little, the hardware is ALL standard, and already
> > made, produced, and sold, not to mention it already has HUGE "geek
> > mindshare."

> Cant that be said for the x86 platform?

Only for the case of x86 hardware meant to run x86 software, the Crusoe 
isn't limited to x86.

As for the "Geek Mindshare" I think a Crusoe captures more mindshare 
among the HW geeks than x86 does.