Designing The Gp2x's Successor - Hardware Selection Poll

[Shikaku]

Do you really think they would do it this early? Honestly, I'd expect a sequal within 2 years AT THE LEAST. At that time, these hardware specs will probably be very cheap and therefore be as affordable as the GP2X, which is why it is about as cheap as the GP32 when launched.

I also vote for a better Dpad, but I think this goes without saying

 

[Blah]

You'd be adding atleast $150 to the price tag, Vimacs.

 

[iignotus]

GPH shouldn't release this for at least 4 years if they know whats good for them. They'll be digging their own grave.

I pray to God that in 4 years' time, they'd use a processor faster than 266/400mhz. If this "GP3X" can be binary compatible with the GP2X, and their GP2X production lines are as far away from being at a loss as possible, I see no reason why they couldn't release this system in only 8-18 months. Holiday season 2007 has a nice ring to it.

 

[_DiGiTaL_]

I also vote for a better Dpad, but I think this goes without saying

What about the option to have a Dpad and Stick having the DPad on the lower left and teh stick to the top left?

 

[Blah]

Well, yeah, by that time I would expect MUCH better hardware.

I'm just about to buy a GP2X and I want it to be cool for a few years atleast. If the GP32 is anything to go by, 5 years is the magic number.

 

[sam fisher]

GPH shouldn't release this for at least 4 years if they know whats good for them. They'll be digging their own grave.

Well in 4 years I hope they are looking at 800+ processors as thats where things will probably be by then.

 

[Epicenter]

Just take the gp2x, slap in fpu, add 16mb ram for 940, use ddr instead of sdr, add proper clicky stick, add proper volume poti, add rtc backup cap, add standart usb host port.
DONE

Maybe 3 batterys instead of 2 would also be nice.

You can't simply add hardware like that to an existing off-the-shelf SoC like MagicEyes' MMSP2. The 940T has access to plenty of RAM; its limitation is that it has no MMU, must be spoon-fed data by the 920T which slows down that processor, and has too little cache. Mobile DDR RAM is a possibility, and it's what I am recommending. A d-pad would be the most economical solution and is again what I am recommending; if a modular 'replaceable control unit' setup where a D-Pad or stick couldn't be swapped (The ideal situation..) A volume pot's perfectly reasonable. I'm not sure how necessary a realtime clock is, but easy to do .. USB host ports, fine.

As for the timeliness-- a successor's actual finalized development would not occur until late next year; there is no plan to discontinue the GP2X anytime soon. Craig suggested this thread, hence why I posted it.

As for a 266 MHz or 400 MHz ARM9 not being powerful enough, in a couple years perhaps a 400 MHz+ ARM11 unit will be economical. But probably not; SoCs don't drop in price as quickly as distinct electronics like desktop processors.

 

[moz]

having thought about it a bit more

i'll reserve my "guess" and await to see what the excellent devs of our current generation would like

 

[Shikaku]

As for the timeliness-- a successor's actual finalized development would not occur until late next year; there is no plan to discontinue the GP2X anytime soon. Craig suggested this thread, hence why I posted it.

Which therefore calls my theory right on the dot: 2 years from now, for production, software, firmware, hardware, planning, all that good stuff. It takes more developement then just deciding the hardware you know

Also backwards compatibility would be nice, but that's a kernal issue, not hardware

 

[OMars]

Note: PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY, NO LITHIUM IONS!

If you need more power, make it go by more batteries! 4, 6 preferably!

I thought you were atheist...

 

[iignotus]

As for the timeliness-- a successor's actual finalized development would not occur until late next year; there is no plan to discontinue the GP2X anytime soon. Craig suggested this thread, hence why I posted it.

Which therefore calls my theory right on the dot: 2 years from now, for production, software, firmware, hardware, planning, all that good stuff. It takes more developement then just deciding the hardware you know

Also backwards compatibility would be nice, but that's a kernal issue, not hardware

Actually, my theory is more on the dot And compatibility is definitely a hardware issue, all a kernel does is interface the hardware. If you call on something that this new version doesn't have in hardware, it's not going to work.

 

[Shikaku]

Note: PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY, NO LITHIUM IONS!

If you need more power, make it go by more batteries! 4, 6 preferably!

I thought you were atheist...

"FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY, MY ANUS IS BLEEDING!!!!"

 

[Blah]

I'm eating, asshat.

 

[Shikaku]

As for the timeliness-- a successor's actual finalized development would not occur until late next year; there is no plan to discontinue the GP2X anytime soon. Craig suggested this thread, hence why I posted it.

Which therefore calls my theory right on the dot: 2 years from now, for production, software, firmware, hardware, planning, all that good stuff. It takes more developement then just deciding the hardware you know

Also backwards compatibility would be nice, but that's a kernal issue, not hardware

And compatibility is definitely a hardware issue, all a kernel does is interface the hardware. If you call on something that this new version doesn't have in hardware, it's not going to work.

Err.. therefore you fix it in the kernal. KTHXBYE I WIN.

 

[iignotus]

As for the timeliness-- a successor's actual finalized development would not occur until late next year; there is no plan to discontinue the GP2X anytime soon. Craig suggested this thread, hence why I posted it.

Which therefore calls my theory right on the dot: 2 years from now, for production, software, firmware, hardware, planning, all that good stuff. It takes more developement then just deciding the hardware you know

Also backwards compatibility would be nice, but that's a kernal issue, not hardware

And compatibility is definitely a hardware issue, all a kernel does is interface the hardware. If you call on something that this new version doesn't have in hardware, it's not going to work.

Err.. therefore you fix it in the kernal. KTHXBYE I WIN.

lol wut

You know, I did mention a little phrase called "binary compatibility".

 

[Shikaku]

<-- don't argue with this guy, he knows next to nothing about making an OS, especially for a vague ARM korean handheld device.

 

[craigix]

This post comes from a theoretical conversation i had with some people on irc about raw cpu speed vs. graphics hardware in relation to amiga/snes emulation.

Gamepark are not making a new gp2x.

 

[nickspoon]

<-- don't argue with this guy, he knows next to nothing about making an OS, especially for a vague ARM korean handheld device.

You think maybe you'd know the basics of backwards compatibility. Both options do not have a 940T, which means anything attempting to use it would fail, and nothing in the kernel would change that. You'd need (dum dum dum) an emulator, at least in part.

On a side note, backwards compatibility was achieved on the PS2 with a PS1-on-a-chip

 

[Epicenter]

This post comes from a theoretical conversation i had with some people on irc about raw cpu speed vs. graphics hardware in relation to amiga/snes emulation.

Gamepark are not making a new gp2x.

Craig-- it wasn't my intention that was more than you wanted me to post. But in my defense, you probably should have been more specific than just telling me to make a GP32X poll asking which hardware would be the superior selection. The last 'which hardware should a GP2X successor have' was a disaster with suggestions like 2 GHz Athlon 64 processors and GeForce 7800GTX GPUs and had no basis in reality. I don't believe that your reaction was fair or justified without any specifics as to what was and was not appropriate information to release. As for GPH planning a successor machine within 2 years, most people had likely assumed that ANYWAY, it's not anything that would on the surface appear to be classified information.

I'll leave it at that. No hard feelings, good luck in your future endeavors. It's a shame I won't be providing you any more input, however, as all I wanted was to make GPH's next handheld the best development platform it could be.

If any moderators wouldn't mind deleting this thread, I would appreciate it. It's pretty much just useless clutter at this point.

 

[Yono]

<-- don't argue with this guy, he knows next to nothing about making an OS, especially for a vague ARM korean handheld device.

You think maybe you'd know the basics of backwards compatibility. Both options do not have a 940T, which means anything attempting to use it would fail, and nothing in the kernel would change that. You'd need (dum dum dum) an emulator, at least in part.

On a side note, backwards compatibility was achieved on the PS2 with a PS1-on-a-chip

Oh noes! Mama says emulators are the devil!!