SoC Poll - What's most important for you?

[WizardStan]

As it happened I was able to prove that to be incorrect because I had (on a lark) already successfully installed MS DOS 6.22 on my Atom based netbook. (booting from a USB key no less

Did I say that? I'd love to hear more about this because I was quite certain the boot process on the Atom had evolved to no longer be compatible with the older 16bit disk booting methods, but I've been wrong before. Getting it to boot off USB is also a neat accomplishment, something the native DOS loader wouldn't have even been aware of. I'm guessing either you've got a third party boot loader or that Intel has some clever tricks up its sleeve.

 

[SNESFAN]

@_wb_ you have historically been a word of rational reason and your optinion while not horribly always technical is at least rational and makes good logical sense. That is until your postings on your views on windows and what that would mean to the community. What happened man? Seems like the crazy switch flipped in your head somewhere. I don't mean that offensive, it just seems very unlike the things I've read from you in the past.

Option is never a bad thing. If there is true sacrifice to make those options available then have a problem with that. But I specifically pointed out how silly these non-tangible arguments without related data makes the whole idea of this poll just to seem like it's calling out to the current population's preconceived preferences.

If performance was equal, consumption was equal, thermals were equal would people still feel the same way? I have a feeling that's not the case though, so that's even more going to sway people's end decision.

@ED do what ya want man, it's your device, go with arm if you feel that's the best option. But if you're asking for opinions on the matter without real life data then you're just asking a community huddled around an arm device if they like arm devices... what good is that?

EDIT:

and to the topic of possibility of booting windows or dos on x86, one word, virtualization. Even if not natively, through a virtual pc with virtualization it will be a much better experience than emulated. Native booting will be a problem for sure given the UEFI, but once a compatible OS is loaded tons of things become possible. The experience will be night and day vs emulated but not so much vs native.

 

[EvilDragon]

@ED do what ya want man, it's your device, go with arm if you feel that's the best option. But if you're asking for opinions on the matter without real life data then you're just asking a community huddled around an arm device if they like arm devices... what good is that?

The blog is open to the public, there are and were newsposts on other sites (like hackernews, etc.), everyone who's really interested was able to register and vote.

It's not just limited to this community.

 

[SNESFAN]

but you still have to see the rational behind the question and where you're asking it, and under what conditions you're asking it. It's not fair, and I personally would be fine with either although I'm slightly swayed by x86 as it stands right now, but the situation seem stacked in favor of arm, and that's the popular answer currently. It's of no surprise.

EDIT:

ask the question on tom's hardware... you'll see it grossly in favor of x86, xda will be arm, it's all about who gets a hold of the poll and where you ask the question. That is, untill you post something measurable.

 

[_wb_]

@_wb_ you have historically been a word of rational reason and your optinion while not horribly always technical is at least rational and makes good logical sense. That is until your postings on your views on windows and what that would mean to the community. What happened man? Seems like the crazy switch flipped in your head somewhere. I don't mean that offensive, it just seems very unlike the things I've read from you in the past.

I have very rational reasons for intensely hating Windows, don't worry

(but let's not derail this thread into that, please)

 

[Neelix]

Did I say that?

Except it isn't. Even in the x86 world, the OS's (and indeed the architecture itself) have advanced so much that you can't simply run most DOS games anymore: you still need to run DosBox in Windows. It's not even possible to install DOS on modern CPUs anymore, because of how much has changed since then. DosBox doesn't have a virtualization mode: even on an x86, it still fully emulates the system. We would save absolutely nothing if it were running on an x86 vs an ARM processor, so your arguments in favour of using x86 are moot.

 

Note: Emphasis is mine.

- Neelix

 

[CrazyIvan]

Also note that if you want it to legally run Windows, you probably have to sign some kind of exclusivity contract with Microsoft that disallows you from shipping or supporting any other OS. Of course we can still all install and unofficially support GNU/Linux, but not without paying for Windows first. At least that's how I understand things.

 
It's pure FUD you know...

I can guess you never owned non-branded desktop computer or even built one yourself otherwise i'm assuming you're spreading this FUD on purpose.

The kernel driver is opensource, so the only issue we could have is bugs in the 3D driver, the rest of the system is not affected.

 
Wrong.

Kernel maintainers actively reject any driver that is impossible to test without using closed source components and it's not like they're gonna write it themselves.

So unless we want to stuck with old kernel this driver should be maintained and ported to new kernels in timely fashion.

 

[_wb_]

Also note that if you want it to legally run Windows, you probably have to sign some kind of exclusivity contract with Microsoft that disallows you from shipping or supporting any other OS. Of course we can still all install and unofficially support GNU/Linux, but not without paying for Windows first. At least that's how I understand things.

 
It's pure FUD you know...

I can guess you never owned non-branded desktop computer or even built one yourself otherwise i'm assuming you're spreading this FUD on purpose.

I owned plenty of branded and non-branded x86 PCs, starting from an 8088. I don't think you can compare mostly standardized desktop PC hardware to a niche handheld with lots of custom parts. Do you really think that people will be able to just buy a license for a regular desktop version of Windows and it will work out of the box on the Pyra?

 

[WizardStan]

Option is never a bad thing.

As hmc said, too many options can be overwhelming. I can personally attest to this as well.

If performance was equal, consumption was equal, thermals were equal

And that is the crux of the problem: we don't know these things and it's going to be a while before anyone is in a position to test them properly. ED has a choice to make: 4-8 months delay while a dev board is sourced and these things are tested (also goes for the 805); use something that hasn't been completely tested and could be risky; or go with the known value of the OMAP5.Personally I like the ARM architecture, it's a lot more fun to debug than x86.

 

[EvilDragon]

but you still have to see the rational behind the question and where you're asking it, and under what conditions you're asking it. It's not fair, and I personally would be fine with either although I'm slightly swayed by x86 as it stands right now, but the situation seem stacked in favor of arm, and that's the popular answer currently. It's of no surprise.

Why? Most people here on these boards are not here because they favour ARM.

They are here because they like the Pandora and it's functions. That's homebrew games, emulation, having a miniature PC.

It could've very well been that the same people would be in favour of an x86 SoC so they can also play normal x86 games (both Indie, commercial ones and Steam), etc.

However, there are dangers as well:

* Maybe no one would release optimized games anymore (screen size, button config, etc.) because everything exists for x86 anyways, so why re-port it?

* People thinking you can run all Windows games and then getting angry because they don't work

* Security issues - popular systems (x86) are more probably being hacked or attacked with viruses (I know x86 Linux rootkits / viruses exist, but I don't think they exist for ARM as well (except for Android)

Being niche is not always a bad thing - it pretty much ensures you're different from everyone else, which means less attacks onto your system.

ask the question on tom's hardware... you'll see it grossly in favor of x86, it's all about who gets a hold of the poll and where you ask the question. That is, untill you post something measurable.

That's something you can't proof, that's the problem.

Sure, maybe most would vote for it, but would they buy it for that high price?

Most of the mainstream buyers go crazy these days if a netbook-similar device is more expensive than 200 EUR.

In my experience, niche devices sell better for higher prices, simply because the community supports it.

Amiga stuff is freaking expensive, but still selling well - because the users appreciate someone is doing something there!

I CANNOT afford to lose the community here - it would be a risk to go to unknown waters, a risk with a lot of money involved.

The voting is placed exactly where it should be:

Within the community that supports me. And it's in the public as well, so newly interested folks can vote as well.

 

[SNESFAN]

@wizardstan- maybe that question should be added. Is it worth the wait to find out if the x86 option is comparable, better or worse.

If it's not available within the current timeline, then it's like the rest of the options, a non-option.

@ED- your choice seems clear if the current community and customer base, wanting to reduce risk etc. People care more about balanced performance than basically anything else. Choose the most power efficient SoC with the most performance, high end performance and capability seem secondary in most people's eyes.

 

[sebt3]

Also note that if you want it to legally run Windows, you probably have to sign some kind of exclusivity contract with Microsoft that disallows you from shipping or supporting any other OS. Of course we can still all install and unofficially support GNU/Linux, but not without paying for Windows first. At least that's how I understand things.

 It's pure FUD you know...

I can guess you never owned non-branded desktop computer or even built one yourself otherwise i'm assuming you're spreading this FUD on purpose.

If it was pure FUD, then why only Dell is selling linux desktop in the main PC distributors group. And even there, they do this in a limited set of country (and all of these countries does have special laws that make it illegal to force a windows sale for each PC sold). It's not as if there is no market.MS *is* forcing its parners to not provide linux support (it come with a price bump for Windows licence and many other even less charming methods). MS even have inked that for Windows on ARM : it's illegal to ship a dual boot windows/whatevar on ARM.

 

[EvilDragon]

The kernel driver is opensource, so the only issue we could have is bugs in the 3D driver, the rest of the system is not affected.

Wrong.Kernel maintainers actively reject any driver that is impossible to test without using closed source components and it's not like they're gonna write it themselves.

So unless we want to stuck with old kernel this driver should be maintained and ported to new kernels in timely fashion.

The kernel driver part is basically just something that loads the binary blob.

We are running all kinds of SGX firmwares on the current 3.2 LTE kernel, did you forget about that?

Just because it's being rejected by the kernel team doesn't mean it's a big hurdle to implement it into the latest kernel.

 

[WizardStan]

Note: Emphasis is mine.

Oh I didn't actually doubt I said it, it sounds like something I'd say, I just didn't remember it since it was so long ago I'd still be interested to know if there was any trick involved. Or did you just dig out your MSDos disks and install directly?

Wrong.

Kernel maintainers actively reject any driver that is impossible to test without using closed source components and it's not like they're gonna write it themselves.

So unless we want to stuck with old kernel this driver should be maintained and ported to new kernels in timely fashion.

Wut? So the kernel maintainers won't accept it into mainline, not actually a big deal. How does that prevent us from compiling the module ourselves against updated kernels?There are a lot of hardware drivers distributed as source which you need to compile into a module against your kernel that aren't accepted into mainline for one reason or another. This wouldn't be the first nor will it be the last.

 

[God Ginrai]

If we want ARM and a GPU that has FOSS drivers, then Snapdragon is the only option. If its perf/W curves are better than, or close enough to those of the other two SoCs, I would go for Snapdragon.

Yes and no.

Qualcomm doesn't support Linux as good as TI.

The community does, but we don't know yet if everything the SoC can do is being covered by the community.

Something we need to check, that's for sure.

Honestly, the Allwinner SoC that Exophase mentioned is the one that interests me the most right now. I feel like it could have a lot of potential.

-God Ginrai

 

[Neelix]

Oh I didn't actually doubt I said it, it sounds like something I'd say, I just didn't remember it since it was so long ago
I'd still be interested to know if there was any trick involved. Or did you just dig out your MSDos disks and install directly?

Exactly that.  A friend had lent me a USB 3.5" FDD drive, to play with and I had found my DOS 6.22 installation disks.

I booted off the floppy,  The DOS installer saw my USB connected storage (now that I think on it I'm pretty sure it was an SD card but the reader was connected via USB in any case) as a hard drive and let me install it.  I was then able to boot into DOS 6.22 off the USB storage.

I  copied Kings Quest onto the card, and fired it up (I think I had to reboot first because it saw the card as a permanently connected hard drive and seemed to have cached the FAT, so it didn't recognise that the filesystem had changed)  and found it playable.   The machine crashed when I tried to exit Kings Quest though.

- Neelix

 

[WizardStan]

Exactly that

Well there you go. I am rightly schooled.

 

[Linux-SWAT]

Why choose DOS instead of FreeDOS ?

 

[CrazyIvan]

Also note that if you want it to legally run Windows, you probably have to sign some kind of exclusivity contract with Microsoft that disallows you from shipping or supporting any other OS. Of course we can still all install and unofficially support GNU/Linux, but not without paying for Windows first. At least that's how I understand things.

 
It's pure FUD you know...


I can guess you never owned non-branded desktop computer or even built one yourself otherwise i'm assuming you're spreading this FUD on purpose.

If it was pure FUD, then why only Dell is selling linux desktop in the main PC distributors group. And even there, they do this in a limited set of country (and all of these countries does have special laws that make it illegal to force a windows sale for each PC sold). It's not as if there is no market.
MS *is* forcing its parners to not provide linux support (it come with a price bump for Windows licence and many other even less charming methods). MS even have inked that for Windows on ARM : it's illegal to ship a dual boot windows/whatevar on ARM.

Short version: discounts for OS

Long version: There is a long tradition to offer discounts for the products, especially in IT area. This can save a lot of money for computer manufacturers and they usually go for it. For example there was a time when notebooks started appearing and first atoms were produced. At that time Intel offered (probably substantial) discounts on its atom processors if it went to a notebook with a screen size less or equal 10'' and Microsoft offered a special Windows version (Starter edition if I remember correctly) for such products for a price less than that of Windows for notebooks. Because it was a cost sensitive market basically everyone agreed to not manufacture netbooks with screens more than 10''.

Basically every restriction you mention comes with OS price discount. That includes that 'secure boot for windows 8' situation.

Full Windows price is the one you pay when you buy this OS in local store. No manufacturer pays more even if it goes against some internal Microsoft policy. Windows doesn't have any special mechanism to prevent its installation on a machine that is not supported by Microsoft and basically all comes to the presence of working drivers as with any other OS.

The other thing don't have anything to do with pyra as it concerns big companies and their strategies. For a long time these companies have sold windows PCs and they sold well. The engineers working to create such products were tasked with creating a windows device and they didn't care if what they did conformed to some standard as they did only thinks that was (sometimes barely) enough to boot windows and make it fully working on such machine.

Three companies that made business notebooks (HP,Dell,IBM-Lenovo) actively supported Red Hat and/or SuSe because their business customers wanted it. They often didn't come preinstalled because they were meant to be installed by local IT support team.

Recently PC sales took a dive and manufacturers stated to panic. They really don't want to bet on linux because they believe that windows is preferred by customers and linux is not. Although recently almost all manufacturers announced Chrome OS support and their plans to produce Chromebooks. Why? Who knows, they're basically crazy like smartphone manufacturers became crazy when iPhone appeared and suddenly they all believed that customers only want iPhone-style smartphones.

And by the way you can buy a lot of notebooks without windows preinstalled (it's usually freedos or some linux that can boot into command line without any power saving options enabled) in Russia because a lot of people are willing to buy it (and most probably install some pirated Windows on it  )

Wut? So the kernel maintainers won't accept it into mainline, not actually a big deal. How does that prevent us from compiling the module ourselves against updated kernels? There are a lot of hardware drivers distributed as source which you need to compile into a module against your kernel that aren't accepted into mainline for one reason or another. This wouldn't be the first nor will it be the last.

Unfortunately interfaces within kernel tend to change over time

The kernel driver part is basically just something that loads the binary blob. We are running all kinds of SGX firmwares on the current 3.2 LTE kernel, did you forget about that? Just because it's being rejected by the kernel team doesn't mean it's a big hurdle to implement it into the latest kernel.

It's not a big problem but it's a problem anyway and some manpower will be needed to update drivers to successfully build with the latest kernel. Who will do that work is another question (it may be as well an Imagination Tech programmer) but kernel integration is not 'free'. If we want long term support we should know about the problems connected with this goal and this is one of them

 

[WizardStan]

Unfortunately interfaces within kernel tend to change over time

Yes, that is a thing that might one day happen, and if it does we change the module to accommodate. We'd have to do this anyway regardless of whether the module were in mainline or not.