Slashdot Mirror


Terra Soft Withdraws Plans for PowerPC Motherboards

DamienMcKenna writes "Terra Soft has just announced it is not going to produce PPC motherboards: 'We regret having launched a product initiative and built expectations prior to receiving first shipment. We have clearly learned a powerful lesson and do extend our apology to you, our existing and potential customers. As the Teron mainboard and associated systems will be made available through other resellers, we will encourage them to sign-on as official Yellow Dog Linux resellers in order that we may continue to support movement of what we hope to be a very popular product.' This leaves Genesi as the only company who still has PowerPC motherboards for sale, with a new board design due later this year."

137 comments

  1. Imagine a beowulf cluster..... by ihatewinXP · · Score: 1, Funny

    .....cluster of vaporware!

    --
    ---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
    1. Re:Imagine a beowulf cluster..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I've recently been looking into building a computer. I looked at their motherboards, and was certainly interested for a while in them. I eventually arrived at the conclusion that I wouldn't buy one of these things. Reason number one is cost. They were damned expensive, and the novelty of having a non-x86 chip isn't worth what they were asking. The other reason is support. The x86 has been dominant for so long that projects are beginning to be tailored to it. Look at the GMP benchmarks. The Pentiums crushed the PowerPC in GMP. Whether it's because x86 had assembly and the PowerPC was just using C or the PowerPC is just inferior to the Pentium, they just don't stack up. Third, the x86 is a pretty good chip. One benefit of the Wintel cartel is the R&D money that went into Intel. I'm thankful for all the Dell-drones out there who've funded my future purchases of x86 technology. :)

      Cost is still the number one factor. AMD Athlon-1.1GHz can be bought for around $30. Motherboards range in price, depending on what you want, but a chip+mobo combo can be acquired easily for under $100. Terrasoft's product was just too expensive.

  2. This is sad... by Millennium · · Score: 0, Insightful

    ...but not entirely unexpected either. There's no way Apple would allow it, because God forbid they'd actually have to do something competitive.

    It's true that the clones nearly killed Apple. But this wasn't because of some problem inherent in cloning, it was because Apple refused to compete with the cloners. Their whole plan, initially, was to continue their absurdly high margins by selling high-end machines and having the cloners produce low-end machines; they'd be in different markets and Apple would still basically have a monopoly in their own little AppleWorld.

    This is the major problem with Apple, I think. And I doubt we'll see any increase in their marketshare, no matter how deserved it may be, until they get off their freaking high horse and start actually trying to compete in the open market.

    1. Re:This is sad... by oingoboingo · · Score: 1

      I'm too lazy to read the damned article, but did this have anything to do with Apple? I thought the point of these PowerPC mobos was to run YellowDog Linux or something similar? How would Apple stop someone from building a system with a Motorola/IBM PowerPC chip? Of course this may be all explained in the article, but this is Slashdot

    2. Re:This is sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since as we all know, apple is omnicient and can cause companies to cancel products by sheer will alone.

      Darn steve jobs and his remote telepathy mind control. And i was looking forward to buying one of those ppc motherboards, too.

    3. Re:This is sad... by Millennium · · Score: 1

      Let's face it: what else could cause TerraSoft, which has a vested interest in being able to sell their own machines, from suddenly doing a complete 180 on selling PPC motherboards? Particularly when they speak of "learning a powerful lesson" when they never even managed to bring the boards to market?

      Think about it. If Apple didn't step in, then how else could this have happened?

    4. Re:This is sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with Apple is that it has developed a proprietary format that does not allow the benefits of a truely open market to be felt.

      If apple opened its hardware up so that other manufactures could build it under licence (a Dell branded apple would be manna from heaven as far as I'm concerned) then prices would tumble as the laws of competition kicked in. This would mean that more people would buy apple bringing them huge profits from the sales of OSX and giving the linux community a much need boost by giving an operating system with a linux kernel a decent market share.

    5. Re:This is sad... by mwood · · Score: 1

      "If apple opened its hardware up so that other manufactures could build it under licence..."

      A hollow voice whispers, "VAXBI". There is no guarantee that the market will like this, particularly if someone believes it is in his interest to see to it that the market dislikes it. It also depends on just how strict that license is.

    6. Re:This is sad... by DJ+FirBee · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why is the parent moderated as insightful when it is obviously a troll ?

      Last I knew it took more than just a powerpc motherboard and chip to run Mac OS or OS X. It's not like PCs. Apples have yet more proprietary shit in them that keeps you from running their OS.

      You ever see a Dec Alpha running Mac OS or OS X ?

      I did not think so. So obviously Apple does not give a shit because this can't run their OS either.

      So. Shut the hell up and stop and stop being an ignorant, repugnant, ham headed troll.

      Dumbass.

    7. Re:This is sad... by stilwebm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are so blindsided by the fact that Apple uses PowerPC chips that you are ignoring the fact that Apple's operating systems simply would not work at all on these boards, and Apple would never support these motherboards. The boot system on these motherboards is not even OpenFirmware as on most (PCI and later) Apple PPC computers - they used the new and open PPCBoot. Apple cared about them using PPC-based computers about as much as they cared about any embedded manufacturer using PPC-based systems. The processors TerraSoft planned to use were not even close to competing with the latest G4 1GHz and faster, and especially the dual G4 processors Apple is using in their desktop computers.

      The processor speed was in fact much of the problem. The motherboards were expected to start at $500 for a a board that was less than spectacular, with a PPC750 (G3) processor running at 600MHz. Total system cost was not successfully reduced enough to make it worthwhile to many systems integrators, operating systems porters, etc.

      They were in a catch-22. The systems needed to come down in price to gain wide spread acceptance, and they needed wide spread acceptance to come down in price. The competition is so stiff for servers and clusters that it was hard to compete. It is indeed sad.

    8. Re:This is sad... by muyuubyou · · Score: 2, Interesting

      See, it's not Apple - it's PowerPC damn it!. Apple is not PowerPC and PowerPC is not Apple.
      BTW who needs Apple clones so the Apple world becomes in just a parallel x86 world? I don't really see the need. Apple is based on control: control comes at a price, but provides guarantees to those willing to pay for it. You buy an Apple and you know the quality of the what you're getting (overall, hardware and software)- even if you're not an enthusiast.


      What I did expect is an Apple story with the penguin icon. The other day it was the B.Gates icon (that post on Virtual PC).

      God knows what's next.

    9. Re:This is sad... by bsharitt · · Score: 1

      Your argument is a rather absurd troll. Terra Soft wasn't planning on making Mac clones, they were going to use their own OS, Yellow Dog Linux. Apple stopping Terra Soft from making a PowerPC computer(based on an open motherboard design no less) is like HP stopping Dell from making Intel based systems with their own motherboard design.

    10. Re:This is sad... by Millennium · · Score: 1

      Why is the parent moderated as insightful when it is obviously a troll ?

      It was not intended as a troll. I use Macs at every opportunity (i.e. everywhere except work, where I have to use a Wintel and a Sun box). However, while I love Macs, I loathe Apple, and this is one of the reasons.

      Last I knew it took more than just a powerpc motherboard and chip to run Mac OS or OS X. It's not like PCs. Apples have yet more proprietary shit in them that keeps you from running their OS.

      You forget: Apple considers itself a hardware company. To them, the OS is quite literally nothing more than a draw to get people running their hardware. Apple doesn't care about DEC Alpha machines because they don't sell DEC Alpha machines. But any PPC machine, whether or not it's capable of running OSX, is a threat to them. Or at least, they think it is. Are they wrong? Hell yes. But it's what they believe, and neither you nor I is going to be able to convince them otherwise.

      So. Shut the hell up and stop and stop being an ignorant, repugnant, ham headed troll.

      You know, this is probably the first time I've ever been called a troll. I must say, I'm rather disappointed. I was hoping for an impressive, or at least a passable, flame.

    11. Re:This is sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, it's not Apple - it's PowerPC damn it!. Apple is not PowerPC and PowerPC is not Apple.

      Mod this guy up.

      BTW, the whole reason that Apple went with IBM PowerPC in the the first place was because it was an open platform, just like x86. The thinking was: Open --> More users --> Cheaper and better parts for Apple.

      PPC never really caught on outside IBM and Apple, and consequentally it fell behind Intel/AMD. Apple wouldn't mind at all if PPC could develop into a thriving clone market, because it would save them the insane expense of switching CPUs.

    12. Re:This is sad... by singularity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's no way Apple would allow it, because God forbid they'd actually have to do something competitive.

      You have to be kidding me! Apple was what, about a 3-5% market share in a field dominated by a convicted monopoly? They are in one of the most cut-throat industries out there.

      Apple competes daily against people like Dell and Gateway. When you are selling your product at $1200 (iMac) against other products that are about $600 for basically the same hardware feature, you better believe you are competing with something. Otherwise you are going to go out of business really quickly.

      And I doubt we'll see any increase in their marketshare, no matter how deserved it may be, until they get off their freaking high horse and start actually trying to compete in the open market.

      Yeah, maybe if they would build a better laptop or get a 1U product out there they would be doing better. Oh wait...

      Like I said - Apple is competing. They are not competing against other PPC manufacturers, they are competing against the Wintel monopoly.

      Apple stopped the clone business for a reason - Apple ended up trying to compete with the clone makers. As a result, they were ignoring their real competitors (the ones that could drive them out of business) - Dell, Compaq, Gateway, and others.

      The clone business did not expand their 5%, it just split up that 5% among the clone manufacturers and Apple, meaning that Apple was not getting near as much revenue.

      You will not see a major increase in Apple marketshare because it is competing against a monopoly in software and a very cut-throat industry in hardware.

      So Apple is happy with billions sitting around in cash, making machines for people that are willing to pay a premium.

      (Disclaimer: I own three Macs and one clone)

      --
      - (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
    13. Re:This is sad... by Golias · · Score: 2
      I agree you are not trolling. You are -1, Off topic.

      This story has nothing to do with Apple

      A company who was making server boards which happened to be using G3 PPC chips decided that they could not get the ! for $ they need to compete with cheaper architectures. Since your very limited knowledge of PPC leads you to think this is something Apple is trying to keep Apple-only, you immediately made the dumbass assumption that big, bad Apple must have sent their lawyers after them or something.

      PPC was designed specifically with the intention that it be used by a lot of different companies and on a lot of different boards. IBM's Power4 servers are built with PPC boards, for example. The low power requirements (and therefore, low heat) of the PPC also makes it popular for embedded chip applications.

      It's not the PPC chip that makes a Mac board a Mac board, it's the boot ROM chips. Theoretically, since the Mac OS X runs on the Mach microkernel, it would be relatively trivial adapt it to run it on an Intel-based motherboard... if you had the required Apple ROM chips also on that board. Running OS X on any platform without Apple's proprietary chips is not.

      You might not have intended to troll, but what a huge thread you launched of people who are rightly pointing out that your post is completely wrong, misinformed, and so wild of a conspiracy that some are probably now wondering if you were wearing a tinfoil hat as you wrote it. Every single moderator who called any of your posts in this thread "Insightful" clearly did not read the article before moderating. I stongly urge them to post something in this thread in order to cancel their moderation.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    14. Re:This is sad... by ePhil_One · · Score: 1
      The processor speed was in fact much of the problem. The motherboards were expected to start at $500 for a a board that was less than spectacular, with a PPC750 (G3) processor running at 600MHz. Total system cost was not successfully reduced enough to make it worthwhile to many systems integrators, operating systems porters, etc.

      They were in a catch-22. The systems needed to come down in price to gain wide spread acceptance, and they needed wide spread acceptance to come down in price. The competition is so stiff for servers and clusters that it was hard to compete. It is indeed sad.

      Ah, finally somebody who understands that there might be other reasons for wanting a PPC computer than to build a cheap Apple clone.

      Personally I liked the idea of building a Linux system that used a low power but powerful and advanced chip like the PPC. Why run an ultra cool and advanced OS like Linux on a throwback chip like the x86 and its derivitives. Maybe a cheap firewall/router box that ran (or could run) a full version of Linux with Flash storage (8MB would be plenty for a default config, then allow Flash card upgrades and/or external USB drives) USB could connect to external storage and printers, etc. Not fast enough to replace your home computer, just fast enough to be useful while drawing under 20W of power.

      Honestly, Macs are cheap enough these days that If I want to run OS X I can buy a real Mac rather than deal with the headaches of a hacked up system.

      Come on, an iBook is only $999 new. And used G4 cubes are real tempting as well (Well, not at the $700+ their going for on eBay! Damn, talk about resale value)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    15. Re:This is sad... by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 1

      It's true that the clones nearly killed Apple. But this wasn't because of some problem inherent in cloning, it was because Apple refused to compete with the cloners.

      Don't forget that the clones nearly killed IBM as well. Yes, there is some inherent problem in cloning - the inventor gets no reward for his invention. IBM had hoped to control the PC market by controlling BIOS. As we all know, they hopes were vain and as a result, IBM came to near-death situation in late 80's. Yes, PC-boxes are almost everywhere now, but each single one of them has still many remainders of the early 80's technology - the 1.44 floppy, the beeper, some even still have ISA slots. "Legacy-free PC" is still a goal, not something you can actually buy and use. As a Mac user, I don't want Apple to evolve this way. I'm glad the clone market was killed in 1997.

    16. Re:This is sad... by dadragon · · Score: 1

      Mac OS X is not Linux, instead it's actually a BSD. It uses a Mach microkernel with a FreeBSD derived personality to give it its UNIX feel. It uses NetBSD's, FreeBSD's, and OpenBSD's userland components and libraries to provide a UNIX userland environment. It has nothing to do with Linux, except for a few LGPL libraries and GCC as its compiler.

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
    17. Re:This is sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      expense? that would be the start...

    18. Re:This is sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple considers itself a hardware company

      uh-uh - nowadays the only things actually produced by apple are the boxes, monitors, ROM chips and various little Steve Jobs peckadillos like wossname - airwossname - wireless network thingy - sure I sound convincing huh? - Everything else is made by seperate companys - including motherboards and chips, and then integrated into the end product by Apple - this is partially why Apple are so behind on chip speeds and why they are considering changing chips - because they are entirely at the mercy of companies like IBM and Motorola.

      I disagree whole-heartedly with the unprovoked troll-calling incident. In fact I'd say that Golias is being remarkably trollish in his accusations

    19. Re:This is sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NeXT was "distracted" while all of the major UNIX vendors were transitioning their products to System V. After NeXT became part of Apple, they were again "distracted" with integrating NeXT and LaST to create OS X. Now that they have some time to catch their breath, they should be able to pull the plug on the Mach+BSD/Darwin beast and substitute the monolithic Solaris or Linux kernel. Note: They do some (very basic) real-time stuff in Darwin (to keep iTunes/Movie/DVD breathing/burning) and they have a lot of money tied up in device driver QA, so the longer they wait the more painfull it is going to be. Jobs basically just has to decide whether to buy SUN or to buy Universal and tell Avi to make due with Linux (or whatever kind of performance hacks they can build into Darwin).

  3. new IBM 970 chip, New IBM motherboard? by acomj · · Score: 3, Informative

    IBM seems serious about the new PowerPC 970 chip working with lower end workstations. Hopefully they'll provide inexpensive motherboards for use with the chips so that reasonably priced PPC linux systems become a reality.

    Remeber the good old days and the promise of CHRP (Common Hardware Reference Platform.). It seemed like such a good idea but just never took off when apple killed macos for CHRP.

    Maybe Apple will allow clones again, but I'm not holding my breath.

    1. Re:new IBM 970 chip, New IBM motherboard? by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      Apple won't allow clones, period. And without the promise of Mac OS X, current PPC motherboards are too expensive to both with (if you just wanna run Linux, you can do it much cheaper on x86).

      IBM made the CHRP spec publicly available in 1998, and I don't know of any production motherboards that have been made from this design. It's just too expensive for a small company to produce PPC in bulk.

      I seriously doubt that IBM will be releasing the motherboard spec for the 970 anytime soon. Because people might actually go for the 970 (with its truly 900mhz bus, not this quad-pumped 133 garbage) to run Linux.

      And since IBM will be selling it in very expensive machines running Linux, they don't want you to be able to get approximately the same effect from a machine down the street.

      So...Apple will probably be the cheapest place to get a PPC motherboard. If IBM and Apple's motherboard designs are similar enough, it's conceivable that you could run Mac OS X on the IBM, but it wouldn't be very useful.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    2. Re:new IBM 970 chip, New IBM motherboard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      IBM is the hardware monster. Think MCA. Price some RAM from some of the old PS/2 machines.

      They truly are like a Shaido with one goat.

    3. Re:new IBM 970 chip, New IBM motherboard? by dadragon · · Score: 1

      So...Apple will probably be the cheapest place to get a PPC motherboard. If IBM and Apple's motherboard designs are similar enough, it's conceivable that you could run Mac OS X on the IBM, but it wouldn't be very useful.

      I think it would be very neat if Apple licenced Mac OS X Server to IBM for use on its PowerPC machines. There would be options for which OS to use on the IBM machine: Linux, IBM's house OS (AIX I think), and Mac OS X Server. No client, of course, as that would threaten Apple's market for things like iDVD and other Apple goodies.

      I like my iBook, but I don't see the need to use an Apple server. An IBM server with Mac OS X would be nice for newbie admins and people who need a good AFP server, but Linux would be good too, and I'm sure AIX has its uses.

      Also, given the licence costs for Mac OS X server, Apple is making a healthy profit off it, unlike its client version. So Apple is still making a lot of money, just a little bit less than they would if they sold IBM's customer an Xserve.

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
    4. Re:new IBM 970 chip, New IBM motherboard? by Slurpee · · Score: 1


      Remeber the good old days and the promise of CHRP (Common Hardware Reference Platform.). It seemed like such a good idea but just never took off when apple killed macos for CHRP.


      Remember that the last company to pull out of the CHRP was Apple. The CHRP was long dead before they pulled out. In the begining Windows, OS2, MacOS and various other OSes were meant to run on the CHRP.

      OS2 died, Microsoft pulled out, and the CHRP was just Apple opening up its *hardware* market to cloners. Not suprisingly, Apple lost bucketloads of money, pulled out of the CHRP, killed the cloners, and is now profitable.

    5. Re:new IBM 970 chip, New IBM motherboard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No client, of course, as that would threaten Apple's market for things like iDVD and other Apple goodies.

      Mac OS X server is exactly the same as the client version, except that it has the server tools (and of course, the limits for simultaneous AFP connections). So if they did offer OS X Server on IBM, any OS X binaries would run on them, including iApps.

      But it will still be useless to those yearning for a cheap PPC motherboard, since the IBM servers using the 970 will no doubt be 2x-4x as expensive as Apple machines.

    6. Re:new IBM 970 chip, New IBM motherboard? by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      Remember that the last company to pull out of the CHRP was Apple. The CHRP was long dead before they pulled out.

      They were also the ones that never delivered their part of the bargain (ie: hardware).

    7. Re:new IBM 970 chip, New IBM motherboard? by Slurpee · · Score: 1


      They were also the ones that never delivered their part of the bargain (ie: hardware).


      According to http://amiga.emugaming.com/c.html, the CHRP was meant to be a platform for all PowerPC hardware. Not just Apple's. Certainly PowerComputing and Motorolla had plans for the CHRP, though I suspect they were never released as their licenses were pulled.

      I can't find anything confirming that other hardware companies were going to ship CHRP...I thought IBM were too. Was Apple the only CHRP hardware manufacturer, and did it fail because Apple didn't deliver? I've always understood that it failed cause no-one ported their OSes to it.

  4. Why *would* people do "open platform macs"? by lingqi · · Score: 2, Informative

    I mean, it's not like there hasn't been mac clones before. And if y'all remember it didn't work out all that well, for Apple OR the clone makers, IIRC.

    And back in the days I remember the clones (and maybe apple in general?) would have windows emulation that would run pretty much anything (that's before the directX days) you wanted... now that I think about it, I really wonder why so few switched over - I mean, back then Apple wasn't cheap either, but neither was PCs, to tell the truth...

    Granted, Apple design wasn't as artistically meticulous as today either. The mac community, I think, had about the same amount of elitist / snobishness though. Actually Linux community too - except no KDE / Gnome / etc that we all take for granted.

    Ahh the old days.

    Anyway - Hardly doubt this will impact the mac world...

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

    1. Re:Why *would* people do "open platform macs"? by oingoboingo · · Score: 1

      And if y'all remember it didn't work out all that well, for Apple OR the clone makers, IIRC.

      The problem was that it worked out a little too well for the consumers. Who knows what Apple is thinking these days...Mac OS X is really nice, but even their high end PowerMacs are well behind the x86 world. Maybe Steve has something shit-hot ready to release soon (maybe a PPC970 system) and isn't worried in the short term...or maybe he's just worn one turtleneck too many and Apple is doomed. I don't suppose we'll ever see clones again

    2. Re:Why *would* people do "open platform macs"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And back in the days I remember the clones (and maybe apple in general?) would have windows emulation that would run pretty much anything (that's before the directX days) you wanted..

      You are smoking crack.

      Apple never had "windows emulation". The best you could have managed was to buy either the Apple or OrangePC processor card (ie - PC) and put it in the case with your mac.

      Otherwise, there's VirtualPC, which is as crappy a product now as it has ever been.

    3. Re:Why *would* people do "open platform macs"? by doce · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem was that it worked out a little too well for the consumers.

      this may be... but if it didn't work out well for any of the companies involved, then cancelling the program was quite the no-brainer. i owned a UMAX clone that I was moderately happy with; cheap macs can't be a bad thing for me... but i'd rather have expensive macs than no Apple.

      people forget that Apple was footing almost the entire cost of the license, and leaving the cloners to collect all the profits. this situation was one of the leading factors in Apple nearly disappearing in the mid-90's. Apple was paying the R&D on the boards, then just handing the things to Motorola, UMAX, and PowerComputing. Every clone was, essentially, just a cheaper version of what Apple was already offering.

      So, in the end, Apple was paying all the R&D cost to set up another company to make all the profits selling almost the exact same box.

      And people doubt the decision Apple made in the long run? If that sounds like a good deal to you, I have a business proposition for you.

      --
      woof!
    4. Re:Why *would* people do "open platform macs"? by Golias · · Score: 1
      Otherwise, there's VirtualPC, which is as crappy a product now as it has ever been.

      Actually, there was also SoftWindows, which worked fairly well, as long as you weren't hoping to run Linux. VirtualPC eventually pushed them out of the market, because a lot of people prefered the flexibility of x86 emulation over the modest performance gains of emulating a single flavor of Windows.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    5. Re:Why *would* people do "open platform macs"? by oingoboingo · · Score: 1

      people forget that Apple was footing almost the entire cost of the license, and leaving the cloners to collect all the profits.

      You're right, I did forget that's the way it worked. Oh well...maybe they could try again one day with some more reasonable terms attached to the agreement, like splitting R&D costs or something. With Apple now using commodity technologies for so many things (USB, FireWire, PCI, AGP, DDR-SDRAM, Ethernet, 802.11 etc) maybe it wouldn't be prohibitive for both Apple to not have to hold the cloners by the hand and foot all the R&D costs, and also for cloners not to go bankrupt trying to produce a Mac compatible system by themselves from scratch.

      Or maybe not.

    6. Re:Why *would* people do "open platform macs"? by iankerickson · · Score: 1
      I mean, it's not like there hasn't been mac clones before. And if y'all remember it didn't work out all that well, for Apple OR the clone makers, IIRC.

      It didn't work out because the Mac OEMs failed to differentiate their Macs away from desktop PCs. Nobody was selling "server-grade", rackmount Macs, embedded systems with MacOS and its GUI, set top boxes with MacOS, network appliance Mac clones, laptop or PDA Mac clones, network-enabled scanners or copiers that ran MacOS, etc, etc. Sure, PowerComputing clones were faster for less; that's why everybody wanted them. And UMAX clones were Macs that happened to use standard PC parts. But beyond that the mac clones were ordinary desktop PCs/Macs that were just consistently cheaper than Apple's stuff.

      Part of the blame lies with the MacOS of the time (System 7.5.5). It was a real technological dead-end. It crashed. A LOT. Especially if you didn't understand how extensions worked or had corrupt files. It was slow, since most of the OS was emulating a 680x0 series Mac. It was piggy. Where System 7 squeezed in under 4-5 MB of RAM and 40 MB of disk for everything, by System 7.5.5 you _needed_ 32+ MB of RAM, about 150 MB of disk, and virtually memory -- and for not much visible gain over System 7. It just (barely) ran on the new PowerMacs. At the time, multimedia was the current IT fad, and RAM and disk were still very expensive, which didn't help. System 7.5.5 didn't multitask any better than Windows 95, and its APIs were difficult to port to. So there was no GNU, BSD, or much of any freeware community of hobbyiest programmers for the Mac. The OS was excrutiating to write programs for. You had to lock and unlock handles based on which OS calls "moved memory". But no one had a comprehensive list of which calls did or did not move memory. Depending on the OS revision, the MacOS ROM of the mac in question, and any patches, the best people could do was say "This call may move memory." Bleh. There was no memory protection either, so small errors could take out the OS in spectacular ways. The OS was not stable the way Linux, BSD, or even NT actually is. Development tools for the Mac at the time were all proprietary, expensive, and IMHO kinda buggy (but given the platform they were trying to target, how could you blame them...) The only free development tools were MacApp, MPW, AppleScript, BBEditLite, and a couple implementations of FORTH for the Mac (MOPS springs to mind...)

      So given all this unneeded baggage saddled on MacOS 7.5.5, how were you supposed to make Mac clones that differentiate themselves from Apple's offerings so your didn't steal each other sales? You couldn't! Or you couldv'e tried, but no one did, and to their credit. Nowadays, MacOS X is much, much better. It's still fairly piggy, but with Darwin, you might be able to trim it down. Apple is in a better position now to unleash the clones (and this time... it's personal) and have it actually work out. The trick is to have Mac clones that can cut into PC, UNIX, embedded, or VAR/solutions markets, and not steal from Apple desktop sales. Now there are more markets for consumer devices that have a GUI built-in (like the iPod or Airport). You could customize MacOS X to do anything a regular UNIX could do, except fit in a tiny amount of ROM/RAM. And with the semi-openess of Darwin, there's less to NDA. I don't see Mac clones ever coming back, but if they ever do, they might fare better, now that the MacOS is actually in decent shape.

      --
      Democracy. Whiskey. Sexy. Pick any two.
  5. As usual completely factually incorrect.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    enisi are not the only company. Eyetech also produce PPC mother boards and you can actually buy them unlike the Genisi boards (which they are no longer making).

    http://www.eyetech.co.uk/

    http://www.eyetech.co.uk/amigaone/

    1. Re:As usual completely factually incorrect.. by dammy · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Genisi are not the only company. Eyetech also
      > produce PPC mother boards and you can actually
      > buy them unlike the Genisi boards (which they are > no longer making).

      Incorrect, but nice try. Genesi is still producing Pegasus I board for developers. Genesi's Pegasus 2 model will be released sometime around Sept.

      Now if Teron thinks this generic mobo is a POS, why on earth would anyone want to buy a BIOS doggled, generic MIA mobo? Oh yeah, it's got a Boing Ball decal and the Faithful Followers Of The Name Cult will buy anything with a Boing Ball. Funny thing is of course, Amiga Inc (who is being sued by Genesi for breach of contract and the trial date is set for 12-1-03) has nothing to do but collect royalities off of EyeTech and Hyperion's work. What a deal huh?

      Dammy

    2. Re:As usual completely factually incorrect.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mike Bouma? Is that you?

      (hoping someone gets it...)

    3. Re:As usual completely factually incorrect.. by ColdGrits · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nice troll, Mr Bouma, but as ever you are completely wrong in everything you say.

      First of all, Eyetech do NOT manufacture any PPC motherboards at all. NONE. (They were going to be shipping the Teron board, but they waffled and lied about the various reasons for delay - and now we start to see the real reason they can not ship the board which, it must be stressed, Eyetech do NOT make).

      Second, Genisi are still producing PPC motherboards and systems, currently in small numbers pending the launch of the Pegasos2, but the FACT remains that the Pegasos 1 is still being produced.

      Crawl back under your bridge, Bouma, where you belong, and leave the discussion of facts to those who know what they are talking about.

      --
      People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
    4. Re:As usual completely factually incorrect.. by Mike+Bouma · · Score: 2, Informative

      No this wasn't me. I never post anonymously.

      But anyhow I would agree that the original news submission is quite misleading as currently G4 powered AmigaOne-XE boards are also available. For Alan's take on TerraSoft and information on new AmigaOne boards have a look at Alan's presentation.

  6. Only 2 manufacturers? by Wehesheit · · Score: 0

    I wonder what the reason behind it is? With only two main PPC mobo makers surely there would be a market. Does anyone have any more info besides a very vague press release?

    --
    This P.I.G. will walk on the water, This P.I.G. will walk on the sea, This P.I.G. will walk whereever he wants.
  7. Well poo... by saitoh · · Score: 1

    I had been looking at getting one of the G3 600mhz jobbies as a spare box for a server, cause of the different arch then x86, and its bloody friggin hard to find boards that arnt from apple.

    There is a place in the UK which sells G3 and G4 boards and procs for Amiga systems (really cool that the new OS3 runs off of PPC), but with VAT, its a pain to import them back to America.

    For those interested: http://www.eyetech.co.uk/search.php?SearchStr=&Sea rchCat=AMA1 is what I had bookmarked as the search for their PPC stuff.

    --
    We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
    1. Re:Well poo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      if you're outside of the UK you don't need to pay VAT when buying from the UK.

    2. Re:Well poo... by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 1

      Wrong. You have to pay VAT at the country of origin if you are a consumer in the European Union. Companies are a different matter though.

      --
      Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
  8. Genesi FUD? by An+Ominous+Cow+Erred · · Score: 3, Informative

    Uh, you can still buy an AmigaOne from Eyetech . (The AmigaOne uses the exact same reference design as the Teron, and is more or less the same thing, although the firmware chip has some different stuff on it for running AmigaOS).

    There are also various resellers who will sell you one if you do a little searching.

    Supplies are a little bumpy (shipment stopped for a little while while waiting for a newer board revision that fixed some issues with the northbridge), but I know people who have AmigaOnes already. (Regular people, not just people in developers like Hyperion (us))

    1. Re:Genesi FUD? by ColdGrits · · Score: 1

      " Uh, you can still buy an AmigaOne from Eyetech. "

      No you can't.

      They are not for sale yet.

      A VERY small number of beta testers have managed to touch one, but they are NOT yett on general release. No non-AOS4 beta tester or developer has ever managed to buy and receive an AmigaOne (not that there is even an AmigaOS to run on it yet either, by the way).

      --
      People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
    2. Re:Genesi FUD? by Seehund · · Score: 1

      That's simply incorrect/uninformed. The so-called "AmigaOne" is simply another name for the Teron motherboard, but the distributor of those renamed Terons, Eyetech, has invented/acquired a license from Amiga, Inc. to sell it to AmigaOS users under the trademark "AmigaOne".

      There are no differences, not even in firmware. No "more or less the same thing". All Teron distributors (will) sell the exact same boards, Mai's design made by the same manufacturer. If you're really Hyperion, as you seem to claim that you are, you really ought to know this, as you have submitted code contributions to the U-Boot (ex PPC-Boot) project. The only thing differing the ones marketed as "AmigaOnes" from the others is the added dongle-code stored in the same physical *PROM chip as the firmware resides in, to invent a restricted "Amiga hardware" market for this third party hardware.

      Furthermore, the Terons to be distributed via Eyetech are not shipping any more than the ones sold by Terra Soft. Then again, in stark contrast to Terra Soft, so far Eyetech hasn't shown any signs of giving a damn about even checking that the boards work as promised (like the scandal with their sales of the predecessor of the Teron PX, i.e. the unfinished and buggy Teron CX evaluation boards (or "AmigaOne G3-SE" as Eyetech liked to call them)).

      --
      Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
    3. Re:Genesi FUD? by An+Ominous+Cow+Erred · · Score: 1

      I was referring to the added dongle code in the firmware (not part of U-Boot, but still part of the overall firmware of the system). Whether or not you like it is not important, it's part of the license agreement for AmigaOS. If you want to change it, the best way to do it would be to put up the money to purchase the rights. Amiga Inc. paid millions of dollars for them, and they set the terms. Your petition is another way to try to get totally open hardware support, but it will have to be backed up by something more than just signatures I think.

      If you really want the petition to have weight, you could set up an escrow account, which each person who signs the petition puts say, $100 into towards the purchase of standalone copies of AmigaOS4 which would only be released for purchase if they opened the hardware (or be released back to the petitioners if Amiga didn't comply in a certain amount of time.) If the money reached a certain level, it would show that Amiga stood to make more money by opening up than by not opening up, and you would be victorious. The temptation would be too great and they would cave.

      The question is simply how many extra sales of AmigaOS4 licenses would open hardware support generate vs. lost sales from people not buying the licenses. It will take real cold, hard cash to convince Amiga of that.

      Regarding the hardware issue, you have some valid points. It's well known that there were some issues with Mai's northbridge, for which there are various hardware and software workarounds. These are being addressed. The AmigaOneG3-SE however is not a non-working product as you seem to indicate it is. I know people who own them who are quite happy with them. It's fair to say that there were problems, but please don't spread FUD just to be negative.

      (And finally, yes I do some work for Hyperion (not so much lately as it was more to do with games licenses and OS4 is now the primary project), and identify with them, so I'm not unbiased. Everything I'm saying here though are my personal views, and not those of anyone else affiliated with Hyperion, or any official view of the company as it were.)

  9. hmmmm by the-dude-man · · Score: 2, Informative

    We were truly excited to bring this particular ATX PowerPC Linux product to market.

    You get excited over that and you think the halting of the atx PPC is your biggest problem?

    PPC is great in theory, troble is in the real world its just so damn expensive you may as well go the x86 route. its actually so much cheaper that the cost of having the architechure fail is balenced by the fact you can go down the street and buy a replacement. I like PPC, its a nice archatechure, but its exensive, and its still coming out of the old propietary days. I'll be interested to see if it survives to become at least a little mainstream

    1. Re:hmmmm by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Heh.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  10. Re:Well poo... [URL blocking sucks] by saitoh · · Score: 1

    there is no space in the third "search" before =AMA1....

    --
    We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
  11. Here's the release by abhisarda · · Score: 3, Informative

    Terra Soft ATX PowerPC Systems

    Terra Soft Current and Pending Customers,

    7 April 2003

    "Terra Soft Solutions has determined that it is not, at this point in time, prudent to carry the Teron mainboards nor offer Teron-based Boxer systems. This is as great a disappointment for us as it is for many of you. We were truly excited to bring this particular ATX PowerPC Linux product to market.

    If you have read the rumor mills, there are a variety of supposed reasons why we have been delayed in shipping, including unqualified statements and speculation at best. It is our corporate policy to not address specific issues regarding any strategic relationship within a public forum, where fact and fiction are not easily discernable, and our fiduciary responsibility to our customers, shareholders, and industry associates may be compromised.

    We regret having launched a product initiative and built expectations prior to receiving first shipment. We have clearly learned a powerful lesson and do extend our apology to you, our existing and potential customers.

    As the Teron mainboard and associated systems will be made available through other resellers, we will encourage them to sign-on as official Yellow Dog Linux resellers in order that we may continue to support movement of what we hope to be a very popular product."

    Kai Staats, CEO
    Terra Soft Solutions, Inc.

  12. Other PPC motherboard suppliers still out there by DamienMcKenna · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are other PowerPC motherboard suppliers our there still, notably Genesi Sarl which ships a Micro-ATX board of its own design, as opposed to the OEMed Mai Teron board that both TerraSoft and Eyetech have been licensing. There are a limited number of Pegasos 1 motherboards available from Genesi and a Pegasos 2 motherboard is in development for release later this year. Additionally Eyetech has been pre-selling their "AmigaONE" boards, which as I mentioned are based on the old Mai Teron design.

    Please note that the current Peagsos 1 boards use the same chipset as the Teron boards, except for the addition of a chip dubbed the April which fixes some bugs in the chipset. The new Pegasos 2 boards will use a completely different chipset from Marvell.

    1. Re:Other PPC motherboard suppliers still out there by Pegasos · · Score: 2

      To explain for those not familar with the Amiga-market of the recent about two years why Genesi isn't going anymore to produce the Pegasos-I in volume but designs a successor with different northbridge instead:

      The Pegasos-I uses the same northbridge from Mai as Mai's own reference design mainboard called Teron (also sold by Eyetech but labelled "AmigaOne" there). This northbridge is the Articia-S. Unfortunately this northbridge didn't work as advertized, it had bugs. (And maybe still has, so that this could be the or at least one reason why Terrasoft discontinues wanting to sell the Articia-based Teron.) Genesi did discover those bugs after building the first several dozens of Pegasos-mainboards for their developers and betatesters. Unfortunately Mai denied there would be bugs and said they wouldn't be able to reproduce them until Genesi got fed up and sent their chief engineer into the USA to Mai to demonstrate it to them personally.

      Genesi then developed a small chip called April which they mounted on their boards below the Articia-northbridge to correct those bugs. Unfortunately, afterwards, whenb they had exchanged at no cost for their customers all original Pegasos-boards to new ones with an April-chip and also sold further new Pegasosses to new customers, including plain end-users, further bugs were discovered and a new revision of the April-chip, the April-2, had to be created. The next board-exchange has just taken place the last few days. Also some further hundred Pegasos-I-boards with April-2 haven been produced and sold either directly or via the remaining Amiga-dealers to end-users.

      But because of the expensiveness and difficulty to mount the April-chips, as well as because of the possibility of even further bugs in the Articia-S, Genesi then decided early this year not to produce the Pegasos-I in the high volume originally planned but instead to develop a successor, the Pegasos-II. Of course this meant big losses and also disappointment at their customers for Genesi, but obviously they thought these losses to be smaller than the losses already generated by the Articia-bugs and the possibility of maybe even having to continue with an April-3. April-4...

      Therefore the Pegasos-II will have a different northbridge and is aimed to be released about september 2003. The new northbridge most likely will be from Marvell, introducing also additional features compared to the Pegasos-I, for example DDR-RAM and two 1-Gb-ethernet-channels.

      Anyway: There are still Pegasos-I-boards available, and for members of the Phoenix developers consortium (www.phinixi.com) there's even a very attractive offer: they can buy the Pegasos-I with CPU-module, MorphOS (PPC-native reimplementation of the AmigaOS-API including a JIT-68k-emulation for compatibility with the existing Amiga-software base), Debian and further stuff for only 299,- US-Dollar. Every interested developer can apply for membership at Phoenix (contact greenboy@phinixi.com). And, last but not least: anyone who buys a Pegasos-I, even at the mentioned Phoenix-discount of only $299, may trade in his G3-Pegasos-I-board later for only 200 Dollar additional cost for a G4-Pegasos-II-board once it will be ready.

  13. stupid question by swingkid · · Score: 1

    Is it possible to build a machine w/ one of these mobos and run OS X on it?

    1. Re:stupid question by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    2. Re:stupid question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Okay, the current score is:
      • YES : one vote (RevAaron)
      • NO : one vote (dmaxwell)

      Stay tuned.

  14. What I don't understand... by mattbot+5000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...is why this would have been a Good Thing in the first place. I'm genuinely curious about this, but why would anyone shell out cash for a PPC mobo that only supported G3s? It's a good chip, yeah, but for similar cash you could get a much better x86 solution and run some variety of Linux on it, no?

    Obviously there must be some advantages to a PPC board running YDL as compared to an x86 board running a comparable Linux distro that I don't understand, but I can't imagine what sort of market would pay for a board that would run such an aging processor.

    1. Re:What I don't understand... by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Less confusing mouse.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    2. Re:What I don't understand... by Andy_R · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm equally baffled.

      If you simply must have a G3 machine, for whatever reason, why not get an entire second hand Mac for the same sort of price that these people were trying to charge for just a mobo?

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    3. Re:What I don't understand... by bedouin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ..is why this would have been a Good Thing in the first place. I'm genuinely curious about this, but why would anyone shell out cash for a PPC mobo that only supported G3s? It's a good chip, yeah, but for similar cash you could get a much better x86 solution and run some variety of Linux on it, no?

      Well, one reason to go this route is because if you use it for something like a firewall, the usual x86 script kiddie exploits won't work quite as well. Another reason is just the plain coolness of having something different.

    4. Re:What I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Another reason is just the plain coolness of >having something different.

      You are right about this, but not in the way you intend. PowerPCs run at lower clock rates and thus generate less heat than X86s offering equivalent performance. That said, the fastest non-X86 processor you can buy is usually about two years behind the X86 in terms of performance, a situation unlikely to change anytime soon.

  15. Apple? by g4dget · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why is this in the Apple category? What does Linux running on a non-Apple PPC motherboard have to do with Apple?

    1. Re:Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The apple icon is on this story so that people can get huffy and claim, with no evidence or indication of such whatsoever, that this was done out of fear of legal reprisal from Apple.

      Flamewar is plusgood for masshappy.

    2. Re:Apple? by repetty · · Score: 1

      Well, many more people who are interested in Apple-related things would find this interesting versus other people, I suppose.

      I agree with you though... it's mis-catagorized.

      --Richard

  16. This would explain it.... by An+Ominous+Cow+Erred · · Score: 4, Informative

    A quick Google search would give some indication as to why the submitter would want people to think of Genesi as the only option.

    Now I'll be the first to admit that I'm not unbiased -- Google is a double-edged sword, but the original submission is pretty clear and blatant FUD.

    1. Re:This would explain it.... by An+Ominous+Cow+Erred · · Score: 1

      Thankfully Damien at least went back and clarified a bit in this post. He's mostly right there. It's a little misleading as AmigaOnes have already shipped, so it's not all "pre-sales", but it at least doesn't claim Genesi as the only supplier.

  17. Nothing to do with Apple by DamienMcKenna · · Score: 2, Informative

    This has nothing to do with Apple, the TerraSoft Teron board was strictly aimed at the Linux market.

    1. Re:Nothing to do with Apple by Millennium · · Score: 1

      You know that, and I know that. But Apple doesn't know that. They still insist that they're a hardware company, and so they consider anything with remotely the same architecture to be a competitor.

      Stupid? You bet. But it's how they perceive themselves to be.

    2. Re:Nothing to do with Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're the idiot here. By that logic, they would consider IBM and Motorolla a direct competitor as well. People have made PPC boards for years...to run MacOS, they'd need special proprietary instructions in the firmware. If this company was producing motherboards to run MacOS, then you'd have a point. But they aren't, and you don't, so STFU.

    3. Re:Nothing to do with Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually it probably has a lot to do with Apple.
      TerraSoft are after all, an official Apple reseller.
      My guess would be that they probably had a choice
      between continued sales of Apple hardware preloaded with Linux or their new boards.


      However, I doubt that they would refer to it as a lesson learned. Which makes me think that they did not have the financial resources, or YDL 3.0 didn't launch as well as they anticipated. They probably had to purchase or sell a specific number of units and failed to do so.


      Its a good example of a small company trying to do too much too fast without the proper management resources!

    4. Re:Nothing to do with Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say this over and over throughout these threads, without one shed of proof. It just doesn't make sense in reality. Please stop.

  18. This is wrong by Black+Perl · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to the site, they are simply not going to sell them directly. They are still going to manufacture them for OEM partners.

    --
    bp
  19. It's not up to Apple. by dmaxwell · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not just any PPC board can directly boot Mac OS. Apple has some fiddly copyrighted bits in the firmware that take care of that. Mac OS needs some particular hardware in the machine to boot. Apple doesn't have some sanctified right to prevent the production of PPC boards especially if the boards in question are intended to run a non-Apple OS.

    Now it is true that you could run Mac-On-Linux on one of these boards but that is hardly a threat to Apple. MOL has to rely on the underlying OS for it's hardware facilities so it won't automagically work with many things like cd burners the way a native boot of MacOS will. Not many people are going to buy these boards and even fewer of those will run MOL. No threat to Apple whatsoever.

    It takes more than a motherboard with a PPC chip to build an Apple clone. Since these don't have an Apple chipset and Apple firmware they won't boot Mac OS. They aren't Mac clones.

    1. Re:It's not up to Apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno about that. if it's just a matter a few minor details maybe OSX can be patched to run on this hardware. OSX wasn't supposed to run on non-G3 PowerMacs, but since there was Darwin support we were able to patch our CDs to run on them.

  20. Not really. by dmaxwell · · Score: 3, Informative

    These boards won't contain a SWIM chip, Apple power manager chip, Apple firmware and some other fiddly bits to boot. A OS X install cd might not even start to boot and if it did it would probably lock up without so much as a Sad Mac.

    Now, you could install Linux on of these and then Mac-On-Linux. That WILL let you run OSX but with non-accellerated video and no automagic use of attached periphreals.

    1. Re:Not really. by Matthias+Wiesmann · · Score: 2, Informative
      These boards won't contain a SWIM chip,
      The SWIM chip (Which stands for Super Woz Integrated Machine), was last used in the Beige G3 machine. As somebody already pointed out, it is basically a floppy controler chip - which you might have noticed, Macs don't have anymore.
      Apple power manager chip, Apple firmware and some other fiddly bits to boot
      Apple uses open firmware which is an open spec. As for the other bits, remember that darwin boots on intel machines.

      An OS X CD will indeed not boot such a machine, not because of some fiddly bits, but simply because it won't contain the drivers to handle the hardware. On the other hand, if Darwin can be booted on it this would require writing the relevant kexts, then installing OS X would require the same kind of tricks used for installing OS X on older machines..

    2. Re:Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The open firmware thing will hel;p you more than the xfacto software.

      Because to install X facto you need mac OS9 running.

      That would mean PPC board with linux running MOS
      running MacOS 9 to install Xfacto to install Macos X. This is going to go wrong somewhere I am afraid.

      All you have to do is Start your Machine in Open firmware mode.

      o+f+apple+alt

      This will launch it. When the cursor appears.
      Just type "mac-boot"
      From then on everything works.

  21. Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Broken hardware

  22. reasons vague by drgroove · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Its interesting that the given reasons for dropping the PPC motherboard production by TerraSoft were so vague. It makes one wonder if the legendary Apple legal department made some kind of threat or crackdown on their effort. Notice also that TerraSoft puts the focus on encouraging other PPC motherboard buyers to become dealers of their Yellow Dog Linux OS; perhaps Apple wanted to keep TerraSoft tied to using their own hardware for TS' computer systems, fearing that a TerraSoft which was both hardware and OS independant would create a viable rival in the 'alternative' PC platform arena, where Apple resides essentially unchallenged. I'd love to get the full scoop on this ... anyone working @ TerraSoft care to make an AC post about this ?

    1. Re:reasons vague by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Come on now mods, interesting? This guy is ignorant at best, and a blatant troll at worst.

      It makes one wonder if the legendary Apple legal department made some kind of threat or crackdown on their effort.

      How in any way could Apple make a legal threat against a company attempting to produce a generic PPC computer to run Linux that would NOT be able to boot into Mac OS or OS X? Just because Apple is the most prominent user of the PPC arch doesn't mean that they control the market.

      As for Apple actually caring about what TerraSoft is doing, that's about as equally preposterous as your first point. Very few people buy Apple hardware solely to run Linux. Of those few that do, the vast majority are laptop users. So in the end you have a minority of Apple hardware using Linux users (which are already a minority to begin with) that TerraSoft would legitimately be competing with Apple for. Do you honestly think Apple is going to lose any sleep over that? I think not.

      Most likely, there were unexpected delays and/or the mobos just simply weren't a quality product. In that case, I would expect TerraSoft to be as vague as possible. No company wants to go out and advertise the fact that they couldn't deliver like they had earlier said; it's embarassing.

    2. Re:reasons vague by drgroove · · Score: 1

      While I'll avoid making beligerent attacks against your post (I'm not going to lower myself to your level - 'blatant troll' indeed!), I do stand by my initial post. From my viewpoint, Apple's concern wouldn't be Linux as a competitor; it would be having another full-fledged manufacturer pumping out PPC compatible products, and the threat of pirated copies of OSX running on it. Hence why, in my view, TerraSoft would put the focus on Linux in their press release; to show Apple's legal dept that they are not trying to foster a black-market competitor to OSX by producing PPC hardware, but that their focus is on making their Linux product more viable. It makes perfect sense, and fits w/ Apple's well-known xenophobia in regards to other PPC hardward manufacturers. The last thing Apple wants to see is the rise of unregulated Apple clones, which is what this could have led to.

    3. Re:reasons vague by doce · · Score: 1

      my understanding is that TS's mobos aren't capable of running OS X. just because it's PPC, doesn't necesarily mean that OS X will run on it.

      --
      woof!
    4. Re:reasons vague by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      knowing jobs (steven)...your post does seem credible...

      "trust no one"
      -mulder

    5. Re:reasons vague by foonf · · Score: 1

      I would agree that maybe the parent post blows the significance of this out of proportion to some extent...but right now, TerraSoft DOES actually resell Apple hardware, dual-booting MacOS and Linux.

      I can't imagine they sell enough macs for Apple to be worried about losing that market to generic systems, but then Apple is notoriously petty about these things (see zealous legal action against dubious trademark conflicts, market rumours, etc.), so its not out of the question. If these systems were being sold with the implicit purpose of running Mac-on-linux (unlike the PPC brick servers TerraSoft sells now, which don't have any built-in graphics capabilities) Apple might want to quash it just to avoid a precedent being sent, especially if there is a possibility of more capable OEM PPC boards coming along in the future (eg. with the IBM 970 chip). But I think some of the problems with the Articia chipset that others have mentioned., coupled with the high price, probably had more to do with it.

      --

      "(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
    6. Re:reasons vague by Analog+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Remember, too, that their reasons for selling these things in the first place were somewhat vague, given the pricing. Maybe someone finally woke up and said "Oh, wait, nobody's going to buy these things at this price". Their decision to not go through with this after all certainly makes more sense than the decision to do it in the first place.

  23. This would be sadder... by feldsteins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the major problem with Apple, I think.

    You raise some good points but I think there's an important piece of this equation that you're missing. The lack of clones is the major problem with Apple? Sure, it keeps prices high and marketshare low. It's true. It is the worst thing about the platform.

    And yet, it is also the one single thing that makes them unique in the market and gives them value. The vertical integration they have (hardware/os/iapps) allows them to a) innovate their product line faster and more radically than some other hardware/software makers and b) allows them to sell an entire end-to-end solution (like firewire-imovie-idvd-superdrive) with a user experience better than anyone elses. These things are at the core of what makes Apple Apple. Take them away - take away the vertical integration by doing clones - and what you get is cheaper boxes and much rejoicing...and a dead/dying platform within 2 years because it has lost that which made it valuable to begin with.

    Bonus point: Why should anyone care? Certainly Mac users should care, but others should, too. Apple has an influence on the personal computer industry that is vastly disproportionate to its marketshare. They innovate. Others follow. Therefore, a healthy Apple is good for the industry. Mac clones = bad for Apple = bad for the pc industry.

    --
    You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
    1. Re:This would be sadder... by derch · · Score: 1

      I so wish I had mod points. You made perhaps the most clear anti-Mac clone argument I've ever read. Bravo!

    2. Re:This would be sadder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i agree. Clear, concise, intelligent. slashdot?

  24. Technowarehouse sells best solution... Dual G4 PCI by adzoox · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I have a friend that has beta tested this card. It is a little slower but the processor compliment and the fact that it can just integrate into a G4 or x86 tower that's already installed make it a great proposition:

    The Dual G4 Linux card:

    Found here

    --
    Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
  25. I tried to understand... by Bobartig · · Score: 4, Informative

    I listened to a QT audio broadcast of an interview with TerraSofts's prez, as he talked about their choice of hardware for the boxer boxen. He couldn't really give concrete reasons that a 600Mhz G3 should carry droolfactor. He said stuff like "our webserver is a 350Mhz G3 running YDL. It handles all our traffic without any problems" and "I think people will be impressed at how well a G3 performs running YLD compared to faster machines. Its just that efficient."

    I even asked Terrasoft how they expected to compete with the 2nd hand mac market, and their response was as follows:

    As a long time mac/PPC user, and linux hobbyist, I'm very
    interested in buildling a custom atx PPC box. You guys are really
    spearheading this market, so I guess all my requests should go to
    you :).


    Thank you, and yes.

    Originally, the announced specs for just mobo+cpu was something
    like $495 for a 600Mhz G3, and atx board. I realize that you're
    probably positioning this as affordably as possible to grow the
    platform. My concern is that there's no way I could pay that when I
    can get either a 600Mhz iMac or 500Mhz B&W tower for just $100
    more. Is the component price expected to come down any time soon?


    It is an issue of volume of production. When volume of production
    goes up, price comes down. We are not able to reduce the price at
    this point in time. As for iMac and B&W, it is not appropriate to
    compare a 4-yr old computer from eBay to a new computer with
    Warranty.

    Will there be options for faster G3 chips, or multiprocessor
    configurations? You probably can't discuss most of this, what is
    the expected price range for the G4 based teron board? Do you have
    any benchmarks for a teron based linux system vs. a comparable
    Macintosh offering (to show off the architectural advantages of the
    Mai system, if any)?


    We will be shipping an 800 MHz G4 CPU at approximately $650. The
    demand for the G3s was limited in comparison to the G4s.

    We do not at this time have benchmarks, but will in the near future.

    Sincerely,
    Amanda

    ------------

    so basically, it was inappropriate to compare a teron board to "older systems" with similar hardware specs, and they had no benchmarks. I drafted a fairly inflamatory response outlining their extreme arrogance, which I havn't sent, but I'm pretty sure they got the message without me.

    --
    This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
  26. Re:Technowarehouse sells best solution... Dual G4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, the best solution! I mean, where else can you get a dual processor computer for just $4,000? Wow!! /sarcasm

  27. Apple Innovates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate to come across as a troll but....

    Apple innovates? The last two apple innovations I know of were colored and shaped pcs. If they come out with a leather covered pc, would you consider that innovative too?

    1. Re:Apple Innovates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They managed to bring Xerox PARC to the masses back in 1984, and they managed to give Micro$oft the opportunity to destroy Big Blue in one decade. I would say that's innovative!

    2. Re:Apple Innovates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USB. FireWire400/800 (IEEE 1394, working with Sony). AirPort/AirPort Extreme (IEEE 802.11b/g). SuperDrive (1.44MB floppy, later DVD-R/RW, working with Pioneer). RISC-based PCs (working with IBM and Motorola). Windowed OS (stealing from Xerox, later stolen by Microsoft). Forward compatibility (built-in emulation of 68k on PPC and OS 9 under OS X-- coming soon to Windows Itanium via VirtualPC, also first on Macs). Rendevous. Shared printing. Motherboard networking (LocalTalk/AppleTalk). Gigabit Ethernet. PostScript (working with Adobe). America Online. The Web (WWW/HTTPd/Mosaic inspired by Apple's HyperCard and originally built on NeXTStep, now owned by Apple and renamed Mac OS X). Dual displays. Dual processors. MIDI. CardBus. Alpha channels on a desktop PC. Trackballs and trackpads on portable computers. Notebook computers with keyboards close to screen, allowing palmrests. The PDA (Newton, later aped by Palm and Microsoft). Pen input. Handwriting recognition. Voice recognition. Voice synthesis (on Apple II and Macs). The no-assymbly-required home computer (Apple II). Hot-swappable cables (including the first safely hot-swappable Ethernet and VGA connectors). The Digital Camera (QuickTake). Digital video (QuickTime was first). Desktop publishing. First pocket-sized multigigabyte MP3 player (iPod).

      And that's just off the top of my head.

      In contrast, Microsoft has actually never been the first to do anything, and they brag about this as the reason why they are so profitable. They "only enter proven markets," meaning they let other companies take the expense of inventing things and building a market, then determine how they can compete without obviously violating copyright/patent law (with mixed success).

      Microsoft uses the definition of "innovation" as the "adaptation and assimilation of other's inventions," which actually does fall within the dictionary definition of innovation. Microsoft has built a trillion-dollar industry on innovating Apple's inventions. Deal with it.

    3. Re:Apple Innovates? by oingoboingo · · Score: 1

      (including the first safely hot-swappable Ethernet and VGA connectors)

      Man, that's amazing! I've been trying to hotswap my RJ-45 cable and my D-SUB 15 VGA cable for months, but the damned things just won't fit! I did solder some wires once from the VGA-out port straight into my network hub, but I just blew up the hub. I'd be so grateful if you could forward some schematics or something of this Ethernet/VGA hotswap device.

  28. Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it's time PowerPC got its own topic icon - this really doesn't have anything to do with Apple.

    (Note : Article seems to have the Linux icon erroneously applied)

  29. It's not the lack of clones... by Millennium · · Score: 1

    The lack of clones isn't a problem, only a symptom of the problem. The problem is that Apple has no interest in competition, because their business model is totally dependent on their margins (which outstrip those of the rest of the industry by a huge margin). Clones are a symptom of this; because the existence of clones would force Apple to price more competitively, they muscle any cloner out.

    Now, of course, these motherboards by TerraSoft couldn't considered "clones" by any reasonable person; after all, they don't run any OS that Apple's ever written (well, they might run MkLinux, but I think it's safe to say that Apple doesn't much care about that one anymore). But Apple doesn't see it that way. To them, anyone using even the same chip is a threat to their precious margins.

    1. Re:It's not the lack of clones... by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      Apple competes with the rest of the PC market, and while its market share is low, its profits are high.

      They fill a comfortable niche, a position that Gateway, Micron and other PC makers look at very enviously.

      Apple doesn't consider IBM's servers to be a threat. Nor does it consider these poorly conceived, overpriced PPC motherboards to be a threat. I dare you to provide any evidence that proves otherwise.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
  30. I never said Terra was making clones... by Millennium · · Score: 1

    I only said that Apple would treat Terra the same as they would any clonemaker. They see Terra as a threat, because they make PowerPC boxes, which Apple sees as its market.

    Is this right? Hell no. The management at Apple has always been populated entirely by insane fools, and probably always will be. However, they're the ones running the place, and if they think of Terra as a threat, then they'll treat it like one.

    1. Re:I never said Terra was making clones... by Golias · · Score: 1
      They see Terra as a threat, because they make PowerPC boxes, which Apple sees as its market.

      Kindly site one shred of evidence that Apple saw Terra as a threat. For that matter, one shred of evidence that Apple sees "PowerPC boxes" as "it's market."

      The fact is that Apple desperately needs other companies to use PPC, because the more widely adapted the platform is, the cheaper it becomes, and the more development IBM and Motorola will do on the design. You might be too young to remember all the way back to the 90's, but when the AIM allaiance was developing the PPC, they all had high hopes that Microsoft would make NT support PPC chips, so there could have been thousands of non-Apple PowerPC boxes out there, running Windows. If Apple would have welcomed that news, they certainly would not give a crap about a small-fry company making PPC linux servers.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:I never said Terra was making clones... by bsharitt · · Score: 1

      HP sess Dell as a threat since they also make Wintel boxes. That's called bussiness.

    3. Re:I never said Terra was making clones... by bsartist · · Score: 1

      when the AIM allaiance was developing the PPC, they all had high hopes that Microsoft would make NT support PPC chips

      Early versions of NT *did* support PPC - as well as MIPS, Sparc, and Alpha. MS built it, but nobody came.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    4. Re:I never said Terra was making clones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moto did the port not ms.

  31. Just a nitpick, really. by FredFnord · · Score: 1

    A SWIM chip is a floppy controller, which is hardly crucial to running MacOS X.

    -fred

    --
    Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
  32. Maybe I'm dim, but why is this an Apple bit? by jpellino · · Score: 1

    It's not an Apple competitor;
    Apple didn't make them say this;
    It would not enable Apple clones...
    Did I miss something or is it a black helicopter day?

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  33. This is an Amiga-DebianPPC topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Teron board and its competitors were designed to ship with DebianPPC and to work with the upcoming AmigaOS 4.0. It has almost nothing to do with Apple, as most posters asserted (although Darwin might be hacked to run on it).

    Its primary competitor, Eyetech's implementation of AmigaOne, is a $299 600MHz G3 atx mobo that can be optionally connected to an A1200 or A4000 mobo to accelerate "classic" Amiga 68k applications. The TerraSoft proposal wasn't nearly as good, and would have been undercut by Eyetech's price.

    For those of us who switched from Amiga to Mac after the fall of Commodore, AmigaOS 4.0 is worth a look-- it is a completely PPC-native OS with a 68k emulator for backward compatibility. The screenshots are cool.

    I have an empty 6GB partition on my YaoBook waiting for a stable port of AmigaOS 4 to multiboot with Debian and Jaguar. Maybe I'm just dreaming. If I am, don't wake me up.

    1. Re:This is an Amiga-DebianPPC topic by Seehund · · Score: 2, Informative

      You've been out of the loop for quite some time it seems. :)
      The Teron is an "AmigaOne". The "AmigaOne" is a Teron. "AmigaOne" is one distributor's chosen trademark for the Teron boards. A Teron is not "the primary competitor" to a Teron. :)

      FYI, Eyetech's price for a Teron PX (a.k.a. "AmigaOne XE") is /$ 800, without any OS but a CD-R with Debian. TSS' announced price for the same board, including the retail version of YDL, was /$ 500.

      The original "AmigaOne", that was going to connect to a real Amiga, was to be made for Eyetech by Escena, but that project failed something like three years ago! Plans for a new Amiga were scrapped, and instead AmigaOS 4+ will run on generic hardware like these Terons. But only when they're separated from the rest of the third party hardware market and sold dongled and bundled with AmigaOS via an "Amiga hardware" monopoly.

      Of course AmigaOS could run on your PowerBook. Macs, especially those without the juice to run MacOS X at a useful speed, would be an obvious hardware platform to target. Common/business sense is unfortunately not allowed to rule in this case though. Have a look at the URL in my .sig.

      --
      Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
    2. Re:This is an Amiga-DebianPPC topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll.
      You still don't understand the issue.

    3. Re:This is an Amiga-DebianPPC topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ffffffff

    4. Re:This is an Amiga-DebianPPC topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That guy is a Troll through and through and is on a crusade to kill AmigaOS with his crappy sad little petition.

      Prick

  34. AmigaOne Benchmark Comparisons by Mike+Bouma · · Score: 1

    Pekka Nissinen had recently updated his AmigaOne (and Pegasos) benchmarks comparison webpage, providing information on various benchmark performance tests for AmigaOne-SE and AmigaOne-XE motherboards.

    Do note however that the G4 benchmarks do not include any Altivec optimised software tests, in which case the overall performance can be significantly improved, depending on the software type used and degree of optimisation.

    1. Re:AmigaOne Benchmark Comparisons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those confused by a post about "AmigaOnes" in this thread should know that the Teron boards in the article are/will/might also be sold under the licensed trademark "AmigaOne".

  35. A Powerful Lesson by LamerX · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    "We have clearly learned a powerful lesson and do extend our apology to you..."

    Yeah they realized that Macs and PPCs are slow...

  36. The iBox by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 1

    Not only is there interest in a Mac clone, these guys are in the process of getting systems together to ship.

    According to a recent message by John Fraser (co-creator of the iBox) on the Think Secret message board, these systems will made available for pre-order in about 2 weeks.

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  37. Today is a gift... by espilce · · Score: 1
    That is why they call it...
    the Present.

    Soooooo Awesome.

    Kind of a strange company... They seem to be having a bit of a rocky beginning, but their products are enticing. Hardware support is a little lacking, but most of the important stuff is supported.

    --
    :q!
  38. My reasons for choosing PPC by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

    You probably haven't USED a PPC/Linux box. They make great servers. Here are my reasons:

    The G3 and G4 have caches comparable to most Xeon chips, making them a happy medium between consumer CPUs and expensive server CPUs. An Apple blue+white G3 with a SCSI card is blazing-fast for most server purposes, much faster IMO than a comparably clocked PC.

    The G3 uses very little power and does not need a fan on its small heatsink, making it ideal for 24/7 uptime. High power-use not only costs money directly, but it costs money to cool off server rooms and offices. Less moving parts (fans) means less downtime too (for both cleaning and repair)

    OpenFirmware lets you have quite a bit of control over how your machine boots, your machine doesn't need to bootstrap into protected mode, it's native 32-bit from the ground-up. If there's no monitor connected I can pump my POST screen ove rthe serial port, that's GREAT for network management.

    Great compiler support from the GCC team. There's targets for the enire line of PowerPC products.

    Straightforward architecture. I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me that x86 has a lot of hacked and bastardized components added to it to make it both fast and backwards-compatable. PowerPC is fast and backward compatable from the get-go, true RISC means that there's very little change in the inner workings of the CPU, there's not a new set of instructions for the compilers and developers to catch up to every year.

    PowerPC has it's roots in large high-quality systems (RS/6000 servers). x86 has it's roots in the lowest-end computers of it's day (it was designed for the PC, which is the bottom of the line for computer vendors).

    You can FEEL when you're running on a better architecture. The system doesn't ever feel 'laggy' even when it gets bogged down, performance is much better than a similar spec'ed PC, and the cabinet the case is in stays cool all the time.

    I use an Athlon for my workstation because it's cheap and fun to hack around with, but my servers are PowerPC and I've never even thought of moving them to x86.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  39. Terrasoft, arrogant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Color me shocked and surprised. That's how they were at every show I saw them at. They must have gotten lessons in vagary from a profesional politician.

  40. Re:Only 2 manufacturers? - Mobo Economics by api · · Score: 0

    "I wonder what the reason behind it is? With only two main PPC mobo makers surely there would be a market."

    Think back to the ATX-factor Dec Alpha motherboards that tried to fill a similar niche: off-the-shelf components with a "real" processor, so the logic went with "niche" being the key word.

    Based on my observations at CeBIT, motherboard economics follow this pattern:

    Designing a new motherboard is nothing more than a question some time and money but you had be very sure of what market you are targeting:

    1. The volume PC market where price is the key factor at the cost of random-sampling quality control.

    2. The industrial PC market where buyers will pay a premium, get their exact specs (PPC if you want PPC) and take individual board quality assurance testing for granted.

    3. Volume vertical markets such as set-top boxes. A PPC processor will be used if either the application or economics warrant it, and the volume makes up for the design costs plus the cost of the stylish injection-molded/whatever case.

    While TerraSoft did not give details, they could have easily concluded that targeting such a niche market would not allow them to meet their price points or cover development costs, especially as the current PPC line ages and a new processor socket could be on the horizon, requiring additional engineering.

    To further complicate things, an ITX-form factor vendor informed me that VIA will only sell its older chips in small quantities, giving first choice on new processors to larger customers. The same may be true of the PPC, making a TerraSoft board less attractive to users who are building their own box to achieve maximum performance.

    On a positive but mildly off-topic note, if you are a large organization requiring a large number of boards to your specific specs (including PPC), do not hesitate to shop around for a fab that will accommodate. You might be surprised at what you hear. (No, I am not affiliated with any fab or any fab organization u.t.t, I just got that impression from vendors I talked to.)

    MD