Wither Natami?

[JimS]

the_leander wrote:

By no definition I know of (given their respective creators words on the matter if nothing else), could these two projects be called "real" amigas, since everything is being done by an emulator coded into an fpga.

You need to understand what an FPGA is before you say something like that. It's basically a huge pile of chips on solderless breadboards with a huge pile of wires to make the interconnects. The design software lets you specify how those chips are interconnected. Nothing is "emulated" unless you build a cpu on the FPGA and do emulation with it. (The port of   Minimig to the Altera DE1/2 boards does this for the PIC processor - replacing it with a soft Z80.

The best comparison I can think of is that the minimig, and it's cousins are like the Amiga Lorraine prototype- where the custom silicon was implemented with hard wired low level gates.... It's just that the FPGA makes that process faster & smaller.

[bloodline]

JimS wrote:

the_leander wrote:

By no definition I know of (given their respective creators words on the matter if nothing else), could these two projects be called "real" amigas, since everything is being done by an emulator coded into an fpga.

You need to understand what an FPGA is before you say something like that. It's basically a huge pile of chips on solderless breadboards with a huge pile of wires to make the interconnects. The design software lets you specify how those chips are interconnected. Nothing is "emulated" unless you build a cpu on the FPGA and do emulation with it. (The port of   Minimig to the Altera DE1/2 boards does this for the PIC processor - replacing it with a soft Z80.

The best comparison I can think of is that the minimig, and it's cousins are like the Amiga Lorraine prototype- where the custom silicon was implemented with hard wired low level gates.... It's just that the FPGA makes that process faster & smaller.

If the reimplementations in the FPGA were gate level accurate, to the Original Chips, I would agree.

But they are not.

[JimS]

bloodline wrote:
If the reimplementations in the FPGA were gate level accurate, to the Original Chips, I would agree.

But they are not.

The accuracy of the reimplementation in the FPGA doesn't have anything to do with whether the minimig & friends should be called "emulators" or "clones", "reimplementations" or what have you. It's the technology being used that I'm quibbling about.

[bloodline]

JimS wrote:

bloodline wrote:
If the reimplementations in the FPGA were gate level accurate, to the Original Chips, I would agree.

But they are not.

The accuracy of the reimplementation in the FPGA doesn't have anything to do with whether the minimig & friends should be called "emulators" or "clones", "reimplementations" or what have you. It's the technology being used that I'm quibbling about.

Ok fine. We can call it Brian if you like :-) But that doesn't make Hardware clone of an Amiga more or less accurate than Software clone of a Amiga. Some people get confused by that simple point.

[Argo]

bloodline wrote:

utri007 wrote:
Some people just want to do it with real amiga ;)emulation is great thing but it's not like real thing.

Natami, CloneA and MiniMig are not real amigas...

 In other news.... AROS and Morphos are not Amiga OS!

[the_leander]

JimS wrote:

You need to understand what an FPGA is before you say something like that.

I know full well what an FPGA is, I also know full well what an emulator is and how the Amiga chipset is handled by the code in the two projects I have knowledge of.

I see you've got your "talk down to the prole" routine down pat, it won't work.

JimS wrote:

Nothing is "emulated" unless you build a cpu on the FPGA and do emulation with it.

Now you're getting into a pretty petty semantic arguement that you yourself just blew away..., because by your previous explanation of "how an FPGA works" it's doing exactly the same in both examples cited, only the target chip is different, so, if one is emulation, they both are because the same thing is being done.

Game, set, match.

For future reference: To emulate.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This   em·u·late     Audio Help   [v. em-yuh-leyt; adj. em-yuh-lit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -lat·ed, -lat·ing, adjective   –verb (used with object)
1.   to try to equal or excel; imitate with effort to equal or surpass: to emulate one's father as a concert violinist.  
2.   to rival with some degree of success: Some smaller cities now emulate the major capitals in their cultural offerings.  
3.   Computers.    

a.   to imitate (a particular computer system) by using a software system, often including a microprogram or another computer that enables it to do the same work, run the same programs, etc., as the first.  
b.   to replace (software) with hardware to perform the same task.

[JimS]

bloodline wrote:

Ok fine. We can call it Brian if you like :-) But that doesn't make Hardware clone of an Amiga more or less accurate than Software clone of a Amiga. Some people get confused by that simple point.

No argument from me... Of course it's possible for a good software clone to be more accurate than a given hardware clone. Like I said I was quibbling about the terminology. UAE- software, Minimig & similar, hardware.

[freqmax]

@bloodline:
UAE is an software emulation. And software just won't get it cycle exact to realtime. And for some applications software emulation won't cut it.

@mikej:
As for 68000 softcore, someone mentioned a successfull run at 27 MHz. Maybe we can go higher with optimization.

I agree with mikej that expandability is desireable. However I think the real point is that of ral-clan "We desperately need fresh, healthy new Amiga clone hardware, soon.". And this re-implementation should occour before hardware to replicate is all non functional.

The second goal should be to eliminate any dependency of companies or persons that goes out of business etc.. A tarball of HDL sources won't "die" like physical hardware can.

[bloodline]

freqmax wrote:
@bloodline:
UAE is an software emulation. And software just won't get it cycle exact to realtime. And for some applications software emulation won't cut it.

It can't? I would appreciate a list of these applications. Cheers.

[asymetrix]

This thread is so silly.

The original Amiga boards were huge as doors before they were shrinked and fabricated.

1) This shrinkage changed the speed of the original chips by laws of physics.

This equals not cycle exact.

2) from OCS to AGA the design changed again, speeds changed again, design changed for 32 bit support.

This equals cycle change again.

3) Every Amiga model that has different cpu is not cycle exact, this is by design.

The original Amigas were software simulations on mainframes, then went hardware.

FPGA to hardware is the same process, we dont even know if Commodore developers used FPGAs later, it was all secret.

There is no such thing as cycle exact, its just marketing hype.

IF hardware can run Amiga OS and Amiga programs the same way as Commodore Amiga then its Amiga. Simple as that.

Come on ppl the original dream for Amiga was to have Amiga software running everywhere, whatever way possible.

Software, hardware, simulation, emulation its all Amiga.

Has everyone forgot ? Resistance is Futile.

We are all Amigans, the more different hardware the better, not arguing authenticity, speed,
measuring xxxx size.

Work together and build or work against and destroy.

Look within yourself and decide which are you.

Blue camp red camp its all stupid grow up its All Amiga, we should be sharing code, apps and knowledge not keeping it for my system only.

Aslong as it works with Amiga software its a plus for Amiga.

Simply put, do you actually think a normal user cares what hardware it is ?

[amigadave]

@asymetrix,

A fellow voice of reason in the Amiga wilderness.

Good luck getting much agreement! :lol:

[wawrzon]

i have to double asymetrix (in most points) and amigadave (f' course). i think some members here have some sunday evening trauma. i was seeing this forum ystrday late night and this thread was baybe 5 posts long @ best and now its like 50 already!!! it is not even 8 in the morning in united europe!!! no normal thread is growing that fast, not even on amiga forums, tis more like cancer. and what u ppl discuss are mere semantics. i say, u got some serious time to waste, get a life and wait until natami or a.clone will ever become reality if ever.

[TheDaddy]

>>Ya know, I was going to let this one slide and leave it to bloodline, but ya know, I've had a crap day and you're it.

I would advise a beer after a crap day or a cold shower. :-)

>>Which part of, it's an emulation done in hardware was not clear?

I leave that to be explained by someone more technical than me. To me the Minimig and Natami are real Amigas, just because the timings aren't "perfect" means little. The Minimig isn't a perfect clone, I see it as an improved A500.

>>The Amiga is a family of personal computers originally developed by Amiga Corporation. Development on the Amiga began in 1982 with Jay Miner as the principal hardware designer. Commodore International bought Amiga Corporation and introduced the machine to the market in 1985. The name Amiga was chosen by the developers specifically from the Spanish and Portuguese word for a female friend,[1] and because it occurred before Apple and Atari alphabetically.

So anything that isn't within that definition is not an Amiga? So Amiga Inc. release a new motherboard (made with fpga bits or new custom chips) with OS4.1 and stick an Amiga logo on it and according to your explanation this would not be an Amiga?
LOL!

>>Commodore are not around so the rest of your point is moot. The Commodore name lives on, and produces a very nice set of PCs. End of.

So everything ended with Commodore? So following your argument Amiga ended when Commodore went bust. Amiga is dead. LOL!:-)

>>An idea so fundamentally above the capacity of the current name holders that it too is a moot point since it'll never happen.

How do you know? Also let's assume Amiga Inc. DID licence the Amiga name to Dennis and the Natami team, would you still say they are NOT REAL Amigas?

So basically what you are telling us is: "A real Amiga can only be called such if it has custom chipsets designed by either Jay Miner (he is not with us anymore unfortunately) or by any ex-Commodore engineers running Amiga OS", which version I can't say because I am not sure if you consider anything after OS3.0 being REAL Amiga OS.

Sorry to brings this up but those times have long gone, there is no research facility anymore, no more huge sums of money to play with, it's all gone, the only dedicated hardware engineers left are right here on this forum, and they have my full respect.

[TheDaddy]

>>This thread is so silly.

Agreed! :-)

>>The original Amiga boards were huge as doors before they were shrinked and fabricated.

Correct.

>>1) This shrinkage changed the speed of the original chips by laws of physics.
This equals not cycle exact.

Correct.

>>2) from OCS to AGA the design changed again, speeds changed again, design changed for 32 bit support.
This equals cycle change again.

Correct.

>>3) Every Amiga model that has different cpu is not cycle exact, this is by design.

Correct and let me add to this that if we wanted to consider the Minimig/Natami NOT REAL Amigas then becasue of the difference between the various Amiga models (500, 500+, 1200 etc...) they should also NOT be called real Amigas, this is madness! :-)

>>There is no such thing as cycle exact, its just marketing hype. IF hardware can run Amiga OS and Amiga programs the same way as Commodore Amiga then its Amiga. Simple as that.

The voice of reason! :-)

>>Software, hardware, simulation, emulation its all Amiga.

Agree. Hardware purism would be wonderful but it is not practical/economical and probably it won't happen, ever.

>>Work together and build or work against and destroy.

I also would like to say:" Thank (put your favourite god in this space) that we have people like Dennis, mikej, The Natami Team, I won't include myself I am just a designer not a hardware engineer :-) for giving us more new hardware, something to play with, a hope, keep a dream alive and most important spending/wasting your precious time on this community. Thank you guys! :-)

>>Simply put, do you actually think a normal user cares what hardware it is ?

No! No one, apart from the purists hardcore ones, gives a crap, look at the Mac users, it looked like the world was at an end when Apple switched to Intel chips, a couple of years later everyone is happier than ever!
 :-)

[bloodline]

The level of ignorance in this has become too great not to address.

Here's a few words of advice for those of you who lack technical knowledge.

Think before you post. Formulate a response, try and establish the point you want to make. You need to make sure that know why you are posting.

Now head over to Google and try and learn a little about the issues involved. Don't for get Wikipedia, which should be your first port of call after reading any post by a member who clearly has more experience with any given topic.

Now, just go back, edit your post appologize for wasting people's time and enjoy the learning experience.

Back on topic, since a number of posters seem to have missed my post on the subject... A Hardware clone of the Amiga is inherently no better or worse than a Software clone. BUT we are in a situation where the Software clone (UAE) is MUCH more mature, and thus compatible than even the most mature of the Hardware clones, MiniMig.

[Jakodemus]

@bloodline

Yes, UAE is fast and very compatible, but you have to run it on top of windows/linux/morphos etc. With hardware you can boot straight to the system we all love.

If you are happy to use UAE as your primary Amiga, it's fine for me and I suppose that it's fine for everyone else too, but some of us want to have new hardware dedicated only for Amiga and you shouldn't have any objections against that.