Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Software Issues and Discussion => Topic started by: Motormouth on April 16, 2017, 03:39:51 AM
-
What is the best software PeeCee emulator???
PCTask, PCx, Emplant e586(I know this used the emplant board for timing, but the x86 code was still emulated) or other(not including bridgeboards).
My personal experience is primarily with hardware emulators, bridgeboard which are not really emulators, more or less real PeeCees on a board and mac emulators. I have alot of experience with Jim Drew's Mac emulators (ie emplant, emplant pro, and Fusion) all which I love, but these don't need the CPU to be emulated.
Are any of these fast enough and accurate enough to be useful let us say with a fast CPU expansion like the vampire?
-
What is the best software PeeCee emulator???
PCTask, PCx, Emplant e586(I know this used the emplant board for timing, but the x86 code was still emulated) or other(not including bridgeboards).
My personal experience is primarily with hardware emulators, bridgeboard which are not really emulators, more or less real PeeCees on a board and mac emulators. I have alot of experience with Jim Drew's Mac emulators (ie emplant, emplant pro, and Fusion) all which I love, but these don't need the CPU to be emulated.
Are any of these fast enough and accurate enough to be useful let us say with a fast CPU expansion like the vampire?
Here's a video (albeit not a good one) of Descent 1 and Doom 1 running on an A600 with Vampire, from about summer of last year. Doom runs better than Descent, but neither one exactly flies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8RPyupsfUk
Another, this one showing Windows 3.1. Performance is markedly better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW22WqZLTMQ
Magic Carpet, also through PC-Task.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QQuEqSejPw - it's not awful, but there's better ways to play it...!
Windows '95:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5cxaiXI3c
From the video description:
"The speed corresponds to a real 386 SX cca. 33 MHz, but in many operations it is even slower. Of course for real use it is still not enough. Tested with resolutions 640x480 and 800x600 both in 16 colours. In 256 colours show the famous blue screen of death."
Finally, here's some positivity: X-Wing for the Mac, being emulated in ShapeShifter on a Vampire. Looks as good as it ever did on a well-specced PC of the day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xUsHhACfwA
-
Oh, there is one more software PeeCee software emulator DOSBOX for amiga. I had no idea that there was a DOSbox version for the Amiga.
@B00tDisk
These are useful videos!!!!
The Amiga ports of DOOM and Descent for the amiga appear to be the way to go!!!!
-
There's actually 2 different versions of Dosbox for 68k Amiga. Novacoders AGA 0.74 version and an older RTG/0.58 version.
The older version is temperamental though. When it works it works fine, but it often crashes when 1st launched. Setting a large stack improves things a little, but doesn't guarantee it won't crash.
I've not used the emplant emu, but my experience with the others is there's no best as such, they all have pros and cons and different software will favor one over another.
-
There's actually 2 different versions of Dosbox for 68k Amiga. Novacoders AGA 0.74 version and an older RTG/0.58 version.
The older version is temperamental though. When it works it works fine, but it often crashes when 1st launched. Setting a large stack improves things a little, but doesn't guarantee it won't crash.
I've not used the emplant emu, but my experience with the others is there's no best as such, they all have pros and cons and different software will favor one over another.
I think until 68k FPGAs get stronger you're still going to be out of luck for robust x86 emulation on the Amiga in pure software. Even so, it isn't just a matter of grunt, but rather what's being emulated, and the emulation software itself. There's no sources available for PC-Task (or PC-x) and they're not actively being developed any longer - DOSBox is seeing some progress, but that's a horse of another color: it is purely for DOS Emulation although with some pluck you can get ancient versions of Windows (1, 2, 3, 3.1, 3.11 and '95) running on it.
A full-featured tool like perhaps Bochs is what you'd want if you want to do more than noodle around with old DOS games and a shaky install of Windows...if it's a larger library of older albeit more widely known productivity apps you're after I think the best emulation experience on the Amiga (in pure software) is MacOS through Fusion or ShapeShifter.
-
I think until 68k FPGAs get stronger you're still going to be out of luck for robust x86 emulation on the Amiga in pure software. Even so, it isn't just a matter of grunt, but rather what's being emulated, and the emulation software itself. There's no sources available for PC-Task (or PC-x) and they're not actively being developed any longer - DOSBox is seeing some progress, but that's a horse of another color: it is purely for DOS Emulation although with some pluck you can get ancient versions of Windows (1, 2, 3, 3.1, 3.11 and '95) running on it.
A full-featured tool like perhaps Bochs is what you'd want if you want to do more than noodle around with old DOS games and a shaky install of Windows...if it's a larger library of older albeit more widely known productivity apps you're after I think the best emulation experience on the Amiga (in pure software) is MacOS through Fusion or ShapeShifter.
Alas, It looks like I will stick to my Bridgeboard for PC emulation, not a bad problem to have, but it does effect what amiga the vampire goes into when it eventually gets here. I am leaning heavily toward the A2000 rather than my A500+. This is primary due to the expansion cards. Things like the bridgeboard and an A2065.
I cannot wait to see how the vampire will cut through Fusion.......... Will the vamp in an amiga + fusion or shapeshifter be the fastest 680x0 mac out there. I think youtube videos already show this!!!!!
@Jim Drew don't worry I will be using fusion with an Emplant board :-)
-
One thing I'm curious about is x86 emulation for 68k mac under shapeshifter or fusion. It could give a few more options. From my browsing a few months back when I looked into it there was Softwindows, one other commercial product whose name eludes me, and surprisingly a 68k Mac qemu port from a few years ago.
There may be others, but that's what I found.
Haven't yet got around to trying any of them though.
-
I think until 68k FPGAs get stronger you're still going to be out of luck for robust x86 emulation on the Amiga in pure software.
Someone could write a x86 JIT for 68k. Accurate VGA emulation will be a much harder problem to crack, although anything that just uses VESA framebuffer modes should be fine.
-
Someone could write a x86 JIT for 68k. Accurate VGA emulation will be a much harder problem to crack, although anything that just uses VESA framebuffer modes should be fine.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought PCTask & PCx already do JIT.
-
Tomb Raider in PC-Task on an 80MHz 060
https://youtu.be/QzKC0Aafnw8
-
Doesn't differ much from what I got running it on 50 MHz 060.
-
What is the best software PeeCee emulator???
PCTask, PCx, Emplant e586(I know this used the emplant board for timing, but the x86 code was still emulated) or other(not including bridgeboards).
My personal experience is primarily with hardware emulators, bridgeboard which are not really emulators, more or less real PeeCees on a board and mac emulators. I have alot of experience with Jim Drew's Mac emulators (ie emplant, emplant pro, and Fusion) all which I love, but these don't need the CPU to be emulated.
Are any of these fast enough and accurate enough to be useful let us say with a fast CPU expansion like the vampire?
To me the best is PCTask; it's a pity that is no more in development and it has not been open sourced
-
I too thought PCTask was very good back in the day. I remember having Windows 3.0 or 3.1 running in it when I was at university and people were impressed.
I could be wrong but didn't the author also have a blurb in the manual (like in the fine print) about how pirates can burn in hell and other colorful metaphors? I'm fairly certain I remember reading that either in the manual or maybe in one of the text documents on the disk.
Good times,
-P
-
Tomb Raider in PC-Task on an 80MHz 060
https://youtu.be/QzKC0Aafnw8
I've seen this before and I was impressed. Tomb Raider native 68K would run rather well if it existed.
-
I'd imagine that would be much smoother if running at less than full screen. Too bad they never ported a native version! :(
-
Tomb Raider in PC-Task on an 80MHz 060
https://youtu.be/QzKC0Aafnw8
Tomb Raider on a Vampire 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHM2i_53kHE&t=19m
It's atrociously slow.
-
Wow, 1/12 fps....
-
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought PCTask & PCx already do JIT.
I guess I didn't keep up to date. PC task 4 does (it doesn't seem to appear in the pc task 3 manual) and the commercial version of PCx does.
-
It looks as if quite a few of you have experience with PC-Task......
I tried it may may years ago, but this was an early version. I do remember I could get it to work with the picasso II at the time, with I could not with Emplant e586, using the pre-cybergraphx (obvious also pre-picasso96) rtg drivers that came with the picasso II.
I find it interesting that the tomb raider results on the native 68060 80Mhz is significally faster than the vampire.
Is the JIT aided by the MMU or FPU???? Does tomb raider perhaps use the FPU calls to accelerate graphics, how is PC-task 80486 FPU emulated via? perhaps 68882 compatible code?
-
Tomb Raider on a Vampire 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHM2i_53kHE&t=19m
It's atrociously slow.
I fast forwarded the video a bit and was then looking at Lara Croft's arse for what seemed an eternity. :laughing:
-
What is the best software PeeCee emulator???
PCTask, PCx, Emplant e586(I know this used the emplant board for timing, but the x86 code was still emulated) or other(not including bridgeboards).
...
Are any of these fast enough and accurate enough to be useful let us say with a fast CPU expansion like the vampire?
Well, my first attempts to run M$ soft on my trusty old A500 were back in 1989.
IIRC, I tried DosBox first and a bit later PcTask v2.
I stayed with PcTask for a while and then got me a Vortex AtOnce286 classic.
This gave me the best experience so far and I used it a lot with M$-Dos, Word v4/4.5/5, DBase, Fortran77 and QuickBasic. I could even run a Windows version for 286 cpus in monochrome mode.
Then I built my A4kPPC tower in 1997/98 and could not use the Vortex 286 add-on with that anymore.
So I got me a registered version of PcX and could run Win 3.1 with that. But soon the requirements to run run the latest Win versions increased and PcX was no longer sufficient, as I could not run Win9x.
When the PC world moved on to WinXP I got me an WIntelXP box, put it beside my A4kPPC and networked them, as I meanwhile had added a MediatorPCI busboard with 10/100 mBit NIC.
I used a registered version of Darren Eveland's 'RDesktop' and 'smbfs' to exchange data between them and have to say that this config allowed me to get the most out of 'both worlds'...
Meanwhile I have a Win10 core i5 quadcore box and my A4kPPC - but they are roughly 80 km apart. Currently the A4kPPC is the only computer I have here in my apartment in Cologne, while the WIntel box is at my other home.
Should I decide to get a new WIntel box for Cologne as well I will certainly go the RDesktop route again and not bother thinking about emulating a modern PC (capable to run Win10) on classic Amiga hardware...
Using emulation software may be nice to demonstrate the capability of the Amiga back in the eighties and possibly ninetees, but I'd say its pretty useless if you want to use it for serious work that requires Win10 - even on NG-Amigas...
-
*deleted double post*
-
Sure, pc emulation on a classic Amiga, or even "NG" options isn't an alternative to having a physical PC if one wishes to use an even moderately recent version of Windows, but there's a universe of cool, useful older software out there for dos and win9x.
Despite having a dedicated Win9x box (I like seeing how useful older systems can be in the modern world) I actually use Dosbox + RunInDosbox for some productivity software on my AROS box. According to Sandra SiSoft plus a few other tests I get roughly 550mhz interger and 750mhz fpu p3 type speeds, which is more than enough for things like Paintshop Pro, 3d Studio Max, console ROM hacking tools, Unreal, Unreal Tournament, etc, etc.
The ppc options are more along the lines of a mid to higher spec 486, but even that's enough for some productivity stuff and early 90's games.
Even slower again, but 68k machines are also capable enough to run some software that doesn't exist on the Amiga.
It all depends on what sort of software a person wants to run, but in my opinion PC emulation can be useful on Amiga-oid systems.
-
Sure, pc emulation on a classic Amiga, or even "NG" options isn't an alternative to having a physical PC if one wishes to use an even moderately version of Windows, but there's a universe of cool, useful older software out there for dos and win9x.
A cheap modern bridgeboard, that could also run a 68k emulation and work as an accelerator would be pretty amazing. Even if it was only i3 or atom.
-
Sure, pc emulation on a classic Amiga, or even "NG" options isn't an alternative to having a physical PC if one wishes to use an even moderately version of Windows, but there's a universe of cool, useful older software out there for dos and win9x.
...
Even slower again, but 68k machines are also capable enough to run some software that doesn't exist on the Amiga.
It all depends on what sort of software a person wants to run, but in my opinion PC emulation can be useful on Amiga-oid systems.
That's why I used emu software in the past.
But today the (Amiga-)hardware to run them simply is too underpowered for my taste.
Look, my A4kPPC has an 68060 @ 50mHz - that's the max you can get from any physical classic Amiga on the 68k-side without overclocking.
This is simply too slow to run anything beyond Win 3.1 in emulation - at least, if you want to do serious work with it.
Despite having a dedicated Win9x box (I like seeing how useful older systems can be in the modern world) I actually use Dosbox + RunInDosbox for some productivity software on my AROS box. According to Sandra SiSoft plus a few other tests I get roughly 550mhz interger and 750mhz fpu p3 type speeds, which is more than enough for things like Paintshop Pro, 3d Studio Max, console ROM hacking tools, Unreal, Unreal Tournament, etc, etc.
Which cpu does work in your AROS box and at which clock speed?
The ppc options are more along the lines of a mid to higher spec 486, but even that's enough for some productivity stuff and early 90's games.
Which PPCs are you referring to?
On my CSPPC there is a PPC604e @ 200mHz.
Aside from the fact that no emulation software exists for WarpOS, what speed could I expect from an Win10 environment emulated on an PPC604e @ 200mHz?
There are only 68k versions of PcTask and PcX - no versions for WarpOS or even NG Amiga OS 4.x, AFAIK.
No idea if Bochs runs on PPC604e - I could not find a list of supported cpus.
Same for QEMU...
-
One thing I'm curious about is x86 emulation for 68k mac under shapeshifter or fusion. It could give a few more options. From my browsing a few months back when I looked into it there was Softwindows, one other commercial product whose name eludes me, and surprisingly a 68k Mac qemu port from a few years ago.
There may be others, but that's what I found.
Haven't yet got around to trying any of them though.
This had me look up Softwindows for 68k Macs, and it works surprisingly well on my Amithlon system under Shapeshifter. I haven't tried it on my A4000T yet. Version 1.03 appears to be the last 68k version before it moved to PPC and supporting higher than Win 3.1.
-
@Dandy
The AROS box is using an i7-870 clocked at 3.8ghz. I used to use an i5-760@4ghz, but ended up with the spare i7 system so figured why not. The performance for the 2 is currently nigh on identical currently, but the i7 will be a bit more future proof for when I changed to 64bit AROS (multi processor support in the future).
Regardless, they're both pretty old machines, but I'm more than happy with them for AROS.
As for the ppc options, sorry, I actually meant the "NG" machines.
Probably the best option for os3.x is the WOS version of Dosbox I did some years back. Unfortunately I no longer have a copy of the binary, but I did send it to a few people so hopefully its made its way onto the net (or at least some peoples hard drives) somewhere.
Performance wise I'd guess something along the lines of a 50mhz 386 on a 200mhz 604e.
Besides Bochs though there's nothing on any Amiga-noid system that could run anything beyond Win9x anyway. Speed Aside bochs is the only option that let's you assign enough RAM to even glacially run WinXP and above on classic systems (although bochs is 68k only for os3.9).
-
@snkbitten
Just did a browse now and also found softat, realpc, and softpc.
I'm not sure if they're 68k or ppc, but I suspect both depending on version numbers.
Also are you sure there's no Softwindows2 for 68k? I might be mistaken, but I seem to recall there was. It was a few months ago though so its quite possible my memory and reality are different. :)
-
@snkbitten
Just did a browse now and also found softat, realpc, and softpc.
I'm not sure if they're 68k or ppc, but I suspect both depending on version numbers.
Also are you sure there's no Softwindows2 for 68k? I might be mistaken, but I seem to recall there was. It was a few months ago though so its quite possible my memory and reality are different. :)
There could be, but all I could find was Softwindows 1.0x for 68k and 1.02 with a serial number (but bad disk.img files). So a combination of 1.02 for the application (and serial) and 1.03 for the disk image files.
-
I stayed with PcTask for a while and then got me a Vortex AtOnce286 classic.
This gave me the best experience so far and I used it a lot with M$-Dos, Word v4/4.5/5, DBase, Fortran77 and QuickBasic. I could even run a Windows version for 286 cpus in monochrome mode.
I have a GVP PC 286 which is basically a Vortex AtOncePlus. It actually work fairly well especially for CPU bound tasks as it has a real 80286. There is for one "major" problem. The video is very slowwwwwwww. It uses the amiga's hardware to emulate the video. I noticed you had to use monochrome mode..... I had 3.11 (not with workgroups ie needs a 386) running with monochrome Olivetti video. I found the video updates slowly.
Further GVP PC 286 does not work with the VXL 030, (I only had a GVP A500 HD8+ but obviously works with the GVP A530). I wonder if work with the vampire. The vampire should surely improve the video emulation speed assuming it is compatible.
-
@thread
I noticed over at eab that Jim Drew mentioned a potential update to his fusion and pcx emulators.
Seemed relevant so thought I'd mention it. :)
-
@Dandy
The AROS box is using an i7-870 clocked at 3.8ghz. I used to use an i5-760@4ghz, but ended up with the spare i7 system so figured why not. The performance for the 2 is currently nigh on identical currently, but the i7 will be a bit more future proof for when I changed to 64bit AROS (multi processor support in the future).
Ah - I see.
Regardless, they're both pretty old machines, but I'm more than happy with them for AROS.
Core i5 and core i7 are 'pretty old'?
How should I call my A4kPPC then (mobo of 1993, CSPPC of 1997)?
:laughing: :rofl: :biglaugh:
As for the ppc options, sorry, I actually meant the "NG" machines.
Ah - o.k.!
Probably the best option for os3.x is the WOS version of Dosbox I did some years back. Unfortunately I no longer have a copy of the binary, but I did send it to a few people so hopefully its made its way onto the net (or at least some peoples hard drives) somewhere.
I never heard of a WOS version of any PC-emulator up to now!
Can't one of them upload it to Aminet?
You just need to remember the name of one of those guys and ask him to upload it or to provide you a copy...
Performance wise I'd guess something along the lines of a 50mhz 386 on a 200mhz 604e.
That's not as swift as an arrow, but its o.k. for this old hw.
Did your version of Dosbox emulate an 286 or an 386 cpu?
As in case of an 286 cpu all I can use is at best Win95 (first Edition - "95a").
Win95b and Win95c already require 386 cpu.
Win98 requires 486 cpu.
Win98 se requires at least 486DX cpu @66mHz
and
WinXP requires at least a Pentium@233mHz with 64mB RAM (better a Pentium@300+mHz with 128+mB RAM
Are there any PC-emulators for OS 4.x?
Besides Bochs though there's nothing on any Amiga-noid system that could run anything beyond Win9x anyway. Speed Aside bochs is the only option that let's you assign enough RAM to even glacially run WinXP and above on classic systems (although bochs is 68k only for os3.9).
That sounds as if there actually IS an OS 4.x version of Bochs.
I think I will give it a try, once I successfully finished my AOS 4.1 U1 setup.
Ram might be an issue for a Win10 install.
My Miggy only has the 128mB 64-Bit Ram on the CSPPC, plus the 2 x 256mB Z-III mem, plus 2mB CHIP. That's just 642mB altogether...
That might even be not sufficient for WinXP...
For my old Miggy there seems to be no better way than to network it with a modern core i5 or core i7 quadcore WIntel box...
-
...
There is for one "major" problem. The video is very slowwwwwwww. It uses the amiga's hardware to emulate the video.
...
I found the video updates slowly.
Yeah - that's the disadvantage of emulators...
I noticed you had to use monochrome mode.....
With the 'Windows for 286' version I had back then, yes (Hercules monochrome mode).
With M$-Dos (4/5/6.2) I could use a few color modes (CGA/EGA, IIRC).
I had 3.11 (not with workgroups ie needs a 386) running with monochrome Olivetti video.
Wasn't Win 3.1 the Version withOUT Workgroups and Win 3.11 the one WITH Workgroups?
I seem to remember something along these lines, but I could also be wrong - its sooooo long ago...
Further GVP PC 286 does not work with the VXL 030, (I only had a GVP A500 HD8+ but obviously works with the GVP A530).
Well, my A500 back then had just 68010 CPU, but 1.8mB RAM in the trapdoor, 2mB MiniMegi Chipram, full ECS, 8mB SupraRAM and a 'selfmade' HD solution consisting of the so called 'ct-Interface (schematics from the 'ct computer magazine - providing one ISA slot for an OMTI 6510 RLL-controller with 2 65mB HDs connected).
Later I replaced the 68010 CPU and the 'selfmade' HD solution with a Viper520@28mHz+320mB IDE HD.
Then I moved on to my A4kPPC...
I wonder if work with the vampire. The vampire should surely improve the video emulation speed assuming it is compatible.
If compatible, it should offer enough power to speed it up significantly.
-
@thread
I noticed over at eab that Jim Drew mentioned a potential update to his fusion and pcx emulators.
Seemed relevant so thought I'd mention it.
:)
Thx for the info!
Did he also mention which Amiga-cpus/AOS-versions the updated versions will support?
I mean - back then a WOS Version of PcX was promised.
Precondition for the development being the ownership of FusionPPC.
I bought Fusion PPC back then, but PcX PPC was never ever released.
:angry:
Should I now - one and a half decades later - finally be able to get my WOS PCX Version?
:rolleyes:
-
Thx for the info!
Did he also mention which Amiga-cpus/AOS-versions the updated versions will support?
I mean - back then a WOS Version of PcX was promised.
Precondition for the development being the ownership of FusionPPC.
I bought Fusion PPC back then, but PcX PPC was never ever released.
:angry:
Should I now - one and a half decades later - finally be able to get my WOS PCX Version?
:rolleyes:
ditto +1, I agree, I have always liked Jim Drew work! He does come onto Amiga.org occasionally. It would be fun to talk to him again about emulation!!!!!
-
Today, just as back in the day, PCx and FUSION are hands down faster than PCTask and Shapeshifter...
https://youtu.be/Ga1_wfsl4rg
The beta version of PCx with Vampire optimizations that I released is the fastest version yet!
I have no idea what "WOS" is. iFUSION along with all of my PPC stuff was sold, so I never made a PPC version of PCx. I have no desire to do anything PPC based ever again. FPGA is the way to go. :)
-
I have no idea what "WOS" is.
I assume he's referring to WarpOS?
Cool, thanks for the update and for chiming in here! :)
-
Today, just as back in the day, PCx and FUSION are hands down faster than PCTask and Shapeshifter...
https://youtu.be/Ga1_wfsl4rg
The beta version of PCx with Vampire optimizations that I released is the fastest version yet!
I have no idea what "WOS" is. iFUSION along with all of my PPC stuff was sold, so I never made a PPC version of PCx. I have no desire to do anything PPC based ever again. FPGA is the way to go. :)
Is the beta version for the Vampire available somewhere? Or is it an internal beta?
-
This had me look up Softwindows for 68k Macs, and it works surprisingly well on my Amithlon system under Shapeshifter. I haven't tried it on my A4000T yet. Version 1.03 appears to be the last 68k version before it moved to PPC and supporting higher than Win 3.1.
I never got Softwindows working under Shapeshifter - Could you please upload or just gives some details of your setup and source???
-
I never got Softwindows working under Shapeshifter - Could you please upload or just gives some details of your setup and source???
Softwindows 1.02 install only the main program and register with the key.
https://www.macintoshrepository.org/829-softwindows-1-0
(I don't remember which one I used, I may have tried both)
Softwindows 1.03 install only the disk image files for Windows 3.x.
https://winworldpc.com/product/softwindows/10
-
Thank you for your reply very helpful - So the links 1.02 archive has the serial No and 1.03 has the working disk image? Thanks again.
-
Is the beta version for the Vampire available somewhere? Or is it an internal beta?
It was an internal beta. I haven't been in touch with the Vampire team in months because of my day job.
I plan on releasing the PCx and FUSION (both optimized for the Vampire boards) when I get a chance.
-
I plan on releasing the PCx and FUSION (both optimized for the Vampire boards) when I get a chance.
I think will all are looking forward to this............:-)
Just curious. forgive me if this is a sensitive subject, but How would you handle the purchase/ distribution of a Vampire optimized version, I for one would be willing to pay you for your hard work!!! (I bought emplant, emplant pro, e586, fusion and PCx) Also would you still allow access to the emplant board for better compatibility? ie if the vamp 500 is in a 2000 or an a500 with a zorroII to 68 pin adapter.
-
Today, just as back in the day, PCx and FUSION are hands down faster than PCTask and Shapeshifter...
https://youtu.be/Ga1_wfsl4rg
The beta version of PCx with Vampire optimizations that I released is the fastest version yet!
That's great!
I'm just wondering how usable it is today.
Roughly 15 years ago I ran PCx on an 060@50mHz and used M$-Dos and Win3.1 with it.
IIRC, it was not possible to run later versions of Windows, although the old HAAGE & PARTNER Amiga page (https://www.haage-partner.de/amiga/products/pcx_d.htm) says it would support the Pentium instruction set.
With a Pentium cpu @233mHz and 64mB RAM (better a Pentium@300+mHz with 128+mB RAM) it should be possible to run Win XP.
But today we have Win10 and I doubt I could use that seriously with PCx - even on a Vampire, not to speak of an 68060@50mHz...
So I'm afraid PCx is only a practical utility if one wants to run old Win Version with the associated (old) Software.
I'm afraid that if it is required to run modern productivity software with a modern Win version, the only option is to use a modern WIntel box and to network it with the (old) Amiga (e.g. with RDesktop/smbfs)...
:(
I have no idea what "WOS" is.
WarpOS (for BlizzardPPC and CyberstormPPC accelerator boards).
Back in the days a PCx version optimised for the BlizzardPPC and CyberstormPPC accelerator boards was promised, but was never released.
iFUSION along with all of my PPC stuff was sold, so I never made a PPC version of PCx. I have no desire to do anything PPC based ever again. FPGA is the way to go. :)
The PPC versions had been promised by 'Microcode Solutions'. iFusion PPC was released, but unfortunately PCx PPC was never published.
-
But today we have Win10 and I doubt I could use that seriously with PCx - even on a Vampire, not to speak of an 68060@50mHz...
Windows 10 checks for PAE, NX & SSE2 before it will install. These came out after PCx, so unless they've been added recently then won't be able to use Windows 10 with PCx at all. Let alone seriously.
-
That's great!
I'm just wondering how usable it is today.
Roughly 15 years ago I ran PCx on an 060@50mHz and used M$-Dos and Win3.1 with it.
IIRC, it was not possible to run later versions of Windows, although the old HAAGE & PARTNER Amiga page (https://www.haage-partner.de/amiga/products/pcx_d.htm) says it would support the Pentium instruction set.
With a Pentium cpu @233mHz and 64mB RAM (better a Pentium@300+mHz with 128+mB RAM) it should be possible to run Win XP.
.
Dude I don't know if you're kidding or not, I think you need to step back from the idea of a usable XP environment on a 233mhz CPU and 64mb RAM. The lowest spec machine I would even attempt to run XP (without adding the service packs, mind you) on would be in the 500mhz range with 256mb RAM. And even then, only to say "Okay, it boots up". Once you start adding service packs to fix the various problems it has (like, security issues), that overhead goes way, way up. You might run XP on those specs, but you won't run any programs in XP.
-
Dude I don't know if you're kidding or not, I think you need to step back from the idea of a usable XP environment on a 233mhz CPU and 64mb RAM. The lowest spec machine I would even attempt to run XP (without adding the service packs, mind you) on would be in the 500mhz range with 256mb RAM. And even then, only to say "Okay, it boots up". Once you start adding service packs to fix the various problems it has (like, security issues), that overhead goes way, way up. You might run XP on those specs, but you won't run any programs in XP.
Seconded. I have, at various times, ran Win XP and Win XP Pro on a 600MHz SunPCI-II card in my Sun Ultra 5 and, while it boots up just fine, it runs slower than molasses in January. Couldn't fathom running it on a PPC Amiga.
-
That's great!
I'm just wondering how usable it is today.
Today, its just for nostalgia. It's not fast enough (even on a Vampire) for any serious work. It runs Windows 3.1 just fine, and probably could run Windows 95... but that's it. Later versions of Windows expected newer architecture and won't run.
The PPC versions had been promised by 'Microcode Solutions'. iFusion PPC was released, but unfortunately PCx PPC was never published.
That's not true. I don't make promises about software. I was stating what was planned. We did work on a PPC version of PCx briefly, and a version of PCx was released for the Mac and PowerMac. When iFUSION was sold to Blittersoft (along with source code, etc.) I completely abandoned PPC. I think it's the worst CPU ever made. IBM conned Apple into using it originally, and they finally got smart and switched to something much faster. I was stunned when I heard that the next generation Amiga was going to be PPC based. What a mistake that was. That limited the sheer number of people who could have been exposed to the great Amiga OS. Had the next generation Amiga gone x86 based, it would be at least (if not more so) popular as Linux is today.
-
Today, its just for nostalgia. It's not fast enough (even on a Vampire) for any serious work. It runs Windows 3.1 just fine, and probably could run Windows 95... but that's it. Later versions of Windows expected newer architecture and won't run.
That's not true. I don't make promises about software. I was stating what was planned. We did work on a PPC version of PCx briefly, and a version of PCx was released for the Mac and PowerMac. When iFUSION was sold to Blittersoft (along with source code, etc.) I completely abandoned PPC. I think it's the worst CPU ever made. IBM conned Apple into using it originally, and they finally got smart and switched to something much faster. I was stunned when I heard that the next generation Amiga was going to be PPC based. What a mistake that was. That limited the sheer number of people who could have been exposed to the great Amiga OS. Had the next generation Amiga gone x86 based, it would be at least (if not more so) popular as Linux is today.
I can't speak to various expansion manufacturers but I think a lot of the user-base back then was "Anything but x86", so by that logic PPC was "good" and x86 was "bad", and what they didn't get was that Motorola's tradition of not supporting previous architectures and instruction sets in follow-on CPUs meant that the PPC was just as alien as an x86 system would have been. PPC was no magical device that granted some kind of purity to the Amiga's legacy. It hampered and crippled it.
But we are wandering far afield.
-
Today, its just for nostalgia. It's not fast enough (even on a Vampire) for any serious work. It runs Windows 3.1 just fine, and probably could run Windows 95... but that's it. Later versions of Windows expected newer architecture and won't run.
In so far as PC emulation even a 486slc bridgeboard could barely run windows 95. If you could get PCx to run Windows 95 with something like a 1024x768x256 color display from the vamp's video out that would be actually quite awesome.
As for Fusion I would image you could get it to just fly, perhaps the fastest 680x0 mac ever ????? (I know this is a bold statement). But Fusion V3.2 with an emplant board and voodoo3 graphics on my A4000/040/25mhz is already the fastest classic 680x0 mac I have, expect for my 33Mhz 68040 Quadra 950. MacOS 8.1 (which is know to be slow) runs just fine on it.
-
Dude I don't know if you're kidding or not, I think you need to step back from the idea of a usable XP environment on a 233mhz CPU and 64mb RAM.
Well, that's not my idea - thats what's listed at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#System_requirements) as 'minimum System requirements' for WinXP...
The lowest spec machine I would even attempt to run XP (without adding the service packs, mind you) on would be in the 500mhz range with 256mb RAM.
I know - my own WinXP machine back then was 1.8mHz and had 512mB RAM. Later this turned out to be insufficient (PC became incredibly slow) and so I expanded the RAM to the max wich was 1gB for my mobo. Unfortunately the machine got 'hickups' from that and so I removed 256mB and ended up with a stable system with 768mB RAM.
And even then, only to say "Okay, it boots up". Once you start adding service packs to fix the various problems it has (like, security issues), that overhead goes way, way up. You might run XP on those specs, but you won't run any programs in XP.
Yes.
That's why I later put the real WIntel box besides my Miggy and networked both. For transferring files between them I used RDesktop and smbfs. This way I could save the space for a second monitor, keyboard and mouse on my desk...
-
@JimDrew
I completely abandoned PPC. I think it's the worst CPU ever made. IBM conned Apple into using it originally, and they finally got smart and switched to something much faster. I was stunned when I heard that the next generation Amiga was going to be PPC based. What a mistake that was. That limited the sheer number of people who could have been exposed to the great Amiga OS. Had the next generation Amiga gone x86 based, it would be at least (if not more so) popular as Linux is today.
I have to agree with you on your perspective about PPC processors. So far I'm enjoying AROS x64 and it's latest SMP capabilities. I often wonder how far OS4 would have progressed in that regard had an x86 processor been selected back when the next generation Amiga was designed....I suspect OS4 would be at least as mature as AROS x86 is now and probably even more advanced. A lot of OS4's momentum was lost and will never be regained by going with the PPC architecture. I'm looking forward to doing some AROS development and hope to port some classic Amiga apps to AROS. I took a stab at some OS4 development around 2008 but there were just too many obstacles to be overcome, both in the OS and tool sets as well as the hardware, so I eventually sold my system and have been lurking around several Amiga forums for years. Right now AROS seems to have the most potential.
-
Today, its just for nostalgia. It's not fast enough (even on a Vampire) for any serious work. It runs Windows 3.1 just fine, and probably could run Windows 95... but that's it. Later versions of Windows expected newer architecture and won't run.
That's what I assumed.
I'm just surprised that you say "It runs Windows 3.1 just fine, and probably could run Windows 95... but that's it.", as at the old HAAGE & PARTNER Amiga page (https://www.haage-partner.de/amiga/products/pcx_d.htm) it is stated that PCx supports the Pentium instruction set. It was promoted there as "The Pentium Emulator For The Amiga".
And a 'Pentium CPU' is listed as 'Minimum System requirements' for WinXP, while for Win98se it still was 'just' an "Intel 80486DX2 66 MHz or a compatible CPU with a math coprocessor (Pentium processor recommended)" according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_98#System_requirements).
So I thought PCx would - at least theoretically - be capable to run WinXP (at an extremely slow speed, of course). Just the max amount of RAM in my Miggy seemed to be 'showstopper'. WinXP needed at least 256mB RAM, while my system just had the 128 mB on the CSPPC plus 2mB CHIP mem...
That's not true. I don't make promises about software. I was stating what was planned. We did work on a PPC version of PCx briefly, and a version of PCx was released for the Mac and PowerMac. When iFUSION was sold to Blittersoft (along with source code, etc.) I completely abandoned PPC.
Well Jim, I don't know what was going on 'behind the scenes' back then.
I can only tell that this was what the customers here in Germany got as information for PCx on the old HAAGE & PARTNER Amiga page (https://www.haage-partner.de/amiga/products/pcx_d.htm):
16 Juni 99: Fusion PPC Vorbestellung
Microcode Solutions erwartet bis zum 1. Juli 500 Vorbestellungen um die Produkte Fusion und PCx für den PowerPC fertigzustellen. Wir finden dieses Vorgehen aus verschiedenen Gründen bedenklich, doch da die erste Stufe noch keiner Vorauszahlung bedarf, kann man so sein Interesse an dem Produkt nochmals bekunden. Link (http://www.microcode-solutions.com/amiga/amiga.html)
(June 16th, 1999: Pre-ordering Fusion PPC
Microcode Solutions requires 500 pre-orders by July 1st to complete the products "Fusion" and "PCx" for the PowerPC. We find this course of action questionable for several reasons, but as no pre-payment is required in this first phase, this is a way to express interest in the product once more. link (http://www.microcode-solutions.com/amiga/amiga.html))
I think it's the worst CPU ever made. IBM conned Apple into using it originally, and they finally got smart and switched to something much faster. I was stunned when I heard that the next generation Amiga was going to be PPC based. What a mistake that was. That limited the sheer number of people who could have been exposed to the great Amiga OS.
I'm no hardware expert, but I recall that back then the PPC was 'hyped'.
After the end of 68k cpu development it was clear that a new, more powerful cpu is required and most people thought it to be a good idea to go the PPC route.
Had the next generation Amiga gone x86 based, it would be at least (if not more so) popular as Linux is today.
It could very well have been that going the x86 route would have been a greater success for the Amiga platform than going PPC.
But would this have saved Commodore and the Amiga?
I'm not sure.
The Pentium 1 was introduced on March 22, 1993 and Commodore declared bankruptcy on April 29, 1994 and ceased to exist. So it seems it already was too late for a change...
-
And a 'Pentium CPU' is listed as 'Minimum System requirements' for WinXP, while for Win98se it still was 'just' an "Intel 80486DX2 66 MHz or a compatible CPU with a math coprocessor (Pentium processor recommended)" according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_98#System_requirements).
So I thought PCx would - at least theoretically - be capable to run WinXP (at an extremely slow speed, of course). Just the max amount of RAM in my Miggy seemed to be 'showstopper'. WinXP needed at least 256mB RAM, while my system just had the 128 mB on the CSPPC plus 2mB CHIP mem...
Well, it might run WinXP, I have never tried it. You have to remember that Windows95 didn't even exist yet when EMPLANT's e586dx emulation was written, and that was the basis for PCx.
Well Jim, I don't know what was going on 'behind the scenes' back then.
I can only tell that this was what the customers here in Germany got as information for PCx on the old HAAGE & PARTNER Amiga page (https://www.haage-partner.de/amiga/products/pcx_d.htm):
16 Juni 99: Fusion PPC Vorbestellung
Microcode Solutions erwartet bis zum 1. Juli 500 Vorbestellungen um die Produkte Fusion und PCx für den PowerPC fertigzustellen. Wir finden dieses Vorgehen aus verschiedenen Gründen bedenklich, doch da die erste Stufe noch keiner Vorauszahlung bedarf, kann man so sein Interesse an dem Produkt nochmals bekunden. Link (http://www.microcode-solutions.com/amiga/amiga.html)
(June 16th, 1999: Pre-ordering Fusion PPC
Microcode Solutions requires 500 pre-orders by July 1st to complete the products "Fusion" and "PCx" for the PowerPC. We find this course of action questionable for several reasons, but as no pre-payment is required in this first phase, this is a way to express interest in the product once more. link (http://www.microcode-solutions.com/amiga/amiga.html))
I am not sure what the link showed, but I know the pre-order thing was a joke. We had around 30 pre-orders and that was it. Not worth the time, but iFUSION was completed and it worked (on the Cyberstorm) and I sold it all off.
The Pentium 1 was introduced on March 22, 1993 and Commodore declared bankruptcy on April 29, 1994 and ceased to exist. So it seems it already was too late for a change...
I was talking about machines produced after the CBM bankruptcy, making future OS4 machines based on x86 instead of PPC.
While I was looking around for the old Microcode Solutions website backups, I found the source code to iFUSION and iFUSE. iFUSE was the PC version a PowerMac emulation that used the GXC604e PCI CPU card. I had a deal with the company to provide the Mac emulation for their board, but their company struggled and the card was never released. That was too bad - that actually was a great piece of hardware, providing 512MB of RAM directly connected to the CPU. The PCI bus was the bridge for the peripherals (video/audio/serial/etc.) and the "Mac" ran exclusively on the RAM of the card. No libraries to deal with, which was the biggest battle for iFUSION on the Amiga.
-
Well, it might run WinXP, I have never tried it. You have to remember that Windows95 didn't even exist yet when EMPLANT's e586dx emulation was written, and that was the basis for PCx.
I am not sure what the link showed, but I know the pre-order thing was a joke. We had around 30 pre-orders and that was it. Not worth the time, but iFUSION was completed and it worked (on the Cyberstorm) and I sold it all off.
.
Reading this thread is knocking bits of rust in my head.. My memory's a bit hazy.. I was one of the pre-orders for iFusion.. as far as I can remember think I pre-ordered from you directly (MicroCode-Solutions)?? was that right?
-
In so far as PC emulation even a 486slc bridgeboard could barely run windows 95. If you could get PCx to run Windows 95 with something like a 1024x768x256 color display from the vamp's video out that would be actually quite awesome.
I've got the GoldenGate 486slc 50MHz bridge board card with the 387 maths co-processor & FDC chips installed (with the optional Monitor Master), ISA video card, & an ISA network card in my A4000. I've also got Windows 98 installed on it. It runs a whole lot faster than PC-Task 4.4 or PCx. I would say that I does run at an acceptable level for the CPU it has on the bridge board. I think that by having an ISA video card, the speed increases.
On another note: I had installed Windows95 on PC-Task ver. 4.4 on my NTSC A1200 with a Blizzard 1260 CPU accelerator. You need the patience of a saint to complete the installation. It took several hours to complete. I wanted to install Windows98 on my A1200, but never got around to doing so. You need to enter some parameters to install it so that it bypasses some stuff, which I've forgotten now. I'd have to review that to remember what it was, but W98 could definitely be installed on PC-Task ver. 4.4. W98 is the latest & last version that I know of that could be installed on PC-Task ver. 4.4.
-
I've got the GoldenGate 486slc 50MHz bridge board card with the 387 maths co-processor & FDC chips installed (with the optional Monitor Master), ISA video card, & an ISA network card in my A4000. I've also got Windows 98 installed on it. It runs a whole lot faster than PC-Task 4.4 or PCx. I would say that I does run at an acceptable level for the CPU it has on the bridge board. I think that by having an ISA video card, the speed increases.
On another note: I had installed Windows95 on PC-Task ver. 4.4 on my NTSC A1200 with a Blizzard 1260 CPU accelerator. You need the patience of a saint to complete the installation. It took several hours to complete. I wanted to install Windows98 on my A1200, but never got around to doing so. You need to enter some parameters to install it so that it bypasses some stuff, which I've forgotten now. I'd have to review that to remember what it was, but W98 could definitely be installed on PC-Task ver. 4.4. W98 is the latest & last version that I know of that could be installed on PC-Task ver. 4.4.
I have a similar setup A2386sx upgraded to 486slc3 75mhz, 387, cardinal VGA/SCSI/Audio board, ISA ethernet, and Kurwell IDE/SERIAL/Parallel board in a A2000 with all the ISA slots upgraded to 16 bit.
The 486slc is basically, 386sx on with 486 instruction set and bigger cache on a 16 bit bus / 32 internal. Most were frequency double or even tripled. This chip is quite nice when compared to a 386sx, but it really cannot hold a candle to the 486DX or DX2/DX4.
By the time Windows 95 came out Pentiums 100mhz+ were out.
Windows 95 (which needs a 386 min) and Windows 98 (which needs a 486 min) will certainly install on these configurations, but alas they are already slow by the time windows 95 came out. Certainly you could do regular "windows" tasks with these configuration, but certainly not any real gaming or anything too taxing.
An example of a test I did, this was in the late 90' something like 97. I bought warcraft package with warcraft one, warcraft II , and the warcraft II expansion. What was nice about warcraft series is that they were on hybrid disks, that could be install on both a PC or a mac. I ran warcraft II, (a SVGA game) on my (at that time) A3000/040 25 mhz both with the with the A2386 with the 486slc3 bridgeboard and on the I think either emplant pro or an early version of fusion. Warcraft II installed on the A2386 486slc configuration side but was so slow that is was basically unplayable. whereas on the mac side of this the game played smoothly. The full 68040 consider roughly equivalent to the 80486DX (I know we could get into a lot of controversy with this statement, but is not the point of this reply.) I am not going to pretend that this was a accurate test, but roughly a practical comparison.
Now as for the original warcraft, both ran smoothly.
It is my opinion (opinions are a dime a dozen) that the 486slc bridgeboards (with a VGA card) make a super windows 3.11 with workgroups computers and can handle games from from the early 90's extremely well. It can run windows 95/98 and do basic tasks well enough, but choke when you throw anything semi hard at them. Eitherway it is fun just trying to get them to work with either configuration.
My friends thought it was just crazy that my A3000 could run AmigaOS, Windows 95 (yes I has 95 on it to show off), MacOS (probably 7.6.3 at the time), and NetBSD. It was nice to have this configuration at this time as I was a graduate student. In trying to write my thesis I needed data from MatLab (primarily a mac product at the time), early dos data acquisition computers, Mac office computers, and Sun Unix workstations. It was also nice having NetBSD for its LaTeX support as many theses were written in TeX at the time.
-
I can't speak to various expansion manufacturers but I think a lot of the user-base back then was "Anything but x86", so by that logic PPC was "good" and x86 was "bad",
After commodore management (and to a certain extent the commodore engineers) had almost killed the Amiga's chances of being successful, the "Intel Outside" crowd came in and finished it off.
Hombre released in 1993 would have given the PS1 or Saturn a run for it's money, but by then Amiga had lost the price/performance war with PC's.
To take on the PC market they would need an x86 and an off the shelf graphics & sound chip with PCI slots, to differentiate they could have built a custom north/south bridge that abandoned PC architecture for something a bit more Amiga like. You could build backward compatibility for copper/blitter/paula etc registers in the chipset, leaving legacy applications running on a simple 68k emulator.
and what they didn't get was that Motorola's tradition of not supporting previous architectures and instruction sets in follow-on CPUs meant that the PPC was just as alien as an x86 system would have been.
Motorola licensed PPC in from IBM, so it was always going to be different to 68k.
-
Today, its just for nostalgia. It's not fast enough (even on a Vampire) for any serious work. It runs Windows 3.1 just fine, and probably could run Windows 95... but that's it. Later versions of Windows expected newer architecture and won't run.
That's not true. I don't make promises about software. I was stating what was planned. We did work on a PPC version of PCx briefly, and a version of PCx was released for the Mac and PowerMac. When iFUSION was sold to Blittersoft (along with source code, etc.) I completely abandoned PPC. I think it's the worst CPU ever made. IBM conned Apple into using it originally, and they finally got smart and switched to something much faster. I was stunned when I heard that the next generation Amiga was going to be PPC based. What a mistake that was. That limited the sheer number of people who could have been exposed to the great Amiga OS. Had the next generation Amiga gone x86 based, it would be at least (if not more so) popular as Linux is today.
from a logical point of view you are right. I had switched to X86 PC at that time already (some time after Commodore went bankrupt) and many others had too. But the die hard fans left were not ready for that switch propably. Look how the die hards even today react, from a person outside it looks pretty strange. So from logical and economic point of view, and looking back yes the switch to X86 should have happened but PPC propably was easier to sell to what was left of the amiga community at that time. And there was a lot of propaganda and illusions at that time, RISC was hip and the CISC chips from INTEL and other companies were on demise if you believed what was told everywhere. History of course tells something different...
-
@Dandy
Yes RISC in general and PPC in special was very much hyped at that time. I rebought all the old magazines of the most popular amiga magazine at that time and there was only future is PPC, future is PPC, RISC is future, CISC is past and so on, not even any discussion about what is the better route.
-
RISC is future, CISC is past and so on, not even any discussion about what is the better route.
RISC was the future. ARM has done really well and modern x86 chips effectively translate code into RISC.
PPC was just the wrong horse. Motorola could have spent money on doing a die shrink of the 68060 to push the clock speed faster, however Apple pushed Motorola into the PowerPC partnership with IBM. Motorola got the PowerPC cheap & I'm sure it seemed like a good move at the time.
Amiga was always about making the most of as little money being spent as possible.
-
Although the PPC is called "RISC", it's really far from that. Yes, there are slightly fewer standard instructions than the typical CISC based CPUs, but with PPC you have every register/shift/rotate/address combination possible with every instruction. Far more unique "instructions" are possible using the variations of every instruction. But you need a lot of instructions to actually do something. :) PPC is great if you are a bit fiddler because you can re-orient bits quite easily. I guess if you are a C programmer, it probably doesn't matter to you. I only programmed in PPC assembly.
Motorola was approached by IBM to make the PPC. Apple had nothing to do with it. Apple was waiting and watching what Motorola was doing with their programmable CPU core - that was a project that I worked on after making EMPLANT. Motorola had a CPU where you could program all of the microcode, loaded from ROM (ala Xilinx/FPGA), and so we worked on 68K and x86 cores. When the performance could not match what the IBM's PPC could offer, it was scrapped. The core was only clocked at 25MHz, and I believe there was a 4x PLL internally. It ran the 68K core at around 20MHz 030 speeds (no MMU or FPU). Nothing blistering, but it was a start. I look at what Gunnar has done with the Vampire core today and realize that we were ahead of our time for sure, and we just needed faster hardware. :)
-
Motorola was approached by IBM to make the PPC. Apple had nothing to do with it.
That isn't how everyone else remembers it.
Apple had been trying to use the 88100, IBM came in and sold them the idea of the POWER chip they had developed so Apple dropped the 88k which triggered Ford to drop it too. However Apple wanted IBM to have a second source & Motorola now had spare manufacturing capacity as their own 68k & 88k chip sales were heading towards zero.
http://lowendmac.com/2014/ibm-apple-risc-and-the-roots-of-the-powerpc/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC#Apple_and_Motorola_involvement
Motorola seem to not have been involved with PowerPC development itself, so it wouldn't surprise me if they had their own projects going on at the same time.
The Motorola project you wrote about sounds like Transmeta, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmeta_Crusoe, which means you weren't that far ahead of time.
-
I am not sure what the link showed, but I know the pre-order thing was a joke. We had around 30 pre-orders and that was it. Not worth the time, but iFUSION was completed and it worked (on the Cyberstorm) and I sold it all off.
I did have a BlizzPPC 603e/060 with Bvision and later Grex/Voodoo. I never understood why it would have been that much harder to make it also compatible with the A1200. I was not on any pre-order, but I would have purchased it... I purchased the 68K version...
-
I wasn't involved with transmeta, that was years after the work I did with Motorola's programmable microcode core.
Like I said, Apple had nothing to do with Motorola's involvement with PPC, that was all IBM's doing. Joe and I met with IBM and were asked to consider making our x86 emulation core available for PPC native platforms as a substitute for Intel based systems.
I met Scully (and a room full of engineers) in Cupertino around the same time to discuss ROM licensing for the A4000/EMPLANT bundle. That was an interesting trip. :)
-
Dude I don't know if you're kidding or not, I think you need to step back from the idea of a usable XP environment on a 233mhz CPU and 64mb RAM. The lowest spec machine I would even attempt to run XP (without adding the service packs, mind you) on would be in the 500mhz range with 256mb RAM. And even then, only to say "Okay, it boots up". Once you start adding service packs to fix the various problems it has (like, security issues), that overhead goes way, way up. You might run XP on those specs, but you won't run any programs in XP.
A few years ago my mate installed 'XP Black Edition' on a 32MB 200MHz Dell laptop. It booted up and ran but it obviously had a bit of a tendancy to eat into its virtual memory allowance.
-
Like I said, Apple had nothing to do with Motorola's involvement with PPC, that was all IBM's doing.
I'm not sure why the new york times would lie.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/14/business/business-technology-computing-s-bold-alliance-falters.html
"At least that was the strategy three summers ago when I.B.M. and Apple Computer stunned their industry by announcing a joint plan to attack the domination of the personal computer industry by machines based on Intel chips and Microsoft software. Apple and I.B.M. called their planned weapon the Power PC, and to make sure they had sufficient firepower, they recruited the big chip maker Motorola Inc. to their team."
According to every time line I can fine: Apple had been doing their own experiments with RISC in the 1980's, they tried Motorola 88K but rejected it after IBM approached Apple. Apple always demand a second source, so it became obvious to offer Motorola a chance to get in on the action. Plus they needed to make sure they weren't screwed over by Motorola in the time until the PowerPC was being shipped.
All those negotiations appear to have happened years before emplant.
-
I'm not sure why the new york times would lie.
Wow, are you that naive? I see lies in the press every day. And why would Jim lie about it? It isn't like he has anything to gain by that, unlike the NYT and its investors at the time. Just because it was in the news doesn't mean it was accurate or even true. If you want to keep questioning his integrity and voracity you should probably take it up with him offline.
-
Transformer 1.2, after seeing the way this runs you will never want to see MSdos run again LOL!!
-
I'm not sure why the new york times would lie.
.
LMFAO nah mainstream media Never lies. They always tell the truth! hahahah what a joke
-
LMFAO nah mainstream media Never lies. They always tell the truth! hahahah what a joke
Sure the media is run by people, so you have to accept that all people are capable of lying. Even the people who say that the media are reporting fake news.
However it's not just the ny times reporting that version of events and there is no advantage to be gained from lying.
-
I wasn't involved with transmeta, that was years after the work I did with Motorola's programmable microcode core.
Like I said, Apple had nothing to do with Motorola's involvement with PPC, that was all IBM's doing. Joe and I met with IBM and were asked to consider making our x86 emulation core available for PPC native platforms as a substitute for Intel based systems.
I met Scully (and a room full of engineers) in Cupertino around the same time to discuss ROM licensing for the A4000/EMPLANT bundle. That was an interesting trip. :)
Jim could you expand on your interaction with Apple? I thought Emplant was an amazing product at the time and wonder what Apple thought of it? I had a 4k maxed out with a 24bit card during the later half of my university days and it ran circles around other Macs at the time. Faculty and fellow students were amazed that it was a multitasking emulator.
Also, do you know anything about the 64bit CPU chip that Apple was working on before PPC? Both Andy Hertzfeld and Carl Sassenrath's have spoke about it over the years. They each talked about Jobs setting up an advanced research group for the future of Apple.
Andy felt that Jobs was looking for more vertical integration and Apple making their own CPU would give them leverage. An advanced 64bit CPU to leap frog Motorola would have helped secure the Macintosh's future. However, Scully purged all things Jobs after the the failed coup.
Great memories of Emplant though!
-P
-
I have an Emplant. Thanks to this thread I have moved "get Emplant working with MacOS and DOS" closer to the top of my TO-DO list.
-
Also, do you know anything about the 64bit CPU chip that Apple was working on before PPC? Both Andy Hertzfeld and Carl Sassenrath's have spoke about it over the years. They each talked about Jobs setting up an advanced research group for the future of Apple.
Aquarius was their own RISC CPU project, which looks like an expensive wet dream. Then Jaguar (the Motorola 88K project) came and went.
http://lowendmac.com/2014/ibm-apple-risc-and-the-roots-of-the-powerpc/
http://lowendmac.com/2006/growing-apple-with-the-macintosh-the-sculley-years/
http://applemuseum.bott.org/sections/ppc.html
-
Uh, please, the New York Times continually gets their Mideast coverage wrong and sometimes issues corrections. Just check out the fact-checking web site http://www.camera.org to see just how many times that The New York Times gets it wrong.
-
The Coffee House section is for politics discussion not threads about emulators.
-
I have an Emplant. Thanks to this thread I have moved "get Emplant working with MacOS and DOS" closer to the top of my TO-DO list.
As far as the emplant, The PAL chipe were upgraded with the emplant software updates. a couple were changed out with the upgrade from the emplant to emplant pro software then then a couple more were changed with the upgrade to e586.......
You might want to check your board.
@Jim Drew, how do you tell which version of pal chips in the emplant board
-
A little late in response (I find this post by accident)...
The EMPLANT didn't use PALs or GALs, instead I used PEELs. Way better from a development standpoint as they are reusable and super fast.