Masjsta's A500 Vampire

[wawrzon]

Maybe then enough people will refuse to buy it until it's the way it should be done. If not then I'll buy something else.

is this your agenda? to make the people not buy something because you want to buy something else? why dont you do this right away, and tell us if there is a better alternative?

That is how people put pressure on companies to provide them the services they want. Or are you saying I'm not allowed to do that?

it is not a company. it is an initiative composed of volontary members so far. at least thats what i know. do you think you are free to "put pressure" on everyone just in order to deliver you with "services" you expect?

If that is official then I don't see why they haven't made a big fuss over the turn around..

maybe you simply overhear any actual information, while making "big fuss" yourself? you might simply tone down a bit.

I would still like the ability to only emulate 68060 instructions in the fpga though.

why? if actually all instructions are available? i could understand if you asked for an option that fpga core identifies as 060 instead of 040. but why remove instructions in order to be compatible with a cpu that needs libraries to emulate these instructions for compatibility?

however if you insist, why simply not keep the 060. and swap it every time you need physically with another sort of cpu. because next time you will complain that fpga is too fast anyway.

one way or the other i doubt you will stop anyone from buying vampire, its just wasted effort..

[psxphill]

is this your agenda? to make the people not buy something because you want to buy something else? why dont you do this right away, and tell us if there is a better alternative?

It's not about whether there is something better, it's about whether there could be something better if someone realised there were disaffected potential owners of vampire. I don't care which way the dice fall.

it is not a company. it is an initiative composed of volontary members so far. at least thats what i know. do you think you are free to "put pressure" on everyone just in order to deliver you with "services" you expect?

Gunnar has been touting his core as licensable for embedded applications, whether that meets your definition of a company or not is irrelevant. They most certainly want our business.

maybe you simply overhear any actual information, while making "big fuss" yourself?

It's not really overhearing when it's based on information they post online.

why? if actually all instructions are available? i could understand if you asked for an option that fpga core identifies as 060 instead of 040. but why remove instructions in order to be compatible with a cpu that needs libraries to emulate these instructions for compatibility?

You're assuming I want the traps to call code that just runs the equivalent of the original instruction.

however if you insist, why simply not keep the 060. and swap it every time you need physically with another sort of cpu. because next time you will complain that fpga is too fast anyway.

one way or the other i doubt you will stop anyone from buying vampire, its just wasted effort..

060 is too slow, although it would be nice if you could limit the speed of the vampire as well as configure it for different 680x0 compatibility, like exception frames etc. It's just a pity that Gunnar thinks (or thought) that just creating software patches will get him round any hardware incompatibility.

It's my effort, you don't need to worry whether it's wasted.

[guest11527]

It's just a pity that Gunnar thinks (or thought) that just creating software patches will get him round any hardware incompatibility.

Well, in a sense this is in good tradition. CBM also had to come up with software patches to make the Os compatible to the 68040, and third party vendors had to add even more software patches to make it compatible with the 68060. That is nothing I would worry about "too much". It had to happen in the past.

I'm more worried about "removing potential" by Gunnar making design choices of what he believes "is useful" and "what is not useful".

Granted, for the majority of Amiga users, the MMU is "not useful" and the FPU is "not useful", but maybe there are a couple of folks out there that believe that these units can be made good use of here and there.

The current design is not the end of the story, of course, and I don't want to demand too much too early, but the general attitude seems to be that there is "no need for this nonsense", and that type of attitude is probably a bit dangerous.

There are other problems I foresee, as redefining the meaning of some of the Motorola opcodes. The current core puts the 68020 opcodes CALLM/RTM to some completely different use. Again, both instructions are worth nothing on the Amiga, have never been used, and cannot be used productively, but for a "clean room" implementation, I would prefer if the team would stick to the list of opcodes Mot defined in the 68K family guide, and simply trap for instructions that are unsupported, even if unsupported for a reason. The 68030 and up did not support these two (again, for good reason), but that does not mean that this particular opcode "is free for everyone's use". Leave it reserved, do not touch it - it only confuses development software such as debuggers or disassemblers that - with this change - can no longer decide what an opcode means without knowing the host CPU.

Thus, it is really the process how this FPGA core is being developped, not so much the core itself. Gunnar is certainly a very knowledgable guy when it comes to CPU designs, I do not doubt this in any way, but it would certainly help if the team would look a little bit more to the left and right and would understand that some other people (not only me) also have a story to tell for a reason.

[wawrzon]

I'm more worried about "removing potential" by Gunnar making design choices of what he believes "is useful" and "what is not useful".

gunnar and his team have proven capacity to reconsider choices, even if not essential, as soon as they appeared to be within reach. may i mention bitfields again?

Granted, for the majority of Amiga users, the MMU is "not useful" and the FPU is "not useful", but maybe there are a couple of folks out there that believe that these units can be made good use of here and there.

i belong to the minority here. however you have seen gunnars roadmap on a1k i believe, where mmu is even mentioned along milesones, even if not as a priority. mpu being an interim solution.

id like to remind tg68k even if it has some 020 instructions hasnt have a mmu as well and none was much annoyed. some other hardware developer is looking at the tematic of fpga cores in poland and neither him considers mmu necessary. thomas, apollo core may not meet yours or mine expectations in some areas, but it doesnt mean its useless..

The current design is not the end of the story, of course, and I don't want to demand too much too early, but the general attitude seems to be that there is "no need for this nonsense", and that type of attitude is probably a bit dangerous.

no. its how you perceive this. people change their opinion. "no need for this nonsense" is a sensible strategy at a given point simply to silence uncountged requests you would have to consider otherwise. i cant even grasp how much endurence has already flown into this project, i cant see anything comparable in the neighbourhood. ths attitude proves to be succesful in their results.

There are other problems I foresee, as redefining the meaning of some of the Motorola opcodes. The current core puts the 68020 opcodes CALLM/RTM to some completely different use. Again, both instructions are worth nothing on the Amiga, have never been used, and cannot be used productively, but for a "clean room" implementation, I would prefer if the team would stick to the list of opcodes Mot defined in the 68K family guide, and simply trap for instructions that are unsupported, even if unsupported for a reason. The 68030 and up did not support these two (again, for good reason), but that does not mean that this particular opcode "is free for everyone's use". Leave it reserved, do not touch it - it only confuses development software such as debuggers or disassemblers that - with this change - can no longer decide what an opcode means without knowing the host CPU.

i understand the aesthetical aspect, that should probably be discussed but i applaud leaving such issues for later in order to spare ressources. if they are going to license the core outside amiga they might be forced to face the issues either way.

[NorthWay]

If Apollo wants to do more than Amiga they have to get more conformant. I expect a proper MMU to materialize.
Eventually. Not holding my breath.

[psxphill]

id like to remind tg68k even if it has some 020 instructions hasnt have a mmu as well and none was much annoyed.

Open source cores without a dictator running the show are obviously treated differently. The annoyance isn't that vampire doesn't support an mmu yet, it's the response that we don't need an mmu as gunnar knows best & why are we still going on about it.

The mmu being on the roadmap is good news, however roadmaps are not guarantees and roadmaps are often used just to get people on the hook and then "unavoidable" reasons means it's taken off again. What isn't good news is the comment about possibly charging people for fpu/mmu upgrades.

[ferrellsl]

Open source cores without a dictator running the show are obviously treated differently. The annoyance isn't that vampire doesn't support an mmu yet, it's the response that we don't need an mmu as gunnar knows best & why are we still going on about it.

The mmu being on the roadmap is good news, however roadmaps are not guarantees and roadmaps are often used just to get people on the hook and then "unavoidable" reasons means it's taken off again. What isn't good news is the comment about possibly charging people for fpu/mmu upgrades.

Please get over yourself and quit trolling this thread.  If you don't like the Vampire, then don't buy it.  You act like someone is forcing you to get one!

[psxphill]

Please get over yourself and quit trolling this thread.  If you don't like the Vampire, then don't buy it.  You act like someone is forcing you to get one!

Please get over yourself, I have as much right to say what they don't like about a product as you have to say what you like about it. You're not the boss of me.

I want to buy a good product, but if vampire is not good but a lot of people buy one then I won't get to buy a good product as it won't be worth anyone making one. Just because you lack empathy doesn't mean I will disappear.

[UberFreak]

I want to buy a good product, but if vampire is not good but a lot of people buy one then I won't get to buy a good product as it won't be worth anyone making one. Just because you lack empathy doesn't mean I will disappear.

Projects like these should be encouraged in every possible way, even if its not exactly to your liking.
After all, what you're buying is a board with an FPGA on it, the core can be updated with future updates & improvements, which will come.

I hope Vampire sells by the thousands and I'll definitely get more than one once A1200 & A4000 variants come out.

[Faerytale]

Projects like these should be encouraged in every possible way, even if its not exactly to your liking.
After all, what you're buying is a board with an FPGA on it, the core can be updated with future updates & improvements, which will come.

I hope Vampire sells by the thousands and I'll definitely get more than one once A1200 & A4000 variants come out.

Amen!

Vampire2 is the best thing happend to my Amiga. Apollo Team needs more love and respect
than they are getting right now!

[wawrzon]

@psxphill

i think we all have understood your objections now.

[ferrellsl]

Please get over yourself, I have as much right to say what they don't like about a product as you have to say what you like about it. You're not the boss of me.

I want to buy a good product, but if vampire is not good but a lot of people buy one then I won't get to buy a good product as it won't be worth anyone making one. Just because you lack empathy doesn't mean I will disappear.

Yes, but you don't have a right to go around spreading false info and bullying people who disagree with you.

I never implied that I was your boss and I doubt you've ever held a job let alone had a boss based on your childish behavior here.

[guest11527]

gunnar and his team have proven capacity to reconsider choices, even if not essential, as soon as they appeared to be within reach. may i mention bitfields again?

You may. Though bitfields were more left out due to a size constraint of the earlier FPGA. It's really a less-used feature and it would have worked equally well to have them emulated in software. May I mention again that I wrote a software emulation for that part? (-:

i understand the aesthetical aspect, that should probably be discussed but i applaud leaving such issues for later in order to spare ressources. if they are going to license the core outside amiga they might be forced to face the issues either way.

It's not the timing aspect I'm worried about. Whether this happens in two months or four years I do not mind so much, and I surely do not press anyone to have this as early as possible.

I'm a bit more worried about the implications on the design, and that - once such an extension is attempted - a lot of the current pipeline architecture probably has to go into the trash, and has to be re-done from scratch. Which approximately explains the enthusiasm by which this unit is approached. It is not like an FPU which can be implemented relatively orthogonal to the rest of the CPU.

Thus, my speculation rather is "If you do not plan for it right in the beginning, it will never appear". The motivation curve is not right. It seems so minor, but it requires many resources. Instead, I hear a lot of voices from the team why "I do not need this" - this gives me a very mood feeling that nothing in this direction will ever materialize because nobody is motivated enough to attempt a radical design change for something that looks "almost complete" and "good enough".

[wawrzon]

You may. Though bitfields were more left out due to a size constraint of the earlier FPGA. It's really a less-used feature and it would have worked equally well to have them emulated in software. May I mention again that I wrote a software emulation for that part? (-:

right, however there have been constant uproar and bitching especially on eab because of missling bitfields, movep and whatever else. and some time after it eventually flattened out gunnar simply quietly delivered on it.

It's not the timing aspect I'm worried about. Whether this happens in two months or four years I do not mind so much, and I surely do not press anyone to have this as early as possible.

I'm a bit more worried about the implications on the design, and that - once such an extension is attempted - a lot of the current pipeline architecture probably has to go into the trash, and has to be re-done from scratch. Which approximately explains the enthusiasm by which this unit is approached. It is not like an FPU which can be implemented relatively orthogonal to the rest of the CPU.

Thus, my speculation rather is "If you do not plan for it right in the beginning, it will never appear". The motivation curve is not right. It seems so minor, but it requires many resources. Instead, I hear a lot of voices from the team why "I do not need this" - this gives me a very mood feeling that nothing in this direction will ever materialize because nobody is motivated enough to attempt a radical design change for something that looks "almost complete" and "good enough".

yes. i understand. but the design choices has been made and the problem exists already. it cannot be avoided anymore, it would have to be taken care properly with the same amount of effort independently whether it happens now or later. hammering on this and trying to force shifting their priorities immediately may only waste the project at this point. as you say, gunnar is professional. he may not share your opinion, but he certainly is aware if there is a problem.

[OlafS3]

Please get over yourself, I have as much right to say what they don't like about a product as you have to say what you like about it. You're not the boss of me.

I want to buy a good product, but if vampire is not good but a lot of people buy one then I won't get to buy a good product as it won't be worth anyone making one. Just because you lack empathy doesn't mean I will disappear.

You do not solely define "good product". All Vampire owners I have ever read of are very happy with it and recommend it to others. You can say you would use it for this or that and because of that you need a certain missing feature but that does not make it bad. You are not master of universe I assume

[psxphill]

Yes, but you don't have a right to go around spreading false info and bullying people who disagree with you.

I never implied that I was your boss and I doubt you've ever held a job let alone had a boss based on your childish behavior here.

You're judgemental and insulting & you're trying to bully me for not sharing your opinion. Mobbing and then blaming the victim, all non-childish behaviour. If you're allowed to disagree with me and it's ok, but I'm not allowed to disagree with you and it's not then you have serious issues.

I am not spreading false info, I may be saying things that are out of date & I've tried to put everything I've said in that context. However if the out of date info was widely spread and the new info is not, then it is not my fault.

It certainly isn't something that should make you angry, rather than just pointing me to accurate information.

You do not solely define "good product". All Vampire owners I have ever read of are very happy with it and recommend it to others. You can say you would use it for this or that and because of that you need a certain missing feature but that does not make it bad. You are not master of universe I assume

No of course I am not the master of the universe, but I appear to be in the minority who are not be blinkered to the problems it will cause further down the line. Which is why I am trying to make sure that people are aware before getting suckered into recommending it to everyone so that it closes the market. If they then decide to do that it is up to them. The same for people who voted for brexit in the UK and people who voted for Donald Trump in the US. It's often that the majority will screw things over for the minority, when actually the cost to the majority either way is quite small.

I actually find your attitude quite childish as it only considers your own view point and you appear insulted that I have an opposing view point.