Gold 2.7 release for the Vampire accelerators

[psxphill]

BTW, this clearly demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about. VHDL is not a "language like any other programming language". It is a _hardware description_ language, not a _programming language_.

I don't get how you can argue that a Language used for Programming is not a programming language.

Field Programmable Logic Array. VHSIC Hardware Description Language

VHDL borrows heavily from the Ada programming language in both concepts and syntax.

It's like saying that you could write a true equivalence of Shakespeares body of work in Inuit because it is just another language like English is.

No, that would be a straw man. A common occurrence in your attempts to derail any discussion.

This particular one seems to be aimed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness

One to start with is that there is no concept of parallelism in any of the programming languages I'm familiar with

That is your ignorance showing. Not all programming languages are procedural.

With OpenCL you can:
 Leverage CPUs and GPUs to accelerate parallel computation
 Get dramatic speedups for computationally intensive applications

https://developer.amd.com/wordpress/media/2012/10/OpenCL_Parallel_Computing_for_CPUs_and_GPUs_201003.pdf

Over time it's likely we'll see more software switch to GPGPU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General-purpose_computing_on_graphics_processing_units
To the point that WinUAE will have some of the same advantages as an FPGA emulation of a 68k amiga (eg generate the video on the graphics card to remove a layer of latency in the OS).

That is also why you need a high MHz CPU interpreting foreign CPU code of a 6502 or 68k while you only need an FPGA running at 80 MHz to exceed 68060 speed as demonstrated by the Apollo Core.

Sure. I understand that, but it doesn't solve any issue of whether that is emulation or not. We know that dedicating logic gates to a particular task has a greater efficiency than time sharing them. It's an implementation detail.

[psxphill]

The latter is microcoded, the former is not.

Whether it's microcoded or not is an implementation detail. Whether a 68060 was emulating a 68000 is up to Motorola to decide, like Ship of Theseus.

A 65816 can emulate a 6502. A NEC V30 can emulate an 8080.

The chip is "real enough" for many users. Probably not for my use case, but that's a different story and not related how you call it what it does.

As Winuae is real enough for many users, both have pros and cons in their implementation. Saying it's not emulation is an attempt to create a religious following that overlooks the downsides, because "it's always better because it's not emulation".

[psxphill]

This whole "FPGA is emulation" discussion is really weird, if FPGA based solutions are not your interest then simply do not buy it.

You missed the point. Saying that the FPGA is being used to emulate various parts of an Amiga system, is not a criticism of the product. Only a criticism of the way in which people speak about it.

By their own admission the v2 is too limited for the full Apollo core, so unless Gunnar has an epiphany that allows him to shrink it then I'm at least waiting for a v4. Also the lack of source means that I'll wait until the features I want are done, in case he gets knocked over by a bus.

For me, it's not. WinUAE delivers inconsistent performance, and I require a windows system. Certainly, it's an achievement as far as software is concerned. But pay Microsoft for Amiga Software? I don't think so.

I used WinUAE as an example because it's most convenient for most people. I don't see requiring windows as a huge problem, if you do then there are other options. I'd still like to see a native 68k JIT for x64 hardware that allows you to run 68k AmigaOS as close to the metal as possible & with as little hardware emulation as possible. Then stage two would be to throw PowerPC into the mix. I've got too many porting projects keeping me busy at the moment to do it myself.

[psxphill]

WINE isnt an emulator, its an API interpreter. Is a bit more complex than just emulating expected hardware, this returns software calls the program running expects to see on a windows machine and allows it to mostly run. Some better than others.

From wikipedia

"Wine emulates the Windows runtime environment by translating Windows system calls into POSIX-compliant system calls"

"The name Wine initially was an abbreviation for Windows Emulator.[16] Wine later shifted to the recursive backronym Wine Is Not an Emulator in order to differentiate the software from CPU emulators"

A better acronym that doesn't contradict what it is but still avoid misunderstandings would be "Wine is Natively Executed".

They made the mistake of thinking emulation was all about the CPU, but the BBC emulator for the c64 http://csdb.dk/release/?id=39817 doesn't emulate the CPU. Neither does the VIC emulator for the c64 from 1985 https://archive.org/details/1985-09-computegazette.

I don't see any practical difference with Wine.

[psxphill]

WINE is an open source implementation of the publicly available Win32 APIs.

Vice is an open source implementation of the C64.

[psxphill]

I mentioned about this to a friend of mine who is a programmer and he said that this kind of thing is quite common when it comes to floating point calculations and is unsurprised by it.

Right. It's unsurprising that if you calculate the values differently to how the 6888x and 040/060 fpu calculate it, that you would get the wrong values.

He comes across this often when programming.

On new software you can add workrounds in the source to make it work right when you recompile it using a different FPU (like using SSE instead of x87). When taking the same executable on different x86 cpus made by Intel or AMD then you'd expect the same result, or it's a bug that needs fixing (famously Intel did have a bug which they fixed and sent out replacement CPU's).

With old 680x0 software that you don't have the source for, it's not so easy to add workrounds and this particular situation really doesn't come up often when your friend is programming.

[psxphill]

Amiga OS4 is an emulation of Workbench 3.1 eh?

No, AmigaOS 4 is official. Therefore it's fine for marketing to say it's backward compatible with Amiga OS 3.1 as there is some lineage. The marketing department could decide to call it emulation, if they wanted to though.

AROS emulates the Amiga API. It's perfectly possible to emulate API's without doing anything that a machine emulator like dosbox/vice/uae does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNlMIa-YOnM
https://archive.codeplex.com/?p=bemu

People who repeatedly use the narrow definition of Emulate make themselves look stupid. It doesn't mean a piece of software fetching opcodes and interpreting them, that is only one type of emulation.

There are so many uses of the word emulator that doesn't match the narrow definition, that I'm surprised you haven't heard of them. Terminal emulator, Hercules graphics card emulation, CGA graphics card emulation, sound blaster emulation. History is full of examples.

[psxphill]

As you know the Apollo Team isn't selling Vampire boards, it is developing a core that is used on Vampire boards.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Gunnar is standing on a street corner selling Vampire boards, any more than Bill Gates sold Microsoft Products.

Interview with Gunnar from the Vampire Team.

http://theretrohour.com/sinclair-spectrum-in-2016-and-amiga-vampire-updates-the-retro-hour-ep34/

While he points out that he only does the core, at 16:30 he says "We started to sell vampires last Christmas" and he uses "Our" and "We as a team" when referring to the standalone boards.

So if there is a legal separation between Apollo and Vampire then it's very unclear and confuses Gunnar himself. Which makes me think that you are wrong.

[psxphill]

Stop inventing controversy, Gunnar didn't even know what ApolloOS was when it first came to be.

Is ignorance a valid excuse?
In any event, he doesn't appear to care.

Gunnar von Boehn
(Apollo Team Member)
Posts 3242
18 Aug 2017 09:56

Was Robin Hood a thief or a hero?
 
I think it does depend on the situation.
 
In 1987 when a game coder tried to make a living from programming AMIGA games, he often got like $2 per sold copy. For this guy it made a big difference whether 20,000 copies are sold or only 10,000 copies because of pirating.
 
But how is the situation with OS 3.9 files today?
Is 3.9 sold somewhere? And how much do the coders get from this?
How much is re-invested to create new programs e.g. OS 3.91?
 
Is AMIGA OS for 68K continuously and regularly developed, updated, and improved? Or are we on 68k in a state like C64?
And is sharing the files to only way to continue?

[psxphill]

I wonder what Doomy would think about an A2000 with a vampire in it?

A mil spec vampire would be awesome.

[psxphill]

I think they are already at 3.92.

@ psxphill

It's windows 98 continuously and regularly developed, updated, and improved?

OS3.x it's the same.

There's a modern AmigaOS, but people don't like.

Most of my post was a copy of Gunnars post on the apollo forums, to prove that he didn't care that he was violating other peoples copyright. The hypocrisy is that he keeps his copyright closely guarded by refusing to open source it. One rule for him, another for others.