Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: Effy on December 24, 2005, 01:41:50 PM
-
There is a problem that I can not solve or don´t have enough experience to fix it :
When I run SysInfo v3.24, there is no Speed showing for the CPU nor is there info alongside the FPU. The Amiga crashes just as it is about to list the final scores.However, if I use a CSMKII 060/50 or any of the three different C= 030/6882 cards I have, SysInfo always shows the CPU/FPU info before you run the speed test. This card doesn't!!! When Sysinfo is launched, it should automatically tell you what CPU/FPU is in the Amiga. As I have said, despite doing a fresh Install of the OS, the 040 Card will NOT show the CPU/FPU details. However, if i use ANY of my other cards, the CPU/FPU info always shows. I have tried several versions of the 040 Library & they all do the same thing. SysInfo Crashes just before it lists its final scores. It gets as far as showing comparative speeds against other Amiga Models but crashes with Guru Meditation just as its about to show the Mips/Flops results.
The question is whether the card is faulty or not. Any intelligent answer might be welcome. Other non intelligent answers which are useful are of course also welcome :lol:
-
SysInfo is really old and has all sort of bugs in it, some which will crash it randomly on 040 and 060 systems. Crashes are normal with this program. You're better off by not using SysInfo at all.
Try SysSpeed (http://www.aminet.net/package.php?package=util/moni/sspeed26.lha).
PS. MIPS is useless info really, and you can't compare MIPS numbers of different programs. Real life benchmarks give you better idea of the performance.
-
Is there any reason why it would crash on an V3.0 and not on an V3.1 A3640 ??? :-?
-
Probably there is.
Just use SysSpeed ok?
-
Effy, the C= 040 card that crashes in Sysinfo is a v3.1
-
No, the one that causes the crash is a V3.0, the one that is not supposed to work in an A3000. SysInfo does run with the card but when you want to do a speed test then it crashes with a Guru :-o
-
Okay, after a lot of confusement it seems to be that the crashing A3640 is a V3.1 and not a V3.0 as I first thought :lol: Guess I have too much red wine in my blook :pint: But still I would like to know why it crashes when you want to know how fast it is :-?
-
@Effy
Get over it already. SysInfo is buggy as hell. Use some other program.
-
@Effy
Is it a "LC" or "EC" 68040 CPU? Maybe Sysinfo has
problems with some versions, because I've got a full
68040 on my A3640 rev.3.1 and Sysinfo isn't crashing
when running the speed-test.
:-)
-
The truth is that this V3.1 is a card that I sold to Kin-Hell. I just asked him to run Showconfig and/or SysSpeed V2.6 (http://main.aminet.net/util/moni/sspeed26.lha) ...
-
@ Piru
With all respect m8, there is nothing to get over here!
SysInfo v3.24 was available back in the early 90's & that programme worked flawlesly on my A4000D back then. Further, it was a C= A3640 3.1 card which I overclocked to 33Mhz using a 66Mhz Timing Crystal. She ran at 23.5Mips, which was 4.5Mips over-stock.
Sysinfo 3.24 never witheld the CPU's info on programme launch or crashed for it's speed test on that 040 Card!?
In the meantime, I've Emailed JJ B @ Amiga France, though I don't expect to hear from him until the New Year now.
As of New Years Eve, I won't be around till jan 14th anyway.
Thanks for all the feedback so far fellas, will yap some more in the New Year perhaps.
Happy New Year folks! :pint:
-
EDITED - sorry
-
Sorry to go abit off-topic here, but can someone explain LC" or "EC to me? My mate tryed to explain to me but it kind of went in one ear and out the other :lol:
-
Have you tryed the patch in Piru' Exec44 archive for SysInfo?
SysInfo 3.23
------------
SysInfo MFlops test access memory memory below 0x4000. This will barf with
exec44 + CyberGuard since this memory is marked invalid. Patch provided
fixes this.
Version information:
SysInfo 3.23 (1993-07-18)
(18-Jul-93)
-
nasty wrote:
Sorry to go abit off-topic here, but can someone explain LC" or "EC to me? My mate tryed to explain to me but it kind of went in one ear and out the other :lol:
Certainly.
The "LC" means LowCost (literally). It was a 68040 chip produced by Motorola to fit a cost niche that Apple wanted for their MacIntosh computers and that Commodore scooped up to be able to sell 4000's for $65 less. The 68LC040 includes an FPU but lacks a MMU. (Memory Management Unit) It actualy DOES include an FPU. (I listed a whack of 68LC040's on eBay earlier and included incorrect information: out of curiosity yesterday I went and read the specs from Motorola explaining the differences...) I used to know this 10 years ago and forgot...
The "EC" means EmbeddedController, and it lacks both the MMU and the FPU and includes some embedded instruction sets. It uses less power, it runs cooler, and it was cheaper to produce and to buy. (It was a really good choice for the average 3000 desktop user who didn't plan on running Sculpt4D or Lightwave etc.)
The difference between a XC68040RC and an XC68EC040RC is the EC is missing the FPU portion of the chip as well as the MMU. This is very similar to comparing a 68030 Amiga that lacks a 68882 to an Amiga that has a 68030 and a 68882 installed. (The 68882 is the FPU.)
Will your Amiga run slower with an LC chip? Absolutely not. Will it run slower if you use specific applications requiring, or benefitting from an FPU? NO. The only time you will notice ANY problems is if you intend to run Unix on your Amiga (an A3000UX for example because Unix requires a MMU). Other than that, there is no "bad thing" about having an LC chip in an Amiga.
If you want to do renderings, play Quake, or do other applications that are very math intensive, then you want to upgrade your 68EC040 to a 68040 chip. If you only use your Amiga to play games, to edit music, to paint pictures, to type letters, to do 99% of everything available out there for a stock Amiga then you don't need to worry about having an EC chip.
People that say the LC chip is not a "real" 68040 (when talking about them in relation to an Amiga) are just misinformed or confused is all. :-)
68040 - includes both CPU FPU and MMU
68LC040 - includes both CPU and FPU
68EC040 - includes only the CPU and some custom embedded controller routines
(This all can be misleading, because there were a few batch runs of Motorola 68LC040 that were full 68040 chips (they were stamped wrong), and there were a few batch runs of LC that were EC chips and there is no way to know without testing each chip yourself.) Sucks, but that's the way it is . :-)
-
Thank you for taking the time to explain in detail, it now makes sence. I take it you cant get an LC or EC 060?
-
nasty wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to explain in detail, it now makes sence. I take it you cant get an LC or EC 060?
EC puppies here:
66Mhz 060 CPU's for Sale (http://amigakit.leamancomputing.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=45&products_id=165&osCsid=4c56e3bddb00637b04433bb1d0e9cdae)
Full puppies here:
50Mhz 060 CPU's for sale (http://amigakit.leamancomputing.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=45&products_id=164&osCsid=4c56e3bddb00637b04433bb1d0e9cdae)
However, if you're into Ray Tracing or suchlike, basically anything that uses an FPU, then stick to at least an LC chip. A 50Mhz LC CPU will blow a 66Mhz EC CPU out of the water on Flops (FPU) Calculations.
MMU's are also required to Soft-kick ROM Images into Ram as well as run Unix. :-D
-
@CatHerder
Will your Amiga run slower with an LC chip? Absolutely not. Will it run slower if you use specific applications requiring, or benefitting from an FPU? NO. The only time you will notice ANY problems is if you intend to run Unix on your Amiga (an A3000UX for example because Unix requires a MMU). Other than that, there is no "bad thing" about having an LC chip in an Amiga.
68040/68060 Amiga requires MMU for proper DMA operation (DMA + CopyBack cache). The reasons are described in the Enforcer (http://www.aminet.net/package.php?package=dev/debug/enforcer.lha) documentation (in the Enforcer.guide: 'Enforcer', 'Important 680x0.library developer notes' and 'COPYBACK mode and DMA').
Naturally you can run the system without copyback cache, but the performance will be poor then.
-
Piru, that's what I thought too (and thought I recalled). But I also recall being told by our Motorola rep and our Commodore rep that selling 4000's with LC chips would only be effected (slower) for people who were doing renderings or video editing or other math intensive operations. And then Motorola's website contradicts itself as well for the XC/RC040 chips.
So, I guess people should try to stick with 68040 (non LC non EC) to be sure. :-D
-
@CatHerder
For some reason I trust Michael Sinz more than some motorola/commodore rep :-)
-
nasty wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to explain in detail, it now makes sence. I take it you cant get an LC or EC 060?
No, but you can get 68EC060 cpus that are not the same as 68060 cpus and you generally want to avoid them because they contain a different set of replacement instructions that most Amiga accelerators don't know how to use and they lack a MMU.
Also, if you see a 68040RC66A (or 75A) (the A being important) you should avoid it or try to replace it with a non "A" chip version. I don't recall specifically why, but I think it had something to do with a different set of instructions in the chip that the Amiga can't address.
Of course, like anything I discuss, I could be talking out my arse... but I'm pretty sure I'm fairly accurate on the above info. :lol:
-
Okay, so after a huge expanse of time, I finally get to the bottom of this isuue.....sort of!
After sliding the Heatsink off the CPU & cleaning the gallons of unecessary heat paste of the Cooler, CPU and daughter-card :roll: I exposed the CPUs part number & reeled in horror!
It's an LC 040 CPU.
I've never owned an Amiga without an FPU (till now) & still can't understand SysInfo NOT showing the Clockspeed of the CPU at launch!?!?!?
Also, despite the fact the Card is labelled as a v3.1, the card is infact a v3.2. The U209 PAL chip ends with a -03, thereby making this card a v3.2. This could also be why SysInfo falls over & wont show the Speeds on launch!
I should know a bit more when I get a Full 040 CPU but when that will be, who knows!
Cheers for now.
-
CatHerder wrote:
The 68LC040 includes an FPU but lacks a MMU. (Memory Management Unit) It actualy DOES include an FPU. (
68LC040 - includes both CPU and FPU
Total RUBBISH! LC's have no FPU but DO have an MMU.
Will your Amiga run slower with an LC chip? Absolutely not. Will it run slower if you use specific applications requiring, or benefitting from an FPU? NO.
Again BOLLOCKS. For software requiring an FPU an LC040 will run a software FPU emulator, that is if it works at all. Performance will be terrible!
yesterday I went and read the specs from Motorola explaining the difference
.
Erm Motorola / Freescale website:
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MC68040&nodeId=0162468rH3YTLC61654622
o On-Chip Floating Point Support (Full 040)
o On-Chip Memory Management Unit(Full 040, LC040, and 040V)
http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/ref_manual/MC68LC040APPA.pdf
Sorry for sounding a bit harsh, but you appear to be quoting rubbish in the hope of flogging some inferior LC040 chips to poor unsuspecting Amiga users :madashell:
-
It's a good shout alexh, but whaddya think about SysInfo not showing the CPUs Speed or details when SysInfo launches first screen?
Its got me beat till I can get a Full 040 CPU for this card.
I'd know for sure then. :-?
-
If sysinfo v3.24 is the program that I remember i.e.
(http://www.config.freeuk.com/amiga/progs/sysinfo.gif)
On high end Amiga's it is a pile of poo. It crashes on my A4000D too.
I cannot remember if SCOUT has any CPU information:
http://www.aminet.net/package.php?package=util/moni/Scout.lha
A quick google showed up this program...
http://www.elho.net/dev/amiga/sysinfo/
Did this program ever really exist... I cannot find it on the net any version let alone the last 2.26 version. Being written in 1998 might give it the edge, if I could find it.
-
Edit: forgot it..I was talking outta the wrong orifice..
-
@kin-hell
Something to attempt in a vain effort to be able to run the speed test on the 1994 NickWilson Sysinfo (3.24) Check your 040 libraries, perhaps revert back to commodore ones?
-
At last, the concluding results to this mystery. Today, a
Motorola XC68040HRC25M arrived from this chap in Germany.
manshadow@onlinehome.de
Im sure he'll appreciate the enquiries.
This chip replaced a Motorola XC68LC040RC25B CPU which has an MMU but no FPU.
Oh yeah, & SysInfo....works like a dream, going to show my gut feelings about how these LC chips actually work, or DONT work. Maybe there are some patched libraries for these LC chips so things show & work right? At the same time, I doubt there are, as the LC chips were a late release in the 040 family. I would imagine they were re-marketed failures from soak tested batches.
Sys info now shows the CPU info, its speed, its fpu & mmu & speed tests correctly.
I can't find my 66Mhz crystal, but I have a 60 sat here begging to be socketed.
Thanks to Effy, he sold me the card orignally, not realising it was a v3.2 card. Its cost me another £25 to fund the card which releases an LC 040 CPU for sale.
Anyone wanting this CPU only has to pay the cost of postage & buy me a beer for the trip to the Post Office.
Cheers! :pint:
PS......er, keyring anyone?.........
-
Thanks to Effy, he sold me the card orignally, not realising it was a v3.2 card.
I think he would have sold it to you regardless?
The advantage of a v3.2 card over a v3.1 card are almost nill, slight speed increase and the ability to use a GVP Phonepak!
A3640's V3.0 with the cut 'n' jump are almost good enough for most systems.
-
If I knew it was a V3.2 then I still would have sold it for the same price :lol: Sorry for all the confusion but I really didn´t want to cause that much commotion :-) Happy to hear you have now got a full 040 :lol: But be careful with overclocking faster than a 66 Mhz crystal as I have read the problem may not be the processor but the A3640 itself ...
-
by alexh on 2006/3/13 21:22:32
Quote:
A3640's V3.0 with the cut 'n' jump are almost good enough for most systems.
Unqote:
Not if you want to run SCSI without DMA issues.
I'd also like to add, 3.2 cards are not as common as 3.0 and 3.1's. Id also like to add that after cleaning the card up, Pal Chip U209 (ending -03 denoting the card to be a v3.2 despite the v3.1 on the PCB edge) is a re-worked chip.
I spect that was a "Wang" job back in 1992 when they had the repair & upgrade contract for Commodore. When I aquired my replacement 040 card from Wang, the Wang Engineer told me of DMA issues on SCSI access (not bs IDE-SCSI) when using a 3.0 card in an A3000/A4000, the 3.1 fixed the DMA SCSI issues for the A4000 but the 3.2 was needed to fix DMA issues with the A3000.
I was never aware of the incompatabilities you mentioned, so all these years on, it still goes to show you never stop learning!
Anyways, it kinda makes the v3.2 worth that little more than the 3.1 & if you are serious about your Amiga, you wont have ANYTHING else but SCSI. The IDE interface on the release of the A4000 series was a joke to any Serious Amigan. I remember coming real close to wang-ing my 9" angle grinder on the IDE header the day I fitted my 8Mb Octagon SCSI card. It was still under warranty so I shyed in face of.:mickeymouse:
No problems this end Effy. Thanks for the original card, it looks like Brand New since I cleaned it up & its now capable of running the Destop Toaster.
Hope you're well, have missed seeing your Amiga Photos on eBay of late. We need more Cleavage in the Amiga Section. ;-)
Thanks! :-D
*Edit* yeah Effy, I know about the cards issues beyond 66Mhz. This XC chip sould be real sweet & nice'n'cool at 60.
Gotta get a socket first. :-D
-
Not if you want to run SCSI without DMA issues.
It's not SCSI related at all. It's local bus mastering related. I've got several SCSI cards that work fine on 3.0 cards with the cut n jump.
All 3.2 does over 3.1 is it saves upto 10 microseconds per DMA cycle.
-
alexh wrote:
Not if you want to run SCSI without DMA issues.
It's not SCSI related at all. It's local bus mastering related. I've got several SCSI cards that work fine on 3.0 cards with the cut n jump.
All 3.2 does over 3.1 is it saves upto 10 microseconds per DMA cycle.
With all respect m8, wtf do you think DMA is doing whilst trying to Master the Bus? The SCSI protocol relies on DMA calls being correct whilst acessing its bus in line with all other Amiga calls. Your Syncronous & Asyncronous SCSI calls will affect the performances across the SCSI bus if it can't utilise DMA correctly.
Modern PC boards Still have an Option for Bus MAstering in the Bios. This Call affects & is affected by DMA (Direct Memory Access) Watch your Hard drive speed at DOS levels slow up for Bus Mastering NOT being enabled.
Cut & jump is obviously a "work-around". Do you have a link with reference to the cut & jump procedure?
Thanks. :-)
-
The SCSI protocol relies on DMA calls being correct
:rtfm: The SCSI protocol doesnt require DMA. Some SCSI cards use DMA local bus mastering, some dont. You can even switch bus mastering off on cards that dont work with a certain revision A3640 to make them work!
One of the problems with the 3.0 cards is a DMA local bus mastering problem it is NOT (as previously stated) a SCSI problem.
If your SCSI requires DMA (Like the A3000 internal SCSI) then you are going to require a -02 U209 PAL or higher or switch off DMA. If your card doesnt use DMA, you'll be alright. Simple as that.
As you say a card designed to use DMA will probably be painfully slow without it (depending on CPU power) but hey.
Cut & jump is obviously a "work-around". Do you have a link with reference to the cut & jump procedure?
The Cut n jump fixes a problem with sampling the bus signals (STERM) so your Cybervision will work. The 3.1 -02 PAL fixes the bus mastering issue. The 3.2 -03 PAL fixes the the bus mastering issue in a different way without delays of upto 10 us per DMA access (Fixes GVP PhonePak and increases throughput).
http://wonkity.com/~wblock/a4000hard/a3640ref.html
There is a better page somewhere with pictures, I'll try and find it.
This is another good A3640 site. This repair of the capcitors can sometimes resurrect seemingly dead A3640's
http://joj.home.texas.net/amiga.html
-
alexh;
It's really a matter of choice. Either you use Hardware that supports DMA or you don't.
Having used all sorts of Computer Platforms since the early 80's, if the Bus Device didn't utilise DMA, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
Sure, some Bus devices dont actually require DMA to function, but believe me, DMA makes a difference.
DMA was an Industry standard, setup for all types of buses to use & SCSI controllers with their own onboard RAM usually performed better than those without.
With all respect, the cut & jump is a work around but far from being correct & the performance will suffer accordingly.
I'm sure DCE used DMA protocols on their PPC & Motorola accelerators with SCSI because they wanted Maximum performance possible.
Thanks for the info on A3640 cards, much appreciated, but you would be better off embracing as much DMA as you can.
Get and upgrade when you can.
I'd also like to add, some post'ees in this thread just Blamed SysInfo for being Buggy. Not the case....their Amigas just arn't set up correctly, or, they are using bs LC chips which obviously dont utilise the Library code correctly as the Full 040 does. Interesingly enough, EC CPU's dont crash out on SysInfo either so that would conclude the arcitecture of the LC chips not conforming to the Library drivers correctly. Don't also forget, this was tested on the SAME install of the OS.
To conclude this thread Effy started on my behalf, the card Effy sold me was fine. It was the cr^p LC chip that borked SysInfo up. It also amazes me why anyone serious about their Amiga would not want an FPU in the first place. :-?
-
Why in the world is everyone beating their heads against the wall trying to get a proven crap program to work?!
Everyone in this neck of the woods calls it MisInfo, to make the point.....
SysInfo _may_ have worked OK back in the early days, with 68K up to 68030 CPUs, but some '030 systems would throw it for a loop.
As some one else said - use SysSpeed. It does work!, and works well with '040 & '060 systems.
-
motrucker wrote:
Why in the world is everyone beating their heads against the wall trying to get a proven crap program to work?!
Everyone in this neck of the woods calls it MisInfo, to make the point.....
SysInfo _may_ have worked OK back in the early days, with 68K up to 68030 CPUs, but some '030 systems would throw it for a loop.
As some one else said - use SysSpeed. It does work!, and works well with '040 & '060 systems.
SysInfo also works u muppet; Works fine on ALL Amigas I have ever owned & setup, & get Real, its only an "Info" program...not a friggin benchmark.
SysInfo doesn't Bomb out on my A4000T with PPC 604 @ 233 + 060 & 128Mb Ram with SCSI III.
The b*tch about the whole Scenario turned out to be a Bull Sh*t issue with a Cr^p LC version of an 040 CPU. I thought I was buying a Full 040 on the A3640. Infact, the Dork that ever Pulled the Original 040 CPU left Butchered marks on the Socket, but then, I might be imagining that as well eh!
FFS!....>Sometimes there is just "NO" telling anyone FACT is there! Almost as bad as alexh going on about DMA. :roll:
You will have to excuse the flaming I throw at you, but for crying out loud, at least try & show some respect for an Old Amiga User since the A500 was first released. I have owned & used every Amiga Since. My Beginner Status here on the Forums does not mean I am a Noob. I don't know everything there is to know about Amigas, no one ever could, but I dont talk about stuff I dont know anything about. Moreover, I never ever saw cr^p like this ever, till I ended up with an LC (low-cost) CPU.
Like I said earlier.....Key-Ring anyone!?!?!?!?
-
FFS!....>Sometimes there is just "NO" telling anyone FACT is there! Almost as bad as alexh going on about DMA.
Oops, I just wanted to say to all those out there reading that it was a local DMA issue, not necessarily a SCSI issue.
Anyhow everything is sorted. Case closed :)
-
Kin-Hell wrote:
SysInfo also works u muppet; Works fine on ALL Amigas I have ever owned & setup, & get Real, its only an "Info" program...not a friggin benchmark.
SysInfo doesn't Bomb out on my A4000T with PPC 604 @ 233 + 060 & 128Mb Ram with SCSI III.
The b*tch about the whole Scenario turned out to be a Bull Sh*t issue with a Cr^p LC version of an 040 CPU. I thought I was buying a Full 040 on the A3640. Infact, the Dork that ever Pulled the Original 040 CPU left Butchered marks on the Socket, but then, I might be imagining that as well eh!
FFS!....>Sometimes there is just "NO" telling anyone FACT is there! Almost as bad as alexh going on about DMA. :roll:
My god, another .............Sorry about this "post". This is what I get for leaving my computer logged in here when three drunken "friends" come over.
-
@Kin-Hell
I'd also like to add, some post'ees in this thread just Blamed SysInfo for being Buggy. Not the case...
; hunk 0, offset $33DE
lea $7FFFC,a1
lea $2000.w,a0
.iloop move.l (a0)+,d0
cmp.l a1,a0
blt.b .iloop
From SysInfo 3.24
The code is assuming that address $2000 is accessable. In certain cases the mapped memory only begins at $4000, and SysInfo will nuke (the test is executed in a way that any exception will kill the system).
Correct chipmem start address would easily be available from the chip memory MemHeader.
-
Piru wrote:
I'd also like to add, some post'ees in this thread just Blamed SysInfo for being Buggy. Not the case...
; hunk 0, offset $33DE
lea $7FFFC,a1
lea $2000.w,a0
.iloop move.l (a0)+,d0
cmp.l a1,a0
blt.b .iloop
From SysInfo 3.24
The code is assuming that address $2000 is accessable. In certain cases the mapped memory only begins at $4000, and SysInfo will nuke (the test is executed in a way that any exception will kill the system).
Correct chipmem start address would easily be available from the chip memory MemHeader.
Again, if YOU ................Again, sorry for the outburst (see last "post")
-
Did my quoting confuse someone?
-
Piru wrote:
Did my quoting confuse someone?
No Piru, this thread is Just now getting out of hand. Everybody loves to have their 2 pennyworth & I admire fellas like you who can Pull Code apart to proove such events.
I must be honest, the 128Mb Ram on my PPC does not Show in the fast Ram Section,...take a 32Mb Stick out & it all shows, so sure, there are bugs. Even the SCSI LED stays on after a SCSI test but NEVER have I ever seen Sysinfo Crash (reset) to a GURU MEDITATION for doing a speed test.
My Point is that from my experience of Amigas & what I know, SysInfo as JUST an Info Tool is MORE than capable of standing up to 68000/020/030/040/060/PPC systems. My concern & why Effy started this thread was as to Why it would crash. Irrespective of SysInfo being full of bugs, it should not fall over on an 040 CPU. I was NOT aware it was an LC version of the 040 until I removed the Heatsink. Nor was I entirely sure that fitting a FULL 040 would stop it happening, as this was a Version 3.2 card despite the Silk Screening v3.1 & I have had no previous experience with a v3.2.
Forums are a hive of Information, but they are also one of the worst environments for Bad information when people talk about stuff they know sweet FA about.
Indeed, hats off to alexh for slating the Cretin in here earlier who was misleading innnocent people about the different CPU's. I read the thread after he had posted & was poised to state the same he did.
We appear to have gone thro DMA, Sysinfo...christ...even Code pulled apart & fair play to all remarks.
However, in my book as a Hardware Technician, DMA not being utilised properly means its a Fudge, resulting in lack of performance & thats the end of the matter for me.
DMA is a standard accross every computer platform known to man & please no comments about games consoles.
I have a result about my main concern after recieving the card from Effy in Belgium. I extend my thanks to him for starting the thread & being cool with me about resolving the issue.
I am now un-subscribing from this thread, my mailbox is a Junk shop for it.
Thanks to everyone who has had some valid input & those of you who know nothing about what you are talking about should go & study real hard! Forums lack facial expressions & words can appear harsh when read without the facial expressions that would normaly accompany conversation. Then it ends up a flaming match which I will not even waste my time retorting to. So far as respect goes to one "over-the-pond" postee, flaming in such manner scores you Zilch!
Maybe its just they want to get their post score upped! :roll:
I expect some prat to retort to that as well!
Thats forums for ya! :lol:
Extra special Thanks to Effy, alexh & Piru.
Oh yeah, & alexh, I use to have that old Sysinfo back in the 80's. Unfortunately, that went with all my Amiga gear back in 1996 when I sold out. If I ever come accross it, I'll post you a copy with pleasure. :-)
-
Allow me to apologize to you, Effy, Piru, and everyone else in this thread.
I didn't write the last two "posts" under my name, but they are still my fault, because I walked away from this computer while it was still logged into this thread.
The guys who wrote that are usually very nice people, when not in a drunken stupor.
My sincere apologies.
Eric
PS rest assured I will never again walk away from a computer that is still on line.
-
motrucker wrote:
Allow me to apologize to you, Effy, Piru, and everyone else in this thread.
I didn't write the last two "posts" under my name, but they are still my fault, because I walked away from this computer while it was still logged into this thread.
The guys who wrote that are usually very nice people, when not in a drunken stupor.
My sincere apologies.
Eric
PS rest assured I will never again walk away from a computer that is still on line.
Eric;
No problems this end, but at the same time, OMG eh! :-o
All the best.
Charlie