Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: danybebe on June 02, 2009, 12:01:22 PM
-
Hi all.
I want to assemble a working amiga that is actually usable, and is not too
difficult to use (I want my kids to be able to load games too), but I've
never actually owned or used an amiga in the past until now (but ZX Spectrum, c64s and 128), so I'll have to learn how to use it well (I don't think is too difficult).
- I own an Amiga 1000 and an Amiga 3000, they both work fine (I
personally tested them, I can boot workbench and some games), have a 1084 monitor, joysticks and mouse, these are complete computer (with a couple of external floppy drives), and I have tons of floppies and many brand new blank floppies.
The problem is that they don't have a hard drive, and I have no idea
of how much memory they have installed (I can check) and I noticed
how long do programs and games take to load.. How do I install a hard
drive o sd memory or cd reader in these things?
My other option is to just use an old PC computer (an amd atlhon 2200)
runing Winuae, and live with it (without having to actually put the
real Amigas to work) and a couple of joysticks. And why not, it can
run MAME too.
I'd like to listen about what do you think I should do, use the 1000,
3000 or the pc with winuae.
Thanks in advance.
Daniel
Drumheller, ab, Canada
-
Just try WinUAE and see if you like it. It will be faster than your stock Amigas and there's no floppy loading involved. If you want you can even make your WinUAE setup to use WHDLoad which can install floppy based games to HD on real Amigas for a more user friendly way of loading the games. If you have a parallel port joystick adapter you can connect Amiga port based joysticks to the PC.
-
AFAIK the A3000 contains an IDE port, so you can connect a standard <4 gigabyte harddisk in it. Shouldn't be too hard to find in charity shops e.g..
Considering your kids, WinUAE isn't that much user-friendly. And you need to start Windows with it.
There's another option apart from WinUAE, a slim Linux distro which autostarts E-UAE, so it's like your PC actually is an amiga. I don't know what it's called...
-
Hi danybebe,
see http://www.bboah.com/index.php?action=artikel&cat=7&id=1854&artlang=en
"Hard Drive Controllers: 1 x SCSI-II controller"
Regards, Michael
aka rockape
-
Hi danybebe,
see http://www.bboah.com/index.php?actio...854&artlang=en
Models & Clones/ID #2852/Commodore: A3000
"Hard Drive Controllers: 1 x SCSI-II controller"
Regards, Michael
aka rockape
-
The A3000 contains a SCSI port, not IDE and will take 50 pin SCSI Hard discs.
It can only use IDE discs with the addition of a IDE controller such as the Budda.
Gaz
-
WinUAE hands down. Its a cheaper alternative to buying outdated/overpriced upgrades. You can have an A3000 w/a 040, vid card running OS3.9 for next to nothing compared to buying that setup in real life. I'm using E-UAE under Linux and have all of my old stuff on it and it works great!
-
Hi all.
I want to assemble a working amiga that is actually usable, and is not too
difficult to use (I want my kids to be able to load games too), but I've
never actually owned or used an amiga in the past until now (but ZX Spectrum, c64s and 128), so I'll have to learn how to use it well (I don't think is too difficult).
- I own an Amiga 1000 and an Amiga 3000, they both work fine (I
personally tested them, I can boot workbench and some games), have a 1084 monitor, joysticks and mouse, these are complete computer (with a couple of external floppy drives), and I have tons of floppies and many brand new blank floppies.
The problem is that they don't have a hard drive, and I have no idea
of how much memory they have installed (I can check) and I noticed
how long do programs and games take to load.. How do I install a hard
drive o sd memory or cd reader in these things?
My other option is to just use an old PC computer (an amd atlhon 2200)
runing Winuae, and live with it (without having to actually put the
real Amigas to work) and a couple of joysticks. And why not, it can
run MAME too.
I'd like to listen about what do you think I should do, use the 1000,
3000 or the pc with winuae.
Thanks in advance.
Daniel
Drumheller, ab, Canada
Emulation is not the same as using real amiga. I'll leave it at that for now...
-
Emulation is not the same as using real amiga. I'll leave it at that for now...
Nope, it's a lot cheaper, a lot faster and a lot more convenient most of the time :)
-
Nope, it's a lot cheaper, a lot faster and a lot more convenient most of the time :)
Until you can refute the points in the other thread (PC has yet to catch up on certain things), you should stop offering advice here as to not mislead people.
-
Until you can refute the points in the other thread (PC has yet to catch up on certain things), you should stop offering advice here as to not mislead people.
Unless you can demonstrate why using an emulator is less convenient for the average user, you should shut yer cakehole.
How much would a real system with the fastest 060 available, HD, high end RTG, network and 128 MB ram cost you to set up? And it would still be massively slower than UAE on a reasonable PC for everything, with the sole exception, perhaps, of polling the joyport every 500ns, which I'm quite sure most users couldn't give a toss about.
The experience of using a real amiga is, I agree, an entirely unique one. However, it has no bearing whatsoever on the claim that UAE is far more convenient.
How many real amigas can you put to sleep and resume later? How many real amigas are capable of executing 68K code at the sort of speed UAE's JIT achieves on a 2GHz x86? How many real amigas can be pimped to the extent that AmiKit allows and still run like greased lightning?
Not many, that's for sure.
-
Emulation is not the same as using real amiga. I'll leave it at that for now...
no, it's not the same....but WinUAE is convenient
and right now I think it's the only practical way to have a "portable Amiga" if you install it in a laptop.
and, because it's still Amiga at least in some sense, it's still fun.
it's all about choice and what people can afford or what is available to them.
it's really that simple
-
I've tried both and like them both. I'd say test the emulation first on your old pc to see if it does the trick for you and your family. It would probably end up being the cheaper solution.
Speaking in terms of "older PCs", WinUAE works very smoothly on my 2.3 ghz 4gb PC with a nice sound card. However, it does poorly for me on a plain mini-itx VIA 1ghz with 1gb RAM. I'm just saying this because I think we have the mindset that underpowered pc equipment should be able to run emulated Amigas without problem. I'd say, the better the pc, the better altogether.
-
I've got both solutions too, and enjoy one of them more than the other :)
(Let's leave that at that)
Finding a hard-drive for your real Amigas wouldn't be the most troublesome
issue, installing all them games would, many don't even have genuine hd-installation possibilities.
Face it, they came on a couple of discs in the 90's.
Unless you have some skills in AmigaDOS it could be a pain to get all
games working.
The perks are that you can use your TV as an output directly, and using
real retro digital joysticks.
There is something called WHD-Load however which takes the hassle out
of gaming, it emulates different environments for the "installed" games and runs them of your HD.
WHDLoad works on both real and emulated Amigas.
I'd say you might be easier of getting WinUAE up and running, or a ready
solution like AmiKit or similar on your pc.
It might be easier for your kids to use too once it's set-up with a workbench,
whd-load and some nice icons.
I'm not promoting one over the other, but one is easier...
Since your pc is 2GHz+ (?), as long as you have some extra memory,
you can emulate most systems and consoles, as you pointed out.
-
Considering your kids, WinUAE isn't that much user-friendly. And you need to start Windows with it.
I simply cannot think of a more user-friendly way than doubleclicking Winuae-icon and pressing Start-button.
-
I suggest you try it for yourself and not listen to all the clatter on this board. Functionally there's very little if any difference between Amiga hardware and UAE. Just try UAE and see if you like it.
-
nothing beats the real thing.
-
It all depends on what you want. I'm setting up one of my real Amigas to record guitar riffs (so that I don't forget them if I wake up in the middle of the night with a riff in my head...) because booting is much faster than windows.
Maybe it could be done with minimal Linux install though, but that would probably be too complicated even for advanced users with the gazillion options and dependencies...
Even for AGA games it might be better to just use a real Amiga if you want to connect to a TV. That said I haven't followed up lastes developments on WinUAE, I remember there was some tweaks it made to the gfx (antialiasing etc.) that real Amigas didn't, that might make the output more acceptable on a high resolution screen.
-
Your probably better off with WinUAE unless you like hacking with old hardware. I prefer the real hardware myself, but for the casual games UAE works pretty well.
-
Agreed with brianb. I enjoy tinkering more than actually using them.... but for actual use, WinUAE is much easier/more convenient, and unbelievably fast.
-
I simply cannot think of a more user-friendly way than doubleclicking Winuae-icon and pressing Start-button.
Now take a good look at this (http://www.softpedia.com/screenshots/WinUAE_1.png) screenshot, and tell me what the difference is between this screenshot and that what you just described.
Now don't take me wrong, I do like WinUAE, I like the options given there. But a 'noob' doesn't know what these options mean, so it's extremely confusing and 'hostile' in the eyes of a 'noob'. Moreso because these options need to be set, kickstarts need to be located (even at the time a 'noob' even knows what a kickstart is, he has a hell of a job knowing how to get one).
Now if you were talking about Amigakit or AmigaForever, then it'd be another story.
-
Nope, it's a lot cheaper, a lot faster and a lot more convenient most of the time :)
It is cheaper though it does not prove anything
It might be faster but what for?
Convenient it is... I 've been reporting sound lags on A500 games, on E-UAE, WinUAE or even AmigaForever Player.
I mean c'mon! Emulation is always an emulation, pretending to be the real thing. So if you want the real thing, get yourself one. And if you need emulation "not real", just use it cheaply, in terms of effects also. If I was faced with the choice of such, I wouldn't be considering options at all.
-
It is cheaper though it does not prove anything
Have you tried upgrading a real amiga recently? It's hugely expensive.
It might be faster but what for?
Anything you want it to be faster for. Or not, if you prefer. Certainly you feel the difference if, like me, you've used an RTG amiga for many years and are used to high resolutions and colour depths. Simple things like loading images in multiview, playing media etc. On UAE on a fast system, you can almost forget it's an emulation.
Convenient it is... I 've been reporting sound lags on A500 games, on E-UAE, WinUAE or even AmigaForever Player.
I can't say I have any such issues either in WInUAE or EUAE. Or even in WinUAE running under Wine ;)
I mean c'mon! Emulation is always an emulation, pretending to be the real thing. So if you want the real thing, get yourself one. And if you need emulation "not real", just use it cheaply, in terms of effects also. If I was faced with the choice of such, I wouldn't be considering options at all.
Yes, the experience is different. Using my real A1200, though a lot of fun, tends to be grindingly slow after using UAE's JIT. And this is a PPC A1200 complete with all the datatypes and everything else you could offload onto the PPC for speed (Heck, there's even an OS4 beta install on one of the partitions if I feel like going the whole hog).
I'd definitely say emulation is certainly a valid option to consider. Perhaps you have more money than sense and what's more you are already a die hard fanatic. Somebody new to the platform might want to try it, before they buy it.
-
People reporting sound lag in WinUAE: you have NOT followed latest progress. Toni has implemented Portaudio with ASIO support for NO DELAY AT ALL, even for professional musicians (look at EAB threads about betas and portaudio).
Chipset audio/video can be PERFECT is you DO configure WinUAE right: you can set 50HZ modes with perfect audio/video sync, smoth scroll in games WITHOUT ANY OCASSIONAL SYNC LOSS. I have tested that with Toni, you can read more in EAB.
Of course, you need a clean system (no lame A/V software or memory/CPU stealing processes in the background) and custom-defined video modes beyond the scope of this post.
So, YES, if correctly configured, WinUAE is just perfect and impossible to tell from a real Amiga. Those not knowing that fact just haven't configured it well.
The only bad part of WinUAE is being Windows based and no ports to Linux/MAC OSX for custom kernels on the host system that would allow almost instant boot-up.
Oh, and remember that you CAN load savestates on lauch, so you can totally skip loading times for ADF of WHDLoad games :D
-
nothing beats the real thing.
Absolutely, I couldn't agree more.
Inflateomates are fun but nothing like the real thing. Just 'cause one is cheaper it doesn't mean it's better.
-
Absolutely, I couldn't agree more.
Inflateomates are fun but nothing like the real thing. Just 'cause one is cheaper it doesn't mean it's better.
When talking about an amiga and not your inflatable, "better" may well be subjective. However, on a decent PC, UAE is verifiably
1) Cheaper
This is a given, nobody is arguing the cost of PC ownership.
2) Faster
This is also a given. JIT performance in UAE is a significant percentage of host speed. AHI drivers give you fast, low latency audio, P96 drivers give you 2D RTG acceleration that makes any real amiga graphics card look like a toy. You also get bsdsocket.library emulation which gives you networking support. Again, much faster than any card you are likely to stick in a zorro machine or PCMCIA slot.
3) More convenient
Make as many hardfiles as you want, you even can take your emulated amiga somewhere on a pen drive. Suspend your emulation and restart it where you left off later. Have your amiga on your laptop, your netbook.
4) More compatible
Arguably yes. You can have as many configurations set up as you want, and run just about every classic amigaos / hardware combination you want, including some that never really existed. 8MiB Chip RAM in your emulated amiga versus a destroyed A4000 after somebody tried it for real. Hmm. No one real amiga is anything like as compatible as UAE is these days.
I'm not going to knock the fun of sitting infront of a real amiga and using it, that's a given. I wouldn't get rid of my actual machines. However, as far as I'm concerned UAE is not just "some emulator". It is the definitive classic amiga emulator.
-
"Nothing beats the real thing" must be qualified. If you have a stock Amiga 500 and a Commodore 1084, and you're playing old games, then yes, it's great. If you have a stock Amiga 500 and a VGA monitor, you're screwed. If you have a stock Amiga 500 and a TV with composite inputs, you're only screwed if you dislike playing games in black and white. Getting the real thing to function in today's world is often a challenge--unless you're willing to pour money into your setup.
WinUAE has a lot going for it, not the least of which is Toni Wilen, who despite the ups and downs of the community, still loves classic Amigas and still appears to love what he's doing. WinUAE does things that even a heavily expanded classic system would have problems doing. And if it doesn't, the source code is available, and you can add the functionality yourself.
Buy Amiga Forever. It's legal, it's easy to use, and you'd be providing direct support to the companies and individuals working diligently to keep classic Amiga computing alive. And if you like WinUAE, drop Toni a thank you note. He's human and appreciates kind remarks just as much as the next guy, yeah?
EDIT: An example of Toni's awesomeness. ;-) I was playing with uIP a couple years ago (still am, but it's not as fun as it was then), and out of nowhere and partly based on what I was doing, Toni added an emulated SANA-II device to WinUAE. It has its quirks, but regardless, I can test uIP (and other SANA-II-based software) under WinUAE rather than wasting development cycles waiting on my real Amigas to boot my various test environments from floppy. It's very keen having 1.2/1.3, 2.05, and 3.1 test environments ready at the click of a button.
-
Now take a good look at this (http://www.softpedia.com/screenshots/WinUAE_1.png) screenshot, and tell me what the difference is between this screenshot and that what you just described.
Now don't take me wrong, I do like WinUAE, I like the options given there. But a 'noob' doesn't know what these options mean, so it's extremely confusing and 'hostile' in the eyes of a 'noob'. Moreso because these options need to be set, kickstarts need to be located (even at the time a 'noob' even knows what a kickstart is, he has a hell of a job knowing how to get one).
Now if you were talking about Amigakit or AmigaForever, then it'd be another story.
Obviously I was talking about a ready configured system, one that the dad fixed for the kids. Then if the dad can't configure Winuae, I suggest to keep feeding bootable gamedisks on a real Amiga.
-
The A3000 contains a SCSI port, not IDE and will take 50 pin SCSI Hard discs.
It can only use IDE discs with the addition of a IDE controller such as the Budda.
Gaz
I thought the A3000 came with an internal HDD by default -- not a large one, but a hard drive nonetheless.
-
How many real amigas can you put to sleep and resume later?
Are you having a tin bath?? How many PeeCees can boot in 7 seconds??
My laptop takes twice that time just to wake up from its microsoft-induced slumber, and only if it can be arsed!!
-
Are you having a tin bath?? How many PeeCees can boot in 7 seconds??
My laptop takes twice that time just to wake up from its microsoft-induced slumber, and only if it can be arsed!!
That's not actually what I meant. You can save a snapshot of your current WinUAE sesion and reload it later. I've never actually tried it though.
-
It all depends on what you want. I'm setting up one of my real Amigas to record guitar riffs (so that I don't forget them if I wake up in the middle of the night with a riff in my head...) because booting is much faster than windows.
Maybe it could be done with minimal Linux install though, but that would probably be too complicated even for advanced users with the gazillion options and dependencies...
Even for AGA games it might be better to just use a real Amiga if you want to connect to a TV. That said I haven't followed up lastes developments on WinUAE, I remember there was some tweaks it made to the gfx (antialiasing etc.) that real Amigas didn't, that might make the output more acceptable on a high resolution screen.
Sounds like you need a MiniDisc deck. :)
-
Sounds like you need a MiniDisc deck. :)
Wow... I've not used minidisc for well over 10 years... Everything is flash now, I use a Zoom H4 for quick off line stuff.
-
It all depends on what you want. I'm setting up one of my real Amigas to record guitar riffs (so that I don't forget them if I wake up in the middle of the night with a riff in my head...) because booting is much faster than windows.
Maybe it could be done with minimal Linux install though, but that would probably be too complicated even for advanced users with the gazillion options and dependencies...
try convincing Karlos that the amiga boots significantly faster than a PC and that this a useful thing. But according to Karlos you, like me, are insane or suffer from attention deficit disorder.
-
Hi, thanks to all, I'm definitely going to try just the pc with Winuae, I think is going to be enough for my usage, and later I'll see. Anyway, I love to tinker with the hard, so I'd love to actually put one of them to work, but I'm afraid I'm going to go bankrupt doing that. :-)
Anyway, I did a mistake, today I took a look again to my collection (I have a lot of stuff stored for the last years, so much in fact I couldn't remember everything) and I found out the Amiga 3000 is not a 3000, but a 2000, and I found out I have other 2 amigas 500, so the complete list of what I have is a Amigas 2000, 1000 and 2 500s, none with hard drive (and 1 powers up but do strange things or crash in less than a minute, many be has damaged memory?).
I see the Amiga 2000 have ISA slots, can I install a pc IDE card on them?
Is any of this worth of installing a hard drive or putting back to life?
-
Even for AGA games it might be better to just use a real Amiga if you want to connect to a TV. That said I haven't followed up lastes developments on WinUAE, I remember there was some tweaks it made to the gfx (antialiasing etc.) that real Amigas didn't, that might make the output more acceptable on a high resolution screen.
What are you talking about? The monitor of the pc I'm going to put the Amiga emulator is at 37" LCD TV (using HDMI, DVI or VGA) so I think the emulator is so much better and flexible that the real thing.
-
Hi, thanks to all, I'm definitely going to try just the pc with Winuae, I think is going to be enough for my usage, and later I'll see. Anyway, I love to tinker with the hard, so I'd love to actually put one of them to work, but I'm afraid I'm going to go bankrupt doing that. :-)
Anyway, I did a mistake, today I took a look again to my collection (I have a lot of stuff stored for the last years, so much in fact I couldn't remember everything) and I found out the Amiga 3000 is not a 3000, but a 2000, and I found out I have other 2 amigas 500, so the complete list of what I have is a Amigas 2000, 1000 and 2 500s, none with hard drive (and 1 powers up but do strange things or crash in less than a minute, many be has damaged memory?).
I see the Amiga 2000 have ISA slots, can I install a pc IDE card on them?
Is any of this worth of installing a hard drive or putting back to life?
The ISA bus is only connected to the amiga bus if you have a "bridgeboard" 8088 or 386 hardware emulator. So not really...
You need a Zorro-II IDE solution.
-
This is 2009, Virtual is the new Reality!
What are you talking about? The monitor of the pc I'm going to put the Amiga emulator is at 37" LCD TV (using HDMI, DVI or VGA) so I think the emulator is so much better and flexible that the real thing.
-
Since you have a real A3000, use that (at least you're not limited to your C= monitor). A SCSI harddrive should not be difficult to locate and you won't really need a huge one either so that should keep your costs down. Minimally, learn how to format the HD, and install Workbench. Most programs have an installer program included, or with games, use WHDload which cuts down on your frustration with copy protection, and that isn't very hard at all. Emulation can get you the top-of-the-line Amiga experience, but nothing beats using the real stuff, especially if you have it, and it works!
-
try convincing Karlos that the amiga boots significantly faster than a PC and that this a useful thing. But according to Karlos you, like me, are insane or suffer from attention deficit disorder.
I'm sure your amiga boots faster than your PC. Mine does not. Nor do I particularly care since I don't spend all day rebooting either of them for the simplistic joy of it. Jose has been on these boards a lot longer than you have, I don't need to demonstrate my Amiga enthusiast credentials to him.
I really don't know where you popped up from but I honestly thought people as frantically obsessed about boot times and the superiority of 20 year old hardware over all that has come after it had all disappeared long ago :lol:
-
Hi, thanks to all, I'm definitely going to try just the pc with Winuae, I think is going to be enough for my usage, and later I'll see. Anyway, I love to tinker with the hard, so I'd love to actually put one of them to work, but I'm afraid I'm going to go bankrupt doing that. :-)
Have UAE and your real machines and enjoy the best of both worlds.
Anyway, I did a mistake, today I took a look again to my collection (I have a lot of stuff stored for the last years, so much in fact I couldn't remember everything) and I found out the Amiga 3000 is not a 3000, but a 2000, and I found out I have other 2 amigas 500, so the complete list of what I have is a Amigas 2000, 1000 and 2 500s, none with hard drive (and 1 powers up but do strange things or crash in less than a minute, many be has damaged memory?).
You should carefully disassemble the machine (all antistatic precautions taken) and reseat any socketed parts, clean the edge connectors of any boards and blow any dust the hell out of there. Check for any leakage from capacitors or batteries. These are old machines, you should expect a few startup foibles.
Is any of this worth of installing a hard drive or putting back to life?
Sure it is. I couldn't use an amiga without a hard disk these days. My days of rolling custom boot floppies are long gone :)
-
Are you having a tin bath?? How many PeeCees can boot in 7 seconds??
My laptop takes twice that time just to wake up from its microsoft-induced slumber, and only if it can be arsed!!
Ever heard of a cool modern feature called "hibernation" ?? Try it !! You'll love it !!
-
I'm sure your amiga boots faster than your PC. Mine does not. Nor do I particularly care since I don't spend all day rebooting either of them for the simplistic joy of it. Jose has been on these boards a lot longer than you have, I don't need to demonstrate my Amiga enthusiast credentials to him.
I really don't know where you popped up from but I honestly thought people as frantically obsessed about boot times and the superiority of 20 year old hardware over all that has come after it had all disappeared long ago :lol:
Jose made an unrelated post without seeing your posts that just happened to blow you arguments out of the water: he uses his Amiga for his music because it boots faster than windows. And Linux unless (maybe) you can be arsed creating a custom Linux. Clearly you can be arsed. The rest of the world have got better things to do then that. Jose gave a real-world example of how his Amiga is superior to the PC- YOUR PC included.
its funny how a guy with 12,000 posts can be such a sore LOSER, or may be just LOSER full stop...a moderator and all. just goes to show that a title and the number of posts counts for naught.
You selectively ignore posts that don't fit your point of view, and you even resort to name-calling just because you can't back your argument with facts.
Really you're a bit of a disgrace.
-
What's with all the c**k swinging lately? What happened to, "You like Amigas? Sweet. Me, too."
-
@stefcep2
An old-fashioned cassette recorder doesn't even boot. It's even faster for recording 3am riffs. Of course, finding tapes for it is the limit of usefulness there...
-
What's with all the c**k swinging lately? What happened to, "You like Amigas? Sweet. Me, too."
Apparently, according to some people, you aren't a real amiga user unless you rate them as superior because they boot quickly than any PC. And if you do have a PC that outperforms an amiga at booting up, it's a obviously a minority uber hacked machine. Heaven forfend if you actually use another platform for anything and recognise that it is better equipped for many tasks than your actual amiga is. If your amiga happens to be remotely expanded and be slower to boot due to loading drivers for RTG, network and all the other things that no real amiga should ever have, it's a Frankenstein monster that doesn't count either.
Conversely, I would suggest that an accelerator equipped amiga as much RAM as is feasible and with some form of graphics card is pretty standard amongst people that actually used their amiga for more than a toy.
-
Jose made an unrelated post without seeing your posts that just happened to blow you arguments out of the water: he uses his Amiga for his music because it boots faster than windows.
On the other hand why even switch off PC? Just turn on energysaving on harddrive and monitor, and your machine is all set in a couple seconds by moving mouse. No need to use sleepmode.
The same goes for Amiga aswell, but I wouldn't risk breaking my dear Amiga by keeping it on 24/7. The riskfactor is just too big.
-
Apparently, according to some people, you aren't a real amiga user unless you rate them as superior because they boot quickly than any PC. And if you do have a PC that outperforms an amiga at booting up, it's a obviously a minority uber hacked machine. Heaven forfend if you actually use another platform for anything and recognise that it is better equipped for many tasks than your actual amiga is. If your amiga happens to be remotely expanded and be slower to boot due to loading drivers for RTG, network and all the other things that no real amiga should ever have, it's a Frankenstein monster that doesn't count either.
Conversely, I would suggest that an accelerator equipped amiga as much RAM as is feasible and with some form of graphics card is pretty standard amongst people that actually used their amiga for more than a toy.
Boo Hoo Hoo Karlos.
If you're satisfied that your quadcore overclocked behemoth- running a customised Linux thats had its guts hacked out and that you NEVER shut down- boots faster than an 15 year old A1200 running a crippled PPC card full of performance bottlenecks and bodged on interfaces proves that the PC has finally matched the Amiga in EVERY respect and no longer plays catch-up then good luck to you. You've won your argument. I just happen not to agree with you.
-
Boo Hoo Hoo Karlos.
If you're satisfied that your quadcore overclocked behemoth- running a customised Linux thats had its guts hacked out and that you NEVER shut down- boots faster than an 15 year old A1200 running a crippled PPC card full of performance bottlenecks and bodged on interfaces proves that the PC has finally matched the Amiga in EVERY respect and no longer plays catch-up then good luck to you. You've won your argument. I just happen not to agree with you.
Erm, what exactly is customised in my linux? I'm running Ubuntu 8.10 64-bit out of the box, with PHP, MySQL, Apache and several other server services installed?
Far from having any "guts ripped out of it", it has extra bloat crammed in.
-
Furthermore, I timed my A1 bootup this morning , booting into a fresh, unhacked OS4.0 install.
Despite running "bonafide" AmigaOS and running natively on an 800MHz G4 (compared to a 25MHz 040) and a UDMA6 mode hard disk, it booted in about 15 seconds after the SLB stage. As you can see, the "scalability of boot time" is an entirely worthless metric. Having a 32x increase in clockspeed, 5x increase in bus speed, bigger cache, better pipelined and DMA loading of data, It should have booted in 3% of the time according to your logic.
So, what exactly does that do to your argument?
-
Hi all.
I want to assemble a working amiga that is actually usable, and is not too
difficult to use (I want my kids to be able to load games too), but I've
never actually owned or used an amiga in the past until now
Your kids won't ever understand why they should play on a computer, connected to a TV, games that look and act like the ones they can easily play on their mobile phone. A Radeon HD4770 powered Phenom II PC is a cheap but powerful gaming platform, an Amiga - whatever it is - is "vintage gaming crap" for young people. So, buy the gaming platform and run WinUAE onto if from time to time: your kids will be happier.
-
Jose made an unrelated post without seeing your posts that just happened to blow you arguments out of the water: he uses his Amiga for his music because it boots faster than windows. And Linux unless (maybe) you can be arsed creating a custom Linux. Clearly you can be arsed. The rest of the world have got better things to do then that. Jose gave a real-world example of how his Amiga is superior to the PC- YOUR PC included.
Jose has made a post that just brought here another questionable attitude with technology we can agree with or not. Jose has all the rights to decide that the best feature for a music recording equipment is a fast boot time, but if I had to record music I have in my head, I would be happier to wait 2 more seconds to do that on modern applications for MacOS X and, why not, Windows, which maybe will provide more processing options, memory and CPU power to do all.
As I have already said, I consider all this "my computer boots before yours" total crap, something that a serious user should never even think for an architecture comparison. First of all, 'cos boot time depends on too many factors, and all over because in the real world (the one where normal people with normal attitudes live) it doesn't matter how many seconds you need to boot a system, but instead the time (hours, days, maybe months and years) that the same system can stay turned on, without a shutdown or a reboot (we call it "uptime"). Are our Amigas enough stable to outperform Windows, Linux or MacOS X uptimes? No, they aren't. So, just multiply Amiga short boottime for the times you need to reboot it, and you'll notice that PC and Macs make you loose less time, even if they need 2x or 3x or even 10x the time to boot an Amiga.
-
U guys so funny. lolz!!
Is this 1989 again,
Kid1 - "Nintendo walks all over Sega!"
Kid2 - "Shut up! You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Sega. It uses Military Spec hardware so the games are better!"
Kid1- "...uh...well... your moms dumb!!"
Kid2- "My mom was made in Germany so she can eat your mom!"
-
As I have already said, I consider all this "my computer boots before yours" total crap, something that a serious user should never even think for an architecture comparison.
No way, I can't believe that! My TI-85 graphing calculator boots up in .5 seconds. So I know it's the most powerful computer ever invented!
-
"My mom was made in Germany so she can eat your mom!"
Ok, now you are scaring me :)
-
Just wanted to say this thread makes me smile. :-)
-
WinXP could be made to boot fairly quickly with a little trimming... about 35 seconds on my circa '03 Athlon, no different than most Amigas that load a few extra things on startup. My A1200 boots to 3.9 in about 5 seconds... actually a pretty useful feature considering how often it crashes :P
-
Unless you can demonstrate why using an emulator is less convenient for the average user, you should shut yer cakehole.
How much would a real system with the fastest 060 available, HD, high end RTG, network and 128 MB ram cost you to set up? And it would still be massively slower than UAE on a reasonable PC for everything, with the sole exception, perhaps, of polling the joyport every 500ns, which I'm quite sure most users couldn't give a toss about.
The experience of using a real amiga is, I agree, an entirely unique one. However, it has no bearing whatsoever on the claim that UAE is far more convenient.
How many real amigas can you put to sleep and resume later? How many real amigas are capable of executing 68K code at the sort of speed UAE's JIT achieves on a 2GHz x86? How many real amigas can be pimped to the extent that AmiKit allows and still run like greased lightning?
Not many, that's for sure.
Your logic is faulty. If it's not a real amiga, you can't discuss which is more convenient and cheaper amiga. It's like I state fake diamond is not the same as real diamond and you stating "this diamond is a lot cheaper and convenient" already presuming it's the same. And your 500ns polling of joystick is a straw-man argument. And by the way "convenient" is a subjective term.
-
Your logic is faulty. If it's not a real amiga, you can't discuss which is more convenient and cheaper amiga. It's like I state fake diamond is not the same as real diamond and you stating "this diamond is a lot cheaper and convenient" already presuming it's the same. And your 500ns polling of joystick is a straw-man argument. And by the way "convenient" is a subjective term.
Your diamond argument is totally worthless since the context is utterly different. Unless your computer is a fashion accessory (hmm, mac lol), what matters is that you can use it. In use as a computer platform* UAE has all of the advantages I cited. If you already own a PC, the cost of setting up your emulated amiga is, well potentially nothing. Yet it will do pretty much everything you could ever want a genuine hardware amiga to do. 500ns joystick polling aside, maybe.
Your diamond analogy might be better if it were in relation to drilling purposes, but then industrial diamonds are relatively cheap anyway, since they are totally unsuitable for jewellery. What's more, I don't think any normal woman is going to reach for her DeBeers special to wear on a night out on the town when her cheap and cheerful cubic zirconia is just as sparkly in the club and a damn sight less of an issue if lost :lol:
PS, I'm glad you realised your 500ns joyport polling argument (as an example of ways in which the amiga was way ahead of the PC) was, well, a poor one. A more domain specific example you'd be hard pressed to find. Especially given that the old soundcard "joyport" traditionally isn't a standard bit of PC hardware anyway.
You might as well have said the amiga is streets ahead in having a real 68000 based CPU than a PC. I mean it's true, the PC will probably never catch up in having one... ;)
*As a cool looking machine on your desk, I'll certainly agree with you that the classic Amiga wedge is hard to beat. I still think the A500 looks simply beautiful even now. I never liked the A1200 form factor much at the beginning, but it has grown on me since.
-
I agree with Karlos here. Regarding WinUAE, if it runs everything you need to run with it, what's the problem with using it on a modern computer?
-
@paolone
"Jose has made a post that just brought here another questionable attitude with technology we can agree with or not. Jose has all the rights to decide that the best feature for a music recording equipment is a fast boot time, but if I had to record music I have in my head, I would be happier to wait 2 more seconds to do that on modern applications for MacOS X and, why not, Windows, which maybe will provide more processing options, memory and CPU power to do all."
Hey I didn't say I used it to do music production but even then it's perfectly doable, PC/Mac is better for production didn't arg against that...
"As I have already said, I consider all this "my computer boots before yours" total crap, something that a serious user should never even think for an architecture comparison. First of all, 'cos boot time depends on too many factors, and all over because in the real world (the one where normal people with normal attitudes live) it doesn't matter how many seconds you need to boot a system, but instead the time (hours, days, maybe months and years) that the same system can stay turned on, without a shutdown or a reboot (we call it "uptime"). Are our Amigas enough stable to outperform Windows, Linux or MacOS X uptimes?""
You're wrong. It all depends on the application, what will the machine be doing. There are some rarer cases where boot time is critical, I just gave you one. Another one is the settobox market, in an AV system you normally want to sit on the living room turn on the equipment and start watching TV, not wait 30 seconds or more (not that there is any Amiga software doing DVB reception which is a shame..).
By the way, there is an attitute towards technology, oposite to the one you describe, that is not very smart either, which is to buy the latest super duper hardware to do things that don't need it. It's like buying a Ferrari to go buy bread at the supermarket.
The low memory footprint and multitasking speed and efficiency of the AmigaOS architecture could find market niches, there's just not anyone marketing any product with it.
-
. There are some rarer cases where boot time is critical, I just gave you one. Another one is the settobox market, in an AV system you normally want to sit on the living room turn on our equipment and start watching TV, not wait 30 seconds or more (not that there is any software doing DVB reception which is a shame..).
This is true, but there are already better solutions out there. Embedded devices with static memory are the best suited for such applications. Anything that actually has to "boot" in the conventional sense will produce a delay that many people wouldn't expect from consumer electronics.
-
Looking back it seems that you guys are comparing classic Amiga hardware only VS PC, so my settopbox example doesn't apply here...
-
Looking back it seems that you guys are comparing classic Amiga hardware only VS PC, so my settopbox example doesn't apply here...
Nevertheless, as a "boot timing is critical" example, it's the only one I could really support. People don't like delays from appliances.
-
My custom computer built around a pic18f processor cold boots in under 70ms and begins displaying the temperatures from single wire thermal sensors distributed around my apartment to a vt220 terminal therefor it's more powerful than any Amiga, PC, Mac, or Ti calculator. I have you all beat.
-
My custom computer built around a pic18f processor cold boots in under 70ms and begins displaying the temperatures from single wire thermal sensors distributed around my apartment to a vt220 terminal therefor it's more powerful than any Amiga, PC, Mac, or Ti calculator. I have you all beat.
The two light switches in my hallway act as a 2 input OR gate that has no boot delay at all.
I win.
-
Hi,
@danybebe,
Depends how much you are willing to spend, I have an Amiga 4000 and an Amiga 3000, to play a lot of the games you have to look to see if it is pal or ntsc, then you have to look at what kind of graphics it uses, aga or occ or ecc, then you have to decide wheter or not it needs the program degrader, keep a pen handy so that you can mark all your disks with what it took to start up that software on the Amiga you decide to use.
Now the Emulator, I use AF2008, on a Quad Core, it is super fast, the music rarely slows it down but does not give the same sound quality as the original Amiga, the graphics are a little blocky compared to the original Amiga (i will probably get flamed for this but i will try to explain) the pc uses square pixels while the Amiga used round pixels the round pixels seem to blend better than the square pixels on the PC you can especilly see this in some old Amiga demos, while they looked good on the orginal Amigas they look squared out on the PC emulation. I use Amiga forever with Amikit, and am completely happy, but once again getting your software there and running is sometimes a pain, you have to try to convert it over with WHD or something like that. I can't remember the program since I bought a CD off ebay with something like 3500 games on it in this format, with AF 2008 it loads it right in off the CD.
smerf
-
HI,
Well said cecilla, (hope I spelled it right, my memory is starting to slip)
I think I'll add another gigabyte, to enhance the 2 I have left.
smerf
-
The two light switches in my hallway act as a 2 input OR gate that has no boot delay at all.
I win.
Ok, With this example Karlos does actually win! He has found the simplest useful binary computer that we probably all have in our own homes!
-
Ok, With this example Karlos does actually win! He has found the simplest useful binary computer that we probably all have in our own homes!
Some of you posh house dwelling barstewards might even have a XOR switch on your staircase. It's a common arrangement for such contrivances. Living in a flat, I don't have or require this particular gate.
-
Ok, With this example Karlos does actually win! He has found the simplest useful binary computer that we probably all have in our own homes!
He hasn't won yet! There is a delay between flipping the switch and getting the result. I have such an arrangement in my apartment. We're going to have to measure the length of the wire runs to get to the bottom of this.
-
He hasn't won yet! There is a delay between flipping the switch and getting the result. I have such an arrangement in my apartment. We're going to have to measure the length of the wire runs to get to the bottom of this.
Whats if you have one of them fancy wireless remote switches? :banana:
-
I don't think there's much wire length in my hallway OR gate. It's a small hallway. Fabricated using 1m process...
-
He hasn't won yet! There is a delay between flipping the switch and getting the result. I have such an arrangement in my apartment. We're going to have to measure the length of the wire runs to get to the bottom of this.
It's not about settle time of the circuit... Boot time only really needs to account for the time taken to reset, and be ready to accept user input... Karlos's Example has the fastest boot time...
-
It's not about settle time of the circuit... Boot time only really needs to account for the time taken to reset, and be ready to accept user input... Karlos's Example has the fastest boot time...
Ah! to sort of get the thread back on topic, if a light switch simulation was written, which would be better? The real light switch array or the virtual one running on a blazingly fast computer? :D
-
@paolone
You're wrong. It all depends on the application, what will the machine be doing. There are some rarer cases where boot time is critical, I just gave you one.
Nope. You just gave us an example of what you feel critical. There is a little difference.
Another one is the settobox market, in an AV system you normally want to sit on the living room turn on the equipment and start watching TV, not wait 30 seconds or more (not that there is any Amiga software doing DVB reception which is a shame..).
By the way, there is an attitute towards technology, oposite to the one you describe, that is not very smart either, which is to buy the latest super duper hardware to do things that don't need it. It's like buying a Ferrari to go buy bread at the supermarket.
That's why I prefer a separate TV tuner from appliances I use to play movies and media files/supports: TV must turn on instantly, for the other things I can wait.
The low memory footprint and multitasking speed and efficiency of the AmigaOS architecture could find market niches, there's just not anyone marketing any product with it.
That's what I actually hope for Icaros Desktop...
-
@Gadget
You probably get more light out of your actual lighting system than you do your display, so in this case I suspect the traditional hardware wins. Although, there's probably less effort required to turn your virual light on and whats more you can take it with you on a notebook PC to demo parties.
Having said that, hardware hits back with a new portable system called "the torch". One of the inputs is a trifle sticky in that it's the end of the tube where you put the battery cells in, but if you loosen it appropriately, you have your 2 input OR again :)
-
@Gadget
You probably get more light out of your actual lighting system than you do your display, so in this case I suspect the traditional hardware wins. Although, there's probably less effort required to turn your virual light on and whats more you can take it with you on a notebook PC to demo parties.
Having said that, hardware hits back with a new portable system called "the torch". One of the inputs is a trifle sticky in that it's the end of the tube where you put the battery cells in, but if you loosen it appropriately, you have your 2 input OR again :)
But if you leave the batteries in for too long they leak and ruin a perfectly good motherb......torch....
..... uhm.. what was I talking about again..:confused:
-
This has faster response time than torch, assuming torch is uk dialect for flashlight as we call it in US. (shorter runs)
(http://blog.makezine.com/d195dcc8f5b4a15d0e1da1d5.medium.jpg)
-
This has faster response time than torch, assuming torch is uk dialect for flashlight as we call it in US. (shorter runs)
(http://blog.makezine.com/d195dcc8f5b4a15d0e1da1d5.medium.jpg)
It is, but you will observe that a lot of new flashlights utilise LED technology to improve their OR gate input to output propagation delay.
-
Ah! to sort of get the thread back on topic, if a light switch simulation was written, which would be better? The real light switch array or the virtual one running on a blazingly fast computer? :D
Depends what I want to use it for of course... If I want the experience of a light switch array (perhaps to see how it works or show friends and family), without having to rewire my house, buy all the tools and materials... not to mention worry about the safety aspects of wiring up to a 240Volt, 13amp ring main... then I'd go with the simulation...
-
Ok, I just thought of something. Something that beats it all. A piece of glass with uranium oxide diffused in it and check this, in outer space, with sunlight shining on it at all time. Blam, no startup time. Always on, for billions of years. It fluoresces as UV photons hit the uranium oxide molecules. Faster than the Amiga, PC, Mac, Ti calc and my pic18f. Never needs a reset. Top that.
-
Ok, I just thought of something. Something that beats it all. A piece of glass with uranium oxide diffused in it and check this, in outer space, with sunlight shining on it at all time. Blam, no startup time. Always on, for billions of years. It fluoresces as UV photons hit the uranium oxide molecules. Faster than the Amiga, PC, Mac, Ti calc and my pic18f. Never needs a reset. Top that.
That may be so, but getting it into orbit consumes way too much energy. It's all about green computing nowadays. :smack:
-
Your diamond argument is totally worthless since the context is utterly different. Unless your computer is a fashion accessory (hmm, mac lol), what matters is that you can use it. In use as a computer platform* UAE has all of the advantages I cited. If you already own a PC, the cost of setting up your emulated amiga is, well potentially nothing. Yet it will do pretty much everything you could ever want a genuine hardware amiga to do. 500ns joystick polling aside, maybe.
...
No diamond analogy is relevant. Even the surface of the fake diamond is different when looked upon closely similarly even the display is fake compared to an overscanned TV monitor or Amiga monitor. And you know very well the internals are NOT there-- the timing (558ns and better for software specific to 7.16Mhz PCs or like Bars and Pipes using 3.57Mhz based audio timer), the same frequency refresh rate, etc.) I can say more but I'm logging in from someone else's machine... Post #23 in this thread is complete bullcrap; there's no way to eliminate the latency completely.
>PS, I'm glad you realised your 500ns joyport polling argument (as an example of ways in which the amiga was way ahead of the PC) was, well, a poor one. A more domain specific example you'd be hard pressed to find. Especially given that the old soundcard "joyport" traditionally isn't a standard bit of PC hardware anyway.
I already did but you misunderstood it; that's why I called it "straw-man argument". You thought I was talking about 500ns sampling of joystick, but no. I was stating 1Khz sampling of joystick and 558ns accuracy without latency as another argument. There are more argument but some biased people can't even accept the joystick argument.
I'm not talking about the looks. Understand the analogy for what it is.
-
Fake diamonds throw off more colors than real ones. :) Kind of how I can play Faery Tale Adventure on UAE with the floppy drive sped up instead of waiting 3 seconds every time bad guys pop up in the field while I'm hoofing it through the map. The game accesses disk every time it decides to throw baddies, maybe to load sprites? It's imperceptable on UAE. Emulation in this case is better than the real hardware.
-
This is 2009, Virtual is the new Reality!
@persia
Hey I know virgil and he is not real in any manner shape or form, and what does 2009 have to do with it unless you are waiting for 2012 where the my in end of the world comes into effect. Come to think about it that is only about 3 years away. Go to go and stock up on my beer now so I will be ready don't you know.
smerf
:laughing:
-
Fake diamonds throw off more colors than real ones. :) Kind of how I can play Faery Tale Adventure on UAE with the floppy drive sped up instead of waiting 3 seconds every time bad guys pop up in the field while I'm hoofing it through the map. The game accesses disk every time it decides to throw baddies, maybe to load sprites? It's imperceptable on UAE. Emulation in this case is better than the real hardware.
So you are admitting they are fake diamonds or just claiming it's better to have a faster disk drive rather than a disk drive that works at exact timinig as original? How does a faster disk drive make the emulation of the Amiga machine better? How does playing some game allow you to draw the conclusion in general about emulation? How do you know even that very game has glitches that you did not observe?
Does one observation of a person having blue eyes allow me to conclude that everyone has blue eyes?
I think it takes more than that to make such a general conclusion.
-
People reporting sound lag in WinUAE: you have NOT followed latest progress. Toni has implemented Portaudio with ASIO support for NO DELAY AT ALL, even for professional musicians (look at EAB threads about betas and portaudio).
Chipset audio/video can be PERFECT is you DO configure WinUAE right: you can set 50HZ modes with perfect audio/video sync, smoth scroll in games WITHOUT ANY OCASSIONAL SYNC LOSS. I have tested that with Toni, you can read more in EAB.
Of course, you need a clean system (no lame A/V software or memory/CPU stealing processes in the background) and custom-defined video modes beyond the scope of this post.
So, YES, if correctly configured, WinUAE is just perfect and impossible to tell from a real Amiga. Those not knowing that fact just haven't configured it well.
The only bad part of WinUAE is being Windows based and no ports to Linux/MAC OSX for custom kernels on the host system that would allow almost instant boot-up.
Oh, and remember that you CAN load savestates on lauch, so you can totally skip loading times for ADF of WHDLoad games :D
Did you like forget to mention what the hardware requirements are? Or that doesn't matter-- just keep configuring until you get it right? Sounds like some lame excuse or sales pitch. It's complete rubbish that it's impossible to tell from a real amiga. Perhaps from looking at screen shots, but not from functionality. So if I start writing to audio registers in the copper list, it will show up in real-time to through the PC's audio card?
First of all, unless you completely take over the VGA card, Timer hardware, Audio card, and other things and have specific minimum requirements for these, it's impossible to claim what you say.
-
Did you like forget to mention what the hardware requirements are? Or that doesn't matter-- just keep configuring until you get it right?
No, you just select "A500" from the drop-down list, and you get Kickstart 1.3 (you need a ROM image, of course), 512KB chip, 512KB slow, a PAL chipset, and a single low-density floppy drive. The display is set to 720x568 and output is interpolated based on rendering settings. I think the default is nearest neighbor or something similar.
So if I start writing to audio registers in the copper list, it will show up in real-time to through the PC's audio card?
Sort of, but you can't throw around the word "real-time" like that. It's an emulator, not a real-time simulator, so at best, you'll get an approximation. The emulation itself is cycle-exact, but there are no deadline guarantees. Depending on the host system, the emulation may lag. On most modern systems, though, that's not a problem.
First of all, unless you completely take over the VGA card, Timer hardware, Audio card, and other things and have specific minimum requirements for these, it's impossible to claim what you say.
Nothing's impossible. You can access hardware directly from kernel code in Windows, and in some cases, this is what WinUAE does; however, video and audio devices are accessed using standard APIs and driver-supported low-latency access methods.
-
@paolone
"Jose has made a post that just brought here another questionable attitude with technology we can agree with or not. Jose has all the rights to decide that the best feature for a music recording equipment is a fast boot time, but if I had to record music I have in my head, I would be happier to wait 2 more seconds to do that on modern applications for MacOS X and, why not, Windows, which maybe will provide more processing options, memory and CPU power to do all."
Hey I didn't say I used it to do music production but even then it's perfectly doable, PC/Mac is better for production didn't arg against that...
"As I have already said, I consider all this "my computer boots before yours" total crap, something that a serious user should never even think for an architecture comparison. First of all, 'cos boot time depends on too many factors, and all over because in the real world (the one where normal people with normal attitudes live) it doesn't matter how many seconds you need to boot a system, but instead the time (hours, days, maybe months and years) that the same system can stay turned on, without a shutdown or a reboot (we call it "uptime"). Are our Amigas enough stable to outperform Windows, Linux or MacOS X uptimes?""
You're wrong. It all depends on the application, what will the machine be doing. There are some rarer cases where boot time is critical, I just gave you one. Another one is the settobox market, in an AV system you normally want to sit on the living room turn on the equipment and start watching TV, not wait 30 seconds or more (not that there is any Amiga software doing DVB reception which is a shame..).
By the way, there is an attitute towards technology, oposite to the one you describe, that is not very smart either, which is to buy the latest super duper hardware to do things that don't need it. It's like buying a Ferrari to go buy bread at the supermarket.
The low memory footprint and multitasking speed and efficiency of the AmigaOS architecture could find market niches, there's just not anyone marketing any product with it.
Well said Jose.
I can hear the oppositions saying: "you can just put your PC to sleep". Why?, when you can just turn on the Amiga with the flick of a switch and be ready to go in 5 seconds. "But you can use DAT, but you need the tapes and the deck". Why , when you can just turn on the Amiga with the flick of a switch and be ready to go in 5 seconds.
The DTV example I agree with 100%: I can do DTV, I can do PVR, and DVD burning on a PC running media centre or media portal But then i have to boot Vista everytime I want to watch TV. But I can do it faster, more reliably, with my Twin HD tuner Panasonic DVDR/HDR. I agree with you totally: there is a genuine need for fast booting, low RAM, mutitasking OS's, and an OS running on a PC is not it.
-
My custom computer built around a pic18f processor cold boots in under 70ms and begins displaying the temperatures from single wire thermal sensors distributed around my apartment to a vt220 terminal therefor it's more powerful than any Amiga, PC, Mac, or Ti calculator. I have you all beat.
No-one asked "Is PC more powerful than Amiga". An no-one concluded because the Amiga boots faster it is therefore more powerful than a PC.l
-
@persia
Hey I know virgil and he is not real in any manner shape or form, and what does 2009 have to do with it unless you are waiting for 2012 where the my in end of the world comes into effect. Come to think about it that is only about 3 years away. Go to go and stock up on my beer now so I will be ready don't you know.
smerf
:laughing:
Will a shapeshifting Gargamel hit the town then ? :biglaugh:
-
No diamond analogy is relevant.
I'm glad you admit it.
Even the surface of the fake diamond is different when looked upon closely similarly even the display is fake compared to an overscanned TV monitor or Amiga monitor.
Absolutely. The emulator gives you a nice stable display with your own choice of how to scale it, with or without scanline effects and so on. If you are using an overscanned TV with interlace, have fun. I did that for a time and I absolutely do not miss it.
And you know very well the internals are NOT there--
Not bothered in the slightest. The presence of absence of real hardware internals makes utterly no difference to 99% of my classic software collection.
the timing (558ns and better for software specific to 7.16Mhz PCs or like Bars and Pipes using 3.57Mhz based audio timer), the same frequency refresh rate, etc.)
Since I use OctaMED SS and render complex audio to disk for post production, this makes no difference either. Also, I can run it, with smoothing enabled and emulated audio with more channels and cleaner output than any of my hardware amigas can.
I can say more but I'm logging in from someone else's machine... Post #23 in this thread is complete bullcrap; there's no way to eliminate the latency completely.
You can never eliminate latency completely from any timed system built using logic gates. If your latency is at least constant, then that's good enough for most purposes.
>PS, I'm glad you realised your 500ns joyport polling argument (as an example of ways in which the amiga was way ahead of the PC) was, well, a poor one. A more domain specific example you'd be hard pressed to find. Especially given that the old soundcard "joyport" traditionally isn't a standard bit of PC hardware anyway.
I already did but you misunderstood it; that's why I called it "straw-man argument". You thought I was talking about 500ns sampling of joystick, but no. I was stating 1Khz sampling of joystick and 558ns accuracy without latency as another argument. There are more argument but some biased people can't even accept the joystick argument.
If you'd have bothered to make a more relevant argument in the first place I might not have confused them.
I'm not talking about the looks. Understand the analogy for what it is.
I do. It's grasping at straws. UAE is a perfectly good system for running the majority of 68K based amiga software, you have yet to present one pertinent argument as to why it is not. Im my experience, and the experience of many others, it will run more amiga software than my actual real amiga does, since in my case, my A1200 won't run all pre AGA titles. If it weren't for WHDload installers I'd need a second, older hardware amiga just to run some of the old classics.
-
Hi,
@danybebe,
Depends how much you are willing to spend, I have an Amiga 4000 and an Amiga 3000, to play a lot of the games you have to look to see if it is pal or ntsc, then you have to look at what kind of graphics it uses, aga or occ or ecc, then you have to decide wheter or not it needs the program degrader, keep a pen handy so that you can mark all your disks with what it took to start up that software on the Amiga you decide to use.
Now the Emulator, I use AF2008, on a Quad Core, it is super fast, the music rarely slows it down but does not give the same sound quality as the original Amiga, the graphics are a little blocky compared to the original Amiga (i will probably get flamed for this but i will try to explain) the pc uses square pixels while the Amiga used round pixels the round pixels seem to blend better than the square pixels on the PC you can especilly see this in some old Amiga demos, while they looked good on the orginal Amigas they look squared out on the PC emulation. I use Amiga forever with Amikit, and am completely happy, but once again getting your software there and running is sometimes a pain, you have to try to convert it over with WHD or something like that. I can't remember the program since I bought a CD off ebay with something like 3500 games on it in this format, with AF 2008 it loads it right in off the CD.
smerf
I use to have an Amiga 3000/030@25Mhz connected to a PC SVGA monitor and the pixels are not rounded.
-
...
Sort of, but you can't throw around the word "real-time" like that. It's an emulator, not a real-time simulator, so at best, you'll get an approximation. The emulation itself is cycle-exact, but there are no deadline guarantees. Depending on the host system, the emulation may lag. On most modern systems, though, that's not a problem.
...
Thanks for summing it up. It's cycle-exact, but no deadline guarantees. It's an approximation, but real Amiga is real-time. However, the word "may" in "may lag" seems incorrect. It has to lag if it's building up a frame ahead of time while user input happens in real-time.
>Nothing's impossible. You can access hardware directly from kernel code in Windows, and in some cases, this is what WinUAE does; however, video and audio devices are accessed using standard APIs and driver-supported low-latency access methods.
So it accesses hardware directly except for video/audio which is significant for Amiga.
There are some things that are impossible-- for example: if you try to time things more accurate than 840ns on PC using 1.19318Mhz timer, it's impossible.
-
I'm glad you admit it.
...
I said, perhaps I need a comma there, "No, diamond analogy is relevant"
>Absolutely. The emulator gives you a nice stable display with your own choice of how to scale it, with or without scanline effects and so on. If you are using an overscanned TV with interlace, have fun. I did that for a time and I absolutely do not miss it.
Unless you are recording the output to the video tape or DVD recorder.
>Not bothered in the slightest. The presence of absence of real hardware internals makes utterly no difference to 99% of my classic software collection.
According to your limited observation of course. But I don't go by that.
>You can never eliminate latency completely from any timed system built using logic gates. If your latency is at least constant, then that's good enough for most purposes.
If you get constant latency every time, that's just as good as no latency since you already know there's that offset time involved. But you won't find that in any PC timer.
>If you'd have bothered to make a more relevant argument in the first place I might not have confused them.
You failed to understand the argument and you're blaming me. It's relevant if you are into Amiga gaming. Although you could read the joystick with 558ns accuracy, that wasn't the argument. You can deal with any of the custom chip registers with 558ns accuracy and trigger off IRQs from Copper with that accuracy.
>I do. It's grasping at straws. UAE is a perfectly good system for running the majority of 68K based amiga software, you have yet to present one pertinent argument as to why it is not. Im my experience, and the experience of many others, it will run more amiga software than my actual real amiga does, since in my case, my A1200 won't run all pre AGA titles. If it weren't for WHDload installers I'd need a second, older hardware amiga just to run some of the old classics.
It's not grasping at straws. The argument is whether it's a real amiga. You keep claiming it's better. If it's a real amiga, it should be able to do EXACTLY what a real amiga does. It doesn't do that regardless if you think it's good enough in someone's limited experience.
-
Just saw this joystick. Looks like it would be neat to use with UAE.
http://www.thumbsupuk.com/products/USB-Classic-Joystick.htm?id=3&subid=&prodid=562&cc=
-
I said, perhaps I need a comma there, "No, diamond analogy is relevant"
>Absolutely. The emulator gives you a nice stable display with your own choice of how to scale it, with or without scanline effects and so on. If you are using an overscanned TV with interlace, have fun. I did that for a time and I absolutely do not miss it.
Unless you are recording the output to the video tape or DVD recorder.
Video tape? Hells teeth man, what century is this? DVD, fine but why would I "record" the output on a dedicated recorder when I can simply dump the entire video stream to disk directly from the emulation and then master it any way I see fit?
>Not bothered in the slightest. The presence of absence of real hardware internals makes utterly no difference to 99% of my classic software collection.
According to your limited observation of course. But I don't go by that.
Completely strawman. You have absolutely no notion whatsoever of how well software runs on my system, so you are utterly unable to refute me. You don't have to agree, of course, but you have no basis at all.
>You can never eliminate latency completely from any timed system built using logic gates. If your latency is at least constant, then that's good enough for most purposes.
If you get constant latency every time, that's just as good as no latency since you already know there's that offset time involved. But you won't find that in any PC timer.
>If you'd have bothered to make a more relevant argument in the first place I might not have confused them.
You failed to understand the argument and you're blaming me. It's relevant if you are into Amiga gaming. Although you could read the joystick with 558ns accuracy, that wasn't the argument. You can deal with any of the custom chip registers with 558ns accuracy and trigger off IRQs from Copper with that accuracy.
No, we've clarified that now. You are talking about polling the joyport at kHz rates and the fact that you can peek/poke the custom hardware space from the copper at 558ns. That I'm happy enough with. However it's of no relevance whatsoever in the argument as to which system is playing "catch up", unfortunately for you. The requirement for cycle exact hardware bashing does not exist on modern machines because people have moved away from metal banging.
You know, I used to do a lot of copper progging back in the day, it was interesting. THe copper, however was a simple beast from an instruction set perspective. Not really a Turing complete processor.
Nowadays, I write code for GPUs, except it's in a C-based language. It's a perfectly logical evolution. I could write in PTX assembler directly but since the underlying hardware is now so much more complicated it would be self defeating to attempt it.
>I do. It's grasping at straws. UAE is a perfectly good system for running the majority of 68K based amiga software, you have yet to present one pertinent argument as to why it is not. Im my experience, and the experience of many others, it will run more amiga software than my actual real amiga does, since in my case, my A1200 won't run all pre AGA titles. If it weren't for WHDload installers I'd need a second, older hardware amiga just to run some of the old classics.
It's not grasping at straws. The argument is whether it's a real amiga.
It most assuredly is not the argument and never was. The argument is it a viable alternative to a real amiga...
You keep claiming it's better.
I have made no such claim whatsoever. I have stated it's advantages compared to the real thing:
1) Cost
2) Speed
3) Compatibility
4) Convenience
I never said "better", since "better" is subjective. The above are not subjective, they are entirely valid points that can be demonstrated readily.
If it's a real amiga, it should be able to do EXACTLY what a real amiga does. It doesn't do that regardless if you think it's good enough in someone's limited experience.
No wonder you are so helplessly confused about this. I never claimed it was a real Amiga, not once in this thread or any other. I claimed it is a viable alternative (esp for a someone that already has a machine which can run it) with the advantages outlined above.
It is an emulation. It doesn't need to be able to do "exactly" what a real amiga does, it just needs to provide the same end functionality for the user. If you can't understand this basic point and conflate it with issue of what is a 'real' amiga, then that's your own problem.
-
Heaven forbid they'd even try my system.. Where I run Windows 7 x64), Windows XP (256MB RAM), WinUAE, AROS, and UBUNTO Linux all at the same time and on the same screen.. With 6 gigs of RAM I hardly notice any slowdown at all running all of these retro 32bit OSes at the same time in different Windows..
http://www.donburnett.com/Amiganess.jpg
-
@Karlos
Maybe it's worth to check his posts in the following thread before continuing the discussion with him here...
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=36003
-
Video tape? Hells teeth man, what century is this? DVD, fine but why would I "record" the output on a dedicated recorder when I can simply dump the entire video stream to disk directly from the emulation and then master it any way I see fit?
...
I prefer videos-- they don't scratch easily and ruin the entire video.
>Completely strawman. You have absolutely no notion whatsoever of how well software runs on my system, so you are utterly unable to refute me. You don't have to agree, of course, but you have no basis at all.
It's not strawman-- it's your limited subjective experience. I can PROVE it's not doing the real amiga does and it MAKES a difference for my applications.
>No, we've clarified that now. You are talking about polling the joyport at kHz rates and the fact that you can peek/poke the custom hardware space from the copper at 558ns. That I'm happy enough with. However it's of no relevance whatsoever in the argument as to which system is playing "catch up", unfortunately for you.
It's playing catch-up since it requires precise timing which is NONEXISTENT in your PC what to speak of an emulation running on top of a PC.
>The requirement for cycle exact hardware bashing does not exist on modern machines because people have moved away from metal banging.
That's too bad.
>Nowadays, I write code for GPUs, except it's in a C-based language. It's a perfectly logical evolution. I could write in PTX assembler directly but since the underlying hardware is now so much more complicated it would be self defeating to attempt it.
You didn't explain how that outdoes the Copper.
>It most assuredly is not the argument and never was. The argument is it a viable alternative to a real amiga...
Okay, great. Some others are claiming it's good as amiga or better.
>I never said "better", since "better" is subjective.
Better is not subjective. It's better to have 7.16Mhz vs. 3.57Mhz timing.
>The above are not subjective, they are entirely valid points that can be demonstrated readily.
Okay, as long as they are not the real amiga.
>No wonder you are so helplessly confused about this. I never claimed it was a real Amiga, not once in this thread or any other. I claimed it is a viable alternative (esp for a someone that already has a machine which can run it) with the advantages outlined above.
Not confused; but you implied a better amiga they way you posted your replies.
>It is an emulation. It doesn't need to be able to do "exactly" what a real amiga does, it just needs to provide the same end functionality for the user. If you can't understand this basic point and conflate it with issue of what is a 'real' amiga, then that's your own problem.
No, it does NOT provide the same end functionality since that's part of being a real amiga.
-
@Karlos
Maybe it's worth to check his posts in the following thread before continuing the discussion with him here...
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=36003
Well, unlike Shaun, at least he knows something about the actual hardware :)
-
Well, unlike Shaun, at least he knows something about the actual hardware :)
Maybe Shaun decided to take up reading.
-
>Nowadays, I write code for GPUs, except it's in a C-based language. It's a perfectly logical evolution. I could write in PTX assembler directly but since the underlying hardware is now so much more complicated it would be self defeating to attempt it.
You didn't explain how that outdoes the Copper.
As I have said umpteen times, this is a subjective debate. You didn't explain how the Copper outdoes a box of cornflakes. The copper is very poor in comparison to a box of cornflakes at 6am in the morning when I'm hungry and disoriented.
With this necessary understanding of the subjective nature of the debate in mind, I'll give you a suitably subjective answer:
Well, lets look at the Copper. Its a limited state machine that has three instructions: move, wait and skip. It executes in sync with the video hardware. Despite this limited instruction set, the ability to poke hardware registers of other components (eg the blitter) makes it quite versatile (ie you can do more than pretty gradients), agreed?
However, it is not suitable for my applications. I do not require beam sync operations, but I require a "copperlist" that can perform an operation en-masse on a 2 (or 3) dimensional grid of data. I also need a Turing Complete machine to execute it since the operations I want to perform in my "copperlist", per element, may have conditional jumps.
The operations will consist of more than 16-bit word moves, waiting and skipping. I need 32-bit IEEE754 compliant add, subtract, multiply, divide and square root and comparisons. I also need the usual gamut of arithmetic, logic, and bitwise operators for integer types. My dataset(s) will also not be representable using 24-bit addressing as it is several hundred megabytes in size, but that's by the by.
In short, I need a fully programmable CPU with FPU. However, I need a CPU that can can execute my "copperlist" many times concurrently, each instance operating on a separate element in my data grid.
So, the GPU is significantly better than the copper for my application. Your mileage may vary.
>I never said "better", since "better" is subjective.
Better is not subjective. It's better to have 7.16Mhz vs. 3.57Mhz timing.
"Better" is most assuredly subjective. What constitutes "better" is context dependent. A kettle is far better than 7.16MHz timing can ever be, when you want to make a cup of tea.
Not confused; but you implied a better amiga they way you posted your replies.
It is better if you want to have an Amiga you can work with on the train home, or if you want an amiga that can process data rapidly (eg Image Processing, Ray Tracing etc), or you want an Amiga that can handle huge RTG resolutions in 32-bit colour without any slowdown, or you want an Amiga that you can reconfigure the hardware without physically opening it, or you want an Amiga with more than 2MB of Chip RAM.
These are all ways in which UAE is better than a real Amiga, but they are all subjective. Not everybody wants to do all of the above things with their Amiga. If you want to use your Amiga to control parallel port hardware and your PC doesn't have one, then again, subjectively, it is worse than a real Amiga.
No, it does NOT provide the same end functionality since that's part of being a real amiga.
In your opinion. As far as the software running on the emulation is concerned, it is a real Amiga.
-
Hi,
I had my Amiga attached to a Panasonic monitor and te pixels were rounded.
smerf
-
Hi,
@DonnyEMU
Impossible, unless you are running them in Virtual Drive ware, and they must be running slowly since there is that much activity going on.
Now can you add more drives and format them at the same time with the same programs running, and can you add a flopy disk to each?
Can you load a CD program in each at the same time?
and
Can it whistle dixie while doing all the above?
smerf
-
Well, unlike Shaun, at least he knows something about the actual hardware :)
I'm not sure amigaski does know anything about actual hardware... he might have read something in a book, but he has demonstrated a total lack of ever having every actually had to program any...
-
When I say "actual" hardware, I mean hardware that actually exists. Shauns bang was Zorro VII, if you recall ;)
-
When I say "actual" hardware, I mean hardware that actually exists. Shauns bang was Zorro VII, if you recall ;)
Oh yeah... the bus arch troll... what a freak, PIC-E must make him piss the bed at night :)
-
Oh yeah... the bus arch troll... what a freak, PCI-E must make him piss the bed at night :)
Well, PCIe is only version 2. He must be up to, what, Zorro 15 by now?
-
Well, PCIe is only version 2. He must be up to, what, Zorro 15 by now?
Last I heard of of him was over 10 years ago... I think... it's probably not unreasonable to assume he is in triple figures now... I dread to think how it actually works... maybe 2 baked bean tins and a bit of string...
-
As I have said umpteen times, this is a subjective debate. You didn't explain how the Copper outdoes a box of cornflakes. The copper is very poor in comparison to a box of cornflakes at 6am in the morning when I'm hungry and disoriented.
...
Sorry, I'm speaking in context to emulation on PC.
>"Better" is most assuredly subjective. What constitutes "better" is context dependent. A kettle is far better than 7.16MHz timing can ever be, when you want to make a cup of tea.
If it's context dependent, then it can be objective as well if context is clear. If context is timing, then 7.16Mhz based timing is better (superior) to 3.57Mhz timing.
>In your opinion. As far as the software running on the emulation is concerned, it is a real Amiga.
Based on deductive logic. If PC can't handle the timing task, emulation on PC can't handle it. QED.
-
I'm not sure amigaski does know anything about actual hardware... he might have read something in a book, but he has demonstrated a total lack of ever having every actually had to program any...
That's what your problem is. You go around randomly searching the web and quoting things without actually having tried things out. Just speaking from my experience with you in the past. I am speaking on the basis of actual tests. Go try answering the question rather than playing "call the dog a bad name and hang him."
-
Sorry, I'm speaking in context to emulation on PC.
>"Better" is most assuredly subjective. What constitutes "better" is context dependent. A kettle is far better than 7.16MHz timing can ever be, when you want to make a cup of tea.
If it's context dependent, then it can be objective as well if context is clear. If context is timing, then 7.16Mhz based timing is better (superior) to 3.57Mhz timing.
>In your opinion. As far as the software running on the emulation is concerned, it is a real Amiga.
Based on deductive logic. If PC can't handle the timing task, emulation on PC can't handle it. QED.
We've been over this before, Amigaski. It can. Again, if you actually took the time and studied emulator fundamentals you would finally realize that. But then again you still stick to the wrong definition of the term emulator, so it's fairly pointless to discuss these things with you. It's getting silly.
-
We've been over this before, Amigaski. It can. Again, if you actually took the time and studied emulator fundamentals you would finally realize that. But then again you still stick to the wrong definition of the term emulator, so it's fairly pointless to discuss these things with you. It's getting silly.
I can skip over emulator fundamentals if I know PC can't handle it. I grasped your definition of emulator, but it's different from what people are actually understanding it to be. Just look at post #23-- claiming it's as good as real amiga. Should I take it as a sales pitch?
I also grasped your definition of "cycle exact" meaning unrelated to time of cycle, but many people still think it involves exact timing.
-
I can skip over emulator fundamentals if I know PC can't handle it. I grasped your definition of emulator, but it's different from what people are actually understanding it to be. Just look at post #23-- claiming it's as good as real amiga. Should I take it as a sales pitch?
I also grasped your definition of "cycle exact" meaning unrelated to time of cycle, but many people still think it involves exact timing.
Given that different models of the same model of the amiga could also introduce timing differences, (for instance 2B revision A1200 motherboards were known to be somewhat less stable then the 1D4 versions, not to mention having some interesting issues with regard some accelerator cards), decrying UAEs cycle exact (whilst not "exact") system is somewhat laughable.
Also, #23 isn't saying it's as good as, only that it is more convenient (it is), faster (it is) and cheaper (it is).
I sense the comming need to download some ED stock images in the near future.
-
Given that different models of the same model of the amiga could also introduce timing differences, (for instance 2B revision A1200 motherboards were known to be somewhat less stable then the 1D4 versions, not to mention having some interesting issues with regard some accelerator cards), decrying UAEs cycle exact (whilst not "exact") system is somewhat laughable.
Also, #23 isn't saying it's as good as, only that it is more convenient (it is), faster (it is) and cheaper (it is).
I sense the comming need to download some ED stock images in the near future.
If you go by specs, OCS hardware registers are bit by bit compatible with ECS/AGA. Incompatibilities are due to other issues, but the Copper timing, CIA interrupts, Audio interrupts, etc. still have the same EXACT timing.
-
If you go by specs, OCS hardware registers are bit by bit compatible with ECS/AGA. Incompatibilities are due to other issues, but the Copper timing, CIA interrupts, Audio interrupts, etc. still have the same EXACT timing.
I'm not sure amigaski does know anything about actual hardware... he might have read something in a book, but he has demonstrated a total lack of ever having every actually had to program any...
nuff said.
-
I can skip over emulator fundamentals if I know PC can't handle it. I grasped your definition of emulator, but it's different from what people are actually understanding it to be. Just look at post #23-- claiming it's as good as real amiga. Should I take it as a sales pitch?
No, you were using the term "emulate" as used in the context of psychology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulation_(observational_learning)
In the context of computer emulation, the following definition is used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulator
Another confirmation of this can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulation_(disambiguation)
Also check this link:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/emulate
You are using the wrong definition, and use that to support some of your claims. And even when people point this out to you, you stick to it. That's just amazing.
I also grasped your definition of "cycle exact" meaning unrelated to time of cycle, but many people still think it involves exact timing.
It's not my definition. Cycle exact means the system is emulated at the cycle level. It does not dictate how long a cycle is - in such case it would be refered to as "timing". You cling to your own definition, since that would support your claims. Again that's just amazing.
-
Hi,
I had my Amiga attached to a Panasonic monitor and te pixels were rounded.
smerf
The dot pitch is not small enough. 320x200 NTSC on a good 15 inch SVGA monitor shows blocky pixels and they not rounded.
-
nuff said.
Blind leading the blind. Or blind following the blind. You can easily prove what I wrote-- just time things on CIA interrupts, Audio Interrupts, Copper lists, etc. on OCS/ECS/AGA and you will see that they are using same timing.
-
No, you were using the term "emulate" as used in the context of psychology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulation_(observational_learning)
In the context of computer emulation, the following definition is used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulator
Another confirmation of this can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulation_(disambiguation)
Also check this link:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/emulate
You are using the wrong definition, and use that to support some of your claims. And even when people point this out to you, you stick to it. That's just amazing.
...
I know what people mean from the context. You want to PURPOSELY MISLEAD people knowing well the correct definition. You are such a shameless person. You should read what people think about emulation being a better amiga.
>It's not my definition. Cycle exact means the system is emulated at the cycle level. It does not dictate how long a cycle is - in such case it would be refered to as "timing". You cling to your own definition, since that would support your claims. Again that's just amazing.
There's something called definition by context which is more significant than randomly quoting things from websites. I understand your definition but that's not what people are implying when I reply to them.
-
I suggest you try it for yourself and not listen to all the clatter on this board. Functionally there's very little if any difference between Amiga hardware and UAE. Just try UAE and see if you like it.
I agree - do not let all the negative bantering scare you off. I say, go ahead and dive right into both WINUAE and the real hardware.
I find them both quite amazing, and yes it takes a bit of a learning curve to get used too, but this is not an unpleasant task. The Amiga's were intended to be fun, (and still can be). My first computer was an Amiga and back then I could not even spell computer...
For WinUAE might I suggest purchasing CLOANTO's Amiga Forver. The included AExplorer connects to the real Amiga via serial, and is very easy to setup. Installation is very easy, and also works with the Amikit package (which is quite stunning).
You can then capture ADF floppies from your Amiga and run a lot of them with WINUAE which also gives the added bonus of having a backup of your software,
-
I know what people mean from the context. You want to PURPOSELY MISLEAD people knowing well the correct definition. You are such a shameless person. You should read what people think about emulation being a better amiga.
I'm not misleading anyone, you are. I'm presenting facts, and you choose to ignore it. That's worse than ignorance.
AFAIK I've never claimed that emulation is "better", because that's a matter of opinion. The only thing I've claimed is that cycle accurate emulation is perfectly possible, and you've claimed it's not.
And in this discussion, you've clinged on to the wrong definition of "computer emulator" and "cycle accurate", because your own definitions would support your claims.
There's something called definition by context which is more significant than randomly quoting things from websites. I understand your definition but that's not what people are implying when I reply to them.
Definition by context. Exactly. And I'm using the definition suitable for the context of computer emulation, whereas you are using a definition which is intended for psychology/sociology - for the simple reason that the actual wording for that definition support some twisted idea of yours.
Stay in your bubble, Amigaski. The real world is horrible anyway.
-
I'm not misleading anyone, you are. I'm presenting facts, and you choose to ignore it. That's worse than ignorance.
AFAIK I've never claimed that emulation is "better", because that's a matter of opinion. The only thing I've claimed is that cycle accurate emulation is perfectly possible, and you've claimed it's not.
...
You are presenting the same definition over and over again which does NOT apply to the people I'm replying to. I'm not referring to you and your definitions. I know your definitions: emulate -- attempt to mimic; cycle accurate -- does not refer to time of cycle. Great for you. If everyone agreed with that, that would be great.
There's no opinion when timing is wrong and someone thinks it's right. That means they are NOT referring to your definitions.
>And in this discussion, you've clinged on to the wrong definition of "computer emulator" and "cycle accurate", because your own definitions would support your claims.
You are too ignorant to see the context.
>Definition by context. Exactly. And I'm using the definition suitable for the context of computer emulation, whereas you are using a definition which is intended for psychology/sociology - for the simple reason that the actual wording for that definition support some twisted idea of yours.
They are NOT going by your wiki bullcrap. The context is within this topic. You are once again distorting what is actually being stated by people with your own definition. Or you are just desperate to reply to your mistakes from last year.
>Stay in your bubble, Amigaski. The real world is horrible anyway.
You are stuck in the bubble and don't even know it.
-
There's no opinion when timing is wrong and someone thinks it's right. That means they are NOT referring to your definitions.
You're being silly now.
>And in this discussion, you've clinged on to the wrong definition of "computer emulator" and "cycle accurate", because your own definitions would support your claims.
You are too ignorant to see the context.
Ignorant? You're the one that's constantly refusing to check up facts, check emulator sources, reading common knowledge bases such as wikipedia. You even claim that these sources of information is wrong - but refuse to back that up with facts (claiming you don't need to, because you "already know" - which you obviously don't).
I don't have anything against a person just because that person happens to lack knowledge in a certain area. I'm just happy to help that person. What you suffer from is denial. You don't want to accept truth, since it doesn't suit your own needs.
That's much worse than ignorance.
They are NOT going by your wiki bullcrap. The context is within this topic. You are once again distorting what is actually being stated by people with your own definition. Or you are just desperate to reply to your mistakes from last year.
You moron - I didn't write that stuff. It's not my definitions. It's the definition found in 99% of the dictionaries found on planet earth. What you're saying is that I shouldn't stick to the actual definition of the word, but rather a definition which isn't intended for that context.
That's pure stupidity.
If distorting = pointing out wrong facts and providing references to the correct ones - then I'm guilty.
You're the one that's constantly misleading people and bending the truth. I have no interest in doing so. The reason I reply to your posts is because I think it's wrong of you to mislead people like you do. Some people with less technical expertise might actually believe you, and I think that's wrong.
-
It's time to move your discussion to PM, guys.
-
It's time to move your discussion to PM, guys.
You're right. This doesn't belong in a public forum. I highly doubt a PM will help, so I better just leave it as it is instead.
A wise man once said: "Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics - even if you win, you're still a retard". Very true.
-
A wise man once said: "Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics - even if you win, you're still a retard". Very true.
:roflmao:
-
You're being silly now.
...
That's a "good" argument.
>Ignorant? You're the one that's constantly refusing to check up facts, check emulator sources, reading common knowledge bases such as wikipedia. You even claim that these sources of information is wrong - but refuse to back that up with facts (claiming you don't need to, because you "already know" - which you obviously don't).
I know your references and I did back up with facts that CONTEXT is different. If the people I replied to went by your definitions that cycle exact does not refer to timing, and emulation is just an attempt I wouldn't be wasting my time with them.
>...denial. You don't want to accept truth, since it doesn't suit your own needs.
>That's much worse than ignorance.
Your emulation can not work for my timing needs so I am not going to accept someone claiming "it's functionally equivalent to a real amiga."
>You moron - I didn't write that stuff. It's not my definitions. It's the definition found in 99% of the dictionaries found on planet earth. What you're saying is that I shouldn't stick to the actual definition of the word, but rather a definition which isn't intended for that context.
You have to POINT out those definitions to those people that are claiming it's functionally equivalent or it's better than a real amiga. Name calling doesn't help you establish the truth-- it just shows you are biased.
>That's pure stupidity.
It's stupidity on your part that you want me to stick to the definition and remain silent while people use some other distorted definition and mislead people. That makes you a misleading personality as well.
>You're the one that's constantly misleading people and bending the truth.
PROVE IT. Anyone can blurt out whatever comes on the top of his head like you have done in this topic. Go read the dictionary and answer each reply by looking each word up in the dictionary and you'll see what I mean by CONTEXT.
>I have no interest in doing so. The reason I reply to your posts is because I think it's wrong of you to mislead people like you do. Some people with less technical expertise might actually believe you, and I think that's wrong.
You have problems with English language that's why you write bullcrap like above.
-
You have problems with English language that's why you write bullcrap like above.
You use "bullcrap" a lot don't you? :confused:
-
You use "bullcrap" a lot don't you? :confused:
That's a technical question.
-
That's a technical question.
:lol:
-
You're right. This doesn't belong in a public forum. I highly doubt a PM will help, so I better just leave it as it is instead.
A good decision. Discussing with the "owners of the truth" is pure waste of time...
-
A good decision. Discussing with the "owners of the truth" is pure waste of time...
That should be followers of the truth (without having some selfish ambition to fulfill).
-
That's a "good" argument.
PROVE IT. Anyone can blurt out whatever comes on the top of his head like you have done in this topic. Go read the dictionary and answer each reply by looking each word up in the dictionary and you'll see what I mean by CONTEXT.
I've done that like - what - 10 times or so, by refering you to emulator source codes or by providing links supporting the semantics in question. Each time you either refuse to read it, stating that you already know better, or discard the source for some other reason (including wikipedia, wiktionary, probably also encarta, websters).
About context - You're the one that constantly talks about "emulate" as in "equal or excel", and apply that to computer emulation. The context for that exact wording comes from sociology and psychology, something you would discover if you just *read* the sources I've provided - but you somehow completely lack the capability to process the information you've been given.
You have problems with English language that's why you write bullcrap like above.
Define irony. The sentence you just wrote is a good example of *bad* english.
I've been a well established tech writer since ten years. I'm more than familiar with the topics we've discussed, and I think I know my english. What's your excuse?
Dude, let's agree on one thing. We can't agree.
-
Damn, I couldn't stop myself. Sorry people, please accept my humble apologies. I don't appreciate discussions such as this one either, but then again I'm too easy to provoke I guess.
Amigaski, like I said - we won't agree no matter how long this discussion is. Let's just drop it, ok? If you really need to reply to my previous post, do so by posting a PM instead.
-
Damn, I couldn't stop myself. Sorry people, please accept my humble apologies. I don't appreciate discussions such as this one either, but then again I'm too easy to provoke I guess.
Amigaski, like I said - we won't agree no matter how long this discussion is. Let's just drop it, ok? If you really need to reply to my previous post, do so by posting a PM instead.
I find this thread fascinating... Simply because I can't understand where amigaski is coming from... Trolling? Delusional? Confused? or just plain stupid?
-
Hi,
@bloodline
I think he sat on too large of a joystick, and it is irratating his anal canal.
Sitting on a joystick so much fun, move the sprite by wiggeling your bun.
smerf
-
You're right. This doesn't belong in a public forum. I highly doubt a PM will help, so I better just leave it as it is instead.
A wise man once said: "Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics - even if you win, you're still a retard". Very true.
Hi,
I really take insult to a post like this, and I hope that you remove it, I support the special olympics every year, and think that the people participating in it are very special, intelligent people that try very hard coping with a real world. Some of these kids also use Amiga's and PC's on the internet. This can hurt feeling bad.
Some people on these site's like me, can be the real idiots.
smerf
-
Hi all.
I want to assemble a working amiga that is actually usable, and is not too
difficult to use (I want my kids to be able to load games too), but I've
never actually owned or used an amiga in the past until now (but ZX Spectrum, c64s and 128), so I'll have to learn how to use it well (I don't think is too difficult).
- I own an Amiga 1000 and an Amiga 3000, they both work fine (I
personally tested them, I can boot workbench and some games), have a 1084 monitor, joysticks and mouse, these are complete computer (with a couple of external floppy drives), and I have tons of floppies and many brand new blank floppies.
The problem is that they don't have a hard drive, and I have no idea
of how much memory they have installed (I can check) and I noticed
how long do programs and games take to load.. How do I install a hard
drive o sd memory or cd reader in these things?
My other option is to just use an old PC computer (an amd atlhon 2200)
runing Winuae, and live with it (without having to actually put the
real Amigas to work) and a couple of joysticks. And why not, it can
run MAME too.
I'd like to listen about what do you think I should do, use the 1000,
3000 or the pc with winuae.
Thanks in advance.
Daniel
Drumheller, ab, Canada
Hi,
@dannybebe
I can only give you the experience that I have using an Amiga 4000 and Amiga Forever on a new Quad Core 6600 computer, of course the Amiga 4000 runs a lot of the Amiga stuff quite well, I also have an Amiga 3000 but do not use it as much as my A4000, but you should be able to find a 50 pin scsi that you can hook up to the inside at a very low price on ebay, you will need a 50 pin ribbon cable which you can also find on ebay at a very low price. The hard drive does not have to be a large hard drive I use a 5oo mbyte drive on my A3000, the next thing you will have to do is check the terminators inside the A3000 and make sure they are in place, if not like mine where removed, I use a 100 mbyte zip drive on the external scsi connector set at scsi drive 6 and termination set on. The A1000 you might as well forget trying to put in a hard drive, the cards and software are hard to find, by the way in anyone is looking for the Supra drive software that goes with the first supra drive scsci card for the A1000, I have the software but I no longer have the card or the A1000 since my wife chucked out my A1000 while I was out of town, yes I am still married to her, she had good intent in her heart, she bought me a new Dell desktop and didn't think I would mind her throwing out my old computer, (sob). Now for the Amiga Forever software for a PC computer. On my Quad Core PC it runs excellent, every now and then it hiccups on the music when I am playing a game, other wise on this fast PC it emulates the Amiga very well, and with AmiKit installed really looks great. On a slower PC you will probably have problems with the sound and sometimes with the video while playing a game, the Dell was really bad at this since it was a Pentium at 2.7 ghertz. My AMD 3700 chip seemed to do way better than the Dell but still had some problems while playing some games. Emulation still is not perfect even on the fastest computers, but am I going to tell you to go with emulation, hey for the price you can't go wrong, and then you might even upgrade your PC someday and install it on a faster PC. It might even work well on your PC right now, the problem with emulation is getting your software over to it and then learning new methods of using it, I know because I still am.
smerf
-
try convincing Karlos that the amiga boots significantly faster than a PC and that this a useful thing. But according to Karlos you, like me, are insane or suffer from attention deficit disorder.
Hi.
@stefcep.
I tried telling Karlos that the Amiga boots faster but he is dead set that his PC wakes up from its sleep faster than an Amiga booting, I replied that the Amiga does not have a sleep mode so the Amiga beats it there because it is alway on and does not sleep. Then again when you hear about his pitiful PC running Linux I sometimes wonder about him, I tried to convince him that the Amiga also loads its OS faster than a PC loading winblows or vista, but he also denied that post to, one person even argued with him with little to no result that the Amiga's joystick port is faster, once again he denied this saying that the PC joysticks are faster even though the PC today does not have a joystick port. Poor Karlos is having delusional thoughts after using a PC for so long. We really ought to humor him. Throw him a bone every now and then to keep him happy.
smerf
-
WinXP could be made to boot fairly quickly with a little trimming... about 35 seconds on my circa '03 Athlon, no different than most Amigas that load a few extra things on startup. My A1200 boots to 3.9 in about 5 seconds... actually a pretty useful feature considering how often it crashes :P
Hi,
I trimmed Windows XP right off my computer for Ubuntu 9.10 64 bit. It boots slower than my Amiga 4000 but has better eye candy to watch during its boot up.
smerf
-
Hi.
@stefcep.
I tried telling Karlos that the Amiga boots faster but he is dead set that his PC wakes up from its sleep faster than an Amiga booting, I replied that the Amiga does not have a sleep mode so the Amiga beats it there because it is alway on and does not sleep. Then again when you hear about his pitiful PC running Linux I sometimes wonder about him, I tried to convince him that the Amiga also loads its OS faster than a PC loading winblows or vista, but he also denied that post to, one person even argued with him with little to no result that the Amiga's joystick port is faster, once again he denied this saying that the PC joysticks are faster even though the PC today does not have a joystick port. Poor Karlos is having delusional thoughts after using a PC for so long. We really ought to humor him. Throw him a bone every now and then to keep him happy.
smerf
This thread has gone down a path that I generally don't see at Amiga.org. The disappointing thing for me has been the "pack-mentality" of the pro-PC camp to resort to personal insults, and to belittle the arguments of the pro-Amiga camp on the basis that those arguments are trivial because these uniquely Amiga advantages don't matter to them in their own computing use. Anywhere else thats called "missing the point". However tempting it might be though, we ALL shouldn't go down THAT path.
Karlos is interesting: he spent a large amount of energy arguing the superiority of his Linux-based machine, over Amiga AND Windows PC's BUT then in "The day or year the Linux desktop died" thread he posts:
"He's right, to be honest. And that's coming from someone that does use Linux, both for work and at home.
I don't know anybody using Linux as a desktop OS that isn't measurably more computer savvy than the majority of users. That's not to say it's an elitist thing but most people just want their desktop computer to work without any fannying about and more often than not they want it for a spot of entertainment too."
Yes most people DO just want their desktop computer to work without fannying about. A bit like Amiga's. Usability is a pretty compelling argument for Amiga's superiority over a PC running Linux, but I suppose that's irrelevant too because Karlos is an advanced Linux user and he doesn't mind fanning about. Good for him.
-
Hi all.
I want to assemble a working amiga that is actually usable, and is not too
difficult to use (I want my kids to be able to load games too), but I've
never actually owned or used an amiga in the past until now (but ZX Spectrum, c64s and 128), so I'll have to learn how to use it well (I don't think is too difficult).
- I own an Amiga 1000 and an Amiga 3000, they both work fine (I
personally tested them, I can boot workbench and some games), have a 1084 monitor, joysticks and mouse, these are complete computer (with a couple of external floppy drives), and I have tons of floppies and many brand new blank floppies.
The problem is that they don't have a hard drive, and I have no idea
of how much memory they have installed (I can check) and I noticed
how long do programs and games take to load.. How do I install a hard
drive o sd memory or cd reader in these things?
My other option is to just use an old PC computer (an amd atlhon 2200)
runing Winuae, and live with it (without having to actually put the
real Amigas to work) and a couple of joysticks. And why not, it can
run MAME too.
I'd like to listen about what do you think I should do, use the 1000,
3000 or the pc with winuae.
Thanks in advance.
Daniel
Drumheller, ab, Canada
Here are my feelings:
This year I bought both Clonto Amiga-Forever, and a New Old Stock CD32.
I was not happy with the CD32 because much of the software worked optimally in PAL. I did the hardware mod to add a NTSC/PAL(more like 50/60) switch without needing to use my Amiga mouse for early boot menu. Still, PAL modes were not right on my LCD panels.
Apparently The NTSC CD32 still continues to send the color signal in “PAL” mode.
I ended up buying the Indivision AGA 4000 for it. I made a booting CD32 disc with the Indivision utils & flash.
The problem is the CD32 begins to act flaky after an hour or so of usage… Then eventually just GURUS over and over.
On the other hand I have a Mac Mini with 2x2ghz CPUs and 4GB of ram. It’s the new Mini with 9400m video and I have XP installed on it as a boot option.
With WinUAE/AmigaForever CD32 emulation is amazingly smooth. The sound is not as good, but does not skip or anything like it did for me under Vista. Even under a heavy load, running XP, the Mini never gets unstable.
Plus, I don’t have to burn a bunch of CD’s….
Also, Xbox 360 Wireless controller is so much better than the CD32 game pad.
Additionally, Amikit is like having a high-end 060 Amiga…
I don’t know whom to call concerning my CD32. I suppose I can call Amiga Inc. That should be interesting.
On the other hand, if my Mini breaks, I’ll just call Apple.
The next project I’m planning on doing with the Mini is simply hooking up my M-audio firewire sound device and because it has MIDI, I may as well hook up the Roland MT32 as well.
I suppose if my CD32 was more reliable I’d try to get the Holy-Grail, the SX32…
-
The disappointing thing for me has been the "pack-mentality" of the pro-PC camp to resort to personal insults, and to belittle the arguments of the pro-Amiga camp on the basis that those arguments are trivial because these uniquely Amiga advantages don't matter to them in their own computing use.
Its vice versa also. And I somehow do understand some of the "pro-pc"-people here, its a bit hard not to belittle the arguments of the "pro-amiga"-people as these "unique amiga advantages" are ancient history and has no use whatsoever in todays computing. And has not been for a decade.
The biggest "unique" feature is old playable games and thats it, and even that is made possible through emulation.
-
its a bit hard not to belittle the arguments of the "pro-amiga"-people as these "unique amiga advantages" are ancient history and has no use whatsoever in todays computing.
I think some of those advantages if they were properly implemented on the PC would be welcomed by most users. But its just a theoretical argument, because most PC's-like 99%- will never have a boot time under 10 seconds, will always have a registry, will always be wasteful and inefficient with their use of hardware resources, will always have GUI performance issues, will always make you wait for things that they shouldn't make you wait for, will always have a wait pointer, will always have major malware problems, but you'll be able to do more things, many of which you won't want, need or just plain find frustrating to work with. But hey that might not matter
-
I've done that like - what - 10 times or so, by refering you to emulator source codes or by providing links supporting the semantics in question. Each time you either refuse to read it, stating that you already know better, or discard the source for some other reason (including wikipedia, wiktionary, probably also encarta, websters).
About context - You're the one that constantly talks about "emulate" as in "equal or excel", and apply that to computer emulation. The context for that exact wording comes from sociology and psychology, something you would discover if you just *read* the sources I've provided - but you somehow completely lack the capability to process the information you've been given.
...
I already answered this to you last year. You are making the same argument without refuting the answer. In the dictionary source I quoted to you, it is defined as "emulate= equal or excel" and it states nothing about only applying to sociology.
>I've been a well established tech writer since ten years. I'm more than familiar with the topics we've discussed, and I think I know my english. What's your excuse?
You should argue English then and not emulation because each person has his own understanding of what emulation is giving them. And some of the claims here are clearly false. So rather than dealing with that, you bring on last year's argument once again as if you had some revenge in mind.
-
My 2 cents here....
I just dove back into Amiga after a hiatus.....
I started w/ an a500 years ago when i was 10ish, and it was given away.... a few years ago I rebought some stuff (A500 and then A1200) and well, its a hassle if you aren't able to drop a good amount of cash to get it all setup and running well....
Tone007 pointed me to AmiKit which works with WinUAE and gives you a nice OS3.9 setup (requires disc). Until I can afford to get a formidable and functioning Amiga setup, it is awesome. It runs on my laptop and I just pretend its an Amiga Laptop.... you get the full experience more or less.
Check it out!
-
Its vice versa also. And I somehow do understand some of the "pro-pc"-people here, its a bit hard not to belittle the arguments of the "pro-amiga"-people as these "unique amiga advantages" are ancient history and has no use whatsoever in todays computing. And has not been for a decade.
The biggest "unique" feature is old playable games and thats it, and even that is made possible through emulation.
PROVE IT.
Anyone can state what comes up in his head. It takes a brain to prove stuff.
-
I find this thread fascinating... Simply because I can't understand where amigaski is coming from... Trolling? Delusional? Confused? or just plain stupid?
It's the first one-- you can't understand where amigaksi is coming from.
-
Damn, I couldn't stop myself. Sorry people, please accept my humble apologies. I don't appreciate discussions such as this one either, but then again I'm too easy to provoke I guess.
Amigaski, like I said - we won't agree no matter how long this discussion is. Let's just drop it, ok? If you really need to reply to my previous post, do so by posting a PM instead.
You are the one who keeps claiming "I'm done with you" and then keep coming back.
I haven't yet figured out how to access pmail on this new amiga.org; there used to be a way to see all the topics you replied to and look at pmail but it's a new interface...
-
I think some of those advantages if they were properly implemented on the PC would be welcomed by most users. But its just a theoretical argument, because most PC's-like 99%- will never have a boot time under 10 seconds, will always have a registry, will always be wasteful and inefficient with their use of hardware resources, will always have GUI performance issues, will always make you wait for things that they shouldn't make you wait for, will always have a wait pointer, will always have major malware problems, but you'll be able to do more things, many of which you won't want, need or just plain find frustrating to work with. But hey that might not matter
Correct. They are only useful if they are better on the PC; otherwise, there is not much use for them. What a lame way to argue.
-
@stefcep2
Frankly I don't see whats the big fuss about boot-times. My MorphOS booted in a few seconds, WinXP in maybe 20 seconds.. I have never been in so much hurry it has actually bothered me.
You have to remember AmigaOS/AROS/MorphOS lacks hundreds(thousands?) of things found in modern OS's. If AmigaOS wouldn't be 10 years behind and it would have a larger userbase there would probably be the same problems you mentioned. But that never happened so lets leave it at that.
I do however agree you with the registry, the registry was one of the lousiest ideas ever brought to computing.
I had fun with MorphOS, the OS itself was excellent and I enjoyed using it as a hobby.. but in the end the lack of proper software meant I was always switching to Windows to do the things I wanted to do.
-
PROVE IT.
Anyone can state what comes up in his head. It takes a brain to prove stuff.
The current marketsituation pretty much proves it, doesn't it? In my eyes it tells not very many people find Amiga of any serious use.
-
ohh. i see, another thread where people go impose their personal preferences on others. boot-times, well, im not very impressed with that of my own pc's very much. might be better, sure, i could look into it, but i spare my time to study other sciences since another issue is annoying me much, much more: the shutdown. i really hate to come back home a day after to find out that a computer that i switched off leaving yesterday is still on for some rediculous reason such as it couldnt close one remaining dialog window by itself. and this keeps happening again and again. ghhhrrrmmphh...
-
Correct. They are only useful if they are better on the PC; otherwise, there is not much use for them. What a lame way to argue.
i am not sure which way to take that: do you agree or disagree with the post/
-
ohh. i see, another thread where people go impose their personal preferences on others. boot-times, well, im not very impressed with that of my own pc's very much. might be better, sure, i could look into it, but i spare my time to study other sciences since another issue is annoying me much, much more: the shutdown. i really hate to come back home a day after to find out that a computer that i switched off leaving yesterday is still on for some rediculous reason such as it couldnt close one remaining dialog window by itself. and this keeps happening again and again. ghhhrrrmmphh...
LOL. So I'm not the only with the shutdown that leaves your PC running for 8 hours till you get home..for exactly the same reason..
-
i am not sure which way to take that: do you agree or disagree with the post/
Yeah, I agree with your statement that if you implemented on the PC in a better way than Amiga, the Pro-PC camp would welcome them. Now if those features are superior on Amiga, they are considered useless or "we left those long time ago" sort of things. So if they implemented a digital joystick as standard or put OS in ROM or stuff like that, then PC people would find them useful features. Just following blindly whatever is being marketed currently.
-
I really take insult to a post like this, and I hope that you remove it, I support the special olympics every year, and think that the people participating in it are very special, intelligent people that try very hard coping with a real world. Some of these kids also use Amiga's and PC's on the internet. This can hurt feeling bad.
Some people on these site's like me, can be the real idiots.
That statement shouldn't be taken too serious. It's far from being politically correct, and it necessarily doesn't reflect my own view. It's kind a fun anyway, however.
-
The current marketsituation pretty much proves it, doesn't it? In my eyes it tells not very many people find Amiga of any serious use.
I was asking you to prove your statement: these "unique amiga advantages" are ancient history and has no use whatsoever in todays computing.
This was just a speculation on your part.
-
Yeah, I agree with your statement that if you implemented on the PC in a better way than Amiga, the Pro-PC camp would welcome them. Now if those features are superior on Amiga, they are considered useless or "we left those long time ago" sort of things. So if they implemented a digital joystick as standard or put OS in ROM or stuff like that, then PC people would find them useful features. Just following blindly whatever is being marketed currently.
It does sound like people following blindly whatever is being marketed.
Not long ago a local PC mag did a trip in time where they used a Win98Se in a Pentium machine with 128 Mb ram. They found web browsing, email, Office, dvd playback, mp3 and divx playback, banking, youtube was not that different on the old machine. And Win98Se was just as responsive as Vista if not more so. Despite hardware and software advancements. Thats most of the stuff people do. I would have thought on an Amiga forum, people might question why things on the PC are still the way they are. Instead the concensus is : well i can do x number of additional things but even if I need 10x or 100x or even 1000x of the resources to do it, its OK coz hardware is cheap and I can work around it, so I'm OK with it.
-
This discussion should be transferred to a thread titled: "Why is Windows so lame/bloated/hard to program/popular with sheeple etc?" :confused:
-
that's an easy question: Windows is SO SLOW and bloated because users are stupid: People is educated to use scumm. They don't notice/care.
My XP for emulation purposes has only 6 processes running and it boots relatively fast: I am FORCED to use it because of WinUAE and SnesGT, but it's a lame system anyway.
Sooner or later, I'll run those two emulators on Mac OSX/self-compiled Linux with Wine/ CROSSOVER (reimplementations of teh windows API, no emulation/virtualization required) and I'll be free from Windows FOREVER.
A similar solution would be possible if AmigaOS/MorphOS ran on X86 hardware, and believe me there's silent, energy efficient, ergonomic X86 hardware (Asus EeeBox, not the same as EeePC, or Mac Mini X86). Screw those noisy towers...
-
I was asking you to prove your statement: these "unique amiga advantages" are ancient history and has no use whatsoever in todays computing.
This was just a speculation on your part.
I was not speculating. I was telling a cold hard fact. Let's turn it all around, if AmigaOS has so much good in it and is so superior in so many areas, why it hasn't found even a nichemarket for itself, while many OS-projects that started later with less to begin with has succeeded in some way? Partly its of course by bad management (lightly said) but theres something else to it: time. Time has passed, needs have changed. Even if there was plenty of hardware at decent prices it still wouldn't help AmigaOS to rise from the pit it sunk itself years back.
To get back to topic, this is why I think emulation is the way to go, especially because of the superb emulation WinUAE provides. It's a simple and costeffective way for many people to hobby Amiga and keep even some attachment to it, and still do the important things with proper tools. Not to mention those who really WANT to use AmigaOS, but can't be arsed to buy uberexpensive underpowered hardware.
-
They found web browsing, email, Office, dvd playback, mp3 and divx playback, banking, youtube was not that different on the old machine. And Win98Se was just as responsive as Vista if not more so.
web browsing?? youtube?? email?? banking?? these are influenced more by connection speed not os performance.
dvd playback?? divx?? these are dependent on vid card drivers/codecs moreso than anything else.
mp3?? this is dependent on the efficiency of the codec.
Thats most of the stuff people do.
most?? i don't think so.
it is just a portion of what people use a computer for. i myself use mine as a video recording system as well as dvd playback.
i have another system for gaming, vid editing, web browsing, database operations etc.
I would have thought on an Amiga forum, people might question why things on the PC are still the way they are.
because they aren't in the realm of being fixed by an os. sure you can optimize some of these and make it better but there will never be a fix per se.
ie is made my microsoft they have full control over the software but not the internet.
codecs are made by third parties and are limited by the available hardware. microsoft has tweaked the interface to improve performance but the actual codec/hardware problem remains.
as for loading times windows(as i said before) has deliberate timers that slow down it's operation to give a consistant feel with previous versions of the os. also the added features in the os also slow down loading time.
aos has no timers of this sort so it feels faster despite slower hardware.
like i said before try playing the pc version of a D&D gold box game in windows if you want to see why timers were implemented in windows.
this game was dos based iirc and uses no timers either internal or in windows. tho using dosbox may slow it down enough to be playable(with animations at proper speed.
-
Timers that slow the OS loading down on purpose. Who in theirr right mind would do that. You would want to make your OS as fast as possible.
-
Timers that slow the OS loading down on purpose. Who in theirr right mind would do that. You would want to make your OS as fast as possible.
For GUIs this is not a stupid idea at all. Having the UI flash up things as fast as possible and hide them again (eg, rolling over menu options and having the submenu attached flicker in and out of view) is actually a really bad idea for the end user, psychologically speaking.
-
Here's something cut and pasted from another forum:
Versions of Windows;
Windows Trial - Only allows you to run one program, expires after 30 days, can't be upgraded, no networking code included, doesn't allow multiple users.
Windows Preview - Only allows you to run one program, no networking code included, doesn't allow multiple users.
Windows Basic - Allows running unlimited number of programs, no networking code included, doesn't allow multiple users.
Windows Networking Trial - Same as Windows Trial, but includes networking code.
Windows Networking Preview - Same as Windows Preview, but includes networking code.
Windows Networking Basic - Same as Windows Basic, but includes networking code.
Windows Multi-User Trial - Same as Windows Trial, but allows up to 3 users.
Windows Multi-User Preview - Same as Windows Preview, but allows up to 3 users.
Windows Multi-User Basic - Same as Windows Basic, but allows up to 3 users.
Windows Multi-User Networking Trial - Same as Windows Networking Trial, but allows up to 3 users.
Windows Multi-User Networking Preview - Same as Windows Networking Preview, but allows up to 3 users.
Windows Multi-User Networking Basic - Same as Windows Networking Basic, but allows up to 3 users.
Windows Pro Trial - Same as Windows Multi-User Trial, but allows unlimited users.
Windows Pro Preview - Same as Windows Multi-User Preview, but allows unlimited users.
Windows Pro Basic - Same as Windows Multi-User Basic, but allows unlimited users.
Windows Pro Networking Trial - Same as Windows Multi-User Networking Trial, but allows unlimited users.
Windows Pro Networking Preview - Same as Windows Multi-User Networking Preview, but allows unlimited users.
Windows Pro Networking Basic - Same as Windows Multi-User Networking Basic, but allows unlimited users.
-
For GUIs this is not a stupid idea at all. Having the UI flash up things as fast as possible and hide them again (eg, rolling over menu options and having the submenu attached flicker in and out of view) is actually a really bad idea for the end user, psychologically speaking.
For things like GUI etc then this makes sense. Cant see how it ccould ever make sense for loading of the OS or the speed of backgroundd processes
-
I was not speculating. I was telling a cold hard fact. Let's turn it all around, if AmigaOS has so much good in it and is so superior in so many areas, why it hasn't found even a nichemarket for itself, while many OS-projects that started later with less to begin with has succeeded in some way? Partly its of course by bad management (lightly said) but theres something else to it: time. Time has passed, needs have changed. Even if there was plenty of hardware at decent prices it still wouldn't help AmigaOS to rise from the pit it sunk itself years back.
To get back to topic, this is why I think emulation is the way to go, especially because of the superb emulation WinUAE provides. It's a simple and costeffective way for many people to hobby Amiga and keep even some attachment to it, and still do the important things with proper tools. Not to mention those who really WANT to use AmigaOS, but can't be arsed to buy uberexpensive underpowered hardware.
You didn't answer the point and just made a declaration that it's a "cold hard fact". I wasn't speaking of the OS. You are PC-fanatic so obviously, you prefer people use emulators on PCs than Amiga hardware. But I guess you can go one step further and state that it's better to use PC native mode for a particular software than emulated version since it's more efficient, but I guess first you want them to start using PC hardware.
-
For things like GUI etc then this makes sense. Cant see how it ccould ever make sense for loading of the OS or the speed of backgroundd processes
well in the loading of an os if you loaded everything at once it would be fast however to prevent one service with a dependency from opening before another that fills the dependancy you have to have a systematic loading of each module. aka if the os opened full on you would see a plethora of crashes. as such they open then as fast as possible without causing such a conflict.
-
that's an easy question: Windows is SO SLOW and bloated because users are stupid: People is educated to use scumm. They don't notice/care.
...
Most of the audience for Windows is non-technical so the OS that becomes slower and slower gradually by using it can't be blamed on users. It has to be blamed on the OS since that's a major point they missed in all the upgrades they keep offering.
As far as shut-down, I know for older Windows I used to tell people to just turn off the power but now with hard disk accesses going on almost constantly, you have to tell them to shut-down from the start menu. If they do turn it off, it increases their boot-up time since the disk checks hog up a minute or so (and 99% of the time they find nothing).
-
Thinking of booting... I remember the startup-sequence on my Amigas.
I was always asking myself why the Amiga was booting faster with slower hardware. On the Windows PC I always felt as if very much stuff gets started at the same time. The Harddisk is more or less a sequential device, so if programs and services get started concurrently this should explain the constantly burning HDD LED on PC's. The disk is not used in a very wise manner!
The Amiga instead started everything as a sequence, the disk had not to switch back and forth between many locations of programs like it seems to happen on a PC. So... if a PC would boot in a sequencial manner, the boot time would come down a lot, just because there are so many seeks left out.
Does anyone know if my theory has the true of it? I am not completely sure if the Amiga was starting programs really as a sequence during boot time.
-
Thinking of booting... I remember the startup-sequence on my Amigas.
I was always asking myself why the Amiga was booting faster with slower hardware. On the Windows PC I always felt as if very much stuff gets started at the same time. The Harddisk is more or less a sequential device, so if programs and services get started concurrently this should explain the constantly burning HDD LED on PC's. The disk is not used in a very wise manner!
The Amiga instead started everything as a sequence, the disk had not to switch back and forth between many locations of programs like it seems to happen on a PC. So... if a PC would boot in a sequencial manner, the boot time would come down a lot, just because there are so many seeks left out.
Does anyone know if my theory has the true of it? I am not completely sure if the Amiga was starting programs really as a sequence during boot time.
no i remember on my amiga that tho they were started sequentially they would load simultaneously as a result in your statup sequence if you had something that needed loading before another component you had to put that program as high in the sequence as possible or call a seperate script that put the startup on hold till the program was fully loaded.
basically the startup sequence was a list of programs to load but it did not necessarily wait till that program finished loading before going to the next on the list.
for more info on the windows startup sequence (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457123.aspx).
-
Ok, so the Windows PC just starts a lot more stuff which slows the system even more down. It could also be, that even if every program would wait for the other until completely loaded, the boot time would be even longer.
No wonder NCQ SATA Disks were developed. These Disks sort out those wild seeks and try to execute them as sequencial as possible.
But hey, funk that disks. Lets go SSD and hope the live as long as a HDD or even longer, fingers crossed. :afro:
-
You didn't answer the point and just made a declaration that it's a "cold hard fact". I wasn't speaking of the OS. You are PC-fanatic so obviously, you prefer people use emulators on PCs than Amiga hardware. But I guess you can go one step further and state that it's better to use PC native mode for a particular software than emulated version since it's more efficient, but I guess first you want them to start using PC hardware.
Me? PC-Fanatic? :-)
Been Amigist for almost 20 years, longtime Pegasos1 and 2 owner (which I sadly had to sell as I was going bankcrupt) and on top of that I am still moderating at Morphzone.org, been since it was born. You better come up with something else than that bull, mate :)
-
Me? PC-Fanatic? :-)
Been Amigist for almost 20 years, longtime Pegasos1 and 2 owner (which I sadly had to sell as I was going bankcrupt) and on top of that I am still moderating at Morphzone.org, been since it was born. You better come up with something else than that bull, mate :)
Your behavior was that of a PC-fanatic. Not familiar with Pegasos-- does that have amiga h/w or just all software emulation?
-
Your behavior was that of a PC-fanatic. Not familiar with Pegasos-- does that have amiga h/w or just all software emulation?
(http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/img/facepalm.jpeg)
-
Your behavior was that of a PC-fanatic. Not familiar with Pegasos-- does that have amiga h/w or just all software emulation?
lol no the pegasos 1 & 2 is a next gen board as was the a1 and sam.
they ran morphos and linux, tho i think aos 4.1 is available for the pegasos 2
-
lol no the pegasos 1 & 2 is a next gen board as was the a1 and sam.
they ran morphos and linux, tho i think aos 4.1 is available for the pegasos 2
Question was whether the Pegasos uses the custom chip set (amiga h/w) or not.
-
Ufff, Amigaski, as we say here: "madre mia..."
(in the same languaje as the Amiga name is)
-
Question was whether the Pegasos uses the custom chip set (amiga h/w) or not.
the answer is "lol NO this is a NEXT GEN motherboard"
the custom chipset idea was taken by the pc and now is a part of every motherboard made today.
you now have
cpu/southbridge/northbridge/graphics/sound
in new pc-style motherboards
as such the new amigas draw from this as creating new chipsets are so cost prohibitive that we will never see that again in our amigas.
-
Was SGI the originator of these custom chip designs? Alas, all these brand names make me just sad. Looking back too long does not make me sleep easier.
-
Was SGI the originator of these custom chip designs? Alas, all these brand names make me just sad. Looking back too long does not make me sleep easier.
i think all early systems had some form of multiple chipset to varying degrees. but i think the amiga was the first to to use this number of different co-processors and did it relatively inexpensively.
-
I hate to say this but winuae IS the ultimate amiga.
It may not be a "real" Amiga, but what is a real Amiga anyway.
It's faster than any amiga out there, it has everything you need to connect anything you might imagine and of course it doesn't "Guru" so often. At least not that often as my old 060 1200.
The beauty of WinUAE is that you can have ANY configuration, in ANY hardware setup in just seconds. In my real 030 Amiga I use WHDLOAD. In UAE I use just... as many configs as I like for each game. I just click the game I want. It loads ultra fast in "turbo mode" floppies and I can also record in .avi all the action. As for Workbench use, it is in fact easier to set up any workbench in UAE than in real amiga. I have many (so many) different Wb's set up in my UAE that I can always have a "clean" machine to work with. I have made different setup of 3.9 with scala and dpaint (for gfx), a different setup of 3.9 for games, another one for music etc. It is a matter of seconds to load the appropriate one, and it takes so little space on a 1TB HD :-D
-
I hate to say this but winuae IS the ultimate amiga.
It may not be a "real" Amiga, but what is a real Amiga anyway....
One that works exactly like the real thing from all perspectives.
-
Wow, this is a hot topic.
I personally got into Amiga because of the retro. I have kids and I wouldn't want them touching my stuff lol. So I think in your case WinUAE would be a great alternative to educate them on what Amiga is all about. Then maybe when you trust them or have a classic system of your own you can have a hobbie together. My son is now 18 and loves my retro collections and on occasion I let him play:)
LoBai
New as heck user!
-
One that works exactly like the real thing from all perspectives.
Bloated capacitors, leaky batteries, dirty drive heads, misbehaving CIAs, regional display formats, broken joystick switches, serial transfers.... *sigh* The joys of real Amigas.
EDIT: Ooh! I forgot rotten floppy disks. Those were the days.
-
My son is now 18 and loves my retro collections and on occasion I let him play:)
On occasion? I grew up without a father, but I do have one memory of my grandfather on my father's side: He had a very cool N-scale railroad that he wouldn't let me play with--the bastard. If and when you have grandchildren, don't make the same mistake he did. ;-)
-
One that works exactly like the real thing from all perspectives.
That's a bit of a pointless criterion to pick.
The 060 doesn't support every instruction that the 000-030 used and has to rely on software emulation for the unimplemented instructions. We know your views on emulation, isn't real, it isn't timing precise, etc. So, does your amiga stop being real the moment you put an 060 card in it?
-
I hate to say this but winuae IS the ultimate amiga.
It may not be a "real" Amiga, but what is a real Amiga anyway.
It's faster than any amiga out there, it has everything you need to connect anything you might imagine and of course it doesn't "Guru" so often. At least not that often as my old 060 1200.
The beauty of WinUAE is that you can have ANY configuration, in ANY hardware setup in just seconds. In my real 030 Amiga I use WHDLOAD. In UAE I use just... as many configs as I like for each game. I just click the game I want. It loads ultra fast in "turbo mode" floppies and I can also record in .avi all the action. As for Workbench use, it is in fact easier to set up any workbench in UAE than in real amiga. I have many (so many) different Wb's set up in my UAE that I can always have a "clean" machine to work with. I have made different setup of 3.9 with scala and dpaint (for gfx), a different setup of 3.9 for games, another one for music etc. It is a matter of seconds to load the appropriate one, and it takes so little space on a 1TB HD :-D
All of this is true.
And yet I still love using my A600 (with compactflash-for-IDE) for retrogaming more.
I'll freely admit that this is due to me being a great retro-entoushiast though and that it has nothing to do with anything being 'better' about it (except the 50hz scrolling never working quite right on my PC with it's 60hz+ screenupdates and that only because I'm too lazy to set up the proper resolutions). There is just something about plugging in a real old-school joystick and using an old-school RGB monitor (ok, flat-screen scart-RGB crt TV) that just well, feels nicer to me.
Then again, I like using the ECS/OCS amiga's more than the AGA ones anyway. And I still have a C64c set up for similar purposes (whose retro-communities are, strangely enough, not at all worried that Vice can use Warp-Mode for uber speeds and would probably look at you quite strangely if you said Vice was better than the real thing because it was faster :D).
Your milage may vary though ;)
-
The C64 and the Amiga were my beginnings in the amazing world of microcomputers. I was not aware that it would become my bread and butter, I just was amazed and loved it. The Emulation can not give me back these moments but it reassures that they are not forgotten. It feels different and I also changed a lot.
WinUAE is a blessing for me tough, it preserves what I loved in my youth. It's like you open a chest with your old toys... it makes you smile and it never really gets old.
-
Bloated capacitors, leaky batteries, dirty drive heads, misbehaving CIAs, regional display formats, broken joystick switches, serial transfers.... *sigh* The joys of real Amigas.
EDIT: Ooh! I forgot rotten floppy disks. Those were the days.
Never had problems with leaky batteries. A500/A1000 didn't have any batteries on them. Capacitors, dirty drive heads, etc. isn't restricted to Amigas. Amiga also has parallel transfers (which I find quite useful for playing with custom devices). Sorry, my joystick has yet to break and all things eventually break. Regional display format is also common in video industry; however, I have a PAL and NTSC amiga running in America. I use floppy simulation so no rotten floppy disks.
-
That's a bit of a pointless criterion to pick.
The 060 doesn't support every instruction that the 000-030 used and has to rely on software emulation for the unimplemented instructions. We know your views on emulation, isn't real, it isn't timing precise, etc. So, does your amiga stop being real the moment you put an 060 card in it?
If there's a REAL Amiga 060 and emulated version is not like it, then it's not as good. Someone may have exploited the 060 features in his real amiga for his own purposes and if these can't be done on emulated amiga, then it's different. But in general use (most existing software uses), the core of the Amiga is it's custom chipset (OCS/AGA/ECS) and that involves more than just "looking the same".
-
I use floppy simulation so no rotten floppy disks.
What!?
-
If there's a REAL Amiga 060 and emulated version is not like it, then it's not as good. Someone may have exploited the 060 features in his real amiga for his own purposes and if these can't be done on emulated amiga, then it's different. But in general use (most existing software uses), the core of the Amiga is it's custom chipset (OCS/AGA/ECS) and that involves more than just "looking the same".
There needs to be a disclaimer here:
"None of this post makes any sense."
-
Never had problems with leaky batteries. A500/A1000 didn't have any batteries on them. Capacitors, dirty drive heads, etc. isn't restricted to Amigas. Amiga also has parallel transfers (which I find quite useful for playing with custom devices). Sorry, my joystick has yet to break and all things eventually break. Regional display format is also common in video industry; however, I have a PAL and NTSC amiga running in America. I use floppy simulation so no rotten floppy disks.
What!?
What amigaski means, is that emulation is bad unless he uses it.... :roll:
-
What!?
His post was biased. I have had battery leaks in a Thinkpad so that means I am better off with an Amiga 500 w/o a battery? You have to maintain any PC-- even hard drives have their MTBF. And you can add new peripherals to Amiga as well as to a PC. Floppy simulator allows you to use disk images rather than real disks (although I must admit, some of my old disks still work just fine).
-
If there's a REAL Amiga 060 and emulated version is not like it, then it's not as good. Someone may have exploited the 060 features in his real amiga for his own purposes and if these can't be done on emulated amiga, then it's different. But in general use (most existing software uses), the core of the Amiga is it's custom chipset (OCS/AGA/ECS) and that involves more than just "looking the same".
You see, if you knew even half as much about the design of the original Amiga hardware as you try to impress upon us in threads like this, you'd know that the 68000 was as integral to the design of the system as any of the custom chips.
The entire DMA subsystem was designed around the fact that the 68000 could not access the chip memory more than once every 2 cycles, nor did it have any cache mechanism that would cause problems with dirty data. This allowed the designers to engineer a system where the custom hardware and CPU could each access the memory in the most direct and efficient way possible. Priority was given to the custom chips when the amount of data access exceeded half the bandwidth but they did have the foresight to make sure that "Fast" memory could be added to allow the CPU to run at full speed when the custom chips start using more than half the available chip memory bandwidth.
So, to suggest that the 68000 was not an integral part of the overall hardware design, is frankly bollocks.
Faster CPU's only work in there thanks to the Fast RAM side of the design. The moment you put even a 68020 into the original design, without Fast RAM, it is crippled. It doesn't fit into the original one access every 2 cycles design as it is capable of a memory access every cycle and is thus forced to wait. Even with Fast RAM, thanks to the instruction cache, it's also no longer compatible with just "any old" 68000 code. Anything self modifying is doomed to fail spectacularly since the instruction cache is never, ever written to by data writes.
So, by your argument any Amiga that has a 68020+ is not perfectly backwards compatible with the original OCS design and is therefore not a real amiga. The problem just gets worse with every faster 680x0. The 030 even has a data cache. That totally craps on the original DMA system unless you turn it off for the 24-bit DMA region. Which is exactly what they had to do.
With the 040 and especially 060, you even have to start emulating several instructions. Emulation? Surely that's no better than UAE :rolleyes:
In short, all this talk of "doing everything the exact sane way a real amiga does it" is total drivel because most actual physical amigas do things that are completely outside the original 68000/OCS design.
-
A500/A1000 didn't have any batteries on them.
eh? you must have never put an a501 (http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/a501) in then.
-
@Karlos
Amen brother.
-
You see, if you knew even half as much about the design of the original Amiga hardware as you try to impress upon us in threads like this, you'd know that the 68000 was as integral to the design of the system as any of the custom chips.
The entire DMA subsystem was designed around the fact that the 68000 could not access the chip memory more than once every 2 cycles, nor did it have any cache mechanism that would cause problems with dirty data. This allowed the designers to engineer a system where the custom hardware and CPU could each access the memory in the most direct and efficient way possible. Priority was given to the custom chips when the amount of data access exceeded half the bandwidth but they did have the foresight to make sure that "Fast" memory could be added to allow the CPU to run at full speed when the custom chips start using more than half the available chip memory bandwidth.
So, to suggest that the 68000 was not an integral part of the overall hardware design, is frankly bollocks.
Faster CPU's only work in there thanks to the Fast RAM side of the design. The moment you put even a 68020 into the original design, without Fast RAM, it is crippled. It doesn't fit into the original one access every 2 cycles design. Even with Fast RAM, thanks to the instruction cache, it's also no longer compatible with just "any old" 68000 code. Anything self modifying is doomed to fail spectacularly since the instruction cache is never, ever written to by data writes.
So, by your argument any Amiga that has a 68020+ is not perfectly backwards compatible with the original OCS design and is therefore not a real amiga. The problem just gets worse with every faster 680x0. The 030 even has a data cache. That totally craps on the original DMA system unless you turn it off for the 24-bit DMA region. Which is exactly what they had to do.
With the 040 and especially 060, you even have to start emulating several instructions. Emulation? Surely that's no better than UAE :rolleyes:
In short, all this talk of "doing everything the exact sane way a real amiga does it" is total drivel because most actual physical amigas do things that are completely outside the original 68000/OCS design.
I'd go so far to say that this feature (the way these chips are integrated into the whole) sum up both the brilliance of the design and the root cause of it's eventual failure to keep up.
Commodore was really caught between a rock and a hard place here: either you upgrade the system and lots of old stuff breaks or you keep compatibility but your system performance suffers. Both not really great positions to be in.
-
You see, if you knew even half as much about the design of the original Amiga hardware as you try to impress upon us in threads like this, you'd know that the 68000 was as integral to the design of the system as any of the custom chips.
...
I never tried to impress upon anyone my knowledge of Amiga hardware. Perhaps, that's what you are trying to do. I was just asking someone about Pegasos which I never heard of before. I don't have any 68060 system so I stated my comments with "if".
>So, to suggest that the 68000 was not an integral part of the overall hardware design, is frankly bollocks.
If you did not rely on the timing of the 68000 in your code and just relied on the instructions getting executed and used the CIA, Copper, and other timers for the timing, then it shouldn't matter if it's 68000, 68020, or other backward compatible processor.
>Faster CPU's only work in there thanks to the Fast RAM side of the design. The moment you put even a 68020 into the original design, without Fast RAM, it is crippled. It doesn't fit into the original one access every 2 cycles design as it is capable of a memory access every cycle and is thus forced to wait. Even with Fast RAM, thanks to the instruction cache, it's also no longer compatible with just "any old" 68000 code. Anything self modifying is doomed to fail spectacularly since the instruction cache is never, ever written to by data writes.
The 68020 is still called backward compatible with 68000 just like Pentium is backward compatible with 8088 although it has similar problems with caching.
>So, by your argument any Amiga that has a 68020+ is not perfectly backwards compatible with the original OCS design and is therefore not a real amiga.
No, you still write to the same hardware registers on 68020+ and get the same results.
>The problem just gets worse with every faster 680x0. The 030 even has a data cache. That totally craps on the original DMA system unless you turn it off for the 24-bit DMA region. Which is exactly what they had to do.
I don't think you understood my argument-- if you use 68000 to time your code instead of other generic timers, then that means that emulator should be able to that same timing. If you write general code that works across all 680x0 processors, then you can't be relying on the timing of the processor.
>With the 040 and especially 060, you even have to start emulating several instructions. Emulation? Surely that's no better than UAE :rolleyes:
I don't see how that affects the timing. If you do LOOP instruction in 80x86, it takes more cycles than doing DEC/Branch but earlier processors had it the other way.
>In short, all this talk of "doing everything the exact sane way a real amiga does it" is total drivel because most actual physical amigas do things that are completely outside the original 68000/OCS design.
If you rely on those 680x0 specific timing features, then those timings should be exact as well.
-
eh? you must have never put an a501 (http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/a501) in then.
Actually, I have an ICD expansion in my A500 that has the same silver battery as PC desktops and has yet to leak. The Thinkpad on the other hand had 3 NiMH batteries in some plastic and that leaked.
-
What amigaski means, is that emulation is bad unless he uses it.... :roll:
Floppy simulator is a peripheral-- people already buy peripherals from various manufacturers. It performs it's tasks on a cycle by cycle basis where each cycle must finish within the 2 microsecond window. It works 500kb/s and T=1/f so t = 2 microseconds for every cycle.
-
If you rely on those 680x0 specific timing features, then those timings should be exact as well.
If WinUAE is cycle exact for a specific 680x0 chip, then this is from the point of view of the emulated environment exactly what happens.
Now, obviously, if you access stuff outside of the emulated environment that is timing critical this may fail due to a variety of factors.
But, if you use timing critical software on an Amiga that is not the same spec as another Amiga this can (and often will) also fail. There are lots of different Amiga's out there, all subtly (or not so subtly) different. Some hardware for A1200's for instance doesn't work on all models, some expansions for other Amiga's actually require specific motherboard revisions to work reliably, etc.
-
I never tried to impress upon anyone my knowledge of Amiga hardware. Perhaps, that's what you are trying to do. I was just asking someone about Pegasos which I never heard of before. I don't have any 68060 system so I stated my comments with "if".
>So, to suggest that the 68000 was not an integral part of the overall hardware design, is frankly bollocks.
If you did not rely on the timing of the 68000 in your code and just relied on the instructions getting executed and used the CIA, Copper, and other timers for the timing, then it shouldn't matter if it's 68000, 68020, or other backward compatible processor.
>Faster CPU's only work in there thanks to the Fast RAM side of the design. The moment you put even a 68020 into the original design, without Fast RAM, it is crippled. It doesn't fit into the original one access every 2 cycles design as it is capable of a memory access every cycle and is thus forced to wait. Even with Fast RAM, thanks to the instruction cache, it's also no longer compatible with just "any old" 68000 code. Anything self modifying is doomed to fail spectacularly since the instruction cache is never, ever written to by data writes.
The 68020 is still called backward compatible with 68000 just like Pentium is backward compatible with 8088 although it has similar problems with caching.
Somebody needs to read up on Pentium Pro/Pentium II's handling of self-modify code and cache.
Part1 (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=3gDmyIYvFH4C&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=self+modifying+code+Cache+Pentium&source=bl&ots=dLuIK138XJ&sig=Pp4B646y4cjEz_r9Oh_yJJhP5yY&hl=en&ei=x9oySpC7GIiVkAXbpOmSCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1)
Part2 (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=3gDmyIYvFH4C&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=self+modifying+code+Cache+Pentium&source=bl&ots=dLuIK138XJ&sig=Pp4B646y4cjEz_r9Oh_yJJhP5yY&hl=en&ei=x9oySpC7GIiVkAXbpOmSCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA194,M1)
-
Nimnimnimnimnimnimnimnim
I don't think you understood my argument nimnimnimnimnimnimnimnimnimnimnimnim timings should be exact as well.
Again with confusing cycles and timing (seriously, are you doing this deliberately?).
As has been stated, repeatedly, by multiple folks on here: Timing, especially on the Amiga is an inexact thing. It is different between any two Amigas since the timing comes not from the processor, but by the crystal oscillator. Those Crystal oscillators are far from exact. It gets even worse when you consider that PAL and NTSC Amigas have different timings altogether.
None of which invalidates anything that Karlos has said.
-
If WinUAE has it any shortcomings the fact that its free (at no cost to you) might have something to do with that. Also the fact that they are not allowed to copy Amiga patents and copyrighted code (not sure if they got permission for at least some of it) could be a contributing factor.
Any argument against WinUAE is pretty petty. Something better to argue about would be: Why was Shapeshifter on Amiga faster than a real Mac? (I think hardware and the price of said hardware was the reason).
-
I want to assemble a working amiga that is actually usable, and is not too
difficult to use (I want my kids to be able to load games too
Why not look at the Amiga Forever package? The Player format is ideal for kids. They now have C64 Forever available too
-
If WinUAE is cycle exact for a specific 680x0 chip, then this is from the point of view of the emulated environment exactly what happens.
Now, obviously, if you access stuff outside of the emulated environment that is timing critical this may fail due to a variety of factors.
But, if you use timing critical software on an Amiga that is not the same spec as another Amiga this can (and often will) also fail. There are lots of different Amiga's out there, all subtly (or not so subtly) different. Some hardware for A1200's for instance doesn't work on all models, some expansions for other Amiga's actually require specific motherboard revisions to work reliably, etc.
You violated the law of physics.
-
Somebody needs to read up on Pentium Pro/Pentium II's handling of self-modify code and cache.
Part1 (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=3gDmyIYvFH4C&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=self+modifying+code+Cache+Pentium&source=bl&ots=dLuIK138XJ&sig=Pp4B646y4cjEz_r9Oh_yJJhP5yY&hl=en&ei=x9oySpC7GIiVkAXbpOmSCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1)
Part2 (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=3gDmyIYvFH4C&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=self+modifying+code+Cache+Pentium&source=bl&ots=dLuIK138XJ&sig=Pp4B646y4cjEz_r9Oh_yJJhP5yY&hl=en&ei=x9oySpC7GIiVkAXbpOmSCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA194,M1)
Your first link states that this book cannot be used. The point is caching did affect self-modifying code on later than 8088 processors (not just Pentium I/II) but they are still considered backward compatible.
-
Again with confusing cycles and timing (seriously, are you doing this deliberately?).
As has been stated, repeatedly, by multiple folks on here: Timing, especially on the Amiga is an inexact thing. It is different between any two Amigas since the timing comes not from the processor, but by the crystal oscillator. Those Crystal oscillators are far from exact. It gets even worse when you consider that PAL and NTSC Amigas have different timings altogether.
None of which invalidates anything that Karlos has said.
Learn to quote properly. I made a valid point and it's there in post #202. I am being consistent with the timing/frequency: T=1/f.
-
If WinUAE has it any shortcomings the fact that its free (at no cost to you) might have something to do with that. Also the fact that they are not allowed to copy Amiga patents and copyrighted code (not sure if they got permission for at least some of it) could be a contributing factor.
Any argument against WinUAE is pretty petty. Something better to argue about would be: Why was Shapeshifter on Amiga faster than a real Mac? (I think hardware and the price of said hardware was the reason).
It's not petty. It's not a real amiga just like a fake diamond is different from a real diamond. Now subjectively, whether it makes some difference to you or not is another matter. You cannot establish it's a real amiga by trying out a few applications (inductively).
-
Learn to quote properly.
You first sunshine.
I made a valid point and it's there in post #202. I am being consistent with the timing/frequency: T=1/f.
No, you're mixing cycle precision with timing precision. Timing on an Amiga is not exact due to a whole range of differences within the various Amiga models and revisions, as well as the relative imprecision of the type of crystals used to supply the timings. Ergo, any argument against emulation on the basis of timing is eroneous at best.
-
You violated the law of physics.
Tell that to the owners of those accellerator cards with those motherboards that didnt work together.
-
It's not petty. It's not a real amiga just like a fake diamond is different from a real diamond. Now subjectively, whether it makes some difference to you or not is another matter. You cannot establish it's a real amiga by trying out a few applications (inductively).
First define a "Fake Diamond". If you mean a piece of glass cut to look like a diamond... then in some situations it will function as effectively as a real diamond, i.e. cosmetic uses. But it isn't a diamond since it can't be used where the physical and chemical properties of diamond are required (Diamond being carbon based, and glass being silicon based).
In computing terms, it would look like a the real thing to the "user"... but any "software" would fail.
If you mean synthetic, that is to say manufactured rather than mined, then the "fake diamond" will function perfectly. In computing terms, it might not look quite so good to the "user" (synthetic diamonds tend to be made smaller than natural ones, and so require careful configuration to look good), but any "software" would run perfectly.
Remember, the point of an Emulator is to run software designed for one hardware platform, on another unrelated hardware platform.
-
Learn to quote properly. I made a valid point and it's there in post #202. I am being consistent with the timing/frequency: T=1/f.
No, the_leander is perfectly correct here.
The computer has no concept of time, the quantum (that is to say unit of time) is based on the clock cycle. It actually doesn't matter to the computer what the period (in real world seconds) of that cycle is. What does matter is that all devices on the system work within the specified number of clock cycles as defined by the specification.
I stated earlier that I can use my ActionReplay MkIII to slow the system clock of my A500 down... the software all works fine, because the software has no concept of the real time of the clock cycle... from the computers Point Of View, the real world has just become faster...
-
You first sunshine.
No, you're mixing cycle precision with timing precision. Timing on an Amiga is not exact due to a whole range of differences within the various Amiga models and revisions, as well as the relative imprecision of the type of crystals used to supply the timings. Ergo, any argument against emulation on the basis of timing is eroneous at best.
They are related. I can prove it if I write application that actually uses it for timing things.
-
Tell that to the owners of those accellerator cards with those motherboards that didnt work together.
I already answered this idea of timing many times in the other thread and you never replied to it. The NTSC crystal timing is precisely defined. As per spec, it's doing what it's supposed to do.
-
After reading ALL of the comments, I've decided to edit this one out completely. You guys can have at it...
-
They are related. I can prove it if I write application that actually uses it for timing things.
The only way to test it would be to have two different amigas run any timing dependant code (such as a basic drum beat, for instance) side by side and check for differences in speed over time. This is demonstrable and even I understand this.
The fact is that the NTSC and PAL specs have a reasonable amount of leaway due to the fact that at the time of their inception, the equipment and componants used were (by todays standards) imprecise. This imprecision can be seen too in the crystals used by the Amiga to produce the clock frequency.
You are deliberately trying to confuse cycle and timing precision, both of which have very specific meanings that have been spelled out to you. Stop it.
-
The only way to test it would be to have two different amigas run any timing dependant code (such as a basic drum beat, for instance) side by side and check for differences in speed over time. This is demonstrable and even I understand this.
The fact is that the NTSC and PAL specs have a reasonable amount of leaway due to the fact that at the time of their inception, the equipment and componants used were (by todays standards) imprecise. This imprecision can be seen too in the crystals used by the Amiga to produce the clock frequency.
You are deliberately trying to confuse cycle and timing precision, both of which have very specific meanings that have been spelled out to you. Stop it.
Huh. If I send out a bit through some I/O port using the Copper to time it, it's going to be the same across all amigas because the frequency of operation is the same. Even if there's some variance 1/100000000 across machines, it's still considered performing per spec. They are related-- timing and frequency.
-
Even if there's some variance 1/100000000 across machines, it's still considered performing per spec. They are related-- timing and frequency.
The variance is significantly more than that. The crystals used in the old miggies had tolerances in the tens of ppm.
-
They are related-- timing and frequency.
Cycles are a list of things that happen in a given order. Timing is completely unrelated beyond how fast the cycle happens. Software doesn't give a crap at how fast a cycle happens, so long as it does so without interruption.
Go on, test the hardware timing dependant drumbeat.
And btw "per spec" there are tolerances, those tolerances today are considered very imprecise, so much so that building an accelerator card for a given model of A1200 might not work as well on a different revision, or in some cases, the same revision with enough of a difference in frequency in the clock. Electronics today are built to much tighter tolerances, which causes issue when attempting to tie them to older equipment - see accelerator incompatibility for physical proof of this.
And again, stop trying to confuse timing and cycle precision!
-
Your first link states that this book cannot be used.
It can be used, but be aware of performance penalties. Most X86 desktops includes a working cache coherency hardware.
The point is caching did affect self-modifying code on later than 8088 processors (not just Pentium I/II) but they are still considered backward compatible.
AMD K8 (which includes Northbridge) keeps the instruction and data caches coherent in hardware, which means that a store into an instruction closely following the store instruction will change that following instruction. Other processors, like those in the Alpha and MIPS family, have relied on software to keep the instruction cache coherent. Stores are not guaranteed to show up in the instruction stream until a program calls an operating system facility to ensure coherency. The idea is to save hardware complexity on the assumption that self-modifying code is rare.
The reason why AMD K8 includes additonal hardware complexity is to support for self-modifying X86 code.
For Intel Core 2, Errata AW46 i.e.
"Self/Cross Modifying Code May Not be Detected or May Cause a Machine Check Exception"
Workaround: It is possible for the BIOS to contain a workaround for this erratum.
I assume you know about Intel micro-code patches.
This issue was fixed in E0 and R0 stepping.
AW = "Intel® Core™ 2 Duo processor E8000 series".
-
@stefcep2
Frankly I don't see whats the big fuss about boot-times. My MorphOS booted in a few seconds, WinXP in maybe 20 seconds.. I have never been in so much hurry it has actually bothered me.
You have to remember AmigaOS/AROS/MorphOS lacks hundreds(thousands?) of things found in modern OS's. If AmigaOS wouldn't be 10 years behind and it would have a larger userbase there would probably be the same problems you mentioned. But that never happened so lets leave it at that.
I do however agree you with the registry, the registry was one of the lousiest ideas ever brought to computing.
I had fun with MorphOS, the OS itself was excellent and I enjoyed using it as a hobby.. but in the end the lack of proper software meant I was always switching to Windows to do the things I wanted to do.
HI,
@hooligan,
I gave up on winblows, I only use it to play the modern day games, that way when it crashes I really don't lose anything important unless your save position in the game is lost, but then that makes it more fun, you have to start your game all over again. I have learned to backup my save games on a external hard drive. For all my important stuff like pictures, music, pdf's etc. I use Linux, it has not failed me during the past 3 years and seems to be in competition with my Amiga 4000 which has all my important data since 1993, I still have my old Amiga 4000 on my desk for databasing all my disks, cd's and mp3's. it also has files for all my pictures and movies, and I do all this on a 2 gig hard drive with 18 meg of memory. Pretty amazing for an old machine, anyhow, I hate windblows and would rather use a OS that is dependable and preserves your data. As of this date it looks like Linux is going to be the new OS of my choice for important data, windblows will be used just for playing the new modern games. Linux also does anything that windblows does but it does it easier, faster and better and with WINE and CEDEGA I also can play about 65% of the new modern day games (sometimes you have to play with parameters to get them to work correctly, just gives you more satisfaction when you get them running in Linux).
smerf
-
Cycles are a list of things that happen in a given order. Timing is completely unrelated beyond how fast the cycle happens. Software doesn't give a crap at how fast a cycle happens, so long as it does so without interruption.
Go on, test the hardware timing dependant drumbeat.
...
You're dead wrong that software doesn't care how fast a cycle happens. You are generalizing too much.
>And btw "per spec" there are tolerances, those tolerances today are considered very imprecise, so much so that building an accelerator card for a given model of A1200 might not work as well on a different revision, or in some cases,...
I already addresses the accelerated processors. You are not addressing the points I just raised regarding Copper timing being the same. NTSC crystals are much more accurate than your processor crystals since they are basis for color burst on TVs and other audio-visual broadcast standards. Here I'll factor it out for you: (13*7*7*5*5*5*5*3*3)/(13*11*7).
>And again, stop trying to confuse timing and cycle precision!
Stop the bullcrap. I haven't confused anything; you are confused as to what consistent timing exists amongst Amiga models and that timing is based on a fixed frequency as defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorburst or you are better off reading it in some standard text books.
-
It can be used, but be aware of performance penalties. Most X86 desktops includes a working cache coherency hardware.
AMD K8 (which includes Northbridge) keeps the instruction and data caches coherent in hardware, which means that a store into an instruction closely following the store instruction will change that following instruction. Other processors, like those in the Alpha and MIPS family, have relied on software to keep the instruction cache coherent. Stores are not guaranteed to show up in the instruction stream until a program calls an operating system facility to ensure coherency. The idea is to save hardware complexity on the assumption that self-modifying code is rare.
The reason why AMD K8 includes additonal hardware complexity is to support for self-modifying X86 code.
For Intel Core 2, Errata AW46 i.e.
"Self/Cross Modifying Code May Not be Detected or May Cause a Machine Check Exception"
Workaround: It is possible for the BIOS to contain a workaround for this erratum.
I assume you know about Intel micro-code patches.
This issue was fixed in E0 and R0 stepping.
AW = "Intel® Core™ 2 Duo processor E8000 series".
I know some processors also had turbo/normal mode to even have compatibility with tasks that used the processor speed to time things. However, as it stands the 680x0 series and x86 series are considered backward compatible even with different processor speeds and some differences in pipelined/cached instruction execution.
-
You're dead wrong that software doesn't care how fast a cycle happens. You are generalizing too much.
No, I'm not, even timing dependant code will rely on a clock, if it's set to do something once every... thousand cycles or so, it'll do that regardless of the cycles comming in at 1khz or 1ghz. This is easily demonstratable, as with Bloodline's action replay.
I already skirted the issue of accelerated processors.
Yes you did!
You are not addressing the points I just raised regarding Copper timing being the same. NTSC crystals are much more accurate than your processor crystals since they are basis for color burst on TVs and other audio-visual broadcast standards. Here I'll factor it out for you: (13*7*7*5*5*5*5*3*3)/(13*11*7).
All standards have tollerances. And again, you are more then welcome to test how accurate those timings are in the real world.
>And again, stop trying to confuse timing and cycle precision!
Stop the bullcrap.
You first sunbeam.
I haven't confused anything; you are confused as to what consistent timing exists amongst Amiga models and that timing is based on a fixed frequency
Yes, you really have. NTSC/PAL/SECAM etc are specifications, and like all specifications there is a tollerance, a little wiggle room. It's this leeway that allows you to do spiffy things like move the screen up down left and right. These things are done by minute adjustments to the frequency of the graphics output. A little goes a long way.
-
...
You first sunbeam.
...
Your stuff is proven bullcrap. And you misquoting me is your 2nd problem. Saying "you first" as if it applies to the other party is your third problem.
>Yes, you really have. NTSC/PAL/SECAM etc are specifications, and like all specifications there is a tollerance, a little wiggle room. It's this leeway that allows you to do spiffy things like move the screen up down left and right. These things are done by minute adjustments to the frequency of the graphics output. A little goes a long way.
More bullcrap. It's per spec every cycle.
-
Your stuff is proven bullcrap.
Is that so!
And you mocking me is your 2nd problem.
Fixed that for you.
Saying "you first" as if it applies to the other party is your third problem.
When you make a statement it is your job, not mine to back it up with proof.
Your problem is that you have a fundie mindset (as evidenced by your demands that I prove you wrong, which btw is a logical falacy).
>Yes, you really have. NTSC/PAL/SECAM etc are specifications, and like all specifications there is a tollerance, a little wiggle room. It's this leeway that allows you to do spiffy things like move the screen up down left and right. These things are done by minute adjustments to the frequency of the graphics output. A little goes a long way.
More bullcrap. It's per spec every cycle.
Damn, you got me, I totally couldn't move the screen around via a control panel that made minute adjustments to the frequency output, not in AmigaOS nor in BeOS! I must have just imagined the capability this whole time, thankyou for teaching me the error of my ways! /sarcasm.
-
Have nothing of value to add:) Just wanted to say hello!
-
I know some processors also had turbo/normal mode
.
My post has nothing to do with clock speed changes.
to even have compatibility with tasks that used the processor speed to time things. However, as it stands the 680x0 series and x86 series are considered backward compatible even with different processor speeds and some differences in pipelined/cached instruction execution.
Except 680x0 is a bit fuzzy when comes to legacy support.
-
...
Your problem is that you have a fundie mindset (as evidenced by your demands that I prove you wrong, which btw is a logical falacy).
...
Thanks for modifying my posts again in your quotes, just proves my point. No logical fallacy-- you are misquoting me, I'm not misquoting you so you can't say "You first."
>Damn, you got me, I totally couldn't move the screen around via a control panel that made minute adjustments to the frequency output, not in AmigaOS nor in BeOS! I must have just imagined the capability this whole time, thankyou for teaching me the error of my ways! /sarcasm.
The fact that you have to adjust your frequency should prove to you that TVs are being broadcast at a fixed frequency. And you don't have to keep adjusting your frequency for the different channels and Amiga/Atari/C64 lock into this same frequency given the consistency of running cycle-exact code that does video-based manipulations and works on all TVs. And the color burst is exact and for NTSC it's frequency is (13*7*7*5*5*5*5*3*3)/(13*11*7) = 3579545Hz.
-
My post has nothing to do with clock speed changes.
Except 680x0 is a bit fuzzy when comes to legacy support.
My point was some processors did have that extra compatibility features like clock adjustments, but even without that they are still considered backward compatible. If you want to state the "fuzziness" is 68000 instruction execution, then give example(s).
-
Thanks for modifying my posts again in your quotes, just proves my point. No logical fallacy--
My pleasure, no, really. And yes, you cannot prove a negative, that is what you've asked me to do (repeatedly) and that is a logical falacy.
you are misquoting me, I'm not misquoting you so you can't say "You first."
I didn't say "you first" to you for misquotation (though some of your selective quotation of some of my posts borders on that).
>Damn, you got me, I totally couldn't move the screen around via a control panel that made minute adjustments to the frequency output, not in AmigaOS nor in BeOS! I must have just imagined the capability this whole time, thankyou for teaching me the error of my ways! /sarcasm.
The fact that you have to adjust your frequency should prove to you that TVs are being broadcast at a fixed frequency.
Not had to, could (although to be fair, some televisions I ran my Amiga through really did need it), what it proves is that the Amiga isn't all that accurate (now there's a shock!). It also proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a certain amount of tollerance within the specification - if there wasn't, any minute alteration in frequency would result in no picture.
-
My pleasure, no, really. And yes, you cannot prove a negative, that is what you've asked me to do (repeatedly) and that is a logical falacy.
I didn't say "you first" to you for misquotation (though some of your selective quotation of some of my posts borders on that).
...
In post #207, you misquoted me (PURPOSELY) and then in #214 you told me I should I stop misquoting. In post #229, you misquoted me again. And then you repeatedly told me I am confusing timing with cycles while I have clearly stated I am sticking to T=1/f. Then I tell you to stop this bullcrap, you say "You first". I have quoted you EXACTLY to the points I replied to. Only put "..." where it's irrelevant to the point.
>Not had to, could (although to be fair, some televisions I ran my Amiga through really did need it), what it proves is that the Amiga isn't all that accurate (now there's a shock!). It also proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a certain amount of tollerance within the specification - if there wasn't, any minute alteration in frequency would result in no picture.
I already said even with the ppm rating, it's considered to be working per spec. Your vague blurb, Amiga isn't all that accurate is misleading. I get at least 558ns accuracy on every Amiga.
-
In post #207, you misquoted me (PURPOSELY) and then in #214 you told me I should I stop misquoting.
Heh, you first said to quote you propperly, to which I said you first. Reason? I use the quote tag to produce a propperly formatted response. Hence the "you first". I thought it a nice (ok, possibly cute) retort.
And then you repeatedly told me I am confusing timing with cycles while I have clearly stated I am sticking to T=1/f.
To which I, and others specifically pointed out that a computer has no sense of time, rather that everything is dependant upon the clock, which as has previously been covered, isn't that accurate.
Then I tell you to stop this bullcrap, you say "You first".
Yup, I did. You still haven't though.
I have quoted you EXACTLY to the points I replied to. Only put "..." where it's irrelevant to the point.
Actually, you haven't. Some (not all) of your replies have bordered on quote mining.
>Not had to, could (although to be fair, some televisions I ran my Amiga through really did need it), what it proves is that the Amiga isn't all that accurate (now there's a shock!). It also proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a certain amount of tollerance within the specification - if there wasn't, any minute alteration in frequency would result in no picture.
I already said even with the ppm rating, it's considered to be working per spec.
Ok, perhaps I wasn't clear here, I'm not arguing the spec, what I'm saying is that the spec (or at least the equipment built to the spec) has a certain tollerance, this is true of any piece of equipment. If there was zero tolerance, the ability to adjust the screen in the way currently available would not be possible (or necessary for that matter).
Tolerances for modern equipment and standards have become much much tighter since then. A prime example of how things have moved on was the example of the issues with some accelerator boards and some revisions of the Amiga.
-
...
Actually, you haven't. Some (not all) of your replies have bordered on quote mining.
...
You have a big problem of just blaming people of things falsely. You butchered my quotes -- something called tampering.
>Ok, perhaps I wasn't clear here, I'm not arguing the spec, what I'm saying is that the spec (or at least the equipment built to the spec) has a certain tollerance, this is true of any piece of equipment. If there was zero tolerance, the ability to adjust the screen in the way currently available would not be possible (or necessary for that matter).
Adjusting screen can be done even while maintaining same color-burst frequency.
Your blurting that "amiga is not accurate" shows your bias and ignorance. Whatever tolerances you apply, apply more so to PCs since NTSC frequencies are more precisely defined and crystals more accurately manufactured due to TV standards.
-
You have a big problem of just blaming people of things falsely. You butchered my quotes -- something called tampering.
Pot, meet kettle. I broke up your quotes point by point to address those individual posts, in the end I must admit, when you're going over the same thing over and over after having had it explained to you multiple times by multiple people why you're wrong I did have some fun with them. You on the other hand have sliced and diced my, as well as others posts to the degree that the many of the points have been removed.
Your blurting that "amiga is not accurate" shows your bias and ignorance.
Oh, it's because I'm biased against the amiga... Riiiight. You keep telling yourself that chum. As for ignorance, that's rich comming from the person who has had every single point they've made ripped to pieces thus far.
Fundie thinking...
Whatever tolerances you apply, apply more so to PCs
ROTFLMAO.
since NTSC frequencies are more precisely defined and crystals more accurately manufactured due to TV standards.
You know, in all my years and for all the different TV's I've owned, do you know how many different devices I've connected to them, I've only ever had to adjust where on the screen the picture appears with a desktop Amiga. Not VCRs, DVD players not the sega mastersystem, not the sony playstation, not the various digiboxes...
-
I don't see the big deal, I run half a dozen virtual machines including Amigas, they all run fine without a problem, though sometimes I get confused which is the host, but that's a good thing...
UAE is the most compatible Amiga I've ever owned....
-
I don't see the big deal, I run half a dozen virtual machines including Amigas, they all run fine without a problem, though sometimes I get confused which is the host, but that's a good thing...
UAE is the most compatible Amiga I've ever owned....
Indeed. The future is in VMs. I don't care how well some crappy old multiplane scrolling jump twitch game plays or doesn't. If the Amiga has anything to offer beyond insular nostalgia, it'll be in an emulated format.
Otherwise it's a dead platform.
-
Indeed. The future is in VMs. I don't care how well some crappy old multiplane scrolling jump twitch game plays or doesn't. If the Amiga has anything to offer beyond insular nostalgia, it'll be in an emulated format.
Otherwise it's a dead platform.
indeed!
thank the gods for emulation!!!
-
Pot, meet kettle. I broke up your quotes point by point to address those individual posts, in the end I must admit, when you're going over the same thing over and over after having had it explained to you multiple times by multiple people why you're wrong I did have some fun with them. You on the other hand have sliced and diced my, as well as others posts to the degree that the many of the points have been removed.
...
I know you feel you have to say something just make you feel better that you responded. But you are dead wrong. You misquoted me and you don't understand the point I made regarding cycle-exactness using NTSC-based systems.
-
I know you feel you have to say something just make you feel better that you responded.
Mmmm, I love the smell of sanctimonious passive agressiveness in the morning.
Smells like retards.
You mocked me and made the baby jesus cry.
Awwwwwww.
-
WinUAE is good, but not the same. I keep a real amiga for the same reason I keep a real SNES and a real N64: because they "feel right".
-
WinUAE is good, but not the same. I keep a real amiga for the same reason I keep a real SNES and a real N64: because they "feel right".
This I can agree with. I have several hardware amigas, one of which cannot currently be emulated by UAE due to having a PPC board.
However, for everyday work, UAE is great. It actually makes the m68k based amiga a viable platform.
-
Mmmm, I love the smell of sanctimonious passive agressiveness in the morning.
Smells like retards.
Awwwwwww.
Baby jesus? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRTEVzgVDis)
-
This I can agree with. I have several hardware amigas, one of which cannot currently be emulated by UAE due to having a PPC board.
Did you ever try Amithlon at all, if so, how did that compare to the real deal?
-
Did you ever try Amithlon at all, if so, how did that compare to the real deal?
No, I can't say I've had the pleasure. From what I gather, it is very fast.
-
Baby jesus? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRTEVzgVDis)
:lol:
-
indeed!
thank the gods for emulation!!!
But still,
I know the Amiga isn't the nowadays answer, but the idea of Amiga actually is.
We need new computers!
-
:lol:
Heh, now I'm saying "baby jesus" with that voice all day long. :lol:
-
You violated the law of physics.
Sigh.
Emulators can run ten times slower than the real thing. Yet, in the emulator environment (or so to speak 'from the emulator's point of view') it's in fact the real world that is fast and the emulator is fine. After all, if a ten-times-slower-but-cycle-accurate emulator runs code that on the real thing takes exactly 503 cycles it will, on the emulator, also take exactly 503 cycles. Albeit ten times slower cycles.
Likewise, in the emulated Amiga world the copper can be used to read out the joystick port at the same resolution it can be on a real amiga.
However, (and this is where you probably got confused and felt I was telling something that was impossible), this is only true inside the emulated environment. Obviously, since an emulator can't beat the rules of physics, doing IO outside of the emulator environment can lead to timing mismatches. Such as a PC joystick not actually being read out at 1Khz. The emulated environment still does it at 1Khz internally, but it won't get input at that rate from the 'outside world'.
It's a good thing though, because this feature (i.e. the emulator not needing to run at 100% exactly the same speed as the real thing) is in fact one of the many reasons they work at all. If an emulator needed to be cycle-accurate and speed-accurate in 100% of the cases they'd never ever work properly.
For an alternate way to think about it, just look at WinVice - its actual execution speed of C64 code varies a few percent even with speed lock active. If the emulated environment would notice this slowdown and speedup stuff like timing critical raster splits, fastloaders and other hardware-timing dependent stuff would break. Yet, because the world inside the emulator works just like the real thing and it is only the presentation to the outside world that is not 100% accurate there is no problem: the code working (and displaying the proper effect) without crashing is proof enough that the emulator is cycle accurate.
So no, I did not break the laws of physics. I merely managed to look at this from both points of view: from the emulator and from the 'real world'.
-
This I can agree with. I have several hardware amigas, one of which cannot currently be emulated by UAE due to having a PPC board.
However, for everyday work, UAE is great. It actually makes the m68k based amiga a viable platform.
Yup, UAE is a good thing.
If only to keep the Amiga* with us for the inevitable day when all the original hardware is dead.
*) Dependent on definition of Amiga. Your milage may vary :P
-
My point was some processors did have that extra compatibility features like clock adjustments, but even without that they are still considered backward compatible. If you want to state the "fuzziness" is 68000 instruction execution, then give example(s).
As an example, 68060 and 68040’s software instructions emulation. Then you have ColdFire.
In terms legacy investment while moving forward, nothing beats X86.
-
I know some processors also had turbo/normal mode to even have compatibility with tasks that used the processor speed to time things. However, as it stands the 680x0 series and x86 series are considered backward compatible even with different processor speeds and some differences in pipelined/cached instruction execution.
I was referring to self-modifying code and how the modern X86 CPU handles it i.e. X86 world added additional hardware. Motorola is !@#$%^&-all on legacy.
-
Emulation is not the same as using real amiga. I'll leave it at that for now...
Here here !!
scuzz
http://www.commodore-amiga-retro.com
-
You're dead wrong that software doesn't care how fast a cycle happens. You are generalizing too much.
No, he's not. Time isn't an absolute, and your software's concept of time is relative to its frame of reference.
-
No, he's not. Time isn't an absolute, and your software's concept of time is relative to its frame of reference.
True. Generally speaking, only hardware cares how long cycles take. If you don't refresh your DRAM at the right speed it can corrupt it's contents, for example. However, software isn't going to care if it takes 10ns to access memory or 100ns.
-
True. Generally speaking, only hardware cares how long cycles take. If you don't refresh your DRAM at the right speed it can corrupt it's contents, for example. However, software isn't going to care if it takes 10ns to access memory or 100ns.
Exactly, as long as some artribitrary unit, e.g. a cycle, is consistently applied, the actual value of a cycle isn't relevant. Then we get into the real world, of course, where systems are expected to interact with each other. ;-) We can rest assured, however, that an Amiga with zero 0 acceleration and an Amiga with an acceleration approaching the speed light are both Amigas, even though one appears to be running at a different speed from the perspective of the other.
EDIT: That, and any Turing-complete system can emulate an Amiga (or any other system).
-
Obviously, since an emulator can't beat the rules of physics, doing IO outside of the emulator environment can lead to timing mismatches. Such as a PC joystick not actually being read out at 1Khz. The emulated environment still does it at 1Khz internally, but it won't get input at that rate from the 'outside world'.
So no, I did not break the laws of physics. I merely managed to look at this from both points of view: from the emulator and from the 'real world'.
Very relativistic. We could I suppose apply the Lorentz transformations so as to relate the time that passes per clock cycle in the real world to the time that passes per clock cycle in the emulator world. Obviously some sort of time dilation would be happening, although space itself would not contract.
-
Very relativistic. We could I suppose apply the Lorentz transformations so as to relate the time that passes per clock cycle in the real world to the time that passes per clock cycle in the emulator world. Obviously some sort of time dilation would be happening, although space itself would not contract.
What if a wormhole opens between the UAE binary and the CPU, how would that affect it?
-
What if a wormhole opens between the UAE binary and the CPU, how would that affect it?
you could for example find that you've completed a render in Lightwave before you even started, but at the cost of system stability, as wormholes AFAIK are themselves highly unstable. But then it only takes 5 seconds in our time frame to reboot -but infinite in the time frame of the emulator, as time itself cease to exist for the emulator at the point when the emulated workbench guru's
-
What if a wormhole opens between the UAE binary and the CPU, how would that affect it?
If you open a stable wormhole using the UAE binary and the CPU, I suggest you call Ben Sisko, ASAP.
-
EDIT: That, and any Turing-complete system can emulate an Amiga (or any other system).
While true we have to be fair, this is sometimes very hard to do at anything approaching a usuable speed. Amiga emulation took a long while to work properly because of the way the system is integrated.
Likewise, a PS2 emulator is very hard to write if it has to be cycle exact - because the bus between GFX ram and the 'GPU' is very much of the beaten path (i.e. it had insane bandwidth for its time and a reaaaaally big bus).
Now, if you don't mind about speed then yes, any system can emulate any other. Even though I will admit that writing a Quad-Core/Nvidia 'expensivo'/4GB/160GB emulator for my C64 would be needing quite a lot of 170KB floppies and be a 'tad' slow.
-
As an example, 68060 and 68040’s software instructions emulation. Then you have ColdFire.
In terms legacy investment while moving forward, nothing beats X86.
I was saying both x86 and 680x0 are considered backward compatible. I have been able to run all 68000 software on AGA machines except those that rely on processor frequency being fixed at 7.16Mhz. If the frequency/timing does not matter to application (application does not use it internally as a factor), then as long as 68060 can execute the instructions in equal or better time, it's fine however it executes those instructions. Emulate = "equal or excel" here.
-
No, he's not. Time isn't an absolute, and your software's concept of time is relative to its frame of reference.
That bullcrap. If your software uses the ticks to measure REAL-time, it matters how long a cycle takes. For example, if I do, MOVE.W VHPOSR,D0 and use that to do short delays in the software for audio effects, the time matters. Obviously, if I start doing time critical port I/O, it gets worse.
-
I have been able to run all 68000 software on AGA machines except those that rely on processor frequency being fixed at 7.16Mhz.
That's bullcrap. I can write a piece of code for 68000 that will fail totally on 68020+, completely regardless of the processor frequency.
Writing to memory one before the last instruction executed, replacing the existing opcode with another legal one, then branching back to it is all it takes.
-
Exactly, as long as some artribitrary unit, e.g. a cycle, is consistently applied, the actual value of a cycle isn't relevant. Then we get into the real world, of course, where systems are expected to interact with each other. ;-) We can rest assured, however, that an Amiga with zero 0 acceleration and an Amiga with an acceleration approaching the speed light are both Amigas, even though one appears to be running at a different speed from the perspective of the other.
EDIT: That, and any Turing-complete system can emulate an Amiga (or any other system).
That's your speculation. You are dealing with the real world as well since audio goes out to the real world, imagery goes out to the real world, joystick/mouse gets inputted from real-world, etc. Although processor speeds vary amongst amigas, there are also many elements that don't change. You can't call it an amiga if everything is different from another amiga-- there has to be some substance. Nor are you correct regarding "cycle is consistently applied." A cycle unless timed to the cycle may vary the next time the same cycle occurs given processor inconsistencies. Nor is the cycle taking the same time from cycle to cycle. Nor can you say for sure you have exact VBI timing given NTSC/PAL rates are usually different from VGA frame rates.
-
That's bullcrap. I can write a piece of code for 68000 that will fail totally on 68020+, completely regardless of the processor frequency.
Writing to memory one before the last instruction executed, replacing the existing opcode with another legal one, then branching back to it is all it takes.
I am speaking from my software base. It all works fine.
-
I am speaking from my software base. It all works fine.
So, because your software base works, all 680x0 are to be considered backwards compatible? :roflmao:
I'm starting to see the problem with your experiments here. Anything that you observe is considered the only possible outcome for any experiment.
-
So, because your software base works, all 680x0 are backwards compatible? :roflmao:
I was giving example. And if you read Motorola specs, they are considered backward compatible. I already mentioned there are some differences in this thread if you cared to read/recall.
-
True. Generally speaking, only hardware cares how long cycles take. If you don't refresh your DRAM at the right speed it can corrupt it's contents, for example. However, software isn't going to care if it takes 10ns to access memory or 100ns.
This is what should make people roll in laughter. I am surprised you didn't edit it yet like many other posts.
-
I was giving example. And if you read Motorola specs, they are considered backward compatible. I already mentioned there are some differences in this thread if you cared to read/recall.
No. I have every Motorola 680x0 manual right here. Motorola make it perfectly clear that the 68020 is not backwards compatible with the 68000 where the 68000 object code violates the 68020 cache or performs any operation considered privileged on the 68020 that was not considered privileged on the 68000.
Motorola make it absolutely clear that such code will not work without modification, either to the code itself or to the environment it is running in.
Backwards compatibility on the 680x0 is generally maintained in software, not in hardware. Motorola make this completely clear and provide reference implementations of the software required to maintain compatibility.
-
True. Generally speaking, only hardware cares how long cycles take. If you don't refresh your DRAM at the right speed it can corrupt it's contents, for example. However, software isn't going to care if it takes 10ns to access memory or 100ns.
This is what should make people roll in laughter. I am surprised you didn't edit it yet like many other posts.
I haven't edited it because it doesn't contain any typographical mistakes or require any additional clarification.
I can run 680x0 object code from chip ram or I can run it from fast ram. It works in both cases, despite the fact that the two memory buses run at different speeds and the two memory types have different latencies. In short, the memory timing is not an issue to the correct operation of the code. It only affects the speed it runs at.
Are you really trying to claim otherwise?
-
Hell, I can even run the same code under emulation on my PC where memory access time is below 10ns and transfer rates over 18GiB/s (as measured by memtest86+). Amazingly, it still works. It just runs faster.
-
That's your speculation. You are dealing with the real world as well since audio goes out to the real world, imagery goes out to the real world, joystick/mouse gets inputted from real-world, etc. Although processor speeds vary amongst amigas, there are also many elements that don't change. You can't call it an amiga if everything is different from another amiga-- there has to be some substance. Nor are you correct regarding "cycle is consistently applied." A cycle unless timed to the cycle may vary the next time the same cycle occurs given processor inconsistencies. Nor is the cycle taking the same time from cycle to cycle. Nor can you say for sure you have exact VBI timing given NTSC/PAL rates are usually different from VGA frame rates.
If you don't understand how emulators work internally, why comment about them?
We've explained how it works already. What happens inside the emulator environment runs cycle-exact. If something takes 500 cycles on the Amiga, it will take 500 cycles in the emulator.
Like how I can run Winvice at 10% speed and see how the C64 games I have update the screen. But the software still works. It doesn't crash because the timing is now off by a factor of 10 because it doesn't matter - inside the emulator the 6502 is still executing it's cycles in the same lockstep with the VIC-II it always has, the raster interrupts still occur at the right lines, the serial IO still happens and doesn't lock up.
Even though slowing down a C64 by a factor of ten in real life would make almost any code fail miserably as interrupts would not longer happen at the proper moments.
-
As for backwards compatibility, it gets worse with every major release of the 680x0 architecture.
The 68040 FPU dropped support for pretty much all floating point operations that existed in the 68881/2, except for basic arithmetic and square root evaluation. Everything else has to be trapped and emulated in software.
The 68060 dropped things that worked fine even on the 68040, such as 32x32->64 multiplication. It also dropped movep which was used in some hardware drivers (eg surf squirrel IIRC). The trap and emulate overhead for these operations can be crippling.
Don't even get me started on the coldfire.
-
I haven't edited it because it doesn't contain any typographical mistakes or require any additional clarification.
I can run 680x0 object code from chip ram or I can run it from fast ram. It works in both cases, despite the fact that the two memory buses run at different speeds and the two memory types have different latencies. In short, the memory timing is not an issue to the correct operation of the code. It only affects the speed it runs at.
Are you really trying to claim otherwise?
One thing, how do you get the two quotes within each other? That's one feature which does not show up by default when I reply and sometimes it's relevant to quote a few nested quotes in the reply.
I am claiming that software does need to know the cycle time. Perhaps, it's not the processor frequency if it's not targetting a particular processor but at least the cycle times for audio rates, VBIs, serial baud rates, CIA timers, etc.
-
If you don't understand how emulators work internally, why comment about them?
...
I do understand them that's why I never replied to you.
>We've explained how it works already. What happens inside the emulator environment runs cycle-exact. If something takes 500 cycles on the Amiga, it will take 500 cycles in the emulator.
You have a different concept than some others do. My argument is whether it's a real amiga functionally not whether it has good bookkeeping and took into account all the cycles each cycle possibly having a different time span.
>Like how I can run Winvice at 10% speed and see how the C64 games I have update the screen. But the software still works. It doesn't crash because the timing is now off by a factor of 10 because it doesn't matter - inside the emulator the 6502 is still executing it's cycles in the same lockstep with the VIC-II it always has, the raster interrupts still occur at the right lines, the serial IO still happens and doesn't lock up.
Not crashing does not translate to working. Doing a mock-up of raster interrupts (via buffering) and bufferring audio is NOT same as a real machine doing it.
>Even though slowing down a C64 by a factor of ten in real life would make almost any code fail miserably as interrupts would not longer happen at the proper moments.
Okay, we agree here. But speed up can have same problems as well.
-
One thing, how do you get the two quotes within each other? That's one feature which does not show up by default when I reply and sometimes it's relevant to quote a few nested quotes in the reply.
I did that manually by editing the post and putting my post inside a quote tag within yours.
There are many reasons for editing your posts ;)
-
@amigaski
Given that my reference was made specifically (and unambiguously) to memory timing, to which you ridiculed:
True. Generally speaking, only hardware cares how long cycles take. If you don't refresh your DRAM at the right speed it can corrupt it's contents, for example. However, software isn't going to care if it takes 10ns to access memory or 100ns.
This is what should make people roll in laughter. I am surprised you didn't edit it yet like many other posts.
Do I take it you now recognise and retract this embarrassing faux pas?
-
I am claiming that software does need to know the cycle time. Perhaps, it's not the processor frequency if it's not targetting a particular processor but at least the cycle times for audio rates, VBIs, serial baud rates, CIA timers, etc.
Something like this do you mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRAeHdieEHk
If the bottom got out of sync, what would happen? Oh noes.
-
I run virtual machines all the time. I have virtual servers working with non-virtual servers, neither i nor the users notice any difference. All OSs are software, they behave the way they behave because of how they are written, the only difference hardware makes is in speed and video resolution. Since the base machine of most computers running UAE is several orders of magnitude faster than the old Amiga equipment was the only issue is keeping the emulator from running too fast.
There is no difference between a UAE based Amiga and a hardware based Amiga.
-
Can i give an example of a game that is quite amazing and does it within an 880k floppy 'without' hitting the hardare: Midwinter.
I remember reading the back of the manual explaining its development, the programmer was expected to pull a rabbit out of a hat... and I think he did.
-
I was saying both x86 and 680x0 are considered backward compatible. I have been able to run all 68000 software on AGA machines except those that rely on processor frequency being fixed at 7.16Mhz. If the frequency/timing does not matter to application (application does not use it internally as a factor), then as long as 68060 can execute the instructions in equal or better time, it's fine however it executes those instructions. Emulate = "equal or excel" here.
Ahem... 68040.libarary...
-
@amigaski
Given that my reference was made specifically (and unambiguously) to memory timing, to which you ridiculed:
Do I take it you now recognise and retract this embarrassing faux pas?
No, it's still correct. Someone can easily read it as if you are stressing first part and second part is an instance (instantiation) of the first.
-
I run virtual machines all the time. I have virtual servers working with non-virtual servers, neither i nor the users notice any difference. All OSs are software, they behave the way they behave because of how they are written, the only difference hardware makes is in speed and video resolution. Since the base machine of most computers running UAE is several orders of magnitude faster than the old Amiga equipment was the only issue is keeping the emulator from running too fast.
There is no difference between a UAE based Amiga and a hardware based Amiga.
You only need one example of software to disprove your claim and there's more than one example already available.
-
So, because your software base works, all 680x0 are to be considered backwards compatible? :roflmao:
I'm starting to see the problem with your experiments here. Anything that you observe is considered the only possible outcome for any experiment.
It was based on a deductive fact like:
Fact: All men are mortal (based on logic or laws of the universe that everything goes through old age/decay and death).
Experience: All men I know are proving to be mortal.
Fact: Motorola purposely maintained backward compatibility with 68000 according to their spec.
Experience: All 68000 software (I have tried) works fine under 68020.
People offer upgrade 68020 boards for Amiga so it's not based on some inductive knowledge.
The experience by itself doesn't allow you draw a general conclusion for everything just like running a few titles on emulator does not prove emulator is same as real amiga.
-
Originally Posted by amigaksi
I was saying both x86 and 680x0 are considered backward compatible. I have been able to run all 68000 software on AGA machines except those that rely on processor frequency being fixed at 7.16Mhz. If the frequency/timing does not matter to application (application does not use it internally as a factor), then as long as 68060 can execute the instructions in equal or better time, it's fine however it executes those instructions. Emulate = "equal or excel" here.
Ahem... 68040.libarary...
Here's to crippleware...
:sealed:...:drink:
-
Ahem... 68040.libarary...
Never had any of those libraries in software I tested or even if it were present in some disks in some folder whether it was actively loaded and being used. I put in a 68020 board in A2000 and didn't install any libraries-- ran the same software as before. And some of this software is just a complete ANIM file and player software-- no 68020 or 68040.library.
-
No, it's still correct. Someone can easily read it as if you are stressing first part and second part is an instance (instantiation) of the first.
Dear me, is there no end to your fail?
The example given was of memory, more specifically DRAM:
From a hardware perspective, timing truly matters for the stability of the system. If you do not refresh DRAM at the recommended rate and it will eventually fail to keep its data intact, resulting in software failure (contrast this to static memory, for example). Try running 90ns rated memory at 50ns and see how stable it is over time. Not very, I think you will find.
From a software only perspective, it doesn't matter for the stability whether the DRAM is 100ns or 10ns, only the maximum speed of instruction fetch and data read/write will be affected. Try running Ed from Chip or Fast (hint NoFastMem) and see if it fails on either one after any length of time as a consequence of memory speed.
Only software too large to fit into Chip RAM (or any that requires atomic read/write to an area of memory) will fail to run. Nothing else will be affected from a stability perspective. The only effects you will observe are that running from Chip RAM your regular expression search in a large document might take longer.
So, do you still think that the RAM example is worthy of your "everybody should roll around laughing at you for this, I'm surprised you didn't edit it" remark, or would you prefer to be a man, admit you made a mistake and withdraw it?
-
Never had any of those libraries in software I tested or even if it were present in some disks in some folder whether it was actively loaded and being used. I put in a 68020 board in A2000 and didn't install any libraries-- ran the same software as before. And some of this software is just a complete ANIM file and player software-- no 68020 or 68040.library.
Weren't their (2) instructions that were dropped, but they mostly weren't being used by anything of consequence. Further instructions were also added. But what is your point? (Don't make come back there, I will stop this bus)
-
Weren't their (2) instructions that were dropped, but they mostly weren't being used by anything of consequence. Further instructions were also added. But what is your point? (Don't make come back there, I will stop this bus)
Well, "anything of consequence" is subjective. Several years ago, I had a friend that had a surf squirrel PCMCIA interface that became very slow and CPU hungry after the installation of a 66MHz 68060 board.
After a spot of driver dissassembly he tracked it down to the use of MOVEP to transfer data to the slot. It was one of those rarely used instructions that motorola decided to throw onto the "either trap and emulate in software or crash with illegal instruction exception" pile.
He wrote his own patch in the end, replacing the block of code containing the instructions with a branch to his own code that used regular moves to emulate the operation. It made a huge difference.
-
Fact: Motorola purposely maintained backward compatibility with 68000 according to their spec.
Experience: All 68000 software (I have tried) works fine under 68020.
As has been explained to you, this is simply not the case. That you've not used any software that is that calls on a 68000 specific function not available in later models does not change this.
People offer upgrade 68020 boards for Amiga so it's not based on some inductive knowledge.
............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\
The experience by itself doesn't allow you draw a general conclusion for everything just like running a few titles on emulator does not prove emulator is same as real amiga.
(http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/the_leander/Third-party-facepalm.jpg)
-
As has been explained to you, this is simply not the case. That you've not used any software that is that calls on a 68000 specific function not available in later models does not change this.
...
It's the same for 0x86-- there's some minor differences. But they are still considered backward compatible NOT incompatible. Stop with the insults-- just exposes your biased fanatical nature.
-
Dear me, is there no end to your fail?
The example given was of memory, more specifically DRAM:
...
Context wasn't nor the first part.
>So, do you still think that the RAM example is worthy of your "everybody should roll around laughing at you for this, I'm surprised you didn't edit it" remark, or would you prefer to be a man, admit you made a mistake and withdraw it?
Sorry, I don't edit my posts especially if they are true.
-
Weren't their (2) instructions that were dropped, but they mostly weren't being used by anything of consequence. Further instructions were also added. But what is your point? (Don't make come back there, I will stop this bus)
It's like 6502 and 65816 processors. 65816 is backward compatible but you can find some instances where it doesn't do the samething as 6502 even in compatibility mode.
It would be unfair and biased to claim 6502 is NOT compatible with 65816.
-
(http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/image/A8442/84420/300_84420.jpg)
-
It's the same for 0x86-- there's some minor differences.
Err, excuse me. Your whole point was about pure hardware compatability, this is clearly and demonstratably not so, not on x86 and not on 68k. With each significant step things were lost and added. The result is that compatability, whether you like it or not, is maintained only through software.
But they are still considered backward compatible NOT incompatible.
Thats as may be, it doesn't change the fact that a certain amount of emulation software is required to maintain that compatability. Something that you have vehemently denied the necessity for.
Stop with the insults-- just exposes your biased fanatical nature.
There's that word again. You seriously don't know what it means, do you?
As for insults, hah! I haven't even begun to insult you yet. Quite frankly the poor quality drivel you have been headsticking here isn't worthy of insult.
-
Just to pour some petrol on this.
Each major successive release of the 680x0 architecture has required additional software emulation for missing opcodes, but they are considered by friend here to be backwards compatible.
I don't actually have a problem with that, since if you take the processor plus it's software support as a single entity, then it is backwards compatible with older object code.
So, taking this trend to it's logical conclusion: By building faster silicon that's less directly compatible and supporting more and more old object code through emulation on that silicon then there isn't any reason why you don't arrive at UAE's JIT. Far faster silicon with zero hardware backwards compatibility with M68K object code, all of which is supported through software emulation.
-
It would be unfair and biased to claim 6502 is NOT compatible with 65816.
Dude, you really are using the word "biased" incorrectly. In what way is he biased? Is his sister married to a 68020? Is his brother a 68020 running for public office? Is he selling 68020 accelerators?
You could say that your experiences are biased as you've never encountered an incompatible instruction. That sort of bias isn't intentional, though.
The 68000 was incomplete in some areas, particularly with regard to virtualization and the separation of privileged and unprivileged instructions, so Motorola made changes to the design. If anyone is biased or perhaps following a biased agenda, it's you, as your experience with the 68000 family appears to be limited to the Amiga and perhaps the Atari ST.
-
The 68000 was incomplete in some areas, particularly with regard to virtualization and the separation of privileged and unprivileged instructions, so Motorola made changes to the design.
The 68010 is really what the 68000 should have been.
-
That's your speculation. You are dealing with the real world as well since audio goes out to the real world, imagery goes out to the real world, joystick/mouse gets inputted from real-world, etc. Although processor speeds vary amongst amigas, there are also many elements that don't change. You can't call it an amiga if everything is different from another amiga-- there has to be some substance. Nor are you correct regarding "cycle is consistently applied." A cycle unless timed to the cycle may vary the next time the same cycle occurs given processor inconsistencies. Nor is the cycle taking the same time from cycle to cycle. Nor can you say for sure you have exact VBI timing given NTSC/PAL rates are usually different from VGA frame rates.
That's why a made an exception. From the point of view of the emulation, sound is reaching the real world just as it should. Whether or not it actually does is a problem, but only a problem for the user, not the emulation itself.
You entirely missed my point about cycles. The actual value of a cycle isn't relevant. If everything is synchronized to a cycle, then everything will run as expected.
You're making an argument for a system composed of both the computer and the user, in which case, which user? As an example, I have a bit of hearing loss in the 16 kHz range, so sounds encompassing that range will probably sound different to me than they do to you. Assuming you can hear in and around 16 kHz without problems, your Amiga experience is more complete than mine, mine being a poor emulation of yours.
-
The 68010 is really what the 68000 should have been.
Yes! And Motorola knew they effed up. The 68000 was still hugely popular and hugely successful, of course. Isn't there some documentation somewhere on why a 68010 can't be used as a reliable drop-in replacement for a 68000 in any Amiga, despite the processors being pin-compatible?
-
You entirely missed my point about cycles. The actual value of a cycle isn't relevant. If everything is synchronized to a cycle, then everything will run as expected.
Yeah amigaski seems to think that all devices on the system have their own timing... and that this timing is measure in cycles...
@amigaski cycles are not a unit of time, the cycle IS the synchronizing universal constant that keeps all the devices running together
-
Err, excuse me. Your whole point was about pure hardware compatability, this is clearly and demonstratably not so, not on x86 and not on 68k. With each significant step things were lost and added. The result is that compatability, whether you like it or not, is maintained only through software.
...
I already know there are minor differences. But the essence works on hardware level-- no library needed. I can boot up 68020 machine right now and run 68000 code w/o any drivers.
>Thats as may be, it doesn't change the fact that a certain amount of emulation software is required to maintain that compatability. Something that you have vehemently denied the necessity for.
No the compatibility is there w/o software but perhaps there's some rare piece of software that needs it.
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/68020/
>There's that word again. You seriously don't know what it means, do you?
You don't. You are biased towards PCs as is evident throughout this thread and the other thread I particpate in. So it's calling a spade a spade.
>As for insults, hah! I haven't even begun to insult you yet. Quite frankly the poor quality drivel you have been headsticking here isn't worthy of insult.
You haven't refuted any of my points nor even addressed most of them yet have already insulted. Don't need much intelligence to insult people-- Perhaps I can get some kindergarten kids to reply to you.
-
Yeah amigaski seems to think that all devices on the system have their own timing... and that this timing is measure in cycles...
@amigaski cycles are not a unit of time, the cycle IS the synchronizing universal constant that keeps all the devices running together
I always have stuck to the same definition-- t=1/f; yeah, sure it may not matter to some applications if all cycles are maintained.
-
Yes! And Motorola knew they effed up. The 68000 was still hugely popular and hugely successful, of course. Isn't there some documentation somewhere on why a 68010 can't be used as a reliable drop-in replacement for a 68000 in any Amiga, despite the processors being pin-compatible?
It is a drop in replacement but only (1) instruction is faster results in a %10 speed increase overall. If you want a proper speed boost you need to add some fast SRAM.
I will admit it is a lot sexier (68010). Applying the more instructions = better philosophy. RISC seems to suck the colour out of machine coding.
-
Never had any of those libraries in software I tested or even if it were present in some disks in some folder whether it was actively loaded and being used. I put in a 68020 board in A2000 and didn't install any libraries-- ran the same software as before. And some of this software is just a complete ANIM file and player software-- no 68020 or 68040.library.
It's abit pointless to use 68040.library on 68020 based machine.
-
"Okay, my bet... I'll match that 68010 and raise it a 68030."
:laughing:
amigski,
take a chill pill and make a proper argument. I don't play Texas 2 card with cheats.
-
I already know there are minor differences. But the essence works on hardware level-- no library needed. I can boot up 68020 machine right now and run 68000 code w/o any drivers.
Try doing the same with either an 040 or 060 without the requisite 040/060 library.
No the compatibility is there w/o software but perhaps there's some rare piece of software that needs it.
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/68020/
Go ahead and do the above and see how far your system gets. BTW, your brochure does not cut it as evidence.
You don't. You are biased towards PCs as is evident throughout this thread and the other thread I particpate in. So it's calling a spade a spade.
I am niether for nor against the PC, it's not important enough for me to have a bias about.
You haven't refuted any of my points nor even addressed most of them yet have already insulted. Don't need much intelligence to insult people-- Perhaps I can get some kindergarten kids to reply to you.
Err, yes I have refuted your points, done so time and again, that you have chosen a path of wilful ignorance is not my or anyone elses problem. Whenever you're confronted by anyone who disagrees with you you accuse them of "bias" or you simply flat out ignore them prefering instead to repeat the same, tired BS over and over.
So go get a kid to reply, most young kids are less liable to lie or twist things to suite their purposes. I can teach a kid to provide verifiable evidense to back up their argument. Aparently this lesson is lost on you.
-
WinUAE can support hardware specific calls that you would find from quirky programmers. It's a Jack of all trades, master of none. WinUAE has it's place in an everchanging multiverse. Not going with the stream, but fighting against it. Beware Dragonlancers the rise of the 'realms' has been foretold.
Ready your steel in the name Solamnia, I sense a dark presence on yonder horizon. Let us turn in for the night.
-
Performance aside, emulated 68K has another advantage. You can support every user mode opcode that's ever been implemented on the 680x0/6888x. That allows you to maximise the throughput of all 68K code. If you emulated just the subset supported by a given CPU model, then your emulated CPU would have to jump through the same (emulated) exception traps to handle them. With a fully virtual CPU, unimplemented instruction exceptions need never happen for any legal opcode. You can just support them.
-
It's abit pointless to use 68040.library on 68020 based machine.
My point is valid for 680x0 processors not just 68020 which I used as an example because happen to have it in front of me to play around with.
-
Try doing the same with either an 040 or 060 without the requisite 040/060 library.
...
You stand corrected right?
>Go ahead and do the above and see how far your system gets. BTW, your brochure does not cut it as evidence.
It's not "mine". There are many links that state the same.
>I am niether for nor against the PC, it's not important enough for me to have a bias about.
I can PROVE you are biased towards PCs from what you have written in the two threads I am subscribed to.
>Err, yes I have refuted your points, done so time and again, that you have chosen a path of wilful ignorance is not my or anyone elses problem.
Your ignorance was just proven-- you think a library is required and it's not. You have yet to address many other points made and I won't waste my time linking to them as you are proven time and time again to blurt out blind statements like above.
>So go get a kid to reply, most young kids are less liable to lie or twist things to suite their purposes. I can teach a kid to provide verifiable evidense to back up their argument. Aparently this lesson is lost on you.
Kids can insult you better than you can insult me.
-
Just to pour some petrol on this.
Each major successive release of the 680x0 architecture has required additional software emulation for missing opcodes, but they are considered by friend here to be backwards compatible.
I don't actually have a problem with that, since if you take the processor plus it's software support as a single entity, then it is backwards compatible with older object code.
So, taking this trend to it's logical conclusion: By building faster silicon that's less directly compatible and supporting more and more old object code through emulation on that silicon then there isn't any reason why you don't arrive at UAE's JIT. Far faster silicon with zero hardware backwards compatibility with M68K object code, all of which is supported through software emulation.
Missing some instructions would be equivalent to missing some functionality like support for light pens or paddles on an emulator. As I stated you have to looks at the essence. OCS registers are same for ECS/AGA and the timing is same for Copper, Audio Interrupts, etc. Processors do have some differences like frequency being a major one but the essence of the instructions is the same throughout all 680x0 amigas.
-
My point is valid for 680x0 processors not just 68020 which I used as an example because happen to have it in front of me to play around with.
No, your point is not valid. Read and comprehend: Any code that uses any instruction not implemented in silicon will fail fatally on any 680x0 that does not have the requisite support code installed
If your 68000 code touches the SR outside of supervisor mode, it will crash on 68010, 68020, 68030, 68040 and 68060 despite being legal on 68000.
If your 68881/68882 code touches any transcendal function or uses certain rounding instructions, it will crash on 68040 and 68060, unless trapped and handled in software (provided by 040/060 libraries).
If your 68020/30/40 compatible code uses any 64-bit integer division or 32x32->64 bit integer multiplication it will crash on 68060, unless handled in software (provided by 060 library).
If all you have at your disposal is a 68020 then you obviously haven't felt the pain others have when their 68040.library or 68060.library has been missing or had problems. Count yourself lucky.
-
You stand corrected right?
Karlos has covered this better then I. Getting an 040 system to boot without that lib is a pain and leaves the system fatally undermined.
Not unbootable, but far from your picture of no issues.
>Go ahead and do the above and see how far your system gets. BTW, your brochure does not cut it as evidence.
It's not "mine". There are many links that state the same.
Yes, and how many of them are have more then a laundry list of capabilities? It does not in any way cover specifics. Moreover - you demanded that Karlos look at the Motorola manuals, he has, have you?
>I am niether for nor against the PC, it's not important enough for me to have a bias about.
I can PROVE you are biased towards PCs from what you have written in the two threads I am subscribed to.
Given your "proof" for everything else you've said thus far, this should be a blast.
PROTIP: You saying it repeatedly does not make it so.
>Err, yes I have refuted your points, done so time and again, that you have chosen a path of wilful ignorance is not my or anyone elses problem.
Your ignorance was just proven-- you think a library is required and it's not.
Yes, yes it is. Running without it on an 040 system leaves you at all times a hairtrigger away from bombing out. You claim time and again software emulation is unnecessary.
You have yet to address many other points made and I won't waste my time linking to them as you are proven time and time again to blurt out blind statements like above.
Because those points have been shot down so thoroughly that it isn't funny any more. That you choose not to acknowledge that is proof of your fanaticism.
Kids can insult you better than you can insult me.
Oh noes!
(http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/the_leander/Whambulance.gif)
-
Your ignorance was just proven-- you think a library is required and it's not. You have yet to address many other points made and I won't waste my time linking to them as you are proven time and time again to blurt out blind statements like above.
What kind of misinformed drivel is this? Of course the_leander is perfectly correct to say you need the library if you are using a 68040/68060. After several dozen recoverable alerts during booting I just about managed to get into workbench, just, before a fatal error took it down again.
Don't believe me? See attached. Now, if you don't mind, I'll re-enable my 68040.library so that I can actually get the thing booted.
-
Notice the fatal error in the middle shot? That's right, an unhandled line F exception, which if you knew anything at all about 680x0 you'd recognise as an unimplemented instruction exception.
Directly compatible, my erse. You want to use an 040 or 060? You need the library, unless rebooting your machine is your favourite hobby.
-
Notice the fatal error in the middle shot? That's right, an unhandled line F exception, which if you knew anything at all about 680x0 you'd recognise as an unimplemented instruction exception.
Directly compatible, my erse. You want to use an 040 or 060? You need the library, unless rebooting your machine is your favourite hobby.
(http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/the_leander/so_much_win_graphic.png)
-
@the_leander
LOL, bloody hell, where do you find these?
-
Oh here and there. :D
Am uploading them as and when I find an opening to use them :D
-
I already know there are minor differences. But the essence works on hardware level-- no library needed. I can boot up 68020 machine right now and run 68000 code w/o any drivers.
Its because the system, in this case AmigaOS, handles the differences these processors has. Ponder the need for these functions in exec.library for example:
GetCC() (http://pub.elowar.com/AmigaDev/Includes_and_Autodocs_2._guide/node0359.html)
SetSR() (http://pub.elowar.com/AmigaDev/Includes_and_Autodocs_2._guide/node037F.html)
In the case of the 68040 and above, even more code was needed to handle the difference and was added in form of the 68040.library to the system.
-
Ah, how I love the sound of skull against swedish cluebat...
-
What kind of misinformed drivel is this? Of course the_leander is perfectly correct to say you need the library if you are using a 68040/68060. After several dozen recoverable alerts during booting I just about managed to get into workbench, just, before a fatal error took it down again.
Don't believe me? See attached. Now, if you don't mind, I'll re-enable my 68040.library so that I can actually get the thing booted.
What's the matter can't make up your mind? In post #1191 in the other thread you stated you can boot up without the library and now after your sidekick corrected himself/herself you changed your mind. You may be driving him/her crazy.
I don't get any alerts in booting up my applications. Perhaps, you used something that actually uses FPU/MMU rather than 68000 application.
-
Oh here and there. :D
Am uploading them as and when I find an opening to use them :D
I taught a few kindergarten kids to upload silly pictures recently.
-
Notice the fatal error in the middle shot? That's right, an unhandled line F exception, which if you knew anything at all about 680x0 you'd recognise as an unimplemented instruction exception.
Directly compatible, my erse. You want to use an 040 or 060? You need the library, unless rebooting your machine is your favourite hobby.
Your experiment is a failure because you aren't testing for compatibility.
As far as being compatible, here another link for you proving I'm not alone in this world running code on 680x0 originally written for 68000:
http://www.digchip.com/datasheets/parts/datasheet/522/68040.php
-
Karlos has covered this better then I. Getting an 040 system to boot without that lib is a pain and leaves the system fatally undermined.
...
Okay, so you didn't have to serve as the sidekick. I can read his writing as well. I believe they are both English although you have problems with some words like biased and objectivity.
>Not unbootable, but far from your picture of no issues.
Go read what I actually said before you reply.
>Yes, and how many of them are have more then a laundry list of capabilities? It does not in any way cover specifics. Moreover - you demanded that Karlos look at the Motorola manuals, he has, have you?
It's easier to search online then read through the manuals again. But definitely I remember reading object code compatibility.
>Given your "proof" for everything else you've said thus far, this should be a blast.
I will only state one and see if you are emotional sane enough to acknowledge it. The very first point about joysticks you said my data was "utter rubbish". If that's not a biased look at the data, then I can't even argue with you anymore.
>PROTIP: You saying it repeatedly does not make it so.
Nope, I will go one at a time with your biased views. Let's see how you treat the first one.
>Because those points have been shot down so thoroughly that it isn't funny any more. >That you choose not to acknowledge that is proof of your fanaticism.
I stated CLEARLY all of my software boots up fine without the library. What's the fanaticism? I also quoted links.
Keep your insults to yourself. As soon as somene replies (right or wrong) you think my views are thoroughly shot down. Get a brain for yourself and stop being a sidekick. You can easily get mislead with blind leading the blind.
-
Your experiment is a failure because you aren't testing for compatibility.
How so? He was booting his system without the library and it crashed due to software/hardware incompatibilities. What part exactly do you fail to understand about it?
While I agree with you that using a real Amiga is superior to using an emulator so far when it comes to old hardware dependent applications, I understand that it's a personal opinion, not a fact, and arguing that the 68040 is backwards compatible with the 68000 or 68020 is just silly, because it just isn't (from looking at the instruction set differences) and practically, in many cases it doesn't work.
Thankfully there are people who patch games and create libraries to make up for the incompatibilities, and claiming that their work is for nothing is quite disrespectful in my opinion.
Telling us that your setup boots fine doesn't really prove anything else but that; your system boots fine. Anecdotal evidence based on your particular setup doesn't hold water when it comes to proving your point.
-
Your experiment is a failure because you aren't testing for compatibility.
As far as being compatible, here another link for you proving I'm not alone in this world running code on 680x0 originally written for 68000:
http://www.digchip.com/datasheets/parts/datasheet/522/68040.php
OMG, what planet are you on? I tested compatibility using my Operating System. That is the single most important piece of software I have for the system and the one I use more than any other software.
You don't need to test much other software because without the OS it was designed to run on you probably aren't going to it working in the first place.
Not being able to boot the OS that will run on the 68020 even, simply because the 68040.library is temporarily disabled more than adequatly demonstrates that the 68K series does not do complete hardware backwards compatibility. The 68K series requires software support for full backwards compatibility. This is a simple fact and nothing you can say changes this.
-
I can read his writing as well.
Clearly you didn't, because otherwise you would have stopped embarrassing yourself.
problems with some words like biased and objectivity.
On the contrary, I along with the rest of the english speaking world have a clear understanding of what those words mean. You however have shown repeatedly that you do not.
Go read what I actually said before you reply.
I did, you stated that there was no need whatsoever for software emulation on the 68k series - thus proving its superiority to the x86 which you slammed for needing software emulation to provide 16bit compatability.
This has been demonstrated to be false.
It's easier to search online then read through the manuals again. But definitely I remember reading object code compatibility.
And again, we have someone here who has shown that what you claim is not so. We have the manuals that explain in ball aching detail as to why you are wrong and multiple users of this side giving verifiable facts as to where those incompatabilities lay. And you've ignored it all.
Easier? I've no doubt. It also stops you from having to face reality too...
and see if you are emotional sane enough to acknowledge it.
Ah, so, if someone disagrees with you, not only are they "biased" "lacking objectivity" but are now also insane and or emotionally unstable?
And you wonder where people get the idea that you're a fanatic?
The very first point about joysticks you said my data was "utter rubbish".
It is utter rubbish for the reasons already explained to you. You have been given a way of testing with 100% certainty one way or the other as to whether or not your claims hold water. Rather then carry out those tests, you have continued to repeat the claims without the evidence to back it up.
biased
Disagreeing with you!=bias
I can't even argue with you anymore.
And yet here you are, continuing to...
your biased views.
Disagreeing with you and presenting information to back up the opposing case!= bias.
I stated CLEARLY all of my software boots up fine without the library. What's the fanaticism? I also quoted links.
Anecdotal, which has already been destroyed by the demonstration given by Karlos.
thop wiv bu intholts!!
(http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/the_leander/baby-crying.jpg)
Ah, your ride has arrived:
(http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/the_leander/Ambulance2.jpg)
As soon as somene replies (right or wrong) you think my views are thoroughly shot down.
Err, no. You see, everyone who has countered your claims has backed up their points with evidence. You have provided... some anecdotal evidence, a lot of unverified claims, a website that is pretty much just a brochure and well, not much else really. You've been given ample opportunties to retest your hypothesis using a valid, viable method. Tbh I think it's clear at this point that the reason you haven't is because you realise your claim is flawed but cognitive dissonance denies you the ability to back down now.
-
Tbh I think it's clear at this point that the reason you haven't is because you realise your claim is flawed but cognitive dissonance denies you the ability to back down now.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
:roflmao:
-
I taught a few kindergarten kids to upload silly pictures recently.
Pithy.
-
Okay, so you didn't have to serve as the sidekick. I can read his writing as well. I believe they are both English although you have problems with some words like biased and objectivity.
>Not unbootable, but far from your picture of no issues.
Go read what I actually said before you reply.
>Yes, and how many of them are have more then a laundry list of capabilities? It does not in any way cover specifics. Moreover - you demanded that Karlos look at the Motorola manuals, he has, have you?
It's easier to search online then read through the manuals again. But definitely I remember reading object code compatibility.
>Given your "proof" for everything else you've said thus far, this should be a blast.
I will only state one and see if you are emotional sane enough to acknowledge it. The very first point about joysticks you said my data was "utter rubbish". If that's not a biased look at the data, then I can't even argue with you anymore.
>PROTIP: You saying it repeatedly does not make it so.
Nope, I will go one at a time with your biased views. Let's see how you treat the first one.
>Because those points have been shot down so thoroughly that it isn't funny any more. >That you choose not to acknowledge that is proof of your fanaticism.
I stated CLEARLY all of my software boots up fine without the library. What's the fanaticism? I also quoted links.
Keep your insults to yourself. As soon as somene replies (right or wrong) you think my views are thoroughly shot down. Get a brain for yourself and stop being a sidekick. You can easily get mislead with blind leading the blind.
Hi,
@amigaksi,
Well I guess I shouldn't say this, but you are wrong again, wrong, wrong, wrong, I have an Amiga 4000 040 25 mhz system, If I do not enable the 040 library, my 040 runs like a snail, it will still run, but it runs slowly, it also has a problem with some programs due to what they call the 040 bug which the 040 library works around, if I remember right it is due to a bug using the mov instruction in coding, this was not relevent in the earlier 68000 series but due to this bug in the 040 cpu, the 040 processor would sometimes crash, or lock up causing freeze ups or crashes in some programs. This was pointer out in the magazines Amazing Amiga, and Amiga world (remember them). When the 040 first came out programmers were warned to avoid the mov instruction and to use Commodores work around, later on some Einstein programmer made the 040 library that brought some relief to this bug.
I wish I still had my magazines, so I could tell you the dates of which issue (issues) to read on this bug. Also today when I run my Amiga Forever Emulator, it really outshines my Amiga 4000, with Amikit installed it looks really modern and functions quite well, I have run Pen Pal, Soliton, Crazy 8's, Space Taxi, etc. on it. ADoom really flies full screen at 1280 X 1020 and sometimes I wish I could slow it down, Pen Pal runs excellent as long as I take the data icon and move it onto the Pen Pal icon, other wise it won't load up, I still haven't figured out why, but it still is useable when I do this, Eagle Player works quite well, and the sound is fantastic, mp3's play great, but playing video is still well iffy, in other words I can't do it unless I register the frog, otherwise I get about 30 seconds of play. I also get to use my SATA drives, USB, and DVD dual layer burner. So now I turn on my Amiga 4000 on just about twice a week to transfer data from my AF emulator to the Amga 4000 (remember AF still runs under Winblows so transferring my data is important, the Emulator will go fits up with a winblows crash.
Why do I put up with winblows because it is the only OS that the modern day games are made for, and that is all I use it for, I also use Linux, which holds my video, music and now my software databases. Linux has not crashed on me for the last 3 years or since I started using Ubuntu. I have tried all the other big Linux OS's but I like Ubuntu the best. It is made the best and is the easiest to use especially for an idiot like me. I have never tried using an apple computer because I HATE APPLE and THEIR FANBOYS, I shudder at all the users of rotten core computers, my apple this, and my apple that, Amiga huh, didn't that piece of junk die years ago, and I am a PC and I am a MAC. It is all B_S.
smerf
-
@the leander
OMG I laughed for a good 5 minutes before I could type this.
WHA wha WHA wha WHA wha! LOL!
-
Hi,
@amigaksi,
>> Originally Posted by amigaksi View Post
As soon as somene replies (right or wrong) you think my views are thoroughly shot down.
===============================================================
No, they were shot down before you posted, now lets talk about the Amiga joystick, yes it is fast because it moves mathematically by counting pixels, which makes it extremely fast moving on screens. Now when you move it in most games which are using the 320 X 200 graphics mode, thats 320 pixels wide by 200 pixels vertical, it is extremely quick causing most programmers to put delays in the movement. Now you take todays modern graphics cards which are 2500 X 1600 pixels would cause joystick movement to move much slower since it has more pixels to calculate for depending on where the programmer has put the zero reference point.
If I am wrong please advise.
smerf
-
Okay, so you didn't have to serve as the sidekick.
I will only state one and see if you are emotional sane enough to acknowledge it. The very first point about joysticks you said my data was "utter rubbish". If that's not a biased look at the data, then I can't even argue with you anymore.
I wouldn't call your data rubbish. I'm from the southern United States, the closest I can call it is, "crap" and not violate the site rules. You ran a task on the machine that polled the port while a game was running. This guarantees the timing is completely inaccurate. But who knows right? You weren't even clear about whether this data came from sampling an atari or an amiga. Who cares though, you have less than 1ms state changes in your data. That's physically impossible from a biomechanic perspective. You measure signal bounce from the superior joy port hanging off a Denise chip who's input pins tie directly to mechanical switches.
-
I will only state one and see if you are emotional sane enough to acknowledge it. The very first point about joysticks you said my data was "utter rubbish". If that's not a biased look at the data, then I can't even argue with you anymore.
no it is not bias if there is a logical reason it is not valid. the thing is you were given instructions on how to redo the test to make the data valid. you ignored that and are still assuming that you are the only one that is right. that to me IS bias.
-
How so? He was booting his system without the library and it crashed due to software/hardware incompatibilities. What part exactly do you fail to understand about it?
While I agree with you that using a real Amiga is superior to using an emulator so far when it comes to old hardware dependent applications, I understand that it's a personal opinion, not a fact, and arguing that the 68040 is backwards compatible with the 68000 or 68020 is just silly, because it just isn't (from looking at the instruction set differences) and practically, in many cases it doesn't work.
Thankfully there are people who patch games and create libraries to make up for the incompatibilities, and claiming that their work is for nothing is quite disrespectful in my opinion.
Telling us that your setup boots fine doesn't really prove anything else but that; your system boots fine. Anecdotal evidence based on your particular setup doesn't hold water when it comes to proving your point.
I already agreed there are minor differences like you can find between 80486 and 8088 running 8088 code on 80486. So if his OS that he runs was meant for a 68020 or higher system, his experiment is a failure. You have to test for 68000 compatibility using 68000-pure code. And a lame excuse like SR/CCR won't be enough to declare 68020 incompatible with 68000.
-
no it is not bias if there is a logical reason it is not valid. the thing is you were given instructions on how to redo the test to make the data valid. you ignored that and are still assuming that you are the only one that is right. that to me IS bias.
And I have logical reasons why you can have data that requires millisecond response which is SUPERIOR to billions of experiments.
You are biased. You can't see the logic for example in someone pressing a fire button that's a millisecond apart from him turning the joystick. It can happen. That's all you have to acknowledge. People who can't do that after many times stating the reasons and not even refuting the logic are biased.
-
I wouldn't call your data rubbish. I'm from the southern United States, the closest I can call it is, "crap" and not violate the site rules. You ran a task on the machine that polled the port while a game was running. This guarantees the timing is completely inaccurate. But who knows right? You weren't even clear about whether this data came from sampling an atari or an amiga. Who cares though, you have less than 1ms state changes in your data. That's physically impossible from a biomechanic perspective. You measure signal bounce from the superior joy port hanging off a Denise chip who's input pins tie directly to mechanical switches.
You are baised as well then. You are one of those sick people who play pathological games on people by distorting their REP points by assuming YOU KNOW BETTER than them although you may be in more ignorance than the person you pass judgement on. I don't give a crap about your REP bullcrap.
-
@the leander
OMG I laughed for a good 5 minutes before I could type this.
WHA wha WHA wha WHA wha! LOL!
She is like a child who plays name-calling and just saying "No."
-
You are baised as well then. You are one of those sick people who play pathological games on people by distorting their REP points by assuming YOU KNOW BETTER than them although you may be in more ignorance than the person you pass judgement on. I don't give a crap about your REP bullcrap.
What are you talking about? Rep points dont exist anymore. Keep up will ya. :laughing:
-
Clearly you didn't, because otherwise you would have stopped embarrassing yourself.
...
Straw-man arguments, I don't need to reply to. You can't follow the logic, that's your problem.
Sticks and stones can break my bones, words don't hurt. Get a clue and speak something logical. Take your straw-man bullcrap and keep it for yourself.
-
This has been demonstrated to be false.
...
Wrong.
>And again, we have someone here who has shown that what you claim is not so. We have the manuals that explain in ball aching detail as to why you are wrong and multiple users of this side giving verifiable facts as to where those incompatabilities lay. And you've ignored it all.
No, you have ignored it all. I also showed manuals and I also ran code that works. You are biased AGAIN for siding with one claim without proof.
>It is utter rubbish for the reasons already explained to you.
If that's your reason, then stop replying. Since it's already explained to me and you don't have the brains to refute the clear cut logic, then stop replying and proving my claim that you are biased.
-
What are you talking about? Rep points dont exist anymore. Keep up will ya. :laughing:
Sorry, I was away for a few days; perhaps, I should stay away -- nothing rational only Hammer took it logically and showed how PC may be able to sample joystick at 1Khz.
-
@all Maybe everyone should just take a chill pill and drop the argument. It's not as if anyone is going to be swayed to either side so let's enjoy the new site and discuss things that mutually interest us without letting them get personal or acrimonious? :confused:
Guys you do know that there is an ignore feature on the site don't you? Just activate that if you don't like a particular users posts. End of problem.:)
-
Tags:
amiga , bullcrap , circle jerking , cloud cuckoo land , complete bollocks , denial , emulation , fantasy , flamefest , real , sit on the joystick , troll , winuae
:lol:
-
You are baised as well then. You are one of those sick people who play pathological games on people by distorting their REP points by assuming YOU KNOW BETTER than them although you may be in more ignorance than the person you pass judgement on. I don't give a crap about your REP bullcrap.
hahah! :laughing: You've sunk to all new lows. This is what you come up with when you can't admit that you sample signal bounce. Truly pathetic. You only got one -1 from me, I'd guess you got a lot from others. You deserved them all.
-
She is like a child who plays name-calling and just saying "No."
And thus, amigaksi's powers of observation are proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
(http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/the_leander/Picard-no-facepalm.jpg)
You can't follow the logic, that's your problem.
This board has seen your "logic". What we have asked for (and you've failed to provide, instead prefering to slime out of points either by talking about something else entirely or by accusations of bias, lacking objectivity, emotional unsound and/or insane), is viable documantary evidence.
Something that you have singularly refused to provide.
Get a clue and speak something logical.
(http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/the_leander/Lolwutpear.jpg)
I also showed manuals and I also ran code that works.
You misspelled brochure and fails.
Your whole argument in a nutshell:
(http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/the_leander/SimplicityPoster.jpg)
stop replying and proving my claim that you are biased.
And this ladies and gentlmen is what he's been reduced to: Demanding anyone who disagrees with him to be silent or face threats against their character.
"Science, or at least, good science is a free exchange of ideas, anything else is a kind of tyranny." - Stephen Fry.
So in conclusion:
(http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/the_leander/BSODdemotivator.jpg)
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
:roflmao:
Where's the popcorn emoticon when you need it!
Oh, my sides hurt!
:lol:
-
Sorry, I was away for a few days; perhaps, I should stay away -- nothing rational only Hammer took it logically and showed how PC may be able to sample joystick at 1Khz.
Well, there's a *market* for a fast gaming mouse. I don't see a business case for a fast digital joystick.
-
You are baised as well then. You are one of those sick people who play pathological games on people by distorting their REP points by assuming YOU KNOW BETTER than them although you may be in more ignorance than the person you pass judgement on. I don't give a crap about your REP bullcrap.
I was mistaken in my previous response to this comment. I thought I had left amagiski a -1. Turns out I didn't. I had only dropped on negative, and took a screen capture of it when I did.
(http://koft.net/static/pix/ponzi.JPG)
It's sad to see a useful site feature dropped because of a few cry babies who blame everyone else for their problems.
-
hahah! :laughing: You've sunk to all new lows. This is what you come up with when you can't admit that you sample signal bounce. Truly pathetic. You only got one -1 from me, I'd guess you got a lot from others. You deserved them all.
You should answer the question I posted to you in the other thread regarding this bounce before just blaming someone. You can't take part of the data and claim it's all noise. It works PERFECTLY in getting you to bridge 2 in River-raid.
I wasn't blaming you for my rep points but drew the conclusion from your own postings. Once again you speculated something just like with your biased analysis of the joystick data.
-
Tags:
amiga , bullcrap , circle jerking , cloud cuckoo land , complete bollocks , denial , emulation , fantasy , flamefest , real , sit on the joystick , troll , winuae
:lol:
To put it into context, anyone thinking or stating that winuae or any other amiga emulator is a real amiga is talking all bullcrap, circle jerking, in cloud cuckoo land, complete bollocks, in reality denial (in fantasy land), enjoys flamefest, trolling, and/or does not understand emulation. He's better off sitting on a joystick to try to wake himself up.
-
Well, there's a *market* for a fast gaming mouse. I don't see a business case for a fast digital joystick.
Hey, I agree that was the main reason they never used digital joystick to begin with-- it's was cheaper and easier to just put a gameport analog type joystick via a plug-in card since it was a business type machine. It's the people in fantasy land and in denial of reality who think that PC still surpassed Amiga in that catagory through osmosis.
-
I was mistaken in my previous response to this comment. I thought I had left amagiski a -1. Turns out I didn't. I had only dropped on negative, and took a screen capture of it when I did.
(http://koft.net/static/pix/ponzi.JPG)
It's sad to see a useful site feature dropped because of a few cry babies who blame everyone else for their problems.
I never even looked at the REP points or how they worked until you had a discussion with someone asking for his REP points back. I don't give a fig whether you made it go negative or not, but it's a sick game to play on people. I am more interested in the truth and your votes don't affect it.
-
And thus, amigaksi's powers of observation are proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
...
All you do is blurt out whatever comes up in your head without any coherent relationship to the arguments being presented. Your argument is just as good as the following argument against you:
And thus, leander is proven to be a monkey who randomly logged into Amiga.org by randomly pressing the correct keystrokes.
-
@all Maybe everyone should just take a chill pill and drop the argument. It's not as if anyone is going to be swayed to either side so let's enjoy the new site and discuss things that mutually interest us without letting them get personal or acrimonious? :confused:
Guys you do know that there is an ignore feature on the site don't you? Just activate that if you don't like a particular users posts. End of problem.:)
Yeah, but it seems like some people have the ignore feature built-into their heads-- they read posts and say the samething as if they read nothing.
-
All you do is blurt out whatever comes up in your head without any coherent relationship to the arguments being presented. Your argument is just as good as the following argument against you:
And thus, leander is proven to be a monkey who randomly logged into Amiga.org by randomly pressing the correct keystrokes.
Pot, kettle, black
-
Hey, I agree that was the main reason they never used digital joystick to begin with-- it's was cheaper and easier to just put a gameport analog type joystick via a plug-in card since it was a business type machine.
I was referring to the type of games that promotes the use of analogue type inputs e.g. Wing Commander series, F16 Falcon series, Microsoft Flight Simulator series and 'etc'.
Note that Xbox 360 is a game console i.e. it uses XInput APIs and includes analogue type controls.
It's the people in fantasy land and in denial of reality who think that PC still surpassed Amiga in that catagory through osmosis.
Classic Amiga style games and controls system is not competitive against the
1. Xbox 360 e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFwNP5zrvso
2. PS3 e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvXgoyiAQOs
3. PC (AMD GAME!) e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN_aGKt7uhw
It wouldn’t be natural to play 3D simulation type games with classic Amiga style digital stick.
-
All you do is blurt out whatever comes up in your head without any coherent relationship to the arguments being presented.
Says the person who has not yet provided one shred of evidence to back up his claims, verses valid, technical and practical demonstrations of where you are wrong.
On every single point you have made, there have been a half dozen explanations of varying degrees of complexity explaining how far off the mark you are. You, in a display of cognitive dissonance that almost classes as art have as rebuttals provided a graphic showing signal bounce, a brochure, and the all time funny of accusing people of being biased/lacking objectivity/emotionally unstable/insane.
Your argument is just as good as the following argument against you:
And thus, leander is proven to be a monkey who randomly logged into Amiga.org by randomly pressing the correct keystrokes.
This is a strawman (like every other accusation you've leveled at others, you failed to correctly use it ^ that is a classic strawman).
See, the difference is that I can (and have) back my arguments up. And my point that you ignored, (I'm past thinking that you are actually capable of taking in anything that doesn't automatically agree with you) was that even on basic observation, you failed.
With this in mind, how can anything else you say be taken seriously when you fail to cope even with the basics?
-
Yeah, but it seems like some people have the ignore feature built-into their heads-- they read posts and say the samething as if they read nothing.
(http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/the_leander/irony.jpg)