real amiga vs winuae

[the_leander]

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.

[the_leander]

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.

[the_leander]

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.

[the_leander]

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.

[the_leander]

You violated the law of physics.

Tell that to the owners of those accellerator cards with those motherboards that didnt work together.

[the_leander]

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_leander]

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!

[the_leander]

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.

[the_leander]

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.

[the_leander]

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.

[the_leander]

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.

[the_leander]

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...

[the_leander]

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.

[the_leander]

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?

[the_leander]

Baby jesus?

:lol: