real amiga vs winuae

[shoggoth]

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.

[shoggoth]

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.

[shoggoth]

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.

[shoggoth]

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.

[shoggoth]

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.

[shoggoth]

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.

[shoggoth]

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.

[shoggoth]

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.