NatAmi 68070 design draft

[amigaksi]

>My computer of 2.26 GHz P IV with 1 Gig ram stalls (~3 seconds) when opening a 2 to 4 meg ASCII file!!!!!!!!!

Are you sure that's not Vista?  XP with 1 GB RAM should be pretty fast at 2.26Ghz CPU speed.  Perhaps, you need to try installing Windows '98SE or Windows 3.1 or DOS.  That ought to  speed things up quite a bit from XP (if you have the drivers for the hardware in your machine).  Else try upgrading to multiprocessor based machine and use single-processor versions of anti-viruses/anti-spywares.  

[amigaksi]

>>    wolfchild wrote:
>>    Whenever Natami is mentioned, it seems inevitable that the project team members will eventually be ridiculed.

>In order for them to be ridiculed, first they must write something ridiculous surely?

Not really, some people like Galileo, Newton, etc. got ridiculed although they were right.  Some people have more experience/knowledge of specific subjects than others and if it does not fit into the "norm" of what everyone else does/follows, it makes others ridicule them.  Although, most people picked the slower-processor based Amiga at 7.16Mhz over the Atari ST (@8Mhz), that was a good choice in the 80s.  Now if you use an Amiga over a 4Ghz PC, it's not the "norm" since only the processor speed counts in most people's minds.

[amigaksi]

>Newton was a highly respected scientist... never ridiculed... Do you even know history?

Have you read all the books ever written on Newton???  I have read Galileo and Newton being ridiculed.  I need only one instance to disprove your claim.  Use the scientific method yourself before you preach it to others.  

You are selfish and rude individual; if it does not fit into your needs, it has no use.  If you have not read it, it's wrong.  I wasn't talking to you.  I already had a hard time trying to make you understand the difference between a timer and a cpu clock.

[amigaksi]

>I'm simply trying to show people the flaws in their thinking.

You try to find faults with people or things even if you don't understand them.  Because you must know since you read so many books.  There's no chance that you misunderstood.

[amigaksi]

>You (and others here) certainly seem to have much greater knowledge than I, about the specific technologies being discussed.

Don't be mislead.  Someone may fantasize and hope it comes true, but it's worse to be living in a fantasy thinking it's reality.  It's much harder to come out of that state of mind.

Any computer that let's you do cycle exact manipulation of registers and I/O ports has a place in real-time systems.  Modern OSes like Windows XP/Vista machines were never meant for real-time applications.  If you can get away with doing it with an Amiga or a variant, it has something unique that modern systems don't offer.  As I stated, people in PC-realm stress more than CPU clock speed so timing accuracy is not significant for them as it might be for others.

[amigaksi]

>Although there is more I'd like to discuss about the Natami, I think it's best I bow out of this discussion to avoid further damage to the Natami project.

His speculations won't damage anyone's Amiga projects.  He speaks of the scientific method but he himself just makes claims that are obviously wrong (perhaps random Googling is superior for him than the scientific method).  I state that it's a good choice to pick the Amiga @7.16 Mhz over the Atari ST @8Mhz and look at this argument:

>I doubt even 1% of the people who bought computers in the 80s even know what speed their CPU was... or even that CPUs had speed ratings.

WRONG.

>You bought the computer that had the most software, or the one that had the better software...

WRONG.

Who in their right minds would accept such false claims?  I bought the Amiga because of it's hardware not because of the software.  

[amigaksi]

>If you are going to dispute some one else's generalized statements with "WRONG", at least pick ones that you can prove are false. I don't happen to agree with the 1% statement, but doubt that anyone can prove it right or wrong.

CPUs had speed ratings.  You can check out all the adverts and tech articles in the magazines.  Everyone I know that bought Atari/Amiga computers knew the CPU Mhz.  I don't have to prove a 1% thing-- he does.  Regardless, don't you see that he MISSED the point altogether-- it's a very simple point-- you can be ridiculed even if you are right like Galileo or others in history.  And the point was to someone else's statement not to his.

I addressed the points he made to my reply-- I'm not stating that everything he wrote (to others) is right or wrong.  It seems he's already trying to find fault before he understands the point.

[amigaksi]

>I happen to agree that the majority of people that buy computers today buy based on the software they want to run, or just buy any computer with MS Windows because they don't know the difference, or they know nothing about the alternatives. The people that visit this forum are not part of the majority, they are exceptional.

But he wasn't addressing todays machines-- the reference was to 80s with Atari ST/Amiga and he wrote:

>You bought the computer that had the most software, or the one that had the better software...

So you need only one instance where a person bought the machine not because it has the most software to disprove his point.