New Amiga Accelerators

[Atheist]

Piru wrote:

It's a HARD DRIVE made of 4 CF cards..... Not main system ram.

Hard drive keeps its contents over power off. What you're proposing is a not a hard disk, and it has absolutely zero benefit over system main memory.

Hi Piru,

Huh? It's using CF, compact flash cards, all the contents would still be there the next day, you can boot up off of it!

Piru wrote:

On the Amiga 1000 in 1985, it was a hardware one too!

But AmigaOS cannot use more than 2GB, even though the hardware would allow it.

I think sane people would ONLY choose an Amiga capped at 2 gigs of ram over xp capped at 3!

[bloodline]

Atheist wrote:

Isn't it much cheaper to buy 3 1 Gigs?

Also, you STILL need a 1 Gig to get to xps limit of 3 Gigs.

Funny that, AOS came out in 1985, with a 2 Gig limit and billy gates, in 2008 has a mere 1 Gig ram space edge over us!!!!!!!!

AND, their OS uses up almost all of the extra 1 gig, so we're STILL ahead!!!!

No... since my MacBoookPro only has two slots and due to a design limitation in the PreSantaRosa chipset can only address 3Gigs, it makes sense for me to have a 1gig + a 2Gig SODIMMs.

I don't know why you are going on about XP anyway... it's an 8 year old OS... Both Vista (the expensive versions) and MacOSX 10.5.3 are 64bit systems that can address well over 4gig...

[Piru]

Huh? It's using CF, compact flash cards, all the contents would still be there the next day, you can boot up off of it!

Ah, I failed to see your change of mind. You first spoke of ram disk that would lose its contents at power off.

I think sane people would ONLY choose an Amiga capped at 2 gigs of ram over xp capped at 3!

If you say so. However, outside of the fanboy fantasy world...

[A6000]

then you could get a throughput of 4 cards * 266x transfer * 150,000 bytes (base flash card speed) a second = 159,600,000 Bytes per second!!!!!!!!
159 Megs a second transfer rate, sustained, can hard drives go that fast?

The real bottleneck would be the 14mhz 32 bit path to main memory, which would be 56mb/s at best, the other bottleneck would be your IDE drive, even fastATA can only manage 5.5mb/s.

newegg sells 4gb modules. granted, they're expensive, but they'll get cheaper.

the pci bus would of course be a performance limiter, but I expect you would see lower latency on access to large data sets than you would off of anything but a raid array with a fair number of drives and a large cache.

[B00tDisk]

HAI GAIS I 1NCE SAW AN AMEGA 40000 BOX ON TV IM PRITTY SHURE I CAN HAVE MY M8 BUILD 1 COZ.  NE1 WANT TO BUY ONE WHEN THEY R REDY???//

IT WILL HAVE A BILLION FAST MEGAPLEXER + LOADS OF CHIPRAM FOR TRACKERZZZZZZ AN IT WILL BEAT WINDOZ OR WINBLOWZ AMIRITE?!?!??!!!ONEONE AND BILL GAETS WILL SE IT AND CRY LIEK "BOOK HOO I WISH I HAD AN AMEGA!!11ONE"

 :crazy:  :roll:

[stefcep2]

This is one of the funniest threads.  Who can up with a wilder imagination next?

[CodePoet]

@ B00tDisk

:lol: *dies*

[alexh]

Atheist wrote:
159 Megs a second transfer rate, sustained, can hard drives go that fast?

The SAS / SATA II 3G drives I design do 180Mbyte/sec average 270Mbyte/sec peak.

Never buy a PCI SATA card unless you want PCI to be the bottleneck.

[SamuraiCrow]

@Atheist

First of all, PCI RAM disks did exist before Vista came out and, by using them as a swap partion, they did make Windows XP boot at Amiga-like speeds.  They used the always-live power rail from the power supply to hold their contents.

Second of all, flash drives wear out faster than hard drives and cost more.

Thirdly, hybrid flash/hard drive combos are available for Vista and allow Vista to almost perform as well as XP or better if you have more RAM than the 32-bit version of XP could address.

These technologies are real and are almost no selling point to the Amiga since they only work on PCs.

[Damion]

IT WILL HAVE A BILLION FAST MEGAPLEXER + LOADS OF CHIPRAM FOR TRACKERZZZZZZ

[bd1308]

Yeah that would be nice...

[jj]

@Aethist

Are you about 8 years old or something ?

[gdanko]

Tupac is Caput

[bd1308]

BTW= the whole XP memory limit isn't because of the OS itself.

Its because 32-bit systems can only address 4GB of RAM total, including video memory. Has nothing to do with Bill Gates or his antics.

3.75GB RAM+256M video card = 4GB

etc etc.

as laughable as the above comments are, this one really stuck out. Why would MS of all people put some arbitrary limit on memory?

[Nlandas]

Piru wrote:

Since you CAN'T turn off the swap file on an XP (it won't work right anymore, it is pure garbage), then people would want to use it as swap space!!!

EDITS........

That's huge load of nonsense. First of all you can turn the swap off and it works just fine.

EDITS............

Actually Piru, I really hate to agree with anything in the other statements but there are applications that will not function well with Windows XP, if you turn off the swap file. So while yes you can turn it off, Even with 3.5GB of RAM installed it is not normally recommended to permanently turn off the page file.

So while it can be "turned off" it's better to only do that temporarily to work on problems like fragmentation or to run a specific application like a game for better FPS, than to leave it off. Windows normally runs optimally with the page file on. (There are a few exceptions, mainly in high FPS gaming that I've seen.)

There's a good discussion here

and

Microsoft's recommendation here.

I feel so dirty, I've been told it's never a good idea to disagree with Piru.  :lol: