real amiga vs winuae

[Karlos]

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.

[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!

[Hammer]

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".

[smerf]

@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

[amigaksi]

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.

[amigaksi]

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.

[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.

[amigaksi]

...
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.

[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.

[LoBai]

Have nothing of value to add:) Just wanted to say hello!

[Hammer]

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.

[amigaksi]

...
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.

[amigaksi]

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).

[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.

[amigaksi]

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.

[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.