real amiga vs winuae

[amigaksi]

Dear me, is there no end to your fail?

The example given was of memory, more specifically DRAM:
...

Context wasn't nor the first part.

>So, do you still think that the RAM example is worthy of your "everybody should roll around laughing at you for this, I'm surprised you didn't edit it" remark, or would you prefer to be a man, admit you made a mistake and withdraw it?

Sorry, I don't edit my posts especially if they are true.

[amigaksi]

Weren't their (2) instructions that were dropped, but they mostly weren't being used by anything of consequence. Further instructions were also added. But what is your point? (Don't make come back there, I will stop this bus)

It's like 6502 and 65816 processors.  65816 is backward compatible but you can find some instances where it doesn't do the samething as 6502 even in compatibility mode.

It would be unfair and biased to claim 6502 is NOT compatible with 65816.

[koaftder]

[the_leander]

It's the same for 0x86-- there's some minor differences.

Err, excuse me. Your whole point was about pure hardware compatability, this is clearly and demonstratably not so, not on x86 and not on 68k. With each significant step things were lost and added. The result is that compatability, whether you like it or not, is maintained only through software.

 But they are still considered backward compatible NOT incompatible.

Thats as may be, it doesn't change the fact that a certain amount of emulation software is required to maintain that compatability. Something that you have vehemently denied the necessity for.

  Stop with the insults-- just exposes your biased fanatical nature.

There's that word again. You seriously don't know what it means, do you?

As for insults, hah! I haven't even begun to insult you yet. Quite frankly the poor quality drivel you have been headsticking here isn't worthy of insult.

[Karlos]

Just to pour some petrol on this.

Each major successive release of the 680x0 architecture has required additional software emulation for missing opcodes, but they are considered by friend here to be backwards compatible.

I don't actually have a problem with that, since if you take the processor plus it's software support as a single entity, then it is backwards compatible with older object code.

So, taking this trend to it's logical conclusion: By building faster silicon that's less directly compatible and supporting more and more old object code through emulation on that silicon then there isn't any reason why you don't arrive at UAE's JIT. Far faster silicon with zero hardware backwards compatibility with M68K object code, all of which is supported through software emulation.

[Trev]

It would be unfair and biased to claim 6502 is NOT compatible with 65816.

Dude, you really are using the word "biased" incorrectly. In what way is he biased? Is his sister married to a 68020? Is his brother a 68020 running for public office? Is he selling 68020 accelerators?

You could say that your experiences are biased as you've never encountered an incompatible instruction. That sort of bias isn't intentional, though.

The 68000 was incomplete in some areas, particularly with regard to virtualization and the separation of privileged and unprivileged instructions, so Motorola made changes to the design. If anyone is biased or perhaps following a biased agenda, it's you, as your experience with the 68000 family appears to be limited to the Amiga and perhaps the Atari ST.

[Karlos]

The 68000 was incomplete in some areas, particularly with regard to virtualization and the separation of privileged and unprivileged instructions, so Motorola made changes to the design.

The 68010 is really what the 68000 should have been.

[Trev]

That's your speculation.  You are dealing with the real world as well since audio goes out to the real world, imagery goes out to the real world, joystick/mouse gets inputted from real-world, etc.  Although processor speeds vary amongst amigas, there are also many elements that don't change.  You can't call it an amiga if everything is different from another amiga-- there has to be some substance.  Nor are you correct regarding "cycle is consistently applied."  A cycle unless timed to the cycle may vary the next time the same cycle occurs given processor inconsistencies.  Nor is the cycle taking the same time from cycle to cycle.  Nor can you say for sure you have exact VBI timing given NTSC/PAL rates are usually different from VGA frame rates.

That's why a made an exception. From the point of view of the emulation, sound is reaching the real world just as it should. Whether or not it actually does is a problem, but only a problem for the user, not the emulation itself.

You entirely missed my point about cycles. The actual value of a cycle isn't relevant. If everything is synchronized to a cycle, then everything will run as expected.

You're making an argument for a system composed of both the computer and the user, in which case, which user? As an example, I have a bit of hearing loss in the 16 kHz range, so sounds encompassing that range will probably sound different to me than they do to you. Assuming you can hear in and around 16 kHz without problems, your Amiga experience is more complete than mine, mine being a poor emulation of yours.

[Trev]

The 68010 is really what the 68000 should have been.

Yes! And Motorola knew they effed up. The 68000 was still hugely popular and hugely successful, of course. Isn't there some documentation somewhere on why a 68010 can't be used as a reliable drop-in replacement for a 68000 in any Amiga, despite the processors being pin-compatible?

[bloodline]

You entirely missed my point about cycles. The actual value of a cycle isn't relevant. If everything is synchronized to a cycle, then everything will run as expected.

Yeah amigaski seems to think that all devices on the system have their own timing... and that this timing is measure in cycles...

@amigaski cycles are not a unit of time, the cycle IS the synchronizing universal constant that keeps all the devices running together

[amigaksi]

Err, excuse me. Your whole point was about pure hardware compatability, this is clearly and demonstratably not so, not on x86 and not on 68k. With each significant step things were lost and added. The result is that compatability, whether you like it or not, is maintained only through software.

...

I already know there are minor differences.  But the essence works on hardware level-- no library needed.  I can boot up 68020 machine right now and run 68000 code w/o any drivers.

>Thats as may be, it doesn't change the fact that a certain amount of emulation software is required to maintain that compatability. Something that you have vehemently denied the necessity for.

No the compatibility is there w/o software but perhaps there's some rare piece of software that needs it.  
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/68020/

>There's that word again. You seriously don't know what it means, do you?

You don't.  You are biased towards PCs as is evident throughout this thread and the other thread I particpate in.  So it's calling a spade a spade.

>As for insults, hah! I haven't even begun to insult you yet. Quite frankly the poor quality drivel you have been headsticking here isn't worthy of insult.

You haven't refuted any of my points nor even addressed most of them yet have already insulted.  Don't need much intelligence to insult people-- Perhaps I can get some kindergarten kids to reply to you.

[amigaksi]

Yeah amigaski seems to think that all devices on the system have their own timing... and that this timing is measure in cycles...

@amigaski cycles are not a unit of time, the cycle IS the synchronizing universal constant that keeps all the devices running together

I always have stuck to the same definition-- t=1/f; yeah, sure it may not matter to some applications if all cycles are maintained.

[ElPolloDiabl]

Yes! And Motorola knew they effed up. The 68000 was still hugely popular and hugely successful, of course. Isn't there some documentation somewhere on why a 68010 can't be used as a reliable drop-in replacement for a 68000 in any Amiga, despite the processors being pin-compatible?

It is a drop in replacement but only (1) instruction is faster results in a %10 speed increase overall. If you want a proper speed boost you need to add some fast SRAM.
I will admit it is a lot sexier (68010). Applying the more instructions = better philosophy. RISC seems to suck the colour out of machine coding.

[Hammer]

Never had any of those libraries in software I tested or even if it were present in some disks in some folder whether it was actively loaded and being used.  I put in a 68020 board in A2000 and didn't install any libraries-- ran the same software as before.  And some of this software is just a complete ANIM file and player software-- no 68020 or 68040.library.

It's abit pointless to use 68040.library on 68020 based machine.

[ElPolloDiabl]

"Okay, my bet... I'll match that 68010 and raise it a 68030."
:laughing:
amigski,

take a chill pill and make a proper argument. I don't play Texas 2 card with cheats.

[the_leander]

I already know there are minor differences.  But the essence works on hardware level-- no library needed.  I can boot up 68020 machine right now and run 68000 code w/o any drivers.

Try doing the same with either an 040 or 060 without the requisite 040/060 library.
 

No the compatibility is there w/o software but perhaps there's some rare piece of software that needs it.  
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/68020/

Go ahead and do the above and see how far your system gets. BTW, your brochure does not cut it as evidence.

You don't.  You are biased towards PCs as is evident throughout this thread and the other thread I particpate in.  So it's calling a spade a spade.

I am niether for nor against the PC, it's not important enough for me to have a bias about.

You haven't refuted any of my points nor even addressed most of them yet have already insulted.  Don't need much intelligence to insult people-- Perhaps I can get some kindergarten kids to reply to you.

Err, yes I have refuted your points, done so time and again, that you have chosen a path of wilful ignorance is not my or anyone elses problem. Whenever you're confronted by anyone who disagrees with you you accuse them of "bias" or you simply flat out ignore them prefering instead to repeat the same, tired BS over and over.
So go get a kid to reply, most young kids are less liable to lie or twist things to suite their purposes. I can teach a kid to provide verifiable evidense to back up their argument. Aparently this lesson is lost on you.