real amiga vs winuae

[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.

[ElPolloDiabl]

WinUAE can support hardware specific calls that you would find from quirky programmers. It's a Jack of all trades, master of none. WinUAE has it's place in an everchanging multiverse. Not going with the stream, but fighting against it. Beware Dragonlancers the rise of the 'realms' has been foretold.
Ready your steel in the name Solamnia, I sense a dark presence on yonder horizon. Let us turn in for the night.

[Karlos]

Performance aside, emulated 68K has another advantage. You can support every user mode opcode that's ever been implemented on the 680x0/6888x. That allows you to maximise the throughput of all 68K code. If you emulated just the subset supported by a given CPU model, then your emulated CPU would have to jump through the same (emulated) exception traps to handle them. With a fully virtual CPU, unimplemented instruction exceptions need never happen for any legal opcode. You can just support them.

[amigaksi]

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

My point is valid for 680x0 processors not just 68020 which I used as an example because happen to have it in front of me to play around with.

[amigaksi]

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

...

You stand corrected right?

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

It's not "mine".  There are many links that state the same.  

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

I can PROVE you are biased towards PCs from what you have written in the two threads I am subscribed to.  

>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.

Your ignorance was just proven-- you think a library is required and it's not.  You have yet to address many other points made and I won't waste my time linking to them as you are proven time and time again to blurt out blind statements like above.

>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.

Kids can insult you better than you can insult me.

[amigaksi]

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.

Missing some instructions would be equivalent to missing some functionality like support for light pens or paddles on an emulator.  As I stated you have to looks at the essence.  OCS registers are same for ECS/AGA and the timing is same for Copper, Audio Interrupts, etc.  Processors do have some differences like frequency being a major one but the essence of the instructions is the same throughout all 680x0 amigas.

[Karlos]

My point is valid for 680x0 processors not just 68020 which I used as an example because happen to have it in front of me to play around with.

No, your point is not valid. Read and comprehend: Any code that uses any instruction not implemented in silicon will fail fatally on any 680x0 that does not have the requisite support code installed

If your 68000 code touches the SR outside of supervisor mode, it will crash on 68010, 68020, 68030, 68040 and 68060 despite being legal on 68000.

If your 68881/68882 code touches any transcendal function or uses certain rounding instructions, it will crash on 68040 and 68060, unless trapped and handled in software (provided by 040/060 libraries).

If your 68020/30/40 compatible code uses any 64-bit integer division or 32x32->64 bit integer multiplication it will crash on 68060, unless handled in software (provided by 060 library).

If all you have at your disposal is a 68020 then you obviously haven't felt the pain others have when their 68040.library or 68060.library has been missing or had problems. Count yourself lucky.

[the_leander]

You stand corrected right?

Karlos has covered this better then I. Getting an 040 system to boot without that lib is a pain and leaves the system fatally undermined.

Not unbootable, but far from your picture of no issues.

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

It's not "mine".  There are many links that state the same.  

Yes, and how many of them are have more then a laundry list of capabilities? It does not in any way cover specifics. Moreover - you demanded that Karlos look at the Motorola manuals, he has, have you?

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

I can PROVE you are biased towards PCs from what you have written in the two threads I am subscribed to.  

Given your "proof" for everything else you've said thus far, this should be a blast.

PROTIP: You saying it repeatedly does not make it so.

>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.

Your ignorance was just proven-- you think a library is required and it's not.  

Yes, yes it is. Running without it on an 040 system leaves you at all times a hairtrigger away from bombing out. You claim time and again software emulation is unnecessary.

You have yet to address many other points made and I won't waste my time linking to them as you are proven time and time again to blurt out blind statements like above.

Because those points have been shot down so thoroughly that it isn't funny any more. That you choose not to acknowledge that is proof of your fanaticism.

Kids can insult you better than you can insult me.

Oh noes!

[Karlos]

Your ignorance was just proven-- you think a library is required and it's not.  You have yet to address many other points made and I won't waste my time linking to them as you are proven time and time again to blurt out blind statements like above.

What kind of misinformed drivel is this? Of course the_leander is perfectly correct to say you need the library if you are using a 68040/68060. After several dozen recoverable alerts during booting I just about managed to get into workbench, just, before a fatal error took it down again.

Don't believe me? See attached. Now, if you don't mind, I'll re-enable my 68040.library so that I can actually get the thing booted.

[Karlos]

Notice the fatal error in the middle shot? That's right, an unhandled line F exception, which if you knew anything at all about 680x0 you'd recognise as an unimplemented instruction exception.

Directly compatible, my erse. You want to use an 040 or 060? You need the library, unless rebooting your machine is your favourite hobby.

[the_leander]

Notice the fatal error in the middle shot? That's right, an unhandled line F exception, which if you knew anything at all about 680x0 you'd recognise as an unimplemented instruction exception.

Directly compatible, my erse. You want to use an 040 or 060? You need the library, unless rebooting your machine is your favourite hobby.

[Karlos]

@the_leander

LOL, bloody hell, where do you find these?

[the_leander]

Oh here and there.

Am uploading them as and when I find an opening to use them

[patrik]

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.

Its because the system, in this case AmigaOS, handles the differences these processors has. Ponder the need for these functions in exec.library for example:
GetCC()
SetSR()

In the case of the 68040 and above, even more code was needed to handle the difference and was added in form of the 68040.library to the system.

[Karlos]

Ah, how I love the sound of skull against swedish cluebat...

[amigaksi]

What kind of misinformed drivel is this? Of course the_leander is perfectly correct to say you need the library if you are using a 68040/68060. After several dozen recoverable alerts during booting I just about managed to get into workbench, just, before a fatal error took it down again.

Don't believe me? See attached. Now, if you don't mind, I'll re-enable my 68040.library so that I can actually get the thing booted.

What's the matter can't make up your mind?  In post #1191 in the other thread you stated you can boot up without the library and now after your sidekick corrected himself/herself you changed your mind.  You may be driving him/her crazy.

I don't get any alerts in booting up my applications.  Perhaps, you used something that actually uses FPU/MMU rather than 68000 application.