ECS, AGA, Workbench? No I don't hate them.

[motorollin]

What a moron.

Was that necessary?

[commodorejohn]

What a moron.

What a charmer.

[Iggy]

What a charmer.

Yep, I'm feeling more than little guilty of being a bit too aggressive myself. I mean frankly I think of FPGAs as a form of emulation myself. But there's programable logic available right now that I would hesitate to add to a design because it would simply it.We are all getting a little too hostile.

Amiga.org the Palestine of computer websites.

[commodorejohn]

I think it becomes such a source of contention because there's a stigma attached to emulation, like it's "not punk enough" or something - it's like the inaccuracy of early emulators was codified as being the nature of emulators in general. I mean, I'm an "original hardware" guy myself, but come on. Strictly speaking, though, FPGAs aren't the same thing as software emulators - they are hardware, even if they have to be soft-configured, and aren't quite as efficient as a dedicated ASIC.

[Iggy]

I think it becomes such a source of contention because there's a stigma attached to emulation, like it's "not punk enough" or something - it's like the inaccuracy of early emulators was codified as being the nature of emulators in general. I mean, I'm an "original hardware" guy myself, but come on. Strictly speaking, though, FPGAs aren't the same thing as software emulators - they are hardware, even if they have to be soft-configured, and aren't quite as efficient as a dedicated ASIC.

No they lend themselves to low volume projects, but they do suffer some limitation. And frankly, some of the emulators I've seen lately are frighteningly accurate.

[kolla]

Exactly! Get a PC and install OS/2 then because IBM gave Commodore AREXX and Commodore gave IBM some ideas and permission to use certain Amiga software methods in their OS.

Try this wikipedia page instead of that totally nonsense OS/2 one.

[Iggy]

Ah, what the heck, one more post of Ambient.

[Fats]

Yep, I'm feeling more than little guilty of being a bit too aggressive myself. I mean frankly I think of FPGAs as a form of emulation myself. But there's programable logic available right now that I would hesitate to add to a design because it would simply it.We are all getting a little too hostile.

Amiga.org the Palestine of computer websites.

Sorry I was agitated and I put my questions in an offensive way; my apologies.
But for me it is very hard to understand the fundamental difference between a SRAM based FPGA and a Flash or anti-fuse based FPGA. The transistors inside the device are working exactly the same way only the configuration is done differently; there are even SRAM based FPGAs that are combined with a Flash die in one package (through system-in-a-package) so no external configuration is needed.

As I am currently employed in the hardware design business I follow closely what is happening in this world through things like FPGA Journal. A lot of the equipment for telecom or networking is using FPGAs now; if you open a Cisco router there is a good chance it contains an FPGA. So for some people here a big part of the internet is now run not on 'real' hardware but on emulation of hardware. Personally I would call is hardware and not software.
This target market is also the reason why Altera and Xilinx try to beat each other with the speed of their IOs.

greets,
Staf.

[jj]

I realize this. My wife is a vegetarian and loves to cook, though, and found a recipe for it.
 
She almost ordered me some real haggis from Scotland, but the shipping cost was ridiculous.

 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8480795.stm

[whabang]

We Scots only eat haggis before going into battle against the sassenachs, it give you the runs so when we bend over and raise out kilts in battle we can fire a nice juicy, lumpy brown sticky keech at them, that sends them back over the border...

I thought that's what curry's for. Now I'm all confused.

[Iggy]

Sorry I was agitated and I put my questions in an offensive way; my apologies.
But for me it is very hard to understand the fundamental difference between a SRAM based FPGA and a Flash or anti-fuse based FPGA. The transistors inside the device are working exactly the same way only the configuration is done differently; there are even SRAM based FPGAs that are combined with a Flash die in one package (through system-in-a-package) so no external configuration is needed.

As I am currently employed in the hardware design business I follow closely what is happening in this world through things like FPGA Journal. A lot of the equipment for telecom or networking is using FPGAs now; if you open a Cisco router there is a good chance it contains an FPGA. So for some people here a big part of the internet is now run not on 'real' hardware but on emulation of hardware. Personally I would call is hardware and not software.
This target market is also the reason why Altera and Xilinx try to beat each other with the speed of their IOs.

greets,
Staf.

No, dude that wasn't directed at anything you said. We have a valid difference of opinion here with no clear answer. does a reprogrammed hardware array actually become what its instructed to act as or is it emulatng it? I think both points of view here have enough validity that there isn't a clear answer.

What we were objecting to was the insolent comment using the term moron.
At times things DO get heated here. But you MUST understand that while we often have profound differences of opinion, we do have a common interest and a basic level of civillity and respect for each other.
Hell I love some of the guys (even if we choose to disagree). Franko is very straight forward with just enough of the strangle sense of humor the I grew up with (the Scots like the Irish are fond of baffling you with their humor). Tone007, very terse, concise, cutting and sharp. Karlos, focused on Linux, but open to alternative. Heck I can't cover everyone I've interascted with here, but they've helped me reconsider some of my ideas, they've helped with with problems, and they've amused the hell out of me.

Please, in no way take any thing that has been said recently as a negative commentary of your posts, and please feel free to continue to contribute. I've made the mistake of suggesting someone not do that once too often. And coming from a Country that guarantees free speech, I sometimes forget that not only don't I have that right, but I have got a moral obligation to at least consider the opinions of the speaker.

Take care,
 Jim

Oh, and BTW in another thread I mentioned a PPC motherboard design I'd spent a few months on, on of the core components was a programmable IC that eliminated several complex timing oriented glue circuits I would have had to include in the '90's. So, I to think these things are a fantastic step forward in electronic technology. Imagine being able to write code to contuct a custom IC?
If we'd had this a decade or two ago WE could have built the next Amiga.

[Iggy]

Hey, I want at least few of you to approve (or disapprove), but I'd like to go off target a bit a re-address that issue on the initital power of the PCs X86 processors (the8088 & 8086) vs. processors in alternative systems.
I think people opinion of X86 is clearly influenced by their later generations and I'd like to make a couple points, but I don't want to ponificate w/o general concensus.

[fishy_fiz]

Hey, I want at least few of you to approve (or disapprove), but I'd like to go off target a bit a re-address that issue on the initital power of the PCs X86 processors (the8088 & 8086) vs. processors in alternative systems.
I think people opinion of X86 is clearly influenced by their later generations and I'd like to make a couple points, but I don't want to ponificate w/o general concensus.

Actually, I'd have to say the opposite. Some people still dislike/mock/whatever x86 cpus based on how they were back in the days when Amiga was competitive. To this day it's not uncommon for people to look down on x86 cpus based on the fact the 16 bit versions (pre 386) were inferior to 680x0 cpus in the mid 80's. Heck, Ive even seen some people convinced that the x1000's pa6t and successors will be competitive, or even superior to current x86 cpus (not sure if that's funny or sad really :-))

[qwerty40001]

Sorry I was agitated and I put my questions in an offensive way; my apologies.
But for me it is very hard to understand the fundamental difference between a SRAM based FPGA and a Flash or anti-fuse based FPGA.  

The difference is that the FPGA performs a program  in LUT, and Hardcopy has direct wire connection.

FPGA is commodity hardware.

And the same chip today may be the Amiga, c64 tomorrow and the day after the dishwasher controller.

Depending on what software it is loaded into it.

This is the same situation as with an ordinary PC running an emulator.

[Iggy]

Actually, I'd have to say the opposite. Some people still dislike/mock/whatever x86 cpus based on how they were back in the days when Amiga was competitive. To this day it's not uncommon for people to look down on x86 cpus based on the fact the 16 bit versions (pre 386) were inferior to 680x0 cpus in the mid 80's. Heck, Ive even seen some people convinced that the x1000's pa6t and successors will be competitive, or even superior to current x86 cpus (not sure if that's funny or sad really :-))

GOOD, I'll take that as an approval. While I have X86-64 systems, and they've finally grown to be prowerful useful machines they're still resource pigs that have required decades of constant upgrades to get to this point.

Now as to the processor in the original PC, the 8088. Yes it had 16 bit instructios, yes it ran at 4.77Mhz, BUT it was CRUDE. Remember, I've previously mentioned that I was an early Motorola supporter. So 6800, which gives indirect birth to the 6502, which takes away some of the attention that should have been given to the much better 6809. We don't even have to talk about that super computer level Unix/Xenix monster the 68000 here.
Lets just compare a 2Mhz 6809 in a SWTPC computer to a 4.77Mhz 8088 in a PC. In many operations, the 6809 is FASTER. The PC is limited to running a crude rip off of CPM called MS-DOS. As today, CPU speed is not the only determining factor when considering processing prower. The 6809 suppports position independant re-entrant addressing which allowed it to utilize a time-slicing priority based multi-tasking multi-user OS (Microware/Radisys OS9 - there eventual basis for the CD-i player).
Intel processors could not truly match this kind of capabilty until the '386 was introduced. Ever try to run Windows 3.1 on anything less than a '386? Trust me, I had evalution copies of Win3.0 supplied by IBM before release and I know what hardware they were recommending.
And again, if you think an MS-DOS based Windows system provided true priority based multi-tasking, you're buying into the hype Microsoft put out and your delusional.
In fact, until Microsoft implented the NT kernal, multitasking was an uncontrolled, you might lock it up nightmare.

So congradulation Amiga users! Anytime anyone tries to tell you that a PC had some edge over your system ANYTIME during the active production life of the Amiga, feel free to laugh in their faces.
Because the PC took almost TWO DECADES to catch up to what could be done on early Motorola processors, let alone you much better Amigas.

Should anyone ever question my stance on this, let me be clear, we did not lose this battle based on he technical merits of our systems. We lost due to poor business management, marketing, and the strength that comes with market dominance bringing a wealth of software (even if a lot of it is crap). The PC SUCKED when it was introduced. And each sucessive generation should have been marketed "Windowsx/iX86, this time it sucks less".

We could still do better, sometimes I think you guys are just to timid or you don't remember (or weren't there to witness) how things were at the beginning.

[Swos]

GOOD, I'll take that as an approval. While I have X86-64 systems, and they've finally grown to be prowerful useful machines they're still resource pigs that have required decades of constant upgrades to get to this point.

Now as to the processor in the original PC, the 8088. Yes it had 16 bit instructios, yes it ran at 4.77Mhz, BUT it was CRUDE. Remember, I've previously mentioned that I was an early Motorola supporter. So 6800, which gives indirect birth to the 6502, which takes away some of the attention that should have been given to the much better 6809. We don't even have to talk about that super computer level Unix/Xenix monster the 68000 here.
Lets just compare a 2Mhz 6809 in a SWTPC computer to a 4.77Mhz 8088 in a PC. In many operations, the 6809 is FASTER. The PC is limited to running a crude rip off of CPM called MS-DOS. As today, CPU speed is not the only determining factor when considering processing prower. The 6809 suppports position independant re-entrant addressing which allowed it to utilize a time-slicing priority based multi-tasking multi-user OS (Microware/Radisys OS9 - there eventual basis for the CD-i player).
Intel processors could not truly match this kind of capabilty until the '386 was introduced. Ever try to run Windows 3.1 on anything less than a '386? Trust me, I had evalution copies of Win3.0 supplied by IBM before release and I know what hardware they were recommending.
And again, if you think an MS-DOS based Windows system provided true priority based multi-tasking, you're buying into the hype Microsoft put out and your delusional.
In fact, until Microsoft implented the NT kernal, multitasking was an uncontrolled, you might lock it up nightmare.

So congradulation Amiga users! Anytime anyone tries to tell you that a PC had some edge over your system ANYTIME during the active production life of the Amiga, feel free to laugh in their faces.
Because the PC took almost TWO DECADES to catch up to what could be done on early Motorola processors, let alone you much better Amigas.

Should anyone ever question my stance on this, let me be clear, we did not lose this battle based on he technical merits of our systems. We lost due to poor business management, marketing, and the strength that comes with market dominance bringing a wealth of software (even if a lot of it is crap). The PC SUCKED when it was introduced. And each sucessive generation should have been marketed "Windowsx/iX86, this time it sucks less".

We could still do better, sometimes I think you guys are just to timid or you don't remember (or weren't there to witness) how things were at the beginning.

I have a feeling me and you would get on pretty well! Cracking post.

:drink: