in case you are interested to test new fpga accelerators for a600/a500

[guest11527]

It's silly to think that an FPGA can't be used to run a 68000 core.

It can, but why? New 68Ks can be bought for cents, so if you really want a 68K only, why not just get one?

[kolla]

It's silly to think that an FPGA can't be used to run a 68000 core.
 
 A minimig doesn't give you the real Amiga keyboard, real Amiga floppy drive etc.
 
 Your suggestion is silly.

Well, good luck doing much usefull with a 68000 core on any of A1200, A3000 or A4000 - they were buildt for other CPUs than 68000, I would be surprized if they manage to boot into a useful state with a 68000.

[ChaosLord]

It can, but why? New 68Ks can be bought for cents,

Amiga community does not always make cents

[psxphill]

It can, but why? New 68Ks can be bought for cents, so if you really want a 68K only, why not just get one?

I didn't say I wanted a 68000 only. A 68000 on it's own doesn't really help, how do you suggest fitting it into an A4000 that also has an FPGA card in?

Well, good luck doing much usefull with a 68000 core on any of A1200, A3000 or A4000 - they were buildt for other CPUs than 68000, I would be surprized if they manage to boot into a useful state with a 68000.

It would boot fine. I ran kickstart 3.0 from an a1200 on an a500 back in the day. Plus it would be trivial to load a different kickstart anyway. If you think the motherboard would get upset because the FPGA is emulating a 68000 rather than an 030/040/060, then how do you think it will know??

[guest11527]

I didn't say I wanted a 68000 only. A 68000 on it's own doesn't really help, how do you suggest fitting it into an A4000 that also has an FPGA card in?

I would not suggest fitting that at all. But as you say, you want an 68K compatible with absolute compatibility, but then it has to execute at 7Mhz with 68K instructions only. But that definition only fits to the original 68K. The A4000 is by that definition not compatible in first place because it does not have an 68K in it.

One way or another, I don't quite get your demands.

[mikej]

The T68 softcore is close to 68020 compatibility (and I'm still fixing it). It certainly boots up kick 3.0 on an AGA 1200 core no problem.
MikeJ

[psxphill]

I would not suggest fitting that at all.

You quite plainly did, or did you think that buying a 68000 and placing it next to a A4000 would magically empower it with the ability to run unmodified 68000 code?

 The only other option I can come up with is that you're just randomly saying crazy things hoping to "win" an argument, but I hope that is not the case.
 

The A4000 is by that definition not compatible in first place because it does not have an 68K in it.

One way or another, I don't quite get your demands.

I think you're trying too hard not to, but I'll play along.

If you have an fpga in your a4000 then it could easily have a 68000 core loaded into it that would run at 7mhz, it would be useful because of what you said. "The A4000 is by that definition not compatible in first place because it does not have an 68K in it. ", what I'm suggesting would make it more compatible for booting old disks than soft kicking and disabling caches.

[ferrellsl]

You quite plainly did, or did you think that buying a 68000 and placing it next to a A4000 would magically empower it with the ability to run unmodified 68000 code?

 The only other option I can come up with is that you're just randomly saying crazy things hoping to "win" an argument, but I hope that is not the case.
 


I think you're trying too hard not to, but I'll play along.

If you have an fpga in your a4000 then it could easily have a 68000 core loaded into it that would run at 7mhz, it would be useful because of what you said. "The A4000 is by that definition not compatible in first place because it does not have an 68K in it. ", what I'm suggesting would make it more compatible for booting old disks than soft kicking and disabling caches.

You're just trying to be argumentative as usual.  If you want absolute and complete 100% compatibility then stick to using a classic Amiga and stop with all these ridiculous demands.  If you don't like the Apollo/Phoenix, then don't use it!  Or use it in your classic Amiga and remove it when you feel the need.  The Apollo/Phoenix project will probably run 98% of the Amiga software out there without any problem.  The other 2% will in most cases be demos or games that most people won't care about.  Same story happened 25 years ago with the 68030 accelerators that I used to upgrade my classics.  The software that had issues wasn't critical to my operations and I could always disable the accelerator....or use WHDLoad.  It simply isn't reasonable or practical to expect hobbyist developers like Gunnar and Thomas nor professionals to spend 99% of their time shooting for 100% compatibility.  Be happy that there's any new development period.

And there was never such a thing as 100% compatibility in the first place.  I bought my first Amiga 2000 in an Army PX in Germany.  It was an NTSC model and several PAL software packages and games simply wouldn't run on it even if I held down both mouse buttons and selected a PAL boot-up.  I actually ended up buying a PAL Fat Agnus for it when I absolutely had to run those cranky bits of software.  So you're asking for the ridiculous.  Even the PC emulation software released by Commodore had problems across the same A500 lines.  It ran fine on my system, but wouldn't recognize the keyboards on my boss' A500 due to Commodore using a slightly different keyboard controller in those units.

Or like I and a few others have suggested, use WHDLoad with the Apollo/Phoenix.

[ChaosLord]

One way or another, I don't quite get your demands.

He is saying that we want 1 Amiga that "does everything".

It could load a 68000 core to be a 68000.
It could load a 68EC070 core to be a 68EC070.
It could load a 68070+MMU core to be a 68070+MMU.
etc. etc.

Apparently there is also a Mac-Compatible core and a Not Mac-Compatible core. Which seems like a reasonable compromise.

[ferrellsl]

He is saying that we want 1 Amiga that "does everything".

It could load a 68000 core to be a 68000.
It could load a 68EC070 core to be a 68EC070.
It could load a 68070+MMU core to be a 68070+MMU.
etc. etc.

Apparently there is also a Mac-Compatible core and a Not Mac-Compatible core. Which seems like a reasonable compromise.

When is the last time in your memory that you had one device that "did everything"?  Let me help you answer that......NEVER.  I wish you guys would stop trying to impose unreasonable demands on a hobby such as Apollo/Phoenix.

As for your scenarios above, the FPGAs can do such things if someone develops the cores you're looking for.  Get it thru your heads that Mac compatibility, MMUs, and 100% absolute compatibility are not the goals of this project and move on.  Or better yet, learn to develop a core that YOU'RE happy with and stop whining.

[ChaosLord]

When is the last time in your memory that you had one device that "did everything"?  Let me help you answer that......NEVER.  I wish you guys would stop trying to impose unreasonable demands on a hobby such as Apollo/Phoenix.

Chill out.  I am not demanding anything.  I was just explaining to Thor, the concept that psxphil was explaining, using different words.

As for your scenarios above, the FPGAs can do such things if someone develops the cores you're looking for.  Get it thru your heads that Mac compatibility, MMUs, and 100% absolute compatibility are not the goals of this project and move on.  Or better yet, learn to develop a core that YOU'RE happy with and stop whining.

/me casts RetaliatoryStrike +20 vs.  Misdirected Rants

Gunnar already said there would be a Mac-Compatible version of the core.
Gunnar has also said, 512 bazillion times that 68070/Apollo would be 100% compatible.
If you don't like the way Gunnar is doing things then learn to develop a core that YOU'RE happy with and stop whining.

[guest11527]

Gunnar already said there would be a Mac-Compatible version of the core.
Gunnar has also said, 512 bazillion times that 68070/Apollo would be 100% compatible.
If you don't like the way Gunnar is doing things then learn to develop a core that YOU'RE happy with and stop whining.

We're probably arguing in circles, but what endangers this project the most is IMHO still that there is not yet a quite clear-cut definition of its goals. Unlike other people, I don't think that the additional flexibility is actually adding to its success.

It's rather implying a certain risk, namely that people will create software that only runs in a specific configuration of the FPGA, causing a lot of dissatisfaction of the average user. If I would have to reboot the system and reprogram the FPGA just to load my next program, then that's not going to end up anywhere.

What I'm trying to find out here is which specific demands exist, and give my personal view on what I consider realistic or reasonable and what not. For example, a plain 68K emulation I consider unreasonable because that exists cheaply as hardware, so why bother the FPGA with that stuff. What I consider also not realistic at this point is adding potential sources of lack of forwards compatibility as in "new instructions" without actually knowing whether there is a demand for them.

Anyhow, we had this before, and I still afraid that I'm probably not yet too successful of getting the message accross. Nevermind.

[QuikSanz]

Lets not split hairs. Everything I have worked on my A2000 with 030 and worked fine with an 060 in the same machine without whdload. As long as this is as compatible I would think this is just fine for compatibility sake.

Chris

[ferrellsl]

Chill out.  I am not demanding anything.  I was just explaining to Thor, the concept that psxphil was explaining, using different words.



/me casts RetaliatoryStrike +20 vs.  Misdirected Rants

Gunnar already said there would be a Mac-Compatible version of the core.
Gunnar has also said, 512 bazillion times that 68070/Apollo would be 100% compatible.
If you don't like the way Gunnar is doing things then learn to develop a core that YOU'RE happy with and stop whining.

Yeah, I know.  Sorry if my comments seemed directed at you.  They were directed at psxphill and my lack of attention to detail put you in the cross-hairs by mistake!  LOL!

[psxphill]

When is the last time in your memory that you had one device that "did everything"?

I'm not talking about doing everything, I'm talking about specific things which it should be capable of. It's field programmable, why wouldn't you be able to load a different cpu core into it? If you're saying that it's going to be locked down so only gunnars core can be used then there is no way I'd buy it.
 

Gunnar has also said, 512 bazillion times that 68070/Apollo would be 100% compatible.

The last postings I saw from gunnar here about the FPU & MMU doesn't suggest that is the case. But I guess it depends what you're claiming it's going to be 100% compatible with. It appears to be a mix of instructions and functionality from various 680x0 cpu cores, with his own additions and changes. It's likely the 100% will get downrated, especially if people start actively looking for ways to make software work on real hardware and not Apollo.

[ElPolloDiabl]

Could we stop going down the track of promising a 68k that will use modern software? It is distracting from current software releases.
  No one should develop software that will only run on a faster than 060 processor. A few games might be the exception.
  It is no longer fun when I am worrying about expansions and upgrades.