simple dev board for GA144?

[Dave McGuire]

Is anyone aware of a simple development board for the GA144 chip? No
fluff, extra processors, etc like the (expensive) GreenArrays GA144
development boards, just the bare minimum to get the chip going and
write code for it. Ideally an open design, i.e. download Gerber files
and make a board or two. If there are none, I will probably design one
myself but didn't want to reinvent the wheel.

Thanks,
-Dave McGuire

--
Dave McGuire, President/Curator
Large Scale Systems Museum
New Kensington, PA

[Lorem Ipsum]

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 11:05:11 PM UTC-4, Dave McGuire wrote:
> Is anyone aware of a simple development board for the GA144 chip? No
> fluff, extra processors, etc like the (expensive) GreenArrays GA144
> development boards, just the bare minimum to get the chip going and
> write code for it. Ideally an open design, i.e. download Gerber files
> and make a board or two. If there are none, I will probably design one
> myself but didn't want to reinvent the wheel.

I don't recall seeing anything like that. There was a small board by one of the well known hobbyist companies, but it was really just a pin out adapter board, not even having decoupling caps.

I don't think anything like this ever materialized, because there really is no market. Someone selling this might sell a dozen up to maybe 100.

The real issue, is the development software. It was not a product of a single mind or even influence. It was a bit of a hodgepodge of various software to handle various functions that may or may not be needed.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[none albert]

In article <2737c21a-be14-4af7...@googlegroups.com>,

Lorem Ipsum <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The real issue, is the development software. It was not a product of a
>single mind or even influence. It was a bit of a hodgepodge of various
>software to handle various functions that may or may not be needed.

Parallel processing: You couldn't configure a hypercube,not even a cube.
We (Dutch Forth) did a demo program. Not only required this a patch from
the seller the system software, in the next release the
program no longer worked.
Intriguing as the chip is, you're well advised to not waste any time
with it.

> Rick C.

Groetjes Albert
--
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat spinning. - the Wise from Antrim -

[Dave McGuire]

On 7/20/23 23:29, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
>> Is anyone aware of a simple development board for the GA144 chip? No
>> fluff, extra processors, etc like the (expensive) GreenArrays GA144
>> development boards, just the bare minimum to get the chip going and
>> write code for it. Ideally an open design, i.e. download Gerber files
>> and make a board or two. If there are none, I will probably design one
>> myself but didn't want to reinvent the wheel.
>
> I don't recall seeing anything like that. There was a small board by one of the well known hobbyist companies, but it was really just a pin out adapter board, not even having decoupling caps.

Yeah, I've seen that one, Schmartboard. Not particularly useful.

> I don't think anything like this ever materialized, because there really is no market. Someone selling this might sell a dozen up to maybe 100.

I'm not talking about a commercial product, I'm talking about someone
having done a design and released it, as is common in the rest of the world.

> The real issue, is the development software. It was not a product of a single mind or even influence. It was a bit of a hodgepodge of various software to handle various functions that may or may not be needed.

There's at least one non-vendor toolchain for the GA144. Spotting
that is what (re)sparked my interest.

-Dave

[Lorem Ipsum]

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 8:39:18 AM UTC-4, Dave McGuire wrote:
> On 7/20/23 23:29, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> >> Is anyone aware of a simple development board for the GA144 chip? No
> >> fluff, extra processors, etc like the (expensive) GreenArrays GA144
> >> development boards, just the bare minimum to get the chip going and
> >> write code for it. Ideally an open design, i.e. download Gerber files
> >> and make a board or two. If there are none, I will probably design one
> >> myself but didn't want to reinvent the wheel.
> >
> > I don't recall seeing anything like that. There was a small board by one of the well known hobbyist companies, but it was really just a pin out adapter board, not even having decoupling caps.
> Yeah, I've seen that one, Schmartboard. Not particularly useful.
> > I don't think anything like this ever materialized, because there really is no market. Someone selling this might sell a dozen up to maybe 100.
> I'm not talking about a commercial product, I'm talking about someone
> having done a design and released it, as is common in the rest of the world.

I know what you are talking about. I'm trying to explain there is no commercial support and the hobbyist market it vanishingly small.

> > The real issue, is the development software. It was not a product of a single mind or even influence. It was a bit of a hodgepodge of various software to handle various functions that may or may not be needed.
> There's at least one non-vendor toolchain for the GA144. Spotting
> that is what (re)sparked my interest.

Why don't you develop an SBC for the GA144? Then you can share with the rest of us. Well, if you can find anyone interested.

What are you interested in doing with the part? As Albert has said, the chip and tools are largely a disappointment in many ways. I don't know of any commercial designs using the GA144, nor even any projects that actually made effective use of the many processors.

I looked at using for an audio spectrum analyzer once. But the comms were a huge limitation. People think the comms are a special feature of the GA144, but they are actually a major limitation.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Christopher Lozinski]

I find the idea of the GA144 irresistible, but the limited memory makes it impractical.
What makes a lot more sense to me is to do one on an FPGA. The J1 comes in at 160 luts. Half that if you skip the barrel shifter. To do 144 of them would take up 21K luts, even if you double that for networking, a very reasonable amount. Probably cheaper than the green arrays chip as well. Although I am sure that their prices are negotiable.

For my master's thesis I was very interested in building a green array of J1 cpus, but since no one seems interested, I am currently planning on targeting 8 J1's each running cordic, kind of a competitor to the Parallax Propeller. I know that for real time control, it makes life much simpler to have one cpu for each motor. No need for interrupts.and all of the complexity of responding quickly.

Of course the real question is what do you plan to build? An obvious application for large arrays of cpus is image processing, but at first glance, that appears to be a very heavily occupied market. Very hard to get a toe hold.

I expect to do a talk tomorrow at the SVFIG meeting on "A Review of Forth Processors".
Christopher Lozinski

[Dave McGuire]

On 7/21/23 13:37, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
>>> I don't recall seeing anything like that. There was a small board by one of the well known hobbyist companies, but it was really just a pin out adapter board, not even having decoupling caps.
>> Yeah, I've seen that one, Schmartboard. Not particularly useful.
>>> I don't think anything like this ever materialized, because there really is no market. Someone selling this might sell a dozen up to maybe 100.
>> I'm not talking about a commercial product, I'm talking about someone
>> having done a design and released it, as is common in the rest of the world.
>
> I know what you are talking about. I'm trying to explain there is no commercial support and the hobbyist market it vanishingly small.

Then you most certainly *don't* know what I'm talking about. I will
explain again.

I'm not the least bit interested in commercial support. I'm not
interested in the hobbyist market, or any other kind of market, for this
chip or any board that it might get soldered to. I want to hack on this
rather neat little chip for my own enjoyment, and to do that, I need it
on a board.

>>> The real issue, is the development software. It was not a product of a single mind or even influence. It was a bit of a hodgepodge of various software to handle various functions that may or may not be needed.
>> There's at least one non-vendor toolchain for the GA144. Spotting
>> that is what (re)sparked my interest.
>
> Why don't you develop an SBC for the GA144? Then you can share with the rest of us. Well, if you can find anyone interested.

I'm thinking about designing a board, but given the attitude here,
I'm doubt I'll bother mentioning it here.

> What are you interested in doing with the part? As Albert has said, the chip and tools are largely a disappointment in many ways. I don't know of any commercial designs using the GA144, nor even any projects that actually made effective use of the many processors.

Hacking on it. Learning it and having some fun with it. I am a tech
guy, I have been for decades. I'm a commercial electronic designer, but
I also do a lot of things for my own enjoyment and education.

> I looked at using for an audio spectrum analyzer once. But the comms were a huge limitation. People think the comms are a special feature of the GA144, but they are actually a major limitation.

I understand that you hate this chip. None of this even comes close
to answering my initial query. If I'd known my post would've been a
trigger for a deluge of GA144-hater vitriol I'd have kept my damn mouth
shut and designed a board.

Wow.

[yeti]

Dave McGuire <mcg...@lssmuseum.org> writes:

> I'm thinking about designing a board, but given the attitude here,
> I'm doubt I'll bother mentioning it here.

Please do mention it.

--
Take Back Control! -- Mesh The Planet!
I do not play Nethack, I do play GNUS! o;-)
Solid facts do not need 1001 pictures.

[Lorem Ipsum]

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 3:02:07 PM UTC-4, Christopher Lozinski wrote:
> I find the idea of the GA144 irresistible, but the limited memory makes it impractical.

Yeah, interesting, but rather incapable of doing much useful. It's really hard to get your head wrapped around the memory and also the comms limitations.

> What makes a lot more sense to me is to do one on an FPGA.

"One" what?

> The J1 comes in at 160 luts. Half that if you skip the barrel shifter.

Are you sure of this LUT count? Maybe 6 input LUTs, but even that's a stretch.

> To do 144 of them would take up 21K luts, even if you double that for networking, a very reasonable amount. Probably cheaper than the green arrays chip as well. Although I am sure that their prices are negotiable.
>
> For my master's thesis I was very interested in building a green array of J1 cpus, but since no one seems interested, I am currently planning on targeting 8 J1's each running cordic, kind of a competitor to the Parallax Propeller. I know that for real time control, it makes life much simpler to have one cpu for each motor. No need for interrupts.and all of the complexity of responding quickly.

So, you are focusing on ideas that get you excited, but with no particular purpose, no application?

> Of course the real question is what do you plan to build? An obvious application for large arrays of cpus is image processing, but at first glance, that appears to be a very heavily occupied market. Very hard to get a toe hold.
>
> I expect to do a talk tomorrow at the SVFIG meeting on "A Review of Forth Processors".

I would suggest you start with a definition of "forth processor". I claim that none exist. Everyone seems to have their own opinion of what a "forth" processor is.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Lorem Ipsum]

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 7:22:48 PM UTC-4, Dave McGuire wrote:
> On 7/21/23 13:37, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> >>> I don't recall seeing anything like that. There was a small board by one of the well known hobbyist companies, but it was really just a pin out adapter board, not even having decoupling caps.
> >> Yeah, I've seen that one, Schmartboard. Not particularly useful.
> >>> I don't think anything like this ever materialized, because there really is no market. Someone selling this might sell a dozen up to maybe 100.
> >> I'm not talking about a commercial product, I'm talking about someone
> >> having done a design and released it, as is common in the rest of the world.
> >
> > I know what you are talking about. I'm trying to explain there is no commercial support and the hobbyist market it vanishingly small.
> Then you most certainly *don't* know what I'm talking about. I will
> explain again.
>
> I'm not the least bit interested in commercial support. I'm not
> interested in the hobbyist market, or any other kind of market, for this
> chip or any board that it might get soldered to. I want to hack on this
> rather neat little chip for my own enjoyment, and to do that, I need it
> on a board.

What makes you think I don't understand this? I'm simply explaining to you that you are very, very unlikely to find such a board. If you want to design your own and share it with others, you are unlikely to find anyone who is interested, other than possibly a few people here. These days, pretty much everyone who might be interested, has seen the chip, learned enough about it to know there's no point. You will be traveling this road alone, pretty much from scratch.

> >>> The real issue, is the development software. It was not a product of a single mind or even influence. It was a bit of a hodgepodge of various software to handle various functions that may or may not be needed.
> >> There's at least one non-vendor toolchain for the GA144. Spotting
> >> that is what (re)sparked my interest.
> >
> > Why don't you develop an SBC for the GA144? Then you can share with the rest of us. Well, if you can find anyone interested.
> I'm thinking about designing a board, but given the attitude here,
> I'm doubt I'll bother mentioning it here.

So, you don't even want to share what you develop? Ok, that's not at all unusual.

> > What are you interested in doing with the part? As Albert has said, the chip and tools are largely a disappointment in many ways. I don't know of any commercial designs using the GA144, nor even any projects that actually made effective use of the many processors.
> Hacking on it. Learning it and having some fun with it. I am a tech
> guy, I have been for decades. I'm a commercial electronic designer, but
> I also do a lot of things for my own enjoyment and education.
> > I looked at using for an audio spectrum analyzer once. But the comms were a huge limitation. People think the comms are a special feature of the GA144, but they are actually a major limitation.
> I understand that you hate this chip.

It's not at all a matter of "hate". I've looked at the chip seriously. I've written code for it and hand assembled it counting execution time in a spreadsheet. I had become very familiar with it and now see past the "glitz" of its uniqueness and see how limited it really is.

> None of this even comes close
> to answering my initial query.

Actually, everything discussed was directly addressing your initial post where you ask about resources, including designing your own. I think I mentioned the support software, which you did not seem to have asked about.

> If I'd known my post would've been a
> trigger for a deluge of GA144-hater vitriol I'd have kept my damn mouth
> shut and designed a board.

I'm sorry my replies offend you. This is not "hating". I think everything I've posted has simply been relating facts. You can disagree with opinion, but not so much with facts.

I recall a poster here who was talking about some real pie-in-the-sky ideas. I don't recall the details, but he wanted to design 32 bit, multiprocessor chips. When I tried to explain to him how his ideas were not realistic, he accused me of "hating" or something similar. I wasn't hating, I was just explaining how he would be unlikely to achieve any of his goals, because of their lofty nature. He even claimed he could not have a discussion because of "all the hate". He was messing with his own head. No one was "hating" on him, and he was at all times free to ignore any posts he didn't like.

I'm just sharing my experience. Please ignore me if I make you unhappy.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[none albert]

In article <6c69c287-05c7-4a09...@googlegroups.com>,

Lorem Ipsum <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 3:02:07 PM UTC-4, Christopher Lozinski wrote:

<SNIP>

>> I expect to do a talk tomorrow at the SVFIG meeting on "A Review of
>Forth Processors".
>
>I would suggest you start with a definition of "forth processor". I
>claim that none exist. Everyone seems to have their own opinion of what
>a "forth" processor is.

I'm content with the definition:
A Forth processor is a processor with an instruction set inspired by
or related to Forth instructions.

This is vague and what one considers a Forth processor, someone else
doesnot. So be it.

> Rick C.

[Dave McGuire]

On 7/21/23 20:19, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
>>> I know what you are talking about. I'm trying to explain there is no commercial support and the hobbyist market it vanishingly small.
>> Then you most certainly *don't* know what I'm talking about. I will
>> explain again.
>>
>> I'm not the least bit interested in commercial support. I'm not
>> interested in the hobbyist market, or any other kind of market, for this
>> chip or any board that it might get soldered to. I want to hack on this
>> rather neat little chip for my own enjoyment, and to do that, I need it
>> on a board.
>
> What makes you think I don't understand this? I'm simply explaining to you that you are very, very unlikely to find such a board.

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood you. Usually when people talk about
"markets" they're talking about selling things to other people, or other
people adopting things. I don't care about that. This is for ME and me
alone, to satisfy a personal interest. I am a commercial embedded
systems designer; I design other things about which I'm interested in
sales and adoption. Not this.

> If you want to design your own and share it with others, you are unlikely to find anyone who is interested, other than possibly a few people here.

Apparently you think I should care about that. I don't.

> These days, pretty much everyone who might be interested, has seen the chip, learned enough about it to know there's no point. You will be traveling this road alone, pretty much from scratch.

Apparently you think I should care about that too. I don't.

You've turned "No, I haven't seen such a thing" to a whole shitload
of "Oh no, kid, you don't want to do that, oh no, nobody else will want
it, oh no, that chip sucks, oh no, there's no support" blah blah blah.

I have a GA144 chip that I got as a sample when they first shipped;
it has been sitting in my lab in its box since then. I've always been
intrigued by the design, but have never had an opportunity to do
anything with it. Though Chuck Moore is a bit "out there" I respect the
man and I'm interested to see what he's designed.

I'm getting older, I'm starting to notice it, I'm hot off the high of
having gotten a big(ish) Transputer-based cluster up and running at a
museum, and that reminded me of that GA144 sitting in a drawer. So I
said to myself, "Self, it's time do something with that chip, but GA's
dev boards are overpriced and overcomplicated."

I don't think I should have to explain all of this when the query was
a simple "Hey, has anyone laid out a board?"

>> I'm thinking about designing a board, but given the attitude here,
>> I'm doubt I'll bother mentioning it here.
>
> So, you don't even want to share what you develop? Ok, that's not at all unusual.

I think you missed my point.

> It's not at all a matter of "hate". I've looked at the chip seriously. I've written code for it and hand assembled it counting execution time in a spreadsheet. I had become very familiar with it and now see past the "glitz" of its uniqueness and see how limited it really is.

I understand that. I can read datasheets and user manuals as well as
the next guy. I usually design with ARM chips and I write firmware in C
and assembler. I know this will be very different, and that's part of
why I'm interested in it.

>> None of this even comes close
>> to answering my initial query.
>
> Actually, everything discussed was directly addressing your initial post where you ask about resources, including designing your own. I think I mentioned the support software, which you did not seem to have asked about.

I didn't ask about software because I had already found what I
thought I'd need. I certainly didn't ask for a critique of the chip.

>> If I'd known my post would've been a
>> trigger for a deluge of GA144-hater vitriol I'd have kept my damn mouth
>> shut and designed a board.
>
> I'm sorry my replies offend you. This is not "hating". I think everything I've posted has simply been relating facts. You can disagree with opinion, but not so much with facts.

I didn't ask for those facts. I can read documentation just fine. I
appreciate your opinion and your experience with these chips, but that
doesn't quell my curiosity about them.

> I recall a poster here who was talking about some real pie-in-the-sky ideas. I don't recall the details, but he wanted to design 32 bit, multiprocessor chips. When I tried to explain to him how his ideas were not realistic, he accused me of "hating" or something similar.

So this happens to you a lot.

> I wasn't hating, I was just explaining how he would be unlikely to achieve any of his goals, because of their lofty nature. He even claimed he could not have a discussion because of "all the hate". He was messing with his own head. No one was "hating" on him, and he was at all times free to ignore any posts he didn't like.

I suppose it's good to see Usenet hasn't really changed.

I have the same motivation, to warn people (usually kids) away from
bad ideas with "there be dragons here" kind of statements. I'm a
graybeard too.

Several years ago, a teenager popped up on a mailing list talking
about chasing an IBM z890 mainframe that was being auctioned off on
govdeals. I have one of those machines; it weighs just over a ton and
is much larger than it tends to look in pictures. The kid was very
excited about it, and I tried to warn him away from it, explaining that
if a PDP-11 falls on you, you'll end up in the hospital, but if a z890
falls on you, you're pretty much done. I move big iron all the time and
I know how dangerous something like this can be; I was concerned for his
safety.

Well, the kid ignored my advice and he got the z890. It was quite a
saga, involving his grandfather excavating land around his basement door
to get it into his house, etc, and he eventually got it up and running,
and he didn't get killed in the process. This caught the attention of
IBM, who immediately hired him and gave him a fantastic job working on
the development of cutting-edge hardware. He's basically set for life now.

If he'd taken my advice, which was motivated purely from the
standpoint of concern for his safety because I know that machine well,
he would've missed out on that great opportunity which changed his life.
Thankfully, he has forgiven me.

Us graybeards need to share our experience, sure. That's an
important part of being a member of a society. But there are times when
we need to let the wide-eyed kids chase crazy dreams. Sometimes they
will surprise us.

[Jurgen Pitaske]

Thank you very much for leaving the link to your organisation.
https://www.mact.io/about_us

This theme GA144 has been discussed for probably 10 years here and in other places now.

It is a shame, that no simple way for playing with these chips exists.
They are very unusual, but the low interest probably demonstrates,
that it is not really worth trying, except if you just want to for fun.

Unfortunately the entry cost at Green Arrays is at least $200 for 10 chips - SMT unsoldered so you have to do all of the work.
To my knowledge, there is not even a proven circuit diagram that you can use to build your own board.
https://www.greenarraychips.com/home/products/index.php

When I was more into Forth documentation,
I asked Greg at Greenarrays, as I was very interested,
if we could do a clean room implementation of a basic GA144 on FPGA - his feedback was extremely negative.
So I gave up and did other things.

I find it very unusual, that Chuck Moore is involved at GA,
but seems not really to be pushing it either.

To me it seems to be self limiting the sales,
as they would run out of chips soon,
and I wonder, if the fab who did these chips 10 to 15 years ago
still exists now and could do more if needed..

If you ask a question here on CLF,
you have to be aware of the negativity that is quite normal here.

I would suggest you ceck with one of the Forth facebook groups.
There you can find probably more help and in a friendy way.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/PROGRAMMINGFORTH

[Jurgen Pitaske]

Another option might be the Minimalist group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/minimalistcomputing

[Lorem Ipsum]

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 6:34:49 AM UTC-4, none albert wrote:
> In article <6c69c287-05c7-4a09...@googlegroups.com>,
> Lorem Ipsum <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 3:02:07 PM UTC-4, Christopher Lozinski wrote:
> <SNIP>
> >> I expect to do a talk tomorrow at the SVFIG meeting on "A Review of
> >Forth Processors".
> >
> >I would suggest you start with a definition of "forth processor". I
> >claim that none exist. Everyone seems to have their own opinion of what
> >a "forth" processor is.
> I'm content with the definition:
> A Forth processor is a processor with an instruction set inspired by
> or related to Forth instructions.
>
> This is vague and what one considers a Forth processor, someone else
> doesnot. So be it.

Yes, it certainly is vague, and unknowable. If the creator doesn't say, how do you know what inspired the "instruction" set? What does "related" mean? Is the X86 line a Forth processor, as the instruction set includes many instructions corresponding to Forth "instructions" (which I assume means "primitives"), so "related to".

Sounds like you don't really care about defining the term. So I guess you don't actually use it?

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Lorem Ipsum]

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 10:19:36 AM UTC-4, Dave McGuire wrote:
> On 7/21/23 20:19, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> >>> I know what you are talking about. I'm trying to explain there is no commercial support and the hobbyist market it vanishingly small.
> >> Then you most certainly *don't* know what I'm talking about. I will
> >> explain again.
> >>
> >> I'm not the least bit interested in commercial support. I'm not
> >> interested in the hobbyist market, or any other kind of market, for this
> >> chip or any board that it might get soldered to. I want to hack on this
> >> rather neat little chip for my own enjoyment, and to do that, I need it
> >> on a board.
> >
> > What makes you think I don't understand this? I'm simply explaining to you that you are very, very unlikely to find such a board.
> Ok, perhaps I misunderstood you. Usually when people talk about
> "markets" they're talking about selling things to other people, or other
> people adopting things.

Yes, exactly. If you want to buy something, someone has to be selling it. That's not very likely when there is no market for such a thing.

> I don't care about that. This is for ME and me
> alone, to satisfy a personal interest. I am a commercial embedded
> systems designer; I design other things about which I'm interested in
> sales and adoption. Not this.

I get that. There is nothing unclear about what you are saying. But... if you design a board, it still needs a ton of software to support it. If you make the board available to others, they might share the drudgery of creating some of the perfunctory elements.

If you have no interest in this at all, then no need to even respond to it.

> > If you want to design your own and share it with others, you are unlikely to find anyone who is interested, other than possibly a few people here.
> Apparently you think I should care about that. I don't.

Ok, enough said. You no longer need to respond to anything related to this comment.

> > These days, pretty much everyone who might be interested, has seen the chip, learned enough about it to know there's no point. You will be traveling this road alone, pretty much from scratch.
> Apparently you think I should care about that too. I don't.

You do a lot of reading and replying about things you don't care about.

> You've turned "No, I haven't seen such a thing" to a whole shitload
> of "Oh no, kid, you don't want to do that, oh no, nobody else will want
> it, oh no, that chip sucks, oh no, there's no support" blah blah blah.

You are reading words I never wrote. That's a bad habit. It makes communication difficult.

> I have a GA144 chip that I got as a sample when they first shipped;
> it has been sitting in my lab in its box since then. I've always been
> intrigued by the design, but have never had an opportunity to do
> anything with it. Though Chuck Moore is a bit "out there" I respect the
> man and I'm interested to see what he's designed.

I know you don't want to hear this, but you can learn a lot by reading all the info, then writing a program using the F18A assembly language. Make it a program you might actually want to use, something practical. This will teach you about the "issues" of using the GA144 without building anything. That's why I used a spread sheet to analyze code. I learned a lot more, in a shorter time, than building hardware and getting up to speed on all the "unique" software required to make it work.

> I'm getting older, I'm starting to notice it, I'm hot off the high of
> having gotten a big(ish) Transputer-based cluster up and running at a
> museum, and that reminded me of that GA144 sitting in a drawer. So I
> said to myself, "Self, it's time do something with that chip, but GA's
> dev boards are overpriced and overcomplicated."

Yeah, you will find very, very little in common between the Transputer and the GA144, very little.

> I don't think I should have to explain all of this when the query was
> a simple "Hey, has anyone laid out a board?"

Why do you feel a need to explain yourself? I've offered advice, directly related to your original post and your subsequent posts. You mischaracterize your original post, which was actually more of a wide open question. It literally asked nothing like, "Hey, has anyone laid out a board?" Perhaps you should reread it.

> >> I'm thinking about designing a board, but given the attitude here,
> >> I'm doubt I'll bother mentioning it here.
> >
> > So, you don't even want to share what you develop? Ok, that's not at all unusual.
> I think you missed my point.

Which you have not clarified.

> > It's not at all a matter of "hate". I've looked at the chip seriously. I've written code for it and hand assembled it counting execution time in a spreadsheet. I had become very familiar with it and now see past the "glitz" of its uniqueness and see how limited it really is.
> I understand that. I can read datasheets and user manuals as well as
> the next guy. I usually design with ARM chips and I write firmware in C
> and assembler. I know this will be very different, and that's part of
> why I'm interested in it.

"Different" is not the issue. Lots of things are "different". The GA144 is not very good. It has a very few shining features, then the massive shortcomings get in the way of using those features. It can be used for designs, but it is not well suited for many. DSP is one area where it might find some utility, with the massive parallelism and arrayed comms. But the limited memory (a huge liability) and the limited comms makes it hard to use for anything other than perhaps systolic processing.

I looked at using it to implement a frequency transform. Trying to map an FFT across the nodes was uniquely difficult with the reverse addressing of the coefficients. A DFT was perhaps practical, but limited by the memory. I suppose I could have tried generating the coefficients on the fly with a CORDIC algorithm in each node. I didn't think of that at the time... Hmmmm

> >> None of this even comes close
> >> to answering my initial query.
> >
> > Actually, everything discussed was directly addressing your initial post where you ask about resources, including designing your own. I think I mentioned the support software, which you did not seem to have asked about.
> I didn't ask about software because I had already found what I
> thought I'd need. I certainly didn't ask for a critique of the chip.

And yet you continue to discuss it.

> >> If I'd known my post would've been a
> >> trigger for a deluge of GA144-hater vitriol I'd have kept my damn mouth
> >> shut and designed a board.
> >
> > I'm sorry my replies offend you. This is not "hating". I think everything I've posted has simply been relating facts. You can disagree with opinion, but not so much with facts.
> I didn't ask for those facts. I can read documentation just fine. I
> appreciate your opinion and your experience with these chips, but that
> doesn't quell my curiosity about them.

Ok, so where is the problem? You talk like I'm being rude by talking about the GA144 when you didn't ask, and then you say you appreciate my opinion. Which is it?

> > I recall a poster here who was talking about some real pie-in-the-sky ideas. I don't recall the details, but he wanted to design 32 bit, multiprocessor chips. When I tried to explain to him how his ideas were not realistic, he accused me of "hating" or something similar.
> So this happens to you a lot.

Only with people who don't know what they want. Like you. You continue to complain about my posts, yet, you reply to them. Who is the one with the problem?

> > I wasn't hating, I was just explaining how he would be unlikely to achieve any of his goals, because of their lofty nature. He even claimed he could not have a discussion because of "all the hate". He was messing with his own head. No one was "hating" on him, and he was at all times free to ignore any posts he didn't like.
> I suppose it's good to see Usenet hasn't really changed.
>
> I have the same motivation, to warn people (usually kids) away from
> bad ideas with "there be dragons here" kind of statements. I'm a
> graybeard too.

Just to be clear, I'm not warning anyone away from the GA144. I'm simply pointing out that there are ways to get a handle on the device without building or buying hardware. It's usually the younger ones who want to get their hands on something physical, rather than spending time working on the computer to learn.

> Several years ago, a teenager popped up on a mailing list talking
> about chasing an IBM z890 mainframe that was being auctioned off on
> govdeals. I have one of those machines; it weighs just over a ton and
> is much larger than it tends to look in pictures. The kid was very
> excited about it, and I tried to warn him away from it, explaining that
> if a PDP-11 falls on you, you'll end up in the hospital, but if a z890
> falls on you, you're pretty much done. I move big iron all the time and
> I know how dangerous something like this can be; I was concerned for his
> safety.
>
> Well, the kid ignored my advice and he got the z890. It was quite a
> saga, involving his grandfather excavating land around his basement door
> to get it into his house, etc, and he eventually got it up and running,
> and he didn't get killed in the process. This caught the attention of
> IBM, who immediately hired him and gave him a fantastic job working on
> the development of cutting-edge hardware. He's basically set for life now.
>
> If he'd taken my advice, which was motivated purely from the
> standpoint of concern for his safety because I know that machine well,
> he would've missed out on that great opportunity which changed his life.
> Thankfully, he has forgiven me.
>
> Us graybeards need to share our experience, sure. That's an
> important part of being a member of a society. But there are times when
> we need to let the wide-eyed kids chase crazy dreams. Sometimes they
> will surprise us.

No one is trying to stop you from doing anything. No one in this group *can* stop you from doing anything. This is a discussion group. Everyone is free to post as part of the discussion. NO ONE gets to restrict those posts. The best you can do is to ignore the ones you don't like.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[none albert]

In article <c0600e4e-63d0-473f...@googlegroups.com>,
Lorem Ipsum <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>

>Yes, it certainly is vague, and unknowable. If the creator doesn't say,
>how do you know what inspired the "instruction" set? What does
>"related" mean? Is the X86 line a Forth processor, as the instruction
>set includes many instructions corresponding to Forth "instructions"
>(which I assume means "primitives"), so "related to".
>
>Sounds like you don't really care about defining the term. So I guess
>you don't actually use it?

At the time I have the only capable computer around the Dutch Forth
we designed a Forth processor, called FIETS (Forth Implementation
by Enhanced Translator and Systems.)
(You guessed it the acronym came first. It is the Dutch word for
push bike.)
It run on an emulator on cp/m and it worked nicely.
Then Chuck Moore come along and designed the NOVIX and we never
pushed it to FPGA. I can read 5" floppies though, so it
might be published some time. Anyway that is the circumstance
I would used the term Forth processor.

I recently bought a HP (20 kg) with a capable GPU, in order to
do CUDA. And here I find myself struggling with an Clojure
implementation challenge...

> Rick C.

Groetjes Albert

[Lorem Ipsum]

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 10:23:07 AM UTC-4, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
> On Friday, 21 July 2023 at 04:05:11 UTC+1, Dave McGuire wrote:
> > Is anyone aware of a simple development board for the GA144 chip? No
> > fluff, extra processors, etc like the (expensive) GreenArrays GA144
> > development boards, just the bare minimum to get the chip going and
> > write code for it. Ideally an open design, i.e. download Gerber files
> > and make a board or two. If there are none, I will probably design one
> > myself but didn't want to reinvent the wheel.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Dave McGuire
> >
> > --
> > Dave McGuire, President/Curator
> > Large Scale Systems Museum
> > New Kensington, PA
> Thank you very much for leaving the link to your organisation.
> https://www.mact.io/about_us
>
> This theme GA144 has been discussed for probably 10 years here and in other places now.
>
> It is a shame, that no simple way for playing with these chips exists.
> They are very unusual, but the low interest probably demonstrates,
> that it is not really worth trying, except if you just want to for fun.
>
> Unfortunately the entry cost at Green Arrays is at least $200 for 10 chips - SMT unsoldered so you have to do all of the work.
> To my knowledge, there is not even a proven circuit diagram that you can use to build your own board.
> https://www.greenarraychips.com/home/products/index.php

They did one thing right for the hobbyist, the package is a QFN (no lead), with just one row of pins. This pin count range is often a smaller package with a two row arrangement, which is much harder to lay out.

> When I was more into Forth documentation,
> I asked Greg at Greenarrays, as I was very interested,
> if we could do a clean room implementation of a basic GA144 on FPGA - his feedback was extremely negative.
> So I gave up and did other things.

I had a similar conversation. I was told they could not stop me from implementing the instruction set, but they would not look kindly on the use of their tools to write the code for it. That's when I started working with paper and pencil (figuratively) and learned what I really needed to know.

I asked about the memory interface, as I wanted to make it work with a fast DRAM (100-133 MHz). This would have required three internal nodes (minimum) and the use of the comms channels, of course. To run at full speed the DRAMs have to be timed carefully, so I needed timing data on the comms. They would not share that with me, claiming I could use it to reverse engineer the design. Really? You have a chip, no one is buying, but you are worried about people reverse engineering it?

I did some more work with paper and pencil to prove this simply could not work at speed and gave up. The memory interface is one of the lesser discussed failures. To make up for the limited on chip memory, they added the external memory interface. But they didn't do enough work to assure it would be compatible with DRAM (without slowing it to half speed), meanwhile SRAM continued to get more and more expensive, and power hungry, and is now very hard to find.

> I find it very unusual, that Chuck Moore is involved at GA,
> but seems not really to be pushing it either.

Chuck Moore was never active in promoting the GA144 and is now retired. The last I heard, he was working on using the comms for general purpose data transfer, rather than having to code each design from scratch. I never heard that it got anywhere.

> To me it seems to be self limiting the sales,
> as they would run out of chips soon,

If they were selling any, maybe.

> and I wonder, if the fab who did these chips 10 to 15 years ago
> still exists now and could do more if needed..

It was built at a fab that specializes in old processes. I expect the process is still available.

> If you ask a question here on CLF,
> you have to be aware of the negativity that is quite normal here.

If, by negativity, you mean relating facts that may be "inconvenient", then yes, that happens a lot here.

> I would suggest you ceck with one of the Forth facebook groups.
> There you can find probably more help and in a friendy way.
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/PROGRAMMINGFORTH

Just be careful which group you go with. Some are more friendly than others. A guy who goes by Peter Forth (not his real name) has banned several people from his group.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Jurgen Pitaske]

Forth2020 I think is the one you mean, it is to my knowledge the restricted Peter Fucking group - not the one I mentioned.
I have never been there so I do not know them and actually I do not want to know.

[Lorem Ipsum]

One of the few things we seem to agree on.

I believe the 2020 group is the one that has, in the name of maintaining Win32Forth, rewritten it to suit his purposes. Win32Forth is a useful tool, but has lost all support. It used to have a Yahoo group, with lots of archived info, but Verizon seems to have ended group support. I believe I started a similar group at groups.io, but it gets very little activity.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Dave McGuire]

On 7/22/23 14:43, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
>>> What makes you think I don't understand this? I'm simply explaining to you that you are very, very unlikely to find such a board.
>> Ok, perhaps I misunderstood you. Usually when people talk about
>> "markets" they're talking about selling things to other people, or other
>> people adopting things.
>
> Yes, exactly. If you want to buy something, someone has to be selling it. That's not very likely when there is no market for such a thing.

Again you've missed my point. I don't want to buy something. I was
never looking to buy something.

>> I don't care about that. This is for ME and me
>> alone, to satisfy a personal interest. I am a commercial embedded
>> systems designer; I design other things about which I'm interested in
>> sales and adoption. Not this.
>
> I get that. There is nothing unclear about what you are saying. But... if you design a board, it still needs a ton of software to support it. If you make the board available to others, they might share the drudgery of creating some of the perfunctory elements.

Once again, the software is available. I didn't ask about that here
because I found it already and have judged it to be sufficient for my needs.

>>> These days, pretty much everyone who might be interested, has seen the chip, learned enough about it to know there's no point. You will be traveling this road alone, pretty much from scratch.
>> Apparently you think I should care about that too. I don't.
>
> You do a lot of reading and replying about things you don't care about.

Wrong.

>> You've turned "No, I haven't seen such a thing" to a whole shitload
>> of "Oh no, kid, you don't want to do that, oh no, nobody else will want
>> it, oh no, that chip sucks, oh no, there's no support" blah blah blah.
>
> You are reading words I never wrote. That's a bad habit. It makes communication difficult.

You wrote every word. No, not verbatim, but you said, in essence all
of it. I'm not going to go pull the quotes out of your previous posts;
you can do that yourself if you really don't remember.

>> I have a GA144 chip that I got as a sample when they first shipped;
>> it has been sitting in my lab in its box since then. I've always been
>> intrigued by the design, but have never had an opportunity to do
>> anything with it. Though Chuck Moore is a bit "out there" I respect the
>> man and I'm interested to see what he's designed.
>
> I know you don't want to hear this, but you can learn a lot by reading all the info, then writing a program using the F18A assembly language. Make it a program you might actually want to use, something practical. This will teach you about the "issues" of using the GA144 without building anything. That's why I used a spread sheet to analyze code. I learned a lot more, in a shorter time, than building hardware and getting up to speed on all the "unique" software required to make it work.

I've read that. What I want to do is BUILD A DAMN BOARD. What
language am I speaking here?

My goal is not to "get up to speed". This is not a commercial
endeavor. It is not about efficiency. I work in this field, but my
interest in this chip is not commercial.

I realize that you're not saying what you said above because you
actually believe it. You're a net.troll, and you say these things to
get a rise out of people. Unfortunately I often cannot resist the bait.

>> I'm getting older, I'm starting to notice it, I'm hot off the high of
>> having gotten a big(ish) Transputer-based cluster up and running at a
>> museum, and that reminded me of that GA144 sitting in a drawer. So I
>> said to myself, "Self, it's time do something with that chip, but GA's
>> dev boards are overpriced and overcomplicated."
>
> Yeah, you will find very, very little in common between the Transputer and the GA144, very little.

I typed and deleted a few responses here. But the most appropriate
seems to be:

"NO SHIT, SHERLOCK."

>> I don't think I should have to explain all of this when the query was
>> a simple "Hey, has anyone laid out a board?"
>
> Why do you feel a need to explain yourself? I've offered advice, directly related to your original post and your subsequent posts. You mischaracterize your original post, which was actually more of a wide open question. It literally asked nothing like, "Hey, has anyone laid out a board?" Perhaps you should reread it.

I'll refer you to my original post. That's exactly what I wrote.
Again not verbatim, but that was my request.

>>>> I'm thinking about designing a board, but given the attitude here,
>>>> I'm doubt I'll bother mentioning it here.
>>>
>>> So, you don't even want to share what you develop? Ok, that's not at all unusual.
>> I think you missed my point.
>
> Which you have not clarified.

Wow.

>>> It's not at all a matter of "hate". I've looked at the chip seriously. I've written code for it and hand assembled it counting execution time in a spreadsheet. I had become very familiar with it and now see past the "glitz" of its uniqueness and see how limited it really is.
>> I understand that. I can read datasheets and user manuals as well as
>> the next guy. I usually design with ARM chips and I write firmware in C
>> and assembler. I know this will be very different, and that's part of
>> why I'm interested in it.
>
> "Different" is not the issue. Lots of things are "different". The GA144 is not very good.

In your opinion. I stopped caring about your opinion when I realized
that you're just a troll, not any sort of knowledgeable person whose
advice I should value.

I'll point out yet again, that I did not ask you (or anyone else) if
they thought the GA144 is any good. I've been in this business a long
time; I will come to my own conclusions about that.

>> I didn't ask about software because I had already found what I
>> thought I'd need. I certainly didn't ask for a critique of the chip.
>
> And yet you continue to discuss it.

Because you're a highly skilled troll and I lack self control.

> Ok, so where is the problem? You talk like I'm being rude by talking about the GA144 when you didn't ask, and then you say you appreciate my opinion. Which is it?

I was being generous. You seem to need it.

>>> I recall a poster here who was talking about some real pie-in-the-sky ideas. I don't recall the details, but he wanted to design 32 bit, multiprocessor chips. When I tried to explain to him how his ideas were not realistic, he accused me of "hating" or something similar.
>> So this happens to you a lot.
>
> Only with people who don't know what they want. Like you. You continue to complain about my posts, yet, you reply to them. Who is the one with the problem?

I know exactly what I want. I clearly stated it in my first post in
this thread. I want a GA144 on a simple board with no fluff so I can
explore it. I've explained this multiple times.

>>> I wasn't hating, I was just explaining how he would be unlikely to achieve any of his goals, because of their lofty nature. He even claimed he could not have a discussion because of "all the hate". He was messing with his own head. No one was "hating" on him, and he was at all times free to ignore any posts he didn't like.
>> I suppose it's good to see Usenet hasn't really changed.
>>
>> I have the same motivation, to warn people (usually kids) away from
>> bad ideas with "there be dragons here" kind of statements. I'm a
>> graybeard too.
>
> Just to be clear, I'm not warning anyone away from the GA144. I'm simply pointing out that there are ways to get a handle on the device without building or buying hardware. It's usually the younger ones who want to get their hands on something physical, rather than spending time working on the computer to learn.

Yes but that's like an inflatable doll. It will get the job done,
but it's usually not what you really want. I want HARDWARE. I've
already read the documentation.

Why am I explaining this yet again? Of course: I Have Been Trolled.

I came to comp.sys.forth with my guard down thinking that there would
be civilized people here. I regret that I was mistaken.

[Dave McGuire]

On 7/22/23 15:01, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
>> I would suggest you ceck with one of the Forth facebook groups.
>> There you can find probably more help and in a friendy way.
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/PROGRAMMINGFORTH
>
> Just be careful which group you go with. Some are more friendly than others. A guy who goes by Peter Forth (not his real name) has banned several people from his group.

Interesting! Peter Forth (whatever his real name may be) has never
been anything other than nice and friendly to me, where YOU have never
been anything other than a dick.

Every newsgroup has their armchair expert, wannabe authority troll.
I'm glad I found this one's early before making any friends here.

*PLONK*

-Dave

[dxforth]

IIRC the forth promoted was based on SP-Forth and closed-source. Can't seem
to find any current links so may no longer be promoted. Main attraction of the
group today appears to be their Zoom meetings and presentations often by well-
known Forth personalities.

[Lorem Ipsum]

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 9:49:04 PM UTC-4, Dave McGuire wrote:
> On 7/22/23 14:43, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> >>> What makes you think I don't understand this? I'm simply explaining to you that you are very, very unlikely to find such a board.
> >> Ok, perhaps I misunderstood you. Usually when people talk about
> >> "markets" they're talking about selling things to other people, or other
> >> people adopting things.
> >
> > Yes, exactly. If you want to buy something, someone has to be selling it. That's not very likely when there is no market for such a thing.
> Again you've missed my point. I don't want to buy something. I was
> never looking to buy something.

So, "Is anyone aware of a simple development board for the GA144 chip?" is not asking for something to buy? Sorry, I thought that was the point of your original post. My bad.

> >> I don't care about that. This is for ME and me
> >> alone, to satisfy a personal interest. I am a commercial embedded
> >> systems designer; I design other things about which I'm interested in
> >> sales and adoption. Not this.
> >
> > I get that. There is nothing unclear about what you are saying. But... if you design a board, it still needs a ton of software to support it. If you make the board available to others, they might share the drudgery of creating some of the perfunctory elements.
> Once again, the software is available. I didn't ask about that here
> because I found it already and have judged it to be sufficient for my needs.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, as it has been a long time since I looked at the tools, but they require a GA144 to act as a boot device for another GA144, no? Maybe I'm not remembering the eval board accurately.

> >>> These days, pretty much everyone who might be interested, has seen the chip, learned enough about it to know there's no point. You will be traveling this road alone, pretty much from scratch.
> >> Apparently you think I should care about that too. I don't.
> >
> > You do a lot of reading and replying about things you don't care about.
> Wrong.

LOL This is a perfect example of you replying to things you keep saying you don't care about.

> >> You've turned "No, I haven't seen such a thing" to a whole shitload
> >> of "Oh no, kid, you don't want to do that, oh no, nobody else will want
> >> it, oh no, that chip sucks, oh no, there's no support" blah blah blah.
> >
> > You are reading words I never wrote. That's a bad habit. It makes communication difficult.
> You wrote every word. No, not verbatim, but you said, in essence all
> of it.

Ah, see, that's the problem. You are reading things I didn't write. You don't like what I'm saying, so you perceive it as hostile. It's not hostility. I'm just sharing the facts of what I found.

> I'm not going to go pull the quotes out of your previous posts;
> you can do that yourself if you really don't remember.

That's fine. I know I wrote nothing remotely like, "Oh no, kid, you don't want to do that, oh no, nobody else will want it, oh no, that chip sucks, oh no, there's no support". YOU have added the hostile tone, that I never wrote.

But the lack of support is pretty accurate, and there's virtually no one working with the chip these days. So that's also accurate.

As to you *wanting* to work with the chip. That's up to you. People play with all manner of things. All I'm trying to say is that the chip is not really any more suited to most MCU tasks than any of a thousand other MCUs. So, it has no purpose in life. No hostility intended. If you want to try it out, go for it.

> >> I have a GA144 chip that I got as a sample when they first shipped;
> >> it has been sitting in my lab in its box since then. I've always been
> >> intrigued by the design, but have never had an opportunity to do
> >> anything with it. Though Chuck Moore is a bit "out there" I respect the
> >> man and I'm interested to see what he's designed.
> >
> > I know you don't want to hear this, but you can learn a lot by reading all the info, then writing a program using the F18A assembly language. Make it a program you might actually want to use, something practical. This will teach you about the "issues" of using the GA144 without building anything. That's why I used a spread sheet to analyze code. I learned a lot more, in a shorter time, than building hardware and getting up to speed on all the "unique" software required to make it work.
> I've read that. What I want to do is BUILD A DAMN BOARD. What
> language am I speaking here?
>
> My goal is not to "get up to speed". This is not a commercial
> endeavor. It is not about efficiency. I work in this field, but my
> interest in this chip is not commercial.

You keep repeating that. This also indicates that you think I'm saying something I'm not. If you want to build a board, go ahead. No one is stopping you.

> I realize that you're not saying what you said above because you
> actually believe it. You're a net.troll, and you say these things to
> get a rise out of people. Unfortunately I often cannot resist the bait.

Ok, so I'm a troll, because you don't like what I'm saying. Sorry, that's not what a troll is. I'm not deliberately trying to get a rise out of you, or to create confrontation. I'm trying to have a technical discussion, but you don't want to hear what I have to say. Instead of simply ignoring it, you turn hostile. So don't blame the hostility on me!

> >> I'm getting older, I'm starting to notice it, I'm hot off the high of
> >> having gotten a big(ish) Transputer-based cluster up and running at a
> >> museum, and that reminded me of that GA144 sitting in a drawer. So I
> >> said to myself, "Self, it's time do something with that chip, but GA's
> >> dev boards are overpriced and overcomplicated."
> >
> > Yeah, you will find very, very little in common between the Transputer and the GA144, very little.
> I typed and deleted a few responses here. But the most appropriate
> seems to be:
>
> "NO SHIT, SHERLOCK."

LOL I've written nothing to deserve a response like that. I think it is you who are out of line, not me.

> >> I don't think I should have to explain all of this when the query was
> >> a simple "Hey, has anyone laid out a board?"
> >
> > Why do you feel a need to explain yourself? I've offered advice, directly related to your original post and your subsequent posts. You mischaracterize your original post, which was actually more of a wide open question. It literally asked nothing like, "Hey, has anyone laid out a board?" Perhaps you should reread it.
> I'll refer you to my original post. That's exactly what I wrote.
> Again not verbatim, but that was my request.

I'm starting to think maybe you have some cognitive issues. Here is your OP.

"Is anyone aware of a simple development board for the GA144 chip? No
fluff, extra processors, etc like the (expensive) GreenArrays GA144
development boards, just the bare minimum to get the chip going and
write code for it. Ideally an open design, i.e. download Gerber files
and make a board or two. If there are none, I will probably design one
myself but didn't want to reinvent the wheel."

The very first sentence is asking if such a board exists. I realize now that you are fishing for an open source design you can copy, but that first sentence says to me you would like to buy a board. Then you go on to explain that you would build a board if someone else has designed it.

> >>>> I'm thinking about designing a board, but given the attitude here,
> >>>> I'm doubt I'll bother mentioning it here.
> >>>
> >>> So, you don't even want to share what you develop? Ok, that's not at all unusual.
> >> I think you missed my point.
> >
> > Which you have not clarified.
> Wow.

I can't help you if that is the extent of your replies, "wow".

> >>> It's not at all a matter of "hate". I've looked at the chip seriously. I've written code for it and hand assembled it counting execution time in a spreadsheet. I had become very familiar with it and now see past the "glitz" of its uniqueness and see how limited it really is.
> >> I understand that. I can read datasheets and user manuals as well as
> >> the next guy. I usually design with ARM chips and I write firmware in C
> >> and assembler. I know this will be very different, and that's part of
> >> why I'm interested in it.
> >
> > "Different" is not the issue. Lots of things are "different". The GA144 is not very good.
> In your opinion. I stopped caring about your opinion when I realized
> that you're just a troll, not any sort of knowledgeable person whose
> advice I should value.
>
> I'll point out yet again, that I did not ask you (or anyone else) if
> they thought the GA144 is any good.

That may be so, but it is very common in these groups for people to offer opinions. Most people don't find that offensive. They simply either reply with a thank you, or simply don't reply at all. Very few go into the sort of meltdown you have.

We have our "special" members who have problems with communications. I won't mention a name, as that can summon him forth. He is one who still lurks here.

> I've been in this business a long
> time; I will come to my own conclusions about that.

Of course you will. I was hoping to discuss the limitations of the chip with you, to save you significant time in your efforts. But sure, you are free to repeat the mistakes of others. I wasted many hours working with the datasheets and even contacting GA, to be told they don't release that information, information that is required for the design I was doing. I was told that I could build it and test it to see if it ran fast enough. Even an entry level engineer knows that is not remotely adequate for a quality design. You can't test over process, voltage and temperature (PVT). Well, you can over voltage and temperature, but you must have timing data from the manufacturer to qualify a design over process variation.

> >> I didn't ask about software because I had already found what I
> >> thought I'd need. I certainly didn't ask for a critique of the chip.
> >
> > And yet you continue to discuss it.
> Because you're a highly skilled troll and I lack self control.

LOL I'm not trolling. I was trying to discuss this with you, but now I'm just trying to explain how you have misunderstood virtually everything I posted, simply because you don't like the facts I present.

Sorry

> > Ok, so where is the problem? You talk like I'm being rude by talking about the GA144 when you didn't ask, and then you say you appreciate my opinion. Which is it?
> I was being generous. You seem to need it.

Ok, thank you.

> >>> I recall a poster here who was talking about some real pie-in-the-sky ideas. I don't recall the details, but he wanted to design 32 bit, multiprocessor chips. When I tried to explain to him how his ideas were not realistic, he accused me of "hating" or something similar.
> >> So this happens to you a lot.
> >
> > Only with people who don't know what they want. Like you. You continue to complain about my posts, yet, you reply to them. Who is the one with the problem?
> I know exactly what I want.

You don't know what you want from this conversation.

> I clearly stated it in my first post in
> this thread. I want a GA144 on a simple board with no fluff so I can
> explore it. I've explained this multiple times.

Ok, did you find it yet?

> >>> I wasn't hating, I was just explaining how he would be unlikely to achieve any of his goals, because of their lofty nature. He even claimed he could not have a discussion because of "all the hate". He was messing with his own head. No one was "hating" on him, and he was at all times free to ignore any posts he didn't like.
> >> I suppose it's good to see Usenet hasn't really changed.
> >>
> >> I have the same motivation, to warn people (usually kids) away from
> >> bad ideas with "there be dragons here" kind of statements. I'm a
> >> graybeard too.
> >
> > Just to be clear, I'm not warning anyone away from the GA144. I'm simply pointing out that there are ways to get a handle on the device without building or buying hardware. It's usually the younger ones who want to get their hands on something physical, rather than spending time working on the computer to learn.
> Yes but that's like an inflatable doll. It will get the job done,
> but it's usually not what you really want. I want HARDWARE. I've
> already read the documentation.

LOL You don't understand what I'm saying. Reading the documentation is just scratching the surface with the GA144. It will only be once you start writing code for a real app, that you learn the limitations. But to each his own. I'm just glad I didn't build a board. That would have been 100% wasted time.

> Why am I explaining this yet again? Of course: I Have Been Trolled.

You are trolling yourself.

> I came to comp.sys.forth with my guard down thinking that there would
> be civilized people here. I regret that I was mistaken.

There's the failure. You think that because I'm not supportive in your effort, that I'm "not civilized". I'm giving information about my experience. If you don't want that, fine. It's not being forced on you. You are free to ignore me.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Lorem Ipsum]

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 9:49:05 PM UTC-4, Dave McGuire wrote:
> On 7/22/23 15:01, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> >> I would suggest you ceck with one of the Forth facebook groups.
> >> There you can find probably more help and in a friendy way.
> >> https://www.facebook.com/groups/PROGRAMMINGFORTH
> >
> > Just be careful which group you go with. Some are more friendly than others. A guy who goes by Peter Forth (not his real name) has banned several people from his group.
> Interesting! Peter Forth (whatever his real name may be) has never
> been anything other than nice and friendly to me, where YOU have never
> been anything other than a dick.
>
> Every newsgroup has their armchair expert, wannabe authority troll.
> I'm glad I found this one's early before making any friends here.

You can anyone you wish. But I'm not the only person who has had issues with Peter Forth. Juergen has already indicated his displeasure. Don't you find it odd that he uses a fake name?

I have done nothing to you. You have misinterpreted my posts as somehow hostile. I've only related information. Not one harsh word. Not one! Yet, you perceive me as a troll and an "armchair expert" which would imply I've done nothing in Forth or engineering otherwise. This is far from the truth.

Whatever. There are a lot of good people here. Many of them are happy to help. But if you can't handle honesty, I guess this is not the place for you. If you are willing to accept information from others, without taking it personally, then this is a great place to discuss Forth.

> *PLONK*

I always find it amusing that people feel the need to be so dramatic when they killfile someone. That's the sort of thing that teenagers do. Sorry you have so much trouble with all this.

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Lorem Ipsum]

I don't recall the group. I just remember it was a self appointed team with Peter Forth. Maybe they started modifying Win32Forth, because it has problems with false positives on anti-virus software. I suppose they got in over their heads and switched to some other code base. Don't know.

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Hugh Aguilar]

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 6:49:05 PM UTC-7, Dave McGuire wrote:
> On 7/22/23 15:01, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> >> I would suggest you ceck with one of the Forth facebook groups.
> >> There you can find probably more help and in a friendy way.
> >> https://www.facebook.com/groups/PROGRAMMINGFORTH
> >
> > Just be careful which group you go with. Some are more friendly than others. A guy who goes by Peter Forth (not his real name) has banned several people from his group.
> Interesting! Peter Forth (whatever his real name may be) has never
> been anything other than nice and friendly to me, where YOU have never
> been anything other than a dick.
>
> Every newsgroup has their armchair expert, wannabe authority troll.
> I'm glad I found this one's early before making any friends here.
>
> *PLONK*

I haven't responded to Rick Collins in many years.
I wondered how long it would take you to plonk him --- two days ---
those are two days of your life that have been stolen from you,
just like getting your life blood sucked out by a vampire. lol

In regard to the GA144, when I first heard of it about
two decades ago, my first thought was that all of that parallel
processing was being used for encryption cracking. If this is
the purpose of the chingadera, Charles Moore is obviously not
going to tell you. lol Good luck on figuring out something useful
to do with it --- you could be the first --- at least you could have
fun with it and get experience with something very off-beat.

I wrote an encryption-cracking program a long time ago:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/wP5nw1ClzsM/m/p-At6TDYAQAJ
Reading this thread will give you an idea of what c.l.f. is all about! lol
My program didn't work very well because my evaluation algorithm
wasn't telling me correctly if my bit was 1 or 0 more than 50% of the time.
My code worked; there weren't any bugs --- I just don't think that
I was on the right track --- I haven't done anything with encryption-
cracking since then (that subject is really over my head).

[dxforth]

Found it's hosted below along with the source. I recall the website mentioning
Win32Forth anti-virus issues and avoiding it for that reason.

https://github.com/PeterForth

[Lorem Ipsum]

It's a bit inconvenient. The AVS wants to remove it and it has to be white flagged. Funny that they said they were going to fix it, but never did.

I found reactos-win32forth-repo, which says it's Win32Forth, installed through "Virtual Box from Oracle". It claims to be v6.15, but no virus warnings. Not sure what he did, but 6.15 absolutely does give virus warnings until you white list it. So, I'm not sure what his v6.15 really is. Maybe running in the virtual machine prevents the virus warnings. I wonder what else it blocks. My Win32Forth app uses both serial ports and Winsock. It might be a problem with this installation.

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[yeti]

Dave McGuire <mcg...@lssmuseum.org> writes:

> Once again, the software is available. I didn't ask about that here
> because I found it already and have judged it to be sufficient for
> my needs.

Those?

https://github.com/mschuldt/ga-tools
https://github.com/mschuldt/ga144-sim

> What I want to do is BUILD A DAMN BOARD.

You have seen that one?

https://hackaday.io/project/163652-ga144-evaluation-board

--
comp.lang.forth - Usenet's best soap opera?

[Jurgen Pitaske]

Just to add this link I found
http://forth.org/svfig/kk/11-2015.html

[Jurgen Pitaske]

And I had never seen this from 2017 - GA144 plus display
http://www.forth.org/svfig/kk/06-2017-Schuldt.pdf

[Jurgen Pitaske]

I had asked the question about board and circuit diagram in our Forth Facebook group, and here is a circuit diagram
http://esaid.free.fr/tutoriel_arrayforth/Ga144_pcb/Ga144/GA144_SRAM_IS2/GA144_SRAM_ISI2_schema.pdf

[none albert]

In article <u9csl3$56q$1...@mail.neurotica.com>,

Dave McGuire <mcg...@lssmuseum.org> wrote:
>
> Is anyone aware of a simple development board for the GA144 chip? No
>fluff, extra processors, etc like the (expensive) GreenArrays GA144
>development boards, just the bare minimum to get the chip going and
>write code for it. Ideally an open design, i.e. download Gerber files
>and make a board or two. If there are none, I will probably design one
>myself but didn't want to reinvent the wheel.

I have some experience with using the actual development system
available from green arrays.
Before you spend time for the actual hardware, you can run an
emulator for the GA144. It is less effort, you can learn more of
the chip. If you are disappointed you can quit before investing
more time. See
https://bitbucket.org/lkonings/arrayfactor/downloads/
You can inspect the GA144 website, I'm not sure there is
an emulator and whether it is free.

On the hardware level, I applaud there being available a
development board. A modest goal is to use the "serdes"
protocol and run a single program on a border node.
That program is likely an assembler program.
The machine language is weird and the usual technique
to write an assembler don't work because of the multiple
instruction in a machine word.

The serdes protocol has to be reverse engineered.
Apparently for the purchasers of a development board the
source is somehow available ( dixit Leon Konings).
I recommend using a raspberry pico with noforth, because
it is more than likely the 10 io-processors are able
to do the serdes, once it is documented.

The pico noforth is available with the Dutch Forth User group.
https://forth.hcc.nl/
under products. We have a lot of products.

>
> Thanks,
> -Dave McGuire

[none albert]

In article <f27c8d93-b5cc-4840...@googlegroups.com>,

Lorem Ipsum <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 10:23:07 AM UTC-4, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:

<SNIP>

>
>I asked about the memory interface, as I wanted to make it work with a
>fast DRAM (100-133 MHz). This would have required three internal nodes
>(minimum) and the use of the comms channels, of course. To run at full
>speed the DRAMs have to be timed carefully, so I needed timing data on
>the comms. They would not share that with me, claiming I could use it
>to reverse engineer the design. Really? You have a chip, no one is
>buying, but you are worried about people reverse engineering it?

This is worse than I thought.
This is reminiscint of ...
In the Dutch hcc a guy has a made
a brilliant composition (4 voice blues) for the time the Forth organ 1]
has 12 pipes, with a d'' .. d''' ranges with des missing.
He took it among him self to compose for this range, and use all
of the notes.
He doesn't allow a YouTube video of it to publish.

How to become unfamous, lesson 1.

1] now it has 24.

>It was built at a fab that specializes in old processes. I expect the
>process is still available.

It was old at the time. 180nm
Nowadays China are reporting break throughs at the 7nm and Taiwan is
routinely making 4 or 5 nm.

>
>If, by negativity, you mean relating facts that may be "inconvenient",
>then yes, that happens a lot here.
>
>> I would suggest you ceck with one of the Forth facebook groups.
>> There you can find probably more help and in a friendy way.
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/PROGRAMMINGFORTH
>
>Just be careful which group you go with. Some are more friendly than
>others. A guy who goes by Peter Forth (not his real name) has banned
>several people from his group.

Peter Forth is extremely friendly towards the Dutch User group.
I declined an invitation to join because I don't like facebook.
How can he go under a false name? facebook requires a fotocopie
of your passport.

> Rick C.

[Lorem Ipsum]

Not sure what you are trying to say. It doesn't matter at all what anyone else is making. There are still many, many fabs making silicon in old processes. When a chip is designed, it is designed for a process. Moving it to another process is work. The many 20 year old chips, are not built on 4 nm fabs.

I wish I could remember the name of the company who built the GA144. Turns out, the number of wafers they built was in essence, the minimum quantity for the prototype run.

> >If, by negativity, you mean relating facts that may be "inconvenient",
> >then yes, that happens a lot here.
> >
> >> I would suggest you ceck with one of the Forth facebook groups.
> >> There you can find probably more help and in a friendy way.
> >> https://www.facebook.com/groups/PROGRAMMINGFORTH
> >
> >Just be careful which group you go with. Some are more friendly than
> >others. A guy who goes by Peter Forth (not his real name) has banned
> >several people from his group.
> Peter Forth is extremely friendly towards the Dutch User group.
> I declined an invitation to join because I don't like facebook.
> How can he go under a false name? facebook requires a fotocopie
> of your passport.

They don't require that specifically. They will treat your name as being verified if there is enough "evidence". I wanted a separate account from my personal one, so I signed up with a pseudonym. Peter ratted me out and Facebook blocked the account. I reported Peter's fake name and they accepted his name as "real" basically, because he has had it so long. Juergen says he found Peter's real name, so ask him how he found it.

If you think Peter Forth is a real name, try to find some evidence of it, other than on social media and such sites. If I am wrong, please correct me.

This is pretty off topic in this thread. I won't post about Peter further.

--

Rick C.

++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Jurgen Pitaske]

https://forth-ev.de/wiki/res/lib/exe/fetch.php/vd-archiv:4d2018-03.pdf

>
> If you think Peter Forth is a real name, try to find some evidence of it, other than on social media and such sites. If I am wrong, please correct me.
>
> This is pretty off topic in this thread. I won't post about Peter further.
>
> --
>
> Rick C.
>
> ++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
> ++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Peter Minuth - see here at the German Forth group, from 2018, page 8 and page 11
https://forth-ev.de/wiki/res/lib/exe/fetch.php/vd-archiv:4d2018-03.pdf
and confirmed by the German group then that this is Peter Forth

and see
https://comp.lang.forth.narkive.com/urZYOcu9/is-the-forth-language-under-the-control-of-mr-peter-forth

and as well
https://www.reddit.com/r/Forth/comments/zlxyel/peter_forths_toxic_behavior/

[S]

Well. It's hard to believe that after all this time, Google groups still
doesn't have a reply button for messages on mobile, or line splitting
by the looks of it.

Great to hear there are Facebook groups Jurgen. Thanks very much.
Maybe they can regulate the serial pests we get here.

Any Facebook groups good for forth processors?

Anyway, a question. Who runs this group? I would like to suggest to
them a: comp.lang.forth.hardware&processors group moderated, in that
you can ban certain accounts after a while. It would allow a lot of
forth hardware discussion in peace.

[S]

I was going recommend something like that. I just
couldn't remember where I saw it

It's a shame the processor was never given a performance accelerated
version and more memory, I could have used it. Even something like that
in the reduced core package with a lot of static memory on one
core (or shared by 4) with auto execution extended address bus. It
would have just enough pins to make it a nice little controller.

[Lorem Ipsum]

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:04:38 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 3:10:24 PM UTC+10, yeti wrote:
> > Dave McGuire <mcg...@lssmuseum.org> writes:
> >
> > > Once again, the software is available. I didn't ask about that here
> > > because I found it already and have judged it to be sufficient for
> > > my needs.
> > Those?
> >
> > https://github.com/mschuldt/ga-tools
> > https://github.com/mschuldt/ga144-sim
> > > What I want to do is BUILD A DAMN BOARD.
> > You have seen that one?
> >
> > https://hackaday.io/project/163652-ga144-evaluation-board
> >
> > --
> > comp.lang.forth - Usenet's best soap opera?
> I was going recommend something like that. I just
> couldn't remember where I saw it
>
> It's a shame the processor was never given a performance accelerated
> version and more memory, I could have used it.

Each processor has 700 MIPS! It's hard to use that level of performance as it is. Yes, memory is constrained... severely, but the real issue is the very hard to use comms. Each processor can only talk to it's neighbors and while they are passing data to another processor, they can't be doing *anything* else. So, each processor that needs data, is hanging up every other processor along the path. This was a feature that Chuck thought was "neat", but he never found a way to make use of it. He didn't even try until he had a chip to play with, spent sometime finding the comms to be a hard problem to solve, then retired.

> Even something like that
> in the reduced core package with a lot of static memory on one
> core (or shared by 4) with auto execution extended address bus. It
> would have just enough pins to make it a nice little controller.

If you hang static RAM on any version of a GAxxx processor, the power consumption goes through the roof (static RAM is very power hungry) and you still can't get information to the processors fast enough because of the poor comms. Maybe, if these issues had been considered during the design of the chip, something could have been done.

Accessing the CPU memory already takes multiple instruction times. Adding more memory to the processors will slow them down further. The GA144 is such a queer chip.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[yeti]

S <waynemo...@gmail.com> writes:

> Any Facebook groups good for forth processors?
>
> Anyway, a question. Who runs this group? I would like to suggest to
> them a: comp.lang.forth.hardware&processors group moderated, in that
> you can ban certain accounts after a while. It would allow a lot of
> forth hardware discussion in peace.

I prefer to read all that stuff here.

--
Take Back Control! -- Mesh The Planet!
I do not play Nethack, I do play GNUS! o;-)
Solid facts do not need 1001 pictures.

[S]

I could have saved you the effort. Certain people here seem to
like to contribute long repetitious useless conversations where
they don't seem to understand l. This tends to happen when
useful people turn up with something worth saying about forth
hardware. Really hermetic passive aggressive controlling
wrecking behaviour. There is a poor chap here who makes
candles now, who really used to cop it. He might have got a bit
excited, but I'm more interested in investing in people than being
a real .ick.

Rick, on the other hand, does some real interesting hardware for
the military. It's a shame he doesn't put his talents to good use
making a chip that is an alternative to the GA144 he complains
about. Maybe he will get more respect he wants. I have a friend
who, if he is not the centre or attention and what he wants to talk
about, and perceives he is not getting the level of submissive
respect he thinks he deserves, gets snippy, and dominates and talks
over you, disrupts and pulls all sorts of stunts. I've actually got two
friends a bit like that. The other one is better, not so self centred, a
Christian. Both could be in show business. Me too, but I've had lots
of physical sickness but similar sort of energy, but with a brain
together. That's why I attract those sorts.

Now, Rick likes to claim a lot of knowledge, but he's been stuck in
military contracts, which have very little to do with products for 100's
of thousands to thousands times more volume in consumer markets.
It's really gravy train profits decisions compared to razor thin margin
Innovation and strategy. He has opinions, but all the top people are curious
explorers rather than people want to stay put. So, do what you like
Dave. Don't let yourself be running the reservation.

I'm going to say a few things. I've been long looking into how to
fabricate chip alternatives from home (garage setup) and have finally
realised a low tech version, which I would expect to be able to do 1 micro
circuits of, relativity, high performance for 1 micron. I can theoretically go to
1nm but that would be a lot harder and more difficult to clean room. I tend to
Keep things reasonable practical doable. I am still undergoing a lot of stuff
here, and after vaccine and long covid reactions last year, could have died.
But, I managed to find out about some things that corrected that a lot. I now
can't do maths muc and still have some other deficits. Plus, there is an
ongoing dispute, where I was very mistreated, and badly done by. So, I won't be
able to work on it for a while. However.

Jurgen has a book on Dr Ting's forth array design (thanks for the book Jurgen,
still haven't got around to it) and Jeff Fox, was doing an earlier misc processor
with on chip IO video etc, the F21 and software GUI and OS, and his widow might
have the rights to the design. He told me he was also planning parallel arrays up
to 10,000 chips on wafer. So, he might have some sort of pre Seaforth parallel design
work there as well. So, I encourage you to look at something like that as well.

Have a good day

Wayne.

[S]

On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 11:49:05 AM UTC+10, Dave McGuire wrote:

[S]

On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:41:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:04:38 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 3:10:24 PM UTC+10, yeti wrote:
> > > Dave McGuire <mcg...@lssmuseum.org> writes:

..

> > It's a shame the processor was never given a performance accelerated
> > version and more memory, I could have used it.

I did say performance version, which would have all this stuff sorted out.
My design proposal for this a decade to trot decades ago, sorted this all out.
Hardly any stalling, no pressor IO cycle consumption, large memory direct
addressing and execution space, and large shared memory and large memory for
controlling core, and any core designed so, sizable shared up to 8 core transaction data memories, with three levels of bus, two shared, with minimal footprint, plus mini cache
and DMA design, which can work in any of the shared memories. Designed to
distribute tasks and memory usage in a way that easily maximize performance. Plus
a few other things back in the early proposal. Answers most of the questions, but I
would also add a serial pseudo SRAM to parallel bus auto circuit, to decode data and execution as if a normal parallel bus, but at lower speed of course. Once you add the
mini cache and page swap features, and core can access the external memory to dma
In the next instruction or word or up to the whole local memory. All these mini features
are low resistor count versions of less performance compared to traditional, but simple
to use and judicially used to get the programmer out of a jam. I was listening when Chuck
Complained about the normal size of these features, so I designed the proposals, not to
sacrifice much chip real-estate. I'm taking about hundreds of transistors. I can't
remember the seperate estimates, but it's small, but design ex to greatly boost throughout. Plus you could run the chip down to 1ns to 2/10th of a nanosecond, on a better node process.
High performance.

> Each processor has 700 MIPS! It's hard to use that level of performance as it is. Yes, memory is constrained... severely, but the real issue is the very hard to use comms. Each processor can only talk to it's neighbors and while they are passing data to another processor, they can't be doing *anything* else. So, each processor that needs data, is hanging up every other processor along the path. This was a feature that Chuck thought was "neat", but he never found a way to make use of it. He didn't even try until he had a chip to play with, spent sometime finding the comms to be a hard problem to solve, then retired.

With the proposed design, it still can operate asynchronously. So, it can operate at 20hz if it wanted to, without complex programming.

> > Even something like that
> > in the reduced core package with a lot of static memory on one
> > core (or shared by 4) with auto execution extended address bus. It
> > would have just enough pins to make it a nice little controller.
> If you hang static RAM on any version of a GAxxx processor, the power consumption goes through the roof (static RAM is very power hungry) and you still can't get information to the processors fast enough because of the poor comms. Maybe, if these issues had been considered during the design of the chip, something could have been done.

I didn't say how much, but it would be considerable. At least as much as in the whole current
chip, up to a full 18 bits. The present chip seemed to do fine with static memory. However
it would be good with the full account of the present cores memory spaces for execution ram rom and data. Going one more step the ability to insert an parallel psram die in package, rather than just use SRAM. Cheap in quantity. This allow the same die to be packed with
varying amounts of memory and number of memories, depending on the application. A lot cheaper than using a specialist memory incorporating process node or high transit count
SRAM. With this the psram due can be whatever process node sized dram inside for commodity like mass production like pricing advantage available, while the main chip can
remain at 130-180nm.

>
> Accessing the CPU memory already takes multiple instruction times. Adding more memory to the processors will slow them down further. The GA144 is such a queer chip.
>
>

[S]

On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:41:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:

> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:04:38 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 3:10:24 PM UTC+10, yeti wrote:
> > > Dave McGuire <mcg...@lssmuseum.org> writes:

..

> > It's a shame the processor was never given a performance accelerated
> > version and more memory, I could have used it.

I did say performance version, which would have all this stuff sorted out.
My design proposal for this a decade to trot decades ago, sorted this all out.
Hardly any stalling, no pressor IO cycle consumption, large memory direct
addressing and execution space, and large shared memory and large memory for
controlling core, and any core designed so, sizable shared up to 8 core transaction data memories, with three levels of bus, two shared, with minimal footprint, plus mini cache
and DMA design, which can work in any of the shared memories. Designed to
distribute tasks and memory usage in a way that easily maximize performance. Plus
a few other things back in the early proposal. Answers most of the questions, but I
would also add a serial pseudo SRAM to parallel bus auto circuit, to decode data and execution as if a normal parallel bus, but at lower speed of course. Once you add the
mini cache and page swap features, and core can access the external memory to dma
In the next instruction or word or up to the whole local memory. All these mini features
are low resistor count versions of less performance compared to traditional, but simple
to use and judicially used to get the programmer out of a jam. I was listening when Chuck
Complained about the normal size of these features, so I designed the proposals, not to
sacrifice much chip real-estate. I'm taking about hundreds of transistors. I can't
remember the seperate estimates, but it's small, but design ex to greatly boost throughout. Plus you could run the chip down to 1ns to 2/10th of a nanosecond, on a better node process.
High performance.

> Each processor has 700 MIPS! It's hard to use that level of performance as it is. Yes, memory is constrained... severely, but the real issue is the very hard to use comms. Each processor can only talk to it's neighbors and while they are passing data to another processor, they can't be doing *anything* else. So, each processor that needs data, is hanging up every other processor along the path. This was a feature that Chuck thought was "neat", but he never found a way to make use of it. He didn't even try until he had a chip to play with, spent sometime finding the comms to be a hard problem to solve, then retired.

With the proposed design, it still can operate asynchronously. So, it can operate at 20hz if it wanted to, without complex programming.

> > Even something like that
> > in the reduced core package with a lot of static memory on one
> > core (or shared by 4) with auto execution extended address bus. It
> > would have just enough pins to make it a nice little controller.
> If you hang static RAM on any version of a GAxxx processor, the power consumption goes through the roof (static RAM is very power hungry) and you still can't get information to the processors fast enough because of the poor comms. Maybe, if these issues had been considered during the design of the chip, something could have been done.

I didn't say how much, but it would be considerable. At least as much as in the whole current
chip, up to a full 18 bits. The present chip seemed to do fine with static memory. However
it would be good with the full account of the present cores memory spaces for execution ram rom and data. Going one more step the ability to insert an parallel psram die in package, rather than just use SRAM. Cheap in quantity. This allow the same die to be packed with
varying amounts of memory and number of memories, depending on the application. A lot cheaper than using a specialist memory incorporating process node or high transit count
SRAM. With this the psram due can be whatever process node sized dram inside for commodity like mass production like pricing advantage available, while the main chip can
remain at 130-180nm.

>

> Accessing the CPU memory already takes multiple instruction times. Adding more memory to the processors will slow them down further. The GA144 is such a queer chip.
>
>

[Lorem Ipsum]

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 3:02:58 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:41:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:04:38 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 3:10:24 PM UTC+10, yeti wrote:
> > > > Dave McGuire <mcg...@lssmuseum.org> writes:
> ..
> > > It's a shame the processor was never given a performance accelerated
> > > version and more memory, I could have used it.
> I did say performance version, which would have all this stuff sorted out.

So, you waved your magic wand over the GA144 and solved all the problems? Great! Show us how you did that.

> My design proposal for this a decade to trot decades ago, sorted this all out.
> Hardly any stalling, no pressor IO cycle consumption, large memory direct
> addressing and execution space, and large shared memory and large memory for
> controlling core, and any core designed so, sizable shared up to 8 core transaction data memories, with three levels of bus, two shared, with minimal footprint, plus mini cache
> and DMA design, which can work in any of the shared memories. Designed to
> distribute tasks and memory usage in a way that easily maximize performance. Plus
> a few other things back in the early proposal. Answers most of the questions, but I
> would also add a serial pseudo SRAM to parallel bus auto circuit, to decode data and execution as if a normal parallel bus, but at lower speed of course. Once you add the
> mini cache and page swap features, and core can access the external memory to dma
> In the next instruction or word or up to the whole local memory. All these mini features
> are low resistor count versions of less performance compared to traditional, but simple
> to use and judicially used to get the programmer out of a jam. I was listening when Chuck
> Complained about the normal size of these features, so I designed the proposals, not to
> sacrifice much chip real-estate. I'm taking about hundreds of transistors. I can't
> remember the seperate estimates, but it's small, but design ex to greatly boost throughout. Plus you could run the chip down to 1ns to 2/10th of a nanosecond, on a better node process.
> High performance.

The only problem is, you've done none of this. But when you do, let us know. I'm sure it will be very interesting.

> > Each processor has 700 MIPS! It's hard to use that level of performance as it is. Yes, memory is constrained... severely, but the real issue is the very hard to use comms. Each processor can only talk to it's neighbors and while they are passing data to another processor, they can't be doing *anything* else. So, each processor that needs data, is hanging up every other processor along the path. This was a feature that Chuck thought was "neat", but he never found a way to make use of it. He didn't even try until he had a chip to play with, spent sometime finding the comms to be a hard problem to solve, then retired.
> With the proposed design, it still can operate asynchronously. So, it can operate at 20hz if it wanted to, without complex programming.

Your comment seems to be unrelated to what it follows. What point are you trying to make???

> > > Even something like that
> > > in the reduced core package with a lot of static memory on one
> > > core (or shared by 4) with auto execution extended address bus. It
> > > would have just enough pins to make it a nice little controller.
> > If you hang static RAM on any version of a GAxxx processor, the power consumption goes through the roof (static RAM is very power hungry) and you still can't get information to the processors fast enough because of the poor comms. Maybe, if these issues had been considered during the design of the chip, something could have been done.
> I didn't say how much, but it would be considerable. At least as much as in the whole current
> chip, up to a full 18 bits. The present chip seemed to do fine with static memory. However
> it would be good with the full account of the present cores memory spaces for execution ram rom and data. Going one more step the ability to insert an parallel psram die in package, rather than just use SRAM. Cheap in quantity. This allow the same die to be packed with
> varying amounts of memory and number of memories, depending on the application. A lot cheaper than using a specialist memory incorporating process node or high transit count
> SRAM. With this the psram due can be whatever process node sized dram inside for commodity like mass production like pricing advantage available, while the main chip can
> remain at 130-180nm.

It's just that there's no point in adding memory until you can do something useful with it.

I remember you now. You are the guy who blamed everyone else for replying to your posts, making it impossible for you to do any work until you replied in kind. That's a pretty severe distraction disorder. I wish you luck with it.

--

Rick C.

---- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[none albert]

In article <cefeb263-b1ed-4961...@googlegroups.com>,

The GA144 cannot have path that are crossing each other.
That is a fatal design flaw.

>
>
>> Even something like that
>> in the reduced core package with a lot of static memory on one
>> core (or shared by 4) with auto execution extended address bus. It
>> would have just enough pins to make it a nice little controller.
>
>If you hang static RAM on any version of a GAxxx processor, the power
>consumption goes through the roof (static RAM is very power hungry) and
>you still can't get information to the processors fast enough because of
>the poor comms. Maybe, if these issues had been considered during the
>design of the chip, something could have been done.

I thought of hanging a 32 bit static memory using the weird timig.
Then you have parallel stack to emulate a 32 bit Forth machine.
It is climbing the Mount Everest, infinitely difficult and
infinitely useless.

>
>Accessing the CPU memory already takes multiple instruction times.
>Adding more memory to the processors will slow them down further. The
>GA144 is such a queer chip.

Agreed.

[S]

On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 5:16:02 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 3:02:58 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:41:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:04:38 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 3:10:24 PM UTC+10, yeti wrote:
> > > > > Dave McGuire <mcg...@lssmuseum.org> writes:
> > ..
> > > > It's a shame the processor was never given a performance accelerated
> > > > version and more memory, I could have used it.
> > I did say performance version, which would have all this stuff sorted out.
> So, you waved your magic wand over the GA144 and solved all the problems? Great! Show us how you did that.

You are paying any of us, or for patents. It's simple enough, give it a go yourself (or at least try to look up the posts I put some of it in 20 years ago).

> > My design proposal for this a decade to trot decades ago, sorted this all out.
> > Hardly any stalling, no pressor IO cycle consumption, large memory direct
> > addressing and execution space, and large shared memory and large memory for
> > controlling core, and any core designed so, sizable shared up to 8 core transaction data memories, with three levels of bus, two shared, with minimal footprint, plus mini cache
> > and DMA design, which can work in any of the shared memories. Designed to
> > distribute tasks and memory usage in a way that easily maximize performance. Plus
> > a few other things back in the early proposal. Answers most of the questions, but I
> > would also add a serial pseudo SRAM to parallel bus auto circuit, to decode data and execution as if a normal parallel bus, but at lower speed of course. Once you add the
> > mini cache and page swap features, and core can access the external memory to dma
> > In the next instruction or word or up to the whole local memory. All these mini features
> > are low resistor count versions of less performance compared to traditional, but simple
> > to use and judicially used to get the programmer out of a jam. I was listening when Chuck
> > Complained about the normal size of these features, so I designed the proposals, not to
> > sacrifice much chip real-estate. I'm taking about hundreds of transistors. I can't
> > remember the seperate estimates, but it's small, but design ex to greatly boost throughout. Plus you could run the chip down to 1ns to 2/10th of a nanosecond, on a better node process.
> > High performance.
> The only problem is, you've done none of this. But when you do, let us know. I'm sure it will be very interesting.

The problem is, at least I figured out the logical architecture before I said anything.

> > > Each processor has 700 MIPS! It's hard to use that level of performance as it is. Yes, memory is constrained... severely, but the real issue is the very hard to use comms. Each processor can only talk to it's neighbors and while they are passing data to another processor, they can't be doing *anything* else. So, each processor that needs data, is hanging up every other processor along the path. This was a feature that Chuck thought was "neat", but he never found a way to make use of it. He didn't even try until he had a chip to play with, spent sometime finding the comms to be a hard problem to solve, then retired.
> > With the proposed design, it still can operate asynchronously. So, it can operate at 20hz if it wanted to, without complex programming.
> Your comment seems to be unrelated to what it follows. What point are you trying to make???

That you don't have to try to use 700mips, and every cycle you use is more or less an minimal on actual work/communications, compared to everything both of us complain about in performance and programmability.

> > > > Even something like that
> > > > in the reduced core package with a lot of static memory on one
> > > > core (or shared by 4) with auto execution extended address bus. It
> > > > would have just enough pins to make it a nice little controller.
> > > If you hang static RAM on any version of a GAxxx processor, the power consumption goes through the roof (static RAM is very power hungry) and you still can't get information to the processors fast enough because of the poor comms. Maybe, if these issues had been considered during the design of the chip, something could have been done.
> > I didn't say how much, but it would be considerable. At least as much as in the whole current
> > chip, up to a full 18 bits. The present chip seemed to do fine with static memory. However
> > it would be good with the full account of the present cores memory spaces for execution ram rom and data. Going one more step the ability to insert an parallel psram die in package, rather than just use SRAM. Cheap in quantity. This allow the same die to be packed with
> > varying amounts of memory and number of memories, depending on the application. A lot cheaper than using a specialist memory incorporating process node or high transit count
> > SRAM. With this the psram due can be whatever process node sized dram inside for commodity like mass production like pricing advantage available, while the main chip can
> > remain at 130-180nm.

> It's just that there's no point in adding memory until you can do something useful with it. Well you can't like any processor. It's direct addressable direct executable. Same as a microwave controller with on chip memory.

>
> I remember you now. You are the guy who blamed everyone else for replying to your posts, making it impossible for you to do any work until you replied in kind. That's a pretty severe distraction disorder. I wish you luck with it.

No, it's mainly just a few people pestering. You can't run investment or community projects with, pestering trying to deliberately distract people from it with pointless stuff, to shade and colour things. Well, three interruptions rather than over ten I would have normally have expected for that amount of text. But, you can see a few changes on misc would get rid of most of the concerns. It's just a shame that everything is too expensive to move onto a faster process with lower energy design, for all of us. The costs are nuts now. I really would like to see a latest serial bus user as a standard to communicate between all devices daisy chained, off a chip package with very few pads and supporting USB device protocols. Simplify costs and everything off chip, and who cares if the CPU is only low-cost 130-180nm.

[Lorem Ipsum]

I don't believe it is true that data paths can not cross. They just become much slower data paths, since they essentially need to be polled. In fact, I don't believe you can have any two data paths through a node without using polling to detect when a sample is waiting for you to pick it up and move it.

> >> Even something like that
> >> in the reduced core package with a lot of static memory on one
> >> core (or shared by 4) with auto execution extended address bus. It
> >> would have just enough pins to make it a nice little controller.
> >
> >If you hang static RAM on any version of a GAxxx processor, the power
> >consumption goes through the roof (static RAM is very power hungry) and
> >you still can't get information to the processors fast enough because of
> >the poor comms. Maybe, if these issues had been considered during the
> >design of the chip, something could have been done.
> I thought of hanging a 32 bit static memory using the weird timig.
> Then you have parallel stack to emulate a 32 bit Forth machine.
> It is climbing the Mount Everest, infinitely difficult and
> infinitely useless.

I don't know what you mean about "weird timing". Static RAM has pretty simple timing. It gets a bit tricky to meet all the specs if you are trying to run as fast as possible, but the GA144 doesn't specify the timing on the internal paths you need to make this work. That was when I gave up. The person I contacted at GA refused to provide the info because of "trade secrets".

> >Accessing the CPU memory already takes multiple instruction times.
> >Adding more memory to the processors will slow them down further. The
> >GA144 is such a queer chip.
> Agreed.

Someone described the chip as Moore's toy. It took me a while to realize this is correct. It was simply a bunch of ideas thrown into one chip, without any real thought of how to use them.

--

Rick C.

----+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
----+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Lorem Ipsum]

On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:57:33 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 5:16:02 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 3:02:58 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:41:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:04:38 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 3:10:24 PM UTC+10, yeti wrote:
> > > > > > Dave McGuire <mcg...@lssmuseum.org> writes:
> > > ..
> > > > > It's a shame the processor was never given a performance accelerated
> > > > > version and more memory, I could have used it.
> > > I did say performance version, which would have all this stuff sorted out.
> > So, you waved your magic wand over the GA144 and solved all the problems? Great! Show us how you did that.
> You are paying any of us, or for patents. It's simple enough, give it a go yourself (or at least try to look up the posts I put some of it in 20 years ago).

That's what I thought. You talk big, but actually have no idea.

> > > My design proposal for this a decade to trot decades ago, sorted this all out.
> > > Hardly any stalling, no pressor IO cycle consumption, large memory direct
> > > addressing and execution space, and large shared memory and large memory for
> > > controlling core, and any core designed so, sizable shared up to 8 core transaction data memories, with three levels of bus, two shared, with minimal footprint, plus mini cache
> > > and DMA design, which can work in any of the shared memories. Designed to
> > > distribute tasks and memory usage in a way that easily maximize performance. Plus
> > > a few other things back in the early proposal. Answers most of the questions, but I
> > > would also add a serial pseudo SRAM to parallel bus auto circuit, to decode data and execution as if a normal parallel bus, but at lower speed of course. Once you add the
> > > mini cache and page swap features, and core can access the external memory to dma
> > > In the next instruction or word or up to the whole local memory. All these mini features
> > > are low resistor count versions of less performance compared to traditional, but simple
> > > to use and judicially used to get the programmer out of a jam. I was listening when Chuck
> > > Complained about the normal size of these features, so I designed the proposals, not to
> > > sacrifice much chip real-estate. I'm taking about hundreds of transistors. I can't
> > > remember the seperate estimates, but it's small, but design ex to greatly boost throughout. Plus you could run the chip down to 1ns to 2/10th of a nanosecond, on a better node process.
> > > High performance.
> > The only problem is, you've done none of this. But when you do, let us know. I'm sure it will be very interesting.
> The problem is, at least I figured out the logical architecture before I said anything.

Sure, you have it all figured out. Good for you. Too bad you can't explain any of it.

> > > > Each processor has 700 MIPS! It's hard to use that level of performance as it is. Yes, memory is constrained... severely, but the real issue is the very hard to use comms. Each processor can only talk to it's neighbors and while they are passing data to another processor, they can't be doing *anything* else. So, each processor that needs data, is hanging up every other processor along the path. This was a feature that Chuck thought was "neat", but he never found a way to make use of it. He didn't even try until he had a chip to play with, spent sometime finding the comms to be a hard problem to solve, then retired.
> > > With the proposed design, it still can operate asynchronously. So, it can operate at 20hz if it wanted to, without complex programming.
> > Your comment seems to be unrelated to what it follows. What point are you trying to make???
> That you don't have to try to use 700mips, and every cycle you use is more or less an minimal on actual work/communications, compared to everything both of us complain about in performance and programmability.

Of course not. But you are talking about making the processors an order of magnitude faster, when the current speed can't be tapped. Why not try to solve the problems the chip actually has, before solving problems it doesn't have?

> > > > > Even something like that
> > > > > in the reduced core package with a lot of static memory on one
> > > > > core (or shared by 4) with auto execution extended address bus. It
> > > > > would have just enough pins to make it a nice little controller.
> > > > If you hang static RAM on any version of a GAxxx processor, the power consumption goes through the roof (static RAM is very power hungry) and you still can't get information to the processors fast enough because of the poor comms. Maybe, if these issues had been considered during the design of the chip, something could have been done.
> > > I didn't say how much, but it would be considerable. At least as much as in the whole current
> > > chip, up to a full 18 bits. The present chip seemed to do fine with static memory. However
> > > it would be good with the full account of the present cores memory spaces for execution ram rom and data. Going one more step the ability to insert an parallel psram die in package, rather than just use SRAM. Cheap in quantity. This allow the same die to be packed with
> > > varying amounts of memory and number of memories, depending on the application. A lot cheaper than using a specialist memory incorporating process node or high transit count
> > > SRAM. With this the psram due can be whatever process node sized dram inside for commodity like mass production like pricing advantage available, while the main chip can
> > > remain at 130-180nm.
> > It's just that there's no point in adding memory until you can do something useful with it. Well you can't like any processor. It's direct addressable direct executable. Same as a microwave controller with on chip memory.
> >
> > I remember you now. You are the guy who blamed everyone else for replying to your posts, making it impossible for you to do any work until you replied in kind. That's a pretty severe distraction disorder. I wish you luck with it.
> No, it's mainly just a few people pestering. You can't run investment or community projects with, pestering trying to deliberately distract people from it with pointless stuff, to shade and colour things.

If you can't direct your attention to the things you want to get done, no, you will never get anywhere. Focus is 100% your issue, no one else's.

> Well, three interruptions rather than over ten I would have normally have expected for that amount of text. But, you can see a few changes on misc would get rid of most of the concerns. It's just a shame that everything is too expensive to move onto a faster process with lower energy design, for all of us. The costs are nuts now. I really would like to see a latest serial bus user as a standard to communicate between all devices daisy chained, off a chip package with very few pads and supporting USB device protocols. Simplify costs and everything off chip, and who cares if the CPU is only low-cost 130-180nm.

Exactly! Who cares?

--

Rick C.

---+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[dxforth]

On 23/08/2023 5:12 am, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
>
> Someone described the chip as Moore's toy.

I read somewhere he put in 50% of the money - making it mostly his to blow.
What the other investors think about it, is anyone's guess. Of Moore's chip
ventures only the Novix attracted attention of a major semiconductor firm.
Moore will be remembered primarily for his first venture - Forth - and fame
(infamy?) as an iconoclast. Even within Forth circles he comes across as
divisive, dismissing worshippers and critics alike.

[S]

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:22:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:57:33 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 5:16:02 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 3:02:58 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:41:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:04:38 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 3:10:24 PM UTC+10, yeti wrote:
> > > > > > > Dave McGuire <mcg...@lssmuseum.org> writes:
>
..

> > You are paying any of us, or for patents. It's simple enough, give it a go yourself (or at least try to look up the posts I put some of it in 20 years ago).
> That's what I thought. You talk big, but actually have no idea.

Gass lighting again, and doing what you are accusing. You think you are so superior (Big) then you prove you can do it and have an idea?

..

> > The problem is, at least I figured out the logical architecture before I said anything.
> Sure, you have it all figured out. Good for you. Too bad you can't explain any of it.

Look up the previous posts, stop toying around.

> > That you don't have to try to use 700mips, and every cycle you use is more or less an minimal on actual work/communications, compared to everything both of us complain about in performance and programmability.

> Of course not. But you are talking about making the processors an order of magnitude faster, when the current speed can't be tapped. Why not try to solve the problems the chip actually has, before solving problems it doesn't have..

Another strange post. As usual, the person you are posting to doesn't really have the problem,
and the post confuses things. Your first sentence basically says by making the processor more efficient tapping all the speed, when the current speed can't be tapped, as some sort of non dependent problem as if it was a dependent problem. You see a new different design isn't an old design. The next sentence is more of it. You are basically saying the proposed solutions to solve the actual problems, as if they are not solving but trying to solve issues it doesn't have. This is like hemetic like confusing speak.

Glad you recovered somewhat from post COVID/V, you are writing well. I could have died last year

..

> > No, it's mainly just a few people pestering. You can't run investment or community projects with, pestering trying to deliberately distract people from it with pointless stuff, to shade and colour things.
> If you can't direct your attention to the things you want to get done, no, you will never get anywhere. Focus is 100% your issue, no one else'

Again, confusion speech. Here you have been trying to draw attention to yourself for a long time, away from others who are focusing, and are saying your actions are their fault. Maybe you should focus on your own business rather than focusing on getting into others' businesses? Everybody is tied of the confused speech. A lot of people with a full brain you get onto here, as if you are more. I think we are tied of it. You produce like 10x the talk. If you want to be significant, talk more exactly relevant sense, contribute some more useful contribution of design. If I saw somebody acting like that in the world place, in a design or authority position, I would very quickly determine how to transfer to a safer position or sack them. It doesn't get better when you do this. We are not going think you are great, a great designer, or a little deity. People are not even treating Chuck like that here. Somebody who has great contribution to the world, who you are disrespecting by saying the ga144 is just a grab bag of ideas thrown together with no prior experience/testing, like it's just bad etc etc etc. When you know this is meant to be a lowest denominator, lowest energy, spasmodic switching/performance device. Sure it might lot suit a lot of us because we want performance and straight forwardness. But, it perfectly fits what it was made for, and may still well have the lowest energy floor per processor of any processor doing light spasmodic processing, in the industry, over a decade latter. That this is a third generation of this type of device, after a few tested and proven generations at intelasys.

Thank you Rick Collins. How are things at Artemis, you were working on a new FPGA Misc design? Why don't you start a thread and talk about that. Sounds very interesting, well it would be to me, I take interest in a number of different things, and people.

[Lorem Ipsum]

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 12:15:40 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:22:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:57:33 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 5:16:02 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 3:02:58 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:41:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:04:38 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 3:10:24 PM UTC+10, yeti wrote:
> > > > > > > > Dave McGuire <mcg...@lssmuseum.org> writes:
> >
> ..
> > > You are paying any of us, or for patents. It's simple enough, give it a go yourself (or at least try to look up the posts I put some of it in 20 years ago).
> > That's what I thought. You talk big, but actually have no idea.
> Gass lighting again, and doing what you are accusing. You think you are so superior (Big) then you prove you can do it and have an idea?

I've never said I could fix the GA144. In fact, I'm pretty confident it is fully broken and can't be fixed.

The Transputer CPUs are the only other ones I know of, that had anything like the GA144 communication connections. They were essentially serial connections, with a similar handshake to the GA144. That also did not catch on very much.

> > > The problem is, at least I figured out the logical architecture before I said anything.
> > Sure, you have it all figured out. Good for you. Too bad you can't explain any of it.
> Look up the previous posts, stop toying around.

I've read your posts, that's why I made the statement.

> > > That you don't have to try to use 700mips, and every cycle you use is more or less an minimal on actual work/communications, compared to everything both of us complain about in performance and programmability.
> > Of course not. But you are talking about making the processors an order of magnitude faster, when the current speed can't be tapped. Why not try to solve the problems the chip actually has, before solving problems it doesn't have..
>
> Another strange post. As usual, the person you are posting to doesn't really have the problem,
> and the post confuses things. Your first sentence basically says by making the processor more efficient tapping all the speed, when the current speed can't be tapped, as some sort of non dependent problem as if it was a dependent problem. You see a new different design isn't an old design. The next sentence is more of it. You are basically saying the proposed solutions to solve the actual problems, as if they are not solving but trying to solve issues it doesn't have. This is like hemetic like confusing speak.

Ok, if you say so. What I actually said, was that you talk about speeding up the CPUs dramatically, as if that would somehow be a significant inprovement, while ignoring the fact that the current GA144 can't utilize but a small fraction of the CPU speed for most applications. Instead of responding to that, you go off into the deep woods.

> Glad you recovered somewhat from post COVID/V, you are writing well. I could have died last year

That was true for any of us. The US lost over a million people to COVID. I essentially holed up compared to what I previously did. It was a bad time for everyone.

> > > No, it's mainly just a few people pestering. You can't run investment or community projects with, pestering trying to deliberately distract people from it with pointless stuff, to shade and colour things.
> > If you can't direct your attention to the things you want to get done, no, you will never get anywhere. Focus is 100% your issue, no one else'
> Again, confusion speech. Here you have been trying to draw attention to yourself for a long time, away from others who are focusing, and are saying your actions are their fault.

This is the sort of crap I'm talking about. I make a point and you go off on some tangent about me drawing attention to myself. I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about YOU!

> Maybe you should focus on your own business rather than focusing on getting into others' businesses? Everybody is tied of the confused speech. A lot of people with a full brain you get onto here, as if you are more. I think we are tied of it. You produce like 10x the talk. If you want to be significant, talk more exactly relevant sense, contribute some more useful contribution of design. If I saw somebody acting like that in the world place, in a design or authority position, I would very quickly determine how to transfer to a safer position or sack them. It doesn't get better when you do this. We are not going think you are great, a great designer, or a little deity.

WTF are you talking about??? I'm willing to bet you write much more than I do in these posts.

> People are not even treating Chuck like that here. Somebody who has great contribution to the world, who you are disrespecting by saying the ga144 is just a grab bag of ideas thrown together with no prior experience/testing, like it's just bad etc etc etc.

So, I'm not allowed to express my opinion about the GA144 unless I think it's the greatest thing ever? The design of the chip speaks for itself. One of the last things Chuck did with the GA144 was to try to write code for a node that could pass traffic in two orthogonal directions at once. We never heard anything to indicate success. If the chip was any good, why is it even Chuck can't design with it?

> When you know this is meant to be a lowest denominator, lowest energy, spasmodic switching/performance device. Sure it might lot suit a lot of us because we want performance and straight forwardness. But, it perfectly fits what it was made for,

Which is what??? It was literally not designed for any purpose. The GA144 was a bunch of separate ideas that he threw onto one chip, with no intended market or application. There was word that someone wanted to use it for a hearing aid, but after a decade, still no word. No word on any actual application. GA has not even sold enough chips to require a second batch to be built.

That's a huge indicator!

> and may still well have the lowest energy floor per processor of any processor doing light spasmodic processing, in the industry, over a decade latter.

Which is a pointless metric by itself. If the chip is useful for no application, who cares how low power it is?

> That this is a third generation of this type of device, after a few tested and proven generations at intelasys.
>
> Thank you Rick Collins. How are things at Artemis, you were working on a new FPGA Misc design? Why don't you start a thread and talk about that. Sounds very interesting, well it would be to me, I take interest in a number of different things, and people.

I don't do MISC designs for no reason. I am currently working on a new design for a customer, including an FPGA, but no MCU. It's actually a port of an existing design to replace the obsolete FPGA and other chips. But, being property of a customer, I'm not at liberty to divulge the details.

I do use Forth on a PC to run a test fixture, but that's pretty basic. Nothing exciting there.

--

Rick C.

---++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[S]

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:11:25 PM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 12:15:40 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:22:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:57:33 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 5:16:02 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 3:02:58 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:41:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:04:38 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 3:10:24 PM UTC+10, yeti wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Dave McGuire <mcg...@lssmuseum.org> writes:
> > >
..

> > Gass lighting again, and doing what you are accusing. You think you are so superior (Big) then you prove you can do it and have an idea?
> I've never said I could fix the GA144. In fact, I'm pretty confident it is fully broken and can't be fixed.

Merry go around again. You design these things for a living, you should be able to easily suggest changes to the conceptual architecture to "fix" it, of it had been broken, as it does what it was designed to do, or "improve" it more to our liking.

..

> The Transputer CPUs are the only other ones I know of, that had anything like the GA144 communication connections. They were essentially serial connections, with a similar

I had suggested they change that to a parallel connection. I thought they had announced talked about that.

> handshake to the GA144. That also did not catch on very much.

So, you don't support butted processor to processor parallel ports, and changing the hand shaking environment? That's what I proposed.

> I've read your posts, that's why I made the statement

Sorry, accidentally deleted saying you should check my previous posts on it, where the truth is, and you acting like you missed it. Merry go around.

I'm more likely to share the more than basic details with GA, than you.

..

> > > > That you don't have to try to use 700mips, and every cycle you use is more or less an minimal on actual work/communications, compared to everything both of us complain about in performance and programmability.

..

> Ok, if you say so. What I actually said, was that you talk about speeding up the CPUs dramatically, as if that would somehow be a significant inprovement, while ignoring the fact that the current GA144 can't utilize but a small fraction of the CPU speed for most applications. Instead of responding to that, you go off into the deep woods.

Where did I say that speeding up the processor was a general solution, you lost me in those woods? It might help with external memory access and acquisition, but not much of an improvement. I did talk about redesigning the architecture as a major improvement in performance, then you can afd speed, which the redesign could handle, which is a seperate issue. Maybe you should just open source all your military designs, you like trying to get others to spill their IP, but what about giving your IP away for free, instead. Why don't you publish some genuine practical architectural improvements to the state of art? I don't know if I ever have seen you safely suggest an improvement in the last 20 years.

> > Glad you recovered somewhat from post COVID/V, you are writing well. I could have died last year
> That was true for any of us. The US lost over a million people to COVID. I essentially holed up compared to what I previously did. It was a bad time for everyone.

It's spike protein, which some V had more of them than some infections, induced a host of problems (around 27 or 37 were being investigated, the last I read) including vascular ischemia in the brain, which I already had after long term tick born disease, on top of a number of other previously bad things. So, no, I'm one of the ones that would have died, if I hadn't fought everything down. But, I can recognise the symptoms, I see them in Washington all the time. People have to hang on tight.to rationality. To slow down and think everything through, and all aspects. Most people can't do that, especially the last one, which was a vital.

..

> > Again, confusion speech. Here you have been trying to draw attention to yourself for a long time, away from others who are focusing, and are saying your actions are their fault.
> This is the sort of crap I'm talking about. I make a point and you go off on some tangent about me drawing attention to myself. I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about YOU!

You normally go on and grand stand against various people being positive, that's the ... I'm addressing. I'm more worried about other people than lurking around doing that sort of thing about what others are doing.

> > Maybe you should focus on your own business rather than focusing on getting into others' businesses? Everybody is tied of the confused speech. A lot of people with a full brain you get onto here, as if you are more. I think we are tied of it. You produce like 10x the talk. If you want to be significant, talk more exactly relevant sense, contribute some more useful contribution of design. If I saw somebody acting like that in the world place, in a design or authority position, I would very quickly determine how to transfer to a safer position or sack them. It doesn't get better when you do this. We are not going think you are great, a great designer, or a little deity.
> WTF are you talking about??? I'm willing to bet you write much more than I do in these posts.

Merry go around again. How do you off tangent avoid what's said and make a confusing statement of blame? You keep coming into other people's discussions, saying stuff, so they have to address you, producing a number of times more discussion which would never happen without you, and anybody like that, there.

> > People are not even treating Chuck like that here. Somebody who has great contribution to the world, who you are disrespecting by saying the ga144 is just a grab bag of ideas thrown together with no prior experience/testing, like it's just bad etc etc etc.
> So, I'm not allowed to express my opinion about the GA144 unless I think it's the greatest thing ever? The design of the chip speaks for itself. One of the last things Chuck did with the GA144 was to try to write code for a node that could pass traffic in two orthogonal directions at once. We never heard anything to indicate success. If the chip was any good, why is it even Chuck can't design with it?

Confusion again. We don't know what Chuck did, and you are going off on a tangential. It's never that your are against the chip, though it is about what you are negative about and how far you can go, but it's a lot to do with hanging around people and what you say. You know the chip doesn't suite my needs either, and I often have the very same issues as you, but, I see solutions.

The issue with GA, is that there is no money to do an improved chip for us, but how much would it cost to transfer a new redesign onto those old Swiss watch fabs, and do a wafer of chips. They can design a two way point to point non locking parallel communications scheme, external psram execute and data/IO pin bus on a core, and serial psram execute and data bus with address auto decode shift register on various externally cores, with internal chip package SRAM/psram and flash mount buses to issue designs of various memory sizes, and a way to drive audio graphics and USB 2/3, BT and WiFi off chip. Even without the extra consumer level IO, most of people's problems would just go "poof" and you could use it for something. No hard to use IO, with auto drop and transmit streaming to the next processor, or any processor, high speed large memory execute access, high and low speed IO (I forgot, the external cores to also have auto shifters). It's only a few light weight modifications, and the consumer interfaces are basically mostly handled by the IO systems just mentioned and software that can be done at some future stage. It also provides a core for a low pin count serial execute external memory version. That's maybe three processor design, with the main difference being the IO section. You could even do the design such that you can expand the lines to variable lengths, making 32 bits simpler. Which means that two or so of the processor can be replaced by a larger simple 32 bit design that manages the external execute bus. Plus, design for dual speed (low energy and higher speed modes). This allows for multiple different types of programming implementations.

Thinking about that, it occurs to me that all sides of a processor could be a strip of shared Memory Share Buffer MSB. You could put data and return stacks into such sections too. But, if we treat the communications as a shared memory region, we can push data onto it, the other side takes data out, evening up flow. You can use pass and wait mode, pass and buffer mode, pass to address mode. Now, if you put the memory on only two sides, the storage sides can connect to the bare sides of surround processors, which shares it. This makes some interesting chip configuration dynamics. You can have the memory exposed along two sides of the chip, and as a memory bus. You can put multiple dies butted up. You can have the last two levels on the two sides have twice as much memory. But, you can have each row, or column alternate the direction of the outside memory, producing memory access on opposite sides of the chip. Anyway, with all the memory in strips going from core to core in rows and columns, they butt up against each other, and can form row and column shared memory, where they can be loaded up from column or row external processor head with data to process. Looking at it further, it's actually a grid of universally addressable memory, with the ability to pass messages diagonally through the 4 way butted memory. We are looking at processing wrong, it's about the memory data, with pools of local processing in. Interesting workflow. You can literally feed data through the memory space with surrounding processors picking it up and servicing it. Every 32 bit core would be 4x32 bits of buss actually 12x32 bit. That's 1-3 or 6-12(corner double or two processor configurations) which would be mountains of data input.

Anyway.

> > When you know this is meant to be a lowest denominator, lowest energy, spasmodic switching/performance device. Sure it might lot suit a lot of us because we want performance and straight forwardness. But, it perfectly fits what it was made for,
> Which is what??? It was literally not designed for any purpose. The GA144 was a bunch of separate ideas that he threw onto one chip, with no intended market or application. There was word that someone wanted to use it for a hearing aid, but after a decade, still no word. No word on any actual application. GA has not even sold enough chips to require a second batch to be built.

You know how much it costs just to pay to keep the doors open and wages, without producing an unordered chip. The type of application was already answered. Is it their problem, if you want to do different applications? You also know this is based on previous generations of this sort of device, it is not a "random" collection of ideas.
..

> > and may still well have the lowest energy floor per processor of any processor doing light spasmodic processing, in the industry, over a decade latter.

..

> > That this is a third generation of this type of device, after a few tested and proven generations at intelasys.


> > Thank you Rick Collins. How are things at Artemis, you were working on a new FPGA Misc design? Why don't you start a thread and talk about that. Sounds very interesting, well it would be to me, I take interest in a number of different things, and people.
> I don't do MISC designs for no reason. I am currently working on a new design for a customer, including an FPGA, but no MCU. It's actually a port of an existing design to replace
> the obsolete FPGA and other chips. But, being property of a customer, I'm not at liberty to divulge the details.

You mean, just like GA is not going to reveal details and of their business with customers

[Lorem Ipsum]

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:54:43 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:11:25 PM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 12:15:40 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:22:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:57:33 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 5:16:02 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 3:02:58 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:41:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:04:38 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 3:10:24 PM UTC+10, yeti wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Dave McGuire <mcg...@lssmuseum.org> writes:
> > > >
> ..
> > > Gass lighting again, and doing what you are accusing. You think you are so superior (Big) then you prove you can do it and have an idea?
> > I've never said I could fix the GA144. In fact, I'm pretty confident it is fully broken and can't be fixed.
> Merry go around again. You design these things for a living, you should be able to easily suggest changes to the conceptual architecture to "fix" it, of it had been broken, as it does what it was designed to do, or "improve" it more to our liking.

Your assumption is wrong. Personally, I think the design is fatally flawed and can not be "fixed". To be useful, multiprocessor designs require much more means of communications than simple neighbor connections can provide. I don't design multiprocessor designs, because I don't need billions of operations per second. If I do need very high performance processing, it would be for a specific application, and I would design custom processing for that in the FPGA.

> ..
> > The Transputer CPUs are the only other ones I know of, that had anything like the GA144 communication connections. They were essentially serial connections, with a similar
> I had suggested they change that to a parallel connection. I thought they had announced talked about that.

Which has nothing to do with the issue of connectivity. The issue is not bandwidth, it's connections. Look up what a hypercube is. That is a structure that is useful for this. But, it still gets out of hand as the numbers of processors goes up. The real estate goes up ***HUGELY***. It's not workable. The GA144 isn't the first multiprocessor design ever attempted.

> > handshake to the GA144. That also did not catch on very much.
> So, you don't support butted processor to processor parallel ports, and changing the hand shaking environment? That's what I proposed.

Let us know when you've run simulations, or built chips or at least done some calculations to show how well it would work.

> > I've read your posts, that's why I made the statement
> Sorry, accidentally deleted saying you should check my previous posts on it, where the truth is, and you acting like you missed it. Merry go around.
>
> I'm more likely to share the more than basic details with GA, than you.

Why are you talking to me at all? You virtually never like what I say. You claim I am a huge annoyance. Why bother?

> ..
> > > > > That you don't have to try to use 700mips, and every cycle you use is more or less an minimal on actual work/communications, compared to everything both of us complain about in performance and programmability.
> ..
> > Ok, if you say so. What I actually said, was that you talk about speeding up the CPUs dramatically, as if that would somehow be a significant inprovement, while ignoring the fact that the current GA144 can't utilize but a small fraction of the CPU speed for most applications. Instead of responding to that, you go off into the deep woods.
> Where did I say that speeding up the processor was a general solution, you lost me in those woods? It might help with external memory access and acquisition, but not much of an improvement.

Sorry if I didn't understand what you were/are talking about. Speeding the processor(s) in the GA144 will add nothing to the memory interface. It may speed it up a bit, but then the demand for data will also be increased and you have gained nothing.

> I did talk about redesigning the architecture as a major improvement in performance, then you can afd speed, which the redesign could handle, which is a seperate issue. Maybe you should just open source all your military designs,

LOL!!! I don't know what "afd speed" means. You can open source anything you want.

What "military" designs are you talking about? You seem to have gone off the deep end on this. When did I say anything about military designs?

> you like trying to get others to spill their IP, but what about giving your IP away for free, instead.

Why are you being a troll?

> Why don't you publish some genuine practical architectural improvements to the state of art? I don't know if I ever have seen you safely suggest an improvement in the last 20 years.

LOL

Nice talking to you.

--

Rick C.

--+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[S]

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:09:56 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:54:43 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:11:25 PM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 12:15:40 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:22:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:57:33 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 5:16:02 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 3:02:58 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:41:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:04:38 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 3:10:24 PM UTC+10, yeti wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Dave McGuire <mcg...@lssmuseum.org> writes:
> > > > >
> > ..
> > > > Gass lighting again, and doing what you are accusing. You think you are so superior (Big) then you prove you can do it and have an idea?
> > > I've never said I could fix the GA144. In fact, I'm pretty confident it is fully broken and can't be fixed.
> > Merry go around again. You design these things for a living, you should be able to easily suggest changes to the conceptual architecture to "fix" it, of it had been broken, as it does what it was designed to do, or "improve" it more to our liking.
> Your assumption is wrong. Personally, I think the design is fatally flawed and can not be "fixed". To be useful, multiprocessor designs require much more means of communications than simple neighbor connections can provide. I don't design multiprocessor designs, because I don't need billions of operations per second. If I do need very high performance processing, it would be for a specific application, and I would design custom processing for that in the FPGA.

Good on you, but I've explained many times not doing what you are accusing me of, and have direct node addressing and simple multiple busses that answer your concerns. I'm hardly going to make things the same to change them. But, I'm a lowly fool, what would I know.

> > ..
> > > The Transputer CPUs are the only other ones I know of, that had anything like the GA144 communication connections. They were essentially serial connections, with a similar
> > I had suggested they change that to a parallel connection. I thought they had announced talked about that.
> Which has nothing to do with the issue of connectivity. The issue is not bandwidth, it's connections. Look up what a hypercube is. That is a structure that is useful for this. But, it still gets out of hand as the numbers of processors goes up. The real estate goes up ***HUGELY***. It's not workable. The GA144 isn't the first multiprocessor design ever attempted

I did not realise, you don't design these systems. Well, it's simple, you program down to the capabilities of the hardware. For my graphics processing unit, I couldn't resolve the design to be as useful as I wanted due to bandwidth constraints. Higher bandwidth would definitely solve everything, especially to external memory, with direct execute. Simple example. I could outline an elaborate structure to use the resources passing the data along and inserting data as it goes, but I was practically better off if I did most of it with just one processing node from external memory with execute The problem is, that raises production costs. But, the modifications go beyond that into treating groups of processors as sections that pass and receive data wherever it is needed. Careful embedded programming means you avoid choking the data path. As is, the chip suites low energy data passing and modification applications, as long as you don't try to get too ambitious and do something else, you should be fine. But, except for my graphics processor, sound, maybe something to do with storage and laser vector projection, that's not really me. I want what most of you do, flexible access and use, but that's not what this chip was aiming for, very low-end stream processing alternative to fpga's, at lower energy and cost. The feature set modifications to make it more useful generally, are very simple.I have often said, to have at least one processor as normal, able to use the array for extra processing and IO. My non blocking IO structure would make using the array for random access or neighbour, a cinch. Lots of objections solved. If you want to go up a few levels to a hypercube, go and buy one. I know that emulation of hypercube at low energy and reasonable speed (bandwidth plus the messaging improvements), is probably better. It ultimately is cheaper with lower energy and cost per unit of performance. Most applications do not require a full hypercube design, so there is a market underneath hypercube systems, as we regularly use. My previous old way of dividing up the work space, for my own design, is very different than normal. But, you can't get much improvement if you don't change things. The stuff I'm proposing for the GA, is just simple feature improvements using low hanging fruit.

> > > handshake to the GA144. That also did not catch on very much.
> > So, you don't support butted processor to processor parallel ports, and changing the hand shaking environment? That's what I proposed.
> Let us know when you've run simulations, or built chips or at least done some calculations to show how well it would work.

What, you mean those things any truely intelligent person can do in their heads? Pity Cray and Tesla aren't still around.

> > > I've read your posts, that's why I made the statement
> > Sorry, accidentally deleted saying you should check my previous posts on it, where the truth is, and you acting like you missed it. Merry go around.
> >
> > I'm more likely to share the more than basic details with GA, than you.
> Why are you talking to me at all? You virtually never like what I say. You claim I am a huge annoyance. Why bother?

Why are you talking to me at all? You virtually never like what I say. You claim I am a huge annoyance. Why bother?

Why follow me around in my threads?

> > ..
> > > > > > That you don't have to try to use 700mips, and every cycle you use is more or less an minimal on actual work/communications, compared to everything both of us complain about in performance and programmability.
> > ..
> > > Ok, if you say so. What I actually said, was that you talk about speeding up the CPUs dramatically, as if that would somehow be a significant inprovement, while ignoring the fact that the current GA144 can't utilize but a small fraction of the CPU speed for most applications. Instead of responding to that, you go off into the deep woods.
> > Where did I say that speeding up the processor was a general solution, you lost me in those woods? It might help with external memory access and acquisition, but not much of an improvement.
> Sorry if I didn't understand what you were/are talking about. Speeding the processor(s) in the GA144 will add nothing to the memory interface. It may speed it up a bit, but then the demand for data will also be increased and you have gained nothing.

Thanks for the apology Rick. It's a bit like Rick Chanchez? ...with me sometimes.

The idea is to run more data and instructions from the external interface. Fur my sequential data application, like a massive pipeline, speed helps. But, it's those general purpose processing modifications I need most. If only they had 512 words of sram per data node too, or 256MWord each, I could do Nintendo GBA/SNES like tricks with some 3D too.

> > I did talk about redesigning the architecture as a major improvement in performance, then you can afd speed, which the redesign could handle, which is a seperate issue. Maybe you should just open source all your military designs,
> LOL!!! I don't know what "afd speed" means. You can open source anything you want.

You known what I meant. Open source, I was previously only aiming to open source certain things

>
> What "military" designs are you talking about? You seem to have gone off the deep end on this. When did I say anything about military designs?

You told us you get military contracts. Why waste time?

> > you like trying to get others to spill their IP, but what about giving your IP away for free, instead.
> Why are you being a troll?

Because I'm not, but you are often doing so. A troll acts stupid and makes mistakes, in order to bait a response. But does not realise, unless he does it anonymously, he just ruins his own reputation. You think I think highly of people trolling Huge, for instance? Nope, they are fooling themselves. "What unethical conduct" and "Why ever hire somebody like that?", ethical employers might think.

...

> > > > That this is a third generation of this type of device, after a few tested and proven generations at intelasys.
> >
> >
> > > > Thank you Rick Collins. How are things at Artemis, you were working on a new FPGA Misc design? Why don't you start a thread and talk about that. Sounds very interesting, well it would be to me, I take interest in a number of different things, and people.
> > > I don't do MISC designs for no reason. I am currently working on a new design for a customer, including an FPGA, but no MCU. It's actually a port of an existing design to replace
> > > the obsolete FPGA and other chips. But, being property of a customer, I'm not at liberty to divulge the details.
> > You mean, just like GA is not going to reveal details and of their business with customers
> Nice talking to you.

Thank you very much for that.

[Lorem Ipsum]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 10:42:08 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:09:56 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:54:43 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:11:25 PM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 12:15:40 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:22:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:57:33 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 5:16:02 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 3:02:58 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:41:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:04:38 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 3:10:24 PM UTC+10, yeti wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dave McGuire <mcg...@lssmuseum.org> writes:
> > > > > >
> > > ..
> > > > > Gass lighting again, and doing what you are accusing. You think you are so superior (Big) then you prove you can do it and have an idea?
> > > > I've never said I could fix the GA144. In fact, I'm pretty confident it is fully broken and can't be fixed.
> > > Merry go around again. You design these things for a living, you should be able to easily suggest changes to the conceptual architecture to "fix" it, of it had been broken, as it does what it was designed to do, or "improve" it more to our liking.
> > Your assumption is wrong. Personally, I think the design is fatally flawed and can not be "fixed". To be useful, multiprocessor designs require much more means of communications than simple neighbor connections can provide. I don't design multiprocessor designs, because I don't need billions of operations per second. If I do need very high performance processing, it would be for a specific application, and I would design custom processing for that in the FPGA.
> Good on you, but I've explained many times not doing what you are accusing me of, and have direct node addressing and simple multiple busses that answer your concerns. I'm hardly going to make things the same to change them. But, I'm a lowly fool, what would I know.

What have I accused" you of exactly?

This is one of the reasons it's difficult to discuss anything with you. You talk in very abstract terms, so that I can't tell what you are reffering to.

The "assumption" I say is wrong, is the idea that every problem can be "fixed". There are fundamental limitations to any issue.

> > > ..
> > > > The Transputer CPUs are the only other ones I know of, that had anything like the GA144 communication connections. They were essentially serial connections, with a similar
> > > I had suggested they change that to a parallel connection. I thought they had announced talked about that.
> > Which has nothing to do with the issue of connectivity. The issue is not bandwidth, it's connections. Look up what a hypercube is. That is a structure that is useful for this. But, it still gets out of hand as the numbers of processors goes up. The real estate goes up ***HUGELY***. It's not workable. The GA144 isn't the first multiprocessor design ever attempted
> I did not realise, you don't design these systems.

I don't design what systems???

> Well, it's simple, you program down to the capabilities of the hardware. For my graphics processing unit, I couldn't resolve the design to be as useful as I wanted due to bandwidth constraints. Higher bandwidth would definitely solve everything, especially to external memory, with direct execute. Simple example. I could outline an elaborate structure to use the resources passing the data along and inserting data as it goes, but I was practically better off if I did most of it with just one processing node from external memory with execute The problem is, that raises production costs. But, the modifications go beyond that into treating groups of processors as sections that pass and receive data wherever it is needed. Careful embedded programming means you avoid choking the data path. As is, the chip suites low energy data passing and modification applications, as long as you don't try to get too ambitious and do something else, you should be fine. But, except for my graphics processor, sound, maybe something to do with storage and laser vector projection, that's not really me. I want what most of you do, flexible access and use, but that's not what this chip was aiming for, very low-end stream processing alternative to fpga's, at lower energy and cost. The feature set modifications to make it more useful generally, are very simple.I have often said, to have at least one processor as normal, able to use the array for extra processing and IO. My non blocking IO structure would make using the array for random access or neighbour, a cinch. Lots of objections solved. If you want to go up a few levels to a hypercube, go and buy one. I know that emulation of hypercube at low energy and reasonable speed (bandwidth plus the messaging improvements), is probably better. It ultimately is cheaper with lower energy and cost per unit of performance. Most applications do not require a full hypercube design, so there is a market underneath hypercube systems, as we regularly use. My previous old way of dividing up the work space, for my own design, is very different than normal. But, you can't get much improvement if you don't change things. The stuff I'm proposing for the GA, is just simple feature improvements using low hanging fruit.

Once you have a design description of this, let me know. I would be interested in funding an approach. But, it would require a clear, solid design approach.

> > > > handshake to the GA144. That also did not catch on very much.
> > > So, you don't support butted processor to processor parallel ports, and changing the hand shaking environment? That's what I proposed.
> > Let us know when you've run simulations, or built chips or at least done some calculations to show how well it would work.
> What, you mean those things any truely intelligent person can do in their heads? Pity Cray and Tesla aren't still around.

Yeah, it's funny, but the people who would use your designs would not understand anything you provide to explain the device.

> > > > I've read your posts, that's why I made the statement
> > > Sorry, accidentally deleted saying you should check my previous posts on it, where the truth is, and you acting like you missed it. Merry go around.
> > >
> > > I'm more likely to share the more than basic details with GA, than you.
> > Why are you talking to me at all? You virtually never like what I say. You claim I am a huge annoyance. Why bother?
>
> Why are you talking to me at all? You virtually never like what I say. You claim I am a huge annoyance. Why bother?
> Why follow me around in my threads?

I thought we have conversations, but you seem to think of my comments as rude or attacks. Why do you respond to me at all? Do you have a mental condition that you can't ignore my comments?

Besides, this is not YOUR thread. This was started by someone else. So, if you don't like my replies, too bad.

> > > > > > > That you don't have to try to use 700mips, and every cycle you use is more or less an minimal on actual work/communications, compared to everything both of us complain about in performance and programmability.
> > > ..
> > > > Ok, if you say so. What I actually said, was that you talk about speeding up the CPUs dramatically, as if that would somehow be a significant inprovement, while ignoring the fact that the current GA144 can't utilize but a small fraction of the CPU speed for most applications. Instead of responding to that, you go off into the deep woods.
> > > Where did I say that speeding up the processor was a general solution, you lost me in those woods? It might help with external memory access and acquisition, but not much of an improvement.
> > Sorry if I didn't understand what you were/are talking about. Speeding the processor(s) in the GA144 will add nothing to the memory interface. It may speed it up a bit, but then the demand for data will also be increased and you have gained nothing.
> Thanks for the apology Rick. It's a bit like Rick Chanchez? ...with me sometimes.
>
> The idea is to run more data and instructions from the external interface. Fur my sequential data application, like a massive pipeline, speed helps. But, it's those general purpose processing modifications I need most. If only they had 512 words of sram per data node too, or 256MWord each, I could do Nintendo GBA/SNES like tricks with some 3D too.

The external interface will always be limited by the external interface. That's a major limitation in every high speed computing device, the memory interface, or the I/O interface. Internal processing can be increased by increasing the number of processors. But, the ultimate limitation is either internal comms or external comms, because they can not keep up with the number of processors.

> > > I did talk about redesigning the architecture as a major improvement in performance, then you can afd speed, which the redesign could handle, which is a seperate issue. Maybe you should just open source all your military designs,
> > LOL!!! I don't know what "afd speed" means. You can open source anything you want.
> You known what I meant.

No, I don't know what "afd speed" means.

> Open source, I was previously only aiming to open source certain things
> >
> > What "military" designs are you talking about? You seem to have gone off the deep end on this. When did I say anything about military designs?
> You told us you get military contracts. Why waste time?

I've never said I get military contracts. Please find a single post where I did say that.

> > > you like trying to get others to spill their IP, but what about giving your IP away for free, instead.
> > Why are you being a troll?
> Because I'm not, but you are often doing so. A troll acts stupid and makes mistakes, in order to bait a response.

No, a troll simply makes posts to get an inflammatory response. I'm trying to get straight answers out of you. That is very hard to do.

> But does not realise, unless he does it anonymously, he just ruins his own reputation. You think I think highly of people trolling Huge, for instance? Nope, they are fooling themselves. "What unethical conduct" and "Why ever hire somebody like that?", ethical employers might think.
>
> ...
> > > > > That this is a third generation of this type of device, after a few tested and proven generations at intelasys.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Thank you Rick Collins. How are things at Artemis, you were working on a new FPGA Misc design? Why don't you start a thread and talk about that. Sounds very interesting, well it would be to me, I take interest in a number of different things, and people.
> > > > I don't do MISC designs for no reason. I am currently working on a new design for a customer, including an FPGA, but no MCU. It's actually a port of an existing design to replace
> > > > the obsolete FPGA and other chips. But, being property of a customer, I'm not at liberty to divulge the details.
> > > You mean, just like GA is not going to reveal details and of their business with customers
> > Nice talking to you.
> Thank you very much for that.

It's a shame I can't get logical comments from you as easily as you make inflammatory comments.

--

Rick C.

--+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[L W]

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 5:24:26 AM UTC-4, none albert wrote:
> In article <2737c21a-be14-4af7...@googlegroups.com>,
> Lorem Ipsum <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >The real issue, is the development software. It was not a product of a
> >single mind or even influence. It was a bit of a hodgepodge of various
> >software to handle various functions that may or may not be needed.
> Parallel processing: You couldn't configure a hypercube,not even a cube.
> We (Dutch Forth) did a demo program. Not only required this a patch from
> the seller the system software, in the next release the
> program no longer worked.
> Intriguing as the chip is, you're well advised to not waste any time
> with it.

>
> > Rick C.
>
> Groetjes Albert
> --
> Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
> You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
> hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
> the air. First gain is a cat spinning. - the Wise from Antrim -

--------------------
.well i'm stopping right here as further reading makes no sense ... my appology albert

.be honest here, not banging, but realization ... how many chips that chuck has developed 'on his own' have been successful? even one?
.why 144 processors made up of the very functional g18 instead of bringing that part forward?
.explain the actual benefit here ... ????? 144 processors that are not exactly standalone in nature ... yeah. in a serious power aware application how many processors would get used?
. and why does the g144 need such heat sink? perhaps due to the fact the part is in fact basically analog in nature. no clock means that switches cascade and as that chain of switches engage everything along that path draws current. hmmmm. perhaps some clever clocking could lend repair. hybrid, you know, like here and not in there.

back on subject
.there was a g18 board and somewhere in all the hype the LED turned into a DED when thoughts of marketing happened.
.the g18 board was perfect to get your feet wet with the technology even tho it suffered the thru-put bandwidth issue its big sister continues to foist.
.the g18 had an excellent chance to compete with the m0 or strong-arm chip before every company started to load asics with it. every SOC is an asic. even zilog has a m0 part.
.i smell a huge lack of targeted application marketing here.
.the power usage comparisons to the msp430 16 bit processor line was kinda jokey as i have yet to see power usage while running an equivalent application comparison. ever?
.the original issue was that the required 1.8v voltage provision meant that the power circuit cost more in both price and board space than the processor, not viable against competition .. i requested they use the boot processor to switch over and become the 1.8v voltage controller making the parts price point land significantly below all the competition .. DED.

.the g144 will exit as a dead-end project as it cannot be generally applied to the mass market projects that are driving innovative products and the associated profits ... or it would be.
.guys, it's a really great shovel, look at that blade, sharp, quality steel, double folded kickplate .. but, um .. handle, where's the handle? and .. how do we attach it?
--------------------

.my match tossed onto the puddled gasoline
-C.Passauer, LogicWeavers

[Lorem Ipsum]

Ahhh... Same stuff, different day. What is a "power aware application"??? I've never seen this term used anywhere before. Even in power supply design.

The point of the GA144 was to provide processors cheaply, so they can be used like the logic modules of an FPGA. The main problem is the chip does not have anything remotely like the interconnectivity of fPGAs.

The GA144 was an assemblage of many different ideas, without giving much thought as to how they might be used together. So, we have very fast processing nodes with very tiny memories, interconnected by very fast comms, but only to the nearest neighbors. They provided a great way to stop a CPU, without giving though to actually communicating with other CPUs that are not next door.

Chuck used to publish a web page where he would report the results of his trial efforts with programming the device. One of the last reports was about solving this communications limitation by means of a comms node, connecting north to south and east to west bidirectionally. I don't recall ever seeing a successful result. This was at a point where Chuck was no longer interested in commercial success and he was not visibly working with Green Arrays.

Every few years, we hear word of some new design or a new contract, then nothing. It would appear they've never even produced a second batch of chips. The original batch was a size which was likely the prototype run.

> . and why does the g144 need such heat sink? perhaps due to the fact the part is in fact basically analog in nature. no clock means that switches cascade and as that chain of switches engage everything along that path draws current. hmmmm. perhaps some clever clocking could lend repair. hybrid, you know, like here and not in there.

No, that's not a problem. It needs a heat sink because when all the nodes are running at full speed, it uses some handful of watts, which will overheat a chip of that size. I don't believe it needs a fan as such, but the heat sink is needed to provide better contact with the air.

> back on subject
> .there was a g18 board and somewhere in all the hype the LED turned into a DED when thoughts of marketing happened.
> .the g18 board was perfect to get your feet wet with the technology even tho it suffered the thru-put bandwidth issue its big sister continues to foist.
> .the g18 had an excellent chance to compete with the m0 or strong-arm chip before every company started to load asics with it. every SOC is an asic. even zilog has a m0 part.
> .i smell a huge lack of targeted application marketing here.

LOL!!! Green Array does no marketing. They do very little in the way of application work as well. The real problem is, they can't tell anyone how to design with the chip. There are no rules. It's just chaos, really.

> .the power usage comparisons to the msp430 16 bit processor line was kinda jokey as i have yet to see power usage while running an equivalent application comparison. ever?

Not sure what you are saying. When you compare one processor to an MSP430, it's much smaller for the amount of instructions processed. The max power, of course, is much higher because of the peak 700 MIPS throughput. The chip power consumption is much higher yet. I don't know what you are comparing.

> .the original issue was that the required 1.8v voltage provision meant that the power circuit cost more in both price and board space than the processor, not viable against competition .. i requested they use the boot processor to switch over and become the 1.8v voltage controller making the parts price point land significantly below all the competition .. DED.

A 1.8V power regulator is very, very inexpensive. If you insist it is a switching regulator, you don't gain so much. The switcher will likely be 90% efficient and the linear regulator 55% efficient. At these power levels and the much higher efficiency of the GA144, there's no point in worrying with a switcher.

> .the g144 will exit as a dead-end project as it cannot be generally applied to the mass market projects that are driving innovative products and the associated profits ... or it would be.

That's absolutely true, because the GA144 was never designed for any particular product category. It was a test bed for some of Chucks more recent ideas... his more final ideas, since not much has been announced by him since the GA144.

> .guys, it's a really great shovel, look at that blade, sharp, quality steel, double folded kickplate .. but, um .. handle, where's the handle? and .. how do we attach it?

Yes, if you had done much research here, you would have figured that out very quickly.

--

Rick C.

--++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[S]

> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023, 11:18 Lorem Ipsum, <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 10:42:08 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:09:56 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:54:43 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:11:25 PM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 12:15:40 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:22:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:57:33 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 5:16:02 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 3:02:58 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:41:50 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:04:38 PM UTC-4, S wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 3:10:24 PM UTC+10, yeti wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave McGuire <mcg...@lssmuseum.org> writes:
..

> > > > Your assumption is wrong. Personally, I think the design is fatally flawed and can not be "fixed". To be useful, multiprocessor designs require much more means of communications than simple neighbor connections can provide. I don't design multiprocessor designs, because I don't need billions of operations per second. If I do need very high performance processing, it would be for a specific application, and I would design custom processing for that in the FPGA.
> > Good on you, but I've explained many times not doing what you are accusing me of, and have direct node addressing and simple multiple busses that answer your concerns. I'm hardly going to make things the same to change them. But, I'm a lowly fool, what would I know.

> What have I accused" you of exactly?

?? You just did it again. Accuse me of accusing you of accusing me about something you say you aren't accusing me of again, but are (accusing). So confusing!

Of course it's accusing me of wanting to increase speed and not enhance the architecture past complex simple neighbour to neighbour come protocol.

> This is one of the reasons it's difficult to discuss anything with you. You talk in very abstract terms, so that I can't tell what you are reffering to.

It's called intelligence. I see what is happening, you can't keep up with the level of abstraction intelligence. That's the level of intelligence you need to really understand design improvements, well design. It's pointless trying to point out things to people without that. Without that you can't really understand what is more right. It's true like tyr bird who flies over the moon in its imagination, be sure it sees it's far and flies far and comes down again. All the other birds with it, think it's great he flew over the moon. Mean while the bird in the tree from another direction says he didn't fly over the moon, he just went upon the air. The birds sharing the delusion can not understand this, and say the wise bird in the tree is wrong. And the bird in the tree says, then how can they understand his design for a plane.

> The "assumption" I say is wrong, is the idea that every problem can be "fixed". There are fundamental limitations to any issue.

Which is wrong here.

> > >> > ..
> > > > > The Transputer CPUs are the only other ones I know of, that had anything like the GA144 communication connections. They were essentially serial connections, with a similar
> > >> > I had suggested they change that to a parallel connection. I thought they had announced talked about that.
> >> > Which has nothing to do with the issue of connectivity. The issue is not bandwidth, it's connections. Look up what a hypercube is. That is a structure that is useful for this. But, it still gets out of hand as the numbers of processors goes up. The real estate goes up ***HUGELY***. It's not workable. The GA144 isn't the first multiprocessor design ever attempted
> >> I did not realise, you don't design these systems.

> I don't design what systems??

What you were saying you don't design before.

"I don't design multiprocessor designs, because"

> Well, it's simple, you program down to the capabilities of the hardware. For my graphics processing unit, I couldn't resolve the design to be as useful as I wanted due to bandwidth constraints. Higher bandwidth would definitely solve everything, especially to external memory, with direct execute. Simple example. I could outline an elaborate structure to use the resources passing the data along and inserting data as it goes, but I was practically better off if I did most of it with just one processing node from external memory with execute The problem is, that raises production costs. But, the modifications go beyond that into treating groups of processors as sections that pass and receive data wherever it is needed. Careful embedded programming means you avoid choking the data path. As is, the chip suites low energy data passing and modification applications, as long as you don't try to get too ambitious and do something else, you should be fine. But, except for my graphics processor, sound, maybe something to do with storage and laser vector projection, that's not really me. I want what most of you do, flexible access and use, but that's not what this chip was aiming for, very low-end stream processing alternative to fpga's, at lower energy and cost. The feature set modifications to make it more useful generally, are very simple.I have often said, to have at least one processor as normal, able to use the array for extra processing and IO. My non blocking IO structure would make using the array for random access or neighbour, a cinch. Lots of objections solved. If you want to go up a few levels to a hypercube, go and buy one. I know that emulation of hypercube at low energy and reasonable speed (bandwidth plus the messaging improvements), is probably better. It ultimately is cheaper with lower energy and cost per unit of performance. Most applications do not require a full hypercube design, so there is a market underneath hypercube systems, as we regularly use. My previous old way of dividing up the work space, for my own design, is very different than normal. But, you can't get much improvement if you don't change things. The stuff I'm proposing for the GA, is just simple feature improvements using low hanging fruit.

> Once you have a design description of this, let me know. I would be interested in funding an approach. But, it would require a clear, solid design approach.

Well thank you. If we had been more collaborative on approaches, I'm sure we could have done something. I'm looking at moving most of it all onto my home made chip alternative technology, then maybe out to Arduino and Pi like products and manufacturing. I have to see how well I can get that to work with partners. How many MHz, or if it's going be a (X)tz slow.

> > > > handshake to the GA144. That also did not catch on very much.
> > > > So, you don't support butted processor to processor parallel ports, and changing the hand shaking environment? That's what I proposed.
> > > Let us know when you've run simulations, or built chips or at least done some calculations to show how well it would work.
> > What, you mean those things any truely intelligent person can do in their heads? Pity Cray and Tesla aren't still around.

> Yeah, it's funny, but the people who would use your designs would not understand anything you provide to explain the device.

"Truely intelligent".

IP rules. What's provided is a valid increase in data rate exchange from reduced clock cycles, with no space wastage. In matter of fact my direct to neighbouring memory write buffering speeds things a biten more. You must realise, the answer to massive device performance killing interconnects is high speed data passage to destination, as this is lower performance, low energy alternative. I'm not expecting hypercube performance very easily. But the general and row volume and group buses allow high data passage alternatives to mass interconnects. You have to just program to the hardware model, so that you keep as much as possible to neighbours, then in row and column common bus, and between groups, if the application allows. As this then frees up the global row, column and group busses as much as possible to avoid conflicts. You will get additional communications delays than going directly on the global bus, but you view it as pipe lining, and your aim is lowest energy per unit of computation at a modest processing load, so it is ok. I could design a global to global distributed parallel system using different technologies. Which might be worth doing on a quantum level using the architecture I was planning for the descent system.

..

> > Why follow me around in my threads?

> I thought we have conversations, but you seem to think of my comments as rude or attacks. Why do you respond to me at all? Do you have a mental condition that you can't ignore my comments?

I think you find other people commenting on your posts too.

My threads or comments, that you just have to write to, in funny ways, that need clarification. Why do you keep coming and saying stuff, where your stuff is not wanted? So, who has the mental issues? I certainly don't have time to follow people around like a lost puppy, so it would be helpful if they didn't as well.

> Besides, this is not YOUR thread. This was started by someone else. So, if you don't like my replies, too bad.

As if that excuses you from water bombing most of my threads. Diverting attention then. When I reply to other people you don't have to follow me around. How would you like it if somebody just followed you around, sticking their head over your shoulder commenting to people?

> > > > > > > > > That you don't have to try to use 700mips, and every cycle you use is more or less an minimal on actual work/communications, compared to everything both of us complain about in performance and programmability.

..
> >

> > The idea is to run more data and instructions from the external interface. Fur my sequential data application, like a massive pipeline, speed helps. But, it's those general purpose processing modifications I need most. If only they had 512 words of sram per data node too, or 256MWord each, I could do Nintendo GBA/SNES like tricks with some 3D too.

> The external interface will always be limited by the external interface. That's a major limitation in every high speed computing device, the memory interface, or the I/O interface. Internal processing can be increased by increasing the number of processors. But, the ultimate limitation is either internal comms or external comms, because they can not keep up with the number of processors.

What we are talking about here, is to reduce communications cycles freeing up cycles for processing work load, and increasing the rate of transmission, to allow processing load to be maximized. This increases external memory access and internal communications data access, to increase performance availability, while simplifying programming for similar to 5% more transistor counts plus whatever extra memory. As I've said before, we are better to put each processor in a sea of memory for heat dissipation, if we want to run them at high speed on normal silicon architecture.

> > > > I did talk about redesigning the architecture as a major improvement in performance, then you can afd speed, which the redesign could handle, which is a seperate issue. Maybe you should just open source all your military designs,
> > > LOL!!! I don't know what "afd speed" means. You can open source anything you want.
> > You known what I meant.

> No, I don't know what "afd speed" means.

And speed. See intelligence. "LOL..". It's good to avoid laughing at your own jokes? :)

> > Open source, I was previously only aiming to open source certain things
> > >
> > > What "military" designs are you talking about? You seem to have gone off the deep end on this. When did I say anything about military designs?
> > You told us you get military contracts. Why waste time?

> I've never said I get military contracts. Please find a single post where I did say that.

Well, how does the military order products from you? No contract of sales, or terms of supply?

> > > > you like trying to get others to spill their IP, but what about giving your IP away for free, instead.
> > > Why are you being a troll?
> > Because I'm not, but you are often doing so. A troll acts stupid and makes mistakes, in order to bait a response.

> No, a troll simply makes posts to get an inflammatory response. I'm trying to get straight answers out of you. That is very hard to do.

No, you get answers more than you deserve, and you just keep going. It's not up to us to teach you respect for intelligence. We got better things to do. If you are really lacking in the abstract intelligence you make out, then either: Figure it out yourself (as you have wasted enough), or don't say anything and take it as is beyond your imagination.

> > > > > > Thank you Rick Collins. How are things at Artemis, you were working on a new FPGA Misc design? Why don't you start a thread and talk about that. Sounds very interesting, well it would be to me, I take interest in a number of different things, and people.

> > > > > I don't do MISC designs for no reason. I am ..

> > > Nice talking to you.
> > Thank you very much for that.

> It's a shame I can't get logical comments from you as easily as you make inflammatory comments.

So, I speak higher logic to you. You act like you don't understand higher logic. Haphazardly challenging and knocking it in an offensive way, looking for an response, so you can then act like isn't warranted, and continue. We will see.