Emulating Amiga on a DOS machine.HELP!!!!!!!!
Rob Henry
I have a program, I believe it is from germany that is an amiga emulator.
It says that the program boots workbench 1.2
When I run it, I get a screen with a disk in a hand that says
workbench 1.2 and then the floppy spins, is it looking for a system disk?
It is running on a 486 dx2-66 so it should be fast.
If you know of any other good emulator programs for a dos or macintosh,
please tell me where to get it at.
Thanks
Rob
Daniel Russo
: I have a program, I believe it is from germany that is an amiga emulator.
That thing is a big, big joke. There's NO WAY to emulatr Amiga on DOS or
MAC.
Jason Compton
Jason Compton FAX: 708-741-0689 jcom...@cup.portal.com and @bbs.xnet.com
Editor-In-Chief Amiga Report Magazine and Coverdisk
Contributing Writer Amiga Game Zone Magazine
The time to rise has been engaged. Rael Imperial Aerosol Kid.
Kelsey Robin L
: I have a program, I believe it is from germany that is an amiga emulator.
There is no Amiga emulator. You've been had.
Alex Maddison
: I have a program, I believe it is from germany that is an amiga emulator.
For the definitive answer on this topic, try comp.emulators.misc. As far
as I know, a software-only Amiga emulator does not exist (although
bridgeboard models have been rumoured for months). Since Amiga disks
cannot be read in either Macintosh or PC drives, the emulator you
describe above seems to be the hoax version I have heard about.
Alex.
--
Alex Maddison Address: PO Box 6399
(amad...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU) North Sydney Shoppingworld
(madd...@freenet2.scri.fsu.edu) NSW. 2060
--
"You've got to stop reading that science fiction stuff. It's all weird and
people won't like to talk to you."
- Doctor Tina Martinez-O'Farrell (Quantum Leap - The Novel)
Rune Skaarsmoen
: I have a program, I believe it is from germany that is an amiga emulator.
: It says that the program boots workbench 1.2
: When I run it, I get a screen with a disk in a hand that says
: workbench 1.2 and then the floppy spins, is it looking for a system disk?
[ ... ]
: Thanks
: Rob
I heard about this program some 4-5 years ago, and at the time I knew
practically nothing of computers, and I haven't seen it since then.
Later I have heard rumours that it's just a GIF picture with a displayer
and a 'doc'-file. Now that you have it, maybe you could list out the
filenames and sizes, and maybe some words about contents, here in the
news ? Then we who call ourselves experts, can discuss it .
Bye,
Rune.
--
============================
EMail skrs...@nvg.unit.no
============================
Bowie J. Poag
Thre Amiga emulator for the PC was an elaborate hoax.
First and foremost, the "emulator" did infact contain a dumped 256K
AmigaDOS 1.2 romfile. However, as most of us know, AmigaDOS is so
heavilly and directly tied to the hardware, that simple 0x0->x86
instruction emulation wouldnt do much good. PC's pump all their
instructions through one CPU, while Amiga's distribute them among several
highly specialized chips which are completely and entirely un-emulatable
at the software level.
The PC Amiga emulator is essentially nothing more than a program that
shows a GIF file of the Kickstart hand, and tells the drive motor to spin.
PC's cant read Amiga disks ontop of it.. And even IF you were to copy the
contents of an Amiga bootdisk over to DOS, its kind of hard to fit a
filename like "devs:system-configuration" into a filesystem like DOS
which only allows 8 charecter+3 filenames. :)
Stefan Schultze
> I have a program, I believe it is from germany that is an amiga emulator.
> It says that the program boots workbench 1.2
[...]
I know of this program for over a year. It's just a fake. Don't mind.
A friend of mine tried this on his 486 computer, too. It's just not
possible to emulate the special chips like Agnus, Paula, etc.
So long,
Stefan
--
****************************************************************
***** Stefan Schultze, D-81543 Muenchen - FRG, po...@cube.net *****
****************************************************************
Matt Pierce
: Thre Amiga emulator for the PC was an elaborate hoax.
: First and foremost, the "emulator" did infact contain a dumped 256K
: AmigaDOS 1.2 romfile. However, as most of us know, AmigaDOS is so
: heavilly and directly tied to the hardware, that simple 0x0->x86
: instruction emulation wouldnt do much good. PC's pump all their
: instructions through one CPU, while Amiga's distribute them among several
: highly specialized chips which are completely and entirely un-emulatable
: at the software level.
Well, given enough time and patience you can emulate an Amiga on a PC. You
would have to overcome the disk-read problem, but any of the chips on the
Amiga can be functionally emulated in software (they just won't be fast
at all). And no, you won't see me do it, it's just theoretically possible.
Darren MacKenzie
I think that this program is a joke, actually. I have it, and tried it with
a blank formatted disk with a standard bootblock, and it crashes. I think
it's a joke.
For one thing, even if it DID run a very basic program, it wouldn't run it
very efficiently, even on your 33MHz machine. There is no hardware, just
software emulation. I have a C64 emulator for my Amy, too...but it's NOT
like a REAL C-64...
-Doc
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= Darren MacKenzie = Bell-Northern Research =
= dar...@bnr.ca = DMS Global Loadbuild Specialist =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= 18 Deerfield Dr. Apt. 110 Nepean, Ont. K2G-4L1 =
= (613)-226-8747 HOME (613)-765-3041 & 763-8135 WORK =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Michel J. Brown
ah...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rob Henry) writes:
>
>
> I have a program, I believe it is from germany that is an amiga emulator.
> It says that the program boots workbench 1.2
> When I run it, I get a screen with a disk in a hand that says
> workbench 1.2 and then the floppy spins, is it looking for a system disk?
> It is running on a 486 dx2-66 so it should be fast.
> If you know of any other good emulator programs for a dos or macintosh,
> please tell me where to get it at.
> Thanks
> Rob
>
*WHEN* is this rumor thing going to DIE??? The program is simply an
animation similar to the old style workbench kickstart prompt.
Virtually yours,
Michel
BTW, did you know that the US Government has classified the Amiga as being
a super computer? Also, my Wichester Defender 12 guage is now considered
to be an assault rifle :-/
Generic Sig -- enter your sig below
101010 -- The answer to life, the Universe, and *EVERYTHING*!
Maxwell Daymon
: Well, given enough time and patience you can emulate an Amiga on a PC. You
: Amiga can be functionally emulated in software (they just won't be fast
: at all). And no, you won't see me do it, it's just theoretically possible.
A SIMULATOR is possible, but that would be running so slow it'd only be
good for analysis, not actually running software.
When you have systems that can read and write each other (Copper/680x0)
you've got an emulation problem. Most systems don't have processors that
can read/write each other like the Amiga has.
It's fairly pointless and not worth the effort to get something working.
------------------
Maxwell Daymon One man's "magic" is another man's engineering.
mda...@rmii.com "Supernatural" is a null word.
------------------ - Robert Heinlein (AUISG Page 9)
D P Marshall
the one you mention was nothing more than a hoax.
Hope this helps
Dave
--
IF WE DIDN'T HAVE MERCHANT BANKERS...
Without the profession known as merchant bankers, the world would be in
complete and permanent financial ruin. But perhaps more unfortunate is the
fact that we would have been deprived of a useful piece of rhyming slang.
brian michae szymanek
: I have a program, I believe it is from germany that is an amiga emulator.
1.2? Ouch, that is old!!! Anyway, the hand requester means to insert the
Workbench 1.2 disk. If you don't have one, you are probibly out of luck.
Hope this helps a little...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
___ ___ I I am Brian Michael Szymanek
[ \ [ ] I at Fredonia State University
[ \ [ ] I Email at:szym...@cs.fredonia.edu
[ ]\ \ [ ] I-------------------------------------------
[ ] \ \ [ ] I *** Congratulations Cornhuskers!!!! ***
[ ] \ \[ ] I Orange Bowl, Jan. 1st, 1995
[ ] \ ] I Miami-17
[_] \__] I Nebraska-24
I *** Cornhuskers take national title ***
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a Commodore Amiga 2000 with 3MB memory, workbench 2.1, two 3 1/2''
disk drives, a supramodem, a star nx-1000 printer, and a 40mb hard drive
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Pierce
: Matt Pierce (mpi...@vcd.hp.com) wrote:
: : Well, given enough time and patience you can emulate an Amiga on a PC. You
: : would have to overcome the disk-read problem, but any of the chips on the
: : Amiga can be functionally emulated in software (they just won't be fast
: : at all). And no, you won't see me do it, it's just theoretically possible.
: A SIMULATOR is possible, but that would be running so slow it'd only be
: good for analysis, not actually running software.
: When you have systems that can read and write each other (Copper/680x0)
: you've got an emulation problem. Most systems don't have processors that
: can read/write each other like the Amiga has.
: It's fairly pointless and not worth the effort to get something working.
Semantics. The point is that it is not impossible to simulate/emulate
the Amiga's specialized chips, it just isn't useful to do so at this
point in time.
Matt Pierce
Todd Masco
>Semantics. The point is that it is not impossible to simulate/emulate
>the Amiga's specialized chips, it just isn't useful to do so at this
>point in time.
It's not only that. Some Amiga functionality is dependent upon the
speed of the operations, so that emulating at a reduced speed is useless.
One example that comes to mind is the ability of the copper to make
changes to the video paramteres within a very precisely timed interval,
cynchronized to the video beam. This allow multiple screen modes
on the same screen: nobody else can do that right now, including
the 24bit display cards for the Amiga.
--
Todd Masco | "'When _I_ use a word,' Humpty-Dumpty said, in a rather
cac...@hks.net | scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -
cac...@bb.com | neither more nor less.'" - Lewis Carroll
Matt Pierce
: In article <D1y4E...@vcd.hp.com>, Matt Pierce <mpi...@vcd.hp.com> wrote:
: >Semantics. The point is that it is not impossible to simulate/emulate
: >the Amiga's specialized chips, it just isn't useful to do so at this
: >point in time.
: It's not only that. Some Amiga functionality is dependent upon the
: speed of the operations, so that emulating at a reduced speed is useless.
: One example that comes to mind is the ability of the copper to make
: changes to the video paramteres within a very precisely timed interval,
: cynchronized to the video beam. This allow multiple screen modes
: on the same screen: nobody else can do that right now, including
: the 24bit display cards for the Amiga.
: --
No matter what the speed of the operations, you can provide identical
functionality by emulation/simulation. You can simulate the functionality
of screens on a PC if you are willing to torture yourself (it will be
extremely slow and virtually useless but it can be done).
I guess that I should have stated my point-of-view, I am speaking from
the software point of view where you can tell it whatever you want while
it is running and it has no choice but to believe it. From the user
pov, a PC emulating an Amiga would be unpleasant. However, this could
even be changed by augmenting apparent system performance by altering
the user with an appropriate dose of qualudes :)
Matt Pierce
Chris Neil Hurley
>Thre Amiga emulator for the PC was an elaborate hoax.
>First and foremost, the "emulator" did infact contain a dumped 256K
>AmigaDOS 1.2 romfile. However, as most of us know, AmigaDOS is so
>heavilly and directly tied to the hardware, that simple 0x0->x86
>instruction emulation wouldnt do much good. PC's pump all their
>instructions through one CPU, while Amiga's distribute them among several
>highly specialized chips which are completely and entirely un-emulatable
>at the software level.
This last line is patently false. There is pretty much nothing that
can't be emulated at a software level. The speed and accuracy is
what is in question.
--
***********************************************************************
* Chris Hurley * Plantation:Scalable Distributed Rendering*
* chr...@shell.portal.com * for Lightwave 3D. Available Now. *
* irc: Mr_Scary * (706)793-4007. InterVISUAL Software. *
Darren MacKenzie
|> arctngnt@interaccess (Bowie J. Poag) writes:
|>
|>
|> >Thre Amiga emulator for the PC was an elaborate hoax.
|>
|> >First and foremost, the "emulator" did infact contain a dumped 256K
|> >AmigaDOS 1.2 romfile. However, as most of us know, AmigaDOS is so
|> >heavilly and directly tied to the hardware, that simple 0x0->x86
|> >instruction emulation wouldnt do much good. PC's pump all their
|> >instructions through one CPU, while Amiga's distribute them among several
|> >highly specialized chips which are completely and entirely un-emulatable
|> >at the software level.
|>
|> This last line is patently false. There is pretty much nothing that
|> can't be emulated at a software level. The speed and accuracy is
|> what is in question.
|>
Not entirely true...it MAY be able to be emulated...if:
A) Efficiency
B) Speed (in part with A))
C) Compatibility
are NOT necessary...
:-)
Maxwell Daymon
: Maxwell Daymon (mda...@rmii.com) wrote:
: : A SIMULATOR is possible, but that would be running so slow it'd only be
: Semantics. The point is that it is not impossible to simulate/emulate
: the Amiga's specialized chips, it just isn't useful to do so at this
: point in time.
It's the difference between a correct term and an incorrect term. A
simulator is something that might be very useful for research or study,
and emulator is something that would be *functionally* *useful* AS an
Amiga. Amiga emulation would be ESPECIALLY useful at this point in time -
Commodore is all but dead, people are having to move to get proper
support, and they are having to give up a LOT of software. As a "useful"
item, it's is more than ever.
In practical terms, it's not going to happen with today's technology. It
just wouldn't be fast enough, and timing critical, hardware-banging
applications would cause a HUGE amount of slowdown. Hence, a simulator is
probable, an emulator is not.
Nomad of Norad (David C. Hall)
I wonder, has anyone tried making a plug-in card for the peecee one could plug
an Amiga floppydrive into, in order to read Amiga disks with under MooSeDOS?
I understand someone HAS developed such a peecee card to access C64 floppy
drives, why not Amiga drives?
--
Nomad of Norad (David C. Hall) | "I am No-mad. I am per-fect.
tlvx!wopr!no...@sinkhole.unf.edu | >Click!< per-fect.
tlvx!no...@sinkhole.unf.edu | >Click!< per-fect."
Matt Pierce
: Matt Pierce (mpi...@vcd.hp.com) wrote:
: : Maxwell Daymon (mda...@rmii.com) wrote:
: : : A SIMULATOR is possible, but that would be running so slow it'd only be
: : : good for analysis, not actually running software.
: : Semantics. The point is that it is not impossible to simulate/emulate
: : the Amiga's specialized chips, it just isn't useful to do so at this
: : point in time.
: It's the difference between a correct term and an incorrect term. A
You are incorrect, an emulator is "hardware or software that permits
programs written for one computer to be run on another", Merriam Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary - Tenth Edition. Look it up if you don't believe
me sport. Like I said, semantics.
Matt Pierce
Matt Pierce
: In article <3ei0de$f...@news1.shell>, chr...@shell.portal.com (Chris Neil Hurley) writes:
: |> arctngnt@interaccess (Bowie J. Poag) writes:
: |>
: |>
: |> >Thre Amiga emulator for the PC was an elaborate hoax.
: |>
: |> >First and foremost, the "emulator" did infact contain a dumped 256K
: |> >AmigaDOS 1.2 romfile. However, as most of us know, AmigaDOS is so
: |> >heavilly and directly tied to the hardware, that simple 0x0->x86
: |> >instruction emulation wouldnt do much good. PC's pump all their
: |> >instructions through one CPU, while Amiga's distribute them among several
: |> >highly specialized chips which are completely and entirely un-emulatable
: |> >at the software level.
: |>
: |> This last line is patently false. There is pretty much nothing that
: |> can't be emulated at a software level. The speed and accuracy is
: |> what is in question.
: |>
: Not entirely true...it MAY be able to be emulated...if:
: A) Efficiency
: B) Speed (in part with A))
: C) Compatibility
: are NOT necessary...
'C' is the only criteria above that is required of an emulator.
Matt Pierce
Robert Stephen Rodgers
>: Not entirely true...it MAY be able to be emulated...if:
>: A) Efficiency
>: B) Speed (in part with A))
>: C) Compatibility
>: are NOT necessary...
>
>'C' is the only criteria above that is required of an emulator.
Exactly which non speed-intensive Amiga program would you like to run?
the only good programs for the Amiga are the games and the graphics programs,
both of which are speed-intensive.
No, useful emulation is not possible at this time on normal hardware. Nor,
for that matter, is it really necessary. The rest of us aren't going to
want for WordProcessors just because we can't run second-rate stuff
like Final Writer.
--
"IBM's install program is just fine." [and later:] "I will say it again: The
install program is fine. But OS/2 just won't run on some pieces of hardware."
-Steve Withers, IBM employee, explaining the problems that
even faithful OS/2 users are having installing OS/2 3.0,
Matt Pierce
: In article <D208...@vcd.hp.com>, Matt Pierce <mpi...@vcd.hp.com> wrote:
: >: Not entirely true...it MAY be able to be emulated...if:
: >: A) Efficiency
: >: B) Speed (in part with A))
: >: C) Compatibility
: >: are NOT necessary...
: >
: >'C' is the only criteria above that is required of an emulator.
: Exactly which non speed-intensive Amiga program would you like to run?
: the only good programs for the Amiga are the games and the graphics programs,
: both of which are speed-intensive.
: No, useful emulation is not possible at this time on normal hardware. Nor,
: for that matter, is it really necessary. The rest of us aren't going to
: want for WordProcessors just because we can't run second-rate stuff
: like Final Writer.
:
Who said anything about 'useful emulation'? I'm talking just plain Webster
emulation which has nothing to do with usefulness.
Lindsay Meek
You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss an Amiga emulator as being slow,
68000 is a nice orthogonal instruction set (unlike 80x86 ;-) which would
make would make the emulation a bit easier methinks and therefore potentially
faster. DMA based chips like the agnus and friends actually lend themselves
to emulation, as once the dma has started, you can invoke an assembly routine/
interrupt written in native code. The difficulties arise when you try to
convert screen formats/do lots with the emulated processor. A bunch of
transputers wouldn't have any worries doing it in real-time. Dunno 'bout a
pentiun though (fdiv(pentium,1.0)=pentiun :-) :-) ).
However, i don't think anyone would need or want an emulator, perhaps a
simulator for debugging hardware banging code. Even then, an amiga resident
low level debugger like romcrack would faster...
Lindsay
Carol
>I know of this program for over a year. It's just a fake. Don't mind.
>A friend of mine tried this on his 486 computer, too. It's just not
>possible to emulate the special chips like Agnus, Paula, etc.
You can emulate _anything_. Just not always at a speed considered
useful for the living! <grin>
Those who say an Amiga can _never_ be emulated I direct you to the
legion of Jim Drew fans who love to cluck at how he was told he
could not emulate a Mac, and did so. Now that fact is used as a
retort against anybody who dare claim he can't emulate a PC.
As a more "rigerous" reason, I would put forward that an Amiga
is nothing but a very fancy Turing machine, as are all computers.
Since all Turing machines are interchangable, any computer
can emulate any other computer given no memory bounds, at least
for computation, although it could be _very_, _very_, _very_,
_very_ slow. <grin>
ie. an HP-48 could emulate a CRAY-II!
A.C.
--
Andrew Carol "Could be worse. Could be raining."
ca...@alaska.net ca...@ctis.af.mil 71350...@compuserve.com
Greg Block
In article <3enqgb...@newsman.csu.murdoch.edu.au> me...@fizzy.csu.murdoch.edu.au (Lindsay Meek) writes:
> You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss an Amiga emulator as being slow,
> 68000 is a nice orthogonal instruction set (unlike 80x86 ;-) which would
> make would make the emulation a bit easier methinks and therefore potentially
> faster. DMA based chips like the agnus and friends actually lend themselves
> to emulation, as once the dma has started, you can invoke an assembly routine/
> interrupt written in native code. The difficulties arise when you try to
> convert screen formats/do lots with the emulated processor. A bunch of
> transputers wouldn't have any worries doing it in real-time. Dunno 'bout a
> pentiun though (fdiv(pentium,1.0)=pentiun :-) :-) ).
Well, here are some points against:
The 680x0 series has a greater number of general purpose registers, but
fewer special purpose registers. The 80x86 is the opposite. That means
that in order to do GP's properly, there will be a lot of memory changing
plces.
The Amiga's coprocessors would be an extremely difficult state machine to
emulate in code; it would have to be merged into the code for the 680x0
engine itself, and it would have to emulate a screen; the copper can change
the registers at any point, and THAT will be difficult to emulate; you'll
have to step a virtual beam and run your copperlist.
DMA channels would be difficult to emulate, and still get proper timing on.
As a matter of fact, the issue of timing in this huge state machine becomes
the hardest part to get right.
Greg
--
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
(: "Ok, ok. I know I was a little drunk, Gregory R. Block :)
(: but which one of you jokesters drilled Oubliette Software :)
(: the holes in my hands? Was it you, Judas?" Win...@Oubliette.com :)
(: -Crank #3, "Clip Art Christ" :)
(: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today? Why NOT!?! :) :) :)
Joel Kolstad
Nomad of Norad (David C. Hall) <no...@wopr.UUCP> wrote:
>
>I wonder, has anyone tried making a plug-in card for the peecee one could plug
>an Amiga floppydrive into, in order to read Amiga disks with under MooSeDOS?
Sure, it's called a Copy II PC deluxe option board. Been around for years.
I purchased one probably about four years ago now for reading Mac disks,
and although the board didn't include an Amiga file system, it could duplicate
Amiga disks without a problem. (It did identify the disks correctly as
coming from an Amiga, so apparently someone at Central Point had an Amiga
at the time.)
So all you have to do is convince someone to write an Amiga file system,
and figure out if Copy II PC DOBs are still available. Good luck. :-(
---Joel Kolstad
G.Nath
>Rob Henry (ah...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
>: I have a program, I believe it is from germany that is an amiga emulator.
>: It says that the program boots workbench 1.2
>: When I run it, I get a screen with a disk in a hand that says
>: workbench 1.2 and then the floppy spins, is it looking for a system disk?
>: It is running on a 486 dx2-66 so it should be fast.
>: If you know of any other good emulator programs for a dos or macintosh,
>: please tell me where to get it at.
>: Thanks
>: Rob
>That thing is a big, big joke. There's NO WAY to emulatr Amiga on DOS or
>MAC.
Yeah this thing was distributed possibly for propaganda purposes
to discredit the Amiga`s GUI (1.2 was not that great looking :)
no offence to 1.2 users still out there ... (i still have a 1. 2
machine but use my 1200 mostly now :)
Zsolt Szabo
>As a matter of fact, the issue of timing in this huge state machine becomes
>the hardest part to get right.
I heard 135 MHz Pentium systems were coming out in a few months.
Robert Owen Raine
>Robert Goodlett (go...@chinook.halcyon.com) wrote:
>: >I heard 135 MHz Pentium systems were coming out in a few months.
>: I heard Windows 5 was coming out last year.
>Oh yeah, well _I_ heard a hot new 586 emulation was coming out for the
>Amiga last year! :-)
Sorry It under developement with no release date ever given. They just say its
coming. Now with the death of commodore I wonder if it will make it to market.
\|/
@ @
------------------------------------------------------oOO-(_)-OOo--------------
Only Amiga Makes it Happen Bob Raine
The computer for the creative mind Michigan State University
Make Up Your Own Mind Physics Astronomy Dept.
Amiga / The Alternative Ra...@msupa.pa.msu.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Owen Raine
>In article <3evges$j...@news.halcyon.com> go...@chinook.halcyon.com (Robert Goodlett) writes:
>>>I heard 135 MHz Pentium systems were coming out in a few months.
>For that matter, everything Intel has announced they have delivered. By
>the end of the year you will see 135 mhz Pentiums and the 90 mhz Pentiums
>will be available for $390.
That's right they bring it to market on time weather it works right or not!
Case in point the Pentium processor.
WARNING LABEL "INTEL INSIDE"
Robert Owen Raine
>robo...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Zsolt Szabo) writes:
>>For that matter, everything Intel has announced they have delivered. By
>>the end of the year you will see 135 mhz Pentiums and the 90 mhz Pentiums
>>will be available for $390.
>Oh, let's be careful, now, I've been hearing 586 talk since the late 80s...
Jason don't add fuel to this guys fire. Everyone knows that the Pentium is
the 586 except for you apparently. They changed the name because they lost
that patent infringment suit on there processor line. They said that a number
isn't able to be patented but a word could. Ergo Pentium. Thats O.K. it dosn't
work anyway.
Jason Compton
>For that matter, everything Intel has announced they have delivered. By
>the end of the year you will see 135 mhz Pentiums and the 90 mhz Pentiums
>will be available for $390.
Oh, let's be careful, now, I've been hearing 586 talk since the late 80s...
Jason Compton FAX: 708-491-4064 jcom...@cup.portal.com and @bbs.xnet.com
Editor-In-Chief Amiga Report Magazine and Coverdisk
Contributing Writer Amiga Game Zone Magazine
The time to rise has been engaged. Rael Imperial Aerosol Kid.
Jeremy Konopka
Zsolt Szabo <robo...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> wrote:
>In article <3evges$j...@news.halcyon.com> go...@chinook.halcyon.com (Robert Goodlett) writes:
>
>>
>
>even MENTIONED by anybody!
>
>For that matter, everything Intel has announced they have delivered. By
I don't remember them announcing buggy CPUs.
>the end of the year you will see 135 mhz Pentiums and the 90 mhz Pentiums
>will be available for $390.
Will these be new or used?
--
Jeremy Konopka
Joe
>BTW, he was correct with PATENT...copyright. Trademade can be used with
>permission, a patent can NOT, until it expires.
A Patent, CopyRight, TradeMark or ServiceMark can ALL be used with
permission of the owner under US law, and as I understand it the Burne (sp?)
International Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights....
And even in some cases without the permission of the owner (for
reviews or research (source must be properly sited) or personal use
(must not be sold, lent, traded, publicly displayed or used for profit
in any way))....
Michael van Elst
>At least My Amiga can Add Subtact MULTIPLY & DIVIDE
^^^^^^^
But not spell check. :)
Regards,
--
Michael van Elst
Internet: mle...@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de mle...@serpens.rhein.de
"A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
Marcia Randall
->
-> Don't know who told you such nonsense, but Windows >>FIVE<< was never
-> even MENTIONED by anybody!
What planet you been hiding on for the last eight months Zsolt? Not
that your name would make me suspicious or anything!
Hugs!
Marcia
Robert Owen Raine
>In article <raine.189...@msupa.pa.msu.edu> ra...@msupa.pa.msu.edu (Robert Owen Raine) writes:
>>Yea oh big surprise like we couldn't tell you were a DOSHEAD before. Well we
>>can now. You are actually able to believe a company that dosn't tell you about
>>a known bug in their floating point proccessor. Then when someone else
>>notifies the public they say "Yea but you won't see it but maybe Once every
>>(fill in your own number I hear so many) years.
>> AND THEY WONDER WHY WE CALL THEM CLONES (I don't mean the machines this time)
>Friend, you did not answer my question. How come the bug was not noticed
>until recently? How come all that 80x86 software ran perfectly on
>it--including OS/2, Linux, Windows, Windows-NT, etc., etc.?
Thats easy because the floating point dosn't cause an error it just gives the
wrong answer. It might crash a fractal program and a few others but mostly it
just gives you the wrong answer and goes merrily along its way. Which is even
more dangerous than someting that crashes the machine. You don't kown it
happened. It took a Scientist who Noticed that his answers were wrong to dig
into it and find the cause.
>I'll repeat: the Amiga has no chunky mode--what a DEVASTATING bug!! It's
>all a matter of perspective.
It may not be devastating to you but not all of us use our computers to play
Doom.
id...@aztec.co.za
>until recently? How come all that 80x86 software ran perfectly on
>it--including OS/2, Linux, Windows, Windows-NT, etc., etc.?
>
An FPU inaccuracy does not crash a machine or cause any software to die, the
answers are just wrong that's all... How long do you think it would take you
to do CAD calculations by hand to check an FPU that is doing 10 million
operations a second?
>
>I'll repeat: the Amiga has no chunky mode--what a DEVASTATING bug!! It's
>all a matter of perspective.
>
Mine has... In actual fact I can do video titling at the same time as running
a chunky pixel WorkBench in 1600x1280... I can't do this on a Pentium, so
should we say we've found another bug?
Ian
PS. I hope somebody comes out with a new machine soon so we can say:
My X is better than your PC/Amiga/Mac...
Computer Evangelism sucks!
Matthias Fleischer
Zsolt Szabo <robo...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> wrote:
>
>Nonsense. This is only if you work with infinitessimal numbers. Most
>people do not require such accuracy--actually, I would bet that only
>about 1% or less of all PC users DO require that much accuracy at all.
>
Nonsense? I wouldn't call an error in the 6th digit being infinitesimal.
Except you don't mind losing 1 cent for each 1000$ you have.
Believe me, I would mind - and IMO most people would if their bank
just by accident stole 1 cent for each 1000$.
Granted - I don't need full precision all day and all night long, but
every now and then!
Now would you bet again that 99% of PC users never need that much
accuracy? How much would you like to bet? 1000$?
Matthias
--
Ever noticed that %=0/0=NaN?
S94
>Not entirely true...it MAY be able to be emulated...if:
>B) Speed
>...
> are not necessary...
True, but any computer with enough memory can emulate any other, if speed is not
an issue...
You could emulate a DEC-Alpha on a ZX81, if there was some way of attaching
enough memory to
the ZX81, and you were prepared to accept an 0.000000001 instructions/sec
processing time...
Matt Pierce
: >Yea oh big surprise like we couldn't tell you were a DOSHEAD before. Well we
: >can now. You are actually able to believe a company that dosn't tell you about
: >a known bug in their floating point proccessor. Then when someone else
: >notifies the public they say "Yea but you won't see it but maybe Once every
: >(fill in your own number I hear so many) years.
: > AND THEY WONDER WHY WE CALL THEM CLONES (I don't mean the machines this time)
: Friend, you did not answer my question. How come the bug was not noticed
: until recently? How come all that 80x86 software ran perfectly on
: it--including OS/2, Linux, Windows, Windows-NT, etc., etc.?
: I'll repeat: the Amiga has no chunky mode--what a DEVASTATING bug!! It's
: all a matter of perspective.
No, there is no matter of perspective to your above statement needed, it
is just plain incorrect. The Amiga has no chunky mode by intentional
design, the Pentium gives wrong results by design mistake, there is a
huge difference. If you cannot see it, try looking up the words
'intentional' and 'mistake' and compare/contrast them until you
figure it out/starve.
Gary Bates
: In article <1995Jan17.1...@apgea.army.mil> rcme...@apgea.army.mil (Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>) writes:
: >I'll name 3.
: >Autocad
: >Excel
: >Any calculator program.
You forgot Mathlab the program the bug was discovered on.
: >The reason why it wasn't a big till until a year later is that 99.9% of
: >everyone accept figures from a computer on faith. After checkingwas done, alot
: >of people found that they were burned by pentium.
: Nonsense. This is only if you work with infinitessimal numbers. Most
: people do not require such accuracy--actually, I would bet that only
: about 1% or less of all PC users DO require that much accuracy at all.
That's only because the remaining 99% are too busy playing Doom or some
other totally overrated game.
--
.-------------------------------------------------------------------------.
! E-Mail: ga...@batesg.demon.co.uk __ Beware of assembly language!
! Private Node running on an Amiga 1200 __/// programmers who dream in !
! 33Mhz'030/50Mhz'82/10Megs/1.7GbSCSI \XX/ machine code. !
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Maxwell Daymon
: Andrew Stephan (aste...@presby.edu) posted this:
: At least you CAN run Word on Windows. There are NO good wordprocessors
: available for the Amiga. They are all *document*-processors, and that is
: quite another thing - they have loads of gfx/composing stuff, but lack
If you want to be anal about it, the Amiga has GREAT *WORD* processors.
DOCUMENT processor is left to things such as Word and Word Perfect.
: the most elementary writing-support function, like a thesaurus, small
: screen-fonts (allowing more than 1/2 a page on-screen at a time),
Final Writer supports this. I can see a full page at once in ProWrite in
1280x1024. What's the problem?
: overstrike mode and no option for saving the text in a format that can be
: understood by the equipment publishers have.
I output to Postscript. That's fairly "across-the-board"
These critiques aren't hugely valid.
: If it wasn't for Jim Drew's excellent EMPLANT Mac-emulator, I couldn't
: have run Word or other similar programs without buying a new computer.
Can the Mac run the low-cost, high quality Amiga software? This must also
be noticed.
------------------
Maxwell Daymon One man's "magic" is another man's engineering.
mda...@rmii.com "Supernatural" is a null word.
------------------ - Robert Heinlein (AUISG Page 9)
Neil Brewitt
> >The reason why it wasn't a big till until a year later is that 99.9% of
> >everyone accept figures from a computer on faith. After checkingwas done, alot
> >of people found that they were burned by pentium.
>
> Nonsense. This is only if you work with infinitessimal numbers. Most
> people do not require such accuracy--actually, I would bet that only
> about 1% or less of all PC users DO require that much accuracy at all.
Don't talk shit, Zsolt. You really spout more and more crap every day.
Neil.
--
**** ne...@melkfri.demon.co.uk **** Neil Brewitt
*||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||* IRC: saggy
** Musician ***** Manchester,UK **
Maxwell Daymon
: In article <1995Jan17.1...@apgea.army.mil> rcme...@apgea.army.mil (Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>) writes:
: >The reason why it wasn't a big till until a year later is that 99.9% of
: >everyone accept figures from a computer on faith. After checkingwas done, alot
: >of people found that they were burned by pentium.
: Nonsense. This is only if you work with infinitessimal numbers. Most
: people do not require such accuracy--actually, I would bet that only
: about 1% or less of all PC users DO require that much accuracy at all.
Wrong answer. It affects certain bit patterns of both large and small
numbers. It is an inexcusable flaw.
Secondly, how many operating systems actually USE the FPU for results
back to itself? FPU performance affects the accuracy of output. A program
will still run - it'll just be WRONG, that's all.
It's like having a monitor with a color gun blown. You can still RUN a
paint program - but don't expect proper results.
Larry J. Westfall
MOVE THIS TO amgia.advocacy where it belongs.
Larry.
Adam Hough
I just did. Got 0.0 out of it (using the standard Commodore calculator
on an EC030 no MMU machine).
To the best of my knowledge that's a correct answer.
>At least you CAN run Word on Windows. There are NO good wordprocessors
>available for the Amiga. They are all *document*-processors, and that is
You might want to have a look at ProText from Arnor. Other than missing
the GUI frontend (although that's getting better too) I'd consider it
a match for the PC software.
>the most elementary writing-support function, like a thesaurus, small
For what it's worth, Final Writer has a thesaurus, various viewing scales,
and an import/export set of filters. Yes, there are barely any in there,
but the capacity exists. I suspect Wordsworth has much the same in the
way of features.
The principal features that FW are missing in my mind are footnotes and
tables. That's it. I'm not too worried about not having an equation
editor having seen how badly they work elsewhere, and if scientific
notation is your thing, well, Amiga TeX seems to do that pretty well.
I'm not slamming any other platform, but I do disagree with your
conclusion that the Amiga is way behind when it comes to Wordprocessing
software.
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Adam Hough // ho...@flash.cuc.ab.ca |
| (403)686-3783 // adam@1:134/187 |
| Flash in the Pan BBS \\ // adam@40:100/187 |
| BIX: Houghrb \X/ ho...@ender.cuc.ab.ca |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
R u n n i n g E x c e l s i o r P r o f e s s i o n a l B B S
Christopher D. Judd
For the most part I agree with Maxwell. There are excellent word processors
on the Amiga, and TEX for writing scientific papers. I have used both Word
Perfect and Word and have no desire to run them on the Amiga. However, we
collaborate on experiments with other groups here who use one or the other
of these programs. What I need (and don't heve yet) is an Amiga word processor
which can read and WRITE their file formats, including equations. I'm sure
the same problem exists for other Amiga users with different applications
(e.g. any programs that can read Lotus or excel files?).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Christopher D. Judd |
| Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. ju...@rpi.edu 518 276-8982 |
| Dept. of Chemistry |
| Troy, NY 12180-3590 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Gut
[snip]
: At least you CAN run Word on Windows. There are NO good wordprocessors
: available for the Amiga. They are all *document*-processors, and that is
: quite another thing - they have loads of gfx/composing stuff, but lack
: the most elementary writing-support function, like a thesaurus, small
: screen-fonts (allowing more than 1/2 a page on-screen at a time),
That's BS! FinalWriter has a thesaurus, small screen fonts and you can display
the page at almost any magnification level you want.
Whether you can read the text in page view or in 50% only depends on the reso-
lution of your screen (FW even lets you change the screen dpi values).
Don't tell me, that you can read a 12 point text in page view with WinWord on
a 14" or 15" monitor (800x600).
: overstrike mode
I never needed this. Selecting the text to be replaced with the mouse is a lot
easier.
: and no option for saving the text in a format that can be
: understood by the equipment publishers have.
I agree with you on this point. Hopefully Softwood will change this ...
: If it wasn't for Jim Drew's excellent EMPLANT Mac-emulator, I couldn't
: have run Word or other similar programs without buying a new computer.
I own an Emplant too, but I don't even think of wasting my harddisk space
with Word !
-- Peter
_________________________________________________________________________
| /// Peter Gut | UUCP : pe...@pegasus.aare.chnet.ch |
| /// 13 Weiherweg | Tel/Fax: +41 64 470 518 |
| \\\/// Hunzenschwil, AG 5502 | |
| \XX/ Switzerland | Amiga 4000/040 - 18 MB RAM - 2 GB HD |
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
If all else fails, read the instructions.
Maxwell Daymon
: >Well, try 3.1111 - 3.111 on Tools/Calculator on a non-fpu Amiga.
: To the best of my knowledge that's a correct answer.
Obviously the "correct" answer is 0.0001 - My Amiga with "Calculator"
returns 0.000999999999 which is pretty darn close. ;-)
That calculator needs to use an integer conversion like ADAM. (Accurate
to 700 places on either side of the decimal)
: You might want to have a look at ProText from Arnor. Other than missing
: the GUI frontend (although that's getting better too) I'd consider it
: a match for the PC software.
That's still available?? Wow... Are they going to release another
demo/get an American distributor?
It even "emulates" the Wordstar keystrokes.
: >the most elementary writing-support function, like a thesaurus, small
: The principal features that FW are missing in my mind are footnotes and
: tables. That's it. I'm not too worried about not having an equation
: editor having seen how badly they work elsewhere, and if scientific
: notation is your thing, well, Amiga TeX seems to do that pretty well.
I think that equation editing should take place in a dedicated program
and linked to the word processor. Word processors that try to do
equations generally do a pathetic job, or maintenence suffers during the
lifecycle of the program.
: I'm not slamming any other platform, but I do disagree with your
: conclusion that the Amiga is way behind when it comes to Wordprocessing
: software.
The Amiga needs a good word processor that handles the built in printer
fonts well - for large documents, I can't wait for minutes while the page
is calculated and created.
ProText does printer font support, but I haven't seen it in AGES. I thought
they went under.
Arthur Hagen
On 20 Jan 1995 01:10:50 GMT,
Maxwell Daymon (mda...@rmii.com) posted this:
<snip>
> If you want to be anal about it, the Amiga has GREAT *WORD* processors.
> DOCUMENT processor is left to things such as Word and Word Perfect.
Anal? Why bring your personal problems into this discussion? The rest
of us were discussing Amiga, Mac and PC software.
> : the most elementary writing-support function, like a thesaurus, small
> : screen-fonts (allowing more than 1/2 a page on-screen at a time),
> Final Writer supports this. I can see a full page at once in ProWrite in
> 1280x1024. What's the problem?
Final Writer can only use scalable fonts - no designed fonts meant to
look good on-screen, and it lacks the vital "include file". And have you
tried loading a 2Mb or so text file (book/catalog) into ProWrite?
ProWrite is the best of the lot, but then again I suspect it to be a
conversion from a Mac program - at least the icon is a Mac-style icon. :-)
> : overstrike mode and no option for saving the text in a format that can be
> : understood by the equipment publishers have.
> I output to Postscript. That's fairly "across-the-board"
Postscript is for documents - not text.
> These critiques aren't hugely valid.
No? What if you need a tool to write text e.g. for a newspaper, or even
a book. That text should not be formatted, as you have no control of the
layout of the newspaper/book. That is the job of the publisher. And you
want to use accented characters, different hyphens, italics, and perhaps
even columns. Can your publisher take a ProWrite/FinalWriter file? No.
And if you save as text/ascii, you will either get line feeds where the
Amiga program THOUGHT there should be a new line, or the text will be
stripped of bold/italics/tabs. As I've done jobs on PTS and QuarkXPress,
I know how tedious it is to MANUALLY correct the text - removing line
feeds where they should not be (you can't remove them all - some places
they are needed), and converting hyphens, and setting bold/italics etc.
as set in the manuscript. Not to mention non-english characters - they
will be wrong 9 times out of 10. The best solution on the Amiga is to
use PPage's article editor, and save to WP-format, and manually remove
the double line feeds it puts after paragraphs. When using e.g. Word
there are no such conversion problems, and you also get decent writing
tools in the word processor.
> Can the Mac run the low-cost, high quality Amiga software? This must also
> be noticed.
No, it can't. People who want Amiga-programs can (could) buy an Amiga.
People needing a machine for "normal" kind of work, e.g. word processing,
are usually better off with a PC or a Mac.
But luckily the EMPLANT provides me with a relatively cheap solution to
the problem.
Yours,
*Art
John P Sheehy
>>Well, try 3.1111 - 3.111 on Tools/Calculator on a non-fpu Amiga.
>
>I just did. Got 0.0 out of it (using the standard Commodore calculator
>on an EC030 no MMU machine).
>
>To the best of my knowledge that's a correct answer.
To the best of mine, it should be "0.0001".
John Sheehy <j...@cup.portal.com>
Steve Price
: I wonder, has anyone tried making a plug-in card for the peecee one could plug
: an Amiga floppydrive into, in order to read Amiga disks with under MooSeDOS?
: I understand someone HAS developed such a peecee card to access C64 floppy
: drives, why not Amiga drives?
If PC owners are so determined to emulate our Amiga, why not ask the new
Amiga owners (whoever they are/willbe) to build an Amiga Card? Then you
could put that in and turn any PC into a decent computer :-)
--
Steve Price
Darren MacKenzie
|> In article <z000170.18...@pop.uni-linz.ac.at> z00...@pop.uni-linz.ac.at (O.Pilgerstorfer) writes:
|>
|> >Hahahahahaha!!!!
|> >Yes definitely they will do bullshit again, and come out with processors which
|> >are not ready yet (Think about the FP-affair!!).
|>
|>
|> Name a >SINGLE< application that you use, which does not work properly
|> because of the fp bug. As a matter of fact, I will tell you that people
|> only started making a big deal about it a YEAR or more after it came out,
|> once they found out that there was a bug!
|>
|>
|>
|> I would RATHER buy a Pentium system for $2000 with a bug that I would
|> probably NEVER notice than an Amiga 4000 which is slower, has no
^^^^^^^
Slower?? Hardly! What are you comparing it to? A 68030? A 68040 is
a comparable speed to the P5. The P5 is rated at 32 MIPS average, where a
33 MHz 040 is rated at roughly 25-28. I don't see a huge difference there.
The 68060 boards will be available for the A4000 in February (see this month's
Amiga World)...and a base 060 runs at 75 MIPS.
Don't speak if you don't know...
-Doc
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= Darren MacKenzie = Bell-Northern Research =
= dar...@bnr.ca = DMS Global Loadbuild Specialist =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= 18 Deerfield Dr. Apt. 110 Nepean, Ont. K2G-4L1 =
= (613)-226-8747 HOME (613)-765-3041 & 763-8135 WORK =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Darren MacKenzie
|> In article <raine.189...@msupa.pa.msu.edu> ra...@msupa.pa.msu.edu (Robert Owen Raine) writes:
|>
|> >Yea oh big surprise like we couldn't tell you were a DOSHEAD before. Well we
|> >can now. You are actually able to believe a company that dosn't tell you about
|> >a known bug in their floating point proccessor. Then when someone else
|> >notifies the public they say "Yea but you won't see it but maybe Once every
|> >(fill in your own number I hear so many) years.
|> > AND THEY WONDER WHY WE CALL THEM CLONES (I don't mean the machines this time)
|>
|>
|> Friend, you did not answer my question. How come the bug was not noticed
|> until recently? How come all that 80x86 software ran perfectly on
|> it--including OS/2, Linux, Windows, Windows-NT, etc., etc.?
Because the software will still RUN...it just gives you the wrong answers.
Darren MacKenzie
|> In article <1995Jan17.1...@apgea.army.mil> rcme...@apgea.army.mil (Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>) writes:
|>
|> Nonsense. This is only if you work with infinitessimal numbers. Most
|> people do not require such accuracy--actually, I would bet that only
|> about 1% or less of all PC users DO require that much accuracy at all.
|>
|>
I'd hardly call the 7th digit infinitessimal. I'd say that probably more
than 1% of the population of PeeCee users (that actually USE their machine,
not just playing games on it like a Nintendo) use programs that require
accuracy. How about CalcPad for University students? Excel? Autocad?
Are you going to tell me that only 1% use these programs? How about
"Boxplot", a speaker design program? There's probably a LOT of programs
out there that this will affect...
I don't consider people who solely use their machines for playing games
to know what they're talking about...
Darren MacKenzie
|> Dear Sirs,
|> On Wed, 18 Jan 1995 12:51:46 GMT,
|>
|> > You need 4 megs of RAM to run most Windows software effectively and 8
|> > megs for some programs (8 megs for Word - come on!)--what a DEVESTATING
|> > bug!! (Not to mention ridiculous inefficiency...)
|>
|> At least you CAN run Word on Windows. There are NO good wordprocessors
|> available for the Amiga. They are all *document*-processors, and that is
|> quite another thing - they have loads of gfx/composing stuff, but lack
|> screen-fonts (allowing more than 1/2 a page on-screen at a time),
|> understood by the equipment publishers have.
Do you have any idea what the hell you are talking about?? I'll mention
TWO off the top of my head:
Scribble, and Final Copy.
BOTH have thesaurus, and spell checker...allow for as many fonts as you
have in your fonts directory (how many Windoze applications allow for this,
esp. non-true-type?), and I don't know about Final Copy but I know that
Scribble will not only allow for any window sizing, but will allow you to
cut and paste from one window into another. LEARN about a system before you
go shooting your mouth off.
And incidentaly, WP5.1 is available for the Amiga...it can save in IBM
format; or in ASCII text, which can be converted to an IBM disk (MSH:)
and taken into WP5.1/6.x on a shitty DOS machine, if that suits your fancy.
I HATE when people shoot their mouth off and know NOTHING about what they're
talking about!!
Another point, now that I remember...EXCELLENCE, last I heard, also has
a GRAMMAR CHECKER, much like that stupid WP6.x (already has versions to
correct previous flaws...NICE!). I'd wager that Excellence does a BETTER
job at it, too... :-)
|> If it wasn't for Jim Drew's excellent EMPLANT Mac-emulator, I couldn't
|> have run Word or other similar programs without buying a new computer.
|>
|> Yours,
|> *Art
Then you have a SERIOUS inability to read. Pick up an Amiga World, and
check out some reviews...
If you're such a terrible reader, why are you so fussy on the type of
word processor?? :-) Oh, now I see...
:-)
Zsolt Szabo
>|> probably NEVER notice than an Amiga 4000 which is slower, has no
> ^^^^^^^
>
>Slower?? Hardly! What are you comparing it to? A 68030? A 68040 is
>a comparable speed to the P5. The P5 is rated at 32 MIPS average, where a
>33 MHz 040 is rated at roughly 25-28. I don't see a huge difference there.
>
>The 68060 boards will be available for the A4000 in February (see this month's
>Amiga World)...and a base 060 runs at 75 MIPS.
I hope you have some very good sources for this--nonsense.
Beause I know for a fact that a standard 486/33 runs at 18 MIPS. That
gives a 486DX4/100 a performance of roughly 50 MIPS. A P5-60 is roughly
as fast as a DX4/100, but we're talking P5-100 here, which is again about
40% faster, so the 100 runs at roughly 70 MIPS.
To me, that is QUITE A BIT faster than 25-28. And that rating was for the
040/40, BTW.
As for that 75 MIPS figure that you have there for the 68060--well, guess
what; according to Intel the P5/60 gets 100 MIPS performance! So for the
68060 I predict no more than 50 MIPS, at best.
Zsolt Szabo
>I'd hardly call the 7th digit infinitessimal. I'd say that probably more
>than 1% of the population of PeeCee users (that actually USE their machine,
>not just playing games on it like a Nintendo) use programs that require
>accuracy. How about CalcPad for University students? Excel? Autocad?
>Are you going to tell me that only 1% use these programs? How about
>"Boxplot", a speaker design program? There's probably a LOT of programs
>out there that this will affect...
I talked to quite a few people using the above mentioned programs, and
NONE of them required higher accuracy than to the 5th digit. So what's
your point?
Toby Douglass
: robo...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Zsolt Szabo) writes:
: >For that matter, everything Intel has announced they have delivered. By
: >the end of the year you will see 135 mhz Pentiums and the 90 mhz Pentiums
: >will be available for $390.
: Oh, let's be careful, now, I've been hearing 586 talk since the late 80s...
Oh be fair; Intel deliver stuff they haven't even announced. Floating
point bugs, for example...;-)
Toby :-)
Darren MacKenzie
|> In article <3g1njm$k...@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> dar...@bcarh293.bnr.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
|> >|> probably NEVER notice than an Amiga 4000 which is slower, has no
|> > ^^^^^^^
|> >
|> >Slower?? Hardly! What are you comparing it to? A 68030? A 68040 is
|> >a comparable speed to the P5. The P5 is rated at 32 MIPS average, where a
|> >33 MHz 040 is rated at roughly 25-28. I don't see a huge difference there.
|> >
|> >The 68060 boards will be available for the A4000 in February (see this month's
|> >Amiga World)...and a base 060 runs at 75 MIPS.
|>
|> gives a 486DX4/100 a performance of roughly 50 MIPS. A P5-60 is roughly
|> as fast as a DX4/100, but we're talking P5-100 here, which is again about
|> 40% faster, so the 100 runs at roughly 70 MIPS.
|>
Wrong again...I've RUN a dhrystones program on a 486DX2/66 and the resuult
was 13.5 MIPS. Whereever you're dreaming up these numbers, I don't know.
And BTW, keep in mind that a DX4/100 is STILL ONLY A 25MHz MACHINE!! Why
don't you people understand that?? The ONLY thing running at 100MHz is the
internal quadrupling of math calculations...FUCK, understand, please!!
|> To me, that is QUITE A BIT faster than 25-28. And that rating was for the
|> 040/40, BTW.
|>
|> As for that 75 MIPS figure that you have there for the 68060--well, guess
|> what; according to Intel the P5/60 gets 100 MIPS performance! So for the
|> 68060 I predict no more than 50 MIPS, at best.
|>
|>
Also, the upgrading of chips is NOT on a linear curve, as you are suggesting.
There are many things to take into account, such as internal cache size, and
how memory is overlayed. You are wrong.
And BTW, what I quoted was for a 60 MHz 060...the faster 060 runs at 100 MIPS,
just for the record.
Arthur Hagen
On 24 Jan 1995 02:50:22 GMT,
Darren MacKenzie (dar...@bcarh293.bnr.ca) posted this:
<snip>
> a...@lightning.powertech.no (Arthur Hagen) writes:
<snip>
> |> At least you CAN run Word on Windows. There are NO good wordprocessors
> |> available for the Amiga. They are all *document*-processors, and that is
> |> quite another thing - they have loads of gfx/composing stuff, but lack
> |> the most elementary writing-support function, like a thesaurus, small
> |> screen-fonts (allowing more than 1/2 a page on-screen at a time),
> |> overstrike mode and no option for saving the text in a format that can be
> |> understood by the equipment publishers have.
> Do you have any idea what the hell you are talking about??
No, of course not. I don't even have a clue to why you suddenly start
swearing at me.
> I'll mention TWO off the top of my head:
> Scribble, and Final Copy.
> BOTH have thesaurus, and spell checker...allow for as many fonts as you
> have in your fonts directory (how many Windoze applications allow for this,
> esp. non-true-type?),
Well, it seems to me that Final Writer can't use anything but type 1
fonts, and I believe Final Writer is a larger version of Final Copy.
> LEARN about a system before you go shooting your mouth off.
Yeah. Right. It seems I should take some time studying the Amiga
system, since I obviously know nothing about it.
> And incidentaly, WP5.1 is available for the Amiga...it can save in IBM
> format; or in ASCII text, which can be converted to an IBM disk (MSH:)
> and taken into WP5.1/6.x on a shitty DOS machine, if that suits your fancy.
WP 4.1 *was* available earlier, I believe. And of course it doesn't work
as it should on newer machines. And Word Perfect Corporation don't even
seem know that they had an Amiga version a while ago.
> I HATE when people shoot their mouth off and know NOTHING about what
> they're talking about!!
Tough. What I don't like is that people enter defensive mode and try
to make it a fighting issue every time anyone criticizes the Amiga or its
software. They also radiated HATE when I a few years back said that the
lack of advertising and the extremely poor developer support of CBM Amiga
would lead to its downfall.
> Another point, now that I remember...EXCELLENCE, last I heard, also has
> a GRAMMAR CHECKER, much like that stupid WP6.x (already has versions to
> correct previous flaws...NICE!). I'd wager that Excellence does a BETTER
> job at it, too... :-)
Yes - if you are prepared to accept nothing but 7-bit ASCII. Excellence!
couldn't handle other keymaps than its own US-layout, and no chance of
entering non-US letters.
> |> If it wasn't for Jim Drew's excellent EMPLANT Mac-emulator, I couldn't
> |> have run Word or other similar programs without buying a new computer.
> Then you have a SERIOUS inability to read. Pick up an Amiga World, and
> check out some reviews...
AmigaWorld was the second best mag. a few years back (Transactor was of
course the best). Now I don't like it - it looks more like a (rich
mans) buyers guide than anything else to me.
> If you're such a terrible reader, why are you so fussy on the type of
> word processor??
Who says I'm such a terrible reader? Oh, *you* do! Well, then I guess
it must be true.
> :-) Oh, now I see...
He is healed! Praise [deity of your choice]!
Yours,
*Art
Darren MacKenzie
|> Hello world,
|> On 24 Jan 1995 02:50:22 GMT,
|> Darren MacKenzie (dar...@bcarh293.bnr.ca) posted this:
|> <snip>
|> > a...@lightning.powertech.no (Arthur Hagen) writes:
|> <snip>
|> [...blah blah blah....... alt.religion.amiga ....blah blah...] :-)
|> Tough. What I don't like is that people enter defensive mode and try
|> to make it a fighting issue every time anyone criticizes the Amiga or its
|> software. They also radiated HATE when I a few years back said that the
|> lack of advertising and the extremely poor developer support of CBM Amiga
|> would lead to its downfall.
|>
I've really got to admit...I'm behind you 100% here. CBM was REALLY stupid.
How often did you see an Amiga commercial, for example. Personally, I've
never seen one. When the C-64 was out, it was advertised a lot on tv, and
CBM sold millions of them. What's the problem?? Duhhhh.......!
|> > Another point, now that I remember...EXCELLENCE, last I heard, also has
|> > a GRAMMAR CHECKER, much like that stupid WP6.x (already has versions to
|> > correct previous flaws...NICE!). I'd wager that Excellence does a BETTER
|> > job at it, too... :-)
|>
|> Yes - if you are prepared to accept nothing but 7-bit ASCII. Excellence!
|> couldn't handle other keymaps than its own US-layout, and no chance of
|> entering non-US letters.
|>
For the general CDN/US population, I'd say that would suffice...esp. US.
|> > |> If it wasn't for Jim Drew's excellent EMPLANT Mac-emulator, I couldn't
|> > |> have run Word or other similar programs without buying a new computer.
|>
|> > Then you have a SERIOUS inability to read. Pick up an Amiga World, and
|> > check out some reviews...
|>
|> AmigaWorld was the second best mag. a few years back (Transactor was of
|> course the best). Now I don't like it - it looks more like a (rich
|> mans) buyers guide than anything else to me.
|>
True. But I do see some decent reviews every once IN A WHILE. :-)
|> > If you're such a terrible reader, why are you so fussy on the type of
|> > word processor??
|>
|> Who says I'm such a terrible reader? Oh, *you* do! Well, then I guess
|> it must be true.
|>
|> > :-) Oh, now I see...
|>
|> He is healed! Praise [deity of your choice]!
|>
|> Yours,
|> *Art
:-)
Vladimir Elberg
: Wrong again...I've RUN a dhrystones program on a 486DX2/66 and the resuult
: was 13.5 MIPS. Whereever you're dreaming up these numbers, I don't know.
: And BTW, keep in mind that a DX4/100 is STILL ONLY A 25MHz MACHINE!! Why
: don't you people understand that?? The ONLY thing running at 100MHz is the
: internal quadrupling of math calculations...FUCK, understand, please!!
Oh my god, what a fucking moron! Please! I mean you spout ignorance and
total shit because you are biased against Intel and Compatables! A
Pentium has around 130 MIPS clocked on a technican's Pentium computer at
"Computer Concepts" (a computer place). I saw it for myself when I went
to pick up a computer repair.
All you want to do is spout total shit, you have no clue on what a
Pentium is or what anything in the PC realm is. All you know is what a
PC looks like from the outside, you have no clue on the PC world at all.
All you know is that you love your Amiga, and you feel bad that its gone
so you spout up total nonsense about something you know nothing about.
Too many AMIGAdweebs do this!
Please, next time know something of substance besides your bias for
Amiga computers! Grow up!
James Diffendaffer
discussion.
MIPS can only provide an accurate comparison between processors with the
same instruction set. I.E. 286 vs 386 vs 486 vs P5 OR 68030 vs 68040
vs 68060. It cannot accurately compare P5 vs 68060.
Why? Becouse it only tells how fast instructions are executed. It does
not account for one processor requiring more instructions to perform
the same operation than annother. RISC chips require more instructions
to do the same things as their CISC counterparts.
One processor may have less registers (requires more memory accesses)
and use of specialized registers (requires more movement of data between
registers).
The 80x86 line uses a rather small # of registers and many are
specialized. But it does have string related instructions.
The 680x0 has around twice as many registers, half-n-half data and
address (less specialized but not perfect). It also has better
addressing modes (less instructions to do the same thing than x86s).
The PowerPC has 30 (if I remember right) general purpose registers.
They can be used for data or addressing (best of the three register wise).
But, since it's RISC, it must execute more instructions to do the same thing.
It is cheaper to produce and the design can clocked faster than the CISC
counterparts.
I'm not even going to waste my time explaining segmented vs flat memory
model. Just why do you think a flat memory model was added to the x86
series?
From a techie standpoint, the best to worst processor order would be
PowerPC -> 680x0 -> 80x86.
However, from a software standpoint, it's the opposite. At least for now.
Emulation... which processor can do it the best?
PowerPC, no question. Each register of it's counterparts can fit in one of
it's registers with pleanty remaining for emulation code.
The 680x0 *should* be able to emulate a 80x86 with less of a speed loss
than the other way around... but the speed depends highly on the
implementation. It's the same way a good Basic program can outrun a poor
assembly one.
Operating system... DOS vs AmigaDOS, Windows vs Workbench.
DOS - uses an outdated (look at CP/M) interrupt call method of calling
the system. Ever heard of interrupt latency? Not to mention the
additional stack operations that may be required. Libraries of
functions (DLLs) are only supported through add-ons. 16bit segmented
unless a program takes over (i.e. programmer has to do more work).
AmigaDOS - designed to be changable and updateable with little effort.
Function calls are direct (with the use of offsets from a lib-base
pointer). More flexible than interrupts, not quite as slow
as interrupt latency, but flexibility is gained over calling routines
at a fixed address. Supports libraries. 32 bit. Flat memory model.
More object oriented (too bad object oriented programming was still
in it's infancy... it could have had a few improvements).
Windows - still cooperative multitasking. Virtual PCs. 16bit unless you
THUNK or use NT... which isn't that wide of audience. Win95? Don't
you mean Win96?
Workbench - True (gee... is there a FALSE multitasking???) multitasking.
More object oriented (not perfect though). Easier to program (IMHO).
etc...
NOW... I would like to point out a few things.
1. My Amiga is in my closet.
2. I program for PC's.
3. You *can* emulate an Amiga on a PC... just don't count on real time
emulation of the special chips. It would require similar hardware
on the PC. HAM? Wanna see a P6 come to a standstill! ;-)
The Amiga showed the industry how a lot of things should be done.
Let's hope they learned from it.
Hopefully we will see a RISC based Amiga with a AAA chipset. But I'm
not going to hold my breath. (just the 060 would be great!)
Darren MacKenzie
|> Darren MacKenzie (dar...@bcarh293.bnr.ca) wrote:
|
|> Please, next time know something of substance besides your bias for
|> Amiga computers! Grow up!
|>
|>
I'll have you know that I have a 386sx, which runs at a whopping 1 MIPS.
This, IMHO, is total shit. I ran the same program on my friend's 486DX2/66,
and it returned just over 13.
I used to sell PCs (AST, Compaq, and IBM). I was a technician with this
company (MicroAge) for some time. I have a degree in Computer Science with
specialization in hardware...and they DON'T have Amigas (unfortunate) in the
labs at the university.
GET A LIFE, SHITHEAD!!! I know what I'm talking about!
Jeffery Carter May
>How often did you see an Amiga commercial, for example. Personally, I've
>never seen one.
Actually, I've seen several. One even had Tip O'Neal (who was Speaker of the
House) in it. They were all in the campaign that C= did to promote the 500.
--
AA AA i Jeffery C. May ONLY
A A A A President, Amiga Atlanta, Inc. Users' Group AMIGA
AAAA AAAA i Senior EE, Georgia Institute of Technology MAKES IT
A A A A i gt1...@prism.gatech.edu POSSIBLE
Simon McGill
> All you want to do is spout total shit, you have no clue on what a
> Pentium is or what anything in the PC realm is. All you know is what a
> PC looks like from the outside, you have no clue on the PC world at all.
> All you know is that you love your Amiga, and you feel bad that its gone
> so you spout up total nonsense about something you know nothing about.
> Too many AMIGAdweebs do this!
>
> Please, next time know something of substance besides your bias for
> Amiga computers! Grow up!
And so elegantly put too, I have always found that using profane language in
this context defeats the point your trying to put across. Most people just
look at the text and think he obviuosly can't argue his point in a sensible
manner so he can't have a good stance to be starting from...
I won't comment on Amiga/PC/MAC war because it's POINTLESS, when religion
finaly ceases to cause wars I'm sure the computer debate will take over :(.
Simon.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________ ________.--'-`--._____
|____==================_) \_'===================`
_,--___.-|__|-.______|=====/ `---'
`---------._ ~~~~~| -------------------------
`-._ - - - ,' A4k/040-12MB-710MB-CDROM
\_____,-' si...@smcgill.demon.co.uk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Says:- It's A Free World................BOLLOCKS!!!
Chris J Schnurr
Hi,
I have a CD32 FMV unit for sale. Works a treat.
Make me an offer ! (UK pounds sterling).
Later
Chris
The farmer sold the cow because she == gave no milk.
The farmer sold the cow because she == needed money.
Stick that in your semantic net and parse it !
============== c...@uk.ac.hw.icbl ==================
The bane of HCI is the Human...
Arthur Hagen
> Wrong again...I've RUN a dhrystones program on a 486DX2/66 and the resuult
> was 13.5 MIPS.
First - you don't measure MIPS by calculating Dhrystones. And Dhrystones
are (like MIPS) not to be trusted for anything but comparing quite
similar machines running the same Dhrystone-measuring program. The results
depends on how well-written the code is. For instance, I get 5208
Dhrystones/s on my A4000 "light" using Sysinfo, but 11315 Dhrystones/s
in AIBB. What number should I use when comparing it to a PC or Mac?
Neither, as the PC don't run the same instructions.
And as for MIPS, that is just a measurement of millions of instructions
per second. Choose the right instruction (those who takes the least
amount of CPU cycles AND the least amount of RAM) and run a loop as big
as the instruction cache can handle. And run the test for a long time,
since the first run of the loop will be slower than all later iterations
because the instructions aren't cache'd yet. Then, for a 486DX2/66 you
could get FAR more than your 13.5 MIPS.
> Whereever you're dreaming up these numbers, I don't know.
The same place you get your dreams perhaps?
> And BTW, keep in mind that a DX4/100 is STILL ONLY A 25MHz MACHINE!! Why
> don't you people understand that?? The ONLY thing running at 100MHz is the
> internal quadrupling of math calculations...FUCK, understand, please!!
Why the shouting and expletives? Do you think we will be impressed?
A DX2/66 has bus connections at 33 MHz, a DX4/100 would have them at 25
MHz. For instructions not requiring memory access or other bus use (and
with the instructions in internal cache) they can happily run at 66 and
100 MHz. Just like the cheap accelerators for the A1000 and A500 where
you plugged in a tiny board with a 14 or 28 MHz 68000 or 68010 who still
use 7 MHz to connect to the rest of the machine. Yes, the machine would
still be a 7 MHz machine, but it would run faster.
Yours,
*Art
KUNISAWA Ryota
> .......
> And BTW, keep in mind that a DX4/100 is STILL ONLY A 25MHz MACHINE!! Why
> don't you people understand that?? The ONLY thing running at 100MHz is the
> internal quadrupling of math calculations...FUCK, understand, please!!
DX4's internal clock frequency is three times multipied, so DX4/100 is
a 33MHz machine....
> -Doc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KUNISAWA Ryota email:kuni...@is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
University of Tokyo, Dept of Information Science (Senior Student)
O.Pilgerstorfer
All in all this thread seems to become some kind of what I call CABM (no, not
CAD or CAM). CABM stands for Computer Aided Brain Masturbation.
If ya want a PeeCee, buy one. If you like Amigas ( ... Me too, me too [Beavis
'94]) then stay with it.
Nevertheless if ya want some Hybrid-Thing, buy a bridgeboard.
It's just as simle as that!!!
Buddy
=============================================================================
O. Pilgerstorfer Phone:(+43) 732/2393-1709 Fax : (+43) 732/2393-1555
Marco Nelissen
: Darren MacKenzie (dar...@bcarh293.bnr.ca) posted this:
: > And BTW, keep in mind that a DX4/100 is STILL ONLY A 25MHz MACHINE!! Why
: > don't you people understand that?? The ONLY thing running at 100MHz is the
: > internal quadrupling of math calculations...FUCK, understand, please!!
: Why the shouting and expletives? Do you think we will be impressed?
: A DX2/66 has bus connections at 33 MHz, a DX4/100 would have them at 25
: MHz. For instructions not requiring memory access or other bus use (and
I think you are both wrong. The DX4 is clock TRIPLED. It is clocked at 33
Mhz, so internally it runs at 99 MHz. Close enough to 100 MHz if you're
an Intel dude...
Marco
DAVID BALAZIC
>
> : Wrong again...I've RUN a dhrystones program on a 486DX2/66 and the resuult
> : was 13.5 MIPS. Whereever you're dreaming up these numbers, I don't know.
> : And BTW, keep in mind that a DX4/100 is STILL ONLY A 25MHz MACHINE!! Why
> : don't you people understand that?? The ONLY thing running at 100MHz is the
> : internal quadrupling of math calculations...FUCK, understand, please!!
>
> Oh my god, what a fucking moron! Please! I mean you spout ignorance and
> total shit because you are biased against Intel and Compatables! A
> Pentium has around 130 MIPS clocked on a technican's Pentium computer at
> "Computer Concepts" (a computer place). I saw it for myself when I went
> to pick up a computer repair.
>
I can't see anything about Pentium in his article ( at least in this quote ),
do U ?
>
> Please, next time know something of substance besides your bias for
> Amiga computers! Grow up!
>
Well well ...
>
--
David Balazic David....@uni-mb.si
Amiga 1200 "This is a quote !"
Quantum LPS340A Slovenija, moja dezela.
id...@aztec.co.za
This is true...
A DX4-100 is a clock-tripled 33Mhz chip. A DX4-75 is a clock-tripled
25Mhz chip. All 486 chips have onboard caches which obviously run at the
doubled or tripled clock speed. Benchmarking an 040 with caches disabled
will show you that most things work through the cache, I see no reason why
this wouldn't be the same for 486's. Most benchmarks will show you that a
DX2-66 is approx. double the speed of a DX-33. PCI graphics card benchmarks
are approx. 1.6 times faster on a DX2-66 than they are on a DX-33. Apart
from writing to the card you also have to run the instructions which determine
what it is that you're writing to the card...
I don't know what the original point of this thread was, but any 486 with a
greater clock speed is faster than one with a lesser clock speed, regardless of
the actual bus speed. You can test this theory any way you please... The only
possible exception to this is a 50Mhz 486DX, it's CPU speed is slower than a
DX2-66, but theoretically you could run a faster bus off of it... In practice
though you get ISA (8Mhz) EISA (33Mhz) VL-BUS (40Mhz) and PCI (33Mhz), so
there's not really a machine that would benefit from this chip (which is
probably why you can't get them any more)
Ian
Theodore L. Watson
: Marco
Well, I am sorry, but you are only partly right. I just talked to an
"Intel dude". . . He said that there were TWO versions of the DX4/100.
One WAS 3x for the 33 mhz type motherboard (but ince MOST 33's clock OVER
33, they to actually hit 100mhz) The other is for a 20mhz or 25mhz
machine, and it is 4x speed.
Of course since it was from an Intel rep doesn't mean it is true ;-)
--
Tad Watson
wat...@crl.com
Maxwell Daymon
: doubled or tripled clock speed. Benchmarking an 040 with caches disabled
: will show you that most things work through the cache, I see no reason why
Benchmarking on an 040 with the caches disabled will show you that most
benchmarks are very small and largely fit into the cache. This shows you
very LITTLE of the *real world*
: this wouldn't be the same for 486's. Most benchmarks will show you that a
: DX2-66 is approx. double the speed of a DX-33. PCI graphics card benchmarks
There are lies, damn lies, and benchmarks.
: are approx. 1.6 times faster on a DX2-66 than they are on a DX-33.
: I don't know what the original point of this thread was, but any 486 with a
: greater clock speed is faster than one with a lesser clock speed, regardless of
: the actual bus speed. You can test this theory any way you please... The only
Take an Amiga. Add a 68030 or 68040. Let it use it's cache or whatever,
but DON'T add any local RAM. Do your benchmarks, programs, or whatever.
You'll notice a slight speed up.
Take the same 68030 or 68040. Now, give it RAM that operates at it's own
speed and width.
You'll notice a breakneck, face-warping speed up.
Clocked-X'ed chips are like the first example which happens to be laughable.
The problem here is that you are looking at the importance of cache, but
ignoring the difference between a system that talks "with" the processor
or LAGS behind the processor. The difference is obvious. Benchmarks are
just benchmarks.
------------------
Maxwell Daymon
mda...@rmii.com
------------------
Chris Cannon
>From: mmor...@madge1.demon.co.uk (Mike Moreton)
>Subject: Re: Emulating Amiga on a DOS machine.HELP!!!!!!!!
>Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 08:06:19 GMT
>James Diffendaffer (jam...@cpd2.usu.edu) wrote:
>: All this bickering is annoying... so lets put a couple facts back into the
>: discussion.
>
>: I'm not even going to waste my time explaining segmented vs flat memory
>: series?
>
>memory model - what they have is that the maximum size of segments is
>expanded to the entire address space. Hence by setting your code, data,
>etc. segments to start from the same place (not necessarily zero), it can
>appear to the code to be a flat memory model.
>
>The point is that some people seem to be under the mis-aprehension that
>flat=good, and segmented=bad. What is bad is small segments, not segmentation
>itself.
>
Yeh alright enough is enough, I don't want take in huge amounts a
bandwidth, to get all of this unconstructive pap, if you want to argue the
toss between the pc and amiga set up a seperate new's group with a title
something like
comp.sad.losers.with.nothing.better.to.do.than.argue.about.who's.system.is.
best
I use my amiga to write up experiments for my degree course it does
what I want so, I have no need to argue about the merits of any computer,
and I dare say most other's use the usenet to solve there problem's and to
help others out, so let's end this string eh!
And just a query, do you actually get use your'e comp's
constructevly, or are you just working out what your'e next argument is.
Chris Cannon.
Email : C.P.C...@EEE.SALFORD.AC.UK
Dave Haynie
>In article <3g446u$o...@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> dar...@bcarh293.bnr.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
> > And BTW, keep in mind that a DX4/100 is STILL ONLY A 25MHz MACHINE!! Why
> > don't you people understand that?? The ONLY thing running at 100MHz is the
> > internal quadrupling of math calculations...FUCK, understand, please!!
Wrong on both counts.
>DX4's internal clock frequency is three times multipied, so DX4/100 is
>a 33MHz machine....
Basically. The DX4 (and the similar IBM BL series) is clock
tripled. The _bus interface_, which is the connection between the
cache and the outside world, runs at up to 33.3MHz on a DX4/100, or up
to 25MHz on a DX4/75. The rest of the chip runs at the rated speed. In
other words, as long as the cache hits, the performance is
indistinguishable from a processor with a full speed bus interface to
the outside world. Since the cache is 16K in size, any trivial
benchmark like Dhrystone or any of the nebulous "MIPS" toys will be
fully contained in the cache.
Dave Haynie | ex-Commodore Engineering | See my first film
Sr. Systems Engineer | Class of '94 | "The Deathbed Vigil"
Scala Inc., US R&D | C= Failure n. See: Greed | in...@iam.com
"Caught a bolt of lightning, cursed the day he let it go" -Pearl Jam
Dave Haynie
>James Diffendaffer (jam...@cpd2.usu.edu) wrote:
>: I'm not even going to waste my time explaining segmented vs flat memory
>: model. Just why do you think a flat memory model was added to the x86
>: series?
>Well, if you're keen on facts, the 386 and above don't actually have a flat
>memory model - what they have is that the maximum size of segments is
>expanded to the entire address space. Hence by setting your code, data,
>etc. segments to start from the same place (not necessarily zero), it can
>appear to the code to be a flat memory model.
The effect, given the addition of large segments AND a page unit to
the '386 MMU is basically the same thing -- every decent 32-bit OS
(several UNIXs, OS/2, NeXTStep) uses a 32-bit flat model with demand
paging. The segments might as well not be there.
>The point is that some people seem to be under the mis-aprehension that
>flat=good, and segmented=bad. What is bad is small segments, not segmentation
>itself.
Reasonable uses for segments exist, but they're severely limited. One
possible use for 32-bit segments on the '386 model would be to allow a
the CPU to address more than 4GB of virtual memory (or a future CPU to
address more than 4GB of physical memory). Of course, this is such a
non-problem with the common use of today's PClones that it's all but
nonexistant (eg, I know where it's not supported, but perhaps someone,
somewhere, is using 32-bit segments).
James Diffendaffer
>James Diffendaffer (jam...@cpd2.usu.edu) wrote:
>: All this bickering is annoying... so lets put a couple facts back into the
>: discussion.
>: I'm not even going to waste my time explaining segmented vs flat memory
>: model. Just why do you think a flat memory model was added to the x86
>: series?
>Well, if you're keen on facts, the 386 and above don't actually have a flat
>memory model - what they have is that the maximum size of segments is
>expanded to the entire address space. Hence by setting your code, data,
>etc. segments to start from the same place (not necessarily zero), it can
>appear to the code to be a flat memory model.
>The point is that some people seem to be under the mis-aprehension that
>flat=good, and segmented=bad. What is bad is small segments, not segmentation
>itself.
Segments might be good on a mainfraim... but on a desktop PC???
Ok, from my experience... flat = good. Small segments = totally lame pain
in the butt!
"The maximum size of segments is expanded to the entire address space"
So... what happens is that programmers expand it to as much space as they
will need or all of memory. So... what's so much better about that than a
flat memory model??? It functions about the same, But do you get rid of the
extra segment info in your code though?
Maxwell Daymon
: id...@aztec.co.za wrote:
: : doubled or tripled clock speed. Benchmarking an 040 with caches disabled
: : will show you that most things work through the cache, I see no reason why
: : this wouldn't be the same for 486's.
: I think you may have spoiled the nice argument they were enjoying by
: injecting a little bit of knowlege into the debate.
And again, you've missed the point entirely. Benchmarks are one of the
FEW peices of clone software that fit in a 4, 8, or 16K cache.
MOST of the code is in slow RAM. Again, to get an "Amiga" equivalent.
Get a 68030 with NO 32-bit memory. Test with caches on and caches off.
This is like a doubled or tripled intel chip with a slower bus. (25MHz
68030 with a 7MHz RAM bus)
Now, put 32-bit RAM on the 68030 at the 030's speed and test again. You will
find that in real world performance, the cache speed hasn't got much
impact at all if all your RAM isn't running with the processor and THAT's
the only RAM of the DXn/xxx chips that runs at that speed.
The argument presented is NOT knowledgable OR consistent. It only
demonstrates that with some processors in some cases, a cache is
important. Further, the comparison between processors and architectures
is flawed.
I could say a 486DX2-66 is significantly improved with 2nd level cache,
and "I don't see why an 040 would be any different." Put it to a REAL
test and you find a dramatic difference. The 040 isn't effected NEARLY as
much as the DX2-66.
Mike Moreton
: A DX4-100 is a clock-tripled 33Mhz chip. A DX4-75 is a clock-tripled
: 25Mhz chip. All 486 chips have onboard caches which obviously run at the
: doubled or tripled clock speed. Benchmarking an 040 with caches disabled
: will show you that most things work through the cache, I see no reason why
: this wouldn't be the same for 486's.
I think you may have spoiled the nice argument they were enjoying by
Butcher A J
> Hello world,
> On 24 Jan 1995 02:50:22 GMT,
> Darren MacKenzie (dar...@bcarh293.bnr.ca) posted this:
> <snip>
> > a...@lightning.powertech.no (Arthur Hagen) writes:
> <snip>
> > |> At least you CAN run Word on Windows. There are NO good wordprocessors
> > |> available for the Amiga. They are all *document*-processors, and that is
> > |> quite another thing - they have loads of gfx/composing stuff, but lack
> > |> the most elementary writing-support function, like a thesaurus, small
> > |> screen-fonts (allowing more than 1/2 a page on-screen at a time),
> > |> overstrike mode and no option for saving the text in a format that can be
> > |> understood by the equipment publishers have.
Excuse me, what about Protext by Arnor? I've used it for years and it's
brilliant. OK, it doesn't look very flash, but for me, it's most important
feature is IT IS FAAAAAAAAAAST! Features are still being added, but it has
ALL the features you mentioned, with the possible exception of the save format.
It does have options, but I've never found one in common with the package
I wish to export to :-(
Oh, of course, it's a British product, that must be why no-one's heard of it.
;-)
[snip]
Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher - Amiga Hackin' Bass Thumpin' Noise Blastin' Third Year Comp Sci
Happy Hippy Type person.
I Use PGP - Finger but...@sunlab45.essex.ac.uk for public key
WWW Page @ http://cswww2.essex.ac.uk/Web/butcau/
urba...@ct.picker.com
With fear and trepidation I enter the fray.
I believe your disagreement stems from the general misaplication
of currently available benchmark tools.
Wheatstones, dhrystones, et al are relavent only in the context of
remarkably similar architectures.
They are pointless exercises when attempting to compare dramatically
different architectures.
Benchmarks such as these are designed to compare systems that are
remarkably alike. That is systems that differ from each other in a single or
easily quantifiable way such as identical systems with only a change clock
speed between the two engines. The point of the benchmark is to be able to
quantify the effect of the change on a single aspect of system performance.
Arguing efficacy of remarkably distinct architectures based on software
benchmarks is an exercise that at best simply wastes time, at worst it leads
to expensive mistakes.
May I suggest workflow as a suprisingly effective benchmark. In my business
(Diagnostic Imaging Systems) my customers are not impressed by geek jargon.
They have their own benchmark that they call "Number of patients per day"
If our architecture (system) impeeds this ever escalating benchmark they feel
they are not well served. They are not concerned as to how we raise this number
( improvements in image aquisition, processing, patient handling etc.) as they
are concerned that it happen.
By the same token, word processing workflow can be improved by either rewriting
wordperfect, running it on a P5, or learning to type. My point is that the
MIPS is a very narrow view of the process.
with all respect
al
Happily using a 486sx, an Amiga 2000, aMac LC, and a room full of DecAlpha400s
Volker Barthelmann
: Take an Amiga. Add a 68030 or 68040. Let it use it's cache or whatever,
: but DON'T add any local RAM. Do your benchmarks, programs, or whatever.
: You'll notice a slight speed up.
I don't think that this is a fair comparison. AFAIK a 486DX2 accesses the bus
as fast as a 486DX. And that should be faster than almost any memory
subsystems. Of course a DX66 with good subsystems would be faster than a
66MHz DX2, but not that much.
An A4000/40 can't access RAM faster than a A4000/30, however there really is
a great speedup in most cases.
: Take the same 68030 or 68040. Now, give it RAM that operates at it's own
: speed and width.
: You'll notice a breakneck, face-warping speed up.
Yes, if You compare it to 7MHz, 16bit ram, but that's not like the situation
with 486DX2s.
: Clocked-X'ed chips are like the first example which happens to be laughable.
No, this is just a economical result of memory that can't keep up with the
processor speeds. The results are quite good.
: The problem here is that you are looking at the importance of cache, but
Caches are important.
: ignoring the difference between a system that talks "with" the processor
: or LAGS behind the processor. The difference is obvious. Benchmarks are
: just benchmarks.
Yes, but nevertheless a clock doubled/tripled cpu is usually a lot faster
than a single clocked.
Volker
Matthew Joseph Desantis
Also, FinalCopy, FinalCopy2, and FinalWriter, all feature spell checking,
and a thesaurus.
"[amiga wp's have] no option for saving text in a format that can be
understood by equipment publishers have"
what about PostScript?
-matt
Zsolt Szabo
>Oh be fair; Intel deliver stuff they haven't even announced. Floating
>point bugs, for example...;-)
At least they deliver new technology, unlike C= whose motto seemed to be:
"10 year old hardware are ridiculously high prices--TODAY!!"
Neil Brewitt
What 10 year old hardware were Commodore selling? I was under the
impression that when I bought my A500+ in 1991 that I was getting the super
duper fat Agnus, Super Denise, etc. etc.. Of course, the basic layout of
the insides may have remained the same for a number of years- the keyboard
may have been the same, but under those premises, then IBM, Compaq etc.
have been selling us the same hardware for 15 years.
Please clarify your statement, Zsolt.
Neil.
--
**** ne...@melkfri.demon.co.uk **** Neil Brewitt
*||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||* IRC: saggy
** Musician ***** Manchester,UK **
George Lianeris
What are you talking about? Commodore doesn't build chips, it builds
computers (or used to). Plus, the A4000 is a formidable computer. Anyway,
you can't compare C= to Intel, just to IBM, and they both seem to have the
same motto. All the cheap intel-based machines are clones. Motorrola
builds CPUs for Amigas, and so far they have been proved to be superior,
and that's a pros opinion, not just mine.
--
Lt. Cmdr. George Lianeris ISS Cathawk Tactical
You find'em we blast'em.
William F. Maddock
Interesting that Intel based machines STILL haven't caught up to that 10 year
old technology. Yes the technology is 10 years old (except AGA), but the
technology of clones started out at least ten years older than that. They
STILL haven't overcome that disadvantage in all areas. I find it incredible
that, even though CBM has been gone for almost a year, other microcomputer
platforms have yet to catch and pass a platform that is truly standing still.
Rune Skaarsmoen
There have been bugs around since they built the first computer.
Don't tell me bugs are new technology.
Oh, sorry, I forgot Microsoft, they do deliver bugs... eh, New Technology.
R.
Erik Quackenbush
> What are you talking about? Commodore doesn't build chips, it builds
>computers (or used to). Plus, the A4000 is a formidable computer. Anyway,
>you can't compare C= to Intel, just to IBM, and they both seem to have the
>same motto. All the cheap intel-based machines are clones. Motorrola
>builds CPUs for Amigas, and so far they have been proved to be superior,
>and that's a pros opinion, not just mine.
>
At the risk of prolong the life of this thread...
Commodore DID SO build chips. ;{)
| Erik Quackenbush | "No comment..." | Systems Engineer |
| equ...@scala.com | (ex-GVP dev. staff) | Scala, Inc. |
Jyrki Saarinen
> At least they deliver new technology, unlike C= whose motto seemed to
> be:
Is the 80x86 family in your opinion, new technology? I would not
call that series so.. very limited register set, segments, 8088
compatablity even in Pentium etc.
Is this your idea of modern CPU?
--
Jyrki Saarinen - Nose / Stellar - A4000/Warp - jsaa...@kone.fipnet.fi
Arthur Hagen
On Fri, 3 Feb 1995 11:36:33 -0500,
Matthew Joseph Desantis (md...@andrew.cmu.edu) posted this:
> "[amiga wp's have] no option for saving text in a format that can be
> understood by equipment publishers have"
> what about PostScript?
Sure - PostScript is fine for completed pages. Not for text, or for
something that should be included in a larger context (like spread out on
3-4 pages in different-sized columns in a magazine). Even though PS
*can* be used for plain unformatted text, there is no option to neither
save it like this on the Amiga nor to include it on other platforms.
If you want to become a writer for a magazine (that isn't produced on the
Amiga) or want to write books (with footnotes, chapters etc.) the Amiga
isn't the best machine to use. The publisher will most likely complain
that your text is non-standard, and that they have to edit it a LOT
(removing line breaks, converting "foreign" characters by hand etc.)
before it looks ok. The best advice for those of you without an EMPLANT
or similar would be to write in an Amiga document processor, and then
convert it with a tool like PPage's article editor (it can save text in
WP format). This isn't perfect either, but it is far better than trying
to submit what most Amiga document processors call "plain text" or "ascii".
Yours,
*Art
Darren MacKenzie
|>
|> In a previous posting, Zsolt Szabo (robo...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu) writes:
|> > In article <3g3gc7$r...@bs33n.staffs.ac.uk> cm4b...@bs47c.staffs.ac.uk (Toby Douglass) writes:
|> >
|> >>Oh be fair; Intel deliver stuff they haven't even announced. Floating
|> >>point bugs, for example...;-)
|> >
|> >
|> >
|> > At least they deliver new technology, unlike C= whose motto seemed to be:
|> >
|> > "10 year old hardware are ridiculously high prices--TODAY!!"
|> >
|> >
|>
|> What are you talking about? Commodore doesn't build chips, it builds
Yes, in fact, they build many chips. I'll name several:
8520 CIA, Agnus, Denise, Gary, Buster, Paula, (not too familiar with the
AGA chipset)...I think some others are like Lisa, and a couple other girls'
names... :-) You'll note the CBM logo on them...if you open your machine.
|> computers (or used to). Plus, the A4000 is a formidable computer. Anyway,
|> you can't compare C= to Intel, just to IBM, and they both seem to have the
|> same motto. All the cheap intel-based machines are clones. Motorrola
|> builds CPUs for Amigas, and so far they have been proved to be superior,
|> and that's a pros opinion, not just mine.
|>
Motorola builds several other small chips, as well. Motorola builds CPUs for
other platforms, as well, such as Mac, Sun, HP-9000, etc.
Another note is that Motorola builds many of the chips on a PeeCee motherboard
(or at least they USED to ... nowadays there's only about 4 chips on the whole
board, anyways!!)... :-)
|> --
|> Lt. Cmdr. George Lianeris ISS Cathawk Tactical
|>
|> You find'em we blast'em.
|>
-Doc
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= Darren MacKenzie = Bell-Northern Research =
= dar...@bnr.ca = DMS Global Loadbuild Specialist =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= 18 Deerfield Dr. Apt. 110 Nepean, Ont. K2G-4L1 =
= (613)-226-8747 HOME (613)-765-3041 & 763-8135 WORK =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Darren MacKenzie
|>
|> Interesting that Intel based machines STILL haven't caught up to that 10 year
|> old technology. Yes the technology is 10 years old (except AGA), but the
On the contrary. What about KS? The operating system started out as CRAP
(OS1.2 or less!), got OK (1.3), then got improved greatly -- TWICE!
(OS2.x and OS3.x).