Atari Sparrow
Don Schoengarth
know it was before the Falcon but, what are the major differences?
Thanks Don
Nicholas Bales
>
> Any one know anything about the Atari Sparrow. What is it worth? I
> know it was before the Falcon but, what are the major differences?
>
> Thanks Don
No Atari Sparrow was ever released by Atari. I think there was a
prototype at one point called the Sparrow. It might have been the
Falcon040 proto or a Falcon-based console, maybe even something else.
If you've seen one for sale, it's either a valuable collector's item, or
complete bullshit.
Cheers,
Nick
--
||| Nicholas Bales, France bales@
===|||================================== mygale.org
/ | \ The Atari ST Quick FAQ
-' ' `- http://www.mygale.org/~bales/quickfaq.htm
Jo Even Skarstein
> Any one know anything about the Atari Sparrow. What is it worth? I
> know it was before the Falcon but, what are the major differences?
The Sparrow was basically an upgrade for the STE with a 68030, DSP,
sound and graphics (?). It was never released, which I guess never was
the intention. It ended up as the Falcon, which is nothing but a STE
with a crippled 030, a new DMA-system (with DSP, sound and SCSI) and
better graphics.
--
/*
** Jo Even Skarstein http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~josk/
**
** beer - maria mckee - atari falcon - babylon 5
*/
Nicholas Bales
>
> Don Schoengarth <do...@qnet.com> wrote:
> > Any one know anything about the Atari Sparrow. What is it worth? I
> > know it was before the Falcon but, what are the major differences?
>
> The Sparrow was basically an upgrade for the STE with a 68030, DSP,
> sound and graphics (?). It was never released, which I guess never was
> the intention. It ended up as the Falcon, which is nothing but a STE
> with a crippled 030, a new DMA-system (with DSP, sound and SCSI) and
> better graphics.
... which makes it about as similar to an STE as a rhinoceros is to a
butterfly. Same basic DNA structure, but seriously different
implementation.
Don Schoengarth
is selling it. I will let you know what I come up with .Thanks for the
info..
Nicholas Bales wrote:
> Don Schoengarth a écrit:
> >
> > Any one know anything about the Atari Sparrow. What is it worth? I
> > know it was before the Falcon but, what are the major differences?
> >
> > Thanks Don
>
> No Atari Sparrow was ever released by Atari. I think there was a
> prototype at one point called the Sparrow. It might have been the
> Falcon040 proto or a Falcon-based console, maybe even something else.
>
> If you've seen one for sale, it's either a valuable collector's item, or
> complete bullshit.
>
Jo Even Skarstein
>> the intention. It ended up as the Falcon, which is nothing but a STE
>> with a crippled 030, a new DMA-system (with DSP, sound and SCSI) and
>> better graphics.
> ... which makes it about as similar to an STE as a rhinoceros is to a
> butterfly. Same basic DNA structure, but seriously different
> implementation.
The separate parts are upgraded, but the basic design is the same. The
Falcon is a hot-rodded STE, while the TT is in many aspects a
completely different machine (32-bit all the way, the new RAM-model).
DarkChyld [Ronald J. Hall]
->The separate parts are upgraded, but the basic design is the same. The
->Falcon is a hot-rodded STE, while the TT is in many aspects a
->completely different machine (32-bit all the way, the new RAM-model).
This is a little bit off from this message but has to do with the
thread. I have an old Atari magazine that covers a "preview" of the
Falcon in its early days. At that time, the project was code-named
Sparrow. I'll have to dig that mag out and look it over again. It
only lasted about 6 issues or so. I believe it was formed by a splinter
group that broke away from ST-Informer.
Later... ;-)
__________________________________________________________________
/ / / / /\
/ --T-- / Sysop of The DarkForce! BBS / /\ / /
/ -A T A R I- / Phone 1-606-886-9014 Today! / Dark><Chyld / /
/ --G-- / The Fuji -still- Lives...!! / \/ / /
/_______________/_______________/_________________/_______________/ /
\_________________________________________________________________\/
William Platt
B.P.
>.
WARNING: All unsolicited SPAM will get a a complimentary WAV file and
a really neat picture of a can of SPAM in return every day
for the next month.
SPAM the SPAMMERS!!!!!!!!!
Remove the NOSPAM to reply by e-mail
Stephen Marriott
Don Schoengarth wrote:
> From what I know so far it was released to a developer in my area and now he
> is selling it. I will let you know what I come up with .Thanks for the
> info..
This was a developer machine. IIRC - it has a german key set.
--
Stephen Marriott - st...@spensley.co.uk
Dennis McGuire
> Don Schoengarth a écrit:
> >
> > Any one know anything about the Atari Sparrow. What is it worth? I
> > know it was before the Falcon but, what are the major differences?
>
> No Atari Sparrow was ever released by Atari. I think there was a
> prototype at one point called the Sparrow. It might have been the
> Falcon040 proto or a Falcon-based console, maybe even something else.
>
> If you've seen one for sale, it's either a valuable collector's item, or
> complete bullshit.
As I recall, the "Sparrow" was a prototype of a "low end" Falcon.
I think by the time the Falcon was released, it was low-end enough that
the Sparrow was never put into production. It's also possible that the
Sparrow prototype itself actually evolved into the Falcon.
William Platt
about a new mid range machine (between the STe and TT) The rumour was
an 020 based machine at 12mhz with a Motorola DSP and an enhanced
version of TOS 3.xx. The codename was Sparrow. Later that year at
one of the shows in Germany there was a prototype with the Falcon
specs, as AtariUser put it "the working name is sparrow"
B.P.
On 26 Sep 1998 22:32:38 , Dennis McGuire wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Nicholas Bales wrote:
>
>> Don Schoengarth a =E9crit:
>> >=20
>> > Any one know anything about the Atari Sparrow. What is it worth? I
>> > know it was before the Falcon but, what are the major differences?
>>=20
>> No Atari Sparrow was ever released by Atari. I think there was a
>> prototype at one point called the Sparrow. It might have been the
>> Falcon040 proto or a Falcon-based console, maybe even something else.
>>=20
>> If you've seen one for sale, it's either a valuable collector's item, or
>> complete bullshit.
>
>
>=09As I recall, the "Sparrow" was a prototype of a "low end" Falcon.
>I think by the time the Falcon was released, it was low-end enough that
>the Sparrow was never put into production. It's also possible that the
>Sparrow prototype itself actually evolved into the Falcon.
>
>
William Platt
Falcon using the cartridge port and connecting it to a stereo.
B.P.
MGrove
According to Steve at Wizztronics, they have several Sparrows. Each is
slightly different than the other. From what he said, here are some of
the features, and lack of, compaired to a "production" Falcon:
1).The most significant difference is in the sound matrix. The ones he
has have a sort of a daughter card for the sound system. It works, but
he doesn't know if it is compatible with "standard" Falcon audio
software.
2). The DSP is a PGA socket as are most all of the chips on the board.
3). CPU (MC68030RC30) is a PGA socket.
4). FPU is a PLCC (like a normal Falcon).
5). Sparrow TOS is contained on 2-1mb eproms. It is different than
Falcon TOS. Compatibility is unknown, and they have the source
code for three different version of Sparrow TOS. They are machine
dependent, meaning that there is a version for each machine.
6). The Sparrow has normal SCSI, Serial, IDE, Parallel ports.
7). The bus decoding GALS are different.
8). It has a single simm socket. I would image is to be a 30 pin
socket meaning unless you can find a 16mb 30 pin simm (not impossible,
but expensive) your stuck with 4mb of ST ram.
9). CPU Expansion is the same, but again, the GALS are different, so
there may be hardware conflicts for goodies that you stack on.
I wouldn't mind having one to hack on. It would be much easier to try
different modifications and develope hardware on a machine with
socketed chips. With a Nemesis, you could install a 50Mhz 030, install
a 66Mhz 56002 DSP and have a nice setup for something like Apex Media.
The big drawback would be the Sparrow TOS. I would image that there is
a lot of compatibility issues that would come up, and you would have
to a good deal of programming experience to over come these.
I've been trying to get my hands on one for a couple of years...
Good Luck,
Mike
Werner Domroese / Q5
Jo Even Skarstein wrote in message
<90602693...@tornado.itea.ntnu.no>...
>Don Schoengarth <do...@qnet.com> wrote:
>> Any one know anything about the Atari Sparrow. What is it worth? I
>> know it was before the Falcon but, what are the major differences?
>
>the intention. It ended up as the Falcon, which is nothing but a STE
>with a crippled 030, a new DMA-system (with DSP, sound and SCSI) and
SCSI: didn't the Mega STE and the TT also have that????
Crippled? No way the Falcon has a genuine 68030, AFAIK. Bad thing that they
left out the optional 68882 FPU, which was standard on a TT. Too bad the
TT/X never made it either. Believe it had the same graphics specs as the
ATW800. If you refer to the 16-bit bus, that's the REST of the system (as
opposed to the TT, AFAIK). The Falcon was indeed intended as the successor
to the STE's and the MicroBox, the high-end version of the Falcon, as the
successor to the TT's. I think it featured a 68060 and five VME slots
(according to a Dutch Atari mag).
Werner Domroese / Q5
Jo Even Skarstein wrote in message
>Nicholas Bales <ba...@mygale.REMOVETHIS.org> wrote:
>
>>> the intention. It ended up as the Falcon, which is nothing but a STE
>>> with a crippled 030, a new DMA-system (with DSP, sound and SCSI) and
>
>> ... which makes it about as similar to an STE as a rhinoceros is to a
>> butterfly. Same basic DNA structure, but seriously different
>> implementation.
>
68060, fully 32-bit and a high bus speed (or so I've read in Dutch Atari mag
Atari ST Nieuws)
Werner Domroese / Q5
ataris...@acn.lu) they covered a topic on the new Atari MicroBox,
supposedly the high-end Falcon.
Here's what they said:
Sparrow was the project code-name for the new generation of TOS machines,
namely Falcon030, Falcon040 and MicroBox.
What else was in there?
-They showed a photo graph of a MicroBox casing thoroughly different from
the pictures of Curt Vendel's excellent www.atari.nu and claimed or stated
that it had been designed for the MicroBox by Apple designers. They left us
in the dark wether these were ex-Apple employees or that there was an actual
agreement between Atari and Apple.
-They roughly outlined the history of TOS machines and video game consoles
-It featured some info on a supposed prototype of a Mega ST that featured a
built-in genuine PC, hardware-based PC emulation or PC compatibility
(depends on how you interpret the article). It was rumoured to be dropped
because before the IBM / Jaguar agreement, Atari would secretly have used
some IBM patented technology for this compatibility.
The mag doesn't give much credit listings, but it's also a mag from the
official Atari distributor in the Netherlands after the big reorganization.
Project Sparrow is said to have been a taskgroup and yes - the "Sparrow" a
working model. Along this way, new computers were to become birds of prey
(Sparrow, Falcon) and game consoles to be predatory mamals (Lynx, Panther -
which was dropped due to advances in Jaguar technology, and Jaguar). The
Sparrows were developed in the US, the Jaguar as we all know mainly by Flair
and Flair II, Atari-funded british researh companies.
Atari did a lot of this stuff. For example, the ATW 800 operating system
came from the same people that developed the Amiga operating system. The
Portfolio was a licensed product that I believe was also manufactured by the
company that originally developed it. Transputer technology is also said to
be used in IBM's parallel transaction server, which also used T800's but ha
a different OS. The ATW on the other hand, was built around a Mega ST for
Atari peripheral and software compatibility and used a GEMDOS file system
(well, that's what I've been told), but featured Unix-like features, but
unlike most Unix flavors, true parallel processing (which is different from
basic multithreading and multitasking with timeslices and such).
Well that's all that's known to me, but of course I could be just as wrong
as my sources. Worth contacting the AHS / Atari Vaporeware / Curt Vendel
for? I think it would be interesting to have some real facts on these
things. Maybe www.atari.nu have some docs on it. Who'll know?
I'm moving right now, so Curt if you're reading - it would take some time
before I find the issue again. Then I could scan and/or translate it for you
and send you some mail, if you'd like. I don't know their credibility. You'd
have to mail them on that (ataris...@acn.lu).
Werner.
louis
Hi Werner,
well, this magazine has launched some crap at several times in the past :-)
I reckon about 2 years ago they did an article on this Microbox,
suggesting Atari was still secretly working on it and launching it as the
"Atari-Phoenix", complete with "secretly obtained photographs, which
weren't all published because the big shots in Sunnyvale had threatened
they could loose certain rights when they did" (Quote from one of the
editors when I spoke to him about it).
One of their "authors" still is some "wizkid" that once was kicked-off a
mailer system because he didn't want to comply with echo rules. Called the
Semper/Jetmail/LED packages crap and he could write a much better one in a
fortnight. Same kid tells people in May/June '98 that XaAES is a very good
and stable OS, from programmer "Cray Grahman" and "now available at
version 7!"...
Go figure!
--
CU NeXT msg,
____________________________________
| |
L O U I S | Email: lo...@holleman.demon.nl |
| http://www.holleman.demon.nl |
|____________________________________|
Louis Holleman
"Werner Domroese / Q5" wrote:
>
> The mag doesn't give much credit listings, but it's also a mag from the
> official Atari distributor in the Netherlands after the big reorganization.
>
Well, they NEVER did list any credits...
Being the "official Atari distributor in the Benelux"... here's what
happened:
In the reorganisation of the whole Atari bunch, the Belgian offices were
closed, the Dutch ones got a smaller housing (I recall they went to
Schiphol airport in their final days, sitting in a warehouse instead of
the former office building). I gather at the end also the German branch
was closed, and so was the Dutch one. The next day ACN drove to Schiphol,
bought a few pallets with Atari-ware and proclaimed themselves the
"Official Atari Distributors for the Benelux"... whether that was with a
licence from Atari Sunnyvale or without is not clear to me. Wouldn't
surprise me if Atari USA never knew a thing about it :-)
Some time ago it appeared they were selling Gemulator boards: re-makes,
and the official producers never saw any fees. (Hey Uwe, you're doing
business with them too?)
They reviewed Papillon 2.5 as a completely redesigned package, "capable of
running in all the modern resolutions"... Well, more than 256 colors
appearently was too modern :-)
Just told you about the review of XaAES v.7, which in turn was a "rewrite"
of the article on v.5 in Feb. '97 with the same misspellings...
They sold (maybe still sell) SM-144 monitors... the ones Atari Netherlands
had rejected, sent them to Poland for an "upgrade" and one is sitting next
to my old ST. Picture ain't bad, but not real good either. BTW, it came in
a box that appearently had been opened/closed at least a dozen times :-)
OK, 'nuff said about ACN...
--
CU NeXT msg,
____________________________________
| |
LOUIS | Email: lo...@holleman.demon.nl |
| http://www.holleman.demon.nl |
|____________________________________|
Pascal Ricard
in article <6ula75$5...@news3.euro.net>
Werner Domroese / Q5 wrote on Sun 27-09-98 12:14 (GMT):
> working model. Along this way, new computers were to become birds of prey
> (Sparrow, Falcon) and game consoles to be predatory mamals (Lynx, Panther -
My dictionary says "sparrowhawk" is a bird of prey (épervier), "sparow"
is just a small bird (moineau) :-)
BFN,
/Pascal/
--
Pascal, surfing the web on his Falcon...
Otagger ß1.22: Today's thought:
I often daydream about my inability to fantasize
Jo Even Skarstein
> SCSI: didn't the Mega STE and the TT also have that????
The TT has SCSI, the Mega has a built-in host-adapter but no real
SCSI.
> Crippled? No way the Falcon has a genuine 68030, AFAIK. Bad thing that they
The Falcon's 030 is a custom-made piece for Atari with only 16-bit
bus. A real 030 has 32-bit bus and dynamic bus-sizing.
Werner Domroese / Q5
the Netherlands anymore (apart from "ST") by Stichting ST, or AFAIK, this
really gives me a very bad feeling indeed.
It's true they sometimes claim things that aren't true and they sometimes
scam in certain products and they never ever said a word about JTS or Hasbro
AFAICR, so I guess you're very right about that. They do however, have some
advertisers that still sell Atari items in retail in stead of meailorder, so
I guess that's what I'm subscribing for. The fee isn't that high either, so
I'll take it for what it's worth.
Perhaps you're right. I'm still very eager to their sources, btw, regarding
the MicroBox thing. Is their German stuff also illegal?? Yes I know they
still sold the old Gemulator when Gemulator 98 was advertising on the net. I
don't want to give all those people a bad name unjustifiably though. These
things are the reason that I state that something was "according to", and
not my own experience (that many times differ from what others have to say
about anything).
Then there's the newsgroups for info. Especially the German ones of MausNetz
(maus.sys.atari. ...) seem pretty active. So if you have some more info on
other sources (non digital sources included), they'd be welcome.
PS - It does take ages to get in contact with them every now and then as
well. Do you also have an opinion about MABN? Are they trustworthy? (Closest
thing to Capelle/Rotterdam) if you don't have a car...
:-)
Thanks.
Werner Domroese / Q5
Werner Domroese / Q5
it's worth a shot or are they not worth talking to anyway? I wonder what
their defense of these posts would be... perhaps we should ask Willem
Hartog?
However, it's not up to me to take your post to them. I believe you. I
suspected something like this for some time now. But erm... how come YOU are
so informed? What are your sources?
Just asking...
:-) It's good to see that Atarians still exist even in the Netherlands.
Louis Holleman
"Werner Domroese / Q5" wrote:
>
> What if we confronted them with all this. How would they react? You think
> it's worth a shot or are they not worth talking to anyway? I wonder what
> their defense of these posts would be... perhaps we should ask Willem
> Hartog?
>
> However, it's not up to me to take your post to them. I believe you. I
> suspected something like this for some time now. But erm... how come YOU are
> so informed? What are your sources?
>
> :-) It's good to see that Atarians still exist even in the Netherlands.
>
>
Hi Walter,
(I gather this was directed to me, since I saw no quotes at all...)
First of, I don't think they'll get impressed... Call it "not worth a
shot" or whatever...
Talking about the german stuff: really don't have a clue. That's the
reason I yelled at (well, better call it: "warned") Uwe...
Most stories come from inside the old Atari world. If you ever bump into
Wilfred Kilwinger, Jurek Ceglarek, whoever from former Atari Netherlands,
you'll probably hear more...
The Gemulator-thing was something described in the FAN-net about one year
ago... I recall having seen a posting from the makers of Gemulator with
the story attached.
Atarians still do exist over here, the trouble is, you see very few in
this NG. Some of them call themselves "die-hards" but they surf on the
Internet by means of PeeCees, Macs, etc. and don't even know you can do it
on an Atari. Won't read in CSAS because "there's somuch flow"... ? You
call that "die-hards"?
Well, MABN is another story: it primarily is a firm that sells timing gear
for indoor-skelter-circuits, but it sells Atari related stuff too. One guy
(Paul) knows about Atari, the others only know it ever existed. Paul
managed to have a pre-production Milan (board nr. 5) tour several
interested people over here, for evaluation purposes. One time I ordered
NVDI-for-Matrix, never heard a thing, so I got it straight from the
Behnes; early this year I ordered and paid for a new Aixit board with 64
Megs for my TT. After 3 months I told Paul I didn't like their handling
(no messages about delay or whatever) and he refunded the money... Let's
just call it a "minor slip". Heck, they're the last dealer over here I
know of. At least they appear to be very active on the Milan front.
Werner Domroese / Q5
It's Werner but that's okay, I've been called worse :-)
>
>(I gather this was directed to me, since I saw no quotes at all...)
Yes, sorry about that, I sort of assumed you'd understand. Wouldn't make
messages too big. :)
>
>First of, I don't think they'll get impressed... Call it "not worth a
>shot" or whatever...
>Talking about the german stuff: really don't have a clue. That's the
>reason I yelled at (well, better call it: "warned") Uwe...
I presume you mean Uwe Seimet of HDDriver (?) and other stuff?
>
>Most stories come from inside the old Atari world. If you ever bump into
>Wilfred Kilwinger, Jurek Ceglarek, whoever from former Atari Netherlands,
Okay these names are known. (I've also heard that Wilfred went to Vobis and
once was a Commodore guy?????). I think it wasn't such a good move by Atari
USA to dismiss Alwin Stupf of Atari Germany, IMHO. He did a lot for the
"professional" Atari market (yes I know, USA wanted into the consumer
market).
>you'll probably hear more...
>The Gemulator-thing was something described in the FAN-net about one year
>ago... I recall having seen a posting from the makers of Gemulator with
>the story attached.
>
>Atarians still do exist over here, the trouble is, you see very few in
>this NG. Some of them call themselves "die-hards" but they surf on the
>Internet by means of PeeCees, Macs, etc. and don't even know you can do it
>on an Atari. Won't read in CSAS because "there's somuch flow"... ? You
>call that "die-hards"?
No, I definately do not. :) I must admit though, that purely professionally
I've been forced to use a pretty contemptible at home as well (I'm in the
IT-business, sort of)
>
>Well, MABN is another story: it primarily is a firm that sells timing gear
>for indoor-skelter-circuits, but it sells Atari related stuff too. One guy
>(Paul) knows about Atari, the others only know it ever existed. Paul
Hmm Paul Moerman? I think I know that guy... They send me some sort of
Atari-fan newsletter annex pricing list every once in a while... you can
even cancel that by ticking "I'm not an Atari fan anymore".
>managed to have a pre-production Milan (board nr. 5) tour several
>interested people over here, for evaluation purposes. One time I ordered
>NVDI-for-Matrix, never heard a thing, so I got it straight from the
>Behnes; early this year I ordered and paid for a new Aixit board with 64
>Megs for my TT. After 3 months I told Paul I didn't like their handling
>(no messages about delay or whatever) and he refunded the money... Let's
>just call it a "minor slip". Heck, they're the last dealer over here I
>know of. At least they appear to be very active on the Milan front.
I once bought a Falcon there when I turned in my 4MB STE. Although it took
them about four months to get their act together, in the end, I did end up
with a Falcon according to my specs (of back then).
The dealer thing isn't that much of a problem to me as long as I can
mailorder things. What hurts me most is that so many reliable and less
reliable Atari mags have either disappeared or become hard to come by.
Examples: Atari Magazine, Atari Info, ST, some belgian thing that made it to
the Netherlands once and was completely made on Atari (I think it was called
1st something). Then there's the British glossies ST Format, Atari ST User,
Atari ST Review... and my biggest loss... the gradual disappearing of
several German mags (especially the ones with techie bits). Atari Magazin,
TOS, 68000er (merged with ST Computer if I'm not mistaken). Does ST Computer
still exist? IMHO it's still one of the best...
I really need more and better subscriptions...
What I miss on the net is something like www.atari.nu, only for third-party
hard- & software dedicated to Atari.
Thanks for your informative reply,
Werner Domroese / Q5
Werner Domroese / Q5
Jo Even Skarstein wrote in message <6ulmfp$dr3$1...@snipp.uninett.no>...
>Werner Domroese / Q5 <q...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> SCSI: didn't the Mega STE and the TT also have that????
>
>The TT has SCSI, the Mega has a built-in host-adapter but no real
>SCSI.
I.C.
>The Falcon's 030 is a custom-made piece for Atari with only 16-bit
>bus. A real 030 has 32-bit bus and dynamic bus-sizing.
Then why use a 68030 in the first place? What's the difference between the
Falcon 68030 and the Amiga 1200's 68EC030?
Do you mean the actual processor or the hardware around it? From what I
understand, you could theoretically place a genuine 030 into a Falcon
without any problems, but it's the bus interface between the CPU and the
rest of the system that's 16-bit on a Falcon. Sort of like a 386SX PC (in
which case the processor really had that limitation of 16-bit bus to
external hardware, unlike a 486 that's hooked up to a 16-bit bus...)
This is very confusing for me. If you'd care to clarify, please do! :-)
William Platt
over our eyes like they did with the Jaguar.
Didn't the Amiga 1200 use an ec020 at 12mhz
B.P.
On 27 Sep 1998 23:18:48 , "Werner Domroese / Q5" wrote:
>
>>The Falcon's 030 is a custom-made piece for Atari with only 16-bit
>>bus. A real 030 has 32-bit bus and dynamic bus-sizing.
>
>Then why use a 68030 in the first place? What's the difference between the
>Falcon 68030 and the Amiga 1200's 68EC030?
>Do you mean the actual processor or the hardware around it? From what I
>understand, you could theoretically place a genuine 030 into a Falcon
>without any problems, but it's the bus interface between the CPU and the
>rest of the system that's 16-bit on a Falcon. Sort of like a 386SX PC (in
>which case the processor really had that limitation of 16-bit bus to
>external hardware, unlike a 486 that's hooked up to a 16-bit bus...)
>
>This is very confusing for me. If you'd care to clarify, please do! :-)
>
>
Gaven Miller
> Is the F030 a 32, or 16 bit computer. Or did Atari corp pull the wool
> over our eyes like they did with the Jaguar.
The 68020 and 68030 have a feature known as "dynamic bus sizing" which
allows the processor to detect if it is sitting on an 8, 16 or 32 bit bus
on each bus cycle, and react accordingly.
> Didn't the Amiga 1200 use an ec020 at 12mhz
An EC processor is essentially an embedded controller version of a
standard CPU, with a reduced bus size (16 bits instead of 32) similar to
Intels 386 SX (32 internally, 16 externally)
--
All email sent to my inca address will fail, however I can now be
contacted via an intermediary : gem at tos pl net. I would like to
apologise to the genuine respondents that this may inconvenience.
louis
>>Talking about the german stuff: really don't have a clue. That's the
>>reason I yelled at (well, better call it: "warned") Uwe...
>I presume you mean Uwe Seimet of HDDriver (?) and other stuff?
>>
Hi Werner (lets do it right this time...)
Yup, that's the one. He wrote in here last week he'd been having problems
with some french or belgian dealer, selling illegal copies.
>Okay these names are known. (I've also heard that Wilfred went to Vobis and
>once was a Commodore guy?????). I think it wasn't such a good move by Atari
>USA to dismiss Alwin Stupf of Atari Germany, IMHO. He did a lot for the
>"professional" Atari market (yes I know, USA wanted into the consumer
>market).
Well, if you knew Sam... just walking around, next he said something like
"I don't like his face, so kick him out". Just like that, and it happened!
>
>No, I definately do not. :) I must admit though, that purely professionally
>I've been forced to use a pretty contemptible at home as well (I'm in the
>IT-business, sort of)
Who isn't?
>>
>The dealer thing isn't that much of a problem to me as long as I can
>mailorder things. What hurts me most is that so many reliable and less
>reliable Atari mags have either disappeared or become hard to come by.
>Examples: Atari Magazine, Atari Info, ST, some belgian thing that made it to
>the Netherlands once and was completely made on Atari (I think it was called
>1st something). Then there's the British glossies ST Format, Atari ST User,
>Atari ST Review... and my biggest loss... the gradual disappearing of
>several German mags (especially the ones with techie bits). Atari Magazin,
>TOS, 68000er (merged with ST Computer if I'm not mistaken). Does ST Computer
>still exist? IMHO it's still one of the best...
I think it's still there. But you're right, all those mags have simply
vanished. I recall when the ST came out in '85, lotsa mags emerged out of
the blue... and they vanished into the dark again.
Pity C't doesn't handle much on Atari these days.
We still got this ST magazine over here, you can't find it in the
bookshops any longer but it's still available by subscription. They do
everything on a TT, using Calamus. 6 issues a year for 40 guilders.
Together with the ACN magazine they're the last ones.
>
>Thanks for your informative reply,
You're welcome anytime!
--
CU NeXT msg,
____________________________________
| |
L O U I S | Email: lo...@holleman.demon.nl |
| http://www.holleman.demon.nl |
|____________________________________|
Werner Domroese / Q5
>Yup, that's the one. He wrote in here last week he'd been having problems
>with some french or belgian dealer, selling illegal copies.
Hmm Terre de Milieu, right? :-(
>
>>Okay these names are known. (I've also heard that Wilfred went to Vobis
and
>>once was a Commodore guy?????). I think it wasn't such a good move by
Atari
>>USA to dismiss Alwin Stupf of Atari Germany, IMHO. He did a lot for the
>>"professional" Atari market (yes I know, USA wanted into the consumer
>>market).
>
>Well, if you knew Sam... just walking around, next he said something >like
"I don't like his face, so kick him out". Just like that, and it >happened!
BAD POLICY, and *VERY* BAD for Atari itself, IMNSHO
Hmm C'T was always pretty good on the hardware side of things as I recall.
Hell there was even a mail order catalog (Quelle) which had (German)
commercial software coming out for the old 7800's and the 2600's...
Werner Domroese / Q5
>
>well, this magazine has launched some crap at several times in the past
I agree on that. I remember that they copied / stole an article about
sampling from a very old (now dead) Atari mag called Atari Magazine, without
ever listing any credits whatsoever...
>
>I reckon about 2 years ago they did an article on this Microbox,
>suggesting Atari was still secretly working on it and launching it as
Yes that was bad - the suggestion part. Atari had clearly indicated that
they entered the games market and left the computer market (well they did
license tha Falcon to C-lab, to ensure at least some level of support :-) or
simply to still get some money out of it :-)
>"Atari-Phoenix", complete with "secretly obtained photographs, which
Hmm I always thought they did not mean this literally. I thought that
"Atari's Phoenix" meant something like "Atari's Salvation", and that all
they could give for a name was the MicroBox thing.
So, how about that STE with built-in MS-DOS compatibility. Did they make
that up or was it for real? (Someone know anything about it?).
DarkChyld [Ronald J. Hall]
->Is the F030 a 32, or 16 bit computer. Or did Atari corp pull the wool
->over our eyes like they did with the Jaguar.
->
->Didn't the Amiga 1200 use an ec020 at 12mhz
->
->B.P.
The Amiga A1200 did use the '020, but at 14.x mhz... ;-)
DarkChyld [Ronald J. Hall]
->Then why use a 68030 in the first place? What's the difference between the
->Falcon 68030 and the Amiga 1200's 68EC030?
Let me clarify one thing right now. The Amiga A1200 did NOT come standard
with a Motorola 68030 CPU. It was a 68020...Yet another advantage the F030
had over the A1200 at launch.
->Do you mean the actual processor or the hardware around it? From what I
->understand, you could theoretically place a genuine 030 into a Falcon
->without any problems, but it's the bus interface between the CPU and the
->rest of the system that's 16-bit on a Falcon. Sort of like a 386SX PC (in
->which case the processor really had that limitation of 16-bit bus to
->external hardware, unlike a 486 that's hooked up to a 16-bit bus...)
->
->This is very confusing for me. If you'd care to clarify, please do! :-)
I think thats right, not that the 68030 was different.
Richard Elwell
NOSPAM...@bellsouth.net (William Platt) wrote:-
>Is the F030 a 32, or 16 bit computer. Or did Atari corp pull the wool
>over our eyes like they did with the Jaguar.
I would say the Falcon is a 32bit, but I could be wrong.
My knowledge of the Jag is limited but as far as I am concerned the
databuses were 64bit. The two main CPUs (either of which could
control the whole thing) were 64bit. The 68000 was, of course 16bit,
but could access 64bit in multiple goes as it were.
So the Jag was 64bit. Those that say it was only 16bit are just
seeing the 68000 and assuming it is the main CPU. As to why it was
only about as powerful as 486DX2-66 with local bus graphics...
>Didn't the Amiga 1200 use an ec020 at 12mhz
Yep. Or was it nearer to 14MHz. The 7.16MHz of the A500's 68000
doubled up.
>On 27 Sep 1998 23:18:48 , "Werner Domroese / Q5" wrote:
>>
>>>The Falcon's 030 is a custom-made piece for Atari with only 16-bit
>>>bus. A real 030 has 32-bit bus and dynamic bus-sizing.
>>
>>Then why use a 68030 in the first place? What's the difference between the
>>Falcon 68030 and the Amiga 1200's 68EC030?
The Falcon's 030 is the full version with MMU built in. The EC020 and
EC030 don't have MMUs.
Rich.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Elwell ri...@rjelwell.demon.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jo Even Skarstein
>>Is the F030 a 32, or 16 bit computer. Or did Atari corp pull the wool
>>over our eyes like they did with the Jaguar.
> I would say the Falcon is a 32bit, but I could be wrong.
The Falcon isn't more 32-bit than the STE. The 030 has 32-bit
registers (like all 68k processors), but it's most powerful feature -
the 32 bit dynamically sized bus - is unused.
The Amiga 1200 OTOH has 32 bit bus, which makes it atleast as fast as
the Falcon even with it's inferior (020) CPU and slower (14.28MHz)
bus. Separate fastmem and chipmem also helps a lot.
Jo Even Skarstein
>>The Falcon's 030 is a custom-made piece for Atari with only 16-bit
>>bus. A real 030 has 32-bit bus and dynamic bus-sizing.
> Then why use a 68030 in the first place? What's the difference between the
> Falcon 68030 and the Amiga 1200's 68EC030?
I guess they chose the 030 in order to be more compatible with the TT
(030-binaries). The Amiga 1200 has a 68020 (EC perhaps?), not a 030.
The difference is mainly in the MMU which is more powerful in the 030,
but the 030 is also a bit faster when executing some instructions
(don't ask me about details, it's been years since I argued with
1200-owners...).
> without any problems, but it's the bus interface between the CPU and the
> rest of the system that's 16-bit on a Falcon. Sort of like a 386SX PC (in
Correct. The 68030 (and the 020) has 32-bit, dynamically sized (which
means that it can talk to 16- and 8-bit devices as well) bus, while
only half of the bus is used in the Falcon :-( This cripples the
Falcon seriously, it would have been almost as fast as a TT with
32-bit bus. Graphics would have been faster, SCSI would have been
faster and more reliable...
Ronny Gardh
> > without any problems, but it's the bus interface between the CPU and the
> > rest of the system that's 16-bit on a Falcon. Sort of like a 386SX PC (in
>
> Correct. The 68030 (and the 020) has 32-bit, dynamically sized (which
> means that it can talk to 16- and 8-bit devices as well) bus, while
> only half of the bus is used in the Falcon :-( This cripples the
> Falcon seriously, it would have been almost as fast as a TT with
> 32-bit bus. Graphics would have been faster, SCSI would have been
> faster and more reliable...
When Atari first released the TT people complained about the
low compability to the older ST-machines, that's why the Falcon
is working with 16-bit. Even the memory-"bug" only to use 14Mb
is to be more compatible with ST.
//R
X
<6uqh1k$539$2...@snipp.uninett.no>...
> The Amiga 1200 has a 68020 (EC perhaps?), not a 030.
> The difference is mainly in the MMU which is more powerful in the 030,
In fact, there is NO pmmu in the 020!
> This cripples the Falcon seriously, it would have been almost as fast as
a
> TT with 32-bit bus.
Well, and what about the 32 MHz clock of the TT?
> Graphics would have been faster, SCSI would have been faster
> and more reliable...
I'm not sure for graphics and SCSI : the videl access the RAM in 32 bits,
and i
think the DMA too...
Pascal Campion
yag....@usa.net
Jo Even Skarstein
> When Atari first released the TT people complained about the
> low compability to the older ST-machines, that's why the Falcon
> is working with 16-bit. Even the memory-"bug" only to use 14Mb
> is to be more compatible with ST.
The "memory-bug" is caused by the fact that the ST has lot of hardware
mapped to the range 14-16Mb. This is also true for the TT and Falcon.
As for the Falcon being more "compatible" than the TT... Well, I have
both and have generally fewer problems with games on the TT than the
Falcon. Even Super-Sprint works straight away in the TT...
Jo Even Skarstein
>> The Amiga 1200 has a 68020 (EC perhaps?), not a 030.
>> The difference is mainly in the MMU which is more powerful in the 030,
> In fact, there is NO pmmu in the 020!
Correct, my fault :-)
>> This cripples the Falcon seriously, it would have been almost as fast as
> a
>> TT with 32-bit bus.
> Well, and what about the 32 MHz clock of the TT?
Only the CPU works at 32MHz, the rest is still working at 16MHz. With
the pathetic caches in the 030 (256 bytes!) the clock-doubling doesn't
mean much, it's perhaps 10-15% faster than a pure 16MHz design.
DarkChyld [Ronald J. Hall]
->The Amiga 1200 OTOH has 32 bit bus, which makes it atleast as fast as
->the Falcon even with it's inferior (020) CPU and slower (14.28MHz)
->bus. Separate fastmem and chipmem also helps a lot.
Thats 1 of only 2 advantages I can see that a stock A1200 has over a
stock Falcon... (the other is the solid pre-emptive multitasking OS)
Other than these, feature for feature, the Falcon walks all over the
A1200... ;-)
PS In some instances, separate Chip memory is a real pain, its very
slow, and can not be upgraded from 2 megs on the A1200. SO a very
big sound or graphic file can cause problems...
Werner Domroese / Q5
Jo Even Skarstein wrote in message <6uqgj4$539$1...@snipp.uninett.no>...
>Richard Elwell <ri...@rjelwell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Is the F030 a 32, or 16 bit computer. Or did Atari corp pull the wool
>>>over our eyes like they did with the Jaguar.
>
>> I would say the Falcon is a 32bit, but I could be wrong.
>
>The Falcon isn't more 32-bit than the STE. The 030 has 32-bit
>registers (like all 68k processors), but it's most powerful feature -
>the 32 bit dynamically sized bus - is unused.
>
>
Werner Domroese / Q5
version. the low-end was intended to be just that, low-end. but dual-purpose
memory does have its advantages in terms of cost-effectiveness. just take a
look at the slowly, but Intel-forced (and therefore forced upon most pc
users) AGP technology. reminds me of dual-purpose memory somehow... I think
that apart from the better busspec of AGP, a PCI card with dedicated memory
is still a lot faster than an AGP without dedicated memory, e.g. using
system memory...
DarkChyld [Ronald J. Hall] wrote in message
<6uqv50$4av$2...@news.campus.mci.net>...
Werner Domroese / Q5
This is something usable by my humble brain ;-)
Werner Domroese / Q5
European professional market, and most professional apps adapted to it. Not
most games, though, except for a few notable exceptions :-)
Ronny Gardh wrote in message <6uqi6r$d...@newstoo.ericsson.se>...
>In article <6uqh1k$539$2...@snipp.uninett.no>, Jo Even Skarstein
<jo...@nuts.edu> writes:
>> > without any problems, but it's the bus interface between the CPU and
the
>> > rest of the system that's 16-bit on a Falcon. Sort of like a 386SX PC
(in
>>
>> Correct. The 68030 (and the 020) has 32-bit, dynamically sized (which
>> means that it can talk to 16- and 8-bit devices as well) bus, while
>> Falcon seriously, it would have been almost as fast as a TT with
>> faster and more reliable...
>
>When Atari first released the TT people complained about the
>low compability to the older ST-machines, that's why the Falcon
>is working with 16-bit. Even the memory-"bug" only to use 14Mb
>is to be more compatible with ST.
>
>
>
Werner Domroese / Q5
Jo Even Skarstein wrote in message <6uqr64$6iq$2...@snipp.uninett.no>...
>X <x...@elec.iuta.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>>> The Amiga 1200 has a 68020 (EC perhaps?), not a 030.
>>> The difference is mainly in the MMU which is more powerful in the 030,
>
>> In fact, there is NO pmmu in the 020!
>
>Correct, my fault :-)
>
>> a
>>> TT with 32-bit bus.
>
>
>Only the CPU works at 32MHz, the rest is still working at 16MHz. With
>the pathetic caches in the 030 (256 bytes!) the clock-doubling doesn't
>mean much, it's perhaps 10-15% faster than a pure 16MHz design.
I guess they should have more looked at the Mega STE. A 2nd level cache DOES
matter :-)
But at the time the TT bus was at 16MHz, PC's were still at 8...
Charles Stanley
<large snip>
>The dealer thing isn't that much of a problem to me as long as I can
>mailorder things. What hurts me most is that so many reliable and less
>reliable Atari mags have either disappeared or become hard to come by.
>Examples: Atari Magazine, Atari Info, ST, some belgian thing that made it to
>the Netherlands once and was completely made on Atari (I think it was called
>1st something). Then there's the British glossies ST Format, Atari ST User,
>Atari ST Review... and my biggest loss... the gradual disappearing of
>several German mags (especially the ones with techie bits). Atari Magazin,
>TOS, 68000er (merged with ST Computer if I'm not mistaken). Does ST Computer
>still exist? IMHO it's still one of the best...
>
>I really need more and better subscriptions...
Why not try `Atari Computing' magazine:
http://www.ataricomputing.com
email: ad...@ataricomputing.com
Charles.
Mario Becroft
: Is the F030 a 32, or 16 bit computer. Or did Atari corp pull the wool
: over our eyes like they did with the Jaguar.
I don't know about the Jaguar, but the Falcon is no more 32-bit than the
ST is. Although the 030 can work on 32-bit numbers internally (just like
all of the 68K family), the data bus, which is where the processor
communicates with the outside world, in the Falcon is 16-bit.
: >Then why use a 68030 in the first place? What's the difference between the
: >Falcon 68030 and the Amiga 1200's 68EC030?
It was my understanding that the Amiga used some sort of 020. If an EC030
was used in the Falcon, there would have been no MMU. That's the only
difference between the 030 and the EC030, I believe.
: >Do you mean the actual processor or the hardware around it? From what I
: >understand, you could theoretically place a genuine 030 into a Falcon
: >without any problems, but it's the bus interface between the CPU and the
: >rest of the system that's 16-bit on a Falcon.
In other words, there would be no benefit at all from putting in a normal
030, because the extra data bus bits would not even have anywhere to
connect. It would be no different to the current 030 in the Falcon except
you would have 16 more pins that don't go anywhere.
--
| Mario Becroft | Tariland, Atari user group in New Zealand |
| m...@tos.pl.net | tari...@tos.pl.net |
| http://www.pl.net/~mario/ | http://www.pl.net/~mario/tariland/ |
Q5 / Werner Domroese
:-)
Q5 / Werner Domroese
Falcon possibly using the DSP). Would be nice. Why a cartridge? Why not use
the vast range of available sound samplers, or in case of STE/TT/Falcon, DMA
sound. Then you could restrict it to (free) software, like on PC's. Keeps it
cheap.
What I think would be interesting though, would be direct to disk audio
recording using MP3 _ENCODING_. Saves a lot of HD space, and although
probably not usable for professional purposes, it would give a nice edge to
cheap audio recording on your computer. Perhaps use it in stead of regular
AVR / WAV / AIFF files in say, games or something.
To my knowledge, MP3 is the same as an audio layer-3 of MPEG-2 full motion
video files. I gather that any player for those files would do, but I'm
unsure.
Mario Becroft
: So, how about that STE with built-in MS-DOS compatibility. Did they make
: that up or was it for real? (Someone know anything about it?).
There is a photograph in the Best Electronics catalogue of a never
released "STE+" (if I remember correctly). Clearly visible in the
photograph of the machine's motherboard is a 2.5" hard disc drive and, in
the lower right corner, an AMD 286 (or something).
Nurmix
Well, I tried playing an mp3 using an mp2 player on the Falcon, and it didn't
recognize the file. I also tried renaming the mp3 to an mp2 file which also
didn't work (I didn't think it would but figured there was no harm in trying!)
I've asked here, but so far no one has been able to explain the difference
between an mp2 and an mp3 file. If the Falcon can do multiple AIFF files
(with Cubase Audio) and mp2 files, not to mention MOV and AVIs with ANIplayer,
I'm sure it could do mp3s. Isn't it just a slightly different compression
scheme than an mp2?
A side note: Does anyone know of a PC/windows program that will convert an
mp3 to another format (ie. mp2, WAV, AIFF)? My roomate has a PC, and if he
can convert them to a useable (Atari) format, that would work too.
--
Paul Nurminen (aka Nurmix)
_/ Red Light 6 Studio - El Segundo, California
_/ Home of NURVIS MUSIC
* SPAM ALERT! (Replace "ecncomr" with "Nurmix" to email)
Tomas Berndtsson
> >To my knowledge, MP3 is the same as an audio layer-3 of MPEG-2 full motion
> >video files. I gather that any player for those files would do, but I'm
> >unsure.
MP3 files can be either MPEG-1, MPEG-2 or MPEG-2.5 Layer III audio
files. The audio compression is similar in the three, but there are
some different variaties of the format.
> Well, I tried playing an mp3 using an mp2 player on the Falcon, and it didn't
> recognize the file. I also tried renaming the mp3 to an mp2 file which also
> didn't work (I didn't think it would but figured there was no harm in trying!)
If you're trying on our player, MP2AUDIO, it doesn't check the
filename, but the header code which the MPEG audio file starts with.
> I've asked here, but so far no one has been able to explain the difference
> between an mp2 and an mp3 file. If the Falcon can do multiple AIFF files
> (with Cubase Audio) and mp2 files, not to mention MOV and AVIs with ANIplayer,
> I'm sure it could do mp3s. Isn't it just a slightly different compression
> scheme than an mp2?
No, the name confuses people to think it's similar. Well, in a way it
is, because the idea behind it is similar. That is to divide the
frequencies into smaller subband, remove those with no sound, combine
some with almost the same amplitude, and some other things. All to
remove sound that the human ear can't hear anyway. To a limit of
course, which is what the bitrate decides, higher bitrate, better
quality.
MP3 has more complex ways to choose subbands, where MP2 has 32 static
ones, MP3 can variate the number and length of them, going on what
suits the current piece of music best. MP3 also includes huffman
decoding using specialized huffman codes, which are in quite large
tables. Thirdly, it has a special mode to combine the two channels to
save memory.
Bottom line, after all this technical mumbo jumbo, is that it's much
slower to both decode and encode MP3 compared to MP2.
> A side note: Does anyone know of a PC/windows program that will convert an
> mp3 to another format (ie. mp2, WAV, AIFF)? My roomate has a PC, and if he
> can convert them to a useable (Atari) format, that would work too.
AFAIK, there are no direct converters between mp3 and mp2, but you
would have to take a decoder and make a sample of it and then encode
it as mp2. Your roommate should be capable on doing this on his PC.
What this comes down to, is that many people want a player for Falcon,
almost as many think it's possible, and some even think it's easy to
make one. But nobody is willing to try, it seems. I've tried, and gave
up. It might've been that I choose a bad C source to convert, amp
player, or I didn't try hard enough. Most people are blaming it on
that they don't know the DSP. Well, learn! It's really not that
difficult.
I do believe that it's possible, mainly because I think everything is
possible. :) But, I also think that it would take quality reduction to
be able to play it in real time on the Falcon. I don't know enough
sound processing to know how to do this though.
http://www.mpeg3.com and http://www.mp3.com might contain some more
information for you on the subject.
I'd be happy to talk to others who have been, are, or want to
seriously try to make a player.
Tomas - NoBrain/NoCrew - tomas[@.]nocrew.org
Geoff Winkless
>To my knowledge, MP3 is the same as an audio layer-3 of MPEG-2 full motion
>video files. I gather that any player for those files would do, but I'm
>unsure.
AIUI "MP3" is actually layer 3 of MPEG1.
Geoff
Lonnie McClure
<gro...@ridgecrest.ca> stated:
> 8). It has a single simm socket. I would image is to be a 30 pin
> socket meaning unless you can find a 16mb 30 pin simm (not impossible,
> but expensive) your stuck with 4mb of ST ram.
If it were a single 30-pin SIMM socket, that would limit the data path to
a mere 8 bits. Although 72-pin SIMMs less common at that time, it seems
more likely that if it were a single SIMM socket, that it would be 72-
pin, or perhaps even a 64-pin SIMM (used in a few machines, such as one
of the Mac II models; IIfx, I believe).
=================
lmcc...@ibm.net
Lonnie McClure
<jo...@nuts.edu> stated:
> The Falcon's 030 is a custom-made piece for Atari with only 16-bit
> bus. A real 030 has 32-bit bus and dynamic bus-sizing.
when a real 030 has the capability to work with a 16-bit bus (the dynamic
bus sizing you pointed out yourself)?
The Falcon's 68030 is a standard surface-mount 68030.
=================
lmcc...@ibm.net
Lonnie McClure
stated:
> Then why use a 68030 in the first place? What's the difference between the
> Falcon 68030 and the Amiga 1200's 68EC030?
The Amiga 1200 uses a 68EC020, not a 68EC030. That said, the only
significant difference I see is the MMU in the 68030, which I assume
Atari wanted for some reason (MultiTOS, perhaps?). If not for that, they
could have saved some bucks, by going with the smaller, cheaper 68EC020,
and Atari was usually quick to save a buck.
The message you replied to was the first I have ever seen that has
claimed the Falcon's CPU was a "custom" unit. Given that a standard 68030
can work with a 16-bit bus without problem, there would be no reason for
Atari to have gone to this extra expense.
=================
lmcc...@ibm.net
Lonnie McClure
<gmi...@inca.co.nz> stated:
> An EC processor is essentially an embedded controller version of a
> standard CPU, with a reduced bus size (16 bits instead of 32) similar to
> Intels 386 SX (32 internally, 16 externally)
NONE of the Motorala EC processors have a cut down data bus. The 68EC020
has a cut down *address* bus (24-bit instead of 32-bit). The 68EC030
lacks the internal MMU. I am uncertain of the exact specs of the 68EC040,
but as the 68040 lacks dynamic bus sizing, a cut down data bus would make
the chip more expensive, not more economical. There is also an LC version
of the '040, which lacks the internal FPU. I am uncertain if there is are
EC and LC versions of the '060.
=================
lmcc...@ibm.net
Q5 / Werner Domroese - Remove NOSPAM. in front of E-mail address for personal replies
therefore not be recognized as MPEG2. An MP3 does not contain any video
AFAIK. Would a modified MPEG2 player work???
Q5 / Werner Domroese - Remove NOSPAM. in front of E-mail address for personal replies
Now if only I were a coder...
Q5 / Werner Domroese - Remove NOSPAM. in front of E-mail address for personal replies
>is just a small bird (moineau) :-)
Perhaps this small bird had yet to grow because it's a prototype???? ;-)
Q5 / Werner Domroese - Remove NOSPAM. in front of E-mail address for personal replies
it and you think it's credible, I think it would be much appreciated at
www.atari.nu ... :-)
Mario Becroft wrote in message ...
Mike Harvey
Johan Klockars
Richard Elwell <ri...@rjelwell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <cZCP1.4371$R_4.4...@news3.mia.bellsouth.net>
> NOSPAM...@bellsouth.net (William Platt) wrote:-
>
>>Is the F030 a 32, or 16 bit computer. Or did Atari corp pull the wool
>>over our eyes like they did with the Jaguar.
>
Other people here have claimed that the bus width is what defines the
computer's 'bitness', but that makes little sense (especially on a
processor with dynamic bus sizing and/or internal caches)!
Also, remember that the Pentium (a 32 bit processor) has a 64 bit memory
bus and various RISC chips (32 and 64 bit) have used even wider ones.
The 68000 (as in the ST) can not do 32 bit operations directly in
hardware, unlike the '020 and up.
Sure, the registers are 32 bit wide and you can do operations on them,
but most (all?) of the old 8 bit processors (Z80, 6800 etc) had 16 bit
registers they could work with too.
The 68000 (and the 8 bit processors) had to make two or more passes
through their internal logic (adders etc) to do the longer operations.
The only useful definition of 'bitness' is the width of the 'native' word
the hardware can actually be operated upon for normal data (not counting
things like FPU/MMX/3DNow! etc).
The 68k _architecture_ has always been 32 bit, but various implementations
have used 16 bit ALUS and 16 bit busses (there was even a version with
an _8_ bit bus (the 68008 used in the Sinclair QL)).
It would be quite possible to build a 68k variant with a single bit bus,
a couple of megabytes of internal (at least 32 bt wide) cache and 32 bit
adders etc. Would you call that machine single bit?
For that matter, RAMBUS memory may well be connected directly to
processors in the future. RAMBUS normally uses an 8 bit channel (running
at several hundred MHz)...
>My knowledge of the Jag is limited but as far as I am concerned the
>databuses were 64bit. The two main CPUs (either of which could
There were data busses of different widths.
>control the whole thing) were 64bit. The 68000 was, of course 16bit,
The only two 'processors' in the Jaguar that should really be called
64 bit are the blitter and the object processor (sort of a combined
screen/sprite unit).
One of the two RISCs could access memory in 64 bit chunks (the other
didn't even have that capability), but no operations could be done on
data of that size.
>but could access 64bit in multiple goes as it were.
Well, it could of course access all of memory if given a few 'goes'...
>So the Jag was 64bit. Those that say it was only 16bit are just
You might possibly call it a 64 bit games system, since two of the parts
that are relatively important for games were indeed 64 bit (see above).
If it had been a computer, that would've been much like calling it 128 bit
just because it happened to have an advanced graphics card, though.
>seeing the 68000 and assuming it is the main CPU. As to why it was
The two 32 bit RISCs make a convincing argument for calling it 32 bit, but...
>only about as powerful as 486DX2-66 with local bus graphics...
The Jaguar should be significantly faster at some things, but the low
clock frequency of the RISC chips (probably (IMO) caused by the single
cycle multiply), strange memory system and the difficulties of using
asymetric multiprocessing weighs it down.
Still, it's quite a nice machine for it's time, IMO.
--
Chalmers University | Why are these | e-mail: ra...@cd.chalmers.se
of Technology | .signatures | jo...@rand.thn.htu.se
| so hard to do | WWW/ftp: rand.thn.htu.se
Gothenburg, Sweden | well? | (MGIFv5, QLem, BAD MOOD)
Johan Klockars
Werner Domroese / Q5 <q...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>Jo Even Skarstein wrote in message <6uqr64$6iq$2...@snipp.uninett.no>...
>>X <x...@elec.iuta.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>>>> This cripples the Falcon seriously, it would have been almost as fast as
>>> a
>>>> TT with 32-bit bus.
>>Only the CPU works at 32MHz, the rest is still working at 16MHz. With
>>the pathetic caches in the 030 (256 bytes!) the clock-doubling doesn't
2*256 byte caches can make a _lot_ of difference if you write your code
well (which need not necessarily mean assembly).
When the '030 was new 2*256 bytes certainly was not pathetic.
>>mean much, it's perhaps 10-15% faster than a pure 16MHz design.
Naturally, that depends a lot on what code you're running.
>I guess they should have more looked at the Mega STE. A 2nd level cache DOES
>matter :-)
The MegaSTE of course didn't have a second level cache (it was first
level there, even though it was external) and second level caches were
never as common on m68k systems as on Intel ones (possibly because of
the early adoption of split caches like in the '030 and up).
Was there ever an '040 Mac with external cache? I'm not 100% they even
used it on any of their '030 machines (certainly not all of them).
>But at the time the TT bus was at 16MHz, PC's were still at 8...
Uhm, the '386 and the '030 are from roughly the same generation (I
seem to recall the '386 being somewhat earlier) and I really doubt you'd
find many '386s on 8MHz busses...
Perhaps you're thinking about the ISA bus, which was used for graphics
cards and other I/O hardware.
Martin Wilson
<jo...@nuts.edu> wrote:
>Richard Elwell <ri...@rjelwell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Is the F030 a 32, or 16 bit computer. Or did Atari corp pull the wool
>>>over our eyes like they did with the Jaguar.
>
>> I would say the Falcon is a 32bit, but I could be wrong.
>
>The Falcon isn't more 32-bit than the STE. The 030 has 32-bit
>registers (like all 68k processors), but it's most powerful feature -
>the 32 bit dynamically sized bus - is unused.
>
>The Amiga 1200 OTOH has 32 bit bus, which makes it atleast as fast as
>the Falcon even with it's inferior (020) CPU and slower (14.28MHz)
>bus. Separate fastmem and chipmem also helps a lot.
>
I'd have to disagree with this quite strongly. As an owner
of both a Amiga 1200 and Falcon its obvious to me that the
Falcon is a lot faster than a stock Amiga 1200. Remember the
Amiga 1200 is only 1.25 mips unless you add fast memory to
an expansion board that fits underneath. The Falcon is 3.84
mips. Frontier runs a lot faster on the Falcon. I can say
quite honestly that I was well impressed with the speed
increase of the Falcon over a normal ST and very
disappointed with the speed increase of the Amiga 1200 over
a 500/600 model. Mind you I soon upgraded the Amiga 1200
with a 68030 board at 40MHZ so its now a fair bit faster
than the Falcon. In fact from memory I remember doing some
benchmarks and the Amiga is now 6x faster than its original
speed. Chip memory remains controlled by the 68020 at 14MHZ
DOH!