owhite@nmsu.edu (Owen White) (12/04/89)
king@cell.mot.COM (Steven King) writes... >What the world needs is an Amiga running a Mac emulator running an Apple >emulator running a C64 emulator running a VIC20 emulator running... kidding aside does and amiga emulator exist for a sun, where you could develop C-programs on a 40million-billion-hertz machine and then port to our favorite? -- __ __ __ __ __ __ __....hey aliens: __ __ / X A / X C / X \ / we are flesh and blood and DNA, / X U / \ T / / G G / / \ \ / formed out out of the big bang's decay A _/ \__G__/ C__X__/ \__X__/ owhite@nmsu.edu (Owen White) \ G
swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) (12/05/89)
In article <OWHITE.89Dec3124214@haywire.nmsu.edu> owhite@nmsu.edu (Owen White) writes: > >king@cell.mot.COM (Steven King) writes... > >kidding aside does and amiga emulator exist for a sun, where you >could develop C-programs on a 40million-billion-hertz machine and then >port to our favorite? Why don't you just pick up Commodore's new '030 card with memory? It's a lot cheaper than a SUN. Under the Amiga kernal it's faster too. --Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------- {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) (10/14/90)
Folks at apple.com reply to our messages but we can't reply there. Here's some mail from and to "lsr@apple.com": >(I posted): >Myself, I am quite impressed with these results. An EMULATION >of a MAC PLUS stands up to a Mac IIcx in speed!! This ought >to make Apple squirm.... >(lsr@apple.com replied): >This isn't very impressive. The numbers show that a 25MHz Amiga with AMAX >is equivalent to a 16Mhz Mac IIcx. Other figures show that if you compare >equivalent clock speeds the Mac is faster. Not impressive? Let's invert the comparison. Can a 25 MHz Macintosh emulate a 16 MHz Amiga? And before you reply "why would one want to?" I can answer in three easy steps: AmigaVision Disney Animation Studio Deluxe-Paint III I'm honestly not trying to start an argument. As my .sig says, I use both Macs and Amigas heavily on a daily basis, and I use them for what each is best at. Mac for DTP and word processing, Amiga for video and animation applications. If an Amiga emulator was ever introduced for the Mac II, I would buy one as soon as I could get to the store! I sure snatched up A-Max as soon as I could get it. Kurt -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- :: Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 :: Amigas, Macs, IBM's, C-64's, NeXTs, :: :: 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. :: Apple ]['s.... I use 'em all. || :: Malvern, PA 19355-2214 || (and in that order too! ;-) :: :: jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu --------------------------------------|| :: jkt100@psuvm.bitnet jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe || -----------------------------------------------------------------------
hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) (10/14/90)
In article <90286.163441JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >Folks at apple.com reply to our messages but we can't reply >there. Here's some mail from and to "lsr@apple.com": >>(I posted): >>Myself, I am quite impressed with these results. An EMULATION >>of a MAC PLUS stands up to a Mac IIcx in speed!! This ought >>to make Apple squirm.... >>(lsr@apple.com replied): >>This isn't very impressive. The numbers show that a 25MHz Amiga with AMAX >>is equivalent to a 16Mhz Mac IIcx. Other figures show that if you compare >>equivalent clock speeds the Mac is faster. On the other hand, an Atari ST with Spectre GCR is 20% faster for a given processor clock rate. Segmented memory (lack thereof!) is wonderful, ain't it? >Not impressive? Let's invert the comparison. Can a 25 MHz Macintosh >emulate a 16 MHz Amiga? That's a good point, still.... But pretty obvious too, right? People have successfully emulated the Mac because *there's nothing to it*! The Mac is a box of technological mediocrity. In the olden days ( }-) ) (a couple years ago) before Apple caught on and clamped down, you didn't need any extra hardware at all on an ST, just load a copy of Mac ROMs off a disk. It's still hard to see what's so innovative about the software (it *must* be the software, what is there to admire in the hardware??). Or do people really think cutesiness == innovation ?? -- -- Howard Chu @ University of Michigan one million data bits stored on a chip, one million bits per chip if one of those data bits happens to flip, one million data bits stored on the chip...
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (10/22/90)
Yes, there are lots of emulators. But there's no *software* IBM-PC emulator. My Amiga 3000 should have enough horsepower to run COMMAND.COM in a window. Not as fast as a 386SX, but at least as fast as a PC/XT. I don't need it enough to buy a bridge-board, but I'd pay some reasonable cash to do it if I didn't have to reboot to run it (booting programs? Isn't that what you did on small 360s?). Since Andy has decided not to support hosted MINIX on the Amiga that'd let me have my UNIX-under-AmigaOS environment. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
atai@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (10/23/90)
In article <6856@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >Yes, there are lots of emulators. But there's no *software* IBM-PC emulator. >My Amiga 3000 should have enough horsepower to run COMMAND.COM in a window. >Not as fast as a 386SX, but at least as fast as a PC/XT. I don't need it >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' ><peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. Well, there is an (software) IBM PC emulator (IBM.LZH, as it is called) flowing around in the BBS's in the San Diego, CA area... It requires a copy of MS-DOS to boot and doesn't multi-task, though.
pochron@cat54.cs.wisc.edu (David Pochron) (10/24/90)
This past Sunday, I spent the entire day hacking the Transformer 1.2 code to try to get it working with the 68030 CPU - no dice. At first I thought it might be just timing problems - there is lots of CPU-dependant delay loops, and NOP's used for delays. I extended these to match the 68030 clock, but there must be something else going on that I have overlooked. Running with or without cache & burst makes no difference - though I do have to reset the machine once before the DOS screen comes up - perhaps the A2630 board is turning the cache back on? The system gurus after I press return and it reads the IBM command.com disk for a bit - always a guru #8 at C01570! I wish I could see what was causing the problem! I did manage to fix the keyboard routine, though. Now my Cherry keyboard responds to Transformer when run w/ a 68000, and appears to work OK in 68030 mode also. BTW: There are some bogus versions of Transformer labelled 2.2 going around. I used Arp's CMP command on these using the original 1.2 Xfrmr, and the only changes made are in the revision numbers! Don't bother getting 'em! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David M. Pochron | from Rescue Rangers, _A Fly in the Ointment_ pochron@garfield.cs.wisc.edu| Gadget to Dale: "Keep the hands off the body!" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------