billium@pro-charlotte.cts.com (Bill Blanke) (03/13/88)
Hmmm... first time on the net. Anyway, I've been thinking about expanding my Amiga 500 to a full megabyte and so has my friend who also has a 500. My question is, which 512K expansion should I get. I heard somewhere that the Commodore is not <TRUE> fast RAM. This migh be bogus, but if this is true, what are the ramifications of using this memory. I've heard about the Microbotics M501 expansion, but know little about it. Is this in any way better than the Commodore 501. Also, if anyone knows of any other 512K expansion please post-preferably under $150. Oh yea, whats the best prices anyone has gotten on these expansions? Thanks
shimoda@rmi.UUCP (Markus Schmidt) (03/15/88)
In article <2671@crash.cts.com> billium@pro-charlotte.cts.com (Bill Blanke) writes:
: Hmmm... first time on the net.
: Anyway, I've been thinking about expanding my Amiga 500 to a full megabyte
: and so has my friend who also has a 500. My question is, which 512K expansion
: should I get. I heard somewhere that the Commodore is not <TRUE> fast RAM.
Hi!
As far as I know there is *no* fastram at an amiga 500 below
4 Mb since fat agnus addresses these and makes it ssslllooowwwwww :-)
C u
Markus
(shimoda@rmi.UUCP)jwilson@ccvaxa.UUCP (03/17/88)
My Amy is a 500, and I have the A501 expansion. The added 512k definitatly is fast ram at 0xC0000. All performance monitors show 512k chip ram and 512k fast ram. Even if they assume that max chip ram is 512k and that any more is fast, I have gotten Gurus with memory locations > 0xC0000 ( usually from bugs in my progs -- like divide by zero ) Jeff Wilson Gould Software Division- Urbana, IL jwilson@Gould.COM jwilson@gswd-vsm.Gould.COM jwilson@gswd-vms.arap uiucuxc!ccvaxa!jwilson (address subject to change -- both Usenet and Arapnet connections are moving soon) All opinions are my own. But, of cource, no one else wants them.
ross@swan.ulowell.edu (Ross Miller) (03/25/88)
In article <26700010@ccvaxa> jwilson@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: >My Amy is a 500, and I have the A501 expansion. The added 512k definitatly is >fast ram at 0xC0000. All performance monitors show 512k chip ram and 512k fast >ram. Even if they assume that max chip ram is 512k and that any more is fast, >I have gotten Gurus with memory locations > 0xC0000 ( usually from bugs in my >progs -- like divide by zero ) Ok, I've seen this same article three times, and I can't reply to the poster, so hear goes. The coprocessors can see this ram when a 1meg Agnus becomes available. Therefore this ram must deal with contention between the coprocessors and the 68000 for bus cycles. It is in a different place, but it is not fast ram. I have hear the term slowfastram used. I can't believe that the vocal gurus didn't reply to this. Ross -- csnet: ross@swan.ulowell.edu uucp: ross@swan.ulowell.edu || ...harvard!ulowell!ross Trust the computer. The computer is your friend.
page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (03/25/88)
Just because it's linked into the system's FAST memory free list
doesn't mean it's fast memory.
>The coprocessors can see this ram when a 1meg Agnus becomes available.
Who said that? Maybe she can only see in the 0-1MB address range.
Of course, we're talking about a non-item...
The 'ranger memory' at $C00000 is on the same memory bus as CHIP ram
is. So, the 68K can access it just like CHIP ram. When you start
using many bitplanes, or go 'blitter nasty', the custom chips steal
memory cycles on THAT particular memory bus. So even though they
can't SEE that memory, they can still lock out the 68K from seeing it.
On the other hand, 'fast' ram is on a different memory bus, so the 68K
can always have access to it.
Some people call it 'slowfast' ram, some call it 'slow' ram. It's
linked into the FAST memory list because it isn't CHIP ram. It's not
CHIP ram because the custom chips can't see it.
..Bob
--
Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@swan.ulowell.edu ulowell!page
"Nicaragua" is Spanish for "Vietnam."kim@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) (03/25/88)
In article <5692@swan.ulowell.edu>, page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: > Some people call it 'slowfast' ram, some call it 'slow' ram. It's > linked into the FAST memory list because it isn't CHIP ram. It's not > CHIP ram because the custom chips can't see it. And some people call it HALFFAST :-) ! Actually, I don't mean this to be derogatory. Not when you can change a jumper, and have it become CHIP memory (with the right Aggie chip, of course). Glad it was implemented this way (thanks, Dave). /kim -- UUCP: kim@amdahl.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,ihnp4,uunet,oliveb,cbosgd,ames}!amdahl!kim DDD: 408-746-8462 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 CIS: 76535,25
ford@kenobi.UUCP (Mike Ditto) (03/28/88)
In article <5692@swan.ulowell.edu> page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: > Some people call it 'slowfast' ram, some call it 'slow' ram. It's > linked into the FAST memory list because it isn't CHIP ram. I think the best name is "half-fast ram". If you say it quickly you'll see why. :-) -=] Ford [=- "Once there were parking lots, (In Real Life: Mike Ditto) now it's a peaceful oasis. ford%kenobi@crash.CTS.COM This was a Pizza Hut, ...!sdcsvax!crash!kenobi!ford now it's all covered with daisies." -- Talking Heads
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (03/29/88)
In article <60@kenobi.UUCP> ford@kenobi.UUCP (Mike Ditto) writes: >I think the best name is "half-fast ram". If you say it quickly you'll >see why. :-) Ahh but when you slip that new agnus chip in and swap that jumper, and your system boots up and says "980,684 bytes Chip RAM available" you are going to love each and every bit of it. It is at this point that I will consider getting a 500 or 2500 because I will see an improvement over my 1000. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
bilbo@pnet02.cts.com (Bill Daggett) (03/30/88)
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: > >Ahh but when you slip that new agnus chip in and swap that jumper, and >your system boots up and says "980,684 bytes Chip RAM available" you >are going to love each and every bit of it. It is at this point that >I will consider getting a 500 or 2500 because I will see an improvement >over my 1000. I still won't upgrade. Not until I pick up an application software package I want and it won't run on the A1000. Everyone seems to be jumping the gun by even thinking their A1000's are obsolete. And as far as chip upgrades go, don't forget that a couple third parties offer Kickstart in ROM and internal RAM for the A1000 - CBM wouldn't touch. My guess is if there is a way to keep the A1000 upgraded with the same chips the A500 (at least) has a third party WILL make some bucks doing it. Bill UUCP: {ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax rutgers!marque}!gryphon!pnet02!bilbo INET: bilbo@pnet02.cts.com
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (03/31/88)
In article <3054@gryphon.CTS.COM> (Bill Daggett) writes: |cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: |>Ahh but when you slip that new agnus chip in and swap that jumper, and |>your system boots up and says "980,684 bytes Chip RAM available" you |>are going to love each and every bit of it. It is at this point that |>I will consider getting a 500 or 2500 because I will see an improvement |>over my 1000. | |I still won't upgrade. Not until I pick up an application software package I |want and it won't run on the A1000. Everyone seems to be jumping the gun by |even thinking their A1000's are obsolete. And as far as chip upgrades go, |don't forget that a couple third parties offer Kickstart in ROM and internal |RAM for the A1000 - CBM wouldn't touch. My guess is if there is a way to |keep the A1000 upgraded with the same chips the A500 (at least) has a third |party WILL make some bucks doing it. There may indeed be a third party upgrade of sorts. With C/A's propensity for laying out motherboards I wonder sometimes if they couldn't just layout a new motherboard for the 1000 with out the KS tower. But you miss the real feature of 1Meg of chip ram. It isn't time to upgrade when any one program needs more than 512K chip, it's when *you* need more than 512K of chip. At one time I had 6 Meg on my 1000, and when I did it was great for big ram disks but it was useless when it came to running 4, 5, or 6 programs that opened their own screen. I like to have DPaint, Emacs, Workbench CLIs, and the program under development open at the same time. Assuming I am designing icons/images with Dpaint (which I am usually doing) it is running in 640 X 200 X {2,3} mode. That's 32 - 48K for Dpaint, (another 32- 48K if something is in the spare screen), 32K for the Emacs 640X400X1 screen, 64K for the Workbench screen (640X400X2) and 40K for disk buffers, 100K for intuition/exec, etc it adds up and faster than you might expect. Suddenly with 4Meg of ram free my AllocMem()'s start failing because I can't get any chip ram. Not fun at all. 1 Meg of chip Ram will make the system much more usable for me. My formula is that you can support a 1:5 ration between chip/fast ram. With 512K of chip that's 2.5Meg of Fast ram, with 1Meg chip thats 5Meg of fast. 2Meg chip, 10Meg fast. Anything else is wasted (in my opinion) --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
scott@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) (04/02/88)
In article <47622@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >It isn't time to upgrade when any one program needs more than 512K chip, >it's when *you* need more than 512K of chip. At one time I had 6 Meg on >my 1000, and when I did it was great for big ram disks but it was useless >when it came to running 4, 5, or 6 programs that opened their own screen. How about some clever code to swap unseen screen bitmaps to/from FAST memory?? I've been toying around with this idea for a few weeks now. I haven't really spent the time to work thru the problem completely, but I can imagine this as a potential solution to the CHIP mem crunch. You'd have to get down and dirty replacing quite a few graphics/intuition library functions, and you might even have to write software equivalents of most of the graphics calls, or else block tasks attempting output. But it COULD be done (couldn't it??). Am I completely off-the-wall? -scott
ejkst@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) (04/02/88)
In article <3054@gryphon.CTS.COM> bilbo@pnet02.cts.com (Bill Daggett) writes: >cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: >> >>Ahh but when you slip that new agnus chip in and swap that jumper, and >>your system boots up and says "980,684 bytes Chip RAM available" you >>are going to love each and every bit of it. It is at this point that >>I will consider getting a 500 or 2500 because I will see an improvement >>over my 1000. > >I still won't upgrade. Not until I pick up an application software package I >want and it won't run on the A1000. Everyone seems to be jumping the gun by >even thinking their A1000's are obsolete. Well, when it comes to Chip ram, sure, I wish my A1000 had more. *But*, With my Starboard II, I routinely run WordPerfect, Uedit, Superbase Professional, a couple CLI windows, Handshake, and countless utilities including a sizable vd0:, simultaneously. Even with WordPerfect on a seperate MWB screen, (Thanks, Matt!) and Superbase and Handshake on their own screens, I can do all that and not run out of Chip ram. So, I for one wouldn't mind more Chip, but I'm not sure I see what all of the fuss is about. On the other hand, now that I think about it, I've had some trouble running out of Chip ram with Sculpt-3D, but other than that, I usually don't have problems. -- ------------ Eric Kennedy ejkst@cisunx.UUCP
root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (SBCS Systems Staff) (04/02/88)
In article <684@applix.UUCP>, scott@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) writes: > In article <47622@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: > > How about some clever code to swap unseen screen bitmaps to/from FAST > memory?? I've been toying around with this idea for a few weeks > now. I haven't really spent the time to work thru the problem completely, > but I can imagine this as a potential solution to the CHIP mem crunch. Yes. I've been cleaning up my NeWS port for the Amiga over the past few days now, and this is exactly what I do down in the pixrect driver. What happens is simply this: Try to allocate CHIP mem except when system starts to run dry. Else, allocate pixrects into FAST mem. When blitting, I do a simple test to check if I can use the Amiga Blitter to do the RasterOP. If not, I use the Sun routines to perform the OP. Works very well. Anyways, I'll add a little value to this posting besides just a "YUP". I think that it would be really nice if the graphics.library would make just this sort of decision, ie Blit when possible, otherwise emulate. It seems (unless there are some horns that I haven't spotted here) that this would quite nicely remove the asymmetry of CHIP vs FAST memory, at least as far as graphics ROP'ing was concerned. Of course, the technique doesn't work for the copper, etc. Well, that's my $.02. > > You'd have to get down and dirty replacing quite a few graphics/intuition > library functions, and you might even have to write software equivalents > of most of the graphics calls, or else block tasks attempting output. > But it COULD be done (couldn't it??). > > Am I completely off-the-wall? not at all! > > -scott Rick Spanbauer SUNY/Stony Brook
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (04/04/88)
In article <684@applix.UUCP> scott@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) writes: >How about some clever code to swap unseen screen bitmaps to/from FAST >memory?? I've been toying around with this idea for a few weeks >now. I haven't really spent the time to work thru the problem completely, >but I can imagine this as a potential solution to the CHIP mem crunch. Actually this would be an excellent idea but some of the ways you can 'expose' screens/windows in several ways. Things like clicking on the screen front/back gadgets, or dragging down the screen. One thing that would work would be to make the programs in question able to free up chip memory when they are 'iconified' and several people have made available packages that do something like this. So maybe this is a suggestion to you budding program developers, if you make this an option (Go Quiescent and free chip ram) then your programs will be in more demand. Fragmentation can still be a problem. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.