cc1@valhalla.cs.ucla.edu (Charles Hobbs) (06/23/89)
I've seen the Myarc Geneve mentioned here. Does anyone have any information about it? Is it like the (never-released) TI 99/8?
wsflinn@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Scott Flinn) (07/13/89)
In article <176@zip.eecs.umich.edu> chuck@dip.eecs.umich.edu.UUCP (Chuck A. Nicholas) writes: [much good stuff deleted] >It offers graphics capabilites superior to most other systems other than Amiga >and very close to Atari ST. I don't want to knock the graphics of the Atari St (I own one, and love it dearly), but it is misleading to suggest that the Geneve's graphics are in the same class ... IMHO they are far above. Perhaps the simplest comparison is the amount of information each machine can put on the screen. Without using ultra-tricky timing techniques (which are of no use to Most Normal People), the Atari puts 32K of info on the screen (all graphics modes), while the Geneve manages to display something like 108K in its highest modes. I owned a Geneve (Myarc 9640) for 4 months about two years ago (while the machine was still in its very rocky stages), and my recollection may be faulty, but for the record, I think the following is a fair comparison. (Note that the Geneve has *oodles* of graphics modes ... only a few are described). Atari ST Myarc Geneve ---------------------- ------------------------- hi res: 640x400 monocrhome hi res: 512x424, 16 colours med res: 640x200 4 colours med res: 256x424, 256 colours or 512x212, 256 colours lo res: 320x200 16 colours lo res: 256x192, 2 of 16 colours for each row of 8 pixels (TI 99/4A compatible) text modes: software simulated text modes: 32x24 40x24 80x24 sprites: software simulated sprites: hardware based, multi-coloured hardware graphics: hardware graphics: *horizontal* lines only *all* lines (true?) multicoloured sprites pattern fill The ST uses a display generator The Geneve has a dedicated (and chip to draw the screen from part VERY powerful) graphics chip of CPU ram, but the generator has which draws the screen from no other special abilities. dedicated video RAM (fast, auto-incrementing addressing), in addition to providing many other useful services. The Geneve also has a custom 98 pin chip which (among other things) provides a very nice interface between CPU and video processor. Sorry for being long winded. After all this, I miss my Geneve :-) [more good stuff deleted] > chuck nicholas > Dept Computing Org > EECS dept Univ fo Mich > Ann Arbor, MI -- Me: Scott Flinn / "If it doesn't fit, force it. Domain: wsflinn@watcgl.waterloo.edu / If it breaks, then it didn't UUCP: watmath!watcgl!wsflinn / fit anyway."
bjm@RIO.MT.CS.CMU.EDU (Bret Musser) (07/13/89)
To which Atari ST are you making these comparisons to?
If it is to the earlier models, all this is outdated.
The newer ST's have dedicated graphics chips, like
the Amigas do.
This is all good and fine about graphics, but what about
processor speed? The 9995 runs at the SAME MHz as the
9900 in the old /4A. Just that the 9995 already had
the dedicated 8 bit bus, and it took fewer cycles to
execute the same instructions and it pre-fetches
instructions. Also, it is not really a 12MHz machine.
When you calculate instructions-per-second you use
something like 4 MHz. The internal frequency is not the
same as the external crystal.
Also, when you buy a machine like the Atari or Amiga with
their 68000's, you get much more memory addressable.
The 9995 is 16 bit. It can address 64K. As I recall,
the 68000 has a 20 or 24 bit bus so can access X megabytes
(sorry, I don't have a calculator here).
I don't wish to burst anyone's bubble here... but like
when I see Myarc saying that "Well, if we up the crystal to
18MHz [or whatever] we'll be knocking on the door of
the 80386 machines." (That's almost a direct quote from
a recent Micropendium.) First, when that was written, they
had never reached 18MHz. Also, the max rated crystal
frequency is 12.1MHz, although things are always rated
conseratively. But look at it this way, 18/12 = 1.5.
If the Geneve is about the speed of a PC, an 18MHz Geneve
won't even be near an AT (which is like 2-5 times a PC).
I used to own a Geneve for 2 years. I really liked it.
However, I got really sick of Myarc not pulling through.
It wasn't their fault entirely. I'm glad to see it
start to pull itself together...BUT, remember that when
you buy a Geneve, you are buying 10 year old technology.
And the software support seems to be like 20 years old.
BJM
[If you disagree, post it... this is a good discussion we
have here... this boards picking up a little!]
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Bret J. Musser --- Carnegie-Mellon University | "If you can count your
| money, you don't have
Internet: bjm@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu | a billion dollars."
Bitnet: bjm%f.gp.cs.cmu.edu@cmccvb |
UUCP: <unknown as of now> | -- J. Paul Getty
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=kamann@csm9a.UUCP (kamann) (07/14/89)
In article <5507@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, bjm@RIO.MT.CS.CMU.EDU (Bret Musser) writes: > > Also, when you buy a machine like the Atari or Amiga with > their 68000's, you get much more memory addressable. > The 9995 is 16 bit. It can address 64K. As I recall, > the 68000 has a 20 or 24 bit bus so can access X megabytes > (sorry, I don't have a calculator here). > Is the Atari REALLY accessing X megabytes? As I recall most architectures nowadays are built around a page-swapping facility, even IBM. Let's take a good look at what has been said. As most know the TI came standard with 16k on board. You could then buy an additional 32k card for it. But because of memory for the VDP, etc. the TI actually had around 64k. Nowadays you can get gram/ram devices that give you a virtual memory that is somewhat limitless (at least from my understanding of it). Now, I know that IBM is designed around the concept of a 64k paging area (or the XTs were anyway). So I think it would be safe to say that an IBM only has 64k addressable also, or is it?!? Now, is the Amiga/Atari designed around the same concept? I wasn't aware that they had 20 bit buses, but there is still a limitation to the amount of memory you can actually address, even BIG machines use page swapping mechanisms and virtual memory. ============================================================================== Keith Amann | "VAX WIZARD in training! GURU wanna be!" Student Consultant | Colorado School of Mines | BITNET: KAMANN@MINES Computing Center | UUCP: ...!isis!csm9a!kamann Golden, CO 80401 (303)273-3430 | INTERNET: kamann@csm9a.colorado.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: The thoughts and views discussed above are my own, no one elses! ==============================================================================
bjm@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Bret Musser) (07/14/89)
I think the IBM 80386 in "protected" mode (the mode where it doesn't emulate the 8086) doesn't use paging. I'll have to find some Amiga and Atari articles to confirm about them... BJM
chuck@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Chuck A. Nicholas) (07/15/89)
In article <1657@csm9a.UUCP> kamann@csm9a.UUCP (kamann) writes: >In article <5507@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, bjm@RIO.MT.CS.CMU.EDU (Bret Musser) writes: >> >> Also, when you buy a machine like the Atari or Amiga with >> their 68000's, you get much more memory addressable. >> The 9995 is 16 bit. It can address 64K. As I recall, >> the 68000 has a 20 or 24 bit bus so can access X megabytes >> (sorry, I don't have a calculator here). >> >Is the Atari REALLY accessing X megabytes? As I recall most architectures >nowadays are built around a page-swapping facility, even IBM. Let's take a >good look at what has been said. As most know the TI came standard with 16k >on board. You could then buy an additional 32k card for it. But because of >memory for the VDP, etc. the TI actually had around 64k. Nowadays you can >get gram/ram devices that give you a virtual memory that is somewhat >limitless (at least from my understanding of it). Now, I know that IBM is >designed around the concept of a 64k paging area (or the XTs were anyway). >So I think it would be safe to say that an IBM only has 64k addressable also, >or is it?!? Now, is the Amiga/Atari designed around the same concept? >I wasn't aware that they had 20 bit buses, but there is still a limitation >to the amount of memory you can actually address, even BIG machines use >page swapping mechanisms and virtual memory. > The 68000 family has a large direct addressable memory range, (16 meg I believe) whereas the original PC's 8088 used 64 K pages to access the 2 meg of "real" address space that it could potentially access. The 80286 and 80386 expanded the real memory, but not when running in 8088 emulation. Re clock speed versus processor performance, the 9900 family does not use the same style of architecture as either the 68000 0r 80x86. These chips have dedicated registers wheresas the 9900 uses general memeory for most register operations. I beleive it was Bill Gronos that wrote some benchmark software to run in the 4/a scratchpad memory that ran rings around the similarly clocked 8088 and 6500 cpu's of that time. It is very misleading of Myarc to advertise the Geneve intimating that the clock crystal speed is the rated speed of the processor. They also do a little number regarding memory by lumping in the 128 vdp ram with the 512K cpu BTW, the TI emulation mode on the 9640 is a real pig of a program. Doing a chkdsk after loading GPL (graphics programing language) emulator and quiting back to mdos shows over half of the 512K is gone. MDOS only occupies about 80K so the gpl mode takes up almost 200K. chuck nicholas
wsflinn@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Scott Flinn) (07/15/89)
In article <5507@pt.cs.cmu.edu> bjm@RIO.MT.CS.CMU.EDU (Bret Musser) writes: >To which Atari ST are you making these comparisons to? The 1040ST that I have owned for ~2 years. >If it is to the earlier models, all this is outdated. >The newer ST's have dedicated graphics chips, like >the Amigas do. Most people who own Atari ST's own 1040's or 520's, neither of which can use the new graphics chips (I assume you mean Blitter) without a) fancy hardware mods (like an accelerator board with a blitter socket) and b) an upgraded version of TOS (ie. 1.4, which isn't officially available yet). But this is probably not the place to be discussing Atari stuff. >This is all good and fine about graphics, but what about >processor speed? The 9995 runs at the SAME MHz as the >9900 in the old /4A. Just that the 9995 already had >the dedicated 8 bit bus, and it took fewer cycles to >execute the same instructions and it pre-fetches >instructions. I'm not sure what you mean here, but the 9995 in the Geneve and the 9900 in the 4A are definitely not running at the same speed. I forget the exact stats I produced (it has been a while), but I ran comparisons of counting loops which used the processor's on-board RAM, on both chips. This avoids most of the problems of data bus width, memory speed and wait state insertion. I always forget the clock speed of the 4A (I used to look it up in my EA manual, which I no longer own), but I do recall the ratio of the counting loop speeds *precisely* equaling the ratio (12 MHz) / (MHz of 9900 in 4A). > Also, it is not really a 12MHz machine. >When you calculate instructions-per-second you use >something like 4 MHz. The internal frequency is not the >same as the external crystal. I find this interesting (I'm not pretending to be a Real Expert ... I appreciate your comments). I thought that the custom chip provided hardware support for 4A mode which, among other things (like changing the memory map) introduced extra wait states into memory cycles. And since there was almost no Geneve specific software available when I sold my machine, I only assumed that running in "Geneve mode" would alleviate the problem. I didn't have info telling me how to enter this mode myself, but I thought that Myarc Advanced Basic used it, and I certainly know that this Basic really flew ... was that simply due to replacing the old GPL interpreter? >Also, when you buy a machine like the Atari or Amiga with >their 68000's, you get much more memory addressable. >The 9995 is 16 bit. It can address 64K. As I recall, >the 68000 has a 20 or 24 bit bus so can access X megabytes >(sorry, I don't have a calculator here). It can access 2^24 = 16M (although the Atari ST MMU restricts it to 4M on that machine). But there is no way you can compare the Geneve *in a general way* to the 68000 machines (Mac, St, Amiga) ... the software just isn't there. If a decent compiler (read: very tricky to do right) was available which handled Geneve's memory pages the same way PC compilers cope with the Intel memory segments, then things might be different (I realize the since Geneve's pages must be on 8K boundaries whereas 8086 segments are only restricted to 16 byte boundaries, the compiler could not be as flexible). >I don't wish to burst anyone's bubble here... but like >when I see Myarc saying that "Well, if we up the crystal to >18MHz [or whatever] we'll be knocking on the door of >the 80386 machines." (That's almost a direct quote from >a recent Micropendium.) First, when that was written, they >had never reached 18MHz. Also, the max rated crystal >frequency is 12.1MHz, although things are always rated >conseratively. But look at it this way, 18/12 = 1.5. >If the Geneve is about the speed of a PC, an 18MHz Geneve >won't even be near an AT (which is like 2-5 times a PC). > >I used to own a Geneve for 2 years. I really liked it. >However, I got really sick of Myarc not pulling through. >It wasn't their fault entirely. I'm glad to see it >start to pull itself together...BUT, remember that when >you buy a Geneve, you are buying 10 year old technology. >And the software support seems to be like 20 years old. Was Geneve ever intended to be competition for PC's, Mac's, Amiga's and the like? There isn't a stand alone version yet is there? If not, then its market is "doomed" from the very beginning ... it is only useful for those very few TI enthusiasts who have a PE box and can afford a new toy. Unless a "modern" software environment is provided (like GEM's desktop, the Amiga workbench, Mac Finder, etc.), nobody will want to use it for "real" things (ie. suitable for a business environment). But ... there are lots of interesting things that happy Geneve owners can make themselves happier doing. Before you die of boredom, two brief examples: 1. I still contend that the machine has greater graphics processing potential than a stock Atari ST (or Mega ST). Without a floating point unit, quick 3D graphics will still be difficult, but the Geneve environment should allow new things (suited to its specific hardware) to be concocted. 2. I have just finished writing (for a PC type machine) a real-time multi-tasking kernel. I am now kicking myself for having sold my Geneve ... such a kernel would be perfect for the Geneve, for two reasons: a) the architecture of the TMS99xx processor provides complete context switches for free (well, for the cost of executing a single BLWP). This would give incredible multi-task performance (comments anyone?). b) having a system based on many concurrently running light-weight tasks would make many of the memory paging problems go away, having the kernel take care of all communication between processes running in different memory pages. Anyway, the point is that the Geneve is not competition for the 68000 machines, but need not be relegated to the status of a machine outdated in every way by 20 years. It still provides a platform for some useful things that other machines do not, and above all, gives a more able computer to TI people who can't bear to part with their beloved beast. >[If you disagree, post it... this is a good discussion we >have here... this boards picking up a little!] I have taken your suggestion and run with it. My apologies for the length. >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >Bret J. Musser --- Carnegie-Mellon University | "If you can count your > | money, you don't have >Internet: bjm@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu | a billion dollars." >Bitnet: bjm%f.gp.cs.cmu.edu@cmccvb | >UUCP: <unknown as of now> | -- J. Paul Getty >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -- Me: Scott Flinn / "If it doesn't fit, force it. Domain: wsflinn@watcgl.waterloo.edu / If it breaks, then it didn't UUCP: watmath!watcgl!wsflinn / fit anyway."
bjm@RIO.MT.CS.CMU.EDU (Bret Musser) (07/17/89)
re: 9995 vs 9900 speeds.... I guess I didn't state myself too well... Here's what I meant: by Myarc's misleading standard, that the Geneve is a "12 MHz" machine, then you could say the same about the TI-99/4A, because both use a 12MHz external crystal. I do agree that the 9995 *is* a faster chip. It incorporates a number of secondary chips that were needed on the 9900 on the same piece of silicon. Register memory is on-board. It pre-fetches instructions. And the microcode is much more optimized, however, it is *not* a RISC chip, as has been written by Chris Bobbit I think. BJM
kamann@csm9a.UUCP (kamann) (07/18/89)
In article <10677@watcgl.waterloo.edu>, wsflinn@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Scott Flinn) writes: > 2. I have just finished writing (for a PC type machine) a real-time > multi-tasking kernel. I am now kicking myself for having sold > my Geneve ... such a kernel would be perfect for the Geneve, for > two reasons: > a) the architecture of the TMS99xx processor provides complete > context switches for free (well, for the cost of executing > a single BLWP). This would give incredible multi-task > performance (comments anyone?). > b) having a system based on many concurrently running light-weight > tasks would make many of the memory paging problems go away, > having the kernel take care of all communication between > processes running in different memory pages. > Well Scott, the multi-tasking kernel you speak of is supposedly being developed for the Geneve as we speak (although late as usual). The package is called GEME (I think?!?) and is supposed to have those features you mentioned above. It was brought to everyone's attention about a year ago, and was reviewed in an issue of Micropendium, but was not ready for release at that time (it was up to version .3). I think that the idea is great, but it is being produced with "neolithic imcompetence" (yes, a movie quote!). To me it sounds like it is too bad that you sold out, people like you tend to get things done. I personally have never bought a Geneve for the one reason that keeps coming up in these postings, NO SOFTWARE! I am a programmer at heart, but I prefer programming on a system with a reliable operating system, not one that they will change down the road and cause me hours of reprogramming grief trying to correct. ============================================================================== Keith Amann | "WIZARD in training! GURU wanna be!" Student Consultant | Colorado School of Mines | BITNET: KAMANN@MINES Computing Center | UUCP: ...!isis!csm9a!kamann Golden, CO 80401 (303)273-3430 | INTERNET: kamann@csm9a.colorado.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: The thoughts and views discussed above are my own, no one elses! ==============================================================================