jon@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Deutsch) (05/20/91)
Does anyone know about the possibility
of system7 running on AMAX?
X-------------------+--------------+-----------------------X
| | |\ |>jon@brahms.udel.edu<| "For my 2 cents, |
| \|on |/eutsch |>>-----------------<<| I'd pay a dollar" |
X------+--------------------+--------------------+---------Xjeremym@chopin.udel.edu (Jeremy A Moskowitz) (05/20/91)
In article <21510@brahms.udel.edu> jon@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Deutsch) writes: >Does anyone know about the possibility >of system7 running on AMAX? Yeah.. I tried getting it to work for three hours straight. I tried: 1) Booting off the installition floppies - that didn't even boot 2) booting with a 6.0.3 disk and running the installer - that got to 1/3 way then died. 3) Reformatting my AMAX1: partition and tring steps 1-3 4) Copying an already laid down system 7.0 on the HD and bascially, it got the happy mac - then reboot infinately. Someone else tried: 1) Installing 7.0 on ANOTHER hd on a REAL mac, and then putting it on AMAX. That didnt work etiher. This leads me to the conclusion that 7.0 has built in Amax detection. I'm not kidding about this... this could simply be a small thing to fix (ie: hack 7.0 to work) but I doubt it... Anyone want to call readysoft and post their findings while I reformat my HD 6.0.7 again, as I've lost everything in the process of getting 7.0 on there. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO PUT 7.0 ON YOUR AMAX: partition. IT WILL NOT WORK! That is all Monitor of comp.sys.amiga.emulations -jeremy -- E Pluribus // Contacts: jeremym@brahms.udel.edu or jeremym@chopin.udel.edu or Unix // jeremym@freezer.acs.udel.edu -amiga clasic 2000- \\ // --->Monitor of comp.sys.amiga.emulations<--- \X/ 2001 Dalmations - My stars, its full of dogs...
DEB110@psuvm.psu.edu (Doug Bischoff) (05/22/91)
After hacking around like you wouldn't believe with Sys 7.0 to get it even
INSTALLED on AMAX... I had the same problem as anyone else: the sad mac.
In short... i don't believe sys 7.0 will work on AMAX. But to be honest:
the biggest advantages of it work on an Appletalk networked Mac, and the only
thing you'd be getting that's better is Virtual Memory (hard disk space can be
used as memory) which is SLOW AS SIN and TrueType (which'll only work if you
have an Apple printer as far as I understand it) fonts.
To me... it isn't worth the trouble.
P.S. Has ANYBODY gotten the Multifinder to run on AMAX and still allow
you to do everything normally? Like get into the DA's?
/---------------------------------------------------------------------\
| -Doug Bischoff- | *** *** ====--\ | "Sir, I Protest! |
| -DEB110 @ PSUVM- | * *** * ==|<>\___ | I am NOT a |
| -The Black Ring- | *** *** |______\ | Merry Man!" |
| --- "Wheels" --- | *** O O | -Worf |
| Corwyn Blakwolfe | T.R.I. ------------- | ST:TNG |
\---- DEB110@PSUVM.PSU.EDU D.BISCHOFF on GEnie THIRDMAN on PAN -----/lou@flipper.Corp.Sun.COM (Lou Ordorica - SunU Field T & D) (05/22/91)
> P.S. Has ANYBODY gotten the Multifinder to run on AMAX and still allow > you to do everything normally? Like get into the DA's? > /---------------------------------------------------------------------\ > | -Doug Bischoff- | *** *** ====--\ | "Sir, I Protest! | > | -DEB110 @ PSUVM- | * *** * ==|<>\___ | I am NOT a | > | -The Black Ring- | *** *** |______\ | Merry Man!" | > | --- "Wheels" --- | *** O O | -Worf | > | Corwyn Blakwolfe | T.R.I. ------------- | ST:TNG | > \---- DEB110@PSUVM.PSU.EDU D.BISCHOFF on GEnie THIRDMAN on PAN -----/ I too had many problems with A-MaxII until I upgraded my processor to a 68030 and used the MMU option. Suddenly, inits like Adobe Type Manager and even the screen hack/saver AfterDark worked perfectly under Multifinder with no compatibility problems whatsoever. I then tried loading A-MaxII without the MMU option, and the system crashed while booting. My guess is that the MMU plays an important role in mapping available memory in one continguous block, the way the Mac expects it. Those of you considering a cpu upgrade should watch out for cheap 68030 accelerators with no MMU - you lose it's important A-MaxII advantage! Lou ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | My opinions do not represent the opinions of my employer. | | "Not everyone can carry the weight of the world." | | lou@Corp.Sun.COM -R.E.M. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
jnmoyne@lbl.gov (Jean-Noel MOYNE) (05/22/91)
In article <91141.134520DEB110@psuvm.psu.edu> Doug Bischoff <DEB110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: > In short... i don't believe sys 7.0 will work on AMAX. But to be honest: > the biggest advantages of it work on an Appletalk networked Mac, and the only > thing you'd be getting that's better is Virtual Memory (hard disk space can be > used as memory) which is SLOW AS SIN and TrueType (which'll only work if you > have an Apple printer as far as I understand it) fonts. > To me... it isn't worth the trouble. True engouh ... But there are a few features that could be worth it. Mainly, it's 7.0 ability and _BIG_ improvement if you're dealing with a lot of files. It's _way faster_ ! Not to mention much more reliable. An other thing is the possibility to have the finder run in the background (for those who haven't tried it yet: yes ! When you copy a file for example, even if the cursor is a watch, you can still go to the upper-right corner and switch to something else, the copy won't stop. But maybe you don't want that on an Amiga .... it too pathetic ... When I see the way it works on my IIfx, and when I think how it would work with the same CPU under AmigaDOS, especially when you know what's inside a IIfx for IO processing. And of course, it doesn't work when you're formatting a floppy (this very tricky operation taking over the 68030@40Mhz ! (-:). They're still quite far away from a vintage 1986 Amiga1000 with 256K of RAM where you can nearly format a floppy twice at the same time ! (-: Oh ! And one last thing, don't try 7.0 unless you have at least 2MB of memory. I'd say 4MB is a minimum (for a Mac+ emulation) to do anything serious. JNM (Amiga developper lost in MacLand) --- #include <std/disclaimer.h> JNM: jnmoyne@lbl.gov - The postmaster allways pings twice (soon in your mailbox!)
wild@nessie.cs.id.ethz.ch (Markus Wild) (05/22/91)
In article <4150@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> lou@flipper.Corp.Sun.COM (Lou Ordorica - SunU Field T & D) writes: >Those of you considering a cpu upgrade should watch out for cheap 68030 >accelerators with no MMU - you lose it's important A-MaxII advantage! You won't find any 68030 accelerators without an MMU, the 68030 has it builtin;-) -Markus PS: You're right considering 68020 accelerator boards. -- Markus M. Wild - mwild@iiic.ethz.ch | wild@nessie.cs.id.ethz.ch -- Still looking for a REAL debugger for Release 4 ...
tessier@bmerh185.BNR.CA (Daniel Tessier) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May22.090222.2054@bernina.ethz.ch>, wild@nessie.cs.id.ethz.ch (Markus Wild) writes: |> In article <4150@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> lou@flipper.Corp.Sun.COM (Lou Ordorica - SunU Field T & D) writes: |> >Those of you considering a cpu upgrade should watch out for cheap 68030 |> >accelerators with no MMU - you lose it's important A-MaxII advantage! |> |> You won't find any 68030 accelerators without an MMU, the 68030 has it |> builtin;-) |> |> -Markus |> |> PS: You're right considering 68020 accelerator boards. Haha! There ARE boards that have 68030s without the MMU. 68030s that fail the MMU tests are sold as "MMU-less" by Motorola, to save money. I know that CSA sells 'economy' models based on those chips (they seem to be about $100 less than the regular models). /----------------------------------------------------------------\ | Dan Tessier PHONE : (613)765-2380 | | Bell-Northern Research, Ltd. INTERNET: tessier@bnr.ca | | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada UUCP : ...uunet!bnrgate.bnr.ca | | !bmerh185!tessier | | "Mothers are the necessity of invention" | | - Calvin & Hobbes | \----------------------------------------------------------------/
lou@flipper.Corp.Sun.COM (Lou Ordorica - SunU Field T & D) (05/22/91)
>>Those of you considering a cpu upgrade should watch out for cheap 68030 >>accelerators with no MMU - you lose it's important A-MaxII advantage! >You won't find any 68030 accelerators without an MMU, the 68030 has it >builtin;-) >-Markus >PS: You're right considering 68020 accelerator boards. >-- >Markus M. Wild - mwild@iiic.ethz.ch | wild@nessie.cs.id.ethz.ch This is true - I was referring to versions of the 68030 that are available with the MMU masked out. Apparently, these CPUs test bad with MMU, but good without the MMU, so Motorola sells them as MMU-less CPUs for a reduced cost. -Lou +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | --- My opinions do not represent the opinions of my employer. --- | | ---- "Not everyone can carry the weight of the world." ---- | | lou@Corp.Sun.COM -R.E.M. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
billc@cryo.UUCP (William J. Coldwell) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May22.090222.2054@bernina.ethz.ch> wild@nessie.cs.id.ethz.ch (Markus Wild) writes: >In article <4150@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> lou@flipper.Corp.Sun.COM (Lou Ordorica - SunU Field T & D) writes: >>Those of you considering a cpu upgrade should watch out for cheap 68030 >>accelerators with no MMU - you lose it's important A-MaxII advantage! > >You won't find any 68030 accelerators without an MMU, the 68030 has it >builtin;-) Call your Motorola rep to get the facts on the new plastic 030. CSA is now using it in a less expensive version of the Mega Midget Racer. -- William J. Coldwell PLink: CRYO I'm a 3-DPro, wouldn't you Amiga Attitude Adjuster BIX: wjcoldwell like to be a 3-DPro2 ? Cryogenic Software UUCP:billc@cryo 3-D PROFESSIONAL 2.0 #define STD_DSCLMR "The above opinions are mine. You can't have them."
mmm@reaper.Chi.IL.US (Michael Marvin Morrison) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May22.151659.18851@bmerh2.bnr.ca> tessier@bmerh185.BNR.CA (Daniel Tessier) writes: > >In article <1991May22.090222.2054@bernina.ethz.ch>, >wild@nessie.cs.id.ethz.ch (Markus Wild) writes: >|> In article <4150@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> lou@flipper.Corp.Sun.COM (Lou >Ordorica - SunU Field T & D) writes: >|> >Those of you considering a cpu upgrade should watch out for cheap 68030 >|> >accelerators with no MMU - you lose it's important A-MaxII advantage! >|> >|> You won't find any 68030 accelerators without an MMU, the 68030 has it >|> builtin;-) >|> >|> -Markus >|> >|> PS: You're right considering 68020 accelerator boards. >Haha! There ARE boards that have 68030s without the MMU. 68030s that fail >the MMU tests are sold as "MMU-less" by Motorola, to save money. I know >that CSA sells 'economy' models based on those chips (they seem to be >about $100 less than the regular models). > >/----------------------------------------------------------------\ >| Dan Tessier PHONE : (613)765-2380 | I don't believe that they are '030 uP's that failed any tests.. I seem to remember Motorola saying that the TESTING of the MMU was the expensive part, and so they just masked out part of the MMU logic, and don't bother testing for it. It is also declaired as an embeded processor I believe. -- Michael M Morrison /| |\ mmm@reaper.chi.il.us <or> | | Cold Steel on Ice | | reaper!mmm@miroc.chi.il.us \| |/
gt1619a@prism.gatech.EDU (James is just this guy, you know...) (05/24/91)
BTW: Wow your friends with your knowledge of how to crash Mac-system 7.0 with a single key stroke! Select the diskettes and hit Option-E to eject the disk. The disk will pop out and the system goes down, how convenient!
cazabon@hercules (Charles Cazabon (186-003-526)) (05/24/91)
ctually, Motorolla is now shipping 68030s without an MMU in them, at a significant savings over the regular price. One company (GVP, I think) is now selling "economy" 68030 accelerator cards, with this special no-mmu 68030. -Chuck cazabon@hercules.uregina.ca
rbabel@babylon.rmt.sub.org (Ralph Babel) (05/24/91)
In article <471@regina.uregina.ca>, cazabon@hercules (Charles Cazabon (186-003-526)) writes: > One company (GVP, I think) is now selling "economy" 68030 > accelerator cards, with this special no-mmu 68030. Nope, not GVP. Ralph
timg@cbmtor.uucp (Tim Grantham) (05/25/91)
In article <21510@brahms.udel.edu> jon@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Deutsch) writes: >Does anyone know about the possibility >of system7 running on AMAX? > I obtained the complete System 7.0 upgrade kit and attempted to install it and run it under A-max 2.06. No go. It will install all right but the machine locks up during boot shortly after the `Welcome to Macintosh' message appears. I phoned Simon Douglas, the programmer of A-max, and he said that the next version of A-max would run System 7.0. He also confirmed my own discovery that A-max is not completely compatible with System 6.0.7 -- only with lower revs. Tim.
george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544) (05/25/91)
In article <477@cbmtor.uucp> timg@cbmtor.uucp (Tim Grantham (GUEST)) writes: > >I phoned Simon Douglas, the programmer of A-max, and he said that the next >version of A-max would run System 7.0. He also confirmed my own discovery that >A-max is not completely compatible with System 6.0.7 -- only with lower revs. > What causes the incompatibility? I thought the Apple ROMs assured 100% Mac functionality. I took a look at an AMax II circuit board. Are the Apple ROMs really being used, or are they just checked to see if they are present? -- / George David Nincehelser \ george@swbatl.sbc.com \ / / Southwestern Bell Telephone \ Phone: (314) 235-6544 \ / / / Advanced Technology Laboratory \ Fax: (314) 235-5797 \ / / / /\ 1010 Pine, St. Louis, MO 63101 \ de asini umbra disceptare \
hawk@pnet01.cts.com (John Anderson) (05/27/91)
>>Does anyone know about the possibility >>of system7 running on AMAX? >> >I obtained the System 7.0 upgrade kit and attempted to install it and >run it under A-max 2.06.No go.It will install all right but the machine locks >up during boot shortly after the `Welcome to Macintosh' message appears. > >I phoned Simon Douglas, the programmer of A-max, and he said that the next >version of A-max would run System 7.0.He also confirmed my own discovery that >A-max is not completely compatible with System 6.0.7 -- only with lower revs. A dealer friend told me the new System 7s they just got in would not work with the 128K ROMs. He said System 7 would only work on an SE and above. He called an Apple support person and that's what he was told. He looked in the manual it it said the same thing: it ony works on an SE and above. Does anyone know if this is incorrect. Since the maker of A-Max said the next A-max will work with System 7, either he's planning a 256K A-Max or the guy I know is wrong. Anybody???
george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544) (05/27/91)
In article <1991May27.001603.18395@crash.cts.com> hawk@pnet01.cts.com (John Anderson) writes: >A dealer friend told me the new System 7s they just got in would not work with >the 128K ROMs. He said System 7 would only work on an SE and above. He >called an Apple support person and that's what he was told. He looked in the >manual it it said the same thing: it ony works on an SE and above. Does >anyone know if this is incorrect. Since the maker of A-Max said the next >A-max will work with System 7, either he's planning a 256K A-Max or the guy >I know is wrong. Anybody??? System 7.0 does work on the Mac Plus. I've several friends that are running it on their Pluses. -- / George David Nincehelser \ george@swbatl.sbc.com \ / / Southwestern Bell Telephone \ Phone: (314) 235-6544 \ / / / Advanced Technology Laboratory \ Fax: (314) 235-5797 \ / / / /\ 1010 Pine, St. Louis, MO 63101 \ de asini umbra disceptare \
JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) (05/27/91)
In article <1991May27.001603.18395@crash.cts.com>, hawk@pnet01.cts.com (John Anderson) says: > >A dealer friend told me the new System 7s they just got in would not work with >the 128K ROMs. He said System 7 would only work on an SE and above. He >called an Apple support person and that's what he was told. He looked in the >manual it it said the same thing: it ony works on an SE and above. Bzzt! Wrong on TWO counts: 1) Apple says System 7.0 will work on the Mac Plus, and MacWeek has confirmed it. 2) The Mac SE has the same 128K ROMs that the Plus has. If it didn't work with the 128K ROMs, it wouldn't run on the SE. He's a DEALER saying this? Just confirms what I've posted in this group before... dealers s*ck. They CONSISTENTLY don't know what they are talking about but will ALWAYS claim they do. This applies to Amiga, Mac, and PC dealers alike. It seems that anyone who DOES know what he/she is talking about goes into a field that pays more than selling computers. :-) Ok, I'm done raving now. Anyway, System 7 is supposed to work on the Mac Plus. The current conflict apparently has something to do with System 7 checking a ROM location that A-Max modifies when it copies the ROM code into RAM. Once A-Max is made not to change that location anymore, we'll have compatibility. :-) Kurt -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- || Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 || With. Without. And who'll || || 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. (home) || deny it's what the fighting's || || Malvern, PA 19355-2214 458-5000 || all about? - Pink Floyd || || (work) --------------------------------|| || jkt100@psuvm.bitnet jkt100&psuvm.psu.edu QLink: KurtTappe || -----------------------------------------------------------------------
cazabon@hercules (Charles Cazabon (186-003-526)) (05/27/91)
In article <1991May25.121204.15045@swbatl.sbc.com> george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544) writes: > >I took a look at an AMax II circuit board. Are the Apple ROMs really being >used, or are they just checked to see if they are present? The Roms are read in at bootup (of the Amax side)...after that, they are not used at all. This is why some programs allow you to change Amax to read the rom files from disk rather than from the cartridge...reading the ROMS into RAM is painfully slow. FastMax2.lzh (available on ab20) does this; however, to prevent piracy and all that sort of thing, it checks for the presence of the cartridge even though it loads the ROMS from disk. -Chuck cazabon@hercules.uregina.ca
cmp9133@sys.uea.ac.uk (A.C. Lock) (05/28/91)
rbabel@babylon.rmt.sub.org (Ralph Babel) writes: >> One company (GVP, I think) is now selling "economy" 68030 >> accelerator cards, with this special no-mmu 68030. >Nope, not GVP. CSA are manufacturing cheap versions of their Mega Midget Racer cards which do not contain a MMU, which seems rather silly to me, since it means that memory access to chip ram is going to be slow since you won't be able to map this memory using the MMU to 32 bit ram. Adam
mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) (05/29/91)
In article <1991May22.090222.2054@bernina.ethz.ch> wild@nessie.cs.id.ethz.ch (Markus Wild) writes: > >You won't find any 68030 accelerators without an MMU, the 68030 has it >builtin;-) > >-Markus > I believe Moto is going to release 030's without MMU's for the slight speed increase/price decrease, so it actually might be something to look out for.
mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) (05/29/91)
In article <1991May27.001603.18395@crash.cts.com> hawk@pnet01.cts.com (John Anderson) writes: > >A dealer friend told me the new System 7s they just got in would not work with >the 128K ROMs. He said System 7 would only work on an SE and above. He system 7 will work on any mac+ or newer with at least 2 meg. 'course, virtual mem and some other of their 'fancy' stuff doesn't work on the small machines, but should work fine with AMAXD, once mr. douglas does his thing.
mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) (05/29/91)
In article <91146.232719JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: > >2) The Mac SE has the same 128K ROMs that the Plus has. If it > didn't work with the 128K ROMs, it wouldn't run on the SE. > I don't think this is true...there are no slots in the mac plus...it's a closed machine. In fact, I know it's not true. One of the big hypes about the SE when it came out was that it was faster than a mac+ due to optimizations in the display software, better quickdraw, etc. I measured this to be a 10% speed improvement. HA...the mac plus roms with AMAX on my 1000 go 5% faster than the SE!
jnmoyne@lbl.gov (Jean-Noel MOYNE) (05/29/91)
References:<4150@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> <1991May22.090222.2054@bernina.ethz.ch> <471@regina.uregina.ca> <08069.AA08069@babylon.rmt.sub.org> <1101@sys.uea.ac.uk> In article <1101@sys.uea.ac.uk> cmp9133@sys.uea.ac.uk (A.C. Lock) writes: > >> One company (GVP, I think) is now selling "economy" 68030 > >> accelerator cards, with this special no-mmu 68030. > > >Nope, not GVP. > > CSA are manufacturing cheap versions of their Mega Midget Racer cards which do > not contain a MMU, which seems rather silly to me, since it means that memory > access to chip ram is going to be slow since you won't be able to map this > memory using the MMU to 32 bit ram. > > Adam No no no no no ... Let me explain, you don't want to map CHIP memory anywhere, CHIP memory is slow, because it is chip memory which means it is accessed by other co-processors (DMA for guys like the blitter et al.). On the other hand, the ROMS are slower than 32-RAMs, first because they're ROMs and also because they're 16 bits. Since the CPU is the only one to access them, it is nice to be able to use a MMU to map the ROMs (_not_ the CHIP memory!) into fast 32bits RAM. It is true that this unability will make quite a difference on most of the common operations, since mapping the ROMs in fast RAM does the trick, as far as most acceleration goes. JNM --- #include <std/disclaimer.h> JNM: jnmoyne@lbl.gov - The postmaster allways pings twice (soon in your mailbox!)
valentin@btr.BTR.COM (Valentin Pepelea valentin@btr.com) (05/29/91)
In article <1101@sys.uea.ac.uk> cmp9133@sys.uea.ac.uk (A.C. Lock) writes: > >CSA are manufacturing cheap versions of their Mega Midget Racer cards which do >not contain a MMU, which seems rather silly to me, since it means that memory >access to chip ram is going to be slow since you won't be able to map this >memory using the MMU to 32 bit ram. Perhaps you meant that accesses to ROMs will be slow, since you will not be able to use "setcpu fastrom" or "c:cpu fastrom" under 2.0. Chip memory will always be slower than fast memory, the MMU just can't help with that. Valentin -- "An operating system without virtual memory Name: Valentin Pepelea is an operating system without virtue." Phone: (408) 985-1700 Usenet: mips!btr!valentin - Ancient Inca Proverb Internet: valentin@btr.com
JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) (05/30/91)
In article <220@touch.touch.com>, mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) says: > >>2) The Mac SE has the same 128K ROMs that the Plus has. If it >> didn't work with the 128K ROMs, it wouldn't run on the SE. >> >I don't think this is true...there are no slots in the mac plus...it's a >closed machine. What do ROMs have to do with the number of slots?? You're talking about 2 different issues here; the ROMs contain the fundamental operating code and have no effect on the number of slots. Those slots are handled by other chips, specially designed to control them. Kurt -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- :: Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 :: With. Without. And who'll :: :: 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. (home) :: deny it's what the fighting's || :: Malvern, PA 19355-2214 458-5000 || all about? - Pink Floyd :: :: (work) --------------------------------|| :: jkt100@psuvm.bitnet jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu QLink: KurtTappe || -----------------------------------------------------------------------
maxc1503@ucselx.sdsu.edu (David Tse) (05/31/91)
JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >Bzzt! Wrong on TWO counts: >1) Apple says System 7.0 will work on the Mac Plus, and MacWeek > has confirmed it. >2) The Mac SE has the same 128K ROMs that the Plus has. If it > didn't work with the 128K ROMs, it wouldn't run on the SE. You are the one who is also wrong! Mac SE has 256K ROM, as are the II, SE/30, IIx, IIcx, and the Portable; IIci, IIsi, IIfx have 512K ROM. The Mac 128K, and the Mac 512K have 64k ROM. The Mac 512Ke, and Plus have 128K rom. Check it out before you said others are wrong, please. >He's a DEALER saying this? Just confirms what I've posted in >this group before... dealers s*ck. They CONSISTENTLY don't >know what they are talking about but will ALWAYS claim they >do. This applies to Amiga, Mac, and PC dealers alike. It >seems that anyone who DOES know what he/she is talking about >goes into a field that pays more than selling computers. :-) Right. >Ok, I'm done raving now. Anyway, System 7 is supposed to work on >the Mac Plus. The current conflict apparently has something to >do with System 7 checking a ROM location that A-Max modifies when >it copies the ROM code into RAM. Once A-Max is made not to change >that location anymore, we'll have compatibility. :-) Are you sure that's the cause? > Kurt >-- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >|| Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 || With. Without. And who'll || >|| 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. (home) || deny it's what the fighting's || >|| Malvern, PA 19355-2214 458-5000 || all about? - Pink Floyd || >|| (work) --------------------------------|| >|| jkt100@psuvm.bitnet jkt100&psuvm.psu.edu QLink: KurtTappe || > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- David Tse (account to be expire soon, new account coming soon in June)
Dickson@system-m.az05.bull.com (Paul Dickson) (06/01/91)
No no no no no ... Let me explain, you don't want to map CHIP
memory anywhere, CHIP memory is slow, because it is chip memory
which means it is accessed by other co-processors (DMA for guys
like the blitter et al.).
On the other hand, the ROMS are slower than 32-RAMs, first
because they're ROMs and also because they're 16 bits. Since the
CPU is the only one to access them, it is nice to be able to use a
MMU to map the ROMs (_not_ the CHIP memory!) into fast 32bits RAM.
It is true that this unability will make quite a difference on
most of the common operations, since mapping the ROMs in fast RAM
does the trick, as far as most acceleration goes.
But the MMR does not need an MMU to protect a copy of AmigaDOS in RAM.
It has fast static RAM for this. In fact, if you aren't running
AmigaDOS 2.0, half the static ram can be used as cache. About the only
thing that can't be run on an Amiga with this stripped '030 is enforcer.monty@sagpd1 (06/06/91)
In article <1101@sys.uea.ac.uk> cmp9133@sys.uea.ac.uk (A.C. Lock) writes: >rbabel@babylon.rmt.sub.org (Ralph Babel) writes: > >CSA are manufacturing cheap versions of their Mega Midget Racer cards which do >not contain a MMU, which seems rather silly to me, since it means that memory >access to chip ram is going to be slow since you won't be able to map this >memory using the MMU to 32 bit ram. > >Adam When The CSA people demoed these "cheap versions" of the midget racer at our users group about 3 months ago they made a point of stressing the fact that the hardware itself transfered the proms to 32 bit memory. As for 32 bit access to chip ram I don't think this is possible on any 16 bit Amiga. MMU or not you don't gain 32 bit access to chip ram unless you have a 32 bit chip bus. But then I have been wrong before :). They did say that is was simple to later remove the inhibited 68030 and install a regular 68030 at a later date. Monty Saine
bja20850@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (B.J. Anderson) (06/07/91)
monty@sagpd1 writes: >In article <1101@sys.uea.ac.uk> cmp9133@sys.uea.ac.uk (A.C. Lock) writes: >>rbabel@babylon.rmt.sub.org (Ralph Babel) writes: >> >>CSA are manufacturing cheap versions of their Mega Midget Racer cards which do >>not contain a MMU, which seems rather silly to me, since it means that memory >>access to chip ram is going to be slow since you won't be able to map this >>memory using the MMU to 32 bit ram. >> >>Adam > When The CSA people demoed these "cheap versions" of the midget racer > at our users group about 3 months ago they made a point of stressing the > fact that the hardware itself transfered the proms to 32 bit memory. > As for 32 bit access to chip ram I don't think this is possible on any > 16 bit Amiga. MMU or not you don't gain 32 bit access to chip ram unless > you have a 32 bit chip bus. But then I have been wrong before :). > They did say that is was simple to later remove the inhibited 68030 and > install a regular 68030 at a later date. > Monty Saine While we're on the subject... anyone mind nailing down the reasons that the Mega Midget can go for so much less than the GVP series stuff? -Beej -- I must remember to be cheerful and obedient. I must remember to be cheerful and obedient. I must remember to be cheerful and obedient. mail: anderson@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu