JBK4@psuvm.psu.edu (04/18/91)
Seeing that the Amiga list of emulators keeps growing I was wondering if there is anyone out there developing a NeXT emulator for the Ami. Or does one alread y exist? Jason Koszarsky, JBK4@PSUVM
holgerl@amiux.UUCP (Holger Lubitz) (04/19/91)
In article <91108.003225JBK4@psuvm.psu.edu> JBK4@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >Seeing that the Amiga list of emulators keeps growing I was wondering if there >is anyone out there developing a NeXT emulator for the Ami. Or does one alread >y exist? :-) You suppose you could emulate a NeXT on the Amiga ? No, even if it should be possible, it would be guaranteed to be awfully slow. Remember the '030- cube ? But you could try NeXTstep upon Commodores SVR4, I suppose. What bothers me more is this: When is the NeXT going to be able to emulate our beloved AMIGA ? Sure, there are the custom chips to be emulated, but after all the NeXT has an '040 in it... Speed of an emulated Amiga should be somewhat faster than a stock amiga, it might even reach the speed of an '020-Amiga. Of course it would require a Colorstation to emulate the color, but everything else should be possible on a normal NeXTstation. Best regards, Holger -- Holger Lubitz, Kl. Drakenburger Str. 24, D-W-3070 Nienburg/Weser
cs180sbg@sdcc5.ucsd.edu (04/20/91)
In article <91108.003225JBK4@psuvm.psu.edu> JBK4@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >Seeing that the Amiga list of emulators keeps growing I was wondering if there >is anyone out there developing a NeXT emulator for the Ami. Or does one alread >y exist? > >Jason Koszarsky, JBK4@PSUVM Emulate a 68040 on a 68000, Megapixel display on 320x200, display postscript with ???, virtual memory with 880K floppy, and how fast can this emulator go?
cpmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matthew W Crowd) (04/20/91)
In article <9104190943.12.2494@INSIDER> sysop@insider.zer.sub.org writes: > >In gerneral, you can only emulate a machine on another, when the other >machine is at least as good or better than the machine to be emulated. > >Could you imagine ANY of those machines emulating just 50% of the Amiga ? >Impossible! The Amiga's hardware is much to `intelligent' to be emulated by >software. Maybe a NeXT could make it. Or Sun. > >--- > SysOp @ INSIDER -- Bugs ? Data Becker & GFA only produce FEATURES! In case all you Amiga Freaks hadn't forgot, the only real reason why a computer has to emulate another is beacause of the lack of REAL software for its own base. matt.
sysop@insider.zer.sub.org (04/20/91)
> Seeing that the Amiga list of emulators keeps growing I was wondering if there > is anyone out there developing a NeXT emulator for the Ami. Or does one alread > y exist? Excuse me, but how do you expect something like that to be written ? How do you think somebody could emulate a larger machine on a smaller one ? In gerneral, you can only emulate a machine on another, when the other machine is at least as good or better than the machine to be emulated. - MAC: just a bit of hardware with a Pseudo-OS. AMAX beats most Macs if run on an 030 machine - ST: not too intelligent machine either. - PC: junk. Can be emulated with just 50K of code (IBeM) - C64: old machine, but a bit tricky 'cause of the programing back doors - Gameboy: No `machine' at all ... ;-) a.s.o. ... Could you imagine ANY of those machines emulating just 50% of the Amiga ? Impossible! The Amiga's hardware is much to `intelligent' to be emulated by software. Maybe a NeXT could make it. Or Sun. The NeXT's hardware is about the same to the Amiga's hardware as the Amiga is to those machines. So: NO WAY... --- SysOp @ INSIDER -- Bugs ? Data Becker & GFA only produce FEATURES!
dylan@june.cs.washington.edu (Dylan McNamee) (04/20/91)
In article <9104190943.12.2494@INSIDER> sysop@insider.zer.sub.org writes: > >>Seeing that the Amiga list of emulators keeps growing I was wondering if there >>is anyone out there developing a NeXT emulator for the Ami. Or does one alread >> exist? > >Excuse me, but how do you expect something like that to be written ? How do >you think somebody could emulate a larger machine on a smaller one ? > >In gerneral, you can only emulate a machine on another, when the other >machine is at least as good or better than the machine to be emulated. > >- MAC: just a bit of hardware with a Pseudo-OS. AMAX beats most Macs if run > on an 030 machine >- ST: not too intelligent machine either. >- PC: junk. Can be emulated with just 50K of code (IBeM) >- C64: old machine, but a bit tricky 'cause of the programing back doors >- Gameboy: No `machine' at all ... ;-) I note that you are defining a machine as "junk" only if it can be emulated. I disagree here...it's just to show that many machines' qualities have been put into software. > >The NeXT's hardware is about the same to the Amiga's hardware as the Amiga >is to those machines. So: NO WAY... I disagree here too..Except for the DSP, which isn't used by much of the NeXT, almost all of what goes on in the NeXT is done by the software. For example, all screen image moves are done by the CPU, just like the mac. This is why the 68030 NeXT cube was so slow. Yes, the NeXT folks got a jump on being 68040 machines, but only because their system design needed it badly, to keep from looking really slow, compared to either a RISC machine, or a machine with coprocessors. > > SysOp @ INSIDER -- Bugs ? Data Becker & GFA only produce FEATURES! dylan -- dylan mcnamee / "Ten Years After WWIV...there wasn't much to do; dylan@cs.washington.edu \/all the bowling alleys were wrecked, so I spent most of my time looking for beer" from Strange Brew
drysdale@cbmvax.commodore.com (Scott Drysdale) (04/21/91)
In article <1991Apr20.063819.8726@marlin.jcu.edu.au> cpmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matthew W Crowd) writes: >In case all you Amiga Freaks hadn't forgot, the only real reason why a >computer has to emulate another is beacause of the lack of REAL software >for its own base. ah, but there's another reason. because it *can*. >matt. --Scotty -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Scott Drysdale Software Engineer Commodore Amiga Inc. UUCP {allegra|burdvax|rutgers|ihnp4}!cbmvax!drysdale PHONE - yes. "Have you hugged your hog today?" =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
dvljrt@cs.umu.se (Joakim Rosqvist) (04/21/91)
>What bothers me more is this: When is the NeXT going to be able to emulate our >beloved AMIGA ? Sure, there are the custom chips to be emulated, but after >all the NeXT has an '040 in it... Speed of an emulated Amiga should be >somewhat faster than a stock amiga, it might even reach the speed >of an '020-Amiga. Of course it would require a Colorstation to emulate the >color, but everything else should be possible on a normal NeXTstation. > >Best regards, >Holger > I think the NeXT will have problems emulating HAM and sprites and dual playfield and separate smooth-scroll/modulo for odd/even bitplanes and separate bitplane pointers etc. Also.. it's one thing to emulate programs that do ROM-calls for everything but there are quite a lot of programs that write to the $DFF regs perhaps the '040 could be instructed to cause an interrupt when it tries to read/write an a specific area, then it would have to se which address it was and perhaps change from 5 to 3 bitplanes in the middle of a scanline.. I don't think the NeXT could handle that.
dtiberio@libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (04/22/91)
In article <18461@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> cs180sbg@sdcc5.ucsd.edu writes: >In article <91108.003225JBK4@psuvm.psu.edu> JBK4@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >>Seeing that the Amiga list of emulators keeps growing I was wondering if there >>is anyone out there developing a NeXT emulator for the Ami. Or does one alread >>y exist? >> >>Jason Koszarsky, JBK4@PSUVM > > >Emulate a 68040 on a 68000, I think someone seems to think that all Amigas use a 68000. Can we say 'co-processor slot', or 'accelerator'? > Megapixel display on 320x200, Everybody who only has 320x200 raise your hand! Oh, nobody raised his hand. How about color dithering? Not foreign... > display >postscript with ???, virtual memory with 880K floppy, There are more Amiga users with hard drives than nExt users with virtual memory. Ever hear about Evolution, virtual memory for the Amiga? > and how fast >can this emulator go? With a 68040 and the custom chips, undoubtedly faster than a nExt. -- David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3481 AMIGA DDD-MEN Tomas Arce Any students from SUNY Oswego? Please let me know! :) Un ragazzo di Casalbordino, Italia.
JBK4@psuvm.psu.edu (04/22/91)
I didn't what a flame war to start by my asking this so let's not get one start ed guys/gals. After seeing that so many were available, I was just curious. I t's nice to here possibilities of making one, pros and cons, but there's no nee d for flaming. Thanks for your cooperation. Jason Koszarsky, JBK4@PSUVM
rblewitt@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (Richard Blewitt) (04/22/91)
In article <91111.234905JBK4@psuvm.psu.edu> JBK4@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >I didn't what a flame war to start by my asking this so let's not get one start >ed guys/gals. After seeing that so many were available, I was just curious. I >t's nice to here possibilities of making one, pros and cons, but there's no nee >d for flaming. Thanks for your cooperation. A while ago, there was mention of a group that was porting the MACH kernal to the Amiga. With this in place, a nExt emulator would certainly be possible, although its likely that sound would have to be left out. The display could go to a 2410 or a superbitmap type screen. Of such an emulator would have the drawbacks that the NeXT has, a ton of disk and ram space needed, and a bit too slow with anyting less than an 040. I hope this dosen't turn into flame - bate. Rick
greg@travis.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) (04/22/91)
In <18521@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> rblewitt@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (Richard Blewitt) writes: >A while ago, there was mention of a group that was porting the MACH >kernal to the Amiga. With this in place, a nExt emulator would >certainly be possible, although its likely that sound would have to >be left out. The display could go to a 2410 or a superbitmap type >screen. Let's have a reality check here, OK? Ok, the Amiga has enough bitplanes to emulate a grey-scale NeXT but scrolling a screen around to see all 1180x 840 pixels is going to be a bit boring. And, as you said, the Amiga lacks a DSP, so all the sound is out. A A2410 and DSP board you say? Well, I'd rather just buy a NeXT at that rate, thanks. It would be cheaper. I'm not even going to get into the effort required to re-do NeXTstep so that your Apps could compile. Or licensing DisplayPostscript. greg -- Gregory R. Travis Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47405 greg@cica.indiana.edu Center for Innovative Computer Applicationls "gave' fornu, fornu fake fail" (Or something like that) - Cocteau twins
vidiot.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Eric Rankin) (04/22/91)
> I think the NeXT will have problems emulating HAM and sprites and dual > playfield and separate smooth-scroll/modulo for odd/even bitplanes > and separate bitplane pointers etc. > Also.. it's one thing to emulate programs that do ROM-calls for everything > but there are quite a lot of programs that write to the $DFF regs > perhaps the '040 could be instructed to cause an interrupt when it tries > to read/write an a specific area, then it would have to se which address > it was and perhaps change from 5 to 3 bitplanes in the middle of a scanline.. > I don't think the NeXT could handle that. Welp, we had a NeXT representative at our school and he was good enough to demonstate a 386 emulator which performed faster than most 386s. Then he went on to describe the Mac emulator which is in the works. He did admit that there was no Amiga emulator and no current plan for one. To ruin my feeling of confidence, he said that there would probably be one in the near future and that it would be possible. I don't know if he was a techie or merely a marketer, but who knows... The fact is, I have no use for a NeXT! The only thing I would do with one is emulate other machines (which seems kinda silly when you could buy the other machines for less)--think about it! Eric
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) (04/23/91)
In <1991Apr20.063819.8726@marlin.jcu.edu.au> cpmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matthew W Crowd) writes: >In case all you Amiga Freaks hadn't forgot, the only real reason why a >computer has to emulate another is beacause of the lack of REAL software >for its own base. No, not really. I had a professor who wanted an assignment done in dBase, maybe a name, but not REAL software IMHO. I bought an A1000 and Transformer to do it. Haven't touched dBase since. It wasn't that there is NO database software, it's just that a particular piece was SPECIFIED. Same thing for AMAX, I presume. There's one particular title that someone needs to run. Otherwise, the Amiga provides everything needed. By the way, since there are all of 8 or 9 commercial NeXT titles, perhaps that's why NeXT provides a translator for Sun 3 software? Dan Taylor /* My opinions, not NCR's. */
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) (04/23/91)
In <9104190943.12.2494@INSIDER> sysop@insider.zer.sub.org writes: >The NeXT's hardware is about the same to the Amiga's hardware as the Amiga >is to those machines. So: NO WAY... Actually, the ONLY thing hard to emulate on a NeXT is the DSP. The CPU may be an '040 on some models, but I can run the binaries on my '030 and '882. What are a pain to "emulate" are the NeXTOS system calls. However, just as NeXT provided a Sun 3 translator, we could have a NeXT translator, use one of the PD Postscript interpreters (for a commercial project, get an Adobe license) and run all of the non-dsp applications. With an adapter board, we could even do those. A NeXT has LESS hardware than an Amiga. There are no graphics accelerators to speak of, just the DSP, and I've already listed that. We have a very powerful blitter that performs graphics on its own, including boolean operations on regions of memory. We have sound output, not as many bits, but more channels. '040 opcodes could be emulated with traps on the 68000 Amigas, but I wouldn't recommend it. I'm constantly amazed by the ignorance of the NeXT posters who "cross over". Not only do they not know anything about Amigas, but they often know EXTREMELY little about their own computers. What "hardware" is this poster refering to? The only thing in there is an '040 and 56001. The former is mostly an '030 core + parts of an '881 + 8k cache. The 56001 is nice, but, these days, a 96001 is real power (no we don't have one either). Perhaps the knowledgable NeXT owners don't have to pester us, since they're comfortable with their purchase, suspect that we are, too, and don't have to try to convince themselves by blasting us. Dan Taylor /* My opinions, not NCR's. */
cpmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matthew W Crowd) (04/23/91)
In article <904@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM> dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) writes: >In <1991Apr20.063819.8726@marlin.jcu.edu.au> cpmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matthew W Crowd) writes: > >>In case all you Amiga Freaks hadn't forgot, the only real reason why a >>computer has to emulate another is beacause of the lack of REAL software >>for its own base. > >No, not really. I had a professor who wanted an assignment done in >dBase, maybe a name, but not REAL software IMHO. I bought an A1000 and >Transformer to do it. Haven't touched dBase since. It wasn't that No wonder! Running the Transformer at about 0.5Mhz is not exactly the best platform to run/comment a peice of software on. >there is NO database software, it's just that a particular piece was >SPECIFIED. Same thing for AMAX, I presume. There's one particular title >that someone needs to run. Otherwise, the Amiga provides everything >needed. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ If Amiga provides everything needed then why the HELL did Commodore put IBM Bus Slots in the 2000?!?!?! >By the way, since there are all of 8 or 9 commercial NeXT titles, perhaps >that's why NeXT provides a translator for Sun 3 software? I've never supported the NeXT and i never will. >Dan Taylor matt.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (04/23/91)
In article <holgerl.1337@amiux.UUCP> holgerl@amiux.UUCP (Holger Lubitz) writes: >In article <91108.003225JBK4@psuvm.psu.edu> JBK4@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >>Seeing that the Amiga list of emulators keeps growing I was wondering if there >>is anyone out there developing a NeXT emulator for the Ami. Or does one alread >>y exist? Running the NeXT Operating System on an Amiga would be similar to running the Mac OS on an Amiga. That's mainly an operating systems port, not an emulator. In the case of the Mac OS, what I call a "hostile port", since it was done without the source code or blessing of the originators of the OS. Such a thing is theoretically possible to do with an '030 based Amiga and the NeXT OS, though given the relative complexity of the NeXT OS vs. the Mac OS, it would be much more difficult. If it were typical UNIX, I'd say, difficult to the extent that no one would do it, since typical UNIX compiles much of the system specific stuff in as part of its kernel, and that's what you would have to change around. Graphics is no real problem. If NeXT really does render everything through DPS, then the display is really device independent, and could come out on an Amiga display, 2410, or the laser printer on the desk next to you equally easy with the right display drivers in place. Device Independence implies that everything is rendered in the terms of the imaging model, and programs don't have any idea about the physics of the output device (DPI, pixels, colors, etc.). >But you could try NeXTstep upon Commodores SVR4, I suppose. Commodore UNIX would be a much better choice for anyone wanting UNIX on their Amiga. NeXTStep or no NeXTStep. >What bothers me more is this: When is the NeXT going to be able to emulate our >beloved AMIGA ? Practically never... >Sure, there are the custom chips to be emulated, but after all the NeXT has >an '040 in it... Problem is, it requires more than simple CPU speed to achieve such a trick. For a history lesson, take a look at an Amiga, even a fast one, emulating the comparatively simple VIC chip in a C64 emulator. If you really attempt to have the 68040 emulate Copper instructions in realtime, for example, you need a display unit capable of taking raster interrupts and a CPU capable of servicing them quickly. Even an '040 NeXT Cube with that i860 display board they keep taking about would have its hands full doing this. Not that it can't do something more amazing, it's just that Amiga chips were not designed to be emulated in software, and won't be at all easy to emulate in software. >Speed of an emulated Amiga should be somewhat faster than a stock amiga, it >might even reach the speed of an '020-Amiga. Well, since the processors are compatible, if you threw out the NeXT OS, ran the Amiga OS on the NeXT hardware, all non-graphics operations would go about as fast as on a normal '040 based Amiga. If you kept the NeXT OS and somehow emulated the Amiga Kernel, things would slow down a bit because of the virtual machine traps and the inherent extra overhead of the NeXT OS on top of the Amiga OS. It's impossible to tell how fast that would really go. But once any real Amiga-like graphics stuff had to happen, the NeXT would slow to a crawl (keep in mind, you also have little graphic incompatibilities, aside from chip emulation itself, like the need to convert Amiga's bitplane graphics into NeXT packed pixel graphics, in realtime, etc.). >Of course it would require a Colorstation to emulate the >color, but everything else should be possible on a normal NeXTstation. Chances are, the Color NeXTStation doesn't have the hardware hooks necessary to emulate an Amiga copper realistically. Which makes sense -- as long as DPS is the NeXT's only interface between programs and display hardware, you don't normally have a way to take advantage of copper-type operations. And with direct mapped color (even 12 bit color as on the Color NextStation), many of the copper's uses go away. You also don't have the freedom of choosing display buffers the Amiga does, though that becomes moot, since you would have to emulate the entire Amiga video subsystem in software, as mentioned above (chip registers, pixel conversions, etc). The only real chance for this to work (of course, brushing the obvious legal issues aside) would be in the future. When Amiga gets the retargetable graphics everyone's been clamoring for, running the AmigaOS on the NeXT wouldn't be so tough. You would write a graphics device driver for the NeXT hardware, or for the NeXT's DSP (which would be real slow, but would work), just like you would write disk, keyboard, port, and mouse drivers for the Amiga OS to use the other NeXT machine facilities. All in all, you'd still be better off with an Amiga in the first place, in any case. >Holger Lubitz, Kl. Drakenburger Str. 24, D-W-3070 Nienburg/Weser -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (04/23/91)
In article <9104190943.12.2494@INSIDER> sysop@insider.zer.sub.org writes: >The NeXT's hardware is about the same to the Amiga's hardware as the Amiga >is to those machines. So: NO WAY... Compared to an A500, perhaps. That applies equally well to the comparison between an A3000 and an A500. But aside from that, what do you really expect to find inside a NeXT that would be hard to emulate? Really, it would be much easier to get a hostile port of NeXTOS up on an A3000 than a hostile port of AmigaOS up on any NeXT. Both would take a long, long time and that time would be wasted, since there's certainly no need to run the few NeXT programs on the Amiga, and currently at least, the NeXT port of the Amiga OS wouldn't perform well enough to run anything besides some basic productivity programs, which NeXT already has. >--- > SysOp @ INSIDER -- Bugs ? Data Becker & GFA only produce FEATURES! -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (04/23/91)
In article <1991Apr20.063819.8726@marlin.jcu.edu.au> cpmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matthew W Crowd) writes: >In article <9104190943.12.2494@INSIDER> sysop@insider.zer.sub.org writes: >In case all you Amiga Freaks hadn't forgot, the only real reason why a >computer has to emulate another is beacause of the lack of REAL software >for its own base. That's not the only real reason. For example, a C64 emulator might make sense on the Amiga if enough C64 owners switched over to the Amiga and wish to bring along some of their software. That doesn't imply similar software isn't available for the Amiga, only that these guys have a big investment in software and perhaps data for that software that can't be instantly ported to Amiga equivalents, based on typical personal resources (eg, time and money). The Mac "emulation" is perhaps the only one of the crowd that leads to any significant installed base of software that's not present on the Amiga. If the BridgeCards constitute emulations, they fit this category too (which is why Apple is stressing the software PC emulation for the Mac). All of these other toys seems to be for nothing more than "bragging rights". Unless you have a closet full of old software, there's not that much that CP/M, Apple II, Atari ST, etc. compatibility is going to bring to the Amiga, other than perhaps fame for yet another clever hack to the person who wrote it, and some obsure sense that, because Amiga can emulate computer A but computer A can't emulate Amiga, that makes Amiga better. Of course, that's certainly insufficient to make Amiga better or computer A worse at anything, all it shows is that the Amiga's hardware is more complex than that of computer A, or that computer A is less hardware dependent than the Amiga. It says nothing whatsoever about "better", though it seems a good many people are confused on this point and will pay for new emulators anyway. >matt. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
matthews@lewhoosh.umd.edu (Mike Matthews) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr23.102600.27667@marlin.jcu.edu.au> cpmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matthew W Crowd) writes: >I've never supported the NeXT and i never will. >matt. Fine. So stop wasting comp.sys.next bandwidth please. ------ Mike Matthews, matthews@lewhoosh.umd.edu (NeXT)/matthews@umdd (bitnet) ------ You will feel hungry again in another hour.
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) (04/25/91)
In <1991Apr23.102600.27667@marlin.jcu.edu.au> cpmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matthew W Crowd) writes: >In article <904@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM> dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) writes: >No wonder! Running the Transformer at about 0.5Mhz is not exactly the >best platform to run/comment a peice of software on. I'd run dBase, elsewhere, before. Both PC's and fast CP/M-80s. I just don't like the language. The point was that since I HAD to use dBase, I might as well emulate the PC, as buy one, since the PC didn't do anything else I needed, or wanted. >If Amiga provides everything needed then why the HELL did Commodore >put IBM Bus Slots in the 2000?!?!?! Like I said, sometimes there's that one or two things you can't avoid. F'rinstance, I upgraded to an A2500/30, a few months back. I needed a PAL/EPROM/FPLA/MicroCPU programming device. The nicest inexpensive one I could find used an XT card as a host. I still do the software development on the Amiga side, but I burn the EPROMs on the A8088 side. I could have bought a programmer that attached by serial port, and not needed the XT, but the A8088 solution was cheaper. Also, Transformer can't emulate all the physical hardware interfaces, and you're right, it's slow. So, the BridgeBoard solution works nicely when you HAVE to have a PC. If the only software a person ever wants to run is PC, or Mac, then they should buy THAT computer, not an Amiga. If there's only an occasional need, why not emulate, or coprocess, and do it well? Dan Taylor
dusek@motcid.UUCP (James P. Dusek) (04/27/91)
cpmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matthew W Crowd) writes: >If Amiga provides everything needed then why the HELL did Commodore >put IBM Bus Slots in the 2000?!?!?! The IBM slots are for the bridgeboard which runs IBM software. With the slots you than can expand the IBM side of the machine. You really should look into these things before posting them. It seems to me that you know very little about the Amiga. I own an Amiga 2000HD, and it does provide everything I need. >I've never supported the NeXT and i never will. Than what do you support?? -J.D- Motorola FSD P.S. and I am a trained NeXT service person :)
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) (04/30/91)
vidiot.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Eric Rankin) writes: >Welp, we had a NeXT representative at our school and he was good enough to >demonstate a 386 emulator which performed faster than most 386s. Then he >went on to describe the Mac emulator which is in the works. >He did admit that there was no Amiga emulator and no current plan for one. >To ruin my feeling of confidence, he said that there would probably be one >in the near future and that it would be possible. I don't know if he was a >techie or merely a marketer, but who knows... He was a marketer. Not only that, he was a LYING marketer. There is no way - that is, NO WAY - that a software-based 386 emulator running on a 68040 box is going to outperform any hardware-based 386 system, period. I don't know what his scam was, but am certain it was a scam. As far as Mac emulation, big deal - we've got that already, and to do it on a NeXT would be the next best thing to trivial. And as for Amiga emulation, see the previous postings - an Amiga emulator for the NeXT would pretty much have to be an Amiga on a card. Not an "emulator" in my book. Show me how a NeXT is going to emulate, in software, attached sprites, HAM mode, custom copper lists, horizontal fine scrolling, Amiga sound, and Amiga DMA in real time - because if it can't do that, it isn't an "Amiga emulator". -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/02/91)
In article <909@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM> dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) writes: In <1991Apr23.102600.27667@marlin.jcu.edu.au> cpmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matthew W Crowd) writes: >If Amiga provides everything needed then why the HELL did Commodore >put IBM Bus Slots in the 2000?!?!?! It's easy. Here's a relative comparison of cards on the market: NeXT : ZorroII: .. PC : .......................................................................................................................................................................... Some cards available for the PC bus even hit a relatively small market in the 40 million+ PC industry. You'll never see these kinds of things on any other bus. A practical example are the Truevision boards. They did eventually do one for the Mac NuBus, and who knows, maybe someday there will be a Zorro bus version (there actually are similar boards from other companies out now). But Active Circuits had Truevision+BridgeCard running from Amiga software many, many moons ago. That, in my opinion, is the reason to have an AT slot extension included in the set of available Zorro bus extensions (the other, at present, obviously being the video slot). -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
gfm@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (George) (05/05/91)
In article <1991May5.160320.24589@wehi.dn.mu.oz> baxter_a@wehi.dn.mu.oz writes: >In article <20877@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> Well, since the processors are compatible, if you threw out the NeXT OS, ran >> the Amiga OS on the NeXT hardware, all non-graphics operations would go about >> as fast as on a normal '040 based Amiga. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >AHA!!! WE GOT HIM!!! DAVE ADMITS THAT AN 040 AMIGA IS ON ITS WAY!!! >I nearly got excited when he let slip with the crack about the last time >the chip boys knocked together a custom chip for testing.... But this is >the real thing! > >Regards Alan Hate to burst your bubble, but I don't think that proves anything, an 040 based amiga could be an Amiga 500 with an 040 in it (If any company really thought they'd make alot of money making an 040 board for the A500 that is).. And anyways, I do not work for Commodore and never have, but the an '040 Commodore IS on the way (Meaning it will eventually come out, even if its not in production yet) as long as nothing happens to Comodore (out of business, etc..which I tend to doubt anyways)...
xgr39@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May5.160320.24589@wehi.dn.mu.oz>, baxter_a@wehi.dn.mu.oz writes: >In article <20877@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> Well, since the processors are compatible, if you threw out the NeXT OS, ran >> the Amiga OS on the NeXT hardware, all non-graphics operations would go about >> as fast as on a normal '040 based Amiga. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >AHA!!! WE GOT HIM!!! DAVE ADMITS THAT AN 040 AMIGA IS ON ITS WAY!!! >I nearly got excited when he let slip with the crack about the last time >the chip boys knocked together a custom chip for testing.... But this is >the real thing! Don't get too excited. There have been hints that an '040 board for the A3000 has been in devlopment for some time. When the A3000 first came out, Dave mentioned a number of times that the A3000 was actually designed with an '040 in mind. As for Dave's remarks about the 'chip guys' producing revisions to a custom chip, Dave did not reveal anything here, either, because this could have meant anything. Remember, there are six custom chips in the A3000, in addition to the Big Three. He could simply have been mentioning a slight revision to one of these added custom chips. > >Regards Alan
valentin@public.BTR.COM (Valentin Pepelea) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May5.160320.24589@wehi.dn.mu.oz> baxter_a@wehi.dn.mu.oz writes: >In article <20877@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave >Haynie) writes: >> >> Well, since the processors are compatible, if you threw out the NeXT OS, ran >> the Amiga OS on the NeXT hardware, all non-graphics operations would go >> about as fast as on a normal '040 based Amiga. > >AHA!!! WE GOT HIM!!! DAVE ADMITS THAT AN 040 AMIGA IS ON ITS WAY!!! Utter bullshit! Dave was merely giving us insight into architectural differences between the Next and Amiga computers. This kind of stupid allegations that people like you keep making are the cause that certain people have refrained from making any more technical statements on the net. It is only logical to deduce that perhaps at some time in the distant future, when the cost of the 68040 drops to $100 or so from the current $700, that Commodore might consider coming out with an '040 based machine. But until then, don't start inventing stupid, and very dangerous, rumors. 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
gt1619a@prism.gatech.EDU (James is just this guy, you know...) (05/06/91)
This bit about the '040 based Amiga has to quit. I'm sure that it will be an optional processor card for a long long time before it becomes the basis for an entire machine. Motorola hasn't even got production on the darned thing up to a point where mass producing systems based on the thing would be truly feasable (NeXT uses them, but they're hardly mass produced consumer machines).
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May5.160320.24589@wehi.dn.mu.oz> baxter_a@wehi.dn.mu.oz writes: >In article <20877@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> Well, since the processors are compatible, if you threw out the NeXT OS, ran >> the Amiga OS on the NeXT hardware, all non-graphics operations would go about >> as fast as on a normal '040 based Amiga. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >AHA!!! WE GOT HIM!!! DAVE ADMITS THAT AN 040 AMIGA IS ON ITS WAY!!! Well, since Progressive Peripherals and a few others have already admitted to working on '040 based accelerators for Amigas, it should come as no surprise, even given that, they I know something about '040 based Amigas. Any time CATS gets an '040 question, they call up either me or Scott Schaeffer. In other words, "'040 based Amiga" is a generic term for any Amiga system that somehow has an '040 in it. It doesn't imply how that '040 got there. So don't get too excited. Then again, it would probably surprise lots of people if Commodore wasn't supporting the '040, since the C= logo showed up in the first Motorola '040 adds, way back when. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May5.195521.3687@news.iastate.edu> xgr39@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > As for Dave's remarks about the 'chip guys' producing revisions to a >custom chip, Dave did not reveal anything here, either, because this could >have meant anything. Remember, there are six custom chips in the A3000, >in addition to the Big Three. He could simply have been mentioning a >slight revision to one of these added custom chips. There are also CSG produced custom chips in C64s, Commodore PC Clones, and a number of Amiga expansion boards. No use waiting for me to slip up, it ain't gonna happen. You'll hear about new stuff when it's ready and really announced, shown, whatever. Developers generally get to see it sooner, but can't talk about it anyway until its out. Besides, you would think after working on the A3000 for nearly two years, they'd cut me a break this year.... -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.