melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/07/91)
Can you just drop a 68040 into any computer and expect it to be as fast as a computer designed around the 68040? Now, can you just drop an 88K processor in a computer that is based on the 68K and expect it to work at all? -Mike
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (05/08/91)
In article <y_4G=zw&1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >Can you just drop a 68040 into any computer and expect it to be as >fast as a computer designed around the 68040? If you are comparing the A3000 to the 040 NeXT, you can expect better performance. I haven't met an engineer yet that thought that the NeXT's architecture was efficient or fast. The A3000's CPU slot was designed with the 040 in mind (among other things). >Now, can you just drop >an 88K processor in a computer that is based on the 68K and expect it >to work at all? No. Can you expect it in a NeXT either? No. It still takes a total recompile of the software either way. You can't expect the NeXT OS to be ported to the 88K in minutes, either, unless they don't plan to have it take any advantage of the CPU's architecture. >-Mike Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/08/91)
In article <48625@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
If you are comparing the A3000 to the 040 NeXT, you can expect better
performance. I haven't met an engineer yet that thought that the NeXT's
architecture was efficient or fast. The A3000's CPU slot was designed with
the 040 in mind (among other things).
Well, let me know how it turns out.
No. Can you expect it in a NeXT either? No. It still takes a total
recompile of the software either way. You can't expect the NeXT OS to be
ported to the 88K in minutes, either, unless they don't plan to have it
take any advantage of the CPU's architecture.
Of course it will be some work for NeXT. However, for the software
developers it will be easy, so 99.99% of the current software will run
within days on the 88K machines. While your finally hand-coded
assembly code on the Amiga will take quite a bit of effort.
-Mikedavewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) (05/08/91)
In article <#c4G!au$1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >Of course it will be some work for NeXT. However, for the software >developers it will be easy, so 99.99% of the current software will run >within days on the 88K machines. While your finally hand-coded >assembly code on the Amiga will take quite a bit of effort. I think you are overestimating the number of programs that were written in AL on the Amiga. I would not be too afraid to make a bet that only games and *maybe* less than 5 commercial packages (not big name ones at that) were written in AL at all, and that where they were, it was in well placed low-level functions such as time critical loops, which would be easy to replace with HL code immediately if the new machine was fast enough that AL was no longer needed, or fairly simply coded over in the new machines AL. I have never seen ANY commercial program actually "brag" about being written in AL (as you stated in an earlier message), and in fact, the only people I have ever seen admit to writing anything other than a small utility (which people could live without) in AL were die-hard demo and game coders from Europe, who would probably not migrate to the new machine right away anyway. I know that 100% of what I write is in C or another HL that I could reasonably expect to be available for the new machine, and I would expect to be able to simply recompile my own software in a matter of minutes on the new machine, just as you say people will do with the nExt. Do you really think that serious programs like WorkPerfect, Maple, etc. etc. which are available on many different platforms are written in some form of AL? Dave
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May8.042432.27636@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: >In article <#c4G!au$1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>Of course it will be some work for NeXT. However, for the software >>developers it will be easy, so 99.99% of the current software will run >>within days on the 88K machines. While your finally hand-coded >>assembly code on the Amiga will take quite a bit of effort. > I think you are overestimating the number of programs that were >written in AL on the Amiga. I would not be too afraid to make a bet that >only games and *maybe* less than 5 commercial packages (not big name ones >at that) were written in AL at all, and that where they were, it was in well >placed low-level functions such as time critical loops, which would be easy >to replace with HL code immediately if the new machine was fast enough that >AL was no longer needed, or fairly simply coded over in the new machines >AL. I doubt that. PageStream, for example, is written entirely in assembler. There is nothing necessarily WRONG with that. It makes things run MUCH faster. I think that most programs will have segments in assembler, critical sections that require timing. True, these won't port easily to an 88000. But then again, neither will AmigaDOS! I would expect that a reasonably large portion of AmigaDOS was NOT written in C, but rather assembler. CATS, is this true? At this point, porting the OS to another CPU platform is not likely. There are so many things for CBM to do that that can't be high on the priority list. I'm afraid what it would do to the Zorro II/III standard. (Dave?) > I have never seen ANY commercial program actually "brag" about being >written in AL (as you stated in an earlier message), and in fact, the only PageStream brags about it in every ad. They aren't the only one. -- Ethan "Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (05/08/91)
In article <#c4G!au$1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >Of course it will be some work for NeXT. However, for the software >developers it will be easy, so 99.99% of the current software will run >within days on the 88K machines. While your finally hand-coded >assembly code on the Amiga will take quite a bit of effort. A lot of good that will do the users. Have you ever upgraded software on a Unix box? Any commercial apps will be expensive to upgrade _if_ the developers continue to support them. What about Lotus Improv? Do you expect Lotus to give out free copies of their software and then turn around and upgrade it for even a _discounted_ price? I'm not saying that porting would be easy (or even very possible) on an Amiga. I'm just saying that you're fooling yourself if you expect it to be a joyride on the NeXT either. Sure, most apps (more like 90%, not 99%) will be easily recompiled, but you're going to pay through the nose for the upgrades from the software developers. Besides, NeXT has to make some profit and get the fabled (read: vaporware) microkernel Mach before they can worry about a new CPU. I personally don't expect either of the first two to happen in the next year or so. Of course, with several business-oriented sources predicting the demise of NeXT in that amount of time, Steve Jobs might want to stop sweating over the ledger and start sweating over his resume. ;-) Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/09/91)
In article <y_4G=zw&1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >Can you just drop a 68040 into any computer and expect it to be as >fast as a computer designed around the 68040? Just the '040? Not likely. But I don't think anyone talks about just "dropping" a 68040 chip, alone, into any system and expecting anything to happen. The bus signals for 68000/10, 68020/30, and 68040 are about as different as you can get; there isn't all that much family hardware resembalence between generations of any processor family. In the 680x0 family, the bus interface has been improving considerably about every other generation. Add-ins are, minimally, a 68040 and a small amount of "glue". That alone may not do much, or it may, depending on how much the designers of the system you're plugging these things into considered about the '040, or about such coprocessor devices in general. Now, if you're talking about a small board with the '040, gluse, and maybe a chunk of '040-specific memory, then you'll be real close. Take the accelerator boards for the A2000 for example. The A2000 coprocessor slot provided absolutely no support for any 68020->68040 type evice, just a 68000 interface the basic signals necessary for such an arbitrary device to share or own the A2000's motherboard bus. Later on, I came up with this 68030 thing, the A2630. Other companies have built even faster 68030 things to go in there. An A2000 equipped with an A2630 is only a little bit slower than an A3000, a machine designed around the 68030. Because the A2000 had this slot, you weren't forced to try to wedge some kind of 68030 board into a 68000 socket, which is absolutely NOT the way to upgrade the CPU in your system, though it can of course be done that way. The A3000 has a new 200 pin coprocessor slot, and we knew something about the 68040 when we came up with this system. That doesn't mean that you can simply plug a 68040 into some magic socket on the A3000 motherboard and all of sudden go real fast. It does mean that the A3000 was designed to allow accelerator boards to be added, and has some specific features which makes this easy. And even a few features (for example, burst writes to memory and Zorro III expansion), that aren't used by the 68030. >Now, can you just drop an 88K processor in a computer that is based on the >68K and expect it to work at all? No more than you can drop any arbitrary CPU into any other arbitary system and expect it to work at all. But, assuming you had some software for it, you could build an 88K coprocessor board for the A3000 that works like a 68040 coprocessor board, and if done right, it would be arbitratily close to a native 88K machine. Actually, 88K is cheating a little, because it's quite a bit like the 68040, hardware-wise. >-Mike -- 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) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May8.064220.13474@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > At this point, porting the OS to another CPU platform is >not likely. There are so many things for CBM to do that that >can't be high on the priority list. I'm afraid what it would do >to the Zorro II/III standard. (Dave?) The software overhead, and of course, the lack of object level compatibility, would be the big problem were the Amiga to move to support of non-680x0 CPUs. The issue of expansion bus architecture is much less of a problem. While Zorro II is very firmly based on the 68000 bus protocol, its existence in the A3000 is a good indicator that we already know how to treat it in a "processor independent" fashion. The interface would be more complex to a processor that doesn't bus size, such as the 68040 or 88k, but not overly so. The Zorro III bus doesn't assume any type of microprocessor bus, and is 32 bits wide, plain and simple. A bus interface device to hook any kind of microprocessor up to it is necessary, same as for NuBus, VME, MCA, EISA, Multibus, etc. though probably less complicated. > -- Ethan -- 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.
elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) (05/09/91)
From article <y_4G=zw&1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > Can you just drop a 68040 into any computer and expect it to be as > fast as a computer designed around the 68040? Now, can you just drop Dave Haynie, in earlier postings, mentions that they would have had to go to 70ns DRAM's to drop a wait state from the memory. The problem was that at A3000 design time, 70ns DRAM's were considerably pricier than the ones they ended up using. In other words, the memory system is as fast as it can go while meeting a certain price point... designing-in a 68040 wouldn't have made any difference there. (This does imply that to get reasonable performance in a '040-based Amiga, it'd be wise to have some cache on board). If you're talking about the I/O bus, on the other hand, the I/O bus doesn't run at a constant clock rate. It goes however fast the expansion device can transfer data over it. Few expansion devices can shove 32-bit data at 25mhz, meaning that the /030/040 decision makes no difference as far as I/O speed goes. > an 88K processor in a computer that is based on the 68K and expect it > to work at all? The Amiga's Zorro III bus allows co-processors to jump on and off the bus independent of the main processor. It doesn't matter whether the co-processor is a 68K or 88K, as long as there's circuitry on-board to produce Zorro-style signals. It'd be quite easy to, e.g., run Unix on a Zorro III board packed with CPU and memory, which uses the Amiga for all its I/O. (Easy except for the space limitations of a Zorro III board... a Zorro slot is the same size as a ISA slot, meaning daughterboards, etc. would probably be necessary). -- Eric Lee Green (318) 984-1820 P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg Looking for a job... tips, leads appreciated... inquire within...
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) (05/09/91)
In <1991May8.042432.27636@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: > I have never seen ANY commercial program actually "brag" about being >written in AL (as you stated in an earlier message), and in fact, the only OOPS! And I don't mean Object Orient..... WordPerfect Corp writes it all, or nearly all, in assembly. However, this is not a bad thing for portablilty, since the X86, 680X0, 88K, and other processors are already supported, as well as multiple OS environments. Whatever you think of their products, they do write in assembly, they have highlighted this in their ads, and they do support multiple platforms. (personally, I think it's silly) Dan Taylor /* My own opinions, not NCR's. */
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (05/09/91)
In article <949@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM> dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) writes: >In <1991May8.042432.27636@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: >> I have never seen ANY commercial program actually "brag" about being >>written in AL (as you stated in an earlier message), and in fact, the only > >OOPS! And I don't mean Object Orient..... > >WordPerfect Corp writes it all, or nearly all, in assembly. However, >this is not a bad thing for portablilty, since the X86, 680X0, 88K, >and other processors are already supported, as well as multiple OS >environments. Whatever you think of their products, they do write in >assembly, they have highlighted this in their ads, and they do support >multiple platforms. (personally, I think it's silly) > >Dan Taylor >/* My own opinions, not NCR's. */ I also noticed that the ads for DigiPaint 3 brag that it was written in machine language in order to achieve the "incredible" speeds it has. I'll leave opinions of the term incredible up to the reader. -- Ethan "Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"
aru@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sri-Man) (05/10/91)
In article <y_4G=zw&1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >Can you just drop a 68040 into any computer and expect it to be as >fast as a computer designed around the 68040? Now, can you just drop >an 88K processor in a computer that is based on the 68K and expect it >to work at all? You don't need to be a Daye Haynie to answer this question. :-) Of course not! If you stick a 040 on the first Mac it isn't going to be that great of a boost. You might as well just add a math coprocessor or something. If you are trying to say that the Amiga3000 was not designed for a 040 in mind. I think most of the people on here will tell you wrong. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Amiga3000 was built with the 040 in mind. Why do you think the accelerator cards with 040's in them are so cheap??? Sri
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May8.042432.27636@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: >In article <#c4G!au$1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>Of course it will be some work for NeXT. However, for the software >>developers it will be easy, so 99.99% of the current software will run >>within days on the 88K machines. While your finally hand-coded >>assembly code on the Amiga will take quite a bit of effort. > I think you are overestimating the number of programs that were >written in AL on the Amiga. I would not be too afraid to make a bet that >only games and *maybe* less than 5 commercial packages (not big name ones >at that) were written in AL at all, and that where they were, it was in well >placed low-level functions such as time critical loops, which would be easy >to replace with HL code immediately if the new machine was fast enough that >AL was no longer needed, or fairly simply coded over in the new machines >AL. > I have never seen ANY commercial program actually "brag" about being >written in AL (as you stated in an earlier message), and in fact, the only >people I have ever seen admit to writing anything other than a small utility >(which people could live without) in AL were die-hard demo and game coders >from Europe, who would probably not migrate to the new machine right away >anyway. > I know that 100% of what I write is in C or another HL that I could >reasonably expect to be available for the new machine, and I would expect to >be able to simply recompile my own software in a matter of minutes on the >new machine, just as you say people will do with the nExt. > Do you really think that serious programs like WorkPerfect, Maple, >etc. etc. which are available on many different platforms are written in >some form of AL? > > I'd bet the farm that ALL of Newtek's software (toaster, digipaint, digiview) are done in 100% assembly (and it shows :) There are many others that claim significant portions written in assembly for *speed*. Again, I say that if it's worth switching to a better processor than the 040 (25MHz today, 100MHz in a couple of years :), it will be fast enough to run a 68000 emulator! > Dave -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/10/91)
In article <12146@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> aru@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sri-Man) writes: > >Can you just drop a 68040 into any computer and expect it to be as >fast as a computer designed around the 68040? Now, can you just drop >an 88K processor in a computer that is based on the 68K and expect it >to work at all? You don't need to be a Daye Haynie to answer this question. :-) Of course not! If you stick a 040 on the first Mac it isn't going to be that great of a boost. You might as well just add a math coprocessor or something. If you are trying to say that the Amiga3000 was not designed for a 040 in mind. I think most of the people on here will tell you wrong. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Amiga3000 was built with the 040 in mind. Why do you think the accelerator cards with 040's in them are so cheap??? Ok, the A3000 was designed to handle the 040, but what about the 88K or 050? Amigoids keep shouting that the NeXTstation is not expandable, and that you can even put an 030 in the A500(32 bit bus -- I doubt it). In other words, they are saying that buying a nonexpandable machine is a waste of money. I claim that in 3 years(or 2) the system board will have to be redesigned for the new chips anyway, so making it expandable isn't going to really save you anything because it will cost more to build the expandable computer. If you want an expandable NeXT, buy the Cube which costs $2000(maybe more?) more than the NeXTstation. However, I think it's better to sell your old computer and buy the new one if you want the newer machine. What if the expandable Cube needs to be redesigned?? If you don't buy NeXT Dimension or some other board, you just wasted $2000. -Mike BTW, there are ports on the back of the NeXT to add modems, HD, etc.
dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (05/11/91)
In article <y_4G=zw&1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >Can you just drop a 68040 into any computer and expect it to be as >fast as a computer designed around the 68040? No one here expects an Amiga 3000 with a 68040 to be as fast as a computer designed around the 68040. Everyone ecpects it to be FASTER. That is not just because of the efficient coding or the better operating system, but also because of the custom chips and the possibility of a dual processor. And who says the A3000 wasn't designed around the 68040? There are more hardware companies developing for Amiga, and don't be surprised if GVP comes out with a faster 68040 before the nExt does. >-mIKE One follow-up question... Does the 68040 have a math coprocessor? I remember hearing that there were problems with the coprocessor and it was removed. I assume that a 68882 would be slower than a 68040, but could two math processors also be used together? -- David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3481 AMIGA DDD-MEN "If you think that we're here for the money, we could live without it. But the world isn't too good here, and it wasn't always like that." Un ragazzo di Casalbordino, Italia.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/11/91)
In article <1991May10.211958.25387@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
Does the 68040 have a math coprocessor? I remember hearing that there were
problems with the coprocessor and it was removed. I assume that a 68882 would
be slower than a 68040, but could two math processors also be used together?
The math coprocessor is built into the 68040. Moto. claims that for
most things it is 5-10 times faster than the 68882.
-Mikegreg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (05/11/91)
In article <pq5Hex_@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <1991May10.211958.25387@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes: > > Does the 68040 have a math coprocessor? I remember hearing that there were > problems with the coprocessor and it was removed. I assume that a 68882 would > be slower than a 68040, but could two math processors also be used together? > >The math coprocessor is built into the 68040. Moto. claims that for >most things it is 5-10 times faster than the 68882. Well, the 040 is missing the trancendental functions that the 882 had. These, of course, could be emulated with traps. I've heard that it was anywhere from 2X to 10X faster than the 882. I'd tend to believe more of the lower speeds under normal use. Maybe if you used the "one function that was super-optimised over the 882" you'd get 10X the speed. I'd be willing to bet that under normal use you get a 3 to 4 times speedup. That is, of course, when using the I and D caches. I have, of course, done no benchmarking of the FPU functions of the 040. This is pure speculation on my part, but hey, I'm allowed that once in a while. ;-) Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/11/91)
In article <48815@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >The math coprocessor is built into the 68040. Moto. claims that for >most things it is 5-10 times faster than the 68882. Well, the 040 is missing the trancendental functions that the 882 had. These, of course, could be emulated with traps. The reason that I said most things... I've heard that it was anywhere from 2X to 10X faster than the 882. I'd tend to believe more of the lower speeds under normal use. Maybe if you used the "one function that was super-optimised over the 882" you'd get 10X the speed. I'd be willing to bet that under normal use you get a 3 to 4 times speedup. That is, of course, when using the I and D caches. The topology demo runs almost 3 times faster on the 040 NeXT. The Mandelbrot demo is probably more than 3 times faster(don't have an 030 NeXT anymore to find out). -Mike
dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May8.042432.27636@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: >In article <#c4G!au$1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>Of course it will be some work for NeXT. However, for the software >>developers it will be easy, so 99.99% of the current software will run >>within days on the 88K machines. While your finally hand-coded >>assembly code on the Amiga will take quite a bit of effort. > I think you are overestimating the number of programs that were >written in AL on the Amiga. I would not be too afraid to make a bet that >only games and *maybe* less than 5 commercial packages (not big name ones > I have never seen ANY commercial program actually "brag" about being He must be referring to Digi Paint, which has advertised 100% AL as a way to increase speed in a HAM paint program. Otherwise, you are completely correct in that the only other assembly programs are dinky public domain 2k programs, which I have the GREATEST respect for. Oh, I think some of the archive programs are gradually moving to AL to optimize speed. But then again, these are always available in C also. >written in AL (as you stated in an earlier message), and in fact, the only >people I have ever seen admit to writing anything other than a small utility >(which people could live without) in AL were die-hard demo and game coders >from Europe, who would probably not migrate to the new machine right away >anyway. > I know that 100% of what I write is in C or another HL that I could >reasonably expect to be available for the new machine, and I would expect to >be able to simply recompile my own software in a matter of minutes on the >new machine, just as you say people will do with the nExt. ^^^^ I didn't do this one! :) > Do you really think that serious programs like WorkPerfect, Maple, >etc. etc. which are available on many different platforms are written in >some form of AL? > > > Dave Okay, let's start porting over a nExt emulator so we can have our Amiga crush one more machine. :) (Smiley face, because I know that the Amiga uses a 68000 and not a 6502). -- David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3481 AMIGA DDD-MEN "If you think that we're here for the money, we could live without it. But the world isn't too good here, and it wasn't always like that." Un ragazzo di Casalbordino, Italia.
dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May12.192752.29049@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes: > > Okay, let's start porting over a nExt emulator so we can have our Amiga >crush one more machine. :) (Smiley face, because I know that the Amiga >uses a 68000 and not a 6502). > Darn, I did it again. I made it sound as though the nEXT uses a 6502. To clear it up for good, mIKE of nExt fame accused me of thinking that the Amiga uses a 6502 (which was a joke the first time around). And since I know I will get uneccesary flames for this, I may as well fix it now (since guys like mIKE have a tendency to say 'well that gives me a reason not to read the rest of your rebuttal'. What I meant in the about bracketed comment was that I put a smiley face there because I didn't put a smiley face when I made the 6502 joke. Everybody knows the nExt uses an 6510. (Yes, it is another trap for the humor impaired). -- David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3481 AMIGA DDD-MEN "If you think that we're here for the money, we could live without it. But the world isn't too good here, and it wasn't always like that." Un ragazzo di Casalbordino, Italia.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May12.202348.29623@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
Everybody knows the nExt uses an 6510.
Good, then my old Commodore 64 assembly skills won't go to waste. Is
there a free(with source) C64 emulator for the Amiga. Time to get
some games for the NeXT :-).
-Mikemike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) (05/14/91)
In article <pq5Hex_@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) wrote: >The math coprocessor is built into the 68040. Moto. claims that for >most things it is 5-10 times faster than the 68882. But no transcendentals, right? Also, I think that trig is now software. And aren't there errors (still?) in the initial 68040s? -- Mike Rogers,Box 6,Regent Hse,## We're dying from the moment we're conceived, TCD,EIRE. <mike@maths.tcd.ie>## Time wins, always. ###############################DON'T MISS TRINCON400 7th, 8th, 9th FEBRUARY 1992 what is pure, who is pure, is it european, I ain't sure.......................PE
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May14.133421.23410@maths.tcd.ie> mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) writes:
But no transcendentals, right? Also, I think that trig is now software.
And aren't there errors (still?) in the initial 68040s?
The transcendentals are done in software. Moto. claims that there is
still a speed up over the 68882, but I haven't tried doing anything
with them myself so I don't know. I think the libraries on the NeXT
are really screwed so transcendental performance is not great.
I don't know anything about the "bugs" in the 68040, except that I did
read in comp.arch that they were in the FPU.
-Mikepeter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/15/91)
In article <mykes.2456@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: > I'd bet the farm that ALL of Newtek's software (toaster, digipaint, digiview) > are done in 100% assembly (and it shows :) Sure does. I can't run DigiPaint on my Amiga 3000. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (05/19/91)
In article <1991May15.112823.22229@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <mykes.2456@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: >> I'd bet the farm that ALL of Newtek's software (toaster, digipaint, digiview) >> are done in 100% assembly (and it shows :) > >Sure does. I can't run DigiPaint on my Amiga 3000. I can't run a lot of 'C' applications I bought on my A2500 either, what does that prove? >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' ><peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/19/91)
In article <mykes.2708@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
I can't run a lot of 'C' applications I bought on my A2500 either, what does that
prove?
Good question. Could you tell us more? Could be copy protection, or
programmers doing low-level crap. Are we talking apps or games? I'm
not a taking shot here. Game makers just play with the hardware a
little more to get extra performance.
-Mikepeter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/19/91)
Mike "Assembly forever" Schwartz wrote: > I'd bet the farm that ALL of Newtek's software (toaster, digipaint, digiview) > are done in 100% assembly (and it shows :) I point out the trout in the milk: > Sure does. I can't run DigiPaint on my Amiga 3000. So, Mike responds: > I can't run a lot of 'C' applications I bought on my A2500 either, what does > that prove? Doesn't prove anything, but it's persuasive circumstantial evidence. It's possible to write bad software in any language. It's just easier in some. It's easier to screw up in assembly than C, in C than a B&D language like Pascal, in Pascal than C++, in C++ than SmallTalk, in SmallTalk than really high level database/dataflow languages like the UNIX shell, and so on... ALWAYS use the highest level language available that can get the job done. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May19.123429.19440@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >ALWAYS use the highest level language available that can get the job done. >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' ><peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. Ahem! Wouden't it be more correct to say: "ALWAYS use the highest language available that can get the job done efficently" I remember a certain co-worker that used a high level language/compiler when writing a paper eject program (all it did was send a form feed to the printer). The executable file was 150K! I then re-wrote it in C, and made it a whole lot more functional/flexable. My executable was less than 10K. Now, both programs did the job. However, the lower level language did it better... -- David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us | 1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | Reunite PANGEA! Why can't everyone have three or four line .sig's? |
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/20/91)
I said: In article <1991May19.195257.3375@kessner.denver.co.us> david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) writes: > Ahem! Wouden't it be more correct to say: > "ALWAYS use the highest language available that can get the job done > efficently" No. Efficiency may be part of getting the job done. > I remember a certain co-worker that used a high level language/compiler > when writing a paper eject program (all it did was send a form feed to the > printer). The executable file was 150K! Sounds like he didn't use the highest level language available. What was the platform? Unless it was a Macintosh the highest level language available was the shell/CLI/COMMAND.COM/DCL/JCL/whatever you call the command/batch file interpreter. And that's what he should have used. If it was a Mac, I guess you could have done something in Hypercard. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
trout@ucrmath.ucr.edu (michael griffith) (05/28/91)
In article <1991May19.123429.19440@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >It's easier to screw up in assembly than C, in C than a B&D language like >Pascal, in Pascal than C++, in C++ than SmallTalk, in SmallTalk than really >high level database/dataflow languages like the UNIX shell, and so on... > >ALWAYS use the highest level language available that can get the job done. This theory only holds if you are a screw-up. Assembly is much faster and smaller than anything a complier or interpreter could ever write. HLLs, on the other hand, provide abstraction, ease of programming, and portablility. There really is a decision that needs to be made before you start any project. That decision is a choice of a language. Don't be lulled into thinking that a language is an automatic one -- it isn't. ALWAYS use the language that is right for the job. Michael A. Griffith trout@ucrmath.ucr.edu "My computer is better than your computer." -- Amiga and NeXT junkies.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/28/91)
In article <14750@ucrmath.ucr.edu> trout@ucrmath.ucr.edu (michael griffith) writes: > This theory only holds if you are a screw-up. We're all screw-ups. We're only human. Just look at any code on the net and pick it apart looking for bugs, design flaws, and so on. Even such people as Henry Spencer and Larry Wall make mistakes. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/30/91)
In article <14750@ucrmath.ucr.edu> trout@ucrmath.ucr.edu (michael griffith) writes: >In article <1991May19.123429.19440@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>It's easier to screw up in assembly than C, in C than a B&D language like >>Pascal, in Pascal than C++, in C++ than SmallTalk, in SmallTalk than really >>high level database/dataflow languages like the UNIX shell, and so on... >>ALWAYS use the highest level language available that can get the job done. >This theory only holds if you are a screw-up. Assembly is much faster >and smaller than anything a complier or interpreter could ever write. That's not really true anymore. Certainly, for popular 70's CPUs, like the 6502 and Z-80, you needed assembly just to fit your code into the available 64K of so of memory. When we all graduated to better systems, like 68000s or even 80x86s, compiler could do a heck of alot better than on these older systems. Some 680x0 compilers can approach the quality of hand assembled code in many cases; they approach the problem differently, and don't get as creative as a good assembly hacker, but they can have absolute knowledge of which opcodes go faster where. Moving on to RISC processors, C compilers can generally do as well, or better, than hand assembly, since they can keep track of all kinds of pipelining details that would drive most programmers mad. If you get any stranger, like the MISC machine or some RISCs with multiple parallel execution units, an assembly programmer may not stand a chance. All of which is a moot point. The programming problems are growing much faster than anyone's available time. HLLs, where appropriate, will produce safer and more maintainable code. Going to higher levels of abstration, like from C to C++, you increase the kinds of checking the compiler does for you, cut down on programmer time, and drastically increase the code's maintainability. >ALWAYS use the language that is right for the job. That's true. At least on Amigas and other 680x0 machines, an HLL isn't always the right choice. And no single language solves every problem perfectly. I have used about 20-30 different languages since I started mucking around with computers in the 70s... -- 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.