Quote:

But can a modern GPU be programmed to execute instructions for every pixel?

Isn't it what pixels shaders are about ?

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

@Hypex

Quote:

What sort of Amithlon? I mean, doing the same 68K thing or emulating OS4? I don't see the point of doing 68K anymore. It's done to death. And really, you can open up AmiKit on your PC anytime now, the same as being able boot Linux on the desktop. Is it worth the hassle of needng to reobot your computer in order to run an emulator that supports a few native x86 apps?

I think that is just an example.

What cdimauro and I agree on is that it bad idea to make programs so hardware dependent that you need a specify model to run it, and prevent people who has upgrades from using the upgrades.

There are many people who has, better hardware then classic audio and video chips.

* Hotrod Amiga computers (heavily upgraded sandwich computers), with all sort of add-ons.
* Amitalon, and other (x)UAE users.
* MorphOS and AmigaOS4 users

That’s is lot of people who are forced into 320x200 when there hardware can do 1080p.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: However the latest G5 had similar features like PA6T, but with better performances. You still need memory and PCIe controller(s).

Is PCIe integrated in the PA6T?

@Signal

Quote:

Signal wrote: @cdimauro Quote: cdimauro wrote: However the latest G5 had similar features like PA6T, but with better performances. Latest G5? So all computers should be designed/manufactured/tested and distributed with CPUs that will come off the assembly line tomorrow. Nice planet you live on.

I never stated this, but you can show me how have you reached such "conclusions".

As usual, you reply to me with some non-sense comment, only to make noise...

@Hypex

Quote:

Hypex wrote: @Deniil715 I think it was a mistake to clone the registers into AGA so they needed bank switching and bytes cut into little nibbles.

AGA is just an ECS-based patchwork. Commodore engineers haven't shined for their technical solutions.
Quote:

They should have cashed in and built upon an exsting foundation in the chipset: chip ram pointers! Had they done that they could have scrapped back switching and simply added a palette pointer with a long word per entry. If this was done it would have been no problem for the copper to display a 12- or 24-bit truecolour screen with a simple copperlist. But no, they didn't think of my idea back then and neither did I so I forgot to tell them!

Some time ago on amigacoding.de I suggested the introduction of a Color channel (DMA) to quickly and efficiently load (part of) a palette.
Quote:

But the other thing is, modern hardware, AFAIK, prerenders things. The copper was a realtime live GPU. Of course, when you have a fast GPU, with a 32-bit framebuffer, you can pretty much render anything withour limtations. That's no big deal. But can a modern GPU be programmed to execute instructions for every pixel? Not that I know of.

As Leo correctly reported, that's what pixel shaders do.
Quote:

Sure, it doesn't need to, becauee it isn't based on a palette, since it has DCI; direct colour injection. If it can do all a copper can do, but way faster and more powerful, I'd expect it can excecute a stream of instructions with parallel multi-threading, per pixel, in realtime as it sends the RGB to the DVI port!

As I already stated before, a shader processor obliterates the Copper in terms of architecture and instruction set. They are substantially little processor cores, very similar to normal processors.

Quote:

Hypex wrote: @cdimauro Quote: With Trance you don't have a sandbox, but an emulation layer which let you run 68K apps as "first class citizens" like PowerPC apps, with full integration on the system Well things must have changed. Because years ago when MorphOS when solo on the Pegasos there were comparasons between the MOS and OS4 JIT. The MOS JIT, Trance was reported to be a sanbox emulation; where as the OS4 JIT was task based emulation.

Using a sandbox means that the emulated 68K apps run on an isolated environment, which isn't the case from what I've read 'til now. But MorphOS developers can better clarify it.
Quote:

Quote: Of course, software has to be partially rewritten, and 68K software will run like with AROS & JanusUAE. IMO. I hope not! I hope it will run better. I could never get 68K apps to work on AROS and I fiddled with it for ages. I also tried on a friends AROS install which was some years newer and I still couldn't get it to work.

[Paolone MODE ON]
Have you read the Icaros manual?
[Paolone MODE OFF]


Quote:

Hypex wrote: @cdimauro Quote: So, I think that we should be a bit more realistic: a new Amithlon is a much better investment. With multicore support as a premium featur What sort of Amithlon? I mean, doing the same 68K thing or emulating OS4?

Conceptually you can cover both.
Quote:

I don't see the point of doing 68K anymore. It's done to death. And really, you can open up AmiKit on your PC anytime now, the same as being able boot Linux on the desktop. Is it worth the hassle of needng to reobot your computer in order to run an emulator that supports a few native x86 apps? Some people still like this idea. And want to dedicate a PC to boot into an AmigaOS emulator. But I think we're past that stage. And these days it's limiting.

There's still a lot of 68K software that amigans use or like to use. That's why there's so much interest on 68K.

The only way to kill 68K software is to provide equivalent native apps, or killer apps that don't exist on the 68K platform.

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote: What cdimauro and I agree on is that it bad idea to make programs so hardware dependent that you need a specify model to run it, and prevent people who has upgrades from using the upgrades.

Why should Amiga developers who are interested in 68k+chipset care about such add ons? I really can't blame them if they don't. After all, what's the point of adding graphics and sound cards when all they do is turn your Amiga into glue logic? The whole charm of the Amiga computers is 68k+chipset, and if I want better gfx and sound I'll just use my peecee.

You guys want your upgrades and AOS machines, but will complain when software is written for 68k+chipset. Really. If you want to run that software then get an Amiga or use an emulator.

Amiga is retro hardware. Treat it as such. If you don't, and you can't run something, then it's your problem.

@Thorham: I don't complain if someone uses the Amiga chipset for his application/game/demo. Amiga had a limited hardware, and that's why it was common to directly access to the hardware.

But Amiga's application are mostly hardware agnostic, since they used the o.s. APIs. Of course, there wasn't support to RTG, and it was introduced some years late (and AHI too).

And there's some interesting software.

So, that's why makes sense to talk about using 68K apps on a more modern hardware. Without (fully) emulating the chipset.

In 2 words: different scenarios.

@cdimauro

Quote:

Is PCIe integrated in the PA6T?

Of course (up to 8 PCIe links - one can be even x16).

@cdimauro

Quote:

Commodore USA introduced some new Commodore 64, VIC20, and Amiga models, but after that the old ones didn't automatically became "Classic".

If CUSA was able to create a lively community with a range of new "Commodore64"s the original would probably have gotten the Classic label sooner or later. But in reality, what CUSA did or do is pretty irrelevant.

Quote:

The same happened also when Commodore introduced the Commodore 128, Amiga 1000, 2000, 500, etc.: Commodore 64, VIC20, Plus4, etc. didn't became "Classic".

But Amiga was not a Commodore64 v2.0, it was a different machine with a different name and different OS. There is no new Commodore64 that we need to differentiate between the old Commodore64, so the Classic label is not necessary to tell them apart.

Quote:

And if you take a look at the articles that were written for the 30th anniversary of the Amiga 1000, nobody mentioned the "classic" word.

That's because we celebrate 30 year of Amiga, not Classic or NG Amiga, therefore adding the Classic label is unnecessary. We celebrate 30 years of "Amiga". That is, Amiga as a whole has survived 30 years (Commodore "Classic" Amiga did NOT, remember that ). Amiga as a whole (Classic + NG) has survived 30 years - that is what we celebrate.

In the articles I'm also sure they use the term "original" or "Commodore" instead of "Classic" when referring to the '85-'95 Amigas.

Quote:

In fact, such relabeling isn't common on IT, and it seems to be used by part of the post-Amiga community to give minor value to the old (but real) machines, and emphasize their new toys.

It's not common in IT because a computer brand rarely survive that long while having a shift in architecture. But remember that a Classic Mac is a 68k Mac, so it's not unheard of. PC did not drastically change CPU architecture though, so there is no clear line between a "Classic PC" and a "NG PC". But in Mac and Amiga world there was a shift from 68k to PPC, causing the 68k machine to gain the reference label Classic to be able to tell them apart when discussing.

You can't be talking to me about Amiga without me assuming you talk about the current stuff (i.e. NG/OS4), unless you're clearly talking in past terms. "Amiga" to me is my X1000 and AmigaOS4, because that's the latest, current up-to-date stuff. I don't call it NG, just Amiga. I also don't talk about my A1200 I have as Classic, I just say my (old) 1200'er. But in forums using the term Classic and NG makes it more obvious. It's a reference label.

_________________
- Don't get fooled by my avatar, I'm not like that (anymore, mostly... maybe only sometimes)
> Amiga Classic and OS4 developer for OnyxSoft.

@Deniil715

Quote:

Deniil715 wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Commodore USA introduced some new Commodore 64, VIC20, and Amiga models, but after that the old ones didn't automatically became "Classic". If CUSA was able to create a lively community with a range of new "Commodore64"s the original would probably have gotten the Classic label sooner or later. But in reality, what CUSA did or do is pretty irrelevant.

So, is it (part of) a community that dictates the introduction of the "Classic" term?
Quote:

Quote: The same happened also when Commodore introduced the Commodore 128, Amiga 1000, 2000, 500, etc.: Commodore 64, VIC20, Plus4, etc. didn't became "Classic". But Amiga was not a Commodore64 v2.0, it was a different machine with a different name and different OS. There is no new Commodore64 that we need to differentiate between the old Commodore64, so the Classic label is not necessary to tell them apart.

The same for the Amiga: Amiga and AmigaOne clearly define the two (completely) different machines.
Quote:

Quote: And if you take a look at the articles that were written for the 30th anniversary of the Amiga 1000, nobody mentioned the "classic" word. That's because we celebrate 30 year of Amiga, not Classic or NG Amiga, therefore adding the Classic label is unnecessary. We celebrate 30 years of "Amiga". That is, Amiga as a whole has survived 30 years (Commodore "Classic" Amiga did NOT, remember that ). Amiga as a whole (Classic + NG) has survived 30 years - that is what we celebrate. In the articles I'm also sure they use the term "original" or "Commodore" instead of "Classic" when referring to the '85-'95 Amigas.

Maybe. I haven't found it, looking at some prestigious sites, like Ars Technica (which has a long tradition of appreciated Amiga articles).
Quote:

Quote: In fact, such relabeling isn't common on IT, and it seems to be used by part of the post-Amiga community to give minor value to the old (but real) machines, and emphasize their new toys. It's not common in IT because a computer brand rarely survive that long while having a shift in architecture. But remember that a Classic Mac is a 68k Mac, so it's not unheard of.

But that was a new model, not an old one, which was called that way because of form factor and the lower specs (and price) compared to the existing models. In fact, its hardware specs were higher than the Mac Plus, and inline with the machines offered by Commodore at the time (except the display, of course).
Quote:

PC did not drastically change CPU architecture though, so there is no clear line between a "Classic PC" and a "NG PC".

Well, there were. Take a look:

8086 - 16-bit, no memory protection, 1MB physical memory addressable.

80286 - 16-bit, protected mode (very strong memory protection; passed military requirements), 30-bit (1GB) virtual address space, 24 bit (16MB) physical memory addressable.

80386 - 32-bit, protected mode (see above) + paged memory, 46-bit (64TB) virtual address space, 32 bit (4GB) physical memory addressable.

Athlon64 - 64-bit, protected mode (see above), 49-bit (512TB) virtual address space, 40 bit (1TB) physical memory addressable.

The 80286 had not that much success (albeit its very powerful protected mode, which included complete hardware support for task switching), but the processors following it represented and represents milestones in the PC history, which radically changed the PC.

And, of course, no "Classic" labeling.
Quote:

But in Mac and Amiga world there was a shift from 68k to PPC, causing the 68k machine to gain the reference label Classic to be able to tell them apart when discussing.

Apple moved from Macintoshs to Power Macintoshs: a clear distinction between the two completely different machines types.

Similarly, and as someone reported previously, a Commodore successor announced a Power Amiga. After some years the AmigaOne term appeared, and that's the label which is still used to identify such "new" machines by the "old" ones.
Quote:

You can't be talking to me about Amiga without me assuming you talk about the current stuff (i.e. NG/OS4), unless you're clearly talking in past terms. "Amiga" to me is my X1000 and AmigaOS4, because that's the latest, current up-to-date stuff. I don't call it NG, just Amiga. I also don't talk about my A1200 I have as Classic, I just say my (old) 1200'er. But in forums using the term Classic and NG makes it more obvious. It's a reference label.

I understand your point of view, but see above: you already have a way to identify your new toy (AmigaOne) from the old one (Amiga). Why don't simply use it?

Especially because there's no legal right (see previous comments) to use the Amiga word (ALONE!) for such "new" machines.

So, why do you (I mean, in general: not specifically you) insist on calling them Amiga when:
- you have a proper, unique name for them, which clearly identifies such machines from the "old" ones;
- you not even have the legal right to call them Amiga;
- they don't resemble at all the Amiga architecture (nothing custom: they are PCs with a PowerPC processor instead and... with something from Intel inside!!!) and philosophy (no o.s. which is "ad-hoc" for the hardware were it runs)
?

@cdimauro

Quote:

The same for the Amiga: Amiga and AmigaOne clearly define the two (completely) different machines.

Here we agree.

Quote:

Similarly, and as someone reported previously, a Commodore successor announced a Power Amiga. After some years the AmigaOne term appeared, and that's the label which is still used to identify such "new" machines by the "old" ones.

Exactly!

Quote:

I understand your point of view, but see above: you already have a way to identify your new toy (AmigaOne) from the old one (Amiga). Why don't simply use it?

Because AmigaOne is not comprehensive term: there are Pegasos II and numerous SAM machines - not in AmigaOne cathegory. So "Amiga NG" is appropriate term for entire post-classic platform (you see, I used "classic"! ).

Quote:

you have a proper, unique name for them, which clearly identifies such machines from the "old" ones;

No, see above.

Quote:

you not even have the legal right to call them Amiga;

He may call them whatever he wants.

Quote:

they don't resemble at all the Amiga architecture (nothing custom: they are PCs with a PowerPC processor instead and... with something from Intel inside!!!) and philosophy (no o.s. which is "ad-hoc" for the hardware were it runs)

Why it should resemble technology that failed in test of time? (Again, it hurts to write this).

@thread

I fail to understand why people are getting so hung up about the word classic.

I don't believe anyone using the word is relabelling the individual computers, they are not saying classic Amiga 500 instead of Amiga 500. The word classic is being used to define an era in the all important Amiga history I.E. the Commodore/Escom/Gateway years. The word retro could be used instead but I think classic has a nicer ring to it.

Classic is used in many other walks of life, cars, film, bikes, music - the list goes on but what you don't hear is a constant bickering about it. If an owner of a new Porsche 911 went up the an owner of the original and said that's a nice classic car, I'm sure the owner of the original wouldn't get offended.

@cdimauro

Quote:

And, of course, no "Classic" labeling.

Ok, then I wont to be the first I will label the 8086, 80286 and 80386 chips classic chips.
The Athlon64 chips I think I will label postmodern.




This is a classic painting.



This is postmodern art.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 15-Aug-2015 at 12:41 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 15-Aug-2015 at 12:12 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 15-Aug-2015 at 12:11 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@NutsAboutAmiga

and the PPC chips are classic NG then

@OlafS25

We already have AmigaOS4.1 Classic. For Phase5 accelerator cards on Classic Amiga, Amiga with upgrades are for a bit postmodern, if we apply the ART terminology.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@NutsAboutAmiga

any PPC is "postmodern"

@NutsAboutAmiga

i dont know what you have cited as "postmodern art" but mona lisa is a renaissance painting. im not sure you know what you are talking about.

@OlafS25

Quote:

and the PPC chips are classic NG then

I personally have no problems with this statement. Although the PPC Amiga's are the newest available, I am under no illusion that they are modern when compared to the Intel/AMD standard of today.

That said postmodern might be a better fit.

Last edited by Arnie on 15-Aug-2015 at 12:38 PM.

@Arnie

that is what I meant

@NutsAboutAmiga

its even more failed a comparison, if your example of " postmodern art" is deconstructive architecture. simply put, that building is as much a "ng" version of "classical" mona lisa motive as amigaone is a modern version of amiga" . but maybe thats what you wanted to tell.