@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

Your router should be able split up network packers if needed, you should not need to set small MTU.

Guess what path MTU discovery protocol does? The problem when not supporting PMTUDP is that you can never know how small you need to set it, as that depends on the remote end of the connection you are establishing, and everything between. Remember, it’s not really a setting for your interface on your LAN (that’s just the default, the starting point before detection), it’s a per connection setting.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@Hypex

Quote:

Hypex wrote: @agami The A1200 was obviously late. And failed to fix problems ...

Most people agree, all things being equal.

The essence of my statement regarding the A1200 being about the most logical move for Commodore in 1992, is that all things are not equal.

Given the circumstances that Commodore found itself in (qualifier), most of them of its own making for sure: their in-house pool of skills, existing projects at various levels of completion, their manufacturing capability, logistics, partner and distribution network, existing market momentum, competition, financial situation and crippling debt, about two bad sales quarters away from bankruptcy; they were really only capable of producing a machine like the A1200 and/or CD32, which is for all intents and purposes another A1200 SKU.

There's an excellent scene in Apollo 13 which illustrates this really well
https://youtu.be/1cYzkyXp0jg?si=9Zsmdr4R2j-qCXH_&t=39

Commodore had to make a computer designed for one thing, fit into a market made for a slightly different thing, using nothing but the "box of odd parts" to which the company's production capability had been reduced.

Side note: Of course the A500 is more popular than the A1200, just like the C64 is more popular than the C128. The install base for the former is at least a single order of magnitude greater than the latter.

In relation to the CD32, Commodore again couldn't get out of their own damn way. And when I concluded my statement with "the world was poorer for it", I meant that in reference to the absence of an Amiga/Amiga OS wielding company, and not specifically the CD32's failure to take off.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@Karlos

Quote:

What we need from 68K is the instruction set compatibility only. The PiStorm an exemplar of a high performance 68K accelerator done right. It exists already, it's relatively inexpensive, it provides RTG and bugs/incompatibilities tend to be software fixes and has plenty of memory capacity and bandwidth.

It still needs more on going work. Unlike the average accelerator it doesn't work out of the box. Even AmigaKit list instructions for setting it up yourself though I expect they'll have working solutions soon.

However, I'd had some issues with mine lately, testing some WHDLoad games and just getting crashes. So updated the firmware. The next boot was slower than normal. The games still crashed.

I did more testing by loading a program into MonAm. There was no code. It was all just a gibberish of binary numbers. No wonder it crashed! It made no sense and makes me wonder of there is some memory corruption issue in Emu68K.

@ppcamiga1

In case you didn't notice. The Amiga doesn't use a PC keyboard layout. It uses one closer to a Unix keyboard with Ctrl key placement and now days the layout is more like a Mac keyboard. In particular PC keyboards didn't have the Logo key back then. And the Amiga has the Logo key and Alt keys opposite to a PC keyboard, just like the Mac. So it's more likely the Amiga copied Mac.

@Gunnar

Quote:

Gunnar wrote: @cdimauro Quote: OK, so my understanding is that you used the unused odd (bit #0 = 1) encodings in the 8-bit offset to double the branch range. Nice move. I did the same with my architectures since day 0. P.S. When we talk about architectures, Then I understand you talk about the 68080 CPU. * The 68080 is on the market over 10 years. * The Apollo 68080 is very popular both in Amiga and Atari world. * The Apollo 68080 has over ten thousand customer using it since nearly a decade now. * The Apollo 68080 is running any version of Amiga OS from 1.1 to 3.9 including the new ApolloOS, Mac OS 7 and 8 and AtariOS/Emutos. * And the Apollo 68080 running many programs and also ApolloOS compiled using new instructions...

You don't need to repeat the obvious: you need to answer the questions that people asked you.
Quote:

What is your architecture again? Remind me again, your "architectures" only exists on paper, right? How many programs did your architecture ever run? Did it ever boot Mac OS? Did it ever boot AtariOS? Did it ever run any Amiga OS 1.x, 2.x, or 3.x? How many programs did you write using your new architecture? Did you ever use "your fantasy CPU" it the real world ? Did you ever proof that your architecture even works and is not broken by design? Please help me understand this better. I had the impression that your architecture is only "on paper" and in your fantasy and it was never proven that its encoding are even working.

It gone beyond paper and fantasy already around 10 years ago, since I've also written a transpiler (included a small peephole optimizer) which converts x86/x64 instructions to the NEx64T ones to check if something is broken or not, and to collect useful statistics.
You can find more information in the series of articles that I've written just recently: https://www.appuntidigitali.it/21790/nex64t-9-conclusions/

Now, I understand that you've big problems because of the questions that I've asked you and that you carefully cut to avoid to give answers which would have shown the real status of your 68080 (and your lies, basically, since you're selling a product which does NOT match its advertisement).

So, you're changing the discussion to escape from it by trying to point to another direction (specifically, against me).

Maybe you think that you're the only smart one here and all others are stupids that don't recognized it, but you made wrong assumptions. And you should already know it, since it's not the first time that we had discussions, right? Do you think that now you have any possibility to play your dirty games with me? Not a chance, of course. I'll stick you to your responsibilities, again, and as usual.

@kolla

Quote:

kolla wrote: @cdimauro Being the math genious, how do you define 100% anyways?

I reveal you a secret: you don't need even elementary school graduation to have clear what's the 100% concept.

So, now let's go to that level, which should be enough to explain it.

Mamy cooked a big cheesecake which then has split in several slices.
You "counted" the slices with your little fingers and you've seen that they were "many".
But your vicious brother came and stolen one slice! Dammit!!!
Now the cake is not complete anymore, because a piece is missing, and you're crying because you wanted all slices for you.

So, 100% is when the cake had all slices and not 100% is when it's not that case anymore (e.g.: at least one slice is missing).

I hope that you've learned something new for you, because I don't know how to explain it in a different way, due to your level...
Quote:

At what point do you round up? 99,9% 99,99%

This requires higher math knowledge that you don't have at the moment and you can't understand.

First you need to digest the 100% concept, which was already a hard thing for you.

However you can already starting some practice by opening all Motorola's 68k manuals and start pointing your little finger to all features that are reported there. Then do the same with the 68080 manual and see if some slice is missing.

If you aren't able to do it then you can ask your BigGun buddy to help you.
Quote:

And then there "compatible" - nobody should need to care if a new cpu is 100% compatble with an old cpu, what’s important is that the new cpu is 100% compatible with existing software.

That's a different story which I agree.
Quote:

AC 68080 is compatible with nearly 100% of existing Amiga software - that’s what the advertising should say, the current claim is both inaccurate and somewhat nonsensical.

Don't tell it to me, but to the owner of that project: I'm not the one claiming a generic 100% compatibility of all 68k ISAs...

@cdimauro

Quote:

It gone beyond paper and fantasy already around 10 years ago, since I've also written a transpiler (included a small peephole optimizer) which converts x86/x64 instructions to the NEx64T ones to check if something is broken or not, and to collect useful statistics.

Cesare my impression is that you live in fantasy world.
A world where your invented best x86 CPU sits happily next your handtamed unicorn,
together with your cure of cancer, and the moon stone that you brought back from your own moon landing.

All your cool stuff that you did in your fantasy is not real.
Sorry my friend, but I can not take you seriously.

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote: When I asked what CALLM does, the only person who responded appropriately was Hans. Come on guys, it was a comic relief shitpost! All this argument

Well, we know that CALLM (and RTM) are piece of sh*t as well that don't deserve an implementation because maybe not even Motorola used it, but those are just the tip of the iceberg which is proving that some claims are not true.

There's more, much important things which aren't yet implemented, despite the claims are the same (100% compatibility).

In fact, there's a reason why Gunnar has carefully avoided answering my questions about the FPU and PMMU instructions.

Not even counting that his processor doesn't implement the extended precision for the FPU, which... was used by software, right? Right.

But he still pretend to claim 100% compatibility despite such evidence...
Quote:

Though I still think it would be cool if it were implemented as a means I'd calling runtime supplied hardware modification (ime. hacking fun) of the FPGA itself. Assuming that's even possible.

Honestly I don't give a big f*ck about CALLM/RTM: they are clearly crap stuff.

It's like the answer of Motorola to Intel's 80286 protected mode gates, which are very heavy stuff but give you more granular protections and it was required by Intel at the time to get a military grade for its processors.

However, nobody except OS/2 used it. Modern operating systems are still stick to the kernel/supervisor and user modes, which are enough, and other technologies have being developed with security purposes.

That's the reason why Intel has proposed X86S, which is x64 (and partially x86) with all this stuff removed. Because nobody cares of it and it's just a burden with doesn't deserve a preservation.

@Gunnar

Quote:

Gunnar wrote: @cdimauro Quote: It gone beyond paper and fantasy already around 10 years ago, since I've also written a transpiler (included a small peephole optimizer) which converts x86/x64 instructions to the NEx64T ones to check if something is broken or not, and to collect useful statistics. Cesare my impression is that you live in fantasy world. A world where your invented best x86 CPU sits happily next your handtamed unicorn, together with your cure of cancer, and the moon stone that you brought back from your own moon landing. All your cool stuff that you did in your fantasy is not real. Sorry my friend, but I can not take you seriously.

As I've already written, my project is not on paper anymore since long time, since there's some concrete/real.

It's not that much, of course (and I'm working on more useful things, albeit it requires much more time), but it's enough to tell that you're reporting lies.

Anyway, you, again, are trying to change the discussions because of you're not able to sustain it.

In fact, the 100% compatibility that you claim is pure lie and you're cheating your customers. See above the other comments that I've written, for more details.

@cdimauro

Cesare, you told us this story:
TINA the new AMIGA that you took part in developing which ran with 800 Mips


Cesare, where is this TINA computer?
How did you manage to run a CPU in a Cyclone FPGA with 400MHz?
How did you do this miracle as the Cyclone FPGA can technically not reach this clockrate!

You claimed to have connected a memory bus to the FPGA 4 times more than the FPGA can physically handle…. How did you do this second miracle?


Cesare you never stop telling us stories about your fantasy 68K architecture...
and you tell us stories about your unbelievable good x86 INTEL CPU which you invented.

And you try to make people believe you would be an Amiga coder...


Your head is full of crazy fantasy stories....
- honestly I think you are crazy.


You can not expect that people take you seriously and spend time to answer you crazy hatter.

@cdimauro


I will tell you - what you will do now.
I want you to stop lying to the Amiga people here.

Since many years you lie to Amiga people.

You live in a fantasy dream world in which you did a lot crazy stuff.
You did develop with your friends a new Amiga.
And you did do miracles: you ran the CPU (that never existed!)
at 400MHz in an FPGA - an FPGA model which can barely reach 100 Mhz.
You connected 4 times wider memory then the FPGA physically supports.

You made a website advertising this new Amiga.
You ran this hoax for several years.
You even gave interviews to naive newspapers talking about all your lies.

You claim you invented a better x86 than Intel.

You claim that you invented a new 68K CPU.

You try to make people believe you are an Amiga coder.


You lied to Amiga people so many times.


Cesare Di Mauro, this is you:

You work for BMW and you live in Germany Neu-Ulm.

I think you have some mental insanity and you lied to people for much to long.

I want you today to stop lying to the people here.

@Gunnar

Putting aside for a moment the fact you have a lot invested in the 68080, what are your thoughts around the idea of something like the SAGA paired with a PiStorm/CM4 type solution as the CPU?

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@agami

The A1200 wasn't a bad computer and it still sold pretty good all things considering.

It had the potential to do even better, especially in the early 90s, in the eastern Europe. Not just A1200, but all of the Amiga line up. A lot of people on these boards lived at that time in the western part of the continent and are not really aware just how expensive PCs were for us that used to live in the East. And how much sense a low end Amiga like even an A500 with HD(that is, maybe A2000) made. In 1992 I was still using a C64. A A500/A2000 that was priced really cheap still was a very attractive proposition.

In that view, I would just not bother with the A600 and just make a cost reduced A500/A2000 for the bottom of the market, possibly make A1200 in a desktop system only and A4000 as a high end tower. And on top of that, offer a complete package with commodore monitor and printer and us in the eastern Europe would have been all over it! Yes, PCs were getting better and faster - still, we couldn't afford them

_________________

@Hammer

Quote:

My Pentium 166 is powerful enough for a Yamaha S-YXG50 software MIDI synthesizer.

Was this some kind of emulator like a how a VST would reproduce it these days?

Quote:

It depends on the Mac models. 68000 socket is accessible. PiStorm-ST project is a better fit for 68K Mac.

They could call it PiSTorm. Or PiST for short.

Quote:

I have a KVM switcher and hence switching between the two modes is relatively quick.

I have Amiga in VGA and RTG in HDMI so a switcher wont work for me. I know people are using VGA switches with HDMI converters. But I don't like the idea of using an older analogue interface where full HD may not work or go blurry.

@Karlos

Quote:

Interesting. What do CALLM and RTM do on the 68080?

As I recall, they used to CALL Module and ReTurn from Module. Something about a module. What ever a module is.

@Hypex

Coprocessor (general sense) glue.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Gunnar

Quote:

I can tell you this. As you might know according to Motorola himself, CALLM and RTM were mistakes in the 020 CPU.

Why were they mistakes? I've read they were for running a VM but not see many code examples. The most well known example I knew of was TAS which was unsupported on the Amiga hardware.

Quote:

The Apollo 68080 does support MVZ and MVS but we call them MOVZ and MOVS,

That looks more like Intel notation where MOVE is called MOV. The 68K used full words in most cases. A MOVEZ and MOVES would sense however MOVES is taken so that would break it.

I suppose I disagree with taking a MOV and plugging it into 68K. But then, I would also disagree with taking MMX and plugging it into 68K as AMMX, simply because it's built off Intel ideas. The 68K was all about Intel Outside. But with the Apollo I suspect a mutiny is afoot as there is Intel infection going on.

@Hypex

Quote:

I suppose I disagree with taking a MOV and plugging it into 68K. But then, I would also disagree with taking MMX and plugging it into 68K as AMMX, simply because it's built off Intel ideas

Actually INTEL did not invent Vektor - they took a lot from HP SIMD MAX vector invention.
(which coder also called MADMAX at the time) Intel was just good in their marketing of the ideas the took.

While AMMX also has the three letters MMX in the name ..
in reality AMMX is totally different than Intel MMX.

AMMX has much more powerful instructions than INTEL MMX
And with AMMX you can do a lot stuff that it impossible with INTEL MMX.

But if you are not a programmer
and dont know this ...
then this might not be easy to for you to see...


The general idea of Vector instructions is good.
And every company uses this concept today.
And all the Vector instructions have different features and strength and limitations.

IBM calls it VMX
Moto calls it Altivec
ARM calls it NEON
Intel calls it now SSE

and there are many more names..

We call ours AMMX.
AMMX is very strong for Video and GFX operations.

As you might know myself and many of the Apollo worked at IBM in PowerPC development...
So we know Altivec / VMX like the back of our hand ... And we tried with AMMX to make something much better to use for game coding than Altivec...
And we did succeed

AMMX is easy to use and perfect for games.

Last edited by Gunnar on 08-Feb-2024 at 04:51 PM.

@Gunnar

http://os4depot.net/?function=modules/sql/filesbyuploader&submitter=Damien%20Stewart

Right when you start talking of on back story of thing, and talking about the developers friends and family and there dogs…

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 08-Feb-2024 at 04:41 PM.

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

@all
Gunnar=MEGA_RJ_MICAL. He is posting public Gunnar statements but is vague and elusive about questions. The doxing is his classic MO. Maybe we are crazy but this guy is insane and sick. He makes ppcamiga1 look good.

agami Quote:

Most people agree, all things being equal. The essence of my statement regarding the A1200 being about the most logical move for Commodore in 1992, is that all things are not equal. Given the circumstances that Commodore found itself in (qualifier), most of them of its own making for sure: their in-house pool of skills, existing projects at various levels of completion, their manufacturing capability, logistics, partner and distribution network, existing market momentum, competition, financial situation and crippling debt, about two bad sales quarters away from bankruptcy; they were really only capable of producing a machine like the A1200 and/or CD32, which is for all intents and purposes another A1200 SKU.

The C= bet on the narrow moat PC market before the collapse, the halting of the Amiga product pipeline and the Amiga "no new chips" dictate really did in the Amiga. AGA was rushed but too little too late so soon after all the mistakes. If they had a single chip CMOS chipset with AA+ features that could be coupled with a 68EC030@28MHz providing more than double the performance instead of designing and manufacturing dead inventory ECS Amigas, the Amiga 1200 and CD32 would have been much more competitive and C= would have had a chance to survive.

agami Quote:

There's an excellent scene in Apollo 13 which illustrates this really well https://youtu.be/1cYzkyXp0jg?si=9Zsmdr4R2j-qCXH_&t=39 Commodore had to make a computer designed for one thing, fit into a market made for a slightly different thing, using nothing but the "box of odd parts" to which the company's production capability had been reduced. Side note: Of course the A500 is more popular than the A1200, just like the C64 is more popular than the C128. The install base for the former is at least a single order of magnitude greater than the latter. In relation to the CD32, Commodore again couldn't get out of their own damn way. And when I concluded my statement with "the world was poorer for it", I meant that in reference to the absence of an Amiga/Amiga OS wielding company, and not specifically the CD32's failure to take off.

Today, there is more demand for a C128 than C64 and more demand for an Amiga 1200/CD32 than Amiga 500. Part of the retro market is experiencing what was missed and most Amiga users missed AGA which is a significant upgrade even though it should have been better. In fact, many retro users would like to see the "what if" Amiga that should have been made. The Amiga should have had more CPU performance as well as better chipset which can be mass produced today for a ridiculously low cost. The Natami project was a good example of attracting a large audience with no advertising for an Amiga inspired "what if" hardware project. The Vamp/AC hardware has some of the same appeal but feels oppressive and more cult like in comparison. THEA500 Mini provided some "what if" as far as look, feel and ease of use but the hardware and AmigaOS is lacking (It does have ~68030 performance with AGA compatibility though).

Last edited by matthey on 08-Feb-2024 at 07:05 PM.