Author: Johan Klockars (as12-5-4.kp.g.bonet.se)
Date: 01-20-2002 15:40
> > the 68882 is not modern, it's archaic.
>
> Yes indeed, just like the Falcon itself,
> and Anything Atari. Satisfyed?
But building something new that unnecessarily uses stuff like that makes little sense.
You are making things unnecessarily complicated for yourselves, for no good reason.
> Itīs all veeery old stuff, just like your
> own Falcon, so I donīt understand what
> youīre moaning about??? At least we are
I don't count pointing out sillyness, inaccuracies, errors, etc as moaning.
> trying to do something, how many are?
Surprisingly many, although very different approaches are used.
I'm mainly in the 'emulation on a completely different processor' camp myself.
> We have to try with the stuff available,
> cos we canīt do any new chips any more, OK?
> If you can, why havenīt you done it already?
I have, in writing fVDI and working on ARAnyM, for example. If I had thought it made any sense to build a new computer, I might have looked into that. I'm not terribly fond of board level electronics, though. I prefer staying inside the chips.
> Your comparitions with 86 all the time have
> nothing at all with Atari or Motorola chips
I have not mentioned the x86 in this thread except to point out that its original FPU does the same mistake as the 68881/2.
I have mentioned it in other threads because people have been spreading myths about x86 vs m68k performance.
> We want it to run TOS and TOS applications!
...
> Canīt do that with a 86 or a Coldfire,
As has been shown by lots of emulators, it works perfectly well on x86. I too believe using the Coldfire is a mistake, though.
|
