Author: Anders S (port290.cvx2-sto.ppp.netlink.se)
Date: 01-21-2002 11:36
Wellwellwell...
> unnecessarily uses stuff like that
Talking about the CPU card are we?
The 040 IS still the best there is, for TOS.
Maybe not the best for a 16 bit machine,
as you might know by now, from the AB?
But there will be other. And try MM on some Quadra.
Not the most compatible, but *extremely* fast!
Though, the TOSter WILL be prepared for
a new CPU, *IF* there ever will be one.
(We donīt believe so, tho)
But IF, then just unplug the 040 card,
and insert the new one. Simple/easy.
Flexibility is kinda important to us...
The most important differences on the MOBO,
is the full 32bit buses, and the 133MHZ SDRAM.
Which is what we wanted most of all, from the start.
If you would call that unnecessary, well....
The rest of the machine is just as up to date
as is possible for a TOS machine. And those extras,
like the extended sound system, DSP FlashROM,
double-VIDEL, and the new Roland emulator, are bonuses.
(which doesnīt affect compatibility negatively)
Those bonuses might look unnecessary to you,
but when we are on it, heck, why not?!
(why that negative attitude?)
We had this discussion on what would be nice
to include, and sound got highest priority.
Might be because we are all musicians here,
and we used to use the old Falc in our studio,
as far as it was possible, with that kind of "hardware".
Altough we do not have to explain this to you,
we wanted to point it out anyway.
Maybe you will stop spreading false rumours now?
(why that negative attitude?)
> "sillyness, inaccuracies, errors,"
Thatīs what I mean. These are words only
describing *your* behaivour here, nothing else.
Gosh, if we told you what kinds of experiments
and projects we actually have done here,
you would believe/understand just nothing.
And, we are doing it for fun, nothing else.
Why that negative attitude?
Give it a second thought.
Does it weally look so impossible to you?
Then I must say I am kinda disappointed.
Got nothing more to say about that...
> ARAnyM, for example.
Another emulating thingy? We *could* start
acting like you here, telling people what we
think about such, but naah, weīll leave it.
If you want to waste time on that, go ahead,
but then leave our project in peace, please...
> I'm not terribly fond of board level electronics,
You, no. But maybe we are, how about that?
OK, so now everybody know that. Will you get
off our backs now? Just because you donīt
like the idea of an better TOS machine, doesnīt
mean that we and possibly some others donīt.
And we enjoy doing this! Whatīs your problem?
We are doing this for ourselves, in the 1st place.
Then if other folks would like to have one,
well, production is not out of question.
> Sure, I have PC2100 memory in my current PC, but it makes
> very little difference compared to PC133 for most things.
-Tror jag, det! COULD it be because the intel never exceeds
say, 30-35% MHZ/MIPS ratio, so it doesnīt even reach 133?!
...And 35%, would be on a good and very sunny day... :o)
Please donīt compare intel to 68K...
Anyway, you donīt think that 32bit/133MHZ/SDRAM will make such
a big difference to 16bit/16MHZ/STRAM(w/o mux)? Well, we do.
> people have been spreading myths about
> x86 vs m68k performance.
Myths?? Come on! Most things I have seen & heared so
far has been nothing but trueths. If not all.
You simply have to admit that 68k beats intel, anytime...?
Iīm not being sarcastic here, itīs the most true trueth in the world.
-------------------------------
...modern circuitry......use it.....
> Please do, but the 68882 is not modern,
I wasnīt talking about the ī882, but about a tricky little
IC that suits perfectly for interfacing the ī882 to the ī040.
You might not believe it, but itīs turning out great.
We still donīt know of any better way to do this, but
ehum, you might have some ideas? How about an intel? *lol*
(argh! I promised to not be sarcastic. Iīll go hang myself)
> The '040 FPU is not uncomplete, it is the 68881/2
> that did more than a decent FPU has any reason to do.
You know that. WE know that too. But TOS doesnīt know.
To those very few APPs that actually uses the FPU,
it is "uncomplete", and thatīs what I meant.
And since we wonīt settle with less than perfection,
at least we had to try. And see, it worked out!
> Try running some real software rather than a stupid benchmark
Yes, please! -Any suggestions for some good test softs?
> I don't know anything about the one used on that site.
Me neither. It was written by Rodolphe Pineau for Centek,
probably to go with the CT2 or so. But it certainly does
not look stupid to me, infact itīs the best one I have
seen so far. It doesnīt just run some tests and show
the results, it watches those three chips in realtime,
so you can see on the bars exactly where the time goes,
while you open, run and close different programs.
And it seems to be pretty reliable. We tested it on a
Performa 450 (030/882/25) running MagiCMac, and both
CPU and FPU bars showed exactly 25MHZ. Took the ī882
up from the MOBO and placed it on a FPU card from a LC,
and plugged it in the NUBUS slot. Then it still says
25 for the CPU and exactly 12.5 for the FPU. We think
we can trust it for testing the 040 and its FPU too.
One thing that surprises us: Just moving the mousepointer
over the screen, seems to take much more CPU time
than cataloguing some big TC pictures with
IMGcopy, with the heavy scaling it involves.
Anyway, such cataloguing is done blindingly
fast, on a Quadra 800 at 52MHZ. The fact that
the TOSter will be even *much* faster, gives us
a good feeling. As I said, we enjoy this.
> Mine does fine with an AB040
Ah, The AB40, yes... A 32 bit CPU, in a 16 bit machine.
I have read something about that. Said it has this external
UDS/LDS MUX, that brings the 040īs performance down to half
of its actual clock speed. Amazing. I just had to check this
up, and yes, it turned out to be true.
They called it a "bus resizer", if I remember it right.
BTW, talking about the AB040;
Is it a LC or a RC 040? what clock speed does it run in?
Does it speed up the so called "bus" as well, or just the CPU?
(you donīt HAVE to answer, sir. We can get this info anyway)
Iīm asking because, at 66MHZ, the COMBEL in my Falc fried! :(
(Yes, we know that the 030 only gets 33 when the Combel goes 66.)
Though, I donīt mean the Pclock frequency, the Bclock is the true one.
(as you are very well aware of, I guess?)
I also would like to ask about the software
compatibility, with both AB40 and R2?
Does it run very many softs at all? Apex?
If you would like to try Centbench on it, Iīll mail it. Just ask.
--------------------
>> Anyway, it is a nice liīl processor, which
>> also would give the Falc some new functions
> "And would fail to run even the Falcon OS,
> as well as anything else compiled for an '030."
Geez, You should know very well that *that* is wrong.
For your information, I have been running Cubase Audio
on my Mega 4 with Viking card and SM194 19", in 1280x960.
CAF is "compiled for an '030" I think? Worked very good,
and was even slightly faster than on my Falc. OK, the
audio engine didnīt run (no DSP) but all the rest went ok.
I can do it again, anytime. You are very welcome to watch.
Why this negative attitude?
Moto says that the SZ will run under virtually *any* OS.
You know it will work perfectly in both the Falc and any ST.
Why this negative attitude?
>The CTII would be faster.
Yes. And more expensive. And unavailable. With less functions.
Come on. Itīs just another 68K with lots of extras. Give it a break.
Why this negative attitude? :o)
Hey, btw. I might install TOS4.92 on a STE, just for a laugh. :)
Then you might start believing that things are not that impossible
that you seems to have an vicked impression of?
Grand finale:
-------------
> I did not take anything on that site seriously.
(Why this negative attitude?)
But we think you obviously did? Why else did you
start spreading lies about the things you found there?? ;o)
(gotcha!) *lol*
And btw, you keep returning there, donīt you?
Oh, nonono! You *are* welcome, as long as you
keep your negative thoughts for yourself. Fair enough?
Peace.
Anders S & the Flashlabs crew
|
