Author: Johan Klockars (ctfs.celsiustech.se)
Date: 01-22-2002 18:57
> > "emulating an '040 Atari"
>
> Dunno why I expected something like that?
Perhaps because it's a reasonable thing to do? Anyway, you can find out all about it at aranym.atari.org.
> Yes, yet another emulator is probably
> exactly what the Atari world would prior
> now, since there already are way too many
> decent computers around, capable of
> running Atari softwares.
While there are quite a few emulators around, not many are free software. I think GEMulator was alone at emulating anything better than the 68000 before (but I might be wrong about that), and even that does not deal with the MMU, IIRC.
The reasons for ARAnyM are probably described on the site I mentioned.
> Who want a real computer when we can
> emulate?
If the emulated machine is cheaper and/or faster than the real one?
> Tell you what, I have more 68040´s than
> I will ever need. I could donate a couple
> of real ones so you won´t have to
> emulate. :)
Thanks, but I have two myself (some AV Mac besides the AB040). ARAnyM is actually faster than either, though, on my PC.
> > Exactly the kind of myths I
> > was talking about earlier...
>
> Well, get used to it.
> It´s no myth, it´s reality.
...
> > numbers of 3000-5000 (Dhrystone VAX)
> > MIPS for the latest Intel
>
> *That* is "sillyness, inaccurate, stupid".
...
A couple of seconds at www.google.com turned up the following link, for example:
http://www.hs2000.hu/Report/shuttle_ak32.htm
Looks pretty accurate to me.
You may not want to believe it (I'm not terribly happy myself), but the Intel and AMD processors are among the very fastest available these days. Just take a look at the following:
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/cint2000.html
> > you are better off without the 68882.
>
> Eh, yes we know that, thank you. ;)
You do? Could have fooled me (well, you did)?
Anyway, I'm glad you've seen the light.
> Just fun to see your desperate reactions.
I don't like to see people spending a lot of time doing silly things. You spent quite some space on your website claiming that you did this, but I'm happy it wasn't true.
Nothing desperate here. ;-)
> > a 32 bit CPU with a 16 bit IO bus.
> Yes, or even eight...
Where do you see an eight bit bus anywhere it matters with the AB040(well, the one to the DSP might count)?
> They used that 040 to replace the 020 in a
> MAC LC, mostly to tease, and yes, I must
> say that the performance improvement of
> that LC really impressed! I tried Magic on
...
> Only difference: the LC has full 32bit
> buses.
What do you run to test performance?
The AB040 has 32 bit burst capable busses to its memory and should be every bit as fast as the machine you tried as long as it does not have to do much IO.
> > ...wishful thinking or plain ignorance.
>
> Yes, those are words that shouldn´t be
> used by someone who believes in gigamips
> intels
GigaMIPS would be rather impressive, but we're not quite there yet. ;-)
Take a look at the SPEC site I mentioned above for some real performance numbers.
> > I actually enjoy these kinds of
> things. ;-)
>
> SO DO WE mate. So do we, hehehe :o))
It would help if you (as in you personally, I obviously don't know anything about your associates) knew what you were talking about, though. I guess it is possible that you invent silly statements just for the sake of an argument, but I can't see why that would make anyone happy.
> > I will try to restrain myself from from
> > talking about the 'hacking' of driver
> dll:s
>
> Yes, do that. Two different groups (not in
> Sweden of course) has already reported
> that they have done it before. :-O We can
It can of course be done for limited simple cases, with a lot of work. I've done that sort of thing myself. This is what you say on your site, though:
> What we need here, is some kind
> of "translator", a piece of code that
> actually can read those "dll" & "vxd"
> files, and sort out the driver commands
> from the rest of the code. Wouldn´t be too
> hard, for a good hacker?
That is a _very_ different thing. If you believe that is possible... Uhm, well, I guess you do, but...
> Things ARE really not that impossible,
> as you obviously keep on thinking, mate.
> It´s 2002, not ´87. Maybe time to ´wakie´?
I've been programming for more than twenty years. Professionally for the last two (doing mostly device drivers and similar things), on Solaris (SPARC), VxWorks (x86 and PPC) and other OSes. Computer architecture is a hobby of mine (I'm the kind of person who downloads and reads the Itanium manuals when they are released ;-), as is digital electronics (which is really what I'm hired to do too, but there tends to be more software projects available, unfortunately). I read the majority of the postings on comp.arch, comp.arch.fpga and comp.arch.vhdl, to keep reasonably up to date on these things.
I assure you that I know very well what I'm talking about.
|
