Author: Ragstaff (202.76.143.131)
Date: 01-26-2002 02:21
Paranoid,
There is no way I want to get in a "tech-fight" with any of you, because you'd kick my ass :-) But the TOSter page didn't seem like entire junk to me.
I agree with you on the videl thing. Even if they can do it, it just seems like an over complicated (and probably expensive) solution for a relatively simple requirement, and after all that it would be just "clumsy".
re: the 133mhz ram despite only having a 66.5mhz cpu. I remember that Robert bloke on Fuji BBS who used to always say "I am seeking information on atari st" etc, and who was so thick he didn't understand anything! (remember him? lol) But he said that the ST has 16mhz ram, which gives "0 waitstate"? If that's true, then with the price of 133SDRAM these days, then I don't think it would hurt to have ram twice as fast as the CPU. It would be cheaper than 66mhz ram! And I suppose it would allow the bolder people to try and overclock their CPUs and the ram wouldn't be a bottleneck. I didn't think this idea was hilarious or ridiculous.
re: the 68882. Again, this is probably a more complicated and expensive solution than what needs be, but I think it's an interesting idea if you want to squeeze the last drop of performance you can out of your machine. I certainly wouldn't mind having the empty socket there as an option, to stick an '882 in just to muck around and see if the floating point performance lifts much.
re: flashrom boot disk. I have often thought myself when using ramdisks that it would be cool if they retained all their information when the computer is turned off. I have thought about using flashroms for this. The only problem is that this permanent "ramdisk" would take up a chunk of the memory that the cpu can address, so if you had an 8meg ramdisk, you'd only have 6meg of ram left to address on a falcon, or 4meg if your lucky on an ST (is that right? its hardware restricts to being able to address 12meg?). So to leave the cpu still able to access the full 14meg of ram, why not put a seperate controller in charge of the flashrom and let the computer treat it like a hard disk? Then if you booted from that drive, like AndersS said, you could be up and running in a few seconds! Cool...
re: hacking USB drivers. I'd believe when I see it :-) For sure, if you were a good hacker and you had to write drivers for a USB device, you'd be a lot better off starting off by nosing around in the windows drivers than starting from scratch. But to think that you could write an automated program that does this, I think that would be impossible...
|
