View Single Post
Old 06 June 2016, 21:57   #328
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kansas
Posts: 873
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
I wonder, what is Picasso96 V3 then ?
Originally started as a conversion to OS4/PPC but still available in 68K with a lot of changes, enhancements and some nice features added.
The AmigaOS4 version of P96 is enhanced over the original P96. It doesn't really matter though as it is a dying isolated API. There are only a few thousand AmigaOS 4 users and I expect the number to drop. It is obvious that they require high prices for both hardware and software to keep going for such a small market. Many of the AmigaOS 4 users were expecting high end hardware with a high tech AmigaOS to match the high prices but they get handicapped embedded hardware and have been promised basic high tech AmigaOS features for years now. Users which actually need a high tech and more modern OS have already moved on. Users who need more performance will get it from emulation in a few more years (I wouldn't be surprise if some smart phones give better performance than Tabor or SAM 440 already). Maybe the AmigaOS 4 developers will continue to block the emulation of AmigaOS 4 but that just means more market loss to 68k emulation. AmigaOS 4 failure without a paradigm shift is nearly certain. I believe the only path which could save AmigaOS 4 and PPC on the Amiga is a low end 68k market. It would be a lot of work to create a 68k AmigaOS 4 which at first looks like a waste of resources but it is the low end market which provides an upward upgrade path to high end hardware and proliferating the APIs would encourage Amiga software development and unite the majority of the Amiga market. Even this may not be enough to save the Amiga as cheap 68k hardware is needed to attract new (mostly ex-Amiga) users. Most of the Amiga powers are more interested in protecting their shrinking market shares and APIs than expanding their markets and proliferating their APIs. The Amiga curse of poor leaders/managers lacking vision and tech savvy seems destined to continue until everyone only knows Amiga as a Spanish word.

Originally Posted by Michael View Post
The CGX v P96 history is also interesting in terms of hardware support.
P96 did not offer BV/CVisionPPC support and no 3D, only CGX did it for a long time. CGX supports most cards, but never did a UAE driver. And P96 has got official BV/CV support only with OS4/PPC, alpha versions in 68k exist but do not work with all the cards (there were several variations of memory on them and other diffs), and only recently an openpci driver became openly available that finally allowed P96 to cover all? amiga card types.
The specific support in CGFX/P96 to allow Warp3D is very basic. The gfx card 3D register maps need to be available for the Warp3D gfx chip driver. Basic 2D functionality was probably already sufficient in both by the time Warp3D came out.

Originally Posted by Michael View Post
Then we should also remember that a lot of system components were made by third parties and are require to bridge WB/OS3toRTG.
IMO, licensing 3rd party components for AmigaOS 3.9 was a mistake. AmigaOS functionality should be complete and the APIs need to be enhanced which may be hindered by 3rd party licenses (unless they are unrestricted). It should also be possible to build everything with one compiler (multiple compilers is even better). The AmigaOS 3.9 developers were overall doing a good job as the code base is large and supposedly not in the greatest shape in some areas. We are blessed that ThoR and olsen are still around who are knowledgeable about it. Maybe the next Amiga owners could take advantage of their programming talents and AmigaOS knowledge but then the AmigaOS could linger on for years under the current ownership.

Originally Posted by Michael View Post
FPGA CPU in my opinion is a simulator, since it is not exactly a software layer for some hardware which defines emulation (do something on some different hardware using different software logical operations and get same results as original). FPGA is not exactly software, software is used to define the operation structure of the gates, which get organised in correct forms at boot time and will simulate behaviour of original hardware directly, there is no code translation then (as in emulation)
FPGA programs are converted to machine (logic) code the same as for a processor. The FPGA code can be changed as often as wanted. This seems very similar and fits the definition of software for me. Programming an FPGA is much different than a processor though. The code controls logic in both cases but a processor evaluates the code in a linear sequential fashion while the FPGA tries to do the logic all at once in parallel. This adds a 3rd element to FPGA programming which is time. This makes it much more powerful but also adds considerable complexity (it needs more testing and debugging).
matthey is offline  
Page generated in 0.06203 seconds with 9 queries