View Single Post
Old 14 July 2017, 15:40   #222
grond
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 364
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolla View Post
Does it really? Various software use the FPU differently, and it's not as if all software that use FPU will use all the functionality of it. I cannot really think of any type of software that use _all_ functionality of an FPU, except test suits.
Again you make me wonder why you ask such a question. Do you really consider it something worthy of discussion that a processing unit has a lot of features and that in the end all features will have to be implemented by the soft-FPU to run all FPU-software? This is a given for any thinking person. And yes, there is still a lot lacking in the soft-FPU. It works for an increasing number of programs while others may still crash. Is it really necessary to mention this? If the soft-FPU were complete, it would already have been released to aminet. All this is so obvious that I cannot avoid believing that you feel the need to always point out the bad things about other people's work or about the Apollo project in particular. Unless you can give me convincing reasons for your statements, I will continue to consider your comments as being ill-motivated because I rule out the possibility of you being too stupid to understand.
Quote:
Oh no, I am so sorry I pointed that out, oh my gosh. Again you insinuate that I did it only to discredit the Apollo core? That is a pretty nutty conclusion.
I cannot see any other reason why discussing differences between two versions of a demo run and recorded several years apart would be of any relevance to a Vampire related thread. Tell me, why is it important to discuss about potential differences between the two versions? Why do you ask us to use the same version of the demo that was used in some YouTube-video we weren't even aware of when all we wanted to show is that the Vampire does run an AGA+FPU demo? I believe you are playing the innocent when being called at.
Quote:
but sadly also quite symptomatic for many those involved in the project - paranoia runs very high.
We have had all this bad-mouthing for several years now. It started with "it's impossible and hence faked" and has now degraded into "it's not compatible". What has been proven to work is ignored, what has not is constantly used against the project. You personally went from "it gurus the moment you start a program that expects an FPU" to "how can we know it runs all FPU software". I call this the detriment of doubt (that is supposed to be the opposite of the benefit of doubt). Yes, it is true that this mud-slinging has had an effect on the temper of people involved with the project. People are putting years of work and many hours of their spare time into this project. Being able to make something work is rewarding in itself. But some extrinsic motivation could perhaps help a little.
Quote:
You know very well that I cannot do that, despite having all the hardware.
But we are expected to watch all YouTube-videos to see whether they are based on the same binaries as we use for a test and then find that same binary and use that for a video because some texture differs? And all that because you want to see exactly how much slower the soft-FPU is because you can't be sure we didn't use faster code? Or why is it important to use the same binaries on two different hardwares for a comparison that we didn't do ourselves but some forum comment in this thread?
grond is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05362 seconds with 9 queries