@_ThEcRoW

Quote:

I have a question: The xmos chip has 64kb only, but it is possible that could access the main ram of the system for bigger things?.

If you write a driver it should be possible use the main ram or ram on an expansion card as a massstorage device.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@DAX

Quote:

2nd: the xorro and Xmos chip probably add a total of ¤20 to the X1000 price, so I don't understand how your price implications have anything to do with the recently released faq (which is about xmos).

The software support costs more than that. The development tools must be there, the bus driver to talk with the host CPU must be there and an API to load software into Xena must be there. These days support for hardware costs more than the hardware itself (which was quite opposite in good old days).

But then it is none of my concern.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@Leo

Quote:

Little cost and hardly any use as of now... What's the point ?

The same could've been said about a lot of the capabilities of the original Amiga or the C64 for that matter. In fact, I remember Atari ST fans droning on about what the "point" was of proper multitasking (as well as Win 3.1 users droning on about how cooperative multitasking was sufficient), and both droning on about how various Amiga hardware features weren't needed (in the PC-users case the tune of course changed immediately once they got graphics and sound cards that were better than the Amiga custom chips). It's easy being a naysayer.

The "point" is to provide something for people to tinker with. Something that's cheap, but that offers interesting possibilities (the low latency io capabilities and direct access to the system bus *and* the xorro slot in this case).

There's 392 archives in the docs/hard category on Aminet, a huge number of which are homebrew hardware mods. The Amiga community has a long tradition of hardware hacks (I've mentioned before how I for my part had stuff soldered straight onto the CPU pins in mine...)

If nobody finds any uses for it, it's added a miniscule amount of cost per board (but has provided free attention far outweighing that from the ongoing discussions alone). If somebody finds a fantastic use for it, they know that it's available on *every* X1000, and so it's utility is higher than if it'd been an add-in card.

If you don't care about the XMOS, then what's the point in caring so much?

_________________
Wiki for new/returning Amiga users - Projects: ACE basic compiler / FrexxEd / Git

@itix
Quote:

But then it is none of my concern.

One must wonder why you keep replying about it on every thread though

_________________
SamFlex Complete 800Mhz System + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 4
Amiga 2000 DKB 2MB ChipRam GVP G-Force040 Picasso 2 OS3.9 BB2
AmigaCD 32

@Leo

Quote:

The thing is it was included because it had uses.

How many people used the dual playfield functionality? How many people relied on the 32 bit counters on the CIA's (I can say with some confidence not many - at one point where a CIA in my A500 burned out, I exchanged it for one from my C64, which are compatible apart from *not* having 32 bit counters, and I never ran into any problems for the few weeks until I got a replacement). How often was HAM used? A few static images to show off. Was it worth the extra gates? What about extra-halfbrite mode? Not much used that either.

The Amiga custom chips could've been a lot simpler and still provided what people turned out to use, and they could've been simpler still without making all that much difference - people wouldn't have known what they missed.

A lot of functionality was a hit and miss attempt at giving developers things to play with within the confines of what resources were available in the hope it'd prove useful.

Some of it turned out to be widely used. Some of it was rarely used, but still valued by those who got the chance to use it, and some functionality was used by almost nobody.

It shows a distinct lack of history to bring out this argument. Both the C64 and the Amiga was notable for having capabilities that let the machines be pushed far beyond what the designers originally intended or planned for, but both were also notable for having capabilities that did not have many uses until long after the machines were launched.

This is a long winded way of saying it's far too early to tell what people will come up with. Perhaps it'll be niche use only, which is ok - if it provided niche apps that adds only a few percent in sales that could make a big difference to A-Eon. Perhaps someone comes up with an app that'll be widely used. Perhaps nothing will come off it, in which case the cost has been minimal, but it's still provided a lot of additional attention to the project.

_________________
Wiki for new/returning Amiga users - Projects: ACE basic compiler / FrexxEd / Git

@DAX
>1st: you don't know the price so stop stating your speculations as facts.

read this post, in the Interview was say it is 1500 Eur maybe little more.I dont know, maybe there need taxes add to this.

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=31001&forum=2&start=120&viewmode=flat&order=0#546555

In Germany there are 19% so it cost maybe 1785 Eur.

@DAX

I am addicted to Amiga soap operas

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@bernd_afa
You see it could 4000 eur, the problem here is that too many statements are made upon "it has been saids", quoting quotes, and even from blurry 2nd hand reports of "we're still not so sure" replies.
A moderator here once told me (cough, FairlaneFB, cough) not to state as facts things (specially second hand reports of blurry replies) that are not proven as actual facts.
An there you are raising the stake to 1785

Let's limit ourselves on what's on the table, and if it's too little, then it means there's little to talk about.

Last edited by DAX on 15-Mar-2010 at 08:56 AM.

_________________
SamFlex Complete 800Mhz System + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 4
Amiga 2000 DKB 2MB ChipRam GVP G-Force040 Picasso 2 OS3.9 BB2
AmigaCD 32

@bernd_afa Quote:

compare the XMOS Chip with Custom Chip is really not ok.

Then I suggest you complain to XMOS for describing their chip as "Software Defined Silicon".

I would agree that the XCore chip isn't a "custom chip" in the traditional sense, and I have even said that on the forums I'm not entirely sure it should be described as such. But within the loose boundaries of marketing, it's close enough that they can describe it as such if they wish.

Last edited by ChrisH on 14-Mar-2010 at 07:56 PM.

_________________
Author of the PortablE programming language.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue...

@bernd_afa Quote:

read this post, in the Interview was say it is 1500 Eur maybe little more.

You have been misinformed, or otherwise misinterpreted the post, because the interview does not give a definitive price. The 1500 figure was a very rough ball-park at best, and it could easily be a LOT different. Even AEon don't know exactly how much it's going to cost yet.

Last edited by ChrisH on 14-Mar-2010 at 07:55 PM.

_________________
Author of the PortablE programming language.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue...

Perhaps they should just use "customisable" chip.

btw. the xilinx chip does not have amiganame yet, lets invent one!

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

@bernd_afa

Ok. I think case, where data flows thru chip, getting processed, but amount/speed of memory may close this.

Intresting to see anyway, if chip gets access to main memory anh how effective it will be.

@vidarh

I simply do not agree with your statement " (How often was HAM used? A few static images to show off. Was it worth the extra gates? What about extra-halfbrite mode? Not much used that either.) "

The Amiga custom chips could've been a lot simpler and still provided what people turned out to use, and they could've been simpler still without making all that much difference - people wouldn't have known what they missed.

I would say that HAM and EHB were used a hell of a lot.

I used them almost exclusively in DigiPaint and more so with my VidiRT24 when I got it.

I know that they were used a lot in the day in thousands of hair dresser salons to try on different hair styles mapping on to your head etc.

there was the virtual Reality thing as well,

Deluxe paint etc. It was one selling point as you point out, and the reason for why ATARI has a hard time competing with less colours. I dunno, I used it a heap! when I got my Nerki genlock, I used more again. Lots of TV staitions also used the EHB modes, prob more then HAM but to say it was never used is just not true andif I being 1 person who was a kid at the time, it is proabably safe to suggest a lot of professionals used it a lot more than I did in the video realms.

Heck, I remember mucking round with SHAM as well for my digitzed pictures. I still have some somewhere...

For the extra effort involved in adding those gates, I would say very well used.

_________________
It's not the question that's the problem, it's the problem that's the question.

@tiffers

Quote:

It's easy to wave around your professional qualifications and experience, but a little logic and common sense is also a good idea

That's where the experience comes in :)

When designing something, anything, do not count on the people who use it (and who, by and large, are not you :) to have common sense, and especially not common sense that has anything in common with your common sense.

Yes, Xorro cards also making use of the inline PCIe-1x will be obvious. Purely internal ones --- not so much. The matching edge connector at the bottom, and no back bracket to indicate how far away from the back of the case it *should* be.

Experience shows: If it physically fits, someone, somewhere, will plug it in. And if it physically doesn't fit, that may not necessarily stop them, either (dare I mention Helgis?).

So yes, while being overly defensive in your design is not *necessary* (seeing as the ones who shoot themselves in the foot are probably the people you aren't keen on having as customers, anyway), it is still good practice.

@vidarh

Quote:

The Amiga custom chips could've been a lot simpler and still provided what people turned out to use, and they could've been simpler still without making all that much difference - people wouldn't have known what they missed.

But you are talking about capabilities, obscure or not, which once included were there to be *used*, for everyone, without any need for extra action or equipment. There the idea of "baseline" made sense.

That's not what the XCore on the X1000 is. *That* one is a low latency intelligent I/O processor not hooked up to any low-latency I/O. If you want to actually use it, you need to acquire additional hardware. What's the point of having a "baseline" which is without use, and which only becomes useful when you add a decidedly non-baseline piece of hardware to it?

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: That's not what the XCore on the X1000 is. *That* one is a low latency intelligent I/O processor not hooked up to any low-latency I/O. If you want to actually use it, you need to acquire additional hardware. What's the point of having a "baseline" which is without use, and which only becomes useful when you add a decidedly non-baseline piece of hardware to it?

The whole XCore "software defined silicon" concept is that you can program it to interface more or less anything (clock-rates permitting), i.e., you can reconfigure the I/O to do whatever you want. So what would be the point of hooking it up to predetermined low-latency I/O devices, when you're advertising it as something that can be programmed to do whatever it is that you want it to? You'd instantly be locking it in to a particular function, and reduce its flexibility.

Taking your argument to the logical extreme "what's the point of having PCI-Express or any expansion port as a 'baseline,' when it only becomes useful when you add a non-baseline piece of hardware to it?" Sure, you'll say "but adding non baseline hardware is what expansion ports are for." Well, so is the Xorro port that the XCore chip is connected to, except that it's more accessible to hardware hackers than a PCI-Express slot is. That accessibility wouldn't exist if the XCore chip wasn't there.

Hans

_________________
http://hdrlab.org.nz/ - Amiga OS 4 projects, programming articles and more. Home of the RadeonHD driver for Amiga OS 4.x project.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - More of my work.

@Hans,

The naysayers don't see a future. When you and others with you skill get their hands on an X1000 things will happen and they'll say, "well I never thought that......".

They just don't see. Skeptics will be proven wrong just like back in the 80s.

take care, Chris

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @vidarh ... If you want to actually use it, you need to acquire additional hardware. What's the point of having a "baseline" which is without use, and which only becomes useful when you add a decidedly non-baseline piece of hardware to it?

Hmmmm - the A500s all had a "baseline" "Expansion Port" and a "Trapdoor Port".
Also pretty useless from a users perspective without "adding a decidedly non-baseline piece of hardware to it", me thinks...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

well I guess 7.1 HD Audio output is pretty useless to an app programmer or a magazine editor or a 2D graphic artist

why then not throw that out and put a cheap simple stereo output?

shessssh...some people I don't get at all

@Dandy

The A500-trapdoor-slot had exactly 2 purposes:

- add more RAM
- add a battclock (not for the 500+)

The side slot was just the 68000-bus allowing pretty much everything

Both slots needed little to none extra components.

The Xena/Xorro thingi needs an extra card to come to any use. And since you are allready designing that extra card, why not just throw that 5$ microcontroller onto a PCI-card and be compatible with all OS4-compatible (and non OS4-compatible) HW ?

What if (and thats a big if) xorro becomes popular and gets more than 1 use ? User will be forced to decide on board a or b as constant swapping ain't a option with any edge-connector.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada