From: susher@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: REAL FALCON 030 SPECS
Date: 6 Oct 92 09:32:53 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1am6prINN718@uwm.edu>, bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R. Block) writes:
> In article <1992Oct3.194904.32308@news.th-darmstadt.de> wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Natuerlich!) writes:
> 
>>Hey Greg, it's called a signal processor, not a signal storer. That means you
>>get input, possibly save a piece of it for analysis, and write it as output
>>and then forget it. You don't run a desktop on it, you don't run a complete
>>raytracer on it (maybe the raytracing engine you could put in there) and
>>you don't compile C on it. the 65K maxes out at 65Kwords for each of the three
>>address spaces anyhow. 
> 
> First: It's a 56K+1.  5-6-0-0-1.  That's so people don't get confused,
> and misinformation doesn't get spread around.
> 
> Second:  You don't run raytracers on an integer-based DSP and expect
> to beat the 030 you've already got sitting there.
> 
> Third:  I _KNOW_ the limitations of the DSP.  I'm not knocking the
> IMPLEMENTATION, I'm knocking the CHOICE.  I believe that the AT&T
> chips are much better.  And when I say this, I knock the DSP boards
> available for the Amiga.
> 
> Fourth:  It's easily possible for audio data in stereo to be too large
> forthat ram.  I'm still waiting to hear on real hardware
> specifications, I've received none, and I've asked the Atari people
> themselves to no avail.

Sorry, I've programmed DSPs for just this sort of application.. Unless you are
going to do something like event triggering with a pre-trigger this amount of
RAM is plenty, after all all you are doing is grabbing data, holding it a VERY
short while and doing a bit of processing on it.

> 
> Nobody knows anything.  And anyone who buys something they don't know
> enough about is asking to be screwed.  Not that it's wrong to ask for,
> but it's certainly not the kind of question you should be asking
> anyone other than the partner of your choice.  :)
> 
>>Also the recurrent theme in this newsgroup (wishful thinking BTW) that the
>>65K is not a powerful chip, is bullshit. There are obviously better (and much
> 
> As far as I know, it's not powerful at all.  I don't believe a 65K is
> made by motorola.  Now, a 6500, perhaps.
> 
>>more expensive chips) but that chip still cooks. Especially with 30+Mhz!
> 
> And there are chips of roughly equivalent price that eat the 56001
> alive.  The 56001 is really best for audio processing, when it comes
> down to it.  If you can help it, it's something you never want to try
> to do floating point ops with.

Guess what its main task is going to be? Yes, Audio processing.. hmm.. :-)

> 
> Software support in the OS is again totally up in the air.  They're
> not even SHIPPING MultiTos yet, who the hell knows what kind of OS
> support they'll have for it.  And not having OS support is a bad
> thing:  Look where not having an OS got IBM's?  Everybody runs their
> own support code, everyone hits the hardware.  (I'm not referring to
> OS/2.)

Yes, but the Falcon isn't shipping (quite) yet. MultiTOS is up and running and
is based upon a shareware OS extension for the ST[e]/TT called MiNT. It is VERY
Unix-like in its system calls and allows device driver to be added at runtime..
just like AmigaDOS. It has named pipes, fifos, normal pipes etc etc etc. I'm
sure it time it'll also gain a socket library. MultiTOS itself also has process
memory protection when on a 68030.

MiNT, the precursor to MultiTOS, is VERY stable and unless Atari have REALLY
bodged it MultiTOS should be too.

> 
> --
> (: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today?  Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
> (: 	"Yeah, if improving the system is screwing the user base,     :)
> (:	 you all need to be screwed more often." -Dave Haynie	      :)
> (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Now, I'll pin my colours to the mast and inform you my background as far as my
home micros are concerned...

I have an old Atari 520STM upgraded to 2.5MB RAM + 85MB HD, Atari TT with 8MB
RAM (4MB ST RAM, 4MB TT RAM (ie burst mode access etc, just like Amiga fast
RAM). I have several friends with Amigas of various descriptions.

I like the ST/TT etc AND I like the Amiga, but for different reasons. I say
horses for courses. The ST/TT are fine, as long as you don't want to program
for a WIMP. Amigas excel when you want to program using a GUI. I find WIMP/GUIs
get in my way, but that's just me.

Steve

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:-
	Everything I type is false, including this disclaimer.