On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Robin Harbron wrote: > Nate Dannenberg wrote: > > If a SCPU is NOT present, the card should be able to replace it, and run > > Isn't this getting silly? Now we're suggesting that Jeri's board > is not just a video board, but also a near-perfect SuperCPU > replacement/emulator? Actually what I said came out wrong. IF she adds some kind of system accellerator capability (i.e. competition to SCPU) at all, at her discretion, it would be unwise to make it anything but a SCPU clone, otherwise you have the problem of programs that would otherwise run on a SCPU, needing the video device because of it's SCPU-like features (i.e. system acelleration). Personally, I'd rather she forget the idea of system accelleration (i.e. SCPU competition) and focus on *video* acelleration. Make the CPU, whatever she uses, an acellerator/video-co-processor. Let the user's software send commands to the card to be executed by the card's CPU, for drawing graphics. I want it to work WITH my Super CPU, not against it, and I'd rather not see Jeri waste time and resources making it emulate at all. > And if it did do the SCPU thing, why would we bother keeping our SCPUs? Because if it does receive this capability, the card shouldn't use it at all for system acelleration, it should turn it into VIDEO accelleration (turning off all attempts to mimick the SCPU), and let the SCPU handle acellerating the programs that talk to the video device. In other words, allow both features to be used at the same time. -- ___________________________________ _____ _____ | _///@@@| | | firstname.lastname@example.org /'//ZZ@@|____ | | |'''/ |'/@7 | | http://home.kscable.com/natedac |`'| `~~' | | | `| .--. | | C64/C128 - What's *YOUR* hobby? | `\____|___\ | | \_ | | |___________________________________ \_____| _____| - This message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list. To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe | mail email@example.com.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.1.1.