Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
??? 18/11/2002 6:09:14 ??, ?/? Claude Mourier 00 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > >Conclusion : it's sad Motorola never released fasters 68k processors. >80Mhz is 1/20 compared with 1,6Ghz. > It actually has and it will keep on releasing faster ones for quite some time... The colfdfire v.5 and 6 cores (esp. the v.6 core which will be 100% 68K compatible and offer two full superscalar units will initially run at 800 MHz. which means that a 1.6 GHz Intel CPU won't be very far away :-) Phoebus
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
What about a 3.1 Ghz PC Cheers Colin - Original Message - From: "Phoebus Dokos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 1:48 PM Subject: Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two > > ??? 18/11/2002 6:09:14 ??, ?/? Claude Mourier 00 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > > > > >Conclusion : it's sad Motorola never released fasters 68k processors. > >80Mhz is 1/20 compared with 1,6Ghz. > > > > It actually has and it will keep on releasing faster ones for quite some time... > > The colfdfire v.5 and 6 cores (esp. the v.6 core which will be 100% 68K compatible and > offer two full superscalar units will initially run at 800 MHz. which means that a 1.6 > GHz Intel CPU won't be very far away :-) > > > Phoebus > > >
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
??? 18/11/2002 9:27:41 ??, ?/? "Colin Parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > >What about a 3.1 Ghz PC Hehe, what about dual 1.2GHz PowerPC G4s? (Dave can give you figures there :-) Phoebus
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
On 18/11/02 at 14:27 Colin Parsons wrote: >What about a 3.1 Ghz PC Considering that it would still just barely beat the Q60 I think you would be better off with a Q60 since the whole thing costs less than the 3.1GHz CPU alone - assuming you find one that will actually run at that speed. Nasta
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: > Hehe, what about dual 1.2GHz PowerPC G4s? (Dave can give you figures there :-) Well, mine's a mere dual 733 G4, but it's faster than a 3GHz P4 in most things. Interestingly, I chose the slower clocked Mac because it was "The Tool For The Job" of editing video. It stomps all over my dual Athlon 1800+, has never crashed and "Just Works"... Not very relevant to QLs though. So, Motorola is releasing an 800MHz M68k? When? How much? Why is this relevant to a QL user, since performance isn't a critical dynamic in such a small, tight OS? :o) Dave
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
??? 18/11/2002 11:59:13 ??, ?/? Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: >So, Motorola is releasing an 800MHz M68k? When? How much? Why is this >relevant to a QL user, since performance isn't a critical dynamic in such >a small, tight OS? :o) See the "Development Path" (or something like that is what they call it ;-) at their m68k pages... It will be around 2003 IIRC... ColdFire Core v5 is already out with improved M68K Compatibility and partial superscalar units Phoebus
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
n Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:59:13 -0600 (CST), Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: > >> Hehe, what about dual 1.2GHz PowerPC G4s? (Dave can give you figures there >> :-) > > Well, mine's a mere dual 733 G4, but it's faster than a 3GHz P4 in most > things. > > Interestingly, I chose the slower clocked Mac because it was "The Tool For > The Job" of editing video. It stomps all over my dual Athlon 1800+, has > never crashed and "Just Works"... > > Not very relevant to QLs though. > > So, Motorola is releasing an 800MHz M68k? When? How much? Why is this > relevant to a QL user, since performance isn't a critical dynamic in such > a small, tight OS? :o) > > Dave > Of course it is relevant! It is always relevant... What 's not relevant is to pay an arm and a leg to buy overhead (That 's essentially what Windows is... added overhead... why do you think I still use Windows NT 4? Phoebus
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Phoebus wrote: > Of course it is relevant! It is always relevant... What's not relevant > is to pay an arm and a leg to buy overhead (That's essentially what > Windows is... added overhead... why do you think I still > use Windows NT 4? What makes the QL not relevant is that people are WILLIGN to pay an arm and a leg to get something that will use up the resources of a 3GHz machine. Scary! 800MHz coming, eh? Anyone up for writing DVD/video s/w for SMSQ? :o) Dave
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
??? 18/11/2002 6:33:43 ??, ?/? Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: >What makes the QL not relevant is that people are WILLIGN to pay an arm >and a leg to get something that will use up the resources of a 3GHz >machine. Scary! > Yep and they end up losing the other two as well when they repeatedly bang them against the wall when the PeeCee hangs just at the moment they were backing the damn thing up :-) >800MHz coming, eh? Anyone up for writing DVD/video s/w for SMSQ? :o) > 800 MHz or not Video playback of ANY kind won't be feasible (unless you have 1Gig of memory or so) until true background IOSS operation is possible (ie rationalization of the IO, metadrivers etc...) Phoebus
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
HeHe If we are getting into this silly game how about X4 2.7Ghz Xeons. The point is that Intel and AMD are in a fight for the fastest processors, hence QL emulation speed, which Motorola is not taking part in directly. There is no evidence that this quest for greater speed is in anyway slowing down cheers Colin - Original Message - From: "Phoebus Dokos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 3:16 PM Subject: Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two > > ??? 18/11/2002 9:27:41 ??, ?/? "Colin Parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ??: > > > > >What about a 3.1 Ghz PC > > Hehe, what about dual 1.2GHz PowerPC G4s? (Dave can give you figures there :-) > > Phoebus > > >
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
If we're aiming that high, do we have Java RT (or better) on the wishlist? Might as well put X on there too... Steve Oliver > > From: Phoebus Dokos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2002/11/19 Tue AM 12:57:05 EST > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two > > > ??? 18/11/2002 6:33:43 ??, ?/? Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > > > >What makes the QL not relevant is that people are WILLIGN to pay an arm > >and a leg to get something that will use up the resources of a 3GHz > >machine. Scary! > > > > Yep and they end up losing the other two as well when they repeatedly bang them > against the wall when the PeeCee hangs just at the moment they were backing the > damn thing up :-) > > > > >800MHz coming, eh? Anyone up for writing DVD/video s/w for SMSQ? :o) > > > > > 800 MHz or not Video playback of ANY kind won't be feasible (unless you have 1Gig of > memory or so) until true background IOSS operation is possible (ie rationalization >of the > IO, metadrivers etc...) > > > Phoebus > > > > --- Steve Oliver Oak Ridge TN
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
??? 19/11/2002 10:35:14 ??, ?/? Steve Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > >If we're aiming that high, do we have Java RT (or better) on the wishlist? Might as >well put X on there too... Java isn't that unreasonable... I believe it already runs on Q60 (under Linux) but I can tell you that AFTER I finish installation of Q40 Linux :-) As for X... already running on QL style hardware :-) Phoebus > >Steve Oliver > > >> >> From: Phoebus Dokos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: 2002/11/19 Tue AM 12:57:05 EST >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two >> >> >> ??? 18/11/2002 6:33:43 ??, ?/? Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: >> >> >> >What makes the QL not relevant is that people are WILLIGN to pay an arm >> >and a leg to get something that will use up the resources of a 3GHz >> >machine. Scary! >> > >> >> Yep and they end up losing the other two as well when they repeatedly bang them >> against the wall when the PeeCee hangs just at the moment they were backing the >> damn thing up :-) >> >> >> >> >800MHz coming, eh? Anyone up for writing DVD/video s/w for SMSQ? :o) >> > >> >> >> 800 MHz or not Video playback of ANY kind won't be feasible (unless you have 1Gig of >> memory or so) until true background IOSS operation is possible (ie rationalization >of the >> IO, metadrivers etc...) >> >> >> Phoebus >> >> >> >> > >--- >Steve Oliver >Oak Ridge TN > >
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
- Original Message - From: "Dave P" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 11:33 PM Subject: Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two > > > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Phoebus wrote: > > > Of course it is relevant! It is always relevant... What's not relevant > > is to pay an arm and a leg to buy overhead (That's essentially what > > Windows is... added overhead... why do you think I still > > use Windows NT 4? > > What makes the QL not relevant is that people are WILLIGN to pay an arm > and a leg to get something that will use up the resources of a 3GHz > machine. Scary! Would run a damn fast spell checker though Dave (;-) All the best - Bill ( yeah I know - I can talk)
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
Is there a lot of that? I'm not all that motivated to buy QL hardware to run Linux. I've no doubt it works, but I'm thinking about running a QL as a QL. Steve Oliver > > From: Phoebus Dokos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2002/11/19 Tue PM 12:02:10 EST > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two > > > ??? 19/11/2002 10:35:14 ??, ?/? Steve Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > > > > >If we're aiming that high, do we have Java RT (or better) on the wishlist? Might as >well > put X on there too... > > > Java isn't that unreasonable... I believe it already runs on Q60 (under Linux) but I >can > tell you that AFTER I finish installation of Q40 Linux :-) As for X... already >running on QL > style hardware :-) > > > Phoebus > > > > ... stuff removed ...
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
Phoebus > Claude Mourier wrote: > >Conclusion : it's sad Motorola never released fasters 68k processors. > >80Mhz is 1/20 compared with 1,6Ghz. > It actually has and it will keep on releasing faster ones for quite > some time... > > The colfdfire v.5 and 6 cores (esp. the v.6 core which will be 100% > 68K compatible and offer two full superscalar units will initially > run at 800 MHz. which means that a 1.6 GHz Intel CPU won't be > very far away :-) However, is it binary (as well as source code) campatible? I can find no mention of this CPU on Motorola's website or the Internet at large. > From the m68k FAQ: > > "MC68060: [snip] > most branches to execute in zero cycles. The '060 offers 100 MIPS > @ 66mhz and 250 million operations per second @ 50mhz. This is a mistake in the FAQ. > SPECint = 50 @ 50Mhz. " -- Yours Tarquin Mills
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
??? 20/11/2002 1:53:49 ??, ?/? Tarquin Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > > >Phoebus >> Claude Mourier wrote: >> >Conclusion : it's sad Motorola never released fasters 68k processors. >> >80Mhz is 1/20 compared with 1,6Ghz. >> It actually has and it will keep on releasing faster ones for quite >> some time... >> >> The colfdfire v.5 and 6 cores (esp. the v.6 core which will be 100% >> 68K compatible and offer two full superscalar units will initially >> run at 800 MHz. which means that a 1.6 GHz Intel CPU won't be >> very far away :-) >However, is it binary (as well as source code) campatible? I can find >no mention of this CPU on Motorola's website or the Internet at large. Hi Tarquin, you are confusing I think the "core" with the Processor... a ColdFire core can be in a number of processors, embedded microcontrollers etc... (Much like an Arm Core)... Now... take a look at: http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,1895_1555_23,00.html To see what V5 currently supports (First devices available in early 2003) Phoebus
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
??? 20/11/2002 1:53:49 ??, ?/? Tarquin Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: Also check: http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/COLDFIRERD.pdf> That's the Coldfire Roadmap (so that's what was called :-) Phoebus
