home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: cs.ruu.nl!usenet
- From: wsldanke@cs.ruu.nl (Wessel Dankers)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: 680X0 -> PPC translator?
- Date: 24 Mar 96 21:20:43 +0100
- Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
- Message-ID: <1698.6657T1280T2153@cs.ruu.nl>
- References: <john.hendrikx.4nqj@grafix.xs4all.nl>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: anx1p3.cc.ruu.nl
- X-Newsreader: THOR 2.22 (Amiga TCP/IP)
-
- John Hendrikx <john.hendrikx@grafix.xs4all.nl> wrote:
- > In a message of 19 Mar 96 Wessel Dankers wrote to All:
-
- > >> > Now my idea is: why not ship PPC machines with an additional (not too >
- > >> expensive) '030 or so and let that chip handle the 680x0 code? Heck, you
- > >> > could even let them run at the same time! No more emulator trouble, and
- > >> > reasonable speed.
-
- > >> that is D most absurd idea in history!!!! you ever thought of the price
- > >> of even A1200 with a configuration like that?! it's not just putting a
- > >> cpu but a whole board inside, and besides that idea will never work,
-
- WD>> I wasn't thinking about an expansion board, but a whole new PPC
- WD>> computer.
-
- > I believe it was Apple who claimed that a PPC601/66 could *emulate* 680x0
- > processors at the speed of about a 68040 at 25 MHz. Including a 68030 on a
- > board which already has a PPC601 or PPC604 on it would be quite ridiculous
- > if the PPC processor could EMULATE 680x0 code faster than the 68030 could do
- > it in hardware.
-
- I was thinking of including of an 030 was mainly for compatibility. Didn't I
- also say in the original posting that /if/ your program seems to be written
- well that it could always be run under an emulator instead.
-
- Of course you can include an 040/060 but that /would/ be too expensive.
-
-
- --
- Wessel Dankers _\\|//_ <wsldanke@cs.ruu.nl>
- ///|\\\
- ----------------------------oOO--(_)---OOo----------------------------
- `Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear
- to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than
- what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.'
-
-