#Emulating
47 messages in this thread
When I wanted to run MAC software, I go the cheaper and faster solution..
Emplant… and now I can run all MAC software faster than a real MAC and
with the PC module coming… and with the BB's available, there is nothing
I can't run.
-Jonathan
// Amiga online via Autopilot. MAC Quadra 900 and
\\// 486 emulation. E-Mail: jonathanb@delrina.com
Hmmm…. I wonder.
Emulating the MAC was easy (in a relative sense) as it uses the same 680×0
microprocessor… hence you needed only the ROMS.
Is there any word on how the 486 Emplant works? Would it not require a
486 chip of some type? Otherwise we're looking at PC-Task, but only with
real ROMS.
I have the feeling I am over simplifying again… or I've missed something
really big along the way.
Chris – Fast and Low on my '020!
Is it significant that my spell-checker doesn't know "Intel"?
The x86 code will be translated at exec time to 680×0 code. Windows
function calls and the DOS interpreter (command.com) are being ported to
standard 680×0 code. In addition, the PC BIOS will be in 680×0 code.
-Jonathan
// Amiga online via Autopilot. MAC Quadra 900 and
\\// 486 emulation. E-Mail: jonathanb@delrina.com
Jonathan,
That news on the 486 board is amazing. I assumed that they'd actually
have a 486 on-board. Well done to UUI.
"Is it significant that my spell-checker does know the word '@Compuserve.com'?
-John M. Vreeland in Virginia
Chris,
PMJI, but I believe Jim has said that he's translating '486 code to native
680×0 on the fly. I must be mistaken. I can't believe it. Of course Jim's
pulled off other things no-one could believe. The day he's got that out is
the day I buy an Emplant.
Robb
"I believe Jim has said that he's translating '486 code to native
680×0 on the fly. I must be mistaken. I can't believe it. Of course Jim's
pulled off other things no-one could believe."
Insignia Solutions SoftPC has been running on the Mac for several years
emulating MS-DOS and more recently Windows in software. No reason someone else
can't do the same thing.
Jerry
Jerry,
I was under the impression that the SoftPC implementation was more like
PCTask or CrossPC on the Amiga, but then I don't know as much about Macs
as I should. We have boatloads of them at work.
Robb
"I was under the impression that the SoftPC implementation was more like
PCTask or CrossPC on the Amiga"
I'm really deficient in DOS emulation on the Mac, Robb.
All I know about CrossPC is that it's the DOS-disk read/write utility that
ships with the Amiga. That's like Insignia Solutions PC Access which allows you
to read/write DOS formatted floppies, removables, hard drives and pseudo hard
drives on the Mac.
Insignia Solutions SoftPC itself is a complete DOS or Windows emulation
package for the Mac. SoftPC Windows requires at least a Quadra level machine to
be useful and even then its slow. SoftPC/DOS will run on any Mac and except for
bit-mapped graphics, it does a very good job.
Jerry
>>All I know about CrossPC is that it's the DOS-disk read/write utility
that ships with the Amiga.<<
Jerry,
Not it's not. CrossDos is what ships with the Amiga. CorssDOS is just a
filing system. CrossPC is the DOS emulation and is sold by Consultron with
CrossDOS.
"CrossPC is the DOS emulation and is sold by Consultron with
CrossDOS."
Thanks for the clarification.
Jerry
Jerry,
I see that Michael has mentioned the difference between CrossPC and
CrossDos…
The point I was making about 'my understanding' of Jim's '486 emulation on
Emplant was that he was going to translate the '486 code to 680×0 code as
it loaded (and perhaps ?!? change DOS/BIOS calls to AmigaDOS calls),
thereby allowing the program to run at, nearly, full speed for the CPU you
have.
Whereas, other programs attempt to interpret instructions one at a time,
during execution (having to contend with the 'emulated' environment) thus
making for lots of 680×0 code being executed for each '486 op code
executed…slow…
Robb
I still don't think he can do it. I hope he proves me wrong! Then again I
may, probably, totally, misunderstand what he's doing.
I guess I'm just not a big fan of emulation in general. I've never seen any
emulator that could run as fast or as well as a dedicated machine. At this
point, for example, I can't see much sense in the Emplant when $1,500 or so
will buy you a PowerMac or a 100Mhz 486 machine.
I get a real kick out of Apple's attempt to convince people that all they
need is a PowerMac with SoftPC to run Windows. Yeah. Right. It's incredibly
slow and emulates a 286. In short, it's worthless, but Apple thinks its way
cool.
I'd rather just bite the bullet and spend the bucks on a dedicated machine and
get performance without sacrifices.
Jerry
Jerry,
Well, I'm not really a big fan of emulation, either, but Jim's sounds like
it just might work and be usefull.
SoftPC only emulates a '286? Damn, that's usefull. CrossPC is '286 as
well.
If it were for a work evironment, I'd probably opt for a dedicated
machine, also. At home, it's just nice to have it all in one box. I use
PC's and IBM Mainframes enough at work. I like my comfortable Amiga at
home, but I would like to run some of the clone software, sometimes.
Robb
Maybe one day all the machines will simply be plug-in cards that fit into a
common bus and share the same peripherals. Now that would be way cool!
Jerry
That's still a ways away, but the world is getting there. Of course, the
problem is, there will always be standards. Remember, what is so nice
about standards, there are so many to choose from!
At least at the software level with Unix and NT and such (and hardware
things things like Emplant), we're getting closer.
Robb
We are porting our 486DX emulation to the MAC and PowerMAC machines. There is
absolutely NO excuse for a poor PC emulation with the PowerPC processor. It
has special opcodes for string lookups built into the processor (for odd
aligned code, common with the PC).
As Jonathan so properly put it, "we are out to unseat" Insignia. Our 486DX
emulation is being written in 100% PPC RISC assembly.
"We are porting our 486DX emulation to the MAC and PowerMAC machines. There is
absolutely NO excuse for a poor PC emulation with the PowerPC processor."
Now that sounds truly potent, Jim!
And I agree with you that there is "absolutely NO excuse" for a poor PC
emulation on the PowerPC. That CPU has enough power to do it right.
Good luck with it and I'll be looking forward to seeing the finished product.
Jerry
>> As Jonathan so properly put it, "we are out to unseat" Insignia. Our
>> 486DX emulation is being written in 100% PPC RISC assembly.
Well, they need some competition. Good luck, and if you have a mailing list,
put me on it.
-Mitch
Well, you will shortly be proven wrong… over 200,000 lines of code and more
than 1meg in size, the emulation is screaming along quite nicely… it is now
emulating the MMU properly (we hope), so we'll start testing out OS/2 and it's
memory protection. 🙂
BTW, the entire MAC emulation is only 34,000 lines of code and 165K.
>> BTW, the entire MAC emulation is only 34,000 lines of code and 165K.
It's WITCHCRAFT I tell you! AH-EEEE!!!!!!!
Chris – Fast and Low on my '020!
"MicroSoft": from Micro = small, and Soft = limp.
>> it is now emulating the MMU properly (we hope), so we'll start testing
>> out OS/2 and it's memory protection. 🙂
Oh yes! This is getting better all the time. If it could run OS/2, and at least
as fast as my DX-40, I'd be in heaven.
-Mitch
Jim,
>>Well, you will shortly be proven wrong
Excellent!
>>we'll start testing out OS/2
WOW!
I can't wait.
So, by the way, you didn't correct my description of your '486 emulation,
was I even close?
You've got your fingers in a lot of pies! Good luck with the PPC version.
Robb
>> Insignia Solutions SoftPC has been running on the Mac for several years
emulating
>> MS-DOS and more recently Windows in software. No reason someone else can't
do the
>> same thing.
But plenty of reasons why they wouldn't want to. I've got SoftPC, if you
absolutely _have_ to run some PC software, and you have plenty of time to
spare, and not enough money to buy a cheap clone, then you might do it. SoftPC
is not a program you'd buy for productivity.
"SoftPC is not a program you'd buy for productivity."
That's for sure. On Quadra 800 or 950, though, it's not too bad as long as
the DOS program doesn't use graphics. Haven't seen it on the PowerPC yet, but
from what I hear, the Windows version is a total disaster in terms of speed.
Jerry
The biggest problem is that it still does video translation and is
emulating x86 code on the fly… actually, it only emulates a 286
processor. The Emplant won't have those problems. It will pre-translate
executables and will have direct video drivers and the code translation
will be for 486DX emulation. UU (makers of the Emplant) also plan to
unseat Insignia with a MAC version of the same software.
-Jonathan
// Amiga online via Autopilot. MAC Quadra 900 and
\\// 486 emulation. E-Mail: jonathanb@delrina.com
"actually, it only emulates a 286
processor"
True for SoftPC Windows on the PowerMac. Kind of makes you wonder why they
even bothered. I think SoftPC/DOS will now do a respectable job of matching a
slow 386 on a Quadra.
I've never understood the need for emulators. If you need a PC or a Mac, buy
one. Orange Micro has a 486 on a card that fits into a Mac: about twice as
expensive as simply buying a PC.
Jerry
The cost of a hardware emulator is definately a drawback.. but in the case
of where desk real estate is critical or people want to share on their
exisiting peripheral investment, an emulator is very cost effective. For
instance, the $200 people have paid for the CBM 386/25 BB is very
worthwhile. With the upcoming Emplant 486DX emulator, the need for
hardware becomes moot, and at the same time the performance is more than
adequate for most uses.
-Jonathan
// Amiga online via Autopilot. MAC Quadra 900 and
\\// 486 emulation. E-Mail: jonathanb@delrina.com
"For instance, the $200 people have paid for the CBM 386/25 BB is very
worthwhile."
That sounds like it was quite a bargain.
Jerry
It is/was a good bargain. With the addition of a 486 Cyrix upgrade, you
have yourself a highspeed 486/50 for less than $550. Add an Emplant, and
you have everything you can ever use for the next couple of years.
-Jonathan
// Amiga online via Autopilot. MAC Quadra 900 and
\\// 486 emulation. E-Mail: jonathanb@delrina.com
>I've never understood the need for emulators. If you need a PC or a Mac,
>buy one. Orange Micro has a 486 on a card that fits into a Mac: about
>twice as expensive as simply buying a PC.
not all of us want to sit in a room full of computers. 🙂 unless you get a
switch box you'll have to buy another monitor, which takes up more space,
another keyboard & mouse, etc. for me space is a premium that i am willing
to pay for. i've tried having two computers in the same work area, but it
didn't work for me. 🙂
i wish i had purchased a 3000T instead of a 3000 since the 3000 does not
have enough AT slots to make a bb useful (for me at least). i could have
gotten a bb instead of a 486 tower. i've managed to free up some space buy
getting a switch box so that both computers could share the same keyboard
& monitor. for me it's not a perfect solution (you should see the mess of
cables lurking behind my desk! :D), but it works. so i'll stick with it
since i can not justify the expense of buying a 3000T and bb setup when i
already have something that does the job.
bob 🙂
– on AutoPilot via Columbus, Ohio
"i've tried having two computers in the same work area, but it
didn't work for me."
Yeah, I know what you mean. In my average sized workroom, I have three
complete installations. Space is definitely a consideration. But in terms of
productivity, I don't see an alternative. I'd rather be cramped for space than
waiting hours for something to get done. I also do a lot of cross-platform
stuff and the emulators (specifically SoftPC) I've seen are surprisingly poor
at handling it.
To each their own I guess.
Jerry
Jerry,
You're judging the speed of the emulators for the Amiga based on SoftPC
and that's a mistake. If you get a chance, go SEE an Emplant in use. You
will be impressed.
> True for SoftPC Windows on the PowerMac. Kind of makes you wonder why
>they even bothered. I think SoftPC/DOS will now do a respectable job of
>matching a slow 386 on a Quadra.
To sucker unsuspecting buyers in…
> I've never understood the need for emulators. If you need a PC or a
>Mac, buy one. Orange Micro has a 486 on a card that fits into a Mac:
>about twice as expensive as simply buying a PC.
Same answer. 🙂
Bob Comer — Cruising the nets on Autopilot!
Cheyenne, Wyoming U.S.A.
"To sucker unsuspecting buyers in…"
Now that's a statement of pure reality! <G>
Jerry
Thank you! 🙂
Bob Comer — Cruising the nets on Autopilot!
Cheyenne, Wyoming U.S.A.
Yep, the new Emplant '486 is translation on the fly… (Acually, it'd be
more like pre-translation from what I've been hearing.)
I'll be buying the Emplant the day the 1200 board comes out!
Bob Comer — Cruising the nets on Autopilot!
Cheyenne, Wyoming U.S.A.
I guess I oversimplfied. I was thinking that it translated the '486 code
directly to native 680×0 as it loaded so that, unlike other
implementations, the program could then run at full speed.
Robb
That's pretty much what Jim said it would do… Of course there's got to
be a lot of checks while it's running in case of self modifying code.
Bob Comer — Cruising the nets on Autopilot!
Cheyenne, Wyoming U.S.A.
BOB!
SELF MODIFYING CODE???? PEOPLE DON'T "REALLY" DO THAT ANYMORE, DO THEY?
Uh-hmm, excuse me. I guess I over-reacted.
Yep, I guess there would still be overhead, for several things, but not
nearly as much as other implementations, I wouldn't think.
Robb
>BOB!
>SELF MODIFYING CODE???? PEOPLE DON'T "REALLY" DO THAT ANYMORE, DO THEY?
>Uh-hmm, excuse me. I guess I over-reacted.
Don't look at me, I've never used the stuff. 🙂
Unfortunately, I've seen it all to often… 🙁 (Not on our AS/400, thank
GOD!)
>Yep, I guess there would still be overhead, for several things, but not
>nearly as much as other implementations, I wouldn't think.
The video translations and code modifying might be a bear, but as to the
rest, it shouldn't be to bad.
(But isn't they're a patent on little endian to big endian conversion…
you don't need to answer back on this point, as it's probably as sore a
spot with you as it is with me!)
Bob Comer — Cruising the nets on Autopilot!
Cheyenne, Wyoming U.S.A.
Bob,
Actually, back when I was learning 370 assembler, the programmers at work
(that learned programming years before by putting nuts on bolts in
accounting machines to program them) taught me some really neat tricks
using self-modifying code. Later I started coding, for real. It didn't
take me too long to realize self-modifying was not a good idea. Since I've
done it, and stopped, I can really understand the headaches it might
cause. Even CPU caches could get trashed (yucky, yucky, mucky). Let alone
in an emulation situation, although, with video, I imagine you'd either
have to set up some sort of trap in hardware or constantly watch and pray
(that'd take some cycles).
>>But isn't they're a patent on little endian to big endian conversion…
Darn you! That's got all sorts of bells and whistles going off in my head,
but I can't recall why right now.
Robb
Actually, Microsoft was using self-modifying code in Windows in at least
version 2.0… it was the "fastest" way for them to do certain bit-blits,
copying pixels to the screen. They'd have one piece of code compose a bufferful
of assembly language appropriate for the processor and video, then they'd jump
to it.
I wondoer if they still do….
Bob Comer — Cruising the nets on Autopilot!
Cheyenne, Wyoming U.S.A.
I guess you'd have to find some way around not having a blitter, but ouch.
I hope they've thrown that code out. Heaven knows they've thrown some
horsepower at the engine (not to mention the newer video cards with
blitters and coprocessors. I wonder where that idea came from?).
Robb
Fortunately, today's PC programs are written in 'C' and do NO self
modifications.
There are always those damn euro demos. 😉
Jim,
It sounds like you're down to that last 5% or something, usually the most
difficult. I hope you're not planning on alot of overhead for a few
percent. Even clones aren't always compatable (better recently, but…).
Robb
That's not as hard as you think, but perhaps the terminology being used
is confusing: "Translating" Intel-to-Moto is what PC-Task does; it sits
there and looks at every line of x86 code coming in and outputs the proper
lines of 68K code, and this is why it's so slow.
SoftPC, however, which Jerry mentioned for the Mac and is also avail-
able for Unix, actually recreates the functionality of the x86 chip in RAM
as a "device file", which is in the literal sense a "translator" but in a
run-time sense is the actual Intel chip, with all the necessary registers,
pipelines, instruction processors, and so on. Provided the proper kind of
memory-chips (some sort of EEPROM, I would guess) are installed on the
Emplant, there is no logical reason why anything up to a 486 can't be
directly re-created as a "process" (the Pentium's speed would be hard to
duplicate, but not its instruction-set).
Remember: 80×86's are stupid chips, which have been kept stupid because
of the need for "backwards compatibility" with the 8088 (which is where
the original instruction-set comes from); however, historically they were
always cheaper than the memory-chips it would have taken to emulate them
(which is why C= and other built Bridgeboards).
Mr. C (Amiga: Muerte O Suerte?)