Somewhat off topic, I know, but what does it mean? I'm not really big on databases, so I don't keep track of the names of companies and db lingo... Thanks.
I think it is kind of cool that he does his dev on the system. If you think about it, it is almost a living thing. It changes everyday. Somedays it is sick and doesn't want to work properly. I think it would be silly if he were doing this site as an ecommerce site. However, he isn't (yet...) doing it for money. Now, if he gets some generous offer someday... Maybe he might want to reconsider his development stragedy. Currently though, I can fully understand the reasoning. As long as the site generates a webpage and displays his banner ads, and allows other people to post comments, it works as far as I'm concerned. User comments help him develop the system and iron out bugs. It would be one thing if/. was inaccessible to people for long periods of time. I have yet to see this. I think we owe it to him to thank him for the service he provides, as we nag, scream and yell about the problems we see on our end. He does a good, professional job. Thanks Rob.
Check out my webpage. I have a lot of emulation stuff on there. My personal favorite GameBoy emulator is DBoy. You can find the link in the "emulation" section of my page...
I used to sell RCA dishes for a few years (I have one myself) and have never seen or heard of that problem. RCA's parent company Hughes/Thompson created the technology. In fact, most of the inner components of the Sony are actually labelled "RCA" on them...
"Cool-Creative helped bring PC sound out of the pre-Stone Age-the more the merrier."
Of course, one of Creatives biggest problems *now* is that standard they set years ago limits them today. While other companies have created some really whizz-bang products, we are still stuck to CL's older tech (ala Ensoniq, now owned by them, and the GUS). But, I agree, they did help us climb out of the primordial goo of bad PC sound...
"Companies can talk a big game, but until they really throw their support behind Linux, it is hard to know who to trust. A lot of companies seem to provide half ass support for Linux, while not really making any quality products for it. It is refreshing to see Sony doing this."
Do you know how stupid that sounds? Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, but your comment is embarassing to the Linux community. I mean, just because they use Linux doesn't mean they are behind the "Linux Propaganda Machine". I would be willing to bet that it just gives them a much less "No Fuss" environment to develop, not because they are "Against All That Is Windows". Your comment has a very immature ring to it. It sounds like, "I'm better because I have better toys". Grow up. I'm sure Sony really couldn't give a crap about Linux. They are a huge company, and don't place sides because one is "The Right Thing To Do". They place sides where the money is, and where it makes sense. If developing on Linux makes sense, then that is what they will do.
Sorry if this seems like a flame, it's not. Just an opinion.:)
Correct me if I'm wrong... Wouldn't it be wiser to have FreeBSD as the kernel rather than Linux? I mean, if they wanted to have a BSD based kernel FreeBSD would be the way to go...
I guess it's a moot point though... Since they are using MACH...
I'm surpised radio shack hasn't gone Linux. I used to work there a while ago, and they were using XENIX for their POS sytem. When I finally left, they schanged over to SCO. Seems like Linux would be easier to use, better to support and less costly to implement.... for what it's worth...
anyone have a mirror site up? this site has been/.'d...
Jaguar FAQ By Robert Jung (Last update 3/31/1999)
on
Playstation 2 Specs
·
· Score: 1
Jaguar FAQ By Robert Jung (Last update 3/31/1999)
http://www.classicgaming.com/museum/jaguar.shtml
Q. Was the Jaguar really a 64-bit system?
A. The question is hard to resolve, largely because the definition of what constitutes an "N-bit" system has not been set. Of the five processors in the Jaguar, only the object processor and the blitter are "true" 64-bit components. Because the blitter and the object processor are in the Tom chip, by extension Tom is a 64-bit chip. Furthermore, the Jaguar also used a 64-bit memory architecture, according to Jez San of Argonaut Software.
Some say the Jaguar should be considered a 32-bit system, as that is the maximum register size in the programmable processors (the 68000, the graphics processor, and the DMA sound processor). Others say the Jaguar can be considered a 64-bit system, because 64-bit components are used, and the GPU can access 64 bits of data if required. Again, the lack of an agreed-upon definition serves to complicate the issue.
According to Jaguar designer John Mathieson, "Jaguar has a 64-bit memory interface to get a high bandwidth out of cheap DRAM.... Where the system needs to be 64 bit then it is 64 bit, so the Object Processor, which takes data from DRAM and builds the display is 64 bit; and the blitter, which does all the 3D rendering, screen clearing, and pixel shuffling, is 64 bit. Where the system does not need to be 64 bit, it isn't. There is no point in a 64 bit address space in a games console! 3D calculations and audio processing do not generally use 64-bit numbers, so there would be no advantage to 64 bit processors for this.
"Jaguar has the data shifting power of a 64 bit system, which is what matters for games, so can reasonably be considered a 64 bit system. But that doesn't mean it has to be 64 bits throughout."
For the record, the opinion of most third party developers and observers is that the Jaguar is indeed a 64-bit system. The emphasis is on the word "system"; while not every component is 64 bits, the Jaguar architecture, as a COMPLETE SYSTEM, is.
Q. The Jaguar used a 68000. Isn't that the CPU?
A. Again, quoting from Jaguar designer John Mathieson, "It may be the CPU in the sense that it's the centre of operation, and boot-straps the machine, and starts everything else going; however, it is not the centre of Jaguar's power.... The 68000 is like a manager who does no real work, but tells everybody else what to do."
And...
"Atari were keen to use a 68K family device, and we looked closely at various members. We did actually build a couple of 68030 versions of the early beta developers systems, and for a while were going to use a 68020. However, this turned out too expensive. We also considered the possibility of no [Motorola 680x0 chip] at all. I always felt it was important to have some normal processor, to give developers a warm feeling when they start. The 68K is inexpensive and does that job well. I maintain that it's only there to read the joysticks."
Q. How could a graphics processor be the CPU?
A. The 64-bit custom graphics chip was a good general purpose RISC unit, but it had been optimized for graphics work. Developers were free to specify which processor(s) to use in a program, as desired.
Slashdot Mirror
Somewhat off topic, I know, but what does it mean? I'm not really big on databases, so I don't keep track of the names of companies and db lingo... Thanks.
I think it is kind of cool that he does his dev on the system. If you think about it, it is almost a living thing. It changes everyday. Somedays it is sick and doesn't want to work properly. I think it would be silly if he were doing this site as an ecommerce site. However, he isn't (yet...) doing it for money. Now, if he gets some generous offer someday... Maybe he might want to reconsider his development stragedy. Currently though, I can fully understand the reasoning. As long as the site generates a webpage and displays his banner ads, and allows other people to post comments, it works as far as I'm concerned. User comments help him develop the system and iron out bugs. It would be one thing if /. was inaccessible to people for long periods of time. I have yet to see this. I think we owe it to him to thank him for the service he provides, as we nag, scream and yell about the problems we see on our end. He does a good, professional job. Thanks Rob.
Check out my webpage. I have a lot of emulation stuff on there. My personal favorite GameBoy emulator is DBoy. You can find the link in the "emulation" section of my page...
I used to sell RCA dishes for a few years (I have one myself) and have never seen or heard of that problem. RCA's parent company Hughes/Thompson created the technology. In fact, most of the inner components of the Sony are actually labelled "RCA" on them...
mee tooo :)
blenders are fun. they make stuff better... err batter... okay... not funny...
k
yup
Great job Rob!
ahhh.... but what do we know of pluto? we have only known about it for such a short while...
ahh the good old days!
Or Crystal...
Umm... That's a great David Bowie album... Beyond that... Umm... I dunno.
the "ala" part i meant to stick in front of the "older" part... oops :)
"Cool-Creative helped bring PC sound out of the pre-Stone Age-the more the merrier."
Of course, one of Creatives biggest problems *now* is that standard they set years ago limits them today. While other companies have created some really whizz-bang products, we are still stuck to CL's older tech (ala Ensoniq, now owned by them, and the GUS). But, I agree, they did help us climb out of the primordial goo of bad PC sound...
"Companies can talk a big game, but until they really throw their support behind Linux, it is hard to know who to trust. A lot of companies seem to provide half ass support for Linux, while not really making any quality products for it. It is refreshing to see Sony doing this."
:)
Do you know how stupid that sounds? Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, but your comment is embarassing to the Linux community. I mean, just because they use Linux doesn't mean they are behind the "Linux Propaganda Machine". I would be willing to bet that it just gives them a much less "No Fuss" environment to develop, not because they are "Against All That Is Windows". Your comment has a very immature ring to it. It sounds like, "I'm better because I have better toys". Grow up. I'm sure Sony really couldn't give a crap about Linux. They are a huge company, and don't place sides because one is "The Right Thing To Do". They place sides where the money is, and where it makes sense. If developing on Linux makes sense, then that is what they will do.
Sorry if this seems like a flame, it's not. Just an opinion.
You could run one over with your car and it would still work perfectly. Those were great keyboards. I still have a few of them kicking around...
Yeah, and sign your CPU so that it is BillG's cpu!
Promoting Open Source projects is the issue.
Period.
Correct me if I'm wrong... Wouldn't it be wiser to have FreeBSD as the kernel rather than Linux? I mean, if they wanted to have a BSD based kernel FreeBSD would be the way to go...
I guess it's a moot point though... Since they are using MACH...
I'm surpised radio shack hasn't gone Linux. I used to work there a while ago, and they were using XENIX for their POS sytem. When I finally left, they schanged over to SCO. Seems like Linux would be easier to use, better to support and less costly to implement.... for what it's worth...
disagreement? isn't that a basis of conversation? if everyone agreed with each other the world would be pretty boring...
(coffee tawk) no big woop...
Damn hippy! Go hug a tree! Save a whale!
hehe
J/K
anyone have a mirror site up? this site has been /.'d...
Jaguar FAQ By Robert Jung (Last update 3/31/1999)
l
... Where the system
... The 68000 is like a manager who does no real work, but tells
http://www.classicgaming.com/museum/jaguar.shtm
Q. Was the Jaguar really a 64-bit system?
A. The question is hard to resolve, largely because the definition of what
constitutes an "N-bit" system has not been set. Of the five processors in
the Jaguar, only the object processor and the blitter are "true" 64-bit
components. Because the blitter and the object processor are in the Tom
chip, by extension Tom is a 64-bit chip. Furthermore, the Jaguar also used
a 64-bit memory architecture, according to Jez San of Argonaut Software.
Some say the Jaguar should be considered a 32-bit system, as that is the
maximum register size in the programmable processors (the 68000, the
graphics processor, and the DMA sound processor). Others say the Jaguar
can be considered a 64-bit system, because 64-bit components are used, and
the GPU can access 64 bits of data if required. Again, the lack of an
agreed-upon definition serves to complicate the issue.
According to Jaguar designer John Mathieson, "Jaguar has a 64-bit memory
interface to get a high bandwidth out of cheap DRAM.
needs to be 64 bit then it is 64 bit, so the Object Processor, which takes
data from DRAM and builds the display is 64 bit; and the blitter, which
does all the 3D rendering, screen clearing, and pixel shuffling, is 64 bit.
Where the system does not need to be 64 bit, it isn't. There is no point
in a 64 bit address space in a games console! 3D calculations and audio
processing do not generally use 64-bit numbers, so there would be no
advantage to 64 bit processors for this.
"Jaguar has the data shifting power of a 64 bit system, which is what
matters for games, so can reasonably be considered a 64 bit system. But
that doesn't mean it has to be 64 bits throughout."
For the record, the opinion of most third party developers and observers
is that the Jaguar is indeed a 64-bit system. The emphasis is on the word
"system"; while not every component is 64 bits, the Jaguar architecture, as
a COMPLETE SYSTEM, is.
Q. The Jaguar used a 68000. Isn't that the CPU?
A. Again, quoting from Jaguar designer John Mathieson, "It may be the CPU in
the sense that it's the centre of operation, and boot-straps the machine,
and starts everything else going; however, it is not the centre of Jaguar's
power.
everybody else what to do."
And...
"Atari were keen to use a 68K family device, and we looked closely at
various members. We did actually build a couple of 68030 versions of the
early beta developers systems, and for a while were going to use a 68020.
However, this turned out too expensive. We also considered the possibility
of no [Motorola 680x0 chip] at all. I always felt it was important to have
some normal processor, to give developers a warm feeling when they start.
The 68K is inexpensive and does that job well. I maintain that it's only
there to read the joysticks."
Q. How could a graphics processor be the CPU?
A. The 64-bit custom graphics chip was a good general purpose RISC unit, but
it had been optimized for graphics work. Developers were free to specify
which processor(s) to use in a program, as desired.