Quote:
Coming from low level neuroscience I am considering to switch to a group working on mental movement representation and embodyment. It is something embedded into a interdisciplinary institute (CITEC Bielefeld), but that particular group I am considering belongs to the faculty of psychology and sports. So, don't worry I'll probably not ending up on the couch (at least not because of *that*)...

Quote:

I think Amiga has already done this to everyone here already (yeah, incl me :), or not?

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:55 ]

> some (see Wikipedia) even think the e5500 to actually be what was announced as e700 in
> 2004. But taking into account how Freescale's presentations suddenly changed from the
> e700 being based on e600 to being based on e500 shortly after Apple's mid 2005 switch
> announcement we can assume that the e5500 actually is what has been on the roadmap
> as "e700" since mid 2005, but not what had been on there as "e700" before, i.e. from
> April 2004 to mid 2005.

Answer from Preet Virk, strategic marketing director for Freescale's Networking Processor Division:

"The e5500 is [...] unrelated to a previously mentioned e700 family"
http://blogs.freescale.com/2010/06/23/what%e2%80%99s-up-with-64-bit-embedded-computing/#comment-292

But then, he had not been with Freescale before April 2009. So maybe he just doesn't know?

http://www.linkedin.com/in/preetvirk

Quote:

Your amigan spirit made you think we were still in the nineties... TVs now have DVI inputs.

But yes, I love that idea. I doubt many people will plug a netbook to a TV, but it's a feature that might give it an edge over the rest. What if we add a DVB decoder, and make it also a portable TV? What antenna would it need?

(Sesesh, I'm taking about adding features to a non-existing product)

Quote:

That's a very funny (and insightful) comment. Aren't there websites devoted to people arguing the merits of adding features to non-existent products?

Amigans disunited!

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:08 ]

> I spoke to the principle, not to these distinctions

It's not my fault if you use terms that actually do not represent your thoughts. I can't read your mind. So if you write about a "chip" then I assume you actually mean a chip. Make sure you say what you mean, else communication just cannot work. And if you don't know the proper terms then read up on them beforehand (Internet makes that part easy). It's really not that hard to grasp the concept of what a computer chip is, I think.
If you mean the "principle", as you say, then use the term "hardware". That's rather generic. A chip is a special kind of hardware, as is a core, which usually is part of a chip.

> The principle is wider

Your text mentioned a chip. That's what I referred to. It may be that you *thought* of the wider principle, i.e. hardware in general, but I can not read your thoughts.

> I spoke generally and informally.

I didn't know that the term "chip" does generally and informally describe the wider concept of hardware. I thought it's more the other way round (i.e. you can generally say "hardware" and refer to for instance a chip or a core, but you can't say "chip" and refer to other hardware than a chip).

> I don't "try to turn into" anything.

After I questioned your "chip" use you claimed you "spoke to the general idea of making use of (note: not necessarily "adding," esp. where already present) dedicated video hardware". But that's actually not what you *spoke* (= wrote) of, but rather what you may have *thought* of. That's a difference.

> Actually video is a narrower concept than graphics, so those
> words are as much narrower as wider.

Huh? I was never about "video" vs. "graphics" but about "hardware" vs. "chip". You can use for instance "video card" and "graphics card" synonymously (at least that's my understanding from reading native English speakers here and elsewhere) but you cannot use the term "graphics chip" and actually include it to mean a graphics core which is inside a SoC (which itself *is* the chip actually). (But you can use "graphics hardware" and mean for instance a graphics card, a graphics chip or a graphics core.)

> you really thought I meant that adding a second PowerVR to the
> 5121e board would boost its performance. Yes or no?

I didn't know what you *meant*. I just read what you *wrote*. And I tend to assume that one writes what he means. So the answer to your question is: Yes, I assumed that by "chip" you really meant a chip.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 06:58 ]

> I think the problem is with your perception not my expressing myself.

I think it's the opposite.

> Strangely enough, no-one else but you seemed to acquire from those
> clearly general words that I advocated putting a second PowerVR on a 5121e.

Huh? I didn't acquire that you "advocated putting a second PowerVR on a 5121e" (how should that even be done?) but that you advocated putting a second PowerVR on a board with an MPC5121e, i.e. in addition to the MPC5121e. Seems you never stop confusing boards and chips *sigh*

> you say yes, you really thought that was what I meant, eh?

Yes.

> Can we get a straight answer from you, Mr. Precision?

Of course. I'm known for giving straight answers all the time. As well as I like to get straight answers to my questions.

> That's honestly what you thought I meant?

Again: yes.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:09 ]

And now you realize that your fight was about a misunderstanding? You can't do that to all of us, we're all serios here!

Take both a rest, pick bigger and not discharged weapons, and then come back for the fight!

Quote:
Even this should be avoided if possible.
Video card and graphics card used to reference two very different types of hardware, specially in an amiga context where video was an important point. Too bad I can't remember the name of any video card which existed in the past :)

Nowaday, video card's hardware is probably nearly always part of a graphic card though...

Maybe just call them GPUs or GPU Cards

No, video/graphics cards are basically the same thing. And if Andreas seemed relentless about this "misunderstanding" its because it was based on a misstatement (or at least a poorly worded statement) that Velcro wouldn't acknowledge.

Then again, this thread has gotten really stretched out over a single beleaguered point.

> I guess you honestly thought I meant that too.

Yes. That's why you wrote it, isn't it?

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 06:59 ]

Can we let this inane nonsense go now?

Thanks

Probably not, but you could lock the thread. That would be the first time I've seen that occur on these forums.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 06:56 ]

> I will use the term 5121e to refer to the board

Seems like you're trying to invent your own fantasy terminology then. That way proper communication is moribund. What term will you use to refer to the chip? And how will you express yourself when talking about the chip and the board in one sentence or paragraph?

> I don't necessarily type out the full nomenclature

The difference between a chip and a board has little to do with nomenclature. It's a fundamental *technical* difference.

> As far as I'm aware, you're the only one who
> seems to struggle with comprehending this.

"Seems" is the keyword here. While I can't speak for others I know that not objecting to something doesn't equal understanding it.

> you could lock the thread. That would be the first time I've seen that occur
> on these forums.

When Genesi and some MorphOS Team members had a public go at each other in a thread some years ago (December 2004 IIRC) server problems suddenly appeared that resulted in deletion of a bunch of threads with said thread among them. Probably just bad timing ;-)

> they don't even say "adding"

Huh? How should there possibly be a "dedicated graphics chip" if not by adding it?

> or "5121e" in there.

That's why I asked you several times already: And now you say that inbetween, i.e. in the 3rd paragraph, you didn't mean to include the MPC5121e when mentioning "slow, low-wattage processor"? Yes or no?
As far as I'm aware you haven't answered that question yet.

@ Velcro
No, I've owned multiple TV tuner cards, but I've never thought of them as video cards. And, since I've been building computers since before we had dedicated video cards (and you had to use terminals) I don't know anyone else that would make that mistake.
You might as well argue that a video input card is as a video card, but its not.
And, while I threw out that one statement with a sense of amusement over how drawn out this has been, you could have concluded this childish back and forth bickering long ago.
Your statement was a clearly wrong as Andreas pointed out. If it was a misstatement and you meant something else, why not just say so?

Exceptionally hard headed attitudes have keep us focused on a minor point about hardware most of us gave up on a while ago.

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/7/29 2:17 ]

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:57 ]