|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:52 ]

> A board where the chip is already there perhaps.

And how did it go into the board design if not by adding it?

> any slow wattage processor is included and any specialized graphics hardware

...which you called "chip".

> Yes, of course this includes the 5121e

Fine. That's what I assumed.

> it doesn't equal the advocacy of the absurd result of double PowerVRs, which
> is what you were saying.

If you have a PowerVR core inside the MPC5121e on a board and have a "dedicated graphics chip" in the form of a PowerVR on that same board then this makes two PowerVR cores on that board in total. Simple maths.

> I still can't get data out of Applied Micro on the APM 83290 SoC

Over there on the Bunny minator claims:

"AMCC cancelled Titan"
http://moobunny.dreamhosters.com/cgi/mbmessage.pl/amiga/174889.shtml

Do you think that could be true? I'm not sure if to trust someone who says that the e500 is a G3 though ;-)

No Applied Micro's not about to give up on Titan. Its the only really powerful core they've got (compared to other company's high end offerings).

BTW - I'm not butting into this one again because the entire group of postings is painfully stupid. I would have taken the use of the term 'chip' to mean an additional discrete component too.

Besides if Velcro think you need me to help you, he doesn't know you very well.

I don't have to state who's right and who's wrong and the only thing that's asinine about the whole situation is how often you've had to restate the basic point that the comment was poorly worded and misleading (if he meant something else).

Quote:
See there for so called video cards (plus some others like the Peggy):
http://www.amiga-hardware.com/showcat.cgi?CATID=17

Specially the OpalVision and the AVideo24 are good exemples.

[ Edited by Henes on 2010/7/29 15:05 ]

OK, I'm open to the idea of sticking with the term graphics cards rather than just a generic term like video card (at least while dealing with Amigans).
The last thing I want is another drawn out argument over a minor point.
Is graphics card acceptable, or is the fact that that listing mentions "Graphics and Video cards" going to be a sticking point?

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:48 ]

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:47 ]

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:45 ]

>> And how did it go into the board design if not by adding it?

> I don't know, you tell me.

Of course, I will: A chip simply *cannot* go onto a board without someone adding it.

> This has nothing to do with anything

That's how you want to make it look now. Seems you already forgot, but you told: "they don't even say "adding". That's clearly what I referred to when asking how a board could have your "dedicated graphics chip" without someone adding it. And because it's not possible to have a chip on a board without someone adding it before it becomes obvious that you stating that your words "don't even say "adding"" is a dummy argument.

> but then that's typical for you.

It's typical for you to forget what you had said yourself.

> The fact that I said chip doesn't mean I suggested putting a redundant
> PowerVR chip on a 5121e

You can't put a chip on an MPC5121e, which is a chip itself. In case you are using your fantasy terminology again and really meant a "board with an MPC5121e": How can you possibly have a "dedicated graphics chip" on a board with an MPC5121e and *not* end up having two graphics cores on that board?

>Your comments haven't raised its IQ any.>

I am, in no way, concerned about your opinion of my intelligence.

>I'm aware that chip is a discrete object. This fake point about "chip" and "hardware" is just red herring #26. The fact that I said chip doesn't mean I suggested putting a redundant PowerVR chip on a 5121e anymore than it means I suggested to put one on a fuel-injection system in a Chevy Volt.>

I had to edit this as I must admit that I'm not sure I understand your point. We weren't discussing engine management systems, we were discussing a board you insist on identifying by its CPU. Further, we were discussing whether or not your posting suggest adding a graphics chip to that board.

>I didn't say I thought he needed help, I said evidently you think that and evidently that's correct because you're still jumping in there like his loyal echo. Jim, you ought to take off your "AnDreaZ R0xx0rs" t-shirt for a few minutes and start thinking for yourself.>

Actually, I'd pledged no to involve myself in this any farther. It had become painfully drawn out on all parts. But as you choose to make this personal, I feel compelled to respond.

With over 30 years of experience in the computer field, I've learned the hard way who to trust and who not to trust. Who to have respect for and who to disregard. Who to take advice and criticism from and who was making pointless, self centered negative comments.

I'll keep the pro Andreas tee shirt and maybe add one for Zylesea and several other on this (and other) Amiga forums. And I'd add one for my former employer, electrical engineer Ed Gressick (deceased former owner of Delmar Co.) who long ago made me realize that while it was important to listen to others, that it was equally important to consider what they have say and then make up your own mind.

I'm pretty selective about who I truly take seriously. So far, your arguments haven't lead me to include you in this group. [

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/7/30 19:43 ]

Quote:

You can't put a chip on an MPC5121e...

I don't know, I must be stupid. That makes sense no matter how often you have to say, so...

What scares me is the point about video cards. I just got beaten up over this to the point where I've acquiesced to calling these graphics cards (as if any nimrod is going to mistake a TV tuner card as a video card). So, I actually agree with him on this point.

"There's a fine line between stupid and clever." -- St. Hubbins

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 19.04.2011 - 15:35 ]

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:06 ]

> I'm thinking I'll put it in my signature block.

Don't forget to add that in the paragraph before and the one after you were referring to MPC5121e based platforms specifically.

Frankly, I was waiting to see how you would respond.
The long delay signifying more than you'd be willing to admit.
You could use one paragraph (taken out of a group) as a signature block, but its content would be no less obtuse than most of what you've posted.
I believe signature blocks are usually used to relay content that is thought provoking or clever. Most of what you've had to say is neither.

And I'll stop posting my background information as, again, I'm not worried about your opinion on such matters.

Your misstatement was completely clear. I will not post that content because its been done repeatedly and you fail to acknowledge it.
Therefore, giving additional points you can analyze and then comment on merely allows you to dismiss your own mistakes and focus on what you perceive as the flaws in those that you think of as adversaries.

Regardless of my personal history, I can read and understand English. Even when its poorly worded.

Instead of adding the previously mentioned paragraph as a signature block, why not just add chip? Or you could switch to using that as your ID. Or we could just consider it your unofficial "nickname".

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:04 ]

> both of those surrounding paragraphs refer specifically not only to 5121e-based
> platforms but to non-5121e-based platforms: above to Limebooks (which includes
> X86 models, remember?)

Let's see:

"I'd like to see where the software has gone with the Linkbook and LimePC models. All I have to go on is an original Cherrypa1 with an 18-months-old OS that I haven't been able to update."

The Linkbook, which is a relabeled LimeBook Z9, is MPC5121e based. And while there're indeed x86 based LimePC models, your statement was about "where the software has gone" with them when we just before (see what you responded to with that posting) discussed the (lacking) driver support for both the PowerVR and the AXE core of the MPC5121e. None of the x86 based LimePC models have AXE or PowerVR. In fact, AXE is to date nowhere else than inside the MPC5121e and MPC5123, and the Atom based LimeBook Z10 has Intel GMA 950 graphics. So I conclude: This paragraph is solely about MPC5121e based hardware.

> and below to ACube PPC computers.

Let's see:

"I don't mean to zero in on the 5121e as the only thing, but really even given the uncertainty it seems much more established to me than this other low-wattage, small stuff. I like the ACube computers too, but they are somewhat larger and higher wattage."

Here you are mentioning ACube as a side note, yes. But your main point is clearly about the MPC5121e being superior over other solutions, which are (in your opinion) either not established enough or not small and low wattage enough.

> those paragraphs would seem to indicate that I spoke broadly

To me they indicate being focused on the MPC5121e and systems based on that very SoC.

> I don't think you linked it right.

I think I did.

> Why don't you just quote it completely here?

Done.

> Let the readers decide from that.

Of course. It's all about transparency.

> All without fresh commentary from you or me.

Huh? Of course I do comment these paragraphs to prove that you subsequently try to mispresent their contents. After all, commenting them is what you just did yourself.

> I'll leave it alone after that unless you start at it again.

Starting exactly *what* again? Answering your postings that are directed at me?

> I'm not going to respond to the stuff you said in the couple of posts before this

Yes, that's quite obvious.

> For the record I disagree with it.

For your record I see that you ran out of arguments :-)

|||



[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 06:54 ]

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 06:53 ]

> I asked Andreas to give you the straight quotes so you could read them

Which I did.

> without him (or me!) telling you what they mean.

You *did* tell what you subsequently are trying to present as their meaning. I quote your own words from your posting I just responded to:

"both of those surrounding paragraphs refer specifically not only to 5121e-based platforms but to non-5121e-based platforms: above to Limebooks (which includes X86 models, remember?) and below to ACube PPC computers."

So when you yourself do that why should I not be allowed to do the same? Double standard?

> instead he wrote you

Wrong, to *you*, Velcro_SP. It's really just you I'm talking to when responding to your postings.

> a short story to explain them

I just proved that you mispresent what you actually wrote in those paragraphs. By commenting them I don't keep anyone from reading them like I quoted them in full (as you wished) and making up their own mind. I think you're underestimating the discernment of others by far.
And why should I quote what you wrote without commenting it when I even linked to it just before? If that doesn't satisfy you then it's up to *you* to quote your own words without commenting them in any way.

> to you.

Wrong, to *you*, Velcro_SP. It's really just you I'm talking to when responding to your postings.

> I disagree with everything he said.

I didn't expect anything else.

> The part where he says I "subsequently tried to misrepresent" is untrue.

I think the part where I say this is nothing but the truth. And I think I proved it.

Quote:

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 06:48 ]

Ok, so someone needs to work on their issues, not sure this is the place for that.