I would prefer a 68xxx based solution as I am a retro hardware fan... But a FPGA is close enough :-)
What kind of price are we talking here... I know that I would buy anything that gives me faster speed than a superGoldCard and that is $300 or less. I have no interest in an emulated solution. I like hardware. François Le 2011-03-11 à 17:38, Dave Park <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hi all, > > So here's the state of play in designing new QL replacements... > > Peter Graf is bogged down with some issues on his board. It has a decent > spec but it doesn't currently "work" in a meaningful sense. He has various > obstacles (working alone) that mean his design will be delayed or not > released. > > So, for that reason, I'm looking at the resources we have available, the > skills people on the list have, and seeing if we can have a serious, > focused, yet public discussion about an alternate project. I have no desire > to "compete" with Peter Graf. However, it is always prudent to have a > back-up plan that doesn't rely on someone who has been working on his > project for several years with no new product to show... > > I shall outline basic choices which will go far to define the machine's > spec, capabilities and expandability: > > CPU: > > The choice here is between three things: > > A genuine 680X0: > + compatibility, already designed > - availability and price > > An emulated 680X0 in FPGA form: > + highly configurable, offers single chip solution, 68k VHDL sources in > public domain, very low cost > - heavier design load, harder to debug. > > Software emulation: > + Already here/done, highly reconfigurable, no hardware skills needed > - Intel hardware too big for just a QL - needs to do other things too - > expensive. > > Specification: > > What clock speed is needed to be useful? 25 MHz? 40 MHz? > What screen resolution? It's generally agreed that basic mode 4/8 is > insufficient so GD2 support seems to be a basic requirement. VGA seems to be > a minimum and DVI seems desirable. > What storage? We only need a gig or two - it seems SDHC is a future-proof, > low cost, low power, low design-cost standard many could get behind. > > I had a fork in the road moment when discussing emulation on ARM embedded > boards vs. emulating the 68k in an FPGA. Right now, honestly, the FPGA wins > and will continue to do so for a few more years (unless the perfect ARM > board can be bought off the shelf)... > > I'd like to support Peter in his efforts, but make sure that there's an > alternative in place should he trip... > > Besides people I am already aware of, this seems to be something constrained > by our skills... > > There's a complete functioning 68000 FPGA core open-licensed here: > http://opencores.org/project,ao68000 which is used for Amigas and Ataris so > seems eminently suitable... Knowing someone who can do further FPGA design > to add the video/etc we need is a crunch point. (This is basically what > Peter's doing, except I understand he designed his 68000 from scratch and > that's where he's stuck) > > There seem to be a lot of people willing to work to get SMSQ/E running on > anything if it's compatible enough - this is great and it would be smart to > include SMSQ/E on any platform because it's the de facto standard. Minerva > is in second place, and original QDOS isn't really in the running... > > If someone can make an FPGA happen, I can make PCBs happen, then someone can > make the OS happen, then we have a computer. > > Of course, you could always decide that QPCII or Q-emuLator would replace > that - they will always be faster :) However, this small project may have > wider applications too, and it would be nice to see something happen. > > Dave > _______________________________________________ > QL-Users Mailing List > http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm > _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
