Nasta wrote:
>You are right, i should have been more precise, the QXL WAS the closest
>hardware
And NOW it is the Q40/Q60, isn't it? ;-)
>When it finally materialized (somehwere around the time the Aurora
>became available) I already had plans to do a SGC successor because
>it was clear Miracle was pulling out of the QL market.
You must have had a lot of insider knowlegde about Miracles policies.
After I announced the Q40, Miracle came up with a new competitive
announcement in QL Today. Back then, I took the announcement seriously,
but from what you say, Miracle had already pulled out.
>>The 68040 doesn't just compete, it clearly outperforms the 5102. It's a
>>pity that you have cancelled the GoldFire. I would have enjoyed to see the
>>Q40 win the benchmarks ;-)
>
>Yes, though the difference would not be that spectacular.
Agreed, except for FPU stuff like Povray or other C programs.
>[details about history snipped]
>Using a 68EC060, as I said in the original mail, presents a few challenges.
Which is, in other words, a new concept and new design work.
Are you sure that the users who waited for the announced GoldFire wouldn't
prefer a *finished* Coldfire 5102 design to the new challenges of a 68EC060
design?
(After all your price for the Coldfire 5102 chip was still cheap.)
>[details about DRAM interface and multiprocessing snipped]
If I was in your shoes, I would think twice before I spend my time with
multiprocessing and the best DRAM interface for it. If the design and the
operating software development is finished someday, there will be other and
faster semiconductors anyway.
But that's just my own approach, and I really don't want to push you into
the same direction. As you said, thinking about a design is part of the
fun, and the more practical things about time and realization you burden
upon yourself, the less fun it might be.
>The PCB was designed that way, it has distinct areas that can be
>re-designed as needed.
Doesn't that cost siginificant board space and routing flexibility?
>... but if you are in a situation where you can't actualy make
>it (for whatever reason) - such as the situation I have - exercising the
>paper in order to prepare the best design when it can eventually be made
>into reality, is the only thing that remains.
This doesn't sound very good. My best wishes that your personal situation
may become better! Have you ever considered to let your SGC successor plans
rest, and concentrate your design efforts on smaller projects which do not
cost so much time and money?
For example if you design an ethernet card for the QL/Aurora, forces on the
software side could be joined with the Q40/Q60. Or if you build a QL
soundcard, we could re-use and extend the drivers from Q40/Q60. Or... Or...
there could be a lot of ideas.
All the best
Peter
