🚀 go-pugleaf

[In the message entitled "Re: ETH532 ???" on Nov 24, 12:47, Rick Rodman writes:]
> 
> Here's my 2 cents:
> 
> One place I would like to see a second CPU would be on a graphics board.
> Ideally this would be a simple board with a CG16 and the RGP chipset.  Les
> Wilson at National can give a simple schematic for an X-terminal coprocessor
> board.  I would be more than happy :-D to assist with the serious (ahem)
> software development.

ARRRGGGHHHH!!!!! You've got to be kidding right!! The RGP and the CG16 would
be the worst choice I could ever see anyone making for a graphics unit.  The
RGP is DEAD - no longer supported - at it's best is was a DOG and very
poorly supported. Have you ever looked at the RGP performance? The cg16 is
nearly a dog also, a 68k is similar for most things and even faster on data
manipulation at the same clock speed. The address calculation time kills the
cg16 - nice architecture but not enough silicon in the right places. It is
1980 technology, a better choice would be one of the newer riscs etc, even
the new Intel 960SA. If we are playing with hardware for hobby/instruction
which is what the pc532 is meant to be about, then let's try and use silicon
that is at least nearly state of the art.

HA, a simple X-terminal with the cg16  - tell me about it. Just take the
schematic and replace the cpu with any other - it will be just as 'simple'.
The cg16 has some bitblt stuff etc but this doesn't make it a graphics
chip. Again a 960SA and a C&T VGA chip etc, would be a better choice in
terms of simplicity in the hardware.

Well, lots of things to do, but currently no time to do it. We need more
hardware folk out there to take a design through to completion and fab
boards. How about it?

Right, got that off my chest! Now that I'm awake I can get back to some
software (gad's the programmer's union will be after me) I'm doing...

Regarding the complexity of the et532, I agree it has a lot of stuff on it -
but then it was designed for a purpose which wasn't to be cheap and low end
etc. If someone does a simple ethernet board I would suggest using something
that can move data to/from the SCSI at a reasonable rate - at least
3Mbytes/sec.

Anyhow best regards,

-- 
George Scolaro
george@wombat.bungi.com                [37 20 51 N / 122 03 07 W]