Executor 2.0/executorv2.0.iso/pc/dos/extra/docs/maillist/text/archive.96/text0299.txt

Text File | 1996-07-25 | 9.3 KB | 233 lines

PK
P.S., pine says I should "^G Get Help" do you agree?


From owner-paper Thu Feb  1 13:29:13 1996
Return-Path: <owner-paper>
Received: by ftp.ardi.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #3)
    id m0ti5ct-0007qJa; Thu, 1 Feb 96 13:29 MST
Sender: owner-paper
Received: from nacm.com by ftp.ardi.com with smtp
    (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0ti5cB-0007qHC; Thu, 1 Feb 96 13:28 MST
Received: from kitsune.swcp.com (swcp.com [198.59.115.2]) by nacm.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA14492 for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 12:26:50 -0800
Received: from ftp.ardi.com ([e-mail] [204.134.8.1]) by kitsune.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA24730; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 13:26:28 -0700
Received: from gwar.ardi.com by ftp.ardi.com with bsmtp
    (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0ti5ba-0007qHC; Thu, 1 Feb 96 13:27 MST
Received: from beaut.ardi.com by gwar.ardi.com with smtp
    (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0ti5XQ-000GXNC; Thu, 1 Feb 96 13:23 MST
Received: by beaut.ardi.com (linux Smail3.1.29.1 #3)
    id m0ti5XQ-00027SC; Thu, 1 Feb 96 13:23 MST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 96 13:23 MST
From: [e-mail] (Clifford T. Matthews)
To: Fred Salerno <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 1.99q Stuffit Error
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk

>>>>> "Fred" == Fred Salerno <[e-mail]> writes:

    Fred> When running Stuffit Expander under 1.99q, the icons in the
    Fred> preferences are missing.

    Fred> The writing is there, but theres no icons in the left scroll
    Fred> box.

Thanks.  It's PR#1660.

--Cliff
[e-mail]

From owner-paper Thu Feb  1 17:14:15 1996
Return-Path: <owner-paper>
Received: by ftp.ardi.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #3)
    id m0ti98k-0007qKa; Thu, 1 Feb 96 17:14 MST
Sender: owner-paper
Received: from ardi.com by ftp.ardi.com
    (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0ti986-0007qJn; Thu, 1 Feb 96 17:13 MST
Path: sloth.swcp.com!news.dgsys.com!en.com!wariat.org!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!slider.bme.ri.ccf.org!kira.cc.uakron.edu!neoucom.edu!news.ysu.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.eng.convex.com!newsrelay.netins.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!pendragon!ames!waikato!auckland.ac.nz!news
From: John de Bruin <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.mac.executor
Subject: 68040 clock doubling
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 00:12:51 +1200
Organization: University of Auckland
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: j.bruin.slip.auckland.ac.nz
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b6a (Win95; I)
To: [e-mail]
X-MailNews-Gateway: From newsgroup comp.emulators.mac.executor
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk

I was reading in here about Motorola erroneously saying some of its 040
chips run at 80MHz when their true speed is 40MHz and ditto 33/66 MHz
systems etc.

Why is this different from clock doubling as in the 486DX/2 CPU?

I understand that most 68040s have two clock signals a PCLK and a BCLK,
the BCLK runs at 1/2 the speed of the PCLK.

And the BCLK is used for all bus timing, whereas the PCLK is used for
internal processor logic timing.

Now as far as I can tell the only difference between this and the DX/2,
is that the DX/2 only has one clock and uses a clock 2x multiplier to
derive the internal processor speed. Why do the two clocks on the '040
_not_ have the same effect as clock doubling?

Can the two run out of sync for instance?

Bye...

From owner-paper Thu Feb  1 18:14:23 1996
Return-Path: <owner-paper>
Received: by ftp.ardi.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #3)
    id m0tiA4j-0007qOa; Thu, 1 Feb 96 18:14 MST
Sender: owner-paper
Received: from ardi.com by ftp.ardi.com
    (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0tiA3w-0007qJn; Thu, 1 Feb 96 18:13 MST
Path: sloth.swcp.com!usenet
From: Clifford T. Matthews <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.mac.executor
Subject: Re: 68040 clock doubling
Date: 01 Feb 1996 17:24:50 -0700
Organization: ARDI
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.ardi.com
In-reply-to: John de Bruin's message of Thu, 01 Feb 1996 00:12:51 +1200
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.0
To: [e-mail]
X-MailNews-Gateway: From newsgroup comp.emulators.mac.executor
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk

>>>>> "John" == John de Bruin <[e-mail]> writes:
In article <[e-mail]> John de Bruin <[e-mail]> writes:


    John> I was reading in here about Motorola erroneously saying some
    John> of its 040 chips run at 80MHz when their true speed is 40MHz
    John> and ditto 33/66 MHz systems etc.

News propogation is funny.  I haven't seen anyone claim that Motorola
has erroneously said anything, but just because I haven't seen it
doesn't mean it wasn't said.  However, I said something similar, so
I'm going to clarify what I said.  Here's my original statement:

       "It's a little tricky, since some people call what you, I and
    Motorola call a 40 MHz CPU a 80 MHz CPU and to them, a 33 MHz
    becomes a 66 MHz CPU.  At ARDI, we never use the inflated
    numbers (even though it makes us look better), but when we say
    25 MHz 68040, some people will think we're talking about a
    theoretical 12.5 MHz CPU.  Argh."

So my claim is that Motorola, myself and the person I was replying to
(Eric Bennett) would call the CPU that is in a Quadra 610 a 25 MHz
CPU.  Eric's terminology was clear from his letter, I'm familiar with
my own terminology and I derived Motorola's terminology from page 12-1
of MC68040UM/AD "MC68040 32-bit microprocessor manual" (c) 1989.
Specifically, page 12-1 says:

"The following table provides ordering information pertaining to the
package type frequency, temperature and Motorola order number for the
MC68040.

Package Type    Frequency    Temperature    Order Number
          (MHz)

Pin Grid Array    25.0        TBD        MC68040R25
R Suffix"

    John> Why is this different from clock doubling as in the 486DX/2
    John> CPU?

It is different because Motorola chose to call their original mc68040
CPU a 25 MHz CPU.  I personally wouldn't care if they had chosen to
call it a 50 MHz CPU, in fact, it would make our own product look more
impressive, since we could say that a 75 MHz DX4 can run some Mac
programs as quickly as a 50 MHz 68040.  Heck, let them call it a 500
MHz part and we'd then be able to say that a 75 MHz DX4 can run some
Mac programs as quickly as a 500 MHz 68040.  However, it was
Motorola's choice, and I can understand their desire to call it what
they did.

    John> I understand that most 68040s have two clock signals a PCLK
    John> and a BCLK, the BCLK runs at 1/2 the speed of the PCLK.

    John> And the BCLK is used for all bus timing, whereas the PCLK is
    John> used for internal processor logic timing.

    John> Now as far as I can tell the only difference between this
    John> and the DX/2, is that the DX/2 only has one clock and uses a
    John> clock 2x multiplier to derive the internal processor
    John> speed. Why do the two clocks on the '040 _not_ have the same
    John> effect as clock doubling?

I understand your point.  If you read my original claim in context you
will see that my gripe is that when you have two different standards
for what N MHz means *for the same chip*, then things get confusing.
We choose to use the original meaning for two reasons:

    a 25 MHz 68040 is roughly comparable to a 25 MHz 80486

    we'd rather err on the side of people thinking Executor is
    slower than it is and be pleasantly surprised than to use
    the inflated number and have people be disappointed

    John> Can the two run out of sync for instance?

    John> Bye...

--Cliff
[e-mail]

From owner-paper Thu Feb  1 18:14:46 1996
Return-Path: <owner-paper>
Received: by ftp.ardi.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #3)
    id m0tiA56-0007qJa; Thu, 1 Feb 96 18:14 MST
Sender: owner-paper
Received: from ardi.com by ftp.ardi.com
    (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0tiA41-0007qMn; Thu, 1 Feb 96 18:13 MST
Path: sloth.swcp.com!tesuque.cs.sandia.gov!ferrari.mst6.lanl.gov!newshost.lanl.gov!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!news.nic.surfnet.nl!highway.leidenuniv.nl!usenet
From: [e-mail] (Mark J.P. Vergeer)
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.mac.executor
Subject: Re: Using Mac CD-ROMs
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 22:32:02 GMT
Organization: Leiden University, The Netherlands
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4em6eb$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4e74j9$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rulhcz.leidenuniv.nl
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
To: [e-mail]
X-MailNews-Gateway: From newsgroup comp.emulators.mac.executor
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk

Hi there,

>I think you need a SCSI CD-ROM drive to look at/use Mac CD-ROMs.
I was able to recognize dual format pc/mac formatted cd-roms
with 1.99o I believe. But with 1.99p or Q this was not possible.
This while I have the same panasonic 652b cd-rom drive connected to my
soundblaster.
Greetz.

Drs Mark J.P. Vergeer - medical student at Leiden University
e-mail [e-mail]
Thorbeckehof 51a 2343 DN  Oegstgeest The Netherlands
Phone [phone]