[Coco] [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] CoCoRX

[Steve Batson]

I'm sooooo confused now...LOL

On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:13 PM, Zippster <zippster278 at gmail.com> wrote:

> The FPGA isn’t pretending to be something else, but you are configuring it to emulate something it isn't, but can be.
> Something it’s designed to be able to be but not without being configured as something it’s not…  Wait…  uhh never mind...
> 
> Semantics  :D
> 
> Hard to draw a line with the programmable devices, as they are both hardware and software when configured to do anything,
> and need both parts to function at all.  Whatever they are, I’m liking them more all the time.  :)
> The learning curve is steep, but I can see why they have become so dominant.
> 
> - Ed
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 10:52 PM, Steve Batson <steve at batsonphotography.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Based on the definition of an FPGA, I think it's safe to call it hardware and not an emulator. It's not pretending to be something it's not, it's "Configured" programmatically to operate a certain way just as you would lay out a circuit board or wire a breadboard to connect chips for the desired result. Instead of rewiring or changing connections to logic chips, you are setting up those connections through software. :)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> A field-programmable gate array (FPGA) is an integrated circuit designed to be configured by a customer or a designer after manufacturing.
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 8:31 PM, Zippster <zippster278 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I guess my first instinct is to consider the FPGA based system as hardware emulation of other hardware.
>>> 
>>> But there is another way to look at it.  As different, but compatible hardware (probably the most accurate).
>>> Just as the GIME is compatible with (or does it emulate?) circuitry in the earlier CoCos.
>>> 
>>> - Ed
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:14 PM, Steve Batson <steve at batsonphotography.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I consider it hardware if it's got hardware ports and connectors. I haven't seen the CoCoFPGA, so I don't know what it has on it. From my limited understanding of FPGAs, you are programming it to provide hardware functionality through it's internal circuits, what type of gates and other circuits it can be configured to do. So, do I consider it a real CoCo, of course not. Do I consider it real hardware, yes. I don't see it as an emulator in the sense of VCC or the other emulators. It's programable, it's emulating circuits in a sense, but doesn't really do it the same as a software emulator. 
>>>> 
>>>> All that said, I'm not an expert at this stuff, but it seems that if the CoCoFPGA has a cartridge port, that a diagnostic cartridge would probably at least try to work. :)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 6:59 PM, Robert Gault <robert.gault at att.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Steve Batson wrote:
>>>>>> I can see the value of this for real hardware, and it does seem tricky. I'm not the person to be able to provide suggestions for it's design.  Since this is a Diagnostic tool for the hardware, not sure why there would be a concern for use with an emulator. I can certainly see the value of testing emulator features with several features that have been discussed. If this is to be a cartridge, unless it can all be done in software on the CoCo, how would it even be used with an emulator?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, you consider an FPGA a real Coco and not an emulator? :)
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Coco mailing list
>>> Coco at maltedmedia.com
>>> https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Coco mailing list
>> Coco at maltedmedia.com
>> https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> 
> 
> -- 
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco