PS2 emulation leaves a lot to be desired in terms of accuracy and authenticity, and current original hardware backup solutions are not ideal or extremely cumbersome, including caveats like relying on homebrew software which alters the memory layout of games as they run, leading to inaccuracies and broken games, and needing to have multiple copies of backup loading software on your console, as some loaders will work with some games, but not with others. It's a right mess. Some solutions, such as MechaPwn, are more transparent, allowing you to burn so-called "master discs" of your game backups to DVD-R. As far as I can tell, compatibility is 100%, but if I recall correctly, this only works on specific models of console, and the process of burning a master disc can be unintuitive and relies on specific, deprecated, commercial DVD burning software.
From what I can tell, this opens the door to things like optical drive emulators, which replace the disc laser with an SD card slot, allowing the console to read game disc images no differently than the console would read a retail game.
There is also a recent fork by github user janisc which is developing a direct 31khz output.
--
Speaking to general : To be clear, none of these MiSTer cores include the Voodoo graphics portion discussed in the parent link.
I doubt that the degree of sheer hyper-optimisation required to get a Voodoo (plus the Pentium to make it meaningful!) into a DE10-Nano necessarily exists. Never-say-never, sure, but also, just-no - hahaha.
That work is for higher specced boards like the Xilinx discussed.
I imagine it would...I haven't tried the core, but most of them maintain the original outputs over the VGA port. Even if, for some bizarre reason it didn't, you could just enable the vga_scaler and force it.
IE6 itself rarely broke. It was usually malware abusing all the extension functionality that broke IE6.
The non-standard browser runtime was a massive pain for anyone working in tech, but when it came to the implementation quality of that non-standard browser runtime, IE6 wasn't all that bad for the user.
It was insecure as hell, of course, but so were all browsers at the time. Focusing on quality was a bit easier when complex security considerations weren't really necessary.
IE6's quality problems were: not conforming to standards (that didn't exist in the time of IE1!) and having too many toolbars installed, which is not IE's problem.
I say same about p(doom): Only makes sense in a time interval, otherwise you have to ask how people categorise a hypothetical AI which fails to overcome the heat death of the universe.
(When I say mine is 0.1, this is "in my lifetime as it would be in the absence of not-yet-invented life-extending interventions"; there is a higher risk to me from a nuclear exchange).
> Consumers in the PC segment expect high performance across a wide range of applications
It seems there is a persistent rift between what hardware designers think users want and what users are asking for, only recently being addressed by major OEMs with products such as the MacBook Neo.
Nobody I personally know wants a faster CPU; they want competent, faster, native feeling software and more power efficient hardware. CPUs have been plenty fast for at least a decade now, for anything the majority of users and even gamers are doing. I'm playing through the new and notoriously demanding LEGO Batman game on an RTX 2080 and an i7-4790k, a CPU from 2013 that even the base M1 easily beats. The game runs fine. Most people I am confident do not need better than the M1.
I think you underestimate how intensive it is to scroll LinkedIn in Edge while a YouTube video, Outlook, Adobe's updaters, antivirus, device management, and whatever incidental malware the user has picked up run in the background. That's the reality for a lot of people.
I was under the impression that race-to-idle made "fast" a significant factor in "power efficient"? Obviously needs software to not be terrible and needs to be able to scale the back down, but still.
That may be true at iso-voltage/frequency, but there are definitely places on that curve where it is better to be at a lower voltage (and thus frequency) than to run at a higher voltage just so you can race to idle.
> It seems there is a persistent rift between what hardware designers think users want and what users are asking for
> Nobody I personally know wants a faster CPU; they want competent, faster, native feeling software and more power efficient hardware.
I think you miss the point: what you claim that users want is not something that hardware designers have a lot of influence on (except for the aspect that the IC should be (more) power-efficient): these are rather problems that software developers are there to solve. So, hardware designers are simply the wrong persons to ask if you have such wishes.
That’s right, but power efficiency is an important factor, one of the main points where Intel is lagging behind ARM. And it’s also correct to point out that the main issue for end users is software, even if hardware designers can’t do much about it.
AMD and even Intel have reasonable to good performance / watt for most of the curve... But they do let you explore the top side of the curve where you get a little more performance for a lot more power. This is mostly because of how Intel and AMD compete directly and high end performance looks good in reviews.
Few (if any) ARM processors let you do that.
In many (most?) Intel/AMD systems, you can limit the maximum power delivered to the CPU and get good efficiency and most of the possible perfomance.
MacBook Neo certainly does not address my needs with a 8 GB and 512 SSD for 900 euros.
Additionally people shipping Electron crap also don't address my needs at all, everything that is Web based I already have an installed browser for it.
From what I can tell, this opens the door to things like optical drive emulators, which replace the disc laser with an SD card slot, allowing the console to read game disc images no differently than the console would read a retail game.
reply