| [News] Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 | ANN.lu |
| Posted on 18-Jul-2004 12:20 GMT by Jens Schönfeld | 469 comments
View flat
View list |
During the first months of this year, we were totally surprised by the overwhelming demand for Catweasel MK3. All stock has been sold, and even our retail partners do not have anything left in stock. The demand was so high that one controller even went for more than 150,- EUR on eBay!
Unfortunately, it turned out that a new production run of the existing MK3-design cannot be done for reasonable prices, so a re-design became necessary. The new controller is now in the first stage before mass production, so we're confident to be able to show the first controllers at the Amiwest show on july 24th and 25th in Sacramento, Califoria.
Many improvements have been made compared to the Catweasel MK3 that can be summarized under the headline "bigger, better, faster".
The changes in detail
The most obvious change is the size of the card: With only 2.5 inch (63.5mm) height, it complies with the low-profile PCI standard that not only fits into any normal computer case, but also in flat models that are so famous among so-called "case-modders". The Flipper-interface will not be continued. Those who need a Catweasel for their classic Amiga can use the Catweasel Z-II S-Class, which is still availble.
Improvements on the floppy controller
Kylwalda built in
While the old Catweasel models always had their own floppy drives that were installed in addition to the existing controller and drives, the MK4 has the option of using the existing diskdrives. After the machine has started, th drives can be used just like before, and after the drivers have been loaded, the Catweasel can take control of these drives when necessary. This is especially useful for smaller cases with fewer drive bays.
We already addressed this problem earlier with an additional product called 'Kylwalda'.
Suppot for auto-eject drives
These drives without eject-button are well-known from Macintosh computers, and they're now fully supported by the Catweasel. You can also mix floppy types, one with an eject-button, and another from the Macintosh world on the same cable.
Hard-sectored disks supported
This kind of 5.25 and 8 inch disks were already readable with the previous Catweasel models, but writing was only possible with a high software effort, and it required a realtime operating system. This effort is not necessary any more with the new controller, because new options allow complete support of these disk types in hardware.
dual-ported memory
Contrary to it's predecessors, the new Catweasel MK4 can pass the data that it is currently reading from a disk to the computer while the read access is running. This allows realtime emulation, and errorfree function of copy-protected software on emulators.
more flexible read- and write operations
In addition to working on whole tracks, which made all previous Catweasel models so flexible, tracks can now also be accesed in part very precisely. Should this become necessary for compatibility or speed reasons, the Catweasel MK4 is perfectly prepared.
extensive timer-functions
Although most operating systems already offer timer-functions in software, you cannot always rely on them. The most recent example are the timing-problems that occur with Hyperthreading-processors and Windows operating systems. Since all timers are running independantly in the hardware of the Catweasel MK4, nothing can go wrong in this regard.
all events can trigger an interrupt (IRQ)
Together with the hardware-timer functions, this is the best solution for multitasking operating systems. The driver software does not have to check regularly if the controller needs attention, which reduces the processor load.
Improvements on the keyboard interface
In addition to Amiga-keyboards, PS/2 devices can now also be connected. Not only keyboards, but also PS/2 mice are supported. The keyboard controller can now trigger IRQs, and for those customers who want to continue using their favourite combination of PS/2 mouse and keyboard on USB-only computers, the Catweasel MK4 has two connectors of this kind.
Improvements on the joystick ports
Amiga mice supported in hardware
Amiga mice only have minimal electronics that always pass the movements of the device to the computer in realtime. Classic Amiga computers have hardware-support for interpretation of these signals in the chipset, and this support has now been added to the Catweasel. Theoretically, using Amiga mice was already possible with the Catweasel MK3, but this required a software effort that was not justifiable. With the new hardware, the software effort is reduced to a minimum.
every signal can be programmed as output
The digital joystick ports of the 8-bit computers of the 80s were mostly usable in two directions, they were not only inputs, but also programmable as data outputs. We're following this tradition, and also present this possibility for the Catweasel MK4.
compatible with CD32 pads
The game controllers of the Amiga CD32 can now also be used on the Catweasel. A special capability of the classic Amigas (and therefore also of the CD32) made these pads exclusive for this computer, if connected to other computers, not all buttons of the pad could be used. Technically speaking: Even the potentiometer-pins of the digital joystick ports can be programmed as outputs on the Catweasel MK4.
Improvements on the SID audio part
DC-DC converter eliminates noise
On the Catweasel MK3, it was possible that noises from 3D-graphics cards or high-speed harddrives were coupled into the 12V-power supply of the SID audio part. This cannot happen any more on the Catweasel MK4, because a DC-DC converter is an insuperable obstacle for such noises.
cycle-exact control
In addition to the known programming that's compatible with the Catweasel MK3, the MK4 has a sophisticated script-language for SID control. This lets the programmer define the exact time for data that's being written into the SID chips. To make sample playback sound exactly like on a real C64, the data rate to the SID chip must be kept at a constant rate. This is accomplished with Fifo memory that's big enough to maintain the datarate even under high processor load conditions.
Digiboost for new SID versions
As opposed to the 'classic SID' 6581, the newer SID-chips 8580 and 6582 cannot playback samples any more. This option, which is also called 'the fourth voice', is replaced by two sigma-delta converters on the Catweasel MK4, so the fourth channel is also audible with the newer SID versions. Since the filter properties and the sound of mixed waveforms of all SID versions have their supporters, this should make the decision for the right chip a little easier.
Filter capacitors selectable
Commodore has defined three different capacitor values for the filters of the SIDs during the years that this chip has been produced. The result was that the same chip sounded differently if used in different computers. To bring the sound as close as possible to what you are used to, the filter capacitors can be chosen with a few jumpers.
precise clocking
The Catweasel MK3 used the commodore-chip 8701 to recreate the exact same clock. Since our stock of this chip is empty with the Catweasel MK3 being sold out, we have cloned it on the main logic chip of the Catweasel MK4: The exact base frequency is generated with crystals that have been made especially for us. By division and multiplication according to the specifications of the C64 schematics from 1982, we managed to replace the 8701, which is not made any more. Even the slight difference between PAL and NTSC computers is software-selectable!
two SIDs for stereo sound
You'll have twice the SID pleaseure after installing a second SID chip. Every SID has it's own selection of filter capacitors, and SIDs of all versions can be mixed.
Technology improvements
compatible with 3.3V and 5V PCI slots
Even though PC boards with 3.3V PCI slots are not yet widely available, the Catweasel is prepared for it. The roadmap of the PCI special interst group plans to abandon 5V PCI slots within forseeable time, and the Catweasel is perfectly suited for that date. Local generation of the 3.3V power also ensures proper function on early PCI motherboards that do not comply with the ATX standard.
two DMA interfaces
In addition to processor-based data transfer, the Catweasel MK4 can excahnge data with the main system through two low-speed DMA channels: The first goes throught he PCI slot, and it has a capacity of about 8K per second and direction. The second uses the direct connection to the onboard-floppy controller, and the speed is up to 100K per second.
low power consumption
The Catweasel MK4 makes use of the latest FPGA technology with 2.5V core voltage. This reduces the power consumption of the new controller to a fraction of what the Catweasel MK3 used. This also reduces heat generation a lot.
re-configurable logic
The FPGA on the Catweasel MK4 is completely re-configurable by the drivers. This means that a hardware update can be done through the internet! Should we find a disk format that cannot be handled with the current hardware, the core of the Catweasel can be 're-wired' to address the problem. The controller doesn't even have to be taken out of the computer for ths update!
drivers for many operating systems
The Catweasel MK4 is delivered with drivers for Windows 98(se)/ME/XP/2000, Amiga OS4, and for Mac OS X at a later date. MorphOS drivers are available for a surcharge.
The Catweasel MK4 will be available starting october 2004.
The target retail price is 99,- EUR.
|
|
| List of all comments to this article |
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 446 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Stefan Burström on 22-Jul-2004 16:39 GMT | In reply to Comment 438 (Johan Rönnblom):
>However, this really seems to me like you're chickening out, as the
>Pegasos 2 is obviously quite similar to the Pegasos 1, and it would
Why should I need to chicken out?
>have to take a *very* good estimate of the Pegasos 1 production cost
>to make it a bad guess for the Pegasos 2 production cost.
For a start, this discussion started years ago with other component
prices than today. So let's say we were able to show a 10 USD
profit on each Pegasos 2 board sold today, would that say anything
about the profit of the Pegasos 1, 1.5 year ago???
>As for Genesi funding bPlan, it really has no bearing on whether
>boards would be subsidised or not. Regardless how many gazillion
>dollars bPlan may have received from Genesi, it still wouldn't make
>sense for bPlan to sell boards below production cost.
No really? Get more boards out to attract developers? How many
boards were sold or given out to developers? Wouldn't you say
the free boards were subsidised? An easy way to build a market
is to make sure enough people are using your products. When the
volume go up in the end, your manufacturing price drops and you
make a profit. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up
with that business plan.
>What? As I visited Thendic France just before the first Pegasos were
>shipped, this makes no sense. Pegasos boards have been supplied while
>Thendic France existed, and after they went bankrupt, but not before
>they appeared. But maybe you're referring to the bankruptcy? Strange
>then, because I believe most Pegasos boards have been supplied after
>that bankruptcy, and certainly after Thendic effectively ceased to be
>a factor during late fall 2003.
We were talking about Pegasos 1 wern't we? Dunno, but afaik, that board
wasn't produced or shipped at all during late fall 2003. So there goes
your 'Pegasoes were shipping after the bankruptcy' theory. And just
because Pegasos boards were shipped before Thendic France possibly
could start finance bPlan doesn't mean that bPlan had other resources
that could finance their actions.
> However I have seen certain Genesi representatives here. See the
> difference?
>Yes, dr Kouri has invested in AInc, but he has not, at least not under
>his own name, taken part in on-line discussions about it. And this is
>relevant for exactly what?
You dragged him into the discussion where I used the word symbiosis.
And as I tried to explain, I have never seen or heard of him so I
found it hard to believe he would be selling Amiga Incs products.
Genesi otoh has been doing that quite frequently, here among other
places. Hence the word 'symbiosis'.
> If you had been more carefull with your reading you would have
> notcied that one of the estimates was spot on if you include the
> margins I gave.
>Which one, the $100 estimate or, eh, the $100 estimate?
You said 2 estimates were wrong, and I assumed that you meant the
board size and # of layers. The other number is just a product of
the 2. If you wern't, I am sorry, but you have been using 'you were
wrong' and other statements when it comes to # of layers in the PCB.
>Now you're saying that this estimate was for a six layer board, which
>is interesting considering how your main assumption was obviously 8
>layers before. But go ahead, make your claims. When you have made a
My main assumption??? I said 6-8 layers and said 'Let say 6 then' when
you gave me the correct number.
>claim that, if true, would show that the Pegasos 1 was subsidised, we
>can start to look a little closer at it. At the moment you don't have
>any such claim except "I find it hard to believe", ie you're
>just guessing.
Yep, I am just guessing, but contrary to you I am doing my guessing
based on calculations rather than ideological convictions.
>Why should I? You're the one trying to show that the BOM for the
>Pegasos 1 would be too high, not I.
Well, if you did know it, how come you were so quick to refer to only
63 sq inch, when in fact you'd know you were lying (ie. in case you
did think about it)
Besides, what is your main motivation here? Pointing out flaws in my
reasoning or defending bPlan at all cost? If it isn't the former,
then wouldn't it be alot more constructive to try to reach the
truth as closely as possible?
> Now you really owe me an appology, because here is the qoute:
> (I had to put 2 messages back together since you so conveniently
> left out the important parts)
>You mean you had to forge the quote because I never said what you just
>claimed that I said. Because I "conveniently" left out the irrelevant
>parts.
Seriously, that is a quite grave accusation you are making. Care to back
it up? How come posting 2 messages after each other is forging, but
leaving out relevant parts is not???
For anyone that reads your qouting of me will believe that I insist
on the board beeing 8 layers. You know why? Becuase you took an
old quote saying layer 7-8, took away the part where I acknowledged
you that it is probably 6 layers and wrote "You made a guess, but you
were wrong" Excuse me for putting everything back into context.
I actually had to look back 4 messages, because I couldn't believe
how stupid I sounded. Until I realized that you had left out the
important part!
> Johan Rönnblom did not answer this with:
>> Stefan Burström wrote
>>> Johan Rönnblom wrote:
>>>> Stefan Burström wrote:
>>>>> 6 or 8 layers I'd guess.
>>>> Six, I think it has been stated, at least not more.
>>> Ok, say 6 then.
>>>>> Microvias between layer 1-2 and 7-8 to be able to route the
>>>>> BGA's.
>>>> There's no layer 7-8..
>>> Duh! You don't understand how funny you are! If you have microvias
>>> between
>> No. There is no layer 7-8, period.
Johan Rönnblom *really* replied to:
> Stefan Burström:
>> Duh! You don't understand how funny you are!
> No. There is no layer 7-8, period.
Yep, but you so conviniently left out the part where I acknowledged that
6 layers were probably used and made it look like I was still insisting
on 8 layers. Where I was explaning I meant the outermost layer. But
you removed that part too. You also removed the important part where
I said I looked up the prices for a 6 layers board.
>What you're doing here is that first you say that the board may have
>6-8 layers, but then you rapidly go on to assume that it has the more
>expensive 8 layers after all. This gets rather funny when you place
No, I never assumed anything about 8 expensive layers, I was just
pointing out that in the outermost layers (layer 1-2 and 7-8 of an
8 layer PCB and layer 1-2 and 5-6 of an 6 layer PCB) would likely
contain microvias. How come you removed the "Ok, say 6 then" Line?
The expensive part is the micro via layer, not the actual # of the
layer it goes through.
>the microvias in thin air, which probably means nothing to me as you'd
>say "I really meant between the outermost layers", but to any outside
>observer it illustrates quite clearly how you go on with your
No, seriosly, to any outside observer who knows anything about PCB's
it is very clear what I mean.
>speculation much further than your knowledge about the Pegasos 1
>allows you to do. If you *really* wanted to do a low estimate, you
>would have assumed it had 6 layers. But that's not what you wanted,
>obviously.
How many times do I have to say that the prices I did check was for
a 6 layer board???????
>> Unless you want to claim that the "basics of PCB design" somehow
>> dictate that no 6-layered 63sqin PCB can ever be produced below a
>> cost of $300, it doesn't help.
> I never said that the PCB alone would cost more than $300. But hey,
> I am getting used of you misqouting me.
>what I claim above, and still do, is that all your "PCB design basics"
>argumentation does *nothing* to support your case.
Well, it is a good starting point for the cost of the PCB, but hey
anything that is a cost is wrong your eyes, right? For every thing
I have brought up you will find a way to say I am wrong without
checking any facts.
>And btw, it's spelt "quote", not "qoute". And you're not allowed to
>quote people by cutting and pasting together different messages making
>it seem like people made different statements than they really did.
Seriously. Correcting spelling errors like that isn't likely to make
you more credible.
>So obviously you're looking at the wrong place right away, as this
>doesn't give you any low estimate at all.
It gave me a starting point as good as any. But sure, I am always looking
at the wrong place, making the wrong assumption etc. according to you
since it is in your nature to brush off anything that can be even
remotely critical to your rather emotional point of view!
Come on, you're claiming that the Pegasos 1 can't have been made cheap
enough to be sold at the price it had. Now, can you just for a second
>imagine that you might be wrong, here. Is that possible for you, or
>are you really just Samface in disguise? Ok, let's assume you can. Now
If I am samface in disguise, I guess you would be Eva run through a
spellchecker then :-)
>how would it be possible, then? Well, obviously one reason could be
>that bPlan somehow managed to source their parts very cheaply. Then,
>obviously, they would not buy them from Digi-key. So again, you have a
To source parts cheaply, it requires you to order large quantities and
accept long lead times. Neither of that is something you do during
a prototype run. There is a tradeoff between getting the parts
cheap and getting the result in time (result == getting to know if
the board works or not)
>high estimate, which is not very useful, as Digi-key probably have
>huge margins on at least some of their products, as they seem to base
Bla bla bla. Well whatever I come up with is wrong in your eyes so
why do I even care arguing with you?
>their market on being able to supply a few components quickly, in
>cases where it really doesn't matter to most customers if they cost
>two dollars or twenty cents.
Yup, which is what you do when you do prototype runs. Otherwise you
spend far too much time and money looking for components that you
wont be able to buy anyway.
> My guess whas that the PCB's alone would be around 100USD which is
> a claim that I still stand by.
>Ok, and divided upon the three PCB's, how would these 100USD be
>distributed roughly? I'm asking because there's no use showing how the
>main board could be made for $50 if you could just claim that "yeah,
>but it would still be $100 in total".
Roughly according to their relative sizes. Their complexity and buildup
are most likely similar.
>Anyway, until you've reached those $300 we agreed upon, you don't even
>have an argument here. It's more like, you give an estimate of one of
>the most expensive parts, then you wave your hands and imply that
>the total will reach some unspecified sum.
I didn't even intend to go that far, esp since I cannot find any historic
prices of the SB or NB used. I started this as a nice exercise
for people to think about when they are discussing the costs of a Pegasos
board.
>How could I "understand" when all you're offering are guesses and "I
>find it hard to believe"s? If you want to show that the Pegasos 1 was
Well, for a start to understand that when I say 'Ok, lets say 6 then'
it actually means that I have accepted your suggestion. Instead you kept
mumbling about other things ending up accusing me from forging your posts.
>too expensive to produce, you'll have to back this up. You chose to do
>it by going into the BOM. Fair enough. But when you're unable to
>even estimate a BOM that proves your point, you're chickening out it
>seems.
As I said, I am not chickening out at all. I never inteded this discussion
to go this far. I expected people to use my numbers as a starting point
if they wanted to dig further.
Stefan Burström wrote:
> AdmVOrlOn wrote:
>> You are aware that the person you are arguing with has taken the
>> Genesi shilling previously? And has a record of arguing in their
>> favour no matter what facts, realities or occurances take place?
> No really? I even tried to point that out to him, but he didn't
> understand why.
>Given that I've never taken a single cent from Genesi, it is a little
>hard to understand. And even if I had, you don't get more ad hominem
>than this. Well I think you just lost this argument for good.
Sorry, I missunderstood what he meant by that. I thought he meant
stod up for genesi and arguing in their favor. Sorry, I was tired when
I wrote it. HOWEVER, if you had read further on, you might have seen
that I corrected AdmV when I said that you wasn't among the group of
Genesi workers/Genesi ex-worker. But as usual, you are removing parts
of my text and quouting the rest as if it was the only thing I said.
>Forging my quotes, lying about me, going into personal attacks when
>you don't "want" (can't?) support your theory with facts. How nice!
Forging your quotes and lying about you??? This was over the top. Really!
Care to tell my what quote I have forged. And where I have lied about
you? If I have misconceptions about you, then it is your own fault
because it is you who are displaying the image of yourself that I
among others have seen. If my preception is wrong, then by all means
forgive me. But do remember that you are at fault for that yourself
and you shouldn't run around and telling that I am lying about you
just because I have seen you behave like you do here! |
|
| List of all comments to this article (continued) |
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|
