From: ericj@hwcae.Honeywell.COM (Eric Jacobsen)
Subject: Re: A3000 local bus
Organization: Honeywell, Air Transport Division; Phoenix, AZ
	<ERICJ.92Sep11094228@manila.cfsat.Honeywell.COM>
	<35100@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:11:21 GMT

In-reply-to: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com's message of 14 Sep 92 17:14:36 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: A3000 local bus
	<ERICJ.92Sep11094228@manila.cfsat.Honeywell.COM>
	<35100@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Distribution: 

In article <35100@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:

   In article <ERICJ.92Sep11094228@manila.cfsat.Honeywell.COM> ericj@hwcae.Honeywell.COM (Eric Jacobsen) writes:

   >I am continually amazed at C='s decisions to continue putting 68000 cpus in 
   >new machines (A600, A2500, etc., etc.)

   The A2500 came out in 1988, that's hardly a new machine.  And, while it did
   have a 68000 fallback CPU, the main processor was a 14.3MHz 68020.  In 1989, 
   that was upgraded to a 25MHz 68030.

   The A600 is a low end machine.  As long as the OS will run on a 68000 and
   the 68000 is noticably cheaper than a 68020, it makes sense to build cheaper
   and cheaper 68000 machines.  Plenty of people will buy a $200 computer who
   wouldn't buy a $500 or $1000 computer -- that's one reason we sold 3 million 
   C128s before we sold half a million Amigas.  If Motorola builds a 32-bit 680x0 
   that makes sense to the low end folks, I'm sure they'll use it instead of the
   68000.

You're missing my point, which was just that Amiga buyers don't have a lot of choices
for a native mother-board CPU, and we never have (didn't at all until the 3000 came
out). It would be nice to be able to buy a mid-range machine with an 020 or something.
Right now we can get a 68k (far too slow for many applications), or an 020/030 on an
add-on card which is not much cheaper than an A3000, which is more than a lot of people
want to pay for some decent processing horsepower.

   >*Nobody* makes PCs with 8086s anymore, 

   I'm sure HP and nearly every other "Palmtop" computer maker would take issue
   with that.

We could start the usual semantic war about what's a PC, what's a workstation, what's
a palmtop, etc. Obviously I wasn't thinking of palmtops when comparing Amiga alternatives,
but now that you bring it up it may be appropriate.

   >and there are *very* few 80286 machines being made anymore. 

   I'm sure Tandy and most of the other "home PClone" makers would find that
   kind of funny, too.

Consider the difference between *very* few and none. These guys are the very few
I was talking about. 

   Sure, older processors eventually yield to newer ones,
   but just because the hottest thing on the block is based on [X]XX4XX[X] or
   whatever, don't assume there's no use for the older systems.

I don't. I own an A1000.

...stuff deleted...

   >(Are there even any Macs with 68ks anymore?)

   I don't know, but they do make 16-bit systems with '030s in them, which are
   only marginally faster than 68000 systems as the same clock speed.  

But faster nonetheless, and also benefitting from the other advantages of an 030,
(MMU, etc.). The other point is the "at the same clock speed". If we can't get
a better low end CPU, can we at least have run that runs faster than 7.14MHz? I
realize the connection with the video timing, but realize that the rest of the
world has been incrementally increasing processing horsepower, even in low end
machines, and we still have the same 68k hobbling along at 7MHz.

   -- 
   Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
      {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      BIX: hazy
	   "Work like a horse, drink like a fish"	- Psychefunkapus


In article <35100@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: