Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!rose!ccplumb
From: ccplumb@rose.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Different Architectures?
Message-ID: <19092@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Date: 8 Dec 89 08:06:03 GMT
References: <4413@ur-cc.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu
Reply-To: ccplumb@rose.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 22

In article <4413@ur-cc.UUCP> jea@cvs.rochester.edu (Joanne Albano) writes:
>Can someone tell me if there is any validity
>in the statement that the 1000 has a different
>architecture than the 500/2000?

Not that I know of, and numerous interviews with Jay Miner, who should
be an expert on the subject, say that there's no significant difference.
The A2000 has built-in slots and the A500 is cheaper, and both can use
the new chip sets, but nothing significant.  This is why I still have
my A1000.

>We found a program called Designasaurus that
>was explicitly marked for the 500/2000 and wondered
>to the sales rep of the store why was that. He replied
>that the 1000 had a different architecture. Could someone
>explain this since the program was a childs clip and paste, and draw
>type program and involved no hardware.

Unless it required 1 Meg chip, I can't see any reason.
The sales rep doesn't know what he's talking about.
-- 
	-Colin