Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!xanth!mcnc!ecsgate!ecsvax!urjlew
From: urjlew@uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Additional CPUs (was: A rough future for the Amiga???)
Message-ID: <1990Apr11.203028.29696@uncecs.edu>
Date: 11 Apr 90 20:30:28 GMT
References: <16192@snow-white.udel.EDU> <1990Apr8.013940.12984@wam.umd.edu> <19594@grebyn.com>
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Lines: 17



I find it just a little ironic that CC= used the Z80 on the A2900,
while Apple used a 6502 in the MAC fx. If you know some history
you will remeber that the 6502 was created and manufactured by a
C= owned company MOS, and whoever manufactures it probably still
has to pay royalties to MOS, i.e. C=. Meanwhile the Z80 belongs
to ZILOG, iif ZILOG still exists?,.
So why did C= decide not to use one of its own chips, and Apple
a competitor decided to use a C= chip :-), :-)?
  
Really I think that the idea of using seperate intelligences,
computers, for subsidiary cooperating functions such as i/o
would be a very good thing. Perhaps then you could have really
concurrent i/o , a la the big boys. These could be addons on
controller boards. They would be controlles by seperate programs
(see IBM channel control programs, or blitter control programs)