Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!usc!apple!agate!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!navas
From: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Amiga 3500/4000?
Message-ID: <27467@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 4 Sep 90 17:54:28 GMT
References: <6212@hub.ucsb.edu> <1990Sep4.134613.11940@cbnewsc.att.com>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU
Lines: 22


In article <1990Sep4.134613.11940@cbnewsc.att.com> dalka@cbnewsc.att.com (kenneth.j.dalka) writes:
>This is pure speculation on my part but.....
>I was reading an article that said that the 68040 was a single chip
>that contained both the Math coprocessor and the "regular" processor
>in one unit. Because of this, the 68040 actually costs less to make
>and will probably cost less to buy from motorola that a 68030 and the
>matching math chip. 

I'm sure that in the short run, this will not be true.

>The rest is a marketing decision.

Speaking of marketing decisions, how about a slew of better naming conventions?
The numbering scheme is getting slightly awkward...  For example, for that new
24 bit color machine, with hi-res monochrome display capability (for that
programmer in us all...) how about the Amiga Ranger  :)

Just my opinion.

David Navas                                   navas@sim.berkeley.edu
"Excuse my ignorance, but I've been run over by my train of thought."  -me