Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!cbmvax!daveh From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Amiga Competitiveness. Message-ID: <14824@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 2 Oct 90 23:50:36 GMT References: <31531@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <60335@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <1990Oct1.054151.6983@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA Lines: 32 In article <1990Oct1.054151.6983@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >I don't see the dying need for a 68020 box; that architecture is already >starting to show liver spots. I love my 2000, the 7500 hours I have spent >at it over 18 months have been lots of fun, but it is time to move up to >today's hardware speeds in a familiar container. Well, as a Technoid type myself, I agree that YOU and I have no need for a 68020 box. I've been using 68030 systems for over 2.5 years now, and I'm already waiting in line for a 68040 based toy. But, by the same token, the 80286 is already dead and the 80386 isn't far behind the 68020 in the pot belly + grey hair area. Yet, those Taiwanese, Tandy, etc. seem to be selling a pile of '286 clones. Even 8088 machines still sell into home markets. So, while a machine at the edge of the envelope tends to be the kind of thing most of us around here hanker for, I think the old-but-fast technology can have a number of healthy years at the low or middle end of the market. Probably more profitable than the high end too. That's all hypothetically speaking. I have not particular interest in designing low end system anymore than I do using them... But I wouldn't mind seeing Commodore sell a zillion or two. >Kent, the man from xanth. > -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Standing on the shoulders of giants leaves me cold -REM