Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!grebyn!ckp
From: ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: RISC Amiga
Keywords: well there's going to be a RISC Mac!!
Message-ID: <22930@grebyn.com>
Date: 31 Oct 90 05:35:53 GMT
References: <1156@iceman.jcu.oz> <1990Oct30.173846.6928@idt.unit.no>
Reply-To: ckp@grebyn.UUCP (Checkpoint Technologies)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing, Vienna, VA, USA
Lines: 20

In article <1990Oct30.173846.6928@idt.unit.no> daglem@solan.unit.no (Dag Lem) writes:
>We don't want a RISC amiga! Software compatibility? Are you joking?
>If you want speed, opt for a 68040. It may do fewer MIPS than RISCS,
>but that's NOT the way to compare 68040 with RISCS (or any other
>processor, for that matter).  The 68000 series can perform rather
>complex operations with one instruction. Most RISCS do virtually
>nothing with one instruction. Guess you've been reading too many
>ads stating '..running at xx MIPS! Compare this to ..' :-)

Uh, (trying to be gentle) the RISC speed debates are over; RISC is
faster.  Whether this is because of hard-core RISC principles, or
that present-day CPU chip designers simply know their jobs very well
and their marketing staff jumped on a RISC marketing bandwagon, is
irrelevant.  (I tend to think it's the latter, considering how fast the
68040 is.) People can tell when they run their applications.
-- 
First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T  T E C H N O L O G I E S      / /  
                                                                    \\ / /    
Then, the disclaimer:  All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \  / o
Now for the witty part:    I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam!             \/