Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!mcnc!ecsgate!ecsvax!urjlew From: urjlew@uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware Subject: Re: Amiga Custom Chips - why hasn't C= made them faster? Message-ID: <1991Apr4.225710.8184@uncecs.edu> Date: 4 Apr 91 22:57:10 GMT References: <6456@amiga.UUCP> Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service Lines: 20 In article <6456@amiga.UUCP>, jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) writes: > > C= gets pretty good bang for its buck from the Engineering team, esp. > if you consider how much effort is spent on interim band-aids, > such as the A2024 monitor, the Amber circuit, and the "Productivity mode" > of ECS Denise (which also ate up a considerable amount of system > software resources to support...). > I completely fail to follow your reasoning here. How can the return on investment be good if it is being spent on a bad (poor) overall design? Perhaps the individual detail engineers are good, but if the high level design engineers specify a RUBE GOLDBERG or otherwise inappropriate design, then no amount of clever circuit design will overcome that. The original AMIGA was conceived as a game machine and converted into a home computer before birth. It is now trying to be evolved into a conventional multipurpose computer. Because of its very unique and innovative original design, and its stormy and difficult gestation it suffers from many deformities that are holding back normal growth and evolution.