Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!olivea!mintaka!geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu!rjc From: rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: The Amiga's Future Message-ID: <1991Jun18.021837.10276@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> Date: 18 Jun 91 02:18:37 GMT References: <1991Jun15.112510.17324@news.iastate.edu> <1991Jun15.121453.5511@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <22516@cbmvax.commodore.com> Sender: news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu Organization: The Internet Lines: 31 In article <22516@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>A 32-bit chipset wouldn't work on the A500 which is Commodore's bread and >>butter of the Amiga line. > >A 32 bit Amiga chipset could live on a 16 bit machine just as easily as the >current 16 bit chipset lives on the 32 bit A3000. No big deal, technically. Let me clarify what I meant. As far as I know, no A500 shipped has 32-bit addressing on the motherboard. Unless I'm totally clueless here, you can't make a 100% 32-bit chipset that will simply plug&play in existing A500s. Sure you could always release a 32-bit chipset daughterboard which has it's own onboard 32-bit chipram, but anything that drives up the price of A500 significantly isn't going to do so well. I'm all for a 32-bit chipset, but not in the Amiga500. If C= wants to do a 32-bit chipset, they should release it in unison with RTG on a new "line" of Amiga's. (AmigaII 2000, AmigaII 3000, or simply make up a fancy lettering scheme."A2000 FX") BTW, If C= does do a 32-bit chipset, they should add in another co-processor like a cheap RISC processor or an ARM. >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M. -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /