Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Self-modifying code
Message-ID: <1988Jul28.173620.7325@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <1988Jul22.164129.5495@utzoo.uucp> <4912@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <1988Jul26.024039.28579@utzoo.uucp> <4929@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 88 17:36:20 GMT

In article <4929@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) writes:
>>More generally, I will repeat -- more explicitly -- something I pointed
>>out before:  the fair comparison is not to the same system without BitBlt
>>hardware, but to a system where the same effort and funding (custom chips
>>are *not* cheap to design) have been invested in making the main CPU faster
>>instead.
>
>... To go faster, they would have
>needed a faster 68000. Which in 1985 would have probably added $200 to
>the cost of the machine (after going through two levels of markups).

Which, I would guess, is the same order of magnitude as the cost added
by the custom chips, after the same markups.

>Blit, which, I understand, had 1 megabyte of memory and a price tag of
>$10,000).

Wrong twice.  I don't think even the 5620 cost that much, and the biggest
one had half a meg.
-- 
MSDOS is not dead, it just     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
smells that way.               | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu