Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Self-modifying code
Message-ID: <4398@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 1 Aug 88 23:44:44 GMT
References: <1988Jul22.164129.5495@utzoo.uucp> <4912@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <1988Jul26.024039.28579@utzoo.uucp> <4929@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <1988Jul28.173620.7325@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 19

In article <1988Jul28.173620.7325@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <4929@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) writes:
>>... 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.

	Actually no, since the custom chips do everything else as well
(video, sprites, ram refresh, 4-channel audio, disk io, serial, parallel.)
The blitter is a small part of one chip, using the address generation/DMA
control of another (which does these for all the custom chip DMA channels).

	Back in '84-'85 14+Mhz 68000's weren't very cheap.  (and we still
would have needed the custom chips for everything else).

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup