Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!bionet!ig!agate!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!unido!tub!tmpmbx!netmbx!thomax
From: thomax@netmbx.UUCP (Thomas)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Whay has commodore droped the transputer
Message-ID: <1302@netmbx.UUCP>
Date: 3 Sep 88 18:44:26 GMT
References: <821@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> <4602@cbmvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: thomax@netmbx.UUCP (Thomas)
Organization: netmbx Public Access Unix, Berlin, West Germany
Lines: 17

In article <4602@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes:
>
>At least, that's the theory.  There are some problems with it.  It's pointless
>to try and build a tightly coupled multiprocessing system with Transputers.
>They don't support MMUs, and they're not all that fast on their own (in the
>range of a plain 68020).  

sorry. sure, an t414 is not fast as a plain 68020, but the power
of transputer is grown up proportinal to the number of links you use.
yet you can see there is no entitle to compare a 680x0 with an transputer.
					mgh thomax

-- 
*============================================================================*
|	thomax@netmbx.UUCP				Thomas Kaulmann      |
|	...{pyramid|altger|unido}!netmbx!thomax		Alexandrinenstr. 42  |	
|	"the Killer Ducks are comming!!!"		1000Berlin61         |