Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cbmvax!daveh
From: daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: I thought Amiga is Amiga and IBM is IBM (was Re: Next Amiga)
Message-ID: <4922@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 3 Oct 88 16:11:15 GMT
References: <200@amgraf.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 37

in article <200@amgraf.UUCP>, huver@amgraf.UUCP (Huver) says:
> Keywords: mutual exclusion?

> [talk about future machine/fast bus...]
> But wait, what about the "IBM compatible slots"?  Microchannel?  "Eh, 16- or
> 32-bit?"  Still use AT-style slots?  "But the new machine won't be attractive
> to PS/2 owners!"  What's Commodore to do?

Piece of cake!

There are three good reasons for those PC-AT slots:

	[1] Lets you check the "IBM compatible" box on you purchase requisition,
	    required in some companies (of course, none of us work anywhere with
	    such draconic rules, but such places do exist).

	[2] Gives you a reasonable way to run MS-DOS software if you really need
	    to.  You might.  I have one program I need that only runs under
	    MS-DOS.  Obviously no one who knows the Amiga is going to choose
	    to use MS-DOS any more than physically possible, but the need does
	    arise.

	[3] The PC-AT bus, and it's XT subset of course, give you access to more
	    hardware devices than any other bus.  More than AmigaBus, NuBus,
	    MicroChannel, etc.  Not attractive to PS/2 owners? Perhaps, but than
	    again, anyone fool enough to buy a PS/2 in the first place is not
	    what's I'd expect to be luring into buying an Amiga.

> What a mess.  Do we still say "IBM compatibility" has ABSOLUTELY nothing to
> do with "a more powerful Amiga"?

'Sho 'Nuff.

-- 
Dave Haynie  "The 32 Bit Guy"     Commodore-Amiga  "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: D-DAVE H     BIX: hazy
		"I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"