Path: utzoo!dciem!dretor!nrcaer!julie!mcr
From: mcr@julie.UUCP (Michael Richardson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: UNIX vs. Amiga speeds
Message-ID: <0912.AA0912@julie>
Date: 1 Apr 89 06:29:45 GMT
References: <6411@cbmvax.UUCP>
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga
Distribution: na
Organization: Sandleman Software Works' Debugging Department, Ottawa, ON
Lines: 33
Subject:

Andy Finkey writes:
>As I recall, the 68000 has a bit of trouble recovering from
>an address error.  (not enough state info saved).
>This was fixed in the 68010.  (wasn't there a 68000 computer
>that used 2 68000s to get around this one ?)
  Masscomp made one of these. It had two 68000s that ran in parrallel.
When a page fault occured one of the processors would be halted
and the other would step in and fix things up. (Queue the transfer.)
The other processor would then be able to continue on with
another task, (and I presume, page fault too) while the
first was halted.
  I'm not really sure about that last bit, it has been awhile
since I used one.

  Out of curiosity, why weren't the 500 and 2000 just released
with 68010s? I am pretty sure that even the 1000 could have been
released with one, and given that it is possible to just
drop one in, all that would have been required was a software
change (easy in the 1000 days.)
  My only explanation would involve cost/benefit. It
just wasn't worth the added expense...

>                andy



--

  :!mcr!:
  Michael Richardson                     Amiga
                                  v--------+
 UUCP: uunet!attcan!lsuc!nrcaer!julie!mcr  | INTERNET mcr@doe.carleton.ca
 Fido: Michael Richardson @ 1:163/109.10<--+ Alter @ 7:483/109.10