Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!bsu-cs!jbwaters
From: jbwaters@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (J. Brian Waters)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: UNIX vs. Amiga speeds
Message-ID: <6766@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Date: 14 Apr 89 06:07:33 GMT
References: <0912.AA0912@julie> <6490@cbmvax.UUCP> <22977@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Distribution: na
Organization: The Binary Bin
Lines: 28

In article <22977@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, michael@maui.cs.ucla.edu (michael gersten) writes:
> In article <6490@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes:
> :In article <0912.AA0912@julie>, mcr@julie.UUCP (Michael Richardson) says:
> :
> :>   Out of curiosity, why weren't the 500 and 2000 just released
> :> with 68010s? 
> :
> :No software change would be necessary.  
> 
> Wrong. The 68010 has one instruction privleged that was not privledged
> on the 68000. This kills early versions of Lattice's math library,
> and some games.

Um they mean OS software changes... and programs that used the move ccr,<ea>

instruction went against the Amiga programming rules.  They would not work

with a 68020 either... in fact I think CA should have put a 68010 in at least

the 2000 for just this reason.  It would have made sure that programers would

have fixed this more quickly.  Just as the release of machines with non-chip

ram got many program fixed in that area.


-- 
Brian Waters              <backbone>!{iuvax|pur-ee}!bsu-cs!jbwaters