Path: utzoo!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!bnr-public!schow From: schow@bnr-public.uucp (Stanley Chow) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Compatibility (was Re: UNIX vs. Amiga speeds) Message-ID: <405@bnr-fos.UUCP> Date: 15 Apr 89 02:03:44 GMT References: <22977@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <6766@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> Sender: news@bnr-fos.UUCP Reply-To: schow@bnr-public.UUCP (Stanley Chow) Distribution: na Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada Lines: 33 In article <6766@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> jbwaters@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (J. Brian Waters) writes: >In article <22977@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, michael@maui.cs.ucla.edu (michael gersten) writes: >> ... >> 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, >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 !{iuvax|pur-ee}!bsu-cs!jbwaters A lot of this depends on your point of view. I think CA probably thinks they learned their lession by making sure the computers are compatible! Most new purchasers of a B2000 would be very upset to find that some programs didn't work. Most s/w publisher would be very upset to have to change their program because CA changed to the 68010 for no good reason. You can explain about the Amiga programming rules, the customer will still be angry. Since CA want to have more happy customers, staying compatible seems very sensible. Stanley Chow ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!schow%bnr-public When I am authorised to represent BNR, they will almost certainly want to screed what I say. Fortunately, I am not so authorised.