Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!pollux.usc.edu!papa
From: papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: A new Amiga from Japan?
Keywords: FM Towns
Message-ID: <22214@usc.edu>
Date: 10 Jan 90 19:16:33 GMT
References: <5337@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> <25aa930b.37ff@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <5345@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> <5351@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM>
Sender: news@usc.edu
Organization: Felsina Software, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 28

In article <5351@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> waynekn@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes:
>It has been pointed out that the FM Towns isn't multi-tasking.  I wasn't
>sure.  I saw an some stuff that lead my believe it was, but I was most
>likely fooled.  Sorry about the mis-information.

Better get your facts straight the next time.  Misinformation on a
public forum like this one is the worse thing I can think of.

>However, there are several multi-tasking solutions for 80386 machines,
>and the 80386 hardware is more suited for mult-tasking than plain 68000.

Another (please permit me) "stupid" remark.  Instead of comparing apples
and oranges why don't you compare chips of "comparable" price/performance.
Is a 68030 less suited than a 80386 for multitasking?  Besides, a 
68000 multitasks just fine.  It has on my Amiga since 1985.

>Multi-taking is most likely going to be standard on every machine in a 
>few years so I don't see too much problem in this area.

How about today? Or 1985? Got any idea of the memory requirements for
"decent" multi-tasking on OS/2 or UNIX? And why do you change subject
when somebody points out shortcomings of your "impressive" machine.
Naughty boy :-)

-- Marco Papa 'Doc'
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=