Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!snorkelwacker!apple!usc!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!haven!grebyn!ckp
From: ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga 3000
Message-ID: <19458@grebyn.com>
Date: 13 Mar 90 21:19:27 GMT
References: <13479@baldrick.udel.EDU> <9884@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <6857@cps3xx.UUCP> <3944@nmtsun.nmt.edu> <6360@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <3951@nmtsun.nmt.edu> <3952@nmtsun.nmt.edu>
Reply-To: ckp@grebyn.UUCP (Checkpoint Technologies)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing, Vienna, VA, USA
Lines: 13

In article <3952@nmtsun.nmt.edu> dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) writes:
>
>I don't think you people are getting the point here... I'm not arguing about
>processor speed, we are trying to discuss what is best for the Amiga!  Now
>can you realistically see Commodore producing a RISC Amiga???

	I can realistically see Commodore producing a RISC workstation.
They may not call it an Amiga, though.  (BTW, I have heard nary a rumor
about this so it's speculation on my part.)  And why not?  Apple's
rumored to have an 88000-based machine in the works, IBM has plenty of
different architectures, and the workstation market is growing and
growing.  Heh, Commodore may find the going tough against Sun, DEC,
HP/Apollo, IBM, Integraph, Silicon Graphics...