Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ingr!phil
From: phil@ingr.com (Phil Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga 3000
Message-ID: <9257@ingr.com>
Date: 13 Mar 90 19:01:51 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: phil@ingr.UUCP (Phil Johnson)
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, Al
Lines: 24

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???
>

If Commodore were to decide to produce a RISC-based system they would be better
served by choosing the Motorola 88000 rather than the SPARC.  The software
support that is in place through 88OPEN makes it the processor of choice over
the SPARC.  Also, the MIPS and MFLOPS mean relatively little once you wrap
an operating system and application software around a processor.  Non-
application based benchmarks are useless in determining the performance of a
system.






-- 
Philip E. Johnson                    UUCP:  usenet!ingr!phil
MY words,                           VOICE:  (205) 730-8112
MY opinion!