Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!sdcsvax!nosc!marlin!aburto
From: aburto@marlin.UUCP (Alfred A. Aburto)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Next Amiga?
Message-ID: <918@marlin.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Dec-86 17:04:23 EST
Article-I.D.: marlin.918
Posted: Tue Dec 16 17:04:23 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Dec-86 19:32:57 EST
References: <23186@rochester.ARPA> <12299@watnot.UUCP>
Reply-To: aburto@marlin.UUCP (Alfred A. Aburto)
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 27

In article <12299@watnot.UUCP> ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes:
>>[Very long, very good posting about Amiga enhancements deleted.]
>
>  In one word: YES!!
>
>  *All* of your ideas are good.  The only point of disagreement is
>over a 68010... I'd go straight to a 68020 and be done with it.  Then
>we'd *really* see some performance.
>

I agree with you!  Go for the 68020/68881 particularly since the Amiga
operating system already supports these devices. Operate the 68020 and 68881
and fast RAM at 14.32 MHz or higher clock speeds.  CSA has demonstrated that
you can do this relatively easily and it need not cost an arm and a leg to
do so. Don't fool around with the 68010----go to the top.


>  I'd also like to suggest that C-A make a bigger hunk of memory
>standard... 1 Meg *at least*.  I'm sure 4 Meg machines would sell
>quite well.  I think could get by with 2 Meg chip, 2 Meg fast....
>

Gee, I agree with you again---At least one Meg (even 512K but its marginal)
much better than the dinky 256K the original came with...
Also TWO disk drives is essential.

Al Aburto