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