Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!microsoft!w-colinp
From: w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Article in Electronic Engineering Times
Keywords: CBM,Amiga,C-A,Comdex,Electronic Engineering Times,Transputer
Message-ID: <37@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 9 Dec 88 10:47:04 GMT
References: <495@morgoth.UUCP>
Reply-To: w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 28
Confusion: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA

In article <495@morgoth.UUCP> steve@morgoth.UUCP (Steven G. Hall) writes:
>Quotation from EE Times:
>     Commodore took the opportunity at Comdex to show prototypes of a
>Transputer-based Amiga system.  It also displayed - to selected
>parties - a 68030 powered system.

What *is* this?  A transputer-based Amiga would not, in my opinion,
be an Amiga.  The transputer has a strange and wonderful multitasking
system in microcode, and it doesn't resemble Exec.  I suppose you could
implelent Exec on a transputer, but it seems odd, and you would have
to break a few rules that might not be breakable on the next generation
of transputers.

Also, the nice thing about transputers is the small cell size you can
achieve when hooking up a lot of them - not quite a personal computer's
worry (yet, at least).  Other than that, it's a most annoying chip to
work with - metastability on the MemWait pin, no supervisor mode, etc.

I assume this EE Times reporter is talking through his hat, but could
someone who knows reassure me?

Thanks.

(P.S. I also like the reference to the 500, and, "at the other end of the
performance spectrum", the 2000.  Gee, I hadn't noticed one was faster
than the other; had you?)
-- 
	-Colin (uunet!microsof!w-colinp)