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)