home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: nntp-trd.UNINETT.no!lolsen
- From: lolsen@hsr.no (Lasse Olsen)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
- Subject: Re: CPU MHz in A1200+
- Date: 12 Jan 1996 02:22:09 GMT
- Organization: UNINETT news service
- Message-ID: <4d4gkh$ajl@dole.uninett.no>
- References: <wfblanDKJ8Cw.1tn@netcom.com> <Pine.LNX.3.91.960103035736.22448A-100000@mail.inhb.co.nz> <4cfs4u$5sd@dole.uninett.no> <Pine.LNX.3.91.960105042639.31457B-100000@mail.inhb.co.nz> <38231862@kone.fipnet.fi> <4ctbmn$12h@dole.uninett.no> <DL13yC.CMo@eskimo.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: gorina8.hsr.no
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
-
- G. Baldwin (drizzit@eskimo.com) wrote:
- : Lasse Olsen (lolsen@hsr.no) wrote:
- : : Jyrki Saarinen (jsaarinen@kone.fipnet.fi) wrote:
-
- : : : > I thought the slowest 040 was 25Mhz, and they were a bit hot to put in a
- : : : > low profile case without a fan. (Of course if the "1200+/1300 is in a
- : : : > pizza box it might be possible.)
-
- : : : There are low power 3.3v versions of the 68040.
-
- : : : > Mind you we don't want any crippled (MMU less, FPU less) 040's that
- : : : > might be used in washing machines...
-
- : : : What is the point of having a FPU in a low-end machine?
-
- : : If you are talking as-low-as-you-get- end machine your point
- : : is valid, but I think most people would not hesitate too
- : : much with a +$50 bill for a decent FPU.
- : : Think of what software developers would have to say about
- : : having a FPU as standard.
- : : Cheers...
-
- : Speak of the devil, didn't I remeber C= making a machine called the
- : A300? C= wanted to make the cheapest computer they could, because
- : people out there didn't want a used cheap computer, they wanted a new
- : one. Too bad that this idea couldn't be done, and that A300 was
- : renamed the A600.
-
- Whelp.. ;)
-
- : Point one - the Amiga line has some real tightwads out there, who
- : would bitch if you put in a bbu clock, let alone an FPU. Lets get an
- : MMU standard before we get an FPU in there...
-
- There is no reason as to why both couldn't be implemented -
- except a minute cost-increase.
-
- : Point two - the memory subsystem of an 040 (standard, lowcost,
- : economy, or cold fire) is a LOT more complicated than that of an 030.
- : Case in point - look at the 3640 (Commodore's 040 card for the
- : A3k/A4k). It has a memory bus from hell, and it was STILL expensive
- : to make. How do you expect to make a low end computer when you have
- : to deal with that? You can't.
-
- Might be a point. But, the 3640 was designed my a team
- having less-than-satisfactory experience with 040s -
- more than 4 years ago.
- This is 1996.
-
- : Point three - the A1200 MB is designed to handle an 030
-
- Sidenote: So is the A4000 MB.
-
- : (the EC020 was
- : a last minute hack by C= to lower the cost). One would have to think
- : that it would be better if Escom/AT just slapped an 030/33 or 030/50
- : in there (030/40 has no MMU - we need that for VMM in AmigaOS 4.x)
- : instead of worrying about designing a new 040 MB. I would much rather
- : see the next low end machine after the A1200+ have a PPC 603 (the
- : laptop/economy PPC chip) than have a clunky old 040 or expensive 060.
-
- If ADos 4 is PPC only (as it looks like today) a MMU in
- the 030 will be of no value anyway, so forget the 33Mhz.
- The 50Mhz is far too expensive if Motorola doesn't wrap it
- in a new package.
-
- : Any complaints?
-
- Nah... :)
- Cheers...
-