home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!jesup
- From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: Big mistake - A compromise (of sorts)
- Message-ID: <38080@cbmvax.commodore.com>
- Date: 21 Dec 92 03:49:31 GMT
- References: <1992Dec18.211223.29630@clipper.ingr.com> <cg.0i2x@ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA>
- Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
- Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
- Lines: 25
-
- cg@ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA (Chris Gray) writes:
- >CBM has said they are working on two new chip sets/architectures. One is low
- >end and one is high end. OK, so deliberately make the two sets as incompatible
- >as possible! Then, release the full specs on the low-end architecture, but
- >not for the high-end one.
-
- It's not too bad an idea, except for the problem that today's high-end
- system has a good chance of becoming tomorrow's low-end system (or more likely
- the basis for developing a low-end version). There is (or should be) a steady
- migration of technology from the high end to the low end as time goes by.
- Your idea has a problem in that if we release the specs for chipset X, and
- later make a derivative of chipset Y for the low-end, few games written for
- X (and some non-games) will work.
-
- >Aside from it not solving the problem for AGA, anyone see problems with this?
-
- If we wanted to do it this way, it might apply to AGA also - but the
- next low-end chipset will face the problems above (and the next, and the next).
-
- --
- To be or not to be = 0xff
- -
- Randell Jesup, Jack-of-quite-a-few-trades, Commodore Engineering.
- {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com BIX: rjesup
- Disclaimer: Nothing I say is anything other than my personal opinion.
-