jsgray@watrose.UUCP (Jan Gray) (12/24/85)
In article <973@ecsvax.UUCP> mjg@ecsvax.UUCP (Michael Gingell) writes: >> >> BTW, the ST also has an I/O co-processor, so presence vs. non-presence >> arguments in favor of the Amiga are inappropriate. >> Bob Halloran > >Yes BUT the bus speed of the Amiga is 14.4 MHz as opposed to the >ST which is 8MHz. The Amiga's 68000 runs at 7.2 MHz while the >Co-processors use the other 7.2 MHz. > >Mike Gingell ...decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!mjg Wrongo. ** PLEASE IF YOU ARE GOING TO POST SOMETHING, BE SURE OF YOUR FACTS OR WARN US YOU ARE SPECULATING ** The ST interleaves processor with coprocessor bus accesses just like the Amiga does. So you might have said: The bus speed of the Amiga is 14.4 MHz as opposed to the ST which is 16 MHz. The Amiga's 68000 runs at 7.2 MHz while the coprocessors use the other 7.2 MHz, compared with the ST's 68000 which runs at 8 MHz while the coprocessors use the other 8 MHz. (But saying a bus runs at X MHz means nothing. You might want to say that the Amiga can transfer 16 bits of information in 280 ns, while the ST can transfer 16 bits of information in 250 ns. This doesn't mean the ST is better than the Amiga, either, since (I am not sure) the Amiga might be able to do a graphics transfer in the "chip memory" at the same time as a processor transfer in the "expansion memory", giving higher throughput. But only for Amiga owners with expansion memory). Boo hoo. I paid $800 US for a fast computer with 1 meg of memory, 720K disk, and lovely 640 x 400 non interlaced monitor. Boo hoo hoo. Jan Gray (jsgray@watrose) University of Waterloo (519)-885-1211 x3870 ...who changes every four months into Jan Gray (jan@looking) Looking Glass Software (519)-884-7473