jea@merlin.cvs.rochester.edu (Joanne Albano) (12/08/89)
Can someone tell me if there is any validity
in the statement that the 1000 has a different
architecture than the 500/2000?
We found a program called Designasaurus that
was explicitly marked for the 500/2000 and wondered
to the sales rep of the store why was that. He replied
that the 1000 had a different architecture. Could someone
explain this since the program was a childs clip and paste, and draw
type program and involved no hardware.
Joanne Albano, Center for Visual Science (716) 275-3055
Room 256 Meliora Hall, Univ. of Rochester, Rochester NY 14627
UUCP: {rutgers,allegra,decvax}!rochester!ur-cvsvax!jea
INTERNET: jea@snipe.cvs.rochester.educcplumb@rose.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb) (12/08/89)
In article <4413@ur-cc.UUCP> jea@cvs.rochester.edu (Joanne Albano) writes: >Can someone tell me if there is any validity >in the statement that the 1000 has a different >architecture than the 500/2000? Not that I know of, and numerous interviews with Jay Miner, who should be an expert on the subject, say that there's no significant difference. The A2000 has built-in slots and the A500 is cheaper, and both can use the new chip sets, but nothing significant. This is why I still have my A1000. >We found a program called Designasaurus that >was explicitly marked for the 500/2000 and wondered >to the sales rep of the store why was that. He replied >that the 1000 had a different architecture. Could someone >explain this since the program was a childs clip and paste, and draw >type program and involved no hardware. Unless it required 1 Meg chip, I can't see any reason. The sales rep doesn't know what he's talking about. -- -Colin