On MovieTome: The 10 worst movies of 2009 so far!
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 26 of 36:
Next »
« Previous
You obviously didn't own one
Although most postings I read of yours I generally agree with No_Ax_to_Grind, with this one you are way off. An AMIGA running at 16 MHz with 512K of RAM could multi-task beautifully with decent graphics and sound. Looking at Windows on Intel running at 100 MHz with 2 MBs of RAM you couldn't get the same performance. Was Windows to blame? Maybe partially, but the fact that you had to code in a way that required everything to go through the CPU it was no wonder the AMIGA performed so much better. The overall underlying architecture of the IBM PC was flawed. The MAC even though it used Motorola had the same underlying system architecture design flaw. The AMIGA's architecture is still better than anything out in the mainstream today. I suggest you take a look at the link I included in the previous message...it will give you some insight. For example..."Agnus is the central chip in the design. It controls all access to chip RAM from both the central 68000 processor and the other custom chips, using a complicated priority system." With the 3 custom chips and CPU all working together, you avoid the whole CPU bottleneck in the architectures we are stuck with today. As for Motorola chips being slow, that may have been the case but if you've ever done any Assembly programming you would know that there are design flaws in the 8086/8088 processors that had to be left in there for backwards compatibility reasons. Like so many cases over the years, its not always the best technology that wins out. In the computer world, the crappy IBM architecture along with the flawed Intel processors beat the far better designed AMIGA architecture and Motorola 68000 chip. In the end it all comes down to money.
Posted by: GeiselS@...   Posted on: 05/27/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

The size of software is following  bjbrock | 05/25/07
Curious, what has this to do  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/25/07
It's why software is not  bjbrock | 05/25/07
Well, obviously the "power"  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/25/07
The second paragraph  bjbrock | 05/25/07
That would be Parkinson's Law  John L. Ries | 05/25/07
Bingo  Jack-Booted EULA | 05/28/07
Interesting... Fear of patents stiffling software performance innovation?  Basic Logic | 05/26/07
perhaps  CobraA1 | 05/27/07
You're not a programmer, are you? happy  wolf_z | 05/26/07
There is some truth to this  John L. Ries | 05/26/07
Not that easy to do really.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/25/07
It Comes down  Stuka | 05/25/07
You write to what's available  John Zern | 05/25/07
Hypocrisy from Intel  Robert.Novak@... | 05/25/07
Only cheap  Stuka | 05/25/07
Windows and Linux run on the same Intel (or AMD) hardware.  HypnoToad72 | 05/25/07
I think  Suicida| | 05/25/07
This is where Linux outshines Windows.  linux for me | 05/26/07
You're absolutely right HypnoToad72  GeiselS@... | 05/27/07
Contrasting hardware and software  kmatzen@... | 05/25/07
And this is news, or a law?! Sounds more like forgotten common sense.  HypnoToad72 | 05/25/07
Back in the days . . .  Ken_z | 05/26/07
Anyone Remember the AMIGA ?  GeiselS@... | 05/26/07
Yes, I remember how slow they were.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/26/07
You obviously didn't own one  GeiselS@... | 05/27/07
As usual  wgraue | 06/03/07
At least part of the problem is...  Henry Miller | 05/27/07
Why?  in-DUH-vidual | 05/27/07
No Moore's Law?  Grayson Peddie | 05/27/07
Don't know  in-DUH-vidual | 05/28/07
The thing about Moore's Law...  Wolfie2K3 | 05/29/07
Exotic tasks  in-DUH-vidual | 05/30/07
Microsoft Windows 2008  mighetto | 05/28/07
back in '90 i hada chance to write a PPprogram in Fortran for a connection  wessonjoe | 05/29/07
All is about optimization  PhilippeV | 06/01/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here