Re: Dead Amiga? --- Live Apple

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

Joseph Lee <nugundam+NOUBE@netcom.com> wrote:

>Supertimer <supertimer@aol.com> spawned virtual particles writing:
>: Obviously, if WDC did release an improved 65C processor, it would be
>: a next generation extension.  The Pentium II is an extension of the
>
>Why not just build an Apple II based around the StrongARM?  It's all
>the same.

Yes; if buiding a new Apple II, the ideal processor would be the
StrongARM.  However, my response was to the kws guy who
claimed that there was some inherent technical problem that prevents
the 65C architecture from.  As David Empson wrote, the 65C816
was a cleaner, better design from the 8088/8086/80286...the latter
of which, in stages, became the Pentium II.  There is nothing save
incentive that prevents the 65C design from doing so.  Money is the
reason it is stuck, not technical problems.

>: Actually, an engineer friend once suggested that a very powerful and
>: cost effective computer could be built by taking a handfull of 8-bit
>: 65C02 processors and running them in parallel.  Imagine a computer
>
>It's already done.  Few hundred thousand computers of any CPU and OS
>running in a distributed manner hacking at a problem in parallel.
>Look at www.distributed.net.

I'm talking about a computer and an OS designed as a personal
computer...a very powerful one can be built with parallel processors
even if each processor itself was only a fraction as powerful as the
entire unit...