🚀 go-pugleaf

[ This is NOT a flame.  As Rich Sampson says, Facts, not Flames ]

In article <2489@trwrb.UUCP> sansom@trwrb.UUCP (Richard Sansom) writes:
>In article <8708191439.AA07072@cogsci.berkeley.edu> bryce@COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU writes:
>>In article <628@cup.portal.com> Henry_Burdett_Messenger@cup.portal.com writes:
>>> These memory systems are *all* compatible with the new blitter chip, and,
>>> unlike the Amiga, all memory on the ST is created equal (no "fast" and
>>> "slow")

>>Oh, come on!!  If you are going to claim a feature "win" of the ST, pick
>>one of the real feature "wins".  Using the Amiga terminology of "fast" and
>>"slow" memory, *all* Atari ST memory would be defined as "slow".

>I think you got this one wrong.  The ST's memory is clocked at 16MHz - the
>odd cycles belong to the CPU, and the even cycles belong to the DMA chip (or
>the other way around).  In this way, there is never a time when the CPU is
>idle due to "stolen cycles" (during screen refreshes).  I think that means
>the ST's memory should be defined as "equal" as the fellow stated in his
>original article.
...
> /// Richard E. Sansom                   TRW Electronics & Defense Sector \\\

Factual point:  Just as the ST's memory is clocked at 16Mhz, the Amiga's
is clocked at 14Mhz.  If you use the Amiga with a 640x{200,400}x2 screen
(4 colors), the screen refresh doesn't steal from the processor either.
You can, if you wish, trade processor speed for more colors, unlike the
ST.  
	Yes, all ST memory is created equal.  It loses little by that,
as it was not designed for high-bandwith color (640x400 in more than 4 colors)
and was not designed for a blitter with multi-tasking.  The ST memory system
is appropriate for the rest of the hardware/os design.

As Richard says, Facts, not Flames.

	Randell Jesup
	jesup@steinmetz.UUCP (uunet!steinmetz!jesup)
	jesup@ge-crd.arpa