🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1693@nunki.usc.edu> rjung@sal45.usc.edu (Robert  allen Jung) writes:
>In article <17516@gatech.edu> ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii) writes:
>>In article <9087@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jafischer@spurge.waterloo.edu (Jonathan A. Fischer) writes:
>>>	           it also offers better graphics capabilities.  
>>Perhaps...I would not know.  
>
>  Does Postscript == "Better graphics"? The NeXT is still in B&W only, if I
>remember right.
	Just for the record, you got it backwards there; the "Better
graphics" I was referring to were on the ATW, not the NeXT.  It (the ATW)
supposedly has this blindingly fast blitter / graphics coprocessor /
whatever.  Since no such thing was mentioned in the NeXT press release, I'm
assuming that the graphics load is handled by the '030.  A big lose.

>  Just to drop in a related note: I saw a quick glance of a rumor that the
>Atari 68030 box will use the same "50000"(?) chip that's in the NeXT -- Anyone
>know (ha!) if this is true, or what the heck a 50000 chip is in the first
>place?

	This is the DSP (Digital Signal Processor) chip, a CPU in its own
right.  I'm not sure that 50000 is the correct number.  Wasn't it 56000?
No idea.  Anyway, this thing has been discussed quite a bit in comp.misc
and alt.next (the NeXT discussions there have made for quite interesting
reading, and I'd recommend subscribing).  I'd only reveal my relative
ignorance in the area of hardware by attempting to fully describe what this
chip can do, so I'll leave that to others.  I think it's a fair guess that
this thing would blow away, say, the infamous Amy chip.

	On a related note: if the Atari 68030 rumour that was posted a
couple of days ago is true,

	[pause for hysterical laughter to die down]

then shee-oot, it sounds like there's hope for Atari after all.  The $2,000
list price sounds too unbelievable, alas.  From what I've gathered about
the columnist from whom the rumour was quoted, this guy probably dreams up
these rumours for filler.
--
					-Jonathan Fischer