I've read (I forget where -- maybe Micro Cornucopia) that the 34020 is basically the same as the 34010, except that it works with larger amounts of data at the same time. Were there any instruction-set changes? :) Well, the number of games on the PC is a very seductive thing. I think Linux is very good overall. I plan on installing it on my Macintosh as soon as the quarter (school) is over. But there are some other interesting OSs too, and many of them are even relevant to the list. I've heard good things about RSX-11M, RT-11, the various TRS-80 OSs, FLEX, OS-9, SK*DOS, and others. There was also a competitor to CP/M which has been praised (possibly by Allison) because it provided some important services that CP/M didn't. Unfortunately I forget if it was by Northstar, Cromenco, or Ohio Scientific. Admittedly, many of those are simpler than UNIX. But a few are real-time, which UNIX is not. Besides, almost any design is interesting in some way. I also have visions of putting together a Transputer-based system and somehow creating vast amounts of computer power out of thin air. :) From my reading, it seems there are two main drawbacks: 1) Generally, the Transputer depends on a host. 2) Parallel processors are very powerful but they won't solve every problem equally well, and they present some very subtle and nasty traps to the student or programmer. Maybe it's time for Tony to come back into this thread, since he seems to be the Transputer expert. I understand display lists pretty well. Many vector-graphics machines used them; Sketchpad relied on them and Evans & Sutherland continued the trend. (I'd love to play with some of their machines!) Also the Atari 8-bit machines had a limited form, and you could say the Amiga has them as well. This kind of dipslay list relates to memory layout and interpretation, rather than defining objects in memory. But it still makes certain tasks absurdly easy, instead of very time-consuming. How does the 34010 do in handling bitmaps? -- Derek