Hey, don't get your knickers in a twist 
I'm not knocking the Falcon. Of course the DSP is certainly useful for more than just audio, but since we're talking about the time it was first released, there wasn't a lot (IIRC) that used the DSP for non-audio purposes. Just as much later, the A1200 found new capabilities through third party expansions, so people also found new uses for the Falcon's DSP.
Hmmm... Not sure of your train of thought here... Third party expansion is quite different to finding new uses for already existing hardware... I would agree with you if someone had managed to figure out how to do double precision floating point math with the copper (to the non technical: you can't, don't try
).
Not sure how much I believe that. Since we're comparing same era hardware here, AGA managed to retain a respectable degree of backwards compatibility without resorting to using a 16-bit data bus between the CPU/custom chips and certainly not for it's interface to normal (fast) RAM.
I'm not sure either here, but I don't know anything about the ST or the Falcon's schematics so I can't. Say anything for sure... But (basically) doubling the number of traces on a circuit board is more of a cost issue than a technical one.
Sure, I acknowledge the time gap, but since we are now in the present, we can compare what the machines have become since. I stand by the observation that you can now build a significantly more powerful A1200 than you can a Falcon, with the exception of which has the fastest 68K processor; there's just nothing comparable to the CT60 board in the Amiga scene. I'd love to see something similar 
Careful not to confuse the issue though! My assertion was that the Atari Falcon's hardware was an order of magnitude better than the A1200... I think that point still stands.
Put more simply, had commodore realeased both the A1200 and the falcon (running AmigaOS of course, possibly with a cost option for ECS compatibility)... I would have opted for the Falcon... How about you?
