a596@mindlink.UUCP (Terry Palfrey) (10/16/90)
Here, here. I am currently stretching my 500/1meg/3floppies to 500/5megs/syquest in an effort to hold off until the 68040's make the cost/upgrade really desirable. I didn't buy a 1000 (poor) but was able to fork out $3000 for a 500 two full long years later....approx. what I am spending now to upgrade software and hardware. This machine multitasks. This machine allows creativity. This machine also attracts newts,toads and other slithery things for some reason....maybe it's just the net. But as I keep posting over and over on the local boards (it costs me a quarter a pop here) The Amiga is a bubble/ripple/drop in the computing bitstream....all systems will (real soon now) have enough horsepower to push applications (in an easy to use xerox-park inspired interface) that will astound/astonish/amplify the user. What's at issue is the ability of all machines to allow for freedom of thought and communication/stimulation/interaction....to each his capability/cost-productivity ratio/compatability issues and to each his own private doubts/considerations/limitations. I've made my choice and have stood by it. I have suffered and triumphed. Crying over spilt milk (real or perceived) does nothing for the above described processes.....as with motions on the floor ....let them be stated in the positive. B3) <truly evil sounding growl delivered in smug tone of someone spoiling for a fight over the waste of mankinds' most limited resource - TIME >
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (10/17/90)
In article <1990Oct16.095701.10996@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jdobbs@director.beckman.uiuc.edu (Jim Dobbs) writes: >My first A1000 was so early that I didn't even have to do the 'PAL fix' >in order to run more than one (third-party) expansion device on the >expansion slot. Just a point of clarification here. The use of ONE, count 'em, ONE expansion box on the A1000 or A500 is all that's supported by Commodore. That one box may be a SOTS thing, or it may be a Zorro II backplane. The reason all Commodore SOTS boxes terminate the bus is that's what's required by Commodore, and what's required if you really expect things to work together. >>The risk of ignoring the spec is that you won't work or fit. >You are absolutely correct. I was wrong about this being the OFFICIAL >line from Commodore-Amiga. >It IS, however, what I've been told by my local retailer, and the folks >I quoted in my last post. Some third parties will lie to you. Others are misinformed. But facts is facts, and the fact in this case is that the correct specifications were made available for the asking before the A2000 shipped. Developer support wasn't as good back than as it is now, though it was better than when the A1000 first shipped. Developer support has been a learning experience for Commodore. The Amiga is really the first system that had support. Back in '85, we made C64s and PCs. You don't have technical support for PCs, they get that from MicroSoft for the software, and IBM never supported 3rd party hardware development with something as useful as an XT or AT bus specification. The C64 was anarchy -- developers did whatever they pleased in hardware and software, and we (the C128 team, of whom myself, Greg Berlin, and Fred Bowen are still around) did our best to make the system update compatible at the hardware level, while replacing the software with a new "mode". The Amiga was a real computer system, requiring real, full time technical support people, conferences, official developers, the works. That doesn't happen overnight. I wish it had. >This was NOT some speculation by a 'friend of a friend', rather it is what two >of the major manufacturers are saying to the dealers and the public. In other >words, this may be incorrect, but I was QUOTING some real movers and shakers >in the Amiga community. Who ignored specifications they have, and would rather put the blame on Commodore than themselves. Only the best companies and people are willing to take the heat for something they screwed up. I respect this; as an engineer, I realize that learning is measured in units of mistakes/hour. But marketing people often have to adopt a party line that runs contrary to facts. I think our marketing folks are more professional than that, but it's not uncommon in this industry to find this kind of thing going on. > ^ - James C. "Jim" Dobbs - jdobbs@director.beckman.uiuc.edu "Bob"'s brother? -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Standing on the shoulders of giants leaves me cold -REM
skelley@atreus.umiacs.umd.edu (Stephen Kelley) (10/17/90)
Oh nooooooo... Dave H. is aspiring to REAL guru-dom - YODA style!!! I Quote: "They have ignored the specifications, they have..." I *hope* you're not shrinking and turning green, dave. Will *someone* at CBM make a "faces" image format to prove/disprove this rumor, please... Sorry. I was enjoying DH's postings this morning (on SCSI & replys to MB etc) and couldn't help myself (;-}. PS The ',' in the quote was added by me.
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (10/18/90)
In <10213.AA10213@caleb>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes: >[] > >In article <27567@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > >> The Amiga 1000 *NEVER* supported MORE THAN ONE SOTS. Al third parties that >> claimed otherwise were fooling you. Commodore-Amiga was VERY specific about >> this in ALL thir documentation. Some third parties played games with the >> SOTS concept and were bit. Thir fault, not Commodore's. > >Well, this is not completely correct. Back when the A1000 first came >out, the A1000 was promoted as having the capability to add multiple >SOTS end to end. Once third parties actually started producing SOTS >stuff, many problems were discovered when trying to do this. (Supposedly, >the problems were mainly due to the extra noise on the bus caused by >the Kickstart daughterboard - a last minute kludge to the design.) Later, >the official CBM line became as Mr. Papa stated. Nope... It was promoted as having the ability to place multiple PICs in ONE expansion chassis _OR_ to place one PIC on the expansion bus. Look at the earliest expansion docs. External circuitry was always required to properly arbitrate the autoconfig operation. >From the net traffic on the subject over the years, it seems that some >A1000s would perform well with 2 or even 3 well designed SOTS cards. >However, most would fail to work properly under the same conditions >with the same cards. A very few A1000s were reported to fail with only >ONE SOTS! This is why CBM went to the single SOTS rule. However, the >first time that I heard anyone claim that this was official policy was >about 1.5 to 2 years later! Machines that failed with one SOTS were defective in one way or another. No different from saying that some floppy drives gave excessive R/W errors, or that some machines had poor video. Broken is broken. In the case of SOTS, the dcumentation from CBM was VERY clear in what was and was not condoned. As it happened, some machines would work fine with multiple SOTS, even up to 5 or 6 (in one case I know of). There were ways to imrove the chances of being able to cheat, like faster PALs or adding the grounding mod. By the time you got your Amiga, a friend and I had already designed a 2 meg memory expansion, and had it running. It did NOT have a pass-through, for the simple reason that a passthrough was clearly not a legal configuration. >One of the primary reasons that many people believe that CBM had always >had the single SOTS rule is the fact that a certain hardware developer >(which sold expansion boxes) spread the "single SOTS" idea far and wide >over the networks. He (yes, I know who you are speaking of), and others, spread this bit of information around (myself included, though I never had any products for sale, and thus, no personal axe to grind). We did this because it was true, and because a great many people complained when they relied on the bogus pronouncements of _some_ hardware developers in this matter. The worst offender in this regard (and in the area of spreading bogus information about DMA vs. non-DMA disk controllers) is thankfully no longer spreading their mis/dis-information, nor are they in the disk controller business any more. -larry -- It is not possible to both understand and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) (10/18/90)
[] In article <27567@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > The Amiga 1000 *NEVER* supported MORE THAN ONE SOTS. Al third parties that > claimed otherwise were fooling you. Commodore-Amiga was VERY specific about > this in ALL thir documentation. Some third parties played games with the > SOTS concept and were bit. Thir fault, not Commodore's. Well, this is not completely correct. Back when the A1000 first came out, the A1000 was promoted as having the capability to add multiple SOTS end to end. Once third parties actually started producing SOTS stuff, many problems were discovered when trying to do this. (Supposedly, the problems were mainly due to the extra noise on the bus caused by the Kickstart daughterboard - a last minute kludge to the design.) Later, the official CBM line became as Mr. Papa stated. I've been on various networks since the Amiga was announced in the summer of 1985. I bought my A1000 in December of that year. (Yeah, I know that many others got their Amigas before I did, but I got one of the first few that arrived in stores in my area.) From the net traffic on the subject over the years, it seems that some A1000s would perform well with 2 or even 3 well designed SOTS cards. However, most would fail to work properly under the same conditions with the same cards. A very few A1000s were reported to fail with only ONE SOTS! This is why CBM went to the single SOTS rule. However, the first time that I heard anyone claim that this was official policy was about 1.5 to 2 years later! One of the primary reasons that many people believe that CBM had always had the single SOTS rule is the fact that a certain hardware developer (which sold expansion boxes) spread the "single SOTS" idea far and wide over the networks. While I think that the particular developer has produced high quality products for the Amiga, I think that his conduct on various networks over the years has been highly questionable. His typical pattern has been to show up frequently on the networks when he has a new product near completion. He then hypes it heavily. In the early days he usually blasted his competitors quite severely. Sometimes he also provides helpful info. After he has done all the free advertising that he wants to do, he disappears until the next product is near completion. I don't intend to mention names here because I think highly of this developer. Also, most of the description above also applies to quite a few other Amiga third-party developers on the networks over the years. (Just to prevent misinterpretation, I am NOT referring to Mr. Papa - he doesn't make hardware as far as I know.) P.S. Contrary to the common anti-commercial bias on this net, I like the product announcements and supplemental information provided by some developers. What I don't like is biased flaming of competitors. Also, I don't like repetitive, thinly veiled advertisements full of hype about their products. -- Jim Pritchett UUCP: texsun.central.sun.com!letni!rwsys!caleb!jdp or letni.lonestar.org!dms3b1!caleb!jdp
fhwri%CONNCOLL.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (10/19/90)
Re: multiple SOTS on A1000
I have a friend who has two Starboards, a LIVE!, and a HD controller on his
1000...just so you all know...
--Rick Wrigley
fhwri@conncoll.bitnetlphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (10/20/90)
In <10229.AA10229@caleb>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes: >In article <2139@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> >lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: > >> Nope... It was promoted as having the ability to place multiple PICs in ONE >> expansion chassis _OR_ to place one PIC on the expansion bus. Look at the >> earliest expansion docs. External circuitry was always required to properly >> arbitrate the autoconfig operation. > >You seem to forget a very important detail. I couldn't even get a DOS >manual for months! (Nor could many others.) One new Amiga magazine >(Amazing Computing if memory serves me correctly) became famous largely >because they published a list of the DOS commands and how to use them. Well, I didn't exactly forget that detail, because the reason many of us on the nets were cautioning users against using multiple SOTS was that the information was not readily available. In those days, information about the CLI commands, expansion specs, and so on, were being hurriedly sent out here as well as on the commercial networks. It was a time of learning for everyone. Some companies were unscrupulous (or to be a little more charitable, unknowledgeable) enough to try to tell the new users that they could expect to do things that were clearly not allowed. >It was over a year later when I was >finally able to get a Hardware Manual! I don't recall ever seeing a word >in it about multiple SOTS being verboten. The source for the information about what was allowed on the expansion connector was the expansion documentation from CBM. CBM probably thought that anyone serious about building expansion devices would become a developer and order the document. They were probably also surprised by the speed with which a demand for expansion devices materialized. >I'll take your word for the fact that CBM had documented the "rule" earlier >than I thought, but they did NOT tell the buyers. Most of us buyers were >led to believe that we could add several SOTS to our Amiga. You are definitely right on that point, along with the lack of the rudimentary information required to use the CLI. It is perhaps unfortunate that the flaming by some developers was taken as 'sour grapes', rather than as a genuine concern for the buyers of SOTS boxes. As always, the messenger can negate perfectly good messages with poor choice of words, or by being perceived to be in a position of conflict of interest. >> By the time you got your Amiga, a friend and I had already designed a 2 meg >> memory expansion, and had it running. It did NOT have a pass-through, for the >> simple reason that a passthrough was clearly not a legal configuration. > >Yes, but you had access to info that the average user (at least in the US) >could not get for at least a year. It's possible that the Canadian support >was better than the US. You guys always seemed to get the stuff long before >we (US) did. (Of course, that worked against you in the case of the German >2000...) Interestingly, my machine was purchased through the US developer's program, and I did not become a Canadian developer until earlier this year. We did indeed get some things more quickly, but it was always hardware, and not the tech info. (and yes, I did have it work to my detriment by taking delivery of a very early German 2000) >You should know who he was, I remember your presence on the networks in those >days. In fact, your were (and are) usually extremely helpful on the networks. >Many thanks to you. You're quite welcome, and thank you for saying so. -larry -- It is not possible to both understand and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) (10/20/90)
[] In article <2139@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: > Nope... It was promoted as having the ability to place multiple PICs in ONE > expansion chassis _OR_ to place one PIC on the expansion bus. Look at the > earliest expansion docs. External circuitry was always required to properly > arbitrate the autoconfig operation. You seem to forget a very important detail. I couldn't even get a DOS manual for months! (Nor could many others.) One new Amiga magazine (Amazing Computing if memory serves me correctly) became famous largely because they published a list of the DOS commands and how to use them. [To many of us, using the CLI was like the old Adventure game. Guess what commands it will take, then guess what they will do!!! The syntax provided by the ? option was not very helpful without the DOS manual to explain the very weird conventions.] For a long time, we had to use a magazine article to operate the CLI because CBM thought that only the experts would want to use the CLI! (Boy, were they wrong about that!) It was over a year later when I was finally able to get a Hardware Manual! I don't recall ever seeing a word in it about multiple SOTS being verboten. The only sources we had were CBM's promotions, the Byte article, and the stuff floating around on the networks. The first time most Amiga owners heard of the single SOTS rule was either when they tried it and failed or when the aforementioned developer was flaming his competition. That was at least a year later for most of us. I'll take your word for the fact that CBM had documented the "rule" earlier than I thought, but they did NOT tell the buyers. Most of us buyers were led to believe that we could add several SOTS to our Amiga. [...] > By the time you got your Amiga, a friend and I had already designed a 2 meg > memory expansion, and had it running. It did NOT have a pass-through, for the > simple reason that a passthrough was clearly not a legal configuration. Yes, but you had access to info that the average user (at least in the US) could not get for at least a year. It's possible that the Canadian support was better than the US. You guys always seemed to get the stuff long before we (US) did. (Of course, that worked against you in the case of the German 2000...) [ I wrote: ] >>One of the primary reasons that many people believe that CBM had always >>had the single SOTS rule is the fact that a certain hardware developer >>(which sold expansion boxes) spread the "single SOTS" idea far and wide >>over the networks. [ and Larry wrote: ] > He (yes, I know who you are speaking of), and others, spread this bit of > information around (myself included, though I never had any products for sale, > and thus, no personal axe to grind). We did this because it was true, and > because a great many people complained when they relied on the bogus > pronouncements of _some_ hardware developers in this matter. The worst offender > in this regard (and in the area of spreading bogus information about DMA vs. > non-DMA disk controllers) is thankfully no longer spreading their > mis/dis-information, nor are they in the disk controller business any more. You should know who he was, I remember your presence on the networks in those days. In fact, your were (and are) usually extremely helpful on the networks. Many thanks to you. By the way, we definately agree on your signature quote! > It is not possible to both understand and appreciate Intel CPUs. > -D.Wolfskill -- Jim Pritchett UUCP: texsun.central.sun.com!letni!rwsys!caleb!jdp or letni.lonestar.org!dms3b1!caleb!jdp
riley@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) (10/22/90)
In article <2139@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >Nope... It was promoted as having the ability to place multiple PICs in ONE >expansion chassis _OR_ to place one PIC on the expansion bus. Look at the >earliest expansion docs. External circuitry was always required to properly >arbitrate the autoconfig operation. Minor nit--I've got the Feb. 4 1986 expansion docs in front of me, and, at that time, Commodore thought that two expansion backplanes with multiple PICs *might* be possible. There are big warnings saying that Commodore has only tested one backplane, and the timing might not work, and all the illustrated backplanes have buffers, and collision avoidance and bus arbitration circuitry. Going further back, the Nov. 25 1985 doc does mention the possibility of passing the "bus (buffered) out in daisy chain fashion." My impression is that the timing doesn't work out if you buffer the bus, and the noise gets you if you pass the unbuffered bus, so the idea was eventually abandonded. *HOWEVER*, none of this excuses the vast majority of SOTS boxes with *unbuffered* pass throughs--something C-A never even implied should work. -Dan Riley (riley@theory.tn.cornell.edu, cornell!batcomputer!riley) -Wilson Lab, Cornell University
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (10/23/90)
In article <10213.AA10213@caleb> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes: >From the net traffic on the subject over the years, it seems that some >A1000s would perform well with 2 or even 3 well designed SOTS cards. >However, most would fail to work properly under the same conditions >with the same cards. A very few A1000s were reported to fail with only >ONE SOTS! This is why CBM went to the single SOTS rule. However, the >first time that I heard anyone claim that this was official policy was >about 1.5 to 2 years later! Early Amiga specifications did discuss the logic for supporting multiple SOTS boxes, but it never gave enough information to do this properly. They gave some simple guidelines for making two boxes work together, but even these were flawed. The original documentation also had 4 Meg PICs as the largest version; anyone interested can read about this original stuff in the early "A2000 Hardware Manual", which was part of the 1.0/1.1 "Phone Book" series. They also talked about 86 pin PICs. All of this was work in progress done during the A1000 development, indicated as such ("subject to change without notice", though in practice, notice was given via Tech Support, DevCons, etc.), and was corrected very shortly after the A1000 shipped. The reason chained SOTS boxes aren't supported is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to correctly build multiple SOTS boxes. The requirements for SOTS boxes logically make this so. The first rule for a SOTS box is that it must buffer the A1000 bus as closely to the edge connector as possible. This has the unfortunate effect of adding two TTL delays, one in, one out, to each additional SOTS box. If you follow the published timing specifications, which are for the Zorro II bus, the second box in such a setup won't be able to meet the specified times for SLAVE*, BERR*, OWN*, XRDY, and a number of other signals. Double buffers on the clocks will dangerously skew these clocks with respect to the motherboard clocks. Published data setup times won't be met by the second box. The list goes on and on. The traditional developer solution to this was to pass the signals through unbuffered. This is the main reason there's alot of flakiness between different SOTS boxes in different orderings, etc. Had the SOTS box design worked like this: A1000 <-> Buffer <-> SOTS <-> SOTS <-> SOTS <-> Termination Box Box It would have been reasonable to support a chained SOTS protocol, and at least would have had a chance to work. Unfortunately, that was not the way they did things. And I was busy with the C128 at the time :-). So the chained SOTS box concept is and forever will be flawed. That doesn't mean it can't work in any specific situation, but it doesn't mean that it can't be guaranteed in any arbitrary hookup by following all Amiga bus timing specifications. Because it is NOT supported. > Jim Pritchett -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Standing on the shoulders of giants leaves me cold -REM
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (10/24/90)
In article <10229.AA10229@caleb> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes: >You seem to forget a very important detail. I couldn't even get a DOS >manual for months! (Nor could many others.) One new Amiga magazine >(Amazing Computing if memory serves me correctly) became famous largely >because they published a list of the DOS commands and how to use them. Ommitting the DOS manual with the A1000 was a mistake, which they corrected with the 500 and 2000. I'll give you that one... >For a long time, we had to use a magazine article to operate the CLI >because CBM thought that only the experts would want to use the CLI! >(Boy, were they wrong about that!) It was over a year later when I was >finally able to get a Hardware Manual! I don't recall ever seeing a word >in it about multiple SOTS being verboten. Here, you obviously screwed up. You're crazy if you attempt commercial software development, much less hardware development, without becoming a developer. The "phone book" series, including the Hardware manual, was available to developers, when the A1000 shipped. Quite a bit of it was available long before the A1000 shipped. The A1000 "Schematics and Hardware Specifications", which was really the first book that had enough information to build a correct Zorro I card, was out shortly after the A1000, but available ONLY though developer support. That's not the kind of thing anyone would include for the casual user. >I'll take your word for the fact that CBM had documented the "rule" earlier >than I thought, but they did NOT tell the buyers. They told the developers. Larry knew this because he was involved for real back at the beginning. >Yes, but you had access to info that the average user (at least in the US) >could not get for at least a year. The average user DOES NOT build commercial hardware. And anyone building it should have enough sense to become a developer. Even now. Although the necessary information was available through the developer support group even to non-developers. But you had to ask for it, they don't come looking for you. >> It is not possible to both understand and appreciate Intel CPUs. >> -D.Wolfskill I'll THIRD that one... > Jim Pritchett -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Standing on the shoulders of giants leaves me cold -REM
bleys@tronsbox.xei.com (Bill Cavanaugh) (10/25/90)
Dave Haynie says: >Ommitting the DOS manual with the A1000 was a mistake, which they corrected >with the 500 and 2000. I'll give you that one... Just as an aside, I bought my A500 in early 1987, and the only manuals it came with were Amiga Basic and an introductory book. I quote here from page 7-3: "Since this manual serves merely as an introduction to the Amiga, rather than present CLI as a volume in this chapter, we'll just review some frequently used AmigaDOS commands in typical applications. Reading this won't make you a programmer, but it will give you a feel for using AmigaDOS with the CLI. More in-depth CLI information and reference material may be found in the _AmigaDOS User's Manual_, from Bantam Books." Since I couldn't find the Bantam book for months after I bought the machine, I was reduced to falling back on MS/IBM DOS experience and experimentation. TransAmi (RIP) and Amazing were extremely helpful in getting over this hump. The cry of, "Why didn't they make a deal with Bantam and give us the manual with the machine???" went out through the land...<chuckle> /**************************************************************** * All of the above copyright by the below. * * Bill Cavanaugh uunet!tronsbox!bleys * * "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy." * ****************************************************************/