manes@vger.nsu.edu (10/24/90)
I moved this from comp.sys.amiga.hardware to where it belongs.... In article <1990Oct23.224535.9225@digibd.com>, steve@digibd.com (Steve Wahl) writes: > In article <62.2719a8e6@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu writes: > [Some of the best ideas I have ever written - deleted for sake of the net] :-) > [mark stated his opinion; this is mine and is NOT a flame] > [ well.. not intended to be. ] > > No! No! No! > > 1. Not allowing 2.0 or 1MB Agnus in the 500 could cause lots of damage to > the product line. The segregation of the Amiga line into two parts would > mean that software developers have their choice of developing for 2.0 and > it's market, or developing stuff that's compatible with 1.3 and 2.0, > not taking any advantage of the new 2.0 features. Given that the 500 is I believe that you are correct here. What does this really equate to? I think it will mean a possible reduction of new game releases for the A2xxx/A3xxx machines. Reducing the number of new games would not hurt too much. We have all complained about the 'game machine' image of Commodore. Further those companies that sold productivity software (includde video, graphics, etc.) will be written to support the machine that best supports them, the A2xxx/A3xxx. Seperating the 500 from the 2xxx/3xxx line will *improve* the quality and the quanity of the application software that is available in my opinion. Personaly, I have seen very few games that hate 2.0. > the bigest part of the market, *I believe* that most developers would go > for 1.3 compatibility. This could seriously cripple software development Most of the major players have already announced support for 2.0, and have re-released their software to run under 2.0. I wonder how many copies of 3d Professional, Deluxe Video III, AmigaVision and Word Perfect are at home running on Amiga 500s? Most A500s that we sell are 1 megabyte, 2 floppy systems. We have sold a few hard disks, but not many. You can't run any of the above packages effectively from floppy. > for our new, shiny, 2.0 operating system. This is my single bigest wory > about OS 2.0. I hope C= supports upgrading ALL possible amigas at least > to 2.0 (even without 1MB chip or productivity mode video) so that the 2.0 > software base can be as profitable as possible, to provide as great a > growth rate as possible. (O.K., point 1 didn't touch the 1MB agnus chip > much. See point 2.) I would certainly agree with your point if Commodore decides to continue to support 1.3 on the 3000. In my opinion, the 2xxx/3xxx once upgraded to AmigaDOS 2.0 should *not* run 1.3. If they do run 1.3, the tendancy would be for 1.3 to be the default standard. Personally, I think that many of the enhancements in 2.0 were caused by the clamoring of the developers and users. This is not like a MS/DOS 4.00 release. :-) > > 2. (from what I've heard) The 500 motherboard was (like the 2000) designed > to handle the new Agnus chip and 512K of ROM. Disallowing upgrading the > machines to full potential would be a serious mistake. And it seems quite > contrary to C-A's direction in the past. It seems the only reason C= doesn't > support 2.0 on the 1000 is that there's not enough room in the kickstart > RAM; the new Agnus also doesn't fit in the Agnus socket on the 1000, either > (not to mention there's probably a few traces missing). Personally, > I'm at a loss as to why they wouldn't support 1M chip on a 500. It > doesn't even affect software compatibility unless you've got something > that takes that much chip ram. Perhaps Commodore has been having problems > with this modification being done incorrectly, causing rumors of flakey > Amigas? If anyone knows the REAL reason they sent this memo, please > speak up! Has anyone who has a 1MB chip-mem modified A500 had any problems? I am farily certain that the A500 can handle the 1 meg agnus chip. However, I think that it is a tedious upgrade. I am not so strong on the 1 meg agnus chip in the a500. It would not upset me to see it as a 'official' upgrade to the 500, however I feel strongly about AmigaDOS 2.0 running on it. Perhaps the 1 meg agnus chip upgrade would be a good comprimise. > > 3. Even though I own a 2000 (now upgraded with a 2630, etc..), I have > always thought that the difference in price between the 500 and the 2000, > for what is essentially the same machine, is too great. If they could If the 500 was the 'professional' machine, why did you feel a need to change computers? Did you not change computers because what you needed was not offered to you in a flavor that you could stand? > lower the price of the 2000, to put it's price/performance better in line > with the 500, I think it would be the best thing to do. But I guess I > don't have details on what it costs to manufacture either system, or > wholesale prices. Remember, lowering prices lowers the dealers margin, or Commodore's profit. Neither at this point is extremely large. I think instead of reducing the price of the 2000 that Commodore should introduce a Amiga 1500. > > Boy, oh boy. This posting is more ranting and raving than I want to do. > So I'll stop. Not at all. I enjoyed it. > > AND THERE WAS MUCH REJOICING. > > --> Steve > -- > > Steve Wahl steve@digibd.com > DigiBoard Inc. > St. Louis Park, MN (612) 922-8055 -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "Mr. AmigaVision" | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ==================================================