WHE46@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (09/26/90)
Since it's introduction in 1985, Commodore has allowed the Amiga
to slowly lose it's competitiveness. At first, there was a more than
$5,000 gap between the Amiga and the closest machines (in price) that
could rival it's capabilities.
The Amiga 3000 is still competitive in the high-end, though, as
everything about it -- from the Zorro II bus to the graphics to the
hard drive -- is just plain fast. The Amiga 500 is also still very
competitive in the low-end, offering a good GUI, bundled software,
and a low price.
The Amiga 2000 is a whole other story. The Amiga 2000 is not
competitive at all. In fact, I can get 20Mhz i386 systems with 4M
of RAM, 1.44M floppy, 40M hard drive, VGA card, and VGA monitor, for
only $100 more than the *EDUCATION* price of the A2000HD. Clearly,
something desperately needs to be done to make the A2000 competitive
again. Right now it isn't, period.
I would like to see the current A2000 totally discontinued, and
replaced by a new system that is almost exactly the same, except
that uses a 14Mhz 68020 on the motherboard instead of the 68000,
has a 32-bit path to the Chip RAM for the CPU, and Zorro III
slots. Oh, yes, this new A2000 should sell at the same prices
as the old A2000.
This would be just what the doctor ordered for the A2000. This
would keep it competitive for a little while longer, in a fiercely
conpetitive market. If this is not done, though, I don't see how
the A2000 can survive much longer being a vastly underpowered and
overpriced machine in this market. In all reality, I don't see
how a weak 7Mhz 68000 system can survive against 20Mhz 386 systems
for the same price.
BTW, making the A2000 68020-based would make for a nice orderly
progression up the Amiga product line. The A500 would be 68000-based,
the A2000 would be 68020-based, and the A3000 would be 68030-based.
-MB-dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) (09/26/90)
In article <31531@nigel.ee.udel.edu> WHE46@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > > BTW, making the A2000 68020-based would make for a nice orderly >progression up the Amiga product line. The A500 would be 68000-based, >the A2000 would be 68020-based, and the A3000 would be 68030-based. I hate to say this, but I agree with him. I thought the 2000 was the best thing since sliced bread when I got it, but it's a bit dissapointing thinking the thing is no faster than my old 500, at three times the price! > -MB- -- Dan Cogswell "In a world full of Ninja Turtles, it's INET: dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu nice to see Aikido Yoshinkai has BITNET: dlcogswell@oakland preserved it's dignity." HAIRNET: <fill-in dumb joke> -- Gozo Shioda, 1990
amhartma@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Andy Hartman - AmigaMan) (09/26/90)
I wish Marc were gone. I wish Marc were gone. I wish Marc were gone. Damn! Still doesn't work. * Andy Hartman | I'd deny half of this crap anyway!| "Somedays, you just * Indiana University | amhartma@silver.ucs.indiana.edu | can't get rid of a * // Amiga Man | AMHARTMA@rose.ucs.indiana.edu | bomb!" * \X/ At Large! | or just "Hey putz!" | - Batman (original)
U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) (09/26/90)
G'day, DC> In article <3134@vela.acs.oakland.edu>, dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu DC> (Dan Cogswell) writes: MB> In article <31531@nigel.ee.udel.edu> WHE46@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) MB> writes: MB> BTW, making the A2000 68020-based would make for a nice orderly MB> progression up the Amiga product line. The A500 would be 68000-based, MB> the A2000 would be 68020-based, and the A3000 would be 68030-based. DC> I hate to say this, but I agree with him. I thought the 2000 was the DC> best thing since sliced bread when I got it, but it's a bit dissapointing DC> thinking the thing is no faster than my old 500, at three times the price! MB> -MB- I haven't read the original posting by Marc but I also support this suggestion. Perhaps an Amiga 2000 Professional (a la A2500/20 with 1 Meg 16 bit RAM and 1M 32 bit RAM) would be percieved by business to be a Mac II level of machine? {I am suggesting an entry level system here, with AmigaDos 2.0, somewhat like the Amiga 3000 RAM spec, in numerical terms.} Please, I'm simply speculating what a business user would perceive. I have my own opinions about both systems that I will keep to myself. DC> Dan Cogswell <great quote deleted, sorry!> yours truly, Lou Cavallo.
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (09/26/90)
In-Reply-To: message from WHE46@ccvax.iastate.edu Question is though...those low-cost i386 clones, are they from Compaq? AST? DELL? Or any other "leading" brand of clone? Or are they Saturday night specials, made up of whatever was cheapest that week, and a case made from plastic that was rejected from Revel? Sean //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | " Fanatics have their INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | dreams, wherewith they | weave a paradise for RealWorld: Sean Cunningham | a sect. " Voice: (512) 994-1602 PLINK: ce3k* | -Keats | Call C.B.A.U.G. BBS (512) 883-8351 w/SkyPix | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
jeff@fang.clearpoint.com (Jeffrey J. Griglack) (09/26/90)
In article <4661@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from WHE46@ccvax.iastate.edu > > >Question is though...those low-cost i386 clones, are they from Compaq? AST? >DELL? Or any other "leading" brand of clone? Or are they Saturday night >specials, made up of whatever was cheapest that week, and a case made from >plastic that was rejected from Revel? > >Sean I have seen some major brands for very low prices. I have actually toyed with the idea of selling my Amiga 2000 and getting a 386 machine. The big hurdle, cost-wise, is an operating system (I hate MSDOS). Windows 3.0 makes this option a little more attractive until you play with Windows and realize how bulky (I'm not sure that that is the word I am looking for) it is. A faster 68020, even with 16 bit data access, is a reasonable alternative to the 68000. It may be time to retrofit the 2000 with an '020 and an MMU so there can be memory protection. I do not see an '020 card addition as a good alternative. It cheaper to fit the '020 onto the mother board. What do you say, Comadore? Jeff Griglack -- Jeff Griglack | Now I quess I have to tell 'em that I jeff@fang.clearpoint.com | have no cerebellum -- The Ramones
jeff@fang.clearpoint.com (Jeffrey J. Griglack) (09/26/90)
>A faster 68020, even with 16 bit data access, is a reasonable alternative
^^
Whoops, I meant 24---------|
--
Jeff Griglack | Now I quess I have to tell 'em that I
jeff@fang.clearpoint.com | have no cerebellum -- The Ramonessk2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sun Kun Kim) (09/27/90)
I don't know if upgrading the 2000's to the 68020 would be such a good
idea. Someone said that it would be much cheaper to put the 68020
rather than a card. Although that maybe true, you will be getting rid
of the compatibility factor. I always thought of the A2000 as the
upgradeable A500. I thought about the price ratio between the two and
came to decide on the A2000. And who said it costs 3 times as much as
the A500? I thought it was a little less than 1.5 times more.($799 for
the A500 package and $1200 for the A2000 both at education prices) You
might say that you can just as easily expand the A500s but have you
checked the prices of the peripherals?? It usually costs about
$100(more in some cases) more than the equivalent A2000 version(card).
Let's say that you bought a hard drive and a ram expansion. You spend
about $200 less for the A2000 than you would on the A2000 and plus it
looks much nicer since it it housed in a nice 'sack' instead of all
these different things coming out of your A500. I guess if you are only
interested in games and some small business stuff, you could settle for
the A500 and not worry about expansion. However, if you are thinking of
doing any expansion at all, A2000 would be a better choice. And if the
A2000s were 68020 based, it would defeat the purpose of buying the A2000
in the first place.
I would keep the configurations as is for now for the above reasons. If
you really wanted a 68020 based machine, you can buy the A2500 instead
or buy the A2620 card for the A2000. It might cost a little more but in
the name of compatibility in this business, you can bet it's woth it!
In the light of cheper MS-DOS machines, I would still choose the A2000.
And Marc, where did you get the figure for the 386 machine? I don't
think the packacge that you name is only $100 more than the A2000HD
educational price. A2000HD's educational price is $1600(?) and 386
machine wouldn't go that low. I've seen 286 machines at about
$1800.(including VGA, monitor, hard drive, etc) I just want to know
where I can get one of these kits. Even if the prices Marc quote is
correct, MS-DOS wouldn't be in my favor. Sure, it might be faster(20
mhz?) and there might be tons of software(mostly EGA and below), I would
rather have multitasking among other things the Amigas are 'famous'
for.(Do I hear m-u-l-i-m-e-d-i-a? and c-u-s-t-o-m c-h-i-p-s?)
Sun...
P.S. Everything I said above is IMHO. You may believe other-wise but I
believe I share the view with a few other Amiga owners.
P.P.S. I am not saying other people that have commented on the topic are
wrong but just wanted to point out that there are others(like myself)
out there with different feelings on the subject.
*****************************************************************************Ca
rnegie Mellon University INTERNET:
sk2x+@andrew.cmu.edu
Yet, another version of sig file. I don't feel too interesting now so I
will just leave
it like this. I will update it to a bodacious version 'soon'. Party on dudes!
DISCLAIMER: Everything I say can and will be used against you. :-) :-) :-)
*****************************************************************************
SIGNATURE file v.2.1 (updated 9/19/90)db@cs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry) (09/27/90)
In article <60335@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> amhartma@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Andy Hartman - AmigaMan) writes: > >I wish Marc were gone. I wish Marc were gone. I wish Marc were gone. Why? Are you trying to ignore the facts? I'm currently looking for a new 16-bit computer I'm attracted to the Amiga. I would prefer a 2000 to a 500, because it's easier to expand. But look at the folloowing price comparisons: Amiga 500: 470 pounds (with 3rd-party upgrade to 1M). Amiga 2000: 880 pounds. 400 pounds extra for basically the same computer ??? Amiga 2000 + Multisync monitor + 20M HD: 1550 pounds. Olivetti PCS 286, VGA graphics + 20M HD + Windows v3: 1590 pounds. And with the Amiga I can't even use the hi-res modes unless I buy a flicker-fixer (350 pounds) or wait until I can buy the Enchanced Chip Set (with gives me only 4 colours!). Obviously the Amiga has some advantages over the 286 machine (better built-in sound, better built-in animation support, slightly better OS, easier to program, possibly easier to expand). But it's slower, has worse screen resolution, has less software, and isn't "industry standard". If the 2000 cost 200 pounds less, then the extra expansion capability would seem worth it. I could put the 200 quid saved towards a flicker-fixer so that the graphics would be comparable to the 286 machine for only 100 pounds more. This is not an idle exercise. It is the information that I'm using to decide which computer to buy. Feel free to correct any false assumptions. By the way, these prices don't include an educational discount. I believe that I can get a discount on either machine. -- Dave Berry, LFCS, Edinburgh Uni. db%lfcs.ed.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Snuffsaidbutgorblimeyguvstonemeifhedidn'tthrowawobblerchachachachachacha chachachachachayou'regoinghomeinacosmicambience.
d6b@psuecl.bitnet (09/27/90)
In article <31531@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, WHE46@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > > Since it's introduction in 1985, Commodore has allowed the Amiga > to slowly lose it's competitiveness. At first, there was a more than Funny, I see things exactly opposite. The Amiga has only recently become very competitive, because a lot of great software has been written recently and is being developed. People are pushing the machine to its limits, at long last. And a lot of people I know have recently (or will soon) upgrade to the Amiga from the venerable '64/'128. Sure, it's time for a new chip set, as has been discussed to death, but for now I'm very happy. I feel a LOT better about the Amiga now than I did in 1985! -- Dan Babcock
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (09/27/90)
In article <1254@crackers.clearpoint.com> jeff@fang.clearpoint.com (Jeffrey J. Griglack) writes: >In article <4661@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >>In-Reply-To: message from WHE46@ccvax.iastate.edu >A faster 68020, even with 16 bit data access, is a reasonable alternative >to the 68000. It may be time to retrofit the 2000 with an '020 and an >MMU so there can be memory protection. From Commodore's point of view, it would be cheaper to build a basic 68020 machine than to build a basic A2000 and then add in a coprocessor board. At least, the finished unit would cost less -- witness the A3000 vs. the A2500. However, there are other considerations. How may machines do they expect to sell? Is there something an '020 box could give you that the A2000 + '020 doesn't? Etc. You have to justify the new product and the expense it takes to design it. There are quite a few considerations. One of the reasons the A2000 and A3000 have Coprocessor slots, designed specifically to support new and faster processors, is that we like to offer a CPU upgrade to a system without requiring the user to buy an entire new system. If you design in such upgrade potential, there's often very little difference in CPU performance between the upgraded generation N machine and the basic generation N+1 machine. Things like performance enhancements in other areas, time, number of computers you're making, etc. help define where exactly you go to the next system generation. I wouldn't expect to see any new '020 + 68851 MMU machines from anyone, ever again. The cost of the '020 + '851 is now more than the cost of the '030, and even if the '020 cost starts dropping to zero, this is probably still going to be the case. >I do not see an '020 card addition as a good alternative. It cheaper to >fit the '020 onto the mother board. What do you say, Commodore? For the owner of an A2000, the add-in 68020 or 68030 is always going to cost less than the equivalent in a complete new system. >Jeff Griglack | Now I quess I have to tell 'em that I >jeff@fang.clearpoint.com | have no cerebellum -- The Ramones -- 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) (09/27/90)
>---------- > Resp: 2 of 2 by [Andy Hartman - AmigaMan] > Date: Wed Sep 26 1990 03:08 > Lines:8 > > > >I wish Marc were gone. I wish Marc were gone. I wish Marc were gone. > >Damn! Still doesn't work. >* Andy Hartman | I'd deny half of this crap anyway!| "Somedays, you just >* Indiana University | amhartma@silver.ucs.indiana.edu | can't get rid of a >* // Amiga Man | AMHARTMA@rose.ucs.indiana.edu | bomb!" >* \X/ At Large! | or just "Hey putz!" | - Batman (original) Look, you idiot, you make no sense, your messages have NO content, and you apparently have NO opinions that aren't based on seeing what everybody else has said first. Why don't you shut up until you can either have an original thought, or can at least imitate other people at the appropriate time? This is a followup to email that was not, apparently, taken to heart... /****************************************************************** * All of the above copyright by the below. * * Bill Cavanaugh uunet!tronsbox!bleys * * * * "Armor may be heavy, but it's better than a stick in the eye!" * ******************************************************************/
koshy@abekrd.UUCP (Koshy Abraham) (09/27/90)
In <462@skye.cs.ed.ac.uk> db@cs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry) writes: >I'm currently looking for a new 16-bit computer I'm attracted to the >Amiga. I would prefer a 2000 to a 500, because it's easier to expand. >But look at the folloowing price comparisons: >Amiga 500: 470 pounds (with 3rd-party upgrade to 1M). >Amiga 2000: 880 pounds. >400 pounds extra for basically the same computer ??? I was at the Business Computer Show in Earls Court, London. Commodore showed an A1500 Amiga for 1000 pounds. It is basically an A2000 with an A1500 label. They are calling it the Personal Home Computer (I think). It comes with some software as follows : Platinum Works Deluxe Paint (II ?) About three games A Colour monitor is included in the price, as well as two 3.5 inch drives. >Amiga 2000 + Multisync monitor + 20M HD: 1550 pounds. >Olivetti PCS 286, VGA graphics + 20M HD + Windows v3: 1590 pounds. >And with the Amiga I can't even use the hi-res modes unless >I buy a flicker-fixer (350 pounds) or wait until I can buy >the Enchanced Chip Set (with gives me only 4 colours!). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ECS is included in the new package. >If the 2000 cost 200 pounds less, then the extra expansion >capability would seem worth it. I could put the 200 quid saved >towards a flicker-fixer so that the graphics would be comparable to >the 286 machine for only 100 pounds more. Looks like your prayers have been answered. >-- > Dave Berry, LFCS, Edinburgh Uni. db%lfcs.ed.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk -- Koshy Abraham UUCP: ...!uunet!mcsun!ukc!pyrltd!abekrd!koshy Abekas Video Systems Ltd. NET: koshy@abekrd.co.uk // 12 Portman Rd, Reading, PHONE: +44 734 585421 // Berkshire. RG3 1EA. FAX: +44 734 597267 \\ // United Kingdom. TELEX: 847579 K\A/b
peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) (09/28/90)
Here is another opinion on 68000 Amiga's. Why doesn't Commodore start
shipping them with a 14Mhz 68000? The processor cost increase is less
than $20, and the slight modifications to the motherboard should cost
almost nothing. Either a "turbo" button can be added, or have a byte
(or nibble or whatever) where the software can set the speed. Set the
default at 7Mhz, to keep any existing software with stupid timing loops
functional, and add an option to preferences for everone else. This
should cause no more incompatibilities than the various motherboard
changes introduced, and gives the 500 and 2000 a much better image.
I think that this would give the basic line the shot in the arm that
it needs to stay competitive. But then again, I am not a Commodore
Engineer (at least not yet, but who knows what the future holds....),
and don't get to make decisions like this....
Joe Peck
Hoards of abuse taken at peck@ral.rpi.edujeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) (09/28/90)
peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) writes: >Here is another opinion on 68000 Amiga's. Why doesn't Commodore start >shipping them with a 14Mhz 68000? The processor cost increase is less >than $20, and the slight modifications to the motherboard should cost >almost nothing. I doubt if it would be worth it. There are third-party boards that piggyback a 14MHz 68000 + glue circuitry into the 68000 socket, and I think their overall speedup is something like 10-20%. The problem is that the rest of the machine (memory, custom chips, etc.) still runs at 7MHz (and changing that would be a _major_ redesign). That's why Commodore's A2620 and A2630 accellerator boards have always come with (relatively) high-speed 32-bit memory. IMHO, it takes at least a 50% speed increase for a machine to "feel faster." Anything less isn't worth it unless you're running programs that take hours or days at a time to run. Ed Hanway uunet!sisd!jeh
tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (HIM) (09/28/90)
>Resp: 2 of 5 About: Re: Amiga Competitiveness. ><> [Andy Hartman - AmigaMan] (*Masked*@silver.ucs.indiana.edu) > > >I wish Marc were gone. I wish Marc were gone. I wish Marc were gone. Sheesh .. Marc is right more often than not. I mean , he's a little, ENTHUSIASTIC about being right (I mean he seems to ENJOY the fact that the 2000 is a lost cause) but he is correct. Seriously , if you don't have something to add , dont. It seems to me that people think that they will score brownie points around here by MB bashing. BTW -- I always thought the A2000 was a , hmmm , diversion at best. it never once tempted me away from my 1000 ( the 3000 is a different story once I see some good 3rd party g-boards) ========[ Xanadu Enterprises Inc. Amiga & Unix Software Development]======= =Also the mantra and spells, the obeah and the wanga; the work of the wand= =and the work of the sword: these shall he learn and teach. = = He must teach; but he may make severe the ordeals. = =========== Ken Jamieson: uunet!tronsbox.xei.com!tron1 =================== = NONE of the opinions represented here are endorsed by either = = Xanadu Enterpises or its clients, AT&T Bell Labs or others. = === The Romantic Encounters BBS 201-759-8450(PEP) / 201-759-8568(2400) ====
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (09/28/90)
In-Reply-To: message from jeff@fang.clearpoint.com I could be wrong, but I seem to remember reading that Motorola was going to discontinue producing 68851MMUs...this may be why neither Commodore, nor Apple produce any '020 machines, and why '020 accelerators (with MMU sockets) are scarce now...everyone's gone for the '030 because they're cheap enough now. Sean //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | " Fanatics have their INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | dreams, wherewith they | weave a paradise for RealWorld: Sean Cunningham | a sect. " Voice: (512) 994-1602 PLINK: ce3k* | -Keats | Call C.B.A.U.G. BBS (512) 883-8351 w/SkyPix | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
AAW151%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (Andy Patrizio) (09/28/90)
One the subject of competitiveness and CPU speed, which has been going on at th e same time, just a thought: There isn't a computer salesman on this planet who would sell a Mac or IBM/IBM clone without a hard drive. 40 megs is as standard as memory and a motherboard, you don't even think of it as an add-on. The Amiga has to be the same way. The CPU is pretty quick as it stands, it's di sk I/O that makes me scream. A 40 meg HD and a RAD:/VD0: would make life MUCH e asier. Too bad I have an A500... but I'm working on it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Andy Patrizio Box 705 Ellery Hall * * Bitnet: aaw151@uriacc.bitnet University of Rhode Island * * Internet: aaw151@uriacc.uri.edu Kingston, RI 02881 * * Usenet: simon@sbs.bbs.com USofA * * MaBellNet: (401) 782-2758 * ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- * "We may be human, but we're still animals inside" - Steve Vai * -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) (09/29/90)
In article <31807@nigel.ee.udel.edu> AAW151%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (Andy Patrizio) writes: >There isn't a computer salesman on this planet who would sell a Mac or >IBM/IBM clone without a hard drive. 40 megs is as standard as memory >and a motherboard, you don't even think of it as an add-on. Good point. When was the last time the C-A released a new machine that didn't come with a hard drive? Can you say, "years and years ago"? I knew you could. (I don't count the A500P (not a "new" model) or CDTV (not a computer)). I think C-A figured that one out a while ago ...but it does show that you are thinking. (better than a lot of the posts on c.s.a) >The Amiga has to be the same way. The CPU is pretty quick as it >stands, it's disk I/O that makes me scream. A 40 meg HD and a Floppy disk IO is faster than IBM or Mac disk IO. But yes, a HD is faster no matter who's floppy you use. An Amiga with a good controller (like the A2091) beats just about all other desktop PC/Macs for harddisk IO. >RAD:/VD0: would make life MUCH easier. Too bad I have an A500... but >I'm working on it. After I got my hard drive I stopped using RAD/VD0. "RAM:? Isn't that a synonym for ENV:? Or T:?" :-) -Tom -- tlimonce@drew.edu Tom Limoncelli "Freedom and justice tlimonce@drew.uucp +1 201 408 5389 are opposites" tlimonce@drew.Bitnet limonce@pilot.njin.net -me
peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) (09/29/90)
In article <1990Sep27.203058.601@sisd.kodak.com> jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes: >peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) writes: >>Here is another opinion on 68000 Amiga's. Why doesn't Commodore start >>shipping them with a 14Mhz 68000? The processor cost increase is less >>than $20, and the slight modifications to the motherboard should cost >>almost nothing. > >I doubt if it would be worth it. There are third-party boards that >piggyback a 14MHz 68000 + glue circuitry into the 68000 socket, and >I think their overall speedup is something like 10-20%. The problem is >that the rest of the machine (memory, custom chips, etc.) still runs at >7MHz (and changing that would be a _major_ redesign). That's why >Commodore's A2620 and A2630 accellerator boards have always come with >(relatively) high-speed 32-bit memory. > >IMHO, it takes at least a 50% speed increase for a machine to "feel faster." >Anything less isn't worth it unless you're running programs that take hours >or days at a time to run. > Hmmmm, like any of the raytracers for example? Or compiling large programs? So let's revise the statement to include only Amiga 2000's, on the basis that most of the 500's are bought for games. (I know, not everyone does, but the 2000 is supposed to be for "serious" work). Now, since the accelerator boards only advantage (aside from the better processor) is the memory, why can't we use a faster 16 bit memory board? If it can't go in the zorro slots, can't it use the CPU slot? I don't have the technical manuals for any of the amiga's (RKM manuals are much help here), so I could be way off base. In fact, the more I think about it, doesn't the 2500 come with 100ns memory chips? If those are fast enough for 25Mhz, shouldn't the 120ns chips in an 8UP! board be good enough for a 14Mhz 68000? Finally, even if it is only a 20% increase, 14Mhz would make a better marketing point, something that the Amiga needs..... >Ed Hanway >uunet!sisd!jeh Joe Peck peck@ral.rpi.edu
mike@maths.tcd.ie (Mike Rogers) (09/29/90)
In article <Yb0C6bG00VIAQ0iVVm@andrew.cmu.edu>, sk2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sun Kun Kim) wrote: >educational price. A2000HD's educational price is $1600(?) and 386 >machine wouldn't go that low. I've seen 286 machines at about >$1800.(including VGA, monitor, hard drive, etc) I just want to know Well, I've seen 386sx bottom of the barrel thrown togethers for around $1400. -- Mike Rogers, 6.3.3 TCD, D2, Eire. | Gardens of slime, rivers of muck, mike@hamilton.maths.tcd.ie (UNIX=>AOK)| Cast iron condoms, a telephone fu*k mike@tcdmath.uucp (UUCP=>oldie/goodie)| No private transport, no animals too, msrogers@vax1.tcd.ie(VMS => blergh) | the 21st century means melanomas for you
jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) (09/29/90)
In article <S*N%#D%@rpi.edu> peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) writes: >In article <1990Sep27.203058.601@sisd.kodak.com> jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes: >>peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) writes: >>>Here is another opinion on 68000 Amiga's. Why doesn't Commodore start >>>shipping them with a 14Mhz 68000? [...] >> >>I doubt if it would be worth it. There are third-party boards that >>piggyback a 14MHz 68000 + glue circuitry into the 68000 socket, and >>I think their overall speedup is something like 10-20%. The problem is >>that the rest of the machine (memory, custom chips, etc.) still runs at >>7MHz (and changing that would be a _major_ redesign). [...] >> >>IMHO, it takes at least a 50% speed increase for a machine to "feel faster." >>Anything less isn't worth it unless you're running programs that take hours >>or days at a time to run. >> > >Hmmmm, like any of the raytracers for example? Or compiling large programs? Yes, for an 8-hour ray tracing, saving one hour would be significant. Ray tracing, however, depends almost entirely on floating point speed. A 14MHz 68000 won't do a whole lot for that, but an add-on 68881 might. Compiling depends on more than raw CPU speed -- it makes intensive use of memory and I/O. I'd bet that most of that 10-20% evaporates. >So let's revise the statement to include only Amiga 2000's, on the basis >that most of the 500's are bought for games. (I know, not everyone does, but >the 2000 is supposed to be for "serious" work). Now, since the accelerator >boards only advantage (aside from the better processor) is the memory, why >can't we use a faster 16 bit memory board? That would certainly work, but it would require a lot more design effort than simply cranking up the clock rate of the CPU. After going through all of the trouble to design in a faster CPU and memory subsystem, you might as well design it around a 32-bit CPU as well. 16 MHz 68020's and 68030's are pretty cheap right now. >In fact, the more I think about it, doesn't the 2500 come with 100ns memory >chips? If those are fast enough for 25Mhz, shouldn't the 120ns chips in >an 8UP! board be good enough for a 14Mhz 68000? The 2500/30 uses 100ns chips and requires 2 wait states at 25MHz. I don't know the exact specs, but 120ns chips can certainly run faster than 7MHz. The problem is that the 8UP!, like all Zorro II cards that I know of, is designed to run on a 7MHz bus. I have a 2500/30 with 4 megs of 32-bit RAM and 4 megs on an 8UP, and performance drops off drastically after the 32-bit RAM is filled. >Finally, even if it is only a 20% increase, 14Mhz would make a better >marketing point, something that the Amiga needs..... I'm not denying that a low-cost 14MHz Amiga would be nice, but I'd rather see Commodore's efforts directed toward the higher end. I think that the 16MHz A3000 is in a good marketing position (should blow away any 386sx) and will get better as the price drops in the future. 500 and 2000 owners already have a nice selection of expansion options. I'd rather see Commodore expand on the A3000 rather than devoting more time to their older lines. Of course, I'm definitely not saying that they should abandon everything but the A3000, just that their new product efforts should concentrate on the machine with the most potential. A 14MHz Amiga would evoke yawns from the PC press, while a 68040 Amiga might attract some deserved attention. Ed Hanway uunet!sisd!jeh
UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) (09/29/90)
>In article <31807@nigel.ee.udel.edu> AAW151%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu >(Andy Patrizio) writes: >>There isn't a computer salesman on this planet who would sell a Mac or >>IBM/IBM clone without a hard drive. 40 megs is as standard as memory >>and a motherboard, you don't even think of it as an add-on. True, but in the msdos world, more memory isn't as valuable, since many programs don't take advantage of it and multitasking is an add on. I might be strange, but given the choice between 3MB of memory, FACCII, and 2 floppies on the one hand, and 1MB memory and a 20MB hard disk on the other, I'd take the memory. How much would it cost Commodore to make 3MB the standard on every machine? lee
cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu (Clinton Jeffery) (09/29/90)
A paraphrased extract from an article by UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) >...DOS machines can't use memory so no wonder they all have hard disks, etc... > I might be strange, but given the choice between 3MB of memory, FACCII, and > 2 floppies on the one hand, and 1MB memory and a 20MB hard disk on the other, > I'd take the memory. Yup, you're strange. :-) But seriously, this depends ENTIRELY on what you are doing with your computer AND how well your computer vendor's hardware performs. Example #1: the amiga _can_ use memory better than MS-DOS, and worse than (any real flavor of) UNIX. (Go ahead, argue against this one saying that AmigaDOS requires much less memory. With 6 MB I am more concerned with OS protection from GURUS than with kernel size.) Example #2: an Amiga's hard disk, even with FFS, is *ridiculously* slow compared to the _identical_ hard disk running DOS or UNIX/386. This is based on empirical observation doing heavy C compiles on a 2000 with 1MB ram and a 40 Meg ST-251-1. Sorry. I wish it were untrue. Example #3: The Amiga can use graphics hardware far more efficiently than comparable UNIX software (X Windows). I hope the Amiga's graphics capabilities catch up with the times (remember when the Amiga didn't have ANY competition for affordable color graphics?). Hope I haven't offended too many folks... -- | Clint Jeffery, U. of Arizona Dept. of Computer Science | cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu -or- {noao allegra}!arizona!cjeffery --
h112706@assari.tut.fi (Herranen Henrik) (09/29/90)
In article <1990Sep28.193008.6137@sisd.kodak.com> jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes: >In article <S*N%#D%@rpi.edu> peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) writes: >>In article <1990Sep27.203058.601@sisd.kodak.com> jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes: >>>peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) writes: >>>>Here is another opinion on 68000 Amiga's. Why doesn't Commodore start >>>>shipping them with a 14Mhz 68000? [...] >>> >>>I doubt if it would be worth it. There are third-party boards that >>>piggyback a 14MHz 68000 + glue circuitry into the 68000 socket, and >>>I think their overall speedup is something like 10-20%. The problem is >>>that the rest of the machine (memory, custom chips, etc.) still runs at >>>7MHz (and changing that would be a _major_ redesign). [...] >>> >>Hmmmm, like any of the raytracers for example? Or compiling large programs? > >Yes, for an 8-hour ray tracing, saving one hour would be significant. >Ray tracing, however, depends almost entirely on floating point speed. >A 14MHz 68000 won't do a whole lot for that, but an add-on 68881 might. Doesn't floating point calculating use heavily the slowest commands in the 68000/68010, divide and multiply? I've noticed that after I inserted the 68020 in my B2000, many Mandelbrot programs speeded up with 20-25% while AmigaBASIC only gained 5%. Now, wouldn't it be so, that doubling processor speed would give ne about 20-30% more again? After that the overall gain would be over 50% more speed. I don't know if this really would happen, but if a 140 clock cycle DIVU (70 cycles on 68010) execution time could almost be halved, wouldn't it be nice to have a little faster machine to do your n-hour ray tracing/Mandelbroting with? >Ed Hanway >uunet!sisd!jeh -- Name: Henrik 'Leopold' Herranen h112706@lehtori.tut.fi Address: TTKK/P{{rakennuksen neuvonta/PL527/33101 Tampere/Suomi Finlandia "On d{htinen daevas ja kuutamoy|, on morsiamelta katkaistu p{{" E.L.1989
UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) (09/30/90)
In article <420@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>, cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu (Clinton Jeffery) says: >Example #2: an Amiga's hard disk, even with FFS, is *ridiculously* slow > compared to the _identical_ hard disk running DOS or UNIX/386. This > is based on empirical observation doing heavy C compiles on a 2000 > with 1MB ram and a 40 Meg ST-251-1. Sorry. I wish it were untrue. This isn't true. Overall throughput of a proper Amiga Hard Disk is quite good.
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (09/30/90)
In article <S*N%#D%@rpi.edu> peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) writes: [...] >the 2000 is supposed to be for "serious" work). Now, since the accelerator >boards only advantage (aside from the better processor) is the memory, There are three major advantages to buying a coprocessor with memory: 1) Improved performance of the processor - it doesn't require as many cycles for the improved processor as it takes on a standard 68000. 2) Faster clock speed - the newer processor can run on a faster clock, so the cycles themselves are shorter. 3) The data bus between the coprocessor and the memory card is 32 bits wide - this is because the new processor is a 32-bit processor. The memory on these boards may be as much as 30% faster than the memory on a standard A2000, but not much more. The big advantage is in bus-width, which can double performance in many cases. > ... why >can't we use a faster 16 bit memory board? If it can't go in the zorro >slots, can't it use the CPU slot? The faster your memory board is the better your performance will be, until you get to zero wait-states, at which point speeding up your memory doesn't buy you anything. This has nothing to do with the Zorro spec. The 680x0 family uses an "asynchronous" bus, which means that the processor has to wait until the memory it is accessing reports that it is done before the processor can do anything else. This means that there is no such thing as memory that is "too slow", unless you want to get ridiculous and try to force thousands of wait states on a single access. At 14 MHz or approximately 70 ns cycle time, a typical bus cycle of four clocks for the 68000 is 280 ns. Typical cycle time for a 120 ns DRAM with no fancy nibble or static column modes is around 220 ns, including precharge and other requirements. That leaves 60 ns for other delays in the circuit. Using a 100 ns DRAM will buy you about 30 ns more for other delays in your circuit. At 7 MHz you (the designer) basically have "all day" for your circuit's delays. At 25 MHz you're not going to get 100% zero wait states using normal DRAMs. 80 ns DRAMs have a cycle time of 160 ns, which is the same time required for a 68000 bus cycle. Other processors may have a shorter bus cycle. That is why there is a market for fast caches. The designer just inserts wait states in his design which force the processor to wait until the data is ready in the memory. > ... I don't have the technical manuals for >any of the amiga's (RKM manuals are much help here), so I could be way off >base. > >In fact, the more I think about it, doesn't the 2500 come with 100ns memory >chips? If those are fast enough for 25Mhz, shouldn't the 120ns chips in >an 8UP! board be good enough for a 14Mhz 68000? See above; 100 ns is not fast enough for zero wait states at 25 MHz. >Finally, even if it is only a 20% increase, 14Mhz would make a better >marketing point, something that the Amiga needs..... Well, a memory board designed for zero wait states on a 14 MHz Amiga would really give new emphasis to the phrase "fast ram". Your Amiga would run at double speed out of fast ram. But it would still be slow when accessing chip ram. This could actually be a nice little hack. Something like the Lucas project. Many people would be happy with 2X performance, especially if they could switch back to 1X under software control (just set up the memory card with a programmible div-by-2 on the clock). -- _. --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) (09/30/90)
G'day,
CJ> In article <420@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>, cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu
CJ> (Clinton Jeffery) writes:
CJ> Example #2: an Amiga's hard disk, even with FFS, is *ridiculously* slow
CJ> compared to the _identical_ hard disk running DOS or UNIX/386. This
CJ> is based on empirical observation doing heavy C compiles on a 2000
CJ> with 1MB ram and a 40 Meg ST-251-1. Sorry. I wish it were untrue.
Clint, could you give the specs behind this claim please?
What was the controller on the DOS or UNIX system?
What was the controller on the Amiga system?
I have seen a Quantum 40 Meg equipped 386 DX apparently out perform (2 Mbits
per sec benchmark) quoted A2000 Quantum 40 Meg throughputs but the 386 had a
32 bit buss... {which qualitatively explains its approx 2x throughput over a
16 bit A2000 buss}.
One would naturally assume that such a difference for a comparison b/w any 2
PC systems should be controller/PCbuss related. For our proper analysis we'd
need to know the controller specifics.
Are we comparing a 386-SX to an Amiga 2000 which is the closest comparison ?
{A 386DX with SCSI buss and QuantumHD would be a good comparison to a 3000.}
Moreover as Dave Haynie could attest to, the A2000 Zorro II buss is old news
in todays terms. The new Zorro III buss hits 20 Mbits/sec (Dave?) and Acorns
ARM III chipset can hit about 38 Mbits/sec I think (can validate anyone ?).
CJ> Hope I haven't offended too many folks...
Not at all. I can appreciate the need to quote facts as one sees them.
CJ> Clint Jeffery, U. of Arizona Dept. of Computer Science
CJ> cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu -or- {noao allegra}!arizona!cjeffery
yours truly,
Lou Cavallo.cpca@iceman.jcu.oz (C Adams) (09/30/90)
In article <31531@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, WHE46@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > The Amiga 2000 is a whole other story. The Amiga 2000 is not > competitive at all. In fact, I can get 20Mhz i386 systems with 4M > of RAM, 1.44M floppy, 40M hard drive, VGA card, and VGA monitor, for > only $100 more than the *EDUCATION* price of the A2000HD. Clearly, > something desperately needs to be done to make the A2000 competitive > again. Right now it isn't, period. > The situation is the same in Australia. A 2000 with monitor is around $2500 (AUST.) For the same price I can buy a 286 with 44 meg hard drive, 1 meg ram, colour VGA monitor and super VGA card. I think the 2000 should be upgraded, maybe with an inbuilt flicker fixer like the 3000. The price of the Amiga monitor is over the top as well. ******************************************************************** Colin Adams Life's funny but I don't laugh ********************************************************************
cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu (Clinton Jeffery) (09/30/90)
From an article by U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo): > CJ> (Clinton Jeffery) wildly claims that (Amigas innate beauty aside): > CJ> an Amiga's hard disk, even with FFS, is *ridiculously* slow > CJ> compared to the _identical_ hard disk running DOS or UNIX/386, etc. > Clint, could you give the specs behind this claim please? > What was the controller on the DOS or UNIX system? > What was the controller on the Amiga system? > [Lou goes on to point out that lots of other variables are involved] Thanks Lou, my observations are for obsolete machines, so they can be taken lightly: I was referring to a fairly early A2000 with a 2090 controller, vs. a 12MHz 286 AT, typical WD-clone 1:1 MFM controller. Variables my sweeping generalization ignored include: bus speed (AT bus is 8MHz), CPU speed, HARD DISK INTERLEAVE, OS version, etc. What interleave does a 2090 use by default, and is it changeable? Anyhow an A3000 vs. a 486 and a Zorro-III bus vs. an EISA bus comparison will have to be made by someone far richer than I :-). -- | Clint Jeffery, U. of Arizona Dept. of Computer Science | cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu -or- {noao allegra}!arizona!cjeffery --
h112706@assari.tut.fi (Herranen Henrik) (09/30/90)
In article <1091@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) writes: >G'day, > >CJ> In article <420@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>, cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu >CJ> (Clinton Jeffery) writes: > >CJ> Example #2: an Amiga's hard disk, even with FFS, is *ridiculously* slow >CJ> compared to the _identical_ hard disk running DOS or UNIX/386. This >CJ> is based on empirical observation doing heavy C compiles on a 2000 >CJ> with 1MB ram and a 40 Meg ST-251-1. Sorry. I wish it were untrue. > >Clint, could you give the specs behind this claim please? > >What was the controller on the DOS or UNIX system? >What was the controller on the Amiga system? > >I have seen a Quantum 40 Meg equipped 386 DX apparently out perform (2 Mbits >per sec benchmark) quoted A2000 Quantum 40 Meg throughputs but the 386 had a >32 bit buss... {which qualitatively explains its approx 2x throughput over a >16 bit A2000 buss}. Well, if you think 2 Mbits per sec is fast then my Hard Frame controller is divinely fast. 2MBits/s = 200 kBytes/s, and my Hard Frame with 105 MB Quantum reads about 690 kB/s according to one of my test programs (the one I wrote myself, of course ;-) ). And 690 kBytes/s is more than I've ever seen my friend's 25 MHz 386 do (compared to my 7 MHz 68010). >One would naturally assume that such a difference for a comparison b/w any 2 >PC systems should be controller/PCbuss related. For our proper analysis we'd >need to know the controller specifics. > >Are we comparing a 386-SX to an Amiga 2000 which is the closest comparison ? >{A 386DX with SCSI buss and QuantumHD would be a good comparison to a 3000.} > >Moreover as Dave Haynie could attest to, the A2000 Zorro II buss is old news >in todays terms. The new Zorro III buss hits 20 Mbits/sec (Dave?) and Acorns >ARM III chipset can hit about 38 Mbits/sec I think (can validate anyone ?). The output of the Zorro III bus is certainly ar least 10 times more than 20 MBits/s (the same error again. Let's all say this loud and clear just to remember: "BIT <> BYTE"). >CJ> Clint Jeffery, U. of Arizona Dept. of Computer Science >CJ> cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu -or- {noao allegra}!arizona!cjeffery > >yours truly, >Lou Cavallo. Regards, Henrik -- Name: Henrik 'Leopold' Herranen h112706@lehtori.tut.fi Address: TTKK/P{{rakennuksen neuvonta/PL527/33101 Tampere/Suomi Finlandia "On d{htinen daevas ja kuutamoy|, on morsiamelta katkaistu p{{" E.L.1989
martin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Martin Hunt) (09/30/90)
In article <1091@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) writes: >G'day, > >CJ> In article <420@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>, cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu >CJ> (Clinton Jeffery) writes: > >CJ> Example #2: an Amiga's hard disk, even with FFS, is *ridiculously* slow >CJ> compared to the _identical_ hard disk running DOS or UNIX/386. This >CJ> is based on empirical observation doing heavy C compiles on a 2000 >CJ> with 1MB ram and a 40 Meg ST-251-1. Sorry. I wish it were untrue. > First of all, this is NOT true. An Amiga with a fast controller will outperform most DOS machines. FFS is much faster than the Berkeley filesystem, so I would expect to see it always outperform a Unix system using similar hardware. >Clint, could you give the specs behind this claim please? > >What was the controller on the DOS or UNIX system? >What was the controller on the Amiga system? If you were using an ST251 with a 2090, then it is understandable if things were a bit slow. > >I have seen a Quantum 40 Meg equipped 386 DX apparently out perform (2 Mbits >per sec benchmark) quoted A2000 Quantum 40 Meg throughputs but the 386 had a >32 bit buss... {which qualitatively explains its approx 2x throughput over a >16 bit A2000 buss}. An A2000 with a Q40 drive and a 2091 controller does about 500000 bytes/sec or 4 Mbits/sec, twice the speed of the 386 machine. Since this is well below the capacity of the bus, bus size is not really an issue. I have seen Amigas do over 10 Mbits/sec from fast hard drives. > >One would naturally assume that such a difference for a comparison b/w any 2 >PC systems should be controller/PCbuss related. For our proper analysis we'd >need to know the controller specifics. > >Are we comparing a 386-SX to an Amiga 2000 which is the closest comparison ? >{A 386DX with SCSI buss and QuantumHD would be a good comparison to a 3000.} > >Moreover as Dave Haynie could attest to, the A2000 Zorro II buss is old news >in todays terms. The new Zorro III buss hits 20 Mbits/sec (Dave?) and Acorns >ARM III chipset can hit about 38 Mbits/sec I think (can validate anyone ?). > Buss speeds are generally measured in bytes per second. I believe Zorro III does 20M BYTES/sec. I don't know about the ARM III, but the chipset isn't what determines the buss speed. Martin Hunt martin@cbmvax.commodore.com Network Engineer {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!martin
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (09/30/90)
limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) writes: >In article <31807@nigel.ee.udel.edu> AAW151%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (Andy Patrizio) writes: >>There isn't a computer salesman on this planet who would sell a Mac or >>IBM/IBM clone without a hard drive. 40 megs is as standard as memory >>and a motherboard, you don't even think of it as an add-on. >Good point. Huh? I think you two ought to go looking thru the computer shopper. MOST clones are bought in pieces. The minimum configuration is a CPU box, and keyboard, with serial port, parallel port and a Floppy drive. If you want a hard drive they sell it as an option, or as alternate setup costing more. Just like you can buy a 2000HD for a more than a 2000 without a hard drive. IBM sells it's PS/2's without hard drives (at least the two we got here didn't come with them [a -30 and a -50] and I bet the PS/1's don't have hard drives unless you pay extra for them. MacIntoshes cost extra for the hard drive, heck you have to even pay extra to get a keyboard when you buy a Mac. Hard drives are still very much optional peripherals in the world of computing. They are becomming more and more neccisary, but you still have to pay more for it -- John Sparks |D.I.S.K. Public Access Unix System| Multi-User Games, Email sparks@corpane.UUCP |PH: (502) 968-DISK 24Hrs/2400BPS | Usenet, Chatting, =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|7 line Multi-User system. | Downloads & more. A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of----Ogden Nash
jita@polaris.utu.fi (Marko Katajisto) (10/01/90)
In article <1091@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) writes: >CJ> In article <420@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>, cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu >CJ> (Clinton Jeffery) writes: > >CJ> Example #2: an Amiga's hard disk, even with FFS, is *ridiculously* slow >CJ> compared to the _identical_ hard disk running DOS or UNIX/386. This >CJ> is based on empirical observation doing heavy C compiles on a 2000 >CJ> with 1MB ram and a 40 Meg ST-251-1. Sorry. I wish it were untrue. I'd like to hear more about these empirical observations... First, how can you say that the limitation of the speed is harddisk/filesystem when comparing two cpu/compiler/controller combinations where nothing else than the disk is same? How you measure what's the weakest link, or is it just that you think 68000 at 7.x MHz should compete with x.x MHz 386 SX when system's harddisk is same....? >What was the controller on the DOS or UNIX system? >What was the controller on the Amiga system? Obviously DOS/UNIX system's controller is somekind of ST502/504 controller and I assume Amiga's controller is same type, otherwise there's no sense in this comparasion... >I have seen a Quantum 40 Meg equipped 386 DX apparently out perform (2 Mbits >per sec benchmark) quoted A2000 Quantum 40 Meg throughputs but the 386 had a >32 bit buss... {which qualitatively explains its approx 2x throughput over a >16 bit A2000 buss}. I'd really like to see that Quantum/386 combination myself. How can it be possible that you suck 2 MB/sec (I hope that 2 MBits is a typo) on any system from a harddisk that just can't perform that fast??? It's just that Amiga uses no caching with it's disk, DOS and UNIX are usually forced to utilize somekind of a cache, DOS because of those lousy ST-drives :) and UNIX for some other reasons. The bus width (In this case) has actually not some much to do with harddisk's speed because that's not the weakest links. BTW: dperf claims that Quatum 105S is roughly twice as fast when connected to Sun 3.x/80's SCSI-bus than when connected to Amiga's SCSI (HardFrame) bus, and that's absolute bs as we all know... ;) I can get about 800KB/sec out from my 105S (A2000b/A2620) and if I want to get significantly faster I must buy a Wren or something. So, anybody got a Wren IV connected to his Amiga and is willing to run diskperf of DiskSpeed...? >CJ> Clint Jeffery, U. of Arizona Dept. of Computer Science >CJ> cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu -or- {noao allegra}!arizona!cjeffery > >Yours truly, >Lou Cavallo. Jita - Marko Katajisto University of Turku Department of Computer Science Internet: jita@utu.fi Bitnet: jita@firien.bitnet Tel: 358 21 325910
peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) (10/01/90)
In article <1990Sep28.193008.6137@sisd.kodak.com> jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes: >In article <S*N%#D%@rpi.edu> peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) writes: >>In article <1990Sep27.203058.601@sisd.kodak.com> jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes: >>>peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) writes: >>>>Here is another opinion on 68000 Amiga's. Why doesn't Commodore start >>>>shipping them with a 14Mhz 68000? [...] >>> (stuff removed) >>> >>>IMHO, it takes at least a 50% speed increase for a machine to "feel faster." >>>Anything less isn't worth it unless you're running programs that take hours >>>or days at a time to run. >>> >> >>Hmmmm, like any of the raytracers for example? Or compiling large programs? > >Yes, for an 8-hour ray tracing, saving one hour would be significant. >Ray tracing, however, depends almost entirely on floating point speed. >A 14MHz 68000 won't do a whole lot for that, but an add-on 68881 might. > Ummm, I thought that without the 68881 all of the floating point work was done by the 68000. Therefore a faster 68000 *would* increase the floating point performance. >Compiling depends on more than raw CPU speed -- it makes intensive use of >memory and I/O. I'd bet that most of that 10-20% evaporates. > Well, a ram disk takes care of the I/O, but the memory does seem like a bottle neck. Shoot. :( >>So let's revise the statement to include only Amiga 2000's, on the basis >>that most of the 500's are bought for games. (I know, not everyone does, but >>the 2000 is supposed to be for "serious" work). Now, since the accelerator >>boards only advantage (aside from the better processor) is the memory, why >>can't we use a faster 16 bit memory board? > >That would certainly work, but it would require a lot more design effort >than simply cranking up the clock rate of the CPU. After going through >all of the trouble to design in a faster CPU and memory subsystem, you >might as well design it around a 32-bit CPU as well. 16 MHz 68020's and 68030's >are pretty cheap right now. > Unfortunately, compatability isn't so cheap. I guess I'll give up for now, or at least wait for someone else to make a comment. (Perhaps from someone who has a 14Mhz 68000, and made some performance tests....) (more stuff) >just that their new product efforts should concentrate on the machine with >the most potential. A 14MHz Amiga would evoke yawns from the PC press, >while a 68040 Amiga might attract some deserved attention. > ....and turn off everone on a budget. Well, I would still WANT one, but I don't want to sell my car just yet :) >Ed Hanway >uunet!sisd!jeh Joe Peck peck@ral.rpi.edu
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (10/01/90)
amhartma@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Andy Hartman - AmigaMan) writes: > >I wish Marc were gone. I wish Marc were gone. I wish Marc were gone. > >Damn! Still doesn't work. You forgot to click your heels together! ;-) Anyway, I would rather Commodore spent it's efforts on the implied 3500 tower box, probably my next machine, than work hard on upgrading the middle of it's product line, and look from there to a box built around a 68040 or 88000, with an AmigaDOS 2.0-clone interface riding on top of a POSIX compliant Unix buried so far down it never sees a user (and vice versa) at all, but is there in all its glory for programmers. I don't see the dying need for a 68020 box; that architecture is already starting to show liver spots. I love my 2000, the 7500 hours I have spent at it over 18 months have been lots of fun, but it is time to move up to today's hardware speeds in a familiar container. IMHO. (Right!) Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) (10/01/90)
h112706@assari.tut.fi (Herranen Henrik) writes: > >In article <1990Sep28.193008.6137@sisd.kodak.com> jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes: >>Yes, for an 8-hour ray tracing, saving one hour would be significant. >>Ray tracing, however, depends almost entirely on floating point speed. >>A 14MHz 68000 won't do a whole lot for that, but an add-on 68881 might. > >Doesn't floating point calculating use heavily the slowest commands in the >68000/68010, divide and multiply? I've noticed that after I inserted the >68020 in my B2000, many Mandelbrot programs speeded up with 20-25% while >AmigaBASIC only gained 5%. I'll concede that software floating-point emulation code does probably make heavy use of integer multiply and/or divide instructions, which should benefit from a faster CPU, even without correspondingly fast memory. These instructions also benefit from improved microcode in the 68010 and later chips. I stand by my original assertion that slight speedups are only noticeable for lengthy operations. It turns out that ray tracing and Mandelbrot calculations happen to be good examples of applications that do benefit from slight (<50%) speedups. Ed Hanway uunet!sisd!jeh
h112706@assari.tut.fi (Herranen Henrik) (10/02/90)
In article <1990Oct1.132509.8967@sisd.kodak.com> jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes: >h112706@assari.tut.fi (Herranen Henrik) writes: >> >>In article <1990Sep28.193008.6137@sisd.kodak.com> jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes: >>>Yes, for an 8-hour ray tracing, saving one hour would be significant. >>>Ray tracing, however, depends almost entirely on floating point speed. >>>A 14MHz 68000 won't do a whole lot for that, but an add-on 68881 might. >> >>Doesn't floating point calculating use heavily the slowest commands in the >>68000/68010, divide and multiply? I've noticed that after I inserted the >>68020 in my B2000, many Mandelbrot programs speeded up with 20-25% while ^^^^^ >>AmigaBASIC only gained 5%. > >I'll concede that software floating-point emulation code does probably make >heavy use of integer multiply and/or divide instructions, which should >benefit from a faster CPU, even without correspondingly fast memory. These >instructions also benefit from improved microcode in the 68010 and later >chips. > >I stand by my original assertion that slight speedups are only noticeable for >lengthy operations. It turns out that ray tracing and Mandelbrot calculations >happen to be good examples of applications that do benefit from slight (<50%) >speedups. > >Ed Hanway >uunet!sisd!jeh DAMN! DAMN! DAMN! I meant of course I changed the 68010 to my B2000, NOT 68020. Sorry. -- Name: Henrik 'Leopold' Herranen h112706@lehtori.tut.fi Address: TTKK/P{{rakennuksen neuvonta/PL527/33101 Tampere/Suomi Finlandia "On d{htinen daevas ja kuutamoy|, on morsiamelta katkaistu p{{" E.L.1989
dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com (Eric Dittman) (10/02/90)
In article <1990Oct1.132509.8967@sisd.kodak.com>, jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes: > I stand by my original assertion that slight speedups are only noticeable for > lengthy operations. It turns out that ray tracing and Mandelbrot calculations > happen to be good examples of applications that do benefit from slight (<50%) > speedups. > > Ed Hanway > uunet!sisd!jeh Ed, I'll have to agree with you here. I don't own an Amiga, I'm a Macintosh owner, but my experience applies. I started with a Mac Plus and later bought a Mac II. I could perceive a speed increase going from the Plus to the II. Later, Apple brought out the IIx, with a corresponding speed increase of 15%. I played around with a IIx, but didn't upgrade because I couldn't see any speed increase when I used one. I didn't have a II and a IIx sitting side- by-side, but that doesn't matter; I could see the speed increase of the II without having the Plus beside it. Now, Apple has the IIfx. I could see the speed increase (which is substantial) without a side-by-side comparison, so I upgraded (plus, for once, Apple made the upgrade at a low cost). Also, speeding up the CPU doesn't matter that much if you don't speed up the rest of the system. There is a 16MHz 68030 upgrade for the SE and Plus that don't increase the overall speed by more than 10% or 15%. Of course, the upgrade is sold only to provide access to 68030 features like VM in anticipation of Apple's System 7, not as an accelerator. The rest of the Mac Plus and SE operate at 8MHz (approx.), and the memory bus width is still 16 bits. A 16MHz 68000 in an Amiga 1000 would give about the same speed increase, because the rest of the system would still be at the old clock speed. Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility dittman@skitzo.csc.ti.com dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com Disclaimer: I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test Facility. I don't even speak for myself.
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (10/02/90)
In <14821@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <420@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu (Clinton Jeffery) writes: > >>Example #2: an Amiga's hard disk, even with FFS, is *ridiculously* slow >> compared to the _identical_ hard disk running DOS or UNIX/386. This >> is based on empirical observation doing heavy C compiles on a 2000 >> with 1MB ram and a 40 Meg ST-251-1. Sorry. I wish it were untrue. > >You obviously have something wrong with your hard disk setup. Ok, well, some >people would say that a 40 Meg ST-251-1 IS something wrong in the first place, >but I won't go picking on Segate again. And I doubt you'll find too many >identical '386 setups to compare it too; the number of '386 systems running >SCSI or ST-506 is just slightly larger than the number of Amigas running >EDSI (eg, 0). ST-506 and EDSI have problems of interleave setup, not usually >a problem with SCSI, that result in factor of 10 or more preformance changes. Gee... I'm running an ESDI drive. Of course I have it hanging off a SCSI<->ESDI adapter. It's pretty fast.. a LOT faster than any ST506 I have run either off the 2090 or off a SCSI<->ST506 adapter (may have been partially due to the adapter being a cheapo Adaptec 4000). The ESDI drive gets about 700KBytes/sec on the 3000, using an Emulex MD-21 controller. > It's impossible to know just what you have working against you. Could be the > disk interleave. Could be it's not really formatted FFS. Could be ... Boy are you right on with that! The smallest things, set up poorly, can make the difference between a 200KBytes/sec and an 800KBytes/sec transfer rate. Happens all the time, and we see a lot of griping about slow disks because of it. -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 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (10/03/90)
In article <420@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu (Clinton Jeffery) writes: >Example #2: an Amiga's hard disk, even with FFS, is *ridiculously* slow > compared to the _identical_ hard disk running DOS or UNIX/386. This > is based on empirical observation doing heavy C compiles on a 2000 > with 1MB ram and a 40 Meg ST-251-1. Sorry. I wish it were untrue. You obviously have something wrong with your hard disk setup. Ok, well, some people would say that a 40 Meg ST-251-1 IS something wrong in the first place, but I won't go picking on Segate again. And I doubt you'll find too many identical '386 setups to compare it too; the number of '386 systems running SCSI or ST-506 is just slightly larger than the number of Amigas running EDSI (eg, 0). ST-506 and EDSI have problems of interleave setup, not usually a problem with SCSI, that result in factor of 10 or more preformance changes. I have yet to use any machine, even our pretty fast MIPS based UNIX system (which of course also has a bit of loading on it other than me) that does compiles faster than my Amiga 2500/30 systems with Quantum 80 drives. Except the new Amigs 3000 I have here. It is true that, in general, you'll have more include files to process on an Amiga than a PC, since the PC doesn't have any real operating system to worry about supporting, unless you include Windows or something. Same goes for UNIX without X, etc. Precompiled system header files can help equalize this situation. I usually have my makefile create the precompiled header for me, and place it on the RAM: disk for extra speed (not recommended on a 1 meg system). And if memory permits, setting your C compiler as a resident module, possible under both Manx and SAS, will cause all phases of the compiler to be available instantly for more speed, rather than being loaded from disk (and heck, loading a 100K compiler pass from hard disk must take at least 0.1 seconds on this here 3000....). It's impossible to know just what you have working against you. Could be the disk interleave. Could be it's not really formatted FFS. Could be you have some PD background utility that's busy waiting (don't laugh, I ran into a guy with disk speed problems on PLINK that had this very problem). But with a well tuned Amiga setup, it's difficult to force the system to be as slow as most PC or UNIX systems. The top end '386/'486 systems with hardware disk cache tend to keep up pretty well with the A2000.... >| Clint Jeffery, U. of Arizona Dept. of Computer Science -- 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) (10/03/90)
In article <1091@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) writes: >Moreover as Dave Haynie could attest to, the A2000 Zorro II buss is old news >in todays terms. Bus cycle speed wise, Zorro II is in the same league as standard ISA. The real Zorro II innovations were AUTOCONFIG and multimastering. You had the latter on most industrial buses and even S-100 had a bus mastering mechanism, but the Amiga was the first true personal computer type system to have these features. >The new Zorro III buss hits 20 Mbits/sec (Dave?) and Acorns ARM III chipset >can hit about 38 Mbits/sec I think (can validate anyone ?). Those are MegaBYTES/second, not MegaBITS. I believe the 38 MB/s on the ARM III bus interface is correct for the faster parts. The Zorro III bus with 68030 as master through the Buster chip can go up to 20 MB/s (without burst), though an alternate bus master or more efficient bus conversion device can drive the Zorro III bus faster (50MB/s, without burst, is the theoretical limit). And it's a very bad idea to compare expansion bus speeds with CPU bus speeds. The 25MHz 68030, for example, has a bus bandwidth of around 52 MB/s, without burst, around 140 MB/s with burst. But CPU buses tend to be more specific-purpose, faster, and larger (more pins) than I/O buses. >Lou Cavallo. -- 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) (10/03/90)
In article <1990Oct1.054151.6983@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >I don't see the dying need for a 68020 box; that architecture is already >starting to show liver spots. I love my 2000, the 7500 hours I have spent >at it over 18 months have been lots of fun, but it is time to move up to >today's hardware speeds in a familiar container. Well, as a Technoid type myself, I agree that YOU and I have no need for a 68020 box. I've been using 68030 systems for over 2.5 years now, and I'm already waiting in line for a 68040 based toy. But, by the same token, the 80286 is already dead and the 80386 isn't far behind the 68020 in the pot belly + grey hair area. Yet, those Taiwanese, Tandy, etc. seem to be selling a pile of '286 clones. Even 8088 machines still sell into home markets. So, while a machine at the edge of the envelope tends to be the kind of thing most of us around here hanker for, I think the old-but-fast technology can have a number of healthy years at the low or middle end of the market. Probably more profitable than the high end too. That's all hypothetically speaking. I have not particular interest in designing low end system anymore than I do using them... But I wouldn't mind seeing Commodore sell a zillion or two. >Kent, the man from xanth. ><xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> -- 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
bscott@nyx.UUCP (Ben Scott) (10/03/90)
In article <1091@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) writes: >CJ> Example #2: an Amiga's hard disk, even with FFS, is *ridiculously* slow >CJ> compared to the _identical_ hard disk running DOS or UNIX/386. This >CJ> is based on empirical observation doing heavy C compiles on a 2000 Empirical observation during compiles? What does that have to do with it? The compiler may have been slow but I've yet to see any PC disk interface outperform a good Amiga setup. Their bus just doesn't hack it. Plus their version of DMA stops the CPU entirely, whereas ours allows processing to continue on almost normally. >I have seen a Quantum 40 Meg equipped 386 DX apparently out perform (2 Mbits >per sec benchmark) quoted A2000 Quantum 40 Meg throughputs but the 386 had a >32 bit buss... {which qualitatively explains its approx 2x throughput over a 2 megaBITS per second on the '386? A 2091 with Quantum can get 800K, sometimes 900K per second, and that's kiloBYTES. 2 megabits is maybe 250K per second. ---- >Moreover as Dave Haynie could attest to, the A2000 Zorro II buss is old news >in todays terms. The new Zorro III buss hits 20 Mbits/sec (Dave?) and Acorns MegaBYTES, BYTES!! >ARM III chipset can hit about 38 Mbits/sec I think (can validate anyone ?). Can't say on this one, but 38 megabits per second is slower than Zorro II, which is roughly 60 megabits per second taking both "halves" into account. (7.5 megaBYTES per second, that is, or twice 3.75 megs) This can be a major issue these days, especially as some new ads are trying to confuse the issue by using "MB" which is ambiguous - they may say that some new card is capable of 20 MB (or "Mb") per second (I won't name names) and they mean megaBITS, which still sounds good until you realize that A: it's only with special hard drives and B: the 2091 or I presume the Hardframe would do just as well (probably better) with these new drives, without hogging the CPU and turning off interrupts... . <<<<Infinite K>>>> -- .---------------------------------------------------------------------------. |Ben Scott, professional goof-off and consultant at The Raster Image, Denver| |FIDO point address 1:104/421.2, bscott@nyx.cs.du.edu, or BBS (303)424-9831 | |"Quantum Mechanics: The dreams that || The Raster Image IS responsible for| | stuff is made of..." - Michael Sinz || everything I say! ** Amiga Power**| `-------------------------------------'`------------------------------------'
AAW151%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (Andy Patrizio) (10/03/90)
>Huh? I think you two ought to go looking thru the computer shopper. MOST >clones are bought in pieces. The minimum configuration is a CPU box, and >keyboard, with serial port, parallel port and a Floppy drive. If you want >a hard drive they sell it as an option, or as alternate setup costing more. >Just like you can buy a 2000HD for a more than a 2000 without a hard drive. I'm talking if you go to your local dealership. He isn't going to sell you parts, he sells it as a whole. And even if you do buy from Computer Shopper (and what professional will? CS is for hackers who want to build their own, not a corporation that wants to waste time assembling the box.), you WILL buy a hard drive. Application software demands it. Only an idiot would buy a 286/386/486 with 2 floppies. >MacIntoshes cost extra for the hard drive, heck you have to even pay extra >to get a keyboard when you buy a Mac. Don't forget, this is Apple we're talking about, the company that's a living testament to the dangers of a monopoly in business. Macs originally came without a hard drive because they didn't want it to compete with the Lisa (this was in 1984, mind you). When the SuperDrives came out, Apple freaked. "You're not SUPPOSED to be able to put a hard drive inside a Mac!" was their cry. Let's face it; the Amiga's forte is video, and image files are HUGE. I doubt a local cable company wants to have their Public Access pictures on a floppy disk and sit around, waiting for it to load. With image files, a hard drive is necessary, and a machine ready to do that kind of work out of the box becomes a necessity. Actually, if I was to make any ONE big change in the Amiga line, I'd get rid of the IBM slots, or at least introuce another box with six or eight Amiga slots. One friend who does video work has loaded his 2500; Flicker fixer, HD, GVP 3001 card, Frame Buffer, and RAM up the wazoo. More slots are needed in this beast. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Andy Patrizio | Box 705 Ellery Hall | what else? * * Bitnet: aaw151@uriacc.bitnet | University of Rhode Island | Amiga! * * Internet: aaw151@uriacc.uri.edu | Kingston, RI 02881 | // * * Usenet: simon@sbs.bbs.com | USofA | \\ // * * MaBellNet: (401) 782-2758 | | \X/ * -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
greg@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (10/04/90)
In article <32251@nigel.ee.udel.edu> AAW151%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (Andy Patrizio) writes: >I'm talking if you go to your local dealership. He isn't going to sell you >parts, he sells it as a whole. And even if you do buy from Computer >Shopper (and what professional will? CS is for hackers who want to build >their own, not a corporation that wants to waste time assembling the box.), >you WILL buy a hard drive. Application software demands it. Only an idiot >would buy a 286/386/486 with 2 floppies. Actually most corporations buy LAN systems, where the nodes rarely have ANY drives. The bank at which I did my testing this summer used 3Com stations (which are diskless Pee Cee clones with, I believe, a 286 and 1MB) and a plain-old 286 with some HUGE disks hooked up for a server. (What?! I have to shut down the net to access the server?) I finally had to bring a machine from the office and pop a 3Com Ethernet board into it so I could copy files from/to the server during the work day. [Silly Pee Cee LAN systems. Haven't they heard of multitasking? One should be able to sit down at the server and work on it without having to shut down the net!] >Don't forget, this is Apple we're talking about, the company that's a living >testament to the dangers of a monopoly in business. Macs originally came >without a hard drive because they didn't want it to compete with the Lisa >(this was in 1984, mind you). When the SuperDrives came out, Apple freaked. >"You're not SUPPOSED to be able to put a hard drive inside a Mac!" was >their cry. Ain't it funny that so many mega-successful machines were not intended to get that far? Remember that IBM's original expectations were that no one would want more than 64K of RAM. "Nah," they said, "It'll be obsolete by the time there are needs for _that_ much RAM." >Actually, if I was to make any ONE big change in the Amiga line, I'd get rid of >the IBM slots, or at least introuce another box with six or eight Amiga slots. >One friend who does video work has loaded his 2500; Flicker fixer, HD, GVP 3001 >card, Frame Buffer, and RAM up the wazoo. More slots are needed in this beast. True. The rumored 3500 is supposed to have something like 5 Zorro III slots, but since the motherboard already has the display-enhancer, 18MB RAM capability, and SCSI you probably don't need more than the extra 5... (of course I was accusing IBM of assuming such things above, wasn't I?) > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >* Andy Patrizio | Box 705 Ellery Hall | what else? * >* Bitnet: aaw151@uriacc.bitnet | University of Rhode Island | Amiga! * >* Internet: aaw151@uriacc.uri.edu | Kingston, RI 02881 | // * >* Usenet: simon@sbs.bbs.com | USofA | \\ // * >* MaBellNet: (401) 782-2758 | | \X/ * > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Disclaimer: "Who me? Surely you must be mistaken!" _ _ "The lunatic is in the hall. The lunatics are in my hall. AMIGA! //// The paper holds their folded faces to the floor, //// And every day the paperboy brings more." -- Pink Floyd _ _ //// \\\\//// Greg Harp greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu \\XX//
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (10/04/90)
In article <14824@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <1990Oct1.054151.6983@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > >>I don't see the dying need for a 68020 box; that architecture is already >>starting to show liver spots. I love my 2000, the 7500 hours I have spent >>at it over 18 months have been lots of fun, but it is time to move up to >>today's hardware speeds in a familiar container. > >Well, as a Technoid type myself, I agree that YOU and I have no need for a >68020 box. [...] I think the old-but-fast technology can have a number of >healthy years at the low or middle end of the market. Probably more >profitable than the high end too. >That's all hypothetically speaking. I have no particular interest in >designing low end systems anymore than I do using them... But I wouldn't >mind seeing Commodore sell a zillion or two. Aw, come on, Dave. It's nice to be working on systems where you have to be worrying about rf losses every time your routing turns a corner, but half the fun of being an engineer is proving you have the experience and skill to do for one buck the same job that takes the other guy two, and do it better. I'd guess the design of a 68020 box that could sell into the A500 market but provide the features of the current A2000 + A2620 including easier expansion and nicer form factor would be challenge enough for anyone. And Commodore would sell a zillion or two. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
ken@cbmvax.commodore.com (Ken Farinsky - CATS) (10/04/90)
In article <32251@nigel.ee.udel.edu> AAW151%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (Andy Patrizio) writes: > >Actually, if I was to make any ONE big change in the Amiga line, I'd get rid of >the IBM slots, or at least introuce another box with six or eight Amiga slots. >One friend who does video work has loaded his 2500; Flicker fixer, HD, GVP 3001 >card, Frame Buffer, and RAM up the wazoo. More slots are needed in this beast. If you buy an A3000, this takes up ONE slot (Frame buffer). Everything else is built-in. This leaves three slots for expansion. -- -- Ken Farinsky - CATS - (215) 431-9421 - Commodore Business Machines uucp: ken@cbmvax.commodore.com or ...{uunet,rutgers}!cbmvax!ken bix: kfarinsky
soh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh) (10/05/90)
I'm afraid I can't present any new options, but let me give an Australian perspective to the matter .... Local dealers in Melbourne (and K-Mart for A500) are selling a 1Mb A500 for Aus$975.00 (Aus$799.00 + Aus$175.00). The A2000 can be found for Aus$1800.00. The price difference is still much too high for a serious home user, even after adding a reasonable 2Mb & a measly 20Mb hard disk to the A500 (the A590 + 2Mb is about Aus$1000.00, compared to Aus$800.00 for a GVP hard disk card and memory board). A power user would probably want the expansion slots without the grief of buying a new desk, but with the A3000 looming on the horizon and the promise of more grunt CPU power with less hassle, the A2000 seems like a poor second choice for Amiga users who want to upgrade. To make it worse, 286-PC machines with VGA cards and passable monitors, faster advertised clock speeds and bigger hard disks are sold for roughly the same price (Aus$2400.00, I think) as a base A2000. Without getting into a long discussion about the relative technical merits of different machines and operating systems, I believe that the average consumer is going to be more easily lured into getting an AT clone an Amiga. Of course, once they get a clone, they would be very reluctant to change. (One of my friends sold his A500 for a 286 clone since there were more programs, but later complained that it was a bad choice. The 640K barrier on MS-DOS and the non-standard LMS / EMS was making it impossible for him to run large programs from different publishers. Windows? OS/2? Need more memory and a license, which mean more money shelled out for a supposedly better computer.) What can be done with the A2000? Current discussion on the net has focused on these options: 1. Introduce a faster machine to keep up with the clones. Near impossible with the current chip set. 2. Keep a large price difference between the A2000 and the A3000. Until Commodore Australia officially releases the A3000 to the public, there is no way of telling what the price will be. Current knowledgable speculation puts the price of the A3000 + 40Mb hard disk + monitor at about Aus$6200.00. Upgrading an A2000 to an equivalent base A3000 would bring the total cost to that amount. 3. Reduce the prices of both the A500 and A2000 models. A very probable option, given that the prices of both models have remained static for about two years (even after the appreciation of the Australian dollar.) I don't wish to sound like Cassandra (alias the ol' Marc Barrett), but I fear that unless some action is done soon, local dealers would find it a much better option to drop the A2000 and focus on the A500 (for cash flow) and A3000UX (for service income). We live in interesting times .... ----- Soh, Kam Hung email: h.soh@trl.oz.au tel: +61 03 541 6403 Telecom Research Laboratories, P.O. Box 249, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (10/05/90)
In article <2070@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >In <14821@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>ST-506 and EDSI have problems of interleave setup, not usually a problem with >>SCSI, that result in factor of 10 or more preformance changes. >Gee... I'm running an ESDI drive. Of course I have it hanging off a >SCSI<->ESDI adapter. It's pretty fast.. a LOT faster than any ST506 I have run >either off the 2090 or off a SCSI<->ST506 adapter (may have been partially >due to the adapter being a cheapo Adaptec 4000). The ESDI drive gets about >700KBytes/sec on the 3000, using an Emulex MD-21 controller. Let me clarify -- I didn't mean that the SCSI should be 10x the speed of the EDSI, but that, based on the controller specifics, the interleave you use on the EDSI (or ST-506) drive can vary that drive's preformance by a factor of 10 or so, just sticking to common values. While interleave of of course a fact of life with any hard drive, the vast majority of SCSI drives are preset to the optimal value, since the low level driver and physical drive are both perfectly under the control of the SCSI drive vendor. So it's very possible to set a bogus interleave value when adding an ST-506 or EDSI drive to a system, but almost impossible to screw up a SCSI drive's interleave. >> It's impossible to know just what you have working against you. Could be the >> disk interleave. Could be it's not really formatted FFS. Could be ... >Boy are you right on with that! The smallest things, set up poorly, can make >the difference between a 200KBytes/sec and an 800KBytes/sec transfer rate. >Happens all the time, and we see a lot of griping about slow disks because of >it. Well, that's life in the fast lane. If we didn't make it so fast in the first place, it wouldn't be quite so sensitive to little changes :-) >It is not possible to both understand and appreciate Intel CPUs. > -D.Wolfskill >| // Larry Phillips | -- 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
amiga@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Paul) (10/06/90)
I just ran Disk Speed on my new A3000 (Yeah!) and got 1.2 MBytes/s with a 256k buffer, and event better I got 1.0 Mbytes/s with only a 32k buffer, now thats Cooking with gas. Paul N.
tinyguy@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Yeo-Hoon BAE) (10/07/90)
In article <37962@ut-emx.uucp> amiga@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Paul) writes: >I just ran Disk Speed on my new A3000 (Yeah!) and got 1.2 MBytes/s with a >256k buffer, and event better I got 1.0 Mbytes/s with only a 32k buffer, >now thats Cooking with gas. > > Paul N. Which HD did you use? Quantum? That's quite a bit faster than what I heard from some of the others who also own A3000, with Quantum drives. But I don't think they used buffer size that big though..... *************************************************************************** * Yeo-Hoon Bae * Amiga /// * * Dept. Computer Science, McGill University. * 2000 /// * * tinyguy@calvin.cs.mcgill.ca, tinyguy@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca * \\\/// * * Amiga2000 + 3MB + 48MB HD + KX-P1124 + DiamondScan * \XX/ * ***************************************************************************
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (10/08/90)
AAW151%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (Andy Patrizio) writes: >>Huh? I think you two ought to go looking thru the computer shopper. MOST >>clones are bought in pieces. The minimum configuration is a CPU box, and >>keyboard, with serial port, parallel port and a Floppy drive. If you want >>a hard drive they sell it as an option, or as alternate setup costing more. >>Just like you can buy a 2000HD for a more than a 2000 without a hard drive. >I'm talking if you go to your local dealership. He isn't going to sell you >parts, he sells it as a whole. And even if you do buy from Computer >Shopper (and what professional will? CS is for hackers who want to build >their own, not a corporation that wants to waste time assembling the box.), Gee, I guess the company I work for isn't professional then. Funny, because I always thought we were. We have a fortune 500 parent company after all. But I guess we are just a bunch of hacks. We buy all our PC's mail order, in pieces and assemble them ourselves. We have mostly 386 and 486 boxes, running Unix and tied together with ethernet. We do all the work ourselves because it allows us to pick and choose the parts we want to use, and we can get better prices on the different parts from different venders. >you WILL buy a hard drive. Application software demands it. Only an idiot >would buy a 286/386/486 with 2 floppies. I guess we are idiots then because we generally buy our 386's and 486's with just a case, power supply, motherboard and 2 floppies. We buy our ethernet cards and hard drives and monitors from other vendors. But then we are just a bunch of idiotic unprofessional hackers. -- John Sparks |D.I.S.K. Public Access Unix System| Multi-User Games, Email sparks@corpane.UUCP |PH: (502) 968-DISK 24Hrs/2400BPS | Usenet, Chatting, =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|7 line Multi-User system. | Downloads & more. A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of----Ogden Nash
spence@cbmvax.commodore.com (Spencer Shanson) (10/13/90)
In article <1421@abekrd.UUCP> koshy@abekrd.UUCP (Koshy Abraham) writes: >In <462@skye.cs.ed.ac.uk> db@cs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry) writes: > >>I'm currently looking for a new 16-bit computer I'm attracted to the >>Amiga. I would prefer a 2000 to a 500, because it's easier to expand. >>But look at the folloowing price comparisons: > >>Amiga 500: 470 pounds (with 3rd-party upgrade to 1M). >>Amiga 2000: 880 pounds. > >>400 pounds extra for basically the same computer ??? > >I was at the Business Computer Show in Earls Court, London. Commodore showed >an A1500 Amiga for 1000 pounds. It is basically an A2000 with an A1500 label. >They are calling it the Personal Home Computer (I think). It comes with some >software as follows : > Platinum Works > Deluxe Paint (II ?) > About three games Hmm. Are you sure this wasn't the CheckMate System's A1500? That's basically a A500 in a different case. >-- >Koshy Abraham UUCP: ...!uunet!mcsun!ukc!pyrltd!abekrd!koshy >Abekas Video Systems Ltd. NET: koshy@abekrd.co.uk // >12 Portman Rd, Reading, PHONE: +44 734 585421 // >Berkshire. RG3 1EA. FAX: +44 734 597267 \\ // >United Kingdom. TELEX: 847579 K\A/b -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spencer Shanson - All opinions expressed are my own, and do not (necessarily) represent those of Commodore. email: spence@cbmvax spence@cix And the obligatory end-quote: "...., just don't get caught doing it!!"
mwm@raven.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) (10/19/90)
In article <420@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu (Clinton Jeffery) writes:
Example #1: the amiga _can_ use memory better than MS-DOS, and worse than
(any real flavor of) UNIX. (Go ahead, argue against this one saying
that AmigaDOS requires much less memory. With 6 MB I am more
concerned with OS protection from GURUS than with kernel size.)
That's almost amusing. I'd be interested in seeing how you define
"real" to justify the comment about Unix using memory better than
AmigaDOS. Or maybe it's a wierd definition of "better". Me, I think
that 100K of memory holding AmigaDOS is being much better used than
100K of memory holding Unix - the 100K holding Unix is completely
wasted.
<mike
--
Cheeseburger in paradise Mike Meyer
Making the best of every virtue and vice mwm@relay.pa.dec.com
Worth every damn bit of sacrifice decwrl!mwm
To get a cheeseburger in paradise