a218@mindlink.UUCP (Charlie Gibbs) (08/13/90)
In these parts, the Thing To Do is to get a 2088 XT bridge board
and add a SOTA 386i accelerator. It might only be a 386SX, but it'll
run 386 programs and is still faster than a 2286 AT bridge board.
The 2088/SOTA combination is even cheaper than my 2286 (sob - but
that's the price I pay for being the first on my block :-).
Best of all, it's available off the shelf right now.
Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.UUCP
"Oh, shit!" "We're all in it together." -- Brazilnavas@cory.uucp (David C. Navas) (08/13/90)
In article <1694@kirk.nmg.bu.oz> cameron@kirk.nmg.bu.oz (Cameron Stevenson) writes: > I'm considering applying pressure here at work to buy the 3000. This > is primarily a Mac site, with a number of PS/2's thrown in so that we don't > look exclusively Mac. On the whole though "other" machines are frowned upon. > If I can slip the Amigas through the safety net as capable '386 machines > (with another very good machine lurking inside the box for extra value), > then the accountant types may be swayed. Any news? Okay Cmdre, you've got at least TWO customers for the thing out here. Lets unshelf it, upgrade it to ZorroIII, put in EGA (mayby VGA ???) screen transfers, and sell it! [Anybody else wanna join the I_WOULD_BUY_A_386_BRIDGEBOARD_IF_IT_EXISTED party? Two ain't enough fer some funny reason ;)] On the other hand... You might be able to get away with calling it a very capable UNIX machine. > Cameron Stephenson Telephone +61 75 951220 David Navas navas@sim.berkeley.edu "Excuse my ignorance, but I've been run over by my train of thought." -me
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (08/14/90)
In article <1694@kirk.nmg.bu.oz> cameron@kirk.nmg.bu.oz (Cameron Stevenson) writes: > Does anybody know if Commodore are working on an 80386 bridgeboard? That one I can't answer, but hypothetically, such a device is certainly possible. > The main reason (at least this is what I was told) for not producing such > a card was that the 2000 system could not keep up with the 80386. By this, > I don't mean that the Amiga is slower than a '386 generally; just that > software that is specifically written for the '386 would get tangled inside > the Amiga because of the Janus software/bus speed/Amiga CPU speed.(As you > appreciate from the tone of this explanation, I'm no hardware guru) The only elements of a BridgeCard that are tied to the Amiga bus speed somewhat are the BridgeCard video display and hard disk, when both of these are actually on the Amiga system. That's not as bad as it sounds, even with a reasonably fast '386 running, since both display and disk on most PCs is pretty slow to begin with. It really depends on the problem you're interested in solving with the BridgeCard. Most PC software isn't all that display or disk bound, so most software would run on such a card about as fast as on an equivalent standalone '386. Software that is display or disk bound would be noticably slower. > Now with the 3000, I would expect these problems to be soluble (? able to > be solved). These problems certainly could be solved with an A3000-specific Bridge Card (eg, a Zorro III device). Some of the problems might be solved with a radically different Bridge Card design. Most '386 PCs still run video and disk at AT bus speeds, and the Zorro II bus is capable of similar speeds. Today's BridgeCards are slow because the 680x0 and 80x86 communicate via some shared memory, not directly to each others' buses. So to get a block of data for the PC's hard disk driver, the PC sends a message via shared memory to a disk server, PCDisk, in Amiga memory. This task fetches a block to its buffer (involving one DMA or CPU transfer, depending on the Amiga side disk controller in place), then copies that into some of the BridgeCard's shared memory. The PC's hard disk driver then wakes up and copies this block into PC main memory. So you end up with several more copies than a PC would normally do, and to add to this, shared memory isn't all that fast. Faster shared memory or direct access by one CPU to the other's bus would speed up this operation considerably. > If I can slip the Amigas through the safety net as capable '386 machines > (with another very good machine lurking inside the box for extra value), > then the accountant types may be swayed. Any news? No news, but I think that was one of the original drives behind the Bridge Card -- it lets you get an Amiga when you really want one, but you or your bean counters need some PC compatibility. > Cameron Stephenson Telephone +61 75 951220 -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Get that coffee outta my face, put a Margarita in its place!
cameron@kirk.nmg.bu.oz (Cameron Stevenson) (08/14/90)
I haven't seen this question posted before, so here goes... Does anybody know if Commodore are working on an 80386 bridgeboard? Sure, the question is hypothetical until a product is actually released, and undoubtedly raises the question of why bother (build one). So I'll try to spark a little discussion... The main reason (at least this is what I was told) for not producing such a card was that the 2000 system could not keep up with the 80386. By this, I don't mean that the Amiga is slower than a '386 generally; just that software that is specifically written for the '386 would get tangled inside the Amiga because of the Janus software/bus speed/Amiga CPU speed.(As you appreciate from the tone of this explanation, I'm no hardware guru) Now with the 3000, I would expect these problems to be soluble (? able to be solved). As to why build one, well I for one find the notion of the Bridgeboard appealing. I used an A2500/AT for a couple of months and loved it (this is not my only experience with an Amiga BTW - I have owned a 1000 and a 2000 - both were machines released early in their product's life). I am a great fan of the Amiga, but in a work related environment, I find there are PC based applications that I must use. Whether I like using them, etc, etc, is part of the flame based my-system-is-betther-than-your-system discussion that I'm not interested in here. The main point is that there are applications that I must use for work that don't run on the Amiga (and have no Amiga based equivalent - SQL/RDBMS and CAD in a combined environment - email me if you're interested). I now find that new versions of these applications are being written to take advantage of the '386 chip, and will not run on the '286. Which leads straight to the heart of my original question. I'm considering applying pressure here at work to buy the 3000. This is primarily a Mac site, with a number of PS/2's thrown in so that we don't look exclusively Mac. On the whole though "other" machines are frowned upon. If I can slip the Amigas through the safety net as capable '386 machines (with another very good machine lurking inside the box for extra value), then the accountant types may be swayed. Any news? Cameron Stephenson Telephone +61 75 951220 Bond University Gold Coast Australia
joseph@valnet.UUCP (Joseph Hillenburg) (08/14/90)
navas@cory.uucp (David C. Navas) writes: > In article <1694@kirk.nmg.bu.oz> cameron@kirk.nmg.bu.oz (Cameron Stevenson) w > > I'm considering applying pressure here at work to buy the 3000. This > > is primarily a Mac site, with a number of PS/2's thrown in so that we don't > > look exclusively Mac. On the whole though "other" machines are frowned upon > > If I can slip the Amigas through the safety net as capable '386 machines > > (with another very good machine lurking inside the box for extra value), > > then the accountant types may be swayed. Any news? > > > Okay Cmdre, you've got at least TWO customers for the thing out here. Lets > unshelf it, upgrade it to ZorroIII, put in EGA (mayby VGA ???) screen transfe > and sell it! > > [Anybody else wanna join the I_WOULD_BUY_A_386_BRIDGEBOARD_IF_IT_EXISTED > party? Two ain't enough fer some funny reason ;)] > On the other hand... You might be able to get away with calling it a very > capable UNIX machine. > > > Cameron Stephenson Telephone +61 75 951220 > > David Navas navas@sim.berkeley.edu > "Excuse my ignorance, but I've been run over by my train of thought." -me You got my vote...I have a 2286 and it is sssssssllllllllloooooooooowwwww with Windows 3.0. I know that CBM has a 8086Turbo board planed, but we all know that 8086/8 CPUs are primitive, even compared to 8520!. -Joseph Hillenburg InterNet: joseph@valnet UUCP: iuvax!valnet!joseph PC-Link: Joe Hillenburg Most other systems: Joseph Hillenburg Don't buy a computer unless it's an Amiga - Me - AMIGA RULES! - AMIGA RUL
tope@enea.se (Tommy Petersson) (08/14/90)
I've seen an 'official' Commodore statement (here in Europe) that they are working on a '386SX board. Release late '90. But, at the CEBIT fair in Hannover (March, LAST year!) I got a very official statement about the A2090B (the SlotWaster, halfcard with auto-boot ROMS for the old A2090 card). It should be available in mid '89...
BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz (08/15/90)
> > [Anybody else wanna join the I_WOULD_BUY_A_386_BRIDGEBOARD_IF_IT_EXISTED > party? Two ain't enough fer some funny reason ;)] > On the other hand... You might be able to get away with calling it a very > capable UNIX machine. > Lets keep it to one newsgroup, huh? Yes, if: < $1000 supports VGA has maths coprocessor socket would like improved communication between sides ? via arexx? Regards Alan
rumbo@impch.imp.com (Peter Kunz) (08/15/90)
> [Anybody else wanna join the I_WOULD_BUY_A_386_BRIDGEBOARD_IF_IT_EXISTED > party? Two ain't enough fer some funny reason ;)] ok, so how much would this thing cost me if i were the third? why not upgrade a 286 to a 386 with one of the numerous boards available. rossmoeller of germany has a 386si board out, but i think you need a bridgeboard to run it... bcnu pete
ccc@anomaly.sbs.com (Cole Calistra) (08/16/90)
I seem to remember hearing a few nice tidbits about the BridgeCards at Harry Copperman's keynote at World of Amiga in NYC back in April. He said that he was "Committed to the BridgeCard" and when asked about a 386 BridgeCard, he said that while he was bound to Commodore's new policy of not talking about stuff before they got the stuff mass- produced to back it up, Commodore was going to expand the BridgeCard line. He seemed really excited about the BridgeCard and not too worried that the 3000 doesn't have the facilities to support the current BridgeCard package (5.25" drive). Also remember that in the Amiga 3000 review in AmigaWorld they listed a NEW BridgeCard as one of the new products Commodore announced, although they didn't describe it. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= | Cole C. Calistra | | UUCP: uunet!rayssd!anomaly!ccc | | INTERNET: ccc@anomaly.sbs.com | | Applied Vision Software - The Art of Amiga Development | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=