new@udel.EDU (Darren New) (05/25/90)
In article <1990May23.163153.9494@cbnewsl.att.com> saify@cbnewsl.att.com (saify.lanewala) writes: >The 3000 Agnes is called the "UTTERLY OBESE AGNES" And I suppose next year we will see the "great quiverring mounds of flesh agnes" or the "beached whale rotting in the sun agnes"? --Darren
blgardne@esunix.UUCP (Blaine Gardner) (05/27/90)
From article <20298@estelle.udel.EDU>, by new@udel.EDU (Darren New): > In article <1990May23.163153.9494@cbnewsl.att.com> saify@cbnewsl.att.com (saify.lanewala) writes: >>The 3000 Agnes is called the "UTTERLY OBESE AGNES" > > And I suppose next year we will see the "great quiverring mounds of > flesh agnes" or the "beached whale rotting in the sun agnes"? --Darren But which is larger, the "mounds of flesh" or "beached whale" Agnus, and can I retrofit them into my A1000? And why didn't CBM use velcro instead of that non-standard(*) PLCC socket on the morbidly obese Agnus so that it could easily be changed (on a daily basis so I can run my defective software)? Personally I prefer to call them the 512K, 1M and 2M Agnus to try and avoid the confusion. (Though Fat, Fatter, Rotund, Obese, Grotesque, and Beached Whale seem to be considered the official technical terms by certain magazines.) Amiga World has adopted "Super" as its Agnus designation, does this mean we can look forward to Super Fat, Super Obese, and Super Fat Obese Agnuses? Sounds like geriatric super heros to me. (*) Non-Standard: Defined as "I've never seen one used in a C-64 or Apple II, even though they are used by the thousands in workstations." I refuse to attach a smiley to anything this absurd. -- Blaine Gardner @ Evans & Sutherland 580 Arapeen Drive, SLC, Utah 84108 blgardne@esunix.UUCP (worsel's feed is going away, don't send {decwrl, utah-cs}!esunix!blgardne anything to that address!) DoD #0046
phoenix@ms.uky.edu (R'ykandar Korra'ti) (05/29/90)
In article <1974@esunix.UUCP> blgardne@esunix.UUCP (Blaine Gardner) writes: >Fat, Fatter, Rotund, Obese, Grotesque, and >Beached Whale [Agnus] seem to be considered the official technical terms by >certain magazines. Personally, I'm still holding out for adoption of the term "Gordo Agnus." I think it sums things up pretty well. Of course, with the 3000, we have to go a step even further: Gunter Agnus. > I refuse to attach a smiley to anything this absurd. Yes. - R'ykandar. -- | R'ykandar Korra'ti | Editor, LOW ORBIT | PLink: Skywise | CIS 72406,370 | | Elfinkind, Unite! | phoenix@ms.uky.edu | phoenix%ms.uky.edu@ukcc.bitnet | | "Careful, mom, the toys are loose!" - from The Wizard of Speed and Time |
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (05/30/90)
blgardne@esunix.UUCP (Blaine Gardner) writes: >And why didn't CBM use velcro instead of that non-standard(*) PLCC socket >on the morbidly obese Agnus so that it could easily be changed (on a >daily basis so I can run my defective software)? No, no. What CBM should do is put all the custom chips into a cartridge and put cartridge slots on Amiga's. Yea, that's the ticket! Then we can just upgrade by buying a new cartridge every couple o' years! heheh. And be backwards compatible by jest (pun intended) plugging in an old cartridge. -- John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY) sparks@corpane.UUCP | | PH: (502) 968-DISK A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of. - Ogden Nash
jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) (06/04/90)
In article <4157@munnari.oz.au> ianr@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Ian ROWLANDS) writes: > Correct me if I'm wrong. The original 1000 had an Agnus chip, the >500/2000 had the Fat Agnus chip. The ECS contains a "Fatter" Agnus. > So the obvious question is - what exactly is this new Agnus called? >Is it 'Fatter', 'Obese', or any other variations? Interested minds just >want to know! It's not fatter. The difference between the Fat Agnus and the original Agnus is that the new one is physically fat. You can measure it with a ruler. Only the A1000 has a skinny Agnus. It is 0.67 x 2.44 inches in size. All other Amigas have a fat Agnus. It is 1.25 x 1.25 inches, square. All fat Agnus chips are equally fat - they all have the same physical dimensions. The difference is 512K vs 1M vs 2M address space. Therefore the newer Agnus chips ARE NOT FATTER!! (based on the original designation where "fat" means twice as wide.) I count 6 versions of Agnus. A1000: 8361 = original/NTSC 8370 = original/PAL A500/A2000: 8367 = Fat(512K)/NTSC 8371 = Fat(512K)/PAL A500/A2000: 8372A = Fat/1Meg, NTSC+PAL+VGA A3000: 8372B = Fat/2Meg, NTSC+PAL+VGA Remember, it was Commodore who came up with the nick name of "Fat Agnus". And they recommend calling them the 512K Agnus, 1-Meg Agnus, and 2-Meg Agnus. -- Joe Smith (408)922-6220 | SMTP: jms@tardis.tymnet.com or jms@gemini.tymnet.com BT Tymnet Tech Services | UUCP: ...!{ames,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!tardis!jms PO Box 49019, MS-C41 | BIX: smithjoe | 12 PDP-10s still running! "POPJ P," San Jose, CA 95161-9019 | humorous dislaimer: "My Amiga speaks for me."
FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (06/05/90)
My money is on Fast Agnus as the next one. It'll come out in 1 micron CMOS and will address 2 megs at 16 megaHertz. No really, this is what I think. Then the Trackdisk device will handle 1.6 MByte floppies and it will be possible to run monitors at - what, about 1200 pixels? The agnus in the 3000 runs a monitor at about 35KHz max so the Fast Agnus would drive one at 70KHz. Wouldn't that be a Mac II killer? Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com OK, OK, so maybe it will address 4 megs. I'm just guessing, OK?