lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (03/01/90)
In <5527@ur-cc.UUCP>, jea@merlin.cvs.rochester.edu (Joanne Albano) writes: >Several folk here claim that an equivalently loaded IBM-clone >system with 40 meg HD, 3 Megs ram, '386 and VGA graphics with >monitor costs $600-800 less than than the A2500/30 at $3600 >(ed discount price). Is this true? Might be... how much is the multitasking ability, NTSC video output, and HAM mode? -larry -- Gallium Arsenide is the technology of the future; always has been, always will be. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
jea@merlin.cvs.rochester.edu (Joanne Albano) (03/02/90)
Several folk here claim that an equivalently loaded IBM-clone system with 40 meg HD, 3 Megs ram, '386 and VGA graphics with monitor costs $600-800 less than than the A2500/30 at $3600 (ed discount price). Is this true? Joanne Albano, Center for Visual Science (716) 275-3055 Room 274 Meliora Hall, Univ. of Rochester, Rochester NY 14627 INTERNET: jea@cvs.rochester.edu
rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) (03/02/90)
>Several folk here claim that an equivalently loaded IBM-clone >system with 40 meg HD, 3 Megs ram, '386 and VGA graphics with >monitor costs $600-800 less than than the A2500/30 at $3600 >(ed discount price). Is this true? Humm... Could be, although the best prices I've seen were about: $1800 25Mhz 386 1MB no HD $300 40MB HD $600 VGA monitor & card say another $200-300 or so for more memory (really depends if there is space for it on the motherboard, what speed/package it needs) For a total of $2900 so I guess that you can indeed get a cheaper clone, but the $3600 A2500/30 also has a 286 bridgeboard so you get two machines in one, plus you are buying from a fairly large company instead of a slapped togeather REALLY cheapo clone. If you get a 386 from compaq or an actual IBM (gasp) then you'll pay as much, if not more, looking at a pricelist for CMU's computer store, the Model 70s go for around $3500 w/o monitor, mouse, DOS etc. On the Mac side the IIci w/o monitor, or HD goes for 3600 (ouch!) so the 2500/30 educational prices compare very well with the IIci (which is a 68030 machine running at 25Mhz with graphics built in). So depending on what you WANT a clone may be a better deal for you, but don't just look at price. -rick Golembiewski (rg20)
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (03/02/90)
In article <5527@ur-cc.UUCP> jea@cvs.rochester.edu (Joanne Albano) writes: >Several folk here claim that an equivalently loaded IBM-clone >system with 40 meg HD, 3 Megs ram, '386 and VGA graphics with >monitor costs $600-800 less than than the A2500/30 at $3600 > Room 274 Meliora Hall, Univ. of Rochester, Rochester NY 14627 > INTERNET: jea@cvs.rochester.edu This may be true, it may not, but what OS you going to run on the thing? MS-DOS? -- there goes the useability of your 3Megs of memory... OS/2? -- there goes the price difference.. :) Personal aside: Rochester is a beautiful city when it's sunny... :) David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu "Think you can, think you can't -- either way it's true." Henry Ford
dalka@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (kenneth.j.dalka) (03/02/90)
From article <8ZvN8Vy00UgyI1flpP@andrew.cmu.edu>, by rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski): >>Several folk here claim that an equivalently loaded IBM-clone >>system with 40 meg HD, 3 Megs ram, '386 and VGA graphics with >>monitor costs $600-800 less than than the A2500/30 at $3600 >>(ed discount price). Is this true? I know someone who just received their system from Gateway. 386 20 Mhz 4 meg memory ATI VGA WOnder Card (1024x768) NEC 3D monitor (1024x768) 65 meg RLL microscience hard disk 1.44 Meg 3 1/2 floppy 1.2 Meg 5 1/4 floppy $2800 -- Ken Dalka (Bell Labs) att!ihlpz!dalka IH 4H-416 (312) 979-6930
psu@mtuni.ATT.COM (Paul Siu) (03/03/90)
In article <5527@ur-cc.UUCP> jea@cvs.rochester.edu (Joanne Albano) writes: >Several folk here claim that an equivalently loaded IBM-clone >system with 40 meg HD, 3 Megs ram, '386 and VGA graphics with >monitor costs $600-800 less than than the A2500/30 at $3600 >(ed discount price). Is this true? Yes, if you look at ads for Gateway 2000 PC, for example, you can buy a 20MHZ 80386 PC with 4Meg of RAM, 2 floppy drive, 65Meg hard drive, 16-bit VGA card, and monitor for $2795. Prices on the PC market is always very competitive.
perley@trub.crd.ge.com (Donald P Perley) (03/03/90)
In article <22556@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (David C. Navas) writes: >In article <5527@ur-cc.UUCP> jea@cvs.rochester.edu (Joanne Albano) writes: >>Several folk here claim that an equivalently loaded IBM-clone >>system with 40 meg HD, 3 Megs ram, '386 and VGA graphics with >>monitor costs $600-800 less than than the A2500/30 at $3600 >This may be true, it may not, but what OS you going to run on the >thing? MS-DOS? -- there goes the useability of your 3Megs of >memory... OS/2? -- there goes the price difference.. :) Also... OS/2? there goes your 3 megs... Better make that 4.. A while back on the graphics newsgroup, someone was saying that he was getting about the same speed out of a 20 MHz '386 as he did with a 7mHz 68000 based amiga running the same ray-trace program. Presumably the data was big enough to choke under the MSDOS memory juggling on the '386. (note that this was just the computations, no help from blitter, etc) -don perley perley@trub.crd.ge.com
cmcmanis@stpeter.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (03/03/90)
Assertion : >>Several folk here claim that an equivalently loaded IBM-clone >>system with 40 meg HD, 3 Megs ram, '386 and VGA graphics with >>monitor costs $600-800 less than than the A2500/30 at $3600 >>(ed discount price). Is this true? (Rick Francis Golembiewski) responds: >Humm... Could be, although the best prices I've seen were about: >$1800 25Mhz 386 1MB no HD >$300 40MB HD >$600 VGA monitor & card >say another $200-300 or so for more memory (really depends if there is >space for it on the motherboard, what speed/package it needs) >For a total of $2900. You have to add a mouse $50 for a cheap one And an AdLib card to get the sound capability $350 And a serial port/parallel port/game port : $40 Generally you have to by DOS too, whats installed on the disk may or may not be complete, and it doesn't include manuals : $70 That is another $500 to the price. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. "If it didn't have bones in it, it wouldn't be crunchy now would it?!"
bn@attcc.UUCP (03/05/90)
In article <5527@ur-cc.UUCP> jea@cvs.rochester.edu (Joanne Albano) writes: >Several folk here claim that an equivalently loaded IBM-clone >system with 40 meg HD, 3 Megs ram, '386 and VGA graphics with >monitor costs $600-800 less than than the A2500/30 at $3600 > Room 274 Meliora Hall, Univ. of Rochester, Rochester NY 14627 > INTERNET: jea@cvs.rochester.edu Don't forget, that with the Ed. Disc. Amiga 2500/30 package you also get the AT bridgeboard. Do you get an extra Amiga when you buy a '386 clone? 8-) In addition, if you add AMAX to the system, you can run just about anything. (Well, maybe not the Atari ST software 8-) Bo Najdrovsky UUCP: att!mwood!attcc!bn INET: mwood!attcc!bn@ATT.ATT.COM
richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) (03/06/90)
In article <5527@ur-cc.UUCP>, jea@merlin.cvs.rochester.edu (Joanne Albano) writes: > Several folk here claim that an equivalently loaded IBM-clone > system with 40 meg HD, 3 Megs ram, '386 and VGA graphics with > monitor costs $600-800 less than than the A2500/30 at $3600 > (ed discount price). Is this true? I new IBM system cost breakdown: $1200 80386 20 MHz Mylex motherboard(AMI Bios) with 64K 80ns ram cache $500 4 Megs 80ns Ram on the motherboard $400 80387 20 MHz co-processor $ 50 5 1/4, 1.2Meg floppy $ 50 3 1/2, 1.4Meg floppy $400 65 Meg RLL Toshiba Harddisk RLL $100 Western Digital controller WD1006-RLL $600 NEC Multisync 3D Monitor (.31) $300 Super High res VGA card with 512K memory (1024x768)i,(800x600)ni $ 50 2 serial, 1 parallel, 1 game ports $ 50 101 extended keyboard $200 Tower Case with 220 watt power supply -------- $3900.00 + Tax This has been a great system. I think this is about the going costs for an IBM system. The computing power is about 5 times faster than an AMIGA not including the co-processor. This system runs at about 5600 drystones. The advantage of the AMIGA system is in its NTSC video and internal sound capabilities, but this system has the processing power. -- -- Rich Commins (415)939-2400 \ /\ Varian Instruments, 2700 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 \/--\ {ptsfa,lll-crg,zehntel,dual,amd,fortune,ista,rtech,csi,normac}varian!richc
psu@mtuni.ATT.COM (Paul Siu) (03/06/90)
I notice a lot of post on extra costs that you have to add to an IBM machine. You can't compare an IBM to an Amiga by adding accessories to an IBM so it looks like an Amiga! It only proves that IBM makes a poor Amiga. Each machine has its own strength and weakness. Comparing computers in such matters proves nothing.
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (03/07/90)
In article <4251@vaxwaller.UUCP> richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: >I new IBM system cost breakdown [sic]: > >$1200 80386 20 MHz Mylex motherboard(AMI Bios) with 64K 80ns ram cache >$500 4 Megs 80ns Ram on the motherboard >$400 80387 20 MHz co-processor >... >The computing power is about 5 times faster than an AMIGA >not including the co-processor. This system runs at about 5600 drystones. >The advantage of the AMIGA system is in its NTSC video and internal sound >capabilities, but this system has the processing power. Faster than WHICH Amiga?? Certainly an 80386 with coprocessor is faster than a stock 68000 Amiga! But I doubt it is "5 times faster" than an Amiga with 68030/68882 and 4 meg 32-bit RAM, especially since that Amiga system benchmarks faster than 5600 dhrystones. Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
davidw@telxon.UUCP (David Wright) (03/07/90)
Don't you hate how these people: 1) Always use bargain-basement prices. Checking a recent Byte gave me prices on the average of $150-200 more on everything he listed, the worst being 4 meg of 80ns RAM. 2) Always overlooking the most important aspect of having color, a mouse, windowing, multitasking, etc. Namely, the level of integration into the system OS and the amount of software that supports it. The IBM has several different windowing systems, and they are all incompatible with each other. They also have a very large amount of overhead in your executable. And multitasking under OS/S is a joke. The amount of memory required to do it definately rules it out for the average user, and it can only run 1 program in dos emulation at a time. The Amiga on the other hand, can very effectively multitask with only 512k (and even 256k, if you still have one of the really old 1000's). It's windowing system adds very little overhead to your programs, and there is one standard for the mouse, graphics, windows, etc.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/08/90)
In article <4251@vaxwaller.UUCP> richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: >In article <5527@ur-cc.UUCP>, jea@merlin.cvs.rochester.edu (Joanne Albano) writes: >> Several folk here claim that an equivalently loaded IBM-clone >> system with 40 meg HD, 3 Megs ram, '386 and VGA graphics with >> monitor costs $600-800 less than than the A2500/30 at $3600 >> (ed discount price). Is this true? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I new IBM system cost breakdown: [...] >$3900.00 + Tax >This has been a great system. I think this is about the going costs for >an IBM system. The computing power is about 5 times faster than an AMIGA >not including the co-processor. This system runs at about 5600 drystones. Huh? What are you smoking? The comparison, as shown above, was against an A2500/30, you know, the 25MHz 68030 machine. It does about 6500 Dhrystones (2.1) with the old Lattice compiler; I don't know the latest figure. The A2500/30's math is also faster, though if you use a '387 and not a '287, you can at least be in the same neighborhood as the 2500/30's 68882, which claims to run between 1/3 and 1/2 MFLOPS, depending on what you're doing with it. >The advantage of the AMIGA system is in its NTSC video and internal sound >capabilities, but this system has the processing power. That IBM system is faster than a plain A2000, sure. It's also considerably more expensive. >Rich Commins (415)939-2400 \ /\ -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough
allen@grebyn.com (Allen Farrington) (03/08/90)
> In article <4251@vaxwaller.UUCP> richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: > >A new IBM system cost breakdown: [...] >$3900.00 + Tax Regardless of the performance of this type of system versus an Amiga, you get what you pay for. Example: I spent my entire day today with one of those really cheap, really high performance systems. I'll neglect to mention the manufacturer but the overall construction of the system was atrocious. The system was a 20MHz '386/387 with a 330MB ESDI drive and VGA card. For this we paid over $4600, a great deal of that was the drive. Anyhow, the cards barely seated into the connectors due to a poorly welded case and bracket frame. The cover was ill-fitted. Well you get my drift. I'm convinced that the low cost will be offset by the poor quality of this machine and that my department will pay for this in the long run. But what is my point? I've opened my Amiga 2500 several times and find the quality of workmanship to very good. Yes, I've heard of poorly seated chips, etc, but still feel like the quality is good. My point is that comparing similarly performing machines of radically differing cost will always reveal some significant difference, in this case the construction quality, so do so very carefully. Lastly, after configuring every card and double checking to make sure that I/O space and interrupts don't conflict, I'm glad that the AutoConfig(R) specification of the Amiga makes the developer handle that stuff. Of course you guys knew all this already. *AutoConfig is a registered trademark of Commodore Electronics, Ltd. -- |------------------------------------------| | Allen H. Farrington (703) 222-9612 | "It's like nothing we've ever | allen@grebyn.com | dealt with before." |------------------------------------------| -Mr. Spock
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (03/08/90)
In <4252@vaxwaller.UUCP>, richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: > >Even with a 68030 running at 33 MHz the AMIGA would still have its >co-processors running at 7 MHz. The death knell of the AMIGA is in the >fact that CBM did not keep pace with its co-processors. Look at results, not specs. > A 640x400 16 color >interlaced display today is a joke. A 640x400 noninterlaced display with >only 4 colors is laughable. Well, make that 640*400 with 16 colours, and it's less laughable. Mention that it can be directly recorded onto videotape or put out to a TV, and it's a LOT less of a joke, if you happen to require NTSC capability. If you don't, fine. Just proves that not everyone's needs are the same. It would be just as valid for me to talk about NTSC and HAM mode and say that only 256 colours is a joke, and that VGA is laughable. Want to talk about animation? Want to talk about seamless multitasking without having to mortgage the house or put up with running only certain programs together? The system I discribed has a 800x600 noninterlaced >256 color display and a 1024x768 interlaced 16 color display at 84 Hz >which has very little flicker. Very little flicker and no NTSC compatibility. Better? No, just different. > A comparable AMIGA system would require >a flicker fixer at least to get a 640x400 noninterlaced 16 color >display (about $500 more). How much for an NTSC converter? > The real world price of a comparable system does not exist unfortuneately. Ahh.. my point exactly. There is no comparison. There is no such thing as 'a comparably equipped '386 machine'. > I am very disapointed with CBM. I still >feel they were the first with a real-time operating system and higher >resolution screens but didn't keep improving the product fast enough >to stay competitive. The only reasons CBM is not competetive is because the market that buys the most machines doesn't think the Amiga has much going for it. The reason I don't buy a '386 machine is because I don't think it has much going for it. Such is life. -larry -- Entymology bugs me. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) (03/09/90)
In article <1181@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>, lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: > In <5527@ur-cc.UUCP>, jea@merlin.cvs.rochester.edu (Joanne Albano) writes: > >Several folk here claim that an equivalently loaded IBM-clone > >system with 40 meg HD, 3 Megs ram, '386 and VGA graphics with > >monitor costs $600-800 less than than the A2500/30 at $3600 > >(ed discount price). Is this true? Even with a 68030 running at 33 MHz the AMIGA would still have its co-processors running at 7 MHz. The death knell of the AMIGA is in the fact that CBM did not keep pace with its co-processors. A 640x400 16 color interlaced display today is a joke. A 640x400 noninterlaced display with only 4 colors is laughable. The system I discribed has a 800x600 noninterlaced 256 color display and a 1024x768 interlaced 16 color display at 84 Hz which has very little flicker. A comparable AMIGA system would require a flicker fixer at least to get a 640x400 noninterlaced 16 color display (about $500 more). The real world price of a comparable system does not exist unfortuneately. I am very disapointed with CBM. I still feel they were the first with a real-time operating system and higher resolution screens but didn't keep improving the product fast enough to stay competitive. -- -- Rich Commins (415)939-2400 \ /\ Varian Instruments, 2700 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 \/--\ {ptsfa,lll-crg,zehntel,dual,amd,fortune,ista,rtech,csi,normac}varian!richc
stevem@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM (Steve McClure) (03/09/90)
In article <4252@vaxwaller.UUCP> richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: *In article <1181@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>, lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: ** In <5527@ur-cc.UUCP>, jea@merlin.cvs.rochester.edu (Joanne Albano) writes: ** *Several folk here claim that an equivalently loaded IBM-clone ** *system with 40 meg HD, 3 Megs ram, '386 and VGA graphics with ** *monitor costs $600-800 less than than the A2500/30 at $3600 ** *(ed discount price). Is this true? * *Even with a 68030 running at 33 MHz the AMIGA would still have its *co-processors running at 7 MHz. The death knell of the AMIGA is in the *fact that CBM did not keep pace with its co-processors. A 640x400 16 color *interlaced display today is a joke. A 640x400 noninterlaced display with *only 4 colors is laughable. The system I discribed has a 800x600 noninterlaced *256 color display and a 1024x768 interlaced 16 color display at 84 Hz *which has very little flicker. A comparable AMIGA system would require *a flicker fixer at least to get a 640x400 noninterlaced 16 color *display (about $500 more). The real world price of a comparable system *does not exist unfortuneately. I am very disapointed with CBM. I still *feel they were the first with a real-time operating system and higher *resolution screens but didn't keep improving the product fast enough *to stay competitive. Yes, 1024x768 resolution when you get the driver for each piece of software that can use these kludges. Add multi-tasking and you can't keep up for double the cost of a 2500/30. But hey, TSR's are the same thing as multi-tasking, right? 8^). Any program I run is capable of running on ANY Amiga system regardless of display types. We will never see any resolve of comparing apples to oranges. Use the right tool for the right job, whatever the case. Steve ----- Steve.McClure@Columbia.NCR.COM The above are my opinions, which NCR doesn't really care about anyway! CAUSER's Amiga BBS! | 803-796-3127 | 8pm-8am 8n1 | 300/1200/2400
richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) (03/10/90)
In article <4422@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>, barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes: > In article <4251@vaxwaller.UUCP> richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: > >I new IBM system cost breakdown [sic]: > > > >$1200 80386 20 MHz Mylex motherboard(AMI Bios) with 64K 80ns ram cache > >$500 4 Megs 80ns Ram on the motherboard > >$400 80387 20 MHz co-processor > >... > >The computing power is about 5 times faster than an AMIGA > >not including the co-processor. This system runs at about 5600 drystones. > > Faster than WHICH Amiga?? Certainly an 80386 with coprocessor > is faster than a stock 68000 Amiga! But I doubt it is "5 times faster" No I'm comparing this to my AMIGA 1000. Four years ago AMIGA Today IBM -------------------- --------- $2500 AMIGA system $2400 IBM 80386 with 80387 co-processor $ 500 Monitor (Sony) $ 600 Monitor NEC 3D $1000 20Meg harddisk $ 500 65 Meg Harddisk 28msec $ 700 2Meg memory $ 400 4 Megs of 80ns memory ----- ------ $4700 $3800 + $$$$$ for software + $$$$$ for software Four years ago a dollar was worth more! A comparable AMIGA system today would include an accelerator board, flicker fixer and a 65 meg HD and would cost around $7000.00, and would still only have a screen resolution of 640x400,16 color. I still think the AMIGA has a lot going for it when you include its multitasking operating system, sound and video capabilities. BUT, is the increased cost for the extra processing and display capabilities worth the extra bucks? -- -- Rich Commins (415)939-2400 \ /\ Varian Instruments, 2700 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 \/--\ {ptsfa,lll-crg,zehntel,dual,amd,fortune,ista,rtech,csi,normac}varian!richc
phoenix@ms.uky.edu (R'ykandar Korra'ti) (03/10/90)
[More "PC Clones" vs. Amiga junk. Hit 'n' now or forever hold your flames...] In article <4254@vaxwaller.UUCP> richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: >No I'm comparing this to my AMIGA 1000. > Four years ago AMIGA Today IBM > -------------------- --------- > Four years ago a dollar was worth more! Ack! Urgh! Ow! Ick! REALITY CHECK... REALITY CHECK... ALERT... ALERT... Four years ago a dollar was NOT! worth more in computing power! This comparison is entirely out of whack. Four years ago, a dollar was worth MUCH LESS THAN it is now in computing power. Just for ease of reference, let's set the Wayback machine to 1985, Sherman... what do we find? $5000 for an 80286 - and that's top of the line equiment. Set it to 10 years back and the Really Hot System is a 6502 with a hacked-up full 64K of RAM, a Corvus hard drive, and a colour monitor; around a $6000 unit. (It has been a while, so if any numbers are off, my apologies.) >A comparable AMIGA system today would include an accelerator board, >flicker fixer and a 65 meg HD and would cost around $7000.00, and ^^^^^^^^ >would still only have a screen resolution of 640x400,16 color. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Actually, more like 680 by 440 usable, 704 by 480 using Extreme Overscan and the right monitor. Also, 4096 colour "hacks" are available and do work. Not much software supports it yet, but then again, how much software supported EGA or VGA when they first came out? This isn't to say that they're substitutes for New Graphics Cards, but they're still Nice To Have.) And $7000? I really, really don't think so... let's see, I seem to recall that a 2500 with 40 meg runs around $4000; swap up hard drives (be extravagant - $400 more); flickerfixer, $500; VGA monitor, $400; that's $5300. Now, what advantages do you get? 1) A multitasking operating system; the IBM equivalant runs $500, but whoops! No applications, and it's slower the Amiga because of all that nasty overhead. 2) Video compatibility. IBM land; $500; more for a good unit, less for an ElCheapo. 3) Applications that work together. I use this constantly. I've tried doing similar things in MS-DOS that I do on my Amy every day - abort, retry, fail. :-) 4) Real Sound. >I still think the AMIGA has a lot going for it when you include its >multitasking operating system, sound and video capabilities. BUT, >is the increased cost for the extra processing and display capabilities >worth the extra bucks? I think so. I HATE single-tasking systems now. I used to not mind them. In fact, that's where I started out (1977 TRS-80 Model Only, 4K, Level I BASIC.) But I wouldn't go back. Yes, the Amiga needs new high-end graphics boards THAT ARE SUPPORTED. There are, after all, high-end boards available now. The FrameGrabber and the Transputer boards come to mind. Also, the Black Belt box is really not a bad unit for video work. There's also the Hedley mode monitor, which DOES have support from all programmes that use the Workbench. But the high-end processor boards are Here Now and are supported. The RAM limit is very high. (9 meg autoconfig, 64 meg total if I understand it correctly - I don't have these Neato Things... :-) ) The cost is NOT a problem - and I don't mean just when you take performance into account either. (Read PC-WEEK, the most recent issue. Mail-order price wars are going away, and clone prices will be rising, if this information is correct...) Other than the video - which is still just Very Much Faster than most VGA cards out there - I really don't see what your point is. - 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 |
rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) (03/11/90)
richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: No I'm comparing this to my AMIGA 1000. > > Four years ago AMIGA Today IBM > -------------------- --------- > $2500 AMIGA system $2400 IBM 80386 with 80387 co-processor > $ 500 Monitor (Sony) $ 600 Monitor NEC 3D > $1000 20Meg harddisk $ 500 65 Meg Harddisk 28msec > $ 700 2Meg memory $ 400 4 Megs of 80ns memory > ----- ------ > $4700 $3800 > + $$$$$ for software + $$$$$ for software > > Four years ago a dollar was worth more! You forgot a VERY big consideration for the amiga side +4YEARS USE of a COMPUTER. Computers (and cars) are in general a TERRIBLE investment because their sale price plummets as newer techonology comes out. So why ever buy a omputer? Because it give you a certain amount of utility be it increased productivity on a job, or enjoyment from playing games, or the joy of having a very expensive door stop. Also don't compare today's technology to yesterdays technology... Ever used an apple II+? I got one for $3K in 1980 with 48K and 1 143K floppy drive, wow that is an incredibly slow machine for $3K, I could get a really cool 386 today with that money and $3K was worth more in 1980.... However I wouldn't have had a computer for 10 years! Now 4 years ago, you couldn't GET a 386, and 286es were NOT cheap, When I got my amiga system (in late '86), here was the costs: Amiga: $1295 (monitor & CPU) IBM 286 clone: $900 CPU (6Mhz 640K 1 floppy drive)+$1000 EGA monitor+display card+$100 MS-DOS. So a CLONE with about the same functionality, but inferior graphics as the amiga I got cost about about $800 more. This is the reaason I got an amiga, if you keep waiting for technology to get better then yes you will be able to get a more powerful machine for less money, but you also have to do without a machine, so you have to decide when you need the machine, and what you can actually buy. -Rick Golembiewski rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/11/90)
In article <YZyGgwW00WB2F6LK4u@andrew.cmu.edu> rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes: >richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: > >No I'm comparing this to my AMIGA 1000. >> >> Four years ago AMIGA Today IBM >> -------------------- --------- >> $2500 AMIGA system $2400 IBM 80386 with 80387 co-processor >> $ 500 Monitor (Sony) $ 600 Monitor NEC 3D >> $1000 20Meg harddisk $ 500 65 Meg Harddisk 28msec >> $ 700 2Meg memory $ 400 4 Megs of 80ns memory >> ----- ------ >> $4700 $3800 >> + $$$$$ for software + $$$$$ for software >> >> Four years ago a dollar was worth more! >You forgot a VERY big consideration for the amiga side +4YEARS USE of >a COMPUTER. Computers (and cars) are in general a TERRIBLE investment Fellow Amigans, let's face facts: any comparison between an equivalently equipped Amiga and PC CLONE will usually give a cheaper clone, for what most people want. When I say equivalent, I mean equal memory, hard drive space, software. The comparison above isn't valid because the $400 for 4MB of 80ns can't possibly be 32 bit, as the $700 is. I have recently seen 2MB of 32bit ram sold for $500 installed. An IBM will probably be somewhat more than an Amiga, although clones are generally less. However, you don't get the same kind of machine. You get MS-DOS. You don't get multitasking or a friendly environment. You get memory-management problems because of 640K barriers. There are definitely advantages to the Amiga, but if you are looking for some cheapy word processor, I would not recommend the Amiga for most people, primarily as you would end up with either a flickery screen or a low-res screen. The Amiga's advantages are shown in its flexibility to use multiple programs. If your interests are more varied than word processing, or if you are looking for a higher end machine, then the Amiga gains the high-road. But let's stop trying to say that Amigas are cheaper than clones. They aren't, even with educational discounts, to someone who only needs IBM Compatibility and what comes with that. -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu Compu$erve : 70137,3271 Anyone giving away Amigas or Sharp Scanners???
yarnall@usceast.UUCP (Ken Yarnall) (03/11/90)
In article <4254@vaxwaller.UUCP> richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes:
+
+ Four years ago AMIGA Today IBM
+ -------------------- ---------
+ $2500 AMIGA system $2400 IBM 80386 with 80387 co-processor
+ $ 500 Monitor (Sony) $ 600 Monitor NEC 3D
+ $1000 20Meg harddisk $ 500 65 Meg Harddisk 28msec
+ $ 700 2Meg memory $ 400 4 Megs of 80ns memory
+ ----- ------
+ $4700 $3800
+ + $$$$$ for software + $$$$$ for software
+
+ Four years ago a dollar was worth more!
Not in the computer industry! Anybody can see that prices have fallen
through the floor. $700 for 2Meg of memory? How can you possibly think that
this price comparison makes ->any<- sense??
+A comparable AMIGA system today would include an accelerator board,
+flicker fixer and a 65 meg HD and would cost around $7000.00, and
+would still only have a screen resolution of 640x400,16 color.
Well, gee wizz...I got my A2500/30, with a 24-pin printer, modem, multi-sync
monitor, 3Meg of memory, and a 40 Meg harddisk, all for less than $4000.
+I still think the AMIGA has a lot going for it when you include its
+multitasking operating system, sound and video capabilities. BUT,
+is the increased cost for the extra processing and display capabilities
+worth the extra bucks?
I just don't see any extra bucks...How much did an AT cost 4 years ago?
+--
+--
+Rich Commins (415)939-2400 \ /\
+Varian Instruments, 2700 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 \/--\
+{ptsfa,lll-crg,zehntel,dual,amd,fortune,ista,rtech,csi,normac}varian!richc
+
--
Ken Yarnall yarnall@cs.scarolina.EDU
Math Department, USC yarnall@ucseast.UUCP
Columbia, S.C. 29208 (803)777-6686cmcmanis@stpeter.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (03/11/90)
">" == Rich Commins Rich, give it a rest, your losing fast. To wit ... >No I'm comparing this to my AMIGA 1000. > Four years ago AMIGA Today IBM First off this is really ill advised, primarily because you admit you are comparing incompatible things right from the start, but do it anyway! Pick either "today" prices or "4 years ago" prices. So tell me what was the price of a 20Mhz 386 system 4 years ago? Hmmmm ? > Four years ago a dollar was worth more! Not a computer dollar silly! Everyone knows that every year the amount of computer power a dollar will buy goes up. For the price of a Sun 3/60 + Disk four years ago, you can buy a SparcStation + Disk today. That is a jump from 3Mips to 12Mips! So what? So quit trying to justify your IBM PC purchase by creating an artifical environment in which it is a good deal. You don't have to, we don't care ! > A comparable AMIGA system today would include an accelerator board, > flicker fixer and a 65 meg HD and would cost around $7000.00, and > would still only have a screen resolution of 640x400,16 color. A comparable Amiga system today starts with a 2500/30 and goes from there. As *everyone* has explained to you, it costs less than $7,000 and it is faster than the 20MHZ 386 system and it can do things that your silly IBM can't. So what is the point! >I still think the AMIGA has a lot going for it when you include its >multitasking operating system, sound and video capabilities. BUT, >is the increased cost for the extra processing and display capabilities >worth the extra bucks? Obviously not to you, everyone can appreciate that. Everyone is glad you have a fast new system, and no I don't think anyone is bothered that it isn't an Amiga. Just go play with it and have fun! That is the meaning of life. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. "If it didn't have bones in it, it wouldn't be crunchy now would it?!"
robin@sabre.uucp (Robin D. Wilson/1000000) (03/12/90)
richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: > > Four years ago AMIGA Today IBM > -------------------- --------- > $2500 AMIGA system $2400 IBM 80386 with 80387 co-processor > $ 500 Monitor (Sony) $ 600 Monitor NEC 3D > $1000 20Meg harddisk $ 500 65 Meg Harddisk 28msec > $ 700 2Meg memory $ 400 4 Megs of 80ns memory > ----- ------ > $4700 $3800 > + $$$$$ for software + $$$$$ for software > > Four years ago a dollar was worth more! What about a VGA graphics card (Or higher) for the Clone machine. And why is harddisk so expensive for the Amy? You can get a controller for ~$200 and then buy the same harddisk that you put in the Clone. Plus you forgot the controller card for the clone (a good one cost at least $100). And for most memory upgrades you can match the price of the Clone +$100 for a card to put it on. If you are going to compare prices, at least you could compare all of the same pieces. On top of all that My A500 beats the pants off of any clone I've seen in terms of usefulness. Multitasking and windowing is far superior on the Amy (and faster). Go try an OS/2 machine someday (and add $500 to the cost of the clone for the operating system) wow, talk about slow. Looks like an Apple IIgs (That's Apple II Gruellingly Slow). +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |The views expressed herein, are the sole responsibility of the typist at hand| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |USNail: UUCP: | |2323 Wells Branch Pkwy., #G107 cs.utexas.edu!romp!ibmchs!auschs\ | |Austin, TX 78728 !sabre.austin.ibm.com!robin | |Home: (512)251-6889 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<-MUST BE INCLUDED| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
icsu8212@caesar.cs.montana.edu (Stone) (03/13/90)
richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: > > Four years ago AMIGA Today IBM > -------------------- --------- > $2500 AMIGA system $2400 IBM 80386 with 80387 co-processor > $ 500 Monitor (Sony) $ 600 Monitor NEC 3D > $1000 20Meg harddisk $ 500 65 Meg Harddisk 28msec > $ 700 2Meg memory $ 400 4 Megs of 80ns memory > ----- ------ > $4700 $3800 > + $$$$$ for software + $$$$$ for software > > Four years ago a dollar was worth more! (And an IBM is STILL worth less!) Is this guy for real?? Why doesn't he bother to compare TODAY's Amiga with Today's IBM? Oh sure the monitor's cheaper, I have a 1084S which I am tremendously pleased with and cost only $295! The hard drive is the same price since you can use the same drive in either machine, the Amiga controller may cost more but that is because the typical Amiga controller is DMA! I can buy a 105MB Quantum drive: 19ms 1MB/sec WITH a controller for $1000! Furhtermore, what about his VGA card, and sound board? (Not that IBM has put out any sound comparable to the Amiga) I also just purchased 2MB RAM for $349 including the board from LightSpeed in Oregon! Does his system come with the built-in ability to mount RAM drives? How about direct access to the added memory that *ANY* program can use (no page swapping garbage)? It is people like this that I love to introduce to Cross Dos, especially when (using their new VGA board at $$$$?) they put up their petty 640x420 by 256 color pictures and say "Let's see your Amiga do THAT!" I take immense pleasure in taking THEIR disk, placing it in MY Amiga and proceding to show them the same picture in HAM mode using 2/3 the memory and having 4096 colors (ok you have to use the arrow keys to see the bottom 20 pixels). And then just to rub it in, remind them that the graphics chips come STANDARD with the Amiga! -- =============================================================================== //X\\ | {uunet|relay} icsu8212@caesar.cs.montana.edu /// \\\ AMIGA HACKER | Murphy's First Law: (un-amended) /// Mike Stone | Nothing can possibly go wrong.
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (03/13/90)
richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: >No I'm comparing this to my AMIGA 1000. > Four years ago AMIGA Today IBM > -------------------- --------- > $2500 AMIGA system $2400 IBM 80386 with 80387 co-processor > $ 500 Monitor (Sony) $ 600 Monitor NEC 3D > $1000 20Meg harddisk $ 500 65 Meg Harddisk 28msec > $ 700 2Meg memory $ 400 4 Megs of 80ns memory > ----- ------ > $4700 $3800 > + $$$$$ for software + $$$$$ for software WHAT? $2500 for an amiga 1000? Boy do I have some land in Florida I want to sell you! The Amiga 1000 was selling for $1295 four years ago. I paid $795 for mine (educational discount) but most places were selling them for around $1000. So your price should have been $3495. But you have to realize that back then the 386 did not exist. The comparable system would have been a 80286. The Amiga 1000 was new technology back then. And the 80286 would have ran you around $5000 or $6000 for an EGA system with 1 meg of memory. > Four years ago a dollar was worth more! Ha! Every year your dollar buys you more and more computing power, not less. Today, you can get your 386 system for less than a 286 system cost in 1986. And you can buy an your Amiga system (except you get an Amiga 2000, with slots) for about this: Amiga 2000 -- $1600 20 meg drive/2091 $ 500 2 meg memory $ 160 multisync monitor $ 400 -------------------------- Total $2660 So compare that to the IBM system. And remember, it's not IBM, it's just a clone. You go out and buy IBM and it's gonna run you around $10,000 for the same system. I have seen the Amiga 2500 (68020 with 40meg hard drive and 2 meg 32 bit mem) for $3300. Add in $400 for a multisync monitor and you still come out ahead of your IBM clone system. I just wanted to correct you on misleading prices. If you want to know the truth, you CAN get a clone cheaper than an equivelent Amiga system. That's because of the extreme numbers of clone makers out there. Volume means lower prices. I bet with a little research you could get a 386 machine and monitor for about $3000. But don't go inflating the Amiga prices to make them look worse. -- John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY) sparks@corpane.UUCP <><><><><><><><><><><> D.I.S.K. ph:502/968-5401 thru -5406 A virtuous life is its own punishment.
richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) (03/13/90)
In article <2044@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM>, stevem@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM (Steve McClure) writes: > > Yes, 1024x768 resolution when you get the driver for each piece of software > that can use these kludges. Add multi-tasking and you can't keep up for > > Steve Your point is well taken. One of the main advantages of the AMIGA system was ALL the systems had the same capabilities. A program could be written that included stero sound and 640x400i color graphics, and everyone's AMIGA (including the A1000) could run the software. Not so with IBM. -- -- Rich Commins (415)939-2400 \ /\ Varian Instruments, 2700 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 \/--\ {ptsfa,lll-crg,zehntel,dual,amd,fortune,ista,rtech,csi,normac}varian!richc
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/13/90)
In article <4254@vaxwaller.UUCP> richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: >In article <4422@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>, barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes: >> Faster than WHICH Amiga?? Certainly an 80386 with coprocessor >> is faster than a stock 68000 Amiga! But I doubt it is "5 times faster" >No I'm comparing this to my AMIGA 1000. [...] Four years ago a dollar was worth more! Imagine that! And back in '79, I payed $1200 for a 16K Exidy Sorcerer system that gave me a 60x30 character display and stored its programs on cassette tapes at 1200 Baud. Way back in '79, a dollar was worth even more than in '84 or '90. But computer technology changes far faster than just about anything. Whatever you buy today, if you can even upgrade it to what's available in five years, you'll be lucky. If you can upgrade it for less than it would cost to throw out your hardware and start over from scratch, you'll be real lucky. If you can still use your software (which soon eats up more of your money than the hardware, unless you write all your own) on the new or upgraded machine while taking full advantage of the new configuration, you should really thank whomever made such an amazing thing possible. >A comparable AMIGA system today would include an accelerator board, >flicker fixer and a 65 meg HD and would cost around $7000.00, and >would still only have a screen resolution of 640x400,16 color. As pointed out, a new Amiga system with all that won't cost $7,000. The end result won't give you VGA graphics; then again, your 16MHz PClone has a bad expansion bus and slow, CPU driven hard disk. You'd spend more upgrading an A1000 to today's standards, but then again, you'd spend alot upgrading any 1985 computer to 1990 standards. And at least with the upgraded A1000, all those boxes of software on your shelf still run, maybe even all at once. >Rich Commins (415)939-2400 \ /\ -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough
coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) (03/14/90)
All the price/performance estimates I've seen are ridiculous. Who cares about a few pixels here, a couple of colors there? Whatever the configuration, both systems are guaranteed to generate endless articles claiming superiority. The testosterone gets so thick you can smell it. Maybe we need a new benchmark to measure how much user loyalty a system generates. Bhoaststone perhaps? Stephen Coy uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy BTW I own both a PC klone and an Amiga. I like them both.
richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) (03/15/90)
In article <3163@cello.UUCP>, robin@sabre.uucp (Robin D. Wilson/1000000) writes: > richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: > > Four years ago AMIGA Today IBM > > -------------------- --------- > > $4700 $3800 > > > What about a VGA graphics card (Or higher) for the Clone machine. And why is > harddisk so expensive for the Amy? You can get a controller for ~$200 and > then buy the same harddisk that you put in the Clone. Plus you forgot the > controller card for the clone (a good one cost at least $100). And for > most memory upgrades you can match the price of the Clone +$100 for a card The clone price above includes a VGA card that has 512k of memory and has a maximum resolution of 1024x768i with 16 colors. It also includes a Western Digital 2FD+2HD RLL controller card. I agree that these prices are low even for a clone, and the quality of the case is not the best, but the quality of the boards and the performance of the machine is tops. The harddisk for the AMIGA was cheap at the time. The the AMIGA first came out, the harddisks were around $1500.00. The reason for this was because the harddisk required an external box, power supply and interface connector. -- -- Rich Commins (415)939-2400 \ /\ Varian Instruments, 2700 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 \/--\ {ptsfa,lll-crg,zehntel,dual,amd,fortune,ista,rtech,csi,normac}varian!richc
richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) (03/15/90)
In article <3505@caesar.cs.montana.edu>, icsu8212@caesar.cs.montana.edu (Stone) writes: > richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: > > Four years ago AMIGA Today IBM > > -------------------- --------- > > $4700 $3800 > > It is people like this that I love to introduce to Cross Dos, especially > when (using their new VGA board at $$$$?) they put up their petty 640x420 > by 256 color pictures and say "Let's see your Amiga do THAT!" I take OK. I still have my AMIGA 1000 and if Cross DOS can do this, maybe I should just keep the machine. The market for AMIGA 1000's have dropped below there worth. My system at todays prices is worth ~$1500.00 and I feel that there is still more computing power with the AMIGA than the money says. Where do I get CrossDOS, and how much? -- -- Rich Commins (415)939-2400 \ /\ Varian Instruments, 2700 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 \/--\ {ptsfa,lll-crg,zehntel,dual,amd,fortune,ista,rtech,csi,normac}varian!richc
richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) (03/15/90)
In article <1590@corpane.UUCP>, sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > > WHAT? $2500 for an amiga 1000? Boy do I have some land in Florida I want > to sell you! I bought my AMIGA 1000 the first year it came out. People before me paid near $4500.00 for their systems. Prices were very high back then. How many years ago was it anyway? > > So your price should have been $3495. But you have to realize that back > then the 386 did not exist. The comparable system would have been a > 80286. The Amiga 1000 was new technology back then. And the 80286 would I agree. The two systems aren't comparible and its unfair to compare a 4 to ? year old system to a new system. > > So compare that to the IBM system. And remember, it's not IBM, it's just a > clone. You go out and buy IBM and it's gonna run you around $10,000 for the > same system. Another good point. An IBM or Compaq system is much higher in price and makes the AMIGA system look inexpensive. My original point in this discussion was not in comparing a four year old computer to a new one. Nor was it to complain about how much money the AMIGA 1000 cost when I bought it years ago. It was to complain about the lack of display resolution that ALL AMIGA's have today! Why did CBM let the technologically advanced (for its day) AMIGA 1000 fall behind in its display. In my opinion it started when CBM broke up the origial (and brilliant) design team that included Dave Hayne and RJ Michel. -- -- Rich Commins (415)939-2400 \ /\ Varian Instruments, 2700 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 \/--\ {ptsfa,lll-crg,zehntel,dual,amd,fortune,ista,rtech,csi,normac}varian!richc
amiga@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Boing) (03/16/90)
In article <4264@vaxwaller.UUCP> richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: :In article <1590@corpane.UUCP>, sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: :> :> WHAT? $2500 for an amiga 1000? Boy do I have some land in Florida I want :> to sell you! : I bought my AMIGA 1000 the first year it came out. People before me paid : near $4500.00 for their systems. Prices were very high back then. How many : years ago was it anyway? $4,500 for an A1000? I only paid ~$1,900 for my A1000 with monitor and 512K RAM back in December of '85. Still using it, too (although I now have 2.5M RAM and an external floppy). Maybe you should look into some Florida real estate... 8) -- // boing! boing! boing! boing! boing! boing! boing! boing! // \X/ \X/ uhccux amiga pd software | amiga@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu | amiga@uhccux.bitnet "just another peon" | baron@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu | baron@uhccux.bitnet
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (03/19/90)
richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: >In article <1590@corpane.UUCP>, sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >> >> WHAT? $2500 for an amiga 1000? Boy do I have some land in Florida I want >> to sell you! > I bought my AMIGA 1000 the first year it came out. People before me paid > near $4500.00 for their systems. Prices were very high back then. How many > years ago was it anyway? 1985. and they were not that expensive even then. I know, I bought mine then. The monitor was about $500, the A1000 was about $1300. You said $2500 for just the Amiga 1000. I say you got ripped off or are remembering wrong. > lack of display resolution that ALL AMIGA's have today! Why did CBM let > the technologically advanced (for its day) AMIGA 1000 fall behind in its > display. In my opinion it started when CBM broke up the origial > (and brilliant) design team that included Dave Hayne and RJ Michel. It's one thing to come out with a new innovative machine with all new hard ware, but after you release it you get locked into a catch-22 like situation. You have to stay compatible with the software already out there or you risk losing your customers, and you need to keep improving your hardware or you fall behind in the market. Standards are the biggest stumbling block in the way of innovation, but they are also the only thing that keeps us from going broke and insane trying to keep up with new technology. Once you commit yourself to a specific standard (such as MSDOS, VGA, Amiga graphics, NTSC) you have to support it. That makes improvements slow down. The Amiga is coming out with some new graphic modes (needs more if you ask me) but it's not as big a leap as when the amiga first came out (compare amiga graphics to the EGA standard of the day). --- Sideline: Hey Dave Haynie: since CBM is changing 2 of the three custom chips to improve the graphics, why not go all out and give us a new disk controller so AmigaDOS can support High-Density disk drives? 1.76 meg drives would be nice! -- John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY) sparks@corpane.UUCP <><><><><><><><><><><> D.I.S.K. ph:502/968-5401 thru -5406 A virtuous life is its own punishment.
chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) (03/21/90)
In article <1607@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >1985. and they were not that expensive even then. I know, I bought mine then. >The monitor was about $500, the A1000 was about $1300. You said $2500 for >just the Amiga 1000. I say you got ripped off or are remembering wrong. I think the 1000 was more than $1300, wasn't it? Much closer to $2000, if I remember correctly. Certainly not more than $2000, though. (I bought mine Nov. 10, 1985, and the price DID come down quite a bit shortly thereafter; I distinctly remember the feeling of being screwed.) >John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY) >sparks@corpane.UUCP <><><><><><><><><><><> D.I.S.K. ph:502/968-5401 thru -5406 >A virtuous life is its own punishment. -Chris -- Chris Lang, University of Michigan, College of Engineering +1 313 763 1832 4622 Bursley, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109 chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu WORK: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, 900 Victors Way, Suite 226, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108 +1 313 995 0300 "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
new@udel.edu (Darren New) (03/21/90)
In article <1990Mar20.233946.25114@caen.engin.umich.edu> chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) writes: >I think the 1000 was more than $1300, wasn't it? Much closer to $2000, if The $1300 didn't include the monitor, which I think was in the $400-$500 range. >I remember correctly. Certainly not more than $2000, though. (I bought mine >Nov. 10, 1985, and the price DID come down quite a bit shortly thereafter; I >distinctly remember the feeling of being screwed.) You think YOU were screwed?! What about the excellent dealers with knowledg able salespeople and 30-50 machines in stock? These dealers got no price break when CBM started advertising the A1000 selling for less than the dealers paid for it! Selling it at list would have lost the dealers $150 or so on each sale! Next thing I know, only Games&Gadgets are selling them. <Sigh> -- Darren
chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) (03/22/90)
In article <14575@nigel.udel.EDU> new@udel.edu (Darren New) writes: >In article <1990Mar20.233946.25114@caen.engin.umich.edu> chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) writes: >>I think the 1000 was more than $1300, wasn't it? Much closer to $2000, if > >The $1300 didn't include the monitor, which I think was in the $400-$500 range. I know. I'm still sure we spent well over $2000, with just an A1000, a monitor and 256K of memory (the latter cost a couple hundred dollars). -Chris -- Chris Lang, University of Michigan, College of Engineering +1 313 763 1832 4622 Bursley, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109 chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu WORK: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, 900 Victors Way, Suite 226, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108 +1 313 995 0300 "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Rich Carreiro) (03/22/90)
In article <1990Mar21.224248.9079@caen.engin.umich.edu> chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) writes: >I know. I'm still sure we spent well over $2000, with just an A1000, a >monitor and 256K of memory (the latter cost a couple hundred dollars). Man! I must've been lucky! I was able to get: A1000 256K add-on (plugged into front) external drive monitor Amiga C (aka Lattice 3.0.3) for ~$1500 tops (may have been as low as $1295). That was in May, 1986. -- Hollywood's Animato Lives! ==> Mike Jittlov <== ARPA: rlcarr@space.mit.edu is UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!space.mit.edu!rlcarr ** The Wizard of ** BITNET: rlcarr@space.mit.edu *** Speed and Time ***
chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) (03/22/90)
In article <1990Mar22.004719.18611@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rlcarr@space.mit.edu (Animato) writes: >In article <1990Mar21.224248.9079@caen.engin.umich.edu> chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) writes: > >>I know. I'm still sure we spent well over $2000, with just an A1000, a >>monitor and 256K of memory (the latter cost a couple hundred dollars). > >Man! I must've been lucky! I was able to get: >A1000 >256K add-on (plugged into front) >external drive >monitor >Amiga C (aka Lattice 3.0.3) >for ~$1500 tops (may have been as low as $1295). > >That was in May, 1986. Well, the prices I quoted were as of November, 1985, and, as I said, there was a substantial drop in price shortly thereafter...I don't remember HOW substantial, but the prices you mentioned don't seem too out of line (although still pretty good for mid-1986). -Chris -- Chris Lang, University of Michigan, College of Engineering +1 313 763 1832 4622 Bursley, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109 chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu WORK: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, 900 Victors Way, Suite 226, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108 +1 313 995 0300 "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (03/22/90)
In article <1990Mar21.224248.9079@caen.engin.umich.edu> chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) writes: > >I know. I'm still sure we spent well over $2000, with just an A1000, a >monitor and 256K of memory (the latter cost a couple hundred dollars). > > -Chris Yes that sounds about right. I think I spent right at $2000 for my 512K machine + monitor about 6 mos after the 1000 debuted. I think this price included a couple of raggity applications like Textcraft and something else that I can't recall now... -- --Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------- {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) (03/23/90)
In article <4260@vaxwaller.UUCP> richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: [..info about then Amiga prices and now PC-Clone prices deleted..] >The harddisk for the AMIGA was cheap at the time. The the AMIGA first came >out, the harddisks were around $1500.00. The reason for this was because the >harddisk required an external box, power supply and interface connector. Also, SCSI was not very popular, with relatively few manufacturers/vendors. Nowadays they are about as easy to find as ST-506 type and are competitively priced. >Rich Commins (415)939-2400 \ /\ /\ from / \_________________________________ / /\ Chris Dailey, Amiga Enthusiast / \ \ \___dailey@cpsin1.cps.msu.edu___/ \ / \/
GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) (03/27/90)
I remember seeing the price $1745 back in late 1985 in an issue of
Byte magazine, which reviewed it. I'm not sure if that price included
the monitor. I remember the review raved about the machine, just falling
short of calling it a godsend. It was, however, called overpriced, dispite
being cheaper than a stock AT.
/* "Come see the violence inherent in the system!"
F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest
GWO110 at URIACC.Bitnet
"Help! Help! I'm being Repressed!" */FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (03/28/90)
I remember the initial cost as $1795 plus $495 for the monitor. Just before I bought mine in December of 87, the price was reduced by $500 meaning they tossed the monitor in for free. The external drive was $125 and I forget the price of the expanded chip RAM...$125 I think. But around here there lots of discounts if you bought a complete system. Most prices were quoted as CPU, Monitor, RAM, and one external disk. Dana Bourgeois @ Cup.Portal.Com "that's my two cents"