northrup@wpi.wpi.edu (Jim Northrup) (09/28/89)
I heard this HP buying Amiga rumor even after the HP bought Apollo event. The more interesting rumor I heard is that HP is working on a ~$3K workstation. Even if it's not much good, I suspect that such a box would do wonders for the prices of the (risc) DecStations and SparcStations. Is this a great country or what? -- Jim Northrup northrup@wpi.wpi.edu Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematical Sciences Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester MA 01609 I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. Then I would know when to duck.
schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger X2502) (09/28/89)
Regarding a low cost HP workstation, earlier this month HP announced the Apollo Series 2500, priced at $3390. It was announced as using a 68030, comes with 4 megabyets of internal memory, and a monochrome monitor. According to the Associated Press story I saw, it is not capable of displaying color graphics. Jeff Schweiger -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger CompuServe: 74236,1645 Standard Disclaimer ARPAnet (Defense Data Network): schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************
phil@ingr.com (Phil Johnson) (09/29/89)
In article <299@cs.nps.navy.mil> schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger X2502) writes: >Regarding a low cost HP workstation, earlier this month HP announced the >Apollo Series 2500, priced at $3390. It was announced as using a 68030, comes >with 4 megabyets of internal memory, and a monochrome monitor. According to the >Associated Press story I saw, it is not capable of displaying color graphics. The Apollo Series 2500 has the following features: 1. MC68030/20Mhz cpu MC68882/20Mhz Coprocessor 2. 4 Megabytes Ram (expandable to 16 MB) 3. 100 Megbyte SCSI harddisk -- SCSI support for up to seven devices 4. 15 inch, 1024x800, 76 Hz non-interlaced, monochromatic display 5. 3- RS232 serial ports 6. OSF/MOTIF compliant low profile keyboard, 32 programmable func. keys, numeric keypad, and a Mouse 7. You choice of LANs : IEEE802.3, Apollo Token ring, or IBM Token ring shipping Q4, 1989 8-{) (For those who are unfamilar with token ring, it is 12 hippies in a circle) 8-{) price: $5,490 38% educational discount available Series 2500 with 200 MB disk and 19 inch 1280x1024 mono display; $8,495. Target application: tech. Pubs, office automation, database, CASE, 2D CAD. You can bet that by the end of Q1 1990, a color version will be available. -------- I do not think HP will buy the Amiga when they are putting out low-end workstations like this. Especially when Commodore and their people do not want to consider the Amiga moving into the personal workstation market, such as Macs and AT. Before everyone begins to light their blowtorches; Dave H. responded to my fantasy of an MC 68040-based machine with a slap on my wrist for confusing what the Amiga was and what a workstation is. WAKEUP PEOPLE! The Amiga, with a little more imagination and a hell of alot more Commodore backing, can easily move into the personal workstation market. The engineering to do this is NOT that difficult. Before I get flamed as another screwy idealist I state: My job is research and product planning for the low-end workstation markets. I know where from I speak. OFF-the-SOAP-box. -- Philip E. Johnson UUCP: usenet!ingr!b3!sys_7a!phil MY words, VOICE: (205) 772-2497 MY opinion!
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (09/29/89)
in article <6658@ingr.com>, phil@ingr.com (Phil Johnson) says: > I do not think HP will buy the Amiga when they are putting out low-end > workstations like this. Especially when Commodore and their people do not > want to consider the Amiga moving into the personal workstation market, such > as Macs and AT. I still claim there's a difference between a Personal Computer and a Workstation, though it's true that distinction is blurring. For a large number of folks, a Personal Computer will serve the purpose of a Workstation, and for a small number the reverse is true. But there are differences, both is the way they're sold and the way they're designed. It currently looks something like this: ITEM PC Workstation CPU Standard CISC CISC for low end, RISC everywhere else CACHE None to 16k 64k-256k MEMORY 1-3 Wait States No Wait States COST $1-$10k $5k-$50k BOUGHT In computer stores From Manufacturer or OEM OS Proprietary UNIX Alternates available LAN Slow, optional Ethernet or faster, required DISPLAY 640x480x8 1280x1024 Monochome low end, 1280x1024x24 or so, high end $750 up to $20,000 SOFTWARE Large Variety Dedicated Applications $25-$500 $5,000 on up Pay for updates Maintence contract $1000/year ADMINISTRATION By User By Guru > The Amiga, with a little more imagination and a hell of alot more Commodore > backing, can easily move into the personal workstation market. The > engineering to do this is NOT that difficult. Alot of it depends on what you really consider "Workstation". When you say Workstation vs. PC, I think along the lines of this list I just made up off the top of my head; I'm thinking Engineering Workstation for something like EE CAD, Mechanical CAD, PC Board layout, Circuit Simulation, etc. That's what we have Workstations for here in West Chester. Of those four tasks, I have software that'll do each one of them on my Amiga. However, that software doesn't even come CLOSE to what's available on real Engineering Workstations. There's nothing like Mentor's NetEd on any Clone, Amiga, or Macintosh. A really souped up Clone can probably do a fair shot at mechanical CAD, but by the time you've added the extra stuff to make it do that reasonably (fast '386 with cache, large color display) you're well into the Workstation column, and you still have piss-poor disk I/O. No Clone, Mac, or Amiga can make much more than a baby PC Board or Simulation station, they're just too slow (we use SciCards workstations for PC layout, with the VAX as a routing engine, or Calay workstations which have their own dedicated hardware routing box, and we use VAX 8600 and Sun 4s for simulation, though we're looking at even faster solutions, as even these machines are bogged down with the job of routing). So, basically, even though to some degree PC and Workstations have overlapped (for instance, I've been using an '030 based Amiga for over 1.5 years that's considerably faster than any Apollo we have in house), there's no Amiga software that even comes close to the Mentor software we use for CAD. We've also looked at Clone software to replace the Mentor software, but nothing comes close. The one area where PCs have replaced Workstations around here has been for software development. Nearly every one of our software people, for both Amiga and UNIX software development, is running native on an Amiga. By choice, not mandate (there are Suns available). The Assemblers and the programming environment has been much better on the Amiga for some time for Amiga OS work, and '030 based Amiga so this job significantly faster than Sun 2s. Fortunately, an assembler or compiler is a relatively small and simple program with reasonably wide appeal, so there are good ones for the Amiga, and lots of competition to keep up. Here's an advantage of being a PC rather than a workstation. But I still see a difference. > Philip E. Johnson UUCP: usenet!ingr!b3!sys_7a!phil > MY words, VOICE: (205) 772-2497 > MY opinion! -- 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
jeff@cpoint.UUCP (Jeffrey J. Griglack) (09/29/89)
In article <4315@wpi.wpi.edu> northrup@wpi.wpi.edu (Jim Northrup) writes: >I heard this HP buying Amiga rumor even after the HP bought Apollo event. > >The more interesting rumor I heard is that HP is working on a ~$3K workstation. >Even if it's not much good, I suspect that such a box would do wonders for >the prices of the (risc) DecStations and SparcStations. > Apollo has announced a black-and-white workstation with a 68030 for just under $4000. The article I saw was in last weeks Electrical Engineering Times (I think). Its a diskless node and very inflexable, but if you have a network using their equipment it may be worth it. -- ============================================================================= Jeff Griglack {decvax, cybbax0, mirror}!frog!cpoint!jeff =============================================================================
rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) (09/30/89)
In article <4315@wpi.wpi.edu> northrup@wpi.wpi.edu (Jim Northrup) writes: >I heard this HP buying Amiga rumor even after the HP bought Apollo event. > >The more interesting rumor I heard is that HP is working on a ~$3K workstation. >Even if it's not much good, I suspect that such a box would do wonders for >the prices of the (risc) DecStations and SparcStations. I suspect it would be easier for us (HP/Apollo) to bring the price of our products down to ~$3K than it would be for Commodore to bring the features of a ~$3K Amiga up to workstation standards, at least where networking & available "workstationish" software are concerned. The new HP/Apollo DN2500, for example of a "cheap" '030 box, is right at ~$4K without a hard-disk. It's inevitable that prices will fall further across the whole industry. That's not to say that HP may or may not be considering some relationship with Commodore; I have absolutely no idea, though I highly suspect the answer is "not". -- >>> "Aaiiyeeeee! Death from above!" <<< | Steve Rehrauer Fone: (508)256-6600 x6168 | Apollo Computer, a ARPA: rehrauer@apollo.hp.com | division of Hewlett-Packard "Look, Max: 'Pressurized cheese in a can'. Even _WE_ wouldn't eat that!"
limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) (09/30/89)
I thought that Apollo just bought Elvis. Oh well. :) -- Drew University -- Tom Limoncelli C M Box 1060 -- limonce@pilot.njin.net P O Box 802 -- tlimonce@drunivac.Bitnet Madison, NJ 07940 -- 201-408-5389
raz%nanowatt@Sun.COM (Stephen Berry) (10/01/89)
In article <Sep.29.19.44.21.1989.2973@pilot.njin.net> limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) writes: >I thought that Apollo just bought Elvis. >Oh well. :) Nope, sorry, Sun has him. I just saw him leave the building. ;-) >Drew University -- Tom Limoncelli --- Stephen -Raz- Berry raz%nanowatt@sun.corp.com or raz%kilowatt@sun.ebay.com WARNING: Computer Engineer at large... proceed with caution.
fc@lexicon.com (Frank Cunningham) (10/02/89)
> >I thought that Apollo just bought Elvis. > >Oh well. :) > > Nope, sorry, Sun has him. I just saw him leave the building. > Well, he did start out on Sun, before RCA got him. -- -Frank Cunningham smart: fc@lexicon.com phone: (617) 891-6790 dumb: {husc6,linus,harvard,bbn}!spdcc!lexicon!fc Real Recording Engineers mix direct to stereo.
phil@ingr.com (Phil Johnson) (10/03/89)
In article <8039@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: >> workstations like this. Especially when Commodore and their people do not >> want to consider the Amiga moving into the personal workstation market, such >> as Macs and AT. > >I still claim there's a difference between a Personal Computer and a >Workstation, though it's true that distinction is blurring. For a large >number of folks, a Personal Computer will serve the purpose of a Workstation, >and for a small number the reverse is true. But there are differences, both >is the way they're sold and the way they're designed. It currently looks >something like this: I specifically stated PERSONAL workstation. The accepted industry definition of Personal workstation is the high-end, high performance personal computers such as 386 ATs and Mac IIs. I do agree that there is a difference between personal workstations and the traditional workstations. I do disagree on many points of difference that you stated between personal and traditional workstations. >CPU Standard CISC CISC for low end, > RISC everywhere else I throught the Sparc and MIPS R2000 were RISC. Take a look at the Personal IRIS, DECstation 2100, and the SparcStation 1. They are classified as low-end workstations. >CACHE None to 16k 64k-256k >MEMORY 1-3 Wait States No Wait States >COST $1-$10k $5k-$50k The ATs that are classified as Personal Workstations (Compaq 386/33, AST 386/33 etc) normally run 16-64K of cache, 0 wait state memory, and cost in a range of $5-$15K. >BOUGHT In computer stores From Manufacturer or OEM Sun has signed a sales agreement with a computer store chain. >LAN Slow, optional Ethernet or faster, required Personal workstations are normally sold with an IEEE 802.3 Ethernet card. This card IS an installed OPTION. It normally cost $250-$400 per node. To refesh your memory Ethernet runs at 10 megabits per second. SLOW????? >DISPLAY 640x480x8 1280x1024 Monochome low end, > 1280x1024x24 or so, high end > $750 up to $20,000 Most of the personal workstations are delivered with display pixel formats of 1280x1024, 1024x800, or 1024x 768. This is either a 19 inch or 16 inch display with 256 colors (16.2 millions color pallet). The cost of the graphics controllers is from $1,200-$3,400 (Lundy - 1600x1200 = $10,500). >SOFTWARE Large Variety Dedicated Applications > $25-$500 $5,000 on up > Pay for updates Maintence contract $1000/year $25-$5,000 software maintenance contracts are usually available on professional level software, some provide updates at no cost. >Alot of it depends on what you really consider "Workstation". When you say It isn't what I consider, but what the industry has defined as personal workstations and low-end workstations. >the top of my head; I'm thinking Engineering Workstation for something like >EE CAD, Mechanical CAD, PC Board layout, Circuit Simulation, etc. That's what >we have Workstations for here in West Chester. Of those four tasks, I have >software that'll do each one of them on my Amiga. However, that software >doesn't even come CLOSE to what's available on real Engineering Workstations. That is due to the lack of support of third-party developers by Commodore, which is one of the problems! The Calay router used to be an MC6809-based Q22 box. Gee power in 8 bits. 8-{) >There's nothing like Mentor's NetEd on any Clone, Amiga, or Macintosh. A really There are a few that excede the functional and operational performance of NetEd and provides a friendly user environment. I know of two AT-based shops that are generating 40 to 50 new designs per year with board densities up to 15 EIC. This with approx. 150 ecos per year. >souped up Clone can probably do a fair shot at mechanical CAD, but by the and geologic information, and tech. pubs, and AEC, and electronics design and on-on-on. >time you've added the extra stuff to make it do that reasonably (fast '386 >with cache, large color display) you're well into the Workstation column, and >you still have piss-poor disk I/O. No Clone, Mac, or Amiga can make much more The personal workstations are configured with either SCSI or ESDI and that AIN'T slow, but you called it right. The cost will run $7k-$15k. BUT a lot of people are buying them. >or Simulation station, they're just too slow (we use I agree that unless a personal workstation is specially configured, such as the Sun 386i-IKOS simulator, it will not standup to a dedicated simulation server. But, I am not talking about a $100K platform. > >So, basically, even though to some degree PC and Workstations have overlapped >(for instance, I've been using an '030 based Amiga for over 1.5 years that's >considerably faster than any Apollo we have in house), there's no Amiga >software that even comes close to the Mentor software we use for CAD. We've Again, due to lack of support of third-party developers by Commodore. Why does Commodore have a machine that has higher performance than what you design it on, but refuses to entice development of software for it? VERY STRANGE! There are packages such as FutureNet, P-CAD, Protel, Design Engineer-PC that perform very well in a production environment. > >The one area where PCs have replaced Workstations around here has been for >software development. Nearly every one of our software people, for both >Amiga and UNIX software development, is running native on an Amiga. By >choice, not mandate (there are Suns available). The Assemblers and the >programming environment has been much better on the Amiga for some time >for Amiga OS work, and '030 based Amiga so this job significantly faster than >Sun 2s. Fortunately, an assembler or compiler is a relatively small and >simple program with reasonably wide appeal, so there are good ones for the >Amiga, and lots of competition to keep up. Here's an advantage of being a >PC rather than a workstation. But I still see a difference. I totally agree. In fact, the prime application areas for personal and tradition low-end workstation are software development, CASE, econometric modeling, and desktop publication. Also, you have the leader (self- proclaimed nightly on TV) of desktop media; the MAC. There is indeed a bounty of native development tools for developing Amiga software. I'm not sure the John Toebes would agree with you on a compiler being a relatively small and simple program. 8-{( BUT, where are the cross-tools for developing code for embedded systems etc. Avocet offers the Quelo 68K cross-assembler, but I have yet to find a C, Modula-2, or Ada ( cross or otherwise -- what Ada on an Amiga 8-{) cross-compiler that is hosted on the Amiga. Scenario: embedded controller attached to a zorro-based cross-development card (Write Control Store RAM/ROM for debugging and EPROM programmer controller). Download control code into WCS, start the control program and debug it's operation online because you are connected to the controller console through a terminal-emulator window. Find a problem, edit the code and reload WCS and run again. This is just a fantasy you say. I do this using the Quelo cross-assembler and the Amiga 1000 expansion port for connecting the WCS. Where are the CASE tools that are available on the Clones? Where is the SAS package for the Amiga? (The Clones have one). Where is Adobe Illustrator? Where is WordPerfect 5.0? The "where is" list goes on and on with only one answer. -- The Amiga is different -- YUP! THEY have 'um - We don't. Why? Lack of support of third-party developers by Commodore and a molassa- like speed at keeping up with technology. In reality the 2000 should have been the 1500 and the 2000 should have been an 020-based 32-bit machine. The 2000HD and the 2500 should cost less as a bundled system than it does to put it together as bits-n-pieces. I understand the Politik Corporate and where the decisions are made. All of you do a hell of a job, so don't think that I am taking shots at the technical groups. My bore is elevated much higher. 8-{) We have burned enough of the bandwidth with this, maybe someday we can continue the discussion over an Irish wiskey (can you get an Amiga conference scheduled for St. Pat's day?) Until then we can email. -- Philip E. Johnson UUCP: usenet!ingr!b3!sys_7a!phil MY words, VOICE: (205) 772-2497 MY opinion!
wolf@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (thomas.wolf) (10/04/89)
One poster previously mentioned that "Personal Workstation" has an "industry standard definition." To that poster: Could you please indicate who created that definition? And what is it? Personally, I don't see a difference between "Personal Workstation" and what that poster referred to as "traditional workstations." By definition, workstations seem to be "personal" (ie. one on everyone's desk.) To create the term "Personal Workstation" would be redundant. Once agreed that there is only one type of "workstation", the line between PCs and workstations become an imaginary one that is mainly based on relative performance. Tom -- +---------------+-----------------------------+ I don't remember, | Tom Wolf | Phone: (201) 949-2079 | I don't recall, | Bell Labs, NJ | E-mail: twolf@homxb.att.com | I have no memory, +---------------+-----------------------------+ Of anything at all. P. Gabriel
Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com (10/05/89)
In article Phil Johnsom writes... > Personal workstation is the high-end, high performance personal computers > such as 386 ATs and Mac IIs. ^^^^^^^ Myself, *I* would hardly call the Mac II High performance. High priced, maybe, but NOT high performance. It is truly amazing just how slow it can be! - Doug - Doug_B_Erdely@Cup.Portal.Com
phil@ingr.com (Phil Johnson) (10/06/89)
In article <4462@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> wolf@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (thomas.wolf,ho,) writes: > >One poster previously mentioned that "Personal Workstation" has an "industry >standard definition." To that poster: Could you please indicate who created >that definition? And what is it? > The term "Personal Workstation" was originated by the marketing research companies such as International Data Corp., Dataquest, DataPro, and Anderson Report based on a number of surveys taken throughout the different market segments served by workstations (ie electronic, mechanical, AEC, mapping, emergency dispatch, facility management, electronic publishing, and econometric modeling to name a few). The workstation market extends far past the engineer's desk and there lies the rub. We tend to think of things only in framework of our small area. Since taking on the role of product planning in a workstation marketing group I have had my eyes open wide and my eyelids stapled back. It was an amazing revelation. The term refers specifically to the high-end PCs, such as Compaq 386, AST Research 386,......., and Mac IIs. The distinction between Personal workstations and traditional workstation only began to converge in the last year. During that time the 33 Mhz 80386 cpus were released and the MAC IIs took off. These two types of personal computer deliver the computational power (albiet single user, single tasking) of the traditional multiuser, multitasking workstations. Also, Silicon Graphics, Sun, DEC, Apollo, and Intergraph introduced UNIX (VMS - VAXstation) workstation with a fairly low price tag ($5K-$25K) compared to the normal $30K-$300K price tag. In truth, an AST or Compaq 386/33 provides approximately 7-10 Drystone-dp (ugh) MIPS in the price range of ~ $7,800 to $12,500. The traditional low-end workstations configured as standalone, disk-based system range from $5,496 to $28,000 and provide computational power of 5-10 Drystone (dp) MIPS. The distinction is really more a way to set a lower and upper bounds on a dividing line that is fuzzy and getting fuzzied everyday. Talking about fuzzy, the Apollo Series 2500 is an MC68030-based workstation with MAC II-like performance, but is runs UNIX so is classed as a low-end traditional work- statin, go figure. I have spent the better part of this year researching the low-end workstation market and have found the line at best a moving target. It kind of reminds me of a chaotic model, but the people who use them created the definition. In case you feel left out, I never got a vote either. 8-{) -- Philip E. Johnson UUCP: usenet!ingr!b3!sys_7a!phil MY words, VOICE: (205) 772-2497 MY opinion!
jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Jim Wright) (10/06/89)
In article <6774@ingr.com> phil@ingr.UUCP (Phil Johnson) writes: | Since taking on the role of product planning in | a workstation marketing group I have had my eyes open wide and my eyelids | stapled back. It was an amazing revelation. The term refers specifically to | the high-end PCs, such as Compaq 386, AST Research 386,......., and Mac IIs. They must have used two inch spikes instead of staples if you think a Mac II qualifies as a workstation. I find the speed of a Mac II maddening, to the point of affecting my work. The Mac IIcx we had on loan from Apple was comfortable. I believe a Mac IIci would even be nice. I consider a 2000 to be roughly equivalent to a Mac II, and I believe that additional power would scale accordingly. Unfortunately my budget won't allow me to test this. (Anybody want to donate a 2500 to science? :-) -- Jim Wright jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (10/07/89)
in article <1603@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu>, jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Jim Wright) says: > I find the speed of a Mac II maddening, to the point of affecting my work. > The Mac IIcx we had on loan from Apple was comfortable. The Max IIx/Max IIcx will go maybe 15% faster overall, on a good day, over the Mac II. While they changed the CPU from a 68020/68851 to a 68030 (could at best double the system speed), they change the actual system very little, and the memory system none at all. >I believe a Mac IIci would even be nice. The Mac IIci appears to be a good 68030 design, in fact, it should be far better at being a decently performing 68030 computer than the II, IIx, or IIcx are at being moderate 68020 computers (I have a IIcx in my lab, so I have a little practical experience with these beasties to back up my design critique). > I consider a 2000 to be roughly equivalent to a Mac II, and I believe that > additional power would scale accordingly. I'd expect a 2000 to be considerably slower at CPU performance, considerably faster at hard disk performance, and somewhere in the same league at video performance (though you often have Mac IIs pushing many more pixels, which may make the Mac II appear slower, but if you need those extra pixels, you'll be SOL on an A2000). > Jim Wright > jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu -- 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