urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP (Rostyk Lewyckyj) (12/21/87)
Recently Dave Haynie posted that C= would RSN make a 68020 add-on
board for the B2000. Seeing as this is a C= and not a third party
development, it would seem that it wouldn't take much for them to
replace the 68000 cpu section of the B2000 motherboard by the
circuitry used on this 68020 board. So how soon can we expect it
to be done and see a 68020 based Amiga? For us consumers, this
should be cheaper than having to buy a B2000 system + this add-on
cpu card. Also the system should be simpler without the complica
tions of partitioning and interfacing the logic of who does what.
If not then why not? Would it be a marketing decision to hold back
till the market is saturated with B2000s before introducing a 68020
motherboard.
Perhaps we can get replies from someone in hardware development,
someone from software, and perhaps even an official marketeer?
Corroborating oppinions from net experts not affiliated with C=
are also solicited.
Remember the path from the A1000 to the B2000:
A1000
Transformer + promises of accelerator
became promises of sidecar (a bright idea to glue a P10 onto the A1000)
ended up as B2000 and Janus.
Time-frame for this was Nov. 85 till Oct. 87.
And now we have:
Promises of an 80286 Janus, rumors of 386 cards (on PC 8 bit bus?),
promises of 68020 cpu card.
Projected expectation 8-)
68020 based C3000 without coprocessor socket, with one serial
and one parallel port, 1280x400 color capability but very minimal
video accessible ram (1 meg?), 3 busses: Amiga, IBM AT 16 bit, and
Nu bus for Mac peripherals. Timeframe Sept. 89.
As a final item for all of you to think on. Recall the various
attempts to mix various different hardwares and programming
systems in the same box, and their fate. As examples I offer:
z80 cards and cpm for the Apple ][. (almost successful)
68000 cards for Apple ][.
z80 cards and cpm for IBM PC: Baby blue etc.
68000 cards for IBM PC: Sri tec etc.
NS32032 cards for IBM PC:
Z8000 card for IBM PC: Byte, Ciarca circuit cellar
IBMs own 68000 based IBM 370 cards for the PC.
Apricot? BBC? machine with hardware pipe?
Franklin 2000? (their machine after the Apple ][ clone)
Basys 9 (British?, French?)
Can anyone offer a machine/system of this type that has become
even a modest success?
-----------------------------------------------
Reply-To: Rostyslaw Jarema Lewyckyj
urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP , urjlew@tucc.bitnet
or urjlew@tucc.tucc.edu (ARPA,SURA,NSF etc. internet)
tel. (919)-962-9107bakken@hrsw2.UUCP (David E. Bakken) (12/24/87)
In article <4342@ecsvax.UUCP>, urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes: > > Recently Dave Haynie posted that C= would RSN make a 68020 add-on > board for the B2000. Seeing as this is a C= and not a third party > development, it would seem that it wouldn't take much for them to > replace the 68000 cpu section of the B2000 motherboard by the > circuitry used on this 68020 board. So how soon can we expect it > to be done and see a 68020 based Amiga? For us consumers, this > should be cheaper than having to buy a B2000 system + this add-on > cpu card. Please, C=. I think this will sell, and with the Mac II's '020 and IBM's '386 machines C= may be at an advertising/sales/propaganda disadvantage. I got my hopes up that C= would offer this when the rumor came across that C= would announce a new Amy in January. But when C= (Dave Haynie, I think) commented on this I became pessimistic (he said something like ask yourself if this can be done with add on cards, and if so the rumor is probably false). :-(. -- Dave Bakken Boeing Commercial Airplane Company uw-beaver!apcisea!tahoma!hrsw2!bakken (206) 234-2039 (generic) disclaimer: these views are my own, not my employers.
rap@dana.UUCP (Rob Peck) (12/24/87)
In article <4342@ecsvax.UUCP>, urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes: > > (references to many mixed cpu systems... deleted) > ... then too there was the Dimension 68000 that was to be a you choose the CPU, you choose the OS, all things to all people system (I believe with Z80, 6502, 68000, ...more 'available' RSN) Guess I was lucky I couldn't afford one at the time. I persist in believing that CBM can make a go of a mixed CPU, though. As currently implemented, it can give software compatibility in a multi-tasking environment and get a foot in the door for CBM. Who knows, maybe once people are exposed to the Amiga end of things, they might end up using the PC-part of the machine a little less often, or perhaps asking "why can't my PC do what this thing can do?" Saw a review of some ethernet package for OS/2 in Info World yesterday that mentioned that the software needed at least 2MB of RAM just to run it. Seems that Ameristar must have done their ethernet stuff in a little less space for Amy, eh? Rob Peck ...ihnp4!hplabs!dana!rap
page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (05/12/88)
I'll stand in front of the soapbox and make the observation about some of the unique aspects of the Amiga. First, the Amiga's operating system made a whole lot of new things possible on a micro. College CS/EE students ate it up; they could relate to the stuff they were reading about in their OS classes, as opposed to some of the other micro "operating systems" that are/were little more than program loaders and interrupt handlers. It also marked the first time in a long time that a technology-driven (rather than marketing/solution driven) microcomputer system came out, and brought back all the micro programmers sick of silly monitors posing as operating systems. It also brought in all the mainframe and mini programmers who wanted a real operating system on a micro. Sure, it didn't have everything, and still doesn't, and never will, nor should it. But it built a unique community of support, almost all technical, and almost all third-party. Another thing was that the company that produced the machine didn't take an ivory-tower approach to development and support .. they tried to (only to keep the Amiga developers busy and away from support roles), but the community was too close, and they (first Amiga, then Commodore) realized what a great benefit this user community was ... at the time, the user community was really a developer community. We all came up to speed together. Amiga employees had the jump on us, but that's no longer true (except that they have the source code). The Amiga was also the first micro where memory was more abundant than mass storage .. many people had 2MB RAM and only 2 880K disk drives, rather than 640K and 20MB disk, or 16MB and 400MB disk. It spawned a new generation of users and programmers; people who approached the task of computing at a different angle, since their resource limits were different. Some of that is flattening out now, with the DRAM shortage and more and more mass storage devices becoming available, but the mindset has been shaped. Anyway, because the original developers at Amiga loved the machine, and the developer community loved the machine (OK, so some were more like love/hate), and because Commodore had little resources for developing the Amiga market, the technical side kept getting better and better. Not perfect ... but there was a lot of interaction between the Los Gatos folks, CBM development, CBM tech support, and the developer community. Probably much more than any other company or machine available. In fact, many times the distinctions blur -- third-party packages included in CBM releases, CBM development staff getting the USENET Boing award (for user support, as I understand it). To its credit, Commodore does not subscribe to the "Not Invented Here" attitude like so many other vendors. It makes the Amiga a unique machine, and it makes the Amiga a better machine to work with. Of course, nothing is perfect, and we can talk about lots of the problems with the Amiga. And we do. At length. But we do more than just talk about it. We think about solutions, we describe solutions, and we create solutions. They may not be solutions for all of us, but they are solutions for some of us. Look at ARP. ARexx. Commodities Exchange. VD0. VT100. Csh. PopCLI. FastFonts. Facc. ConMan. Pipe-Handler. The list goes on. But these are state-of-the-art problems as far as micro operating systems go. We're just making the machine better. Perry's and Eric's Amiga Working Group concept is another example of the Amiga community teaming up with CBM to make the machine better. Much more than a user group, AWGs are developer consortiums, advisors to Commodore. Now I'll stand on the soapbox. So there's IPC. Run-time "resources". User Interfaces. Multiple port handlers and names. Resource tracking. All kinds of current things happening, and lots of people with lots of viewpoints. But we can't look at what other people have done and blindly imitate them. We have to look at what problems they were trying to solve, how they went about it, how successful they were, and how successful other schemes were. Only then can we take the best and improve on it, or throw it all away and invent something new. (I hear patriotic sounds in the background. Is that a flag waving?) Amiga owners, users and developers have earned a special place in the evolution of the Amiga. It's still quite technology driven, which is upsetting the marketing folks but is a benefit to many of us for now. We can and should capitalize on this unique position to help define the direction of the Amiga. The Amiga has always been a leader, from day one. It should continue to lead, not follow. ..Bob -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@swan.ulowell.edu ulowell!page