sbmueller@trillium.waterloo.edu (Stephan Mueller) (03/31/88)
IMVHO: Given the fact that the 1000 and 2000 are very similar machines, it seems reasonable to me that people can expect them to do very similar things. In particular: CA provides IBM compatibility to all Amiga owners, although 2000 owners have to pay more for it. True, they get more from their bridgeboard than they would from Transformer, but it is perfectly valid for anyone to ask WHY CAN'T I RUN THAT PROGRAM SINCE IT RUNS ON THIS VERY SIMILAR MACHINE. Especially since I can't think of a good reason. (Except that I don't know enough to tell anyone why it doesn't work on a 2000 :-) PLEASE CA, why doncha fix the darn thing and sell it to 2000 owners. You don't often go wrong giving the consumer what he asks for. In the case he ain't asking for IBM compatibility, he's asking for the TRANSFORMER, specifically. Also It seems reasonable for 1000 owners to be annoyed that CA seems to have 'abandoned' their machine, (I know, I know they haven't abandoned it, but you know what I mean, things like not letting 'em upgrade to the new chips, and the sorts of things that some dissatisfied 1000 owners have beefed about) since (to me) it seems that it would be EASY to keep 'em happy. Sell 'em the darn chips. My point is this: Can you believe it? The fact that the 1000 and 2000 are similar is causing problems? Maybe CA should have made the 2000 radically different :-) Me? I've got a 1000, without EHB (it's gonna be a collector's item someday) and I like it just fine thanx. But then, who cares? Until next week, when I complain about why NewCLI and CLI don't do the same thing. (But then, 5 minutes with NewZAP and this is easily fixed.) APD: |~ (all purpose disclaimer: Or Not) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Na na na na" - The Beatles|Nylons Amiga "Who Ha, Whoha" - FGTH This space // Bizarre/Design "Aah, aah" - Queen currently // Twisted/Fate "Thunk, thunk" - RoboCop under \\ // DY/DX "Has anyone seen my marbles?" construction. \// Body/Fisher - sbmueller@trillium.waterloo.edu Freak --------------------------------------------@-#$--!@#$--$----#$%^&* parity error
bryce@eris (Bryce Nesbitt) (04/04/88)
In article <> sbmueller@trillium.waterloo.edu (Stephan Mueller) writes: > >...but it is perfectly >valid for anyone to ask WHY CAN'T I RUN [THE TRANSFORMER] PROGRAM SINCE IT RUNS >ON THIS VERY SIMILAR [A1000]. PLEASE CA, why doncha fix the >darn thing and sell it to 2000 owners. I suspect the technical reason has to do with the keyboad. I have never actually tried it, so take some salt right now. The A1000 and A500 have a keyboard that can detect the Computer's "ack" response in hardware... very fast. The German A2000 keyboard is of a different design, it can't check that fast. The newer American keyboard is of the same design as the A500's. You might be able to order a new keyboard, for money, from an Amiga dealer... I don't actually know for sure. If you are writing a keyboard handler, and wish to be sure it works with the old, German A2000s, then wait at least one full video frame before releasing the ack (KDAT). >In this case he ain't asking >for IBM compatibility, he's asking for the TRANSFORMER, specifically.
bobb@tekfdi.TEK.COM (Robert Bales) (04/13/88)
In article <6119@watdragon.waterloo.edu> sbmueller@trillium.waterloo.edu (Stephan Mueller) writes: >IMVHO: >It seems reasonable for 1000 owners to be annoyed that CA seems >to have 'abandoned' their machine, (I know, I know they haven't >abandoned it, but you know what I mean, things like not letting >'em upgrade to the new chips, It's not that Commodore won't let them upgrade. A "chip" is no good by itself. To accomplish something useful, each of the connections on the chip must be hooked up to something which either drives it or is driven by it (in the case of a display chip, things like the memory and the video generator). Now, I am not an insider with Commodore, and I have not compared the schematics of the 1000, 500, and 2000, but to the best of my knowledge, the situation is this: the new chips can not be used in the 1000 because the circuits that would be needed to support them do not exist in that machine. So the "lack of support" has nothing to do with "abandonment" by Commodore, but is due to a basic internal hardware incompatibility. Could Commodore have made the circutry in the 2000 the same as the 1000? Yes. And then the two machines *would* have been compatible: in all likelihood, neither would have had the new chips. >and the sorts of things that some dissatisfied 1000 owners have beefed about) >since (to me) it seems that it would be EASY to keep 'em happy. Sell 'em >the darn chips. But 1000 owners would have nothing to do with them. Bob Bales Tektronix, Inc. I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.