pbrody@udenva.UUCP (04/05/87)
It now appears that the A2000 will be the last new Amiga for a long time. This, in my view, is a very bad move. Apple has a 68020 Mac, and Atari is working on a 68020 or 68030 based computer for their line and Commodore needs to stay on top of the market. Granted the 2000 is expandable, but it has no improved graphics or sound and is no faster the original 1000. Commodore should be doing a lot more than they are now to make the AMIGA a success. Below are a few of my suggestions for what should be done to make the Amiga more successful. 1) Re-open C-Amiga is Los Gatos to permit entrpreneurial atmosphere and work and leave decision to C-Amiga. By running them as an independant company C-Amiga will be able to operate as a low-overhead operation and make their own decisions. After all, if they came up with the Amiga by themselves they could come up with an equally fantastic successor with out meddling from Commodore International 2) Develop an '020/881 or '030/882 based Amiga with vastly better graphics and sound with a good Price-Performance ratio to lure away Mac II and Atari customers and attract the low-end workstation market. 3) Launch a new marketing campaign over the summer and towards X-mas to get the Amiga's name recognition up and to dispell the widespread belief that the Amiga is full of buggy-trashy software. I don't mean to sound like a complainer- I love my Amiga, and that's why I want to see it stay on top. The opinions expressed above are my own. ==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-== Paul Brody // pbrody@udenva.uucp // A500 // A1000 \\ // A2000 \\ // A3000 \\/ --=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--
lachac@topaz.UUCP (04/06/87)
In article <3367@udenva.UUCP> pbrody@udenva.UUCP (Paul Brody ) writes: > > >It now appears that the A2000 will be the last new Amiga for a long time. This, >in my view, is a very bad move. Apple has a 68020 Mac, and Atari is working on >a 68020 or 68030 based computer for their line and Commodore needs to stay on >top of the market. Granted the 2000 is expandable, but it has no improved >graphics or sound and is no faster the original 1000. Commodore should be doing >a lot more than they are now to make the AMIGA a success. Below are a few of >my suggestions for what should be done to make the Amiga more successful. Now, this is just a random thought of mine, but did anyone stop to think that CBM *IS* making a full-fledged 68020/30 machine and isn't telling anyone about it? Does the name Osbourne ring a bell?? This might be a smart move on CBM's part, after all, if they let leak a 68020 machine at less than $2500 is coming later this year (THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL!!!) do you think anyone would go out and buy A2000's?? A company has to make money before it can put it into R & D. -- "Truth is false and logic lost..." - Neil Peart (who at the time didn't realize he was talking about RU) lachac@topaz.rutgers.edu <--------OR--------> {seismo|ames}!rutgers!topaz!lachac
sean@ukma.UUCP (04/06/87)
In article <3367@udenva.UUCP> pbrody@udenva.UUCP (Paul Brody ) writes: >2) Develop an '020/881 or '030/882 based Amiga with vastly better graphics and If Commodore really wants to STICK IT to Apple and IBM, they should develop a 68030 machine, not 68020. Put a 64K cache on it and let it scream. I don't care if the graphics are better. Unix at 6-8 MIPS would sell a lot of Amigas. Sean -- =========================================================================== Sean Casey UUCP: cbosgd!ukma!sean CSNET: sean@ms.uky.csnet ARPA: ukma!sean@anl-mcs.arpa BITNET: sean@UKMA.BITNET
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (04/07/87)
In article <3367@udenva.UUCP> pbrody@udenva.UUCP (Paul Brody ) writes: > >It now appears that the A2000 will be the last new Amiga for a long time. This, >in my view, is a very bad move. Apple has a 68020 Mac, and Atari is working on >a 68020 or 68030 based computer for their line and Commodore needs to stay on >top of the market. Granted the 2000 is expandable, but it has no improved >graphics or sound and is no faster the original 1000. Commodore should be doing >a lot more than they are now to make the AMIGA a success. I'm not sure this is a reasonable assumption. There's more to the computer busisness that announcing new products. There's a lot that's not visible on the surface, including both new development and the minor problem of actually manufacturing and marketing the products. This year, we're going to introduce two new Amiga machines and a bunch of expansion products and peripherals. We are addressing 68020 performance through an add-in card, rather than an exotic high-dollar MAC-II approach. If people are willing to pay for this kind of performance, I won't take long to put the 68020 down on the mainboard and christen it an A3000 or whatever. You all have a right to expect some kind of progress in the Amiga product line, but before you expect magic, contemplate the overall rate of new product introdutions from IBM or Apple. The real performance jumps don't come every 6 months, it's more like every 2 years... BTW, Atari's been blowing smoke about 32-bit machines since before the 520ST came out. I'm sure they'll come out with something sooner or later, but right now they're having problems just getting a product with a 16-bit blit chip to market. -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (04/07/87)
In article <6248@ukmj.ukma.ms.uky.csnet> sean@ms.uky.csnet (Sean Casey) writes: >If Commodore really wants to STICK IT to Apple and IBM, they should develop a >68030 machine, not 68020. Put a 64K cache on it and let it scream. I don't >care if the graphics are better. Unix at 6-8 MIPS would sell a lot of Amigas. It's remarkably hard to develop a machine based on a "paper" chip and not a very bright idea to hang your future on it. People waited a long time for the 68020, longer for it's MMU and are still waiting for advent of second sourcing and reasonable prices. Maybe Motorola pull a neat trick a deliver on time, but for now the best bet is to take the 68020 and put it to good use. BTW, do you have any ideal how long overdue the Zilog Z80,000 32 bit processor and Z8070 16/32 bit FPU are now? "Real Soon Now" -> years**2 -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
tim@amdcad.UUCP (04/07/87)
In article <6248@ukmj.ukma.ms.uky.csnet> sean@ms.uky.csnet (Sean Casey) writes: >If Commodore really wants to STICK IT to Apple and IBM, they should develop a >68030 machine, not 68020. Put a 64K cache on it and let it scream. I don't >care if the graphics are better. Unix at 6-8 MIPS would sell a lot of Amigas. Better yet, leap-frog *everyone* and put in an Am29000. While all of the others are getting their 20% performance advantage over the 68020 by redesigning with the '030, we could be running our ray-tracers at 15 X VAX 11-780 speed ;-) Tim (just dreamin' out loud) Olson Advanced Micro Devices (ihnp4!amdcad!tim)
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (04/07/87)
In article <15999@amdcad.AMD.COM> tim@amdcad.UUCP (Tim Olson) writes: >In article <6248@ukmj.ukma.ms.uky.csnet> sean@ms.uky.csnet (Sean Casey) writes: >>If Commodore really wants to STICK IT to Apple and IBM, they should develop a >>68030 machine, not 68020. Put a 64K cache on it and let it scream. I don't >>care if the graphics are better. Unix at 6-8 MIPS would sell a lot of Amigas. > >Better yet, leap-frog *everyone* and put in an Am29000. While all of >the others are getting their 20% performance advantage over the 68020 by >redesigning with the '030, we could be running our ray-tracers at 15 X >VAX 11-780 speed ;-) > > Tim (just dreamin' out loud) Olson Advanced Micro Devices Send samples to George Robbins c/o Commodore Business Machines 1200 Wilson Dr West Chester PA 19380. 8-) (I guess). -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (04/08/87)
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes: >This year, we're going to introduce two new Amiga machines and a bunch of >expansion products and peripherals. We are addressing 68020 performance >through an add-in card, rather than an exotic high-dollar MAC-II approach. >If people are willing to pay for this kind of performance, I won't take >long to put the 68020 down on the mainboard and christen it an A3000 or >whatever. a) Thanks for the reassurance. It's *very* nice to know C-A is doing something that we will eventually get our hands on. b) A 68020-vased Amiga does have a few interesting possibilities... Putting a 68020 in the motherboard lets the chip mem bus be 32 bits wide, and run at 14 (or even 21! *that* would be nice!) MHz, so the processor can do things to it faster. If the graphics chips can use it as well, we can get things like 8 bitplanes in high-res; if they can't, it wouldn't be too hard to redo the I/O sections to handle the higher bus speed, even if the chips still run at 8 MHz internally. (I think... please tell me if I'm wrong. I suspect the 32-bit interface would be harder.) How much would an '020 add to the price of a new Amiga? It would probably take a while to get the higher-speed hardware working, but Los Gatos could probably put it together without great difficulty. (Hint, Hint to C-A management!) Happy hacking to all C-A's R&D types. -- -Colin Plumb (watmath!watnot!ccplumb) Silly quote: He's letting ground grow under his feet.
hah@isum.intel.com (Hans Hansen) (04/08/87)
In article <1644@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes: >In article <6248@ukmj.ukma.ms.uky.csnet> sean@ms.uky.csnet (Sean Casey) writes: >>If Commodore really wants to STICK IT to Apple and IBM, they should develop a >>68030 machine, not 68020. Put a 64K cache on it and let it scream. I don't >>care if the graphics are better. Unix at 6-8 MIPS would sell a lot of Amigas. > >It's remarkably hard to develop a machine based on a "paper" chip and not a >very bright idea to hang your future on it. People waited a long time for >the 68020, longer for it's MMU and are still waiting for advent of second >sourcing and reasonable prices. Maybe Motorola pull a neat trick a deliver >on time, but for now the best bet is to take the 68020 and put it to good use. > >-- >George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr FYI it is my understanding that Motorola is not going to second source the 68020. Any comments from Motorola are welcome. Hans
ed@plx.UUCP (04/11/87)
In article <15999@amdcad.AMD.COM>, tim@amdcad.AMD.COM (Tim Olson) writes: > In article <6248@ukmj.ukma.ms.uky.csnet> sean@ms.uky.csnet (Sean Casey) writes: > >If Commodore really wants to STICK IT to Apple and IBM, they should develop a > >68030 machine, not 68020. Put a 64K cache on it and let it scream. I don't > Better yet, leap-frog *everyone* and put in an Am29000. While all of > the others are getting their 20% performance advantage over the 68020 by > redesigning with the '030, we could be running our ray-tracers at 15 X > VAX 11-780 speed ;-) Oh Great!! now we can use an obscure CPU with our obscure operating system and bizarre Bus standards. Use your HEAD man! Do you realize how much it costs to jump from one CPU to another? How many Apple II's do you see getting sold? Do you have it *IN* for the existing AMIGA product line? -ed-
tim@amdcad.UUCP (04/12/87)
* == me > == Ed Chaban * Better yet, leap-frog *everyone* and put in an Am29000. While all of * the others are getting their 20% performance advantage over the 68020 by * redesigning with the '030, we could be running our ray-tracers at 15 X * VAX 11-780 speed ;-) In article <594@plx.UUCP> ed@plx.UUCP (Ed Chaban) writes: >Oh Great!! now we can use an obscure CPU with our obscure operating >system and bizarre Bus standards. Use your HEAD man! Do you realize >how much it costs to jump from one CPU to another? How many Apple II's >do you see getting sold? Do you have it *IN* for the existing AMIGA >product line? While the Am29000 doesn't exist in silicon, yet (soon, though) I certainly don't think it will be obscure in the future (I hope not, anyway ;-) However, I was really talking about long term possiblities for future products, not a "drop-in" CPU replacement for the current Amiga. I think the cost of going from one CPU to another has been dropping rapidly with the increased use of high-level languages and operating system standards. QUESTION FOR AMIGA CODE DEVELOPERS: What is the ratio of high-level language programming to assembly-level programming that you are using on your projects (i.e. how much do you actually see the CPU structure)? If you are using assembly language, what is the reason (speed, flexibility, etc)? -- Tim Olson Advanced Micro Devices (tim@amdcad.AMD.COM)
jdg@elmgate.UUCP (04/13/87)
In article <15999@amdcad.AMD.COM> tim@amdcad.UUCP (Tim Olson) writes: >In article <6248@ukmj.ukma.ms.uky.csnet> sean@ms.uky.csnet (Sean Casey) writes: >>If Commodore really wants to STICK IT to Apple and IBM, they should develop a >>68030 machine, not 68020. Put a 64K cache on it and let it scream. I don't > >Better yet, leap-frog *everyone* and put in an Am29000. While all of >the others are getting their 20% performance advantage over the 68020 by >redesigning with the '030, we could be running our ray-tracers at 15 X >VAX 11-780 speed ;-) > > Tim (just dreamin' out loud) Olson > Advanced Micro Devices Yeah! Thats the ticket! Umm... but we'll all need 8 megabytes of RAM to run the 29000's simulator. But how we gonna get a Zillion MIP's (MIP's = Mostly Intel Propoganda) out of a simulator running on a 68000? Oh yeah... I forgot: #include <dhrystones.h> main () { Delay (1); printf ("This machine benchmarks out 30000 dhrystones / second\n"); } In case you had any doubts: 8^) 8-) 8^> -- Jeff Gortatowsky {seismo,allegra}!rochester!kodak!elmgate!jdg Eastman Kodak Company These comments are mine alone and not Eastman Kodak's. How's that for a simple and complete disclaimer?
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (04/13/87)
In article <12821@watnot.UUCP> ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes: >grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes: > >Putting a 68020 in the motherboard lets the chip mem bus be 32 bits wide, >and run at 14 (or even 21! *that* would be nice!) MHz, so the processor >can do things to it faster. If the graphics chips can use it as well, >we can get things like 8 bitplanes in high-res; if they can't, it wouldn't >be too hard to redo the I/O sections to handle the higher bus speed, even >if the chips still run at 8 MHz internally. (I think... please tell me >if I'm wrong. I suspect the 32-bit interface would be harder.) It's a lot more practical to leave the chip memory bus alone and run the processor out of fast 32-bit memory that runs independent of the chip memory. >How much would an '020 add to the price of a new Amiga? Depends what you do. You could probably wedge a 68020 onto the 16 bit bus for a few hundred dollars. If you want to go fast and perhaps add an MMU, it gets kinda expensive. Cheaper 68020's are needed and the current attempts at DRAM price-fixing "fix" memory pricing isn't going to help much... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
ma183say@sdcc3.UUCP (04/15/87)
Los Gatos? They no longer is... Gone they are... Put your wishing wand away... Why all dis rnd spec? Put yer mynz to more productive yoose. Waste thy time not the babble on. Yoda
jesup@steinmetz.UUCP (04/15/87)
In article <1674@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes: > >It's a lot more practical to leave the chip memory bus alone and run the >processor out of fast 32-bit memory that runs independent of the chip >memory. ... >George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr If you are thinking of doing new graphics chips, a 32-bit data bus WOULD double the bandwidth of chip memory, allowing higher resolution, or more colors, or more chip-memory bandwidth for the processor, or some combination of these. The cost would be 16 pins, a little silicon for internal D-bus, and a 16 extra bits in the shift registers. All in all, the cost is low, assuming you already need to put it in a larger package. Randell Jesup jesup@steinmetz.uucp jesup@ge-crd.arpa
stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) (04/15/87)
In article <1674@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>, George Robbins (grr@cbmvax.UUCP) writes: > In article <12821@watnot.UUCP> ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes: >> grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes: >> >> Putting a 68020 in the motherboard lets the chip mem bus be 32 bits wide, >> and run at 14 (or even 21! *that* would be nice!) MHz, so the processor >> can do things to it faster. If the graphics chips can use it as well, >> we can get things like 8 bitplanes in high-res; if they can't, it wouldn't >> be too hard to redo the I/O sections to handle the higher bus speed, even >> if the chips still run at 8 MHz internally. (I think... please tell me >> if I'm wrong. I suspect the 32-bit interface would be harder.) > > It's a lot more practical to leave the chip memory bus alone and run the > processor out of fast 32-bit memory that runs independent of the chip > memory. There would be a tremendous advantage to having the chip memory bus 32 bits wide -- it would double the memory bandwidth, both for CPU accesses and for graphics accesses. It would be necessary to rethink (and probably redesign) the graphic chips to accept 32-bit data, although a simple cache that saved the 32-bit word, multiplexors to switch either 16-bit word into the graphic chips, an address latch, and an address comparator could save half the memory cycles for reads (memory writes would have to be 16 bits; the simplest treatment of the cache would be to invalidate it on writes and write the data directly to memory). On the other hand, if we could access 32 bits per chip memory cycle, we could then have twice as many bits per color with the same number of memory cycles -- right now, we have 2^5 = 32 colors at once. With the same number of accesses (but twice the memory bandwidth), we could have 2^10 = 1024 colors at one time. Then, if we could cut the memory cycle time in half, we could double the number of accesses, and go to 1280 x 400 with 1024 colors, or 1280 x 800 with 32 colors (drool, drool, drool). . . Steve Rice ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 1987 by Steven E. Rice, P.E. All Rights Reserved. This material may be redistributed only where such redistribution is without charge and without restrictions on further redistribution. Incorporation of this material in a compilation or other collective work constitutes permission from the intermediary to all recipients to freely redistribute the entire collection. All other uses are prohibited. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver | cae780}!tektronix!videovax!stever
hah@omepd.UUCP (04/18/87)
[ Here li All of this noise about using a 29000, or any other micro-processor family just raises the S/N ratio and serves no useful purpose within this group. MIPs is and always has been an IBM term not an Intel term! Hans
grr@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (George Robbins) (04/25/87)
In article <6151@amdahl.UUCP> kim@amdahl.UUCP (Kim DeVaughn) writes: > >Or how about using a MIPS R2000 chip (12.5 MHz flavor), and is available >running 4.x BSD ... I dunno if SVR2 is shipping yet. This is a REAL >part, and is available *now*. I'm not sure if the R2010 FPU chip is >available, or still in "sampling". In all fairness, it seems that the MIPS chip requires more than a simple "chip" to obtain it's nominal performace level. The Clipper seems to provide a much higher level of integration, including cache and MMU in a basic 3 chip set. Fast 68020's and vaporous 68030's are a good bit slower, but at least have the benefit of executing the same flavor of object code... Is there any good overview of the current R2000 chip available as opposed to research papers on it's predecessors? -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
kim@amdahl.UUCP (Kim DeVaughn) (04/26/87)
Yes, I know this probably doesn't "belong" in this news.group, so you may want to hit your "n" key now ... In article <1734@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>, grr@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (George Robbins) writes: > >In article <6151@amdahl.UUCP> kim@amdahl.UUCP (Kim DeVaughn) writes: > > > >Or how about using a MIPS R2000 chip (12.5 MHz flavor), and is available > >running 4.x BSD ... > > In all fairness, it seems that the MIPS chip requires more than a simple > "chip" to obtain it's nominal performace level. Well George, my posting was a somewhat "tongue-in-cheek" response to someone at AMD who suggested using their Am29000 chip in a future Amiga ... guess I should have sprinkled in a few :-) :-). While the Am29000 looks like a very nice chip according to the Preliminary specs that have been published, it has yet to be realized in silicon. I will reserve judgement on it until I have seen a real part, and have some idea as to availability, pricing, etc. You are quite correct in saying that the R2000 requires more than a simple chip to obtain it's nominal performance. While the R2000 can be made to work with a few PALs, some reset and clocking circuitry, a few bus drivers and receivers, and a little glue, this will not provide "nominal" performance (though it will still give "reasonable" performance). Nominal performance requires the addition of I-fetch and Op caches, and a faster interface to memory than most standard buses (VME, MultiBus II, etc.) can support. (The MIPS board and system level products use the VME bus, but MIPS can supply a proprietary dual-ported memory board with a fast, private interface to the CPU, in addition to the VME interface.) Another performance addition are gate-array chips that can buffer "writes" to memory (in favor of "fetches"). And for any serious floating-point work, you'd want the FPU coprocessor. In any case, this is all somewhat moot, as the R2000 (and the Am29000, and the Clipper) is really an engine for a high-performance product running UNIX(R), with lots of DASD, and several users. For a high-end Amiga class product, an 020 or 030 makes far more sense! > The Clipper seems to > provide a much higher level of integration, including cache and MMU in a > basic 3 chip set. Not so! The single R2000 chip has all of the above on it except for the cache RAM itself ... 64-entry fully associative TLB, cache-control, etc. Why waste valuable *custom* silicon on RAM-chip equivalents, when RAM chips are widely available, and cheap? Plus, you get to design the size of the caches you want/need. You should also be aware that the Clipper, in it's *initial* incarnation, is already pushing existing technology at the high end, which makes higher performance versions of the chip (set) less likely, and definitely harder to do. For example, the current Clipper achieves it's rated performance at 33 MHz; the MIPS R2000 does it's thing at a measly 12.5 MHz. Do not be surprised if you see a 25 MHz R2000 out considerably sooner than you'll see a 66 MHz Clipper. Also, board design tends to get just a little "hairy" at 50+ MHz :-)! I do not wish to start another round of "chip wars", the Clipper is a good product; I just don't agree with some of the design tradeoffs that were made, and I see less "room to grow" for it. > Fast 68020's and vaporous 68030's are a good bit slower, but at least have > the benefit of executing the same flavor of object code... Agreed (for the Amiga). > Is there any good overview of the current R2000 chip available as opposed > to research papers on it's predecessors? Yes. There is a considerable amount of information and documentation on the R2000 available from MIPS. Email me if you want their business address. There have also been several articles in various trade rags within the last year or so (early 1986 issues of VLSI Design, and Micro-Mini Systems [or is it Mini-Micro Systems] come to mind). Several of the folks at MIPS also frequent comp.arch, especially John Mashey who heads up the OS group there. His email address is mash@mips.UUCP. /kim -- UUCP: kim@amdahl.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,ihnp4,seismo,oliveb,cbosgd}!amdahl!kim DDD: 408-746-8462 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 CIS: 76535,25 [ Any thoughts or opinions which may or may not have been expressed ] [ herein are my own. They are not necessarily those of my employer. ]