drz@utcsri.UUCP (Jerry Zarycky) (02/02/87)
At the risk of incurring the wrath of Commodore higher-ups,
the following comes from
The Toronto Sun newspaper, Friday January 30, 1987
"NEW from Commodore: Two additional versions of the Amiga.
The Amiga 500 will sell for $600 U.S. and will be a low-end
machine targeted at the home market.
The Amiga 2000, aimed at business users, will have nine expansion
slots. Prices will start at $1495 U.S. The present Amiga 1000 will
continue to be sold."
Questions: (from the Great White North)
What do Amiga 1000 computers currently sell for? (i.e.) how
will they fit into the above price range?
Why so many expansion slots? I can see it for earlier IBM PC
computers which needed slots for serial ports, parallel ports, display
cards, joystick ports, etc., but why for the Amiga, which has so much
already built in?
Speculation: the Amiga 500 will be similar to an Atari 520STFM, in
that the computer and disk drive will be built into the
keyboard to minimize costs, an RF modulator will be built
in, and it will be sold without an RGB monitor.
Wishful thinking #1: the Amiga 2000 will come with 1 meg memory and
a 30 meg hard disk, or ...
Wishful thinking #2: some of the expansion slots in the Amiga 2000 will
allow inexpensive IBM PC hard disks to be used.
Finally, rumor has it we should actually see the new computers in the stores
come late February or early March.
Jerry Zarycky
Usenet: {cornell, uw-beaver, linus, ihnp4, allegra, decvax, floyd} !utcsri!drz
CSNET: drz@csri.toronto.edu UUCP: drz@utcsri.uucp
EAN: drz@csri.toronto.cdnbeilke@puff.UUCP (02/06/87)
In article <4047@utcsri.UUCP>, drz@utcsri.UUCP (Jerry Zarycky) writes: > Why so many expansion slots? I can see it for earlier IBM PC > computers which needed slots for serial ports, parallel ports, display > cards, joystick ports, etc., but why for the Amiga, which has so much > already built in? Hey, wait just a minute their. I agree that the Amiga has a lot built in, but my philosophy is: There is always room for expansion. Case in point: The success of the Apple // series is primarily due to the expansion capabilities of the machine (i.e., 8 slots) If you don't believe me, compare the number of //c's sold to the number of //e's or ]['s. The point is, people want expanability, and if C-A wants to put X slots in the Amiga I'll be right their waiting to pick one up. BTW, how many slots do you want? 2- Not enough A memory exansion, and multi-function card would fill these up. 4- Could get by. 6- Probably would have to worry about filling them unless you have a deep pocket full of money. besides, I heard that half of the slots would be IBM slots. Well enough said, -Matt Beilke {ihnp4, hplabs, siesmo,...}\!uwvax\!puff\!beilke
sdl@linus.UUCP (02/08/87)
The March 1987 issue of "Compute!" magazine has a "firsthand look" at
the new Amiga 2000. Some juicy quotes:
"The [Amiga 2000] basic machine includes one 3 1/2 inch floppy....The
front panel also has space to mount one extra 3 1/2 inch drive and a
half-height PC-compatible 5 1/4 inch drive....the extra drive spaces
can hold either floppy or hard drives...."
"[The Amiga 2000] can run PC software with ...the Bridge
[card]...which contains an 8088 processor.... The Bridge card allows
a hard drive to be shared by both the PC [8088] and the Amiga...."
(Sort of an internal Sidecar with a floppy disk controller, but
without a 5 1/4 inch drive of its own)
"Commodore will also offer a PC/AT compatible Bridge card ...which is
based on the...80286...."
"Internally, the Amiga 2000 has...a Motorola 68000...However,
Commodore intends to market an optional 68020 processor....This
processor could work either in parallel with the resident 68000 or as
a replacement for it...."
If I read this right, an Amiga 2000 can be equipped to have a 68000,
a 68020, and an 80286, all running in parallel and accessing the same
global memory! That's a lot of multiprocessor power.
On the other hand, the article states that the graphic and sound chips
for the Amiga 2000 are identical to those on the current Amiga 1000.
That's too bad. I was hoping that the Amiga 2000's graphics would at
least fix the interlace flicker that occurs with 640x400 pixel mode.
Finally, the Kickstart disk has been eliminated for the Amiga 2000;
the code is contained in 256K of ROM instead.
Steven Litvintchouk
MITRE Corporation
Burlington Road
Bedford, MA 01730
Fone: (617)271-7753
ARPA: sdl@mitre-bedford
UUCP: ...{cbosgd,decvax,genrad,ll-xn,philabs,security,utzoo}!linus!sdlkeithd@cadovax.UUCP (02/10/87)
In article <479@linus.UUCP> sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) writes: >On the other hand, the article states that the graphic and sound chips >for the Amiga 2000 are identical to those on the current Amiga 1000. >That's too bad. I was hoping that the Amiga 2000's graphics would at >least fix the interlace flicker that occurs with 640x400 pixel mode. Personally, I think keeping within the NTSC video standard was one of the smartest things that Amiga did. If you want 640x400 flicker-free, get a high persistance monitor. DON'T change the Amiga to non-NTSC and dump the 'desktop video' marketplace on the floor. I would hope that the 2000's video chips are not EXACTLY identical however, and are the rumored 2MB addressable ones we've been hearing about. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd # cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa
spencer@eris.UUCP (02/13/87)
In article <1391@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >Personally, I think keeping within the NTSC video standard was one >of the smartest things that Amiga did. If you want 640x400 flicker-free, >get a high persistance monitor. DON'T change the Amiga to non-NTSC and >dump the 'desktop video' marketplace on the floor. I can't agree more! > >I would hope that the 2000's video chips are not EXACTLY identical >however, and are the rumored 2MB addressable ones we've been hearing >about. Now Amazing Computing said that John had seen 1.2 running on a Monochrome monitor at 1024x800, where do you suppose that fits into the picture? (No one from Commodore answer, that would be cheating, you know already!) Will we see mini Suns from Amiga (like Mr. Dillon seems to want?) or will we get a computer that does monochrome high res, and then does color low res (ala Atari ST). And if we can address 2 meg, and we have NTSC do we get 34 bit planes? (34, wow, would definate have to buy a better monitor). The above was just hopeful thinking for the next machine I buy... can't get the 2000, I have two 1000's, I am over my alotment, but the 3000, I can justify that! "Commodore today released the Amiga 8000 with 1.2 still burned in ROM" Scary thought, ain't it? --Randy Root Canal > >Keith Doyle ># {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd Ow! my tooth! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Randy Spencer P.O. Box 4542 Berkeley CA 94704 (415)284-4740 C#(415)283-5469 I N F I N I T Y spencer%eris@berkeley.edu Now working for |||||||||||::::... . . spencer@USCVAXQ.bitnet But in no way |||||||||||||||::::.. .. . ....ucbvax!eris!spencer Officially representing ||||||||||||:::::... .. s o f t w a r e -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
mcinerny@rochester.UUCP (02/17/87)
[] Does anyone remember the Commodore 900? I remember an aanouncement in BYTE's What's New ages ago. It was a Z8000 (Commodore bought production rights to the chip ;-) based system that ran a UNIX-compatible system (Which one? Wasn't Xenix, or Venix, but...?). It could support up to 8 terminals, had a hard drive, and boasted UUCP. It was avaiable only in Europe and looked like an AT-Killer (even looked like an AT). The most interesting feature was that you could get an optional graphics package that included a hires, B&W 15" display driven by a custom blitter that did 1024x800 and windows! Never did ever see such a machine.... [Aside: I did see and play with a P128 and B256, but never a BX258, before they were shelved. Whatever happened to the "lap-top-64" with the LCD screen?] -Michael P.S. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't 1Mx1 chips use less power than 256Kx1 chips? In any case, is there any way of replacing (can you say "adapter board" or "bend the address pin out"?) the 256Kx1 chips on the motherboard and/or 256K expansion ram to get 1-2Megs inside the Amiga w/o power consumption hassles? I'm quite used to memory hacks: I did my own 4-8-16K [16K! Geez! What are you going to DO with all that memory?] expansion on my OSI C-1P, and upgraded my ex-Mac to 512K.
rar@auc.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <24922@rochester.ARPA> mcinerny@rochester.UUCP (Michael McInerny) writes: >Does anyone remember the Commodore 900? ... based system that ran a >UNIX-compatible system (Which one? Wasn't Xenix, or Venix, but...?). From what I have heard, the 900 uses the Coherent Operating System (from Mark Williams, Inc., I believe). > >... Whatever happened to the "lap-top-64" with the LCD screen? > I think it was more of a lap-top-128. I don't think it was not going to be 64 compatible. The BASIC was to be downward compatible from BASIC 7.0, accepting all of its commands, but not executing those that had to do with such things as color and sound. Enough of my piece-meal, third-hand information. These are questions that I hope Commodore will answer. I was also very interested in both of these machines. To add another question: Commodore, is there any chance that you will make a portable Amiga? (PortAmiga? :-)) >-Michael > [ Next: A cute disclaimer ] Since I do not have any connections with Commodore (other than owning an Amiga, and a two Commodore 64's before it, and convincing several people to buy Amigas and ... well, you get the point ) the above information is subject to several abberations, like, for example, being completely wrong. NO WARRANTY EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED Rodney Ricks, Atlanta University Center Computation Center
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <24922@rochester.ARPA> mcinerny@rochester.UUCP (Michael McInerny) writes: > >Does anyone remember the Commodore 900? I remember an aanouncement >in BYTE's What's New ages ago. It was a Z8000 (Commodore bought >production rights to the chip ;-) based system that ran a UNIX-compatible >system (Which one? Wasn't Xenix, or Venix, but...?). Coherent at first, we had SVr1 running a bit later on... > The most interesting feature was that you could get an optional >graphics package that included a hires, B&W 15" display driven by >a custom blitter that did 1024x800 and windows! Gee, a number of the C900 people are working on amiga stuff now... >[Aside: I did see and play with a P128 and B256, but never a BX258, before >they were shelved. Whatever happened to the "lap-top-64" with the LCD >screen?] Corporate priorities favored the Amiga, things got real tense financially and the C900 and the LCD fell by the wayside while the Amiga squeaked through. >-Michael >P.S. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't 1Mx1 chips use less power >than 256Kx1 chips? In any case, is there any way of replacing >(can you say "adapter board" or "bend the address pin out"?) the >256Kx1 chips on the motherboard and/or 256K expansion ram to get >1-2Megs inside the Amiga w/o power consumption hassles? I think the power comsumption of 1MB vs 256K chips varies. The problem is that none of the 1MB chips are very pin compatible with their 256K counterparts. Unless you made an adapter board, things would get very messy. BTW, get the Expansion Architecture document for schematics and discussion of useful things like power allocations... -- 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)
dca@toylnd.UUCP (02/20/87)
In article <1391@cadovax.UUCP>, keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: > > Personally, I think keeping within the NTSC video standard was one > of the smartest things that Amiga did. If you want 640x400 flicker-free, > get a high persistance monitor. DON'T change the Amiga to non-NTSC and > dump the 'desktop video' marketplace on the floor. > Personally, I would hope that the engineers at Commodore would have enough savvy to produce video interface circuitry that would disable the NTSC output for a 640 x 400 flicker-free mode to the RGB port while maintaining the NTSC compatibility for all the other modes. While NTSC compatibility is nice I think the majority of Amiga buyers will probably not have much occassion to hook their Amiga up to a VCR etc. whereas limiting the Amiga display to as lousy a standard as a TV set is a serious detraction. I'm also really tired of the whole 'buy a lp phosphor monitor' response as I'm not really interested in buying a 1K monitor for a 1K computer. While the price of monitors with at least 640x400 res is dropping the price of lp phosphor monitors hasn't budged. As People are likely to use their Amigas for a whole gamut of applications many of those applications could greatly benefit from a hi-res screen: games, WYSIWYG text processing, terminal emulators, even pre-viewing your video or producing artwork meant to use the 640x400 interlaced mode. To come out with a new computer now that doesn't have any better usable resolution than the CGA board is I think a bit ridiculous and probably will be a serious detriment to the 2000 in comparsion to the new systems from other manufacturers who don't feel so constrained if this is indeed the case. If Commodore gets a system out there with a flicker-less hi-res mode then people will start writing software to use it at least as an option. As it is now the number of people that possess lp phosphor monitors is so low that very few applications use the hi-res mode. To take this whole NTSC argument to the ridiculous we could step into the future: a couple of years from now most systems will probably be in the 1K x 1K plus mode with who knows how many colors. Should Commodore still be restricting itself to 640x400 interlace in the interest of NTSC compatability? If they do most likely they will also not be still in business. I don't think it's any better an idea to come out with a new product now with advanced features in other respects without at least middle of the road resolution. David Albrecht
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (02/21/87)
In article <126@toylnd.UUCP> dca@toylnd.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) writes: > >Personally, I would hope that the engineers at Commodore would have enough >savvy to produce video interface circuitry that would disable the NTSC >output for a 640 x 400 flicker-free mode to the RGB port while maintaining >the NTSC compatibility for all the other modes. We're working on a higher resolution version of the Amiga chips. Of course there are only so many hardware people and lots of things to do. >I'm also really tired of the whole 'buy a lp phosphor monitor' >response as I'm not really interested in buying a 1K monitor for a 1K >computer. While the price of monitors with at least 640x400 res is dropping >the price of lp phosphor monitors hasn't budged. Well...the LP monitor you can buy whenever you want. New chips, you have to wait until we get them finished, debugged and into systems. If somebody asks what they can do about flicker, you can't tell them to just wait... >David Albrecht -- 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)
spierce@crash.UUCP (02/21/87)
David, you don't have to spend 1K for a lp phosphor monitor. Commodore is going to drop the price of the current Amiga monitor and offer a lp phosphor monitor for $495.
hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (02/21/87)
In <126@toylnd.UUCP> dca@toylnd.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) writes: >In article <1391@cadovax.UUCP>, keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >> >> Personally, I think keeping within the NTSC video standard was one >> of the smartest things that Amiga did. If you want 640x400 flicker-free, >> get a high persistance monitor. DON'T change the Amiga to non-NTSC and >> dump the 'desktop video' marketplace on the floor. >> >Personally, I would hope that the engineers at Commodore would have enough >savvy to produce video interface circuitry that would disable the NTSC >output for a 640 x 400 flicker-free mode to the RGB port while maintaining >the NTSC compatibility for all the other modes. While NTSC compatibility >is nice I think the majority of Amiga buyers will probably not have >much occassion to hook their Amiga up to a VCR etc. whereas limiting >the Amiga display to as lousy a standard as a TV set is a serious >detraction. >I'm also really tired of the whole 'buy a lp phosphor monitor' >response as I'm not really interested in buying a 1K monitor for a 1K >computer. While the price of monitors with at least 640x400 res is dropping >the price of lp phosphor monitors hasn't budged. **** FLAME ON **** This is total idiocy. Please do some research before you make such totally ridiculous comments. First of all, 640x400 analog RGB monitors are MUCH more expensive than the long persistence monitors soon will be. The only difference between a long persistence monitor and a regular RGB monitor is the phosphor *THAT'S IT*. A total cost difference of about $20. Rumor has it that C-A will be marketing an LP RGB monitor for $500 retail, a LOT cheaper than a 640x400 RGB analog monitor. ALSO, when you look at 640x400 RGB monitor prices, be sure you're not talking about digital RGB! Analog RGB monitors are more expensive and will always be inherently more expensive than their LP counterparts. Also, there is a fantastically good reason why you'd want to keep the interlace mode on any future Amiga; with interlace you can get twice the vertical resolution without any loss of bandwidth. To force the Amiga to put out color data twice as fast would make it necessary to severely limit the number of colors you can see. So even on a 1Kx1K machine you might want to keep interlace so you can get double-vertical resolution without loss of color depth. However, on a 1Kx1K workstation you would probably also want the choice of LP or non-LP depending on the application (LP for CAD/CAM, non-LP for office use.) >As People are likely to use their Amigas for a whole gamut of applications >many of those applications could greatly benefit from a hi-res >screen: games, WYSIWYG text processing, terminal emulators, even pre-viewing >your video or producing artwork meant to use the 640x400 interlaced mode. Again, it is a question of bandwidth or not bandwidth. Interlace can be used on any monitor, not just NTSC-style RGB monitors. -Mitsu
miner@ulowell.UUCP (02/22/87)
Keywords: spencer@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Randy Spencer) writes: >Now Amazing Computing said that John had seen 1.2 running on a Monochrome >monitor at 1024x800, where do you suppose that fits into the picture? >(No one from Commodore answer, that would be cheating, you know already!) At the developers conference Dale Luck gave a talk asking us to dream up features we wanted incorporated in the next Amiga. As part of the talk he showed an Amiga with some kluged together video hardware generating 1024x800 on a monochrome sun screen. He said that they had also sandwiched together the video signals from 3 Amiga's to generate 5-bits of Red Green and Blue for a "near true color" Amiga generated Image. He was not showing any new graphics chips that may be under development at Commodore. And I would not think that is what the John Foust was implying. -- Rich Miner !ulowell!miner Cntr for Productivity Enhancement 617-452-5000x2693
stever@videovax.UUCP (02/23/87)
In article <1272@husc6.UUCP>, Mitsuharu Hadeishi (hadeishi@husc4.UUCP) writes: > . . . > Also, there is a fantastically good reason why you'd want to > keep the interlace mode on any future Amiga; with interlace you can get > twice the vertical resolution without any loss of bandwidth. . . . Unfortunately, there is a price to be paid for interlacing a display. Part of the price is a reduction in vertical resolution from the theoretical maximum. The Kell Factor (named after the gentleman who first described the phenomenon) is typically in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 for 2:1 interlaced displays. Thus, interlace provides a 20% to 40% improvement in vertical resolution when compared to a progressively-scanned display which has half the number of lines per frame. A problem with interlaced displays is that some patterns will have a flicker frequency that is half the field rate. While your eyes are not particularly sensitive to 60 Hz flicker, they certainly are sensitive to 30 Hz flicker! Try an experiment -- first, fill a non-interlaced screen with "E" (the capital letter). Then, fill an interlaced screen with "E" (be sure to use a font that has a single row of dots for the horizontal lines). Which one has more flicker? Steve Rice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever