sletour@triton.unm.edu (Steve Le Tourneau) (03/31/91)
I currently have an A500 and am in the market to buy a more powerful Amiga. The problem is, I don't know if I should get an A2500 or an A3000. I am looking for the Pro's and Con's of each of the two systems. The system I choose will be used for the following: Desk Top Publishing - Writing design specs and user's manuals. CAD applications PC/AT compatibility (I know, I know!) - For my wife's coursework Desk Top Video - I would like to get into this field as a hobbie Graphics - Modeling and Animations School Work - CS & EE type applications The salesperson with whom I spoke is directing me towards the A2500 since there are more I/O slots. He feels this is necessary for the Video applications. He also mentioned that *certain* programs are not compatible between the two systems and there are more "tried-and-true" programs for the A2500. Another consideration was the fact that the Video Toaster did not fit correctly in the A3000 frame. He is pushing the AT BridgeBoard for the PC/AT compatibility and indicated that the BridgeBoard may not run in an A3000. I was thinking about the ATOnce with my A500 for the PC/AT compability. Are there any thoughts on these two options? Finally, I want to make sure that I am purchasing a system with the best upgrade path. Which machine (A2500 or A3000) will best accomodate future CPU cards and the like? If you feel that you have some ideas that could help me with these descisions, please e-mail a response. I will post an summary of the responses at a later date. Thank you in advance! Steve Le Tourneau e-mail: sletour@triton.unm.edu
drysdale@cbmvax.commodore.com (Scott Drysdale) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Mar30.190342.7819@ariel.unm.edu> sletour@triton.unm.edu (Steve Le Tourneau) writes: >I currently have an A500 and am in the market to buy a more powerful Amiga. >The problem is, I don't know if I should get an A2500 or an A3000. I am looking >for the Pro's and Con's of each of the two systems. > >The system I choose will be used for the following: > > Desk Top Publishing - Writing design specs and user's manuals. > CAD applications > PC/AT compatibility (I know, I know!) - For my wife's coursework > Desk Top Video - I would like to get into this field as a hobbie > Graphics - Modeling and Animations > School Work - CS & EE type applications > >The salesperson with whom I spoke is directing me towards the A2500 since there >are more I/O slots. He feels this is necessary for the Video applications. He >also mentioned that *certain* programs are not compatible between the two >systems and there are more "tried-and-true" programs for the A2500. Another >consideration was the fact that the Video Toaster did not fit correctly in the >A3000 frame. > >He is pushing the AT BridgeBoard for the PC/AT compatibility and >indicated that the BridgeBoard may not run in an A3000. I was thinking about >the ATOnce with my A500 for the PC/AT compability. Are there any thoughts on >these two options? the bridgeboards *do* work in a 3000. the problem with bridgeboards is that if you are running ks/wb 2.x on a machine with a data cache, you have to disable the data cache at least for bridgeboard address space. CPU NODATACACHE will disable all data caching, late model ENFORCER will disable data caching only for boards that need it disabled (like bridgeboards). if you put a 2286 bridgeboard in a 3000, you'll only have 2 slots left, since the 2286 is a two-board stack which partially obscures the slot toward it's component side. >Finally, I want to make sure that I am purchasing a system with the best upgrade >path. Which machine (A2500 or A3000) will best accomodate future CPU cards and >the like? > >If you feel that you have some ideas that could help me with these descisions, >please e-mail a response. I will post an summary of the responses at a later >date. > > >Thank you in advance! > >Steve Le Tourneau > >e-mail: sletour@triton.unm.edu -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Scott Drysdale Software Engineer Commodore Amiga Inc. UUCP {allegra|burdvax|rutgers|ihnp4}!cbmvax!drysdale PHONE - yes. "Have you hugged your hog today?" =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
dhansen@amiganet.chi.il.us (Dave Hansen) (04/10/91)
>if you put a 2286 bridgeboard in a 3000, you'll only have 2 slots left, >since the 2286 is a two-board stack which partially obscures the slot toward >it's component side. >Scott Drysdale Software Engineer >Commodore Amiga Inc. UUCP {allegra|burdvax|rutgers|ihnp4}!cbmvax!drysdale > PHONE - yes. >"Have you hugged your hog today?" >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= That was a real mistake by CBM Engineering to design the 3000 tower version so that the 2000 has more usable slots. The 2000's that I have are out of slots as it is. The 2286 should be redone so that it's a 486 these days, and on ONE slot, leaving 3 MSDos slots (minimum) available and at least 4 Amiga slots available in the 3000. Either that or we need a super-tower version of the 3000! voice: (708)691-4747 Internet:dhansen@amiganet.chi.il.us
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (04/11/91)
In article <dhansen.1887@amiganet.chi.il.us> dhansen@amiganet.chi.il.us (Dave Hansen) writes: > >That was a real mistake by CBM Engineering to design the 3000 tower version so >that the 2000 has more usable slots. The 2000's that I have are out of slots >as it is. Well, I see it different: In the 3000, you typically need 2 boards less than in an A2000: 1. HD controller (we have SCSI on board), 2. RAM expansion (18 MB on board do at this time, though this may change in a few years :-). So if one of the Zorro slots is blocked by a video board, you still save one slot in favor of the 3000T. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
jollick@amiglynx.UUCP (Jim Ollick) (04/15/91)
With the new GVP 3050 accellerator you get a 50 MHz. machine with a capacity
of 20 Megs and SCSI interface all on the accellerator card. This leaves you
with one screaming machine and all expansion slots open. :-)
Jimdrysdale@cbmvax.commodore.com (Scott Drysdale) (04/16/91)
In article <dhansen.1887@amiganet.chi.il.us> dhansen@amiganet.chi.il.us (Dave Hansen) writes: >>if you put a 2286 bridgeboard in a 3000, you'll only have 2 slots left, >>since the 2286 is a two-board stack which partially obscures the slot toward >>it's component side. >>Scott Drysdale Software Engineer >>Commodore Amiga Inc. UUCP {allegra|burdvax|rutgers|ihnp4}!cbmvax!drysdale >> PHONE - yes. >>"Have you hugged your hog today?" >>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > >That was a real mistake by CBM Engineering to design the 3000 tower version so ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ WHOA! i said *3000* not *3000 tower*. the tower 3000's (the ones i've seen, anyways) have the same number and type of slots as the 2000, except the video slot is in line with a zorro connector (like in the desktop 3000). >that the 2000 has more usable slots. The 2000's that I have are out of slots >as it is. The 2286 should be redone so that it's a 486 these days, and on ONE >slot, leaving 3 MSDos slots (minimum) available and at least 4 Amiga slots >available in the 3000. Either that or we need a super-tower version of the >3000! the bridgeboard/amiga combination isn't intended to be an ms-dos powerhouse, (an oxymoron if *i* ever heard one!) but a way to run ms-dos/windows/etc stuff should you need to. if you're only a casual ms-dos user (kinda like casual heroin user?) the current 2286 should be fine. if you're running applications that *need* a 486 for speed reasons, you should be using a pc clone, not an amiga with a bridgeboard. commodore would be happy to sell you a nice fast pc clone. >voice: (708)691-4747 Internet:dhansen@amiganet.chi.il.us --Scotty -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Scott Drysdale Software Engineer Commodore Amiga Inc. UUCP {allegra|burdvax|rutgers|ihnp4}!cbmvax!drysdale PHONE - yes. "Have you hugged your hog today?" =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
rcj2@cbnewsd.att.com (ray.c.jender) (04/16/91)
In article <jollick.4424@amiglynx.UUCP> jollick@amiglynx.UUCP (Jim Ollick) writes: >With the new GVP 3050 accellerator you get a 50 MHz. machine with a capacity >of 20 Megs and SCSI interface all on the accellerator card. This leaves you >with one screaming machine and all expansion slots open. :-) > > Jim I thought the 50mhz still came with the AT interface rather then the SCSI.
skipper@motaus.sps.mot.com (Skipper Smith) (04/16/91)
In article <jollick.4424@amiglynx.UUCP> jollick@amiglynx.UUCP (Jim Ollick) writes: >With the new GVP 3050 accellerator you get a 50 MHz. machine with a capacity >of 20 Megs and SCSI interface all on the accellerator card. This leaves you >with one screaming machine and all expansion slots open. :-) > > Jim The new GVP 3050 accelerator runs at 50 MHz, but supports 32 MB of RAM and has an AT IDE interface, not 20 MB and SCSI. The RAM goes on a daughter board. The 22 and 33 MHz boards from GVP hold 16 MB and have SCSI all on the accelerator card itself; no daughterboard necessary. -- Skipper Smith | skipper@motaus.sps.mot.com Motorola Technical Training | 8945 Guilford Rd Ste 145 All opinions are my own, not my employers | Columbia, MD 21046
FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (04/17/91)
Scott suggests that if you need a "ms-dos powerhouse" (!) then you should look at a PC clone and that CBM would gladly sell you one. I think that is an excellent marketing policy and should be shouted from the rooftops! But ah.....not until there is a very fast, very cheap, very easy-to-set-up, and very integrated means of hooking the two types of machines together. I suggest that all PC clones from CBM come standard with SCSI, that both the Amiga DOS and PC DOS handle communication over the SCSI bus, that utilities be included with the machines to network *ALL* machines made by CBM together (can you say 'NFS'?) in the same type of Operating-Supported way that Apple's Macs can be connected (only faster! :-) ). Here is equipment that I would buy because I have a need for it. And I haven't bought much CBM equipment lately because it doesn't meet my needs at home or at work. I think the trade rags would eat it up. There'd be lots of talk about it. And I think the major pieces are already in place. Rigid disk blocks. A solid SCSI design. TCP/IP and NFS software. Looks to me like the R&D is done, some redesign to a few PCB is needed and then lots of testing. Say an optional software/hardware package available in '92 with full hardware/OS support by next generation of machine/OS? Say sometime in '93? Comments? Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com I always *liked* the idea of a bridgeboard but I need the assurance of 'cloneness' for MS-DOS development. Plus it is too damn slow and expensive. Give me a tightly integrated PC/Amiga and I might be able to buy some for development. Or sell a drop-in Amiga for the PC. That I know I could buy!
jollick@amiglynx.UUCP (Jim Ollick) (04/18/91)
Thanks for clearing that up. After I sent the message I found the info I picked up at the show in NYC and saw that is was higher. GVP has their act together.
skipper@motaus.sps.mot.com (Skipper Smith) (04/19/91)
Dana, I agree with just about everything you say, but a some of it just doesn't work. In article <41360@cup.portal.com> FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) writes: >Scott suggests that if you need a "ms-dos powerhouse" (!) then you >should look at a PC clone and that CBM would gladly sell you one. >I think that is an excellent marketing policy and should be shouted >from the rooftops! But ah.....not until there is a very fast, very >cheap, very easy-to-set-up, and very integrated means of hooking the >two types of machines together. I suggest that all PC clones from CBM >come standard with SCSI, that both the Amiga DOS and PC DOS handle >communication over the SCSI bus, that utilities be included with the >machines to network *ALL* machines made by CBM together (can you say >'NFS'?) in the same type of Operating-Supported way that Apple's >Macs can be connected (only faster! :-) ). Here is equipment that >I would buy because I have a need for it. And I haven't bought much >CBM equipment lately because it doesn't meet my needs at home or at work. >I think the trade rags would eat it up. There'd be lots of talk about >it. And I think the major pieces are already in place. Rigid disk >blocks. A solid SCSI design. TCP/IP and NFS software. Looks to me >like the R&D is done, some redesign to a few PCB is needed and then >lots of testing. Say an optional software/hardware package available >in '92 with full hardware/OS support by next generation of machine/OS? >Say sometime in '93? Comments? > >Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com Your main comment that I have a problem with is "...very fast, very cheap, very easy-to-set-up..." and then you go on to compare the situation to Appletalk. First of all, Appletalk is anything but fast. Second, it is connecting machines that for all intents and purposes are identicle. How can you compare this to a situation where you are trying to tie together extremely dissimilar machines of, in the PC's case, unknown capability (no real standards over there)- Big/Little endian byte ordering is just the beginning of the nightmare. TCP/IP is good, but it is expensive and will remain so for quite some time, and besides, the A500 will probably never have access to TCP/IP (the only reason why I add that in is due to AppleTalk working on ALL Macs). I would like to see some form of generic networking that is less than $100/unit to turn the numerous Amiga's, a PC or two, and a VME system (or two) into one networked unit, but I don't expect to see it (at that pricepoint or below) in '93 and I don't expect to see it by '95, either. -- Skipper Smith | skipper@motaus.sps.mot.com Motorola Technical Training | 8945 Guilford Rd Ste 145 All opinions are my own, not my employers | Columbia, MD 21046
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (04/19/91)
In article <1991Apr18.185532.9783@motaus.sps.mot.com> skipper@motaus.sps.mot.com (Skipper Smith) writes: >Dana, I agree with just about everything you say, but a some of it just >doesn't work. > >In article <41360@cup.portal.com> FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) writes: >>Scott suggests that if you need a "ms-dos powerhouse" (!) then you >>should look at a PC clone and that CBM would gladly sell you one. >>I think that is an excellent marketing policy and should be shouted >>from the rooftops! But ah.....not until there is a very fast, very >>cheap, very easy-to-set-up, and very integrated means of hooking the >>two types of machines together. I suggest that all PC clones from CBM >>come standard with SCSI, that both the Amiga DOS and PC DOS handle >>communication over the SCSI bus, that utilities be included with the >>machines to network *ALL* machines made by CBM together (can you say >>'NFS'?) in the same type of Operating-Supported way that Apple's >>Macs can be connected (only faster! :-) ). Here is equipment that >>I would buy because I have a need for it. And I haven't bought much >>CBM equipment lately because it doesn't meet my needs at home or at work. >>I think the trade rags would eat it up. There'd be lots of talk about >>it. And I think the major pieces are already in place. Rigid disk >>blocks. A solid SCSI design. TCP/IP and NFS software. Looks to me >>like the R&D is done, some redesign to a few PCB is needed and then >>lots of testing. Say an optional software/hardware package available >>in '92 with full hardware/OS support by next generation of machine/OS? >>Say sometime in '93? Comments? >> >>Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com > >Your main comment that I have a problem with is "...very fast, very cheap, >very easy-to-set-up..." and then you go on to compare the situation to >Appletalk. First of all, Appletalk is anything but fast. Second, it is >connecting machines that for all intents and purposes are identicle. How can >you compare this to a situation where you are trying to tie together extremely >dissimilar machines of, in the PC's case, unknown capability (no real standards >over there)- Big/Little endian byte ordering is just the beginning of the >nightmare. TCP/IP is good, but it is expensive and will remain so for quite >some time, and besides, the A500 will probably never have access to TCP/IP >(the only reason why I add that in is due to AppleTalk working on ALL Macs). >I would like to see some form of generic networking that is less than $100/unit >to turn the numerous Amiga's, a PC or two, and a VME system (or two) into one >networked unit, but I don't expect to see it (at that pricepoint or below) in >'93 and I don't expect to see it by '95, either. > It's already here. It's called Parnet/Sernet. With NET: you can mount remote filesystems and use them locally. Add in dnet and you can open multiple shells on remote machines, and print files remotely. DNET really isn't needed except Software Distillery hasn't fixed the problem of opening CON: windows and other handlers remotely. Parnet gets up to 28k/sec xfer using only a parallel cable. Once Parnet is fixed and updated, you should be able to do stuff like: newshell net:john's amiga/con/'0/0/660/200/My remote shell/c' (Note: this is not possible now, but I remember hearing that NET: is going to eventually support multiple nodes by name, and SANA. BTW, there's nothing inherent that makes NET: only run on a parallel cables. You can easily make it run over any medium as long as you provide a low-level protocol for that device. I wish someone would make a socket.library that emulates BSD sockets either locally, or as channels on dnet/parnet/sernet.) Parnet isn't the answer to everything, but it sure is cheap(free). Something like AmigaNET(tm) is much more desirable. AmigaNET has a 10 Megabaud xfer rate, allows every Amiga on the net to be a client and server, shares HDs/floppies/RAM disks/serial ports/parallel ports/printers. AmigaNET can allow any Amiga to DMA ram directly into another (nice). I think AmigaNET goes by a different name now. > >-- >Skipper Smith | skipper@motaus.sps.mot.com >Motorola Technical Training | 8945 Guilford Rd Ste 145 >All opinions are my own, not my employers | Columbia, MD 21046 -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | // The opinions expressed here do not in any way | | uunet!tnc!m0023 | \X/ reflect the views of my self. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (04/20/91)
Sorry, gentlemen, but my mailer doesn't include the header so I can't include the article number without major paper-note-taking: But Skipper Smith of Motorola Technical Training says... > Dana, I agree with just about everything you say, but a some of it just > doesn't work. > In article <41360@cup.portal.com> FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeoi s) writes: >> Scott suggests that if you need a "ms-dos powerhouse" (!) then you >> should look at a PC clone and that CBM would gladly sell you one. .........the rest of my quoted article deleted............. > Your main comment that I have a problem with is "...very fast, very cheap, > very easy-to-set-up..." and then you go on to compare the situation to > Appletalk. First of all, Appletalk is anything but fast. Second, it is > connecting machines that for all intents and purposes are identicle. How can This sameness of machines is a good point. I am ashamed I didn't deal with it leaving you to bring it up. Mea Culpa, I guess. Here's the deal. Macs are identical because they have built-in hardware and software (appletalk) that looks identical to the programmer. I implied CBM should do the same by putting SCSI hardware on the motherboard and making Rigid Disk Blocks part of the OS plus whatever networking code is needed to make CBM-PC to CBM-PC communication a matter of hooking two CBM-PCs together with a SCSI cable and selecting the proper icon from the workbench. Sorta like hooking up two, um....well, Macs. :) > you compare this to a situation where you are trying to tie together extremel y > dissimilar machines of, in the PC's case, unknown capability (no real standar ds > over there)- Big/Little endian byte ordering is just the beginning of the > nightmare. TCP/IP is good, but it is expensive and will remain so for quite Well, I am assuming that one could use a protocol over SCSI. Am I wrong? Maybe TCP/IP won't work and something else will be needed. So pick a different protocol, I'm easy! > some time, and besides, the A500 will probably never have access to TCP/IP > (the only reason why I add that in is due to AppleTalk working on ALL Macs). Please note my idea was to use existing hardware design and proven engineering. CBM is getting pretty good at SCSI and it is pretty fast with further improvements available. Seems (off the cuff) a good bet. The implication is that current designs without motherboard SCSI would get SCSI. Upgrade the A500 to the A550? Why not? Like-wise, CBM is learning about TCP/IP and NFS just like they learned SCSI. By building a product. I am asking them to put that into the OS of both AmigaDOS and MS-DOS (only the one that comes from CBM). On top of NetBIOS I guess. Don't quote me too closely, OK. Just help me make this work or show why it is preposterous. :) :) > I would like to see some form of generic networking that is less than $100/un it > to turn the numerous Amiga's, a PC or two, and a VME system (or two) into one > networked unit, but I don't expect to see it (at that pricepoint or below) in > '93 and I don't expect to see it by '95, either. Skipper, we are really on the same wavelength. But I think I am more optimistic than you. Maybe because I am too ignorant to see the problems that you do. I just have the feeling that the MAJOR development of the hardware/software pieces is already done and if the will were there, they could be integrated into the OS within two releases. I mean, part of your objection is a marketing concern. And trust me, I specify equipment for a fortune 100 company. Networking is in. We are *not* buying Macs yet in quantity because they don't fit into our standards well enough. And CBM machines are further away from our standards than Macs are. One way that I could see getting CBM machines into our company (beyond the video department) is if they can do Mac-type stuff as well as Macs and can network *better*. > -- > Skipper Smith | skipper@motaus.sps.mot.com > Motorola Technical Training | 8945 Guilford Rd Ste 145 > All opinions are my own, not my employers | Columbia, MD 21046 Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com
FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (04/20/91)
Ray Cromwell suggests Parnet and Sernet and Dnet as answers for my suggestion about networking CBM machines. Good point for home use where getting the system running is half the fun. But it won't sell any machines to people except those who like the challenge of getting the system up and running. I worked with a secretary today who says she is an expert with DisplayWrite IV (IBM's laughable answer to WordPerfect and Word 5.0). She needed my help, however, to set up her PROFILE.PRF so it would recognize her Diablo 630 printer. This is a basic installation feature which has a major chapter in the manual. I wouldn't call anyone who can't set application defaults an expert. But compared with most users she is because she knows most of the keyboard commands and menus and can use the program *WITHOUT OUTSIDE HELP*. See? An expert! My point? Appletalk is too hard for these people to set up. No way can they attempt something like DNet or SerNet. CBM networking should use standards like SCSI, TCP/IP, IPX, NFS, FTP, (help me here, guys, I'm running out of letters!), well, you know them better than I. Let's go for multi-megabyte per second transfer rates over short distances (any longer and you'll have a proper LAN card) with a cable and icon selection. WEll, maybe a string gadget or two if we gotta. :) Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) (04/23/91)
Actually, there's no reason a 1M+ A500 couldn't have TCP/IP. Either SLIP, or one the parallel-port-attached E-net adapters should be able to provide it. Dan Taylor
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) (04/23/91)
Actually, there's no reason a 1M+ A500 couldn't have TCP/IP. Either SLIP, or one the parallel-port-attached E-net adapters + software should be able to provide it. Have you tried D-Net? It's available either on the Fred Fish disks, or ftp somewhere (I can't ftp, so I'm note sure). Dan Taylor
billsey@nesbbx.UUCP (Bill Seymour) (04/26/91)
In article <dhansen.1887@amiganet.chi.il.us>, Dave Hansen writes:
::if you put a 2286 bridgeboard in a 3000, you'll only have 2 slots left,
::since the 2286 is a two-board stack which partially obscures the slot toward
::it's component side.
::Scott Drysdale Software Engineer
::Commodore Amiga Inc. UUCP {allegra|burdvax|rutgers|ihnp4}!cbmvax!drysdale
:: PHONE - yes.
::"Have you hugged your hog today?"
::=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
:
: That was a real mistake by CBM Engineering to design the 3000 tower version so
: that the 2000 has more usable slots. The 2000's that I have are out of slots
: as it is.
I doubt if Scott was talking about the 3000 tower configuration here.
His description of the physical archetecture inside a 3000 corresponds to the
regular 3000, not any tower... I believe the 3000 tower version, from what I
saw in the AW article, has the sams slot arraingment as the 2000 has. Except
for Zorro III instead of Zorro II, or couse!
: The 2286 should be redone so that it's a 486 these days, and on ONE
: slot, leaving 3 MSDos slots (minimum) available and at least 4 Amiga slots
: available in the 3000. Either that or we need a super-tower version of the
: 3000!
There's no way that could all be fit into the 3000 case. One of the
biggest things you loose when you make a computer that short is the ability
to mount cards in vertically. There really *is* only enough room for four cards
in a 3000. The tower case version, which BTW I don't beleive has been officially
announced in the US, has a *lot* more room for slots, and should fit everything
a 2000 will.
: voice: (708)691-4747 Internet:dhansen@amiganet.chi.il.us
-Bill Seymour nesbbx!billsey@agora.uucp or nesbbx!billsey@agora.rain.com
***** American People/Link Amiga Zone Hardware Specialist NES*BILL *****
Bejed, Inc. NES, Inc. NAG BBS NES BBX BBS Home Sometimes
(503)281-8153 (503)246-9311 (503)656-7393 (503)640-9337 (503) 640-0842