navas@cory.uucp (David C. Navas) (08/13/90)
In article <1694@kirk.nmg.bu.oz> cameron@kirk.nmg.bu.oz (Cameron Stevenson) writes: > I'm considering applying pressure here at work to buy the 3000. This > is primarily a Mac site, with a number of PS/2's thrown in so that we don't > look exclusively Mac. On the whole though "other" machines are frowned upon. > If I can slip the Amigas through the safety net as capable '386 machines > (with another very good machine lurking inside the box for extra value), > then the accountant types may be swayed. Any news? Okay Cmdre, you've got at least TWO customers for the thing out here. Lets unshelf it, upgrade it to ZorroIII, put in EGA (mayby VGA ???) screen transfers, and sell it! [Anybody else wanna join the I_WOULD_BUY_A_386_BRIDGEBOARD_IF_IT_EXISTED party? Two ain't enough fer some funny reason ;)] On the other hand... You might be able to get away with calling it a very capable UNIX machine. > Cameron Stephenson Telephone +61 75 951220 David Navas navas@sim.berkeley.edu "Excuse my ignorance, but I've been run over by my train of thought." -me
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (08/14/90)
In article <1694@kirk.nmg.bu.oz> cameron@kirk.nmg.bu.oz (Cameron Stevenson) writes: > Does anybody know if Commodore are working on an 80386 bridgeboard? That one I can't answer, but hypothetically, such a device is certainly possible. > The main reason (at least this is what I was told) for not producing such > a card was that the 2000 system could not keep up with the 80386. By this, > I don't mean that the Amiga is slower than a '386 generally; just that > software that is specifically written for the '386 would get tangled inside > the Amiga because of the Janus software/bus speed/Amiga CPU speed.(As you > appreciate from the tone of this explanation, I'm no hardware guru) The only elements of a BridgeCard that are tied to the Amiga bus speed somewhat are the BridgeCard video display and hard disk, when both of these are actually on the Amiga system. That's not as bad as it sounds, even with a reasonably fast '386 running, since both display and disk on most PCs is pretty slow to begin with. It really depends on the problem you're interested in solving with the BridgeCard. Most PC software isn't all that display or disk bound, so most software would run on such a card about as fast as on an equivalent standalone '386. Software that is display or disk bound would be noticably slower. > Now with the 3000, I would expect these problems to be soluble (? able to > be solved). These problems certainly could be solved with an A3000-specific Bridge Card (eg, a Zorro III device). Some of the problems might be solved with a radically different Bridge Card design. Most '386 PCs still run video and disk at AT bus speeds, and the Zorro II bus is capable of similar speeds. Today's BridgeCards are slow because the 680x0 and 80x86 communicate via some shared memory, not directly to each others' buses. So to get a block of data for the PC's hard disk driver, the PC sends a message via shared memory to a disk server, PCDisk, in Amiga memory. This task fetches a block to its buffer (involving one DMA or CPU transfer, depending on the Amiga side disk controller in place), then copies that into some of the BridgeCard's shared memory. The PC's hard disk driver then wakes up and copies this block into PC main memory. So you end up with several more copies than a PC would normally do, and to add to this, shared memory isn't all that fast. Faster shared memory or direct access by one CPU to the other's bus would speed up this operation considerably. > If I can slip the Amigas through the safety net as capable '386 machines > (with another very good machine lurking inside the box for extra value), > then the accountant types may be swayed. Any news? No news, but I think that was one of the original drives behind the Bridge Card -- it lets you get an Amiga when you really want one, but you or your bean counters need some PC compatibility. > Cameron Stephenson Telephone +61 75 951220 -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Get that coffee outta my face, put a Margarita in its place!
cameron@kirk.nmg.bu.oz (Cameron Stevenson) (08/14/90)
I haven't seen this question posted before, so here goes... Does anybody know if Commodore are working on an 80386 bridgeboard? Sure, the question is hypothetical until a product is actually released, and undoubtedly raises the question of why bother (build one). So I'll try to spark a little discussion... The main reason (at least this is what I was told) for not producing such a card was that the 2000 system could not keep up with the 80386. By this, I don't mean that the Amiga is slower than a '386 generally; just that software that is specifically written for the '386 would get tangled inside the Amiga because of the Janus software/bus speed/Amiga CPU speed.(As you appreciate from the tone of this explanation, I'm no hardware guru) Now with the 3000, I would expect these problems to be soluble (? able to be solved). As to why build one, well I for one find the notion of the Bridgeboard appealing. I used an A2500/AT for a couple of months and loved it (this is not my only experience with an Amiga BTW - I have owned a 1000 and a 2000 - both were machines released early in their product's life). I am a great fan of the Amiga, but in a work related environment, I find there are PC based applications that I must use. Whether I like using them, etc, etc, is part of the flame based my-system-is-betther-than-your-system discussion that I'm not interested in here. The main point is that there are applications that I must use for work that don't run on the Amiga (and have no Amiga based equivalent - SQL/RDBMS and CAD in a combined environment - email me if you're interested). I now find that new versions of these applications are being written to take advantage of the '386 chip, and will not run on the '286. Which leads straight to the heart of my original question. I'm considering applying pressure here at work to buy the 3000. This is primarily a Mac site, with a number of PS/2's thrown in so that we don't look exclusively Mac. On the whole though "other" machines are frowned upon. If I can slip the Amigas through the safety net as capable '386 machines (with another very good machine lurking inside the box for extra value), then the accountant types may be swayed. Any news? Cameron Stephenson Telephone +61 75 951220 Bond University Gold Coast Australia
joseph@valnet.UUCP (Joseph Hillenburg) (08/14/90)
navas@cory.uucp (David C. Navas) writes: > In article <1694@kirk.nmg.bu.oz> cameron@kirk.nmg.bu.oz (Cameron Stevenson) w > > I'm considering applying pressure here at work to buy the 3000. This > > is primarily a Mac site, with a number of PS/2's thrown in so that we don't > > look exclusively Mac. On the whole though "other" machines are frowned upon > > If I can slip the Amigas through the safety net as capable '386 machines > > (with another very good machine lurking inside the box for extra value), > > then the accountant types may be swayed. Any news? > > > Okay Cmdre, you've got at least TWO customers for the thing out here. Lets > unshelf it, upgrade it to ZorroIII, put in EGA (mayby VGA ???) screen transfe > and sell it! > > [Anybody else wanna join the I_WOULD_BUY_A_386_BRIDGEBOARD_IF_IT_EXISTED > party? Two ain't enough fer some funny reason ;)] > On the other hand... You might be able to get away with calling it a very > capable UNIX machine. > > > Cameron Stephenson Telephone +61 75 951220 > > David Navas navas@sim.berkeley.edu > "Excuse my ignorance, but I've been run over by my train of thought." -me You got my vote...I have a 2286 and it is sssssssllllllllloooooooooowwwww with Windows 3.0. I know that CBM has a 8086Turbo board planed, but we all know that 8086/8 CPUs are primitive, even compared to 8520!. -Joseph Hillenburg InterNet: joseph@valnet UUCP: iuvax!valnet!joseph PC-Link: Joe Hillenburg Most other systems: Joseph Hillenburg Don't buy a computer unless it's an Amiga - Me - AMIGA RULES! - AMIGA RUL
tope@enea.se (Tommy Petersson) (08/14/90)
I've seen an 'official' Commodore statement (here in Europe) that they are working on a '386SX board. Release late '90. But, at the CEBIT fair in Hannover (March, LAST year!) I got a very official statement about the A2090B (the SlotWaster, halfcard with auto-boot ROMS for the old A2090 card). It should be available in mid '89...
rumbo@impch.imp.com (Peter Kunz) (08/15/90)
> [Anybody else wanna join the I_WOULD_BUY_A_386_BRIDGEBOARD_IF_IT_EXISTED > party? Two ain't enough fer some funny reason ;)] ok, so how much would this thing cost me if i were the third? why not upgrade a 286 to a 386 with one of the numerous boards available. rossmoeller of germany has a 386si board out, but i think you need a bridgeboard to run it... bcnu pete
Chuck.Phillips@FtCollins.NCR.COM (Chuck.Phillips) (08/16/90)
Make me the fourth or fifth who would consider the purchase _provided_ it is a real 80386, not an 80386sx (and if the price is right). There is a reason people buy 32 bit RAM for their MC68020 and MC68030 Amigas. This reason (throughput) also applies to the 80386. (The SX might be a good low cost option for the 68000 based Amigas, however.) Cheers, -- Chuck Phillips MS440 NCR Microelectronics Chuck.Phillips%FtCollins.NCR.com 2001 Danfield Ct. Ft. Collins, CO. 80525 uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!bach!chuckp
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (08/17/90)
In article <CHUCK.PHILLIPS.90Aug16063702@halley.FtCollins.NCR.COM> Chuck.Phillips@FtCollins.NCR.COM (Chuck.Phillips) writes: >Make me the fourth or fifth who would consider the purchase _provided_ it >is a real 80386, not an 80386sx (and if the price is right). There is a >reason people buy 32 bit RAM for their MC68020 and MC68030 Amigas. This >reason (throughput) also applies to the 80386. (The SX might be a good low >cost option for the 68000 based Amigas, however.) There are several other issues when you're talking about an 80386. 68000 code is 32 bit code, even when run on a 68008. So a 32 bit CPU like a 68030 can take full advantage of a 32 bit bus. On the other hand, an 80386 running code for an 8088, 8086, or 80286 will only be running 16 bit code and 16 bit data. So the full 32 bit bus isn't much of an advantage until you're dealing with real life 80386 programs. I suspect the 80486 may partially solve this problem by doing 32 bit burst prefetches to cache even for the 16 bit instructions. In any case, the main speed advantage of the '386 over the '286 for 99% of the stuff run on MS-DOS machines has been the faster clock -- the fastest '286 is the 16MHz part made by AMD, the '386s are available at 33MHz (from Intel of course). At the same clock speed, '286s often run the same 8086 code faster than '386s. Now if you're planning to use a real [32 bit] OS, like perhaps UNIX, on your Bridge Card, the difference between a 16 and 32 bit bus could be as much as 2x, though likely somewhat less (eg, even on a 32 bit machine, not all operations are 32 bits wide). >Chuck Phillips MS440 -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Get that coffee outta my face, put a Margarita in its place!
usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (USENET News Administration) (08/18/90)
> >pete From: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) Path: cory.Berkeley.EDU!navas Rumour has it that the '286 don't work too swell in the A3000. Also note, there really is no point in having a 32 bit computer inside a 32 bit computer talking through a 16 bit bus. Well, I mean it's kind of silly isn't it? [So I want the power kick, so shoot me]. For VGA, one really wants the fastest transfer possible -- and that's ZorroIII Just my opinion though. -Dave David Navas navas@sim.berkeley.edu "Excuse my ignorance, but I've been run over by my train of thought." -me
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (08/20/90)
In article <38229@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDUIn article <2220@impch.imp.com> rumbo@impch.imp.com (Peter Kunz) writes: writes: >> >>pete >Rumour has it that the '286 don't work too swell in the A3000. There may have been some software issues with the Bridge Cards, the A3000, and perhaps 2.0. But I've used them, they work good. >Also note, there really is no point in having a 32 bit computer inside a 32 >bit computer talking through a 16 bit bus. That's silly. PClones always talk to their disk, keyboard, and video display via an 8 or 16 bit bus. That's all the Bridge Card does with the Amiga, at worst. It's not like the Bridge Cards has to cross the Amiga's expansion bus to get to its program memory or anything like that. And as I pointed out, most PC applications use the '386 as simply a faster 8086/88 anyway. A '386 bridge card would make sense. >For VGA, one really wants the fastest transfer possible -- and that's ZorroIII That's true, a full 32 bit Bridge Card would make much more sense as a Zorro III device. It would certainly pay to make one which could act as a Zorro III bus master, further improving thoughput. But there are certainly more Zorro II machines out there, so they would have to consider that aspect as well. >David Navas navas@sim.berkeley.edu -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Get that coffee outta my face, put a Margarita in its place!
dlt@lando.la.locus.com (Dan Taylor) (08/22/90)
I, personally would like a BridgeBoard that cost no more than a clone motherboard, plus comparable RAM and equivalent display adapter (VGA?). That's about $600 for a 16MHz -SX, with 1 Mb and VGA, $800, or so, for a 20MHz "real" 386. The 8088 BridgeBoard wasn't too badly priced, but I already had "Transformer", so I had no use, and no desire to pay for, another 5-1/4" drive. As for the 32-bit vs. 16-bit '386 debate, unless you plan to "live" in the '386 (maybe you should just buy one?), why do you need the extra PC-DOS performance and the higher price. Intel's ad that the '-SX' is a "zillion" percent better is true, in that there are now '386-specific programs. So, I could see paying a premium for an -SX over a '286 (I know, the '286 BridgeBoard is lots more than $600-$800. That's why I don't/won't buy one), but I wouldn't get enough extra utility from a 32-bit '386 to pay more for one on a BridgeBoard. As for UNIX, why not continue to pester CA for UNIX V.4 on the A3000 and A2500/30? I saw an Alpha 2 release running at the USENIX Conference in Anaheim. I WANT it. * Dan Taylor * The opinions expressed are my own, and in no way * * dlt@locus.com * reflect those of Locus Computing Corporation. *
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (08/23/90)
In article <13900@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <38229@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU >>Rumour has it that the '286 don't work too swell in the A3000. >There may have been some software issues with the Bridge Cards, the A3000, and >perhaps 2.0. But I've used them, they work good. Ah well, that's what happens when one believes rumours... >>Also note, there really is no point in having a 32 bit computer inside a 32 >>bit computer talking through a 16 bit bus. > >That's silly. PClones always talk to their disk, keyboard, and video display >via an 8 or 16 bit bus. Which is one of the many reasons why "Amiga does it better." :) [Of course, we do still have that 16bit video bus.. sigh {note video bus != '030 access to CHIP}] Also, when it's about $1700 on the line, this sort of things becomes an important factor... >>For VGA, one really wants the fastest transfer possible -- and that's ZorroIII >... But there are certainly more Zorro II >machines out there, so they would have to consider that aspect as well. Yeah, I understand that, but from what I've been hearing there will be quite an extensive A3000 installed base rather soon, and as these sorts of things take some time to design... Oh well, anyway, one can always dream :) David Navas navas@sim.berkeley.edu "Excuse my ignorance, but I've been run over by my train of thought." -me
Joseph P. Hillenburg (joseph@valnet.UUCP) (08/30/90)
Um...AMD now has a 20 mhz 286 and has had it out for some time. Intel now
makes a 20 mhz SX (Only used by Compaq and Dell)
-Joseph Hillenburg (Sultan of Asm)
INET: joseph@valnet.uucp |MAIL: 1709 West Gray
UUCP: ...!iuvax!valnet!joseph |MAIL: Bloomington, IN 47401
AT&T: 1-812-336-2969 |MAIL: United States
CompSci BBS: 3/12/24 1-812-876-4407 9:30 pm-7:30 am |Mail replies requested
Those aren't bugs! Just undesirable features!