chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (04/26/91)
Well, i was doing some thinking (a not so common occurance nowadays :) and i came up with some new ideas (or maybe not so new). These are my suggestions for a new improved amiga line: 1) An EXTREMELY low cost 500. this would be a totally re-designed 500 motherboard with ECS, NO Zorro expansion, built-in scsi, and a Pizza box (slab) design. my reasons for this are severalfold. MOST people who buy a 500 over a 2000 do so because "I don't want to expand, so why should i pay for all those slots". This should be marketed as a no-expansion machine as a feature, i.e. your not paying for something your not going to use. this is my largest qualm with the Mac LC, the no-slot, no-expansion is downplayed to such an extent that many people don't know that they can't expand it when they buy it. but i drift, this machine could make heavy use of VLSI to reduce cost. although the scsi controller would add to the cost, there being no expansion would reduce cost more i would think making it a net cheaper cost to produce. 2) A redesigned 2000. this would look more like a 3000, i.e. snazzier case design, backplane expansion. however i think it could be designed such all of the costly parts of having an expandible architecture could be placed on the backplane (i.e. busmaster, buffers, etc..) so that the machine could be sold without the backplane at a substantially less cost, then people could purchase the backplane when they were ready to expand. 3) A trade-up offer for 500 slab machines to higher machines. so that purchasing a low end machine doesn't mean you lose your investment. the traded up machines could be re-furbished and leased out, sold at a lower cost, or given to schools as a tax-break. If anyone has an address (email or USMail) of someone at commodore that might be interested in these and more comments i would appreciate it if they could send it to me. otherwise, i'd like to know what people think of these concepts. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
metahawk@itsgw.rpi.edu (Wayne G Rigby) (04/27/91)
In article <4702@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >Well, i was doing some thinking (a not so common occurance nowadays :) and i >came up with some new ideas (or maybe not so new). These are my suggestions >for a new improved amiga line: > >1) An EXTREMELY low cost 500. this would be a totally re-designed 500 >motherboard with ECS, NO Zorro expansion, built-in scsi, and a Pizza box Sounds very similar to the A500 (except for the SCSI), since the expansion really isn't a Zorro expansion per se. I'd really like to see the A500 in a small box with separate keyboard though. >(slab) design. my reasons for this are severalfold. MOST people who buy a >500 over a 2000 do so because "I don't want to expand, so why should i pay for >all those slots". This should be marketed as a no-expansion machine as a >feature, i.e. your not paying for something your not going to use. this is my >largest qualm with the Mac LC, the no-slot, no-expansion is downplayed to such >an extent that many people don't know that they can't expand it when they buy >it. but i drift, this machine could make heavy use of VLSI to reduce cost. >although the scsi controller would add to the cost, there being no expansion >would reduce cost more i would think making it a net cheaper cost to produce. The cost of setting up the new VLSI chips wouldn't be very cheap, though. >2) A redesigned 2000. this would look more like a 3000, i.e. snazzier case >design, backplane expansion. however i think it could be designed such all of >the costly parts of having an expandible architecture could be placed on the >backplane (i.e. busmaster, buffers, etc..) so that the machine could be sold >without the backplane at a substantially less cost, then people could purchase >the backplane when they were ready to expand. > >3) A trade-up offer for 500 slab machines to higher machines. so that >purchasing a low end machine doesn't mean you lose your investment. the >traded up machines could be re-furbished and leased out, sold at a lower cost, >or given to schools as a tax-break. > >If anyone has an address (email or USMail) of someone at commodore that might >be interested in these and more comments i would appreciate it if they could >send it to me. otherwise, i'd like to know what people think of these >concepts. > >.--------------------------------------------------------------------------. >| UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | >| ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | >| INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | >|-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | >| Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | >| welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | >`--------------------------------------------------------------------------' I think Commodore has already developed its new lowend machine: the A3000-16. The startup cost for any design is rather expensive, and starting up a line for a low end machine just really isn't worth it. Especially when there is a line that already exists that pretty much serves that area already. Commodore might repackage the A500 in a different case, kind of like C-64 -> C-64C. I don't really know how much this would cost, though. So starting up a lowend machine isn't really worth the effort, but starting up a line that's intermediate in level and has 90% or so (?) of the same parts as a higher end machine would be worth the effort. This machine would be more fairly expensive for a while but would drop tremendously over a period of 3-5 years. This is basically what happened with the A500 and A2000 series. I could see the A3000-16 cutting into A500 sales eventually (of course it'd be a very long time before the A500 is shelved). Also, nowadays, the A2000 really isn't very expensive. I wonder if Commodore is going to offer A3000's without hard drives so those who can't really afford the drive right off can still get the computer, and so some people can provide their own mass storage solutions without having to sell off the internal HD if they want a big internal drive. Wayne Rigby Computer and Systems Engineer (in training) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute metahawk@rpi.edu
DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu (04/27/91)
I hate it when someone suggests making another nonexpandible Amiga. What is the fascination with owning such a machine? Frankly, at least in the U.S. market, Commodore should drop the price of the 2000/2000HD so most people won't need to think about the 500. -- Dan Babcock
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (04/27/91)
In article <91116.143247DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu> DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >I hate it when someone suggests making another nonexpandible Amiga. What is >the fascination with owning such a machine? Frankly, at least in the >U.S. market, Commodore should drop the price of the 2000/2000HD so most people >won't need to think about the 500. > >-- Dan Babcock The trend througout the industry is towards non expandable systems. Ask Apple or Sun. Both have non-expandable machines. For those people who don't need expansion, especially to the enormous levels that the 2000 offers, why should they have to pay for it? It is NOT cheap to make a 2000 with 9 slots and 3 drive bays. -- Ethan "Brain? What is Brain?"
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (04/28/91)
DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >I hate it when someone suggests making another nonexpandible Amiga. What is >the fascination with owning such a machine? Frankly, at least in the >U.S. market, Commodore should drop the price of the 2000/2000HD so most people >won't need to think about the 500. > >-- Dan Babcock The reason is that expansion costs money. period, the end, final. no expansion, means cheaper system. the current 2000 is ugly, and should be redesigned. i know at least 3 people that went with clones over my insistant pleas to buy amiga's over asthetics. they didn't like the mouse, and thought the machine was ugly. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (04/29/91)
In article <4702@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >Well, i was doing some thinking (a not so common occurance nowadays :) and i >came up with some new ideas (or maybe not so new). These are my suggestions >for a new improved amiga line: Your ideas, as I will prove, are TERRIBLE! Who do you think you are, GOD? You can't just go and change everything! It costs MONEY! Well, actually I agree with you, but I like to see people put down great ideas all the time (like my Amiga 500 on an expansion card idea). > >1) An EXTREMELY low cost 500. this would be a totally re-designed 500 >motherboard with ECS, NO Zorro expansion, built-in scsi, and a Pizza box I agree with extremely low cost, but not necessarily with ECS. If ECS will keep the price the same, then go ahead and stick them in there! Built in SCSI should be standard on any new computers. I think Zorro could remain without hurting production costs, and I agree with a new case (I prefer a small tower case!). >(slab) design. my reasons for this are severalfold. MOST people who buy a >500 over a 2000 do so because "I don't want to expand, so why should i pay for >all those slots". This should be marketed as a no-expansion machine as a >feature, i.e. your not paying for something your not going to use. this is my All A500 expansion can also be done via CPU sockets. Such as ATonce IBM card, CI 8 meg ram card, CSA 68030, AdSpeed accelerator, Spirit SCSI/RAM, AMAX! II, AdIDE hard drive interface, etc. No one expected companies to use these types of expansion; I have a 40 meg drive and 4 megs ram without using my Zorro slot! >largest qualm with the Mac LC, the no-slot, no-expansion is downplayed to such >an extent that many people don't know that they can't expand it when they buy >it. but i drift, this machine could make heavy use of VLSI to reduce cost. >although the scsi controller would add to the cost, there being no expansion >would reduce cost more i would think making it a net cheaper cost to produce. IDE controllers seem to be a lot cheaper (I have seen them for $40 on clones). >2) A redesigned 2000. this would look more like a 3000, i.e. snazzier case >design, backplane expansion. however i think it could be designed such all of Unfortunately the slim-line case reduces the number of expansion slots and the 5.25 drive bay, but I could live with it! Too bad the a3000 doesn't have mouse ports in the front, though... >the costly parts of having an expandible architecture could be placed on the >backplane (i.e. busmaster, buffers, etc..) so that the machine could be sold >without the backplane at a substantially less cost, then people could purchase >the backplane when they were ready to expand. > >3) A trade-up offer for 500 slab machines to higher machines. so that >purchasing a low end machine doesn't mean you lose your investment. the >traded up machines could be re-furbished and leased out, sold at a lower cost, >or given to schools as a tax-break. A1000's can be bought for $150 through some mail-order houses. I think that the new Amiga 500 should replace all of the C64's that are still being sold! I agree with all of your ideas... I still think they should make an A500 on an expansion card, too! Imagine running an A2000 with a huge rendering and still have a free CPU without slowing down any work! >.--------------------------------------------------------------------------. >| UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | >| ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | >| INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | >|-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | >| Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | >| welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | >`--------------------------------------------------------------------------' -- David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3481 AMIGA DDD-MEN Tomas Arce Any students from SUNY Oswego? Please let me know! :) Un ragazzo di Casalbordino, Italia.
mascot@bnr.ca (Scott Mason) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr27.011028.12869@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > >In article <91116.143247DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu> DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >> >>I hate it when someone suggests making another nonexpandible Amiga. > > The trend througout the industry is towards non >expandable systems. IMHO, nonexpandable systems are disposable and are significant in the marketplace for only a brief spasm in time. The Apple ][ and the MSDOS crowd seem prime examples of systems which gained acceptance as more professional computers and have enjoyed enduring success. These systems have been able to evolve and incorporate current technologies. Amigas will remain game machines so long as nonexpandable units such as the A500 predominate, despite their current competance. Not all expandable systems enjoy success. It also seems important that third third party vendors get behind the product. Generally, when only the original vendor provides expansion HW the cost effectiveness of expansion or upgrade is usually less or equal to an entire new up-to-date system. Open, expandable systems are necessary, although not sufficient, for long term success and productivity. --
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (04/30/91)
In article <4424@bnr-rsc.UUCP> mascot@bnr.ca (Scott Mason) writes: > >IMHO, nonexpandable systems are disposable and are significant in the marketplace >for only a brief spasm in time. The Apple ][ and the MSDOS crowd seem prime >examples of systems which gained acceptance as more professional computers and >have enjoyed enduring success. These systems have been able to evolve and >incorporate current technologies. Amigas will remain game machines so long as >nonexpandable units such as the A500 predominate, despite their current >competance. > >Not all expandable systems enjoy success. It also seems important that third >third party vendors get behind the product. Generally, when only the original >vendor provides expansion HW the cost effectiveness of expansion or upgrade >is usually less or equal to an entire new up-to-date system. > >Open, expandable systems are necessary, although not sufficient, for long >term success and productivity. >-- So what's your point? The A2000 has 9 slots and 3 drive bays. Sounds expandable to me. And Commodore is hardly the only company making Amiga expansion hardware. Sounds like you've timewarped back 2-3 years. I don't know what system you're talking about but it doesn't resemble mine. And you are saying that because a machine is bought mainly by people who play games that the machineis a game machine. That's kinda like saying the thing I see Macs doing most often is the fireworks screenblanker so the Mac isn't capable of doing anything but running screenblankers. Oh, I just realized: The Apple II, a professional computer?? I don't think two years timewarp explains this afterall! -- Ethan "Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr29.165747.10393@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes: >In article <4702@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: > >>1) An EXTREMELY low cost 500. this would be a totally re-designed 500 >>motherboard with ECS, NO Zorro expansion, built-in scsi, and a Pizza box Hmm, you want to *add* things: SCSI, separated keyboard. How on earth do you think that will make it *cheaper*??? > All A500 expansion can also be done via CPU sockets. Yes, but always only *one* such device at a time. To use different ones, you won't open your Amiga everytime and change processor adaptor PCBs? > IDE controllers seem to be a lot cheaper (I have seen them for $40 on >clones). Perhaps. But when talking low price, you'll have to decide, SCSI *or* IDE, not both. They aren't free! -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (05/01/91)
In article <4734@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >>I hate it when someone suggests making another nonexpandible Amiga. What is >>the fascination with owning such a machine? Frankly, at least in the >>U.S. market, Commodore should drop the price of the 2000/2000HD so most people >>won't need to think about the 500. >> >>-- Dan Babcock > > >The reason is that expansion costs money. period, the end, final. no >expansion, means cheaper system. the current 2000 is ugly, and should be >redesigned. i know at least 3 people that went with clones over my insistant >pleas to buy amiga's over asthetics. they didn't like the mouse, and thought >the machine was ugly. > Just goes to show that great things come in ugly packages :) -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
mascot@bnr.ca (Scott Mason) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr30.042423.5721@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >In article <4424@bnr-rsc.UUCP> mascot@bnr.ca (Scott Mason) writes: >> >>Open, expandable systems are necessary, although not sufficient, for long >>term success and productivity. >>-- > > So what's your point? The A2000 has 9 slots and 3 drive >bays. Sounds expandable to me. And Commodore is hardly the only >company making Amiga expansion hardware. > And you are saying that because a machine is bought >mainly by people who play games that the machineis a game >machine. Lighten up Ethan. I may have an A1000, but I haven't time warped back anyware. This is another one of those "what CBM really should do next" threads. The theme of this thread is "CBM really needs to provide a less expensive alternative to the A500 by removing all expansion capability". I favour the A2000, A3000, A3000UX direction. No, of course the Amiga is not a game machine because many people play games on it. The A500 is more of a game machine because it is expensive and difficult to build a full-featured productivily machine out of it. Again, if CBM only made the A500 and cheaper bretheren, I would expect the Amiga line to die out once technology significantly surpassed it. --
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (05/01/91)
In article <4430@bnr-rsc.UUCP> mascot@bnr.ca (Scott Mason) writes: > >Lighten up Ethan. I may have an A1000, but I haven't time warped back >anyware. This is another one of those "what CBM really should do next" >threads. The theme of this thread is "CBM really needs to provide a >less expensive alternative to the A500 by removing all expansion >capability". I favour the A2000, A3000, A3000UX direction. Your message just kinda gave me the doomsayer impression, I actually looked for -MB- at the end of your message. 8) I've also long ago given up having the subject line relate even remotely to the thread. > >No, of course the Amiga is not a game machine because many people >play games on it. The A500 is more of a game machine because it is >expensive and difficult to build a full-featured productivily >machine out of it. Again, if CBM only made the A500 and cheaper >bretheren, I would expect the Amiga line to die out once technology >significantly surpassed it. >-- Your message did say "The Amiga is a game machine" because it wasn't an open system, and it sounded like you were saying that the IBM was an example of such a machine and the Amiga was the opposite. I've got no problem with improvement suggestions. 8) It just seems like this isn't the Amigas problem. Commodore offers you both sides, non-expandable, very-expandable and moderately expandable. (500, 2000 & 3000T, 3000). They all have their uses, it depends on what you want for your computer. This is why I keep advocating a barely expandable machine which comes already prepared with an internal HD and a socket for a display enhancer with 1MB of RAM and room on the motherboard for 2. Perhaps one video/Zorro slot onboard. That gives enough expandability for 95% of Amiga owners and is cheaper than the A2000 because it is less expandable. Admittedly I don't know too much about CBM's cost, but it has to be cheaper than a 3 bay, 9 slot machine. -- Ethan "Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (05/02/91)
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: >In article <1991Apr29.165747.10393@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes: >>In article <4702@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >> >>>1) An EXTREMELY low cost 500. this would be a totally re-designed 500 >>>motherboard with ECS, NO Zorro expansion, built-in scsi, and a Pizza box > >Hmm, you want to *add* things: SCSI, separated keyboard. How on earth >do you think that will make it *cheaper*??? Peter, (i hope you don't mind my getting on a first name basis, if so, please tell me) i said add scsi, but take away expansion. i didn't say the keyboard needed to be detatchable, as obosed to just being on a cord. it could be set up so that it was difficult to dis-connect the keyboard. thus reducing the chance that people would remove the keyboard while the system was on. the expensive parts of a removable keyboard over a non-removable are that they must have safeguard circuitry in case the keyboard is removed with the power on. if this were made much more difficult, the circuitry need not be there. i also said, in my original post that adding SCSI WOULD increase the cost but i felt the net cost reduction from removing the expansion would make it cheaper. > >> All A500 expansion can also be done via CPU sockets. > >Yes, but always only *one* such device at a time. To use different ones, >you won't open your Amiga everytime and change processor adaptor PCBs? I don't even think the 68000 should be socketed. it should be surface mounted or soldered like the 3000's. I am a firm beleiver that an entry level system should be as cheap as possible, and if you need more, buy a new system. that may sound unfeasable to alot of people, but look. Ibm's and Mac's and such can sell more machines by forcing people to continually buy new motherbards, or new models when their needs change, therefore they can make more profit, make and design newer more fantastic machines, ADVERTISE, and such. Amiga's on the otherhand.. people buy a 500 and hold onto it for 5 years, and never buy a new system. therefore commodore cannot make any more money off of them, only third party people who sell the expansions. I would bet the the number of actually USED machines is closer to the total number of Amiga's sold, which would put it at about the same size of user base. because apple sells 6 million macs, they forget to tell you that 4 million of them were uprades to previously sold 2 million users. get the picture? i'm not saying this is the case, but it's probably closer to reality than 6 million mac users with 6 million macs. > >> IDE controllers seem to be a lot cheaper (I have seen them for $40 on >>clones). > >Perhaps. But when talking low price, you'll have to decide, SCSI *or* >IDE, not both. They aren't free! > >-- >Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... >Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk / .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/03/91)
In article <!dwg!c+@rpi.edu> metahawk@itsgw.rpi.edu (Wayne G Rigby) writes: >In article <4702@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >>(slab) design. my reasons for this are severalfold. MOST people who buy a >>500 over a 2000 do so because "I don't want to expand, so why should i pay for >>all those slots".... this machine could make heavy use of VLSI to reduce cost. >>although the scsi controller would add to the cost, there being no expansion >>would reduce cost more i would think making it a net cheaper cost to produce. >The cost of setting up the new VLSI chips wouldn't be very cheap, though. >>2) A redesigned 2000. Well, keep in mind that what everyone thinks of as VLSI generally isn't. Unless you're talking about some proposal to put all three Amiga chips on a single chip, there is no VLSI needed to build a more integrated A500 type machine. In fact, there's very little on an A500 anyway, since most of the extra TTL parts of the A1000 were pulled into Gary, which is a small gate array. Those new Macs don't use VLSI, either, they just use somewhat larger gate arrays, more along the lines of the A3000's. And surface mount packages, which makes for a smaller motherboard. As for expansion costs, it depends on what you are talking about. Four A3000 Zorro III slots probably add around $100 cost to the system, taking into account the cost of the Buster, bus buffers, backplane, connectors, PCB space on the motherboard, and extra power supply. Certainly no more. The cost of an A500 expansion edge is nearly indistinguishable from free, unless you shrank the PCB down to the point where that edge would cost significant PCB space. You don't pay for power supply size or buffering, because there isn't any extra. A Zorro II backplane in an A3000-type configuration would be a bit cheaper than the Zorro III implementation, it takes the same extra power supply and same backplane, but the cheap thin Buster and fewer buffers, as long as a 68000 is the heart of the system (the 68000 replaces a good portion of what Buster adds to convert 68030 signals into Zorro II signals). You could put the buffers and bus controller on the expansion card, but it would eat the bottom Zorro slot, there's absolutely no room there on the A3000. >I think Commodore has already developed its new lowend machine: the >A3000-16. The startup cost for any design is rather expensive, and >starting up a line for a low end machine just really isn't worth it. That's true, though no A3000 is going to be considered "low end" as long as there are A500s around. That's what you'd call an entry-level high end machine, or cheap-ass high end machine, depending on your terminology. In general, you only start new computers every once and awhile, and then spin off that developed technology at several levels. A significant amount of redesign of the A1000 led to both the A500 and the A2000. The A3000 was another new one, and the first spinoff is the A3000T (who knows if there will be more). A2500, A3000UX, 16MHz vs. 25MHz are really just bundling options, not new machines, of course. > Wayne Rigby -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
lou@vaxsc (05/03/91)
In article <4778@orbit.cts.com>, Erik Funkenbusch <chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org> writes: >I don't even think the 68000 should be socketed. it should be surface mounted >or soldered like the 3000's. I am a firm beleiver that an entry level system >should be as cheap as possible, and if you need more, buy a new system. that >may sound unfeasable to alot of people, but look. Ibm's and Mac's and such >can sell more machines by forcing people to continually buy new motherbards, As colonel Potter would say, "Horse-Hockey!" Seriously, I disagree with this completely. Historically that has been the case, pushed primarily by the marketing prowess of such manufacturers as Microsoft, IBM, Compaq, and the various overseas (primarily Asian) clone manufacturers. In short, it's extremely wasteful (what do you think happens to those used motherboards, - recycling??? (ha!)) No, even the PC industry is beginning to wake up and realize this is not a good idea. If you need proof, check out all of the passive backplane EISA systems coming out, providing easy upgrade methods from 386sx to 486 to etc. And if the PC industry is smart enough to do something like this (which is usually behind everyone else), any other approach must surely be archaic. Of course, these are 32 bit systems from the start. But it's been done for some time with 16 bit systems as well. Particularly with industrial and military applications. > I would bet the the number >of actually USED machines is closer to the total number of Amiga's sold, which >would put it at about the same size of user base. because apple sells 6 >million macs, they forget to tell you that 4 million of them were uprades to >previously sold 2 million users. get the picture? i'm not saying this is the >case, but it's probably closer to reality than 6 million mac users with 6 >million macs. That's probably true. But average home users have two strikes against them to start off with. 1. Most average home users don't have upwards of $2500.00 to plunder into upgrading a computer system. If you use it for a business, or are a developer, this is not the case, but a hobbyist generally (unless they're rich, don't have kids, house, etc) won't have the money to spend on such upgrades. 2. Most average home users are also smart enough to realize that if the machine does the job for them, there's no reason for them to upgrade. Add on to it, perhaps, but not upgrade? Specifically since a home user can't write off depreciation of the machines on his/her taxes unless it's used strictly for business purposes. (Neat way to get audited by the IRS # 204, try this with a home machine, loaded down with games.) It all depends on what you want the machine to do for you. A growing business needs to upgrade. A typical household? - it's iffy at best. Usually, marketing will try to convince you that you MUST upgrade. But in reality, the truth is whether the machine still does what you bought it for. Not what marketing would have you believe. Especially since most computer purchases tend to be rendered obsolete before the ink on the check is dry, and return on the investment is minimal, at best. Entry level or not, the bottom line is, how much are you willing to waste just to upgrade. It seems ludicrous to have to waste an entire system, just because your needs dictate something a little more powerful, faster, etc. Of course, if you have Amiga's you're planning on sending to the landfill, I'll take them off your hands, and help you to save your conscience at the same time :-) Sorry, I didn't mean for this to get so long-winded. All of the above is strictly my own opinion. Disclaimers present everywhere. ---------------------------------------------------------------- -Lou Williams Via Bitnet : william8@niehs.bitnet Via Internet: lou@vaxsc.niehs.nih.gov Computer Sciences Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC ---------------------------------------------------------------- -Sometimes in order to feel better about yourself, you have to make others feel bad, and I'm tired of making others feel good about themselves. -Homer Simpson. ----------------------------------------------------------------
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (05/03/91)
In article <4778@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: >>In article <1991Apr29.165747.10393@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes: >> >>Hmm, you want to *add* things: SCSI, separated keyboard. How on earth >>do you think that will make it *cheaper*??? > >Peter, (i hope you don't mind my getting on a first name basis, if so, please ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ no problem :-) >tell me) i said add scsi, but take away expansion. You don't gain anything by taking away expansion, as Dave already stated. If you look closely, the expansion is hardly more than simply the processor pins plus one or two other signals led to broader traces. Done. Cheap. >i didn't say the keyboard >needed to be detatchable, as obosed to just being on a cord. it could be set >up so that it was difficult to dis-connect the keyboard. thus reducing the >chance that people would remove the keyboard while the system was on. the >expensive parts of a removable keyboard over a non-removable are that they >must have safeguard circuitry in case the keyboard is removed with the power >on. Never heard of that issue, but possible. I always believed the expensive point on a detachable keyboard is casing and more complicated assembling in factory. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
lshaw@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (logan shaw) (05/04/91)
In article <4778@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: >>In article <1991Apr29.165747.10393@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes: >>>In article <4702@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >>>>1) An EXTREMELY low cost 500. this would be a totally re-designed 500 >>>>motherboard with ECS, NO Zorro expansion, built-in scsi, and a Pizza box >>Hmm, you want to *add* things: SCSI, separated keyboard. How on earth >>do you think that will make it *cheaper*??? > >Peter, (i hope you don't mind my getting on a first name basis, if so, please >tell me) i said add scsi, but take away expansion. How much money do you think is going to be saved by taking away the expansion port? It's not all that complicated a bit of hardware. > i didn't say the keyboard >needed to be detatchable, as obosed to just being on a cord. it could be set >up so that it was difficult to dis-connect the keyboard. thus reducing the >chance that people would remove the keyboard while the system was on. the >expensive parts of a removable keyboard over a non-removable are that they >must have safeguard circuitry in case the keyboard is removed with the power >on. if this were made much more difficult, the circuitry need not be there. The problem with having a detachable keyboard (whether unpluggable or not) is that it requires you to have twice as many pieces of plastic and you can't use the current 500 case. It would cost C= money to design the new case, and to get the mass production of it up to speed. >i also said, in my original post that adding SCSI WOULD increase the cost but >i felt the net cost reduction from removing the expansion would make it >cheaper. That's nice and everything, but I think the cost of designing your product, getting it in mass production, and continuing to produce two versions would probably dwarf any of the cost savings gained by eliminating the expansion port. Personally, I think they ought to drop the A501 idea, and just put 1 megabyte in every machine while they're at it. _So_ many people buy A501s that's it's silly to not include them. (It would be neat if they put space for maybe 2 megs of fast ram on the motherboard...) At any rate, I'm not so sure Commodore's going to do it anyway, so this whole thing probably doesn't matter one bit... -Logan -- // # "He said that He had your number; you cut the telephone line. \X/ # You said you needed a reason; He said 'there ain't much time.' Logan # You kept trying to avoid it; He kept knocking on the door. Shaw # In a flash it was over; you were a prisoner of war." -Rez Band
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/04/91)
In article <4430@bnr-rsc.UUCP> mascot@bnr.ca (Scott Mason) writes: > This is another one of those "what CBM really should do next" > threads. The theme of this thread is "CBM really needs to provide a > less expensive alternative to the A500 by removing all expansion > capability". I favour the A2000, A3000, A3000UX direction. I don't see how they *could* build a cheaper 500 by removing expansion capability. The 500/1000 expansion slot only made it in the first Amiga (the 1000) because it had essentially zero cost. How do you get a cheaper system by deleting a zero-cost item? This reminds me of the 386SX/68EC030 design philosophy, and only works when the box is way overpriced to begin with. > Again, if CBM only made the A500 and cheaper > bretheren, I would expect the Amiga line to die out once technology > significantly surpassed it. Is anyone saying they should? Now, a keyboardless 500 might be a different matter. You would be able to plug a 2000 keyboard in if you wanted to. Sort of like a CDTV without the CD. The only problem here is that all those games expect a keyboard. Another idea would be some sort of standard cartridge slot, that could be SOTS on a 500 or a 1000 or replace the floppy drive in the baby machine. The support circuitry for the floppy would still be there, so you could stick an external box on for DF0:. The resuling Amiga 250 would still be as expandible as the 500, just for a little more money. Since it would have a detached keyboard, it might even be more popular for the Bodega Bay crowd. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (05/07/91)
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >Well, keep in mind that what everyone thinks of as VLSI generally isn't. >Unless you're talking about some proposal to put all three Amiga chips on a >single chip, there is no VLSI needed to build a more integrated A500 type >machine. In fact, there's very little on an A500 anyway, since most of the >extra TTL parts of the A1000 were pulled into Gary, which is a small gate >array. Those new Macs don't use VLSI, either, they just use somewhat larger >gate arrays, more along the lines of the A3000's. And surface mount packages, >which makes for a smaller motherboard. Well, i was considering reducing the chip count. such as integrating th 8520's and other support chips into a single chip. heck, i know this is stretching it, but Apple shrunk the entire motherboard of the Apple IIe onto one chip (the Mega II chip) and the technology isn't much less than that of the support circuitry on the 500. imagine looking inside a 500r (redesigned) and seing 5 chips, not includeing the cpu. > >As for expansion costs, it depends on what you are talking about. Four A3000 >Zorro III slots probably add around $100 cost to the system, taking into >account the cost of the Buster, bus buffers, backplane, connectors, PCB space >on the motherboard, and extra power supply. Certainly no more. The cost of >an A500 expansion edge is nearly indistinguishable from free, unless you >shrank the PCB down to the point where that edge would cost significant PCB >space. You don't pay for power supply size or buffering, because there isn't >any extra. A Zorro II backplane in an A3000-type configuration would be a bit >cheaper than the Zorro III implementation, it takes the same extra power >supply and same backplane, but the cheap thin Buster and fewer buffers, as >long as a 68000 is the heart of the system (the 68000 replaces a good portion >of what Buster adds to convert 68030 signals into Zorro II signals). You >could put the buffers and bus controller on the expansion card, but it would >eat the bottom Zorro slot, there's absolutely no room there on the A3000. That was the point. shrinking the PCB to a very small size. as for the 3000 style backplane on a 2000, my point there was that if it could be designed to place all the expansion circuitry possible on the backplane, and also make it possible for the machine to function properly without the backplane then the redesigned 2000 could be sold much cheaper. > >>I think Commodore has already developed its new lowend machine: the >>A3000-16. The startup cost for any design is rather expensive, and >>starting up a line for a low end machine just really isn't worth it. > >That's true, though no A3000 is going to be considered "low end" as long as >there are A500s around. That's what you'd call an entry-level high end >machine, or cheap-ass high end machine, depending on your terminology. In >general, you only start new computers every once and awhile, and then spin off >that developed technology at several levels. A significant amount of redesign >of the A1000 led to both the A500 and the A2000. The A3000 was another new >one, and the first spinoff is the A3000T (who knows if there will be more). >A2500, A3000UX, 16MHz vs. 25MHz are really just bundling options, not new >machines, of course. > >> Wayne Rigby > >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/10/91)
In article <4822@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>Well, keep in mind that what everyone thinks of as VLSI generally isn't. >Well, i was considering reducing the chip count. such as integrating th >8520's and other support chips into a single chip. That certainly COULD be done. I suppose the only reason it hasn't is that 8520s, for example, have been made practically forever. The 6526 used on the C64 is practically the same chip. So they're as cheap as sand, and while any larger package could save you a little in board space (might just fit in a 68 pin PLCC, I haven't checked), but cost you more in chip carrier and socket money. >heck, i know this is stretching it, but Apple shrunk the entire motherboard of >the Apple IIe onto one chip (the Mega II chip) and the technology isn't much >less than that of the support circuitry on the 500. Keep in mind that the Apple II was, originally, pure TTL. The video display was thirtysomething TTL chips. That's a trivial number of gates and also a trivial number of I/O pins on a gate array, most of the logic involves interconnection. Most of the A500 "glue" left is buffer chips and that kind of thing. You don't substantially save going to a custom chip vs. off the shelf TTL if you still need the same number of pins, unless that's real expensive TTL. Or unless you can make it up in PC board savings, which is certainly a possibility. >That was the point. shrinking the PCB to a very small size. as for the 3000 >style backplane on a 2000, my point there was that if it could be designed to >place all the expansion circuitry possible on the backplane, and also make it >possible for the machine to function properly without the backplane then the >redesigned 2000 could be sold much cheaper. Sure. Yeah, it could be done, and the price you pay would be one slot. This is essentially what Apple has done in their 20MHz 68030 machine, the IIsi. You have Yet Another New Slot, which is probably more like the A500's expansion edge (albeit 32 bits wide) than anything else. Your choice of modules, one gives you NuBus, the other, their PD slot. Of course, NuBus costs substantially more than Zorro II to implement -- bus controller, buffers, connector all cost more. And they have the problem of supporting two mutually exclusive slot "standards" in a machine with only one slot. So while it could be done, I don't know if it would save enough to make a difference. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
ayrjola@hut.fi (Ari Yrj|l{) (05/11/91)
In article <21457@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >That certainly COULD be done. I suppose the only reason it hasn't is that >8520s, for example, have been made practically forever. The 6526 used on the >C64 is practically the same chip. So they're as cheap as sand, and while >any larger package could save you a little in board space (might just fit in >a 68 pin PLCC, I haven't checked), but cost you more in chip carrier and socket >money. Seems like C= is making good profit when selling 8520s. In Finland they cost $65 and what I remember about US prices they aren't that much cheaper. On a Finnish Amiga e-mail list many are asking where to get 8520 cheap (me too, I have 6526 right now as CIA2). $65 for something as cheap as sand makes you wonder...;-) -- Ari Yrj|l{ Internet: ayrjola@hut.fi / JMT 3B 231b BITNET : LK-AY AT FINHUT / Money talks - 02150 ESPOO UUCP : ..!mcsun!santra!ayrjola / but not to me Finland, Europe VoiceNet: +358-(9)0-468 3088 :/
ronald@ecl014.UUCP (Ronald van Eijck) (05/14/91)
In article <AYRJOLA.91May11164724@hut.fi> ayrjola@hut.fi (Ari Yrj|l{) writes: > >In article <21457@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > >Seems like C= is making good profit when selling 8520s. In Finland >they cost $65 and what I remember about US prices they aren't that >much cheaper. On a Finnish Amiga e-mail list many are asking where >to get 8520 cheap (me too, I have 6526 right now as CIA2). $65 for >something as cheap as sand makes you wonder...;-) > >-- >Ari Yrj|l{ Internet: ayrjola@hut.fi / >JMT 3B 231b BITNET : LK-AY AT FINHUT / Money talks - >02150 ESPOO UUCP : ..!mcsun!santra!ayrjola / but not to me >Finland, Europe VoiceNet: +358-(9)0-468 3088 :/ I'll sell them to you for $30 just send me email! -- +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Ronald van Eijck uucp!cbmvax!cbmuhq!cbmnlux!ecl014!ronald | | | | We do the impossible at once for a miracle we need a little more time | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
kholland@hydra.unm.edu (Kiernan Holland) (05/14/91)
From kholland Mon May 13 15:46:25 1991 Received: by hydra.unm.edu (5.54/0.1) id <AA19341>; Mon, 13 May 91 15:46:09 MDT Date: Mon, 13 May 91 15:46:09 MDT From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON> Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown Message-Id: <9105132146.AA19341@hydra.unm.edu> To: kholland Status: R ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 mwills@x102a... Host unknown ----- Unsent message follows ----- Received: by hydra.unm.edu (5.54/0.1) id <AA19329>; Mon, 13 May 91 15:46:09 MDT Date: Mon, 13 May 91 15:46:09 MDT From: Kiernan Holland <kholland> Message-Id: <9105132146.AA19329@hydra.unm.edu> To: mwills@x102a Subject: Re: Just bought a "Power Up" A3000/25-50 Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc In-Reply-To: <6246@trantor.harris-atd.com> References: <1991May5.003042.29062@menudo.uh.edu> Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Cc: 1. What would be involved in a later upgrade from 16MHz to 25MHz? I'm told IBMers must swap entire motherboards. Could it be only a faster cpu and different clock (new crystal or is it solid state?) here? 2. What's involved in going from 50MB HD to 100MB or greater? Is there room and controller support for an additional drive? Whose? 3. What's needed to upgrade to Unix? I gather that it's not available (at least unbundled) yet from comp.unix.amiga... Are all the guys who have it developers? 4. Which DOS ROMs will I find in ------------------------ Well I wouldn't consider that, just wait for the 68040 upgrade coming later on this year (68040's are like 100Mhz 68030's). Don't worry about the hard drive problem. 52 Meg Hard drives (SCSI, since the 3000's have SCSI) sell for 300 dollars currently. You can also buy 100 meg hard drives for around 400 dollars. 210 Meg hard drives cost around 600 dollars. 2 megabytes of Static Column RAM cost 140 dollars (so you can get the full 16 megs for 1120 dollars with SCRAM). The 3000's use SCRAM ZIP, SCRAM 1X4, DRAM ZIP, DRAM 1X4. I Think 1X4 Dram's are going for 100 dollars per 2megs (but you do not get the 16 meg maximum unless you buy a ram card in addition to the motherboard ram. You can have upto 7 SCSI hard drives (daisy chained) so don't worry about hard drive space. The casing will only probably hold one more hared drive but there is a SCSI port on the back (32-bit by the way). Upgrade? Well the minimum I have heard is 40 Meg HD and 5 megs of ram. That's no problem really. I have seen the Amiga 3000/UX in performance and it is not all that great however you can use the Amiga side for system management (Imagine being able to move files using point and click). (I mean, on OS 2.0, you can select files graphically by point and click or using box select [like cut and paste features]) I got 2.01, but somebody (higher up CBM developer) told me that 2.02 works terrific. The ROMS don't seem to be inside the system any longer. It is now all stored in the hard drive (so you don't have to replace ROMS when you want to upgrade, and you can have multiple kickstarts, neat). Later