#A Clone Guy Thinks Amiga
33 messages in this thread
John, Why am I interested in an Amiga? (I'm not sure I actually want one)
I've always heard great things about the sound and video ad I guess I've
always had a latent desire for one – one that has been surpressed due to
the cost. The problem with only Commodore making Amigas is no competition.
If only IBM made MSDOS machines ya can bet I'd still be using my Old TRS-80
Model 1! Lately I have been TOYING with the idea after seeing the
multi-media segment on Computer Chronicles. What can I say? I was
impressed. To be able to use the IBM equivalent (The video in a window)
I'd have to buy someones $2500 card and that could buy a whole Amiga…
What it really comes down to is how much are Amigas retailing for? How much
is the 2000 with a 286 bridge card? The 2500 with same? (I heard bad
things about the 3000 so dont bother) IF I the Amiga setup I am interested
in could be had for the amount of money I could get for my modest 386
system I'd get it. I'd have to have MSDOS capability – thus the bridge
card orientation – because of software I've invested in over the years. I'm
basically trying to find out if I can gave my cake and eat it too… I
understand that no bridgecard (at least as of yet) could standup to my 20
MHZ 80386 but the other side of the machine would make it up – at least in
my inexperienced opinion.
Ah, if only Commodore would take my advice and come out with a AGA video
card (Amiga Graphics Adapter) and a sound card for MSDOS machines they'd
probally be a big hit – cut into VGA sales and 3rd party sound cards…
Jim Veneskey
Jim, you did'nt address your note to me, but indulge me? I'm not even close
to being an "expert," but you make some intriguing assertions. As to the
cost of the Amiga, I suspect that competition might decrease it a little,
but you yourself put the case very cogently when you correctly assess the
cost of duplicating multi-tasking capability alone. The 286 Bridgeboard for
the A2000 is regarded as pricey in some quarters, and some writers suggest
buying thge XT board and upgrading from there. Also, I understand that
MS-DOS compatibility is now available for the A500,at a cost that might
astound you. Jim, when you "heard bad things about the 3000 …", I just
think you got bamboozled. You might test the validity of some of what
you've heard in the computer press, and in some of the audio/visual and
video trade publications, for instance. To sum up, the Amiga personal
computer is not ever going to be quite as good a clone as the best clones
are. If that's your criterion, don't be deceived. I DO suugest that a
thorough investigation will show you that Commodore, despite its historic
inability to MARKET this machine, can offer you a level of performance and
workability that you haven't been exposed to yet.
*** RJE ***
My sum total knowledge of the A3000 came from this guy at Computability
(Whom I called since they dont advertise prices) who said that (memory is
failing) due to a upgrade in workbench or desktop (forgive my ignorance)
whatever, that alot of programs were now incompatible. Just which, I
did'nt ask since It would'nt have meant much to me. He was selling the
3000 for $3000 and the 2500-30 for $3500. I still dont understand why the
newer machine is cheaper. I am by no means attempting to insult Commodore
or Amigas in specific. If anything, I'm envious! Why I replied to you in
particular? Whereas you may not be an expert your a darn sight closer to it
than I am!
Jim Veneskey
Jim:
The 2500 has more expansion capability than the 3000, but the 3000
comes with alot built in that the 2500 needs extra boards for. Without
putting ANY cards in the 3000, you have a 68030/68882, SCSI interface, and
the ability to put a total of 18megs directly on the motherboard. That
capability would use up all of the available Amiga slots on the 2500, while
the 3000 still has all slots empty.
Clint <VRLI>
Jim,
The 2500/030 is older, but it has far more slots in it than the A3000. With
the '030 board, you get *nearly* as much speed, but you have four Amiga
slots and four MS-DOS slots, making it much easier to configure the machine
the way you want it. Also, the 2500-/030 is not all that old. This
particular version was introducted around the first of this year. Once 2.0
is available for it (sometime in September, we think), it will have the
same screen appearance and capabilities as the 3000. Both machines will be
supported for quite some time to come, and people will choose the one that
best fits their needs. The 2500/030 can run UNIX when that is available,
too. It does not have the full 32-bit bus that the 3000 has, but it does
have some other nice features.
.Betty
Betty,
This is the PERFECT thread for me to air my doubts/concerns re:
upgrading to the 3000. I started in '86 with a 1000 (obviously) and
upgraded to a FlickerFixed, CMI accelerated (a little, inexpensive boost),
now 5 meg with 235 meg hard drive A2000 1 1/2 years ago. My machine works
fine. BUT, the 3000 is SO NEAT…. The 2000 can be accelerated with an
A2630 board, BUT that particular board is limited to 4 megs of 32 bit
memory and it isn't SCRAM….bummer. I think CBM should upgrade the 030
board to bring it more in line with the 3000 but that MIGHT be a marketing
mistake, I don't know. My 2000 will STILL have a 68000 so the various
programs that choke on a faster processor will remain usable. The 3000 has
TWO megs of CHIP memory and I don't know if my 2000 will ever have that;
remembering how precious CHIP memory was before the addition of 1) FAST
memory and 2) the fat Agnus, it is hard not to be lured by the idea of 2
whole megs of CHIP. I REALLY can't AFFORD a 3000…. but I have never let
that stop me in the PAST >:-) What's REALLY the best accelerator all
around for the 2000 AND, does anyone REALLY know how long before there will
be an 040 board for the 2000???? (Drool….) SO…. what does anyone have
to say?
Scott
Good questions, Scott – and a pretty good analysis of the way many of us
feel. Some people just have to have the newest machine, regardless of
other considerations. At first, I was disappointed that I had bought a
2500/030 only a few weeks before the 3000 became available. After the
first flash of disappointment over not having the latest and greatest, I'm
quite happy with what I have, and have no plans to move to the 3000 any
time soon. I think it is a very personal decision that each person must
make for himself.
I'll let the other folks tell you about the '040, etc. I don't know, and
don't like to just guess.
BTW, Jim, as you appear to be looking for mail-order, before you buy ask
here for people's experiences with that company. Go Amigo and Briwall have
generally good reputations, but there are many that are just ripoff houses.
— Ethan
I think the person who made the remarks about incompatability to you was
really referring to the new 2.0 operating system. The A3000 comes with both
new (2.0) and old (1.3) versions of AmigaDOS, and can be switched easily to
1.3 if a compatability problem should arise.
Well, since the A3000 isn't a machine that wasn't designed for a
bridgeboard from the outset, that is out of the question, like you said.
[AIf you are not planning on selling your machine, data transfer between an
Amiga and an IBM with 3 1/2" disks is an easy matter, as there are plenty
of programs both PD shareware and commercial that turn and Amiga diskdrive
into an IBM disk drive. As for prices, an AT bridgeboard goes for about
$650 I think, an A2000 with just one floppy no monitor would go for about
$1200 (again, I think), A 1084 monitor would go for about $350, and a hard
disk controller and 50M drive would probably go for about $650. So overall
price would be about $2800 for an unaccelerated Amiga with MS-DOS
capability and CGA. Add either a 2630 commodore 68030 accelerator for the
Amiga, or a third party board, and you can tack on an additional $800 to
$3000 to the machine(the $3000 board runs 25% faster than a Mac IIfx).
Actually, though CBM is the only manufacturer of the Amiga, the Amiga
probably still has the best overall price performance ratio of any Micro
maker. I don't know of *anybody* that produces a machine that animates as
well as an Amiga, produces sound like an Amiga, and multitasks as well as
the Amiga, at five times the price(an Amiga 500 with monitor is $1100).
John
John, a few rather major corrections. First, the AT BridgeBoard costs
significantly over $1,000, more like $1,300.
Secondly, the Amiga 300 was DEFINITELY designed to be BridgeBoard
compatible! There are IBM slots in there. The problem is that the current
BridgeBoards don't work right on the machine according to Commodore,
although I have a local dealer who swears he got it to work. Apparently the
combo isn't solid yet. You can be sure Commodore isn't planning on leaving
it that way!
— Ethan
I was taking a WAG(wild *** guess) with the AT bridge, so you're probably
right. With the 3000 though, you only have two IBM slots to work with, so
you can maybe put a RAM expansion and a VGA card in there, and that's it.
The problem with the using the 3000 with a bridge is that expansion is just
not feasible. You just don't have the ability to upgrade the IBM side like
you do with the 2000. So while you *can* put a bridgeboard in a 3000,
would you *want* to?
John
Well, you should consider that the AT BB comes with 1MB of RAM which is
enough for MOST IBM uses, certainly not all of course. It is more than
capable of running WordPerfect on a network, for example.
As to expanding the BB capabilities, The Big C. has said many times that
he has a strong commitment to improving the BridgeBoards, so I would
imagine you'll see better support for it in the future.
Finally, don't forget the heavily rumored 3500 which is supposed to be a
tower Amiga. There most definitely IS an A3500 in design as we speak
because in the schematics for the A3000 they describe a jumper's
configurations as being different for the 3000 vs. the 3500! Besides, a
tower config. should be easy considering the way the slots are put into the
3000 currently.
— Ethan
Right now though, a 2000 with gvp/2500 is preferable to the 3000 if you
want to use the bridgeboard, because the 2000 amigas have the extra slots.
If in the future, CBM makes a bridgeboard that has more
capabilities(ega/vga and com ports built in) then it would be feasible for
the 3000.
John
John, giving Commodore the benefit of the doubt, I have always assumed that
the A3000 was designed for a Bridgeboard that isn't on the market yet. Can
you imagine a HD controller and maybe VGA and 2 megs of RAM onboard the new
BB?
I know nothing – pure guess on my part. Rob.
You don't need a hd controller because Janus can take care of that, but you
do need vga and a serial port.
You do today, but I assume those things might be built in on some future
BB, you know the A2486 model. Rob.
The A3000 does have accomodations for the Bridgeboard, and something the
2500 will never have… 32-bit expansion slots.
Jim, just want to take issue with one thing you said. 'I've heard bad
things about the 3000 so don't even try.'
Well, I own one and haven't the slightest idea what you could have
heard. The only problems have been with games. Many games aren't prepared
for a faster/better processor and crash in the wildest ways. That isn't to
say all games crash, but this is hardly the basis on which to buy a
computer, at least not a 3000.
Currently the A3000 has both the old operating system (1.3) and the new
one (2.0). You choose which you want when the computer boots. Some things
don't work right with 2.0, but that will change real fast as sometime in
September (according to Commodore) they will be shipping 2.0 to all
machines, not just the 3000. Already there are new releases coming out.
Even so, software compatibility is quite good, although not perfect.
What, my ask, did you hear about the 3000?
— Ethan
As per My earlier message, my conversation with the guy at Computability
must have been about the new operating system. He did'nt mention that you
could still use the older OS with out compatability problems. I did'nt mean
for my ignorance to tromp on your toes…
Jim
My toes can handle a few trompings now and again. 8)
BTW, you can expect the new operating system to be pretty well standard
among all serious users of the Amiga by middle of next year is my guess.
Companies are going to HAVE to release the updates. BTW2, most of the
changes are relatively minor. Compatibility is quite good considering how
revised the new O/S is.
As an example of my reasoning that the changes will be simple, I take
WordPerfect. Their current release doesn't work correctly, but the
next-to-most-recent release works without problems. It's Murphy's Law that
bug fixes create more bugs to be fixed!
— Ethan
s
The fellow at Computability was right, he just didn't give you full
information. The version of AmigaDOS 2.0 currently being shipped with the
3000 is a beta version, and is undergoing firaly constant upgrades, as the
growing base of users put it through its paces. From what I hear, the most
recent versions are very good, but still have a few nits and nats to work
out. Sometime over the next two to three months, the OS should go to final
stage, and the upgrade to a final, ROM based OS is, I hear, free. At that
time, owners of the A2000 series will be able to upgrade to the 2.0 OS as
well (not free, of course). At that point the only thing that will break
are software packages which broke the rules.
ANY Amiga with a 68020 or higher cpu and MMU capability can map ANY of the
Amiga operating systems to RAM, BTW. I do that now with OS 1.3, 'cause it
makes the machine faster. I have the ROM code mapped to RAM during
boot-up, and the system calls are redirected to this area of RAM.
If you do get an Amiga for its sound and graphics capabilities (which is
why I got mine), I suspect you will quickly become quite impressed with its
overall abilities. For example, you don't need printer drivers for every
d*mned application — the driver for your printer is system wide. It's
abilities to multi-task programs and permit them to control and communicate
with each other (even programs from different vendors) are downright
astounding. At this point, I try to avoid working with MSDOS if at all
possible, because I always feel like I have lead boots on compared to the
Amiga. 😉
I read an item last night on Usenet…from Jeff Scherb, Vice
President of Commodore Applications and Technical Support (CATS).
As of June, when the A3000 hit the streets, v2.0 was officaly a
release version, not a beta version.
However, he did also state that work is continuing on it to remove
the last few incompatabilities (as far as possible) prior to it being put
into ROM.
So yes, work is still being done, but it's no longer a beta version
that's comming with the A3000.
Don, that, if you'll pardon my french, is a load of feces. The version of
2.0 that is on the a3k is beta quality, no mattter WHAT cbm wants to lable
it for marketing reasons. And from *my* point of view (which admittedly is
opinionated… nah! <grin>) until you can put it on a 500, it's not even
worth thinking about for developement purposes. Even the more recent
version of 2.0 that we (developers) have isn't as solid as it might be…
and CBM knows that. You didn't see them trying to fix 1.3 – because it was
reasonably solid, or so they thought. THe level of effort that CBM is
putting into 2.0 work right now is unprecedented – which is wonderful – but
clearly indicates that the current "release", isn't.
I was simply repeating what Jeff said…the message I was refering
to was directly from him…not someone else at CBM or some rumor. I
personally am aware that the current OS being shipped with the 3000, and
what we have as developers is not the final version that's going to be put
into ROM. BUT, that doesn't make the current release version beta
software. It simply means that what is released, is not yet stable enough
to burn into stone. It's available to the general public (as long as you
buy an A3000) and the current developer's version is clearly labeled 2.01.
That tells me that 2.0 is finalized, 2.01 is a bug-fix version (and not
available to the general public) and I suspect it'll be 2.02 or 2.03
that'll be put into ROM. I realize that the above is all semantics…after
all, when is an OS ever fully "done" and do you know of any OS that is 100%
bug free? As long as it's a current OS (any OS)…I'd bet that somewhere,
someone is working on newer versions of it.
I know it wasn't your words – it's CBMs, more or less. Bunkum, I say.
Ben
Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
2.01 was a Kickstart revision to fix "seeking on an empty file open for
write" problems. Yeah, I still consider it BETA too, until i can take that
darn daughterboard for the "ROM" out of the 3000 and put in real roms. 🙂
Harry M.
What exactly IS that daughterboard in the A3000 anyway?
— Ethan
Ethan,
Technically the daughterboard on the 3000 is the vertical
board in the center of the motherboard that contains the expansion bus
connectors. I was making somewhat of a joke in that the current roms in
the 3000 consist of a printed circuit board with roms on it and who knowes
what else sitting upside down and connected to the normal rom sockets by
extension pins. It reminded me of the A1000 daughterboard. One would
probably remove the rom board and install the final roms right onto the
motherboard (hopefully) 🙂
Harry Manolopoulos
Make that a "gamma" version — commerical, but first generation commerical.
Ray,
Gamma is what the developers have…it's 2.01. What the users have
is by definition, a release version (albeit a version with some bugs still
to be tromped).
Don
Ethan:
I think that one of Jim's requirements was that it work with the
bridgeboard, which currently the 3000 doesn't. I expect that Commodore will
fix this shortly, but that is how it stands currently. The 3000 as an Amiga
is great.
Clint <VRLI>