#A1200 LAUNCHED IN UK!!!
48 messages in this thread
Hi Guys,
The A1200 was officially launched by Commodore UK in London
yesterday.
Specs include 14Mhz 68020 and 2Mb Chip RAM. The new AGA chipset
will, also, be included.
The Amiga will be released in an A600 casing that has a numeric pad
grafted onto the side. All other ports, etc, remain as per the A600. A
number of software houses were showing screens of new games that take
advantage of the the new chipset – Microprose being one of them. EA were
showing an AGA compatible Deluxe Paint.
Price? 399 pounds.
I know that Microprose were disappointed that the A1200 doesn't
include HD floppies to lower disk swops (more as a reaction to the 2mb Chip
RAM). However, on the whole the software houses present were very happy
with the release.
Paul
AGA games? COOL! And the 399 pound price is GREAT! I was expecting it to be
higher, closer to 499.
Remember, the A600 was 399 pounds only a few months ago. Bet some people
are going to feel goofy about buying those.
Actually, probably not. From what I read of letters pages in many UK mags,
there are a lot of people who'd prefer the 600 at the same price
simply because it's more compatible with the 5 pound budget game they
bought last year… Sigh.
Hi Denny,
Yea, agree with the A600 price point issue. But isn't this, yet
another, example of the paternal attitude that `single product' (for want
of a better phrase) computer companies exhibit? Apple is *exactly* the
same. Although I really referring to new model releases without prior
warning (both Apple and Commodore are guilty of this) rather than price
drops. On the other hand, PC owners are going through a parallel
experience – they buy a new PC and the price drops a 100 pounds the
following month. I've tracked a 486 that I'm interested in buying drop 400
pounds in the past sixt months. The penalty of progress I guess.
I don't follow your last point – what does the price point have to
do with compatibility? (It's late, if I've missed a subtlety, forgive me.)
Paul
Paul,
I was just saying that by the gripes I'd seen in some UK mags about the
A500 Plus, that it seems there are many users over there who are far more
concerned about compatibility with ancient cracked games and eurodemos
than performance and ease of use. And that these people will probably like
the A600 better. (And call Commodore stupid for making the 1200
"incompatible" with some games, even though it's the game authors'
faults.)
Hi Denny,
Yes, you have a point re. compatibility. However, the users who do
complain tend to be people who have spent good money on umpteen games at
around 20 pounds or so a time. When they buy an `upgraded' machine they
expect it to run run their existing library of software (non-cracked,
true-blue stuff). When it doesn't you get the backlash. New users don't
care 'cause their, newer, library holds more `disciplined' software. Yes,
the programmers deserve some flak bu I think Commodore should take some of
the blame for `wayward' games software, here. They should have been more
forceful, as Apple were, enforcing OS rules and guidelines.
Paul
PS: Atari, of course, are the worst offenders – witness the STe debacle.
How is CBM to be forceful regarding OS rules? Firebomb the offices of
developers who don't follow the guidelines? It's very difficult to
determine for sure whether a program DOES follow the guidelines, until an
OS breaks a piece of software – is CBM to hire software engineers to
deassemble machine code and look for illegal usages? <g>
No, lousy programmers get the blame in my book. (Or I should say, good
programmers but lousy software engineers).
ex
Robert,
If you read my message I did say that programmers should shoulder
some of the blame. However, if I can throw a metaphor at you, Commodore
(from the off) sailed a wayward ship. They failed to give the HMS Amiga
much direction (except a very general one) or offer it much discipline.
At Apple, when Steve Jobs was developing the MAC with his team, he
convinced several developers that the MAC was worth developing for (well
before the machine was launched). He then hovered in the background making
sure that the software attained a uniform look and feel, followed the MAC
guidlines and so on. To reign-in adventurous programmers, the MAC team
included over 500 features, burned into the Apple chips. These were
features that programmers, themselves, would normally develop. Hence,
with this new computer, these programmers found no need to create their own
tricks to aid development. An important time to offer close support. Why?
Well, when the MAC was launched the majority of MAC programmers found no
great need to adopt a wayward programming stance (sure it happened later
but the majority had already been `house-trained' creating a neat knock-on
effect along with Apple's aura (or hype) of a new religion in computers.
Rousing stuff).
This sort of enthusiasm just didn't occur with the Commodore.
Hence the ever-present problems with illegal programs. Let's face it the
MAC was the `Gospel according to Jobs', the Amiga was a business
proposition for Commodore.
I stand by my statement. Commodore could (should) have done a lot
more before initial release. It would have increased a uniform look and
feel and lowered the rebel element in the programmer's union.
Paul
Actually CBM does hire software engineers to disassemble "problem"
programs. That is why there are so many "compatibility hacks" in the 2.04
operating system. They put a lot of work into work-arounds to continue
supporting programs that broke the rules. In some cases, the programmers
could be "excused" because the rules were never clearly stated. In other
cases, programmers just made some erroneous assumptions about undocumented
behavior. Commodore engineers really bent over backwards to support a lot
of programs.
Some things that were found were so flagrantly illegal that they were not
supported. Other things would have required too much extra code (it's
amazing how fast the ROM space fills up) to maintain a compatibility hack.
Still, IMHO, they did a heck of a job!
– BobR
I have to agree Bob, CBM did a heck of a job trying to support those
errant programs with 2.04. I could see improvement with each release of
2.x for the 3000 during the beta releases, and 2.04 fixed a lot of broken
software with the compatability hacks.
John – K7KB (Flying via AutoPilot)
Paul,
I disagree, C= is under NO obligation to 'enforce' the rules as you
say. C= were (and still are) VERY explicit about what is and is not legal
on the Amiga. A program we wrote in 1986 still runs on the current
machines (yes, we've updated it to take advantage of the new stuff).
So…in summary IT IS THE PROGRAMMERS FAULT THEIR GAMES DON'T RUN ON THE
NEW MACHINES. Print that in bold type on the inside of your eyelids.
Dr Vic,
While I am not in favour of Do-it-Yourself Surgery I will attempt
to deal with your point.
I don't think I used the word "enforce" when talking about
legal/illegal software. My message dealt more with `encouraging'
programmers to do their `duty'. Apple didn't `enforce' their developers to
stick with their look and feel (at least not initially) when they were
developing the MAC. What they *did* do was to provide as much help and
encouragment to developers and programmers alike. I have heard *many*
programmers declare that, in the early days, Commodore were not exactly the
excited evangelists that Jobs and Co. showed themselves to be. The Amiga
was a financial life-saver, it wasn't a way of life. They didn't, in
effect, care *that* much.
I can bet that: Yes, Commodore are very explicit about the rules
re. Amiga software development; True, also, they are under no obligation to
encourage people to follow them; Yes, programmers should take their share
of the blame on producing illegal software (a fact I mentioned in my
original message). BUT Commodore could have done a hell of a lot more to
encourage programmers, to remove any reason why they *should* want to
produce illegal software, to afford some back-up and support instead of the
half-hearted attempts they have provided over the years, etc, etc. Like I
say, take Apple as a comparision. Their situation is not a perfect one but
they made *that* much more effort and got *that* much more reward from it.
Paul
You thought Commodore should share some of the blame for broken games?
Not even a little, the game writers are 100% guilty of asking for trouble,
they screwed up and it's now time to try and explain away.
Paul
<You thought Commodore should share some of the blame for broken games? >
Re-read my original message re. Apple. Sure, Apple have illegal
software problems but not as great as Commodore. Commodore did not make
great efforts to train, if I can use that word, programmers into an Amiga
`culture'. In fact, they tended to create their own. Commodore have always
had a `hands-off' approach to the Amiga which does have benefits in that it
allows Amiga developers to soar the heights without being tied down. On the
other hand, it also encourages programmers to go `illegal'.
I disagree with you. Yes, programmers should take some of the blame
but Commodore should also take a piece of that particular cake as they, in
my eyes, have done next to nothing to prevent/restrain/curb illegal
programming. Like I say, take Apple as a handy comparison.
Paul
Paul,
I have to disagree with you… if you read through the (mounds of)
documentation provided by C-A (and CATS), time and time again, you'll run
across text to the effect of 'do it this way and we'll make every effort to
keep you working' and (more to the point) 'do it this way and you are
_guaranteed_ to break'.
There are a lot of other examples, and there are some 'grey' areas, but
I think you'll find that the programs that break tend to be game programs,
and tend to do things that were specifically documented as being 'illegal'
on this machine. Then of course, there's MS Amiga BASIC which used the
upper bits of pointers for thier own needs, but we all know about MS (maybe
we should cut them some slack, after all, they've been programming brain
dead computers for years…. nah).
Sure, C-A has thier part in promoting good software practices and in my
view (and many others, I'm sure) they've done an outstanding job. But if
you don;t read the info suplied, or choose to ignore it, you (the
programmer) are the _sole_ person to blame when it breaks.
– Keith
Someone correct me if I'm wrong. "If the Amiga 4000 has a fallback mode
all the way back to the OCS, Shouldn't the 1200, thus making it compatible
with all software?????
Peter
Live from New York on Autopilot
Paul,
That fallback mode you mention is part of AmigaDOS 3.0, so I'd assume any
machines running AmigaDOS 3.0 will have it.
Paul,
Is there a show going on in London now? If so, what is it and where?
Thanks for any info.
-Sean
Hi Sean,
It's not a show – press only, I'm afraid. I'm the editor of an
Amiga mag called Amiga Mart. One of my writers attended the show (I was
busy getting the next issue out <g>).
Paul
Paul,
Just curious. If it had been open to the public I guess I would have
heard of it. Thanks for filling me in.
-Sean
Hi Sean,
No Problem…and don't forget, Amiga Mart is out every month at a
measly 95p, without needless and expensive cover-disks, from your favourite
newsagents and packed with all kinds of pure, wholesome Amiga information
that is digestible for all of the family. It is ecologically friendly,
doesn't leave inky finger-prints and protrudes from the back-pocket of Levi
jeans in a jaunty fashion.
Issue 3 is on the shelves now. Thankyou (smiles, with the light
twinkling off his capped teeth).
Paul (Glorious Editor of the Illustrious Amiga Mart)
PS: We should have the first pictures of the Amiga 1200 on the front cover
for issue 4.
Paul,
I'll have to look for it. Is WH Smith stocking it? The only British
mag I regularly buy is Computer Shopper, but I'll give yours a chance
:-).
-Sean
Hi Sean,
Yep, Mr Smith has the honour of holding, in his proverbial retail
mittens, stocks of our mag.
Give it a go. You might be disappointed (well, nothing is certain
is it? <G>).
Paul
Paul,
I'll go have a look tomorrow.
-Sean
Paul,
I thought I remembered replying to your message last night, but I woke
up this morning not seeing a 'replied' message next to your header so I'm
replying now… I'm going to head on up to WHS today and check your mag
out. Also, I had meant to say in my previous message that I regularly
read Amiga Shopper, not Computer Shopper ;). Thanks for the info.
-Sean
I too have been reading the A1200 specs (on USENET).
From what I read, the A1200 has a 68020 rated for 14Mhz, but it is being
run at the same speed as the A500/600 (7.16Mhz.) however, it is still
five times as fast as a 68000.
Ron.
Ron,
That sounds daft to me. Why would anyone bother to run a 14Mhz chip
at a lower than rated speed? Also, how can it still be five times faster
than a 68000? Maybe twice as fast – but five?!
Anyway, I rang Commodore's PR agency, they quoted a spec sheet
which states that the A1200 runs at 14.19Mhz (PAL) and 14.32Mhz (NTSC). I
believe that someone on Usenet is winding you up.
Paul
5x speed seems reasonable for a 14-MHz '020. An 020 is to a vanilla 000 as
a 386 is to a 386; 5x seems in the ballpark.
Robert,
[5x speed seems reasonable for a 14-MHz '020. An 020 is to a vanilla 000
as a 386 is to a 386; 5x seems in the ballpark.]
Yes, I agree with you. But you said that the 020 would be running
at 7Mhz, even though it it rated at 14Mhz. It was at that point that I
disagreed with you. It is pointless to run a chip below its rated speed.
Also, it would not run 5x faster at the 7Mhz speed.
BTW, do you mean `as a 286 is to a 386'?
Paul
Hi Robert,
Sorry, Roland Romine stated the speed info re. the A1200. Of course
it wasn't yourself. Anyway, that's why my answer was as it was.
Paul
Robert,
Installing a 14MHz '020 card in an A2000 gives you only about a 4x
speed increase.
Don
Don,
The 2620 had an MMU on it that added a wait state for every memory
access. Without that wait state, 5x seems reasonable.
Dean
DKB Software
Dean,
Durn…you're right, forgot about the MMU adding a wait state.
Don
In a net conversation with Dave Hanie at Commodore, he said that the '020
would genereate 5x performance increase *if* the software took advantage of
the data caches etc.. otherwise it would be 2-3x performance….
-Jonathan
Oops!
There was a missing word. It said,t not ONLY twice as fast as the
A500/600, but can run five times faster using the Cache.
Ron.
Sorry Ron, but are you still saying that the A1200 is running at a basic
7Mhz? I am pretty sure that's wrong.
Otherwise, yes, the bare chip running at 14Mhz still doesn't make much
difference until to kick the Fast RAM (is that what you mean by `Cache'?)
into action. (Assuming the A1200 runs Fast RAM)
Paul
No, I'm no longer saying the A1200 runs at 14Mhz. I misread the file.
It does say it runs at twice the speed of a A500/600, which are 7Mhz.
I had mistaked a "not only" as being a "not".
If I read correctly, the A1200's architecture is 14Mhz, with a 14Mhz
68020 (680ec20) CPU. With the CPU's 256 byte Instruction cache, the
system runs about five times as fast as the A500/600.
ALL the chips, including the AGA chips runs at 14Mhz.
Ron.
Hi Ron,
Phew! Glad that's sorted out. <G>
Paul
The EC020 has a full 32 bit data bus I thought. If so I would expect of a
14MHz machine something closer to a 4:1 speedup for starters and up from
there. My A2620 was more than 4 times faster than an A1000. And it had to
mush through the MMU that the EC chip doesn't have.
{@_@}
If I got my info straight…
I the EC020 is 32-bit, but the "address" bus i s24-bit, instead of
32-bit. This limits it to 16-megs, like the 68000. It also lacks the
MMU support.
As for the A1200 being only twice as fast (5x with Instruct.cache), I
believe they are including shared access to the CHIP memory. The A1200
will be able to access CHIP memory twice the speed as the A500 & A2000.
Access to FAST memory will probably be faster.
Ron.
– ap'ing with AP. (Eagles may fly, but weasles aren't sucked
into jet engines.)
399#???? That is cheaper than the A600!?!?!?! Not sure I believe that
one!
{@_@}
The A600 are now only #299 (English pounds), and #499 for the A600HD.
(Can anyone tell me how to generate the English pound symbol, with AP?)
Ron.
– ap'ing with AP. (Eagles may fly, but weasles aren't sucked
into jet engines.)
To generate the English pound symbol you must use the the British keymap.
However, unless everyone else is using that keymap they won't see it as a
pound sign but whatever character is mapped to that key in the keymap they
are using.
-sja
RBR> Can anyone tell me how to generate the English pound symbol,with AP?
Try, R-Alt L (that's Right-Alt L), eg. #499
//
Lee Olsen / Orlando, FL – on AutoPilot \X/
Lee,
One problem with that: it requires 8-bit ASCII, while CIS probably
chops it down to standard 7-bit. When the pound symbol (hex: A3) gets
chopped, it becomes the hash? number? symbol (#, hex: 23).
# will probably look the same as # to you when you read this message.
=Edjs- on AutoPilot
Hi Joanne,
The A600 is sold for 299 pounds in the UK. The A1200 *is* being
sold for 399 pounds. As the editor of a UK Amiga mag I have to be sure of
my facts (ma'am) <g>.
Paul
Paul,
Does that #399 A1200 include a hard drive? If so, how big? How many
different configurations of the A1200 is British C= marketing? Got any
pictures you could scan and upload? Any official press releases you could
post? <giggle>
I'm getting a real kick out of this rapid information flow. C= is, in a
sense, being outgunned by the very technology it helped create. Maybe
this'll convince the folks at the top to coordinate their announcements
better next time. 😉
-Dave (via AutoPilot)
Paul,
Which magazine do you edit ? I want to make sure I read all about the
A1200…..
Andrew.