Marc Barret read this!! SCSI-II for A4000 out!!!!
Nai Ying Kwok
Well whaddya think?
I just read that at CeBIT 93 in Germany, C= officially released the
SCSI-II controller for A4000 (zorro III only) and is going to be installed
*AS STANDARD* in the A4000T.
What do you have to say about vapourware now?
Hahahahahahahaha :)
NY
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| nu...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | "Surrender? That's not defeat for a woman" |
| nu...@zikzak.apana.org.au | - Diana Rigg, "The Assassination Bureau" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Marc N. Barrett
>
>Well whaddya think?
>
>I just read that at CeBIT 93 in Germany, C= officially released the
>SCSI-II controller for A4000 (zorro III only) and is going to be installed
>*AS STANDARD* in the A4000T.
>
>What do you have to say about vapourware now?
CDTV II, CD-ROM drives for A3000/A4000-series Amigas, CD-ROM drives for
A600/A1200 series Amigas, Amiga HD floppy drives as upgrades for older Amigas.
All of these have been mentioned and should be available by now, but are NOT
available. Isn't that enough vaporware for you?
>Hahahahahahahaha :)
Don't worry, I'll get the last laugh.
-----
Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
------------------------------------------------
Carl Cowley/Glenn Hare Occ. Cntr--Electronics
>>
>>What do you have to say about vapourware now?
>
> CDTV II, CD-ROM drives for A3000/A4000-series Amigas, CD-ROM drives for
>A600/A1200 series Amigas, Amiga HD floppy drives as upgrades for older Amigas.
>All of these have been mentioned and should be available by now, but are NOT
>available. Isn't that enough vaporware for you?
Hmm... I am going to stick a CD-ROM in my A4000 this summer...
just because C= isn't making it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
>
>>Hahahahahahahaha :)
>
> Don't worry, I'll get the last laugh.
>
What cheesy B-rate movie did you step out of Marc???
'REVENGE OF THE ZOMBIE WANNABE MAC OWNERS FROM IOWA'?????
>-----
>Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
>------------------------------------------------
Ariel...
Donald R Lloyd
>>
>>What do you have to say about vapourware now?
>
> CDTV II,
Never officially promised/announced/talked about, just hints and rumors
(almost entirely from outside of CBM).
> CD-ROM drives for A3000/A4000-series Amigas,
It's called SCSI. I'm sure you`ve heard of it.
>CD-ROM drives for
>A600/A1200 series Amigas,
IMHO they ought to kill the 600 altogether & work hard to get the 1200s
price down lower. Anyway, SCSI for these machines will make CD-ROMs available
to them as well.
> Amiga HD floppy drives as upgrades for older Amigas.
Didn't we have this discussion several times before? The high density
drive that's been in my 3000 for six months now is proof that you`re wrong.
And since you should be perfectly aware that I and several others disproved
this claim the last time you brought it up, I'd say this qualifies as a another
blatant MB lie told for the sake oftrying to put some kind of force behind your
complaints.
>All of these have been mentioned and should be available by now, but are NOT
>available. Isn't that enough vaporware for you?
BZZZZZZT.
--
Don Lloyd | Publications Editor, AmigaNetwork |AmigaNetwork Voice Mail
d...@chopin.udel.edu | AmigaNetwork BBS (The Original!) | Info by voice or FAX
GeNIE: D.LLOYD7 | (302)368-3942 (v.32bis) | (GVP PhonePak)
BIX: DRL | (302)368-1067 (USR HST) | (302)368-4673)
Michael S McKnight
>
> CDTV II, CD-ROM drives for A3000/A4000-series Amigas, CD-ROM drives for
>A600/A1200 series Amigas, Amiga HD floppy drives as upgrades for older Amigas.
>All of these have been mentioned and should be available by now, but are NOT
>available. Isn't that enough vaporware for you?
>
Marc, just because Commodore doesn't produce a product, doesn't mean it isn't
availiable. There are SCSI and IDE CD-ROM drives that will work with any of
the Amigas. The HD drives are availiable... I've bought two of them to upgrade
my A3000. CDTV-II? I never knew it was supposed to be more than a rumor.
You are such a Mac fanatic... why do you even come around here. Surely you
don't honestly think Apple makes all the things they sale under the Apple
name do you? LaserWriter... can we say HP? StyleWriter... can we say HP?
CD-ROM... can we say SONY? I have been supporting Macintosh systems for
over two years now and I can tell you in an honest mannor that they are VERY
unstable systems. Very. You continuously bitch about how software wont run
on the Amiga from system 1.3 to 2.x and higher. Well, let me tell you that
nearly all major software broke when apple released system 7.x.x. Its the
price you have to pay to be able to move forward.
You also babble about the Macs great graphics. Well, thats the one thing that
I do like about Macs, graphics. Now, don't go get a big head about it. The
only thing they did right was allow for the expansion of VRAM to allow better
resolutions and color depth. The support for multiple monitors is also nice.
BUT, they are slow. Damn slow. You have to remember that the Mac's CPU has
to do ALL of the graphics work. Even on a Quadra 900 the graphics are slow.
Sure, they are great for still images, but open and close some windows,
scroll through a graphic & text filled Word document, etc and you'll notice
the delays. Also, have you ever actually seen QuickTime in action? Can
we say PATHETIC? Oh yeah, it looks nice in a 100x100 window, but grap hold
of that lower-right corner and streeeeetch it out a little... sorta like
driving a corvette through a lake, huh? Also, no Mac displays 24-bit on
screen. You have 256 colors from 24-bits, maybe, but to show 24-bits of
information on a standard 640x480 screen would require about 7.5MB of VRAM.
I can't remember if you were stupid enough to defend System 7's multitasking
abilities so I will only say one thing about that... try to format two floppies
at once, or try to open the calculator more than once at a time.
Oh yeah, and for all you other pinheads out there. Get a grip. The Amigas
are comparible to Macs, not MS-DOS machines. Do you compare Corvette's to
F-40's? No. Why, they are both cars? Maybe because one cost more than
another, or maybe because an F-40 competes against a Duablo and not the Vette.
Would you say the Vette is better than the other two because its cheaper? I
didn't think so. As long as you can buy all the peices you need for a MS-DOS
machine at Radio Shack, and can't buy the peices for Amigas and Macs, then the
comparisons stop there. They are two completely different worlds... one is
commonly available, and the other is proprietory.
Got a problem with this? Email me, don't clutter the nets.
_________________________________________________________________________
| Michael McKnight -- msmc...@unccsun.uncc.edu | Amiga 3000-25/100 |
| Pi Kappa Phi msmc...@mosaic.uncc.edu | Insight 386DX-25/105 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| PP-ASEL -- See, I'm not a 100% geek... I fly airplanes too! |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc N. Barrett
>In article <C4s0y...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>
>> CDTV II, CD-ROM drives for A3000/A4000-series Amigas, CD-ROM drives for
>>A600/A1200 series Amigas, Amiga HD floppy drives as upgrades for older Amigas.
>>All of these have been mentioned and should be available by now, but are NOT
>>available. Isn't that enough vaporware for you?
>>
>
>Marc, just because Commodore doesn't produce a product, doesn't mean it isn't
>availiable. There are SCSI and IDE CD-ROM drives that will work with any of
>the Amigas.
The problem is that third-party CD-ROM drives do NOT come with the OS
extensions necessary to run CDTV or CDTV titles. Presumably, Commodore
CD-ROM drives would. Commodore's CD-ROM drive for the A500 certainly does.
(It would be nice if these OS extensions included Amiga-specific routines
not found on any CDTV, but that's another story)
>CDTV-II? I never knew it was supposed to be more than a rumor.
It should have been reality long ago. I don't see why something as simple
as an A1200 with a CD-ROM drive, with the modifications that the CDTV provided,
would take so damn long for Commodore to develop.
>You are such a Mac fanatic...
No I'm not. I use Macs in my arguments because they show how bad things
have become in the Amiga world. It amazes be that Macs -- which still leave
much to be desired hardware wise -- are suddenly so much better than Amigas
hardware-wise. It isn't that Macs are so spectacular, it that Amigas have
become so rotten.
> why do you even come around here. Surely you
>don't honestly think Apple makes all the things they sale under the Apple
>name do you? LaserWriter... can we say HP?
No, but we can say 'Canon'.
> StyleWriter... can we say HP?
No, but we can say 'Canon' here, too.
>CD-ROM... can we say SONY?
If you want. But any Amiga CD-ROM drives from Commodore should (and
probably will) include OS software that you just do not get with third-party
drives.
> I have been supporting Macintosh systems for
>over two years now and I can tell you in an honest mannor that they are VERY
>unstable systems. Very. You continuously bitch about how software wont run
>on the Amiga from system 1.3 to 2.x and higher. Well, let me tell you that
>nearly all major software broke when apple released system 7.x.x. Its the
>price you have to pay to be able to move forward.
Commodore bent over backwards to accomodate buggy software with AmigaOS 2.0
and 3.0. Too much software relied on old Commodore bugs, so they put the
bugs back in. Too much software jumped directly into the beginning of the
ROMs, so Commodore invented "kickity split" that basically split the 2.0 ROMs
(which are twice the length of previous ROMs and begin at a lower address)
in half.
>You also babble about the Macs great graphics. Well, thats the one thing that
>I do like about Macs, graphics. Now, don't go get a big head about it. The
>only thing they did right was allow for the expansion of VRAM to allow better
>resolutions and color depth.
You make it sound so simple. If it is, why doesn't Commodore do the same
thing?
The fact is that many Macintosh models are capable of generating
non-interlaced resolutions far higher than the most advanced Amiga. All in
standard hardware. It is true that, in many cases, the hardware is capable
of generating resolutions even higher than there is VRAM for. I guess Apple
felt that VRAM was more expensive than the video hardware itself, so they
designed advanced video systems and crippled them a bit with less VRAM. But
the fact remains that the video hardware is capable of generating some
astonishing non-interlaced resolutions in standard hardware (especially in
the case of the Centris models).
> The support for multiple monitors is also nice.
>BUT, they are slow. Damn slow. You have to remember that the Mac's CPU has
>to do ALL of the graphics work.
How fast are Amigas with max. non-interlaced resolution with 8 planes?
I know that an A3000 CRAWLS in 724x482 with 4 planes. If an AGA Amiga really
is even slower in 724x482 with 8-planes than an A3000 is in 724x482 with
4 planes, then those AGA Amigas must be pretty damn slow.
The fact is that Amigas in max. non-interlaced resolution with 8 planes
are no miracle machines in terms of speed, either.
Evan Torrie
>Surely you
>don't honestly think Apple makes all the things they sale under the Apple
>name do you?
Well, no they don't, but you have a few things wrong below.
>LaserWriter... can we say HP?
No, we can't. The LaserWriters use Canon engines, but the electronics
(i.e. logic/analog boards) and casing are all Apple. This is no different
from HP, which designs its own logic boards, but uses a Canon engine.
>StyleWriter... can we say HP?
No, Canon again. (The StyleWriter uses the Canon Bubblejet mechanism).
>the delays. Also, have you ever actually seen QuickTime in action? Can
>we say PATHETIC? Oh yeah, it looks nice in a 100x100 window, but grap hold
>of that lower-right corner and streeeeetch it out a little... sorta like
>driving a corvette through a lake, huh?
Try holding down the Option Key when you expand the window.
>Also, no Mac displays 24-bit on
>screen. You have 256 colors from 24-bits, maybe, but to show 24-bits of
>information on a standard 640x480 screen would require about 7.5MB of VRAM.
640 x 480 x 24/3 = 921600 < 1MB.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? tor...@cs.stanford.edu
Civilisation is the progress toward a society of privacy.
Michael S McKnight
>In article <C4tuH...@unccsun.uncc.edu> msmc...@unccsun.uncc.edu (Michael S McKnight) writes:
>>In article <C4s0y...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>>
>>> CDTV II, CD-ROM drives for A3000/A4000-series Amigas, CD-ROM drives for
>>>A600/A1200 series Amigas, Amiga HD floppy drives as upgrades for older Amigas.
>>>All of these have been mentioned and should be available by now, but are NOT
>>>available. Isn't that enough vaporware for you?
>>>
>>
>>Marc, just because Commodore doesn't produce a product, doesn't mean it isn't
>>availiable. There are SCSI and IDE CD-ROM drives that will work with any of
>>the Amigas.
>
> The problem is that third-party CD-ROM drives do NOT come with the OS
>extensions necessary to run CDTV or CDTV titles. Presumably, Commodore
>CD-ROM drives would. Commodore's CD-ROM drive for the A500 certainly does.
>(It would be nice if these OS extensions included Amiga-specific routines
>not found on any CDTV, but that's another story)
No, but the third-party CDROM filesystems do include the stuff that allows
them to use most CDTV software. Don't forget, when you add a CD-ROM drive
to your Mac, you have to install the drivers and controlling software. Like
I said, just because CBM doesnt make it, doesnt mean it inst out there.
>>CDTV-II? I never knew it was supposed to be more than a rumor.
>
> It should have been reality long ago. I don't see why something as simple
>as an A1200 with a CD-ROM drive, with the modifications that the CDTV provided,
>would take so damn long for Commodore to develop.
Why? If the original CDTV didn't do so well, why would they waste the
development on a new one? The AGA chipset has only been out for a few
months now, dont you think CBM should wait and see what the market for these
new machines is before jumping in with a whole new CDTV?
>>You are such a Mac fanatic...
>
> No I'm not. I use Macs in my arguments because they show how bad things
>have become in the Amiga world. It amazes be that Macs -- which still leave
>much to be desired hardware wise -- are suddenly so much better than Amigas
>hardware-wise. It isn't that Macs are so spectacular, it that Amigas have
>become so rotten.
The Macs are no where near as good as the Amiga's internally. You know that.
If you are bitching about the IDE drives, they can't be all that bad or
a gazillion clones wouldnt be using them. If you mean graphics, most
Apple systems require 3rd-party hardware and software to get their higher
resolution displays. To get a higher res on a Mac, you have to get a larger
monitor, on the Amiga, you simply change modes.
[stuff about printers deleted]
> If you want. But any Amiga CD-ROM drives from Commodore should (and
>probably will) include OS software that you just do not get with third-party
>drives.
Like what? A filesystem? CDTV support? It's all already available via
3rd party folks.
> Commodore bent over backwards to accomodate buggy software with AmigaOS 2.0
>and 3.0. Too much software relied on old Commodore bugs, so they put the
>bugs back in. Too much software jumped directly into the beginning of the
>ROMs, so Commodore invented "kickity split" that basically split the 2.0 ROMs
>(which are twice the length of previous ROMs and begin at a lower address)
>in half.
Just because they accomodate old software doesnt make the new software buggy.
It simply allows for the new OS to trap old illegal calls and give them the
results they expected. Sure, it may not be the most efficient method, but
its a whole lot more effort than Apple put into keeping system 7 compaitble.
The Amiga OS is much more efficient than the Mac OS, so a little hit here and
there shouldnt hurt anyone.
>>You also babble about the Macs great graphics. Well, thats the one thing that
>>I do like about Macs, graphics. Now, don't go get a big head about it. The
>>only thing they did right was allow for the expansion of VRAM to allow better
>>resolutions and color depth.
>
> You make it sound so simple. If it is, why doesn't Commodore do the same
>thing?
>
> The fact is that many Macintosh models are capable of generating
>non-interlaced resolutions far higher than the most advanced Amiga. All in
>standard hardware. It is true that, in many cases, the hardware is capable
>of generating resolutions even higher than there is VRAM for. I guess Apple
>felt that VRAM was more expensive than the video hardware itself, so they
>designed advanced video systems and crippled them a bit with less VRAM. But
>the fact remains that the video hardware is capable of generating some
>astonishing non-interlaced resolutions in standard hardware (especially in
>the case of the Centris models).
Point is, the way the Amigas video is produced is different, that doesnt make
it wrong. Don't forget, the Amigas video was designed to use a TV set if
need be. Interlacing isnt that big of a deal. The new systems fix this
problem with the new promotion software. Sure, it isnt a flicker-fixer, and
old software may still by-pass this, but that is another price for moving on.
New software will conform to the new video modes and work just fine. Think
how many Mac programs broke when they went from B&W to color. Some things
just need to be done.
>> The support for multiple monitors is also nice.
>>BUT, they are slow. Damn slow. You have to remember that the Mac's CPU has
>>to do ALL of the graphics work.
>
> How fast are Amigas with max. non-interlaced resolution with 8 planes?
>I know that an A3000 CRAWLS in 724x482 with 4 planes. If an AGA Amiga really
>is even slower in 724x482 with 8-planes than an A3000 is in 724x482 with
>4 planes, then those AGA Amigas must be pretty damn slow.
>
> The fact is that Amigas in max. non-interlaced resolution with 8 planes
>are no miracle machines in terms of speed, either.
No, but compare the Amiga and Mac (same cpu, speed, etc) at the same
resolutions and I think you would see a definate different in the Amigas
favor. Remember, the Mac still can't animate at any kind of acceptable
speed.
Marc N. Barrett
>In article <C4vpz...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>In article <C4tuH...@unccsun.uncc.edu> msmc...@unccsun.uncc.edu (Michael S McKnight) writes:
>>>In article <C4s0y...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>>>
>>>> CDTV II, CD-ROM drives for A3000/A4000-series Amigas, CD-ROM drives for
>>>>A600/A1200 series Amigas, Amiga HD floppy drives as upgrades for older Amigas.
>>>>All of these have been mentioned and should be available by now, but are NOT
>>>>available. Isn't that enough vaporware for you?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Marc, just because Commodore doesn't produce a product, doesn't mean it isn't
>>>availiable. There are SCSI and IDE CD-ROM drives that will work with any of
>>>the Amigas.
>>
>> The problem is that third-party CD-ROM drives do NOT come with the OS
>>extensions necessary to run CDTV or CDTV titles. Presumably, Commodore
>>CD-ROM drives would. Commodore's CD-ROM drive for the A500 certainly does.
>>(It would be nice if these OS extensions included Amiga-specific routines
>>not found on any CDTV, but that's another story)
>
>No, but the third-party CDROM filesystems do include the stuff that allows
>them to use most CDTV software.
Bullshit. Does an MS-DOS filesystem for your floppy drives give you the
ability to run MS-DOS software?
People liike at CD-ROM filesystems like they are all you need to use CD-ROM
software. They are NOTHING!! All they give you is the ability to READ discs
that were written using the filesystem that yours supports. They do NOT give
you the ability to actually do anything with whatever is on those CD-ROM discs.
CDTVs (and probably CDTV II systems) come with lots of extra ROM routines
that no Amiga (except an A500 with the A590) has. Third-party CD-ROM drives
do not come with this extra OS software, which is owned by Commodore. So if
a CDTV title uses any of these OS routines, merely having a filesystem to
allow you to read CDTV discs will not give you the ability to run the CDTV
title that may be on the disc.
> Don't forget, when you add a CD-ROM drive
>to your Mac, you have to install the drivers and controlling software.
The difference is that Mac CD-ROM software is written using OS routines
that all Macintoshes have.
> Like
>I said, just because CBM doesnt make it, doesnt mean it inst out there.
In the case of the ability to run CDTV titles (which, unfortunately, is all
that is available for Amiga on CD-ROM), you need these OS routines, and NO
third-party drives come with these routines. As you said, they only come with
the fileystems to allow you to READ the discs. But READING software and
RUNNING software are two totally different things.
>>>CDTV-II? I never knew it was supposed to be more than a rumor.
>>
>> It should have been reality long ago. I don't see why something as simple
>>as an A1200 with a CD-ROM drive, with the modifications that the CDTV provided,
>>would take so damn long for Commodore to develop.
>
>Why? If the original CDTV didn't do so well, why would they waste the
>development on a new one?
The original CD-I players haven't done so well, but Philips is pushing
forward with the development of more advanced CD-I players with things like
MPEG, that would be more likely to succeed.
Even Commodore has not always killed off something after it has not
demonstrated immediate success (although that have done just that in the
past). They did not kill all development of future Amigas after the A1000
did not take the entire world by storm, for instance.
> The AGA chipset has only been out for a few
>months now, dont you think CBM should wait and see what the market for these
>new machines is before jumping in with a whole new CDTV?
No. An AGA CD-ROM appliance and an AGA personal computer would fail for
different reasons. One failing would not necessarily indicate that the other
would fail.
>
>>>You are such a Mac fanatic...
>>
>> No I'm not. I use Macs in my arguments because they show how bad things
>>have become in the Amiga world. It amazes be that Macs -- which still leave
>>much to be desired hardware wise -- are suddenly so much better than Amigas
>>hardware-wise. It isn't that Macs are so spectacular, it that Amigas have
>>become so rotten.
>
>The Macs are no where near as good as the Amiga's internally. You know that.
Prove it.
>If you are bitching about the IDE drives, they can't be all that bad or
>a gazillion clones wouldnt be using them.
But all Macintoshes use SCSI, and Apple is the largest personal computer
company in the world, shipping over 2 million Macintoshes per year, or
almost four Macs for every Amiga that Commodore ships. So using SCSI has
been good for Apple, at least.
> If you mean graphics, most
>Apple systems require 3rd-party hardware and software to get their higher
>resolution displays.
There are some excellent third-party graphics cards for Macintoshes as well.
If you are hot on video hardware to relieve the CPU of graphics work, there
are Mac video cards from Apple and third-party companies that include graphics
coporocessors.
> To get a higher res on a Mac, you have to get a larger
>monitor, on the Amiga, you simply change modes.
Bullshit. The OS does expect a constant DPI across monitors of different
sizes, but the OS can be easily fooled. You can use a 13" SVGA monitor on a
Mac Centris and use the 850x650 32768-color non-interlaced mode on it, for
instance.
>> Commodore bent over backwards to accomodate buggy software with AmigaOS 2.0
>>and 3.0. Too much software relied on old Commodore bugs, so they put the
>>bugs back in. Too much software jumped directly into the beginning of the
>>ROMs, so Commodore invented "kickity split" that basically split the 2.0 ROMs
>>(which are twice the length of previous ROMs and begin at a lower address)
>>in half.
>
>Just because they accomodate old software doesnt make the new software buggy.
>It simply allows for the new OS to trap old illegal calls and give them the
>results they expected. Sure, it may not be the most efficient method, but
>its a whole lot more effort than Apple put into keeping system 7 compaitble.
>The Amiga OS is much more efficient than the Mac OS, so a little hit here and
>there shouldnt hurt anyone.
A motor scooter is a whole lot more effecient that a truck, but that
doesn't mean a motot scooter could replace a truck.
The Amiga OS is effecient because it lacks a lot of modern OS features,
that do tend to slow things down on OSs that have them.
NCAF
>In article <C4w8K...@unccsun.uncc.edu> msmc...@unccsun.uncc.edu (Michael S McKnight) writes:
>>In article <C4vpz...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>>In article <C4tuH...@unccsun.uncc.edu> msmc...@unccsun.uncc.edu (Michael S McKnight) writes:
>>>>In article <C4s0y...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> CDTV II, CD-ROM drives for A3000/A4000-series Amigas, CD-ROM drives for
>>>>>A600/A1200 series Amigas, Amiga HD floppy drives as upgrades for older Amigas.
>>>>>All of these have been mentioned and should be available by now, but are NOT
>>>>>available. Isn't that enough vaporware for you?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Marc, just because Commodore doesn't produce a product, doesn't mean it isn't
>>>>availiable. There are SCSI and IDE CD-ROM drives that will work with any of
>>>>the Amigas.
>>>
>>> The problem is that third-party CD-ROM drives do NOT come with the OS
>>>extensions necessary to run CDTV or CDTV titles. Presumably, Commodore
>>>CD-ROM drives would. Commodore's CD-ROM drive for the A500 certainly does.
>>>(It would be nice if these OS extensions included Amiga-specific routines
>>>not found on any CDTV, but that's another story)
>>
>>No, but the third-party CDROM filesystems do include the stuff that allows
>>them to use most CDTV software.
>
> Bullshit. Does an MS-DOS filesystem for your floppy drives give you the
>ability to run MS-DOS software?
Marc. The CDTV has an Amiga inside. Hence an Amiga with a CD-ROM drive
can run CDTV software.
> People liike at CD-ROM filesystems like they are all you need to use CD-ROM
>software. They are NOTHING!! All they give you is the ability to READ discs
>that were written using the filesystem that yours supports. They do NOT give
>you the ability to actually do anything with whatever is on those CD-ROM discs.
>
> CDTVs (and probably CDTV II systems) come with lots of extra ROM routines
>that no Amiga (except an A500 with the A590) has. Third-party CD-ROM drives
>do not come with this extra OS software, which is owned by Commodore. So if
>a CDTV title uses any of these OS routines, merely having a filesystem to
>allow you to read CDTV discs will not give you the ability to run the CDTV
>title that may be on the disc.
Where'd you hear this?
>
>> Don't forget, when you add a CD-ROM drive
>>to your Mac, you have to install the drivers and controlling software.
>
> The difference is that Mac CD-ROM software is written using OS routines
>that all Macintoshes have.
>
>> Like
>>I said, just because CBM doesnt make it, doesnt mean it inst out there.
>
> In the case of the ability to run CDTV titles (which, unfortunately, is all
>that is available for Amiga on CD-ROM), you need these OS routines, and NO
>third-party drives come with these routines. As you said, they only come with
>the fileystems to allow you to READ the discs. But READING software and
>RUNNING software are two totally different things.
>
>>>>CDTV-II? I never knew it was supposed to be more than a rumor.
>>>
>>> It should have been reality long ago. I don't see why something as simple
>>>as an A1200 with a CD-ROM drive, with the modifications that the CDTV provided,
>>>would take so damn long for Commodore to develop.
>>
>>Why? If the original CDTV didn't do so well, why would they waste the
>>development on a new one?
>
> The original CD-I players haven't done so well, but Philips is pushing
>forward with the development of more advanced CD-I players with things like
>MPEG, that would be more likely to succeed.
>
> Even Commodore has not always killed off something after it has not
>demonstrated immediate success (although that have done just that in the
>past). They did not kill all development of future Amigas after the A1000
>did not take the entire world by storm, for instance.
Hmmm. Tell us about it.
>> The AGA chipset has only been out for a few
>>months now, dont you think CBM should wait and see what the market for these
>>new machines is before jumping in with a whole new CDTV?
>
> No. An AGA CD-ROM appliance and an AGA personal computer would fail for
>different reasons. One failing would not necessarily indicate that the other
>would fail.
>
>>
>>>>You are such a Mac fanatic...
>>>
>>> No I'm not. I use Macs in my arguments because they show how bad things
>>>have become in the Amiga world. It amazes be that Macs -- which still leave
>>>much to be desired hardware wise -- are suddenly so much better than Amigas
>>>hardware-wise. It isn't that Macs are so spectacular, it that Amigas have
>>>become so rotten.
>>
>>The Macs are no where near as good as the Amiga's internally. You know that.
>
> Prove it.
I won't attempt to prove it, Apple pay big bucks to design their
computers. If you want to compare the first Amiga to the first Mac
well maybe there is basis for comparison. Not these days, though.
>>If you are bitching about the IDE drives, they can't be all that bad or
>>a gazillion clones wouldnt be using them.
>
> But all Macintoshes use SCSI, and Apple is the largest personal computer
>company in the world, shipping over 2 million Macintoshes per year, or
>almost four Macs for every Amiga that Commodore ships. So using SCSI has
>been good for Apple, at least.
Agreed: SCSI is good, but IDE is cheap. Many users don't need half
the stuff that SCSI provides anyway.
>> If you mean graphics, most
>>Apple systems require 3rd-party hardware and software to get their higher
>>resolution displays.
>
> There are some excellent third-party graphics cards for Macintoshes as well.
>If you are hot on video hardware to relieve the CPU of graphics work, there
>are Mac video cards from Apple and third-party companies that include graphics
>coporocessors.
They are nice, but they're kind of optional. I know AGA ain't the
best but for stock graphics, it's very decent. Good to have options
open, don't you agree? If a user doesn't need something, they're
not stuck with it.
>> To get a higher res on a Mac, you have to get a larger
>>monitor, on the Amiga, you simply change modes.
>
> Bullshit. The OS does expect a constant DPI across monitors of different
>sizes, but the OS can be easily fooled. You can use a 13" SVGA monitor on a
>Mac Centris and use the 850x650 32768-color non-interlaced mode on it, for
>instance.
>
>>> Commodore bent over backwards to accomodate buggy software with AmigaOS 2.0
>>>and 3.0. Too much software relied on old Commodore bugs, so they put the
>>>bugs back in. Too much software jumped directly into the beginning of the
>>>ROMs, so Commodore invented "kickity split" that basically split the 2.0 ROMs
>>>(which are twice the length of previous ROMs and begin at a lower address)
>>>in half.
>>
>>Just because they accomodate old software doesnt make the new software buggy.
>>It simply allows for the new OS to trap old illegal calls and give them the
>>results they expected. Sure, it may not be the most efficient method, but
>>its a whole lot more effort than Apple put into keeping system 7 compaitble.
>>The Amiga OS is much more efficient than the Mac OS, so a little hit here and
>>there shouldnt hurt anyone.
>
> A motor scooter is a whole lot more effecient that a truck, but that
>doesn't mean a motot scooter could replace a truck.
>
> The Amiga OS is effecient because it lacks a lot of modern OS features,
>that do tend to slow things down on OSs that have them.
Do you mean device independance? Hmmm, real-world apps don't have
to hit the hardware, if that's what you mean?
>-----
>Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
>------------------------------------------------
>.
>.
Cheers from:
:-) Ben Hardy live at nc...@musica.macarthur.uws.edu.au
:-) Usual disclaimer here.
:-) Eat at Ronnie's for the best pizza in Sydney.
Ricardo Hernandez Muchado
|> In article <C4tuH...@unccsun.uncc.edu> msmc...@unccsun.uncc.edu (Michael S McKnight) writes:
|> >In article <C4s0y...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
|> >>
|> >> CDTV II, CD-ROM drives for A3000/A4000-series Amigas, CD-ROM drives for
|> >>A600/A1200 series Amigas, Amiga HD floppy drives as upgrades for older Amigas.
|> >>All of these have been mentioned and should be available by now, but are NOT
|> >>available. Isn't that enough vaporware for you?
|> >>
|> >
|> >Marc, just because Commodore doesn't produce a product, doesn't mean it isn't
|> >availiable. There are SCSI and IDE CD-ROM drives that will work with any of
|> >the Amigas.
|>
|> The problem is that third-party CD-ROM drives do NOT come with the OS
|> extensions necessary to run CDTV or CDTV titles. Presumably, Commodore
|> CD-ROM drives would. Commodore's CD-ROM drive for the A500 certainly does.
|> (It would be nice if these OS extensions included Amiga-specific routines
|> not found on any CDTV, but that's another story)
|>
|> >CDTV-II? I never knew it was supposed to be more than a rumor.
|>
|> It should have been reality long ago. I don't see why something as simple
|> as an A1200 with a CD-ROM drive, with the modifications that the CDTV provided,
|> would take so damn long for Commodore to develop.
I guess the problem here is how to enter the market... if CDTV-II
is too expensive, it would be in 3DO's domain, and 3DO kicks butt so far.
|> >You are such a Mac fanatic...
|>
|> No I'm not. I use Macs in my arguments because they show how bad things
|> have become in the Amiga world. It amazes be that Macs -- which still leave
|> much to be desired hardware wise -- are suddenly so much better than Amigas
|> hardware-wise. It isn't that Macs are so spectacular, it that Amigas have
|> become so rotten.
Marc, is this you? I hope so.... this could be your closest thing
to an objective posting. Yep, I also worry a bit on how much the Mac
has improved, but I wouldn't say that it is much better than the Amiga
hardware-wise. I say it depends.
|> > why do you even come around here. Surely you
|> >don't honestly think Apple makes all the things they sale under the Apple
|> >name do you? LaserWriter... can we say HP?
|>
|> No, but we can say 'Canon'.
|>
|> > StyleWriter... can we say HP?
|>
|> No, but we can say 'Canon' here, too.
|>
|> >CD-ROM... can we say SONY?
|>
|> If you want. But any Amiga CD-ROM drives from Commodore should (and
|> probably will) include OS software that you just do not get with third-party
|> drives.
|>
|> > I have been supporting Macintosh systems for
|> >over two years now and I can tell you in an honest mannor that they are VERY
|> >unstable systems. Very. You continuously bitch about how software wont run
|> >on the Amiga from system 1.3 to 2.x and higher. Well, let me tell you that
|> >nearly all major software broke when apple released system 7.x.x. Its the
|> >price you have to pay to be able to move forward.
|>
|> Commodore bent over backwards to accomodate buggy software with AmigaOS 2.0
|> and 3.0. Too much software relied on old Commodore bugs, so they put the
|> bugs back in.
Hmmmm.... how you know?
|> Too much software jumped directly into the beginning of the
|> ROMs, so Commodore invented "kickity split" that basically split the 2.0 ROMs
|> (which are twice the length of previous ROMs and begin at a lower address)
|> in half.
Hmmm... whether this is true or not, this happens to any OS developer (when
they put out a new version and want everything to run).
|>
|> >You also babble about the Macs great graphics. Well, thats the one thing that
|> >I do like about Macs, graphics. Now, don't go get a big head about it. The
|> >only thing they did right was allow for the expansion of VRAM to allow better
|> >resolutions and color depth.
|>
|> You make it sound so simple. If it is, why doesn't Commodore do the same
|> thing?
|>
|> The fact is that many Macintosh models are capable of generating
|> non-interlaced resolutions far higher than the most advanced Amiga. All in
|> standard hardware. It is true that, in many cases, the hardware is capable
|> of generating resolutions even higher than there is VRAM for. I guess Apple
|> felt that VRAM was more expensive than the video hardware itself, so they
|> designed advanced video systems and crippled them a bit with less VRAM. But
|> the fact remains that the video hardware is capable of generating some
|> astonishing non-interlaced resolutions in standard hardware (especially in
|> the case of the Centris models).
|>
|> > The support for multiple monitors is also nice.
|> >BUT, they are slow. Damn slow. You have to remember that the Mac's CPU has
|> >to do ALL of the graphics work.
|>
|> How fast are Amigas with max. non-interlaced resolution with 8 planes?
|> I know that an A3000 CRAWLS in 724x482 with 4 planes. If an AGA Amiga really
|> is even slower in 724x482 with 8-planes than an A3000 is in 724x482 with
|> 4 planes, then those AGA Amigas must be pretty damn slow.
|>
|> The fact is that Amigas in max. non-interlaced resolution with 8 planes
|> are no miracle machines in terms of speed, either.
True, but neither is the Mac, which is the one you hype so much. Anyway,
the AGA chipset I would say is very fast for some things and very slow for
others. For example: If you want a wordprocessor in 640x400 (or higher) in
non-interlace, in 256 colors - it is sllllllow.
Now, if you want real-time animation (particularly for video), a 640x400
interlace with Ham8 can do it, and it looks *damn* good.
If you want to make a game (action game specially), then having 16-color
sprites that are 64-bits wide with 16-color dualplayfields make the machine
DAMN fast.
So it depends.
|>
|> -----
|> Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
|> ------------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------
Raist New A1200 owner 320<->1280 in x, 200<->600 in y
in 256,000+ colors from a 24-bit palette. **I LOVE IT!**<- New Low Fat .sig
*don't e-mail me* -> I don't have a valid address nor can I send e-mail
Marc N. Barrett
>In article <C4xBz...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>In article <C4w8K...@unccsun.uncc.edu> msmc...@unccsun.uncc.edu (Michael S McKnight) writes:
>>>In article <C4vpz...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>>>In article <C4tuH...@unccsun.uncc.edu> msmc...@unccsun.uncc.edu (Michael S McKnight) writes:
>>>>>In article <C4s0y...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CDTV II, CD-ROM drives for A3000/A4000-series Amigas, CD-ROM drives for
>>>>>>A600/A1200 series Amigas, Amiga HD floppy drives as upgrades for older Amigas.
>>>>>>All of these have been mentioned and should be available by now, but are NOT
>>>>>>available. Isn't that enough vaporware for you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Marc, just because Commodore doesn't produce a product, doesn't mean it isn't
>>>>>availiable. There are SCSI and IDE CD-ROM drives that will work with any of
>>>>>the Amigas.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that third-party CD-ROM drives do NOT come with the OS
>>>>extensions necessary to run CDTV or CDTV titles. Presumably, Commodore
>>>>CD-ROM drives would. Commodore's CD-ROM drive for the A500 certainly does.
>>>>(It would be nice if these OS extensions included Amiga-specific routines
>>>>not found on any CDTV, but that's another story)
>>>
>>>No, but the third-party CDROM filesystems do include the stuff that allows
>>>them to use most CDTV software.
>>
>> Bullshit. Does an MS-DOS filesystem for your floppy drives give you the
>>ability to run MS-DOS software?
>
>Marc. The CDTV has an Amiga inside. Hence an Amiga with a CD-ROM drive
>can run CDTV software.
Bullshit. The CDTV is an Amiga with an extra 256K of ROM that no other
Amigas have. Hence an Amiga with a CD-ROM drive without this OS software
cannot necesarily run CDTV software. Some CDTV titles will run, but not all
of them.
>> People look at CD-ROM filesystems like they are all you need to use CD-ROM
>>software. They are NOTHING!! All they give you is the ability to READ discs
>>that were written using the filesystem that yours supports. They do NOT give
>>you the ability to actually do anything with whatever is on those CD-ROM discs.
>>
>> CDTVs (and probably CDTV II systems) come with lots of extra ROM routines
>>that no Amiga (except an A500 with the A590) has. Third-party CD-ROM drives
>>do not come with this extra OS software, which is owned by Commodore. So if
>>a CDTV title uses any of these OS routines, merely having a filesystem to
>>allow you to read CDTV discs will not give you the ability to run the CDTV
>>title that may be on the disc.
>
>Where'd you hear this?
It's common sense. Why do you think Commodore's A590 CD-ROM drive for
the A500 comes with this extra 256K of ROM that CDTVs have? If this extra
ROM was not necessary for running CDTV titles on an Amiga, why did Commodore
go through the extra expense of including it on their A590?
Carl Cowley/Glenn Hare Occ. Cntr--Electronics
>>>>>In article <C4tuH...@unccsun.uncc.edu> msmc...@unccsun.uncc.edu (Michael S McKnight) writes:
>>>>>>In article <C4s0y...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>>
>>> Bullshit. Does an MS-DOS filesystem for your floppy drives give you the
>>>ability to run MS-DOS software?
>>
>>Marc. The CDTV has an Amiga inside. Hence an Amiga with a CD-ROM drive
>>can run CDTV software.
>
> Bullshit. The CDTV is an Amiga with an extra 256K of ROM that no other
>Amigas have. Hence an Amiga with a CD-ROM drive without this OS software
>cannot necesarily run CDTV software. Some CDTV titles will run, but not all
>of them.
>
Gosh Marc, does everyone from your state have as diverse a vocabulary
as you do?
>>>that were written using the filesystem that yours supports. They do NOT give
>>>you the ability to actually do anything with whatever is on those CD-ROM discs.
>>>
>
> It's common sense. Why do you think Commodore's A590 CD-ROM drive for
>the A500 comes with this extra 256K of ROM that CDTVs have? If this extra
>ROM was not necessary for running CDTV titles on an Amiga, why did Commodore
>go through the extra expense of including it on their A590?
Is this a new product that you haven't told us about Marc? The last
that I heard, the A590 was teh A500's hard drive controller...
>
>-----
>Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
>------------------------------------------------
Me.
Gregory R Block
: No, but the third-party CDROM filesystems do include the stuff that allows
: them to use most CDTV software. Don't forget, when you add a CD-ROM drive
I'm on Marc's side on this point: Though he ALWAYS means "C= doesn't
have a CDTV drive" when he says "C= doesn't have a CD-ROM drive", he is
quite correct in saying they are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
The CDTV ROM is _NOT_ the same as any Amiga's. There are new drivers and
devices in a completely different ROM. The A570 has this; the Daihatsu
CD-ROM from the corner store and a CD-ROM filesystem does not equate that.
: The Macs are no where near as good as the Amiga's internally. You know that.
I would say they're not complex; however, I wouldn't equate that with
"good". They're simplistic and minimalistic, however, there is a good
deal of speed offered by the simplistic, minimalistic approach.
: Like what? A filesystem? CDTV support? It's all already available via
: 3rd party folks.
CDTV support can only come in the form of a CD-ROM release like the A570
for all machines.
: Point is, the way the Amigas video is produced is different, that doesnt make
: it wrong. Don't forget, the Amigas video was designed to use a TV set if
This is also absolutely correct, and something to remember. Though the
way it is done isn't perfect, it certainly has its benefits.
: No, but compare the Amiga and Mac (same cpu, speed, etc) at the same
: resolutions and I think you would see a definate different in the Amigas
: favor. Remember, the Mac still can't animate at any kind of acceptable
: speed.
Another fallacy that is no longer true. The VRAM gives Mac systems a big
advantage--unlike the Amiga, half of the ram access isn't being
taken/stolen by the video subsystem--the video runs off of its own port
to ram, and the CPU has, to the best of its understanding, sole access to
video ram.
Greg
--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today? Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: :)
(: It is now widely known that Captain Hook died of jock itch. :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Wubba :)
Gregory R Block
: Marc. The CDTV has an Amiga inside. Hence an Amiga with a CD-ROM drive
: can run CDTV software.
Marc is correct, they are not the same. A CDTV is an Amiga; An Amiga is
not necessarily a CDTV.
: > CDTVs (and probably CDTV II systems) come with lots of extra ROM routines
: >that no Amiga (except an A500 with the A590) has. Third-party CD-ROM drives
: >do not come with this extra OS software, which is owned by Commodore. So if
: >a CDTV title uses any of these OS routines, merely having a filesystem to
: >allow you to read CDTV discs will not give you the ability to run the CDTV
: >title that may be on the disc.
: Where'd you hear this?
It's fact. Unless of course you think you have CDXL routines,
bookmark.device, cdtv.device, etc... in rom. You could tell that to
AmigaVision, it requires an A590 unit with the CDTV rom to play CDXL
images from a CD.
: Agreed: SCSI is good, but IDE is cheap. Many users don't need half
: the stuff that SCSI provides anyway.
This is true: SCSI is there for more than just your HD's, and the great
majority of users will use it for nothing more than that.
That of course is not all, and it is obvious that packaging SCSI from day
one, even in its polled-IO form, has worked for them. It would and DOES
break the back of an Amiga. As an example, to get a low-cost controller,
one must use polled-IO. Since a polled SCSI would be more expensive to
develop than a polled IDE, the IDE made sense.
: > The Amiga OS is effecient because it lacks a lot of modern OS features,
: >that do tend to slow things down on OSs that have them.
That, as implementations of OS/9 with RT, VM, and MP prove, is a fallacy.
: Do you mean device independance? Hmmm, real-world apps don't have
: to hit the hardware, if that's what you mean?
He meant resource tracking, virtual memory, memory protection and device
independence. Three of the four above exist in imlementations of OS/9,
and they do not bloat or slow down the system to any large degree.
Methinks he's thinking of UNIX, or its close cousins, Windows NT and OS/2.
They, like any family, share familial resemblences--in their case, the
family bloat seems to pass on from generation to generation.
Iain Bennett
CD ROMs have been available for ALL amigas since 1989/1990. Xetec
was the first manufactuerer of them. As far as I know, all CDTV discs
work on it as well.
"Sweet Little Girl / I'd prefer / You behind the wheel" Behind the Wheel
Depeche Mode '89
fhei...@desire.wright.edu
> In article <C4xBz...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>In article <C4w8K...@unccsun.uncc.edu> msmc...@unccsun.uncc.edu (Michael S McKnight) writes:
>>>In article <C4vpz...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>>>In article <C4tuH...@unccsun.uncc.edu> msmc...@unccsun.uncc.edu (Michael S McKnight) writes:
>>>>>In article <C4s0y...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>
>> Even Commodore has not always killed off something after it has not
>>demonstrated immediate success (although that have done just that in the
>>past). They did not kill all development of future Amigas after the A1000
>>did not take the entire world by storm, for instance.
They killed off Unix though, I think that was a mistake. But it
was probably too expensive when compared to SCO and SPARC Classic
machines. At least when comparing list price. I wonder if
Commodore or some third party will ever upgrade the A3000 Unix
so it runs on the A4000?
>
> Hmmm. Tell us about it.
>
>>> The AGA chipset has only been out for a few
>>>months now, dont you think CBM should wait and see what the market for these
>>>new machines is before jumping in with a whole new CDTV?
>>
>> No. An AGA CD-ROM appliance and an AGA personal computer would fail for
>>different reasons. One failing would not necessarily indicate that the other
>>would fail.
One reason for an AGA CDTV would be the Kodak Photo CD thing. Or
is that more of a licensing problem?
> Agreed: SCSI is good, but IDE is cheap. Many users don't need half
> the stuff that SCSI provides anyway.
Given my druthers, I'd like to have had SCSI standard on the
A4000. But I think IDE is fine for the A600 and A1200. A
third party could make a SCSI adapter for the A1200 if there
is a market. (Hook it to the local bus, send the cable out the
knock out on the back. Is that possible?)
> -----
>>Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
>>------------------------------------------------
>>.
>>.
>
>
> Cheers from:
> :-) Ben Hardy live at nc...@musica.macarthur.uws.edu.au
> :-) Usual disclaimer here.
> :-) Eat at Ronnie's for the best pizza in Sydney.
Fred Heitkamp, ** Not an organization **
cl23...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
>>> The problem is that third-party CD-ROM drives do NOT come with the OS
>>>extensions necessary to run CDTV or CDTV titles. Presumably, Commodore
>>>CD-ROM drives would. Commodore's CD-ROM drive for the A500 certainly does.
>>>(It would be nice if these OS extensions included Amiga-specific routines
>>>not found on any CDTV, but that's another story)
>>
>>No, but the third-party CDROM filesystems do include the stuff that allows
>>them to use most CDTV software.
>
> Bullshit. Does an MS-DOS filesystem for your floppy drives give you the
> ability to run MS-DOS software?
Yeah, Cross-PC works quite nicely, thank you! ;) Does the Apple file exchange
run PC software? No, you have to buy SoftPC.
Either way: WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH CDTV?????? Honestly,
sometimes I think you really *ARE* a modified version of Eliza.....
> People liike at CD-ROM filesystems like they are all you need to use CD-ROM
> software. They are NOTHING!! All they give you is the ability to READ discs
> that were written using the filesystem that yours supports. They do NOT give
> you the ability to actually do anything with whatever is on those CD-ROM discs.
>
> CDTVs (and probably CDTV II systems) come with lots of extra ROM routines
> that no Amiga (except an A500 with the A590) has. Third-party CD-ROM drives
> do not come with this extra OS software, which is owned by Commodore. So if
> a CDTV title uses any of these OS routines, merely having a filesystem to
> allow you to read CDTV discs will not give you the ability to run the CDTV
> title that may be on the disc.
Care to tell me how I'm currently running a CDTV title on my borrowed Sony CD
player?
>>Why? If the original CDTV didn't do so well, why would they waste the
>>development on a new one?
>
> The original CD-I players haven't done so well, but Philips is pushing
> forward with the development of more advanced CD-I players with things like
> MPEG, that would be more likely to succeed.
Is this the same Marc Barrett that is studying economics (Supposedly because he
couldn't handle engineering)???? CD-I was a group effort. As a result, Phillips
didn't put as much (percentage wise) money into it as Commodore did CDTV. Ever
study the laws of demand, Marc? Very enlightening. Supposedly, if you're not
gonna make a profit at something, you leave it alone and go for something
else....
> -----
> Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
> ------------------------------------------------
MikeB
"Apple is the largest computer corporation in the world. They ship out four
Macs for every Amiga sold......" Marc N. Parrot
Marc N. Barrett
>CD ROMs have been available for ALL amigas since 1989/1990. Xetec
>was the first manufactuerer of them. As far as I know, all CDTV discs
>work on it as well.
Bullshit.
CDTV's have an extra 256K of ROM that you do NOT have on an Amiga with a
third-party CD-ROM drive. As Greg has already stated, this ROM includes all
sorts of drivers and routines that allow things like CDXL to work. He
mentioned that AmigaVision Pro, for example, REQUIRES an A500 with an A570
CD-ROM drive to use CDXL.
Granted, SOME CDTV titles may work with an Amiga with a third-party CD-ROM
drive, but ONLY those that make no use of the specialized routines in the
CDTV's extra 256K of ROM. These titles also happen to be among the simpler
titles, as you cannot do fancy things like CDXL without using the routines in
this ROM.
Marc N. Barrett
>In article <C4xBz...@news.iastate.edu>, bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>
>>>> The problem is that third-party CD-ROM drives do NOT come with the OS
>>>>extensions necessary to run CDTV or CDTV titles. Presumably, Commodore
>>>>CD-ROM drives would. Commodore's CD-ROM drive for the A500 certainly does.
>>>>(It would be nice if these OS extensions included Amiga-specific routines
>>>>not found on any CDTV, but that's another story)
>>>
>>>No, but the third-party CDROM filesystems do include the stuff that allows
>>>them to use most CDTV software.
>>
>> Bullshit. Does an MS-DOS filesystem for your floppy drives give you the
>> ability to run MS-DOS software?
>
>Yeah, Cross-PC works quite nicely, thank you! ;) Does the Apple file exchange
>run PC software? No, you have to buy SoftPC.
>
>Either way: WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH CDTV?????? Honestly,
>sometimes I think you really *ARE* a modified version of Eliza.....
>> software. They are NOTHING!! All they give you is the ability to READ discs
>> that were written using the filesystem that yours supports. They do NOT give
>> you the ability to actually do anything with whatever is on those CD-ROM discs.
>>
>> CDTVs (and probably CDTV II systems) come with lots of extra ROM routines
>> that no Amiga (except an A500 with the A590) has. Third-party CD-ROM drives
>> do not come with this extra OS software, which is owned by Commodore. So if
>> a CDTV title uses any of these OS routines, merely having a filesystem to
>> allow you to read CDTV discs will not give you the ability to run the CDTV
>> title that may be on the disc.
>
>Care to tell me how I'm currently running a CDTV title on my borrowed Sony CD
>player?
I have already said this: SOME CDTV titles MAY work on an Amiga with a
third-party CD-ROM drive. But this only includes titles that make no use
whatsoever of the CDTV's 256K of specialized ROM. But the routines in this
ROM allow support for things like CDXL, so titles that do not use this ROM
are also among the more simplistic titles available for CDTV.
You stated that you are currently running "a" CDTV title on your borrowed
CD-ROM drive. Is that all the CDTV titles that you have tried? **ONE**?????
Get back to me when you have tried 50 or so.
>>>Why? If the original CDTV didn't do so well, why would they waste the
>>>development on a new one?
>>
>> The original CD-I players haven't done so well, but Philips is pushing
>> forward with the development of more advanced CD-I players with things like
>> MPEG, that would be more likely to succeed.
>
>Is this the same Marc Barrett that is studying economics (Supposedly because he
>couldn't handle engineering)???? CD-I was a group effort. As a result, Phillips
>didn't put as much (percentage wise) money into it as Commodore did CDTV. Ever
>study the laws of demand, Marc? Very enlightening. Supposedly, if you're not
>gonna make a profit at something, you leave it alone and go for something
>else....
Then why hasn't Commodore dumped the Amiga entirely and gone to something
else? They certainly haven't made all that much money with it.
Tim Ciceran
> One reason for an AGA CDTV would be the Kodak Photo CD thing. Or
> is that more of a licensing problem?
That's the biscuit. Kodak requires licensing of the Photo CD format. Someone
from Kodak recently indicated that Commodore had entered into negotiations
with the corporation, and mentioned that we may be surprised by the outcome.
We shall see.
> Given my druthers, I'd like to have had SCSI standard on the
> A4000. But I think IDE is fine for the A600 and A1200. A
> third party could make a SCSI adapter for the A1200 if there
> is a market. (Hook it to the local bus, send the cable out the
> knock out on the back. Is that possible?)
In a sense, it now is. The A4000T has a SCSI-II controller incorporated into
the motherboard. Perhaps we'll see an enhanced A4000 w/SCSI-II standard.
As for the A1200 SCSI support, three companies (GVP, CSA & ICD) have already
announced controllers which follow the strategy you mention. ICD's solution
is especially interesting because it is SCSI-II. Not bad for $199, but you
need their accelerator module to use it.
Tim Ciceran
writes:
>>CD ROMs have been available for ALL amigas since 1989/1990. Xetec
>>was the first manufactuerer of them. As far as I know, all CDTV discs
>>work on it as well.
> Bullshit.
Such profanity.
> CDTV's have an extra 256K of ROM that you do NOT have on an Amiga with a
>third-party CD-ROM drive. As Greg has already stated, this ROM includes all
>sorts of drivers and routines that allow things like CDXL to work. He
>mentioned that AmigaVision Pro, for example, REQUIRES an A500 with an A570
>CD-ROM drive to use CDXL.
Big deal. Support for CDXL is included in 3.1, as are additional
CDTV-libraries. The two systems will be software compatible in short order.
What is needed is a standardized device driver bundled with the OS.
Michael S McKnight
>In article <C4w8K...@unccsun.uncc.edu> msmc...@unccsun.uncc.edu (Michael S McKnight) writes:
>>In article <C4vpz...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>>In article <C4tuH...@unccsun.uncc.edu> msmc...@unccsun.uncc.edu (Michael S McKnight) writes:
>>>>In article <C4s0y...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>>> The problem is that third-party CD-ROM drives do NOT come with the OS
>>>extensions necessary to run CDTV or CDTV titles. Presumably, Commodore
>>>CD-ROM drives would. Commodore's CD-ROM drive for the A500 certainly does.
>>>(It would be nice if these OS extensions included Amiga-specific routines
>>>not found on any CDTV, but that's another story)
>>
>>No, but the third-party CDROM filesystems do include the stuff that allows
>>them to use most CDTV software.
>
> Bullshit. Does an MS-DOS filesystem for your floppy drives give you the
>ability to run MS-DOS software?
>
> People liike at CD-ROM filesystems like they are all you need to use CD-ROM
>software. They are NOTHING!! All they give you is the ability to READ discs
>that were written using the filesystem that yours supports. They do NOT give
>you the ability to actually do anything with whatever is on those CD-ROM discs.
I am well aware of what a filesystem allows...
> CDTVs (and probably CDTV II systems) come with lots of extra ROM routines
>that no Amiga (except an A500 with the A590) has. Third-party CD-ROM drives
>do not come with this extra OS software, which is owned by Commodore. So if
>a CDTV title uses any of these OS routines, merely having a filesystem to
>allow you to read CDTV discs will not give you the ability to run the CDTV
>title that may be on the disc.
The point is, the 3rd-party people can make their supporting software
intercept these new ROM calls. The CD-ROM is simply another "write-
protected" hard drive. Not that much new would need to be introduced.
>> Like
>>I said, just because CBM doesnt make it, doesnt mean it inst out there.
>
> In the case of the ability to run CDTV titles (which, unfortunately, is all
>that is available for Amiga on CD-ROM), you need these OS routines, and NO
>third-party drives come with these routines. As you said, they only come with
>the fileystems to allow you to READ the discs. But READING software and
>RUNNING software are two totally different things.
Take a look at most CD-ROMs. They are usually used for large collections of
pictures, clip-art, fonts, etc. Very few companies actually release
applications that require the type of storage a CD offers. Many CD-ROMs are
collections of public domain and shareware software. The other biggest use
is probably dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other reference material. The
Amiga has all of this. Even if it is on CDTV disks, other Amigas can access
it. All of those image and font disks can pretty much be used by anyone with
the ability to read ISO-9690 (or whatever) formatted disks.
>>
>>Why? If the original CDTV didn't do so well, why would they waste the
>>development on a new one?
>
> The original CD-I players haven't done so well, but Philips is pushing
>forward with the development of more advanced CD-I players with things like
>MPEG, that would be more likely to succeed.
>
> Even Commodore has not always killed off something after it has not
>demonstrated immediate success (although that have done just that in the
>past). They did not kill all development of future Amigas after the A1000
>did not take the entire world by storm, for instance.
My point was that they may not have a new CDTV as a high priority. Fact is,
neither one of us knows what CBM is going to do. They may just be trying to
clean out the old inventory. It's not exactly like CBM has to put a whole
lot of effort into beating CD-I at anything. If CBM wanted to add MPEG, I
am sure they could... it would just add to the cost of the unit. The Amiga
already does a pretty good job at animation without the need for real fancy
compression. Sure, it would be a nice little bonus, but I would hardly
classify it as a necessity.
>> The AGA chipset has only been out for a few
>>months now, dont you think CBM should wait and see what the market for these
>>new machines is before jumping in with a whole new CDTV?
>
> No. An AGA CD-ROM appliance and an AGA personal computer would fail for
>different reasons. One failing would not necessarily indicate that the other
>would fail.
Both could be sucessful. There is no harm in waiting. There just may not
be a market for such a device. If you give 10,000 people a survey and ask
them if they would be interested in a product with X features at Y price and
if nobody wants it, why make it?
>>
>>>>You are such a Mac fanatic...
>>>
>>> No I'm not. I use Macs in my arguments because they show how bad things
>>>have become in the Amiga world. It amazes be that Macs -- which still leave
>>>much to be desired hardware wise -- are suddenly so much better than Amigas
>>>hardware-wise. It isn't that Macs are so spectacular, it that Amigas have
>>>become so rotten.
>>
>>The Macs are no where near as good as the Amiga's internally. You know that.
>
> Prove it.
Well, I'm not an engineer and I'm not really much on benchmarks and all that
other stuff either, but, I have worked on and with many macs and none of them
(with the same CPU and CLK speed) perform near as well as an Amiga of the
same catagory. When I say internally I mean not only electrically, but OS
also. It doesnt take a rocket-scientist to see that the Amigas do a better
job. Maybe some engineer can back this up.
>>If you are bitching about the IDE drives, they can't be all that bad or
>>a gazillion clones wouldnt be using them.
>
> But all Macintoshes use SCSI, and Apple is the largest personal computer
>company in the world, shipping over 2 million Macintoshes per year, or
>almost four Macs for every Amiga that Commodore ships. So using SCSI has
>been good for Apple, at least.
Hell, I'm a definate SCSI fan... thats the sole reason I havent gotten a 4000
yet. My point is that IDE is well accepted and in a whole lot more systems
than SCSI. Just because Apple may be the largest single computer maker, all
of those clones out there add up.
I was simply stating that IDE won't cause the end of Commodore. Stupid move,
maybe, but not deadly.
>> If you mean graphics, most
>>Apple systems require 3rd-party hardware and software to get their higher
>>resolution displays.
>
> There are some excellent third-party graphics cards for Macintoshes as well.
>If you are hot on video hardware to relieve the CPU of graphics work, there
>are Mac video cards from Apple and third-party companies that include graphics
>coporocessors.
Amiga has all of this also. OS may not support it directly, but most gfx boards
emulate WB and apps that open on WB will work fine, and some even include
special concessions for other big-name software. You have to remember, the
Amiga is not CBMs biggest product and the lack of development money shows, but
this doesnt discount the quality of the Amiga as a wonderful computer.
>> To get a higher res on a Mac, you have to get a larger
>>monitor, on the Amiga, you simply change modes.
>
> Bullshit. The OS does expect a constant DPI across monitors of different
>sizes, but the OS can be easily fooled. You can use a 13" SVGA monitor on a
>Mac Centris and use the 850x650 32768-color non-interlaced mode on it, for
>instance.
Should you have to "fool" the OS? For the most part, Macs do require larger
monitors for higher resolutions.
>
> The Amiga OS is effecient because it lacks a lot of modern OS features,
>that do tend to slow things down on OSs that have them.
What can the Mac do that the Amiga cannot? Would you rather be forced to use
a slow system or be given a fast one and have the option to slow it down if
you want to?
Marc N. Barrett
>In article <1993Apr5.0...@desire.wright.edu> fhei...@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>> One reason for an AGA CDTV would be the Kodak Photo CD thing. Or
>> is that more of a licensing problem?
>
>That's the biscuit. Kodak requires licensing of the Photo CD format. Someone
>from Kodak recently indicated that Commodore had entered into negotiations
>with the corporation, and mentioned that we may be surprised by the outcome.
>We shall see.
The only way I will be surprised is if Commodore honestly tries to get the
license, and DOESN'T get it. I've said all along that it was probbaly actions
on Commodore's part that were not getting them the Photo CD, and that if
Commodore went through the same channels that everybody else is using, that
they'd probbaly get it. If there really is potential for Commodore to sell
systems or products using Photo CD, Kodak has no reasons to deny Commodore
the license.
>> Given my druthers, I'd like to have had SCSI standard on the
>> A4000. But I think IDE is fine for the A600 and A1200. A
>> third party could make a SCSI adapter for the A1200 if there
>> is a market. (Hook it to the local bus, send the cable out the
>> knock out on the back. Is that possible?)
>
>In a sense, it now is. The A4000T has a SCSI-II controller incorporated into
>the motherboard. Perhaps we'll see an enhanced A4000 w/SCSI-II standard.
Is SCSI on the motherboard in the A4000T? I was under the impression that
it was on the CPU card. This is an important difference, because if SCSI is
on the card rather than on the motherboard, then it makes it more expensive
for A4000T owners to upgrade to future CPU cards. They have to pay for a
new CPU (and whatever comes with it; a DSP, for instance) AND a new SCSI
interface. If it is on the motherboard, they would not have to pay for
something that doesn't need to be replaced, when upgrading to a new CPU card.
NCAF
>>
>>Is this the same Marc Barrett that is studying economics (Supposedly because he
>>couldn't handle engineering)???? CD-I was a group effort. As a result, Phillips
>>didn't put as much (percentage wise) money into it as Commodore did CDTV. Ever
>>study the laws of demand, Marc? Very enlightening. Supposedly, if you're not
>>gonna make a profit at something, you leave it alone and go for something
>>else....
>
> Then why hasn't Commodore dumped the Amiga entirely and gone to something
>else? They certainly haven't made all that much money with it.
Well they must be making enough to warrant continued R&D on the series.
Otherwise we'd have gotten sick of A1000s long ago and be forced to
use clones. Not to mention all the third part developers for the Amiga.
>-----
>Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
>------------------------------------------------
>.
>.
Cheers from:
[] Ben Hardy, lurking about the uncharted backwaters of coding.
[] Disclaimer: I did it.
[] Beware of clowns in drains wo offer you
[] balloons and think your name is Georgie.
Tim Ciceran
writes:
> The only way I will be surprised is if Commodore honestly tries to get the
>license, and DOESN'T get it. I've said all along that it was probbaly actions
>on Commodore's part that were not getting them the Photo CD, and that if
>Commodore went through the same channels that everybody else is using, that
>they'd probbaly get it.
I have a hard time believing that Kodak's position is politically motivated.
It's in the interest of the corporation to promote the format to as many
vendors that will license the technology. Until system support for the standard
is available however, the licensing fees are quite prohibitive.
> Is SCSI on the motherboard in the A4000T? I was under the impression that
>it was on the CPU card. This is an important difference, because if SCSI is
>on the card rather than on the motherboard, then it makes it more expensive
>for A4000T owners to upgrade to future CPU cards. They have to pay for a
>new CPU (and whatever comes with it; a DSP, for instance) AND a new SCSI
>interface. If it is on the motherboard, they would not have to pay for
>something that doesn't need to be replaced, when upgrading to a new CPU card.
From what I was told, the SCSI-II adaptor is incorporated into the MB.
The A4091 is also a Zorro III card, eliminating any redundancy with
CPU modules.
David
> They killed off Unix though, I think that was a mistake. But it
> was probably too expensive when compared to SCO and SPARC Classic
> machines. At least when comparing list price. I wonder if
> Commodore or some third party will ever upgrade the A3000 Unix
> so it runs on the A4000?
Since they killed unix off (a shame IMO) you'd think that they'd be
selling it cheap. I'd buy it, even given the fact it is unsupported.
How much would it cost C= to sell? The cost of the tape+USL license?
What would the run? It also seems like the A4000T especially would be
a fun platform to run UNIX on.
/ Amiga /// | U.S.C. Trojans | O Bar | David Leslie \
| /// | Fight On! | E O | |
| \\\/// | -- | Meu | jpd...@netcom.com |
\ \XX/ A1000 | Go Kings! | Lar! | dle...@scf.usc.edu /
Gregory R Block
: mentioned that AmigaVision Pro, for example, REQUIRES an A500 with an A570
: CD-ROM drive to use CDXL.
Well, it needs the ROM. If someone happened to have a CDTV drive for
their 3000, it would work fine. Not that anyone does, mind you, but it's
just a point I'm trying to make--the rom is required, the machine it's on
isn't the point.
: Granted, SOME CDTV titles may work with an Amiga with a third-party CD-ROM
: drive, but ONLY those that make no use of the specialized routines in the
: CDTV's extra 256K of ROM. These titles also happen to be among the simpler
Exactly.
Gregory R Block
: they'd probbaly get it. If there really is potential for Commodore to sell
: the license.
I think a PhotoCD DataType would do Kodak and C= justice.
: Is SCSI on the motherboard in the A4000T? I was under the impression that
: it was on the CPU card. This is an important difference, because if SCSI is
What would give one that impression, as a curiosity? No, I'm nearly
definitely positive that they are bundling in the A4000T the SCSI-II
Zorro III controller they just released--the A4091, if I remember
properly.
Modularity is your friend...
NCAF
>>In article <1993Apr5.0...@desire.wright.edu> fhei...@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>
>>> One reason for an AGA CDTV would be the Kodak Photo CD thing. Or
>>> is that more of a licensing problem?
>>
>>That's the biscuit. Kodak requires licensing of the Photo CD format. Someone
>>from Kodak recently indicated that Commodore had entered into negotiations
>>with the corporation, and mentioned that we may be surprised by the outcome.
>>We shall see.
>
> The only way I will be surprised is if Commodore honestly tries to get the
>license, and DOESN'T get it. I've said all along that it was probbaly actions
>on Commodore's part that were not getting them the Photo CD, and that if
>Commodore went through the same channels that everybody else is using, that
>they'd probbaly get it. If there really is potential for Commodore to sell
>systems or products using Photo CD, Kodak has no reasons to deny Commodore
>the license.
True. So why would they NOT want the Photo CD licence? It would
certainly give the CDTV some more selling points.
>>> Given my druthers, I'd like to have had SCSI standard on the
>>> A4000. But I think IDE is fine for the A600 and A1200. A
>>> third party could make a SCSI adapter for the A1200 if there
>>> is a market. (Hook it to the local bus, send the cable out the
>>> knock out on the back. Is that possible?)
>>
>>In a sense, it now is. The A4000T has a SCSI-II controller incorporated into
>>the motherboard. Perhaps we'll see an enhanced A4000 w/SCSI-II standard.
>
> Is SCSI on the motherboard in the A4000T? I was under the impression that
>it was on the CPU card. This is an important difference, because if SCSI is
>on the card rather than on the motherboard, then it makes it more expensive
>for A4000T owners to upgrade to future CPU cards. They have to pay for a
>new CPU (and whatever comes with it; a DSP, for instance) AND a new SCSI
>interface. If it is on the motherboard, they would not have to pay for
>something that doesn't need to be replaced, when upgrading to a new CPU card.
All the 4000's are supposed to compe with the CPU on its own little
daughterboard aren't they?
>-----
>Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
>------------------------------------------------
>.
>.
Cheers from:
[] Ben Hardy, lurking about the uncharted backwaters of coding.
[] Disclaimer: I did it.
[] Beware of clowns in drains who offer you
Dr Peter Kittel Germany
Yes.
>I was under the impression that it was on the CPU card.
As always, you're plain wrong.
>If it is on the motherboard, they would not have to pay for
>something that doesn't need to be replaced, when upgrading to a new CPU card.
See. Now *I* would be amazed if you for one time would accept the
brilliance of Commodore's design decisions...
--
Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions...
Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ pet...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com
Back from CeBIT (displaying A4000T prototype), anything happened?
Dr Peter Kittel Germany
>In article <C517u...@news.iastate.edu>, Marc N. Barrett (bar...@iastate.edu) wrote:
>
>: Is SCSI on the motherboard in the A4000T? I was under the impression that
>: it was on the CPU card. This is an important difference, because if SCSI is
>
>What would give one that impression, as a curiosity? No, I'm nearly
>definitely positive that they are bundling in the A4000T the SCSI-II
>Zorro III controller they just released--the A4091, if I remember
>properly.
Sigh. You're both wrong. It's on the motherboard, because it's cheaper
that way, and perhaps more reliable (fewer connectors).
Jarkko Lindblad
> From what I was told, the SCSI-II adaptor is incorporated into the MB.
Tim, are you sure? Who told you that Grand Master B has a SCSI-II
adaptor in his head?
:)
--
Jarkko Lindblad | Kirves sanoo junts, kun sill{ ly|d{{n
lind...@cc.helsinki.fi| t{n{{n meill{ kunnon pihvit sy|d{{n
-----------------------| Huuda vaan se kiihottaa, ei kukaan kuule kuitenkaan
- Pime{ tie - | Kirves sanoo junts, kun sill{ ly|d{{n
Jarkko Lindblad
> In article <C517u...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
> >If it is on the motherboard, they would not have to pay for
> >something that doesn't need to be replaced, when upgrading to a new CPU card.
>
> See. Now *I* would be amazed if you for one time would accept the
> brilliance of Commodore's design decisions...
I'm sure that Grand Master B will point out to you that now it's much
more expensive to replace the motherboard than it would have been w/o
the SCSI-II. At least I hope so :)
Marc N. Barrett
>In article <C517u...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>
>> Is SCSI on the motherboard in the A4000T?
>
>Yes.
>
>>I was under the impression that it was on the CPU card.
>
>As always, you're plain wrong.
>
>>If it is on the motherboard, they would not have to pay for
>>something that doesn't need to be replaced, when upgrading to a new CPU card.
>
>See. Now *I* would be amazed if you for one time would accept the
>brilliance of Commodore's design decisions...
Because they are not often brilliant. Every Amiga system Commodore has
designed in the past 3-4 years has been flawed in one way or another. The
A3000 was an excellent design outside of the chipset, but the chipset that
the A3000 used was flawed, making the system flawed. Commodore designs a
system to correctly the most major flaws in the chipset -- the color
capabilities -- and promptly inserts this chipset into a system that is
horribly designed outside of the chipset.
The A4000T merely corrects a small number of really serious design flaws
that never should have come to be in the first place. The A4000T is not a
fantastic design in its own right. If you call putting SCSI on the motherboard
where it belongs a "brilliant" design decision", then Apple has been making
brilliant design decisions on ALL of their Macintoshes for the past five
years!
I am willing to admit that, if the A3000 had used the AGA chipset, that
that would have been an absolutely BRILLIANT design. But that's not the
way things worked out.
Gregory R Block
: Sigh. You're both wrong. It's on the motherboard, because it's cheaper
: that way, and perhaps more reliable (fewer connectors).
Interesting. They took a cheaper long-term over cheaper development
costs. Personally, I would think that would be a bad judgement; if
they've got a limited budget, and if one is on a budget then one is of
course limited, then I would think it wiser to go for the more modular
approach of designing the SCSI-II once, and then releasing.
Of course, if they do need to lower costs and do a board redesign, I do
imagine that doing it the first time would be cheaper than a redesign;
but does that offset testing and design costs in the short term? No.
Interesting choice, taking long-term over short-term costs. Seeing the
cost choices in the 4000, I had simply assumed that it would be the same.
Perhaps this A4000T will be the much-needed high-end system people have
been complaining that the A4000 wasn't, then. I wonder who worked on
it...
Gregory R Block
: The A4000T merely corrects a small number of really serious design flaws
: that never should have come to be in the first place. The A4000T is not a
An opinion. I see the inclusion if IDE as a cost measure, and perfectly
legitimate for a midrange machine. I see the 040's nonexistent burst
support the same way.
: fantastic design in its own right. If you call putting SCSI on the motherboard
I disagree, mostly.
: where it belongs a "brilliant" design decision", then Apple has been making
: brilliant design decisions on ALL of their Macintoshes for the past five
: years!
Putting it on the motherboard is a very good decision, especially when it
would have been cheaper in the long run for them to simply bundle it with
the 4091 SCSI II controller.
: I am willing to admit that, if the A3000 had used the AGA chipset, that
: that would have been an absolutely BRILLIANT design. But that's not the
: way things worked out.
And the inclusion of a second video slot? How do you see that? The
A4000T has all of the advantages of the A3000 and more; I see the second
video slot as a rather ingenius idea.
Tim Ciceran
>> From what I was told, the SCSI-II adaptor is incorporated into the MB.
>Tim, are you sure? Who told you that Grand Master B has a SCSI-II
>adaptor in his head?
Ouch! You got me... but rumour has it that it doesn't come with a CPU :).
Michael van Elst
> The problem is that third-party CD-ROM drives do NOT come with the OS
>extensions necessary to run CDTV or CDTV titles.
Can't you stay with one opinion ? Once CDTV titles are uninportant and
inferior to anything else, then they are absolutely needed.
>would take so damn long for Commodore to develop.
Maybe there is a different reason ? With no CDTV-like device being sold
well they may hesitate to push another one.
>hardware-wise. It isn't that Macs are so spectacular, it that Amigas have
>become so rotten.
I think that is an attitude problem of yours. Technical devices such as
computers have a little problem to get 'rotten', they are neither apples
nor bananas..
> If you want. But any Amiga CD-ROM drives from Commodore should (and
>probably will) include OS software that you just do not get with third-party
>drives.
Which is of course untrue. You _do_ get Amiga software with some of them
and there is nothing besides lack of brain that prevents you from just buying
the software separately.
> Commodore bent over backwards to accomodate buggy software with AmigaOS 2.0
>and 3.0. Too much software relied on old Commodore bugs, so they put the
>bugs back in. Too much software jumped directly into the beginning of the
>ROMs, so Commodore invented "kickity split" that basically split the 2.0 ROMs
>(which are twice the length of previous ROMs and begin at a lower address)
>in half.
This was definitely a questionable method. But with that many game players
and the programming skills of game writers they thought it would be
worthwhile.
Of course Apple could handle that much better. I believe it is considered as
good marketing to create the demand for new 'software updates'. But the
low cost Amiga market wouldn't accept that.
>>You also babble about the Macs great graphics. Well, thats the one thing that
> You make it sound so simple. If it is, why doesn't Commodore do the same
>thing?
Because they would loose other unique features when reverting to simple things.
>the fact remains that the video hardware is capable of generating some
>astonishing non-interlaced resolutions in standard hardware (especially in
>the case of the Centris models).
Some people do not think that it is that important. Others can't shut their
mouths when the computer they did buy is not the workstation and the cray
supercomputer in a small desktop box.
> How fast are Amigas with max. non-interlaced resolution with 8 planes?
How fast are Mac graphics with say 16 colors which are suitable for a GUI ?
Talking about performance at hardware limits was never considered serious
when it comes to talk about usability of a machine.
Regards,
--
Michael van Elst
UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve
Internet: p55...@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de
"A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
DXB...@psuvm.psu.edu
says:
>In article <11...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com>, Dr Peter Kittel Germany
>(pet...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com) wrote:
>: Sigh. You're both wrong. It's on the motherboard, because it's cheaper
>: that way, and perhaps more reliable (fewer connectors).
>Interesting. They took a cheaper long-term over cheaper development
>costs. Personally, I would think that would be a bad judgement; if
>they've got a limited budget, and if one is on a budget then one is of
>course limited, then I would think it wiser to go for the more modular
>approach of designing the SCSI-II once, and then releasing.
I think you are overestimated the design cost of incorportating SCSI.
Considering that the A4000T has to use a completely new motherboard
anyway (more slots), why not include SCSI? The SCSI board should be
easy to "port" to the motherboard; the hardware may need to be
tweaked for an optimal design, but at least the same device driver
(a major part of the work) can be used.
cl23...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
> Because they are not often brilliant. Every Amiga system Commodore has
> designed in the past 3-4 years has been flawed in one way or another. The
> A3000 was an excellent design outside of the chipset, but the chipset that
> the A3000 used was flawed, making the system flawed. Commodore designs a
> system to correctly the most major flaws in the chipset -- the color
> capabilities -- and promptly inserts this chipset into a system that is
> horribly designed outside of the chipset.
>
> The A4000T merely corrects a small number of really serious design flaws
> that never should have come to be in the first place. The A4000T is not a
> fantastic design in its own right. If you call putting SCSI on the motherboard
> where it belongs a "brilliant" design decision", then Apple has been making
> brilliant design decisions on ALL of their Macintoshes for the past five
> years! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^
> I am willing to admit that, if the A3000 had used the AGA chipset, that
> that would have been an absolutely BRILLIANT design. But that's not the
> way things worked out.
Yet more of MB's BS. You show him he's wrong and he changes the subject. You
show him a great machine and he says it should have been that way to start
with, and it still sucks. You show him something that's been added and he
claims that all Mac's have it.
Yeah, my friend LOVES his scsi-II on his Mac Performa...... After all,
ALL Mac's have had SCSI-II for the past 5 years!
>
> -----
> Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
> ------------------------------------------------
MikeB
"Macs are a much better value than any other machine, mainly because they have
the Apple sticker on them!" - Marc N. Parrot
Hu Man
>
> I am willing to admit that, if the A3000 had used the AGA chipset, that
> that would have been an absolutely BRILLIANT design. But that's not the
> way things worked out.
Yes, that would have been quite a brilliant feat on Commodore's part,
since the AGA chips didn't even exist at the time.
Marc N. Barrett
>And the inclusion of a second video slot? How do you see that?
It's a good idea.
> The
>A4000T has all of the advantages of the A3000 and more; I see the second
>video slot as a rather ingenius idea.
But I don't see the inclusion of the second video slot as being awe-
inspiring in cleverness. Obviously, Commodore had to do SOMETHING to justify
the extra $1,500 that the A4000T would naturally have in its price tag, and
including extra slots seems like a really obvious way to do it.
Jonathan F Zimmitti
>In article <1ptk08...@uwm.edu> gbl...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:
>>A4000T has all of the advantages of the A3000 and more; I see the second
>>video slot as a rather ingenius idea.
>
> But I don't see the inclusion of the second video slot as being awe-
>inspiring in cleverness. Obviously, Commodore had to do SOMETHING to justify
>the extra $1,500 that the A4000T would naturally have in its price tag, and
>including extra slots seems like a really obvious way to do it.
>
>-----
>Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
>------------------------------------------------
Wait...How do you know that C= will 'naturally' charge $1500 extra??
You should lay off those 900 numbers, you know, the Psychics Hotline...
Jonathan
Dr Peter Kittel Germany
>In article <11...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com> pet...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com (Dr Peter Kittel Germany) writes:
>>
>>See. Now *I* would be amazed if you for one time would accept the
>>brilliance of Commodore's design decisions...
>
> Because they are not often brilliant.
See: I WAS RIGHT! :-)
>Every Amiga system Commodore has
>designed in the past 3-4 years has been flawed in one way or another.
Ok, now the challenge: Can you name *any* competing system that has
absolutely no flaw in it at any place (HW or SW)? I doubt that.
This is an issue incidentally also just now in our german newsgroups:
What people demand from Commodore appears magnitudes more than from
other manufaturers. When others come out with models full of bottlenecks
(like those 16-bit busses from two other 680x0 vendors on 32-bit
processors) all the world seems content and applauds for some "modern"
design. When Commodore releases solid 32-bit architecture with absolutely
minor flaws in some very hidden and rarely visited corner, then the world
cries loud about those flaws and "deficiencies" and "errors", that will
sure take down the whole company in a few moments. Am I the only person
to feel severe unjustice here?
Dr Peter Kittel Germany
>In article <11...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com>, Dr Peter Kittel Germany (pet...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com) wrote:
>
>: Sigh. You're both wrong. It's on the motherboard, because it's cheaper
>: that way, and perhaps more reliable (fewer connectors).
>
>Interesting. They took a cheaper long-term over cheaper development
>costs. Personally, I would think that would be a bad judgement; if
>they've got a limited budget, and if one is on a budget then one is of
>course limited, then I would think it wiser to go for the more modular
>approach of designing the SCSI-II once, and then releasing.
The electronics are most probably fully identic, so there's no double
design, just integrating it into the motherboard design.
>Of course, if they do need to lower costs and do a board redesign,
Sure, the A4000T is a total redesign of the A4000 board, it's mechanically
very different and also the slots are directly on it. During this design
process they simply integrated the SCSI electronics. It was sure no
redesign only because of the SCSI integration. And remember: Also the
SCSI in the A3000 was onboard, this is rather normal, if at all present.
>Perhaps this A4000T will be the much-needed high-end system people have
>been complaining that the A4000 wasn't, then. I wonder who worked on
>it...
We have it open here. On the board I read LASSA/FISH and below that,
smaller: GB/DH/SS/JH/DF/CF/JD/MN. Hmm, I don't know everyone in engineering,
but I guess LASSA=Paul Lassa, GB=Greg Berlin, DH=Dave Haynie, rest ???
Anyone wanting to give more enlightment? Dave?
Tom R Krotchko
>CDTV-libraries. The two systems will be software compatible in short order.
>
>What is needed is a standardized device driver bundled with the OS.
That's only the start. They also need a relatively high-level API so that
programmers can port stuff from MPC and OS/2 easily.
If developers don't have that high-level API to do the multimedia stuff
from CD-ROM, you're forcing them to reinvent the wheel for every title.
To...@cup.portal.com
Tom Krotchko
Marc N. Barrett
>In article <C53CF...@news.iastate.edu>, bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>
>
>> Because they are not often brilliant. Every Amiga system Commodore has
>> designed in the past 3-4 years has been flawed in one way or another. The
>> A3000 was an excellent design outside of the chipset, but the chipset that
>> the A3000 used was flawed, making the system flawed. Commodore designs a
>> system to correctly the most major flaws in the chipset -- the color
>> capabilities -- and promptly inserts this chipset into a system that is
>> horribly designed outside of the chipset.
>>
>> The A4000T merely corrects a small number of really serious design flaws
>> that never should have come to be in the first place. The A4000T is not a
>> fantastic design in its own right. If you call putting SCSI on the motherboard
>> where it belongs a "brilliant" design decision", then Apple has been making
>> brilliant design decisions on ALL of their Macintoshes for the past five
>> years! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> ^^^^^^
>> I am willing to admit that, if the A3000 had used the AGA chipset, that
>> that would have been an absolutely BRILLIANT design. But that's not the
>> way things worked out.
>
>Yet more of MB's BS. You show him he's wrong and he changes the subject. You
>show him a great machine and he says it should have been that way to start
>with, and it still sucks. You show him something that's been added and he
>claims that all Mac's have it.
Yes, all Macs have SCSI (or very nearly all; I think one of the PowerBooks
lacks SCSI, but all of the others have it).
>Yeah, my friend LOVES his scsi-II on his Mac Performa...... After all,
>ALL Mac's have had SCSI-II for the past 5 years!
Do you see "SCSI II" in the quoted material above? I sure don't, and I
sure didn't edit it out. Let me repeat what I said:
"If you call putting SCSI on the motherboard where it belongs a "brilliant
design decision", then Apple has been making brilliant design decisions on ALL
of their Macintoshes for the past five years!"
People are making too much of a big deal out of what essentially are totally
obvious ideas: putting a SCSI interface into the system and putting it on the
motherboard. As if this a radical new paradigm in computing. The fact that
the SCSI interface that Commodore chose happens to be SCSI II is irrelevant
to what I am saying.
BTW, do you know under what conditions you really benefit from SCSI II
over SCSI-I? Only when you ahppen to have two or more SCSI-II drives
connected. How often are people going to have two or more SCSI II drives
connected? The vast majority of SCSI devices are still SCSI I, and that
includes hard drives. Thus, you really only benefit from SCSI II over
SCSI-I in very special circumstances.
Tim Ciceran
>This is an issue incidentally also just now in our german newsgroups:
>What people demand from Commodore appears magnitudes more than from
>other manufaturers.
Well, you have to admit, the A1000 set a pretty good precedent :).
>When Commodore releases solid 32-bit architecture with absolutely
>minor flaws in some very hidden and rarely visited corner, then the world
^^^^^
>cries loud about those flaws and "deficiencies" and "errors", that will
>sure take down the whole company in a few moments. Am I the only person
>to feel severe unjustice here?
Please don't confuse a few malcontents with the rest of us. Witness the
accolades regarding the NYC WOC, and the effort being put forth in the
AmigaDOS Wish List... there are bad apples in every bunch.
Gregory R Block
: Maybe there is a different reason ? With no CDTV-like device being sold
: well they may hesitate to push another one.
Or perhaps they're looking for a way to get around the problem of needing
a special rom for CDTV's. Or perhaps they'd like to wait for a release
of something...
Who knows.
: computers have a little problem to get 'rotten', they are neither apples
: nor bananas..
Yes, they are neither; in fact, they are quite definitely oranges. I'm
rather positive on this point.
: This was definitely a questionable method. But with that many game players
: and the programming skills of game writers they thought it would be
: worthwhile.
At some point in time, they will dump the compatibility hacks because
they won't need them, in the same way that someday, they'll drop ECS
support in their chipset.
: Of course Apple could handle that much better. I believe it is considered as
: good marketing to create the demand for new 'software updates'. But the
: low cost Amiga market wouldn't accept that.
Correct.
Tim Ciceran
>>Big deal. Support for CDXL is included in 3.1, as are additional
>>CDTV-libraries. The two systems will be software compatible in short order.
>>What is needed is a standardized device driver bundled with the OS.
>That's only the start. They also need a relatively high-level API so that
>programmers can port stuff from MPC and OS/2 easily.
I agree entirely. In fact, aside from MPC and OS/2 portability, a high-level
API/framework is sorely needed in general. We'll have to wait and see what
Inovatronics (AppBuilder) and ECO (Display Maker) have to offer.
>If developers don't have that high-level API to do the multimedia stuff
>from CD-ROM, you're forcing them to reinvent the wheel for every title.
Exactamundo.
Tim Ciceran
writes:
> BTW, do you know under what conditions you really benefit from SCSI II
>over SCSI-I? Only when you ahppen to have two or more SCSI-II drives
>connected. How often are people going to have two or more SCSI II drives
>connected? The vast majority of SCSI devices are still SCSI I, and that
>includes hard drives. Thus, you really only benefit from SCSI II over
>SCSI-I in very special circumstances.
Sheesh. Now you're parrotting Ken (Aikido of IRC) out of context. In order
to gain maximum benefit, this is the case. But this does not negate the
fact that SCSI-II offers increased performance and higher transfer rates.
For those people with a need for SCSI-II (ie. video/graphics production),
it will not be uncommon to support multiple SCSI devices. Besides, if you
want to use SCSI-I, that is also an option.
Gregory R Block
: I think you are overestimated the design cost of incorportating SCSI.
I'm not so sure.
: Considering that the A4000T has to use a completely new motherboard
: anyway (more slots), why not include SCSI? The SCSI board should be
Because they'd have to design it TWICE. They could use SOME of both
chips, but they'd have to design both a motherboard SCSI-II system as
well as a Zorro III SCSI-II card.
: easy to "port" to the motherboard; the hardware may need to be
: tweaked for an optimal design, but at least the same device driver
: (a major part of the work) can be used.
I'm not sure; if the SCSI-II on the motherboard logically appears to
exist on the Zorro III bus, then it is possible that only minor changes,
if any at all, would need to be made. However, if something else was
done, a new driver would be needed.
Regardless, one dosn't really equal the other, and the result is that
they traded development costs for reduced system production cost.
An interesting choice. Not wrong, and a good idea, but interesting.
Gregory R Block
: >Interesting. They took a cheaper long-term over cheaper development
: >costs. Personally, I would think that would be a bad judgement; if
: >they've got a limited budget, and if one is on a budget then one is of
: >course limited, then I would think it wiser to go for the more modular
: >approach of designing the SCSI-II once, and then releasing.
: The electronics are most probably fully identic, so there's no double
: design, just integrating it into the motherboard design.
I'm not sure as to what degree that is possible; it's possible that to
the system, it appears to be a Zorro III card; I don't know. Regardless,
it's still an interesting choice. I wonder which came first, the
motherboard or the Zorro. :)
: >Of course, if they do need to lower costs and do a board redesign,
: Sure, the A4000T is a total redesign of the A4000 board, it's mechanically
: very different and also the slots are directly on it. During this design
Technically, here, I was referring to them releasing an A4000T with
SCSI-II as a Zorro III, and later going back for a motherboard redesign
with the SCSI-II incorporated.
: redesign only because of the SCSI integration. And remember: Also the
: SCSI in the A3000 was onboard, this is rather normal, if at all present.
Technically, is the A3000's SCSI controller on the Zorro III bus?
: We have it open here. On the board I read LASSA/FISH and below that,
: smaller: GB/DH/SS/JH/DF/CF/JD/MN. Hmm, I don't know everyone in engineering,
: but I guess LASSA=Paul Lassa, GB=Greg Berlin, DH=Dave Haynie, rest ???
: Anyone wanting to give more enlightment? Dave?
Danke, rather interesting. :)
Gregory R Block
: It's a good idea.
It's a damn good idea; too many people already have one thing they'd like
to put in, and being limited to one slot, are forced to make
catechismical choices based on what is really necessary. At worst,
this'll put an end to the need for a "DEB" denise-extender type hack.
: But I don't see the inclusion of the second video slot as being awe-
: inspiring in cleverness. Obviously, Commodore had to do SOMETHING to justify
I do. It's an eloquent solution to a real-world problem that most
expected would have gone unanswered.
: the extra $1,500 that the A4000T would naturally have in its price tag, and
: including extra slots seems like a really obvious way to do it.
Prices drop; and if this is to be the flagship of the Amiga line, the
high-end machine, then it's expected.
Kent D. Polk
>Every Amiga system Commodore has
>designed in the past 3-4 years has been flawed in one way or another.
Come on Mark... This is ridiculous. The Amigas I have purchased have had less
hardware and OS bugs than just about anything outside of HP computers (and
they have their problems too) that I have ever used and I've used a LOT of
computers through the years.
Heck, we have three Sun 4/640 MP's here that have to be rebooted pretty much
on a daily basis because they can't keep themselves running for much longer
than that. Does Sun take them back? Heck no. That's what OS patches and OS
upgrades are for. Did you ever take look at the bug list for these commercial
computers??? It's a book! This is the real world of computers, not some
wishful fantasy.
Kent Polk: Southwest Research Institute
Internet : ke...@swrinde.nde.swri.edu
Jason S. MacDonald
>driving a corvette through a lake, huh? Also, no Mac displays 24-bit on
>screen. You have 256 colors from 24-bits, maybe, but to show 24-bits of
>information on a standard 640x480 screen would require about 7.5MB of VRAM.
^^^^^
>I can't remember if you were stupid enough to defend System 7's multitasking
>abilities so I will only say one thing about that... try to format two floppies
>at once, or try to open the calculator more than once at a time.
Well, maybe you SHOULD open that calculator to do the above "7.5 MB"
calculation. You'd find that it DOESN'T take 7.5MB of VRAM, but 7.5Mbits.
That's ~900K of VRAM.
Just a small flame,
Jason
--
- Jason Scott MacDonald - js...@cornell.edu - js...@crux3.cit.cornell.edu
"Technology sufficiently advanced is ____
indistinguishable from magic." \ / "Cats exist so that we
-- Arthur C. Clarke \/ may caress the lion."
Evan Torrie
> Yes, all Macs have SCSI (or very nearly all; I think one of the PowerBooks
>lacks SCSI, but all of the others have it).
The Duos lack SCSI. Plugging them into a dock is the only way of
attaching a SCSI peripheral.
> Do you see "SCSI II" in the quoted material above? I sure don't, and I
>sure didn't edit it out. Let me repeat what I said:
> "If you call putting SCSI on the motherboard where it belongs a "brilliant
>design decision", then Apple has been making brilliant design decisions on ALL
>of their Macintoshes for the past five years!"
You could change that to "seven years". The Mac Plus came out in Jan 1986.
Every Mac since then (with the exception of the Duo) has a SCSI connector
on the back.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? tor...@cs.stanford.edu
Civilisation is the progress toward a society of privacy.
J.P. Hillenburg
> People are making too much of a big deal out of what essentially are totally
> obvious ideas: putting a SCSI interface into the system and putting it on the
> motherboard. As if this a radical new paradigm in computing. The fact that
> the SCSI interface that Commodore chose happens to be SCSI II is irrelevant
> to what I am saying.
Sure. It's a big deal to me. The A4000 only has IDE. I want SCSI, as
I have multiple SCSI-type drives. Plus, it being SCSI-II is just
another incentive for me to upgrade.
> BTW, do you know under what conditions you really benefit from SCSI II
> over SCSI-I? Only when you ahppen to have two or more SCSI-II drives
> connected. How often are people going to have two or more SCSI II drives
> connected? The vast majority of SCSI devices are still SCSI I, and that
> includes hard drives. Thus, you really only benefit from SCSI II over
> SCSI-I in very special circumstances.
Gee, Marc. Why do you think people buy A4000(T)'s? For 'special
circumstances.' People don't buy A4000(T)'s to play games. They
buy them to do real work. Whether that's programming, or
graphics work, or running a BBS, or something, it is still
real work. I know of NOONE who sinks money into an A3000 or
higher just to play games. Since the A4000(T) is bought to
use for real work, it just stands to reason that C= put a
studly drive controller in there, so that all of those people
doing real work can be all hunky-dorey with what they want to
do. These people tend to have multiple, large, drives and
tend to desire speed greatly.
> -----
> Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
> ------------------------------------------------
--
Joseph Hillenburg
NPS Technologies
charon!anaconda!j...@moose.cs.indiana.edu or j...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
[Also running BMS]
Jason S Birch
So does my Amiga, but I don't have wet dreams about it...
>>Yeah, my friend LOVES his scsi-II on his Mac Performa...... After all,
>>ALL Mac's have had SCSI-II for the past 5 years!
> Do you see "SCSI II" in the quoted material above? I sure don't, and I
>sure didn't edit it out. Let me repeat what I said:
> "If you call putting SCSI on the motherboard where it belongs a "brilliant
>design decision", then Apple has been making brilliant design decisions on ALL
>of their Macintoshes for the past five years!"
You didn't refer to SCSI II, but the post you were responding to, Dr Kittel's
I think, was the one which called putting SCSI II on the motherboard a
"brilliant design decision". Since the premise of your statement above is
therefore false (SCSI II *was* the topic of the discussion, not SCSI) your
conclusion is also false. Yet another example of you slightly changing the
topic to make one of your oft-repeated points...
> People are making too much of a big deal out of what essentially are totally
>obvious ideas: putting a SCSI interface into the system and putting it on the
>motherboard. As if this a radical new paradigm in computing. The fact that
>the SCSI interface that Commodore chose happens to be SCSI II is irrelevant
>to what I am saying.
The only person making a big deal about it seems to be you. C= bring out a
model which doesn't have one of the biggest flaws you perceived with the
A4000, and all you can do is flame an employee who said it was a "brilliant
design decision"! Sheesh...
> BTW, do you know under what conditions you really benefit from SCSI II
>over SCSI-I? Only when you ahppen to have two or more SCSI-II drives
>connected. How often are people going to have two or more SCSI II drives
>connected? The vast majority of SCSI devices are still SCSI I, and that
>includes hard drives. Thus, you really only benefit from SCSI II over
>SCSI-I in very special circumstances.
Yeah, and you would have been the *first* person to criticize them if it'd
had a SCSI I interface, wouldn't you? I can see it now... "But the Mac
Voluptua has SCSI II, and to bring the A4000T up to the same spec would
mean wasting precious money on the onboard SCSI I!!!"
So what it most drives today can't push SCSI I speeds - what's wrong with
C= looking to the future???
>Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
Why didn't you reply to my (and many others) post about buying a mac?
Surely you could get enough money from your A3000 to buy one of the lower-
end macs, eh? Do yourself a favour, Marc...
--
Mr Jason Birch _--_|\ Internet: jas...@cs.uwa.edu.au
Department of Computer Science / \ Tel (work): +61 9 380 1840
The University of Western Australia *_.--._/ Fax (work): +61 9 380 1126
Nedlands W. Australia 6009 v Tel (home): +61 9 386 8630
NCAF000
Sounds like you'd be better off with IDE, Marc, if expandability
isn't what you're after.
>Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
>------------------------------------------------
>.
>.
[ Ben Hardy, 1993. Disclaimer: I did it for me. ]
[ "Back off, man. I'm a scientist."- Dr Venkman ]
NCAF000
>In article <1ptk08...@uwm.edu> gbl...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:
>>And the inclusion of a second video slot? How do you see that?
>
> It's a good idea.
>
>> The
>>A4000T has all of the advantages of the A3000 and more; I see the second
>>video slot as a rather ingenius idea.
>
> But I don't see the inclusion of the second video slot as being awe-
>inspiring in cleverness. Obviously, Commodore had to do SOMETHING to justify
>the extra $1,500 that the A4000T would naturally have in its price tag, and
>including extra slots seems like a really obvious way to do it.
Remember the days of the $15000 80486? All prices come down.
>
>-----
>Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
>------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Chan
>>Every Amiga system Commodore has
>>designed in the past 3-4 years has been flawed in one way or another.
>
>absolutely no flaw in it at any place (HW or SW)? I doubt that.
Marc seems to have a problem understanding realities, guess it's because
he's from Iowa.
1st: He goes on to say about the falling sales of Amigas in the U.S.
2nd: Keeps barraging us with defiencies in design.
What Marc has to understand because U.S sales are weak, Amigas will
be designed by the majority market. Since this happens to be Europe and
not U.S., most if not all design implementations will be from what
Europeans desire. Marc, has trouble understanding that the U.S. isn't the #1
concern for C= anymore. Of course, he has to get it through his head that
much of what he says no one either believes or cares.
The European market is totally different from the U.S. market with
different priorities on what they want in their systems. The U.S. market
seems to want the best of everything and complain about prices while the
European market are not concerned about having the best or biggest of
everything as long as they have functionality for a cheaper price. Hence,
the A500 which came about because of the European market but you have the
A3000 which came about because of the U.S. market. The A500 is a much
more better seller in the European market and possibly in the U.S. also.
The A3000 is a good design but hasn't sold as well as the A500. The same
can probably be said for the A1200/A4000 though I think more design
decisions for the A4000 came from Europe since the majority of the market
is Europe.
Hell, I don't really care but thought I might try to clear up some things
for Marc. I could even be totally wrong...8-) These are only guesses from
what I've been reading.
I'm happy that I'll be getting a brand new A1200 in a few days, cheap.
I'll probably sell my A2000 and get an A3000 as a replacement as soon as
it comes in.
--
cl23...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
>> But I don't see the inclusion of the second video slot as being awe-
>>inspiring in cleverness. Obviously, Commodore had to do SOMETHING to justify
>>the extra $1,500 that the A4000T would naturally have in its price tag, and
>>including extra slots seems like a really obvious way to do it.
>>
>>-----
>>Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
>>------------------------------------------------
>
> Wait...How do you know that C= will 'naturally' charge $1500 extra??
> You should lay off those 900 numbers, you know, the Psychics Hotline...
Wait! You forget: The Grand Master Marc Barrett sees and knows all. He, after
all, is a prophet of the Almighty Apple. Watch your blasphemy: He might strike
you dead.
> Jonathan
>
>
MikeB
"Apple sells more Mac's than Cray does Cray's, so the Cray must be infereor.
This is, in fact, quite true. The Centris 650 is MUCH more powerful than the
fastest Cray, and could quite easily emulate 4-5 of them on one screen, with
higher non-interlaced resolutions." - Marc N. Parrot
Marc N. Barrett
>In article <C53CF...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>In article <11...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com> pet...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com (Dr Peter Kittel Germany) writes:
>>>
>>>See. Now *I* would be amazed if you for one time would accept the
>>>brilliance of Commodore's design decisions...
>>
>> Because they are not often brilliant.
>
>See: I WAS RIGHT! :-)
>
>>Every Amiga system Commodore has
>>designed in the past 3-4 years has been flawed in one way or another.
>
>Ok, now the challenge: Can you name *any* competing system that has
>absolutely no flaw in it at any place (HW or SW)? I doubt that.
>
>This is an issue incidentally also just now in our german newsgroups:
>What people demand from Commodore appears magnitudes more than from
>other manufaturers.
Being able to develop systems that do not compete really well with the
other systems that are available is a luxury that Commodore CANNOT afford.
A company like Apple can get away with hardware or software capabilities that
are not top-notch, because Apple ADVERTIZES. Commodore does not advertize,
so the engineering department has to take up the slack by making the systems
with the very best hardware and software capabilities in hopes that the
systems will sell themselves. If the hardware capabilities are not up to
par with what is available from other companies, the systems will NOT sell.
One of the Macintosh's greatest strengths is in software support, and this
happens to be the Amiga's greatest weakness. So if a person were looking at
Amiga and Macintosh systems and found that, for the same price, they could
get a Macintosh with better hardware capabilities AND better software support,
which system do you think they would buy? Be honest, you know very well that
things like multitasking aren't worth crud if the software support isn't
there.
The only way that Commodore could possibly get away with selling Amigas
against Macintoshes is if the hardware is better enough to make up for the
inferior software support. If the hardware is actually WORSE, then all hope
of selling Amigas against Macs is gone.
> When others come out with models full of bottlenecks
>(like those 16-bit busses from two other 680x0 vendors on 32-bit
>processors) all the world seems content and applauds for some "modern"
>design. When Commodore releases solid 32-bit architecture with absolutely
>minor flaws in some very hidden and rarely visited corner, then the world
>cries loud about those flaws and "deficiencies" and "errors", that will
>sure take down the whole company in a few moments. Am I the only person
>to feel severe unjustice here?
No, you do not look at the whole picture. First, the Falcon is in even
worse states than any Commodore machine, so it is totally irrelevant. Second,
there are not all that many Macintoshes from Apple that have a 68030 on a
16-bit bus. I will name you the ones that do this: Color Classic, LCII.
(the others have been discontinued) The real sellers from Apple -- the
Centris systems, including the IIvx, the Quadras, and the LCIII -- all have
on a proper 32-bit bus.
Third, you don't seem to ever look at software support. Software support
is crucially important, and when it isn't there -- as in the case of the Amiga
-- the company marketing the computers with the inferior software support is
less able to get away with hardware defficiencies. This is made all the worse
when that company does not advertize.
Ian Kennedy
>that never should have come to be in the first place.
You are one sad case marc.
- You know nothing about the A4000T
- You didn't know about the SCSI-II interface
Yet you continue to slam the machine about which you know nothing.
Get a life.
--
-------------------------
MAIL : IA...@MICROSOFT.COM
A1200/85MBHD OS3.0 Yeah!
-------------------------
Michael S. McKnight
>msmc...@unccsun.uncc.edu (Michael S McKnight) writes:
>>driving a corvette through a lake, huh? Also, no Mac displays 24-bit on
>>screen. You have 256 colors from 24-bits, maybe, but to show 24-bits of
>>information on a standard 640x480 screen would require about 7.5MB of VRAM.
> ^^^^^
>>I can't remember if you were stupid enough to defend System 7's multitasking
>>abilities so I will only say one thing about that... try to format two floppies
>>at once, or try to open the calculator more than once at a time.
>
>Well, maybe you SHOULD open that calculator to do the above "7.5 MB"
>calculation. You'd find that it DOESN'T take 7.5MB of VRAM, but 7.5Mbits.
>That's ~900K of VRAM.
>
I know, I know... I already caught hell for that one ;)
_________________________________________________________________________
| Michael McKnight -- msmc...@unccsun.uncc.edu | Amiga 3000-25/100 |
| Pi Kappa Phi msmc...@mosaic.uncc.edu | Insight 386DX-25/105 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| PP-ASEL -- See, I'm not a 100% geek... I fly airplanes too! |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Haynie
>I just read that at CeBIT 93 in Germany, C= officially released the
>SCSI-II controller for A4000 (zorro III only) and is going to be installed
>*AS STANDARD* in the A4000T.
Actually, the A4000T has SCSI-2 on the motherboard, using the same NCR SCSI chip
I put on the A4091. It'll make the A3000's SCSI look slow, slow, slow. That's
the same A3000 that's off the scale of most non-Amiga disk performance tests...
>
>What do you have to say about vapourware now?
>
>Hahahahahahahaha :)
>
>NY
>--
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| nu...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | "Surrender? That's not defeat for a woman" |
>| nu...@zikzak.apana.org.au | - Diana Rigg, "The Assassination Bureau" |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
Dave Haynie / Commodore Technology, High-End Amiga Systems Design (cool stuff)
"The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh BIX: hazy
"Head like hole, black as your soul, I'd rather die than give you control" -NIN
James McCoull
>When Commodore releases solid 32-bit architecture with absolutely
When CBM releases a machine with a "solid 32-bit architecture" I will buy one.
Todate they haven't.
Lasse Saikkonen
>Gee, Marc. Why do you think people buy A4000(T)'s? For 'special
>circumstances.' People don't buy A4000(T)'s to play games. They
>buy them to do real work. Whether that's programming, or
>graphics work, or running a BBS, or something, it is still
>real work. I know of NOONE who sinks money into an A3000 or
>higher just to play games. Since the A4000(T) is bought to
>use for real work, it just stands to reason that C= put a
>studly drive controller in there, so that all of those people
>doing real work can be all hunky-dorey with what they want to
>do. These people tend to have multiple, large, drives and
>tend to desire speed greatly.
I'm curious to find out, if the new SCSI II controller from C= is a TRUE
SCSI II (ie. fast&wide), or just another kludge I've been seeing for a
couple of years now? If it's the latter, then I ask why everybody makes
such a big issue of it? The ordinary A3000 SCSI interface is fast enough for
almost _everything_. I've seen it do over 2.2MB/sec and it's IMHO fast enough.
>--
>Joseph Hillenburg
>NPS Technologies
>charon!anaconda!j...@moose.cs.indiana.edu or j...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
>[Also running BMS]
Lazarus
--
________________________________________________ DISCLAIMER:
! Lasse Saikkonen ! Food for the mind: ! My employers would be eager to
! laz...@mits.mdata.fi ! " I'm vamoosing " ! have my opinions as their
------------------------------------------------ official policy, if I had any.
Dave Haynie
>>See. Now *I* would be amazed if you for one time would accept the
>>brilliance of Commodore's design decisions...
>The A3000 was an excellent design outside of the chipset, but the chipset that
>the A3000 used was flawed, making the system flawed. Commodore designs a
>system to correctly the most major flaws in the chipset -- the color
>capabilities -- and promptly inserts this chipset into a system that is
>horribly designed outside of the chipset.
I did mention here before that the A3000 and A4000 are based on the exact
same architecture, did I. Yeah, I'm certain that I did. Take the CPU and DMAC
off the A3000, swap Alice and Lisa in for Agnus and Denise, throw in the IDE
PAL, and you basically have an A4000. Same coprocessor slot, local bus,
expansion controller, DRAM controller, etc (well, these latter two are improved
in the A4000, but could be dropped into an A3000 with no modifications).
> The A4000T merely corrects a small number of really serious design flaws
>that never should have come to be in the first place. The A4000T is not a
>fantastic design in its own right. If you call putting SCSI on the motherboard
>where it belongs a "brilliant" design decision",
SCSI on the motherboard. Rather than in a Zorro slot. A mundane decision at
best, it's a cost savings. If every system needs a SCSI chip, you build it in.
If not, you leave it as an option. What is this such a hard concept to grasp?
Maybe you can work on this for a while, 'cause you're going to need to
understand "modularity" -- it's not going away.
>then Apple has been making brilliant design decisions on ALL of their
>Macintoshes for the past five years!
No, the average Mac user would have been better off with IDE, since their SCSI
is so lame.
> I am willing to admit that, if the A3000 had used the AGA chipset, that
>that would have been an absolutely BRILLIANT design. But that's not the
>way things worked out.
No, you had to wait until the A4000 before you could have an A3000 with AA
chips. Or A4000T if you wanted vastly improved SCSI performance built-in.
Dave Haynie
>In article <11...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com>, Dr Peter Kittel Germany (pet...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com) wrote:
>: that way, and perhaps more reliable (fewer connectors).
>Interesting. They took a cheaper long-term over cheaper development
>costs. Personally, I would think that would be a bad judgement; if
>they've got a limited budget, and if one is on a budget then one is of
>course limited, then I would think it wiser to go for the more modular
>approach of designing the SCSI-II once, and then releasing.
Don't be confused about SCSI. NO ONE designs "SCSI-2" except SCSI chip
designers, any more than anyone designs '040s or '486s. I did design the
A4091, since you can't buy an off-the-shelf SCSI chip that speaks Zorro III,
etc. However, you can buy an off-the-shelf SCSI chip that speaks the
A3000/A4000 local bus, and the 53C710 I used on the A4091 just happened to
do this. So it's a drop in, and a minor modification to the device driver.
What we call a "no-brainer" or "slam-dunk", depending on who you ask.
Expansion buses give you the modular approach, which is often good. The
motherboard gives you a lower cost if every unit would be bundled, which
may be the case at other times.
>I wonder who worked on it...
Paul Lassa was the main guy on it. He based it on the A4000, and perhaps
a bit on the A4091 and some other stuff I worked on. Paul's first system,
and only a couple of wires on the rev 0 PCB.
Marc N. Barrett
>Why didn't you reply to my (and many others) post about buying a mac?
I probably did not consider it worth replying to.
>Surely you could get enough money from your A3000 to buy one of the lower-
>end macs, eh?
The A3000 isn't mine to sell.
-----
Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
------------------------------------------------
Marc N. Barrett
>> BTW, do you know under what conditions you really benefit from SCSI II
>>over SCSI-I? Only when you ahppen to have two or more SCSI-II drives
>>connected. How often are people going to have two or more SCSI II drives
>>connected? The vast majority of SCSI devices are still SCSI I, and that
>>includes hard drives. Thus, you really only benefit from SCSI II over
>>SCSI-I in very special circumstances.
>
>
>Sounds like you'd be better off with IDE, Marc, if expandability
>isn't what you're after.
I am just making a point about price performance. If SCSI I gives you
95% of the functionality of SCSI II for 1/3 the price, where is the real
value in SCSI II? Commodore would be better off using SCSI I and including
a CD-ROM drive or something.
-----
David
>>Sounds like you'd be better off with IDE, Marc, if expandability
>>isn't what you're after.
>
> I am just making a point about price performance. If SCSI I gives you
>95% of the functionality of SCSI II for 1/3 the price, where is the real
>value in SCSI II? Commodore would be better off using SCSI I and including
>a CD-ROM drive or something.
What CRAP! The value in SCSI II is that the A4000T is the flagship
amiga now, and should damn well have top of the line technology. You
know damn well that you are playing word games when you say SCSI II
gives 5% more functionality. Functionality != performance, and don't
try and mislead people, because SCSI II peripherals will blow away
what you have on your A3000 MB right now. If C= put SCSI II on the
A1200 MB, you could whine about price performance, but on the A4000T?
Get real.
/ Amiga /// | U.S.C. Trojans | O Bar | David Leslie \
| /// | Fight On! | E O | |
| \\\/// | -- | Meu | jpd...@netcom.com |
\ \XX/ A1000 | Go Kings! | Lar! | dle...@scf.usc.edu /
Jason W. Nyberg
/drive, but ONLY those that make no use of the specialized routines in the
/CDTV's extra 256K of ROM. These titles also happen to be among the simpler
/titles, as you cannot do fancy things like CDXL without using the routines in
/this ROM.
I didn't know that executable code must be stored in ROM. Thank you for the
most excellent lesson, Master Parrot. (Nice one, MikeB :)
--
Jason Nyberg (nyb...@ctron.com) Amiga... The Eagle Talon of Computers
"Work is the curse of the drinking class" W. C. Fields (!Feilds, duhh)
Disclaimer: My opinions are just that... You don't agree? Take a course!
Henri Tamminen
>amiga now, and should damn well have top of the line technology. You
>know damn well that you are playing word games when you say SCSI II
>gives 5% more functionality. Functionality != performance, and don't
>try and mislead people, because SCSI II peripherals will blow away
>what you have on your A3000 MB right now. If C= put SCSI II on the
>A1200 MB, you could whine about price performance, but on the A4000T?
>Get real.
>
> / Amiga /// | U.S.C. Trojans | O Bar | David Leslie \
Yes and no. I agree, that A4000T should have cutting edge technology inside,
including SCSI II with proper cache chips and managment etc. But I also think,
that well done SCSI I is fast enough for most of the people like me. I own
A3000 which has very good SCSI I implementation on it and it's not the bottle-
neck... My 400 meg HD is the bottleneck. To actually buy fast enough SCSI II
HD to gain advantage over SCSI I would cost far too much to be valid choice,
unless some work involves server jobs, HD based animation etc.
But technology won't go forward, if flagship models don't have the latest tech-
nology...
Apple used to do this, so that every model was faster and better in some way
and unfortunately, also more expensive. Actually II fx is maybe last Macintosh
designed as cutting edge technology machine. ( It still has features, that OS
doesn't support, but they are there in hardware, like DMA SCSI, latched R/W
memory etc. ).
Then they listened the customers, who thought, that Macintosh should cost less
and started designing cludge machines. Unfortunately for Macintosh users, Apple
thought, that new machines should go some beforehand designed place and made
some horrendous cludges to force these new machines to proper place in their
line of computers, like 16 bit bus in 32 bit processor etc. For most of the
people Q950 is still the flagship model of Macintoshes...
But back to Amoeba. I still think ( and will think unless many AGA programs
are out ) that top four Amigas are in order : A4000T, A3000T, A3000, A4000 etc.
'cause DMA SCSI IS WAY TO FUTURE !!! ( Actually I don't know, if A4000T has
DMA SCSI, if not, it would drop after A3000 ). Someone may think, that SCSI is
not big deal, but for me, it's the only good interface 'cause there are so many
things, you could connect to it.
-
The AGA antiadvocate ('cause it's pitiful improvement)
Marc N. Barrett
>In article <C53CF...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>In article <11...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com> pet...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com (Dr Peter Kittel Germany) writes:
>>>In article <C517u...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>
>>>See. Now *I* would be amazed if you for one time would accept the
>>>brilliance of Commodore's design decisions...
>
>>The A3000 was an excellent design outside of the chipset, but the chipset that
>>the A3000 used was flawed, making the system flawed. Commodore designs a
>>system to correctly the most major flaws in the chipset -- the color
>>capabilities -- and promptly inserts this chipset into a system that is
>>horribly designed outside of the chipset.
>
>I did mention here before that the A3000 and A4000 are based on the exact
>same architecture, did I. Yeah, I'm certain that I did.
Yes, I know that. And THAT is the problem, in the case of the A4000.
The A3000 was designed specifically with the 68030 in mind. To this end,
it worked beautifully. But take a system bus design that was fine-tuned for
a 68030 and throw in a 68040, and you have problems.
If the A4000 had used a bus that was designed to a fine-tuning around the
68040, it also could have had a beautiful design.
> Take the CPU and DMAC
>off the A3000, swap Alice and Lisa in for Agnus and Denise, throw in the IDE
>PAL, and you basically have an A4000. Same coprocessor slot, local bus,
>expansion controller, DRAM controller, etc (well, these latter two are improved
>in the A4000, but could be dropped into an A3000 with no modifications).
Yes, I've said this over and over again. I said when the A4000 was first
released that it was too much like the A3000.
There is another thing that is wrong with using exactly the same design
in a new system: designs have a tendency to become out-of-date. What is
considered state-of-the-art three years ago can quickly become obsolete.
The on-the-motherboard memory capacity of the A3000 and A4000 is a really
good example of this. The A4000 is limited to 18M of RAM on the motherboard
primarily because it uses the same overall system design as the A3000. 18M
was wonderful three years ago, but it isn't so wonderful anymore. Most clones
and mid-range Macs can be expanded to at least 64M of RAM on the motherboard.
>> The A4000T merely corrects a small number of really serious design flaws
>>that never should have come to be in the first place. The A4000T is not a
>>fantastic design in its own right. If you call putting SCSI on the motherboard
>>where it belongs a "brilliant" design decision",
>
>SCSI on the motherboard. Rather than in a Zorro slot. A mundane decision at
>best, it's a cost savings. If every system needs a SCSI chip, you build it in.
>If not, you leave it as an option. What is this such a hard concept to grasp?
It's not. This is exactly what I am saying. I am reacting to the people
who are reacting to the idea of putting SCSI on the motherboard in the A4000T
as if it were a radical new paradigm in computing. It isn't. It is, as you
said, a rather mundane decision.
>Maybe you can work on this for a while, 'cause you're going to need to
>understand "modularity" -- it's not going away.
I consider "modularity" to be an overused expression, in the case of the
new Amigas. The A3000 is really every bit as "modular" as the A4000, in that
it can accept every card that an A4000 can accept (OK, 24-bit video cards
being the only exception). Yet the A3000 still saves a bit of headache by
putting the CPU on the motherboard.
>>then Apple has been making brilliant design decisions on ALL of their
>>Macintoshes for the past five years!
>
>No, the average Mac user would have been better off with IDE, since their SCSI
>is so lame.
Let me get this streight: you are a hardware engineer, and you state that
Macs would be better off with an IDE hardware design simply because of how the
HD I/O works on the software side?
This is a fairly idiotic statement, and I never thought I'd see such a
statement from someone I respect so highly. Sure, Macs use a pretty idiotic
polling system for their SCSI I/O, but this is not where Macs get the
advantages of SCSI. The real advantage of SCSI over IDE is not in speed, but
in flexibility. For instance, because all Macintoshes use SCSI, Apple really
only needs to develop ONE CD-ROM drive that can work on ALL Macintoshes.
If Commodore were to support all Amigas with CD-ROM drives, how many would
they have to develop? Several: one for the A500, one for the A600/A1200,
one for the A3000 and A4000T and A4000's with the A4010, one for A4000's
without the A4010 (packaged with a cheap SCSI-I card, for instance), etc.
You know yourself how much it costs to develop even one product. Being able
to support all of your systems across an entire line with only one product
is a real advantage, and having to develop many different versions of a
product to service an entire line can be expensive.
Other products for Macs also benefit from the from all Macs having SCSI
as standard hardware. Most flatbed scanners are SCSI, so a company only
needs to develop one version and can be assured that it can work with all
Macs. These advantages still apply no matter how the SCSI I/O is done
internally by the O.S., and would go away if an IDE system were used.
>> I am willing to admit that, if the A3000 had used the AGA chipset, that
>>that would have been an absolutely BRILLIANT design. But that's not the
>>way things worked out.
>
>No, you had to wait until the A4000 before you could have an A3000 with AA
>chips. Or A4000T if you wanted vastly improved SCSI performance built-in.
As I did, time has a habit of diluting the beauty of a design.
Henri Tamminen
>good example of this. The A4000 is limited to 18M of RAM on the motherboard
>primarily because it uses the same overall system design as the A3000. 18M
>was wonderful three years ago, but it isn't so wonderful anymore. Most clones
>and mid-range Macs can be expanded to at least 64M of RAM on the motherboard.
Well. 16 MB is enough for me, though there are people who need more and it
could be done with additional memory card, so I see no problem with it.
>>SCSI on the motherboard. Rather than in a Zorro slot. A mundane decision at
>>best, it's a cost savings. If every system needs a SCSI chip, you build it in.
>>If not, you leave it as an option. What is this such a hard concept to grasp?
The price of putting 32 bit DMA SCSI card into machine is VERY HARD for me to
grasp. Thats why I didn't like A4000 from the start. And it's UGLY also :-)
If I'm right ( am I ? ) most SCSI cards for A4000 or A2000 that people are
using/buying are NOT DMA SCSI's? And could someone tell me, how MUCH it would
cost to ADD this kind of card into A4000?
> Let me get this streight: you are a hardware engineer, and you state that
>Macs would be better off with an IDE hardware design simply because of how the
>HD I/O works on the software side?
>
> This is a fairly idiotic statement, and I never thought I'd see such a
>statement from someone I respect so highly. Sure, Macs use a pretty idiotic
>polling system for their SCSI I/O, but this is not where Macs get the
>advantages of SCSI. The real advantage of SCSI over IDE is not in speed, but
>in flexibility. For instance, because all Macintoshes use SCSI, Apple really
>only needs to develop ONE CD-ROM drive that can work on ALL Macintoshes.
>If Commodore were to support all Amigas with CD-ROM drives, how many would
>they have to develop? Several: one for the A500, one for the A600/A1200,
>one for the A3000 and A4000T and A4000's with the A4010, one for A4000's
>without the A4010 (packaged with a cheap SCSI-I card, for instance), etc.
>You know yourself how much it costs to develop even one product. Being able
>to support all of your systems across an entire line with only one product
>is a real advantage, and having to develop many different versions of a
>product to service an entire line can be expensive.
> Other products for Macs also benefit from the from all Macs having SCSI
>as standard hardware. Most flatbed scanners are SCSI, so a company only
>needs to develop one version and can be assured that it can work with all
>Macs. These advantages still apply no matter how the SCSI I/O is done
>internally by the O.S., and would go away if an IDE system were used.
AGREE!!!
>>> I am willing to admit that, if the A3000 had used the AGA chipset, that
>>>that would have been an absolutely BRILLIANT design. But that's not the
>>>way things worked out.
Well, partially agree with that. AGA would have been nice, when A3000 was int-
roduced, but now it's nothing to brag about...
>>No, you had to wait until the A4000 before you could have an A3000 with AA
>>chips. Or A4000T if you wanted vastly improved SCSI performance built-in.
>
And the price is a high also...
e...@mits.mdata.fi
-
AGA anti advocate (too late, too little )
Jarkko Lindblad
> good example of this. The A4000 is limited to 18M of RAM on the motherboard
> primarily because it uses the same overall system design as the A3000. 18M
> was wonderful three years ago, but it isn't so wonderful anymore. Most clones
> and mid-range Macs can be expanded to at least 64M of RAM on the motherboard.
But Grand Master B, how do You expand ram in a clone with room for 64
MB on the motherboard over 64 MB? Does on hook it to ultra slow ISA or
can he conenct a couple 64 MB Zorro-IIIcards? Point me to the right
direction Master, I pray You to do it.
--
Jarkko Lindblad | Kirves sanoo junts, kun sill{ ly|d{{n
lind...@cc.helsinki.fi| t{n{{n meill{ kunnon pihvit sy|d{{n
-----------------------| Huuda vaan se kiihottaa, ei kukaan kuule kuitenkaan
- Pime{ tie - | Kirves sanoo junts, kun sill{ ly|d{{n
Henri Tamminen
>Marc N. Barrett (bar...@iastate.edu) wrote:
>
>But Grand Master B, how do You expand ram in a clone with room for 64
>MB on the motherboard over 64 MB? Does on hook it to ultra slow ISA or
>can he conenct a couple 64 MB Zorro-IIIcards? Point me to the right
>direction Master, I pray You to do it.
>
>--
>Jarkko Lindblad | Kirves sanoo junts, kun sill{ ly|d{{n
>lind...@cc.helsinki.fi| t{n{{n meill{ kunnon pihvit sy|d{{n
Don't you really know? Many clones have special 32bit memory expansion slot
in their motherboards. You just plug it in and Voila! More memory!
Of course, there is only one such slot, but it should be enough. For those
people it isn't, buy Compaq. I've heard it is able to take 256 MB into it.
Gregory R Block
: I didn't know that executable code must be stored in ROM. Thank you for the
: most excellent lesson, Master Parrot. (Nice one, MikeB :)
The code required to make use of a CDXL animation, and to read its format
and decompress it, is in a CDTV rom; that may change, but for now, that's
how it is.
Greg
--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today? Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: :)
(: It is now widely known that Captain Hook died of jock itch. :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Wubba :)
Gregory R Block
: When CBM releases a machine with a "solid 32-bit architecture" I will buy one.
: Todate they haven't.
What a curiously erroneous post. Care to drivel? :)
Gregory R Block
: Don't be confused about SCSI. NO ONE designs "SCSI-2" except SCSI chip
: designers, any more than anyone designs '040s or '486s. I did design the
I understand that; :D That wasn't the real point.
: A4091, since you can't buy an off-the-shelf SCSI chip that speaks Zorro III,
: etc. However, you can buy an off-the-shelf SCSI chip that speaks the
: A3000/A4000 local bus, and the 53C710 I used on the A4091 just happened to
: do this. So it's a drop in, and a minor modification to the device driver.
: What we call a "no-brainer" or "slam-dunk", depending on who you ask.
Oh, interesting. Okay. I wasn't at all sure that putting it onto
the motherboard would be a no-brainer.
Hmm, I'm curious. Why would you use a 53C710 chip on the A4091 (which,
as you said, speaks the A3/A4k localbus and not Zorro)? I would think
that would be better for the A4000T, whose SCSI-II would then be a
no-brainer to implement on the motherboard because all of the work of
interfacing it to the system would be done, whereas on the A4091, you had
to design the interface to the ZorroIII bus.
As a curiosity, why DOESN'T C= design and sell a chip which interfaces to
Zorro III??? I would think that might be incredibly nice to have.
: Expansion buses give you the modular approach, which is often good. The
: motherboard gives you a lower cost if every unit would be bundled, which
: may be the case at other times.
I had assumed that you guys would want to minimize development costs;
without assuming that the motherobard placement of SCSI-II chips
(probably NCR?) would be a no-brainer, I assumed that it would cost more
development money to just design one card and use it rather than to
integrate it onto the motherboard AND do a card design, in effect,
designing two SCSI-II subsystems. The only counter to that cost would be
lower production cost. Had I known it was a no-brainer, it would have
been different. :)
: Paul Lassa was the main guy on it. He based it on the A4000, and perhaps
: a bit on the A4091 and some other stuff I worked on. Paul's first system,
: and only a couple of wires on the rev 0 PCB.
Nice. :) Thanks for the info.
Gregory R Block
: I am just making a point about price performance. If SCSI I gives you
: 95% of the functionality of SCSI II for 1/3 the price, where is the real
: value in SCSI II? Commodore would be better off using SCSI I and including
: a CD-ROM drive or something.
While, for the average low-mid range user, SCSI I may do this, SCSI-II
offers much more than 5% performance and functionality over SCSI-I; it's
foolish to make such a claim, especially seeing that we're talking about
their high-end machine.
I thought foolishness like that was beyond you.
And while SCSI-II may not be the most common at the current frame of
time, it has been steadily getting more common and less pricey; it may
not be too long before SCSI-II is within the price range of more people
who can make good use of it; which is anyone who needs lots of bandwidth
to and from their HD and other SCSI peripherals.
After all, telling someone who has a scanner capable of going 4x faster
than a SCSI-I system that they'd rather wait the time out on a SCSI-I
controller might get that person annoyed, especially if that person has
decided that he needs that speed.
And since we ARE talking about up to a 4x increase in speed, it should be
considered.
James Knowlton
>
> What people demand from Commodore appears magnitudes more than from
> (like those 16-bit busses from two other 680x0 vendors on 32-bit
> processors) all the world seems content and applauds for some "modern"
> design. When Commodore releases solid 32-bit architecture with absolutely
> minor flaws in some very hidden and rarely visited corner, then the world
> cries loud about those flaws and "deficiencies" and "errors", that will
> sure take down the whole company in a few moments. Am I the only person
> to feel severe unjustice here?
I feel it. Not so much here though.
> --
> Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions...
> Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ pet...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com
> Back from CeBIT (displaying A4000T prototype), anything happened?
--
__
///
__ /// James Knowlton - President & CEO - Alternate Reality Video Graphics
\\\/// Usenet: uunet!csusac.ecs.csus.edu!sacbbx!auilcs0!Ace
\XX/ Internet: auilcs0!A...@sacbbx.sac.ca.us
James Knowlton
>
> >been complaining that the A4000 wasn't, then. I wonder who worked on
> >it...
>
> We have it open here. On the board I read LASSA/FISH and below that,
> smaller: GB/DH/SS/JH/DF/CF/JD/MN. Hmm, I don't know everyone in engineering,
> but I guess LASSA=Paul Lassa, GB=Greg Berlin, DH=Dave Haynie, rest ???
> Anyone wanting to give more enlightment? Dave?
Interesting. I would also like to know.
Gregory R Block
: Yes and no. I agree, that A4000T should have cutting edge technology inside,
: including SCSI II with proper cache chips and managment etc. But I also think,
: that well done SCSI I is fast enough for most of the people like me. I own
It should be considered that most of the people will not be buying the
high-end machine. Correct? :) After all, I believe the A3000T was the
last big flagship we had before the release of AGA, and I wouldn't say a
LOT of people bought that, in comparison to A3000 sales.
: A3000 which has very good SCSI I implementation on it and it's not the bottle-
For someone who needs more than 5 megabytes/second, it IS the bottleneck.
: HD to gain advantage over SCSI I would cost far too much to be valid choice,
: unless some work involves server jobs, HD based animation etc.
SCSI-II costs too much NOW. It won't be like that forever.
: But technology won't go forward, if flagship models don't have the latest tech-
: nology...
Also something to consider.
: Apple used to do this, so that every model was faster and better in some way
: and unfortunately, also more expensive. Actually II fx is maybe last Macintosh
Lines have blurred, and nobody is sure which Mac is really
technologically "best" anymore, aside from perhaps the CPU. :)
: designed as cutting edge technology machine. ( It still has features, that OS
: doesn't support, but they are there in hardware, like DMA SCSI, latched R/W
: memory etc. ).
Well, in that, you're probably correct. PS: You should watch your
word-wraps. They're a little long (not that it bothers me, I've got a
rather wide terminal. :)
: line of computers, like 16 bit bus in 32 bit processor etc. For most of the
: people Q950 is still the flagship model of Macintoshes...
Sad, considering it doesn't really have some of the really nice things
that the FX had.
: But back to Amoeba. I still think ( and will think unless many AGA programs
That's ah-mee-gah. Spelled exactly that way. :)
: are out ) that top four Amigas are in order : A4000T, A3000T, A3000, A4000 etc.
: 'cause DMA SCSI IS WAY TO FUTURE !!! ( Actually I don't know, if A4000T has
: DMA SCSI, if not, it would drop after A3000 ). Someone may think, that SCSI is
: not big deal, but for me, it's the only good interface 'cause there are so many
: things, you could connect to it.
Well, with the release of the A4091, any of those systems can have a
nice, fast SCSI-II implementation. :)
: The AGA antiadvocate ('cause it's pitiful improvement)
As you wish; I of course disagree.
Gregory R Block
: grasp. Thats why I didn't like A4000 from the start. And it's UGLY also :-)
Actually, the A4091 (the SCSI-II card that C= just released) is supposed
to be pretty cheap, isn't it? I heard something like $230...
: If I'm right ( am I ? ) most SCSI cards for A4000 or A2000 that people are
: using/buying are NOT DMA SCSI's? And could someone tell me, how MUCH it would
: cost to ADD this kind of card into A4000?
Look for C='s A4091, Zorro III SCSI-II board.
Marc N. Barrett
>In article bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>>Sounds like you'd be better off with IDE, Marc, if expandability
>>>isn't what you're after.
>>
>> I am just making a point about price performance. If SCSI I gives you
>>95% of the functionality of SCSI II for 1/3 the price, where is the real
>>value in SCSI II? Commodore would be better off using SCSI I and including
>>a CD-ROM drive or something.
>
>
>What CRAP! The value in SCSI II is that the A4000T is the flagship
>amiga now, and should damn well have top of the line technology. You
>know damn well that you are playing word games when you say SCSI II
>gives 5% more functionality. Functionality != performance, and don't
>try and mislead people, because SCSI II peripherals will blow away
>what you have on your A3000 MB right now.
Bullshit. You MIGHT get a factor of 2 increase in speed, for a factor of
three increase in price. You also get no advantages when using SCSI II with
SCSI-I devices, and 99% of SCSI devices are SCSI-I.
> If C= put SCSI II on the
>A1200 MB, you could whine about price performance, but on the A4000T?
The real test will come when Commodore releases their new A4000/040 and
A4000/EC030 systems that kludge SCSI to the CPU daughterboard, so as to
avoid redesigning the motherboard. SCSI-I would be much more ideal on
systems like this. Heck, these systems are already more expensive than
equivelent Mac or clone systems even using IDE. If C- puts SCSI-II into
them, the price disadvantage will be even wider.
Marc N. Barrett
>bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>/ Granted, SOME CDTV titles may work with an Amiga with a third-party CD-ROM
>/drive, but ONLY those that make no use of the specialized routines in the
>/CDTV's extra 256K of ROM. These titles also happen to be among the simpler
>/titles, as you cannot do fancy things like CDXL without using the routines in
>/this ROM.
>
>I didn't know that executable code must be stored in ROM. Thank you for the
>most excellent lesson, Master Parrot. (Nice one, MikeB :)
It doesn't have to, but C- has not released the CDTV ROM code in a form
that could be ROMkicked into an Amiga. It was my idea A LONG TIME AGO for
C- to modifiy the CDTV ROM routines to be 'device independent' to the extent
that they would work with a third-party SCSI drive, add some enhancements,
and release it as an AmigaDOS Enhancer to allow owners of Amigas with third-
party CD-ROM drives to run all or most CDTV software. It would also allow
AVPro to use CDXL on something other than an A500 with the A570 CD-ROM
DRIVE.
Gregory R Block
: Bullshit. You MIGHT get a factor of 2 increase in speed, for a factor of
: three increase in price. You also get no advantages when using SCSI II with
: SCSI-I devices, and 99% of SCSI devices are SCSI-I.
The FAST protocol pushes the limit from 5 to 10 megabytes; the WIDE
doubles the width of that.
Both FAST and WIDE protocol implementation would put an increase over
SCSI-I limitations at 20mb/s, 4x the speed of SCSI-I.
And while cost is high now, cost will drop dramatically, as it has since
its introduction.
Also note that there aren't really many systems that conform to both fast
and wide protocols, and that has been part of the lack of availability.
I'm pretty sure the NEC chip supports both.
: The real test will come when Commodore releases their new A4000/040 and
: A4000/EC030 systems that kludge SCSI to the CPU daughterboard, so as to
Why would they do that, as a curiosity, when these systems are obviously
mid-range and that functionality wouldn't be needed by all? They would
simply offer a bundled A4091 system.
: avoid redesigning the motherboard. SCSI-I would be much more ideal on
: systems like this. Heck, these systems are already more expensive than
: equivelent Mac or clone systems even using IDE. If C- puts SCSI-II into
: them, the price disadvantage will be even wider.
Not really; the cost of SCSI-II is nearly that of SCSI-I. After all,
it's the same company, NEC, doing both protocol chips.
Your claims are both unfounded and unnecessary. I don't believe you'll
SEE a rework of the A4000 to include motherboard-SCSI-II.
At ~300, I don't think it's necessary.
Carl W Howard
>>In article bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>> I am just making a point about price performance. If SCSI I gives you
>>>95% of the functionality of SCSI II for 1/3 the price, where is the real
> Bullshit. You MIGHT get a factor of 2 increase in speed, for a factor of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmmm... a 5% increase in functionality, but a 100% increase is speed.
Why don't you get some ***FACTS*** before you spout.
>-----
>Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
>------------------------------------------------
-Carl
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl W. Howard email-> ca...@mines.utah.edu
System Administrator - College of Mines and Earth Sciences
102 WBB - University of Utah - Salt Lake City, UT 84112 - (801) 581-3485
Marc N. Barrett
>
>> good example of this. The A4000 is limited to 18M of RAM on the motherboard
>> primarily because it uses the same overall system design as the A3000. 18M
>> was wonderful three years ago, but it isn't so wonderful anymore. Most clones
>> and mid-range Macs can be expanded to at least 64M of RAM on the motherboard.
>
>But Grand Master B, how do You expand ram in a clone with room for 64
>MB on the motherboard over 64 MB? Does on hook it to ultra slow ISA
Only if that's all you have. Some clones have EISA, so your memory card
could go in an EISA slot. Or you might be able to plug into a localbus slot,
but I don't know about that one.
The point is moot in the case of the Macs, because most Macs have localbus
and NuBus90 slots into which you can plug a memory expansion card.
Thomas R. Lawrence
> The point is moot in the case of the Macs, because most Macs have localbus
>and NuBus90 slots into which you can plug a memory expansion card.
Great. Now I can run out of 6.25 MHz memory. That's all I need. Ever seen
a radius rocket access video memory? It's not a pretty site.
Marc N. Barrett
>In article <jmccoull.734313019@bruny>, James McCoull (jmcc...@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au) wrote:
>: When CBM releases a machine with a "solid 32-bit architecture" I will buy one.
>: Todate they haven't.
>
>What a curiously erroneous post. Care to drivel? :)
Paula and Alice are still 16-bit.
Marc N. Barrett
>In article <C576B...@news.iastate.edu>, Marc N. Barrett (bar...@iastate.edu) wrote:
>: I am just making a point about price performance. If SCSI I gives you
>: 95% of the functionality of SCSI II for 1/3 the price, where is the real
>: value in SCSI II? Commodore would be better off using SCSI I and including
>: a CD-ROM drive or something.
>
>While, for the average low-mid range user, SCSI I may do this, SCSI-II
>offers much more than 5% performance and functionality over SCSI-I; it's
>foolish to make such a claim
No it isn't. What percentage of hard drives are SCSI-II? About 10%. The
majority of hard drives under 1GB are still SCSI-I. And hard drives are the
ONLY SCSI drives that are found in SCSI-II. CD-ROM drives, ethernet cards,
floptical drives, tape drives, laser printers, etc.. are all SCSI-I. So with
SCSI-II, you don't see very many advantages over SCSI-I except when using those
tiny few devices that are SCSI-II, and even then you get about a factor of
two increase in speed at best.
Marc N. Barrett
>In article <C58CA...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>>In article bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>>> I am just making a point about price performance. If SCSI I gives you
>>>>95% of the functionality of SCSI II for 1/3 the price, where is the real
> ^^^
>
>> Bullshit. You MIGHT get a factor of 2 increase in speed, for a factor of
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Hmmm... a 5% increase in functionality, but a 100% increase is speed.
Exactly.
>Why don't you get some ***FACTS*** before you spout.
Why don't you get a brain? That factor of two increase in speed is with a
tiny fraction of SCSI hard drives that are SCSI-II. You don't see any
advantages with SCSI-I hard drives, or all of the other SCSI devices (tape
drives, CD-ROM drives, floptical drives, laser printers, ethernet cards, etc.)
that are SCSI-I. So the real overall increase in functionality is very small.
Scott Ashdown
Maybe Mark's got a point. If something new isn't supported by
absolutely everything immediately, why not just trash it?
We've got a serious backlog to deal with here--just about
everything since the Altair...anybody want to help me out?
I heard FDDI-II is being scrapped as ANSI read the previous post.
It had to happen. Sigh.
--
Scott Ashdown (Comp Systems Engineering Student, Yr. III,
Carleton University)
"Anyone want to hire a summer student?" - Me & everyone I know
Neal Wickham
> There is another thing that is wrong with using exactly the same design
>in a new system: designs have a tendency to become out-of-date. What is
>considered state-of-the-art three years ago can quickly become obsolete.
Hmmm... has it been a hundred years already since Thomas Edison designed
that incandescent light bulb that probably lights the room your in? Damn,
electical engineers are lazy and short sighted!! You know, someone ought
to get on the horn to General Electric and tell their EEs to get their
butts in gear!
>The on-the-motherboard memory capacity of the A3000 and A4000 is a really
>good example of this. The A4000 is limited to 18M of RAM on the motherboard
>primarily because it uses the same overall system design as the A3000. 18M
>was wonderful three years ago, but it isn't so wonderful anymore. Most clones
>and mid-range Macs can be expanded to at least 64M of RAM on the motherboard.
I don't think most clones have 64 meg expansion on the motherboard. Maybe
most 486s. And, I think you need 8 megs just to run OS/2 smoothly and
probably Windows NT! That could mean that the 32 or 64 meg expansion
would be a selling point for a clone. And I'll bet most of these 64 meg
motherboards are ISA busses. Why don't you criticize that design as being
older and not as good as EISA?
And... can you even add 32-bit ram to an ISA clone with an expansion card
like you can an Amiga? Could that have something to do with the clones
64 meg motherboards?
Sheesh! I can wiz you on this one and I'm not an EE, Comp. E, or even
a programer!
NCW