Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!convex!eugene!swarren From: swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: AMIGA Fading? Message-ID: <3111@convex.UUCP> Date: 15 Nov 89 18:26:53 GMT References: <3932@nigel.udel.EDU> <32321@auc.UUCP> Sender: usenet@convex.UUCP Reply-To: swarren@convex.COM (Steve Warren) Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx. Lines: 157 In article <32321@auc.UUCP> rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: >In article <3932@nigel.udel.EDU> WDV91@ccvax.iastate.edu (NetMonster) writes: >> >> Like it or not, the Amiga is fading, and fading fast. > >How do you come to that conclusion? > [...discussion of how close the clone-heads are getting...] I don't think the Amiga is fading, but other PCs *are* starting to encroach on the features of the Amiga. I love the Amiga, but if everyone else duplicates the features that make it great, that's excellent. It means more choices for everyone. Competition drives development and puts a fervency in it. Nothing like the old survival instinct to motivate people! I do think the existing 500 has a lot of life left in it. Get real, NM, Commodore is still selling C64s, and that's pretty far down the technology scale from the 500. Besides, they need a solid bottom line right now, and the 500 means profits. Trying to redo it at this point would mean a big hit on NRE, which I would guess they are already taking on the 3000. I know some other companies are spending more on R&D, but they are fat & happy, while Commodore is pretty lean right now. They just have to develop smart. >> >> The following article is from the October 1989 issue of TIME (P. 72): >> >> "The twin fetes had all the glitz and hoopla of a Hollywood premiere. >[glitz deleted] >> >> "In this case, the focus of attention was the Amiga, a personal computer >> introduced by Commodore four years ago, whose sagging sales and fading >> image the company is trying to repair." > >SAGGING sales? FADING image??? Where does this guy get his information from? >Why do you believe it just because it's in Time Magazine??? Yes, I agree, this was a typical low-blow dishonest/ignorant/disinformed (take your pick) swipe at Commodore from Time, which is particularly confusing considering the fact that Commodore was one of the biggest advertisers in the issue. One would think they might check to see if such a comment were really accurate before publishing it. If I were a conspiracy-oriented type I might be tempted to speculate about IBM/MAC/CLONE advertising dollars in Time, and what interest Time might have in trying to lessen the impact of Commodore's ad campaign. Oh well... >> Yes, the Amiga's image is fading. But Commodore can resurrect the Amiga's >> image very easily. Here is what Commodore needs to do: IT IS TIME FOR >> COMMODORE TO TOTALLY ABANDON THE 68000 MICROPROCESSOR, FOR ALL MODELS >> OF THE AMIGA. > >Yeah, right. Watch most games break, and many other programs, and prices >shoot throught the ceiling. I'll bet they *could* redesign the 2500, pulling the CPU card onto the mother- board and moving all ram (except chip) into the 32-bit space, without *major* trauma. Also provide dual mode 16/32-bit slots. Make it more like the (rumored) 3000, only slower. >>(3)68020 running at 14Mhz. > >Doubling the clock rate requires faster RAM chips to double system speed. >The '020 would STILL have to slow down to access Chip RAM, unless you're >going to make the Graphics chip run at twice the speed. This clock speed is not fast enough to require anything more exotic than cheap commodity DRAMs. Two thoughts - 1) could the chip ram have a 32-bit path to the processor while maintaining 16-bit paths for the custom chips? (significant change - I know...) 2) It is no problem to generate wait states for slower chip ram. This is not a disadvantage. So what if you have to slow down? It still beats running at the slower speed through- out the whole system. >>(4) The memory should be configured such that all memory is 32-bit RAM, >>but the custom chips would access the first 1M as 16-bit RAM. I have looked >>at the architecture, and I don't see any reason why this isn't possible. > >I don't know enough about the hardware to argue that point, so I won't. Nearly anything is possible if you throw enough gates at it ;^) ;^) ;^). >>(6) The Amiga 500 replacement should have 1M of RAM. > >I think 1 Mb standard for the 500 would be a good idea. Someone should >at LEAST run a cost-benfit analysis of it. I would be surprised if this didn't happen soon. Memory chips are less than $100 per Megabyte, and 256Kx4 bit chips let you expand cheaply in 500 Kbyte increments. If nothing else, design the motherboard to take 256Kx4s and ship it with the sockets for the other 500K already soldered in. That way the expansion to 1 MEG would only cost $40-50. >> I don't want anyone to tell me that it isn't possible for CBM to sell >>a complete 68020 system for less than $1500, and still make a very >>substantiale profit on it. Hell, if an engineer friend of mine can turn >>an Amiga 1000 into a 68020 system (using > >I'll let Commodore handle this one. Are you there, Dave? Lucas is a great project, it works nice, and it's cheap. But Commodore already has an '020 coprocessor board designed, they don't need to steal Lucas ;^). The fact that 99% of the engineering is already done on the hypothetical enhanced 2500 I was talking about (except for the chip-ram mod) means that they really could do it pretty economically, if they thought it was worth it. I think they could sell a "2500XL" for less than the current 2500 and make more money, in addition to selling more of them (because of the lower price). They could keep the 2000 and the 500 as the low end commodity machines. >What I think would be better is this: > > A 500-level machine with a seperate keyboard, an Agnus chip that stays > in place, and A GOOD POWER SUPPLY, I think the one-piece construction of the 500 is integral to its low price. It would be nice to see a better power supply, maybe just 10% more oomph for reliability. > and a 2000-level machine (in terms of price) running off a 68020. The > '020 based 2500 would do nicely (although that would be a difficult feat, > price-wise). The 68000 isn't so bad. And a 16-bit machine is still significantly cheaper to manufacture. You know, all those data lines to duplicate, they add up. I think the 2000 will be around for a long time with a 16-bit cpu. But it would be nice to have a slick machine halfway between the 2000 and the 3000, yet a little less money than the 2500. > One more thing, *Bring on the '030 machines!!!* Yeah, but it may be a while before I own one ;^). >In summary, I don't think the Amiga's image (or sales) can be said to be >fading at all. The competition is gaining on us, but that doesn't mean that >the Amiga is fading image-wise. > >> -MB- > >Rodney >-- >"We may have come over here in different ships, > but we're all in the same boat now." -- Jesse Jackson > >Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College Naw, the Amiga is doing OK today. Of course, Commodore is probably aware of what happens in today's market to companies that attempt to stand still (something I don't think they have been doing). DISCLAIMER: These are 100% my own personal opinions, and have nothing whatsoever to do with my employers or their opinions. --Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------- {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM