Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!daveh
From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: board<>3000 RETRACTION-NEAT NEWSGROUP
Message-ID: <15197@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 17 Oct 90 01:07:28 GMT
References: <12879@encore.Encore.COM> <1990Oct15.074829.27115@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <15158@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1990Oct16.095701.10996@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 59

In article <1990Oct16.095701.10996@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jdobbs@director.beckman.uiuc.edu (Jim Dobbs) writes:

>My first A1000 was so early that I didn't even have to do the 'PAL fix'
>in order to run more than one (third-party) expansion device on the
>expansion slot. 

Just a point of clarification here.  The use of ONE, count 'em, ONE
expansion box on the A1000 or A500 is all that's supported by Commodore.
That one box may be a SOTS thing, or it may be a Zorro II backplane.  The
reason all Commodore SOTS boxes terminate the bus is that's what's required
by Commodore, and what's required if you really expect things to work
together.  

>>The risk of ignoring the spec is that you won't work or fit.

>You are absolutely correct.  I was wrong about this being the OFFICIAL
>line from Commodore-Amiga.  

>It IS, however, what I've been told by my local retailer, and the folks
>I quoted in my last post.

Some third parties will lie to you.  Others are misinformed.  But facts
is facts, and the fact in this case is that the correct specifications were
made available for the asking before the A2000 shipped.  Developer support
wasn't as good back than as it is now, though it was better than when the
A1000 first shipped.  Developer support has been a learning experience for
Commodore.  The Amiga is really the first system that had support.  Back in
'85, we made C64s and PCs.  You don't have technical support for PCs, they
get that from MicroSoft for the software, and IBM never supported 3rd party
hardware development with something as useful as an XT or AT bus specification.
The C64 was anarchy -- developers did whatever they pleased in hardware and
software, and we (the C128 team, of whom myself, Greg Berlin, and Fred Bowen
are still around) did our best to make the system update compatible at the
hardware level, while replacing the software with a new "mode".  The Amiga was
a real computer system, requiring real, full time technical support people,
conferences, official developers, the works.  That doesn't happen overnight.
I wish it had.

>This was NOT some speculation by a 'friend of a friend', rather it is what two 
>of the major manufacturers are saying to the dealers and the public. In other
>words, this may be incorrect, but I was QUOTING some real movers and shakers 
>in the Amiga community.  

Who ignored specifications they have, and would rather put the blame on 
Commodore than themselves.  Only the best companies and people are willing to
take the heat for something they screwed up.  I respect this; as an engineer,
I realize that learning is measured in units of mistakes/hour.  But marketing
people often have to adopt a party line that runs contrary to facts.  I think
our marketing folks are more professional than that, but it's not uncommon
in this industry to find this kind of thing going on.


>    ^ -   James C. "Jim" Dobbs - jdobbs@director.beckman.uiuc.edu

"Bob"'s brother?
-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: hazy     BIX: hazy
	Standing on the shoulders of giants leaves me cold	-REM