Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!cbmvax!daveh
From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Time For A New Computer?
Message-ID: <16685@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 19 Dec 90 20:33:02 GMT
References: <9012191335.AA17268@cwns1.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 107

In article <9012191335.AA17268@cwns1.INS.CWRU.Edu> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:

>   You seem to be forgetting what the computer market place is all about.
>This is not a far-featched idea. Remember that what was priced high
>yesterday is sold dirt cheap today. 

But these things drop in price evolutionarily, not revolutionarily.  The only
drastic price breaks happen with revolution, and not even then.  If one 
semiconductor vendor figured out some magic new process that cut the cost 
of a DRAM down to 10% of today's cost, they wouldn't necessarily deliver
it at that rate if they could sell all they can make at some higher price.
You have to look at the main reason for price cuts, which is competition.

>Let's take a look at a few of the higher priced features (And remember that 
>this was a wish list, not the bible! I swear...): A 68030 CPU running at 16Mhz. 
>Aren't plain 68000s running real cheap now compared to how much they cost 
>one or two years ago?

Not really.  They've been well under $5.00, in quantities, for many years.

>What's the reason behind this? It is, of course, the release of newer CPUs
>in the series which have made the 68000 old news. 

Partially.  But it's much more so that Motorola isn't the only one making
68000s.  You can get them from Thompson/Signetics, Hitachi, probably a few
other companies.  So if Motorola prices theirs at $10, and everyone else at
$5, Motorola wouldn't likely sell any 68000s.  The same thing happened to
'286 chips for the PC clones to a degree; with AMD competing with Intel,
the '286 prices plunged.  Expect that to happen eventually with the '386,
but not the '030, since the '030 is still single sourced.  It's rare that the
cost of a medium to high end microprocessor is based that much on what it
costs the company to make.  The cost is based on what the market will take.
With so many folks absolutely dependent on the '386, Intel has managed to keep
the price so far at astronomical levels compared to the value of the part had
these folks an alternative.  The Motorola market is better -- while folks
like C= and Apple building PCs are dependent on the 680x0 family for much the
same reasons, Motorola sells a much higher volume of parts into industrial
control and other markets, where a hot new RISC chip at a low enough price
might convince a company not overly concerned with binary compatibility to
switch over.  So pricing on '030 is balanced by the market it's in, but there
is still no obvious force pushing it toward the price point you'd need to put
it in an A500.

>Anybody who thinks the 68020 won't be selling for the 68000's price real soon
>now, and that the 68030 won't be dropping any time soon either doesn't follow
>computers much.

Anyone who thinks it will doesn't follow computers enough.  The only way you'll
see a drastic drop in the 68020 price is to let other folks make it, which 
was discussed some time ago.  The 68030, though, still looks to be single
sourced for many days to come.  Motorola has been good about it, though.  They
can offer lower cost packaging or cheaper versions and maintain their profit
margins while giving us the option of more price points.  Examples, other than
the PQFP 68030 used in the A3000 (much less cost that the PGA version used in
the A2630), are the 68EC030, which is an '030 without MMU, and the 680EC020,
which is a low cost '020 with only around 24 bits of address.  And you don't
necessarily have to have a CPU cost AS low as a 68000 to put it in an A500,
but you have to have one under a certain point, so as not to push the A500
cost beyond certain "consumer buy points".

> 24bit graphics: There are already "24"bit graphics cards out for the Amiga
>line costing under or about $300. The MAST production is one that I can
>think of.

There is, of course, a world of difference between a true graphics device and
a "clever hack".  Both have their place, I suppose.  But as add ons, you 
have a choice.  Built in, we realize that some folks would like a 24 bit
display buffer that ran at 340x(400|512) interlace, while other would rather
have a 1024x768x8 or 1680x1200x2 display.  You might find that these are at
considerable odds with one another when it comes to building them into a
single chip set.  Especially for a low end machine.

> Don't reply to me like that list is written in stone. A 680X0 based machine
>with 1 to 1.5 MEG or RAM, 24BIT graphics, a drive the reads and writes 1.5
>MEG disks, a detached keyboard, and 3 Zorro slots is not an impossible task.

Nothing's impossible, especially if you control most of the variables.  But
if you're holding them all, you may find you have achieved that elusive
impossible situation.  Sure, something that what you want could be done.  
For under $1000, probably not.  For example, that machine won't really work.
A 24 bit display at 320x512 takes just under 512K for a single screen.  On
a one meg machine, that doesn't leave any preceptible room for the OS and
a single small application happening at the same time.  You would need at 
least 2-4 megs of memory for such a system to be very useful.  That's $$$,
even at today's reasonable memory prices.  And what you're proposing is
basically an A3000 with a couple of add-ons.  Even if you integrate a new
chip set that does the 24 bit graphics for you, you can't expect it to cost
less than today's chip set.  So, even if such a machine gets done some
day, expect it to be on the A3000 price curve, not the A500 price curve.
You won't see an A3000 type machine at under $1000 for some time to come.
Perhaps never -- a good portion of that machine's costs isn't in the PCB.
Slots add cost, for cooling, power supply, case work, all kind of things
that don't drop as the price of electronics do.   The main reason this new
unexpandable "pizza box" configuration has become so popular in the 
Workstation market is that, when you eliminate the slots, you take lots of
cost with you.

>The market changes, and Commodore has always pushed value to the edge.

And will hopefully continue to do so.  But it takes a long, long, time for
"impossible" to change to "impractical" and then to "here it is", especially
when it's the cost you're after.

-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: hazy     BIX: hazy
		"I can't drive 55"	-Sammy Hagar