Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!m.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!cs326ag From: cs326ag@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware Subject: Re: Does GVP offer Ed Discounts? Anyone use their a4000? Message-ID: <1991Mar5.004043.21673@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 5 Mar 91 00:40:43 GMT References: Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 55 In article patrick_meloy@outbound.wimsey.bc.ca (Patrick Meloy) writes: >> Also I'm considering the a4000 over the a2630.. Has anyone out >>there used one? Can someone comment on its design? Is it stable? >>Is it commpatable? etc etc.. Yes, I've used one for over a year (Well, the A3001, but it is the same design as the A4001, just slower). As the GVP board is faster than the C= board, I would go for the speed (I did...). You can add up to 20MB of memory to the A4001 memory board now, this is a plus in GVP's favor. The a2630 is limited to 4MB according to Dave H. (based upon current designs, etc...). >The thing to remember about GVP Accellerators (as far as I know) is that they >do NOT allow dropping back to the 68000. There is supposedly a hack you can >do to put in a physical switch to allow this, but I don't think I'd want to >void my warrenty over it. Quit spreading disinformation. GVP Accelerators fully support a drop back (to 68000) mode. Adding the switch is not a hack, my dealer added said switch at the same time he installed the board. Actually *you* can add the switch without voiding your warrenty, because GVP added `posts' where the end user can attach the leads of the switch. >Also, last I heard, the GVP board could not support UNIX properly (something >to do with the MMU and memory protection) while the CBM boards do). While I >*personally* don't give a hoot about UNIX, I can see a day when this >incompatibility may affect AmigaOS. Memory protection is RUMOURED to be in >the pipeline for WB2.x (REmember, I DID say _rumoured_). It would be a >terrible shame to go out and spend megabux on an Accellerator only to find >that it won't support future versions of the OS. I'm sure Commodore wouldn't >allow the 26x0 boards become defunct in this fashion. They include the whole >MMU setup with the older 2620's even though they were pretty well useless at >the time. Hear again, you talk about things you know nothing about... The MMU is built into the '030 -and- All GVP '030 boards have UNIX(tm) rom sockets - have since day one. I'm not sure if C= intends to use roms anymore (26[23]0 had the rom sockets also, I believe), but the GVP board has them if *I* need them (Yes, I can't wait to get unix up and running on my GVP '030 system). GVP has quite a few people working on UNIX device drivers according to some literature recently seen, so I have reason to believe that they are working on any details needed to be done to fully support UNIX on their products. >| patrick_meloy@outbound.wimsey.bc.ca | >| 'The Outbound' BBS Vancouver BC | Loren J. Rittle -- ``NewTek stated that the Toaster *would not* be made to directly support the Mac, at this point Sculley stormed out of the booth...'' -A scene at the recent MacExpo. Gee, you wouldn't think that an Apple Exec would be so worried about one little Amiga Device... Loren J. Rittle l-rittle@uiuc.edu