Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!motaus!skipper From: skipper@motaus.sps.mot.com (Skipper Smith) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware Subject: Re: A2500 vs. A3000 Message-ID: <1991Apr18.185532.9783@motaus.sps.mot.com> Date: 18 Apr 91 18:55:32 GMT References: <20677@cbmvax.commodore.com> <41360@cup.portal.com> Organization: Motorola Semiconductor, Austin, Texas Lines: 48 Dana, I agree with just about everything you say, but a some of it just doesn't work. In article <41360@cup.portal.com> FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) writes: >Scott suggests that if you need a "ms-dos powerhouse" (!) then you >should look at a PC clone and that CBM would gladly sell you one. >I think that is an excellent marketing policy and should be shouted >from the rooftops! But ah.....not until there is a very fast, very >cheap, very easy-to-set-up, and very integrated means of hooking the >two types of machines together. I suggest that all PC clones from CBM >come standard with SCSI, that both the Amiga DOS and PC DOS handle >communication over the SCSI bus, that utilities be included with the >machines to network *ALL* machines made by CBM together (can you say >'NFS'?) in the same type of Operating-Supported way that Apple's >Macs can be connected (only faster! :-) ). Here is equipment that >I would buy because I have a need for it. And I haven't bought much >CBM equipment lately because it doesn't meet my needs at home or at work. >I think the trade rags would eat it up. There'd be lots of talk about >it. And I think the major pieces are already in place. Rigid disk >blocks. A solid SCSI design. TCP/IP and NFS software. Looks to me >like the R&D is done, some redesign to a few PCB is needed and then >lots of testing. Say an optional software/hardware package available >in '92 with full hardware/OS support by next generation of machine/OS? >Say sometime in '93? Comments? > >Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com Your main comment that I have a problem with is "...very fast, very cheap, very easy-to-set-up..." and then you go on to compare the situation to Appletalk. First of all, Appletalk is anything but fast. Second, it is connecting machines that for all intents and purposes are identicle. How can you compare this to a situation where you are trying to tie together extremely dissimilar machines of, in the PC's case, unknown capability (no real standards over there)- Big/Little endian byte ordering is just the beginning of the nightmare. TCP/IP is good, but it is expensive and will remain so for quite some time, and besides, the A500 will probably never have access to TCP/IP (the only reason why I add that in is due to AppleTalk working on ALL Macs). I would like to see some form of generic networking that is less than $100/unit to turn the numerous Amiga's, a PC or two, and a VME system (or two) into one networked unit, but I don't expect to see it (at that pricepoint or below) in '93 and I don't expect to see it by '95, either. -- Skipper Smith | skipper@motaus.sps.mot.com Motorola Technical Training | 8945 Guilford Rd Ste 145 All opinions are my own, not my employers | Columbia, MD 21046