Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!fernwood!portal!cup.portal.com!FelineGrace From: FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware Subject: Re: A2500 vs. A3000 Message-ID: <41470@cup.portal.com> Date: 20 Apr 91 05:37:42 GMT References: <20677@cbmvax.commodore.com> <41360@cup.portal.com> <1991Apr18.185532.9783@motaus.sps.mot.com> Organization: The Portal System (TM) Lines: 83 Sorry, gentlemen, but my mailer doesn't include the header so I can't include the article number without major paper-note-taking: But Skipper Smith of Motorola Technical Training says... > 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 Bourgeoi s) 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. .........the rest of my quoted article deleted............. > 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 This sameness of machines is a good point. I am ashamed I didn't deal with it leaving you to bring it up. Mea Culpa, I guess. Here's the deal. Macs are identical because they have built-in hardware and software (appletalk) that looks identical to the programmer. I implied CBM should do the same by putting SCSI hardware on the motherboard and making Rigid Disk Blocks part of the OS plus whatever networking code is needed to make CBM-PC to CBM-PC communication a matter of hooking two CBM-PCs together with a SCSI cable and selecting the proper icon from the workbench. Sorta like hooking up two, um....well, Macs. :) > you compare this to a situation where you are trying to tie together extremel y > dissimilar machines of, in the PC's case, unknown capability (no real standar ds > 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 Well, I am assuming that one could use a protocol over SCSI. Am I wrong? Maybe TCP/IP won't work and something else will be needed. So pick a different protocol, I'm easy! > 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). Please note my idea was to use existing hardware design and proven engineering. CBM is getting pretty good at SCSI and it is pretty fast with further improvements available. Seems (off the cuff) a good bet. The implication is that current designs without motherboard SCSI would get SCSI. Upgrade the A500 to the A550? Why not? Like-wise, CBM is learning about TCP/IP and NFS just like they learned SCSI. By building a product. I am asking them to put that into the OS of both AmigaDOS and MS-DOS (only the one that comes from CBM). On top of NetBIOS I guess. Don't quote me too closely, OK. Just help me make this work or show why it is preposterous. :) :) > I would like to see some form of generic networking that is less than $100/un it > 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, we are really on the same wavelength. But I think I am more optimistic than you. Maybe because I am too ignorant to see the problems that you do. I just have the feeling that the MAJOR development of the hardware/software pieces is already done and if the will were there, they could be integrated into the OS within two releases. I mean, part of your objection is a marketing concern. And trust me, I specify equipment for a fortune 100 company. Networking is in. We are *not* buying Macs yet in quantity because they don't fit into our standards well enough. And CBM machines are further away from our standards than Macs are. One way that I could see getting CBM machines into our company (beyond the video department) is if they can do Mac-type stuff as well as Macs and can network *better*. > -- > 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 Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com