Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!olivea!genie!udel!brahms.udel.edu!don From: don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: The Amiga's Future Message-ID: <17304@chopin.udel.edu> Date: 23 Jun 91 15:40:42 GMT References: <1991Jun21.183216.29240@news.iastate.edu> <430@hfsi.UUCP> <1991Jun22.140127.19580@news.iastate.edu> Organization: University of Delaware Lines: 109 In article <1991Jun22.140127.19580@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > That is not what I said. I don't think the A2000 should be lower-priced, >I think it should be discontinued entirely. It costs too much to make, and >gives you far too little performance for the dollar compared to the A500 >and A3000. The A2000 should be replaced with a machine with fewer slots, >smaller case, smaller power supply, and a built-in SCSI controller and >display enhancer. Some people _like_ having all those slots! A built-in SCSI controller on the 2000 would hurt quite a few 3rd party companies, some to the point of bankruptcy. The display enhancer would be nice.... but at what extra cost? Discontinuing the 2000 would also possibly cause some problems with the market the Toaster's opening up, since the Toaster currently only works on the 2000. > The A2000 really is creating a very large, empty void in Commodore >Amiga product line. At the top, Commodore has a very competitive machine >in the A3000 to compete with other systems priced above $2500. In the >low-end, Commodore's A500 is also adequate competition for machines priced >below $1000. What does Commodore have to compete against systems from >clone makers and Apple priced between $1000 and $2500? Just the A2000 >and A2000HD. > > Let's take the MAC LC as an example. This machine has a list price of >$2499. For this price, the A3000/16 is too expensive to compete against >the LC because it costs $1000 more. The A500 is far too cheap, and aimed >at a different market. The only thing Commodore has to compete against >the MAC LC is the A2000HD. Now we'll compare these two systems. > >Feature Description | Macintosh LC | Amiga 2000HD >------------------------------------------------------------- >Hard Disk Size | 40M | 40M No, 50 M. >Memory | 2M | 1M Just enough to run Sys 7! >Max Resolution | 584x386/640x480* | 704x480 >Color Palette | 16 Million | 4096 ># of on-screen | | > colors at max.res | 256/32,768* | 16 >Interlaced? | NO | YES >CPU | 68020 @ 14Mhz | 68000 @ 7Mhz ^^^ 16-bit data path, some ops are actually faster on 68K machine... Expansion slots | 1 | 5 Amiga + 4 PC + Video +CoProc HD controller | CPU polled | DMA Coprocessors | Bzzzzt! | Several NTSC output | Nope. | Yep. On-site service | Ha! | Yep. There's also the 2000HD/P bundle, which for $200-300 more than a 2000HD, also comes with a bunch of Gold Disk software (PageSetter, Advantage (I think that's GD's spreadsheet), MediaShow, ????? Paint, music SW, Word processor), as well as CrossDOS. > *With extra VRAM ($300), the MAC LC can display 32,768 colors at once >at 584x386 or 256 colors at once at 640x480. With HAM-E ($300) the Amiga 2000 can display some huge # of colors in lo-res. Yes, I know it's not a well-supported type thing, but it's there. > As you can see, the A2000HD pales compared to the MAC LC, especially >in color capabilities and flicker-free resolutions. Some people might >say that it is unfair to compare the LC against the A2000HD, as the A3000 >would be a better comparison. However to be fair to both sides, the >A2000HD is the best comparison, since the A3000 costs so much more than >the LC. And the LC pales in comparison in price, graphics speed, sound capabilities, expandability, upgradeability, operating system (although Finder certainly has a nicer _look_ than WB 1.3....), etc... > The A2000 also has additional problems. For one thing, the >included SCSI controller is NOT built-in, but included as a card. This >has created problems in that the contacts can eventually become coroded, >causing erratic problems with the controller. This is news to me. Guess that makes any expansion device on any computer a problem, even on your vaunted Macs. Everything should be built in to avoid corrosion problems. Slots? We don' need no steenkeeng slots! > I hope it is obvious now that Commodore desperately needs something >to compete adequately against systems like the MAC LC. Seems obvious to me that they've already got several :-) There are a few changes I'd like to see in the 2000 series, but nothing as radical as you suggest. SIMM sockets on the motherboard are one thing I don't see any problem with. Although some 3rd party companies might be hurt by this, there aren't any that I know of who make almost all their money from memory devices. A Faster processor might be feasible, but I'd stay away from an '020. I think the Mac LC is the only thing keeping the 020 in production at this point. With the cheap MMU-less '030s now available, the price advantage of the 020 over its faster descendant is fading. Seems to me that if it weren't for Apple, Moto would be better off dropping the 020 to focus more on the '030 and '040. Anyway, I think a faster 68K would be reasonable, even if it is in the form of Processor Accelerator/AdSpeed type hack... as long as this could be done without adding considerably to the cost (could it?) and without causing many incompatibilities. -- Gibberish May the Publications Editor, AmigaNetwork is spoken fork() be Amiga Student On-Campus Consultant, U of D here. with you. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault.