Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!lll-winken!taco!hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu!kdarling
From: kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Give The Amiga Some Credit Already!
Message-ID: <1991Jun27.051403.14098@ncsu.edu>
Date: 27 Jun 91 05:14:03 GMT
References: <5220@orbit.cts.com>
Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Lines: 51

chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
>>Machine "X" -  [feature list deleted]
> This machine is still vaporware from what i understand, since i know
> people that have expressed that they would buy it if they could.

Excuse me?  The message thread was about what kind of standard Amiga
features might be possible within a $1000 retail price range, and why
having those features might be needed to attract sales.

To update you, that machine has been shipping for at least a month.
Therefore it qualifies as an example of what can be done, if wished.

> That 070 is also highly non-standard, so there's no real way to pop in
> an 030 without crippling the I/O.
> Last price i heard was 1800.  have they lowered their estimated cost?

They must have :-)  Everyone who now owns one, bought it for around $1000.
And no, an 030 board wouldn't "pop in" where the 070 is.  That'd be insane.
It would come on a separate cpu board with its own 32-bit ram, and plug
into the multiprocessor bus.  The 070 would be relegated to I/O chores.

>>What's especially relative here about the above machine and its cousins,
>>is that they were all created _because_ an expanded Amiga cost too much.
>>The target buyers had all indicated their desire for certain base features,
>>and no 68K system had fit the price/ports profile, altho Amiga came closest.
>
> Umm.. actually they were created for people who wanted OS/9 on a 68000
> (OS/K).  they threw in the extras to "show off".  there's no real thought
> out reason for much of it.  no Blitters.. etc..

Not quite.  They _were_ created for people who wanted to run OS-9, but
even a tiny bit of knowledge would tell you that they *already* had a wide
choice of potential OS-9 systems, including (but not limited to) the IBM 
386s, the Mac, the Atari ST, and the Amiga.  This was 18 months ago, btw.

My own first choice was the Amiga, but adding to its base I/O features (gfx,
disk, # of serial/par ports) wasn't cost effective (or possible) at the time.

So the question of "What do you want?" was put out on the nets and services,
and months of debate followed.  The end result was three companies creating
new machines to fit various users' minimum stated needs/desires/price ranges.

>>Still, they're not perfect either. Who's found anything yet that is? ;-)
>>But they may prove that a _little_ bit of criticism isn't unwarranted...

I repeated that, since you missed both of the main points. It _is_ possible
to include more standard features in a $1000 system.  Furthermore, not
including them means that competition will surely fill the market void.
  - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>

PS: You can stop wasting time on ill-informed bash attempts, since no one
is asking Amiga owners to buy these machines :-)