Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!cbmvax!andy
From: andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: CBM and upgrade paths
Message-ID: <2718@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Nov-87 16:08:13 EST
Article-I.D.: cbmvax.2718
Posted: Tue Nov 10 16:08:13 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Nov-87 00:07:20 EST
References: <8711040542.AA29099@violet.berkeley.edu> <2696@cbmvax.UUCP> <5807@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 128

In article <5807@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes:
>In article <2696@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes:
>
>A mostly reasonable response, but...
>
><>Let's get to the important thing first. I claimed that a posting from
><>a CBM employee asking people to contemplate what the A1000->A2000
><>upgrade deal means was scary, because so contemplating leads to the
><>conclusion that CBM is going to do something *truly* nasty to A1000
><>owners.
>
>He didn't answer the above comment.

I thought I was saying something better---that software support for the 
A500/A200 equaled software support for the A1000.

I decided that this thought would make you happier than a public
statement of A1000 support from me; however, if it will make you
happy, I plan to always fight to keep the A1000 supported
through our OS software.  (If such a fight becomes necessary,
which is doubtful, anyway).

><	First, I still can't get over that you're flaming about it
><now, over a year after it was announced.  Anyway...
>
>Becuase I had chosen to ignore it (and the A2000) until CBM started
>the upgrade deal.

I understand now.  For awhile I thought I was caught in a time
warp, especially when you brought up flames on upgrading
software to V1.2. :-)

><It shouldn't
><matter to you that the path depends on the efforts of 3rd party
><hardware vendors like Microbotics or ASDG.
>
>It doesn't - except for what it coming from third parties tells me
>about CBM as a company.
>

What it tells me is that we're a fairly small company.  We don't
have the people and resources to do everything.  Third party
companies that put out quality products (like Microbotics and ASDG)
help fill the gap.  The respective A1000 to A2000 upgrade niches that
each company has chosen to occupy seem perfectly suited to
third party companies.  (and personally, I'm happy that
both are doing it).

><>Most of the replies from CBM on the net were just "Shut up" in more or
><>less (mostly more) polite tones.
><
><Hey, not from me.  I've tried to respond to your postings with facts!
>
>True. You didn't even ask me to take the complaints elsewhere.

Well, some people take these things personally.  (Some very personally)
To me, it doesn't matter.  I fight my battles internally
before we do something, then either way, support it publically the
best I can.

And, reading the complaints if often an educational experience :-)

>Doesn't matter what you mean it to be - especially considering how
>little I've heard about what that slot is for. Does the manual
>specifically say that it's for *ONE* SOTS box?

As a matter of fact, it says...well, let me quote from manual,

(Feb 4th, 1986), Amiga Expansion Architecture, page 1

"For timing and FCC reasons, it is probably not feasible to configure a
system with more than two external backplanes attached.  Even with
only two, the timing is very tight, so the designer must be careful."

and on page 2....

"WARNING

As of this preliminary writing, we have only tested a single backplane
by itself, so it should be born in mind that some of the guidelines given
here are not yet tested.  We are especially concerned that the address
and data may not make it to PICs in the second expansion box in time,
unless capacitance and noise are extremely well controlled.  We will update
these guidelines as our development work progresses, but you must be
responsible for your own worst-case analysis."

So, while there was no prohibition on two SOTS, there were extreme warnings.
If I were a SOTS designer, I would be extremely cautious in passing
the bus, therefore, especially after seeing the line "only tested a
single backplane" because I would know that it meant "if it worked
reliably with two backplanes, we'd have said so".  


><Only because you don't want to adopt any of the solutions offered
><to you.  (only one of which involves changing machines)
>
>Let's look at the solutions
>
>	1) Run an A2000 with a new memory card.
>	2) Ditto, with the cover off.
>	3) Ditto, with a magic cable.
>	4) Something like the A2000-n-1
>	5) Try to live with what little is left of the A1000 expansion market.
>
>Three only showed up in a reply to the same posting you replied to.
>That's three that require a new machine. One that requires a an
>expansion box that isn't available yet - partly because CBM hasn't
>been shipping cards to test them with.

1 through 3 are how to move your A1000 cards over.
4 is the key for you...as I said, I have used a Zorro backplane
connected to my A1000 and have both A1000 and A2000 cards plugged in,
and have had no problems.  You could do the same, and thus
have access to whatever A2000 cards are around.

SOTS isn't an issue in your case; (and it is confusing the issues
in your posting; what you seem to want is the ability to
connect two backplanes, see warning above) they'll work as well using
the Zorro backplane as they always did.
-- 
andy finkel		{ihnp4|seismo|allegra}!cbmvax!andy 
Commodore-Amiga, Inc.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
 a rigged demo."

Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share.
I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.