Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: CBM and upgrade paths
Message-ID: <1054@sugar.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Nov-87 07:42:08 EST
Article-I.D.: sugar.1054
Posted: Fri Nov 13 07:42:08 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Nov-87 10:53:11 EST
References: <8711040542.AA29099@violet.berkeley.edu> <992@sugar.UUCP> <5838@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 62

In article <5838@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes:
> In article <992@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
> <In article <8711040542.AA29099@violet.berkeley.edu>, mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike  Meyer, My watch has windows) writes:
> <> I've continually pointed out that the Amiga didn't introduce
> <> multitasking to the home computer market.
> <Then who did? Not counting third-party software for the IBM-PC that doesn't
> <run fast enough to be useful even on an AT? The Radio Shack Color Computer?
> Sorry, but multitasking systems for home computers predate the IBM-PC
> and the color computer.
> 
> OS/9 is old enough that the original version had a flavor that ran off
> of a cassette deck.

I know about OS/9. Now then, what was the first machine that supported OS/9
for the home computer market. Not the personal computer market or the
business computer market, but the home computer market. That means: a
home computer (one that costs much less than a small car) with a 6809
or a 68000, and a manufacturer willing to support it. The Radio Shack Color
Computer is all I can think of.

> <> I've even been pointing out
> <> that I can buy a cheaper multi-tasking, windowing system than an A500.
> <
> <OK. Name it. I hope you're not talking about the Radio Shack Color Computer
> <or the Sinclair Quantum Leap. Those are the only ones I can think of and both
> <are effectively dead puppies.
> 
> Yeah, I'm talking about the CoCo. It may be a dead puppy, but people
> are still starting new hardware expansion products for it.

Like what?

> Can the
> same be said for the A1000?

Amiga Live!. But you said starting.

Any decent Amiga 2000 peripherals will fit in a Zorro box.

In fact I was just looking at a brand new 2-slot Zorro II box.

> And people are also still doing software
> work for it.

The Amiga 2000 is 100% software compatible with the 500 and 2000. 100%.
Remember that number.

> So I'd say that it's got more life than the A1000.

I'd have to disagree. I'm keeping my A1000 until the A3000 comes out with a
68020 and MMU built in. (Please?)

> In fact, the new one can have more memory than the A500 comes with,
> and has an MMU.

But it doesn't come with more memory, does it? You can't put 9.5 megabytes
of RAM on it, no?  And you can't address all that memory directly. That
wipes it out for me. If I wanted to fiddle with mapped memory I'd get an
IBM-PC. The hardware's cheaper.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva  `-_-'  ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.