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 ( My two cents ). Message-ID: <1061@sugar.UUCP> Date: Fri, 13-Nov-87 19:59:58 EST Article-I.D.: sugar.1061 Posted: Fri Nov 13 19:59:58 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 15-Nov-87 20:03:41 EST References: <8711040542.AA29099@violet.berkeley.edu> <2696@cbmvax.UUCP> <685@louie.udel.EDU> Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX Lines: 76 Let's get our story straight, why don't we? In article <685@louie.udel.EDU>, rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) writes: > The 1000 was a wonderful machine. I have one. I also have a 500, > and of the two i much prefer the 500. The 1000 has problems. What are these problems? > First and most serious is SOTS. (Quick look at a 500 spec) I don't see any expansion slots here. Maybe they're hidden. I do see a SOTS connector. Oh, and here's an ad for an A500 SOTS memory box. Weird. > That was an ALG design and it was a mistake. Better than not providing any expansion capability at all, no? > Second big problem was KickStart. The whole point of the Amiga > is that you can do so much more, especially with multitasking. > But i can not multitask a V1.1 kickstart program and a V2.2 > kickstart program! The original amigans argue that kickstart > was a win; i think it was a botch. I am so happy with the 500 > and not having to put that kickstart disk in. But without the 1000 and kickstart there wouldn't be a 1.2 version of the operating system to put in the kickstart ROMS. > But let the marketplace decide, i think. And the marketplace > is saying that the 1000 was positioned wrong (few sold, really, > in relation to what it must have cost to develop) and that > the 500 and 2000 are positioned just right (my dealer can not > keep either in stock- they come in and they get sold right away- > i had to reserve my 500). This is all true. However, the 1000 is a fine machine in its own right. The 500 and the 2000 would not exist if it hadn't preceded them, and it's 100% software compatible with them. Remember the last time you saw a claim of 100% software compatibility and had it justified? I don't. > C= inherited a neat machine with some serious design problems. C= did more than inherit it. A lot of the design did originate at C=. I believe they can take credit for the large amount of RAM built in (Jay Miner wanted less) and the operating system. If it wasn't for the O/S, I wouldn't own the machine. > I think the 500 and 2000 have done a lot to remedy those problems. They have done a lot to remedy the marketing problems. The design is almost identical. In fact from a design standpoint the 1000 is far more aesthetically pleasing. SOTS or not. As the IBM-PC has shown, however, this is an incredibly minor point. > I think the 500 is one of the neatest machines i have seen in many > years. A lot of people seem to agree. I think the Amiga is the most important machine to hit the home computer market since the Macintosh, and maybe since the original Altair. I'm glad the 500 and 2000 are there to make sure I can still get software and hardware for it. I still wish they'd spent more time on the esthetics and left the Commodore logo off. However. Commodore has made some blunders in the 2000 design in the interests of painting it blue. I'm going to keep my 1000 until they come up with a genuinely superior machine. I'm rather glad they didn't, actually. I still haven't paid off my 1000. And I do think they can still do some work on the user interface. The 640 by 200 screen would be a lot more useful if I could drag windows off it, as you can on the Mac and the Atari. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.