Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!oliveb!sun!pepper!cmcmanis
From: cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: EXTRA_HALFBRITE (was V1.3 OS?)
Message-ID: <44456@sun.uucp>
Date: 7 Mar 88 18:05:16 GMT
References: <7425@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <471@hub.ucsb.edu>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 43

In article <471@hub.ucsb.edu> hbo@sbphy.ucsb.edu (Howard Owen) writes:
>	OK, it seems to me from the above statistics that something
>	like 40% of existing Amigas do not have EHB mode. It may sound
>	like I am pulling that number out of a hat, though I doubt I am
>	grossly in error with my estimate. At any rate, we can probably
>	agree that non-EHB systems make up a large minority of Amiga
>	systems. Given this fact, where is the logic in excluding such
>	a large chunk of your potential customers if you are developing
>	a software product for the (still) thin Amiga market?

Well you are way off in your estimate, it goes something like this. There
were approximately 150,000 Amiga 1000s sold. Of these somwhere between 
one third and one half did not have EHB. (The refurbed ones have it)
There are now 500,000 plus Amigas in the world, 75000/500000 = 15% tops.
So no, it is not feasible to design in support for non-ehb machines. You
assume they have it. 

>	In an effort to head off flames that would accuse me of being
>	anti- progressive, let me hasten to add that I was among those
>	that were disappointed that the 2000 didn't represent a real
>	extension of the 1000's capabilities. I'd be glad to give up a
>	degree of downward compatibility if it meant I got 2 megs of
>	chip RAM, or higher non-interlaced screen resolution or a 68020
>	or ...  What I got instead was my new 2000, which is so very
>	nearly the same machine internally as the 500 and 1000 that it
>	seems a shame to give up compatibility for the sake of a
>	feature that we seem to agree is of dubious value.

I disagree with the above sentiment completely. What the 2000 gives you
is *capability* not new features. Look at the stuff coming out for the 2000,
it is four times as much activity as the 1000 had. And it generally works
too. No, as Commodore learned (and Atari will learn) the Expansion Connector
is good for one thing, adding one (1) expansion unit. Be it a box with slots
or a memory card. The 2000 can be made to be a 68020 machine or have more
chip ram, or do non-interlaced screens. Your 1000 couldn't and can't. Yes
is was a definite improvement, and I for one think deserves recognition. 
What the 500 gave us was 'cheap', the ability to sell this wonderful technology
into the *very* price sensitive home market. Something else you couldn't
do with the 1000. Yes, they both were steps forward.

--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: cmcmanis  ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.