Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!super!udel!princeton!njin!rutgers!mit-eddie!killer!texbell!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Next Amiga system
Message-ID: <2863@sugar.uu.net>
Date: 19 Oct 88 11:22:07 GMT
References: <723@wsccs.UUCP> <4988@cbmvax.UUCP> <2810@sugar.uu.net> <2416@antique.UUCP>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX
Lines: 24

In article <2416@antique.UUCP>, cjp@antique.UUCP (Charles Poirier) writes:
> In article <2810@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.UUCP writes:
> >The only reason I can see for going to Zorro-2, which is a more difficult
> >form-factor to work with, was to get about the same form-factor as IBM-PC
> >cards. Was it worth it?

> You couldn't put Zorro-1 boards into a nice low box, not without making
> them go in horizontally thus making cooling very difficult.  Given that
> Zorro-1 was a mistake in this regard, I think fixing it was correct.

I don't think that's a given. You can't put Zorro-2 cards in a nice low box
either, without at least putting them in at an angle. For a box a monitor
is to go on, the Amiga 1000 is already uncomfortably high. The 2000 is out of
the question...

I know people have gotten used to the IBM-PC format, but I recall at the time
it came out that the height was one of those things the ergonomics people
bitched about (along with the icky keyboard and the crude CGA fonts). Given
the popularity of stands to convert the PC into a tower configuration (and
now you have horizontal cards in a box not designed for them), a tower-style
(or NeXTcube/Mac style) 2000 might have done better.
-- 
		Peter da Silva  `-_-'  peter@sugar.uu.net
		 Have you hugged  U  your wolf today?