From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM is a game machine company
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga GRn V1.29 4/10/92 (Beta) by Mike Schwartz
Date: 17 Apr 92 11:54:43 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <30377@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:
>In article <mykes.2549@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>>In article <30212@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:
>>>In article <mykes.2235@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>>>>OK, folks, the last 3 machines that CBM has released are all game machines.
>>>>[...] To be specific, the three machines are CDTV, A500+, and A600.
>
>>>Didn't CDTV come out before the A3000T?  I thought so...
>
>>Isn't the A3000T just a repackaged A3000?  What's it got besides more
>>slots and a bigger power supply and a nicer case?
>
>And you think maybe the A500+ is such hot news?  You're talking about new
>C= models, not which have any new chip technology.  Allow me the same rules.
>

The A500+ is an advance in the low-end standard.  The A3000T is NOT an advance
in the high-end standard.  The 500+ brings 1Meg and 2.0 to a class of machine
that previously was 512K and 1.3.  I LIKE the A3000T, but what it brings to
the party is just a nicer package.  If it had an 040 instead of 030, it would
have extended the high-end.  It also would have been a lot cheaper than
the current option of A3000T + 3rd party 040.

>>I had one of the first few Mac II's.  The Mac did NOT have RTG until they
>>did  ColorQuickDraw.  It took a new OS with bigger (2x) ROMs to make RTG
>>work.  It is not something that the other Macs ever had (color capability).
>
>So they didn't do color.  I said RTG, not color RTG.

If the old macs had RTG, then so did the A1000.  You could put a moniterm
on one of those.

The significance of what Apple did with the Mac II was to bite the bullet
early on.  They broke lots of software in 1987 so in 1992 they could have
24 bit displays for free (i.e. 24-bit desktop).

>>A 4x faster CPU sure helps me assemble 2 Meg ROM images faster than the 030 
>>does...
>
>That what I use my '040 for.  Though with the typical PClone hard disk 
>interface, you're spending most of your compile time waiting to load stuff,
>and in some cases, load the compiler.  If you go UNIX, you'll usually get
>a fast hard disk interface, but many UNIXs have pretty inefficient disk
>handling.  They all don't, but you don't usually have the chance to mix
>and match.

I must be tainted from watching the INDIGO work.  Things I do daily on my
A3000, like LHARC, UUDECODE, and JPEG decompress are things I wait a long
time for on the Amiga.  On the SGI, they are almost instant.  A grep on
the SGI of 1000 files takes (seemingly) no time at all.

Now I look at my A3000 with 18Megs of RAM and Firecracker and 800Megs of
HD and realize that I spent MORE for it than I would have for an INDIGO.

>
>>Again, comparing with 1979 technology is not relevent.  Compared to the IBM
>>370 I used in 1973, the A3000 is better, so what's the point?
>
>The point is, you were angry at C= for introducing an new entry level machine,
>the A600.  I pointed out that, back when I got my first system, that would 
>have made my head explode.  You're telling me that you're not a customer for 
>that system, or any personal computer at all.  If all you do with a computer
>is write C++ code and play around with graphics, maybe a workstation is 
>what you want.  Hell, today I've used Amigas, Apollos, Macs, PClones, 
>and DEC machines.  Each is where it is because it does that job well.  We're
>not trying to sell $7000 UNIX machines to high school kids.  The best Amiga
>I could dream up today couldn't outperform an Iris Crimson, even if there
>was no development time, just because no 680x0 goes as fast an R4000.  That
>doesn't mean there's no reason to make any more 680x0 boxes, it just may mean
>that you don't want another one.  Me, I have no use for UNIX in my house.  I
>don't need more CPU speed, more resolution, or more memory.  At work, some 
>tools are only available under UNIX, so I use it.

I am NOT angry with CBM for introducing new entry level machines.  Far
from it.  I am glad - if they sell, CBM stays around longer.  I also KNOW where
CBM sees its market - game machines.  If I call a kettle black, then I am
not insulting the kettle (or angry at it).  I mean no insult to C= by calling
them a game machine company.  

Now, if they don't want to be a game machine company, or want to be something
more, then they have to build $1500 Unix boxes.  Actually, I have little like
for Unix, myself, and find 2.0 to be more desireable.  So all I really want
is a $1500 2.0 Box that is competitive.  How can I even consider using an
A3000 to run Unix on it when it is so much slower than a Sparc and costs MORE?

Do you see me writing stuff like CBM sucks?  Do you realize I am one of the first
Amiga developers?  Do you realize the money I've spent on CBM equipment since 1985?
I did so willingly and happily, and would like to do so again.  You have always
had first crack at MY computing $$$.

Look at these prices:

A3000		$2500
16MB RAM	$1000
1.2 GIG HD	$1700
68040 CPU	$1500
DMI Resolver	$1400

--
Author of Amiga GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle,
and Genesis Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy