From: Aric.Caley@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: New Amiga(s) Expansi
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 08 Oct 92  10:08:00

> Organization: The Portal System (TM)
> From: Christopher_Thomas_Winward@cup.portal.com
> Message-ID: 67346@cup.portal.com
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
>
>
> Just what is Commodore trying to do? How is it possible to develop
> completely
> dissimilar products in a single product line simply for the sake of
> product
> differentiation?  The following examples are what I'm talking about:
>
>   1: The development of the A4000 without a SCSI interface. (Obviously).

It certainly would have been nice for the A4000 to have had a SCSI interface.

> This means that an A4000 is a scaled-down A3000 with the AA chipset.  It

Its only "scaled-down" in respect to the harddrive interface.  Everthing else
has either been expanded or left alone (expanded:  Graphics bandwidth, CPU
module, SIMM sockets instead of ZIP's, slightly bigger case with more drive
bays. Left alone: sound, blitter).

> has a missing interface port, that highly useful SCSI port, that makes the
> A3000 a truly powerful and extensible system.  'But you can buy one as an

Its not that big of a deal.  How many people actualy have multiple SCSI
drives?

> interface board'.  This may be true, but we all know that more devices
> (and useful ones at that) are able to be produced when developers know
> that their target machines will definitely have hardware built in that
> they can support.

What hardware or software is there that *depends* on the SCSI interface?
The IDE interface looks like a SCSI interface to the software.

>   2: The development of the A600 with fully surface-mounted components.
>
> The A500 is more powerful than this machine because of its sockets and
> expandability.  The missing expansion port is another inconvenience.

Yeah, would have been nice to have an expansion port like the A500.  But this
machine is obviously going to be bought by people who can't afford an
expandable machine - and thus they probably can't afford expansions.

Look how popular the C64 was (is), with no expansion ability.

>   3: The development of a CDTV/CD-ROM device for the A500.
>
> Commodore has just introduced the A600, destined to be a replacement for
> the A500.  Which must be exactly why Commodore has just released an
> expansion unit for one of its products which they plan to discontinue.

Yeah, kinda stupid.  They should have kept the A500 case and expansion slot,

> It would have been a much more workable solution if they had designed a
> PCMCIA interface to fit the A500 expansion bus, THEN design a CDTV unit
> to plug into the PCMCIA connector.  I guess it was too much for them to do
> something logically at the marketing division?

It probably would be more expensive that way.  They should have just kept the
A500 or cost reduced it (surface mount, but same case and side-slot).

>   4: Producing two completely different standards for 'high-end'
>      machines vs. 'low-end'.

Thats why they call one the "low end", and the other the "High end" - because
they are different (high end is better).  Do you expect AGA on a $300
machine?  Do you expect ECS on a $3000 one?  They arent that different from
the software perspective.  Anyone who writes 2.0 aware applications will do
fine on both an A600 and A4000.

>   There is no AA chipset in the A600.  There is no 68030 in the A600.
>   There is no way to upgrade any chips other than the processor in
>   ANY of the new surface mount Amigas other than a motherboard swap.

There is no way to do that on most other computers, either.  Can you pop
out the chips on a Mac IIci and put in the 24 bit graphics of the Quadra?
I think not.

> Who in their right mind would ever dare to develop specifically for the
> A4000 and AA chipset when it only comes on one or two of the most

Who *wouldnt*???  All you have to do is write your software so it uses the
monitors system of 2.0.  Then, it will work on everything from an A600 to
the A4000 to the next generation Amiga.

> expensive machines?  No real applications will become available to make
> use of the new chips unless they become standard.  How does Commodore

Oh, so I guess Prowrite 3.3 and ASDG's ADPro don't exist then, huh?  I guess
I was just imagining it when I saw ADPro convert a 24 bit picture into HAM-8
and display it in hi-res on an A4000 (and it looked mighty nice, too).

> Gives us all lots of reasons to buy the 4000, doesn't it?

Well, if you like 040's, and 262144 colour graphics, than thats a good reason
to buy an A4000.  If you dont like speed, and colours, get an A3000 for half
the price.

> Three technical questions to Commodore: (postage paid to
>                                         cbmvax.commodore.com)
>
>   1: The MC68060 will probably be 64 bit bus, 128 bit internal CPU.
>
> Does the removable processor chip then make sense?  Would you not require
> an adapter board with the chip anyway, which would be what the CPU slot is
> for (this assumes the removable processor module is on the CPU socket
> itself
> and not the CPU expansion slot, like it would be in an A3000)?

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say.  The A4000's CPU module plugs
into the CPU slot of the A4000's motherboard.  This CPU slot is the same as
the A3000's.  The A4000 is like an A3000 with a 68040 accelerator card
installed, except that there isnt an unused '030/'882 on the motherboard.

>   2: Zorro IV slots?
>
> Would it even be useful to come up with a Zorro IV standard for a 64-bit
> bus
> and if so would it be possible to do that on 100 pins by multiplexing a
> few
> of them like Zorro III (I realize this requires some assumptions about
> 68060
> configuration).  Put another way, is it possible to have Zorro II/III/IV-
> compatible expansion slots?

Do we even really need such a thing?  We havent even begun to tap the power
of Zorro III yet.  I dont think we will need a 64 bit bus for some time to
come (assuming that there will be a 64 bit CPU in the Motorola series).

>   3: Why not include chipset-expansion cards?
>
> Would it be so much more expensive, if you have to surface-mount the
> chips,
> to at least allow them to be upgraded by putting them on an expansion
> card?
> That way you just rip out the chipset board and install a new one to
> upgrade.

It could be done.  In fact I think this is a pretty good idea.  Of course,
it doesnt leave very much on the motherboard.  And how are you going to
squeeze a video port, stereo RCA jacks, serial port, joystick ports, and
diskdrive port on the end of a card?  It would have to be a really odd
shaped card.

I think a better idea is to have RTG in the OS, so that you can plug in new
video cards and use them.

> Disclaimer: I have never seen an A4000, and have only heard of it through
> postings around here, where I got my information.  Correction appreciated

Whatever you do, dont listen to Marc Barret.


--- Maximus 2.00