From: danaf@bray1a.its.rpi.edu (Frank R. Dana Jr.)
Subject: Re: COMMODORE - HERE'S A CLUE
Reply-To: danaf@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:51:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.115147.9813@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au>, davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (David Meiklejohn) writes:
|> In article <3hhzj6m@rpi.edu> danaf@rpi.edu writes:
|> If you want to run the world's greatest multimedia computer at warp 9, you
|> get an A4000.  They come with an '040, and they're cheap.

Yes, but designers in general will never take full advantage of the new systems'
capabilities while they have to make concessions to the LCD - also, of course,
the best seller. While that LCD is the 68000, we're not gonna see a LOT of
really good A4000 software. A few specialized applications, sure, but nothing
major.

|> >How much more expensive **IS** a 68020? I'd bet the chip itself is under $100
|> >now, and I'd be SHOCKED if it's over $200.
|> 
|> Doubtless a lot cheaper than that.  However, the cost of the chip isn't that
|> important for cheap chips - more relevant is that going with an '020 or '030
|> means having a 32-bit bus.  Not only do you need more traces on the

???? I've got a 68030 in my 16-bit A2000. It's very happy. The accelerator card
itself is, of course, 32-bit, but the rest of the computer is 16-bit and loving
it.

|> motherboard and a more complex layout, but you have to go to 32-bit ram,
|> which means that you need more chips to do it.  Of course, Commodore _could_,
|> using the bus sizing ability of the '030, keep a 16-bit bus and save money
|> on the motherboard that way.  Then they could advertise that their bottom
|> line was 32-bit, but it would be crippled, and what sort of computer company
|> would come up with a design like that?  ;-)

Commodore?   8)

|> >So, for the extra $100, we could
|> >have a 68020-based Amiga. It's worth it, believe me!
|> 
|> At the bottom end of the market, $100 is a HUGE difference.  You're talking
|> about a 20% markup or more.

But if it's STILL the cheapest computer out (and, at $500, the A500 still would
be....) and it's STILL the best value for the money, people will STILL buy it
even tho it's $100 more!

Most of America does not buy a computer because it's "only $400" or because they
see something really great about it. The FIRST decision is usually to buy a 
computer, usually to "help Johnny in school" or to do taxes or something silly
like that, the only applications that NEVER seem to get done on home computers.

THEN, our friendly family-next-door goes out and comparison shops like hell
until they can find the best computer for their money. Now, those that don't
buy a Commodore 64 from Montgomery Grant or whoever are eventually going to
hit upon the Amiga. And, at $500, it's still the best deal out there. Now,
assuming they don't buy an Apple for the simple reason that it's used in every
school in America, or an IBM for the simple reason that they're used in every
business in America, a 68020-based A500 will still look like the best deal.

|> I agree that, to round out the Amiga market, we need a mid-range model
|> with an '020 or 30 (I say forget the '020, myself), with AGA, selling for
|> under $1500 or so.  Such a machine would replace the A2000, and I believe
|> that Commodore will be introducing one shortly.

The '030 SHOULD be midrange. Right now, regardless of the status of the '040,
it's HIGH END. GVP's EGS will never sell incredibly well because it only works
on THEIR accelerators, and they haven't SOLD that many accelerators! Too many
Amiga owners are still running with a 7mHz 68000 chip. We need to move the '020
and the '030 out of the "high end" ('020 is more high-middle) and into the REAL
midrange. And, in my opinion, the 68020 should be the bottom of the line.

|> What I strongly disagree with you about is that the low end needs to be
|> raised.  Augment the range, don't contract it.  Let the market decide what
|> they want to buy.

But the High End is always smaller than the Low End, and the biggest sales will
always be in the "Low" End. MOST Amiga owners don't have midrange computers,
they have Low End machines. And programmers will always write to the greatest
user base. That means a lot of games like Nova 9 (sorry to keep harping on this,
Gregg, but it's the only example I have really handy...) which was toned down
from the PC version for the simple reason that it had to fit on 3 disks. The
same sort of thing is done with regard to CPU speed. A lot of programmers cut
corners because otherwise, the software (I'm not JUST talking games here, altho
mostly that's the problem...) will run TOO SLOWLY on a 68000. Do you realize
there's still a 68000 integer based version of Imagine!?!?!? Can you IMAGINE
(no pun...) people trying to do 3D rendering on a 68000!!!!!


|> Umm, how long has it been since the A4000 was released?  A couple of weeks.
|> You were happy with the power-ups in the past, but how long was it after the
|> A3000 was introduced that the first power-up scheme was launched?  Months.

This is the second person that got confused on my last statement. Let me 
clarify...

I have no problem with what Commodore is doing for/to its users. I'm a full 
member of the "screw you" campaign that feels Commodore owes NOTHING to A3000
(and below) owners as far as "implied guarantees" and other things go. **I** 
would have been happy if Commodore had come out with an ENTIRELY new computer
(give it a new name, even, ala the Quadra...) and made it totally incompatible
with old software. The fact that the words "backwards compatible" were in the
sixth line of the press release worried me greatly. Commodore has to STOP 
worrying about the past, and about the old machines, and just BUILD A NEW
COMPUTER. Worrying about things being "backwards compatible" just limits the
NEW technology to being a weak extension of the old.

|> >How about getting CDTV ads into things like Time and NewsWeek? Magazines that
|> >NON-computer people read? THAT's who Commodore should be trying to sell Amigas
|> >and CDTVs to; not the people who already own them!
|> 
|> For CDTV, you may be right.  However, most people who buy computers these
|> days already own them.  No one has been able to figure out yet how to convince
|> the masses who don't yet have a computer in the home that they really do need
|> one.  And I suspect that most buyers of CD-I, CDTV, etc. at this point are
|> computer-literate techno-junkies.

Speaking of CDTV and CD-I... an example I forgot to include in my last message.

The CDTV will never beat CD-I. I'm sorry to say this, but it's true. I was 
flipping through the Cambridge Soundworks catalog the other day, and what do
I see but a big full-page display for the CD-I. This is a HUGE, RESPECTED 
company that has been selling some of the finest in audio and video equipment
for YEARS now. The fact that THEY are pushing the CD-I (and at only $600) 
ensures its dominance in the market. 

Now, Commodore announced the CDTV a loooong time ago, by market standards. Why
isn't the CDTV in the Cambridge Soundworks catalog??? Did someone forget to
tell them it existed or something?

|> >(I can't BELIEVE I just typed that... sorry! It's just that people who defend
|> >Commodore in everything they do really drive me crazy. Someone called you guys
|> >the "Anti-Barretts"... and it fits!  (Mark Barrett, not Dave...)
|> 
|> Get it right, will ya?  That's "Marc" and "Dan".

I thought it was "Mark"??? Last time I typed "Marc", someone corrected me! Well,
sorry. (And, sorry, Dan, that was just stupidity and too many Reebok com-
mercials.)

8)

|> -- 
|> David Meiklejohn (also known as davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au)

-- 
/////////////////////////[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
(718)             (212)                        (516)             (518)
=======Amiuser============Frank R. Dana, Jr.============Doc Ami=======     
--------My opinions rarely reflect those of any sane person,----------
	   living, dead, or undead... that's gonna CHANGE.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy