From: bj@cbmvax.commodore.com (Brian Jackson - Amiga Networking)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Networking?  WHY?!?
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:09:04 GMT
Reply-To: bj@cbmvax.commodore.com (Brian Jackson - Amiga Networking)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

In article <jbono.07v8@tension.UUCP> jbono@tension.UUCP (John Bono) writes:

>I've seen a few posts up here about how the Amiga doesn't have "built-in"
>networking, and it seems to me that adding networking as a standard feature
>would be a tremendous waste of time.  Virtually *no* clones have any 
>networking "built in."  They all are rather expensive aftermarket options,
>especially in light of the software cost.

Most clones have _nothing_ built in. That's where the folks make their
money on the things - by selling the other things that you need to make
it work.  If the Amiga market was the clone market ...   The aftermarket
networking options are expensive because, currently, if you need
networking, you _need_ it. So they've got you. 

There is nothing inherently expensive (or difficult) in adding decent
hardware support for networking on the Amiga. The software is already
pretty much there.

>Macs have appletalk networking, but compared to Token-Ring or Ethernet
>based Networks, apple talk sucks rocks, and is not very useful in large
>environments with heavy network traffic.    

I suspect that you'd be surprised at the value AppleTalk has to folks.The
fact is that a LOT of people use, like and suffer with it and that it's
existance sells a lot of machines. The fact is that the ability to _easily_
connect your machines together is a valuable one that many users want now
and that more users will want in the future. 

>The only thing I would like to see out of C= is a network.device, and a
>network.library as an OPTIONAL feature to the OS, which would include
>standard drivers for Novell, TCP/IP, Vines, Lantastic, as well as some sort
>of server capability.  The Amiga does have a multitasking OS after all, and
>the bus is definitely faster than the majority of the "servers" advanced by
>the clone community.  

>Spending gazillions of dollars trying to get 500s, 600s, and 1200s
>networking is a waste of money, as noone I know would want a low end
>machine like that as a workstation or server. 

This is a pretty narrow vision and one that is based upon what -you- think
"everyone" or "no one" would want.  With an inexpensive but (relatively)
fast networking scheme on _all_ Amigas, the games folks could have a field
day with multi-player games and things like the A500/A600/A1200 could be
used as _inexpensive_ smart terminals connected to anything larger.

Btw, Commodore doesn't spend "gazillions" of dollars on anything. :) (?)

>HOWEVER, an A2000/3000/4000 based network is a different story, because
>those machines are far more likely to be used in a productivity
>environment.

Yes, and they would all make great servers for the low-end machines :)

>John

Use your imagination, John. 

Brian
       +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
       Brian Jackson    Amiga Networking Group, Commodore-Amiga Inc.
                        bj@cbmvax.commodore.com
     {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!bj    or   networking@cbmvax.commodore.com
                       uva uvam vivendo varia fit 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware