From: jbono@tension.UUCP (John Bono)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Networking?  WHY?!?
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:39:10 EST
Organization: High Tension BBS

In article <36840@cbmvax.commodore.com>, bj@cbmvax.commodore.com (Brian Jackson
- Amiga Networking) writes:
>
>
>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.
>
>
>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 

Since I have used Macs enough to use Appletalk, it is abysmally slow compared
to TR or Ethernet.  In any event, easily connecting machines together doesn't
require built in networking hardware, or for that matter, built in networking
software either.  For the stuff I do routinely on a LAN, such as client-server
database programming, Xwindows, and print servers, all need a fast network
architecture to do anything of substance.  I would replace Appletalk with
Ethernet or TR any day of the week in those situations, with any more than 2
users.
 
Secondly, while your point about using A500-A1200 machines as Xterms has merit,
how much money would a networked make over and above a reqular single-user game
or two user game with a serial/parallel hookup?  Networking has been available
for a long time on PCs and Macs, yet there are virtually no games available
that use networking capabilities.  The ones that do have networking support
don't have any better or worse sales than non-networked games.  The additional
cost of network support for a game doesn't justify the lack of additional
revenue created by lack of demand.
 
Finally, while CBM might not spend gazillions of dollars, I'm certain they
spend more than a few bazillion <grin>.
 
John