Article View: comp.sys.amiga.cd32
Article #1139Re: Which is better ? CD32 + SX32 or CD32 + A1200 ?
From: Paul Dossett
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 09:36
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 09:36
61 lines
3017 bytes
3017 bytes
Robin Hood (bx@dl.ac.uk) said:
>Hi, Anyone using CD32+ A1200 setup ?
Nope, not at all, and I can tell you why..
>I understand A1200 can use CD32 as a slave drive to
>fetch files from CD. If a program on the CD
>is executed from A1200, is it run on CD32, or A1200, or on both ?
>Can propgram address all the ram on both CD32 and A1200 ?
Okay, here goes.
If you're using a standard CD32 as a 'slave drive' for any Amiga, not just a
1200, you're making a serial link between the Amiga serial port and the CD32
keyboard/serial port. Then you boot a special CD-ROM for the CD32 and run
software on the other Amiga, to make a link.
This link (generally using the Sernet package) gives around 3k/second transfer
speed (about 6 times slower than floppy disk) and software using it *must* be
OS compliant.
The CD32 is simply a device, so software executed over the link from your 1200
runs on the 1200. The CD32 doesn't have enough RAM to do anything much
anyway.
Programs can't access RAM on both machines. Neither machine has an MMU to
make this possible, and even if they did, the slow transfer speed would mean
you'd be dead before the program had got anywhere.
>SX32 is indeed a very neat add-on for CD32,
>but for the cost of a Bare SX32, you can get both CD32 and a A1200
>(USED) that has buit-in FDD and keyboard, and more expansion potential.
>than SX32. the only drawback of the later set-up is that the 2Mb CD32 chip
>ram may not be shared by the whole system, but A1200 has 2 Mb instead.
A bare SX32 is £200. Can you get both machines for £200? Go for it, then.
Don't expect the CD access to be at all fun, though.
The SX32 also has a memory expansion and built-in clock, both of which cost
more with a 1200. It also makes the CD32 an excellent portable machine.
>My only complaint for SX32 is it is too expensive.
>hope the price will be more reasonable soon. as far as
>profit of a product is concerned, do not forget
Bollocks, it's not expensive at all. You just have no idea how much it costs
to make 3rd party hardware.
>$100 x 1000 >> $200 x 100
Most CD32s already have SX-1s. Where will these thousands of purchases come
from?
--
Paul Dossett | EpiphoneYamahaPearlPaiste | Amiga 2000/040/17/365/ZIP/3.1__
-------------| Amiga owner since 1988! | Amiga CD32/020/10/200/3.1 __///
Melbourne OZ | astroboy@netspace.net.au | 1976 Toyota Corolla 1.2 \XX/
| ObWebSite : http://netspace.net.au/~astroboy/
Disclaimer: It's way too early in the morning to think straight!
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<2520.6678T1076T1363@netspace.net.au>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!news.netspace.net.au!usenetReferences:
<4kj6rv$k71@mserv1.dl.ac.uk>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!news.netspace.net.au!usenet From: astroboy@netspace.net.au (Paul Dossett) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.cd32 Subject: Re: Which is better ? CD32 + SX32 or CD32 + A1200 ? Date: 14 Apr 1996 09:36:35 GMT Organization: NetSpace Online Systems Message-ID: <2520.6678T1076T1363@netspace.net.au> References: <4kj6rv$k71@mserv1.dl.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup-a2-42.mel.netspace.net.au X-Newsreader: THOR 2.22 (Amiga;TCP/IP)