Rumors

Thread View: mod.amiga

2 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

2 total messages Started by Dickson Tue, 27 Jan 1987 14:54

#68

Author: Dickson
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1987 14:54

53 lines
2897 bytes

Just getting back from a users group meeting, I just have to spread what
I have heard.

Sidecar:
     Release date: Feb 8th. Price: $699-$750. But I'll believe this only
when it happens.

Genlock:
     Out this week or next. So far only 200 have been made. Two should
arrive within a week at a computer store in Phoenix.

Baby Amiga:
     The smaller version of the Amiga without the internal disk drive
and kickstart in ROM, has started production. This machine can boot off
a latter kickstart disk, but will take up 256K of the machine's 512K.
But if you boot with ROM, you will have a full 512K.

Amiga 2000:
     The is the machine everyone thought was going to be the 2500. This
will be exactly like Amiga 1000, only it will internally expandable and
have kickstart in ROM. The Amiga 1000 will still most probably by the
best of the three machines. Don't expect the 2000 to be out before
Summer though.

Other Commodore news:
     Commodore is going to discontinue making the C128. Commodore is
going to release an enhanced 64 (or something a long those lines) since
the 64 is more sucessful than the C128. The assembly building that C128s
were made will be used to make Amigas.

The PAL Amiga is a big success in Europe.

There are two Amigas to be released for the second generation of Amiga.
Both will have the same custom chip as the 1000 uses now. One will be a
scaled-down Amiga w/o an internal drive, while the other will be
scaled-up version with possibly internal slots for expansion. Also,
expect the ROM to be in ROM, not on a kickstart disk (version 2.0?). But
to the software, these machines will be exactly alike. The Amiga 1000
will continue to be sold.

Don't expect the new custom chips until the third generation of the
Amiga, then expect 1024x1024 graphics with some means of maintaining the
NTSC compatibility.

If you are planning on buying an Amiga, don't wait for these new
machines. They might be out this year, and they might not. We call know
how slow C-A has been for the Sidecar and Genlock.

As to a MMU, well at the AAUG meeting, RJ Mical mentioned that if you
add something to a product that costs $200, the consumer ends up paying
up to $700 for it. That's one reason we won't see the 68020 with MMU for
a while. Also, if you add an MMU to a 68000, you loose performance.
These reasons are why Amiga decided not to put in the MMU.

Strategic Defense for Personal Computers

#77

Author: bjorn
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1987 00:14

46 lines
2916 bytes

In <985@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> (Paul Dickson) writes:
>As to a MMU, well at the AAUG meeting, RJ Mical mentioned that if you
>add something to a product that costs 00, the consumer ends up paying
>up to 00 for it. That's one reason we won't see the 68020 with MMU for
>a while. Also, if you add an MMU to a 68000, you loose performance.
>These reasons are why Amiga decided not to put in the MMU.

This particular smoke-screen is clear as mountain air.  It may
be true about the price to the public, although I have my doubts
(ie. I find it hard to believe that ALL additions to a design
show up linearly in the cost to consumer).  On the other hand
there's absolutely no reason in the world to buy Motorolas MMU
if it's thought to be too expensive, after all hardly anybody
uses the thing anyway.  Many companies using 68k's have happily
built their own MMUs out of static ram or NS32k parts, etc.,
even some with software doing the TLB refilling.  These same
companies had no choice, since Mot. has been late in delivering
MMUs for years.  I suggest that the proper place for an MMU
is at the heart of a computer system.  It's to Sun Microsystems
credit to have taken exactly that view.

Most systems with an MMU allow it to be turned off, that takes care
of your speed argument.  Now I'll bring in a speed arguments of my
own: Just how efficiently are you able to use the memory in your
machine (fragmentation anyone?), how long do you have to wait till
the processes in execution finish up so that you have enough
contiguous memory to run another process.  Just how much does
it speed up your work, when your machine crashes taking some
of your work down with it, or even if it doesn't trash your work,
how long to reboot and set up your environment?  How long does
it take you to fix the damage done by a Trojan horse program or
a faulty commercial program on your unprotected computer?
Do you want me to continue?

There are reasons why computers that lack a reasonable resource
control device can be sooooooo unpleasant to use at times!!!

A bicycle with brakes is a little slower and heavier than
one without.  Leaving out the brakes is fine for special
applications, but is not recommended for general street use.

	Support strategic defense for PCs,

			Bjorn R. Bjornsson
			alberta!bjorn

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads