Quote:
Originally Posted by AmigaHope
I disagree that the A3000 was the best. While it was definitely the best-engineered, it was a bit of a step back from the A2000 in terms of room to work in for the power user, yet was priced like it was for a corporate power user. Yeah the A3000T fixed this but it was ungodly expensive.
C= never once produced a good middle-ground system, it seemed to only produce machines for teenage gamers and machines for companies with deep pockets. The A3000 could have been that middle ground system (with the A3000T being the expensive power system) if they had been priced appropriately.
|
I would say that the 2000 made the most impact on an industry and the 3000 was not a gaming machine but a true workstation (having owned a 2000D I wouldn't say it was a gaming rig either). I would say expensive compared to what? How about a Mac? At the the time the Mac was more expensive than a 3000T, but the 3000T offered a clear high end system. The 3000T wasn't that expensive it was priced right for what it did. Look at the PS2 systems fetching 10k for little more than a clone would do. Price is a subjective thing, but comparing a mac or ps2 to a 3000 really gave the 3000 the upper hand. I bought my 3000D new back in 91, and I was only a college student that saved my pennys for a while to do so.
Again I don't view games as criteria for the best, if so a stock 1200 would get my vote, I'm looking for a great workstation to define an era, and the 3000's do that.
I'm a power user and my 3000D with a mediator and all decked out works great. I sold my 2000s because they didn't have the speed, zorro II and a 16 bit bus couldn't compete for me. Even thought the 2000 had more card slots, you really didn't need them. A mediator, radeon, prisima (Prelude if you prefer), and a xsurf 100 ran much faster than my 2000 with an 060 and video card, it wasn't even close. For me a power user wanted performance and the 2000 couldn't deliver. I really like my 2000's but for workstation performance the 3000 was much better.
I don't see how the 2000 was any easier to work on than the 3000, other than populating zipp memory. On one had the 3000D ( the 3000T is ideal imho) did move a great amount of air and was solid, it did require you to hack the drive tray at some point for adding the CSPPC or CSMKIII and the 2000 didn't require it, it was easy to work on.
The 2000 and 3000 and 4000 were all similar to work on. The 500, (never owned a 600) and 1200 were a pain to get them to perform as a workstation.
imho the 2000 was a great system that really didn't innovate from the 1000, and the 4000 was a real disappointment for me with so many things. The 3000D/T were the best workstations