View Single Post
Old 07 January 2013, 21:15   #447
Mr B
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts: 746
Originally Posted by Calabazam View Post
If ACA500 does not work with Blizzard (including PPC i guess) and Apollo boards, it means no 68060 beastie for the A500. If even cheap old accelerators like the MTEC 1230 don't work, it leaves us only with the ACA12xx boards:
I have to partly agree with you. It's sort of a shame that the ACA1230 will not work. Anything but the ACA12xx was never promised to work, but we were sort of promised that the ACA1230 would. However, the 1230 was sold out long before the ACA500 was presented, so only second hand buyers would be stuck with one, and have had bought it in the hope of combining it with a ACA500. And honestly, Jens doesn't have to, cant pay attention to what everyone and their second hand hardware does. If anything it's great that he managed to run a fairly complete list of tests telling us what can and cant be combined. It's to bad it's mostly bad news all around, but at this point, at least we know.

Originally Posted by Calabazam View Post
why not build directly a 520 or 530 accelerator, or even better 540 or 560?
This has already been gone over, inside out. Providing a interface that lets the A500 use A1200 CPU upgrades present and future, if only a select few, makes for a much smarter solution from a development perspective. Right now there is 3 different accelerators certain to work, rather then one single, and with the inclusion of later accelerators it may still be possible to run 68060 & PPC's in a A500. I suspect that it's more likely to be a FPGA softcore then a real 68060 / PPC, but either way it leaves the door open for the future. Developing a ACA520 now, (instead of the ACA1220) ACA530 in 6 months, and in 18 months develop both a ACA1240/1260 & ACA540/560 just isn't cost effective, which in turn would be reflected in the price of the final products.

Originally Posted by Calabazam View Post
I guess i won't be the only one to be disappointed by the replacement of the IDE port by a CF port.
I'm not sure this is the right spot for this. But, why? What difference does it make? What did you intend to run over the IDE that you cant run of the CF? Larger drive? What in gods name are you planing on running of a 68030/42 (Since the ACA1230/56 wont run on the ACA500, i believe a 42MHz 1231 is as fast as it gets at this point?) that cant be fit on to a 128GB CF? A CF, that will provide faster access then any HD/CD/DVD hooked to the IDE. Of course. You could be thinking of the limited lifespan of your average CF of today, which is about a million writes to a single block. With my current write rate to my CF thats going to be about 15-25 generations from now. The only thing the Amiga writes to my CF seams to be game saves tho, so you might be doing things differently. Just a thought tho. If you intend to use a Amiga for a webserver with lots of random data writes, base the system on something else then a A500. I'm not saying it cant be done, i'm just saying its a bad idea.

Oh yeah. If you still really really want to stick a harddrive in the A500, i guess you could. Get a Microdrive. It's a CF type II package. You might need to modify the connector slightly as type 2 cards are 5mm thick rather then 3.3mm. But most the time it's a straight fit. They are a lot smaller storage, but has all the advantages, and drawbacks of a harddrive. Higher energy consumption, slower seektime, more heat. Did i mention they contain a lot less storage?

Last edited by Mr B; 07 January 2013 at 21:24.
Mr B is offline  
Page generated in 0.06804 seconds with 10 queries