Poll - What would you buy if available

[crazyc]

It would be interesting to know the size of the market segments of a1200 owners who use their A1200s (or would use them) for various things.
I know that tempting as it is, I already find that the B1260 I have is a bit of overkill, and even with the extra oomph, would I really use my a1200 for daily things like web browsing? In my circumstances no, so it would be just proof of concept and 'because I could' - now that is often a sufficient reason of course, but I mostly use my amigas for games - so could I justify the outlay, sadly probably not in my case.
perhaps in the future if money becomes a little more plentiful then I would get one - but I have daughters so........
Great to see such projects though.

[Bastich]

If an A4000 version becomes available I will have one straight away

[jimbob]

I voted high performance vampire but I'm not too sure. If this basically leaves the original motherboard as a form factor adaptor, I would think about a standalone.

[Amiga1992]

I can't change my vote! I meant to vote "standalone" version.

[kolla]

Standalone, gives way more flexibility and is cheaper. Hopefully there will new real Amiga USB keyboards coming as well.

[tomse]

I'm still considdering with my self what to buy.

The A600 spec version is nice and cheap and will most likely cover my needs,
but I also know that I'll punish myself not getting the best version, just because it's better.

Webbrowsing, Youtube etc, I already have a pc for that.

Elite and Frontier already runs smooth on the A600 V2.

Perhaps an A600 specced for the A1200
and a high power for A4000 would cover my needs.

still can't decide

[Tiago]

I would go for the 128mb regular Vampire.
The others would have a cost far away from what i can give. So i vote only based on the price.

strange to see that most people dont want a stand-alone amiga built on todays tech. And most just a accelcard.

I am 1000% all for stand-alone amiga.

[daxb]

I guess people think (at least I`ve read several times) stand-alone board isn`t an Amiga in there opinion. Whatever Amiga means. Mostly a psychological thing. Then there are people which own a lot of Amigas and they like them. A stand-alone board could make the collection obsolete what i might be not a good feeling. Others don`t want another new "Amiga" computer toy (for the cherished/groomed collection). Then many people think Amiga is retro and a stand-alone board seems not to be retro. And don`t forget the classic gamers only. Users are individualists and sometimes strange. A lot of reasons alphadec.

[Amicol]

High Performance A1200 version for me!
Full speed C64 emulation here we come

[NorthWay]

The standalone would be my second purchase. Not so much to get wrong with only an accellerator.

[spudje]

High Performance accelerator has my first prio.

Standalone depends on how it compares to Amiga Reloaded, but more likely with MIST/Arcade Replay and also form factor. I'd love some nice case for new standalone Amiga(compatible) hardware that looks better than the (very ugly) MIST boxes. No idea if a Raspberry pi GPIO hat version is anything realistisc?

What I do hope is that the high performance version would eventually also allow PPC logic to be flashed into the FPGA, so we can run AOS4...

[matthey]

Originally Posted by daxb

I guess people think (at least I`ve read several times) stand-alone board isn`t an Amiga in there opinion. Whatever Amiga means. Mostly a psychological thing. Then there are people which own a lot of Amigas and they like them. A stand-alone board could make the collection obsolete what i might be not a good feeling. Others don`t want another new "Amiga" computer toy (for the cherished/groomed collection). Then many people think Amiga is retro and a stand-alone board seems not to be retro. And don`t forget the classic gamers only. Users are individualists and sometimes strange. A lot of reasons alphadec.

A standalone version holds much more potential. AGA gfx could be overlayed over RTG Chunky all output on the same monitor with customizable output frequencies. Some Amiga users seem to have a problem with the concept of it but I doubt they would if they used such a device and found how convenient it is to have fast one monitor gfx, modern I/O, more memory, no bottlenecks, etc. I didn't vote however in the poll as I probably won't buy any "Apollo" hardware. Reasons:

1) Without new open standards, the Amiga moves forward in chaotic disjointed incompatible directions which will eventually fail from lack of support for such a small market. Gunnar is not interested in standardization and is often not open.

2) Without new open standards, I'll stick with the old standards we have. I expect the fpga Arcade with 68060 expansion will be out sooner than the Apollo standalone now that Mike has the connectors needed. The cost will likely be a little higher and the CPU a little slower but then it is mostly bug free. Mike is not interested in enhancing the 68k but is open to new standards and his project is more open in general. The fpgaArcade has the advantage of more retro simulations which adds value. As spudje has mentioned, the standalone board market is a competition and the "Apollo" is unlikely to be the first to market (with high spec 68k Amiga hardware) since Gunnar chose to focus on accelerators for classic Amiga hardware instead. A standalone board should be easier to support even though it is more expensive to build.

[desiv]

What I would want, and what I will actually afford for my hobby are different things.. ;-)
The "under 200 euro" range is probably where I'll fall when looking to upgrade from my ACA1230/28.

desiv

[Anubis]

Originally Posted by desiv

What I would want, and what I will actually afford for my hobby are different things.. ;-)
The "under 200 euro" range is probably where I'll fall when looking to upgrade from my ACA1230/28.

desiv

Main reason I don't do much on real hardware is just price...

With price of Raspberry Pi and simillar boards, I avoid most of Amiga projects, including mini mig.

Sure, it is more accurate and closer to real hardware, but also it's 5, 10 and even more times more expensive...

Commodore always was expensive hobby, even in times company still existed, and 1.44 disk costed 20-30 dollars for PC, while amiga 770kb was 50+...

Guess some things never change...

[kipper2k]

Originally Posted by matthey

A standalone version holds much more potential. AGA gfx could be overlayed over RTG Chunky all output on the same monitor with customizable output frequencies. Some Amiga users seem to have a problem with the concept of it but I doubt they would if they used such a device and found how convenient it is to have fast one monitor gfx, modern I/O, more memory, no bottlenecks, etc. I didn't vote however in the poll as I probably won't buy any "Apollo" hardware. Reasons:

1) Without new open standards, the Amiga moves forward in chaotic disjointed incompatible directions which will eventually fail from lack of support for such a small market. Gunnar is not interested in standardization and is often not open.

2) Without new open standards, I'll stick with the old standards we have. I expect the fpga Arcade with 68060 expansion will be out sooner than the Apollo standalone now that Mike has the connectors needed. The cost will likely be a little higher and the CPU a little slower but then it is mostly bug free. Mike is not interested in enhancing the 68k but is open to new standards and his project is more open in general. The fpgaArcade has the advantage of more retro simulations which adds value. As spudje has mentioned, the standalone board market is a competition and the "Apollo" is unlikely to be the first to market (with high spec 68k Amiga hardware) since Gunnar chose to focus on accelerators for classic Amiga hardware instead. A standalone board should be easier to support even though it is more expensive to build.

If the Apollo core is open source then that would kill the possibility of it being placed on an ASIC with MASSIVE speed improvement so i personally do not see the need to make this open source, no CPU manufacturer wants to reveal their code, only allow you to use it to program. As for the fpga Arcade 060 upgrade you say it will be a little slower, i believe it will be 3 times slower and also very costly so at what point do you switch?

[jiffy]

Tbh, I most likely would go for the basic version. Atm, I mostly use my A600 with ACA630/25 and my A500 with 68010 en A508/IDE. Even while I have an A1260 with Blizzard 1260 and a heavily expanded A2000 sitting in the closet... The A600 and A500 in their current setups work well for everything I want to do on the Amiga.

[Retrofan]

Originally Posted by Amicol

High Performance A1200 version for me!

Same here. I don't want a standalone version. For that I've got my PC.

[matthey]

Originally Posted by kipper2k

If the Apollo core is open source then that would kill the possibility of it being placed on an ASIC with MASSIVE speed improvement so i personally do not see the need to make this open source, no CPU manufacturer wants to reveal their code, only allow you to use it to program. As for the fpga Arcade 060 upgrade you say it will be a little slower, i believe it will be 3 times slower and also very costly so at what point do you switch?

Copyrights can be maintained even if the source is open (freely available). For example, the vbcc source is open but copyright (needs permission/payment for commercial use). More bugs are found, more code is donated, more users use it, more customization is possible, development is faster, etc. I wouldn't have been able to compile and debug it on my Amiga and I likely wouldn't have made most of my contributions without the code being open.

I do *not* require the Apollo core to be open for me to support it. I want the standards to be open and an Amiga community effort instead of one authoritarian's decisions. I'm talking about enhanced 68k ISA/ABI, enhanced AGA/RTG/3D standards, enhanced audio hardware/RTA standards, etc. The NG Amigas already have division with incompatible APIs and now we are headed down the same roads with incompatible hardware. Divided the 68k Amiga will fail also. Remember my warning!

[kipper2k]

Originally Posted by matthey

Copyrights can be maintained even if the source is open (freely available). For example, the vbcc source is open but copyright (needs permission/payment for commercial use). More bugs are found, more code is donated, more users use it, more customization is possible, development is faster, etc. I wouldn't have been able to compile and debug it on my Amiga and I likely wouldn't have made most of my contributions without the code being open.

I do *not* require the Apollo core to be open for me to support it. I want the standards to be open and an Amiga community effort instead of one authoritarian's decisions. I'm talking about enhanced 68k ISA/ABI, enhanced AGA/RTG/3D standards, enhanced audio hardware/RTA standards, etc. The NG Amigas already have division with incompatible APIs and now we are headed down the same roads with incompatible hardware. Divided the 68k Amiga will fail also. Remember my warning!

The Apollo core will have incompatibilies, just like the 040 and the 060, but the Apollo will not need the support libraries and there will be updates available to fix some bugs that will certainly pop up,. the Amiga community is already divided, people will decide what their poison is and go with it. Everyone has their own opinion, heed my warning