Which is your favorite Amiga model?

[Mathesar]

A1200 is the best without a doubt.
AGA, IDE, easily expandable up to a 060 with lots of RAM, PCMCIA slot for network or SCSI expansion and all that in cool-looking, compact and much sturdier package than the A500.

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by mr.spiv

I have A600 as a "test slave" but maaan that was a picky machine to get run stable..

I recall A600 not so bad, i've repaired only 1 A600 during my whole Amiga history - issue was broken (crack) in SMD resistor pulling up one of the interrupt lines - was really difficult to find this issue as everything looked and worked normal until fail - really this was difficult to find.

Originally Posted by Megalomaniac

Are keypad-requriring games like Railroad Tycoon, Damocles, most Coktel Vision games up to and including Fascination, and most earlier flight sims (F29 Retailator and Flight of the Intruder for a start) not 'games' then? I see this kind of inverse snobbery occasionally, and it feels misguided, especially as people who liked flight sims generally did buy them rather than just copying them. Add games which are affected in some way by it - cheat modes in Carrier Command and EPIC (to the extent that you can call it a cheat...), keyboard-based movement in Civ (it can be done with mouse or even joystick instead though), player 2 substitutions in Kick Off 2 etc and you can see the limitations of an A600.

Casual players usually playing Giana Sisters or similar games... so i would say most of them is able to live without numeric pad just fine - the problem is lack of good joystick in Atari standard.

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

Blasphemy!!!

To punish the guy, take away all his games, except flight simulators.

For most of them not an issue - they playing other type of games.

TBH never used Amiga without numeric pad so this sounds like serious limitation - curios what was workaround for A600 owners to deal with such issue - any workaround possible?

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by alexh

If Kipper2k or someone else ever does a replacement keyboard for A600 I'd like to see them include a HW numeric keypad like some modern laptops by using a function key + existing keys. There are blank keys on the A600 UK layout to facilitate this.

Strange - isn't better is to add some Bluetooth numeric pad keyboard as option - keyboard uC is on board so some piggyback on CIA or KB uC to add BT receiver... Amazon is full of such neat keyboards with cursor keys and numeric pad...

[Calabazam]

Yeah i have an internal adapter which adds a wireless keyboard to my A600. I got so much problem with A600 native keyboards failing that i added a second keyboard as permanent solution, so i do have a numeric keypad. However, i can't press multiple keys at the same time and there are limitations for instance to play second player with keyboard in Lotus 2 (of course ir works with the native keyboard).

[d4rk3lf]

I have a question.. more or less of topic.. and probably not the smartest one.
And I don't want to open another "what if" thread... no need...

From what I googled, I saw that A590 (official C= A500 side expansion with HD and Ram) in 1989.
So... let's say.. both Amiga 500 and side expansion costs $600 at that time (for example).
And if Commodore offered Amiga 600 at the same time (1989) for the price of $500.
So... it will be basically like saying to customers:
- Look, we have new Amiga.. pretty much the same as A500, but with loth more expansion options, with built in HD support.. etc.. but if you don't want that, we offer A590, for you will pay more money, but you don't need to get rid of your A500 (yet).

Would that be a smart move?
Would that make A600 much more likable.. maybe even a worthy successor of A500?

(I am talking about A600 in a vague terms... it doesn't have to be exactly replica of real A600 (it could have, for example, numeric keyboard.. and larger case... but pretty much all the harware is very similar).

[Calabazam]

Problem is that 2,5' IDE drives were not as cheap at this time as they were later. That's why a lot of A1200 owners used 3,5' drives internally instead of 2,5' ones. I bought one like this second hand circa 1998, big 3,5 harddrive rocking inside within an antistatic bag with a molex cable taken out of the floppy port and a 2,5' to 3,5' cable with pin1 cut off to fix a problem with drive detection at boot.
When the A600 became available, users didn't thought they would easily add a harddrive, they needed to buy the HD version. Anyway, the first ones came with the KS without the scsi.device (37.299).

[Megalomaniac]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

I have a question.. more or less of topic.. and probably not the smartest one.
And I don't want to open another "what if" thread... no need...

From what I googled, I saw that A590 (official C= A500 side expansion with HD and Ram) in 1989.
So... let's say.. both Amiga 500 and side expansion costs $600 at that time (for example).
And if Commodore offered Amiga 600 at the same time (1989) for the price of $500.
So... it will be basically like saying to customers:
- Look, we have new Amiga.. pretty much the same as A500, but with loth more expansion options, with built in HD support.. etc.. but if you don't want that, we offer A590, for you will pay more money, but you don't need to get rid of your A500 (yet).

Would that be a smart move?
Would that make A600 much more likable.. maybe even a worthy successor of A500?

(I am talking about A600 in a vague terms... it doesn't have to be exactly replica of real A600 (it could have, for example, numeric keyboard.. and larger case... but pretty much all the harware is very similar).

So a version of the A500 with a built-in 20Mb drive in 1989, for $100 less than A500+A590? I can see the merit to that, would have potentially encouraged more games to be hard drive installable if a decent amount had sold. The issue is that, aside from the A600 taking internal hard drives, the A500 was more expandable, not less - in its day the A600 didn't have accelerators available until a out 1995, or a CD-ROM drive, or a ROM sharer for backwards compatibility (before Relokick eliminated that issue) whereas the A500 and A500+ did.

[d4rk3lf]

Originally Posted by Calabazam

Problem is that 2,5' IDE drives were not as cheap at this time as they were later.

Indeed... but aren't they (apart from being more expensive) built in much better quality?
I remember that back then, many people (in my environment), said something like: "Yes, the 2,5' IDE drives are more expensive, but the quality is so much better, and the (physical) size is much smaller, and these 2 categories makes them better purchase then any 3,5' IDE drive".

[d4rk3lf]

Originally Posted by Megalomaniac

So a version of the A500 with a built-in 20Mb drive in 1989, for $100 less than A500+A590? I can see the merit to that, would have potentially encouraged more games to be hard drive installable if a decent amount had sold. The issue is that, aside from the A600 taking internal hard drives, the A500 was more expandable, not less - in its day the A600 didn't have accelerators available until a out 1995, or a CD-ROM drive, or a ROM sharer for backwards compatibility (before Relokick eliminated that issue) whereas the A500 and A500+ did.

Thanks bro...
Exactly the type of comment that I hoped for.

It gives me more insight of how are things.. back then.

[Calabazam]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

Indeed... but aren't they (apart from being more expensive) built in much better quality?
I remember that back then, many people (in my environment), said something like: "Yes, the 2,5' IDE drives are more expensive, but the quality is so much better, and the (physical) size is much smaller, and these 2 categories makes them better purchase then any 3,5' IDE drive".

I don’t think so but they were slower wih lower rpm.

[Arne]

This is a tough question... I liked my A500 but in retrospect it felt slow and clumsy and WB1.3 wasn't well featured (still, I prefer its looks). My A1200 was very nice, but I didn't really get to use AGA much. Rather, I just used the extra memory, IDE and trapdoor for even more memory. Additionally, as a leftie I have no use of numpads. So maybe this means that a souped up A600 would've been nice? I like the old OCS graphics modes, and ECS also had some flickerfree Super72 etc modes for monitors afaik. Not that I could've afforded one.

Currently I'm thinking that my dream Amiga in 2024 might just be something like an fictionally overclocked 68010 (fastest IRL was 16.67MHz) in an A600 case, with 2 MB chip and 8 MB fast. Then a mechanical IDE HDD for my projects (gotta hear things working).

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

Indeed... but aren't they (apart from being more expensive) built in much better quality?
I remember that back then, many people (in my environment), said something like: "Yes, the 2,5' IDE drives are more expensive, but the quality is so much better, and the (physical) size is much smaller, and these 2 categories makes them better purchase then any 3,5' IDE drive".

Can't confirm - i experienced more 2.5 in HDD troubles than 3.5 in - also 2.5' was way slower than 3.5' (lower RPM and other issues). So in overall some people removed internal drive and placed 3.5' drive in FDD place and connecting FDD externally trough floppy port.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by pandy71

Can't confirm - i experienced more 2.5 in HDD troubles than 3.5 in - also 2.5' was way slower than 3.5' (lower RPM and other issues).

I am not aware of any 'issues' with 2.5" drives, but 3.5" drives often took too long to spin up and so were not recognized on power up.

Also 2.5" drives weren't necessarily much slower.

Seagate ST9051A 2.5" IDE (stock A1200 hard drive)

Rotation   RPM       3631
power read/write     1.7 W
Seek time   / track  19.0/ 6.0 ms
Cache/Buffer         32 KB             
Data transfer rate   1.250 MB/S int     
                     4.000 MB/S ext

Quantum Go Drive 40 AT 2.5" IDE

Rotation   RPM       3600
power read/write     2.0 W 
Seek time   / track  19.0/ 5.0 ms
Cache/Buffer         8 KB
Data transfer rate   2.250 MB/S int       
                     4.000 MB/S ext

Seagate ST351A 3.5" IDE

Rotation   RPM       3048
power read/write     5.5 W
Seek time   / track  31.5/10.0 ms
Cache/Buffer         8 KB         
Data transfer rate   1.750 MB/S int 
                     4.000 MB/S ext

Note the faster seek times and much lower power consumption on 2.5" drives.

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

I am not aware of any 'issues' with 2.5" drives, but 3.5" drives often took too long to spin up and so were not recognized on power up.

IMHO statistically 2.5" failed more frequently - this my impression - comparing population of 3.5" and 2.5" this was obvious - perhaps due application, 2.5" worked in mobile application where 3.5" static.
Statistically 2.5" were less popular than 3.5" (even due simple higher price vs capacity), 3.5" 120MB price was similar to 40MB 2.5".

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Also 2.5" drives weren't necessarily much slower.
Note the faster seek times and much lower power consumption on 2.5" drives.

This depend on manufacturers - for Conner differences are significant:

C P - 3 0 1 2 4

Rotation   RPM      4542
Seek time   / track  14.0/ 3.0 ms 
Data transfer rate    3.000 MB/S int
                            6.000 MB/S ext

C P - 2 0 4 4

Rotation   RPM      3486
Seek time   / track  14.0/ 3.0 ms
Data transfer rate    1.500 MB/S int
                            4.500 MB/S ext

Power consumption differences was less important for customers in desktop applications.

[Arne]

For what's it worth, I had a Conner 2.5" IDE in my A1200 and it lasted 15 years. Booting and loading was nearly instant compared to modern OSes. Could count the seconds from reset to desktop on a sawmiller's hand. I'm not sure how drive speed is relevant since you were most likely just loading a meg at the very most in normal daily use.

The main issue was that the IDE drive (along with the MoBo chips) would get rather hot in the stock A1200 case.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by pandy71

IMHO statistically 2.5" failed more frequently - this my impression - comparing population of 3.5" and 2.5" this was obvious - perhaps due application, 2.5" worked in mobile application where 3.5" static.

My experience was the opposite, perhaps because desktop PC maintenance was a major part of my business. But most of the hard drives I used in my own PCs also failed.

2.5" drives usually park their heads after a short delay, and spin down after a few minutes. This is done to lessen the chances of bumping the computer causing a head crash, and to save power. Due to the much smaller mass of the platters and head mechanism, a 2.5" drive can spin up and be ready to go in less than a second, making this operation viable.

Statistically 2.5" were less popular than 3.5" (even due simple higher price vs capacity), 3.5" 120MB price was similar to 40MB 2.5".

This is true. However cheap 3.5" drives generally weren't as good IMO. One egregious example was the Quantum 'Bigfoot' - a very slim 5.25" drive. Cheap, but not up to Quantum's normal standard. Seagate, Maxtor and Western Digital also had some stinkers.

Luckily (actually by design) the Amiga didn't need as much storage space as a PC. By the time you put DOS and Windows on a 20MB hard drive there was hardly any space left, and almost all PC games had to be installed on the hard drive so you needed that extra space!

This depend on manufacturers - for Conner differences are significant:

C P - 3 0 1 2 4

Rotation   RPM      4542
Seek time   / track  14.0/ 3.0 ms 
Data transfer rate    3.000 MB/S int
                            6.000 MB/S ext

C P - 2 0 4 4

Rotation   RPM      3486
Seek time   / track  14.0/ 3.0 ms
Data transfer rate    1.500 MB/S int
                            4.500 MB/S ext

126MB vs 42MB not fair. Let's compare apple to apples shall we?

C P - 3 0 4 4    CONNER
Form                 3.5"/SLIMLINE
Capacity 43 MB 
Rotation   RPM      3557
Seek time  / track  25.0/ 8.0 ms 
Data transfer rate    1.500 MB/S int
                      4.000 MB/S ext

Same data transfer rate, much slower seek times on the 3.5" drive.

Power consumption differences was less important for customers in desktop applications.

It mattered on the A600 and A1200.

Even on a desktop machine it can be an issue. 7200 rpm drives tend to run much hotter. If you have two drives close together they can overheat. I often had to put extra case fans in PCs to keep them cool.

BTW I am currently using a 127 GB 2.5" drive for backup storage in my Windows XP box because I happened to get one from a dead laptop (which sadly tend to die more often than hard drives these days!). I also have a couple of nice 4GB 2.5" drives from old Pentium laptops that I bought just to harvest the drives from. One of these is earmarked to go in my A600.

[CCCP alert]

Was it ICD who made AdIDE for 68000 socket? A590 was a clunky old MFM PC 8086 era drive like Atari SH204 unit wasn't it? AdIDE bundled A500 with 1mb Trapdoor exp would have been a good idea IMO tho. CDTV with AdIDE, 2mb and 2 drives would be my dream OCS system.

[CCCP alert]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Even on a desktop machine it can be an issue. 7200 rpm drives tend to run much hotter. If you have two drives close together they can overheat. I often had to put extra case fans in PCs to keep them cool.

I put a 60gb 10000 or 7200 RPM 2.5 drive in my Sony Picturebook laptop the size of a DVD case and never had an issue. Needed it so XP SP1 would play 700mb DivX movies smoothly on the lovely 2.35:1 screen. Still have it I think.

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

My experience was the opposite, perhaps because desktop PC maintenance was a major part of my business. But most of the hard drives I used in my own PCs also failed.

I worked as service technician and recall that for very small number notebooks sold relatively high number 2.5" HDD's to replace.
Let say - for 20 desktops sold, few of them required 3.5" replace when on few notebooks sold 1..2 required 2.5" replace. This show from my perspective higher failure rate for 2.5" HDD's.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

2.5" drives usually park their heads after a short delay, and spin down after a few minutes. This is done to lessen the chances of bumping the computer causing a head crash, and to save power. Due to the much smaller mass of the platters and head mechanism, a 2.5" drive can spin up and be ready to go in less than a second, making this operation viable.

True but also 2.5" works in way more difficult environment so all this only partially compensate increased risk. I have few HDD's (2.5") with faulty boot block so they not work in PC - this was very common for notebook HDD's.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

This is true. However cheap 3.5" drives generally weren't as good IMO. One egregious example was the Quantum 'Bigfoot' - a very slim 5.25" drive. Cheap, but not up to Quantum's normal standard. Seagate, Maxtor and Western Digital also had some stinkers.

Bigfoot is extreme case - 5.25" HDD designed to deliver highest capacity at poor performance, also i recall that they have high failure rate so market quickly rejected this idea. Today you have SMR HDD's - they also deliver higher capacity at a cost of performance.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Luckily (actually by design) the Amiga didn't need as much storage space as a PC. By the time you put DOS and Windows on a 20MB hard drive there was hardly any space left, and almost all PC games had to be installed on the hard drive so you needed that extra space!

This is applicable for OS but not for data especially for multimedia data so in fact Amiga storage space requirements could be same or more than on PC.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

126MB vs 42MB not fair. Let's compare apple to apples shall we?

Don't forget about technology when comparing 3.5" and 2.5" - 120MB on 3.5" has similar bit density as 40..52MB 2.5" HDD's so both models was quite comparable.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

It mattered on the A600 and A1200.

Yep but they are tight power budget designs - PSU deliver just enough power to run machine itself and few, very limited extensions - for sure 2.5" and 3 external FDD will push PSU to maximum if not beyond.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Even on a desktop machine it can be an issue. 7200 rpm drives tend to run much hotter. If you have two drives close together they can overheat. I often had to put extra case fans in PCs to keep them cool.

Yes but you may use big tower for PC, proper air flow design (air ducts) and everything will be OK.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

BTW I am currently using a 127 GB 2.5" drive for backup storage in my Windows XP box because I happened to get one from a dead laptop (which sadly tend to die more often than hard drives these days!). I also have a couple of nice 4GB 2.5" drives from old Pentium laptops that I bought just to harvest the drives from. One of these is earmarked to go in my A600.

I have like 30..50 HDD's in total with some data on it - age also will be different - sadly most of them are SATA so unless PATA to SATA converter working in Amiga exist then they are practically unusable in Amiga.

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by CCCP alert

Was it ICD who made AdIDE for 68000 socket? A590 was a clunky old MFM PC 8086 era drive like Atari SH204 unit wasn't it? AdIDE bundled A500 with 1mb Trapdoor exp would have been a good idea IMO tho. CDTV with AdIDE, 2mb and 2 drives would be my dream OCS system.

Don't forget about 16MHz MC68000 at least - perhaps with small cache like in Supra 28 - so having such small accelerator with IDE on board and 2..4MB FAST RAM could be very nice from CDTV perspective.