English Amiga Board Amiga Lore


Go Back   English Amiga Board > News

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 30 April 2016, 23:17   #641
dJOS
Registered User

dJOS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 818
ACA500 tested

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollo View Post
Could you, and others, please stop personal attacking Jens or others only because you're 'disappointed' of what he (or others) put on the market?

If you don't like, don't buy it!

I assume criticism is wanted and accepted by these persons, but reading the same rants over and over again makes me wonder what on earth he did to you in the past that 'we' have to read this attacks almost every time someone is mentioning a product of his company.


Please show me where I attached him personally?

I've never done that!
dJOS is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
Old 02 May 2016, 16:43   #642
Schoenfeld
electricky.
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: out in the wild
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolla View Post
My mind boggles...
The explanation is easy: Practically everything on the ACA500 is connected to the same data bus: CPU, CF-cards, RAM, expansion ports. With more load on the data bus, CF-cards have a hard time driving that bus, and they may not work properly.

There is of course a technical solution called bus drivers. Chips that can be used to create subdivisions of a (data-)bus to have a known drive strength and a known time-delay.

I wanted the ACA500 to be extremely cheap. I therefore decided to treat the ACA500 as one part of the bus and the A500 host computer as the "second" part of the bus, so only one pair of data bus drivers (2x8 bits) had to be used. I already stated on a1k.org that I specifically made the decision against a 4MB version because I didn't want the larger part of customers to experience worse compatibility with CF cards. I know that I may have lost a few sales and that I could have easily made 40,- EUR more per card.

For the ACA500plus, there are several subdivisions of the data bus in order to have exactly what the ACA500 doesn't have: Known load and drive strength in each section:

1) CF card#1 has it's own data bus driver
2) CF card#2 has it's own data bus driver
3) SD-Ram and the local expansion port share a data bus section
4) 68ec000 CPU and A1200 acceerator have their own data bus section
5) the A500 host computer has it's own data bus driver (similar to ACA500)
5b) clock port and the LED/display-processor are on the A500 side

Cracking up the design into so many subdivisions requires more components, more development time/testing, higher trace density - in short: It costs more money, which I did not want to charge for the ACA500.

About "personal attacking": I think only Leffmann really deviated from what I'd expect to be "discussion culture" (I'm not a native speaker, but the B-word doesn't exactly sound polite). I do know that I can't make a single product that appeals to every single customer, and I also have no problems with people who want a cheaper product with more features. I just can't serve them, and they are free to buy something else instead

However, I do have a problem with people who argue for the sake of arguing. As hopefully explained clearly enough in this posting, there is no point in arguing with the laws of physics. Open your eyes, look at the number of components on the ACA500 and explain to me why I should be technically wrong.

Jens
Schoenfeld is offline  
Old 02 May 2016, 17:20   #643
desiv
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 1,167
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dJOS View Post
Please show me where I attached him personally
Please don't...
This is a family site..

..
Sorry, couldn't help it.. ;-)

desiv
desiv is offline  
Old 02 May 2016, 17:37   #644
turrican9
Registered User
turrican9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Norway
Age: 40
Posts: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by desiv View Post
Please don't...
This is a family site..

..
Sorry, couldn't help it.. ;-)

desiv
And now you had to attach him too. When will people stop attaching each other?
turrican9 is offline  
Old 02 May 2016, 20:18   #645
dirkies
Zone Friend

dirkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Belgium
Age: 44
Posts: 1,250
Excellent response Jens!

So will these issues solved with the plus version?
dirkies is offline  
Old 02 May 2016, 22:43   #646
dJOS
Registered User

dJOS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by desiv View Post
Please don't...
This is a family site..

..
Sorry, couldn't help it.. ;-)

desiv


Lol, stupid me for not checking my text before posting!
dJOS is offline  
Old 04 May 2016, 18:58   #647
Schoenfeld
electricky.
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: out in the wild
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirkies View Post
Excellent response Jens!

So will these issues solved with the plus version?
First of all, there are no "issues" with the ACA500. However, there are issues with modified ACA500 that may take it beyond usability as I explained two days ago.

If you read it closely, I'm not just listing the required things that you'd have to do on the ACA500, but what I have done for the ACA500plus. And much more. The list of features and upgrades is extremely long. Not all features are fully tested yet, and not all software is licensed yet. So two major hurdles to take before I can publish final specifications.

Jens
Schoenfeld is offline  
Old 05 May 2016, 09:57   #648
Jacques
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Wrocław, Poland
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schoenfeld View Post
Trouble with "soldering on a customer's board" is that it must be done by a technician. This costs some money, and sending the card back&forth costs another chunk of money. The other alternative is to mass-produce and mass-test an accelerator that will work on the ACA500. In the end, this will be cheaper than one-off soldering and patching on an ACA500.
That was an explanation in February 2015 when I first asked about possibility of adding second RAM chip to ACA500. To sum it up, in general and in chronological order:

1. Cost(?) only was pointed as a reason for both ACA500 having only 2 MB in standard and against user's modification. No potential compatibility issues indicated back then.
2. When I was wondering a year ago, Jens kept silent about firmware supporting/not supporting adding missing second RAM-CHIP to ACA500.
3. It turned out that firmware supports it from the word "GO" and 4 MB in total is recognized immediately by ACA500.
4. All of the sudden compatibility-issues explanation arises, while neither me, nor other people who enhanced their ACA500 have experienced such (lucky us ).

I mean no offence, but let's treat our intelligence the proper way. I have some idea why ACA500 was sold as it was (some people already spoke it loud few posts earlier), Jens has every right to use business model as he does, but we - potential or already - customers, have every right to comment on that and it has nothing to do with anything personal (like some "defenders" mention). I see nothing wrong in market expressing it's approval/disapproval, after all it helps to sell products how people really need them.
For me, this modification works and after that I'm indeed happy ACA500 user and glad that I haven't gone the road of adding ACA12XY to ACA500 (h*ll of a cost-saving ). And I'm not ruling out buying Jens' new products in the future when whole value-to-price ratio is good enough.
After all it's up to anyone to decide what to do with the money, already bought card, etc.

Kind regards.

Last edited by Jacques; 05 May 2016 at 10:09.
Jacques is offline  
Old 05 May 2016, 10:14   #649
dJOS
Registered User

dJOS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 818
Where's the like button when you need one? Well put Jacques!
dJOS is offline  
Old 05 May 2016, 15:25   #650
Schoenfeld
electricky.
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: out in the wild
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques View Post
All of the sudden compatibility-issues explanation arises, while neither me, nor other people who enhanced their ACA500 have experienced such
Check this thread: http://www.a1k.org/forum/showthread.php?t=54858
Post#11 reports exactly what I have described. So we have - how many? 4 successful mods and one who has tried two different chips, still not working. Great basis for statistics :-)

Also, your quote is absolutely correct: My main reason not to offer a 4MByte version was cost. Remember that support time drives the cost of any product, and having to expect a number of 4MB-customers in support because the accelerator won't work right with their choice(s) of CF cards yields a business risk that I cannot calculate.

Jens
Schoenfeld is offline  
Old 05 May 2016, 15:33   #651
Jacques
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Wrocław, Poland
Posts: 78
Just confirms that having correct-spec CHIP is all that matters, that's quite obvious and was already said, so 1 out of 5 users failed to use correct ones or had soldering problem or whatever, but from what I understood (in German) it wasn't incompatibility/instability/reliability issue, it just didn't work from the start? Still 80% of success, though

Probably the chip that wasn't working for that user as extra 2MB, also wouldn't as basic 2MB if replaced original one

Last edited by Jacques; 05 May 2016 at 15:45.
Jacques is offline  
Old 05 May 2016, 16:11   #652
Schoenfeld
electricky.
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: out in the wild
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques View Post
Just confirms that having correct-spec CHIP is all that matters, that's quite obvious and was already said,
By deliberately ignoring the technical explanations given before, and falsely putting your assumptions as facts, you may incite other users to try this, and experience the opposite of what you experienced.

Your choice of CF cards obviously works fine with your choice of memory chip. That's a fact, and I'm happy that it works for you.

However, don't claim that it will work for others. Those who have a working setup should either be prepared to go through lots of CF cards to get a setup "back to working", or to remove the chip again. I'm not so sure if these customers will be as satisfied as they are right now. Will you do customer support for them?

Jens
Schoenfeld is offline  
Old 05 May 2016, 16:34   #653
Jacques
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Wrocław, Poland
Posts: 78
Nope, of course I will not I guess anyone who tries this modification is a grown-up and not expecting customer support from manufacturer or from fellow forum user if he somehow screws up the card completely while trying this and is soldering at his own risk, accepts losing warranty (if it's not over), etc.

I just thought that giving information that such possibility exists, may interest some people and it certainly did. And for those who can solder, it might be quite a bit of fun as well
Personally my ACA500 still accepts all 4 types of cards that I used before, be it luck or not, but it will probably get verified by other users with time passing by. I've heard of none of such cases yet, though it doesn't mean it can't happen, in the end you designed it and know better.
Peace & "Amiga rulez"

Last edited by Jacques; 05 May 2016 at 16:59.
Jacques is offline  
Old 25 May 2016, 22:10   #654
Photon
Moderator
Photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hult / Sweden
Posts: 4,356
ACA500 is plug and play and a good complete solution If you modded the A500 before, it might have to be unmodded. You can't foresee all the good stuff knowledgeable users have done to their Amigas

For CF cards/turbos, here is a long-running thread: http://www.amibay.com/showthread.php...ibility-Thread
Photon is offline  
Old 27 May 2016, 00:16   #655
jediknight
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: bolton
Posts: 67
not being funny its great too have new hardware but really on a 500 surely it would have been better for an 1200 version .

too me 500 isn't worth using too many restrictions not good enough machine really .

I think its being a bit milked , you know as in lets keep people waiting milk the 500 then bring out the 1200 version .

lets face it if vampire was out for the 1200 who would bother with a 500?

everyone should be concentrating on a new 1200/4000 board mini form factor and super fast more chip ram and shed loads of memory .
jediknight is offline  
Old 27 May 2016, 00:37   #656
demolition
Unregistered User
demolition's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Copenhagen / DK
Age: 37
Posts: 3,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by jediknight View Post
I think its being a bit milked , you know as in lets keep people waiting milk the 500 then bring out the 1200 version .
There are other people in the world besides you and some actually like the 500 so I see no reason to rant against it. Besides, when the Vampire gets SAGA and can boot from SD, then there's not many upgrades for the 1200 that would make much sense to have anyway as the 1200 and 500 would then be quite similar in performance. So it more or less depends on whether you like the physical design of one more than the other (and here I prefer the 500 although it takes up more desk space, but at least you can put stuff on top of it).
demolition is offline  
Old 27 May 2016, 08:58   #657
Toni Wilen
WinUAE developer
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hämeenlinna/Finland
Age: 42
Posts: 19,159
I think too many have been blinded by fast CPU and forgot that Amigas are much more than the CPU.

There are lots of other kinds of use cases for old Amigas than trying to make it as fast as possible and look at benchmark results.
Toni Wilen is online now  
Old 27 May 2016, 09:10   #658
chiark
Needs a life

chiark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 1,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by jediknight View Post
everyone should be concentrating on a new 1200/4000 board mini form factor and super fast more chip ram and shed loads of memory .
Folks, there we go, our leader has spoken!



I'm just grateful we're still getting absolutely wonderful stuff to tinker with from any source, for any Amiga.

(i am smiling as I write this - take it with the right intention as it's not supposed to be yet another flame )
chiark is offline  
Old 27 May 2016, 09:10   #659
britelite
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Espoo / Finland
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toni Wilen View Post
I think too many have been blinded by fast CPU and forgot that Amigas are much more than the CPU.

There are lots of other kinds of use cases for old Amigas than trying to make it as fast as possible and look at benchmark results.
And not only benchmarks, but the possibility to play ports of 20 year old PC-games!
britelite is offline  
Old 27 May 2016, 09:10   #660
Locutus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 724
you mean, such as playing bad ports of old PC games?
Locutus is online now  
AdSense AdSense  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Drakkhen update to tested CFOU! project.WHDLoad 2 10 May 2013 16:09
ACA500 - Who Will Sell This? Smakar support.Hardware 6 01 March 2013 10:37
FS Tested SuperCPU 64, Quickbyte 2 EPROM programmer, 1581, Rex 9811 card, 68010 CPU PPC MarketPlace 1 28 August 2011 11:49
Selling a tested DKB 1202 webmany MarketPlace 0 15 August 2007 21:36
New Amiga mouse PS2 adapter - Anyone tested it? J.Junior support.Hardware 9 31 December 2006 16:18

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 14:39.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Page generated in 0.42544 seconds with 12 queries