Was anyone else disappointed with the A1200?

[pixie]

Originally Posted by NorthWay

I wont speak ill of the A1200, but for one feature that I thought unneccessary: It was sized for a 2.5" harddrive and not a 3.5". If the goal was to get access to cheaper parts then they should have found a way to go the whole hog.

I had a 3.5" on mine

[Karlos]

Originally Posted by pixie

I had a 3.5" on mine

Bragger!

So did I, for that matter. A slimline Seagate Medallist.

[grond]

A 3.5" harddisk would have required a slightly bigger housing and one of the older power supplies they used for the A500. Again they saved a dollar by providing an upgrade opportunity that cost the user twice as much as the cheaper alternative.

[Gorf]

Well - the discussion about cramping 3.5" devices, turbo cards and whatnot into a wedge computer is somewhat surreal - I guess most users would have preferred a slim desktop or a small tower at a affordable price ... and thanks to the PC these kind of cases where abundant and low cost - I really can not imagine the wedge with external power supply being that much cheaper for Commodore.

[khph_re]

Originally Posted by Gorf

Well - the discussion about cramping 3.5" devices, turbo cards and whatnot into a wedge computer is somewhat surreal - I guess most users would have preferred a slim desktop or a small tower at a affordable price ... and thanks to the PC these kind of cases where abundant and low cost - I really can not imagine the wedge with external power supply being that much cheaper for Commodore.

Big cases are expensive to make. Tbh, it was mainly lazy design and cost cutting on Commodore's part that was the problem.

All you had to do was cut a bit of shielding and the 3.5" fitted straight in, the no fast RAM, no chipset upgrades, low power brick, was all down to saving money at an ailing company being fleeced by executives.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by khph_re

Big cases are expensive to make.

Are they?
I really doubt that very much.
Any numbers?

Most of them were just bent metal - probably cheaper than a plastic case + extra shielding.

Even the very low cost range of PCs in the early 90s came in a box-design - even the ones by Commodore themselves.

They were also quite easy to order for people, that would build their own PC and usually one of the cheapest parts of such a machine.

P.S.:

The "low-cost" variant of the C128D came in a metal box instead of the plastic case of the first generation - this was a cost reduction measurement.

P.P.S:

Just take that very same case with a nicer front-panel:
https://www.commodore-info.com/compu...x25/en/desktop

just a A1200 like motherboard inside - a riser-card with Zorro slots would be optional.

[coder76]

The AGA chipset (A1200/A4000) is still capable of producing good resolution screenmodes without RTG. For example 1280x1024, 1280x720, and 800 x 600 screenmodes in 256 colors, or HAM8 mode are possible (and many other), but most monitors cant display these without some flickerfixer device, like Indivision, but these are quite expensive. Of course these modes eat up a lot of chip ram and are slow, so its best to reduce colors to e.g. 16 in Workbench.

Commodore should have made early on some cheap flickerfixer, that could be used with the A1200/A4000.
[ Show youtube player ]

[paul1981]

If Commodore supplied the A1200 with 1MB Chip and 1MB Fast, then a further card in the trapdoor could have a configuration jumper to turn that 1MB motherboard Fast into Chip instead, or do it automatically of course via the card's firmware or whatever. You can have your cake and eat it!

[abu_the_monkey]

Originally Posted by paul1981

If Commodore supplied the A1200 with 1MB Chip and 1MB Fast, then a further card in the trapdoor could have a configuration jumper to turn that 1MB motherboard Fast into Chip instead, or do it automatically of course via the card's firmware or whatever. You can have your cake and eat it!

has anyone tried TUDE to set the memory to 1mb chip 1mb fast on an unexpanded A1200 and checked performance?

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by abu_the_monkey

has anyone tried TUDE to set the memory to 1mb chip 1mb fast on an unexpanded A1200 and checked performance?

This is not how things work ....

[abu_the_monkey]

I didn't think so just curious. the hardware is the hardware after all.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by grond

A 3.5" harddisk would have required a slightly bigger housing and one of the older power supplies they used for the A500. Again they saved a dollar by providing an upgrade opportunity that cost the user twice as much as the cheaper alternative.

No, 2.5" drives didn't cost twice as much, they just had half the capacity.

The reason for using 2.5" drives in the A600 and A1200 wasn't just that a 3.5" drive wouldn't fit in the case (in an approved orientation). 2.5" drives also had lower power consumption (eg. 2.5 W max for a Conner CP-2044 42MB 2.5" vs 4.2 W for a CP3000 40MB 3.5"), and they were more shock-proof - important when the computer is in the 'keyboard', and so is likely to be bumped and moved around while in operation.

To fit a 3.5" drive without making the 'keyboard' too big and heavy the machine would have to be a 2 piece design with separate keyboard. That would significantly raise the price, as well as being less convenient. Like most home computers the A1200 was designed to be semi-portable - small enough to put on the coffee table and easy to put away when not in use. A 'big box' computer really needed a dedicated computer desk. Once you factored in all the likely costs involved (including that desk) the 2.5" drive was actually cheaper.

We should also consider that most Amiga users didn't need as much capacity as PC users did. The OS was mostly in ROM, saving hard drive space, and most games ran direct from floppy disk. Only programs that you used regularly needed to be installed on the hard drive. When WIndows 95 came out the gap got even larger.

This was good for us because the appetite for larger capacities in the PC market drove down the price of smaller drives. This affected 2.5" drives too because they were used in laptops. For example In 1996 I got Quantum 256MB 2.5" drives for a mere NZ$52 (£26) each when the supplier was clearing out excess inventory.

I for one am glad that Commodore put a 2.5" drive in the A1200. It kept the machine small and light, made it quieter and more reliable, and introduced me to the joys of these tiny drives. Later on it proved ideal for Compact Flash cards. The price didn't bother me. Only 2 years ealier I had paid NZ$999 for a 120MB SCSI hard drive to go in my A3000.

BTW Commodore wasn't the only one to use 2.5" drives in home computers. I have an Acorn Archimedes A3000 with a Seagate 40MB internal 2.5" hard drive (same one that Commodore put in the A1200). Despite the larger case there is no room inside this machine for a 3.5" drive. Furthermore there is no on-board IDE port, only headers to take an interface board and just enough room to squeeze in a 2.5" drive. And people think Commodore was incompetent. All that computing power and only a single double density floppy drive for storage!

[grond]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

The reason for using 2.5" drives in the A600 and A1200 wasn't just that a 3.5" drive wouldn't fit in the case (in an approved orientation).

That's like saying "I can't shake your hand because my left hand is holding my right hand". Why didn't they make the case a little bit bigger? Why didn't they orientate both the FDD and the HDD bay horizontally?

2.5" drives also had lower power consumption (eg. 2.5 W max for a Conner CP-2044 42MB 2.5" vs 4.2 W for a CP3000 40MB 3.5"),

Yes. Which is why Commodore would have had to spend a dollar more on the power supply if they had sold the A1200 with the capability of taking 3.5" harddisks. Commodore saved a dollar, the user had to shell out a couple of hundreds more for the harddisk. And then Commodore found itself in the same trap with the A600/A1200HD models.

and they were more shock-proof - important when the computer is in the 'keyboard', and so is likely to be bumped and moved around while in operation.

I have never heard of anyone with a 3.5" harddisk in their A1200 that had a problem because of that.

To fit a 3.5" drive without making the 'keyboard' too big and heavy the machine would have to be a 2 piece design with separate keyboard.

This is not true. There were 3.5" harddisks that fit into the A1200 case but you had to look for them. The floppy disk drive in fact is a 3.5" device, right? The case only needed to be a few millimetres bigger to house any 3.5" harddisk instead of only some slimline models.

Once you factored in all the likely costs involved (including that desk) the 2.5" drive was actually cheaper.

Nonsense.

We should also consider that most Amiga users didn't need as much capacity as PC users did. The OS was mostly in ROM, saving hard drive space,

There was 1MB worth of OS in the ROM. This saved 1 MB of harddisk space. That's it. Of course, AmigaOS didn't have to have some abstraction layer and drivers for hardware and thus was much slimer but program data is program data. Nothing to save there except if you reduce game artwork (colours, audio).

and most games ran direct from floppy disk.

Which was a dead-end because games and productivity programs became multi-MB in size which made them prohibitively expensive to produce and slow to use from floppy disks. Of course, in an A1200 you'd still need floppies to get the game onto the harddisk but playing a game such as Monkey Island 2 from floppy disk was a chore. Just having a harddisk in any Amiga makes it feel magnitudes faster in daily usage.

This was good for us because the appetite for larger capacities in the PC market drove down the price of smaller drives. This affected 2.5" drives too because they were used in laptops. For example In 1996 I got Quantum 256MB 2.5" drives for a mere NZ$52 (£26) each when the supplier was clearing out excess inventory.

Are you sure about these prices/capacities? I paid several hundreds (800?) DM for a 330MB 2.5" harddisk for my A1200 in 1995.

I for one am glad that Commodore put a 2.5" drive in the A1200. It kept the machine small and light, made it quieter and more reliable, and introduced me to the joys of these tiny drives. Later on it proved ideal for Compact Flash cards. The price didn't bother me.

The price didn't bother you but you are the one that constantly points out that the A1200 had to be so low-end and cheap and hit the market at 400GBP. It didn't bother you to pay almost the same amount as for the computer for a 2.5" harddisk which would have cost half the money if it had been a 3.5" harddisk. That's really a great concept, create a low budget computer and make it extra-expensive to expand it when you could make it a little more expensive (buyer's money that goes into your pocket) but much cheaper to expand (money that goes into other company's pockets).

BTW Commodore wasn't the only one to use 2.5" drives in home computers. I have an Acorn Archimedes A3000 with a Seagate 40MB internal 2.5" hard drive (same one that Commodore put in the A1200). Despite the larger case there is no room inside this machine for a 3.5" drive. Furthermore there is no on-board IDE port, only headers to take an interface board and just enough room to squeeze in a 2.5" drive. And people think Commodore was incompetent. All that computing power and only a single double density floppy drive for storage!

And how successful was the Archimedes on the market?

[vulture]

Well, I had my first A1200 bought with a 130MB Seagate 3.5 HD fitted and never had a problem (still works) and it was pretty fat. The shielding had to go, but other than that, no problems at all with the power or anything else.

[Karlos]

I had a slimline 3.5" hard disk that fir via a custom bracket. I still had to remove the shielding but it wouldn't have taken much to cut the shielding and refit it. I just didn't.

[paul1981]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

BTW Commodore wasn't the only one to use 2.5" drives in home computers. I have an Acorn Archimedes A3000 with a Seagate 40MB internal 2.5" hard drive (same one that Commodore put in the A1200). Despite the larger case there is no room inside this machine for a 3.5" drive. Furthermore there is no on-board IDE port, only headers to take an interface board and just enough room to squeeze in a 2.5" drive. And people think Commodore was incompetent. All that computing power and only a single double density floppy drive for storage!

The Acorn 3000 was quite a bit older than the A1200, so we'll let it off there! I have an A3000 too (minus a working clock and just floppy only). Not only was there not even an IDE port on the A3000, but 2.5" HDD's weren't even around in 1987. The A3020 (1992) came with an on-board 2.5" IDE interface.

[BigD]

Originally Posted by khph_re

Big cases are expensive to make. Tbh, it was mainly lazy design and cost cutting on Commodore's part that was the problem.

All you had to do was cut a bit of shielding and the 3.5" fitted straight in...

Having recently installed a IDE2CF Card Adapter with 44pin pass through (with a custom modded cable to a 3.5" hard drive), there ISN'T enough space! Before I put the CF Card in the case closed with just the left side case screw hole left unfixed. Now with some shield cutting to fit in the 90 degree flipped Card Adapter, the 3.5" drive is even higher due to the elevated position of the pass-through IDE port compared to the motherboard. The hard drive is sitting on top of the Adapter (the case with the controller chips is open creating a hollow within the HD and hence the controller chips are resting on the insulated IDE connector reclaiming some space)! Even so, now I can only screw the front of the case and the right side and top right screws on the case! The two further left most clasps on the back of the case are open and the bottom left hand side of the case is slightly bending since I've secured the front left of the case partially screwed with a longer screw! The gaping hole on the left I've covered with coloured card and it LOOKS alright but this is NOT an acceptable DESIGN for 3.5" hard drives. Once the files are salvaged and copied onto the CF card I will remove the HD and finally be able to close the case properly!

[BigD]

@khph_re

I guess I could remove the shielding entirely but I don't have the 2.5" caddy or a 3.5" equivalent and I am not wanting to rest the 3.5" drive directly on the mobo! It balances OK on the shielding but there should be a bit more room in the case!

[oscar_ates]

Commodore was going for the cheapest for themselves with using the cheapest 68020 version, cheapes power brick and no fast ram and expecting from us to buy more expensive harddrives.

There was another thing with A1200 IDE interface. Some harddrives were not compatible because they were stopping spinning when not used, this was kind of interface implementation bug as far as I remember.

[grond]

Originally Posted by oscar_ates

There was another thing with A1200 IDE interface. Some harddrives were not compatible because they were stopping spinning when not used, this was kind of interface implementation bug as far as I remember.

Wasn't that the reason why they bent away one pin of the connector? When I exchanged the harddisk in my A1200 for a CF card, I found that the people at the shop where I bought all my upgrades had done that and was a little shocked.