23 February 2023, 22:05 | #2041 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2021
Location: Utrecht/Netherlands
Posts: 336
|
I am not sure but it could be this reason
Last edited by oscar_ates; 24 February 2023 at 08:58. |
25 February 2023, 11:54 | #2042 |
HOL/FTP busy bee
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 46
Posts: 31,960
|
|
25 February 2023, 12:47 | #2043 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2021
Location: Utrecht/Netherlands
Posts: 336
|
There was an AA+ design on paper. Lew Eg. admitted the shortcomings of the A1200 and they wanted to change it. HD floppy support, chunky modes, 2mb fast ram, 16bit audio, etc.
If they could release this machine in 1993 with a 68030 33mhz it could be a game changer. Amiga 1200 itself was too little without aforementioned improvements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commod...et?wprov=sfla1 |
25 February 2023, 18:40 | #2044 | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Munich/Bavaria
Posts: 2,426
|
D
Quote:
http://www.computerpreisarchiv.de/CC...omo-12_92.html They did not even offer the smaller Amigas here because even Commodore did not consider them "professional". But they did try to sell the A3000 here … but also at not very competitive prices. Interesting here: Code:
386SX-25 D 386SX/25 4 80 3 -- A 1.375 Ä compare that to a A1200HD with 030 card and some FastRAM … suddenly the A1200 is not so cheap anymore. (And this is also the proof that it is not really more expensive to put that board in a bigger box …) Also all the other offers for PCs from 1500-2000 DM - at that range Commodore was totally missing out with a competitive Amiga model (no the A2000 was really not competitive any more) Last edited by Gorf; 25 February 2023 at 18:52. |
|
25 February 2023, 19:38 | #2045 |
Alien Bleed
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 4,440
|
Why are you comparing the 386SX with the 68030? Every 68030 card for the A1200, whether EC or not at least runs a 32-bit wide bus and 32-bit address bus. By comparison, the 386SX had 16 bit data bus and a 24 bit address bus. I'd be surprised if it was only on par with the 68EC020 at the same clockspeed.
|
25 February 2023, 20:07 | #2046 |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Munich/Bavaria
Posts: 2,426
|
Because even with its 16bit data bus a 25MHz "AMD 386SX/SXL-25" is significantly faster than a 14MHz 020.
This Commodore PC did also include a "Cyrix FasMath CX83S87-25-JP" FPU So comparing it with an 030 upgrade is more than fair! |
25 February 2023, 20:23 | #2047 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2021
Location: Utrecht/Netherlands
Posts: 336
|
Well CD32 was 32 bits on paper. I have not seen any better than 16 bit games on it. So bit count can be tricky
|
25 February 2023, 21:58 | #2048 | |
Alien Bleed
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 4,440
|
Quote:
The 25MHz 386sx is not a performance match for any 32-bit 68030 at the same, or higher clockspeed that you could obtain on an accelerator card those days. |
|
25 February 2023, 23:51 | #2049 |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2021
Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 124
|
Jeez, either you had used something better and were disappointed or it was a step up. What if, maybes or perhaps are never going to be. We have the machines that were left to us,there are never going to be any more, chill and enjoy what we actually have rather than pontificating about what could have been .
|
26 February 2023, 00:07 | #2050 | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Munich/Bavaria
Posts: 2,426
|
Quote:
And I did not specify any clockspeed for the 030 upgrade. An EC68020 is just not cutting it ... You can dive down into the specifics all you want: the point I made with this comparison should be quite clear to everyone. Commodore was trying to persuade the PC customers by all kinds of configurations and models throughout a wide price range with their PCs, while treating the Amiga-line like an unwanted child. |
|
26 February 2023, 00:14 | #2051 | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Munich/Bavaria
Posts: 2,426
|
Quote:
Sure: the past is the past. But that does not make me really satisfied with the present, does it? Contemporary computing has become quite boring - and the demise of our favorite platform is part of the dilemma. And yes: one can still enjoy retro-computing and live in the past.. . I in contrast try to imagine what went wrong, what could have been and what all this would mean for today. I know - that's a stretch. |
|
26 February 2023, 00:51 | #2052 |
Alien Bleed
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 4,440
|
Well contemporary computing may be boring, but it did let me write a 64-bit virtual machine that runs code written in 68K style assembly language that can hit up to 1000 MIPs while running interpreted on a mobile i7 that's maybe 4 or 5 years old now. I didn't even start work on a JIT for it.
|
26 February 2023, 01:12 | #2053 | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Munich/Bavaria
Posts: 2,426
|
Quote:
Sorry for my skepticism, but that sounds a little bit too good to be true. Ok: you say "up to" - that leaves room for interpretation. So what is your average result? How many cycles per 68k instruction? Edit: "68K style assembly language" also leaves a lot of room for interpretation ... Last edited by Gorf; 26 February 2023 at 01:25. |
|
26 February 2023, 01:58 | #2054 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Warsaw/Poland
Posts: 195
|
Quote:
I see that in case of signed div/mul 386 is a bit faster than 030: Signed Multiplication 32bit 386 38 cycles 030 44 cycles Signed Division 32bit 386 43 cycles 030 90 cycles https://www2.math.uni-wuppertal.de/~.../opcode_i.html https://oldwww.nvg.ntnu.no/amiga/MC6...s/68030it.HTML |
|
26 February 2023, 02:12 | #2055 |
Alien Bleed
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 4,440
|
Yes, but what percentage of normal application code is signed integer division? Answer, not much. Most code is move, followed by basic addition and logic, followed by multiplication and division way down at the bottom. Even conditional branches are more common.
In case it wasn't obvious, my point was I actually don't think it's fair on the 386SX to be compared to the 68030 on an accelerator card with local 32-bit fast RAM, especially if it's zero wait stare. Flipside, it also doesn't help the case that the A1200 suddenly wasn't that much cheaper when putting an 030 card inside, given that the disparity between the 386SX and the 68030. If anything it makes the 386 seem overpriced. |
26 February 2023, 02:13 | #2056 | |
Alien Bleed
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 4,440
|
Quote:
Myself and IntuitionAmiga started it out of boredom. He created the repository to throw down the gauntlet after we'd been discussing the idea for a while. I've been tinkering building it in rare pockets of spare time ever since. Here are some very trivial examples of "coding just for fun" https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL...3wHOUo3BuhNly5 Last edited by Karlos; 26 February 2023 at 02:29. |
|
26 February 2023, 02:24 | #2057 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Hastings, New Zealand
Posts: 2,719
|
Aha!
But the A3010 (also 1992) didn't, and even though it only had 1MB RAM it cost £100 more than an A1200. Neither the A3010 nor the A3020 had enough space for a 3.5" hard drive. But we'll give Acorn a pass because they weren't Commodore. |
26 February 2023, 02:30 | #2058 |
Alien Bleed
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 4,440
|
The whole thread has turned into bashing as much early/mid 90s era tech as possible.
Bloody minidiscs, eh? |
26 February 2023, 03:48 | #2059 |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 2,961
|
The A1200 should have had a tape deck. Since it didn't have a 5 1/4" bay to install a CD Drive, we could at least use a tape adapter to play CDs from our Discmans.
|
26 February 2023, 05:46 | #2060 | |||||||||
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Hastings, New Zealand
Posts: 2,719
|
Quote:
Having the floppy drive on an angle is more ergonomic. This was (AFAIK) a unique feature of the A600 and A1200. It also contributed to the 'wedge' shape, with that brilliant step you could stack up floppy disks along. An A1200 without these features wouldn't be an A1200, it would be just another boring 'flat box with sloping front for the keyboard' like all the others. Quote:
Quote:
I don't know why you didn't expect this. Commodore always built their 'consumer' models down to a price, and the strategy worked. The VIC-20, C64 and A500 were all top sellers because they were cheap. Which is the way most people liked it. Making the case and power supply bigger would raise the cost, compromise the ergonomics and make it look ugly. For those who didn't need a hard drive that would be a lose-lose situation - to satisfy the whims of a few who wanted a cheap hard drive no matter what else it affected. Quote:
The other answer would be a separate case with PSU built in, but that would be a totally different machine. Quote:
These days I am generally very careful not to bump the computer while it's running. But my A1200 sits on the coffee table and sometimes gets knocked. 2.5" drives are designed to withstand being handled roughly, and their small size makes them inherently more robust due the lighter mass of the heads etc. Quote:
Of course as you say, only a few very slim models would fit. I know because I have done it myself. Didn't like to though. I would rather pay a little extra and have a 2.5" drive properly installed. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A1200 RF module removal pics + A1200 chips overview | eXeler0 | Hardware pics | 2 | 08 March 2017 00:09 |
Sale - 2 auctions: A1200 mobo + flickerfixer & A1200 tower case w/ kit | blakespot | MarketPlace | 0 | 27 August 2015 18:50 |
For Sale - A1200/A1000/IndiAGA MkII/A1200 Trapdoor Ram & Other Goodies! | fitzsteve | MarketPlace | 1 | 11 December 2012 10:32 |
Trading A1200 030 acc and A1200 indivision for Amiga stuff | 8bitbubsy | MarketPlace | 17 | 14 December 2009 21:50 |
Trade Mac g3 300/400 or A1200 for an A1200 accellerator | BiL0 | MarketPlace | 0 | 07 June 2006 17:41 |
|
|