Was anyone else disappointed with the A1200?

[Cyprian]

Originally Posted by hammer

Not an apple-to-apple comparison when your cited A1200/CD32 has 32-bit Fast RAM and the CPU has a 14 Mhz 32-bit front side bus or 28 Mhz 16-bit equivalent.

The comparable spec PC is 386DX-16 or 386DX-20 with 32-bit front-side bus and ET4000AX or Trident 8900CL.

386SX has a 16-bit front-side bus.

I see that 386SX 20Mhz with 16bit bus has a bit better bus performance than A1200 with 32bit bus Fastram


Amiga 1200, 020/14, Fastram (M-Tec 0-waitstate) Busspeed test:
Chipram Read: 9.1 MB/s
Chipram Write: 13.4 MB/s


386SX 20MHz Speedsys:
Write: ~15MB/s
Move (read + write): 11MB/s
https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?p=1057325#p1057325

[Tigerskunk]

How can this thread run over a few years and have 3200 posts?

[sokolovic]

Originally Posted by Tigerskunk

How can this thread run over a few years and have 3200 posts?

Because there is still some people thinking that the Amiga 1200 isn't a piece of shit !

[TCD]

Originally Posted by Tigerskunk

How can this thread run over a few years and have 3200 posts?

The magical power of whatifism.

[Dunny]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

Because there is still some people thinking that the Amiga 1200 isn't a piece of shit !

That would be me. Love my 1200.

[Cyprian]

I would say nostalgia of childhood

[sokolovic]

Originally Posted by Cyprian

I would say nostalgia of childhood

Or the bitterness that comes with age, which tears down things once loved (for one part of the board )

[Cyprian]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

Or the bitterness that comes with age, which tears down things once loved (for one part of the board )

haha
or worse, both feelings at once

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by AestheticDebris

Is that the right link for the PC figures? Just takes me to a generic benchmark page with no mention of Doom, not those figures.

Arrgh! Somehow the URL got mangled. Here's the correct page:-

Doom

My benchmark method
To benchmark Doom I used the shareware version (Doom 1.9S) and left every option alone. This means I didn't change the window to maximum screen! After installing the game use the following command to initiate the benchmark: 'doom -timedemo demo3'.

Originally Posted by AestheticDebris

Without a clear comparison of how they were configured, I don't think you can really draw many conclusions. The Doom Attack figures, for example, have the audio turned off. Which might be fairer if you're solely focusing on rendering speed, but not if you're concerned with how the game runs in a playable state. Level of detail, window sizes, pixel resolution etc also all contribute and make it hard to compare unless like for like.

Sound on or off doesn't make much difference on the Amiga, but you're right - we don't know if the PCs had sound cards or not so this is an unknown factor. The graphics settings should be the same, but of course you never know if the person doing the test set it up correctly - just have to trust them.

I recently bought a 386SX-16 motherboard do do my own tests. Unfortunately it only lasted a few minutes before dying. I have another motherboard with 25MHz 386SX that I can use, but this one was designed for a slimline case with riser card which makes it a bit awkward to set up. I also have a Toshiba laptop with 25MHz 386SX but the floppy drive is broken.

I don't have an A1200 FastRAM board (yet) but my Blizzard 1230IV benchmarks very close to tests reported by other people with a similar setup.

There must be a few EAB members who have suitable machines to verify these numbers - so how about it fellas? What frame rate do you get from Doom Attack (or ADoom) on your A1200 or CD32 with FastRAM?

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by hammer

Not an apple-to-apple comparison when your cited A1200/CD32 has 32-bit Fast RAM and the CPU has a 14 Mhz 32-bit front side bus or 28 Mhz 16-bit equivalent.

We were discussing the speed of an A1200 vs 386SX PC, so yes it is 'apples to apples'.

The 386SX was specifically designed be a 32 bit CPU for cheaper systems just like the 68EC020 was a 32 bit CPU designed for cheaper systems. Being able to get a machine that ran 386 code at a lower price is what made the 386SX so popular. It meant you could run Windows 3.1 in 386 mode as well games like Doom, without having to spend big bucks on a 386DX or 486.

The comparable spec PC is 386DX-16 or 386DX-20 with 32-bit front-side bus and ET4000AX or Trident 8900CL.

No it isn't. The comparable machine there would be an Amiga with 68030 at equivalent clock speed.

[hammer]

Originally Posted by Cyprian

I see that 386SX 20Mhz with 16bit bus has a bit better bus performance than A1200 with 32bit bus Fastram


Amiga 1200, 020/14, Fastram (M-Tec 0-waitstate) Busspeed test:
Chipram Read: 9.1 MB/s
Chipram Write: 13.4 MB/s


386SX 20MHz Speedsys:
Write: ~15MB/s
Move (read + write): 11MB/s
https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?p=1057325#p1057325

The cited 386SX Doom benchmark didn't cite thier video cards. Fast VGA chipsets also matters when dealing with a render pipeline.

[hammer]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

We were discussing the speed of an A1200 vs 386SX PC, so yes it is 'apples to apples'.

The 386SX was specifically designed be a 32 bit CPU for cheaper systems just like the 68EC020 was a 32 bit CPU designed for cheaper systems. Being able to get a machine that ran 386 code at a lower price is what made the 386SX so popular. It meant you could run Windows 3.1 in 386 mode as well games like Doom, without having to spend big bucks on a 386DX or 486.

No it isn't. The comparable machine there would be an Amiga with 68030 at equivalent clock speed.

68EC020 still has 32 bit front side bus like 386DX.

In the real world IPC, there's very little difference between 68020 and 68030 e.g. run SysInfo benchmark with 68020 at 28 MHz against 68030 at 25 MHz.

Your popular argument is meaningless when the PC market is very large. 386DX and 486 install base out numbers the under 1 million AGA install base.

386SX is designed for 16 bit 286 like motherboards with 32 bit software compatibility. For 32bit PC games, it needs 386DX.

My family had an ex-coporate IBM PS/2 Model 55SX with 386SX-16 and IBM VGA, it trash i.e. slower than my stock A1200. This IBM trash was replaced by a PC clone with 386DX-33 with ET4000AX and on-board 64 KB cache in 1992. IBM VGA is trash regardless of CPU e.g. Athlon XP 2200+ (1.8 GHz).

Commodore UK's accelerated CD32 bundle has been rejected by Commodore International.

My A1200 Rev 1D4 needs the timing fix, hence it's expansion slot wasn't stable out of the box. I have Amigakit's 8 MB card for A1200 and I don't plan to remove it's PiStorm32. I did run Wing Commander AGA WHDload and 14 MHz 68EC020 with Fast RAM is not enough i.e. it needs 25 MHz 68020 or 68030 just like 386DX-25 counterpart.

[hammer]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

Because there is still some people thinking that the Amiga 1200 isn't a piece of shit !

For 1993, the asking price for A1200 and 68030 @ 40 or 50 MHz accelerator is not good when compared with 486SX-33 based PC clone.

It's either deliver "new 32bit 2.5D/3D" gaming experience or compete against a strong 2D low cost 16 bit SNES.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by hammer

Reminder, A1200 with 3rd party 68030 @ 50Mhz accelerator is priced around 486SX-25 and 486SX-33Mhz based PC clone. This is for the UK, US, and AU markets.

But a stock A1200 was much cheaper than any PC.

I've said it before a million times - you can't break the laws of physics. If you want equivalent hardware you have to spend equivalent money. The A1200 was cheaper mostly because it didn't have as much hardware in it.

The other factor is what the hardware is optimized for. The A1200 came with hardware-accelerated graphics and sound out of the box, which suited 2D games. A low-end PC came with a hard drive, faster CPU and high resolution display, which suited business applications.

386DX-33's memory subsystem wasn't stuck in 1985 and clone 486 upgrades were available. I slightly overclocked my 386DX-33 to 40 Mhz.

386DX's bus was stuck in 1984.

33 to 40MHz is not a 'slight' overclock. Just because you got away with it doesn't make it a viable option for manufacturers or 'serious' customers, who need 100% reliability. Imagine a company losing millions of dollars because their computer miscalculated a number.

486 upgrades generally involved also replacing the motherboard and RAM, possibly a new case and power supply, and graphics card too if you didn't want to be stuck with a slow ISA bus card. Hmm, might also want a new monitor for those higher res screen modes. Hard drive might be too small too. Now what do you have left, the keyboard? Might as well buy a whole new PC...

I did many upgrades for my PC customers. Upgrading from a 386DX to 486 was sometimes viable, but 386SX generally wasn't.

A1200 with 3rd party 68030 @ 50Mhz accelerator is priced around 486SX-25 and 486SX-33Mhz based PC clone. This is for the UK, US, and AU markets.

This is only true if you add all the other stuff a PC had, which as I said is simply a result of the 'laws of physics'. But you could buy a base model A1200 and add an accelerator card later with no limits, which you couldn't do to a 386SX PC. You might spend the same money in the end, but as your budget allowed (with better results since prices dropped and performance improved). Or you might be quite happy just getting a FastRAM board, or even just sticking with the Stock A1200.

Difference between the A1200 and a PC was software would continue to be produced for a stock A1200, while PCs had to be constantly upgraded to run the latest stuff. Doom was released when the vast majority of PC owners only had a 386SX or 286. A year and half later Windows 95 made a lot more machines redundant, and that trend continued unabated until today. I bought an A1200 and then a 50MHz 030 back in the 90's and it's still useful today. You can't say that about a 386SX PC.

[sokolovic]

Originally Posted by hammer

For 1993, the asking price for A1200 and 68030 @ 40 or 50 MHz accelerator is not good when compared with 486SX-33 based PC clone.

It's either deliver "new 32bit 2.5D/3D" gaming experience or compete against a strong 2D low cost 16 bit SNES.

Yeah, were not in 1993 anymore. Buy a SNES or enjoy your 486SX33 but you have to deal with it, it's been more than 30 years now. I really think you should let people enjoy their memories without telling them how shit in your expert eyes they are. (Oh, in fact they are not for most of us that gladly enjoy their A1200 by now).

Feel free to dump all your Amiga collection by the way, I'll be happy to release you for free from this burden.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by hammer

68EC020 still has 32 bit front side bus like 386DX.

A1200 had 32 bit RAM running at 7MHz. 386SX had 16 bit RAM running at (eg.) 16MHz. Different handicaps, same result. But when you added FastRAM to the A1200 that handicap was removed.

In the real world IPC, there's very little difference between 68020 and 68030 e.g. run SysInfo benchmark with 68020 at 28 MHz against 68030 at 25 MHz.

Sysinfo test is crude and does not represent real-world speed. Use AIBB for a better comparison.

Your popular argument is meaningless when the PC market is very large. 386DX and 486 install base out numbers the under 1 million AGA install base.

386SX was popular in the PC market because it was cheap. A few years later it wasn't popular because it was too slow. This has nothing to with the Amiga, which was never as popular overall but was popular in the home hobbyist / gaming market.

386SX is designed for 16 bit 286 like motherboards with 32 bit software compatibility. For 32bit PC games, it needs 386DX.

32 bit PC games didn't need a 386DX (or 486 for Doom) they just ran faster on one. A 386SX might been have slow, but the game still ran. That's how 386SX machines could be sold as 'compatible' but not necessarily a nice experience. For example try running Windows in 640x480 in 256 colors on one of those 'Super VGA' systems. Sure it ran, but so slow that you only did it once and then changed back to 16 colors.

My A1200 Rev 1D4 needs the timing fix, hence it's expansion slot wasn't stable out of the box.

But modern accelerator cards which know about timing differences are stable with all revisions. This was minor issue that was easily fixed. You might be surprised to learn that PCs often had issues too, which were usually harder to fix. I could tell you some stories...

I did run Wing Commander AGA WHDload and 14 MHz 68EC020 with Fast RAM is not enough i.e. it needs 25 MHz 68020 or 68030 just like 386DX-25 counterpart.

Wing Commander AGA is not a good example, but I dispute that it 'needs' a 25MHz 020.

[hammer]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

But a stock A1200 was was much cheaper than any PC.

For lower cost strong 2D 16-bit gaming, SNES says hi.

Gaming PC avoided SNES's strong 2D game titles by delivering "new 32-bit 2.5D/3D" gaming experiences.

PC's 2D Mortal Kombat 1993 port is an SNES beater while the Amiga version is stuck in Amiga OCS/ECS since the AGA install base is tiny.

Nintendo started to build SNES's install base in 1990, hence SNES arrived in Amiga's core European markets during Q4 1992, SNES is well positioned with a larger worldwide install base against ground zero AGA install base's Q4 1992 release.

Install base matters for 3rd party game studios' when they target platforms with maximize revenue.

16 bit Amigas were the "Atari ST" against Amiga AGA.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

I've said it before a million times - you can't break the laws of physics. If you want equivalent hardware you have to spend equivalent money. The A1200 was cheaper mostly because it didn't have as much hardware in it.

Apple delivered $999 USD Quadra 605/ LC 475 / Performa 475 with 68LC040 @ 25 Mhz.

https://techmonitor.ai/technology/mo...0_next_quarter
Date: April 19, 1994

Motorola Inc yesterday finally launched the long-promised 68060 follow-on to the 68040, claiming that it matches the performance of the Intel Corp Pentium at less than half the price – it costs $263 at 50MHz when you order 10,000 or more

Blame A4000T's and Phase 5's large profitability expectations. Both big box Amigas (Commodore Germany, Escom) and Phase 5 are from Germany.

There's a major reason why low-cost Raspberry Pi, Acorn's BBC Micro, ZX Spectrum platforms will not originate from Germany.

Apple's $999 USD Quadra 605/ LC 475 / Performa 475 didn't originate from Germany.

From 1992 to 1994, Motorola wasn't the problem.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

The other factor is what the hardware is optimized for. The A1200 came with hardware-accelerated graphics and sound out of the box, which suited 2D games. A low-end PC came with a hard drive, faster CPU and high resolution display, which suited business applications.

For A1200, Commodore selected an inferior dollar per MB laptop HDD solution.

For a strong 2D late 16-bit game box, SNES says Hi.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

386DX's bus was stuck in 1984.

Wrong. 386DX-33's 33 Mhz 32-bit front side bus scaled with the memory controller's year release AND my year 1992 motherboard had 64/128 KB cache options.

386DX-33's front-side bus is substantially faster than 1985 386's 12 Mhz 32-bit front-side bus.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

33 to 40MHz is not a 'slight' overclock.

My i386DX-33's Q4 1992 motherboard supported Am386DX-40.

i386DX-33 has 1,000 nm process node which is the same as i486DX-20 to i486DX-50's 1,000 nm process node. Later 486DX2s switched to 800 nm process node.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Just because you got away with it doesn't make it a viable option for manufacturers or 'serious' customers, who need 100% reliability. Imagine a company losing millions of dollars because their computer miscalculated a number.

There's an extra margin when CPUs and GPUs are sold at a certain clock speed at retail.

Current PC's GPU and CPU vendors exploit this margin. AMD's embedded and laptop APUs have lower clock speeds when compared to desktop APU counterparts.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

486 upgrades generally involved also replacing the motherboard and RAM, possibly a new case and power supply, and graphics card too if you didn't want to be stuck with a slow ISA bus card. Hmm, might also want a new monitor for those higher res screen modes. Hard drive might be too small too. Now what do you have left, the keyboard? Might as well buy a whole new PC...

Zorro III has about 12.5 MB/s bandwidth.

For big box A3000/030 or A2500/030, a user ditched the whole A3000 package for AGA compatibility.

Commodore created a situation where a user ditched a 32-bit 68030 equipped A2000/A3000 for a 32-bit 68030 A4000 or A1200 with a 68030 card.

Commodore didn't offer AGA motherboard upgrades for big box A3000s or A2000s.

Amiga's game console nature doesn't work for big-box desktop computers.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

I did many upgrades for my PC customers. Upgrading from a 386DX to 486 was sometimes viable, but 386SX generally wasn't.

My family ditched IBM's 16-bit MCA.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

This is only true if you add all the other stuff a PC had, which as I said is simply a result of the 'laws of physics'.

There are no "laws of physics" with profit margin expectations.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

But you could buy a base model A1200 and add an accelerator card later with no limits, which you couldn't do to a 386SX PC. You might spend the same money in the end, but as your budget allowed (with better results since prices dropped and performance improved). Or you might be quite happy just getting a FastRAM board, or even just sticking with the Stock A1200.

It depends on performance vs price factors.

Your argument departed from Amiga 500's original mission i.e. power without the price.

A1200's Phase 5 PowerPC603e +Premedia 2 mini-addon card 1998 era upgrades weren't cost vs performance competitive against the new build Celeron 300A PC.

I recycled my 1997 NVIDIA RiVA 128 card for my Celeron 300A PC build.

PiStorm32 Lite+RPi 4B entered into AM4 B550's cost range.

The record speaks for themselves.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Difference between the A1200 and a PC was software would continue would to be produced for a stock A1200, while PCs had to be constantly upgraded to run the latest stuff.

Software sells the hardware. My current gaming PCs have tons of compute-shaded 3D games and the "can of whoop-ass" Blender 3D raytracing with RTX 4090.

I used my RTX GPUs for OpenAI-related software for mass voice lecture transcription contract work (with two RTX 3080 Ti factory OC models) and removed vocals from existing music for the "minus 1" use case.

Stock A1200 wouldn't make my team's workload to be lessened and increase productivity.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Doom was released when the vast majority of PC owners only had a 386SX or 286.

That's a flawed argument when Q4 1993 PC's 386DX and 486 install base is larger than AGA's below 1 million install base.

In 1992,
Intel's revenue was about $5.8 billion
AMD's revenue was about $1.5 billion.
X86 CPU has a unified Wintel platform.

VS

Commodore's 1991 peak revenue is about $1 billion.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

A year and half later Windows 95 made a lot more machines redundant, and that trend continued unabated until today. I bought an A1200 and then a 50MHz 030 back in the 90's and it's still useful today.

Does A1200 with 50 Mhz 030 run Crysis?

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

You can't say that about a 386SX PC.

Modern PCs can still run 386 software. X86 CPU family didn't stall at classic Pentium.

PiStorm32 Lite+RPi 4B entered into AM4 B550's cost range.

[hammer]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

A1200 had 32 bit RAM running at 7MHz. 386SX had 16 bit RAM running at (eg.) 16MHz. Different handicaps, same result. But when you added FastRAM to the A1200 that handicap was removed.

FYI, Commodore included a 32-bit Fast RAM controller with A1200's Budgie. A1200 could have AT&T DSP3210 (fast INT16, INT24, and FP32 FPU) on 32-bit Fast RAM.

680EC020 has a 32-bit front-side bus, a 24-bit memory address, and a missing MMU. Allows 386DX like 32-bit front side bus.

80386SX has a 16-bit front-side bus, a 24-bit memory address, and pMMU. Allows memory-protected OS development.

Atari Falcon's 68030 @ 16 Mhz has a 16-bit bus with Motorola 56K DSP (fast INT16 and INT24 only).

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Sysinfo test is crude and does not represent real-world speed. Use AIBB for a better comparison.

AIBB results don't show a significant difference between similar clocked 68020 and 68030.

https://amiga.resource.cx/perf/aibb.html

Apollo 1220 (020/28, 882/28, 3.0), 3.12 Dhrystone.

Apollo 1230 (030/28, 882/30, 3.0), 3.57 Dhrystone.

Apollo 1230LC (030/25, 882/25, 3.0), 3.01 Dhrystone.

Blizzard 1220 (020/28, 3.0), 3.16 Dhrystone.

A2630 (030/25, 882/25, ECS, 3.1 in RAM), 2.70 Dhrystone.

A3000 (030/25, 882/25, 2.04), 2.75 Dhrystone.

A3630 (030/25, 882/33, 3.0), 3.00 Dhrystone


https://i.ibb.co/44zfhyK/Australia-Q...-June-1993.png
Australia's Queensland state., June 1993's Amiga 1200 HD's $1199 AUD price with trade-in.


Sep 1993's 486SX25 (near Xmas 1993)
https://i.ibb.co/jV4T43L/1993-QLD-PC...st-example.png
A4 System's 486SX-33 student package, 4 MB RAM, 1.44 MB FDD 130 MB HDD, 512 VRAM VGA, SVGA monitor, desktop case, 101 keyboard, mouse.
Price: $1545 AUD.
A4 Systems Price List Sept 1993 by A4 Systems, Brisbane, Australia

SoundBlaster Pro clone ISA card is not expensive.

VS

https://archive.org/details/Australi...ge/n3/mode/2up
Australian Commodore and Amiga Review, October 1993.
Page 4 of 84
A1200 barebone = $799
A1200 with 40 MB HDD = $995 AUD
A1200 with 85 MB HDD = $1349 AUD
A1200 RAM card with 0 MB = $249 AUD
From Western Australia state.

Page 12 of 84
GVP A1230 030 with No Co-Pro and 0 MB RAM =$ 876
GVP A1230/030 & 68882 40Mhz with 4 MB RAM = $1176

Page 42 of 84
GVP A1200 SCSI with 4 MB RAM = $895
GVP A1200/030 at 40 Mhz and 4MB RAM = $1195.00

A1200 with 40 MB HDD + GVP A1200 SCSI with 4 MB RAM = $1,871

Page 56 of 84
Phase 5 Blizzard A1200/4 with 4MB RAM and clock = $499

A1200 with 40 MB HDD + Blizzard A1200/4 (4MB RAM card) = $1,494.
A1200 with 85 MB HDD + Blizzard A1200/4 (4MB RAM card) = $1,848.

A1200 barebone + Blizzard A1200/4 (4MB RAM card)= $1,298. No hard disk. A1200 with 32-bit Fast RAM is about a PC with 386DX-16 to 20 and ET4000AX or Trident 8900CL.

Page 64 of 84
Seagate 2.5 inch, 128 MB IDE = $245.

A1200 barebone + Blizzard A1200/4 (4MB RAM card) + Seagate 128 MB HDD = $1,543

-----------

If Commodore's business model sells Amiga chipsets, AmigaOS, and motherboard reference designs to desktop computer cloners, the final assembly manufacturing risk is on the clones.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

386SX was popular in the PC market because it was cheap. A few years later it wasn't popular because it was too slow. This has nothing to with the Amiga, which was never as popular overall but was popular in the home hobbyist / gaming market.

Do you claim 486's install base to be less than 4 to 5 million A500's install base?

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

32 bit PC games didn't need a 386DX (or 486 for Doom) they just ran faster on one. A 386SX might been have slow, but the game still ran. That's how 386SX machines could be sold as 'compatible' but not necessarily a nice experience. For example try running Windows in 640x480 in 256 colors on one of those 'Super VGA' systems. Sure it ran, but so slow that you only did it once and then changed back to 16 colors.

Do you claim 486's install base to be less than 4 to 5 million A500's install base?

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

But modern accelerator cards which know about timing differences are stable with all revisions. This was minor issue that was easily fixed. You might be surprised to learn that PCs often had issues too, which were usually harder to fix. I could tell you some stories...

PC clones has multiple sources while the Amiga has a single source.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Wing Commander AGA is not a good example, but I dispute that it 'needs' a 25MHz 020.

Wing Commander AGA needs something faster than 14 Mhz 68EC020 with AmigaKit's 8 MB Fast RAM card. 25 Mhz 68020/68030 are examples.

Wing Commander OCS (4 bitplanes with 16 colors) was smooth on my A3000's 030 @ 25 MHz.

[sandruzzo]

Maybe commodore wanted to keep the retrocompatibility with OCS/ECS. That's why Aga was so under cutted

[hammer]

Originally Posted by sandruzzo

Maybe commodore wanted to keep the retrocompatibility with OCS/ECS. That's why Aga was so under cutted

A dual 16-bit blitter unit configuration allows backward compatibility when legacy Amiga software only recognizes the 1st 16-bit blitter unit.

ApolloCore's SAGA has turtle mode backward compatibility.

Commodore runs out of time due to management's time-wasting.