ACA500 tested

[dJOS]

Originally Posted by Apollo

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!

[Schoenfeld]

Originally Posted by kolla

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

[desiv]

Originally Posted by dJOS

Please show me where I attached him personally

Please don't...
This is a family site..

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

desiv

[turrican9]

Originally Posted by desiv

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?

[dirkies]

Excellent response Jens!

So will these issues solved with the plus version?

[dJOS]

Originally Posted by desiv

Please don't...
This is a family site..

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

desiv

Lol, stupid me for not checking my text before posting!

[Schoenfeld]

Originally Posted by dirkies

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

[Jacques]

Originally Posted by Schoenfeld

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.

[dJOS]

Where's the like button when you need one? Well put Jacques!

[Schoenfeld]

Originally Posted by Jacques

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

[Jacques]

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

[Schoenfeld]

Originally Posted by Jacques

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

[Jacques]

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"

[Photon]

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

[jediknight]

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 .

[demolition]

Originally Posted by jediknight

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).

[Toni Wilen]

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.

[chiark]

Originally Posted by jediknight

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 )

[britelite]

Originally Posted by Toni Wilen

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!

[Locutus]

you mean, such as playing bad ports of old PC games?