A3000 AGA Model

jmmijo · 08 July 2002, 20:50

I was just browsing over at Software Hut's site and noticed an AGA version of the A3000, supposedly only 50 were made. So is this true or what???

http://www.softhut.com/cgi-bin/test/...=4643991_22495

RetroMan · 08 July 2002, 21:20

Sure, it´s true

These machines were also called AA3000 and A3000+

Some more info here (pics also) ; http://www.amiga-society.de/ahwbook/a3000plus.html

jmmijo · 08 July 2002, 21:26

I didn't realize these were the same machine, thanks for the info RetroMan

Amiga1992 · 09 July 2002, 23:38

WAHEY! This is THE Amiga to own I say! if I had 1200 bucks I'd blow them on this baby!

jmmijo · 10 July 2002, 02:19

I also noticed they say it's #27 out of 50. So does anyone know where the others are? Don't suppose Dave Haynie would know

Amiga1992 · 10 July 2002, 05:50

It's a shame they only have that one!

RetroMan · 10 July 2002, 13:26

The problem is, that "maybe" most of the other models have been destroyed and only 6 or 7 are out there ..... but these are only rumours

Amiga1992 · 10 July 2002, 16:03

Then I think 1200 dollars is a GREAT price...

And whou would be stupid enough to destroy these lovely babies?

[edit] HOLY SHIT. DSP inside!!! Can you say "Fuck off Atari Falcon!"

If this machine had the scando/flifi (© Retroman 2002) thingie inside, this would be the betetr Amiga ever... it actually is, but that gimmick would have been absolutely amazing. I wonder how didn't they include it though, since the AGA chipset has more modes for SVGA monitors

Why did they make that stupid A4000?

adolescent · 19 July 2002, 00:14

I remember hearing about the 3000+ in usenet posts from Dave Haynie. When the 4000 came out I was fully disappointed as the AA graphics set was supposed to be more powerful than the AGA. They did did silly things like take out the SD, SCSI, etc. to cut costs.

Oh well, that's Commodore for you.

RetroMan · 19 July 2002, 00:16

The AA was only renamed to AGA same specifications, same power

adolescent · 19 July 2002, 04:40

Quote:

Originally posted by RetroMan
The AA was only renamed to AGA same specifications, same power

Hmm, I thought somewhere between the initial spec development and actual production they backed off for cost and compatibility reasons. (Could be wrong, as it's been 10+ years). Either way, by the time AGA was released, the new chipset was rather standard.

7-Zark-7 · 19 July 2002, 15:52

Quote:

Originally posted by adolescent

Hmm, I thought somewhere between the initial spec development and actual production they backed off for cost and compatibility reasons. (Could be wrong, as it's been 10+ years). Either way, by the time AGA was released, the new chipset was rather standard.

Yes & no. If what I read in the amiga press was correct, there was a suggestion that the AGA or "AA" chipset as it was originally known was actually a cut down version of the AAA chipset design by David Haynie.

However due to cost cutting & a shaky CBM position, the final result was a cut-down AGA release. Would've been interesting to know what the planned machine from David Haynie would've had eg: 16bit sound,DSP or what. I suppose we'll never know now.

derSammler · 19 July 2002, 19:30

Quote:

Originally posted by 7-Zark-7
I suppose we'll never know now.

I don't think so.

Look at this, i can upload it (it's a PDF file) if someone is interested:

jmmijo · 19 July 2002, 19:47

I'd be interested, thanks WindowsKiller

adolescent · 19 July 2002, 22:46

Quote:

Originally posted by WindowsKiller

I don't think so. Look at this, i can upload it (it's a PDF file) if someone is interested:

Yes, please upload. But, that's the AAA information. Do you have a similar for the AA/AGA?

derSammler · 20 July 2002, 13:54

Uploaded.

I've also uploaded the Amiga 3000+ System Specifications...

btw: The AAA chipset was developed after the AA/AGA chipset (in 1993), so the AA/AGA chipset can't be a cut down version of the AAA chipset. The AA chipset was first known as "Pandora". It was developed for the A3000+ in 1990/91. What we know as the "AGA chipset" is really a cut down version of the AA chipset.

@adolescent: No, sorry...

7-Zark-7 · 20 July 2002, 16:33

Anyone here who has a friend,who know's an uncle, who has a cousin who once served coffee to David Haynie please email him to ask David Haynie to personally come to this board & answer this question & solve this debate!!

Which was derived from what? My money is still on the theory that the AAA chipset was the original successor to the OCS/ECS chipset's but due to the length of development time,cost & CBM management's stupidity they released a cut down version which was the AA/AGA chipset.

Wish I could remember which Amiga magazine had that article now, but there were so many CBM post mortem's its hard to know...

adolescent · 20 July 2002, 17:49

Quote:

Originally posted by WindowsKiller
The AA chipset was first known as "Pandora". It was developed for the A3000+ in 1990/91. What we know as the "AGA chipset" is really a cut down version of the AA chipset.

Yes, see this is what I was talking about above.

BTW, thanks for the files, I'm going to download them now.

derSammler · 20 July 2002, 18:05

@7-Zark-7: Just download the two files from the zone and you'll see that I'm right.

The documents are written by Dave Haynie, so everything in there is 100% correct.

derSammler · 20 July 2002, 18:37

Or just read this:

08 July 2002, 20:50	#1
jmmijo Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: PDX Age: 62 Posts: 2,396	A3000 AGA Model I was just browsing over at Software Hut's site and noticed an AGA version of the A3000, supposedly only 50 were made. So is this true or what??? http://www.softhut.com/cgi-bin/test/...=4643991_22495

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What is the best Acorn Archimedes Model	mfletcher	Retrogaming General Discussion	40	17 July 2017 21:53
FS: FULLY LOADED A3000, a bare bone A3000 and lots of Amiga Stuff!	emc_errol	MarketPlace	0	30 January 2009 22:33
Which Amiga model is better	Another World	project.WHDLoad	11	27 December 2008 20:28
What model Amiga was used in this?	Unknown_K	Nostalgia & memories	10	21 July 2005 17:27

08 July 2002, 21:20	#2
RetroMan Registered User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Germany Age: 51 Posts: 3,704	Sure, it´s true These machines were also called AA3000 and A3000+ Some more info here (pics also) ; http://www.amiga-society.de/ahwbook/a3000plus.html

08 July 2002, 21:26	#3
jmmijo Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: PDX Age: 62 Posts: 2,396	I didn't realize these were the same machine, thanks for the info RetroMan

09 July 2002, 23:38	#4
Amiga1992 Registered User Join Date: May 2001 Location: ? Posts: 19,646	WAHEY! This is THE Amiga to own I say! if I had 1200 bucks I'd blow them on this baby!

10 July 2002, 02:19	#5
jmmijo Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: PDX Age: 62 Posts: 2,396	I also noticed they say it's #27 out of 50. So does anyone know where the others are? Don't suppose Dave Haynie would know

10 July 2002, 05:50	#6
Amiga1992 Registered User Join Date: May 2001 Location: ? Posts: 19,646	It's a shame they only have that one!

10 July 2002, 13:26	#7
RetroMan Registered User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Germany Age: 51 Posts: 3,704	The problem is, that "maybe" most of the other models have been destroyed and only 6 or 7 are out there ..... but these are only rumours

10 July 2002, 16:03	#8
Amiga1992 Registered User Join Date: May 2001 Location: ? Posts: 19,646	Then I think 1200 dollars is a GREAT price... And whou would be stupid enough to destroy these lovely babies? [edit] HOLY SHIT. DSP inside!!! Can you say "Fuck off Atari Falcon!" If this machine had the scando/flifi (© Retroman 2002) thingie inside, this would be the betetr Amiga ever... it actually is, but that gimmick would have been absolutely amazing. I wonder how didn't they include it though, since the AGA chipset has more modes for SVGA monitors Why did they make that stupid A4000?

19 July 2002, 00:14	#9
adolescent Powered by Motorola Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Redondo Beach, CA Age: 52 Posts: 1,065	I remember hearing about the 3000+ in usenet posts from Dave Haynie. When the 4000 came out I was fully disappointed as the AA graphics set was supposed to be more powerful than the AGA. They did did silly things like take out the SD, SCSI, etc. to cut costs. Oh well, that's Commodore for you.

19 July 2002, 00:16	#10
RetroMan Registered User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Germany Age: 51 Posts: 3,704	The AA was only renamed to AGA same specifications, same power

19 July 2002, 19:47	#14
jmmijo Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: PDX Age: 62 Posts: 2,396	I'd be interested, thanks WindowsKiller

20 July 2002, 13:54	#16
derSammler Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Germany Posts: 1,659	Uploaded. I've also uploaded the Amiga 3000+ System Specifications... btw: The AAA chipset was developed after the AA/AGA chipset (in 1993), so the AA/AGA chipset can't be a cut down version of the AAA chipset. The AA chipset was first known as "Pandora". It was developed for the A3000+ in 1990/91. What we know as the "AGA chipset" is really a cut down version of the AA chipset. @adolescent: No, sorry...

20 July 2002, 16:33	#17
7-Zark-7 Zone Friend Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Brisbane/Australia Posts: 1,270	Anyone here who has a friend,who know's an uncle, who has a cousin who once served coffee to David Haynie please email him to ask David Haynie to personally come to this board & answer this question & solve this debate!! Which was derived from what? My money is still on the theory that the AAA chipset was the original successor to the OCS/ECS chipset's but due to the length of development time,cost & CBM management's stupidity they released a cut down version which was the AA/AGA chipset. Wish I could remember which Amiga magazine had that article now, but there were so many CBM post mortem's its hard to know...

20 July 2002, 18:05	#19
derSammler Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Germany Posts: 1,659	@7-Zark-7: Just download the two files from the zone and you'll see that I'm right. The documents are written by Dave Haynie, so everything in there is 100% correct.

20 July 2002, 18:37	#20
derSammler Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Germany Posts: 1,659	Or just read this:

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