Was anyone else disappointed with the A1200?

[Kyle_Human]

Originally Posted by Gorf

there where no more layouts and schematics for e.g. Paula ... just the masks

I would love to know how MOS made the masks without having layouts and schematics, especially since Jerri Elsworth has them and has shown them off in public.



I have heard this rumour about "missing schematics so they had to do it from scratch" for every commodore product from 80 column pet to GO64 mode in C128 to C65 to AGA and the one thing uniting them is it's a load of shite.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by Kyle_Human

I would love to know how MOS made the masks without having layouts and schematics, especially since Jerri Elsworth has them and has shown them off in public.

?
Of course they had them to make the masks, but once done the rest of the materials disappeared

I have heard this rumour about "missing schematics so they had to do it from scratch" for every commodore product from 80 column pet to GO64 mode in C128 to C65 to AGA and the one thing uniting them is it's a load of shite.

Why?
I think it is quite believable and explains a lot.

Commodore never saw their computers as "platforms", that need constant development and refinement ... until the Amiga came along.
But even then, they realized it far too late.

Just have a look at the PET, CBM-II, VC20, C64, Plus/4, C16

all incompatible to each other ... all just one shot "hit or miss"

[Kyle_Human]

Originally Posted by Gorf

?
Of course they had them to make the masks, but once done the rest of the materials disappeared

That's not true because nobody and nothing works this way, and also that Jeri Elsworth has a copy of them like I already told you.


You think every time from 512k to 1mb to 2mb chipram they were drawing it from scratch again? nooooo. They pulled the schematic out of a drawer or folder and used it. There would have to be dozens and dozens of copies of these documents being referenced, shared, copied and revised constantly, across multiple departments of the company, in different buildings and in different countries.

Originally Posted by Gorf

Why?
I think it is quite believable and explains a lot.

It is not believable because that's not how it works. You find it believable because it is a simple answer that sounds nice, even though it's totally wrong and ignorant. You didn't know enough to recognize it was wrong, and by the time someone is kind enough to explain to you using logic you have transformed it into fact resistant article of faith.


Through history we find similar "answers" to complicated questions. Many ancient societies were so ignorant they thought lightning was god's anger and that rain was his blessing. Actually it's static electricity, evaporation and condensation. I have met people who think that sex with virgins cures AIDS and that vaccines made their son autistic. They felt desperate need for an answer and were easily fooled by appealing lies.

[chb]

Originally Posted by Kyle_Human

That's not true because nobody and nothing works this way, and also that Jeri Elsworth has a copy of them like I already told you.

While Jeri Ellsworth indeed showed some schematics in a video, AFAIK it is unknown whether a) those are for the actual chips or something from an earlier stage of development, and b) if she has the schematics of the complete chipset in her possession or not. Gorf referred to Paula specifically.

Originally Posted by Kyle_Human

You think every time from 512k to 1mb to 2mb chipram they were drawing it from scratch again? nooooo. They pulled the schematic out of a drawer or folder and used it. There would have to be dozens and dozens of copies of these documents being referenced, shared, copied and revised constantly. It wasn't disposed of because it was indispensable.

Paula exists only in two public Revisions, 8364R4 (A1000) and 8364R7 (everything later), and even those are functional 100% identical, the only known difference is ceramic vs. plastic package (which doesn't mean the die has to be identical, of course). So they never changed Paula after 1986, when the Amiga 2000A was released.

I am not claiming to know if the Paula schematics and layout have been lost (I have no idea), but at least I see no contradiction with regard to the publicly known facts.


BTW, you may want to think a second if the last part of your post is appropriate.

EDIT:
Some more theories:

First, a timeline of events:
1984: Amiga does the first revisions in silicon, that was before Commodore bought them; the chips were produced by Synertek (see https://retrocomputing.stackexchange...ip-in-ocs-have, hotpaw2 is Ron Nicholson, he should know for sure)
1986: Last revision of Paula (R7)
1986-87: Design of successor to OCS starts ?
1987: Los Gatos facility is closed
1988: First known revisions of the ECS Agnus produced[1], A2024 software released that contains checks for ECS Denise[2]

Then there's some story by Dave Haynie that when C= bought Amiga, they had to convert the layouts/schematics to their software - Amiga did them by hand and they existed only on paper - and that this took considerable time.

So a theory could go as this: In typical C= fashion, there were resources only to do the absolute minimum, so they converted only Agnus and Denise, as those were modified for ECS (my guess actually is that ECS is Ranger minus the external VRAM logic, see the UHRES thread). Paula was considered good enough, so they didn't update her. When Los Gatos was closed, schematics on paper were lost, only the masks at MOS and only the designs that had been converted remained.

Of course this is only speculation, but the fact that Paula was never changed after 1986 and that they even used expensive custom HD floppy drives for the A4000, instead of just modifying Paula, supports the argument that C= in fact lost the schematics.

By the way, even if Jeri has the Paula schematics, that doesn't mean C= had them also. E.g. Dale Luck showed a lot of prototype stuff from Amiga lately (even if he was in the software department), that he probably took when Los Gatos was closed. The same might have been the case with the schematics, maybe C= just did not bother/forgot about them.

[grond]

I took part in developing a very sophisticated chip for a major semiconductor company. The chip met very little market demand. This changed a few years later and suddenly customers started asking for the chip. It turned out the company had lost all schenatics, layouts and masks. I guess if this could happen in the age of streamer tapes (in the 21st century, in fact), it certainly could happen in the mid-80s.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by Kyle_Human

That's not true because nobody and nothing works this way, and also that Jeri Elsworth has a copy of them like I already told you.

what exactly does Jeri have?

You think every time from 512k to 1mb to 2mb chipram they were drawing it from scratch again?

Paula did not need any modifications for that .. it did not even need any changes to work in AGA Amigas

nooooo. They pulled the schematic out of a drawer or folder and used it.

to change nothing at all?

You didn't know enough to recognize it was wrong, and by the time someone is kind enough to explain to you using logic you have transformed it into fact resistant article of faith.

WTF...

NOT QUOTING THAT PART

[Kyle_Human]

Originally Posted by chb

While Jeri Ellsworth indeed showed some schematics in a video, AFAIK it is unknown whether a) those are for the actual chips or something from an earlier stage of development, and b) if she has the schematics of the complete chipset in her possession or not. Gorf referred to Paula specifically.

Jeri did not say she has "something from an earlier stage of development" or that they are incomplete. She did say that she was given the chipset schematics. Not "partial schematics", not "schematics for angus", just said chipset schematics. Given that in the same video she talks that she replaced paula too surely she would mention any incompleteness in the schematics she was using?

First the claim is schematics are lost and then when it turns out they aren't lost, it must be only partial copy and it was conveniently not mentioned? No CBM, MOS or Los Gatos people in 35 years now of interaction with the scene have said "we lost the schematics", but randoms on the internet tell you it must be true, so it's credible?


When you have a belief you can't let go of in the face of evidence the result is tying yourself in knots. Even to this day people are hardcore believers in Amiga myths. Amiga ranger is still widely believed to be some supercomputer with amazing graphics despite an actual one turning up and just being an A1000 in a tower. When you have strong emotions on something it makes you irrational and you believe what makes you feel better, so strong that facts must bend to fit you instead of the other way around.

This is normal when there is some tragedy, someone comes and gives you something to beleive in to make it all work. Usually this is some really big life changing thing e.g your child is born with brain damage, or planes crash into WTC, or your most loved person dies, or your country loses a world war, which makes you need this. Sometimes the idea you believe for comfort is harmless and sometimes it's a dangerous one like vaccines-autism or stab in back myth. When it's cheap consumer electronics that traps you in these kinds of comforting anti-logic beliefs it means you put too much priority on a trivial thing.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by Kyle_Human

First the claim is schematics are lost and then when it turns out they aren't lost, it must be only partial copy and it was conveniently not mentioned?

I never claimed that ALL schematics were lost, but specifically mentioned Paula.
But there may be a lot of other parts missing as well, considering the rather chaotic state Commodore was in after Tramiel left.

No CBM, MOS or Los Gatos people in 35 years now of interaction with the scene have said "we lost the schematics", but randoms on the internet tell you it must be true, so it's credible?

How could the Los Gatos people tell if C= later lost things?
How could C= people later tell, if what they got was complete?

Where are the Ranger schematics?
Where are the AAA schematics?

Where are the Paula schematics? Even Toni Wilen said this would be the one chip to decap and analyze to finaly understand its inner workings.

So Commodore just changed every other chip to CMOS but left out Paula just for fun?

When you have a belief you can't let go of in the face of evidence the result is tying yourself in knots.

so bring on your evidence.

Amiga ranger is still widely believed to be some supercomputer with amazing graphics despite an actual one turning up and just being an A1000 in a tower.

You seem not to know, what the ranger-chipset was about.
It was Jay Miners approach to use VRAM as Chipram - and he had a (back than) working prototype. Parts of It surfaced a couple of years ago.
It had NOTHING to do with a A1000 tower case whatsoever...

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects.../posts/1294091

When you have strong emotions on something it makes you irrational and you believe what makes you feel better ...

please stop projecting.

[chb]

Originally Posted by Kyle_Human

Jeri did not say she has "something from an earlier stage of development" or that they are incomplete. She did say that she was given the chipset schematics. Not "partial schematics", not "schematics for angus", just said chipset schematics. Given that in the same video she talks that she replaced paula too surely she would mention any incompleteness in the schematics she was using?

Well, following your logic she would mention that she has the complete schematics, right? Fact is, we do not know.

Originally Posted by Kyle_Human

First the claim is schematics are lost and then when it turns out they aren't lost, it must be only partial copy and it was conveniently not mentioned? No CBM, MOS or Los Gatos people in 35 years now of interaction with the scene have said "we lost the schematics", but randoms on the internet tell you it must be true, so it's credible?

Please read my edit. Meaning people from Los Gatos had them and passed them to Jeri doesn't exclude the possibility Commodore lost them at some point. And please read again what I have written multiple times - that I have no idea if schematics were lost, but there's some supporting evidence that it may have been the case. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by Kyle_Human

When you have a belief you can't let go of in the face of evidence the result is tying yourself in knots. Even to this day people are hardcore believers in Amiga myths. Amiga ranger is still widely believed to be some supercomputer with amazing graphics despite an actual one turning up and just being an A1000 in a tower. When you have strong emotions on something it makes you irrational and you believe what makes you feel better, so strong that facts must bend to fit you instead of the other way around.

Again, read what I have written. The chipset rumored as Ranger is IMHO(!) very much the same what was latter ECS, minus the VRAM part, which probably would have provided a second video out with 1024x1024 in b/w. That's hardly supercomputer specs, even for 1987, and completely doable for that time (look at the C900, or the A2024 framebuffer circuit). In fact it's probably quite disappointing for some fanboys. VRAM support appears in the ECS documentation and is probably partially working (but missing external logic), just have a look at the linked UHRES thread.

Originally Posted by Kyle_Human

This is normal when there is some tragedy, someone comes and gives you something to beleive in to make it all work. Usually this is some really big life changing thing e.g your child is born with brain damage, or planes crash into WTC, or your most loved person dies, or your country loses a world war, which makes you need this. Sometimes the idea you believe for comfort is harmless and sometimes it's a dangerous one like vaccines-autism or stab in back myth. When it's cheap consumer electronics that traps you in these kinds of comforting anti-logic beliefs it means you put too much priority on a trivial thing.

I think you really need a break. Seriously.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by chb

The chipset rumored as Ranger is IMHO(!) very much the same what was latter ECS, minus the VRAM part, which probably would have provided a second video out with 1024x1024 in b/w. That's hardly supercomputer specs, even for 1987, and completely doable for that time (look at the C900, or the A2024 framebuffer circuit). In fact it's probably quite disappointing for some fanboys. VRAM support appears in the ECS documentation and is probably partially working (but missing external logic), just have a look at the linked UHRES thread.

you are probably right here.

Ranger was also said to have "7 bitplanes" and I wonder if this was was simply done(planed) by using the the second video out as third playfield ... mixing it back with the traditional output from Denise.
All you would need for that is some simplified genlock ... one could probably archive that in a modified "Vidiot".

[Kyle_Human]

Originally Posted by chb

Well, following your logic she would mention that she has the complete schematics, right? Fact is, we do not know.


Please read my edit. Meaning people from Los Gatos had them and passed them to Jeri doesn't exclude the possibility Commodore lost them at some point. And please read again what I have written multiple times - that I have no idea if schematics were lost, but there's some supporting evidence that it may have been the case. Nothing more, nothing less.

You struggle with likelyhoods. Knowing the most basics of how electronics development works would tell you that this would be an incredible occurrence, on the level of a UFO landing in milton keynes, or a 100 year dead man rising from the grave.

Now when you want to entertain an idea that wild and improbable, you have to have evidence. If you think it happened you need evidence it happened. If you only think it's possible, you still need evidence that it's possible, and there's not any.

Originally Posted by chb

Again, read what I have written. The chipset rumored as Ranger is IMHO(!) very much the same what was latter ECS, minus the VRAM part, which probably would have provided a second video out with 1024x1024 in b/w. That's hardly supercomputer specs, even for 1987, and completely doable for that time (look at the C900, or the A2024 framebuffer circuit). In fact it's probably quite disappointing for some fanboys. VRAM support appears in the ECS documentation and is probably partially working (but missing external logic), just have a look at the linked UHRES thread

The chipset rumoured as Ranger has different magical capabilities whenever it's mentioned, even you are giving it different ones like second video out and implying relation to ECS. Wikipedia gives it the ridiculous quality of seven bit colour, and the site "Amiga History" once said seperate blitters on every bitplane. The one consistent thing in the tale of ranger is that it was a Los Gatos project.

What debunks this rumour stone dead, other than that actual Los Gatos people couldn't even figure out A500 level improvements, and that actual Commodore engineers have called it a myth, is that the actual Ranger was found. The real deal Amiga Ranger from Los Gatos. It has none of these features, it's just an A1000 with a zorro bus in a tower.

That's all Ranger was. An alternative proposal to build an A2000 type big box, nothing more. But people were dissatisfied with slow development of Amigas under Commodore, and they heard Los Gatos wanted to do _something_ they didn't get to do, and so they created this narrative in their heads that the amiga would be so much better if it wasn't for mean old Commodore closing Los Gatos. It's wishful thinking.


If you cling to the Betrayed Los Gatos Magic Ranger Chipset story, even after the real ranger was found and proven to be a wet fart, then there is no helping you. Same for this lost schematic rumour that inevitably shows up for every model series commodore ever made. What is so spiritually lacking in your life that you need a Dolchstoßlegende for the loss of something as unimportant as a computer company? You'd replace the history of still living persons with implausible rumours with all the zeal of a religious true believer, but you tell other people they need a break?

Experience a tragedy, regain your perspective. If you're going to have delusions have delusions about meaningful things.

[Gorf]

So you are telling us now, that Jay Miner was right out lying about his work?
And everyone else working with him too?

What debunks this rumour stone dead, other than that actual Los Gatos people couldn't even figure out A500 level improvements

sure ...
what "improvements" would that be?

please stop trolling - seriously!

[Gorf]

Here is Jay Miner's interview, in which he talked about the Ranger Chipset:

https://amigauserinternational.com/2...-of-the-amiga/

Commodore now has a high resolution chip set of Amiga chips that I worked on when we were with Amiga in Los Gatos. These chips use video ram and can produce a very high resolution ten twenty four display along with the present Amiga display simultaneously. They increase the display address range to two megabytes. These chips are completed and tested and only require a computer and memory to hold them together. I’d like everyone to know that Amiga in Los Gatos designed these chips!
These improved Amiga chips can use a new type of ram called video ram. This new type of ram – video ram – is a giant step in computer improvement because it frees up the bottleneck into memory caused by competition between the computer itself and the memory fetchers required for the high resolution display. Imagine having an additional gigantic parallel output port thousands of bit wide, just for video....

[chb]

Originally Posted by Gorf

you are probably right here.

Ranger was also said to have "7 bitplanes" and I wonder if this was was simply done(planed) by using the the second video out as third playfield ... mixing it back with the traditional output from Denise.
All you would need for that is some simplified genlock ... one could probably archive that in a modified "Vidiot".

That's possible, but I rather think the quoted "7 bitplanes" or sometimes even "128 colors" are a misunderstanding that stems from the fact that ECS has 7 bitplane pointer registers - six for the normal display and one UHRES pointer. Having a single bitplane overlay wouldn't have added that much IMHO to justify the effort. But who knows.

BTW, I think it's interesting that while the UHRES/VRAM functionality was clearly there partially - it's mentioned in the ECS & AGA documentation, the AAA docs mention that it got removed from AAA because it was never really used - but I have never seen any details how it was meant to be implemented. Really just 1 bitplane b/w? Or some external color DAC/RAMDAC? Seeing all the fuzz and myths about Ranger, the lone fact that ECS had some VRAM support should trigger some curiosity. But seemingly almost no one talks about that. Anyway, just a footnote in computer history.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by chb

That's possible, but I rather think the quoted "7 bitplanes" or sometimes even "128 colors" are a misunderstanding that stems from the fact that ECS has 7 bitplane pointer registers - six for the normal display and one UHRES pointer. Having a single bitplane overlay wouldn't have added that much IMHO to justify the effort. But who knows.

since you could treat it as a totally independent playfield it would be nice even with just two colors ... if your second (vram) output is attached to a CLUT it could give you a much more colourful "plane"...
Switching to the background if foreground (Denise) is all black, is a dead simple circuit in TTL...

BTW, I think it's interesting that while the UHRES/VRAM functionality was clearly there partially - it's mentioned in the ECS & AGA documentation, the AAA docs mention that it got removed from AAA because it was never really used - but I have never seen any details how it was meant to be implemented. Really just 1 bitplane b/w? Or some external color DAC/RAMDAC? Seeing all the fuzz and myths about Ranger, the lone fact that ECS had some VRAM support should trigger some curiosity. But seemingly almost no one talks about that. Anyway, just a footnote in computer history.

we discussed some of it already in the UHRES thread ... and there seems to be no way to really control a more sophisticated CLUT ... except for using some "magic patterns".
So b/w or a fixed color CLUT seems more likely.

Well - we probably will never know.

[redblade]

Originally Posted by chb

That's possible, but I rather think the quoted "7 bitplanes" or sometimes even "128 colors" are a misunderstanding that stems from the fact that ECS has 7 bitplane pointer registers - six for the normal display and one UHRES pointer. Having a single bitplane overlay wouldn't have added that much IMHO to justify the effort. But who knows.

BTW, I think it's interesting that while the UHRES/VRAM functionality was clearly there partially - it's mentioned in the ECS & AGA documentation, the AAA docs mention that it got removed from AAA because it was never really used - but I have never seen any details how it was meant to be implemented. Really just 1 bitplane b/w? Or some external color DAC/RAMDAC? Seeing all the fuzz and myths about Ranger, the lone fact that ECS had some VRAM support should trigger some curiosity. But seemingly almost no one talks about that. Anyway, just a footnote in computer history.

Does that mean you can make a piggy back VRAM expansion card that can sit on top of LISA or ECS for max speed

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by redblade

Does that mean you can make a piggy back VRAM expansion card that can sit on top of LISA or ECS for max speed

Lisa/Denise has nothing to do with it.

There are just some features in Agnus, that might support VRAM.

It would need an additional VRAM capable RAMDAC

[Spongehorn]

Thread seems to have veered off into arguments, but to answer the original question, YES. I loved mine! And dearly wish I still had it now! Lovely design, just gorgeous. First computer I ever had with a hard drive. First computer I got into BBS's with... Just loved it and if I wasn't utterly broke I'd be trying to procure another right now! Emulators are great but give me real hardware any day!

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by grond

There never was an 040 at 50MHz. Also, those CPUs were ridiculously expensive. I think the real problem wasn't the high end but rather sticking to the 7MHz 68000 and 16 bits for seven years.

I think the real problem was the cost of more powerful CPUs (and associated harware) during that period. But this 'problem' turned out to be an asset for Amiga owners, because it meant they didn't have to buy a new machine every 2 years.

Many of my friends had A2000s with accelerator cards, and some had A500s with expansion units. But they could still switch them off for high compatibility when they wanted to play games. In comparision, PCs of the day were a nightmare to get games running on - you never knew whether your machine would be compatible or not, even after playing with system settings etc.

Ironically, one of the major disappointments of the A1200 was a lack of compatibility with A500 titles. Would this have been less of a problem if Commodore had released an 020 based system earlier? I think not. I bought an A3000 in 1991 and just had to suck it up if a game wouldn't work (had no other Amiga to play games on because some prick stole my A1000). If I was an ardent gamer that would have been a big problem.

From the start the biggest problem with the Amiga was a lack of installed userbase, and fracturing it into machines with different capabilities would not make it any better. We see the problem with other 'enhanced' home computers in that era - eg. C128, CoCo 3, Apple II GS, Spectrum 128, Amstrad CPC Plus. Few titles were produced that made full use of them because the market was too small. Only PCs and Macs escaped it, mainly because their primary focus was businesses (who could afford to upgrade their hardware and software regularly).

Truth is, we were lucky that the Amiga's designers decided to go with the much more expensive 68000 rather than use a 6502 variant, which would probably have been outdated in 2-3 years. That 7 years of 68000 based Amigas gave developers a powerful and stable platform spec to work with, which wasn't found wanting until 386-SX PCs hit the market in the early 90's. So the A1200 was actually released at about the right time.

[AmigaHope]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

I think the real problem was the cost of more powerful CPUs (and associated harware) during that period. But this 'problem' turned out to be an asset for Amiga owners, because it meant they didn't have to buy a new machine every 2 years.

2 years is too short a cycle, 4-5 years is much more reasonable. 7 years is way too long.

In comparision, PCs of the day were a nightmare to get games running on - you never knew whether your machine would be compatible or not, even after playing with system settings etc.

That has a lot to do with the crappy all-over-the-place design of IBM upgrades/clones in the early/mid-80's. Once they got hardware compatibility ironed out (base VGA-then-VESA/Soundblaster/XMS) and once developers stopped using CPU loops for timing, stuff stayed more or less compatible. Then it mostly became a matter of "your machine must be this fast to run this" which held out fine until OS-friendly software became the norm.

Ironically, one of the major disappointments of the A1200 was a lack of compatibility with A500 titles. Would this have been less of a problem if Commodore had released an 020 based system earlier? I think not. I bought an A3000 in 1991 and just had to suck it up if a game wouldn't work (had no other Amiga to play games on because some prick stole my A1000). If I was an ardent gamer that would have been a big problem.

If they had released an *affordable* 020 machine earlier it would have helped a lot. The A2500 and A3000 didn't make much of a difference because they were only targeted at the professional market. The A500+ (with a 68020 and maybe a new name) and A3000 should have shipped together in 1989 or 1990. By then the 68020 was a budget CPU.

Compatibility was not really a huge problem on the 020. 80% of stuff worked fine with the caches turned off. (Can confirm as my main machine was an A500 w/68020). This would mostly be a mid-cycle refresh with some games having zero enhancements while others would, with only some requiring the new hardware.

From the start the biggest problem with the Amiga was a lack of installed userbase, and fracturing it into machines with different capabilities would not make it any better. We see the problem with other 'enhanced' home computers in that era - eg. C128, CoCo 3, Apple II GS, Spectrum 128, Amstrad CPC Plus. Few titles were produced that made full use of them because the market was too small.

These are bad comparisons as the only real upgrade there is the IIgs, and it suffered because it was competing with a platform from its own company (the Mac). The IIgs actually had some good releases right when it came out but the writing was on the wall by the time the Mac II came out.

The C128 was a shit upgrade because its best feature (the faster CPU) meant turning off most of the graphical capabilities. Otherwise it turned into a really expensive RAM expansion. The Spectrum 128 was also basically an expensive RAM expansion. In general these setups don't get good support unless there's also an easier/cheaper way to expand the previous model with that RAM.

The Amstrad Plus and CoCo 3 were modest upgrades but their markets were already dead.

A better comparison is the upgrade from MSX to MSX 2, which was hugely successful (albeit not including a CPU upgrade, it did work as a RAM expansion plus huge video upgrade)

Truth is, we were lucky that the Amiga's designers decided to go with the much more expensive 68000 rather than use a 6502 variant, which would probably have been outdated in 2-3 years. That 7 years of 68000 based Amigas gave developers a powerful and stable platform spec to work with, which wasn't found wanting until 386-SX PCs hit the market in the early 90's. So the A1200 was actually released at about the right time.

It was already found wanting as soon as the Megadrive had been released.

The A1200 was released at about the right time for a much better, faster system than the A1200 was.