NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/misc-part1/8271

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 7.0 KB

Path: sdd.hp.com!inn
From: Jeff Grimmett <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: New Press Release!
Date: 15 Mar 1996 21:14:29 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
Message-ID: <4icmjm$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4i1r5t$[e-mail]> <4i2786$[e-mail]> <4i4nrn$[e-mail]> <4i87jj$[e-mail]> <4i9pmg$[e-mail]> <4ic0gf$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdv330.sdd.hp.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.2N (Windows; I; 16bit)

[e-mail] (Jason Compton) wrote:

>: .. and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon.  It's guesswork,
>: then, which is fine, just be sure to say so next time.
>
>This argument has become silly.  I think it's painfully clear that the
>020 and its accessories have been long forgotten by Motorola.  However,
>if you demand signed documentation from Motorola executives on this
>point, I'm sorry, it's not worth the time to get it.

If you consider verification of your sources to be trivial, or "silly"
then that's indeed unfortunate.

>: >Without marketing, this ultra-low-end does not exist.  If AT is
>: >unwilling to try to recreate this market, it will be a waste of time.
>
>: How exactly is this relevant?  If they recreate the market, but have
>: nothing to sell to it, they're S.O.L.
>
>Because they have done nothing to recreate it, other than tossing out
>this prototype idea!  If it's planned for launch in 6 months, it's time
>to gear up the PR machine.  And that's not happening.

Looks like things are happening, to me.  Maybe it doesn't meet your
expectations, but then I get the feeling that nothing short of a
worldwide media blitz WOULD satisfy you that they're raising thier
visibility

>: Read my lips: "You want high end, you pay high-end prices."  So the cost
>: of an accelerator board adds to the cost of the machine.  GEE, thanks for
>: telling me that, I had thought they were FREE!

>Yes, it adds to the cost of the machine, at a rate far greater than the
>price/performance ratio in the rest of the industry.

Again with the rest of the industry. FINE, Jason.  It's become abundantly
clear that the only thing you consider viable is to match the peeced,
component for component.  Escom already does that, they call them
"clones" and they sell quite a few.  Shall we begin with the dismantling
of ATG, now?  I get dibs on Kittel's chair...

>: Say it, Jason.  Tell me that you think that the peecee is the machine to
>: beat.  Then tell me why you've stuck around with your Amiga for so long.
>: This should be interesting.

>In the computer industry?  You're damn right the PC is the machine to
>beat.  That is the default purchasing choice of any potential computer
>buyer.  They must be convinced that a non-PC purchase is right for them.
>They must have a good reason, and after you tell them that an Amiga is
>several times slower than the low end PC, you may as well stop talking.

Then back to the third part of my question: if you're so completely
infatuated with the peecee, and consider THAT to be the way to go, why
are you still even around?  It's obvious to me that you don't consider
the Amiga architecture to be marketable, that there are no advantages to
using one, and that the only way to beat a peecee is to BE one.  With
that in mind, why?

>: Perhaps this never occurred to you, but the Amiga hasn't played the
>: peecee game for a VERY long time, it's NOT a peecee, it's designed
>: differently.  The PROBLEM is that no one seems to see this.  It's a
>: common lament of the Amiga owner that if it were only more apparent the
>: actual ADVANTAGES of the machine, a lot more people would use it than
>: currently do.  CBM never managed to market it.  No one, including
>: (apparently) several Amiga owners, seems to know about the differences.

>It's too late for Commodore to market it, but unfortunately that was the
>last chance to get the Amiga, as we know it, into homes and businesses by
>the skillions.  Besides, using off-the-shelf parts in development is a
>perfect way to use the (largely unfortunate) market conditions to the
>advantage of the Amiga.

What you're asking for is completely unrealistic considering the amount
of time that ATG has had the Amiga in-house.  Considering also that they
seem to be considering a more off-shelf method for FUTURE design, it's
not totally out of line for LATER, but that's not where we're at now.
You seem to be expecting the impossible for nothing, and that's not gonna
happen.

>: >030/25 (with MMU and FPU, I might add.)  That was high-end.  Taking a
>: >"computer generation" at a VERY conservative 2 years, you mean to tell me
>: >that in 3 generations the Amiga will have a low end with processing power
>: >improved by less than a factor of TWO from the high end of over half a
>: >decade ago?  Sorry, but you'll win no new friends doing that.

>: So, I am to then conclude that you think R&D "just happens" and that
>: computers "evolve" if they exist long enough?  Point out to me, please,
>: where in that two-year timeline there was actually anyone to do any R&D
>: ON the Amiga hardware.

>: Your "three generations" are nonexistant.  The new Amiga prototype is a
>: modification of AGA, nothing more.  The _next_ generation is being worked
>: on.  It will not happen overnight.

>You've missed the point entirely!

Oh, no, I'm completely confident in my reading skills and your writing
skills, and I'm sure you meant exactly what you wrote.  You want to
compare a platform that was largely neglected for 3 years with one that
was ambitiously developed for the same amount of time.  Statistically
speaking, that's a complete and utter fallacy.  If you CHOOSE to ignore
what was happening during that time, that's your perogative, but I
shan't.  If you want to apply CBM's lack of activity to the development
efforts of ATG and draw conclusions from that, you're wrong to do so, and
deserve to be called on it.

>progressed right along.  Why restrict the current generation to 1992
>standards?

Because it's just now started development, perhaps?  As I posted in
another article, I consider that they've come THIS far in as little time
that they've had to be remarkable.  Obviously, you don't -- you must have
expected a PowerPC, 64-bit system with PCI bus using Diamond Stealth
video cards for display after the excruciatingly long period of what, 6,
9 months of actual development?

>Yes, it would be a Herculean task to get that sort of functionality
>nearly overnight.  But I thought we all knew that.  I thought that's what
>the Amiga Tech employees and contract developers knew when they signed on
>to work on it.

If you really believe that, why are you making noises like you expected
otherwise?

--
-------------------------------------------
Jeff Grimmett        BBS: [phone]
DLG Development         [e-mail]
-------------------------------------------