A3400 and a mysterious label...

[odin]

I'm getting two void.gifs of 1 by 1 pixel.  :-?

[rkauer]

odin wrote:
I'm getting two voif.gifs of 1 by 1 pixel.  :-?

I can't see it too. :-?  :-?  :-?

[murple]

Not insinuating anything, just pointing out that the 00 doesnt seem quite in line with the rest of the label, and that the image's info tags say it was made in Photoshop. Its possible that its real and that Commodore produced a label thats not perfectly aligned, and that Photoshop was just used to crop the photo. Or there's other possibilities. I was just making an observation and asking about it.

[mingle]

Hmm, I've never heard much about the 3400, but from your photos it looks infinitely better than the ugly old A4000!

I remember when the A4000 first came out, how disappointed I was that it looked like a very cheap and nasty (and UGLY!) PC.

Why did they put the floppy drive there? :-)

The A3400 on the other hand is a very smart and distinctive looking system... If only...

I ended up getting an A1200...

Cheers,

Mike.

[starf81]

murple wrote:
Its possible that its real and that Commodore produced a label thats not perfectly aligned, and that Photoshop was just used to crop the photo.

... and it is exactly what happens.
I've used my Epson scanner to acquire the label and after I've cropped and resized the picture with Photoshop CS3.
Obviously it is 100% genuine!

You have to ask to Commodore designers why numbers are not aligned  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Alex

[starf81]

mingle wrote:
Hmm, I've never heard much about the 3400, but from your photos it looks infinitely better than the ugly old A4000!

I remember when the A4000 first came out, how disappointed I was that it looked like a very cheap and nasty (and UGLY!) PC.

Why did they put the floppy drive there? :-)

The A3400 on the other hand is a very smart and distinctive looking system... If only...

I agree!
The A3400 looks a full of personality computer, like Amiga computers used to be!
I don't like the A4000 and this is the reason why I still use the A3000 as my main system even if it lacks of AGA chipset.

I don't mind to find today one of the A3400 prototypes...  :-D

Alex

[Markus_Bieler]

(I took this from a thread at A1K.org, I hope they don't mind)

[gdanko]

Aside from collectibility they weren't so usable.

http://www.amigau.com/aig/a3200.html

[gdanko]

Dang double post!

[starf81]

gdanko wrote:
Aside from collectibility they weren't so usable.

http://www.amigau.com/aig/a3200.html

Very interesting!
So, if A3400 computers were not 100% working, they had to be in a very primordial development state. This should means that very few machines were built.

I'd really like to know how my friend got the label that now I own!!!

gdanko, just a question about your A3500: does it works like a "final" Amiga or even that has some hardware bugs?

It seems that some people still can't see the scan I've added in the discussion.
I've added that image to the amiga.org gallery, too. So, if you need, you'll can try also  THIS LINK.

Alex

[Matt_H]

A 3400 is basically an early layout 4000. There's nothing different or special about it apart from its rarity and the front bezel - which can't even accomodate a CD drive.

When Amazing Computing first reviewed the 4000, it was a black 3400 they used to show the internal features.

The metallic label on the back of my 4000 I even suspect says 3400 on it - the "4000" identifier is a mere sticker on top of it.

[Kronos]

starf81 wrote:


gdanko, just a question about your A3500: does it works like a "final" Amiga or even that has some hardware bugs?

The A3500 is just an (early) A3000T with a different badge.

[gdanko]

My case is slightly different than that of a stock 3000T.