Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Falcon 030 vs. A1200 vs. Performa 400  (Read 9823 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bloodline

  • Master Sock Abuser
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 12114
    • Show all replies
    • http://www.troubled-mind.com
Re: Falcon 030 vs. A1200 vs. Performa 400
« on: March 23, 2008, 01:31:29 PM »
Quote

Amithony wrote:
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Classic-Atari-1040-ST-and-genuine-Atari-Monitor_W0QQitemZ230234003151QQihZ013QQcategoryZ1484QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Theres an atari ST for sale on ebay for $120 with monitor. (68000)


 :-o  I still find ST's in skips...

Offline bloodline

  • Master Sock Abuser
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 12114
    • Show all replies
    • http://www.troubled-mind.com
Re: Falcon 030 vs. A1200 vs. Performa 400
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2008, 02:50:03 PM »
Quote

Crom00 wrote:
Quote

spihunter wrote:
I have a B&W 68030 Mac running system 7.01. My god is it slow!
Its like swimming in molasses.
faster! :lol:



I bought an Amiga 1000 for $150 and did all my Mac assignments uising Pagestream.


$150... that's a bit of a bargain!

Offline bloodline

  • Master Sock Abuser
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 12114
    • Show all replies
    • http://www.troubled-mind.com
Re: Falcon 030 vs. A1200 vs. Performa 400
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2008, 03:05:45 PM »
Quote

Crom00 wrote:
Quote

$150... that's a bit of a bargain!


 Having AGA introduced with the A3000 during 1990 would have made a difference.


If AGA had been introduced in an across the board update to the Amiga Line in 1989... The Amiga might still be with us today... The Amiga chipset was old by the time the A500 came out...

Offline bloodline

  • Master Sock Abuser
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 12114
    • Show all replies
    • http://www.troubled-mind.com
Re: Falcon 030 vs. A1200 vs. Performa 400
« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2008, 01:43:18 PM »
Quote

tokyoracer wrote:
To sum up really, if Amiga put AGA in the 3000 then the A4000 would almost be totally pointless. Though the only reason to make the 4000 would be for the 5.25 bay.


If you listen to the engineers, what was finally released as the A4000 was basically a cut down version of the original A3000... i.e. missing key features like the DSP etc... Dave Haynie has the original spec document on his website...

Offline bloodline

  • Master Sock Abuser
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 12114
    • Show all replies
    • http://www.troubled-mind.com
Re: Falcon 030 vs. A1200 vs. Performa 400
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2008, 02:01:16 PM »
Quote

Kronos wrote:
A cut-down version of the A3000+, AA wasn't finished (maybe not even started) in 1990 ....


http://www.thule.no/haynie/systems/amiga3k/docs/wishlist.txt


I'm pretty sure I read Dave taking about Pandora for the A3k... I guess it was the A3K+ he was taking about... :-/

-Edit-

Yeah, Looks like it was the A3K+

http://www.thule.no/haynie/research/a3000p/docs/a3000p.pdf

But that was speced less than  year after the A3K, so I assume the Pandora work was near complete by 1990... From the spec, it was only really the LISA chip that required much work... ALICE was based directly on the 2mb Agnus, and Paula was unchanged...

Offline bloodline

  • Master Sock Abuser
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 12114
    • Show all replies
    • http://www.troubled-mind.com
Re: Falcon 030 vs. A1200 vs. Performa 400
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2008, 09:46:00 AM »
Quote

persia wrote:
What is the point of arguing what was state of the art a decade and a half ago?


The Amiga is history! It's our history! It would be nice to think how different the shape of the compuibg landscape would have been if the bean counters had let their hair down...