WTB: Amiga 2000 486 Bridgeboard

[Iggy]

At the speed that would run at, what would you do with it?

I know everyone has posted their opinions that the '486 has an advantage over the Amiga's 680XX processor, but I still can't imagine that running DOS/Windows based software on that at that speed would be preferable to native Amiga apps.

[Iggy]

I can sort of see what you're aimming for. I have one old K6-2 system I keep around because I can use it to run an emulator I have the requires Himem support. And, if I wanted to, I could run older software on it.

But considering the price you're likely to pay, a seperate PC would be so much cheaper. Actually, you said you had one, didn't you?

I think I just threw my last vesa video board away. The oldest thing I have is a Voddo3 2000 and that will do VESA modes so why put up with ISA or Vesa?

[Iggy]

why not mount a pico-itx board inside the A2000 lol =D

http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/11/04/via-artigo-pico-itx-builder-kit-a1000/

I know that was satire, but a micro PC might be a good solution for him. With a really small PC, the tiny Mac Mini and a decent KVM switch he'd be down to two sets of accessories and savea little space. Plus the PC could dual boot an older OS (or some free DOS solution) alongdside a more modern OS.

Then, of course you set up the Mac Mini to dual boot OSX and MorphOS. Then you've got five OS' (unless you want to throw Linux on to one of these as well).

Since you can't put a PPC Mac into the Amiga, you're going to have two sets of displays and input devices anyway. This setup would be more flexible and capable.

[Iggy]

Pentium - whatever it was called  :laughing:

A Pentium would be a 686. 586 processors were intermediate processors made by Cyrix, AMD, and other (often they fit in 486 sockets).

[Iggy]

Here's some more benchmarks for anyone interested!

These are:
A4000 (CSPPC) OS 4 dynamic
A4000 OS 4 interpretive
A4000 OS 3.9 dynamic
A4000 OS 3.9 interpretive
GoldenGate 486SLC25 (with FAST mode)

I didn't look at the others, but I'm confused by the last. It makes an XT look much better than an AT. I'm no big X86 fan, but there seems to be something wrong with these numbers.