Wanted: Amiga 3000

[matt3k]

I'll throw my 2 cents at you as well...

Accelerated 2k to stock 3k, will not light your pants on fire by any means.
If you add video and acceleration to a 3k, buy a new set of pants.  The difference will burn them right off.  Z3 and the faster bus give huge performance gains over a similar built 2k.  I ran similar systems (3k with 40mhz 040 and retina z3 and 2k 040@40mhz and retina z2) side by side and the 2k was way slower.

The other item is a taste thing, many believe the 3k was the best built Amiga.  Certainly a 3000+ would have filled everyone's dreams of what the 3k should have been.   But if you think the 3k would be fun and can pick it up on the cheap.  It might be fun to play with, go for it.

The battery issue on a 3k isn't always an issue.  I replaced batteries on 3 different 3k's all with major leakage.  I cleaned the acid and mounted a new battery and they worked great.  So if they boot with a leaking battery I wouldn't run away from it.

[Darrin]

Unless you need Zorro3 for something, or if you don't have a decent video card and accelerator for your A2000, don't switch.  Just re-read and saw your A2000 specs and what you want from an A3000.  Don't switch!

Yep, my thoughts exactly.

My A3000 and A4000 are both 68040 machines, both ECS, both run Workbench 3.x.  The only difference is the Zorro slots and the room inside the cases.

I have a Cybervision 643D in my A2000 which gives me a Workbench way better than AGA could provide, I have an "Amber" SDFF (It uses the same Amber chip found in the A3000 - an Indivision would be even better), I have a Buddha IDE card installed allowing 4 IDE devices (currently it boots from a CF card reader and runs the DVD ROM drive) and I have a SCSI hard drive attached to the CPU card.

The only thing worth adding would be a Deneb (it is in my A4000).

[Darrin]

If you add video and acceleration to a 3k, buy a new set of pants.  The difference will burn them right off.  Z3 and the faster bus give huge performance gains over a similar built 2k.  I ran similar systems (3k with 40mhz 040 and retina z3 and 2k 040@40mhz and retina z2) side by side and the 2k was WAY WAY WAY slower.

To be fair, for typical usage, I couldn't tell the difference between the Cybervision fitted in my A2000 or A3000.  Likewise, unless you're passing huge files across the Zorro 3 bus using DMA then don't expect any "wow factor".

[commodorejohn]

Thank you all for the input, but I think I'll stick with my plan. I'm not under the illusion that it's a hugely more advanced machine than the 2000, but it has two things I really want: a built-in flicker-fixer, and a smaller-profile case. I like my 2000, but it's a beast, even by '80s desktop standards, and the fact that it needs its own separate monitor just adds to that. The 3000 isn't exactly tiny either, but in my setup I'd really rather just have a smaller machine, and then I can share a VGA monitor with my PC.

[matt3k]

To be fair, for typical usage, I couldn't tell the difference between the Cybervision fitted in my A2000 or A3000.  Likewise, unless you're passing huge files across the Zorro 3 bus using DMA then don't expect any "wow factor".

Hmmm.  It may have been the z3 retina being so much faster than the z2 one.  The usage was very noticeable in my tests, particularly in screen refresh and IO.  Your use with the same video card would be more accurate, than mine.  Thanks for the clarification...

[Darrin]

Thank you all for the input, but I think I'll stick with my plan. I'm not under the illusion that it's a hugely more advanced machine than the 2000, but it has two things I really want: a built-in flicker-fixer, and a smaller-profile case. I like my 2000, but it's a beast, even by '80s desktop standards, and the fact that it needs its own separate monitor just adds to that. The 3000 isn't exactly tiny either, but in my setup I'd really rather just have a smaller machine, and then I can share a VGA monitor with my PC.

Now if you said you wanted a smaller case in the first place then I'd never have posted.  

The A2000 is a fricking tank!  LOL

[Darrin]

Hmmm.  It may have been the z3 retina being so much faster than the z2 one.  The usage was very noticeable in my tests, particularly in screen refresh and IO.  Your use with the same video card would be more accurate, than mine.  Thanks for the clarification...

Mind you, you got to test them side-by-side you you would have seen the differences (speed) more easily.

[matt3k]

Mind you, you got to test them side-by-side you you would have seen the differences (speed) more easily.

I don't remember the stats but a friend mentioned that the Retina Z3 BLT was way faster than Retina Z2.  The IO would be attributed to the NCR II SCSI on the Warp Engine and only having memory on the WE.  The Z2 bus for SCSI vs the CPU Bus accounted for the speed.

Probably safe to say we both had valid points ..

[matt3k]

Thank you all for the input, but I think I'll stick with my plan. I'm not under the illusion that it's a hugely more advanced machine than the 2000, but it has two things I really want: a built-in flicker-fixer, and a smaller-profile case. I like my 2000, but it's a beast, even by '80s desktop standards, and the fact that it needs its own separate monitor just adds to that. The 3000 isn't exactly tiny either, but in my setup I'd really rather just have a smaller machine, and then I can share a VGA monitor with my PC.

Good luck John,

I hope you enjoy all the fun of playing with the 3k.  It has been my machine of choice for years.

If you can't locate a 3k let me know.  I may be able to find a stock one for you.  It is a smaller case, but it is VERY heavy.  Shipping might get expensive, might be worth local pickup.

[commodorejohn]

Well, I've actually got one lined up now, but thank you.

[Vlabguy1]

I know it has been written a thousand times already, but I must agree.  The amount of improvement between an A2000 and the A3000 was very disappointing for almost all Amiga buyers when the A3000 was first released.  I like the A3000, but it was clear that Commodore was failing miserably in developing the Amiga (as well as marketing it) when the A3000 was released and there had been almost no improvement in the Amiga custom chipset over the A500/A2000 and then an even bigger disappointment was in store for us when the A4000 was released with no flicker fixer, no SCSI controller, slow IDE and RAM access speed and AGA was behind VGA cards that were available at the same time.

Unless you need Zorro3 for something, or if you don't have a decent video card and accelerator for your A2000, don't switch.  Just re-read and saw your A2000 specs and what you want from an A3000.  Don't switch!

Well it depends on what you want to do.. Vlab Motion+Toccata+Retina Z3..um then the A3000 is a pretty good choice.  :-)..

yeah tis a shame what the big wigs did to Commodore.. mm where would it be today..

[T3000]

two things I really want: a built-in flicker-fixer, and a smaller-profile case. ---- and then I can share a VGA monitor with my PC.

I had tried having my A3000/PII and homebuilt Athlon on a single monitor via a switch box, however the monitor display became degraded to the point of unusable annoyance. That and a few to many electrical plugs in one wall socket. Could have been grounding issues.

I'd say, if ya want to share monitors betweeen the two systems, use UAE. It's not the same as original hardware, but saves quite a bit of "space".

[commodorejohn]

Nah, I'm a hardware guy all the way. Emulators are great and all, but I much prefer having the actual thing.

[brenry]

there's an amiga 4000 desktop that's had the battery replaced already at

http://cgi.ebay.com/Amiga-4000-System-/110666503819

(not mine), its listed at $120 atm with 1 bid