Poll: Let the A2000 or A3000 go?

[save2600]

Is the A3000 up to date chip wise? (so there are no Zorro III issues, etc) and stuffed full of RAM? If yes, maybe I would keep the A3000.
Do you still have the A1000? That would make a difference in my final decision too.
I would most likely keep them all!

Oh yeah, ain't letting go of my (2) A1000's and all their expansions just yet  

I'd have to take another look inside the A3000, but I'm 99% sure it has Buster 11 and everything else is pretty much up to date. 8mb Zip RAM, 2mb Chip. No ZIII issues after the latest Deneb firmware update.

[NovaCoder]

The 2000 is ugly, ditch it and keep the 3000.

I only see the point of owning 2 classic Amiga's.   The 1200 for games and demos and a 3000 if you want to play with some RTG productivity stuff or play RTG games (eg Curse of Monkey Island).

[TheBilgeRat]

I said the 3000, just because if you are going to sell one, it will net you the most money.  You can't get what the 2000s are worth it seems these days.

[Acill]

Selling my A3000 was the worst decision I have ever made. I'd keep it. To date its the best made Amiga ever built. Its fast, has nearly the same expandability and is much nicer to look at. Mine was in a Mirage 3000 tower, had a mediator on it and a PPC/060 accelerator. I cringe at the money I threw away on that thing. It was sold for what I needed to get the Pegasos II when it came out for exactly what I need for all the parts for that thing. I then saw it torn down and sold for parts for a huge profit by the guy that told me it was his dream system and only sold to him because I thought he would take care of it like I would.

[bbond007]

Which would you be more likely to let go?

I had a really nice A2000 back in the day.

PP&H 040/28MHZ, 32mb 32bit ram, CV643D, GVP4008  SCSI with GURUROM (4MB RAM), Hydra Ethernet.

My ancient revision 4.0 A2000 was super stable and quite fast once the Kickstart and workbench was relocated to 32BIT ram. It was actually quite a bit faster than a stock 4000.

Everyone I knew with 3000 and 4000s were always needing some magical combination of busters and dmacs to get a stable system. At the time said I was very happy not dealing with that drama, but sure I would have traded my 2000 for a similarly configured 3000

Between the 2000 and 3000 I'd still pick the 3000, partially because I have never had one.

Other than that, the faster Z-III bus and built in flicker fixer would be the selling point.
 
I really don't see one significantly better than the other. The are both pretty ugly on the outside bu today's standards - not sleek and modern like the wedge computers

If you are not doing this for financially motivated reasons, Have you ever thought of unloading both and putting together a 4000?

Everyone comments on how worthless of an upgrade AGA was.

I remember reading about the specs on ECS when it came out and was truly underwhelmed. About the only good news there is that existing computers could be upgraded.  

AGA on the other hand is a significant improvement with 8bpp in any mode and 4X the speed.

Lots of cool stuff will use AGA but not a GFX board. Paint programs, etc. I love watching AGA demos on my 1200

[save2600]

I've had A4000's and A1200's up the yin-yang. Meh. Not impressed with AGA, surface mounted chips, weak power supplies, external peripherals and backwards/exploding/acid leaking caps. Again, not interested in the AGA machines, outside of a CD32 for games - 'maybe'. Wedgies are for spuds that still wear whitey tidies and the A4000 is the ugliest, most utilitarian looking Amiga C= ever pooped out.  :lol:

Joking aside, as mentioned in the marketplace, I may be interested in trading the 3000 for a nice CD32 collection if anyone would be so inclined.

[desantii]

I have a soft spot for my A2000... its been my most reliable Amiga

[bbond007]

Wedgies are for spuds that still wear whitey tidies and the A4000 is the ugliest, most utilitarian looking Amiga C= ever pooped out.

I do like the wedge computers. I would argue that aesthetically the 1200 and 600 look better than the 500.

On the other hand, the A1000 has a really nice uniquely designed case. I thought that the keyboard bay and smaller (phone style) keyboard jack were a nice touch. I my opinion, The the 2000, 3000 and finally the 4000 became progressively more ugly. At least the 2000 has purpose - expand ability.

If Commodore would have stayed in business the 5000 would have looked like a toilet equipped with a fold down keyboard door. the Commode-door Amiga!

And if you don't like unreliable flaky crap with backwards capacitors, stay away from NTSC CD32s.

[drwho]

Personally, I don't even think there is a contest here. The 2000 should stay. The 3000 is a nice machine, but, it was always the orphan with very little hardware support. On the other hand, everything worth while ever made, was made for the 2000.

Not sure about other models, but, my 030/25 3000 was a dog compared to an GVP 030/25 A2000 that I currently use. Also, the onboard SCSI isn't really that great either. All of this taken into consideration, plus the pain of zip rams and lack of real estate inside the case, and the A3000 is a nice looking machine, with not much going for it.

I will admit, the 15 pin VGA out is nice, but, with the availability of scan doublers from places like AmigaKit which fully support the A2000, that's really not a selling point.

The good news is, you are correct that you can fetch a kingly sum for the 3000 because for some reason people slobber over these machines and are willing to pay big bucks for them.

If it were a 3000T, that would be different.

I also should mention that I am an A2000 nut, and have owned many of them over the years. So, I am a bit biased. ;-)

[mechy]

wow,you couldn't be more wrong.an orphan? every zorro2/3 card that works in a 4000 works in the 3000,short of a few accelerators that just dont clear drive bays.A2000 zorro2 cards will work in it(but who wants these slow cards).The same floppy in the 2000 will fit the 3000,just remove the bezel..except many 3000's came with HD floppies which was a plus.. the 3000 is a full 32bit with zorro3. its faster than the 2000 in every way. the 3000 030/25 is not slower than a A2000 030/25.
The on board scsi works just fine-short of some which had term power diodes soldered in backwards. i've used mine with everything from cd changers,burners,ZIP,syquest and about every kind of hard drive imaginable  not to mention the scsi cd card readers i sell. i'll give you the zip ram,but thats why there was the amifast zip to simm boards,so you could use  simms. Better yet a real accelerator with 64/128 fast ram and even faster scsi.Stick a gfx card in that 2k and it will crawl on zorro2 especially in any 24bit res.if all you do is play games,it doesn't matter.
The case is cramped though,its not the best design.

So basically 90% of the stuff you said was typical misinformation,the 3000 outclasses the 2000 on ram access,zorro3 speed,fast accelerator support and can use any card the 2000 can,short of A2K accelerators,which are not needed.  Your right,you are biased,you certainly ignore the facts as far as i can tell.Are you doomy's brother?:lol:

Btw,most people who run their 3000 without a battery cant put the scsi in synchronous mode,which is good for a nice speed boost because the battery keeps the scsi settings NVram from being lost.

Mech

Personally, I don't even think there is a contest here. The 2000 should stay. The 3000 is a nice machine, but, it was always the orphan with very little hardware support. On the other hand, everything worth while ever made, was made for the 2000.

Not sure about other models, but, my 030/25 3000 was a dog compared to an GVP 030/25 A2000 that I currently use. Also, the onboard SCSI isn't really that great either. All of this taken into consideration, plus the pain of zip rams and lack of real estate inside the case, and the A3000 is a nice looking machine, with not much going for it.

I will admit, the 15 pin VGA out is nice, but, with the availability of scan doublers from places like AmigaKit which fully support the A2000, that's really not a selling point.

The good news is, you are correct that you can fetch a kingly sum for the 3000 because for some reason people slobber over these machines and are willing to pay big bucks for them.

If it were a 3000T, that would be different.

I also should mention that I am an A2000 nut, and have owned many of them over the years. So, I am a bit biased. ;-)

[matthey]

Btw,most people who run their 3000 without a battery cant put the scsi in synchronous mode,which is good for a nice speed boost because the battery keeps the scsi settings NVram from being lost.

The 3000 SCSI is very good for 50 pin SCSI. I get 4.5 MB/s with synchronous and newer revision SCSI chip which is as good as it gets without "fast" 50 pin SCSI. It is low CPU usage and fast booting. It's better than a 2091 with upgraded SCSI chip in a 2000 with 030.

[Drummerboy]

For any strange reason the A3000 never call my attention, :angry: alway i saw the A3000 as any hybrid model, in middle A2000 and A4000,  but you know if you need most  money as possible,  The better Amiga will give to you more money maybe  the A3000.
But if you want some of money and keep any Amiga with regular perfomance, then the A3000 will be any good option starting becouse are 030 machine. Other good point for the A3000 its the VGA option, then, you can use with any conventional monitor.  
Now, if your A2000 have extra hardware, like accelerator, memory, scandoubler, or any other thing, keep the A2000 and put away the A3000.

Keep update which are the final decision-

[mechy]

I had a really nice A2000 back in the day.



My ancient revision 4.0 A2000 was super stable and quite fast once the Kickstart and workbench was relocated to 32BIT ram. It was actually quite a bit faster than a stock 4000.

Comparing a accelerated machine to a stock machine,i should hope it was. of course you still ignore the expansion A2000 zorro bus which was quite slower.maybe a stock A4000 compared to a stock 2000 makes more sense. i wonder what wins? :roflmao:

Everyone I knew with 3000 and 4000s were always needing some magical combination of busters and dmacs to get a stable system. At the time said I was very happy not dealing with that drama, but sure I would have traded my 2000 for a similarly configured 3000

More Misinformation being spread. the A3000 is quite stable with the lesser dmac 2 and ramsey4. Buster 11 was the more important upgrade especially from buster rev 7 or lower the old boards came with,it enabled fully working zorro3.
The A4000 didnt have a dmac/ramsey trouble. Maybe you shouldnt listen to this so called everyone person.Most 4000's came with buster 9 or 11.

Between the 2000 and 3000 I'd still pick the 3000, partially because I have never had one.

Other than that, the faster Z-III bus and built in flicker fixer would be the selling point.
 
I really don't see one significantly better than the other. The are both pretty ugly on the outside bu today's standards - not sleek and modern like the wedge computers

If you are not doing this for financially motivated reasons, Have you ever thought of unloading both and putting together a 4000?

Everyone comments on how worthless of an upgrade AGA was.

I remember reading about the specs on ECS when it came out and was truly underwhelmed. About the only good news there is that existing computers could be upgraded.  

AGA on the other hand is a significant improvement with 8bpp in any mode and 4X the speed.

Lots of cool stuff will use AGA but not a GFX board. Paint programs, etc. I love watching AGA demos on my 1200

Now the above you said is good information.AGA is usefull if you like aga games. and 256 colors was better than 16.AGA is no slower than ECS.

to get back on track and not hijack the thread,keep the 3000 if you want to keep the best machine,and sell the 2000. Sell the 3000 if you need the most money and keep the 2000


Mech

[mechy]

To me, the A3000 takes up more space and there's more wires by the time you add an external floppy and CD drive. One of the reasons I won't deal with a wedge system Amiga anymore. Not an issue though if I kept the A3000, 'cause I'd have Deneb to handle what I'd be doing on CD-ROM  

you can add a second floppy inside the 3k you know ;)pull one out of the 2k and remove the front drive bezel.
no getting around the cdrom :cry:
The deneb is nice.i wish i had been able to afford 1 or 2 more before they disappeared.

Mech

[AndyLandy]

I had this exact dilemma a few months ago. I sold the A2000 and kept the A3000.

As I see it, the only advantages the A2000 has are an internal 5.25" drive bay and better support for bridgeboards or RTCs.

The A2000 has lots more slots, but only 5 Zorro ones. One more than the A3000, but you've probably used the extra one for a SCSI card anyway!

With some jiggery-pokery, you can swap in an ECS Denise and 2MB ChipRAM on an A2000 and have full ECS support, but the A3000 comes with this as standard.

Just my 2¢ on the matter.

[gertsy]

I voted A2000. Only because they are easier to replace. But it really depends on what you still use your amiga for. A3000 is a better machine than the A2000 if you dont care about internal expandability.  especialy with USB.