Amiga 3000UX, X, OpenLook, Motif, Color, A2410, Etc. (somewhat long)

[David Kessner]

In article <19986 at cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh at cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:
>Well, hey, they've been working on it since '87 or so.  I don't think they
>possibly could have spent more time on it.  Better a B&W X that's solid than a
>flakey color X or some-such.  This is, at the very least, a solid, complete
>UNIX.  Bells and whistles later....

How much would have color X delayed the A3000UX?  Five or six months would
be my guess-- but I've never ported UNIX or X...

>The A3000 was designed from the ground up as a high performance multitasking 
>personal computer.  That is something different than a high performance single
>tasking computer, like your typical '386/'486 system, or most Macs.

Please elaborate.  My 386 UNIX box does quite well being a "High performance
single tasking computer".  Actually the typical 386/486 has two things agenst
it:  Graphic speed (which can always be solved by a $600 34010 board), and
Microsoft.  I/O speeds are not really a problem since only very high-end
disk drives get more than 2meg/sec of the 8mhz I/O bus, and since I run mine
at 12mhz there is no shortage of bandwidth.  We can solve the Microsoft 
problem by not using MS-DOS or OS/2...

>What constitutes a UNIX machine, on the other hand, is a matter of opinion.

Yes.  IMHO, if the Amiga had been designed as a UNIX machine from the start
they would have taken out much of the custom chips since sound and much of the
blitter is of no use under UNIX.  They would have added a SIMPLE video display,
perhapse text only, or a one-bitplane X choosing to rely on the 34010 board
for most of the X Windows.  A larger case would be used, with more drive slots
for more hard drives and internal tape backups.  A larger power supply 
would also be added for the extra drives.  A cache would be a nice addition, as
would more serial ports-- but these are optional.  

I realize, of course, that is C= ever did this _FOR_IT'S_FIRST_UNIX_BOX_ that
it'd go over about as well as the PS/1 did.  C= needs a larger UNIX market 
share before it can afford to put up the capital to do this type of thing.

>The A3000 will run UNIX as efficiently as the best personal
>computers around, overall (UNIX performance is subject to more than the
>Dhrystone benchmark as a measure), and can certainly be upgraded to workstation
>performance levels.

The Dhrystone benchmark works bes when comparing CPU's of the same family with
the same compiler.  Ie, comparing the Apollo, HP, NCR, and NeXT 030 based 
machines with eachother.  It tends to show up little differences among them.
Comparing the 030 with the 386 might be seen as a little skwed, and it is.  But
when the A3000UX comes in at HALF the speed of the 386 then it raises more than
an eyebrow-- and shows that it should be looked into further (ie, it isnt
conclusive).  If soneone wants to mail me the Specmarks benchmark I'd be 
happy to run it...

The A3000UX can be upgraded to "workstation performance levels", but then 
puts it into "workstation prices".  Once your in that range, then the
question is, "Why dont we just buy a workstation?"

>You want something else, fine.  But at present, desktop UNIX machines are
>way popular.  If you want a floor standing tower machine, no problem.  But you
>have to realize that the desktop version is far more popular, costs less, and
>generally gets priority over the tower version.  I don't see any problem with
>both, as long as Commodore want 'em both.

Keeping the general UNIX theology:  Make It An Option!

All that you'd really need is a redesigned case and maybe a power supply.
I'm sure some third party has thought of this...

>>(with a REAL UART), 
>
>So what would ya be wantin'?  You got a real UART.  You're sayin' you want a
>faster UART, that's a valid request.  "Real UART" ain't.

Sorry.  I was in that C-64 mode for a sec there.  You remember, where the CPU
was practically resonsible for shifting in the bits in from the user port.

I should say a faster UART, perhapse with a FIFO.  Like the 16550...

>Nice AmigaOS machine too.  I figure Commodore has to get into the $4000 
>computer business before it can tackel the $6000 computer business, and so on
>up the scale.  Success in one is a good indication that they'll let us do the
>next level.  There's no lack of desire here, belive me.

I dont want to sound negative here-- although I KNOW that it's how I am 
comming across as.  While I like the idea of C= being on the cutting
edge, and UNIX is a natural progression, I think that the inital release
of Amiga UNIX lacked the sparkle to launch it into the market.  

Having used UNIX machines for some time (anyone want to buy a used PDP-11?)
I have cone to expect more-- and the A3000UX did not fill my expectations.
Not that it is a bad machine, but it is not what I would expect from a UNIX
machine.

I see Amiga UNIX as an option for 030 based Amigas (be it the 3000, or another
with an 030 accelerator).  I dont see it making a dent in the current
workstation market.  With that in mind, C= might have been smarter to not
bother with the UX, but sell UNIX for the Amiga on tape or CD-ROM.  But then
again-- I'm no marketing GURU...

>Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
>   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: hazy     BIX: hazy

-- 
David Kessner - david at kessner.denver.co.us            | do {
1135 Fairfax, Denver CO  80220  (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) |    . . .
If you cant flame MS-DOS, who can you flame?          |    } while( jones);