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

[Dave Haynie]

In article <1991Mar16.214414.1802 at kessner.denver.co.us> david at kessner.denver.co.us (David D. Kessner) writes:

>I think C= could have spent more time developing UNIX on the Amiga-- perhapse
>designing a separate hardware platform for it.  The UNIX software is obviously
>"not quite ready"-- with the B&W X11R3 and all.  

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....

>While it is true that there isnt much space on the A3000 motherboard-- it also
>shows that the A3000(UX) was not designed as a UNIX machine from the start. 

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.  It is
also something different than a medium performance workstation, such as a 
HP 9000/3xx, or the new HP '040 machines.  The closest analog, from a system
design point of view, would be the 68030 based NeXT system, except for the
fact that the A3000 allows cache memory to be added as an option (a large cache
would put it in the HP 9000 performance league).

What constitutes a UNIX machine, on the other hand, is a matter of opinion.
Some people used to think a PDP-11 or a VAX 11/750 made a perfectly acceptable
UNIX machine.  Other people won't be happy without an HP Snake on their 
desktop or a Cray or something in the back room.  Since some kind of UNIX-like
OS runs on just about anything, you can't define "UNIX machine" as a single
class of computer.  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.

>I think that C='s next attempt at a UNIX machine ought be a 68040 

A 68040 system would certainly be a good thing...

>in a tower case-- with a stronger power supply, more drive bays, more slots, 
>several serial/parallel ports on the motherboard 

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.

>(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.

>and an external cache (even with the 040's internal cache).  That would be a 
>nice UNIX machine!

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.

>David Kessner - david at kessner.denver.co.us            | do {

-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: hazy     BIX: hazy
	"What works for me might work for you"	-Jimmy Buffett