HiroProX
-
Posts
136 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Store
Posts posted by HiroProX
-
-
Yes, then there's the PS3 as well (well the non slim models). Amiga OS hasn't been ported to any other architectures though right -just PPC with OS4? (or can you use OS4 on Apple's PPC machines?)
AROS, an AmigaOS 3.x clone, runs on x86-32 and x86-64, and there's unofficial ports to Sparc64, Alpha, MIPS, and ARM.
-
I'd still say ARM makes sense for Atari for the same reason it made sense for Acorn, aspects of its design were inspired by the 6502, a CPU Acorn and Atari have experience with.
-
James D. Said that the changes my timeline works will have unpredictable side effects. Here's one of them:
It is late a August Friday evening in 1984 in a timeline that had diverged from ours in 1972. By shearest coincidence, five then currently unemployed legends of the computer business, Jay Miner, Steve Wozniak, Phill Estridge, Gordon Campbell, and Dado Banato* are at the same bar at the same night on El Camino Real in Santa Clara. They begin talking chips, interfaces, assembly instruction sets, memory, and other such stuff. The more they talk through the evening, the more things each guy makes sense to the others (though that may be the beer, too). They decide to found a new computer company: Pentium Computers. The purpose of this project is to build the best possible computer using each guy's knowledge, experience and industry contacts to design and build the ultimate combination of computational power and price.
1: What would they name their new company?
2: Assuming Relatively minimal changes to computational technology compared to OTL, what sort of CPUs and chipsets would they use? What sort (and how much) of memory would they use? Whould they use hardware sprites, a blitter, or just bit bang the graphics? What sort of sound chip would they use?
3: What sort of OS would it run? What GUI, if any?
4: How much would this baby go for?
Inquiring minds want to know!
*Jay Miner quit Atari in this timeline after disagreements with my *Mary Sue over the direction to take with 16 and 32 bit computers and consoles. In particular, he thought that while RISC design procesors could get more done per clock cycle and run at higher clock speeds for the transistor count, they also bloated input code (and therefore program size) to an unacceptable degree for regular business and consumer computer use.
Steve Wozniak didn't crash his plane in this timelinw, and he quit Apple after becoming disgusted at the degree of Steve Jobs' willingness to cheat Apple rank and file, squeeze the suppliers, and cheat consumers. The last straw was the way he had sabotaged the Apple IV Project by forcing Woz's team to use rediculously decolocked processors and hideously slow RAM, while actually pricing it within $500 of Jobs' team's Apple Nickajack which aside from CPU MIPS, was imferior to the Apple IV in every way.
Phill Estridge was fired by IBM in this timeline after speaking out to management about the Surprise Gotcha clause in the IBM-Microsoft deal that IBM Sneaked in at the last second before signing the deal, the one that stated that IBM owned all x86 builds of MSDOS. He then went to Microsoft, explained everything, and together helped create the MSX1 standard, And specifically defining the limits of the memory map of the MSX Pro part of the standard as up to 12 MB system RAM and up to 4MB Video RAM.
Gordon Campbell and Dado Benato didn't found Chips and Technologies in this timeline: instead, they helped Harry Fox launch Spectravideo and went on to help engineer the MSX Engine Chipset for Nishii Kazuhiko with Texas Instruments, Zilog, Yamaha, and Hitachi.
Okay, first of all, a RISC computer circa 1984 is going to be a very expensive machine. Even in 1986 OTL the majority of the cost of the Atari 1040ST was its 1Mb of RAM. Also in the 1988-1991 timeframe you have the US protectionist tariffs against Japanese DRAM chips which caused an industrywide DRAM shortage. By 1984, the only options for RISC CPUs would be the Berkley RISC-1 or RISC-2 (which evolved into the Sun SPARC V7 in 1986), the Stanford MIPS design (first commercialized in the MIPS R2000 in 1985, followed by the R3000 in 1988, and R4000 in 1991), The Acorn RISC Machine ARM1 in 1985, followed by ARM2 in 1986, the AMD Am290x0 family in 1988, the Apollo PRISM in 1988 (later folded into PA-RISC when HP aquired Apollo), and the Intel i860 in 1989 followed by the i960 in 1991. So any delivery of CPUs to Atari for a RISC machine would not be at any remotely feasible price until 1987.
In any case, this would delay next-gen RISC machines from Atari or Apple by several years and both companies would be making a major leap in system complexity as practically all of the early RISC CPUs were 32-bit. So in the interim, Apple may have had to release the Apple IV as if anything a stopgap until RISC CPUs were available. Likewise, Atari would have had to either go with Jay Miner's idea or keep extending the 8-Bits to try to at least maintain the existing customer base. As for the PC clones, your timeline doesn't even slow them down. Digital Research's continued development of CP/M-86 in OTL led to Gem DOS which then begat DR-DOS, a PC-DOS compatible OS which would have fueled the wave of PC clones in the absence of MS-DOS. Another side-effect would have probably been acceptance of GEM as the de facto standard GUI in PC clones, eventually causing a repeat of how MS-DOS in clones pretty much sabotaged OS/2. In the end, IBM would have PC-DOS, but would have to buy GEM from DR. About the only way to change this outcome may have been if IBM chose the MC68000 for the IBM PC 5150. This would have cut off Intel's PC cash cow, but given the dynamics at play at IBM, there was no compelling reason to select the 68000.
Oddly, a possible outcome might be Apple and Atari both opting for WDC85816 CPUs for interim machines, and from the 65xx series, the ARM2 would be the most logical upgrade. So the realities of CPU availability may force Jobs to have to devote needed resources to the Apple IV (Apple IIgs analog) simply because of the limited availability of R2000 CPUs, and instead may cause a revision in the interim to use the R3000 instead. Atari would probably build a 65816 machine using Jay Miner's input incorporating many Amiga-like technologies, but with backwards compatibility to the 8-bit line. The follow-up ARM2 based Atari would probably use an as identical as possible sound and video chipset and have an optional "65816 cart" for backwards compatibility. Odd possibility, Atari licensing MS Windows as the new OS. Windows' driver system would allow Atari more latitude to improve the A/V hardware chipset without breaking software compatibility, except for the usual games written with gross violations of the programmer's guidelines.
Another possibility is a way that Jack Tramiel's paranoia about an invasion of Japanese home computers can play out. Faced with a stronger MSX standard making his fear more realistic, the possibility of Commodore and Atari agreeing to a standard configuration for a next generation computer becomes a remote possibility. With MOS producing licensed ARM2 CPUs, and using a hardware independent OS allowing each company to come out with a machine characteristically their own, but software compatible. Eventually with a merging of R&D efforts, they create a standard RISC computer architecture that could be licensed and result in a competing standard against the PC and MSX. The main requirement to make that happen would be an Atari chief executive who was actually aware of the computer market, and was able to speak Jack Tramiel's language.
Apple is pretty much going to be stuck in the "Boutique Technology" niche they've always occupied, but with Jobs in the picture that can't be helped. About the only way to impact apple would be a scenario where Jobs leaves, but Woz stays. But that opens up a huge can of worms, as Woz was no businessman.
-
I'd check this out, but my work firewall blocks Fox News as a "Site showing political extremism". Have to check it out at home I guess
LMAO - but they say they are fair and balanced. I guess their definition of balanced means so far to the right that left doesn't exist.
Which would be the photonegative of MSNBC.
MSNBC is centrist. Only in America would they be considered leftist. They are after all owned by major corporations and operated for their interest. Try Democracy Now! for some real leftist media.
Seen it. In the US it's as fringe as my market anarchist politics.
-
I'd check this out, but my work firewall blocks Fox News as a "Site showing political extremism". Have to check it out at home I guess
LMAO - but they say they are fair and balanced. I guess their definition of balanced means so far to the right that left doesn't exist.
Which would be the photonegative of MSNBC.
Anyhow, awesome to see the old gear getting some press.
-
Erm.. you missed the point about raw CPU speed only. Try computing a huge complex spreadsheet, compiling a complex bit of code or just reorganising and reindexing a huge database in memory (to negate disk i/o speed differences) and you will clearly see the result. the simple fact is the CPU speed was better, even though nothing else was better on a PC. As a machine in use overall I have no doubt the smart money went on an Amiga 1000 in 1985/86 as ALL the industry technical experts for every non-PC specific/multiformat magazines concluded that never has the gap between the most advanced machine (A1000) and its rivals been so large both in technical terms overall and the price/performance equation.
And raw speed was something the 286 did not have against the 68000. The 286, like previous Intel CPUs required more clock cycles to execute an instruction than the 68000. In addition, the Atari ST and the Amiga had the advantage of flat memory model from Day One. 286 PCs had to make due with the various kluges such as LIM Extended Memory to access more than 640K of RAM. Also at the time, MS-DOS and the vast majority of its application software was written for the 8088/8086, so most apps couldn't use more than 640K, period. Extended Memory System performance was also an absolute dead dog performance-wise. In addition, the 286 had a very serious bug, in order to use Expanded Memory, it had to switch into Protected Mode, but the bug was that there was no stable way to switch it back into Real Mode. This is what made DOS compatibility such a nightmare under OS/2 1.x. When it came to raw CPU speed, memory access speed, and direct addressing range support in the OS, the PC would be drop-kicked by either the ST or Amiga. CPU-wise, PCs didn't catch up until the 386DX/SX, and they didn't have a widely used OS that could support a flat memory map until Win32. In addition, PCs suffered from an I/O bottleneck inflicted by the ISA bus that wasn't addressed until the advent of the VESA Local Bus and PCI bus. Sure, that fancy 486DX/33 talked to its mainboard at 33MHz with 32-bit data path, but every time it had to access disks or video it had to drop to 16-bits at 8Mhz.
So an 80s 286 PC was pretty hopeless in a direct competition against either the Atari ST or Amiga. The much vaunted "raw CPU power" of PCs wasn't a factor until the 486 came to market. But even then, PCs were still expensive for what you got. The same $4000+ that an IBM PC/AT cost in 1986 would build an insanely buffed ST or Amiga. For $4000 one could have an A1000 with 4+Mb RAM, HDD, and a 16MHz 68000 or 68020 accelerator. So for the same cost, an ST or Amiga would absolutely crush the PC/AT without mercy. Heck, after upgrading my A500 with a HDD, a 16MHz ICD AdSpeed accelerator, and 4Mb RAM, it still cost less than an IBM PS/2 Model 50, or Dell's comparable 12MHz 286 at that time and had more raw CPU power than either.
I know databases and spreadsheets, contrary to popular opinion, that's what some of us used our Amigas and STs for. My old A500 got a new job when I got my A3000/UX, it replaced the Apple IIc+ that was used to keep the cadet database for the Air Force Junior ROTC unit I was in during high school. Took the Deputy Data Processing Officer and I a week to do so, and the results impressed the PC-centric DP CO, beat his 286 PC based solution, and delivered the user friendly application our Aerospace Science Instructor had always wanted. i heard at my 10 year class reunion that the machine was finally retired in 2002 because the monitor died.
So I know what databases and spreadsheets require, and the Atari ST and Amiga had as much or more than a 286 PC. What they didn't have was Lotus 123 and dBase (though having used both on PCs, I don't consider that a loss, both programs were hideous). As has been said, Atari had an uphill battle because of its video gaming business, and Commodore was handicapped by a reputation for cheap machines won via the C64. But the truth is in the silicon and the software, both machines were in every way the IBM PC/AT's superior.
-
This is the first time online I've ever seen anyone [no, not you, the person you were replying to] argue for Intel over Motorola back in the days prior to the 486. Sure, x86 generally had much higher clock speeds but it was conventional wisdom - whether from Atari users, Mac users, or Amiga users - that the 680x0 series spanked the pants off x86, with or without math co-processors.
As for raw speed, I thought it was also conventional wisdom that both the ST and Amiga were faster than Macs, that all 3 were faster than PCs, and the ST in terms of raw speed was faster than the Amiga but didn't do graphics or sound as good. Of course, they [Amiga] had viruses and we didn't. They had multitasking and we didn't until MiNT.
Well, in a way Tramiel was responsible for the PC winning. He started a race to the bottom in price, and the machine that's built from nothing but off-the-shelf parts will always beat a design relying on custom silicon in a price war. The only reason the C64 succeeded was because Commodore owned MOS, so their costs for custom silicon were lower. But this came back to bite them in the backside when off-the-shelf PC parts managed to start reaching Amiga levels of performance, though that was more Irving Gould's fault since he practically strangled R&D in favor of tax shelters in the Bahamas. At Atari, Tramiel didn't have that luxury, and hence the high comparative cost of the Falcon 030 compared to 386SX/DX PCs or even the A1200.
Guess one could say Atari and Commodore died due to the same cause, idiotic corporate management.
-
But wouldn't 1MB of video ram have been REALLY expensive? What's the point of the designing the ultimate computer if no one can afford it? That's what almost happened to the Amiga!
Tempest
Not really. Many PC clones of the day were priced at $2000+ and were vastly underpowered even compared to an original Mac or 520ST. At its intro price the Amiga 1000 was vastly more powerful than an AT class PC and cost a good bit less.
No this is simply not true, in RAW CPU terms an AT spec PC, especially with 287 co-processor to complement the 286 CPU, @ even 8mhz was probably 3x faster (my exact MIPs ratings for all x86 vs 680x0 CPUs are in the ST area) and so if you actually wanted to do any business work or mathematical calculations etc you plumped for this setup.
As a multimedia machine and games machine or even just a plain simple cheap and dirty Fairlight sampler system type unit it was the ultimate machine, but in raw CPU speed it wasn't as there was simply too much of a speed difference. This is why to numbnutz at Commodores surprise businesses did not flock to buy an over priced medium/small business machine as they did with the original PET (which was a superior business machine on launch come to think of it).
Actually, my experience on 68000 vs. 80286 was much different> When I had an Amiga, my dad had a PC's Limited 8MHz 286. Both machines had (initially, I upgraded the Amiga in short order) 1Mb RAM and my Amiga frequently stomped the 286 (8MHz 286, 1Mb Ram, 40Mb HDD, EGA). And adding the 287 to the equation makes no sense, unless you add a 68881/2 to the 68000 machine. Back then, 287s were rather rare as little to no software made use of it. In addition, 286 machines ran MS-DOS, which made taking advantage of the additional address range or modes an excruciating headache from both the end user and programmer perspectives.
And, at the time of the 520ST and Amiga 1000's introductions, pricing was as follows...
Atari 520ST $799.95 (Mono), $999.95 (Color)
Amiga 1000 $1795
Macintosh 512K $2795
IBM PC/AT 256K, $4875 (And pretty bare-bones too)
-
But wouldn't 1MB of video ram have been REALLY expensive? What's the point of the designing the ultimate computer if no one can afford it? That's what almost happened to the Amiga!
Tempest
Not really. Many PC clones of the day were priced at $2000+ and were vastly underpowered even compared to an original Mac or 520ST. At its intro price the Amiga 1000 was vastly more powerful than an AT class PC and cost a good bit less.
-
Next run of them, I'm up for it.
I'll even put off one of my hobby projects (Home-made 65816 SBC) to do so.
-
Atari 800XL, a 1010, and 1020.
Mowed many, many, MANY lawns that following summer to get a 1050. And traded a friend some rare comic books for his 850 and 830, and bought my dad's Epson MX-80 from him.
-
It's weird that some people can't understand the value and uniqueness of the Atari 8-bit machines. My wife threw away a bunch of my stuff too while we were moving. Just grabbed a few boxes and put them in the garbage. Fortunately, it was mostly Atari ST stuff so I lucked out. But some Amiga external disk drives, memory expansions, etc. were tossed as well. My Happy Drive 1050 is all smiles as it was saved. I have rebuild the essence though.
This is grounds for DIVORCE! LOL Your wife must of not known you are a Retro Geek huh....
Seconded. When me and my Mrs. got together it was clear, love me, love my Ataris/Commodores/Apple2s/Amigas.
Turned out to not be an issue since she uses my 130XE more than I do to play Joust. Recently caved to her demands and put a MyIDE on it so she doesn't have to cartridge swap.
-
Planning to do a project like this?
(Attempt to install an 130XE board into a custom case made from XE and STFM parts)
Kind of, but with some differences.
-
Does anyone know the dimensions and basic layout information for the 1200XL's mainboard. I have a project I've been considering doing for the last couple of days, and that would be helpful.
Likewise if anyone has the same info for a 1040STf, that'd be helpful too.
-
You've got the names right.
Le Stick (Datasoft) and TAC-2 (Suncom Technologies).
The Irvine memory is better than I thought
Any users of the Le Stick?
I had one, used it with my 2600 first and then with my XL. It made playing Decathlon easy, just shake the stick.
-
Had one of those. It was in the stuff I got for christmas in IIRC 1983. 1200XL, 1010, 1020, 850, and the 830. The summer of 1984 I mowed lawns like a madman and got a 1050, 1030, and bought my dad's Epson MX-80 (w/Graf-Trax) from him.
-
My wish list...
Joust
Star Raiders
Caverns of Mars
Asteroids (Maybe even Blasteroids?)
-
Meh, made it work. Apparently the issue might be arc in SDX 4.42. I loaded the ATR with the archive under 4.22 and it unarc'd fine. Might look into that later.
-
Rybags: perhaps TGZ will do for you http://drac030.krap.pl/s2vbxe.tgz
(repacked it from ARC to TAR under emu, then gzipped under Total Commander).
CON.SYS is not extracting by any method under XP. Half the time it says that a so named file already exists. So far, I'm not having any luck in extracting this at all.
In addition, extraction of the ARC package fails on both wintel and A8 (SDX 4.42).
-
And now..... back on topic.
I dug out the genuine Apple IIgs Hardware Reference Manual, and the verdict is.....
The engineering team on the IIgs were masochists. The thing has a good bit of custom silicon in it, definitely more than a ST, though not as much as an Amiga. Apple IIe Enhanced compatibility is done by what amounted to an Apple IIe Enhanced on-a-chip (probably the same chip Apple later used for the IIe compatibility cards for the Mac LC). But like all machines with custom graphics hardware, there are several software driven modes, including one that will display all of the IIgs's 4096 colors on the screen.
-
Where could you get a 4MB machine in Fall 1987 for under $2500?
A2000 with a RAM upgrade. In 1987 A2000's had a MSRP of $1500, which leaves a hair under a grand for extra RAM.
The MegaST4 was a groundbreaking machine, but like the 1040ST, all Atari had going for them was a big stock RAM configuration, a lead that as DRAM prices dropped made stock RAM configurations less and less of an overriding concern.
-
I'm now convinced I need to get one of these.
-
By the time either Atari or Amiga moved past the 68000 , it was just too late, by then nobody cared that much and had mostly moved on or were happy with a 68000 gaming system.
My A500 had a MC68000 for about, 8 days. I hacked a MC68012 into it after that. But I didn't by it for games.
But then, I liked my multitasking comic-book OS. And I've owned Atari ST's, mostly thrift-store rescues after I upgraded from the A500 to an A3000UX, and frankly, TOS/GEM was a bit of a thin tea.
-
Have:
Atari 130XE x2
Commodore 128
Amiga A1200HD/030 x2
Atari STacy4
IBM PC 5150 w/EGA
Apple Macintosh SE/030
Had:
Atari 800XL
Atari 1200XL
Atari 400
Commodore 64
Commodore Plus 4
Kaypro 2
Kaypro 16
Apple IIgs
Apple IIc+
Atari 1040STFM
Commodore Amiga 500
Commodore Amiga 3000/UX
Commodore Amiga 2000
TRS-80 Model 4
Tandy Color Computer 3
IBM PS/2 Model 25
Northstar Horizon
Heathkit H8
Epson Geneva
Dell 316LT
IBM PC AT
TI 99-4A
TI Professional (See also, How I Learned to Hate the i8088 *EG*)
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
While I've got my 130XE Rev 4 Open
in Atari 8-Bit Computers
Posted
What are you using? I've had no problems with both of my 130XEs. I use a run of the mill solder-sucker and a butane powered soldering iron.