Any chance of an Amiga subforum?

[ijor]

Regardless of the operational frequency of anything in the machine, On any bus, the two devices on both ends do have to be in SOME FORM of synchronization. Otherwise, theres no way to know when states are active for the transfer of data.. Now whether youve got devices in between that act as buffers, dedicated bus signals that indicate state, or a number of other variables in design, the bottom lne is that the timing does have to "line up" with a margin of +/- 50ns (and thats an very LOOSE figure for the purposes of illustration only) on any given transfer, regardless of the different clock rates.

 

If you take "some form of synchronization" in the broader sense, then it is of course needed. If you mean that all devices in a bus must be driven by the same clock, let alone with a low clock skew, then no, that is wrong.

 

Consider how the CPU interfaces to an EPROM, or to an (async) SRAM chip works. There is no clock pin on those chips at all. Furthermore, there is no clock signal whatsoever, or synchrous gates on those chips at all. That's precisely why those chips are called "asynchronous". Those chips operate with asyncrhonous latches and combinational gates. E.g, you select the EPROM, drive the address bus, and it will drive the data bus in return. No clock is involved (at the EPROM chip side) and the chip doesn't care about any "line-up" of the timing. The only timing that the EPROM cares about, is that it needs a minimum (but no maximum) time from being selected and the address bus being stable, to drive the data bus.

 

At the time it was quite common for chips to have an async bus interface, because it was much cheaper. You'll be surprised about how many chips had an async bus interface (and sometimes a whole async design). Even the A8 chipset, in the strict sense, has an asynchronous bus interface. Most of the ST off-the self chipset (FDC, sound chip, etc) is async, and as a matter of fact they are driven by different crystals in some ST models.

 

the "timing" variations due to hardware design quality are so negligable, that they would not have the slightest effect on the "MIDI end"...

 

It is not about hardware design quality at all! Actually, the clocking design on the ST almost stinks (it is not because it usess several crystals, too long to elaborate here). It is about different characteristics of the design (which aren't necessarily better or worse) that in this particular case might be more convenient or not.

 

E.g., a 68000, or a 6502 CPU has a predictable cycle accurate timing, but some newer processors do not. Does this mean that a 6502 or 68000 is beter, or has higher quality than a 68050 (or a modern micro)? Of course not, but it might be and advantadge in some cases.

[atarian1]

Just like I know quite a few people using STs for Desktop Video. I'm sure there were a few Amiga MIDI musicians too, but they were far and few in between.

there was quite a huge market/user base for it.. Check out the MIDI section on Aminet.

Again, not if you compare how many ST (and Mac and even PC) users out there. If the Amiga MIDI market was so "huge", then where is the software? All I see are trackers, and a few MIDI software packages here and there. Where are all the advertisements and reviews in Keyboard, Electronic Musician, Musician, Mix, <insert your favorite music magazine>, etc.? Where are all the musician interviews/profiles saying "I use an Amiga!"? I already know your rebuttal..." all those magazines are biased against the Amiga!" Bull. They covered everything.

 

A market survey by Keyboard magazine in the late 80s showed the Amiga had a low, single digit market share, while the Mac and ST were neck-to-neck.

 

The ST always had the rock solid timing that the Amiga, Mac, PCs never had at the time. That and the built-in MIDI ports is what made it THE music machine at the time.

 

Thats a total farce... And having never heard that claim before, I find it UTTERLY HILARIOUS.. Midi iis a 31.25Kbps ring-topography SERIAL transmission standard. Timing for things like disk interfaces, arbitration of various high speed data buses, DRAM control circuits, etc. are literally THOUSANDS of times more timing-critical than MIDI and all of these machines employ these features quite well. The "MIDI timing" would be 100% software dependant on any personal computer. You sir have allowed ATARI ST worshipers to absolutely "blow smoke up your ass" if you actually believe that the ATARI hardware was more precisely "timed" than any other computer platform. I can in fact SHOW you on a logic analyzer that this is not the case, but even if it was, it wouldnt matter. Digital circuits in microcomputers are timed in terms of nanoseconds (billionths of a second), and the smallest relevant timing interval in MIDI is in terms of miliseconds (thousandths of seconds) and amounts to an eternity in terms of machine cycles for even the slowest processors.

 

Like I said.. I didnt use the software.. So its quite possible that CUBASE(or whatever you used) shits all over BARS&PIPES on the Amiga.. I dont know.. But I do know there was a TON of people using AMIGAs and MACS for MIDI, and alot of the ones I knew had tried STs, or even OWNED STs and preferred the other platform. And some of these people make their living in the music industry to this day..

 

No, YOU need to stop blowing smoke up your ass. This has been mentioned IN PRINT numerous times in music magazines like the ones I listed above. I'm not going into the techie talk which doesn't matter if it doesn't show in the hardware/software use. Musicians/producers/etc have stated numerous times that the MIDI timing was better on the ST. If the Amiga has such perfect timing, it sure didn't show it. By the 90s, the Amiga should have been mature enough for software programmers to work around the timing issues. Then the Amiga would have outsold the ST in the music market, lots of music retailers would be selling the Amiga, and magazines would be full of ads and glowing reviews of how the Amiga is better at music sequencing than the ST. DIDN'T HAPPEN

 

Speaking of Computer Chronicles, I remember the MIDI episode that showed the Mimetics sequencer on the Amiga. What I thought was hilarious was when the guy moved a window, EVERYTHING grinded to a halt. How can anyone record music when a simple move of a window grinds your system to a halt? Maybe some people could tolerate it, but most people found it horrible as the market/sales reflect this. Once again, this has been mentioned and verified so many times already, but you can't seem to get a grip with reality that the Amiga is NOT a perfect machine.

 

Even as late as 1995, some of the biggest names in music were still using STs. Big time music producer Tim Simenon (Seal, Neneh Cherry, Annie Lennox, Depeche Mode, Bomb the Bass, etc) explained how he refused to use Macs (even after purchasing a large amount of Macs for his pro studio) because of timing issues on the Mac. Fatboy Slim used an ST (even featured it on the Moulin Rouge DVD) until 2005? (something like that). These (and MANY others - Fleetwood Mac, etc) are still going strong today.

 

Try reading some of today's music magazines like Future Music (or was it Sound on Sound?). They have a "Looking Back" section of popular musicians/producers etc back in the days (including the late 80s-early 90s) explaining how they made music back then. Whenever a computer was mentioned, almost always it was the Atari ST. Macs and PCs were mentioned once in a while (mostly 90s people), but I NEVER read anyone using an Amiga yet. So where are these "TON of people" using Amigas? Again, it sure didn't show it in the music market.

 

You are WAY exaggerating your claims of this "huge" Amiga music market and people abandoning Atari STs in favor of Amigas and Mac. If this were true, again, the market, magazines, even the trade shows like NAMM (largest US music retailers show) and Frankfurt MusicMesse (largest music show in the world), didn't show it. These shows were dominated by the Atari ST.

 

I know..."they are all are biased against the Amiga!" :roll:

[MEtalGuy66]

Regardless of the operational frequency of anything in the machine, On any bus, the two devices on both ends do have to be in SOME FORM of synchronization. Otherwise, theres no way to know when states are active for the transfer of data.. Now whether youve got devices in between that act as buffers, dedicated bus signals that indicate state, or a number of other variables in design, the bottom lne is that the timing does have to "line up" with a margin of +/- 50ns (and thats an very LOOSE figure for the purposes of illustration only) on any given transfer, regardless of the different clock rates.

 

If you take "some form of synchronization" in the broader sense, then it is of course needed. If you mean that all devices in a bus must be driven by the same clock, let alone with a low clock skew, then no, that is wrong.

 

Consider how the CPU interfaces to an EPROM, or to an (async) SRAM chip works. There is no clock pin on those chips at all. Furthermore, there is no clock signal whatsoever, or synchrous gates on those chips at all. That's precisely why those chips are called "asynchronous". Those chips operate with asyncrhonous latches and combinational gates. E.g, you select the EPROM, drive the address bus, and it will drive the data bus in return. No clock is involved (at the EPROM chip side) and the chip doesn't care about any "line-up" of the timing. The only timing that the EPROM cares about, is that it needs a minimum (but no maximum) time from being selected and the address bus being stable, to drive the data bus.

 

At the time it was quite common for chips to have an async bus interface, because it was much cheaper. You'll be surprised about how many chips had an async bus interface (and sometimes a whole async design). Even the A8 chipset, in the strict sense, has an asynchronous bus interface. Most of the ST off-the self chipset (FDC, sound chip, etc) is async, and as a matter of fact they are driven by different crystals in some ST models.

 

the "timing" variations due to hardware design quality are so negligable, that they would not have the slightest effect on the "MIDI end"...

 

It is not about hardware design quality at all! Actually, the clocking design on the ST almost stinks (it is not because it usess several crystals, too long to elaborate here). It is about different characteristics of the design (which aren't necessarily better or worse) that in this particular case might be more convenient or not.

 

E.g., a 68000, or a 6502 CPU has a predictable cycle accurate timing, but some newer processors do not. Does this mean that a 6502 or 68000 is beter, or has higher quality than a 68050 (or a modern micro)? Of course not, but it might be and advantadge in some cases.

 

 

Wow.. What a freakin revolution... Dude, I dont need your trivial explanations of devices whose nature of operation Im already well aware of. What Im trying to illustrate to the ST fools here is that in situations where timing characteristics of the hardware design are concerned, the widest possible range of "variation" is so small that it does not translate into anything on a SLOW interface (such as MIDI) being driven by it.. They are the ones who claimed that the ST was capable by design of more accurate MIDI timing than the Mac or the AMIGA.. My cotention was that if there is a difference in MIDI timing accuracy, it has ALOT MORE to do with how well the software controls the timing.

[Albert]

Guys, enough about MIDI, okay?

 

I will say this about the ST MIDI ports--I had a hell of a lot of fun playing MIDI Maze in college!

 

..Al

[MEtalGuy66]

Just like I know quite a few people using STs for Desktop Video. I'm sure there were a few Amiga MIDI musicians too, but they were far and few in between.

there was quite a huge market/user base for it.. Check out the MIDI section on Aminet.

Again, not if you compare how many ST (and Mac and even PC) users out there. If the Amiga MIDI market was so "huge", then where is the software? All I see are trackers, and a few MIDI software packages here and there. Where are all the advertisements and reviews in Keyboard, Electronic Musician, Musician, Mix, <insert your favorite music magazine>, etc.? Where are all the musician interviews/profiles saying "I use an Amiga!"? I already know your rebuttal..." all those magazines are biased against the Amiga!" Bull. They covered everything.

 

A market survey by Keyboard magazine in the late 80s showed the Amiga had a low, single digit market share, while the Mac and ST were neck-to-neck.

 

The ST always had the rock solid timing that the Amiga, Mac, PCs never had at the time. That and the built-in MIDI ports is what made it THE music machine at the time.

 

Thats a total farce... And having never heard that claim before, I find it UTTERLY HILARIOUS.. Midi iis a 31.25Kbps ring-topography SERIAL transmission standard. Timing for things like disk interfaces, arbitration of various high speed data buses, DRAM control circuits, etc. are literally THOUSANDS of times more timing-critical than MIDI and all of these machines employ these features quite well. The "MIDI timing" would be 100% software dependant on any personal computer. You sir have allowed ATARI ST worshipers to absolutely "blow smoke up your ass" if you actually believe that the ATARI hardware was more precisely "timed" than any other computer platform. I can in fact SHOW you on a logic analyzer that this is not the case, but even if it was, it wouldnt matter. Digital circuits in microcomputers are timed in terms of nanoseconds (billionths of a second), and the smallest relevant timing interval in MIDI is in terms of miliseconds (thousandths of seconds) and amounts to an eternity in terms of machine cycles for even the slowest processors.

 

Like I said.. I didnt use the software.. So its quite possible that CUBASE(or whatever you used) shits all over BARS&PIPES on the Amiga.. I dont know.. But I do know there was a TON of people using AMIGAs and MACS for MIDI, and alot of the ones I knew had tried STs, or even OWNED STs and preferred the other platform. And some of these people make their living in the music industry to this day..

 

No, YOU need to stop blowing smoke up your ass. This has been mentioned IN PRINT numerous times in music magazines like the ones I listed above. I'm not going into the techie talk which doesn't matter if it doesn't show in the hardware/software use. Musicians/producers/etc have stated numerous times that the MIDI timing was better on the ST. If the Amiga has such perfect timing, it sure didn't show it. By the 90s, the Amiga should have been mature enough for software programmers to work around the timing issues. Then the Amiga would have outsold the ST in the music market, lots of music retailers would be selling the Amiga, and magazines would be full of ads and glowing reviews of how the Amiga is better at music sequencing than the ST. DIDN'T HAPPEN

 

Speaking of Computer Chronicles, I remember the MIDI episode that showed the Mimetics sequencer on the Amiga. What I thought was hilarious was when the guy moved a window, EVERYTHING grinded to a halt. How can anyone record music when a simple move of a window grinds your system to a halt? Maybe some people could tolerate it, but most people found it horrible as the market/sales reflect this. Once again, this has been mentioned and verified so many times already, but you can't seem to get a grip with reality that the Amiga is NOT a perfect machine.

 

Even as late as 1995, some of the biggest names in music were still using STs. Big time music producer Tim Simenon (Seal, Neneh Cherry, Annie Lennox, Depeche Mode, Bomb the Bass, etc) explained how he refused to use Macs (even after purchasing a large amount of Macs for his pro studio) because of timing issues on the Mac. Fatboy Slim used an ST (even featured it on the Moulin Rouge DVD) until 2005? (something like that). These (and MANY others - Fleetwood Mac, etc) are still going strong today.

 

Try reading some of today's music magazines like Future Music (or was it Sound on Sound?). They have a "Looking Back" section of popular musicians/producers etc back in the days (including the late 80s-early 90s) explaining how they made music back then. Whenever a computer was mentioned, almost always it was the Atari ST. Macs and PCs were mentioned once in a while (mostly 90s people), but I NEVER read anyone using an Amiga yet. So where are these "TON of people" using Amigas? Again, it sure didn't show it in the music market.

 

You are WAY exaggerating your claims of this "huge" Amiga music market and people abandoning Atari STs in favor of Amigas and Mac. If this were true, again, the market, magazines, even the trade shows like NAMM (largest US music retailers show) and Frankfurt MusicMesse (largest music show in the world), didn't show it. These shows were dominated by the Atari ST.

 

I know..."they are all are biased against the Amiga!" :roll:

Dude, im not exxagerataing ANYTHING.. You have had your head stuck in "atariland" too long, and ignored the rest of the industry.. You have no concept of what the market would or wouldnt have done in any case, and you have absolutely no basis for saying what my experiences have been.. You also make rediculous claims, and when shot down, you fall back on the fact that the atari was cheap. Noone here has debated that it was cheap. And noone has debated that there are personal preferences to specific platforms either.. Like I said. Theres tons of musicians out there who hated the ST and preferred some other platform... Are they all biased against the ST? Possibly... But its because they prefer something else.. My point is ONLY that the ST hardware did in no way shape or form make it a "THE" superior electronic music platform. Thats rediculous. There were tons of companies out there making all ranges of midi equipment for all popular computer platforms.. And I even went as far to say that MAYBE the software WAS superior... I dont have experience in this area, so I will not speculate...

[+remowilliams]

Guys, enough about MIDI, okay?

 

I will say this about the ST MIDI ports--I had a hell of a lot of fun playing MIDI Maze in college!

And don't forget Cold Revenge.

[Albert]

Guys, enough about MIDI, okay?

 

I will say this about the ST MIDI ports--I had a hell of a lot of fun playing MIDI Maze in college!

And don't forget Cold Revenge.

Never heard of that..

 

..Al

[+remowilliams]

Never heard of that..

Ah man, you missed quite a bit of MIDI networked Star Trek(ish) fun...

 

 

Cold_Revenge.txt

[ijor]

Wow.. What a freakin revolution... Dude, I dont need your trivial explanations of devices whose nature of operation Im already well aware of. What Im trying to illustrate to the ST fools here is that in situations where timing characteristics of the hardware design are concerned, the widest possible range of "variation" is so small that it does not translate into anything on a SLOW interface (such as MIDI) being driven by it..

 

I really don't know how to answer that.

 

The only thing I would say is the following. Being an ST user, I might be a fool or I might be not. I will only ask you to please respect us (the ST fools), and please stop calling us ST fools (even when we might be too fool). If you can't, then perhaps you might better restrain from posting.

Edited December 16, 2008 by ijor

[Bryan]

I'm not taking any sides here, but aren't MIDI ports based on a UART, and doesn't that often remove much of the timing restraints? You stuff the buffer ahead of time and it all goes out back-to-back, perfectly clocked. Does it really matter how perfectly the port is attended?

[Rybags]

Not in the old days. I think it was the late 80's/early 90's before even PCs started using them for RS-232. And, the original IDE was in PIO mode which meant the CPU had to supervise every byte transfer.

[doctorclu]

Never heard of that..

Ah man, you missed quite a bit of MIDI networked Star Trek(ish) fun...

 

 

Cold_Revenge.txt

 

Cold Revenge, as in... "Revenge is a dish best served cold..." ?

 

Anyway this game looked like it was a blast. What language was it in? Where can I find it?

[doctorclu]

Your best bet would be to get a hold of the 222/444/888 compilation CDs and forget about floppies. Also, while a PC mini/DIN connector is needed, you need an Amiga keyboard not a PC one. The CD32 makes a kickass little Amiga with an SX2 interface+mem+HD, but they are a bit scarce/pricey.

 

I'm thinking of going this route. What is the price range to make a fully functional CD32 as a computer system?

 

(Bummed because it iced here tonight, which was the night of the Amiga meeting..)

[ijor]

I'm not taking any sides here, but aren't MIDI ports based on a UART, and doesn't that often remove much of the timing restraints? You stuff the buffer ahead of time and it all goes out back-to-back, perfectly clocked. Does it really matter how perfectly the port is attended?

 

Yes, MIDI is an UART interface. And yes, as long as you send a stream of MIDI bytes back-to-back, then the timing in terms of "MIDI cycles" would be perfect.

 

Problems arise when you want to sync this timing with everything else. This includes real-time, CPU time, plus additional timing embedded or related to MIDI, such as SMTPE, midi time-stamp or midi time code. Another problem is interrupt latency, which is critical is the UART doesn't have a FIFO buffer. Add to this that because of the slow speed of the systems back then, direct hard disk access (bypassing the OS) was desirable.

 

Btw, I'm not taking sides either. I never claimed the ST timing is (significantly) better, or that the ST was a better MIDI machine. Once again, I don't care about that at all. I was only giving a technical description of what was behind that (supposed) assertion about the rock solid ST timing.

[atarian63]

Just like I know quite a few people using STs for Desktop Video. I'm sure there were a few Amiga MIDI musicians too, but they were far and few in between.

there was quite a huge market/user base for it.. Check out the MIDI section on Aminet.

Again, not if you compare how many ST (and Mac and even PC) users out there. If the Amiga MIDI market was so "huge", then where is the software? All I see are trackers, and a few MIDI software packages here and there. Where are all the advertisements and reviews in Keyboard, Electronic Musician, Musician, Mix, <insert your favorite music magazine>, etc.? Where are all the musician interviews/profiles saying "I use an Amiga!"? I already know your rebuttal..." all those magazines are biased against the Amiga!" Bull. They covered everything.

 

A market survey by Keyboard magazine in the late 80s showed the Amiga had a low, single digit market share, while the Mac and ST were neck-to-neck.

 

The ST always had the rock solid timing that the Amiga, Mac, PCs never had at the time. That and the built-in MIDI ports is what made it THE music machine at the time.

 

Thats a total farce... And having never heard that claim before, I find it UTTERLY HILARIOUS.. Midi iis a 31.25Kbps ring-topography SERIAL transmission standard. Timing for things like disk interfaces, arbitration of various high speed data buses, DRAM control circuits, etc. are literally THOUSANDS of times more timing-critical than MIDI and all of these machines employ these features quite well. The "MIDI timing" would be 100% software dependant on any personal computer. You sir have allowed ATARI ST worshipers to absolutely "blow smoke up your ass" if you actually believe that the ATARI hardware was more precisely "timed" than any other computer platform. I can in fact SHOW you on a logic analyzer that this is not the case, but even if it was, it wouldnt matter. Digital circuits in microcomputers are timed in terms of nanoseconds (billionths of a second), and the smallest relevant timing interval in MIDI is in terms of miliseconds (thousandths of seconds) and amounts to an eternity in terms of machine cycles for even the slowest processors.

 

Like I said.. I didnt use the software.. So its quite possible that CUBASE(or whatever you used) shits all over BARS&PIPES on the Amiga.. I dont know.. But I do know there was a TON of people using AMIGAs and MACS for MIDI, and alot of the ones I knew had tried STs, or even OWNED STs and preferred the other platform. And some of these people make their living in the music industry to this day..

 

No, YOU need to stop blowing smoke up your ass. This has been mentioned IN PRINT numerous times in music magazines like the ones I listed above. I'm not going into the techie talk which doesn't matter if it doesn't show in the hardware/software use. Musicians/producers/etc have stated numerous times that the MIDI timing was better on the ST. If the Amiga has such perfect timing, it sure didn't show it. By the 90s, the Amiga should have been mature enough for software programmers to work around the timing issues. Then the Amiga would have outsold the ST in the music market, lots of music retailers would be selling the Amiga, and magazines would be full of ads and glowing reviews of how the Amiga is better at music sequencing than the ST. DIDN'T HAPPEN

 

Speaking of Computer Chronicles, I remember the MIDI episode that showed the Mimetics sequencer on the Amiga. What I thought was hilarious was when the guy moved a window, EVERYTHING grinded to a halt. How can anyone record music when a simple move of a window grinds your system to a halt? Maybe some people could tolerate it, but most people found it horrible as the market/sales reflect this. Once again, this has been mentioned and verified so many times already, but you can't seem to get a grip with reality that the Amiga is NOT a perfect machine.

 

Even as late as 1995, some of the biggest names in music were still using STs. Big time music producer Tim Simenon (Seal, Neneh Cherry, Annie Lennox, Depeche Mode, Bomb the Bass, etc) explained how he refused to use Macs (even after purchasing a large amount of Macs for his pro studio) because of timing issues on the Mac. Fatboy Slim used an ST (even featured it on the Moulin Rouge DVD) until 2005? (something like that). These (and MANY others - Fleetwood Mac, etc) are still going strong today.

 

Try reading some of today's music magazines like Future Music (or was it Sound on Sound?). They have a "Looking Back" section of popular musicians/producers etc back in the days (including the late 80s-early 90s) explaining how they made music back then. Whenever a computer was mentioned, almost always it was the Atari ST. Macs and PCs were mentioned once in a while (mostly 90s people), but I NEVER read anyone using an Amiga yet. So where are these "TON of people" using Amigas? Again, it sure didn't show it in the music market.

 

You are WAY exaggerating your claims of this "huge" Amiga music market and people abandoning Atari STs in favor of Amigas and Mac. If this were true, again, the market, magazines, even the trade shows like NAMM (largest US music retailers show) and Frankfurt MusicMesse (largest music show in the world), didn't show it. These shows were dominated by the Atari ST.

 

I know..."they are all are biased against the Amiga!" :roll:

You are correct and then some! This was NOT an area where amiga was well accepted. But the ST nearly ruled.

[atarian63]

Your best bet would be to get a hold of the 222/444/888 compilation CDs and forget about floppies. Also, while a PC mini/DIN connector is needed, you need an Amiga keyboard not a PC one. The CD32 makes a kickass little Amiga with an SX2 interface+mem+HD, but they are a bit scarce/pricey.

 

I'm thinking of going this route. What is the price range to make a fully functional CD32 as a computer system?

 

(Bummed because it iced here tonight, which was the night of the Amiga meeting..)

Hi!

Well in my case, I spent about $50 for a used CD32, maybe $39 for the floppy drive, looks like a Lyra pc kb interface will be about $35. and extra joystick was $20. Some would say "buy a 600 or 1200 or 500. My thinking was I dont need the computer aspect at all and space is somewhat of an issue. The built in CD was a big plus. I just need to find a pirate CD or make them myself, there are some threads about making cd32 cd's and including games. Thats what I am really after. Plus I prefer real hardware not emulation.

If you do this and find anything, please let me know. I have many projects going and this is only one so it is taking awhile.

[Rybags]

Got a CD32 here too.

 

I've done a bit of research - from memory, the 500, 1000 and 2000 keyboards are compatible but not most others.

PC keyboard no good as the matrix is different.

 

I've had mine for a while but done very little in the way of using it or getting CDs done or making adaptors, other than one for powering it from a PC supply.

[+remowilliams]

Anyway this game looked like it was a blast. What language was it in? Where can I find it?

It was a blast with a bunch of friends. A bit on the buggy side, but lots of fun. And here you go.

 

Automation_Menu_Disk_500__19xx__Automation__Disk_12_of_15__Part_K_.zip

 

I'm thinking of going this route. What is the price range to make a fully functional CD32 as a computer system?

Depends on your requirements, but don't expect it to be cheap. Softhut for instance has an SX1/CD 32 combo listed for $225. A few years back I ordered my SX32 MK2 from Eyetech for around 110GBP. Then you need a 2.5" IDE drive & memory for the board. Very, very neat but somewhat rare and pricey.

 

@Rybags - The A2000 keyboard is definitely compatible, that's the one I am using.

[atarian63]

Got a CD32 here too.

 

I've done a bit of research - from memory, the 500, 1000 and 2000 keyboards are compatible but not most others.

PC keyboard no good as the matrix is different.

 

I've had mine for a while but done very little in the way of using it or getting CDs done or making adaptors, other than one for powering it from a PC supply.

Hi Rybags,

On ebay UK I have found on occasion the Lyra PC kb adaper, it supposedly makes the connection adjustment,though you need to mark certain pc keys for Amiga usage. My thought was I could get a very small pc kb to help with keep the package small.

[atarian63]

Anyway this game looked like it was a blast. What language was it in? Where can I find it?

It was a blast with a bunch of friends. A bit on the buggy side, but lots of fun. And here you go.

 

Automation_Menu_Disk_500__19xx__Automation__Disk_12_of_15__Part_K_.zip

 

I'm thinking of going this route. What is the price range to make a fully functional CD32 as a computer system?

Depends on your requirements, but don't expect it to be cheap. Softhut for instance has an SX1/CD 32 combo listed for $225. A few years back I ordered my SX32 MK2 from Eyetech for around 110GBP. Then you need a 2.5" IDE drive & memory for the board. Very, very neat but somewhat rare and pricey.

 

@Rybags - The A2000 keyboard is definitely compatible, that's the one I am using.

Here is a cd32 with an SX1 on ebay uk

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Amiga-CD32-GWO-Parav...1QQcmdZViewItem

 

Here is the A1200 conversion like the one I bought for sale now

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Floppy-Drive-for-Ami...1QQcmdZViewItem

[atarian63]

Anyway this game looked like it was a blast. What language was it in? Where can I find it?

It was a blast with a bunch of friends. A bit on the buggy side, but lots of fun. And here you go.

 

Automation_Menu_Disk_500__19xx__Automation__Disk_12_of_15__Part_K_.zip

 

I'm thinking of going this route. What is the price range to make a fully functional CD32 as a computer system?

Depends on your requirements, but don't expect it to be cheap. Softhut for instance has an SX1/CD 32 combo listed for $225. A few years back I ordered my SX32 MK2 from Eyetech for around 110GBP. Then you need a 2.5" IDE drive & memory for the board. Very, very neat but somewhat rare and pricey.

 

@Rybags - The A2000 keyboard is definitely compatible, that's the one I am using.

Thank you for the D/L, I'll try it this weekend!

[+remowilliams]

Here is a cd32 with an SX1 on ebay uk

Yeah, I never liked those external units. That's one reason why I went with the SX32MK2. Very unobtrusive and many more features.

 

Here is the A1200 conversion like the one I bought for sale now

Ah, now I see. I didn't realize that thing was actually hunched over the CD32, I though it was just sitting on top in the picture.

[atarian63]

Here is a cd32 with an SX1 on ebay uk

Yeah, I never liked those external units. That's one reason why I went with the SX32MK2. Very unobtrusive and many more features.

 

Here is the A1200 conversion like the one I bought for sale now

Ah, now I see. I didn't realize that thing was actually hunched over the CD32, I though it was just sitting on top in the picture.

Yeah, it was all I could find at the time, it plugs into the bus in the back.

[atariksi]

Your best bet would be to get a hold of the 222/444/888 compilation CDs and forget about floppies. Also, while a PC mini/DIN connector is needed, you need an Amiga keyboard not a PC one. The CD32 makes a kickass little Amiga with an SX2 interface+mem+HD, but they are a bit scarce/pricey.

 

I'm thinking of going this route. What is the price range to make a fully functional CD32 as a computer system?

 

(Bummed because it iced here tonight, which was the night of the Amiga meeting..)

Hi!

Well in my case, I spent about $50 for a used CD32, maybe $39 for the floppy drive, looks like a Lyra pc kb interface will be about $35. and extra joystick was $20. Some would say "buy a 600 or 1200 or 500. My thinking was I dont need the computer aspect at all and space is somewhat of an issue. The built in CD was a big plus. I just need to find a pirate CD or make them myself, there are some threads about making cd32 cd's and including games. Thats what I am really after. Plus I prefer real hardware not emulation.

If you do this and find anything, please let me know. I have many projects going and this is only one so it is taking awhile.

 

If you have an older PC laptop w/parallel port, you can also use the cable at my website to control keyboard on A1000, A2000, A500, A4000/CD32 as well Atari 1040ST.

[atariksi]

Got a CD32 here too.

 

I've done a bit of research - from memory, the 500, 1000 and 2000 keyboards are compatible but not most others.

PC keyboard no good as the matrix is different.

 

I've had mine for a while but done very little in the way of using it or getting CDs done or making adaptors, other than one for powering it from a PC supply.

 

A500 KB has a separate RESET signal whereas A1000/A2000 use the CLK line for reset as well as for clock.