»

[Matt_H]

Went to my local computer store today. They'd just opened up a new barebones section for custom user-built machines.

Off to the side were stacks of pre-built mini-ITX systems. Included motherboards w/ onboard graphics installed in cases. User was to provide drives and CPU. These systems were selling for $250.

Based on rumored prices thus far, I'm worried the A1Lite will have a very hard time making a dent in this market. If I remember, prices quoted thus far were in the $300+ range, without a case. If that figure includes a CPU, then I don't expect much trouble. Otherwise... I'm not too optimistic about massmarket success.

Thoughts?

[Panthro]

agreed it is a highly competative market, the good news is that it does include the CPU (as it is surface mounted in the A1-Lite)

I personally will get the fastest A1-XE i can aforrd :-D

[Madgun68]

Well, the $300 mark will be nice.. If they can meet it. I don't think there's been any official word on the price though.

As for the hobbyist market, these boards are probably going to be a tough sell. If someone isn't specifically interested in AOS, they'll probably purchase a cheaper X86 solution.

[Kronos]

@Panthro

No the CPU is not soldered directly onto the A1-lite.

But .....

Those 250$ do include (as I understand) RAM, and the case, while CPUs
(x86) and HDs are real cheap these days. Windows ma also come for free
(well I'm just honest here....), and running Linux would probraly be much
easier on such a sys.

VIA's mini-ITX-boards are really massproduced, and start well under
100$. Just checked, and found with a 1GHz C3-CPU for just 115 Euro,
includeing german vat.

I hardly see how Eyetech could compete with such prices, and how
a 300$ price-tag would allow more than a low-end G3, which wouldn't
be really stomping on the C3, while a G4 might raise the price to the
point where it would have to compete against a board with an Intel-CPU.
And yes a >2GHz Celeron is dirt-cheap, and should run relativly cool.

So, A1-lite will cost more in production (lower numbers), it will use
more expensive CPUs and it will have to carry licence-fees both for
the name and the OS.

Don't see how that could be sold in high-street shops to Joe-6pack.

[Karlos]

Realistically the amiga never has and probably never will compete with x86 systems hardware costs, making comparisons with mini-itx PC costs irrelevent.

Hands up all those amiga users who can honeslty say that the money theyve spent on their amigas (and pegasos even) couldnt have bought them a 'faster' PC?

Yet all we invested in those more expensive, 'slower' systems anyway. Its all about our free choice to do so, because at the end of the day we all know that the amiga is far greater than the sum of it's parts.

We've always done far more with less. In terms of useability, no 486 25MHz on earth can hold a candle to my 040 25MHz powered amiga, even if it was running linux

What does that say about a 1GHz G4 running OS4?

So what does it matter if the A1lite costs more than a comparable x86 system? A 2GHz celeron being cheaper is totally irrelavent. A Celeron cannot run OS4 or MorphOS, hence will never be in competition with the A1lite, A1, Pegasos etc. so why even bring it up?

As long as it isn't prohibitavely expensive (but fairly and reasonably priced for what it offers) people will buy it.

[Kronos]

@Karlos

Never will be ? Maybe.
Never has ? Sure it did, or how do you think C= sold those millions of A500s ?

[Karlos]

@Kronos

Whether you agree or not, you could buy 286 PCs that were faster than the A500 (in MHz terms) for less than the price of the A500, even then. There were 25MHz systems available for the same price in the A500 heydey, our bloody school bought loads of them (urk!).

No doubt many will say that the A500 was still faster overall because it had a cool design that took the load from the CPU and a vastly superior OS, and I agree 100%.

Which is why I think your previous statements about present amiga/future amiga systems not being cost effective versus PC components of the same performance range is still as irrelavent now as the old 286 v A500 was ;-)

[Wolfe]

The C3 1 Ghz CPU is not that robust. A low end G3 (500 Mhz) would be plenty to compete and smoke that turkey.

I owned both. I was creating a ITX fun box but found I wanted something that will sprint, not poke along so I sold Via 10000v Mobo. Currently I am using a 500 Mhz iBook reworked to be a desktop. Small, low power and cool - well as soon as the custom case gets fully completed.

Now, I will be able to have an Amiga fun box ITX machine. It will cost more than a Via but will be able to be a real computer for all things and not just a specialty piece of electronic junk.

:-D

[Floid]

To bring the 286 up to the Amiga's functionality cost a fair bit. I know, because I had a VGA (er.. MCGA? What was that proto-VGA actually called?) 386 at the time, and a friend's 500 still wowed me. Think of the price of RAM back then, and the OSes available. Heck, remember what GUSes and SB16s went for originally? (This from someone who had to borrow a CD-ROM reader every reinstall of OS/2 until.. oh, 1999 or so.)

That said... beyond the other comparisons, I really think that Radeon is still competetive, *especially* against the S3-derived designs built into the Via chipsets you'll get going with a C3 solution. I could be wrong, though.

Obviously an Athlon64 cube is probably going to be loadable with whatever's peak at the moment, but that's not quite the low-power market, and with the economy turned enough that even a slacker like myself can find a job, the truly interested probably won't have too much trouble affording both. (So in other words, this could top out at roughly the appeal of the iMacs a lot of people got and then relegated to the closet... but there should be fewer excuses to relegate a functional, expandable, Linux-capable PowerPC board to the closet. )

[CodeSmith]

I don't think you're going to be able to fit an Athlon64 plus all its cooling equipment into one of those neat little mini ITX cases. I know that AMD has been talking about low-power designs, but I don't think the current Athlon64s or Opterons are part of that plan. Maybe the next generation?

[GregS]

I don't think you're going to be able to fit an Athlon64 plus all its cooling equipment into one of those neat little mini ITX cases. I know that AMD has been talking about low-power designs, but I don't think the current Athlon64s or Opterons are part of that plan. Maybe the next generation?

@CodeSmit

You cannot make the Intel family run cool, it just won't do it, you also have all that legacy design, plus one way or another in the end the Intel type overclocked CISC design will have to go.

As we all know Windoze is slow and unreliable and not likely to get better.

But the most important thing is that people know more about computers now than they did even ten years ago, idiot suits can no longer run to an IBM design because it is deemed the only safe course (as they once did in their thousands "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" ).

The fioal price matters, but not as much as some would think. Early purchases pay more for getting ahead quicker, latter ones save a bit of money but then need to run to catch up.

Has it got a market, indeed the A1 and OS4.0 - well I think it has, history has a way of catching up - the thing to remember is that INTEL/WINDOZE IS A DEAD END - it is not the same story as it was a decade or more ago.

What will be increasingly apparent is that in terms of a mass CPU market the PPC design is well ahead (not denying there are better CPUs) . Here the Linux family have the server side already established, MacOSx has a place, but a suped up "volkswagen" OS like Amiga is already in a good position to take a lead.

You only have to think a few years ahead and Windoze/Intel looks already dead - after all like George W Bush where can they go after the mess they have made for themselves?

[Hammer]

I don't think you're going to be able to fit an Athlon64 plus all its cooling equipment into one of those neat little mini ITX cases.

The closest to ITX would be SFF. Note that they manage to fit in the cooling devices in an Athlon 64-M 3000+ laptops.

[Hammer]

@GregS

You cannot make the Intel family run cool, it just won't do it,

Recall Intel’s “Pentium M” for thin and light markets.

you also have all that legacy design, plus one way or another in the end the Intel type overclocked CISC design will have to go.

One of the key aspects of RISC is the fix length instructions.

Ever since the AMD's K6 processor, X86 variable length instructions is decoded/translated to fix length instructions.

X86 legacy support (a.k.a software investment protection) is actually the boat anchor for the current situation.

As we all know Windoze is slow and unreliable and not likely to get better.

Relative to what?

Has it got a market, indeed the A1 and OS4.0 - well I think it has, history has a way of catching up - the thing to remember is that INTEL/WINDOZE IS A DEAD END

Realistically, it would take more than just A1 and OS4.0 to reenter the mainstream PC market i.e. software.

Both Microsoft and Intel still dominate the desktop PC market. Even without Intel there’s always AMD, Transmeta and VIA to take the slack. Microsoft still has non-X86 Windows editions for expansion.

“Software investment protection” is a powerful aspect for the current situation. Even the might of Intel has not significantly move the market to non-X86 solution.

What will be increasingly apparent is that in terms of a mass CPU market the PPC design is well ahead (not denying there are better CPUs) .

Note that PowerPC 970’s transistors count is similar to Athlon XP (Barton core).

Here the Linux family have the server side already established,

Mostly X86 Linux distros i.e. Linux X86 edition has the ability to leverage the influential “Software investment protection” aspect e.g. WINE/WINEX/VMWARE.

MacOSx has a place,

Barely 2.5 percent of the desktop PC market.

[GregS]

@Hammer - so let me summize - on OS which nobody loves (Windoze) which has never worked well and has always been sluggish, running on a hot-chip design is nevertheless unbeatable?

The Mac has a place - as 2.5 % - well that is a place, I am not supposing it to hugely grow, that is why I mentioned it in passing.

I just don't understand the logic, just where and how do you propose Windoze moves in the future - each move destroys its immense base. At this stage the biggest liabilty it has is its own "success" - it has no choice it cannot easily transform itself as an OS or its chip dependences. all it can do is add more bells and whistles.

Mac bit the bullet (finnally) and remerged as Mac OSx and in doing so fragmnted even its tiny market share - do you think MS could do a similar thing and not fall apart at the seams.

This is partly about timing and partly about the evolution of the whole industry. This period represents the stasis that the industry has been in for almost 10 years. Except that 10 years has passed and computer use has become ubiquitous - it is not more of the same for ever and ever the effects are accumulative and only one part of this is the technology itself.

The fact is that people have had a gut full of MS, anything that looks half good at the moment has a running chance - in my opinion the A1 and OS4.0 look a lot better than Half-good!.

At some point (and my analysis is that this is rapidly approaching) the elastic band breaks. Then a lot tumbles into the dustbin of history, including MS.

From your comments it seems that you have the idea that things just keep on going on, that MS by some act of God has already planned an escape route and that the right time old Billy-boy will make his move - while I am saying he has no move to make, anything he does do will virtually be a change in the OS and then why stick with Billy's Brew when so many sweeter drops are available,

MS is dead - its just that it has a livily corpse.

[Kronos]

@Karlos

Seems like you are comparing 1990-prices .....

Do you know what a measly 286-8MHz did cost in 1987 ?
Well over 5000DM, and the A500 was only 1400DM, add a A590 20MB to
it and you wouls still be well below 5000.

And than you had a PC that was slower (sorry but the 286 wasn't anything
hot), and only had a Herkules-monochrom GFX-card.

A 386SX-16 (which was about on par with an A500+HD) did cost over 3000
when I bought my A500 for 800 in 1990, so there would have been enough
"space" for a cheap controller plus HD.