UAE runs great, as long as you have a fast machine it is faster than a 68060 based Amiga. All you need is a Kickstart ROM image and some webstores sell them for download or on CD, and others if you know the right location you can download them for free.
But basically it does an Amiga 68K emulation and you can set it for the original or AGA chipsets.
Some drawbacks are that it won't have the original Amiga keyboard, it won't read the old 880K Amiga 3.5" floppy format (At least not on the PC without a Catweasle ISA slot adapter) but takes ADF disk images, and the Amiga uses two mouse buttons so on a one-buttoned Mac you may have to assign a hotkey to the second mouse button? If you have a two button Mac mouse, you should be fine.
Almost as good as having an Amiga 500/600/1200 as being part of your Mac.
I was seriously looking at getting a student to buy a eMac for me when they first came out but I'm so glad i went with a Cube instead, it is the perfect form factor and I can change graphics card/monitor when I want. If only Apple could start making it again at a lower price (I know they need the margins on the monitors, etc, etc) but surely any sale is good....?
Well if the AmigaOne can run MacOS, it is possible that it can become a bottom-end Mac. At $1200USD it is cheaper than some Mac systems. Of course it can only run MacOS via an emulator or a MacOnLinux simulator under Linux.
Don't throw away that 68K Amiga yet, they even ported OpenBeOS to the Amiga 3000, plus the Amiga 3000 can run OpenBSD or Linux.
I am sorry to say but the Amiga is in a league of its own. More like a RISC Workstation than a PowerMac. It doesn't seem to have that Mac Cutsy feel to it. Some of the custom chips they use it in are RISC based for the Co-Processors. In AmigaOS 5.0 they will include SMP for multiple Processors.
Only got to this thread very, very late <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> Yet Lemon Bon Bon, Matsu et al are absolutely right: The CUBE IS the perfect Mac, but the price was awful and only a relatively few mad folks like me really threw rationality to the wind and went with our emotions.
The same thing happened with many on the new iMac, but the screen size was always problematic, as is any all-in-one solution.
Low End? Not really an option for the technologies Steve wants to see in everything. BUT, the iMac classics still on the Store pages are more than enough mac for any school need. iBooks do it, too, but they certainly are a lot more fragile. The G4 and OS X.2 clearly pose problems for all of us who still love our G3 machines or have even 500 Cubes.
Cheaper Macs are needed to combat the $600USD PC. I doubt Apple can get down that low unless they make a G3 Mac that runs Darwin that can be upgraded to OSX later. By using Darwin it would shave about $100USD off the retail price. They could pre-load OpenOffice on it. Just get it to the point that it is useable, and can be upgradeable. It could combat those $600USD PC Linux systems sold at Wal-Mart.
How hard is it to make an attractive Jonny Ives design beaut' cube of plastic with a speedy G3 700 mhz , a geforce 2mx and bare bones everything box shifter.
The cube design could be refined. Just a fruity cube box with an Apple logo stamped on it.
A market share box priced to shift at £499. I'd buy. I still don't think Apple have a genuine market share builder.
The eMac is curious. It needs to be cheaper for the edu' market. Cheaper to be a market share builder. I'm not 100% on the design. It clearly looks like the hi-carb iMac crt. The design is a little stilted. Nice enough...but...lacks the grace of the original...
How proprietary are people willing to go? What if Apple offered a Cube-like machine (could be the Cube or a different form factor as far as I'm concerned), but the graphic card and processor could only be upgraded with parts bought from Apple? Perhaps even the harddrive as well?
This gives the market a low-end tower, but guarantees Apple the upgrade dollars that would normally go to a third-party manufacturer.
The video card could be AGP, but just rearrange the pin setting slightly, or perhaps even just the length of the card itself. The IDE cables could be rearranged just the same.
This means low-end users could go to the Apple store and buy a new piece (and more crafty users would buy some company's adapter to make store bought parts work.)
It's not an optimal solution, but I'm trying to look at realistic solutions. We know Apple wants all of our money, so this seems like one way to get a product out the door that we're talking about while keeping in line with Apple's profit margins.
<strong>How proprietary are people willing to go? What if Apple offered a Cube-like machine (could be the Cube or a different form factor as far as I'm concerned), but the graphic card and processor could only be upgraded with parts bought from Apple? Perhaps even the harddrive as well?
This gives the market a low-end tower, but guarantees Apple the upgrade dollars that would normally go to a third-party manufacturer.
The video card could be AGP, but just rearrange the pin setting slightly, or perhaps even just the length of the card itself. The IDE cables could be rearranged just the same.
This means low-end users could go to the Apple store and buy a new piece (and more crafty users would buy some company's adapter to make store bought parts work.)
It's not an optimal solution, but I'm trying to look at realistic solutions. We know Apple wants all of our money, so this seems like one way to get a product out the door that we're talking about while keeping in line with Apple's profit margins.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds a bit like what Tandy did with its PC clones, reversed some pins on the ISA slots, etc. You most likely know how well that went over?
With the right size cube, they could offer PCI and AGP slots, but use smaller cards to fit inside of the cube. Or better yet, use an AGP for the video, and upgrade the rest with PCMCIA card slots like the iBook and Powerbook.
I think that the Brick design with PCMCIA slots would be the best. They could use a proprietary video card with it that is smaller than an AGP slot.
Sounds a bit like what Tandy did with its PC clones, reversed some pins on the ISA slots, etc. You most likely know how well that went over?
With the right size cube, they could offer PCI and AGP slots, but use smaller cards to fit inside of the cube. Or better yet, use an AGP for the video, and upgrade the rest with PCMCIA card slots like the iBook and Powerbook.
I think that the Brick design with PCMCIA slots would be the best. They could use a proprietary video card with it that is smaller than an AGP slot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that the proprietary issue is a red herring. Currently Apple makes too little profit (less than 10% as I understand it) on the iMac and too much (more than 40% as I understand it) on the PowerMac line. They can make their money selling me a new affordable cube every 3-4 years at say 20% margin) and just ignore the upgrade industry, like they do with the PowerMac line. It's an expensive and unpredicable business to sell upgrades. Apple would rather offer you the next great thing and that's fine at a reasonable price
This brick would not cannabalize the PM line per se, as it would bring increased profits from iMac purchasers trading up and PC people who'd be able to "switch" and still keep their current display (or have their pick of a new one).
PowerMacs would still sell, and they'd be the only systems to have the top of the Processor line, they'd be the only ones with MP options and they'd be the only ones with PCI slots (I'd put modem/ethernet/sound on board of this brick, and only have the option to replace GPU,HD and RAM). The PCMCIA concept isn't a bad idea, but the cost of those solutions would likely lead one to a low-end PM anyway wouldn't it?
I think that the proprietary issue is a red herring.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the use of the word "proprietary" was kind of a red herring as well. Messing with a few pin settings would cost Apple just pennies but allow for a certain percentage of the upgrade dollars to go through Apple. Basically just the video card, most likely, unless they offered this magical system with a slot for Apple's new XServer IDE drives (rumored to be in the next PowerMac as well.)
Anyway, it's just a thought. Apple doesn't like the bottom end Tower idea, but I think it's because they could only make a 20% margin on the product. Adding an Apple sponsored low-risk/no R&D upgrade path could add to that 20% margin later in the product's lifecycle. It's not typical Apple business but it might be the only way Apple would be willing to make the product we're all talking about.
<strong>It's not typical Apple business but it might be the only way Apple would be willing to make the product we're all talking about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, that's a good point. Frankly any way the great minds of Cupertino come up with to justify a real pro-sumer model (17" G4 iMac is just a super high end consumer model) would be fine with me. Let me spend my $3000 Canadian every 3-4 years and lemme chose my own display and GPU. Please?
<strong>How proprietary are people willing to go? What if Apple offered a Cube-like machine (could be the Cube or a different form factor as far as I'm concerned), but the graphic card and processor could only be upgraded with parts bought from Apple? Perhaps even the harddrive as well?
This gives the market a low-end tower, but guarantees Apple the upgrade dollars that would normally go to a third-party manufacturer.
The video card could be AGP, but just rearrange the pin setting slightly, or perhaps even just the length of the card itself. The IDE cables could be rearranged just the same.
This means low-end users could go to the Apple store and buy a new piece (and more crafty users would buy some company's adapter to make store bought parts work.)
It's not an optimal solution, but I'm trying to look at realistic solutions. We know Apple wants all of our money, so this seems like one way to get a product out the door that we're talking about while keeping in line with Apple's profit margins.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This would be a bad move for Apple.
First of all the "proprietary" slots would not keep upgrade manufacturers from building cards that would fit in them. They did it with the mezzanine slot, and a rearranged AGP slot would be just as easy.
Second Apple got out of the Upgrade market.
Third, Apple relies on Nvidia for GPU's, and keeps a relationship with ATI for some Graphics boards. This way Apple does not have to worry about R&D on the Graphics systems for their computers.
Fourth, it would be a bad PR move. Apple charges large premiums for their Memory, and would have to do the same for HD's since they would be custome made from the manufacturer to use the proprietary connecter. Consumers would rebel agenst the custom parts, and the design would not sell.
Fifth, these are industry standard systems/connectors. Apple would have to pay more to have them designed and produced. and if they didnt use them throughout their product line, then they would have to buy custom parts for one product line, and the standard for the other. The bottom line is increased cost for Apple.
This would be a bad move for Apple. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree that it wouldn't be perfect, but I think Apple could do it in a way that's profitable.
I know other manufacturers would design pieces that worked in the re-formed slots. BUT, most consumers wouldn't know how to locate these types of products. The Apple Store (Web & REAL) is where Apple would sell their own parts and not the competition's. Users with more know-how would be able to track down 3rd party options, but those users might be more likely to buy a full-fledged PowerMac anyway.
Also, the "proprietary" parts aren't really any different than industry standard parts. You could probably just slot an AGP card without even changing any of the pins, like how RAM is slotted, and that would be enough. Industrious users would get out the hacksaw while "switchers" would buy from Apple. Either way the "proprietary" parts would cost $1 more than the standard. Not enough for Apple to worry about.
Low-End vs. PowerMac
1 CPU instead of Dual CPUs
1 AGP (4x) instead of 1 AGP (8X)
2 PCI instead of 4 PCI
2 RAM slots (SDRAM?) instead of 4 (DDR?)
2 HD bays instead of 4 bays
You get the point. A low-end tower that bridges the gap between the iMacs and the PowerMacs. "Pros" that need more would still buy PowerMacs, "switchers", gamers, Linux freaks (no offense intended), people who want a second machine....
The point being there is a market in limbo. I'll never jump to Wintel, but some of them do (or never bother to jump to the Mac.)
The point being there is a market in limbo. I'll never jump to Wintel, but some of them do (or never bother to jump to the Mac.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
It would be a better move for Apple to price the system agressive enough so processor upgrades are not attractive. At the same time, use the AGP slot as a selling point, so that people who want to upgrade their video sub-system every 4-6 months can.
Comments
<strong>
Yeah, but the A1200 was one mean mother to open.
*sigh* I kinda miss the old Amigas.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You only need to open it up once.
The AmigaOne attachment uses a PCI slot in the AmigaOne, and attaches to the A1200 side bus.
Miss the old Amigas? Go and get UAE:
<a href="http://worldserver.oleane.com/ablancha/uae.htm"; target="_blank">http://worldserver.oleane.com/ablancha/uae.htm</a>;
Then get a Kickstart ROM image and go run the old stuff on your Mac.
UAE main page:
<a href="http://www.freiburg.linux.de/~uae/"; target="_blank">http://www.freiburg.linux.de/~uae/</a>;
I have an old Amiga 500 that runs great.
<strong>
You only need to open it up once.
The AmigaOne attachment uses a PCI slot in the AmigaOne, and attaches to the A1200 side bus.
Miss the old Amigas? Go and get UAE:
<a href="http://worldserver.oleane.com/ablancha/uae.htm"; target="_blank">http://worldserver.oleane.com/ablancha/uae.htm</a>;
Then get a Kickstart ROM image and go run the old stuff on your Mac.
UAE main page:
<a href="http://www.freiburg.linux.de/~uae/"; target="_blank">http://www.freiburg.linux.de/~uae/</a>;
I have an old Amiga 500 that runs great.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Does UAE really run that well?
But basically it does an Amiga 68K emulation and you can set it for the original or AGA chipsets.
Some drawbacks are that it won't have the original Amiga keyboard, it won't read the old 880K Amiga 3.5" floppy format (At least not on the PC without a Catweasle ISA slot adapter) but takes ADF disk images, and the Amiga uses two mouse buttons so on a one-buttoned Mac you may have to assign a hotkey to the second mouse button? If you have a two button Mac mouse, you should be fine.
Almost as good as having an Amiga 500/600/1200 as being part of your Mac.
(BUMP)
I was seriously looking at getting a student to buy a eMac for me when they first came out but I'm so glad i went with a Cube instead, it is the perfect form factor and I can change graphics card/monitor when I want. If only Apple could start making it again at a lower price (I know they need the margins on the monitors, etc, etc) but surely any sale is good....?
<strong>What this got to do with a bottom end mac?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
My apologies, but I got carried away for a minute.
Sometimes I pine for my AppleII+ as well.Mmmmm...green screen.
Many thanx, Cable. Looks like I got some old software to dig out of storage.
Don't throw away that 68K Amiga yet, they even ported OpenBeOS to the Amiga 3000, plus the Amiga 3000 can run OpenBSD or Linux.
The same thing happened with many on the new iMac, but the screen size was always problematic, as is any all-in-one solution.
Low End? Not really an option for the technologies Steve wants to see in everything. BUT, the iMac classics still on the Store pages are more than enough mac for any school need. iBooks do it, too, but they certainly are a lot more fragile. The G4 and OS X.2 clearly pose problems for all of us who still love our G3 machines or have even 500 Cubes.
<strong>What consumers need is a low end tower, something like:
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What? I thought all Apple sells are low end towers.
So has the G3.
How hard is it to make an attractive Jonny Ives design beaut' cube of plastic with a speedy G3 700 mhz , a geforce 2mx and bare bones everything box shifter.
The cube design could be refined. Just a fruity cube box with an Apple logo stamped on it.
A market share box priced to shift at £499. I'd buy. I still don't think Apple have a genuine market share builder.
The eMac is curious. It needs to be cheaper for the edu' market. Cheaper to be a market share builder. I'm not 100% on the design. It clearly looks like the hi-carb iMac crt. The design is a little stilted. Nice enough...but...lacks the grace of the original...
They could do it. But will they...?
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
Just allow the buyer to choose their own monitor, or use the monitor from their old PC or Mac.
This gives the market a low-end tower, but guarantees Apple the upgrade dollars that would normally go to a third-party manufacturer.
The video card could be AGP, but just rearrange the pin setting slightly, or perhaps even just the length of the card itself. The IDE cables could be rearranged just the same.
This means low-end users could go to the Apple store and buy a new piece (and more crafty users would buy some company's adapter to make store bought parts work.)
It's not an optimal solution, but I'm trying to look at realistic solutions. We know Apple wants all of our money, so this seems like one way to get a product out the door that we're talking about while keeping in line with Apple's profit margins.
<strong>How proprietary are people willing to go? What if Apple offered a Cube-like machine (could be the Cube or a different form factor as far as I'm concerned), but the graphic card and processor could only be upgraded with parts bought from Apple? Perhaps even the harddrive as well?
This gives the market a low-end tower, but guarantees Apple the upgrade dollars that would normally go to a third-party manufacturer.
The video card could be AGP, but just rearrange the pin setting slightly, or perhaps even just the length of the card itself. The IDE cables could be rearranged just the same.
This means low-end users could go to the Apple store and buy a new piece (and more crafty users would buy some company's adapter to make store bought parts work.)
It's not an optimal solution, but I'm trying to look at realistic solutions. We know Apple wants all of our money, so this seems like one way to get a product out the door that we're talking about while keeping in line with Apple's profit margins.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds a bit like what Tandy did with its PC clones, reversed some pins on the ISA slots, etc. You most likely know how well that went over?
With the right size cube, they could offer PCI and AGP slots, but use smaller cards to fit inside of the cube. Or better yet, use an AGP for the video, and upgrade the rest with PCMCIA card slots like the iBook and Powerbook.
I think that the Brick design with PCMCIA slots would be the best. They could use a proprietary video card with it that is smaller than an AGP slot.
<strong>
Sounds a bit like what Tandy did with its PC clones, reversed some pins on the ISA slots, etc. You most likely know how well that went over?
With the right size cube, they could offer PCI and AGP slots, but use smaller cards to fit inside of the cube. Or better yet, use an AGP for the video, and upgrade the rest with PCMCIA card slots like the iBook and Powerbook.
I think that the Brick design with PCMCIA slots would be the best. They could use a proprietary video card with it that is smaller than an AGP slot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that the proprietary issue is a red herring. Currently Apple makes too little profit (less than 10% as I understand it) on the iMac and too much (more than 40% as I understand it) on the PowerMac line. They can make their money selling me a new affordable cube every 3-4 years at say 20% margin) and just ignore the upgrade industry, like they do with the PowerMac line. It's an expensive and unpredicable business to sell upgrades. Apple would rather offer you the next great thing and that's fine at a reasonable price
This brick would not cannabalize the PM line per se, as it would bring increased profits from iMac purchasers trading up and PC people who'd be able to "switch" and still keep their current display (or have their pick of a new one).
PowerMacs would still sell, and they'd be the only systems to have the top of the Processor line, they'd be the only ones with MP options and they'd be the only ones with PCI slots (I'd put modem/ethernet/sound on board of this brick, and only have the option to replace GPU,HD and RAM). The PCMCIA concept isn't a bad idea, but the cost of those solutions would likely lead one to a low-end PM anyway wouldn't it?
<strong>
I think that the proprietary issue is a red herring.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the use of the word "proprietary" was kind of a red herring as well. Messing with a few pin settings would cost Apple just pennies but allow for a certain percentage of the upgrade dollars to go through Apple. Basically just the video card, most likely, unless they offered this magical system with a slot for Apple's new XServer IDE drives (rumored to be in the next PowerMac as well.)
Anyway, it's just a thought. Apple doesn't like the bottom end Tower idea, but I think it's because they could only make a 20% margin on the product. Adding an Apple sponsored low-risk/no R&D upgrade path could add to that 20% margin later in the product's lifecycle. It's not typical Apple business but it might be the only way Apple would be willing to make the product we're all talking about.
<strong>It's not typical Apple business but it might be the only way Apple would be willing to make the product we're all talking about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, that's a good point. Frankly any way the great minds of Cupertino come up with to justify a real pro-sumer model (17" G4 iMac is just a super high end consumer model) would be fine with me. Let me spend my $3000 Canadian every 3-4 years and lemme chose my own display and GPU. Please?
<strong>How proprietary are people willing to go? What if Apple offered a Cube-like machine (could be the Cube or a different form factor as far as I'm concerned), but the graphic card and processor could only be upgraded with parts bought from Apple? Perhaps even the harddrive as well?
This gives the market a low-end tower, but guarantees Apple the upgrade dollars that would normally go to a third-party manufacturer.
The video card could be AGP, but just rearrange the pin setting slightly, or perhaps even just the length of the card itself. The IDE cables could be rearranged just the same.
This means low-end users could go to the Apple store and buy a new piece (and more crafty users would buy some company's adapter to make store bought parts work.)
It's not an optimal solution, but I'm trying to look at realistic solutions. We know Apple wants all of our money, so this seems like one way to get a product out the door that we're talking about while keeping in line with Apple's profit margins.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This would be a bad move for Apple.
First of all the "proprietary" slots would not keep upgrade manufacturers from building cards that would fit in them. They did it with the mezzanine slot, and a rearranged AGP slot would be just as easy.
Second Apple got out of the Upgrade market.
Third, Apple relies on Nvidia for GPU's, and keeps a relationship with ATI for some Graphics boards. This way Apple does not have to worry about R&D on the Graphics systems for their computers.
Fourth, it would be a bad PR move. Apple charges large premiums for their Memory, and would have to do the same for HD's since they would be custome made from the manufacturer to use the proprietary connecter. Consumers would rebel agenst the custom parts, and the design would not sell.
Fifth, these are industry standard systems/connectors. Apple would have to pay more to have them designed and produced. and if they didnt use them throughout their product line, then they would have to buy custom parts for one product line, and the standard for the other. The bottom line is increased cost for Apple.
<strong>
This would be a bad move for Apple. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree that it wouldn't be perfect, but I think Apple could do it in a way that's profitable.
I know other manufacturers would design pieces that worked in the re-formed slots. BUT, most consumers wouldn't know how to locate these types of products. The Apple Store (Web & REAL) is where Apple would sell their own parts and not the competition's. Users with more know-how would be able to track down 3rd party options, but those users might be more likely to buy a full-fledged PowerMac anyway.
Also, the "proprietary" parts aren't really any different than industry standard parts. You could probably just slot an AGP card without even changing any of the pins, like how RAM is slotted, and that would be enough. Industrious users would get out the hacksaw while "switchers" would buy from Apple. Either way the "proprietary" parts would cost $1 more than the standard. Not enough for Apple to worry about.
Low-End vs. PowerMac
1 CPU instead of Dual CPUs
1 AGP (4x) instead of 1 AGP (8X)
2 PCI instead of 4 PCI
2 RAM slots (SDRAM?) instead of 4 (DDR?)
2 HD bays instead of 4 bays
You get the point. A low-end tower that bridges the gap between the iMacs and the PowerMacs. "Pros" that need more would still buy PowerMacs, "switchers", gamers, Linux freaks (no offense intended), people who want a second machine....
The point being there is a market in limbo. I'll never jump to Wintel, but some of them do (or never bother to jump to the Mac.)
<strong>
The point being there is a market in limbo. I'll never jump to Wintel, but some of them do (or never bother to jump to the Mac.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
It would be a better move for Apple to price the system agressive enough so processor upgrades are not attractive. At the same time, use the AGP slot as a selling point, so that people who want to upgrade their video sub-system every 4-6 months can.
Low-End PowerMac
1 CPU Dual CPUs
1 AGP (4x) 1 AGP (8X)
2 PCI 4 PCI
3 RAM slots 4 RAM slots
1 HD 4 HD bays