| [News] Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 | ANN.lu |
| Posted on 18-Jul-2004 12:20 GMT by Jens Schönfeld | 469 comments
View flat
View list |
During the first months of this year, we were totally surprised by the overwhelming demand for Catweasel MK3. All stock has been sold, and even our retail partners do not have anything left in stock. The demand was so high that one controller even went for more than 150,- EUR on eBay!
Unfortunately, it turned out that a new production run of the existing MK3-design cannot be done for reasonable prices, so a re-design became necessary. The new controller is now in the first stage before mass production, so we're confident to be able to show the first controllers at the Amiwest show on july 24th and 25th in Sacramento, Califoria.
Many improvements have been made compared to the Catweasel MK3 that can be summarized under the headline "bigger, better, faster".
The changes in detail
The most obvious change is the size of the card: With only 2.5 inch (63.5mm) height, it complies with the low-profile PCI standard that not only fits into any normal computer case, but also in flat models that are so famous among so-called "case-modders". The Flipper-interface will not be continued. Those who need a Catweasel for their classic Amiga can use the Catweasel Z-II S-Class, which is still availble.
Improvements on the floppy controller
Kylwalda built in
While the old Catweasel models always had their own floppy drives that were installed in addition to the existing controller and drives, the MK4 has the option of using the existing diskdrives. After the machine has started, th drives can be used just like before, and after the drivers have been loaded, the Catweasel can take control of these drives when necessary. This is especially useful for smaller cases with fewer drive bays.
We already addressed this problem earlier with an additional product called 'Kylwalda'.
Suppot for auto-eject drives
These drives without eject-button are well-known from Macintosh computers, and they're now fully supported by the Catweasel. You can also mix floppy types, one with an eject-button, and another from the Macintosh world on the same cable.
Hard-sectored disks supported
This kind of 5.25 and 8 inch disks were already readable with the previous Catweasel models, but writing was only possible with a high software effort, and it required a realtime operating system. This effort is not necessary any more with the new controller, because new options allow complete support of these disk types in hardware.
dual-ported memory
Contrary to it's predecessors, the new Catweasel MK4 can pass the data that it is currently reading from a disk to the computer while the read access is running. This allows realtime emulation, and errorfree function of copy-protected software on emulators.
more flexible read- and write operations
In addition to working on whole tracks, which made all previous Catweasel models so flexible, tracks can now also be accesed in part very precisely. Should this become necessary for compatibility or speed reasons, the Catweasel MK4 is perfectly prepared.
extensive timer-functions
Although most operating systems already offer timer-functions in software, you cannot always rely on them. The most recent example are the timing-problems that occur with Hyperthreading-processors and Windows operating systems. Since all timers are running independantly in the hardware of the Catweasel MK4, nothing can go wrong in this regard.
all events can trigger an interrupt (IRQ)
Together with the hardware-timer functions, this is the best solution for multitasking operating systems. The driver software does not have to check regularly if the controller needs attention, which reduces the processor load.
Improvements on the keyboard interface
In addition to Amiga-keyboards, PS/2 devices can now also be connected. Not only keyboards, but also PS/2 mice are supported. The keyboard controller can now trigger IRQs, and for those customers who want to continue using their favourite combination of PS/2 mouse and keyboard on USB-only computers, the Catweasel MK4 has two connectors of this kind.
Improvements on the joystick ports
Amiga mice supported in hardware
Amiga mice only have minimal electronics that always pass the movements of the device to the computer in realtime. Classic Amiga computers have hardware-support for interpretation of these signals in the chipset, and this support has now been added to the Catweasel. Theoretically, using Amiga mice was already possible with the Catweasel MK3, but this required a software effort that was not justifiable. With the new hardware, the software effort is reduced to a minimum.
every signal can be programmed as output
The digital joystick ports of the 8-bit computers of the 80s were mostly usable in two directions, they were not only inputs, but also programmable as data outputs. We're following this tradition, and also present this possibility for the Catweasel MK4.
compatible with CD32 pads
The game controllers of the Amiga CD32 can now also be used on the Catweasel. A special capability of the classic Amigas (and therefore also of the CD32) made these pads exclusive for this computer, if connected to other computers, not all buttons of the pad could be used. Technically speaking: Even the potentiometer-pins of the digital joystick ports can be programmed as outputs on the Catweasel MK4.
Improvements on the SID audio part
DC-DC converter eliminates noise
On the Catweasel MK3, it was possible that noises from 3D-graphics cards or high-speed harddrives were coupled into the 12V-power supply of the SID audio part. This cannot happen any more on the Catweasel MK4, because a DC-DC converter is an insuperable obstacle for such noises.
cycle-exact control
In addition to the known programming that's compatible with the Catweasel MK3, the MK4 has a sophisticated script-language for SID control. This lets the programmer define the exact time for data that's being written into the SID chips. To make sample playback sound exactly like on a real C64, the data rate to the SID chip must be kept at a constant rate. This is accomplished with Fifo memory that's big enough to maintain the datarate even under high processor load conditions.
Digiboost for new SID versions
As opposed to the 'classic SID' 6581, the newer SID-chips 8580 and 6582 cannot playback samples any more. This option, which is also called 'the fourth voice', is replaced by two sigma-delta converters on the Catweasel MK4, so the fourth channel is also audible with the newer SID versions. Since the filter properties and the sound of mixed waveforms of all SID versions have their supporters, this should make the decision for the right chip a little easier.
Filter capacitors selectable
Commodore has defined three different capacitor values for the filters of the SIDs during the years that this chip has been produced. The result was that the same chip sounded differently if used in different computers. To bring the sound as close as possible to what you are used to, the filter capacitors can be chosen with a few jumpers.
precise clocking
The Catweasel MK3 used the commodore-chip 8701 to recreate the exact same clock. Since our stock of this chip is empty with the Catweasel MK3 being sold out, we have cloned it on the main logic chip of the Catweasel MK4: The exact base frequency is generated with crystals that have been made especially for us. By division and multiplication according to the specifications of the C64 schematics from 1982, we managed to replace the 8701, which is not made any more. Even the slight difference between PAL and NTSC computers is software-selectable!
two SIDs for stereo sound
You'll have twice the SID pleaseure after installing a second SID chip. Every SID has it's own selection of filter capacitors, and SIDs of all versions can be mixed.
Technology improvements
compatible with 3.3V and 5V PCI slots
Even though PC boards with 3.3V PCI slots are not yet widely available, the Catweasel is prepared for it. The roadmap of the PCI special interst group plans to abandon 5V PCI slots within forseeable time, and the Catweasel is perfectly suited for that date. Local generation of the 3.3V power also ensures proper function on early PCI motherboards that do not comply with the ATX standard.
two DMA interfaces
In addition to processor-based data transfer, the Catweasel MK4 can excahnge data with the main system through two low-speed DMA channels: The first goes throught he PCI slot, and it has a capacity of about 8K per second and direction. The second uses the direct connection to the onboard-floppy controller, and the speed is up to 100K per second.
low power consumption
The Catweasel MK4 makes use of the latest FPGA technology with 2.5V core voltage. This reduces the power consumption of the new controller to a fraction of what the Catweasel MK3 used. This also reduces heat generation a lot.
re-configurable logic
The FPGA on the Catweasel MK4 is completely re-configurable by the drivers. This means that a hardware update can be done through the internet! Should we find a disk format that cannot be handled with the current hardware, the core of the Catweasel can be 're-wired' to address the problem. The controller doesn't even have to be taken out of the computer for ths update!
drivers for many operating systems
The Catweasel MK4 is delivered with drivers for Windows 98(se)/ME/XP/2000, Amiga OS4, and for Mac OS X at a later date. MorphOS drivers are available for a surcharge.
The Catweasel MK4 will be available starting october 2004.
The target retail price is 99,- EUR.
|
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 451 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 22-Jul-2004 18:46 GMT | In reply to Comment 448 (AdmV0rl0n):
> He even now seems to publicly deny the merger.
I sure do. Let's see, what do you have? An old press release where the
intent to make a merger is proclaimed.
What do I have? Well, only my invoice to Thendic France (not Genesi),
the bank receipts from Thendic (not Genesi) for my partial payment,
and then there's of course the Liquidator for Thendic (not Genesi).
However, if you actually have real evidence that Genesi and Thendic
would be one and the same, I'd be *quite* interested in seeing that.
I'd also like to pass that to the Liquidator, who I'm sure would be
happy to learn about this. Come on, if you really hate Genesi so much,
why don't you do it?
Personally, I think I know the differences, legally and practically,
between being a contractor for Thendic which is in bankruptcy, and
being a Genesi employee. To see a total outsider like you, with no
apparent knowledge whatsoever, claim that I don't know this
difference, well.. |
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 452 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by AdmV0rl0n on 22-Jul-2004 21:06 GMT | In reply to Comment 451 (Johan Rönnblom):
An old press release. Are you really going to try this on?
Look, bottom line, I hope you get what you are owed BY Thendic France. Thats about it. As far as I am concerned, your post is clearly aimed at prospective job candidates whom may join Genesi, and you speak candidly about the situation inside. I actually don't give a shiny light about your own interpretation, as far as I am concerned, you are an ex contactor for the company/group of people now called Genesi.
And if you were not, I think you need to explain why you publicly made a statement about Genesi, and not Thendic. Because as of right now, you are trying to claim in the most rediculous, laughable way that these going concerns were seperate etc etc, and you had nothing to do with Genesi, I don't give a rats ass about your invoices with Thendic, we know who was paying your bills. That is merely a bullshit paper trail, and does'nt get you off the hook.
You are nailed. |
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 453 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Stefan Burström on 23-Jul-2004 00:14 GMT | In reply to Comment 450 (Johan Rönnblom):
>Presumably because you can't find any arguments to support your
>theory. You thought you could get away with it unchallenged, but you
>didn't.
So far it has been rather easy to explain your rather silly attempts
to nullify my statements. But sure, if you keep draggin old quotes in
all the time we will just be running around in circles.
> So let's say we were able to show a 10 USD profit on each Pegasos 2
> board sold today, would that say anything about the profit of the
> Pegasos 1, 1.5 year ago???
>Yes, it would say infinitely more about that price than what you have
>presented thus far. A cost estimate of the Pegasos 2 within 95%
>accuracy would be an *extremely* good starting point, compared to your
>wild guesses.
Sure, lets see here. Completely different NB. No extra glue logic
to work around problems with NB. AC97 and Firewire circuits are
probably outdated ie. completely different price. Lets just say that
we wouldn't get within 5% of the Pegasos price would we?
> We were talking about the Pegasos 1 wern't we? Dunno, but afaik,
> that board wasn't produced or shipped at all during late fall 2003.
> So there goes your 'Pegasoes were shipping after the bankruptcy'
> theory.
>They weren't shipped because instead, they shipped Pegasos 2 boards,
>duh. Come on, you really think the Pegasos 2 is that much cheaper to
>make, *at the same point in time*?
Duh yourself! After all the fuss about MAI, I don't think that MAI
wanted to supply any more NB chips nor bPlan wanted to produce any
more boards with those NB's. Well, at least that was the story
told by BBRV a year ago.
>Ok, I just didn't find the entry "Symbiosis: n. The relationship
>between an entity selling a product, and the maker of said product."
>in my dictionary, so I got the impression that you rather meant
>something different. But thanks for clearing that up, then.
Your forgot to mention the entity selling a product at the same
time as it is funding the maker of the said product. You said it
yourself that it was likely that Genesi was funding bPlan in one
way or another.
> You said 2 estimates were wrong, and I assumed that you meant the
> board size and # of layers.
Indeed I did.
> My main assumption??? I said 6-8 layers and said 'Let say 6 then'
> when you gave me the correct number.
>to your authority, and bash my counterarguments with things like
>"lol", "hilarious", "clueless junk", etc.
Well, your statments that displayed your apparent knowledge of PCB
design (and contract manufacturing for that matter) were quite
hilarious.
>Oh really. Show us those calculations then, please. I take the rest of
>that statement to mean that since I'm not agreeing with you, I must be
>wrong, and my guesses must be unreliable, unlike your guesses which
>are reliable because, of course, you are right.
No but you are kept attacking me for claiming I made my calculations on
an 8 layer PCB which took me 4-5 posts to convice you that I didn't.
That's what I meant. And, yes, if you do want prices, go ahead and
look them up some on the internet. I am not going to give you my exact
numbers that I have from my company since that is confidential. I have
given you estimates though.
>Because we were discussing the main PCB and not any other parts. The
>other PCBs are different btw, at least the one under the Articia.
>Can't be bothered to examine the CPU card now.
Yeah, sure it is different. And rerouting a 492 pin BGA in such a space
sure isn't easy. So, do I need to tell you that that PCB isn't likely
going to be cheaper / sq inch than the main board?
>Pointing out flaws in your reasoning, obviously. It's called a
>critical discussion. If you can give me arguments which I can't find
>flaws in, I'll agree that you're right.
Well, if it was a critical discussion you wouldn't ge grasping straws
around techicalities such as in which post I mentioned layer 7-8.
>to prove it by calculating the production cost. I explain that in
>order for that to prove anything, you have to calculate a minimum
>cost, rather than use the first price for each component that you can
>come up with. Is that something you want to question?
Sigh. Sure, I can look at the numbers from all different vendors and still
end up looking at Digi-Key or Farnell. Just because I found the numbers
easy doesn't mean they are wrong completely, does it?
> Seriously, that is quite a grave accusation you are making. Care to
> back it up?
>Sure. The part of the quote you made in comment 435, that starts with
>">> Duh! You don't understand" and ends with "layer 7-8, period."
>never occurs in this thread. You admit yourself that you deliberately
Doh. Well, it does since the first part is contained in post #380
and the last part is contained in post #384. Both those messages
are contained in this thread. I quoted them in the same message
and 'unquoted' the space between everything. Would you have felt
better if I left the space in there? Besides, if you want to answer
a question, why not include the whole statement including the end.
I just re-read my comment #380 and you are right. The text you mention
above does not entirely belong to this thread. _Because you have removed 3/4rd
of my sentence when replying to it_.
Shall we make a deal? I will not unquote the space when I quote messages
and You will not unquote whole sentences next time you answer something.
The more I think about it the more I see a new Sigvar Marjasin in you :-)
>created it by cutting and pasting different post together. Well,
>that's the definition of forgery.
I never did anything but take your post and put back the quote you so
conveniently left out. No letter or anything was forged. I didn't put
anything in your mouth that you didn't say. I just showed everyone how
stupid your post looked like when I put back the point I was trying to
make and you were trying to avoid. I am definitely not trying to forge
anything!
> How come posting 2 messages after each other is forging,
You didn't just post them after each other, you spliced them together.
No, I posted 2 different messages after each other. Splice means interleave,
right? Well all that was needed was to cut 1 text, past, cut another text paste
again and adjust >>'s to make it obvious who wrote what and when. Never
managed to splice anyting using Ctrl-v in ultraedit
> but leaving out relevant parts is not???
>Because leaving out relevant parts is called underquoting, not
>forgery. What is relevant or not is highly subjective, and since we're
In the context you did it, I'd call it forgery since it wasn't obvious that
there were missing pieces that you left out. Anyone that didn't read the
trail would believe that nothing was missing, but you didn't make any
attmpt to show that anything was missing.
>all leaving out things, it's inevitable that we'll sometimes remove
>something someone else finds important. I didn't even understand that
>it was the "Ok, say 6 then" part you were referring to, as I never
Oh. Well, in that case you never even intended to understand anything.
What does the following mean to every human beeing that is capable of
understanding english?
>>>> Six, I think it has been stated, at least not more.
>>> Ok, say 6 then.
If it doesn't mean that we are arguing about a number and I acknowledge
that I'll accept your number then there is no point arguing with you
any longer.
>answered to that statement. That is also why I never quoted it. After
>all, I've never questioned that you conceeded that the Peg 1 PCB
>has six layers.
That's the whole point. You left the part out where I acknowledged your
number 6 and instead you included an old quote that indicated that I still
claimed the number was 8! That's the point!
That is why I had to include my original text in the quote. Sure I could
have written everything separately and drawn arrows all over the place
like Kurt Olsson, but instead I choose to write everything in chronological
order (the >>'s somewhat indicate what was written in which order, right?
> No, I never assumed anything about 8 expensive layers,
(Sorry I should have written "I never assumed only 8 expensive layers, I
assumed somewhere between 6-8 until the real number was given to me"
>So you say, I'd say that's up to each reader to read comment 203
>and judge for themselves.
Sure. Comment 203 talks about a pcb with either 6 or 8 layers. And that
the outermost layers beeig the most expensive ones beeing microvia layers.
Nothing bound to exactly 8 layers
>Likely contain? So there may be no such expensive microvias at all,
>you now say? And, let me ask, have you found out whether the Pegasos 1
>has them, or not? Or are you just assuming that they do, because you
>want to arrive at a higher cost for the PCB?
I know what BGA's there are on the board and I know how many layers it
takes to route such a beast. And how many of those that need to be
microvia layers.
> How many times do I have to say that the prices I did check was for
> a 6 layer board???????
>Right. And next you'll tell me that you checked the prices for a 6
>layer board without expensive microvias, too. Right?
Nope, since I know that the Artica is a 492 pin BGA with a ballpitch of
around 1.27 mm. Further more, the southbridge is is most likely as similar
package as the VT82C686 (I have the datasheet here) which also has
ballpitch of 1.27mm. Given a track width of 5 mils and clearance of 5 mils
that would make it impossible to route using only through hole vias.
Convinced yet?
>Well, if you can't stand it when people disagree, I'm sure you have
>forums where you can express yourself without being questioned.
I have no problem beeing questioned, but when you are nitpicking like
you do it is rather obvious that you have no clue what you are talking
about. You are just here to find loopholes due to my sloppyness and inability
to write stuff that you cannot misquote or take out of context. So far
you havn't made any attempt to actually check any facts although I have
given you several staring points. (Oh, sorry you have given me the
exact dimensions of the Pegasos board)
> Seriously. Correcting spelling errors like that isn't likely to make
> you more credible.
>No, but it might make you a better speller. I just noticed you used
>the same spelling twice, so I guessed it wasn't just a slip of the
>fingers. Yes, I'm a pedant. And yes, you can still find typos in my
>posts if you look hard, and grammar errors too.
I probably can, but that wouldn't make your arguments any less credible
in my eyes. Besides, most of my points have been written late at night
and with a broken middle finger so I wouldn't be surprised if you can
find a dozen more spelling errors and grammar errors.
[looking for connector prices at Digi-key]
> It gave me a starting point as good as any. But sure, I am always
> looking at the wrong place, making the wrong assumption etc.
> according to you since it is in your nature to brush off anything
> that can be even remotely critical to your rather emotional point of
> view!
>Oh I'm sure, as opposed to your cool, factual point of view. Maybe if
>you didn't use multiple question marks in every other paragraph..
Sigh. Mr nitpicker here again. Well I certainly have spent some time
looking for prices. Say, when did you do that?
> To source parts cheaply, it requires you to order large quantities
> and accept long lead times.
>Long lead times sounds rather like what we've been experiencing with
>both the Peg 1 and Peg 2 production. Large quantities can to some
Most likely due to shortage of CPU's and other chips I guess.
>extent be substituted by good bargaining skills and business contacts.
>I happen to know a couple of good bargainers who are related..
Right. Selling them connectors and capacitors isn't likely going to make
them rich :)
> Neither of that is something you do during a prototype run. There is
> a tradeoff between getting the parts cheap and getting the result in
> time (result == getting to know if the board works or not)
Right. But I thought we were talking about those units that were sold,
according to our mutual guess, at $300 a piece to various dealers? It
doesn't seem unlikely at all that some prototype used parts from
Digi-key. But in order to be able to sell them for $300, I think they
would rather use a different source.
Yep. Or subsidised them one way or another...
>Nope, doesn't need a PCB expert to see that this is wrong.
Huh? Care to elaborate? I havn't seen anything but pictures of a
Pegasos so I havn't been able to inspect the boards.
But hey, if you already knew the answer, why did you ask?
> I never intended the discussion to go this far. I expected people to
> use my numbers as a starting point if they wanted to dig further.
>Ok, so you're not going to back up your claim that the Peg 1 was
>subsidised? Good, then we have that settled.
I am backing up my claims all the time. However, I will not produce
a total BOM if that is what you mean. I leave it to the other people
around here with some experience to form their opinion if the Pegasos
was subsidised or not.
> Sorry, I misunderstood what he meant by that. I thought he meant
> stod up for genesi and arguing in their favor. Sorry, I was tired
> when I wrote it.
>Ok, accepted. And reading back, it seems you were more critical to his
>claims than I thought before, so sorry for saying that you lied about
>my person. Indeed I read mainly the first paragraph, where you agreed
>with him, and didn't adjust my impression enough from the second
>paragraph, making me miss the possibility of a misunderstanding.
Perhaps you should do the same with the rest of the stuff that I have
written that you have underquoted,missunderstood or bluntly ignored?
>As for the forging, well, that's what you did. As you actually told me
>that you were putting two messages together, and since you still claim
>that you don't understand that this would be forgery, I guess you
>didn't really have evil intentions but.. still, I can't accept that
forge -- To fashion or reproduce for fraudulent purposes; counterfeit:
I wouldn't call my purpose fraudulent. I was showing people what
you did cut away from my message.
Since I explained what I did, that made it rather obvious wasn't it? Unlike
someone else who is cutting away pieces making it look like I was still arguing
for something I wasn't
>you cut and paste my posts to make it seem like I'm answering to a
>different statement than I really did.
Well, the point is that you answered an old quote, taking away the new
one! Besides, your answer was still written next to the old information.
I just put back the 'unquoted' text to show people what my answer really
was. |
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 454 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 23-Jul-2004 06:10 GMT | In reply to Comment 452 (AdmV0rl0n):
Admvorlon: Really, I don't care who *you* think I was contracted by. I
know that the Swedish tax authorities, myself, the liquidator of
Thendic and any court deciding upon the matter would agree that I was
contracted by Thendic and that this is significant.
Now, if I could choose, I'd probably choose to have been contracted by
Genesi. After all, being owed by a living company is generally better
than being owed by a dead one. However, I can't choose. And you're
wrong. Sorry for messing up your conspiracy theories. But I'm sure
you'll find a way to fit this in somehow.
I'd really like to have been paid by Genesi, but I've never been. And
in all honesty, I don't have any agreement with them that says I will
be. Unfortunately.
As for your theory that I would be trying to hide that I'm being owed
money by a company related to BBRV (that *is* what you're raving about
now, isn't it?), then why do you think I wrote that article on the
MooBunny in the first place (it also appeared on the front page of
ANN, btw)? Why do you think I refer to that post frequently? Why do
you think I mentioned this debt even in this very thread (see comment
177)? |
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 455 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 23-Jul-2004 06:46 GMT | In reply to Comment 453 (Stefan Burström):
Stefan Burström wrote:
[about a good estimate of the Pegasos 2 production cost being a good
guess for the production cost of the Pegasos 1]
> Let's just say that we wouldn't get within 5% of the Pegasos price
> would we?
Of course not. You haven't even mentioned a figure for your estimate
though, so even if the Peg 2 cost would be 50% different to the
Peg 1 cost it would be a *very* good guess.
[about using component costs from Digi-key]
> Just because I found the numbers easy doesn't mean they are wrong
> completely, does it?
No. They may be wrong completely for the reason that they may well be
even a factor of 10 too high, as I explained.
[claiming that the quote in post 435 wasn't forged]
> I just re-read my comment #380 and you are right. The text you
> mention above does not entirely belong to this thread. _Because you
> have removed 3/4rd of my sentence when replying to it_.
No. You're including parts of an entirely different sentence. Anyway,
even if it was the same sentence, and I replied to part of it only,
that still doesn't allow you to "quote" me making it seem like I
replied to all of it. Since obviously my comment would have been
directed to the part of the sentence I replied to, not to whatever I
decided to cut. For example, I regularly cut your sentences when you
start to make derogatory remarks about my abilities, if there's
something worth replying to before that.
> Never managed to splice anyting using Ctrl-v in ultraedit
[full stop missing, I'm not quoting an incomplete sentence here]
Well I don't really care how you did it.
[about leaving out parts of the message you're replying to]
> In the context you did it, I'd call it forgery since it wasn't
> obvious that there were missing pieces that you left out.
You're talking about my comment 384 now, are you? And the text you
claim that I "unobviously" left out was "Ok, say 6 then."? Uh, I have
a comment by myself in between the last text I quoted before the "Ok,
let's say 6 then." and the first text I quoted after "Ok, let's
say 6 then.". How more obvious can it get? There are no gaps in my
quote. I just didn't quote all of your text. I left out a different
paragraph.
> Johan Rönnblom wrote:
>> Right. And next you'll tell me that you checked the prices for a 6
>> layer board without expensive microvias, too. Right?
>
> Nope, since I know that the Artica is a 492 pin BGA with a ballpitch
> of around 1.27mm. Further more, the southbridge is is most likely as
> similar package as the VT82C686 (I have the datasheet here) which
> also has a ballpitch of 1.27mm. Given a track width of 5 mils and
> clearance of 5 mils that would make it impossible to route using
> only through hole vias. Convinced yet?
No, because the Peg 1 PCB has no microvias.
Now, do you still think that the Peg 1 was subsidised? |
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 456 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Robert on 23-Jul-2004 10:20 GMT | In reply to Comment 454 (Johan Rönnblom):
@Johan:
Don't take this the wrong way but, as someone who has read most of this
thread without commenting, you are beginning to look a little 'unhinged'.
Your moobunny post made it clear that you felt you were treated so badly
by *THENDIC*, that you should warn people not to work for *GENESI*.
That tells me you considered these organisations to be pretty close to
being one and the same.
Now you appear to be spending huge amounts of effort attempting to show
otherwise.
@Stefan and Adam:
Eh, I think you guys *might* be, as we say over here, 'pishing in the wind'. ;-) |
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 457 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by reflect on 23-Jul-2004 10:40 GMT | In reply to Comment 456 (Robert):
Personally, I think this argument, and more the technique behind it makes it look childish and immature. Someone said "grasping at straws" and "nitpicking on technical details" earlier and I fully agree. It's gotten quite boring reading the replies when there's constant side-stepping of the main arguments, twisting and turning and then what seems like deliberate blind-eye to what the other party says.
*sigh* |
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 458 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by AdmV0rl0n on 23-Jul-2004 10:56 GMT | In reply to Comment 456 (Robert):
They were not quite one and the same, but they were becoming so, or at least that was the intention.
For all JR's moaning, he did work for BBRV, he was involved re Pegasos and Genesi ops, and his denials are based around the spurious paper chase BBRV has left him with.
I sympathise with him on lost earnings, and difficulty, but whatever he may say, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, he has been/did work for that group of people. Waving Thendic Invoices at me is gonna get nowhere.
You only have to realise Thendic and bPlan were going to merge, that was the officially posted information by that group of people. Whatever the accountants have drawn up, or BBRV has agreed with French authorities, is irrelevant. JR had things not got ugly, I assume would now be part of Genesi, post merger, wether as a contractor, employee, whatever. He can go blue in the face as far as I care beyond that.
In terms of conspiracy waffles from his direction, only he can post as to why he posts positive things about Genesi, while at the same time pointng to the moobunny post as if that creates some anti Genesi ideal (I would say he is a post employee/contractor whom has favourable views on Genesi, but hit issues when Thedic/Genesi shit hit the fan)
He has a remarkable record of being supportive towards Genesi. When noted in my post, he starts jumping up and down claiming he has nothing to do with them, never worked with them, never took a dime blah blah blah. The guy can't quite make up his mind about wether they are good or bad, or wether he worked for them or not, or wether he knows about the production of the system or not. He is sure fighting hard against anything Stefan says, and this is based on what ? Bullshit? Don't know. Inside info? Well, if as he claims he has never been involved, how would he know? If he does know, then he might have to concede he was involved, so who bloody knows. Anything of value he may have said is now being vaporised by the bullshit. I've said previously, I dunno what it is with these folks on the Genesi side. |
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 459 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by itix on 23-Jul-2004 11:06 GMT | In reply to Comment 454 (Johan Rönnblom):
I could not care less about your debate, but some thoughts... G3 Peg price @ Genesi webshop was 300eG4 Peg price @ Genesi webshop is 500e That is 200e difference. Compared to A1-XE, A1-XE G3 costs about 725e (IIRC) when G4 model is 800e. That is only 75e difference. How comes Genesi is making now G4 models only? :) And if you ever wondered why Peg @ Amiga reseller costs more than 299e + VAT, there is good reason... |
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 460 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 23-Jul-2004 11:54 GMT | In reply to Comment 456 (Robert):
Robert: Of course they are closely related. Duh! When did I claim
otherwise? In fact, for a long time I had no idea whether I'd be
contracted by one or the other. That still doesn't mean Genesi paid me
any money, though. Or that this difference is irrelevant. Or that I
wouldn't be lying if I claimed that they paid me.
The whole claim that I'd be trying to "hide" my relations with bbrv is
ridiculous. If I were trying to hide it, why do I keep mentioning it
all the time, even when nobody asks me about it? Btw, if I wanted to
hide it, it would have been quite easy, as the only reason you know
anything about it is because I told you.
Admvorlon: It's not that I "can't" make my mind up whether they are
"good" or "bad". I don't want to. I don't view the world in black and
white like you do. |
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 461 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Andrea Maniero on 23-Jul-2004 12:21 GMT | In reply to Comment 459 (itix):
Hi itix!
> Compared to A1-XE, A1-XE G3 costs about 725e (IIRC) when G4 model is 800e. That
> is only 75e difference.
As much as I regret to enter such a topic myself, I have to tell you that you are probably comparing old quotes for the G3@800MHz and the G4@800MHz.
In Italy, right now, Soft3 sells:
-A1G3SE 600 at 670Euro
-A1G3XE 800 at 810Euro
-A1G4XE 800 at 840Euro
-A1G4XE 933 at 890Euro
The difference between the 600MHz G3 and the 933MHz G4 is still 220Euro (it's 200+VAT on the PegasosII, but then it's for a 1GHz G4, too). Same prices (well, 10 Euro higher) are applied by Virtual Works.
When speaking about the "subsidized" Pegasos1, one should keep in mind that it was sold for 650Euro (VAT included) for most of the time - and were still sold at 500$+VAT at the end of its life (May 2003)... So, trying to determine a BOM for the Peg1, and trying to fit it to the price of the Pegasos2... well, it's a nice homework, but it's usefulness is next to 0.
Anyway, I find it odd that someone that says:
> I havn't seen anything but pictures of a Pegasos so I havn't been able to
> inspect the boards.
then spends so much time giving "accurate" cost figures and making claims and accusations... BTW, the price you prospected for the PCB (100$ per unit), is more or less what was paid here from a couple of colleagues that required 4 boards for testing... mATX boards, similar to the Peg/Peg2 (6 layers and so on..). When buying 500 boards you can bet the price goes down quite a lot...
Kind regards,
Andrea |
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 462 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Sigbjørn Skjæret on 23-Jul-2004 14:37 GMT | In reply to Comment 456 (Robert):
"Your moobunny post made it clear that you felt you were treated so badly
by *THENDIC*, that you should warn people not to work for *GENESI*.
That tells me you considered these organisations to be pretty close to
being one and the same."
If you had read that post you would see exactly why he does...
"Now you appear to be spending huge amounts of effort attempting to show
otherwise."
Well, there's no real effort there at all (just reiteration for someone who clearly just didn't "get it"), all the effort seems to lie with AdmV who constantly tries to find some connection that doesn't exist (there is a connection, as already explained by Johan, but apparently this one is too vague for AdmV, who seems to want Thendic and Genesi to be one and the same), and for some unfathomable reason he thinks "proving" this connection somehow puts Johan in a bad light (if anything, it would be beneficial for Johan to have this connection proven, as he'd have a better chance of recovering owed money) .. that somehow anyone ever having done any sort of deal with Genesi automatically becomes their forum-zombie ready to chew out the brains of anyone daring to attack Genesi, in any shape or form, publically...
It makes you wonder if AdmV truly even knows what he is arguing about, as his "points" seem to disprove his own theories, also it's kinda amusing that he's hounding Johan for supposedly defending Genesi at every corner while he himself seems to be on a crusade to not only discredit Genesi (which he may be justified in doing (although, making it a personal mission might be taking the obsession abit over the top)), but to discredit anyone who even so much as blinked in their general direction.
- CISC |
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 463 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by AdmV0rl0n on 23-Jul-2004 15:57 GMT | In reply to Comment 462 (Sigbjørn Skjæret):
Well, there's no real effort there at all (just reiteration for someone who clearly just didn't "get it"), all the effort seems to lie with AdmV who constantly tries to find some connection that doesn't exist (there is a connection, as already explained by Johan, but apparently this one is too vague for AdmV, who seems to want Thendic and Genesi to be one and the same), and for some unfathomable reason he thinks "proving" this connection somehow puts Johan in a bad light (if anything, it would be beneficial for Johan to have this connection proven, as he'd have a better chance of recovering owed money) .. that somehow anyone ever having done any sort of deal with Genesi automatically becomes their forum-zombie ready to chew out the brains of
anyone daring to attack Genesi, in any shape or form, publically...
---
No, all I did was note Johan almost always posts Pro Genesi, and that he had connections there. He came back claiming he had no links etc etc.
---
It makes you wonder if AdmV truly even knows what he is arguing about, as his "points" seem to disprove his own theories, also it's kinda amusing that he's hounding Johan for supposedly defending Genesi at every corner while he himself seems to be on a crusade to not only discredit Genesi (which he may be justified in doing (although, making it a personal mission might be taking the obsession abit over the top)), but to discredit anyone who even so much as blinked in their general direction.
---
I don't think its amusing. Genesi discredit themselves, I merely point it out. As for Johan, I've said what my point of view is. He is part of /was part of that group of people. You can deny it or make your own excuses, none of which makes the slightest bit of differenc. |
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 464 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 23-Jul-2004 16:21 GMT | In reply to Comment 463 (AdmV0rl0n):
> I don't think its amusing. Genesi discredit themselves, I merely point it out.
> As for Johan, I've said what my point of view is. He is part of /was part of
> that group of people. You can deny it or make your own excuses, none of which
> makes the slightest bit of differenc.
He never denied he worked for that "group of people", what he denied is he worked for Genesi. Come on, it's not hard to understand. |
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 465 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 23-Jul-2004 18:21 GMT | In reply to Comment 464 (Fabio Alemagna):
I don't think Admvorlon would be happy unless I agreed that Genesi
have paid me. At which point either he or some other loony would
probably send my statement to the Swedish tax authorities, who would
ask why I haven't disclosed this income. |
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 466 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by AdmV0rl0n on 24-Jul-2004 13:20 GMT | In reply to Comment 465 (Johan Rönnblom):
No I fully understand that group of people owe you, did not pay you. I've even wished you luck getting it resolved. |
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 467 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 24-Jul-2004 22:53 GMT | In reply to Comment 453 (Stefan Burström):
Stefan, why don't you look up the dimensions of the Pegasos at the www.pegasosppc.com or www.bplan-gmbh.de sites when you try to do some reasearch about it? You said you aren't even sure if it has 3 or 4 PCI slots, well... |
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 468 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 24-Jul-2004 23:05 GMT | In reply to Comment 459 (itix):
>G3 Peg price @ Genesi webshop was 300e
>G4 Peg price @ Genesi webshop is 500e
>That is 200e difference.
A good observation!
>Compared to A1-XE, A1-XE G3 costs about 725e (IIRC) when G4 model is 800e.
>That is only 75e difference.
Do you want to imply something?
A1 has 750FX-800 and 7455-800/933.
Pegasos has 750CXe-600 and 7447-1000.
>How comes Genesi is making now G4 models only? :)
How come?
Maybe there is demand?
>And if you ever wondered why Peg @ Amiga reseller costs more than 299e + VAT, there is good reason...
The G3 doesn't cost more than 299e + VAT at Amiga resellers. |
|
| Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 469 of 469 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Stefan Burström on 25-Jul-2004 10:47 GMT | In reply to Comment 467 (Anonymous):
>Stefan, why don't you look up the dimensions of the Pegasos at the
>www.pegasosppc.com or www.bplan-gmbh.de sites when you try to do some
>reasearch about it? You said you aren't even sure if it has 3 or 4 PCI slots,
>well
Simply because I entered MicroATX in google and used the first board I found.
Never thought that 1 of the 2 dimensions would vary for a standard sized board.
But, I guess that is kind of ancient since I have admitted the error I did
multiple times.
rgds,
Stefan
(Who is off to jump a Hercules again instead of having a useless debate with a
clueless person who doesn't understand or is willing to understand my true
intentions with my posts) |
|
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|
