Author: Johan Klockars (as28-3-8.va.g.bonet.se)
Date: 12-01-2002 21:08
> I recommend seeing how the CT60 performs before rushing into buying an AB40 (8 year old technology now),
Make that 12 year old technology, if you're talking about the '040. I guess the AB040 card is somewhere around 7-8 years, though.
Anyway, I thought that only as many CT60's as were pre-ordered were produced?
If so, there's no way for anyone who hasn't already ordered (and paid for) it to get one. At least not until they start to show up in the second hand market, which shouldn't be all that soon.
> pack a bigger punch due to a much higher bandwidth design.
Not to mention the '060 (which, by the way, is 9 year or so old technology ;-).
> The AB40 route is a rash decision at this point in time. It won't disappear, so why not
It disappeared long ago, unfortunately.
They do show up second hand once in a while, of course.
For anyone who's used to the standard Atari machines, an AB040 is a large step up in performance (except that it might easily be even slower in the VDI/NVDI window move test mentioned earlier due to the even lower than normal Falcon bus bandwidth).
> For one, the AB40's Falcon bus through-connector is just that, an extension of the 16-bit bus which chokes the Falcon. CT60 has a full 32-bit expansion bus with 060 protocol.
While that is true, there is currently nothing to connect to the CT60 bus. The standard through-connector can take various graphics cards, frame grabbers, etc.
> "Do the Math".
The maths says that there's infinitely more (current) use for the standard connector. ;-)
Anyway, I don't mean to say that the CT60 is a bad option if you can get hold of it. I ordered and paid for one long ago myself, and bought a second Falcon to have somewhere to put it.
|
RE: My Falcon is crap... Why? 