Commodore Amiga 2000 Teardown

Commodore Amiga 2000 Teardown

Summary: Bill Detwiler cracks open the Commodore Amiga 2000. Released in 1986, the Amiga 2000 contains chips from Motorola, NEC, Texas Instruments, and more.

SHARE:

 |  Image 1 of 87

  • Thumbnail 1
  • Thumbnail 2
  • Thumbnail 3
  • Thumbnail 4
  • Thumbnail 5
  • Thumbnail 6
  • Thumbnail 7
  • Thumbnail 8
  • Thumbnail 9
  • Thumbnail 10
  • Thumbnail 11
  • Thumbnail 12
  • Thumbnail 13
  • Thumbnail 14
  • Thumbnail 15
  • Thumbnail 16
  • Thumbnail 17
  • Thumbnail 18
  • Thumbnail 19
  • Thumbnail 20
  • Thumbnail 21
  • Thumbnail 22
  • Thumbnail 23
  • Thumbnail 24
  • Thumbnail 25
  • Thumbnail 26
  • Thumbnail 27
  • Thumbnail 28
  • Thumbnail 29
  • Thumbnail 30
  • Thumbnail 31
  • Thumbnail 32
  • Thumbnail 33
  • Thumbnail 34
  • Thumbnail 35
  • Thumbnail 36
  • Thumbnail 37
  • Thumbnail 38
  • Thumbnail 39
  • Thumbnail 40
  • Thumbnail 41
  • Thumbnail 42
  • Thumbnail 43
  • Thumbnail 44
  • Thumbnail 45
  • Thumbnail 46
  • Thumbnail 47
  • Thumbnail 48
  • Thumbnail 49
  • Thumbnail 50
  • Thumbnail 51
  • Thumbnail 52
  • Thumbnail 53
  • Thumbnail 54
  • Thumbnail 55
  • Thumbnail 56
  • Thumbnail 57
  • Thumbnail 58
  • Thumbnail 59
  • Thumbnail 60
  • Thumbnail 61
  • Thumbnail 62
  • Thumbnail 63
  • Thumbnail 64
  • Thumbnail 65
  • Thumbnail 66
  • Thumbnail 67
  • Thumbnail 68
  • Thumbnail 69
  • Thumbnail 70
  • Thumbnail 71
  • Thumbnail 72
  • Thumbnail 73
  • Thumbnail 74
  • Thumbnail 75
  • Thumbnail 76
  • Thumbnail 77
  • Thumbnail 78
  • Thumbnail 79
  • Thumbnail 80
  • Thumbnail 81
  • Thumbnail 82
  • Thumbnail 83
  • Thumbnail 84
  • Thumbnail 85
  • Thumbnail 86
  • Thumbnail 87
  • In 1986-87, Commodore released the Amiga 2000. The machine was technically similar to the Amiga 500, but had a larger case and was designed to be more expandable. Costing around $1,500 (US), the Amiga 2000 was designed to compete with the much more expensive Apple Macintosh II (~$5,500) and IBM PC (~$3,000). Follow along as we crack open the second generation he Amiga 2000--the Amgia B2000-CR.

    Photo by: Bill Detwiler / TechRepublic
    Caption by: Bill Detwiler

  • The Amiga 2000 was designed to be the high-end version of the Amiga 500 and successor to the popular Amiga 1000.

    We purchased this Commodore Amiga 2000 (B2000-CR) for about $200 from an online auction. It arrived without a keyboard, documentation, or software.

    Photo by: Bill Detwiler / TechRepublic
    Caption by: Bill Detwiler

Topics: Processors, Hardware, Networking

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

75 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • A good law

    But it doesn't go far enough. It should have also protected online bloggers who do not make any money off their websites through ads and other things.

    I was happy to see that they put in the 'reasonable exhaustion of other means' thing into the law that they have to use before they can compel an online journalist to give up their sources. That was a good addition to this law and will prevent them from automatically coming to a journalist and say "Give up your source!"

    I support the thing where if there is imminent danger of a terrorist or other attack that they can go straight to the online blogger and ask him who his source is, that is a reasonable extension of the law that I hope that there will be enough checks and balances on it that it will not be abused by the police and other organizations.
    Leria
    • Laws already protect online bloggers not making money

      This article is somewhat off in that it implies that US citizens do not already have inalienable rights to blog. Unless you are a student of US history and a US patriot you likely have come to believe that posting something like BILL GATES IS A MOBSTER risks your liberty, your job, and your access to forums such as this one.

      You probably have come to believe this owing to the Gates Family Law and Lobby Firm. That firm, Preston Gates and Ellis, no longer exists because its key man was Jack Abramoff, a man who now fingers the government officials he corrupted on behalf of the Gates family almost daily for cigarettes and a day in the prison yard.

      Abramoff exposed the Gates family influence over the Washington Post (Bill's Wife and Bill's Friend Buffet sit or sat on the board) and to this day maintains that it was his competitor firms that exposed him in the first place through the Washington Post. Those firms were run or controlled by Bill Neukom and by his replacement at Microsoft, Brad Smith, both of whom represent family interests as lawyers. Bill Neukum currently disgracess all members of the American Bar association by holding on to the the presidency of that association.

      If you followed the last US antitrust case against Microsoft you may have wondered why Judge Jackson didn't lose his job, lose family wealth being sued, etc after remarks about Bill Gates and Microsoft.

      The truth is that all US citizens can speak as he did. They do not even need to be correct or speak the truth. They can speak as devils advocates and say just about anything which involves a public person. This is because our system of democracy is different than other democracies.

      In other democracies only lawyers can speak as Americans can. In other democracies public figures can sue for liable/slander - I am not a lawyer so I don't make a distinction.

      In our democracy we depend on the dialog to identify wrong doers - like those running Enron, WorldCom and Microsoft and those like pedophiles and terrorists who lead churches or are otherwise public by being on My Space or assuming a leadership position like a supervisor or boss.

      And we recognize that wrong doers are likely to influence government officials so we do not look to government officials to identify them. Again we rely on the dialog and ourselves just like the pioneers did and in the dialog we protect our selves from Al Capon and Bill Gates and those they have corrupted who would perform warantlee wire tapping and data mining.

      Other democracies look to the governments to identify wrong doers by such means. We know not to trust the government because it is corruptible by mobsters (AKA monopolists).

      This law involves Blogging Anonymously. There have been some indications that the Gates family interests might include murder. The missing Grey 99.999 data base guy troubles me. But best I can tell, the Gates family doesn't wack folks like All Capone. Then again Abramoff is in jail now owing to a wire fraud and the client that hired him through Preston Gates and Ellis was killed mob style. In any case Blogging Anonymously is like contacting a reporter. It is needed in cases where the timid have information needed to maintain a polite society but fear mob style revenge.

      Where anonymous blogging should be and is illegal is when it is really harassment. For example, Preston Gates and Ellis undoubtedly hired operatives to harrass anonymously bloggers that criticized Bill Gates or Microsoft. These folks disappeared when the Bush administration applied existing harassment laws long on the books for telephony to the Internet.

      Autonomous phone calls and anonymous blogging are still legal but there is a limit. When informed that the activity looks like harrassement you have to identify yourself by your real name/ who you represent or if caught you go to jail. This is why identity theft is such a huge deal in the USA.

      We who have devoted our lives to Information Technology are very excited about the promising developments as Americans find their voices.

      Frank L. Mighetto CCP
      US patriot
      mighetto
      • You are quite the sad figure

        When I read your words, I feel a bit of sadness and pity for you. You most obviously have a personal, deep resentment of anything Microsoft that your words ring of the man who stands alone, blaming all wrongs done by or against you on from governments or corporations that fear you as this allows you to place your value in this world at a greater importance then is actually the case.

        Then my sadness turns to anger when I read on: What kind of monster are you that you would rejoice in the death of your fellow man as this now gives you the opportunity to make baseless implications that Microsoft is somehow involved in murder?

        When James Kim was reported missing, your words had a bit of giddiness when you made the implication that Gates and Microsoft may be involved, yet you were nowhere to be found when those involve were found and the true story was told.

        [i]This law involves Blogging Anonymously. There have been some indications that the Gates family interests might include murder. The missing Grey 99.999 data base guy troubles me [/i]

        So once again, REJOICE! Jim Grey, a person who had some history with Microsoft and Bill Gates is missing! Let me use this tragedy, most probably a death, as yet another way to make the implication that those in the Gates family are murderers!

        Yet as I think into it a bit, you could most definitely be a suspect, yourself. Both of these tragedies happened near the region in which you claim to live, and you yourself have said you are a sailor. Would you not benefit more from their deaths as this now gives you ample opurtunity to implicate Microsoft and the Gates family? An accomplished sailor like you could easily lure a person into rendering "assistance", at which point the dastardly deed is done, and the vessel sunk.

        Just a thought that I blog here as sometimes, the timid have information needed to maintain a polite society but fear mob style revenge?
        GuidingLight
        • I see your Light; Now guide me brother. And guide Microsoft employees

          NT
          mighetto
      • Dude, ask the doctor to change your meds. Seriously!!!

        Cause the ones your taking now have fried your brain.
        No_Ax_to_Grind
      • Actually you can be sued

        "In other democracies only lawyers can speak as Americans can. In other democracies public figures can sue for liable/slander - I am not a lawyer so I don't make a distinction."'

        In the US you can be sued for liable/slander by a public figures. You might not get sued but nothing is stopping them from suing you if they so choose to. The thing with Liable an Slander is that they are hard case to win. You'd better be sure first or you're wasting money and the courts time. Also you need to prove damages. If some shmuck on some random blog somewhere writes something that is liable in their blog on particular public figure no one will notice and hence no damage and no reason to sue. Now if you are respected journalist and millions read your articles in a publication and you write the same thing then you can guarantee you will be sue and the publication wrote for will also.
        voska
        • True you can be sued but...

          The plaintiff has to show that the defendant knew the truth and that what they said or wrote wasn't the truth and that it was deliberately distorted in a manner to deliberately injure the plaintiff.
          maldain
    • RE: A good law

      Wrong, a terrible law. Bloggers are NOT journalists. Now if they are willing to subjest themselves to the same rules and ethical standards as traditional journalists, then maybe.
      joe6pack_z
  • BadMin

    I'm sure glad we have the constitution. The Bush administration may find it a thorn in their side, but at least it provides us SOME protection from them.
    BitTwiddler
    • Not just the Bush admin

      The Clinton admin, the elder Bush admin, Carter, Nixon and LBJ all had issues with that pesky 1st amendment. Considering these are some of the worst presidents this country has ever had I suspect that it's really a good thing we have the Constitution to protect us.
      maldain
      • You may note

        that I skipped Reagan and Ford. Reagan actually believed in the Constitution and Ford was largely irrelevant so what he thought doesn't matter.
        maldain
  • Isn' t this the entire idea?

    "Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the committee's ranking member, voted against the bill on Wednesday because he said he believed the amended bill will still cause the Justice Department to "be constrained as it goes about the business of conducting investigations and prosecuting criminals."

    You know what? I agree with the republican from Texas, having a truly free press does in fact constrain what the justice department can and can not do. But I ask, isn't the entire idea behind having a free press? That the government or an agency of the government can't just do anything they want? That the press is free to tell all citizens what the government is doing at any time?

    I mean does anyone think Al-Queda, Humass, Drug Dealers, etc. doesn't know they are being watched and are constantly monitored? So who is it besides the American people is it a secret to?
    No_Ax_to_Grind
    • Keep it up

      and some might start to think you're actually sane.

      :o)
      Jack-Booted EULA
    • As usual, No_Brain_to_Grasp misses the entire point

      This horse's ass poster always seems to miss the obvious. Of COURSE they know they are being watched you dolt! But up until the 'fifth column' that IS the pathetic excuse for media on this country spilled the beans, these enemies that wish us harm did NOT necessarily know exactly HOW they were being watched/monitored.

      No_ass, it's people like you that America's media thrive upon. Gutless, brainless sheep, always gullible and willing to swallow whatever pablum the media feeds you.
      cyberian_z
  • First Amendment limitations

    Only shielding people who get paid is like only keeping freedom of the press and totally eliminating freedom of speech from the first amendment.
    tonyd11763@...
  • Law

    Anylaw, good, bad, or otherwise, can and will be overridden, ignored, or tossed aside by most government officals whenever they feel like it. Our country has gone from "we the people" to "I the ruler" in a matter of a few years. One can no longer express one's self on a topic the government has no wish to hear about. Freedom of speech, of expression, is more repressed in the US than ever before. How can we have freedom of speech when anyone who says what they feel is subject to arrest, law suits, or even violence for expressing their openion.
    silver-mage@...
    • So true. you are sharp to observe that freedom of speech has

      been severely constrained ever since the infamous Clinton regime gutted so much of the civil freedoms in this country.

      Great call!
      cyberian_z
    • You're so right!

      You are right, unfortunately. Express an opinion & get railroaded---lie, steal & cheat & get rewarded. I still cringe when I think of the person who got into trouble for having a negative Bush poster in their window while Bush was in that town.The poster was something like say no to Bush/re-elect Clinton duh. Likewise political demonstrators are not allowed to be near the action but are instead made to move to some isolated corner far from where they will be seen or heard BUT only when the view they are expressing is in opposition to the current admin. Then the "terrorist" possibility comes into play. How convenient.
      Personally I'm sick to death of hearing that we must give up our freedoms or we will impair criminal investigations of terrorists etc. Propaganda. Remember that Americans are supposed to be allowed to have opinions & be allowed to state them. When bloggers go beyond their own opinions they just may be held accountable unless of course they are 1.) a politician 2.) a corporation.
      nikitac
  • Freedon of the press is not a license for illegal activity

    Presidents cannot perform illegal acts and be immune from prosecution.
    Policeman cannot perform illegal acts and be immune from prosecution.
    So, why should reporters be immune?
    If a reporter -- like anyone else -- ahs knowledge that would help solve a crime, no matter how it was obtained, he has a responsibility to society -- both moral and legal -- to come forward. The Purpose of the first amendment is to prevent the muzzling of critics of the government and enable the free expression of ideas -- not a shield for co-conspirators or accompices after-the-fact. To know who commited a murder, as an extreme example, and shield that person's identity is an illegal act, and should apply to everyone.
    NeverLift
    • oh really?

      Presidents cannot perform illegal acts and be immune from prosecution. [uh but it happens]
      Policeman cannot perform illegal acts and be immune from prosecution. [uh but it definitely happens]

      While the above is right I'm not sure it is true... You state, "To know who commited a murder, as an extreme example, and shield that person's identity is an illegal act, and should apply to everyone." Yes right but everyday we see exceptions made & we know that they do not always apply to everyone EVEN tho in fairness or morally they should. And this is what bothers me....we've moved so far from the things that our country has stood for---for so long. You also said, "The Purpose of the first amendment is to prevent the muzzling of critics of the government and enable the free expression of ideas...." & I agree but it seems like those words are quickly becoming just words to use to sell a point. So it depends on just what ideas you are expressing whether the words apply or not.Oh & if you make money for the ideas you express or the government you criticize. ROFL

      P.S. You are right of course.... Besides you were 'on topic' & you didn't badmouth or blame anyone---oh & Microsoft never came up. Yay!
      nikitac