Originally posted by Oscar Castillo
At the time nobody, I mean nobody ever would of thought that the driving force behind the push of PC clones to dominance today was going to be turning the gamers on to the platform. Which is what I believe was a key factor in making developers leave the 8 bitters in droves.
By the time Amiga and ST were out, although superior in every way, it was hard for developers to ignore the numbers of clones out there. Comparing my first 4Mhz IBM PC to the capabilites of my C64 you would never get the impression that the PC would ever become a decent games platform. Even later on when my parents bought me a top of the line 8 Mhz IBM PC-AT with EGA video for $4000 it paled by comparison.
Atari and Commodore sure had a good thing going for a while. Both companies sure had the talent they needed to succeed. I would have preferred for either one to continue on rather then see them both die as hardware companies. They truly had innovative products back then and one could only imagine what they would have brought to market if either company was thriving today.
Things just do not seem as exciting anymore as when you picked up a copy of your favorite computer mag of the time and read about new Atari and Amiga systems coming out. You actually read every word of the article or review.
PC's won out because it was the computer for anybody. This happened because nobody owned and directed the PC evolution. The hardware was something anybody could make without a liscence, same with software. There were so many evolutions and revolutions of hardware companies growing out of software companies needs and the other way around. There was no way any 1 company could have competed with the exponentially growing number of software and hardware companies making stuff for the open PC system.
Even early in the PC revolution you had so many choices of OS like msdos, pcdos, drdos, os2, windows,desqview, geos, a bunch of unix I cant even remember. the hardware was completely open and manufactured by so many companies that anybody could get their foot in the door with a decent product and a decent product with a small market share meant a shitload of money to that company. Do you remember when IBM the maker of the platform tried to steer PC's into a different direction with MCA bus and the majority of companies said screw it and went with VESA and then PCI? No company on earth could have done that to commodore when they were in buisiness.
Having a huge base meant prices dropped like a rock on equipment. If apple kept making their own designs like nubus instead of PCI and AGP, not using USB , PC printers, videocards, and monitors where would they be now? They were spending too much money on R&D to keep up. I get sick when I hear about all the tangents commodore went on before they finally died out. It also got alot harder for any company to be a player and really hard for companies to even get in the market anymore since you needed big dollars.
Things dont seem exciting because of the PC consolidation. Cheaper, smaller, faster, more space isnt as exciting as something NEW. Commodre and Atari should have merged at one point and made an open standards computer for gamers, they would still be around today. Gamers are the ones who purchased amiga's and ST's yet both companies pretty much abandoned their markets ( no advertising, many years in between better hardware) trying to be a PC maker competing with each other and dozens of other companies in an area they had no hope of winning. The would have been what SONY is today but better.