Quote:
Originally Posted by eXeler0
I read an article at some point where Commodore allegedly asked devs to choose between 1MB RAM and High density floppy drive or 2MB RAM and the old low density drive. Devs then chose 2MB chip...
If this is true, we were not even close to getting additional FastRAM beyond the chip ram we got.
But yes, by now we all know there's a lot to regret.
TBH back then I was more impressed with the Atari Falcon. Apart from the crappy OS I thought they got a bunch of things right.. 030 CPU, Chunky graphics mode, DSP for sound, easily upgradable memory etc.. Yes the actual implementation was not as good as it sounded on paper.. Anyhow, it was sold at £100 more than the A1200.
Not sure if those £100 made all the difference. The Falcon never took off so to speak... But surely, if Atari could sell that hardware at that price the Commodore could have pimped up the A1200 and still be cheaper...
Edit: It's not entirely easy to find Falcon launch price, but some seem to suggest it was actually £599 meaning it was £200 more than an A1200. If so, Commodore definitely had some "headroom" there.. OTOH, you don't make big design choices that late..
|
The Falcon was doomed to failure because it was made by Atari! Lets put a 32bit cpu on a 16bit st data bus and recycle st cases, yes it was £599, so out of the budget spec, Commodore could have easily done that but their main sales were from budget computers, they couldnt just add a 030 and 2mb fast ram as everyone says they should have, it is what is was, that is also why i hate when people compare pcs to amigas, they werent in the same price range, of course pcs could push more data around, you paid extra for it, doesnt mean ive ever enjoyed using one!