Was anyone else disappointed with the A1200?

[TEG]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Because the PC *was* relevant for business, the C64 not. See the difference? Professional - hobbyists?

You're right of course in targeting a pure Professional audience. A C64 compatibility would be a nonsense then. But unlike IBM, Commodore aficionados were in the hobbyists land. Something like 10 or 15 millions... in 1985.

So offering a bridge with those people look like a good idea. And yeah, a card seems the best option finally. Thinking of it, out of the box C64 compatibility would have been unrealistic to manufacture due to time constraint I guess. But promising a board and dedicate at least one person to start to work on it would do the marketing trick for hobbyists and not hurt the Professional decision.

And the 1541 compatibility would have help the hobbyists world decision just by being able to reuse their hard-earned equipment.

[Promilus]

and you can even change the palette!

Well C64 palette was made that way intentionally so low res and low color depth wouldn't hurt your eyes. Saturated colors makes more contrast between pixels and makes dithering painful to look at. On the other hand adjustable palette would fix some games which suffers exactly due to those washed down colors.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by Promilus

Well C64 palette was made that way intentionally so low res and low color depth wouldn't hurt your eyes. Saturated colors makes more contrast between pixels and makes dithering painful to look at. On the other hand adjustable palette would fix some games which suffers exactly due to those washed down colors.

Of course you can use a palette that is almost exactly like the original, or something offering more contrast or individual presets for each software/game...
One could even apply Copper-tricks and Amiga-Sprites on top of the C64-output, if that would make any sense ...

And the Amiga would be the ultimate development tool for the C64, which was still very relevant in 85 and coming years ... and vice vera such a card would ease porting software and games to the Amiga.

Imagine the (small) software houses back in the 80s... could they justify to buy an Amiga in 85? Many just kept on developing for the C64 ... on the C64.
But with the Amiga as development-machine, the tide is turning: now getting an Amiga makes sense, even if you are initially not planing to develop for it ...
But once the Amiga is in the hands of capable developers, you can bet your house that they will get hooked!

In the first two years such a feature might have been a real boost for A1000 sales!
(Certainly more than the infamous Sidecar combo, which was not only dead-ugly but also expensive ...)

As for more professional software, I would have tried to make a deal with Digital Research, to get CP/M-68 as a native AmigaOS-library.
A familiar API for many software houses, that would ease the first generation of ports to the Amiga ...

CP/M has a strict separation between the text-UI and the program itself, so everything could run in theory via some serial-attached terminal.
One could take advantage of this behavior and create a graphical Intuition-Mask for a CP/M program, whiteout ever changing the program itself ...

[TEG]

@Thomas

Look at market share in 1985. The hobbyist volume was not negligible and the professional one not as high as today:





Another one showing volume evolution:

[TEG]

On this one we can see that the breaking point was in 1984/1985 and Commodore had no right to fail with the Amiga which came at the right moment. This being said, Apple managed to survived.

[chb]

Originally Posted by Gorf

You make it too complicated.
A small redesign (one could even argue a simplification) of the VIC-II would do:
Stay in the digital realm!
At some point in its internal pipeline the VIC-II has a 4-bit value for every pixel.
All you need from there are four dual-ported line buffers.
From the Amiga-side these buffers look like a small region in ChipRAM
(Not entirely unlike what the A314 can do today...)

Then you just need to synchronize the Amiga to the VIC-II-timing and point the bitplane-pointers to these buffers. Et voilà!
Now you have your C64 output as an 16 colour Amiga LowRes screen .. next to other screens and you can even change the palette!

Well, that still needs a new VIC revision, and your dual-ported line buffers probably weren't that simple to realize in 1985... one could probably double-buffer that line, probably that would be even mandatory, because the C64 has a higher pixel clock than the Amiga (to mitigate composite artifact colors), so they aren't synchronized. Doable? Probably yes, but economically viable? I guess the fact that no one did something like that for any of the 8-bit computers AFAIK (except the IIe-card, which was pretty late in 1991) means that most manufacturers did not see a market.

[chb]

Originally Posted by Promilus

Because it takes 030 to emulate it purely in software at decent speed and with decent compatibility.

Any evidence for that? I guess it's a pretty pessimistic estimate for the 6510 alone.

Originally Posted by Promilus

And yet it seems nobody here is able to answer the question why the hell it would've been necessary to put CIAs and SID and ROMs up there... And that's a half of C64 chipset. So... any particular idea why - if it was indeed going to happen - it would require all those chips? And if it wouldn't and could be made rather cheap - why would it failed when paired with over 1000$ machine without much of the software?

SID: You can emulate it; but quality is between not great but acceptable (simple standard stuff) and horrible (filter usage, samples, etc). Also, the CPU load to do even a simple emulation is significant already
CIA: those contain a lot of timing critical stuff - there are timers*, and bc of the slow disk routines a lot of programs brought their own fast loaders which relied on stable custom timings on the serial bus.
ROMs: again, emulating them from the Amiga side introduces timing differences that may break some stuff...

So, you propose an add-on card with so-so compatibility for applications, and quite bad one for games, that would be able to run considerably less software than a stand-alone C64, which retailed for $149 in 1985 (plus floppy, but you'd need that too for the Amiga). How many people would buy that?

* there is even a synchronization routine in some demos that jumps into the timer register, which is set up to form a variable jmp opcode back to RAM again that depends on the time passed since reseting that register... just to give an idea how the C64s hardware was exploited at times.

[grond]

I wonder why you people believe that adding compatibility to a games machinw (C64) would have helped the Amiga. As if games audiences cared much about backward compatibility. PS1 to PS2 is a different thing because then games were very hard to copy and represented the real investment into a platform. Not so for the C64 and Amiga.

Commodore needed better margins and those would only have been possible in the professional market. If you were not making PCs, you needed to have the relevant programs ported or superior alternatives.

[TEG]

Originally Posted by chb

I guess the fact that no one did something like that for any of the 8-bit computers AFAIK (except the IIe-card, which was pretty late in 1991) means that most manufacturers did not see a market.

This was all about timing and if it was Commodore which did it. Right after the acquisition of Amiga, someone had to work on it, manage to quickly make some prototype, even with some horrible workaround so Commodore would be able to leak pictures of the C64 screen running in the future machine and so keeping C64 owners very interested and delay the bought of something else.

Originally Posted by chb

So, you propose an add-on card with so-so compatibility for applications, and quite bad one for games, that would be able to run considerably less software than a stand-alone C64, which retailed for $149 in 1985 (plus floppy, but you'd need that too for the Amiga). How many people would buy that?

* there is even a synchronization routine in some demos that jumps into the timer register, which is set up to form a variable jmp opcode back to RAM again that depends on the time passed since reseting that register... just to give an idea how the C64s hardware was exploited at times.

No, no, no. Compatibility with 95% of the huge C64 library would have been sufficient. The idea is essentially to keep C64 owners mind hooked to the brand. And the brand was strong. Once they bought the new machine I'm sure only 20% would have bought the emulation board if Commodore would have output good software quickly. If the demand is strong you output a V2 with better compatibility.

If the 64 was $149 in 1985 that mean the electronic parts without the keyboard should have been $50. Certainly less with some integration.

Question: About the the C64 video signal, would it not be possible to use the Amiga genclock feature?

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by Promilus

Yeah... I do see a professional on A500. Are you actually believing that sh*t?

I'm not even clear what this is supposed to mean. A500 was a toy machine, it was not used in offices. What CBM was attempting to reach with the bridge board is to get a foot into the business market and offering compatibility to "standard PC hardware". The idea was "in general" correct, but what CBM did not quite understood is that "selling hardware" was no longer good enough.



Back in C64-times, "software" was something users created for a hardware platform. That no longer worked, computers became appliances, and users looked after which problems they can solve with such appliances.

Originally Posted by Promilus

And still... sold well over next 5 years.

And yet it was a dead end, underpowered, awkward architecture, and not up to date. The entire idea was already "behind state of the art" at the time it was created. The Amiga looked like a great step ahead in terms of hardware, except that hardware performance did not matter too much anymore at that pont.

Originally Posted by Promilus

ight. There's only one truth - the one relevant to you.

Not sure what you want to say. Truth does not depend on relevance.

[TEG]

Originally Posted by grond

I wonder why you people believe that adding compatibility to a games machinw (C64) would have helped the Amiga. As if games audiences cared much about backward compatibility.

Once again, to show you care about your customers as a brand and ensure the continuity of your products. In 1985 what guaranteed me the Amiga would not be replaced by another incompatible Commodore machine next year without taking care again? This image have to be changed. You think too much in term of hardware, not in term of the market picture.

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by TEG

No, no, no. Compatibility with 95% of the huge C64 library would have been sufficient. The idea is essentially to keep C64 owners mind hooked to the brand.

But they did, by buying an Amiga. What else would CBM have wanted? If you wanted to play 8-bit games, you had your 8-bit machine already.

Originally Posted by TEG

And the brand was strong.

In the home computer market, yes, but that was fading market.

Originally Posted by TEG

Once they bought the new machine I'm sure only 20% would have bought the emulation board if Commodore would have output good software quickly.

I really doubt that. What would have that offered what your C64 besides it did not have?

Originally Posted by TEG

Question: About the the C64 video signal, would it not be possible to use the Amiga genclock feature?

Genlocking the video signals is the least problem. The problem is the type of signal the video circuits generate. Amiga is an RGB analog system. It outputs three color signals, plus sync. Essentiallly, VGA, just at TV frequencies. The C64 creates FBAS, with luma being one signal, and chroma being another, where chroma is encoded as phase relative to the color carrier. Thus, one is RGB, the other is YIQ/YUV. The first is RGB with 3 analog signals, the other is FBAS with luma and chroma combined.


IOWs, to make VIC-II output RGB, you would have to redesign the chip.
Then, we have "slight" incompatibilities between the 6502 bus the VIC-II is working on, and the 68K bus the Amiga is working on.


This really makes not much sense.

[Promilus]

Originally Posted by chb

Any evidence for that? I guess it's a pretty pessimistic estimate for the 6510 alone.

Go ahead and try e.g. MagiC64 with anything less and you'll know. I didn't take that figure out of my a$$ you know? On the other hand you didn't provide anything concrete to make your point at all.

CIA: those contain a lot of timing critical stuff - there are timers*, and bc of the slow disk routines a lot of programs brought their own fast loaders which relied on stable custom timings on the serial bus.

Yes, and guess what Amiga does have a newer version of those chips which should pretty much work without any particular problem. It's not entirely true for the other way around (8520 usage in C64).

ROMs: again, emulating them from the Amiga side introduces timing differences that may break some stuff...

ROM timing is not critical (and most likely it would've been ROM image in RAM anyway like with usual software emulator). Also most of the ROM is hardly used by games. Games use e.g. custom characters in CGRAM not the default set in CGROM. Sooo... your point exactly?

So, you propose an add-on card with so-so compatibility for applications, and quite bad one for games, that would be able to run considerably less software than a stand-alone C64, which retailed for $149 in 1985 (plus floppy, but you'd need that too for the Amiga). How many people would buy that?

Why do you assume mediocre compatibility? You've made many very poor assumptions. Doesn't it invalidate your point of view already?

* there is even a synchronization routine in some demos that jumps into the timer register, which is set up to form a variable jmp opcode back to RAM again that depends on the time passed since reseting that register... just to give an idea how the C64s hardware was exploited at times.

No kidding, unless it uses powerline synced RTC then there shouldn't be really any particular problem using Amiga's CIA instead. You're just making up excuses.


@grond

PS1 to PS2 is a different thing because then games were very hard to copy and represented the real investment into a platform.

Yeah, right... PS1 games were hard to copy Initially probably yes. It took 2-3 years to make it outdated claim. Long before PS2 came out PS1 piracy was thriving.

Commodore needed better margins and those would only have been possible in the professional market

But for professional market they'd need professional software and there was insufficient amount of that. On the other hand cost reduced version of Amiga (500) was selling very well and game development did bloom.
For going professional they'd have to start with A2000-like design from the start and work hard with developers to make decent packet of software at computer premiere.

@Thomas Richter

I'm not even clear what this is supposed to mean. A500 was a toy machine, it was not used in offices

And that actually shows how you omit significant parts of my posts which doesn't fit your agenda. I did specifically write about piece of hardware by KCS in form of Power PC Board 500. It IS for A500 model! So someone DID create XT emulator for a toy computer. Do you get that now? Or is it still beyond your comprehension?

What CBM was attempting to reach with the bridge board is to get a foot into the business market and offering compatibility to "standard PC hardware".

Yeah, but in a way it was just allowing to use older PC software without actually making Amiga more tempting to develop on native software. And PC already can run PC software so what's the point? Now games... that's actually different way. Because PC games did suck at that time and C64 didn't. And Amiga back then didn't have many of good games for that platform either. Actually many of early games hardly were any better than C64 versions.

And yet it was a dead end, underpowered, awkward architecture, and not up to date

It doesn't matter as long as it brings money.

Truth does not depend on relevance

Yes, but your personal opinion doesn't make absolute truth. And I find optional C64 compatibility IF Amiga was really going to end up in entertainment market (and we KNOW she did) much more desirable than any attempt to bridge between Amiga and IBM PC. And yes, truth, like beauty, can also lie in the eye of beholder. Is euthanasia bad or good, or abortion. Or death penalty. There's no universal answer to that. It depends. Exactly like whether C64 compatibility would've been good or bad for Amiga.

What would have that offered what your C64 besides it did not have

Ability to run native amiga software when platform becomes popular. Also decent development environment for C64 software thanks to all basic tools to work under OS. The only REALLY usable Commodore OS.

to make VIC-II output RGB, you would have to redesign the chip

Or use chip which does exactly that - inside TV.

Then, we have "slight" incompatibilities between the 6502 bus the VIC-II is working on, and the 68K bus the Amiga is working on

Not really. The only real incompatibility is between VIC II+6502 and Agnus as most likely such solution would've been implemented over chipram/slowram expansion.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by chb

Well, that still needs a new VIC revision, and your dual-ported line buffers probably weren't that simple to realize in 1985...

SRAM was fast enough at this time to squeeze an additional cycle in … and the Sidecar from 86 also used 80K dual-ported RAM … the C64- card would need far less.

[grond]

Originally Posted by TEG

In 1985 what guaranteed me the Amiga would not be replaced by another incompatible Commodore machine next year without taking care again?

In 1985 you didn't care. You were happy to have a far superior home computer. You didn't have any money tied in C64-software. The C128 had C64 compatibility because it was its direct successor. That was the first time Commodore had backward compatibility on their mind and it nearly killed the machine. The Amiga platform was in a different market and (mostly) compatible to itself over several years. And thus complied with any expectation to stay around as a platform.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by grond

I wonder why you people believe that adding compatibility to a games machinw (C64) would have helped the Amiga.

In the first years even the C64 had many more professional business applications than the Amiga … amongst them Microsoft’s Multplan.

And again: we are talking about an optional board.
It would have been good for the Image of Commodore, it would have been nice for quite a few customers and it would have pushed the Amiga as a development platform, bringing the new system to exactly the right group of people.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by grond

You didn't have any money tied in C64-software.

As alien as this concept seems to be to you:
There were people out there that actually bought software - for real!!
Fascinating, isn’t it!?

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

But they did, by buying an Amiga.

But here is the misconception: most C64 users did NOT buy an Amiga!
Providing optional compatible would have persuaded a larger percentage…

[TEG]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

But they did, by buying an Amiga. What else would CBM have wanted? If you wanted to play 8-bit games, you had your 8-bit machine already.

I can't see the transfer of 1985 C64 owners to the Amiga in the chart:





In 1985 you would probably not have two TV sets unless you were rich. The price, and the place for two computers. And with compatibility you would be able to sell your C64/C128 to invest the money in the Amiga.

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

In the home computer market, yes, but that was fading market.

Yeah but the important point was to have more buyers of your new machine from whatever they came. And look at the chart I posted, C64 share was almost important as professional one at the time.

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

I really doubt that. What would have that offered what your C64 besides it did not have?

I don't understand your question. What the Amiga would offer that the the C64 did not? Is it that?

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Genlocking the video signals is the least problem. The problem is the type of signal the video circuits generate. Amiga is an RGB analog system. It outputs three color signals, plus sync. Essentiallly, VGA, just at TV frequencies. The C64 creates FBAS, with luma being one signal, and chroma being another, where chroma is encoded as phase relative to the color carrier. Thus, one is RGB, the other is YIQ/YUV. The first is RGB with 3 analog signals, the other is FBAS with luma and chroma combined.


IOWs, to make VIC-II output RGB, you would have to redesign the chip.

Thanks for the detail explanation. So redesign the chip. You have all at hand, including the factory. No easy but time to use your advantage or never. Bill Herd or someone else of the Commodore hardware explained they were able to prototype very rapidly thanks to that. Paid guys extra hours if needed.

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Then, we have "slight" incompatibilities between the 6502 bus the VIC-II is working on, and the 68K bus the Amiga is working on.

This really makes not much sense.

So keep the two separated even if it add some cost to the C64 board. If possible found a way for the 68000 to access the C64 memory so the 6510 would be used eventually as a compute resource.

[desiv]

Originally Posted by Gorf

But here is the misconception: most C64 users did NOT buy an Amiga!
Providing optional compatible would have persuaded a larger percentage…

I'm not convinced of that...
Unless your 64 broke, you still have it... It's not that big.
And if you have a 1084 series monitor, having both hooked up is simple. ;-)

I mean, yeah, some people would have wanted that. But I expect that to be a very small percentage... Like probably really small...