Was A1200 to blame for Falcon's failure?

[Amigajay]

Originally Posted by rexsu

They didn't choose 1 or 4 MB, but 4 and 16MB.
There were no 1 MB config in the stores when they came out, the Falcons were either 4 or 16 MB, despite some advertising to the contrary, Atari didn't want to sell Falcon 1MB.
With 2 MB, MultiTOS can't be used, there's virtually no RAM left to do anything else useful.
With 1 or 2 MB, in audio alone, you can't do anything if you're processing samples at 49KHz in 16 Bits.
Atari also wanted to make it a professional DTP machine in Germany (coz Calamus), and 8 MB wasn't enough. In fact, some people preferred the TT because it allowed configurations beyond 16MB !

A year later, 1 MB config was released by certain retailers to enable customers who wanted 16MB to buy daughterboards from third-party manufacturers (with support for SIMM modules), which enabled them to significantly reduce costs compared with Atari's memory cards!

That is simply not true, 1MB models were available not long after the 4MB models, i know this because my cousin enquired the pricing and was told from an indie shop in England they had both models available to be picked up that day, so unless you are talking just about France, then you are being fed false info from somewhere.

And there were certainly no 16MB models (not including expansion boards), the 14MB models were available from Sep 1993.

[hooverphonique]

Originally Posted by rexsu

If you want fast access to RAM with Motorola's 32-bit CPUs like the 68020/30, you're limited on memory configurations, you can't do what you want.
With a 32-Bit BUS, it's 2 or 8 MB, and with a 16-Bit BUS, it's 4 or 16 MB.

Could you explain the technical reasons for this, or provide a link? Because I don't see why the bus width and memory size are linked like you say here.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

That said, considering how precize is your number, you maybe have some sort of source for it.

The number corresponds to the 'World-Wide Sales' number here: http://www.bambi-amiga.co.uk/amigahistory/sales.html

[sokolovic]

Originally Posted by TCD

The number corresponds to the 'World-Wide Sales' number here: http://www.bambi-amiga.co.uk/amigahistory/sales.html

That's obviously UK numbers for the 1993 figures.

But anyway, this come from the same source I've posted upper.
Strange that this information wasn't taken in account by this website.

EDIT : in the AF edition of 06/1993, it is very clear (ands stated by a Commodore UK official) that the 44000 units solds at Xmas 1992 were also UK only

[Megalomaniac]

Originally Posted by TCD

The number corresponds to the 'World-Wide Sales' number here: http://www.bambi-amiga.co.uk/amigahistory/sales.html

So that's 144,000 up to August 1993 at the latest, which is roughly halfway through the machine's life until the Commodore stocks had been sold through, and Christmas 1993 will have been better than Christmas 1992 when stocks were limited. Add the Amiga Technologies models and I'd be thinking at least 300,000. Orders of magnitude more than the Falcon, either way.

[Amigajay]

Originally Posted by TCD

The number corresponds to the 'World-Wide Sales' number here: http://www.bambi-amiga.co.uk/amigahistory/sales.html

Some of those are incorrect, which i why i went through lots of Amiga mags looking for more figures. Again there are some of those figures which are noted as ‘worldwide’ when i looked, they were infact UK figures, iirc the A600 200k sales if not more.

Trouble is these get taken for gospel when alot is missing. Chart-Track and independent sales source in the UK listed in an issue of Edge magazine total Amiga sales (all models) in the Uk at 2,215,000, alot more than the 1.5m that seems to get stuck.

Which is why i only quote sales figures from places like or from Commodore reps quotes in magazines that are cross referenced, not just one source like AF.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

Strange that this information wasn't taken in account by this website.

Yep, the information is quite fragmented. Amigajay's number seems about right. Even if we take into account that Commodore UK's numbers might be slightly inflated, 450,000 - 500,000 A1200 sold sound reasonable and like Megalomaniac said that's a lot more than the Falcon sold.

[Total Eclipse]

Originally Posted by rexsu

They didn't choose 1 or 4 MB, but 4 and 16MB.
There were no 1 MB config in the stores when they came out, the Falcons were either 4 or 16 MB, despite some advertising to the contrary, Atari didn't want to sell Falcon 1MB.

A year later, 1 MB config was released by certain retailers to enable customers who wanted 16MB to buy daughterboards from third-party manufacturers (with support for SIMM modules), which enabled them to significantly reduce costs compared with Atari's memory cards!

I deon't know how true this is. Certainly looking back through ST magazines, retailers were offering the Falcon in a 1MB configuration as early as the March 1993 editions ST Format - March 1993.

Obviously advertising a machine doesn't necessarily mean it's available, but that same retailer was still offering the 1MB configuration in later magazines.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by Total Eclipse

Obviously advertising a machine doesn't necessarily mean it's available, but that same retailer was still offering the 1MB configuration in later magazines.

In post #53 is an ad from November 1992 with the 1 MB configuration. Not very likely that so many 'misprints' happened.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by hooverphonique

Could you explain the technical reasons for this, or provide a link? Because I don't see why the bus width and memory size are linked like you say here.

It relates to the memory chips used. To keep costs down you want to use the largest chips available because they have the lowest cost per bit. But manufacturers only make them in certain sizes and bit widths. The chipset you use to control the memory could have further restrictions.

For example, let's say you want 1 MB of RAM. This could be provided by an 8Mb chip arranged as 1M x 8 bits, but that's no good because you need both 16 and 8 bit access. Hopefully a 512k x 16 bit variant with upper/lower data select is available, and then you can still do it with one chip. Otherwise you might need to use two 512k x 8 chips or four 256k x 8 chips (or eight 256k x 4 chips etc.).

Now let's say you want a 32 bit bus. This can't be done with 512k x 16 bit chips because one chip is already 1 MB. Since nobody makes a 256k x 32 bit chip, you need two 256k x 16 bit chips (or four 256k x 8 chips etc.).

If you want an 'odd' memory size it gets even trickier. To get 1.5 MB you need at least double the number of RAM chips using two different sizes, or three times more if using one size. It might be cheaper to go up to the next power of 2, ie. 2 MB. Then for 32 bits you can use just two 512k x 16 chips if these are available, or four 256k x 16 chips. The savings in board area, inventory and quantity discounts could be worth it.

[hooverphonique]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

It relates to the memory chips used. To keep costs down you want to use the largest chips available because they have the lowest cost per bit. But manufacturers only make them in certain sizes and bit widths. The chipset you use to control the memory could have further restrictions.

For example, let's say you want 1 MB of RAM. This could be provided by an 8Mb chip arranged as 1M x 8 bits, but that's no good because you need both 16 and 8 bit access. Hopefully a 512k x 16 bit variant with upper/lower data select is available, and then you can still do it with one chip. Otherwise you might need to use two 512k x 8 chips or four 256k x 8 chips (or eight 256k x 4 chips etc.).

Now let's say you want a 32 bit bus. This can't be done with 512k x 16 bit chips because one chip is already 1 MB. Since nobody makes a 256k x 32 bit chip, you need two 256k x 16 bit chips (or four 256k x 8 chips etc.).

None of this is valid technical obstructions for "interfacing an 020/030 to a 32 bit bus".. I will not go into how dram's work, but just use the example that 72 pin SIMMS (32 bit, with cas strobes for every 8 bits) are available in e.g. 1, 2, 4, and 8 MB sizes, so if they wanted to, they could've implemented any of these examples with 32 bit bus width (not necessarily using SIMMs).

[Predseda]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

18.000 Falcons for 144.000 A1200.

I also have read the amount 144.000 for A1200s recently in Retro Gamer magazine. I wonder where this number comes from.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by Predseda

I also have read the amount 144.000 for A1200s recently in Retro Gamer magazine. I wonder where this number comes from.

I posted this a bit earlier:

Originally Posted by TCD

The number corresponds to the 'World-Wide Sales' number here: http://www.bambi-amiga.co.uk/amigahistory/sales.html

[sokolovic]

Originally Posted by Predseda

I also have read the amount 144.000 for A1200s recently in Retro Gamer magazine. I wonder where this number comes from.

Typically a demonstration of what Amigajay said above ("Trouble is these get taken for gospel when alot is missing"). You and Dennis are of course not the ones to blame for reading bad informations. Professionnal, or so called, press spreading these are.

On a side note I've just read on the A1200 presentation of the Retro Gamer website that "As a serious business machine, the A1200 was much more expensive than the 386 and 486 PCs".
It surely wasn't, but hey, who cares anyway ?

So I wonder how serious this magazine is actually, at least on the Amiga side.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

On a side nite I've just read on the A1200 presentation of the Retro Gamer website that "As a serious business machine, the A1200 was much more expensive than the 386 and 486 PCs".
It surely wasn't, but hey, who cares anyway ?

Reminds me of this classic Monty Python sketch: [ Show youtube player ] (the part from 0:22)

[dlfrsilver]

Well i'm happy to know that 500.000 A1200 were sold ! that's really cool !

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

On a side note I've just read on the A1200 presentation of the Retro Gamer website that "As a serious business machine, the A1200 was much more expensive than the 386 and 486 PCs".
It surely wasn't, but hey, who cares anyway ?

So I wonder how serious this magazine is actually, at least on the Amiga side.

That is a bit crazy, although if you factor in a monitor plus all the HDDs and accelerators A1200 most likely would top the 386 price.

The bigger error though is to try classify as a serious business machine at all*, which it clearly wasn't. They also say Commodore's intention was to "dominate the videogame and business machine market again" - again? They were arguably big in the former, but the latter is fantasy. But then, the whole write-up is full of similar hyperboles.

*anecdotes about somebody's uncle's business being run on one need not apply

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

The bigger error though is to try classify as a serious business machine at all*, which it clearly wasn't...

*anecdotes about somebody's uncle's business being run on one need not apply

What would it need to qualify as a 'serious business machine at all'?

They also say Commodore's intention was to "dominate the videogame and business machine market again" - again? They were arguably big in the former, but the latter is fantasy.

COMMODORE “HAS TOP BUSINESS PERSONAL, HOME COMPUTER IN WEST GERMANY”

December 9, 1987

More figures, this time from the West German Chip personal computer magazine, which suggests that the Commodore PC-10 MS-DOS micro is the top-selling business personal computer in the West German market – and the number two spot also goes to Commodore with the PC20. The Apple Macintosh comes third, but Commodore pops up again in fourth place with the PC40 AT-alike. Apple returns with the Apple IIGS, IBM makes the list at number six with the AT, Tandon gets the next two spots with the XPC and the PCA, Apple’s Macintosh II makes the list at number nine, and IBM’s Personal System/2 creeps in at number 10 with the Model 30.

[TCD]

And people wonder why Commodore Germany didn't want a super-cheap A300...

Anyway, it is an interesting anecdote that according to Chip magazine Commodore PCs sold very well in 1987 in West Germany, but that doesn't change the fact that the Retro Gamer A1200 summary is very poorly written.

[drHirudo]

I have a Commodore Shareholder's brochure from 1992, where it says that the Commodore's Amiga Business is declining, while the Commodore PC's business is on the rise. Commodore had big business in the IBM-PC range, hence their negligence of the Amiga after 1990. PC was on the rise, Amiga and C64 on the decrease. And we all know how it ended.