Quote:
Originally Posted by Foebane
You CAN'T be serious? Don't be silly.
You DID know that Jay Miner, Father of the Amiga, was behind the Atari 8-Bits and not the C64, right?
|
I do, yes. The Amiga is the spiritual successor to the Atari 8-bit family, which in turn is the design successor of the 2600 (all Miner creations). I know where you're going at with the architectural differences. But CBM made the Amiga into production and got it to market... At the same time the internal team at CBM was developing the C128 to give C64 users a more "business-like" upgrade path.
So in '85 they launched a $800 (ish?) advanced 8-bit machine (with great features but an unnecessary and slow Z80/CPM mode), and a $1500 (ish?) 32/16 bit machine practically at the same time. It's just my opinion that it was either one or the other.
CBM/Amiga made the 1060 sidecar for the A1000 and the XT/AT/386 bridgeboards for the A2000 but by that time PC clones were gaining strength and it was too little, too late (to buy an A2000 with a bridgeboard and ISA cards you might as well buy an A500 AND a PC-XT clone).
Anyways, if the CBM engineers were able to design a very complex and foreign architecture into the sidecar and a very complex and advanced dual processor 8-bit micro they surely could design a C64 sidecar for the A1000/A500/A2000...
Clearly CBM had more than enough grey matter to make it happen, maybe marketing / management failed but in this point? Why not offer everyone that invested on CBM's C64 from 82 to 85 an upgrade path? I mean they missed that shot with the PET, then again with the VIC20, and again with the 64.....
Apple tried something similar with the Apple II PDS card but it arrived a bit late (i think with the Apple LC?), after dragging the Apple 8-bit platform far too long (Apple II-GS anyone?).