What if Commodore had lasted one year longer?

[PortuguesePilot]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

In 1993 Commodore was already working on a PA-RISC architecture CPU with custom 3D graphics engine and an RTG operating system to go with it, as well as expanding the CD32 and A1200.

However you think PA-RISC may have compared to the PS1 in 3D gaming performance, there is no doubt that it would eat it for lunch in other areas. The PS1 had no OS to speak of and was useless for anything but 3D games. Neither did it provide an upgrade path or commonality with any computing platform past present or future.

This was all already known. What that document says is that basically Commodore acknowledged the obsolescence of the M680x0 technology and admits Acorn got on the right path with the Archimedes (since it was already a full-32bit RISC system, which MIPS value was competitive with the performance of an Intel 80386SX CPU BACK IN 1987!!!) and proposed to go the Archimedes way with some ISA/PCI (probably) slots to balance out the PC market and attempt to "open" the platform to "third party" vendors. All sound ideas, TBH, and unfortunately they weren't developed in time. The Archimedes died even before the Amiga, so a powerful RISC processor per se was not the sole answer. You can't really blame RISC-OS either, since it was a very competent, stable and multitasking OS with a very nice GUI for the time. So what could guarantee Commodore's success while Acorn failed doing the exact same thing about a decade earlier? The mammoth that Sony was creating (not just the superb hardware, but also the whole software development dynamics that they established very early on) would be too much for whatever Commodore could push out of that PA-RISC processors and knowing Commodore, they'd probably go with the PA-7000 processor or similar, a processor that was not exactly state-of-the-art in 1994, just as they failed by shipping the A1200 and even the A4000 with a Motorola 6EC20 processor instead of at least a Motorola 68030.

The RISC path was a smart solution for the future of the Amiga, hence why posterior AmigaOS offerings went with the PowerPC processors. But it still went nowhere and it went nowhere fast. Even Apple Macintoshes based on the PPC processors ultimately went nowhere - in spite of initial success by the end of the century - and one of the first things Steve Jobs did at the turn of the millennium was to put the Macintosh line into the x86 path (which basically made Macintoshes relevant again).

I don't like to go down these "what if" scenarios but I really don't think Commodore could muster anything that could go against the Sony machine in the console path, not because of the PA-RISC processor (the Playstation itself used a rather plain RISC processor as well) but because of this "new 3D chip" they talk about (but give no details of) would have to be one seriously great chip to be competitive with what the Playstation offered, and considering their half-assed work on the Akiko chip and the CD32 in general, I really don't think it would... Commodore simply didn't have the R&D and budget necessary.

And to be competitive on the home desktop market they would have to create synergies with the PC third-party vendors, especially graphic cards and even sound cards vendors, and have applicable APIs to have those products (Matrox, 3dfx, ATi, Creative Labs, Roland, etc) work with whatever version of AmigaOS was installed on those computers (and it should be at least on par with MacOS 8 or Windows 95 if it wanted to be commercially competitive). This would basically put the Amiga on a convergence path with the PC and signify a technological "merger" down the line, similar to what happened with the Macintoshes, which are basically just brand-name fashion PCs running a closed proprietary OS. Commodore - and Amiga - could have perhaps survived to become the "mid-class Macintosh" running an open OS (in a similar way to what Linux did). Needless to say that early Amiga products would be incompatible with these machines, much like many Mac apps were incompatible from with the MacOS 8 to MacOS X migration or like MS-DOS/Win95/Win98 apps became incompatible with the x86 to x64 evolution...

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by PortuguesePilot

This was all already known. What that document says is that basically Commodore acknowledged the obsolescence of the M680x0 technology and admits Acorn got on the right path with the Archimedes

But Acorn didn't get the right path with the Archimedes. It was only popular in the UK education sector due to following on from the BBC Micro, which itself only became popular there due to being chosen by the BBC as its 'official' learning computer. Outside of that market it flopped.

(since it was already a full-32bit RISC system, which MIPS value was competitive with the performance of an Intel 80386SX CPU BACK IN 1987!!!)

The 80386DX was released in 1985. Being fully 32 bit it obviously had much better performance the 16 bit 386SX, which was released in 1988. Most 386SX boards didn't have cache RAM either, which made them even slower.

Question: Why would Intel introduce a less powerful CPU some 3 years later?

Answer: To reduce the system price and so sell more PCs, strengthening their hold on the market.

The 80386DX was an awesome CPU, but expensive - particularly since to get the best out of it you needed a 32 bit expansion bus. But the PC's ISA bus was only 16 bit, wasting much of the 386DX's power. The 80386SX could be dropped into a cheap ISA bus motherboard, providing the compatibility needed to run Windows 3.1 in '386 enhanced' mode without the price of a full 32 bit system. Of course owners found the SX a bit slow at times, but that just encouraged them to upgrade to a 486!

A 386SX running at 16MHZ is less powerful than a 68020 running at 14MHz, so that means an A1200 with FastRAM was more powerful than many 386 PCs. But of course it couldn't run Microsoft Windows or DOS games, the reason the 386SX existed. And neither could an Acorn Archimedes, despite having a CPU that was at least as powerful.

The most important thing is not how powerful your CPU is, but how compatible it is. Price matters too, especially when the entire system is potentially quite expensive. The Archimedes fell down on both counts. It was expensive compared to other home computers of the time, and was incompatible with earlier Acorn models as well as other platforms. Furthermore the 'cheaper' models had limited expansion options.

I have an Archimedes A3000, and even though it has been expanded with an internal 2.5" hard drive interface and the maximum 4MB or RAM it still sucks. The hard drive is dog slow. 4MB sounds like a lot until you realize that RISC code uses at least twice as much RAM. You have to allocate the amount of RAM used by the graphics controller in the system config - get the size wrong and you either lose precious RAM or some programs can't run.

...and proposed to go the Archimedes way with some ISA/PCI (probably) slots to balance out the PC market and attempt to "open" the platform to "third party" vendors. All sound ideas, TBH, and unfortunately they weren't developed in time.

PCI perhaps, but I'm not sure how much this would have attracted "third party" vendors. Even if they just resold 'industry standard' PCI cards they would still have to write drivers for them, which would necessarily raise the price - advantage PC. Combine that with a new CPU that doesn't work with any existing software and you have a recipe for disaster.

The Archimedes died even before the Amiga, so a powerful RISC processor per se was not the sole answer.

Indeed, it wasn't the answer at all.

You can't really blame RISC-OS either, since it was a very competent, stable and multitasking OS with a very nice GUI for the time.

I can and I will. RISC OS sucks. It's clunky, doesn't multitask, and the GUI is overly complicated and confusing - a big disappointment after using an Amiga.

So what could guarantee Commodore's success while Acorn failed doing the exact same thing about a decade earlier? The mammoth that Sony was creating (not just the superb hardware, but also the whole software development dynamics that they established very early on) would be too much for whatever Commodore could push out of that PA-RISC processors and knowing Commodore, they'd probably go with the PA-7000 processor or similar, a processor that was not exactly state-of-the-art in 1994,

They weren't doing the exact same thing as Acorn.

But still, nothing could 'guarantee' success if you define it as trouncing the Sony PlayStation. OTOH there was no 'guarantee' that Sony would even produce the PlayStation, let alone swamp the market with them. I for one would not have bought one if there was a suitable Amiga model to choose from instead.

just as they failed by shipping the A1200 and even the A4000 with a Motorola 6EC20 processor instead of at least a Motorola 68030.

Um...

The RISC path was a smart solution for the future of the Amiga, hence why posterior AmigaOS offerings went with the PowerPC processors. But it still went nowhere and it went nowhere fast. Even Apple Macintoshes based on the PPC processors ultimately went nowhere - in spite of initial success by the end of the century - and one of the first things Steve Jobs did at the turn of the millennium was to put the Macintosh line into the x86 path (which basically made Macintoshes relevant again).

Finally you're getting it. The PC was the elephant in the room. You couldn't be in the same space with it without getting squashed. So the answer was - don't be in the same space. Commodore had a vision of producing cheap consumer machines that were more than just gaming consoles. Whether this would have worked is debatable, but at least they could see that just competing head-to-head with consoles or PCs would not work.

I really don't think Commodore could muster anything that could go against the Sony machine in the console path,

I don't think so either, but it wasn't their intention to just be a better console. More important is having software that people want to use, and accepting that you might not get the lion's share of the market. I believe they could have carved out a niche that would keep them going for at least a few years - if they didn't alienate existing users and developers. The document I posted shows that Commodore understood that.

And to be competitive on the home desktop market they would have to create synergies with the PC third-party vendors, especially graphic cards and even sound cards vendors, and have applicable APIs to have those products (Matrox, 3dfx, ATi, Creative Labs, Roland, etc) work with whatever version of AmigaOS was installed on those computers (and it should be at least on par with MacOS 8 or Windows 95 if it wanted to be commercially competitive). This would basically put the Amiga on a convergence path with the PC

Going down that path leads to being nothing more than an OS vendor, and since software compatibility is/was the most important feature of a 'home desktop' computer, that would also be a dead end. Just imagine - Commodore releases a new 'Amiga' and the first thing owners do is wipe the hard drive and install Windows 95!

No, the only way Commodore was going to survive was to produce something different from both PCs and consoles, and which had strong roots in 68k Amiga.

I don't like to go down these "what if" scenarios...

Part of the retro-computing scene is remembering what happened in the past, and discussing what might have been. At the time there were many heated debates about what path Commodore should choose - and everyone had their own opinion. So this thread is really just bringing back memories - making it a part of the retro experience!

Back then I somewhat sarcastically argued that if Commodore was to switch CPUs they should just go Intel, which is what Apple eventually did. But I didn't know about the plans they had for the CD32 etc. I would have loved to see a 'AA+' A1200 with onboard 030 and FastRAM, and perhaps a 3D GPU. A slimline desktop model like the A1000 would have been nice too.

But there is more than just imagining what could have been if Commodore had survived long enough to make some of their plans a reality. With the aid of modern stuff we are now fulfilling some of those plans and more. The Vampire and raspberry Pi are giving us fantastically powerful '68k' CPUs with RTG and even enhanced AGA that works superbly on today's TVs. We are porting PC games that needed a fast 486 and VGA 'back in the day', as well as RTG remakes etc. OS development is continuing on from WB3.1. Commodore could never have imagined how far the 68k Amiga design would go - and we aren't finished!

Part of the reason we are able to do this now is that we aren't wringing our hands trying to decide which path the Amiga should take. We're not competing with PCs and consoles anymore, which gives us the freedom to do what we want, not what the mass market demands. One of the things I want to do is experience some of the things that might have been back then. And I am.

[Promilus]

Commodore had a vision of producing cheap consumer machines that were more than just gaming consoles.

Well yes but as you should be well aware that was something which worked out fine in late 80s and very early 90s but was pointless afterwards unless they would create device like iMac. Apple didn't turn off PowerPC just because... they did that because that RISC device COULDN'T scale down to mobile while intel with CISC ISA could. Now - as ARM became powerful enough they switch to it even desktop devices. And there's nothing wrong with that. Users survived switch from 68k to ppc, from ppc to x86 and from x86 to arm relatively well due to solid support in form of software emulation layer embedded into OS. That's similar to things MorphOS and AmigaOS4 developers did. Why it didn't work out with those platforms? Because amiga users couldn't get over their precious chipset+68k combo and no matter how long commodore could've survived they would not. And since Commodore planned to move away from that platform I see no reason why somebody should expect different result to amiga users. It would still be the same. Hardcore fans would stay with their legacy devices trying to "pimp their ride" and some of the remaining would seek another platform ending either with PC, Mac or NG commodore.

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Commodore had a vision of producing cheap consumer machines that were more than just gaming consoles.

This is quite brave statement Bruce, i agree with almost every word you've wrote till this moment but to be honest not this one - in fact all Commodore activities around Amiga proving something opposite - Commodore had no idea how to utilize Amiga potential - there is plenty random activity around Amiga.
More importantly Commodore aspiration was not to be PC competitor (or at least provide vital alternative) but rather to be biggest as possible PC provider and we all know that plummeting PC market killed Commodore not Amiga... Technically from software and hardware perspective all introduced Amiga technology changes was rather small and usually too late to follow market changes. Amiga can be considered as first, true Personal Computer, pioneering affordable, consumer multimedia but no vision from Commodore turned Amiga into niche machine existing somewhere between gaming and creativity.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by pandy71

This is quite brave statement Bruce, i agree with almost every word you've wrote till this moment but to be honest not this one - in fact all Commodore activities around Amiga proving something opposite - Commodore had no idea how to utilize Amiga potential - there is plenty random activity around Amiga.

That's a common belief - and wrong. Most Amiga fans got their impression of Commodore's activities from the press and their peers, most of whom were not privy to what Commodore was actually doing. As a registered developer I got a bit more insight into it, but a lot was still kept under wraps - for good reason.

What may look 'random' to you was actually fairly consistent. It started with the VIC-20, then the C64/128 and TED machines - always looking to navigate a path between dedicated consoles and pure business computers. This didn't stop with the Amiga. The A1000 was Commodore's idea of what the Amiga should be - not a games console, and not a PC either, but somewhere in between. After perfecting the design they split it off into the A500 to replace the C128, and the A2000 as the more easily expandable 'professional' model. This continued with the A3000 and then A4000 covering the high end, and the A500+, A600 and A1200 continuing the 'low' end.

The problem is that as consumers we only got to see the end results, with few clues to what was being worked on. The C128D was released after the A1000, which might make you think they copied it. In fact however the C128D was ready for production at the same time as the C128, but Commodore held it back to relieve pressure on the production line. So having two different C128s was the plan from the start.

So we saw the A600 coming out when everyone thought a souped up 'AAA' machine was in the works, and we though WTF is Commodore doing? Then the A1200 comes out shortly afterwards and we are even more confused - not knowing that both machines were part of a plan. However much we might have disagreed with the idea, Commodore was always working on creating cheap home computers in the same vein as the C64 (their biggest seller). If you wanted a console killer or something to quench your PC envy you were out luck - go buy a console or a PC. But don't blame Commodore for not producing it. That was not their vision.

More importantly Commodore aspiration was not to be PC competitor (or at least provide vital alternative) but rather to be biggest as possible PC provider and we all know that plummeting PC market killed Commodore not Amiga...

I don't know where you get this idea from. Commodore was one of very few manufacturers who didn't just go all-in on PCs. In the 1980s when they were producing the PC-10 etc., these machines were targeting a completely different market - one the Amiga was ill-equipped to handle. And they did quite well out of them too. It was only in the early 90's, when they moved to just making cases with standard clone parts in them, that the market 'plummeted'. But by that time (as you know) the PC was steamrolling everything in its path, including Apple's Macintosh (which only survived because Microsoft bailed them out).

So what if Commodore had not made PCs and just concentrated on the Amiga? They probably would have expired around 1987, because the Amiga was not making any money for them. The PC and Amiga were seen as being machines for two different markets that were complementary (which at that time they were) and therefore not treading on each other's toes. So why not do both?

Amiga can be considered as first, true Personal Computer, pioneering affordable, consumer multimedia but no vision from Commodore turned Amiga into niche machine existing somewhere between gaming and creativity

No 'vision'? The truth is the Amiga was always in a niche compared to PCs (the first 'true' Personal Computer according to PC history). At one time PCs were in a niche too, but as we know that didn't hold. Pretty soon they were overflowing into the home computer market, and then the cheap Asian clones hit...

Commodore held true to their vision for the Amiga. You say 'Amiga technology changes was rather small and usually too late to follow market changes', but the market was changing to PCs anyway - even when most were inferior to the Amiga in many ways. PCs came from behind with a sledgehammer called 'IBM compatibility' and there was no way any manufacturer of an alternate technology could keep up. The only way Commodore could survive was to find a niche not occupied by PCs.

Commodore pushed the Amiga out far beyond what any other 'home computer' manufacturer managed to do. Those of us who wanted that type of machine thank them for it, even though they 'could have' done better.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Promilus

Why it didn't work out with those platforms? Because amiga users couldn't get over their precious chipset+68k combo and no matter how long commodore could've survived they would not.

Right.

At one time I was looking at going NG, then I found out how much they cost. There seemed to be compatibility issues and problems getting the required PC graphics cards too. You want me to spend $1000 on a motherboard, more on a buggy incompatible OS, and then find out I can't get the stuff needed to make it run? What a joke.

Meanwhile someone gives me their old PC for free, I put Windows XP on it and have no problem moving my Windows 98 stuff onto it (much of which came from my earlier Windows 95 machine). My latest PC (which a workmate gave me in a box of 'old electronic junk') is running Linux because XP is too old for some stuff and I hate Windows 10. I have an A1200, A600 and A500 for the 'precious chipset+68k combo' and no reason to go NG.

This attitude that classic Amiga users are to blame for NG's failure is obnoxious. So I want to continue using the machine I know and love - what's wrong with that? I like a nice 'low' resolution screen that I can see on my TV without having to wear glasses. I enjoy programming in 68k machine code and getting the OS and hardware to do more (which I didn't have time to fully explore 'back in the day'). There's a ton of games I never got to play properly but hope to one day. I'm not done with classic Amigas yet, and nobody can tell me I have to move on for the good of the platform. I already have the Amiga I want.

[Promilus]

This attitude that classic Amiga users are to blame for NG's failure is obnoxious. So I want to continue using the machine I know and love - what's wrong with that?

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying and that's not the first time. Commodore plan which you are passionately defending was always revolving around future incompatible hardware. And AAA already was fairly incompatible with Hombre being fully incompatible. You think their plans were consistent... well then why there was something like C65 being developed in parallel to Amiga? That'd be basically direct competitor to A500/A600 with one big advantage - backward compatibility with C64. It was something which might be a good idea after C128 if Commodore never got Amiga design (so it would most likely end up with Atari). And despite the less powerful CPU it'd probably win just through compatibility with C64 and access to it's games base (it'd need plenty of improvements later on to keep up though). Most of us have classic amiga (or hw posing as such like unamiga, mist, a500mini, armiga, pimiga) and that's what shows our attachment to that particular device line. Doesn't mean we have to be blind for anything which went wrong down there and just point fingers about NG. Especially in a topic about "what if commodore lasted longer".

[OlafSch]

@Bruce Abbott

I think survival would have been difficult anyway. If they (Commodore) would have not made so many errors they would have survived longer but difficult to say how long. Atari died one year later, all at that time existing platforms vanished all taken over by PC. In gaming market game consoles had a revival. Only apple survived ironically saved by Microsoft. The classical market of home computers in this form did no longer exist. From today amiga was mainly seen as a gaming platform. Perhaps with a much improved hardware commodore would have survived with a competitive game console and migration of amigaos to X86 and both computer and consoles hardware based on standard components and X86 avoiding expensive development. If users at that time would have accepted that is difficult to say. PC and Intel was enemy for many.

@Promilus

The missing chipset is not just nostalgy but many programs (even applications) require the chipset. No chipset means loss of much of the software base. With good and hidden emulation you can certainly make that less feelable but emotionally it is not the same. Anyway from what I know NG platforms based on PPC became reality around 2003 and there it was too late already. Most developers (including of course most of the commercial developers, last left around 2000/2001) already left before and of course not returned. If you look at aminet uploads you see that activity was high until around 1998 and then it collapsed. Of course activity then was still higher than today but not comparable to the times amiga still was a important platform. In my view NG was too little too late to save the market.

[Promilus]

@Olaf - PPC was stopgap solution to make a transition to NG relatively painless and on the other hand familiarize developers with new architecture (so produce software which would eventually work on the new platform with minimal adjustments). It was valid idea but afterwards there were so many problems, conflicts and yet another delays it ultimately didn't fulfill it's role. On the other hand PPC itself was spiraling down to oblivion so even if it did work out... how long amiga could survive solely on PPC? Next 10 years? 15? And then what? Was PA-RISC better choice? Nope. So we already know there was no bright future outside of either ARM or x86 zone... For ARM - it was too early to join that bandwagon and x86 was hated (and it seems it still is). So... no, there's nothing which would both offer competitive hardware and retain classic features. Should commodore survive we'd be probably with something like pegasos or powermac.

[OlafSch]

Originally Posted by Promilus

@Olaf - PPC was stopgap solution to make a transition to NG relatively painless and on the other hand familiarize developers with new architecture (so produce software which would eventually work on the new platform with minimal adjustments). It was valid idea but afterwards there were so many problems, conflicts and yet another delays it ultimately didn't fulfill it's role. On the other hand PPC itself was spiraling down to oblivion so even if it did work out... how long amiga could survive solely on PPC? Next 10 years? 15? And then what? Was PA-RISC better choice? Nope. So we already know there was no bright future outside of either ARM or x86 zone... For ARM - it was too early to join that bandwagon and x86 was hated (and it seems it still is). So... no, there's nothing which would both offer competitive hardware and retain classic features. Should commodore survive we'd be probably with something like pegasos or powermac.

yes of course. Something like the current Macs using standard hardware and Intel or AMD processors would have been the only realistic chance to survive and drop the chipsets concentrating development only on certain areas that would have given a feelable advantage. 68k only in emulation. Would have users accept it? Difficult to say, Amiga was hardware, you did not buy Amiga because of Workbench. Not easy to sell at that time because it would have been a drastic change. Today only the die hard fans are left so you cannot compare current active users to that time. At that time there was still a big user base with many average users. Finally it would have been important if software developers (both game and application developers) would have followed on that route. And it costs time and money to do such a change, both running out at the end.

[duga]

What if Escom had lasted one year longer.

[OlafSch]

Originally Posted by duga

What if Escom had lasted one year longer.

What if Escom had survived at all? Difficult to say. As far from what I read in amiga magazines there was not much known what they planned to do with amiga. From Commodore we know at least some. Basically they would have to go the same route changing hardware to standard components. Theoretically there would have been more money and time to do it then. And of course Escom had the sales channels to market amiga better.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

What may look 'random' to you was actually fairly consistent. It started with the VIC-20, then the C64/128 and TED machines - always looking to navigate a path between dedicated consoles and pure business computers. This didn't stop with the Amiga. The A1000 was Commodore's idea of what the Amiga should be - not a games console, and not a PC either, but somewhere in between. After perfecting the design they split it off into the A500 to replace the C128, and the A2000 as the more easily expandable 'professional' model.

This is turning into a quasi-religious narrative, with infallible, visionary Commodore valiantly trailblazing the path forward, in tune with some grand and slightly mystical masterplan.

The reality though was much more mundane, because they were just another player in that crazy, formative era, with their share of highs and lows. Mishaps such as C16 / +4 line were hardly a part of anything, and A1000 wasn't really "perfected" but much more "rescued". Trying to explain models such as A600 and A1200 as some sort of future-looking tactic is also rather eyebrow rising.

You're also trying to make the "somewhere in between" into something special, as if it wasn't just a line of microcomputers, again same as what their competitors were doing. Commodore lucked out with the C64 - it was a great design but not that much better than eg Atari, and if Tramiel didn't go to war and scorched the earth with the 199USD price then who knows how things would've turned out...perhaps the demise would've come much sooner.



And in the end, Commodore, like most everybody else, has failed to adapt to the changing landscape and so went out of play. That's all there is to it really.

[PortuguesePilot]

Originally Posted by duga

What if Escom had lasted one year longer.

From what I read at the time (and, as we all know by now, it could have been an exaggeration or even an outright lie) Escom's main owner - Manfred Schmitt - was a former Amiga user and an Amiga fan and he genuinely really wanted to save the Amiga line. Apparently he had the idea of not only continuing to manufacture the existing former Commodore machines - as he did - for as long as they were commercially viable but was also looking into integrating OCS/AGA/68k-FPGA into a PC expansion board with which you could "amiganize" a standard PC and "have the best of both worlds on one machine". This in a time when Amiga and PC were still on relative par with one-another. I don't know how this would have panned out, but it could have been an interesting take... Looking at current prices of vintage hardware (ever looked at the price of a genuine Sound Blaster 16 ISA board? Or the price of a Diamond Voodoo 2 board?) I wonder how much an "Amiga board" would cost now-a-days...

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

That's a common belief - and wrong. Most Amiga fans got their impression of Commodore's activities from the press and their peers, most of whom were not privy to what Commodore was actually doing. As a registered developer I got a bit more insight into it, but a lot was still kept under wraps - for good reason.

What may look 'random' to you was actually fairly consistent. It started with the VIC-20, then the C64/128 and TED machines - always looking to navigate a path between dedicated consoles and pure business computers. This didn't stop with the Amiga. The A1000 was Commodore's idea of what the Amiga should be - not a games console, and not a PC either, but somewhere in between. After perfecting the design they split it off into the A500 to replace the C128, and the A2000 as the more easily expandable 'professional' model. This continued with the A3000 and then A4000 covering the high end, and the A500+, A600 and A1200 continuing the 'low' end.

Well... plan can be random (unintentionally or intentionally) - never said that Commodore behavior was not consistent - they made consistent decision that looks random to me...

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

I don't know where you get this idea from. Commodore was one of very few manufacturers who didn't just go all-in on PCs. In the 1980s when they were producing the PC-10 etc., these machines were targeting a completely different market - one the Amiga was ill-equipped to handle. And they did quite well out of them too. It was only in the early 90's, when they moved to just making cases with standard clone parts in them, that the market 'plummeted'. But by that time (as you know) the PC was steamrolling everything in its path, including Apple's Macintosh (which only survived because Microsoft bailed them out).

So what if Commodore had not made PCs and just concentrated on the Amiga? They probably would have expired around 1987, because the Amiga was not making any money for them. The PC and Amiga were seen as being machines for two different markets that were complementary (which at that time they were) and therefore not treading on each other's toes. So why not do both?

Any source for this? Many times read that only Amiga technology was profitable for Commodore (at least self funding ) - they try to earn big money on PC - not without some minor success but in end it was PC that killed Commodore not Amiga.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

No 'vision'? The truth is the Amiga was always in a niche compared to PCs (the first 'true' Personal Computer according to PC history). At one time PCs were in a niche too, but as we know that didn't hold. Pretty soon they were overflowing into the home computer market, and then the cheap Asian clones hit...

Commodore held true to their vision for the Amiga. You say 'Amiga technology changes was rather small and usually too late to follow market changes', but the market was changing to PCs anyway - even when most were inferior to the Amiga in many ways. PCs came from behind with a sledgehammer called 'IBM compatibility' and there was no way any manufacturer of an alternate technology could keep up. The only way Commodore could survive was to find a niche not occupied by PCs.

Commodore pushed the Amiga out far beyond what any other 'home computer' manufacturer managed to do. Those of us who wanted that type of machine thank them for it, even though they 'could have' done better.

Once again - can't share your point of view entirely - at some point it is quite obvious that Commodore entered into state where failure was unavoidable (maybe some miracle technology breakthrough could stop this).
After so many years we may have endless disputes about Commodore business strategy but what already happened can't be undone so no point to argue about Commodore vision or rather lack of it.

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by PortuguesePilot

Apparently he had the idea of not only continuing to manufacture the existing former Commodore machines - as he did - for as long as they were commercially viable but was also looking into integrating OCS/AGA/68k-FPGA into a PC expansion board with which you could "amiganize" a standard PC and "have the best of both worlds on one machine".

This was kind of obvious way for Amiga - integrate legacy HW within single chip and use general PC HW ecosystem or to provide Amiga world in PC IBM compatibles or to create new Amiga generation where some PC HW can be used in Amiga NG (like graphics card, PCI etc).

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

This is turning into a quasi-religious narrative, with infallible, visionary Commodore valiantly trailblazing the path forward, in tune with some grand and slightly mystical masterplan.

Commodore did have a 'masterplan' - this is a documented fact. How grand and mystical it was is debatable, but they did have one.

The reality though was much more mundane, because they were just another player in that crazy, formative era, with their share of highs and lows. Mishaps such as C16 / +4 line were hardly a part of anything

'Just another player'- who beat the other players to a pulp.

Texas Instruments (who were and are a big player in the microchip industry) designed their own 16 bit CPU based on their mainframe architecture, and their own video and sound chips which they put on the open market. But the Ti99/4A sucked because it was full of compromises and was too expensive to build. They ended up selling it well below cost to compete with the C64, while Commodore was still making a good profit.

I am no fan of the ViC-20/C64/128 line, but you have to give them credit where it's due. The C64 was the best selling home computer model of all time, even managing to outsell the IBM PC. Tramiel's vision of a 'computer for the masses' certainly paid off, and Commodore continued to follow that vision. The C16/+4 line was a part of that.

The TED series was supposed to be a more 'business oriented' home computer, with less emphasis on gaming and more on productivity and education. And it was supposed to be cheap - cheap enough that people who couldn't afford a PC would buy one. The TED line was a misstep for sure, but only because at that time they didn't fully appreciate the importance of the gaming market, where the C64's advanced graphics and sound chips shone. They didn't repeat that mistake with the C128, which was specifically designed to be fully compatible with the C64.

Go forward a few years and we see that they had the same vision for the Amiga. Why didn't they constantly bring out new Amiga models with different chipsets? Because the C64 showed them that maintaining compatibility with the existing software base was more important, and switching to an incompatible architecture was not something to be done lightly. So the C128 had a 'C64' mode, and the A1200 had an 'original chipset' mode, and AGA wasn't enabled when booting 'legacy' games. They also put some effort into making sure that the OS was compatible with popular applications.

A1000 wasn't really "perfected" but much more "rescued".

Lorraine was rescued from Atari by Commodore and became the A1000. The A1000 was was their pilot model which would be used to finalize the OS and give developers some hardware to get familiar with. It was not supposed to be a mass market machine - the A500 (or something similar to it) was always the goal. Here again we see that some people's perception of what Commodore's plans were is out of step with reality.

Trying to explain models such as A600 and A1200 as some sort of future-looking tactic is also rather eyebrow rising.

Of course it was 'future-looking' - perhaps not the future some people were hoping for, but Commodore's plan for the future nonetheless. The A600 was originally designed to be a cost-reduced A500 for those who didn't want any more than that - thus the 68000 CPU and ECS chipset etc. It was also their pilot model for a new line of Amigas with surface mount motherboards and more ergonomic case styling.

Thankfully someone realized that releasing a new machine with no improvements and some important features removed wasn't such a good idea. So to make up for the lack of expansion connector they introduced the PCMCIA slot and internal IDE port. You can't deny that adding PCMCIA was 'future-looking' in 1992, as was IDE for Amigas (prior to that SCSI was the standard). In fact Commodore added these interfaces before they even became standardized (PCMCIA V2.1 in late 1992, Parallel ATA in 1994).

As the A500 and A2000 were for the A1000, so the A1200 and A4000 were for the A600. But this time they added AGA graphics with 4 times the bandwidth, 64 pixel wide sprites, 256 colors from a 24 bit palette, and hires scan modes that didn't need to be 'flicker fixed'. You could argue they should have tried for more - and they did - but they couldn't get 'AAA' to work in time. Apart from the failure of AAA it was all part of their plan for the future of the Amiga.

You raise eyebrows at describing these developments as 'future-looking', but not because it wasn't looking to the future. You just don't think it was future-looking enough. Or perhaps you put it in the 'too little, too late' category, and therefore dismiss it. But for many of us it was a welcome advancement of the Amiga architecture without being too extreme. And for those of us who weren't gagging to get a PC instead, the timing wasn't a deal breaker.

When the A1200 was released it quickly became a favorite in my shop. Commodore's demise was bitterly disappointing for me because it was a good seller (equaling PC sales). When we finally managed to get some ESCOM A1200s 2 years later the market had almost died, which is perfectly understandable under the circumstances. Furthermore the ESCOM A1200 was more expensive and not as good quality. Had Commodore lasted another year or two the situation would have been much better.

You're also trying to make the "somewhere in between" into something special, as if it wasn't just a line of microcomputers, again same as what their competitors were doing. Commodore lucked out with the C64 - it was a great design but not that much better than eg Atari, and if Tramiel didn't go to war and scorched the earth with the 199USD price then who knows how things would've turned out...perhaps the demise would've come much sooner.

Yeah, let's dismiss the Amiga as 'just a line of microcomputers'.

Commodore didn't luck out with the C64, it followed on from their success with the VIC-20. Before the VIC-20 they only had boring business computers. The VIC-20 was a game changer, and the C64 consolidated it. Commodore didn't just make money on it by 'scorching the earth' they did it at a profit. other manufacturers lost out because they had poorer products with higher manufacturing costs (like Atari with the over-engineered 400 series, and Ti with their '16 bit' boondoggle).

But you are right that if Tramiel hadn't 'gone go to war' the Amiga might have died earlier. If it wasn't for Tramiel storming out of Commodore when he couldn't get his way, the Amiga might never have existed! If it had appeared in some form, whatever came out would not have come from Commodore.

And in the end, Commodore, like most everybody else, has failed to adapt to the changing landscape and so went out of play. That's all there is to it really.

In the end we are all dead. But my Amiga might outlast me, and the Amiga marketplace could too. The retro-computing scene hasn't revived just because people my age are getting nostalgic. There is real demand out there for something more hobbyist orientated than a modern PC. And the Amiga fits right into that niche, as it always has.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by pandy71

Any source for this? Many times read that only Amiga technology was profitable for Commodore (at least self funding ) - they try to earn big money on PC - not without some minor success but in end it was PC that killed Commodore not Amiga.

https://dfarq.homeip.net/commodore-f...ory-1978-1994/

The 1985-1986 slump

The 64K Commodore Plus/4 was the flagship of the ill-fated TED machines. Its ahead-of-its-time appearance couldn’t save its lack of compatibility with other machines, making it a $299 solution in search of a problem.

Commodore lost hundreds of millions of dollars in 1985 and 1986. Part of that problem may have been hangover from the ill-fated TED machines. Another part was that the 64 didn’t have the price point and sales volume to carry the company on its own. Also in 1986, Kmart stopped selling the Commodore 64. Kmart once sold huge numbers of 64s as a loss leader and made it up by selling peripherals and software. Losing that volume hurt 64 sales.

The 128 more than met its sales goals. The other big problem was the Amiga. It was late in 1985 and sold poorly in 1986.

Once again - can't share your point of view entirely - at some point it is quite obvious that Commodore entered into state where failure was unavoidable (maybe some miracle technology breakthrough could stop this).

I don't disagree with you here. Maybe if they had developed AGA first and got machines like the A1200 out in 1991, they might have kept the ball rolling for a while longer. But they didn't, so in reality what happened had to happen. Any speculation on what might have been assumes that something was different. That something might be smarter engineers, more competent managers, or directors more interested in long term profitability than making money for themselves (though you can't blame them for it - after all what is a business for other than making money for its owners?).

[matt3k]

Intel killed Motorola in the 80's it just didn't know it yet. Dave and crew were looking at alternatives which would have helped.

The Amiga died in the 80's by firing Tom who brought them back from the brink and setting the stage for management disfunction from there on, Ali only accelerated the inevitable.

The battle wasn't lost a few years before they went under but in the 80's when the quantum leap the Amiga shocked the world with was left to rot with a company bleeding money and clueless where to go with the Amiga. Those issues were fixed by Tom. There was a glimmer of hope where the Amiga could have had a place in a Wintel world, if they were together for many years benefiting from solid profitable management.

Amiga engineers were dynamic and forward thinking, they only needed money and freedom to continue to release product timely.

I would also argue that good management would have leverage key factors beyond the latest technology offering but working in industry with other vendors and acquiring prospective companies.

AGA was not at all good enough when it was finally released. The 4000 and 1200 weren't really better than the 3000. Sure AGA offers more colors and bandwidth then ECS but at that point who cared as the world went on a different tangent, the 3000 for memory access and IO, was quicker than the 4000. The 3000 was a large step forward above the 500 and 2000 with greater performance in every measurable way.

[OlafSch]

to the topic plans what Commodore would have done if survived:
https://twitter.com/commodoreihs/sta...74605457616908

migration from 68k to PARISC including more powerful game consoles (CD64)
the same for the computer range (and also support of INTEL)