Was anyone else disappointed with the A1200?

[grelbfarlk]

ZORRAM

Maple Syrup Production Statistics
Introduction
The production of maple syrup has a long history in North America. The 1840
Census was the sixth population census, but the first agricultural production
census within the United States. Due to preservation issues of keeping syrup
only sugar was made. Not until the 1860 (8 th Census) was there reporting of
gallons of syrup as well as pounds of sugar produced. Like many
commodities, tracking the true production is a difficult matter. The United
States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA-NASS) and their State NASS field offices have a huge undertaking each
year to track and record the many commodities under their direction. Their
reports are taken from individual maple producers and then estimates are
made from this data as to the total production within a state. Though this is
the best possible process given the large number of commodities and vast
number of producers it is still an estimate. Information gathered by NASS is
good if those reporting provide accurate numbers as statistics are only as
good as the numbers reported. If the true production volumes are not
reported then the true picture of the total production is not obtainable.
In some cases it may not be the numbers reported, but rather the size of the
operation that can have an influence. As an example, in Ohio NASS only
collects data from producers with more than 250 taps. In 2004 a research
project of the Ohio maple syrup industry was undertaken (Graham, 2005).
Results showed that in 2004 producers in Ohio with less than 250 taps
represented 59% (n=368) of the total production population sampled
(N=620). The 250 taps and under producers represented only 10% of the
total taps reported, they still represented 35,897 taps. In 2004 NASS
indicated yield per tap for Ohio was .193 gallons per tap. If counted these
taps would have added another 6,928 gallons of production. Assuming total
production volume/taps were provided. These results were based on 620
returned surveys (68% response rate) from the research (Graham, 2005).
The difficult variable is that not all producers were contacted as they were
not on any lists or registrations to be contacted by the NASS field offices or
the researcher.
Another indicator to reporting impacts is to look to the State of Wisconsin.
In 2007/2008 Wisconsin’s field office of NASS aggressively worked hard to
gain better identification of maple syrup producers in the state. This
resulted in a large increase in reported production from 95,000 gallons in
2007 to 150,000 gallons reported in 2008. Another boost came in 2009
with the passing of Wisconsin Act 101 also called the Pickle Bill, requiring
registration for all cottage food based operations. 2013 saw the full
implementation of the Pickle Bill within the Wisconsin maple production.
This is evident as their maple production numbers jumped over 100,000
gallons due to getting better reporting results.
3
Again NASS does an outstanding job with an astronomical task. Most people
in the maple industry realize that the production numbers reported are an
estimate and that production is much higher than the final volume reported
due to not obtaining all production volumes or total volume numbers. Some
would argue it could be doubled. This project was not about speculating or
guessing even though there are multiple software packages which do a very
good job of this. Rather it was decided to report all the data that came from
a reliable government based resource only. It was also decided to not
manipulate the data to fill gaps where no data was discovered.
Compiled Data
The charts in the following pages were compiled from the sources listed in
the reference section. There are gaps in many of the state’s results as no
data was found from a government source. I was able to research hard copy
records of agricultural statistics from the Ohio field office of NASS and the
Ohio Department of Agricultural (ODA) reports. Some state maple
associations reported data was found. However, this data was not used due
to having no knowledge of the percentage of the total producer base it
represented or how it was collected.
Rounding Production Volumes
Perceived errors may be discovered in total production numbers compiled
between different resources. The decision was made to use the newest and
or the larger of the production numbers found between the various
resources utilized. Rounding was based on the 500 gallon mark. Example:
if production was 44,499 it would have been inputted as 44 (1,000 gallons),
and if 44,501 it was recorded as 45 (1,000 gallons). This process was used
through all data found. A two digit number representing the thousands of
gallons (1,000 gallons) for production volume was used for the historical
data as that is how the data is reported today.
Sugar to Syrup Conversion
Another issue in figuring total production volume is at what degree brix
(°brix) was the syrup finished. Due to the different density of finishing points
of legal syrup in different states/provinces Ohio’s minimum of 66°brix was
used as the base measuring point when converting pounds of sugar to syrup.
A gallon of syrup finished to 66°brix should weigh 11.02 pounds and should
represent 7.27 pounds of sugar (0.66 X 11.02 = 7.27 lbs.). Reporting of
pounds of sugar was discontinued with the 1956 production year. Prior to
1956 if pounds of sugar produced were reported the volume of sugar (lbs.)
was multiplied by 1.51 (11.02 ÷ 7.27 = 1.51) to get the conversion of
pounds of sugar to gallons of syrup. Many arguments can be made pro and
con for this method. Most weights and measurements agencies use 11.07
pounds as the weight for syrup. Some use 8 pounds of sugar per gallon of
syrup.
4
Canada Production
Some data was found for maple production of syrup in Canada. Often the
production is broken out into syrup, sugar, taffy, and other confections
making the conversion back to gallons of syrup much more complicated.
Problems arise in the conversion from the various metric units used to U.S.
gallons and to U.S. dollars as the exchange rate varies so much year to
year. The other concern was much of the data was not in a government
reported publication. Therefore the decision was made to report only the
data reported by USDA-NASS from 2000 to 2011. Since the printing of the
2012 version of this report, data was located from Statistics Canada,
Census of Agriculture starting in 2009 and was included in this updated
report.
Closing Thoughts
A large volume of data came from going through the yearly hardcopy reports
from both the Ohio office of NASS and the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s
reports. Very few of these older publications are available electronically
requiring physically searching for the data. In 2004 conversations with
both the National and Ohio field offices of NASS to obtain production data
they indicated that they could not provide the data as it was proprietary.
Meaning producer/client information is never released in a raw format. Raw
data could contain individual production operations and this is sensitive
data. The only data requested was total production (gallons) total value
(dollars) and price per gallon. Even though both USDA-NASS and Ohio
State University follow strict proprietary standards with clientele
information the data was not obtainable
Special Thanks
A special thank you is given to Mr. Mike Girard, Mr. Tom McCrumm, Mr.
Gary Keough, Mr. Henry Marckres, Dr. Timothy Perkins, and Dr. Mike
Farrell for providing assistance and data for this report in the 2012 version.
A thank you to the North American Maple Syrup Council for the grant to
cover a portion of the original research conducted in 2012 and to Ohio State
University Extension for covering the remainder of the original research costs
and for covering the costs of this updated 2016 version.

[Minuous]

The on-board Z80 might seem a bit strange too, but there were users who wanted CP/M

I don't think so, as proved by the legions of failed CP/M machines from the previous few years. Everyone I knew with a C128 used it purely for playing C64 games.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

BTW the BBC micro ran in interlace all the time. Nobody complained about it.

More like "some of the time". And of course bitd people did not complain much about things, they were just happy to have a microcomputer at all. But when trying to use it now, on a real CRT, it's an ugly, headache inducin' PITA.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Amstrad proved that you didn't need world-beating hardware to be successful, just find a niche and design the machine to fit it.

Yeah, it's true they did rather well with the PCW range, but when the slo-mo PC meteorite eventually hit for real, they had to go the way of all other dinosaurs.

[hammer]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Who was talking about reading text from an interlaced display? The context was displaying photos.

Without a business use case, just "displaying photos" is nearly useless.

A1000 has a wow factor with its hardware. The problem is normal people have day jobs.

Amiga's video genlocking advantage is a small market niche and it transitioned poorly into digital video NLE. The Amiga didn't deliver digital video NLE for the masses i.e. the mass-produced wedge Amigas couldn't be involved with NLE.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

The C128 could do a much better job of it than the C64 (not as good as the Amiga, but better than most home computers of the time).

Again, the argument "most home computers of the time" is flawed.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

BTW the BBC micro ran in interlace all the time. Nobody complained about it.

BBC Micro, over 1.5 million units sold with the UK government's support.

Recent UK governments have a similar education program for Raspberry Pi.

Reference
https://www.theguardian.com/business...ing-generation

The other founders were Alan Mycroft and Robert Mullins, both computer science professors at Cambridge University, and David Braben, who co-created the Elite series of space trading video games and went on to set up the video games company Frontier Developments.

Upton has said the foundation chose to name itself after a fruit in homage to other computer manufacturers such as Apple, while Pi is a reference to the fact that the founders were originally going to produce a computer that could only run the Python programming language.

The foundation is part of a group that runs the National Centre for Computing Education in England, a government-funded initiative providing support for schools and colleges in England to offer a computing education, from key stage 1 through to A-level.

The BBC Micro wasn't a dominant office computer, mostly targeted at the education sector.

There's a higher probability of children pushing their parents for the C64 instead. Commodore's mistake is the lack of transition from C64 and A500. i.e. a game console-style hardware generation jump.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Yep, a genius move - modify the CPC to do the same job most people were buying a PC or Mac for, but at much lower cost. Amstrad proved that you didn't need world-beating hardware to be successful, just find a niche and design the machine to fit it.

8 million units do not prove anything. CPC reached a dead end.

Apple's 1994 install base is 14 million.
https://www.timesheraldonline.com/20...he-mac-legend/
Apple sold 14 million Macintosh around Q1 1994.


According to Dataquest November 1989, VGA crossed more than 50 percent market share in 1989 i.e. 56%.
http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/c...lysis_1989.pdf

Low-End PC Graphics Market Share by Standard Type
Estimated Worldwide History and Forecast

Total low-end PC graphic chipset shipment history and forecast
1987 = 9.2. million, VGA 16.4% market share i.e. 1.5088 million VGA.
1988 = 11.1 million, VGA 34.2% i.e. 1.51 million VGA.
1989 = 13.7 million, VGA 54.6% i.e. 3.80 million VGA.
1990 = 14.3 million, VGA 66.4% i.e. 9.50 million VGA.
1991 = 15.8 million, VGA 76.6% i.e. 12.10 million VGA.
1992 = 16.4 million, VGA 84.2% i.e. 13.81 million VGA.
1993 = 18.3 million, VGA 92.4% i.e. 16.9 million VGA.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Imagine buying a 'word processor', and then discovering that you could play games like this on it:-

[ Show youtube player ]

A pure "word processor" is not enough. CPC's gaming results are rubbish.

A full document production cycle with a knowledge base system involves accounting, business development (marketing), spreadsheets, word processors, and document management. Alternatively, customer relationship management is attached or central to accounting, business development (marketing), spreadsheets, word processors with knowledge base systems (near auto letter generation), and document management (search engines).

MS Office is just a foundation for a larger knowledge base system with a customer relationship management center.

[hammer]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

More like "some of the time". And of course bitd people did not complain much about things, they were just happy to have a microcomputer at all. But when trying to use it now, on a real CRT, it's an ugly, headache inducin' PITA.


Yeah, it's true they did rather well with the PCW range, but when the slo-mo PC meteorite eventually hit for real, they had to go the way of all other dinosaurs.

PCW went the way of dinosaurs due to knowledge-based systems.

MS Office is just a foundation for a larger knowledge-based system.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Minuous

I don't think so, as proved by the legions of failed CP/M machines from the previous few years. Everyone I knew with a C128 used it purely for playing C64 games.

Nevertheless some people did run CP/M on the C128.

When the C64 was released the box artwork said there was a CP/M option, and when they hadn't produced anything the FCC ordered them to stop advertising it until the cartridges were ready for sale. Eventually they did release it, but then it wouldn't work with later C64 motherboards. Commodore promised that the C128 would run CP/M after a C64 user chastised them for the CP/M cartridge not running on their machine, which proves that some people wanted it.

The C128 probably could have been made to work with the CP/M cartridge, but putting the Z80 on the motherboard was cheaper than making it compatible with the cartridge!

CP/M on the C64 wasn't a great idea because the C64 only had 40 column text and most apps expected 80 columns. The C128 fixed that. Furthermore Amstrad (their main competition in the UK and Europe) included CP/M with their machines, so adding it to the C128 specs could increase sales even if 'nobody' used it.

Another thing you might not know is that many 'professional' programming languages were available for CP/M, including Aztec C, HiTech C (since used by Microchip for their 8-bit MCUs), BDS C, and HiSoft C. This potentially made the C128 a good development machine and/or learning tool for professional programmers. So CP/M added to the machine's more businesslike status that justified the higher price (even if 99% of users only played C64 games on it).

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by hammer

Without a business use case, just "displaying photos" is nearly useless.

Right. That explains why modern computers still only run in 16 colors, right?

A1000 has a wow factor with its hardware. The problem is normal people have day jobs.

And? The industries with highest number of workers in Australia today are healthcare, retail, and professional scientific and tech services. I guess they would have no use for a computer with excellent graphics and multitasking, right? Probably still using XTs with monochrome text displays!

Molecular modeling on the Commodore Amiga

The Amiga 3000 is nearly ideal for desktop molecular modeling. It uses the Motorola 68030 32-bit processor, running at 16 or 25 MHz, with either the 68881 or 68882 math coprocessor and eight custom processing chips...

NTSC compatibility permits simple and inexpensive video signal synchronization, so that composed monitor images can be displayed and recorded with standard video equipment. The processor, in conjunction with the custom video chips, can manipulate models mathematically at a sufficient rate to present moving or animated images in real time. Users can interact with the molecular image with mouse or joystick controls. A third-party manufacturer, Haitex Resources, has produced an inexpensive stereo image display interface for the Amiga.

Originally Posted by hammer

Amiga's video genlocking advantage is a small market niche and it transitioned poorly into digital video NLE. The Amiga didn't deliver digital video NLE for the masses i.e. the mass-produced wedge Amigas couldn't be involved with NLE.

One of my customers ran a local TV station here for many years with nothing more than an A1200. What did it mostly do? Display photos. That system is long gone, but I went to the blood test clinic the other day and their TV was doing a similar a job of displaying local adverts - except it wasn't, because the streaming video service was down. I felt like telling them I knew of a solution from 1992 that was more reliable...

Again, the argument "most home computers of the time" is flawed.

No, over 2.5 million C128's sold say that your argument is flawed.

BBC Micro, over 1.5 million units sold with the UK government's support.

And? Are you saying it wasn't popular because it ran in interlace? If not then why are you saying anything at all?

There's a higher probability of children pushing their parents for the C64 instead. Commodore's mistake is the lack of transition from C64 and A500. i.e. a game console-style hardware generation jump.

From personal experience as a computer retailer I can say that most A500s sold here were bought by parents in the hope that it would help with their kids' education. We sold a lot of printers with them too. Strange, why would they want a printer if they were only going to play games on it? Color printers too, and banner paper - what were they using that for?

8 million units do not prove anything. CPC reached a dead end.

8 million units prove they could sell 8 million units despite the machines not meeting your mercurial standards.

Most businesses and products don't last forever. IBM reached a dead end. Compaq reached a dead end. Sun Microsystems reached a dead end. I haven't heard much from PC Direct lately.

In about four weeks you won't be able to buy a New Zealand-made PC Direct machine any more. A decade of local sales success ends. Exit the Kiwi.

Blue Star keeps the Australian PC Direct business, which hit a high of $A23 million in sales in 1997 but slumped to about $A10 million last year.

Is this the end of home-grown PC manufacturing? Most would say yes, that the might of the global PC brands - Compaq, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Dell and Gateway - has crushed the Kiwi entrepreneurs.

[TEG]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

The C128 had some warts for sure ('jail bars' in composite, slow Z80, even slower CP/M), but it was a much better machine for 'serious' use than the C64 while still being 100% compatible with it. Furthermore it looked a lot more serious, without giving up the familiar home computer form factor.

It's true that from my teenager point of view then, the better design and more professional case of my C128 with its numpad was very important. It was the only affordable computer on the market with a numpad, and I used this numpad a lot. To program, to type C64 listings made only of long lists of numbers and for "Word" application.

And it was so nice. I mean it was a kind of piece of art you are happy to have a glance in the morning when you wake up.

There was a lot of details in the C128 which made it more enjoyable to use than the C64 I had before. It was like driving a Ferrari but I think you have to use it to realized it.

For example, this is a small detail, but the 100% C64 compatibility, reachable in the blink of an eye was just enjoyable. I mean it worked. All the time, and in 1s. It was just here without complication. I'm sure it took more time today to launch a C64 emulator in Windows than to type GO 64 in the C128 and be with the blue screen.


It was a whole, the machine was very good.

[AestheticDebris]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

But CP/M was at the core and was used for many of its functions, eg. DIR, ERA, REN.

No, that's exactly the point. They were AMSDOS commands and had nothing to do with CP/M. CP/M was an alternate OS that you had to boot separately from disk. AMSDOS provided all the disc functionality and was written by Amstrad, not Digital Research.

Now CP/M did hook into various bits of the Amstrad ROM firmware routines, including using AMSDOS as well as things like printing characters to the screen but that doesn't make any of those parts of CP/M, it simply treated those as BIOS functions.

[AestheticDebris]

Originally Posted by TEG

It's true that from my teenager point of view then, the better design and more professional case of my C128 with its numpad was very important. It was the only affordable computer on the market with a numpad, and I used this numpad a lot. To program, to type C64 listings made only of long lists of numbers and for "Word" application.

The only one? All of the Amstrad machines had a numeric keyboard.

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by grelbfarlk

Maple Syrup Production Statistics

Can someone remove those stupid maple syrup posts please?

[Minuous]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Commodore promised that the C128 would run CP/M after a C64 user chastised them for the CP/M cartridge not running on their machine, which proves that some people wanted it.

One guy still did, but by 1985 most didn't. Commodore should have ignored him :-/

Another thing you might not know is that many 'professional' programming languages were available for CP/M, including Aztec C, HiTech C (since used by Microchip for their 8-bit MCUs), BDS C, and HiSoft C. This potentially made the C128 a good development machine and/or learning tool for professional programmers. So CP/M added to the machine's more businesslike status that justified the higher price (even if 99% of users only played C64 games on it).

Yes, there were some good languages such as Draco which started on CP/M before being ported to the Amiga.

Also something to consider is that for every business that used CP/M mode, that was one less customer for C128 mode software, as I don't imagine it would have been very practical to try to be using both in combination.

[TEG]

Originally Posted by AestheticDebris

The only one? All of the Amstrad machines had a numeric keyboard.

Right, I forgot about it. So you had the choice between two affordable machines at the time. But the C128 had the function keys

[Karlos]

Originally Posted by Thorham

Can someone remove those stupid maple syrup posts please?

It's about as relevant as most of the other posts to be honest. How this thread has lasted so long is a mystery.

Q. Was anyone else disappointed with the A1200
A. Yes. It could have been better in many ways almost all of which would have delayed it further and cost more, unless - insert hypothetical change in approach to development here - happened.

Done.

[Promilus]

Q. Was anyone else disappointed with the A1200

A: But SNES
A: But Hombre
A: But PeeCee
A: But Gang of Nine
A: But NEC PC
A: But IBM 8514
A: But Apple
A: But Atari Falcon

And...
But modern consoles, but modern x86, but modern GPU, but.. butt!

[BigD]

Originally Posted by Karlos

It's about as relevant as most of the other posts to be honest. How this thread has lasted so long is a mystery.

Q. Was anyone else disappointed with the A1200
A. Yes. It could have been better in many ways almost all of which would have delayed it further and cost more, unless - insert hypothetical change in approach to development here - happened.

Done.

We really couldn't have expected anything more from C=. Gould thought the CDTV would conquer the world and lost interest in the Amiga after that bombed. C= UK could market the A1200 but nobody else really tried. Medhi Ali pushed the A600!!! 'Nuff said! I wanted an A1200 for Christmas 1994 and there was no stock! It's not like they weren't selling even post Commodore!

[TEG]

Originally Posted by BigD

It's not like they weren't selling even post Commodore!

Yeah, I wonder if we have more details about the launch of the A1200. If they had difficulties with the implementation of the production line, if first machines were OK, etc...

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by Promilus

A: But SNESA: But HombreA: But PeeCeeA: But Gang of NineA: But NEC PCA: But IBM 8514A: But AppleA: But Atari FalconAnd...But modern consoles, but modern x86, but modern GPU, but.. butt!

You forgotten about:

• AT&T DSP3210
• Intel 386
• AMD 386
• Intel 486
• TIGA
• TSENG ET4000AX
• TSENG ET4000W32
• S3
• Sharp X68000
• NEC PC-98
• VESA
• 3DO

Probably many other very important and Amiga 1200 related things i've forgotten too.

[oscar_ates]

Interestingly their best sales year is 1992 and 2 years later commodore went down the drain

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by TEG

Yeah, I wonder if we have more details about the launch of the A1200. If they had difficulties with the implementation of the production line, if first machines were OK, etc...

What we know is Ali ordered too few AGA custom chips for Christmas 92, as they still expected the A600 to sell like the A500 before…

Without enough custom chips made by HP they could not meet the demand…
So they largely missed the important Christmas season in 92 as the A600 was dead in the water and could only be sold off at a loss.

Without the stupid A600 and an affordable AA1000 by end of 91 they could have avoided most of their problems

What I am more curious about is at what point in time Commodore’s PC business went sour, or if that product line did make any significant profit in any given year. Never came across any hard numbers here.