Was anyone else disappointed with the A1200?

[hammer]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Yep. And considering the price of a 25MHz system at the time that ability was a big deal.

The A1200 managed to include a 14MHz 020 for a price similar to the A500, significantly boosting the performance by using both the faster CPU and more bandwidth for blotting.

FYI, A1200's 68EC020 is effectively 7.1 Mhz due to a Chip memory bottleneck.

A simple 32-bit fast memory upgrade for A1200s doubles the built-in 68EC020's performance. C0000 address range could be recycled as true Fast RAM like in some 3rd party CPU accelerator features, hence Zorro II memory address range for internal edge connector expansion wouldn't be affected.

Mr "PCJr" Bill Sydnes gimped PCJr with low memory configurations.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

The commercial CDTV multimedia title I developed loaded images twice as fast on the CD32 as on the CDTV, with no changes to the code (would have been even faster with AGA enabled and 2x speed CD).

I was using Cando for my high school presentation projects. 256 color display would be nicer.

Scrolling a 256-color 320x200 display at 30 frames per second by brute force requires a data transfer rate of 1.92 MB/s.

3.5 Mhz (260 ns read/write cycle) 16-bit bus has 7 MB/s potential. Frame buffer composition would need its memory bandwidth consumption.

A500's bandwidth could have supported VGA's 256 colors at 320x200. 260 ns read/write cycle DRAM could been improved i.e. 16 bit @ 7.1 Mhz (140 ns read/write cycle FP DRAM, 2X) variant.

A3000's Chip RAM is 32-bit wide and has the Chip RAM bandwidth to support VGA's 256 colors at 320x200.

A1200's 32-bit @ 7.1 Mhz (140 ns read/write cycle) Chip RAM (4X mode) bandwidth for Lisa is to support 8-bitplanes entry-level SVGA level 640x400p/512p 256 colors display or 64-bit wide sprites capability.

Jeffer Porter has an "8-bit planes with 16 million colors" mandate, hence it's AGA.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

By 1994 the A500 was being pushed to limits no one thought possible, with games so good you had to look closely to tell they weren't AGA. But even that wasn't the limit. Today we have 3D almost up to Doom standard at a reasonable frame rate, and 2D using HAM mode so well you would swear it was true color. Then you run the same game on a stock A1200 and it totally blows you away.

HAM6 mode for Quake needs extra CPU power to optimize 16 color palette selections to minimize HAM's artifacts. This processing step wouldn't be required for a 256-color display.

The color palette considerations for HAM mode are harder than VGA's 256 colors.

In modern times, A1200 has access to strong "cheap RISC" from ARM to max AGA's capabilities. My argument remains the same, AGA is fine, but needs compute power.

[ Show youtube player ]
AGA HAM8 @ 640x200p texture-mapped 3D with high CPU compute power. This incomplete game tech demo runs great on real A1200-equipped PiSTorm-Emu68 or Vampire AC68080 V2/V4.
It blows away VGA's 256 color effort.

HAM8 has 64 base colors to minimize HAM artifacts which has extra flexibility when compared to HAM6's 16 base colors.

AGA can handle texture-mapped 3D @ 640x200p/256p TV gaming when there's sufficient compute power i.e. it can be a strong CPU or custom math chip e.g. DSP for 3D. The Amiga approach uses custom chips to patch the weak CPU.

AAA's high "business" resolution with 16.7 million colors display is a distraction when custom chip effort should been custom math power for modest AA and AA+.

Amiga's primary audience is games and the development platform to create games. Amiga's primary audience is not about Apple Mac's artwork marketing of Adobe Illustrator or Photoshop, hence AAA's high "business" resolution with 16.7 million colors display is a distraction.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Fans who express disappointment at the A1200 not having more hardware are missing the point. Like the original A1000 it was designed to do more with less. It just needed the right attention to make it shine, without jealously comparing it to the PC (which had its own way of shining).

The A500 is not "PCJr" or "Atari ST". A500 has a slight premium hardware i.e. it had a powerful 1985 game-centric "GPU".

[hammer]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

In 1981 IBM launched the PC with a series of adverts featuring 'The Tramp', a fictional character created by English comic actor Charlie Chaplin. This association with comedy film was a huge success, and IBM continued the theme for many years.

IBM's Charlie Chaplin adverts are meaningless without the 3rd party killer apps on the PC.

One of the major killer apps for the PC is Lotus 123's higher-resolution text UI on IBM MDA which displaced VisiCalc.

Any platform with low-resolution text UI VisiCalc died along with VisiCalc. C128's 1985 release was too late when "next-gen" platforms were focusing on "next-gen" high business resolution GUI MS Excel which later displaced text-based Lotus 123.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

IBM's use of the name 'Warp' was no doubt inspired by the fictional warp drive used to travel faster than the speed of light in Star Trek. By 1994, when OS/2 Warp was introduced, this word was part of the popular lexicon and its meaning was well known. Thus it was an appropriate name for a new version of OS/2 that was incredibly fast and light-years ahead of what came before - or at least that's the idea IBM was trying to get across.

However there another reason to use it, which was that 'Warp' was the internal name IBM used during development. In fact they had been using Star Trek terms as internal names for prior OS/2 releases too. It was very clever IMO. As each version was released they could call it Warp 3, Warp 4 etc. - getting faster each time! (not really).

This didn't associate OS/2 with toys. Star Trek was a serious TV show which explored contemporary social issues including class warfare, economics, racism, religion, human rights, sexism, feminism, and the role of technology in society. One would have to be either incredibly shallow or have the mind of a 3 year old not to recognize this.

Star Trek is a toy. A significant part of Star Trek's revenue generation is from its merchandise business. In recent times, many DEI-tinted toys and game content have political messages and political agendas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...dia_franchises
Star Trek with $11.2 billion which includes the following:
Retail sales: $5.253 billion
TV revenue: $2.3 billion
Box office: $2.266 billion
VHS sales: $1 billion
DVD & Blu-ray: $426 million

A "toy" doesn't stop a toy seller from earning billions of dollars. In the end, it's about earning money from selling products.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by hammer

David Pleasance's A500 Batman pack includes a timed exclusive heavy hitter game i.e. Batman.

And firmly established the machine as a toy.

Not that it would matter much what he did. Even at its height the Amiga didn't mange to crack 10% of the personal computer market. Those customers would be discarding their toys the second PC clones hit the shelves at a price they could afford.

Due to Microsoft's experience with the Apple Mac with 68K's flat memory model, Bill Gates called Intel's 80286 as "braindead".

Which it was in the PC. But the 80286 was not actually designed for PCs, it was only used in them because it was faster than the 8086 and compatible with the PC (the earlier 80186, which had similar performance, was not compatible).

Despite being 'braindead' the 286 quickly became the 'gold standard', and sales skyrocketed. The 80386 didn't overtake it until 1989, 5 years later - and 286 based PCs were still selling into the 90's.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by hammer

Star Trek is a toy. A significant part of Star Trek's revenue generation is from its merchandise business. In recent times, many DEI-tinted toys and game content have political messages and political agendas.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. 1994 was not recent times. Start Trek Deep Space 9 aired from 1993 to 1999, and Star Trek Voyager went from 1995 to 2001. When people back then saw the word 'Warp', it wasn't merchandise they were thinking of.

Actually I don't think they do today either. I'm struggling to even think of a piece of Star Trek merchandise to attach it to.

Give it up. Your argument is flat out wrong and makes no sense.

[hammer]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

And firmly established the machine as a toy.

Not that it would matter much what he did. Even at its height the Amiga didn't mange to crack 10% of the personal computer market.

68K desktop market is fragmented. Major 68K desktop computers are single-source for each of the customized 68K desktop platform vendors.

Commodore UK's A1500 purpose was to kill Checkmate's original A1500 clone case. Strong Commodore will crush any wannabe Amiga clone.

Commodore International didn't reduce the final assembly manufacturing risk via the final assembly cloning method e.g. AMD/NVIDIA provides reference designs, video firmware, and GPU chips for AIB cloners.

Commodore Canada had the idea of purchasing 65,000 CD32 boards for Amitech's $1000 (68EC020@14 Mhz with 2MB 32-bit Fast RAM, AGA with Akiko C2P) to $1599 (68030@40/68882@40 Mhz with 4MB 32-bit Fast RAM, AGA with Akiko C2P) desktop A2200 clone which is superior to Commodore Germany's A2000/020-16 (ECS) and $1599 A4000/030-25 (68030@25/68882@25 Mhz, AGA).

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Those customers would be discarding their toys the second PC clones hit the shelves at a price they could afford.

Commodore didn't keep up with the competition. LOL.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Which it was in the PC. But the 80286 was not actually designed for PCs, it was only used in them because it was faster than the 8086 and compatible with the PC (the earlier 80186, which had similar performance, was not compatible).

Xenix 286 and IBM OS/2 1.x targeted 286-based PCs.

8086 and 80186 were used by PC cloners. IBM didn't use 8086 until the IBM PS/2 Model 25(1987). IBM PC/AT (1984) used 286 CPUs.

80186's 8086-2 instruction was added into 286 CPU. Both 186 (Jan 1982) and 286 (Feb 1982) were released in 1982, hence 186 is redundant.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Despite being 'braindead' the 286 quickly became the 'gold standard', and sales skyrocketed. The 80386 didn't overtake it until 1989, 5 years later - and 286 based PCs were still selling into the 90's.

https://dosdays.co.uk/topics/os2.php
IBM's braindead OS/2 prices
OS/2 Extended Edition 1.0 was priced at $795 in July 1988.
OS/2 Standard Edition 1.0 was priced at $325 in June 1988.

Windows 2.x reached 2 million install base in 1989.

[ Show youtube player ]

1:46:07

Major software development companies such as WordPerfect, Lotus, or Borland were still uninterested in creating Windows versions of their flagship DOS applications.

This attitude was going to badly bite them in the butt in just a couple more years. By 1989, the two versions of Windows 2 had sold about two million cumulative copies,

Windows 2.x 2 million official sales in 1989 don't include pirated copies of Windows 2.x.


https://www.amigalove.com/viewtopic.php?t=45

all Amiga sales, by year

1985 100,000
1986 200,000
1987 300,000
1988 400,000
1989 600,000**

** totals inline with public C= sales statement.

1990 750,000
1991 1,035,000**

In 1989, the Amiga had about 1,600,000 unit install base.

For 1989, Windows 2.x's official unit sales beats the Amiga's install base.


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. 3.79 million VGA.
1989 = 13.7 million, VGA 54.6% i.e. 7.67 million VGA. Windows 2.x official unit sales reached 2 million.
1990 = 14.3 million, VGA 66.4% i.e. 9.50 million VGA. The double heavy hitters i.e. Windows 3.0 and Wing Commander releases. In 1990, Windows 3.0 sold four million copies in just one year.
1991 = 15.8 million, VGA 76.6% i.e. 12.10 million VGA. Windows 3.0 had 10 million sales.
1992 = 16.4 million, VGA 84.2% i.e. 13.81 million VGA. Windows 3.1's release.
1993 = 18.3 million, VGA 92.4% i.e. 16.9 million VGA.

Intel's annual report from 1989 https://www.intel.la/content/dam/doc...ual-report.pdf
Page 10 of 28 via Data Quest
For the 32-bit market, the 386 architecture's 1989 market share is 57% against other 32-bit competitors.

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

And firmly established the machine as a toy.

The Amiga isn't a toy computer no matter how many times you repeat it.

[AestheticDebris]

Originally Posted by Thorham

The Amiga isn't a toy computer no matter how many times you repeat it.

But that was the market it was succeeding in. Whether we like it or not, Commodore wasn't doing what was necessary to make inroads into high end niche markets where, for example, SGI and Apple were. Not could Amiga ever compete with the much more democratised commodity PC space.

The place where they had been making ground had been the home gaming market ("toys" as Bruce would have it). They could have continued in that space if they'd had the foresight to double down on it, bringing something like CD32 much earlier and spending a lot less time/effort on worrying about application compatibility.

[OlafSch]

Originally Posted by Thorham

The Amiga isn't a toy computer no matter how many times you repeat it.

a computer is what users make it to. We all of course know what it is able to but at that time most people did not use bigbox systems with added ram and better processor and graphic card and hard drive but standard even at beginning 90s was A500 with 2 disc drives. With such a configuration you cannot do something serious but play games. And if you look at the official commercials it was also marketed for gaming mainly.

[OlafSch]

Originally Posted by AestheticDebris

But that was the market it was succeeding in. Whether we like it or not, Commodore wasn't doing what was necessary to make inroads into high end niche markets where, for example, SGI and Apple were. Not could Amiga ever compete with the much more democratised commodity PC space.

The place where they had been making ground had been the home gaming market ("toys" as Bruce would have it). They could have continued in that space if they'd had the foresight to double down on it, bringing something like CD32 much earlier and spending a lot less time/effort on worrying about application compatibility.

I heard some interviews with former commodore stuff. As I understand it they internally used PCs, even the amiga engineers. That to me says all. That was certainly not the case at apple. For Commodore Amiga was just another product they earned money with and covered some market. It was not in the middle of the attention, it was not seen as central for the future of the company. They wasted time and money, did a lot of costly mistakes until game over. I do not know if amiga, as we today know, would have survived but at least Commodore accellerated the demise.

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by AestheticDebris

They could have continued in that space if they'd had the foresight to double down on it, bringing something like CD32 much earlier and spending a lot less time/effort on worrying about application compatibility.

Thankfully they didn't. The Amiga as nothing more than another game system is a terrible thought indeed

Originally Posted by OlafSch

With such a configuration you cannot do something serious but play games.

No one told me that back in the day

I guess I know now why most of this thread is just about games

[TEG]

Originally Posted by Thorham

I guess I know now why most of this thread is just about games

You want absolutely see things in B&W witch they are not.

The Amiga 500 was clearly positioned about the game market. Of course you were able to do others tasks, and this is what we liked as teenagers but a professional wouldn't equipped his company with a fleet of A500.

Now if we talk about the Amiga machines in general, there was the Amiga 2000, everybody here know that, positioned as a serious machine. And it was indeed one, especially with the video Toaster which gave it its letters of nobility.

So it depend of what we talk, the A500 or the Amiga brand in general?

Commodore communication was muddled and the hardware did not evolved as it should have. So the Amiga brand mainly felt in the toys category from an overall public perception.

Commodore faced a pitfall they did not managed to overcome : being ahead of the times.

In the 80' the perception was there was serious machines, the boring ones and the other ones to play games (Pong, VCS 2600, arcade machines, etc..) not feat to do serious work. The games market was only for kids. So if you push a machine on the market and the shinning software for this machine is called "Defender of the Crown". Guess what happen in the general public perception?

They never marketed the Workbench like Microsoft did for Windows for example. They just pushed the machines and Inshallah and so the perception of the brand which follows.

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by TEG

The Amiga 500 was clearly positioned about the game market.

Not all software packs that it came with were games only, though.

Originally Posted by TEG

So it depend of what we talk, the A500 or the Amiga brand in general?

The A500 is clearly a hobby machine, but I sometimes get the idea that some people here mean all Amigas, which is of course nonsense, regardless of Commodore's shitty marketing.

Originally Posted by TEG

Commodore communication was muddled and the hardware did not evolved as it should have. So the Amiga brand mainly felt in the toys category from an overall public perception.

That doesn't make it true, and is highly insulting for a machine like an Amiga.

[hammer]

Originally Posted by AestheticDebris

But that was the market it was succeeding in. Whether we like it or not, Commodore wasn't doing what was necessary to make inroads into high end niche markets where, for example, SGI and Apple were. Not could Amiga ever compete with the much more democratised commodity PC space.

The place where they had been making ground had been the home gaming market ("toys" as Bruce would have it). They could have continued in that space if they'd had the foresight to double down on it, bringing something like CD32 much earlier and spending a lot less time/effort on worrying about application compatibility.

Sony's PlayStation "toy" is a serious business.

https://wnhub.io/news/finance/item-43432

Sony Annual report: gaming division revenues increased.

Sony has released a report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024.

The division's annual revenue was 4.26 trillion yen, or approximately $27.3 billion. An increase of 17% compared to last year.

Sony is focusing on its strengths. PlayStation is alive while workstation vendor SGI is dead.

Apple's iOS and iTunes business displaced Sony's "toy" Walkman and generated revenue to support MacOS X and Apple silicon while workstation vendor like SGI is dead i.e. Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

NVIDIA started with a game console targeted NV1 and transferred to the gaming PC market with NV3 RiVA 128 and NV10 GeForce 256. Based on gaming PC's GeForce designs, NVIDIA's Quadro started in 2000 and targeted the workstation market against 3DLabs' and SGI's market. NVIDIA has "economies of scale" to beat 3DLabs and SGI.

The addition of 3D graphic capabilities to PCs, and the ability of clusters of Linux- and BSD-based PCs to take on many of the tasks of larger SGI servers, ate into SGI's core markets. The porting of Maya to Linux, Mac OS and Microsoft Windows further eroded the low end of SGI's product line.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Graphics

Death by a thousand cuts via PC clones. MacOS also contributed to the death of SGI.

Bruce doesn't understand money is still money. Bruce is using "toy" as a negative like an old-school IBMer.

[hammer]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. 1994 was not recent times. Start Trek Deep Space 9 aired from 1993 to 1999, and Star Trek Voyager went from 1995 to 2001. When people back then saw the word 'Warp', it wasn't merchandise they were thinking of.

A toy is a form of entertainment. Star Trek is entertainment.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Actually I don't think they do today either. I'm struggling to even think of a piece of Star Trek merchandise to attach it to.

Give it up. Your argument is flat out wrong and makes no sense.

Stop using "toy" as a negative, you old boomer.

If a toy generates billions of dollars in revenue, it's a serious business as any other business. The mentality that looks down on "toys" doesn't understand winning the grassroots user base.

The original Xbox's code name is Midway in reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway This initiative is still active with Microsoft's recent purchase of ZeniMax Media and Activsion-Blizzard. Microsoft is spending billions of dollars to defend Windows against PlayStation. IBM can bugger off and die.

[hammer]

Originally Posted by AestheticDebris

But that was the market it was succeeding in. Whether we like it or not, Commodore wasn't doing what was necessary to make inroads into high end niche markets where, for example, SGI and Apple were. Not could Amiga ever compete with the much more democratised commodity PC space.

SGI died in 2009 (Chapter 11 bankruptcy, May 11, 2009).

SGI's remaining graphics business was transferred to NVIDIA in late 1999. https://www.eetimes.com/sgi-graphics...ves-to-nvidia/

SGI was bleeding engineers who wanted mass-production graphics cards, hence the breakaway companies such as 3DFX (graphics business transferred to NVIDIA in late 2000) and ArtX (purchased by ATI in early 2000).

------------

Commodore International announced voluntary bankruptcy and liquidation on April 29, 1994 due to mismanagement (cite: Commodore The Final Years by Brian and Commodore the Inside Story - The Untold Tale of a Computer Giant - David John Pleasance).

Besides the "read my lips, no new chips" directive for A3000's R&D, Commodore The Final Years by Brian has the extra information for 1987 to 1989.

The 1986 to 1989 were the critical years for designing the proper successor to the A500 and providing stable "business" high-resolution GUI for the masses. 1986 to 1989 was also Microsoft's opportunity to displace text-based Lotus 123, WordStar, and WordPerfect via Mac GUI ports of MS Excel and WinWord. MS Excel Mac port's team was credited as the main team that kept Windows 2.x R&D alive despite Steve Ballmer's anti-Windows (pro OS/2) push.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by Thorham

That doesn't make it true, and is highly insulting for a machine like an Amiga.

That is probably Commodore's biggest fault: To market the Amiga as a games machine first with additional uses second rather than as a multimedia machine first that can also play games. They did that early on, but once the Amiga 500 started to sell the marketing was aimed at kids wanting to play games and could tell their parents that a computer could also be used for other things.

[malko]

Originally Posted by TCD

That is probably Commodore's biggest fault: To market the Amiga as a games machine first with additional uses second rather than as a multimedia machine first that can also play games. They did that early on, but once the Amiga 500 started to sell the marketing was aimed at kids wanting to play games and could tell their parents that a computer could also be used for other things.

This is nonetheless strange. If I remember correctly the Amiga "world premiere show", not a single game was presented at that time. But indeed, maybe C= too much advertised the A500 (for games) and not enough the others models for work (A2000, A3000 , etc.) ?

[sokolovic]

I got the impression that in the US it was the exact reverse situation. The Amiga was first a multimedia machine for use in professionnal context and aimed at grown up.
Even the gaming library made in the US reflect that. Many HD friendly serious games. I'm not even sure there was any plateformer or arcade game made there.

[Amigajay]

Originally Posted by malko

This is nonetheless strange. If I remember correctly the Amiga "world premiere show", not a single game was presented at that time. But indeed, maybe C= too much advertised the A500 (for games) and not enough the others models for work (A2000, A3000 , etc.) ?

The market dictates what a computer would be used for more. Sir Clive Sinclair never wanted the ZX Spectrum to be used solely for games, yet it’s success came from the ability to play cheap games on a cheap computer.

The Amiga’s long-term success came from games, the Amiga would long be dead in the late 80s if the A500 never came out, which we all know was aimed at the mid-range gaming computer sector to target the Atari ST which was primally used for gaming.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by hammer

A toy is a form of entertainment. Star Trek is entertainment.

So was The Tramp. So you're saying IBM associated the PC with toys right from the start? Actually The Tramp was a comedy character, so that means IBM was associating it with humor too. Did they think the PC was joke? No, and not a toy either.

The PCjr was though, which is why they commissioned Sierra to make a game for it - King's Quest.

IBM requested a sophisticated and replayable adventure game, and paid for much of the $850,000 development cost. IBM stated in advertisements that King's Quest "runs on the IBM PCjr and makes good use of some special PCjr capabilities", with "unusually smooth and realistic" animation and "an impressive variety of sound effects"...

That's IBM promoting a toy.

By the time OS/2 Warp was released in 1994 computer games had become a big part of the PC market. One of the features of OS/2 that IBM promoted was it's compatibility with DOS games, along with its multimedia capabilities, in an attempt to appeal to the broader market. But they couldn't beat Microsoft, who had been bundling games with Windows since version 1.0 in 1985. They introduced Microsoft Solitaire in Windows 3.0 in 1990. Since Microsoft offered cheap OEM deals on Windows and DOS it became a standard feature of PCs from that time on, resulting in Microsoft Solitaire becoming the most popular computer game of all time!

The game was developed during the summer of 1988 by the intern Wes Cherry. The card deck itself was designed by Macintosh pioneer Susan Kare. Cherry's version was to include a boss key that would have switched the game to a fake Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, but he was asked to remove this from the final release.

Microsoft intended Solitaire "to soothe people intimidated by the operating system," and at a time where many users were still unfamiliar with graphical user interfaces, it proved useful in familiarizing them with the use of a mouse, such as the drag-and-drop technique required for moving cards.

According to Microsoft telemetry, Solitaire was among the three most-used Windows programs and FreeCell was seventh, ahead of Word and Microsoft Excel. Lost business productivity by employees playing Solitaire has become a common concern since it became standard on Microsoft Windows. In 2006, a New York City worker was fired after Mayor Michael Bloomberg saw the Solitaire game on the man's office computer.

Soon after Microsoft released their answer to OS/2 Warp - Windows 95 - they introduced DirectX to encourage developers to produce games for Windows. Microsoft obviously realized that games were becoming a very important part of the PC market and their OS needed to support them. They even went as far as porting Doom to Windows 95 to show everyone how good their OS was for games.

So the truth is that Microsoft Windows was associated with 'toys' (ie. computer games) far more than OS/2 Warp was.

Stop using "toy" as a negative, you old boomer.

I'm not. I have always defended the Amiga's relevance as a 'toy'.

The problem is that many people do use the word 'toy' as a negative when applied to the Amiga. One poster in particular likes to describe Amiga OS as a 'toy' with negative connotations. It was also a very common epithet thrown at us by PC users back in the day. So when you are using that word you need to make your intention clear to avoid being misunderstood.

I accept that you didn't intend your comment that 'OS/2 "Warp" is based on a "toy"' as a negative, but it's still wrong. The purpose IBM had in using the Star Trek reference was to appeal to adults who enjoyed science fiction, in the same way that they appealed to adults who enjoyed comedy with The Tramp. In both cases it was an attempt to get through to 'non-technical' people who otherwise wouldn't have an interest in their product, not (just) people who wanted a 'toy' to play with.

The purpose behind the word 'Warp' was to associate OS/2 with a 'warp drive' - fast, powerful, technically advanced. It had nothing to do with toys or even entertainment - though obviously a fast powerful technically advanced OS would be expected to better handle multimedia - which includes entertainment and games.

Having said that, it must be acknowledged that IBM used Star Trek references in their internal names for OS/2 versions. They were obviously Star Trek fans. Somehow though I don't think calling it OS/2 Ferengi (their internal name for the previous version) would go down well. I'm betting they chose the word 'warp' to reflect what they intended it to be.