Was anyone else disappointed with the A1200?

[TCD]

Originally Posted by grelbfarlk

They would have make trillions.

"Read my lips, no new chips!"

"I can't read them from here, bring them closerlier" *Saxophone begins*


"We need a new slot on the side of this A1200, something smaller and narrower."

"What about Pee See Em Cee Eye Aye?"

"But is it hot swappable?"

"Let's try it!"

*Tears and muttering ensues*

"I guess there are some timing issues."

If only more people could be this beautifully broken

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by TCD

If only more people could be this beautifully broken

That's a bit too broken for me

[haps]

Originally Posted by grelbfarlk

They would have make trillions.

"Read my lips, no new chips!"

"I can't read them from here, bring them closerlier" *Saxophone begins*


"We need a new slot on the side of this A1200, something smaller and narrower."

"What about Pee See Em Cee Eye Aye?"

"But is it hot swappable?"

"Let's try it!"

*Tears and muttering ensues*

"I guess there are some timing issues."

Hmmmmm.......


I read that and I picture Hammer and Abbott sitting in a basement somewhere together planning their next weeks worth of inane bantering to perpetuate this abomination of a thread.

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by Thorham

No? Yes? Are you really sure? (but for sure really, really)?

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by Dunny

I heard that it was not, so they didn't.

Oh, hows that? For sure they could have success - you simply can't loose money on this...

Originally Posted by grelbfarlk

They would have make trillions.

"Read my lips, no new chips!"

"I can't read them from here, bring them closerlier" *Saxophone begins*


"We need a new slot on the side of this A1200, something smaller and narrower."

"What about Pee See Em Cee Eye Aye?"

"But is it hot swappable?"

"Let's try it!"

*Tears and muttering ensues*

"I guess there are some timing issues."

Trillions probably not but billions... why not? Gould for sure was artistic guy, his collection of netsuke was quite famous so he could also explore new possibilities in adult industry...

An those quotes are indeed very promising as inspiration for dialogue(s) in Commodore FAO industry...

[Dunny]

Originally Posted by pandy71

Oh, hows that? For sure they could have success - you simply can't loose money on this...

It wasn't a big thing, and the one thing you need to be big in that industry is... the thing.

[TuRRIcaNEd]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

It's interesting to note that IBM, with its enormous clout and reputation, still couldn't draw customers away from Microsoft. Bill Gates must have been grinning from ear to ear.

Sorry to respond to such an old post, but based on my understanding it was even crazier than that. From their inception in 1975, Micro[-]Soft's core business model was being able to supply and license the BASIC interpreters that they'd developed for every major 8-bit processor architecture and have that software available "off-the-shelf". In the case of CBM, Tramiel Sr. infamously took them to the cleaners in 1977 via devious use of contractual small-print, meaning that MS didn't see a penny from VIC-20 or C64 sales despite their BASIC interpreter being built into every single machine - one downside of which was that the 1982 C64 was effectively running the same version of BASIC as the 1977 PET and as such the BASIC was effectively obsolete.

Come 1981, the demand for BASIC was tailing off as the technology advanced and reading between the lines their effort to purchase QDOS and have IBM use it in their upcoming PC platform (assisted by both of BillG's parents working as product lawyers for IBM and IBM's senior management not taking the PC project seriously) was a "Hail-Mary" pass to keep the company going while they figured out how to adapt to the changing market. When IBM sued Compaq for reverse-engineering the BIOS and selling a PC compatible machine - and lost - it must have been like every Christmas coming at once for MS.

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by pandy71

No? Yes? Are you really sure? (but for sure really, really)?

No, pr0n is nasty Also, why can't we just write pr0n the normal way?

[TCD]

Originally Posted by Thorham

Also, why can't we just write pr0n the normal way?

Search engines.

[Dunny]

Originally Posted by TuRRIcaNEd

Sorry to respond to such an old post, but based on my understanding it was even crazier than that. From their inception in 1975, Micro[-]Soft's core business model was being able to supply and license the BASIC interpreters that they'd developed for every major 8-bit processor architecture and have that software available "off-the-shelf". In the case of CBM, Tramiel Sr. infamously took them to the cleaners in 1977 via devious use of contractual small-print, meaning that MS didn't see a penny from VIC-20 or C64 sales despite their BASIC interpreter being built into every single machine - one downside of which was that the 1982 C64 was effectively running the same version of BASIC as the 1977 PET and as such the BASIC was effectively obsolete.

Said shenanigans combined with an unwillingness to pay for an updated BASIC meant that in order to do anything in C64 BASIC you had to use POKEs which was hilariously bad when you compared it to almost any other 8bit's BASIC.

It still has a reputation as the worst BASIC ever, but it only just pipped AmigaBASIC to that award.

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by TCD

Search engines.

Really? Effing crap

Originally Posted by Dunny

It still has a reputation as the worst BASIC ever, but it only just pipped AmigaBASIC to that award.

Yeah, compare it to MSX BASIC

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by Thorham

No, pr0n is nasty Also, why can't we just write pr0n the normal way?

Hope not... at least some can be nice (if i recall correctly... xD ) although not sure about Ali and Gould but i bet they can have own technological niche...

[hammer]

Originally Posted by haps

Hmmmmm.......

I read that and I picture Hammer and Abbott sitting in a basement somewhere together planning their next weeks worth of inane bantering to perpetuate this abomination of a thread.

Abbott is in his "reality distortion field" that was shaped by New Zealand's weaker currency and tiny population size experience which influence economies of scale.

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

Originally Posted by grelbfarlk

Mobile gaming is chump change. What if Commodore became a casino, and all of the slot machines were driven by an Amiga.
(skip for space)

That's classic gambling.

Mobile games like Genshin Impact have gambling aspects with the loot boxes with a maximum chance attempt for guaranteed results. A gamer can easily blow $1000 on Genshin Impact or any miHoYo game's "five start" items. Self-control is important for gotchas games.

My cited Genshin Impact's revenues are only for the mobile market which doesn't include the desktop variant of Genshin Impact on PC.

Games like Genshin Impact run on application platforms. "Casino machines" are useless for application platforms.
----------------------

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Spamming is defined as:-
Some of your posts are borderline spam. There doesn't seem to be any specific rule against it here though.

You're in a "reality distortion field".

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

Originally Posted by alexh

Dominance is not a Monopoly. And the embedded market is more than smartphones and PDAs. It's washing machines, microwaves, telecoms, video games consoles etc.

Embedded processors are red herrings for application processors. The ARM instruction set has more than 95 percent of the smartphone market.

https://www.semianalysis.com/p/arm-a...est-to-extract

Arm has a total monopoly for instruction sets for smartphone application processors. There is simply no alternative as they have almost 100% market share

The current desktop game consoles are common with PC's application processors and GPU IP designs. Actual PS5 and Xbox Series X APUs are available for the PC market as AMD's 4700S (PS5 APU with disabled GPU), 4800S (XSX APU with disabled GPU), and BC250 (PS5 APU with six CPU cores and active GPU reduced CU) SKUs. AMD is using the failed XSX and PS5 APUs for China's PC market.

Current smartphones have gained PDA functions and have separated from the embedded processors market.

As for Google, https://www.dechert.com/knowledge/on...lay-store.html

After less than four hours of deliberation, the jury in Epic v. Google delivered a unanimous verdict on all counts that Google unlawfully maintained a monopoly over the Google Play Store and Google Play Billing.

Originally Posted by alexh

And?? Where is the evidence of a monopoly?

Hint: Why NVIDIA was restricted from purchasing ARM Limited from SBG (SoftBank Group)?

Originally Posted by alexh

About the same time PowerPC replaced STM transputers as the CPU of choice in set-top-boxes. Practically overnight all cable, satellite and Digital Terrestrial set-top-boxes became PPC based. Hundreds of millions of chips. I know, I worked for a team that designed the chips IBM wanted the market and offered low cost ASIC production and low royalties. A few years later MIPs offered their IP royalty free so we all changed architecture again. And then ARM + imagination technologies started offering combos that just blew everything away and everyone switched architecture again. Never used Android ever. uClinux and other RTOS but never android. (Terrible latencies)

My old laser printer has PowerPC, so what? Any other laser can replace it. There's no application software library for this laser printer.

https://www.semianalysis.com/p/arm-a...est-to-extract

Arm has a total monopoly for instruction sets for smartphone application processors. There is simply no alternative as they have almost 100% market share

Like their desktop computer counterpart, smartphone application processors have multiple applications and games.

Your embedded market was weak consideration for end user's applications' backward compatibility.

uClinux is for MMU-less processors (e.g. microcontrollers) and Android needs MMU since it runs on memory-protected Linux, hence valid application processors are required.

Originally Posted by alexh

Let's examine games consoles/home computers. 16-bit era dominated by 68000 (Atari ST, Amiga, Genesis/Megadrive, x68000).

In the real world, SNES's 65C816 equipped game console has 49.10 million units and has solo beaten the entire game capable 68000 platforms with the best-selling 68000-based games platform being 30.75 million Genesis/Megadrive.

Prove the "Sinclair QL, Atari ST, Amiga, Genesis/Megadrive, x68000" collective has SNES's 49.10 million installed base!

Sinclair QL = 150,000,
Atari ST = 2 million,
Amiga = 4.85 to 7 million,
Genesis/Megadrive = 30.75 million,
x68000 = several hundred thousand units https://gamesx.com/wiki/doku.php?id=x68000:x68000

vs

SNES = 49.10 million.

Against SNES, you need more than just "Atari ST, Amiga, Genesis/Megadrive, x68000" before you can call it even. Better include the Mac 68K platform with "Atari ST, Amiga, Genesis/Megadrive, x68000".

I'm game for another DataQuest report on worldwide CPU sales. 68000 didn't have a game platform dominance when SNES could single-handedly beat them all.

Unfortunately, your statistics are incorrect.

Originally Posted by alexh

But which architecture took over from them? Sega went Hitachi SH2, then SH4. Sony & Nintendo went MIPs. Then both switched to PowerPC. Then Sony and M$ went x86. Only hand helds went ARM for low power.

Most mainstream 1990s game consoles weren't factoring software backward compatibility until PlayStation 1 and 2. Fat PS3 has PS2 hardware with later PS3 has removed PS2 backward compatibility. PS5 has backward compatibility with PS4 and limited PS2 (via PlayStation Plus subscription https://www.imdb.com/news/ni64613262/ )

Nintendo has enough resources to create exclusive 1st party "killer app" games for their new platforms and you can't say the same for Commodore or Jack Tramiel's Atari.

Nintendo's original Gameboy is powered by DMG-CPU (Sharp SM83) which is a variant of the Intel 8080, the Zilog Z80 hybrids with extra bit manipulation instructions. Following the Gameboy Color, the Game Boy Advance displaced Z80 hybrid CPUs with ARM7TDMI. Game Boy Advance includes both Sharp SM83 4 / 8 MHz and ARM7TDMI 16.78 MHz CPUs. Nintendo DS has 67 MHz ARM946E-S and 33 MHz ARM7TDMI CPUs.

Game Boy Advance is backward compatible with the Gameboy Color and the original Gameboy. Nintendo DS is not backward compatible with Sharp SM83 Gameboy games. Game Boy Advance served as the transition platform between Sharp SM83 and ARM. The Switch wasn't Nintendo's 1st ARM-based handheld games console.

Your "Only hand helds went ARM for low power" narrative hides Nintendo's Sharp SM83 (Z80 hybrid) Gameboy handhelds. 68000-based DragonBall VZ wasn't the only CISC victim of ARM!

Xbox Series X/Xbox Series S has backward compatibility with Xbox One and Xbox 360.

When compared to Nintendo, Sega has weaker 1st party games IP.

A digital TV setup box runs a prebaked compressed video stream and any digital TV setup box that follows a compressed video standard can play the video. I have Chromecast with Google TV (4K) which includes AndroidOS.

Amlogic S905X3's 1.8GHz quad-core ARM Cortex-A55/Mali-G31MP2 based SoC for Chromecast with Google TV (4K).
Amlogic S850X2's quad-core ARM Cortex-35 CPU cores/Mali-G31MP2 GPU based SoC for Chromecast with Google TV (HD).

With embedded devices, there's very little consideration for backward compatibility with the end user's applications which is different from the current generation of "application smartphones".

You can dump the CPU family at will if backward compatibility with the end user's applications is not a priority or have a cutting-edge fast CPU translator IP or have the resources to replace 1st party "killer app" software for the new platform.

It's harder to replace an ARM-based iOS smartphone when the end-user has invested in ARM-based iOS application software. Can you distinguish between some no-name digital TV setup boxes and ARM-based iOS platforms?

I threw away my iPad Air-mini since I didn't invest in iOS's application software.

Originally Posted by alexh

Unfortunately your statistics are for a very small part of the embedded market. They don't take into consideration the hundreds of millions of other devices.

There's a difference between "application processors" and "application platforms" vs "embedded processors" and "embedded platforms".

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by pandy71

Ali and Gould

Yuk