Was anyone else disappointed with the A1200?

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Gorf

With such an expansion the A1000 would be the ultimate development tool for the C64: stopp the C64 side, inspect RAM, take snapshots of the state, manipulate things, roll back if it fails and so on...

Counterproductive.

For the Amiga to survive, people needed to start developing for the Amiga, not use it as a C64 development tool.

The Amiga could be a little bit intimidating at first for someone, who came from the C64 and just learned to do a little bit of BASIC on that machine.

The Amiga was in another league, and people needed to get onboard with that.

I was actually more intimidated by the C64. Zero support in BASIC for any of its advanced features. And all those decimal pokes!

C128 development? How expensive is one Bil Herd?
OK OK, we was not alone, but the development costs of that machine are probably one of the lowest in computer history.
(that does not make it a good idea automatically)

The C128 was an example of "And it should have this in it" feature creep.

Commodore 128

When the C128(D/DCR) was discontinued in 1989, it was reported to cost nearly as much to manufacture as the Amiga 500, even though the C128D had to sell for several hundred dollars less to keep the Amiga's high-end marketing image intact.

Bil Herd ... gave the reason for the 128's inclusion of a Z80 processor as ensuring this "100% compatibility" claim, since supporting the C64's Z80 cartridge would have meant the C128 supplying additional power to the cartridge port. He also stated that the VDC video chip and Z80 were sources of trouble during the machine's design. Herd added that "I only expected the C128 to be sold for about a year, we figured a couple of million would be nice and of course it wouldn’t undercut Amiga or even the C64". After Commodore raised the price of the 64 for the first time by introducing the redesigned 64C in 1986, its profit from each 64C sold was reportedly much greater than that from the C128.

Between 1985 and 1989 a total of 5.7 million C128s were sold worldwide. That's more than the total number of A500s sold up to 1992. But the C128 was mostly used in C64 mode, so Commodore probably could have made more money if they had never produced it (since the C64 and A500 both had higher profit margins). All it did was hold people back from buying the machine they should have, which hurt the Amiga at a critical point in its life.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by oscar_ates

Just saw on some forums Escom produced 60k A1200s in 1995 and could sell only 9000. So it was a kind of trying to resurrect the dead donkey you bought They did not even bother about cd32s that were seized by Philippines

I'm sure they could have sold more if they dropped the price. I actually had no trouble selling them in my shop even at the higher price and despite the nearly 2 year wait. But I was cautious and didn't buy many of them. Now I wish I had bought more, and kept some!

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Gorf

41,600 bit/s or 5,200 bytes/s is really not that slow in 85 for a serial connection.

For various reasons the practical speed with most peripherals was much slower than your figure, and 'for a serial connection' shouldn't apply to floppy drives and printers. The Amiga reads disks 10 times faster. Dot matrix printers were slow anyway, but in graphics mode a faster interface means more time for rendering.

[grelbfarlk]

Originally Posted by oscar_ates

Just saw on some forums Escom produced 60k A1200s in 1995 and could sell only 9000. So it was a kind of trying to resurrect the dead donkey you bought They did not even bother about cd32s that were seized by Philippines

It's amazing that producing 60k A1200s like they were cranking out a 3 year old microwave didn't result in a good turnover.


I bought a laptop three years ago, would anyone in their right mind buy the same laptop for about the same price as I did three years ago? Even if it was $100 cheaper than it was three years ago?

[TCD]

Do you mean ESCOM didn't make the smartest business decisions? I am shocked!

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by grelbfarlk

I bought a laptop three years ago, would anyone in their right mind buy the same laptop for about the same price as I did three years ago? Even if it was $100 cheaper than it was three years ago?

Why You Shouldn’t Buy a New PC in 2023

In 2023, a new PC isn’t a value investment anymore. If you scope out the PC market, you’ll find bumps and challenges at every corner. Post-pandemic inflation, rising production costs, and supply chain issues are just a few reasons why you should likely hold onto your money.

This might seem like advice you’d receive for just about anything lately, so let’s take a more in-depth look at PCs specifically.

New Tech Isn’t Automatically Better Tech

Year after year, we see people criticizing Apple for putting out more or less the same technology in their flagship iPhones — and asking a king’s ransom for it. PCs aren’t a different story, just less talked about.

This is because our technology has mostly peaked for now, with new releases offering minimal improvements...

"Moore’s Law’s dead. And the ability for Moore’s Law to deliver twice the performance at the same cost, or at the same performance, half the cost, every year and a half, is over. It’s completely over, and so the idea that a chip is going to go down in cost over time, unfortunately, is a story of the past." - Jensen Huang, Nvidia CEO

In 1997 it might seem like an A1200 was no longer worth the money compared to 1992. But over that time prices dropped dramatically.

In 1992 a stock A1200 with 14MHz EC020 and 2MB ChipRAM cost £399, and that was the best you could get.

In 1997 an Amiga Technologies A1200 Magic pack (including lots of excellent bundled software) cost £209, and a bundled Viper Mark IV 42MHz 030 with 4MB FastRAM was a mere £60 more. Add a 1.3GB hard drive for £129 and you're up to the same price a stock A1200 was in 1992, but with 5 times the computing power, 3 times the RAM and an enormous hard drive.

If that wasn't powerful enough you could go for a 33MHz 040 board at £159, or a 50MHz 060 at £279 (plus RAM, eg. £56 for 16MB). That's Pentium class performance for under £700.

But what's even better is how well the A1200 has held its value. Right now there's an auction going on eBay for a stock A1200 that 'powers on' for £428, with 4 bids so far.

Not so much for PCs. A few weeks ago I bought a Toshiba Satellite CDS310 (P200, 32MB RAM, 4GB hard drive) for $50. I'm thinking the hard drive in that 1997 laptop might be put to better use in my A600. Recently a friend gave me a 10 year old Satellite Pro 665 with Windows 10 that works perfectly, and an Apple iPad too!

[Promilus]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Counterproductive.

For the Amiga to survive, people needed to start developing for the Amiga, not use it as a C64 development tool.

The first thing one should do introducing new platform is to gain as large user base as possible so naturally developers would be interested making software for said platform. A1000 wasn't that great in gaining worldwide recognition (other than magazine covers) and there was little software for it. Even A500 did start with rather poor software library 2 years later.

I was actually more intimidated by the C64. Zero support in BASIC for any of its advanced features. And all those decimal pokes!

Exactly. Even simple assembler monitor would have to be first loaded from disk, tape or cartridge. Bare C64 didn't allow software development in assembly. And there were hardly any tools which made it easy to develop on target machine. Using Amiga for running C64 games and creating better development environment is exactly a feature which would've made A1000 vastly more popular.

Between 1985 and 1989 a total of 5.7 million C128s were sold worldwide. That's more than the total number of A500s sold up to 1992. But the C128 was mostly used in C64 mode, so Commodore probably could have made more money if they had never produced it (since the C64 and A500 both had higher profit margins).

And if even quarter of those figures were A1000 sold DUE to C64 optional compatibility wouldn't that be great start for Amiga?

All it did was hold people back from buying the machine they should have, which hurt the Amiga at a critical point in its life.

Exactly. That's why A1000 add-on card for C64 compatibility INSTEAD of C128 would've been absolute beast back then pumping A1000 sales. Yes you spend more money but you are guaranteed to have all of the C64 made to date (and further on) AND new software for Amiga platform. Win-win.
As for IEC - we already proved it would run pretty ok on existing Amiga CIA (after all C1541 interface for Amiga was rather simple one hardware-wise). So hardware support aside there was no SOFTWARE support for such solution. At least none created by Commodore.

But what's even better is how well the A1200 has held its value

Oh. You forgot the moment it was worth negative. Electro garbage fee. Yes, somewhere in between 2000 and 2010. That's exactly typical value of most Amigas in that timeframe. Today's value is nothing more than nostalgia * rarity * inflation. And there's plenty of examples outside amiga world



Now... Gorf - as for hardware implementation. PC emulators did use Amiga hardware partially and for PC binary physical x86 was introduced. But that said PC EGA, CGA (and later on VGA) modes could've been emulated on Amiga chipset rather nicely and there weren't that many timing constraints. On the other hand C64 for good compatibility has to offer a way to let 6502 and VIC access memory every 500ns or so. It most likely would be impossible with chipset interference so there's only one choice - dedicated memory. But while it would work perfectly for 8bit software it'd also make tricky to copy-back screen data to chipram and intercept access to cia and sid registers. I find it as actually more challenging project than sidecar

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Promilus

Using Amiga for running C64 games and creating better development environment is exactly a feature which would've made A1000 vastly more popular.

Not for me it wouldn't. I didn't have a C64, and neither did any of my friends (all of whom were into home computing in a big way). I never heard of anyone developing stuff for the C64, and I certainly wasn't interested myself. Why would I waste my time doing that when I just got a shiny new A1000?

A1000 wasn't that great in gaining worldwide recognition (other than magazine covers) and there was little software for it. Even A500 did start with rather poor software library 2 years later.

Yes, I found that too in 1987 when I got my A1000. So what I and others wanted was more Amiga software, not C64 software.

That's why A1000 add-on card for C64 compatibility INSTEAD of C128 would've been absolute beast back then pumping A1000 sales. Yes you spend more money but you are guaranteed to have all of the C64 made to date (and further on)

Nope. History has proven again and again that doing that just dumbs the more advanced platform down and reduces its popularity. If you wanted to play C64 games an actual C64 was more compatible (duh!) and a lot cheaper.

As for IEC - we already proved it would run pretty ok on existing Amiga CIA (after all C1541 interface for Amiga was rather simple one hardware-wise).
So hardware support aside there was no SOFTWARE support for such solution. At least none created by Commodore.

Yep, it worked well - but wasn't much use (I used it to back up some C64 disks on my Amiga, but never had to use them). That was the kind of project that could be easily be created by amateurs, so it's telling that nobody bothered until years later.

C64 for good compatibility has to offer a way to let 6502 and VIC access memory every 500ns or so. It most likely would be impossible with chipset interference so there's only one choice - dedicated memory. But while it would work perfectly for 8bit software it'd also make tricky to copy-back screen data to chipram and intercept access to cia and sid registers. I find it as actually more challenging project than sidecar

Yes, emulating the C64 well enough to play games accurately is quite a challenge due to its custom hardware. Emulating BASIC was a lot easier, since you could run native 68k code and make it faster.

Actually emulating any system with a different CPU is a challenge, since you typically need 10 times more instructions. The Amiga was one of the first to attept it, with the 'Amiga Transformer' which emulated a PC well enough to boot Lotus 123 from a copy-protected disk. Only problem is it ran at the speed of a 1MHz 8088 (which is actually pretty impressive). The A3000 could emulate an XT at full speed with PC Task. I used it to develop some DOS programs in x86 assembler.

An accelerated Amiga can also emulate the ZX Spectrum and Apple II very well, since they have relatively simple hardware. Probably some other 8 bit systems too (if anyone bothered to write the code). But it's a lot of work for not much return. These days it's probably more interesting to play with the real machines than spend countless hours trying to emulate them.

[Arc Angel]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

But what's even better is how well the A1200 has held its value. Right now there's an auction going on eBay for a stock A1200 that 'powers on' for £428, with 4 bids so far.

Not so much for PCs. A few weeks ago I bought a Toshiba Satellite CDS310 (P200, 32MB RAM, 4GB hard drive) for $50. I'm thinking the hard drive in that 1997 laptop might be put to better use in my A600. Recently a friend gave me a 10 year old Satellite Pro 665 with Windows 10 that works perfectly, and an Apple iPad too!

Global inflation of retro hardware people had in their childhood / teen years has nothing to do with 'holding value'.
Note GBP428 has certainly not the same value than 30+ years ago.
Let's be serious, please.

[Promilus]

@Bruce

Not for me it wouldn't. I didn't have a C64, and neither did any of my friends

Well that's you. Many former C64 users indeed jumped to Amiga bandwagon at some point. That's what is called brand loyalty. Look how did it turn out for Apple. It made many ppl devout believers even at times when Apple was obviously behind. And so it was for Amiga. For a while.

Yes, I found that too in 1987 when I got my A1000. So what I and others wanted was more Amiga software, not C64 software.

Yes, and having C64 + C128 handling C64 legacy and A1000 with fresh start didn't really help with lack of Amiga software, yes? So why assume it would be even worse with C64 compatibility add-on? With bigger platform popularity it's only natural for more developers to being attracted to it.

History has proven again and again that doing that just dumbs the more advanced platform down and reduces its popularity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_IIe_Card
Yeah... right.

If you wanted to play C64 games an actual C64 was more compatible (duh!) and a lot cheaper.

You missed the point. Completely.

Actually emulating any system with a different CPU is a challenge, since you typically need 10 times more instructions

Again. You missed the point. I already wrote about that particular piece and it's obvious 6502 has to be included not emulated. Look at early successful PC emulators for Amiga. They DID have their own x86 CPU and BIOS and DID run x86 binaries natively. So the problem doesn't lie there as one could easily get 6502 on C64 hardware emulator add-on and cost was insignificant. Pure software emulators always are costly. And mentioned Amiga Transformer

The application, called Transformer, was indeed extremely slow; The 'Landmark' benchmark rated it as a 300 kHz 286, far slower than the 4.7 MHz of IBM's oldest and slowest PC.

So... no. Most likely fastest to date (except PC-Task JIT on Vampire or PiStorm) is still GoldenGate with 486SLC.

[grond]

The Amiga 1000 cost 1285 USD when it debuted. The Commodore 64 cost 149 USD when the Amiga 1000 came out. You don't sell a computer having 8.5 times the price as a "predecessor" by making it compatible to that "predecessor". Especially not if you have to add 50 USD to the cost of the base machine to accomodate an optional 120 USD add-on card to achieve that compatibility. A compatibility which then probably isn't even perfect.

[Promilus]

You don't sell a computer having 8.5 times the price as a "predecessor" by making it compatible to that "predecessor"

Well there's always argument with "you could buy C64 to have C64 compatibility with software and addons". And that's certainly true to PC as well as Sidecar was one ugly and expensive beast and you clearly could just get an old PC fitting that particular role, right? And guess what - they made it exactly because A1000 did lack productivity software at the time. And not only that. It was rather dry in many fields. It's clearly arguable which choice would be better but since Amiga - at large - was used as a gaming platform the answer seems to be fairly obvious.

[chb]

Originally Posted by Promilus

Well there's always argument with "you could buy C64 to have C64 compatibility with software and addons". And that's certainly true to PC as well as Sidecar was one ugly and expensive beast and you clearly could just get an old PC fitting that particular role, right?

The sidecar at least did allow the user to share a monitor, keyboard and mouse between Amiga & PC, facilitated data transfer between those two sides etc. The C64s architecture (and the tendency of the programmers to just bang the hardware ignoring specifications and guidelines) makes this pretty much impossible, especially for games. The C64s VIC II chip doesn't even has an RGB out e.g..

Originally Posted by Promilus

And guess what - they made it exactly because A1000 did lack productivity software at the time. And not only that. It was rather dry in many fields. It's clearly arguable which choice would be better but since Amiga - at large - was used as a gaming platform the answer seems to be fairly obvious.

And in the end the PC Sidecar was a failure because, even if it made more sense than a C64 board, you don't buy a new machine plus an expensive peripheral to use your old PC programs at the same speed. There simply was little added value compared to a separate PC. That would have been even more true for a C64 add-on.

BTW, at launch the Amiga wasn't seen as a game machine, not by Commodore and not by the buyers.

[grond]

Originally Posted by Promilus

you clearly could just get an old PC fitting that particular role, right? And guess what - they made it exactly because A1000 did lack productivity software at the time. And not only that. It was rather dry in many fields. It's clearly arguable which choice would be better but since Amiga - at large - was used as a gaming platform the answer seems to be fairly obvious.

Yes, but the PC had productivity software, the C64 didn't. The PC architecture was much less dependent on microtimings to achieve software compatibility. If the C64 had had a vast body of valuable and useful BASIC programs, I could see that implementing a C64-compatible BASIC would have been useful. But C64 BASIC was broken by design and not useful for anything more ambitious than very basic (hah!) programs. The Amiga 1000 wasn't aimed at the games market (even though it was in its genes and then degenerated pretty much into one with the advent of the A500), thus, compatibility with games wasn't a factor. Add to this that C64 games compatibility would have required matching a C64 to the tiniest timing detail and it becomes clear that the required effort and delay of the Amiga wouldn't have been worth it. I even believe that it would have hurt the perception of the Amiga as a serious machine. Yes, Commodore failed at that anyway but there at least was a chance to establish the Amiga as a productivity and multimedia platform. Adding C64 compatibility for games would have made that impossible right from the start.

[Promilus]

@chb

BTW, at launch the Amiga wasn't seen as a game machine, not by Commodore and not by the buyers.

It's actually impossible to know what Amiga was at launch. It obviously was presented as machine with impressive graphics and sound. Yet in the end it failed at both of those markets. It initially WAS designed exactly what you are so afraid of - gaming console - and in the end largely remained that way up until Commodore died. With notable exceptions being 3rd party software (and hardware) for VHS and TV video editing (and obviously A2k/3k/4k models).

The C64s architecture (and the tendency of the programmers to just bang the hardware ignoring specifications and guidelines)

Oh... and I guess PC developers didn't have to bang EGA registers at all Or support analogue joystick the same way.

And in the end the PC Sidecar was a failure becaus

Well it was bulky and expensive. And still Commodore did create next one for A2000 (actually next 3 ones). Along several other companies. And one did that for A500 as well. Madness.

@grond

The PC architecture was much less dependent on microtimings to achieve software compatibility.

Yes, I did cover that.

Yes, but the PC had productivity software, the C64 didn't.

C64 had hundreds of well looking (and sounding) games, PC did not.

The Amiga 1000 wasn't aimed at the games market (even though it was in its genes and then degenerated pretty much into one with the advent of the A500), thus, compatibility with games wasn't a factor.

It was actually sold in computer-specific shops unlike C64 and VIC and other microcomputers which were considered "toy computers" and so was Commodore generally.

In 1994, as Commodore filed for bankruptcy, Byte magazine called the Amiga 1000 "the first multimedia computer... so far ahead of its time that almost nobody—including Commodore's marketing department—could fully articulate what it was all about".

And soon after A500 - best selling model - was introduced. So take a guess how much would going fully into gaming - with C64 game base behind - damage Amiga brand. In contrast to what Commodore did to it. Sure, all we're talking is based on wild guess and many assumptions. But associating A1000 early as an game development machine is something I consider being rather good move.

[Arc Angel]

Originally Posted by grond

The Amiga 1000 cost 1285 USD when it debuted. The Commodore 64 cost 149 USD when the Amiga 1000 came out. You don't sell a computer having 8.5 times the price as a "predecessor" by making it compatible to that "predecessor". Especially not if you have to add 50 USD to the cost of the base machine to accomodate an optional 120 USD add-on card to achieve that compatibility. A compatibility which then probably isn't even perfect.

Naahh, but it helps to be able to run a catalogue of existing apps and games as a stop-gap solution until the new machine has its own, especially if it's free.
Oh wait, that's what Acorn did with the Archimedes, providing a free emulator for people to run their Beeb's software, and it was a very smart and welcome move.
I'll re use Promilus statement 'That's what is called brand loyalty' when the manufacturer thanks the people loyal to their products.
The A1000 was way overpriced for what it was, what it offered, and the catalogue of software it had when launched.
A complete farce from C=.

[grond]

For a games machine the price point of the Amiga 1000 was far too high. Nobody spent serious money on a not serious machine. Perhaps the Amiga truly was too far ahead of its time if you wanted to target the games market. The price point only made sense for a productivity computer but Commodore failed miserably at that (it probably would still have been very hard even if Commodore had had better marketing, distribution and support for software developers). They failed for all of two years and then managed to cut prices to address the home computer market. To me that's the point where the saying became true: "The Amiga, born a champion -- they f*cked it up". It only remained hidden for several years because the home computer strategy worked well enough and we all enjoyed that.

[Arc Angel]

Originally Posted by grond

For a games machine the price point of the Amiga 1000 was far too high. Nobody spent serious money on a not serious machine. Perhaps the Amiga truly was too far ahead of its time if you wanted to target the games market. The price point only made sense for a productivity computer but Commodore failed miserably at that (it probably would still have been very hard even if Commodore had had better marketing, distribution and support for software developers). They failed for all of two years and then managed to cut prices to address the home computer market. To me that's the point where the saying became true: "The Amiga, born a champion -- they f*cked it up". It only remained hidden for several years because the home computer strategy worked well enough and we all enjoyed that.

An overpriced, unusable system with only 256 kbytes of RAM.
A farce.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by grond

Yes, but the PC had productivity software, the C64 didn't.

The C64 even had Multplan, by Microsoft!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplan

As well as e.g.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vizastar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Office_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMNIWRITER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superbase_(database)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Print_Shop
....

[Etze]

I would have loved being able to use my C64-printer with my Amiga. Though it was a "cheap" printer with bad output, it would have been much better than nothing. I know there were adapters but I'm talking about out-of-the-box working devices.

Also some of the more "serious" apps like Textomat Plus, Printfox, Super Base, Geos with its own apps would have been welcome FOR A START until better native Amiga apps would arrive.

Of course not to forget the games.

It's not really comparable, but I found the Playstation 2's backwards compatibility very useful. It allowed me to sell the PS1 and still continue playing the existing (original) games. For the PS2, of course, I only had 2 games at the beginning (expensive, very little choice, some still poor quality), so the PS1 games were more than welcome. In addition, you could get the PS1 games at the time cheap in the sale. With time, the PS2 game collection grew.

For me, a somewhat C64-compatible Amiga would have been more than worth it, even if it "only" ran serious programs if necessary.