Things the Amiga didn't get right from Day 1

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by Overdoc

If it really was possible to shut these buffers off to 0, then I agree with you all that it was programmers fault if a software would not work with a second drive connected.

First of all, no, you cannot set the buffers to 0. Second, there are two types of buffers. The track buffer, at the level of the trackdisk.device, one per disk unit, allocated by the trackdisk.device, and the file system buffer, at the OFS/FFS level, and you need at least 2 of them, one for the bitmap, and one for the header block of a file to be opened, but disk operation would be slower without additional buffers. Third, no, it is not a "system fault" if a program does not work with two drives. It is a matter of bad programming (software side). The Amiga is not a C64 with a fixed memory layout. Memory is allocated dynamically. Program authors had a hard time learning that.

Originally Posted by Overdoc

I always had the impresson that some ram was allocated by the drive from hardware side, right after you staretd the computer, which you couldn't get free again?

There is no "hardware that allocates memory". The Os allocates memory, several Os components do. It is not the hardware, it has no ability to allocate anything.

Originally Posted by Overdoc

This is a matter of slow data transfer to the computer. With a parallel connection like Dophindos, the buffer ram in the drive makes good sense.

Amiga with a harddisk makes sense, too.

Originally Posted by Overdoc

Biting off ram just for buffering data transfer from the drive is not a good idea imho.

Requiring RAM in an intelligent drive, and a CPU, is not a good idea either. Simply because it makes the drive more expensive. There is no CPU on an Amiga floppy. No RAM either. There is RAM on the 1541, and a CPU, and power supply. The 1541 is a computer of its own, an expensive one. An Amiga floppy is a cheap industry part with no intelligence.

Originally Posted by Overdoc

Ram can be used in a better way and should be free for applications/games data to be accessed by the CPU.

Money saved for a cheaper floppy can be made use of in a better way as well. For more RAM, for example. In case this wasn't clear: This RAM is required anyhow. Either, in the floppy, or in the main memory. Now, where is it cheaper and more flexible?

Originally Posted by Overdoc

Problem is that very often you guys here come up with no other arguments than saying 'no', wihtout explanation....

Plenty of explanations were given, you just need to read them....

Originally Posted by Overdoc

And here we have it again....mo arguments, just lame words....

And here we have it again....mo arguments, just lame words....

Originally Posted by Overdoc

The ONLY thing I mentioned is that there was NO SWITCH to turn the damn thing off!!

Why is a RAM expansion "a damn thing", and why would you want to turn it off?

Originally Posted by Overdoc

And that made it not 100% compatible any more, which developers obviosuly didn't care about, but which I think is always good to have on any system.

With this type of a "system design", there would have been no development whatsoever. At least CBM wasn't that stupid. Having an expandible system was a good idea as it allowed progress and adaption as hardware became more affordable for larger user groups. Expandibility was one of the main reasons for the success of the PC.

Originally Posted by Overdoc

Like mentioned above, ofcourse it makes sense to have memory expansions etc, but why did they not install an on/off switch?

Because it's pointless to turn something off that can only be useful?

[Overdoc]

@ajk:

What you say about C64 Basic and Geos etc. is all true, but it is not the point of this discussion and I NEVER claimed the C64 Basic was good!

Geos had the same problem like Workbench...and guess why? It had to be loaded before you could do anything with it, and was not available at the start of the computer.

But I was never talking about Basic, but about OS commands, and gave DIR as an example.
And yes, the fact it overwrites a Basic program is a flaw which was also corrected by 3rd party systems (just like the missing switch of the memory expansions on the Amiga )
But this was only a problem if you were right at programming a Basic program.

But the advantage was that loading a directory was otherwise always possible without waiting for a directory command to load from a different (sytem-) disk than the one I wanted to list.

@Chucky:
Yeah, so you had your 'dos disk', and you had all your accessories for thousands of Euros like a second drive, harddisk, 2MB memory expansion, etc.
Good if you were able to afford it.

Oh, and what's the point in knowing that a game stops working because of the memory expansion?
I prefer being able to switch off the expansion and have the game still working
But as we have seen we are quite different from each other.....

I only had an Amga 500 without any additional stuff. And this Amiga cost about the same what a C64 with diskdrive cost. But doing anything with that plain Amiga 500 other than gaming involved annoying diskjockeying....

And, btw, an A-590 harddisk cost at least 4 times the price of a 1541, not less!! Seems you have no idea about what it all cost back then?

[Chucky]

well the harddrive costed about the same as the diskdrive to the C64. so. what is the problem. you could have a diskdrive to your C64 that was as expensive as a 40MB harddrive was to the Amiga?

(as a floppydrive had aprox same price as the c64. and a HD for the amiga had same price as an Amiga.. so. aprox same thing)

my memoryexpansion had a disable switch but that is a kludge to do just as people programming the amiga didnt follow the rules. it is not a c64 it is an amiga..

[Chucky]

it is weird that you do accept addons to the c64 (to do dirs etc) but not on the Amiga? this is just trolling

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

First of all, no, you cannot set the buffers to 0. Second, there are two types of buffers. The track buffer, at the level of the trackdisk.device, one per disk unit, allocated by the trackdisk.device, and the file system buffer, at the OFS/FFS level, and you need at least 2 of them, one for the bitmap, and one for the header block of a file to be opened, but disk operation would be slower without additional buffers. Third, no, it is not a "system fault" if a program does not work with two drives. It is a matter of bad programming (software side). The Amiga is not a C64 with a fixed memory layout. Memory is allocated dynamically. Program authors had a hard time learning that.

I am pretty sure that you CAN set all buffers to 0 or use that previously memory location anyways, if you take over the system completely - but its not save and generally not a good idea.

But this whole discussion is quite ridiculous anyways...

[Chucky]

you need a buffer to read the MFM data to decode it

[Overdoc]

Originally Posted by Gorf

No that is of course not the case.
You really should stop making wrong assumptions based on your obviously rather limited knowledge about the Amiga.

You are true here, I never said I am an Amiga expert.
But I am an Amiga user for 30 years, and as such I have lots of experience.
And one of these experiences is that some games did not work any longer when you added a memory expansion.
And what could have been done to prevent that? A simple on/off switch, which obviously WAS missing.
Same with diskdrives without a switch.

Originally Posted by Gorf

Which is of course a third party expansion. The unbelievable slow serial connection, the C64 floppy suffers so much from, is a result of a malfunctioning chip and quite famous.

Yeah, we all know the 1541 is slow.
But unfortunately for all you Amiga lovers it is still faster and less annoying when it comes down to doing simple disk operations like a DIR command.

Originally Posted by Gorf

It stems from the VIC20 days but Commodore never really bothered to fix it, except for the C128. There the serial connection with the right floppy-drive is as fast as your Dophindos.

You are very wrong here, a 1571 is not even half as fast.

Originally Posted by Gorf

That is how ALL modern operating systems do it.
No matter if you use Linux, BSD, Windows, MacOS, iOS or Android - every operating system uses RAM to buffer its drives.
They do it all, because it is clearly the best solution.

Yeah, but those do not load from floppy disks!
We are talking about using an external floppy disk drive.

But seriously, one question:
Why does the internal DF0 drive not eat up some ram of the Amiga as well? Why only the external one?!
Or maybe it does, but since the internal drive is always present, programmers could not access this ram anyways?

Originally Posted by Gorf

Maybe - but then again nobody knows what the word 'compatile' means...

...if arguments are missing, let's make fun out of a typo....
But I have already noticed that some guys here really do not know what 'fully hardware compatible' means, which is shocking since they claim to have good computer knowledge.

Originally Posted by Gorf

Why would there be a switch??
No PC has ever done this, no Atari, no Mac, no SUN, no SGI, no Achimedes ...
That is totally illogical thinking.

Please stop that obvious trolling now!

Oh, why do you think that every third party drive and every memory expansion had such a switch?
Just because developers of those drives were funny and had nothing else to do?
You telling me to stop trolling but you yourself are unable to recognize such extremely obvious reasons for a needed switch.

[Chucky]

Why does the internal DF0 drive not eat up some ram of the Amiga as well? Why only the external one?!
Or maybe it does, but since the internal drive is always present, programmers could not access this ram anyways?

guess what? IT DOES!..

[Overdoc]

Originally Posted by Chucky

well the harddrive costed about the same as the diskdrive to the C64. so. what is the problem. you could have a diskdrive to your C64 that was as expensive as a 40MB harddrive was to the Amiga?

(as a floppydrive had aprox same price as the c64. and a HD for the amiga had same price as an Amiga.. so. aprox same thing)

Please stop telling such bullshit since it is simply absolutely NOT TRUE!!
In 1987, a 20MB A-590 diskdrive for the Amiga (since we are not talking about 3rd party stuff) cost at least 1500,- Euro, maybe even 2000,- back then, while a 1541 cost something like 500,- Euro if not less.

Originally Posted by Chucky

my memoryexpansion had a disable switch but that is a kludge to do just as people programming the amiga didnt follow the rules. it is not a c64 it is an amiga..

Yeah, C64 means that all C64 software is working on it, while Amiga means that only some Amiga software is actually working on an Amiga....

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by Chucky

you need a buffer to read the MFM data to decode it

But not the buffers for a second drive, that you are not going to use (e.g. in a game).

Or if your game or program for some strange reasons will not access the drive after it is finished loading and you really need every byte ...

My point was just: yes, you CAN do it. The RAM is still there. There is no hardware limitation not to use it for something else (and lose disk functionality in the process of doing so...)

[Chucky]

A590. but not an ALF that I had..

"Yeah, C64 means that all C64 software is working on it, while Amiga means that only some Amiga software is actually working on an Amiga...."

all amiga software that was written correctly was working. again. software that failed was as it was written by people who did not know whet they did. they broke rules. they did not program the amiga. they programmed the amiga as it was a C64..
blame inmature bad programmers. not the hardware.

and you lack of understanding it.

[Chucky]

@gorf: trackload your game. you can screw all buffers and do "C64 programming..!" and assign any memoryaddress how you like to. it will most likly fail with more modern hardware. then them yeah you can do it.
you can even share the same buffer for all drives (but only use one drive at the time)

[Overdoc]

Originally Posted by Chucky

guess what? IT DOES!..

Ok, thanks for this explanation, I really did not know and also never thought about it.

Still there isa difference:
The internal drive was always there, but the second one was an add on, and therefore developers should have thought abouth whether the Amiga would still be 100% compatible in any case, so that they don't need to install a switch.

I know, I know, it was all the programmers fault, and the system is doing everything perfectly with it's drive buffering.

But did ANYONE here praising the Amiga like it is EVER think about such thigns from a USER point of view?

The user experience was that some (mostly games) did not work any longer if you connected a second diskdrive without having a memory expansion connected, and some games did not work any longer after you did connect a memory expansion.
As a user, I don't bother why it is was longer working! I don't bother if it is the programmes fault, or if it is some well thought system design or whatever.
All I see is that it was clearly working before, but suddenly stopped working after I add the drive or memory expansion.

So, a developer with somewhat user experience should have known that such problems will happen.
And so it was not surprising that 3rd party developers sold tons more of their drives and memory cards than Commodore did.

[Overdoc]

Originally Posted by Chucky

A590. but not an ALF that I had..

Ahh, yes, ofcourse, but you are telling me we should not compare 3rd party expansions with original ones?
Hahaha, this is really a joke...

Originally Posted by Chucky

all amiga software that was written correctly was working. again. software that failed was as it was written by people who did not know whet they did. they broke rules. they did not program the amiga. they programmed the amiga as it was a C64..
blame inmature bad programmers. not the hardware.

and you lack of understanding it.

C64 users do not need to take care about such problems Everything works on every C64
And it could have been similar easy on the Amiga....just if they had installed a simple on/off switch....

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by Overdoc

You are very wrong here, a 1571 is not even half as fast.

No, I am not wrong here.

In Burst Mode the combination of C128 and 1571 transfers 5200 cps, while the C64 only transfers 300 cps (without fast loader)

DolphinDOS gives you up to 10x the normal C64 speed...

But seriously, one question:

so you were not serious before?

Why does the internal DF0 drive not eat up some ram of the Amiga as well? Why only the external one?!

It does as well.

Please: why don't you just stop making these wrong assumptions?

...if arguments are missing, let's make fun out of a typo....
But I have already noticed that some guys here really do not know what 'fully hardware compatible' means, which is shocking since they claim to have good computer knowledge.

There is no such thing as 'fully hardware compatible' on any computer platform.
The Amiga is a computer platform and not a console or just a one never changing 8-bit like the C64.

This is NOT a design flaw - quite the opposite. It is indented and allows a computer platform to change an evolve over time. If a programmer follows the rules, the software stays compatible with new iterations of the hardware.
So on a platform you do want software compatibility but not strict hardware compatibility.

Oh, why do you think that every third party drive and every memory expansion had such a switch?

They did not. Only very few did.
Please stop making things up...

[Overdoc]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Hold on. I have a background in Atari 8 bits, also using an intelligent (but much faster) disk drive, and I also write software for the PC, for Windows and for Linux. I also write software for Mac. So please don't tell me what I don't know. You seem to be pretty ignorant and short-sighted. An Amiga is not a C64, and yes, it is different.

I don't doubt you area good programmer with very good system knowledge. You very likely are.
But, from what I have seen, you have some limited insight about how things look from a user's point of view.

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

I don't think anyone here considers the Amiga "perfect". It is far from perfect. The kludgy BCPL-based Tripos patch-work, the lack of resource tracking in the Os... many. For you, its not perfect because it's not a C64. However, that is intentional. It is not a C64, and was never designed to be one, so get over it.

I understand the system is very different, that's not the point.
But again, you only see it from a system design's point of view, or from a programmer's point of view, but you seem to be missing the not easy to solve troubles a user is experiencing when he is using the Amiga.

Nearly everything I mentioned here also happened to many other users, not just only me. (otherwise guess why there WAS this switch in all non-Commodore expansions?)

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Yes, there is. Get a harddisk. The AmigaOs was designed to be a much larger system than an 8-bits.

Yes, I already understood that this was the only solution if you did not want to be a diskjockey on the Amiga.

But this was exactly what you denied in earlier posts!
You mentioned the system was a good design right from the start (which it obviously was not if you only had an A-500 without second drive, memory expansion or even a 1500,- Euro harddisk...)

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

And what does that prove? How long does it take to load a game on the C64? Got balls? I tell you how long it does on the Amiga. You put the disk in the drive and turn the system on, then it loads, and you are done. On the C64, you type, and type, and then it loads... and still loads.... and still loads.... and minutes(!) later, you are maybe done.

I already mentioned multiple times that the Amiga was good to be used as a game machine. I did never doubt this!
So this is not the point.

But still, most newer games have a fastloader installed and actually load faster than on the Amiga.
And if it was too slow for you, then you could get something like an Action Cartridge, and it loads like Dolphindos, which is complete 64K memory in 6 seconds.
Just the same like you keep telling me to get a harddisk or second drive if I am not satisfied with the Amiga's performance....

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

I don't know whether this was true or not, but what do you want to prove? That CBM had a bad product policy? Accepted, they did.

I just want to show that not everything was so perfectly designed on the Amiga like you think it was, which is actually the original point of this thread.

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Why they needed a switch?

To make all software still work after the new hardware has been connected?
Simple as that.

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Hold on. The Atari 810 disk drive was surely ahead of time of the 1541, and it was a lot faster than the 1541. Which is not exactly a challenge. And it an intelligent drive, with its own CPU and RAM.

The drive was surely not "done right", and the Basic surely wasn't either. Even very basic things required "peek and poke". Atari Basic wasn't perfect, but at least you could create some elementary graphics and sounds. It was a Basic that fit to the machine. C64 was just "off the shelve" Basic. From Microsoft. It did not fit to the machine at all, it did nothing to service the hardware of the machine - not at all. No graphics, no sound.

Again and again and again, I never said the C64 Basic was good. It was total shit and everyone knows it.
But you are mixing up disk operations like load, open, format, initialize, rename, scratch etc. Those were no real Basic commands, you did not entered them in a Basic program, but in direct mode, just like you enter a DOS comman on the Amiga.

Such disk operations were more easy to do on the C64, since they were always available from rom and had not to be loaded from a system/dos disk.
And since I came from the C64, it was a disappointment that this was not similar easy on the Amiga.

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

What's better: A command "easy" to remember, or no command whatsoever. Think hard. The Amiga worked like the Atari. You want to boot the machine? Put a disk in the drive, turn it on. Simple enough, eh?

Not as simple, unfortunately!
You put in the sytem disk, wait for it to load at least 20 seconds, maybe even more if I need more commands,, then you need to remove the disk and put in you own disk, then type the command
(and even then typing dir df0: is not sooo much different or faster than typing load"$",8 and list)

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

You are just used to the quirky "load $,8", but that is not a good design. It is just complicated and quirky. Being used to something does not mean it's good.

O, but waiting for a systen disk to boot for ages and then having to change disks is less complicated?!
Not really....

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Years long. With an A2000, though. A single drive, initially. I did what people always did. I cleaned up all the harddisk re-assignment junk from the startup-sequence (That was really a bad job), and then put the programs I needed on the disk. The assembler, back then. That worked just fine. I didn't need or want a stupid Microsoft Basic the C64 came from, and which couldn't be used to do anything interesting without all the PEEK and POKE crazy stuff.

I also wouldn't have needed a Microsoft Basic. I never programmed much in Basic.
But I was happy to have commands like LOAD"$" available at alle times I turned on the C64, not just after having to boot a disk after EVERY RESET, which I had to create myself only after studying the manual intensly for hours.

But yes, maybe I would have had a much better first time Amiga experience if a small, fast loading system disk would have been included?

Honestly, I only used Workbench whenever I wanted to do anything on the Amiga, and only some month later discovered how to make a DOS boot disk, which made all the most needed commands resident, so that it was actually possible to work with disks without anying diskchanges all the time.

[Overdoc]

Originally Posted by Gorf

No, I am not wrong here.

In Burst Mode the combination of C128 and 1571 transfers 5200 cps, while the C64 only transfers 300 cps (without fast loader)

DolphinDOS gives you up to 10x the normal C64 speed...

Completely wrong!!
C128 buirst mode speeds up about 16 times compared to normal 1541, while Dolphindos speeds up about factor 25 compared to a normal 1541.
What you are talking about with factor 10 might be Speeddos?

So much about making wrong assumptions....
You see yourself in the mirror?

Originally Posted by Gorf

There is no such thing as 'fully hardware compatible' on any computer platform.
The Amiga is a computer platform and not a console or just a one never changing 8-bit like the C64.

This is NOT a design flaw - quite the opposite. It is indented and allows a computer platform to change an evolve over time. If a programmer follows the rules, the software stays compatible with new iterations of the hardware.
So on a platform you do want software compatibility but not strict hardware compatibility.

You forget that 90% of Amiga users were using the machine for gaming, and the games was what kept it alive up to this day. Without games and the possibility to copy them, only very few people would have onwed an Amiga.

This also shows very clearly why some later machines like the Amiga 600 failed so miserably: the Kickrom 2.0 was not compatible with many games.
And it also shows why the A-1011 drive is so rare: it was ot compatible with some games, because you couldn't switch it off. Same with the original A501 memory expansion...

So, in the end, it would have been wiser to keep the machine compatible as much as possible.
Or make a cut one day, and bring a complete new system of the next generation on the market.
The Amiga unfortunately failed to do so, and most users (gamers) switched over to the SNES and later Playstation 1

Originally Posted by Gorf

They did not. Only very few did.
Please stop making things up...

Haha, what a completely wrong message!
How many different Amiga 500 memory expansions do you know?
I have probably around 50 different ones in my collection, and there is NOT ANY except the original A-501 missing the switch or jumper.

[Overdoc]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

First of all, no, you cannot set the buffers to 0. Second, there are two types of buffers. The track buffer, at the level of the trackdisk.device, one per disk unit, allocated by the trackdisk.device, and the file system buffer, at the OFS/FFS level, and you need at least 2 of them, one for the bitmap, and one for the header block of a file to be opened, but disk operation would be slower without additional buffers. Third, no, it is not a "system fault" if a program does not work with two drives. It is a matter of bad programming (software side). The Amiga is not a C64 with a fixed memory layout. Memory is allocated dynamically. Program authors had a hard time learning that.

There is no "hardware that allocates memory". The Os allocates memory, several Os components do. It is not the hardware, it has no ability to allocate anything.

Thanks for the detailed explanation!
I can now more understand the need for some ram to be allocated for the drive.

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Amiga with a harddisk makes sense, too.

Yeah, I learned that already....
I should have known this when I got ma A-500 back in 1990 or so...

But yes, I have to admit that it is completely a different thing with a harddisk, especially nowadays with a silent CF card. I use a ACA 500+ today and working something on a disk is a nice task now

So, to all who think I am just badmouthing the Amiga -> not at all!
But I am also not praising it religiously just because it is an Amiga.

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Requiring RAM in an intelligent drive, and a CPU, is not a good idea either. Simply because it makes the drive more expensive. There is no CPU on an Amiga floppy. No RAM either. There is RAM on the 1541, and a CPU, and power supply. The 1541 is a computer of its own, an expensive one. An Amiga floppy is a cheap industry part with no intelligence.

First time that I can 100% confim what you write
You are very right here, as an intelligent drive the 1541 was way more complicated in design, and also more expensive because of that.
(still, and internal Amiga drive cost about 50% of a 1541 back then...quite overpriced, if you ask me?)

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Money saved for a cheaper floppy can be made use of in a better way as well. For more RAM, for example. In case this wasn't clear: This RAM is required anyhow. Either, in the floppy, or in the main memory. Now, where is it cheaper and more flexible?

You are again right here, but when the ram is in the drive, it cannot conflict with ram needed by an application or game at the same time

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Plenty of explanations were given, you just need to read them....

In this thread - yes, and I appreciate that!!
But it was not always the case before!

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Why is a RAM expansion "a damn thing", and why would you want to turn it off?

Because my game which always worked before does not work any longer after I installed the expansion?

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

With this type of a "system design", there would have been no development whatsoever. At least CBM wasn't that stupid. Having an expandible system was a good idea as it allowed progress and adaption as hardware became more affordable for larger user groups. Expandibility was one of the main reasons for the success of the PC.

The PC was a bit different thing, since almost all applications and games started on top of the OS (Windows, or DOS before), so incompatibilities to the harrdware were obviously solved by the OS?

But on the Amiga, most games loaded 'directly' into ram, and not from Workbench. And I think this caused the issues if those games were not programmed like the OS developers would have intended to be done?

Please correct me if I am wrong here?

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Because it's pointless to turn something off that can only be useful?

Not always useful, unfortunately....

[Overdoc]

@Thomas Richter:

Thanks again for the detailed explanations about the diskdrive topic!
I really appreciate that, and I can understand it all with these arguments!

So, in the end it is a cost factor. since Amiga drives are not intelligent, expensive drives like a 1541 (which is a computer of it's own).
From that point of view the allocation of some buffer ram in the computer definitely makes sense.
Point taken - we can close the diskdrive topic
(still they could have added a on/off switch, tough )

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

WTF? The A600 did not die because of its "incompatible kick rom", but because it was still based on the back then already outdated ECS chipset, a really fairly stupid management decision of CBM for not investing into the platform. That was the problem.

The kickstart is quite compatible - I can still run the Kick 1.2 applications on my Os 3.2 today. They aren't pretty, but they work. That's called "engineering".

From my experience, the incompatible Kickrom definitely was the death of the A600.
You have to keep in mind that 9 out of 10 guys who bought an Amiga simply bought it for playing games, at least that ws the motivation.
And, it was well known that many games did not run any longer on Kick 2.0
So, everyone bought an Amiga 500 instead. I even knew guys who sold their A600 to get an A500 instead!

The A600 had a harddisk connecor, which was great, but here we again have a 'wrong done from start issue':
The Kickrom in the standard A600 (not HD) was a 37.299, which was unable to boot from HD....and therefore, nonbody installed a HD drive.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by Overdoc

Completely wrong!!
C128 buirst mode speeds up about 16 times compared to normal 1541, while Dolphindos speeds up about factor 25 compared to a normal 1541.
What you are talking about with factor 10 might be Speeddos?

So much about making wrong assumptions....
You see yourself in the mirror?

16 times for the C128 is correct.
But the dolphinDOS manual claimed only 25x for very special cases - for most operations it is 10x or even less.

But this all is of course very much besides the point:
Without any expansions the C64 has dog slow floppy speeds.

You are constantly comparing a C64 with all kinds of extras to a stock A500 and there you only pick a certain operation and claim the C64 is superior…

By now I am sure you know very well this is all very stupid.

This all makes no sense other than you are trolling us.

You forget that 90% of Amiga users were using the machine for gaming,

No, I did not #forget#.
But that is simply not what the Amiga was intended for.

It was good at gaming - sure. But it could and can do so much more.

It’s like buying a bike just to push it around and never ride it.
It is certainly not the foult of the bike but of the stupid customer

Haha, what a completely wrong message!
How many different Amiga 500 memory expansions do you know?
I have probably around 50 different ones in my collection, and there is NOT ANY except the original A-501 missing the switch or jumper.

So now they do not all have a switch but a jumper … lol
I would ask you to have a closer look at your "collection", but I do not think it exists.

I am out - stop feeding this troll