What was wrong with the Amiga 1000/500/2000?

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by litwr

You still missed the point. WB1.3 periodically clears the timer. WB3 doesn't do it.

I afraid that this isn't correct. The CIA interrupt also clears the TOD under v37 and above. It is necessary to do so, as otherwise the timer.device wouldn't work as it is supposed to work. It may probably clear a different TOD than you expect, as there are two CIAs. v37 added "jumpy, the magic timer device", that is able to select the CIA dynamically if one of the CIA resources were used to reserve one of them.


To keep the long story short: Keep hands off the hardware! This is not a C64. The Os is the master of the hardware, and provides abstractions to interface with it.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by litwr

One can only wonder why Commodore didn't follow Apple methods and didn't attack the IBM PC? Apple had worse hardware and software and was quite successful.

The Apple II already had a strong presence in the 'serious' market when IBM attempted (successfully) to steal their thunder. Apple responded with the Macintosh, but despite having a much better OS and continual hardware development, it still lost ground to PCs. In 1995 Apple had just 3% of the desktop computer market.

Commodore instead made a big useless "toy" of the Amiga and offered the "serious" Commodore PC.

And yet ironically it was games that finally convinced many Amiga users to move to PCs. Even more ironically, those 'toy' Amigas are still prized by those of us who prefer having fun to doing boring 'serious' stuff, whereas millions of contemporary PCs were thrown away without shedding a tear and those that survived are not worth much today.

The fact is that despite all the things some people say were 'wrong' with the Amiga, it was still a far more interesting and enjoyable 'toy' than any other contemporary machine - and still is today. I wouldn't feel that life was worth living if I didn't have toys to play with - and I have plenty. But all those other computer systems (including numerous PCs) are sitting on the shelf gathering dust because only the Amiga is worth my time!

[litwr]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

The Apple II already had a strong presence in the 'serious' market when IBM attempted (successfully) to steal their thunder. Apple responded with the Macintosh, but despite having a much better OS and continual hardware development, it still lost ground to PCs. In 1995 Apple had just 3% of the desktop computer market.

Apple had quite a good business until the mid-90s, later they had a good business too. 1995 was their worst year. Indeed even Commodore helped the IBM PC to become ubiquitous. One can even think that Jack Tramiel was persuaded to leave Commodore because he didn't want to be converted to the IBM PC factory. Only Apple and Atari didn't make PC compatibles...
It is an irony that Jack "sold his soul" destroying MOS Technology for the sake of the vertical integration and finally Commodore threw him and this integration far away.

[litwr]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

The Apple II already had a strong presence in the 'serious' market when IBM attempted (successfully) to steal their thunder. Apple responded with the Macintosh, but despite having a much better OS and continual hardware development, it still lost ground to PCs. In 1995 Apple had just 3% of the desktop computer market.

MacOS was not so good as ads tell us. It was single-tasking. The first Macs were monochrome. They had a strange mouse. Their system software had poor scalability and this was one reason why they were so damaged by Microsoft Windows 3. It was common to note that the Macintosh was slower than the PC AT. And despite all those drawbacks the Macintosh was a real rival to the IBM PC! The Amiga hardware and software was much better than the Mac's but Irving Gould made a shadow of the IBM PC from the Amiga.

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by litwr

It was single-tasking.

Which didn't really matter that much back then. RAM was a major limitation, and there was hardly enough RAM for a single program back then. It became a limitation a couple of years later.

Originally Posted by litwr

The first Macs were monochrome.

Yes, and? It served the purpose for word processing. Actually, its black-on-white monitor was a much an improvement over the green-on-black monitor the PCs came with. Its quality was also quite good.

Originally Posted by litwr

They had a strange mouse.

They had a fool-proof mouse. The idea was not so bad, really. Keep things simple helps.

Originally Posted by litwr

Their system software had poor scalability and this was one reason why they were so damaged by Microsoft Windows 3.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. It was relatively easy to upscale a mac. Compared to a PC with all this mess of "extended" and "exhanced" and "XXX"-memory, and "Load Drivers High" or how this was called. In order to run Windows efficiently, you had to become an expert of all their weird memory extension logic.

Originally Posted by litwr

It was common to note that the Macintosh was slower than the PC AT.

That would be interesting. According to which benchmark?

Originally Posted by litwr

And despite all those drawbacks the Macintosh was a real rival to the IBM PC!

It was a rival because it did a couple of things right, and it has found its audience, namely people that didn't mind to worry about all the PC idiocracies.

Originally Posted by litwr

The Amiga hardware and software was much better than the Mac's but Irving Gould made it a shadow of the IBM PC.

Its hardware was essentially creating a TV picture, which was unsuitable in resolution and quality to catch up with the Mac. Flickering, too low in resolution. It neither had any good software to address the needs of its audience. Actually, CBM had really no idea what to do with the system. They came from the home-computer business, and had no clue about professional needs.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by litwr

One can only wonder why Commodore didn't follow Apple methods and didn't attack the IBM PC? Apple had worse hardware and software and was quite successful. Commodore instead made a big useless "toy" of the Amiga and offered the "serious" Commodore PC.

Apple was never really succesful in that respect. It was an early pioneer, so obviously had an established userbase and some momentum, but already in 1984 had only ~20% of the market vs PC's 30%, and it was tumbling down from then onwards. That's because closed, proprietary tech could never compete with the idea and wildfire spread of the clones (same for everybody else).

For that reason it was actually a very good decision by Rattinger in 1986 to get Amiga focused and release the "toy" & "creative" models (A500/2000). Thsi move targetted appropriate audiences, instead of sending mixed messages and taking on a Goliath, and gave us a few wonderfully inspiring years before the inevitable demise.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

those that survived are not worth much today.

Hah, I wish. Seems you haven't checked that market in quite some time, have you?

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Hah, I wish. Seems you haven't checked that market in quite some time, have you?

Genuine IBM 5150s go for about NZ$300-$500 here. Considering that they sold for ~NZ$5000 dollars when new, they haven't held their value very well. A500s in good condition go for about the same price, and A1200s fetch $600-$900. 'Big box' Amigas typically start at $1000, but are rarely seen. Even the lowly CD32 is worth more (I missed one at $750, now the cheapest is $995).

As for PC clones, the better ones go for as little as $0. I recently paid $50 for an Amstrad PC2086 with a dot-matrix printer. A few weeks ago I was given an HP Pavilion 4409 in excellent condition complete with all original hardware and software including Windows 98, MS Office 97, MS Works and Money. I am thinking of using this to replace the larger tower machine I have been using for 'retro' PC jobs.

I also have several workstation PCs and laptops that were discarded by local businesses. I did have a Toshiba 386 laptop that I bought off TradeMe for $50, but unfortunately that one died due to battery corrosion. No big loss though because I still have a Satellite 310 CDS with Windows 3.1 that again was given to me.

Looking on eBay right now I see several 386 clones going cheap (here's one for NZ$252) but I have already obtained a 386SX motherboard and cards that cost me about $90. Some day I might get around to setting it all up, maybe on a wooden board like I used to do 'back in the day'.

Unlike Amigas, retro PC prices tend to go up as the model gets older, which suggests people are buying them as museum pieces rather than to play with. It would also explain why genuine IBM PC-XTs with mono screens are 'worth' more than more capable machines. I can't imagine anybody getting much fun out of using one.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Apple was never really succesful in that respect. It was an early pioneer, so obviously had an established userbase and some momentum, but already in 1984 had only ~20% of the market vs PC's 30%, and it was tumbling down from then onwards. That's because closed, proprietary tech could never compete with the idea and wildfire spread of the clones (same for everybody else).

Apple was doing very well with the Apple II before IBM arrived. They had the major market share and their machines were being cloned (I had one). But journos and businesses were gagging for something with an IBM logo on it - thus the reason for the PC. A few short years later IBM realized their mistake and tried to reclaim the technology, but it was too late because all the clone manufacturers had switched from Apple to IBM.

For that reason it was actually a very good decision by Rattinger in 1986 to get Amiga focused and release the "toy" & "creative" models (A500/2000). Thsi move targetted appropriate audiences, instead of sending mixed messages and taking on a Goliath, and gave us a few wonderfully inspiring years before the inevitable demise.

This is true. However Commodore's mixed messaging on the Amiga was not much different from other home computer manufacturers who were doing the same thing. The problem was that good computers were very expensive, so customers needed an excuse to purchase other than playing games. This is how the PC made inroads into the home market in the early days.

You also have to realize that Commodore was a US company, and the market there was quite different to the UK. US Amiga users actually did use their machines for business purposes. If the Amiga had been sold as just a games machine in the US it would have done even worse there.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Genuine IBM 5150s go for about NZ$300-$500 here.

Huh, maybe it's worth a trip then.... But even so, it seems we have a different understanding of what "not worth much" means

Obviously, seeing as there were a billion or so PCs produced, some of the components/configs are worth zilch. Some other fetch crazy prices though, even silly cards liek ISA Soundblasters or Voodoos, not to mention Gravis. Generally, you'd probably have to fork out as much for a decent 386/486 as for A1200 these days.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

It would also explain why genuine IBM PC-XTs with mono screens are 'worth' more than more capable machines. I can't imagine anybody getting much fun out of using one.

The capability of a machine is not relative to the fun factor. If it was, everybody would be using early Pentium based rigs.

People still collect and use early machines because caring for them and exploring their libraries can indeed be great fun. The 1977 Trinity's software is chock full of interesting, pioneering stuff. I'm currently going through Total Dos Collection year by year and am having a lot of fun with early proto-games from PC too.

[Etze]

Originally Posted by litwr

Only Apple and Atari didn't make PC compatibles..

Atari did.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by litwr

So you have eventually agreed with me. Thank you.

I was not agreeing with you there. I was pointing out that your drawback isn't actually a drawback as you can do what you want regardless.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Obviously, seeing as there were a billion or so PCs produced, some of the components/configs are worth zilch. Some other fetch crazy prices though, even silly cards liek ISA Soundblasters or Voodoos, not to mention Gravis.

Which just proves what I suspected, people are buying these things for their historical value rather than practical use. I had a Voodoo card and it was crap. I wouldn't touch one today.

Generally, you'd probably have to fork out as much for a decent 386/486 as for A1200 these days.

Not sure what you mean by 'decent' (the NZ$252 machine I linked to wasn't?), but 486 is practically Pentium and those go for less than a bare A1200 around here. I really don't understand why anyone would pay more for an early retro PC, since later models do the same thing only better.

The capability of a machine is not relative to the fun factor. If it was, everybody would be using early Pentium based rigs.

That's funny because when they were new it was a different story. PC users were constantly clamoring for upgrades because they weren't satisfied with what they had.

People still collect and use early machines because caring for them and exploring their libraries can indeed be great fun. The 1977 Trinity's software is chock full of interesting, pioneering stuff. I'm currently going through Total Dos Collection year by year and am having a lot of fun with early proto-games from PC too.

That is understandable, but most of that stuff should run fine on later 'retro' PCs, so I can only presume some people are masochists who enjoy the frustrations of an under-powered XT or 386.

I have to confess that I did buy a 386 motherboard off eBay - purely to compare its performance to the Amiga. I also bought a Sound blaster 16 and Trident VGA card from eBay, and an EGA card from Trademe (NZ auction site). They were all very cheap, but I quickly lost interest in the project. Hopefully they will soon become classics that command a high price!

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Etze

Atari did.

And Commodore was making PCs before they released the Amiga.

Commodore PC compatible systems

The Commodore PC compatible systems are a range of IBM PC compatible personal computers introduced in 1984...

the PC-10, sold for $559 without monitor ($1258 in 2019). They were sold alongside Commodore's Amiga and Commodore 64c/128 lines of home and graphics computers. The PC10 was comparable in the market to the Blue Chip PC, Leading Edge Model D and Tandy 1000 line of PC compatibles.

Some interesting facts about the PC10 range - they had an Amiga compatible mouse port (much better than the horrible serial port mice that most PCs of the time were forced to use) and a type of 'autoconfig' like the Amiga, long before Microsoft introduced 'plug-and-pray' with Windows 95.

I had a bit to do with them in the late 80's and early 90's. They were solid reliable machines that were easy to set up and better quality than most clones, but only really suitable for undemanding business applications. We didn't see them competing against the Amiga because the market was completely different.

A few have come up for sale recently at good prices and I almost bought one, but decided that it wasn't worth the money - I mean, 4.77 MHz 8088? Yuk!

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Huh, maybe it's worth a trip then....

I wouldn't buy a 5150 at any price, but that "5150 Original box" for NZ$336 - just think how much 'fun' you could have with that! (not).

[britelite]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Which just proves what I suspected, people are buying these things for their historical value rather than practical use. I had a Voodoo card and it was crap. I wouldn't touch one today.

Just because you don't find any practical use from a piece of hardware doesn't mean someone else doesn't. For a lot of people the Amiga is a worthless piece of junk, but still a lot of us have fun playing around with it. And funnily enough, quite a few people love to tinker around with old PC-hardware too (myself included).

[roondar]

Regarding auction prices, it seems to me that it's not just about historical value or fun factor etc, but also about supply vs demand. The Amiga was vastly outsold by the PC from day one, which translates in far smaller supply.

I'd guess that the group of people you'd call retro-enthousiasts is small to begin with and probably even slightly less common on the PC side purely because PC's are still the 'dominant'* computer platform and there are excellent mass market ways to play/use old software and even hardware on modern PC's.

All this, to me, suggests there's just a smaller market for old PC's while the supply isn't actually smaller but rather bigger. Hence, on average lower prices. Anyway, just my two cents on this particular issue.

*) I'm only counting desktops/laptops here - if you include phones the story changes

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by roondar

Regarding auction prices, it seems to me that it's not just about historical value or fun factor etc, but also about supply vs demand.

It's always about supply and demand, but we need to careful not to mistake prices for demand. Some people are putting ridiculous asking prices on things that have very low demand (like that 5150 cardboard box), in the hope that the few suckers people who want it will pay anything. Problem is that other people see that and think demand must be exceeding supply, then start wondering whether they should get in now before prices go even higher and/or the items become unobtainable.

Somewhere out there a hapless ebay purchaser just bought a useless cardboard box for $1000, thinking it must be valuable. After a while they realize that it's not worth anything to them, so they try to sell it again - and nobody wants it. But now the 'value' of a cardboard box is $1100 because that's the price they put on it!

The Amiga was vastly outsold by the PC from day one, which translates in far smaller supply.

That's true, and it's part of my argument (that the vast majority of old PCs were tossed without a tear being shed). The other side is that there should be vastly more PC users getting back into the 'retro' scene for the nostalgia than Amiga users. However this ignores that fact that the vast majority of PCs were used for business, and most PC users (whether 'serious', gamers, or hobbyists) had no love for any particular model or generation of PC.

Another factor is that PC owners have always needed to constantly upgrade, so discarding older machines was and is a virtual necessity to avoid clutter. But this is not so much the case for a lot of Amiga owners, many of whom kept their prized possession long after it had became 'outdated'. I myself have trashed literally dozens of old PCs, but kept my A1200 because it was so dear to me.

I shed no tears after trashing those unremarkable clones, but I do regret throwing away 2 faulty CD32s and a badly yellowed A600. If only I had known! Amigas in general are fetching higher prices now not just because they are 'retro', but because their owners have always adored them far more than forgettable PC clones.

[litwr]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

That would be interesting. According to which benchmark?

Its hardware was essentially creating a TV picture, which was unsuitable in resolution and quality to catch up with the Mac. Flickering, too low in resolution. It neither had any good software to address the needs of its audience. Actually, CBM had really no idea what to do with the system. They came from the home-computer business, and had no clue about professional needs.

IMHO there was a kind of unwritten rule which didn't allow to publish comparative data of benchmark results for the Mac and IBM PC. But there were a lot of publications that just assumed that the Mac was slow - https://lowendmac.com/2005/the-overpriced-mac-in-1984/ - I remember several articles from the 80s which wrote the same things. Just analyzing technical data it is easy to conclude that the Mac was generally slightly slower than the mainstream IBM PC AT @6MHz, even the IBM PC XT @10MHz could be faster than the Mac for many cases. The Amiga was faster than the Mac too.

Your claim about the poor Amiga picture sounds very odd for me. The Amiga has 640x256 graphics which is almost the same as the Mac 512x342, and the Amiga had colors. Interlacing modes make the Amiga resolution much higher than Mac. Indeed, interlace modes were not much usable for working with texts but they can be very good to show pictures, presentations, etc.
I dare to recommend you to watch - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6398570/ - it shows quite clearly how technically inferior was the Mac in comparison with the Amiga. The Mac had, however, two great advantages: 1) a proper management; 2) killer applications (DTP software).

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Apple was doing very well with the Apple II before IBM arrived. They had the major market share and their machines were being cloned (I had one). But journos and businesses were gagging for something with an IBM logo on it - thus the reason for the PC. A few short years later IBM realized their mistake and tried to reclaim the technology, but it was too late because all the clone manufacturers had switched from Apple to IBM.

It is an irony that the Apple II was stopped by Apple not IBM. If Apple had released their fixed Apple III in 1982, it could have successfully competed the IBM PC.

Originally Posted by Etze

Atari did.

It was a very rare thing. I know only about a laptop from the 90s. It was Commodore which voluntarily became an IBM puppet having better technologies.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

And Commodore was making PCs before they released the Amiga.

After Jack left them, they did a lot of strange things. Jack believed in sales and he could make them. After Jack, Commodore could not make any good sales. Commodore launched their PC dropping the CBM II which could have been at least good text processors, better than the later very successful Amstrad PCW.

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by litwr

Just analyzing technical data it is easy to conclude that the Mac was generally slightly slower than the mainstream IBM PC AT @6MHz, even the IBM PC XT @10MHz could be faster than the Mac for many cases. The Amiga was faster than the Mac too.

It depends on how you measure, probably. As far as end-user experience goes, the Mac was certainly slower, but it had a full graphical operating system and the CPU had a lot more to do in system which was considerably more complex than MS-DOS.

Originally Posted by litwr

Your claim about the poor Amiga picture sounds very odd for me. The Amiga has 640x256 graphics which is almost the same as the Mac 512x342, and the Amiga had colors.

Pixel resolution is not everything. Bandwidth matters much more. The Mac had a very clear, crisp display, whereas the Amiga had a TV-quality output with all its limitations. In fact, the white-on-blue-with-orange color scheme was selected such that you could still read the text even on the worst TV (and, unsurprisingly, matched the style of its predicessor, the Atari 8-bit, which also used a white-on-blue output for the same reason).

Originally Posted by litwr

Interlacing modes make the Amiga resolution much higher than Mac.

Ever looked at an interlaced picture for an elongated period of time? Then you know why "interlace" was completely unattractive to professional computing back in time.

Originally Posted by litwr

Indeed, interlace modes were not much usable for working with texts but they can be very good to show pictures, presentations, etc.
I dare to recommend you to watch - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6398570/ - it shows quite clearly how technically inferior was the Mac in comparison with the Amiga. The Mac had, however, two great advantages: 1) a proper management; 2) killer applications (DTP software).

One follows from another. The Mac was a software-defined machine. The Amiga was created by hardware freaks, and software was - following the paradigm of the home-computer age - considered unimportant and left to the user. This business model did not work anymore.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Pixel resolution is not everything. Bandwidth matters much more. The Mac had a very clear, crisp display, whereas the Amiga had a TV-quality output with all its limitations.

Not true. The A1000 had RGB output with more than enough bandwidth to display 640 pixels, which was proved later when the A500+ (which has the same RGB circuit, just in a 'hybrid' instead of discrete components) was able to show 1280 pixels in super-hires. My A1200 can even display readable super-hires text on my TV from the composite video output!

What the Mac did have was a sharp 'digital' monochrome screen - made to look even sharper by using a tiny 9 inch tube. There's no reason an Amiga couldn't be hooked up to a monochrome monitor to get a sharper picture, but nobody did because when you have color you want to use it. Amigas also have 4 digital RGB outputs that produce a pin-sharp 16 color display on suitable 'digital' monitors, but again no Amiga users wanted to limit their machines to 'CGA' colors.

In fact, the white-on-blue-with-orange color scheme was selected such that you could still read the text even on the worst TV (and, unsurprisingly, matched the style of its predicessor, the Atari 8-bit, which also used a white-on-blue output for the same reason).

The sharpest picture in composite is achieved with no color, but black on grey lacks the 'impact' of white on blue. Of course the Amiga allows users to choose whatever colors they want from the 4096 color palette, and many of us did.

Ever looked at an interlaced picture for an elongated period of time? Then you know why "interlace" was completely unattractive to professional computing back in time.

This is true, and a valid criticism of the Amiga's interlaced display modes except when displaying video or photographic images. Interestingly however, many PC displays also used interlace to get higher resolutions - yet you never heard anyone slate the PC because of it.

Professional PC users could always choose a display adapter and monitor to suit their needs, provided someone bothered to make one for them. This was also true for 'professional' Amiga users. In addition, scan doublers or 'flicker fixers' were popular on the Amiga because they were software and hardware transparent. The Microway AGA2000, introduced in 1988, was very popular with A2000 owners. It worked with the new VGA monitors that first appeared with IBM's PS/2 computer range only a year earlier.

One follows from another. The Mac was a software-defined machine. The Amiga was created by hardware freaks, and software was - following the paradigm of the home-computer age - considered unimportant and left to the user. This business model did not work anymore.

And yet here we are, 35 years later, with new hardware for Amiga computers being developed and sold by 'hardware freaks'.

You are right though, that model didn't 'work' in the business world, because users just wanted an appliance not a technology. What 'worked' was slapping an IBM logo on any piece of hardware and watching the orders roll in. When IBM announced the PC in 1981 they had so many pre-orders that the initial production sold out before anybody had actually used one - such was their reputation. By 1985 it was pointless trying to fight that business model.

OTOH IBM failed miserably in the home market, where Commodore was well positioned. The C64 was the largest selling computer of all time, and many users of all home computers were also 'hardware freaks' who wanted more advanced hardware to tinker with. Had Commodore not failed as a business, they might still be in that market today.

The real problem with the Amiga is the general public's attraction to what's 'popular' in a desire for conformity. The majority follow the herd because they don't want to think for themselves - but that is not everyone. A business model that caters to 'freaks' can work, provided you don't mind having a smaller market. In such a market the things that are 'wrong' with a technology are actually an opportunity to sell fixes and upgrades!