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

[litwr]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

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!

IMHO the strangest thing about Commodore's marketing around the Amiga is that they sold the Amiga mostly outside of the US. While Apple sold its computers primarily in the USA...

[BippyM]

Litwr.. Are you only on this forum to slag off/argue/belittle the Amiga hardware and os. I only read the first few posts and your behaviour is exactly the same as in that ridiculous 68k thread that I am tempted to move to OT..

I don't understand why you are on this forum! You clearly have nothing overly positive to say about the Amiga or its line of processors....

[litwr]

Originally Posted by BippyM

Litwr.. Are you only on this forum to slag off/argue/belittle the Amiga hardware and os. I only read the first few posts and your behaviour is exactly the same as in that ridiculous 68k thread that I am tempted to move to OT..

I don't understand why you are on this forum! You clearly have nothing overly positive to say about the Amiga or its line of processors....

Sorry I don't understand you. IMHO your claims do not match the reality. I had an Amiga. I am the Amiga coder. I like the Amiga very much. My main point is the Amiga was the best home computer in the 80s. I started this thread because I wanted to gather information about minor Amiga drawbacks. It is just a matter of curiosity. Some people have helped me a lot. Indeed some people wrote rather odd things but it was very rare.

[BippyM]

I'm not referring to just this thread though. You can plead ignorance all you like. Sadly you spend a lot of time ignoring and dismissing what others say and continue pushing your agenda.. If you enjoy the Amiga then you're not doing a good job of showing that!

Originally Posted by litwr

Sorry I don't understand you. IMHO your claims do not match the reality. I had an Amiga. I am the Amiga coder. I like the Amiga very much. My main point is the Amiga was the best home computer in the 80s. I started this thread because I wanted to gather information about minor Amiga drawbacks. It is just a matter of curiosity. Some people have helped me a lot. Indeed some people wrote rather odd things but it was very rare.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by litwr

IMHO the strangest thing about Commodore's marketing around the Amiga is that they sold the Amiga mostly outside of the US. While Apple sold its computers primarily in the USA...

It's not that strange really. By the time the Amiga was ready to sell in large numbers the home computer market was all but dead in the US. US customers used their machines more for 'serious' work and less for games, so of course they were more attracted to 'serious' computers (mostly PCs, but also Macs). This also explains why 'big box' Amigas were more popular in the US, as were A500 hard drives etc. The one area that Amiga did do well in was video production.

Actually the Mac didn't do that well either. Since the mid 80's PCs were always more popular than other platforms in the US, even in the home. By 1996 Apple only had 5% market share and was in trouble financially.

[litwr]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

It's not that strange really. By the time the Amiga was ready to sell in large numbers the home computer market was all but dead in the US. US customers used their machines more for 'serious' work and less for games, so of course they were more attracted to 'serious' computers (mostly PCs, but also Macs). This also explains why 'big box' Amigas were more popular in the US, as were A500 hard drives etc. The one area that Amiga did do well in was video production.

Actually the Mac didn't do that well either. Since the mid 80's PCs were always more popular than other platforms in the US, even in the home. By 1996 Apple only had 5% market share and was in trouble financially.

Apple golden time was the 80s but IMHO their personal computer revenues exceeded those of IBM even in the 90s.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by litwr

Apple golden time was the 80s but IMHO their personal computer revenues exceeded those of IBM even in the 90s.

IBM PC: success

By 1984, IBM's revenue from the PC market was $4 billion, more than twice that of Apple. A 1983 study of corporate customers found that two thirds of large customers standardizing on one computer chose the PC, compared to 9% for Apple. A 1985 Fortune survey found that 56% of American companies with personal computers used PCs, compared to Apple's 16%.

By the 90's it didn't matter how many PCs IBM sold, PC clones dominated the market. Apple's share was minuscule.

[litwr]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

IBM PC: success


By the 90's it didn't matter how many PCs IBM sold, PC clones dominated the market. Apple's share was minuscule.

Thank you. However this only is about 1984, so it is quite possible that total Apple income in the 80s was greater than that of IBM.
Apple and IBM just worked and got their profits. Commodore could have done the same.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by litwr

Thank you. However this only is about 1984, so it is quite possible that total Apple income in the 80s was greater than that of IBM.

Except it wasn't - not even close. In 1984 that claim would have been far fetched, but now it's just plain wrong.

Apple and IBM just worked and got their profits. Commodore could have done the same.

Why yes, instead of purchasing Amiga Inc. they could have just 'worked on their profits' - which would have 'worked' for a while. But then we wouldn't be having this conversation because the Amiga would not exist!

By 1987 C64 sales had dropped off and Commodore needed a more advanced home computer to replace it with. They had the Amiga ready just in time to take over, and with its help they managed to 'work on their profits' until 1992 when the PC juggernaut finally ran over them.

[grond]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

They had the Amiga ready just in time to take over, and with its help they managed to 'work on their profits' until 1992 when the PC juggernaut finally ran over them.

And that was precisely when they only had the A600 to offer as an "upgrade" over the A500 (cross-reference to the "thrive"-thread). I don't think Commodore couldn't have done better at that point in time. The A1200 and the CD32 were popular products stifled by Commodore's financial problems which caused them to produce less units than demanded by the market.

The 1992 problems were problems that were caused by the fact that they didn't have any attractive technology to sell. Commodore successfully replaced (well, complemented) the C64 with the Amiga and I believe they could at least have kept the Amiga running for a few more years if they had replaced the 68000 Amiga by an ECS or better AGA 020 Amiga in time. With the Amiga you didn't have to replace the entire platform every few years, you could update it. Instead Commodore sold the same Amiga configuration for always less money.

Oh, and this is again a good opportunity to point out that Commodore's Amiga business was profitable while its PC clone business caused big losses.

[litwr]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Except it wasn't - not even close. In 1984 that claim would have been far fetched, but now it's just plain wrong.

Why? We need a proof. We all know that the Junior, PS/2, PS/1 lines were unsuccessful.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by litwr

Why? We need a proof. We all know that the Junior, PS/2, PS/1 lines were unsuccessful.

Proof? I already supplied proof that IBM was doing much better than Apple at the time in question, despite the PC Jr.
PS/2 and PS/1 didn't come until later.

IBM did screw up with the PS/2 for sure, and one could argue that since they finally dropped it in April 1993 that means the Amiga actually outlasted real IBM computers in the marketplace! But that doesn't detract from the fact that both Commodore and Apple had a piddling share of the market. By 1990 IBM might have lost control of the PC juggernaut, but it was still squashing the competition regardless of who 'owned' it.

[litwr]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Proof? I already supplied proof that IBM was doing much better than Apple at the time in question, despite the PC Jr.
PS/2 and PS/1 didn't come until later.

IBM did screw up with the PS/2 for sure, and one could argue that since they finally dropped it in April 1993 that means the Amiga actually outlasted real IBM computers in the marketplace! But that doesn't detract from the fact that both Commodore and Apple had a piddling share of the market. By 1990 IBM might have lost control of the PC juggernaut, but it was still squashing the competition regardless of who 'owned' it.

Your data only applies to 1984. We need sell figures for 1985-1989 too to draw the proper conclusion.
The IBM PC did outlast the Amiga in the marketplaces. IBM made PC desktops even in the 21th century, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinkCentre but they had other desktop models.

[litwr]

I have discovered one more Amiga problem recently. Why is the Amiga OS so easy to crash? For example, any 68020 instruction causes irritating Guru Meditation on the A500 or even A2000. The Atari ST OS works much better, in such cases it just informs you about the problem and continues working! Indeed TOS doesn't look so impressive as WB but it is much more reliable. Does anybody know why WB is so easy to crash?

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by litwr

I have discovered one more Amiga problem recently. Why is the Amiga OS so easy to crash?

Because there is no resource management that could properly abort a task and release its resources.

Originally Posted by litwr

For example, any 68020 instruction causes irritating Guru Meditation on the A500 or even A2000.

No, it doesn't. It creates a "software error - task held" requester.

Originally Posted by litwr

The Atari ST OS works much better, in such cases it just informs you about the problem and continues working!

So does AmigaDOS (note the DOS part, the requester is part of Tripos).

Originally Posted by litwr

Indeed TOS doesn't look so impressive as WB but it is much more reliable. Does anybody know why WB is so easy to crash?

The workbench? The workbench is very hard to crash and quite stable. Actually, the TOS is a single-tasking system.

[mcgeezer]

Originally Posted by litwr

I have discovered one more Amiga problem recently. Why is the Amiga OS so easy to crash? For example, any 68020 instruction causes irritating Guru Meditation on the A500 or even A2000. The Atari ST OS works much better, in such cases it just informs you about the problem and continues working! Indeed TOS doesn't look so impressive as WB but it is much more reliable. Does anybody know why WB is so easy to crash?

err.. you're on the wrong forum.

You'll get better responses here on disliking the Amiga - https://www.atari-forum.com/

Stop wasting time and trolling around here, I'm amazed you haven't been banned before now.

[SpeedGeek]

Originally Posted by litwr

I have discovered one more Amiga problem recently. Why is the Amiga OS so easy to crash? For example, any 68020 instruction causes irritating Guru Meditation on the A500 or even A2000. The Atari ST OS works much better, in such cases it just informs you about the problem and continues working! Indeed TOS doesn't look so impressive as WB but it is much more reliable. Does anybody know why WB is so easy to crash?

For someone who claims to like the Amiga very much, you continue to find a lot of details about the Amiga which you clearly don't like. Your comparison of Amiga OS with the Atari ST OS is really not an "Apples To Apples" comparison and you should know this very well.

You continue to test the limits of tolerance here on EAB with your negative comment posts. If this activity continues, the moderating staff will act accordingly. This is your final warning.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by litwr

Your data only applies to 1984. We need sell figures for 1985-1989 too to draw the proper conclusion.

No we don't. The original statement I made that you objected to was that by the 90's it didn't matter how many PCs IBM sold, because PC clones dominated the market and Apple's share of that market was minuscule.

Your argument that Apple 'could' have made more money from desktop computers than IBM did over the rest of the 80's is irrelevant, even if true - which is doubtful. The graphs below show that during the 80's IBM sold a lot more PCs than Apple did Macs (and Apples), and they doubled their dividend. They didn't crash until 1993 - just like Commodore (coincidence? Or were both companies victims of the PC juggernaut?).

IBM made PC desktops even in the 21th century, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinkCentre but they had other desktop models.

After the PS/2 failed IBM was forced to make clones that complied to the 'industry standard'. Your own link says that the ThinkCentre was introduced by IBM in 2003, but since 2005 has been owned, designed, developed and marketed by Lenovo - a Chinese company. That's a scant 2 years under IBM's guidance, a shorter period than the A2000 sold for (and A1200 if you count the Escom version).

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by litwr

Indeed TOS doesn't look so impressive as WB...

Not just less impressive looking, but less impressive functionally too. For example, one 'impressive' thing I liked about the Amiga was how it broke free of the horrible 8+3 filename length that 'serious' computers suffered from. Another was the wonderful multitasking with independent, draggable screens that can have custom resolutions etc. which no other system has matched before or since (not even modern PCs with multiple monitors).

...but it is much more reliable.

Right. So you never saw that ugly display with nothing but a row of bombs on it? I only had an ST for a short time, and saw them far too often.

Does anybody know why WB is so easy to crash?

There are two relatively easy ways to crash Workbench - write to memory that doesn't belong to you, or call a critical system function with bad parameters. Other than that it's quite difficult to 'crash'. Errors that cause exceptions such executing an illegal instruction (often caused by mismatched stack operations) or dividing by zero etc. usually bring up a 'software error, task held' requester that halts the offending program and allows you to carry on working. It doesn't close windows or free memory allocated by the program, but utilities are available that can free up these resources manually (though in many cases it might be quicker to just save your work and reboot).

The Amiga doesn't have memory protection so it's very important that programs don't trash memory. Therefore responsible developers run tools like the Enforcer and Mungwall to catch programming errors. This improves the quality of multitasking software and makes the system just as stable as a 'modern' OS - so long as you don't run bug-ridden programs (anything that fails Enforcer doesn't get used on my A1200 because I run it all the time).

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by SpeedGeek

You continue to test the limits of tolerance here on EAB with your negative comment posts. If this activity continues, the moderating staff will act accordingly. This is your final warning.

There is no problem being critical, and there are certainly a number of things wrong with the Amiga, but the facts should be correct - and this is not the case here. Unlike claimed, an illegal instruction does not create a software error immediately. It creates a requester to suspend the affected process.



This is also the only thing the Os can do given that there is no resource management.


This is not much different from TOS, but since TOS is a single-tasking system, it can re-initiate the complete machine after the "bombs". On a multi-tasking system, one cannot do that without affecting other programs.


But on the Amiga as well as on the Atari it is equally trivial to create a software error (or bomb). Just mess with the operating system structures, run over memory, or whatever. No difference. None of the two machines has memory protection or process isolation to prevent this. The same goes, of course, for the 68K versions of MacOs. However, there software reached a higher quality level, that's all.