What if Commodore had lasted one year longer?

[A500]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

That's OK, you don't need to know anything to conclude that any Amiga product compares 'poorly' - it's a given. Or if it isn't, we will minimalize/ignore it and/or tell lies to make it appear to compare poorly. It's the Amiga way!


Here's an interesting document dated 11th May 1993. Some highlights:-

[clip clip]


In 1993 Commodore was already working on a PA-RISC architecture CPU with custom 3D graphics engine and an RTG operating system to go with it, as well as expanding the CD32 and A1200.

However you think PA-RISC may have compared to the PS1 in 3D gaming performance, there is no doubt that it would eat it for lunch in other areas. The PS1 had no OS to speak of and was useless for anything but 3D games. Neither did it provide an upgrade path or commonality with any computing platform past present or future.

Thank you Bruce, that's more new information to me. I can see the discussion is getting somewhat heated here I didn't conclude anything nor mean to express any opinion as to which machine is 'better' etc. I was simply curious to know more about the raw gaming performance of the planned RISC-based console if any such information was available. My assumption about the PS1 having more oomph was just that, speculation, and it would be absolutely fascinating to see actual performance comparisons. Given that the Amiga console exists only on paper (?), it's probably not going to happen but one can always wonder

[OlafSch]

@A500

It seems there were Amiga with INTEL processor planned. Amigas with INTEL INSIDE Button...

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

'Just another player'- who beat the other players to a pulp.

Really? Perhaps in some alternate universe. In this one, it admittedly did rather well with C64 - though latest analyses put the sales figures at around 12 mil. That is still a lot of course, but also brings it much closer to the other micros. Sure, C64 was a best seller, but it wasn't the only seller. The likes of Atari, Sinclair, Amstrad and MSX machines also had a huge impact on the microcomputer scene in various areas and time periods, which hardly amounts to be "beaten to a pulp". It's similar with Amiga, even if some folks would probably like to pretend that ST didn't actually do quite well for itself, all things considered.

If Commodore really had one constant master plan, instead of just a bunch of plans which changed with whims of assorted CEOs and were often at odds with each other, it'd have never made so many blunders along the way, and perhaps would ultimately survive in some shape or form (or at least do much better before folding up). Amiga's sales might look kinda good vs ST, but are really paltry compared to even consoles of the time, and the less said about the PCs the better. Amiga microcomputer and Amiga console could've not perhaps won overall, but definitely could sell more, or do an Acorn perhaps, if only some hare-brained but wide-reaching decisions haven't been made hampering these possibilities.

But since your POV is that of a zealot, none of this matters. You're blinded by your passion, with an added sprinkle of an alleged "insider" knowledge, as if being one didn't in fact add to your bias. This stance can only produce narratives where pointless endeavours such as C+/4 are a part of grand strategy. A600-scale disasters turn into trailblazers, because of some singular feature which actually meant zilch on the whole. A1000 is explained as a "pilot" machine, a truly outrageous claim even when compared to your usual standard. A "pilot" which gave the competition a nearly 2 year headstart and required some serious shake up by Rattinger to turn it into A500/A2000? That's some masterplan indeed.

Of course all this is rather well-documented. It's mostly agreed that a lot of the Commodore's management were its own company's worst enemy. I'm not gonna bother linking to the ususal suspects, since everybody either knows these stories by hand of can easily find their way to Wikipedia or Ars. And they carry much more weight than some random, cherry picked factoids, graphs, and personal anecdotes from a computer shop in New Zealand.

Being passionate is often an admirable quality, but can be really detrimental when it comes to looking at history, especially when somebody displays very strong brand-loyalty. It also makes discussion very hard (if not downright impossible), which is why I only respond in these kinda thread occasionally.

[grond]

@dreadnought:

Actually people are usually passionate about Commodore management and how they f*cked up the greatest computer of the 80s. Bruce POV isn't really that passionate in nature stating pretty much that Commodore did what they could but that in the end nobody could compete with the PC.

[PortuguesePilot]

Originally Posted by grond

@dreadnought:

Actually people are usually passionate about Commodore management and how they f*cked up the greatest computer of the 80s. Bruce POV isn't really that passionate in nature stating pretty much that Commodore did what they could but that in the end nobody could compete with the PC.

But both perspectives aren't necessarily incompatible, though. Let's see:


1) Commodore's high-level management was mostly inept (the old Tramiel, Rattigan, Gould, Ali, Escom, Gateway, etc ordeals): check

2) Commodore's engineers and planners genuinely tried their best and did what they could with their budget and some asinine managerial impositions: check

3) Despite of that, Commodore's planing wasn't all that streamlined and/or efficient and apparently lacked a broader vision of anticipating the market (many of those mistakes were already mentioned on this thread like wasting time and resources in dead-ends [like the C128, among many others], underperforming A1200 and A4000 that came at least a year too late, cringely bad CD32 that was nowhere near even the weakest competition, etc.): check

4) And finally, in the long-run no-one could indeed compete with the PC on the home computer market and I'll add that at that time, no-one could compete with the Playstation on the console route either (even though the Amiga flopped months BEFORE Sony's mammoth hit the western shelves, so actually the Playstation can't be blamed for Commodore's demise. But it would absolutely trounce the poor little CD32 had Commodore survived that postulated extra year): absolutely check


All these perspectives can be unified under the same theoretical model. It's basically like the "Standard Model of Amiganess" (mimicking here the "Standard Model of Cosmology", for those who didn't understand the pun).

This thread seems to have overflown from its initial intent, though. I think we all agree on the broadstrokes of the History of the Amiga, the highs and lows, the who's and whys. So it's in the "what if" question of that extra year that we seem to diverge a little. Some (like myself) say that it would result in a hand full of nothing, some others imagine that somehow a miracle could have saved Commodore and maintain it competitive to this day and yet others say that maybe a continuation of the Amiga line could have resulted in a still on-going (neither fish [PC] nor meat [consoles]) niche market.

The fact of the matter, though, is that this is all speculative (and a lot of wishful thinking). No matter how many words we exchange in this thread - and they've been a few hundreds already - in reality Commodore didn't have an extra year so all we can do is piece it all together and try to imagine - as close to reality as possible - what COULD have happened if that extra time actually existed.

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

https://dfarq.homeip.net/commodore-f...ory-1978-1994/

Interesting but still not solid source - there is plenty speculations there partially only supported by facts and data. And at some point this support my previous opinion - Gould way of leading Commodore is a way preventing "vision" - this is rather crook way to avoid taxing, make profit and do shabby business...

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

I don't disagree with you here. Maybe if they had developed AGA first and got machines like the A1200 out in 1991, they might have kept the ball rolling for a while longer. But they didn't, so in reality what happened had to happen. Any speculation on what might have been assumes that something was different. That something might be smarter engineers, more competent managers, or directors more interested in long term profitability than making money for themselves (though you can't blame them for it - after all what is a business for other than making money for its owners?).

AGA was important enhancement done inline with legacy Amiga architecture - not sure what can be done better with limited money and time budget at the same time providing legacy compatibility - probably not much - some things able to fit on original silicone since first day (i.e. ICS) will provide way more functionality (like NCO known from SID) but not happened and AGA was not in position to change this.
And of course - i always say that at some point this is "not my circus and not my monkeys" but still i miss "vision" - like no Commodore API for video capture so avoid closed, manufacturers implementations, similar with audio API to provide something like AHI (luckily to Commodore market begin to take leadership in vision where Commodore just don't care).
This is what i call vision - clear way to grow - some leadership - and that's why i objected to your opinion.

After 30 years we are matured guys, with some experience so we can judge less emotionally what happened with Amiga and Commodore - from my perspective Commodore was on crash course and nothing can be done to prevent Commodore fail. One or two years will extend only agony, Amiga could survive and live after Commodore fail but way how Amiga technology was dealt finally prevented Amiga to survive in a shape better than we see today. But to be not totally pessimistic - it could be worse - just look at the Atari.

[Promilus]

@pandy71 - given that both ECS and AGA have hard limit of 2MB CHIP RAM and AGA still have same blitter&copper performance I'd say that "new architecture" is overrated. It took Commodore quite a while to get "improved" chipset and even then it was sold (for "small amiga market") with just CHIP RAM which obviously wasn't good enough for 14MHz 020 - so at least 4MB of fastram @ stock configuration would improve things greatly (especially for CD32). It isn't about cost either - at the time A500 came out DRAM chips really were relatively expensive. In 90s it wasn't the case. Even newer VGA cards came out with 1MB+ (which reached up to 4MB in 1992 with cards like Ati Mach32). So while OCS - while released - demolished anything PC could throw at it and retain pretty nice price AGA wasn't PC killer. It was only still relatively cheap and had decent features. So during those few years Amiga microcomputers downgraded from "omg it destroys competition" to "oh, fairly cheap and good". Next few years wouldn't bring anything else than continuous downgrade relatively to what market had to offer. Should AGA be released in 1990 and AAA finalized in 1992/1993 it might be a bit different but it just didn't happen.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by pandy71

Interesting but still not solid source - there is plenty speculations there partially only supported by facts and data. And at some point this support my previous opinion - Gould way of leading Commodore is a way preventing "vision" - this is rather crook way to avoid taxing, make profit and do shabby business...

Well it was a long time ago and more accurate information is hard to find (if it ever existed). So unless someone discovers a cache of old Commodore financial records that's the best we are going to get. More importantly though it's a fairly dispassionate analysis of the actual numbers and facts, not the usual emotional rantings of butt-hurt Amiga fans.

I was no fan of Irving Gould either, but 30 years of being in business has changed my perspective a bit. He was born in 1919, and 22 years old when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. In later years he played a pivotal role in saving Commodore from extinction, long before home computers were even a thing. So he did it for profit and expected to get a return - why shouldn't he? By 1991 he was over 70 years old and owned a company with sales of over a billion dollars per year - which would not have happened without his investment. So why shouldn't he draw a good income and use the corporate jet for business trips?

Many of us abhorred the tax avoidance, not realizing that it was standard practice in the corporate sector. And perhaps he didn't hire the best people, but would any of us have done better? "Of course I would", you say. "I'm a pretty smart guy with integrity, not a greedy old fool like Gould". I thought I was a pretty smart guy too, until I had to sack my manager and bail my business out from my own pocket. If you weren't in the computer business back then you might not realize how volatile and risky it was. Maybe I could have done a better job of running Commodore than Gould did, but more likely I just would have made other mistakes.

In Ian Matthews's short biography of Irving Gould - The Money Man, he said:-

The profit motive drove Gould to play a critical and largely unacknowledged role in computer history....

Irving Gould and Medhi Ali (Commodore's Managing Director at the end) have been widely 'credited' with causing the untimely demise of Commodore in 1993/4 through a long series of market squandering mistakes. The drive to maximize profit by producing low cost equipment combined with the serious mis-marketing of the Amiga product line was apparently the result of their management.

If Gould had kept to the financial side of the business and left the 'big picture' work to Jack Tramiel, Commodore may have been a name we see on computers today.

History will not likely be kind to Irving Gould but it is important to note that he single-handedly saved the company on several occasions. For that, he deserves recognition and thanks.

You say - "Gould way of leading Commodore is a way preventing "vision" - this is rather crook way to avoid taxing, make profit and do shabby business".

But the truth is there would have been no Amiga at all without Gould. When he began investing in Commodore they were making calculators, by the end they had introduced millions of people to the joys of the World's most advanced affordable home computer, and were talking about home automation and virtual reality. Even it wasn't Gould's 'vision', he was was an essential part of it.

And of course - i always say that at some point this is "not my circus and not my monkeys" but still i miss "vision" - like no Commodore API for video capture so avoid closed, manufacturers implementations... Commodore just don't care

There are a lot of things Commodore could have done (assuming they had the resources) but I think you are off-base here. Commodore didn't produce any video capture devices so they didn't need an API for it. If you are talking about playback of video formats then you might consider that Electronic Arts developed the Interchange File Format (IFF) in cooperation with Commodore in 1985. This was an open 'container' format designed to allow interoperability between different applications and platforms. It was incorporated into the OS in 1990. Microsoft's RIFF and AVI, and Apple's AIFF formats are based on it.

In 1988 Sparta Inc created the ANIM IFF format for Aegis Development's Videoscape and Video Titler programs. In 1990 Commodore created CDXL, one of the earliest formats for motion video playback from CD-ROM. In 1993 CDXL was extended for the CD32.

So Commodore did 'care', but perhaps you are miffed that they didn't produce an 'open' equivalent of Quicktime or Video for Windows. As you know these formats were protected by patent and copyright, and developing 'open' equivalents would not be easy. But even if Commodore had managed it, most Amigas would not have had the processing power to play it properly.

The CDXL format was designed to play on 'low-end' Amigas where it might be used in games etc. And it proved its worth. AGABlaster plays full screen (overscan) video and stereo audio on an accelerated A1200 or A4000 with quality exceeding MPEG1.

After 30 years we are matured guys, with some experience so we can judge less emotionally what happened with Amiga and Commodore

Some would say older but no wiser. The passage of time seems to have entrenched misconceptions about the Amiga, and emotions are still running high. I try to rebut it with facts and get accused of being a zealot. But hey, I'm not complaining - it's all part of the retro-computing experience!

from my perspective Commodore was on crash course and nothing can be done to prevent Commodore fail. One or two years will extend only agony, Amiga could survive and live after Commodore fail but way how Amiga technology was dealt finally prevented Amiga to survive in a shape better than we see today.

I agree that in any reasonable scenario they would have failed sooner rather than later. But I wouldn't have called lasting a few more years 'extending the agony', I would have savored whatever we got from them. As it is I savor what we did get, and am thankful for it.

But to be not totally pessimistic - it could be worse - just look at the Atari.

Indeed, and not just them. Look at Amstrad, with the ZX Spectrum +2/3 and CPC Plus (wish I could get my hands on one of those). Or Apple's later machines before the Macintosh, or Acorn's Archimedes, SAM Coupé, Timex Sinclair 2068, Mattel Aquarius etc. So many high hopes and botched implementations. But even though they can't hold a candle to the Amiga they are still interesting machines. Why focus on the negative? We should enjoy imagining what could have been, not pessimistically dismiss it.

[Promilus]

But the truth is there would have been no Amiga at all without Gould

Well there wouldn't be Commodore Amiga but most likely hw itself would survive inside Atari. Who knows which company would have done better with marketing and development. Either way Jay would be screwed in the end.

I try to rebut it with facts and get accused of being a zealot.

Just few pages ago you claimed there were no other chipsets after AGA but facts are there were 3 Nyx prototype boards for AAA system (obviously scrapped and never functional). Improved AGA (AA+) was intended to be low-end solution released at the same time so basically next to AAA systems be like OCS is to AGA.
https://bigbookofamigahardware.com/b...uct.aspx?id=35

You've never explained how C64DX (C65) would fit between OCS machines with 68k ... and one way or another 50+ of such units did find a way into a market despite project cancelation by Irvin in 1991 (!!!). And their development was announced in media few years back so that wasn't some secret project.

It's kind of like Sega during development of Dreamcast. 2 teams working at different locations and on the same project but much different hardware. Maybe you didn't know one design of DC was with 3dfx graphic chips and PowerPC processor and that development team was pissed off when they learned they were pitted against another (and lost). 3dfx was pissed off too.

So while I value your opinion as relatively objective it's not without a bias. My isn't either and I admit that openly. There are moves by large companies which makes sense to them but hell, after so many years we at least know how good those decisions were in the long run and hypothesize about what could've been should they take other path.

So...
PPC+voodoo for DC? Not really. DVD? Yeah, of course.
Fast ram for stock AGA machines? Yeah, slightly. AGA release faster? Yes. Definitively.
AAA release? Well, maybe if there was some kind of compatibility software in os. Hombre? I'm not so sure (especially with PA-RISC). RISC design overall - yes.
Faster CPU, chipset and/or powerful coprocessor for CD32 to pump up vector math? Yeah, sure, as long as it would have been followed by close cooperation with game developers.

[grond]

The very late 8bit developments were probably inspired by the many C64 units that were suddenly sold into the countries of the Warsaw Pact. Commodore was always willing to sell old tech at low margin.

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by Promilus

@pandy71 - given that both ECS and AGA have hard limit of 2MB CHIP RAM and AGA still have same blitter&copper performance I'd say that "new architecture" is overrated. It took Commodore quite a while to get "improved" chipset and even then it was sold (for "small amiga market") with just CHIP RAM which obviously wasn't good enough for 14MHz 020 - so at least 4MB of fastram @ stock configuration would improve things greatly (especially for CD32). It isn't about cost either - at the time A500 came out DRAM chips really were relatively expensive. In 90s it wasn't the case. Even newer VGA cards came out with 1MB+ (which reached up to 4MB in 1992 with cards like Ati Mach32). So while OCS - while released - demolished anything PC could throw at it and retain pretty nice price AGA wasn't PC killer. It was only still relatively cheap and had decent features. So during those few years Amiga microcomputers downgraded from "omg it destroys competition" to "oh, fairly cheap and good". Next few years wouldn't bring anything else than continuous downgrade relatively to what market had to offer. Should AGA be released in 1990 and AAA finalized in 1992/1993 it might be a bit different but it just didn't happen.

Once again - AGA was sane improvement to Amiga technology providing absolute minimum at the first half of the 90's - legacy compatibility was provided, new functionality also. It could be last chapter before starting a new one where all legacy HW is closed in single IC and video/audio output available as digital stream that can be inserted (overlay) on top of "VGA like" open graphics solution - PCI was capable to provide such data transfer without hurting too much overall performance. Good, solid base for new generation of Amiga. This is vision of the unavoidable changes.

And on a side - as i had opportunity to work closely to PC since 1990 i was able to do direct comparison of Amiga and PC's - common machine class in my country was 286 12MHz with HGC (sometimes VGA 256KiB) and monochrome monitor - A500 easily outperformed such machines even in plain, unexpanded configuration. A500 was even comparable with 386SX 16MHz machines - jpeg decode took comparable time on both machines (around 20..30 seconds - DOS Alchemy http://www.handmadesw.com/Products/Image_Alchemy.htm/ ). Later when more fancy graphics cards arrived to the PC world they was too expensive for average home PC configuration and overall market penetration was very low - so cards like ATI MACH 8 or 32 was too expensive to be popular also there was no standard way to use their HW so consumer software largely never use anything above plain VGA thus no need for HW acceleration - this was still strong area for Amiga. Perhaps Amiga should belong to special class of computers - Personal Workstation.

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Well it was a long time ago and more accurate information is hard to find (if it ever existed). So unless someone discovers a cache of old Commodore financial records that's the best we are going to get. More importantly though it's a fairly dispassionate analysis of the actual numbers and facts, not the usual emotional rantings of butt-hurt Amiga fans.

I was no fan of Irving Gould either, but 30 years of being in business has changed my perspective a bit. He was born in 1919, and 22 years old when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. In later years he played a pivotal role in saving Commodore from extinction, long before home computers were even a thing. So he did it for profit and expected to get a return - why shouldn't he? By 1991 he was over 70 years old and owned a company with sales of over a billion dollars per year - which would not have happened without his investment. So why shouldn't he draw a good income and use the corporate jet for business trips?

Many of us abhorred the tax avoidance, not realizing that it was standard practice in the corporate sector. And perhaps he didn't hire the best people, but would any of us have done better? "Of course I would", you say. "I'm a pretty smart guy with integrity, not a greedy old fool like Gould". I thought I was a pretty smart guy too, until I had to sack my manager and bail my business out from my own pocket. If you weren't in the computer business back then you might not realize how volatile and risky it was. Maybe I could have done a better job of running Commodore than Gould did, but more likely I just would have made other mistakes.

In Ian Matthews's short biography of Irving Gould - The Money Man, he said:-


You say - "Gould way of leading Commodore is a way preventing "vision" - this is rather crook way to avoid taxing, make profit and do shabby business".

But the truth is there would have been no Amiga at all without Gould. When he began investing in Commodore they were making calculators, by the end they had introduced millions of people to the joys of the World's most advanced affordable home computer, and were talking about home automation and virtual reality. Even it wasn't Gould's 'vision', he was was an essential part of it.

Well, not sure about NZ law but in my country company management can be under crime charges if they act in a way that will hurt company business - even if you do private business you can't hurt your company.
From my perspective (also supported by data from providing by you link) Gould act like person that don't care. And side to this if you have vision then you are planing also what happen if you will be no longer able to do business - this not happened with Amiga as we all know that many companies was interested in Amiga patent portfolio (some of them like HP).
Gould should be blamed for this...

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

There are a lot of things Commodore could have done (assuming they had the resources) but I think you are off-base here. Commodore didn't produce any video capture devices so they didn't need an API for it. If you are talking about playback of video formats then you might consider that Electronic Arts developed the Interchange File Format (IFF) in cooperation with Commodore in 1985. This was an open 'container' format designed to allow interoperability between different applications and platforms. It was incorporated into the OS in 1990. Microsoft's RIFF and AVI, and Apple's AIFF formats are based on it.

In 1988 Sparta Inc created the ANIM IFF format for Aegis Development's Videoscape and Video Titler programs. In 1990 Commodore created CDXL, one of the earliest formats for motion video playback from CD-ROM. In 1993 CDXL was extended for the CD32.

So Commodore did 'care', but perhaps you are miffed that they didn't produce an 'open' equivalent of Quicktime or Video for Windows. As you know these formats were protected by patent and copyright, and developing 'open' equivalents would not be easy. But even if Commodore had managed it, most Amigas would not have had the processing power to play it properly.

The CDXL format was designed to play on 'low-end' Amigas where it might be used in games etc. And it proved its worth. AGABlaster plays full screen (overscan) video and stereo audio on an accelerated A1200 or A4000 with quality exceeding MPEG1.

I'm fully aware of this but still - Commodore as owner of patents was responsible for direction - so even if they not created video capture devices they advertised Amiga as video desktop machine so they should be responsible for coordinating and co-creating technology in controlled by Commodore Amiga world.
Companies providing guidelines, do some standards - obviously this not happened. That's why i claim that Commodore had no vision about Amiga future.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Some would say older but no wiser. The passage of time seems to have entrenched misconceptions about the Amiga, and emotions are still running high. I try to rebut it with facts and get accused of being a zealot. But hey, I'm not complaining - it's all part of the retro-computing experience!

I agree that in any reasonable scenario they would have failed sooner rather than later. But I wouldn't have called lasting a few more years 'extending the agony', I would have savored whatever we got from them. As it is I savor what we did get, and am thankful for it.

Indeed, and not just them. Look at Amstrad, with the ZX Spectrum +2/3 and CPC Plus (wish I could get my hands on one of those). Or Apple's later machines before the Macintosh, or Acorn's Archimedes, SAM Coupé, Timex Sinclair 2068, Mattel Aquarius etc. So many high hopes and botched implementations. But even though they can't hold a candle to the Amiga they are still interesting machines. Why focus on the negative? We should enjoy imagining what could have been, not pessimistically dismiss it.

This already happened and can't be undone - today is too late for this anyway so i consider Amiga as nice hobby.

[A500]

Originally Posted by OlafSch

@A500

It seems there were Amiga with INTEL processor planned. Amigas with INTEL INSIDE Button...

Yep. The first time I heard about those plans was in the early nineties, read it from a local computer magazine. That was the moment when I realised the Amiga was in trouble

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Promilus

Well there wouldn't be Commodore Amiga but most likely hw itself would survive inside Atari. Who knows which company would have done better with marketing and development. Either way Jay would be screwed in the end.

Thanks for confirming what I said. Commodore might not have been the best imaginable company to take over the Amiga, but they were best available in the real world.

Just few pages ago you claimed there were no other chipsets after AGA but facts are there were 3 Nyx prototype boards for AAA system (obviously scrapped and never functional). Improved AGA (AA+) was intended to be low-end solution released at the same time so basically next to AAA systems be like OCS is to AGA.
https://bigbookofamigahardware.com/b...uct.aspx?id=35

There weren't. Commodore made lots of prototypes, but unfinished chipsets don't count.

Commodore AA+ Chipset

According to Dave Haynie AA+ only existed on papers and the actual design never started...

Originally Posted by Promilus

You've never explained how C64DX (C65) would fit between OCS machines with 68k ... and one way or another 50+ of such units did find a way into a market despite project cancelation by Irvin in 1991 (!!!). And their development was announced in media few years back so that wasn't some secret project.

Actually it was a super-secret project, but it got leaked.

The C65 didn't really fit between OCS machines with 68k, it's main appeal would be to diehard C64 fans who wanted more - just like new Amiga models would be to A500 owners. But if the Amiga was becoming tired and outdated compared to PCs the C64 was doubly so. It's sad that Commodore killed the C65, but economically it was the right decision. Technologically too. Better to put the effort into the A1200.

It's kind of like Sega during development of Dreamcast. 2 teams working at different locations and on the same project but much different hardware. Maybe you didn't know one design of DC was with 3dfx graphic chips and PowerPC processor and that development team was pissed off when they learned they were pitted against another (and lost). 3dfx was pissed off too.

The more I dig into the history of home computers the more I find out how messy it was behind the scenes. But I am not upset by it. Just like biological evolution gave us a huge variety of interesting creatures past and present, so evolution of the home computer market produced a great variety of interesting machines. We don't think about all the 'mistakes' and dead ends, and violence and death that created the wonders of Nature.

Had the C65 been produced I probably would have bought one, just to see what I could make it do. But I'm afraid not enough people would think the same to make it worthwhile producing. Perhaps with today's technology it might be possible to reproduce it, and then I might get interested again...

PPC+voodoo for DC? Not really. DVD? Yeah, of course.
Fast ram for stock AGA machines? Yeah, slightly. AGA release faster? Yes. Definitively.
AAA release? Well, maybe if there was some kind of compatibility software in os. Hombre? I'm not so sure (especially with PA-RISC). RISC design overall - yes.
Faster CPU, chipset and/or powerful coprocessor for CD32 to pump up vector math? Yeah, sure, as long as it would have been followed by close cooperation with game developers.

I agree with that in general. My main problem with all this talk of 'New Generation' Amiga hardware is that we haven't even explored the possibilities of what we have. In the 1990s the pace of change became so rapid that developers couldn't keep up, and I for one was pissed off by constantly having to throw everything out to get the latest stuff. But that's what powers our consumer economy. Manufacturers hate it when they produce something so good that you only buy it once - how can they make money out of that?

[Promilus]

Commodore made lots of prototypes, but unfinished chipsets don't count

It does count. It just reveals what exactly were CBM plans regarding amiga line. And with scrapping of Ranger (which was fairly revolutionary improvement over OCS despite the cost of VRAM which dropped quite nicely later on) it was fairly obvious they weren't interested anymore with something way better than PC at relatively low price. Price itself was main objective when it comes to "small amiga" and that's why it was proposed to have cut down A1200 version with just 1MB of chip (fortunately it wasn't finalized).

The C65 didn't really fit between OCS machines with 68k

Sure it did. That was 16bit CPU clocked nearly 3.54MHz with 128kB RAM expandable to 1MB iirc, commodore basic v10 which runs in place of "insert floppy" of Amiga (so you can actually do something without floppy disk inside), VICIII which has VIC II compatibility but also new modes OCS-like (or actually better) and with blitter too. Those features in conjunction with backward compatibility with C64 would sum up to pretty decent competition despite the fact A500 was more powerful anyway. And since C64 was still quite popular in late 80s that was actually valid idea to produce it's successor but ... not when there already was Amiga. It was rather stupid to start work on that in the first place.

Perhaps with today's technology it might be possible to reproduce it, and then I might get interested again

It already is and that project is called Mega65. Biggest downside is it works on pretty large FPGA dev board (iirc bigger fpga than Vampire V4 and by extension Icedrake/Firebird family) which is expensive. Standalone computer is even more expensive (~600GBP iirc). There are some originals but it's prices are beyond insane

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Promilus

It does count.

It doesn't count as a chipset that existed.

It just reveals what exactly were CBM plans regarding amiga line.

Yes, we know that.

And with scrapping of Ranger (which was fairly revolutionary improvement over OCS despite the cost of VRAM which dropped quite nicely later on) it was fairly obvious they weren't interested anymore with something way better than PC at relatively low price.

There it is again. It's not good enough to just be 'as good as' a PC at lower price, it has to be 'way better'. Then the next year Commodore would have to design another new chipset to make the Amiga way better than what the PC had by then, and another, and another... - always at a lower price.

Now we see why Gould wasn't that interested in the Amiga's 'future'. With customers having that attitude, the only way to keep going would be to pour all the profits back into designing new Amigas that were so 'way better' than a PC that (a few) people would buy them. Because if it wasn't 'way better than' a PC you all would dismiss it and buy a PC instead.

Price itself was main objective when it comes to "small amiga" and that's why it was proposed to have cut down A1200 version with just 1MB of chip (fortunately it wasn't finalized).

Yes it was 'fortunate'. Fortunate that the design wasn't set in stone, and could evolve as the situation changed. But a 1MB A1200 wouldn't have been that bad, since it was designed to be easily upgraded. Another couple of things you might have noticed was the space for an FPU, and the separate PCB for the mouse port (suggesting they may have had a different case design in mind). The engineers were obviously keeping their options open.

The A600 is another example of this. It was originally designed to be nothing more than a cost-reduced A500+, but 'fortunately' someone had the sense to add a hard drive and PCMCIA slot - which made the machine far more interesting and useful. These features then made it into the A1200, which again was 'fortunate'.

With advances in silicon and design tools, new improved Amiga models could have been produced fairly rapidly. I recall one of Commodore's engineers saying that they could whip up a new design in a few months, rather the several years it used to take. But those new designs would still have to be tested and debugged, and the more radical the changes the harder it would be to get it right.

We can imagine Commodore managing to get AA+ machines out the door in the next year if they were financially able. After that, who knows? But even that would have been something.

Sure it did. That was 16bit CPU clocked nearly 3.54MHz with 128kB RAM... but ... not when there already was Amiga. It was rather stupid to start work on that in the first place.

I wouldn't say it was 'stupid', but I agree that with the Amiga being where it was the C65 was redundant. Still it would have been nice if Commodore was financial enough to still produce 'boutique' products that didn't have to be huge sellers.

It already is and that project is called Mega65. Biggest downside is it works on pretty large FPGA dev board (iirc bigger fpga than Vampire V4 and by extension Icedrake/Firebird family) which is expensive. Standalone computer is even more expensive (~600GBP iirc). There are some originals but it's prices are beyond insane

Ah yes, I remember that one now. Still not ready for sale yet, and not retro enough for me anyway. Perhaps someone will design a motherboard based on the original C65, with FPGAs just replacing the unobtainable custom chips. That way we could experience what a real C65 would have been like.

[TEG]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Well it was a long time ago and more accurate information is hard to find (if it ever existed). So unless someone discovers a cache of old Commodore financial records that's the best we are going to get.

For the record, Gunhed did an analysis of Commodore and Atari accounting documents in a French video with interesting details.

[ Show youtube player ]

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by TEG

For the record, Gunhed did an analysis of Commodore and Atari accounting documents in a French video with interesting details

Unfortunately I don't speak French so I'm not sure what it all meant. Anywhere I can get this info in written form?

[grelbfarlk]

Except Hombre, a new architecture which would include a faster processor, bus, graphics architecture, and a new codeset which would in theory also boot some windows, which were not very good in those days. If Hombre came out and were standardized between the same hands they played before, game console and home workstation they would have crushed it, NASA, cashiers, stock brokers, graphics artists and engineers would have flocked to the Hombre, because reasons.

[Promilus]

@Bruce

There it is again. It's not good enough to just be 'as good as' a PC at lower price, it has to be 'way better'. Then the next year Commodore would have to design another new chipset to make the Amiga way better than what the PC had by then, and another, and another... - always at a lower price.

Of course because it was the only redeeming feature. At the time A500 was released there were already PCs with VGA cards. But those cards were expensive and most users had either CGA or EGA. And yet many ppl bought PC anyway... with no joystick, pc speaker for audio and poor performance on video & cpu. Each and every small amiga had to be BETTER than standard PC - it's universal truth with every david against goliath match. And that's exactly how it went with A500 in 1987. It offered better graphics, sound in compact, elegant, cheap solution. But development of new computer technologies wasn't as stagnant as in early 80s where you could cut corners for half of the decade after developing decent architecture. New and improved products begun flooding market year after year. It was technological race and many companies which couldn't keep up went out of the business. Commodore is one of them.
AMD during it's history made better products than intel several times now. And most of the time they had to make them cheaper as well despite being better product. That's how it works. I'm curious why you seem to not understand that simple fact that when fighting something way more popular you have to be both better and cheaper.

It doesn't count as a chipset that existed.

Except the fact that both ranger and AAA existed. Ranger as post prototype solution and AAA stuck at prototype. But it was. Even if it existed only as blueprint it means it EXISTED as something more than just specs. At the moment Commodore bought Amiga OCS (or rather ICS) was only a prototype as well. And no one claimed it hasn't existed yet.

Now we see why Gould wasn't that interested in the Amiga's 'future'. With customers having that attitude, the only way to keep going would be to pour all the profits back into designing new Amigas that were so 'way better' than a PC that (a few) people would buy them

Well you should be quite well aware you couldn't possibly support streamlined chipset oriented (with little expansion capabilities) amiga for home users and the same architecture for professional users on big amiga. It only worked for limited time during which amiga sound and graphics capabilities were much higher than what PC could offer at similar price. And as I already said the distance was shrinking rapidly so it was either make R&D work faster on projects already started or take company into different direction whatsoever. CBM did neither.

Fortunate that the design wasn't set in stone, and could evolve as the situation changed.

Well Amiga 1200 MoBo is designed to have 1MB and another 1 on dedicated connector (P9) - even on schematic 2 memory chips are OPTIONAL while memory interface is extended to P9A and P9B connector. Pretty much the same as A500 rev 6A is designed to have 512KB on-board and another 512KB on add-on (but could hold whole 1MB on board - there's even place for that). It's not design that was adjusted but launch specs. There's no technical reason why A500 rev6 couldn't hit market with whole 1MB on board (with obviously non functional trapdoor or limited to slowram with slight adjustments). A1200 didn't need any particular adjustments to follow either 1MB or 2MB policy. So design WAS set in stone but - by design - final specs could be adjusted. The same way Rev8 boards could be adjusted - by design - to be A500 and not A500+.