Some thoughts on why the Amiga didn't thrive

[ProfPlum]

Originally Posted by Frogs

My dad got one of the first Amigas back when the launched. He ended up using it a great deal for video production but had intended on using it as general purpose "work" computer.

I recently asked him why he thought the Amiga, rather than the Mac and PC, didn't take off and he had some thoughts I think some of you might find interesting.

(My dad was a hardware engineer at DEC back in those days).

Here's what he said (paraphrasing):

The Amiga lost from the outset by the design of the Denise chip. It ensured that the Amiga was just a game machine because at the time its competition, while inferior in lots of superficial ways, were much better in the areas that mattered for people using computers for work:

The Mac SE (which came out in 1987) didn't have a text mode but its graphics mode could do something like 512x340 without interlacing. So the screen was solid and the text sharp.

The IBM AT (which came out in 1984) couldn't do graphics well but it had a rock solid text mode letting users also do work with very crisp, sharp text.

The Amiga maxed out at 640 x 200 which wasn't suitable for work use or 640x400 interlaced which was also not useful for work. The other modes may have had lots of colors but they were too low resolution to do work.

He talked about the difference between Word Perfect on the Amiga vs. on the PC and that the Amiga version was basically unusable because the text was hard to read.

He also mentioned that the Amiga 2000 didn't come out until 1987 and that until then, doing work on the Amiga meant inserting Kickstart and then inserting Amigados and then inserting the disk for the app. He had two drives so he could skip some of these steps but this added another layer of friction.

So even if Commodore's management hadn't been incompetent, it never would have beat out the Mac or the PC because it was inferior at a work machine because of its low non-interlaced resolution.

According to my dad, the Amiga, when it came to doing actual work, was never as good as its competitors.

Anyway, I'm new here and wanted to share this with you guys to get your thoughts as I hadn't seen this explanation given before. I always heard it was bad marketing or failing to keep the Amiga's tech lead or Commodore mismanagement in general the killed it.

I am in agreement that the interlaced screen is/was a big turnoff for the computer to be taken as a contender for business needs at the time - i.e. spreadsheets, word processing and the like.

I also think they made a big mistake releasing the A2000 without an integrated flicker fixer, drive controller and something better than the 68000 - these items were addons which were not always included - I originally bought my A2000 with no hd, accelerator, additional ram.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by ProfPlum

I am in agreement that the interlaced screen is/was a big turnoff for the computer to be taken as a contender for business needs at the time - i.e. spreadsheets, word processing and the like.

Let's be honest - if all you wanted to do was run "spreadsheets, word processing and the like" a PC was the obvious choice, and having a slow phosphor green screen with (at best) 1 bitplane graphics and PC speaker 'sound' was not a big turnoff for you. And you wouldn't buy an Amiga anyway because those "spreadsheets, word processing and the like" only ran on a PC.

I also think they made a big mistake releasing the A2000 without an integrated flicker fixer, drive controller and something better than the 68000 - these items were addons which were not always included - I originally bought my A2000 with no hd, accelerator, additional ram.

Several of my friends bought bare bones A2000's too - because they were cheap, would run all the A500 stuff, and could be expanded as your budget permitted. But they weren't bought for running boring business apps.

Most of us didn't care that our Amigas didn't have flicker-free 640x400 because we weren't running programs that needed it. Those who did care bought a flicker fixer and that 'problem' was solved - while the rest of us didn't have to pay for something we didn't need.

But some of us wanted a machine that was compatible with broadcast TV standards to do video titling etc. which PCs couldn't do, and may of us were too poor to afford a dedicated EGA or VGA monitor which PCs needed. Amiga monitors worked with other stuff we had such as video recorders and other home computers, so the cost was justifiable. Those who couldn't afford any monitor simply used their TV - an option that wasn't available to most PC owners.

But what if Commodore had decided to build a flicker fixer, drive controller, and faster processor into the machine? Well they did with the A3000. So did it turn the business world on to the Amiga? Of course not. Too expensive! Not IBM compatible! Meanwhile A2000 owners continued adding the latest accelerators, hard drive controllers, RTG graphics cards etc. to their venerable machines that cost much less.

[Minuous]

A2000s weren't cheap here, they were thousands of dollars. No one I knew bought one. The overpricing of the big box machines was a significant cause of the Amiga's eventual failure. The A2000 in particular was not good value.

[Fuzzball]

I owned an Amiga 500 for many years. I eventually bought the PC emulator board that went in the trap door underneath (the Power PC 500 Plus I believe). That's when I started messing with writing PC software and eventually ended up replacing the Amiga with a real PC.

PC gaming was starting to take off then too. For me the PC was the one machine I could do everything on - my college work, gaming, etc. The Amiga was sadly in storage ever since.

I certainly don't have the same fond memories of the PC that I have of Amiga though. There has always been something special about it that I've never had any such attachment to since.

[ProfPlum]

Originally Posted by Minuous

A2000s weren't cheap here, they were thousands of dollars. No one I knew bought one. The overpricing of the big box machines was a significant cause of the Amiga's eventual failure. The A2000 in particular was not good value.

This is absolutely true about the A2000.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Minuous

A2000s weren't cheap here, they were thousands of dollars. No one I knew bought one. The overpricing of the big box machines was a significant cause of the Amiga's eventual failure. The A2000 in particular was not good value.

Unfortunately I couldn't find any contemporary pricing for the Amiga 2000 in Australia, so I guess we will have to accept your claim that they were 'overpriced'.

My failure to find any Commodore products advertised in the only Australian computer magazine of the day suggests another reason for its failure to thrive over there. Then of course there is the typical Amiga fan's attitude of why couldn't they just wave their magic wand and make a 'big box' computer for the same price as an A500?

But the real world doesn't work that way. The truth is, any name brand 'big box' computer with similar specs cost thousands back then. For example, here's a 286 PC that Dick Smith claimed was excellent value at AU$4795 with only 512k RAM and no monitor, though it did have a 40MB hard disk (but of course no sound card or mouse etc.).

In the Feb 1988 issue of the Australian Your Computer magazine I found a review of the Tandy 3000. The price with 512k RAM and 20MB hard drive? AU$7499, plus another AU$1099 if you wanted the high resolution monitor! That's what I would call 'overpriced'.

[Minuous]

The best comparison is against the A500, as it was exactly the same machine as the A2000, just without card slots.

I found an A2000 ad in ACAR Feb '88, on p. 5 of the Amiga section. The price quoted is $2495 on special (whereas the A500 was under $1000 at the time). So, users were paying well over $100 per empty card slot. If you weren't planning on doing IBM emulation on it, you were paying about $1500 just to have 5 empty Zorro II slots.

[duga]

Originally Posted by Minuous

The best comparison is against the A500, as it was exactly the same machine as the A2000, just without card slots.

I found an A2000 ad in ACAR Feb '88, on p. 5 of the Amiga section. The price quoted is $2495 on special (whereas the A500 was under $1000 at the time). So, users were paying well over $100 per empty card slot. If you weren't planning on doing IBM emulation on it, you were paying about $1500 just to have 5 empty Zorro II slots.

Well, you had space for two (one extra) floppy drives and a 5.25" unit (5.25" floppy drive, tape unit or later CD-ROM) and internal space for hard drive(s).

[ProfPlum]

Originally Posted by Minuous

The best comparison is against the A500, as it was exactly the same machine as the A2000, just without card slots.

I found an A2000 ad in ACAR Feb '88, on p. 5 of the Amiga section. The price quoted is $2495 on special (whereas the A500 was under $1000 at the time). So, users were paying well over $100 per empty card slot. If you weren't planning on doing IBM emulation on it, you were paying about $1500 just to have 5 empty Zorro II slots.

When I said the A2000 was expensive, I too was referring to a comparison against the A500.

Rummaging through my junk last year, I happened to stumble across the receipt for my A2000 purchase. Purchase price, $2800 and change (CAD), back in '88. This got me the A2000 + monitor/1080s + bridgeboard (original version 8088/6). This was purchased from my school's computer dealer hence the bridgeboard - I guess they figured it was a good add-on for students. And in fact, I did use it to run some PC software required for some of my school courses.

How much did an A500 go for at the time (and all my friends had one)? I don't know. I'm guessing around $500. The monitor was worth perhaps another $500. So > $1500 for slots and the bridgeboard - and let me tell you, that thing was slow.

(Side note: I believe the A500 originally had 1/2 mb of Ram and the A2000 had 1mb of ram on the motherboard).

I was not into graphics or desktop video, I was an engineering student, and definitely, playing too many games

I was using the bridge board for some specific course apps (and fortran - bleah). The Amiga for papers (I remember using Prowrite and some other word processors), and maple. That interlaced screen always p*ss*d me off. No one should have to live with that crap. I updated the system with the basic add-ons - ram card and hard drive. But before spending more on it, I had already moved on to a PC. And I am almost certain, the PC cost a lot less than the Amiga. I don't remember the first PC which I purchased, I believe I had a 386. (then 486 dx-33/66/100? , then many many more upgrades until today).

I had believed my A200 was lost. I ended up finding it a little over a year ago and have upgraded it extensively. I suppose there's some sentimental attachment to the machine. There is no other explanation.

[grelbfarlk]

In the USA the A2000 was far cheaper. They premiered for USD $1495 (1987). The local Amiga dealer had a deal where you traded in an A1000 and got an A2000 for another $600, which is what happened to my A1000.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Minuous

I found an A2000 ad in ACAR Feb '88, on p. 5 of the Amiga section. The price quoted is $2495 on special (whereas the A500 was under $1000 at the time). So, users were paying well over $100 per empty card slot. If you weren't planning on doing IBM emulation on it, you were paying about $1500 just to have 5 empty Zorro II slots.

Thanks for that, I didn't know that magazine existed until today.

I found another advert in the Dec 1988 issue of ACAR. It offered the A2000 without monitor for $1995, and the A500 without monitor for $899. Add $299 for a 512k RAM expansion (and clock?) and the difference is $797. Add another $50 for a 2nd floppy drive ($349 vs $299) and $500 for a 20MB hard drive and controller ($1399 vs $899) and the A2000 is starting to look like better value at only $247 more.

If all you wanted was a 1/2Meg A500 with internal drive then it obviously didn't make sense to buy an A2000. But who would be satisfied with that? I certainly wasn't.

In 1987 I paid NZ$2795 for an A1000 with monitor, then immediately had to upgrade it to 512k. That wasn't enough of course, so I bought a second hand 2MB FastRAM expansion for it. But I really wanted a hard drive and commercial units were a shocking price, so I bought a second hand 20MB MFM drive with PCXT controller card and built an interface to attach it to my A1000. I also made a similar 'bridgeboard' interface for my friend's A2000, which was much easier with the A2000's Zorro II and PC slots - and of course no need for a separate power supply and case!

BTW I found another advert in ACAR, from Commodore! Check this one out...

The amazing Amiga 2000, with "Multi-tasking of business packages. Runs up to four (4) programs simultaneously"!

[grond]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

The amazing Amiga 2000, with "Multi-tasking of business packages. Runs up to four (4) programs simultaneously"!

Yet another proof that Commodore had no idea what they had on offer...

[AmigaHope]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

But some of us wanted a machine that was compatible with broadcast TV standards to do video titling etc. which PCs couldn't do, and may of us were too poor to afford a dedicated EGA or VGA monitor which PCs needed. Amiga monitors worked with other stuff we had such as video recorders and other home computers, so the cost was justifiable. Those who couldn't afford any monitor simply used their TV - an option that wasn't available to most PC owners.

CGA actually worked just fine on TVs -- it came with a composite output. If your TV didn't have composite input (many didn't at the time) you could plug it in via a VCR. 80-column modes were just a bit hard to read sometimes. What CGA couldn't do is interlaced video, so it wasn't suitable for producing a signal compatible with broadcast television for stuff like titling, etc.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by AmigaHope

CGA actually worked just fine on TVs -- it came with a composite output.

Not in New Zealand it didn't.

If your TV didn't have composite input (many didn't at the time) you could plug it in via a VCR. 80-column modes were just a bit hard to read sometimes.

I had an Amstrad PC-20 (AKA Sinclair PC200) for a while. It's the only PC clone I know of that had PAL composite output, and the display wasn't bad for composite. Wish I had kept it because now they are ultra-rare.

So why did I get rid of it? It was a bit too IBM compatible. Earlier Amstrad PCs had enhanced CGA that could do 16 color graphics, but they removed that for the PC-20. I eventually put a VGA card and a hard drive it, which worked fine but you couldn't close the lid on full-height cards. And despite having an 8MHz 8086 it still felt a bit sluggish compared to the Amiga.

What CGA couldn't do is interlaced video, so it wasn't suitable for producing a signal compatible with broadcast television for stuff like titling, etc.

Yes, and so not suitable for any software that need high resolution (interlace might flicker, but it's better than nothing). It couldn't do overscan or more than 4 colors from 1 of 2 crappy palettes in 320x200 either. To get 16 garish composite colors you had to run the even lower resolution of 160x200, and it only worked in NTSC.

Let's face it - apart from text mode, CGA sucks. But thousands of games have been made for it, and millions of people played them. No Amiga fan would put up with such crap, but PC owners lapped it up. Why? Because they already had a PC, and they weren't about to buy a better machine (the Amiga) just to play games.

[Minuous]

Actually CGA can also do 16-colour RGB graphics using this trick: http://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/...ics-modes.html

[dreadnought]

CGA is much demonised, but it's mostly received wisdom. In truth, it's not really that bad when it comes to games (source: somebody who has recently played every single PC game from 1981-1983). In some cases it can look quite alright, since as per usual with limited resources, talented artists could utilise them well and achieve surprisingly good results. And the "garish" ones aren't much worse than C64 on a bad hair day.

Comparing CGA, released in 1981, with 1985 Amiga - an entire age in the-then hardware - is ridiculous, but that's of course on par for this thread. The EGA was available since 1984, and by the time Amiga was hitting its stride (~1987) it was time for VGA anyway (it's the same with portraying it as "the millions" would have some sort of hardware choice, when in reality so many of them were just kids being happy to play anything).

Amiga was still superior, of course, till the early Nineties, but the gfx gap was not as hyperbolically vast as painted here. Especially when you take on board you're pretty much comparing apples and oranges - a machine with strictly "serious" background vs one geared towards multimedia. The fact that different gaming genres were being popular on PC is also important, since strategy/cRPG/adventure/IF didn't suffer from lack of proper scrolling and similar things so much.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Commodore never intended to be a chip vendor, and other manufacturers were already making the 6502 when they bought MOS technology. Why would they supply their competitors when they needed all they could make for their own machines?

But they did support their competitors: "Sally" the 6502B for the Atari 8-bit family of computers, was also produced by MOS Technologies (among other vendors).

And so was the 6507 for the Atari 2600

Even worse, they didn't change most of the other chips in the Amiga to CMOS either - I wonder why? Could it be that it wasn't so important?

Well, they produced the CSG 65CE02 (aka 4510) @ 2 µm CMOS from 1988 on

This chip was supposed to power the never released C65 and was also intended for the cost reduced CDTV as LCD driver ...

The only real product this chip ended up in, was the A2232 (7x serial port ZorroII card)

https://bigbookofamigahardware.com/b...ct.aspx?id=593

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Minuous

Actually CGA can also do 16-colour RGB graphics using this trick: http://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/...ics-modes.html

Interesting. The CGA adapter uses an MC6845 programmable address generator so I figured it could probably do non-standard graphics modes, but I hadn't seen any examples until now.

It's easy to see why it was rarely used though. Apart from the extremely low resolution (160x100) and lack of official support,

The disadvantage with the 80-column mode on a true IBM CGA card and many clones is the visibility of CGA snow... CGA snow can be avoided by only writing to RAM during the vertical retrace period (the time where the raster beam goes from the bottom to the top of the screen), but that is painfully slow with a 4.77MHz 8088 CPU...

Windmill Software was one of the first game developers that focused on the IBM PC platform, and while their games are clones of popular arcade games, they were always done well and pushed the CGA card to its limits. It released three games that used the 160x100 resolution mode...

While they will run on a Tandy 1000, do not expect any of them to run on an EGA or VGA card.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

CGA is much demonised, but it's mostly received wisdom. In truth, it's not really that bad when it comes to games (source: somebody who has recently played every single PC game from 1981-1983).

I had many hours of fun playing on my HUG1802 with 64x48 monochrome block graphics, so I know what you mean. So long as the graphics are serviceable, the gameplay is what counts. But CGA is objectively awful even compared to 8 bit machines such as the Amstrad CPC, which had the same resolution but a 27 color palette. This made a big difference to the look of some games, enough to make you want to play them just for the 'eye candy'. The Amiga was even more desirable for this reason. Take a game like Defender of the Crown for example - who would want to play it in crappy green-red-brown or cyan-magenta-white?

Comparing CGA, released in 1981, with 1985 Amiga - an entire age in the-then hardware - is ridiculous, but that's of course on par for this thread. The EGA was available since 1984, and by the time Amiga was hitting its stride (~1987) it was time for VGA anyway

Actually IBM introduced its Professional Graphics Adapter (which featured onboard drawing functions and 640x480 in 256 colors) in 1984, so you could say that IBM was always way ahead of Amiga. But it's a very silly argument. At over US$4000 for the card alone and only supported by a few CAD applications they targeted a completely different market. But hey, they were there first!

EGA wasn't that cheap either, at $524 for the basic card plus $199 for the 64kB upgrade (required to support 640x350 in 16 colors), then another US$849 for the special 'Enhanced Color Display' monitor - for a total of US$1572. This combo wasn't actually available until 1985, the same year the Amiga 1000 was introduced at a price of US$1285.

In reality PC clones with CGA graphics were sold for many years after 1985. In the late 80's I did warranty repairs for a local PC 'manufacturer' who sold mostly CGA equipped XT clones built with parts imported from Taiwan. The monitors had a nasty habit of blowing up their LOPT after only a few hours use. I pity the poor suckers who bought those machines.

Amiga was still superior, of course, till the early Nineties, but the gfx gap was not as hyperbolically vast as painted here. Especially when you take on board you're pretty much comparing apples and oranges - a machine with strictly "serious" background vs one geared towards multimedia.

It's perplexing how so many excuses are made for the PC's failings, while anything good about the Amiga is played down. The graphics gap was 'not as hyperbolically vast as painted here'? Just take a look at the screenshots below and tell me, which machine deserved to be labeled 'hyperbolic', and which one needs a ton of excuses for being so crappy?

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by Gorf

But they did support their competitors: "Sally" the 6502B for the Atari 8-bit family of computers, was also produced by MOS Technologies (among other vendors).

But this probably goes back to times before MOS became the CBM semiconductor group?