Was anyone else disappointed with the A1200?

[StefaanC]

@Gorf, the amiga 500 released instead of the C128 was a far smarter choice.
Now those who migrated to a C128 do not massive step over to Amiga.
The 500 still used the same type of ram , the 1200 used 512Kx8 rams. At the time of the 1200 these where a few years out. So don't com with the fact that ram was expensive in fact , the simpler the pcb the more cheaper the computer. Commodore did find China for PCB and a side note that it did not went so well, all their PCB's contained small errors so all boards have some extra wiring. The introduction of the C128 was a big problem, the system would even not boot and with a bit of luck by letting the Z80 start instead of the 8502 saved the day. What I mean is, commodore was a company with many ups and downs. They had to buy amiga, inc so Commodore did not invent the amiga in the first place. It costed them so much that they struggled from that moment on and when Jack Tramiel left Commodore they addes a new chairman with no knowledge of computers and sales failed year after year. Commodore should have gone anyway, but sure years later.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by StefaanC

@Gorf, the amiga 500 released instead of the C128 was a far smarter choice.

but the Amiga was not ready in the first half of 85 - and until the end to the year C= managed to produce only about 50 thousand.
It was not so much, that the A1000 was too expensive - it was just not available in numbers in 85
C= had no problem to sell all of these 50k units ...

the C128 was easy to produce (all chips already there) - the OS was ready and it could be sold with some margin, while the C64 was earning no money at this point.
The C128 is considered the best selling new computer in 85.

they just could not do otherwise without going bankrupt.

[Gorf]

@StefaanC

The big problem for Commodore were not the C128 or the C64 or any other 8-bit computer from that area. The problem back than was not even the PC - that became only later a real competitor.

The big problem was the Atari ST. And the other way around it was exactly the same:
Atari's biggest problem was the Amiga.

There was simply not enough room for both.
If they would have merged into one company and maybe even swallowed Acorn and Sinclair ... then they could have had a read chance to survive.

In that alternate history Apple would have probably been bankrupt in the early 90s or maybe turned PC manufacturer and the "Amtari" would be the only platform competing with Wintel.

[chb]

Originally Posted by Kyle_Human

At which time you close it and move forward to the newer obsolete fab. Commodore were doing this, many later day chips were made for them in HP fabs. They were even transitioning away from owning their own computer factories and instead contracting out assembly work. Like every other computer company the path is to get out of making and concentrate on designing.

I think you're overlooking one important point: Changing to the newer obsolete fab would have meant a change to CMOS instead of the NMOS/HMOS process used. That means a complete redesign of the chip, not an easy feat if it originally was drawn by hand on big rolls of paper, without layout software. C= simply did not have the resources do it, that's why they didn't change Alice and Paula in the AGA chipset. LISA was CMOS (1.5 um I think) and was indeed also sourced out to HP, but the older chips were a different beast...

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by chb

I think you're overlooking one important point: Changing to the newer obsolete fab would have meant a change to CMOS instead of the NMOS/HMOS process used. That means a complete redesign of the chip, not an easy feat if it originally was drawn by hand on big rolls of paper, without layout software. C= simply did not have the resources do it,...

That is true.
Despite of having its own chip factory, C= never really invested enough in R&D to actually design new chips .. at least after they let Chuck Peddle and later Bob Yannes (SID) go...

At Amiga (as Startup) obviously a handful of people were capable of not only designing and outlining the custom chips, but also draw the maps for the masks ... but C= did of course not hold on to them ....

[StefaanC]

Amstrad was a more successful company , founded in 1968 and took over by BskyB in 2007 for 125 million pound. Amstrad was already making satellite receivers so from then on Amstrad was removed from exchange in 09/10/2008.
BskyB took only the set top box division over.

In 1984 was Apple was not far from bankrupt after a disturbing advertising and lost many clients.

Sinclair was only active in the computer business and any business that is betting on one horse is asking for trouble. See commodore also. Apple survived due to I phone, Itunes etc.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by StefaanC

Amstrad was a more successful company , founded in 1968 and took over by BskyB in 2007 for 125 million pound. Amstrad was already making satellite receivers so from then on Amstrad was removed from exchange in 09/10/2008.
BskyB took only the set top box division over.

In 1984 was Apple was not far from bankrupt after a disturbing advertising and lost many clients.

That was not 84 but 85.
The 84 (Super Bowl) ad is the famous and good one.
The ad from 85 is the creepy one.

But despite of the praised campaign, the Mac did not sell that good in 84.
The price was still too high and it was still sold alongside the Apple II and the even more expensive Lisa from 83.
But was incompatible to both.

The first months of 85, after the failed campaign, were also hard for apple, but already in August they sold their 500.000th Mac.
At a point were neither Commodore nor Atari had sold any relevant numbers of their new products at all!

And despite the rumors and the closing of one factory: Apple was never close to bankruptcy in the 80s - just look up their annual reports.

[Kyle_Human]

Originally Posted by chb

I think you're overlooking one important point: Changing to the newer obsolete fab would have meant a change to CMOS instead of the NMOS/HMOS process used. That means a complete redesign of the chip, not an easy feat if it originally was drawn by hand on big rolls of paper, without layout software. C= simply did not have the resources do it, that's why they didn't change Alice and Paula in the AGA chipset. LISA was CMOS (1.5 um I think) and was indeed also sourced out to HP, but the older chips were a different beast...

You're overstating this. Redrawing the chips into layout software is nowhere near as hard work as designing them from scratch was.

When they were designed from scratch it was creating something totally new, having an idea and developing it into the real world, gaining an understanding of it as you create it. You are finding new problems you never saw before and then having to find solutions. The basic concepts "what is a blitter" "what is a bitplane" is all new and nobody has experience of it.

To take an old prexisting design and put it in the layout software is 90% copying. It's transcription work. The most difficult part is not falling asleep from boredom, you don't even need to know how it works. I've done this work myself.

[grond]

Originally Posted by Kyle_Human

To take an old prexisting design and put it in the layout software is 90% copying. It's transcription work.

The point was that NMOS logic circuits are different from CMOS circuits because of all the complementary logic in the pull-up paths that CMOS logic has where NMOS logic only uses resistors or single transistors for load.



However, I have mixed feeling about whether this would have been difficult to change. For sure you can't just shrink the finished layout when transferring it from NMOS to CMOS like you can do when transferring from one CMOS node to the other. If you have actual schematics, converting from NMOS to CMOS should still be mostly monkey work (but a lot of it). You would have to convert the circuitry, dimension the pull-up paths and draw a completely new layout. Not difficult, just a lot of work. I guess it was like it always was at Commodore: they thought they could get away with doing it cheaply. They needed the millions for the boss's airplane.

[d4rk3lf]

Anyone knows if Commodore had plans on upgrading OCS and ECS machines to Aga?
I mean, not a cheap solution, cheaper then Aga itself, but Amiga 500 + Aga upgrade to be more expensive then Amiga 1200. Something like that.

Would that be a good idea?

[StefaanC]

I doubt that, they where struggling the last 10 years a lot and trying to squeeze as much money down for their products.

[redblade]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

Anyone knows if Commodore had plans on upgrading OCS and ECS machines to Aga?
I mean, not a cheap solution, cheaper then Aga itself, but Amiga 500 + Aga upgrade to be more expensive then Amiga 1200. Something like that.

Would that be a good idea?

How would that work on a A500? Would you piggy back on the chip or use the ZorroII port?

I guess they would have wanted people to upgrade to the Amiga1200

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by redblade

Would that be a good idea?How would that work on a A500? Would you piggy back on the chip or use the ZorroII port?

I guess they would have wanted people to upgrade to the Amiga1200

actually the idea is not wrong.

It would have made sense in 1989/1990 to update the 16bit chipset to take advantage of the faster RAM available at this time.

especially the "double-cas" modes - meaning the ability to read two consecutive memory addresses in one DMA time slot.
It its done in AGA with 32bit allowing Lisa to read 64 pixels at once ... it could have been done with a 16bit Denise as well - allowing 32 pixels accordingly.

That would have provided 256 colors in low res and a "VGA" mode with 640x400 at 60+Hz with 16 colors...

all that without really changing the motherboard design of the 500 ...

together with a 14 MHz 68000 it would have been a real "A600" ...

[StefaanC]

It would have made sense to use a full 32 bit cpu so 32 adres lines, 32 data lines in the first place.
Excuse me, aga max non interlaced resolution was 640x480 pixels 8Bpp @72 Hz 60Hz is too low for a rock stable screen, that's minimal 72 Hz.

[grond]

Nobody needed 32 address lines until some time this millenium. 24 bit address lines were enough for consumer computers until the mid-90s. A 32 bit data bus, on the other hand, should have been standard starting with ECS. This would have meant to turn the A500+ and the A600 into 020 machines and thus essentially to something very close to the A1200 as we know it. At that time this would have been a significant upgrade.

[AmigaHope]

Originally Posted by grond

The point was that NMOS logic circuits are different from CMOS circuits because of all the complementary logic in the pull-up paths that CMOS logic has where NMOS logic only uses resistors or single transistors for load.

However, I have mixed feeling about whether this would have been difficult to change. For sure you can't just shrink the finished layout when transferring it from NMOS to CMOS like you can do when transferring from one CMOS node to the other. If you have actual schematics, converting from NMOS to CMOS should still be mostly monkey work (but a lot of it). You would have to convert the circuitry, dimension the pull-up paths and draw a completely new layout. Not difficult, just a lot of work.

By 1990 the conversion could already be done automatically in Cadence probably some other software packages too. Not even monkey work, just clicking a button and then doing some hand optimizations to the layout. How fast you could clock the resultant chip varied depending on your optimizations as they didn't have good thermal simulations back then, but any good chip design shop could do it to one level of competence or another.

99% of the work would be copying the old hand-drawn schematics into Verilog. (I guess this would be the monkey work)

I guess it was like it always was at Commodore: they thought they could get away with doing it cheaply. They needed the millions for the boss's airplane.

THIS was the real problem.

[grond]

Originally Posted by AmigaHope

By 1990 the conversion could already be done automatically in Cadence probably some other software packages too.

As someone who did transistor-level microchip development in Cadence I'm curious to learn how that would have worked. Do you mean by changing an NMOS component library for a CMOS one?

[duga]

Jumper for 2 + 0 or 1 + 1 MB chip/fast memory. Machine is always delivered with 2 MB memory but can be jumpered differently depending on area of use.

SIMM slot for 1 to 8 MB fast memory (in combination with jumper set to 2 MB chip).

[StefaanC]

The amiga 3000 and 4000 are real 32 bit amiga's.
68020 : 32bit processor released in 1984
68030 : 32 bit processor released in 1987

Amiga 1200 : released in 1992 so we can carry on.
68040 : 32 bit processor released in 1990 so 5 years before their bankruptcy.

I must say, the A1200 cpu has data bus 32 bits all MC6800 16 bits
The A1200 has 24 address bus bits, same as 68000

32 bit address bus means or more ram but also expansion boards that have more possibilities.

So the amiga 1200 could have a 6820@14Mhz the a2000: 68020@25Mhz ,the A3000: 68030@33Mhz and the a4000: 68040@50Mhz and the amiga 500+ and 600: the 68EC20@14Mhz
And alse a bit more ram for each higher system

But commodore had to mess up with the hardware that lead to consumers confusion.
And would have also mention less competition with Atari. Their advertising was also not so great

[grond]

There never was an 040 at 50MHz. Also, those CPUs were ridiculously expensive. I think the real problem wasn't the high end but rather sticking to the 7MHz 68000 and 16 bits for seven years.