Home   News   Concept   AMIGA-Compatible   Hardware   Forum   Questions+Answers   Pictures   Contact & Team

Welcome to the Natami / Amiga Forum

This forum is for AMIGA fans interested in the new NATAMI platform.
Please read the forum usage manual.



All TopicsNewsQAFeaturesTalkTEAMLogin to post    Create account
Do you have questions about the Natami?
Post it here and we will answer it!

What If You Would Have Been the CEO of Commodorepage  1 2 3 4 
Jorge Windmeisser Oliver

Posts 32
02 Jan 2012 17:03


Hi all, I hope you had a good time welcoming 2012.

Well, I had some discussions with a friend of mine, that works in a shop selling Apple gear (he has a Samsung Galaxy II, though) and we were wondering why Commodore had failed. Which in itself is quite a feat, to fail having products that sold by themselves...

In hindsight, everything is easy and obvious, of course, but, really, you have to have miserable managers to fail with products like the C64 or the Amiga at the time.

We came to the conclusion that Commodore had two lines, the 64 and the Amigas, we thought that the 64 line would have been the game-multimedia-home platform and the Amiga the serious-multimedia-expensive-for-professionals platform.

After seeing the success the 64 had, we thought, we would have commissioned a graphically upgraded 64 by 1984, something like the plus 4 expanded palette, combined with a stereo SID and of course doubling the sprite count and with 128k ready for sale by 1985. That would have been an upgraded machine 3 years after the original's launch.

After buying the Amiga technology (if needed, but I don't think that even after this stage the Amiga technology would have had a commercial chance against an upgraded c64), we would have kept the high price, but really providing better graphics and sound as a roadmap, every year, we thought that would have been feasible for the time. But keeping the high price tag and convincing even Microsoft to produce software for the product.

As for the 64, which eventually would kill the Amiga, sorry guys, I loved my Amiga 500, 3000T and 4000, but they wouldn't have had a chance against the 64 line, in time. We thought that the next step would have been to provide VGA resolution by 1989, still NTSC or PAL. 256 colors, 16 bit sound (having still SID compatibility), 16bit MOS processor and 512K of RAM. We think that could have been sold for a resonable price of around 900 bucks in 1989. Remember Commodore had the possibility to produce its own processors and chips. And you could still use your floppies or expansion cards.

Of course, we think that that machine would have convinced a lot of game producers to port or program games for that machine. Lets not forget that GEOS was there, a graphical OS that already had quite an amount of excellent progs for the time.

The next step, by 1990 would have been to get to 1 MB, increase the VIC II's capabilities further (800x600 15k with ram expansion), to a higher resolution and begin to implement the expansion capabilities of the Amiga line. So that people could use Amiga parafernalia to play around (don't konw how well a 16/32 bit 6502 would have handled ZORRO slots), by this time the strategy would have been, to still provide Amiga gear in the high-tech segment but slowly convince people that the 64 line would also be an alternative for home hobbyists.

By 1992 we would have had a 64 line, that would have been far beyond the capabilities of the competition, for the price, that is. 1982, no other computer, in the price segment, had the capabilities of a 64. The Amiga would have been a competitor to Apple Mac and stuff like SUN.

We think that IBM, would have gone already by 1995 out of the PC business and that the computing world would look completely different.

Anyways, it was fun to think about; "what if", even if it is completely useless :)

It would be interesting to read what others would have done if they would have been CEO of Commodore at the time.

Greets :)

Dezső Bodor
Hungary

Posts 10
02 Jan 2012 18:02


The Commodore lot of unnecessary development, wasted money Plus4, C128, x86, etc. ..
  Many high-performance peripheral devices manufactured by small companies, which the Commodore was not able to  realize.
  If implement the chunky pixels in the AGA, game developers do not turn away from the platform.

JeeBee McJibble
United Kingdom

Posts 85
02 Jan 2012 18:58


Commodore had a bit of a weird turn in the early 80s, deciding to upgrade the C64 with the Plus 4 (and the VIC20 with the Commodore 16) which actually had fewer features. This was a barking mad plan and shouldn't have been signed off.

C= should have designed a VIC-III instead that allowed for more flexibility regarding colours (e.g., palettes instead of fixed colours, etc) and allowing the screen to be resized (odd fact - VIC 1 allowed resizable screen, VIC-II didn't). Increasing the number of sprites would have been hard though due to the method the VIC-II utilised - you would have needed twice the bandwidth during HBLANK which would have incurred a significant cost.

Next thing would have been to use a 2MHz CPU instead of a 1MHz CPU. Other systems used 2MHz 6502 variants, so why the C64 didn't is anybody's guess. This could solve the previous problem because a 2MHz CPU would have meant a faster memory bus, which could have allowed 128 clocks/line instead of 64. This would have solved the C64 display quirk whereby every 8 lines during Character/Color Read, the CPU was forced to sleep.

Ultimately by the early 90s C= did decide to do this upgrade, giving us the C65, which sadly never made it to production.

Evil Igel
Germany

Posts 154
02 Jan 2012 20:16


Its a quiet interesting question what could be happend if C= had NOT buy the Amiga and evolve the 64-line instead :)

But in Commodores case the problem would have been the same:

Dozens and dozens of models, no straight conception for further developement and a daaaaamn slow upgrading in a world that was/is flooded by zillions of manufactors with newer and faster low-cost-hardware every months - thanks IBM for spreading the rights to do it.

Maybe this have worked back then:

1985 A1000
1987 A500 / A2000
1990 A1200 / A4000
1993 A1400 / A5000 (AAA with chunky)
1996 A1500 / A6000
1998 A1 (PPC cause of Motorolas change) OR Natami-Like new 68k-Amiga...

2 - 3 Years between new Amiga-generations had been great because of the leap every model had been done (comparing to the PC-mini-steps every week :))

And then 2012...

"Nintendo push you to sports?
Sony feeded you with eye-candy?
And microsoft stole your keyboard?
Well, then its time, that Commodore KICKS YOUR ASS!

The new Commodore CD128 - It cannot doing else!"

Imaginate the spot for this :-D

And then... Stop dreaming of what is gone and see what is coming ;)

Thomas Richter
Germany
(MX-Board Owner)
Posts 1438
02 Jan 2012 23:57


CBM back then acted too slow, and was not aggressive enough in their market. When they started with the Amiga, they had quite a good product, but never got it into the business market - IBM stole the show with the PC. Thus, they never competed there - probably couldn't because back then everyone who wanted a "serious" machine bought IBM, no matter about the technology and no matter about your product. Despite, it takes much more than a good product to get into this market - you have to have the right contacts.

But they also failed in the hobby market later because they weren't on track with the technology. Amiga evolved too slow, partially because the system was tight too much to its hardware, partially because the CBM was not brave enough to make this investment.

Now it is hard to tell - I do not know the cash-flow at CBM, how much money they really had available for research & development in first place. It is not uncommon that companies, especially big companies are afraid to invest, and only a small amount of money goes into R&D, and CBM management probably overestimated the technological advantage.

I was told, when I was a student at IBM, that management *there* at IBM had always to "smuggle" the R&D costs into the budget plans of the higher management. IBM is big enough to survive this way and its market evolves slower, CBM never was and had to survive on a much quicker market.


Dezső Bodor
Hungary

Posts 10
03 Jan 2012 04:35


This inconsistent a bit, anno C= given discounts to concurrency computers. Myself, I had to convince the parents that the Amiga is not only a good game. I think the Commodore wanted to produce a "professional" machine. Therefore, straining the CP/M or x86 platform. That is the bosses were too old.

Nixus Minimax
Germany

Posts 312
03 Jan 2012 15:11



I wouldn't have had any of the 8-bit computers Commodore made after the C=128 (which came in 1985 and showed that the concept was doomed). I would have had these Amiga models developed instead of the real computers:

- the A2000 would have had an 68020 CPU

- no A500+, instead an A600 with 68020, 2MB chipmem, fastmem socket on board and full keyboard allowing for a 3.5" hdd instead of the 2.5" one, published together with the A3000. The idea is that the keyboard computer of a generation always more or less equals the workstation computer of the preceding generation.

- no A3000 with 16 MHz, just 25 MHz and 33 MHz

- all AGA models with harddisk

- AGA would have included chunky modes and inbuilt scan-doubler, faster chipmem bus

- A1200 would have had 25 MHz 68030 and a 3.5" hdd, no expensive 2.5" hdds at all

- all A4000s would have had a 68040 (with FPU) and proper hardware design to really be a worthy successor to the A3000

- 1995: A1300 with 68040, AAA and VGA output, A5000 with 68060

- after that the progression to PPC and an OS with memory protection would have had to be made, similar to what Apple did

And most importantly:

- I would have had a software team writing quality software, especially office-type software

- I would have continually invested into Commodore's chip production to produce CMOS (!) chips and with smaller feature sizes

All of the above would have been feasible.


Dezső Bodor
Hungary

Posts 10
03 Jan 2012 17:36


I do not understand how a multi-CPU cards why not finished. I think the good solution is to simultaneously run multiple exec. LightWave3D could have used noderender.

Loc Dupuy
France

Posts 253
03 Jan 2012 17:57


Jorge Windmeisser Oliver wrote:

We came to the conclusion that Commodore had two lines, the 64 and the Amigas, we thought that the 64 line would have been the game-multimedia-home platform and the Amiga the serious-multimedia-expensive-for-professionals platform.

In fact Commodore have a C65 prototype in 1990 with more or less your dreamed specifications.

8bits were doomed already in 1985 for
- without HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) in mind, otherwise your proposal would have been a nightmare for coders, on your brand new "C65", you would have play plain C64 games (the common denominator).

- and the limited adress space.
With 8 bit data bus, it tooks 2 cycle to load a 16bits adress (64Kio range), so to be useful with more than 64Kio (wich was beginning to be the norm at this time), you need an extra bank register (with akward programming), or 24bits adress register (wich need 3 cycles loading).
Moving 64Kio takes 65536 cycles, on a 16bit databus like the 68000, it tooks only half cycles, so you have 2x memory copy speed gain at the same CPU frequency.
On 68000, you have a 24bits adress range with 2 cycle load (instead of 3 on 8 bits).

You have more range on the integers (easier loop, calculate on values...), you have more register, everything was easier and electronics integration made the cost of custom chip marginal beetween 8bits and 16 bits.
The more expensive part was the memory, and 512Kio cost the same in an 8 or 16bits computer.

@Evil Igel
If you read Amiga history, Jay Miner wanted to have the ranger chipset with 256 colours in 86~87
EXTERNAL LINK  The ECS chipset would have never existed when AGA was the target for the 600 and 3000 originaly
1200 and 4000 should had have AAA, AGA was an interim solution to fill the gap from 90-93 for the amiga designer.
And after the AAA, the "Hombre" Chipset was studied, more than 15 years in advance, GPU and CPU on the same chip.
EXTERNAL LINK 
Thomas Richter wrote:

... IBM, that management *there* at IBM had always to "smuggle" the R&D costs into the budget plans of the higher management.

And the real truth is this, the Commodore management constantly lowering amiga budget to have more benefits for the shareholders.

If they have kept with the original technicians vision, they should have survive until 95-96 without any problems (when the first 3DFX card and Tomb Raider were out on the PC, launching the 3D card race and the pentium race).
Even with the 3D race, the amiga would have been on Hombre Chipset and HP-PA CPUs are as powerfull (or more) as Pentiums on same frequency. Would HP kept a cpu line only for amiga when this time was the deal for the intel "itanic" ?

Greed has killed amiga and all the exotic personal computer market, Because the software was too tied on the hardware, you had to reinvest in R&D to keep the momentum.

The commodity PC would have win in the end, as linux has "won" on os server side, you have more incremental improvements with these models, less R&D risk, you do not have to throw all the previous work and more benefits for the shareholder who benefits from other R&D budget that improve other parts of the system.

Chuck T
USA
(Needs Verification)
Posts 756/ 1
03 Jan 2012 17:59


You can learn about Commodore here.

EXTERNAL LINK

Evil Igel
Germany

Posts 154
03 Jan 2012 19:38


Loïc, thanks for the links!
I know that Jay Miner had bigger plans with the Amiga as C= had but i dont have known the specs of Ranger and Hombre - impressive!
Just as the OCS was in '85...

Just Imagine a 68030 @ 50 MHz and AAA in 1992 .... :)
And imagine a N68050 @ > 100 MHz in 201x - THAT would be nice! :-D

Jakob Eriksson
Sweden
(Moderator)
Posts 1097
03 Jan 2012 23:40


Limited to Amiga line:
 
  - any kind of chunky pixels, even 16 color ones, would have been great. (Precedent: Akiko kludge.)
 
  - All Amigas should have had SOME fast RAM, just 64k would suffice for calculations. Limiting the A1200 with CHIP RAM only is INSANE. (Precedent: not needed, obvious.)
 
  - MultiCPU. Especially if there was no practical limit, just a money limit, to number of CPUs, then Lightwave might have continued on Amiga for several years more. (Precedent: Atari Transputer.)
 
 
just the little details I reflected on back in the day.
Otherwise I like OPs post.

Loc Dupuy
France

Posts 253
04 Jan 2012 12:43


Jakob Eriksson wrote:

Limiting the A1200 with CHIP RAM only is INSANE. (Precedent: not needed, obvious.)

100% agree, they should have at least sell the 1200 with 2Mib of Fast Ram to reach 4Mib of memory (2+2). And it would not have been a major redesign of the 1200.
The 1200 is an 500 with only one new chip Lisa instead of Denise.
2Mib was too small at this time, like the base A500 wich was not really useful without at least the 512Kib Slow Ram expansion.

The first thing i bought when i could was a 4Mib FAST RAM Expansion for my 1200 wich cost around 300euros (1200 cost me around 1100 euros) but double the calculation speed and gives more breath for application.
The problem is minimal appeal price, beetween 1100 and 1400 euros (2Mib Ram cost at that time), they were afraid to loose market share.
They were trap in the too little, too late.

With a small redesign, 28Mhz 68eco20 (~4,5 mips, about the same pwoer as the 386 available at the same period) with the 2Mib Fast, 8x-10x speeder than base A500 for calculation (from 4FPS to 40fps for vector games for example).

The A3000+ was a more expected target at this time
EXTERNAL LINK 
In fact Atari made the same mistakes of too litlle, too late.
If the Falcon would have been made with a 32bits Bus, i would have switch allegiance in a blink of eyes, without this fatal flaw, it was better on every point compare to a 1200, more cpu power with a real 68030, 16bits graphics & sound, DSP for intensive calculation, 4Mib base memory (the minmum at this time).
But because Atari cripple the Falcon like Commodore cripple the 1200 and AmigaOs multitasking was a reality (i was already addicted to multitask), i stay on the Amiga bandwagon ^^

The AAA was too late, too litlle.

The real rule breaker would have been the Hombre Chipset. Even with 0% compatibility with Amiga, i would have bought one, it was light years ahead competition.


Jakob Eriksson
Sweden
(Moderator)
Posts 1097
04 Jan 2012 12:47


The Hombre was for a Play Station like device, not for a computer if I recall correctly. Even the A1200 would have had much use for just 64k of FAST RAM. Would have done much for games. With chunky I am 100 % sure we would have seen Doom officially for it. (Remember, Doom even was ported to Sega 32, SNES and Jaguar.)
Commodore would still have died though probably, but A1200 would not have been such a failure.
With these events so long passed, it's hard to care either way. I am just happy Natami exists. :-)


Nixus Minimax
Germany

Posts 312
04 Jan 2012 14:16


Loïc Dupuy wrote:

they should have at least sell the 1200 with 2Mib of Fast Ram to reach 4Mib of memory (2+2). And it would not have been a major redesign of the 1200. [...] The problem is minimal appeal price, beetween 1100 and 1400 euros (2Mib Ram cost at that time), they were afraid to loose market share.

The "too little too late" problem wouldn't have arisen if the base configuration hadn't been a 7 MHz 68000 and up to 1 MB RAM for no less than EIGHT years (from A1000 in 1985 to A1200 in 1993). Even after the A1200 came, most games were still aimed at the 1 MB / OCS market. The available software landscape would have been different and made with always increasing processing power in mind if Commodore had also upgraded the minimum CPU and RAM each time they came out with a new custom chipset. Keeping the same minimum hardware configuration for so long turned Amiga in what many people still believe it was: a games console.

The ECS in the A600 was of hardly any use when compared to the A500 and the A3000 was so drastically superior that it was perceived as a different computer altogether. So basically nothing really had changed from the first A1000 until AGA came (and flopped). The AGA computers did not have enough impact to even attract large portions of the existing Amiga developers. They rather abandoned the Amiga altogether.

Commodore did not understand that most people were willing to spend a lot of money on 3rd party processor and RAM upgrades. So why not sell the computer with a more powerful configuration in the first place? Amiga was stuck between a rock and a hard place: games developers wouldn't program games that required an 68030 and people wouldn't buy processor upgrades if there weren't any games that benefitted from them. None of this would have happened had the base CPU been upgraded continually. People would have understood that they got better games only if they upgraded their computer to the next official Amiga generation.

Commodore did not earn a penny from each computer after it had been sold. Quite to the contrary this computer meant one less potential Amiga customer because it remained a valid and usable Amiga computer for so long.

But in the Amiga times the custom chips were the source of the games power. In the PC world the processor took this role. The advantage of the processor is that you hardly get any compatibility problems when upgrading the CPU while you don't get any benefit as such when upgrading the graphics hardware. Existing games won't suddenly become more colourful. As we know now, the Amiga approach was a dead end but could have gone down the right way of processor upgrades.

Commodore had a history of not upgrading CPU power. Look at the PET, C=20, C=64, C=16 and the C=128. All had 1 MHz 8-bit processors that were very similar in terms of computing power (not counting the other CPU in the C=128). These computers were Commodore's primary offerings for eight years (PET in 1977 and C=128 in 1985). Same story as with the Amiga, Commodore could have learned the lesson but did not because the C=64 still sold well. As a games console, that is...


Jacek Rafal Tatko
Espania

Posts 610
06 Jan 2012 01:18


.oO Interesting question indeed .
   
    I had the greatest enthusiasm of all Amigans worldwide at age 13 , 1989 .
   
    Every day before the official Bundesgymnasium school hours were over , i was already in the supermarkets section of computer literature reading everything about Amiga , Motorola , Programming languages and other stuff related and lesser computer platforms , over and over again ... until the next month' editions came out .
   
    Of course , every day , i was shocked deep down my genes and bones that i was not recognized and named CEO of Commodore by then .
   
    I would have done a better job for sure .
 
  Why ? Because I loved it and I had the greatest Enthusiasm and Strongest Believe in Amiga ever conceived on the Planet  .
  Why ? Because this feeling was greater than my bodies capacity to get along and through the day without bringing Amiga to the Absolute top by being the CEO or Infatigable Guru of Commodore , specially its absolute star product the Amiga .
 
  However , I would have neglected the other departments and probably assaulted and hacked and ransacked , seized on a regular base - probably every month - most of their budgets for further Amiga Development :)
   
  Humbly as I was , O:) , I owned an A500 , a 512kb extension and a second floppy drive - more was not feaseable by then , i squeezed my parents budget to the  last frontier and beyond . Sometimes , i still feel a little bit guilty :D
   
    What would I have done as CEO ? Everything , the possible , the feaseable and the impossible . I knew that with my spirit it was possible to build everything and also improve much faster - due to my 100% relentless im+patience and a 1001% imagination that had no doubt about the big design advantages of the Amiga architecture .
   
    Today , now , I am still the same , 100% Im+patient , 100% Enthusiastic , 1001% imaginative , I think Amiga is the best computer architecture ever conceived ( taking into account all future improvements ;) and I am absolutely convinced it should retake its place amongst users and believers , albeith not under commodore anymore .
   
    Anyway , who cares under which good and great brand name Amiga is brought up again as long as it is powered by Natami ;)
   
    ;)
   
    ;)
   
    .oO

Casey R Williams
USA

Posts 149
06 Jan 2012 01:24


Jorge Windmeisser Oliver wrote:

 
  After seeing the success the 64 had, we thought, we would have commissioned a graphically upgraded 64 by 1984, something like the plus 4 expanded palette, combined with a stereo SID and of course doubling the sprite count and with 128k ready for sale by 1985. That would have been an upgraded machine 3 years after the original's launch.
 
  After buying the Amiga technology (if needed, but I don't think that even after this stage the Amiga technology would have had a commercial chance against an upgraded c64), we would have kept the high price, but really providing better graphics and sound as a roadmap, every year, we thought that would have been feasible for the time. But keeping the high price tag and convincing even Microsoft to produce software for the product.

So, if you had been CEO of Commodore, you would probably have passed on the Amiga and let it go to Atari.  I know you didn't say that, but we all know how the Amiga purchase went.  It would be very unlikely for this agreement to have been reached had Commodore then been readying the 8bit computer you describe. 

I am not as optimistic about the prospects of that machine being a threat to the Amiga, either.  The most advanced 8-bit I am aware of would probably have been the SuperGrafx.  It wasn't released until 1989 and despite offering 482 colors on screen and hardware dual playfield scrolling was inferior to the Amiga in most every other way.  If you consider the Lynx an 8-bit rather than 16-bit machine, it may be closer to your idea.

I don't care much about pre-Amiga Commodore, so I'll start at the acquisition and assume it would be possible to prevent C='s biggest screw-ups.  I would've kept the original design team even if meant building a west coast design center.  I would've looked for an external hardware solution to PAL/NTSC compatibility problems so that PAL games would properly fit on NTSC screens and vice versa.  If the idea for the Handy/Lynx still came up despite not losing the original team, I would have pressed for the Handy as a portable evolution of the C64/8-bit line.  I would not have let other companies use the Amiga's strengths against it.  I would have made it clear that Amiga's great gaming potential came from its superior design and in no way made it less of a serious computer.  I would have got the 1200 out as soon as possible (about a year earlier) regardless of 500 sales and not released the 600 at all.  The 4000 would have been based more closely on the 3000 design.  If I found it necessary to make PCs, I would have looked for ways to use Amiga gfx and sound hardware in them simply to lower the cost of the custom chips.  I would not have wasted time on Mips or HP or any other architecture until AAA was nearly ready to become a real product. 

Those are the biggest mistakes I feel C= made in hindsight, not necessarily what I thought they should be doing at the time.

Nixus Minimax
Germany

Posts 312
06 Jan 2012 13:18


Casey R Williams wrote:
If I found it necessary to make PCs, I would have looked for ways to use Amiga gfx and sound hardware in them simply to lower the cost of the custom chips.

A very intersting thought. I wonder whether Commodore ever contemplated making a PC graphics card with the Amiga custom chips. I wonder though whether that would have been technically feasible without the superior interrupt system of the MC68000 and without a linear and sufficiently big address space.

The downside of this idea is that an Amiga would have appeared less appealing if a PC could have been upgraded. On the other hand the Amiga could have benefitted from the momentum of the PC development because Commodore would have had to continually develop better chipsets for the PC market, too.


Ceti 331
United Kingdom

Posts 282
06 Jan 2012 15:15


No chunky pixels in AGA killed the amiga for me.
  this was beyond their control - i'm told they had lost the original chipset design and had to reverse engineer it to extend it :)
 
  I wouldn't have bothered extending any bitplane modes and kept them as legacy.
  my design for amiga followup would possibly have been like the atari jaguar, or think of a Konix but with 680x0 instead..
 
  [1] 680x0 main cpu
  [2] risc coprocessor
  [3] new blitter with instructions for fast chunky/bitplane conversion, possibly as instructions in the risk coprocessor
  [4] software emulation of everything original amiga did , in the risc coprocessor, with dedicated instructions it should have been fast enough; native graphics performance for sprites should have been on par with NeoGeo
[5] simple display hardware. 4, 8, 16bpp chunky modes only.

  Would have kept 68000 as legacy 'controller' and focussed software effort on producing good tools or libraries, e.g. library functions for transformations etc. amiga hardware would effectively be a set of default library routines running on the RISC machine, watching memory locations, perhaps an interrupt mechanism would be needed for certain locations as commication from 68000 to risc but the interpretation would be down to software
 
  IMO
  The original amiga had elements that didn't scale well - sprites, biplanes, copper or which were all un-necassery complexity when number of biplanes reached 8.
 
  With a decent software frontend, a RISC machine that could handle , say , 4bit CLUT lookups and unpacking should have been able to emulate parallax  sprites/tiles effects but very quickly game dev became about pixel effects which were far more interesting (even then, the ability to use 4bit textures in 256 or 16bit color games would have been useful).
 
  but the amiga was always about straddling the line between gaming and graphics workstation.. proper frame buffer manipulation would always be better for say font rendering & GUI... compositing text/wireframe windows into full color screens

 
  There was no need to run legacy 68000 games 'faster' - they were designed for one specific performance level.
 
  also the 16bit specific blitter was a dead end design... 32bit cpu+16bit blitter was 'epic fail'
 

J Grant
United Kingdom

Posts 15
06 Jan 2012 19:57


We have to remember there was a recession during the early 90`s alot of
  people didnt have the money to buy the super kit we would have wanted the
  Amiga to have as a base machine.
  When the SNES and MegaDrive/Genesis started selling at half the price of
  an Amiga 600 we had no hope really. Computers started getting a bit
  `out of fasion` for younger generations and also alot of parents saw them as
  the cheaper alternative for the christmas presents
 
  32Bit Chipset,
  I always wondered why they did not start afresh with a new 32 bit blitter.
  They could have used a different area in memory instead of $0dffxxx for NEW
  registers much like the old ones with new functions, say $dffxxxx upwards.
  to keep compatablity with the 16 bit blitter functions the $0dffxxx registers
  just feed the data to the `same` register in the 32 bit registers.
  I would have thought this was the easiest method of doing it and the same
  familiar way of programming remained. The same could have been done with Paula.
 
  Why not on a put the blitter on a card aswell? then all kinds of upgrades could
  have been added in future like 3D accelaration, texture mapping bla.bla.
 
  The CDTV,
  It was a great Idea but the Idea was too ahead of its time I think, the way it
  was marketed was wrong too
  the `man cave` always had a big stack of HiFi kit and big speakers and
  it fitted nicely.
  If you could have the new 32 bit chipset, a faster CD drive ,a built in HDD
  and a wireless keyboard and mouse like todays, it would have been the more
  laid back Amigans machine of choice.
 

posts 75page  1 2 3 4