Why C= never made a 65816 based machine?

[Dementhor]

LOL sounds like I haven't been the only one to have wet dreams along the lines of "If I were a Commodore CEO, the Amiga would be one of the major platforms in business as well as multimedia by now" (^__~ )

[psxphill]

yes it does, but it would be cheaper and have backwards compatibility with C64 software. Plus, a 20 MHz 65816 is faster than a 7 MHz 68000 so it could a very interesting package. Timeframe around the original C65, 90-91', A500 would be replaced with A1200 in a year, A600 would not be needed.

 
It wouldn't have had meaningful backwards compatibility, just like the C65.
In 1989 they should have had an 020 machine with chunky graphics.
 

I'm not sure that the 20mhz 65816 used by CMD was available that early either.

[desiv]

Well, Wozniak did say Apple demanded that the 65816 in the II GS was clocked at only 2.8 MHz to make sure it didn't threaten the Mac performance and sales..

Although, here he listed purely technical reasons:
http://www.1000bit.it/support/articoli/apple/a2gs/interview_woz.asp

Our early ideas for the computer had it running at 8 MHz. Soon we found we had to back off to about 5.5 MHz, and then to 2 MHz for that version of the processor. In the end, the product came out at about 3 MHz, which is a good compromise.

And it's hard to imagine that the 65815 is twice as fast as the 68000, although I suppose that all depends on what you're doing with it...
With the Mac, it was doing everything, so that 7Mhz 68k did feel really slow....

desiv

[WolfToTheMoon]

It wouldn't have had meaningful backwards compatibility, just like the C65.
In 1989 they should have had an 020 machine with chunky graphics.
 

I'm not sure that the 20mhz 65816 used by CMD was available that early either.

Around 90', max from WDC was 12MHz... Doesn't really matter, even a 7 MHz 65816 will be more than fast enough.
Compatibility can be improved thru emulation.

[WolfToTheMoon]

Although, here he listed purely technical reasons:
http://www.1000bit.it/support/articoli/apple/a2gs/interview_woz.asp



And it's hard to imagine that the 65815 is twice as fast as the 68000, although I suppose that all depends on what you're doing with it...
With the Mac, it was doing everything, so that 7Mhz 68k did feel really slow....

desiv

65816 is much more cycle efficient than 68K... as long as your using 16 bit data and relatively simple instruction, it can be even more than 2 times the speed of an 68000... however, 68000 is much faster on 32 bit ops and has more registers and more instructions... it's a better chip, no doubt, but a well optimized code for the 65816 will FLY!!!

[psxphill]

Around 90', max from WDC was 12MHz... Doesn't really matter, even a 7 MHz 65816 will be more than fast enough.
Compatibility can be improved thru emulation.

You wouldn't be able to do it, if you emulated the 6502 your timing would be all wrong & you don't have enough processing power to emulate enough in software to relax the timing issues.
 
By 1990 the amiga was underpowered, spending money on developing another underpowered computer doesn't make sense.

[WolfToTheMoon]

You wouldn't be able to do it, if you emulated the 6502 your timing would be all wrong & you don't have enough processing power to emulate enough in software to relax the timing issues.
 
By 1990 the amiga was underpowered, spending money on developing another underpowered computer doesn't make sense.

There's no need to emulate 6502, there's a compatibility mode in 65816.

You're missing the point... yes, it wouldn't be the fastest machine around, but that's not what it's for. It would be dirt cheap and plenty fast. A early 90's C64...

Another bonus would be for WDC that would allow them to maybe introduce 65832 and 65032 chips eventually.

[psxphill]

There's no need to emulate 6502, there's a compatibility mode in 65816.

It's not compatible enough. Both for timing and the instruction set.
 
To make it faster than an a500 would require faster memory than an a500. It wouldn't have been cost effective enough.
 
To achieve the price you wanted would require you to aim around the same speed as the c65/snes/iigs.

[cgutjahr]

You're missing the point... yes, it wouldn't be the fastest machine around, but that's not what it's for. It would be dirt cheap and plenty fast. A early 90's C64...

You are missing the point. This is not just about speed - it's about price, target audience and percieved value for money.

The C64 was still selling like crazy in 1990, while the A500 had dropped below the 1000 DM/350 UKP mark by then. Between these two, there was simply no space for another machine. The C128 had been discontinued for that very reason, despite selling better than the A500.

Introducing another machine between these two would have just hurt sales of the existing two options. It would have made an A500 look to expensive or the C64 to slow. Not to mention that a third incompatible platform would have been extremely stupid, especially as late as 1990.

As somebody already said: the C64, the A500 and (to a lesser extent) the C128 were handled properly. The real problems were the lack of focus, the lack of advertising and the number of crappy computers (+4/C16/C116, A500+, A600) Commodore released, apparently to stop their best sellers from becoming too successful.

[cgutjahr]

It's not compatible enough. Both for timing and the instruction set.

I used to have a SuperCPU, and it was pretty compatible, AFAIR. The official 6502 instruction set was fully supported, it just didn't handle illegal opcodes. But that was more of a problem when watching demos, most games and especially applications worked fine.

[pwermonger]

The reason is probably similar to why the C65 was cancelled before consumer production. They would have competed too closely with the 500, which the C65 was already positioned to do, and the IIGS did with the lower end Mac.
 
I think everyone knew these machines were dead ends so having them cannibalize sales of the 16/32 bit machines would have been shortsighted and really wasted development time.
 
Think, if Commodore didnt 'waste' time, money and talent on the C65 and instead put that effort into Amiga how much better the 500/2000 might have been.
 
I think Commodore also probably felt that with 64 Emulator 2 for the Amiga, 8bit Commodore folks had an upgrade path in the 500.
 
Why they chose the chip they chose for the C65 development instead of that one is probably the usual, Commodore would rather use their own chip instead of someone elses.

[bbond007]

65816 is much more cycle efficient than 68K... as long as your using 16 bit data and relatively simple instruction, it can be even more than 2 times the speed of an 68000... however, 68000 is much faster on 32 bit ops and has more registers and more instructions... it's a better chip, no doubt, but a well optimized code for the 65816 will FLY!!!

I would also think that the 65816 programmers would have to struggle with the same type of segmented memory architecture issues that DOS and early windows and OS/2 programmers had to deal with when trying work with more than 64K RAM.

[Pentad]

Commodore couldn't have managed their way out of a hat.

Content to sit back on their money earners, they stopped innovating and, surprise surprise, a few years later they were bust.

Hattig,

I could not agree with you more that CBM could not manage their way out of a hat but I do not agree with the rest of your argument.

The Commodore 64 was their bread winner for a long time and while they did stupid things like the Commodore 16 and Plus/4, the Commodore 128 was a worthy successor to the 64 with some nice features.

I've heard others complain that the 8 bit line should have evolved but I'm not sure where you go from the 128?  I too loved the 64 and I also loved the 128.  I'm not trying to give you a hard time but I pose this question to you:  If you try to evolve the 8bit line, don't you start running into serious problems?  For example:

1.  When you start adding a more powerful CPU, graphics, etc..., when do you run into the Amiga 500?

2.  Cost.  Again you start upgrading the CPU/Graphics and don't you run into the Amiga 500 price point?

3.  Performance.  Again, doesn't the Amiga 500 make more sense given the above?  If Commodore could have done a hardware/software emulator like Apple did for the Apple II to Mac folks that might have been better.  We all know how poorly the software only emulators ran on a stock 500.

Also, do people care?  I remember people wanting to run GEOS on the Commodore 64 emulator for their Amiga 500/2000.  Does that make sense?  Does using Paperclip make sense on an Amiga with an emulator?

4.  In a world of 16/32 bit goodness, would the market support another 8/16 bit machine even turbo-ized?  I'm not sure...

Lastly, isn't the Commodore 65 the embodiment of the above issues?  Where does the Commodore 65 live?  It's cost was close to a 500, not fully compatible with the 64, and not as powerful as an Amiga.  How do you sell that to the public in the 90's.  

Hattig, I think you ask a great question.

Cheers!
-P

[WolfToTheMoon]

It's not compatible enough. Both for timing and the instruction set.

it was compatible enough for Apple II GS...
 

To make it faster than an a500 would require faster memory than an a500. It wouldn't have been cost effective enough

It doesn't need to be faster than A500, just to be a good enough upgrade on C64/C128 and allow people to use their existing C64/C128 software...

I think everyone knew these machines were dead ends so having them
cannibalize sales of the 16/32 bit machines would have been
shortsighted and really wasted development time.

I don't see why they would be dead ends... WDC had a 32 bit version of the 65xx ready and much of the Eastern Europe and the rest of developing countries had trouble affording PCs and even low end Amigas/Ataris well in to the 90s... I got my first PC, a 486/50, somewhere around 97'... and it was used... up untill then I still used my C64.

The C64 was still selling like crazy in 1990, while the A500 had dropped
below the 1000 DM/350 UKP mark by then. Between these two, there
was simply no space for another machine. The C128 had been
discontinued for that very reason, despite selling better than the A500.

I'm talking abour a successor machine to the C64/C128, not something to slot between C64 and A500.

[kzin]

they talked about the reasons for this in the book "ON THE EDGE The spectacular rise & fall of commodore" but I cannot find the page ATM, cant remember the exact details.

[slaapliedje]

I often wonder what would have happened had Atari and Commodore merged instead of both dying off around the same time.  Atari lasted a little longer than Commodore, but not a whole lot.  Atari had basically announced the Falcon, then shortly after said "well screw computers, we're going back to Consoles, here's the Jaguar, behold it's awesomeness!" then afterward faded away into obscurity.

Commodore tried the same thing with the CD32, but much like the Jaguar, there weren't a whole lot of software titles that you couldn't already get for whatever 16/32 bit computer you had.  

Remember what Sega did with the Genesis?  They released a converter for Sega Master System games.  That's exactly what Atari and Commodore should have done for their 16/32 bit machines.  Just supply some 5.25" floppy drive that had some hardware in it for emulation.  Would have been a killer product and allowed established software categories to be utilized on newer systems.

Of course the problem with this is that it's too 'nice' to the consumers, and management figures most people wouldn't part with the cash to get the newer versions of conversions.  But honestly, would you stay with the crappy version of Double Dragon for the C64, when you could get the far better version for the Amiga?

slaapliedje