raddude9:
Amiga OS:
Took half a decade to get from 1.1 to 2.0
I don't think that was a big deal. Really, AmigaOS did its job quite well for the hardware at the time. AGA really stifled 3.x in a
big way.
What about getting Windows from 9x to NT5? That transition was way, way overdue. What about MacOS? Even after every Mac had a PPC, Apple still didn't put much effort into modernizing the OS with real memory protection ("Macs don't crash"), and in the end, they effectively scrapped it and started over with someone else's OS. It took Linux about a decade before people started taking it seriously, and it still has market share in the single digits.
Bloodline: Atari's fate would not have changed. Imagine if Apple had bought the Amiga team...
Didn't Steve Jobs scoff at Lorraine, saying it "had too much hardware?"
Apple has too long a history of packaging mediocre hardware in fancy boxes.
Dammy: IIRC, Haynie stated about the time that of C='s death was the time the x86 was really picking up steam. I will point out that is when he decided against Zorro IV and was going to go with PCI. C= guessed the the big market was indeed x86, they just botched it with the 486 speed increase issues.
It would've been interesting to see what would have come of PPC if both Amiga and Apple were using the chip. If anything, haveing more "real" computers use it would have helped one of PPC's major drawbacks: sucky legacy support. In its early days, MacOS was hardly robust enough to use PPC to its fullest potential.
Coldfish: The A500's poor upgradability didnt help.
Arguable, seeing how well Apple has done. I find it sad that you need to spend at least $1,200 on a Mac just to get one expansion slot. Even an A1200 is more expandable than an iMac.
Bloodline: Only apple survived because Jobs is an arrogant MoFo.
Sorry, it's totally obvious, but it pleases me to hear at least one other person say it. :-)
