CUSA makes the BBC news site

[mdwh2]

They're also planning Amiga models:

http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_Amiga.aspx

http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_Amiga2000.aspx

http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_Amiga3000.aspx

And some more: http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_FutureModels.aspx

Today's "Macs" are just PCs in an Apple branded box. But no one moans about that. Yes it's unlikely to be of interest to people using the later generations of Amigas, but that doesn't mean other people won't be interested. And surely anything that keeps the brand alive, and stops the Amiga being forgotten to history, is a good thing?

Plus here's the thing: if Commodore hadn't gone bust, today's Amigas would likely have little in common the classic Amigas. Whilst even AmigaOS 4 is a derivative of the classic Amiga 3.x, like Apple, they may well have switched OS completely (I'm sure in the late days of Commodore, they talked about Windows NT Amigas running on HP Risc machines). Post AGA chipsets would have broken compatibility. And again like Apple, they may well have eventually switched to x86. The reality is that these "PCs in a custom case" are probably far closer to what we'd have had if Commodore had never gone bust, than these various derivatives of the classic Amiga that we've instead got.

Also of interest is that the Commodore 64 version will have emulation as standard. If they do this for their Amiga models, that will be cool. Yes, you can run WinUAE yourself, but having it plugged in as standard would be a good thing for bringing it to a wider audience (and makes it even closer to a "true" Amiga than if Commodore have ever gone bust - I doubt their HP Risc Windows NT Amigas would have had emulation for backwards compatibility). People seemed to love Amithlon - no one care that that was running on just a PC.

One thing I'm curious of though - do they actually have the rights to the "Amiga"? I've lost track of what the latest in Amiga ownership has, but I presumed Amiga the company were still around - have they licensed the name? (In which case good for them.) Or have the new Commodore mistakenly thought that since they own the rights to Commodore, they also have the rights to the Amiga name? (In which case, I fear that a great idea will end up dying in a crappy legal battle. Again.)

ETA: http://www.twice.com/article/466478-Rejuvenated_Commodore_64_Back_On_Sale.php claims they bought rights to the name.

[mdwh2]

Yes indeed - it's still possible to sell just a "PC in a case" by adding value to them and differentiating them; as this company are doing.

I have a cheap Acer laptop with pretty much the same specs as my wife's Macbook. It cost 1/3 of the Mac. But it's easy to see why (though perhaps not the *whole* price difference): It's lighter, it doesn't creak and give if you lift it by one edge. It's got all kinds of little touches like a backlit keyboard. Its keyboard isn't falling to pieces after a few months, the battery still holds the charge far better, and so on. If you want "just a PC" without the Apple brand of similar quality, you do actually end up paying pretty much the same as for the Macbook, and  there aren't many alternatives around. Attention to detail places Apple product pretty close to the top in terms of PC manufacturers if you are to rank by quality.

Yes this is the thing, you get what you pay for. Apple PCs are still PCs - there are other higher end brands such as Sony and Dell laptops too, so there's still nothing special about them. Sounds like you got a very crappy Acer though, I've not had those kinds of issues with any non-Apple PCs I've had. Different models have different areas where they are better - my Samsung N220 is cheap, as light as an Apple laptop, and smaller, with decent keyboard, and longer battery life. Of course it has lower specs - PCs (including Apple) are just built using the same kind of components, no one manufacturer can magically make their PCs better or cheaper without sacrificing something.

No one dismisses these as PCs; PC hardware is what most people want these days, and why these new Amigas - whether we like it or not - have better chance of sales then the various continuations of the classic Amiga technology.

[mdwh2]

Amen.

It's all those small things indeed, such as:

• enough grunt to actually be usable, unlike those crappy sub-notebooks with win7 basic. eow...

I'm using a so-called crappy sub-notebook right now, and is fine. I mean what, people once moaned that Windows was bloated, but for OS X, 1GB and a 1.6GHz processor isn't enough?

But what's Apple's offering in the same mobile market? An Ipad, which has even less grunt, and has an OS far more basic than Windows 7 starter.

But anyhow, the choice is not "Apple laptops versus cheap netbooks". Other companies have been producing a range of PCs - desktops and laptops - long before Apple started doing their PCs. Choice is good - why stick with just one make of PC?

Yes, some people like Apple PCs - some people like Dell, some people like Sony, some people like Samsung, others just buy what fits their particular needs best. As long as we're agreed that they're just another brand of PCs What I really don't get is this myth of them "not being PCs", as if this was still back in the days when we had IBM PCs, classic Macintoshes; and that somehow this makes Macs special above all PCs.

I like my Samsung N220 for its small size, long battery life, light weight, decent keyboard, and running a full OS. It has a decent sized hard disk to actually be usable (unlike the Apple Air). I like my custom-built desktop PC because it gives all the power I need, and doesn't cost loads. Apple have nothing that could come anywhere near supplying either of these needs.

• cooling system that doesn't melt the laptop if you place the system on a soft surface

Not had this problem on my netbook, it doesn't actually have fan holes on the bottom.

• magnetic power connector that prevents disasters (has saved 2 different macbook pros for me already)

Actually, this is a negative for Apple - the reason you won't see this on other laptops is because, believe it or not, they have a patent for "Magnetic connector for electronic device".

No other "normal" laptop would have survived the beating this one received: busted_macbook_pro.jpg

My cheap Advent took quite a beating. And Thinkpads are reportedly quite robust. But I'm curious why you say "normal" - so there are other laptops that do, after all?

@runequester: What's the point in any brand of PC, when you could just build your own from bits?

The answer is that although enthusiasts and geeks like us do that, most people do not. They happily pay money to have a complete all in one ready made solution. And in particular, even for those of us who are geeks, it doesn't seem trivial to make a custom Commodore 64 or Amiga case, for modern PC hardware...?

It's also not clear to me why someone needs to be writing their own OS for them to be "interesting". Let's face it - whilst Apple do right OS X, it wouldn't be off character for them to dump that technology, and use something else, yet the new machines would still be branded as "Macs", which they'd insist "aren't PCs". Consider how all of the pro-Apple PC comments here have been about the hardware, not OS X - at least one person said how he runs Windows 7 on his Apple PC.

When - exactly - Apple sold "Macintoshs" with an vanilla BSD distro, an Apple desktop backdrop and Sheepshaver for running 68k MacOS software?

See above on my comments on why is it so important to write your own custom OS. And they did use emulation to provide backwards compatibility - again, is it better to reinvent the wheel? There are plenty of other areas where Apple have moved from custom hardware to standard 3rd party hardware, in that "Macs" are now straightforward PCs. Why must the OS be custom, but not the hardware?

I'm not interested in a computer in a keyboard, it's a silly idea in 2011, but if you come up with an interesting OS, well, that's something different.

I'm not sure it's that silly - there is some market for PCs that are desktops, but don't take up much space. I've seen both "small box" PCs, as well as PCs combined with the monitor. Why not with the keyboard? That means you can choose the monitor separately, whilst still avoiding the need for a separate box.

[mdwh2]

Apple has the Macbook Air for countering the PC netbook market, and it's a stunning piece of hardware as long as your needs do not exceed what it offers.

It is not in any sense a "netbook". It's way more expensive, and larger (11" are referred to as ultra-portable laptops, netbooks are 10" or below).

It's in the same market as other high end ultra-portable laptops. These other high end laptops are also stunning piece of hardware. I mean, at that price, you'd hope so. I guess I don't see what's so worthy of praise - every other PC company can produce stunning PC hardware if you're willing to pay through the nose, so why not Apple, now that they're just another PC manufacturer? It's not like this is back in the days when they were competing on an entirely different hardware platform. 10 years ago, the question of whether the market might go to the Mac rather than the PC might have been quite interesting - just as we might have liked it to go to the Amiga. But these days, it's just a question of one PC maker versus another.

Having said all this, whilst we have differing views over what PCs we like, it does make the point of what I was originally trying to say: even though Apple just make PCs these days, that doesn't stop them selling them, and indeed, having people get quite enthusiastic over them. These days, people want modern PC hardware, and companies differentiate themselves in other aspects, such as design, cases, services. So I think there's certainly plenty to be said for Commodore's approach, as opposed to the approach of trying to update the original AmigaOS, and doing it on non-x86 hardware. Apple would have died long ago if they stuck with selling PowerPC Macs running a derivative of the classic MacOS.

(The biggest competition for the netbook market is probably the low end ultra-laptop market, since for only slightly more money, people can get something much more powerful, with it only being slightly larger; again Apple have nothing there.)

I own one and run Win7 on it, and I love it.  Comparing a netbook to an iPad is silly, completely different devices to anyone that's used either.  Netbook offers far more functionality, iPad is simply an appliance running a kiosk like OS.

Well yes, I agree it's silly in that a netbook beats an Ipad hands down. I'm just saying, if you want something smaller than 11", or a cheap mobile computer, Apple have nothing except that.