Good old videos os AMIGA and Commodore 64!

[DavidF215]

You know, there are a lot of good points in the C64 video. The most important combination of points, I think, is that the C64 was an inexpensive computer that was easy to use. Also, Commodore flooded the market emphasizing the ease of use and the low cost.

There is still no product that addresses this market today in 2005. A grandma and grandpa that could use the C64 to create a program to help her knit; I haven't heard of something like that on a Windows or MacOS computer.

AmigaOS is still the perfect candiate for this, but the A1 is still way too expensive. Workbench is simple to use. Put AmigaOS and Workbench on a modern day PDA chip, stick it in a small box with a keyboard. Provide a few program goodies, and sell it for less than $200 or even $100. Or create a PDA with AmigaOS and Workbench that can be connected to a keyboard and monitor for normal computer use.

[DavidF215]

B00tDisk wrote:

DavidF215 wrote:
You know, there are a lot of good points in the C64 video. The most important combination of points, I think, is that the C64 was an inexpensive computer that was easy to use. Also, Commodore flooded the market emphasizing the ease of use and the low cost.

This statement is specious at best.  The C64 was no easier - or harder - to use than comparable PCs of the time.  All had the same requirement that at the very least you had to load a program first before they could do anything, and the ease of use depended on the program itself.

Yeah, that is true somewhat. Most programs loaded the same, so that helped to make it easier: Load "*",8,1

In fact, given that unlike the Atari or Apple or IBM the C64 had no disk autoloader, the user had to load a program manually thus putting it one step behind the others.  Additionally, the user had to wait and wait and wait for programs to load on the '64.  The advent of Fast Load -type cardridges came along later in the C64's life.  Other turbo programs you either had to load by hand or type in (I'm thinking of a few I saw in Ahoy! and Compute's! Gazette).

The loading speed was an issue. Never liked it, but hey at least there were 16 colors compared to the IBM B&W.

The '64s popularity came from it's ubiquity and C='s willingness to dump palletloads of the things at Montgomery Wards, K-Mart, and so on.  If, say, Exidy had been as initially successful at marketing things would be no different regarding the Sorcerer and Sorcerer II.  

I always did wonder about that. C= made a massive effort with the C64, but did nothing similar with the Amiga.

The C64 was a typical computer of it's day, it just had a large user base thanks to cutthroat business tactics on the part of C=, tactics which were (bafflingly) dropped when they bought the Lorraine/Hi-Toro and turned it in to the Amiga.

Don't get me wrong; I had a C64 and I loved it, but I've understood over the years what made it so popular.  Apple computers had better overall hardware, Atari computers had a superior disk/file management system, IBMs were more expandable...C= just had the price point.

KMOS may need to use similar cut throat techniques to get a foot hold in a market for AmigaOS again. And unfortunately, there is no Amiga solution that could be manufactured with a low enough price to dump pallet loads of Amiga computers off at similar places, too.

[DavidF215]

B00tDisk wrote:
What's that you say?  What about Linux?  Linux didn't happen in a vacuum either.  If Linux had required some hardware widget that didn't exist when it was concieved, it would've gone down without a ripple.  But it ran (rather, runs) on cheap PC hardware.  And it's still a tiny fraction of the PC desktop market, and nowhere near a majority in the server market.

If Linux is in bad position as you say it is, then why is Microsoft considering it a threat? Obviously, it is no longer the small, dainty OS that you think it is. At least Microsoft recognizes the potential of Linux to cause problems with its bottom line. THAT is the fact. According to the surveys from big IT companies, the LinuxOS market share is growing in the server market very rapidly. Big companies like IBM are behind its development (IBM even added some Linux support into its Enterprise level AIX OS), so you will never be able to claim adequately that Linux has "nowhere near a majority in the server market". Linux exists in many solutions, with Enterprise support, and a continually growing market. I will admit that I am not a big Linux fan, but I continue to read how it is gaining market share; and if Microsoft consideres it a threat to its Monopoly, then to suggest that it is has a small, unimportant market share is ignorant and dogmatic.