C65

[Psy]

Okay from what I understand Commodore started working on the C65 in 1990 (and killed it the following year), when the Apple 2 GS was already looking old.  Why did Commodore wait so long, it should have been obvious that by 1990 they missed their chance.  A few years eariler it could have helped the Amiga by bridging C64 with the Amiga, at the very least maximise profits from the C64 market yet I highly doubt even if Commodore launched the C65 in the 90's it would have been succesful.

[Psy]

I think the C65 should have used the 65C816 like the Apple ][ GS as the point of the C65 would have been the same as the GS except C64/Amiga compatiblity.  On top of that putting Workbench on it would of course have forced Workbench to early on to be portable thus by the mid 90's Workbench wouldn't have been so tied to the Amiga hardware.

[Psy]

foleyjo wrote:
yeah I remember an artical in a C64 mag (Commodore format or something) where it was asked would C65 be able ro run Amiga software. The answer : No because that would make it an Amiga

I ment filesystem and sourcecode compatiblity, meaning while no binary compabitility it just would just take a simple recompile which would be very possible with a ported version Workbench (that Commodore didn't plan, but would have been a good idea)

[Psy]

My point is that Commodore made little effort to migrate C64 users and devlopers.

Think if Commodore in say 1987 came out with a computer that had a solid C64 mode, VIC-II and SID based chipset with something like a 65C816 CPU that run close to all C64 software flawlessly and you could plug in common C64 peripherals.  

Outside of the C64 mode your running Amiga Dos and possiblity Workbench, your can plug in common Amiga peripherals, use Amiga formated disks, past C64 compatibility the chipset aims towards Amiga compatibility.

The aim wouldn't be to make this computer run Amiga software but for the Amiga to run its, so C64 users could use it as a springboard onto the Amiga.

[Psy]

koaftder wrote:
There was no real chance of bridging the amiga to c64 in the beginning. C64 was a different processor, and the amiga didnt have enough computing power to emulate it. Back in c64 land, compatability wasnt an issue, the field was new and people were accepting of that

The Mac and Apple ][ too had different processors but the GS was release to bridge the gap.  Commodore probably could have done the same thing but cheaper, a in between computer that was closer to the Amiga then the C64 while remaning compabitable with the C64.

If it worked instead of the bulk of C64 users jumping to a wide range of computers, the majority would proably have jumped to the Amiga due to their data being fully compatible with the Amiga and sources for the in between computer just needing a simple recompile.

[Psy]

Commodore was selling the C64 into the 90's thus why in 1989/1990 it started this C65 idea.  This is why I find it odd that they didn't early just slap early Amiga chipsets with VIC and SID modes onto a 65C816 CPU, port Amiga Dos and possibly workbench 1.x, it would have helped push C64 users towards the Amgia so they could retire the aging C64.

Instead Commodore made a bunch of C64 spinoffs with minor improvmens.


 

[Psy]

Floid wrote:
The way this piece of history fit into Commodore managerial logic is described pretty well in Bagnall's book.  I don't have it in front of me, but politics and licensing drove a lot of basic architectural choices in the 65xx machines.

It's got Herd in there describing the rough moment when someone realized 'Doh! Compatibility would make sense!'  (Somewhere around the Plus 4, and lo, the next major release was the 128.)

There was not only a issue of compatiablity to Amiga, the C64 was getting outdated by 1986, lets take a look at 8-bit video game consoles at the time.

C64 could do 16 colors, the Sega Master System could do 52 and NES could do 24. *all colors are at the same time

C64 ran at about 1Mhz, the Sega Master System at about 3.5 Mhz and the NES about 1.8 Mhz

Even Atari's 8-bit computers was kicking the C64s ass by then in terms of performance with the 800XE running at about 1.8 Mhz.

Yet Commodore just pumped out the same C64 in different cases (C64C,C64G and C64GS) without doing much to hold onto the large C64 user base (by either upgrading the C64 or migrating the users to the Amiga)

[Psy]

But software like SimCity2000 and other similar from that era were definitely poorly programmed ports of PC software so there go all the benefits of the Amiga's custom chips.

That was mostly due to a realtivily small userbase that was mostly due to the lack of marketing of the Amiga.  In the late 80's Commodore could have taken on IBM compats with comparison ads showing how easier it is to play games on the Amiga, the better gaming experince and lower cost then PCs but Commodore couldn't because it was also in the PC market.

If Amiga had a larger userbase devlopers like Maxis would have taken more time in devlopment for the Amiga.

[Psy]

nadoom wrote:
i wonder how much money they made on each unit?

do you think that commodore made more per unit than other manufacturers?

I don't know

a lot ( if not all) of commodores problems seem to stem from greed, and lack of vision. Would we have been better off with jack tramiel in charge? <:( at least he had some bond other than making money in commodore.. he created it.

He took over Atari and Atari was able to make Commodore look competent. Sure Atari marketed the Jaugar but it was a mess from a design stand point and its hardware was buggy making it a nightmare to program for it, also Atari pulled the Falcon to focus on the Jaguar.

[Psy]

I wonder what would have happened if Warner sold Atari to Commodore instead?  Odds are there wouldn't be a ST and ST users would have been Amiga users beefing up the Amiga userbase.  While alot of talent left Atari during the time it was under Warner managment it could still have devloped games for the Amiga.