What would an Amiga be today?

[Psy]

SamuraiCrow wrote:
The AAA chipset was going to get canned

I doubt it would have been very impressive by the time Commodore would have finally shipped machines with the AAA chipset.

and Commodore was thinking of dropping their own operating system in favor of the PowerPC version of Windows NT.  

Windows NT had worse software support then the Amiga at the time, what would haven been the bloody point?

Even if they hadn't gone belly-up they still would have made a terrible mess of things and still gotten it wrong.  Management at Commodore towards the end was outright anti-Amiga and pro-PC.

I thought Commodore didn't really make much money off IBM clones.

My opinion:  Commodore was doomed in many ways at once.  It would have gone under one way or another anyhow.

Well the CD-32 was selling, maybe Commodore would have become a game console company and then got crushed like Atari when the PSX finally launched.

[Psy]

The PS1 came from Nintendo.

Nintendo joined up with sony to develop a CDrom Add-on for the  N64 to compete with the SegaCD, However they couldn't agree on the licensing terms.

Therefore sony went of and mad the PS1

You mean SNES not N64

[Psy]

uncharted wrote:

Tension wrote:
That`s easy - It would be the PS3 without a shadow of a doubt.

The PS3 is the CD32 taken to it`s natural conclusion.

The ultimate incompetent, botched console launch?  :roll:

Sorry you can't beat Sega's incompetence during the North American launch of Sega Saturn.  Sega's surprised launched caught retailers, developers and Sega fans totally off guard.  Lets not forget this is also around the time Sega launched the Sega Nomad with zero marketing.

[Psy]

It would rock if IBM Compats just faded away and we had a 3 way battle between the Commodore Amiga, Apple Macintosh and Sharp X68000 that still raged on to this day.  Then we could still {bleep} about which computers is the best while all of them still being pretty good.

[Psy]

mdwh2 wrote:

SamuraiCrow wrote:
Management at Commodore towards the end was outright anti-Amiga and pro-PC.

But only in the same sense as Apple were "anti-Mac" for wanting to ditch the classic technology. However, no one looks at them this way. Similarly, if things had gone that route, no one would think of Commodore of being anti-Amiga (well, except for the few die hards who also thought an A500+ didn't count as an Amiga); rather, the new machines would be Amigas.

I think he meant Anti-Amiga like how Bernie Stolar of Sega Of America was Anti-Saturn, saying that the Sega Saturn was not part of Sega's future in the middle of its product life and I wouldn't be surprised if Commodore management said something similar about Amiga.  

Like Berine Stolar sabotaging the Sega Saturn's chance in market, I think Commodore managment was sabotaging the Amiga's chance in the market.  Just look at how little devlopment the Amiga went through under Commodore.

[Psy]

DigitalQ wrote:

I think he meant Anti-Amiga like how Bernie Stolar of Sega Of America was Anti-Saturn, saying that the Sega Saturn was not part of Sega's future in the middle of its product life and I wouldn't be surprised if Commodore management said something similar about Amiga.  

Like Berine Stolar sabotaging the Sega Saturn's chance in market, I think Commodore managment was sabotaging the Amiga's chance in the market.  Just look at how little devlopment the Amiga went through under Commodore.

On this, I disagree.  Commodore was never an innovative computer company; rather, they were in it for the money.  Prior to computers, they made office furniture; and before that, they made typewriters; which was after they were simply a typewriter repair shop in Toronto.  They simply delivered whatever was in demand at the time.  The PET was essentially a product of a company called MOS technologies.  The wildly successful Commodore 64 was derived from that, and we can thank MOS engineers that sneaked things in like a synthesizer chip; because if Commodore had its way, that would never have happened.  The logic behind Commodore's decisions was to deliver a product for the cheapest price.  At that, they succeeded...the PET, Vic 20, and Commodore 64 were machines that undercut everything else on the market.  Because of this, they were falling behind technologically.  MOS was an 8 bit company; they needed a 16 bit company which turned out to be Amiga.  They basically did with the Amiga what they did with the 8 bit Commodores.  The A1000 was basically the PET, and the A500 was their C64.  These strategies worked for about the same period of time they worked for their 8 bit years.

MOS were innovators.  Amiga were innovators.  The engineers from these companies that Commodore retained were innovators.  By their very nature, Commodore was not an innovative company.  What appeared to be sabotage was simply the only way they knew how to do business, which is, essentially, hack-and-slash the essentials while those at the top bled the company dry.  Those in control did not know nor care for computers; they lacked vision beyond their bottom line.  At one point, they actually relied on misinformation given to them by their competition (anyone remember the laptop Commodore?)  

So, no genuine sabotage, except for the apparent sabotage which is natural with this way of doing business.  

Except Commodore went from the PET to Vic-20 to C64 to C128 then you had CBM 900 in the pipe when Commodore acquired Amiga so Commodore was innovating back then and at least reacting to its competitors.