What would an Amiga be today?

[Dr_Righteous]

persia wrote:
Amiga Inc knows this, that's why they know the "only way to win is not to play.."

Thank you Joshua

[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.

[mdwh2]

Would we buying a PC branded as an Amiga such as there are PC’s branded as DELL and Scan?

Like Apple, today's Amigas would probably be pretty much standard PCs branded as Amiga. However, also like Apple, marketing could still distinguish them from being "PCs". They might also have some minor differences so they weren't "IBM compatible" PCs as such.

The OS would either be one of today's existing OSs, or possibly they might do as Apple did, and modify another existing one. Either way, it would probably not be the classic AmigaOS. Moreover, I would _hope_ it wasn't, due to the deficiencies such as lacking memory protection. Do today's Mac fans wish they were still running the original MacOS, or today's Windows fans wish they were still using DOS/Win 9x, instead of the NT derived Windows?

Didn't Commodore have plans, shortly before going bust, for new Amigas to be using HP RISC processors, running Windows NT? If that had happened, the break from the "classic" line would have been far sooner.

If you want an Amiga of today, just get a PC, slap an Amiga sticker on it, and run UAE if you need some backwards compatibility. It's just as much an Amiga as today's Macs are to the classic Macs

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.

persia wrote:
The Amiga graphics card was built onto the motherboard so it couldn't be easily upgraded and they tried to do the speciality chips themselves. It was a closed system. There was no development money to advance the OS.

These days, an increasing number of PCs make do with only graphics on the motherboard, so in that sense PCs have become more Amiga-like. But yes, a Commodore of today would likely be using standard chipsets, rather than trying to make them themselves.

[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.

[DigitalQ]

kreciu wrote:
@DigitalQ

Information is not a new value. Did you hear saying: "The history is written by this who won the battles", or that "History is written by historians"?

Ah, but it is the content and accuracy of that information that has improved, making that information that much more valuable.  It is no longer controlled by the "State and Church," or, as you suggested, historians and conquerors.  Modern computers have leveled the playing field.  I have the power of the press at my fingertips, and can publish whatever I want.  

You also need to address the fact that information today is not as volatile as it once was.  Before computers, a fire could wipe out centuries of works.  Indeed, the progress of mankind has probably been set back by such destruction.  Who knows what great secrets were hidden in the Library of Alexandria?  It has already been demonstrated that many of the discoveries made then had to be rediscovered.  

kreciu wrote:
Soon nobody will have to go out of the house, to feed it's own virtual pet, water virtual plant, nutrients will be provided by "pipes" directly to you system... ups. I started describing matrix? What the "brilliant" idea, lets make a movie about that?

You are kidding, right?  Much of the advancements in modern technology are getting people out there to discover their world.  GPS navigators are showing people the way to some great historical sites and destinations they might not otherwise have seen.  Their digital cameras have them out photographing nature in all her beauty.  

The biggest advancements we see are in portable electronics.  MP3 players, cellular telephones, laptop and handheld computers, portable gaming systems...clearly, people want to get out of their homes, which is contrary to your assertions.  

Consider the sample pictures that come with Vista.  Names such as "Forest Flowers," "Autumn Leaves," "Forest"...I have 15 sample pictures, all of which have to do with nature.  

Another benefit is that computers and computer technology has led us to more efficient designs.  We now have automobiles that can travel large distances while sipping a minimal amount of fuel.  We have much more energy efficient appliances, and more efficient and safer ways of cooking our food.

No doubt that modern advancements in computers and technology is a double-edged sword.  However, people will ultimately choose what is best for them.

[mdwh2]

kreciu wrote:
This means that today people eat, buy, do what the mighty TV, newspapers, advertisement will tell them to do etc... and they are free? Children "attached" permanently to TV's with game consoles, game pads ... "killing, shooting, and destroying "monsters" in "real 3D". Parents exited in buying new 100" LCD TV and watching football game. Live "on cell phone", people who can't live without it.

I am amused that you criticise new technology by posting about it on a web board - shouldn't you be out being free in the real world, rather than being permanently attached to the Internet with it telling you what to do?

The question is what kind of new value give us new computers? Can we do something better, productive today that 15 years ago, or even 1000?

Of course we can. For any meaningful definition of productivity, it has increased in the last 1,000 years, and in the last 15 too. How that translates into quality of life, or whether that means people are happier or not, are another matter (although I know I'd rather be living in a nice warm flat, being able to use computers and the Internet in my large amounts of leisure time - as opposed spending all day living in cold mud trying to grow minimal amounts of food just to stop myself starving...)

What development of computers change in human nature, how it helped in personal development?

Well, let's start with you - presumably you must like using the Internet, if you're here?

What else do you use the Internet for? What work do you do, or what interests do you have?

For me, my interest and livelihood of programming wouldn't be possible without computers. The Internet makes things much easier, from buying or banking online, to organising my social life and keeping in touch with people. That's not to mention mobile phones - when I'm out, I can use them to contact people or access the Internet anywhere. I can call up maps anywhere on Earth, or listen to music without having to carry around 100s of tapes.

If you're better without technology, why do you use it?

[DigitalQ]

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.  

[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.

[adz]

DigitalQ wrote:

adz wrote:

What?? Stuck back in the 90's? I doubt it. Wasn't the Amiga supposed to be ahead of the times?

This is a common misconception.

Nope, no misconception here, you just missed my point. I was referring to the technology that the AmigaOne is based on. Given that I was replying to a post regarding the AmigaOne, I figured it was pretty straight forward :roll:

[Zorro]

AeroMan wrote:

... Back in 92 SVGA boards were quite slow... AGA was not that bad compared to them, but was showing (fast) it´s age. Commodore was aiming at RTG also at some point in future.
And Windows multitasking was crappy until Win98, many years ahead.

AAA was developed before AGA, so it seems that the big problem  was Commodore management, as always. There was some chance to keep it competitive if they went the right way :-(

Finally someone said it...

[DigitalQ]

AeroMan wrote:

persia wrote:
A more interesting question is would any of us actually be interested in a modern Amiga?  

I do! As long as it is still an Amiga at it´s heart and not just another PC clone.

Elvis still rules! :-D

By the way... Back in 92 SVGA boards were quite slow... AGA was not that bad compared to them, but was showing (fast) it´s age. Commodore was aiming at RTG also at some point in future.
And Windows multitasking was crappy until Win98, many years ahead.

Back in '92, I never considered Windows/DOS a worthy competitor to the AmigaOS; it was OS/2 which had the best multitasking capabilities.  Also, faster high performance SVGA cards did exist for the PC in '92, but the introduction of clock doubled processors (ie; the '486 DX2-66) more than made up for the relative slowness of the low-end SVGA cards.

EDIT: PC's got something else in '92; cheap and good 16 bit sound.  Frustrating that Amigas still were stuck with 8 bit sound.

It was a sad time to be an Amiga loyalist (which I was), all thanks to the mismanagement of Commodore.  For the record, my first new PC was a '486 DX2-66 with 8MB of RAM running OS/2 Warp 3.  I always considered OS/2 Warp to be a natural progression for Amiga owners.

[persia]

Amiga One wasoutdated technology when it was announced and it had no modern OS.  There's never been a vision driving the Amiga, a Steve Jobs who could drive Amiga forward.  The Amiga was born an advanced performance machine and just sat there waiting for the rest of the world to catch up and waved as they went passed.

There hasn't been one single technological advance by a company bearing the Commodore or Amiga name in almost two decades.

[AeroMan]

Back in '92, I never considered Windows/DOS a worthy competitor to the AmigaOS; it was OS/2 which had the best multitasking capabilities.  

OS2 death was one of the sad things that happened to the PC world...

Also, faster high performance SVGA cards did exist for the PC in '92, but the introduction of clock doubled processors (ie; the '486 DX2-66) more than made up for the relative slowness of the low-end SVGA cards.

EDIT: PC's got something else in '92; cheap and good 16 bit sound.  Frustrating that Amigas still were stuck with 8 bit sound.

Even with faster processors things were sluggish. I believe the turn point was the MMX chips. They had something else and x86 performance was throwing the 68k in the past.
16 bit sound was good, but there were no popular boards with more than 2 channels as far as I remember (I may be wrong). Amiga's 4 channels were more useful :-D

BTW, I was at Freescale's chip design facility at Campinas last Friday for a training course. They have a huge place with tons of Dilbert-style cubicles where they do the S08 core and peripherals for PowerQUICC and Coldfire. I was almost screaming "Could someone please do a fully 68k compatible Coldfire?!?!?" ...
 

[coldfish]

People forget that the real reasons for the platform failing wasn't just C=, but weakening consumer demand and greater competition from other platforms.
 
After the multi-platform confusion of the 80s many consumers and businesses wanted a platform they could be relatively confident would be a "safe-bet" for future upgrades and software.  
The Amiga's complex closed architecture prevented it from being this product.

I doubt the Amiga platform would exist even if C= was still around.  I suspect C= would be a PC brand like Dell or HP and the Amiga platform would be much the same as it is a present, minus the A1 and Amiga Inc.

[mdwh2]

But that wasn't a problem for the Mac - and the Amiga only really started having problems after Commodore went bust.

Even if Commodore had switched to using modern PC components instead of the classic Amiga, they could still be using the Amiga brandname (as Apple have done with the Mac brandname).

[coldfish]

The way I remember it, (here in Aus).

C= released the A1200 to which the public responded with general apathy. PCs were already dominating the display area in major retail chains.  In the one of the few stores that still stocked Amiga stuff, a single A1200 was shoved into a poorly lit corner while PCs of all flavours were displayed on island displays under lights in the main area.  This was while C= were still around.

Later they released the CD32 which was largely ignored by retail, one chain stocked it for about 3 months then it mysteriously disappeared of shelves.  This was about a year before C= folded.

I think the Amiga hardware platform was already on its knees long before C= died, here in Aus at least.

If C= had brought out a Amiga branded x86 PC back then all they wouldve done is alienate the Amiga crowd and been another expensive branded PC clone.

Despite Amiga hardware tech' being great in its day, it just couldnt keep up with PC technology once it had gained momentum.