Leander stop trying to re-write history.
NO U.
Firstly if the engineers at Commodore were "allowed" to do what they wanted by their employers, then there's a good chance that Amiga might have survived a lot longer. Commodore Inc, screwed up.
They were comissioned to design and build a games console. They decided instead to build a full blown computer, ran out of cash. C= bought them up.
How is this rewriting history? Oh that's right, it isn't.
That Comodore couldn't organise a booze up in a brewery is besides the point.
Even before the release of the A4000, there were available for the Amiga (via zorro) both graphics and sound cards that offered far superior performance to AGA.
The writing was on the wall. Even the AAA set would have been behind the times - it was (if I remember my C.S.A.A Dave Haynie comments correctly) capable only of 16bit screenmodes whilst the PC was using 32bit chips as standard on desktops and had DSP soundcards.
Dave also pointed out that PCI slots were being looked into for precisely this reason - they would allow cheap access to powerful hardware.
There were plans in the early 1990's for hardware and software that would have extended Commodore's technological advantage and made your P100 CPU with 16 meg running Win 95 every bit the boat anchor that it was.
I remember a guy on here talking about how he litterally spent many hundreds getting an 060 card for his A4000, only for his brothers Pentium PC that in it's totality cost half as much run rings around it doing lightwave rendering.
No amount of bug-fixes for that set up would have turned it from the horse-drawn carriage that it was, to the modern motor car that the Amiga still was. But some illegal business practices from MS, stupidity from IBM to let the x86 patent lapse, plus total business incompetence from Commodore, along with some smart business practices like selling cheap to the business world and subsidizing workers home computer if they ran MS crap, results in inferior technology eventually winning out. Apple was on its knees for the same reason, and was saved by a portable music player.
Apple survive and thrive now because they offer an end to end computing experience that is seamless - Something that no one else can say they do in the general computing market. They were on their knees because it stubbornly refused to get off the PPC, yes, the iPod has been a runaway success, but be under absolutely no illusion: the move to x86 saved the computer lines.
Evolution doesn't promote "the best", it promotes "good enough". Both in terms of hardware and software, the Amiga was effectively end of life by the time AGA was released.
Conceptually, there's a lot of amiga in today's PC hardware and OS architecture. Co-processors, pre-emptive multitasking, fast boot and shut down, prioritising the user input over other tasks. The PC may go about it in a different way but the objectives are the same.
Because no computer ever had any of that before...
To declare pretty much all of these concepts as born of the Amiga is arrogant at best.
As for conceptually, no, the Amiga has more in common with a games console - a closed, tightly integrated system.
you're doing it again: trying to re-write history.
NO U.
Just before Commodores collapse, no-one-and I mean no-one- regarded the PC architecture of the day as being modern. In fact it was seen as down right archaic.
And? The fact is it doesn't have to be "modern". The bebox was modern, what it has to be is flexable, it has to be cheap. And I'd say one of the biggest selling points
was the lack of patents involved.
The x86 hardware architecture ended up dominating that way because the patent was allowed to lapse by IBM, who themselves saw no future in the heap of junk that the x86 platform was. No patent meant every electronics hardware factory in Taiwan could mass produce the same junk for next to nothing, and intel could keep ramping up the mhz on its CPU's to overcome many of the bottle necks that existed throughout the system. Highly moduler and flexible, in ways the amiga simply couldn't compete? My backside!!!
I can take a motherboard and depending on what I plug into it, use it as the basis of a Asterisk telephone exchange, any number of server configurations, a silent low power office box, hardcore gaming system or anything in between. And the key part is I can rip out non necessary parts (such as graphics chips, for instance).
All from one motherboard. And by one I mean any ATX motherboard currently in production.
As for bottlenecks. There is really only one on a modern system and thats the hard drive. Its been the only real bottleneck for the past 10 years. SATA on it's own doesn't offer any significant performance boost over PATA, what it does offer (at least in just about any board you buy today) is cheep and easy RAID. Which does boost performance.
Name one thing you couldn't shove in a Zorro slot (since 1985) that let you do everything that an ISA or PCI slot let you have? And it autoconfiged. One will do.
Be affordable.
Be available.
"Right back at ya"
As for the Mac, I stand corrected.
