I think.........

[psxphill]

It does not matter how advanced the Amiga was when it came out.
The price was/is insignificant.
It does not matter what chip set it had.

I think those points were significant. If it had the same performance as a sinclair spectrum but a higher price then it would not have sold at all.
 
The only viable competition was the ST, the Acorn Archimedes was too expensive and didn't have enough games. However the ST wasn't cheap enough to make up for the lack of power, so it only appealed to those who wanted built in MIDI or couldn't (or wouldn't) pay for an Amiga.
 
There was a time when Amiga could have competed against PC's, but that time is long gone.
 
You're right that blind loyalty to a brand shouldn't be enough to encourage you to part with money. Although I'm sure there are some people that will feel good about buying an X1000, retail therapy isn't particularly healthy in the long term (unless you never run out of money).

[Middleman]

I don't know if you're joking or not.
 
No design from the Amiga ended up in the PS3. Although the CPU that Sony/Toshiba/IBM developed ended up in the xbox 360.
 
The Itanium design wasn't based on the Amiga and wasn't used in the PS3.
 
Zorro and PCI have simularities as does WAV and IFF. That is about it in terms of technology that escaped.
 
All of this generations consoles (PS3/XBOX360/WII) have more in common with the gamecube than the amiga.
 
ICP-Vortex made high performance RAID controllers when Intel bought them. Adaptec seem to own them now.
 
http://www.treadlayers.com/PC_Hardware/Storage/SATA_RAID/RAID_4.shtml

==My friend, didn't you read what I had written. I told you it was a secret...it's not known but it's the truth.

The ICP-Vortex purchase for RAID controllers was really only a front (the sale to Adaptec came 2 years later after the buyout). The real strategic move for Intel was getting their hands on the Amiga technical knowhow from Gateway and from ICP on how their bridgeboard interfaces with the Amiga setup.

Ask yourself the question.....why would Intel (big company as they are)  have any interest in the Amiga? Because of its unique  parallel-processing design. This was the real reason for them buying  ICP. Shortly after it was what allowed them to reveal advances in their X86/IA-64 architecture and subsequent developments in silicon for CELL group (Sony/Toshiba/IBM).

[Middleman]

Hmmm maybe not eh. There is a difference between been Commodore and only having its name. And the USA outfit is a name only affair as far as I am concerned as it shares nothing with its namesake. But let's not bicker about this anyway because its too early in the morning to really be bothered.

Edit--

Thanks for the link. Didn't think you were joking but its always good to post some linkage

Yes Crit, it always is.....

[Digiman]

==My friend, didn't you read what I had written. I told you it was a secret...it's not known but it's the truth.

The ICP-Vortex purchase for RAID controllers was really only a front (the sale to Adaptec came 2 years later after the buyout). The real strategic move for Intel was getting their hands on the Amiga technical knowhow from Gateway and from ICP on how their bridgeboard interfaces with the Amiga setup.

Ask yourself the question.....why would Intel (big company as they are)  have any interest in the Amiga? Because of its unique  parallel-processing design. This was the real reason for them buying  ICP. Shortly after it was what allowed them to reveal advances in their X86/IA-64 architecture and subsequent developments in silicon for CELL group (Sony/Toshiba/IBM).

IBM, unlike Apple, had a lot of interest in Amiga technology. Even Amstrad approached Commodore in an attempt to license the OCS chipset for use in an Amiga chipset based home computer....which they refused as usual.

OS/2 is so much better than Windows 95 simply because IBM were given the chance to exchange technical information in great detail with Commodore. As Commodore had no intention of giving details of how the hardware worked or licensing it the best they could gleen from Commodore was how Kickstart/Workbench worked and why it was such an efficient multi-tasking system. I doubt EISA has much to do with Zorro II or III.

The only thing I know about PS3 though is there was talk of people being interested in running OS4 on the machine, I don't personally know anything beyond that. All I can say is CELL and Xenon (the Xbox 360 CPU) are all PPC based processors, which in turn are improvements on the 680x0 line of processors. But then that is all down to Motorola not Commodore, they just bought the chip off the shelf and used it as instructed by RJ/Jay/Dave for the A1000 (and beyond).

[haywirepc]

Running os4 on ps3 is a fantastic idea. Which is why it will never happen.

The amiga grave robbers won't let people have access to inexpensive fast hardware when they are charging 1000$+ for a 1ghz 10 year old motherboard and processor that was originally manufactured for embedded applications.

Ps3's cost what? 200-300$ bucks used and are VASTLY technically superior in every way to every other os4 machine currently available, including the x1000.

Steven

[psxphill]

Ask yourself the question.....why would Intel (big company as they are) have any interest in the Amiga?

Intel had no interest in the Amiga. You are pre-supposing that they did.
 
There is nothing in the Amiga that could help anybody make modern hardware.
 

All I can say is CELL and Xenon (the Xbox 360 CPU) are all PPC based processors, which in turn are improvements on the 680x0 line of processors.

The PPC doesn't have much in common with the 680x0, the first chips were IBM POWER chips that were shrunk, modified to use the 88000 bus and then manufactured under license by Motorola (Motorola's own RISC processor the 88000 didn't do very well so it made sense to go into business with IBM). PPC didn't come into the Amiga's history until after Commodore were dead & it only happened because Apple had made a similar transition (not because of simularities between the processors but because there was nothing else apart from Intel).
 
Windows 95 was Windows 3.1 with some tweaks, that was why OS/2 was arguably better (although it wasn't until OS/2 3.0 that you could say it was better with a straight face as the earlier versions were horrible). Windows NT was better than OS/2 & that was based on VMS, which predated the Amiga by a very long shot.
 
The only reason that Windows 95 existed at all is because Microsoft needed a new product and Windows NT was going to need more RAM than consumers were prepared to buy.

[psxphill]

Ask yourself the question.....why would Intel (big company as they are) have any interest in the Amiga?

Intel had no interest in the Amiga. You are pre-supposing that they did.
 
It's a conspiracy theory with no logical basis.

[Digiman]

Windows 95 whilst being quite a quick and dirty way of doing it was fast, extremely fast. How do I know? Because there is no Linux equivalent remotely as usable on a Libretto 30CT (100mhz 586 + 8mb Ram) as Win 95.

So whilst it is like a rust hole filled Alfa Romeo car (memory leaks and GDI resource leaks) it is quick and that's why it sold, that and the fact that Windows 3.1 was just a weird GUI.

OS/2 did however do things properly, even process threading etc. And actually OS/2 is the best OS for playing DOS games....the only way you can assign 640kb to the DOS game easily without messing about with config.sys etc of DOS :roflmao:

[psxphill]

And actually OS/2 is the best OS for playing DOS games....the only way you can assign 640kb to the DOS game easily without messing about with config.sys etc of DOS :roflmao:

I went from DOS -> Windows 3.1 -> OS/2 -> Windows 95 -> Windows NT4. I didn't stay on OS/2 for very long. I also ran the latest Amiga OS versions at the same time. Both had features I wish the other had (I still miss ASSIGN's).

[Middleman]

Running os4 on ps3 is a fantastic idea. Which is why it will never happen.

The amiga grave robbers won't let people have access to inexpensive fast hardware when they are charging 1000$+ for a 1ghz 10 year old motherboard and processor that was originally manufactured for embedded applications.

Ps3's cost what? 200-300$ bucks used and are VASTLY technically superior in every way to every other os4 machine currently available, including the x1000.

Steven

I want you to go the following links. These are from a few years back. You'll see some with comments (from those in the know) about the PS3 being an Amiga:

http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=180192

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&prmdo=1&source=hp&q=HRHShawnPendragone+Sony&pbx=1&oq=HRHShawnPendragone+Sony&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=42002l42840l2l43034l5l4l0l0l0l0l140l394l2.2l4l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=eeafcb3436656125&biw=1021&bih=656

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&prmdo=1&source=hp&q=Intel+gave+sony+the+right+to%EF%BB%BF+use+the+(amiga)&pbx=1&oq=Intel+gave+sony+the+right+to%EF%BB%BF+use+the+(amiga)&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1628l1628l0l2227l1l1l0l0l0l0l82l82l1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=eeafcb3436656125&biw=1021&bih=656

For the second link, look at the comments in the top Youtube link about Sony and Intel.
For the third link, go to Google and just highlight the right arrow (because the user has left). It'll say on the bottom that Sony and Intel signed an NDA agreement at the St Louis show in 2000.

And if you don't believe me (again), go to the Register, to a news item from 2009 where it reports that INTEL is developing the graphics chip for Sony's PS4. >
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1a050851/intel-design-playstation-gpu

Now why the hell is Intel involved with the graphics chip of the PS4 if it's not relevant!?!! Shouldn't it be Nvidia or ATI who should be developing it?


Now that some of you should be curious or at least reasonably convinced, let me explain how I got to know this. How I knew this was true was I followed the comments a while back, (of this guy on Youtube) called Shawn Pendragone and did some of my own research as a result. The above page about ICP-Vortex came from one of my own searches. And I was amazed how it linked back right to Amiga (through the GoldenGate 486 bridge board relation).

Basically the story is what I had said earlier. After Gateway went bankrupt they sold most of their Amiga patents and architectural designs in secret to Intel to cover their losses. Intel, believing they should try to remove a competitor outright bought the Amiga plans from Gateway and had the Amiga IP for a while until they could figure out a way to develop them. Eventually they did - and they found a partner with HP.

So the research of the development of the Amiga architecture split into 2 groups. IA-64 or Itanium (with HP) and the Cell chip with Sony/IBM/Toshiba. Intel had gotten most of their architecture plans from Gateway and the Itanium chip derived most of the designs from this (albeit independently with a fair bit of modification). For Sony, who at the time was looking for a suitable replacement for the PS2, came across Intel, and they signed an NDA with them on the Itanium/Amiga plans (non disclosure agreement) in 2000, which was basically an agreement giving them the architecture plans of the Amiga design (for use in the PS3). For Sony, working with IBM (who was already part of the PowerPC team with Motorola and Apple) this gave them an unprecedented advantage in developing the chipset.


Ask yourself why Sony during that period was able to produce a chipset for their PS3 in such a quick time. Normally architectures and even CPU designs takes a huge amount of time to create and develop - but here was Sony with their PS3, and it did it in less than 5 years….5 years (with a team of over 400 engineers) to integrate their PS2 and come up with a brand new system. That is far less than the engineers they have at Apple! You have to imagine Sony must've had to rely on something so they could work with it. They did, and it was the Itanium/IA-64/Amiga architecture.

This is why in the first generation of PS3s were able to run Linux and other OSes on the PS3 - because it was essentially a (Amiga) computer. In the case of PS3, it can be used with Linux, or Yellow Dog Linux. Because IBM (being part of the Cell group) also has Cell bridge boards you could buy which used to be supplied by Fixstars > http://www.fixstars.com.


Just to show you the 'proof' of what I'm talking about, here is a Yellow Dog Linux setup running Amiga games really smooth on UAE > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEklKwJoyjI

[Digiman]

Both AMD & Intel are working to integrate powerful CPU AND GPU onto a single chip. I guess that is the PS4 reference.

Also even PS2 slamdunks even triple A prototype AND Hombre chipset.

[huronking]

So Cartman was right about Kyle's responsibility for 9-11?

[commodorejohn]

So you see, the unique advanced architecture is really what made it possible. Now I totally understand when people say this can't happen again because we are pretty much there these days (Windows crashes less, makes a good attempt to multitask even if it is horribly inefficient and even Ubuntu is media rich out of the box...a FREE OS) and so that only leaves price and games playing ability.

I don't think so. A good design (even if it's a dated good design) is a hell of a lot more interesting of a thing to retain and revive than trying to recapture this or that place in the market. Marketing and its tactics leech the life and the interestingness out of anything as a matter of course, so that actual unique features and quirks can't get in the way of The Plan. You try and revive the Amiga by recapturing its position in the market, all you're going to do is turn it into definitionless mush.

The CPU is not that important if your machine's performance is derived from custom silicon rich motherboard.

As a programmer, yes it is. I like having a system on which I can easily do assembler, and I like 68k assembler best. The CPU is the lynchpin of any computer design, even a coprocessor-oriented one like the Amiga; it definitely matters.

[Iggy]

Running os4 on ps3 is a fantastic idea. Which is why it will never happen.

The amiga grave robbers won't let people have access to inexpensive fast hardware when they are charging 1000$+ for a 1ghz 10 year old motherboard and processor that was originally manufactured for embedded applications.

Ps3's cost what? 200-300$ bucks used and are VASTLY technically superior in every way to every other os4 machine currently available, including the x1000.

Steven

It won't happen for the same reason you won't see MorphOS on a PS3, it would have to run on a hacked console.
Hyperion and the MOS developers wouldn't want to run the risk of lawsuits from Sony.

[psxphill]

This is why in the first generation of PS3s were able to run Linux and other OSes on the PS3 - because it was essentially a (Amiga) computer. In the case of PS3, it can be used with Linux, or Yellow Dog Linux. Because IBM (being part of the Cell group) also has Cell bridge boards you could buy which used to be supplied by Fixstars > www.fixstars.com.
 
 
Just to show you the 'proof' of what I'm talking about, here is a Yellow Dog Linux setup running Amiga games really smooth on UAE > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEklKwJoyjI

LOL, I hope for your sake you are joking but this stuff is priceless.

[B00tDisk]

But it does matter, that was the whole point. I got an A1000 coming from 6 months of ownership of an Atari ST (and 4 years ownership of a C64) and the Amiga was the first time it all gelled together IMO. And for this it does matter because the things that Amiga brought to the world of desktop home computing were only possible due to it's unique features.

Multimedia......only possible due to the OCS chipset. So what you take for granted today was born of a machine that could.....

Not as such.  If you look at computing history of the day, it was being driven forward by a need for integrated media; the CD-ROM had been introduced earlier in '85, a technology C= only halfheartedly embraced (yes, yes, the CDTV and CD32, but how many actual C= desktop machines shipped with a CD-ROM drive?  Zero, and saying "but the CDTV was a desktop amiga" is like saying a Roku Box is a desktop computer)

1. Play any sound in stereo, not a soundchip noise but ANY sound ever been digitally sampled.

Oh yeah; Amiga sound was pretty friggin' awesome when it hit.

2. Play realtime animation at 25/30FPS in colour, again this is only thanks to the architecture of the machine.
3. Almost photo-realistic digitized images, again only possible thanks to the ability to display 320 x 512 pixel images in HAM due to OCS.

Actually there were a few pieces of h/w that could manage this on other platforms; the IBM Professional Graphics System (required a dedicated monitor and was very pricy).

4. Ability to run many pieces of software together in a multi-tasking GUI. Again only possible because you could have a 4.5mb Amiga but only a 640kb PC or 1mb ST or Mac.

The Alto and Star (Xerox) were both managing to do this as well.  With that said, the "640k only" thing is a myth.  You can (and people did) have more memory than that on the PC.  OS/2 and its GUI were already in development when the Amiga was released, so it's not like IBM and MS said "Oh crap copy that, we gotta do that too!" all of the sudden.

5. Arcade quality games in the true sense of the word (e.g. 1986 release of Marble Madness) compare that to the PC or Atari ST version of 1986.

Oh no doubt here; although I will say it comes down to coders - the Amiga conversion of Black Tiger, f'rex, looks like kak compared to the original arcade version.

6. Video production work friendly out of the box even with an A500 + Genlock + software. PC/Mac/ST couldn't do this because they weren't designed to do it.

Well...heh, saying "out of the box" and the pointing out you needed a genlock and software is a bit disingenuous, but the genlocks and software for the PC were orders of magnitudes more expensive.

(Also, was there anything the ST was designed to do well other than "be sold first"?  Lousy audio (onboard, not the midi capabilities), lousy graphics, they never ever ever got a "big box" model together...pah)

BUT......there is no guarantee that any of this would have happened had Amiga not set the benchmark so high initially.

I think that's highly questionable.  Loads of companies were already on the road with GUIs; media integration would have come along as an inevitability.