25 years ago today...

[redrumloa]

 

[ilwrath]

That's a sad day, there. Truth is that a lot of decisions (and illegal embezzling) sealed Commodore's fate well before that day... On one hand, even without those things, it may have been unavoidable.

But still. It's amazing to think back to how shitty home computers were back in 1994, and yet, somehow, the parent company to the least shitty one at the time ended like that. While Windows was still on 3.1, for fucks sake, and Macs were (usually crashing on) running Multifinder. (Windows did have NT3.1 out, but nothing was built for it, and it wasn't intended for home use, yet. NT kernel wouldn't make home use for another 7 years with XP.) And there was the Amiga. Happily ticking along with a 32-bit pre-emptive multitasking system, full cross-application scripting engine, re-targetable graphics that would still be a nice addition to modern PCs (it'd be nice to be able to have control over which applications use which graphics chipset on my laptop), and the modern features went on and on. Sure, it didn't have multi-user support or memory protection... But still, it was so much closer to a modern PC than anything else on the market at the time.

Boggles the mind that Commodore couldn't raise funds. And it's even more mind bending that no competent companies picked it up (even if only to ensure it was dead).

 

[redrumloa]

But still. It's amazing to think back to how shitty home computers were back in 1994, and yet, somehow, the parent company to the least shitty one at the time ended like that. While Windows was still on 3.1, for fucks sake, and Macs were (usually crashing on) running Multifinder. (Windows did have NT3.1 out, but nothing was built for it, and it wasn't intended for home use, yet. NT kernel wouldn't make home use for another 7 years with XP.) And there was the Amiga. Happily ticking along with a 32-bit pre-emptive multitasking system, full cross-application scripting engine, re-targetable graphics that would still be a nice addition to modern PCs (it'd be nice to be able to have control over which applications use which graphics chipset on my laptop), and the modern features went on and on.

At the time, and for the next ~8 years, I would have completely agreed. With hindsight being hindsight, not so much. Commodore's woes with the Amiga were mostly self inflicted. They release the Amiga 600 in late 1992 (!!!) and it was essentially a slimmed down Amiga 500. That meant, for all intents and purposes, it was a repackaged Amiga 1000 with tech from 1985 (Motorola 68000 @ 7.16MHz). It just added a small HD internally.

Commodore's computer to compete with the PC Clones (besides their actual PC clones)? The Amiga 4000/030 was released in late 92, and the 4000/40 was released in 93. The 4000 cost (without monitor) was ~$3,700. i won't even get into the CD32. Their last computer was the A4000T (64040 @40mhz), in 1994, which the actual Commodore models are an extremely rare beast. I can't find any citations for launch price, but it would have certainly been well north of $4,000. That's with no RTG card, no AHI card, no monitor, just the 4000T (AGA), keyboard and mouse. In 1994 you could get a competent PC clone for $500 or so, that would have much more grunt CPU power. It would be bundled with a competent SVGA card and probably a Sound Blaster 16 clone. Win3.1 was the shits, but most gamers probably just used DOS.

And then there's the gamers. You gotta think what was happening with the PC gaming revolution that was happening. DOOM came out in 93, Doom II in 94. Descent came out in 94. Too many others to mention. While 3d GPUs weren't really a thing quite yet, the grunt CPU power of the 586 and Pentium class processors was just too much. When it came to home computers, games were the primary motivator.

Commodore essentially built 2 Amiga computers from 1985 to 1994. They just kept repacking those 2 computers over and over. The most idiotic example is the Amiga 600 in late 92. Don't get me wrong, I love the Amiga, but Commodore killed themselves. Amigas were for the classes, not the masses :-/

 

[ilwrath]

At the time, and for the next ~8 years, I would have completely agreed. With hindsight being hindsight, not so much. Commodore's woes with the Amiga were mostly self inflicted.

There is a lot to agree with there. Commodore was stuck on trying to replicate the same path to success that worked for the C64. Have a single model and sell over 10 million of them. But the Amiga was a different beast in a different time. You're absolutely right, the 1000, 500, and 600 were basically all the same machine, and you just couldn't do that in the time period they tried it. The 1000 was cutting edge and worked. And then the 500 was underpowered for most of it's life, but it worked as an entry level machine because it was cheap. Even the 2000 worked as it was originally shipped, but then it probably should have moved to full ECS and an 020 stock as quickly as possible. And then, instead of the 3000 we got, we should have gotten a 2000 form factor machine with an 030 stock, and a proper full video port for the Toaster to still fit. Why they chose the one model that had business buy-in to break backward compatibility on for an arbitrary reason, I have no idea. And the decisions kept getting worse from there.

On the home front, the 1200 was an odd beast to release, but somewhat forgivable based on the success of the C64 and A500. Commodore wanted to stay in the wedge form game. Even though the writing on the wall was pretty clear that the wedge time had come and gone by then. And I totally agree that there was never any excuse for the 600.

i won't even get into the CD32.

Why not? The CD32 was a great idea. Just look at where Microsoft is now on the games front. The XBox has always been a tightly controlled Windows PC. And a money printer. Granted, the CD32 was half-baked when shipped, but I think it's been well proven that the idea was pretty sound. Commodore just didn't properly execute on it. It was just too open, too complex, and WAAAAYYYY too unfocused.

And then there's the gamers. You gotta think what was happening with the PC gaming revolution that was happening. DOOM came out in 93, Doom II in 94. Descent came out in 94. Too many others to mention. While 3d GPUs weren't really a thing quite yet, the grunt CPU power of the 586 and Pentium class processors was just too much. When it came to home computers, games were the primary motivator.

That is for sure. It's a result of Motorola falling behind. People forget that nearly killed Apple, too. And Apple were quicker to identify the problem and get off the 680x0 train. Of course, in hindsight Apple jumped from one doomed train to another (PPC), but it bought them enough time to survive into Microsoft's anti-trust hearings and get bailed out as being the token competition...

Amigas were for the classes, not the masses :-/

I'd argue the exact opposite. They tried to keep mass selling a single computer in an age when they needed a more complete and focused lineup.

 

[redrumloa]

Why not? The CD32 was a great idea. Just look at where Microsoft is now on the games front. The XBox has always been a tightly controlled Windows PC. And a money printer. Granted, the CD32 was half-baked when shipped, but I think it's been well proven that the idea was pretty sound. Commodore just didn't properly execute on it. It was just too open, too complex, and WAAAAYYYY too unfocused.

The first part of your post above sounds like you disagree, the second part sounds like you agree. The CD32 was half baked. If you look at a list of 5th generation consoles, it doesn't hold up all that well, and AFAIK only 3DO was more expensive. I'd even argue that some of the 4th Generation Consoles were better. The SegaCD came out 2 years before the CD32 (based on Genesis from 5 years before CD32), and I'd argue the SegaCD was superior. I got a Genesis in 1990. When the CD32 came out, I had no interest in it, despite being an Amiga fanboy *and* having a close friend who owned an authorized Amiga dealership. Not much I saw really impressed me.

I'd argue the exact opposite. They tried to keep mass selling a single computer in an age when they needed a more complete and focused lineup.

.

You say you disagree, but then in a way agree completely. Commodore was rudderless. We could probably get into hair splitting detail, but probably not too far off. Even the engineers were not happy with management, and put easter eggs..

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Commodore essentially built 2 Amiga computers from 1985 to 1994. They just kept repacking those 2 computers over and over. The most idiotic example is the Amiga 600 in late 92. Don't get me wrong, I love the Amiga, but Commodore killed themselves. Amigas were for the classes, not the masses :-/

The more I've heard about Commodore over the years the more it seems like business as usual for them. 1981 they come out with the pretty amazing Vic20. 1983 saw the hugely successful C64, 1984 followed up the 10million unit success of the 64 by trying to chase the low end of the market with the C16 - arguably better sound & graphics but insufficient RAM for much at the time and not compatible with the C64.

 

[Robert]

1984 followed up the 10million unit success of the 64 by trying to chase the low end of the market with the C16 - arguably better sound & graphics but insufficient RAM for much at the time and not compatible with the C64.

My first computer.
Was never off it for about a year and half, then I guess puberty kicked in as it suddenly became completely uninteresting.

It would be another six years or so before I had an interest in computers again and ten before I owned one - the Amiga 1200 that I kept for 20-odd years.
Only gave it away last year.