OneTimer1 Quote:

Software, APIs, System Infrastructure are mandatory for professional PC usage, something that was neglected by Commodore. But Apple went some steps farther with a media shop called iTunes, they became a professional player in the content industry. If C= knew how to get out some money on the games played on their Amigas, they may have survived. But like I posted before, the high prices on Macs made it easier for Apple.

CBM had some IP related non-hardware revenue streams. Cloanto and now Amiga Corporation are making money off IP licensing in a similar way today. CBM made a $3/disc royalty off every CD32 game sold too (3DO was also $3/disc while Sega and Nintendo royalties were usually at least double this). This is small but it adds up especially where console margins are often slim. Stores may take 20%-30% more but this was before online stores so CBM did not have this possibility that exists today. Apple has done a great job with revenue stream cash flow which turns a cyclical computer business into a more defensive business. They are losing smart phone market share which has limited the stock up side but they barely budged when Nvidia sold off recently and even rallied in the midst of the sell off showing strength.

OneTimer1 Quote:

I was told it it was good for phone, it had good responsiveness using less resources than iOS or Android but they sucked on App stores and interoperability. Sharing Word or Outlook data with Android phones was easier than on a Windows Phone. But crippling Windows9 GUI for Windows Phone didn't help, I may have made it harder to convince PC Users.

Compatibility importance has wrecked product lines and put businesses out of business but it is still underestimated. It was much easier to estimate that Moor's Law would make it possible but that is finally coming to an end today. I ran across an interesting comment by Jim Turley recently about ColdFire.

https://www.eejournal.com/article/20140416-kinetisv/ Quote:

And don’t forget ColdFire, Motorola’s attempt to simplify and “RISC-ify� the venerable 68K architecture. Stripping down the 68K instruction set to just its essentials succeeded in reducing ColdFire’s complexity, slashing its power consumption and dropping its cost, but it also proved that “partially software compatible� makes about as much sense as “partially pregnant.�

Was scaling down an incompatible ColdFire to make room for fat PPC worth giving up the embedded 68k market? Was A-Eon giving up 68k and chipset compatibility worth giving up the Amiga market? How can anyone who has watched the transition of 808x to x86 to x86-64 including the tremendous baggage underestimate the importance of compatibility today?

@OneTimer1

Quote:

Software, APIs, System Infrastructure are mandatory for professional PC usage, something that was neglected by Commodore. But Apple went some steps farther with a media shop called iTunes, they became a professional player in the content industry. If C= knew how to get out some money on the games played on their Amigas, they may have survived. But like I posted before, the high prices on Macs made it easier for Apple.

Macs had business software and stable business high resolution that mattered for DTP and the back office. Mac's DTP niche has spread to music composing and NLE.

Meanwhile, Commodore debated and wasted time on monochrome vs 4 color vs 8 color hi-res Denise.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@cdimauro

Quote:

@cdimauro Intel was selling its 8088 at loss for IBM's $5 price for the CPU.

Intel has to reduce 8088's asking price to $5 within 2 years, hence why Intel needs to push IBM from 8088 via competitive market pressure.

Read it again,
Quote:

House: So it was based on- you get 16-bits compatible. All your software in the future… you can do the 16-bit bus version later when the cost comes down but I had to commit to get the price of the 8088, the 8-bit version, I had to get it- promised to get it - down to 5 bucks in two years. Had to commit to a price, gotta get it down to 5 bucks in two years. So obviously, once we had that going, the IBM PC down - announced in August of 1981, we had to get ‘em off the 8088 and onto something we could make some money on.

As stated from Michael Dell's Direct from Dell book, IBM's original PC's components are mainly off the shelf.

Intel benefited from 8088's support chips related sales.

Starting from 8086, NEC PC-98's unit sales are 18 million which easily beats Commodore's 16 bit 68K platform's unit sale. Intel benefited from 8086's support chips related sales.

PC clones added to the competitive market pressure.

For PS4 or Xbox One, AMD's game console contract wins has 2 for 1 advantage over the competition i.e. CPU+fat GPU as APU vs individual CPU offerings like IBM's PowerPC A2.

@cdimauro

Quote:

Windows Phone's GUI was very easy to use, very fast & reactive, and A PLEASURE to program. I missed it a lot, both as user and developer. Android is not only a mammoth using Linux as its kernel & (part of) ecosystem, but its architects provided a crappy platform for its development and don't even know the OOP basics...

I had Samsung Omnia with Microsoft Windows Mobile 6.1 before I switched to Android.

I also had Navigon touchscreen Windows CE incompetent GUI trash.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/15/24221036/microsoft-xbox-handheld-pc-gaming-valve-steamos
Quote:

Most of the existing rivals to the Steam Deck run on Windows, but it’s not a great experience on handhelds so there’s an opportunity for SteamOS to become an even bigger threat. Microsoft has already been slow to respond to the Steam Deck, leaving Windows in a state that isn’t designed for small handheld-like devices. PC makers like Lenovo and Asus have built their own interfaces on top of Windows to make the operating system feel more handheld-friendly, but this only goes so far. A lot of the core improvements needed to make Windows better on handhelds will have to come from Microsoft directly.

The growing handheld x86-64-based gaming PC gave Microsoft another Windows mobile attempt. Microsoft is on track to lose Windows mobile attempt 2.0 via the booming handheld X64 gaming PC market from Valve's SteamOS.

There are more "Steve Ballmer" in Microsoft.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/13/24219469/valve-steamos-asus-rog-ally-steady-progress-dual-boot
Valve confirms it'll support the ROG Ally with its Steam Deck operating system.

Last edited by Hammer on 17-Aug-2024 at 12:34 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 17-Aug-2024 at 12:27 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 17-Aug-2024 at 12:20 AM.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@matthey

Quote:

Was scaling down an incompatible ColdFire to make room for fat PPC worth giving up the embedded 68k market? Was A-Eon giving up 68k and chipset compatibility worth giving up the Amiga market? How can anyone who has watched the transition of 808x to x86 to x86-64 including the tremendous baggage underestimate the importance of compatibility today?

68K was pushed out of mobile handhelds when PalmOS 5 dumps 68000 based Dragon Ball VZ (successor offering is DragonBall Super VZ 66Mhz with 10.8 MIPS, LOL) for Texas Instruments OMAP 1510's ARM 925T (with a fukcing MMU, 120 to 140 Mhz, 133 to 155 MIPS).

https://www.cse.iitd.ac.in/~avinash/IS/omap1510_bulltn.pdf
OMAP1510's marketing spill. The DragonCrap's 68000 is uncompetitive trash on the handheld smart phones.

Motorola's 68K failed on workstation.
Motorola's 68K failed on handheld smartphones.

A-Eon is not a CPU company.

The main reason why the SID chip wasn't updated for C65 was due to the loss of its main designer i.e. brain drain is real. A tech company's asset is its employee's skillset.

SGI suffered brain drains to 3DFX (purchased by NVIDIA) and ArtX (purchased by ATI) before its remaining graphics business unit was transferred to NVIDIA.

SUN's GX 3D acceleration business suffered brain drains to NVIDIA i.e. SUN GX's main designer co-founded NVIDIA.

3DO MX(M3) was led by former SGI engineer and this business unit was purchased by Microsoft.

NVIDIA is the natural successor to SUN's and SGI's workstation graphics with an added focus on workstation graphics for the masses. Better leadership from NVIDIA's CEO and co-founder, Jensen Huang (ex-AMD microprocessor engineer).

Last edited by Hammer on 19-Aug-2024 at 04:19 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 17-Aug-2024 at 01:13 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 17-Aug-2024 at 12:52 AM.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@cdimauro

Windows Phone 8 with Cortana was ahead of its time.
I very much enjoyed the live tiles: being able to consume timely info at a glance.
If MS took mobility seriously, put some of those mega profits into a rich development ecosystem, and produced some killer first party apps, plus Xbox integration; they could still be a legitimate player in this space. And there is definitely room for a 3rd player between the Apple way, and what has essentially become the Google/Samsung way.

I did read recently an interview with Satya Nadella where he expressed some regret in cutting mobile during his initial business consolidation.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@Hammer

Quote:

Hammer wrote: @cdimauro Quote: @cdimauro Intel was selling its 8088 at loss for IBM's $5 price for the CPU. Intel has to reduce 8088's asking price to $5 within 2 years, hence why Intel needs to push IBM from 8088 via competitive market pressure. Read it again, Quote: House: So it was based on- you get 16-bits compatible. All your software in the future… you can do the 16-bit bus version later when the cost comes down but I had to commit to get the price of the 8088, the 8-bit version, I had to get it- promised to get it - down to 5 bucks in two years. Had to commit to a price, gotta get it down to 5 bucks in two years. So obviously, once we had that going, the IBM PC down - announced in August of 1981, we had to get ‘em off the 8088 and onto something we could make some money on. As stated from Michael Dell's Direct from Dell book, IBM's original PC's components are mainly off the shelf.

Again, which vendor was able to provide a 16-bit CPU at the time at the same conditions?
Quote:

Intel benefited from 8088's support chips related sales. Starting from 8086, NEC PC-98's unit sales are 18 million which easily beats Commodore's 16 bit 68K platform's unit sale. Intel benefited from 8086's support chips related sales. PC clones added to the competitive market pressure. For PS4 or Xbox One, AMD's game console contract wins has 2 for 1 advantage over the competition i.e. CPU+fat GPU as APU vs individual CPU offerings like IBM's PowerPC A2.

Irrelevant. Intel had no crystal ball to even barely think about such great success could have happened. Source: "Inside Intel" - Andy Grove.
Quote:

@cdimauro Quote: Windows Phone's GUI was very easy to use, very fast & reactive, and A PLEASURE to program. I missed it a lot, both as user and developer. Android is not only a mammoth using Linux as its kernel & (part of) ecosystem, but its architects provided a crappy platform for its development and don't even know the OOP basics... I had Samsung Omnia with Microsoft Windows Mobile 6.1 before I switched to Android. I also had Navigon touchscreen Windows CE incompetent GUI trash.

Windows Mobile / CE is a complete different product!

What's not cleat to you that the (sub)topic was about Windows PHONE and YOU have made precise statements about it?
Quote:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/15/24221036/microsoft-xbox-handheld-pc-gaming-valve-steamos Quote: Most of the existing rivals to the Steam Deck run on Windows, but it’s not a great experience on handhelds so there’s an opportunity for SteamOS to become an even bigger threat. Microsoft has already been slow to respond to the Steam Deck, leaving Windows in a state that isn’t designed for small handheld-like devices. PC makers like Lenovo and Asus have built their own interfaces on top of Windows to make the operating system feel more handheld-friendly, but this only goes so far. A lot of the core improvements needed to make Windows better on handhelds will have to come from Microsoft directly. The growing handheld x86-64-based gaming PC gave Microsoft another Windows mobile attempt. Microsoft is on track to lose Windows mobile attempt 2.0 via the booming handheld X64 gaming PC market from Valve's SteamOS. There are more "Steve Ballmer" in Microsoft. https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/13/24219469/valve-steamos-asus-rog-ally-steady-progress-dual-boot Valve confirms it'll support the ROG Ally with its Steam Deck operating system.

Another completely irrelevant thing...

Why don't you "just" and simply take a look at what YOU have stated about the Windows Phone (PHONE!) before and to my reply, and give a proper reply (IF you're able to do it. Since I was a Windows Phone AND Android developer 'til around 12 years ago).

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote: @cdimauro Windows Phone 8 with Cortana was ahead of its time. I very much enjoyed the live tiles: being able to consume timely info at a glance. If MS took mobility seriously, put some of those mega profits into a rich development ecosystem, and produced some killer first party apps, plus Xbox integration; they could still be a legitimate player in this space. And there is definitely room for a 3rd player between the Apple way, and what has essentially become the Google/Samsung way. I did read recently an interview with Satya Nadella where he expressed some regret in cutting mobile during his initial business consolidation.

Exactly. And it was a real stupid thing from Nadella to withdraw from the mobile market, after all the efforts made to create a third player (which was good for competition).

Windows Phone was a beautiful platform both from customer and (especially!) developer PoV, which was much less resources compared to the competition (contrary to the Android bloatware).

It was really a shame that Nadella decided to kill it and go only to "Cloud first": Microsoft had the resources to continue on the mobile market, and already had a considerable market share at least in Europe.

@Hammer

Quote:

Hammer wrote: Macs had business software and stable business high resolution that mattered for DTP and the back office. Mac's DTP niche has spread to music composing and NLE. Meanwhile, Commodore debated and wasted time on monochrome vs 4 color vs 8 color hi-res Denise.

Monochrome in quality and resolution like it was presented on an Atari would have been a good thing for an A2000 but it was impossible to do an a system designed for a game console, a system that had to be compatible with current TV standards.

HiRes and HD compatibility would have been a major point for office applications (Ethernet came later) the A2000 had none, the A3000 had at least a HD-Controller and a built in Flicker Fixer.
And the AmigaOS missed support for graphic-cards, that was easier on Atari.

You can't keep the A500 cheap if you built in everything, that made the PCs expensive.
There fore no HD, no 70Hz HighRes, less RAM, slow CPU, no Fastmem.

Last edited by OneTimer1 on 18-Aug-2024 at 09:06 AM.

@matthey

Quote:

Are you sure about a 32-bit 6502 family CPU that early?

I'm sure that it was planned for development. I've read that much from sources within MOS - they wanted to build 16/32 bit 6502. But when Tramiel bought MOS, it was cancelled.

_________________

Quote:

WolfToTheMoon wrote: Quote: Are you sure about a 32-bit 6502 family CPU that early? I'm sure that it was planned for development. I've read that much from sources within MOS - they wanted to build 16/32 bit 6502.

Most of us know there is a 16 bit variant of the 6502 called WDC W65C816 and the W65C802 (Info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WDC_65C816 ) The expansion to 16 bit is made in a similar way like Intel expanded its 8-Bit 8080 into a 16-Bit 8086 / 8088. They expanded registers to 16 bit and added other registers that are acting as MSB for the improved address space.

With such a design you will end up with a CPU that has no linear address space, something I hated on the shi++y Intel CPUs.

But converting a 6502 into a real 16/32 Bit CPU is violating the idea of the 6502. 8-Bit CPUs are usually accumulator oriented so one of the addresses in arithmetic operations is the accumulator, but if you have a 16 or 32 bit for the CPU command you can use a bigger part of the command word to address a register, and suddenly you have a totally different programming model. There are people who designed 16/32 bit variants of the 6502 as a softcore, but most of them made it a 32-Bit RISC with multiple registers that has a 6502 compatible 8-Bit mode where some 6502 registers are shared with the registers of the RISC core.

If you design a pure 6502 inspired 32 bit CPU without 6502 compatibility in mind, you will end up with something like an ARM core.

Oh BTW, here is a link to the Datasheet of the 32 bit 6502 variant called W65C832 from WDC, it was planned and maybe tested but never sold:
https://downloads.reactivemicro.com/Electronics/CPU/WDC%2065C832%20Datasheet.pdf

Here you will find some info about MOS planes for a 32Bit 6502:
http://forum.6502.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5192

And Gideon Zweijtzer (developer of Ultimate 64 / 1541) made an experimental 32 Bit softcore with 6502 compatibility called 65GZ032 he even published some datasheets but everything has bee lost, like tears in the rain.

Last edited by OneTimer1 on 18-Aug-2024 at 10:57 PM.

@cdimauro

Quote:

@cdimauro Again, which vendor was able to provide a 16-bit CPU at the time at the same conditions?

Facts:

1. Intel made a contractual promise to reduce 8088's price to $5 in 2 years.

2. Intel has 8-bit bus equipped 8088 within IBM's scheduled timeline. The 8-bit bus equipped 68008 was released in 1982.

The answer is obvious.

Quote:

@cdimauro Irrelevant. Intel had no crystal ball to even barely think about such great success could have happened. Source: "Inside Intel" - Andy Grove.

My modern cited examples are about business to business deals which is timeless, hence they are relevant.

For an amount of money, what are you offering me? This question doesn't care about your limited time frame since this is applied at any time.

Quote:

@cdimauro Windows Mobile / CE is a complete different product!

The same shit UI approach from Microsoft. The current Windows 11's UI design doesn't give good user experience on handheld X64 gaming PCs.

Both SteamOS 3.x's Proton/DXVK and Windows 11 target the same DirectX API. SteamOS 3.x UI and control scheme is designed for booming handheld X64 gaming PCs.

Quote:

@cdimauro What's not cleat to you that the (sub)topic was about Windows PHONE and YOU have made precise statements about it?

The same shit UI approach from Microsoft.

Quote:

@cdimauro Another completely irrelevant thing... Why don't you "just" and simply take a look at what YOU have stated about the Windows Phone (PHONE!) before and to my reply, and give a proper reply (IF you're able to do it.

Windows Phone's credibility was in question after the debacle from Windows Mobile and Windows 8's tiled UI design was a sales flop.

Both Windows Phone and Windows 8 shared a similar tiled GUI approach.

Quote:

@cdimauro Since I was a Windows Phone AND Android developer 'til around 12 years ago).

You're not unique in that regard. I was also a Windows Phone (for Nokia) AND Android developer (for Google Phone 1/2/3/4). Your pissing contest is irrelevant.

Windows Phone's credibility was in question after the debacle from Windows Mobile and Windows 8's GUI design was a sales flop. The results speak for themselves.

Most end users are concerned about UI experience i.e. they don't care about your object oriented programming issues.

Last edited by Hammer on 19-Aug-2024 at 03:22 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 19-Aug-2024 at 03:17 AM.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@OneTimer1

Quote:

OneTimer1 wrote: @Hammer Monochrome in quality and resolution like it was presented on an Atari would have been a good thing for an A2000 but it was impossible to do an a system designed for a game console, a system that had to be compatible with current TV standards.

If A2000 is targeted, Hi-res monochrome Denise wouldn't matter since A2000's unit sales are tiny.

VGA includes CGA's 15 kHz promotion feature on VGA's 31 kHz double scan with common video memory. There's no separate video memory for the flicker fixer.

Without taping into mass production, it's another Atari TT030 (256 colors chipset in 1990) or Mega ST (Blitter in 1986) i.e. without sufficient numbers, they are nearly useless. Atari STE (1989) and Falcon (1992) are too late.

A500's mass production should have enabled Zorro II economies of scale via a single Zorro II slot.

Quote:

OneTimer1 wrote: HiRes and HD compatibility would have been a major point for office applications (Ethernet came later) the A2000 had none, the A3000 had at least a HD-Controller and a built in Flicker Fixer.

Amber's Flicker Fixer is expensive due to a separate 60 ns access frame buffer.

"A2000HD" SKU includes SCSI A2091. Baseline A2000 didn't have cheapo IDE.

A1200's FP DRAM Chip RAM has 80 ns access with 140 ns read/write cycle that is shared with 15 kHz gaming and 31 kHz productivity modes.

With AA, A1000+(targeted $800 USD), A3000+, A1200 ($599 USD with "healthy profit margin") and A4000 ($3,699 USD, large profit margin) has removed the expensive Amber flicker fixer.

The system engineering group's original intent for color hi-res Densie is 8 colors with shared 4096 colors palette and 640x400p/512p was rejected by Commodore LSI group. The main reason is "too complex" while Commodore LSI groups focus on C65's 256 color mode. LOL (cite: Commodore -The Final Years).

C65 has low cost target i.e. $300 retail price with 256 color chipset upgrade on Commodore's newer 2 microns process node.

Commodore LSI group imposed Densie's ECS mode's 4 color register and 6 bit palette are seperated from normal OCS modes. This mirrors C128's separated hi-res mode.

Monochrome hi-res Densie timewasting debacle is ordered by Henry Rubin which overrides Los Gatos Amiga team's Amiga Ranger R&D (with 128 colors 7 bitplane).

3DO MADAM includes lessons from Chip VRAM equipped Super A500 and A3000 with 2 MB VRAM i.e. MADAM includes FP DRAM and VRAM hybrid access.

Quote:

OneTimer1 wrote: And the AmigaOS missed support for graphic-cards, that was easier on Atari.

AmigaOS gained RTG via GVP's 1992 EGS and Commodore responded with Commodore provided RTG promise as a FUD.

Quote:

OneTimer1 wrote: You can't keep the A500 cheap if you built in everything, that made the PCs expensive.

Wrong. Read Commodore - The Final Years.

Commodore's newer 2 microns process node was for 8bit 1 IPC improved 65CE02 that released in 1988. Amiga didn't exploit the newer 2 microns process node.

The Amiga OCS chipset used Commodore's older 5 micron process node.

Commodore - The Final Years book shows politics between Commodore-Amiga's system engineering (backed the Amiga) vs Commodore's LSI groups (backed C65).

Commodore management wasn't able to combine 8-bit C64 legacy with the 16-bit Amiga.

AA Alice used Commodore's newer 1.5 micron process node.

Quote:

OneTimer1 wrote: There fore no HD, no 70Hz HighRes, less RAM, slow CPU, no Fastmem.

VGA's 640x480p has at least 31.778 KHz and 60 Hz.

Fast RAM is cheap. Read Commodore - The Final Years.

Last edited by Hammer on 19-Aug-2024 at 04:31 AM.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@WolfToTheMoon

Quote:

WolfToTheMoon wrote: @matthey Quote: Are you sure about a 32-bit 6502 family CPU that early? I'm sure that it was planned for development. I've read that much from sources within MOS - they wanted to build 16/32 bit 6502. But when Tramiel bought MOS, it was cancelled.

Planned... when? IBM introduced the first PC on August 1981, which means that a processor for such system should have been available for the engineers at least one year before (or even more).


@OneTimer1

Quote:

OneTimer1 wrote: Quote: WolfToTheMoon wrote: I'm sure that it was planned for development. I've read that much from sources within MOS - they wanted to build 16/32 bit 6502. Most of us know there is a 16 bit variant of the 6502 called WDC W65C816 and the W65C802 (Info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WDC_65C816 ) The expansion to 16 bit is made in a similar way like Intel expanded its 8-Bit 8080 into a 16-Bit 8086 / 8088. They expanded registers to 16 bit and added other registers that are acting as MSB for the improved address space. With such a design you will end up with a CPU that has no linear address space, something I hated on the shi++y Intel CPUs. But converting a 6502 into a real 16/32 Bit CPU is violating the idea of the 6502. 8-Bit CPUs are usually accumulator oriented so one of the addresses in arithmetic operations is the accumulator, but if you have a 16 or 32 bit for the CPU command you can use a bigger part of the command word to address a register, and suddenly you have a totally different programming model. There are people who designed 16/32 bit variants of the 6502 as a softcore, but most of them made it a 32-Bit RISC with multiple registers that has a 6502 compatible 8-Bit mode where some 6502 registers are shared with the registers of the RISC core. If you design a pure 6502 inspired 32 bit CPU without 6502 compatibility in mind, you will end up with something like an ARM core. Oh BTW, here is a link to the Datasheet of the 32 bit 6502 variant called W65C832 from WDC, it was planned and maybe tested but never sold: https://downloads.reactivemicro.com/Electronics/CPU/WDC%2065C832%20Datasheet.pdf Here you will find some info about MOS planes for a 32Bit 6502: http://forum.6502.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5192 And Gideon Zweijtzer (developer of Ultimate 64 / 1541) made an experimental 32 Bit softcore with 6502 compatibility called 65GZ032 he even published some datasheets but everything has bee lost, like tears in the rain.

See above: too late. Even the 65C816 arrived FOUR years after that IBM sold the first PCs.

BTW, it was a nightmare to program, because mixing 16-bit and 8-bit code isn't "for free" and it required "swapping" the data size to be supported at a specific time via proper instructions.
65C832 was even worse from this PoV, since it has to support 32, 16, and 8 bit data sizes. So, it was a Good Thing that he never saw the light.

@Hammer

Quote:

Hammer wrote: @cdimauro Quote: @cdimauro Again, which vendor was able to provide a 16-bit CPU at the time at the same conditions? Facts: 1. Intel made a contractual promise to reduce 8088's price to $5 in 2 years. 2. Intel has 8-bit bus equipped 8088 within IBM's scheduled timeline. The 8-bit bus equipped 68008 was released in 1982. The answer is obvious.

Regarding the 68008, yes. I assume that no other CPU vendor was able to provide a similar product in time AND targeting IBM's budget.
Quote:

Quote: @cdimauro Irrelevant. Intel had no crystal ball to even barely think about such great success could have happened. Source: "Inside Intel" - Andy Grove. My modern cited examples are about business to business deals which is timeless, hence they are relevant. For an amount of money, what are you offering me? This question doesn't care about your limited time frame since this is applied at any time.

Yes, from this perspective. But what you've reported before was a different thing.

As I've already stated, Intel was never thinking about the explosion of the PC market. For Intel that was just a deal to sell some chips. Dot.
Only after the big success then they released how profitable was and basically they switched their business to producing IA32 CPUs. Source: the same as above.
Quote:

Quote: @cdimauro Windows Mobile / CE is a complete different product! The same shit UI approach from Microsoft.

Well, absolutely not: Windows Phone UI was novel and completely different from anything realised before by Microsoft (or others).
Quote:

The current Windows 11's UI design doesn't give good user experience on handheld X64 gaming PCs. Both SteamOS 3.x's Proton/DXVK and Windows 11 target the same DirectX API. SteamOS 3.x UI and control scheme is designed for booming handheld X64 gaming PCs.

DirectX are NOT APIs for the UI: you're mixing completely different things here...
Quote:

Quote: @cdimauro What's not cleat to you that the (sub)topic was about Windows PHONE and YOU have made precise statements about it? The same shit UI approach from Microsoft.

See above.
Quote:

Quote: @cdimauro Another completely irrelevant thing... Why don't you "just" and simply take a look at what YOU have stated about the Windows Phone (PHONE!) before and to my reply, and give a proper reply (IF you're able to do it. Windows Phone's credibility was in question after the debacle from Windows Mobile and Windows 8's tiled UI design was a sales flop. Both Windows Phone and Windows 8 shared a similar tiled GUI approach.

Again, irrelevant. As I've already stated before, Windows Phone was successful at least in Europe (and gaining market on other countries as well) and at the SECOND position (before Apple with its iPhone!).

So, it wasn't a failure. And it was increasing its market every year.

In fact, and on the exact contrary that you've stated, people liked a lot its "tiles" UI: simple, smooth, and effective.

Otherwise nobody would have bought it, right? How do think that Windows Phone got such market?
Quote:

Quote: @cdimauro Since I was a Windows Phone AND Android developer 'til around 12 years ago). You're not unique in that regard. I was also a Windows Phone (for Nokia) AND Android developer (for Google Phone 1/2/3/4). Your pissing contest is irrelevant. Windows Phone's credibility was in question after the debacle from Windows Mobile and Windows 8's GUI design was a sales flop. The results speak for themselves.

Again, see above. And BTW, you're mixing two different products: Windows 8 was a PC OS and it wasn't successful, but Windows Phone was targeting... mobile phones and was having success.
Quote:

Most end users are concerned about UI experience i.e. they don't care about your object oriented programming issues.

OOP issues aren't "mine": they should be part of the knowledge of good programmers.

From this perspective, Android is a pure bloatware (not even talking the monolithic kernel which it integrated: an heavy-weight monster), with its architects that had no clue on how to properly design class hierarchies and, more important, how to provide developers an easy and effective way to design their UIs.

If you've programmed both then you should know the differences between Windows Phone and Android: the former simply shined at both things (e.g.: class hierarchies and how describe/program the UI). The second is an example of what should not be done...

@Hammer


Quote:

Hammer wrote: If A2000 is targeted, Hi-res monochrome Denise wouldn't matter since A2000's unit sales are tiny. ... VGA's 640x480p has at least 31.778 KHz and 60 Hz.

I don't believe another Denise would have been enough for monochrome hires, it would have needed an additional GFX card or something similar.

And the A2000 sales where low because you paid double the price for an Amiga that had no benefits over the A500, this might have been different if it had a 'professional' hires mode.

Quote:

Hammer wrote: A500's mass production should have enabled Zorro II economies of scale via a single Zorro II slot.

I would have recommended the opposite, remove the Zorro 1 slot, remove the external floppy connector and give it a smaller case. A keyboard computer should be as small and cheap as possible. If you want to expand it, sell the A500 buy an A2000.

Just think how Apple did it, the first Macintosh had not slots for expansion and when Steve Jobs demoed it, he secretly used the next generation prototype and used software that wouldn't run on the available Macintoshs.

@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: Even the 65C816 arrived FOUR years after that IBM sold the first PCs.

The PDF describing it is from 1982, that was the same year when the C64 was introduced. The first release of this document was from 1981. Sadly many MOS developers where chased away by Tramiel, he might have been happy because it saved him money but this brain drain crippled MOS and many developments for 6502 where neglected.

If C= would have been managed in the right way, they would have never bought Amiga, they would had have been an important player in the home computer and the personal computer market and they would have had some kind of super C64 an expandable OS and a development path for the next 20 years in 1986. The Amiga was their 2nd chance ...

Last edited by OneTimer1 on 19-Aug-2024 at 09:51 PM.

@OneTimer1

Quote:

OneTimer1 wrote: @cdimauro Quote: cdimauro wrote: Even the 65C816 arrived FOUR years after that IBM sold the first PCs. The PDF describing it is from 1982, that was the same year when the C64 was introduced. The first release of this document was from 1981.

OK, but that's just paper: no prototype / first silicon was produced.

Even taking this paper, it's still too late for the IBM's PC.
Quote:

Sadly many MOS developers where chased away by Tramiel, he might have been happy because it saved him money but this brain drain crippled MOS and many developments for 6502 where neglected.

I agree.
Quote:

If C= would have been managed in the right way, they would have never bought Amiga, they would had have been an important player in the home computer and the personal computer market and they would have had some kind of super C64 an expandable OS and a development path for the next 20 years in 1986. The Amiga was their 2nd chance ...

Probably Commodore wouldn't have bought the Amiga, yes, but sticking to the 65xx family would have made it not competitive in the longer term, and maybe bankrupt even before the 1994.

65xx, extended how you like them, aren't good general purpose architectures and they can't keep up for more modern tasks.

@matthey

Quote:

Was A-Eon giving up 68k and chipset compatibility worth giving up the Amiga market? How can anyone who has watched the transition of 808x to x86 to x86-64 including the tremendous baggage underestimate the importance of compatibility today?

Ditching the 68K and chipset happened before A-EON was even formed. The A1-SE, uA1, and A1-XE manufactured by Eyetech all had no 68K, chipset, or a connection to classic Amiga hardware. So we were already using a 68K emulator before A-EON even existed.

Hans

_________________
Join the Kea Campus - upgrade your skills; support my work; enjoy the Amiga corner.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - see more of my work

@Hans

Right, ditching the chipset in favour of internal PCI connected CVPPC and BlizzardPPC was well on the way for both OS4 and MorphOS, even long before any of the so called NG hardware systems showed up.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

I think another blunder was the A600 mess, I actually think commodore uk idea of pushing to try and make a low cost Amiga as possible was right.

A really cut down version, no IDE, no PCMCIA slot, maybe even just 512kb ram, I don’t know if there was a cost difference in making ocs or ecs chips. which ever where cheaper put them in it. If it could have hit the price point of say £200. I really think it would have been a big seller. As it was designed to be even more a c64 replacement than the a500 was, as simple computer for people who would just play the odd game and program. Not for expanding and upgrading that what the a500 plus or a1200 should be for.

_________________
AmigaNG, YouTube, LeaveReality Studio

@amigang

Quote:

I think another blunder was the A600 mess, I actually think commodore uk idea of pushing to try and make a low cost Amiga as possible was right. A really cut down version, no IDE, no PCMCIA slot, maybe even just 512kb ram, I don’t know if there was a cost difference in making ocs or ecs chips. which ever where cheaper put them in it. If it could have hit the price point of say £200. I really think it would have been a big seller. As it was designed to be even more a c64 replacement than the a500 was, as simple computer for people who would just play the odd game and program. Not for expanding and upgrading that what the a500 plus or a1200 should be for.

Sales don't lie. A500 was the foundation of Amiga's success and.... possibly, survival. It should have been kept and cost reduced/improved(trade some expendability for a slightly faster CPU and/or more RAM. the A1200 and A4000, however good they were(relative to previous Amigas), were not selling in high enough numbers to sustain the platform.

The next stage in Amiga's life was, IMHO, not to be on a desktop computer but on something that could rival Psions and Palms...

_________________