A History Of The Amiga....

[zektor]

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/a-history-of-the-amiga-part-1.ars


Interesting article. Just seeing that flag at half mast brought a tear to my eye...

[Greg2600]

Very cool article, although it looks like the author forgot to finish it!

I think the biggest problem that the Amiga, Atari ST/XT, Commodore, Tandy, etc., had was that the personal computer simply was not viable until the early 90's. By that point, technology had advanced enough to make them worthwhile. Another problem was game playing. The Atari VCS's and other systems like Colecovision and Intellivision had the market, and eventually Nintendo and later Sega would take it. So most of the kids already had a video game system, why would they want a computer? Most kids, including myself, had no interest in computers. What could you do with them? Type stuff? Who cares! The Amiga's I remember in the early 90's were cool, but like the Tandy's they didn't have the games like Mario, Sonic, Zelda, etc. That was what kids wanted.

Another issue was the perception of game playing vs. computing. The biggest culprit in this was Apple, a company I still refuse to support (no ipod or iphone for me....ever). Apple computers ripped off thousands of school systems in the 1980's into buying their overpriced, useless hunks of junk, the Apple II. There was nothing Apple II could do that you couldn't do on a Commodore, but Apple had the recognition. Plus the perception that Commodore was more of a video game computer I think scared off schools and libraries, the only place I would ever see a computer. Atari of course were fools. If their Atari computers played 2600 cartridges, they could have beaten Apple and IBM to bits.

[Dave Farquhar]

It's a multi-part series. I think they're on part 3 now.

I had it BAD for the Amiga back in its day. I finally got one in 1991 or so. It was everything a PC or a Mac wasn't. Smooth multitasking. Even the stock 7 MHz models generally felt fast unless you were totally hammering the CPU. And for all the reputation about the dreaded Guru Meditation, it was a lot more stable than the contemporary versions of Mac OS and Windows. When Commodore finally died, it was a very sad day for me. I finally bought a 486 in the summer of 1994 and hated it. There was a lot more software for it but it crashed all the time when I tried to do things with it that wouldn't make an Amiga flinch. Finally I loaded OS/2 on it and got good stability, but a 66 MHz 486 running OS/2 with 20 megs of RAM (yeah, I had five SIMM slots) didn't feel much faster than my Amiga 2000 with a 25 MHz 68030 accelerator in it. And I never had more than 12 megs of RAM in my Amiga. I don't think I would have known what to do with that much because Amiga OS ran comfortably in a meg, and I knew tricks to knock the usage down in a pinch.

I can only imagine what the line would be like now if it had somehow survived. I work with computers every day that have capabilities I couldn't even have imagined in 1991, but I don't think they've made me any more productive, and they certainly aren't as much fun as that Amiga was. I still have it. I wish I had room to set it up, and an affordable way to get an Ethernet card into it so I could run a web browser on it.

[theMot]

Yeah, great systems.

I had an A600HD (dont laugh) back in the day. They were a good computer back then.

If anyone is a fan they should check out the book "on the edge" great reading for all commodore/amiga supporters.

[Dave Farquhar]

On the Edge was a good book. With better editing I think it could have been a great book. But it certainly tells stories that the most prominent computing historians completely ignored. It's a must-read for Commodore and Amiga fans, and frankly Atari fans probably ought to read it too, as it gives lots of insight into Jack Tramiel. Commodore fans don't hate Tramiel the way Atari fans do (Irving Gould and Mehdi Ali compete for the title of "Man who ruined Commodore"--at most Tramiel is a very distant third to those two). But Tramiel was the one who made Commodore what it was, and he moved a lot of that mindset straight over to Atari when he bought the company.

I'm not a very good Atari historian, but any time someone brings up something that Tramiel did under Atari that doesn't make sense, it never surprises me. There's always something about Commodore history that explains it.

[Greg2600]

Part 4 is now online after a long wait. A really terrific article series by Jeremy Reimer.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/amiga-history-4-commodore-years.ars

[Greg2600]

Part 5 is online...maybe Jeremy's best article yet. It's almost amazing how collectively stupid Commodore's people were. The easter egg and slam-dancing stories were hilarious.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/amiga-history-part-5.ars

[tom]

So basically the Commodore people were as stupid as the post VCS Atari people.

I loved my Amgia, for me it was more an Atari than the ST ever was.

[boatofcar]

Awesome, awesome article.

[BydoEmpire]

That's a really cool and well done article - thanks for the link. I worked all summer bussing tables to save up for an A500, and it was amazing. Blood Money, Menace, It Came From The Desert, TV Sports Football, Lemmings... the list goes on. I still have it, although I haven't booted it up in ages.

[Soviet Conscript]

Another issue was the perception of game playing vs. computing. The biggest culprit in this was Apple, a company I still refuse to support (no ipod or iphone for me....ever). .

well, at least now i know i'm not the only one out there.

i guess i was an oddball case though. i had an C64 and a Amiga 500 as my main video game machines for the longest time before i ever got into the whole console thing.

[boatofcar]

Another issue was the perception of game playing vs. computing. The biggest culprit in this was Apple, a company I still refuse to support (no ipod or iphone for me....ever).

Absolutely not true. Apple's Apple ][ division was entirely in favor of the computer being used as a games platform. The Macintosh was a different story, but since you're so against anything Apple no matter what, I can see how you are ignorant of the distinction.



Apple computers ripped off thousands of school systems in the 1980's into buying their overpriced, useless hunks of junk, the Apple II. There was nothing Apple II could do that you couldn't do on a Commodore, but Apple had the recognition.

The hundreds of programmers who cut their teeth on Apple ]['s might disagree with you.


I'm an 8 bit Atari fanboy, myself. The 1200XL was my first computer, and I still prefer it to both the Apple ][ and C64 any day.

[Greg2600]

boatofcar, you are right, the Apple ][ was just as gamey as the C64's, but not as good, and way more expensive. The Mac's were not. However, my personal experience was that the Apple ][ was still being sold brand new as late as 1989/90. Schools bought them because of Apple's name, while there were other computers out there (cheaper and much more powerful). Basic was a very good tool though, I will admit that. My issue with Apple is that some of its fans think they are the best thing since sliced bread. I don't understand the predilection towards it? Everything they produce is more expensive and often less powerful and more limited than competitors. Same now as it was then.

[boatofcar]

My issue with Apple is that some of its fans think they are the best thing since sliced bread. I don't understand the predilection towards it? Everything they produce is more expensive and often less powerful and more limited than competitors. Same now as it was then.

I'm not going to turn this into an Apple thread, but there are many Mac users on this board who would disagree strongly with that statement. If you want to be content in your ignorance though, that's your prerogative.

EDIT: Guess what kind of computer Jeremy Reimer, author of this retrospective, uses? But I guess he's just another latte drinking yuppie with no knowledge of computer history, right?

Right?

[Greg2600]

I'm certainly not going to defend Microsoft or IBM or other PC makers. What they have produced in the last 20 years is a hideous testament to technological capabilities (Intel aside). Now in terms of servers, which I work with every day, you can't beat IBM or Microsoft. It's too bad, because Linux probably has more capabilities, but when you need a fairly reliable standard, you have to take IBM and Microsoft. Especially when IT is not your core business. As for Apple, had they decided to take up the Amiga slack, I would have been all for them. They haven't, they're just selling more expensive PC's. Are they better than PC's? Yes, perhaps, but they are not what PC's should have been.

My point is that the Amiga represented what personal computers should have become. The PC industry, where you never know what components will inter-work, and it takes extreme amounts of memory or processing to do what something like the Amiga could do with so much less. The PC industry has finally gotten prices down to reasonable levels, but largely by using cheaply made parts. I wasn't into computers as a kid, only consoles. By the time I was, I've had to suffer through many years of aggravation thanks to the mess of the IBM compatible. And now after reading Jeremy's articles, I am upset the Amiga never made it.

[Rob2600]

I'm not going to turn this into an Apple thread, but there are many Mac users on this board who would disagree strongly with that statement. If you want to be content in your ignorance though, that's your prerogative.

It seems like Microsoft Windows gets ragged on by Macintosh fanatics, but it turns out Mac fanatics are just stuck in the past. The arguments they use haven't been relevant in over five or six years, which is almost an eternity in the world of computing. Yes, Windows 95 and 98 were a mess, but Windows XP and Windows Vista are fine.

Apple's commercials make it seem as though Macintosh computers can produce photo albums, DVD movies, and song playlists and that Microsoft Windows is only capable of producing spreadsheets and graphs. This is completely untrue. Does anyone believe this nonsense? Anything that can be done in OS X can also be done in Microsoft Windows and vice versa. I edit photos, browse web sites, create CDs and DVDs, and send email every day using Windows XP.

I've used a variety of computers at work for the last decade. Macintosh: Intel Core 2 Duo, G5, G4, G3, Power Computing clones, etc. Windows: Pentium 4, Pentium 3, Xeon, etc.

I grew up using Apple IIe computers in school. I also used the Apple IIc and IIgs and the Macintosh IIx and Quadra 950 at my friend's house across the street (big Apple fans). I started using IBM-compatible computers in 1992. I began using MS-DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.0 and thought they were okay, but still very much preferred the Macintosh. It seemed more sophisticated overall and offered more visual customization options.

From 1992 to 2003, I disliked Microsoft. Why? For eleven years, I dealt with glitchy Windows operating systems that continually drove me nuts. MS-DOS was pretty stable, but limited. Windows 3.0, 3.1, 95, and 98, crashed more times than I can remember and getting new hardware and software to work properly was usually a pain.

During those years, I preferred Apple's Macintosh, bragging about how much better the Mac System software was than MS Windows.

In 2003, I got a new Dell Pentium 4 computer with Windows XP. I was skeptical at first, being so used to Windows 95/98 and it's glitchiness and frequent crashing, but as time went on, I noticed something: it almost never crashed.

Could it be? How is it possible? In the four years I've had this computer, Windows XP has crashed maybe 3 or 4 times. I almost always have at least six applications running simultaneously (Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark XPress, Winamp, Nero, Firefox, AIM, etc.) and frequently add and remove external USB hard drives and devices. Again, it has almost never crashed.

For the last few years, I constantly see articles and hear people talk about the amazing stability of Mac OS X. The weird thing is, I use a Mac every day at work with OS X and I run the same applications that I run on my home computer (Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark XPress, iChat, Firefox, Toast, iTunes, etc.). The Mac is supposed to be faster than Windows, but I don't notice too much of a speed difference...and I have to "Force Quit" Photoshop and Illustrator on the Mac every so often because they freeze.

For me, OS X crashes once every few weeks and I have to turn off the computer by hand. It's not a big deal or a problem, but I'm just pointing out that the supposedly super-stable OS X crashes every once in a while, while the supposed glitchy and horrendous Windows XP has hardly ever crashed on me. I have yet to see a "blue screen of death" in the past four years (thank goodness) and I'm overall really happy with Windows XP.

My two biggest complaints about Macintosh computers:

1. Windows XP and Vista offer way more customization options than OS X, which is really important to me. I wish Apple would allow users to disable the cartoony, glossy buttons, borders, and scroll bars. They make OS X look too much like a toy.

2. I can buy a Windows XP or Vista computer with the same exact specs and parts as a Macintosh computer for literally half the price. Why are Macintosh computers so overpriced? They contain the same CPU, same video card, same hard drive, same RAM, etc. It doesn't make sense.

[tom]

When people doubt the Apple ][ I always post this article from early 1985 Electronic Games magazine:
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c173/thomasholzer/SWScan00023.jpg

[Greg2600]

When people doubt the Apple ][ I always post this article from early 1985 Electronic Games magazine:

Ha ha ha! Good one, even if you're not being sarcastic. Again, I concede that the Apple ][ was a good computer, far better than the IBM PC's in reliability, price and compatibility.

My grumbling was more about the period that coincides with the 16-bit video game revolution. The IBM world was a mess, I remember it first hand. Windows was a disaster until Win95, and then it was just a mess. PC's were overpriced, underpowered, too difficult to upgrade God Forbid you had to, and way too big and heavy. Apple's products were better designed in that sense, and probably could do much what the Amiga could. But at double or triple the price of the Amiga? No. The Amiga was the way to go, hardware wise. The IBM clones ruled instead, and gave us nothing but headaches. To this day, they and Microsoft will complain that they need to build an OS which can run many types of applications. That is ridiculous, since MS intended on monopolizing the application world anyway.

[boatofcar]

Nevermind. No more OT posts on this thread from me.

[Greg2600]

Part 6 is now online!

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/amiga-history-part-6.ars

[boatofcar]

Another excellent installment. This is required reading for anyone who doesn't know the history of the Amiga.

[rbudrick]

I read parts 1-6. Great stuff! Too bad it is unfinished. I wonder how many parts there are going to be.

-Rob

[boatofcar]

I'm guessing eight.

[parallaxscroll]

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/a-history-of-the-amiga-part-1.ars


Interesting article. Just seeing that flag at half mast brought a tear to my eye...


cool thanks for posting this, going to read it now.

[Greg2600]

A history of the Amiga, part 7: Game on!

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/amiga-history-part-7.ars/1

Look ahead I guess to part 8...

Tune in for our next installment, when we'll look at the lives of some of the most popular Amiga game developers, such as Team 17, Psygnosis, and the Bitmap Brothers.

[Greg2600]

Author asking for help contacting game developers....

http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2009/12/know-anyone-who-worked-as-game-dev-for-the-commodore-amiga.ars