From: Glenn (glenn@nospam.canit.se)
Subject: Re: Why do you think...
 
View this article only
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Date: 2004-03-10 13:11:11 PST

> + On 10-Mar-04 02:20:23
 +Don Romero <don.romero@verizon.net> wrote

>> From: Joona I Palaste <palaste@cc.helsinki.fi>
>> Glenn <glenn@nospam.canit.se> scribbled the following:
>>> The Amiga also have too many "shapes", OCS/ECS/AGA/gfxcard,
>>> 68000/020/030/040/060/PPC and so on..
>> >> That's true. A C64 is a C64 is a C64. Its configurability and
>> expanadability is pretty much zilch. But an Amiga, even an A500, can
>> be expanded with a better processor, more memory, a new OS, and so on.
>  >Hmm.. 64 expandability zilch!?  MY last 64/128 had a 1-meg floppy drive,
>1764 RAM disk, an extra SID chip for stereo (five extra were possible,
>iirc); a WIMP graphic OS (Geos 64/128) with a mouse, trackball, 2400baud
>modem (9600 possible, but too $$$$), programmable graphic/font interface
>card (three different printers) ...

Sure, but this equipment is pretty rare, and the most fun idems was
released long after the C64 was "dead".

(Like the SuperCPU)

>Our user group's 64-based bbs system had a (borrowed) hard drive (CBM 9060)
>and dual 1MB floppys. 
>Always wanted to get the graphic tablet and the digitizer.. but never did;
>and if I could have rationalized the cost, would have had the 16bit
>processor upgrade..

The point is that like 99.9999% of all programs ran on an unexpanded standard
C64, maybe with floppy.. on the Amiga there are alot of stuff that either 
doesnt work on anything more recent than 68000, or anything lower than 68020,
or 68040.. or PPC, or only can be used on a Cgx-gfxcard, or only works on
AGA, or only works on OCS/ECS, or barfs on fastmem and so on.

>FWIW, I still have the C=64 mouse, ram disk and SID card - and three systems
>(64, 128 and 128D) but sold much of the rest to help pay off the Amiga
>1000.. 

I sold my C128, 1571, 1541 and alot of programs and stuff to it for a very low
price when I bought my Amiga.. that was pretty stupid but I needed the money..

-- 

| Apollo fastslot accelerators page - Http://www.canit.se/~glenn/apollo.html |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|       ___                         | Email    ΗΘ Shauni@bay-watch.com       |
|      / __\ __                     | Homepage ΗΘ http://www.canit.se/~glenn |
|  __ / /__ / /__ ____ ____ __      | IRC      ΗΘ XT600 @ IRC-net            |
| (__/ /_ // / -_) _  ) _  )__)     | Amiga - Silicon Graphics - 8bit comps. |
|    \___//_/\__/_//_/_//_/         | T h e  K i n g d o m  o f  S w e d e n |

Post a follow-up to this message
Message 12 in thread
From: ""Azrael" <afn04314ATafn.org>" <"Azrael". (afn04314ATafn.org)
Subject: Why do you think...
 
View this article only
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Date: 2004-03-10 01:56:56 PST

In message <00433fe8@elebbs.bbs>, Joona.I.Palaste@p0.f0.n0.z0.fidonet.org
wrote:

> That's true. A C64 is a C64 is a C64. Its configurability and
> expanadability is pretty much zilch. But an Amiga, even an A500, can
> be expanded with a better processor, more memory, a new OS, and so on.
> 

A C64 can also be expanded with a better processor, more memory, a new OS
and so on. But it is true that the vast majority of the software written for
the C64, even today, will run on a stock machine. 

I wish the Amiga could have somehow maintained backwards compatability with
the C64. I think that would have made the Amiga a much greater success. C64
users would have been more likely to upgrade to an Amiga than some other
platform, and there were a lot of C64 users out there when the Amiga was
introduced.

---
http://dinosaur-act.ath.cx:8000/

---
Visit The Dinosaur Act BBS!
http://dinosaur-act.ath.cx:8000/
telnet://dinosaur-act.ath.cx/

Post a follow-up to this message
Message 13 in thread
From: Joona I Palaste (palaste@cc.helsinki.fi)
Subject: Re: Why do you think...
 
View this article only
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Date: 2004-03-10 11:13:30 PST

""Azrael" <afn04314ATafn.org>" <"Azrael". <afn04314ATafn.org>@p0.f0.n0.z0.fidonet.org> scribbled the following:
> In message <00433fe8@elebbs.bbs>, Joona.I.Palaste@p0.f0.n0.z0.fidonet.org
> wrote:
>> That's true. A C64 is a C64 is a C64. Its configurability and
>> expanadability is pretty much zilch. But an Amiga, even an A500, can
>> be expanded with a better processor, more memory, a new OS, and so on.
>>  
> A C64 can also be expanded with a better processor, more memory, a new OS
> and so on. But it is true that the vast majority of the software written for
> the C64, even today, will run on a stock machine.  
> I wish the Amiga could have somehow maintained backwards compatability with
> the C64. I think that would have made the Amiga a much greater success. C64
> users would have been more likely to upgrade to an Amiga than some other
> platform, and there were a lot of C64 users out there when the Amiga was
> introduced.

Backwards compatibility with the C64 for the Amiga is pretty much
impossible. The computers differ far too much, starting right down from
different processor architectures, one of which is 8-bit, the other
32-bit. The processors weren't even made by the same company!
Think about it: How would *you* have wanted the backwards compatibility?
You insert a C64 disk into the Amiga's 5.25" drive and type
LOAD "*",8,1
RUN
at the CLI prompt, and suddenly your Amiga's Workbench screen changes to
the old blue-and-light-blue screen with lower resolution? Nice dream,
but implementing it would have pretty much required a C64 emulator
shipped with the Amiga OS.
I think the reason for this thinking is that both computers were
marketed by the same company. That's where their similarity ends. If
Amiga, Inc. had gone to business for themselves, people would never
have even thought of the two computers within the same sentence. They'd
be like the original NES and an IBM PC.

-- 
/-- Joona Palaste (palaste@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"He said: 'I'm not Elvis'. Who else but Elvis could have said that?"
   - ALF

Post a follow-up to this message
Message 14 in thread
From: Dave Haynie (dhaynie@jersey.net)
Subject: Re: Why do you think...
 
View this article only
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Date: 2004-03-13 21:54:10 PST

On 10 Mar 2004 19:13:29 GMT, Joona I Palaste <palaste@cc.helsinki.fi>
wrote:

>""Azrael" <afn04314ATafn.org>" <"Azrael". <afn04314ATafn.org>@p0.f0.n0.z0.fidonet.org> scribbled the following:
>> In message <00433fe8@elebbs.bbs>, Joona.I.Palaste@p0.f0.n0.z0.fidonet.org
>> wrote: 
>> A C64 can also be expanded with a better processor, more memory, a new OS
>> and so on. But it is true that the vast majority of the software written for
>> the C64, even today, will run on a stock machine. 

And, as well, that very little software runs with the additions. The
C64 was just too primitive to allow big changes in a compatible way. 

>> I wish the Amiga could have somehow maintained backwards compatability with
>> the C64. I think that would have made the Amiga a much greater success.

Nope; if anything, it would have crippled the Amiga. There is a time
when things need to change. The Amiga did more new stuff in a single
product introduction than any new computer before or since. Invoking
too much of the past would certainly have hurt this. 

>> users would have been more likely to upgrade to an Amiga than some other
>> platform, and there were a lot of C64 users out there when the Amiga was
>> introduced. 
>Backwards compatibility with the C64 for the Amiga is pretty much
>impossible. The computers differ far too much, starting right down from
>different processor architectures, one of which is 8-bit, the other
>32-bit. The processors weren't even made by the same company!

Well, the Amiga's keyboard was much closer (based originally on a
6500/1 chip, though the "Cherry" keyboards for the A2000 were using
something else, they were an OEM deal). 

>Think about it: How would *you* have wanted the backwards compatibility?
>You insert a C64 disk into the Amiga's 5.25" drive and type
>LOAD "*",8,1
>RUN

Really. The only proper way to run C64 software on the Amiga was via
an emulator. A bunch of them existed, but didn't sell all that well.
One big reason was simple: when you used an Amiga, you had a far more
advanced computing environment. Most users would not give that up to
run the C64 software. 

And emulation was the only way it could possibly have been kept
compatible. We discovered, in the C128 project, that the C64 ROM was
very much _functionally_ part of the C64's hardware description.
Changing anything would break some commercial application, as they had
nasty habits, like jumping into undocumented routines in BASIC, etc.
just to save RAM. We had originally changed the font, just to
de-uglify it a bit, but this caused the Island Graphics paint program
to take something like 20-30 minutes to boot up, because it "missed"
when trying to dot a bit "i" it drew from ROM. So the C128 actually
banks the font ROM between C128 and C64 mode, in hardware. 


Dave Haynie       | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting
dhaynie@jersey.net| Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004!
"Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com

Post a follow-up to this message
Message 15 in thread
From: ""Azrael" <afn04314ATafn.org>" <"Azrael". (afn04314ATafn.org)
Subject: Why do you think...
 
View this article only
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Date: 2004-03-14 01:59:37 PST

In message <0043741b@elebbs.bbs>, Joona.I.Palaste@p0.f0.n0.z0.fidonet.org
wrote:

> Backwards compatibility with the C64 for the Amiga is pretty much
> impossible. The computers differ far too much, starting right down from
> different processor architectures, one of which is 8-bit, the other
> 32-bit. The processors weren't even made by the same company!
> Think about it: How would *you* have wanted the backwards compatibility?
> You insert a C64 disk into the Amiga's 5.25" drive and type
> LOAD "*",8,1
> RUN
> at the CLI prompt, and suddenly your Amiga's Workbench screen changes to
> the old blue-and-light-blue screen with lower resolution? Nice dream,
> but implementing it would have pretty much required a C64 emulator
> shipped with the Amiga OS.
> I think the reason for this thinking is that both computers were
> marketed by the same company. That's where their similarity ends. If
> Amiga, Inc. had gone to business for themselves, people would never
> have even thought of the two computers within the same sentence. They'd
> be like the original NES and an IBM PC.
> 

I realize that it was impossible given the way in which it was designed. But
it could have been designed in from the beginning and this was the point I
was trying to make. Of course the Amiga wasn't designed by Commodore so that
would never have been a consideration. It certainly would have been possible
to do. I can run 8088 software on my P4 and PS1 games on my PS2. It's not
even close to an impossible task.

---
http://dinosaur-act.ath.cx:8000/

---
Visit The Dinosaur Act BBS!
http://dinosaur-act.ath.cx:8000/
telnet://dinosaur-act.ath.cx/

Post a follow-up to this message
Message 16 in thread
From: Joona I Palaste (palaste@cc.helsinki.fi)
Subject: Re: Why do you think...
 
View this article only
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Date: 2004-03-14 03:41:16 PST

""Azrael" <afn04314ATafn.org>" <"Azrael". <afn04314ATafn.org>@p0.f0.n0.z0.fidonet.org> scribbled the following:
> In message <0043741b@elebbs.bbs>, Joona.I.Palaste@p0.f0.n0.z0.fidonet.org
> wrote:
>> Backwards compatibility with the C64 for the Amiga is pretty much
>> impossible. The computers differ far too much, starting right down from
>> different processor architectures, one of which is 8-bit, the other
>> 32-bit. The processors weren't even made by the same company!
>> Think about it: How would *you* have wanted the backwards compatibility?
>> You insert a C64 disk into the Amiga's 5.25" drive and type
>> LOAD "*",8,1
>> RUN
>> at the CLI prompt, and suddenly your Amiga's Workbench screen changes to
>> the old blue-and-light-blue screen with lower resolution? Nice dream,
>> but implementing it would have pretty much required a C64 emulator
>> shipped with the Amiga OS.
>> I think the reason for this thinking is that both computers were
>> marketed by the same company. That's where their similarity ends. If
>> Amiga, Inc. had gone to business for themselves, people would never
>> have even thought of the two computers within the same sentence. They'd
>> be like the original NES and an IBM PC. 
> I realize that it was impossible given the way in which it was designed. But
> it could have been designed in from the beginning and this was the point I
> was trying to make. Of course the Amiga wasn't designed by Commodore so that
> would never have been a consideration. It certainly would have been possible
> to do. I can run 8088 software on my P4 and PS1 games on my PS2. It's not
> even close to an impossible task.

*IF* the Amiga had been designed by Commodore then there would have been
hope for it. But the two computers were so much different right from the
start. Like Dave Haynie said, the way the Amiga turned up, emulation was
pretty much the only way to run C64 software on the Amiga. Of course you
can run 8088 software on your P4 because the software has been handled
by Microsoft all the way, and the hardware has been handled by Intel,
and they've been trying to keep backwards compatibility all the way, not
just add it as an afterthought.
It's really amazing how people think that slapping a Commodore label on
the outside of the Amiga's plastic casing somehow makes it next in line
of the C64/C128 architecture.

-- 
/-- Joona Palaste (palaste@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"As a boy, I often dreamed of being a baseball, but now we must go forward, not
backward, upward, not forward, and always whirling, whirling towards freedom!"
   - Kang

Post a follow-up to this message
Message 17 in thread
From: Dave Haynie (dhaynie@jersey.net)
Subject: Re: Why do you think...
 
View this article only
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Date: 2004-03-16 06:32:23 PST

On 14 Mar 2004 11:41:14 GMT, Joona I Palaste <palaste@cc.helsinki.fi>
wrote:

>""Azrael" <afn04314ATafn.org>" <"Azrael". <afn04314ATafn.org>@p0.f0.n0.z0.fidonet.org> scribbled the following:
>> In message <0043741b@elebbs.bbs>, Joona.I.Palaste@p0.f0.n0.z0.fidonet.org
>> wrote:
>>> Backwards compatibility with the C64 for the Amiga is pretty much
>>> impossible.  
>> I realize that it was impossible given the way in which it was designed. But
>> it could have been designed in from the beginning and this was the point I
>> was trying to make. Of course the Amiga wasn't designed by Commodore so that
>> would never have been a consideration. It certainly would have been possible
>> to do. 
>*IF* the Amiga had been designed by Commodore then there would have been
>hope for it.

Nope. Not even remotely.

C= didn't design the Amiga, but keep in mind, the C128 and the Amiga
1000 were contemporaries. They started the early work on the Amiga
back in '82 or '83, we started the C128 in '84. 

The Amiga competed more, especially back then, with the Commodore 900.
In fact, it killed the Commodore 900. The Commodore 900 was a new
platform: based on the Z8000 16-bit micro, running Coherent (a UNIX
clone), sporting a megapixel monochrome display. A very good system,
in fact. But plagued by overambition for awhile -- the original
designers couldn't get it to work. George Robbins and Bob Raible did,
but they were the second or their team to attempt it (they not only
got it working, they made it faster, etc). This was not a $150
computer, anymore than the Amiga was, initially, a $150 computer.
There wasn't the slightest though to making the Commodore 900 C64
compatible. There wouldn't have been any more thought given to the
Amiga, had that been done totally in-house (of course, it couldn't
have been -- that kind of innovation in a single product only, ever,
comes from startup companies). 

>But the two computers were so much different right from the
>start. Like Dave Haynie said, the way the Amiga turned up, emulation was
>pretty much the only way to run C64 software on the Amiga.

The only practical way, especially in those days, to get the C64
compatibility was to build some variation of a C64. C= wasn't willing
or able to give us everything we needed to make the C128 the best way
possible. There's no way anyone would have signed off on any
additional complexity on the Amiga, especially when, at best, it's of
questionable value. People happy with their C64s didn't buy Amigas.

Read the rest of this message... (36 more lines)

Post a follow-up to this message
Message 18 in thread
From: David Evans (dfevans@bcr10.uwaterloo.ca)
Subject: Re: Why do you think...
 
View this article only
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Date: 2004-03-16 20:50:03 PST

In article <40570f70.2516453068@news.jersey.net>,
Dave Haynie <dhaynie@jersey.net> wrote:
>On 14 Mar 2004 11:41:14 GMT, Joona I Palaste <palaste@cc.helsinki.fi>
>wrote:
>
>>It's really amazing how people think that slapping a Commodore label on
>>the outside of the Amiga's plastic casing somehow makes it next in line
>>of the C64/C128 architecture.
>
>Yup. Amiga was something else, and it was supposed to be.

  The only thing one could defend it as being, with any sanity, is a
descendant of the Atari 800.  But even that is pushing things a bit.

-- 
David Evans                                         dfevans@bbcr.uwaterloo.ca
Ph.D. Candidate, Computer/Synth Junkie     http://bbcr.uwaterloo.ca/~dfevans/
University of Waterloo         "Default is the value selected by the composer
Ontario, Canada           overridden by your command." - Roland TR-707 Manual

Post a follow-up to this message
Message 19 in thread
From: Dave Haynie (dhaynie@jersey.net)
Subject: Re: Why do you think...
 
View this article only
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Date: 2004-03-17 20:52:56 PST

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 04:43:11 +0000 (UTC), dfevans@bcr10.uwaterloo.ca
(David Evans) wrote:

>In article <40570f70.2516453068@news.jersey.net>,
>Dave Haynie <dhaynie@jersey.net> wrote:
>>On 14 Mar 2004 11:41:14 GMT, Joona I Palaste <palaste@cc.helsinki.fi>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>It's really amazing how people think that slapping a Commodore label on
>>>the outside of the Amiga's plastic casing somehow makes it next in line
>>>of the C64/C128 architecture. 
>>Yup. Amiga was something else, and it was supposed to be. 
>  The only thing one could defend it as being, with any sanity, is a
>descendant of the Atari 800.  But even that is pushing things a bit.

Well, to the extent that Jay designed the Atari 800 chip architecture,
and then years later, the Amiga architecture. Of course, I did system
design on the C128, and later on the Amiga 2000, 3000, etc. but no
one's really looking for a hidden C64/C128 magic trick in the Amigas.
We do learn as we go. And find other opportunities. 

For one, on the C128, the primary goal was a wicked level of
compatibility. I don't think we hit 100%, but it was awfully good. And
there were a number of terribly squirrely things necessary to make
this happen (I was the guy in charge of making the expansion port
compatible, which basically meant testing everything we could find,
when they didn't work, finding out why, then hacking the early C128
prototype to fix the problem). 

Oddly, much more closely related are the Commodore 900 and the Atari
ST. After the whole ousting of Jack, a few middle managers and
engineers eventually packed it up and showed up at Atari. They
included one of the teams that had [unsuccessfully] been developing
the Commodore 900. They proceeded to design the Atari ST. Fortunately,
C= still had the guys who made the Commodore 900 work... they went on
to design the Amiga 500 :-)
Dave Haynie       | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting
dhaynie@jersey.net| Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004!
"Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com

Post a follow-up to this message
Message 20 in thread
From: David Evans (dfevans@bcr10.uwaterloo.ca)
Subject: Re: Why do you think...
 
View this article only
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Date: 2004-03-17 21:10:03 PST

In article <40592c70.2654949596@news.jersey.net>,
Dave Haynie <dhaynie@jersey.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 04:43:11 +0000 (UTC), dfevans@bcr10.uwaterloo.ca
>(David Evans) wrote:
>
>>In article <40570f70.2516453068@news.jersey.net>,
>>Dave Haynie <dhaynie@jersey.net> wrote:
>>>On 14 Mar 2004 11:41:14 GMT, Joona I Palaste <palaste@cc.helsinki.fi>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's really amazing how people think that slapping a Commodore label on
>>>>the outside of the Amiga's plastic casing somehow makes it next in line
>>>>of the C64/C128 architecture. 
>>>Yup. Amiga was something else, and it was supposed to be. 
>>  The only thing one could defend it as being, with any sanity, is a
>>descendant of the Atari 800.  But even that is pushing things a bit.
>
>Well, to the extent that Jay designed the Atari 800 chip architecture,
>and then years later, the Amiga architecture.

  Sure.  The similarities, which are mostly DMA engine and display
lists I guess, may reflect development of Jay's philosophy more than
anything else.

>Of course, I did system
>design on the C128, and later on the Amiga 2000, 3000, etc. but no
>one's really looking for a hidden C64/C128 magic trick in the Amigas.

  Looking for such a thing would be silly, I think.

>For one, on the C128, the primary goal was a wicked level of
>compatibility. I don't think we hit 100%, but it was awfully good.

  Agreed, and it was something that I recall stunned me at the time.

>Oddly, much more closely related are the Commodore 900 and the Atari
>ST. After the whole ousting of Jack, a few middle managers and
>engineers eventually packed it up and showed up at Atari. They
>included one of the teams that had [unsuccessfully] been developing
>the Commodore 900. They proceeded to design the Atari ST.

  Heh.  Didn't know that.

-- 
David Evans                                         dfevans@bbcr.uwaterloo.ca
Ph.D. Candidate, Computer/Synth Junkie     http://bbcr.uwaterloo.ca/~dfevans/
University of Waterloo         "Default is the value selected by the composer
Ontario, Canada           overridden by your command." - Roland TR-707 Manual