#CompuServe Magazine
52 messages in this thread
Hi !
I'm writing an article for CompuServe Magazine on orphaned computers.
I'll be examining systems such as the old Amstrad, Apricot and Victor,
systems that have been abandoned by their manufacturers but not their
owners. I'd be exploring how members keep these machines viable, by using
the forums to share information on upgrades and hard-to-find software.
Dated machines, such as the old C-64 and Macintosh Lisa, will also be
included in the story, which will examine the reasons for their owners'
loyalty and where they go online to find support.
Specialized systems such as those produced by Atari and Amiga, which
lack the market share of an Apple or IBM, will also be discussed–where
programs and support for these systems can be obtained in the system etc…
The article will include a sidebar listing some of the best files for
these systems, files recommended by users.
Finally, I'll be exploring the growing interest in computer collecting.
What machines are hot, why and where you can find them
If you own one of these machines and have a story that you'd like to
share, or a favorite file to recommend, please contact me via E-Mail at
70004,515 and tell me your story. Thanks !
Excuse me? Let me see if I understand this: The Amiga is going to
be one of the focuses of an article on orphaned computers? This is a joke,
right?? I understand the angle you are trying to pursue, but if the Amiga
is placed in a context that makes it seem to be an orphaned machine I shall
be VERY put out. 😎
— Ethan
Ethan:
Why be put out? Victor clearly stated that the Amiga would be addressed as
a 'niche' or 'special needs' computer. And if CBM actually does put the
kibash on 2.0 enhancer kits, well, then the Amiga could very well be
considered an orphan… many of us already think of it that way!
(and always have) 🙂
– Whapping from the North Coast Michael
I'm sorry if you think the Amiga, which is selling close to one
million units a year, is an orphan. I don't. I also think that this stuff
about 2.0 not being made available in N.A. is probably going to all turn
out to be nonsense. Complete misunderstanding.
What I believe it to be is this: Initial demand for 2.0 will far
outstrip supply. You have to consider that there are two groups who want
2.0: new sales of Amigas and enhancer kits for current users. My GUESS is
that Commodore intends to give priority to new sales so that those people
don't have to upgrade later.
Once the supply of 2.0 is greater than new sales of Amigas, they
will make enhancer kits available. This would be the decision of the
international company (read Mehdi Ali) as the international company makes
the Amigas and sells them to the various national divisions.
— Ethan
I find it hard to believe that the Amiga is selling at one million units
per year, since Apple's hot new Mac line is only selling 600,000. There
are only 5 million Macs in the US, versus 1.5 millon Amigas. Of course, I
have seen figures vary from different sources, but I think that these
figures are reasonably close.
Funnt how some people consider a computer that has sold over 2 million
units worldwide can be considered a "failure" by some.
Eric Pinnell
Eric,
You must consider that about 85% of the Amigas are sold outside the US.
Betty
This past April Jim Dionne announced the shipment of the 3
millionth Amiga. It was the October (give or take a month) before that that
Commodore announced the sale of the 2 millionth Amiga. Sounds a lot like
just under 1 million a year to me, perhaps 800K. And Apple sells somewhere
around 1.2 million units a year if I remember right. Well, it is at least
1.2 million. I remember something like 2.x million.
— Ethan
Etahn, selling a million units in a year is not the same as selling a
million units every year.
– Whapping from the North Coast Michael
'Every year' is a little hard to quantify, since they all haven't happened
yet.
<grin>
What do you mean "every year is a little hard to quantify" ?
CBM has sold NO Amigas in 1993! 🙂
– Whapping from the North Coast Michael
Neither has Apple or IBM 🙂
The Amiga has been around a long time. THe problem is that most
computer magazines don't carry accurate figures as to the total installed
base of machines. Odd how Europe loves the Amiga and Atari ST much more
than the US. Then again, "Big Blue" is far more pervasive in its influence
in America. Of course, maybe all Americans are nuts anyway!<g>
Eric Pinnell
Eric,
You do not know Commodore history. Back around 1980 or 1981, Jack Tramiel
was president of Commodore, and he found out that he could sell his PET
computers for about 2-3 times as much in Europe as he could get for them in
the US. So he abandoned the US market for the most part, and put all his
emphasis on Europe. Tramiel is long gone – but before he left, the
European Commodore divisions were strong, and they still are. They
advertise. They sponsor major sporting events!! Players over there even
wear uniforms with the Commodore name on the jerseys sometimes. Commodore
is the biggest selling name in Germany in every one of their lines – PCs
and all.
In 1981 and 1982, Commodore OWNED the educational market in the US, and
they just walked away and gave it to Apple. How about that?
Betty
I'm surprised. Then again, Europe is big on the Atari ST too. Perhaps
it's because "Big Blue" isn't as dominating in Europe as the US. Or maybe
the Europeans are smart than we are. Or maybe it's just that Commodore US
is run by a bunch of near-sighted neanderthals. Or maybe's it's voodoo.
Who knows?
Eric Pinnell
Eric, in the last year or so I haven't seen many Atari STs in the shops in
Europe.. the Amiga is very dominant. The big games shops stock hundreds of
Amiga titles, and just standing there and watching people buy is a, well,
joy. (grin)
Khalid.
Funny, but to list to ST people, you'd think THEY owned the market. ANd
according to PCMAG, 80% of the European computers are PCs.
All of which goes to show you that there is a lot of disinformation
floating around about the computer markets.
Eric Pinnell
Ethan:
a) I never said that I thought the Amiga was an orphan… tounge in cheek,
I said the Amiga FEELS like an orphan because of CBM's support.
b) The Amiga has been on the market for six years (going on seven) and
there ARE NOWHERE NEAR six million Amigas in the world… more like one
million here int he US and another 2 million or so worldwide.
c) The complete misunderstanding regarding 2.0, unfortunately, is from
within CBM, not the news we have heard, that has been VERIFIED.
>>> "Once the supply of 2.0 is greater than new sales of Amigas, they will
make enhancer kits available." ???
How can the sales of 2.0 be greater than the sales of new Amigas if 2.0 is
not available for sale?
– Whapping from the North Coast Michael
I never claimed that the Amiga has been selling 1 million units a
year since the beginning, merely that they have been growing in units/year
and are approaching that figure now.
As to the misunderstanding regarding 2.0, it is NOT Commodore's
fault. That is nuts! Someone in R&D reveals private discussions to someone
that aren't concluded yet. Apparently they were not revealed wholly
accurately either. Then you blame Commodore because that rumor got spread?
It is hard to blame the employees either, cause I think they
believed that what they said was true. I don't know whether it actually
is/was true. But it was hardly announced by Commodore publically.
Also, I don't understand your point "how can the sales of 2.0 be
greater than the sales of new Amigas if 2.0 is not available for sale?"
Point is, once Commodore's production on 2.0 is high enough to have
leftovers after shipping it with all new Amigas, then it will go on sale.
— Ethan
Ethan,
you keep saying 'once production on 2.0 is high enough to have
leftovers after shipping new Amiga, then it will go on sale'. Is that an
authorative statement from someone in Commodore?
While Dionne did say he was going to relase 2.0 enhancers, his boss
(according to "informed sources") not only canceled Dionne's order for the
chips, but when a 2nd order was put in for chips…it too was canceled.
Not backordered waiting for production to catch up, but canceled.
Draw your own conclusions from that.
Don
Don, as I said at the beginning of the thread this is just my guess
as to why Dionne's order for 2.0 would be cancelled. To assume that you or
I or anyone else really knows what is going on or what Ali intends is,
well, egotistical. 😎
— Ethan
Oh yes, I forgot. Why I would be put out. If the Amiga were in an
article titled "Niche Markets" I could deal with that. If the article is
titled "Orphaned Computers" or "Computers of the Past" or some such, I
would probably cancel my account the next day.
— Ethan
Then there should be a seperate article. Mixing "niche" computers into an
article about "abandoned" machines just tells me that there wasn't enough
material for the main article, and that the "niche" part is being used as
filler.
If this is not the case, then there should be two articles.
Steve
Good idea! (Separate articles for orphans and niche computers).
kev
Steve,
I'm just as sensitive to the word 'orphaned' being used in the same article
that gives any mention to the Amiga. Not a pleasant thought, is it? I can
understand the intention of the author… maybe the headline or title of
the article should be changed to something like "Personal Computers Outside
The MainStream" or something… I suppose you're right, if the article is
truly devotes most of its space to 'orpahned' computers, than the Amiga is
better left unmentioned.
– Whapping from the North Coast Michael
Considering that 2.0 kits have been delayed several times in the past, and
that I've only heard that they're holding them back for another few months,
and that I don't quite see the logic between "no 2.0 kit right now means
Amiga == orphan", I'd saying you've made an overstatement.
John:
Hey, what's this? The King of CBM cynisism taking seriously a tounge in
cheek comment I made regarding the latest rumors from CBM that 2.0
enhancers won't be made available? <g>
Come on, lighten up… Truthfully, one of the things which HAS impressed
me about CBM's treatment of the Amiga, is the way in which the OS has
remained somewhat (if not mostly) downwardly compatible through its
different incarnations. That was a promise that CBM made many years ago,
and one which, to their credit, they have lived up to. I think that 2.0
has challenged that committment… and maybe Ali is nervous about releasing
ROMS for older machines that will break old software.
Besides, if you had parents like CBM, you might WANT to consider yourself
an orphan! <g> (oh boy, here we go again…)
PS… thanks for the informative articles on networking in INFO… I really
enjoyed them. Nice job.
– Whapping from the North Coast Michael
Obviously, I didn't think your statement was tongue in cheek! And making
such a statement to an outsider – and a writer at that – you were indulging
in an unnecessary risk of being misunderstood, for the sake of a lame joke.
Don't trust them writers. 🙂
If there's one lesson to be learned about operating system upgrades, it's
to break with the past as soon as possible. Or at least, that's a lesson
I've learned. Look at the lame, kludgey attempts to keep MS-DOS 1.x
applications working without disturbance under Windows 3.0. CBM started
out (at least two years ago) saying that 1.4/2.0 would be compatible. Of
course, Murphy's Law fights against them. Meanwhile, developers are jerked
around, users suffer, and the Amiga's reputation drops another notch.
JF>> If there's one lesson to be learned about operating system upgrades,
JF>> it's to break with the past as soon as possible. Or at least, that's a
Actually, when it comes to MS-DOS, I disagree with you. I feel (and
recommend to users) that if a version is working for you, then don't
upgrade until you HAVE to.
MS-DOS 3.3 still uses the least amount of memory of any recent version of
dos, on the most machines. It's stable, bugfree and WORKS! <g>. I run
this at the store on all our networked machines. (where reliability is a
must).
At home, I run MS-DOS 4.01 so that I can take advantage of it's access of
large hard drive partitions (3.3 is limited to 32meg HD partitions). I only
switched to it, after I learned how to get around the bugs still in DOS
4.01. But there are still some good programs out in the PD/Freeware world
that haven't been upgraded to work with 4.01.
As for DOS 5.0, I won't even consider personally switching until maybe 5.01
comes out. There's already bug reports (so much for over a year of beta
testing). And loading MS-DOS high isn't all it's cracked up to be. When you
use their memory manager, it slows a lot of '286/'386 systems down to half
speed. And if you want to run QEMM386 and/or Desqview on a '386… if you
load DOS high, you actually end up with LESS memory for use. If you run it
low, you're no better off than with DOS 4.01.
As long as all your programs continue to work with the version of the OS
you have, it's safer to stay where you are.
Yes and no. Sure, don't break what you don't have to break… but if
you've trying to advance the state of the art for your processor / machine
family, don't worry about backwards compatibility. If you did the job
right the last time, it shouldn't be a significant concern. But with
AmigaDOS 2.0, we're right where cynics (like me 🙂 said we'd be: Even
though CBM started out by saying they wouldn't break anything; they did;
and because they started the project with the foolish, inexperienced and
arguably incompetent notion that they wouldn't break anything and therefore
couldn't really add any advancements or features, we're now stuck with a
half-hearted attempt at an operating system upgrade, and we've been waiting
three years for it. Yippee.
John, I don't think that is a fair assessment at all of the 2.0
situation. First off, yes, they broke SOME things, but so many things still
work it is pretty amazing. It was interesting to watch compatibility grow
between releases. I still remember running Excellence under the release
2.00 of WB on the 3000. It crashed in the most amazing ways. Now it works.
As I understand it, dos.library was totally rewritten in C/ASM.
fastfilesystem was rewritten. Compugraphic support was added. etc. etc.
And, admittedly, it is closing in on 3 years between releases. But I don't
believe that the backwards compatibility efforts were wasted. Also, none of
us can be certain how much virtual memory code has actually been written.
BTW, keep in mind that many of the AmigaDOS people have already
moved on to new work. Besides the faCt that 2.0 is now done (essentially) I
feel pretty certain that many of them moved on several months ago.
But, then again, after the third of September we'll all know much
better. Well, some of us will.
— Ethan
If they've really re-written so much, then we're really in trouble. New
code means new bugs. New code doesn't sound like a very smart way to keep
things from breaking. Dragging the "beta" process out over four years
means that 2.0 hasn't really been tested, in my mind. When it really hits
the user base, I predict a flood of new bugs and an even greater intensity
of screaming here in the forum. Sometimes it's so *easy* to be cynical,
and the problem is, I think it's a safe prediction.
You can't have it both ways; either you get big changes (and new code) and
small changes (and not much new code).
The testing process has been extensive; and because of the A3000 having 2.0
for over a year, we've had extensive work on the OS{_ by users.
One rule about being cynical is that to be effective, you have to keep up
with all the facts; otherwise you're not sure about what to be cynical
about.
There will be some bugs in 2.0, yes. But there were some bugs in
1.3 as well. Sometimes rewriting the code can be very important. Ridding
the world of BCPL isn't the worst idea in the world. 😎 Also, who knows
what kind of speed improvements were possible by rewriting things like
fastfilesystem.
From my usage of 2.0 I have not found any SERIOUS concerns. There
are bugs, true. But there has never been a such thing as a bug-free OS.
This operating system is one of the more stable.
— Ethan
Our original goal was 75%-80% compatibility for properly written programs.
I fail to see what is "foolish, inexperienced and incompetent" about that.
There are significant advances in 2.0 from the programmer point of view;
much work was was done on dos, intuition, etc.
In the end, because of marketing pressures, we had to go for >90%
compatibility, and also attempt to keep poorly written programs working.
(This added significant time to the project, naturally).
Backward compatibility is always a concern if you are maintaining an OS.
It's kind of naive to believe otherwise.
Andy,
As long as I've got you online here, I'd like to thank you for the
incredible work you've done on 2.0. I would never have powered-up to the
3000 had it not been for the new OS… and I really appreciate the fact
that it is so compatible with previous OS releases.
As I pointed out in another message, IMHO, 5 OS releases in 7 years, all
stretching the hardware while breaking little software, is a remarkable
feat for which you folks deserve an awful lot of credit.
– Whapping from the North Coast Michael
Andy, add my voice to those who are grateful for your work on WB2.0….
John F may be correct that there will be chorus of dissent when it hits the
street and some peoples favorite programs break (as some will), and they
blame Commodore, etc…. but let's face it, we needed 2.0 badly, and now,
to paraphrase Ben Williams…. 'get some stinking sleep.' Congrats.
–jp–seattle–
That's "Steenking", but I concur. :^)
Ben
Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
I remember (foolish) claims of 100 percent compatibility. Perhaps I'm
wrong. Or maybe the history books have been rewritten. Go for the big
effective changes, make it as quick as possible, and damn the last OS
version if it comes down to backwards compatibility versus a useful,
cleaner feature.
As for A3000s having "2.0", I know I'll never forget the enlightened
Syndesis customer who was mixing and matching updates to 2.0, all the while
retaining the 1.3 SetPatch program in his startup sequence. Eventually, it
broke. Trying to keep up with the innumerable intermediate versions has
been a pain, to say the least. When customers get their hands on updates,
it is impossible to control.
One rule about being cynical is that a cynical attitude can be applied
uniformly to almost any situation; that is cynicism's undoing as well as
its benefit. There's been a handful of things that caused 2.0 bugs in our
products that we thought we were keeping up on – we'd notice it when the
bug would disappear and re-appear between updates.
As for keeping up on the facts, I say it's impossible. I'm supposed to
wade through yet another "Amiga Mail" article on a 2.0-specific way of
making gadgets under 2.0? We need to retain 1.3 compatibility. We can't
rely on 2.0 features. I have serious doubts that customers will plunk down
$200 to get new 2.0 ROMs for their A2000 and A2630. Are you aware of any
non-CBM products that will run only under 2.0?
Uh…. where, if I may ask, did that $200 figure come from?
Ben
Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
You know John, I am not sure if I speak for a lot of other folks or not,
but I am tired of reading posts like yours. Your first post about AmigaDOS
2.0 was off target and extremely unfair. You were called on it by someone
who has to deal with the problems of developing software on a much grander
scale than anything Syndesis has done. Instead of retracting your
inflamatory remarks you decide to add to it, why?
I now wonder where you are coming from. Have you so quickly forgot your
posts on how terrible Workbench 1.3 was? You were the one saying that the
Amiga needed a real GUI if it wanted to compete with Windows. I can't
believe that you think that comes without a cost.
As far as numerous releases go, how do you figure? There have been to date
exactly 4 updates to A3000 owners who were not registered developers. Each
release provided more functionality than the last and each improved
compatibility. In fact, I would even go as far to say that if Commodore
had not updated the system software in this period that a lot of A3000
sales would have been lost. I for one, take my hat off to Commodore, and
thank them for taking the time to remember the customer.
Further, every update came with instructions on how to install the
software. Out of the 100 or so A3000s we have sold we have not had a
_single_ user who has managed to get his 1.3 setpatch mixed in, nor had any
trouble installing the updates that were made available. If your customer
had the trouble you described he either can't read or doesn't have a decent
dealer. None of which is Commodore Engineerings fault.
As far as keeping up with the facts go. Yes, you are supposed to wade
through yet another "Amiga Mail" article on 2.0-specific way on making
gadgets under 2.0. I don't think I have seen _any_ article that was not of
some use in Amiga Mail. Further, I wish that DEC took the time to provide
some of the same caliber articles that I have found in Amiga Mail, and
certainly DEC makes you wade through a ton of documentation.
[ MORE ]
[ continuation ]
Further, to date, Commodore U.S. has not announced the pricing of the new
ROM chips. I seriously doubt, considering the developers price of the
chips, that it will be anywhere near $200. I would advise you to wade
through a bit of the mail CATS has been sending you. I might add that I
think that you mentioning any figure for the costs of the chips is
irresponsible.
Let me end this with a thought. Sometimes you are wrong. Sometimes you
should admit it. Shooting from the hip, though interesting, does not help
your crediability.
-mark=
I never remember a claim of 100% compatibility. Such a claim
would've been really dumb. I can imagine it coming from an individual
employee who hadn't thought out their words, but not in any official word.
As to the many upgrades of 2.0, there have been 2 (not including
the final one). How complicated is it to ask the user to select Version
from the workbench menu and tell you what they were running? Not very.
And where did you get that $200 figure for 2.0 roms? I was under
the impression that numbers had not yet been released. But keep in mind
that at some point in the near future (read 6-8 months) likely all new
Amigas will come with 2.0.
— Ethan
re: Backward compatability; You could always go the microsoft route, then
we would still be living within our proverbial 640k. (I hear that the
*NEW* Dos 5.0 has a whopping 610k free for transients.) Oh yes, they also
now have a task switcher ala the 1982 Mac. No wonder its the most popular
machine in America!
– For Sale: one state (CT) Cheap! HandyMan's Special!
price includes bad roads and Bank of NE (owner must supply own budget)
Rick–
Our first DOS 5.0 install is working out great…it has not slowed the
machine down, and we have over 630k free before loading TSR's. However,
some TSR's have difficulty loading into high memory for some reason – most
notably, CloseUp. Still, I'd rather have 5.0 than 4.01 anyday – and I like
it better than 3.3 as well.
Jonathan
Jonathan – from Albany, NY, via whap!
It wouldn't surprise me. Just more of the uselessness of CompuServe
Magazine. I wish they'd quit printing it and save a lot of paper.
Amen on saving the paper!
via Whap! Al Benglen
74615,500
Victor,
Putting the Amiga in an article about "orphaned" machines will not make
you very popular (or make you seem very intelligent). The Amiga deserves
some share (not alot, but SOME) of the normal coverage.. not THIS. Do all
of us a favor and drop the Amiga from your article; whatever you write
probably won't be of any interest to real Amiga users, anyway,
Apparently the article isn't only about orphaned machines. The message
says it's also about "dated" machines (like the Model 100) and
"specialized" machines (like the Amiga).
More or less, it looks like it covers anything that's not a Mac or IBM 🙂
Might be intelligent to arm the author with some info about Amiga sales…
could be interesting.
If you're looking for ways to fill out this article, why not talk about the
response you got when you said the Amiga was to be included in your article
on orphans… Yes, there are 55 million PCs in the world, and 10-12
million Macs, and about 3 million Amigas. In other words, the Amiga has
the same sales record that the Mac had five years ago. Video is hardly a
specialized market, in reality, it's one of the hottest markets around.
Speaking as a freelance writer, here's a freebie article idea – why not
talk about all the things that the Amiga pioneered, and how the Mac and PC
have attempted to adopt them?
Four forums and its own file finder hardly show that the Amiga is an orphan
on Compuserve…
The figures I heard about Macs said 7 million units, not 10-12.
Where'd you get those numbers from?
— Ethan
From very expensive research analysis done by a big PC company. I was
surprised, too – but think about it. When you hear figures like these,
don't forget that the market keeps moving. If these figures are a year
old, they could be off by ten percent. As for their relative importance, I
think they should publish similar figures for Nintendo, VCRs, and Jelly
Balls.
I personally don't think it would be a good idea to include the Amiga or
the Atari ST/TT in your article. They are definately not orphaned machines.
If you want to speak on these machines, I would suggest a second, serparate
article about "specialized" computers. Including the Amiga and ST/TT in
this article about orphaned machines will give the general public the wrong
idea.
Sincerely, Darin (This is my personal opinion and may not reflect the
opinions of Precision/SPC)
– via Whap!