Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:49:03 EDT
From: Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A 386 AmigaClone?!
Distribution: world
 <92235.010235MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> <mykes.0d1y@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>

In article <mykes.0d1y@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>, mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike
Schwartz) says:

>In article <92235.010235MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St.
>John Polevaulter) writes:
>> Mike, I hope you take this in a friendly way, but...
>>
>> It seems like you want the Amiga to become yet another PC clone.
>> Do you really think that Yet Another 386 Clone, manufactured by Commodore
>> (not the best marketers in the world, if that's a surprise to anyone), and
>> with all the baggage on the side required to kludge the Amiga system onto
>> that 386, is going to come out with an MSRP cheaper than an ordinary 386
>clone?
>>

>Competitive with that ordinary 386 clone.

Well, we start with the cost of a 386 clone. Let's say $1200. This is with
MS-DOS, of course. Now how much extra would one have to pay for the Amiga
grafted onto it? $200? $300? THAT determines how competitive it is.

>> Will it be worth crashing nine-tenths of the Amiga software in existence?
>> (You thought switching from Kickstart 1.3 to Kickstart 2.0 was bad... on
>> second thought, nine-tenths is an understatement!)
>>

>It is my opinion and that of MANY developers that 2.0 should have broken      s
>9/10th
>of existing software.

No offense, but I'm not sure I believe this. Are these developers who have
actually produced programs that would be broken?

  But in exchange for that, we should have DIG, MP, and  ,
>VM
>among other things.  Switching CPUs at the same time would break the remaining
>apps, but we'd still be getting everything the Amiga needs allatonce.

And starting over FROM SCRATCH. With NO software base (for the Amiga side)
whatsoever! DIG, MP, and VM are already available in OS/2, so a Completely
New, Breaks All Previous Software OS for the Amiga side is still not much of
an attraction. If we're throwing out ALL software in the name of a better OS,
this OS has to be SPECTACULARILY better just to compete with the IBM side
of the machine!

The main attraction of the Amiga at the moment is for video. All video
boards, software, et cetera in existence (including the beloved Video Toaster)
will be (excuse the pun) useless on this hybrid Amiga. Bang goes another
reason to buy...

>And all the software SOURCE code isn't worthless, you know.  Especially if it
>is in 'C' like so many developers code.  Anything you use off a fish disk now
>can be recompiled, right?

Um, no offense, but you can't just jump over to another platform and
recompile all software and have it work fine. You're a developer yourself.
You've GOT to know this.

And anyway, how many developers are going to actually DO this? Quite a lot
would have to "recompile" the machine code segments, too (NewTek, for example.)
Faced with the task of rewriting every single one of their products, developers
will rise as one and utter the words "Yeah, right."

>> Will it be worth alienating the thousands of Amiga developers worldwide,    e
>whose
>> specialized knowledge of the 680x0 is now useless? Watch Amiga development
>> drop to zero instantly.
>>

>I didn't say to stop making 68K Amigas.  Just to make an Amiga that the
>general population might buy to increase the potential market.

Two problems:

1. This x86 Amiga has no software beyond ordinary PC clone software, and
   is more expensive. Why buy it instead of something else?

2. Now you've split the Amiga user community right down the middle. The
   Wonderful New x86 Breaks Everything OS DOESN'T WORK on the 68K-based
   Amigas that you want C= to keep making, so the millions of 68K Amiga
   owners (as well as anyone who buys new 68K ones) are basically shafted
   as far as getting the cool new OS is concerned. Plus developers will have to
   write two wildly different versions of each product to run on both lines
   of Amigas. With 4 million familiar 68K-based machines on one side,
   and a couple thousand unfamiliar x86-based machines on the other side,
   which one do you think they'll ignore in favor of the other?

   Hint: Remember the Commodore Plus/4 and C-16.

> I'm not fond of the x86
>in general, but I do see the clone universe moving steadily towards Risc
>technology, bringing millions of people in and the prices down.  That's a big
>boat to miss.

As if Motorola IS going to "miss the boat." They're not stupid. If RISC
becomes a majorly important technology for mid- to low-end computers,
Motorola will be there. So what if Intel is too? They're not automatically
better, ya know. Whether Commodore catches the boat along with Motorola
is a different subject entirely, of course.

And re, prices: x86's are cheaper, but 68k's are cheap enough. What's the
current price for a 68030 now, $75?

>> Is this strange project even possible to accomplish in the short time frame
>> before 386es are passe and something entirely new takes their place?
>>

>It could be accomplished before CBM stopped making 68000 computers :)

The Second Coming of Christ will arrive before CBM stops THAT... :)

>> Is anyone going to even *use* the Amiga mode of this bizarre machine? If
>> it becomes Yet Another PC Clone, it will sink into mediocrity with the
>> rest of them.

>You'd obviously use the Amiga mode to run Amiga software.  Stuff that calls
>the amiga libraries (exec, gfxbase, intuition, etc.).

But there isn't going to BE any Amiga software! It all broke, remember?

My point above was that an Amiga mode with OS/2 like capabilities but no
software whatsoever will be totally overshadowed by the PClone mode with
identical capabilities and piles of software. I'm not just whistling Dixie
here; past examples include --

Commodore 128. The C-128 mode was somewhat more powerful but not hugely
so. They sold 3 million, yet I can count the commercial packages for the
128 mode on the fingers of one hand.

Apple IIgs. Much greater capabilities for the IIgs mode, yet this thing
spends all its time imitating an Apple II.

Tandy PClones. These things have their own specialized window system and OS.
They also run ordinary PC software. Tandy is making money off of them, but
how many developers write for the Tandy window system? (This is the scenario
I see if, improbably enough, the x86 Amigas DO sell. They'll come with an
Amiga hanging off the side which nobody ever uses; for all intents and
purposes, Just Another PC clone. Yawn.)

>Major innovation: better graphics, faster machines, and newer system software.
>That sounds like you describe the PC world and not the Amiga world.

Yes, we need better graphics, faster machines, and newer system software.
I just think an x86 Amiga, at least the one you describe, is totally
wrongheaded. IMHO, and no offense intended.

> I see the
>Amiga software making NO concessions to anything that exists for DOS boxes
>today.

I don't understand what this means.

>> You're a smart guy, I'd expected better than that.

>I expected the insults...

They're not insults! You're a developer, you've programmed Amigas, you've
written cool games, you're ten times more experienced than anyone I know.
So I just didn't expect a weird idea like this to come from YOU.

[Your blood pressure just went up.]       Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
       DISCLAIMER: If it ain't money, Penn State doesn't care about it.
   "Ladies and gentlemen, I've suffered for my music! Now it's your turn!"
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy