I saw late 80s though in the UK where a special theme pack of the C64 was just hitting the pricing level of Amiga 500 which had been out just long enough to see a price cut. So that year you might have got a now very dated 64, albeit with a bunch of games thrown in and many available, instead of an A500 which was just getting going. (IIRC it was a Simpsons themed pack, not sure if it was Bart Simpson vs Space Mutants or other.)

edit: pics of that seem not easy to find, maybe a Commodore UK Pleasance special.

HanSolo wrote on 2022-12-14, 12:31:

The C16, C116 and even the Plus/4 aimed at a very low price (or at least low production costs) so they had to have worse specs than the C64 and thus could not be compatible.

but why change tape drive and joystick sockets? You cant even argue lowering cost considering C64 used free to manufacture edge connector for tape drive 😀 Nail in the coffin of cost cutting theory is the fact Commodore was doing its own injection molding manufacturing its own sockets. Same for all the chips inside its computers.
The answer is simple - no one competent left after getting rid of C64 designers and computer clueless Tramiel on a mission to "compete" with Sinclair at any cost. Sinclair, company on the verge of going bankrupt (one year later). Brilliant!

HanSolo wrote on 2022-12-14, 12:31:

Designing a computer that is compatible to the C64 and has better specs is really tough.

Did you mean really easy? Stage 1 effortless upgrades, could be shipped as early as 1983, we could go wild and call it C64x2:
- 128KB
- define standard paging port for switching memory banks. Thats what Atari 8bit line did with 130XE in 1985 extending mechanism already used in 800XL from 1983. None of this complicated C128 multiple custom configurations nonsense, simple one 8bit register switching memory banks inside one 16KB window.
- add second SID for stereo.
- update rom with standard floppy Turbo routines, 300 bytes/second was PATHETIC.
Beauty of this is you could sell official Cartridges adding those features not leaving existing C64 owners behind. Manufacture
all C64s with empty space on PCB for ram/sid to further optimize manufacturing costs (less variation means better economies of scale). Commodore could sell "hi-end" 256-512KB models using same hardware.

Stage 2 upgrades requiring actual R&D investment and someone competent designing chips, could ship in 84:
- build in REU MOS 8726 (fast memory copy in addition to bank switching) modified for multiple DMA channels and modes(alu operations in flight). Dedicated floppy channel, several controlled by timer (audio dac) and external triggers (hsync/vsync like SNES HDMA).
- dual SID on same piece of silicon, additional 4/8bit ADPCM DAC.
- VIC2 upgrades. RGB output. 1KB of Integrated color ram. Ability to control memory page directly by VIC without CIA help including newly added paging register, separate page registers for screen, chargen, sprites. Sprite mirroring, using full 8 bits of sprite color registers, extended sprite data pointers inside VIC register space. VSP (Variable Screen Position) supported in hardware for copyless full screen scrolling (adding VM0-9 register). Maybe 32 entry palette ram?

Stage 3:
- integrate all of the above in one/two chips and build it into Amiga.
- let C64 side take over Amiga hardware.
- let 68000 take over C64 hardware.
- let C64 side work in parallel as a coprocessor/virtual computer inside a computer.

1 was trivial no brainer, 2 doable with whatever pitiful engineering expertise Commodore had on deck, 3 would mean actual software and client base ready for the Amiga transition. Instead 'Amiga 1000 was a flop, official Germany (best Amiga market) numbers put it at ~1% of total sales (27K units), extrapolating over all worldwide Amiga sales ever gives us ~100K A1000 units in 8 years. Amiga only started gaining momentum after 1987 A500/2000 release.'

rasz, you just gave me a window into a beautiful past that could have been. I feel the Commodore 65 straddles your Stage 1 and 2 somewhat, but stage 3 would have been amazing 😀

Now, back to Earth!

C128 was two computers in one box, and it failed.
Amiga+C64 in one box would have surely failed, too.

It's simple: for the price of two computers in one box, one can always buy a single computer of superior specs.

If I was to travel back in time, on a mission to save the Commodore, I would rather focus on improving the original Amiga in another way...

Just think about Amiga 2000HD, but in 1985...
It was perfectly possible, with hardly any cost increase - just get a bigger box and add expansion slots!
HDD and controller card optional, so the entry-level model would be cheap, yet easily expanded later on.
Just make sure to include the HDD autoboot in the ROM!
Expansion slots would also allow for LAN, and countless other third-party options.

It would also be nice to separate the video onto a card, so it was easily replaced by a better one - NON INTERLACED!
But I'm afraid this would be difficult, with Amiga chipset features being so tighly coupled together...

Grzyb wrote on 2022-12-15, 04:35:

C128 was two computers in one box, and it failed.

C128 failed to the tune of selling over 3 million units 😀 It wasnt a commercial fiasco, but a technical one. Pretty much every single client wanted and expected upgraded _two times better_ C64 and immediately felt scammed. C128 was three computers in one at double the cost:
- C64 with ZERO enhancements
- C128 with zero software, because to use it fully would require buying CGA monitor at /checks notes http://www.wishbookweb.com/FB/1986_Sears_Wish … l/page-663.html $250 in 1986, almost same price as C128 ($300) and almost twice C64 ($150).
- Z80 CP/M 🤣

Grzyb wrote on 2022-12-15, 04:35:

Amiga+C64 in one box would have surely failed, too.

For starters people would actually consider buying Amiga before any software worth having showed up. Marketing Amiga as massively upgraded C64 (best selling computer of all time) wouldnt hurt.

Grzyb wrote on 2022-12-15, 04:35:

It's simple: for the price of two computers in one box, one can always buy a single computer of superior specs.

At the point of Amiga release it wouldnt be two computers, but one computer + a chip adding backward compatibility. Apple did it in IIGS with 2e on a chip. It could even be used as IO coprocessor in place of CIA.

Grzyb wrote on 2022-12-15, 04:35:

If I was to travel back in time, on a mission to save the Commodore, I would rather focus on improving the original Amiga in another way...

Amiga 1000 barely sold and made no money for Commodore. Up to ~1988 all the profits came from C64, C128 scam (one time sale and you know this client will never buy Commodore again) and overpriced peripherals. Just like stupid C16/plus4 line there was no on ramp, no backward compatibility, no software.
If not incorporating C64 then another move possible in 1985 would be changing CPU for 65C816 derivative. Ass crazy as it sounds 65C816 actually performs as fast as 68000 clock for clock despite being only 16 bit on 8bit bus. Extend it to 32bit bus and you have a winner with huge library of existing code.

Grzyb wrote on 2022-12-15, 04:35:

Just think about Amiga 2000HD, but in 1985...
It was perfectly possible, with hardly any cost increase - just get a bigger box and add expansion slots!

At double the cost? IBM was selling $2300 PCs in 1985. A1000 was $1300. Besides Amiga 1000 barely made it out the door already in big box 😀 and with huge double decker busy PCB full of bodges. It took Commodore a good while to get their shit together both manufacturing and design wise. Lets not forget read only 256KB of ram because unfinished firmware 😀

Grzyb wrote on 2022-12-15, 04:35:

HDD and controller card optional, so the entry-level model would be cheap, yet easily expanded later on.
Just make sure to include the HDD autoboot in the ROM!
Expansion slots would also allow for LAN, and countless other third-party options.

A1000 had expansion slot on the side just like PCJunior! 😀 It took two years for third parties to start shipping any expansions. Hard drives showed up in 1987 at $1000 for 20MB with controller. ~$700 price premium over PC due to tiny market. I dont think even bigger box full of equally non-compatible with anything slots would make it better.

Grzyb wrote on 2022-12-15, 04:35:

It would also be nice to separate the video onto a card, so it was easily replaced by a better one - NON INTERLACED!
But I'm afraid this would be difficult, with Amiga chipset features being so tighly coupled together...

Whole point of Amiga was TV video output. Amiga was from the start a TV frequency graphic chip with cpu glued to its ass. Its all a big graphic engine managing video, dma, audio, ram ... and cpu bus on the side where CPU can wait for its turn to request shared chip ram access 😀. By non interlaced you mean 30KHz which wasnt a thing in 1985 in color outside of workstation market, and still super expensive in 1987. Color VGA monitor was $700 in 1987, price of whole A500.

I'm thinking, wouldn't it have been possible to emulate a C64 on an Amiga in software? If yes, you would release an external 5.25" drive for the Amiga and be done..

The thing is, even release games for Amiga were so vastly superior to the C64 that nobody really cared..

You could do it badly with just VIC and SID, but why bother when Commodore owned semiconductor factory manufacturing all needed chips, at least in theory capable of doing most of C64 on a single chip at cost.

As for games you mean the whole 12 released in 1985? 😀 https://www.lemonamiga.com/games/list.php?list_year=1985 all look like bad C64 games with better color palette. C64 with enhanced VIC2 (palette ram giving it ability to custom define all colors instead of fixed palette) would deliver those no problem. Imo first Amiga game to truly blow people minds was 1986 Defender of the Crown, and the only other one actually using fraction of amiga graphic capabilities would be Shanghai (mahjong by Activision) taking full advantage of 320x200 resolution. Again all other 1986 games are meh. C64 game library is over 4000 titles, already at 1300 in 1985 with rest released up to ~1992.

appiah4 wrote on 2022-12-15, 06:47:

I'm thinking, wouldn't it have been possible to emulate a C64 on an Amiga in software? If yes, you would release an external 5.25" drive for the Amiga and be done..

The thing is, even release games for Amiga were so vastly superior to the C64 that nobody really cared..

Yes, for sure. 👍 I think there are already some on the platform, actually.
All the high-level parts can be easily emulated by, say, an Amiga 2000 or an IBM AT+Hercules card.
Things like Commodore BASIC v2, the 1541's behavior/communications protocol, the VIC-II video "modes"..
A 6502 CPU emulation wouldn't be needed, even, in the most simple implementation (interpreter approach).

It's akin to the high-level approach of the emulation of an MS-DOS compatible PC, by merely providing..
- a PC BIOS with int13h HDD support (no WD1003 or IDE devices in the system)
- a synthetic CGA (PC BIOS only, register write are beeing ignored, no MC6845 emulation)
- a programmable interrupt controller (PIC) and a programmable interval timer (PIT), maybe/not a DMA controller
- PC speaker's tone generator (part of PIT) handled by the system's native audio hardware (no real speech/DAC, but melodies)
- keyboard emulation; either by emulating the scan codes or hacking the PC BIOS to accept ASCII codes or key codes from the host
- synthetic serial support through the BIOS or a DOS based TSR (no FiFo emulated); enough have DOS see a COMx: and AUX: device

This may seem like a very limited emulation, but is good for many applications/games.

Similarily, a high-level C64 emulator on Amiga would be able to run most hobbyist BASIC programs
and many text-adventures - even those with graphics, if they use BASIC's own drawing commands.
Merely the PEEK & POKE things do tend to fail without emulating the low-level functions.
Speed loaders are also an issue, but many games can be forced to not to use them.

If more of the low-end functions are being implemented,
action games (they're using collision detection, sprites etc) and commercial titles could run on such an emulator.

Edit: The big dilemma in C64 emulation is, that only a few of the sophisticated applications/games were well written.
Programmers did use all sort of hacks and tricks to get the most of the limited platform back then.
But same time, whis way of thinking caused the C64 platform to become static. Its internal functioning became set into stone, no chance of further development or evolving.
Any change or fix to the platform would cause compatibility issues, because every bit was being addressed directly by programmers.

This is sort of an irony. The somewhat efficient, bare-metal programming gives you an advantage now, but a big disadvantge in the future.
High-level components like BIOS were exactly made to prevent this happening. They provide a shim or an hardware abstaction layer (HAL) instead.

In an ideal world, programmers would always use two code-paths.
- Portable code (Basic, C, Pascal) for the complete project and optional, optimized parts written in assembly language
- Access to the system through the official API/ABI, optional low-level routines for better speed and enhanced functionality

That way, the hacky method will give you the needed performance on today's hardware
until the hardware has catched up so much that it isn't used anymore and the official methods can be used nicely.

Or in other words, you keep a fall-back for the official method of doing this.
You don't assume port addresses and memory locations by using the default values,
but rather, retrive them via the system's functions calls first (on PC, these would be the vector table, for example).

Unfortunately, this wasn't even really done on PC platform. Let's take programming of the CGA/VGA in DOS.
Most programs assume the default frame buffer position, rather than asking PC BIOS or VGA BIOS were it is.
If that wasn't the case, the 640KB barrier wouldn't have had been such a problem in the past.
The VGA frame buffer could have had been placed on any alternate position and the programs could have used that.
Many methods could have been used for this, an absolute address (that got reported back), a pointer in memory, an offset..

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-12-15, 02:03:

HanSolo wrote on 2022-12-14, 12:31:

The C16, C116 and even the Plus/4 aimed at a very low price (or at least low production costs) so they had to have worse specs than the C64 and thus could not be compatible.

but why change tape drive and joystick sockets? You cant even argue lowering cost considering C64 used free to manufacture edge connector for tape drive 😀 Nail in the coffin of cost cutting theory is the fact Commodore was doing its own injection molding manufacturing its own sockets. Same for all the chips inside its computers.

Cost cutting is not a theory and in particualar not at Commodore. It's the reason why the TED-chip was created. Unfortunately they considered sprites to be not necessary. They wanted a really inexpensive computer that could compete against other really cheap computers of that era. (The reason for different ports is problably pure greed 😀 )
I recommend Bil Herd's YT channel and the talks he gave on that topic.

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-12-15, 02:03:

Did you mean really easy? Stage 1 effortless upgrades, could be shipped as early as 1983, we could go wild and call it C64x2: - […]
Show full quote

HanSolo wrote on 2022-12-14, 12:31:

Designing a computer that is compatible to the C64 and has better specs is really tough.

Did you mean really easy? Stage 1 effortless upgrades, could be shipped as early as 1983, we could go wild and call it C64x2:
- 128KB
- define standard paging port for switching memory banks. Thats what Atari 8bit line did with 130XE in 1985 extending mechanism already used in 800XL from 1983. None of this complicated C128 multiple custom configurations nonsense, simple one 8bit register switching memory banks inside one 16KB window.
- add second SID for stereo.
- update rom with standard floppy Turbo routines, 300 bytes/second was PATHETIC.
Beauty of this is you could sell official Cartridges adding those features not leaving existing C64 owners behind. Manufacture
all C64s with empty space on PCB for ram/sid to further optimize manufacturing costs (less variation means better economies of scale). Commodore could sell "hi-end" 256-512KB models using same hardware.

Yes, an upgraded C64 is also be what I would suggest. They should have integrated the 1750 RAM expansion (yes, the 256-512KB models you mentioned did exists 😀 ), a second SID and bundle that with a 1351 mouse - a great machine for GEOS.

But in 1983? Seriously? At that early time there was absolutely no need for an upgrade. And who knows how much this would have costed in 1983. RAM was stupidly expensive.
In 1987 (when the C64 was still selling really good) a 1750 was under 200$ but that was the year the Amiga 500 was introduced. Such an upgraded C64 would compete against their own product (yeah, it's not like that would have stopped Commodore from doing that 😁 )

I really don't want to defend Commodore, but 30 years later it's always easy to say what they should have done. In particualar without having to consider the costs and risks 😉

appiah4 wrote on 2022-12-15, 06:47:

I'm thinking, wouldn't it have been possible to emulate a C64 on an Amiga in software? If yes, you would release an external 5.25" drive for the Amiga and be done..

The thing is, even release games for Amiga were so vastly superior to the C64 that nobody really cared..

Depends on what you expect. There are emulators on the Amiga but as far as I know you can run at best BASIC programs on it (we're talking about 68K, not the PPC Amigas). The problem is not CPU emulation but the VIC. Recreating hardware in software is slow.

HanSolo wrote on 2022-12-15, 17:09:

Cost cutting is not a theory and in particualar not at Commodore.

but it doesnt apply to this specific incident of replacing established connectors, leading to the next best reason being:

HanSolo wrote on 2022-12-15, 17:09:

problably pure greed 😀

HanSolo wrote on 2022-12-15, 17:09:

It's the reason why the TED-chip was created. Unfortunately they considered sprites to be not necessary. They wanted a really inexpensive computer that could compete against other really cheap computers of that era.

yes, Spectrums from Sinclair which was already at the brink of going bankrupt, galaxy brain play.

HanSolo wrote on 2022-12-15, 17:09:

Yes, an upgraded C64 is also be what I would suggest. They should have integrated the 1750 RAM expansion (yes, the 256-512KB models you mentioned did exists 😀 ), a second SID and bundle that with a 1351 mouse - a great machine for GEOS.

But in 1983? Seriously? At that early time there was absolutely no need for an upgrade. And who knows how much this would have costed in 1983. RAM was stupidly expensive.

Thats why first stage could be really simple and cheap. REU was custom silicon, in contrast adding one paging register to PLA would be free, and adding another SID can even be done with daughterboard for existing PCBs. Nobody had to buy "high-end" models at first, but its mere existence would establish standard way of expanding/accessing more ram and dual SID. Similar to how Amiga 500 started with dedicated trapdoor and well defined memory expansion mechanism.

HanSolo wrote on 2022-12-15, 17:09:

In 1987 (when the C64 was still selling really good) a 1750 was under 200$ but that was the year the Amiga 500 was introduced. Such an upgraded C64 would compete against their own product (yeah, it's not like that would have stopped Commodore from doing that 😁 )

Thats why I envisioned tighter timeline, upgrades every year. First year easy free stuff giving you effectively full two years before rolling out new silicon (integrated REU functionality, updated VIC2). But instead Commodore got rid of VIC2 creators Al Charpentier and Charles Winterble 😁 in 1982 just after computer release - why pay for expensive engineering talent when they already did all the work, right? 😀. REU was designed by Victor Andrade hired in middle 1984, he later went on to AMD (K7 team) and Qualcomm and had great engineering career. Problem with REU was that it was optional addon, compare to PCs or Amiga 500 with ram expansion standardized early on. Sadly at Commodore planning for the future meant planning to sell unchanged hardware for as long as possible 😀.

Btw there is modern REU recreation using pee3 https://github.com/frntc/RAD and me poking and prodding people to try with pico https://github.com/cknave/c64-pico-ram-interface/issues/1

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-12-15, 06:28:

Amiga 1000 barely sold and made no money for Commodore.

And what was the reason for that?
IMHO the problem was about A1000 fitting neither the home market, nor the professional market.

In 1985, home toys were 100% 8-bit.
16-bit was still too expensive - according to your figures, it was $150 for C64 vs. $1300 for A1000.
Even if the Amiga could run C64 games, who was going to pay that price just to play games?

On the other hand, the business market was already getting used to the IBM PC series, and they weren't willing to accept anything worse.
Obviously, the $2300 price tag wasn't a problem for them.
But they demanded certain features, at least as options: HDD, LAN, FPU, non-interlaced video... and the Amiga failed to provide any of them.

By non interlaced you mean 30KHz which wasnt a thing in 1985 in color outside of workstation market, and still super expensive in 1987. Color VGA monitor was $700 in 1987, price of whole A500.

Not necessarily 30 kHz.
18 kHz (Hercules) or 21 kHz (EGA) were good enough.

Anyway, if the goal was to sell the Amiga as a general-purpose business computer, then some >15 kHz option was a must.
I recall the first review of Amiga in some Polish magazine - the title was "A(le) miga!" ("That flicker!")...

Grzyb wrote on 2022-12-16, 06:02:

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-12-15, 06:28:

Amiga 1000 barely sold and made no money for Commodore.

And what was the reason for that?

C128 victims 😀, much cheaper Atari ST, bad/too little marketing. Commodore was very into advertising Commodore instead of showing off their computers. The only 1985 A1000 ad I can find is a "which would you prefer?" price comparison against PC and Mac ignoring the fact both already had huge software library and ST was selling with twice the ram and high res B/W monitor for 2/3 the price ($800) of bare 256KB Amiga.
A1000 was a workstation class computer from a company selling toys at Toys R Us. Company famous in the industry for screwing dealers so badly nobody else wanted to stock Commodore computers anymore.
Plenty of industry mags covered A1000 premiere in multi page exposes, and they all mentioned lack of software, non existing dealer support, no IBM PC DOS compatibility and great "potential".

Grzyb wrote on 2022-12-16, 06:02:

IMHO the problem was about A1000 fitting neither the home market, nor the professional market.

true

Grzyb wrote on 2022-12-16, 06:02:

In 1985, home toys were 100% 8-bit.
16-bit was still too expensive - according to your figures, it was $150 for C64 vs. $1300 for A1000.

and $90 NES sold next to C64 in same shops.

Grzyb wrote on 2022-12-16, 06:02:

Even if the Amiga could run C64 games, who was going to pay that price just to play games?

It would establish Amiga as a gaming computer, and give it huge initial library. Much better than "this computer has HUGE potential, but no software/support/compatibility with anything, buy it on faith alone".

Grzyb wrote on 2022-12-16, 06:02:

On the other hand, the business market was already getting used to the IBM PC series, and they weren't willing to accept anything worse.
Obviously, the $2300 price tag wasn't a problem for them.
But they demanded certain features, at least as options: HDD, LAN, FPU, non-interlaced video... and the Amiga failed to provide any of them.

Atari ST covered all of those bases, and was big in some European business markets (like Germany). Afaik Hard drive offered from the start, and at much lower profit margin.

This might be kind of related to the topic..

https://hackaday.com/2022/12/20/a-love-letter … -my-lost-amiga/

"[..]A very illuminating read as a former Amiga user came from our Hackaday colleague Bil Herd,
in Back into the storm, his autobiographical account of
working for Commodore in the mid-1980s.
He was bringing us the TED series of 8-bit computers rather than the Amiga,
but he illustrates well the chaos and ineptitude reigning in the upper levels. [..]"

What's also interesting is the Amiga's role as a painting machine, I think.

I mean, just have a look at this ad :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a03uIAxvY7s&p … gY29tbWVyY2lhbA

The colour-cycling effects were first (?) used in the launch title Graphicraft, then EA's Deluxe Paint (DP).

Graphicraft ('85):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6mqvffpqQ4&p … Z3JhcGhpY3JhZnQ

Source: https://amiga.lychesis.net/application/Graphicraft.html

Then, there were animation programs like Movie Setter or Disney Animation Studio and simple frame grabbers like NewTek's DigiView ('86, by that Video Toaster company).

http://amiga.resource.cx/expde/digiview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3PMXWF8qrA&p … rIERpZ2kgdmlldw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFqZvzcarrs&p … Z2lWaWV3IERlbW8

Personally, I *guess* I can partially relate to this feeling, because one of my earliest raytracing books I've got, Highlight Amiga, was written with Amiga in mind.

So if you lived through the 1985-1990 time frame, the Amiga must have been a fascinating tool, I suppose.
Maybe even more than a games machine, if you had other hobbies it could be helpful for.

In this context, it's perhaps important to note that the Amiga was a product of the 1980s, both in terms of technology, the way of thinking and pop culture.
And that's why the community still holds on to it, I suppose. It's not just the hardware or software as such.

Living in the early or early-mid 1990s was radical different to the late 90s, from what I remember.
The whole mentally was different, I mean. No, really.
Looking back, the early 90s and late 90s related to each other like two different planets or countries.

In the early 90s, the 16-Bit era was still alive, as well - another factor.
People met in puplic places to play video games etc. People were more calm in public, did still wear wool sweaters, had funny haircuts and politically-incorrect humor etc.

Or let me put it this way, if you had fallen into a coma in the early 90s and
had woken up a few years later in the late 90s,
it seemed to you as if you had been away for over 20 years.
It was like in the '80s film 'flight of the navigator', maybe, emotionally.

Amiga is a really good machine. Has excellent video and audio output compared to other systems of that time.
Can host a PC like the real thing and therefore much better and more flexible than other hybrid machines back in the day.

My Amiga 2000 with a 286/8 and lot's of cool stuff going on: https://youtu.be/P2z_6hgYvcs

dr.zeissler wrote on 2023-04-28, 07:01:

Amiga is a really good machine. Has excellent video and audio output compared to other systems of that time.

Yes, by 1980s standards the Amiga really was outstanding! 😎

Though for the sake of fairness, I also must say that some of these things weren't impossible on other platforms, albeit not as pretty.

On C64, there were the various products by Scanntronik, for example (Pagefox, Printfox, Videofox/Video-Digitizer) etc..
https://retroport.de/scanntronik/

While on PC, there were handy scanners by various manufacturers (Logitech ScanMan series was popular).

So it wasn't impossible to run Windows 2.x and Paintbrush on a 1988 PC with VGA or 8514/A graphics and use a handy scanner to digitize paper drawings.

Paint programs on DOS shipped with mice, also.
Dr. Halo was one of them (part of every Genius Mouse package).

By 1990-1992 there also were similar digitizers/frame grabbers for DOS.
Example of a homebrew version:
https://www.epanorama.net/newepa/2020/07/11/d … -frame-grabber/

And using an existing matrix printer with a special mounting holding a photo diode/led allowed for making DIY scanners, as well.
It's described in the "PC-Bastelbuch" of ~1990, for example.
Scanntronik sold a similar piece of equipment for the C64 (Superscanner?) in Germany.

Anyway, that's just for the sake of fairness.
The Amiga solution were generally older and simultaneously of higher fidelity, which is notable.

With the exception of CAD/CAM and DTP, maybe, which always had been strong on PC platform.
Autodesk, for example, really had sophisticated software to offer.

Autodesk Animator Pro wasn't too shabby, for example.
It could do amazing things on a VGA capable PC.
The FLI/FLV formats used weren't unheard of on the Amiga platform, either.
Like GIF, they could be used on both platforms.

dr.zeissler wrote on 2023-04-28, 07:01:

Can host a PC like the real thing and therefore much better and more flexible than other hybrid machines back in the day.

That's what I liked about the 2000 series.
It was an approach at co-existance, building a bridge between two worlds.

To bad that later Amiga models had dropped ISA in favor of PCI, though.
The Amiga devs apparently simply didn't understand what ISA really meant to PC users. *sigh*
It wasn't just a slow random bus, it was the spirit of homebrew and the PC's open architecture. Its soul, so to say.

ISA cards could be made on a kitchen table, that's why server / industrial boards had kept ISA well into the Pentium IV days.

Prototyping with ISA used to be a big thing. There were custom controller cards that couldn't be replaced by the consumerism of the PCI world.

dr.zeissler wrote on 2023-04-28, 07:01:

My Amiga 2000 with a 286/8 and lot's of cool stuff going on: https://youtu.be/P2z_6hgYvcs

Looks neat! Is it the early model, by any chance? 🙂

Jo22 wrote on 2023-04-28, 14:17:

On C64, there were the various products by Scanntronik, for example (Pagefox, Printfox, Videofox/Video-Digitizer) etc.. https:/ […]
Show full quote

On C64, there were the various products by Scanntronik, for example (Pagefox, Printfox, Videofox/Video-Digitizer) etc..
https://retroport.de/scanntronik/

And using an existing matrix printer with a special mounting holding a photo diode/led allowed for making DIY scanners, as well.
It's described in the "PC-Bastelbuch" of ~1990, for example.
Scanntronik sold a similar piece of equipment for the C64 (Superscanner?) in Germany.

Scanntronik Superscanner is more expensive 1984 Thunderscan clone 😀 https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project … Thunderscan.txt
Article at the bottom has interviews with company owners, they outright state C64 was chosen because its a dead platform thus less piracy and competition 😀 It shows in prices. 800DM (~$500) for a genlock in 1993 when Commodore A1300 was selling for $220 in 1987, you could buy whole A500 + genlock cheaper than just their Genbox. I wonder who made their 1989 Scanntronik Handyscanner 64. Probably Omron, they were one of the first companies coming out with OEM solution later packaged by Mustek/Genius and others.
http://www.tcocd.de/Pictures/Peripheral/in_scanners.shtml https://oldcomputer.info/pc/apscan/index.htm https://bigbookofamigahardware.com/bboah/Cate … List.aspx?id=30

rasz_pl wrote on 2023-04-28, 20:23:

Scanntronik Superscanner is more expensive 1984 Thunderscan clone 😀 [..]
Article at the bottom has interviews with company owners,
they outright state C64 was chosen because its a dead platform thus less piracy and competition 😀 [..]

Ah, I see, that's what you mean. Well, I think I can partly explain the matter here.
The Pagefox module supported by Scanfox software (and other software) was also a memory expansion,
rather than a program cartridge with an EPROM alone. Or in C64 slang, it was a tiny REU or GeoRAM kind of thing.
And it was badly needed for DTP because the C64 as is was somewhat short on memory.

And in '88 when the magazine issue with the article was printed, the C64 was still very popular in Germany (West-Germany).
Ok, this is shameful to admit, but the C64 was the #1 computer used by the working class in Germany, incl. those with a lower educational level and a simpler mind.
The C64 was a "people's computer" (Volkscomputer), literally. And 10 times more popular than the Amiga at the time, if we can believe the article.

Which kind of was a demonstration of poverty for such a country at the time, if you ask me.
No offense here, but I already had the, err, pleasure to meet such ex-C64 owners in person.
That's why I still struggle at liking the C64 a bit, I guess. Even if I try hard to like it.
Because, the many good text adventures and SID tunes of the platform certainly were a positive aspect, really.

The buggy-ness of the C64 is also something I don't understand. Nearly every part has some defect.
No reset button by default, poor BASIC version, serial port is slow due to VC-20 compatibility/a bug, SID trouble (broken filtering in first gen; SID dies easily if the XY paddle pins are being stressed),
VIC II is noisy as hell, the PLA is prone do fail, the power supply is unstable and running hot, 1541 floppy loves to head crash due to missing light barrier, C64 needs 9V AC for timings etc.
To someone like my father and me who grew up on Z80 and business computers, this is just a mess and difficult to understand.

Hm. I suppose, the cheap price simply attracted the same type of people (sly misers, penny pinchers, jerks) over and over again?
Anyway, these are just my observations. They're not representative, of course. Interestingly, though, the ex-Amiga users seemed less that way.
The few I've met were more the sentimentalist type, rather than the greedy type.

Okay, back on topic.. To be fair, quite a few homebrew people and Atari/Amiga/Mac/PC/.. users had used a C64, too.
Because it was dirt cheap (heavily mass produced, in Commodore fashion), it could be used as a dedicated controller device for all sorts of projects :
As a radio telex terminal, as a control machine for a robot arm, to control an LED bar with a scrolling text (in a store window), etc.
By the late 80s, it had apparently a similar "expendable" status like a cheap ZX81 had years before.
If it broke, it was sad, but didn't hurt so much, financially.

rasz_pl wrote on 2023-04-28, 20:23:

I wonder who made their 1989 Scanntronik Handyscanner 64.
Probably Omron, they were one of the first companies coming out with OEM solution later packaged by Mustek/Genius and others.

That's quite possible. Though ScanMan models were available in the late 80s already.
My father had a "CAMERON Handy Scanner" at the time, according to the June 1988 time stamps on the scanned files.
Perhaps it's also worth to consider that the scanners and the interface card were separately made, perhaps.
Even if the handheld scanners were made by Omron, it could be that the software and scanner interface was platform specific and made by another company.
That's just an idea, of course. I don't know if it's true.

There's something about Commodore I didn't understand, though.

Their PC range of computers of the 1980s had an "AGA" graphics card installed (not to be confused by the Amiga's AGA chipset).
And this card/chip was clearly supperior to CGA.

Edit: Specs available here: http://www.zimmers.net/cbmpics/cbm/miscCPUs/pcinfo.txt

How comes that the Amiga sidecar and bridgeboard have no support for those Super CGA modes?
Or the real industry standard, Hercules?
No one in his right mind used plain I MDA boards anymore.

720x348 was what people used on PC when they needed reasonable graphics output.
Sure, doing 350 lines is tricky on a TV set if you don't like interlacing.

But it would have been possibly, if scrolling was used. It's not that bad for GUIs, after all.
Usually, you don't need the whole screen all the time.
Application windows can be moved into the visible viewport, also. .

640x400 b/w wasn't difficult to implement, either, even if Commodore had no engineers left.
A student could have had hacked support onto the existing hardware/software.
Plantronics would also have been possible.

All it needs were 16KB more memory for CGA, maybe.
I say maybe, because CGA uses 16KB of actual picture information.
Due to an address decode error, the data is beeing mirrored/doubled on some systems.
So the frame buffer may already be 32KB large in total.

This would have allowed easy image transfer between Janus software and Amiga/PC hardware.
As long as the data is within a 64KB window, data is available "linear" and no segmentation is necessary.

That's something I always wondered. Second is the 640KB limit.
With merely MDA or CGA emulation available within the Janus software, it's no problem to access 704 to 736KB of conventional memory.

In fact, this would have been an excellent opportunity for the CBM Amiga to be supperior to a real IBM PC/XT.

I seriously don't understand all these missing opportunities.
The engineers who made the PC hardware simply had to know this, they couldn't have been that ignorant here.

I mean, in the mid-80s, hobbyists published a lot of hacks for the IBM PC to make that possible.

And the files were available world-wide, via BBS, Fido-Net, early internet/e-mail at universities, online services like CompuServe, shareware diskettes, via X.25 networks or via Packet-Radio (AX.25).

If the CBM dudes were wise, they could have made a third video mode available: Terminal.
DOS supports operation via serial terminal, like CP/M.

That way, about 900 KB of conventional memory can be possible.
Ideal for developers that run out of memory when they do compile/link larger projects!

As far as I know, the German CT'86 DOS computer did exactly take advantage of this.
It had no video, but was text based.

Edited.

Edit: I'm not sure if that's the right place to discuss this, though. 🤷‍♂️
I simply wrote down what came to mind.
Also, if source code of the Janus software eventually shows up, it likely could be patched to support a 640x400 b/w mode (Olivetti M24, Toshiba T3200 etc). So there's hope.

Edit: Never mind, found the answer. According to this interview, all the Commodore bridgeboards were made in Germany.
https://www.commodore.international/qlink/html/amiga0413.htm

Considering our German mentality (alles Fachidi*ten/all one trick ponies), I'm not surprised the software support was lacking. 🙄 *sigh*
The dudes writing it were probably stuck in 1981 or something, without access to any current PC magazines.
Otherwise, they had implemented 640x400 Olivetti mode, at least. The Amiga 1000 had no problem displaying 640x400 resolutions, which the interview confirms.
Even EGA would have been possible at 630x350, albeit slowly.

Edit: Monochrome EGA in 640x350 was an option, too.
Many software titles supported it. It was worse than Olivetti mode, but well supoorted.
Performance was similar good.

Edited.

Edit: I've found a nice picture of 640x400 mode drawing a GUI (the green one).
The 400 lines quite make a difference, everything is nolonger being squished.
And it's not even difficult to implement on top of existing CGA support.

Especially if physical CGA memory in system is 32KB wide already (frame buffer/pass-trough), to account for the CGA addressing "bug" (a CGA page is 16KB, but memory between 0xB8000-0xBFFFF is repeated twice; real IBM CGA decodes only on the lowest 10 bits?).

That's less than what Hercules would normally need (two pages of 32KB each; 64KB total) for full compatibility.

And since 640x400 is a CGA superset, no additional 32KB page is required be left available for CGA emulation..

Because, that's what CGA emulators for Hercules PCs make use of often:
The second page isn't active, but available, so that CGA picture data isn't being sent into the void.
Rather, it's being hold by the unused Hercules memory to be processed by the CGA emulator program.

That being said, I hope it's okay to edit this posting, after the discussion already happened.
I don't mean to be right, but merely want to explain myself here.
The pictures maybe help to express what I meant to say (my wording wasn't exactly good).