|
If anyone is interested: Commodore 65 on ebay[^] (non-working prototype )
Current price is 'just' $5100 give or take
|
|
|
|
|
So the holy grail from Commodore is a cousin of my Atari 400?
The C65, as far as I know, was designed with a custom chipset similar to that of the Amiga.
The Amiga's chipset was designed by a small company, also named Amiga. They originally wanted to design a game console, but it bacame a comuter after the company was bought by Commodore.
Before starting his own company, the boss of 'Amiga' and his merry men worked for Atari and designed the chipset that was used in all 8 bit Ataris, beginning with the Atari 400 and 800 in 1979.
Ironically, the 16 bit Ataris were developed by some of the same people who designed the C64. It would be correcter to call the computers Commodore ST and Atari Amiga
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: It would be correcter to call the computers Commodore ST and Atari Amiga
The Amiga had the name "Commodore" melted into the keyboard. When you say Amiga, you say Commodore. Yes, I know of the relationship between the Amiga and the Atari; learned to program in AMOS, which come from STOS.
A complete multitasking Windowed OS, in 512k memory. And the days of the BGS9-virus
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I just think it's strange that two teams are actually behind the vast majority of 8 bit and 16 bit computers that were ever built. And how success was apparently tied to the manufacturer's name.
The 8 bit Ataris had a great chipset for their time with many neat capabilities, yet the simpler and slower C64 was built and sold in far greater numbers. Later, the Amiga was built by Commodore and was a huge success - because of the great chipset from the same team that once designed the 8 bit Ataris. At the same time the Atari ST was designed by the guys who previously designed the C64, but this time the more spartan design did not win.
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: The 8 bit Ataris had a great chipset for their time with many neat capabilities, yet the simpler and slower C64 was built and sold in far greater numbers
The price-argument, and the fact that a cheap C64 could control machinery. Compare it to a Raspberri Pi.
CDP1802 wrote: Later, the Amiga was built by Commodore and was a huge success - because of the great chipset from the same team that once designed the 8 bit Ataris
The Atari was a success too, among a different public; musicians would own an Atari, superior software for their work, and gamers would own an Amiga - superior in graphics with it's Denise and Fat Agnus. (How does that sound for a chip-name compared to the modern code's?)
CDP1802 wrote: At the same time the Atari ST was designed by the guys who previously designed the C64, but this time the more spartan design did not win.
There were more gamers than musicians. The weirdest thing is that both great systems were beaten by IBM. Hercules-graphics and a command-line prompt were considered "professional".
The reason? Both systems were "home-computers", and the PC was.. well, "Professional Computing"
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I know. I used to be firmly on the Atari side and still have all of them (plus a few that I saved from being thrown away. Later I 'adopted' two C64s from Ebay, just to take a better look at them as well. I'm not a collector, but I still want to get an Amiga as well, just to have both families which have gone so strangely over cross complete.
Back then I knew somebody with an Amiga. I brought my ST, we connected them over the serial ports and then played Populous. There was a version where there were computers of different sizes instead of cities and little Atari and Commodore flags to show the owner.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: The price-argument, and the fact that a cheap C64 could control machinery. Compare it to a Raspberri Pi.
Great observation.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: There were more gamers than musicians.
Spot on.
|
|
|
|