Jump to content

What would you do if you were the CEO of Commodore Computers?


Recommended Posts

On 9/8/2021 at 12:40 PM, OrionTEX said:

How would Commodore manufacture their Neo-Geo competitor exactly?

 

And how would Commodore make their VHS VCRs, LaserDisc and CD players? (Especially LaserDiscs as they're niche format)

To remain competitive and innovative, and along with their own MSX computers, Tandy 1000-compatible computers, C64 cards, better CP/M cards, Amiga and etc., so they would be budget-ready for the 'X16-like successor to C64 and Plus/4 in mid-range and low-end markets' and eventually the arcade machine below.

 

Commodore arcade system would be based on AAA (which would eventually be for Amiga), but with even better graphics and sound. It can support cartridges, CD-ROM discs with CD-DA support for low-cost alternative and LD-ROM for FMV games a la NEC PC-FX.

Just imagine, it would include YM2151+YM3012 DAC, YM2610B, 8-channel Paula and Enhanced SID with 15 voices with surround sound, more waveforms (more variations of Mix, an NES-style 4-bit pseudo-triangle in addition to real triangle wave and pseudo-sawtooth in addition to actual sawtooth), better manufacturing methods and backwards compatibility to original SID. How cool would that be, especially with Z280 and Intel i8232 for sound CPUs and RAM, and the main CPU being Intel i980 RISC.

We could hire game developers who are ex-Electronic Arts (or license EA to port games to Commodore Arcade), ex-Atari, ex-Konami, ex-Capcom and ex-SNK to work for Commodore. We could even hire mangaka (manga and anime artists) to help Commodore establish their very own IP arcade video game series, as they would have their own fighting games (in similar vein to King Of Fighters, etc.), vertical shooters in style of those from Sharp X68000, puzzle games featuring cute anime-style magical girl characters, racing games, sport games (football/soccer, rugby, basketball, etc.), a hybrid 4X/god game/city building game (4X twists of SimCity and god games), theme park building games, ports of multi-platform games like Tetris, RPGs, etc.

Edited by xanthrou
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2021 at 1:25 PM, Scott Robison said:

It is interesting to me that they were willing to buy Z80 for C=128 but not 65816. I realize why: it was probably cheaper and 65816 didn't offer CP/M library access. Still, their hesitancy for so long to avoid using anything but their own chips is sad.

I read something interesting a couple days ago that had not occurred to me. Another reason why z80 was okay to use and not a 65816 is that they probably had a lot of stock at their disposal after the C=64 CP/M cartridge didn't sell very many units. No new old stock 65816s were lying around.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

The C64 was designed to be simple home computer and game machine aimed at 12-year-olds. For its purpose, I think it was the perfect machine. When they decided to make the C128, it really did not have a clear direction. The C64 had already maxed out the 64k address space and they just used an available video chip that they were working on for another project. In 1985, I would have liked a 65816 system at with 256k or 512k base memory and enhanced VIC and SID chips and a basic compiler like QBasic.It would have been fine if it is not C64 backwards compatible.

As for the Amiga, it is a much more powerful machine but comes at a much steeper learning curve. I ended up going to the PC about a year after owning one because programming for DOS was more simple.

If I was the CEO of Commodore, I would have released a 16 bit successor to the C64 instead of the C128 in 1985, still produced the Amiga but immediately released a console game system like the CD32 right after with unique titles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2021 at 7:30 PM, TheNinja said:

The C64 was designed to be simple home computer and game machine aimed at 12-year-olds. For its purpose, I think it was the perfect machine. When they decided to make the C128, it really did not have a clear direction. The C64 had already maxed out the 64k address space and they just used an available video chip that they were working on for another project. In 1985, I would have liked a 65816 system at with 256k or 512k base memory and enhanced VIC and SID chips and a basic compiler like QBasic.It would have been fine if it is not C64 backwards compatible.

As for the Amiga, it is a much more powerful machine but comes at a much steeper learning curve. I ended up going to the PC about a year after owning one because programming for DOS was more simple.

If I was the CEO of Commodore, I would have released a 16 bit successor to the C64 instead of the C128 in 1985, still produced the Amiga but immediately released a console game system like the CD32 right after with unique titles.

It would have been nice to have had a 65816 successor, but it wasn't Commodore's chip so they weren't willing to pay for it. I disagree about the backward compatibility not being important. I think it would have sold far fewer units if it hadn't had C=64 compatibility. After all, Amiga wasn't backward compatible with C=64 and it sold fewer systems.

Ultimately management at Commodore was just incompetent. I think a better idea would have been to invest some money to encourage third parties to write Commodore 128 specific software. Once there was a larger library of native software (not C=64, and certainly not CP/M) I think it could have completely replaced the C=64 in production.

But I could be very wrong. Just some thoughts...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2021 at 10:34 PM, Scott Robison said:

It would have been nice to have had a 65816 successor, but it wasn't Commodore's chip so they weren't willing to pay for it. I disagree about the backward compatibility not being important. I think it would have sold far fewer units if it hadn't had C=64 compatibility. After all, Amiga wasn't backward compatible with C=64 and it sold fewer systems.

Ultimately management at Commodore was just incompetent. I think a better idea would have been to invest some money to encourage third parties to write Commodore 128 specific software. Once there was a larger library of native software (not C=64, and certainly not CP/M) I think it could have completely replaced the C=64 in production.

But I could be very wrong. Just some thoughts...

The C128 was better suited for productivity software but it did not offer enough improvement when it came to the gaming market. Games played a large part in what made the C64 successful. Being backwards compatible ended up providing a greater incentive to make C64 games that would take advantage the C128 features when present instead of creating exclusive titles. If it had a more advanced video upgrade then things might have been different.

You might be right about the Amiga selling less because the lack of C64 compatibility. My brother works in a computer store during that time and one question he got asked a lot about the Amiga was: "Will it run my C64 games". Bit the price tag was also a factor.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2021 at 11:22 PM, TheNinja said:

The C128 was better suited for productivity software but it did not offer enough improvement when it came to the gaming market. Games played a large part in what made the C64 successful. Being backwards compatible ended up providing a greater incentive to make C64 games that would take advantage the C128 features when present instead of creating exclusive titles. If it had a more advanced video upgrade then things might have been different.

You might be right about the Amiga selling less because the lack of C64 compatibility. My brother works in a computer store during that time and one question he got asked a lot about the Amiga was: "Will it run my C64 games". Bit the price tag was also a factor.

You should compare Attack of the PETSCII Robots for the C64 vs the C128 port. That extra 64K of RAM, dual monitor capability, MMU, and burst mode can all come together to make a great game. 

In the interest of disclosure, I wrote the C128 specific code for that port.

The reason companies didn't make games for the C128 wasn't because they couldn't make a better game. it was because they didn't want to spend more money for the customized version. No more no less.

That's not to say they made the wrong decision. 15M C64 + 5M C128 means you can potentially sell to an audience of 20M with a C64 version. Investing more money in a C128 specific version "only" gives you an audience of about 25% of that size. So I don't necessarily blame them for making that decision, but the technology definitely existed to make better versions of games for those who were so inclined.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies if I'm repeating other's statements...  I read several posts, but not all three pages.

Summary of my thoughts:

  1. Keep the C64 as your holy grail machine / biome until the Amiga comes out.
    1. Keep development and expansions active
    2. Learn why it is succeeding so well and use those lessons going forward
    3. Do not pointlessly divide and dilute your message (C16 and Plus-4 both?  Why?)
    4. Make _one_ super cheap computer (break-even or slight loss pricing) to capture the home market with something that has a clear upgrade path TO the C64 biome
    5. Do something like @BruceMcF's ideas for the polished C128 to give people a real reason to upgrade FROM the C64 when they need more power (without losing their investment, and while getting an improvement even for their older software)
  2. Put out the A500/A1000/A2000 more or less as they did.  This seemed to work well
  3. Don't try to be PC compatible (see reasons below).  Be BETTER than the PC.  It was still early enough to pull that off, if you were dedicated...
  4. Don't sit back and pat yourself on the back for so damn long.  Keep pushing forward and design some new hardware expansions to provide meaningful forward paths
    1. Specifically, DO NOT LET the IBM PC-compatible market surpass you in audio/visual capabilities, when that has been your one indisputable knockout capability
    2. If you can't come out with AGA until it's so late that you could've bought a random $25 video card to do the same job, then just admit that you're incompetent and sell all the rights to somebody who actually cares about the Amiga while there's still at least a slim chance of turning things around.  Don't wait and drive the name 6 feet underground and then sell it when the whole line is already dead...

(Sorry if my anger at Commodore in the later years gets too hot.  I loved my Amigas, but I spent years furious at Commodore for just letting things slip away...)

 

Extended discussion / explanation:

I don't see any way to have improved the success of the C64 itself.  It's productive lifetime was insanely long in a period of mass incompatibility (between vendors, between models, between upgrades -- basically anything you bought was a lock-in).

I do really like @BruceMcF's suggestions of giving the C128's C64 mode access to the other 64kB of RAM, making it look like a GeoRAM or REU or other "standard" C64 RAM expansion.  Building in a fastloader would have been wonderful as well.  Both would need a way to turn them off for troublesome programs, just like you would sometimes not be able to use their true C64 equivalents with some software, but that could be as easy as GO64 vs GO64+, or GO64 vs SAFE64

I don't think that Commodore could have maintained any meaningful market share by adding DOS or Windows compatibility.  Even IBM couldn't do that 😁.  And especially on non-Intel CPUs -- Microsoft themselves tried that with NT, and they couldn't swing it either.  If I think of the C128 as having been properly polished, I would see that as a bridge towards the Amiga and moving forward into more powerful machines.  This still being early enough that a lot of people still didn't understand the true value of a computer, I can also see the wisdom of making _one_ model of super cheap entry computer -- possibly even to sell at break-even or slightly loss-leader prices, with the intent to saturate the market and get as many people interested as possible.  But only _one_.  Not three.  Or even two.  That only serves to dilute the market, confuse your customer, and complicate your manufacturing/distribution chain.  And compatibility should have been seriously considered.  Not hard-core compatibility -- there's no way that a C16 could reasonably be expected to run C64 software, but for the love of all that's holy, why would you change the joystick port connector?  There was a healthy 3rd party market for joysticks, and everybody had their own favorites, so it was fundamentally stupid to cut that entire market and try to lock people into Commodore-only joysticks (and then to release such a horrible painful one at that...)  OK, so they wanted to emphasize business use -- again, kind of blind.  Yes, some people (like the video rental store in my home town) used the C64 for business, but if you're looking to saturate the mass home market, that's going to be game-centric, and that should have been obvious by the 90s.  So make a little gaming machine that could also be used by the curious to program their own little games, and make it clear what the path forward to C64 or C128 would be.  Let them keep their investment of external hardware and BASIC programs (so BASIC has to be compatible, and as much AV IO as possible), even if they can't migrate assembly programs (or maybe strongly encourage all C16 software to be BASIC software to make that transition possible for the majority of software (you can't block out assembly, obviously, but put the argument forward towards software creators)).

Once into the Amiga world, Commodore held its own for awhile.  TV signal compatibility made it a shoe-in for video production work, and it was a good game machine as well.  The primary failing I saw as a user was that Commodore seemed to just be resting on its designs.  A500/A1000/A2000 were OK -- starter system with floppy and little RAM, medium system with more RAM, and professional system with RAM expansions, hard drives, and the possibility of DOS through the Bridgeboard (though, honestly, designing the Bridgeboard around an 8088 at that point in time seemed really stupid -- my friends had 286's minimum, and I think I had a 386 sitting on the side).  Sound and video as good as and generally better than any competing system.  It's all good and a great start.  But then it took seemingly forever to improve any of those things.  Video cards coming from 3rd party manufacturers who had to provide their own APIs because there was no standard to implement, so even if you wanted a 24bit video card, each one could only support a couple of programs.  7MHz CPUs across the board, and an OS that would crash or lock up if you put a 14MHz CPU in it (I had an accelerator and I had to remember to downclock it before doing any disk access).  Eventually the A3000 jumped to a 32-bit core and 25MHz (IIRC), but still on the old audio/video hardware.  I am aware that the original Amiga design was done out-of-house, originally pitched to Atari and rejected, then sold to Commodore.  This makes me suspect that Commodore did not have the design talent to design hardware that would expand on the Amiga's capabilities, and by the time they could, everybody had passed them by.  Amigas didn't get significant visual upgrades from Commodore until after everybody on a PC was already above and beyond what the AGA could do.  The official Amiga hardware (and thus the software/OS support) was just stagnant for too many years.  I'm not sure how they could have fixed this, other than to get better designers in-house.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Commodore lost its vision and went nuts.  Tramiel at least had a vision (and almost by definition a vision is an official business direction that other people will disagree with).

Quote

Make _one_ super cheap computer

Tramiel's vision again was the C16 to be that Sinclair competitor.  It seems to me though that the C64 was already a Sinclair "suppressor" by the latter 80s.

The C64 was the right system at the right time to "clean up" the 80s: to wipe out early competition and then mop up on the cheap computer market later.  We all know the future wasn't eight bit.  Even the market knew it in the 80s.

Edited by rje
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
On 11/29/2021 at 9:06 AM, Scott Robison said:

That's not to say they made the wrong decision. 15M C64 + 5M C128 means you can potentially sell to an audience of 20M with a C64 version. Investing more money in a C128 specific version "only" gives you an audience of about 25% of that size. So I don't necessarily blame them for making that decision, but the technology definitely existed to make better versions of games for those who were so inclined.

I also think this is very true. I'm just a bit surprised that there happened to be no enterpreneur in old days to show the world what C128 is capable of.

And I'm really happy to see that you showed it after so many years of C128 release!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2021 at 11:29 PM, Cyber said:

I also think this is very true. I'm just a bit surprised that there happened to be no enterpreneur in old days to show the world what C128 is capable of.

And I'm really happy to see that you showed it after so many years of C128 release!

Thank you very much. I'm not a huge gamer, though I enjoy certain games. Games are what attracted me to computers in the first place, just like so many others. For me, writing software or finding solutions to problems is often the best game, personally. But I don't personally know if any comparable game that received both 64 and 128 versions that show such a difference  on stock hardware.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
On 11/29/2021 at 9:06 AM, Scott Robison said:

You should compare Attack of the PETSCII Robots for the C64 vs the C128 port. That extra 64K of RAM, dual monitor capability, MMU, and burst mode can all come together to make a great game. 

In the interest of disclosure, I wrote the C128 specific code for that port.

The reason companies didn't make games for the C128 wasn't because they couldn't make a better game. it was because they didn't want to spend more money for the customized version. No more no less.

That's not to say they made the wrong decision. 15M C64 + 5M C128 means you can potentially sell to an audience of 20M with a C64 version. Investing more money in a C128 specific version "only" gives you an audience of about 25% of that size. So I don't necessarily blame them for making that decision, but the technology definitely existed to make better versions of games for those who were so inclined.

Then you ported C128-specific graphics to the C64 via REU expansion. No hate though, as REU retro gaming gave the C64 much needed extra gaming horsepower, as evidenced by Sonic on C64.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2022 at 3:45 AM, xanthrou said:

Then you ported C128-specific graphics to the C64 via REU expansion. No hate though, as REU retro gaming gave the C64 much needed extra gaming horsepower, as evidenced by Sonic on C64.

Right. There are Reasons(TM), largely experimental, for porting the C128 version to C64+REU. But it doesn't invalidate the fact that stock C64 is less powerful than stock C128. And even then, I still can't do a dual screen on a C64. REU only buys you so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 11/29/2021 at 2:06 AM, Scott Robison said:

...  15M C64 + 5M C128 means you can potentially sell to an audience of 20M with a C64 version. Investing more money in a C128 specific version "only" gives you an audience of about 25% of that size. ...

And if the C128 game was successful, the 15m C64 installed base means that you would want to do a C64 port ... and once you have a C64 port, the C128 version ONLY adds the fraction of the C128 audience that are unwilling to buy C64 games ... which would have been effectively 0 people.

Simply focusing on trying to do the most appealing possible C64 game is what they call in Game Theory the "dominant move".

Edited by BruceMcF
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2022 at 5:41 PM, BruceMcF said:

And if the C128 game was successful, the 15m C64 installed base means that you would want to do a C64 port ... and once you have a C64 port, the C128 version ONLY adds the fraction of the C128 audience that are unwilling to buy C64 games ... which would have been effectively 0 people.

Simply focusing on trying to do the most appealing possible C64 game is what they call in Game Theory the "dominant move".

Right. My goal was to create the most appealing C128 game I could with the available intellectual property. The C64+REU version of the game is better by most metrics, but it has one major flaw: It is only of interest to the subset of the C64 audience that has REU technology available and that is not already satisfied with 64 Robots. Still, it was an interesting experiment.

Some people play a game to win. Some try to beat a point spread. Some try to maximize revenue.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2021 at 1:39 PM, Scott Robison said:

I read something interesting a couple days ago that had not occurred to me. Another reason why z80 was okay to use and not a 65816 is that they probably had a lot of stock at their disposal after the C=64 CP/M cartridge didn't sell very many units. No new old stock 65816s were lying around.

^^ This sounds like Commodore both pre- and post-Tramiel all right.  They gamed the market by cutting costs and margins. 

Buying Amiga makes sense to a company; supporting a research facility maybe is less well understood and maybe more risky.

It is clear that chip manufacturing became commoditized and off-shored, so at that point you plan to close the shop, taking your profits for a few more years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2022 at 12:56 AM, Scott Robison said:

Right. My goal was to create the most appealing C128 game I could with the available intellectual property. ...

Some people play a game to win. Some try to beat a point spread. Some try to maximize revenue.

Yes ... the dominant move when playing the "let's make a game" game to try to make enough money to stay in business and be able to keep on making games. When the "let's make a game" game is being played to satisfy the instinct of workmanship (in Veblen's phrase), there probably isn't a dominant move.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/6/2021 at 8:34 AM, BruceMcF said:

To be fair, only one of those three exist as a computer maker, and for that company, making computers sometimes seems like it is more of a sideline to making smartphones.

Edit: Oops! "PC maker"

 

Personal Computers, including Mac, have faded in importance. For private persons the shift has been to smart phones that is the "modern" personal computer. For enterprises the shift has been to cloud computing and related professional services. Apple do excellent in the former and IBM to excellent in the later.

So if Commodore would have been good at competing with IBM/PC and Apple Mac, they could still be around today with their of successful business in etiher smart phones (and ipad and smart watches) or in cloud computing and entrprise services. 

Both IBM and Apple are quite OK today with a turn over for IBM around $ 60 bn and for Apple around $ 360 bn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2021 at 3:50 AM, Kalvan said:

1985 would have been a busy year for me.

Just after Winter CES, I would begin negotiations with NEC, offering to license my patent with Micron for stacked Pseudo-SRAM in exchange for an architectural license for the NEC_µPD7720 DSP.  If I can't get a deal by Taipei COMPUTEX, it's still early enough that I can cut my losses and roll my own design, confident that I can stick it on motherboards by 1987.*

I will also begin R&D on CMOX flash, which, since I'll bring the white paper with me, should allow me to bring it to the market in computer hardware by the time for my next generation of computer hardware in 1987 at the 2 micron node, if not smaller.

in early May, once finals are done at U.C. Berkley, I'll take a drive down there and personally recruit Dr. Leon Chua, bringing him into the corporate sector two years ahead of schedule from when Hewlett-Packard would have poached him.  And since I won't allow any manager or the board to constantly yank funding just prior to a breakthrough in the development of the memristor, forcing his (chronically manpower turnover effected) team to start from scratch each time, I predict a breakthrough sooner than 2009, so process geometries will be much more forgiving to productization.  Also, this way Intel won't be able to steal the work and create an early version of Optane.

Just after the Fourth of July, I plan to begin development on Silicon-on-Interposer fabrication, placing the vias on a layer below the logic elements, so that chip sections can be placed to optimize chip geometry and allow more flexibility in element placement.  I don't plan for this development to find product application before 1992, but once I need, I'll need it bad.  Also that month, I'll begin joint development of TTL's 65832 core with Western Design Center.

Finally, sometime between September and November, I'll put in a tender offer for Dataram, as at this point, it is in financial dire straits, until its breakthrough contracts with HP and Digital Equipment in 1987.  This will allow me to put out my current and future RAM designs at materials and production costs, rather than have to pay cartel prices for it, something for which the period 1987-92 will become infamous for.  In particular, this should substantially reduce the production price of the Sharp X68000, and make the Amiga Ranger Chipset a practical venture for whichever company is TTL's customer for Hi-Toro Labs.  Either that, or when Edwin Meese files an antitrust suit over my memory fab ownership as a consumer OEM, I'll expose every dirty RAM industry secret during discovery if the judge doesn't grant my motion for dismissal.

*The reason I'm not going with the Texas Instruments TMS 32000 series is that Tramiel would try to launch a junk bond fueled re-aquisition (or at least make a spectacular effort) the moment he would have heard of this development, and neither I nor Atari could have afforded the distraction at that moment.

With history in hindsight I think an option for MOS/Commodore, if they there not able to compete with IBM and Apple, would have been to reject the Motorola 68k and instead develop a new processor archicture based on the RISC concept, just like Acorn did so successfully.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2021 at 9:25 PM, Scott Robison said:

It is interesting to me that they were willing to buy Z80 for C=128 but not 65816. I realize why: it was probably cheaper and 65816 didn't offer CP/M library access. Still, their hesitancy for so long to avoid using anything but their own chips is sad.

Agree! The 65816 would have been an obvious choice. Very strange that they rejected what both Apple and Nintendo used.

That said they at the same time did a poor job to continue to be innovative and do new stuff on their own. They never developed any thing really successful after the 6502 series and related sound/video chips. Other companies continued to innovate and spend R&D on RISC architectures like Power PC, MIPS and ARM. MOS/Commodore just stangnated. I think the culture changed after Commodore and Jack took over MOS Technologies. Before it was a lot of innovation going on, but later the creators like Chuck Peddle and Bob Yannes fled Commodore/MOS then Jack only focucsed on quick sales and less on innovation. I love Jack as a great person and fantastic sales man, but I think he actually was responsible for killing the innovation culture at the company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2021 at 10:58 AM, xanthrou said:

Plus to create an arcade machine more advanced than Neo-Geo, as well as Commodore-branded CD players, LaserDisc players and VHS VCRs.

I think your right. If MOS/Commodore had continued to innovate in sound and graphics chip, and understood the need for bringing along software/game developers, they could absolutely had a good chanse to compete with PlayStation and Xbox.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2021 at 4:54 PM, DigitalMonk said:

I don't think that Commodore could have maintained any meaningful market share by adding DOS or Windows compatibility.  Even IBM couldn't do that 😁.  And especially on non-Intel CPUs -- Microsoft themselves tried that with NT, and they couldn't swing it either. 

The ultimate "problem" here was that huge market share for x86 meant that Intel could improve a lot more compared to RISC competition than many had forseen. They, and AMD, kept improving the x86 line, and still does to this day.

That said I think OS/2 on x86 PC benefited from being compatible with both DOS and Win16. Without that backwards compatiblity it would have tanked and not sold nearly as much as it did (OS/2 lost out by not being compatible with Win32 then the market moved to that API). Also NT benefited a lot from being able do run DOS/Win16 applications on x86.

Who know; maybe MOS/Commodore could have been AMD today if they made better x86 compatible processors and continued to innovate with its graphics chips?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2022 at 6:35 AM, martinot said:

Agree! The 65816 would have been an obvious choice. Very strange that they rejected what both Apple and Nintendo used.

You need to remember that the 65816 was "not invented here" at Commodore/MOS. It was created by Bill Mensch after he left the company and started WDC. Using the 65816 would be an admission that MOS no longer was at the forefront of their own processor family, like Intel selling PCs with AMD CPUs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2022 at 6:22 AM, martinot said:

develop a new processor archicture based on the RISC concept, just like Acorn did so successfully.

That success was more technical than commercial. The Archimedes was never as successful as their 8-bit computers, which themselves were also-rans to the competition from Sinclair and Commodore, outside of the education market. The real success of ARM came later as it was licensed for embedded use, which evolved into being the architecture of choice for mobile devices, and by then ARM has become its own spin-off company and Acorn eventually died off.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 6/6/2022 at 3:04 PM, SlithyMatt said:

That success was more technical than commercial. The Archimedes was never as successful as their 8-bit computers, which themselves were also-rans to the competition from Sinclair and Commodore, outside of the education market. The real success of ARM came later as it was licensed for embedded use, which evolved into being the architecture of choice for mobile devices, and by then ARM has become its own spin-off company and Acorn eventually died off.

Fully agree. That is exactly why I talked about Acorns development of their own processors (not about their computers). 

That is also the reason why I suggested the future for MOS/Commodore might not be desktop computers at all (at least not with their own architecture), but actually making new exciting (RISC) processors. Just like the 6502 once was an exciting 8-bit (CISC) processor! 🙂

 

Edited by martinot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2022 at 2:53 PM, SlithyMatt said:

You need to remember that the 65816 was "not invented here" at Commodore/MOS. It was created by Bill Mensch after he left the company and started WDC. Using the 65816 would be an admission that MOS no longer was at the forefront of their own processor family, like Intel selling PCs with AMD CPUs.

At the same time they did use a Motorola 68000, which was not invented at Commodore/MOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please review our Terms of Use