Doom Didn't Kill the Amiga (2024)
datagubbe.se
datagubbe.se
The author bought their Amiga 500 in early 1992! It was already a "classic" by then.
Then with Quake, the 3rd party 3D graphics cards market took off, and even if there were cards for the Amigas too, market economics made them unviable.
And even though I usually appreciate Datagubbe's writings, this time I think his take is incorrect. At least in my circles Wolfenstein / Doom and ultimately Quake was the final nails in the Amiga's coffin.
Sure, the picture is bigger - PC market drove down prices and very soon the price/performance difference was very unfavorable for Amiga - but at least initially the issue was kids wanted to play Wolfenstein, Doom, or at least something similar, and that was not possible if you stayed on the Amiga.
https://bytecellar.com/2020/10/27/looking-back-on-35-years-a...
I remember those extremely early days, which were filled with slow releases, I must say - but it was a singular experience, playing with that hardware. I left and came back with an Amiga 2000 in 1988 and that was a great time - a peak time to be an Amigoid.
1992 does seem late for a first Amiga - and a 500; I had an A1200 in '92.
I still have two Amigas that I use often (1000, 2000 '020) and a PowerPC "Amiga," that I rarely power on.
Here's the list: https://bytecellar.com/the-list
I would buy one, love it, read about another and finally put the first in the newspaper for sale ( https://bytecellar.com/2019/05/08/computer-classifieds-datin... ) and move to the next, with funds added in by my parents to cover the different. I was very lucky in that! (The link shared shows actual scans of the newspaper ads I ran, selling some of the systems back in the '80s.)
Sadly, I missed out on the more fun era of computers from the 80s, as PCs became quite the tour-de-force by the time the 90s rolled in. So I made it my mission to procure some classic computers from time to time and use them for awhile before selling them. My current retro system of choice is a modded Atari 520ST with 1 MB of RAM via a Marpet XTRA-RAM expansion.
Platform studies as an interdisplinary discipline should, and usually does, pay attention to the subtleties of different markets; many an enthusiast's dabblings in history do not, thereby often enough mimicking the sort of Ereignisgeschichte ("event history") from other fields hobbyists gravitate to, e. g. military history.
I, for my part, value Datagubbe's account as an interesting meditation on personal computing realities, and therefore choices, in the Sweden of the late 80s to early 90s.
Games consoles killed the Amiga, just like they did all other home computers that were primarily used for games.
I don’t know anyone that used the Amiga for anything other than games.
PCs survived because they were genuinely used for business, not just games.
Edit: an interesting take with the games consoles, I never really thought about it from that angle before. But it makes a lot of sense. Console makers get a cut of the revenue stream of the games. Commodore never saw a cent of that and the only commercial niche they briefly owned was low-budget TV production, like cable channels and such.
In 1996 the first hit became free.
It’s the only way I was able to play. My best friend across the street had the console and I didn’t (I had Atari 2600). So I would rent and we would play together. I eventually got my own in maybe 1987-1988.
PS1 kicked off in 1995 and we had rentals for a long time by that point. I never owned a PS1 but same friend did. I ended up going from NES, SNES, N64 before switching mostly to PC games and eventually went to college where video games took a back seat for a number of years
Mostly play Xbox now (short while I had PSP)
Do you honestly think that the general public gave two shits about closed architectures?
The vast majority of people, who were using computers, were using them to play games. People completely misremember how little interest the general public had in computers (for serious tasks) at the time.
The only exception to that really was the IBM PC. It didn’t have an open architecture either. For a long time it was the case that if you didn’t buy an IBM branded PC, you couldn’t guarantee that any software would actually work on it.
I don't know if it was a long time. The PC came out in 1981, and by 1984 you had the fully compatible Tandy 1000 and Compaq Deskpro.
Except for the BIOS ROMs, which companies like Compaq rewrote themselves, the PC did have an open architecture.
I’d still argue nobody cared about architectures, they cared about where the type of computer was primarily used. PCs were for the office. Acorn was for education. Atari, Commodore, Sinclair were for games and therefore vulnerable to games consoles.
I seem to remember that PCs had quite a poor rep for games, even during the Wolfenstein -> Doom -> Quake era. Only really shaking that off when the first graphics cards arrived
I think PC graphics had two major leaps forward in this era: VGA in 1987, and VLB graphics (on 486 machines) in 1992. The former brought an expanded colour palette, and the latter brought enough memory bandwidth that you didn't need dedicated blitter/sprite chips.
Not on a strictly technical level, especially not in the world of 3D. 2D arcade games à la Silpheed came out for the PC in 1989, running maxed-out on machines that were already a possibility, with VGA graphics and Adlib or MT-32 sound, from late 1987 onwards, roughly the same time the A500 was released in the United States. The notion that PCs had "a bad rep for games" after the release of titles such as Wing Commander doesn't really hold much water.
It was mostly economical factors and some specific usecases that made home computers an excellent, and often superior, choice for many of its future users.
Yes, there were strictly technical limitations. Memory throughput to the video framebuffer did not allow for arbitrary full-screen updates at native frame rate, and there were no hardware sprites or other display hacks to cope with this limitation - the framebuffer was all you had. These limitations became gradually less important throughout the 1990s, depending on what resolution and color depth you were running.
Precision, friend. I never disputed that there were no (strictly) technical limitations for PCs. I only argued against the notion, emphasis mine, that "PCs were definitely at a disadvantage for anything involving a lot of motion, like arcade-style games, platformers, shoot em ups, fighting, and racing games. [...] That disadvantage was gone, at least on a technical level, by 1992-94."
Amigas never saw the light against IBM and compatibles in a lot of ways, and that already before 1992. Two famous titles I already mentioned; one had no Amiga port (Silpheed, 1989) AFAIK, the other (Wing Commander, 1990) came out later as a technically inferior, albeit atmospheric, hand-me-down. When people reminisce about the graphics capabilities of home computers, especially Amigas, they often forget whole, shall we say "inconvenient", genres. Et cetera.
With respect to Silpheed, the original version is a graphically primitive 8-bit game and the 1989 version was ported to Apple II-GS - it was hardly performance that was the reason it didn't get an Amiga release. Even the 1993 Sega CD version doesn't contain much that'd be difficult to do on an Amiga (you'd "cheat" and pre-render more version of the ships and rely on the blitter to compensate for the expense of polygons, and possibly use dual playfields and copper lists to allow for the updating background).
Wing Commander, I agree with. The AGA version is nice, but too late.
I saw the first PCs starting to appear in East German households in 1990. Typically a VGA-capable 286 machine, 16 MHz, 1 MB RAM, two HD FDDs (one 1.44 MB 3.5", one 1.2 MB 5.25"), one 20 to 40 MB hard disk. No sound card. Without monitor, in early 1991, such a machine cost new about 1,500 DM.
At the same time, a new Amiga 500 with 512 kB memory extension cost about 900 bucks, the A590 external 20 MB hard disk an additional 700 DM, for a grand total of 1,600 DM. In other words, we roughly on equal footing here.
A barebones A2000 without hard disk and 1 MB of RAM cost also about 1,600 DM in the same time period. The costs racked-up even quicker to furnish out that bird.
Coincidentally, 1,500 DM is the same price I payed in early 1993 for a well-cared for second-hand 386DX-25 (387 FPU included) graphics workstation.
And the Acorn Archimedes? That machine was essentially a unicorn where I'm from; the Amigas had at least some visibility here.
1. Yes, my example pits a typical PC against a typical A500 as the purchasing choice to make early 1991. In my area, both machines cost roughly the same, but PCs and corresponding architectures were much more widespread and familiar (the GDR worked on its own IBM-compatible clones after all). The point was to illustrate what people here who had the money could choose from shortly after the watershed that is the German reunification. And prices and capability only skewed more in favor of the PC as time went on...
2. A small (14" or 15") monitor was not that expensive (600+ DM; the venerable 1024 x 768-capable, MPR-II-certified Highscreen "LE 1024" cost about 1,000 DM in early 1991); A500 users of the time could go for a new 1084S, at a cost of just about 600 DM. And AdLib and SoundBlaster clones of good value were also not expensive (think around 150 DM, sometimes with one or two games thrown-in). Something one would buy "the month after" if money was a bit tight.
3. If I can't tell the difference between 320 x 200 on a typical CRT or a typical TV in a 1991 kidlet's room I'd be off to an ophthalmologist. The TV-capability was definitely an advantage, though; lotsa cheap CRTs of the era sucked because they made one's fuckin' eyes burn. I remember most small TVs being easier on the eyeballs. I exchanged the 14" monitor my PC came with (was a gift) for a much better 15" CRT about four months later.
4. You talked about "Multimedia-PCs"... which in the mid-90s delivered even better bang-for-bucks. By then, the Amigas were already buried anyways. Unless you were a fan, financially much less mobile, had a need for the luggability (and other pros) only a keyboard-case computer could deliver at competitive prices, or got scammed or somesuch.
5. People here who were too cash-strapped and just wanted to play games usually went for game consoles (Atari 2600 jr. as well as the NES being the most popular choices... 'till the SEGA Mega Drive and especially the SNES took over).
The early ('89 to '91) home computer for the value-oriented customer? The Commodore 64 of course. Saw many. A lot of them second-hand machines bought from Westerners who cleaned house to make room for whatever came next.
I beg to differ; in my experience, the Amiga who doesn't forget is an outlier. ;)
> "[...] the vast majority of people did not have those high-end PC's with the requisite graphics and sound cards."
Once again: The context was the strictly technical, which was brought up by another poster. I am also well aware of the economical, and for specific usecases corresponding technical, realities. But that is best served by (comparative) market analysis and not just anecdotes. Which brings me to...
> "We continued to laugh at people with PC's pretty much until Doom, because most of the PC's our friends had were still low end, and lacked expensive graphics- and sound cards, while at the same time, certainly there was a mounting concern over what was trickling down for PC's from the high-end."
In my little corner of East Germany, I didn't feel the same about Amiga users. For you simply were not relevant; I didn't know anyone with an Amiga until much, much later (2007!).
> "With respect to Silpheed, the original version is a graphically primitive 8-bit game and the 1989 version was ported to Apple II-GS - it was hardly performance that was the reason it didn't get an Amiga release."
It serves as an example of an arcade game with good production values, and many supported graphics and sound modes ("expandability"), for a PC of the era, i. e. the outgoing 80s.
That's fine, but it was not what I took issue with in your response.
> It serves as an example of an arcade game with good production values, and many supported graphics and sound modes ("expandability"), for a PC of the era, i. e. the outgoing 80s.
It serves, to me, as an example of a pretty primitive game given the year the port was released, basic enough to replicate on an 8-bit machine, that likely didn't get a port because it wasn't well known enough in the markets where the Amiga was popular to bother licensing it and too basic to be competitive.
It's what was I was replying to; it's what the argument was about.
> "It serves, to me, as an example of a pretty primitive game given the year the port was released, [...]"
Okay.
Not consciously, but they could see more and more capable and affordable systems and upgrades available from a lively and competitive industry.
> It didn’t have an open architecture either.
It was open enough that the closed parts could be reverse engineered, and so the market was already full of clones by the time the Amiga was even released.
Meanwhile, the Amiga was tied to custom chips only manufactured by Commodore, and didn't get anything resembling a clone until Commodore was already bankrupt (DraCo, which ditched a lot of backwards compatibility)
> For a long time it was the case that if you didn’t buy an IBM branded PC, you couldn’t guarantee that any software would actually work on it
By the time the Amiga died, this hadn't been an issue for many years.
First, this specific argument is about the computer-buying public, not the general public. Furthermore, yes, many people also bought into the IBM-PC & Compatibles eco-system because it was much more open. Many young(er) urban professionals of the time took their work home, to be continued on computers. I think financial mobility, supply, as well as culture (incl. generational divides) are more much important factors.
> The vast majority of people, who were using computers, were using them to play games.
Do you have data to back that up? Because where I'm from (East Germany), strictly based on my observations, this didn't track; many PCs were used as intended: general-purpose computing. That means work and play.
Like Apple/Mac?
One could argue that apple is the only exception to the rule. And let's not forget that apple almost went bankrupt in 1997, only to be rescued by Microsoft.
I mean TV studios and media houses, but admittedly, that's not exactly a huge market.
As to what killed Amiga - I think it's in the article - the lagging behind the x86 performance, especially when 386DX-40 came about, and please allow me to propose one additional, if not the primary, factor - that our fathers suddenly began to require Word and Excel to do their work at home.
My Amiga friends used it for playing games and for creative things: writing music, pixel/digital art, some coding, making games (at least, in shoot-em-up-construction-kit), as well as dialing up BBSes and the text-based Internet (like me on my PC).
Besides random individual users doing these sorts of things, Amigas were used in local broadcast television studios as video switchers and graphics layover systems, and even in more major media production outlets for video editing and 3D animation. They were seen as a more economical solution to more expensive hardware built specifically for television or graphics, but could pull of the work on a comparable level.
None of us replaced them with consoles.
While the use in business was of course important, that the PC survives is just as much down to the open platform and the clone market that prevented its future from being tied to a single company - in this case a wildly dysfunctional one.
Are you claiming your circle is representative of the computer buying masses of the time? (whether the computers were consoles or not)
The profile varied extensively by country - Germany as well had a market where Commodore was big in the business market, and while that was mostly PC's, it was also the reason for much of the success of the Amiga 2000, which also largely aimed at non-gaming users.
Commodore UK meanwhile, did fit your "profile" for the Amiga and was very much focused on games.
But Commodore UK was the subsidiary that remained most successful despite competition from consoles.
In fact Commodore UK survived the bankruptcy of Commodore International and did well enough that management tried to put together a buyout offer (but had to throw in the towel after Dell and Escom entered the process).
In other words, while you're right that competition from consoles and PC's of course mattered a lot, it was a lot more nuanced than that.
E.g. in the US, Commodore had burned its relationships to the ground, and so failed to get the low-end Amiga's out there as gaming machines too, and were nowhere near as successful as some of the subsidiaries like Commodore UK, and Commodore B.V (Netherlands; also briefly survived bankruptcy).
Where Commodore did best, it did okay in both the game market and in various professional niches, but that meant actually working the game market hard. E.g. Commodore UK did a "famous" bundle with the game for the 1989 Batman movie which drove relatively-speaking huge sales.
Had the rest of the subsidiaries done close to as well as Commodore UK, the company as a whole would've at least weathered the cash crunch that killed it in '94. Whether that'd have let them rebuild (e.g. by completing their next chipsets) or if it'd have just made them linger on in a zombie state another year, is an open question.
Neither does yours, at least I have the evidence of the extremely large and vibrant Amiga games industry.
Your anecdote is “not me or my friends”
When you say the Amiga games industry is "extremely" large and vibrant, what contemporary platform are you comparing it to?
If there is an "extremely large and vibrant" aspect that makes the Amiga stand out, it is the demo scene.
> at least I have the evidence of the extremely large and vibrant Amiga games industry.
And for the business use we have the evidence of the sales of the bigger models that were totally unattractive for games, the multiple magazines targeting business use, and the number of businesses built exclusively on selling solutions that were for a long time only available for the Amiga, like the Video Toaster.
Nobody has argued with you that games weren't important for the Amiga (but your thesis that the Amiga failed due to consoles falls apart when we consider that the Commodore subsidiaries that focused more on selling it as a games computer survived longer when Commodore failed), but that it was not nearly as singularly sold as a games machine. Even Commodore UK, which was perhaps the most gaming focused of the Commodore subsidiaries also got significant revenue from business use.
EDIT: I'd also add that there isn't like there haven't been extensive analysis on this, such as Brian Bagnall's book series on Commodore, or Jimmy Maher's "The Future Was Here". We know a lot about Commodore's internal issues and their finances that was not public knowledge at the time. Commodore was horribly mismanaged more than anything else, and there are many competing reasons that contributed to the fall of Commodore, and while the consoles certainly contributed too, there's not much evidence it was anywhere near the only, or main, reason.
The Amiga was used worldwide by TV stations for CGI and titling effects, for digital signage eg arrivals/departures at airports, and video walls, besides being a tool for countless digital artists. I know because I wrote digital signage software for the Amiga and sold it to customers in 21 countries.
But, the vast majority of people who bought Amigas did so because it was a great machine for games and had lots of high quality titles.
When the majority of your market disappears and moves to cheaper options; and all you have left is video walls in departure lounges, you’re fucked.
It was used to make the first 3 seasons of Babylon 5 and all of the sub graphics for Sealquest DSV.
As an aside, Dana Carveys brother was one of the lead designers.
Most people in the user group I was in back then (ALFA - Amigoid Life Form Association) were NASA engineers who used them as cheap and capable alternatives to the UNIX workstations they worked with at NASA (which was local, Hampton, VA). Many of these guys were older and didn't game at all.
Yes. "Amigas take in all the telemetry data from the spacecraft, scale it by applying coefficients of up to fifth order polynomials and convert the data back to engineering units for display to the engineers working the launch."[1]
[0] https://hackaday.com/2021/08/16/retrotechtacular-amiga-pips-...
[1] http://obligement.free.fr/articles_traduction/amiganasa_en.p...
The document is sadly 404 now, but this was an awesome nerdy writeup of the conversion of the Universal Studios Waterworld from Amigas in 2007.
Amiga could offer the PC experiences too, and did, until it ran into hardware limitations. Then it was suddenly competing with the Genesis and Super Nintendo, but with inferior European side scrolling games, with their single button controls, “sound or music not both”, etc.
Wait, which games, and which consoles? Arcadey sprite-based action games were popular on the Amiga, and there the consoles caught up to it by about 1990 (the Sega Master System) or 1992 (the SNES) in the European market. But 16-bit consoles would have been a depressingly bad substitute for the Amiga when it came to games like point-and-click adventures, Lemmings, Populous, the Freescape games, or XCOM, when those even received a 16-bit console port at all. The Amiga was in actual use mostly a games system, yes, but to a large extent the successful, beloved games were the kind of thing we now think of as PC games. That's also probably a big part of why finally losing pace with the PC over DOOM was such a bitter blow. The 32-bit consoles only started to take off in Europe with the release of the PlayStation there, well into 1995 when it seems the Amiga's goose was mostly already cooked, and even those systems weren't a great place to have a PC-like gaming experience. Then there's the awkward issue of downloading a car: famously, many Amiga users were piracy-happy, and would not have welcomed the game prices and relatively successful copy protection of '90s consoles.
(Data mostly from Wikipedia. I'm not an expert on the Amiga's commercial history, and it's a complicated topic.)
Probably meant 1988 (Sega Mega Drive).
>I'm not an expert on the Amiga's commercial history, and it's a complicated topic.
For anybody curious, the Amiga Documents[0].
Yes, I meant the Mega Drive, but the PAL Mega Drive, the really relevant one here, didn’t come out until well into 1990 (if the easiest Internet sources are to be believed).
This may be true in the US and Japan, the rest of the world were mainly using 8-bit (and increasingly 16-bit) computers in this era, so this scans really oddly outside the US.
I grew up on an 80s UK council estate (surrounded by poverty) and practically every kid had a computer, mainly Commodore 64, 16, +4, Sinclair Spectrum, or an Amstrad CPC (maybe a few BBC Micros dotted around, and some other oddities)
Lots of people had the early Atari consoles in the early 80s, but after that I didn't see a console until the Megadrive. Everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE had computers in the mid-late 80s to early 90s where I was growing up.
In 1989, the closest year I can find stats, home computer penetration was 15% of households in the US, but that wasn't uniformly distributed, so some people will have grown up with the experience of it being VERY common for people around them to have computers (I did), while others will have known no one with one.
It was in this environment that I would discover programming and the internet.
Nevermind Moore's law and exponential improvements... you're stuck even falling behind in very incremental developments.
I also lived through this era, but from the Atari ST side. When I got my 486 it was a feeling of a kind of relenting "sigh" abandoning the 68k and its basic superiority... but economies of scale and the arrival of Linux (I used the very first versions, before the a.out->ELF transition even) made it worthwhile.
Though my ST only had 1MB of RAM and a floppy, no hard drive. On that I ran a UUCP node to get email and news for a while. And some unix-like shells (Mupfel, I believe was one? Gulam was another great one). I did use MiNT a bit but the whole GNU toolset was a bit big for a floppy system, and the multitasking was only somewhat useful. You could get a unix-like environment without going fully MiNT.
The big jump for me was having a 200MB HD in my 486 when I got it. Massive life change.
Linux came later after also going through AIX, HP/UX, A/UX, AT&T SVr4, SunOS, Solaris, OSF/1, ISC, ...
So when the Falcon and TT Etc came along with full 16-bit 256 colour SVGA-like graphics, anything properly written GUI "just worked"
Games and the like, yes, had to fall back to a video compat mode.
> Games and the like, yes, had to fall back to a video compat mode.
The Amiga had retargetable graphics too. No real difference there.
Separate topic from graphics and device independence though
Everything could have been fixed with the March of Moore. The OS could have gotten a hypervisor and been running each program in its own "VM" thinking it was the only program on the machine.
Achilles heel for classic MacOS, too. Sins of our fathers.
The Intel 80386 and its successors were quite exceptional in being "killer micros" with a workstation-class feature set for the time.
Isn't this what "Unified Memory" does in more modern systems? There's nothing wrong with sharing memory between CPU and hardware graphics.
About the A3000 Wikipedia says “The machine is reported to have sold 14,380 units in Germany (including Amiga 3000T sales)”, and about the A4000 “The machine is reported to have sold 11,300 units in Germany”. Both were on sale for about 2 years.
In comparison, the A2000 sold 124,500 units in Germany, again according to Wikipedia, in the about 4 years of its commercial availability.
So, about a 80% decline in sales per month, in what I think/guess was an expanding market for personal computers.
⇒ I don’t think those improvements made much of a difference.
Variants of the A2000 continued in the market after the A3000 was released, such as the A2500, so people who didn't need the upgrades - or could make use of them (e.g. the VideoToaster didn't fit in the A3000 case without modifications) would continue to buy cheaper models.
Commodore's focus on low cost stuff (in their own way) while PC clones managed to push the HDD+SVGA setup price down was a critical factor for how things turned out I think. In the high end there was also Apple, Macintosh had launched a year before the Amiga and made the professional GUI market harder to enter.
But the fateful focus also let the masses have access to a great hacker's computer growing up, without the vibe satirized by "Office Space" that marked the Microsoft platforms.
Memory speeds plateau'd while CPU speeds skyrocketed. Almost all the complexities of modern architectures have to do with this. There used to be "no need" for something as funky as L1/L2/L3 caches really because often your memory was faster than your CPU (hence why something like the C64's VIC-II or the Atari ST's "Shifter" are even possible).
Hell there were systems back then that didn't even have onboard registers in the CPU, but used external memory for it (TI's TMS series). The 6502's "zero page" is another example.
You can't do that anymore. The CPU will run many laps around your memory.
Still it'd be interesting to see what Jay Miner would have come up with in the late 90s or 21st century, if he was still around and in the game.
If they had been smarter with money, I'm sure they could have innovated in many many ways without giving up on backwards compatilibity. Sony put a PS1 inside the PS2. The Sony MSX2 contained an MSX1-on-a-chip.
Amiga could easily have had a PCI bus for external video chips.
And I'm not even going into the more crazy PS3-like ideas like "so, memory and bus speed are just a fraction of CPU speed? Ok, here are 32 parallel CPUs with their own chunk of the VDP bandwidth and their own local memory".
To sort out compatibility, the idea was for an "AGA Amiga on a chip".
I'm not convinced Amiga-users would've been all too happy with all of this - or that PA RISC was a good choice, given what we know now -, but it certainly would've been a massive upgrade.
(What Commodore was close to completing when they went bankrupt, though, was AAA[2] - which would've seen far more modest but still significant upgrades, like wider buses, support for chunky graphics modes, higher resolutions, far higher video bandwidth; AAA was in testing when Commodore failed)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_Hombre_chipset
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Amiga_Architecture_ch...
As time passed, that complexity made it more difficult to build newer, better Amigas that were compatible with the software already written for it. All its unique features - graphics, 2D acceleration, audio - made it complicated to improve the machine. The PC, on the other hand, was very easy - you could throw out your CGA card and get an EGA or VGA, the same way you could plug in a generic sound card and get MIDI and PCM audio, along with an IDE port for a CD-ROM.
If the value proposition held, it could have survived longer, but this business of getting a new computer in order to get better video output gets expensive very quickly. I had EGA on my 10MHz XT-compatible and it was great.
Commodore was stuck in the 8-bit home computer model - mostly non-upgradable machines. This was the 1000 (it had a little upgradability), the 500, the 600, and the 1200. The 2000, 3000, and 4000 were seen as their professional counterparts, but they were all saddled by being compatible with games written for their built-in video and audio hardware that was quickly becoming inadequate compared to PCs.
Sadly, Atari didn't have as much custom hardware it would need to evolve, but still never quite made the leap from their self-contained machines to more modular ones that'd make it easier to compete with PCs. When they did, they opted for the VME bus instead of something simpler (such as a 16-bit ISA bus).
Impressively, near their deaths, both made PCs, but the PCs didn't share anything with their proprietary jewels. Both companies should know much better.
They had patents https://patents.google.com/patent/US4780844A/en they had design documents for original chip, they had chip fab, they had no one with skill nor will to pay for it. All it needed was adding switchable clock dividers to control logic.
Doom didn't kill the Amiga. Wolfenstein 3D did. (2024)
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsADJa-23Sg (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40343333)
Discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39246825
1994?! Every single PC gaming store was flooded with PC CD demos.
Day of the Tentacle. Loom. Monkey Island. Rebel Assault. Myst. 7th Guest.
Every “AAA” release at the time was getting a “talkie” version with added FMV or cd audio.
Plus Doom, and then Doom 2.
I actually think the 93-96 period is basically the most hype I’ve ever seen the PC market, ever.
I’m sure Amiga had a lot of cool stuff still. The demo scene, the various Psygnosis games. But I never got on my radar beyond “this doesn’t need config.sys and it has more colors”.
If it had started life as the cd32 then the company might still be around today.