Why did Commodore lose? What did they do wrong that Apple got right?

Why did Commodore lose? What did they do wrong that Apple got right?

Other urls found in this thread:

apollo-core.com/
atariage.com/forums/topic/257989-apollo-68080-new-68k-core-running-on-atari-stf/
youtube.com/watch?v=qchPLaiKocI
youtu.be/aZV-b8uwg4Q
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Because Kool and the Gang were a better band.

Retarded decisions, recycling old shit instead of trying to stay on top with R&D. The A500 was a nice machine, then they put out the A500+ and the A600 and the slightly more modern A1200 after which PCs and Macs started catching up in media capabilities.
I kinda wonder what had happened in a timeline where Jean-Louis Gassee bought and gutted the useful parts of Commodore instead of founding Be Inc. Probably absorbed by Apple in 2001 or so.

When did they start dying? We had Mac II's in the libraries when I started school and I don't think I ever saw a Commodore in school despite so many kids in the neighborhood having C64's.

Slightly off-topic, but anyone remember Power Computing?

I wish a computer company would start selling RISC computers again, only instead of running proprietary operating systems they just ran Linux or BSD

I understand this is out there, but the prices arent really competitive. I would be happy with even an ARM desktop, as long as it could run Quake 3

If you're really interested - read "On the Edge: the Spectacular Rise and Fall of Commodore".

One of my takeaways from it is that Commodore is a case study in what happens when you let the financial guys have complete power. When all decisions are nickels and dimes, your products will suffer greatly. Commodore is a sad story - they blew it.

>when you let the financial guys have complete power. When all decisions are nickels and dimes, your products will suffer greatly.

literally balmer and cook.

Thank you for this. I was looking for a good book about it right before I made the OP.

this goy good argument.

this cum in the mouth.

Are you having a stroke? Do you want me to call 911?

RIP M68000 , my favourite processor

>Macintosh
>Genesis
>CPS I and II

What a monster. So much of what I am comes from the M68000 and MOS 6502.

apollo-core.com/

atariage.com/forums/topic/257989-apollo-68080-new-68k-core-running-on-atari-stf/

Same here. I started on an Apple //e. Used Macs after the //e from when I was like 12 up until I was about 24. I stopped using Apple when they switched to x86. I used Windows for about a year, then switched to Linux, which Ive been on for 8 years now. Had a bunch of 68k machines, the coolest was a Quadra 950, which with an accelerator board had a whopping 20 RAM slots! 33MHz 68040 on board.

Recently I found a Mirrored Drive Door G4 at a thrift store for $10. It had a bad PSU, rewired an ATX PSU and it fired right up. Dual 1.42GHz G4, fastest G4 PowerMac shipped from Apple. The G4s to me represented the epitome of Apple hardware design, the Aluminum G5s represented the new Apple where form trumps function. I really do want to setup a faster PPC than the G4 I have but it will be fun in the mean time

I miss the era when non-x86 machines were common alternatives. Currently ARM is quite nice, but relegated almost entirely to mobile. FYI, if people are not aware, ARM can trace its roots back to the 6502!

I'd say the Raspberry Pi, if its RAM wasn't stuck in the dark ages.

Theres other boards out there, but they don't have nearly the level of dedicated support.

Earth, Wind, and Fire maybe but not Kool and the Gang. Maurice White == Lionel Richie.

I remember them making Mac clones during the brief window when Scully licensed OS 7 to independent hardware makers.

apple didn't beat commodore, pc clones did, apple was essentially bankrupt in the 1990s until they got a bailout from bill gates and microsoft, apple was always an also-ran, the mac still is, barely above linux in market share, the only reason they became a behemoth is the iphone and the legion of retards that bought/buy it, tech has been dead for more than a decade now, let the pajeets and women have it, it's dead

this.

Although Apple did slightly better than Commodore becasue Apple catered to retards and Commodore to tech savvy people.

And there are way more retards.

>anyone who isn't a super technhical 13347 hacker is a mouth breathing retard

Early home computers were incredibly simple.

Yeah you had to read some book or use a cheat sheet to look up the commands but if could figure it out at age 13 I don't see how average intelligent adults couldn't.

I miss pre-iphone Apple. They were a slightly overpriced idea incubator for tech.

8-bit guy according to him was programming and doing stuff on his vic20 since age 6

The success of their 8-bit systems and poor marketing dragged their brand image through the mud, which coupled with general mismanagement put all the odds against them. By the time they tried to make inroads into more "serious" computing with bigger and better Amigas, nobody (in North America) saw them as anything but the same toymaker that shat out the C64s they placated their kids with while other platforms got the "real" work done. The very lackluster on-paper specifications didn't really help them out either, even if they did a great job at utilizing the hardware, I couldn't imagine potential customers in the consumer arena were going to pick a dated looking AIO system sporting a nearly decade-old, cost-reduced variant of the 68020 and an anemic RAM complement when a decent PC clone wasn't that much more expensive.
>The G4s to me represented the epitome of Apple hardware design, the Aluminum G5s represented the new Apple where form trumps function.
I don't really get how anyone can feel this way. The old B&W G3-style case is about as "form over function" as you can get with all kinds of plastic to scratch and crack and a horribly cramped interior that made routine tasks like adding drives to the external bays a pain and didn't seem to take well to newer chips when it came to cooling, considering my Quicksilver regularly needs a reflow. Compared to the aluminum design, it doesn't really seem to offer more in the way of expansion beyond the option for a third hard disk which wasn't really as big of a deal in the SATA age.
In the end, I don't really dislike either design, but I would always take a G5 when given the choice. Probably the best of the final generation of RISC workstations.

>and Commodore to tech savvy people
I don't really believe that. They catered to the general consumer market, which included plenty of mouth-breathers, video game enthusiasts and hobbyists looking for a cheap toy to play with alike. It doesn't take a ton of brainpower to stick a disk in a 1541 and type LOAD "*",8 into the prompt, and I'd say a lot of truly "tech savvy" types who worked with higher-end microcomputers, minicomputers and mainframes probably thought they were children's toys.

Well, theres a decent amount of ARM boards much better than the rPi. But i want basically a full size mITX or mATX board. It can be smaller than that, but I want it to be an industry standard. I want 4+ SATA ports. I want 1-7 PCIe slots, and I want them in standard positions, not just on a random non-standard part of the board. I want a selection of compatible PCIe cards, such as video cards, SATA cards, etc. I want a removable and upgradeable CPU.

Basically, like a regular PC, just with a non-x86 CPU. Just like how PowerMacs were basically like regular PCs, just with a different CPU architecture.

If all you want is Quake 3 then just get an SGI or Sun system. I don't think you'd be all that excited by what you're asking for anyway once you actually have one, after you play with a lot of different platforms you start to realize that the ISA is just a label and its those "proprietary" additions and exotic tweaks that made the hardware so interesting to begin with.

Apple did not cater to retards. They often had more powerful architectures, meaning better performance. 68k and PPC often outperformed their x86 counterparts. The design and graphics industry was also dominated by Apple. Apples NuBus cards were faster than x86 ISA cards. Apple SCSI drives were faster than x86 IDE drives.

Basically, Apple did not cater to retards, quite the opposite. They catered to people who wanted a more powerful architecture. The OS also had many benefits over windows.

>horribly cramped interior
come on man, sure certain things werent ideal, but overall the cases were designed amazingly.

>The old B&W G3-style case is about as "form over function" as you can get
Im sorry but the flip down case is amazingly easy to work with. the case was literally designed to be worked inside of

>with all kinds of plastic to scratch and crack
Ive never seen cracked G3/G4 cases. Scuffed, sure. But Ive seen many G5 cases which were dented and bent, basically rendering the cases permanently damaged. The G3/G4 plastic parts could be easily replaced, meanwhile the G5 is a fucking unibody. Dented your thin easily dent-able G5 aluminum handles? Well youre fucked! its part of the unibody! Cracked your G3/G4 handles? No problem, 2 screws and they can be removed

Before they even announced the iphone they controlled 70% of the music player market share, I don't think you realize how profitable the ipod was

Really, overall, no, Quake playing is not my main priority. What I want is a non-x86 system, which is capable of doing 99% of the things my x86 systems can do. I want an architecture that encourages me to use free-open-source, portable software. I may be tempted to use Skype on my x86 box, but without the source (not to mention appropriate license), it wont compile on, for example, an ARM Linux desktop. Which is an absolute atrocity since they run Skype on ARM Linux anyway, via Android. But Im fucked on my ARM laptop.

>If all you want is Quake 3 then just get an SGI or Sun system
I want to also be able to encode videos, watch videos online, compile software quickly, etc.

FYI, the Quake 3 engine has evolved quite a lot. Look into Urban Terror. Its based on Quake 3, but it still requires some pretty decent hardware. I run at a resolution of 1920x1440, on a monitor with a 96 Hz refresh rate. Ideally Id hold the engines max FPS of 125 FPS. But even with my quad-core 3.2 GHz Xeon and GTX 960, some maps have trouble even staying over 60 FPS if theres lots of smoke, players, and action

>come on man, sure certain things werent ideal, but overall the cases were designed amazingly.
Hell yeah, they were neat, and I actually don't mind cramped systems packed full of things. But I still find the aluminum enclosure far nicer to work with. It takes a lot of desk space to drop that tray down.
>Im sorry but the flip down case is amazingly easy to work with. the case was literally designed to be worked inside of
It is, but only for things Apple expected you to do to it. It gives you a ton of room to add in expansion cards or expand the system memory, but the drive trays are more painful to dislodge compared to the later design's sledded system and replacing drives in my 400 MHz B&W was a pain.
>Ive never seen cracked G3/G4 cases.
It's pretty common in my experience for them to start developing fractures around where the translucent plastics at the side screw into the enclosure, and they certainly scuff like hell. Aluminum also dents and scratches, but it doesn't seem as common in the systems I've picked up.
In the end we're both shitting on each other's preferences with no real reason to. I guess my point is that they were both decent in one way or another.

Earth Wind and Fire are the best Rock(?) band ever though.

I still don't really understand how the label on the shelf talker is going to "encourage" you to use free/open-source software any more than something like running an FSF-approved distribution would.

Why did Commodore fail? Lots of Reasons.
Stupid projects that would not take off
>C64GS
>CDTV

Dragging their feet
>Amiga AAA chipset development

The Amiga line largely ended up failing because they did stop gaps. You had OCS on the A1000 A2000, and A500, ECS on the E3000, and A600 and AGA on the 1200 and A4000. ECS and AGA should not have existed as they were incremental upgrades to each other. Rather than Doing ECS or AGA, they should have gone straight for AAA or better yet Hombre.

Doing that would have allowed them to stay competitive to IBM PC clones in the early 90s.

Marketing. People are suckers for snake oil.

EW&F aren't a rock band

>(You)

youtube.com/watch?v=qchPLaiKocI

Kool and the Gang even mastered frame ghosting long before windows and faulty nVidia products made it popular

Commodore was the king of snake oil. Amiga had all of the best innovations nobody in the market at the time really gave a shit about or needed for their work, those that did were usually better served by workstations if they could afford it.

true that, personal preferences are entirely sunjective

>label on the shelf talker
What does that mean tho?

I dont really agree with the FSFs approach. FSF believes its ok to have proprietary firmware if that firmware is read-only or located on a hardware chip. But if that same firmware is located on the computers hard-drive and loaded in RAM instead, suddenly that becomes not OK. I believe neither situation is OK. But I also dont believe its OK to intentionally try to block you from using the proprietary blob if that is what you want to do. By using a different architecture, youre not being artificially prevented from doing something, which is what an FSF-approved distro basically does

This is why the method of getting non-x86 systems is better. Although with the Coreboot project, this is less of an issue, RISC machines largely used OpenFirmware, as one example

>vlc.mpg

top lyl

I still really don't understand how something as superficial as an instruction set alone somehow solves this dilemma of "artificial prevention" from... what again? I either can't read or you're hard to follow. Could you spell it out for us?

say you have 2 choices of software to use. one is proprietary, but for some reason, you still really want to use it for some reason. maybe its a game that is more popular. maybe its a voip or messaging app that your girlfriend already has. if you easily can run this on your x86 box, you may just do that. instead of getting your girlfriend to install, as a bad example, mumble (which is FOSS), you just go along with Skype, since she already has it. Well, if you were on an x86 architecture, you wouldnt have much of a choice. your girlfriend would have to go with mumble, as its essentially impossible to run skype on your arm linux machine. but not impossible because I did something wrong, or because my OS is artificially preventing me from it. its because the software vendor has harmful practices of not providing source code, and not having a free license.

If youre on a non-x86 platform, you will end up using more FOSS software, because proprietary software vendors do not generally provide binaries for your OS and CPU architecture, nor the means to compile it yourself. You will also end up using more portable software. meaning software that runs appropriately on several architectures, which IMO is good software design. A piece of software written in a portable language should easily compile on any architecture. It shouldnt give you random unexplainable errors. using a non-x86 means you will filter out poorly written software

why arent more people excited about this?

>Well, if you were on an x86 architecture, you wouldnt have much of a choice

meant to say *non-x86* architecture

Retarded business decisions. Look up Retro Hour on YouTube for the videos about C=, they have quite a few and it's a very informative podcast about old computers.
youtu.be/aZV-b8uwg4Q

It puzzles me that you told me you don't agree with FSF-esque "artificial limitations" when your endgame seems to be using a different ISA to artificially limit your use case to prevent the use of proprietary software, which is something free distros already do by not including those packages and Unix-like environments already encourage on their own.
>You will also end up using more portable software. meaning software that runs appropriately on several architectures, which IMO is good software design. A piece of software written in a portable language should easily compile on any architecture. It shouldnt give you random unexplainable errors. using a non-x86 means you will filter out poorly written software
From personal experience, that software really isn't all that portable or well written. Big projects like Firefox, for example, are bloated and riddled with GCC and Linux-isms, getting a modern version to run on a platform not officially supported or with a large developer base otherwise is an incredibly difficult task. Just go ask Nekoware maintainers who gave up on getting it to run on IRIX ages ago.

Whatever, I can't say I wouldn't buy into a competitive alternate hardware platform designed for free software if only for the sheer novelty of it, but I'm not really of the mind that it would improve anything on that front.

I think maybe Im a hardware person and youre a software person. Do you have a tech job? And if so, is it hardware or software? I work with electronics hardware. I believe hardware comes first, software comes 2nd. I think you are a software person. You start with a piece of software, then look for hardware to run it on, which the easiest path ends up being x86. I look for hardware I like, and then I look for software to take advantage of that hardware.

For about a year, my most used computer was an ARM netbook running an ARM port of Lubuntu. It was an incredible learning experience. I was very impressed by the hardware. This was many years ago before fanless x86 machines were as common as they are now. This ARM netbook of mine ran so cool, no fan, no noise. Not hot at all. And with carefully selected software well tailored to that hardware, performance was surprisingly good. It could play HD videos smoothly. It could even do really incredible 3D graphics very smoothly. But only when the software was taking advantage of the specifics of the architecture, extensions such as NEON, and not heavily depending on x86 extensions (like MMX as a bad example, but whatever the newer commonly used alternative is).

To me, this ARM machine had so many advantages over x86, and the only downsides was software which was clearly written with only x86 in mind, or closed-source and non-free, in the case of Skype, which runs on ARM via Android, and with minimal effort of Skypes programmers could run on GNU/Linux too.

I want an ARM desktop, totally fanless, but with GL-ES and OpenGL capabilities. Lower power, yet high performance. And all the software running on it will end up being that which is well written, portable, and free and open-source.

Then why did Apple triumph over Commodore but not Microsoft?

im not an expert but Apple used somewhat niche hardware, but it was more powerful and expandable. Commodore hardware was even more niche, but at the same time less powerful and less expandable.

For example, Apple was using NuBus when PCs were on ISA. NuBus was vastly superior to ISA, but at the same time, Apple was not the only one using NuBus. Niche, but not extremely so. Meanwhile, Commodore was using Zorro, which was extremely niche, yet at the same time, not as fast as NuBus

Keep in mind, success is not always the outcome of the better product. Many many factors come in to play

I just collect high-end/weird/esoteric systems as a hobby and after playing with a ton of different platforms I realized that in the end, an x86 chip doesn't feel different from a PowerPC chip that doesn't feel different from a MIPS chip that doesn't feel different from a SPARC chip that doesn't feel different from a PA-RISC chip, the excitement was in the hardware built around the chip and the unique software ecosystem on top of it that weren't really by merit of the usage of the architecture itself. The idea of an "industry standard" non-x86 system doesn't really excite me because, well, you said it yourself, it's just a PC that runs less software but otherwise operates and behaves exactly the same. If there's nothing to truly distinguish it beyond helping you adopt a more positive mindset towards free software, then what's the point? Especially if you've already had that mindset to begin with.
>And all the software running on it will end up being that which is well written, portable, and free and open-source.
I don't want to shit on you, but this oft-repeated idea that a license governs code quality and that GPL software is inherently "well written" and "portable" really bugs the shit out of me for some of the reasons I already stated.
NuBus was pretty niche itself, though. I can't recall hearing of its use outside of some Lisp machines or projects associated with Apple in some way.
Apple succeeded where Commodore didn't because, like the PC, they had a worthwhile niche. They were the only way to go for desktop publishing just like the Amiga was great for things like digital painting. But digital painting was all the Amiga had, while the Macintosh platform was far more versatile and also featured a lot of the bigger PC mainstays as well.

No Atari ST reference. Eat shit.

>If there's nothing to truly distinguish it beyond helping you adopt a more positive mindset towards free software
that interpretation of my motivation is incorrect.

>an x86 chip doesn't feel different from a PowerPC chip
I can literally feel the x86 chip in my ThinkPad burning my skin. I can hear it too, playing a 480p YouTube video causing my fan speed to max out. No such issues on my ARM netbook

>The idea of an "industry standard" non-x86 system doesn't really excite me because, well, you said it yourself, it's just a PC that runs less software but otherwise operates and behaves exactly the same.
RISC has historically had better performance than x86. And its not behaving the same when an OpenGL-ES game running on ARM has similar performance to an OpenGL game running on x86, but various effects cause the GPU and CPU to throttle up massively, causing higher power usage, higher heat production, and louder fans, meanwhile the ARM chip at worst gets slightly warm

I dunno, I was extremely impressed with how smooth my Sun Ultra-2 ran a couple years ago. It had dual 300 MHz SPARC CPUs, 2 GB RAM, and a 15 MB frame-buffer video card. Was running Debian with OpenBOX. No lag at all in the general GUI. And surfing the web was A-OK. I gotta imagine a 300 MHz x86 would have felt much slower, but without a direct comparison, I can't say for sure.

As a kid it seemed everyone who had a C64 used it exclusively for games.

Today I assume a PPC Mac is only viable running Linux.

>As a kid it seemed everyone who had a Windows PC used it exclusively for games.
Fixed.
Kids use computers, whatever the type, for games because kids play games.

Your assumptions are valid for you.
When you assume you make an ass out of you, but not me.

Prolly out of necessity since kids wouldn't have too many game cartridges and there are plenty of "free games" that actually requires the user to type the entire programme to run

>LOAD "*",8

Sometimes you had to type:
LOAD "*",8,1

I had a Vic20 in 1983, man I loved that thing. I still have it and it still works.

Am I the only one who doesn't really give a crap about retro? What we have now is so, so much better even with all the casualization. I remember the IMSAI 8080, had an Apple ][, ran BBSs, Amiga, XT, everything. Had fun but I don't miss it a bit. Rather have my nice Fractal Design case, high end hardware, idiotic amounts of storage, and masses of flat screens.

I agree you can take my modern computers over my dead body. Saying that for me running Linux still has a retro edge as I was using Unix since the early 90s and think back to my first own Linux system, a 386sx with 10MB RAM/120MB HDD.

For me, it's about history. Obviously retro computers are worthless for practical computing today, but they are an important piece of living history and you can experience it directly because technology has moved so fast. Technology has advanced so quickly that in one lifetime you can see major changes and it's very interesting to see the old stuff still operational

In a sense Jack Tramiel was a paranoid idiot, wanted to corner the computer market, they started producing garbage, like the Plus/4 & Commodore 16, wasting resources and time, but Jack wanted to corner the low end computer market so the competition didn't, wasting money, time and resources. Another notable huge mistake, their Educator64 was monochrome, Apple dominated the educaitonal/school market because of this moronic move. Then they release the C128, they load cp/m on it, but it runs at half speed of other cp/m systems and is a total nightmare, never mind its several years since CP/M's glory days, the thinking was CP/M has a huge business software library, too bad it was dated when the C128 was released. They could have focused on making the C128 a huge step up from the C64 if they didn't waste time trying to get CP/M to work om the C128. Imagine the C128 was just a C128 and backwards compatible with a C64 only, but had a little extra graphics or processing power.
The book is superb, very well written and the writer goes into great detail on why Commodore failed.

The Commodore 1541 drive was crippled by the idiots who got rid of the high speed wire in a redesign, it was originally designed to load programs a lot faster than it did, I remember some things taking several minutes to load. The crazy part is the 1541 and the previous 1540 drives were modeled after a 4040 drive commodore made that was a work of art and advanced for its time, they cut corners though with the 1541 drive for the c64, the vic20 had such little memory releasing a disk drive for it was downright stupid, as loading programs from tape were just a few seconds slower.

Thats what I am planning on doing. Well, actually Id probably dual-boot with OS X. In addition to running PPC OS X software, I believe OS X can run OS 9 software as well. And OS 9 gives me massive nostalgia

Ive run Debian on G3s, G4s, and G5s

Also wanna add, I would particularly enjoy trying to get AltiVec working on Linux

Dude, on retro computers, you could have fully functioning GUIs with only like 4 MB RAM. I mean, you could browse the web with like 8 MB or 16 MB or some shit. I miss that efficiency so much, its something modern computers lack big time

Most old computers didnt even have fans on their CPUs

>comparing a walled garden architecture to the PC

>I dont really agree with the FSFs approach. FSF believes its ok to have proprietary firmware if that firmware is read-only or located on a hardware chip. But if that same firmware is located on the computers hard-drive and loaded in RAM instead, suddenly that becomes not OK. I believe neither situation is OK.

Why is it then okay to have to silicon which is read-only and located on a hardware chip? What's the difference between hardcoded microcode and hardwired CPU logic which does the same thing the microcode would?

Nah, Earth Wind and Fire had better hits, by Kool and the Gang had more hits.

>recycling old shit instead of trying to stay on top with R&D.
Are you retarded? The AGA graphics was still ahead in a consumer market in the early 90's.
They where developing actual 3D accelerated graphics chips in the early 90's for the next line of Amigas before Commodore went bankrupt.

Marketing.
There was no reason for them to die, only shit decisions leading up to that.

Ignore autistic neo-Sup Forums who has no idea about anything.

>remember Power Computing?
IBM still uses POWER in their mainframes.

>I wish a computer company would start selling RISC computers again, only instead of running proprietary operating systems they just ran Linux or BSD
You can get dozens of different ARM computers.

>but the prices arent really competitive. I would be happy with even an ARM desktop, as long as it could run Quake 3
I think ODROID would easily even run much newer games and it's only 50 bucks.

Still produced and used today.

m68k was used in everything from embedded computers to UNIX workstations.

>The Amiga line largely ended up failing because they did stop gaps. You had OCS on the A1000 A2000, and A500, ECS on the E3000, and A600 and AGA on the 1200 and A4000. ECS and AGA should not have existed as they were incremental upgrades to each other. Rather than Doing ECS or AGA, they should have gone straight for AAA or better yet Hombre.
What shit are you smoking?
OCS came out in '85
ECS came out in '90
AGA came out in '92

They are all upgrades on top of the old one, exactly like CPUs are GPUs are today.
There's no way that in your delusional mind, that they could have pulled off AAA between '90 or '92 in an home computer, graphics like that was only possible in SGI machines at the time.
Damn it hurts to see 16 years old talking about shit they have no idea about.

They have superb hardware and no idea what to do with it.
I wouldn't call it snake oil, as they under delivered, they didn't overpromise.

Commodore actually had a meeting with the biggest game and program development houses half a year before they went bankrupt and the Amiga software and hardware developers.
They discussed new standards and things for the future, wanting to expand the platform.

>If youre on a non-x86 platform, you will end up using more FOSS software, because proprietary software vendors do not generally provide binaries for your OS and CPU architecture
You really have no idea about the 80's and 90's, do you?

>Plus/4 & Commodore 16

Jack didn't actually produce those systems, they were launched long after he left. The process which began that technology was Jack hedging his bets against cheap and inferior systems like the ZX Spectrum which were outselling the c64 in the UK and Spain. He knew that in a price war he couldn't win against that design with the c64's multiple custom chips, so mandated a good enough single chip solution that could be leveraged if required.

Don't forget at the time the c64 while still cheaper than the other US computers was a lot more expensive than the ZXSpectrum, mostly because it had VICII,SID,PLA and unique 6510 CPU. The c16 design bought that down to a single TED and 7510CPU without losing a whole lot of functionality.

>im not an expert but Apple used somewhat niche hardware, but it was more powerful and expandable. Commodore hardware was even more niche, but at the same time less powerful and less expandable.
>but at the same time less powerful and less expandable.
Wait, Amiga less powerful and less expandable than any m68k Macintosh before mid 90's? What the fuck?

>Meanwhile, Commodore was using Zorro, which was extremely niche, yet at the same time, not as fast as NuBus
Zorro was a direct CPU bus.

>Commodore BASIC V2 faggots
AHAHAH
You're like a kid, check this out:

diR

dload"*"

Yeah great CPU very easy to code for. My last 68K was the Dragonball in my Palm Pilot, which was also a great system.

dL (dload) alone would load the first program by default.

For a while the fastest Mac available was an Amigra running a Mac emulator.

An Amiga still is the fastest 68k Macintosh you can have.

>my low-end embedded ARM chip runs generally cooler than a mid-range core 2 duo in an old shitpad
why does this surprise you? your comparison isn't really attributable to architectural differences, those are two completely different chips likely of different class, age and intended usage, you might as well shit on an Alpha because a Z80 doesn't need a heatsink
>RISC has historically had better performance than x86
of course, but we're not in 1995 anymore, that hasn't been the case for well over a decade and a half now since AMD64 put the last nail in the coffin for all of the big RISCs barring ones that managed to desperately cling to niches like SPARC and POWER or ones that didn't seriously tackle the desktop space like ARM

POWER was 64 before x86 broke the muh gigahurtz barrier