One big mistake timex made...
21 messages · 2008-01-07 → 2008-01-08 · Yahoo Group era · View archive on archive.org
Participants: Fred, Bill Loguidice, Adam Trionfo, Glen Goodwin, Timex, M. Emrah Oral, Mark Martin, Jeff, Robert "Exile In Paradise" Murphey, Peter Lakatos
Preserved from the Timex/Sinclair 2068 Yahoo Group (2001–2019), which is no longer online. Text reproduced from the archive.org archive; email addresses masked.
Messages
1. Unexpected FLOOD of Help from TS 2068 Users
Adam Trionfo · Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:37:
I just want to say thanks to all of you for listening and helping to answer my questions. There are many knowledgeable people lurking around here. It seems that a good many of your have had your TS 2068's since "back in the day." Am I right?
Adam
_________________________________________________________________
Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/shop/specialoffers.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC_MediaCtr_bigscreen_012008
2. One big mistake timex made...
M. Emrah Oral · Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:54:
I think the improvements Timex brought over the original ZX Spectrum design were good but making the unit incompatible with the ZX Spectrum was what really killed the machine. I mean, thousands of titles were already available for the ZX Spectrum and as far as I know the reason why the 2068 is incompatible with the Speccy is the ROM. The only reason why Timex changed the ROM code was to include commands like SOUND, STICK, etc that would operate the additional hardware features. SOUND was a pretty useless command. Anything that could be done using sound could be done using OUT, and anything you can do with STICK, I am sure can be done with the IN command. Extra screen modes ? There wasn't even a command (or any useful way) to handle that from BASIC anyway. So I think if Timex had released the 2068, exact same hardware, with the original ZX Spectrum ROMS, the whole picture would be different. Instead of providing a ZX Spectrum emulator, they could have released an Extended
Basic or extended OS cartridge when they had a decent OS that would be an improvement over the ZX Spectrum ROM.
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
3. RE: [ts2068] One big mistake timex made...
Bill Loguidice · Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:20:
All fair, but I still think like every other C-64 competitor, it simply
wouldn't have stood a chance. A stream of British ports wouldn't have made
much of a difference in my opinion, other than making the system more of an
underground favorite, perhaps coming a bit closer to how a TI-994/a or CoCo
2 is perceived today, both of which are of course second-tier systems to how
much support/goodwill the C-64, Atari 8-bit and Apple II receive. Straight
ports have the disadvantage of addressing a maximum of 48K, with poor sound
and control (without additional coding effort, if possible, to bring it up
to higher standards, which would have probably defeated the purpose anyway).
This would not bode well against a system like the C-64 that had no such
inherent restrictions.
Probably the only way that the timing would have worked is when there was
still some goodwill left with the Timex Sinclair 1000, when they hadn't
become $10 liabilities, and just skipping over the Timex Sinclair 1500
entirely in favor of the 2000. Then you could have gotten away with
straight ports and then eventually hope to drive proper third party support
to take advantage of the full feature-set. The fact that the sound was
internal to the system (with no way to output it without a hack) was not
good either, as was the obvious reliance on cassette tapes, particularly in
reference to Spectrum ports. As I've mentioned before, the US came to
expect disks, not cassettes, pretty early on. A cassette-based system
simply wouldn't have had legs past 1984.
=================================
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.
<http://www.armchairarcade.com/> http://www.armchairarcade.com
A PC Magazine Top 100 Website
=================================
_____
From: [email] [mailto:[email]] On Behalf Of M.
Emrah Oral
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 1:54 PM
To: [email]
Subject: [ts2068] One big mistake timex made...
I think the improvements Timex brought over the original ZX Spectrum design
were good but making the unit incompatible with the ZX Spectrum was what
really killed the machine. I mean, thousands of titles were already
available for the ZX Spectrum and as far as I know the reason why the 2068
is incompatible with the Speccy is the ROM. The only reason why Timex
changed the ROM code was to include commands like SOUND, STICK, etc that
would operate the additional hardware features. SOUND was a pretty useless
command. Anything that could be done using sound could be done using OUT,
and anything you can do with STICK, I am sure can be done with the IN
command. Extra screen modes ? There wasn't even a command (or any useful
way) to handle that from BASIC anyway. So I think if Timex had released the
2068, exact same hardware, with the original ZX Spectrum ROMS, the whole
picture would be different. Instead of providing a ZX Spectrum emulator,
they could have released an Extended Basic or extended OS cartridge when
they had a decent OS that would be an improvement over the ZX Spectrum ROM.
_____
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs> your homepage.
4. RE: [ts2068] One big mistake timex made...
Adam Trionfo · Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:38:
M. Emrah Oral, on Mon 1/07/08 10:54 AM, wrote:
>>
the improvements Timex brought over the original ZX Spectrum design were good but making the unit incompatible with the ZX Spectrum was what really killed the machine.
>>
This is one of those questions that can be asked time and time again and you'll always get hundreds of different answers. There is more more than one mistake that doomed the TS 2068. I'm VERY new to the TS 2068 community so I have NO idea what did the machine in. I don't know the history of what was going on with Timex back then. I CAN make observations of what MIGHT have been going through heads of the people at Timex, but this is all conjecture. But... isn't this part of the fun of all this? Intelligent conversation.
>>
thousands of titles were already available for the ZX Spectrum
>>
Were there THOUSANDS of titles available for the ZX Spectrum in 1983? I know that eventually, this became the case, but was this the case so soon? Let's just say that there were HUNDREDs. That is still MANY titles that Timex could have taken advantage of in advertising. I remember that the Colecovision ads eventually used to include all of the hundreds of Atari 2600 titles (because it had an expansion that could make it compatible with that console). Maybe Timex could have done the same thing.
>>
and as far as I know the reason why the 2068 is incompatible with the Speccy is the ROM.
>>
5. Re:Unexpected FLOOD of Help from TS 2068 Users
Glen Goodwin · Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:22
Hi Adam --
I got my first 2068 around 1999. I couldn't afford one
when they were new. :-( (sniff)
Glen
Adam Trionfo wrote:
> I just want to say thanks to all of you for listening and helping to answer my questions. There are many knowledgeable people lurking around here. It seems that a good many of your have had your TS 2068's since "back in the day." Am I right?
>
> Adam
> _________________________________________________________________
> Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/shop/specialoffers.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC_MediaCtr_bigscreen_012008
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
6. Re: One big mistake timex made...
Glen Goodwin · Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:01
Hi --
What Timex really had was a computer division run by engineers
instead of by marketing people. Here's another quote from George
Grimm:
Clive then made a ZX Spectrum which we painted silver and were
going to sell it as it, but by now we had our own engineering
section and they decided to re-do the ZX Spectrum into the TS2068
in 6 weeks .... 8 months later still not done and we were slowly
losing more and more money .... the TS2068 was a knockout ...
some were shipped but the $ ran dry ... despite many efforts Timex
folded its attempt at computers.
<end quote>
As fast as the market was evolving in those days, the eight
month delay was in itself the kiss of death.
Later --
Glen
Adam Trionfo wrote:
> M. Emrah Oral, on Mon 1/07/08 10:54 AM, wrote:
> the improvements Timex brought over the original ZX Spectrum design were good but making the unit incompatible with the ZX Spectrum was what really killed the machine.
>
> This is one of those questions that can be asked time and time again and you'll always get hundreds of different answers. There is more more than one mistake that doomed the TS 2068. I'm VERY new to the TS 2068 community so I have NO idea what did the machine in. I don't know the history of what was going on with Timex back then. I CAN make observations of what MIGHT have been going through heads of the people at Timex, but this is all conjecture. But... isn't this part of the fun of all this? Intelligent conversation.
>
> thousands of titles were already available for the ZX Spectrum
>
> Were there THOUSANDS of titles available for the ZX Spectrum in 1983? I know that eventually, this became the case, but was this the case so soon? Let's just say that there were HUNDREDs. That is still MANY titles that Timex could have taken advantage of in advertising. I remember that the Colecovision ads eventually used to include all of the hundreds of Atari 2600 titles (because it had an expansion that could make it compatible with that console). Maybe Timex could have done the same thing.
>
> and as far as I know the reason why the 2068 is incompatible with the Speccy is the ROM.
>
>>From my limited experience, there must be more to it than that. Timing was probably critical for some of the Spectrum games (50 Htz vs. 60 Htz). Also, if it was ONLY the ROM that was different, then when the Spectrum ROM was used the machine should be 100% compatiable with the Spectrum. But it isn't. Anyone have more details on this?
>
> The only reason why Timex changed the ROM code was to include commands like SOUND, STICK, etc that would operate the additional hardware features.
>
> This DOES make sence. The Commodore 128's BASIC 7.0 included many commands that the C64's BASIC 2.0 didn't have. This made a LOT of sense and did make programming in C128 BASIC easier (ESPECIALLY when dealing with sprites and sound).
>
> Extra screen modes? There wasn't even a command (or any useful way) to handle that from BASIC anyway.
>
> Still, they are useful (I've only seen the 64-character mode in a demo-- but it was damn near impossible to read with my composite monitor). The Atari 8-bit was limited to certain screen resolutions with BASIC, but machine langauge opened them all up to the user. Since most QUALITY games back in the early eighties were written in machine language, then it makes sense to offer this enhanced screen mode.
>
> So I think if Timex had released the 2068, exact same hardware, with the original ZX Spectrum ROMS, the whole picture would be different.
>
> I've read that they wanted to make sure that it had a competitive edge in America. They were RIGHT to think this. The TS 2068 did need an edge. Making the TS 2068 two-machines-in-one (similar to the C128-- which was actually three-machines-in-one) would divide developers. In this case, most software would have been written for the ZX Spectrum avoiding any extra features that the TS 2068 offered. This is what happened for the C128. There is a VERY limited amount of software written for the 128-mode. This used to piss off C128 owners, but the fact was that the C64 FAR outsold the C128. It made SENSE to develop for the C64 and not the C128. The Timex engineers probably wanted to FORCE development for the enhanced features of the TS 2068. This was a neat idea that just didn't work out. The market can't be forced.
>
> I'm probably WAY off here in some areas... so let me hear YOUR thoughts.
>
> Adam
> _________________________________________________________________
> Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/digitallife/keepintouch.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC_VideoChat_distantfamily_012008
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
7. Re: [ts2068] Re: One big mistake timex made...
Mark Martin · Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:57:
On Jan 7, 2008 4:50 PM, Adam Trionfo <[email]> wrote:
>
> Glen Goodwin, on Mon 1/07/08 2:13 PM, wrote:
>
> >>
> As fast as the market was evolving in those days, the eight month delay was in itself the kiss of death.
> >>
>
> I wonder what the heck was being worked on for eight months?
The keyboard, obviously.
Mark
8. Re: [ts2068] Re: One big mistake timex made...
Timex · Tue, 8 Jan 2008 00:52:
On Jan 7, 2008, at 10:01 PM, Glen Goodwin wrote:
> Hi --
>
> What Timex really had was a computer division run by engineers
> instead of by marketing people. Here's another quote from George
> Grimm:
>
> Clive then made a ZX Spectrum which we painted silver and were
> going to sell it as it, but by now we had our own engineering
> section and they decided to re-do the ZX Spectrum into the TS2068
> in 6 weeks .... 8 months later still not done and we were slowly
> losing more and more money .... the TS2068 was a knockout ...
> some were shipped but the $ ran dry ... despite many efforts Timex
> folded its attempt at computers.
>
> <end quote>
>
> As fast as the market was evolving in those days, the eight
> month delay was in itself the kiss of death.
>
> Later --
>
> Glen
I don't know what really happened to Timex Computer Corp. (TCC) Maybe
they did run out of money or the machine was just shot incomplete in
the market by marketing pressure.
TS2068 faded because of ROM incompatibilities with ZX Spectrum. The
TS2000 computer series would be a major ZX Spectrum upgrade IF they
let them finish it.
Timex of Portugal (TMX) restarted the Timex Computer division and
they were VERY successfull!
Gathering all things from TCC, TMX improved the TS2068 making it more
ZX Spectrum compatible and made other things new.
TMX made ALL the machines: TS1000, TS1016, TS1500, TS1510, TC2048 (a
cut down TC2068 with Kempson Joystick interface and ZX Spectrum ROM),
TC2068 (a improved TS2068), Timex FDD, Timex FDD3000, TT3000, Timex
Interface RS232, even a digital tape recorder, made a software ZX
Spectrum BASIC extension (Basic 64), Timex Operating System (TOS) for
the FDD/FDD3000 and adapted CP/M for use with FDD3000!
Timex Computer Technology was going very well on it's 3rd generation,
a computer had been announced, the Timex Computer 3256, a machine
with 256K of RAM and vanished. Some people said that Timex Computer
Technology was moved from Portugal to Scotland but all engineers
stayed at Portugal leaving the thing die in Scotland. It is said that
1 computer board was bad in a 1000 boards in TMX computer lines and
in scotland were more than 50%.
I truelly don't understand why TCC pulled the plug, where TMX had so
much success.
Maybe because the US was not after a cheap computer like ZX Spectrum
like Europe, but a more advanced system.
Johnny Red, Portugal
9. RE: [ts2068] One big mistake timex made...
Robert "Exile In Paradise" Murphey · Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:51
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 14:20 -0500, Bill Loguidice wrote:
> All fair, but I still think like every other C-64 competitor, it
> simply wouldn't have stood a chance.
The C64 is something of a fluke though.
After all these years, I think it was the right box at the right time...
a game machine after the Atari 2600/arcade crash, and before the
Nintendo,
that was something like a PC without costing 4 digits to buy in.
> A stream of British ports wouldn't have made much of a difference in
> my opinion, other than making the system more of an underground
> favorite, perhaps coming a bit closer to how a TI-994/a or CoCo 2 is
> perceived today, both of which are of course second-tier systems to
> how much support/goodwill the C-64, Atari 8-bit and Apple II receive.
The eurosofts were *the* rage on C64 though. So, they may have helped
quite a bit... most C64 nerds I know traded tons of import "warez".
Other than Epyx, Activision, EA,and GEOS there wasn't much coming out in
the U.S. because the PC was making its inroads. The U.K/Europe situation
was different and the Americans were busily defrauding AT&T just to get
their hands on all of the great games and tools coming out "on the other
side of the pond." Most U.S. C64 companies were little more than
eurosoft distributors if I remember correctly.
And, for the record, Parsec with the speech cart rocked the TI, and my
CoCo had the *first* first person adventure game I ever saw: Dungeons of
Daggorath.
> Straight ports have the disadvantage of addressing a maximum of 48K,
> with poor sound and control (without additional coding effort, if
> possible, to bring it up to higher standards, which would have
> probably defeated the purpose anyway). This would not bode well
> against a system like the C-64 that had no such inherent restrictions.
I am surprised its not possible to put a small assembly shim in place to
fix that using just the differences between the ZX and the 2068, rather
than lose the whole cartridge bay to the emulator.
> Probably the only way that the timing would have worked is when there
> was still some goodwill left with the Timex Sinclair 1000, when they
> hadn't become $10 liabilities, and just skipping over the Timex
> Sinclair 1500 entirely in favor of the 2000. Then you could have
> gotten away with straight ports and then eventually hope to drive
> proper third party support to take advantage of the full feature-set.
> The fact that the sound was internal to the system (with no way to
> output it without a hack) was not good either, as was the obvious
> reliance on cassette tapes, particularly in reference to Spectrum
> ports. As I've mentioned before, the US came to expect disks, not
> cassettes, pretty early on. A cassette-based system simply wouldn't
> have had legs past 1984.
And honestly, the future turned out to be cartridges with the Nintendo
consoles. It took the PlayStation to break the cartridge-based console.
The C64 was initially a cartridge machine, until the cart port was eaten
by the disk-speedup-cart-of-choice, since the C64's serial floppy cable
was a cruel joke. Tapes were already slow in 1982, but the C64 drive
wasn't much faster. (Side note: how much sense does it make to build a
floppy drive with its OWN 6502 computer, RAM, I/O etc... then decide to
hook it up with tin cans and string rather than a cartridge port where
the two computers could talk at bus speed?!? AIIIEEE!The serial was to
save money? How about ditching the onboard floppy drive computer?!?)
But, while history is fun, the 2068 machine still has a future, as long
people turn them on, and especially if new software is being written. I
see emulators out there, so it can't be totally dead.
Honestly, I would love to use a microcomputer as a make-or-break
developer test at work: So, you want to code here? Fine. Here's an 8-bit
micro from the stack. Write something with that so we can see your mad
skillz.
--
Robert "Exile In Paradise" Murphey
The first half of our lives is ruined by our parents and the
second half by our children.
-- Clarence Darrow
10. Re: One big mistake timex made...
Adam Trionfo · Mon, 7 Jan 2008 20:53:
Jeff, on Mon 1/07/08 6:52 PM, wrote:
>>
One other thing that I think may have cramped the Timex/Sinclair
computers were the abomidable keyboards and the "keyword" emphasis.
>>
The TS 2068 keyboard didn't get voted into the top 10 list of worst keyboards of all time for nothing. The more I use its keyboard, the more I can understand why it is on that list. It isn't that the keyboard isn't usable; it IS usable (you can even touch-type, if you're only typing letters). It just takes some getting used to. Not only do you have to memorize where all the normal keyboard keys are (if you're new to a computer), but you have to also memorize where the keywords are. It takes time to memorize their position. I'm sure once you get used to where the keys are there isn't a problem, but it is the GETTING USED to the position that makes the keyboard feel so awkward.
I'm a fan of the Astrocade, which only has a 24-key keypad. When you program in BASIC there are four different shift keys that are used to get all the letters and keywords. Somehow though, the layout just seems easier to use. Though the TS 2068's keys are MUCH better than the Astrocade's keys.
>>
It would have been much easier to just type in the program even with the chicklet keys.
>>
One of the Spectrum's eventually did allow that. I only know this from playing around with emulators. Which Spectrum did this? Was it the +2? Did it allow BOTH ways? Hmm. I wonder, were their people UPSET about losing the ability to hit five keys to get a keyword? There probably were.
Adam
_________________________________________________________________
Watch “Cause Effect,” a show about real people making a real difference.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_watchcause
11. Re: [ts2068] One big mistake timex made...
Fred · Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:07:
On 08/01/2008, at 14:51, Robert Exile In Paradise Murphey wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 14:20 -0500, Bill Loguidice wrote:
>>
>> Straight ports have the disadvantage of addressing a maximum of 48K,
>> with poor sound and control (without additional coding effort, if
>> possible, to bring it up to higher standards, which would have
>> probably defeated the purpose anyway). This would not bode well
>> against a system like the C-64 that had no such inherent
>> restrictions.
>
> I am surprised its not possible to put a small assembly shim in
> place to
> fix that using just the differences between the ZX and the 2068,
> rather
> than lose the whole cartridge bay to the emulator.
Only using 48k is hardly a problem as the TS2068 only has 48k RAM :)
Several Spectrum games have been patched without too much effort to
add Timex joystick support and reroute AY sound to the correct ports
(see Cybernoid II, IK+, Licence To Kill etc. on the files section of
the group), so it wasn't that much work really.
For a worked example see the following link which includes source for
a typical conversion <http://www.zxsoftware.co.uk/zxsoftware/SinclairData/I/instructions/InvasionOfTheBodySnatchas.txt
>.
Of course there were only a handful of Spectrum games pre the 1985
launch of the Spectrum 128k that featured AY sound, these supported
add-ons like the Fuller sound box like the above game.
I had heard that the FCC wouldn't certify the Spectrum compatible
machine that was to have preceded the TS2068 (the TS2000?), if that
was not the case, Timex missed the boat to compete with the C64 in the
US (in the UK at least the Spectrum cost 1/3 of the C64 price), as by
the release time the C64 was only $30 more than the Timex?
I would have thought a TC2048-type machine (Spectrum compatible with
integrated joystick adaptor), maybe with AY added at most, banged out
the door in early '83 for $150-$200 against the then $400 C64 followed
by the a TS2068 type machine with the AY, extra graphics modes and
112k of RAM in '84, with standard floppy drive add-on also available
to be sold in the US and Europe would have helped a lot.
This would have been a far superior machine to the 1986 Spectrum 128k
that was ultimately released in Europe, but it sounds like Timex
thought they could have much of that in early '83 with the 6 week 2068
project.
Sinclair were also caught by surprise at the Spectrum's success and
did not really invest in expanding the platform past the 1983 release
of the Interface I and Microdrive stringy floppy mass storage system,
even the Spectrum 128k was developed by partners in Spain.
Fred
12. Re: [ts2068] Re: One big mistake timex made...
Fred · Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:22:
On 08/01/2008, at 15:53, Adam Trionfo wrote:
> Jeff, on Mon 1/07/08 6:52 PM, wrote:
>>> One other thing that I think may have cramped the Timex/Sinclair
>>> computers were the abomidable keyboards and the "keyword" emphasis.
>
> The TS 2068 keyboard didn't get voted into the top 10 list of worst
> keyboards of all time for nothing. The more I use its keyboard, the
> more I can understand why it is on that list. It isn't that the
> keyboard isn't usable; it IS usable (you can even touch-type, if
> you're only typing letters). It just takes some getting used to.
> Not only do you have to memorize where all the normal keyboard keys
> are (if you're new to a computer), but you have to also memorize
> where the keywords are. It takes time to memorize their position.
> I'm sure once you get used to where the keys are there isn't a
> problem, but it is the GETTING USED to the position that makes the
> keyboard feel so awkward.
I think that this is written with a current perspective on the
situation. True keyboards were expensive computer components at the
time, and the Sinclair keyboards were designed to be very low cost,
having a "real" keyboard would have had a significant cost.
The Timex keyboard is improved over the Sinclair one (hard keys and
more robust construction), but is still clearly designed as low cost.
Presumably the keyword entry system (inherited from the ZX80 via the
ZX81) was designed to allow you to enter BASIC while doing less typing.
Interestingly, many people in the UK seem to cite the presence of the
keywords on the keyboard in driving their curiosity for programming
the machine :)
These days, modern PC keyboards use a Sinclair-like scheme with a
membrane beneath the keys ;)
>>> It would have been much easier to just type in the program even
>>> with the chicklet keys.
>
> One of the Spectrum's eventually did allow that. I only know this
> from playing around with emulators. Which Spectrum did this? Was
> it the +2? Did it allow BOTH ways? Hmm. I wonder, were their
> people UPSET about losing the ability to hit five keys to get a
> keyword? There probably were.
Spectrums from the 128k on used full keyword entry, and it was a
common feature of extended BASICs as well.
Once you were used to it, it was much quicker to use the single-key
system in my experience.
At least Beta BASIC allowed both to be mixed and matched on the 128k.
Fred
13. Re: One big mistake timex made...
Jeff · Tue, 08 Jan 2008 02:52
For what it's worth, I suspect that the eight month development time
was eaten up by the PLD design and spec creep. As an engineer I know
that if there isn't a firm specification that both marketing and
engineering agree upon it is difficult or impossible to get the beast
out the door - there is always the temptation by one, the other, or
both, to add just one more thing to make it better.
One other thing that I think may have cramped the Timex/Sinclair
computers were the abomidable keyboards and the "keyword" emphasis. If
I hadn't used the computer for a few weeks, it took major re-education
to find all of the keywords and decypher whether it was a shift,
function, shift/function, jump-down-turn-around-pick-a-bale-of-cotton,
or whatever to get the keyword I wanted. It would have been much
easier to just type in the program even with the chicklet keys. I
understand that it was easier to write the input and syntax checking
routines using the "keyword" keyboard, but it sometimes bordered on
being user-hostile.
14. Re: [ts2068] One big mistake timex made...
Timex · Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:48:
On Jan 8, 2008, at 3:51 AM, Robert Exile In Paradise Murphey wrote:
> The C64 was initially a cartridge machine, until the cart port was
> eaten
> by the disk-speedup-cart-of-choice, since the C64's serial floppy
> cable
> was a cruel joke. Tapes were already slow in 1982, but the C64 drive
> wasn't much faster. (Side note: how much sense does it make to build a
> floppy drive with its OWN 6502 computer, RAM, I/O etc... then
> decide to
> hook it up with tin cans and string rather than a cartridge port where
> the two computers could talk at bus speed?!? AIIIEEE!The serial was to
> save money? How about ditching the onboard floppy drive computer?!?)
The Timex FDD/FDD3000 system works the same way.
Z80A computer with it's own RAM, I/O, drive controller and a high
speed serial port.
Can use any operating system designed for it. Timex of Portugal made
TOS and adapted CP/M.
It only misses a video circuitry.
Je
15. Re: [ts2068] RE: One big mistake timex made...
Peter Lakatos · Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:10:
>
> The TS 2068 emulators have been written by people that don't have the
> computer or a history with it? I presumed that the emulator, I use
> Eighty-One for TS 2068 emulation, was written by an American.
>
Created by *Michael D Wynne* who is from the UK. He also created the
SpeccyBob which is a real Spectrum clone project.
>
> >>
> There is a large project aimed at a heavily-modified PAL TC2068, the
> Spectrum SE underway.
> >>
>
> Is there a link for this?
>
http://www.worldofspectrum.org/faq/reference/sereference.htm
Peter
16. RE: [ts2068] One big mistake timex made...
Bill Loguidice · Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:22:
First off, I'm merely being factual about "first tier", "second tier" and
"third tier" systems from a sales/initial popularity standpoint. I'm a
current and active owner of most systems ever made and a writer who makes a
point not to disparage a system "just because". Facts are facts. To call
the C-64 a fluke seems a bit extreme, as it was the right power at the right
price and the single best selling computer of all-time, worldwide. Yes, it
was primarily a games machine, but then most computers back then were
outside of the really high priced machines (and those machines were not good
game machines anyway). I also have to disagree about the "Eurosofts" being
ALL the rage, as there were PLENTY of games coming from Origin, Epyx, SSI,
Accolade, Activision, etc., that were not original to Europe. Yes, as time
wore on, the percentage of Euro-sourced soft became a bit more prevelant,
but the sales charts in the US were still dominated by the usual suspects.
Again, a system armed primarily with Euro-releases would NOT have stood a
chance back then against a system with a large mix and targeted and robust
US software.
The future may have turned out to be cartridges on the console side, but
certainly not so on the computer side. Obviously disks prevailed well into
the mid-90's. Cartridges have their own set of deficiencies, cost being one
of them (especially then) when getting into larger sizes.
And yes, the C-64's 1541 disk drive may have been slow, but it was nowhere
near as slow as a cassette drive and was more or less random access. It was
also a hell of a lot more reliable. Frankly, it's surprising that Europe
stayed on cassettes for as long as they did versus the US moving away from
them relatively quickly. I think a big factor in the US's move to disks was
the Apple II's Disk II disk drive in 1978. Since the Apple II didn't make
much of a Euro-impact, the trend/benefits were not as apparent (and again,
there's the question of higher initial cost for the hardware).
Frankly, in the 2068's case, even if Timex got everything right with the
hardware and had a decent software stream, they still would have failed, as
by the time of the system's release any corporate financial stability was
gone. That goes a long way to ensuring a system's success, as we saw with
Sega's Dreamcast. Frankly, if Sega wasn't so financially damaged from past
failures, they might have been able to go on at least another year or two
with the Dreamcast. Same thing with Atari and Commodore in their later
years. It didn't matter what they were going to introduce - they were
destined to fail because they didn't have the money/resources to ensure that
what they released was going to be a success.
=================================
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.
<http://www.armchairarcade.com/> http://www.armchairarcade.com
A PC Magazine Top 100 Website
=================================
_____
From: [email] [mailto:[email]] On Behalf Of
Robert "Exile In Paradise" Murphey
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:52 PM
To: [email]
Subject: RE: [ts2068] One big mistake timex made...
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 14:20 -0500, Bill Loguidice wrote:
> All fair, but I still think like every other C-64 competitor, it
> simply wouldn't have stood a chance.
The C64 is something of a fluke though.
After all these years, I think it was the right box at the right time...
a game machine after the Atari 2600/arcade crash, and before the
Nintendo,
that was something like a PC without costing 4 digits to buy in.
> A stream of British ports wouldn't have made much of a difference in
> my opinion, other than making the system more of an underground
> favorite, perhaps coming a bit closer to how a TI-994/a or CoCo 2 is
> perceived today, both of which are of course second-tier systems to
> how much support/goodwill the C-64, Atari 8-bit and Apple II receive.
The eurosofts were *the* rage on C64 though. So, they may have helped
quite a bit... most C64 nerds I know traded tons of import "warez".
Other than Epyx, Activision, EA,and GEOS there wasn't much coming out in
the U.S. because the PC was making its inroads. The U.K/Europe situation
was different and the Americans were busily defrauding AT&T just to get
their hands on all of the great games and tools coming out "on the other
side of the pond." Most U.S. C64 companies were little more than
eurosoft distributors if I remember correctly.
And, for the record, Parsec with the speech cart rocked the TI, and my
CoCo had the *first* first person adventure game I ever saw: Dungeons of
Daggorath.
> Straight ports have the disadvantage of addressing a maximum of 48K,
> with poor sound and control (without additional coding effort, if
> possible, to bring it up to higher standards, which would have
> probably defeated the purpose anyway). This would not bode well
> against a system like the C-64 that had no such inherent restrictions.
I am surprised its not possible to put a small assembly shim in place to
fix that using just the differences between the ZX and the 2068, rather
than lose the whole cartridge bay to the emulator.
> Probably the only way that the timing would have worked is when there
> was still some goodwill left with the Timex Sinclair 1000, when they
> hadn't become $10 liabilities, and just skipping over the Timex
> Sinclair 1500 entirely in favor of the 2000. Then you could have
> gotten away with straight ports and then eventually hope to drive
> proper third party support to take advantage of the full feature-set.
> The fact that the sound was internal to the system (with no way to
> output it without a hack) was not good either, as was the obvious
> reliance on cassette tapes, particularly in reference to Spectrum
> ports. As I've mentioned before, the US came to expect disks, not
> cassettes, pretty early on. A cassette-based system simply wouldn't
> have had legs past 1984.
And honestly, the future turned out to be cartridges with the Nintendo
consoles. It took the PlayStation to break the cartridge-based console.
The C64 was initially a cartridge machine, until the cart port was eaten
by the disk-speedup-cart-of-choice, since the C64's serial floppy cable
was a cruel joke. Tapes were already slow in 1982, but the C64 drive
wasn't much faster. (Side note: how much sense does it make to build a
floppy drive with its OWN 6502 computer, RAM, I/O etc... then decide to
hook it up with tin cans and string rather than a cartridge port where
the two computers could talk at bus speed?!? AIIIEEE!The serial was to
save money? How about ditching the onboard floppy drive computer?!?)
But, while history is fun, the 2068 machine still has a future, as long
people turn them on, and especially if new software is being written. I
see emulators out there, so it can't be totally dead.
Honestly, I would love to use a microcomputer as a make-or-break
developer test at work: So, you want to code here? Fine. Here's an 8-bit
micro from the stack. Write something with that so we can see your mad
skillz.
--
Robert "Exile In Paradise" Murphey
The first half of our lives is ruined by our parents and the
second half by our children.
-- Clarence Darrow
17. Re: [ts2068] One big mistake timex made...
Fred · Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:22:
On 09/01/2008, at 3:22, Bill Loguidice wrote:
> And yes, the C-64's 1541 disk drive may have been slow, but it was
> nowhere near as slow as a cassette drive and was more or less random
> access.
Random access yes, but in stock form I understand it was slower than
the Sinclair/TS2068 tape interface. I understand that this ultimately
meant that a disk accelerator cartridge was a compulsory purchase, but
I feel that the massive over-engineering and under-performing of mass
storage represented by the 1541 was a weakness that could have been
exploited by a well-priced and fully-supported alternative by a
competitor.
Whether that would have been enough to change the tide, or even just
establish a solid user base in the millions in the US I don't know.
> Frankly, it's surprising that Europe stayed on cassettes for as long
> as they did versus the US moving away from them relatively quickly.
From a European perspective, the cost was simply too high. I don't
think many US folks realise that Commodore hardware was literally
several times more expensive in Europe than in the US, and both
European and imported machines with disk drives were too expensive for
the mass market 'till the mid to late '80s.
That is why Sinclair developed the low-cost Microdrive stringy floppy
rather than a disk interface, which while well-intentioned was a
mistake, as it meant that no disk standard emerged on the Sinclair
platform till the +3 in '87, by which time tape was destined to be the
dominant software delivery platform and hence development platform.
Even with a standard disk platform on the C64, the price was too high,
and European developed Commodore software was also delivered on tape
as a result IIRC.
> It didn't matter what they were going to introduce - they were
> destined to fail because they didn't have the money/resources to
> ensure that what they released was going to be a success.
I am sure there is an element of truth in this, but a few million
units sold would have helped establish a significant revenue stream.
Nonetheless, Sinclair proved that you can mismanage even a substantial
cash flow and leave a company floundering!
Fred
18. RE: [ts2068] One big mistake timex made...
Bill Loguidice · Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:57:
That's just it, the 1541 was slower than any other disk drive I can think of
at the time, so any superior competitive offering would have had no real
impact. Also, It was still cheaper than most other disk drive solutions for
most of its existence. No other company COULD compete on price because
Commodore controlled a significant amount of their supply chain (acquiring
and owning MOS technology in particular was a stroke of genius/great luck in
the mid-70's) , so the point is really moot. It's what drove Texas
Instruments out of the business at the time - they tried to do what
Commodore did in regards to pricing and just hemorrhaged money because of
it.
Regardless, a disk drive is better than a cassette drive ALWAYS from my
perspective. Even a slow disk drive is better than a fast tape drive.
Obviously better pirating was a plus and factor too. And again, the C-64
didn't win just because of price or capabilities or software support or
ubiquity or any other single reason, it won for ALL of those reasons. It
wasn't the best at any one thing, but it did enough right at the right price
to succeed. The TS 2068, even if it were different or whatever, would not
only have had to overcome the C-64, but also the other low end systems, like
the TI-99/4a, CoCo and Atari 8-bit line, something I'm not sure it could
have done either. The TS 2068 would have needed a proper keyboard, more
memory, more software, more support, more, more, more. Every other
competitor "failed" in the low end market for a reason. I'm by no means
against ANY technology or "what if?" scenario, it's just that SO MUCH would
have had to have changed for anyone to have succeeded back then, not to
mention the gradual shift to 16-bit and beyond next generation technology
starting around 1985, when price was starting to become less and less of a
factor, eventually eliminating the need for a low end market.
While a think even a few million units sold would have been pie-in-the-sky
for Timex with the 2068 - back then reaching a million units was a
significant milestone, it was obvious Timex was not in a position to even
attempt a proper launch at the time. There's not much of a modern day US
Timex 2068 community for a sad reason - it was just not around long enough
or have enough domestic support. In fact, few people even know of its
existence today versus a myriad of other failures, like the Coleco Adam,
which were nevertheless much more high profile.
=================================
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.
(A PC Magazine Top 100 Website)
http://www.armchairarcade.com
=================================
From: [email] [mailto:[email]] On Behalf Of
Fred
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 5:22 PM
To: [email]
Subject: Re: [ts2068] One big mistake timex made...
On 09/01/2008, at 3:22, Bill Loguidice wrote:
> And yes, the C-64's 1541 disk drive may have been slow, but it was
> nowhere near as slow as a cassette drive and was more or less random
> access.
Random access yes, but in stock form I understand it was slower than
the Sinclair/TS2068 tape interface. I understand that this ultimately
meant that a disk accelerator cartridge was a compulsory purchase, but
I feel that the massive over-engineering and under-performing of mass
storage represented by the 1541 was a weakness that could have been
exploited by a well-priced and fully-supported alternative by a
competitor.
Whether that would have been enough to change the tide, or even just
establish a solid user base in the millions in the US I don't know.
> Frankly, it's surprising that Europe stayed on cassettes for as long
> as they did versus the US moving away from them relatively quickly.
19. Re: [ts2068] One big mistake timex made...
Fred · Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:31:
On 09/01/2008, at 10:57, Bill Loguidice wrote:
> That’s just it, the 1541 was slower than any other disk drive I can
> think of at the time, so any superior competitive offering would
> have had no real impact. Also, It was still cheaper than most other
> disk drive solutions for most of its existence.
I still like to think that a cheaper and better competitor could have
got some decent sales, and that omitting RAM and CPU on a disk
interface could allow lower prices than including them, but it's far
from certain.
> No other company COULD compete on price because Commodore controlled
> a significant amount of their supply chain (acquiring and owning MOS
> technology in particular was a stroke of genius/great luck in the
> mid-70’s) , so the point is really moot.
There may well have been an opportunity cost with that approach that
meant Commodore were actually making a bad business decision
subsidising their computers with low margins on CPUs etc., but they
certainly did price their competition out of the US market as it
turned out.
They charged premium prices in Europe however and didn't compete on
price there till the late 80s.
> Regardless, a disk drive is better than a cassette drive ALWAYS from
> my perspective.
I generally agree, but the stock 1541 pushes the point a long way :)
It is not better at any cost though, hence the slow takeup in Europe.
> And again, the C-64 didn’t win just because of price or capabilities
> or software support or ubiquity or any other single reason, it won
> for ALL of those reasons.
I just wonder if they would have been able to support the later, much
lower US price points ($230 compared with the launch $500+ prices)
with lower sales volume than they had, they could take more pain than
their competitors with the supply chain advantage as you say so maybe
this was inevitable in the US.
Was this smarter business than being a smaller computer manufacturer
with bigger profit margins in the CPU and other component retailing
business? I don't know, but the supply chain advantage didn't seem to
persist into the Amiga era.
> The TS 2068, even if it were different or whatever, would not only
> have had to overcome the C-64, but also the other low end systems,
> like the TI-99/4a, CoCo and Atari 8-bit line, something I’m not sure
> it could have done either. The TS 2068 would have needed a proper
> keyboard, more memory, more software, more support, more, more,
> more. Every other competitor “failed” in the low end market for a
> reason. I’m by no means against ANY technology or “what if?”
> scenario, it’s just that SO MUCH would have had to have changed for
> anyone to have succeeded back then,
I understand that point of view, and I think from a US perspective
where the C64 has reached nearly mythological status and seems to have
been utterly unassailable it may seem like it was always inevitable
now, and that Commodore had the only formula for success, but the UK
market shows that a machine with poorer sound and a worse keyboard
than the TS2068 could not just match, but beat the C64 head-to-head
given a lead on price lasting 3-4 years.
There was plenty of software that should have been available
(ultimately ~12,000 titles without any significant contribution from
the Americas), so I could imagine a market where a TS2068 with a good
library of software and decent disk system going for 50% of the price
of a comparable C64 system may have made an impact in the US even if
it were a distant 2nd place. Maybe just wishful thinking though? :)
> not to mention the gradual shift to 16-bit and beyond next
> generation technology starting around 1985, when price was starting
> to become less and less of a factor, eventually eliminating the need
> for a low end market.
History shows that only the PC and Mac from the era had real staying
power over the long term, and I think nothing could have altered that
course as prices came down and computers became genuinely mass-market
and homogenised.
Specialised games consoles have taken the games-focussed market from
the home computers, and PCs and Macs the general computing angle.
> While a think even a few million units sold would have been pie-in-
> the-sky for Timex with the 2068 – back then reaching a million units
> was a significant milestone,
The Spectrum sold 1 million in the first one and a half years in the
UK, given the size of the US market 1 million in the same time frame
would have only been a comparatively moderate success.
I just mean that maybe a distant second in the US wouldn't have been
impossible? I don't think I can convince you of that though :)
> it was obvious Timex was not in a position to even attempt a proper
> launch at the time.
I'll take your word for it - I wasn't there.
> There’s not much of a modern day US Timex 2068 community for a sad
> reason – it was just not around long enough or have enough domestic
> support. In fact, few people even know of its existence today
> versus a myriad of other failures, like the Coleco Adam, which were
> nevertheless much more high profile.
I agree completely.
Fred
20. RE: [ts2068] One big mistake timex made...
Bill Loguidice · Tue, 8 Jan 2008 21:27:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email] [mailto:[email]] On Behalf
> Of Fred
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:32 PM
> To: [email]
> Subject: Re: [ts2068] One big mistake timex made...
>
>
> On 09/01/2008, at 10:57, Bill Loguidice wrote:
>
> > No other company COULD compete on price because Commodore controlled
> > a significant amount of their supply chain (acquiring and owning MOS
> > technology in particular was a stroke of genius/great luck in the
> > mid-70's) , so the point is really moot.
>
> There may well have been an opportunity cost with that approach that
> meant Commodore were actually making a bad business decision
> subsidising their computers with low margins on CPUs etc., but they
> certainly did price their competition out of the US market as it
> turned out.
>
> They charged premium prices in Europe however and didn't compete on
> price there till the late 80s.
Apple was always famous for their 30%+ margins on hardware, which carried
through until the second coming of Steve Jobs. They sold far less than
Commodore did, particularly in the 8-bit era, but obviously didn't run into
the same financial problems (or make as many broad mistakes as Commodore
would go onto) later on. Regardless, different approaches with different
results - both ways of conducting business did work for relatively long
periods of time so its probably a toss-up of what is really the best way to
go. Still, I think we can agree that if Commodore didn't mate price to
their solid hardware, they might not have vanquished as many competitors as
relatively quickly as they did. Pricing was certainly the advantage that
Commodore could lourd over all other competitors, especially in light of
their system's performance (other competitors could be cheaper, but not
offer anywhere near the same feature-set).
As for Europe, it was probably Commodore's greater relative overall
performance advantage over the cheaper Spectrum that allowed it to do so
well over there, and it was still within striking distance of pricing. No
doubt each home country's origin played a role in its advantages in its
respective territories.
>
> > Regardless, a disk drive is better than a cassette drive ALWAYS from
> > my perspective.
>
> I generally agree, but the stock 1541 pushes the point a long way :)
>
> It is not better at any cost though, hence the slow takeup in Europe.
Not at any cost, no, but it's also a cultural difference as well, especially
back then.
>
> > And again, the C-64 didn't win just because of price or capabilities
> > or software support or ubiquity or any other single reason, it won
> > for ALL of those reasons.
>
> I just wonder if they would have been able to support the later, much
> lower US price points ($230 compared with the launch $500+ prices)
> with lower sales volume than they had, they could take more pain than
> their competitors with the supply chain advantage as you say so maybe
> this was inevitable in the US.
>
> Was this smarter business than being a smaller computer manufacturer
> with bigger profit margins in the CPU and other component retailing
> business? I don't know, but the supply chain advantage didn't seem to
> persist into the Amiga era.
You're right, the supply chain advantages did not really carry over to the
Amiga era, but then the Amiga and ST didn't fail because of cost, they
failed for countless other reasons, most prominent being the rise of
DOS/Windows as THE business standard. Macintosh survived on high margins
and eventually being a desktop publishing standard. The Amiga's being a
video production standard was years too early and the ST's being a musical
mainstay was too niche.
It all comes down to different eras having different purchasing standards
and different competition. What works in one era doesn't necessarily work
in the other. Same thing with videogame consoles, obviously. Same thing
with territories too for that matter.
>
> > The TS 2068, even if it were different or whatever, would not only
> > have had to overcome the C-64, but also the other low end systems,
> > like the TI-99/4a, CoCo and Atari 8-bit line, something I'm not sure
> > it could have done either. The TS 2068 would have needed a proper
> > keyboard, more memory, more software, more support, more, more,
> > more. Every other competitor "failed" in the low end market for a
> > reason. I'm by no means against ANY technology or "what if?"
> > scenario, it's just that SO MUCH would have had to have changed for
> > anyone to have succeeded back then,
>
> I understand that point of view, and I think from a US perspective
> where the C64 has reached nearly mythological status and seems to have
> been utterly unassailable it may seem like it was always inevitable
> now, and that Commodore had the only formula for success, but the UK
> market shows that a machine with poorer sound and a worse keyboard
> than the TS2068 could not just match, but beat the C64 head-to-head
> given a lead on price lasting 3-4 years.
Commodore had the only formula for success based on hindsight--in the US.
The proof is in the historical record. Also, I'd like to see some figures
again on Spectrum versus C-64 in the UK, as I didn't think ultimately there
was a clear winner with all Spectrum systems (Spectrum, +2, etc.) versus all
Commodore systems (C-64, 64c, 128, etc.) of the same type.
>
> There was plenty of software that should have been available
> (ultimately ~12,000 titles without any significant contribution from
> the Americas), so I could imagine a market where a TS2068 with a good
> library of software and decent disk system going for 50% of the price
> of a comparable C64 system may have made an impact in the US even if
> it were a distant 2nd place. Maybe just wishful thinking though? :)
I think it probably is wishful thinking, as if the competition could do
that, they certainly would have. The only one capable of doing that was
Commodore. Other companies like Tandy and Texas Instruments had similar
supply chain advantages that Commodore had in some areas, for instance, but
certainly not the same breadth of areas.
>
> > not to mention the gradual shift to 16-bit and beyond next
> > generation technology starting around 1985, when price was starting
> > to become less and less of a factor, eventually eliminating the need
> > for a low end market.
>
> History shows that only the PC and Mac from the era had real staying
> power over the long term, and I think nothing could have altered that
> course as prices came down and computers became genuinely mass-market
> and homogenised.
Prices really didn't start to come down though as the sub-$1000 was not a
reality until the mid-90's. After a while, it wasn't price, but software
availability and what was being used in business. Commodore and Atari would
have been better off making their system's IBM compatible by default rather
than through add-on, then using their custom hardware as the graphical,
sound and special input standards. Tandy obviously had some success with
this approach, becoming their own standard for years until they too finally
embraced what had become the VGA/Sound Blaster standard. Again, though,
hindsight, and both companies made many more mistakes that are simply too
numerous to list. Still, a trained monkey could have made better
contemporary decisions than Commodore and Atari at the time.
>
> Specialised games consoles have taken the games-focussed market from
> the home computers, and PCs and Macs the general computing angle.
>
> > While a think even a few million units sold would have been pie-in-
> > the-sky for Timex with the 2068 - back then reaching a million units
> > was a significant milestone,
>
> The Spectrum sold 1 million in the first one and a half years in the
> UK, given the size of the US market 1 million in the same time frame
> would have only been a comparatively moderate success.
It would have been enough to sustain the system in the US market for at
least a few years, particularly based off of one model. One million units
in 1.5 years in the US would have been quite good. Many systems didn't come
anywhere near 500,000 units sold, let alone one million.
>
> I just mean that maybe a distant second in the US wouldn't have been
> impossible? I don't think I can convince you of that though :)
It would have been impossible in my opinion unless you also took out the
TI-99/4a, CoCo2, Atari 800, Apple II, etc., so no, you're right, you can't
really convince me of that. ;-) If we give that hypothetical advantage to
Timex, we'd have to also assume that some of the other competitors would
have been in a similar position to press some advantages as well.
>
> > it was obvious Timex was not in a position to even attempt a proper
> > launch at the time.
>
> I'll take your word for it - I wasn't there.
>
> > There's not much of a modern day US Timex 2068 community for a sad
> > reason - it was just not around long enough or have enough domestic
> > support. In fact, few people even know of its existence today
> > versus a myriad of other failures, like the Coleco Adam, which were
> > nevertheless much more high profile.
>
> I agree completely.
>
> Fred
>
I'd love to see that change, too, and will of course do my part to help make
that happen (as I would for any vintage system).
=================================
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.
(A PC Magazine Top 100 Website)
http://www.armchairarcade.com
=================================
21. Re: [ts2068] One big mistake timex made...
Fred · Wed, 9 Jan 2008 15:14:
On 09/01/2008, at 13:27, Bill Loguidice wrote:
>> From: Fred
> As for Europe, it was probably Commodore's greater relative overall
> performance advantage over the cheaper Spectrum that allowed it to
> do so
> well over there, and it was still within striking distance of
> pricing. No
> doubt each home country's origin played a role in its advantages in
> its
> respective territories.
I wouldn't describe the C64 as within striking distance on pricing in
the UK till it was competing with the 128k machines, the 48k Spectrum
was £175 when the C64 was £399 without a datasette (£50 IIRC), and the
1541 was another £399.
The C64 did drop in price over the years, but much slower than the
rate implied by the US prices I've seen on the web.
It certainly did do very well though, and was and is a fine machine. I
also agree that home ground advantage was a factor in those times as
well if for no other reason than the software appealed to local tastes.
>>> Regardless, a disk drive is better than a cassette drive ALWAYS from
>>> my perspective.
>>
>> I generally agree, but the stock 1541 pushes the point a long way :)
>>
>> It is not better at any cost though, hence the slow takeup in Europe.
>
> Not at any cost, no, but it's also a cultural difference as well,
> especially
> back then.
I promise you that price was the only barrier in the spread of disk
usage in the UK at least, no-one enjoyed waiting for tapes to load,
and everyone was impressed with disk-only software in the UK in my
experience. It was only with the 16 bit machines that the prices
became widely attainable.
> You're right, the supply chain advantages did not really carry over
> to the
> Amiga era, but then the Amiga and ST didn't fail because of cost, they
> failed for countless other reasons
I think it's a little harsh calling the Amiga and ST failures, they
had a solid run and sold plenty of machines, but the market was moving
faster then they could keep pace with, and there was that pressure you
refer to for people getting PCs for work.
> Commodore had the only formula for success based on hindsight--in
> the US.
> The proof is in the historical record.
No question the C64 conquered all in most markets worldwide.
> Also, I'd like to see some figures again on Spectrum versus C-64 in
> the UK, as I didn't think ultimately there was a clear winner with
> all Spectrum systems (Spectrum, +2, etc.) versus all Commodore
> systems (C-64, 64c, 128, etc.) of the same type.
I'd love to see those figures too! I've never seen anything,
particularly year to year figures that would allow a true comparison
of installed base. I understand the C64 had more momentum towards then
end of the 80s as there was a narrower price gap, I don't know what
the installed base figures would have looked like as the decade wore
on, but I don't think you could try to claim real market leadership
for the C64 in the UK till the 90s which is far from the prime of
either machine :) Both software markets seem to have collapsed in the
same couple of years in the UK.
> Commodore and Atari would have been better off making their system's
> IBM compatible by default rather than through add-on, then using
> their custom hardware as the graphical,
> sound and special input standards. Tandy obviously had some success
> with this approach, becoming their own standard for years until they
> too finally embraced what had become the VGA/Sound Blaster standard.
An interesting idea, though IMO the real strength of the Amiga came
from the tight integration of the custom chips and the CPU, which
suffered even as 68030 etc. CPUs were being added, so I wonder what
they would have been like with an 80x86? I suspect by this time
Commodore at least were in a similar position to Timex in the 80s.
> Again, though, hindsight, and both companies made many more mistakes
> that are simply too numerous to list. Still, a trained monkey could
> have made better contemporary decisions than Commodore and Atari at
> the time.
As a former Amiga user I can only sadly concur.
Fred