←back to thread

346 points BirAdam | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.47s | source
Show context
tombert ◴[] No.39944744[source]
There's a few cases in the history of computers where it feels like the world just "chose wrong". One example is the Amiga; the Amiga really was better than anything Apple or Microsoft/IBM was doing at the time, but for market-force reasons that depress me, Commodore isn't the "Apple" of today.

Similarly, it feels like Silicon Graphics is a case where they really should have become more standard. Now, unlike Amiga, they were too expensive to catch on with regular consumers, but I feel like they should have become and stayed the "standard" for workstation computers.

Irix was a really cool OS, and 4Dwm was pretty nice to use and play with. It makes me sad that they beaten by Apple.

replies(18): >>39944819 #>>39944821 #>>39944854 #>>39944859 #>>39944877 #>>39944921 #>>39944922 #>>39944925 #>>39944939 #>>39944947 #>>39944948 #>>39945067 #>>39945191 #>>39945372 #>>39945418 #>>39945614 #>>39946016 #>>39946259 #
1. cladopa ◴[] No.39945614[source]
I never had an Amiga, but I had friends that had it. It was a superior tech only for a very small period of time.

What happened was Intel, they took great decisions like automating the design of their processors and this made them grow at an incredible pace. The Amiga depended on a different processor that stagnated.

replies(2): >>39945871 #>>39946031 #
2. KerrAvon ◴[] No.39945871[source]
The 68k CPU lineup at the heart of the Amiga was competitive well into the 90's; the Amiga had run out of juice by 1989. The Amiga was only as good as the custom chips. If Commodore kept investing in R&D for the custom chips, they would have at least remained competitive.
3. sys_64738 ◴[] No.39946031[source]
Intel never pulled ahead until the Pentium but by then Motorola weren't interested in the 68K series.