3 ms·
But was it Amiga's chipset the noncompetitive part? My recollection from that era was that graphics/sound capabilities of the era were far ahead of the PC, but
by js8 2y ago
But was it Amiga's chipset the noncompetitive part? My recollection from that era was that graphics/sound capabilities of the era were far ahead of the PC, but PC had better CPUs, which was a problem of Intel vs Motorola.
Anyway, in the early 90s my father wisely chose PC over Amiga to replace our aging ZX Spectrum. The reason - PC was open and easier to upgrade. Maybe that's what actually killed Amiga and Atari ST.
- daneel_w 2y agoThe Amigas were open and easy to upgrade as well. The exception was graphical capabilities for the "home computer" models like the A500/600/1200 - they are quite compact and the available solutions consequently suffered limitations.
- timbit42 2y agoMotorola was ahead in the beginning with a better architecture and more performance, but didn't have as much money as Intel had from PC clones to pour into improving it and eventually fell behind Intel in performance. IBM wanted to use the Motorola 68000 in the IBM PC but didn't because the support chips for the 68000 weren't ready yet and they didn't want to wait a year.