Hardware designed specifically for software that was designed specifically for said hardware seems to be where it's at.
So much emphasis on compatibility in the dominant markets is quelling innovation.
You can't just build the best possible machine. You have to build a machine that is also compatible with : never ending laundry list of protocols, standards, API's , hardware, form factors etc etc.
The original IBM PC was a lot worse for that. At the time DOS didn't even have drivers, so you had to make your hardware register level compatible with IBM's. That rather limited innovation to say the least.
The Amiga could have been the dominant platform. It was expandable, there are APIs for hardware abstraction even in fairly early versions of the OS.
BIOS is your driver, very much the old CP/M-80 way of dealing with things. Anything not defined by BIOS has no abstraction, later option ROMs were possible on cards which is how we got SCSI and IDE to boot.
But writing a custom BIOS was too much of a pain for a little clone maker shop when IBM gives the sources away for free. On top of that the use of off-the-shelf components makes cloning an IBM PC much easier than doing something new. Cloning a C64, Amiga, Atari ST, or Macintosh was harder because of the custom chips and lack of documentation. Retail channels being the main way to access the customer base of Amiga and AtariST made them essentially inaccessible to clone makers. They had much more success putting small ads in various computing magazines and beat the system by direct mail-order sales, passing the savings onto you.
Amiga could never have been dominate because it was just one company trying to make money. Rather than IBM kind of confused on how to make money and allowing dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of clone makers to flood the market in a race to the bottom.
The home computer wars was a business problem not a technical problem.
Apple nearly failed. They were in deep trouble in the 1990s. They struggle when Jobs left and rose when he returned. Commodore never recoveree when Jack Tramiel left.
Interestingly the modern Mac is commodity PC hardware with tweaks.
I just asked myself... what would John DeLorean do?
-- Raoul Duke
What if Dinosaurs never went extinct? (Score:3)
Hardware designed specifically for software that was designed specifically for said hardware seems to be where it's at.
So much emphasis on compatibility in the dominant markets is quelling innovation.
You can't just build the best possible machine. You have to build a machine that is also compatible with : never ending laundry list of protocols, standards, API's , hardware, form factors etc etc.
It is both unfortunate and apparently necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
The original IBM PC was a lot worse for that. At the time DOS didn't even have drivers, so you had to make your hardware register level compatible with IBM's. That rather limited innovation to say the least.
The Amiga could have been the dominant platform. It was expandable, there are APIs for hardware abstraction even in fairly early versions of the OS.
Re:What if Dinosaurs never went extinct? (Score:3)
BIOS is your driver, very much the old CP/M-80 way of dealing with things. Anything not defined by BIOS has no abstraction, later option ROMs were possible on cards which is how we got SCSI and IDE to boot.
But writing a custom BIOS was too much of a pain for a little clone maker shop when IBM gives the sources away for free. On top of that the use of off-the-shelf components makes cloning an IBM PC much easier than doing something new. Cloning a C64, Amiga, Atari ST, or Macintosh was harder because of the custom chips and lack of documentation. Retail channels being the main way to access the customer base of Amiga and AtariST made them essentially inaccessible to clone makers. They had much more success putting small ads in various computing magazines and beat the system by direct mail-order sales, passing the savings onto you.
Amiga could never have been dominate because it was just one company trying to make money. Rather than IBM kind of confused on how to make money and allowing dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of clone makers to flood the market in a race to the bottom.
The home computer wars was a business problem not a technical problem.
Re: (Score:2)
That is what is sad today. Businesses have mostly figured out how to avoid races to the bottom which are the only way consumers win.
Re: (Score:2)
That's worked pretty damned well for Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple nearly failed. They were in deep trouble in the 1990s. They struggle when Jobs left and rose when he returned. Commodore never recoveree when Jack Tramiel left.
Interestingly the modern Mac is commodity PC hardware with tweaks.