Ars has published part VI in their series of articles on the history of the Amiga. "When a corporation is bleeding money, often the only way to save it is to drastically lower fixed expenses by firing staff. Commodore had lost over USD 300 million between September 1985 and March 1986, and over USD 21 million in March alone. Commodore's new CEO, Thomas Rattigan, was determined to stop the bleeding."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2007-02-22
Fans: 5
I just tried a web search for Thomas J. Rattigan... nothing, nothing of value at least, except for a link to that article.
(And why would Gould boot him? Even when Rattigan left, they had to pay him $9M anyways and then pay for a brand new CEO, who would demand at least that much... money Commodore didn't have to waste.)
*quiet cheers*
Edited 2008-02-11 20:29 UTC
Member since:2005-11-11
Fans: 2
Almafeta try this link instead:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Thomas+Rattigan+commodore&...
Some relevant stuff there.
Member since:2005-08-18
Fans: 15
Member since:
2006-10-08
Fans: 6
To me, the most interesting part of this article was the mentioning of "the also-canceled Commodore 900 Unix workstation". How interesting could computing have developed if it would have been released... From short research I found out that this A900 would have run Coherent and used a Zilog Z8000 CPU; two versions were planned: a graphics workstation with 1024x800 px and a textmode only server variant. At this time, high end computing was mainly the business of HP, IBM, Sun and SGI were expensive, but good machines were built. Maybe Commdore would be mentioned in the same set of manufacturers today...
When I saw the Amiga 500 picture, I remembered... this was my first Amiga, and I still have it, and it still works. It was one of the first "full featured" (see in context of time) computer that had video output (and optional TV output) along with stereo audio output that could be powered from a car battery, still offering industrial standard ports (seriell RS232, parallel). Just think about when this was possible with x86 PCs. :-)
Member since:2007-10-08
Fans: 0
To their credit, they did produce a run of A3000UX machines in '91. They were Amiga 3000s with a 25MHz 030, extra RAM (2mb chip, 8mb fast), an ethernet card (A2065), a tape drive, and a three-button mouse.
They ran Amiga Unix, based on AT&T System 5 R4 (might have been Coherent again). The graphics specs weren't as good as the 900's, but the processor and memory were a nice boost.
Member since:2007-08-21
Fans: 1
Member since:2005-10-21
Fans: 0
There was also a gfx card for the 3000UX available which enhanced the Amiga's ECS resolution. I have still the broschure around at home. Sad it didn't really took off. Like so much else in Amigaland.
Member since:
2005-12-05
Fans: 0
I don't get it either. The Ars article goes on to say how bad things were, and how successful Rattigan was at turning things around in such a short period (one year: March 86 to March 87). You have to figure there was some outstanding and epic personality conflicts to turf such a fiscally successful CEO. It would have been nice to see this expanded on a bit.
One other thing that gets me....I'm a bit into the history of computers/technology. It drives me nuts that most documentaries/publications attribute Apple as the founding fathers of the personal computer, and that the PC industry consisted of (1) Apple, (2) IBM, (3) Microsoft, and oh yeah...there were some other guys maybe too. It's good to see Ars give Commodore (and the Amiga) it's due.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 3
Yes, Commodore is an odd omission when you consider that the C64 was the best selling home computer in the world. It's a bit of a big thing to miss. Likewise the impact of people like Sir Clive Sinclair is under-estimated: the Spectrum and Spectrum clones sold millions of units during the 80's. These companies were not "also rans".
The same happens when people cover early mainframe and minicomputer eras. When was the last time you saw anything more than a passing reference to SDS or Xerox mainframes, or CDC mini? It's like IBM were the only people building mainframes and DEC were the only people to ever build a mini.
Frankly, no one has yet done a truly exhaustive history text. I've toyed with the idea but it's not like I have the years of free time it would take to research and write.
Member since:2005-08-18
Fans: 15
Keyword being "world". It wasn't in the U.S so that probably explains why they're often left out.
Same for the Spectrum and many other home computers that existed back in the day like Dragon, Oric, Microbee, BBC Micro etc etc. 'Twas exciting times.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 0
That keyword can't be the full story; the list of Commodore innovations and "firsts" is endless. PET, the SID chip, AmigaOS, ... Further, Commodore's 6502 was used by everyone, including Apple, who have never credited Chuck Peddle's masterpiece. No sane computer historian could ignore Commodore.
Who wins writes history. IBM, Microsoft and Apple did win, Commodore lost.
And yes, it also happens with other companies. Intel is widely credited for their 4004/8008 etc. Motorala was at least as important in the early days of microcomputers, but is seldomly mentioned.
Edited 2008-02-12 07:39 UTC
Member since:
2006-01-03
Fans: 0
Member since:
2007-04-05
Fans: 0
So that's why they called Irving Gould "The Ghoul".
Now, I migrated to OS/2 Warp and Linux after my Amiga 500 started having hardware issues, but I'm still bummed that several revolutions in personal computer design had to come years later on account of these bungling bigwigs.
