undefined | Better HN

0 pointslouthy8mo ago0 comments

> computers built on closed architecture

Do you honestly think that the general public gave two shits about closed architectures?

The vast majority of people, who were using computers, were using them to play games. People completely misremember how little interest the general public had in computers (for serious tasks) at the time.

The only exception to that really was the IBM PC. It didn’t have an open architecture either. For a long time it was the case that if you didn’t buy an IBM branded PC, you couldn’t guarantee that any software would actually work on it.

0 comments

vidarh8mo ago

They gave lots of shits about access to cheaper clones, though, and to access to cheaper peripherals.

> It didn’t have an open architecture either.

It was open enough that the closed parts could be reverse engineered, and so the market was already full of clones by the time the Amiga was even released.

Meanwhile, the Amiga was tied to custom chips only manufactured by Commodore, and didn't get anything resembling a clone until Commodore was already bankrupt (DraCo, which ditched a lot of backwards compatibility)

> For a long time it was the case that if you didn’t buy an IBM branded PC, you couldn’t guarantee that any software would actually work on it

By the time the Amiga died, this hadn't been an issue for many years.

badc0ffee8mo ago

> For a long time it was the case that if you didn’t buy an IBM branded PC, you couldn’t guarantee that any software would actually work on it.

I don't know if it was a long time. The PC came out in 1981, and by 1984 you had the fully compatible Tandy 1000 and Compaq Deskpro.

Except for the BIOS ROMs, which companies like Compaq rewrote themselves, the PC did have an open architecture.

louthyOP8mo ago

I didn’t buy a pc until much later (I was an Acorn user), so you may be right, but the lore around that lasted a reasonable amount of time if my memory serves me correctly. Well into the late 80s.

I’d still argue nobody cared about architectures, they cared about where the type of computer was primarily used. PCs were for the office. Acorn was for education. Atari, Commodore, Sinclair were for games and therefore vulnerable to games consoles.

I seem to remember that PCs had quite a poor rep for games, even during the Wolfenstein -> Doom -> Quake era. Only really shaking that off when the first graphics cards arrived

badc0ffee8mo ago

PCs were definitely at a disadvantage for anything involving a lot of motion, like arcade-style games, platformers, shoot em ups, fighting, and racing games. But the PC did do well at puzzle games like Lemmings, text+graphics games like King's Quest, and sims like SimCity. That disadvantage was gone, at least on a technical level, by 1992-94.

I think PC graphics had two major leaps forward in this era: VGA in 1987, and VLB graphics (on 486 machines) in 1992. The former brought an expanded colour palette, and the latter brought enough memory bandwidth that you didn't need dedicated blitter/sprite chips.

1 more reply

drivers998mo ago

> Do you honestly think that the general public gave ... about closed architectures?

Not consciously, but they could see more and more capable and affordable systems and upgrades available from a lively and competitive industry.

spankibalt8mo ago

> Do you honestly think that the general public gave two shits about closed architectures?

First, this specific argument is about the computer-buying public, not the general public. Furthermore, yes, many people also bought into the IBM-PC & Compatibles eco-system because it was much more open. Many young(er) urban professionals of the time took their work home, to be continued on computers. I think financial mobility, supply, as well as culture (incl. generational divides) are more much important factors.

> The vast majority of people, who were using computers, were using them to play games.

Do you have data to back that up? Because where I'm from (East Germany), strictly based on my observations, this didn't track; many PCs were used as intended: general-purpose computing. That means work and play.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

vidarh8mo ago

They gave lots of shits about access to cheaper clones, though, and to access to cheaper peripherals.

> It didn’t have an open architecture either.

It was open enough that the closed parts could be reverse engineered, and so the market was already full of clones by the time the Amiga was even released.

> For a long time it was the case that if you didn’t buy an IBM branded PC, you couldn’t guarantee that any software would actually work on it

By the time the Amiga died, this hadn't been an issue for many years.

badc0ffee8mo ago

> For a long time it was the case that if you didn’t buy an IBM branded PC, you couldn’t guarantee that any software would actually work on it.

I don't know if it was a long time. The PC came out in 1981, and by 1984 you had the fully compatible Tandy 1000 and Compaq Deskpro.

Except for the BIOS ROMs, which companies like Compaq rewrote themselves, the PC did have an open architecture.

louthyOP8mo ago

I didn’t buy a pc until much later (I was an Acorn user), so you may be right, but the lore around that lasted a reasonable amount of time if my memory serves me correctly. Well into the late 80s.

I seem to remember that PCs had quite a poor rep for games, even during the Wolfenstein -> Doom -> Quake era. Only really shaking that off when the first graphics cards arrived

badc0ffee8mo ago

1 more reply

drivers998mo ago

> Do you honestly think that the general public gave ... about closed architectures?

Not consciously, but they could see more and more capable and affordable systems and upgrades available from a lively and competitive industry.

spankibalt8mo ago

> Do you honestly think that the general public gave two shits about closed architectures?

> The vast majority of people, who were using computers, were using them to play games.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse