The pricing quoted as being in Euros is actually in dollars (presumably US dollars), at least if the Amiga Forever web page is to be believed.
So the cheap option is $9.95, not 9.95 euros. Given current exchange rates, the difference matters...
The Amiga failed because the PC hardware overtook it technologically - the gap between the original Amiga and a 1994 Amiga is much smaller than the gap between the 1985 PC and a 1994 PC. HAM in all its incarnations was a nightmare to render dynamically; at the time of the AGA amigas 24-bit colour was becoming common on PCs. In the same time CPUs moved from the 80186 to the early Pentiums, with on-chip FPU becoming standard. The Motorola CPUs did not improve at the pace of the Intel chips.
Allegedly a new chipset was designed after the OCS which was considerably better, but the blueprints were lost and put the Amiga back a couple of years.
Anyway, all this resulted in a situation where it moved from being better in all categories (except for productivity software availability) to where the same money would buy a PC which was faster, more capable graphically and sonically, and had a GUI (Windows 3.1) which while lacking the flexibility of AmigaOS got the job done for single-tasking - at a time when most people didn't really understand the advantages of multitasking.
Of course much of the reason *why* the Amiga fell behind is that they put stuffall money into R&D; the Amiga could only have remained a contender if it had *retained* its original edge, but for the first 5 years of its history about the only improvements were EHB mode on colour and expansion of chip RAM to 1MB...
Register
Given pricing is incorrect...
The pricing quoted as being in Euros is actually in dollars (presumably US dollars), at least if the Amiga Forever web page is to be believed.
So the cheap option is $9.95, not 9.95 euros. Given current exchange rates, the difference matters...
The Amiga failed because the PC hardware overtook it technologically - the gap between the original Amiga and a 1994 Amiga is much smaller than the gap between the 1985 PC and a 1994 PC. HAM in all its incarnations was a nightmare to render dynamically; at the time of the AGA amigas 24-bit colour was becoming common on PCs. In the same time CPUs moved from the 80186 to the early Pentiums, with on-chip FPU becoming standard. The Motorola CPUs did not improve at the pace of the Intel chips.
Allegedly a new chipset was designed after the OCS which was considerably better, but the blueprints were lost and put the Amiga back a couple of years.
Anyway, all this resulted in a situation where it moved from being better in all categories (except for productivity software availability) to where the same money would buy a PC which was faster, more capable graphically and sonically, and had a GUI (Windows 3.1) which while lacking the flexibility of AmigaOS got the job done for single-tasking - at a time when most people didn't really understand the advantages of multitasking.
Of course much of the reason *why* the Amiga fell behind is that they put stuffall money into R&D; the Amiga could only have remained a contender if it had *retained* its original edge, but for the first 5 years of its history about the only improvements were EHB mode on colour and expansion of chip RAM to 1MB...
...Ronny