Image Map Image Map
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Why put Kickstart on disk?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    2,390
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Why put Kickstart on disk?

    Something I've always wondered about with my A1000. I have a variant where four 'developer' EPROMs were implemented instead of the standard two ROMs for Kickstart. I am told these enabled the A1000 to boot without needing the initial kickstart disk. I'm wondering.. if Commodore had the ability to do this right out of the gate (my board is a Rev A).. why not build all A1000s with Kickstart fully in ROM? Was it a cost saving exercise?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    3,449
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I thought early Kickstart versions were buggy so an updated copy on disk was necessary. After Kickstart was fixed, it was probably a combination of saving money and not having to troubleshoot two different variants of the A1000.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kamloops, BC, Canada
    Posts
    4,783
    Blog Entries
    38

    Default

    Because Only Amiga Makes It Necessary.
    = Excellent space heater

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krebizfan View Post
    I thought early Kickstart versions were buggy so an updated copy on disk was necessary. After Kickstart was fixed, it was probably a combination of saving money and not having to troubleshoot two different variants of the A1000.
    Yes, it was due to the buggy Kickstarts. Then the A1000 didn't sell as well as they hoped so by the time Kickstart was stable enough to put into ROM, they still had unsold inventory.
    my blog: http://dfarq.homeip.net
    I wanna live where it's always Saturday. --Guadalcanal Diary

  5. #5

    Default

    More to the point, Commodore pushed to release it too early, the way I understood it.

    Keep in mind that the A3000 was released the same way. Not so much because it was released too early, but 2.0 wasn't scheduled to be ready in time for the A3000 so as a bonus we got it on diskette with the 1.4 ROM and 1.3 Kickstart on diskette as well. By then it wasn't so much a problem because you could load it from hard disk.

    In retrospect, there are some things that could have been in ROM which weren't, and it wasn't ideal to have Kickstart there. The re-kick business starting with 3.5 is more annoying than loading Kickstart from disk in the first place.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC9UDX View Post
    More to the point, Commodore pushed to release it too early, the way I understood it..
    Indeed, it wasn't ready when they released it. Commodore was losing money, and had spent a lot to acquire Amiga in 1984, and then Atari managed to ship the ST at mid-year, so Commodore rushed the A1000 out.

    Far more people talked about the 68000 machines in 1985 than bought them, so I don't think there would have been any great harm in waiting until 1986 to release something a bit more stable and polished, but technology companies would rather ship it too early and fix it than wait, most of the time.
    my blog: http://dfarq.homeip.net
    I wanna live where it's always Saturday. --Guadalcanal Diary

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Farquhar View Post
    Far more people talked about the 68000 machines in 1985 than bought them, so I don't think there would have been any great harm in waiting until 1986 to release something a bit more stable and polished, but technology companies would rather ship it too early and fix it than wait, most of the time.
    I suppose we'll never know.
    In my view, the Atari ST being the first was a big part of its success: a lot of early Amiga software, especially games, were ported from the Atari ST, and as such, didn't make use of the Amiga's special hardware capabilities. Since the ST had a slightly faster CPU, such software ran slightly better on the ST than on the Amiga. So this artificially inflated the image of the Atari ST at the cost of the Amiga.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    The ST put TOS in RAM in the initial release too. The difference however was that they used normal system RAM instead of a Write-Once-Memory.

    That certainly saved some dough. I think it's a bit silly if Commodore was going to do that that they wouldn't have given you the option to use the WOM as regular RAM since RAM at the time was so expensive.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geoffm3 View Post
    The ST put TOS in RAM in the initial release too. The difference however was that they used normal system RAM instead of a Write-Once-Memory.
    And it had a much cooler-looking loading screen, with flashy color cycling and a fake menu bar:


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,702

    Default

    The irony that they used the music from the Amiga demo Coppermaster by Angels in that video

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •