Talk:Commodore International
|
|
| Contents |
CBM mgmt part needs NPOV'ing
The recent addition needs NPOVing -- it seems to be hostile to Commodore management. If it isn't cleaned-up then it has to be removed. --mav
- it does need toning down a little. please let's keep the "dead hot bird" usenet joke! it gives colour & context and it made me laugh like a drain :-) -- Tarquin
- I tried to clean up the stuff about management because it was still annoying me. I mean, I was an Amiga fan during Commodore's demise and I followed the antics of Mehdi Ali and Irving Gould as closely as was possible at the time. Was it selfish intent that drove them, or total lack of knowledge about the computer market? More likely it was a combination of both, regardless of what my emotions at the time wanted to believe. Anyway, I hope this puts us in the right direction. -- Dave Farquhar 23:54, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Sectioning; Mgmt coverage
I quite like the new sectionizing, I think the article is really starting to read quite nicely now. As to the management stuff, I've always found the owner's anger misplaced -- the market would have pushed Commodore aside no matter how good the tech was, even a perfectly run Commodore would still be gone today. Apple can barely hold on and they were once one of the largest computer companies in the world, DEC, Compaq, Atari, they're all gone. --Maury Markowitz
- Re: new sectioning: Thanks! :-) Re: the management stuff: I think the present article's treatment of these issues is quite OK, considering that CBM arguably could have been a contender for a little longer at least, if the management had known their market, and the extent of CBM's multimedia head start, properly (as for myself, sorry to say, I never took much interest in anything else than CBM's 8-bit machines, entering the "dark gray cloud" of IBM PC clones after my C128 days... :-/ ). --Wernher 20:36, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
CBM UK holding out a bit longer?
Did't Commodore UK survive even after C= Int had gone down? // Liftarn
- Yes it did, and it even placed a bid to buy out the rest of the operation, or at least the former parent company, but I don't know how long it survived or any other details. --Dave Farquhar 19:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I remember that they used to make computer speakers and simmilar things. I don't know what happened with them. Anyway, since it's confirmed I'll add it into the article. // Liftarn
- I did some digging. The results are in the article. Thanks for bringing that up; somehow I'd forgotten about the Commodore UK part of the story. -- Dave Farquhar 17:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
New Ownership of Commodore
Just stumbled upon this: http://pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,119093,00.asp Someone take a look and add the new info. I'm too tired :( --Borisborf 09:31, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Another source: http://www.commodoreworld.com/site/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=4&tabid=702&bix=4&bid=5&itemIDS=18&ModID=2 --Borisborf 09:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Already in the article! --Alexwcovington 9:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. The article had changed since I last read it and I didn't see that it was added.--Borisborf 21:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
PET was not a KIM
This is the first time I've ever seen the claim that the PET was a repackaged KIM-1. I own a KIM-1, and I've seen the guts of a Commodore PET with the original "chiclet" keyboard, and aside from both using a 6502 processor there is no similarity. The PET had the power supply on the motherboard, as well as keyboard hardware, and of course a video section - and not trace of the hex display, keypad and 20 mA TTY interface that the KIM had. I will be bold. --Wtshymanski 22:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)