StooB wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:57 am
Sinclair Research would have gone into liquidation without the sale. The sale included all of Sinclair's computer products including the QL. The Spectrum had a 40% market share at the time so was not in need of "rescuing".
I don't think Amstrad cared about whether Sinclair Research went into liquidation or not. They saw securing the Spectrum as a benefit to their computer line and bought it for that reason alone.
But had they not done so, they'd have gone bust and the Spectrum would've stopped being sold like so many other 80s computers regardless of what market share it had. So, in a very literal sense, Amstrad did save the Spectrum.
I've always found the whole period and the reactions from the communities fascinating. The Speccy community mostly considers it bad because Amstrad didn't put enough effort into modernizing the Speccy. Amstrad fans dislike it because they see it as distracting from upgrading the CPC range. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle, there wasn't really a market for upgraded 8-bit machines (as the C128 seemed to demonstrate) but Amstrad didn't have the desire to try and compete with the 16-bitters.
PaddyC13 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:42 amHaving said that, I do wonder why Amstrad did not have a go with an updated QL. Similar approach to the +3. Add a decent keyboard, tidy up the hardware and firmware, slap on a 3” disk, provide one of their colour TV monitors, expand the RAM to 512K and boom you have a QL+. They could have even packaged the QL as per the PCW especially as it came with the Psion business packages. That could have been an interesting machine…
It would have been interesting, but they already had the PCW range servicing the budget home office market, and the decision to pull the +3 early shows they were more loyal to their own in-house products than stuff they'd bought elsewhere. The +3 was seen as a threat to CPC sales and was pulled. There's not much point in competing with yourself unless you can absolutely guarantee growing the market. Look at all of British Leyland's sub-brands selling multiple cars in the same market segment - it was a nightmare, and they only recovered from near-oblivion when they dumped a lot of the old brands and sold only one model in each size/segment.
Wrestling with useless old junk since 1974.
Vintage computers: ZX81, Spectrum +2, TRS-80 Model 100, Z88, Amstrad NC100 http://journeyman.online
AndyC wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:47 am
I don't think Amstrad cared about whether Sinclair Research went into liquidation or not. They saw securing the Spectrum as a benefit to their computer line and bought it for that reason alone.
Yeah, hence their desire to get in very quickly and snap it up before anyone else. That was essentially the only consideration.
Wrestling with useless old junk since 1974.
Vintage computers: ZX81, Spectrum +2, TRS-80 Model 100, Z88, Amstrad NC100 http://journeyman.online
TMD2003 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:13 am
I noticed @Matt_B mentioned "engineering" and "Amstrad" in the same sentence. Those are two words I never thought I'd see together, and neither would I associate Amstrad with "build quality"
I don't think the perception of the reliability of Amstrad products and reality line up. They definitely survive 30 years in the loft better than anything Sinclair built and I'd be willing to bet that if we had them, statistics on repairs/returns would show they survived being used better too.
The original Spectrum is kludgy thrown together from cheap wonky parts, and then the 128 builds on the mess with an ever increasing pile of hacks. Proper engineering is throwing it all away and starting again for the +3, you only need count the components.
Guesser wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:21 am
I don't think the perception of the reliability of Amstrad products and reality line up. They definitely survive 30 years in the loft better than anything Sinclair built and I'd be willing to bet that if we had them, statistics on repairs/returns would show they survived being used better too.
The original Spectrum is kludgy thrown together from cheap wonky parts, and then the 128 builds on the mess with an ever increasing pile of hacks. Proper engineering is throwing it all away and starting again for the +3, you only need count the components.
I think you're absolutely right. If you dug a rubber key Spectrum and a +2/+3 out of a box after many years in damp and cold storage, I would put money on the Amstrad machine working first time*, and the Sinclair one having at least a minor fault, more likely being completely dead.
Purists might not like me saying it, buy Sinclair always had a terrible reputation for unreliability, and it wasn't undeserved.
* Well, you'd need to change the drive belts, but that's an easy job.
Wrestling with useless old junk since 1974.
Vintage computers: ZX81, Spectrum +2, TRS-80 Model 100, Z88, Amstrad NC100 http://journeyman.online
PeterJ wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:35 am
Agreed @Guesser, but isn't remodeling something which has already been designed, easier than starting from scratch.
Not in some senses, as you have to design around the decisions already taken previously for the sake of compatibility... Though in this case probably the less said about that cock-up the better as it undermines the argument somewhat
I should say they managed to simplify and cost reduce the CPC without breaking it just fine, which probably comes down to it being built the right way in the first place, having all the original design work, and the documentation being correct heh.
Assuming that as speculated many times the swapped contended banks are down to a documentation snafu, my only real complaint about the engineering is the butchered amplifier gain which they fixed too late to help the +3
The minor gaffe on the RGB output socket irritates me too, but realistically no-one used SCART cables anyway, and certainly didn't have widescreen TVs, so it's not something that actually affected the product.
Without knowing the actual logic layout and cell constraints of the gate array, it's hard to say whether the design of Special Paging mode is annoying, or simply the only thing possible after fitting the constraints of CP/M's needs and the 128 paging scheme.
Rorthron wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:59 am
It may have been popular, but I really don't see how you can say it added a lot to the hardware platform (which was the issue I raised). It added a joystick interface of an inferior sort to those already widely available and widely used, a tape recorder, which was ubiquitous, anyway, and a better keyboard. That's it.
Not sure why people claim these joystick interface was inferior.
Is it just me noticing that in most games joystick response from Sinclair/amstrad interface is much better than that of Kempston?
Also the fact that these joysticks were mapped to keys was awesome, as you could redefine keys to them in games that didn't support joysticks at all, not possible with Kempston interface.
There should be zero difference in "response" as the process for reading from a sinclair or kempston joystick is the same, just different ports and bitmask.
The main complaint against them is using their own pinout on the connectors rather than the so-called Atari "standard", with the first party joysticks being crap. Dual standard joysticks came out from third parties though (and adaptors?) so not the end of the world, just annoying to people who already owned an incompatible joystick.
Guesser wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 12:17 pm
There should be zero difference in "response" as the process for reading from a sinclair or kempston joystick is the same, just different ports and bitmask.
The main complaint against them is using their own pinout on the connectors rather than the so-called Atari "standard", with the first party joysticks being crap. Dual standard joysticks came out from third parties though (and adaptors?) so not the end of the world, just annoying to people who already owned an incompatible joystick.
Maybe it was just my Kempston interface that was dodgy then?
Certainly I remember some games were virtually unplayable with Kempston, the response was so poor, and played perfectly using keyboard or sinclair for example.
StooB wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:16 am
Products don't die when the companies that make them go under.
An Amiga fan I wish I could say that, but success isn't a given no matter how well-loved the platform is. Amstrad could've done a lot more with the Spectrum, but IMO if it wasn't for them "we'd all be speaking C64 by now".
PeterJ wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:01 am
I would really love an eLeMeNt, but won't have a +2 in the house!
Haha! My first Spectrum was a 48K but I later (’95 ish?) replaced that (when it broke) with a car boot sale +2A so I’ve a fondness for that version as well. I don’t think I’d even seen a Spectrum+ at that point and certainly hadn’t heard of the Toastrack so the appeal of the +2A was pretty big.
And then when I got back into the hobby a couple of years ago, I specifically sought out a +2A. I did a bit of reading and learned about the rest of the Amstrad family, and if I’d understood more about hardware compatibility I might have gone for a Grey +2 instead but I wasn’t really bothered about that (at least not yet!).
I've since upgraded that +2A with an eLeMeNt ZX so it's become my super Spectrum
But yeah if anyone comes round it's the (likewise carefully dusted) Toastrack that's out on-show.
Amstrad computers were functional and performed in their designed task well. During that time, I used and sold CPC, PCW and their early X86 PCs. All of these were very usable and in most cases enjoyable. The PCW8512 flew out the door as it was so much bang for your buck (back then). Even the 3” disks seemed to cause us no problems in terms of reliability, availability or cost. Most customers bought 3” disks in boxes of 10 as we discounted them that way.
I did always hope that they would produce a colour PCW8512 but it was not to be. It was an awesome piece of kit though especially when you added Sage Accounts, Cardfile, dBase and a spreadsheet (obviously talking serious computing here rather than gaming).
What some people may find hard to believe though is that it was really difficult to shift Amigas initially. People came in to see an Amiga but tended to walk out with an Atari ST. The prices difference was significant and in those days your average punter did not know or care too much about custom chips/hardware.
The ST was cheaper, seemed just as capable and GEM looked better than Workbench especially on a high res monitor. Poor man’s Mac! We were selling dozens of STs to every Amiga. I left the business around the time the A500 came out so I assume this did much better.
The only thing I've always wondered about (I've not read the whole topic yet sorry) is -why- the first 'Amstrad' produced model aka the +2 was grey not black ?
clebin wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 12:52 pm
An Amiga fan I wish I could say that, but success isn't a given no matter how well-loved the platform is. Amstrad could've done a lot more with the Spectrum, but IMO if it wasn't for them "we'd all be speaking C64 by now".
The Amiga is not comparable - it was a failure. It's not about how well loved the platform is. The Spectrum was the best selling computer in 1985 with double the market share of Commodore and it was still the best selling computer in 1989. If it wasn't Amstrad or Maxwell then it would have been Timex or Dixons or even Datel Electronics or MGT etc. It was a licence to print money.
Czarnikjak wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 12:09 pm
Not sure why people claim these joystick interface was inferior.
I was thinking about two things. First, unless I'm mistaken, it used non-standard 9-pin sockets. Second, it only covered one of the joystick standards, whereas most joystick interfaces by then supported all three. I suspect the second point did not make much difference by the time of the +2, but it definitionally can't be quite as good.
Amstrad made a half-way attempt to make the +3 useful beyond gaming. I could be mistaken, but I believe they allowed the ROM to be paged out, and RAM to be addressed in its place (I think the C64 had the same capability). This then allowed the +3 to have CP/M ported to it. I'm not sure that had any real uses, but it gives a hint at what might have been.
If only the original spectrums had that capability to swap out the ROM for RAM at runtime. It would have opened doors for developers. And I wish Amstrad had gone a step further, and added a graphics mode that allowed 80 text columns. I suppose I can only dream. It may have brought the Spectrum too close to his CPC line.
Clive succeeded at what he aimed to do - to deliver an affordable computing entry point to households. He deserves a lot of credit for that, even if the approach was a technological dead-end.
TMD2003 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:13 am
One "engineering" improvement I will mention in Amstrad's favour is changing the flimsy 9V barrel plug of the +2 for a 12V supply and a chunky DIN plug on the +3 - power cuts were an absolute scourge on my +2 and I'd usually fix the cable to the desk with a huge blob of Blu-Tak with a drop loop to keep it as secure as possible. No such trouble on the black-case models, though it did mean altering a Kempston joystick interface with an improvised Dremel, so that it would fit round the plug.
Ha! My +2A back then came with a Ram Turbo interface that had undergone such an "engineering" "improvement"!
Fig.1 Engineering improvement
But on that note, is it fair to say that the external PSU of the +3/+2A, and therefore no heatsink needed within the computer, probably improved reliability and lifespan by removing that extra heat?
TMD2003 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:13 am
...in this day and age of TZXDuinos and Goteks, a +3 with the sound fixed is the model to have. I barely notice any difference in sound between a +2 and a supposedly-fixed-out-of-the-box +2B, as long as the TAPE/SOUND socket is working it's a lot less of a faff to connect to the Duino than with a tape adapter, and the Gotek is a useful addition not available to tape-based models. What's not to like, other than those odd few compatibility issues?
Yes, as long as you also upgrade the ROM to 4.1 so the printer port works correctly! But yeah, having the floppy controller on board is useful (the +2A has +3DOS, but usually no controller etc.). I've been playing with a Frankenstein +3 recently using dual 3.5" disks and/or a Gotek and it's great.
StooB wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 1:18 pm
The Amiga is not comparable - it was a failure. It's not about how well loved the platform is. The Spectrum was the best selling computer in 1985 with double the market share of Commodore and it was still the best selling computer in 1989. If it wasn't Amstrad or Maxwell then it would have been Timex or Dixons or even Datel Electronics or MGT etc. It was a licence to print money.
I would disagree on the Amiga based on marketshare, etc but I know this will drag the thread off-topic! But there are a hundred things that could have gone wrong - failing to get enough computers into the market, missing the Christmas season, poor quality control, incompatibilities, bad business decisions - we've seen that happen over and over. It's possible that over-ambition - such as Datel or MGT stretching the finances too far to fund the initial purchase - could have caused the buyer to then go bankrupt and the Speccy looking for a third owner... That history is all un-written.
In the only universe that we can talk about with certainty, Amstrad released a package in the +2 that was timely, of a good standard, at a price that appealed to buyers and sold well, and we got another 6 or so years worth of commercial support. I don't much like Alan Sugar, but I'm happy to have had those years.
The Amstrad takeover certainly brought a bit of stability, I’m old enough to remember the months leading up to it and the coverage in Sinclair User. First there was the (failed) attempted takeover by Robert Maxwell (I wonder how well that would have turned out)? Then it looked like Sinclair would have gone into administration and while it wouldn’t have stopped the existing user base continuing to play Spectrum games, it certainly would have finished off the Spectrum as a platform within a few years, likely with the C64 taking over as it was dropping in price by that point.
Anyway, what Amstrad did was fairly decent - they made a decent keyboard with the +2 and it was certainly more reliable than the original Sinclair models. But it was clear that Amstrad were pitching it at the lower end of the computing market and had absolutely no desire to do anything really major with the Sinclair brand, which is a shame but it did meant we had the 128K Spectrum as a significantly sized platform, so we got lots of 128K enhanced games from 1987 onwards, which was great.
Something that does annoy me looking back on the Amstrad takeover is how the image of the Sinclair brand did just focus on games, Amstrad even said if you wanted to do anything more serious, you should buy an Amstrad CPC machine. The pack in titles with the +2 really reflected the “games only” approach, it would have been great to have seen some really good productive titles be released as +2 pack in titles, you know, like every other computer ever got. Something like bundling Tasword Plus 2, the Art Studio (maybe even a mouse) and other productive utilities. Instead we got rubbish like Treasure Island and Punchy bundled in.
