Why did IBM PC compatibles become the best platform for gaming? From what I understand they sucked for gaming in the 80s, and Commodore 64 and Amiga were better. But why did that change?
>>11512415They caught up to and rapidly surpassed the Amiga thanks to a massive leap in CPU power by the mid-90s, superior dedicated graphics and sound cards, and Commodore being inept and unable to keep pace with hardware advancements.
Standardization.
>>11512415>But why did that change?IBM fucked up and accidentally made their computer an open platform. Pure XT/AT machines were indeed a bit underwhelming for gaming, but once clone manufacturers stopped making copies of IBM products and started pushing boundaries with higher performance in graphics and audio, a ball started rolling which still continues to this day.
>>11512438Commodore didn't make their own CPUs.Well, maybe some 6502 variants but definitely not for the Amiga
>>11512440>IBM fucked up and accidentally made their computer an open platform.Really? Wasn't it on purpose?
>>11512492No.They just mostly made it from third party components, which let people easily clone it after they managed to reverse engineer IBM's BIOS.
>>11512492Originally the IBM 5150 used off the shelf components and readily available electronics in their computers. The only thing that was custom was the BIOS chip that ran custom code for the operating system which was copyrighted, but could be reverse engineered allowing for legal "compatible hardware" like Tandy, Osbourne, or Compaq computers in the early 80s. Which allowed the PC standard to become dominant after the 80s.
>>11512438>Commodore being inept and unable to keep paceLike the other posters said, IBM accidentally made the PC an open platform, after which is really took off. Notably, once that happened, IBM didn't benefit much from the triumph of PC compatibles, since it was just other hardware manufacturers undercutting it in price.So it's not clear if Commodore was "inept" or if they were doing the reasonable thing, unlike IBM who sort of screwed themselves but benefited the whole world.Of course, IBM is still around today and Commodore isn't but that's not really due to PCs but rather IBM's massive enterprise contracts.
>>11512585>GAMESI wonder what's in that directory that runs on that machine
>>11512492The IBM PC was fast tracked and developed in a year with off-the-shelf parts. Their secret sauce was the proprietary BIOS. Had they gone the traditional way with committees and reviews, it would've taken years to get it out the door.Thing is, mainframes was their cash cow. They never truly intended to enter the personal computer market, which were seen as toys. (And understandably, most people just played games on their Atari/Commodore/etc.) But they did recognize the threat of microcomputers, so the IBM PC was to get a foot in the door, and guide customers towards a proper machine … they positioned their microcomputers as an "entry systems."
>>11512693Commodore was definitely inept and very dysfunctional.They had some talented engineers but they can't save a ship that management steered into an iceberg.
>>11512438Commodore didn't want to keep the pace. After they booted Tramiel, the company was essentially a money laundering operation.
>>11512415Why?The USA.
>>11512824Commodore was all American.While many PC clones weren't
>>11512492>>11512730It's incredible how IBM managed to architect computer science and modern networking, then lose control of almost everything they created due to internal bureaucracy and retardation to the point that almost no one knows who they are or what they do anymore. Typing this out on a T14 kek. It's a shame they dropped out because they were the chief innovators in the PC market and invented tons of standards. Compaq and Sony took risks but eventually Apple became the dominant force and now all the OEMs just copy whatever Apple does. Apple removes a port on the MacBook, PC OEMs follow suit. Especially ironic given how Apple invented almost nothing compared to IBM and essentially became the tail that wags the dog.