Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 26th May 2006 19:32 UTC, submitted by brewin
In the News "At PC World, we spend most of our time talking about products that make your life easier or your work more productive. But it's the lousy ones that linger in our memory long after their shrinkwrap has shriveled, and that make tech editors cry out, 'What have I done to deserve this?' Still, even the worst products deserve recognition (or deprecation). So as we put together our list of World Class winners for 2006, we decided also to spotlight the 25 worst tech products that have been released since PC World began publishing nearly a quarter-century ago."
Thread beginning with comment 128367
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Damien on Fri 26th May 2006 21:56 UTC
Member since:

(dons asbestos suit) So, why no mention of the over-priced, under-powered, faulty Linux driven Amiga One motherboard? Or Atari's late 80's products (GEM on a small box? ugh). Or the Amiga A600 (more expensive than A500, less powerful)?

Any other nominations?


Reply Score: 1

RE: A1?
by Sigfrodi on Sat 27th May 2006 21:10 in reply to "A1?"
Sigfrodi Member since:

A1 is somewhat (theorically) a still under developement platform, isn't it? There are probably so few of them that it couldn't be considered...

About the ST, I had a 520STe and GEM was fairly responsive. Not many functionalities, especially compared to the rich AmigaOS (with its more complete Workbench interface, its efficient Unix inspired CLI and its multitasking), but much more simple... The ST was a success in Europe among players. And it was used by music professionals (Jean-Michel Jarre... AFAIK first Cubase releases were for the Atari ST) or in publication (french newspaper "Liberation" used Mega ST with "Le Redacteur" for example).

I don't know where you saw that the A600 was less powerful than the A500... It certainly wasn't. OK, it lacked the numeric keypad and was of lower building quality, but it had 1MB or RAM (he A500 had only 512KB). Also the A600 had more functionnality, as it included an IDE port and PCMCIA slot. The A500 had neither of these... Other than that and a Kickstart upgrade, A500+ and A600 were the same : same CPU, same ECS chipset... Finally as far as I can remember, in my country (France), the A600 was cheaper than A500+ when it was released... However, the A600 release was a stupid decision from C=...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: A1?
by Ultimatebadass on Sun 28th May 2006 10:48 in reply to "A1?"
Ultimatebadass Member since:

Or the Amiga A600 (more expensive than A500, less powerful)?

I had one of those (A600) and I think it was better than the A500 - had 1MB of ram, Kickstart 2.x/Workbench 2.x, was smaller, included a PCMCIA port and you could get one with a 2.5" harddrive pre-installed (the A600HD).

Only thing that was missing was the numeric keypad but back then I didn't use it all that much (they keyboard was there for typing in cheat codes anyway ;-) ). You could do anything just fine without it (and someone even wrote a software emulator if you ABSOLUTELY needed it's functionality for some program to work).

Reply Parent Score: 1