FUN FACT: Amstrad was the last company to release a cassette computer (464 plus).

[cwpab]

Or maybe not, I haven't done any research. In any case, it seems difficult other companies released tape-based computers in that era.

[Gryzor]

That's an interesting question...

[dodogildo]

This interesting fact made me love Amstrad even more 

[andycadley]

It's probably the last computer model launched with cassette as it's primary data loading mechanism, I certainly can't think of any more 

The C64 was technically still in production with it's crappy datasette device for a few more years though (they hadn't stopped producing them when Commodore went bust in 1994, which is insane) so it depends on what you measuring by I guess.

[cwpab]

Yeah, I meant "model launched", not "last unit produced", but that's another interesting topic.

It looks like the last ZX Spectrum was manufactured in 1992, and the last Commodore 64, in 1994. Impressive!

It's good to know that, if one day we get saturated of so much CPC, the C64 world is always there for us to discover. I already would have started if it wasn't for those depressing colors. I wish someone would make an emulator addon to "amstradize" that palette in real time.

[eto]

Only the last with cassette? Or also the last 8bit computer? Last computer with 64K?

[cwpab]

I think we all agree the Plus range and GX4400 was a bad business decision, but looking back, it's kind of cool they were the last 8 bit computers and 8 bit console* launched to the market.

*Non portable

[Prodatron]

Only the last with cassette? Or also the last 8bit computer? Last computer with 64K?

E.g. NC100 was released in 1992 (64K, 8bit, Z80).
And probably some more.

[andycadley]

Only the last with cassette? Or also the last 8bit computer? Last computer with 64K?

E.g. NC100 was released in 1992 (64K, 8bit, Z80).
And probably some more.

If it was any Amstrad machine, it'd be the PCW16 which was crazy late for an 8-bit CPU, being launched in 1995. The same time 32-bit PCs were becoming commonplace with Windows 95.

[cwpab]

I didn't know about PCWs being released so late, how interesting and cool. So Amstrad ALSO manufactured the last 8 bit computers after all!

By the way, I just checked the PCW16 specs and it has 16mhz, 1MB RAM, booting up fromt the GUI... I guess the fact that the processor is 8 bit wasn't too much of a problem here, right? Can anyone name examples of how a 16 bit processor may have helped this particular machine?

[andycadley]

By the way, I just checked the PCW16 specs and it has 16mhz, 1MB RAM, booting up fromt the GUI... I guess the fact that the processor is 8 bit wasn't too much of a problem here, right? Can anyone name examples of how a 16 bit processor may have helped this particular machine?

Well the Z80 can only work with 64K at a time, so.1MB of RAM requires a lot of paging to work. I guess this might not have been so bad given the primary use was just storing documents but a 16-bit CPU would've made things easier for sure.

The other thing is that most 16-bit CPUs were a bit more full featured. A wider range of capabilities made things like multi tasking easier and had better support for things like multiplication.

It seems very odd that Amstrad stuck with an 8-bit design, given they already broke backwards compatibility with software. I don't really know how similar the hardware is though, but I assume close enough that it was a cost saving exercise. In the long run, probably a bad idea given the machine flopped.

[cwpab]

I just realized the PCW16 didn't have a hard drive... in 1995.

I mean, a black and white screen and no hardrive in 1995... Ugh. what was AMS thinking?

I hope it was at least much cheaper than an IBM clone.*

*I just googled and it was 3 times cheaper.

[Prodatron]

Indeed it was a very strange machine...

- it wasn't compatible to all other PCWs
- its operating system is so terrible slow, that even with its 16MHz Z80 you can watch how it draws things on the screen like you know it from the programming language "Logo" ; no multitasking (in 1995, phew...)
- it was probably porting stuff from the NC100/200; at least the general design of the software is nearly exactly the same

Anyway it's a very powerful Z80 machine, but it would need better software.

[GUNHED]

I just realized the PCW16 didn't have a hard drive... in 1995.

I mean, a black and white screen and no hardrive in 1995... Ugh. what was AMS thinking?

I hope it was at least much cheaper than an IBM clone.*

*I just googled and it was 3 times cheaper.

It has something way more advanced. Just what modern PCs are using since few years only: Flash!

And it's an awesome machine btw. Its great Multitasking OS can do in realtime decrunching to save space. And it can even rum CP/M as process under the Rosanne OS. This machine is by far underestimated.

However, a color monitor as alternative would have been a real gain :-)

btw. The Mac OS 8 was even slower. Took it half a minute of open a window.... ;-//