Commodore stopped making PCs, so did Atari, there's probably a lesson there ;) Sugar made cheap products, which I have no problem with, but he sold them for well above what they were worth technically, which in his delusional mind was the 'correct' way. His arrogant attitude is basically what I don't like, somebody has to make the cutting edge tech he would use half a decade later. There is nothing praise worthy about being a junkyard dealer, all his consumer products were Tesco Value quality but sold at far above those sort of levels so he looks like an absolute prick in this interview. The 6128 + shitty CRT tubbed colour monitor was the same price as a bottom of the barrel portable TV + 520STFM. That is not a position anybody should be proud of. The NES is the only real success of marketing half a decade old tech and making a fortune. NES was shit but Famicom was cool, timing of release is very important. He didn't even change the Spectrum +2 to use properly wired up D9 joystick ports, zero innovation but go figure the Amstrad fanboys are the most aggressive and clueless of the lot.

@@madcommodore medhi ali was the reason commodore went bang...never the same company when jack tramiel left.

Well that went right over your head, every manufacturer made a shit machine at one point or another, the video is about the man and his attitude that made him millions. Did you watch the whole 90 second video? the last 20 seconds that show what two £299.99 computers buy you in terms of performance to play Batman? Alan Sugar was a selling past it's sell by date on the day it even launched type bullshit well over what it was worth. THAT was the point. It endemic of every Amstrad product of the 80s, not worth the money. Has nothing to do with C64 vs Amstrad, if anything it is about 520STFM 3.5" disk drive machine vs Amstrad 128k 3" rubbish selling for the same price. He goes out of his way to defend the 'who needs a 68000 CPU' 'none of my customers ask me what CPU is in the machine' in this interview and if everybody had this attitude there would be no ST/Amiga/Megadrive and the C64 wouldn't have come out until the late 80s rather than 1981 when the final prototype was already working at Commodore. I am interested in progress and celebrating engineering genius and companies who actually forced the revolutionary improvements onto the home computer market every quarter of a decade. Alan Sugar is nothing more than a salesmen selling Skodas for the price of a Ford Escort == champion of clueless morons I detest.

It's probably the same catalogue I used for the prices that are zoomed in on for 15-20 seconds showing the CPC6128 prices (£300 green screen/£400 colour screen). Even worse I found a Winter 1984 Dixons catalogue which shows the CPC 464 with colour monitor is £350 and the C64 was £200 and £45 for the tape deck and there were plenty of £100 better quality 14" portable TVs than the rubbish CRT tube inside the Amstrad colour monitor (which your couldn't watch TV on either). The CPC464 with a TV modulator was £230 so only £20 less than a C64 with tape deck and the same awesome Grundig TV I had in Jan 1984 for my computer. Turns out the CPC464 was for idiots, what prick would rather play stuff like that 1984 choppy Amsoft crap instead of Sky Fox, Beach Head, Forbidden Forest, Manic Miner, Pitstop II on C64 etc I guess all the Amstrad fanboys are the children of low IQ losers who fell for the marketing bullshit that you needed a genius IQ to wire up a C64 and tape deck and normal TV together and press SHIFT+RUN/STOP to load a tape (at twice the speed of the rubbish CPC 'turbo loader' built in which takes 13 minutes to load Ikari Warriors....oh it's so difficult, 3 wires to plug into the C64 oh wow it's "rocket science" ;) I am going to do another video if I can find where I backed up the damn catalgue for Xmas 86/87 as the old PC I downloaded them onto had an iffy hard drive.

Shitty is a relative term but they were overpriced and badly designed (no TV output, junk CRT tubes in expensive monitors, tiny internal speaker making the sound even when the massive RF modulator is used etc). Alan Sugar peddled low-rent tech but his attitude in this interview can't be justified. Clearly his £600 PC and £300 6128 with useless 3" disk drives were both inferior to the £300 520STFM by 1987, even if it used the same crappy quality sound chip at least it came out the TV/monitor speakers not 1cm. His Hi-fi, VCRs etc were also low rent junk, the Amstrad SKY satellite decoder was also the worst one you could get as all engineers will tell you.

The 20 seconds of Batman on Amstrad vs ST at the end of the video his point makes no sense. Amstrad never used anything with high end technology in any of their products, VCRs, midi hi-fis etc all overpriced bottom end disposable quality. By the time the 68000 was dirt cheap they had abandoned all other designs except 8086 and 286 PC + lowest spec PC graphics and beeper sound. The problem is if nobody makes things like the early 1986 520STM for £440 with a 3.5" disk drive and keeps making stuff with no innovation in price/performance we would never have things like the 1977 VCS, 1982 C64 or even the 1987 £299.99 520STFM vs the £299.99 6128 etc. The interview is in the second half of 1986 at a computer show, about 6 months before the 520STFM was dropped to the same price as an Amstrad 6128 (as shown in the Dixons catalogue in the video).

It's more about the fact this video is just before the 6128 was at £299.99 with no TV output and a green screen monitor vs £299.99 for a 68000 based 520STFM. Even though they used more or less the same sound chip the ST had 4x the memory, a proper 3.5" disk drive, TV output (TVs for £100 were available in 1987 so identical price as 6128+colour monitor) and sound out of the TV not a tiny 2cm speaker in the Amstrad case. The 1982 spec PC with CGA and old hat 5 1/4" disk drive he was selling was his biggest seller in 1986, but it still cost more than a 520STFM. He made his money selling low end tech for nearly the same price as high end tech, nothing to be proud about there really. Just proves he can sell garbage to a council dump, nothing more. Batman is a 1989/1990 game and if you bought your computer in 1987 you probably still had the same one in 1990 to play Batman, hence the clip at the end.

Probably because he was proud of the even more powerful ARM CPU Acorn had developed lol

@@madcommodore I think you are confusing Roger Foster with someone else. He was the co-founder of Applied Computer Technique (ACT) which became Apricot Computers.

I thought Apricot bought Acorn but thinking about it I think it was Olivetti. Still Apricot were pushing the boundaries with the Xen PC at the same show this interview took place and they had all sorts of innovations so that's probably why he is laughing at him on the inside.

@@madcommodore yes, it was Olivetti. Apricot was trying to innovate while Amstrad was pumping out dross/cheap knock-offs. The panel had Peddle and Sinclair, men who actually brought the microcomputer into the home in the USA and UK respectively, and they had share a platform with someone who confessed he knew nothing about computers.

@@HTMLEXP Without Chuck Peddle leaving Motorola to make the MOS 6501 and 6502 chips at 10% the price of the Motorola 6800 chip there would be no home console VCS gaming, no Apple II, PET, VIC, C64, BBC Micro, NES etc. It was the ARM chip of its day, super cheap and pretty much as powerful as the original Motorola chip. The Z80 is also a cheap remake of the 6800 by some ex Motorola employees. But the 68000 was a revolutionary CPU, in 1981 it was at the heart of the Quantel Paintbox 24bit digital graphics workstation used by professionals.

x86 wasn't superior to Amiga until well after Commodore/Atari were no longer on sale. You need a Pentium 133 PC to play Super Stardust the same as a £400 A1200. I know because I had a Pentium 120 (not as smooth) and my friend had an identical PC but 133mhz and that was smooth as A1200. Apple's OSX is better than Workbench sure, Windows? not until Win XP/2000. They survived for reasons nothing to do with best hardware, until PS4 era you were better off with a PS1 after Amiga 1200/SNES/Megadrive era. People either bought £1000+ PC/Mac or £300 consoles. There was no home computer for £400-500 that could rival a £300 PS1 or £300 PS2 etc so there was only PC consumers or console consumers, unlike in the SMS/NES vs Amiga/ST era of the late 80s. Just a graphics card to run Colin McRae 3 as good as Xbox cost as much as an Xbox console, ditto Need for Speed Most Wanted situation with a graphics card for my PC vs Xbox 360. Acorn's £500 home computer also vanished around the time of A1200 and Falcon to be fair. Amstrad only made a killing because they did more than make a cheap 8086 PC, they also convinced many publishers to make their £200 software £40 with an Amsoft logo under licence, which nobody else did at C= or Atari so their efforts in x86 failed, plus they used the inferior 8088 CPU unlike the 8086 based Amstrad 1512, a significant difference, and the Amstrad was still £100 less than Atari and Commodore PC-1. Jack Tramiel would probably have made his own 8086 and cut the costs if he had MOS Technology at his disposal in 1985/86 but he didn't so he couldn't. MOS needed to do to Intel 8086 what they did to the Motorola 6800 vs 6502 at 95% cheaper cost to Commodore for use in all their computers before Amiga or PC-1. Scientists and government officials were using PETs not PCs in 1984 in the EU, it was a massive corporate success and as profitable as Mac thanks to their 6502 and other MOS in-house hardware it was built from.