I think you miss the point... The original IBM PC was proprietary and quit costly. Compaq reverse engineered the proprietary BIOS to make a clone, lawsuit followed, IBM lost. The consequence of this was the the market for OEMs was now open, something that led to, a larger market, ever decreasing prices and higher specs, with intel and moore's law at play. The platform now was in the hands of MS and Intel. Commodore's managers may have been inept, but they also faced fiercer competition, which made it hard to keep up, even if, as you say the original Amiga 1000 was ahead of it's time. Past merits wont help you if the competition outdo your product at a price you can't compete with. Lastly, it was not only Commodore that went away, but every other independent manufacturer (well except Apple).
Did you miss the part where I said Commodore was out of business long before Windows 95 came into being? Trying to compare a PC from 1990 with an Amiga is absurd. There was no competition what-so-ever in terms of
capability. Business used PCs for a very different reason and what-so-ever you may believe about the sacred "Mac" being still around, it didn't fare any better after Windows95 came out. Had it not been for Steve Jobs, Apple would be in the same history books as Commodore as Apple was almost as inept as Commodore was. Nobody I know actually
enjoyed using MS-Dos, after all. They used it because that's what business demanded they use, save desktop publishing. If the "clone alone" theory were true then Apple would have caught up with the PC in the late '90s as Apple DID license them for cloning in the '90s. It may have sold a few more Macs, but it didn't help Apple's bottom line and without Apple, the Mac would have been dead. Maybe if they had licensed them sooner, it might have helped, but it was IBM that made computers
acceptable to business in the 1980s.
No one DARED to use hobby machines at the corporate level. So are we talking about massive sales in general or specific markets? The MS-Dos PC didnt' represent a big gaming market in the 1980s. No one in their right mind used them for that except kids that didn't have a any other choice. CGA and EGA games were utter garbage. A C64 had 10x better quality games until around 1990 when VGA started becoming standard. Even then many people didn't even have Soundblaster cards and audio support was all over the map (from Midi to external synthesizers to internal "bleeps" and "blips").
No, Microsoft survived because of BUSINESS, not gaming or hobby or home users. Business users became home users as a result of the need to work on projects at home. Apple IIs were considered educational and gaming machines, not serious business machines. Macs cost too much and seemed to be centered on desktop publishing. If you can't get the same office software for a Mac as MS-Dos machine, game over. Bill Gates was and is a terrible programmer. But he was a marketing genius/devil. He played dirty tricks to destroy competition (signing agreements that gave discounts for MS-Dos and Windows only to dealers who refused to sell competing operating systems and brands like Atari, Commodore and Apple). Eventually, the hardware caught up and gaming was better on PCs by the mid-90s, but Microsoft's future was secured until Windows95 came out. It had far better multitasking than Mac OS7/8/9 even if it was buggy as hell at first. It would have been game over for Apple if Bill Gates himself hadn't stepped in to help save Apple from bankruptcy (helps avoid the monopoly claims). Steve Jobs then managed to save Apple with a combination of iPods and OSX. Once the iPhone came out, the tables turned entirely, but unlike Commodore, Microsoft's massive market share has ensured it's not in danger of going bankrupt any time soon, even if it does have to downsize a bit.
Commodore and Atari by comparison were run by people who knowledge of typewriters and not much else. They got rid of the people that made their great products (Jack Tramiel was forced to step down not long after the C64 and then he mis-gauged the console market while at Atari. The idea that Commodore could have taken the console market from Nintendo is kind of laughable considering the systems Atari put out that failed anyway (e.g. Jaguar). Mario single-handedly killed competitive gaming until Sony came out with the Playstation. After all, adults gamed (if they gamed at all) on computers not, Nintendos. The Commodore 64, however was a HUGE hit and the only reason Commodore survived as long as it did. It was a reasonably priced home computer with huge gaming capabilities for its day. They bought the Amiga and thought it was the same thing (they even offered a so-called "bridge board" that was a MS-Dos PC on a card so it could do "real business" software.) They never saw the Amiga for the true potential it had to be the next era Mac/PC killer. Imagine an Amiga that had the AGA chipset in 1988 or 1989 instead and true color by 1993 (a natural direction to take the custom chips if they had developed them sooner as they had a jump on all modern graphics card makers in 1985). They played with UNIX on an Amiga 3000, but they didn't put any effort into it. They could have had NeXT capabilities in the '90s and "OSX" would be run on Commodore hardware today. But NONE of that could have ever have happened with Commodore being run by the idiots they were run by. Had Steve Jobs been brought on at Commodore in 1990, I think things would have gone a bit differently.
Maybe, however the clip above clearly notes that it uses Workbenck 3.9, the mentioned features did not ship with the original OS, I know that for a fact since I owned an Amiga as well.
I'm saying that doesn't matter one bit what example was given as the tech still existed long before that. I NEVER had Workbench 3.9 EVER and I didn't stop using my Amiga 3000 until 1999. It wouldn't support 3.9 anyway. I STILL had a dock, retargetable graphics, Internet browsers and e-mail, etc. I believe the dock I used was based on NeXT, ironically. I had something called the "MCP" as well an it had a dozen utilities or more built into ONE utility with a nice preference pane to make Workbench into what it COULD/SHOULD have been if Commodore hadn't blundered it. That's to say that Workbench 2.x was a JOKE compared to what it could have been. No, 3rd party software is what kept the Amiga market alive long after it was supposed to be dead. I got another half decade out of mine with (at the time) fairly modern browsers etc. that had no right to exist, all with a 18MB of ram and a 68030 processor.
Besides, calling Workbench 3.9 "official" is a real stretch of the imagination. That German company bought the Amiga rights after Commodore bought the farm and they sat and did literally NOTHING with it for years on end. It got sold yet again to someone else (pushing the idea of an Amiga ONE for years that was based on by then ancient technology as well). No, sadly, the Amiga was bungled over and over and over again. It should have done better. It deserved a lot better. Thankfully, OSX was pretty much everything I hoped the Amiga would be and like Amiga, there are only a few hardware choices (always a negative for the consumer, though).
