Re: The Apple ][ was cool!

[Stephen Shaw <xstephenx@apple2.org.za>]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:36:54 -0500, Rubywand wrote:

> Jon-paul writes ...
>>
>> "Jason" <tmr@c64.org> wrote in message
>> ZF7FzMCcxxU7EwGV@cosine.demon.co.uk">news:ZF7FzMCcxxU7EwGV@cosine.demon.co.uk...
>> > Jeff Thomas:
>> > > For pure gaming, the Commodore 64 rates at the top
>> >
>> > Rubywand:
>> > > Really, this is pure myth. For most hop and bop arcade style games,
>> > > yes.
>> >
>  ....
>
>> > > Another C64 weakness is its slow, cumbersome DOS. Next to Apple II's
>> > > DOS 3.3, it's an absolute dinosaur.
>> >
>  ....
>>
>> I understand part of the problem was the designers fears over errors and
>> quality control of the hard ware. Like Atari they underestamated the rapid
>> development of reletivly high quality, and inexpensive (reletivly) data
>> transfer. so were doubley cautious with the dos and disk controlers,
>> sacraficing speed for reliability. Maybe they errored too much on the side
>> of caution.
>>
>
>      No kidding! And, each drive has its own power supply and
> microprocessor-- incredibly inefficient, especially when, by 1980, any
> small computer maker could look at an Apple II and see how to do it right.
>
>
>  ....
>
>> > > There are other possible comparisons. Basically, though, I've stuck to
>> > > comparing game playing on the typical Apple II vs. game playing on the
>> > > typical C64 given available software.
>> >
>> > With the 8bits, people tended to make their decisions about which
>> > machine they wanted from the games they saw on a friends machine or in a
>> > shop.
>>
>> I would very much agree with that, I wanted an Atari after seeing Star
>> Raiders in two shops in town on an 800 system. But at nearly �400 it was an
>> impossible dream, so I got a part time job and was able to save enough to
>> buy a spectrum which had just come out and looked the best bet (it was
>> either that or the oric :0) )
>>
>> >  Certainly, if the only factor was price the C64 should have
>> > *totally* bombed in the UK against the Spectrum, but held it's own
>> > reasonably well.  Similarly, the Amiga should have been toasted by the
>> > Atari ST, the latter was the cheaper of the two.  But people saw what
>> > they *wanted* and purchased accordingly.
>> >
>>
>> Initaly over here the ST was the machine of choice, certainly amongst people
>> i knew. Then somehow Atari seemed to loose its way and in the early 90's it
>> most definatly switched over to the Amiga. Then commodore lost the plot in
>> its own accounts department. :o(
>>
>
>      Commodore and Atari "lost the plot" in 1985 when they abandoned their
> 65xx machine user bases. Neither the ST nor the Amiga was ever serious
> competition for PC.
>
>
>  ....
>
>>
>> I have next to no experiance of the apple 2 series. I saw one once, green
>> screen (80 column IIRC which was impressive) but disk access was very good,
>> very good for data crunching i guessed. I understand they were very capable
>> but apple never seemed too bothered with the UK market keeping itself rather
>> low profile, and exclusive to very high end users. A bit like Bristol cars,
>> compared top the General motors of Commodore and the Austin/Rover or Ford of
>> the Speccy.
>  ....
>
>      Well, no one ever accused Apple of being particularly bright about the
> way it marketed the II series.

No, particularly when they dropped mail order sales. There are many letters of
complaint in old Call-Apples about having to make 200 mile round trips to get
to an Apple dealer.


-- 
He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly