Re: The Apple ][ was cool!

[Leonard Erickson <shadow@krypton.rain.com>]

Rubywand wrote:
> 
> Jeff Thomas writes ...
> >
> > I don�t want to get into the argument over which computer is best or
> > worse during the 1980s because every computer had strengths and
> > weaknesses. But merely reflect my personal opinions on the matter.
> >
> > If I must chose a contender for the worse computer of the 1980s, it
> > would be the �IBM PC�. Reason�s being: poor graphics (Hercules
> > [2-colours B&W], CGA (the best available by 1987, 4-colours]).

Sorry, but *EGA* was available long before 1987! It's in my 1985 copy of
Norton's "Programmer's Guide to the IBM PC". 

Hercules may have been only 2 colors, but it also was 720x348, with 2
seperate pages. 

EGA was up to 640x350 (in "4" colors on a mono display) or 640x200x64 on
a CGA display, with 640x350x64 on an EGA display. And no, I'm not
kidding about hooking it up to a mono display. That *was* one of the
features. 

And by 87, there was the HGC+ and Hercules InColor cards, which added
RAMFont. You could have up to 256 different *fonts* stored in the
graphics memory on the card, which made for incrediobly fast and varied
text mode displays. Or you could store graphics patterns in there, and
have "graphics" displays in text mode. Not as good as bit-blitting, but
not bad at all. 

The InColor card had 720x348 by 64 colors. It required an EGA monitor
though.

I've got both cards around here. 

> > Awful
> > Sound, internal speaker worse than an Apple II (Sound cards, never took
> > off till the early 1990s starting with �Adlib�). A rugged metal case
> > (weighing a ton) - taking up lots of desk space. Noisy power supplies
> > with fans. Clones were �unreliable� and �incompatible�. The first
> > software written were knock-offs of Apple II software.

No, the first software was knock-offs of CP/M applications. The PC was
*designed* specifically to make porting CP/M software easy.

>      The early PC's were, indeed, crude machines. However, thanks to cloners,
> this situation changed fairly rapidly. By 1989 you had games using 256-color
> VGA displays and AdLib sound. And, unlike most other personal computers, the
> PC virtually always came with a hard drive.

Not in the early days. I supported over oa hundred of them in 1985, and
only a dozen had HDs.
 
>      If you refine "computer" to "home computer", then yes: for most of the
> 1980's, PC is a real dog. For fun stuff you got an Apple II or Commodore.
> (Too bad Atari messed up on the ST. If it had been 65c816-based with a
> seperate case and keyboard, the ST could have won over droves of chapped
> Apple II users in 1985.)

And if Zilog hadn't dropped the ball on the Z8000 (which later became
the Z280) the IBM PC would have nbeen based on *that* and you'd have
been able to run CP/M software directly. And it'd have eaten the market
alive.
 
> > The Apple II has changed the face of �personal computing� more than most
> > computers eg. With innovations like the first spreadsheet (VisiCalc),
> > graphic adventure (Mystery House), role-playing games (Ultima I, Might &
> > Magic), Speech in a computer game (Castle Wolfenstein), integrated
> > business package (AppleWorks), different programming languages, etc. On
> > the hardware front, Basic in ROM, 5.25� disk drives, 80-columns text,
> > sound card�s, joysticks, etc.

And a downcheck on the hardware front for *not* using a standard disk
controller chip, which made it's disks and drives incompatible with the
rest of the world.

> > The Apple II was light at 7-pounds, had better graphics and sound than a
> > typical PC,

Better graphics? That's arguable. At least until you go to third party
video cards.

> > slender disk drives (without a built-in power supply) and
> > �open� system allowing for expansion cards (later copied by IBM).

Copied by *engineers* at IBM. Once the PC took off, the brass weren't
real happy about that open architecture.

>      A major C64 weakness is that its best hires color mode gives only 160 x
> 200 resolution. This explains why C64 adventure game displays, while usually
> more colorful, look so blocky next to Apple II displays.

Excuse me, but I think you are confusing "most colors" and "highest
resolution. 160x200 *ain't* hires. 
 
>      Another C64 weakness is its slow, cumbersome DOS. Next to Apple II's DOS
> 3.3, it's an absolute dinosaur. Playing adventures which require frequent
> disk accesses was a nightmare on the C64. Eventually, various DOS
> accelerators were developed; but, these can be a major pain to install and
> they do not work correctly with all software (most of which was copy
> protected).

The big problem was that Commodore copied the stuff from their business
systems (yes, they made business computers) which used the IEEE-488
interface for the drives. This is actually pretty fast and very
flexible. 

But to save money on the 64, they ckept the protocols, etc, but replaced
the *parallel* IEEE-488 bus with a *serial* bus. A slow one at that.

It was possible to get an adapter that plugged into one of the ports on
the 64 (I don't recall which one, I'm going by memopry of what my
Commodore fanatic friends were doing) and give the system a *real*
IEEE-488 bus. Hook up one of the 5.25" inch, or *8* inch floppies from a
commodore *business system (or even a hard drive if you could afford it)
and the system *screamed* on disk access.

And unlike any accelerators, the was no way the copy protected stuff
could tell the difference.

*All* the home computer companies made stupid decisions to save money on
the systems. 

Tandy left out one RAM chip in the Model I's video and replaced it with
a gate. Commodore used that stupid serialized IEEE-4788 bus. Apple
decided to roll their own floppy controller.  

-- 
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow{G})
 shadow@krypton.rain.com	<--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com	<--last resort