Re: Classic computing is out of the closet

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

John E Townsend <utownje@lexis-nexis.com> wrote:

>Supertimer wrote:
>
>> By the way, in the full article, what and how much about the
>> Apple II did she mention?  I didn't like the way the web based
>> version classified the IIGS as an 8-bit computer.
>>
>> First "the Apple II, introduced in 1977" then some user "still
>> uses an Apple IIGS" finally "these 8-bit computers can still
>> do a lot."  But then they start saying what a Commodore 64
>> can do.  The IIGS can do so much more and it runs 16-bit
>> software!
>>
>> And the part about it taking 1000 C64s to run Microsoft
>> Word!  Give me a break!  Even the C64 can run GeoWrite
>> and Apple IIGS can run AppleWorks GS which goes beyond
>> that.  I'm not saying these have all the features of MS Word,
>> but they seem to be implying that the classic computers
>> are incapable of running a GUI word processor or a feature
>> rich one.  Nothing can be further from the case.  AWGS
>> is a nice GUI word processor and WordPerfect for the GS
>> is an example of what a powerful text based word processor
>> with lots of features running on a IIGS.  Similar to DOS
>> WordPerfect 4 to DOS WordPerfect 5.
>>
>> Still, it was nice to see the IIGS get mention.  ;-)
>
>Never trust a technology reporter who doesn't know the difference between
>"tera" and "tetra". :-)

Not only that, they even missed the point of what kind of
memory these computers really have.  The IIGS a
"kilobyte machine" they say.  Yeah right!  4MB to 8MB
of RAM and a 1GB hard drive on mine.

Even a IIe with AppleWorks is really best served with
1MB of memory and at least a 3.5 drive.

Seems like even when they're trying to capture the
essense of classic computing, they have to go out of
their way to understate these wonderful machines.