Re: Apple II vs Atari 800

[David Schmenk <dschmenk@YUCH.gmail.com>]

Jack Tseng wrote:
> In 1980, Apple II graphics/sound looks limited.. Graphics on the games look 
> very terrible... Sound is not good. Atari graphics/sound are better than 
> Apple II.. Why did many companies make the games for Apple more than Atari?
>
> I attended to the computer class in the elementary school. There were many 
> Apple computers in the most school. Can anyone tell me a reason why the 
> school chooses Apple even thought the graphics and music were terrible?

You should have seen the graphics and heard the sound on a TRS-80!  This 
was the route my Jr. High and High School went with.  Just not the same 
experience.  I was learning Apple Pascal while everyone else was 
learning how to scroll their names all over the screen and typing in 
crappy maze games from magazines in BASIC.

> Thanks!
> Jack

Although they were contemporaries, the Atari 800 was over two years 
newer.  Two years as a lot of time to add hardware features.  Even so, 
the Atari didn't have slots or the software base the Apple II had.  I 
think the Ataris were seen as more glorified game machines (especially 
the 400) and the Apples were seen as more *serious* computers.  The 
expandable hardware, deep software library, and adequate graphics/sound 
gave the Apple II a leg up on the other platforms of the time.

Dave...