Re: Commodore and Apple

[Jim Butterfield <fjb@pathcom.com>]

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:35:53 GMT, Moll
<MollyBaker@Spam.GMAIL.Spam.Spam.Spam.Com> wrote:

>Eric Smith wrote:
>> Jim Brain wrote (perhaps quoting Jim Butterfield?):

Nope; it was Jim Brain who contacted the Woz.  On my side, I had gone
to the original site where I had found the data and asked if they had
any souces or supplementary information on this.  Haven't heard back
from them yet (this is all VERY recent).

>>>I was amazed both at how reachable Woz still is, and how the fate of
>>>Commodore and Apple may have been different.  I don't remember the
>>>initial PET price and how it compared to the Apple II price, but I
>>>believe the PET was much higher-priced.

It seems to me that the original 4K PET was pitched at about US$600.
The deal was this:  you sent the money to Commodore, and if you didn't
get a computer in three months, you could ask for a refund if you
wanted it (honest!).  Somewhere during that three-month period, early
buyers (orderers?) were told by Commodore that 4K would be really very
limiting, and they recommended switching to 8K, at a higher price
(say, US$800?).  A very few buyers stuck to their original order, and
a few 4K PETs were delivered, but most buyers went to the 8K model.

This makes it hard to say what the "initial PET price" really was.
And of course we paid more up here in Canada; I vaguely recall a price
point of C$1200.

>> The PET was introduced at a substantially lower price than the Apple II,
>> as was the Radio Shack TRS-80.  The Apple II probably had a lower
>> manufacturing cost than the PET, even if you don't consider the integral
>> video monitor and cassette drive in the PET, but that was not reflected
>> in the retail pricing.

Apple did something strange with the clock lines.  The 6502 has two
clock output lines, called phi-0 and phi-1 or something like that.
Apple decided to use only one of these, and generate the second clock
line by inverting that one.  Seems to me I've heard it claimed that
this made the computer capable of using dynamic RAM, whereas
conventionally clocked systems could use only static RAM.

Perhaps most significantly, the Apple ][ came with "slots".  We're all
familiar with computer slots now, but it was quite innovative at the
time.  Many Apple users discovered that they needed to plug extra
boards into the slots to achieve a "business-like" configuration -
things such as 80-column video, or upper/lower case (the basic Apple
came only with upper case).  This sort of thing upped the price
considerably, but sometimes achieved things that couldn't readily be
done on the PET, such as 80 columns.  Other things - such as upper and
lower case, or a floating point Basic - were standard on the PET but
extras on the Apple.

And I would guess that Apple made better deals with retail outlets
than did Commodore.  Commodore never quite got the hang of working in
harmony with its many loyal dealers.
 
>>>I suspect the overriding factor was Chuck wanting to do his own PC,

You have to give Chuck credit for some remarkable innovations that the
rest of the computer industry took years - sometimes decades - to
catch onto.  Intelligent peripherals with their own microcontrollers?
Screen editing, where the computer's commands normally come from the
screen rather than directly from the keyboard?  Keyboard service via
interrupts, so that they keyboard didn't go dead between input cycles?
Upper/lower case standard right from day 1?  A standardized bus
looping to all peripherals?  You gotta hand it to him.

>The Apple ][ was also more capable than the PET in most respects.

I think the point could be argued.  The "bald" Apple ][ without board
in the slots was pretty limited.  Its main glamour point was colour
and graphics.  Both machines were powered by the same engine, the
6502.

		--Jim Butterfield


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----