[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The Apple ][ was cool!
Rubywand:
> 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.
I'd argue that the "intelligent device" method was the way to do it
right because I prefer it - certainly the way that some machines have to
dedicate all their time to running the drive during loading (I don't
know if this applies to the Apples but even a 'Doze PC will freeze
sometimes during floppy disk accesses) irritates me.
> Commodore and Atari "lost the plot" in 1985 when they abandoned their
> 65xx machine user bases.
Commodore didn't abandon the C64 until the 1990s, the Terminator 2 pack
was a tie in for the film and (albeit with their usual uselessness) was
marketed by the C= PR bods as a current machine.
> Neither the ST nor the Amiga was ever serious competition for PC.
The Amiga was at least in Europe, it *toasted* the PC for several years.
What killed it off was (again) Commodore. They didn't take the machine
forward fast enough, so whilst the PC started to get new graphics cards
to give 256 colours and then true colour displays, the Amiga just
*eventually* gained the 12bit mode on the A1200.
The Amiga was a robust, usable and reliable machine, built to standards
that the PC just doesn't have because of it's free-for-all architecture.
Sadly, those rigid standards were maintained by a company that just
didn't have a clue and didn't take it further... =-(
--
Jason =-)
_______________________________________________________________________
TMR / / / / / / / /\
/ /__/ / / /__/ / / / /__/ Email: tmr@c64.org / /
/ /\_/ / /__ / / / / __// TMR_C0S on IRC / /
/ /__/ / / / / / / / / / http://www.tmr.cosine.org.uk / /
/_____/_____/_____/__/__/__/_____/_____________________________________/ /
\_____\_____\_____\__\__\__\_____\_____________________________________\/