Re: The Apple ][ was cool!

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Jon-paul writes ...
> 
> "Jason" <tmr@c64.org> wrote in message
> ZF7FzMCcxxU7EwGV@cosine.demon.co.uk">news:ZF7FzMCcxxU7EwGV@cosine.demon.co.uk...
> > Jeff Thomas:
> > > For pure gaming, the Commodore 64 rates at the top
> >
> > Rubywand:
> > > Really, this is pure myth. For most hop and bop arcade style games,
> > > yes.
> >
 ....

> > > Another C64 weakness is its slow, cumbersome DOS. Next to Apple II's
> > > DOS 3.3, it's an absolute dinosaur.
> >
 ....
> 
> I understand part of the problem was the designers fears over errors and
> quality control of the hard ware. Like Atari they underestamated the rapid
> development of reletivly high quality, and inexpensive (reletivly) data
> transfer. so were doubley cautious with the dos and disk controlers,
> sacraficing speed for reliability. Maybe they errored too much on the side
> of caution.
>

     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.


 ....

> > > There are other possible comparisons. Basically, though, I've stuck to
> > > comparing game playing on the typical Apple II vs. game playing on the
> > > typical C64 given available software.
> >
> > With the 8bits, people tended to make their decisions about which
> > machine they wanted from the games they saw on a friends machine or in a
> > shop.
> 
> I would very much agree with that, I wanted an Atari after seeing Star
> Raiders in two shops in town on an 800 system. But at nearly �400 it was an
> impossible dream, so I got a part time job and was able to save enough to
> buy a spectrum which had just come out and looked the best bet (it was
> either that or the oric :0) )
> 
> >  Certainly, if the only factor was price the C64 should have
> > *totally* bombed in the UK against the Spectrum, but held it's own
> > reasonably well.  Similarly, the Amiga should have been toasted by the
> > Atari ST, the latter was the cheaper of the two.  But people saw what
> > they *wanted* and purchased accordingly.
> >
> 
> Initaly over here the ST was the machine of choice, certainly amongst people
> i knew. Then somehow Atari seemed to loose its way and in the early 90's it
> most definatly switched over to the Amiga. Then commodore lost the plot in
> its own accounts department. :o(
> 

     Commodore and Atari "lost the plot" in 1985 when they abandoned their 65xx
machine user bases. Neither the ST nor the Amiga was ever serious competition
for PC.


 ....

> 
> I have next to no experiance of the apple 2 series. I saw one once, green
> screen (80 column IIRC which was impressive) but disk access was very good,
> very good for data crunching i guessed. I understand they were very capable
> but apple never seemed too bothered with the UK market keeping itself rather
> low profile, and exclusive to very high end users. A bit like Bristol cars,
> compared top the General motors of Commodore and the Austin/Rover or Ford of
> the Speccy.
 ....

     Well, no one ever accused Apple of being particularly bright about the way
it marketed the II series.



Rubywand