Re: The Apple ][ was cool!

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Jeff Thomas writes ...
> 
> I don�t want to get into the argument over which computer is best or
> worse during the 1980s because every computer had strengths and
> weaknesses. But merely reflect my personal opinions on the matter.
> 
> If I must chose a contender for the worse computer of the 1980s, it
> would be the �IBM PC�. Reason�s being: poor graphics (Hercules
> [2-colours B&W], CGA (the best available by 1987, 4-colours]).  Awful
> Sound, internal speaker worse than an Apple II (Sound cards, never took
> off till the early 1990s starting with �Adlib�). A rugged metal case
> (weighing a ton) - taking up lots of desk space. Noisy power supplies
> with fans. Clones were �unreliable� and �incompatible�. The first
> software written were knock-offs of Apple II software.
>

     The early PC's were, indeed, crude machines. However, thanks to cloners,
this situation changed fairly rapidly. By 1989 you had games using 256-color
VGA displays and AdLib sound. And, unlike most other personal computers, the
PC virtually always came with a hard drive.

     If you refine "computer" to "home computer", then yes: for most of the
1980's, PC is a real dog. For fun stuff you got an Apple II or Commodore.
(Too bad Atari messed up on the ST. If it had been 65c816-based with a
seperate case and keyboard, the ST could have won over droves of chapped
Apple II users in 1985.)

 
> The Apple II has changed the face of �personal computing� more than most
> computers eg. With innovations like the first spreadsheet (VisiCalc),
> graphic adventure (Mystery House), role-playing games (Ultima I, Might &
> Magic), Speech in a computer game (Castle Wolfenstein), integrated
> business package (AppleWorks), different programming languages, etc. On
> the hardware front, Basic in ROM, 5.25� disk drives, 80-columns text,
> sound card�s, joysticks, etc.
> 
> The Apple II was light at 7-pounds, had better graphics and sound than a
> typical PC, slender disk drives (without a built-in power supply) and
> �open� system allowing for expansion cards (later copied by IBM).

     True. The big problem was that the Apple II achieved nearly all of the
above by 1983. From then until the end of 1986, Apple let the II series
slide.


> 
> For pure gaming, the Commodore 64 rates at the top
 ....

     Really, this is pure myth. For most hop and bop arcade style games, yes.
Sprites, more colors, and better sound give C64 the edge. For just about
every other sort of gaming, Apple II is far superior, and it isn't even very
close.

     A major C64 weakness is that its best hires color mode gives only 160 x
200 resolution. This explains why C64 adventure game displays, while usually
more colorful, look so blocky next to Apple II displays.

     Another C64 weakness is its slow, cumbersome DOS. Next to Apple II's DOS
3.3, it's an absolute dinosaur. Playing adventures which require frequent
disk accesses was a nightmare on the C64. Eventually, various DOS
accelerators were developed; but, these can be a major pain to install and
they do not work correctly with all software (most of which was copy
protected).

     The C64 has inputs which could be used to connect analog joysticks; but,
these are reserved for graphics tablets (like Koala).  Instead, you are stuck
with using non-analog switcher sticks. As a result, the C64 user does not
have nearly the control responsiveness and realism available to Apple II
users playing many flight and combat simulations.

     The C64 keyboard has a mushy toy-keyboard feel. If you are playing a
game which requires lots of typing, you definitely want to be using an Apple
II.


     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.

     The only reason more C64's were sold than Apple II's is price. Being a
lot cheaper may have made the C64 a better buy. It never made it a better
machine, not even for game playing.



Rubywand