Re: The Apple ][ was crap

["*.*" <chris34252@hotmail.com>]

Atari 800 had better colour and grapix in '78

"John Oyler" <jojo4@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:F7427.13362$Lc3.3493179@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net...
> "Roy Miller" <millers@iliveinnetnebr.com> wrote in message
> 3B48CBE3.B8A28D95@iliveinnetnebr.com">news:3B48CBE3.B8A28D95@iliveinnetnebr.com...
>
> > I know this is nothing but Troll Bait, but I'll bite anyway. First, your
> history
> > is all wet. The Apple II came out in 1977, what color computer did
> Commodore or
> > Radio Shack sell then? You guessed it... NONE. The Apple II's colors
were
> a
> > quantum leap forward over those two. Did the C-64 have better colors?
> Slightly,
> > however, it didn't appear until what? 1983? Surely they could have done
> much
> > better in the intervening 6 years.
>
> Roy,
>     You forgot the fact that the Apple II series, for the most part, was
> completely expandable. 7 slots is alot, even by today's standards.
Commodore
> wouldn't have a comparable computer, until the Amiga 2000 was released,
and
> even afterward, they continued to make unexpandable systems such as the
500,
> 600 and 1200. And as far as that goes, they can hardly claim credit for
much
> of this, it was a bought company. Throughout the history of all this, we
> mostly have companies that are trying to close the box, make it so that
you
> can't add anything to the system, for whatever reason. The Apple II seems
to
> have taken the exact opposite approach, perhaps something that is only
> possible when you have a person like Steve Wozniak designing it. Didn't
they
> even offer schematics at one point, so that the ambitious hobbyist could
> build his own?
>
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> PS I think he might be referring to the Vic-20, which also had color
earlier
> than 1983. Even so, this is hardly a comparable machine to the Apple, and
> still several years too late (1981 I think).
>
>