Re: Computing Editorial (please read)

["Ross Simpson" <rosssimpson@my_spammers_address(optusnet).com.au>]

"Charles Richmond" <richmond@ev1.net> wrote in message...

> To be there from the early days, you need to have been there from
> around 1975 or 1976. By 1982, the days of 8-bit computing as a mainstream
> activity were numbered. And IIRC, Atari did *not* declare bankruptcy,
> but sold their assets to some other company...

I beg to differ. I got my first Amstrad in 1984 & while I've given that one
away, I got myself a slightly more upgraded version of the same machine.
Still have it today (even though relatively nothing is made for it), but it
still has it's interest groups.

However it seemed to last as long as some of the other 8bits, like the C64s,
it was still going very nicely 5 years after the machine was introduced
(which I might add sprung a newer generation of 8bits around 1990 to compete
with the Atari STs & Amigas).

> IMHO much of the interest in the older 8-bit computers is by collectors
> who are trying to get a feel for the past. The other sizeable group
> are those crusty old users who hang doggedly on to their beloved 8-bit
> systems. I admit to being a little of both of these...

Why not?

> It's true that the C-128 was a hopped-up C-64. But another aspect of
> the C-128 that *never* took of in the public eye...was that the C-128
> could run CP/M. By the time that the C-128 was introduced, Mess-DOS
> was already making enroads into the CP/M marketplace. If people wanted
> to run CP/M, they would run it on an IBM PC by that time.

As I said earlier the C128 would have been competing with the Amstrad
CPC6128 which also came out around 1985, along with the first Amigas & Atari
16Bitters. However the Amstrad had the advantage of been a good seller in
Europe (even though I live in Aust. which explains why the newer Amstrad
Pluses were marketed there around 1990). The Amstrad was perhaps also
marketed as a small business machine which may explain why 128k went down
well. CP/M Plus & CP/M 2.2 were also supplied as standard with that machine.

> Bill Gates did *not* make his money by "his love and adequate knowledge
> of computing". Bill Gates made his money by stealing other people's
> ideas and marketing them. If Gates is anything, he is a marketing
> person. *I* can blame Mr. Gates for being a billionaire, because he
> made that money over the bodies of the others that he drove out of
> the computer software business with his unfair business practices.
> IMHO the computer world would be much better off *without* the
> contributions of one Bill Gates.

True. Mr. Gates had very little to do with Amstrad (expect for the
occasional CP/M software program), the machine did well without him & lasted
well, C64s would have had the same advantage. The reason for those machines
shutting up shop would have been done courtesy of Nintendoe & Seeya (that's
Sega for those who don't know! (-;)

Regards,
Ross.