Jump to content
IGNORED

Looking to enrich my life


Recommended Posts

The early Apple ][es, with the White Keys have a different Key Mechanism than the later Black Key boards.. The one Platinum I have feels like the Black Key Apple ][es. I have always found the Apple ][s keyboards have a Good Feel.. I am "partial" to the White Key Apple ][e, but that was my first Apple Computer, and the Keyboard on the Sinclair ZX-81 leaves a Lot to be Desired..

 

I went to Kemner's Surplus yesterday (think it was mentioned in another thread) and got to try out basically every Apple II keyboard, as well as the TI-99/4A and various other computers I hadn't typed on before. That place is amazing in that they have close to everything, the only problem is most of it's in really poor shape. But I did find it really interesting to get a feel for the different Apple keyboards. The IIe Platinum does have a somewhat more modern feel; it's a little lighter of a keypress, with a shorter but still linear throw. I found it pretty pleasant. The earlier IIe's felt similar but just had a little longer and heavier keypress. I think these were all white key IIe's that I tried, at least I don't remember any black ones.

 

The ][+ and regular ][ have an even heavier, mushier feel to them, more similar to other lower-end models of the era. I still think the IIe was among the best of the time, although I could see different people preferring either the earlier or later IIe's. I think I might prefer the IIe Platinum.

 

As for what's most similar to the TI-99/4A that the OP has and loves, I think the early IIe's probably felt a little closer to it. The black & silver 99/4A that they had there had that heavy keypress that was common at the time. I thought it felt like a cross between a Commodore 64 and Atari XL.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Have been eyeing a Mac SE recently.

 

Had one as a kid... First 'real' computer as dad called it. The TI wasnt much more than a gaming console to him.

 

He did all his writing on it, sermons, etc.

 

We had it for several years before he moved us up to a Performa. That was the most insane upgrade in the history of upgrades, let me tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

The iMac has been an awesome addition... One of the nicest features of this classic computer (19 years old is "classic" isn't it?) is the USB port. I found that a properly formatted thumb drive can be used to transfer files from my boring PC to the Mac. This has allowed me to run a metric sh** ton of classic Mac games downloaded from macintoshgarden.org.

 

I tried to get online with the Mac and DL them natively, but apparently Netscape Navigator is no longer a valid browser. :D

 

Anyway, I will be downloading Classilla on my PC and transferring it so I can have a semi-reasonable browser for "surfing the world wide web" on Mac OS9. :)

 

I LOVE OS9!!!

Edited by Opry99er
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do not have one already, you should really give the Vic-20 a go. I personally grew up with this model (and then a C64, Amiga, etc) and it always amazed me what the programmers of the time were able to do with such limited memory. This is a really great computer and it is not out of reach at all. I picked up two of them not too long ago (one for myself and one for my brother) for the cost of $20 plus shipping. And, they both worked fine. In most cases you have to adjust the pots for video as these were factory adjusted for RF and we all use composite nowadays, but that is simple. There's a huge software library, lots of homebrew stuff, multiple types of multicarts and works with SD2IEC devices. Hands down one of my favorite (if not my favorite) classic computer. And you can do the Shatner all day (as LGR says):

 

Edited by eightbit
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry - I have no love nor admiration for the Vic-20. It was on my possible list to buy - back in the day - but it simply did not stay there long - as the font and 22? characters did not look good or readable to me - and I was simply unimpressed by it's graphics.

To me - the ZX-80 and ZX-81, plus the Vic-20 were shortlived computers - and you had to wait until their betters appeared - whether it be the Spectrum, C-64, etc.

 

But wait - there were the Atari 400/800 computers available at this time - and that is what caught my attention. Though pricey - they had the longevity you wanted from them. Sure the C-64 had the better sprite capability.

 

I simply would not have been happy going Vic-20 although the keyboard was probably the best feature of it - though I never got to try touch typing for long on it - but it's text display would have put me off it anyway. Although the Atari 400 had that poor membrane keyboard - there were to be alternatives for this later.

I did get to assist games development by designing graphics for them (the Ataris) - this would never have happened on the Vic-20 - it'll be very unlikely that I would have found a Vic-20 (or even a C-64) programmer to work with.

 

Harvey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am tempted by the vic (at the right price) mostly as a tinker around with machine, I have seen some impressive demo's with it but otherwise I tend to agree with ki about it, its a hard computer to love, especially with a quick glance on ebay where a loaded up vic bundle is about the same price as a barebones bundle of a 64, which the 64 of course has a lot going for it

 

If I had my choice of a 8 bit commie machine to drop in my lap I would pick a 128 or more preferable a 128D, which is compatible enough with the 64 for my needs, and I would like a better CP/m z80 machine

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry - I have no love nor admiration for the Vic-20. It was on my possible list to buy - back in the day - but it simply did not stay there long - as the font and 22? characters did not look good or readable to me - and I was simply unimpressed by it's graphics.

To me - the ZX-80 and ZX-81, plus the Vic-20 were shortlived computers - and you had to wait until their betters appeared - whether it be the Spectrum, C-64, etc.

 

But wait - there were the Atari 400/800 computers available at this time - and that is what caught my attention. Though pricey - they had the longevity you wanted from them. Sure the C-64 had the better sprite capability.

 

I simply would not have been happy going Vic-20 although the keyboard was probably the best feature of it - though I never got to try touch typing for long on it - but it's text display would have put me off it anyway. Although the Atari 400 had that poor membrane keyboard - there were to be alternatives for this later.

I did get to assist games development by designing graphics for them (the Ataris) - this would never have happened on the Vic-20 - it'll be very unlikely that I would have found a Vic-20 (or even a C-64) programmer to work with.

 

Harvey

 

I love the Vic font style and size :) It is what makes it so unique. The graphics are actually very good from a 1980 standpoint. I am not sure how old (or young) you are, but I can tell you at five years old in 1980 when I saw the Vic it was just miles ahead of what we had at the time (or at least what I can play with at 5....I never even saw an Atari 8-bit computer until MANY years later). The sound was great, the graphics colorful, and a lot of great games that even today hold up very very well. Sure, the graphics may be (or will be) dated in most of these games if not all of them, but there are so many that just play great. I don't think most people here are into the Atari 2600 because of its graphics capability either, but it was just fun to play and that is the sticking point. The Vic's graphics weren't terrible but also nothing to write hope about. BUT, the games are damn fun.

 

The Vic was the first computer to sell 1,000,000 units. That created a real brand for Commodore and paved the way for the C64 and others after it. It certainly deserves recognition and deserves another look with eyes from someone living in that time frame. I was really exciting to get one of these new when I was a kid, and still get exciting using it today ;)

Edited by eightbit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in my mid-20s around that time - and I was really waiting, waiting waiting for the right time for me - tor a personal home computer I could afford to buy. I saw the first TRS-80 clones available here - which were the first reasonably priced computers to be available in this part of the world - New Zealand - and the Apple II was priced out of my price range.

The TRS-80 lacked the graphics I wanted present - to interest me at all.

I was doing an intro to Data Processing course - and had a little taste of COBOL and BASIC programming - to which I never got the hang of. I played the first coin-op videogames available locally - and knew this what made computers fascinating and fun! I had to have something capable of bringing such games to the home?

 

In the movie?/documentary - 8 bit Generation - The Commodore Wars - this gives a good background history to Commodore and Jack Tramiel, etc. Had I bought a Vic-20 I would not be happy to learn that it would be obsolete within a year or two because of the arrival of the C-64. I ended up purchasing a Atari 800 48K machine while I was in London - and living in the UK for almost a year - during which time - the C64 did appear and I got to see someone who bought one - though nothing much was available for it, at the time of it's launch - so you really had no idea of what it was capable of, at that time.

 

Years later on - back home - I did meet someone who did go Vic-20 with a collection of game carts - but seeing them running, confirmed to me - I was right with my buying choice - that simply the Atari equivalents were far better. The Atari hardware though - did not fare well in games that required the use of independently moving sprites - that go everywhere - the typical shooter game as such. A favourite game - Galaga - of course did not make it to the C-64 - because of licensing protection - but still I am surprised no one made a decent clone of this game. The Vic-20 could not do it - because it requires the use of sprites - though a decent clone was done for the BBC Micro - which also had no sprite hardware.

 

Anyway - as long as you enjoyed what you did purchase - that is all that really matters. You cannot expect a young kid to wait anywhere up to 2 or 3 years - because with all new tech stuff - it's really not the first generation you should buy quickly - but wait until it's 3rd generation or later - by which time it's really worth buying (and waiting) for. 1st generation 720p TV and 3D TVs were really not good buys at all?

 

Harvey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vic-20 was my first computer so it has a special place in my heart. My friends had ZX-81s and were in awe of this beast with a real keyboard, sound and colour. I was 15 when I got it and remember getting an evening job at the local supermarket stacking shelves to get money to buy games. And what games they were. Blitz, Cosmiads and Amok on cassette. Jelly Monsters, Mole Attack and The Count on cartridge. The local model toy shop allowing me to try games out in the store before buying them. Just a great time messing around with the basic and typing in listings. Magic times. Of course it was all over in 15 months with the Commodore 64 coming down the pipe. I switched to a TI-99 at that point. Would love to have a VIC again but I agree those Ebay prices are a bit loopy.

 

Oh and I enriched my life recently with this beauty.

 

 

post-46623-0-67068700-1493873158_thumb.jpg

Edited by Arnuphis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, or more precisely the BBC Micro Model A (rare) or B (common) would be the original Beeb. The one on the picture is a BBC Master 128K fitted with upgrades, and while it also shares the Beeb nick, it is like referring the ZX Spectrum +2 as the Speccy.

 

Regarding Galaga on the C64, there are a few worthwhile clones. Henrik Wening made a version with very simple character graphics, but nice game play called Galaga. He improved his own game and sold it as Galaxy. There is even a third installment, Fire-Galaxy but it is less of a Galaga clone than the two earlier games. There were some Galaxian games too, but those are easier to implement than Galaga.

 

Anyway, if you count from the introduction in mid-late 1980 (Japan) to the discontinuation in early-mid 1984, the VIC-20 got a solid 3 - 3.5 years on the market, all the time as an inexpensive entry level computer. Of course the Atari 400 has better capacities, it would be a shame otherwise given how much more expensive it was. As you remember from the commercials, Commodore didn't try to pit the VIC against the 400/800, but against the 2600. For anyone in the mid-20's, perhaps you had an income so you could save some money and get something mid-range once the price was right, instead of getting one of the cheaper models on the market and find out you should've spent more money on your purchase. For younger kids, many of the mid-range computers were out of reach unless you had a wealthy family so clearly two different customer groups there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To each their own. I can safely say that the Tandy CoCo series are utterly boring to me. I used to own a CoCo 1 CIB but I only brought it out twice to see that it was working. Terrible keyboard, lacklustre capacities for its price but then I briefly already know the Dragon 32 so I knew what to expect. It is one of few vintage computers I'm really glad I got it sold without losing any particular money on it.

 

The MC-10 seems more fun, though it was a much too late, overpriced and cut down CoCo. It looks like the toy it performs as.

Edited by carlsson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I was a working guy as such - it was a wise decision not to go for one of the earlier computers - and being a graphics guy - was into drawing, etc and 35mm still photography - I always had high expectations, etc. None of the early games caught my attention - until something like Star Raiders for the Atari 400/800 appeared - although I didn't have a real idea of what the game was like - from a review. I would describe it now as being of the classic Star Trek game but in real time, 3D and lots of action though the visuals are simple (but effective).

 

Gaplus appeared for the C-64, which was done to a high enough standard - but gameplay in a Galaga game is better.

 

I never got around to seeing an Apple II in action - to see what it was actually like? And only read about it in magazines. The only computer I got to try out - was an Atari 800, in which I could type in some short demos in BASIC from Compute! magazine at the local computer store. It's price was too expensive for me then - so I ended up waiting until such time it's price was affordable - which was via an overseas purchase. The markup on this computer via the distribution network to retail was far too high here.

 

You have only to say what were the killer games? for this or that computer - to know whether it'll wet your appetite and satisfy your gaming desires.

 

For the Atari 400/800 etc - it would be a long list - Star Raiders, Pac Man, Shamus, Krazy Shootout, Sea Dragon, Stratos, Frogger, Drelbs, Necromancer, Blue Max, Encounter, Donkey Kong - just from the earlier titles. Later being Boulderdash, Bristles, Dropzone, International Karate

For the C64 - Way of the Exploding Fist, Commando, Ghosts n Goblins, Sanxion, Delta, Io, Although these are later games - as I can't recall what early titles stood out?

Edited by kiwilove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To each their own. I can safely say that the Tandy CoCo series are utterly boring to me. I used to own a CoCo 1 CIB but I only brought it out twice to see that it was working. Terrible keyboard, lacklustre capacities for its price but then I briefly already know the Dragon 32 so I knew what to expect. It is one of few vintage computers I'm really glad I got it sold without losing any particular money on it.

 

The MC-10 seems more fun, though it was a much too late, overpriced and cut down CoCo. It looks like the toy it performs as.

I can totally see the CoCo seeming boring. No sound chip, two crappy color palettes in PMODE 3, and the artifact colors don't even work in Europe.

Plus, most of the games weren't on cart and weren't easy to obtain until recently unless you knew people in the community... which can be pretty closed.

I never had a lot of games for it when I was young, most of my time was spent programming, or I used it to write term papers.

 

Criticism of the MC-10 is well deserved, but vs the TS-1000 which was it's intended target, the MC-10 is the better machine..

I certainly wouldn't put the MC-10 at the top of any suggested list of machines to enrich someone's life unless they had an interest in games made using semi-graphics characters, or if they want to learn 680X assembly language.

I do find it odd you say the MC-10 performs like a toy while advocating for a machine that only prints 22 characters per line.

That makes the VIC terrible for things like word processing or business, so it's more of a games machine. Doesn't that make it a toy?

Do you say that because the VIC supports more colors and has a sound chip? Don't those just make it a better toy?

Frankly, isn't the biggest reason we collect these old machines to play with them? Doesn't that make them all toys?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm. I was about to say that the market for the TS-1000 should've been abandoned by 1983 when the MC-10 was launched, but then I realized that the 2K TS-1000 wasn't introduced in the US until July 1982, a full 16 months after the 1K ZX-81 was launched in the UK in March 1981. Over here, the lower end of the market in 1983 consisted of said VIC-20, the 16K ZX Spectrum, 16K Oric-1 and a bunch of lesser brand computers that didn't get any market shares (things like Commodore 16, Acorn Electron, Oric Atmos etc didn't exist until 1984). While I'm aware the Spectrum never really became a major player on the US market, perhaps it is what I would pit it against in 1983.

 

What I meant about "looks like the toy it performs as", it was in a positive tone, that you get what you expect. My experience of the far more expensive CoCo line, which was closer in price to a C64, is that you might expect more from its look than what you get.

 

The VIC-20 on the other hand was a low cost computer in a full sized package from the start. Yes, to many people it is a games machine or toy if we like to use that word. It might not look like one but given the price for the base machine (which I'll admit needs a few upgrades to get its full potential), you likely weren't expecting to run much business software on it. And yes, the VIC supports more colours, has a somewhat detuned three channel sound, supports user defined graphics, coarse moving of the screen, built in joystick port, built in support for disk drive and more for a rather modest price, though it at its extreme can only display 26x31 characters (PAL) on most standard monitors.

 

But yes, part of the above is counter-bashing other formats since several of you already bashed the VIC for expecting it to be something better than its price tag indicated. I'm strictly considering the pricing when it was current, not second hand value as of today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm. I was about to say that the market for the TS-1000 should've been abandoned by 1983 when the MC-10 was launched, but then I realized that the 2K TS-1000 wasn't introduced in the US until July 1982, a full 16 months after the 1K ZX-81 was launched in the UK in March 1981. Over here, the lower end of the market in 1983 consisted of said VIC-20, the 16K ZX Spectrum, 16K Oric-1 and a bunch of lesser brand computers that didn't get any market shares (things like Commodore 16, Acorn Electron, Oric Atmos etc didn't exist until 1984). While I'm aware the Spectrum never really became a major player on the US market, perhaps it is what I would pit it against in 1983.

 

What I meant about "looks like the toy it performs as", it was in a positive tone, that you get what you expect. My experience of the far more expensive CoCo line, which was closer in price to a C64, is that you might expect more from its look than what you get.

 

The VIC-20 on the other hand was a low cost computer in a full sized package from the start. Yes, to many people it is a games machine or toy if we like to use that word. It might not look like one but given the price for the base machine (which I'll admit needs a few upgrades to get its full potential), you likely weren't expecting to run much business software on it. And yes, the VIC supports more colours, has a somewhat detuned three channel sound, supports user defined graphics, coarse moving of the screen, built in joystick port, built in support for disk drive and more for a rather modest price, though it at its extreme can only display 26x31 characters (PAL) on most standard monitors.

 

But yes, part of the above is counter-bashing other formats since several of you already bashed the VIC for expecting it to be something better than its price tag indicated. I'm strictly considering the pricing when it was current, not second hand value as of today.

The TS-1000 sold a million machines in a year... but it pretty much killed Timex in the US computer market because it didn't live up to American expectations..

Too many returns and too limited. The TS-1500 replaced the TS-1000, so the core machine was definitely still on the market when the MC-10 was available.

The original Speccy also had it's share of quirks, so I'm not sure how much difference it would have made, and it hit the market too late to intro in the US in place of the TS-1000..

FCC approval alone would take months.

Not having a real keyboard definitely hurt CoCo sales, so the Speccy rubber keyboard would not have gone over well either.

 

If the VIC came with 40 characters per line like was originally planned, I would probably rate it as one of the machines to get and I might have chosen it over the CoCo.

The initial price might not have been the lowest on the market due to increase RAM requirements, but it would have been the most capable in the low cost category at the time,

and RAM prices dropped fast.

Then an expanded VIC could have largely replaced the PET in the market, and would have probably eliminated the market for the TED.

I don't think it would have lasted in the market more than an additional year though since Commodore couldn't keep up with production on the C64.

 

If the MC-10 had come out in 1977 or 1978, right after the 6803 and 6847 first became available, but with a real keyboard, and 8K of RAM (full 6847 graphics support) it probably would

have knocked the market for a loop. It would have been over $100 cheaper than the Model I, but it would have had color, sound, hi-res graphics, and twice the RAM.

In a 1977/8 market, and with those changes, it makes sense. In 1983.... not so much.

At the very least, an MC-10 with the CoCo chicklet keyboard is what the "Green Thumb" Ag terminal should have been instead of the costly CoCo based one they introduced.

The MC-10 hardware would have been the ideal basis for that. A smaller case, smaller motherboard, and reduced chip count would probably cut $150 from the price tag.

Then the "Green Thumb" project might have actually been a success.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original ZX Spectrum was launched in the UK in April 1982, while the Timex Sinclair 2068 didn't get released until November 1983. Wikipedia doesn't have a launch date for the TS1500, but suggests it used cases from the never released TS2048. At the same time the article on the TS2048 says it was never released due to the failure rate of TS1500 so a kind of circle reference there. Furthermore, the Portugese and Polish TC2048 was not released in those countries until 1984. The site Oldcomputers.net dates the TS1500 to July 1983 and writes that Timex Sinclair introduced the 2000 model in January 1983 but perhaps that was just an announcement.

 

So a partial, combined Sinclair time line would look something like this:

 

March 1981: ZX-81 released in the UK

April 1982: ZX Spectrum released in the UK

July 1982: Timex Sinclair 1000 released in the US (16 months after the ZX-81)

January 1983: Timex Sinclair 2000 planned (?) but never released

July 1983: Timex Sinclair 1500 released in the US (12 months after the TS-1000)

November 1983: Timex Sinclair 2068 released in the US (19 months after the ZX Spectrum)

Some time 1984: Timex Computer 2048 released in Portugal and Poland

October 1984: ZX Spectrum+ released in the UK

 

InfoWorld wrote about the TRS-80 MC-10 in June 1983 and it was reviewed by COMPUTE! in October 1983.

 

As an alternative to a 40 column VIC-20, which would need "custom" fast SRAM chips instead of the leftover 512 byte chips Commodore had a ton of, would've been to design it even earlier if the ~22 column version of the video chip was already mostly done. I don't know how viable that had been, say an US release in the fall of 1979 instead of January 1981. Obviously it had not been any better, but a $349 VIC-20 in October 1979 vs a $549 Atari 400 in November the same year could have been an interesting race. The Atari had better graphics and sound, slightly more memory but worse keyboard and would cost $200 more. Also imagine the immediate price wars Jack Tramiel could've run against both Atari and Texas Instruments, who launched the TI-99/4 with a Zenith monitor for the infamous $1150.

Edited by carlsson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that a 40 column screen VIC would have needed custom fast SRAM chips so much as it would just be a special order and Commodore would need to pay more. If you go with a 22 column screen you are still stuck with sales crashing once the C64 comes out. With 40 columns at least it might still have a business following to justify continued production in place of the PET. I think it's much more likely to make it into schools as well.

To be sure, if one or more lower cost color machines were introduced between 1977 and 1979, it ratchets up the competition when the market is first taking off, and the video game market has to feel pressure from computers sooner. The Atari and TI don't look like such a jump over earlier computers, and they almost have to rethink their price strategy from the start. Apple sales didn't really start to take off until the II+ was released, and it would look pretty expensive. If Commodore or Tandy get a better foothold in education, what becomes of Apple?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...