A.R. Duell wrote:
> I can understand why the Apple ][ has a significant following - it was a
> machine that was 'open', that hackers could get inside, etc. But I also
> know that it's not a good piece of hardware design, and thus don't put it
> high up my list of interesting machines.
I'm a newbie to the world of Apple, spending my early years with
Timex-Sinclair's and TRS-80's. I would have to say that your statement
above though depends on what you call a 'good piece of hardware
design'. For me, it ranks up there with the ZX-81 as an ingenius
hardware design due to it's simplicity. I mean heck, as far as boards
go, the Apple II mainboard is almost beautiful in it's layout due to
this. I often find it interesting to think about the total 180 degree
turn Apple did between the ][ series and the Mac's as far as
expandability and such. They went from a totally open system to a
totally closed system. They should've stuck with the open.
As for the difference in a system using hardware to drive things or
software, just look at the difference in some floppy drives used in
various other things. The drives used for like the Atari 8bits were
extremely flexible, as were those with the Amiga, while drives used on
any PC, regardless of age unless it has a special controller, are very
limited to just what the hardware will let them use. Of course, I don't
have anywhere near the knowledge in this area that people like Allison
do!
Jeff jeffh_at_unix.aardvarkol.com
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amiga enthusiast and collector of early, classic microcomputers
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
(corrected URL)
Received on Sun Jun 22 1997 - 19:27:35 BST