USING classic machines

From: Allison J Parent <allisonp_at_world.std.com>
Date: Sat Jun 28 09:42:55 1997

> A microVAX or any of the VAXEN is NOT a home computer. I know that PC's
> were not the first ones to do it and never claimed it, and what I am talki

Define home computer? In the early days of PCs(xt class) pro350s, PDP11
with color graphics and hard disk. These were single user multitasking
systems in the same price range asna loaded xt.

> about is the person who still uses his apple ][, and has never touched
> anything else, saying everything else is junk. sure a Mini workstation ca
> do it, no question about it, but I *KNOW* that a kaypro, apple ][+ C=64,
> coleco ADAM, 8 bit Ataris and other HOME computers of that era CAN'T handl

Thein lies my point. These were the low end of the spectrum, low cost and
performance at the low end of the spectrum for what the cpu used could do.
Though the apple was one of the better ones.

Really, an ADAM and interestig machine uses a z80 it was slow compared to
many due to how it was implemented. Same for many others. C64s/128 are
fast machines... throttled to slow by a slow serial link to the disk. Every
one of those machines were interesting but crippled perfomance wise.
Granted often it was done for cost reasons. Even the kaypro, while fairly
fast has the slowest screen on the planet. I say that lovingly as I have one
but while it can transfer files at 9600 if it writes to screen 2400 may be
too fast.

This is not an inditement of their collectability or other interesting ideas
they brought forward. It is a cold assessment of their performance when
measured against their respective CPU standards (1980 z80-4mhz, 6502-2mhz,
6800-2mhz, 6809-2mhz, ti9900-3.3mhz, 8086/8-5mhz...) and what they could do
when run at that performance level. So when you say the ti99/4a was to slow
to do real IP or multiuser(acceptably) it was the TI99/4a not the 9900 cpu
or other 9900 designs which could.


Allison
Received on Sat Jun 28 1997 - 09:42:55 BST