On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Eric J. Korpela wrote:
> On the other hand, I love Apple ][s. I spent much of my younger days
> with them. I have a fairly reasonable collection of ][ series and
> clones. I spend more time with my ][s than with any other of my
> systems. I love 'em. Yet, I'm not joining Sellam in insisting that
> the Disk ][ system was the best thing on the market.
I wasn't trying to insist that they were the best thing on the market,
only that Dick's assessment of them is completely wrong and not based on
any facts, and I wasn't going to allow his ramblings to taint the
knowledge base surrounding them.
> Then again, I don't join my fellow Apple ][ collectors in claiming
> that the 6502 was the best processor on the market either. Like all
> religions, the true believers will always shout down the heretics.
You seem to be the only one turning this into a religious debate, for
what reason I don't know other than to cause more inflammation. I don't
recall anyone making this claim, at least in this latest argument.
I'll send you a tube of Preparation H.
> What the Apple ][ was (including the Disk ][ system) is an example of
> what a great hacker can do with limited resources. It wasn't the
> fastest machine. It didn't have the best graphics. It didn't have the
> best disk subsystem. It had a positively crappy DOS. But it was an
> incredible hack. Maybe the best I've ever seen.
A crappy DOS? I'll assume you're referring to DOS 3.2/3.3 since you
aren't specific in your ire. For a microcomputer circa 1977, it had a
pretty damn decent DOS. Among other many useful things, it could save and
load your programs reliably and fairly quickly (even quicker with the
numerous DOS hacks).
The Apple ][ is a good computer, as evidenced by the fact that it sold
millions up into the 1990s. It was only bested by the Commodore 64 in
sales. The C64 is also a good machine, having many fine features, and
certainly having more built-in sound and graphics capabilities than a
stock Apple ][. But I think the only reason it sold more millions of
units was because it was priced much lower.
Was the Apple ][ the "best" computer? That was then and is now a
subjective measure, and to get into such a debate would be pointless and
stupid.
So, we leave it at that.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
Received on Tue Nov 13 2001 - 14:01:39 GMT