Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Wed Apr 24 22:24:52 2002

I keep coming back to the distinction between what the systems in question did
as shipped by the mfg, vs. what they COULD be persuaded to do with the
application of appropriate pressure.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard_at_p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)

> > So just what is it that classifies the C64 as a "toy" computer ? When
> > it was released, it was far more capable than the existant Apples,
> > Ataris & Radio Shacks (& a damn sight cheaper too).
> Hmmm... Define 'far more capable'... While not wishing to flame the C64,
> and while I certainly don't belive it was a 'toy computer', the Radio
> Shack CoCo could run a multi-tasking (and even multi-user) operating
> system with a good structured BASIC, a very nice Pascal compiler and a
> not-too-bad C compiler. I've never seen a C64 do that (but I might well
> be missing something -- I'll admit I was not really a Commodore person
> back then).
> >
> > Indeed, out of all the machines then in production, which one still in
> > use now is still capable of (more or less) doing what modern machines
> > can ?
> Hmmm.... PERQ 2?
> -tony
Received on Wed Apr 24 2002 - 22:24:52 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:34:33 BST