TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)

The apple was a flop, yes. The Commodore also was a flop. Just look at the numbers. The apple was a flop because it was marketed as entertainment and drawing pictures (which it excelled at) while the TRS-80 was a scientific machine that crunched numbers. Yes, today the tables are reversed, but back then, those of us who were into computers (I had been in computers since 1960 on the IBM 7070) were looking for computing power for serious work. The Apple was just not that. The Commodore didnt make it because it was under powered and again was marketed toward using it for games not serious work. I still have several of all three and at the time I would use my TRS-80 whenever I was programming. The others were FUN machines made for children while the TRS-80 was capable of programming in BASIC, FORTRAN, NLOS, FORTH and Assembly to name only the languages that I had enabled on my machine. AND the DOS in the TRS-80 was miles ahead of the others and was accessible. When IBM came out with their machine I wished they had licensed TRS-DOS and then developed that instead of starting with their own. Yes IBMs DOS went on to outstrip TRS-DOS, but just think how much faster the development would have been if they had started with the solid base that TRS-DOS had set down. Today I use Linux...an offshoot of the Apple....which is far superior to Windows and their "pretend" DOS. But it wasn't back then. We have to look at the market and environment of the late 70s when we start comparing systems. Today the market is different and the systems are different. We cant compare apples to oranges. On 2/1/07, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote: -- Jim Isbell "If you are not living on the edge, well then, you are just taking up too much space."