13 Nov
2001
13 Nov
'01
6:01 a.m.
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