1 Feb
2007
1 Feb
'07
12:19 p.m.
On 2/1/07, Jim Isbell, W5JAI <jim.isbell at gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Hmm... my recollection of the times was that the TRS-80 was pitched
more as a home/business computer, not scientific.
Certainly until the CP/M card for the Apple II came out, it was
primarily an entertainment computer, but at a place I worked at in
1984, the boss used his Apple more in CP/M than AppleDOS - for
spreadsheets, especially.
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.
While the 4K/8K original PET with the 40 col screen and chicklet keys
had a ways to go until it could be taken seriously outside of the
home/entertainment market, it had one thing that no other mass market
computer had at the time - an IEEE-488 (GPIB) bus. I have seen plenty
of PETs used in laboratory settings to talk to DVMs, pH meters,
oscilloscopes, etc., all with the built-in IEEE port. It might not
have been a great machine for number crunching, but for a wee while,
it was a great machine for data collection. The all-in-one
construction was also a benefit in the classroom as well as the
laboratory - sturdy, easy to move, trivial to install ("plug into
wall, flip switch"). Without dragging this into a 40col vs 64 col vs
80col or 1MHz 6502 vs 4MHz Z80 debate, the PET had its place in
history.
-ethan