26 Jun
2007
26 Jun
'07
3:05 p.m.
On 26/06/07, Ethan Dicks <ethan.dicks at gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/07, Patrick Finnegan <pat at
computer-refuge.org> wrote:
Yup.
Which, I think, adds on to the definition of a "PC" that it's a micro
that either incorporates or can use an inexpensive generic or 3rd
party device to generate a full-screen display.
--
Liam Proven ? Blog, homepage &c: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat: liamproven at aol.com ? MSN/Messenger: lproven at hotmail.com
Yahoo: liamproven at yahoo.co.uk ? Skype: liamproven ? ICQ: 73187508
I'd say that if it can't play games
(graphical or at least a multi-line
text display), then it's not what I'd call a *home* computer.
You could do that on an Apple 2, TRS-80, C64/VIC20/PET, IBM PC, etc.
But not an AIM-65, a KIM-1 or a SYM-1, supporting, in my mind, your assertion.
All of those items have their place in 1970s computing, but I can't
see calling them "home computers". Being able to see multiple lines
of text, I think, is an essential element. A TTY would enable you to
preserve ephemeral output, but at the time, they were well over $1500
new, and more of a minicomputer or S-100-box peripheral, IMO (yes, I
know you _could_ hang an ASR-33 off of a KIM-1, but in practice, how
common was it?)