13 Sep
1998
13 Sep
'98
7:43 p.m.
I'm looking thru this June 1977 issue of Byte. Inside I find an ad from
Apple on page 14&15. The copy starts "Introducing Apple II", which makes
sense as the Apple II was introduced at the West Coast Computer Faire in
April 1977, so this ad was probably one of the first for the Apple II.
Now, one of the great things about the Apple II was its ability to display
color graphics, apparently a big deal at the time, as supposedly no other
machine in the home computer class had this capability (save for the S-100
machines with a Cromemco TV Dazzler, but that was an add-on, as opposed to
the Apple II's built-in capability).
Yet there is another ad on page 61 for the Compucolor 8001. The
Compucolor boasts pretty much the same features as the Apple II (64K RAM,
cassette storage, built-in BASIC) although it runs on an 8080. However,
the Compucolor came with an "integrated display", and featured 160x192,
8-color (vector) graphics (the Apple was capable of 280x192 bit-mapped
graphics). The Compucolor also had "mini-disk drives" (I assume 8")
available for it separately. The retail price advertised for the
Compucolor was $2,750, very comparable with a similarly equipped Apple
II.
Yet the Apple II is celebrated as having been the first home computer with
built-in color graphics, and almost no mention of the Compucolor is ever
made in any general computer history texts. The obvious difference
between the two is that the Apple II went on to enjoy tremendous success
for the next 15+ years while the Compucolor was relegated to an also-ran.
The victors do indeed write the history, or at least get the lion's share
of the mention.
I think its odd that a system such as the Compucolor, extremely comparable
to the capabilities of the Apple II (if not more so in some respects)
hardly gets mentioned in the computer history books I read.
Maybe someone who is cognizant of that era can shed some additional light
on this.
The lesson of this story is, you can have the best, most amazing product
in the world, but "build it and they will come" does not apply. You've
got to advertise. Apple was obviously more masterful at this.
Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever onward.
September 26 & 27...Vintage Computer Festival 2.0
See http://www.siconic.com/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 08/25/98]
14 Sep
14 Sep
2:03 a.m.
On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
Yet the Apple II is celebrated as having been the
first home computer with
built-in color graphics, and almost no mention of the Compucolor is ever
made in any general computer history texts. The obvious difference
between the two is that the Apple II went on to enjoy tremendous success
for the next 15+ years while the Compucolor was relegated to an also-ran.
The victors do indeed write the history, or at least get the lion's share
of the mention.
Color graphics was only part of the equation, and a pretty small part.
The Apple ][ was the first mass-produced high-quality high-availability
micro. If you looks at any successful product, you'll generally find that
it did *several* things right. So, start with the fact that on paper,
that Apple had specs that met or exceeded just about anything else
available. Then add the price, then the fact that it looked good (don't
underestimate that), then the fact that the fit-and-finish surpassed
anything else out there (ask Toyota how important that is), and perhaps
most importantly, add the Apple dealer network. Most of the people buying
Apples weren't hobbyists who read BYTE, they were yuppies who bumped into
an Apple store.
The only other machine that was comparable at the time was the TRS-80
available at Radio Shack (I remember it being a failrly rare event to see
a PET at a computer store, compared to those two). Color bitmapped
graphics certainly helped the Apple when compared to te TRS-80, but the
Apple was just so damn *pretty* compared to the rest.
Of course, this is where the HP connection comes in:
"Jobs thought the cigar boxes [housing the home-made computers]
that sat on the ... desk tops during Homebrew meetings were as
elegant as fly traps. The angular, blue and black sheet-metal
case that housed Processor Technology's Sol struck him as clumsy
and industrial ... A plastic case was generally considered a
needless expense compared to the cheaper and more pliable sheet
metal. Hobbyists, so the arguments went, didn't care as much for
appearance as they did for substance. Jobs wanted to model the
case for the Apple after those Hewlett-Packard used for its
calculators. He admired their sleek, fresh lines, their hardy
finish, and the way they looked at home on a table or desk."
-- Michael Moritz, THE LITTLE KINGDOM, p. 186.
-- Doug
5:41 a.m.
On 14 Sep 98, at 6:03, Doug Yowza wrote:
Most of the people buying Apples weren't
hobbyists who read BYTE, they were yuppies who bumped into an Apple store.
I didn't think we had yuppies in 1977. That is how I found the Apple
myself though. I was going to buy a TRS-80 and just happened to
run across a store selling Apples. It was the color graphics, slots
and the fact the higher capacity disks that sold me over the TRS-
80. At the time I hadn't heard of Compucolors. Though I did see
the Compucolor II later on and wanted one. Thus I guess you
could say it was marketing that helped make the Apple the hit it
was. I don't think the Compucolor 8001 was ever marketed
towards the home user.
The only other machine that was comparable at the time
was the TRS-80
available at Radio Shack (I remember it being a failrly rare event to see
a PET at a computer store, compared to those two). Color bitmapped
I always saw PETs in department stores. Don't recall ever seeing
one in a computer store.
-----
David Williams - Computer Packrat
dlw(a)trailingedge.com
http://www.trailingedge.com
9:43 a.m.
David Williams writes:
I always saw PETs in department stores. Don't
recall ever seeing
one in a computer store.
I bought my 32K PET in 1978 at the Micro Mini Computer Store in Columbus,
Ohio, the only place for 100 miles to buy PETs. I never saw them at
department stores. It was $1000 plus $100 for the external tape. When I
used it every day, I was never able to afford a disk drive (by the time
4040's got cheap, I had moved on to Amigas).
-ethan
7:34 a.m.
Doug Yowza wrote:
Color graphics was only part of the equation, and a
pretty small part.
The Apple ][ was the first mass-produced high-quality high-availability
micro. If you looks at any successful product, you'll generally find that
it did *several* things right. So, start with the fact that on paper,
that Apple had specs that met or exceeded just about anything else
available. Then add the price, then the fact that it looked good (don't
underestimate that), then the fact that the fit-and-finish surpassed
anything else out there (ask Toyota how important that is), and perhaps
most importantly, add the Apple dealer network. Most of the people buying
Apples weren't hobbyists who read BYTE, they were yuppies who bumped into
an Apple store.
The same stores where I first saw Apples were the same stores where I
first saw Pets and Compucolors and Cromemcos -- the Byte Shop in
Mountain View and the Computerland in Los Altos. While what I wanted
was a Cromemco 3, the credit rating of a guy fresh out of the USAF
was insufficient to get a loan for the $10k for the configuration I
wanted, so I went with a more incremental approach involving the
TRS-80. I do remember the Compucolor II as a nice system. (Never
have yet gotten into the Apple II, or for that matter anything else
with a 6502 -- never liked the specs on the processor).
The only other machine that was comparable at the time was the TRS-80
available at Radio Shack (I remember it being a failrly rare event to see
a PET at a computer store, compared to those two). Color bitmapped
graphics certainly helped the Apple when compared to te TRS-80, but the
Apple was just so damn *pretty* compared to the rest.
And the TRS-80 would have driven Apple into receivership by 1980 if it
hadn't been for VisiCalc -- that one product saved the whole company,
allowing it to survive long enough to produce the Lisa and the Mac,
causing the plague of GUIs that haunts us more every day. (Oh, the
GUIs would _exist_, but there wouldn't have been so much _pressure_).
--
Ward Griffiths <mailto:gram@cnct.com> <http://www.cnct.com/home/gram/>
When I was crossing the border into Canada, they asked me if I had any
firearms with me. I said "Well, what do you need?" -- Steven Wright
15 Sep
15 Sep
11:29 a.m.
Ward Griffiths wrote:
And the TRS-80 would have driven Apple into
receivership by 1980 if it
hadn't been for VisiCalc -- that one product saved the whole company,
allowing it to survive long enough to produce the Lisa and the Mac,
Having been involved with both TRS-80s and Apple ][s from 1976 to 1984,
I seriously doubt that the TRS-80 posed a serious threat to the Apple ][,
or vice versa. Aside from Visicalc, there were still many compelling
advantages of each type of system.
causing the plague of GUIs that haunts us more every
day. (Oh, the
GUIs would _exist_, but there wouldn't have been so much _pressure_).
GUIs have become dominant because they are what people want.
Before Windows became popular, many people sneered about icons, and WIMP
interfaces. Most of those same people are running GUIs now. And there's no
evidence that the GUIs were forced on them. The simple fact is that GUIs make
doing some kinds of tasks much easier.
Unfortunately many designers have seized upon that and tried to eliminate
the command-line interface entirely, not recognizing that there is another
class of tasks that are exceedingly difficult to do with GUIs.
Eric
6:21 p.m.
Eric Smith wrote:
Before Windows became popular, many people sneered about icons, and WIMP
interfaces. Most of those same people are running GUIs now. And there's no
evidence that the GUIs were forced on them.
That would depend on your definition of "forced". There will always be
people who go their own way, but for others needing to interact with how
things are done today, "forced" is exactly what has happened.
16 Sep
16 Sep
10:29 a.m.
New subject: GUIs 'forced' on people (was Re: Here's something to consider.)
I wrote:
Before Windows became popular, many people sneered
about icons, and WIMP
interfaces. Most of those same people are running GUIs now. And there's no
evidence that the GUIs were forced on them.
Marvin <marvin(a)rain.org> replies:
That would depend on your definition of
"forced". There will always be
people who go their own way, but for others needing to interact with how
things are done today, "forced" is exactly what has happened.
There is a small minority that dislikes GUIs. I've seen no evidence
that any substantial number of people were forced into GUIs; most people seem
to like them. Since deployment of Windows started as a fairly gradual thing,
and gained momentum at an exponential rate, it is obvious that the majority
of users must have preferred it.
With any new development, there will always be some group that
don't like it, but get forced along.
The original posting claimed that if Apple hadn't been successful, we
wouldn't be running GUIs. This is absurd; Microsoft was aware of the Xerox
work before Apple developed the Lisa, and had in fact hired some ex-Xerox
people. Windows might have been released later, but it still would have
happened. And if Microsoft hadn't done it, someone else would have.
1:35 p.m.
New subject: GUIs 'forced' on people (was Re: Here's something to consider.)
On 16 Sep 1998, Eric Smith wrote:
There is a small minority that dislikes GUIs.
I've seen no evidence
that any substantial number of people were forced into GUIs; most people seem
to like them. Since deployment of Windows started as a fairly gradual thing,
and gained momentum at an exponential rate, it is obvious that the majority
of users must have preferred it.
Or it could mean that good marketing led them in that direction. Just
because people take to one technology over another does not mean its
necessarily better. Take VHS vs. Beta for instance. Some technologies
are better for some things. GUI was not a cure all, but a major
improvement for the dopes...er non-computer types. For guys like me its
a nuisance. I always have at least two DOS windows open under 95 for when
I need to do REAL work.
The last thing I want decisions on future products to be based on is
popular opinion, as that is often unreliable and contrary to what I would
prefer. Look at the polls on Clinton for example.
With any new development, there will always be some
group that
don't like it, but get forced along.
We don't have to accept it either.
Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever onward.
September 26 & 27...Vintage Computer Festival 2.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 09/12/98]
1:40 p.m.
New subject: GUIs 'forced' on people (was Re: Here's something to consider.)
Sam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com> wrote:
Or it could mean that good marketing led them in that
direction. Just
because people take to one technology over another does not mean its
necessarily better. Take VHS vs. Beta for instance. Some technologies
are better for some things. GUI was not a cure all, but a major
I *NEVER* said that GUI was better. I said that GUIs became popular because
people liked them, not because (as someone else claimed) Apple forced it
down their throats.
Beta was technically better than VHS. But VHS won because the consumers
preferred it. Not the engineers, not the marketers, not the sales people.
The CONSUMERS.
And the reason that consumers preferred it was not that VHS had better
marketing. If anything, Sony had better marketing. Many people continued
to refer to VCRs in general as "Betamax" even into the mid-80s. It is
widely believed (but of course unproven) that VHS was preferred due to the
longer recording time per tape. JVC rarely even mentioned this feature
in advertising.
Eric
12:14 p.m.
New subject: GUIs 'forced' on people (was Re: Here's something to consider.)
It was thus said that the Great Eric Smith once stated:
Sam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com> wrote:
For non-repetative interactive work, GUIs tend to be better, but once you
need to do something that's repetative, then the scripting or batch ability
of CLIs become better.
Or it could mean that good marketing led them in
that direction. Just
because people take to one technology over another does not mean its
necessarily better. Take VHS vs. Beta for instance. Some technologies
are better for some things. GUI was not a cure all, but a major
I *NEVER* said that GUI was better. I said that GUIs became popular because
people liked them, not because (as someone else claimed) Apple forced it
down their throats. And the reason that consumers preferred it was not
that VHS had better
marketing. If anything, Sony had better marketing. Many people continued
to refer to VCRs in general as "Betamax" even into the mid-80s. It is
widely believed (but of course unproven) that VHS was preferred due to the
longer recording time per tape. JVC rarely even mentioned this feature
in advertising.
Nope. Porn. Sony would not allow the adult film industry the liceses
required to produce Betamax tapes. The adult film industry could, however,
get VHS licenses that that probably drove customer demand for VHS over
Betamax. At least that's the story I heard.
-spc (Two things drive technology: Sex and war 8-)
2:19 p.m.
New subject: GUIs 'forced' on people (was Re: Here's something to consider.)
On 16 Sep 1998, Eric Smith wrote:
Beta was technically better than VHS. But VHS won
because the consumers
preferred it. Not the engineers, not the marketers, not the sales people.
The CONSUMERS.
I don't think the consumers cared either way. They chose the technology
that had better marketing. End of story. This plays out time and again
in the computer industry.
And the reason that consumers preferred it was not
that VHS had better
marketing.
Oh, I disagree.
If anything, Sony had better marketing. Many people
continued to refer
to VCRs in general as "Betamax" even into the mid-80s. It is widely
believed (but of course unproven) that VHS was preferred due to the
longer recording time per tape. JVC rarely even mentioned this feature
in advertising.
M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G
Mac vs. Windows - who won? Microsoft. Why? Marketing.
PowerPC vs. Pentium - who won? Intel. Why? Marketing.
Those are simply two of the most obvious examples.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling. But I hope you see my point. The
majority of people buy stuff because a disembodied voice on TV or a
caption in a magazine compels them to. The majority of the people buying
into your propaganda (marketing) is what it takes to make a successful
product. I could sell dogshit if I marketed it right.
Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever onward.
September 26 & 27...Vintage Computer Festival 2.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 09/12/98]
3:26 p.m.
New subject: GUIs 'forced' on people (was Re: Here's something to consider.)
Sam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com> wrote:
Oh, I disagree.
...
M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G
...
Mac vs. Windows - who won? Microsoft. Why?
Marketing.
PowerPC vs. Pentium - who won? Intel. Why? Marketing.
Those are simply two of the most obvious examples.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling. But I hope you see my point. The
No, I don't see your point. You wave around the word "Marketing" as if
it was magic. (Which perhaps you are asserting that it is.)
However, you don't give any *evidence* to support your claims.
Although there can be no "proof" either way, I at least cited a possible
(and widely believed) non-marketing reason for the success of VHS over Beta.
You neither refuted my example, nor did you provide support for your claim
that marketing is the primary cause in your two examples.
I could just as easily claim that Mac vs. Windows and PowerPC vs. Pentium
were decided by consumers solely on the basis of cost. I could probably
come up with half a dozen other expanations that have nothing to do with
marketing. I don't need to invoke any mystical, unsupported "marketing"
claim.
I won't deny that marketing influences consumer perceptions and decisions;
that would be absurd. However, I think you grossly overestimate the
degree to which marketing is able to override other considerations that
consumers may have.
For instance, before 1990, Apple had much better marketing than Microsoft,
yet Microsoft was outselling Apple by a considerable margin even then.
Eric
This isn't an argument; it's just contradiction.
No it isn't.
-- Monty Python's argument clinic sketch
8:58 p.m.
New subject: GUIs 'forced' on people (was Re: Here's something to consider.)
On 17 Sep 1998, Eric Smith wrote:
I won't deny that marketing influences consumer
perceptions and decisions;
that would be absurd. However, I think you grossly overestimate the
degree to which marketing is able to override other considerations that
consumers may have.
I think you grossly over-estimate the intelligence of the average American
consumer.
For instance, before 1990, Apple had much better
marketing than Microsoft,
yet Microsoft was outselling Apple by a considerable margin even then.
You mean in DOS sales? Then you're assigning the PCs (and therefore,
IBM's) marketing success to Microsoft?
Sure I'm waving around marketing as the be all and end all of why people
choose one thing over the other. Because basically that's most of what's
to it. Like I said, marketed properly, I could sell dogshit to people and
they wouldn't be able to get enough of it.
It has a lot to do with why 10,000 owner's of castrated dogs have bought
false testicles for them called "Neuticles". I'm not making this up. Do
you think people start clamoring for fake pet testicles and some company
came in to fill the niche?
Anyway, I cede your point. There is more to it than just "marketing".
But marketing is a huge factor. Do you think people would be clamoring
for the iMac if Apple wasn't advertising it as well as they are?
Otherwise it'd be just another damned Mac.
Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever onward.
September 26 & 27...Vintage Computer Festival 2.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 09/12/98]
17 Sep
17 Sep
8:59 a.m.
New subject: GUIs 'forced' on people (was Re: Here's something to consider.)
On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 22:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Sam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com> wrote:
Anyway, I cede your point. There is more to it than
just "marketing".
But marketing is a huge factor. Do you think people would be clamoring
for the iMac if Apple wasn't advertising it as well as they are?
Otherwise it'd be just another damned Mac.
You brought up the perfect example of how it *isn't* just marketing.
The imac did well because of:
* Good marketing of the product and...
* Realizing that non-geek ppl want an attractive computer that is as
simple to use as any other electric appliance in the house (it should
packaged similar to other attractive household appliances).
* People wanted a cheaper mac
* People wanted a non intel/MS based machine (some people feel very
politcally motivated to boycot MS).
* People wanted a fast but yet still cheap machine that was easier to
use then a wintel box. (Simpler OS and very simple hookups, it only has
USB and ethernet)
* Some people prefer a simple all-in-one design (not me, but some ppl).
* They have attractive educational discounts and bundles. (The
university I go too cannot stock enough of these things, to meet student
demand).
* This computer is far easier to network up in large groups. (Another
plus for schools).
* The mac platform is argueably a better platform for certain apps.
--
============================================================---------
Dominique Cormann Email:kozmik@wave.home.com
Posted with Becky 1.24 --> http://www.rimarts.co.jp/becky.htm
10:04 a.m.
New subject: GUIs 'forced' on people (was Re: Here's something to consider.)
I wrote:
However, I think you grossly overestimate the
degree to which marketing is able to override other considerations that
consumers may have.
Sam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com> wrote:
I think you grossly over-estimate the intelligence of
the average American
consumer.
No, I most certainly don't do that.
I think you still miss my point. I am not claiming that consumers pick
the "better" product (for any sensible definition of better). I am claiming
that consumers will seize upon some perceived benefit of a product, and make
that product successful. Sometimes this happens because of marketing,
but other times it happens despite the best efforts of marketing to derail
it.
This appears to be precisely what happened in the Beta vs. VHS format war.
Neither side did all that much marketing, but Sony's marketing tended to
be much better my any sensible metric.* Neither party emphasized the
recording time per tape, or the availability of porn, the two factors
that most people agree led to the success of VHS.
Cheers,
Eric
* Some people use the success of the product as the metric for how good
the marketing was. This is an utterly useless way of looking at it, because
it assumes from the outset that marketing is the only factor affecting
purchases.
16 Sep
16 Sep
9:14 p.m.
New subject: GUIs 'forced' on people (was Re: Here's something to consider.)
On 17 Sep 1998 00:26:03 -0000
Eric Smith <eric(a)brouhaha.com> wrote:
Although there can be no "proof" either way,
I at least cited a possible
(and widely believed) non-marketing reason for the success of VHS over Beta.
You neither refuted my example, nor did you provide support for your claim
that marketing is the primary cause in your two examples.
I could just as easily claim that Mac vs. Windows and PowerPC vs. Pentium
were decided by consumers solely on the basis of cost. I could probably
come up with half a dozen other expanations that have nothing to do with
marketing. I don't need to invoke any mystical, unsupported "marketing"
claim.
I agree with you. I think people are greatly oversimplifying things when
they generalize everything that happens in a marketplace that is
dominated by someone, as a win that was due to better marketing.
Marketing is a factor, but isn't the only one.
--
============================================================---------
Dominique Cormann Email:kozmik@wave.home.com
Posted with Becky 1.24 --> http://www.rimarts.co.jp/becky.htm
4:10 p.m.
New subject: GUIs 'forced' on people (was Re: Here's something to consider.)
Eric Smith wrote:
The original posting claimed that if Apple hadn't
been successful, we
wouldn't be running GUIs. This is absurd; Microsoft was aware of the Xerox
work before Apple developed the Lisa, and had in fact hired some ex-Xerox
people. Windows might have been released later, but it still would have
happened. And if Microsoft hadn't done it, someone else would have.
I did not say there wouldn't be GUIs. But without the competition
between the Mac OS and Microsoft, I seriously doubt there would have
been anything close to the marketing pressure brought to bear. Hell,
I'm using a GUI even as I type, XFree86, so I can have several xterms
visible simultaneously while I'm using Netscrape. I'd estimate that
GUIs would have maybe 30% of the market penetration they have now
without that competition. And yes, there's a plus -- the demands of
Windows has spurred vastly the development of video and multimedia
hardware, as well as pushing for faster CPUs. So I can recompile my
Linux kernel in a small fraction of the time it would have taken
otherwise. The black cloud of Windows has produced a silver lining.
--
Ward Griffiths <mailto:gram@cnct.com> <http://www.cnct.com/home/gram/>
When I was crossing the border into Canada, they asked me if I had any
firearms with me. I said "Well, what do you need?" -- Steven Wright
4:21 p.m.
New subject: GUIs 'forced' on people (was Re: Here's something to consider.)
Ward Donald Griffiths III <gram(a)cnct.com> wrote:
I did not say there wouldn't be GUIs. But without
the competition
between the Mac OS and Microsoft, I seriously doubt there would have
been anything close to the marketing pressure brought to bear.
I still disagree.
If Apple hadn't introduced the Lisa, the war might have been between
Microsoft, Digital Research, Amiga, GEOS, or any number of other contenders.
If any one company started having even a modest amount of success with a
GUI, everyone else would have followed suit.
Eventually there would have been one hugely successful GUI, and perhaps one
moderately successful one. Few people would care about the also-rans.
5:10 p.m.
New subject: GUIs 'forced' on people (was Re: Here's something to consider.)
On 17 Sep 1998, Eric Smith wrote:
If Apple hadn't introduced the Lisa, the war might
have been between
Microsoft, Digital Research, Amiga, GEOS, or any number of other contenders.
There was never any O/S or GUI war. After the PC and MS-DOS, Apple never
owned any serious hearts and minds except for a few niches like desktop
publishing and graphics design. DR's GEM was never a serious contender,
and the Amiga never had more than a video effects niche. Microsoft was
handed the PC monopoly and they held onto it.
Microsoft intro'd three generations of GUIs before anybody cared, and
nobody has mentioned the real reason for the success of Windows 3.x:
Solitaire. Just as sex videos made VHS a standard, Solitaire is the one
thing that kept users from simply deleting Windows 3.0 after the standard
"OK, what are they up to now?" evaluation. OK, virtual memory, multiple
MS-DOS boxes, and 3-D icons helped too, but I remember the real reason I
left Windows on my hard disk: Solitaire.
-- Doug
15 Sep
15 Sep
11:16 a.m.
Yet there is another ad on page 61 for the Compucolor
8001. The
Compucolor boasts pretty much the same features as the Apple II (64K RAM,
cassette storage, built-in BASIC) although it runs on an 8080. However,
the Compucolor came with an "integrated display", and featured 160x192,
8-color (vector) graphics (the Apple was capable of 280x192 bit-mapped
graphics).
The ISC 8001 used bit-mapped graphics. Carl Friend has one in his collection:
http://www.ultranet.com/~engelbrt/carl/museum/machines/ISC8001.html
9435
days inactive
9439
days old
21 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
dastar＠ncal.verio.com -
dlw＠trailingedge.com -
donm＠cts.com -
erd＠infinet.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
gram＠cnct.com -
kozmik＠wave.home.com -
marvin＠rain.org -
spc＠armigeron.com -
yowza＠yowza.com