3 ms·

> B&W 9" 512x384 vs Color Commodore 1080S 13" @ 640x256 or 640x512 interlaced and doubled as a great TV. Let's say you didn't want to use interlaced mode Havin

> B&W 9" 512x384 vs Color Commodore 1080S 13" @ 640x256 or 640x512 interlaced and doubled as a great TV. Let's say you didn't want to use interlaced mode Having used both machines, as well as an interlaced 1024x768 SVGA, I assure you, I do not want to use interlaced mode. > It was years before MacOS even added cooperative multitasking (System7). Historical note: multitasking was introduced by MultiFinder in System 5. The ability to load and switch between multiple apps at the same time was available with an add on (Switcher) in early 1985. Where the Amiga was particularly strong was the fact it had preemptive multitasking and (IIRC) much more dynamic memory management than Apple's fixed memory blocks allocated at application start time. Even Windows didn't catch up with some of that until Windows 95 (which was somewhat hobbled by the 16-bit mutex.) > The Mac IIcx for example, was introduced in 1991 for $10,000 in 2018 inflation adjusted dollars ($5000 in 1991). You really think the IIcx was 3-4 times better than a PC in 1991 or an Amiga 3000/4000? The IIcx was really an early 1989 machine, which made it a contemporary of machines like this $7,500 Compaq Deskpro 386/20. (IBM PS/2's were similarly priced.) https://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/10/business/the-executive-computer-a-top-machine-carries-a-top-price.html https://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/10/business/the-executive-co... > you're talking about a market size of a few hundred thousand machines. That's a rather influential few hundred thousand. > Most business was stilling being conducted on timeshare machines at this time. (A lot still is, to the extent cloud instances are time shared. :-)) > a Laserwriter Well the Laserwriter really opened up an entirely new product category. It was expensive, but, for a time, it was the only game in town at anything close to consumer level pricing. As much as you've correctly pointed out that education was one of Apple's strong points, the LaserWriter made DTP another strength. As you point out, this is analogous to specific hardware making the Amiga particularly strong in Video production. (The Amiga chipset itself, as well as the Video Toaster.) > with a setup costing 3 times as much, you could print some flyers. Flyers may sound trivial now, but back then it was a big deal and a huge source of demand, and even now, the need for document preparation far outstrips the need for video production. > I was typesetting documents with TeX in 1991 producing output far superior than what I saw coming out of professional Mac apps, and with far less intervention, Anybody that's read the line from Knuth on the joy of going back over an almost completed document to insert the proper italic corrections, etc. should recognize that TeX is... well... not for everybody. TeX is an amazing intellectual achievement, it produces great results (particularly when math is involved), and I personally use it to this day.... but it's vastly overkill for most documents and far beyond what the vast majority want to use or have learned to use. (A good friend of mine in college, while studying Computer Science and writing a compiler, once remarked: "I don't want to have to compile my term papers!", when I tried to advocate he use TeX. I honestly don't blame him... 'overfull hbox, badness 10000'?!?!?!) On the other end of the spectrum, there's a lot to be said for the original Mac's ability to highlight text on the screen, select 18 point Geneva (or whavever) and then have the ImageWriter produce a low quality but accurate rendition of what appeared on the screen. As backward as the Mac's video model might have been in contrast to the Amiga, it offered a useful capability in that it was consistent with the model its printers used too. > you'd be better served by something 80% as good, but 1/2 the price. Not if you needed (or even just wanted) that last 20%.

oldcynic 8y ago
You both seem to be enjoying the back and forth, so 'scuse me butting in :) > IIRC) much more dynamic memory management than Apple's The Amiga scatter loader that both dynamically loaded and minimised fragmentation. If you were doing it "properly" and staying in OS, ie not hitting the hardware, there was one fixed address: ExecBase ($4) via which you'd find GfxBase, IntuitionBase and so on. > Having used both machines, as well as an interlaced 1024x768 SVGA, I assure you, I do not want to use interlaced mode. No one would. You bought either the superb 2080 Paperwhite long persistence monitor or a flicker fixer and multi sync. So many missed opportunities by Commodore. :(
- mschaef 8y ago
  > You both seem to be enjoying the back and forth, Speaking for myself, yes. :-) Something I should point out here is that I grew up with reasonable access to both machines: Apple ][s and C64's. (My elementary school had a lab for each, across the hall from each other.) My exposure to the C64 was through a combination of my school's being in a Logo educational pilot program (based on Seymour Papert's work) and my mother running the C64 lab. That gave me some formal introduction to Logo in class, and then a bunch of after hours time, where I got a chance to explore further, including Commodore BASIC, setting the hardware up, etc. This probably tends to bias my experience with the platform away from what people might consider its major strengths: the SID and the VIC II. Because I wasn't a personal machines (they were at the school), it also meant that I wasn't exactly buying things like extension BASICs and fast disk loaders.... so I'm biased towards feeling a bit more of the pain of the limited BASIC and slow disk interface. I still remember the disappointment trying to get graphics on the C64 screen in BASIC, given how easy it was in C64 Logo and in the Applesoft BASIC on the Apple ]['s across the hall. I also tend, probably mostly thanks to my high school Physics teachers, to be more sympathetic towards the Apple ][ platform. While there's no doubt the C64 has better graphics and sounds (at least for games), I also saw some amazing things done with Apple ][ machines into the early 90's. My middle school had one with a Corvus hard disk and a barcode scanner that ran the library. My shop teacher had one with a plotter and a CAD system. My band directors used them to organize their operations. My physics teachers had an elaborate system for custom test generation and real-time grading, in addition to basic Sonar hardware (from a Polaroid camera) for supporting student experiments. So... while I'm very personally sympathetic to the Commodore 64, I do take objection to the notion that the C64 was uniformly 'far more powerful' than the Apple. (Which was why I made my initial response, in fact.) Whatever additional power there is in the C64 can probably be explained by the fact that it's five years newer... and I still saw relatively standard Apple's doing things that still seem outside the capabilities of the C64. Another way to look at this is that if you'd asked me then which platform I'd have chosen, there's not much doubt I would picked the Commodore. If you sent the current me back in time and then asked me to pick, I'd probably go with the Apple. As much as I like the built in hardware on the C64, I'd be hard pressed to walk away from Apple features like expansion slots, the faster disk, the 80 column display, AppleWorks, the standard way to get to 128K, etc. This is this kind of thought process that has me objecting to the thesis that Apple has achieved its success solely by selling overpriced crap to customers deluded by the Reality Distortion Field. Even if it didn't spawn a demo scene, even if people aren't chasing the beam with cycle accurate 6510 code, the unique features the Apple did have seem more useful to me than any of that. > So many missed opportunities by Commodore. Agreed, without a doubt. (Starting with the 1541 disk performance, the keyboard on the PET, and the environmental issues at the MOS plant in PA. It's 2018, and there are still people worried about the water quality around the plant.)

oldcynic 8y ago

You both seem to be enjoying the back and forth, so 'scuse me butting in :) > IIRC) much more dynamic memory management than Apple's The Amiga scatter loader that both dynamically loaded and minimised fragmentation. If you were doing it "properly" and staying in OS, ie not hitting the hardware, there was one fixed address: ExecBase ($4) via which you'd find GfxBase, IntuitionBase and so on. > Having used both machines, as well as an interlaced 1024x768 SVGA, I assure you, I do not want to use interlaced mode. No one would. You bought either the superb 2080 Paperwhite long persistence monitor or a flicker fixer and multi sync. So many missed opportunities by Commodore. :(

mschaef 8y ago
> You both seem to be enjoying the back and forth, Speaking for myself, yes. :-) Something I should point out here is that I grew up with reasonable access to both machines: Apple ][s and C64's. (My elementary school had a lab for each, across the hall from each other.) My exposure to the C64 was through a combination of my school's being in a Logo educational pilot program (based on Seymour Papert's work) and my mother running the C64 lab. That gave me some formal introduction to Logo in class, and then a bunch of after hours time, where I got a chance to explore further, including Commodore BASIC, setting the hardware up, etc. This probably tends to bias my experience with the platform away from what people might consider its major strengths: the SID and the VIC II. Because I wasn't a personal machines (they were at the school), it also meant that I wasn't exactly buying things like extension BASICs and fast disk loaders.... so I'm biased towards feeling a bit more of the pain of the limited BASIC and slow disk interface. I still remember the disappointment trying to get graphics on the C64 screen in BASIC, given how easy it was in C64 Logo and in the Applesoft BASIC on the Apple ]['s across the hall. I also tend, probably mostly thanks to my high school Physics teachers, to be more sympathetic towards the Apple ][ platform. While there's no doubt the C64 has better graphics and sounds (at least for games), I also saw some amazing things done with Apple ][ machines into the early 90's. My middle school had one with a Corvus hard disk and a barcode scanner that ran the library. My shop teacher had one with a plotter and a CAD system. My band directors used them to organize their operations. My physics teachers had an elaborate system for custom test generation and real-time grading, in addition to basic Sonar hardware (from a Polaroid camera) for supporting student experiments. So... while I'm very personally sympathetic to the Commodore 64, I do take objection to the notion that the C64 was uniformly 'far more powerful' than the Apple. (Which was why I made my initial response, in fact.) Whatever additional power there is in the C64 can probably be explained by the fact that it's five years newer... and I still saw relatively standard Apple's doing things that still seem outside the capabilities of the C64. Another way to look at this is that if you'd asked me then which platform I'd have chosen, there's not much doubt I would picked the Commodore. If you sent the current me back in time and then asked me to pick, I'd probably go with the Apple. As much as I like the built in hardware on the C64, I'd be hard pressed to walk away from Apple features like expansion slots, the faster disk, the 80 column display, AppleWorks, the standard way to get to 128K, etc. This is this kind of thought process that has me objecting to the thesis that Apple has achieved its success solely by selling overpriced crap to customers deluded by the Reality Distortion Field. Even if it didn't spawn a demo scene, even if people aren't chasing the beam with cycle accurate 6510 code, the unique features the Apple did have seem more useful to me than any of that. > So many missed opportunities by Commodore. Agreed, without a doubt. (Starting with the 1541 disk performance, the keyboard on the PET, and the environmental issues at the MOS plant in PA. It's 2018, and there are still people worried about the water quality around the plant.)