3 ms·
> Sinclair was trying to sell a personal computer with stripped-down 01979 graphics in 01982, 1½ Moore's-law cycles later. Moore’s law goes two ways: power in
by jameshart 5y ago
> Sinclair was trying to sell a personal computer with stripped-down 01979 graphics in 01982, 1½ Moore's-law cycles later.
Moore’s law goes two ways: power in the same space doubles, or you can build something of the same power in half the space.
And crudely, space = chips. If you can use less chips you can save money.
Sinclair made something at least as capable as an Apple ][ using much less silicon and brought it to market at a much lower price point.
Sinclair “was trying” to sell it? It SOLD! It was spectacularly successful!
- kragen 5y agoIt had half the colors of an Apple ][, dramatically worse sound, and arguably even less computing power, but it's true that it was ten times cheaper and had more RAM. It sold well in Europe due to poverty and because the non-NTSC Apple ][s and Apple ][+s sold in Europe were black-and-white only. It didn't do very well in Japan or South America, and perhaps most importantly, it completely flopped in the US. It did poorly enough that, following the flops of the Sinclair QL and the TV80, the remains of Sinclair Research were sold off to Amstrad in 01986. But it didn't have to be that way. As with the DEC VT100, with the benefit of hindsight we can see how some moderate design changes would have made it immensely more capable.