3 ms·

I was almost with you, because much as I love the 6502, it is kind of weird by modern "standards". But then: the Apple II? Like, wtf man. C'mon. The Apple II is

by tom_ 4y ago

I was almost with you, because much as I love the 6502, it is kind of weird by modern "standards". But then: the Apple II? Like, wtf man. C'mon. The Apple II is shit. Is it just because you like that sweet double density disk throughput? Well, fair enough, but then why not go for the BBC Micro. 2 MHz, plus 80 columns. OK, so it only has 32 KB RAM... meanwhile, you are still American. In summary, please tell us how many shades of mucky greyish brown you get with the Apple II. Because with the C64, you get 13.

KerrAvon 4y ago
You can get a Beeb with 64k. The Master even comes with 128k standard, if I’m not mistaken.
ajross 4y ago
> Well, fair enough, but then why not go for the BBC Micro Because the Apple shipped four years earlier? The question isn't what machine is better. Obviously later hardware builds on the advances of its ancestors. The idea behind valuing history is understanding where the changes happened. Acorn (and Commodore) shipped an excellent machine given the constraints of the time. Both devices were worth purchasing. Apple shipped an absolutely groundbreaking work of genius that no one had forseen and that no one would duplicate for years. AAA games were shipping in 1988 (c.f. Ultima V and Prince of Persia) designed directly to a framebuffer design architected in the spring of 1977. If you can't see the difference there and perceive which device is more important to understand and study, I don't know what to say.