In article <3f002b4d.813040@news.netnitco.net>,
vairxpert <vairxpert@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 07:28:56 +0000 (UTC), pausch@saaf.se (Paul
Schlyter) wrote:
In article <3eff7fb0.35967984@news.netnitco.net>,
vairxpert <vairxpert@hotmail.com> wrote:
Have you ever owned a one piece computer system?
Only some laptops with LED or LCD screens, where this problem with
magnetic fields doesn't exist. I always thought 1-piece computers
systems with CRT displays either were too bulky or had a screen
too small.
Full blown laptop computers with LCD screens didn't exist back in the
late 70's/early 80's.
I know..... there was only the Osbourne, with a small CRT display....
If you were around and able to use a computer back then you had
no choice.
Sure I had a choice! My choice was to use only desktop computes... :-)
Those systems were
designed to work that way so there is no reason people shouldn't have
bought one. Just about every high end serious business computer was
all one piece with either 5.25" or 8" floppy drives back in the early
80's.
...I don't think so. CP/M machines were the most common micros used
by businesses back, and they usually had a separate terminal. And
minis and mainframes (which were the most serious computers back
then) _definitely_ had separate terminals !!!!
We're not talking about terminals, mini's and mainframes.
You were talking about "systems" -- they include mini's and mainframes,
which back then was dominant among serious computer users, who often
regarded micros as just toys....
I can give you a mile long list of popular systems (most CPM
compatible) that were all in one, including every TRS-80 (model II,
III, 4, 4P, 12, 16), Kaypro's, Osbornes, macs, ect.
What business systems from 1982
Was Trash-80 really a _business_ system?
and earlier do you recall that used a separate CPU, keyboard and
monitor? Something that you would walk into a persons office and
see sitting on a desk?
The Altair, IMSAI 8080 and most S-100 computers, including brands
advertised specifically as business computers, such as the North Star >Horizon. And, of course, the Apple II which got used as a business
system too........ and the Apple ///....
Later the VIC-20, Commodore-64, Sinclair ZX-80, ZX-81 and Spectru,
the Jupiter Ace and many more appeared, which had separate displays.
But they were not business systems.
Later the VIC-20, Commodore-64, Sinclair ZX-80, ZX-81 and Spectru,
the Jupiter Ace and many more appeared, which had separate displays.
But they were not business systems.
Considering when they were released I never understood why the C64 and
Atari 800's never made it as real business machines? I would say
either one was able to hold it own against the first 4.77 mhz XT's and
they cost a fraction of the price.
In article <o9ctfvc6143n8sqi01f6lpode89p5stnki@4ax.com>,
Peter Thomas <see-my-sig@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:01:20 -0500, Exegete <millers@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote:
I loved it. It was slow - compared to an IBM disk drive. From what I've
seen of Commodore disk drives, well.... I never had ANY problem with
mine. But all the ADAM's I've ever seen had the warning not to leave the >> tapes on top of a color TV, or it would be erased. Perhaps, or perhaps
that was a "cover" for tapes that did go bad.
Leaving *any* kind of magnetic storage on top of a television is never
a good thing. I'm not sure why Coleco specified a colour television
either. All TVs, to my knowledge, play around with magnetic fields,
and can damage magnetic media.
Which is why you should never get some models of the Apple Macintosh:
a CRT display as well as a floppy and a harddisk inside the same
cover..... *shudder*.....
Leaving *any* kind of magnetic storage on top of a television is never
a good thing. I'm not sure why Coleco specified a colour television either. All TVs, to my knowledge, play around with magnetic fields,
and can damage magnetic media.
Which is why you should never get some models of the Apple Macintosh:
a CRT display as well as a floppy and a harddisk inside the same
cover..... *shudder*.....
Never thought of that... is it an actual issue, or just a percieved one?
I can't see it being that much different than say a DuoDisk with a
monitor stacked on top...
BTW the XT had a hard disk (10 MBytes -- tiny by today's standards but >enormous back then), which probably partly explains why the XT was so >expensive (the other reason it was so expensive was of course the
brand name "IBM". Otoh, when Apple released the Lisa, and later the
first Macs, they did the same thing: these were _not_ cheap machines!).
Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se> wrote:
Which is why you should never get some models of the Apple Macintosh:
a CRT display as well as a floppy and a harddisk inside the same
cover..... *shudder*.....
Never thought of that... is it an actual issue, or just a percieved one?
I can't see it being that much different than say a DuoDisk with a
monitor stacked on top...
I did the RLL thing...it worked great with certain drives. I was able
to squeeze 32 megs out of an MFM drive that way. Sleazgates just
wouldn't fly with that trick though.
I loved the BBS's back then and how each would brag in the opening
screen about the amount of online space they had. I remember being
blown away when "Last Chance" upped his to 85 megs!
In article <1fxbkku.ve14pc6tpffoN%email@luddite.ca>,
Simon Williams <email@luddite.ca> wrote:
Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se> wrote:
Which is why you should never get some models of the Apple Macintosh:
a CRT display as well as a floppy and a harddisk inside the same
cover..... *shudder*.....
Never thought of that... is it an actual issue, or just a percieved
one? I can't see it being that much different than say a DuoDisk with
a monitor stacked on top...
Percieved.
Exegete <millers@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message news:<3EFC75C0.3030706@noneofyourbusiness.com>...
That's because of the great computer/video market crash of 1983, when alot of companies went under!
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113Actually, the crash was the following year, 1984.
Actually, it was the year after that -- 1985. I remember because of
Live Aid. :p
(One computer magazine cartoon postulated the rescue of a certain
company by way of a "Clive Aid" event...)
do with display, the VIC (Video Interface Chip) in the C64 was the most advanced display processor available in a low cost home computer in 1983.
If it has anything to
do with display, the VIC (Video Interface Chip) in the C64 was the most
advanced display processor available in a low cost home computer in 1983.
Yeah - those 16 colours really were advanced in 1983. All the Atari
computer owners are probably laughing their asses off at this statement.
The C64 was one of my favorite systems. Best developers, best games,
terrific sound. But your statement above is SILLY.
Mark Rathwell wrote ...
If it has anything to
do with display, the VIC (Video Interface Chip) in the C64 was the most >>>advanced display processor available in a low cost home computer in 1983.
Yeah - those 16 colours really were advanced in 1983. All the Atari >>computer owners are probably laughing their asses off at this statement.
The C64 was one of my favorite systems. Best developers, best games, >>terrific sound. But your statement above is SILLY.
You seem to be forgetting that sprites were implemented in hardware, as well as collision detection in hardware, and other nifty features. All of which explains your statement above about the C64 having good games. :-)
Best regards,
Sam Gillett aka Mars Probe @ Starship Intrepid 1-972-221-4088
Last 8-bit BBS in the Dallas area. Commodore lives!
You seem to be forgetting that sprites were implemented in hardware, as well as collision detection in hardware, and other nifty features. All of which explains your statement above about the C64 having good games. :-)
In comp.sys.atari.8bit Sam Gillett <samgillett@msn.com> wrote:well
You seem to be forgetting that sprites were implemented in hardware, as
whichas collision detection in hardware, and other nifty features. All of
too!explains your statement above about the C64 having good games. :-)
Sprites and collision detection were done in hardware on the Atari 8-bits,
C=64 sprites seemed to be more versatile 'out-of-the-box', but there weresome pretty damned
cool tricks you could do with those screen-length (e.g., ~200 pixel tall)'players' and 'missiles'
on the Atari, too. ;)Paint!
-bill!
--
bill@newbreedsoftware.com Got kids? Get Tux
http://newbreedsoftware.com/bill/http://newbreedsoftware.com/tuxpaint/
| Sysop: | Gate Keeper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Shelby, NC |
| Users: | 764 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 41:07:33 |
| Calls: | 11,275 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 5,288 |
| D/L today: |
82 files (10,175K bytes) |
| Messages: | 521,283 |