Bletchley Park Vintage Computer Festival - pictures
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Security query
Next: Apple "Snow White Design Language"
From: Woody on 21 Jun 2010 19:45 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > >> SteveH <italiancar(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> > > > wrote: > [snip] >>> <mine's the green anorak with a red dragon on the back> >>> >>>> Me? Oh, I never really used one - but I've looked into them a bit, >>>> and I think my dad probably has one in a cupboard somewhere (a > > > > boring >>>> normal Dragon 32; if so, I might get it one day). >>> >>> I still have mine. And the dot matrix printer bought soon after. >>> >>> Way back in the day I wrote a very simple 'notepad' type application >>> so >> I could type up my homework on it. >> >> Rather you than me. I did a little programming on it. I was not a > > fan. >> Dies it show? > > Read up on Dragons and the 6809 and OS 9 (the 6809-specific Unix-alike > born in the 1970s) - the potential was interesting, very interesting. > How about OS 9 on the Dragon? Could have been good, if they'd got > that > to work out in the marketplace. Could have been, but wasn't. Unfortunately most of computing has been Ike that. I don't know, I just found the dragon an unpleasant computer to use, even compared to the spectrum, which I really didn't like. For programming I still found the things that came before more fun to use, and the things that came after way more -- Woody
From: SteveH on 21 Jun 2010 19:53 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > SteveH <italiancar(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > It was the only 'home' computer to support analogue joysticks > > > > > > The BBC Micro was a home micro of the same era that had four A-D inputs > > > standard, intended for analogue joysticks (and on the same port: game > > > switch inputs, and a light pen input). > > > > The BBC was a totally different marketplace - seems my memory isn't all > > it was, but even at �399, that was a big step up from �179. > > I have to say that the BBC Micro was always a home computer - not a > totally different marketplace at all, but competing head to head with > the Dragon 32. At nigh-on double the price! - that's like comparing a generic PC Laptop with a MacBook. > Don't forget the �299 Model A machine - that's not such a big step up, > is it? No, it's not - and they set that higher price because it was the > price that maximised profit from available production capacity. Did anyone buy the Model A? - that was a runt of the range, with too many limitations and with a lot of software which wouldn't run on it. > The early BBC Micro prices were proven by the marketplace to have been > too cheap for the demand that it produced - and so the price went up, > /because demand was so high/. Allegedly. > And the BBC Micro's higher price was justified by the BBC Micro's > superior technical features - assuming you had a use for them, of > course. If not, buy something cheaper. Mr Average family man didn't need or understand how superior the BBC was - they wanted something under 200 quid, with a decent range of games. So they bought Spectrums on the whole, or Dragons, or Vic 20s. > > And yes, the Electron was launched at �199, 11% more than a Dragon - but > > a lot of BBC stuff wouldn't run on an Electron, so it was largely > > unsupported, > > Really? Did the Electron really have so much less software than the > Dragon, for example? I have to say that the Electron was `largely > supported' in your terms from what I knew of the situation. You certainly didn't get the range of Electron software in your normal high street computer retailer. That's if they had any Electron software at all. > > plus �20 back then was an awful lot of money > > No it bloody wasn't. Yes, it bloody was. In 1985 that was a whole tank of petrol in a family saloon, for a start. In fact, it was probably a whole week's shopping. > And that's always the comparison, regardless of the number or value or > name or /anything/ about the currency units it costs. > > btw, since `modern dad' is willing to spend so much more in real terms > on a computer than the price of a BBC Micro back in the 80s, how can you > talk about a 10% price difference being such a big deal back then at > that price point - which I think the above figures establish as a > medium-to-low one by modern standards, taking into account price and > value fluctuations in the economy and money supply. We were in the middle of a price war with home machines at the time - every tenner here and there counted for a lot. And that �20 was enough for 3 games, maybe more. It's a moot point, as I don't actually know anyone who looked at a Spectrum and Electron side by side and bought the Electron. The headline spec. was poor on the Electron, there were fewer games on the shelf, and it was perceived to be 'expensive'. Your memories appear to be different to mine and are coming from a much 'geekier' angle. -- SteveH
From: Rowland McDonnell on 21 Jun 2010 20:59 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> SteveH <italiancar(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> > > > > wrote: > > [snip] > >>> <mine's the green anorak with a red dragon on the back> > >>> > >>>> Me? Oh, I never really used one - but I've looked into them a bit, > >>>> and I think my dad probably has one in a cupboard somewhere (a > > > > > boring > >>>> normal Dragon 32; if so, I might get it one day). > >>> > >>> I still have mine. And the dot matrix printer bought soon after. > >>> > >>> Way back in the day I wrote a very simple 'notepad' type application > >>> so > >> I could type up my homework on it. > >> > >> Rather you than me. I did a little programming on it. I was not a > > > fan. > >> Dies it show? > > > > Read up on Dragons and the 6809 and OS 9 (the 6809-specific Unix-alike > > born in the 1970s) - the potential was interesting, very interesting. > > How about OS 9 on the Dragon? Could have been good, if they'd got > > that > > to work out in the marketplace. > > Could have been, but wasn't. Unfortunately most of computing has been > Ike that. Not really - for example, the Atlas supercomputer made by Manchester Uni was The Daddy for a couple years, until it was pipped at the post by the first Control Data supercomputer. And /that/ happened because CDC's engineers, erm, read the academic papers published by the Manchester academics describing all the go-faster ideas they'd come up with for Atlas, along with reports describing the performance in the real world of those ideas. Then they put all their ideas together with all the Manchester ideas, and oddly enough came up with something quicker. So while the Atlas line didn't go anywhere in the hands of its creators, the *ideas* from it flourished. I mean, virtual memory and operating systems are pretty much ubiquitous these days, right? Both Atlas innovations (the two really important ones if you ask me - the fact it was so damned quick wasn't the clever bit from what I can see). That's been the history of computing to a significant extent - yes, some good ideas wither and die unexpectedly; but rather more of them survive from what I've seen, even if they've not yet been put to optimum use. >I don't know, I just found the dragon an unpleasant computer > to use, even compared to the spectrum, which I really didn't like. I think I know what you mean: it wasn't quite right - not far off, though, and I bet a decent software set around it would have made the difference. After all, the DOS supplied with IBM-type PCs was pretty horrible to use, but that didn't stop businesses buying the damned things in droves because they have useful software that did useful things. Lotus 1,2,3 for example... > For programming I still found the things that came before more fun to > use, and the things that came after way more .... useful? Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Steve Firth on 22 Jun 2010 02:04 SteveH <italiancar(a)gmail.com> wrote: > When I say 'home' computer, I mean something that the average person > would have bought - ie. the same market segment as the Spectrum / Vic 20 > / C64 etc. The Oric, in Atmos form, had a parallel port and supported joysticks, disk drive etc. It also cost less than the Dragon.
From: David Kennedy on 22 Jun 2010 03:24
Bruce Horrocks wrote: > On 20/06/2010 10:52, T i m wrote: >> I didn't spot any of the Apple II clones on Jim or PD's shots. If >> there weren't any I might drop Bletchley a line and see if they want >> one. > > I didn't see any on display so probably is worth calling them. > Do they have a MacPortable? -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com |