Is Vic-20 = THE least powerful computer in history?

[Victragic]

My first thought - ZX81, which was the first computer I ever got to use. The local high-school my father taught at had a few of them, and he was kind enough to bring one home and let me play around on it. I recall a lot of hunting the awful membrane keyboard for BASIC keywords and the type in joke "How many legs does a horse have?"

But.. how do we measure power anyway?

Slightly continuing the OT (sorry), I scratch my head over the Spectrum's success in the UK too - price, national pride and probably a better PAL display than the C64. But in terms of capabilities, other than RAM it's not much more powerful than the Vic-20 (and the Vic has a much better range of interfaces). The Vic will always be remembered by Joe Average for it's lack of memory and wacky display, unfortunately. 22 columns.. even the ZX81 beat that.

Atari 2600 + Basic cartridge, anyone?

[Boray]

I guess this guy would have voted yes:
http://www.zdnet.com/my-first-personal- ... 000025653/

He doesn't have his data in order though... "Of course I bought the 5K add on expansion pack" - The 5K what?

[16KVIC20]

ZX80 or ZX81 would be my first thoughts.

In actual fact, although the ZX Spectrum was endowed with 48K RAM and a better display, in many ways the VIC 20 was superior even to that half finished excuse for a computer.

[Mike]

He doesn't have his data in order though... "Of course I bought the 5K add on expansion pack" - The 5K what?

That's also roughly when I stopped reading.

But then, people in the 'net keep talking bullshit about the VIC-20, when they could have known better. Further down in the discussion, someone babbles about 23 characters per line, one other tells the VIC-20 has 4K RAM built-in, etc.

In Wikipedia, they still write 'the VIC-20 can't really do bitmapped graphics', resp. the 'graphics resolution is 176x184 pixels' (which could be realized as bitmap, but is highly impractical for use). Correcting the data just at this place would constitute either 'original research' or 'vanity info' in the eyes of the Wikipedia community, so I can't be bothered to do this. As for the rest of the 'net, that would make one a Don Quijote anyway.

As for the ZX81 - you all know how the display system works? The ULA is not a complete video chip, as it lacks an address generator. Instead, the Z80 is made to 'execute' the screen buffer (reading it as NOPs), while the real data is fed to the ULA. The ULA then fetches the bitmap data of the character and serializes it. For that time, I find it's a quite clever solution.

[...] Philips G7000 [...]

Yes, even that one had a BASIC cartridge. But 'Satellite Attack' is a cool game!

[ral-clan]

He doesn't have his data in order though... "Of course I bought the 5K add on expansion pack" - The 5K what?

That's also roughly when I stopped reading.

He also states:

Instead of a toy with 3K of memory and a keyboard that you plug into a TV, I needed a real 128K PET...

...umm, did Commodore even make a 128K PET at the time the VIC-20 was still for sale (or ever)? Were there ANY home computers you could buy between 1982-1984 that had this much RAM standard? Okay, maybe the original PC, but that was NOT sold as mass-marketed a HOME computer.

[Bacon]

If you ask anyone who are even aware of the early home computers, my guess is they'd say the Sinclair ZX81, as several people here have already concluded.

[Questarian]

I think you need to define "weak" by the standards of the day when the machine was released. As such Mattel Aquarius would be my pick... Released in 1983, Mattel programmers immediately dubbed it "a machine for the seventies" and generally considered being assigned to working on it a sort of punishment... While other game console makers of the day, such as Atari, were coming out with computers that exceeded the capabilities of their game systems, Mattel produced one that was astonishing lower.

I think that the ZX-81/Timex Sinclair, like the VIC-20, has gotten something of a bum rap as being weak machines... but they both had many additions, and talented programmers, that over came their limitations to become very capable little machines. The ZX-81 game "3D Monster Maze" is credited with being the first 3D video game... (ya primitive, but cutting-edge for the day) Every early computer seems astounding weak in retrospect... The TRS-80 model I premiered in 1979 with 4K RAM, a 1.77 Mhz Z80 processor, no lower case, no graphics, no sound, and a pitiful "level 1" BASIC... it sounds absolutely primitive... And it was absolutely boss back in the day! A ZX-81 or VIC-20 could have run rings around it, but they came later because machine like the TRS drove the revolution forward.

-John-

[RobertBe]

A ZX-81 or VIC-20 could have run rings around it, but they came later because machine like the TRS drove the revolution forward.

I've never read (or I don't remember reading) that the Tandy/Radio Shack affected Chuck Peddle and CBM with their development of the PET (and hence the VIC-20).

Must reread my "Commodore: A Company on the Edge,"
Robert Bernardo
Fresno Commodore User Group
http://videocam.net.au/fcug

[rhurst]

"a machine for the seventies", never heard that one, that's funny.

I guess it depends how you look at that revolution: technology or branding. It certainly did not drive Chuck Peddle (that privilege was exclusively for Jack Tramiel to do); but the retail distribution presence that Radio Shack possessed got the other players' attention, if not envy.

Today's systems are so powerful and complex, I chuckle when you see something like an i7 run poorly, because of a bad video driver, or a bleeding-edge browser locking up, or malware plundering system resources, etc. It begs the question, "is this progress?" but we can only forge forward. Cloud storage and computing seem to be making some headway into that promised land.

[bloguidice]

There was the potential for all three of the original 1977 trinity to have various interactions with each other's products, i.e., Tandy selling the PET, Commodore selling the Apple II, etc., and even Atari (not part of the original trinity) selling the Apple II, but for various reasons it played out exactly the way it did.

[Questarian]

I've never read (or I don't remember reading) that the Tandy/Radio Shack affected Chuck Peddle and CBM with their development of the PET (and hence the VIC-20).

I wasn't trying to say there's any sort direct design influence, but the sales figures of the early home/personal computers certainly did...

The computer revolution was entirely market driven. The prevailing industry wisdom of the 70's had been there was no money to be made in personal computers. Apple computer owes it's existence to that underestimation, as the later personal computer industry owes it's to Apple's huge commercial success from ignoring it. Tandy was extremely dubious about consumer demand for computers, and as a result only initially ordered 3500 units, which were the same number of stores they had at the time, so if they didn't sell they could be used as an inventory system. When Tandy announced the Model 1 they were inundated with inquiries, and while projecting a yearly sales of about 3000 units, they would sell over 10,000 in just the first month and a half... which is not saying one was better then another, just that there was potentially a huge untapped market hungry for this new technology.

Both in terms of money and imagination, the demand for these early machines fueled and inspired the technical innovations for everything, from VIC-20 to iPad, that came after.

-John-

[Vic 2000]

There was several "weak" computers out there like Jupiter Ace, Lambda 1000 for exemple. Often equipped with 1 Kb internal memory, one soundchannel and almost no games or apps. Compared to them, Vic-20 was quite powerful.

I think that Vic-20 was "weak" for a good reason. When Atari released 400 and 800 in 1979 they was expensive technical wonders that outperformed the competition in terms of graphics thanks to Jay Miners CTIA/GTIA and Antic custom chips. Even if Atari 400/800 was good computers the price was horrendous. Even the games for the computer was very expensive in Sweden at that time.

When Commodore released Vic-20 they managed to keep a resonable price on their new computer and Vic-20 soon became the "peoples computer" in Sweden. I wanted an Atari at first but bought a Vic-20 thanks to the much lower prince. At last, an affordable colour computer. It wasn't until C64 was released that Commodore forced Atari to lower the price on their computers, games and peripherals.

Okey, Vic-20 is perhaps quite limited compared to Atari 800XL, C64, ZX Spectrum and Amstrad but that is at the same time the charm about Vic-20. The special graphics, the special sound and the special feeling that only Vic-20 could deliver. Some people love ZX Spectrum because of the computers limitations and the games looked very different on Spectrum because the programmers had to avoid colour clashing.

Vic-20 might be weak, but that's at the same time it's strength.

[orion70]

Hi Vic 2000, welcome to the forum!
I agree with your view of the relative weakness of the VIC paradoxically as a point of strenght. From this weak machine, excellent programmers from the past and present time could squeeze every bit, and create great software.

[Vic 2000]

Thank you.

Vic-20 was my first computer and will always be very special. So will Romik, Rabbit, Nufekop, Terminal and all the other software houses who released great games for Vic-20.

[Misfit]

I just bought ZX81 (I hope it works). Maybe VIC is better than it? But who cares. New machine, new challenges.