Denial

Science of Cambridge Mk14?

Sord M5

Camputers Lynx

Acorn Electron

Grundig NewBrain

Tatung Einstein

Dragon 32

Coleco Adam

ZX80

Zx81

Oric 1

Jupiter Ace

Tandy MC10

Various MSX

Philips G7000


I have owned and used and sold all of these except Mk14 and New Brain and they are all less powerful than the Vic-20.

Especially if Power is defined by the activity and interest of the usergroup

G7000 probably has to take the trophy - thoughts?

In my experience, in the US, when most people think of an old computer they think the apple ii line, that's because schools were flooded with them.

malcontent wrote:In my experience, in the US, when most people think of an old computer they think the apple ii line, that's because schools were flooded with them.

In the UK, that computer was Acorn's BBC Micro, but it was never thought of as lacking in power; the monitor, printer and disk drive made it seem more like a status symbol in comparison to the tape software and RF output most home users had to make do with on their Spectrums/C64s.

It's an illusion really because the BBC only had 32k RAM which is about the same as a fully expanded VIC-20.

I agree that it's easily the ZX81/Times Sinclair 1000. It SHOULD be the ZX80, but fewer people are familiar with that. The VIC-20 was at least competitive with other low cost computers of the time, while the ZX8x series was never competitive with anything. I don't think they were meant to be, though. Their job was to be the cheapest "real" computer available. Certainly the size (especially of the ZX80) was impressive, regardless of era.

orion70 wrote:...I'd say the KIM-1...

My vote is for the MOS Technology TIM with only 256 bytes of memory.

Predecessor to the KIM-1,
Robert Bernardo
Fresno Commodore User Group
http://videocam.net.au/fcug

missed that..

"In my opinion": NO, used it productively for 3-years
"to most people": YES

rhurst wrote:"In my opinion": NO, used it productively for 3-years
"to most people": YES

That video even had my wife laughing

I asked here:
http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=133535

Bobody suggested the vic-20 either but yet another vote for the zx81. So I surrender. The zx81 wins the price.

My first computer was a TimexSinclair 1000, I ended up using a huge rubber band to keep the 16k memory pack from crashing the computer. I think that everyone is forgetting another system that couldn't compete with the VIC, the Mattel Aquarius. Although it was probably the C64 that killed it.

grimm wrote:My first computer was a TimexSinclair 1000, I ended up using a huge rubber band to keep the 16k memory pack from crashing the computer. I think that everyone is forgetting another system that couldn't compete with the VIC, the Mattel Aquarius. Although it was probably the C64 that killed it.

That's another good one, but certainly far more capable than the ZX80, ZX81/Timex Sinclair 1000. The Aquarius was a non-starter from the beginning, severely underpowered upon its release. It killed itself.

Could the Spectravideo keyboard & BASIC add on for the Atari 2600, or even the official Atari BASIC cartridge be considered even weaker than the Timex Sinclair 1000 / ZX81?

http://atariage.com/manual_html_page.ht ... wareID=852
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC_Programming

http://www.the-liberator.net/site-files ... o-1983.htm

ral-clan wrote:Could the Spectravideo keyboard & BASIC add on for the Atari 2600, or even the official Atari BASIC cartridge be considered even weaker than the Timex Sinclair 1000 / ZX81?

http://atariage.com/manual_html_page.ht ... wareID=852
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC_Programming

http://www.the-liberator.net/site-files ... o-1983.htm

There were several weak add-ons like that for consoles, but to me, that's kind of cheating. They weren't meant to be replacements for "real" computers.

I just voted "No".

To comply with the request to list what I believe IS the least powerful computer, I also have to vote for the Sinclair ZX81.

I almost said "Mattel Aquarius"! I still want to say it!

I agree that this question is hard. It is a bit cross-purposes to consider what those people who were not really into computers thought of computers.

I too vote for the Timex Sinclair. Never mind the the actual physical limitations, but you could not even use DATA statements in the BASIC and programming was limited. I was not into programming at the machine level back then. Perhaps some of you others could make the Sinclair hum a little better.