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

[bloguidice]

x81 always looked like a hobbyists toy Indeed I remember that they were available in kit form to build yourself. Not in the same league as the vic.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Lots of computers were available in kit form, though, including the Apple II. That was hardly a hobbyist toy. Even today's PC's are technically available in "kit form," though obviously not quite at the level of something like a ZX80, ZX81, Apple II, Heathkit, etc. In any case, I wouldn't hold that particular attribute against it. I think that was more a case of being able to sell it even cheaper, frankly.

[Questarian]

Yes, I would say in comparison to most other black and white machines, the ZX80/81/Sinclair 1000 are "jarring" and "obtuse." Whether it's the flat membrane "keyboard" or the fact that everything is essentially input via keywords/shortcuts, it's not particularly intuitive. Compare that to something like a TRS-80 or Commodore PET that came out several years earlier - not to mention some of the more obscure machines like the Interact or the Exidy Sorcerer, among many others - and it's perhaps one of the least friendly computing experiences of its day. It was cheap, though, which was a big plus back then, at least for a while.

It's all contextual...
I'm not saying the ZX-80/81 were Uber 8-bits, just that that they were actually decent little machines that gets grossly misrepresented as pocket watches. Yes, for the day it the ZX-81/TS1000 was relatively primitive, though not by much, as it was meant as a low cost entry level machine. I agree that the membrane keyboard was a challenge, but one that was overcome by any number of third party replacements, one of which amusingly makes the ZX-81 look rather like a stubby black VIC-20/C-64, just as the shortcoming of all the other early machines were corrected.... Keyboard replacements, bus expansions, RAM Add-ons, OS replacements, lowercase display characters, Higher density & double sided drives controllers, improved sound hardware, printer interfaces, RS-232, Etc... In that respect, the ZX-81 is no different then the Model I, CoCo, or VIC-20. The only real difference with the entire ZX series is that the American market didn't seem much, if any, of it.

Usage wise, Unless you were well versed, there was nothing straight forward or intuitive about the UI of early systems for the average or beginner user. Outside of the higher end machines with some form of GUI or cart based "plug and play" console systems like the Atari 2600 (1977-1992), how are you defining a "friendly computer experience"? The base OS of nearly every early consumer home computer was a ROM based version of BASIC...Even the original IBM PC's would default to a cassette BASIC... that were attempts to make it simple/"obtuse" enough for the average user. If there was nothing particularly off putting about manually entering keywords, what's so different about key based entry of systems like the ZX's? In fact it greatly simplified things, particularly for new and basic users as the BASIC keywords were generally imprinted on the keyboard. Besides, what prompt level actions on these BASIC based systems didn't require you us a keyword, typed or not, to do anything? Unless the ability to randomly type "GARGASPLAT21#!" as a "READY" prompt, was a ground breaking UI feature, I still hold that it is a mistake to refer to the ZX-81 as being particularly "obtuse" or "jarring".... you're essentially arguing that one BASIC command prompt was greater then another.

-John-

[bloguidice]

The American market saw the ZX80, ZX81, Timex Sinclair 1000, Timex Sinclair 1500, Timex Sinclair 2068, and Sinclair QL. The only ones we missed out on in the US were the pure ZX Spectrum series systems. The only one that really had notable success was the Sinclair 1000, and that was for a very brief time. Towards the end, they were selling the things for $10 each, practically unable to give them away.

Again, I'm not trying to diminish what the ZX8x series offered for a brief time, but it really was comparatively limited. I do think that not having a direct entry mode by default was less intuitive compared to every other platform (though once you got the hang of it, some do like the shortcut-style entry), and certainly the lack of power (having to blank the screen, for instance to get more processing time) was something that frustrated a lot of users. Yes, it was expandable, but even that didn't address all of its inherent issues. While you took what you got back then, it really was a bottom of the barrel system and masses of people quickly moved on. Certainly the ZX Spectrum and beyond sufficiently addressed enough of its predecessors' issues to become beloved in the UK, if not necessarily anywhere else where price was not as much of a motivating factor. The US was far less cost conscious than Europe, of course, where we standardized on disks far quicker than Europe, which had a thriving tape business into the early 90s. By the mid-80s we were pretty much standardized on disks.