Denial

You and I know that the Vic-20 isn't the least powerful computer ever. But to most people, do you think that this is the general consensus? That Vic-20 kind of stands for the weakest computer ever and that this actually is what's it's known for to most people (who actually know that Vic-20 is a computer I mean). If someone wants an example of pre history computing, of a computer that could do more or less nothing - they think of a Vic-20. Vic-20 is THE worthless computer to them. True or false?

If this is true, I think Commodore is to blame actually... for making the C64.

If you vote no, then please name the computer you think most people regard as the least powerful.

Maybe if you add "color" to least powerful computer.
I do not know the KIM, but I suppose it was not as powerful as the VIC-20.

But does anyone not particularly interested in old computers know that there is a computer called KIM? No.

Difficult question. All depends on how you define "most people". I've spoken to people around 20 years of age whose first operating system was Windows XP. Another colleague who just turned 20 when I showed a picture of "my first computer" (VIC20) asked "where is the screen?" - I then realized that younger people don't even recognize that there is a distinction between computer and display device, since 99% of the time they use their smartphone or tablet. Even a notebook seems like a relic...

Anyhow, the computer that I think most people who actually HAD a computer back in the 80s will consider the least powerful would be the Sinclair ZX81: No color, no sound, poor keyboard, 1K RAM.

tokra wrote:Difficult question. All depends on how you define "most people". I've spoken to people around 20 years of age whose first operating system was Windows XP. Another colleague who just turned 20 when I showed a picture of "my first computer" (VIC20) asked "where is the screen?" - I then realized that younger people don't even recognize that there is a distinction between computer and display device, since 99% of the time they use their smartphone or tablet. Even a notebook seems like a relic...

Anyhow, the computer that I think most people who actually HAD a computer back in the 80s will consider the least powerful would be the Sinclair ZX81: No color, no sound, poor keyboard, 1K RAM.

This one gets my vote too, real pain in the but to enter codes on...stupid keyboard.

joshuadenmark wrote:

tokra wrote:Difficult question. All depends on how you define "most people". I've spoken to people around 20 years of age whose first operating system was Windows XP. Another colleague who just turned 20 when I showed a picture of "my first computer" (VIC20) asked "where is the screen?" - I then realized that younger people don't even recognize that there is a distinction between computer and display device, since 99% of the time they use their smartphone or tablet. Even a notebook seems like a relic...

Anyhow, the computer that I think most people who actually HAD a computer back in the 80s will consider the least powerful would be the Sinclair ZX81: No color, no sound, poor keyboard, 1K RAM.

This one gets my vote too, real pain in the but to enter codes on...stupid keyboard.

It's also one that most people have heard of. There is even a comic reference to it in an episode of Red Dwarf (Series II, Stasis Leak).

leof wrote:Maybe if you add "color" to least powerful computer.
I do not know the KIM, but I suppose it was not as powerful as the VIC-20.

It was one of the first computers to use the 6502 and like most 6502 based computers of that time it was a self-assembly job.

After reading the refined question in the OP: I think a fair number of people remember the ZX80.

My vote for "perceived least powerful" is for the ZX-80 and 81 as well. Even in the early 80s, people who didn't know much about computers could still recognize that B&W, screen flickering, and a creaky eggshell thin plastic case were not a good thing.

Admittedly, I was so desperate to live in our sci-fi future that I spent hundreds of hours on a ZX-81, many of those happy and exciting hours as I learned about computing and programming.

However, I used a ZX-81 because I didn't have a choice. A VIC-20 would have been a massively welcome and incredible upgrade

tokra wrote:... the computer that I think most people who actually HAD a computer back in the 80s will consider the least powerful would be the Sinclair ZX81: No color, no sound, poor keyboard, 1K RAM.

I agree as well, I had one with a 16k RAM pack, and if you moved the thing ever so slightly you lost everything.
I was gonna throw it in the trash but I sold it for $10, worst toy I ever owned.

Given that most micros could be expanded, and only considering the unexpanded 6502-based 8 bits, I'd say the KIM-1, with the VIC in second position. A lovely little machine .

Edit: "for most people" the least powerful is the pentium IV

ZX81 was my first thought as well, to concur with other opinions.

The VIC-20 is definitely not a powerhouse, and there's really only one thing it does well... video games. Having said that, there are several computers out there which can't even do that. The Timex Sinclair 1000/ZX81 is likely the most pathetic of the mass market home computers. Let's look at the stats, shall we? 2K of RAM. A black and white display. No sound. A processor that froze with every keystroke. A wobbly expansion port that couldn't reliably hold cartridges without adhesive. A flat membrane keyboard. No video game software to speak of (Ken Uston described what was available as "unacceptable at best"). Yeah, I'll bet the VIC-20 is sounding pretty damned good by now.

Frankly, I'm not even thrilled with the ZX81's sequel, the much-adored-in-Britain-but-who-the-hell-knows-why ZX Spectrum. The machine is an improvement, yes, but is quite laughable next to other computers of its generation, outpaced by even the VIC-20 in some respects. The VIC-20 has a built in joystick port... the Spectrum makes you buy that separately. The VIC-20 is capable of rudimentary melodies... the Spectrum had to settle for clicks and buzzes in its first couple of models. The VIC-20 can put two colors together... what's the Spectrum's excuse? Clive must have been giving these things away with combo meals at Wimpy Burger for them to have the market penetration they did.

Yes, the Spectrum was cheap compared to the C64, a lot cheaper. Times were hard in the early 80s, and kids wanted a home computer, they often got a Speccy.

I wouldn't say the ZX81 had no software to mention. Maybe in the US, but not here. The seminal 3D Monster Maze is a ZX81 game (albeit with 16k RAM), and that is one of the very first 3D titles AND survival horror in a sense...