|
|
|
|
|
by beschizza
1203 days ago
|
|
> "Most tellingly, the monitor was extremely basic (technical name: a pixel VDU) which ran on BASIC 1.0; a programming language that quite amazingly, was already 20 years old (having been first created at Dartmouth College in 1964)." As fun as it is, this article exemplifies the trend of people writing snarkily about subjects they know little about. This sentence alone has at least four factual errors in it! - The monitor was not "tellingly" basic and it isn't remarkable that it was a "pixel VDU". The author is perhaps mangling a remark from Chris Hall in an old Register article making clear for modern readers that it was just a CRT in a box. - The monitor (!) did not run Basic. - The Amstrad's Basic was Locomotive Basic, a relatively advanced and powerful dialect, not "Basic 1.0" - Basic was created in 1963. It was published in 1964. |
|
The CPC was absolutely not an "impulse buy price point". It was several times the price of a ZX Spectrum, which was a much more "compromised" device than the CPC. Amstrad's marketing trick was to sell an all-in-one, non-toy system at an affordable price that didn't tie up the TV. Put simply, the CPC appealed to the parents who were paying for the computer, not the kids who were badgering for it.
When he says "many devices still required purchasers to undertake their own wiring, and sometimes even solder on their own plug", that's not at all the case. The kit computer in the UK died years earlier with the ZX81. Fitting plugs yourself was not uncommon in the 80s, but no soldering was required.