In Pictures: Iconic Machines From Computing History

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]Chris Guertin[/nom]Wow, what a poorly researched article... IBM was a failure at PCs? LOL The PS/2 was never a commercial success? Empires were built selling them back in the day. Tons of money was made, which I think defines "commercial success" (I was there...). Microchannel (plug and play many years ahead of it's time), Token Ring, etc etc added to IBM's success in the early to middle PC era. They had only started losing money in the PC business in the early 2000's before the PC Division was sold to Lenovo (who is poised to be #1 worldwide this year). Really folks, a little research would go a long ways. Young people might read these articles and believe what you say is accurate.[/citation]

I completely agree. Sad the writer wasn't even smart enough to just goto wiki, pretty pathetic.

I too, was around with the ps/2 it was a big hit, but was overtaken by the 'cheaper' isa pc computers.
 

brendonmc

Distinguished
Nov 6, 2009
48
0
18,530
Great nostalgic article. I am surprised but glad to see the old amstrad get a mention. I am also surprised that the Toshiba libretto and palm pilot didn't rate a mention.
 

brendonmc

Distinguished
Nov 6, 2009
48
0
18,530
Great nostalgic article. I am surprised but glad to see the old amstrad get a mention. I am also surprised that the Toshiba libretto and palm pilot didn't rate a mention.
 

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,540
2
22,795
[citation][nom]scannall[/nom]The C-64 really wasn't better. You couldn't add anything to it, where the Apple ][ had 7 expansion slots. The 1541 floppy drive on the Commodore was atrocious, and really expensive. At 2 floppy drives the Commodore lost its price advantage. Adding ram was easy on the Apple, not possible on the Commodore. Applied Engineering had very nice accelerator cards for the Apple. Nothing for Commodore. The Commodore wasn't horrible or anything. But it wasn't near as good, as was reflected in the price.[/citation] LOL!! You are funny! Couldn't add anything to it? I guess that is like todays notebook computers with only 3 USB ports... no way to ADD anything to those things as well.

Let's do some CORRECTIONS.
Yes, the apple IIe had 7 expansion slots... as the computer didn't have ANYTHING else! On the back, the ONLY thing it included was a horrible video out (monochrome in Europe), Audio in/out jacks for a TAPE drive, a joystick port and a power switch. Nothing ELSE! Either your Apple II had 3 slot openings to hang out ribbon cables or you had the 12 pop-out covers which a much cleaner design for ports and shit.

C=64 / C=128 included:
- 2 DB9 joystick ports:
- Expansion Port : for either games or a memory expander (rarely needed) or other things.
- User Port : for Modems usually or other RS232 requirements. Including 80Col display output.
- Cassette Port : For connecting to a tape drive, reliable than others. Also for Real Time Clock add-on.
- RGB Port : For 40 col display output with sound (Wow, a single cable for sound and video)
- Serial Port : For Floppy drives and printers through a daisy chain setup.
- RF Port : for connecting to the TV.
-- (C= 128 only) a 9-pin Video port for 80col display.

Even today, people are able to communicate to a C= 8bit computer with a USB cable from a PC.

AppleIIe:
(Ports stated above).... so you would need to add a card for:
1) - for SOUND output. Yes, the APPLEII had a speaker that made a few BEEPS, crappy for games or music.
2) - RGB color output
3) - 80COL output (optional)
4) - Floppy controller (you could buy drives without the controller... but that would be useless)
5) - modem
6) - Parallel card (for printers)
7) - RS-232 (for external modems and other devices)
8) - Mouse card

So for the BASE $1200 AppleII, you would still need to spend $$ to add the ability to use floppy drives or add a printer. The "color" output from the built-in connector was barely what someone would call color. For the C=64, it easily blew the Apple II away.

Lets talk about drive prices... As you said, the 1541 drives were expensive.
But in 1980, the Apple II drive with a controller (up to two drives supported per card) was $600. But that was a bit before my time... as I was a kid. So when I bought my 1541 clone drive, I paid $200 for it... but I found some incompatibilities with games and later bought the 1571 drive for $280 (1986 spring). At that time, the Apple Disk IIc Drive sold for $300 (Still a single-sided drive - that would plug directly into the AppleIIc or into the IIe with a controller card). SO WHERE do you get this expensive price from? Also you should consider that the C= 1541~1571 drives had their own power supplies and CPUs (6502)... so they could actually operate Independently from the computer.
AppleII drives = 114~140K
C= 1541 = 160K / 1571 = 320K * the 1571 drive was a LOT faster than the 1541 and more than twice the storage capacity... could read CP/M disks.

Okay, lets talk about 1985 pricing.

C-128 + two 1571 drives = $960 (included C=64 mode, CP/M mode, C=128 mode with 2Mhz CPU)
AppleIIc + 2nd Apple IIc drive = $1620 (1Mhz 128k)

While the IIc was far better than the IIe, it didn't need the slots because those features were built in, but emulated for compatibility as software would still LOOK for card 3 for example. Oh yeah, the Apple II slots were specific to function. You couldn't just put a card ANYWHERE. Some slots were for the video, others the RS232 or the PAR, etc. Since add-on cards were not needed, the IIc was easily cheaper than the IIe.

But in the end, the IIc was still just an AppleII with the same 1970s video and BEEP BEEP audio in a very sexy modern 1980s case and keyboard.

PS: Accelerator cards were made for the C64 & 128 for some reason as well... overall, not useful to any 8 bit computer. The fastest for the C64 was a 20mhz CPU that supported up to 16mb of RAM.

Check out what this guy did to a 1985/6 C=128: Modded and stuck it into a tower case, fully loaded.
http://www.amiga.org/forums/blog.php?b=177

Note: This C128 does have an IDE port on it, but is using a 4GB CF-Card instead. (Hell, thats far more than the 150MB HDs I have in my Amiga3000) - that link is from 2010.

PS2: By all means, the AppleII *IS* an important piece of computer history... it was out-dated by 1980 by Commodore and Atari 8bit computers which were cheaper. Keep in mind, inside every AppleII computer is the heartbeat of a Commodore CPU (CMOS 6502).
 

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,540
2
22,795
[citation][nom]ruel24[/nom]One computer I would have mentioned was the Apple Duo. It was a laptop that plugged into a dock and became a desktop computer.[/citation] No its not, its just a docking station for a notebook. I used to have a PentiumI Compaq Dock that was similar to the Duo, it had all the DESKTOP ports and 1-2 expansion slots. These docks are expensive and not worth it, especially with USB. Today, Lenovo ThinkPads have the most powerful Docks, but don't have internal slots. They output many USB ports, PAR/SER, multi-monitor support and more.

[citation][nom]ruel24[/nom]Another is the Timex Sinclair 1000, which I believe sold under another name elsewhere.Then, there was the PowerComputing and other Mac clones. That was a big deal when that all went down.And what about the Univac? TRS-80?[/citation] Timex Sinclair 1000 is USA, it was the ZX-Spectrum in Europe. As stated, its only claim to fame is the first $100 computer... it was weak and almost useless... but they were super cute, especially the ZX 128. Univac was a commercial line of huge computers... important yes, but nothing great. They are alive today as Unisys. The TRS-80, or TRASH-80 as we called them... were fine computers. They were ugly and more expensive than the C=64, etc. RadioShack (the only company that sold TRS computers) to be sold in the USA... the TRS80 brand had its issues like many of that era and did not sell millions of units unlike the Apple II or C=64 which continued production until 1990 or so. By the mid 80s, Tandy/Radioshack had moved onto PC-Clones, then to just selling other computer brands.

But you know what is kind of missing? GRiD systems (Wish I still had my GRiD) - these notebooks were built tough. First clam-shell computer. First tablet.... Think about that for a moment.

Since Samsung owns what ever became of GRiD (Tandy bought GRiD, AST bought Tandy, Samsung bought AST) - so in a sense, can Samsung SUE Apple over the tablet design? Or even MacPro notebooks because of the patented "clamshell"?

PS: Tandy started as a leather company in Texas 1919, bought out RadioShack in 1963. In 2000 RadioShack Corp formed, dropped the Tandy name.... but it looks like Tandy returned to their leather roots.
 

Phil Williamson

Honorable
Apr 6, 2013
12
0
10,510
[citation][nom]Spinoza1[/nom]Also, amazingly, you forgot to include the Atari ST, which competed with, and was in many ways better, than the Amiga. It's certainly a more significant computer than the PS/2.[/citation]

The only thing the ST had on the Amiga was the stock MIDI ports. Hybrid Arts also made some cool hardware for it (the ADAP) but in the end, it was a flop.

I had both a 1040ST and an Amiga 3000. Liked them both. But in the end, the Amiga was far superior.
 

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,540
2
22,795
[citation][nom]computertech82[/nom]I too, was around with the ps/2 it was a big hit, but was overtaken by the 'cheaper' isa pc computers.[/citation] No, it wasn't. Back when IBM decided to enter the Personal Computer business, their engineers threw together a bunch of OFF the shelf parts together and licensed an OS from Microsoft (Who had bought it from a programmer who had reversed engineered CP/M for a few thousand). IBM called it "PC-DOS". Due to stupidity of IBM - they left the door open for MS to sell "MS-DOS" to anyone. There was nothing special about the hardware in the IBM PC. It was a box with a CPU... you added a card for everything... thus, gave birth to the Compatibles and Clones.

Compatibles were the likes of early Compaqs, Tandy 1000, Commodore PC (yep, they made them too). The clones were anyone who could build a computer... refer to Computer Shopper mag which was the size of a phone book in the 80s... these would be the Acers, Sony, Toshiba, Packard Bell, etc.

So, IBM decided to create a NEW standard of computer that IBM will have full control of. THE PS/2!!
They designed these things with high quality cases (heavy), the standard PS/2 connector and most importantly... Microchannel a PnP BUS (Which Amiga and Apple had already). They targeted these computers to businesses... and of course OS/2 was to be that FUTURE OS that they control (with the help of MS... again). But as we know, OS/2 was just a CLI and it would be years before it would have a GUI. Hmmm... funny how Amiga had GUI from the start, even the Atari ST... but big blue couldn't do this? OS/2 was compatible with MS-DOS programs. But funny, you needed to have a 386 class computer to multi-task (meanwhile - Amiga was multi-tasking with its 32bit OS since 1985 with its 7mhz 16/32bit CPU - also there is some Amiga tech in OS/2 2.+). But with MS-Windows becoming successful with 3.0 it would eventually lead to the breakup of IBM from MS. OS/2 3.0 that MS was working on became MS-Windows NT 3.0 - their first multi-tasking GUI OS. IBM made due with their own code from 2.x into their own OS/2 3.0, etc. With Windows95, that killed OS/2.

Anyways...

IBM wanted control of the PC market... and that would be MCA (Micro Channel Architecture). For the most part (AFAIK) only IBM made MCA systems... as anyone else (HP, Compaq, clone makers) would have to pay a royalty PER computer SOLD.... and pay for every IBM-compatible computer that the maker had built in the past (OUCH)... needless to say, nobody would agree to that. All PS/2 computers could only hold 3.5" drives... and the cases, including the huge towers could only handle a single HD (which were very expensive in the 80s anyway).

With MS selling MS-DOS and Windows to anyone... nobody needed a closed IBM system. Pretty much NOBODY outside of corporations bought PS/2. They were, in the end - just an expensive business class computer with a powerful MCA PnP system (equal to PCI 1.0 that would follow about 7 years later) from 1990~1994, they made the PS/1 computers - for the home market. Stupid PCs in which the PSU was built into the monitor... imagine what fun servicing those computers were like! They used standard PC clone features like ISA, IDE, etc.

So here is the funny... PS/2 did nothing in of itself as MCA was the component that IBM wanted to use to create a new standard. But the clone market took aspects of PS/2 which we use today (somewhat) and made it into our PC standard in the 90s, especially with the ATX form factor. So now, we have a group of companies who create standards that everyone uses. PCI, PCIexpress, HDMI, DisplayPort, USB, etc...

Those are:
- PS/2 which worked great for mice and keyboards!
- VGA - created the standard and the connector - used today in HD TVs, etc.
- 3.5" 1.44MB floppy (yet until the release of Win95, almost every PC I built or sold had a single 5.25" and 3.5" floppy - After Win95, the CD-ROM became defacto standard... ever tried installing Win95 with 13 floppies? I did it once.)
- Memory SIMMs... rather than the DIPS, SIPPS and other stuff that was all over the place in the 80s. (SIPPS suck)

- PS/2 Keyboard : IBM should get credit for creating the PS/2 keyboard layout we use today.

There are likely more operational C=64 and Amigas today than there are of PS/2 computers.
 

Phil Williamson

Honorable
Apr 6, 2013
12
0
10,510
[citation][nom]scannall[/nom]The C-64 really wasn't better. You couldn't add anything to it, where the Apple ][ had 7 expansion slots. The 1541 floppy drive on the Commodore was atrocious, and really expensive. At 2 floppy drives the Commodore lost its price advantage. Adding ram was easy on the Apple, not possible on the Commodore. Applied Engineering had very nice accelerator cards for the Apple. Nothing for Commodore. The Commodore wasn't horrible or anything. But it wasn't near as good, as was reflected in the price.[/citation]

The C-64 (and SX-64) had a cartridge slot with gave (mostly) all the expansion you could ask for. I ran 64 channel stage lighting via that port using a single chip per channel (AD558) that Analog Devices produce. It had a latch, an D/A and an op amp on a one chip. Output was 10 volts DC, which controlled one channel of my Teatronics dimmer packs. I built single rack units that controlled 16 channels each. I wrote the software while working with a "Top 40" band in Cordova Alaska. Built the hardware with a friend in Port Angeles Washington.

In other words, the C-64 was easily an equal to the Apple....plus it had, in ways, a superior CPU. Also, you didn't have to add ram to the c-64 as it came with all a 16 bit address bus could handle. The drives were more expensive, but then again, they were full-blown computers...not "dumb" units like Apple had. You could actually run a program on a C-54 drive.
 

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,540
2
22,795
I wouldn't call the ST a flop... it was better than the PC-DOS computers. If there was never IBM PCs... our computer world would be very different today... I'd guess that Amiga and Mac would own 80% of the market, with Atari and Linux the rest. MS wouldn't be the power house it is today if IBM didn't knock on their door.
 

Phil Williamson

Honorable
Apr 6, 2013
12
0
10,510
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]I wouldn't call the ST a flop... it was better than the PC-DOS computers. If there was never IBM PCs... our computer world would be very different today... I'd guess that Amiga and Mac would own 80% of the market, with Atari and Linux the rest. MS wouldn't be the power house it is today if IBM didn't knock on their door.[/citation]

Belardo,
I meant the Hybrid Arts ADAP was a flop. :) Writing is not my bag. BTW, I was a few years older than you when I started with the C-64. I was 30 in 1983. :) I also still have my 3000...complete with an 040 and a Picasso II video card.
 

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,540
2
22,795
LOL... you are a LOT older than me. I was 13 in 1983. :)
But even in my teens, I could have run Commodore better. I would have had he A1000 and higher include a built in de-interlacer. I think not having a rock-steady display as needed in the office environment was a major reason it couldn't compete with the DOS & MAC.

I still have my genlock, my USR Modem and memory expander for the A1000. I used to have the XTRAC 2MB/SCSI system & 20MB HD for my A1000 (the ext HD case looked like a IBM PC Jr) - but I sold it, the 14Mhz accelerator and interlacer to help buy my Amiga3000. Remember, those were $1600~2500 new when they first came out. Because it was 1993 and AGA Amigas were shipping - I was able to get the A3000 25mhz/68030-50MB/3MB version for $800, instead of $2000. But the daughter board Riser for the zorro slots was defective. After 2 mobo swaps before C= went belly up, nobody knew this (as did I)... when I put a cooling fan on that board, the glitches went away. :(

Since I was running ADOS 3.0 on my A1000, I never really ran 2.0 on my A3000 when I got it. I wrote my Startup to say "If ROM = 2.0, then load ROM3.0 into memory, then reboot, Else continue Startup into WB 3.0". :) So I actually ran my A1000 in 640x480x8 (16col ran it too slow) and my A3000 ran 800x600x16 on the desktop modes. Also I used overscan to get more pixels, like 720x460, etc.

My A3000 still sits in my room... so I see her almost everyday.

Understood about the typing, I have my own errors.

Still sick that it took until WindowsXP for Microsoft to somewhat EQUAL AmigaOS 2.0/3.0.
 

xtremesv

Distinguished
May 17, 2010
6
0
18,510
Wow and I thought my first PC powered by a AMD K6-2 @300 MHz and 32 MB RAM was vintage but this article proves it was actually a supercomputer compared to the ones of the 70's and 80's hahaha.

Another thing that saddens but it's factual is how many advances in technology have been driven by warfare.
 

valandis

Honorable
Mar 23, 2013
11
0
10,510
Where's Atari ST??? It was used by many music studios due to the fact that it had built in MIDI support! It was the biggest competitor of Commodore Amiga, as well as the first 8086/8088 (even 80286) based PCs. Cmon, fix that Slideshow!
 

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,540
2
22,795
We have already gone over this Valandis... The Atari-ST was a clone of the Amiga/Mac/DOS that was thrown together in months by Jack Tramiel, as he had brought some of his staff and engineers from C= to Atari when he bought the company.

So it has weaker but still very impressive graphics for its time. Its OS was no better than MS-DOS with its crappy 8.3 file names. ie: you can't have a file called "Summer Vacation 1986 report", but instead "SVACTO86.TXT". And its GUI was rather Macintosh like, but a bit uglier. It did not have the multi-tasking abilities of the Amiga (nobody did until Win95 & MacOS-X for consumers. Otherwise you had to use UNIX)

Yes, it having built-in MIDI ports made it easier for it to communicate and control musical instruments... that is all. Meanwhile, there were aftermarket MIDI adapters available.

The PC 8086/286 market was pretty much boring ugly big office boxes. The Atari market was home users.
 

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,540
2
22,795
[citation][nom]xtremesv[/nom]Wow and I thought my first PC powered by a AMD K6-2 @300 MHz and 32 MB RAM was vintage but this article proves it was actually a supercomputer compared to the ones of the 70's and 80's hahaha.[/citation] When I was a young teen with my 3.5K C= VIC20... I used to dream about having the 8K RAM expander and what cool things I could do with it. That it would last me for years! But next year, I got the C=128 for Christmas. :)

So my memory went like this: 3.5K > 128K > 512K > 2.5MB > 3MB > 4MB (PC era) > 16 > 64MB > 128MB > 512MB > 2GB > 4GB > 16GB.

CPU speed: 1Mhz > 2Mhz > 7Mhz > 14Mhz > 25Mhz > 120Mhz (PC Era) Then the rest a haze to 3.4Ghz quad core i5-3570K CPU of today.

A $400 tablet is NOTHING compared to the costs of computers from the 80s... which WERE built in the USA.
 

thub

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2009
11
0
18,510
It seems a bit premature to declare netbooks as "officially dead", since at least both Asus and Acer still sell updated versions of these sub-$500, compact notebook products (although I don't thing Asus ever used the term "netbook" to refer to any of its products).
 

royalcrown

Distinguished
[citation][nom]Spinoza1[/nom]Also, amazingly, you forgot to include the Atari ST, which competed with, and was in many ways better, than the Amiga. It's certainly a more significant computer than the PS/2.[/citation]

HOW was it better than the 1000, better than the amiga 512 (yuck) maybe I could see that ?
 

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,540
2
22,795
Royal crown: the a500 was slighty better than he a1000, other than its lower cost form factor. I bought the A1000 because I outgrew the keyboard computer. Either one was more expandable than the any of the original Atari ST. First ST models didn't even include a floppy drive.
 

mynith

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2012
133
0
18,680
What about the Difference Engine? Or the Analytical Engine? It was never built, but it would do mechanically what e truly programmable computer does electronically.
 

mamailo

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2011
166
0
18,690
Well if for iconic machines you can´t beat the ibm/360 or the as/400. In the mind of the general public is what they understand as mainframes, since it was pictured in many films.
The PDP-8 was never as popular as the PDP-11 witch was de facto standard on universities due his low price of only a few hundred grands. Sounds crazy today but when a personal computer have a low price of $500 (non devalueated dollars) for the base system, the PDP-11 whit a 8 inches floppy drive as memory storage was a bargain.
 

sharedude

Honorable
Jun 18, 2013
2
0
10,510
I believe they have forgotten an important yet generally unrecognized one! The "Antikythera mechanism" which predates the pascaline by some 2000 years!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.