What was the best 1980s computer?

[aimeeandbeatles]

I asked my mom this, and she says she didn't have much experience with them, but probably the Commodore 64. She says that Ataris were terrible, and it'd be a miracle if you could get them going. She doesn't know about Amigas, and didn't even know they had Apple Macs back then.

So, what are your thoughts? I would say the C-64, although I haven't actually *used* old computers, I'm basing this on stuff I read.

 

[Cutlass]

The Apple II series was pretty good in the early 80s. By the end of the 80s the PC AT was pretty much dominating.

 

[Mise]

ZX Spectrum, by far.

 

[frekk]

Probably a toss-up between the Amiga systems and the early x86 (PC) machines. The 386 and 486 machines (appeared just before Pentiums, Penta = Greek for 5 = 586) were very good and were around by 1989. I don't know as much about the Amigas, but I hear they were ahead of their time.

The x86 machines went from the XT8086 to the 286 (80286) to the 386 to the 486. You could play Civ1 on an old XT (I did it!) very slowly, on a high end 386 or a 486 you could play Civ2, Warlords2, Warcraft, Age of Empires (the first one), the first couple of Red Alert/Command and Conquer titles, etc (these were all titles that came out in the 90s for the most part, but you could get by with an old machine like a 486 for a really long time - I had one through most of the 90s and there wasn't much I couldn't do).

On a C-64 you could only play really primitive games like Pac-Man and early Donkey Kong games, stuff like that.

C-64 was very popular and sold a huge number of units, but it wasn't really a great machine and by the end of the 80s it was seriously outdated.

 

[lndm]

There really were a few stages of development in the eighties with text mode computers, colour, graphics, then some that were more like what we use today.

The Commodore 64 was a popular computer. It was advanced for its time as it was innovative, and it was fun to program.

The Atari ST was also quite popular.

The 386 and 486 machines (appeared just before Pentiums, Penta = Greek for 5 = 586) were very good

The IBM compatible machines were neither innovative nor fun to program. They were typically behind the times and achieved their usefulness by using creative software. They advanced largely by brute force rather than by innovation. They succeded due to the IBM name and by the fact that like video recorders, people had to settle on one type. Microsoft has since driven the PC to the capacity to handle a richer Windows xperience......but the computer itself is little more than a maxed out turbo charged 386.

 

[frekk]

The IBM compatible machines were neither innovative nor fun to program. They were typically behind the times and achieved their usefulness by using creative software. They advanced largely by brute force rather than by innovation.

I just have to disagree here. 486s could run high end software that was coming out in the mid to late 90s, that's an awfully decent run. Even if compatible software were being produced, C-64s would not have been able to keep up. Can you even expand the RAM in a C-64?

More to the point, for the average person, it was just a better machine ... you can make all kinds of excuses about why it was a better machine (the market, the software, whatever) but in the end, it just was.

 

[GoodGame]

The Apple II series was pretty good in the early 80s. By the end of the 80s the PC AT was pretty much dominating.

Apple IIe (e for enhanced) pretty much rocked and was well supported by software for most of the '80s (I was still playing games--mostly SSI's games---on one up to about '90) until the IBM clones grew exponentionally. The Atari computers were pretty competitive with Apple for awhile but folded probably cause of the IBM clones. Never had an Amiga, but aparently it was light years ahead of its time.

Apple II GS was awesome for about a second, but by that the time IBM PC clones (and probably Amiga and Atari ST) killed its chances of being well established; And apparently Apple wanted to switch to the Mac architecture.

 

[lndm]

@ frekk

Yes, the IBMs are the better choice for the average person. They were adapted for upgrading and are very powerful machines. I would recommend that others buy them.

Under the bonnet, they are a clunky, unimaginative mess that just happens to get the job done.....but most people don't need to know that.

Remember that this thread is about the best computer of the eighties. In that era, the user experience largely involved getting down and dirty with the system. Most users could program, and a good number very well.

 

[Aramazd]

@ frekk

Yes, the IBMs are the better choice for the average person. They were adapted for upgrading and are very powerful machines. I would recommend that others buy them.

Under the bonnet, they are a clunky, unimaginative mess that just happens to get the job done.....but most people don't need to know that.

Remember that this thread is about the best computer of the eighties. In that era, the user experience largely involved getting down and dirty with the system. Most users could program, and a good number very well.

So the PC is bad because x86 assembly sucks? I never touched assembly, I here it sucks, but that's why there is C.

 

[Padma]

The original Ataris and the Commodore 64 used the same (6502C) cpu. The Atari was actually the better machine - you could do so much more with it, and so much easier. But Atari marketing execs only understood game machines. They had absolutely no idea how to market a computer. So Commodore was able to pretty much take over that market. (As an aside, what with all the 'cross-fertilization' and 'incest' between companies, the Atari ST was actually the technological successor to the Commodore 64, while the Amiga was the product of Atari's team. )

With that said, by the late 80s IBM was pushing everyone else out of the market. It seemed the general consensus of the average population was that "if it's not an IBM, it's not a computer." everyone had always known that IBM made computers. But who were these Atari, Commodore, and Apple guys? Could you trust anything as technical as a computer to be made by somebody you've never heard of? THAT is what really sold the IBM PC. (Back in 1985 I made the statement that the IBM/DOS computer was setting the personal computing indrustry back by 10 years. Sure enough, it wasn't until Win95 was released that we had the same functionality on 'PCs' that we had in 85 on our other systems. )

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I was talking to some of the teachers about old computers and they groaned when I mentioned the Atari. My mom says you were lucky if you could keep one going. Is this true?

 

[lndm]

I was talking to some of the teachers about old computers and they groaned when I mentioned the Atari. My mom says you were lucky if you could keep one going. Is this true?

There was a market for computer repairs back then. Unlike todays common reinstallations of windows, eighties repairs often involved chip replacements and blown diodes. People often packed them away if they broke and sold them years later at garage sales

Boards tended to be hand assembled and soldered, buffer circuitry was relatively expensive, and component size and relative heat dissipation sometimes meant a reduced mechanical stability.

So the PC is bad because x86 assembly sucks? I never touched assembly, I here it sucks, but that's why there is C.

Legend has it that long ago, IBM underestimated the worldwide computer market. By the seventies they were thinking the personal computer was a passing fad. The apple gave them a wake up call and they jumped into action.

They quickly designed a computer using some of their knowledge from their mainframes and even using some junk parts from them too. They did not give much thought to future improvement of the system and didn't have much time to make it user friendly.

Most of the functionality was from software. MSDOS, however was also adapted and rushed....but that's another story.

 

[Hasdrubal Barca]

Commodore Amiga 500 series!

 

[GenMarshall]

The Classic Macintosh!!!

 

[mdwh]

I just have to disagree here. 486s could run high end software that was coming out in the mid to late 90s, that's an awfully decent run. Even if compatible software were being produced, C-64s would not have been able to keep up. Can you even expand the RAM in a C-64?

More to the point, for the average person, it was just a better machine ... you can make all kinds of excuses about why it was a better machine (the market, the software, whatever) but in the end, it just was.

Presumably the comparison was to the other machines such as the Amiga which could also run high end software, not the C64.

The OSs for PCs was quite poor - DOS was primitive, and any GUI was added on via a simplistic version of Windows. It was only since Windows 95 that these things started to be properly supported by Microsoft.

Not to mention all the compatibility and driver problems of trying to support a large range of hardware - things were much worse than today for PCs.

So the PC is bad because x86 assembly sucks? I never touched assembly, I here it sucks, but that's why there is C.

Was, not is - this thread is about the 1980s. A much larger amount of software was written in assembler in the 1980s.

 

[frekk]

With that said, by the late 80s IBM was pushing everyone else out of the market. It seemed the general consensus of the average population was that "if it's not an IBM, it's not a computer." everyone had always known that IBM made computers. But who were these Atari, Commodore, and Apple guys?

Absurd ... by the late 80s, everybody knew the Commodore name and most people had seen and used one, either in their own home or that of a friend or relative. They had much better brand recognition in the home PC market, at least, they did in the mid-80s. By the late 80s the general public was dissastisfied with the idea of the home computer and bottom dropped out of the market for Commodore. Amigas and IBM machines entered the market as business and hobby machines - owning one of these in 1989 was akin to owning a HAM radio set.

Presumably the comparison was to the other machines such as the Amiga which could also run high end software, not the C64.

I consistently heard great things about the Amiga. It was ahead of its time in alot of ways, but I can't make much comment on it as I never saw or used one (mentioned this earlier).

 

[lndm]

Originally Posted by Abgar
So the PC is bad because x86 assembly sucks? I never touched assembly, I here it sucks, but that's why there is C.

Was, not is - this thread is about the 1980s. A much larger amount of software was written in assembler in the 1980s.

I'd like to add that assembly language was commonly used on Commodore computers too. One could even choose to poke machine code directly into it.

Part of machine code programming, is mapping the system. Some systems are more satisfying than others, and that's important in my opinion. I particularly liked the idea of switching in/out banks on the fly to expose other parts of the system: more ROM or extra RAM. 8 bit addressing was fun, and the C64 would still make a good grown-ups toy today IMO.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

The C-64 was awesome. It had great games like Summer Games, Winter Games, One on One, Raid Over Moscow, Microleague Baseball, etc. Plus you could write your own programs.

 

[Padma]

Absurd ... by the late 80s, everybody knew the Commodore name and most people had seen and used one, either in their own home or that of a friend or relative. They had much better brand recognition in the home PC market, at least, they did in the mid-80s. By the late 80s the general public was dissastisfied with the idea of the home computer and bottom dropped out of the market for Commodore. Amigas and IBM machines entered the market as business and hobby machines - owning one of these in 1989 was akin to owning a HAM radio set.

Absurd? I think not. I was already a hacker, then. Yes, theoretically 'everybody' had heard of Commodore. But 'everybody' thought of them primarily as game machines. Even though some of the military/government offices I worked in used them (and Ataris) as work machines (much like modern PCs). The IBM was, as you said, really aimed at the business market. But that just reaffirmed people's thinking that 'real' computers were made by IBM.

Home users/hobbyists went for the Amiga. But the trend had already started: "If I have a computer at home, I want to be able to work on it / use the same programs I'm familiar with from work / etc." Since the breadwinner controlled the purse strings, that meant he (or, occasionally she) would buy the computer he wanted, a 'real' computer, not just a 'kids toy'. And there went the home PC market....

@aimee: I never, ever, had a problem with an Atari system, and I owned several. I have a couple buried in a closet somewhere, that would probably boot up and run just like the old days....

 

[mdwh]

Yes, theoretically 'everybody' had heard of Commodore. But 'everybody' thought of them primarily as game machines. Even though some of the military/government offices I worked in used them (and Ataris) as work machines (much like modern PCs). The IBM was, as you said, really aimed at the business market. But that just reaffirmed people's thinking that 'real' computers were made by IBM.

I don't know if this was "everybody", but yes, it was rather sad to see pretentious users with their expensive DOS based 286s who looked down upon cheaper and more capable machines as being "games machines" or "toys". Looking back, it's rather laughable - considering how PCs are now used for games, and that the games industry drives PC development, not to mention that PCs have now adopted all the features of the so-called games machines (e.g., decent built in graphics, sound as standard;a multitasking GUI in the OS), and no one wants to use anything that looks like a boring single-tasking DOS machine anymore.

Apple's "I'm a PC" strategy of stereotyping PCs as boring business machines actually would have made sense back then - but Apple are 15 years too late, and back then, Apple users had the same pretentious attitude of cheaper machines being "toys", it's just there were far fewer of them than PC users.