![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
liam_on_linuxSo in a thread on CIX, someone was saying that the Sinclair computers were irritating and annoying, cut down too far, cheap and slow and unreliable.
That sort of comment still kinda burns after all these decades.
I was a Sinclair owner. I loved my Spectrums, spent a lot of time and money on them, and still have 2 working ones today.
Yes, they had their faults, but for all those who sneered and snarked at their cheapness and perceived nastiness, *that was their selling point*.
They were working, usable, useful home computers that were affordable.
They were transformative machines, transforming people, lives, economies.
I had a Spectrum not because I massively wanted a Spectrum -- I would have rather had a BBC Micro, for instance -- but because I could afford a Spectrum. Well, my parents could, just barely. A used one.
My 2nd, 3rd and 4th ones were used, as well, because I could just about afford them.
If all that had been available were proper, serious, real computers -- Apples, Acorns, even early Commodores -- I might never have got one. My entire career would never have happened.
A BBC Micro was pushing £350. My used 48K Spectrum was £80.
One of those is doable for what parents probably worried was a kid's toy that might never be used for anything productive. The other was the cost of a car.
I wouldn't have wanted something like a VIC-20 because it was so crippled, with its poor 22 column screen and poor BASIC. The C64 was blatantly a games machine, with the same poor BASIC, but the R&D money spent on fancy graphics and sound which you could only access by PEEK and POKE commands.
The BBC looked lovely but was too expensive even for my (expensive, private) school; I never touched one until they were old and past-it, driving lab equipment.
The ZX-81, with no true graphics, no sound, no colour, looked very boring to a pubescent boy. I wanted some bling and dazzle. Who doesn't at 13 or so?
The Spectrum hit a sweet spot: decent BASIC, decent amount of RAM, but still tons of 3rd party extras, both hardware and software. All for a price I could afford as an impoverished student.
Later, I had an Amstrad PCW 9512, another underrated machine, and then after that, an Acorn Archimedes. The late lamented Guy Kewney called trying an IBM PC-AT as "my first experience of Raw Computer Power." (A 6MHz 286!) But for me, it was the Archie. Again, 2nd hand -- but £800 for a machine with a whole megabyte of RAM, a hard disk, and amazing CPU power and graphics with a multitasking GUI.
But that was when I was 21 and in my first job. (It took a year or so to pay off my debts.) Not a chance when I was 14 or so. Then, I got a used Speccy. Rubber keys and all. And it was great.
If you folk were the wealthy elite who could afford £500 - £1000 computers, good for you. The Provens couldn't. We needed sub-£100 computers.
They were not cut down too far. They were cut down just far enough. Still having what made computers interesting, but just about affordable albeit expensive.
The QL was cut down too far, yes, *for its time*. Everyone forgets that it predated the Mac. When the QL was designed, a GUI personal computer meant an Apple Lisa, $10,000.
By the time it was shipping, it meant a Mac, $2,500 or so.
A year later, it meant an Amiga or an ST, for $500 or so.
In *that* context, yes, the QL was too cut down.
But compared to the BBC Micro, the C64, or the $1000+ machines like the Apple II or Atari range, no, it was just right. Don't knock it.
That sort of comment still kinda burns after all these decades.
I was a Sinclair owner. I loved my Spectrums, spent a lot of time and money on them, and still have 2 working ones today.
Yes, they had their faults, but for all those who sneered and snarked at their cheapness and perceived nastiness, *that was their selling point*.
They were working, usable, useful home computers that were affordable.
They were transformative machines, transforming people, lives, economies.
I had a Spectrum not because I massively wanted a Spectrum -- I would have rather had a BBC Micro, for instance -- but because I could afford a Spectrum. Well, my parents could, just barely. A used one.
My 2nd, 3rd and 4th ones were used, as well, because I could just about afford them.
If all that had been available were proper, serious, real computers -- Apples, Acorns, even early Commodores -- I might never have got one. My entire career would never have happened.
A BBC Micro was pushing £350. My used 48K Spectrum was £80.
One of those is doable for what parents probably worried was a kid's toy that might never be used for anything productive. The other was the cost of a car.
I wouldn't have wanted something like a VIC-20 because it was so crippled, with its poor 22 column screen and poor BASIC. The C64 was blatantly a games machine, with the same poor BASIC, but the R&D money spent on fancy graphics and sound which you could only access by PEEK and POKE commands.
The BBC looked lovely but was too expensive even for my (expensive, private) school; I never touched one until they were old and past-it, driving lab equipment.
The ZX-81, with no true graphics, no sound, no colour, looked very boring to a pubescent boy. I wanted some bling and dazzle. Who doesn't at 13 or so?
The Spectrum hit a sweet spot: decent BASIC, decent amount of RAM, but still tons of 3rd party extras, both hardware and software. All for a price I could afford as an impoverished student.
Later, I had an Amstrad PCW 9512, another underrated machine, and then after that, an Acorn Archimedes. The late lamented Guy Kewney called trying an IBM PC-AT as "my first experience of Raw Computer Power." (A 6MHz 286!) But for me, it was the Archie. Again, 2nd hand -- but £800 for a machine with a whole megabyte of RAM, a hard disk, and amazing CPU power and graphics with a multitasking GUI.
But that was when I was 21 and in my first job. (It took a year or so to pay off my debts.) Not a chance when I was 14 or so. Then, I got a used Speccy. Rubber keys and all. And it was great.
If you folk were the wealthy elite who could afford £500 - £1000 computers, good for you. The Provens couldn't. We needed sub-£100 computers.
They were not cut down too far. They were cut down just far enough. Still having what made computers interesting, but just about affordable albeit expensive.
The QL was cut down too far, yes, *for its time*. Everyone forgets that it predated the Mac. When the QL was designed, a GUI personal computer meant an Apple Lisa, $10,000.
By the time it was shipping, it meant a Mac, $2,500 or so.
A year later, it meant an Amiga or an ST, for $500 or so.
In *that* context, yes, the QL was too cut down.
But compared to the BBC Micro, the C64, or the $1000+ machines like the Apple II or Atari range, no, it was just right. Don't knock it.
