Home (toy) computers. Why?

[barythrin]

Yeah, I do see how our own definitions of a home computer would affect the debate. After reading the followups, I see how the sense of a computer with the primary focus of fun/gaming instead of work applications could be perceived vs a home business class computer. I agree that I'm sure all these companies were marketing the "home computer" however a CBM 2001 is still a pretty nice business class machine (compliment to the system) vs a home gaming platform.

I'm still not sure where to say they failed or where the market went though. I mean Amiga came in later and that was certainly an insane gaming/music machine. Blew me away when I first saw them. I don't think I really saw anything on the PC until late 486/586 days that could compete with the sound effects and arcade graphics the Amiga was pumping out.

Then of course even Amiga tried the set top idea (Amiga cd32). Then a few small companies also tried what they'd consider a non-business "home computer" (although this wasn't games) but how about the all-in-one systems for a little while (specifically I'm referring to late 90's I-Opener system) that was a "take it out of the box, plug it into your phone line, and now you have internet and email" in an easy to use design and no bulk system. Also yes, the non-vintage gaming systems (not sure how far back but I know Dreamcast and PS2 was popular) all can have keyboards and run linux and surf the net now, despite the real purpose being a gaming machine.

I see both sides of the story though lol.. now I'm confused which one I want to side with ;-)

 

[tezza]

II don't want to start an argument about this, read for yourself and then let me know if I am still wrong.

Hi Bill. No, I dont want to start an argument either. I seem to remember an acromonious one a few months ago on the definition of "portable". Let's not go there.

Definitions like this are always problematic because definitions and terms "evolve". I seem to remember a particular mainframe/Mini computer that was marketed as a "personal computer" simply because one person could operate it! So it was personal. Similarly, I've seen early articles refering to calculators as computers because they can "compute". Certainly arguable, but most people would feel those definitions as applied to the examples mentioned as inappropriate these days.

Similarly, I've no doubt the early "consumer" micros (PET, TRS-80 Model 1, APPLE II) were written of as home computers initially because they were affordable for the individual, you could buy them from stores and plug them in and run them at home for all kinds of things.

However, from these general purpose machines the marketplace quickly evolved leading to a genera of micros with a distinct set of attributes in the early-mid 1980s. These attributes were compulsory colour, sound and TV modulator. Also they usually included, slow storage devices and a keyboard which was often unsuitable for touch typist and limited screen real-estate when it came to text (40 columns or less). Most of all though, they were cheap and marketed agressively to families as fun and educational machines.

This is the evolutionary line I've always thought of as "home computers". They were very different from the micros aimed at businesses, which had a different set of attributes. If, as a group, the former are not called home computers, what should they be called? I don't think "toy computers" is appropriate although it has been suggested.

Anyway, this is an interesting discussion. One of the things I'm looking to do with my website soon, is to write an article on the taxonomic evolution of early microcomputers, with a kind of tree diagram showing how evolutionary lines were developed by manufacturers specifically for different marketplaces.

It will be open to debate I'm sure (there are always fuzzy margins when it comes to these definitions), but it's through these discussions that thoughts can crystallise.

Tez

 

[cosam]

However, from these general purpose machines the marketplace quickly evolved leading to a genera of micros with a distinct set of attributes in the early-mid 1980s. These attributes were compulsory colour, sound and TV modulator. Also they usually included, slow storage devices and a keyboard which was often unsuitable for touch typist and limited screen real-estate when it came to text (40 columns or less). Most of all though, they were cheap and marketed agressively to families as fun and educational machines.

Just to throw a spanner in the works: my second computer (ever) was an Amstrad CPC-464. No TV-modulator as standard, 80 column text mode and a proper keyboard. But still very much a home computer ;-)

Yes, one can argue 'til the cows come home over definitions of "home", "portable" and (dare I say it?) "vintage" computers. There will always be exceptions to the rule, but for the sake of this thread I think your interpretation is a good one.

 

[billdeg]

I think everyone has a pretty informed opinion.

Despite what I said, I agree with Tezza because to me personally when I think "home computer" I think of things like the TI 99/4a and Commodore 64.

I think the horse is dead.

 

[Druid6900]

One could define a "home" computer as one that would never be seen in most businesses, I suppose.

Although anecdotal stories may be told about some bakery running their stuff on a C-64, it would not be common enough to counter the "definition".

 

[Terry Yager]

I don't want to start an argument about this, read for yourself and then let me know if I am still wrong.

Bill

You're not wrong, Bill, but just to (hopefully) clarify my point a little. The Apple][ and TRS-80 were certainly flogged to the home market just as enthusiastically as to businesses, so they (among others) were in a different class, neither specifically 'home' nor 'business' machines. The C= machines were a horse of a different color, as they came in both flavors, the CBM brand, aimed at the business user, and the PET brand targeted at homes.

--T

 

[jh1523]

Hi Bill. No, I dont want to start an argument either. I seem to remember an acromonious one a few months ago on the definition of "portable". Let's not go there.

BTW, I think that definition should include whether or not you need to whip out the Advil for back pain at the end of the day.