Good post Alcoholics Anonymous ! I realised some things now.
You are probably right that the first wave of computer users were guys who wanted to learn programming. Gamers were only the second wave, much bigger wave.
And I agree, early computers like Z80 or Z81 were for programming as gaming possiblilities were rather limited for them.
Something similar to some extent happened in Poland. I remember the first computer magazines - lots of listings,math, tutorials of Basic programming and only about 4 pages about games. Man, how I hated this boring stuff about sorting or function graphs :)
Eventually somebody noticed the existence of people like me and game only magazines appeared.
It was a time when the vast majority of users experienced a magical voyage of discovery that will be never be repeated in their lifetimes and it was all thanks to Clive Sinclair and his vision of affordable products for the masses.
We all enjoyed playing games on our ZX Spectrums but that was only one aspect of the fun to be had.
I completely and wholeheartedly agree :) If I am, among other things, able to assemble, disassemble and configure a PC blindfolded (*) despite never studying IT neither at school nor at the University I own that to my Spectrum, which made me wonder about what made it "tick" instead of merely typing LOAD "" and pressing ENTER. That was a time in which computers made us think about a lot of possible applications and uses, and the books and magazines around boosted our confidence. Later generations of users did not have the same "push" we experienced.
Nowadays it's even worse - as long as a computer lets you post nonsense on Facebook it's ok, and what happens "under the hood" is of no importance.
for many working class kids of the era, getting a spectrum for Christmas, it WAS a toy.
It may have been a "toy" to many [0], but it was *anything* but "upmarket", the Spectrum was - as colour home computers went - was rather modest. As you say "working class kids". Anything "working class kids" get for Christmas typically is NOT upmarket. Sinclair, above all, tried to make things that were affordable, *not* things that were upmarket.
"Upmarket" would be the BBC Micro. Back in the day, it was only the wealthy Range-Rover set who had a Beeb at home.
[0] I'd also disagree with "toy" as used by this article, it's a functional microcomputer. "Toy" implies something like a toy car - basically a facsimilie of a car that can't actually be used as a car. The Speccy fits the definition of "computer", not "toy computer" which implies something that looks like a computer but isn't actually functional. In the context of this article "upmarket toy" looks like the article's author's attempt at being sour and dismissive. Of course we can say we have hindsight now, and know the Spectrum taught a generation to code, but it should have been evident even in the mid-1980s that the ZX range of computers had given a non trivial number of people a high degree of computer literacy.
...[0] I'd also disagree with "toy" as used by this article, it's a functional microcomputer. "Toy" implies something like a toy car - basically a facsimilie of a car that can't actually be used as a car. The Speccy fits the definition of "computer", not "toy computer" which implies something that looks like a computer but isn't actually functional. In the context of this article "upmarket toy" looks like the article's author's attempt at being sour and dismissive. Of course we can say we have hindsight now, and know the Spectrum taught a generation to code, but it should have been evident even in the mid-1980s that the ZX range of computers had given a non trivial number of people a high degree of computer literacy.
This is a really good point there Winston (well the whole thing)
And along those lines.
I have a question ... when does a toy-computer cease being a toy, and actually become a computer? Is it when one can tinker with it, program it or "manipulate" it possibly in a different manner than directed in the instructions? I am not saying that a four year old is going to mod his Leapfrog "computer" but a grown-up with the technical skills might be able to do it.
"Upmarket" would be the BBC Micro. Back in the day, it was only the wealthy Range-Rover set who had a Beeb at home.
for sure; the posh kids at school had C64s and BBCs;
But please don't underestimate how expensive a Spectrum was back then (in real terms). It was a huge outlay for many working class parents. Most Christmases you'd get a few quid spent on you - then one year, over ?150 (cost of the spectrum and cassette player and a couple of games). This was more than a month's rent! Or a couple of week's wages. That's like buying a mac nowadays.
So, while I agree it wasn't "upmarket" in a class/caste sense (like the BBC was), it was undoubtedly the most expensive thing many working class families would buy (many kids never even dreamed of owning even a Spectrum); so was the upmarket in the financial sense.
It may have been a "toy" to many [0], but it was *anything* but "upmarket", the Spectrum was - as colour home computers went - was rather modest. As you say "working class kids". Anything "working class kids" get for Christmas typically is NOT upmarket. Sinclair, above all, tried to make things that were affordable, *not* things that were upmarket.
"Upmarket" would be the BBC Micro. Back in the day, it was only the wealthy Range-Rover set who had a Beeb at home.
[0] I'd also disagree with "toy" as used by this article, it's a functional microcomputer. "Toy" implies something like a toy car - basically a facsimilie of a car that can't actually be used as a car. The Speccy fits the definition of "computer", not "toy computer" which implies something that looks like a computer but isn't actually functional. In the context of this article "upmarket toy" looks like the article's author's attempt at being sour and dismissive. Of course we can say we have hindsight now, and know the Spectrum taught a generation to code, but it should have been evident even in the mid-1980s that the ZX range of computers had given a non trivial number of people a high degree of computer literacy.
well, this is a problem with the English languge; most words have more than one meaning, and we impose our own prejudice and take whatever meaning we want.
For example, Collins Dictionary
toy [tɔɪ]
n
1. an object designed to be played with
2. something that is a nonfunctioning replica of something else, esp a miniature one
You might be reading the article and suggesting the author is using toy in the sense of definition 2.
Whereas I read it as definition 1.
or even
3. toy - a device regarded as providing amusement; "private airplanes are a rich man's toy"
It's quite telling that many, here, after 30 years are defending, (for want of a better word) a computer against allegations that it was a toy. And when the spectrum - (lets call it a machine) - is described in a manner they do not like (even from an article decades old) it feels like a personal attack on themselves that needs addressing. As though somehow their lofty ambitions and non-toy use of the machines is under attack.
I suggest that hundreds of thousands of other spectrum owners simply outgrew their toy and are oblivious to such nerdy arguments. I'd also suggest that if you asked the average man in their late 30s and early 40s what sinclair spectrum meant to them; they'd say games (probably manic miner or such like); rather than learning Z80 code.
...It's quite telling that many, here, after 30 years are defending (for want of a better word) a computer against allegations that it was a toy. And when the spectrum - a machine - is described in a manner they do not like (even from an article decades old) it feels like a personal attack on themselves that needs addressing.
I suggest that hundreds of thousands of other spectrum owners simply outgrew their toy and are oblivious to such nerdy arguments.
Of course the Speccy was/is a toy ... but it was also used in business, and many learned to program on it.
So it's also very obvious that it was NOT JUST a toy.
Lego is not just a toy, it's also art.
Just because an elephant is grey, doesn't mean all elephants are grey.
Some Speccy's were used as toys, but that's doesn't make it only a toy.
Some Speccy's were used in business, but that doesn't mean it's only used for figuring out your tax information.
All Commodes are heavy but that doesn't mean that they are all used as paper-weights. I may feel and say that they are but I'm fully aware that many used them for making music. And at the same time I know they are not strictly musical devices.
One man's holy truth is another man's blasphemy ... they are just different opinions.
It's quite telling that many, here, after 30 years are defending, (for want of a better word) a computer against allegations that it was a toy. And when the spectrum - (lets call it a machine) - is described in a manner they do not like (even from an article decades old) it feels like a personal attack on themselves that needs addressing. As though somehow their lofty ambitions and non-toy use of the machines is under attack.
Aww please! We - myself, Arjun, karingal, winston and others - clearly stated that beyond our personal experiences there were actual facts and situations which prove your view are extremely limited and stereotypical. So it's no childish banter as you would want to put it like.
I suggest that hundreds of thousands of other spectrum owners simply outgrew their toy and are oblivious to such nerdy arguments.
Precise facts and circumstances are not "nerdy" arguments. Whereas you insist on something which is clearly just a product of your personal perception and presenting that as a fact.
I'd also suggest that if you asked the average man in their late 30s and early 40s what sinclair spectrum meant to them; they'd say games (probably manic miner or such like); rather than learning Z80 code.
The average man in his early 40s here (Italy) probably does not even remember having a computer, and if so, it was most probably a C64. Which everybody used to play games on.
On the other hand, I've yet to meet someone here who owned a Spectrum and did not do anything else with it besides playing games - be it learning Z80 code, learning BASIC, using utility software for a wide variety of purposes, supporting what he learnt at school, moving their first steps in computer graphics etc.
Of course it's no sociological survey, it's just a guess - but as guesses go, mine is as valid as yours.
But again, while we show objective facts which show a whole reality, you just keep ignoring them, churning out your childhood memories and having wild guesses. So much for "nerdy arguments" and "personal attacks". Facts against stereotypes, rather.
I was in the board of the dutch SGGG Spectrum club (publishing a montly mag 'Bulletin') for 14 years. The use of Spectrum for games and other, at our monthly meetings, always has been a rather constant 50/50%. Polls regaring the contents of our Bulletin hardly showed an interest in games, POKE lists etc. 'Extensions' ware favourite. I have seen the 50/50 ratio at the many, many Spectrum meetings that I have visited in NL and DE.
I take it, of course, that there must have been a number of unnoticed spotty youngsters playing MASTURRMIND in their bedrooms. With their Spectrums I mean. But even when their number should equal that (which I doubt) of the people that I did hear and see over the years, then still that silent group cannot be significant for determining the function of the Spectrum at its arrival on the market.
When you look at the 90's only, you might get a different opinion about the use, and the purpose. But when calling the Spectrum a toy then an unbelievable lot of excitement that real people of all ages have experienced is denied.
I believe that we can safely say that Sinclair had the name of producing 'gadgeds'. Had'nt ZX81 and Spectrum made such unexpected hit then I believe we would position both in the category where the ZX80, the flat TV and the C5 are found nowadays. (Btw the C5 was presented as a car....)
For me it was not so much Sinclair, but Vickers, who opened a world of challenges for me.
well, this is a problem with the English languge; most words have more than one meaning, and we impose our own prejudice and take whatever meaning we want.
No, it's not a problem. "Toy" as a word all on its own can have several meanings, but once you add context it's pretty clear which meaining it has. Words without context are a problem - but the article has heaps of context.
Context defines a lot in language. In the context of the way the magazine article was written, it's abundantly clear that the words "upmarket toy" were being used very much in a pejorative sense, indeed the article expanded on the idea that the Sinclair computers were effectively useless for anything at all practical (which they weren't, they did a good job at providing computer literacy for those interested in computers, who were in no way able to afford a "serious" computer like a BBC Micro), and were merely a rich kid's expensive plaything. Essentially, from the context of the article we can see that they are using "toy" in the sense you use "toy" next to the name "Fisher Price", not as in the sense you use "toy" next to the name "Kawasaki motorcycle".
I suspect the article author was one of those computing snobs which were so prevalent at the time who considered anything that didn't sit in a 19 inch rack and have multiple serial terminals attached to it a "toy computer".
A rose by any other name? You are in very near danger of getting into a ridiculous Betrand Russel type debate of "what is a chair?" (as ZnorXman said, a Cray is a chair....) Some people use chairs purely as furniture, some people hang clothes on the back (are they then coat hangers?). A lot of people sit on them. But people sit on washing machines - is a washing machine a chair, and a chair a coat hanger? See? The ridiculous argument can go on forever.
It depends what it can do, not what people use it to do. If someone owns a Rolls Royce Silver Phantom and keeps it in working order in their garage but never drives it then it does not mean that it's an ornament, it means that it's a fully working motor car that its owner is using as an ornament; someone could still get behind the wheel, start it and drive it.
Similarly, a fully-functioning home computer or, for that matter, iPhone that the owner uses for playing games 90% of the time is still a fully functioning computer or iPhone; despite what you claim what something is used for is not what defines it; what defines it is what it is capable of being used for. A flat-topped chest can be used as a table but it will never be a table because you can open it up and put things in it.
I suspect the article author was one of those computing snobs which were so prevalent at the time who considered anything that didn't sit in a 19 inch rack and have multiple serial terminals attached to it a "toy computer".
I think it's exactly that, a giveaway is the writer's use of the term "true home computers". It reminds me of when people talk about "real music", "real literature", "real people" or "real values", it's an empty phrase which denotes nothing but snobbery and disdain.
Ironically, of course, the Spectrum was a "real computer" in the way the writer understood it - it was designed to be a cheap hobbyist computer that wasn't suitable for playing games, hence the lack of any real graphics or sound hardware. It ended up being used by most of its user-base as a games machine because it was cheap and because a lot of well-meaning families brought one for their kids as an educational tool meaning there was a very large market for the games publishers to tap into. It became primarily used for games despite not being designed for them.
More than the fisking carried out on this thread, though, the article has been defeated on this issue simply by the passage of time and the wiser eye of history. We can now see that the cheap home computers supplied by Sinclair and its ilk were crucial in increasingly computer literacy and understanding to the extent that the forthcoming Raspberry Pi budget computer is intended to emulate what they achieved. Picking a fight with this article is rather like picking a fight with one written in 1905 claiming that flight is merely a dangerous fad and that shipping will continue to be the main method of transport 100 years hence. It's in many ways a waste of time.
More than the fisking carried out on this thread, though, the article has been defeated on this issue simply by the passage of time and the wiser eye of history. We can now see that the cheap home computers supplied by Sinclair and its ilk were crucial in increasingly computer literacy and understanding to the extent that the forthcoming Raspberry Pi budget computer is intended to emulate what they achieved. Picking a fight with this article is rather like picking a fight with one written in 1905 claiming that flight is merely a dangerous fad and that shipping will continue to be the main method of transport 100 years hence. It's in many ways a waste of time.
I think it could be seen then, too. The article was written in 1986, and by then anyone who knew the Speccy scene knew that many people used them to gain computer literacy, not merely for gaming. Just looking at the range of peripherals available for the Speccy alone shows that plenty of electronics hobbyists were using the machine, too. It was an affordable and straightforward way of getting into digital electronics, much like the Arduino is today.
I suspect the author just wasn't really that well informed about what was going on with Sinclair's computers probably because he looked on them distainfully as merely an "upmarket toy" (in the Fisher-Price sense of the word) and wasn't really minded to learn more, already put off by a rubber keyboard and cassette for storage. Anyone who knew the Speccy well in 1986 could clearly see that it was something very positive in terms of computer literacy.
I think it could be seen then, too. The article was written in 1986, and by then anyone who knew the Speccy scene knew that many people used them to gain computer literacy, not merely for gaming. Just looking at the range of peripherals available for the Speccy alone shows that plenty of electronics hobbyists were using the machine, too. It was an affordable and straightforward way of getting into digital electronics, much like the Arduino is today.
I suspect the author just wasn't really that well informed about what was going on with Sinclair's computers probably because he looked on them distainfully as merely an "upmarket toy" (in the Fisher-Price sense of the word) and wasn't really minded to learn more, already put off by a rubber keyboard and cassette for storage. Anyone who knew the Speccy well in 1986 could clearly see that it was something very positive in terms of computer literacy.
All good points, but there did seem to be a great deal of ignorance about the British computing scene at the time and whilst that hardly excuses the article's claims about Sinclair computers it does explain them.
Aww please! We - myself, Arjun, karingal, winston and others - clearly stated that beyond our personal experiences there were actual facts and situations which prove your view are extremely limited and stereotypical. So it's no childish banter as you would want to put it like.
limited?
furthermore, where do you think stereotypes come from?
if you think that "gamers" were a limited part of the spectrum user base; you are out of your mind. Games made up the vast majority of software. Why would that be?
Gamers were the vast majority of users
Maybe YOUR view is limited?
Why do you think that people moved very quickly onto computer games consoles (toys) when they arrived on the market? Maybe because it was why people got a spectrum rather than an Atari VCS in 1983 - the games were better - it was a better toy.
If most people didn't use the Spectrum as a toy, what was the dynamic that changed in society (in only a few years) from all those worthy pursuits you and your pals followed with their computers. Why did these people and a newer generation of kids go onto consoles rather than non-toy computing? Could it be that they were, possibly against your wisdom, using their computer as a toy? And when better toys came along from Nintendo, Sony and Sega, they upgraded, without bothering about being able to continue coding?
It's obvious that you feel the article is an attack on you personally. Bit silly really. Boys and their toys.
Just because an elephant is grey, doesn't mean all elephants are grey.
Some Speccy's were used as toys, but that's doesn't make it only a toy.
Some Speccy's were used in business, but that doesn't mean it's only used for figuring out your tax information.
All Commodes are heavy but that doesn't mean that they are all used as paper-weights. I may feel and say that they are but I'm fully aware that many used them for making music. And at the same time I know they are not strictly musical devices.
One man's holy truth is another man's blasphemy ... they are just different opinions.
These are just re-wording of Russell's "What is a Chair?" question.
The illogical conclusion to that argument, is that nothing can be defined. Which is the absurdity Russell was trying to point out.
A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer are riding a train through Scotland. The engineer looks out the window, sees a black sheep in field, and exclaims, "Look! The sheep in Scotland are black!". The physicist looks out the window and corrects the engineer, "No! all we know for sure is that there's at least one black sheep in Scotland." The mathematician looks out the window and corrects the physicist, "No, Strictly speaking, all we know is that is that in Scotland there is at least one field, at least one sheep, and at least one side of that sheep is black."
I really like your definition that everything can be defined by what most people think it is. :)
So what do you think of your girlfriend/wife/mother then?
I mean, it may be very important to you, but for the rest of the earth she is almost certainly an "upmarket toy". I would certainly want to play with all of them, and I think everyone else thinks so too.
By your definition then, you must think they are toys. I think you should inform them what you really think of them :p
if you think that "gamers" were a limited part of the spectrum user base; you are out of your mind.
No, I never wrote that. It is instead obvious that you didn't even care to read thorougly what I wrote before, and are trying to let me state something I never did.
Karingal was right, there's not much point in discussing with someone like you - you seem to believe to be the keeper of the ultimate wisdom and when someone else says something you don't agree with (out of mere speculations instead of facts, by the way), you keep putting your fingers in your ears and saying "nernernerner" etc., so to speak.
I won't keep repeating myself since you don't even care to listen to what others say. Not really the kind of behavior I would expect on a discussion forum.
Why did these people and a newer generation of kids go onto consoles rather than non-toy computing? Could it be that they were, possibly against your wisdom, using their computer as a toy?
More yawns... So, for you only "kids" used computers. After tons of objective reportings, facts and so on, from very different people, which all contradict this old and stale sterotype of yours, you do not find anything better than repeating yourself like a broken record. Great "wisdom" you have there.
Moreover: computers weren't sold in toy shops. Consoles were, and the "kids" you have been blathering about for days didn't even care to stop in electronic stores first - they stayed in toy shops and their consoles took the place of their previous means of entertainment. Those who bought computers wanted more than that.
It's obvious that you feel the article is an attack on you personally. Bit silly really. Boys and their toys.
:lol: ROTFL - a personal attack on me! From someone who didn't even know about my existence! That was really funny - please churn out more! :razz:
What I pointed out was only that the article looked rather biased in an anti-Sinclair point of view to me. Now, I have no veneration for Sir Clive although reckoning he had, let's say it this way, some merits into designing some machines which changed, whether you like it or not, the way millions of people in various countries looked at what a "computer" was - from a mysterious device to something which could actually be used for a variety of purposes and let them know about the fledgling digital revolution which was being carried out at the time.
And that of course included computer gaming - whoever denied that? Surely not me.
But from here to state "The Spectrum was a toy because the majority of users used it to play games" there's an enormous gap. That sentence is obviously flawed - a much more realistic and objective version would be: "The Spectrum can, among other things, be considered as a sort of 'toy' since the majority of its owners also used it to play games and from 1986 on software produced for it was for more than 50% designed for entertainment".
Surely in the '90s the scenario had changed - the Spectrum was the "little" machine which "kids" used to play on, older users having upgraded to Atari STs, Amigas and IBM-PCs. Hence the large number of cartoon and TV shows licenses being produced at the time. But in the 90's the Spectrum lasted only for three years; and what about what happened in the previous eight years?
That would be a more complex and objective way of discussing the question. But asking complexity and objectivity of judgement from someone who creates a stereotype and keeps defending it against facts, is like asking the Pope to encourage the use of condoms.
Context defines a lot in language. In the context of the way the magazine article was written, it's abundantly clear that the words "upmarket toy" were being used very much in a pejorative sense, indeed the article expanded on the idea that the Sinclair computers were effectively useless for anything at all practical (which they weren't, they did a good job at providing computer literacy for those interested in computers, who were in no way able to afford a "serious" computer like a BBC Micro), and were merely a rich kid's expensive plaything. Essentially, from the context of the article we can see that they are using "toy" in the sense you use "toy" next to the name "Fisher Price", not as in the sense you use "toy" next to the name "Kawasaki motorcycle".
I suspect the article author was one of those computing snobs which were so prevalent at the time who considered anything that didn't sit in a 19 inch rack and have multiple serial terminals attached to it a "toy computer".
I had exactly the same impression. The author seems to be deliberately ignoring many facts that some of us have underlined here, from our personal readings, experiences and recollections and beyond.
The whole article seems to have an overall anti-Sinclair bias - which is unsurprising to me, since Sinclair had been a successful inventor and entrepreneur until then and therefore had created himself not a few enemies. I don't think it's just ignorance, as Zagreb stated - I believe instead it to be a deliberate omission of a fact: in 1986 the Spectrum, with all of its strenghts and weaknesses, was still a successful machine, both in the UK and abroad. It had brought IT into a large number of households, and created a whole generation of budding programmers, computer artists, or simply IT-literated people.
In Italy in particular, the Spectrum was the de riguer choice for those who wanted a machine which could entertain them as well as teaching them the way the world was going to, besides helping in some basic tasks - and at the same time did not cost an arm and a leg.
Those who only wanted to be entertained bought a VG console, or a C64. Other choices were either unknown - the BBC Micro was completely unheard of here - or not practical due to the lack of software support - the Olivetti Prodest, for instance.
This state of things was also evident in the specialized press - the vast majority of technical magazines for IT enthusiasts hosted listings, hardware enhancements, software and peripheral reviews etc. for the Spectrum. This went on until about 1987-88, when the 16-bit takeover was slowly but steadily going on.
Of course games were a strong part of the basis on which the Spectrum could be marketed. But again - for those who owned it, the Spectrum was much more than a console with a keyboard bolted on. Otherwise there would have been only games available for it; no utilities, no word processors, no databases, no mass-storage devices, no light pens, no BASIC courses, no programming books, no BREAKing into programs just to see how they worked and alter the listings (whoever didn't do that? Well, weesam maybe :razz:), no RTTY receiving, no graphic utilities (yes there were, from Melbourne Draw to The Artist up to the programs for business graphics found in Gaetano Marano's book I scanned and uploaded to the WoS archive myself), etc. Try doing that with a "toy" :razz:
I suspect the article author was one of those computing snobs which were so prevalent at the time who considered anything that didn't sit in a 19 inch rack and have multiple serial terminals attached to it a "toy computer".
Seconded! Don't forget IBM thought that micro-computers (as they were known back then) were electronics hobbyists toys. That was until their mini-computer clients started disposing of them and buying Apple IIs with Visicalc instead.
Another thing that hasn't been mentioned (and perhaps forgotten) is that in the 80s traditional peripherals (floppy drives, printers), which such computer snobs claimed were necessary to do 'proper work' were VERY expensive compared with the computer, e.g a C64 in the mid-80s was around the ?150 mark but the 1541 floppy was around ?299+. How many people who bought BBCs also bought the floppy drive? Not very many I bet. In this respect you could argue that 90% of all home computers sold in 80s were no more than 'Toys'.
These are just re-wording of Russell's "What is a Chair?" question.
The illogical conclusion to that argument, is that nothing can be defined. Which is the absurdity Russell was trying to point out.
A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer are riding a train through Scotland. The engineer looks out the window, sees a black sheep in field, and exclaims, "Look! The sheep in Scotland are black!". The physicist looks out the window and corrects the engineer, "No! all we know for sure is that there's at least one black sheep in Scotland." The mathematician looks out the window and corrects the physicist, "No, Strictly speaking, all we know is that is that in Scotland there is at least one field, at least one sheep, and at least one side of that sheep is black."
What I was pointing out (though completely lost, and perhaps still stuck within my cranium) is that opinions vary, and do not always fall into the realm of logic.
I like the colour pink but absolutely loathe the colour green, while you only like blue. Though this can be put forth as a logic diagram does not mean that the conversation had anything to do with logic, it was just an airing of opinions between two people.
Comments
You are probably right that the first wave of computer users were guys who wanted to learn programming. Gamers were only the second wave, much bigger wave.
And I agree, early computers like Z80 or Z81 were for programming as gaming possiblilities were rather limited for them.
Something similar to some extent happened in Poland. I remember the first computer magazines - lots of listings,math, tutorials of Basic programming and only about 4 pages about games. Man, how I hated this boring stuff about sorting or function graphs :)
Eventually somebody noticed the existence of people like me and game only magazines appeared.
Well, I never! And too think all this while we had a Speccy legend in our midst.. ;)
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
Woody is actually the one who coined the phrase, and then taught Unca Clivey the infamous "Jet Set Stinking Willy" (or whatever it was)
You mean you didn't know that?!?! :-o
Nowadays it's even worse - as long as a computer lets you post nonsense on Facebook it's ok, and what happens "under the hood" is of no importance. Or a C64 :razz:
(*) Well, almost.
Hence the name "Woody"
Yarrrrr, matey-mate!
It may have been a "toy" to many [0], but it was *anything* but "upmarket", the Spectrum was - as colour home computers went - was rather modest. As you say "working class kids". Anything "working class kids" get for Christmas typically is NOT upmarket. Sinclair, above all, tried to make things that were affordable, *not* things that were upmarket.
"Upmarket" would be the BBC Micro. Back in the day, it was only the wealthy Range-Rover set who had a Beeb at home.
[0] I'd also disagree with "toy" as used by this article, it's a functional microcomputer. "Toy" implies something like a toy car - basically a facsimilie of a car that can't actually be used as a car. The Speccy fits the definition of "computer", not "toy computer" which implies something that looks like a computer but isn't actually functional. In the context of this article "upmarket toy" looks like the article's author's attempt at being sour and dismissive. Of course we can say we have hindsight now, and know the Spectrum taught a generation to code, but it should have been evident even in the mid-1980s that the ZX range of computers had given a non trivial number of people a high degree of computer literacy.
This is a really good point there Winston (well the whole thing)
And along those lines.
I have a question ... when does a toy-computer cease being a toy, and actually become a computer? Is it when one can tinker with it, program it or "manipulate" it possibly in a different manner than directed in the instructions? I am not saying that a four year old is going to mod his Leapfrog "computer" but a grown-up with the technical skills might be able to do it.
Which of these are toys and which are computers?
for sure; the posh kids at school had C64s and BBCs;
But please don't underestimate how expensive a Spectrum was back then (in real terms). It was a huge outlay for many working class parents. Most Christmases you'd get a few quid spent on you - then one year, over ?150 (cost of the spectrum and cassette player and a couple of games). This was more than a month's rent! Or a couple of week's wages. That's like buying a mac nowadays.
So, while I agree it wasn't "upmarket" in a class/caste sense (like the BBC was), it was undoubtedly the most expensive thing many working class families would buy (many kids never even dreamed of owning even a Spectrum); so was the upmarket in the financial sense.
well, this is a problem with the English languge; most words have more than one meaning, and we impose our own prejudice and take whatever meaning we want.
For example, Collins Dictionary
toy [tɔɪ]
n
1. an object designed to be played with
2. something that is a nonfunctioning replica of something else, esp a miniature one
You might be reading the article and suggesting the author is using toy in the sense of definition 2.
Whereas I read it as definition 1.
or even
3. toy - a device regarded as providing amusement; "private airplanes are a rich man's toy"
It's quite telling that many, here, after 30 years are defending, (for want of a better word) a computer against allegations that it was a toy. And when the spectrum - (lets call it a machine) - is described in a manner they do not like (even from an article decades old) it feels like a personal attack on themselves that needs addressing. As though somehow their lofty ambitions and non-toy use of the machines is under attack.
I suggest that hundreds of thousands of other spectrum owners simply outgrew their toy and are oblivious to such nerdy arguments. I'd also suggest that if you asked the average man in their late 30s and early 40s what sinclair spectrum meant to them; they'd say games (probably manic miner or such like); rather than learning Z80 code.
Of course the Speccy was/is a toy ... but it was also used in business, and many learned to program on it.
So it's also very obvious that it was NOT JUST a toy.
Lego is not just a toy, it's also art.
Just because an elephant is grey, doesn't mean all elephants are grey.
Some Speccy's were used as toys, but that's doesn't make it only a toy.
Some Speccy's were used in business, but that doesn't mean it's only used for figuring out your tax information.
All Commodes are heavy but that doesn't mean that they are all used as paper-weights. I may feel and say that they are but I'm fully aware that many used them for making music. And at the same time I know they are not strictly musical devices.
One man's holy truth is another man's blasphemy ... they are just different opinions.
On the other hand, I've yet to meet someone here who owned a Spectrum and did not do anything else with it besides playing games - be it learning Z80 code, learning BASIC, using utility software for a wide variety of purposes, supporting what he learnt at school, moving their first steps in computer graphics etc.
Of course it's no sociological survey, it's just a guess - but as guesses go, mine is as valid as yours.
But again, while we show objective facts which show a whole reality, you just keep ignoring them, churning out your childhood memories and having wild guesses. So much for "nerdy arguments" and "personal attacks". Facts against stereotypes, rather.
I take it, of course, that there must have been a number of unnoticed spotty youngsters playing MASTURRMIND in their bedrooms. With their Spectrums I mean. But even when their number should equal that (which I doubt) of the people that I did hear and see over the years, then still that silent group cannot be significant for determining the function of the Spectrum at its arrival on the market.
When you look at the 90's only, you might get a different opinion about the use, and the purpose. But when calling the Spectrum a toy then an unbelievable lot of excitement that real people of all ages have experienced is denied.
I believe that we can safely say that Sinclair had the name of producing 'gadgeds'. Had'nt ZX81 and Spectrum made such unexpected hit then I believe we would position both in the category where the ZX80, the flat TV and the C5 are found nowadays. (Btw the C5 was presented as a car....)
For me it was not so much Sinclair, but Vickers, who opened a world of challenges for me.
Just wanted to share because I'm actually really annoyed!
No, it's not a problem. "Toy" as a word all on its own can have several meanings, but once you add context it's pretty clear which meaining it has. Words without context are a problem - but the article has heaps of context.
Context defines a lot in language. In the context of the way the magazine article was written, it's abundantly clear that the words "upmarket toy" were being used very much in a pejorative sense, indeed the article expanded on the idea that the Sinclair computers were effectively useless for anything at all practical (which they weren't, they did a good job at providing computer literacy for those interested in computers, who were in no way able to afford a "serious" computer like a BBC Micro), and were merely a rich kid's expensive plaything. Essentially, from the context of the article we can see that they are using "toy" in the sense you use "toy" next to the name "Fisher Price", not as in the sense you use "toy" next to the name "Kawasaki motorcycle".
I suspect the article author was one of those computing snobs which were so prevalent at the time who considered anything that didn't sit in a 19 inch rack and have multiple serial terminals attached to it a "toy computer".
It depends what it can do, not what people use it to do. If someone owns a Rolls Royce Silver Phantom and keeps it in working order in their garage but never drives it then it does not mean that it's an ornament, it means that it's a fully working motor car that its owner is using as an ornament; someone could still get behind the wheel, start it and drive it.
Similarly, a fully-functioning home computer or, for that matter, iPhone that the owner uses for playing games 90% of the time is still a fully functioning computer or iPhone; despite what you claim what something is used for is not what defines it; what defines it is what it is capable of being used for. A flat-topped chest can be used as a table but it will never be a table because you can open it up and put things in it.
I think it's exactly that, a giveaway is the writer's use of the term "true home computers". It reminds me of when people talk about "real music", "real literature", "real people" or "real values", it's an empty phrase which denotes nothing but snobbery and disdain.
Ironically, of course, the Spectrum was a "real computer" in the way the writer understood it - it was designed to be a cheap hobbyist computer that wasn't suitable for playing games, hence the lack of any real graphics or sound hardware. It ended up being used by most of its user-base as a games machine because it was cheap and because a lot of well-meaning families brought one for their kids as an educational tool meaning there was a very large market for the games publishers to tap into. It became primarily used for games despite not being designed for them.
More than the fisking carried out on this thread, though, the article has been defeated on this issue simply by the passage of time and the wiser eye of history. We can now see that the cheap home computers supplied by Sinclair and its ilk were crucial in increasingly computer literacy and understanding to the extent that the forthcoming Raspberry Pi budget computer is intended to emulate what they achieved. Picking a fight with this article is rather like picking a fight with one written in 1905 claiming that flight is merely a dangerous fad and that shipping will continue to be the main method of transport 100 years hence. It's in many ways a waste of time.
I think it could be seen then, too. The article was written in 1986, and by then anyone who knew the Speccy scene knew that many people used them to gain computer literacy, not merely for gaming. Just looking at the range of peripherals available for the Speccy alone shows that plenty of electronics hobbyists were using the machine, too. It was an affordable and straightforward way of getting into digital electronics, much like the Arduino is today.
I suspect the author just wasn't really that well informed about what was going on with Sinclair's computers probably because he looked on them distainfully as merely an "upmarket toy" (in the Fisher-Price sense of the word) and wasn't really minded to learn more, already put off by a rubber keyboard and cassette for storage. Anyone who knew the Speccy well in 1986 could clearly see that it was something very positive in terms of computer literacy.
All good points, but there did seem to be a great deal of ignorance about the British computing scene at the time and whilst that hardly excuses the article's claims about Sinclair computers it does explain them.
limited?
furthermore, where do you think stereotypes come from?
if you think that "gamers" were a limited part of the spectrum user base; you are out of your mind. Games made up the vast majority of software. Why would that be?
Gamers were the vast majority of users
Maybe YOUR view is limited?
Why do you think that people moved very quickly onto computer games consoles (toys) when they arrived on the market? Maybe because it was why people got a spectrum rather than an Atari VCS in 1983 - the games were better - it was a better toy.
If most people didn't use the Spectrum as a toy, what was the dynamic that changed in society (in only a few years) from all those worthy pursuits you and your pals followed with their computers. Why did these people and a newer generation of kids go onto consoles rather than non-toy computing? Could it be that they were, possibly against your wisdom, using their computer as a toy? And when better toys came along from Nintendo, Sony and Sega, they upgraded, without bothering about being able to continue coding?
It's obvious that you feel the article is an attack on you personally. Bit silly really. Boys and their toys.
These are just re-wording of Russell's "What is a Chair?" question.
The illogical conclusion to that argument, is that nothing can be defined. Which is the absurdity Russell was trying to point out.
A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer are riding a train through Scotland. The engineer looks out the window, sees a black sheep in field, and exclaims, "Look! The sheep in Scotland are black!". The physicist looks out the window and corrects the engineer, "No! all we know for sure is that there's at least one black sheep in Scotland." The mathematician looks out the window and corrects the physicist, "No, Strictly speaking, all we know is that is that in Scotland there is at least one field, at least one sheep, and at least one side of that sheep is black."
I really like your definition that everything can be defined by what most people think it is. :)
So what do you think of your girlfriend/wife/mother then?
I mean, it may be very important to you, but for the rest of the earth she is almost certainly an "upmarket toy". I would certainly want to play with all of them, and I think everyone else thinks so too.
By your definition then, you must think they are toys. I think you should inform them what you really think of them :p
Games List 2016 - Games List 2015 - Games List 2014
No, I never wrote that. It is instead obvious that you didn't even care to read thorougly what I wrote before, and are trying to let me state something I never did.
Karingal was right, there's not much point in discussing with someone like you - you seem to believe to be the keeper of the ultimate wisdom and when someone else says something you don't agree with (out of mere speculations instead of facts, by the way), you keep putting your fingers in your ears and saying "nernernerner" etc., so to speak.
I won't keep repeating myself since you don't even care to listen to what others say. Not really the kind of behavior I would expect on a discussion forum.
More yawns... So, for you only "kids" used computers. After tons of objective reportings, facts and so on, from very different people, which all contradict this old and stale sterotype of yours, you do not find anything better than repeating yourself like a broken record. Great "wisdom" you have there.
Moreover: computers weren't sold in toy shops. Consoles were, and the "kids" you have been blathering about for days didn't even care to stop in electronic stores first - they stayed in toy shops and their consoles took the place of their previous means of entertainment. Those who bought computers wanted more than that.
:lol: ROTFL - a personal attack on me! From someone who didn't even know about my existence! That was really funny - please churn out more! :razz:
What I pointed out was only that the article looked rather biased in an anti-Sinclair point of view to me. Now, I have no veneration for Sir Clive although reckoning he had, let's say it this way, some merits into designing some machines which changed, whether you like it or not, the way millions of people in various countries looked at what a "computer" was - from a mysterious device to something which could actually be used for a variety of purposes and let them know about the fledgling digital revolution which was being carried out at the time.
And that of course included computer gaming - whoever denied that? Surely not me.
But from here to state "The Spectrum was a toy because the majority of users used it to play games" there's an enormous gap. That sentence is obviously flawed - a much more realistic and objective version would be: "The Spectrum can, among other things, be considered as a sort of 'toy' since the majority of its owners also used it to play games and from 1986 on software produced for it was for more than 50% designed for entertainment".
Surely in the '90s the scenario had changed - the Spectrum was the "little" machine which "kids" used to play on, older users having upgraded to Atari STs, Amigas and IBM-PCs. Hence the large number of cartoon and TV shows licenses being produced at the time. But in the 90's the Spectrum lasted only for three years; and what about what happened in the previous eight years?
That would be a more complex and objective way of discussing the question. But asking complexity and objectivity of judgement from someone who creates a stereotype and keeps defending it against facts, is like asking the Pope to encourage the use of condoms.
The whole article seems to have an overall anti-Sinclair bias - which is unsurprising to me, since Sinclair had been a successful inventor and entrepreneur until then and therefore had created himself not a few enemies. I don't think it's just ignorance, as Zagreb stated - I believe instead it to be a deliberate omission of a fact: in 1986 the Spectrum, with all of its strenghts and weaknesses, was still a successful machine, both in the UK and abroad. It had brought IT into a large number of households, and created a whole generation of budding programmers, computer artists, or simply IT-literated people.
In Italy in particular, the Spectrum was the de riguer choice for those who wanted a machine which could entertain them as well as teaching them the way the world was going to, besides helping in some basic tasks - and at the same time did not cost an arm and a leg.
Those who only wanted to be entertained bought a VG console, or a C64. Other choices were either unknown - the BBC Micro was completely unheard of here - or not practical due to the lack of software support - the Olivetti Prodest, for instance.
This state of things was also evident in the specialized press - the vast majority of technical magazines for IT enthusiasts hosted listings, hardware enhancements, software and peripheral reviews etc. for the Spectrum. This went on until about 1987-88, when the 16-bit takeover was slowly but steadily going on.
Of course games were a strong part of the basis on which the Spectrum could be marketed. But again - for those who owned it, the Spectrum was much more than a console with a keyboard bolted on. Otherwise there would have been only games available for it; no utilities, no word processors, no databases, no mass-storage devices, no light pens, no BASIC courses, no programming books, no BREAKing into programs just to see how they worked and alter the listings (whoever didn't do that? Well, weesam maybe :razz:), no RTTY receiving, no graphic utilities (yes there were, from Melbourne Draw to The Artist up to the programs for business graphics found in Gaetano Marano's book I scanned and uploaded to the WoS archive myself), etc. Try doing that with a "toy" :razz:
Seconded! Don't forget IBM thought that micro-computers (as they were known back then) were electronics hobbyists toys. That was until their mini-computer clients started disposing of them and buying Apple IIs with Visicalc instead.
Another thing that hasn't been mentioned (and perhaps forgotten) is that in the 80s traditional peripherals (floppy drives, printers), which such computer snobs claimed were necessary to do 'proper work' were VERY expensive compared with the computer, e.g a C64 in the mid-80s was around the ?150 mark but the 1541 floppy was around ?299+. How many people who bought BBCs also bought the floppy drive? Not very many I bet. In this respect you could argue that 90% of all home computers sold in 80s were no more than 'Toys'.
What I was pointing out (though completely lost, and perhaps still stuck within my cranium) is that opinions vary, and do not always fall into the realm of logic.
I like the colour pink but absolutely loathe the colour green, while you only like blue. Though this can be put forth as a logic diagram does not mean that the conversation had anything to do with logic, it was just an airing of opinions between two people.
It won't last...
Blame it on the trolls. :)
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.