The Sinclair Myth - New Scentist June 12 1986

124»

Comments

  • edited December 2011
    Troll Boogie....could be bigger than Strictly
  • edited January 2012
    Yawn, I'm getting bored.
    not bored enough it seems...
    I won't keep repeating myself
    oops, you typed too soon....
    lots of repetition


    Serioulsy, you are getting the hump over this because somebody has the temerity to disagree with you?

    ,meh
  • edited January 2012
    computers weren't sold in toy shops.

    Spectrums were.
    software produced for it was for more than 50% designed for entertainment".

    sure 99%+ is more than 50%.
  • edited January 2012
    Timmy wrote: »
    I would certainly want to play with all of them, and I think everyone else thinks so too.

    ah, the I'd like to **** your momma joke
  • edited January 2012
    weesam wrote: »
    Spectrums were.
    Which toy shops sold them?
    I certainly don't remember any, I only remember shops like WH Smiths, Boots and specialist computer outlets.

    Which does beg the question, how old we're you in 1984?
    I wanna tell you a story 'bout a woman I know...
  • edited January 2012
    karingal wrote: »
    Which toy shops sold them?
    I certainly don't remember any, I only remember shops like WH Smiths, Boots and specialist computer outlets.
    The town I grew up (or rather lived in at the time); I remember two toy shops - Rays' Toys (who closed down) & Esdevium (who are still going, but they only do board games now).

    Both sold Spectrums. And games.

    Esdvium also sold Amigas and Megadrives. I bought both from them (I vaguely remember them dropping out of video games - toys - shortly after the Megadrive)
    karingal wrote: »
    Which does beg the question, how old we're you in 1984?
    12/13
  • edited January 2012
    Jimmo wrote: »
    In this respect you could argue that 90% of all home computers sold in 80s were no more than 'Toys'.

    careful, you'll have Grussu on your case.


    Anyhow, I like the title of the thread, The Sinclair Myth. Seems the myth gets stronger as the years pass.
  • edited January 2012
    weesam wrote: »
    ah, the I'd like to **** your momma joke

    Personally, I think it's sad. I clearly said "toy", and "play", and all that kid can think of is a different four letter word.

    The fact that he doesn't even tried to refuse my original claim makes you wonder...
  • edited January 2012
    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.

    Whilst I agree there's an anti-Sinclair air about the piece (which may be snobbery or may be contrariness) I think ignorance is more likely than deliberate deception. Like I said, there was an astonishing ignorance about the British and wider-European home computer scene in the '80s (still is, to be honest; talk to most people over fifty about '80s gaming and they'll probably waffle on about Pac-Man and Mario) and what sort of impact it was having on popular culture and understanding of information technology. I completely agree that the Spectrum and other 8-bits introduced a lot of people, especially kids, to programming and basic computer science; far better than anything they were learning at school too. In fact, one thing that was quite jarring when I moved to the Amiga in the early '90s was the lack of a bundled programming language, I think the 16-bit generation created a gap that way - people were still learning about operating computers but not how to make them tick.
  • edited January 2012
    Timmy wrote: »
    Personally, I think it's sad. I clearly said "toy", and "play", and all that kid can think of is a different four letter word.

    The fact that he doesn't even tried to refuse my original claim makes you wonder...
    Timmy wrote: »
    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.

    Do ****ing your momma jokes really need refuting? They pop up everywhere pathetic pieces of **** like you post. Run along now Timmy, mommas' got your dinner ready.
  • edited January 2012
    Zagreb wrote: »
    Whilst I agree there's an anti-Sinclair air about the piece (which may be snobbery or may be contrariness)

    Or may be true?
  • edited January 2012
    weesam wrote: »
    Or may be true?

    Is this true, because it seems to contradict the position you've been arguing here, and you only wrote it about three weeks ago?:

    http://www.worldofspectrum.org/forums/showpost.php?p=585374&postcount=173
  • edited January 2012
    What offends me most about the piece is the description of the Spectrum as less than a computer. The majority of people may have bought it for entertainment, but that doesn't make it a 'toy', any more than being entertained by the television makes it a 'toy'. But whether you treat it as a toy or not, that doesn't make it any less of a computer.

    I've seen a clockwork train on a track of ping-pong balls that's nevertheless a complete Turing machine, and therefore, by definition, a working computer. To dismiss such an efficiently designed machine as the ZX Spectrum as not a proper computer is first off an insult to everyone who worked on it, and secondly demonstrates a huge ignorance of the field of computing itself.
    Joefish
    - IONIAN-GAMES.com -
  • edited January 2012
    joefish wrote: »
    To dismiss such an efficiently designed machine as the ZX Spectrum as not a proper computer is first off an insult to everyone who worked on it, and secondly demonstrates a huge ignorance of the field of computing itself.

    You must remember that that was the 80's, it was a time that people were indoctrinated with the idea that computers were toys, and not good for you. Obviously we all saw that back then already what kind of impact they would have, but the unsuspecting public was kept stupid until the dot com era.

    On one hand this is sad, but on the other, it gave the computer literates huge advantages when that public opinion changed. Many people were not prepared for that, and some very gullible people still think that an 80s computer is a gaming machine.

    And yes, it might be an insult, but we shouldn't ignore the fact they they simply don't know better. I feel sorry for some of them.

    weesam wrote: »
    Do ****ing your momma jokes really need refuting? They pop up everywhere pathetic pieces of **** like you post. Run along now Timmy, mommas' got your dinner ready.

    I think this says so much about him that I will not even need to comment on it...
  • edited January 2012
    Timmy wrote: »
    I think this says so much about him that I will not even need to comment on it...
    Very wise, they are the sort of comments whch will get this thread locked.
    I wanna tell you a story 'bout a woman I know...
  • edited January 2012
    weesam wrote: »
    Spectrums were.



    sure 99%+ is more than 50%.

    In 1986 99% of released Spectrum software were not only games. Don't "cut" my text to make me state what I didn't. That's intellectual dishonesty - and so far you have shown a noticeable amount of it.

    I must say you somewhat amuse me - like a red fish in its own bowl pretending its three liters of water are the whole world, or like those who just argue for the sake of it, just to upset and offend other people. Such kind of persons are those whom in Italy are said to be "trying to climb on mirrors" - i.e. going to enormous stretches of imagination just to prove they are right when they perfectly know they aren't.

    In fact, the only "myth" here is what you have been repeating all along without even bothering to acknowledge the facts and circumstances many of us reported here. And by the way, Spectrums were never sold in toy shops in Italy - and for that matter, neither C64s, CPC 464s, MSXs etc., nor their relative software. Consoles were.

    Please, do keep making a fool of yourself so that I can continue having a good laugh.
    weesam wrote: »
    Do ****ing your momma jokes really need refuting? They pop up everywhere pathetic pieces of **** like you post. Run along now Timmy, mommas' got your dinner ready.
    Don't know what to say, so you start with the deliberate insults, eh? Trolls always end up like that, and I'm sorry to say you are no exception.
    joefish wrote: »
    What offends me most about the piece is the description of the Spectrum as less than a computer. The majority of people may have bought it for entertainment, but that doesn't make it a 'toy', any more than being entertained by the television makes it a 'toy'. But whether you treat it as a toy or not, that doesn't make it any less of a computer.

    I've seen a clockwork train on a track of ping-pong balls that's nevertheless a complete Turing machine, and therefore, by definition, a working computer. To dismiss such an efficiently designed machine as the ZX Spectrum as not a proper computer is first off an insult to everyone who worked on it, and secondly demonstrates a huge ignorance of the field of computing itself.
    Couldn't agree more!
  • edited January 2012
    weesam wrote: »
    Serioulsy, you are getting the hump over this because somebody has the temerity to disagree with you?

    Back at you.
  • edited January 2012
    karingal wrote: »
    Very wise, they are the sort of comments whch will get this thread locked.
    Will it get locked if I say ****** ** * *******?
  • edited January 2012
    ccowley wrote: »
    Will it get locked if I say ****** ** * *******?

    sadly not it seems :lol:
  • edited January 2012
    Timmy wrote: »
    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

    hmmm i could think of a few business applications. :p
  • edited January 2012
    Arjun wrote: »
    Back at you.

    Well said.

    And for the love of God, don't tell weesam that you think Outrun looks good on a Speccy, there'll be a right old hissy fit! How very dare he/she not agree with me! The bleedin' cheek! What the hell does he/she think this is anyway? A place for discussion, or something?? :p
  • edited January 2012
    GreenCard wrote: »
    ! What the hell does he/she think this is anyway? A place for discussion, or something?? :p

    Now even a noob like me knows you can't be talking about the interwebz...
  • edited January 2012
    Wookiee wrote: »
    can't

    Can too... :-P :grin:
  • edited January 2012
    karingal wrote: »
    Reason: Chris, you don't make my life very easy, do you?
    Where would the fun be in that? :razz:

    I just thought I'd better check before posting as I didn't want to upset anyone.
Sign In or Register to comment.