

Why the Apple IIe is the Best PC Ever Made - revital9
http://revitalsalomon.blogspot.com/2007/09/10-reasons-why-apple-e-is-best-pc-ever.html

======
SwellJoe
Two reasons why the C64 was even better:

1\. Us poor folks could afford one.

2\. Everything the Apple IIe did, the C64 did better. Better games, better
high res graphics modes, dramatically better sound, and more software (because
it was cheap, it sold more units, bigger market share, more third party
applications).

Bonus reason: The case was a third the size of the Apple IIe, making it much
easier to haul over to friends houses.

~~~
iuguy
Based on your description of the Apple IIe, the Sinclair ZX Spectrum was
better still. Better high res graphics, similar sound capabilities (on the
128k model) and more software (at least in the UK).

Bonus reason: The spectrum was a fraction of the size of an AppleIIe, about
the size of a small book. But the rubber keys did suck.

~~~
SwellJoe
As I recall it, the 128k model of Spectrum didn't launch until the 8-bit era
was coming to a close and 16 bit boxes had been out for a few years. The
first-gen Spectrum was horrid (1k, worse than chiclet keyboard), though the
second gen was acceptable (but not comparable to either of the 64 k machines
in question). One could buy a C128D or an Apple IIc by the time the 128k
Speccy existed, and those machines were at least comparable, and the Amige and
Apple IIgs (or Macintosh) would blow the Speccy away.

Not saying Spectrums weren't awesome (I don't really know; the only one I ever
owned was that 1k first-gen model with a 16k expansion; it was miserable),
just that you kinda have to compare Apples to...umm...not Apples.

And, of course, the C64 is the bestselling personal computer of all time.

(I should admit that you're arguing with an 11 year old SwellJoe here...I
_loved_ my C64. And, crazy as it sounds, I also bought some C64s on eBay over
the past few months for use in composing chiptunes. Thus, evidence indicates I
might be mentally unstable with regard to the C64. Backing away slowly might
be the best option.)

~~~
nomoresecrets
You'd think that someone who owned a ZX Spectrum would know that the minimum
spec memory was 16Kb, not 1Kb. :-)

~~~
SwellJoe
Actually, what I owned was a Timex Sinclair 1000, which was a rebranded ZX-81.
Apologies for the confusion. The rest of the Sinclair Spectrum line never made
it to the states, as far as I know...so my knowledge is limited to what I read
in magazines back then, and what I've read on the net since then.

------
jawngee
Forgot the most important one:

1\. Completely open hardware, Apple encouraged hacking.

Contrast that with the iPhone and ... well ... sigh.

------
joezydeco
Built-in BASIC. That was key for me. No need to find the disks or install
anything. You could be up and messing around with a small program within a
minute.

------
st3fan
The correct name is Apple //e .. Only the original Apple ][ and ][+ used the
squared brackets in the name.

~~~
st3fan
Also, that picture is an Apple ][. This is a //e
[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Apple_iie...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Apple_iieb.jpg)

------
dkersten
So `apple = PC` now? after all those years of telling people that they were
different? Hmm.

~~~
revital9
"A personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer whose size,
capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and
which is intended to be operated directly by an end user, with no intervening
computer operator." (Wikipedia)

~~~
dkersten
Yet Apple like their "I'm a Mac; I'm a PC" stuff.

~~~
mechanical_fish
It's the fascinating history of branding. Apple invented the PC, but they
poured their energy into selling the brand _Apple_ rather than the term _PC_.
IBM then came along with a machine _called_ "the IBM PC", which sold a lot of
units and was the subject of a lot of marketing. With the word _PC_ as the
actual name of the machine, the tendency to associate that term exclusively
with IBM machines began.

(As I recall, the generic term for a non-IBM PC tended to be "microcomputer"
or "micro" rather than "PC".)

That trend then leapt forward when Compaq started making PC clones. The
clonemakers needed a word for what they were making. There was a time when you
could call them "IBM compatibles", "PC compatibles", or "PC clones", but once
IBM switched to PS/2 and OS/2 -- and proceeded to fade from dominance --
continuing to associate the word _IBM_ with these things made little sense.
Meanwhile, Apple wasn't trying to contest the term _PC_... instead they
invented their own exclusive brand name, _Macintosh_ , and sold the hell out
of that.

So in the end the word _PC_ ended up meaning _a generic Intel box that runs
Microsoft Windows or Linux_.

~~~
joezydeco
Nobody bought the IBM PC because it was called a "PC". They bought it because
it was IBM, and in the 1980s there was a saying: "Nobody ever lost their job
buying IBM".

~~~
mechanical_fish
Yes, that's right. What I'm saying is that IBM successfully sold the term "IBM
PC" because it contained the magic letters I-B-M. But then the magic slowly
spread to the other half of the phrase _IBM PC_ , to the point where _PC_
eventually became synonymous with IBM.

~~~
joezydeco
No, it was because of Compaq.

Compaq won the white-room reverse engineering suits against IBM, opening the
door for dozens of manufacturers to make clones of the IBM PC/XT/AT.

Eventually the term "PC Clone" got shortened to "PC" when referring to
anything that was compatible with the PC-AT standard.

