Yeah, 1972 - "Nord-5 was Norsk Data's first 32-bit machine and was claimed to be the first 32-bit minicomputer".
The Wikipedia record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord-5
The advantage of the C64 tape recorder was it reliability and the motor being pilot by the computer. With personal tape recorders there was a lot of problems due to heads miss aligned.
As I remember from that time, all C64 users also had tiny screwdriver for adjusting head azimuth. Could be related to pirated tapes in ex Yugoslavia, copied on who knows what kind of equipment.
Rick Dickinson, the Sinclair designer guy, was simply a genius. It helped a lot for the success, the ZX81 and the Spectrum being just beautiful objects.
On a side note, I think one of the most iconic manual cover for a computer is the ZX81 one. Designed by John Harris, it's a masterpiece. I think he designed the Spectrum manual too but it was not so great.
We had beautiful computers at the time. I would say, in order of appearance, the Atari VCS, the ZX81, the Spectrum, the Commodore C128 and the Amiga 500 (inspired by the C128), the Apple IIc Plus. The original Macintosh eventually. It was just like having a piece of art at home.
The Spectrum Next, still designed by Rick, is beautiful too.
Laser focus to the main topic, I remember that the Sinclair appeal in Latin America was the price and that low barrier to entry enables much more success, like top Spanish magazines focused on the Sinclairs and the Commodores. It is important to memorialize that even if your family can afford a more expensive device most conscious parents found that these were expensive game devices more than a computer. Even programming was about being fun, not an industry! The first one I saw was a father who was an accountant and complemented its kids fun with calculations he should do, so the father learnt how to develop software in the same way, kind of, you learn how to program an HP-15C calculator [0]. I knew several accountants at that time that followed that route before even using VisiCalc.
Thank you for highlighting Rick Dickinson [1], it's probable very difficult to communicate to newer generations how form factor or plain aesthetics played in the 80s where a desktop PC is just a box. This clearly include calculators like the HPs ones. For the ones with sensitive clear memories, touching and using this devices make an echo in your spirit. Even when you think that the ZX81 had a membrane keyboard, there was something "mystic" about finding devices with such different design. We might even use the "kinky" term for devices like the Casio CZ-101 [2].
I was a Casio guy, having the fx-850p. It was a very nice object I enjoyed a lot but HP ones had their own touch for sure.
Talking about design, some of the Nintendo Game & Watch series were particularly lovely. It's the first "computer device" I can think of which was elegant.
I haven’t specifically mentioned the fx-850p to keep the comment brief, but it’s obviously included in the point about form factor. Having a "calculator-computer" with BASIC was a blast! While others followed the notebook trend, CASIO maintained the idea of a calculator-sized computer, which was brilliant. If it weren't for those Japanese companies, we'd probably have far fewer devices to discuss today. Don't forget PSION (UK) either! Beyond today’s economies of scale, it was fantastic to have such variety. For instance, I’d love a modern calculator with Python functionality in a small display and compact size—not talking about the HP Prime, though I do like it as well.
Finally, I often think about a "dumb" calculator with a great form factor, a keyboard and display combo, that functions purely as a Bluetooth or Wi-Fi terminal for a computer we already own or even connecting to the cloud.
My memory on the Sinclairs is their keyboards too, horrible, that was the reason I didn't take them serious as a kid (they felt like a Fisher toy), used a ViC20 in a department store to learn coding and then bought an Amstrad CPC - mostly because of the 80 character screen vs. the C64.
Another department store squatter here along with my brother. It was crazy to think this is how we learned to program, but it made sense at the time. We went for the ZX Spectrum and eventually wrote our first commercial game for it [1] with the rubber keyboard, it never bothered me.
The personnel didn't bother with us, they didn't know why the computers where there. Sometimes we even made a joke, coding a 5 minute delay, then some loud sound, turning sound up, blocking RUNSTOP/RESTORE and then waited behind some clothes until the computers started very loud sounds and the personnel didn't know how to turn them off.
And also an upgrade on the ZX81 which was far more basic. Long time ago but if memory serves it was some sort of membrane to indicate key positions which you had to press fairly hard to get to work.
Yeah, one of the 3 big lies of computer programming: thinking that we should program around a model of the world. We should program around a model of the data that we need to transform to solve whatever problem we need to solve. Even in simulation software like games.
A car have a motor which have pistons. But why would I model that? To be honest I’m not sure OOP is appropriate even for CAD software here. Now maybe we could give the user the ability to make a mesh and call that "piston", an let them copy & paste that mesh to build a super-mesh they would call "motor", but this kind of composition is not quite OOP, and the appropriate way to program this stuff is probably not OOP either.
