In article <1193720607.731527.71740@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"winston19842005@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <winston19842005@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> It was out in 1979 as the TI-99/4, the 4A came out in '81, so was a
> contem****ary of the Vic-20.
> TI made the mistake of positioning themselves against the Vic, so when
> the 64 came out, people saw it as more advanced than the Vic (and by
> association, the TI-99). Granted, the C64 _was_ more advanced (being
> about 2-3 years newer than the TI design), but I'd argue the TI was
> more advanced than the Vic. Commodore suckered TI in on doing
> themselves in by setting up a price-war against a lesser machine that
> was produced more cheaply.
I would argue, first, that even though the TI was older than the C=64,
the TI was still more advanced. It is debatable, but I would say the TI
sound chip was more powerful, as it had a wider dynamic range and was
easier to program, both in TI BASIC and in assy. The graphics chip was
more powerful, as characters could be redefined, and in assy and
x-basic, the sprites were easily manipulated. And the TI had a 16-bit
cpu that was far more powerful and twice as fast as the cpu of the C=64.
While TI did hurt themselves in price competing with the Vic 20, they
made plenty of other mistakes that added up to self destroy the 99/4a
package from day 1.
To C='s credit, they brought the C=64 out with great timing and a just
right marketing campaign. Once again, great marketing overcomes a
products potential shortcomings to bring out a success. In both cases,
it was more marketing of the two companies, but with different results.
TI made numerous marketing and product errors, and lost. C=64 made all
the right marketing moves with the C=64 and worked successfully around a
few product errors, and won.
jt
|
