Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Bally

Expand Messages
  • trailingedge.geo
    ... do ... The first incarnation that hit the market was called the Bally Arcade. Then (call it version 2.0) it was renamed the Astrocade. This was after Bally
    Message 1 of 13 , Nov 12, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com, B Degnan <billdeg@...> wrote:
      > The Bally Astrovision you mean? It ran BASIC and Z-GRASS languages.
      >
      > Here is a good article on the subject (Winter CES 1981) that includes
      > some stuff about the Bally Computer. I have never seen one before,
      do
      > you have pictures?

      The first incarnation that hit the market was called the Bally Arcade.
      Then (call it version 2.0) it was renamed the Astrocade. This was after
      Bally was no longer involved. IIRC, I was careful to get the first gen
      version. I'll have to dig it out and see. I'll take some pictures. I
      could even display it at InfoAge if that was appropriate.
    • Evan Koblentz
      ... to make my point: this is not an historically accurate or technologically accurate consideration of these devices. Just to clarify, although Bob cited
      Message 2 of 13 , Nov 12, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        A few thoughts:

        >>> I fired off a complaint to the developer of the Web site, with details
        to make my point: this is not an historically accurate or technologically
        accurate consideration of these devices.

        Just to clarify, although Bob cited myself and Bill Degnan, we both had very
        little to do with the result. Bill and I got involved a year or two ago,
        and our involvement was short-lived. I can't speak for Bill, but I
        personally am not endorsing anything here.

        >>> But I take issue with something I see very often, and I'll mention it
        here in general. It's the tendency to review PAST computers in PRESENT
        terms, and then to say that "computers" of the past were "off the mark" or
        "deficient", or as in this case, "almost" computers.

        I agree 100% with what Herb said.

        >>> but I know Evan has stopped reading this already as it's too long

        :-)

        >>> One can learn FROM THE PAST. Even if it's about old stuff, about old
        people, and dead technology. You can learn about people, about companies,
        about design, even about technology. Why make the same "old" mistakes, over
        and over? Even if you don't like history, maybe you want to avoid old
        mistakes.

        Again, I agree 100%. That's something I learned from Sellam a few years
        ago. Anyone can say, "Here's the past" -- and for some people that is
        sufficient -- but I think it gets interesting when we say, "Here's what we
        can LEARN from the past."
      • Jim Scheef
        The video was cool but some transitions were either not smooth or were incomplete as a few images were never shown clearly - even if I let the entire file
        Message 3 of 13 , Nov 25, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          The video was cool but some transitions were either not smooth or were
          incomplete as a few images were never shown clearly - even if I let the
          entire file download before playing it.

          The content was quite interesting. I like the fact that they included a
          One Laptop Per Child XO-1 (the instant collectible from last Christmas)
          as they flashed thru a bunch of portables.

          Jim

          Evan Koblentz wrote:
          >
          >
          > A few thoughts:
          >
          > >>> I fired off a complaint to the developer of the Web site, with details
          > to make my point: this is not an historically accurate or technologically
          > accurate consideration of these devices.
          >
          > Just to clarify, although Bob cited myself and Bill Degnan, we both had very
          > little to do with the result. Bill and I got involved a year or two ago,
          > and our involvement was short-lived. I can't speak for Bill, but I
          > personally am not endorsing anything here.
          >
          > >>> But I take issue with something I see very often, and I'll mention it
          > here in general. It's the tendency to review PAST computers in PRESENT
          > terms, and then to say that "computers" of the past were "off the mark" or
          > "deficient", or as in this case, "almost" computers.
          >
          > I agree 100% with what Herb said.
          >
          > >>> but I know Evan has stopped reading this already as it's too long
          >
          > :-)
          >
          > >>> One can learn FROM THE PAST. Even if it's about old stuff, about old
          > people, and dead technology. You can learn about people, about companies,
          > about design, even about technology. Why make the same "old" mistakes, over
          > and over? Even if you don't like history, maybe you want to avoid old
          > mistakes.
          >
          > Again, I agree 100%. That's something I learned from Sellam a few years
          > ago. Anyone can say, "Here's the past" -- and for some people that is
          > sufficient -- but I think it gets interesting when we say, "Here's what we
          > can LEARN from the past."
          >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.