(no title)
thought_alarm | 8 months ago
While it's true that early production machines had reliability problems, the same was also true for the C64. The machine we got for xmas 1983 was as solid as a tank.
The tapes were extremely robust and resistant to abuse, much more so than floppy disks. I tried to fry tapes, and couldn't.
For games, the tape drives were surprisingly effective. Sequential data transfer rates are faster than the C64 disk drive, and unlike the C64 they operate independently from the main CPU, with DMA access to the full 64 kB address space.
This means that many games were up and running in seconds and could load upcoming levels in the background while you were playing the game.
(The tape drives were much less effective for random-access, file-based storage, as the seek times were obviously atrocious compared to a disk drive.)
First-party software was also very high quality.
The problem was the business plan. Coleco made the same mistake as Atari and Texas Instruments, in that the business plan was modelled after the game console business. The tapes were expensive and proprietary when they didn't need to be, and the 3rd-party software ecosystem was completely locked down. Technical info was unavailable for hobbyists and independent developers.
By the time the Adam is released, the C64 and Apple IIe are already entrenched in the home markets with exponentially expanding library of independent software. The Adam's locked-down ecosystem couldn't complete.
It only took one year for hobbyists to completely reverse engineer the Adam, at which point some interesting independent software starts to appear. But by that time the business was already dead.
cbm-vic-20|8 months ago
The C64 disk interface is notoriosuly broken. The C64 and the 15x1 drives effectively had the same relatively fast processor but with a tiny pipe connecting the two.