OT: Extended theory of evolution.

But mostly because he insisted on the cheapest solution, even when it was much too nasty to serve the intended purpose.

But they were popular because they were cheap, rather than an anything like good.

Chris Curry wasn't exactly a genius, but he got out from under Clive Sinclair because Clive was too much of a cheapskate to sell anything good enough to be much use.

Fat chance.

Clive's IQ was high, but his judgement sucked. When Chris Curry was working for Clive, he ran for the National Front in Cambridge, subsidised by Clive. That tells you all you need to know about both of them.

Agreed.

Sinclair's achievements were primarily financial not technical, from his first mail-order transistors business onwards.

Yes, cost is important, but so is quality - ask anyone with one of his late 60s audio amps.

His stuff was /just/ fit for purpose. The C5 wasn't even that, unless you lived in a contour-free landscape such as Cambridge. Personally I think the C5 might have had a niche future, e.g. on large factory sites or tourist destinations. But he grossly over-sold its capabilities (shades of Tesla?).

I doubt that.

The key point the PC was that IBM backed it, and that moved it from the realm of enthusiast tinkerers to corporate purchasers. "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM".

IIRC the first Archimedes file system was /very/ strange; suitable for academic purposes but not much more.

The principle reason is that hardware cost was continually reducing, to the point where you didn't compensate for grotty engineering. That removed Sinclair's USP.

The point was to make things cheap, so that many people could afford them. It worked for some of his products, not for others.

Which would you rather have? A home computer that worked well and was within budget, but had an unpleasant keyboard, or a dream about one that was far better? Most people would choose the one they could afford to buy. As a kid I learned a /lot/ working on my ZX Spectrum. If I had had the money, I would have bought a BBC Micro. But I didn't have the money.

Your attitude here is incredibly arrogant - you are accusing Sinclair of selling cheap crap to people too miserly to be willing to pay several times as much for good (in your not so humble opinion) alternatives.

The Spectrum (and the ZX81 before it, and Sinclair calculators before that) were /good enough/. They were not as technically brilliant as the BBC Micro - few machines of that time, cheaper or dearer, were as technically good. But the Spectrum was good enough technically, and excellent value for money. It opened the market and popularised home computers, as well as bringing important steps to mass-market electronics such as the use of a ULA.

I have no idea what the people here were like personally. That is not the issue. /You/ brought up Clive Sinclair as a prime example of a person who has a high IQ and whose only notable achievement was being in Mensa. That is complete and absolute s**te, and no amount of wild back-peddling, claims of penny-pinching, comparisons to others, or personal attacks (however true they might be) will change that.

Isaac Newton was a nasty, evil, vindictive man and spent a great deal of his life sniffing mercury fumes, trying to fabricate gold, and producing weird theology writings. Does that mean we should ignore his accomplishments in maths and physics?

Exactly. Not just the hardware but the availability of software! I've got a 512KB Z80 CPM/MPM box that I was using to develop products before the PC existed. Speedy (use the RAM as a disk cache), small, etc.

But, finding much software to run on it was a chore.

Enter IBM and suddenly people were crawling out of the woodwork with offerings!

I think he also hacked together really kludgey devices (like tape stores) that didn't fare well, over time.

You want a device to be *easy* to use, not a chore! (imagine what driving would be like if you still had to turn it over by hand?)

Dunno. I am pretty uninterested in plant life, fruits, etc.

They are relatively common, here (though require "protected" settings to avoid frost damage and wind damage).

They are magnificent to encounter, for the first time! "Holy S*it! That's a banana!!" Likewise for artichokes in bloom (I have not been able to grow my own -- and now feel terrible whenever I *eat* one... which didn't have an opportunity to "show off"!)

I think many people have very limited exposure to these sorts of things growing naturally.

We had grapes, strawberries, italian plums, bosc pears, some sort of apple, peaches (didn't fare well) on our property, growing up. Ditto walnuts. Raspberries (black and red) growing wild by the roadsides. School in the middle of a corn field. And we were surrounded by apple orchards.

Grandpa grew italian figs. And, (roma) tomatoes were ubiquitous. (you mean there are other kinds???)

My inlaws grew garlic, cantelope, italian parsley and peppers. LOTS of peppers! (the hotter, the better)

Here, we have lemons (there are different types with very different tastes!), limes (which turn YELLOW when ripe -- just before they start to rot!), three different varieties of oranges, pomegranates, and pineapple guava. (and figs are boringly common, *here*!)

I've encountered pineapple, artichoke, pecans and bamboo "in the wild".

In each case, it's an OhMiGosh sort of moment. (well, where the hell did you THINK these things came from???) Especially for the items that weren't commonly encountered in youth. (ever have a Sanguinella orange? wicked cool!)

Unfortunately Clive made them too cheap to work all that well. They may have worked well enough to to clue people into the fact that a slightly more expensive system could have been much more useful, and the world now uses rather more powerful machines.

They did. And moved on to something a great deal better as son as it got to be affordable.

A lot of what you learn as a kind has to be unlearned when you get older and have different and better tools to lay with. I suspect the ZX Spectrum encoruage a lot of bad habits.

There were certainly better alternatives around that did cost more money. Cost-benefit analysis will probably show that money spent on Sinclair hardware didn't pay off as well as a bit more money spent on better hardware. His machines may have sucked a generation of twelve-year-olds into computing, but they would probably have done as well (or better) if they'd been sucked in a bit later by the better-performing machines that had then become cheap enouhg to be accessible.

Alan Sugar made a lot more money out of Amstrad computers than Clive Sinclair ever did.

He spent the last half of his life trying to prove that he - and not Leibniz - had invented calculus. He was a capable man and his self-glorification worked pretty effectively. His crack about standing on the shoulders of giants sounds slightly different when you realise that he applied his mathematical skills to the ideas generated by Hooke and Wren - Hooke was remarkably short (and twisted by a curvature of the spine) and Wren wasn't above average height - and turned them into Newtonian gravitation.

Can we at least all agree that Sinclair /did/ have many achievements to boast about? No one disagrees that he had plenty of failures too. And I have no idea what he was like as a person. But /millions/ of people - many tens of millions - had access to computers because of what he made. Most, of course, used their home computers for games - but many got an introduction to programming from them. (Vastly more kids learned to program with home computers running BASIC than learn from modern computers.)

There can be no doubts that the ZX Spectrum was a massive success. There can be no doubts that is was a massive /achievement/.

It had far more functionality for its cost in comparison to alternatives of the era, such as the Commodore 64 or the BBC Micro. As well as being a lot cheaper, it was faster. But it also had a hideous keyboard, poorer hardware expansion support, and did not have anything like the wonderful architecture and software of the BBC.

Most people, I think, would consider it an engineering marvel to get so much into such a small space and low cost. Of course that meant other compromises were made - that's what engineering is about, finding ways to achieve your needs without other aspects suffering more than you can live with. Being good enough for the task required is good engineering

- being better, is a waste of money. The Spectrum was good enough for its purpose.

I have no idea about his audio stuff - that was before I was old enough to care. And I know why his later computer stuff failed - there was no real possibility of functionally expanding the Spectrum, and so no way to give customers the features they could get from others without starting from scratch.

As for the C5, it was too little, too early, too hyped, and unsuitable for most of his imagined uses at the time. It fell between the gaps - it was too big and heavy to be an electric bike, too small and slow to be an electric car, and was seriously dangerous on roads. Does it count as an "achievement" ? In its own special way, yes.

Computers of a sort. A whole lot more had access to better computers made by other people, and did a a great deal more with them because they worked better.

Again, programming of a sort. My approach to programing was severely distorted by the very expensive computer I started out on a million dollar IBM 7040/44. The compiler was on magnetic tape, and each subroutine added a couple of minutes to the compile time.

Clive sold a lot of them, and to that extent it was a success.

It probably set back the computerisation of British society by years. Once exposed to the ZX you ended up a very low opinion of a what a computer could do, and how fast it could do it

It didn't cost much, and it didn't do much. You needed a PC clone to do anything worth doing. Apple ran Visicalc, which meant that you could use to keep simple accounts, and that sold a lot of Apples . I don't recall anything equivalent for the ZX.

In other words it was cheap crap.

The process of getting more functionality into a small number of integrated circuits kept a lot of people busy from the time integrated circuits were invented.

The ZX was just one species in a rapidly evolving universe of things you could make from tolerably complicated integrated circuits. Clive Sincleiar just bought the bits he could get his hands on and put them together. Noe of them were all that marvellous.

Which was to make money for Clive Sinclair. Like most of his products, it would have been quite a lot better if he'd spent a little more money on making it better. It was decidedly sub-optimal.

When I was working for Plessey in Australia (1979 - 1981) Clive was selling the Plessey 2.5 W audio integrated circuit as a 10 Watt device - which it was for few months, until the aluminium tracks on the integrated circuit migrated across silicon and it stopped working. Apparently he'd been repeatedly told that this would happen, and ignored the advice. I knew enough about audio to get the occasional letter published in HiFi News and Record Review, and Clive's audio offering were all under-designed and "optimistically" rated.

Cheap crap.

Too cheap and nasty to be useful - typical Clive.

It epitomised his "too cheap to be useful" design style.

The spectrum was a commercial success, and some have credited it (and the Beeb) with laying the foundations for people being interested in creating computer games.

Let's not consider the QL and microdrives :)

To me more of an achievement was the Sinclair Scientific calculator a decade earlier. Everything from keyboard scanning to display driving and trig routines shoehorned into just 320 instructions.