Back in 1984 I was the last person in North America to pay full retail list to Sinclair for a QL – $499.95 + $10.00 s+h. I bought it because I had a ZX-81 and trusted Sir Clive.
The question is why have I kept it, despite real world needs to move to a MAC or MS-DOS clone – aka mainstream computer.
The answer is that keeping and improving the QL has been cheaper and simpler (and in many respects better) than any alternative. It has always given me the performance I have needed. Note that I write needed, not wanted.
Except at its inception, the QL has never been state-of-the-art. It has, since then, been at least a step or two behind the mainstreams, but my needs have always been at least three steps behind s-o-t-a.
In 1991, I nearly moved to an MS-DOS platform because of the sizes of my databases, but the Gold Card arrived on cue.
Over the years the cost of upgrading a QL has always been cheaper than buying a mainstream computer. I have further avoided the emotional strain and intellectual costs of transfering to a different operating system.
My real world QL Hypothetical MS-DOS
11/84 QL 510.00 XT 2500.00
03/85 RGB monitor 345.00 CGA mon 450.00
02/86 CST controller 150.00 0.00
Twin drives 250.00 0.00
04/86 TK2 30.00 0.00
06/86 Backup QL 90.00 0.00
09/89 MGUS rom 35.00 0.00
06/90 Vision Monitor 250.00 0.00
12/90 4 bay drive case150.00 0.00
11/90 Coleco Pwr Sup 25.00 0.00
02/91 3.5 drive 60.00 0.00
02/91 5.25 DD drive 60.00 0.00
05/91 Gold Card 450.00 386SX+VGA 1995.00
06/93 Hermes chip 43.00 0.00
2448.00 4895.00
Repairs have been omitted as they are probably a wash between the two systems; my QL repairs – membranes, drives, 8301 chips – have come to about $250 over the years.
I don’t have high resolution graphics or GUI, but my needs are primarily text based. I might think differently if I were into graphics/CAD, etc.
Until I got the Hermes chip, telecommunications were definitely flakey. Some special purpose mainstream software would have been nice, but without it the quality of my life has not been significantly diminished.
Mainstream applications packages such as spreadsheets and wordprocessors would have cost 3 to 10 times those of QL programs, without significantly improving the output to hardcopy. My greatest expense has been for text87 in its various releases, but in sum no more than one release of an MS-DOS wordprocessor.
What have I gained – aside from a computer hardware budget half that of my neighbor’s?
1. A firmware operating system (Q-DOS) and programming language (SuperBASIC) that compares favorably with all but a few in size, efficiency, ease and reliability.
2. I have passed by the expense and frustration of a hard disk. Because of operating system efficiencies, 90% of my needed software fits on a single disk and is always available in a multi-tasking environment. Data disks take little more time to swap than hard disk directories take to manage – and with a hard disk I would still be wise to back up to floppy.
3. Getting started or rebooting takes less than a minute for Taskmaster with 7 applications. How long in MS-DOS, Windows, PS/2, etc.
My QL is first and formost a tool. That sets me apart from many for whom it is also a hobby and a joy, which does not mean that I don’t enjoy my QL, too.
Would I start with a QL today? Probably not because the cost of entry to my current system is more than some mailorder 486SXs with SVGA monitor. Will I stay? Yes. Simple economics aside, it is familiar and comfortable and I trust it.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.