Slashdot Mirror

Later, my grand-father gave me his even older Tandy TRS 80 Model 4 computer.

Built it from kit. Couldn't afford the case or power supply so built those myself and housed it in the top drawer of a filing cabinet. 16K of memory and read programs from a tape recorder (no not a tape drive...an old fashion cassette recorder). http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?s t=1&c=567.

Mmmmm, old.

My first computer. Oh man those were the days. My first computer was an Ohio Scientific C1P. It had a 6502 microprocessor, 8K RAM, 8K ROM. It had no clock. I had to use a casette recorder to load or save programs. If I wanted a cursor to be able to backspace I had to load a BASIC program first. I used an RF modulator so I could hook it to a portable black & white TV for a monitor.

I paid $450 for it in 1979 and I managed to sell it in 1990 for $50 to someone who thought it was the bomb. Otherwise, it would have made a very expensive boat anchor. By that time I had a Mac Plus.

I still have my Compute! Magazines. I quit subscribing to it when they quit putting BASIC programs in it.

I never got the floppy drive. There are many casette tapes destroyed against the basement wall after hours of typing in a program, saving it to tape, only to find the casette didn't take and I get some kind of I/O error.

The only thing I hated about the Atari is after I got into Jr. High and learned how to type the fact that most of the punctuation was off in la-la land compared to the standard QWERTY keyboard drove me nuts, and to my best friend's Apple IIe.

By High School my Dad had a Compaq Plus Portable (all 34 pounds of it) and I still remember to this day laughing at him and saying he goofed when he turned it on without a floppy disk in it. I was so ingraineda bout the floppy I'd never heard of a hard disk until that moment. EVen more amusing was the fact that I refused to use the hard drive and booted from a floppy for months before I realized what I had with the massive 10MB of data storage.

Oh the memories...still have one in the basement. Right next to the Apple Lisa and a few other odds and ends.
Oh if you want the reference on how to overheat your Pet computer tape drive to flames you can find that here.

Oh the memories...still have one in the basement. Right next to the Apple Lisa and a few other odds and ends.
Oh if you want the reference on how to overheat your Pet computer tape drive to flames you can find that here.

Oh the memories...still have one in the basement. Right next to the Apple Lisa and a few other odds and ends.
Oh if you want the reference on how to overheat your Pet computer tape drive to flames you can find that here.

I can still remember the pain in my fingers from pushing the "keyboard" whose keys did not spring back. Touch typing was not possible. http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?s t=1&c=1004

Intellec 8, ASR-33 teletype, and DUAL 8" Frugal Floppies (The first floppy drive under $1000. WooHoo!)

I did add the 8080 upgrade card. Unfortunately, the PROM programmer card smoked several years ago. Anyone have a spare?

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?s t=1&c=754

1983 - BBC Model B 32k + tape deck + 5 Acornsoft games.
1985 - Added DFS ROMS + Opus 40/80 switchable 5.25 FDD.
1990 - Acorn A3000, 1MB RAM, RISCOS 2
1990 - Added RISCOS 3.1 ROMS. Still running.
1994 - 2nd hand 386SX/25Mhz, 4MB, died quickly.
1994 - 486DX4/100, 8MB, 540MB Quantum HDD. Shelved.
1996 - Cyrix 686, 16MB, same HDD. Cooked itself.
1997 - Pentium 166 @ 200Mhz, 32MB. Shelved.
1998 - Upgraded P166 to 128MB. Shelved.
1999 - Celeron 300A @ 450Mhz on Abit BH6, 128MB.
2002 - Athlon XP 2500+ (Barton) on Soltek 75FRN-R2, 512MB.

The GeForce2 is no good for any current games. Next upgrade will likely be to add a GeForce 6600 AGP card and wait out a generation or so of PCI-E kit.

1983 - BBC Model B 32k + tape deck + 5 Acornsoft games.
1985 - Added DFS ROMS + Opus 40/80 switchable 5.25 FDD.
1990 - Acorn A3000, 1MB RAM, RISCOS 2
1990 - Added RISCOS 3.1 ROMS. Still running.
1994 - 2nd hand 386SX/25Mhz, 4MB, died quickly.
1994 - 486DX4/100, 8MB, 540MB Quantum HDD. Shelved.
1996 - Cyrix 686, 16MB, same HDD. Cooked itself.
1997 - Pentium 166 @ 200Mhz, 32MB. Shelved.
1998 - Upgraded P166 to 128MB. Shelved.
1999 - Celeron 300A @ 450Mhz on Abit BH6, 128MB.
2002 - Athlon XP 2500+ (Barton) on Soltek 75FRN-R2, 512MB.

The GeForce2 is no good for any current games. Next upgrade will likely be to add a GeForce 6600 AGP card and wait out a generation or so of PCI-E kit.

My first computer was the Sharp MZ-80K, which was the first machine in the MZ-series. It was a great machine at the time (1979).

Color Genie. Programmed it directly in machine language (not assembly language, couldn't afford an assembler), sitting in front of my parent's TV. The only thing I really remember is that the Z80 CPU was a lot better than the 6502 in my Atari I bought some years later. And the Atari was of course a lot better than everything from Commodore ;-) (even despite the fact that the Commodore Amiga essentially was the successor of the Atari 400/800 line and the Atari ST was the successor of the Commodore 64. But who dares to say that ...).

Bye egghat

I recall it was like this for me, hopefully the chronology is correct:
- Commodore VIC-20... borrowed from work
- Commodore 64... with a floppy drive that could sing Für Elise :-D
- Sinclair ZX Spectrum 48K... squishy rubber keys!
- Atari 520 STe
- Commodore Amiga 500+
- 486 DX/2... 66 MHz, later overclocked to an earth shattering 80 MHz.
- ... and then it just kept on being PC's :-p

I recall it was like this for me, hopefully the chronology is correct:
- Commodore VIC-20... borrowed from work
- Commodore 64... with a floppy drive that could sing Für Elise :-D
- Sinclair ZX Spectrum 48K... squishy rubber keys!
- Atari 520 STe
- Commodore Amiga 500+
- 486 DX/2... 66 MHz, later overclocked to an earth shattering 80 MHz.
- ... and then it just kept on being PC's :-p

I recall it was like this for me, hopefully the chronology is correct:
- Commodore VIC-20... borrowed from work
- Commodore 64... with a floppy drive that could sing Für Elise :-D
- Sinclair ZX Spectrum 48K... squishy rubber keys!
- Atari 520 STe
- Commodore Amiga 500+
- 486 DX/2... 66 MHz, later overclocked to an earth shattering 80 MHz.
- ... and then it just kept on being PC's :-p

I recall it was like this for me, hopefully the chronology is correct:
- Commodore VIC-20... borrowed from work
- Commodore 64... with a floppy drive that could sing Für Elise :-D
- Sinclair ZX Spectrum 48K... squishy rubber keys!
- Atari 520 STe
- Commodore Amiga 500+
- 486 DX/2... 66 MHz, later overclocked to an earth shattering 80 MHz.
- ... and then it just kept on being PC's :-p

I recall it was like this for me, hopefully the chronology is correct:
- Commodore VIC-20... borrowed from work
- Commodore 64... with a floppy drive that could sing Für Elise :-D
- Sinclair ZX Spectrum 48K... squishy rubber keys!
- Atari 520 STe
- Commodore Amiga 500+
- 486 DX/2... 66 MHz, later overclocked to an earth shattering 80 MHz.
- ... and then it just kept on being PC's :-p

Monitor, CPU and keyboard all encased in one giant chunk of metal with a whopping 16K of RAM. Plus, an uber expensive tape drive attachment.

And it was instant on, baby! Of course, it took forever to load something from the tape drive.

Here you go.

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?s t=1&c=103

My first machine was the ORIC-1

I was too young to remember ever not having a computer.. but I still have fond memories of its awkward rubber keys, the way you had to hook it up to the hi-fi to load the programs off a tape, and best of all, it's game of frogger.

Strange that in many ways it's the limitations of such machines that you fondly remember..

Ah, so what you want is an Apricot PC with a 2x40 character LCD display (scroll down) from 1983.

This was my first experience with PCs; my dad had one, issued to lecturers by Wolverhampton University. British built by Brummies, fact fans. Just like those lovely Mini cars. Bostin'!

"When I was 15 I longed for a RISC UNIX workstation in the house instead of the 12MHz Compaq SLT/286 we had (for business use)."

You should have bought an Acorn Archimedes, 1989 it was probably the best you could get without spending a fortune. I got myself this one as a replacement for my Atari ST, http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?s t=1&c=697 .

The 128 had the Z-80 built in to it. You couldn't buy one without it.

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c =96&st=1

What can I say, I wanted a Commodore 64 so that I could rescue some old files. Arrived and was given 18 C-64s, a handful of C-128s, 7 Vic-20s, 2 monitors, a pile if Floppy Drives, 3 cassette drives, software, and a Timex Sinclair.

When I asked the owner how she came to have so many Commodores she replied "Oh, I just sort of collected them one by one."

See: APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES Computer In a Book

Keep in mind that when Steve Jobs left Apple the first time, he went off and founded Next Computers, which came out with a remarkable Unix-based GUI. He captured the public's imagination with the Next cube but made a couple of strategic errors such as initially restricting the product to the educational market. A reporter asked him how an ordinary person could acquire a Next cube and Jobs famously replied, "Enroll."

Jobs also co-founded Pixar Animation Studios, the premier animation film company that has created such blockbusters as Toy Story and The Incredibles.

Then when Jobs returned to Apple, taking over from a string of lackluster bean counter executives, he inspired the company to produce some world class products such as the iPod and the iMac. The iPod is the must have product of 2005, and the Mac laptops are at the top of their class.

I'd say Steve Jobs is more than just a showman, though clearly he loves the limelight. Microsoft is the white bread, corporate standby that does the heavy lifting on corporate and consumer desktops but is otherwise an uninspired market follower, not a market leader.

Its good that you have your opinoins on what is good design. I personally think that the Mac II is a hell of a lot cooler design for that era then the C64 was for its era. Look at all the designs from 1987. When I see a 1987 monte carlo I want to throw up but some people think its a great car. So again it wonderful that you have your opinion but your opinion does not make you right. It makes it your opinion. I look at the lear-siegler ADM-3A on the http://old-computers.com/ site and I see ugly but in 1973 it was probably a pretty cool design.

That's part of the magic behind Apple's product line. "Back in the day," computers were ugly, huge, clunky, off-white boxes that people generally kept out of sight of guests, perhaps in a spare room somewhere along with their model rockets and comic books--as per a good friend of mine at the time. And this was fine; computers were not mainstream in the individual citizens' world. As computers became more and more integrated in our lives, form became just as important as functionality.

Revisionist bullshit. Computers were not all ugly off-white boxes "back in the day", and Apple has made some damn ugly hardware over the years.

To the first point, computers have always been an assorted bag of good looking equipment and ugly beige boxes. The IBM PC was infamous for being an ugly beige box but it was the exception rather than the rule. Most companies competed for attention by producing eye-catching hardware. Commodore was famous for their attractive designs - chunky styling and rounded edges with colours that were fashionable (in the 70s). I still find the C64 to be one of the most stylish personal computers ever made.

Here's another gorgeous design from "back in the day", the Sinclair ZX81. The slim case meant it slipped easily into the television cabinet and the jet-black casing was revolutionary for the time. Remember that back when this computer was released most TVs still had wooden (actually veneer) cabinets and hi-fi stereos were rarely connected to the television. This computer was positively space-aged looking by comparison. It was exceptionally attractive and many houses had this proudly seated under the TV.

Outside the PC world, mainframe companies used impressive designs to showcase their hardware. Cray had achieved legendary status for the bench seat inspired Cray-1. That particular design is still recognized today as one of the most distinctive mainframes ever built. However Cray was never content to stay still and they outdid themselves with the Cray-2 which had waterfall cooling towers. There's still nothing in the PC world that can even begin to compete with Cray for distinctive and attractive form.

Apple's decision to make their products just as appealing outside as inside is a major part of why I am one of their many fans.

Apple has produced some awfully ugly crap over the years as well. Take a look at the horrendous beige box that was the Mac II. It was by far the ugliest PC on the market at the time; even the IBM PC at that time wasn't as cringe worthy as the Mac II. How about the uninspiring Performa 575 which was also an unreliable piece of crap. Or take a look at the ugliest computer that Apple ever made... the PowerPC 4400 (argh, my eyes, the goggles do nothing).

Recently Apple has started making their computers attractive - the trend seems to have started with the iMac - but so what, the rest of the industry is doing the same thing. Everybody is making attractive cases these days; the only difference is that in the x86 world it's a choice and if you don't want to pay the premium for style then you don't have to.

So to your original points - it is not true that "back in the day" all computers were ugly off-white boxes, and it's not true that Apple has some sort of "magic" in their product line. Apple is like the rest of the companies; they've made ugly hardware to cut costs, and now like most PC manufacturers they're producing more attractive hardware to

That's part of the magic behind Apple's product line. "Back in the day," computers were ugly, huge, clunky, off-white boxes that people generally kept out of sight of guests, perhaps in a spare room somewhere along with their model rockets and comic books--as per a good friend of mine at the time. And this was fine; computers were not mainstream in the individual citizens' world. As computers became more and more integrated in our lives, form became just as important as functionality.

Revisionist bullshit. Computers were not all ugly off-white boxes "back in the day", and Apple has made some damn ugly hardware over the years.

To the first point, computers have always been an assorted bag of good looking equipment and ugly beige boxes. The IBM PC was infamous for being an ugly beige box but it was the exception rather than the rule. Most companies competed for attention by producing eye-catching hardware. Commodore was famous for their attractive designs - chunky styling and rounded edges with colours that were fashionable (in the 70s). I still find the C64 to be one of the most stylish personal computers ever made.

Here's another gorgeous design from "back in the day", the Sinclair ZX81. The slim case meant it slipped easily into the television cabinet and the jet-black casing was revolutionary for the time. Remember that back when this computer was released most TVs still had wooden (actually veneer) cabinets and hi-fi stereos were rarely connected to the television. This computer was positively space-aged looking by comparison. It was exceptionally attractive and many houses had this proudly seated under the TV.

Outside the PC world, mainframe companies used impressive designs to showcase their hardware. Cray had achieved legendary status for the bench seat inspired Cray-1. That particular design is still recognized today as one of the most distinctive mainframes ever built. However Cray was never content to stay still and they outdid themselves with the Cray-2 which had waterfall cooling towers. There's still nothing in the PC world that can even begin to compete with Cray for distinctive and attractive form.

Apple's decision to make their products just as appealing outside as inside is a major part of why I am one of their many fans.

Apple has produced some awfully ugly crap over the years as well. Take a look at the horrendous beige box that was the Mac II. It was by far the ugliest PC on the market at the time; even the IBM PC at that time wasn't as cringe worthy as the Mac II. How about the uninspiring Performa 575 which was also an unreliable piece of crap. Or take a look at the ugliest computer that Apple ever made... the PowerPC 4400 (argh, my eyes, the goggles do nothing).

Recently Apple has started making their computers attractive - the trend seems to have started with the iMac - but so what, the rest of the industry is doing the same thing. Everybody is making attractive cases these days; the only difference is that in the x86 world it's a choice and if you don't want to pay the premium for style then you don't have to.

So to your original points - it is not true that "back in the day" all computers were ugly off-white boxes, and it's not true that Apple has some sort of "magic" in their product line. Apple is like the rest of the companies; they've made ugly hardware to cut costs, and now like most PC manufacturers they're producing more attractive hardware to

That's part of the magic behind Apple's product line. "Back in the day," computers were ugly, huge, clunky, off-white boxes that people generally kept out of sight of guests, perhaps in a spare room somewhere along with their model rockets and comic books--as per a good friend of mine at the time. And this was fine; computers were not mainstream in the individual citizens' world. As computers became more and more integrated in our lives, form became just as important as functionality.

Revisionist bullshit. Computers were not all ugly off-white boxes "back in the day", and Apple has made some damn ugly hardware over the years.

To the first point, computers have always been an assorted bag of good looking equipment and ugly beige boxes. The IBM PC was infamous for being an ugly beige box but it was the exception rather than the rule. Most companies competed for attention by producing eye-catching hardware. Commodore was famous for their attractive designs - chunky styling and rounded edges with colours that were fashionable (in the 70s). I still find the C64 to be one of the most stylish personal computers ever made.

Here's another gorgeous design from "back in the day", the Sinclair ZX81. The slim case meant it slipped easily into the television cabinet and the jet-black casing was revolutionary for the time. Remember that back when this computer was released most TVs still had wooden (actually veneer) cabinets and hi-fi stereos were rarely connected to the television. This computer was positively space-aged looking by comparison. It was exceptionally attractive and many houses had this proudly seated under the TV.

Outside the PC world, mainframe companies used impressive designs to showcase their hardware. Cray had achieved legendary status for the bench seat inspired Cray-1. That particular design is still recognized today as one of the most distinctive mainframes ever built. However Cray was never content to stay still and they outdid themselves with the Cray-2 which had waterfall cooling towers. There's still nothing in the PC world that can even begin to compete with Cray for distinctive and attractive form.

Apple's decision to make their products just as appealing outside as inside is a major part of why I am one of their many fans.

Apple has produced some awfully ugly crap over the years as well. Take a look at the horrendous beige box that was the Mac II. It was by far the ugliest PC on the market at the time; even the IBM PC at that time wasn't as cringe worthy as the Mac II. How about the uninspiring Performa 575 which was also an unreliable piece of crap. Or take a look at the ugliest computer that Apple ever made... the PowerPC 4400 (argh, my eyes, the goggles do nothing).

Recently Apple has started making their computers attractive - the trend seems to have started with the iMac - but so what, the rest of the industry is doing the same thing. Everybody is making attractive cases these days; the only difference is that in the x86 world it's a choice and if you don't want to pay the premium for style then you don't have to.

So to your original points - it is not true that "back in the day" all computers were ugly off-white boxes, and it's not true that Apple has some sort of "magic" in their product line. Apple is like the rest of the companies; they've made ugly hardware to cut costs, and now like most PC manufacturers they're producing more attractive hardware to

On some level you are correct. But there definitely is such a thing as an Atari 1200XL, which is what I meant.

15 Jan 1973 First shipment of Micral N to INRA Institut National de Recherche Agronomique, a process control computer, the first world microcomputer based on Intel 8008 microprocessor.

Excuse me, but I assume from your comment that you think a TI 99/4A is a calculator... it is not, it is in fact one of the first (if not the first) 16-bit home computers. We are back in the Sinclair ZX Spectrum and Commodore 64 days and it is before Commodore Amiga and Atari ST.
Some specs can be found here TI 99/4A

The IIc didn't have a monitor attached; you had to connect it to a separate monitor. It also didn't run on batteries (or at least not as supplied by Apple - apparently third parties released very large battery packs for them).

1. Pixar Image Computer -- probably where he got the idea
2. Next Cube
3. Macintosh cube
4. ....
5. Profit??? -- actually not. None of these cubes did that well in the market.

I'm just waiting for an iPod cube.

Atari Cassette Recorder

Sharp MZ80K

ZX Spectrum +2

Each cassette typically had a play/recording speed of 300 baud. So a 32K program would take around 15 minutes to load.

And you hoped that your tape would never stretch or shrink due to usage or changing weather conditions. Not forgetting having to maintain a log of where the tape counter was when each program was saved to tape.

Atari Cassette Recorder

Sharp MZ80K

ZX Spectrum +2

Each cassette typically had a play/recording speed of 300 baud. So a 32K program would take around 15 minutes to load.

And you hoped that your tape would never stretch or shrink due to usage or changing weather conditions. Not forgetting having to maintain a log of where the tape counter was when each program was saved to tape.

Atari had several models of consoles over the years the 800 was one of the first that had a lot of memorable games - the Commodore64 had/played a lot of the same games. So yeah those models were equivalent, but not the same thing.

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?s t=1&c=460

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c =98

Atari had several models of consoles over the years the 800 was one of the first that had a lot of memorable games - the Commodore64 had/played a lot of the same games. So yeah those models were equivalent, but not the same thing.

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?s t=1&c=460

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c =98

Is someone trying to bring back those old "vacuum tube" super-computers?

512 bytes, not 512k.

Kids these days! In my day, I had a computer with 544 bytes of memory.. none of this fancy-schmancy "Kilobytes"

One of the first programmable computers, I had worked on was old Olivetti programmable computer similar to P6060, or P6040. It had such discs. The machine looked like a typewriter, had no screen. The input could be read on a display with 2-3 input lines. It used a Basic type programming language.

One of the first programmable computers, I had worked on was old Olivetti programmable computer similar to P6060, or P6040. It had such discs. The machine looked like a typewriter, had no screen. The input could be read on a display with 2-3 input lines. It used a Basic type programming language.

Because almost anyone that uses a computer learned how on Microsoft.

I'm guessing you're under 30, or you didn't start programming until you were older.

Back when I started programming (and I'm only 35), MS was not even a glint in Gates' eye. I learned how to program on Intercolor's Compucolor II, thank you very much. :)

...that our BBC Micro had finally arrived, after six months of waiting.

Six months! Damn, we had some patience in those days...now I get pissed off when my new CPU doesn't arrive within 3 days :-)

To be fair, I had come home from school every day for six months and asked my parents if 'it' had arrived yet, so I guess I wasn't that patient.

We ordered it so early, we only had to pay £335 for the Model B, instead of the £399 it went up to later (still months before the first ones were delivered, of course). Ph34r me!

I can't really remember much about that evening...although I do remember the Welcome pack - which still seems more fun than the 'Tour of Windows' you get these days.

I also remember thinking once (about 3 months before it even arrived), "You can have red text if you want! Red!" I told my Mum but she was less exuberant about this exciting piece of chromatic information.

Round about that time, I was also just getting into Douglas Adams' stuff - little did I know that my patient interest in computers would result in me working with Douglas about 20 years later. It's a funny old world.

Before the BBC Micro, we had a Commodore PET 2001 for a few months that a family friend lent to us. It used to boot up and report that it had 7,167 bytes free. Sometimes I wonder if I will ever forget that number :-)

...that our BBC Micro had finally arrived, after six months of waiting.

Six months! Damn, we had some patience in those days...now I get pissed off when my new CPU doesn't arrive within 3 days :-)

To be fair, I had come home from school every day for six months and asked my parents if 'it' had arrived yet, so I guess I wasn't that patient.

We ordered it so early, we only had to pay £335 for the Model B, instead of the £399 it went up to later (still months before the first ones were delivered, of course). Ph34r me!

I can't really remember much about that evening...although I do remember the Welcome pack - which still seems more fun than the 'Tour of Windows' you get these days.

I also remember thinking once (about 3 months before it even arrived), "You can have red text if you want! Red!" I told my Mum but she was less exuberant about this exciting piece of chromatic information.

Round about that time, I was also just getting into Douglas Adams' stuff - little did I know that my patient interest in computers would result in me working with Douglas about 20 years later. It's a funny old world.

Before the BBC Micro, we had a Commodore PET 2001 for a few months that a family friend lent to us. It used to boot up and report that it had 7,167 bytes free. Sometimes I wonder if I will ever forget that number :-)

Comparing:
http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c =986&st=1

I see the following:
Mindset vs. Amiga
CPU: 6Mhz, 80186 vs. 7.16Mhz 68K
RAM: 128 K vs. 256 K.
Graphics: 16 Color at 320x200 vs. 32 Color at 320x200
Pallette: max. 525 Colors vs. 4096 Colors
Sound: 4 Voice Sound vs. 4 8 Bit PCM Voices, Stereo

OS: MS Dos 2.11 vs. Amiga OS (Graphical, _real_ Multitasking)

So what were you telling us about Mindset ?

As for the 16-bit color, I find that somewhat hard to believe without a daughterboard and new graphics chips. If the claim is correct, the Mindset had a 512 color (9-bit) palette. No amount of video memory would give you 65536 (16-bit) colors. Unless it had another palette mode which seems unlikely.

I have heard of personal computers with better graphics and sound than the Amiga, but they are all posterior to the 1985 A1000 launch. Examples include the 1987 Acorn Archimedes which had a 32-bit CPU and better graphics or the 1989 Fujitsu FM Towns on which you could have 8-bit colors from a 15-bit palette. Both were superb machines at the time they came out.

As for the 16-bit color, I find that somewhat hard to believe without a daughterboard and new graphics chips. If the claim is correct, the Mindset had a 512 color (9-bit) palette. No amount of video memory would give you 65536 (16-bit) colors. Unless it had another palette mode which seems unlikely.

I have heard of personal computers with better graphics and sound than the Amiga, but they are all posterior to the 1985 A1000 launch. Examples include the 1987 Acorn Archimedes which had a 32-bit CPU and better graphics or the 1989 Fujitsu FM Towns on which you could have 8-bit colors from a 15-bit palette. Both were superb machines at the time they came out.