In the 1980s I helped write a book, with me doing all the typing on an Amstrad PCW9512. These used CP/M, and 3″ floppy discs, awkward when it came to arranging printing. Luckily the friend-of-a-friend route found someone with a dual drive to copy everything to 3.5″, MS-DOS / WIN 3.1 discs, and I had also saved the files in plain text.
The computer also came with an auxiliary disc holding a lot of experts-only stuff, a rather neat 3D-image chess game, and the compilers for both BASIC and a strange language called Digital Research “LOGO”. I bought teaching books for both.
I made some progress learning BASIC, which in its Hewlett-Packard editions was used at work in locally-written programmes for driving electronic measuring instruments. The character and string-manipulating routines were fun!
I found the LOGO impenetrable. The book claimed the language was developed to help school-children learn “structured programming” whatever that was, but it was extremely telegrammatic and not at all intuitive even at a simple level. I carefully typed in the exercises and they worked, but I never understood them. .
….
Later, my section at work installed its own, dedicated system for fast number-milling. Own server in a secure room, and half-tonne CRT terminals on people’s desks. These SUN ‘Microsystem’ computers used a very bare version of windows, I was told was much closer to the IBM original than the µSoft “Windows” copy.
Their starting took about five minutes of self-setting and testing, with screen-full after screen-full of nothing a non-programmer could understand. I forget if they had mice, but using them was almost all command-line typing not unlike MS-DOS. They used a similar, lengthy closing routine too, before you could turn off the power.
I do not know the performance but that system was way ahead of the “ordinary” PCs running mid-era MS Windows. Though perhaps now my relatively modest, modern PC here at home might give it a run for its money, if it could be operated off-line and with far less Microsoft guff.
.
They do call the yoof of today “computer literate” and we of bus-pass age just the opposite, even “Luddites” by those who do not know what that means.
Really? I reckon the other way round for many people, because unless actually employed in IT somehow, the yoofs only have to learn how to use the instrument, the Internet and perhaps one or two common applications. They do not have the range of IT experience many older people have, some from MS-DOS and earlier days; and you see as many oldies as younger folk using “smart”-‘phones; though perhaps not addictively so.