I owned a Commodore 64 in the late 90's

File: gold-3x-dcb98f40857d46f7e667d3e92d385a32-XTreeGold 3.01 - Splash.png (3KB, 720x400px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 720x400px

>>61514706
>I've also owned a Early Mac (with an external HDD - I think it died when my Mom hit it too hard) and IBM XT. Also had a NES.

Forgot the mention that I only have the NES still around. I think it is broken, however.

I kind of wish I had kept them.

File: koala_pad.jpg (139KB, 1000x644px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1000x644px

In 1986 or so, for some reason my dad bought a Commodore 128 instead of an Amiga. It was somewhat current but man, all that lost opportunity.

I think it might have been because we knew someone who was big in this massive pirating ring that operated locally, and we could get 64/128 software. We literally never bought software other than the disks that came with peripherals like the Koala Pad.

>>61514706
Truth is, C64 was nowhere obsolete yet in the 90's.
Having 10 year old computers in the 90's was perfectly normal.

>>61516294
>Truth is, C64 was nowhere obsolete yet in the 90's.

This was late into the decade. My 1999 computer had 128 MB of RAM and a AMD K-2 Processor, so it was pretty obsolete by then.

>>61516294
it was obsolete as fuck dude, even in the '80s, what you said may hold true for an old compact mac or an XT clone but sure as fuck not for the cheap-ass toy for children and first-time buyers that was the C64, the $200 15'' Celeron Walmart shitbox laptop of its era that was even worse off because it was limited as fuck and built on ancient '70s tech right off the bat

>>61516294
Nah, c64 was 1mhz, 64kb of ram, 20k rom, and just a basic prompt, and various other 1982 levels of spec

by 1990 with the amiga 3000 with a 25mhz processor, 2mb of ram, 100mb hdd and AmigaOS 2.0 which was a full GUI desktop

Using a machine that old left you way outclassed in the 90's. The C64 was totally still used, just not at the same tier as modern 32 bit computers were

by 1997 you were looking at pentium MMX systems with 16+mb of ram, 2-8gb hard drives and 800x600 displays with Windows 95

>>61514783
my mom sold our NES and games at a garage sale for 20 dollars because we had a Sega Genesis
>Super Mario Bros 1, 2 and 3
>Tetris
>Tecmo Bowl
>Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers
>Legend of Zelda
>Marble Madness
>Double Dragon II
>Megaman II and III
and more, these are just the certified classics we had

it took a few months to notice because my brother and I were all about the Genesis, but I was pretty sad about it considering it was 100 percent the greatest toy of my childhood

>>61516466
>>61516606
>>61516635
>specs are everything
Not what I'm talking about, sure, I agree with the late 90's machines that already played full motion video and where good at multitasking, but a 386 or Amiga 3000 didn't give you much of an edge, unless you really needed processing power for actual work. Even many Amiga games where multiplats with ports on the C64. Also C64 peripherals and expansions already where cheap at that point. A multi floppy system with expanded BASIC and a hard drive was still impressive.

Specially if you couldn't afford a an Amiga 4000 or a 486DX/Pentium, which to be honest, most couldn't or didn't even have a use for a machine like that.

Obsolete means you don't have a use for it anymore. By a software standpoint, the 64 was still a usable machine in the bigger part of the 90's for most things.
By your definition, a dumb phone from 2005 was obsolete a few years latter, truth is, it's still as usable as it was back then.

File: IMG_20160906_202936.jpg (513KB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 2560x1920px

Is this the new /retro/ thread?

I was lucky enough to have a fairly well to do family, and I spent so much time dicking on the computer that my dad bought me an IBM Aptiva with Pentium 233 mhz, 32mb ram, 1.4 gb hard drive when I was starting high school. I used it to play Duke 3D, compose midi music, jack off to still images on the internet, listen to CD's, type and print school work etc

i used that thing and dial up until 2003. Finally broke down and ordered my frst laptop on eBay with it, and I shit you not it wouldn't boot a day later. It knew it was being replaced and held on long enough to help me.

side fact: in 1999 i partitioned the hard drive with paid software and installed Red Hat Linux. My dad bought the CD and a linux book, internet was too slow to download on dialup. He said to me, "son that's a server OS, it might be faster than Windows but there is no software for it" he was pretty much right.

I undid the partition after 5 or 6 months because I needed more hard drive space for Windows 95. Red Hat in 99 was easier to install than Arch today. My primary reason for wanting to install Linux was so I could lord over kids online and be like, "i run linux" and all the highly customized GNOME desktops looked fucking badass

File: riscos.gif (108KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 800x600px

In the early 00's before my family got a proper PC we got hold of an old Acorn Archimedes box with RISC OS etc, IIRC my brother found all the parts for it in the trash of some school that was upgrading, was pretty cool for me since my own school still used them too so I already had an idea of how to use it.

Until one day I somehow fucked it up by deleting the system drive, think I literally just dragged the HDD icon (bottom left of this pic) into the trash bin not thinking it would do anything, but it actually wiped the whole drive...

Maybe it was a good thing though since that got my mom to finally get a proper PC for us (and a 56k modem to go with it!)

File: IMG_20170723_013832992[1].jpg (1MB, 2592x1456px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1456px

>>61516730

Sure. why not?

File: 1499262129810.gif (18KB, 128x128px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 128x128px

>>61516846
OPEN IT

File: IMG_20170723_014732708[1].jpg (1MB, 1456x2592px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1456x2592px

>>61516875
I just found this stuff while looking for something else. I don't have the machine, nor do I remember having a mac of this age at all.

>>61516921
Well, after reading those you will be well prepared if you happen to get one, one day.

File: 1989_05_BYTE_14-05_Unix_CAD_and_Technology_Breakthroughs_0151.jpg (1MB, 2287x3246px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2287x3246px

>>61516717
>specs are everything
on hardware that old, they really are
you can't program around an ancient piece of shit 6502 with 64K of RAM and a basic graphics/sound chipset, that shit was laughable even when it was new and hardware limitations were always painfully obvious even on high-end systems in the '80s, people contended with that shit because it was all they had, not because it was good enough

but even looking aside from that, the C64 wasn't just gimped from a specs perspective, it was gimped on expansion too, and software support, and user experience, and pretty much everything else, especially by the '90s, it was hopelessly obsolete, with basically no mainstream support for its ancient buses and I/O standards and minimal software support beyond maybe games and education software targeting the few holdouts just using them to teach basic programming and entertain kids in the library, beyond that there was fucking nothing worth a damn that wasn't ancient as fuck and sub-par anyway compared to anything you could get on a PC

>Obsolete means you don't have a use for it anymore. By a software standpoint, the 64 was still a usable machine in the bigger part of the 90's for most things.
'obsolete' means that it's been outclassed and rendered useless by bigger and better things, which it has

the C64 still does all the same shit it did when you bought it brand new at the supermarket, even today, and there were probably a lot of people still using them well into the decade, but that doesn't mean it's at all good or necessarily "useful" for those tasks in the face of newer technology that does everything the C64 did and more ten times faster with far more features and screen real estate, that's why it, along with the shitty feature phone from 2005 that can barely do fuck all but organize a few contacts and make a phone call, is obsolete

File: IMG_20170723_015859440[1].jpg (1016KB, 2592x1456px) Image search: [Google]

1016KB, 2592x1456px

>>61516939
>Well, after reading those you will be well prepared if you happen to get one, one day.

And I'll have the system disks for it!

PS: When did Macs jump the shark?

>>61517043
>PS: When did Macs jump the shark?
Macintoshes you mean, Macs jumped the shark after a few years into Intel.
Macintoshes when they went PowerPC.

>>61516985
>that shit was laughable even when it was new
C64 graphics (even though lacking BASIC commands for some routines) and sound capabilities where impressive for it's time for a home micro.

>>61516985
>anything you could get on a PC
Yes, a CGA graphics and a PC speaker. Kek.
Your picture is indeed from the late 80's, at the time the C64 came out, PCs used to come with a 64k memory by default and without any hard drives.

C64 was also a pretty expandable machine, with a D9060 hard drive and 8050 dual 1MB floppy drive, that you could actually have when it came out.

>>61516985
>'obsolete' means that it's been outclassed and rendered useless by bigger and better things, which it has
Nope. It does mean it's out of date, it does NOT mean it's rendered useless.
Don't let the normie marketing get to you that forces you to buy new things by screaming OBSOLETE into your ears.

>>61517140
By the 90's, specially latter part, the PC was the cutting edge though, but that was already said.

>>61516832
>Until one day I somehow fucked it up by deleting the system drive, think I literally just dragged the HDD icon (bottom left of this pic) into the trash bin not thinking it would do anything, but it actually wiped the whole drive...
Wasn't the OS on a ROM chip?

>>61517284
AFAIK yeah, I'm not sure how it happened really, never looked into it since I was like 7 years old, but I think I heard they store some config data on the HDD too, maybe if that gets deleted it won't boot

>>61517319
Weird indeed, specially because they worked fine without hard drives.

>>61517349
I don't remember it that much, maybe it did boot but since everything was deleted we decided it was broken or something, all I remember is I dragged the HDD icon to the trash and shit got fucked.

I ended up with a P3 after it so I'm happy anyway

>>61517043
>And I'll have the system disks for it!
Neato

>>61517381
You didn't keep it, did you?
That would be awesome to fix though

>>61517399
Man I wish we did, I tried looking for it a while ago and couldn't find it anywhere, my mom thinks we just threw it out so I guess we did.

Was actually thinking of picking one up and trying to "restore" it, as in download a bunch of games and shit for it, maybe even upgrade the OS if it's possible, don't really have much space where I am now though so can't really do that atm.

Might install RISC OS onto my Pi one day, not sure if that'd be compatible with older Acorn stuff though.

>>61517067
they sure as fuck were especially at the price point, but like I said before, that didn't mean they were actually good, especially by the '90s
>>61517140
you're either a total retard, master baiter or a former Commodore executive to have the kind of down syndrome it takes to suggest that someone with the $4,500 or so to blow on a hard disk and a pair of high-capacity disk drives was going to invest it in a $200 supermarket vomit box, the D9060 was a fucking unicorn as it was and you'd be hard-pressed to come across one even on a "real" CBM system, let alone a fucking 64 that didn't even support it without an adapter
even if we put that reality aside, by the time the '9060 was out around 1983, the XT was too which offered double the disk capacity in the standard ST-412, ten times the maximum memory capacity and far more real expandability all contained in a single, smaller footprint, and it actually ran software people wanted and could go out and buy, you could go on for days about why this post is retarded, and why Commodore is dead
>>61517185
type

define:obsolete

into a Google search for me and come back with the first result, they're one and the same. nobody, not even the dreaded normies were "forcing" the millions of poor oppressed 64 owners to throw their shit in the trash, the legions of cheap PCs that outclassed their aging 64s in every conceivable practical way was compelling them to do it on their own, there was zero excuse to daily a 64 in the '90s if you had a choice not to, it was slow, old, unsupported trash that did fucking nothing new hardware didn't do better in a primary role

>>61514706
Soviet Spectrum clone.

File: e7cb134adac73787b625b77a8650b79b.jpg (2MB, 2531x1965px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2531x1965px

Truly loved my Amiga 500. Had many good times with it.

>>61517641
>you're either a total retard, master baiter or a former Commodore executive to have the kind of down syndrome it takes to suggest that someone with the $4,500 or so to blow on a hard disk and a pair of high-capacity disk drives was going to invest it in a $200 supermarket vomit box, the D9060 was a fucking unicorn as it was and you'd be hard-pressed to come across one even on a "real" CBM system, let alone a fucking 64 that didn't even support it without an adapter
>even if we put that reality aside, by the time the '9060 was out around 1983, the XT was too which offered double the disk capacity in the standard ST-412, ten times the maximum memory capacity and far more real expandability all contained in a single, smaller footprint, and it actually ran software people wanted and could go out and buy, you could go on for days about why this post is retarded, and why Commodore is dead

Ackchyually... those drives where easy to come by in the mid 80's and people used them with the C64. Specially people who had them left over from their CBM/PET machines.
IEEE-488 cartridges weren't some mystical unicorns either.

Still far cheaper than a full blown XT system with hard drives.

Don't believe me? Go to an autistic retro computer forum and ask, the greybeards will come out under their beds and fuck you in your butt.

>>61517641
>they sure as fuck were especially at the price point, but like I said before, that didn't mean they were actually good, especially by the '90s
You said, at let me quote:
>that shit was laughable even when it was new

File: Clipboard02.jpg (159KB, 646x953px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 646x953px

>>61517641
>type define:obsolete into a Google search for me and come back with the first result,
Here. Nowhere it states the definition you gave me.

>they're one and the same.
Except they are not, surpassed by a better model does not render the old one useless.

Intel releases a new CPU, the older ones don't magically stop working.
That might come as a surprise to a consumerist whore though that has a misformed definition of "obsolete" in their dictionary.

>>61517898
were you even fucking around in the 90s? you obviously cant appreciate how fast shit moved back then. when the p2s came out, your p1 WAS obsolete, as no one was supporting games for your ancient shit anymore.

dont kid yourself, enthusiast pcs were always, and will always be for people who play games.

if you even read OPs post youd see him talk about a nes and shit. obviously he games, and the c64 was obsolete to play anything relevant in the 90s.

fuck you you autistic piece of garbage.

File: serveimage.jpg (37KB, 588x303px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 588x303px

Noice.
>first compy
>not IBM
>not Commodore
>Not Mac

>>61517730
are you the same guy I'm replying to? because I'm pretty confused now going from talking about the C64's viability in the '90s compared to a cheap XT clone back to its viability as a brand new product in the early '80s loaded with brand new IEEE-488 drives compared to an utter base-config 5150 and now as a system with second-hand parts as an add-on in the mid-'80s compared to a brand new XT, none of these really show the C64 as a superior alternative to the PC on anything other than price point anyway... which isn't really that relevant in this case, of course the 64 is a cheaper option, the PC was in another league entirely
maybe the first part wasn't articulated as well as it should have been, but even then, you've gotta be fucking delusional if you're going to act like the 64 was /ever/ truly competitive to a PC for non-gaming use cases on anything but price point and maybe hardware/software support in its early years, when we look at it from an actual hardware standpoint there is absolutely zero contest no matter how you spin it
>>61517743
and I said, and let me quote:
>and hardware limitations were always painfully obvious even on high-end systems in the '80s
it was a fucking entry-level microcomputer, they were all laughable, even the "good" ones were painfully limited
>>61517898
do you see the big bold "1." followed by some words eventually ending in the phrase "out of date." there? the 64 was absolutely out of date by that period, it was certainly usable but practically sub-par in every respect to a newer system and sure as fuck not nearly as well supported outside of some niche markets
"obsolete" does not mean "useless", the C64 was certainly useful, it still is today for whatever the fuck you can run on it, but that doesn't mean it hasn't long been surpassed by more useful things

>>61517929
>as no one was supporting games for your ancient shit anymore.
But that's wrong Mr.Smartypants, games literacy where made to support older shit more then even take fully advantage of the new.
90% of the market was old hardware, you wanted your game to sell, you supported it and they did.

>and the c64 was obsolete to play anything relevant in the 90s.
Most Amiga games that came in the early 90's had C64 ports.

>fuck you you autistic piece of garbage.
Did you really think this would make you seem better, more credible and make me feel bad? It's the other way around, it shows immaturity.

>>61518043
>it was a fucking entry-level microcomputer, they were all laughable, even the "good" ones were painfully limited
There was only one computer that counted as a home microcomputer at the time, that was the PC and it was nowhere as graphically or acoustically capable.

>and I said, and let me quote:
Again, you said:
>when it was new
Only adding the high-end 80's systems later on. I didn't disagree with that part, but don't make it seem like you didn't actually say the first part out loud.

>>61518043
>I'm pretty confused now
That's because you're moving goalposts. Don't do it if you can't handle it. I actually liked it when you tried to widen the discussion.
We started talking about the 80's when you started talking about the C64 when it came out.

There where no "cheap XT clones" back then, XT clones became a thing in the mid 80's, when the C64 with it's expansions was even cheaper than an XT clone, not to mention a real XT or AT.

Yet the competition was nowhere ahead the curve enough to make the C64 a bad choice for anything then a dedicated typewriter. Especially in the home market and at it's price point. Your 640KB of RAM (that actually very-very few people had in their PC) is useless for anything that isn't actual office level work with huge spreadsheets, databases or pages of text compared to 64KB.

I was born in 93 but my aunt had given me her atari 2600 to play with so that was my first game console

>>61518079
>Most Amiga games that came in the early 90's had C64 ports.
Let me rephrase that before you go full autismo, many* not most.

>>61518043
>do you see the big bold "1." followed by some words eventually ending in the phrase "out of date." there? the 64 was absolutely out of date by that period, it was certainly usable but practically sub-par in every respect to a newer system and sure as fuck not nearly as well supported outside of some niche markets
>"obsolete" does not mean "useless", the C64 was certainly useful, it still is today for whatever the fuck you can run on it, but that doesn't mean it hasn't long been surpassed by more useful things

I never disagreed with you on that and I even said that, but you defined "obsolete" with >>61516985
>and rendered useless

>>61518043
>none of these really show the C64 as a superior alternative to the PC on anything other than price point anyway... which isn't really that relevant in this case, of course the 64 is a cheaper option, the PC was in another league entirely
>maybe the first part wasn't articulated as well as it should have been, but even then, you've gotta be fucking delusional if you're going to act like the 64 was /ever/ truly competitive to a PC for non-gaming use cases on anything but price point and maybe hardware/software support in its early years, when we look at it from an actual hardware standpoint there is absolutely zero contest no matter how you spin it
Your explanation of the PC and C64 at their heyday would be like saying that only brand new trucks are good vehicles and that the soccer mom driving that minivan is a retard for not owning a truck and the guy who has fun driving his ATV on the beach is even more so for not doing it with a truck.

>>61518100
>There was only one computer that counted as a home microcomputer at the time, that was the PC
this reads to me like you're saying the heavily business-oriented PC was the only "home microcomputer" at the time and that's not right at all, and you definitely sound like you know that too, so am I just retarded?
>Only adding the high-end 80's systems later on. I didn't disagree with that part, but don't make it seem like you didn't actually say the first part out loud.
it's pretty much what I'm saying, yeah. it's a little bit of an unfair comparison but when you really look at it in the grand scheme of things,
>>61518165
>That's because you're moving goalposts. Don't do it if you can't handle it. I actually liked it when you tried to widen the discussion.
the fuck are you talking about dude, you moved the goalposts when you brought up the CGA/PC speaker bullshit in the context of the '90s, presumably jumping on my comment that the 64 was shit even when it was new, which, yeah, it was, that was just emphasis as to just how fucking destitute it would have been by that period
>Your 640KB of RAM (that actually very-very few people had in their PC)
few people were running the shit base 16k/cassette-only PCs too or 64s with brand fucking new D9060s on them but that didn't stop you from conjuring them up to illustrate a muddled point, the point was that the PC was superior under the hood, and the average PC was still equipped with far more usable memory than a 64 could ever hope for
> is useless for anything that isn't actual office level work
"actual office level work" was what 95% of microcomputers were doing in that time period, not hobbyist dicking around or playing games, and 64K was fucking paltry for a lot of tasks no matter how you looked at it
>>61518202
as an average user, your old C64 is going to look pretty damn useless next to a brand new PC that does everything better

>>61518397
>this reads to me like you're saying the heavily business-oriented PC was the only "home microcomputer" at the time and that's not right at all, and you definitely sound like you know that too, so am I just retarded?
I worded that wrong, it was supposed to be, that it was the only expensive, yet still home computer. In contract with the C64 being a "entry-level" one.

>>61518397
>the fuck are you talking about dude, you moved the goalposts
>when it was new, which, yeah, it was, that was just emphasis as to just how fucking destitute it would have been by that period
>I didn't start talking about the 80's but I did too

>few people were running the shit base 16k/cassette-only PCs too or 64s with brand fucking new D9060s on them but that didn't stop you from conjuring them up to illustrate a muddled point, the point was that the PC was superior under the hood, and the average PC was still equipped with far more usable memory than a 64 could ever hope for
At the time both came out, the PC was nowhere superior, it might have had more expansions and upgrade possibilities, but as you said yourself, most people where running both the PC and C64 as plain as they could, PC has shit to offer against the C64. Except maybe a better keyboard for those sweet spreadsheets.

Now let me redpill you...
Did you know that the 4.77MHz 8088 was actually slower compared to the 1MHz 6510?
Did you know, if you had the money, you could actually pretty easily expand the memory of the C64? There's no argument, you only had a PC with more memory when you had the money for it, same with the C64.
Not to mention, you can't compare CGA and PC speaker Mr.Monotone to the VIC II and SID.

>"actual office level work" was what 95% of microcomputers were doing in that time period, not hobbyist dicking around or playing games, and 64K was fucking paltry for a lot of tasks no matter how you looked at it
Home micros had the capability to do office works, to manage your taxes and print out your school paper, but no, there's a big distinction why the PC was called a office machine and rest where home machines. Being a good tool at one and only that one job does not exactly make something superior to the rest, specially when talking about general purpose computing. Something home computers are.

>>61518233
it's more like I'm calling the soccer mom and ATV shitter retards after they came up to me and told me that their respective shitboxes were just as good at hauling the big-ass couch I'm loading into the back of my truck, or whatever, your analogy isn't really the best choice and just sounds like defensive rambling
there were certainly things I'd pick a C64 over a PC to do, and with cost no object, getting "real" shit done was not one of them
>>61518423
that's agreeable then

>>61518579
>it's more like I'm calling the soccer mom and ATV shitter retards after they came up to me and told me that their respective shitboxes were just as good at hauling the big-ass couch I'm loading into the back of my truck, or whatever, your analogy isn't really the best choice and just sounds like defensive rambling
>there were certainly things I'd pick a C64 over a PC to do, and with cost no object, getting "real" shit done was not one of them
That's because you assume that everybody wants to haul huge couches.

>>61514706
I had an e machine from Fry's, that my parents bought in 95', that had W95 on it. Had it all the way up to the early 2000's. Than we all got stock dell computers in 2007. Than the golden age of my adolescence began.

>>61518508
>but as you said yourself, most people where running both the PC and C64 as plain as they could
never said that at all, fucking nobody bought the shitty base-spec PC, it was about as pointless as a $4,000 C64 with a hard disk
>Did you know that the 4.77MHz 8088 was actually slower compared to the 1MHz 6510?
what task and by what metric?
>Did you know, if you had the money, you could actually pretty easily expand the memory of the C64? There's no argument, you only had a PC with more memory when you had the money for it, same with the C64.
everything I've seen on that end looks like a shitty unsupported hack that's ultimately slower anyway
>Not to mention, you can't compare CGA and PC speaker Mr.Monotone to the VIC II and SID.
didn't matter for the PC's target use case that MDA was superior for anyway, but sure, graphics and sound in games are definitely advantages the 64 had, but that's pretty much it
>Home micros had the capability to do office works, to manage your taxes and print out your school paper, but no, there's a big distinction why the PC was called a office machine and rest where home machines. Being a good tool at one and only that one job does not exactly make something superior to the rest, specially when talking about general purpose computing. Something home computers are.
of course they were office machines you fucking dipshit, offices were 90% of the fucking market and PCs with their nearly limitless software/hardware base were the definition of "general purpose" far and beyond the scores of proprietary "home micros" that were absolutely obliterated by PC clones because having the "capability" doesn't mean it's good at it
>>61518615
not at all, I just understand the reality that there was much more hauling to be done than fucking around on the beach

File: 1292668398254.jpg (253KB, 939x1135px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 939x1135px

My earliest home computing, between 2000-2004, was on obsolete, written-off Windows 95 and 98 shitboxes. First one didn't even have a sound card. I prayed all them DOS games. Born in 93, so that was pretty much my childhood.

File: amiga_1200_01_large.jpg (1MB, 2592x1767px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1767px

>>61514706
Sounds very similar to me.
Despite that I couldn't have a C64 (or Amiga) before around '90, since they weren't available behind the wall in east germany (despite very few people with connections having a C64). Heck, we couldn't even effort the east german home computer (there pretty much was only one, the KC85).

So around '91 or '92 I got my first computer, of course a C64, that I used on an old east german B/W-TV with an deteriorated phosphor layer at first. So I had to darken the room to see (blurry) shit (I fucking hate RF-connections to date). But of course I didn't had one of those fancy floppy drives at first and was using the Datasette-tapes for very long before finally getting a floppy drive.

Later a used Amiga500 complemented the C64 (that I was still using very often) and much later an Amiga1200. It was so late, that my Amiga1200 was the last model produced by Escom (instead of Commodore, that already was gone for good). And after that, for a long period of time nothing changed much. Yeah I upgraded the Harddrive of the Amiga1200 of 850 MB to 3GB and added a CD-ROM Drive and more Memory (8 MB Fast Ram additional to the A1200's 2 MB Chip-Ram), but nothing fancy like an accelerator or graphics/sound-card. Hell, I got an (again already outdated) Power Macintosh 6100 (the "pizza box"-shaped one with a 486 bridge card) for free, but was still using the Amiga since even the Amiga felt faster (and had much more software) then the Mac.

So I was pretty much using an unaccelerated Amiga 1200 until 2008 when I finally switched to a MacBook Pro (that I had to share with my sister, since we saved money for over 2 years for that thing together). And of course my internet usage was limited to dial-up until 2008 too, since this was the only thing working with a Amiga 1200 with only legacy connectivity. Heck, because of the limitations of that model and it's serial port the speed was more around 32k rather then 56.