Something I have noticed when reading about the history of computers is that American historians write endlessly about machines, from Apple, Atari, Commodore, Tandy, and anything PC compatible including the IBM PC Jr. Some make references to the less successful American computers, such as the Coleco Adam, but very rarely do they mention any computers that aren't American. The same applies to software where Americans either don't know that Driller was the world's first proper 3D game, or don't like to admit it because it was a British invention by Incentive Software.


British historians wax lyrical about the Sinclair Spectrum and anything from Acorn, as if Britain really has a national computer. They also give plenty of credit to Commodore and PC compatibles, but for some unexplainable reason or other the Amstrad CPC is treated as the underdog of 8 bits - except by it's community of supporters. Occasionally references are made towards less successful British computers from manufacturers like Memotech, Dragon Data, or Tangerine, but rarely anything about Apple before the Macintosh or Atari before the ST although it's probably safe to say that British historians are aware that such computers exist. Tandy machines are also ignored. Unfortunately this includes the TRS 80 Model 100 that was the first affordable laptop as well as the only Tandy machine sold in significant numbers in Britain.


Neither British nor American historians write much about computers that were more commonly used in countries other than their own. This includes the MSX range – the international 8 bit format; Fujitsu FM and FM Towns; Sharp X68000; Thomson TO-7/70 and TO-8 – as used in French schools.

It has made me wonder, are historians of all types of technology heavily biased towards the machinery that was sold and used in their native country?