Commodore 128 users...unite!
dun...@yahoo.com
complicated" really burns me (as a long time C128 owner). You take
every feature the C64 SHOULD have had and you put it into a machine
WITH C64 compatibility mode AND a better BASIC + 80 columns and CP/M
mode, and you have everything Commodore 64 owners were clamoring for in
1984-5.
Commodore made every effort to make the machine what C64 owners wanted
-- thus, you saw a LOT of Commodore 64 owners migrate over to the
Commodore 128.
And new users, who had not previously owned a Commodore 64, jumped over
to the Commodore 128 once they learned it could also be a productive
business computer. True, it wasn't as good as the IBM PC/PC Jr, but it
had a crisp 80 column display and a large memory (128KB, expandable to
512K).
The differences between C64 mode and C128 mode were glaring:
1. In BASIC, the C128 could often do in two or three lines what it
would take a C64 to accomplish in 10 or 15.
2. The 128 had 80 columns available, giving a user better word
processing and database/spreedsheet capabilities.
3. To turn on and animated a sprite in C64 mode (from BASIC), you had
to use a complicated set of POKEs. To do so in C128 mode, all you had
to do was use SPRITE and MOVSPR.
4. To play music or a sound on the C64 (from BASIC), you had to also
use a complicated set of POKEs. To do so in C128 mode, all you had to
do was use PLAY or SOUND.
5. To design a sprite in C64 mode, you needed to load up a sprite
editor from disk. To do so in C128 mode, all you had to do was type
SPRDEF in direct mode.
6. To use an ML monitor in C64 mode, you had to plug in a cartridge or
load it from disk. To do so in C128 mode, all you had to do was type
MONITOR.
7. To increase the speed of C64 BASIC programs, you needed to use "."
in place of "0s" and other tricks (including blanking the screen to get
a nominal speed increase). To do so in C128 mode, all you had to do was
type FAST.
8. To define the function keys in C64 mode, you had to assign a value
to them in a program, such as: IF A$="[F1]" THEN [do some action]. To
do so in C128 mode, all you had to do was use the KEY command.
9. To append (merge) two program together in C64 mode, you had to type
in a complex 4-5 line program, SAVE it to disk and LOAD/RUN it every
time you wanted to merge two programs together. To do so in C128 mode,
all you had to do was DLOAD in the first program (ensuring it had lower
program line numbers than the second) and then type:
BLOAD "[filename]",B0,P(PEEK(4624)+256*PEEK(4625)-2):DELETE 2-1
(this command proved so useful over the years that I wrote it in
permanent magic marker across the top of my 1084S Commodore monitor).
10. The cursor keys on the C64 left a lot to be desired. To move up,
you had to press SHIFT+Cursor Up. To move down, you pressed Cursor
Down. To move left, you pressed SHIFT+Cursor Left. To move right, you
pressed Cursor Right. To do so in C128 mode, all you had to do was
press the corresponding cursor key.
These are but a few of the glaring differences between both the C64 and
C128 modes. This is exactly why I used a C128 almost exclusively
between 1985 and today.
Paul
David Murray
> These are but a few of the glaring differences between both the C64 and
> C128 modes. This is exactly why I used a C128 almost exclusively
> between 1985 and today.
Look, I don't think anybody is trying to say the 128 wasn't a good
computer. After all, it was at least as good as the 64 and better. I
used a C128 for many years as my primary computer during the late 80's
and early 90's. I had a dual mode monitor and loved to use DesTerm to
log onto BBSs with ANSI 80-column graphics modes. I also wrote plenty of
software programs for the 80-column display.
However, I still think the C128 was a mistake on Commodore's part, along
with the Plus/4 series. (which I also think are good computers) Here
are the mistakes I think were made:
1) The machines should not break compatibility with the C64 unless they
are going to be significantly better machines (IE: the Amiga) That is
why the plus/4 and 128 both failed to get much support. The C128 was
only marginally better than the C64, especially since most users didn't
have an 80-column monitor. But since it ran 64 software so well,
software manufacturers rarely went to the trouble to port the software to
the 128.
2) The 128 did not need a Z80. Marketing it as a CP/M machine was a
waste of time. Less than 1% of 128 users ever even booted the machine
into CP/M mode and CP/M was already dying off when the machine was
introduced. They could have cost-reduced the machine by leaving that
out.
3) The 80-column idea was great.. But should not have required a seperate
monitor or dual-mode monitor. That made it confusing and most people
didn't even realize how to use the 80-column mode. As a result, most
people never used it and very little software was made to use it.
If I could get in a time machine and go back to Commodore and tell them
how to make it.. here is what I'd tell them to do. Don't build the
Plus/4. Then, take all the engineering dollars spent on the Plus/4 and
128 and built the 128 right.. Dump the Z80 from the design. Dump the
80-column chip. Design a new VIC chip with new graphics modes (sort of
like the DTV has now) only give it more colors, hi-res modes for 80
columns, and have it use BOTH a composite output and RGB (or maybe analog
RGB like the Amiga) Add a second SID chip for stereo sound. And of
course the 128 MB of RAM. There would be no 64 mode or 128 mode. There'd
be a chance that a small percentage of games might not work. But the
market would quickly adapt. Modify the kernel so that the fast drive
access works all the time, not just in a special mode. Again, certain
games would break, just like leaving a fast-load cart in your computer,
about 1% don't work. But the market would adapt. Then you would have a
computer with extra abilities but no special re-write of software
required to support it. This machine would have sold better, and would
have a bunch more software available for it. This is sort of what they
tried to do with the C65.. but were way too late.
--DavidM
dun...@yahoo.com
The Plus/4 was doomed from the very beginning. I've used my Plus/4's in
the past as paper weights and door stops.
As for the 128, I think they designed it right in the first place. I
don't see how adding a dual-SID would have made it that much better. 6
voices vs. 3, yes, but c'mon...not many games would have taken
advantage of the extra sound. 3 was fine as it was.
The 80 column mode was fine as designed. Yes, it required an 80-column
capable monitor, but since the 1084/S could be hooked up both ways --
including the 1902 -- that wasn't a problem for most users. Just spend
the extra $179 for a better monitor and take it along with them when
they upgraded to the Amiga.
Designing a VIC-chip to handle 80 columns would have been technically
very implausible (at least to maintain backward compatibility with the
VIC-II supported games). I think having the VDC and the VIC-II was the
best decision for Commodore to make.
Plus, don't forget that they were on a tight release schedule -- as
usual -- and designing a new VIC-III chip for the machine would have:
A] taken too much time and B] driven up the cost of the machine
considerably. With the Amiga already on the horizon at that time, it
made much more sense to just stick with their original design and use
the existing VIC-II and SID chips, a la the Commodore 64.
Paul
Guy Macon
David Murray wrote:
>Less than 1% of 128 users ever even booted the machine into CP/M mode
Do you have a reference for the above figure, or is it a guess?
agi...@netscape.net
dun...@yahoo.com wrote:
> All this talk about the C128 being "johnny-come-lately" and "over
> complicated" really burns me (as a long time C128 owner). You take
> every feature the C64 SHOULD have had and you put it into a machine
> WITH C64 compatibility mode AND a better BASIC + 80 columns and CP/M
> mode, and you have everything Commodore 64 owners were clamoring for in
> 1984-5.
I should clarify that I was talking about the C128 in terms of
commercial impact. Sometimes the most successful strategy for getting
the customer to part with their money on an ongoing basis is not the
approach that would make the customer the happiest. Just consider
Micro$oft and Micro$oft Word in particular.
If someone was going to offer me only one eight bit computer to be
stuck on a desert island with, I'd probably take a C128. I certainly
had a C128 sent to me when I went to live and work on an inhabited
tropical island for a couple of years in the 1980's.
Golan Klinger
> And of course the 128 MB of RAM.
You bet. If Commodore had included 128MB of RAM in the 128 they would
have had a HUGE hit on their hands. ;)
--
Golan Klinger
Dark is the suede that mows like a harvest.
dun...@yahoo.com
Someone on Lemon called the 128 "panic engineering." hehe :) Most
self-described "C64 Warriors" won't admit to a superior machine,
especially if it has C64 compatibility built right in. :)
I never looked at the 128 as "panic engineering." Commodore said in an
interview in mid-1985 -- courtesy of the Compute!'s Gazette -- that
they were "attempting to satisfy everyone's wish list" with the 128.
That meant C64 compatibility (which it had), 40 and 80 columns (via the
1902 monitor), a faster disk drive (via the 1571), CP/M (via the CP/M
3.0 System Disk and Z80 processor), a better BASIC (via BASIC 7.0) and
a better keyboard.
The C128 was the natural evolution of the C64. It did everything the
C64 did and much, much more. For $299, it was a ridiculously low priced
personal computer.
I was glad Commodore made the 128. In fact, I barely touched my
breadbox C64 for several years as the 128 saw far, far, far more use.
Add in the fact that it is a programmer's paradise, and I was on it
8-10 hours a day for over a decade.
The Plus/4 was definitely a failure, though.
Paul
agi...@netscape.net
dun...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I never looked at the 128 as "panic engineering." Commodore said in an
> interview in mid-1985 -- courtesy of the Compute!'s Gazette -- that
> they were "attempting to satisfy everyone's wish list" with the 128.
That pretty much sums up my criticisms of the 128. The CP/M Plus was
not good enough to become a dominant force in that market, but good
enough to siphon off some of the demand for C128 mode productivity
applications. The C64 mode was almost entirely compatible, but wasn't
a compatible upgrade.
Its not that its a bad computer (I must have liked the 128, I bought a
128D when I got back from Grenada after donating the 128 to the school
I was teaching at), but that it was not a momentum-generator in the
market.
David Murray
>
>>Less than 1% of 128 users ever even booted the machine into CP/M mode
>
> Do you have a reference for the above figure, or is it a guess?
>
I did at one point. I saw it on an internet poll conducted on one of the
larger commodore websites a few years ago. It asked 128 users to vote if
they ever booted their machines to CP/M. If I remember correctly, there
were over 1,000 votes and not even a full 1% answered yes. It was
something like 0.8%. I'm sorry I don't have the link or the full info
anymore. Maybe we can convince somebody else to run the poll again.
I booted my 128 to CP/M a dozen times or so just to see what it was but
never could find any CP/M software. No computer stores carried it in stock
and once I found out CP/M couldn't do graphics, as a pre-teen at the time I
couldn't have cared less about it.
David Murray
>
> Designing a VIC-chip to handle 80 columns would have been technically
> very implausible (at least to maintain backward compatibility with the
> VIC-II supported games). I think having the VDC and the VIC-II was the
> best decision for Commodore to make.
It was best financially because they already had the design for both.
But saying it would have been implausible is ridiculous. My Commodore
DTV (You DO have one, don't you?!) Seems to have no incompatibilities on
its VIC II implimentation. Yet it offers 256 colors, linear graphics
addressing, DMA controller, and various other things. If they took the
money they used developing the TED chip for the plus/4 then they could
have done the VIC instead.
> Plus, don't forget that they were on a tight release schedule -- as
> usual -- and designing a new VIC-III chip for the machine would have:
> A] taken too much time and B] driven up the cost of the machine
As I said.. had they started the 128 project instead of the Plus/4
project then that money and engineering time could have been channeled
into a new VIC chip.
> considerably. With the Amiga already on the horizon at that time, it
and I think many of the software applications would have used dual SID
chips had millions of computers been shipping with it. What I meant to
say by that is that dual SID chips wouldn't have costed any more than
adding that useless Z80 and the extra SID would have gotten tons more use
than the Z80. It might have even been a better selling feature. Can you
imagine all the SID-music players that would have evolved for the 128 and
all the games that would have used it?
Jerry Kurtz
David Murray wrote:
>SNIP...And of course the 128 MB of RAM...
> --DavidM
Do you even remember what 128 MB of RAM would have cost back then, or
was that a goof?
Guy Macon
David Murray wrote:
>
>>>Less than 1% of 128 users ever even booted the machine into CP/M mode
>>
>> Do you have a reference for the above figure, or is it a guess?
>
>I did at one point. I saw it on an internet poll conducted on one of the
>larger commodore websites a few years ago. It asked 128 users to vote if
>they ever booted their machines to CP/M. If I remember correctly, there
>were over 1,000 votes and not even a full 1% answered yes. It was
>something like 0.8%. I'm sorry I don't have the link or the full info
>anymore.
No need. Your recollection is good enough for me. I was just
wondering whether the percentage was one of those "97.362% of
the statistics on the Internet are made up on the spot" numbers... :)
Peter van Merkerk
> However, I still think the C128 was a mistake on Commodore's part, along
> with the Plus/4 series. (which I also think are good computers) Here
> are the mistakes I think were made:
>
> 1) The machines should not break compatibility with the C64 unless they
> are going to be significantly better machines (IE: the Amiga) That is
> why the plus/4 and 128 both failed to get much support. The C128 was
> only marginally better than the C64, especially since most users didn't
> have an 80-column monitor. But since it ran 64 software so well,
> software manufacturers rarely went to the trouble to port the software to
> the 128.
For games the C128 a had only very little extra to offer compared to a
C64, so there was very little point in writing games especially for the
C128. The improvements were in the business use area. If you are only
interested in games the C128 is not for you. If you only care about
business applications the C128 wasn't the best choice either. But if you
wanted both (assuming that the serious stuff is not just an excuse for
buying a computer), the C128 was IMO not a bad choice.
> 2) The 128 did not need a Z80.
Actually a C128 wouldn't boot at all without a Z80. C= hacking published
an interview with Bill Herd explaining that the Z80 was needed to get
around problems with cartridges pulling tricks with the cartridge
signals that no one expected when the C64 was designed.
> 3) The 80-column idea was great.. But should not have required a seperate
> monitor or dual-mode monitor. That made it confusing and most people
> didn't even realize how to use the 80-column mode. As a result, most
> people never used it and very little software was made to use it.
There was a technical reason for that; the alternative would have been
an unusable 80-column screen. Due to technical limitations of a
composite video signal, composite color monitors cannot really handle
80-columns well; cross-color effects would make the screen barely
readable. Even for the 40 column output of C64, they already had to make
the font fatter to avoid cross-color effects.
Anyway most people I knew that had a C128 did either have a dual-mode
monitor, or did have a switch which selected between the 40-column and
the monochrome 80-column output. Personally I don't see the point of
having a C128 and not using the 80-column mode. As far as software
availability for the 80-column mode, most business software I had took
advantage of it. When talking about numbers: one game is not enough to
keep one of the streets for long, but how many word processors does one
need?
> If I could get in a time machine and go back to Commodore and tell them
> how to make it.. here is what I'd tell them to do. Don't build the
> Plus/4. Then, take all the engineering dollars spent on the Plus/4 and
> 128 and built the 128 right.. Dump the Z80 from the design. Dump the
> 80-column chip. Design a new VIC chip with new graphics modes (sort of
> like the DTV has now) only give it more colors, hi-res modes for 80
> columns, and have it use BOTH a composite output and RGB (or maybe analog
> RGB like the Amiga) Add a second SID chip for stereo sound.
I always wished the C128 had a more capable VIC chip (more colors
please!), a stereo SID, a faster processor without losing the VIC
output...etc. If the C128 had improved on those areas I expect there
would have been a lot more games especially written for the C128.
However those features would also require more engineering resources,
increase development costs and development time (possibly missing the
window of opportunity), increase system costs and probably also
adversely affect the C64 compatibility.
I think it is unfortunate Commodore didn't start designing the C128
right after completing the C64. I expect the C128 would have been a
better machine if there had been more time to develop it and if it had
been introduced earlier to the market. I think achieving an acceptable
level of compatibility would have been easier because there in the early
days that was less software that relied on undocumented features, so the
bar for an acceptable level of compatibility would have been lower. Also
if there had been a compatible brother early in the life of the C64,
software makers would have targeted both machines and not rely on
peculiarities that work only on one machine and not the other.
> And of course the 128 MB of RAM.
That would have made the machine quite costly in 1985.
> There would be no 64 mode or 128 mode.
I never liked the fact that one has to switch modes. But without it, one
would probably also kill agreat deal of C64 compatibility. The few
things a C128 in 64 mode can do more than a real C64 is also the source
of the very few compatibility problems it has with the real C64. Without
very good C64 compatibility there would be no point in having a C128.
It seems you are describing the C65, whose compatibility with the C64
was not great. Unfortunately we will never know how well that one would
have fared in the marketplace.
> There'd be a chance that a small percentage of games might not work.
Probably more than just a small percentage.
> But the market would quickly adapt.
Maybe, maybe not. If not it would have been another Plus/4 fiasco.
> Modify the kernel so that the fast drive access works all the time,
> not just in a special mode. Again, certain
> games would break, just like leaving a fast-load cart in your computer,
> about 1% don't work.
A speeder cart can be switched off or pulled out of the system
(something I had to do far more than 1% of the times). But if the
build-in ROM is the cause of the compatibility problem...
> But the market would adapt.
Only if the gains outweigh the costs.
> Then you would have a computer with extra abilities but no special
> re-write of software required to support it.
That would work for the fast drive access, but not for the other
features (video, sound).
> This machine would have sold better, and would
> have a bunch more software available for it.
How do you figure that?
Don't get me wrong, you mentioned just about anything I wished for my
C128 had, and deep in my heart I agree with you when you mention the
flaws of the C128. However I doubt it would have helped Commodore a lot
if they would have followed your suggestions.
dun...@yahoo.com
better keyboard. It succeeded.
Paul
agi...@netscape.net
dun...@yahoo.com wrote:
> It didn't have to be. All it had to do was be a C64 with more RAM and a
> better keyboard. It succeeded.
It wasn't a C64 with more RAM and a better keyboard. It was a C64 with
a better keyboard, or a C128 with more RAM and a better keyboard.
dun...@yahoo.com
True, but in the most general sense: it was a better version of the
Commodore 64 with a different memory map and an improved BASIC. :)
Paul
tj_kohler
>> Designing a VIC-chip to handle 80 columns would have been technically
>> very implausible (at least to maintain backward compatibility with the
>> VIC-II supported games). I think having the VDC and the VIC-II was the
>> best decision for Commodore to make.
>It was best financially because they already had the design for both.
>But saying it would have been implausible is ridiculous. My Commodore
>DTV (You DO have one, don't you?!) Seems to have no incompatibilities on
>its VIC II implimentation. Yet it offers 256 colors, linear graphics
>addressing, DMA controller, and various other things. If they took the
>money they used developing the TED chip for the plus/4 then they could
>have done the VIC instead.
I really wish Commodore had Jeri Ellsworth on their design team back in
the day...Then maybe there would have been a true evolutionary step in
the C64.
Sam Gillett
<agi...@netscape.net> wrote ...
It was also a C64 with a better power supply. :-)
It should also be noted that the power supply was adequate in C128 mode as
well.
--
Best regards,
Sam Gillett
Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!
agi...@netscape.net
Sam Gillett wrote:
> It was also a C64 with a better power supply. :-)
That didn't help me, since I plugged in the power tap for my parallel
port interface into the datasette port upside down, and fried the
processor, helped on I am sure by the more robust power supply.
A C64 with a better power supply was already available, but only by
recourse to a third party vendor.
Clockmeister
<dun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130819045.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Banked memory and I remember that the BASIC was frustratingly slooooooow...
I preferred my (Extended Colour BASIC) CoCo for programming in BASIC.
dun...@yahoo.com
Running BASIC programs in 80 column mode, in FAST mode, helped for me.
Paul
Clockmeister
<dun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130843262....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Yeah but I used graphics in my programs as well.
dun...@yahoo.com
So you did use the 128? Not just the 64, then?
Paul
Martin Brunner
>3) The 80-column idea was great.. But should not have required a seperate
>monitor or dual-mode monitor. That made it confusing and most people
>didn't even realize how to use the 80-column mode. As a result, most
>people never used it and very little software was made to use it.
I also think there were some things with the graphic possibilities. The
80-column mode only seems to be a text mode or is there any other reason
why I never so some decent graphics in the 80-column-mode?
Martin Brunner
>The C64 mode was almost entirely compatible, but wasn't
>a compatible upgrade.
It's a shame that you couldn't use the 1571 drive speed in the C64 mode
as well as the DIN-Keyboard.
a2user
dun...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Running BASIC programs in 80 column mode, in FAST mode, helped for me.
> Paul
Could one do hi-res graphics in 128 mode?
On a Tandy CoCo 3 (128K RAM, easily and relatively cheaply at the time to
expand to 512K and beyond), one could do the CoCo 3's super hi-res
graphics quite easily in 40/80 column mode, and through it's built in
BASIC). All you needed was 128K RAM, but things were considerably better
with more RAM when using commercial software available.
Need more speed? Simply POKE 65497,0 and boom, 2MHz speed was invoked. The
Motorola 68B09E CPU ran circles around the 6510 and Z80.
ML programs such as CoCo Max III, Max 10, Color Max 3/Deluxe, The Rat, VIP
Writer III, Telewriter 128, and a number of really good games (ie. from
Sundog Systems, Diecom Products, etc.) made the CoCo 3 really shine.
In a showdown between a Commodore 128 and a Tandy CoCo 3, the CoCo 3 would
probably win out in every contest except for one.....the C128 had a
numeric keypad built in whereas the CoCo 3 did not. Well, that and the
C128 probably had a nicer looking case design, in my opinion.
agi...@netscape.net
a2user wrote:
> In a showdown between a Commodore 128 and a Tandy CoCo 3, the CoCo 3 would
> probably win out in every contest except for one.....the C128 had a
> numeric keypad built in whereas the CoCo 3 did not. Well, that and the
> C128 probably had a nicer looking case design, in my opinion.
There is also the minor point about the massive software base that the
C128 could use out of the box. Some people have this odd desire to use
their computers to run software.
a2user
agi...@netscape.net wrote:
> There is also the minor point about the massive software base that the
> C128 could use out of the box. Some people have this odd desire to use
> their computers to run software.
Well, the CoCo did in fact have a considerable amount of software
available for it.
The same quantity of games as the C64? No, of course not.
The same quantity of productivity applications? Probably more so than what
the C64/C128 had.
Even so, my first year of owning a CoCo 3, I obtained around 50 disks
worth of software, most of them games.
See, most of the best stuff for the CoCo was available through mail order
only, and not through Radio Shack. One only had to purchase a couple of
the CoCo magazines off the magazine stand rack to see this.
I'm not knocking the C64/128. I'm just making a few comparisions.
Sam Gillett
"a2user" <a2u...@noemail.nonet> wrote ...
>
> Could one do hi-res graphics in 128 mode?
Yes. The C128's BASIC 7.0 had an excellent array of graphic commands,
including commands to manipulate sprites. (You may have called sprites MOB's
on the CoCo.) However, the BASIC 7.0 graphic commands only worked on the 40
column screen. For 80 columns, see below.
> On a Tandy CoCo 3 (128K RAM, easily and relatively cheaply at the time to
> expand to 512K and beyond), one could do the CoCo 3's super hi-res
> graphics quite easily in 40/80 column mode, and through it's built in
> BASIC). All you needed was 128K RAM, but things were considerably better
> with more RAM when using commercial software available.
No additional hardware was required. Just a software add on. Like most
Commodore BASICs, BASIC 7.0 in the C128 could be expanded with additional
commands and routines added in software. One could buy BASIC 8 and do quite
impressive hi-res graphics on the C128's 80 column screen.
> Need more speed? Simply POKE 65497,0 and boom, 2MHz speed was invoked.
A POKE could shift the C128 into 2 MHz speed also. But why type such a
complicated command when a simple FAST would do? The FAST command on the
C128 works either in direct mode or in a BASIC program. To return to 1 MHz
mode (if desired) simply use the SLOW command.
> The Motorola 68B09E CPU ran circles around the 6510 and Z80.
The Z-80 in the C128 was used during the boot process as noted by other
posters recently. After bootup was complete, it was only used in CP/M mode.
In 64 mode, and native 128 mode, the Z-80 just sat there in a wait state
after boot processes were complete.
The C128 used an 8510 as primary processor in all but CP/M mode, not 6510.
BTW, my spell checker keeps wanting to change "a2user" to "abuser" ;-)
Sam Gillett
"Sam Gillett" wrote ...
[typo alert]
> The C128 used an 8510 as primary processor in all but CP/M mode, not 6510.
[should be]
The C128 used an 8502 as primary processor in all but CP/M mode, not 6510.
Alan Jones
wrote:
>agi...@netscape.net schrieb:
>
>>The C64 mode was almost entirely compatible, but wasn't
>>a compatible upgrade.
Almost all of the 128 features could be used in C64 mode, except both
banks of RAM.
>It's a shame that you couldn't use the 1571 drive speed in the C64 mode
JiffyDOS
>as well as the DIN-Keyboard.
?? It was possible to use the 128 numerical keypad in 64 mode.
For me the hot set up was using a 128D in 64 mode with Comal 2.0, REU,
1581 with JiffyDOS, and RAMDdrive. I mostly used the RAMDrive to
provide JiffyDOS to the 128. I used native 128 and CP/M modes as
well, but I did not have the native 128 version of the Comal
cartridge.
Alan
Robert Bernardo
> Could one do hi-res graphics in 128 mode?
Yes, the Basic 8 programs, including I-Paint, made use of hi-res.
Truly,
Robert Bernardo
Fresno Commodore User Group
http://videocam.net.au/fcug
Clockmeister
<dun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130886710.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No, I used my CoCo for BASIC programming. I used the C128 occasionally for
programming, but not often.
Martin Brunner
>>as well as the DIN-Keyboard.
>
>?? It was possible to use the 128 numerical keypad in 64 mode.
Really? But with some additional software I guess.
You could also get the äöüß somehow in the C64 mode, but they were not
at the right place.
dun...@yahoo.com
CoCo over C128????
Paul
bud
'Lo Peter:
Group: comp.sys.cbm Date: Mon, Oct 31, 2005, 9:53pm (CST+7) From:
mer...@deadspam.com (Peter van Merkerk)
script:
>There was a technical reason for that;
>the alternative would have been an
>unusable 80-column screen. Due to
>technical limitations of a composite
>video signal, composite color monitors
>cannot really handle 80-columns well;
>cross-color effects would make the
>screen barely readable. Even for the
>40 column output of C64, they already
>had to make the font fatter to avoid
>cross-color effects.
'Fraid that I must take issue with that idea:
My 1702 takes the composite output of my ATI card and displays winders
quite nicely,… thank you.
OTOH, making the equivalent of the ATI VGA engine, back in the day,
prolly would have doubled the cost of the 128.
salaam,
dowcom
To e-mail me, add the character zero to "dowcom". i.e.:
dowcom(zero)(at)webtv(dot)net.
--
http://community.webtv.net/dowcom/DOWCOMSAMSTRADGUIDE
MSWindows is television,… Linux is radar.
Jim Brain
>
> 'Lo Peter:
>
> Group: comp.sys.cbm Date: Mon, Oct 31, 2005, 9:53pm (CST+7) From:
> mer...@deadspam.com (Peter van Merkerk)
>
> script:
>
>
>>There was a technical reason for that;
>>the alternative would have been an
>>unusable 80-column screen. Due to
>>technical limitations of a composite
>>video signal, composite color monitors
>>cannot really handle 80-columns well;
>>cross-color effects would make the
>>screen barely readable. Even for the
>>40 column output of C64, they already
>>had to make the font fatter to avoid
>>cross-color effects.
>
>
> 'Fraid that I must take issue with that idea:
> My 1702 takes the composite output of my ATI card and displays winders
> quite nicely,… thank you.
If you piped it into a monitor, you were fine. But, if they had made
the 80 column NTSC, you would get a mess on a TV. That would have made
support calls jump a lot.
I suspect Bil Herd and group would have tried had they had the opportunity.
I suspect there was either no time to lay out all the required additions
to the VIC-IIe to do 80 columns, no time to design a new NTSC compatible
80 column display IC, or the team discounted the idea based on the
idea that even though they might get it to look OK on NTSC, it would not
be sharp and be considered a "business" display, which was one of the goals.
Or, it could simply have been that Bil was just eager to not have to
worry about 80 columns when the engineering team told him they had a
6845 color variant almost ready, that had originally been slated for the
C900 (I think that was the machine). It was a bad choice, and Bil
regretted it later, as the IC was very hard to design in. Google for
his issues.
Jim
--
Jim Brain, Brain Innovations
br...@jbrain.com http://www.jbrain.com
Dabbling in WWW, Embedded Systems, Old CBM computers, and Good Times!
Macintosh Dragon
David Murray <spam...@stopspam.com> wrote:
> > These are but a few of the glaring differences between both the C64 and
> > C128 modes. This is exactly why I used a C128 almost exclusively
> > between 1985 and today.
>
> Look, I don't think anybody is trying to say the 128 wasn't a good
> computer. After all, it was at least as good as the 64 and better. I
> used a C128 for many years as my primary computer during the late 80's
> and early 90's. I had a dual mode monitor and loved to use DesTerm to
> log onto BBSs with ANSI 80-column graphics modes. I also wrote plenty of
> software programs for the 80-column display.
>
> However, I still think the C128 was a mistake on Commodore's part, along
> with the Plus/4 series. (which I also think are good computers) Here
> are the mistakes I think were made:
>
> 1) The machines should not break compatibility with the C64 unless they
> are going to be significantly better machines (IE: the Amiga) That is
> why the plus/4 and 128 both failed to get much support. The C128 was
> only marginally better than the C64, especially since most users didn't
> have an 80-column monitor. But since it ran 64 software so well,
> software manufacturers rarely went to the trouble to port the software to
> the 128.
>
> 2) The 128 did not need a Z80. Marketing it as a CP/M machine was a
> waste of time. Less than 1% of 128 users ever even booted the machine
> into CP/M mode and CP/M was already dying off when the machine was
> introduced. They could have cost-reduced the machine by leaving that
> out.
>
> 3) The 80-column idea was great.. But should not have required a seperate
> monitor or dual-mode monitor. That made it confusing and most people
> didn't even realize how to use the 80-column mode. As a result, most
> people never used it and very little software was made to use it.
>
> If I could get in a time machine and go back to Commodore and tell them
> how to make it.. here is what I'd tell them to do. Don't build the
> Plus/4. Then, take all the engineering dollars spent on the Plus/4 and
> 128 and built the 128 right.. Dump the Z80 from the design. Dump the
> 80-column chip. Design a new VIC chip with new graphics modes (sort of
> like the DTV has now) only give it more colors, hi-res modes for 80
> columns, and have it use BOTH a composite output and RGB (or maybe analog
> RGB like the Amiga) Add a second SID chip for stereo sound. And of
> course the 128 MB of RAM. There would be no 64 mode or 128 mode. There'd
> be a chance that a small percentage of games might not work. But the
> market would quickly adapt. Modify the kernel so that the fast drive
> access works all the time, not just in a special mode. Again, certain
> games would break, just like leaving a fast-load cart in your computer,
> about 1% don't work. But the market would adapt. Then you would have a
> computer with extra abilities but no special re-write of software
> required to support it. This machine would have sold better, and would
> have a bunch more software available for it. This is sort of what they
> tried to do with the C65.. but were way too late.
>
> --DavidM
Commodore did do this and they called it the Amiga.
Douglas
:)