Re: The C64 is crap - Discuss!!!
Guesser
> x-no-archive: yes
you're a prick who doesn't understand usenet
discuss.
--
link my boring website http://alistairsserver.no-ip.org/
Groepaz
> Argon wrote:
>> x-no-archive: yes
> you're a prick who doesn't understand usenet
>
> discuss.
neither do you, or you would have removed the trolls confirmation group from
the cc =P
--
http://www.hitmen-console.org http://magicdisk.untergrund.net
http://www.pokefinder.org http://ftp.pokefinder.org
I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always
worked for me.
<Hunter S. Thompson>
Guesser
>
> neither do you, or you would have removed the trolls confirmation group from
> the cc =P
So I'm a dumbass, so what?
Bogdan Macri
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> The C64 was crap and the C64 still is utter crap.
>
> The Sinclair Spectrum was and still is much better than the C64,
> you get better technology for your money!
>
> Discuss!!!
>
>
>
Totally agree with you!
The Sinclair was the most advanced technology ever used for a doorstop!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bogdan Macri - Photography & Consulting
bogdan dot macri at geemail dot com
Rick Youngman
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> The C64 was crap and the C64 still is utter crap.
>
> The Sinclair Spectrum was and still is much better than the C64,
> you get better technology for your money!
>
> Discuss!!!
I always love these jack asses who post such a message, and at the
same time want the post deleted from the Google archives after a week.
I see the same message is cross-posted in the Sinclair group.....
maybe he should rave about his machine there, and forget about
degrading THE BEST EVER SELLING HOME COMPUTER IN THE WORLD ( to
date ), and give up on complaining here
NO ONE IS LISTENING... we know better
Maybe the Sinclair, had some things going for it, the C64 didn't... or
the Apple, or TRS80, or a Texas Instrument.. all had their "own
stuff"
Fact is, they are all, "ancient" in their operating systems.... and I
doubt anyone even cares, which one did what, or better than the other
one anymore.......
It makes absolutely no difference AT ALL, in this day and age of
computing power.
Answering this post , was a bigger waste of time than the author
writing it...... but I was bored... so there ya go... now EAT ME
asshole... the Sinclair SUCKED
Rick
Rick Youngman
Guesser
ha ha, my sides are splitting
Brian Gaff
is a mystery, but the sad fact with the c64 is that in technical terms the
hardware is very capable, but the basic was total crap and so it was not
of much use to many. The tape loading was crap also.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Argon" <Ar...@Argon.Argon> wrote in message news:go1qbh$8td$1...@aioe.org...
Andrew Halliwell
> I'm sure you are a troll and why you do not want this to show up on google
> is a mystery, but the sad fact with the c64 is that in technical terms the
> hardware is very capable, but the basic was total crap and so it was not
> of much use to many. The tape loading was crap also.
So was the disk loading, the speccy tape was better.
They needed third party software to squeeze any decent speed out of it.
:)
But no, the C64 is crap thread is boring now. It's been done to death every
year since the group's inception (give or take a year, it's tailed off
recently thank god)
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
Paul E Collins
> NO ONE IS LISTENING... we know better
Then don't feed the troll.
Eq.
Sean Huxter
"Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dp7pl.39604$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> I'm sure you are a troll and why you do not want this to show up on google
> is a mystery, but the sad fact with the c64 is that in technical terms the
> hardware is very capable, but the basic was total crap and so it was not
> of much use to many. The tape loading was crap also.
> Brian
Not to feed a troll, but to debate an actually good point, the C64 had a
very rudimentary BASIC language, but once you owned the Commodore
Programmers' Reference Guide, a whole new world opened up. You could poke
numbers into various memory locations and do magic.
No one would argue that the BASIC was fully-featured, you had to wait for
the C128 for that, and having to erase a BASIC program just to get a disk
directory (on the slowest disk drive systems in the world) was a pain, but
we endured it because of what the C64 could actually do once a programmer
put his mind to it.
No computer at the time or for years after had the sound capacity of the
C64. Few had equal graphics capabilities. With a 320x200 high-res mode, the
computer was state of the art, and despite the color restrictions placed on
it, what could be better?
The Mac came along a few years later, and was very impressive, but way too
expensive. The Amiga didn't come along until later, but it blew the poor old
C64 away, but for years, the C64 could not be topped. The Atari 800 was its
closest twin, but even it wasn't as good, though I won't disparage it. It
was quite nice for its time. It had inferior sound and its sprite system was
not as flexible, but still, a good gaming computer, and though I didn't own
one, I believe the BASIC was more fully-featured, and I don't think it
forced the user to type in arcane commands to access the disk in any useful
way.
With GEOS, the C64 even took on the Mac, but by that time, the sheer
computing power of the Macs and PCs (not to mention the Amiga) were
overpowering our little workhorse.
I still have nothing but fond memories of coding in BASIC on the C64. I
wrote arcade games, text adventures, board games, some very fun stuff. I
wrote GEOS games in Assembler, and so loved doing that that I'm currently
doing it again.
I know what the troll's intentions were, but we can turn those into
something good by frankly discussing the actual pros and cons of this great
machine.
I still adore my Commodore 64. Even though I don't have it anymore. My 128
is still operational, and fully functional.
Sean.
daniel...@ucd.ie
> But no, the C64 is crap thread is boring now.
Thankfully we now have the much more interesting "C64 palette vs
Spectrum palette" discussion.
/runs, quickly, in a zig-zag fashion
Andrew Halliwell
>
> "Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:dp7pl.39604$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> I'm sure you are a troll and why you do not want this to show up on google
>> is a mystery, but the sad fact with the c64 is that in technical terms the
>> hardware is very capable, but the basic was total crap and so it was not
>> of much use to many. The tape loading was crap also.
>> Brian
>
> Not to feed a troll, but to debate an actually good point, the C64 had a
> very rudimentary BASIC language, but once you owned the Commodore
> Programmers' Reference Guide, a whole new world opened up. You could poke
> numbers into various memory locations and do magic.
Whereas we didn't need to remember a lot of obscure numbers just to draw a
circle or change the border colour.
The only thing the commode had going for it was the sound chip.
OK, it had built in sprites... which were invariably blocky and lower
resolution than the spectrum. OK, the commode had more shades of brown, but
if you wanted to use a higher graphical resolution you were restricted in a
similar way to the spectrum, block colour wise.
The spectrum had the superior cpu. No denying that.
It was also half or less than half the price of the commode.
Which made a difference. An enormous difference.
And that's all I'll say on the subject. I am not taking part in the 2009 c64
is crap thread anymore. And you can shut up too.
Hg
Terrible thing about all 8 bit computers in the 80s, is that they were built
using technology that was already about 10 years old when they were
introduced.
Imagine paying full price for a new computer today that is built from 10 year
old tech!
Daniel Mandic
> It makes absolutely no difference AT ALL,
> in this day and age of
> computing power.
Are you sure? (/me grinning sounds like a mad preacher)
> Answering this post , was a bigger waste of time than the author
> writing it...... but I was bored... so there ya go... now EAT ME
> asshole... the Sinclair SUCKED
Are you sure? (bah, many titles were not available on c64. More to say?
The como didn,t have more, and 'especially' also not the better games,
no, that was only told by ppl, hehe.)
> Rick
Are you sure? (hmmm, maybe you forgot a name or more...)
Best Regards,
Daniel Mandic
Clocky
> Sean Huxter <sean....@spamverizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:dp7pl.39604$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> I'm sure you are a troll and why you do not want this to show up on
>>> google is a mystery, but the sad fact with the c64 is that in
>>> technical terms the hardware is very capable, but the basic was
>>> total crap and so it was not of much use to many. The tape loading
>>> was crap also.
>>> Brian
>>
>> Not to feed a troll, but to debate an actually good point, the C64
>> had a very rudimentary BASIC language, but once you owned the
>> Commodore Programmers' Reference Guide, a whole new world opened up.
>> You could poke numbers into various memory locations and do magic.
>
> Whereas we didn't need to remember a lot of obscure numbers just to
> draw a circle or change the border colour.
No you just had to contort yourself into unnatural positions to enter the
commands.
> The only thing the commode had going for it was the sound chip.
> OK, it had built in sprites... which were invariably blocky and lower
> resolution than the spectrum. OK, the commode had more shades of
> brown, but if you wanted to use a higher graphical resolution you
> were restricted in a similar way to the spectrum, block colour wise.
> The spectrum had the superior cpu. No denying that.
> It was also half or less than half the price of the commode.
> Which made a difference. An enormous difference.
It was half the computer in every sense.
Cheap, and most importantly very nasty.
deKay
2009 23:00:45 +0100, sefini jorgo geanyet des mani yeof do comp.sys.sinclair,
yawatina tan reek esk "Argon" <Ar...@Argon.Argon> fornis do marikano es bono
tan el:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>The C64 was crap and the C64 still is utter crap.
>
>The Sinclair Spectrum was and still is much better than the C64,
>you get better technology for your money!
>
>Discuss!!!
Is it May already?
deKay
--
Lofi Gaming - http://lofi-gaming.org.uk
Gaming Diary - http://lofi-gaming.org.uk/diary
Blog - http://lofi-gaming.org.uk/blog
My computer runs at 3.5MHz and I'm proud of that
Cameron Kaiser
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>The C64 was crap and the C64 still is utter crap.
>>The Sinclair Spectrum was and still is much better than the C64,
>>you get better technology for your money!
>>Discuss!!!
>Is it May already?
We do this in May? I thought it was August.
--
Cameron Kaiser * cka...@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/
** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
Chris Young
to MC Sean Huxter:
> No one would argue that the BASIC was fully-featured, you had to wait for
> the C128 for that, and having to erase a BASIC program just to get a disk
> directory (on the slowest disk drive systems in the world) was a pain, but
> we endured it because of what the C64 could actually do once a programmer
> put his mind to it.
I'm sure this has been answered in the past, but why is the C64 disk
drive so slow?
Chris
--
+-------------------------------------------+
| Unsatisfactory Software - "because it is" |
| http://www.unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk |
| Your Sinclair: A Celebration |
+- http://www.yoursinclair.co.uk -----------+
DISCLAIMER: I may be making all this stuff up again.
M.Sandra
> I'm sure this has been answered in the past, but why is the C64 disk
> drive so slow?
because it does a serial transfer, 1 bit at a time.
Sandra
deKay
> deKay <an...@lofi-gaming.org.uk> writes:
>
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> The C64 was crap and the C64 still is utter crap.
>>> The Sinclair Spectrum was and still is much better than the C64,
>>> you get better technology for your money!
>>> Discuss!!!
>
>> Is it May already?
>
> We do this in May? I thought it was August.
It takes that long for your C64 to catch up? :)
Joel Koltner
news:49A589A8.MD-1.4...@unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk...
> I'm sure this has been answered in the past, but why is the C64 disk
> drive so slow?
Because someone left out some critical PCB trace that precluded being able to
use the C-64's hardware to automatically shift in a byte at a time, so the
entire transferred is bit-banged in software and slow.
The C-128/1571 drive run at the speed the C-64/1541 were originally "intended"
to.
And of course over time even with a C-64/1541 various fast loaders were
written, but I suspect when the original "PCB trace problem" was discovered
there was nowhere near enough time for Commodore themselves to do this. (And
apparently many thousands of C-64's without the correct trace had already been
built too...)
---Joel
Vanessa E.
> Whereas we didn't need to remember a lot of obscure numbers just to draw a
> circle or change the border colour.
Your BASIC is better, there's no argument there. However, we have more BASIC
extensions than I can remember, any one of which will cover these issues and
pretty much anything else that matters. Add to those all the programming
resources that simply eliminate the need to remember obscure numbers.
On top of that, I'm sure your machine has an equal number of registers or
locations that must be twiddled to perform actions that aren't possible even
with your BASIC.
If you're programming in BASIC, you're going to have to remember at least some
registers, no matter what machine you're programming on. If your task needs
assembly, well... your argument just falls apart at that point.
> The only thing the [Commodore] had going for it was the sound chip.
> OK, it had built in sprites... which were invariably blocky and lower
> resolution than the spectrum.
Only if so programmed. The sprites have several possible resolution settings,
with the highest being the same as the 320x200 background bitmap. Sprites
have no color clash restrictions like the Spectrum's did, as they operate on
a separate layer from the bitmap and from each other.
Blame the programmers if you don't like how the games look, not the hardware.
> OK, the [Commodore] had more shades of brown, but
> if you wanted to use a higher graphical resolution you were restricted in a
> similar way to the spectrum, block colour wise.
The C64 had exactly one shade of brown. The palette was just as bright as the
Spectrum, it just isn't as saturated. Don't like it? Turn up the
appropriate control on your monitor (or load a more saturated palette if
you're using an emulator).
As for color attributes... look, there are 64000 pixels on a 320x200 bitmap.
Add to that the 4032 pixels of sprite data (eight sprites at 24x21 each).
Assuming the technology of the time would allow it, that's a minimum of 34016
bytes if you packed two 4-bit pixels per byte.
No home computer of that era could do it.
The C64 can come very close, but like the Spectrum's high-color attempts, it
uses a lot of CPU. Both are good for static images and demos, but useless
for real-world applications, games, etc.
What's the best mode a genuine, stock Spectrum 48K can do? 256x192 or
something, with 8x1 color cells, wasn't it?
> The spectrum had the superior cpu. No denying that.
All the programming examples that have been given over the years in these
flamewars pretty much settled this - the only thing your machine did better
at than a stock C64 was 3D wireframe, and even then it was only a marginal
victory.
Overall, a stock C64 did better.
> It was also half or less than half the price of the [Commodore]
As discussed before, it also came with half the capabilities.
I think my previous arguments regarding price also still stand - after adding
together all the hardware add-ons that a stock Spectrum needs to match a C64
feature for feature, the cost comes out nearly even.
> Which made a difference. An enormous difference.
In Europe, where inexpensive was a necessity. Sales figures across the rest
of the world tell a different story. The rest of the world didn't want to
sacrifice features for cost.
> And that's all I'll say on the subject. I am not taking part in the 2009 c64
> is crap thread anymore. And you can shut up too.
If you aren't taking part in it, they why did you bother to post, and with the
same debunked arguments as in previous years?
I take part in it for the same reason I always do - to make sure there is
some truth somewhere among all the BS.
--
"There are some things in life worth obsessing over. Most
things aren't, and when you learn that, life improves."
http://starbase.globalpc.net/~vanessa/
Vanessa Ezekowitz <vanDEesLEsaTE...@gmail.com>
Clocky
> In Europe, where inexpensive was a necessity.
Correction, in the UK where inexpensive was a necessity. It was always just
a "computer" designed by poor people for poor people which is why it later
somewhat popular in the eastern block countries as a clone.
Groepaz
yep indeed, the speccy never really took off anywhere but in the UK (and
years later in eastern europe)
--
http://www.hitmen-console.org http://magicdisk.untergrund.net
http://www.pokefinder.org http://ftp.pokefinder.org
Gleich ab nach Guantanamera und einsperren diese Erbrecher. Die bedrohen die
freie Marktwissenschaft. Sollen lieber selber mal was erwickeln.
Andreas Kohlbach
>
> "Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:dp7pl.39604$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> I'm sure you are a troll and why you do not want this to show up on google
>> is a mystery, but the sad fact with the c64 is that in technical terms the
>> hardware is very capable, but the basic was total crap and so it was not
>> of much use to many. The tape loading was crap also.
>> Brian
>
> Not to feed a troll, but to debate an actually good point, the C64 had a
> very rudimentary BASIC language,
But then there was something like Simon's Basic. Sure it did not come
with the C64 on a chip, but you could have a better Basic.
> but once you owned the Commodore Programmers' Reference Guide, a whole
> new world opened up. You could poke numbers into various memory
> locations and do magic.
Aye.
--
Andreas
My Commodore 64 classic game music page at
http://freenet-homepage.de/ankman/sid.html
Andreas Kohlbach
>
> deKay <an...@lofi-gaming.org.uk> writes:
>
>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>The C64 was crap and the C64 still is utter crap.
>>>The Sinclair Spectrum was and still is much better than the C64,
>>>you get better technology for your money!
>>>Discuss!!!
>
>>Is it May already?
>
> We do this in May? I thought it was August.
I thought one refers to the never ending September. Which ended a few
years ago after AOL removed NNTP service. :-)
Andrew Halliwell
> Clocky wrote:
>
>> Vanessa E. wrote:
>>> In Europe, where inexpensive was a necessity.
>>
>> Correction, in the UK where inexpensive was a necessity. It was always
>> just
>> a "computer" designed by poor people for poor people which is why it
>> later somewhat popular in the eastern block countries as a clone.
>
> yep indeed, the speccy never really took off anywhere but in the UK (and
> years later in eastern europe)
>
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
Andrew Halliwell
No, it wasn't "designed for poor people".
You lot always forget the important thing about prices.
How much did the commode cost in america on release?
Hmmm? How much?
It cost almost twice as much, in the uk.
Would you have been able to afford one if it'd cost 700-800 dollars?
Was it WORTH 700-800 dollars?
In 1983 that was one hell of a lot of money.
(it cost 399 quid, btw... the exchange rate at the time was close to 2:1 so
work it out). The disk drive cost about as much again.
Clocky
> Clocky <nic...@migo.com> wrote:
>> Vanessa E. wrote:
>>> In Europe, where inexpensive was a necessity.
>>
>> Correction, in the UK where inexpensive was a necessity. It was
>> always just a "computer" designed by poor people for poor people
>> which is why it later somewhat popular in the eastern block
>> countries as a clone.
>
> No, it wasn't "designed for poor people".
Yes it was. It reeks of classic British "cheap and cheerful" (at the cost of
features and function)
> You lot always forget the important thing about prices.
> How much did the commode cost in america on release?
> Hmmm? How much?
Irrelevant, how much did it cost in all those countries in which the C64 was
popular?
> It cost almost twice as much, in the uk.
>
> Would you have been able to afford one if it'd cost 700-800 dollars?
> Was it WORTH 700-800 dollars?
> In 1983 that was one hell of a lot of money.
A hell of a lot less then most systems of lesser ability.
> (it cost 399 quid, btw... the exchange rate at the time was close to
> 2:1 so work it out). The disk drive cost about as much again.
It cost $499 AUD IIRC, which is a lot of money in those days. What you
forget is that the exchange rate is largely irrelevant since you are
spending the money in the country you are earning it in and besides, a lot
of C= equipment was manufactured outside of the US and in the markets they
were being sold in.
A ZX was less then half the computer the C64 was at half the price and it
was designed specifically to cater to the lower/budget end of the market.
Clocky
> Groepaz <gro...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Clocky wrote:
>>
>>> Vanessa E. wrote:
>>>> In Europe, where inexpensive was a necessity.
>>>
>>> Correction, in the UK where inexpensive was a necessity. It was
>>> always just
>>> a "computer" designed by poor people for poor people which is why
>>> it later somewhat popular in the eastern block countries as a clone.
>>
>> yep indeed, the speccy never really took off anywhere but in the UK
>> (and years later in eastern europe)
>>
> Spain, portugal, south america...
>
Inexpensive was a necessity in those countries too.
Daniel Mandic
> yep indeed, the speccy never really took off anywhere but in the UK
> (and years later in eastern europe)
And como stucked with the C128. Again a prepackaged computer... (highly
incomaptbible)
Amiga was ATARI, somehow.... but never by C=
Comparing a low-entry Z80 as the Speccy to a custom-chip design C64 is
irrelevant. I thought you know the difference of e.g. 15000 bucks to
5000 bucks.
Take a custom-chip design Z80 outfitted homecomputer for comparison!
Color-clash.... pfffrh, poor, eastern-countries... C'mon.
What about Spain, Germany, Russia and many other slawic-kind countries.
What about SAM Coupe, pentagon, scorpion and many other flawless
running Z80 derivates. Highly compatible among each other... thinking
to that times.
go64
the most of all keys, used by the mighty Atari ST killer C128, and
LOAD"$" etc.
What a pity Shiraz had developed too, the next genius machine, but for
ATARI :-))))
comp.sys.cbm pfffrhhh.... comp.sys.c64. !
Best regards,
Daniel Mandic
Groepaz
> Comparing a low-entry Z80 as the Speccy to a custom-chip design C64 is
> irrelevant.
i agree. yet the speccy advocates insist on doing it :)
> What about Spain, Germany, Russia and many other slawic-kind countries.
beeing from germany myself i can assure you: even amstrad computers were
more present in the market than speccy. heck, probably even ti/99 was. the
only ones that sold in somewhat relevant numbers were atari xl and
commodore 64.
--
http://www.hitmen-console.org http://magicdisk.untergrund.net
http://www.pokefinder.org http://ftp.pokefinder.org
Geben Sie sich nicht so viel Muehe mit der Erziehung, die Kinder machen
Ihnen sowieso alles nach.
Daniel Mandic
> i agree. yet the speccy advocates insist on doing it :)
Well, but some software weren't ported to C64... (and vice versa)
> beeing from germany myself i can assure you: even amstrad computers
> were more present in the market than speccy. heck, probably even
> ti/99 was. the only ones that sold in somewhat relevant numbers were
> atari xl and commodore 64.
A... (aha)
Marketing, Manager, Cash-flow, opening up new markets, computing power.
That's all very well, but has nothing to do to remnants like us, of a
wireless computing power society in transit (passing; passing by).
The homelike atmosphere from that times is still living in the
computing world (Usenet, Internet).
An oldtimer car may also drive on roads (traffic), and can. :-)
Best regards,
Daniel Mandic
Jules
> Terrible thing about all 8 bit computers in the 80s, is that they were built
> using technology that was already about 10 years old when they were
> introduced.
Flipside: Terrible thing about modern computers is that they often do far
more than people actually need...
> Imagine paying full price for a new computer today that is built from 10
> year old tech!
That's called, "Going on Ebay and buying a ZX80" (well OK, nearly 30
years, not 10) :-)
daniel...@ucd.ie
> A... (aha)
>
> Marketing, Manager, Cash-flow, opening up new markets, computing power.
> That's all very well, but has nothing to do to remnants like us, of a
> wireless computing power society in transit (passing; passing by).
>
> The homelike atmosphere from that times is still living in the
> computing world (Usenet, Internet).
> An oldtimer car may also drive on roads (traffic), and can. :-)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Daniel Mandic
At this point I'd like to say "The Spectrum rocks!", purely to balance
out the handicap of Mandic being on the "other" side of this
(pointless) argument.
Andrew Halliwell
Quite gentlemanly of you.
I salute you, sir.
:)
iAN CooG
> At this point I'd like to say "The Spectrum rocks!", purely to balance
> out the handicap of Mandic being on the "other" side of this
> (pointless) argument.
The spectrum (like any other computer) rocks when used by really knowledged
people and not by those who can only argument the presence of a CIRCLE
command in the basic implemented in ROM, or which games one prefers.
Just check AEON.scl "AEON - (c) tbk+4d - tUM'08 zx-demo" for the spectrum
(128 and more) and Edge of Disgrace/Booze Design (stock C64) and STFU once
for all.
And I mean to both sides of the flamefest.
--
-=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce+HVSC Crew ---=[]=-
C= is better than C++
dott.Piergiorgio
> The C64 was crap and the C64 still is utter crap.
>
> The Sinclair Spectrum was and still is much better than the C64,
> you get better technology for your money!
Ok I'll sit with popcorns and carbonated beverages to enjoy the 2009
edition of comp.sys.[sinclair|cbm] flamefest ;)
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Sam Gillett
<daniel...@ucd.ie> wrote ...
> At this point I'd like to say "The Spectrum rocks!", purely to balance
> out the handicap of Mandic being on the "other" side of this
> (pointless) argument.
Interesting statement, "The Spectrum Rocks"...
We need someone to do some scientific experiments to determine which makes a
better doorstop, a Spectrum, or a Rock.
My guess is that it depends on the size and weight of the Rock. ;-)
--
Best regards,
Sam Gillett
Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!
Sam Gillett
"Andrew Halliwell" <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote ...
>
> No, it wasn't "designed for poor people".
> You lot always forget the important thing about prices.
> How much did the commode cost in america on release?
> Hmmm? How much?
OH NO!! Now you have gone and done it. You refered to the Commodore 64 as
commode. So, to even things up, from this point on, the Sinclair machine
will be known as the Rectrum.
--
Best regards,
Sam Gillett
I saw Sir Clive making crop circles,
But they turned out square!!
Sam Gillett
"Cameron Kaiser" <cka...@floodgap.com> wrote ...
> deKay <an...@lofi-gaming.org.uk> writes:
>
>> Is it May already?
>
> We do this in May? I thought it was August.
This is not the real flamewar, just an impostor. The real flamewar is
scheduled to take place in January of the year 2010.
BTW, another Commodore user found an aspect of the Spectrum that is superior
to the C-64. The case of the Spectrum does not turn yellow with age like the
C64 does. Perhaps that is because the Spectrum is an ugly black to begin
with.
In all other respects, the Commodore 64 remains the superior machine. The
Spectrum does not even qualify for second place because other machines, such
as the Atari, must be considered. Perhaps the Spectrum could qualify for 3rd
or 4th place?
--
Best regards,
Sam Gillett
Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!
Clocky
> "Andrew Halliwell" <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote ...
>>
>> No, it wasn't "designed for poor people".
>> You lot always forget the important thing about prices.
>> How much did the commode cost in america on release?
>> Hmmm? How much?
>
> OH NO!! Now you have gone and done it. You refered to the Commodore
> 64 as commode. So, to even things up, from this point on, the
> Sinclair machine will be known as the Rectrum.
Goes well with the Speculum I guess.
Clocky
Somewhere below the VIC-20.
Andrew Halliwell
>
> "Andrew Halliwell" <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote ...
>>
>> No, it wasn't "designed for poor people".
>> You lot always forget the important thing about prices.
>> How much did the commode cost in america on release?
>> Hmmm? How much?
>
> OH NO!! Now you have gone and done it. You refered to the Commodore 64 as
> commode.
I always call it the commode.
> So, to even things up, from this point on, the Sinclair machine
> will be known as the Rectrum.
Lose the second r, it'd work better.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
Daniel Mandic
> Somewhere below the VIC-20.
No power with price .-)
C= consequently continued its high-priced philosophy with the C64. The
VIC-II was a fortuity (chance by coincidence).
The C128 was the coronation...
Then they bought AMIGA and cannibalized the turnover possibilities up
to its death. Irving Gould and Mehdi Ali to name a few parias
(Wegelagerer)...
CBM... :-)
Best regards,
Daniel Mandic
Lister
<spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote:
>Sam Gillett <sgillet...@diespammergte.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Andrew Halliwell" <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote ...
>>>
>>> No, it wasn't "designed for poor people".
>>> You lot always forget the important thing about prices.
>>> How much did the commode cost in america on release?
>>> Hmmm? How much?
>>
>> OH NO!! Now you have gone and done it. You refered to the Commodore 64 as
>> commode.
>
>I always call it the commode.
>
>> So, to even things up, from this point on, the Sinclair machine
>> will be known as the Rectrum.
>
>Lose the second r, it'd work better.
Rectum? Nearly killed um!
Clocky
> Clocky wrote:
>
>> Somewhere below the VIC-20.
>
> No power with price .-)
> C= consequently continued its high-priced philosophy with the C64. The
> VIC-II was a fortuity (chance by coincidence).
>
It outsold the ZX by many millions of units blowing a fucking huge hole in
that theory of yours.
Daniel Mandic
> It outsold the ZX by many millions of units blowing a fucking huge
> hole in that theory of yours.
You had the more obedient parents.
Defiantly kids...., tsk.
Turn over your number-one feeling to me for a short time.... let me
feel. :-)
Who brings along the idea at all, having the best HC!?
Maybe it was sold by millions, but it haven't been bought by all.
If I would have been more fluent with money at that time, I would have
bought a C64.
But it was the Speccy. Fortunately!
The best computer from that times however, was not even affordable by
daddy....
Best regards,
Daniel Mandic
daniel...@ucd.ie
> You had the more obedient parents.
>
> Defiantly kids...., tsk.
>
> Turn over your number-one feeling to me for a short time.... let me
> feel. :-)
> Who brings along the idea at all, having the best HC!?
> Maybe it was sold by millions, but it haven't been bought by all.
>
> If I would have been more fluent with money at that time, I would have
> bought a C64.
> But it was the Speccy. Fortunately!
> The best computer from that times however, was not even affordable by
> daddy....
>
> Best regards,
>
> Daniel Mandic
You can't argue with that.
Vanessa E.
> No, it wasn't "designed for poor people".
> You lot always forget the important thing about prices.
> How much did the [Commodore 64] cost in america on release?
> Hmmm? How much?
>
> It cost almost twice as much, in the uk.
Middle-of-the-road figures below, using historical currency exchange figures.
Dates and exact figures might be a little off, depending on which sources you
consider to be authoritative, but I did my best to be accurate here.
The C64 started shipping in September 1982 with an MSRP of $595 (about £345).
In January 1983, they cut the price to $400 (£252), and then again to $200
(£128) in June, 1983.
The C64 went through several revisions over the years, which no doubt helped
to allow the price cuts. It continued to drop in price over the years.
The Spectrum-48k had an MSRP of about £175 in April 1982 ($308). It had
dropped to about £130 by March 1983 ($192).
So, INITIALLY the C64 cost twice as much as a Spectrum. At the respective
heights of their popularity, the two platforms had similar prices for stock
machines without added peripherals, and that's what matters in the 'real'
world.
There were 30 million C64's sold between 1982 and 1994, versus around 4
million Spectrum 48K's sold between 1982 and 1990. No matter how you slice
it, the world just liked the C64 better.
> The disk drive cost about as much again.
The 1541 drive had an MSRP of $400 (£212) at release in January 1982. As with
the C64, the drive was updated several times to reduce cost and improve
reliability. Cost dropped like a rock over a couple of years' time as I
recall (can't seem to find a good source for this).
The DISCiPLE seems to be considered the most popular disk interface for the
Spectrum 48K, and came out sometime before or during November 1986 with an
MSRP of £86.59 (about $61). Add a compatible floppy drive mechanism and
power supply and I'm guessing the cost is about double that.
I expect this to come up, so I'll say it now: Neither machine *required* a
floppy drive to be useable, but the C64 market quickly adopted them anyway,
as 5 1/4" media was cheaper (in the US anyway), faster to access, and more
reliable than audio cassettes.
--
"There are some things in life worth obsessing over. Most
things aren't, and when you learn that, life improves."
http://starbase.globalpc.net/~vanessa/
Vanessa Ezekowitz <vanDEesLEsaTE...@gmail.com>
Andrew Halliwell
> The C64 went through several revisions over the years, which no doubt helped
> to allow the price cuts. It continued to drop in price over the years.
>
> The Spectrum-48k had an MSRP of about £175 in April 1982 ($308). It had
> dropped to about £130 by March 1983 ($192).
That's american prices. As I said, the commode cost around 400 *POUNDS* over
here. That is not 400 dollars, that is 704 dollars. And that was in '83 when
it appeared over here. Not '82.
The posh kids over here got bbc micros because their parents knew that's
what would be in the schools (eventually) and that was what the bbc was
using in most of their computer education programmes.
> So, INITIALLY the C64 cost twice as much as a Spectrum.
Yes. Twice as much in '82. Which was 4 years into the maggie years of
millions of unemployed and a recession. Besides, by the time it was released
over here the spectrum had won. It'd had a year to gain its foothold.
Which meant a year to get all the people required to write all those
excellent games that for some peculiar reason either didn't make it to the
commode or were not as good when they did (in many cases).
Jet Set Willy being a case in point.
At the respective
> heights of their popularity, the two platforms had similar prices for stock
> machines without added peripherals, and that's what matters in the 'real'
> world.
No, what matters in the real world is which gets "in" first and which is
most affordable at (and within a couple of years) of launch. The machines
needed to setup a userbase from which all the software would spring.
Remember, most of the big games companies of today sprang up to support
these machines. Codemasters started in the darling brothers' bedroom
prodding away at a spectrum keyboard.
>> The disk drive cost about as much again.
>
> The 1541 drive had an MSRP of $400 (£212)
400 pounds more like.
at release in January 1982. As with
> the C64, the drive was updated several times to reduce cost and improve
> reliability. Cost dropped like a rock over a couple of years' time as I
> recall (can't seem to find a good source for this).
Stupid design though. Utterly terrible QA too.
"let's design a disk drive for the commode 64 that's compatible with the
vic. The vic will only be able to handle a serial line in, but we can design
around that... oops, I forgot to make that track on the pcb, looks like the
commode will have to do serial only too, Sorry I didn't notice before we
shipped thousands of the things. What do you mean? of COURSE I didn't test
it!"
Even the spectrum's tape loader was quicker.
> The DISCiPLE seems to be considered the most popular disk interface for the
> Spectrum 48K, and came out sometime before or during November 1986 with an
> MSRP of £86.59 (about $61). Add a compatible floppy drive mechanism and
> power supply and I'm guessing the cost is about double that.
so, by the time disciple came out, the 1541 MIGHT have dropped to a similar
price. If it hadn't by that time it was still 4 times as much.
so... 1100 dollars for a commodore 64 and disk drive...
or 400 dollars for a spectrum with disk drive...
> I expect this to come up, so I'll say it now: Neither machine *required* a
> floppy drive to be useable, but the C64 market quickly adopted them anyway,
> as 5 1/4" media was cheaper (in the US anyway), faster to access, and more
> reliable than audio cassettes.
Yes, but then, your proprietory tape deck was pretty shite too wasn't it?
What was the default loading speed on that thing again?
Did it come with the machine? Or did you need to buy it too?
Cos that just upped the price even more if it didn't come in the box.
Oh, and when you were counting the number of commodes and spectrum 48s
sold... Did you factor in the fact that the rubber keyed 48 was superceded
by the spectrum+ in 1984? Most if not all spectrums sold after 1984 were
either plusses or one of the 128 variants. Right up to about 1992 when they
finally faded away. But by then the amiga and st playground wars had taken
over from the commode vs speccy wars of the 80s.
Daniel Mandic
> The C64 started shipping in September 1982 with an MSRP of $595
> (about £345).
Here it was ~10,000 Shillings, which is ~1000US$ today. And the 1541
was about twice the price.
> In January 1983, they cut the price to $400 (£252), and then again
> to $200 (£128) in June, 1983.
Yea, they cut it even cheaper later. Thanks the force I found a C64
(Hergestellt in West-Germany, real SID Chip and non-recycled plastic
for the case and keys...) and a truck wheel-stop 1541 (with lever).
> The C64 went through several revisions over the years, which no doubt
> helped to allow the price cuts. It continued to drop in price over
> the years.
And the quality...
> So, INITIALLY the C64 cost twice as much as a Spectrum. At the
> respective heights of their popularity, the two platforms had similar
> prices for stock machines without added peripherals, and that's what
> matters in the 'real' world.
Hmmm!? Without a 1541 you were almost crap. Datasette was not an
priceless add-on and really crap, compared to the slow but at least
running 1541.
Twice as much.... You are quite right! But Speccy dropped very fast to
3000SH, which was a third of the price for a C64, plus 8 datasettes,
plus the 'Horizon Cassette' and the faboulous Sinclair Basic ('flying
town' cover), which even I crap coder have read through.
errrm... plus 3x speccy price for the 1541! Makes 5 times speccy price
for a c64 with 1541.
Think about!!!
> There were 30 million C64's sold between 1982 and 1994, versus around
> 4 million Spectrum 48K's sold between 1982 and 1990. No matter how
> you slice it, the world just liked the C64 better.
Jazz or Classic is seldomly a mass sensation, too.
> The DISCiPLE seems to be considered the most popular disk interface
> for the Spectrum 48K, and came out sometime before or during November
> 1986 with an MSRP of £86.59 (about $61). Add a compatible floppy
> drive mechanism and power supply and I'm guessing the cost is about
> double that.
The whole Sinclair system was (IMHO) thought to be a system for experts.
Some of the C64 user today are still having the service-sticker adhered.
They are even PC user around doing so... e.g. Dell user and other dumb.
Just look to the ZX81 Kit. You could buy it for 1000 shillings (100 $)
in ~1982.
Today we have more and more mass-sensation devices as probably the C64
was, once upon a time.
Electronic-parts stores are becoming more crap every day. If you buy a
chinese device (e.g. LED flashlight) and recycle it back to single
parts, you have them twice as cheap as if you would buy it in the store.
Sir Clive Sinclair brought nice systems. Highly adaptable and
extendable by hardware, for many (specific) applications...
Software AND Hardware ;-)
Best regards,
Daniel Mandic
P.S.: The mighty 6510 C64 has its restrictions. I am pretty sure you
can extend a Z80 by far more. More MHz, more ext.cards, etc.
And if looking to Arcade Z80, they are even more smooth.
Davide ''Gatto Feroce'' Inglima
> I'm sure this has been answered in the past, but why is the C64 disk
> drive so slow?
Also, where can I find Fort Apocalypse? /me ducks
Matthew Westcott
>>
> Totally agree with you!
>
> The Sinclair was the most advanced technology ever used for a doorstop!
What have doorstops got to do with it? The question, as clearly stated
in the subject line, is whether the C64 is a crap discus.
And it is. It's too bulky, and the keyboard would present too much air
resistance. A Spectrum would work much better in terms of aerodynamics,
and the rubber keyboard would help the thrower to obtain adequate grip.
Vanessa E.
> Vanessa E. <vanDEesLEsaeT...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Spectrum-48k had an MSRP of about £175 in April 1982 ($308). It had
>> dropped to about £130 by March 1983 ($192).
>
> That's american prices. As I said, the [Commodore]
> cost around 400 *POUNDS* over here. That is not 400
> dollars, that is 704 dollars. And that was in '83 when
> it appeared over here. Not '82.
Your country's merchants and government couldn't see past their nationalism to
allow fair trade and fair competition, a condition which was well known in
the UK in that time period. After you factor in tarriffs, retail markup,
VAT, etc., it's no surprise how expensive a C64 was there. Also bear in mind
that inflation, general standards of living, average income, the effects of
recession, inflation, etc. vary from one local region to another, and
certainly from one country to another. *That* is why a piece of hardware
worth $400 in 1982 here sold could go for $704 in 1983 there.
I'm sure the same held true for almost any foreign-made product entering the
UK in that time period. That's your country's fault, not the manufacturers'.
For those of us who actually live here in the USA and *buy* the stuff here,
$400 for a Commodore 64 was reasonable.
Likewise, because of the market here, a Spectrum 48K would have been regarded
as *too* cheap, and probably lumped in with the more sophisticated toys
(rather than with other computers/electronics), despite it being a capable
machine. In later years, some retailers did the same with the C64 and the
recent C64-DTV (the same holds true today for just about every computer-in-a-
joystick, it seems).
>> So, INITIALLY the C64 cost twice as much as a Spectrum.
>
> Yes. Twice as much in '82. Which was 4 years into the maggie years of
> millions of unemployed and a recession. Besides, by the time it was released
> over here the spectrum had won. It'd had a year to gain its foothold.
Again, that's the government and retailers' fault.
>> At the respective heights of their popularity, the two platforms had
>> similar prices for stock machines without added peripherals, and that's
>> what matters in the 'real' world.
>
> No, what matters in the real world is which gets "in" first and which is
> most affordable at (and within a couple of years) of launch. The machines
> needed to setup a userbase from which all the software would spring.
Sure, if the competition doesn't show up quickly enough. The actual hard work
of marketing, whether you are first to market or not, plays the biggest role
though. Make the consumers think that your product is better than the rest
of the competition, and they will buy it. Get in soon enough after your
competition hits the market, and you can knock them out of the lead position.
No single model personal computer before or since has broken the C64's sales
record. The world wanted the C64 far more than it wanted the Spectrum, it's
as simple as that.
>>> The disk drive cost about as much again.
>>
>> The 1541 drive had an MSRP of $400 (£212)
>
> 400 pounds more like.
Yet again, your government and retailers take the full blame here.
>> at release in January 1982. As with
>> the C64, the drive was updated several times to reduce cost and improve
>> reliability. Cost dropped like a rock over a couple of years' time as I
>> recall (can't seem to find a good source for this).
>
> Stupid design though. Utterly terrible QA too.
Most C64 users who didn't use a fast loader (a slim minority) would probably
agree. I used fastloaders as appropriate, but moved up to better drives as
soon as I got the chance (faster, more storage, more reliable, etc.). Those
who stuck with the 1541 did so because it was "good enough".
> "let's design a disk drive for the [Commodore] 64 that's compatible with the
> vic.
> The vic will only be able to handle a serial line in, but we can design
> around that... oops, I forgot to make that track on the pcb, looks like the
> [Commodore 64] will have to do serial only too
Wrong. The VIC-1540, which came out first, was designed for use with a
VIC-20. The 1541 was literally a 1540 with a different ROM that could adjust
for the timing differences between the C64/128 and VIC-20.
Commodore would have continued to use a parallel bus as on the PET series, but
the supply of cables they used up to this point dried up. Jack Trameil was
upset by the dependence on a proprietary cable, and explicitly ordered that
the next bus use "a cable that anyone can manufacture", and so they
implemented what we usually call the IEC or just "serial" bus. The fact that
serial is easier and cheaper to design and produce (and usually plenty fast
in modern buses like USB, SATA, etc) probably weighed heavily into Jack's
decision.
Despite that, going serial was their first mistake. They should have just
stuck with the parallel bus and found a more common connector.
> Sorry I didn't notice before we shipped thousands of the things.
> What do you mean? of COURSE I didn't test it!"
Wrong. The design error was inside the 6522 VIA chip used at both ends of the
serial bus. The hardware serial port on the chip failed to function as
expected once it was put into the machine. An error inside a custom-designed
IC is fairly easy to cause during design, and hard to fix if it makes it past
initial testing and on to mass production. Nevermind the cost to produce a
new run of fixed chips. As a result, the designers has to re-route the board
wiring to use a few PIO lines, and cobble together a bit-banging routine to
use it. The flaw was spotted before shipping began on the VIC-20, but it
was too late to re-design the chip.
That was their second mistake.
The C64 had a different chip (6526 CIA), and the serial port on it functions
to spec, plus the fix to the 6522 would have been easily doable, but
Commodore decided that it was more important for the 1541 to be compatible
with the VIC-20 and kept the design as-is.
That was their third mistake.
Commodore fixed these mistakes with the C128/C128-D and 1571, 1570, and 1581
drives. CMD serial devices also support this protocol, as did some printer
interfaces.
> Even the spectrum's tape loader was quicker.
>
>> I expect this to come up, so I'll say it now: Neither machine *required* a
>> floppy drive to be useable, but the C64 market quickly adopted them anyway,
>> as 5 1/4" media was cheaper (in the US anyway), faster to access, and more
>> reliable than audio cassettes.
>
> Yes, but then, your proprietory tape deck was pretty shite too wasn't it?
> What was the default loading speed on that thing again?
A Spectrum 48K loads from normal tapes at about 140 bytes per second by
default. A Commodore Datasette loads at about 50 bytes per second by
default, so you have us beat there.
A video on Youtube claims the Spectrum can load at about 3.3 KB/sec with a
fastloader and a very high quality audio source like a PC's sound card.
A Datasette loads at about about 1 KB/sec with a fast loader and normal tapes.
Since the overall CPU performance is about the same between the two machines,
I suspect the C64 could match a Spectrum if given the same high quality audio
source in place of the Datasette, and an appropriate fastloader.
As to your tape-versus-1541 argument... A 1541 loads at 300-400 bytes per
second or so by default, 2-3 times faster than your stock tape routines.
With a fast loader and no added hardware, it does about 8 KB/sec.
More recent serial drives (1581, CMD FD or HD) can load a bit faster than this
8 KB/sec mark.
A Parallel-connected 1541 (via the "User Port") can load at a top speed of
around 20 KB/sec. The port can do about 45 KB/sec a stock C64, and 330
KB/sec or so with a Super CPU accelerator in place.
Most Expansion-port-interfaced drives do anywhere from 15 to 50 KB/sec,
depending on the device, while the port itself can DMA data in or out at 1
MB/sec. As I understand, the record stands at something like 200 KB/sec
coming off an IDE64+hard disk, with a SuperCPU.
> Did it come with the machine? Or did you need to buy it too?
> Cos that just upped the price even more if it didn't come in the box.
This depended on which packages your local retailer chose to carry. Some
C64's came bundled with a Datasette, others commonly had 1541's or joysticks.
Having been around a couple of years before the C64 came out, they were
already cheap (about the same as a normal tape recorder), so it didn't matter
if you got one bundled or not. I can't give you a number, as that was too
long ago and that info seems to have been lost to the far reaches of
someone's stack of C64 magazines in a back closet somewhere. :-)
Third-party clones were also available (I had one).
Whether you had to buy one for the C64 or not, you still needed to buy one for
a Spectrum as well, even if it was just a simple tape recorder and cables.
> Oh, and when you were counting the number of [Commodores] and spectrum 48s
> sold... Did you factor in the fact that the rubber keyed 48 was superceded
> by the spectrum+ in 1984? Most if not all spectrums sold after 1984 were
> either plusses or one of the 128 variants.
I am unsure whether the site I got my figure from counted all 48K models, or
just the rubber-keyed ones. Another site claims about 5 million were sold in
the UK, including the Spectrum+. I can't seem to find anything else relevant
right now. Even World of Spectrum doesn't seem to say. If you have an
authoritative source, please edit the Wikipedia article to include a final
sales figure, and repeat it here, if you don't mind.
Oh, stop with the "commode" remarks, especially when responding to someone
whom you should know by now doesn't regularly call your machines anything
other than Spectrum (or Amstrad, etc). I expect a little respect in that
regard, just as you surely would.
Matthew Westcott
> Stupid design though. Utterly terrible QA too.
> "let's design a disk drive for the commode 64 that's compatible with the
> vic. The vic will only be able to handle a serial line in, but we can design
> around that... oops, I forgot to make that track on the pcb, looks like the
> commode will have to do serial only too, Sorry I didn't notice before we
> shipped thousands of the things. What do you mean? of COURSE I didn't test
> it!"
So, not at all like Amstrad shoving the AY sound output the wrong way up
a transistor (or something like that, I forget the details) on the +3 so
that instead of 16 volume levels per channel you got two horribly
distorted ones instead, then? :-)
Pasi Ojala
> The C64 had a different chip (6526 CIA), and the serial port on it functions
> to spec, plus the fix to the 6522 would have been easily doable, but
> Commodore decided that it was more important for the 1541 to be compatible
> with the VIC-20 and kept the design as-is.
Actually, the C64 motherboard was designed to support the fast serial
(hardware-assisted byte transfer), but the two vital traces were optimized
away in board manufacturing because there were no drives using those
lines. When this was detected, there were already about 100k of units
produced and supporting two incompatible versions was out of the question.
-Pasi
--
/She forced herself to leave, to lock the door behind her and walk across the
deep porch and down the long path. She didn't fully understand her feelings,
why she was so shaken and on the verge of tears. It confirmed her suspicions,
all she thought she knew./ -- Jesse in "The Queen of the Damned"
Andrew Halliwell
Well, we all know how crap amstrad were
Switching the wires in the joystick port to force their crappy joysticks on
the populace was another one. Screwing up the +3 edge connector meaning very
little original speccy hardware would work with it...
--
| spi...@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
Vanessa E.
> On 2009-03-02, Vanessa E. <vanDEesLEsaeT...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The C64 had a different chip (6526 CIA), and the serial port on it
>> functions to spec, plus the fix to the 6522 would have been easily doable,
>> but Commodore decided that it was more important for the 1541 to be
>> compatible with the VIC-20 and kept the design as-is.
>
> Actually, the C64 motherboard was designed to support the fast serial
> (hardware-assisted byte transfer), but the two vital traces were optimized
> away in board manufacturing because there were no drives using those
> lines. When this was detected, there were already about 100k of units
> produced and supporting two incompatible versions was out of the question.
Ah, see I thought the whole bit about the missing trace was one of those "I
thought I heard it somewhere..." bits.
That said, I still say that Commodore was dumb to go serial when working
parallel protocol and hardware existed already. Their the failure to fix the
6522 design before the C64 came out, and even just failing to include a
fastloader as part of the default Kernal/DOS code to accommodate the bug, was
just plain stupid.
Joel Koltner
news:gohb9e$2n7$1...@aioe.org...
> That said, I still say that Commodore was dumb to go serial when working
> parallel protocol and hardware existed already.
You're forgetting the Commodore already had a long line of successful serial
drives that they'd created for the PETs -- the development of the 1541 drive
would have taken much longer if they hadn't been able to borrow a very large
chunk of the PET 4040 (dual floppy drive's) hardware and software for it.
> Their the failure to fix the
> 6522 design before the C64 came out, and even just failing to include a
> fastloader as part of the default Kernal/DOS code to accommodate the bug,
> was
> just plain stupid.
You're overestimating how quickly development occurred back in the early '80s,
when everything was being written in assembly language -- the Epyx FastLoad
cartridge came out in 1984, 3 years after the release of the C-64. Although
Commodore internally would have been able to write a fastloader more quickly,
I suspect that given the schedules at the time there was simply no way
whatsoever they could have included a fastloader and met their original
shipment deadline.
The "golden years" of 8-bit computing back then are filled with stories of
guys staying up until 5AM finishing some hardware and/or software to get on a
plane at 8AM to make it to a "make or break" trade show. Development was done
in small teams -- often you'd have no more than a half-dozen guys completely
responsible for an entire computer, the OS, and an application or two, and it
was tended to be quite obvious if someone wasn't delivering. It's not like
today where even relatively "simple" computers are designed by dozens of
people and it's more the rule rather than the exception that deadlines get
pushed out and the "deliver or get fired" pressure is nowhere near as high.
Illustrative example, from Apple's history, of Michael Scott, CEO of Apple
from 1977-1981:
On February 25, 1981, the day known as Black Wednesday, Scott fired 40 Apple
employees personally, including half of the Apple II team, in a belief that
they were redundant. Later in the afternoon he assembled the remaining
employees with a keg of beer and explained the firings by stating, "I used to
say that when being CEO at Apple wasn't fun anymore, I'd quit. But now I've
changed my mind-when it isn't fun any more, I'll fire people until it's fun
again."
---Joel
Andreas Kohlbach
>
> Also, where can I find Fort Apocalypse? /me ducks
Aah, a classic. Long no see. :-)
--
Andreas
My Commodore 64 classic game music page at
http://freenet-homepage.de/ankman/sid.html
Daniel Mandic
> Your country's merchants and government couldn't see past their
> nationalism to allow fair trade and fair competition, a condition
> which was well known in the UK in that time period. After you factor
> in tarriffs, retail markup, VAT, etc., it's no surprise how expensive
> a C64 was there. Also bear in mind that inflation, general standards
> of living, average income, the effects of recession, inflation, etc.
> vary from one local region to another, and certainly from one country
> to another. That is why a piece of hardware worth $400 in 1982 here
> sold could go for $704 in 1983 there.
Hi!
Sounds like past future present-tense.
Have you forgot, Sinclair respectively Amstrad discontinued the line
not until 1992.
In 1992 some of you made nice pixel artworks on Amiga. Off course,
again with the HC under your arm :-)
BUT! Some of you already saw the future in 1992 by leaving Amiga and
porting themself to the financially strong PC community and intel cache
sphaghetti-code.
Why easy when it can be accomplished complicated :)
After all that catastrophes caused by financial and future experts,
(serial 1540 is an USB predecessor etc.) as commodore believers are,
you break ACTUALLY into comp.sys.sinclair rambling about your system
(brand name), which you have left (to send to Coventry) three times....
at least...
Shame on you....
Have fun with your systems (bought or not, Shiraz etc.).
I know, the C64 for example is not so bad. But it's too late bringing
us back to the times....
...stock C64!!!??
tsk, what's that?
Better you pack out the C128. modify it a bit or not, to see which CP/M
crack is the better one.
You cannot compare a Sony-PS2 to a stock PC as well, for example....
Not even if you put in the best GfX....
But I guess a fully loaded (turbo) PC can give me 'quiet more' than a
stock or tunded PS2.
You might find an HDMI [adapter-connector] predecessor on the C64, too
:-). Useless, as the useless serial bus.....
Or a Soletti-A I/O connectores (SAT-A....; Soletti= very slim
saltsticks).
Best done with (too long) cables in brown shades.... :-)
And at least one thing with a multiply-factore. E.g. 16x, 24x, 48x
54x .......... 104x (4 laser version), etc.
Quad pumped and 1333MHz FSB with 15-15-15-21 laterncy.
Selling such crap to someone is not understandable by me.
But what can you do when you are forced to. Or not, indeed.
Cutting me otherwise somewhere off, where I have possibly never been,
or don't want to be.
ah. 'they' did know better....
forget about and let us enjoy!
Best regards,
Daniel Mandic