How were the Plus/4 built-in applications?

[brain]

5 hours ago, carlsson said:

Doesn't both use 6502 derivative processors?

Well, yes, they all did.  This one was CMOS, and I think derived from the Rockwell CMOS 65C02.

5 hours ago, carlsson said:

 

As for another SX-64 style machine, a Plus/4 with built-in 5" monitor and a disk drive probably would have been an even worse idea than using the C64 for the purpose, given how small the third party market was.

100% agree.  We need to remember the now-coveted SX64 was pretty much a dud when it was introduced.  Business users did not want a 40 column color PC, and the screen was bad, even then.  For games, it was good enough, but for business, no go.  And, the Venn Diagram of folks who wanted to play games and people who had enough money to buy the USD$595.00 SX-64 is almost a null set.

 

Jim

[carlsson]

For that matter, the story goes that Commodore previewed two models: the black and white, single drive SX-100 and the color model with dual floppy drives DX-64. Many business users expected dual drives, so when the SX-64 in color but only one drive came out, they hesitated. I think the actual story was more complicated than so. As you mention, 40 column color graphics was not a driving force at the time, although surely some of the business packages like graph tools may have utilized colors.

 

I have read market overviews c:a 1984 about which type of handheld and luggable computers there were. In the bigger class, the SX-64 kind of stands out for not being either CP/M nor MS-DOS compatible. Then again Commodore were not actively trying to produce such computers, so to some degree perhaps the SX-64 was released to showcase that Commodore after all wanted to play with the big boys, even if they had a different ball than the others. But yeah, a Plus/4 in the same package wouldn't have been much of a ball, at best a tennis ball which you had no racket for and not very useful to kick around anyway.

[brain]

I think it's important to remember in the early years, there was little consensus on what consumers wanted.  Though the SX64 was a gamble, CBM could have had a hit on their hands (and they do now, as the devices are coveted, but 30 years too late :-). The +4 was a gamble as well, and to your point early in the thread, if Jack was truly attempting to kill the ZX81 with a low cost rival, there's no guarantee the original C116 concept coming to all markets would have assured that.  They recovered the fumble a bit with the C128, at least to have a low end product in the marketplace.  The Amiga took over the mid and higher end of the range, and they had significant success there for at least a half decade.

 

 

 

[+OLD CS1]

So long as we can throw darts around, I like the SX-500 (can we call that a prototype?)  Imagine an SX-128 with 80 columns on that 5" screen.  Mwhua!  Perfection! 

 

It does seem like other companies were pushing into the mini and portable markets.  Think the TI CC-40, the Tandy 100, the TRS-80 pocket computer, and more.  So many of them in the 1980 - 1984 time space, to produce that clunky ass (though absolutely squee adorable) SX-64 seems, well, silly.  I mean, sure, Osborn and others produced their "luggable" computers but, for frogs snacks, people bitched to high Heaven about them, but at least they were compatible with a mass market of software.

 

I dunno.  Could brain on this all day and never really come to a consensus after the fact.  Just interesting to think what might have been, but so, so many variables at play.

[Virtualsky]

10 minutes ago, OLD CS1 said:

I dunno.  Could brain on this all day and never really come to a consensus after the fact.  Just interesting to think what might have been, but so, so many variables at play.

And I've just been playing around with Unix 128 on my C128.  I can't help but think, if Commodore had developed something like this in '86 rather than using CP/M (Unix 128 came out in '92), the C128 might have been a more formidable low-cost office PC back in the day.

[+OLD CS1]

4 minutes ago, Virtualsky said:

And I've just been playing around with Unix 128 on my C128.  I can't help but think, if Commodore had developed something like this in '86 rather than using CP/M (Unix 128 came out in '92), the C128 might have been a more formidable low-cost office PC back in the day.

So it is the Unix 128 project I was thinking of from way back!  I played with it back in 1994 or so.  I thought it was a pretty cool novelty, but could have been much better if we could run a real Unix on the 128, whether on the 8502 or the Z80.

 

Anyone remember CS-DOS?  I rather liked that.

[RobertB]

I can't find the article right now, but I remember that the software engineer was quite proud of his 3+1 software on the Plus 4.  He defended it quite vigorously.

 

Truly,

Robert Bernardo

Fresno Commodore User Group - http://www.dickestel.com/fcug.htm

Southern California Commodore & Amiga Network - http://www.portcommodore.com/sccan

April 15-16 Commodore Los Angeles Super Show 2023 - http://www.portcommodore.com/class

[+OLD CS1]

1 minute ago, RobertB said:

I can't find the article right now, but I remember that the software engineer was quite proud of his 3+1 software on the Plus 4.  He defended it quite vigorously.

That would be.... unfortunate.

[Keatah]

Buddy of mine had a Plus/4 back in the day and swore by it. Used it till the PC became an affordable option. I vaguely recall what he used it for, but it was for the home.

[Trinity32]

I can answer this one easily enough. The total amount of ROM space is 32k. Obviously, the built in software is going to be limited in size and scope. The Plus 4 cannot read from cassette. Now, if you were running a home office back then but didn't have enough money for a DD, you were SOL unless you had an IBM PC.

 

Add to that the limitation of the built in wordpad (40 column monitor users were screwed) andyou have exhibit A of the bunch. 32k only lends it self to about a couple of entries at most for Data processing and spreadsheets. Commodore tried hard to sell this to people when the Apple II+ was far more reasonable and even then, the C64 was dropping in price so why bother?

 

Now, this is not a fault of the developer. The dude was promised up to 64k of rom but as the machine got closer and closer to completion (or was it release?), he was forced to scrunch it down to 32k, hence the criticism for its performance. What they should've done was write the software to disk, in assembly. That way, the onboard ROM wouldn't be an issue. The 6502 can address 64k so why they didn't do this is a mystery. Irving Gould just had to open his mouth and ruin everything. Of course these machines can be made today with new parts so this is how the machine should have been made:

 

128k or 512k RAM standard

64k ROM

Z80 processor to handle cassette interface and file management

Basic 7.0 in ROM

Super CPU (modded) in 512k mode

optional burst mode for tape drives if using 1571 

 

anyway, that's my two cents

 

[+OLD CS1]

I can imagine the developer was proud of what he made in terms of making a 64k suite work in 32k, even if crippled.

[Casey]

15 hours ago, Trinity32 said:

The Plus 4 cannot read from cassette.

 

Can you explain this in detail?  What is the 1531 Datasette used for then?

[Trinity32]

It's detailed in wikipedia namely this segment:

 

"Further dividing the market was that once the user had created data using many of the built-in software packages, the result could only be saved to a connected disk drive – much of the software did not support tape. Thus, tape-based home users, the only users who might still have been interested in the Plus/4's less-capable but built-in and instantly ready software, were shut out from the package."

 

Why Commodore did this, we'll never know

 

the 1531 can still be used to load games but doesn't support the software. I think this is because the software doesn't recognize the 1531 signal. Maybe someone else can fill us in on that regard?

Edited March 16, 2023 by Trinity32

[Krebizfan]

Trilogy was a disk based package. I can't find much information about it but if one needed a disk to run the software, there wasn't much point in having an option to save to tape. The rapid pace of development and the creation of the disk based Plus Extra containing the rest of the program meant there was no chance to add a tape option. If the full software was in ROM, who knows, maybe tape storage could have been added. Commodore seemed to believe that purchasers would buy all the required accessories instead of realizing that much better systems were only slightly more expensive than the Plus/4 with disk. Cheap business machines tended to be an unsuccessful marketing concept especially if they aren't actually cheaper. 

 

From the Plus/4 software manual 

Quote

14.
NOTE:
Because of limitations of cassette hardware,
your Commodore Plus/4
integrated software will not
work with the Commodore Datassette.

 

The 32K of RAM with ROM based software did not need to be that bad. The mainline Visicalc system was an Apple II with 48K but some of that RAM was needed to load Visicalc from disk. 32K of available RAM could be plenty. I think part of the problem for the Plus/4 was the delay in getting it to market. Software that looked adequate though minimal in 1983 might be considered useless in 1984. 

[Casey]

That's kind of what I meant.  It would have been (maybe) trivial to add tape support to the 3-Plus-1 software so those users who were buying a cheap computer just to use the built-in software and not buy a disk drive could do so.  I do understand it to a degree.  Given the 99-line limit of the word processor, any serious word processing would need to be continued across multiple files and that would have been terrible with a tape drive. 

 

[brain]

I know I'm guilty of this, posting again and again in this thread, but we really need to tie off this discussion 🙂

 

To the OP:  Everyone agrees the built in apps sucked.  It's not really the fault of the devs, as they had perfectly good versions that sold well.  The cost reductions and constraints so indicative of Commodore forced 64kB of apps to be squeezed (badly) into 32K.

 

But, it did not matter in the slightest.  No one seriously used these apps, for the reasons discussed (lack of tape, forcing the drive to be purchased, and if you had the drive, you would buy a better app, the aforementioned squeeze created so many limits, etc.)

 

Pure and simple, the 3+1 was a marketing gimmick, and the fact that the apps worked at all meant that buyers could not sue Commodore. And, to be fair, it was a good gimmick.  I don't recall too many other PCs at the time that had built-in apps that were not portable (Tandy M100 did, the various pocket PCs did, but they were typically more expensive, limited GFX/text, and were often purpose-driven.  A bog standard home computer with built-in apps probably grabbed people's attention ("Hey, let's buy this one, it comes with free apps!").

 

Lack of cassette support? Sir, this is a productivity app.  That is disk drive territory.  Oh, and we have a tweaked version of our 1541 that's way faster (and more expensive and less compatible with our older machines...)

Horrid document length limits? Sir, this is the basic version of the app, used for the quick notes and memos.  You writing a novel?  We have EasyScript/+4 (and a drive) for you!

Add to the list (in your head) as you see fit.

 

I guess my overall point is that, at least with CBM, it's easiest to walk backwards from the financials.  CBM wanted to sell a bunch of machines, sell them cheap, and open up a way to force consumers to re-buy the apps they already owned (and buy all new peripherals as well).  Marketing got involved.  3+1 got ideated, done. 

 

Jim

[Krebizfan]

Michael Tomczyk pushed the idea of having an application suite in ROM. See https://www.commodore.ca/commodore-history/michael-tomczyk-commodore-vic-20-history-what-went-wrong/ and look at the Commodore MAX section. It did make some sense in 1982 when Valdocs got a lot of interest even though that was not in ROM. A ROM wordprocessor was a key part of the Coleco Adam. Rather unfortunate that no one at Commodore reevaluated the design based on the failures of the other systems that tried the idea before the Plus/4. 

[xrbrevin]

Hi,

i just got a plus/4 running (had a bad kernal and PLA) and im currently sunbrighting the keys

does anyone know if the 2x app ROM slots can be re-purposed for anything more useful?

i briefly spotted that jiffydos can occupy one, but i cant find the forum page now..! would this speed-up loading times on an SD2IEC device like it does on the C64?

cheers!

 

[KG7PFS]

Didn't they release greatly improved versions of these apps on disk? How bad were they?

Edited May 26, 2023 by KG7PFS

[Krebizfan]

13 hours ago, KG7PFS said:

Didn't they release greatly improved versions of these apps on disk? How bad were they?

The word processor and database were given additional functions. The spreadsheet was not changed. The result was fairly middle of the pack for 8-bit integrated software. Appleworks was clearly better but one could find a lot of software that was not as good as Plus/Extra. Others may evaluate it differently.

 

There was another add-on for the 3+1 software. https://plus4world.powweb.com/software/Tape_3Plus1 This permits the word processor and spreadsheet units to save files to tape. 

[RobertB]

xbrevin said:

 

> does anyone know if the 2x app ROM slots can be re-purposed for anything more useful?

 

Yes, you can do that.  See the thread at

 

http://plus4world.powweb.com/forum/28436#28447

 

> i briefly spotted that jiffydos can occupy one, but i cant find the forum page now..! would this speed-up loading times on an SD2IEC device like it does on the C64?

 

Yes, it should be able to speed up the load on a SD2IEC.

 

Truly,

Robert Bernardo

Fresno Commodore User Group - http://www.dickestel.com/fcug.htm

Southern California Commodore & Amiga Network - http://www.portcommodore.com/sccan

June 24-25 Pacific Commodore Expo NW 2023 - http://www.portcommodore.com/pacommex

[xrbrevin]

Hi @RobertB

Many thanks for your reply. I also found Baby Berks .bin file that fits on a 27C128 EPROM. it goes in socket U25 and boots via the F1 key. The basic page text even changes to display: "GAME RUN ON KEY F1". it will keep me more amused until the parts arrive to build a tapuino.

i went on to discover that very few games were released on cartridge, mostly text adventures. however i did find some pre-wrangled .bin files within: "openC16Cart" .zip file on the following site:

https://c64.rulez.org/pub/plus4/Games/

in the .zip file there are several paired rom sets that use both the hi and lo sockets. im just erasing a couple of ICs now in order to try them out..

[RobertB]

xbrevin wrote:

 

> I also found Baby Berks .bin file that fits on a 27C128 EPROM. it goes in socket U25 and boots via the F1 key. The basic page text even changes to display: "GAME RUN ON KEY F1".

 

Very nice!

 

> im just erasing a couple of ICs now in order to try them out.

 

Keep us informed on how it goes!

 

Truly,

Robert Bernardo

Fresno Commodore User Group - http://www.dickestel.com/fcug.htm

Southern California Commodore & Amiga Network - http://www.portcommodore.com/sccan

June 24-25 Pacific Commodore Expo NW 2023 - http://www.portcommodore.com/pacommex

[xrbrevin]

I could only get baby berks to run but thats fine, better than having the function unusued

[+OLD CS1]

20 hours ago, xrbrevin said:

I could only get baby berks to run but thats fine, better than having the function unusued

Glad to hear it.  You should start your own thread if you continue to have problems.  This will ensure people see it based upon the thread title, whereas this thread may not bring interest to the right people to assist you.