The Commodore 64 sure does rule, duddn't it?

[Ze_ro]

Most of the software available for it is on floppy rather than cart. I guess I'm just spoiled...I don't want to wait for the slow load times from the 1541 drive.

MMC64?

Soooo...now I have a good reason to get a C=64!

Uh, you might want to read up on the MMC64 and make sure you know what it's capable of before you go out buying one of them... there are a number of limitations that make it not quite as attractive as it might seem.... For example, since it plugs into the cartridge port, not all software will be compatible with it and you can only read inside .d64 files if you also have a Retro Replay cartridge. As far as I can tell, it's best used for writing .d64 images to disks.

 

I'd rather wait for something that plugs into the IEC bus, and which can attach .d64 files without additional hardware (Even though I already have a Retro Replay).

 

--Zero

[flowmotion]

True the Apple ][ was much more expensive, and had inferior graphics and sound. (It did color from Day 1 though.)

 

But there were so many publishers that developed on Apples and put out games there first, you can't dismiss it as a game platform. Ultima, Wizardry, Bard's Tale, Castle Wolfenstien, and many other big titles came out for Apples first.

 

Plus, by the time the C-64 started to get really popular in 1985 or so, Apple had already come out with the Mac and was pulling efforts off the ][ series, so it's not totally fair to compare them.

[potatohead]

I really liked the Apple. Frankly, I learned on it first before the Atari because it was completely open.

 

The ROM included nice tools for programming the machine, and the source was in the manual. Hardware wise it was not as cool as the Atari was, but it was easy to understand.

[joeybastard]

I want to add that Chris ++ is the king of the C64 because he sent me a bunch of games on floppy a couple of years ago that I play constantly.

[Chris++]

I'd reciprocate by naming you the King of Blue-Vinyl Brian Wilson 45s, but something tells me you wouldn't necessarily be thrilled with that title.

[joeybastard]

Well, you can call me the King of the Night Time World instead

[Chris++]

Well, it's true that it's so sad going to school, so far from you and the dirty things that we do.

 

(Like, y'know, pizza-throwing.)

[PressureCooker2600]

i'd like the title 'Atari King of Fort Smith, Arkansas' if no one minds

[Mayhem]

Of course the C64 is king, issue #30 of Retro Gamer said so

[+remowilliams]

As far as I can tell, it's best used for writing .d64 images to disks.

I wouldn't go that far. While it would be much nicer to have a true D64 emulation device, the MMC64 works really well with single load cracked&filed type games. Basically many things that don't need disk access after initial load.

Edited December 19, 2006 by remowilliams

[privateers69]

What about using one of these?

 

64HDD Overview

 

hooking your c64 to your computer (386/486 with Ms-DOS) and access it like a 1541 disk drive

[+remowilliams]

What about using one of these?

 

64HDD Overview

 

hooking your c64 to your computer (386/486 with Ms-DOS) and access it like a 1541 disk drive

I use 64HDD with a Pwr/Link cart and it is capable of unbelievable speeds. The unfortunate (and large) downside to 64HDD is that it does not emulate an actual 1541, just its dos commands. Which means anything that uses custom or fastloaders does not work. And that sucks

[icbrkr]

What about using one of these?

 

64HDD Overview

 

hooking your c64 to your computer (386/486 with Ms-DOS) and access it like a 1541 disk drive

I use 64HDD with a Pwr/Link cart and it is capable of unbelievable speeds. The unfortunate (and large) downside to 64HDD is that it does not emulate an actual 1541, just its dos commands. Which means anything that uses custom or fastloaders does not work. And that sucks

 

I've been trying to get this to work but sadly, it's been a big no-go. Tried old Pentiums, new Pentiums ... finally got a hold of an old 486 but it didn't work.. dammit. Any luck getting this to work on a Pentium based machine?

[jbanes]

I've been trying to get this to work but sadly, it's been a big no-go. Tried old Pentiums, new Pentiums ... finally got a hold of an old 486 but it didn't work.. dammit. Any luck getting this to work on a Pentium based machine?

What kind of cable are you using?

[+remowilliams]

I've been trying to get this to work but sadly, it's been a big no-go. Tried old Pentiums, new Pentiums ... finally got a hold of an old 486 but it didn't work.. dammit. Any luck getting this to work on a Pentium based machine?

Yes, I regularly use it on an old P3 866. The most modern machine I have used it with would be a 2.4Ghz P4.

 

The machines must (in my experience) be running pure DOS. Dos 6.2 or Win98's command line only boot will work.

 

I have used it with XE1541 cables - very important for 'modern' PC parallel ports (ECP/EPP) - and with the Pwr/Link cart/cable assembly.

[jbanes]

I have used it with XE1541 cables - very important for 'modern' PC parallel ports (ECP/EPP) - and with the Pwr/Link cart/cable assembly.

Good choice. Have you tried disabling ECP mode in the BIOS? And made sure that there are no TSRs in the autoexec.bat and config.sys? Just about anything can throw off the cable's timings. I've had good luck with FreeDOS. You might give that a try if Microsoft DOS continues to make your life difficult.

[deadmeow]

The Apple II was inferior graphically and sound wise, only because it was the oldest kid on the block. It was released in 1977 (the Atari 8 bit in 1979, and Commodore 64 1982). At the same time, Apple would become entrenched and get its feet on the ground first, they had tons of third party software vendors for many years.

 

Although the sound and graphics my have been inferior, some games still were actually better on the Apple II. Off hand, The Castle Wolfenstein, Beyond Castle Wolfenstein and Lode Runner were two of the best examples, both of which played much better with a 2 button controler, which Apple had. For that reason alone, Apple II games are much easier to play than Atari or C64 games.

 

Other classics include quality cross platform titles like Moebius, Choplifter, Rescue Raiders, Gemstone Warrior series, Karateka, Miner 2049'er, Rescue on Fractalas, Spy vs Spy Series, Commando, Montezuma's Revenge, Jungle Hunt, Spy Hunter, and the list goes on.

 

Apple II's were easily expandable. If you want to bash Apple II's, you can bash any 8 bit computer now a days. As far as emulation and gaming, you can make a case for all the popular 8 bits, especially since emulation is only about gaming.

 

In the 80's Commodores, and Ataris were looked upon as toys, and not serious computers, because of the fact you couldn't take off the lid, and insert upgrade cards into the system. The fact that they had cartridge slots, and no abilitiy to display 80 columns, made them toys, and many felt not serious computers.

 

On the other hand, classic Apple II's were highly expandable, you could easily add memory, add hard drives, a mouse, 80 column capability. You could hook the Apple II had color and monochrome monitors available. A regular color monitor could not display 80 columns correctly, so in that case a monochrome or RGB monitor was required for 80 columns.

 

When it comes to gaming and emulation, I think Atari has the most quality, C64 has the most quanity, and Apple II has its share of decent games as well.

 

As far as emulation, I will give the nod to Atari 8 bit, (because of netplay), followed by Apple II which has automatic fast disk access emulation built in. C64 emulation still emulates the acient Egyptian disk drives from the king tut era. You have to hit a key combo on the keyboard to speed it up.

 

So thats my defense of the apple ii

[Mayhem]

The reason why C64 emulators have the "true drive emulation" part in the code is because many games refuse to load correctly without it being implemented. The computer synchs the speed of the disk drive and the two communicate. It's part of the copy protection schemes often used.

 

It's really only an issue for older games that had no fast loader code written in the program. Anything disk based past 1985 almost always had fast loader code written into the initial boot program.

[MacbthPSW]

The Apple II was inferior graphically and sound wise, only because it was the oldest kid on the block.

That excuses the original A2, but what about all the other A2 models that came out until the IIgs?

 

Although the sound and graphics my have been inferior, some games still were actually better on the Apple II.

This is true of virtually every platform, simply because of varying programming etc. skills, and in some cases because a game is matched well to a particular platform's strengths.

 

In the 80's Commodores, and Ataris were looked upon as toys, and not serious computers, because of the fact you couldn't take off the lid,

Only by Apple II snobs...

 

The C64's "cartridge port" was really called the "expansion port". It is just as versatile as the A2's internal slots. While neat freaks might happily pay many hundreds of extra dollars just so everything is hidden from view in the case of the A2, Commodore fans are happy to let it all hang out

 

On the other hand, classic Apple II's were highly expandable, you could easily add memory, add hard drives, a mouse, 80 column capability.

On the C64, adding a hard drive is as easy as attaching it like a disk drive via the IEC bus, a mouse is as easy as plugging in a joystick, and extra RAM and 80 column cards plugged into the expansion port.

 

When it comes to gaming and emulation, I think Atari has the most quality, C64 has the most quanity, and Apple II has its share of decent games as well.

If you only judge these platforms by pre-1985 games, I could see how you'd think the Atari has the best quality. Nowadays the remaining A8 coders aspire to bring their games up to C64 standards.

 

As far as emulation, I will give the nod to Atari 8 bit, (because of netplay), followed by Apple II which has automatic fast disk access emulation built in. C64 emulation still emulates the acient Egyptian disk drives from the king tut era. You have to hit a key combo on the keyboard to speed it up.

C64 emulation is poor because it actually accurately emulates the disk drive? You probably don't know, but the C64 disk drives were 1 Mhz 6502 based computers in their own right, and by default that "true drive emulation" is turned on. When that level of emulation isn't necessary, it can be turned off under the "Options" menu if you're using VICE. The key combo is to put the C64 emulation into warp mode; do you think an emulator should default to anything but 100% of the original speed?

[Spector]

The Spectrum was the most innovative 8-bit because it wasn't designed to play games in the first place, thus giving programmers the true blank canvas that the Atari and C64 lacked.

[MacbthPSW]

The Spectrum was the most innovative 8-bit because it wasn't designed to play games in the first place, thus giving programmers the true blank canvas that the Atari and C64 lacked.

That's pretty goofy. The Apple, the TRS-80, and the PET/CBM machines could all claim the same thing, and they were all made before the Speccy, so how is that innovative?

 

The Spectrum's graphic abilities are completely a subset of the C64's; the C64 is entirely capable of having "innovative" colour-clashed graphics if the programmers so desire. And on the occasions when they did, the reviews usually consisted of "ewww.... looks like a Spectrum game."

[deadmeow]

Maybe you don't get the point!? The Apple II series was released in 1977. The Atari 400/800/XL/XE series was released in 1979. The Apple IIe is the same family as the Apple II+ (it has more memory and lower case) duhhhhhh.

 

The Atari family was released 2 whole years later, which is a lot of time as far as computers are concerned.

 

According to your logic, the Atari XE's should have been awsome machines since they were released in 1985, the same year as the Atari ST's. But we all know the XE's are from a family of computers released in 1979. Duh.

[deadmeow]

Commodore 64's and Atari 8 bit computers were all toys. Thats nothing to be ashamed of. My first "computer" was an Intellivision II with an ECS computer module, which out of the box had more RAM than an Atari 400. But it was still a toy.

 

The Apple allowed internal expansion, you plugged in your disk drive or hard drive, card into the system and you were done. Wanted to add a mouse, add the card, plug in the mouse and your done. The possibilities were endless. The Atari's and C64, you had to plug everything into the joystick port, and then plug it into the wall with it's own power supply.

 

In 1986, in the Apple II community, we were already using USR Courier HST 9600 baud modems, while Atari's were chugging along with 300 baud modems and 40 columns. Ever try downloading wares with 300 baud? Its impossible, especially if you called long distance. You cannot compare Apple II's to C64, and Atari. It's a totally different league as far as computing goes.

 

If you want to focus on _one area_, like gaming, thats ok. Thats the strong suit of the Atari and C64 line.

 

When it comes to 16 bit, I have no problem admiting that Commodora Amiga and Atari ST beat Apple IIgs hands down. I like my Apple IIgs, but I don't have to be an apologist over it.

Edited December 30, 2006 by deadmeow

[MacbthPSW]

Maybe you don't get the point!? The Apple II series was released in 1977. The Atari 400/800/XL/XE series was released in 1979. The Apple IIe is the same family as the Apple II+ (it has more memory and lower case) duhhhhhh.

The *series* wasn't released in that year, the first *model* of that series was. Isn't the idea of later models to improve upon earlier models?

 

The Atari family was released 2 whole years later, which is a lot of time as far as computers are concerned.

The family wasn't released then, then first two A8 models were released then. Later models did improve on their graphics.

 

According to your logic, the Atari XE's should have been awsome machines since they were released in 1985, the same year as the Atari ST's. But we all know the XE's are from a family of computers released in 1979. Duh.

No, according to my logic the XEs simply should have been better than earlier models of A8s, and they were.

[ZylonBane]

Other classics include quality cross platform titles like Moebius, Choplifter, Rescue Raiders, Gemstone Warrior series, Karateka, Miner 2049'er, Rescue on Fractalas, Spy vs Spy Series, Commando, Montezuma's Revenge, Jungle Hunt, Spy Hunter, and the list goes on.

I cannot even begin to figure out what you're trying to demonstrate with this list. It appears to be a random mishmash of games that originated on the Apple, were ported to the Apple from other computers, and were ported to all computers from arcade games. The only thing I can say with certainty is that the Apple II version of Rescue on Fractalus is utterly dire.

 

The two-button analog joysticks were a definite advantage though. Strange that nobody ever created an analog stick for the Atari, especially since it could have easily supported a five-button analog stick with no extra electronics.