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

[jbanes]

You just had more options with an Apple II+ or later an Apple IIe. You could add more speed with a Transwarp card or many other brands of accelerator cards, you could add tons of memory, you could add a Z-80 card and run CP/M, you could add a PC Transporter Card, and run IBM PC applications (that required more than 40 columns). There were other co-processor cards available. You options with sound cards, the mouse was a popular add on with MousePaint.

 

There is really no overall comparison.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64_...PU_accelerators

 

Like the Apple II family, third-party acceleration units providing a faster CPU appeared late in the C64's life. Due to timing issues with the VIC-II chip, however, C64 accelerators were much more complex and expensive to implement than their counterparts for other computers. So while accelerators based on the WDC 65C02, usually running at 4 MHz, and on the 65816 at up to 20 MHz appeared, they appeared too late and at a price of US$199 or higher were too expensive to gain widespread use.

 

The Turbo Master CPU, produced by Schnedler Systems, was a blue expansion port device which clocked in at 4.09 Mhz, replacing the operations of the C64's CPU resulting in high speed operations and games. It was also a disk accelerator.

 

The most well-known accelerator for the C64 is probably Creative Micro Designs' SuperCPU, which gives the C64 a 20 MHz processor (instead of ~1 MHz) and up to 16 MB of RAM if combined with CMD's SuperRamCard. Understandably, due to a very limited "market" and number of developers, there has not been much software tailored for the SuperCPU to date— however GEOS was supported. Among the few offerings available include the overhauled GEOS system Wheels, a Wheels-based web browser called "The Wave", a Unix/QNX-like graphical OS called Wings, some demos, and a shooter game in the old Katakis-style called Metal Dust.

The C64 had all the same upgrades and peripherals as the Apple II. Including Mice, Printers, Modems, Hard Drives, Faster Floppy Drives, GUI Operating Systems.

[MacbthPSW]

At least Atari's and C64's were better than those TRS80 CoCo 2's. I think we can agree on that.

While I like my A8s and C64s more than my CoCo 1, 2 and 3, the CoCos were very expandable, and had the really nice 6809 processor and OS-9 which was way beyond the mainstream OSes available for any of the other 8-bits mentioned in this thread.

[deadmeow]

After the 16 bit generation of computers came out, hackers developed all kinds of things for obsolete 8 bit computers. My point about speeding the computer up, is you didn't have to take an Apple II+ or Apple IIe apart to speed it up, only pop in a card. You had to take a whole Commodore or Atari apart and replace or add a chip to speed one of those up.

 

You could do many things with the Apple II line during it's peak lifetime, not 10 years later. Atari and C64's were built mainly for games. They used game cartridges and Atari 2600 joysticks.

 

You had to go to an Apple certified computer store to buy an Apple. You could walk into any toy store and buy an Atari or C64.

 

It makes me laugh when I see someone beating their chest over a C64. The disk drives weren't much faster than the tape recorders. The bottom line is, they are toys, not serious computers.

[Prodos8]

Back in the day, I preferred the C64 for arcade ports and fast-action games, due to the excellent graphics and sound. But, the A2's, because of the fast disk drive, were excellent for playing Ultima, Bard's Tale, Wizardry, Wasteland and just about any other RPG game that required frequent disk loads.

 

Also, for doing your high school term papers almost nothing on 8-bits could beat AppleWorks with the Pinpoint spell checker back then.

[MacbthPSW]

After the 16 bit generation of computers came out, hackers developed all kinds of things for obsolete 8 bit computers. My point about speeding the computer up, is you didn't have to take an Apple II+ or Apple IIe apart to speed it up, only pop in a card. You had to take a whole Commodore or Atari apart and replace or add a chip to speed one of those up.

You show your ignorance just about every time you say anything about the C64 or A8. At least two of the three major accelerators for the C64 (I've only seen and used two of them, so I can't speak for the third) simply plugged into the expansion port (which again is just like the slots inside the A2) on the C64, like a giant cartridge. These were not developed by "hackers", they were developed by profitable companies and sold to meet demand, just like on the A2. The C64, A8 and A2 all continued to be used and useful long after the 16 bit computers arrived.

 

You could do many things with the Apple II line during it's peak lifetime, not 10 years later. Atari and C64's were built mainly for games. They used game cartridges and Atari 2600 joysticks.

The fact that new non-gaming commercial hardware was coming out in the mid to late 90s for the C64 and C128 just shows how many people were using it for "real computer" purposes.

 

You had to go to an Apple certified computer store to buy an Apple. You could walk into any toy store and buy an Atari or C64.

This just shows a difference in marketing and business practices between the companies, it has nothing to do with which is a "real" computer.

 

BTW, how do you explain the availability of the Laser and other A2 clones at Sears and other non-computer stores? Is the Laser 128 a toy? VTech made it; don't they make toy computers for kids?

 

It makes me laugh when I see someone beating their chest over a C64.

And you're making the rest of us laugh with your continued attempts to show how there's such a wide gulf between the A2 and the C64/A8.

 

 

The disk drives weren't much faster than the tape recorders.

This is demonstrably false, and there were many ways available to overcome the relatively slow disk access.

[deadmeow]

There is no way you could run IBM wares on an Atari 800 or C64. You couldn't even see the correct ascii text display on a BBS run on most host systems because of the 40 column restriction.

 

The C64 and Atari 800's had better graphics and sound, but they were gaming machines. If you want to call them gaming computers, thats fine. They were closed systems, not made to be expanded. Some smart people figured out ways around that to certain degrees.

 

If you want to match Apple II vs C64/Atari800 in gaming. Apple will always lose. Even though some games play better on Apple simply because of the 2 button Joystick.

 

In all around computing Apple II 8 bit beats C64/Atari 800. You could do more on Apple II's.

 

Apple clones were cheap, incompatible garbage. You get what you pay for.

 

Anyone caught using an 8 bit computer in the 90's should of been put to death or forced to watch a Geraldo Rivera Show marathon.

Edited January 1, 2007 by deadmeow

[Spector]

 

The Spectrum's graphic abilities are completely a subset of the C64's

 

No - the C64's graphics are a sub-set of the Speccy's.

 

Anyway, the C64 colour pallette was awful, so using the hi-res would have been worse than with the Spectrum's vibrant colours in that mode.

Edited January 1, 2007 by Spector

[Mayhem]

Magenta? Bleeergh, I'd love to know who in Sinclair decided to use that

 

Nothing like a flame war to start off 2007

 

As for the C64 capabilities outside of games, when I started doing my reviews for Oracle back in the early 90s (you people in the UK might remember them) it was Vizawrite word processor with a daisy wheel printer and then either mailing or faxing them to the editor. Who needed a PC, I had the powerful C64 to help me with my job!

[Spector]

You've got to admit, Mr 'Hem, the 15 colours that the Spectrum has are better than the 16 that the C64 has. But of course, the Spectrum can't use them the same way because of the bloomin colour clash!

 

Anyway, I admit I'm half-joking when I post on this subject (I like the C64), in the same way as you were half-joking when you said in your Retro Gamer piece that the C64 made a better stab at Spectrum games than the other way round. I've played Cobra on the C64 after all...

[ZylonBane]

You couldn't even see the correct ascii text display on a BBS run on most host systems because of the 40 column restriction.

False. Both the A8 and C64 had the ability to generate 80-column text.

 

In all around computing Apple II 8 bit beats C64/Atari 800. You could do more on Apple II's.

Then name something the Apple II could do that that A8/C64 didn't.

 

Apple clones were cheap, incompatible garbage.

Prove it.

Edited January 1, 2007 by ZylonBane

[MacbthPSW]

This reminds me of the A2 emulator for the C64. Check it out: http://www.applefritter.com/node/229

 

Now, show me a C64 or A8 emulator for A2...

[Prodos8]

This reminds me of the A2 emulator for the C64. Check it out: http://www.applefritter.com/node/229

 

Now, show me a C64 or A8 emulator for A2...

 

Its not a software emu, its an A2 clone you plug into your C64. Kinda like the system converter for the CV or 5200

[MacbthPSW]

Its not a software emu, its an A2 clone you plug into your C64. Kinda like the system converter for the CV or 5200

I didn't claim otherwise. It's still a valid example of how expandable the C64 is, and is probably substantially similar to the A2 card that allows IBM PC programs to run that deadmeow was using as proof of A2 superiority. Did anyone think that was a software emulator?

 

Edit: The word "emulator" might not be appropriate in this case. I picked up that word on some of the webpages I found regarding this item. In many cases, "hardware emulator" more or less is interchangable with "clone", for example, the C64DTV or Flashback 2.

Edited January 2, 2007 by MacbthPSW

[rxd]

At least Atari's and C64's were better than those TRS80 CoCo 2's. I think we can agree on that.

While I like my A8s and C64s more than my CoCo 1, 2 and 3, the CoCos were very expandable, and had the really nice 6809 processor and OS-9 which was way beyond the mainstream OSes available for any of the other 8-bits mentioned in this thread.

 

That's for sure. Back in college in the early 80's I had people lining up to use my CoCo for all their term papers like I did. I had a great (for the time) word processor/spell checking program (forgot the name) which everyone begged me to let them use. I was a big CoCo fan from 1 to 3.....

[Zonie]

Back in the day, I preferred the C64 for arcade ports and fast-action games, due to the excellent graphics and sound. But, the A2's, because of the fast disk drive, were excellent for playing Ultima, Bard's Tale, Wizardry, Wasteland and just about any other RPG game that required frequent disk loads.

 

Also, for doing your high school term papers almost nothing on 8-bits could beat AppleWorks with the Pinpoint spell checker back then.

 

 

EASY SCRIPT

[supercat]

EASY SCRIPT

 

Although I bought Easy Script (and still have it, including manual, if anyone wants) I preferred the later-acquired SpeedScript. The latter is a much simpler program, but it's extremely functional and could be had for the cost of a magazine and a few hours' typing (though I in fact bought it on disk).

[Spector]

Apple clones were cheap, incompatible garbage.

Prove it.

 

"Prove it."

Oohh! Jack Palance in 'Shane'!

Those clipped brief sentences make you sound SO intelligent!

[Chris++]

Goodness gracious. I meant it as a fun thread. Do 8-bit specs and capabilities matter a quarter-century later? The software sells the second-hand box these days just as it did back then, and by software, I mean antiquated games that some of us still like. Everyone has their favorite games. Mine are on the 64. Some guy out there likes his TI99/4A carts (both of them...sorry, couldn't resist) more than anything. It's useless arguing, because compared to the cheapest 2007 computer, they're all just toys. It's fun arguing about which actual "personal computer" came first (PET), which sold a million first (VIC-20), which had the most software (64), which had the fastest load time (Atari, unless you count having to load DOS before loading a game), which kept the company afloat long enough to survive to the present day (Apple)....but in a friendly, "Isn't this a gas that we're comparing notes about obsolete toys?" manner, rather than a vindictive, oddly personal one...don'tcha think?

[Inky]

The bottom line is, they are toys, not serious computers.

 

Hmmm..

 

Processor: Check

Keyboard: Check

Video output: Check

Storage devices: Check

 

Nope, sounds like the 8 bit Commies and Atari 8 bits are REAL computers to me.

 

Please keep your elitism to yourself, thank you.

[joeybastard]

But Chris if I can prove my ancient computer is better than your ancient computer, that means I'm the man and you're a little girl.

I like both A8's and the C64 pretty much equally which means I must be a hermaphrodite. I enjoy these kind of threads actually.

Edited January 2, 2007 by joeybastard

[Inky]

But Chris if I can prove my ancient computer is better than your ancient computer, that means my penis is bigger too.

 

 

 

We know that's a function of postcount...

[Chris++]

(Playing C-64 games on an emulator and watching penis vanish)

 

DAMN. Y'know, I always suspected.

[joeybastard]

But Chris if I can prove my ancient computer is better than your ancient computer, that means my penis is bigger too.

 

 

 

We know that's a function of postcount...

 

Hey you quoted me before I changed my crappy joke!

[deadmeow]

Atari's and C64's never were considered serious computers, and thats history.

 

They were 40 column gaming computers, that made little chirps when you punched a key.

 

The Commodore Amiga is the only Commodore machine that ever ruled. That system should of became the dominant computer of the modern times. I knew a lot of people in the Apple IIgs community that defected to Amiga, and I don't blame them.

[+FujiSkunk]

Atari's and C64's never were considered serious computers, and thats history.

 

They were 40 column gaming computers, that made little chirps when you punched a key.

 

Tell that to the elementary schools. Back in the late '90s, I was lucky enough to get one school's old discards, which included a lab full of C-64's and 1541's, and three or four huge binders of educational software.

Edited January 2, 2007 by skunkworx