3 Jan
2012
3 Jan
'12
1:17 a.m.
On 3 January 2012 01:06, Gene Buckle <geneb at deltasoft.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jan 2012, Liam Proven wrote:
Ahh, thanks for the clarification. I think I once knew that, 20+y ago,
and had forgotten.
It was a very odd machine, though. I think the unreleased C65 would
have been a much better upgrade. The 80col mode was good, but WTF was
the Z80 and CP/M doing in there? It was completely inappropriate to
the VIC/C64 market segment, added unnecessary cost and did not enhance
the functionality of the CBM side of things at all. A truly bizarre
addition.
Mind you, the C16 and +4 were pretty bizarre aberrations, too. I
really don't know what Commodore management was smoking, but it made
for some epically bad decision-making.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
the greatest weaknesses of the Commodore line of
home computers - the
VIC-20, Commodore 64, C128 and so forth - that their BASIC was very
primitive, had no commands for structured programming and, crucially,
no commands for sound, graphics, colour or any of the media facilities
of the underlying hardware.
BASIC 7 in the C128 corrected many of those issues. ?There were add-on tools
and carts that would add graphics & sound commands to the C-64 - the most
common was Simons Basic.