11 Dec
1998
11 Dec
'98
4:38 a.m.
Warning: heavy bias and Commodore history!
::I learned many things about the C64 recently.
::First, that it was a underpowered, low quality computer that was more
::expensive than an Apple ][ and had less features. I disagree because I
::have never liked the Apple ][ more than the C64.
[...good description of A2 vs C64 and VIC20 vs. C64
..]
couldn't have don better (Why did I just answer the original postng ? :)
The software gap closed quickly.
For gamers of course (althrugh adventures still got out
first on the a][)
Sound? Without a Mockingboard, don't make me
laugh. :-)
Hey, never heared the _TWO_ voices sound programms ?
or one Bit voice samples on the Apple :)))
(Just think about all the work that is done nowadays
to reproduce _real_ beep and boing wit multimedia eq :)
Nevertheless, though, I don't think anyone will
doubt that the 64 has it in
spades over the Apple in sheer graphics and sound power. And the 64 did
very well versus the Nintendo, despite the NES' expanded colour palette (I
think 256).
Well, exactly this is it - the C64 was way more used among
and against video consoles than computers. For a game like
Bards Tale, Ultima or Wizardry (I still can runn the first
3 levels of Wizardry 1 in my dreams) the difference wasn't
realy important.
Nevertheless, the 64 was a revolutionary improvement
in terms of its memory
and graphics/sound capabilities. The VIC-20 was just better built.
My point.
Servus
Hans
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK