On 7/6/05, plato computer <computer at officereach.net> wrote:
I think that commodore went wrong in three areas.
1. they never put a standart rs232 port on their stuff. sure you could
use 1488's , but that was not the point. There was no real rs232.
They sold a cartridge for a reasonable amount ($30? $40?) that hung
on the userport fingers that had reasonable level shifters. I used it
extensively for machine-to-machine transfers.
2. The disk drives were basically computers to
themselves;
That made things somewhat expensive, but it also made them standard.
I don't know why they chose to go that route with the 2040 dual disk
drives, but once they got on that train, they stayed with it all the
way to the end.
I don't see how they went "wrong" with this, unless you mean that it
priced the drives out of most people's hands. This was certainly the
case for the PET, where a dual disk drive cost over twice what a 32K
computer cost. My first floppy drive was a 1540 - free to me (through
my job), but it was $595 on the street, same as a C-64 when it first
came out.
Now what _was_ a mistake was how slow the serial drives were. True
IEEE-488 wasn't a speed demon, but it wasn't awful - 8-bit parallel
transfers about as fast as a 1MHz CPU can make them - hard to do
better without fast DMA hardware. The problem came about through a
series of management decisions (orders not to be held hostage to a
cable vendor) and technical problems (the 6522 VIA was supposed to do
the serial/parallel conversion but there were problems with the chip),
but the end result was one of the slowest mass-storage peripherals on
record. With the right chips, though, it would have worked much
better.
3. 40 columns just ain't cool. 80 is the way to
go.
In the case of the C-64, 40 columns makes perfect sense - it was marketed to be
attached to a TV, and a TV can't resolve 80 columns. Even when the Amiga came
out, it had a 64 column mode (preferences button) for TV use to compliment the
80 column mode for monitor use.
So..... what else? Is Anyone here who was integrally
involved in the
design of the machine?
I was not involved with Commodore in any way except as a third-party
developer for the C-64 in early 1982 (we had S/N S00002007 (with the
"lightpen interrupt bug" in the VIC-II chip) that was traded in on S/N
S00002345 that I still have).
I have done extensive hacking over the years, though.
-ethan