10 Dec
1998
10 Dec
'98
12:56 p.m.
On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de wrote:
Don't forget: the V(I)C-20 was a bit faster and a
way better
design then the C64.
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.
Second, I learn that the VIC-20, a predecessor to the C-64, was better
than it. How is this? Last I heard, it is the VIC that was underpowered
because it only had 8k ram or something like. Please explain; how was it
better?
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
----------------------------------------------------
Max Eskin | kurtkilgor(a)bigfoot.com | AOL: kurtkilgor
10 Dec
10 Dec
3:45 p.m.
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.
More expensive?!?! The C-64 with a C-1541 would have been about $600 when
introduced IIRC, at the same time a Apple ][ was about $1200-1500 I believe.
Second, I learn that the VIC-20, a predecessor to the
C-64, was better
than it. How is this? Last I heard, it is the VIC that was underpowered
because it only had 8k ram or something like. Please explain; how was it
better?
The VIC had about 3.5k base, with 8k and 16k (I've heard of a 32k)
expansions. Might have been faster, but even I'll admit the C-64 was
better since it came with 64k, better graphics and sprites. A VIC-20 with
Datacasette was my only computer from 1981 or 1982-1986. In mid-87 I got a
Kaypro 2000 laptop, what a change!
Zane
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast |
| healyzh(a)holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/ |
4:16 p.m.
Zane wrote:
More expensive?!?! The C-64 with a C-1541 would have
been about $600 when
introduced IIRC, at the same time a Apple ][ was about $1200-1500 I believe.
No, at intro the C-64 listed for US $599. I don't recall the price of the
1541, but I'm pretty sure it was at least $250.
But the original comment was that the complete C64 system cost more than
a complete A][ system in Germany; US prices are irrelevant.
4:31 p.m.
Zane wrote:
I was thinking both were about $300 each. I'm pretty sure that's what the
drive was as I seem to recall it cost as much as my VIC-20 did, which when
I got it was $300.
More expensive?!?! The C-64 with a C-1541 would
have been about $600 when
introduced IIRC, at the same time a Apple ][ was about $1200-1500 I believe.
No, at intro the C-64 listed for US $599. I don't recall the price of the
1541, but I'm pretty sure it was at least $250. But the original comment was that the complete C64
system cost more than
a complete A][ system in Germany; US prices are irrelevant.
Ah, I thought Max was refering to US systems.
Zane
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast |
| healyzh(a)holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/ |
11 Dec
11 Dec
6:55 a.m.
>But the original comment was that the complete C64
system cost more than
>a complete A][ system in Germany; US prices are irrelevant.
Ah, I thought Max was refering to US systems.
No, it was about my posting - and the reference where A][
_compatible_ (noname) systems.
Gruss
Hans
(Thanks Eric)
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
4:19 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 601 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19981211/a975bf60/at…
4:36 a.m.
::No, at intro the C-64 listed for US $599. I don't recall the price of the
::1541, but I'm pretty sure it was at least $250.
Yep -- for a time the disk drive cost more than the computer. (!)
That was common in the PET days. I paid $999 for a 32K 9" screen PET in
1978. The disk drive (2040) was over $1200. I got a C-64 and 1541
before I ever got a PET drive. OTOH, I waited so long, a 4040 drive
was $5 at the University surplus.
-ethan
4:53 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 5462 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19981211/c05dcb76/at…
7:38 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
8:10 a.m.
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). In terms of graphic flexibility (without raster tricks), it is
at least as powerful as the 9918A, and with raster tricks its
flexibility is
on par with ANTIC. And SID was more than a match for anyone else
when "advanced
sound" was POKEY and the AY synths. I'm glad my parents got me my
first 64.
Well, being a professional programmer of both the NES and the C64 for some
years, I would probably have a closer-to-the-metal view of things. The NES
was a nightmare to program, due to the small sprites and quirky hardware.
The C64 offered easy to use graphics, wonderful sprites and simple
architecture. The NES, for example, accessed all video memory through a
single hardware write/read register after setting a different address
register. Video access was not possible whilst the screen was on -
everything had to be done in the vertical blank. THAT only gave enough
time to modify about 50 characters/frame. All sprite data needed to be
reinitialised every VB period, taking a whole whack more processing time...
it was quirky, and "cheap" in terms of user friendliness. The NES only had
a single palette, from memory, giving just 13 colours. The C64 offered
interrupts on a line-by-line basis; the NES offered only a single "sprite
collision", which could not be retriggered until the next frame. It was
really really kludgy. The C64 was streets ahead as a programmers' machine;
there really is no comparison.
Being an ex-programmer of the Atari machines, too (Atari 400/800) - which
used ANTIC and display lists, I'd say that neither the C64 nor the NES
(especially!!) were anything like a match for ANTIC. Atari were streets
ahead in terms of ease of use and capability - IMHO. The area where the C64
shone was the large, reusable, sprites. The area where the NES shone was
uh... uh... well, its a crap machine. It just had a lot of software.
Just my 2c, as a victim of all the machines.
Cheers
A
10:24 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1920 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19981211/c1dc05b4/at…
12 Dec
12 Dec
10:38 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2180 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19981212/a65b39e0/at…
11 Dec
11 Dec
1:54 p.m.
New subject: "Single instance" machines (Antic programming, NES, C64 comparisions)
Re: ANTIC programming
Gosh it's been uh... 17 years already?!?!
I started to explain it all from memory, but then found a reference on the
'web.
http://equinox.shaysnet.com/~eparent/atari/8bit/dlinst.txt
Basically you have a mini-program (the display list) to tell the video
processor how to build up the display - what sort of graphics is on each
line, when to trigger interrupts, etc. The jump instruction was due to the
limited addressing capability of the display list instruction counter - a
big kludge.
Here's the contents of the above URL, anyway - for the record...
Display Blank Scan Lines
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 <--- Bit Number
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | n n n | 0 0 0 0 | <--- Instruction Byte
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
\_______/ \___________/
| |
| +---- Zero
|
+---- Number of scan lines minus one
Hex Dec Binary Instruction
------------------------------------------------
0 0 .... .... Display 1 blank line
10 16 ...1 .... Display 2 blank lines
20 32 ..1. .... Display 3 blank lines
30 48 ..11 .... Display 4 blank lines
40 64 .1.. .... Display 5 blank lines
50 80 .1.1 .... Display 6 blank lines
60 96 .11. .... Display 7 blank lines
70 112 .111 .... Display 8 blank lines
Display Text or Graphics
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 <--- Bit Number
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| I M H V | n n n n | <--- Instruction Byte
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
\_______/ \___________/
| |
| +---- ANTIC Display Mode (2 to 16)
|
+----
Mode Scan
Hex Dec Binary Type Lines Colors BASIC Mode
Instruction
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 2 .... ..1. Text 8 1.5 Display Text ANTIC
mode as GRAPHICS 0 text mode
3 3 .... ..11 Text Display Text as
special text mode
4 4 .... .1.. Text Display Text as
4-color text mode
5 5 .... .1.1 Text Display Text as
large 4-color text mode
6 6 .... .11. Text Display as
GRAPHICS 1 text mode
7 7 .... .111 Text Display as GRAPHICS
2 text mode
8 8 .... 1... Display as GRAPHICS 3 4-color graphic mode
9 9 .... 1..1 Display as GRAPHICS 4 2-color graphic mode
A 10 .... 1.1. Display as GRAPHICS 5 4-color graphic mode
B 11 .... 1.11 Display as GRAPHICS 6 2-color grpahic mode
C 12 .... 11.. Display as special 160x20, 2-color graphic mode
D 13 .... 11.1 Display as GRAPHICS 7 4-color graphic mode
E 14 .... 111. Display as special 160x40, 4-color graphic mode
F 15 .... 1111 Display as GRAPHICS 8, 1 1/2 color graphic mode
1 1 .... ...1 Jump to location specified by next two bytes
41 65 ...1 ...1 Jump to location specified by next two bytes and wait
for vertical blank
Four more instructions can be included by setting 1 of 4 bits in the
instruction code to a 1. These are:
Bit Instruction
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 ...1 .... Enable fine vertical scrolling
5 ..1. .... Enable fine horizontal scrolling
6 .1.. .... Load memory scan from next two bytes
7 1... .... Set a display list interrupt for the next line
13 Dec
13 Dec
2:33 a.m.
New subject: "Single instance" machines (NES programming)
The Nintendo's video arch sounds similar to the
Commodore 128's 8563 VDC,
which according to designer Bil Herd was a nightmare. All 16 to 64K of VDC
memory is only accessible through the ports at $d600/d601. Worse, you have
to observe proper timing (and sometimes write the registers *twice*). The
8563, originally intended for the mythical CBM 900 mainframe, was
supposedly
Pretty much the same.
The read (for some reason) was buffered, so you'd set your two byte address,
then read the register (to bring it into the buffer), then read it again to
get the actual value. NES was also time-critical. If you tried to
read/write graphics data when the screen was on - well, too bad - because
the hardware also used the very same address register for displaying the
screen.. You ended up corrupting the screen and worse.
It made for innovative programming - I ended up using these strange quirks
to implement a software multidirectional scroll, previously considered
impossible on the plain vanilla NES. Fun days.
Cheers
A
11 Dec
11 Dec
6:55 a.m.
On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de wrote:
> Don't forget: the V(I)C-20 was a bit faster and a way better
> design then the C64.
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.
Its less a term of 'like' maybe you discovered the Apple
in a less friendly environment :)
First of all the Apple has been 5 years of software development
ahead - there have been already zillions of programms, when the
C64 could just show his ready prompt. Second the A][ had an open
hardware concept with extension in mind (althrough some real
nasty quirks) so anything from serial to HPIB and from tapes
to Harddisks have been already available in '82. Coprocessors
from Z80 (SoftCard) and 6809 (The Mill) up to 68K or
8086 have
been wiedly available, together with fiting OSes (CP/M, OS/9,...)
And I liked the open system where you could start at a well
defined level of clariety, while on the C64 (like the PETs)
you had to start with a stick called peek and poke to find
your way thru the fog of unknown.
Second, I learn that the VIC-20, a predecessor to the
C-64, was better
than it. How is this? Last I heard, it is the VIC that was underpowered
because it only had 8k ram or something like. Please explain; how was it
better?
(it had only 5 K :)
The VIC20 was running at 1 MHz, while the C64 was running at 0.98
MHz (PAL) and did spend a lot time in hold for the video access
(The Apple had a complete hidden video access, so no time was
taken from the CPU). Efectivly the CPU of the C64 was some 13%
slower than the VIC20 (The higher clock rate in the NTSC version
(~ 1.02 MHz) was countered by the higher frame rate :) - and not
to forget that using tricks like sprites again decreased the
performance. With an exception of the 128 in fast mode (and
of course the fast 600/700 Models) the VIC-20 has been the
fastest Commodore 8-Bit computer.
Also the VIC20 Kernal was better designed and even the same
devices (like the 1540) have been supported faster and more
reliable.
And last but not least, the cardridge system, including the
add on box, did make almost an open system - VIC20s with
PET floppies via IEEE bus or VICs as replacement of PETs
have been quite common.
Gruss
Hans
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
9359
days inactive
9362
days old
14 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
adavie＠mad.scientist.com -
ckaiser＠oa.ptloma.edu -
erd＠infinet.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
kurtkilg＠geocities.com -
spc＠armigeron.com