Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:30 am
Page 1 of 2
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:17 am
In that vein, the 25 greatest ev4r computers as voted by some dudes.
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:15 pm
We owned: 25, 13, 8, 6, and 2.
I've used about 10 of the others.
I've used about 10 of the others.
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:22 pm
Did I miss it, or were the C64 and the Vic20 missing from that list? SURELY the C64 belongs there some place.
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:51 pm
Yes! The C64 should have been top 5, easy.Did I miss it, or were the C64 and the Vic20 missing from that list? SURELY the C64 belongs there some place.
Felt like an Apple/IBM bias to me.
Having the 1997 Mac portable? That thing is a joke.
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:57 pm
A floppy disk is a thin, plastic disk that was coated with a magnetic substance used to store data.
Almost expected to see something about cuneiform in that article.
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:43 pm
I figured the Timex Sinclair could be in there as well.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:54 am
A-muthafuckin'-men.Yes! The C64 should have been top 5, easy.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:32 am
Yeah, the list was biased or the writer had blinders on.
I was scanning the comments and everybody seems to agree that not only should the C64 have made the list, but it should have been #1.
I was scanning the comments and everybody seems to agree that not only should the C64 have made the list, but it should have been #1.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:41 pm
My guess is that they are ignorant about that which they are trying to write. Like how Kid Rock won the "Best New Artist" grammy that one year, when in fact he already had (like) 7 albums and 10 years in the industry.Yeah, the list was biased or the writer had blinders on.
Peeps don't know the past but pretend like they do.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:11 pm
C64s were cool. I bought two last year.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:38 pm
I wouldn't put the C64 as #1. I'd put the Apple above the C64 because the Apple really penetrated the market and got PCs into the home. I'd go as far as saying the C64 was a better PC. But the Apple did more for the PC boom than the C64.
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:29 am
I was never impressed w/ the C64. I ended up owning an Atari 800 (which was listed). To be honest, I went with the Atari because it had better video and sound capabilities.
I also liked how open the thinking was on the architecture. If I recall it had a sort of "Basic/DOS" as its native operating system, but I bought an assember cartridge for it and learned a lot about low level logic writing simple programs with assembler.
That took forever. Lots of code to do very little, but by God it did it really fast
Also, they had set up their peripheral devices in a way that I would think of in years to come when dealing with SCSI. Each peripheral type (printer, cassette, floppy) had a built in fixed address depending on what type they were and they'd all plug in one to the next in a daisy chain, all talking on the same bus. I think the floppy drives allowed you to set their "address" so you could have more than one. I know the cassette I/O didn't let you set it and always had to be on the end (which led me to believe in years to come that it was somehow "terminated")
I also liked how open the thinking was on the architecture. If I recall it had a sort of "Basic/DOS" as its native operating system, but I bought an assember cartridge for it and learned a lot about low level logic writing simple programs with assembler.
That took forever. Lots of code to do very little, but by God it did it really fast
Also, they had set up their peripheral devices in a way that I would think of in years to come when dealing with SCSI. Each peripheral type (printer, cassette, floppy) had a built in fixed address depending on what type they were and they'd all plug in one to the next in a daisy chain, all talking on the same bus. I think the floppy drives allowed you to set their "address" so you could have more than one. I know the cassette I/O didn't let you set it and always had to be on the end (which led me to believe in years to come that it was somehow "terminated")
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:30 am
But... like the PC over the Mac debate... the C64 had more games.
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:55 am
If you wanted vid & sound, why didn't you snag an Amiga?
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:11 pm
Atari 800 - 1979
C64 - 1982
Amiga - 1985
Might be one reason why.
C64 - 1982
Amiga - 1985
Might be one reason why.
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:11 pm
I did Machine Language/Basic programming with my C64.
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:15 pm
I beg to differ. I honestly don't know which had more games as there were too many for either system to count. But if you KNOW there were more games for the C64, then I want to know your source.But... like the PC over the Mac debate... the C64 had more games.
And even if the C64 had more, there was NO shortage of games (good ones even) for the Apple II series. So, that's not a valid arguement in my opinion.However, the graphics and sound (especially sound) were MUCH better on the C64.
The Apple's disk drives were something like a billion times faster than the C64's too. Well, maybe not a billion, but they were deffinately WAY faster.
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:33 pm
I had over 800 games for my C64. I didn't have anywhere close to ALL games created for the C64, but we can treat that as a minimum bound of the data set for now. How many did y'all have for the Apple II?
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:31 pm
If you KNOW this, I want your sourceThe Apple's disk drives were something like a billion times faster than the C64's too. Well, maybe not a billion, but they were deffinately WAY faster.