Happy Birthday

[Cakedaddy]

My source is, I had and Apple and my friend had a C64. He was very jealous of my disc drive speeds. It was one of the only things I could say in our C64 vs Apple II debates. Eventually, near the end of it's life cycle, the C64 did get a drive that was as fast as, or maybe faster than my Apple II's. But at that point, we were starting to move towards IBM clones. So, in summary, my source was personal experience.

I had at least 800 games as well. Was in a pirating club that met every Thursday night. We'd share games/copy programs, etc. You'd just leave your floppy case open and then you'd browse other people's libraries. Rule was, when you successfuly coppied a game, you put what app/version you used to copy it on the disk's label along with the game's name. I never even got around to playing probably 60% of the games I had. I'd bet there was about 5% that I never even got around to looking at.

My point is. . . for either system, there were more games than any one person could play. So, saying that one had more games than another as an advantage is weak in my opinion because neither system was lacking. They were both good gaming platforms.

[GORDON]

But... like the PC over the Mac debate... the C64 had more games.

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. 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.

I was comparing C64 to the Atari 800, and my only source is that I never knew anyone, ever, who owned an Atari 800, nor had I ever heard of there being any games for it.

Unlike the C64, which everyone here seems to have owned at one point, and had shitloads of games.

So shut up. Or, should I say "biteme."



Edited By GORDON on 1155849238