Jo22 wrote on 2023-09-27, 14:56:

I agree. The C128 was more of a real Personal Computer with 80 char mode and a Z80 CPU.

The '80 char mode' wasn't a mode. It used an entirely different video chip (the 8563 'VDC', which is not compatible with the VIC-II at all), and it was connected to a different video output.
And indeed it had two CPUs. A Z80, which could run CP/M. And an 8502 at 2 MHz, which had an instructionset that was backwards compatible with the 6510 in the C64, and it could be downclocked to 1 MHz for C64 mode.
It also had a modified version of the VIC-II, the VIC-IIe. This version was modified so it could work with the Z80 and at both 1 and 2 MHz speeds.

So it was almost two computers in one: two different CPUs and two different video chips.

Scali wrote on 2023-09-27, 15:03:

The '80 char mode' wasn't a mode. It used an entirely different video chip (the 8563 'VDC', which is not compatible with the VIC […]
Show full quote

Jo22 wrote on 2023-09-27, 14:56:

I agree. The C128 was more of a real Personal Computer with 80 char mode and a Z80 CPU.

The '80 char mode' wasn't a mode. It used an entirely different video chip (the 8563 'VDC', which is not compatible with the VIC-II at all), and it was connected to a different video output.
And indeed it had two CPUs. A Z80, which could run CP/M. And an 8502 at 2 MHz, which had an instructionset that was backwards compatible with the 6510 in the C64, and it could be downclocked to 1 MHz for C64 mode.
It also had a modified version of the VIC-II, the VIC-IIe. This version was modified so it could work with the Z80 and at both 1 and 2 MHz speeds.

So it was almost two computers in one: two different CPUs and two different video chips.

Wow!

Scali wrote on 2023-09-27, 15:03:

So it was almost two computers in one: two different CPUs and two different video chips.

I know. Interestingly, certain components could be accessed from either operating mode (C64 compatibility, C128 native w/ Basic v7, CP/M boot).

In theory, this would have allowed for interesting things.
Like accessing the 80 char video system from C64 mode.
Or running a CP/M-80 "emulator" on GEOS 128, maybe (using Z80)..

Edit: Too bad the VDC chip wasn't 'back ported' into later iterations of the C64.
It was such a good chip, being capable more than CGA in terms of resolution and colour.

Can't read the whole discussion at this time. But I'll my 2 farthings.

The Commie was compact. Ok so was the Atari 800 and Apple //c. The 64 sold for 100 usd or less (maybe considerably less) in it's final days. At tthat point the breadbins were no more. A friends gave me his 64 w/o a 1541. It died shortly after I bougjt a 1541-II. Eventually I drove to Penn Station (maybe 70 miles) and bought a C64c in a basement shop. Upon arriving home, mom had already pulled out of the driveway and we had a brief conversation. I remember grabbing hold of my commie and rubbing my cheek and/or lips on the box in a display of affection. She drove off laughing as if I was some kind of nut. And I was already the owner of 2 pc's.

The breadbins have this weird attractiveness. They're this particularly nauseating pale brown color. Nothing there to dazzle anyone imho. But I so favor the breadbin version regardless. Maybe it's the logo and colored stripes. Don't know. There's something about that model that makes you want one, even if it's broke! The 64c is cool too. I guess.

If you were lucky enough to fall in with a hip 64 crowd back in the day. Or haunted bbs's, you'd quickly realize how much was being done with it, here in the US and abroad. For me the stuff Europeans were doing with it was especially remarkable. Odd little games and such. Tapping it's capabilities to the max. Compute mmagazine also had the cover disks. One had a house rotating all over the screen, albeit very slowly, exhibiting 3d programming.

It's been said the Great Masters were great because they really really appreciated what they had, the paltry materials they had to work with. So a dork gets a budget, albeit feature rich computer and manufactures marvels with it. Kind of the same thing.

The first computer my fingers ever touch was an Atari 400 in school. I hated the thing. If we had 800s maybe I would have had a more positive opinion of computers early on. I did take COBOL and FORTRAN the following year utilizing weird teletype terminals. But I must say although the Atari 800 is built like the brick craphouse the C64 could only dream of being, I still don't know a lot about it or it's capabilities. Would like to see a comparison thread comparing the two. And hoping it gets real nasty (a joke).

Also want to add great books were written to learn programming and whatever else for the Commie. Due to the 30 million units manufactured (is that accurate?) everything was more accessible. I learned assembler on it very easily. Although a friend gave me MASM for the Tandy 2000, that schnitzel got thrown at the wall multiple times. I had to find the right book to readily absorb 8086 assembler.

kant explain wrote on 2023-09-27, 17:28:

If you were lucky enough to fall in with a hip 64 crowd back in the day. Or haunted bbs's, you'd quickly realize how much was being done with it, here in the US and abroad. For me the stuff Europeans were doing with it was especially remarkable. Odd little games and such. Tapping it's capabilities to the max. Compute mmagazine also had the cover disks. One had a house rotating all over the screen, albeit very slowly, exhibiting 3d programming.

BBSes? I'm curious, who in his/her right mind did use 40 char terminal programs? 🤷‍♂️
And if so, in which time frame did this happen?
Or were these special Commodore BBSes? Using PetSCII instead of ASCII ? Like Q-Link?

Or was an 80 character emulator being run (I know there's an Public Domain program that did simulate 80x25 in software on C64)?

Because, from what I know, 80x24 (+25th status line) was the defacto terminal standard (physical VT52, VT100 etc) and the C64 couldn't do that.

It's hard to imagine that generic BBS/mailbox systems limited themselves to menus in 40x25.
That's like what a RTTY/morse code keyboard had used in the 1970s or so. Or a ZX81/Timex 1000.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxXi8yCW8kM

Heck, the C64 alone couldn't even do proper Videotex, due to colour limitations (the national BTX service in my country required/demanded 480×240 @32 colours out of 4096 minimum; at same time. The Amiga 1000 could do that, while on its limits).

That's why an external BTX module with its own video output was sold to C64 owners (there were software-based decoders, yes, but they were semi-legal).
http://www.zimmers.net/cbmpics/ouser5.html

Edit: Comparison C64 software-decoder vs hardware-decoder ( source ).

The software solution is doing surprisingly well, but is missing colours, so proper rendering of pages isn't (wasn't) being guaranteed.
No idea if it got a license by the postal/telephone ministry that way. 🤷‍♂️

On PC, not even EGA and plain VGA could do full BTX at the time (1980s).
The early SVGA cards capable of at least 640x400 in 256c did, however. They were available since February 1988, Afaik.
Or someone could use any other graphics hardware, if Windows 1.x or 2.x was used as a device driver.

And even Packet-Radio on amateur radio used 80x25 by default, if I'm not mistaken.
Because, the TNC devices used a serial connection and could work with any serial terminal, thus.

Including popular ones like VT-100 or an ordinary IBM PC running terminal.exe included with MS Windows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6_PNpWEhNc

Okay, to be fair, BayCom's popular DigiCom system was based on a C64 and likely stuck to 40x25.
But it was quickly being superseded by the BayCom package for PC,
on which programs like Graphic Packet ran, in full VGA resolution, capable of 80x25.

Anyway, some things were before my time, so I'd like to apologize for my ignorance. 🙂

Yes, C64 had their own BBS systems, like C-Net:
https://commodore.software/downloads/category/468-c-net

Scali wrote on 2023-09-27, 18:15:

Yes, C64 had their own BBS systems, like C-Net:
https://commodore.software/downloads/category/468-c-net

Cool, thanks a lot! 😃

I've just found a YT video about someone calling a real C64 BBS via 2400 Baud telephone modem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bce1dNJenCo

The user is using an Apple II w/ ProTERM, though.

There also were other videos, but they apparently mostly involve those strange modem emulators (communication over internet).

The first time I used a modem was in 1993 iorc. Someone gave me an accoustic coupler thingee a few years earlier. I never really figured it out. I needed a driver for an HP 386 tower (RS/20? Loved that pile of garbage. Don't know why I sold it). Never used a C64 to telecommunicate. I only knew that's where some of the esoteric stuff was found. I was an emi tecnician and tne calibration lab had a club and a file cabinet full of disks you could borrow. These were mostly all older guys, I was 22. But 1 guy in particular, late 20s was the "hacker". He knew where to find all the stuff, knew how to circumvent many of the copy protection schemes, etc. I'd like to give his name, won't, but it was humorous, in a positive way. Like almost a cartoon name someone made up. Shades of Stevie Ray Vaughn.

There was this 1 game, a little android looking thing, that ran around this 3d maze as I recall. I never figured out how to beat the game. It always ended where I made the droid go to the wrong somewhere, and it letting out a painful cry. I believe it was programmed by someone in Europe.

I had written a long and resource-intensive post about this topic, then I decided to not post it as it was too long winded and most wouldn't have read it.

Long story short: PCs are dull, a beige representation of the most beige of the beigest office days. They were born as work tools and work tools only and took an inordinate amount of time before they became generalist machines to which people would attach POSITIVE memories - playing games, working on school projects with your mates, doing something creative and so on. Even when they got there, there was still that "office" connotation; I was an avid reader of computing-related publications in the 1990s...and they were all approaching things from the point of view of the "practicality in the office", even in the mid-late 1990s when PCs were established a versatile machines and present in a relevant share of households.

Conversely, machines like the Commodore 64, Amiga, ZX Spectrum, Atari ST, BBC Micro etc. all entered people's life as primarily general tools on which to create, play, learn things you like and generally do things you were interested in. They NEVER had that "I use this at work" connotation to them and come with a plethora of positive memories; These platforms where also revolutionary in their nature, compared to the PC evolutionary path.

Most importantly, the main reason is that things like the C64 were unique; The fact it was "just one computer" is EXACTLY why they're so popular to this day.

Take 1000 PC users from the 1990s and they'll have 1000 different experiences: 1000 different configurations, 1000 different keyboards, 1000 different mice and so on. They won't agree on the sound their PC made while running and they won't even agree on the smell coming out of the case.

Now take 1000 Commodore 64 users from the 1980s (or 1000 users of any microcomputer): They will all recognize the sound of the keyboard immediately, the feel of the case, even the smell that the heated components make when the system has been on for a few hours.

When I switch on my retro 486, even if it has an identical case to the one I had in 1994, I find the same programs and games, but it's NOT the same experience I had as a teenager.
If I take out one of the 2 C64s I have...even the sound of the power switch brings me immediately back to 1986, and it will be the same for every single user of the machine.

I have to totally disagree. Memories are triggered by any number of things. I painted a table recently with green Rustoleum enamel (with a brush). I may never have used green Rustoleum before, but the smell reminded me of something IMMEDIATELY - painting an Aurora Godzilla model with undoubtedly Testor's brand green enamel paint. Circa 1978. I never used much of their paint. But that smell of the pigment and medium combination rocketed me back.

I love the C64. I have fondness for many computers. I also love certain PCs. No most of them were not manufactured with facilities specific to gaming (somewhat though starting with the PCjr and Tandy 1000, and perhaps to a lesser degree the various Sanyo models). They were real computers, not glorified multi purpose gaming consoles. If you were shopping for a first computer around 1985, a PC clone was the only thing that made good sense. Spend 5-600$ on a game computer, spend a grand on an Atari ST or Amiga. Or rougjly an rquivalent amount on a clone. Even a Taiwanese clone was a tremendous value.

I love what people have and are doing with the Commie. But you won't learn much about real computers, by comparuson anyway. It's really a shiny toy.

Back in the 80s, a Commodore 64 *was* a 'real computer'. It wasn't a toy, it could do the same things that all the other options on the market could do. It was just one of the cheapest options, which made it by far the most popular.
I learnt a lot on my C64, like learning to program in BASIC, and having my first experience with assembly.
I eventually became a software engineer.
We also had a printer, so I used a word processor on my C64 to do school projects and such. My father used it to keep track of some hobby stuff in databases and such.

The notion of buying a PC for personal use in 1985 is crazy. Have you ever looked at the prices?
Most people simply couldn't afford PCs at home.
My first PC in 1988 was a Commodore PC10-III, which cost 2000 guilders (640k, Hercules, no HDD).
You could probably buy 5 C64s for that amount, if not more.
And that PC certainly wasn't 5 times as good. In 1985 it would have been even more expensive (I believe a real IBM PC 5150 was over 5000 guilders). You simply can't compare.

The strength of the C64 was that it brought a proper computer to the home of millions of people.
In those days, it was not common that every household had a computer, and, especially given the cost, it was not exactly the highest priority of most families to get a computer.
The C64 broke down that barrier.

A Tandy 1000 in late 1985 was 1000 usd with a monitor. A crappy monitor most people would say, even the upgrade, which brought the price to 1300 give or take, was still crap. I bought one, tje upgraded package that is. Not to argue but it was 10x the computer a C64 was. When I discovered BYTE magazine, I realized there were much better options" particularly the quality of displays, and returned the Tandy.

Yes the Commodore was a real computer. Calling it a toy is an expression which serves to distinguish something with far less capability. Any "home" computer's featutes paled in comparison to even a budget pc. The Atari 520 ST cost exactly the same amount as a T1K in late 1985. I don't know how much an Amiga 500 was, if even released at that point. The Atari had great graphics. The Amiga had interlaced video at higj resolution, so therefore wasn't an consideration for me.

Good news, out of the pile, there were at least two usable terminal programs for C64 with 80 column support, thus matching standard printer resolution (was 80 columns, too).

It's Term 80 and X-Term. The latter is by Markt&Technik, no surprise.

(ANSI Term had experimental 80 column support, not sure if it made it into regular version.)

(Edit: Please note that a monochrome monitor was needed to make out 80 columns on screen.
A colour monitor was too fuzzy, unless it had a monochrome mode or a separate chroma/luma input (say, C1701/C1702 monitors).
Unfortunately, the C64 has dirty luma output thanks to the bad RF unit and the noisy VIC II.
That's why I had to open my C64 and cut the chroma line in the RF unit. Now it's a little bit better on the green monitor. Colour can still be gotten by using a chroma/luma video cable.)

The rest seems to be stuck in in 40 column operations.
Though I'm not sure if they have a "virtual screen" or not.

That's what the terminal program on my dad's Sharp MZ-80K had back in late 70s/early 80s.

Because of the screen being merely 40 columns wide, which wasn't enough for professional work, the terminal program had implemented some sort of screen scrolling.

There were "another" 40 columns on the right, so to say. Like in a simple typewriter program. Or maybe it were 120 columns in total (a letter's length) ?

Anyway, the same code was used to get CP/M running on that system.
The Sharp wasn't spectacular, but thanks to the Z80 and the clean memory
(no BASIC in RAM, full RAM available to CP/M) it could run programs like MBASIC and Turbo Pascal.

Essentially like a Commodore 128 could, in CP/M mode.

The Sharp merely required a floppy interface and a modified BIOS (CP/M component).

That's why I think that Commodore really missed an opportunity here.

If it had installed a NEC V20 instead of an Z80, it wouldn't have had been so outdated and could have had booten DOS.

By about 1984, the CP/M platform was becoming a legacy platform. A big one, but with declining importance and user base.

If the Commodore had a NEC V20, it could have had also been able to run a few pure CP/M programs not requiring Z80 instructions (8-Bit Turbo Pascal was out, though).

Optionally, the Basic V7 could also have been turned into a DOS program or a booter application then.

No, in my experience a Tandy 1000 is certainly not 10x the computer a C64 was.
Games on the C64 were generally far better than on any PC, because of better graphics, sound and controllers.
You got smooth scrolling with lots of hardware sprites, and very responsive digital joysticks, great for fast arcade action, like shoot-em-ups etc.
You didn't get this sort of game on PC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns27OmISmos

An Amiga 500 will have a Tandy 1000 for breakfast. Even an Atari ST is a better choice than a Tandy 1000, despite not having the advanced chipset that an Amiga has. It still had 68000 CPU which was far superior to an 8088 or 8086, and the graphics were still superior to CGA, EGA and Tandy graphics.
The sound of an ST is more or less on par with a Tandy 1000, but the Amiga has far superior sample-based music.

A Tandy 1000 is a toy really. It's a PC clone in a cheap plastic case to get the price down, and it adopts the PCjr's enhanced graphics and audio to make it less completely unsuitable for games, music and such. But it still wasn't exactly good at any of it. It was just one of the best allround PC clones of the day: cheap, compatible, and with the best graphics and sound of the day (in retrospect, IBM almost got it right with the PCjr, how silly of them that they discontinued it instead of coming up with a machine like the Tandy 1000 themselves. They were so close). But still only a PC clone. And the PC was a VERY VERY poor platform to start from, compared to the competition.

Scali wrote on 2023-09-28, 13:53:

A Tandy 1000 is a toy really. It's a PC clone in a cheap plastic case to get the price down, and it adopts the PCjr's enhanced graphics and audio to make it less completely unsuitable for games, music and such. But it still wasn't exactly good at any of it. It was just one of the best allround PC clones of the day: cheap, compatible, and with the best graphics and sound of the day (in retrospect, IBM almost got it right with the PCjr, how silly of them that they discontinued it instead of coming up with a machine like the Tandy 1000 themselves. They were so close). But still only a PC clone. And the PC was a VERY VERY poor platform to start from, compared to the competition.

I'm merely a European, but I always thought that the Tandy 1000 was an US American phenomenon.

The guys over the big pond were struggling with home computers thanks to the big video game crash caused by Atari 2600 and its large game library of poor games.

That's why the NES was so popular, it looked like a VCR and Nintendo oversaw a quality control for the games.

The Tandy 1000 then came along and served two purposes - it could play games and run same software from work, too.

But I agree, the Tandy 1000 wasn't so great in retrospect. The Tandy 2000, which was first, was of a much better design, I think.
Alas, it wasn't PC Jr compatible, of course. 😔

It had the fastest x86 processor (80186) at the time and a fine screen resolution of 640x400 - just like the Olivetti M24's CGA.
Except that it was in colour rather than black/white (twice the CGA colours, at least or maybe 16).
No wonder it was used for MS Windows development back in the day.

Edit: Another factor also was Tandy/RadioShack's position back then, I assume.
It was a very large and popular electronics chain. Tinkerers and radio amateurs had traditionally bought their DIY stuff and equipment at RadioShack.
In some way or another, it was the DELL of its time.
So it made sense that the Tandy 1000 line sold rather well.

Alien Syndrome was a better experience on the C64 then the actual arcade version imo. Probably owing to it's hardware sprites. No PC had them. Why? Becauae it was a feature of game computers/consoles. People love their games, so do I. But enumerating all the features present in gaming computers and stating unequivocally that's what makes a better computer leaves me scratching my head. I don't want to be contentious. You're entitled to your opinion. The C64 was and still is a GREAT computer. But obviously it had it's limitations.

Ikari Warriors on a Tandy 1000 was pretty good as I recall. Ok I'm lying. I never ran it on a 1000, but rather a 1000TX? or TL? Externally looked like a 1000A. But had a 286. On my ITT Xtra XP (80286 w/cga on vga) it didn't run as well, or just similar to the Arcade. The C64, Ataris, Amigas were all about game development. It's only natural that they generally excelled at games.

For a person like me who began learning much about computer innards very early on, an Amiga or Atari were scary propositions. So many asics. I have fixed pc's in the 80 for under 1 usd in parts.

The issue of the Tandy 1000 case is Holy Ground bubba. Best not tred there. And for Heaven's sake don't deride the Tandy 2000s case. They were beautiful. And required a considerable outlay by the company initially because large injection molding dies had to be sourced. 10s of thousands. In the long run it may have been cheaper. Probably was. But they were very stylish and lovely. And if taken care of will last 100 years.

Jo22 wrote on 2023-09-28, 14:21:

I'm merely a European, but I always thought that the Tandy 1000 was an US American phenomenon.

Mostly, yes. Tandy was a brand of Radio Shack, and it was only sold through their stores. They did try to set up some European stores through InterTAN, but it never really took off.
In the US, Radio Shack was a huge electronics retailer on the other hand.

Jo22 wrote on 2023-09-28, 14:21:

The guys over the big pond were struggling with home computers thanks to the big video game crash caused by Atari 2600 and its large game library of poor games.

I don't think that was the problem really. The thing is that US people were simply much richer than Europeans were. People in the US had a larger disposable income on average than in Europe.
So where European computers were generally designed to be as cheap as possible (with the Sinclair ZX80 possibly being the most minimalist machine ever created), Americans could spend the extra money on a 'business machine' like an Apple, IBM or such.
Which also meant that even the Commodore 64, the most popular computer of all time, was never that big in the US. Nothing like how it was in Western Europe.

The Atari ST and Amiga 500 were also designed with the same philosophy as the Commodore 64 and other 8-bit machines: a machine that was affordable, offered huge bang for the buck, and could easily be used on a regular TV set, so you could hook it up in the living room or such. It didn't require dedicated desk space with a dedicated monitor.

The PCjr, Tandy 1000 and Amstrad PC1512/PC1640 more or less applied that philosophy to the PC platform, but could never quite reach the bang-for-the-buck of these alternatives, because the PC platform just lacked the custom chipsets that made the magic.

Jo22 wrote on 2023-09-28, 14:21:

The Tandy 1000 then came along and served two purposes - it could play games and run same software from work, too.

Yup, that didn't really become a thing in Europe until the early 90s, when PCs became affordable enough.
Before that, Europeans mostly used home computers at home, and business machines at work.

kant explain wrote on 2023-09-28, 14:21:

Alien Syndrome was a better experience on the C64 then the actual arcade version imo. Probably owing to it's hardware sprites. No PC had them. Why? Becauae it was a feature of game computers/consoles.

By that logic, PCs wouldn't have 3D accelerators either.
But even the cheapest PC with the most low-end CPU with integrated graphics will have 3D acceleration and video decoding these days.
There's no excuse why PCs didn't have hardware sprites (at the very least, a mouse cursor is also a sprite).

It's a crazy myth that computers that have better sound and graphics are somehow NOT capable of running business software. It makes no sense whatsoever. And in the light of the capabilities of PC graphics today, it makes no sense to still believe in that myth, because the evidence to the contrary is staring you right in the face.

Jo22 wrote on 2023-09-28, 14:21:

I'm merely a European, but I always thought that the Tandy 1000 was an US American phenomenon. […]
Show full quote

I'm merely a European, but I always thought that the Tandy 1000 was an US American phenomenon.

The guys over the big pond were struggling with home computers thanks to the big video game crash caused by Atari 2600 and its large game library of poor games.

That's why the NES was so popular, it looked like a VCR and Nintendo oversaw a quality control for the games.

The Tandy 1000 then came along and served two purposes - it could play games and run same software from work, too.

But I agree, the Tandy 1000 wasn't so great in retrospect. The Tandy 2000, which was first, was of a much better design, I think.
Alas, it wasn't PC Jr compatible, of course. 😔

It had the fastest x86 processor (80186) at the time and a fine screen resolution of 640x400 - just like the Olivetti M24's CGA.
Except that it was in colour rather than black/white (twice the CGA colours, at least or maybe 16).
No wonder it was used for MS Windows development back in the day.

My mother was merely a European (Hrvatska). Please.

The Tandy 2000 was a marvel(ous tragedy). It was made well. It had to be. The excess inventory was eventually consigned to every store's back office computer. Actually it only could do 8 colors at 640 x 400, which was indescribable compared to even enhanced CGA. For some bizarte reason Tandy opted for a graphics chipset t from a little known company called SMC. Why they didn't go with the NEC upd7220 well was probably to do with cost. Who knows.

The Tandy 2000 was better then the original IBM PC or PC/XT in really all respects. It had every high density chip.a vanilla pc haf, except for the 8237 dma controller. The 186's facilities for that were used I guess. Another teason for incompatibility. In 1986 if you spent 2500 us on a clone with a sigma 400 card and a Princeton monitor, you'd habe the equivalent (or likely better) graphics as the 2000. You migjt have a turbo 8088, which was fine enough. But that was too much for me. I didn't buy another computer, a 2000, until 1987. They were pretty cheap at tjat point.

Scali gaming interests are the monstrous unstoppable force behind especially hardware and software development in today's world. In the early 2000s hacker's found using a gpu to brute force password guessing was far fasterthen using the cpu. A phenomenon that cteated the cryptocurrency infrastructure. That's how I understand it anyway. You use your gpu to decrypt encryption codes. PC's are gaming machines these days. And graphic designers and whoever the hell else benefit from that.