^The Atari Mega series and Amiga 1000/2000 can be considered desktop PCs, I think.
Distant cousins of the IBM AT, so to say. They also have mice as a standard, like most ATs did in their later life.

Edit: The C64 had GEOS, which even was bundled with the computer for a brief moment.
If only a mouse was included! A joystick mouse, at least. So close! *sigh*

*explanation: There are two mice types on C64.
- Joystick mice, acting like a joystick (need no drivers)
- Analogue mice, using X/X puns of the SID chip (require software support; later GEOS has it).

Lol, the Atari had one redeeming value: onboard MIDI.
Even though inexpensive MIDI interfaces could be added to nearly any system out there (the go-to Atari ST software Cubase actually started life on a Commodore 64, as "Pro 16", then an Atari ST version "Pro 24" was released, before finally becoming Cubase), I guess 'free' is better than 'inexpensive'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex9hSc1iolw

Plenty of high-end graphics boards for Amiga existed, and also the cheaper 'flicker fixer' devices. That was never an issue.
Just another one of those urban myths from people who weren't around at the time, and have never actually used the systems.
And I've never actually seen anyone use an Atari ST for professional use either. Its graphics weren't that good.

To me, the Atari ST is Atari's PC:
It was rushed to market, based mostly around off-the-shelf parts and various kludges, and its success can't be explained by logic.

kant explain wrote on 2023-12-23, 16:20:

The Apple IIs had expandability the C64 didn't.

Like what?

kant explain wrote on 2023-12-23, 16:20:

it was a much superior solution.

In what way?
As far as I see it, they were both 6502-based systems, with the same limitations. The C64 just had the superior hardware (on an Apple II you don't even have any kind of system timer, you need a Mockingboard to get one, where the C64 has two timer chips and then another timing-related feature in its scanline interrupt).
The C64 can do everything the Apple II can, and more.

Scali wrote on 2023-12-23, 16:24:

Lol, the Atari had one redeeming value: onboard MIDI.
Even though inexpensive MIDI interfaces could be added to nearly any system out there (the go-to Atari ST software Cubase actually started life on a Commodore 64), I guess 'free' is better than 'inexpensive'.

It could do read MS-DOS diskettes, too.
But to be fair, TOS 1.04, which had best support for it, was released in late '89 or so.

Scali wrote on 2023-12-23, 16:24:

Plenty of high-end graphics boards for Amiga existed, and also the cheaper 'flicker fixer' devices. That was never an issue.
Just another one of those urban myths from people who weren't around at the time, and have never actually used the systems.
And I've never actually seen anyone use an Atari ST for professional use either. Its graphics weren't that good.

True. I've always tried to be fair here, btw.
The flicker-fixer/scandoublers (not necessarily exactly same thing btw) were useful.

They allowed attaching a high-quality mult-sync monitor even before MCGA/VGA was mainstream.
The Amiga 2000 (and 1500 etc) had a video slot for that purpose.

Again, I never made fun of the Amiga 2000.
It fits in same category as an IBM AT or an Macintosh II.

It was used in professional productions, too.
Animators used the A2000 quite often, too.

Hardware-wise, it was close to the A500.
The software even was labeled A500/2000.

If only Commodore had marketed the A2000 better.
An in-between model of the A500 and A2000 would have been nice.

Or, Commodore could have released an A2000 motherboard in Baby AT form factor.

The technology was there. The A500 motherboard is barely bigger.

Jo22 wrote on 2023-12-23, 16:38:

It could do read MS-DOS diskettes, too.

As could the Amiga.

With Scali, it always seems to be about a weird turf war. Attempting to argue a c64 is as expandable as an Apple II. Trying to argue a flicker fixer magically creates 400 lines of non interlaced video. You know you're dealing with an ideolog when nothing negative can EVER be found with their favorite puter/s. The C64 after all is superior to EVERY other computer that came out (not manufactured.by Commodore that is) until at least 1995. You had to give M$ a few years to catch up. It was only fair.

I guess it's my fault, though. I just saw the article at golem.de today and couldn't resist mentioning it.
So close before Christmas emotions run high and low.
Bad timing, I suppose. Sorry about that. 🙁

Edit: At least this topic doesn't lack diversity, maybe.
Whoever reads this will find both good pros/cons between the lines.
Which kind of was the point of it, more or less.

It is MOST DEFINITELY all your fault 😀

And a very Merry Christmas to all! Including Scali.

Hah, okay. 😅 Also Merry Christmas to you and all the others! 🎅⛄

kant explain wrote on 2023-12-23, 16:47:

With Scali, it always seems to be about a weird turf war. Attempting to argue a c64 is as expandable as an Apple II.

Oh really now?
You're the one who makes vague claims that the Apple II is "more expandable", without explaining what that means... even after I explained that the cartridge port can be expanded to multiple slots.
I'm just calling you out on your claims, which you apparently don't want to support.
Instead you go for personal attacks.

kant explain wrote on 2023-12-23, 16:47:

Trying to argue a flicker fixer magically creates 400 lines of non interlaced video.

That is exactly what it does, actually (or well, it's not magic, it's just simple technology).
It buffers the interlaced scanlines and then outputs a progressive image based on both the even and odd scanlines put together.
So NTSC will give you 480 lines of non-interlaced video, and PAL will give you 512 lines of non-interlaced video when using a flicker fixer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fixer

You can always make a computer expandable with cables, external enclosures, etc. The point is that stuff is oftentimes awkwardky ADDED to your favorite game console. It doesn't prove anything. And I'm not so sure all the control signals are available at the cartridge port. As are in an Apple IIs card slot.

Before the Amiga and elsewhere those devices were accurately designated "scan doublers". I know what they do. They DO NOT produce any additional resolution. They simply double the appearance of the 200/240 scan lines. No additional resolution is created.

I didn't attack you. And even wished you a MC. Now I'm attacking you. You're a argumentative noodle head. There. The truth is out.

It sounds like you just don't know what an interlaced signal is then. The resolution is already there.
Also, I don't think "I don't know how the C64's expansion ports work" is a very strong argument.
The SuperCPU was already discussed earlier: apparently the cartridge port allows you to plug in an entire CPU replacement.

Funny how that works. Someone makes some nonsensical claims, unprovoked.
Then when they are called out on these claims, it is the other who is argumentative...
Nope, you're the argumentative one, you shoot your mouth off about things you don't understand, and then can't handle when you get called out.

"The resolution is already there"

- entirely nonsensical. Of course the resolution is already there. There just is the same addressable reolution after employing a scan doubler/flicker fixer. No resolution is added.

The assertion by you was an Apple II is no more expandable then a C64. I said ALL computers can be made to be more expandable. But a purchaser won't often look at aftermarket BULLSHIT at ADDITIONAL EXPENSE. They'll look at what it has out of the box. The IBM PC had an entire case that you could plug 8 additional cards into (but already had it's BUILT IN expansion capability). Tecmar offered something similar also. You could get a Racor and whatever else for a PC Junior. You could add FULL IBM PC COMPATIBILITY to a TI-99/4a via an external chassis. Hell you could get the MIMIC for the C64 to add APPLE II COMPATIBILITY to a C64 to make it into a real puter. Then there's that turdish looking thing you brought to our attention. I said forthright I didn't know if a c64 cartridge slot ran every possible control line out. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. It's entirely besides the point. Out of the box an Apple II is CLEARLY more expandable.

kant explain wrote on 2023-12-23, 18:04:

- entirely nonsensical. Of course the resolution is already there. There just is the same addressable reolution after employing a scan doubler/flicker fixer. No resolution is added.

Just now you were arguing that you don't get 400-line modes... As I said, interlaced NTSC is already 480 lines, and interlaced PAL is already 512 lins, so you already have more than 400 lines in these modes.
And now you agree that indeed you already have the 400+line resolution, but now this is somehow "nonsensical"?
I wonder if you yourself even follow what point it actually is that you're trying to make.
You might want to look up how NTSC and PAL handle interlacing, what fields are, and how they relate to frames.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video
And then how deinterlacing works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinterlacing

Speaking of which, the Amiga is one of the few computers I know of, where the hardware is actively aware of fields. Most implementations of interlacing will simply have a progressive framebuffer which is scanned out by the signal generation circuit in even and odd fields.
When you enable interlacing on the Amiga, you get two copperlists, one for even fields and one for odd fields. For each copperlist you can create entirely different parameters if you like, use entirely different bitplanes, resolution and whatnot. So you get full control over the even and odd fields as two separate videomodes. Only the switching between the copperlists is done automatically by the video hardware. The rest is all up to what you put into the copperlists.

kant explain wrote on 2023-12-23, 18:04:

The assertion by you was an Apple II is no more expandable then a C64. I said ALL computers can be made to be more expandable. But a purchaser won't often look at aftermarket BULLSHIT at ADDITIONAL EXPENSE.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Expansions are aftermarket peripherals at additional expense by definition.

kant explain wrote on 2023-12-23, 18:04:

They'll look at what it has out of the box. The IBM PC had an entire case that you could plug 8 additional cards into (but already had it's BUILT IN expansion capability).

And somehow when you show the exact same concept for the C64, it somehow doesn't count.
They're all essentially the same concept: there's a single bus that is exposed, and given the way the bus works, you can attach devices to it in parallel, so you can make as many slots as you want, in theory.
Again, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Ok, if what I've said is confusing somewhat, an Amiga w/a Flicker Fixer actually does produce 400 line non interlaced video. But it doesn't give anymore addressable resolution then a stock Amiga. It regurgitates each line below that line, so you're getting a contiguous image that more or less LOOKS LIKE you were using an Atari ST or Tandy 2000, both of which actually put out 400 linea of addreasable resolution. You could add a similar device to an IBM with CGA card and on say a Tandy CM-1 get again more or less the illusion of 400 contiguous line. That's why I couldn't stand thw original Tandy 1000, and especially it's grainy CGA video with dot pitches measured with centimeters not millimeters. I returned it and eventually bought a 2000. And Multisync II. The Amiga is a wonderful machine. If you can bear looking at it's text. Quite horrible. For me. Good clear text (and graphics) matters a lot to me.

kant explain wrote on 2023-12-23, 18:25:

Ok, if what I've said is confusing somewhat, an Amiga w/a Flicker Fixer actually does produce 400 line non interlaced video. But it doesn't give anymore addressable resolution then a stock Amiga.

But the stock-Amiga already had the 480-line (NTSC) or 512-line (PAL) resolution.
https://amiga.lychesis.net/articles/ScreenModes.html

kant explain wrote on 2023-12-23, 18:25:

It regurgitates each line below that line

No it doesn't.

kant explain wrote on 2023-12-23, 18:25:

so you're getting a contiguous image that more or less LOOKS LIKE you were using an Atari ST or Tandy 2000, both of which actually put out 400 linea of addreasable resolution.

No, because THE RESOLUTION IS ALREADY THERE.
It is only interlaced because standard TVs and NTSC/PAL-spec monitors can't display it without interlacing.
If you connect a monitor that actually has the required resolution, then you just need to deinterlace the signal to remove the flicker. The resolution was already there in the interlaced signal.

kant explain wrote on 2023-12-23, 18:25:

You could add a similar device to an IBM with CGA card and on say a Tandy CM-1 get again more or less the illusion of 400 contiguous line.

No you couldn't, because IBM CGA doesn't HAVE interlaced modes. It doesn't have anything more than 200-line progressive scan. It has no 400-line interlaced mode that you can de-interlace into a 400-line progressive mode in any way.
You don't understand what interlacing is, you are now confusing it with scan-doubling.
On an Amiga you already HAVE the 480/512-line modes. You just turn them from interlaced to progressive with a flicker fixer.
You are somehow confusing the progressive 240/256-line modes of the Amiga. Yes it has those as well, but those don't have flicker, since they're not interlaced, and that's not what a flicker fixer is addressing.

Scali wrote on 2023-12-23, 18:19:

Just now you were arguing that you don't get 400-line modes... As I said, interlaced NTSC is already 480 lines, and interlaced P […]
Show full quote

kant explain wrote on 2023-12-23, 18:04:

- entirely nonsensical. Of course the resolution is already there. There just is the same addressable reolution after employing a scan doubler/flicker fixer. No resolution is added.

Just now you were arguing that you don't get 400-line modes... As I said, interlaced NTSC is already 480 lines, and interlaced PAL is already 512 lins, so you already have more than 400 lines in these modes.
And now you agree that indeed you already have the 400+line resolution, but now this is somehow "nonsensical"?
I wonder if you yourself even follow what point it actually is that you're trying to make.
You might want to look up how NTSC and PAL handle interlacing, what fields are, and how they relate to frames.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video
And then how deinterlacing works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinterlacing

Speaking of which, the Amiga is one of the few computers I know of, where the hardware is actively aware of fields. Most implementations of interlacing will simply have a progressive framebuffer which is scanned out by the signal generation circuit in even and odd fields.
When you enable interlacing on the Amiga, you get two copperlists, one for even fields and one for odd fields. For each copperlist you can create entirely different parameters if you like, use entirely different bitplanes, resolution and whatnot. So you get full control over the even and odd fields as two separate videomodes. Only the switching between the copperlists is done automatically by the video hardware. The rest is all up to what you put into the copperlists.

kant explain wrote on 2023-12-23, 18:04:

The assertion by you was an Apple II is no more expandable then a C64. I said ALL computers can be made to be more expandable. But a purchaser won't often look at aftermarket BULLSHIT at ADDITIONAL EXPENSE.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Expansions are aftermarket peripherals at additional expense by definition.

kant explain wrote on 2023-12-23, 18:04:

They'll look at what it has out of the box. The IBM PC had an entire case that you could plug 8 additional cards into (but already had it's BUILT IN expansion capability).

And somehow when you show the exact same concept for the C64, it somehow doesn't count.
They're all essentially the same concept: there's a single bus that is exposed, and given the way the bus works, you can attach devices to it in parallel, so you can make as many slots as you want, in theory.
Again, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

The bounds of ntsc/pal have absolutely nothing to do with anything. Clearly the Amiga puts out high resolution. But you can't call a tv set or even a composite monitor a basis for professional data processing.

There's no way of convincing these words on my screen (I really am beginning to think you're a bot) of anything. If an Amiga could display (whatever) non interlaced on a 1084s, which admittedly isn't a horrible monitor, it would not be of the visual quality of some of the examples I gave in my previous post.

You are unwilling the admit the computers you,clearly at this point venerate, have any limitations at all. And you feign a lack of clarity when it's explaimed with utmost clarity. There's no point in arguing any further.

kant explain wrote on 2023-12-23, 18:39:

The bounds of ntsc/pal have absolutely nothing to do with anything. Clearly the Amiga puts out high resolution. But you can't call a tv set or even a composite monitor a basis for professional data processing.

You are making less sense with every post.
Now you agree that the Amiga actually DOES output high resolution.
And now you argue about a TV set or composite monitor... Wait what? The original point was to drive a high-resolution monitor from the Amiga, wasn't it?
Well, you can, as I said. Either with a flicker fixer, which effectively doubles the scan rate by deinterlacing the interlaced PAL/NTSC signal (so 31 KHz instead of ~15 kHz), or by using an optional graphics card that drives the monitor directly at the higher scan rates.

kant explain wrote on 2023-12-23, 18:39:

There's no way of convincing these words on my screen (I really am beginning to think you're a bot) of anything. If an Amiga could display (whatever) non interlaced on a 1084s, which admittedly isn't a horrible monitor, it would not be of the visual quality of some of the examples I gave in my previous post.

Sounds like you're the bot, or troll or whatever, because you've clearly gone from arguing about connecting the Amiga to a high res monitor, like the Atari ST can, to now arguing about the standard monitor that the Amiga is often coupled with, which obviously is not a high res monitor, no matter what machine you connect it to.
What am I to make of it? Once you started to understand that flicker fixers indeed DO allow you to connect a VGA monitor and drive it at 640x480 and 640x512, you now change your argument entirely?

kant explain wrote on 2023-12-23, 18:39:

You are unwilling the admit the computers you,clearly at this point venerate, have any limitations at all. And you feign a lack of clarity when it's explaimed with utmost clarity. There's no point in arguing any further.

That's all in your head.
If you actually read what I say, I never deny any limitations (except when they're untrue, such as your claims about "expandability").
The thing is, I actually used C64s and Amigas back in the day, so I and my peers actually ran into these limitations in real-life, and various solutions and workarounds have been found. Heck, the Amiga 3000 even came with a flicker fixer preinstalled. So you can't even use the "not out of the box" argument either.
You are unwilling to accept these solutions and workarounds. There's no point in arguing any further.

The C64, nor the Amiga 1000/2000, were suitable for business computing. That was my basic argument from the getgo many pages ago. A person who states a PCjr is every bit as suitable for a business environment as a real PC on account of some aftermarket hacks is going to have an awful hard time convincing a prospective buyer to give it a go. It seems you argue every point regardless. Units have specific features out of the box. You claim it doesn't matter as an add-on can make it all seem kosher. Apples don't become oranges just because you skap orange paint on them.

Was I conflating scan doubling and flicker fixing? Yes I was. My mistake. That doesn't change the fact that Commodore decided.the saddle the Amiga.1000/2000 (3000/4000 is a later model and no one gives a fuck) with substandard graphics with regard to data processing and such. It was a huge mistake imho. But it is wha it is. Some people could stare at that grainy shit. When I was EIGHTEEN I said no way. I never wore glasses or contacts either. And that was nearly 40 years ago.

Jo22 wrote on 2023-12-23, 16:23:

^The Atari Mega series and Amiga 1000/2000 can be considered desktop PCs, I think. Distant cousins of the IBM AT, so to say. The […]
Show full quote

^The Atari Mega series and Amiga 1000/2000 can be considered desktop PCs, I think.
Distant cousins of the IBM AT, so to say. They also have mice as a standard, like most ATs did in their later life.

Edit: The C64 had GEOS, which even was bundled with the computer for a brief moment.
If only a mouse was included! A joystick mouse, at least. So close! *sigh*

*explanation: There are two mice types on C64.
- Joystick mice, acting like a joystick (need no drivers)
- Analogue mice, using X/X puns of the SID chip (require software support; later GEOS has it).

There was just a slickness about the Ataris (STs and Megas, and TT/Falcon also). The mouse was there out of the box. The early Macs had the same groove. But expensive and stupid, yet still fun to use. Growing up a PC guy it was intimated that mice and guis were for sissys and morons. I always loved guis. Also loved the ability to open a command line. They work hand in hand.