C64 - A reappraisal 2017

[+DrVenkman]

So let’s talk about that wonderful multi-voltage power supply that shorts out internally and kills C64’s without warning ...

 

Anyone wanna give me tips on where to start looking to fix my Breadbox?

[carlsson]

Except for the fact that the quote most probably is false, Voltaire might have liked AtariAge.

 

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Long discussion about whether it can be genuine or not: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/

 

DrVenkman: One of the canonical places to look for troubleshooting is Ray Carlsen's pages: http://personalpages.tds.net/~rcarlsen/cbm.html

Edited February 15, 2018 by carlsson

[Bill Loguidice]

1) his profile lists you as a friend and your profile does as well (are both a lie?)

2) another confided in me that he is a friend of your friend, and indeed he was rational.

3) Call it what you want.

4) Looks like enough people found a problem with the audio that they went to some pretty decent lengths to fix it. I am glad that at least one fix posted here appears promising.

5) I can't speak to your hearing, maybe you can't hear what so many other people hear.

6) You post in a back handed way, but cover it in flourishes.

7) Your opinions are not facts. Neither are mine.

I have a working 128, both 64's died... and sadly that's not uncommon.

 

I did gather a decent lead on a fix from Mytekcontrols and that addresses the majority of the issues. I think that's a reasonable course to follow. I like helpful people like him, not hurtful people like you. I enjoy many machines, as do most people here. I still use a CompuPro S-100, depending on the sound and graphics card it can be quite the machine as well. I'm sure you will express some opinion against that in some back handed way, after all I posted about it in a positive context.

 

I have the feeling the people who made that sound board are Commodore super fans... it's my guess they heard what I heard and did something about it. I think that's a fact you might research. I don't know if you will include it in any of your writings or productions, as it doesn't support your take on things.

 

1 - As was stated, "friends" on AtariAge don't mean what I think you think they mean. I talk to very few on here outside of the forums and then it's only the occasional private message

2 - I don't quite get this one. Are you implying you've been following up on me? I'm about as transparent a person as you'll ever find. I've been me since I first got on the Internet circa 1994, and have always stated things like they are, and quite publicly at that. I have no idea who you are other than an anonymous name, nor would I ever think of trying to track down people who "defended" you.

4 - Yes, there are all kinds of "fixes" for everything. It doesn't mean these are actual problems. Just about every vintage computer has tweaks or changes to change it or make it "better."

5 - This is true. You can always find at least a few people to find fault with something or want to improve something that doesn't necessarily need improving.

6 - OK. I also try to reference facts, provide reasons for why I think what I think, and try to work things through during a discussion.

7 - Quite true. But you seem to brush off facts, like when it comes to working out the reality of Atari 7800 sales.

8 - I'd say it's fairly uncommon. The most common failure points on the C-64 tend to be the power supplies. Of course, in my own anecdotal experience, I've never had any of my C-64 class systems have an issue, other than the SX-64, where the keyboard is a common failure point (and both of the ones I had had keyboard issues). Otherwise, they're actually pretty reliable. No class of systems is immune to issues, though. Certainly the Atari 1200XL is notorious for its poor keyboard membranes. Of the two Atari 1200XL's I've owned, both have had failed keyboard membranes. Fortunately, I was able to replace my remaining Atari 1200XL's with Best Electronic's excellent modern membrane replacement. I've also had good luck with Apple II systems, although I've had to clean the contacts on my remaining Apple IIe Platinum to fix some repeating keys. Now, if you want to talk about computers that have poor reliability, we can certainly talk about computers like the VideoBrain or the Ortrona Attache', which will blow a cap if you look at it the wrong way. In any case, I think we can agree that there are no absolutes with vintage equipment. There are pluses and minuses and reliability or lack thereof with all of it.

 

In regards to my "take on things," I stand by my work on the books, movie, and articles. There's nothing to defend there. I've talked about positives, negatives, issues, joys, failings, etc. If you choose to ignore that, so be it.

 

And for the record, if you simply said something along the lines of, "I don't like how the C-64 sounds, so I'd like to improve the output," then I don't think anyone would have an issue. Instead, you more or less stated that its a truism that the C-64 sound output is poor when you clearly know that's not the case. It's like the other thread here on AtariAge discussing how the POKEY is out of tune. While that may be true in a literal sense, in a practical sense, few people complain about that aspect of the chip. It's important to try and keep things in perspective.

[Bill Loguidice]

God awful sound?

 

There's an army of people that would happily disagree with you, sure its an opinion of yours and you are welcome to it but as a man representing himself as a journalist and historian I don't think it comes across as a fair comment when you do know there's an army of folks who love the SID. The C64 demo and music scene has been one of the largest and most long surviving scene's out there, a scene where they express their love of all things C64, but apparently they are wrong and its a "god awful sound".

 

Be better than that Bill..Be a lot better than that..

 

Paul....(An all round lover of all things retro computing & gaming)

 

I'm NOT saying the C64 is perfect and have posted about the varying quality but in general the music is done well..buzzes or not..

 

I can't tell if you're serious, but if you are, I think you misunderstood my sarcasm. I'm not the one stating that. "The Doctor" is. I have a great deal of respect for both the SID and POKEY, the two classes of pre-16-bit sound chips.

[_The Doctor__]

You continue to slip in phrases and devices like 'you clearly know' all the time. You're more of a politician in your methods, please stop inserting words in others mouths. The Commodore line was a bottom dollar economical computer prone to failure for a number of reasons. I'm certain you can find repair shop records to inform you on this, if you cared to. The sound had all kinds of problems, including picking up video noise. I sure a person capable of working an oscilloscope can show you all the noise and problems. SID as it's brought out on the Commodore is everything I stated and has a bunch of angry bees inside the bread box. Now the causes of that are many. If you choose not to acknowledge that, it's your credibility that's on the line, not mine.

 

It was a cheap computer, it was fun. It's sound was not for everyone. It was unreliable for all but a few people I've met. I repaired a crap ton of them. The power supply was an abomination and killed more than just stuff on the board in the breadbox... It had heat problems, the chips are not robust. I don't think you will find an intellectually honest person who won't admit to most of what has been stated.

Edited February 15, 2018 by _The Doctor__

[Bill Loguidice]

You continue to slip in phrases and devices like 'you clearly know' all the time. You're more of a politician in your methods, please stop inserting words in others mouths. The Commodore line was a bottom dollar economical computer prone to failure for a number of reasons. I'm certain you can find repair shop records to inform you on this, if you cared to. The sound had all kinds of problems, including picking up video noise. I sure a person capable of working an oscilloscope can show you all the noise and problems. SID as it's brought out on the Commodore is everything I stated and has a bunch of angry bees inside the bread box. Now the causes of that are many. If you choose not to acknowledge that, it's your credibility, not mine, that's on the line.

 

We get that you don't like the sound. Really. The point is and has always been a simple one, that that's not the general consensus. If you don't want to acknowledge that, that's fine. In terms of credibility, I'm fine with mine. Someone like you with your anonymous forum name clearly doesn't care one way or the other about credibility anyway, so that's probably why you feel free to write what you write in the way that you write it. I get that too. No big deal.

[Mclaneinc]

 

I can't tell if you're serious, but if you are, I think you misunderstood my sarcasm. I'm not the one stating that. "The Doctor" is. I have a great deal of respect for both the SID and POKEY, the two classes of pre-16-bit sound chips.

 

I admit I've skipped through the thread and replied verbatim on what I saw posted, perhaps not the best thing to do but this thread as expected has started down the downhill of doom roll..

[_The Doctor__]

It was my wish it wouldn't, but I can't leave someone craftily put words in others mouths so they can make it a defacto standard in their writings. Such things end up in the world as if they are facts, but aren't. He even attributed a 'discussion' with someone else to me... Facts and figures that can't be verified, rounded down because it's not likely. Not accepting what was in the books or something like that. But in other case willing to round up figures because it's likely. I simply liked someone quoting from an actual record. He attributes the whole thing to me, very much the weasel way of doing things. The crazy part is, it could end up in a book as fact, based on likely information. The bottom line was the C- could be fun, but I found it's video washed out no matter what was done to the display device, the sound chip was very much geared towards a certain synth type and was poorly brought out of the machine. The Commodore was built to a price, period. It was unreliable and fed many a service techs family. The power supply poor. The chips weak. It's something tangible. And now that the 128 is hooked up, I realize how sluggish the games feel. But hey, ignore all that... We have have it on high, that's all to be overlooked.

Edited February 15, 2018 by _The Doctor__

[Lord Thag]

Yes, this is getting off the rails. Let's get it back on track then.

Bill and the Doctor don't, you guys don't see eye to eye, that's fine. Just keep it from ruining the thread, please.

 

Here's my take on the discussion so far:

1. Sid vs Pokey: Definitely this comes down to personal taste. The consensus of the public is that SID is better. I personally like Pokey. But really, it's a matter of taste. Both sound awesome when programmed well, and like crap when not.

2. Reliability: For multiple reasons, the c64 is vastly less reliable than the Atari. I've been through like 8 commodore computers over the years... and I still have my original Atari 800 and it runs fine. This has also been the experience of multiple collectors I know, and the general consensus of the forums. But I am referring to the original 800 line and the XL line. The XE is just as unreliable as the c64. Almost like the same person was running the company...
3. As a game machine. Reliability issues aside, the c64 is a slightly more capable game machine. The Atari is a better all-around computer. Both have excellent games. The Atari handles fast arcade games better, while the c64 does graphical games a bit better. It also has a much bigger library due to being supported better/longer.

4. Homebrew: The c64 has a way more active homebrew community, due to it being more popular. The Atari could do the same thing, but sadly, we just don't have the fanbase that the c64 does. We do get some great games occasionally though.

4. Which system is better: Neither. It depends on which one you grew up with and had experiences with.

[doctorclu]

I thought this was funny since I am currently hacking a Commodore 64 game. Recently I've had fun hacking Fast Eddie to Bubsy on the Atari 2600, 5200/400/800, Vic 20, and now working on the C-64 version.

 

While working on the Vic-20 version Carlsson would have this to say about Vic-20 color, which he said was in a lot of ways how c=64 color worked:

 

"The VIC-20 uses text mode graphics, either in hires (single colour) or multi colour (half the horizontal resolution). In the latter mode, there is a palette of 4 colours defined as such:

 

* Background colour for the entire screen (values 0-15, in this case black) - pattern 00

* Border colour for the entire screen (values 0-7, cycles in the game, used for ladders) - pattern 01

* Foreground colour per individual character (values 0-7) - pattern 10

* Auxillary colour for the entire screen (values 0-15, upper nybble of the volume register, appears to be light orange) - pattern 11"

 

Ironically I've been able to use Hack-O-Matic for altering the sprite on all the versions of Fast Eddie and the C=64 version has larger graphics images, but seeing how color works and learning the C=64 fundamentally uses text mode graphics was too me quite interesting.

[carlsson]

Yup, the multi colour text mode on the C64 works the same, except it got two separate registers for the patterns 01 and 11 (I presume) so the border colour doesn't affect any of the character colours on the C64 unlike how it does on the VIC-20. But the C64 also has all those other kinds of modes including real bitmap and the somewhat rarely used extended colour mode which limits the character set from 256 to 64 characters, but lets you use four different background colours on the screen + individual foreground colour. However the extended colour mode and the multicolour mode are mutually exclusive and will lead to the VIC-II going blank if you try to combine them, which is a shame as a text based mode where you could have four different background colours, one foreground colour per character and two extra multi colours for characters using the low 4x8 pixel resolution could have been something. Raster line based timing gets around some of this, and of course sprites get around even more.

[FifthPlayer]

The Commodore however came out in '82 /' 83.

Its "custom chips" where made by different

persons. Robert Yannes soundchip, and Al Charpentier

graphic chip. Both made the best they "could"

because the financial leader was... Idek Tramielski.

(Mr. "Just DO IT" or also Mr. "Do it cheaper".)

Of course, the hardware sprites are an idea

probably based on the player missle grafic...

why shouldn't a development be influenced

by the one before?

 

 

I believe "Commodore: A Company on the Edge" by Brain Bagnall has some good quotes from Al Charpentier on the design of the VIC-II sprites. He said they looked at all the machines on the market with sprite capability (TI-99, Intellivision, and Atari) and analyzed the good and bad points of each system before designing the VIC-II sprites. So, yes the Commodore designers were inspired by Atari's sprites. And it is not surprising the C-64 has a better sprite system, given the number of examples Commodore had to work from.

Edited February 15, 2018 by FifthPlayer

[Bill Loguidice]

One thing to keep in mind about the reliability issues of the C-64 is that we're talking a production run that's many multiples higher than any other computer model of its time. So that's certainly a contributing factor to there being a perception of more defects. I suspect that its defect rate is only marginally higher than some of the better contemporary systems like the ones from Apple and Atari, but because there are so many more of them that might give the perception of less reliability. Again, the biggest Achilles heel reliability-wise of the C-64 is its power supply. Although I've never personally had the need to replace any of mine, I know that's a favorite upgrade for a lot of people to head off any potential issues.

 

And of course, as we're hitting the 40 year mark for some of this stuff, additional issues are to be expected, be they caps or just general stuff wearing out. You're usually not into using actual vintage console and computer hardware in a casual manner because of that. Obviously, with that said, it's amazing how much a lot of this stuff with sometimes decades of regular wear still holds up. I certainly don't have that expectation with any of the modern stuff we use. For a variety of reasons, both good and bad, it's far more disposable.

[FifthPlayer]

As a high school student, I worked as a teacher's assistant in a school district computer lab. The lab had one of nearly every popular machine at the time in the early 80s - TRS-80, Coco, Apple II, TI-99/4A, Atari 800, IBM PC, etc.

 

The Commodore 64 had the worst build quality and finish of any of the machines in the lab. Individual characters on the video display would "sparkle" (transient video glitches within the character pixels) and the machine was prone to overheating.

 

I know this is just one example, and the C-64 had a really long production run. But, some of those early machines were pretty poor quality and I remember thinking I was glad I didn't own the C64 in that lab.

[Bill Loguidice]

As a high school student, I worked as a teacher's assistant in a school district computer lab. The lab had one of nearly every popular machine at the time in the early 80s - TRS-80, Coco, Apple II, TI-99/4A, Atari 800, IBM PC, etc.

 

The Commodore 64 had the worst build quality and finish of any of the machines in the lab. Individual characters on the video display would "sparkle" (transient video glitches within the character pixels) and the machine was prone to overheating.

 

I know this is just one example, and the C-64 had a really long production run. But, some of those early machines were pretty poor quality and I remember thinking I was glad I didn't own the C64 in that lab.

 

Yes, I do believe they improved dramatically over time, particularly with the C-64C. It's a shame we'll never have actual reliability figures for any of these machines, particularly how things changed from the first production runs to subsequent production runs (the Coleco Adam, for instance, was particularly affected by the early/late thing).

[_The Doctor__]

edited, Nice to agree with something never said crafty, shifty, tricksey.

Edited February 15, 2018 by _The Doctor__

[_The Doctor__]

As a high school student, I worked as a teacher's assistant in a school district computer lab. The lab had one of nearly every popular machine at the time in the early 80s - TRS-80, Coco, Apple II, TI-99/4A, Atari 800, IBM PC, etc.

 

The Commodore 64 had the worst build quality and finish of any of the machines in the lab. Individual characters on the video display would "sparkle" (transient video glitches within the character pixels) and the machine was prone to overheating.

 

I know this is just one example, and the C-64 had a really long production run. But, some of those early machines were pretty poor quality and I remember thinking I was glad I didn't own the C64 in that lab.

 

Yes, I believe they were poor all the way through, and cost cutting got worse, and it's not worth trying to discuss it. Just read any Commodore Wiki, what do you think it will say about volume level or cost reduction. Some of it was fixed because it had to be but I'd suggest a quick pop out to a link and read it yourself..skip down a bit in the link provided.

https://www.c64-wiki.com/wiki/C64C

You will see the 8580 became further muted/low volume where samples were concerned... just peruse about the page further regarding cost reductions...

It's not what we believe, it's what was...and that's written by Commodore fans and supporters. The 128 is where some of it improved, the shared case design was nice.

Edited February 15, 2018 by _The Doctor__

[emkay]

I have a great deal of respect for both the SID and POKEY, the two classes of pre-16-bit sound chips.

Really?

 

" I think it's fair to say that the majority opinion is that the SID is a fantastic sounding sound chip and ranked higher overall than the POKEY in that regard (which, to be fair, is usually ranked second in such comparisons against everything else available at the time)."

 

I stumble upon this sentence, everytime.

 

Over all is a term that nails one up and the other down.

I wrote often that SID has the advantage in creating music, that even Rob Hubbard was shining. But, do people really get shocked in Rescue on Fractalus on the SID FX?

Also, fast and "driving" tunes still were missed on the C64. It's always some muffled motion style ... They sound clean, they sound dark. they try to sound bright...

And, in fact, the deep and broad, but pulseless bass, sounds only that fat , because of the ~3.6kHz limit.

Edited February 15, 2018 by emkay

[Sugarland]

I've come to the opinion that all of the 8bit consumer computers were flawed in one way or another. It would be a funny book to read - one that covers the mistakes and flaws of each computer. The C64 had serious flaws but despite that it was a huge success. I attribute that success to many factors but the leading one would be the price and also that almost all consumers didn't really know what was inside or how it worked. It was a market in its infancy. Quality wasn't on people's mind and Tramiel knew that. Just getting the computer on the store shelf was a victory where Atari failed at the key moment of xmas of '83 where as I understand it, the C64 took a leading place in market share.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the best build quality of any consumer focused computer would be the IBM PC's. The buckling spring keyboard is still legendary and it's the same computer (vastly upgraded) we still use today. They were great and priced to match. The 'off the shelf' components and modular design they used were a miraculous mistake by IBM to the benefit of everyone. If there is one true success of the 80's computer scene, it's the PC.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Sugarland

[flashjazzcat]

I really have nothing against the C64, and I think some of its features are very cool. However, I will just say: cardboard RF shield.

[Bill Loguidice]

Really?

 

" I think it's fair to say that the majority opinion is that the SID is a fantastic sounding sound chip and ranked higher overall than the POKEY in that regard (which, to be fair, is usually ranked second in such comparisons against everything else available at the time)."

 

I stumble upon this sentence, everytime.

 

Over all is a term that nails one up and the other down.

I wrote often that SID has the advantage in creating music, that even Rob Hubbard was shining. But, do people really get shocked in Rescue on Fractalus on the SID FX?

Also, fast and "driving" tunes still were missed on the C64. It's always some muffled motion style ... They sound clean, they sound dark. they try to sound bright...

And, in fact, the deep and broad, but pulseless bass, sounds only that fat , because of the ~3.6kHz limit.

 

Yes, I'd say that overall, the SID was probably the best overall stock sound chip, all things considered (versatility, actual usage, etc.), until the Amiga. The POKEY was definitely right up there, however. If it makes someone feel better to put the POKEY 1 and the SID 2, so be it. The point is, neither are without well-known flaws, but both are superior sound chips, especially compared to their contemporaries.

[Bill Loguidice]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the best build quality of any consumer focused computer would be the IBM PC's. The buckling spring keyboard is still legendary and it's the same computer (vastly upgraded) we still use today. They were great and priced to match. The 'off the shelf' components and modular design they used were a miraculous mistake by IBM to the benefit of everyone. If there is one true success of the 80's computer scene, it's the PC.

 

Well, it's "easier" to have superior build quality over lower end machines like the ones from Commodore and Atari when you charge something like 800% the price. I'd also argue that without using off the shelf components and the "mistake" of letting Microsoft license out MS-DOS, the PC standard might not have dominated the way it did. In the long term it was bad for IBM, but in the short- to mid-term, extremely profitable, and certainly long term great for standardization. Despite there being benefits to a great deal of market diversity, there's definitely something to be said for universally supported platforms as an average consumer.

[Bryan]

Yes, I'd say that overall, the SID was probably the best overall stock sound chip, all things considered (versatility, actual usage, etc.), until the Amiga. The POKEY was definitely right up there, however. If it makes someone feel better to put the POKEY 1 and the SID 2, so be it. The point is, neither are without well-known flaws, but both are superior sound chips, especially compared to their contemporaries.

 

As awesome as Pokey is, it's taken decades to figure out because it's main features are pretty basic, and then there's a bunch of neat things it'll do if you start trying everything.

 

SID presented you with most of its tricks right up front. It was just a matter of applying your music skills.

 

So even if you prefer Pokey, you have to realize that most programmers wouldn't have had the time to do more than the documentation suggested.

 

And yes, they are both great sound chips.

[Sugarland]

In the hands of a untalented musician (many games of the day), I felt SID sounded worse than PoKey. Personal taste of course. It had to do with the overly synthesized effects not being appropriate for the moment. Whereas pokey could sound bad and out of tune it still conveyed the message. Maybe it's more like wine vs beer or even better sail boaters vs power boaters.

 

SID fans favorite movie: Ghandi

PoKey fans favorite movie: Debbie does Dallas

 

etc.....

[thetick1]

 

Well, it's "easier" to have superior build quality over lower end machines like the ones from Commodore and Atari when you charge something like 800% the price. I'd also argue that without using off the shelf components and the "mistake" of letting Microsoft license out MS-DOS, the PC standard might not have dominated the way it did. In the long term it was bad for IBM, but in the short- to mid-term, extremely profitable, and certainly long term great for standardization. Despite there being benefits to a great deal of market diversity, there's definitely something to be said for universally supported platforms as an average consumer.

 

That's not a fair assessment of the early computer landscape. IBM was in an almost decade long trial with DOJ over monopolizing the mainframe and mini computer markets. IBM implemented a very intelligent business decision. IBM lawyers were preparing for a breakup of IBM and advised not to release a PC with all IBM intellectual property. IBM contracted out the processor to itty bitty Intel ( AMD, Zilog, TI, MOS and Motorola were all bigger players) and IBM picked a pimpling snot nosed kid (Billy Gates) to own the $50 software. IBM owed the PC and sold it for $1565 (about $5000 today's dollars) while paying Microsoft $25 and Intel just a few dollars. This was absolutely brilliant and brought in billions cross selling other IBM products across all their platforms. Letting Intel and Microsoft contribute to the PC is always seen by outsiders as foolish, but they are just plain wrong.

 

What was foolish were subsequent IBM business decisions to dictate to Microsoft to add mainframe/mini integration enhancements to Microsoft OS/2 and ignore Microsoft's suggestions that it would hurt performance and delivery times. This forced Microsoft to start a competitive software environment we know as Windows. And on the processor side IBM did not license with Intel beyond 486 as IBM was sure PowerPC was going to rule the world.

Edited February 15, 2018 by thetick1