Commodore 64 vs Apple II

[JamesD]

do you read? his quote talks nothing about who the apple was offered to.

And neither did I.

 

Any wonder why I have this guy blocked?

[potatohead]

Yes, absolutely true! 100 percent agreed. (games) And wow! Did you see the Pal Blending thread, featuring a nice Mario demo? Awesome! Not possible on an Apple either. See what people don't get is this isn't a zero sum game. Declaring one machine cool doesn't make the other one not cool, but I guess some of us just never got past that...

 

A whole lot of those death predictions were based on share, not margins BTW. Go back and look at a lot of that press and there was a time or two when Apple was really in trouble. No doubt. But, the core idea that got them where they are really wasn't the problem. Still isn't. Won't ever be.

 

As for that "not the best tech" failing to win, that happens very often. Properly valuing every element of the product and related processes causes a lot of failures. This means those companies who do it inclusive do very well, and those that really focus on something while excluding others generally don't, or occupy niches. Lots of people want to marginalize Apple as "cult" or something, but it's not that. Apple adds a lot of value, it's that simple, and they ask the money it's worth too, and it's that simple there as well.

 

The friction point comes down to a clash. Sometimes people don't value everything the same. Where they do that, they see Apple as overpriced, etc... They aren't the target market and probably won't ever be. Going back to that technology adoption curve, at any given time there are always plenty of people willing to buy in at higher value points. This almost never changes significantly, meaning there will be majority products that are *ok* offering various features at lower price points, rock bottom products and higher end stuff. Apple doesn't do rock bottom, and when their products start to enter the majority, they pull 'em and replace them with ones that aren't, keeping their margins per unit sold very high.

 

And that's down to the pod, new Mac computers, the deal making needed to make the music store work, ancillary applications and services, the whole i-series of stuff, app store, UX (UI design currently labeled as "user interaction" design), and on it goes. All of those things contribute and are connected and the OS, hardware, software, store all exist under Apple control too, further increasing the value they can offer and charge for. This is very attractive to people, not all people, but enough of them to really make it all work.

 

Some of us just don't go for that. For me personally, I like it and see the value in some instances, and in others I just don't. Professionally, hell yes! Anytime I can move it up and play to that crowd that is willing to pay for all the value, not just look at specs, etc... I totally do, because that means I get paid nicely, and I'm not inclined to not get paid nicely, see how that works?

 

As was said, to each their own. That's all good. Some of us like to get it cheap and build ourselves or do our own thing. I do that regularly, but not always. Some of us just won't fuck with it, because our time priority lies elsewhere. Perfect Apple customers, and there are a lot of them and they are always there too.

[potatohead]

"So much greater capability" oh, and cheap ass too.

 

Really? Capability for games and sound. Totally. Both machines offered nice graphics and sound, and those were superior in some ways, lacking in others... So go ahead, list off those powerful capabilities! Aside from that graphics and sound, what else?

 

If you want to go down the "I prefer a C64" road, great! Please do that. It is a versus thread after all. But, if you are going to go down the Apple sucks road, or Apple users suck hard or are stupid, etc... expect to get spanked on it as you should.

 

So, where are those awesome C64 capabilities relative to the Apple Atarian63? List 'em. Dare you. Love the Apple hit piece BTW. Want I should post up one in return? I'll let you tell me.

[Keatah]

custom chips are an asset and a feature and to put in in context of the time the lack thereof left the apple as a very crippled machine. Without sound and graphics and you have is work,people realized you could have both with other systems and for a lower price.

 

Ahh, but you can't! The machine with custom gaming hardware, SID, VIC-II, et'al - portrays a different image, attracts a different crowd. A different crowd with different resources. There are too many distractions in a machine like the C64 for it to function well in serious non-toy applications. Not that the cheap plastic would hold up in industry in the first place. All this custom stuff got in the way of "serious" computing. Look, we can argue that the N64 is more powerful than all the avionics on the space shuttle. So why don't they upgrade to that? Same thing here.

 

And furthermore, a computer with custom chips distracts itself from itself! It has to spend extra cycles managing those chips. And henceforth, runs slower in general applications (like Appleworks, if you ported it to C64). In the Apple II, you have nothing but the RAM, CPU, supporting logic, and your PROGRAM. The CPU doesn't require extra O/S firmware (or programmer-built routines) to update a display list. Or babysit ASICs. Less bloat.

 

Also realize that the IBM PC motherboard has a general layout much like the Apple II motherboard. From the top down - slots and cpu at the top, rom in the middle, and ram farther down. General logic to the right. There is a lot of design philosophy from the Apple II in the IBM PC. And I don't think the PC had any custom chips at the time either -- http://upload.wikime...oard_(1981).jpg -- https://www.google.c...iw=1024&bih=623

 

As I said before, in a previous posting; even the Mac was not big on ASICs. Just the software, memory, and CPU. And you know what? Every company that used special chippery in their first computers did not survive to today. And those computers were niche tools anyways. To effectively upgrade such a machine you had to redesign everything from the ground up if you wanted more speed and functionality. Today we know how to build systems with ASICs that don't get in their own way.

 

But what killed the Apple II? Internal politics and lack of will to update - which led to the architecture falling by the wayside. Apple was intent in killing the II like wildfire at one point.

 

Now:

I used to really beat on my Apple II+, so hard that from time to time I had to take the keyboard out and straighten those two metal reinforcement bars on the bottom of the keyboard. I never did break anything, but vibration and impact eventually blew out the lamp. One whack and it finally went dark, after so many years. I bet if I had punched the keyboard through the casing, the system would still be repairable, not so with the C64.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Keatah

[Keatah]

And that's down to the pod, new Mac computers, the deal making needed to make the music store work, ancillary applications and services, the whole i-series of stuff, app store, UX (UI design currently labeled as "user interaction" design), and on it goes. All of those things contribute and are connected and the OS, hardware, software, store all exist under Apple control too, further increasing the value they can offer and charge for. This is very attractive to people, not all people, but enough of them to really make it all work.

 

Some of us just don't go for that. For me personally, I like it and see the value in some instances, and in others I just don't. Professionally, hell yes! Anytime I can move it up and play to that crowd that is willing to pay for all the value, not just look at specs, etc... I totally do, because that means I get paid nicely, and I'm not inclined to not get paid nicely, see how that works?

 

As was said, to each their own. That's all good. Some of us like to get it cheap and build ourselves or do our own thing. I do that regularly, but not always. Some of us just won't fuck with it, because our time priority lies elsewhere. Perfect Apple customers, and there are a lot of them and they are always there too.

 

In the old "green" days I used to save-a-buck by getting my PC hardware at the electronic equivalent of the dollar store. I had to spend the little savings many times over in time wasted making shit work.

 

In working with photography you just don't use cheap equipment. Adobe Photoshop/Lightroom, DXO optics, Nikon/Canon, and so on. And the results speak for themselves.

 

In backup operations, you don't use half-assed procedures. You spend the time and make it right.

 

In managing my audio collection I use nothing but Apple products nowadays. I had a long bad experience with PC mp3 playback software years ago nothing worked. Software that was a result of race-to-the-bottom-thinking. And as Mr. Jobs once said, "iTunes on Windows, a glass of cold water for those living in hell." Or something to that effect. He was right. The software just plain worked.

 

Besides, Apple audio products (in this case, iPod) integrated seamlessly into my automotive entertainment center flawlessly. It just worked! I know of no wintel product that does so.

 

In data recovery operations I use nothing but the best and most expensive and exotic tools on the market. This enables me to do the job correctly and quickly. No farting around. Time is money.

[TMR]

The only machine I know of with pirating parties and a magazine dedicate to game copying parameters.

 

There were copy parties on a regular basis like the regular Venlo copy parties which were mostly C64 or the later Share and Enjoy events for Amiga sceners, but if you weren't directly a part of the scene, the odds are you wouldn't see the invite to know about them.

 

A magazine dedicated to parameters wouldn't have happened in the C64's case because when cracking was at its height there were as many games coming from Europe as the US and they arrived on tape. But there were scene mags doing the rounds on disk or paper with news, cracker and demo charts, party reports, rants, ragging and occasionally insights into protection.

 

Commodore? Didn't they go back to shipping logistics & importing or something?

 

Commodore as we knew it popped it's clogs during the 1990s. The rights have changed hands several times since and Commodore USA is the latest incarnation, producing a reproduction C64 case for mini ITX boards (which is, to my mind, massively overpriced - $345 for just the case, chassis and keyboard with a card reader) and the VIC-Slim which is i believe an existing PC-in-a-keyboard with some re-branding.

[The Usotsuki]

The future, part 3 - Make the 6502 run iTunes! Anyone care to help with that?

 

If you're talking about UI stuff, I can prolly do some of that. Be nice to figure out how to control an Apple ][ mouse though.

 

Heavier stuff like the Internet stuff...that might be a little over my head.

[desiv]

For me, although I was a Commodore guy growing up (Vic-20, C64, SX-64, Amiga 500, Amiga 1200), I always liked the Apple IIs...

My friend in high school (I took to bus to go to a nicer school) had a II Plus...

I really liked that computer....

 

When I got my first computer, it was a Vic-20. That was what we could afford, but I still thought it was great fun and taught me a lot..

 

But I never stopped liking the Apple II line...

 

Very different machine from the C64, but still great fun.

I'm probably in line with most people here.

Graphics/sound/price - C64

Expandability/power/architecture - Apple II

 

That said, the Apple had great games, and I did a LOT of word processing (Fleet System II) on the C64.

 

Both great machines...

 

desiv

(Fleet System II even had an 80 column preview so you could kind of see what your document would look like in 80 columns. Not quite as useful on my SX-64 with it's 5" screen, but it worked.. :-) :-)

Also, I still have a C64 (just got it working again) and currently have a //e and a //c as well.

Edited December 9, 2012 by desiv

[JamesD]

If you're talking about UI stuff, I can prolly do some of that. Be nice to figure out how to control an Apple ][ mouse though.

 

Heavier stuff like the Internet stuff...that might be a little over my head.

These should help with the mouse.

http://apple2.org.za/gswv/a2zine/faqs/R034MOUSEPRG.TXT

http://compgroups.net/comp.sys.apple2.programmer/apple-ii-mouse-from-ml-again/491258

[magnusfalkirk]

Back in the day, from about 1982 to 1987, when someone would ask me what kind of computer to buy I'd automatically answer "Apple II". Eventually I switched to telling them to decide how much money they were willing to spend first and then see what was available in that price range. And also realize that what they were buying was obsolete because of stuff that was on the drawing board. I've been a fan of Apple, versus an Apple fanboy, since I bought my first II+ in 1981. I had friends in the Air Force who had C64's and Atari's and as far as I was concerned the only advantage they had over my Apple II+, later IIe, was sound. The graphics for games that ran on all the systems looked pretty similar to me. My biggest advantage was expandability!

 

GEOS added a graphic user interface to C64, and a whole bunch of useful programs, they tried porting it to the Apple II and it flopped. The reason? We already had Appleworks, and Beagle Bros Timeout add-ons, which did everything the basic GEOS program did but it did it quicker and easier. For desktop publishing GEOS came out with GeoPublish, for both C64 and Apple II. Publish It! proved to be a better program for the Apple II. Both programs could import text from Appleworks and Apple II graphics. The difference was that you had to import the text and graphics for GeoPublish into into it using the text grabber and graphic grabber, with Publish it! you simply imported them directly into your document. And with Publish It! 3 things got better, you could use Apple IIGS fonts in you newsletter, even if you were doing it on an Apple IIe or IIc.

 

Both the C64 and the Apple Ii have their strengths and weaknesses and their loyal followers and their detractors. It's up to each person to decide which computer they like best. Slam the Apple II all you want, IMHO the Apple II is the BEST of the 8 bit systems. For those of you who prefer the C64, or even the Atari 8 bits, more power to you but don't expect Apple II fans to silently take it when you slam or favorite system.

[atarian63]

"So much greater capability" oh, and cheap ass too.

 

Really? Capability for games and sound. Totally. Both machines offered nice graphics and sound, and those were superior in some ways, lacking in others... So go ahead, list off those powerful capabilities! Aside from that graphics and sound, what else?

 

If you want to go down the "I prefer a C64" road, great! Please do that. It is a versus thread after all. But, if you are going to go down the Apple sucks road, or Apple users suck hard or are stupid, etc... expect to get spanked on it as you should.

 

So, where are those awesome C64 capabilities relative to the Apple Atarian63? List 'em. Dare you. Love the Apple hit piece BTW. Want I should post up one in return? I'll let you tell me.

Here you go, the spanking is for the apple, you seem to lose touch or just ignore the needs of the time in which these were sold so here is a reminder of the shortcomings of the apple. I think we get you like it and used it for niche things but nothing brought in more computer users in the day as this the c64 ( and I am an Atari guy)

 

Specifications

 

[edit]Internal hardware

• Microprocessor CPU:
  
  • MOS Technology 6510/8500 (the 6510/8500 is a modified 6502 with an integrated 6-bit I/O port)
    
  • Clock speed: 0.985 MHz (PAL) or 1.023 MHz (NTSC)
    

  [*]Video: MOS Technology VIC-II 6567/8562 (NTSC), 6569/8565 (PAL)

  • 16 colors
    
  • Text mode: 40×25 characters; 256 user-defined chars (8×8 pixels, or 4×8 in multicolor mode); 4-bit color RAM defines foreground color
    
  • Bitmap modes: 320×200 (2 unique colors in each 8×8 pixel block),^[35] 160×200 (3 unique colors + 1 common color in each 4×8 block)^[36]
    
  • 8 hardware sprites of 24×21 pixels (12×21 in multicolor mode)
    
  • Smooth scrolling, raster interrupts
    

  [*]Sound: MOS Technology 6581/8580 SID

  • 3-channel synthesizer with programmable ADSR envelope
    
  • 8 octaves
    
  • 4 waveforms per audio channel: triangle, sawtooth, variable pulse, noise
    
  • Oscillator synchronization, ring modulation
    
  • Programmable filter: high pass, low pass, band pass, notch filter
    

  [*]Input/Output: Two 6526 Complex Interface Adapters

  • 16 bit parallel I/O
    
  • 8 bit serial I/O
    
  • 24-hours (AM/PM) Time of Day clock (TOD), with programmable alarm clock^[37]
    
  • 16 bit interval timers
    

  [*]RAM:

  • 64 kB, of which 38 kB (minus 1 byte) were available for BASIC programs
    
  • 512 bytes color RAM (memory allocated for screen color data storage) ^[38]
    
  • Expandable to 320 kB with Commodore 1764 256 kB RAM Expansion Unit (REU); although only 64 kB directly accessible; REU mostly intended for GEOS. REUs of 128 kB and 512 kB, originally designed for the C128, were also available, but required the user to buy a stronger power supply from some third party supplier; with the 1764 this was included. Creative Micro Designs also produced a 2 MB REU for the C64 and C128, called the 1750 XL. The technology actually supported up to 16 MB, but 2 MB was the biggest one officially made. Expansions of up to 16 MB were also possible via the CMD SuperCPU.
    

  [*]ROM:

  • 20 kB (9 kB Commodore BASIC 2.0; 7 kB KERNAL; 4 kB character generator, providing two 2 kB character sets)
    

[edit]I/O ports and power supply

 

 

 

Commodore 64 ports (from left: Joy1, Joy2, Power, ROM cartridge, RF-adj, RF, A/V, 488, Tape, User)

• I/O ports:^[39]
  
  • ROM cartridge expansion slot (44-pin slot for edge connector with 6510 CPU address/data bus lines and control signals, as well as GND and voltage pins;^[40] used for program modules and memory expansions, among others)
    
  • Integrated RF modulator antenna output via a RCA connector. The used channel could be adjusted from number 36 with the potentiometer to the left.
    
  • 8-pin DIN connector containing composite video output, separate Y/C outputs and sound input/output. Beware that this is the 270° (horseshoe) version of the plug, not the 360° circular version. Also note that some early C64 units use a 5-pin DIN connector that carries composite video and luminance signals, but lacks a chroma signal.^[41]
    
  • Serial bus (serial version of IEEE-488, 6-pin DIN plug) for CBM printers and disk drives
    
  • PET-type Commodore Datassette 300 baud tape interface (edge connector with digital cassette motor/read/write/key-sense signals, Ground and +5V DC lines. The cassette motor is controlled by a +5V DC signal from the 6502 CPU. The 9 V AC input is transformed into unregulated 6.36 V DC^[42] which is used to actually power the cassette motor.^[43]
    
  • User port (edge connector with TTL-level signals, for modems and so on.; byte-parallel signals which can be used to drive third-party parallel printers, among other things, 17 logic signals, 7 Ground and voltage pins, including 9V AC)
    
  • 2 × screwless DE9M game controller ports (compatible with Atari 2600 controllers), each supporting five digital inputs and two analog inputs. Available peripherals included digital joysticks, analog paddles, a light pen, the Commodore 1351 mouse, and graphics tablets such as the KoalaPad.
    

• Power supply:
  
  • 5V DC and 9V AC from an external "power brick", attached to a 7-pin female DIN-connector on the computer.^[44]
    

The 9 volt AC is used to supply power via a charge pump to the SID sound generator chip, provide 6.8V via a rectifier to the cassette motor, a "0" pulse for every positive half wave to the time-of-day (TOD) input on the CIA chips, and 9 volts AC directly to the user-port. Thus, as a minimum, a 12 V square wave is required. But a 9 V sine wave is preferred.^[45][46]

[edit]There is your dare, I am sure it will be some reply about expansion slots rather that what the machine was short on from the get go in hardware. A more contemporary would be the Atari 800 circa 79 and again the apple was woefully short.

Edited December 10, 2012 by atarian63

[Keatah]

Problem with the C64 reaching MASS amounts of people is that it bought some into the fold that should never be near a computer. Ouch..

Edited December 10, 2012 by Keatah

[atarian63]

Problem with the C64 reaching MASS amounts of people is that it bought some into the fold that should never be near a computer. Ouch..

Ha ha! That is so true and funny as well!! :grin:

[JamesD]

Just remember that even thought the CPU on the two machines is roughly the same and the BASIC started out the same, the Apple benchmarks faster in BASIC than the C64. The added wait states on the C64 are one reason, the other is the Apple II uses a keyboard chip and the CPU doesn't have to spend time polling.

 

I've always wondered why some machines had a custom chips but still polled the keyboard. The Apple II series was one of the only machines to use a chip. The CoCo 3 could read the keyboard through an interrupt as an option. By overriding the interrupt handler on a couple machines you could enable/disable polling and BASIC ran noticably faster. It's kinda surprising how many cycles are wasted polling.

[potatohead]

Of course there will be talk of expansion slots and what goes in them! What? Did you think, "in the box?" actually mattered where capability is concerned? lol

 

Now, you've gone and listed off a bunch of FEATURES. What are the CAPABILITIES?

 

You are not there yet Atarian63. Think really hard about what one can DO with a C64, as opposed to an Apple 2. That is a capability discussion, and the subject of my dare, which stands as of now.

 

This is why you had such a hard time selling the Apple computers, BTW.

 

Oh, and just a hint of what is to come. Once we talk about capabilities, then we get to discuss the value of them and that circles around to price; namely, you get what you pay for. Just so you know.

 

From there, we've got a couple of really fun end game discussions! Can't wait. It's still your turn!

 

***I'll take that as a "no" on returning the Apple hit piece favor. You are welcome.

 

On a re-read of your post, I see you trying to partition this into "niche" and that "I liked them." Let's nip that in the bud right now. I really like, and liked back then too, the more graphics and sound capable computers. Liked fast CPU's too, which the Atari and CoCo both had. All the machines got used for gaming. Great gaming on all fronts, each machine with it's own flavor too.

 

There is more to it than gaming, and that is precisely the CAPABILITY discussion we are having Atarian63. Before I spoil too much of it, let's just say the gaming was fun, but those other capabilities made money. Money, incidentally, which could buy more games! Very mainstream capabilities too. The sorts of things people who actually wanted to use the computer to make money would want to do. Remember those? I do.

[Keatah]

I did not know C64 basic was a derivative of MS Basic..!?!?!!

[potatohead]

Wasn't it the PET BASIC, so they could just reuse it without paying more to Microsoft?

[JamesD]

I did not know C64 basic was a derivative of MS Basic..!?!?!!

http://www.pagetable.com/?p=46

[atarian63]

Of course there will be talk of expansion slots and what goes in them! What? Did you think, "in the box?" actually mattered where capability is concerned? lol

 

Now, you've gone and listed off a bunch of FEATURES. What are the CAPABILITIES?

 

You are not there yet Atarian63. Think really hard about what one can DO with a C64, as opposed to an Apple 2. That is a capability discussion, and the subject of my dare, which stands as of now.

 

This is why you had such a hard time selling the Apple computers, BTW.

 

Oh, and just a hint of what is to come. Once we talk about capabilities, then we get to discuss the value of them and that circles around to price; namely, you get what you pay for. Just so you know.

 

From there, we've got a couple of really fun end game discussions! Can't wait. It's still your turn!

 

***I'll take that as a "no" on returning the Apple hit piece favor. You are welcome.

 

On a re-read of your post, I see you trying to partition this into "niche" and that "I liked them." Let's nip that in the bud right now. I really like, and liked back then too, the more graphics and sound capable computers. Liked fast CPU's too, which the Atari and CoCo both had. All the machines got used for gaming. Great gaming on all fronts, each machine with it's own flavor too.

 

There is more to it than gaming, and that is precisely the CAPABILITY discussion we are having Atarian63. Before I spoil too much of it, let's just say the gaming was fun, but those other capabilities made money. Money, incidentally, which could buy more games! Very mainstream capabilities too. The sorts of things people who actually wanted to use the computer to make money would want to do. Remember those? I do.

Wow you are having a really tuough time with machine inferiority. go over to Lemon 64 and try to make this same lame argument. You are talking about a business computer which the apple was not. as someone mentioned it was kind of the old school build it yourself stuff. Those folks were few and far between, remove schools and you will find a much much diminished base. Apple was far outclassed in software and graphics and sound by the c64. basically put if it did not have great graphics and sound (which was the standard during most of this time) then is was not worth much. look at sales numbers, a total crush. Customers know value and they knew it was not apple. Those are the facts, just because you had a lesser pc doesn't mean it did not do whatever thing you wanted but it was far outside the mainstream of the day and that IS what we are talking about.To be fair if you got stuck with one you had to make the most of it and found things that were cool about it You'll have to pedal the apple to a less informed audience than here. It certainly had it's place due to some fine school marketing,but really if you were all about business go CPM or IBM back then. sounds like alot of zzzzz to me though. not much excitement in doing work and early pc's were all about excitement!

[atarian63]

Just remember that even thought the CPU on the two machines is roughly the same and the BASIC started out the same, the Apple benchmarks faster in BASIC than the C64. The added wait states on the C64 are one reason, the other is the Apple II uses a keyboard chip and the CPU doesn't have to spend time polling.

 

I've always wondered why some machines had a custom chips but still polled the keyboard. The Apple II series was one of the only machines to use a chip. The CoCo 3 could read the keyboard through an interrupt as an option. By overriding the interrupt handler on a couple machines you could enable/disable polling and BASIC ran noticably faster. It's kinda surprising how many cycles are wasted polling.

True it was faster but at what... not much to do other than work oriented stuff, if it's a game you could almost always get it on another platform c64,atari or even a console and it would be so much better since most were arcade based games back then,Again not to say it couldn't do games but it was working it's butt of to do thing that would be simple on C64 or Atari.

[potatohead]

And that list of capabilities?

 

Now, why would I want to go over to Lemon64 and beat them up on stuff they don't care much about? Nice group over there too, interested in game / graphics / sound related kinds of things. That is what they do, and frankly, the C64 community produces great things regularly, and the demo scene is a joy to follow. No worries here.

 

You, on the other hand, seem to have a big problem with people actually writing about what makes Apple ][ series computers great, which is what we do in a vs thread. Now, again:

 

That list of capabilities?

 

You know, the stuff that made the C64 a great machine? Face it, you are gonna say games, graphics and sound. And know what? That's perfectly OK buddy. No worries. Just don't go shitting on the things that make Apple ][ computers great, and we are all good. This whole thing is as shitty as you choose to make it. Personally, I would much rather avoid shitty, but that's just me. Seems one of us didn't quite grow out of high school...

 

Our OP wanted a more objective view.

 

Now, you talk about exciting?

 

"Boring business stuff." Let me guess, it really was all about the games for you wasn't it? That's OK too, but for a lot of us, doing other stuff was exciting and still is! It pays well these days, so having that perspective back then was a good thing for me. Clearly people differ. Remember that. When you want to talk about Apple ][ computers, it's more than the canned spec flinging contest, always has been, always will be.

 

If you want to continue, let's have it. That list of capabilities. What could one actually DO with a C64? I've actually listed a few in the past, and thought some of those were damn spiffy, despite the machine limitations. It's not hard you know.

 

...or you can punt, suck it up and just admit you were a gamer on the cheap, excited about the low price of a C64, eager to copy your ass off, sit on the couch and game on! Lots of us did. No shame in that you know, but it does disqualify you as some authority on what Apple computers are good for, and their relative worth. You didn't use them, remember? I, on the other hand, did.

[JamesD]

True it was faster but at what... not much to do other than work oriented stuff, if it's a game you could almost always get it on another platform c64,atari or even a console and it would be so much better since most were arcade based games back then,Again not to say it couldn't do games but it was working it's butt of to do thing that would be simple on C64 or Atari.

That would depend entirely on the game. You seem to think the only games are arcade games.

Simulations, RPGs, strategy, etc... were all very popular.

Later games like 'Balance of Power' made it to the Apple II but not the C64 or Atari. Clearly there was still an audience on the Apple.

[potatohead]

"...but work oriented stuff..." lol

[JamesD]

To be fair if you got stuck with one you had to make the most of it and found things that were cool about it You'll have to pedal the apple to a less informed audience than here. It certainly had it's place due to some fine school marketing,but really if you were all about business go CPM or IBM back then. sounds like alot of zzzzz to me though. not much excitement in doing work and early pc's were all about excitement!

Troll much?

 

When AppleWorks was introduced, it topped Lotus 123 on the sales charts. Look it up. Lots of people used the Apple II for business and I guarantee software sales were better for Apple II than for CP/M machines.

 

BTW, exactly what version of CP/M included graphics as part of the standard? Oh right, it didn't.

Not only that but you talk about the Apple being old school build it yourself stuff like that's bad, and then say people should have bought CP/M machines for business while you totally ignore the fact that CP/M came from old school build it yourself machines... literally. A bit of a contradiction don't you think?

 

IBM didn't have the variety of software the Apple II did at that time. They were also expensive unless you went with a monochrome monitor and Hercules graphics adapter which didn't run everything. Color RGB monitors weren't cheap.

I did like GWBASIC though (potatohead will probably understand this).

 

Excitement obviously implies games by what you are saying and that was only part of what early pc's were about.

Early PCs were about individuals using computers to do what they wanted in their own home or office for the first time in history.

Word Processing, accounting, games, going online, programming, education... all in the hands of anyone that bought a computer.

People were just starting to see the possibilities of what computers could do and an entirely new industry sprung up almost overnight.

If a program didn't exist, you could write one yourself. If it was good you might even be able to get it published in a magazine.

[Keatah]

One bit of trivia IIRC, was that the Apple II was hooked up with a Mountain Music System and Alpha Syntauri Synthesizer that made a huge (if not all) portion of the sound effects and music for Tron.

 

A number of 3-D graphics techniques for simulations were pioneered on the II series, sub-Logic having done that work. I have a number of papers I'll eventually make available to the community sometime.

 

The Apple II was the computer of choice by a planetary scientist for experimenting and doing proof-of-concept trajectories for the Cassini spacecraft now cruising around Saturnian system. Yep. They plan some of these missions a decade or more in advance.

 

A good number of govt. labs used the II for laser experiments, small and big scale. The even used an Apple /// to De-Rezz people in Tron. Let's see a C64 do that!

 

Curiously though regarding HAM operators, the C64 was really popular with them. Was it because they were typically old men and needed a larger typeface? Or did they need the space? A C64 was 40% the size of a II, and in the radioshack space is at a premium. Or was it the audio capability, to make tones and stuff. It was C64 and TRS-80 that ruled the nest here. If someone can comment on why this was so I'd like to hear about it. In fact, any communications usages on 8-bit hardware is a good read.

 

I did all sorts communications experiments with my II. I had built a radio telescope, modded 300 baud micromodem to work at 450 baud. Connected to WWV. Decoded morse code realtime with little more than some transistors and other discrete parts all wired into the game port and cassette port. Wired in a Globe Patrol kit from RS. Transmitted dirty RF to jam TV's on the block. Built a modem for the cassette port. Got in trouble with the police. Racked up a $1100 phone bill, $450 was the norm. I thought I was phreaking when I wasn't. Oops. Built a light communicator to send secret messages to my buddy across the street - used a real fiberoptic line too.

 

Good times! And a lot of capability, if mis-guided.

 

Edited December 10, 2012 by Keatah