Commodore 64 vs Apple II

[Grimakis]

Very subjective. I'm going to use the Apple //e Platinum as the comparison point, as it was the last true Apple II line, since the GS is really next gen.

 

Graphics - Commodore 64 wins hands down.

Sound - Commodore 64 wins again, but if you want to include the Mockingboard, it definitely becomes closer.

Price - Commodore was the king of cheap.

Durability - Likewise they were built cheap, the Apple is much more durable.

Expandability - Apple II line has internal expansion slots, so the edge goes here, although you could probably do similar expansions on the C64 with external peripherals.

Performance - Tie

BASIC Programming - AppleSoft BASIC is better than the Commodore BASIC on the 64. Just easier to use, especially to create graphics and access the DOS.

Gaming Library - C64 has more advanced games due to Graphics and Sound mentioned above.

Business Library - Apple II has 80-col support, most business software supported it, CP/M on Apple was good, bad on C64, so Apple wins.

Keyboard - Apple, no doubt, the C64 has one of the worst non-chiclet keyboards ever made.

Open-Architecture - Tie

Design / Appearance - Super subjective, but I prefer the Apple because the Computer, Drives, Monitors can all be stacked into a clean setup. The C64, has wires coming out the back and side, you really need a large desk or a special stand to allow the monitor/drives to live above the C64, otherwise it needs to be off to the side.

 

Overall, I prefer the Apple II, it's just a bit more fun to collect for, and if I were to be using one for any serious applications back in the day, the Apple would have won out. The C64 is definitely more of a gaming machine, and if I wanted it as a game console I would have gotten a C64. Although to be honest, if I just wanted games I would have picked an NES!

 

[Nebulon]

Spent more time with the Apple IIe lately, and my opinions on the matter are pretty much the same (leaning a bit more in the Apple's favor now though):

 

Graphics - C64
Sound - C64
Price - C64
Durability - Apple IIe
Expandability - Apple IIe
Performance - For gaming it's the C64. For general use and business it's the Apple IIe.
BASIC Programming - Apple IIe
Gaming Library - Almost a tie. C64 edges the Apple out.
Business Library - Apple IIe
Keyboard - Apple IIe
Open-Architecture - Apple IIe
Design / Appearance - Apple II is nicer-looking than the breadbox but not as nice as the C64c.

 

Best over all? Can't say. Both are good. It's a shame that the traces to the disk drive got cut by accident on the C64. The drive speed's always been an issue with me.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Nebulon

[Ganondorf]

will Commodore 64 games work in an Apple II ?

[bluejay]

18 hours ago, Ganondorf said:

will Commodore 64 games work in an Apple II ?

Don't really get what you're saying. Well if you stick a game disk for the C64 into an Apple drive of course it won't work as Apple and Commodore both have proprietary formats for floppy disks. But a game that's for the C64 but also available on Apple II will run on an Apple II, that is, if you have the Apple version of the game.

Edited August 22, 2020 by bluejay

[+OLD CS1]

20 hours ago, Ganondorf said:

will Commodore 64 games work in an Apple II ?

You serious?

[bluejay]

55 minutes ago, OLD CS1 said:

You serious?

It's his first post. I think he has an Apple II but found a bunch of C64 disks stored in his attic or something and has no clue on how these work.

[Keatah]

On 12/6/2012 at 6:37 PM, PDog said:

Since this is an atari site, I thought you guys can be more objective than if posting this on a c64 or apple II site. Which computer is better overall and which one is better in the following categories?

 

Graphics

Sound

Price

Durability

Expandability

Performance

BASIC Programming

Gaming Library

Business Library

Keyboard

Open-Archetecture

Design / Appearance

 

Thank you.

 

To answer the OP's question, or re-answer it, The Apple II wins out in every category except sound and graphics. It ties for the game library more or less.

 

The Apple II has no sound or graphics chip. The 6502 has to place and arrange all the pixels in the framebuffer or video memory scanner, all by itself. The 6502 has to click the speaker or push the cone, all by itself. So while there are no custom chipslike in the 64 or 400/800, there is extraordinary versatility. Everything starts from a blank slate with no preconceived notions.

 

The 64 and II tie in the game library because the Apple II has a number of games not available on the 64, and the other way around.

 

Price is a weird one, you get what you pay for.

[bluejay]

1 hour ago, Keatah said:

 

To answer the OP's question, or re-answer it, The Apple II wins out in every category except sound and graphics. It ties for the game library more or less.

 

The Apple II has no sound or graphics chip. The 6502 has to place and arrange all the pixels in the framebuffer or video memory scanner, all by itself. The 6502 has to click the speaker or push the cone, all by itself. So while there are no custom chipslike in the 64 or 400/800, there is extraordinary versatility. Everything starts from a blank slate with no preconceived notions.

 

The 64 and II tie in the game library because the Apple II has a number of games not available on the 64, and the other way around.

 

Price is a weird one, you get what you pay for.

Well the Commodore is cheaper than the Apple so Commodore wins. Also the bother the Apple II's and C64's keyboard have their pros and cons. The Apple keyboards are amazing for typing, but horrible for gaming, at least in my opinion. The c64's keyboard isn't the best for spending hours typing on but is much more suited for games.

However, I think comparing an apple II with a c64 is kinda like comparing a Ford Transit with a Pontiac Fiero. Obviously the Transit is much more durable, powerful, and versatile, the Fiero is cheap, fun, and quick. The comparison isn't relevant as it is comparing two very different computers that fulfill two very different needs.

Perhaps a better comparison would be an Apple II vs PC 5150 or a c64 vs CoCo 2. Actually compare a Transit with a Chevy Express and a Fiero with an MR2.

 

Edited August 23, 2020 by bluejay

[Osgeld]

On 8/21/2020 at 10:52 PM, Ganondorf said:

will Commodore 64 games work in an Apple II ?

there were some disks that had 2 versions on it, like c-64 on one side and Apple II on the other, but that was the exception, not the rule 

[Keatah]

11 hours ago, bluejay said:

However, I think comparing an apple II with a c64 is kinda like comparing a Ford Transit with a Pontiac Fiero. Obviously the Transit is much more durable, powerful, and versatile, the Fiero is cheap, fun, and quick. The comparison isn't relevant as it is comparing two very different computers that fulfill two very different needs.

Perhaps a better comparison would be an Apple II vs PC 5150 or a c64 vs CoCo 2. Actually compare a Transit with a Chevy Express and a Fiero with an MR2.

 

I think comparisons like this are relevant and important for learning about the specs and features, strengths and weaknesses. A lot can be learned by studying the reasons why certain choices were made. Blue-ribbon and trophy contests with the outcome being a prize.. not so important..

 

If we discuss Durability, then you will learn about materials and why certain ones were chosen. The C64 was made from cheap plastic. The Apple II had some sort of composite plastic top and a metal baseplate. It had a nice all-enclosed power supply that's proved to be rather durable and long-lasting.

 

 

[bluejay]

1 minute ago, Keatah said:

 

I think comparisons like this are relevant and important for learning about the specs and features, strengths and weaknesses. A lot can be learned by studying the reasons why certain choices were made. Blue-ribbon and trophy contests with the outcome being a prize.. not so important..

 

If we discuss Durability, then you will learn about materials and why certain ones were chosen. The C64 was made from cheap plastic. The Apple II had some sort of composite plastic top and a metal baseplate. It had a nice all-enclosed power supply that's proved to be rather durable and long-lasting.

True, but obviously both have their pros and cons and therefore calling one "better" than the other isn't really right.

[+OLD CS1]

I never understood why, when comparing games on the Commodore 64 and the Apple, anyone would buy Apple and not be pissed.  To be fair, there were plenty of crappy titles on the 64, but just a nuts-for-nuts comparison of games between the two and the 64 wins 4-out-of-five.  I always felt like so many people settled for Apple because it had productivity software and what amounted to a real DOS environment, which the 64 lacked.

[Osgeld]

growing up C64 wasnt really a thing around here so playing big epic type games on the high res apple II (on the old green screen, I only ever recall seeing one color screen on a actual setup) or 3d tic tac toe on the C64 there was no comparison. 

 

And yes its funny, people back in the day spent a shit ton of cash to buy a computer that was only used as a sub par game system, and ... not actually a computer, no wait the opposite. The only reason we had a computer was to run my dad's biz on, and he never really like the idea of it being a game machine, that is what the colecovision was for. 

 

IMO the whole campaign for "its a toy that jimmy can do homework on, come on down to toys r us or kmart today!" was tat

Edited August 24, 2020 by Osgeld

[MHaensel]

14 hours ago, Osgeld said:

IMO the whole campaign for "its a toy that jimmy can do homework on, come on down to toys r us or kmart today!" was tat

I guess it depends on the household. For me, the C64 really was a games machine I also started programming on. I learned BASIC, COMAL, binary logic, a little assembly language, did word processing, played sidplayer music, accessed BBSs and the internet . . . and played games.

 

All my adult professional jobs have been computer-related, so it worked out as an investment in my future. Thanks, mom and dad. :- )

[Osgeld]

44 minutes ago, MHaensel said:

I guess it depends on the household. For me, the C64 really was a games machine I also started programming on. I learned BASIC, COMAL, binary logic, a little assembly language, did word processing, played sidplayer music, accessed BBSs and the internet . . . and played games.

 

All my adult professional jobs have been computer-related, so it worked out as an investment in my future. Thanks, mom and dad. :- )

I get that, I did all that as well ... just on a shat for console / arcade games Apple II, so instead it was carmen sandiego, trolls tale, the hobbit, and how to use a proper office suite. That's the thing, our non toy computer that was an over decade long (over due) investment that ran a biz, gave me entertainment, thought me math, science, research and harbored both my dad's and my masters thesis... 

 

it was expensive, it was a sacrifice for us, it earned its keep ... its not worthless cause it plays a meh game of ms pac man, and that gets lost in these type of discussions

 

DURH which game computer toys R us runs lode runner better, who gives a fuck, games on apple II suck in comparison ... they are still in use to this day driving cnc machines, its a better computer that can play ok, but not "better" games 

[zzip]

On 8/23/2020 at 9:25 PM, OLD CS1 said:

I never understood why, when comparing games on the Commodore 64 and the Apple, anyone would buy Apple and not be pissed.  To be fair, there were plenty of crappy titles on the 64, but just a nuts-for-nuts comparison of games between the two and the 64 wins 4-out-of-five.  I always felt like so many people settled for Apple because it had productivity software and what amounted to a real DOS environment, which the 64 lacked.

They attracted a different audience.   They wanted the name-brand apps and weren't so concerned about the games or multimedia apps.   I think there was a bit of a "status symbol" aspect to it too.   It cost much more so it must be better.  I remember Apple II owners in high school sneering at our Atari / C64 "toy" computers.

 

I can remember all the Amiga vs ST wars fighting over which was the better computer while people were buying DOS PCs in droves...   multimedia capabilities mattered much less to regular people than we assumed back then.

[desiv]

It is an interesting question, and I think there is a lot more in the details than people might initially think.

For instance, expandability.

 

Obviously, Apple wins with it's slots...  But how obvious is it in reality...  For most people.

What did people add in general?  Serial card/modem for communications, printer card, memory card.  Perhaps a sound card (tho not all that many).  And later a mouse card.  Memory/language cards.  Again, all nice, but...

If you had a C64, you could add all those too...  Modems?  No problem.  Printers, yep.  Sound card, not needed.  Mouse card, not needed.  RAM, available but not used that much in for the C64.

 

So, yeah, the Apple II series does win, but for the average owner I don't think it ended up being that big of a difference.

 

While I love the keyboards on my Apples, I liked the C64 keyboard too...

 

I think the huge difference (and this is to me...) is the 80 columns...  

For productivity apps, the Apple is better.

For games/entertainment, the C64.

 

That said, either had decent apps in both areas.

 

I used Fleet System 2 thru college on the 64 and it was fine for that.

And there are plenty of great games on the Apple II series...

 

I do agree that comparing is fun and useful..  But I don't think it is ever all that clear cut...

 

[Keatah]

2 hours ago, zzip said:

They attracted a different audience.   They wanted the name-brand apps and weren't so concerned about the games or multimedia apps.   I think there was a bit of a "status symbol" aspect to it too.   It cost much more so it must be better.  I remember Apple II owners in high school sneering at our Atari / C64 "toy" computers.

I got the Apple II as a kid, and I remember being told to keep quiet about it for whatever reason. I never saw the computer as a status symbol. Never. Not like today's fanbois. I had to actually learn it was elite and snobbish and whatever other status labels were applied because of high cost. I was disappointed to have to deal with that.

 

Quote

I can remember all the Amiga vs ST wars fighting over which was the better computer while people were buying DOS PCs in droves...   multimedia capabilities mattered much less to regular people than we assumed back then.

I did my fair share of sitting around on my ass comparing specifications all day too. And actually bought into the Amiga ecosphere.

 

I wanted a 16-bit computer mainly for better hi-res pictures and still imagery - I suppose that sort of falls into the "multi-media" category. But I never did develop hardons for CD-ROMs and graphics animation or even those scene demos. Not much anyways. Nice to see one or two times. But then..what..next..? Overall, yes, "multi-media" was gimmicky. The industry still trying to find direction.

 

I loved games like Flight Simulator II. But the 16-bit machines still came up short, naturally, of what pro-level sims were like. And that's ok. As a matter of fact, just in the last 5-years we got affordable consumer hardware that runs simulators at the level of detail I expected, expect.

 

Eventually I also got into the PC world and never looked at another platform since. No need! The PC had software continuity across generations and upgrading a processor didn't break everything. And the upgrade was useful across those generations.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Keatah

[Keatah]

On 8/23/2020 at 8:25 PM, OLD CS1 said:

I never understood why, when comparing games on the Commodore 64 and the Apple, anyone would buy Apple and not be pissed.  To be fair, there were plenty of crappy titles on the 64, but just a nuts-for-nuts comparison of games between the two and the 64 wins 4-out-of-five.  I always felt like so many people settled for Apple because it had productivity software and what amounted to a real DOS environment, which the 64 lacked.

 

I had owned both machines at the time. Apple II in the 70's and then later on the C64 when it came out.

 

I was never pissed that the Apple II couldn't quite match the C64's graphics and sound. Maybe a little jealous and stuff. But never pissed. The Apple II was a software playground in its own right. I was busy enough learning Applesoft BASIC, and then something went wrong and the machine presented me with a "*" and I discovered a whole new way to converse with the circuits. It was like going behind the scenes!

 

And then there was real DOS. A DOS I could understand. A DOS that made sense. By simply starting up with a disk in the drive I gained real usable commands like CATALOG, LOAD filename, SAVE filename, BLOAD, BSAVE, INIT, and more! To someone just having learned BASIC this was second hand. It was simple and it worked. Absolutely nothing to be pissed about.

 

I was frustrated with the C64 that there was really no straightforward way to access the SID chip, had to be done through tedious POKES and whatnot. And C64 didn't have a real DOS, not like on the Apple. So there's that.

 

Not to say Apple II sound was any better. It wasn't, just a single-tone beep or timing-loop based clicks that could be modulated or serialized into other tones. But nothing more was expected. No preconceived notions. In fact the Apple II seemingly had the most primitive sound in a micro, ever. Access a memory location, and click! The speaker cone shows signs of life by moving up briefly. I don't know how anything could be more bare metal simplistic than that!

[zzip]

27 minutes ago, Keatah said:

I wanted a 16-bit computer mainly for better hi-res pictures and still imagery - I suppose the sort of falls into the "multi-media" category. But I never did develop hardons for CD-ROMs and graphics animation and those demos. Not a lot anyways. Nice to see one or two times. But then..what..next..?

There was a certain amount of wow factor pushing graphics beyond what the machine was capable of.  On the ST, things like Spectrum 512 or Photochrome which could produce near-photo-quality results.      But when I got an SVGA PC,  photo-quality graphics where no longer that impressive because they were now easy to achieve.   I suppose that's why the "RastaConvert" here thread is so long, because while those kinds of graphics aren't impressive in general in 2020, they are impressive coming from that hardware.

 

CD-Roms?   Made canned video and full "talkie" games commonplace, and therefore less impressive.   It's hard to wow on the PC because you can always spend a little more money and get better hardware.  It's hard to find things that push the limits like the fixed-hardware computers of the 80s

47 minutes ago, Keatah said:

I loved games like Flight Simulator II. But the 16-bit machines still came up short

Flight Simulator II on my 8-bit was abysmal.  When I played it on 16-bit,  I was impressed because it now had cool features like chase-planes, picture-in-picture, and better than 2fps  performance!  Still it came up short of what you'd want it to be.

[Keatah]

59 minutes ago, zzip said:

Flight Simulator II on my 8-bit was abysmal.  When I played it on 16-bit,  I was impressed because it now had cool features like chase-planes, picture-in-picture, and better than 2fps  performance!  Still it came up short of what you'd want it to be.

8-bit FSII was trying to do too much on any version, solid "rendering", better flight model, more terrain detail. But I suppose state-of-the-art has to be pushed at some point. And that was fun even if it was a chore to play sometimes. A2-FS2 was more about discovery and insight (to me) rather than flying mechanics or navigation fundamentals.

 

Comparing A2-FS1 to A2-FS2 demonstrated that software capabilities were improving and complexity was increasing and there was a big future to look forward to. What would FS3 or even FS4 be like?? We dared to dream! It was inspirational and sparked much La-Z-Boy discussions.

 

I totally forgot to consider the pip, the chase plane views, the faster framerates. And I did enjoy those features. In that way it was cool. I had FSII and Jet for the Amiga and played them quite extensively. And it bears mentioning the owner's manuals for these programs was top-notch. As good as the documentation that came with the Apple II.

 

What I kept hoping for, realistically or not, was Evans & Sutherland style simulation.

[high voltage]

I once had an Apple II, very sturdy, they felt like they belong to the Army, out in the field. Never figured the AII out. Later, during a flea market visit, I saw an Apple IIc going for $20, I didn't buy it. Bummer. That would looked good along with my Atari 130 XE and C128.

Edited September 2, 2020 by high voltage

[Hwlngmad]

Throwing my two cents in, here is how I would break it down.  It goes:

 

Graphics - C64
Sound - C64
Price - C64
Durability - Apple II
Expandability - Apple II
Performance - Tie (C64 and Apple II get a point)
BASIC Programming - Apple II
Gaming Library - C64
Business Library - Apple II
Keyboard - Apple II
Open-Architecture - Apple II
Design / Appearance - Too subjective to rank and therefore not valid. However, I personally love the looks of the Bell and Howell Apple II+ and C64C.

 

Totals: 5 for the C64 to 7 for the Apple II.  Apple II being the overall winner.

 

Obviously opinions may differ, but this is just how I see it if utilizing the above criteria.

[high voltage]

Apple ][ Gaming library, I've found this from US EG gaming magazine:

 

 

 

Commodore 64 website GB64 mentions so far 29,000 games, but 1/3 of the entries are selfmade stuff like Boulder Dash games, lots of PD games, loads of SEUCK and whatever.

AtariMania lists 9000 different VCS games, is that so?

Magazines from way back are more reality than the internet.

Edited September 2, 2020 by high voltage

[zzip]

34 minutes ago, high voltage said:

AtariMania lists 9000 different VCS games, is that so?

AtariMania lists many duplicates for when the same game is reissued by a different publisher or released in a different country