C64 - A reappraisal 2017

[FifthPlayer]

 

Another big problem with the CoCo was that its software was mostly found in Radio Shack stores, and Tandy put real limits on third party creations. If a third party didn't publish through Tandy, then for the most part it was mail order or nothing. As we know from the TI-99/4a, limiting third party software can really limit a system's potential.

 

We also know that from the A8 platform. Atari didn't force developers to publish through them, but they did refuse to provide documentation to third-party developers for the first few years of the platform's existence. That really hurt the amount and quality of third-party software available, and gave an opening to competitors like the C-64.

Edited February 21, 2018 by FifthPlayer

[carlsson]

I'm not sure how hot Commodore were about games software and 3rd party developers either. Good old Jack once spoke about razors and razorblades, that once they had sold the customer a Commodore razor (possibly cheaper than others would like it), they would make money on selling Commodore razorblades (software). Also I've read somewhere that Commodore wanted the C64 to be something more than just a games computer, just like they several years later and under different management wanted the Amiga to be something else than a games computer.

Jay Balakrishnan at HESware in the ANTIC podcast last year described how a related company built RF modulators for Commodore and how they got a borrow a prototype of the C64, though without documentation. HESware quickly developed the air hockey game Retro Ball ready to be launched on cartridge when the C64 hit the stores, which according to Jay would at least be the first 3rd party game though the opinions on that matter may differ, in particular as HAL Labs in Japan would be converting some of their VIC-20 cartridge games to C64 or MAX format sometime in 1982-ish. Possibly HAL got more documentation and support from Commodore than others though, as their games would be released with the Commodore brand and thus become 1st party.

[sack-c0s]

The thing that bugs me about every time this conversation comes up is that if Commodore had pushed that bit further with the TED and gave it decent sprites then the plus/4 would've been the machine with almost all of the advantages that keep coming up on either side and we'd probably be discussing that instead.

[carlsson]

As far as I know, the TED never was intended as a C64 replacement, rather an attempt to make an even cheaper (!!) computer, mainly for the European market where the likes of the ZX Spectrum ruled. I have never really understood this strategy, as it seemed the production costs for the C64 already were quite low. Coupled with less RAM and a cheaper keyboard, they could've sold a "Commodore 32" to those who thought the C64 still was too expensive. In the end the Commodore 16 and Plus/4 were not that much cheaper anyway, which defeated the original purpose.

 

I know that 3rd party developers were looking forward to an enhanced C64 but I'm not sure what would've happened in practise. While it was easy to shift from the VIC-20 to C64, one more shift and decision to make software for either the old or new model or both may have introduced just as much confusion as if Atari had introduced major improvements with the XL line.

 

Also, given how easily TED chips break, it would have been even more disastrous if those used to be really powerful games computers of which very few still remained in working order. People in this thread already complain how unreliable the C64 was, which otherwise appears rock solid compared to the TED line.

[Bill Loguidice]

Yeah, I think if Commodore really knew how popular the Commodore 64 would become and how quickly they'd be able to get the price down, I seriously doubt they would have bothered with the C-16/Plus/4 in any form. Only something backwards compatible like the C-128 made any sense in that space.

[carlsson]

The first price war took place in the early summer of 1983 as far as I know, when Commodore cut the C64 price from $595 to $395. According to analysists at the time, the C64 already had production costs below $60. The TED project had progressed to a stage where they had prototype boards sent to developers by August 1983, with the long term goal to be able to sell the C116 at $49, how low the production costs would need to be to make it happen.

 

At the time, the exchange rate was roughly 1.50 USD per GBP, which means the ZX Spectrum 16K model at £99 in the summer of 1983 equalled $149 and the 48K model a little more, perhaps around £129 = $199? While Jack Tramiel surely wanted to wipe Sir Clive off his feet in Europe, perhaps Commodore aimed a little too low at $49, not to mention that it would take at least 6 more months before they would have this computer ready to be launched, by which the ZX Spectrum already had two years worth of software, resellers, user groups, magazines etc to compete against. (Actually it took more than a year longer for the Commodore 16 and Plus/4 to show up, after severe feature creap although the C116 indeed was sold at a low price that wasn't too far off the $49 mark if I recall correctly).

 

Something else that I never have understood is how a brand new, membrane and rubber keyboard could be cheaper to make than the already existing production of full travel keyboards (although some over here think those are terrible to use), but even then if we assume the C64 cost around $60 to manufacture by mid-1983, we remove some 16K RAM that anyway is underneath ROM and perhaps give it a rubber keyboard, certainly Commodore would've been able to sell that model at $199, effectively replacing both the VIC-20 and being a direct competitor to the ZX Spectrum 48K without the need for a brand new, ultra cheap model?

[+MrFish]

Here's a little piece artwork for all you commodore fans, that I started MANY years ago. I had planned to improve it a lot before posting, but what the heck.

 

The second one shows a little creative use of the beloved Atari rainbow.

 

 

 

[carlsson]

If your urine glistens in all the colours of the rainbow, perhaps you should see a doctor?

[+MrFish]

It's an optical illusion, kind of like a mirage.

[Bryan]

The thing that bugs me about every time this conversation comes up is that if Commodore had pushed that bit further with the TED and gave it decent sprites then the plus/4 would've been the machine with almost all of the advantages that keep coming up on either side and we'd probably be discussing that instead.

 

I suppose, but it would have been another 6502 computer in 1984, right as 68000 machines were hitting the market. It might have had an impact overseas but I doubt it would have ever been a big seller here.

[Gunstar]

 

I would use my remaining 800 more just for the cool/fun factor, but I find that most of my flash-based solutions don't want to fit in its snug cartridge port.

The latest THE!CART is designed to fit in the 400/800, so it's one exception to the rule. 128MB fits a lot of software when the average is probably 32-48K programs. I am awaiting mine, and though I don't have an 800 at the moment, I will and upgraded with Incognito 2 and The!Cart.

[Bill Loguidice]

 

I suppose, but it would have been another 6502 computer in 1984, right as 68000 machines were hitting the market. It might have had an impact overseas but I doubt it would have ever been a big seller here.

 

I agree 100%. After the C-64 caught on, there was no room in the US for yet another low end platform to succeed. None of them caught on. While some might want to point to the C-128 or the CoCo 3 as exceptions to that rule, they of course relied heavily on backwards compatibility rather than trying to exclusively be their own thing. Continuations of platforms released prior to 1984 are obviously all exceptions.

 

I'd have to think on it more, but I can't immediately recall any NEW low end computing platforms post-1984 catching on, regardless of territory.

[thetick1]

...

I'd have to think on it more, but I can't immediately recall any NEW low end computing platforms post-1984 catching on, regardless of territory.

 

Everyone in technology knew back in '84 the 68K and x86 were going to be the new processor standards.

[Bryan]

The Ted line should never have been released as it had drifted too far from its goal as a ultra-budget machine and was a misguided attempt to move away from the thriving C64 ecosystem. Whereas the 128 probably shot too high, the Plus/4 shot too low. Personally, I think a revised C64 at the same price but with a few added features would have convinced many owners to upgrade and generated more sales than anything else.

[thetick1]

The Ted line should never have been released as it had drifted too far from its goal as a ultra-budget machine and was a misguided attempt to move away from the thriving C64 ecosystem. Whereas the 128 probably shot too high, the Plus/4 shot too low. Personally, I think a revised C64 at the same price but with a few added features would have convinced many owners to upgrade and generated more sales than anything else.

 

That is very easy to state now afterwards. I think Tramiel was a bit too greedy thinking he could get the low end with a cheaper TED design. The problem I suspect is the C64 cost became lower and quicker than what Jack thought. Also the sales of C64 sustained much longer than Jack was expecting. And with some feature creep and few delays the TED designs were no longer much cheaper than c64.

 

If Jack would have stayed with Commodore there would have been a C65 released before '90 with better graphic modes. Atari would have had the 1450XL with the Amiga chipset. And Jack would had a 68K machine with a cheap TED follow on or C65 graphics (VIC III or IV) for graphics.

Edited February 22, 2018 by thetick1

[Bryan]

That is very easy to state now afterwards.

 

I tend to disagree. When you've got the world's best selling micro, why would you continue to act like a company trying to break into the market with an incompatible product? It's an incredible gamble. The Plus/4 was considered a bad idea by most of the press at the time as well.

[Bill Loguidice]

 

I tend to disagree. When you've got the world's best selling micro, why would you continue to act like a company trying to break into the market with an incompatible product? It's an incredible gamble. The Plus/4 was considered a bad idea by most of the press at the time as well.

 

Contemporary accounts were at best of the head scratching variety, especially with the lack of compatibility with the C-64, Of course, it's important to remember that the original goal of the TED series was very different from the unnecessary monstrosity that we got with the final versions of the C-16 and Plus/4. Considering what they were being sold for and the drop in most audio-visual areas, there was never a chance for success even if the C-64 wasn't dominant. Those computers should have simply been shelved.

 

I will say though that I personally love the look and feel of the Plus/4. For my money, it was easily among the best Commodore systems of any type in that regard.

 

While I'm a fan of the C-128, it's a shame that the C-65 was never released, although I had moved onto the Amiga by then. I'm happy that the Mega65 looks so promising.

[carlsson]

In any case, it must've been a difficult market to try to master:

 

* In North America, perhaps the USA in particular, people wanted premium products, the best money could buy. Great build quality, great specs, ideally the latest technology. While I'm sure there were customers who would settle for less, my impression is that those were in minority.

 

* In Europe, both the UK and mainland, people were much more money aware. We would far more commonly settle with "good enough" if the price was fair. The latest and greatest at premium price may attract a small part of the market, but not what usually would dominate.

 

* In Asia, and here I'm mainly thinking about Japan, they had their own industry growing. It seemed difficult both for premium and budget models from abroad to enter the market. Commodore tried a little, though the opinion differs how well they succeeded.

[+DrVenkman]

 

That is very easy to state now afterwards. I think Tramiel was a bit too greedy thinking he could get the low end with a cheaper TED design. The problem I suspect is the C64 cost became lower and quicker than what Jack thought. Also the sales of C64 sustained much longer than Jack was expecting. And with some feature creep and few delays the TED designs were no longer much cheaper than c64.

 

If Jack would have stayed with Commodore there would have been a C65 released before '90 with better graphic modes. Atari would have had the 1450XL with the Amiga chipset. And Jack would had a 68K machine with a cheap TED follow on or C65 graphics (VIC III or IV) for graphics.

The 1450XL (1450XLD, actually) was merely the XL line with provision for internal parallel interface disk drives and a few other irrelevant bits. No new chipset.

 

The Amiga chipset was destined for a new high-end games machine and, after a year I think, a new computing platform entirely.

 

This is all detailed in Curt and Marty’s book.

[thetick1]

The 1450XL (1450XLD, actually) was merely the XL line with provision for internal parallel interface disk drives and a few other irrelevant bits. No new chipset.

 

The Amiga chipset was destined for a new high-end games machine and, after a year I think, a new computing platform entirely.

 

This is all detailed in Curt and Marty’s book.

I'm familiar with history documented at http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/8bits/xl/1450xld/1450xld.html

 

I'm making the assumption Atari without Jack would have keep the 1450XLD but instead of using FREDDIE use the Amiga chipset. And an obvious follow on would be a 68K processor with the Amiga chip set likely called a new name or something like the 1600ST ( ST for sixteen/thirty two).

Edited February 22, 2018 by thetick1

[Bryan]

I'm pretty sure the Amiga chipset requires a 16-bit environment and would not be at all compatible with a 6502 system.

[emkay]

I'm pretty sure the Amiga chipset requires a 16-bit environment and would not be at all compatible with a 6502 system.

Depending on the common video frequency, and the fact that Copper, Agnus, and Paula could use their own programm counters(RAM Access) , using just a 6502 could have worked. Most games on the Amiga didn't even tickle the peak of what the machine was capable of.. Games like Shadow of the Beast could run at the same speed, either if an 68000 or a 6502 had been used.

[carlsson]

I wonder how much Motorola charged for the 68000 around 1983. Based on the Macintosh documentation, it is said that the 68000 was $14 more than the 6809 in 1981-ish, and that Steve Jobs managed to talk down the price to $9 per chip which was 1/4 of what Motorola otherwise would charge, but it isn't clear exactly when this negotiation took place - 1981, 1982, 1983? Hi-Toro probably wasn't in the same position as Apple, being able to convince Motorola that the Lorraine video game/computer would sell in millions from the start. Also I don't know what Atari paid for their 6502 chips by 1983-84, if the engineering costs to adapt the Lorraine chipset to a 8-bit system had been less than the price difference between a 6502 and a 68000 assuming a certain volume of sold units.

[Bryan]

Depending on the common video frequency, and the fact that Copper, Agnus, and Paula could use their own programm counters(RAM Access) , using just a 6502 could have worked. Most games on the Amiga didn't even tickle the peak of what the machine was capable of.. Games like Shadow of the Beast could run at the same speed, either if an 68000 or a 6502 had been used.

I'm pretty sure the Amiga chipset has 16-bit registers and you'd need some complex scheme to write to them. I also don't know if the chips can be accessed at 6502 speeds. In any case, I don't think that was ever anyone's intention.

[+DrVenkman]

I'm familiar with history documented at http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/8bits/xl/1450xld/1450xld.html

 

I'm making the assumption Atari without Jack would have keep the 1450XLD but instead of using FREDDIE use the Amiga chipset. And an obvious follow on would be a 68K processor with the Amiga chip set likely called a new name or something like the 1600ST ( ST for sixteen/thirty two).

 

There's so much wrong with this both technically and historically.

 

​First, FREDDIE is a somewhat-enhanced memory management unit, not a full-blown chipset. It doesn't add any substantive functionality, so a "1450XLD with the Amiga chipset" as a concept makes no sense.

 

Second, the deal between Atari and Amiga was with Atari, Inc. (Warner Communications), and Amiga themselves pulled out of the deal at the very last second, refunding Atari's development money instead of signing the licensing deal.

 

Third, as I already noted, the deal with Amiga - had it been finalized - was for a game system first and foremost, with computer applications to come later.

 

So instead of reading the 1450XLD page, you should familiarize yourself instead with the story of the Amiga Lorraine chipset, their deal with Atari and how they reneged on said deal.