Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.cbm > #6702 > unrolled thread

The C64 is crap!

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.cbm

Contents

  The C64 is crap! "Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o> - 2016-01-12 22:28 +0100
    Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-13 13:17 +1300
      Re: The C64 is crap! removemefirst.Robert.Wolfe@f18.n116.z1.fidonet.org (Robert Wolfe) - 2016-01-12 20:33 +1200
        Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-13 18:17 +1300
          Re: The C64 is crap! Andreas Kohlbach <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2016-01-13 18:10 -0500
            Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-14 13:39 +1300
              Re: The C64 is crap! Andreas Kohlbach <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2016-01-14 17:24 -0500
                Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-15 13:11 +1300
                  Re: The C64 is crap! aowen10@mail.bbk.ac.uk - 2016-01-15 08:58 -0800
                  Re: The C64 is crap! Andreas Kohlbach <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2016-01-15 16:05 -0500
                    Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-16 12:35 +1300
    Re: The C64 is crap! AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> - 2016-01-13 07:32 +0000
      Re: The C64 is crap! "Brian-Gaff" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-01-14 08:36 +0000
    Re: The C64 is crap! Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-01-13 10:09 +0100
      Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-14 13:42 +1300
      Re: The C64 is crap! "Brian-Gaff" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-01-14 08:37 +0000
    Re: The C64 is crap! Harry Potter <rose.joseph12@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 03:44 -0800
      Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-14 10:33 +1300
    Re: The C64 is crap! Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-14 06:10 +0800
    Re: The C64 is crap! "Brian-Gaff" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-01-14 08:35 +0000
      Re: The C64 is crap! Guesser <alistair@zxnet.co.uk> - 2016-01-14 15:24 +0000
    Re: The C64 is crap! Jan van den Broek <fortytwo@xs4all.nl> - 2016-01-21 22:31 +0100
      Re: The C64 is crap! Andreas Kohlbach <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2016-01-21 18:05 -0500
        Re: The C64 is crap! removemefirst.Drew.Klenotic@f1701.n2215.z1.fidonet.org (Drew Klenotic) - 2016-01-22 20:42 +1200
          Re: The C64 is crap! Andreas Kohlbach <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2016-01-23 15:21 -0500
            Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-24 10:06 +1300
            Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-24 10:08 +1300
              Re: The C64 is crap! Andreas Kohlbach <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2016-01-24 18:10 -0500
                Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-25 14:09 +1300
                  Re: The C64 is crap! Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2016-01-30 02:33 +0100
                    Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-30 18:16 +1300
                    Re: The C64 is crap! Andreas Kohlbach <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2016-01-30 14:54 -0500
                      Re: The C64 is crap! Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2016-02-01 10:36 +0200
                Re: The C64 is crap! removemefirst.Drew.Klenotic@f1701.n2215.z1.fidonet.org (Drew Klenotic) - 2016-01-26 19:45 +1200
            Re: The C64 is crap! removemefirst.Drew.Klenotic@f1701.n2215.z1.fidonet.org (Drew Klenotic) - 2016-01-26 19:38 +1200
              Re: The C64 is crap! Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2016-01-29 23:12 +0100
                Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-30 12:39 +1300
        Re: The C64 is junk! nospam.Ed.Vance@f1.n770.z1437.fidonet.org (Ed Vance) - 2016-02-18 10:23 +1200
          Re: The C64 is junk! Andreas Kohlbach <febr.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2016-02-19 15:57 -0500
    The C64 is crap! Terry Raymond <traymond20@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 14:19 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#6719

They're both crap, you should get something with an Intel i7 and an 
nvidia GTX card of some description. No colour clash, and loads of 
colours that aren't brown.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6744

Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:28:50 +0100
"Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o> schrieb:
>The Spectrum has much better graphics and better games! 

Ah yes, the annual cross-posting flame-bait. Good.

(Next time try to be a bit more original and start an 
"VIC-20 vs ZX-81"-thread)
-- 
A tuna is a way of Liff

                                        Jan v/d Broek
                                        balglaas@xs4all.nl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6745

Jan van den Broek wrote on 21. January 2016:
>
> Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:28:50 +0100
> "Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o> schrieb:
>>The Spectrum has much better graphics and better games! 
>
> Ah yes, the annual cross-posting flame-bait. Good.
>
> (Next time try to be a bit more original and start an 
> "VIC-20 vs ZX-81"-thread)

What about Atari 8bit (400, 800 and so on) VS Commodore 64? ;-)

The C64 and Amiga were the only "home computers" I owned. Now and then I
try to emulate computers I never had, never even heard of until now. When
I tried the Atari 800 and loaded VisiCalc (went down to some serious
business ;-) I noticed it would boot from the disk after power-on. Is
that true that the Atari did this or just a convenient feature of the
emulator? For the C64 you had to load any program manually.
-- 
Andreas

I use a Unix based operating system, which means I get laid almost as often
as I have to reboot my computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6748

On 21 Jan 16  18:05:59 Andreas Kohlbach wrote...

AK> XPost: comp.sys.sinclair
AK> 
AK> Jan van den Broek wrote on 21. January 2016: 
AK> > 
AK> > Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:28:50 +0100 "Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o>
AK> > schrieb: 
AK> > > The Spectrum has much better graphics and better games! 
AK> > 
AK> > Ah yes, the annual cross-posting flame-bait. Good.
AK> > 
AK>
AK> then I try to emulate computers I never had, never even heard of
AK> after power-on. Is that true that the Atari did this or just a
AK> convenient feature of the emulator? For the C64 you had to load any
AK> program manually. -- Andreas
AK> I use a Unix based operating system, which means I get laid almost as
AK>
To which Drew Klenotic replies...

Well, if what you're asking is if the Atari could autoboot programs, the
answer is yes.  Most games and professional productivity packages did auto
load on booting.  It was easy enough for you to make your own programs auto
boot as well as Atari DOS 2 would automatically search for "AUTORUN.SYS" and
other DOSes had similar capabilities.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6749

Drew Klenotic wrote on 22. January 2016:
>
> On 21 Jan 16  18:05:59 Andreas Kohlbach wrote...
>
> AK> then I try to emulate computers I never had, never even heard of
> AK> after power-on. Is that true that the Atari did this or just a
> AK> convenient feature of the emulator? For the C64 you had to load any
> AK> program manually. -- Andreas
> AK> I use a Unix based operating system, which means I get laid almost as
> AK>
> To which Drew Klenotic replies...
>
> Well, if what you're asking is if the Atari could autoboot programs, the
> answer is yes.  Most games and professional productivity packages did auto
> load on booting.  It was easy enough for you to make your own programs auto
> boot as well as Atari DOS 2 would automatically search for "AUTORUN.SYS" and
> other DOSes had similar capabilities.

Yes, thanks.

Learning about "new" (old in fact) home computers from the 70s and 80s
many could in fact "auto boot". Too bad the Commodore 64 was not among them.
-- 
Andreas

I use a Unix based operating system, which means I get laid almost as often
as I have to reboot my computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6750

In article <87mvrwm4i0.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
<janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> wrote:
> Drew Klenotic wrote on 22. January 2016:
> > On 21 Jan 16  18:05:59 Andreas Kohlbach wrote...
> > >
> > > then I try to emulate computers I never had, never even heard of
> > > after power-on. Is that true that the Atari did this or just a
> > > convenient feature of the emulator? For the C64 you had to load any
> > > program manually. -- Andreas
> >
> > Well, if what you're asking is if the Atari could autoboot programs, the
> > answer is yes.  Most games and professional productivity packages did auto
> > load on booting.  It was easy enough for you to make your own programs auto
> > boot as well as Atari DOS 2 would automatically search for "AUTORUN.SYS" and
> > other DOSes had similar capabilities.
> 
> Yes, thanks.
> 
> Learning about "new" (old in fact) home computers from the 70s and 80s
> many could in fact "auto boot". Too bad the Commodore 64 was not among them.

Most C64 users would have started with the tape drives (the disk drive
and disks being expensive), so auto-booting from a disk would be rather
senseless.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6751

In article <87mvrwm4i0.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
<janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> wrote:
> Drew Klenotic wrote on 22. January 2016:
> > On 21 Jan 16  18:05:59 Andreas Kohlbach wrote...
> > >
> > > then I try to emulate computers I never had, never even heard of
> > > after power-on. Is that true that the Atari did this or just a
> > > convenient feature of the emulator? For the C64 you had to load any
> > > program manually. -- Andreas
> >
> > Well, if what you're asking is if the Atari could autoboot programs, the
> > answer is yes.  Most games and professional productivity packages did auto
> > load on booting.  It was easy enough for you to make your own programs auto
> > boot as well as Atari DOS 2 would automatically search for "AUTORUN.SYS" and
> > other DOSes had similar capabilities.
> 
> Yes, thanks.
> 
> Learning about "new" (old in fact) home computers from the 70s and 80s
> many could in fact "auto boot". Too bad the Commodore 64 was not among them.

Of course it probably depends on what "Atari" you're talking about too.

The C64 did have the ability to "auto-run" from a cartridge plugged in.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6757

Your Name wrote on 23. January 2016:
>
> In article <87mvrwm4i0.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
> <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Learning about "new" (old in fact) home computers from the 70s and 80s
>> many could in fact "auto boot". Too bad the Commodore 64 was not among them.
>
> Of course it probably depends on what "Atari" you're talking about too.

To be fair, the 8-bit family (400, 800) of Atari
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_8-bit_family>.

AFAIK even the Apple II (1977) could autoboot from floppy. That was 5
years before the Commodore 64 was introduced. In that time frame of the
late 70s to mid 80s, 5 years are generations.

Because my first computer was a Commodore 64 booting manually was just
the way it was supposed to be. Never dealt with other home computers
until much later. For example I saw the first Amiga in 1986. That was the
first computer I knew being able to autoboot.

> The C64 did have the ability to "auto-run" from a cartridge plugged in.

But others could autoboot when just a floppy was inserted prior power-on.
-- 
Andreas

I use a Unix based operating system, which means I get laid almost as often
as I have to reboot my computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6758

In article <87k2myvak4.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
<janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> wrote:
> Your Name wrote on 23. January 2016:
> > In article <87mvrwm4i0.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
> > <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Learning about "new" (old in fact) home computers from the 70s and 80s
> >> many could in fact "auto boot". Too bad the Commodore 64 was not among
> >> them.
> >
> > Of course it probably depends on what "Atari" you're talking about too.
> 
> To be fair, the 8-bit family (400, 800) of Atari
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_8-bit_family>.
> 
> AFAIK even the Apple II (1977) could autoboot from floppy. That was 5
> years before the Commodore 64 was introduced. In that time frame of the
> late 70s to mid 80s, 5 years are generations.
> 
> Because my first computer was a Commodore 64 booting manually was just
> the way it was supposed to be. Never dealt with other home computers
> until much later. For example I saw the first Amiga in 1986. That was the
> first computer I knew being able to autoboot.
> 
> > The C64 did have the ability to "auto-run" from a cartridge plugged in.
> 
> But others could autoboot when just a floppy was inserted prior power-on.

Yes, but the floppy drive was expensive, so most originally only had
tape drives ... auto-booting from tape would have been exceedingly
silly.

Also, the Apple II loads at least some part of the system software from
the disk, whereas the C64 could be booted and used without anything
extra. I don't know about the Atari 400 / 800 - I never bothered with
them since they were crap, although nowhere near as useless as
Sinclair's garbage toys.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6769

Op 25-Jan-16 om 2:09 schreef Your Name:

> Also, the Apple II loads at least some part of the system software from
> the disk, whereas the C64 could be booted and used without anything
> extra. I don't know about the Atari 400 / 800 - I never bothered with
> them since they were crap, although nowhere near as useless as
> Sinclair's garbage toys.

As luck would have it I've just repaired a Apple II clone (I'm a 
Commodore guy, but this was a fun exercise). The Apple II doesn't 
require a disk; it has BASIC in ROM. That might not be obvious for the 
uninitiated because it starts up in the machine language monitor, with 
Ctrl+B followed by Return you go to the BASIC prompt.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6770

In article <n8h3n4$qif$1@dont-email.me>, Dombo
<dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote:
> Op 25-Jan-16 om 2:09 schreef Your Name:
> > 
> > Also, the Apple II loads at least some part of the system software from
> > the disk, whereas the C64 could be booted and used without anything
> > extra. I don't know about the Atari 400 / 800 - I never bothered with
> > them since they were crap, although nowhere near as useless as
> > Sinclair's garbage toys.
> 
> As luck would have it I've just repaired a Apple II clone (I'm a 
> Commodore guy, but this was a fun exercise). The Apple II doesn't 
> require a disk; it has BASIC in ROM. That might not be obvious for the 
> uninitiated because it starts up in the machine language monitor, with 
> Ctrl+B followed by Return you go to the BASIC prompt.

An "Apple II clone" isn't an "Apple II".  :-)

It depends on what you're wanting to do, what model of Apple II it is,
etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6773

Dombo wrote on 29. January 2016:
>
> As luck would have it I've just repaired a Apple II clone (I'm a
> Commodore guy, but this was a fun exercise). The Apple II doesn't
> require a disk; it has BASIC in ROM.

Is there any early 8bit "home" computer which did not have BASIC in a
ROM?

> That might not be obvious for the uninitiated because it starts up in
> the machine language monitor, with Ctrl+B followed by Return you go to
> the BASIC prompt.

Re you sure? I thought I saw a prompt which would accept direct commands
and when starting a line with a number it would assume it's a program you
type in. IIRC you have to type "call -151" to get into the machine monitor.
-- 
Andreas

I use a Unix based operating system, which means I get laid almost as often
as I have to reboot my computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6794

Andreas Kohlbach <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> writes:

> Dombo wrote on 29. January 2016:
>>
>> As luck would have it I've just repaired a Apple II clone (I'm a
>> Commodore guy, but this was a fun exercise). The Apple II doesn't
>> require a disk; it has BASIC in ROM.
>
> Is there any early 8bit "home" computer which did not have BASIC in a
> ROM?

I remember Sharp had some models that didn't. With a quick look MZ-700
and MZ-800 sound like models I remember from back then.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6763

All the Atari computers could autoboot from both a hard drive and a floppy. 
On the 8-bit series it was generally an AUTORUN.SYS file or STARTUP.BAT if you
were a SpartaDos user (commercial software sometimes used their own methods
and other DOSes had similar capability).

On the ST series it would run all the programs in a folder called AUTO in the
order in which they were copied to the folder located on the boot drive.

And yes, Apple also could.  How many Apples booted up looking for a program
called "alize" to run. ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6762

That's interesting to know... I never knew Commodores couldn't auto-boot from
disk.  If only I had known that long ago, it would have been fun to mock them
at the "copy fests" (I mean, user group meetings)... "Hey guys, can your
computer do this??????" as they were mocking us for this or that. ;)

But hey, it's all good now.  All retro is good retro.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6766

Op 26-Jan-16 om 8:38 schreef Drew Klenotic:
> That's interesting to know... I never knew Commodores couldn't auto-boot from
> disk.

The Commodore 128 could boot from disk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6768

In article <n8gntu$hqj$1@dont-email.me>, Dombo
<dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote:
> Op 26-Jan-16 om 8:38 schreef Drew Klenotic:
> > 
> > That's interesting to know... I never knew Commodores couldn't auto-boot
> > from disk.
> 
> The Commodore 128 could boot from disk.

As did the Amiga.

I don't know much about the unreleased C65, but that might have been
able to auto-boot as well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6821 — Re: The C64 is junk!

01-21-16 18:05 Andreas Kohlbach wrote to Jan van den Broek about Re: The C64 is
junk!
Howdy! Andreas,

 AK> @MSGID: <56A2151A.1379.cbm@capcity2.synchro.net>
 AK> @REPLY: <56A21514.1378.cbm@capcity2.synchro.net>
 AK> XPost: comp.sys.sinclair

 AK> Jan van den Broek wrote on 21. January 2016:
 >
 > Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:28:50 +0100
 > "Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o> schrieb:
 >>The Spectrum has much better graphics and better games!
 >
 > Ah yes, the annual cross-posting flame-bait. Good.
 >
 > (Next time try to be a bit more original and start an
 > "VIC-20 vs ZX-81"-thread)

 AK> What about Atari 8bit (400, 800 and so on) VS Commodore 64? ;-)

I was very frustrated back in the 1980's when I tried to get a Atari 400
or 800 Demo Model in a store to just print HI on the screen when I typed:
10 PRINT "HI"
RUN
and either of them did nothing at all except act like a Dumb Terminal.

So I scratched them OFF my list of Home Computers to consider buying.

It wasn't until after I bought a C=64 and had it for a few months that I
learned that the Atari 400's and 800's HAD TO HAVE a BASIC Cartridge
plugged in the Socket for them to use BASIC.

Of course Atari corrected that when they brought out their 800XL.
The Atari 800XL probably had BASIC ROM installed on the Motherboard as the
Commodore 64 has, but it was too late I was enjoying my C=64, 1541 and
300 Baud VICMODEM.

 AK> The C64 and Amiga were the only "home computers" I owned. Now and then

I seen a Amiga Demoed in a store but it was too pricey for Me.

 AK> I try to emulate computers I never had, never even heard of until now.

I looked at the Emulator for the C=64 on my XP computer but haven't tried
using it much.


... The four MT seasons: Winter, Winter, Winter, and Road Construction. -K.M.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.50

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6822 — Re: The C64 is junk!

Without starting a newtopic...

C64 VS Spectrum debate at the Play Expo Manchester 2014. Unfortunately
the audio quality is terrible.

Also I hoped for a bloody fight of the attendees at the end who is right
and not. ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EQ8DgG5NFI
-- 
Andreas

I use a Unix based operating system, which means I get laid almost as often
as I have to reboot my computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6809

C64 Still awesome in my book.  :-P

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.cbm

csiph-web