Re: The Apple ][ was cool!

[Jason <tmr@c64.org>]

In article <3B546505.FC63740@swbell.net>, Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>
writes
>Jason writes ...
>> 
> ....
>
>> 
>> Rubywand:
> ....
>> > Jeff Thomas writes ...
>> > > For pure gaming, the Commodore 64 rates at the top
>> 
>> > Really, this is pure myth. For most hop and bop arcade style games,
>> > yes.
>>
>> The *majority* of what is played on 8bit computers, then...
>
>     Possibly on C64's. It was a computer many parents bought for their
>children because it was much less expensive than an Apple II.
>
> ....
>
>> 
>> > A major C64 weakness is that its best hires color mode gives only
>> > 160 x 200 resolution. This explains why C64 adventure game displays,
>> > while usually more colorful, look so blocky next to Apple II displays.
>> 
>> The C64 has two modes, but the average gamer *prefers* colour so the
>> 160x200 had to be used to keep the players happy.
>
>     The Apple II has a very similar double-hires color mode (140x192
>16-colors) which looks very nice in games like King's Quest, 'Eagle's Nest,
>etc.. 
>
>
>> The 320x200 mode is
>> perfectly serviceable and can produce decent pictures but can only use
>> two colours per 8x8 cell with all 16 available on screen.
>
>     Good point. There are plenty of C64 adventures which look very nice and
>do not look blocky.
>
>
>> I believe this is still better than the Apple II at a similar
>> resolution...?
>
>     320x200 dots is better than 280x192 dots. However, Apple II hires can
>display all of its basic six colors (and other dithered colors) inside an 8x8
>bit block. Six is better than two; but, there are limitations on A2 hires
>color/dot placement which reduce the advantage.
>
>
>> 
>> > Another C64 weakness is its slow, cumbersome DOS. Next to Apple II's
>> > DOS 3.3, it's an absolute dinosaur.
>> 
>> The C64's DOS is a hang-over from the old days of the PET I think and
>> yes, it's cumbersome.  Just out of interest, when was DOS 3.3 released
>> or is it standard with all machines?
>
>     DOS 3.3 was released in 1980. Higher-speed versions were becoming
>standard in 1981.
>
>
>> 
>> > Playing adventures which require frequent disk accesses was a
>> > nightmare on the C64. Eventually, various DOS accelerators were
>> > developed; but, these can be a major pain to install and they do not
>> > work correctly with all software (most of which was copy protected).
>> 
>> Most of the later copy protections had their own reasonable turbo
>> loaders, it just took a little while to get it right.  This is fairly
>> understandable, it takes a little while to get down to the lowest level
>> and understand the disk system.
>
>     Okay. Still, I was reviewing games for RUN in the later 1980's and ran
>into many products which were slow as mud doing disk accesses.
>
>
>
>> The Apple II had a head start, remember?
>
>     Not sure you want to bring that up. The Apple II series was running a
>user-friendly high-speed DOS for two years before the C64 was marketed. You'd
>think someone at Commodore would have bought an Apple II, read the volumes of
>documentation on DOS 3.3, and figured out how to come up with a decent DOS.

Commodore had their DOS from the PET, there are still some hang-overs
from there.  They didn't even re-write the BASIC commands until much
later.

>
>     
>
>> 
>> > The C64 has inputs which could be used to connect analog joysticks;
>> > but, these are reserved for graphics tablets (like Koala).  Instead,
>> > you are stuck with using non-analog switcher sticks. As a result, the
>> > C64 user does not have nearly the control responsiveness and realism
>> > available to Apple II users playing many flight and combat
>> > simulations.
>> 
>> There were analogue sticks available (as well as paddles and a couple of
>> mice) but the majority of games just don't *suit* those control systems.
>> Most of the flight sim players I knew had analogue controllers for their
>> Breadbins.  Everybody else would be using a digital stick because they
>> were playing games that would be rendered uncontrollable with analogue.
>
>     If nearly all C64 game software which uses joysticks is designed to use
>switcher type sticks, then, naturally, there will be no advantage in trying
>to connect analog sticks.

It can be done and Commodore themselves were producing analogue paddles
from before the C64 was released, but the market wanted arcade over
simulation.  The market is what shifts machines...

> The point is that a platform which requires analog sticks-- e.g. Apple
> II-- will have software which utilitzes the extra capabilities of
> these sticks to deliver better, more realistic game controls.

I don't see that, if a game type is designed for switched joysticks
(like the majority are, have a look at the old arcade games they're
based on) then an analogue stick makes them unplayable.  Flight sims are
analogue, most other stuff is digital apart from driving games.

>
>
>> 
>> > The C64 keyboard has a mushy toy-keyboard feel. If you are playing a
>> > game which requires lots of typing, you definitely want to be using an
>> > Apple II.
>> 
>> That's *very* much personal taste and, as someone who has spent some
>> fifteen years hammering text into a Breadbin (and a C128D) I can say
>> that I have always found the keyboard to be solid and responsive.  I
>> pretty much learnt to touch type at about 70WPM on my first C64.
>>
>
> Which shows people are remarkably adaptive. On an Apple II you would
> have reached 90WPM. (Of course, you probably would have had to replace
> the keyboard after a couple years. Early Apple II KB's were not very
> rugged.)

No, I'm getting old and max out at 70WPM.  Ten years ago, when I was
doing a lot of C64 coding, I had a speed of about 85WPM but I've slowed
down...

> There isn't that much personal taste involved in defining 'good feel'.
> Mainly, you're looking for good tactile feedback. The rubbery C64 KB
> does not provide good tactile feedback. This leads to fatigue. The
> fact that the case is so high, yet light and prone to moving around
> during use, is another fatigue factor.

Sorry, that *is* personal taste - I've never had that problem, PC
keyboards leave me more prone to fatigue than the Breadbin does.

> A KB like that makes game playing less fun. Although joysticks and
> keyboards are not hi-tech components and do not contribute much to
> system cost, they dramatically impact user comfort and enjoyment of a
> system. 

As far as joysticks go, I'd settle for my battered old ZipStik digital
with no autofire over just about *anything* I've ever used on any
format.


>
>
>> > There are other possible comparisons. Basically, though, I've stuck to
>> > comparing game playing on the typical Apple II vs. game playing on the
>> > typical C64 given available software.
>> 
>> With the 8bits, people tended to make their decisions about which
>> machine they wanted from the games they saw on a friends machine or in a
>> shop.  Certainly, if the only factor was price the C64 should have
>> *totally* bombed in the UK against the Spectrum, but held it's own
>> reasonably well.  Similarly, the Amiga should have been toasted by the
>> Atari ST, the latter was the cheaper of the two.  But people saw what
>> they *wanted* and purchased accordingly.
>> 
>> The sheer volume of Breadbins shifted proves that, okay so *some* of
>> them may be based purely on the price (and that argument only really
>> applies to the States, in the UK and Europe the C64 was one of the more
>> expensive players) but what *percentage* of the overall sales were
>> biased just by that factor?  Not a big one [oo-er] I suspect. =-)
> ....
>
>     Besides price, a very important selling point is the perception that the
>machine either has or will attract a large base of users and be guaranteed
>years of support from software makers, hardware developers, and magazine
>publishers. Spectrum never got anywhere in the USA and everyone knew it never
>would. That, alone, killed it vis-a-vis C64.

The C64 had the same problem in the UK, the Spectrum was the market
leader and had a head start, was British built during a time when "buy
British" was a fairly prominent marketing ploy and a cheaper price tag.
But it still managed to sell in very good numbers.

>     At the start of competition with A2, C64 could show off relatively few
>pieces of software vs. thousands of Apple II commercial and user-generated
>wares. C64 could show pretty, colorful graphics; but, in double-hires, so
>could A2.
>
>     Meanwhile, Apple II had a huge worldwide user base, numerous
>high-quality publications, and a piles of hardware add-ons, including
>accelerators and sound/music/speech boards. By 1983, A2 was the standard
>computer in many classrooms, and could show off all sorts of productivity,
>programming, educational, etc. software, too.

I'd have to disagree again, with the right upgrades the C64 is a pretty
powerful piece of hardware.  As a stock machine it can still do a fair
bit.

> And, if you place the computers side by side, there's no mystery at
> all about which is more attractive or about which looks like a
> substantial product and which looks like a toy.

[Shrug] If we're judging by the physical appearance of the machines,
have a look at the Speccy.  It still managed a *very* sizeable slice of
the sales pie in it's original form.

> Given a choice at roughly equal price a shopper would have to be nuts
> to pick C64.

But they *did*.

> Evidently, though, price was an even greater factor in Europe than
> in the US. If C64 was one of the more expensive choices, then Apple II
> must have been totally beyond consideration for most shoppers in the
> UK.

The market was pretty much non-existent, I've only ever seen one Apple
II over here and that was owned by the University of Kent.  I know
nobody who actually owned one.

>     Sure, eventually, a new computer shopper would have friends or children
>with friends who played games on C64's; and, he/she might be impressed by the
>nice graphics in a game. There would be some C64 publications and a better
>selection of products, too. 
>
> Even so, there's really not much question that, for the three or four
> years the competition lasted (i.e. before arrival of the IIgs),  the
> primary factor favoring the C64 would be price. The C64 would be
> viewed as "the best computer for the money", not "the best computer".

We started out discussing the best machine for games.  By the end of
1983 the C64 had a large back-catalogue of games.  By 1985 or 1986 it
could boast some of the best stuff going (a lot of which didn't make it
to the US because it was PAL only).  And it didn't stop, C64 games were
being developed commercially up until 1993 and some small companies
*still* do them.  There's no real profit but they don't care as long as
they cover costs.
-- 
Jason  =-)
     _______________________________________________________________________
TMR /     /     /     /  /     /     /                                     /\
   /  /__/  /  /  /__/  /  /  /  /__/         Email: tmr@c64.org          / /
  /  /\_/  /  /__   /  /  /  /  __//           TMR_C0S on IRC            / /
 /  /__/  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /    http://www.tmr.cosine.org.uk     / /
/_____/_____/_____/__/__/__/_____/_____________________________________/ /
\_____\_____\_____\__\__\__\_____\_____________________________________\/