Re: The Apple ][ was cool!

["Jon-paul" <pockets@cix.co.uk>]

"Jason" <tmr@c64.org> wrote in message
ZF7FzMCcxxU7EwGV@cosine.demon.co.uk">news:ZF7FzMCcxxU7EwGV@cosine.demon.co.uk...
> Jeff Thomas:
> > For pure gaming, the Commodore 64 rates at the top
>
> Rubywand:
> > Really, this is pure myth. For most hop and bop arcade style games,
> > yes.
>
> The *majority* of what is played on 8bit computers, then...
>
> > Sprites, more colors, and better sound give C64 the edge. For
> > just about every other sort of gaming, Apple II is far superior, and
> > it isn't even very close.
>
> Hmmm...  I'd have to disagree with you there.
>
> > 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 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.  I believe
> this is still better than the Apple II at a similar resolution...?
>
> > 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?
>
> > 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).
>

I understand part of the problem was the designers fears over errors and
quality control of the hard ware. Like Atari they underestamated the rapid
development of reletivly high quality, and inexpensive (reletivly) data
transfer. so were doubley cautious with the dos and disk controlers,
sacraficing speed for reliability. Maybe they errored too much on the side
of caution.

> 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.  The Apple II had a head start,
> remember?
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.

I would very much agree with that, I wanted an Atari after seeing Star
Raiders in two shops in town on an 800 system. But at nearly �400 it was an
impossible dream, so I got a part time job and was able to save enough to
buy a spectrum which had just come out and looked the best bet (it was
either that or the oric :0) )

>  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.
>

Initaly over here the ST was the machine of choice, certainly amongst people
i knew. Then somehow Atari seemed to loose its way and in the early 90's it
most definatly switched over to the Amiga. Then commodore lost the plot in
its own accounts department. :o(

> The sheer volume of Breadbins shifted proves that,

I have heard the figure of 28 million in all forms world wide. Not to be
sniffed at. Definatly worlds prefered 8 bitter. it only seemed to loose the
no 1 position in the UK (which had a cheeper rival with a known name and a
10 month head start in sales) and some fickle markets like Japan.

> 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. =-)
> --

IIRC the commodore was the no 2 seller for much of the late 80's in the UK.
Upon release its main rival (price wise) was the dragon, but with dragon
data going belly up it switched to the acorn Electron (with its BBC basic
compatability, and so popular with 'education concious' parents) and later
the Amstrad machines despite a larger price difference. It could never quiet
shift the speccy from No1. I would quiet happily say bangs per buck they
were about equal, but the C=64 cost more bucks even if it had more bangs. So
people voted with their pockets. It was reletivly common many 2 computer
owners to have one of those as a spectrum (for the games)

> Jason  =-)
>

I have next to no experiance of the apple 2 series. I saw one once, green
screen (80 column IIRC which was impressive) but disk access was very good,
very good for data crunching i guessed. I understand they were very capable
but apple never seemed too bothered with the UK market keeping itself rather
low profile, and exclusive to very high end users. A bit like Bristol cars,
compared top the General motors of Commodore and the Austin/Rover or Ford of
the Speccy.

_______________________________________________________________________
> TMR /     /     /     /  /     /     /
/\
>    /  /__/  /  /  /__/  /  /  /  /__/         Email: tmr@c64.org
/ /
>   /  /\_/  /  /__   /  /  /  /  __//           TMR_C0S on IRC            /
/
>  /  /__/  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /    http://www.tmr.cosine.org.uk     /
/
> /_____/_____/_____/__/__/__/_____/_____________________________________/ /
> \_____\_____\_____\__\__\__\_____\_____________________________________\/


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.249 / Virus Database: 122 - Release Date: 13/04/01