Re: The Apple ][ was cool!

["william strutts" <wrstrutts1@nospam.home.com>]

"Rubywand" <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote in message
3B530194.2AAAC1D8@swbell.net">news:3B530194.2AAAC1D8@swbell.net...

>      The only reason more C64's were sold than Apple II's is price. Being
a
> lot cheaper may have made the C64 a better buy. It never made it a better
> machine, not even for game playing.
>

Rubywand, I think you hit it on the head there.  It was cheaper.  In
Flint, they used to give you a Commodore when you made major
purchases.  Come on in and buy this refrigerator and you will
receive the Commodore 64 FREE.  Or if you paid for it, it cost
between $49 to $99.  Compare that to the hundreds or thousands
an Apple II user paid for hardware.

The Disk Drives which were as slow as their Casssette
drives was the major reason I didn't get one.  I mean it took my
friend eight or nine minutes to load games like Kareteka.
He eventually bought that accellerator you speak of but
it still was slow compared to computers with real disk
controllers like the Apple II.  I think the reason that they
were slow was that the disk drives connected to the
Commodore serial port.  I don't think the baud rate could
have been that good or it would have been faster.  Was
the accellerator a faster serial port card?

--
--
William R. Strutts - wrstrutts1@nospam.home.com - Whatever!

C'est moi!  http://www.facelink.com/wrstrutts

Just hacking away...

Remove nospam to reply.