6 ms·

You realize of course, that the Commodore 64/128 were better than the Apple 2 and PET in every conceivable way? RAM, graphics, sound, available software library

You realize of course, that the Commodore 64/128 were better than the Apple 2 and PET in every conceivable way? RAM, graphics, sound, available software library, etc. It wasn't until the IIc/e where it had something that a C64 didn't, 80 column mode (C128 had it) The Apple IIc cost as much as an Amiga 1000, a machine which was a quantum leap better, than both the Apple 2 series, and greatly superior in HW to the Mac until the introduction of the Mac II's introduction (for $12,000 in 2019 dollars)

quietbritishjim 6y ago
> You realize of course, that the Commodore 64/128 were better than the Apple 2 and PET in every conceivable way? "Of course" is indeed is the right phrase to use here. The Commodore 2 is a computer from several years later, at time when Moore's law was in full swing. Put another way, my laptop or smartphone is better than an Apple 2 and was cheaper to buy... Yes, but so what? I don't see what point you're making (in either this comment or the GP one), except that hardware gets better over time.
- cromwellian 6y ago
  The C64 wasn't better than the Apple 2 because of Moore's law. The C64 and Apple 2 both had 6502s running around 1Mhz. The C64 was better than the Apple 2, because of superior overall design of the HW. The VIC-II, SID, and CIA chips. The overall point I'm making is that for years Apple sold inferior hardware at vastly inflated prices, and made up for it only in superior marketing. Commodore had a whole team of Steve Wozniaks doing wonders, and managed to sell a ton of great, functional computers for people, but go unrecognized because of incompetent management that ultimately doomed the company. HN is flooded continuously with Apple hagiography, but in the 80s, practically no one I knew owned an Apple, whether it was regular kids down the streets, or the hackers and phreakers, crackers, and demo scene folks I frequented with online. But somehow, an entire decade where Commodore computers were ubiquitous and dominated non-business environments, is unknown to today's millennials.
  - cromwellian 6y ago
    And by better, I mean, this was the kind of stuff 1982 C64 hardware could do (see whole demo for more, but here's real-time 16fps video decoding + digital sound): https://youtu.be/FTtKHLZTbtA?t=715 https://youtu.be/FTtKHLZTbtA?t=715 And here's what 1985 Amiga HW could do. This isn't Moore's law advantage (compare to 1984 and 85 Mac models). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7rKj0DU8Xs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7rKj0DU8Xs
  - simonh 6y ago
    >...superior overall design of the HW. The VIC-II, SID, and CIA chips. Chips that didn't exist in 1978. The overall point you're making is that technology from several years later was better. Or you're trying to hijack the thread into a rant about Apple in the 1980s and later for some reason.
    - cromwellian 6y ago
      > Chips that didn't exist in 1978. The overall point you're making is that technology from several years later was better. Not relevant. Years later, even the Apple IIc (1984) wasn't close to a C64, not to mention an Amiga. The thing you're missing is, Commodore had purchased MOS Technology, just like Apple purchased PA Semi to make their own iPhone SoCs, and had spent years investing in custom silicon going back to the VIC in 1979. The Apple II did not have a "video chip". Wozniak had cobbled together a video chip out of a bunch of 74LS TTL chips. Here, learn to built one yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7rce6IQDWs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7rce6IQDWs That's what I meant by "superior design". Commodore actually had integrated CMOS chips for video, audio, I/O, that they had designed in house and fabbed themselves. The Apple 2, well into the IIc days, was built like a semi-decent Arduino project. Even the Mac had gfx and DMA cobbled out of TTL chips.
      - quietbritishjim 6y ago
        I think maybe you have some interesting information that's buried in a very confusing presentation - at least that's my best guess of what's going on. If you'd started your original comment with something like "Just a few years later, in 1984, Apple's new offering the IIc was barely any better than the original while C64 had a far superior (...) but Apples continued to sell better because of shallow marketing" it would've made it clear you were switching to a related but different subject. As it was, you seemed to just directly compare the original Apple against something much later. You don't seem to get why people keep making seemingly unrelated comments - it's because we're still applying your comments to the original Apple II, but you're actually not talking about that any more.
rbanffy 6y ago
> You realize of course, that the Commodore 64/128 were better than the Apple 2 and PET in every conceivable way? Having been launched many years after the II and the PET, I'd expect much better specs. One key selling point of the II was the software library. The Commodores had great games, but Apple II's, aided by the Disk II, had orders of magnitude more, in both numbers and diversity. Up to the 128, disk performance also hurt the Commodore 64 family. The IIs architecture remained very stable over the years and backwards compatibility was always excellent. This allowed Apple to have very healthy profit margins (to the point of hurting itself) because it protected the investment in software. Don't get me wrong - I love the 64 (love the 128 a bit less) and the brilliant idea of having a disk drive that has its own computer inside (same applies to the 8-bit Ataris).
- jhbadger 6y ago
  Also, many people with other computers in the 1980s maybe don't realize how many of their games were ports of Apple II games. Lord British's "Ultima" series (at least up to Ultima 5) were developed on the Apple II and ported to the C64 and MS-DOS later. Same with Castle Wolfenstein. And the Wizardry series.
tenebrisalietum 6y ago
> You realize of course, that the Commodore 64/128 were better than the Apple 2 and PET in every conceivable way? Disks were WAY faster on Apple II than C-64. Also in the mid 80's when I was in elementary school, all my schools had Apple II's and all of them had 80 columns. I get the feeling it was better supported in software on Apple II than the options available for 80-column output on C64. Both of these were more important to business use than the C-64's SID or VIC chips.

quietbritishjim 6y ago

> You realize of course, that the Commodore 64/128 were better than the Apple 2 and PET in every conceivable way? "Of course" is indeed is the right phrase to use here. The Commodore 2 is a computer from several years later, at time when Moore's law was in full swing. Put another way, my laptop or smartphone is better than an Apple 2 and was cheaper to buy... Yes, but so what? I don't see what point you're making (in either this comment or the GP one), except that hardware gets better over time.

cromwellian 6y ago
The C64 wasn't better than the Apple 2 because of Moore's law. The C64 and Apple 2 both had 6502s running around 1Mhz. The C64 was better than the Apple 2, because of superior overall design of the HW. The VIC-II, SID, and CIA chips. The overall point I'm making is that for years Apple sold inferior hardware at vastly inflated prices, and made up for it only in superior marketing. Commodore had a whole team of Steve Wozniaks doing wonders, and managed to sell a ton of great, functional computers for people, but go unrecognized because of incompetent management that ultimately doomed the company. HN is flooded continuously with Apple hagiography, but in the 80s, practically no one I knew owned an Apple, whether it was regular kids down the streets, or the hackers and phreakers, crackers, and demo scene folks I frequented with online. But somehow, an entire decade where Commodore computers were ubiquitous and dominated non-business environments, is unknown to today's millennials.
- cromwellian 6y ago
  And by better, I mean, this was the kind of stuff 1982 C64 hardware could do (see whole demo for more, but here's real-time 16fps video decoding + digital sound): https://youtu.be/FTtKHLZTbtA?t=715 https://youtu.be/FTtKHLZTbtA?t=715 And here's what 1985 Amiga HW could do. This isn't Moore's law advantage (compare to 1984 and 85 Mac models). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7rKj0DU8Xs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7rKj0DU8Xs
- simonh 6y ago
  >...superior overall design of the HW. The VIC-II, SID, and CIA chips. Chips that didn't exist in 1978. The overall point you're making is that technology from several years later was better. Or you're trying to hijack the thread into a rant about Apple in the 1980s and later for some reason.
  - cromwellian 6y ago
    > Chips that didn't exist in 1978. The overall point you're making is that technology from several years later was better. Not relevant. Years later, even the Apple IIc (1984) wasn't close to a C64, not to mention an Amiga. The thing you're missing is, Commodore had purchased MOS Technology, just like Apple purchased PA Semi to make their own iPhone SoCs, and had spent years investing in custom silicon going back to the VIC in 1979. The Apple II did not have a "video chip". Wozniak had cobbled together a video chip out of a bunch of 74LS TTL chips. Here, learn to built one yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7rce6IQDWs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7rce6IQDWs That's what I meant by "superior design". Commodore actually had integrated CMOS chips for video, audio, I/O, that they had designed in house and fabbed themselves. The Apple 2, well into the IIc days, was built like a semi-decent Arduino project. Even the Mac had gfx and DMA cobbled out of TTL chips.
    - quietbritishjim 6y ago
      I think maybe you have some interesting information that's buried in a very confusing presentation - at least that's my best guess of what's going on. If you'd started your original comment with something like "Just a few years later, in 1984, Apple's new offering the IIc was barely any better than the original while C64 had a far superior (...) but Apples continued to sell better because of shallow marketing" it would've made it clear you were switching to a related but different subject. As it was, you seemed to just directly compare the original Apple against something much later. You don't seem to get why people keep making seemingly unrelated comments - it's because we're still applying your comments to the original Apple II, but you're actually not talking about that any more.

rbanffy 6y ago

> You realize of course, that the Commodore 64/128 were better than the Apple 2 and PET in every conceivable way? Having been launched many years after the II and the PET, I'd expect much better specs. One key selling point of the II was the software library. The Commodores had great games, but Apple II's, aided by the Disk II, had orders of magnitude more, in both numbers and diversity. Up to the 128, disk performance also hurt the Commodore 64 family. The IIs architecture remained very stable over the years and backwards compatibility was always excellent. This allowed Apple to have very healthy profit margins (to the point of hurting itself) because it protected the investment in software. Don't get me wrong - I love the 64 (love the 128 a bit less) and the brilliant idea of having a disk drive that has its own computer inside (same applies to the 8-bit Ataris).

jhbadger 6y ago
Also, many people with other computers in the 1980s maybe don't realize how many of their games were ports of Apple II games. Lord British's "Ultima" series (at least up to Ultima 5) were developed on the Apple II and ported to the C64 and MS-DOS later. Same with Castle Wolfenstein. And the Wizardry series.

tenebrisalietum 6y ago

> You realize of course, that the Commodore 64/128 were better than the Apple 2 and PET in every conceivable way? Disks were WAY faster on Apple II than C-64. Also in the mid 80's when I was in elementary school, all my schools had Apple II's and all of them had 80 columns. I get the feeling it was better supported in software on Apple II than the options available for 80-column output on C64. Both of these were more important to business use than the C-64's SID or VIC chips.