4 ms·

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, beca

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.
  - simonh 6y ago
    >Not relevant. OK, explain to me how technology released in 1982 and 1984, and the sales of products not yet released, are relevant to statements about the then current state of affairs in 1978? You know, the topic of this whole thread. Maybe that's what I'm not understanding. Please enlighten me.
  - jhbadger 6y ago
    And yet there's a reason why Woz is known to this day as a brilliant engineer. He basically did the impossible, designing color graphics and disk controllers without custom hardware. Obviously the design of a computer is much easier given custom chips.
    - cromwellian 6y ago
      I love Woz, but he did so, because of what he was given. Apple was raking in tens of millions from the Apple 2, why didn't they give Woz a team of chip designers for the follow on products? I mean, the Mac was launched similarly with TTL based logic "GPU", compared with the Commodore Amiga 1 year later which launched with 3 custom ASICs just like the C64.
JohnBooty 6y ago
Fun personal note: I grew up about two miles from MOS Technology's HQ! 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 This is a simplistic take that ignores some key actual reasons. There's no argument that the C64 was superior in terms of graphics and sound although even that comes with a caveat. Marketing is not why Apple beat Commodore, or at least far from the only reason. Nobody bought Apples because of the ads. I don't remember even seeing an Apple ad on TV, and people weren't so impressed by magazine ads that they would go spend an extra $1,000 on Apple. --- 1. The Apple II's were much more expandable thanks to their expansion slots, and there was a big ecosystem in place here already by the time the C64 gathered steam. You can see a somewhat similar dynamic at work today with RaspberryPi. There are competitors with more powerful hardware but with RaspberryPi, the ecosystem is the draw. 2. The Apple II (and soon after, the Mac) dominated the US education market. They developed strong relationships with schools, and had the most "educational" software titles. 3. 80-column mode. I know there were ways to achieve it on a C64, but what percentage of titles supported it? Additionally, a lot of folks had their C64s hooked up to crappy TVs that couldn't display it. 4. The C64's superior graphics and sound ability hurt it in the minds of many consumers. It was cheaper than an Apple II, but as far as parents were concerned that was still a lot of money to pay for a "game machine." Whereas the even more expensive Apple II, with a better selection of educational and "serious" software, was seen more as an investment in a child's future. --- I can tell you that in our household, #2 and #4 were why my (non tech savvy) parents bought us an Apple. They wanted me to have "what schools used." Did they make the right choice? Well, the Apple IIgs we got was definitely underwhelming. Obviously a C128 or Amiga would have been better for gaming and writing fun stuff. But, our local school district did use Apples back then. So it was kind of an advantage for me, to have one at home.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  Apple marketed directly to schools in the US. They were successful at this all the way through the mid 90s. Nobody I knew at the time used Apple computers at home, but every school had Apple computers in a lab and in the library.
- cromwellian 6y ago

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.
- simonh 6y ago
  >Not relevant. OK, explain to me how technology released in 1982 and 1984, and the sales of products not yet released, are relevant to statements about the then current state of affairs in 1978? You know, the topic of this whole thread. Maybe that's what I'm not understanding. Please enlighten me.
- jhbadger 6y ago
  And yet there's a reason why Woz is known to this day as a brilliant engineer. He basically did the impossible, designing color graphics and disk controllers without custom hardware. Obviously the design of a computer is much easier given custom chips.
  - cromwellian 6y ago
    I love Woz, but he did so, because of what he was given. Apple was raking in tens of millions from the Apple 2, why didn't they give Woz a team of chip designers for the follow on products? I mean, the Mac was launched similarly with TTL based logic "GPU", compared with the Commodore Amiga 1 year later which launched with 3 custom ASICs just like the C64.

JohnBooty 6y ago

Fun personal note: I grew up about two miles from MOS Technology's HQ! 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 This is a simplistic take that ignores some key actual reasons. There's no argument that the C64 was superior in terms of graphics and sound although even that comes with a caveat. Marketing is not why Apple beat Commodore, or at least far from the only reason. Nobody bought Apples because of the ads. I don't remember even seeing an Apple ad on TV, and people weren't so impressed by magazine ads that they would go spend an extra $1,000 on Apple. --- 1. The Apple II's were much more expandable thanks to their expansion slots, and there was a big ecosystem in place here already by the time the C64 gathered steam. You can see a somewhat similar dynamic at work today with RaspberryPi. There are competitors with more powerful hardware but with RaspberryPi, the ecosystem is the draw. 2. The Apple II (and soon after, the Mac) dominated the US education market. They developed strong relationships with schools, and had the most "educational" software titles. 3. 80-column mode. I know there were ways to achieve it on a C64, but what percentage of titles supported it? Additionally, a lot of folks had their C64s hooked up to crappy TVs that couldn't display it. 4. The C64's superior graphics and sound ability hurt it in the minds of many consumers. It was cheaper than an Apple II, but as far as parents were concerned that was still a lot of money to pay for a "game machine." Whereas the even more expensive Apple II, with a better selection of educational and "serious" software, was seen more as an investment in a child's future. --- I can tell you that in our household, #2 and #4 were why my (non tech savvy) parents bought us an Apple. They wanted me to have "what schools used." Did they make the right choice? Well, the Apple IIgs we got was definitely underwhelming. Obviously a C128 or Amiga would have been better for gaming and writing fun stuff. But, our local school district did use Apples back then. So it was kind of an advantage for me, to have one at home.

lern_too_spel 6y ago
Apple marketed directly to schools in the US. They were successful at this all the way through the mid 90s. Nobody I knew at the time used Apple computers at home, but every school had Apple computers in a lab and in the library.
cromwellian 6y ago