>I learned many things about the C64 recently.
>First, that it was a underpowered, low quality computer that was more
>expensive than an Apple ][ and had less features. I disagree because I
>have never liked the Apple ][ more than the C64.
More expensive?!?! The C-64 with a C-1541 would have been about $600 when
introduced IIRC, at the same time a Apple ][ was about $1200-1500 I believe.
>Second, I learn that the VIC-20, a predecessor to the C-64, was better
>than it. How is this? Last I heard, it is the VIC that was underpowered
>because it only had 8k ram or something like. Please explain; how was it
>better?
The VIC had about 3.5k base, with 8k and 16k (I've heard of a 32k)
expansions. Might have been faster, but even I'll admit the C-64 was
better since it came with 64k, better graphics and sprites. A VIC-20 with
Datacasette was my only computer from 1981 or 1982-1986. In mid-87 I got a
Kaypro 2000 laptop, what a change!
Zane
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh_at_aracnet.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast |
| healyzh_at_holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| and Zane's Computer Museum. |
|
http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/ |
Received on Thu Dec 10 1998 - 20:45:31 GMT