> Warning: heavy bias and Commodore history!
> ::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.
> [...good description of A2 vs C64 and VIC20 vs. C64 ..]
couldn't have don better (Why did I just answer the original postng ? :)
> The software gap closed quickly.
For gamers of course (althrugh adventures still got out
first on the a][)
> Sound? Without a Mockingboard, don't make me laugh. :-)
Hey, never heared the _TWO_ voices sound programms ?
or one Bit voice samples on the Apple :)))
(Just think about all the work that is done nowadays
to reproduce _real_ beep and boing wit multimedia eq :)
> Nevertheless, though, I don't think anyone will doubt that the 64 has it in
> spades over the Apple in sheer graphics and sound power. And the 64 did
> very well versus the Nintendo, despite the NES' expanded colour palette (I
> think 256).
Well, exactly this is it - the C64 was way more used among
and against video consoles than computers. For a game like
Bards Tale, Ultima or Wizardry (I still can runn the first
3 levels of Wizardry 1 in my dreams) the difference wasn't
realy important.
> Nevertheless, the 64 was a revolutionary improvement in terms of its memory
> and graphics/sound capabilities. The VIC-20 was just better built.
My point.
Servus
Hans
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
Received on Fri Dec 11 1998 - 12:38:57 GMT