C64 question

From: Ross Archer <archer_at_topnow.com>
Date: Thu Feb 8 00:56:29 2001

Cameron Kaiser wrote:
> > > The 64 and VIC would have had a faster drive if it wern't for the
> > > cables and the chip problems...
> >
> > You mean if it wasn't for poor engineering and stupid marketing decisions.
> > Now I know why I laughed at Commodore owners all those years ;)
> Elitist. :-P

Revisionist too. :)

I remember having my C64 when the IBM PC first came out.
Minimal graphical capabilities, beep-bleep sound, and ridiculous
price for its capabilities (it wasn't even significantly faster,
and if you were doing anything like a game, it was grossly inferior.)

Contrast that with any C64/C128, with real multi-voice sound capability,
multiple "sprite" graphics, and frankly adequate speed for games of that
era, and a price that was rock-bottom by comparison.

Sure the drives sucked rocks(!!!), and their marketing was even worse.
I think in all the years Commodore existed, I saw ONE TV ad, and it
was aiming the Amiga for the business and "serious application"
 market. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid!!!

If they had called themselves "Commodore Game Machines" and stuck to
fancy silicon coprocessors, they would be today's Playstation. :)

In my incredibly humble opinion, of course. :)

-- Ross

> Since my Power Mac 7300's HD had a serious mechanical failure this morning,
> I am now back on the 128D's console. Feels good to have " on SHIFT-2 ...
> doesn't feel good to realise that the $130 I paid for that drive is wasted,
> along with 4MB of irreplaceable data (the CD-RW burner I bought for backups
> ironically will arrive sometime next week).
> --
> ----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
> Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser_at_stockholm.ptloma.edu
> -- If G. B. Shaw were a surrealist, he'd be writing plays about ghoti. --------
Received on Thu Feb 08 2001 - 00:56:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:33:44 BST