C-64 vs the world (vintage flamebait) (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Tue Apr 23 14:07:20 2002

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ethan Dicks" <erd_6502_at_yahoo.com>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 11:01 AM
Subject: C-64 vs the world (vintage flamebait) (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid
Lusers)


>
> --- Bryan Pope <bpope_at_wordstock.com> wrote:
> > I don't understand how you can call the Commodore 64 a "video toy".
>
> I certainly don't. For several years, it was the source of my paycheck.
>
> > My C64 was used for games, but it was also used to do spreadsheets and
> > word processing.
>
> I didn't do
>
> > Now compare the cost of the 64 to a PC/AT at the time...
>
> More like the original PC - both came out about the same time - 1982.
> The C-64 was $595 (no disk), the original PC was $2880, 64KB of RAM
> and, also, no disk.

My partner and I sold "grey market" PC/XT's in that time-frame for $1450. We
provided our own drive/controller, but got the 8-slot motherboard in the
standard IBM box from VAR's who had to buy more than they could use. I didn't
like the retail business, BTW.

> The PC-AT came out several years later with a
> standard configuration price (including hard disk) of $5K.
>
August of '81, IIRC. I got my technical reference in March of '82.
>
> ISTR it took several years until the PC (and descendents) beat the C-64 in
> total sales in dollars and years after that until it passed in total
> units sold (the C-64 had a run of about 17 million, IIRC).
>

> > And I believe that the C64 graphics kicked the PC/AT's ass... ;)
>
> Up until EGA, that was true.
>
> But it wasn't the graphics that did it - 80 column text was important
> to the PC, as was compatbility between home and work.
>
Compatibility? Could the PC easily read Commodore 64 diskettes?

Dick
Received on Tue Apr 23 2002 - 14:07:20 BST