Other computers may have a specific advantage here and there but overall, the C64 won.With its combination of great graphics and sound for the era, low cost, and considering that a a few affordable improvements could make it much better than it was stock (JiffyDOS for instance) it ended up winning.In close second place is the Apple ][ series of course. Both still have very active fan communities, tons of modern software and hardware still being manufactured, etc. but the inferior sound and graphics of the Apple, despite its greater expansion capability, means it's not as iconic when it comes to games in particular. It was more of an adult's computer. Not to say the C64 was only for kids, but it clearly catered to kids more than Apple did despite their constant deals to get Apples into schools.
why are kids so obsessed with legacy and influence and "winning" culture nowadays?
Winning the 8-bit computer wars is like winning at Special Olympics. The modern computer designs are derived from 16-bit computers, not earlier experiments. Those all turned out to be dead ends.
>>12176370excuse me sweaty but you're forgetting someone
and that's why we still have the function keys as a vertical column on the right-hand side of computers, graphics drawing characters available on the letter keys by holding down a meta-key, and the prehipherals like disk-drives have CPUs of their own.Except, none of that is true. I loved my C=64 too, but it's behind us, we have better things now.
>>12176370>c64chad computer for chad people>apple 2>despite its greater expansion capabilityit needed it in 1977. after that? lol no. it was hideously expensive to expand. gotta pay that apple tax! even back then they were trying hard with this exclusivity nonsense and ended up destroyed by commodore. at one stage commodore were approached by jobs and woz to make the apple 2 but jack tramiel, being a very smart business jew, said "nein".>>12176537chud cancer for fat retards
>>12176959Keyboard aside, you have no direct hardware access to really anything any mre. You can't peek and poke, you can't bust into assy from the OS directly... today's computers are made for office wenches.
>>12176385That’s what makes them superior. 16-bit computers and their derivatives are all built from the same cloth, indistinguishable, generic. The 8-bit micros are eternally unique, and each stand out in their own ways.
>>12177116Well, you COULD. Like it would be entirely possible to add a few helper utilities to freedos and get CBM BASIC with 64bit PEEK and POKE and have an assembler ready to go with or without DPMI. But the amount of shit you'd need to do just to get some pixels on the screen outside of old VGA emulation would be too much. The big problem with raw access to hardware on PCs is that if you're talking DOS era, you had no hardware, you were doing everything in software anyway and raw access wasn't giving you anything you couldn't achieve with a C compiler and win95. If you're talking SVGA, 3dfx and later, getting the blitters and texture mapping to work is a LOT of code, not even remotely comparable to POKE'ing a few registers and getting a sprite.
>>12177154>indistinguishable, genericWhat do you mean? The 286, the amiga, the ST, the x68000... they are about as different from each other as it's possible to be. Amiga had a programmable blitter and 4 channel sample playback, the ST had no blitter and FM but had MIDI and a built in ROM GUI OS, the x68k was sprites and tile based, the 286 was all about the add-in cards...
>>12176537Strictly as a BASIC machine it was inferior to others on the market in Japan and abroad.
>>12177108>it needed it in 1977It was balls to the wall better than the C64 as a raw computatoinal machine. Apple ][ was a Real (small) Business Computer as much as any CPM machine. In fact it could run CPM, and even eventually MS-DOS thanks to expansion cards, at the same time, with free switching between the two (text mode only?). Some configurations supported using the Intel CPU to offload BASIC commands, thanks to the flexibility of the bus and BASIC.I know a guy who made one of the first high frequency trading systems based on an Apple II with a BASIC program monitoring a couple CPM machines as plugins. Same guy used to run all of it in an Altair-bus computer. He was my neighbor.
>>12177235* It just had no graphics or sound.
Apple II > Atari 800 > ZX Spectrum >>>>> Commowhore shittyfour
>>12177235>It was balls to the wall better than the C64 as a raw computatoinal machinestock apple 2? never happened> as much as any CPM machine.lol no.>. In fact it could run CPMyes, with the z80 expansion card.>. He was my neighbor.and my dad worked at nintendo and he would watch miyamoto shit on the floor, scoop it up with his hands and throw it at level layouts he approved of for inclusion into mario games.
>>12177306>the mental breakdown is happeningremember when the apple 2 broke all sales records and became the best selling computer of all time? because i don't remember that happening, rajeesh.
>>12177310Remember when Commodore went out of business
>>12177313and they still destroyed apple's entire 8bit line. when is the livestream suicide planned for, rajeesh?
>>12177314>40 columns >worst disk drive of all time >only useful as a game console (still has worse games than the Colecovision/ NES)>clings to the Amiga as a successor despite being closer to the STWhat a joke of a computer
>>12176370a deserved winner. its soundchip is so good and its music catalog is vast, probably the best ever.
>>12176370It astounds me how well the Apple II line stood up to its contemporaries when it was based on 1970s technology at its core. It remained relevant long after the TRS-80 or Commodore PET, which were its original competitors.
For me it's IBM compatibles
>>12177435They were selling Apple ]['s even after Commodore went kaput.
>>12176376kids? have of the 35+ crowd on this board is still doing console war shit
>>12177518C64 was still a decent home computer even for 1990 but an 1983 IBM would be pretty much useless by that time.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1VSGksAyQE>>12177313I don't think anyone outside of technerds cared, the general public cared about the upcoming 32 bit systems and windows 95.>>12176370Mainly because even if you didn't own you probably knew what it was or maybe used it at a training organization.The Apply 2 was seen as something schools were forced to use because they got them cheap.
>>12178916>C64 was still a decent home computer even for 1990 lmao you are delusional
>>12177309>>It was balls to the wall better than the C64 as a raw computatoinal machine>stock apple 2? never happenedApple 2 benchmarked faster with its BASIC, for many users this was the #1 consideration. I read all about BASIC benchmarking a while ago.It also had a much faster floppy drive and could even support SCSI with an official first-party adapter. Of course you could use JiffyDOS or a fastloader to somewhat ameliorate the C64's terribly slow floppy drive. But it would break software.>>12178916>The Apply 2 was seen as something schools were forced to use because they got them cheap.Apple 2 was used for all kinds of business applications. There was a lot of specialized hardware made for it too which was marketed to business.
>>12178807You can make your own now, there are boards and kits but the engineering drawings exist and you can even make one with wires and no PCB if you're brave or crazy. People have done this.
I'm a fan of commodore but back in the day you played what you had.
>>12177435That was after multiple rounds of expansion and upgrades. Now compare a platinum iie with a c128.
>>12179114IIe Platinum could handle large memory upgrades, SCSI, Appletalk.
>>12177159None of that means a whole lot when you actually boot a game up. The early 16-bit machines like the ST and Amiga are less guilty in this regard than later machines, but they still lack the distinctiveness of most 8 bit micros. You can tell by a single frame whether a game is from the C64 or Spectrum. That’s the kind of identity that can only come about with 8-bit limitations.
>>12176370Apple II was always too expensive for everybody. C64 is where it was at.
>>12178931>BASIC>benchmark BASIClmao. that's awesome. except that most software for c64 and apple 2 was and is written in 6502 assembly>It also had a much faster floppy drive never happened>meliorate the C64's terribly slow floppy drivehad nothing to do with the drive. it was the communications protocol. and yes, fastloaders came out quickly and still destroyed the apple 2's crap drives. lmao. man. you are the same as that delusional fucking idiot that created the spectrum thread. it's just nothing more than made up fantasies and severe mental breakdowns because you got destroyed by a jew.
>>12177321>apple loser's compulsive lying isn't workinglmao. GOOD MORNING SAR!
>>12179354Nothing i said was wrong. Cope harder
idc about c64 or amiga until they get retrocheevos
>>12179350>except that most softwareMost, really? You've studied this issue extensively?I would be OK with "many programs," but most sounds a little too much like you're an expert who has done a study (a liar). Anyway you should read some old magazines instead of forming your opinions based on whatever you have now. Resetera "common knowledge?" BASIC benchmarks were important in the 8-bit era because many people bought them intending to either type in or create their own BASIC programs. But you weren't alive then.
>>12179358everything was wrong>>12179358>Most, really? yes. most software on 6502 based computers is written using assembly language. if you think benchmarking BASIC is how you calculate performance on any 8-bit computer then you are the dumbest and most retarded monkey in the universe. what a fucking idiot>But you weren't alive then.>screams the compulsive lying schizophrenic that can't get away with lying about his favourite fruit company without making himself look like a complete and utter losermy sides. in orbit.
>>12180739>Most, really?yes. most software on 6502 based computers is written using assembly language. if you think benchmarking BASIC is how you calculate performance on any 8-bit computer then you are the dumbest and most retarded monkey in the universe. what a fucking idiot>But you weren't alive then.>screams the compulsive lying schizophrenic that can't get away with lying about his favourite fruit company without making himself look like a complete and utter losermy sides. in orbit.
>>12179350Lots of Apple software was written in Pascal. Apple ][ had a fully supported first party P-machine too. It was slow compared to the Unix-based ones and the few hardware examples But it "did" all of Pascal up to version 3 or 4 of the P-machine at which point the whole P-machine concept died out for a more c-like approach where you compile the source on the target platform rather than generating an intermediary platform-idependent p-code. Mainly for speed.
>>12180739>I would be OK with "many programs," but most sounds a little too much like you're an expert who has done a study (a liar).I mean, he's technically right. The (vast) majority of software written for 65xx platforms were video games and those tended to be written in assembly for what should be obvious reasons. If you want to remove entertainment software from the argument, then you might have something, but then both of your arguments become quite different and increasingly irrelevant. Following the reply chain, I'm still not entirely sure what the actual argument here is supposed to be. But there was a reason that the c64 outsold every other home computer. More specifically, it outsold Apple's stuff because Apple felt the need to price themselves completely out of the market, and ended up content to offer bulk turnkey sales to educational institutions to move units. There wasn't an elementary school I attended that didn't have a room full of some variant of Apple ][. If my generation has fond memories of dying from dysentery or munching numbers, it's because all our schools had these machines. *If* we had computers at home, they were c64s or Atari 400/800s. I didn't know a single person growing up who personally had an Apple, and it wasn't a mystery as to why. Fuck, those things were pricey. (Some things never change, apparently.)1/2
>>12180739Yes, there was certainly a marketing push toward people who had ideas about getting a personal computer and writing software in BASIC. No, this didn't actually happen in the real world and, at best, you had people who would occasionally take the time to type out whatever BASIC program they found in the back of their favorite computer rag. (Bonus points when the program inevitably had bugs in the code you had to fix on your own.) You were either a perpetually clueless "end user" or an enthusiast who outgrew BASIC quickly (if you used it at all) and moved on to either an actually useful language or assembly. I can either learn enough BASIC to program what I want, or I can just buy a piece of software off the shelf that already does what I want. Guess which one people picked?If you've recently read a scan of some old computer rag talking about "BASIC benchmarks" (as you suggest you have) I can assure you that the concept was, at best, marketing copy. No one actually gave a shit. People picked their machines based on their budgets and whether or not a particular machine had the software they wanted. Eventually, Commodore cemented itself into both of those camps, and it was pretty much over for everyone else in that computer generation. Maybe it was a bit different for business/corporate customers, but certainly not in the home market.2/2
>>12183623>pascal, chad of the procedural languagespretty based. and yeah, apple was a big supporter of it back in the day. and they also had an expansion card so you can pascal, cp/m etc. at a decent speed. even then, it's still a tiny slither compared to things written in 6502 assembly. when it comes to operating systems, interpreted /procedural languages, z80 wins every time since it was kinda built for that world. 6502 wasn't built for that.
>>12176370MSX/MSX2 is better than Slopadore 64
>>12183725>I mean, he's technically right.It's really impossible to say. I have seen no actual proof. Certain functions in programs would often be done in assy but the main loop could be BASIC. That was common actually. I take issue with the idea that "most" software was "done in assembly," that seems pretty shallow and vague.
>>12184140It's not at all impossible to say. I'm not sure how else to put it. "Most" software was entertainment software (i.e. video games) and that software was predominately written in assembly. Again, if you want to remove video games from the argument then the argument changes, but then what are you actually arguing?Statistically speaking, by 1985 60-70% of the c64's library was video games, apparently spanning over 23,000 titles. I believe this qualifies as "most" to the average person.
>>12183729This may be cheating somewhat, but I've ran into a few compiled BASIC programs in the real world. Doesn't affect your point about BASIC benchmarks of course, but it suggests that the development was done interpreted and then compiled in the end for speed and obfuscation of the code. Development houses that worked in BASIC would then prefer the machines with the better interpreters.I did know a couple of adults who wrote toy programs to solve their own problems in BASIC. Like so many things, you piss with the cock you got. Even if pascal or asm was a better tool, BASIC you had and that's what won.
>>12184208>but it suggests that the development was done interpreted and then compiled in the end for speed and obfuscation of the code.I'd ask you to demonstrate what percentage of ANY 8-bit computer's library had software written in this way. Sure, things like Action! existed, but so did assembly carts and the latter were the far more ubiquitous option.
>>12183623>embarrassing chatgpt fueled copepostApply yourself, silly child.
>>12184229Nobody really knows but it's stupid to say BASIC speed didn't matter. That's the real truth.
>>12184131>Microcomputer >:(>Microcomputer, but popular in Japan :D
>>12185851>BASIC speed didn't matter.>That's the real truth.Correct.
>>12186143Well just pick up a copy of BYTE and you'll see you're wrong, zoomie/thirdie. If BASIC speed didn't matter there would have been no mentions of it in the computer mags, but it was a frequent topic.
>>12186173Didn't Steve Wozniak cheat by making his BASIC integer only to win benchmarks?
>>12186143Just embarassing
>>12185995
>>12184131>can't scroll>shit palette>shit screen modesonly dangerously based thing about it was the audio expansion device called the moonsound>>12186173>basic benchmarking>a frequent topicmaybe in 1982. and this shit was only relevant if you were a BASIC programmer. that skill was obsolete by the time the 1980s were finished. since nearly everything for c64, apple 2 etc was written in assembly, it's a completely meaningless way to compare performance of computers. nobody was walking around computer stores thinking>yeah, i'm going to get this [machine] because it has BASIC Vx.x and it can calculate x in y seconds faster than [other machine]'s BASICget the fuck out of here, retard. it's amazing how a few anons that know their shit has caused you to have a severe mental breakdown
>>12186193Not really, there were other integer BASIC implementations. It was faster and some programmers liked it better for certain tasks for that reason even after Applesoft came around.>>12186454>it's a completely meaningless way to compare performance of computersAnd yet... not only were there several popular BASIC benchmarks, but the computers which came out in the 8-bit era were subjected to them as a regular part of the review process which of course, influenced people's decision on whether or not to buy.You have no actual hard data at all on how many games for each platform were made purely with assembly, BASIC, or other solutions such as FORTH. None. You're just going off your Resetera-based vibe memes like all thirdies and zoomers.Now, scurry along and try to scrape up some real facts and figures. And go back and read Byte or Dr. Dobbs. You clearly missed the entire 8-bit era and you're working off some fantasy interpolation of what things were like back then. It's typical around here, lol.
Is this just a bot talking to itself?
>>12177196there should be a computer that boots right into this from rom
>>12186629Sort of. It's all chatgpt but being prompted by multiple organic NPCs.
>>12186629>>12186740Sorry your /hhg/ isn't getting as much play as you'd like, but there are real threads going on now.
>>12176385Nobody gives a shit about modern computers.
>>12186740That's the thing. I don't think it's multiple NPCs. I think it's just one kiddo that recent discovered archive.org's magazine scan section.
>>12188156or it's the assembly language larper
>>12188156For some reason 8 bit computer threads always bring out the schizos. Nothing would surprise me at this point. And yes, many (shit)posts sound like they're attempts to regurgitate things from old magazines. Chatgpt has many of these from archive.org in its datasets So the kiddo might have not even discovered them and is just being fed summaries and excerpts from that.>>12188171So not one person but literally everyone who has ever known something you didn't. What amazingly divergent theories.
>>12188171Could be the Nintendo fan.
>>12188353Or that guy who claims that disc rot is a serious problem. LOL
>>12186454>>can't scroll>>shit paletteBut MSX2 though. The quality of games I would argue is higher, C64 is just inundated with literal slop. At least both are better than the ZX Sloptrum.
>>12185851It didn't matter to professional programmers or hobbyists who knew their stuff but it may have mattered to the dads who fantasized about using their own BASIC program to catalogue their fridge or some shit. And there were many of those people buying micros.You're both kinda right.
>>12188516>The quality of games I would argue is higherThat's dubious. There's an awful shit ton of absolute drek on every Jap computer. Half of all Japanese games are coomer incel fuel suicide fast-track schlock.
>>12188589Yeah, it's a problem. What most of what's on the C64 seems to be games where you play as a hamburger and have to fly around delivering food or something before the time limit runs out.
>>12176537It surprises me how little the homebrew scene has done to make the Famicom into a real computer.
>>12189162There's actually a Famiclone in China that is in a keyboard case and had advertisements starring Jackie Chan. How many were ever made? Unknown.
>>12189171Someone got one and made a video about it:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUrdgmUpvDQ&t=207s
>>12189171Jackie Chan? No, that's Miyamoto.
>>12188516>The quality of games I would argue is higher, i would argue that your doctor has prescribed you far too many opiates and he or she needs to scale back the dosage. it was roughly the same ol' slop. entertaining for the time. as a c64 chad, can't hate on msx; it too is a chad machine. and you can call yourself an ultra gigachad if you have the moonsound for it. glorious audio.>At least both are better than the ZX Sloptrum.amen brother. zx is cringe.
>>12186502>And yet... not only were there several popular BASIC benchmarksnobody is denying that. it seems to have broken you in some way how anons have rightly stated that they never mattered as most software for 8-bit machines was written using assembly. anon is right about everything. the only people that cared about such benchmarks were basic programmers still using a dead language, and people running basic shit of course. most people didn't care about that shit, especially during a time when video games were most important. and of course people were using assembly for a lot of them too because nobody in their right mind would be stupid enough to use basic to handle graphics, sounds, interrupts. you'd have to be fucking stupid>You have no actual hard data at all on how many games for each platform were made purely with assembly,you've done nothing to prove anon wrong about anything. kinda embarrassing.>or other solutionsyes. other things were used instead of basic. i like you. your remaining iq point is flickering from 0 to 1 like a autistic kid at a light switch>Now, scurry along and try to scrape up some real facts and figuresyes, i'm sure anon is really upset over how your make believe schizophrenic fantasies are destroyed within one post and it has mentally broken you. what other fantastic stories do you have to share? steve jobs used to creampie your mum while woz jacked off in the corner of a room? entire world is secretly still benchmarking PCs to see if they can still run complex math in apple basic?
>>12176376>why are kids so obsessed with legacy and influence and "winning" culture nowadays?brand loyalty marketing on social media
>>12176385>Winning the 8-bit computer wars is like winning at Special Olympics. The modern computer designs are derived from 16-bit computers, not earlier experiments. Those all turned out to be dead ends.So they stone of foundations is less valuable than the walls or roof?
>>12189857You are just wrongm, there wqaqs endless shit written in QBASIC right up to the mid 90s doing everything from call centre menagment to every poxy thing in DOS and there was a huge amount of stuff used by hobbys you can't even imagine like times for people developing camera film through to stuff driving robotics. >>12189857>yes. other things were used instead of basic.Yeah, mainly poascal which is gone as well but there was a shit ton of stuff stuck running retail counters and printing invoices churned out in basic.You are right about basic benchmarking though, its toss. Some machines just did math functions like cosine better and the same machine might be crap at a tangent. Some were better at raw math and some had better graphics libraries and functions. It varied. Some like the Jupiter ace ( a wierd nice machine by anyones standard) came with fortran not basic and got niche huge use prototyping stuff in astronomy and stats where it was a preferred language for controlling telescope and doing crap like climatological modeling, There was little or no support for langaiuages like C on 8 bits, it was mainly assembler or basic.
>>12189857You do realise that when shit like DOS five shipped it came with two fat manuals and one was devoted to QBASIC? Were you alive for anything you are discussing? I was.
The Apple II got a foothold in US schools, that was its main niche. It had sales of Five or six million to get that in persepective C64s sold 12-17 million and stuff like spectums sold 5 million and roughly 40 million spectrum clones. I love all of them but what won was people because they could get computers in the home and see what they did. Apple was not that important? Why they were too expensive by far. The PET had the same problem.
>>12189924>that was its main nicheAnother thirdie talking shit about what they don't know. Apple ][ was extremely popular in the US, foreigners like you couldn't afford it. It was in schools, homes, and businesses.
