If we didn't have the C64, the PC revolution would never have started, and we would have virtually no computers today, and the ones we did have would be freakin' expensive.
c64 sales in the tens of millions, up to 30 million.
@oldmac6 Then tell me why the C64 out sold them, by a few million, had a larger fanbase, more games, a better successor, and a GUI before Apple did. Checkit out. It's called GEOS. Looks just like Mac, but on C64. And better. And, personally, the GS sucks. It is like a sad redux of the apple II with better G&S.
And which one got remade as a modern desktop computer??
All that matters is which one sold the most, and the C64 ultimately won. Sure, it had a brutal marketing campaign with semi-legal maneuvers, but in the end, it won. END OF DISCUSSION. This is coming from a person who's worked with both a //e and a C64 (//e first :) ) I'm prepared to be voted down
I personally think the C64 was the best computer ever made. Very powerful for it's time and had a longevity of usefullness that lasted years. No other computer made since has been able to remain relavent for as long. I really didn't notice any feuds. Apple IIe didn't even compare.
Both are great. Think of the C64 as a sexy blonde supermodel with an 85 IQ.
Think of the IIe as an attractive brunette with a 160 IQ.
The C64 had the unquestionable advantage in specs. But the IIe was far more "intelligent", more approachable from a programming standpoint, and some of the games, while not as flashy, were actually snappier/better on the Apple - probably because programmers spent less time trying to leverage capabilities and more on play.
I remember having this feud with my neighbor friend. He had a C64 and I had the IIe. Although the C64 had built-in graphics and sound generators that the Apple lacked, the IIe was much more established in the hobbyist community and there were new programs, hacks, and "cracked" (i.e. pirated) games circulating around for the II+/IIe but not for the C64. I had accumulated more than 400 programs and games for my IIe including some bizzare ones- like one that plays music on the disk drive motor.
Also, If I'm not mistaken, I recall the Commodore disk drive cost around $800 in 1982, hardly affordable! You could get an aftermarket drive for the Apple IIe/II+ for less than $100. And there were a lot of used Apple II's for sale in those days so overall the IIe/II+ was the lower cost choice. I had the II+ first then upgraded to a IIe. They were fantastic machines to hack and play games on- I had endless fun with them in my early teens.
Oops I looked it up and actually the Commodore disk drive cost about $400. That's still very expensive- Commodore actually said it cost them a lot more to make the drive than the computer. The drive actually had its own 6502 processor and tons of chips and firmware and had its own DOS built into it. It was heavy, used a lot of power, got really warm to the touch, and broke down often.
The engineers at Commodore included a 6502 in the 1541 drive to isolate it from the C64, it had the ability to operate independently from the machine and the 1541 could load programs while the C64 did its own thing, the Apple // couldn't do that. 1541 drives also had the ability to execute fast-loaders making access faster or to utilize new formatting methods that provided more data on each disk.
@Commodorian It would be more accurate to say "the C64 _needed_ fast-loaders because the standard disk speed was horribly slow compared to the Apple II".
Furthermore, since all disk I/O is handled in software, the Apple II could and _DID_ utilize new formatting methods without requiring any "fast loaders".
The Apple II diskette system is quite frankly one of the Apple II's strongest points, not weakest.
@asdfl278 Not entirely true. It had nothing to do with the performance of C64, the flaw is in the 1541 drive design due to a bug found in the 6522 VIA chips. There were many after market drives that offered considerably faster speeds although it is fair to say that these products were not always 100% compatible with the 1541.
OrganicVeggieLoaf > ".. the C64 had built-in graphics and sound generators the Apple lacked .."
You've forgotten Apple IIe had low-resolution (40×48, 16 colors) and double-high-resolution graphics (560×192, 16 colors) visible on TV just like C64 or on an RGB color monitor. Sound equivalent to C64 was generated by software instead of hardware. The IIe also had ability to input and display upper and lower-case ASCII text at both 40 and 80 columns. C64 had nothing substantial over Apple IIe.
You know I don't remember any of these sort of feuds until Windows and so forth came around. We were too busy coding the things then to worry about who had the better machine, so perhaps it was idiots who were fighting. I can remember guys bringing over Atari 800, C64, even a Ti99 to the house. We would get them to talk to one another of over the phone extension.
I think the II is the geekier of the two—with lots of features for hardware hackers to play with. The C64 certainly has a lot of good points—incl colour text, and semi-component video output. But somehow it missed the mark aestetically, with me.
Between the plasticy feel of the cases, and nonsense like needing to type a 12 character command to boot it (a simple matter of firmware design), it couldn't hold my attention.
In the end, i suppose it boils down to the personality of the user.
Not only does the Commodore 64 cost half as much as a candy-ass green screen Apple computer, but it can output video signals to the TV you *already own* -- no need to buy a separate monitor. Can't say the same for Apple.
So basically, I can plug my Apple into the yellow composite video jack? No way! I did not know that! I'll have to try it. (But will I get a decent looking picture? Monochrome or color?)
I probably shouldn't have bashed the Apple... I grew up with it in school, playing "Oregon Trail" and stuff. Now I own several IIe's and IIGS's.
The C64 has built-in RF out? I thought it was a box that plugged into one of those DIN jacks. Silly thing to build in, anyway; computer output looks like crap on a tv set (especially colour), so it's a feature that a lot of people would never use.
If we didn't have the C64, the PC revolution would never have started, and we would have virtually no computers today, and the ones we did have would be freakin' expensive.
c64 sales in the tens of millions, up to 30 million.
Apple: 2 million
UpToEleven11 2 weeks ago
commodore 64 all the way baby!
justaguythinking 2 weeks ago
haha c64 pwned the apple II and the weirdos who used it
c0deMunkey 10 months ago
The Apple IIGS owns both those computers.
BrianPicchi 1 year ago
I prefer the Apple II, i like te C64 too but if we didn't have an Apple II nobody will have a computer today !
oldmac6 1 year ago
@oldmac6 Then tell me why the C64 out sold them, by a few million, had a larger fanbase, more games, a better successor, and a GUI before Apple did. Checkit out. It's called GEOS. Looks just like Mac, but on C64. And better. And, personally, the GS sucks. It is like a sad redux of the apple II with better G&S.
And which one got remade as a modern desktop computer??
UpToEleven11 5 months ago
@UpToEleven11 I agree! GEOS on a c64 + 1764 REU and GEOS 128 on a c128 +1750 REU owns the Apple IIe and the Mac!
justaguythinking 2 weeks ago
@justaguythinking BRO-FIST OVER THE 1200 Baud modem!
UpToEleven11 2 weeks ago
exactly
themooddisorders 1 year ago
All that matters is which one sold the most, and the C64 ultimately won. Sure, it had a brutal marketing campaign with semi-legal maneuvers, but in the end, it won. END OF DISCUSSION. This is coming from a person who's worked with both a //e and a C64 (//e first :) ) I'm prepared to be voted down
senorverde09 1 year ago
@senorverde09 By that logic, McDonalds completely owns any restaurant with a Michelin star.
I think both computers are worthy of being remembered, and to reduce any comparison to sales figures alone does both computers an injustice.
asdfl278 1 year ago
I personally think the C64 was the best computer ever made. Very powerful for it's time and had a longevity of usefullness that lasted years. No other computer made since has been able to remain relavent for as long. I really didn't notice any feuds. Apple IIe didn't even compare.
gtube22 2 years ago
Ah yes, I remember these feuds too.
Both are great. Think of the C64 as a sexy blonde supermodel with an 85 IQ.
Think of the IIe as an attractive brunette with a 160 IQ.
The C64 had the unquestionable advantage in specs. But the IIe was far more "intelligent", more approachable from a programming standpoint, and some of the games, while not as flashy, were actually snappier/better on the Apple - probably because programmers spent less time trying to leverage capabilities and more on play.
chronos624 3 years ago
Comparing the C64 to the Apple II is like comparing a twig to a light-saber.
jci10 3 years ago 5
The Apple II was a cool machine but there's something more special about the C64.
Commodorian 3 years ago 3
I remember having this feud with my neighbor friend. He had a C64 and I had the IIe. Although the C64 had built-in graphics and sound generators that the Apple lacked, the IIe was much more established in the hobbyist community and there were new programs, hacks, and "cracked" (i.e. pirated) games circulating around for the II+/IIe but not for the C64. I had accumulated more than 400 programs and games for my IIe including some bizzare ones- like one that plays music on the disk drive motor.
OrganicVeggieLoaf 4 years ago
Also, If I'm not mistaken, I recall the Commodore disk drive cost around $800 in 1982, hardly affordable! You could get an aftermarket drive for the Apple IIe/II+ for less than $100. And there were a lot of used Apple II's for sale in those days so overall the IIe/II+ was the lower cost choice. I had the II+ first then upgraded to a IIe. They were fantastic machines to hack and play games on- I had endless fun with them in my early teens.
OrganicVeggieLoaf 4 years ago
Oops I looked it up and actually the Commodore disk drive cost about $400. That's still very expensive- Commodore actually said it cost them a lot more to make the drive than the computer. The drive actually had its own 6502 processor and tons of chips and firmware and had its own DOS built into it. It was heavy, used a lot of power, got really warm to the touch, and broke down often.
OrganicVeggieLoaf 4 years ago
The engineers at Commodore included a 6502 in the 1541 drive to isolate it from the C64, it had the ability to operate independently from the machine and the 1541 could load programs while the C64 did its own thing, the Apple // couldn't do that. 1541 drives also had the ability to execute fast-loaders making access faster or to utilize new formatting methods that provided more data on each disk.
Commodorian 3 years ago
@Commodorian It would be more accurate to say "the C64 _needed_ fast-loaders because the standard disk speed was horribly slow compared to the Apple II".
Furthermore, since all disk I/O is handled in software, the Apple II could and _DID_ utilize new formatting methods without requiring any "fast loaders".
The Apple II diskette system is quite frankly one of the Apple II's strongest points, not weakest.
asdfl278 1 year ago
@asdfl278 Not entirely true. It had nothing to do with the performance of C64, the flaw is in the 1541 drive design due to a bug found in the 6522 VIA chips. There were many after market drives that offered considerably faster speeds although it is fair to say that these products were not always 100% compatible with the 1541.
Commodorian 1 year ago
@Commodorian I think you should re-read my comment. What I said was true, regardless of what part you might want to place the blame on.
asdfl278 1 year ago
OrganicVeggieLoaf > ".. the C64 had built-in graphics and sound generators the Apple lacked .."
You've forgotten Apple IIe had low-resolution (40×48, 16 colors) and double-high-resolution graphics (560×192, 16 colors) visible on TV just like C64 or on an RGB color monitor. Sound equivalent to C64 was generated by software instead of hardware. The IIe also had ability to input and display upper and lower-case ASCII text at both 40 and 80 columns. C64 had nothing substantial over Apple IIe.
stewartx5 2 years ago
You know I don't remember any of these sort of feuds until Windows and so forth came around. We were too busy coding the things then to worry about who had the better machine, so perhaps it was idiots who were fighting. I can remember guys bringing over Atari 800, C64, even a Ti99 to the house. We would get them to talk to one another of over the phone extension.
polyex 4 years ago
How come everyone forgets that the C64 had two built in 8-bit A/D converters? Huh?
jci10 4 years ago
I think the II is the geekier of the two—with lots of features for hardware hackers to play with. The C64 certainly has a lot of good points—incl colour text, and semi-component video output. But somehow it missed the mark aestetically, with me.
Between the plasticy feel of the cases, and nonsense like needing to type a 12 character command to boot it (a simple matter of firmware design), it couldn't hold my attention.
In the end, i suppose it boils down to the personality of the user.
ueberRegenbogen 4 years ago
yeah the commodore defitly wins that battel
piplol2468 4 years ago
OOOOOOOoooohhhh. That is the funniest thing I've seen on youTube in a long time. What does that say about me?
alaskajohn 4 years ago
Not only does the Commodore 64 cost half as much as a candy-ass green screen Apple computer, but it can output video signals to the TV you *already own* -- no need to buy a separate monitor. Can't say the same for Apple.
DrLove0378 4 years ago
Want to bet?
It was optional, but there was an RF modulator available. ;) Oh, and modern TVs with composite in can be used without an RF modulator. ;)
Also, the Apple didn't need 16 border colors, because it used the full screen area (before the IIGS.) ;)
bhtooefr 4 years ago
So basically, I can plug my Apple into the yellow composite video jack? No way! I did not know that! I'll have to try it. (But will I get a decent looking picture? Monochrome or color?)
I probably shouldn't have bashed the Apple... I grew up with it in school, playing "Oregon Trail" and stuff. Now I own several IIe's and IIGS's.
DrLove0378 4 years ago
You'll get a decent color picture - same quality as you would have on most real Apple color monitors.
Or, for that matter, a Commodore monitor with composite in.
bhtooefr 4 years ago
The C64 has built-in RF out? I thought it was a box that plugged into one of those DIN jacks. Silly thing to build in, anyway; computer output looks like crap on a tv set (especially colour), so it's a feature that a lot of people would never use.
ueberRegenbogen 4 years ago
was that an add?
lestweforget9210 4 years ago
AHAHAHAHAHAHA
backslashninja 4 years ago
And, it cost half, of what YOU paid, for your candy-ass green-screen apple computer!
Zilikun 4 years ago
Apple II forever!
TheKisho 4 years ago
hahaha lol teh c64 rules!!!
fastie74 5 years ago
haha. That was pretty funny.
jalland 5 years ago
SO **** YOU! yay
mouwghe 5 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Nice ;)
lj31337 5 years ago
That was unexpected
surfingthechaos 5 years ago
ibid+software availability for the Commodore was much better than the "candy ass" machine.
slap1328 5 years ago
clap! clap! clap!
fedecris 5 years ago
This is HILARIOUS... at least if you remember those good old days. Great job, guys!
BorisViesbierlick 5 years ago
commodore 64 teh rul4r!
devnull73 5 years ago