bskendig@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) (10/02/89)
In article <89092920434743@masnet.uucp> doug.purdy@canremote.uucp (DOUG PURDY) writes: >But I feel let down with this happening on our C128 with 1750 REU, 1571 >and 1581 disk drives. How did it come to pass that this fast, powerful >machine can't run software any better than a 64k, 1541 combo? It can. The problem is that software doesn't exist for it to show its stuff. Consider yourself in the president's chair of a large software publishing company. A proposal for a neat new program has come up. You can decide to develop it for computer 'A', which *everybody* has, or for computer 'B', which about a third of the people have, but which can really whiz-bang outperform computer 'A'. A tough choice - until you realize that developing software for computer 'B' means that you sell it to a third as many people as you would reach if you developed it for 'A'. Need more incentive? Computer 'B' runs everything that 'A' does! You kill two birds with one stone! By developing software for 'A', you can have *everybody* use it. Computer 'A' is the Commodore 64, which *everybody* has. Computer 'B' is the Commodore 128. The Commodore 128 was (is?) a very powerful computer compared to the 64. It overcame almost all of the 64's weaknesses (faster drive, 80-col screen, programmable function keys, ML monitor, &c. - but still carded hires color display! Ugh!), and did so for a still-reasonable price. But Commodore did not carry the ball far enough. Therefore the machine was doomed from the very start. Hardware: The 128 is built to almost accommodate 1,024k of memory. By 'almost', I mean that there are places on the circuit board to plug in more chips, but the chips just ain't available! So it's stuck with 1/4 of a meg. The 80-column display, too, could handle 64k (for some pretty nifty displays) - but was given 16k until too late. Software: Commodore made some nice demos for the C128, and a somewhat interesting productivity package (Jane)... and then, passed the ball to commercial software developers. Of course, with few exceptions, the software companies decided that they would rather go for quantity than quality. >I can't help but feel that a whole lot of people have "conspired" to >drop the ball here. Why is it so hard to include routines to take >advantage of the hardware available? Why aren't such routines widely >available and at low prices? Was everyone so busy writing advanced copy >programs they couldn't see the need for proper libraries of powerful >routines? Did they write them but hoard them instead of offering them >for sale? It's not hard to write 'routines' to take advantage of all the neat stuff that the C128 has to offer, or even the newer C64 equipment. But every option you add will probably increase the price or decrease the performance for people with plain, vanilla, straight-out-of-the-box C64 users. Machine-language programs, and even BASIC programs to some extent, can be read across modes - but the C64 uses a similar yet different processor than the C128. More importantly, machine language calls and zero-page registers have been moved around. If you want to do anything really interesting on the Commodore, you have to make your program system- dependent. Even with BASIC, there are too many subtle differences between machines to make a 'universal' progam usually unfeasable. >Where are the real professional Commodore programmers? Why do many >programs feel like they were created by some first time amateur with >professional graphics tacked on as an afterthought? Consider this: Anyone good enough to really make the Commodore sit up, roll over, and do tricks, is probably also intelligent enough to realize that he could be working elsewhere, developing software for the machines that are on everyone's minds these days: Macintosh, IBM. No offense intended towards those engineers who loyally support the Commodore 8-bits, but the market has really moved away from 8-bit machines. Commodore and Apple probably still hold the lead over Tandy, Atari, and IBM in that market, but there's not much of a kingdom left to rule. >With the 1581 available at such low prices, why is anything written >exclusively for the notoriously slow and expensive 1541? Why is Willow >too slow and awkward for a 640k machine with an 800k 1581 when the whole >thing is less than 500k? I can't see why it shouldn't be a dream on a >256k REU equipped C64! Because EVERYBODY has a 1541, or can emulate a 1541. Too many people would try to use their nice little 3.5-inch disk as a coaster for their mugs of cold soda. Again: relatively speaking, very few people have a REU for their C64 or 128. Why bother going to all that extra hassle programming for an obscure system configuration? >A C64 programmer friend who's hot on the anti piracy issue feels fast >loader cartridges should be banned. But isn't it this ridiculous >situation that creates the need for them, making it impossible to buy a >REU, continuing the situation? In a way, perhaps. In my opinion, Commodore's mistake has been to do everything almost halfheartedly. The C64 took the market by storm, much to everyone's surprise. They didn't really follow up on this: they let the 64 rest on its laurels for the better part of several years. Then the 128 came out: a vast improvement on the 64. Since it could do everything the 64 could do anyway, perhaps they should have then discontinued the 64 and tried to bring the 128's price down closer to the C64's range. But no: the 128 was a machine with enormous potential. Not much of it was realized, alas, but it did have the potential for 1024k of RAM, 64k of dedicated screen memory, and so forth! But it overlapped the 64 too much, and developers wanted that bigger slice of the pie. So the 128D came out. It looked nice, it fixed a few bugs, ho-hum. Shortly after that the 128 vanished into obscurity. I don't even know if it's being produced anymore. >Is this what folks can expect for the Amiga? I get the impression Amiga >piracy is widespread and shareware limited. Aren't they going to end up >in the same place? Macintosh piracy is widespread, too. But there's plenty of PD stuff for the Mac. Apple has made its Macintosh appealing to the business world, the scholastic world, and the personal world alike. They support it vigorously; it's big news. Nobody seems to know what Commodore is up to these days. Look guys! Get your act together! The Amiga is an *incredible* computer - it is capable of much more than the Macintosh, at a comparable price! Start organizing your market! Get some standards for your machine! Start aggressively advertising it, making it compatible with Macs and IBMs (they're apparently here to stay), breathing new life into it! Or be doomed to obscurity and no more than a footnote in the annals of the computer world. It's all up to you. -- | Brian S. Kendig | I feel more like I | bskendig | | Computer Engineering | did when I got here | @phoenix.Princeton.EDU | | Princeton University | than I do now. | @PUCC.BITNET | | Systems Engineering, NASA Space Station Freedom / General Electric WP3 |
leblanc@eecg.toronto.edu (Marcel LeBlanc) (10/03/89)
In article <10657@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> bskendig@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) writes: >In article <89092920434743@masnet.uucp> doug.purdy@canremote.uucp (DOUG PURDY) writes: >>But I feel let down with this happening on our C128 with 1750 REU, 1571 >>and 1581 disk drives. How did it come to pass that this fast, powerful >>machine can't run software any better than a 64k, 1541 combo? > >It can. The problem is that software doesn't exist for it to show its >stuff. Make that: "NOT MUCH software exists for it to show its stuff" >Hardware: The 128 is built to almost accommodate 1,024k of memory. By >'almost', I mean that there are places on the circuit board to plug in >more chips, but the chips just ain't available! So it's stuck with 1/4 of >a meg. The 80-column display, too, could handle 64k (for some pretty nifty >displays) - but was given 16k until too late. Why should Commodore, or anybody for that matter, want to build such a machine? A banked-memory architecture machine like the C128, or a hypothetical C1024, is a pain to program! This *IS* important to the end user, because it means that the software available for his machine will tend to be less capable. The C128 is already in the same price neighborhood as an Amiga 500 which has a FAR SUPERIOR operating system and much more powerful graphics and sound hardware (I don't want to start a debate about CPU speeds, but why NOT :-) My guess is that the 7.xx MHz 68000 is 20-30% faster than the C128's 2MHz 8502, on a reasonably large sample of software) >>Where are the real professional Commodore programmers? Why do many >>programs feel like they were created by some first time amateur with >>professional graphics tacked on as an afterthought? > >Consider this: Anyone good enough to really make the Commodore sit up, >roll over, and do tricks, is probably also intelligent enough to realize >that he could be working elsewhere, developing software for the machines >that are on everyone's minds these days: Macintosh, IBM. No offense >intended towards those engineers who loyally support the Commodore >8-bits, but the market has really moved away from 8-bit machines. What "market" are you talking about? The C64/C128 were never really of much significance in the business market, but they continue to be THE major player in the game (recreational) market! The C64 is selling VERY well. It has matured into a game machine, with a very broad appeal (resulting in a HUGE "market")! It sounds like your needs have grown beyond the C64/C128, and this is coloring your judgement, but the C64 goes on... (Yes, I am a professional "Commodore" engineer/programmer) >>With the 1581 available at such low prices, why is anything written >>exclusively for the notoriously slow and expensive 1541? Why is Willow >>too slow and awkward for a 640k machine with an 800k 1581 when the whole >>thing is less than 500k? I can't see why it shouldn't be a dream on a >>256k REU equipped C64! > >Because EVERYBODY has a 1541, or can emulate a 1541. Too many people And a large majority of those people have some sort of fast loading utility. >>A C64 programmer friend who's hot on the anti piracy issue feels fast >>loader cartridges should be banned. Huh? Sorry, I don't understand what fast loader cartridges have to do with piracy. >In my opinion, Commodore's mistake has been to do everything almost >halfheartedly. The C64 took the market by storm, much to everyone's >surprise. Speak for yourself :-) >Nobody seems to know what Commodore is up to these days. > >Look guys! Get your act together! The Amiga is an *incredible* computer - >it is capable of much more than the Macintosh, at a comparable price! >Start organizing your market! Yes, it is a great machine. I'd say its market is organized, since the Amiga has established several cosy niches. :-) >... Get some standards for your machine! Huh? The Amiga is very standardized. Programs written according to simple rules will work on any version of AmigaDOS (1.0 to 1.3). >..Start >aggressively advertising it, making it compatible with Macs and IBMs (they're >apparently here to stay) Actually, I think CBM is starting a major advertising campaign in mid-October for Christmas sales. The Amiga already has software emulators for both the MAC and the PC, and a hardware card for real PC compatibility. >| Brian S. Kendig Marcel A. LeBlanc | University of Toronto -- Toronto, Canada "leblanc@eecg.toronto.edu" | and: LMS Technologies Ltd, Fredericton, NB, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP: uunet!utai!eecg!leblanc BITNET: leblanc@eecg.utoronto[.ca]