ralph@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM (Ralph Hightower) (09/20/88)
This past weekend, my C64 bit the dust. I went to turn it on and I did not
get that familiar lt. blue/blue screen. I verified that it wasn't the 1702
monitor by hooking my VCR up to the VIDEO/AUDIO IN.
Turning the 64 on, the disk drive is initialized; I tried blindly typing
'load "0:*",8' and got no results from the disk drive.
Taking the C64 and power supply to a repair shop: the repair shop said that
the C64 AND the power supply were bad. The repair "could cost $88". I
asked what the price of the 128 was (thinking that this would be a good
time to upgrade) and the repair shop mentioned that the 128 was less
reliable than the 64 (they mentioned about the 3 systems, 64, 128, CP/M,
competing among themselves; sort of "Dueling Systems").
Can anybody refute the shop's argument that the C128 is less reliable than
the C64? I would use 64 mode compatibility primarily for my two workhorse
applications, Multiplan, and Consultant; but I probably could use the CP/M
mode also (if it is a "true" CP/M implementation).
As a note, I have not had near the problems that I have heard other people
have with their C64 and 1541 disk drives. My first 1541 had been in
service for 3 years before it needed its guts replaced (I think it needed a
new card and new motor drive). The C64 died after 5 years of service.
(It costs $50 to replace a burned-out resister in my 1702 a short while
after warranty expiration).
--
ralph@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM <Ralph M. Hightower>
NCR Corp., Engineering & Manufacturing - Columbia, SC
Home of THE USC!
South Carolina had a University 49 years before California was a state.figueroa@oodis01.ARPA (Andrew Figueroa) (09/20/88)
I have never heard of any reliability problems with the 128. The two I have owned are still working well, and I abuse the heck out of them. Similar experience is being enjoyed by others I am aware of. The idea from your "maintenance man" of the C-128 suffering from "dueling systems" aka C-128 nativ mode, CP/M, and C-64 is ludicrous. Yes, the CP/M is a good solid implementation. It is CP/M plus (aka CP/ 3.0). It is a bit slow, about 1/2 speed of a Kaypro II, which ain't all that bad! Disclaimers - of course I don't work for CBM, I just use the stuff. "figueroa@lognet2.arpa"
rickc@pogo.GPID.TEK.COM (Rick Clements) (09/21/88)
In article <3750@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM> ralph@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM (Ralph Hightower, x6758) writes: >[...]the repair shop mentioned that the 128 was less >reliable than the 64 (they mentioned about the 3 systems, 64, 128, CP/M, >competing among themselves; sort of "Dueling Systems"). There are two CPU's (only one is enabled at a time), and three ROM sets. >Can anybody refute the shop's argument that the C128 is less reliable than >the C64? I have had the power supply fail on my C64 once. I need to fix the one of shift keys on my C64. I have had no problems with my C128. > I would use 64 mode compatibility primarily for my two workhorse >applications, Multiplan, and Consultant; but I probably could use the CP/M >mode also (if it is a "true" CP/M implementation). I hear the 128 version of Multiplan is much better. It loads the program in one bank and data in the other. This eliminates having to read from the program disk every time you execute a different command. Of course, I have never seen this version in the stores. I have not done much with CP/M, but if you want to read disk 5 1/4" disk in other foormats you need a 1571. Also, CP/M is disk intensive and the 1541 is ssssslllllooooowwwww. The 1571 is spec'ed as being 10 times faster in CPM mode. -- Rick Clements (RickC@pogo.GPID.TEK.COM)
ralph@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM (Ralph Hightower) (09/23/88)
Thanks to all those that mailed me and followed up about the C128
reliability. There was only one person who knew of a 128 failure (blown
fuse and something else, that failure is not accessible right now). The
over whelming response is that the C128 is a reliable machine.
At the present time, I still don't know what the failure of the C64 is. I
do know that the power supply is bad because there was not 9V AC coming out
and I read 5V DC and the power supply was tried on a working C64 (and my
C64 was tried on a working power supply); neither were successful.
<***Computer salemen flame warning***>
I don't know why the computer salesman tried to steer me away from a C128
(they don't sell C64's or C128's, just Amigas); although I did notice that
he had a used C64 for $125, so he was probably going to try and sell me
that. I have learned not to be influenced by computer salesmen (I haven't
been burned by being gullible by their claims anyhow). Computers are my
work and my hobby and I form my own opinions about the various prducts
based on my reading of the technical PC magazines (* PC is not trademarked
by IBM *).
A related computer saleman story: <SM> "Can I help you?". <ME> "I'm
thinking about the Amiga 2000". <SM> "OH! I highly recommend the Amiga
500! It's more powerful than the 2000 and has more value than the 2000."
<ME> "Oh. Do you have the Amiga 2000?" <SM> "No. We just sell the Amiga
500." <ME> . . . thinking to my self . . . "Of course, why would he want
to sell something that he doesn't have. Is always better to sell the bird
in the hand rather than two birds in a bush." This store primarily sells
IBM PC-clones.
I formed my opinion that I wanted to buy the Amiga 2000 from the BYTE Amiga
2000 Preview article. IBM PC compatibility would be a nice, but secondary
feature (IBM PC/AT is preferred more; the PC/XT is too much of a dog in
terms of lack of speed). The primary feature is the rumors on UNIX
availability in the future!
--
ralph@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM <Ralph M. Hightower>
NCR Corp., Engineering & Manufacturing - Columbia, SC
Home of THE USC!
South Carolina had a University 49 years before California was a state.Geoffrey.Welsh@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) (09/30/88)
> From: ralph@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM (Ralph Hightower) > Date: 19 Sep 88 18:57:21 GMT > Message-ID: <3750@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM> > competing among themselves; sort of "Dueling Systems"). > > Can anybody refute the shop's argument that the C128 is > less reliable than > the C64? I would use 64 mode compatibility primarily for > my two workhorse > applications, Multiplan, and Consultant; but I probably > mode also (if it is a "true" CP/M implementation). I don't know where they get that hogwash about "dueling systems"; C64 and C128 mode are different memory management modes for the same CPU, and the Z80 is very well-behaved. The CP/M on-board is CP/M Plus (CP/M 3.0 to DRI fans), and DRI supports it even less than Commodore does these days. Not to worry: it was designed to be compatible with the KayPro, Osborne, and Epson CP/M machines (which it is) and most CP/M user groups either have a C128 CP/M library or have converted their old stuff to take advantage of the C128's extra features (colour, etc., you must understand, was NOT part of the CP/M standard!). Since I did some work on PaperClip II and III for the C128 (and 64), I probably won't be sued too badly for telling you that the C128 is more reliable than The Consultant (but don't use Consultant 128 - that's even less reliable than Consultant 64, depending on which week yours was manufactured in). About the worst problem with the C64 was its underpowered power supply - the C128 comes with a nice switching supply (the worst trouble I ever had with one of them was opening it to get at a burned-out fuse from a faulty cartridge). Geoff ( watmath!isishq!izot ) P.S.: Oh, yeah: some RS-232 adapters are so wide that they block the 128's RGB connector. Solution: take 'em outa their cases (they work fine & you can plug your RGB monitor in for crisp 80-column pictures! -- Geoffrey Welsh - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!Geoffrey.Welsh Internet: Geoffrey.Welsh@isishq.FIDONET.ORG
Geoffrey.Welsh@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) (09/30/88)
> From: rickc@pogo.GPID.TEK.COM (Rick Clements) > Date: 21 Sep 88 05:01:56 GMT > Message-ID: <6008@pogo.GPID.TEK.COM> > There are two CPU's (only one is enabled at a time), and > three ROM sets. While it is correct that only one CPU is operating at any given instant, it should be noted that CP/M I/O is done by the Z80 switching the 8502 in (i.e. I/O code is performed by the 8502 at the Z80's request). Geoff ( watmath!isishq!izot ) -- Geoffrey Welsh - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!Geoffrey.Welsh Internet: Geoffrey.Welsh@isishq.FIDONET.ORG
bjc@pollux.UUCP (Betty J. Clay) (09/30/88)
I have used a 64, SX-64, and C128 in about equal quantities of time. I use the C128 mostly in 64 mode. My machine has never needed repair of any kind, and it was the first C128 to come to Dallas. While I've never used the CP/M mode some members of my computer club think it's wonderful. I think you'd like the 128. And 80 columns are awfully nice! Betty Clay ......killer!pollux!bjc
sekora-jay@CS.YALE.EDU (Jay Sekora) (10/07/88)
In article <205.234963B0@isishq.FIDONET.ORG> Geoffrey.Welsh@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: >> <deleted> > > While it is correct that only one CPU is operating at any given > >instant, it should be noted that CP/M I/O is done by the Z80 switching >the 8502 in (i.e. I/O code is performed by the 8502 at the Z80's request). > > Geoff ( watmath!isishq!izot ) My understanding is that this was true of the CP/M add-on card for the C64, but that on the 128 the Z80 does all it's own i/o and doesn't have to rely on the 8502 for anything. I haven't really done anything in CP/M on the ML level, so I can't vouch for that. (Incidentally, when you power up a 128 w/o a ROM cartridge, the Z80 takes over first, and then cedes control to the 8502. ((I think.)) ) jay (sorry, I don't know my return path.)
simon@ms.uky.edu (Simon Gales) (10/07/88)
In article <39729@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> sekora-jay@CS.YALE.EDU (Jay Sekora) writes: >In article <205.234963B0@isishq.FIDONET.ORG> Geoffrey.Welsh@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: >> <deleted> >> >> While it is correct that only one CPU is operating at any given >>instant, it should be noted that CP/M I/O is done by the Z80 switching >>the 8502 in (i.e. I/O code is performed by the 8502 at the Z80's request). >> >> Geoff ( watmath!isishq!izot ) >My understanding is that this was true of the CP/M add-on card for the C64, >but that on the 128 the Z80 does all it's own i/o and doesn't have to rely >on the 8502 for anything. > <Deleted> The Z80 in the 128 DOES use the 8502 for its i/o, although I am not quite sure why. The Z80 seems to be able to access all of hardware (or can it?), is using the 8502 faster? Maybe they did it to keep the cp/m kernal (?) smaller...? The Z80 is in control on power up, it is the one that decides whether to go into cp/m or cbm mode. Simon. <--------------------------------------------------------------------------> <--- Simon Gales@University of Ky 254-9387/257-3597 ---> <--- [ simon@ms.uky.edu ] | [ simon@UKMA.BITNET ] ---> <--------------------------------------------------------------------------> -- <--------------------------------------------------------------------------> <--- Simon Gales@University of Ky 254-9387/257-3597 ---> <--- [ simon@ms.uky.edu ] | [ simon@UKMA.BITNET ] ---> <-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
bobc@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Bob Calbridge) (10/08/88)
In article <10342@s.ms.uky.edu>, simon@ms.uky.edu (Simon Gales) writes: > In article <39729@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> sekora-jay@CS.YALE.EDU (Jay Sekora) writes: > >In article <205.234963B0@isishq.FIDONET.ORG> Geoffrey.Welsh@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: [Correspondence deleted] > The Z80 in the 128 DOES use the 8502 for its i/o, although I am not > quite sure why. The Z80 seems to be able to access all of hardware (or > can it?), is using the 8502 faster? Maybe they did it to keep the > cp/m kernal (?) smaller...? The Z80 is in control on power up, it is > the one that decides whether to go into cp/m or cbm mode. > Simon. You're correct. The Z-80 is capable of accessing all the Commodore registers. I've written a music program that uses the SID chip registers. The trick is to load the BC register pair of the Z-80 with the address of the register you want to access and evoke the INP or the OUTP code to get the contents of that register into the accumulator.
Doug-128@cup.portal.com (10/10/88)
Ralph I've had my 128 since Feb. of 86 and have had NO problems at all with it. I started with a C-64 too. I use ALL 3 modes of my machine too EXTENSIVELY. If anything, a 128 is MORE reliable than a 64 because for one thing it has a MUCH larger power supply. My 1571 drive has been totally reliable too. And the new 1581 drive has a power supply of its own to make IT more reliable too. Now some of the early C-128D's had a problem with the disc drive but that problem was corrected in short order during production so you shouldn't have to worry about that now. Whoever told you all this bull was telling you JUST that ------- BULL. Doug
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (10/11/88)
in article <1576@nunki.usc.edu>, aliu@sal8.usc.edu (Alejandro Liu) says: > > In article <39729@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> sekora-jay@CS.YALE.EDU (Jay Sekora) writes: >>My understanding is that this was true of the CP/M add-on card for the C64, >>but that on the 128 the Z80 does all it's own i/o and doesn't have to rely >>on the 8502 for anything. > I read in the Compute's! introduction to the C-128 (I think that's > what the book was called) that the Z80 DO surrender control to the 8502 for > I/O control, actually for handling the screen, the User and serial ports and > some other housekeeping procedures. Compute!?!? When there's a perfectly good C128 Programmer's Reference Manual, written mainly by the folks who designed the hardware and software for the C128. No accounting for taste :-) > The Z80, can also access this resources by itself using the IN and OUT commands. The trick is that it uses the not-documented-in-every Z-80 Manual 16 bit IN and OUT commands. As I recall, the instructions that claim to use the C register for the I/O address actually use the BC pair to give you a full 16 bit address. The Z-80 even has an advantage here, in that it doesn't have to map I/O in and out when using both I/O and other resources that sit in the same place. As I recall, the Z-80 is using 8502 routines to do more high level stuff, like talk to disks and printers, while it's going directly to the hardware for modems. Fred Bowen could probably explain all the details. > Anyway, is interesting to note how Commodore engineers save some programming > by using the C-128 8502 routines to handle those chores. Since the 8502 in > native mode always is doing that! And the 8502 at 1.02MHz does run about twice as fast as the Z-80 at it's C128 effective 2.04MHz. Which is why the 8502 at 2.04MHz really makes sense. > aliu@nunki.usc.edu (Alejandro Liu) > (Simple .signature, $CHEAP$) -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"