bub@rlgvax.UUCP ( Mongo Mauler) (01/06/87)
Well, I'm ashamed to admit it: I've been using a C64, a C128, and an IBM PC clone for quite a while now, and I have lately discovered my CBM equipment is gathering dust except when I get a games jones. I use the PC almost exclusively now. I've got a great C compiler, a great C interpreter, a great Pascal compiler, a great BASIC compiler, several great editors, some great memory resident utilities (I don't know how I ever got along without Sidekick), etc etc ad nauseum... All for the PC clone. Where's all this great stuff for the 64/128? For these machines, I've got a terrible C compiler, a terrible Pascal compiler, an ok BASIC compiler, no great editors, no memory resident stuff that doesn't require something to be plugged in somewhere, etc etc ad nauseum. I hate to admit it, but I almost am beginning to feel that the 'Real PC' snobs have been right all along. My CBM machines are nice 'toy' computers, but for any real computing, you need to go with the big boys. What a shame! I used to really get mad listening to folks espouse this kind of junk, but after working with the clones (for my job) for over a year, I almost hate to use my Commodore(s) for anything other than games. So to restore my faith in Commodore, and also to try and justify my zillions of dollars invested, I'd like to pose a couple of questions: 1) What do you (fellow CBM users) consider to be the best in CBM software for ANYTHING other than gaming? Is there ANY software fot the 64 or 128 that you would consider great? 2) What do you use your CBM equipment for? Only word processing, financial management, BASIC programming, running the Nuclear Regulatory Commision, thermostat control, etc.?
ali@navajo.STANFORD.EDU (Ali Ozer) (01/07/87)
In article <310@rlgvax.UUCP> bub@rlgvax.UUCP ( Mongo Mauler) writes: > > Well, I'm ashamed to admit it: I've been using a C64, a C128, > and an IBM PC clone for quite a while now, and I have lately > discovered my CBM equipment is gathering dust except when I get > a games jones. I use the PC almost exclusively now. > > I hate to admit it, but I almost am beginning to feel that the > 'Real PC' snobs have been right all along. My CBM machines are > nice 'toy' computers, but for any real computing, you need to > go with the big boys. > I think you are comparing apples to oranges. The C64 and C128 are a different class of machines than the PC clones. They have 8 bit uP, and smaller address space, and a OS originally not even meant for disks! Of course, you pay a much lower price, and I think the C64 and the C128 are great machines for your money. But because of the limitations, you are never going to be able to get a language or compiler or database that is as good or as fast as those on the PC's. So it seems normal to me that if most of your applications are business oriented and you have to choose between the 64, the 128, and the PC clone, you choose the PC. Of course, there is one more choice that Commodore provides: The Amiga. It sells for less than the PC and most clones, and it blows the PC away. Just like I would choose the PC over the 64 for any serious database or programming work, I would similarly choose the Amiga over the PC. There's now a lot of software available (including many languages, databases, etc), and with the Sidecar peripheral, you can run all IBM programs on the Amiga. And of course you also get stereo sound, multitasking (it's very nice to be able to edit a program while also compiling another), wonderful graphics... So, I think before you rag on CBM for not comparing favorably to the PC, you should take a look at the Amiga. And let your C64 sit for those days when you feel like playing some games. That's what I do, and, after all, the 64 has more games than any other computer on the market! Ali Ozer, ali@navajo.stanford.edu
awinterb@udenva.UUCP (Mr. Poot) (01/09/87)
Well, first of all, I enjoy using my C64 hooked up to a MicroLog SWL ($64) and a general coverage shortwave receiver (a Kenwood R-1000, $450) for radioteletype reception. Although I use this package only for reception, a good number of hams use other packages with their C64s for reception AND transmission of radioteletype and other modes of communication. In fact, there is probably more amateur radio communication equipment and software developed for the C64 than for all the other computers combined. Reason? Inexpensive, and does the job. Second, I use the C64 to communicate with the Gould and DEC machines at work. I can upload and download files to these machines (e.g., the Unix vi editor), which in turn can be uploaded and downloaded to my IBM PC at work (Wordstar). This way I can keep up with my work if I want to spend a few days at home, and I'm editing text. On the C64 I use a copy of Speedscript that I typed in from a magazine. For the few special purpose programs I use at home, I write them using the supplied BASIC and/or an assembler/monitor. I don't generally need to engage in full-scale large programs for uses around the house. Art W.
dickow@ui3.UUCP (01/09/87)
... In response to the comments about a lame duck C64. You are right in some ways about the 64, but is it really fair to compare it to a PC? The former can be had for $99 after all, and I know people who sink $5000 into a PC to make it do things right. Also, let us not forget the days when people trampled each other to buy 64s at $695! It is a very fine 8 bit machine, fine for games and... Hey! there just might be some good stuff. For developement, the PROMAL developement system is incredibly elegant, and powerful. Beats Borland Pascal, incidentaly, on the PC, in speed benchmarks. Or Dr. T's MIDI software...nothing matches it. Both these came out first on the 64, too. I use my 64 to burn roms, run my synthesizers (beats the Amiga at that even, with my software). The bottom line---what does one HAVE to do with the machine? I still don't get why my Amiga has to load in a 90k file just to accomplish EXACTLY the same functions, at comparable speeds I might add, for certain kinds of things. While we're comparing, I own a IIe too. Love it just as much as my other two creatures. But it really still doesn't stack up to a 64. Really! I program at machine level on both machines, and there is not really any- thing in the Apple that makes it 4-500 dollars 'better'. Ridiculous. (Those slots are kinda cute though. ...Until I realized I had sunk a couple-a- hundred into cards, filling 4 slots,--just to make it do stuff BUILT IN to a 64. I almost laughed. A good friend of mine, who owns a PC, saw my Amiga's graphics and decided to look into some EGA cards and stuff. $600 bucks add on. Besides, he'd need to sink more dough into a fancier monitor. ...Might as well get an Amiga. They're selling on the coasts now for about that much, I hear. Still, I understand the feeling. Why not sell the 64 if it does not suit a purpose. Want to make a purpose, use it as a printer spooler. -A good project. Set up a bulletin board. Give it to the kids. Donate it to a school. Develope educational programs specifically for that machine. Challenge yourself to make it do what it is really capable of. (Don't program in BASIC). Finally, maybe I'm just a little sentimental, but I can see a purpose in owning and loving a... KIM 1 ... or something, (VIC20), just for the collector/historical/intrinsic value. The 64 is popular perhaps because it actually has a kind of ...personality. Because it is cheap now and is frankly not current state of the art. It once was (close). The PC or AMIGA is like a new car. The bicycle sits in the garage. But is it to be spurned entirely. Ever want to go bike riding? Bob Dickow (...egg-id!ui3!dickow) --The ideas expressed here are totally unoriginal--
bub@rlgvax.UUCP ( Mongo Mauler) (01/09/87)
> > Well, I'm ashamed to admit it: I've been using a C64, a C128, > > and an IBM PC clone for quite a while now, and I have lately > > discovered my CBM equipment is gathering dust except when I get > > a games jones. I use the PC almost exclusively now. > > I hate to admit it, but I almost am beginning to feel that the > > 'Real PC' snobs have been right all along. My CBM machines are > > nice 'toy' computers, but for any real computing, you need to > > go with the big boys. > > I think you are comparing apples to oranges. The C64 and C128 are a > different class of machines than the PC clones. They have 8 bit uP, and . . . > So, I think before you rag on CBM for not comparing favorably to the PC, > you should take a look at the Amiga. And let your C64 sit for those days > when you feel like playing some games. That's what I do, and, after all, > the 64 has more games than any other computer on the market! > > Ali Ozer, ali@navajo.stanford.edu I'm really don't want to rag the 64 or 128, and I certainly realize these machines are in a different class than the PC and clones, and I am definitely not interested in purchasing yet another system (even though you can now buy a fairly decent PC Clone system for about what my 128 system cost me a year and a half ago, and certainly less than what an Amiga system goes for). What I am really interested in is what my fellow CBM users consider the 'great' software they own, and/or some of the things they have put their machine to work on (like temp monitoring, thermostatic control, jump starting your car, etc.). I guess we could also go into what business/productivity/ programming/utility software we have tried that we found unacceptable. For instance, some of the things I am most disappointed with: C Compiler Abacus Software Pascal ditto Write Now Word Proc. (I forget) etc. Some of the software I enjoy using (and can actually get some 'real' work done with): 128 BASIC 7.0 CBM (great job, Commodore!) BASIC Compiler Abacus Software Speedscript WP COMPUTE! Publications Simon's BASIC CBM COMAL Public Domain etc. What about the rest of you? I hear C-Power is a good system to work with, PROMAL is the greatest thing since sliced bread, etc. And, what about the new software now available for the 128? Anyone using these offerings care to comment of what you like/dislike?
john13@garfield.UUCP (01/11/87)
Pocket Writer II on the 128, using the 1351 mouse, is better for word- processing than anything I've ever seen on an IBM. Geos, using some of the new software packages for it (eg Writer's Workshop), the 1351 mouse, and a ram expansion cartridge functioning as *virtual memory* on either the C64 or 128 should silence the "toy computer" critics. Is Mario Brothers available for IBM's? I rest my case :-). John "I'm an American; I know how to negotiate with terrorists!" - Sledge Hammer
hall@trout.UUCP (Robert R. Hall) (01/13/87)
I am using the C64 to run a very small busness ( my household ). The first priority task assigned to the computer is that of a typewriter replacement for composing school papers and other letter correspondence. For this my word proccessor is speedscript with all it's supporting programs such as pre-view80, the spelling checker and mail merge. Second priority: is preperation of my finacial reports, for which I use speedcalc. Also abtained from the Compute magazine. Third: is my budget analysis. For this I purchased the program Net Worth. 4: comes edcuation. I am a professional programer and wish to teach machine language programming to my children. The assembler I have for this is Merlin also used with Micromon for a debugger. Last priority is home entertaiment (translate as the games). Yes I am envious of the newer computer such as the Amegia, but I had to purchase the C64 from my household budget (Government funds availble at work wouldn't cover this).
kg0r#@andrew.cmu.edu (Kenneth Gober) (01/13/87)
ReSent-From: postman#@andrew.cmu.edu ReSent-To:nntp-xmit#@andrew.cmu.edu Return-path: <kg0r#@andrew.cmu.edu> To: outnews#ext.nn.comp.sys.cbm@andrew.cmu.edu I used to do word processing on it. I could do things on the PETs at school, bring them home and work on them on the 64. Then, when I was ready to print, I would use my PC-Compatible as a print spooler. My father was perpetually amazed that I would consider using such a big and powerful machine as a spooler. Now I'm at school and my parents don't want me to play games all day, so I just have the PC. I don't use it often. Kenneth Gober kg0r@andrew.cmu.edu
daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (01/14/87)
> Keywords: I'm bored... > > Well, I'm ashamed to admit it: I've been using a C64, a C128, > and an IBM PC clone for quite a while now, and I have lately > discovered my CBM equipment is gathering dust except when I get > a games jones. I use the PC almost exclusively now. ... > [mentions "great" IBM programs] > Where's all this great stuff for the 64/128? For these machines, > I've got a terrible C compiler, a terrible Pascal compiler, an > ok BASIC compiler, no great editors, no memory resident stuff > that doesn't require something to be plugged in somewhere, etc > etc ad nauseum. > I hate to admit it, but I almost am beginning to feel that the > 'Real PC' snobs have been right all along. My CBM machines are > nice 'toy' computers, but for any real computing, you need to > go with the big boys. Now, before I get into this, let me point out that I'm biased from two opposing points of view, (1) I worked on the design of the C128, and (2) I've got this Amiga with 8 megabytes of RAM on my desk that leads me to believe that PC clones are toys for little boys. But certainly any computer can be a toy with poor software, or a tool for the big boys with good software. > So to restore my faith in Commodore, and also to try and justify > my zillions of dollars invested, I'd like to pose a couple of > questions: > > 1) What do you (fellow CBM users) consider to be the best in CBM > software for ANYTHING other than gaming? Is there ANY software for > the 64 or 128 that you would consider great? I'm only familiar with C128 stuff, and my picks are: For word processing: PaperClip II from Batteries Included, or the new Pocket Writer 2 from Digital Solutions. The Digital Solutions program supports C128 expansion RAM as a RAM disk, multiple documents in memory, keyboard or menu driven commands (compatible with the new or old mouse or a joystick), and up to 50 lines of 80 column text (in interlaced mode). The PaperClip program has a few "desk accessory" type functions built into it, like a terminal emulator. Both programs incorporate integral spelling checkers, the Batteries Included one containing 80,000 words to start off with. For data base: SuperBase 128 from Progressive Peripherals. This program is extremely powerful, reportedly at least as powerful as DBase III on a PC. It has a very easy to use interface for simple tasks, and a complete programming language similar to BASIC available for tasks as complex as you like. If you don't need this power, both Digital Solutions and Batteries Included produce their own data base programs designed to integrate well with their other productivity oriented programs. Languages: C Power 128 from ProLine seems to be the best C compiler I've seen for the 128, far better than the Abacus version. The ProLine program automatically starts variable allocation in zero page memory, which is the "register" type for this compiler. I'm not sure what else they're doing, but in many cases code produced with the ProLine compiler beats PC based C compilers at memory intensive tasks (can't beat the PC at floppy based things, but that's our fault, not Proline's. I'd like to try it with the Xetec hard drive versus a standard PC hard drive, though, for disk I/O, I bet it'd be competative). I haven't used any other C128 languages, though for C64 applications PROMAL is one I've used extensively, and it produced code typically running 40%-60% the speed of the ProLine compiler. I have yet to find a good C128 mode Pascal compiler. CP/M: There's all kinds of stuff that runs in CP/M, if you aren't happy with what runs in C128 mode. That includes DBase II, WordStar, and many of the other programs for business that now run on a PC. Aztec also sells a C compiler for CP/M on a C128 that will produce code for CP/M, C128, or C64 operating modes. And Turbo Pascal from Borland runs under CP/M for you Pascal types, though it produces code only for CP/M mode. > 2) What do you use your CBM equipment for? Only word processing, financial management, BASIC programming, running the Nuclear Regulatory Commision, thermostat control,etc.? I use my C128 as a terminal, wordprocessor, and for income tax preparation these days. Until I bought my Amiga, I used it for program development in C and PROMAL. And I bought the Amiga because I was completely amazed by it and wanted to start writing code on it right away, not at all due to any lack of the C128's ability at the tasks I called it to. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh "You can keep my things, they've come to take me home" -Peter Gabriel ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (01/14/87)
One thing I forgot. My mom uses her C128 as a Midi sequencer, data base
manager, and store display in the music store she works in. The data base
program she uses is called Perfect Filer, which, while not as powerful as
SuperBase, does a respectable job of managing her files of keyboard
students.
If you want the details on why a C128 can come close to and sometimes
even beat a basic PC clone, here they are. The C128 in 2.04 MHz mode
completes 1 memory cycle (reading or writing one byte in memory) in
490 nanoseconds, a standard PC clone running at 4.77 MHz completes 1
memory cycle (reading or writing one byte in memory) in 839 nanoseconds.
Both machines are 8 bit machines, from a hardware point of view. The
extra speed in some cases of the PC is that the PCs 8088 processor
contains more registers (translates to fewer memory accessess, register
operations are always faster), contains a 16 bit ALU (16 bit math is
built in, versus programmed in a routine as on the C128's 8502), and
the 8088 has built-in memory banking, versus external banking, so
memory management on the PC can be faster, and can address more memory.
PC disk access is faster because the PC uses a processor controlled
parallel drive, versus the serially accessed drive on the C128.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh
"You can keep my things, they've come to take me home"
-Peter Gabriel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ugbowen@sunybcs.UUCP (01/15/87)
All the messages I've seen posted in reply to this have been comparing software
on the CBM to the PC. How can you use available software to compare machine
quality? Just cause I don't have software to do something doesn't mean my
machine isn't as good as someone elses. I think that's part of the problem
with the 64s software (or lack there of). Everyone expects people to "toy"
around with it. It's cheap...why would any serious buyer get it? Well, I was
a serious buyer and I still chose the 128. It's tough finding the software,
but after a lot of searching I've found PaperBack Writer for word processing,
MicroVT 128 for perfect VT 100 emulation in 80 columns, and C-power for when I
get down to real programming (I've handed in a number of programs for classes
done on C-power). Then I've always got plenty of games, graphics, and sound
synthesizers, not to meantion the entire CP/M public domain.
There's really nothing the machine can't do given the right programmer. All
things considered, I wouldn't have a PC over this. For every PC advantage, I
can name 3 for the 128. Of course, I'm the type that can say "if it doesn't
exist, I'll write it!"
Devon Bowen (KA2NRC)
University of Buffalo
********************************************************
csnet: ugbowen@buffalo.CSNET
uucp: ..!{allegra,decvax,watmath,rocksanne}!sunybcs!ugbowen
BITNET: ugbowen@sunybcs.BITNET
Voice: (716) 836-7358
USnail: 67 Lisbon Ave; Buffalo, NY; 14214
********************************************************cbcscmst@cs1.UUCP (01/17/87)
I have had my C64 since 1982, and in that time I have used it for such things
as wordprocessing, telecommunications, graphics, software development,...
At the moment I have an IBM sitting on my desk (at home) right beside the 64.
I am using the IBM for telecommunications (I prefer the 80 column readable
text) and for working on a graphics system that two friends of mine and I
started back in 1985.
I use my C64 for wordprocessing using Fontmaster II and data storage
using Mirage Database. I will admit that I have not used much in the database
area, but MDB works about the same (VERY close) to the InfoStar system for the
IBM's. As far as wordprocessing goes, Fontmaster II may not be WYSIWYG but it
does nicely for the type of output it gives. I have games aplenty, but no
interest in playing them.
I use the Proline C-Power system for any serious programming (I have
the Abacus C, but would never touch it again). I have been considering
rewriting the graphics system in C for the C64, but without the new 256K
expansion for the 64, it doesn't seem feasible. I do however prefer Doodle
graphics software above most, but if Geos gets out a new version of geoPaint
using multicolor mode (I can't stand blotchy graphics) I will probably use
it more.
I am not saying that I prefer the C64 to the IBM, I really like the
Macintosh best, and GEOS comes close enough for me. Both worlds give you
a lot of variety in software and as it looks, Commodore is not letting the
64 sit stagnant. What used to be a limited toy is now offering more memory,
more types of input (mouse, lightpen, digitizer, ...), better programs with
current state of the art user interfaces, etc. So in my humble opinion, one
thing that IBM users will not be able to claim in the near future is that it
is *just* a toy. The price tag on the C64c might not be in the thousands, but
have you checked the prices of the IBM clones lately? They are now down to
what the C64 first came out as back in 1981. If IBMers can say that the C64
is a toy because of its price ( < $1,000), then the IBM must be considered a
toy also. If they call it a toy based on the amount of memory, or any other
capability, they had better reread the above and try again. The graphics
were fantastic in their day (320x200 with 16 colors/160x200 with 16 colors)
but can the IBM say that theirs are much better (640x200 with 2 colors/
320x200 with 4 colors (notice this is the CGA not EGA)). For the money the
C64 is still a very good buy and I don't regret the purchase one bit (or
is that one byte?).
--
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Michael Temkin
{inhp4,hplabs,psivax,ttidca}!csun!cs1!cbcscmst
"Is there anybody out there?...Hello?..."
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.E72@PSUVMA.BITNET (01/21/87)
Well, whatever your views are, you certainly must admit that CMB is doing i t's best to rescue their machines from obsolecence.