Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!nuchat!seven From: seven@nuchat.UUCP (David Paulsen) Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm Subject: Re: Homecum 640k acts like 64 Message-ID: <15276@nuchat.UUCP> Date: 4 Oct 89 03:25:13 GMT References: <89092920434743@masnet.uucp> Reply-To: seven@nuchat.UUCP (David Paulsen) Organization: Crazy Dave's Computer Emporium, Houston Lines: 116 doug.purdy@canremote.uucp (DOUG PURDY) writes: > >How did it come to pass that this fast, powerful >machine can't run software any better than a 64k, 1541 combo? Simple economics. Software publishers must target the lowest common denominator. Since your 128 is capable of running 64 software, and since there are a lot more 64s than 128s running around today, guess who gets targetted? >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? It's not any harder to write such routines, rather it's that darn economic thing again. It takes time to write 80-column screen drivers, ramdisk emulators, and fastloaders... valuable time that would be "better" spent on debugging and refinement. >Why aren't such routines widely available and at low prices? They SHOULD have been included in the ROMS, like the toolbox routines in the MacIntosh for all programmers to use. At the very least they should be on the back of the 1541 test/demo disk that comes with the drive. Commodore should make such a library of routines available free for the asking.... I agree. >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? Hackers hack.. it's the nature of the beast. Strictly speaking it's not the Average Guy's place to create and maintain a library of public domain routines for everyone else to use. That would be nice, but most of the programming nightlife can't even document their own code. >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? Surprise, surprise.. many of the Commodore packages out there ARE written by "professional" programmers. They professionally write their professional code on MS-DOS computers using something like Manx C, then download the compiled C code into the Commodore. Finally, they hire guys like me to take their swollen, ridiculous, inefficient downsized programs and make them look pretty on the Commodore. I recently dealt with a group of "professional" programmers who couldn't figure out why two 44K C modules wouldn't fit in the Commodore 128. They had no idea the 128 was a banked system, you see. Professional Commodore programmers are rare, but we still find work now and then. I've learned to program MS-DOS computers in self-defense, but when folks find out that my first love is the 8-bit scene they're often overjoyed. That's how I got my last two Commodore programming jobs, in fact.. by making contacts thru my clone jobs. >With the 1581 available at such low prices, why is anything written >exclusively for the notoriously slow and expensive 1541? Because there are literally millions of 1541 compatible drives, and MAYBE a few hundred thousand 1581's out there. In the IBM world 360K disks are considered old hat, yet most software packages still come in that format because they're the lowest common denominator. Besides, excellent 1541 clones can be had for $150, while the cheapest 1581 I've seen is $189... and the 1581 is just as slow as a 1541 when you plug it into a Commodore 64. Economics again. >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! I agree, mostly. However, if I booted a game and it decided to allocate my 512K ramdisk for its own purposes I'd be plenty steamed. I often keep my REU cram-packed with useful files. Losing them everytime I decided to play Willow would be a bitch. >A C64 programmer friend who's hot on the anti piracy issue feels fast >loader cartridges should be banned. How silly. Could you take a stab at explaining your friend's reasoning? >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? Amiga piracy is probably wide spread; I wouldn't be surprised. However, the Amiga enjoys one of the most robust public domain library I have ever seen. Friends with Amigas have literally hundreds of disks full of PD utilities, games, movies, demos and neato hacks. Most IBM shareware I've seen is boring by comparison. Besides, piracy is rampant industry wide.. it cuts across all broundaries. Piracy is like speeding: everybody does it, nobody admits it and getting caught is pretty rare... but expensive. Don't get too stressed about things you have little control over. >Doug Purdy - sysop Learning Experience - C128 support - (416) 665-3263 > 3/12/2400, 24hr, 7 days, GT netnode 053/012 > > Also - DOUGPURDY@CANREMOTE.UUCP // Punternet: 2/Doug Purdy > - CanConfMail/Smartnet: Geos/C64 or CP/M areas, Doug Purdy -- David Paulsen ..uunet!nuchat!seven ||| The Curiosity Shop BBS, 713/488-7836 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The spirit is free / Where the wild things roam Next to the sea / The electric ocean [The Cult]