Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!sun-barr!rutgers!mcnc!beguine!Perry.Stokes From: Perry.Stokes@samba.acs.unc.edu (BBS Account) Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm Subject: Re: Piracy and Software Keywords: give me a break Message-ID: <631@beguine.UUCP> Date: 26 Jul 90 03:01:22 GMT Sender: usenet@beguine.UUCP Lines: 46 In response to a message by Joe Greco, Ed Prochak wrote: > From the little I have seen of PC clones, the only advantage is the > large storage of the hard drive. Oh Really? I guess you've not heard of CMD making SCSI drives for the C=64 that can handle upto 700MB of storage. Not to mention the fact that a c64 with 20MB harddrive has more space than a 20MB IBM harddrive. Your average c64 game can fit on one double sided 1541 disk. <340K total> The average IBM game takes up much more than that. So If I can fit 20 IBM games on a 20 MB PC harddrive Its a safe bet that you can fit get 3 times that on your 20MB c64 drive. After all there is a large difference between 64K and 640K. Another thing to consider is the fact that a 20MB harddrive for the c64 costs the same as an IBM XT with a 20MB drive. > In quite a few graphics applications the 64 can still beat a clone. Could you elaborate on this statement? Which graphics configuration are you speaking of? Sure the cheapest color setup does not look a whole hell of a lot better than a c64 but it can at least do decent 80 columns. Paint Show Plus looks much better on my CGA monitor than doodle looks on a c64. Gif files look much nicer on the same monitor for my IBM and they don't take 20 minutes to print on the screen. ANSI graphics look MUCH nicer than Commodore Color Graphics. Don't get me wrong; I like my c64 a whole lot and use it daily even though I have an XT and am about to close a deal on a 25 MHz 386 w/ vga. Its the best 8bit I've seen and is much cheaper than an Apple II. I just wish people would quit acting as if it is the best computer in the world. Perry Stokes