Path: utzoo!yunexus!maccs!cs3b3aj
From: cs3b3aj@maccs.McMaster.CA (Stephen M. Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm
Subject: Re: what is this chip(65C802)
Summary: this is turning into some kind of a war
Keywords: 6502, 8088, 80286
Message-ID: <2348@maccs.McMaster.CA>
Date: 5 Apr 89 16:59:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: maccs.2348
References: <16510@cup.portal.com> <7734@killer.Dallas.TX.US> <2310@maccs.McMaster.CA> <89Apr2.223029edt.2745@godzilla.eecg.toronto.edu> <2325@maccs.McMaster.CA> <1989Apr4.221550.19284@watcsc.uucp>
Reply-To: cs3b3aj@maccs.UUCP (Stephen M. Dunn)
Organization: McMaster U., Hamilton, Ont., Can.
Lines: 56


In article <1989Apr4.221550.19284@watcsc.uucp> ross@watcsc.UUCP (Ross Ridge) writes:

>>Anyway, I'm going to stick with my AT clone.  The 64 was nice while its
>>disk drive lasted, but it just can't hope to compare with machines using
>>much more recent technology.
>1981? Recent technology, hardly...

And when, pray tell, did the 6502 come out?  And is it not true that just
about the only difference between a 6502 and a 6510 is the 6-bit (I think
it's 6) parallel port on-chip?  Not a high-tech feature that significantly
alters the recentness (is that a word) of the design.

>I use my 64 because it has
>great games, there are not many games available for the PC that are not
>available for my 64, and CGA graphics are blech.  Gimme '386 machine with
>VGA (or better), and good selection of games, and then I'd think of using
>machine capable of running operating systems written by MicroSoft.

And do you use BASIC on your 64?  Who do you think Commodore cloned that
software from?  In fact, if you go back to the BASIC on the original PET
(which the 64's BASIC grew out of), the ROM even has the string MICROSOFT
embedded in it.  I don't know if they wrote the OS for the PET, though, and
the 64 OS is quite likely Commodore's, but they're not perfect, either.
Proof?  The code running the 1541.  The save and replace function (@) is
buggy, and I've run across a couple of other bugs that I can't remember the
specifics of.

Nothing but agreement on your CGA comments - it's a lousy display card.
It I was going to have a colour display, I'd certainly go for at least
an EGA (which beats the $%&@ out of the 64 in almost every respect).  But
I'm quite happy with my Herc clone - 720 x 350 resolution.

Yes, the 64 has some great games on it (although the Amiga is even better
for games), but if you're doing something more serious, I don't see how
anyone could be happy programming the 64 for too long.  Try doing a
small business accounting package (including AR, AP, GL, etc.) on a 64.
It can be done, yes, but you run into several problems:
   - slow compilation (unless you do it in interpreted BASIC, in which
     case you get slow execution)
   - mega-slow disk drive unless you buy an IEEE adapter
   - small memory to work with
   - 40-column screen (I've seen software to make it do 80, but the
     print is nearly illegible)

Anyway, if you're happy with your 64, by all means keep using it.  It's
just that the machine's limitations get frustrating faster than those of
the PC family (in my opinion, anyway).

Regards,

-- 
======================================================================
! Stephen M. Dunn, cs3b3aj@maccs.McMaster.CA ! DISCLAIMER:           !
! This space left unintentionally blank - vi ! I'm only an undergrad !
======================================================================