Talk:Commodore 64

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Commodore 64 article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Former featured article Commodore 64 is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 6, 2005.
This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of High priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Peer review This Engtech article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives
  1. /Archive 1: Sep 2003 - Oct 2005
  2. /Archive 2: Oct 2005 - Aug 2006


Contents

[edit] Most popular?

I find it hard to believe the first line of this article: "The Commodore 64 is the best-selling single personal computer model of all time." The article referenced by the footnote makes the same claim but doesn't back it up with any numbers. Shouldn't a cite for that claim include proof? Mick 05:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of VIC-64 as a variant name of computer

I had included a reference that the C-64 was sometimes unofficially referred to as the VIC-64 during its pre-release and immediately after its release, however this information was removed from the article. This name variant can be confirmed in magazine reviews, rumours, and advertisements ca. 1982/83 (i.e. COMPUTE! magazine). It was also a name that occurred in popular speech around that time, as people anticipated and talked about the new computer - and it stuck for a while afterwards. Anyone who was a Commodore user during the early 1980s could easily have heard someone refer to the new, mysterious "VIC-64". Seeing as this is a factual, verifiable and once popular variant of the name (although no longer in use), I think it should be included in the article. I am curious as to why this was removed, seeing as "C=64", which appears in the article, is not an "official" designation either. I can provide period magazine scans of this name in actual use if needed for the article.

VIC-64 also seems to be an official variant of the name in Sweden (Google search will provide examples) or this link: [1]

Perhaps since this name variant has fallen from popular use, it can be included in the Trivia section.

--205.193.82.252 17:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That's a lot of links!

Unless i get negative feedback here, I'll try to clean up the link section a bit, and remove at least the most obvious plugs and unnecessary webpages. ("After a 64 game? Then find it here!"). All I did now was remove the "great commodore 64 link page" which was butt ugly and kept telling me my computer was full of errors.

--Virtualsky 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC) says:

Maybe some of the links could be moved to a section of the See Also portion of the page... like C64 Music Bands, or something like that. They could be given their own Wiki page, giving the phenomenon more exposure, while tidying up the C64 page at the same time.

I've gone and eradicated the extlinks section. Good riddance. How that got through FA review is beyond me. Chris Cunningham 10:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Quirks' of the VIC-II?

I have a bit of a problem with the description of more than 8 sprites visible and moving being due to 'quirks' in the VIC-II design. From my knowledge (taken from the Commodore 64 Reference Guide), this capability is not a quirk, but a feature. Multiple sprites were done using the vertical blank interrupt, by setting it higher than the bottom of the screen and using the IRQ routine to alter sprite pointers and/or other VIC-II settings mid-refresh.

The vertical blank register, which sets the scanline at which the vertical blank interrupt occurs is a documented feature of the chip. Although what it was supposed to be used for was not documented, but demo programmers soon found out that it could be used to do all sorts of graphical tricks, like switching modes partway down the screen and playing with sprite pointers and position registers to display more than 8 sprites.
I have edited the sentence in question accordingly.
Mvdwege 21:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The VIC-II doesn't have a "vertical blank" register, per se. It does, however, have a pair of registers that report the current raster line being drawn (among other things) at $D011/$D012, and which are frequently used to create the various video tricks seen in C64 demos. Splitting a sprite is a small matter of either manually waiting for the proper raster line to arrive, or setting a raster interrupt to occur at the proper line, and updating the sprites' pointers to point to move them, point them to new images, change colors, etc. when the line arrives or the IRQ occurs. Fiddling with registers during vertical blank is generally used to turn off vertical borders, induce FLD and similar tricks, interlacing, etc.
Vanessaezekowitz 05:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I haven't got my copy of the Reference Guide here, but wasn't it the case that the scanline registers reported the current scanline when read, and when written to set the scanline when an IRQ was supposed to occur? Your clarification is spot on nonetheless, but I have always referred to this IRQ as the vertical blank IRQ, as it usually was triggered when the scanline hit the borders, but later some folks got the brilliant idea that you could effectively split the screen, doing multiple display modes and multiple octets of sprites by fiddling with the appropriate registers in the IRQ handler. Mvdwege 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commodore 64 in the news

Not sure if this is worty of inclution here, reports about Wolfgang Priklopil (Natascha Kampusch kidnapper) using a Commodore 64 as his main computer, and that it's giving the police some trouble retrieving copies of his records have been cropping up all over the news lately [2] [3] [4]. --Sherool (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would guess the main reason why the police are having difficulties are because they're looking in vain for the C64's hard drive. Priklopil surely has several hundreds of 5.25" floppy disks containing files that might incriminate him, but the police are oblivious of the concept of floppy drives. JIP | Talk 08:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
"There are emulators available which can make a modern PC capable of running Commodore 64 programmes but Maj Gen Lang said it would be difficult to transmit the data from Priklopil's machine to a modern computer "without loss". ---- Here's a crazy thought: Don't transfer it. Just read the data directly from the Commodore 64. (Duh) - Theaveng 18:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thinking the same

I added this as a line in the trivia section. What do you think? --Ceaser 12:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History reorg

The different models should be incorporated into the History section. The article doesn't read chronologically just now.

The images should also be spaced around the article and appropriately captioned. Tying them to sections makes the article's image coverage spotty and disrupts page layout. Chris Cunningham 13:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total number of games produced for the Commodore 64?

Can anyone estimate the total number, and size, of commercial games produced and published for the Commodore 64? I was wondering if they would all fit on a single 1 GiB USB memory stick. JIP | Talk 08:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The best place to find this out would be on Gamebase64. This is the most accurate and full database of C64 games (both published and unpublished) on the Internet. Perhaps this site should be included in the External Links section? Jimbo 17:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The site says they have recorded 18800 games. Assuming each of them takes up one Commodore 64 single-side floppy disk (664 blocks = 166 kiB) then the total size would be 3,120,800 kiB = (roughly) 3047.7 MiB = (roughly) 2.9762 GiB. So no, they won't all fit on one 1 GiB USB memory stick. But I came pretty close - they will fit on a 4 GiB USB memory stick, which are already commercially available. JIP | Talk 17:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Compress them somehow and they will easily fix on a 1 GB memory stick, most game's data isn't compressed on the disks so even ZIP will do the trick. —Feuermurmel 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a like-for-like comparison with the ZX Spectrum? I know that had at least 6500 individually-released (ie not only in compilations) games in the UK alone.--MartinUK 19:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rationalizing the Trivia

Basically, I took the Trivia and divived it into two major groups. The software related issues were left in the same section but which was given a more accurate name. The two other points related to the high prevelance of defective C64s at product launch and to the homage paid to the C64 in GTA Vice City were simply moved to appropriate sections and contextualized.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carambola (talk • contribs) 21:27, November 22, 2006 (UTC).

Excellent organizing, nice work! ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 10:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war / binary prefix

It seems we have an edit war here. I'm not going to take part except by changing the units once after this edit (and for my first time in this article, unless I'm mistaken), but since I believe the kibibytes instead of kilobytes to be clearly the correct term here as per WP:MOSNUM, and since it's rather obvious the issue is not going to be resolved otherwise, on the next revert I'm making a Request for Comment on this issue. I ask that before reverting back to SI prefixes you state the specific reasons for going against WP:MOSNUM here, preferably tersely, for the people handling the RfC. You might want to note that the discussion is also going on in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). However it seems the support for changing the style which was overwhelmingly elected in 2005 is quite weak, and the current MoS obviously should apply until the decision to change it.

My sole reason for why KiB should be used for the unit is that that's what was overwhelmingly agreed upon in WP:MOSNUM, in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/archive22#Unit Disagreement, MiB vs. MB, and discussed over and over in e.g. archives 39, 65 and 66 of the same page, and is simply not going to change because a few new people (note that I wasn't there making the decision myself) have hard feelings on the issue.

From WP:MOSNUM: "If a contributor changes an article's usage from kilo- etc. to kibi- etc. where the units are in fact binary, that change should be accepted." It's dead simple. --SLi 23:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You cite a guideline but you don't cite the guidelines that I have already cited in the history that are from the parent article of the MoS and that means you are looking at one guideline in isolation without considering the wider issues discussed in the MoS. Nowhere in the article sources are IEC prefixes used. Therefore to impose IEC prefixes goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Disputes over style issues "it has been stable in a given style, do not change it without some style-independent reason" (for you to cite the MoS makes it a style reason of course) and because the article and the sources are not consistent. As always if you can show a majority of sources relevant to this article that use IEC prefixes then please link them and talk about making the binary prefix changes. I would suggest waiting for the results of the vote on the MoS talk page related to this issue instead of trying to force the issue on a single article. Lastly if you wish to continue to talk about this issue then do so on the correct MoS talk page since that is much better than trying to start debates on lots of talk pages about the same subject. Fnagaton 23:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment on binary prefix issues

This is a request for comment.

What is happening here is that a few people are changing the units in the article to kilobytes from kibibytes, even if they mean 2^10 bytes, because this is used by all the sources for this information. This article is about a computer that was introduced way before these so-called IEC binary prefixes like kibi.

Conversely, a few people are changing kilobytes to kibibytes, as suggested by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Binary_prefixes. Specifically, "If a contributor changes an article's usage from kilo- etc. to kibi- etc. where the units are in fact binary, that change should be accepted."

I believe nobody contests that here kilobyte or kB means 1024 bytes, not 1000 bytes.

It must be noted that on the talk page of WP:MOSNUM, there is ongoing debate over the issue. It has been pointed out above that this is a repeating discussion about WP:MOSNUM, which can be evidenced from careful reading of WP:MOSNUM archives 22, where the current wording won a vote by 20:1:6:0:2, and by reading achives 39, 65 and 66 of WP:MOSNUM (the issue pops up every now and then). It has been claimed that the wording is unlikely to be changed, judging from the past of the issue.

The issue is whether the article should use kibibytes as suggested by WP:MOSNUM (if it suggests that), or kilobytes, as most of the source material uses. From how the issue has been discussed in WP:MOSNUM talk, please also suggest a way of dealing with contributors who persistenty go contrary to eventual consensus.

Also, before this RfC was made, a suggestion was made that both sides introduce their respective views in a terse format on this page before reverting.--00:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You cite a guideline but you don't cite the guidelines that I have already cited in the history that are from the parent article of the MoS and that means you are looking at one guideline in isolation without considering the wider issues listed in the MoS. Nowhere in the article sources are IEC prefixes used so there are no style-independant reasons to use those prefixes. Therefore to impose IEC prefixes goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Disputes over style issues "it has been stable in a given style, do not change it without some style-independent reason" (for you to cite the MoS makes it a style reason of course) and because the article and the sources are not consistent. As always if you can show a majority of sources relevant to this article that use IEC prefixes then please link them and talk about making the binary prefix changes. I would have suggested waiting for the results of the vote on the MoS talk page related to this issue instead of trying to force the issue on a single article by using an RFC. Lastly if you wish to continue to talk about this issue then do so on the correct MoS talk page since that is much better than trying to start debates on lots of talk pages about the same subject. Fnagaton 00:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
To keep things simple enough for the RfC, I'll only say one thing: I do not believe there is going to be a vote on the MOSNUM issue. --SLi 00:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"Kilobyte" is the common standard terminology throughout the computing industry and the terminology that was used when the Commodore 64 was made. That is the clearly the appropriate terminology to use here; the Manual of Style in this matter is wrong on several counts. —Centrx→talk • 00:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The "kilobyte was used when it was made" argument is a bit weak IHO. We don't use chains or furlongs as measurements (outside of quotes) just because those where the units used when scertain things where defined back in the day after all. Though yes, unlike those archaic units of measurements kilobyte is clearly still the most used, in fact I have scarsely heard of kibibytes before stumbeling across this. However I believe a ensyclopedia should strive to be as unambigous as possible so personaly I would prefeer to go with the kibibytes as recommended by the MOS and various standardisation organisations. Accuracy over "common use" as it where. -Sherool (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The wikipedia article on horse racing still uses furlongs. The article on American football still uses yards. The article on Snooker uses feet. It is more accurate to use the terms used in the sources than trying to use different terms not widely used in the sources. Fnagaton 15:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the recent change Commodore_64&diff=121689990&oldid=121685631 does not support the use of KiB or kibibyte because neither of those terms are used. Also it is 64 kilobytes not "60 kibibytes" as the diff comment shows. The source cited clearly uses the terminology "K" (for example "K RAM") which is short for kilokyte. Lastly according to the previous comment the editor is accusing me of ignoring the guidelines when in actual fact the editor is ignoring the guidelines I have cited that say to defer to the original style of the first major contributor when there is a conflict of style, this would mean the editor should use kilobyte and KB. Fnagaton 15:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It's 110 % irrelevant what units the source uses. We are entirely entitled to make conversions. And yeah, the 60 was a typo. And you misread the policy quite badly. The entire paragraph that talks about the original contributor is:
Sources are relevant and you are wrong to claim otherwise. Fnagaton 16:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If it has been stable in a given style, do not change it without some style-independent reason. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk.
I know what the guideline says because I've cited it enough to show that binary prefixe changes do have doubt and therefore the style should actually be kilobyte etc. Fnagaton 16:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't you agree that it says first you use the Wikipedia style, if that leaves doubt, THEN (and only then) refer to the style used by the first major contributor. --SLi 15:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There is doubt because the sources do not use those terms. Fnagaton 16:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The issue is that IEC prefixes are not actually the style used on Wikipedia or elsewhere. The formulation in WP:MOSNUM is entirely prescriptive and is not followed. —Centrx→talk • 15:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, they are used on pretty much every computer-related article here with more than a few contributors, as you can easily verify yourself. --SLi 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You have just used a petitio principii logical fallacy (Circular argument). Just because you can show a that a small few editors have gone around changing lots of articles to binary prefixes does not support your case about binary prefixes. Fnagaton 16:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you go and inspect the histories of those arguments to justify your claims? I have only had to do that for relatively obscure articles (of which Commodore 64 is probably the least obscure), I suppose the same holds for Sarenne. --SLi 17:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I have checked the history and found pretty much the same as the comment from Centrix below confirms. Fnagaton 17:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I just went through a half-dozen articles and none of them even used the IEC prefixes (though Hard disk discusses the issue itself), let alone had them as the result of normal writing. —Centrx→talk • 17:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, that's interesting. Might be that I was wrong on that point then (the world often, counterintuitively, looks more perfect than it is from the eyes of someone who usually tries to fix encountered problems :). Right now I have no time to go through articles to verify this myself, but I guess I'll believe you if you say so and concede the IEC prefixes are less used in Wikipedia than I thought. --SLi 17:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I never once saw the term "kibibytes" used in any Commodore-related literature. Everything - books, magazines, the official instruction manual - used "kilobytes." To introduce a neologism into the article is unnecessary and confusing. If the Manual of Style says that, then the MOS is wrong and needs to be revised. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
How is that different from saying we should use, say, 2000 year old measurements when writing about that era documents? Language and units evolve. --SLi 00:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not the same as this argument since those 2000 year old terms are seldom used in modern language. However kilobyte and megabyte are still commonly used in modern language. Fnagaton 19:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
We should use whatever terms are appropriate for the context. As someone pointed out above, it would be ridiculous to change yards to meters in the American football article. Furthermore, these terms are hardly in widespread use even today. They are neologisms that the majority of readers will not be familiar with. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya know a lot of this fighting could be eliminated just by being unambiguous. For example: "The commodore 64 came with 64 kilobytes of RAM (65525 bytes), and an optional external floppy with approximately 170 kilobytes (174,848 bytes) of storage," thus defining to the reader exactly what you mean. - Theaveng 19:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean the 64 has 65,536 bytes of RAM. 70.228.163.253 (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proxies

Not accusing any editors from this debate (it could have been anyone, including me, or just a passer-by). But now this is getting ugly. [5] Using an anonymous open proxy is not a way to win this 'battle'. Femto 11:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Another one. [6] I've semi-protected the article for 3 days. Femto 12:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for helping to spot the open proxy editor. Is it possible to check the logs to see if someone has used a rare version of a browser or forgot to clean their cookies before making those edits? I'd like to see the culprit found. Fnagaton 17:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Far as I know Wikipedia does not keep such logs (though there may be manual checks in cases of libel, criminal offenses, etc.) Let's keep things in perspective. In cases of continued policy violations by a particular suspect one might try a checkuser to see if anyone logged in from the IP. However since these were IP edits it means the person cleared their login cookies. Knowing who is the coward that edited from varying IPs wouldn't stop reverts from new proxies in any case. (And, personally, I do prefer the IEC version—but not without clear consensus.) Femto 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, that's really lame. Why does Wikipedia allow such anonymous open proxies? Wasn't the anonymizing Tor network at least entirely blocked? --SLi 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No, editing from open proxies is not allowed, and Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies does its best to keep up with them. Femto 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I think the semiprotection was definitely here a good idea. Perhaps it should stay at least until there is some consensus. --SLi 22:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Even if semi-protection is probably a good idea, I don't see any reason why you reverted the changes. The current article is internally inconsistent. There are both SI and IEC symbols to designate binary capacities. Sarenne 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The article is not inconsistent. The actual binary prefix issue is being discussed on the relevant MoS talk page Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Fnagaton 19:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but using "kilobyte" or "KB" to designate 1024 B and using "MiB" to designate 1024*1024 B is not really consistent. Sarenne 19:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Then change it to be MB instead to make it consistent with the article and the reliable sources. Fnagaton 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate info about competitors

I have changed very inaccurate competitor info that was in this article. For example, it claimed that all of the C64's competitors came with 16K versus Commodore's 64K. This is patently false: the Atari, Apple II, and IBM came with very similar amounts of RAM at the time of the C64's release. Furthermore, the C64 used up a lot of its RAM on system software, leaving about as much for actual programs as a 48K Apple II (I have left this out however as a possibly partisan thing to be pointing out). Also the statement that C64 had superior graphics cannot be made in a blanket fashion; it must be qualified, since the competitors actually had much higher resolution graphics modes than the C64 -- but these graphics modes were rarely used due to their more limited colour options. And the price of $1500 quoted for the Apple II available at the time of the C64's release is $300 too high.

I don't see the need to go on so much about competitors in this article -- it sounds combative, and you'll notice that the Apple II and IBM PC wiki articles don't get into this kind of talk. But if this information is going to be mentioned, it should at least be accurate, so I have fixed it. I would not object to these sections being lifted out altogether, however, since this article is really not about platform comparisons. If you are going to do these comparisons, though, please at least take the time to carefully research more than just your own platform and get it right. If you don't want to take that time, then leaving it out would be preferable.--64.229.24.22 06:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  • We really should avoid original research, which much of this section consists of. Any comparisons used should be taken from literature published at the time, not made up on the spot. I'll look through my old copies of COMPUTE!, COMPUTE!'s Gazette, and RUN to see if I can find contemporary comparisons. For what it's worth, the Atari did not have any mode that provided a higher resolution than the C64 (it topped out at 320×192, compared to the C64's 320×200). Among the Apple II family, as of 1983 only the Apple IIe (not the old Apple II or Apple II+) provided higher resolution. From my own readings, it seems that the VIC-II's sprite capability (and the SID chip's high-quality sound) was a major selling point at the time. That was especially useful in competition with game consoles; the PC was probably a better business computer, but the C64's ability to play high-quality games made it better suited for many home users. Neither the original IBM PC nor the Apple II family had hardware sprite capabilities. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You might be mistaking the nature of the Apple II lineup. Each iteration replaced the previous. The IIe was the standard Apple II from the moment it was released. I am sure there was some stock remaindered, but as of January '83, the Apple IIe was it. So I think you might be confusing historical progression with low end/high end models? You can confirm the end-of-production date for the Apple II+ on the same website I referenced. Otherwise, I think the things you've said are basically right. I could easily dredge up a whole lot more web sources than the site I used for the stuff I added, but it sounds like you are looking for contemporary accounts. But for some of this info, you sort of had to be there. For example, the Apple IIe's higher graphics modes did not see a lot of use, but the IBM PC's high graphics saw a bit more. And there are a lot of pluses and minuses that go into particularly the graphics performance on these systems. It really depends on what you're doing with it. If you're playing old-style RPGs or adventure games, for example, which were mostly turn-based, superior animation is no advantage. All in all, while I would agree that the C64 was very competitive graphically and had the edge in a couple of very important ways, summing it all up accurately can get pretty verbose. These systems are close enough to each other in capability that the answer to which is better could be a matter of your taste in games. Anyway, I can definitely agree that comparisons should not be thought up by us -- but they also should not flatly contradict the technical specs, whatever their origin. There was plenty of bias back then, too.--65.95.94.94 22:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this statement "Furthermore, the C64 used up a lot of its RAM on system software, leaving about as much for actual programs as a 48K Apple II" it's not accurate since using memory location $1 it is possible to swap out the ROMs and allow the RAM to be used for data and programs. Most games, especially the ones produced later, did this. Fnagaton 09:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. See, I wrote that statement but I am not an expert on the C64. This is just something I heard and got passed around. Which is why I didn't actually put the statement in the article itself. Few people are experts on more than one platform of an era so comparisons I have seen over the years are *very* rarely accurate. I am no exception and I am guilty as charged -- but I didn't put my assumptions into the article.--65.95.121.152 06:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think Commodore 64 vs. Apple, Atari 800, or IBM PC (I've used all three) can be summed-up like this: They were near-identical in terms of speed and memory, but the Commodore/Atari had been designed as game consoles (originally), thus giving them a significant edge in the graphics & audio sub-sections of each machine. ----- The Atari was advanced for its time (1978), but the Commodore was developed four years later (1982) thus making it more advanced technologically with better video output, more hardware sprites, and realistic-sounding audio (Ataris resembled touchtone phones). These more-advanced multimedia features made both Atari and Commodore attractive to home users for gaming, music listening, and creating art. - Theaveng 19:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
No way. A) IBM PC was a different architecture, like comparing apples and oranges. b) The Atari's were not designed as "game consoles" originally. Only the 400 model was, the 800 was designed for business and serious use. c) Most of your observations are just that, observations, i.e. WP:OR. You can't make sweeping edits based on that. --Marty Goldberg 21:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Matt Britt change to remove http://www.the-commodore-zone.com/

I didn't see any popups (or attempted popups) when visiting this site so I don't see why this change [7] said it was using popups? Fnagaton 09:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:POP. Sarenne 09:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I did see WP:POP before I wrote the above and thus I still do not see the validity of the revert comment. Fnagaton 10:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 ? The revert comment only indicates that the revert was done using WP:POP... Sarenne 10:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The change to add the link looks fine and follows the example of the other links in the section. The actual site does not appear to display popups. Therefore, as my first comment says, I do not see why the change was made. Fnagaton 10:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
See WP:External_links and WP:NOT#LINK. Again, it has nothing to do with popups. Sarenne 10:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you speaking for Matt Britt now? I took the change comment to mean the site was using popups since there is no further explanation in the change comment. Again, as my above comments say, I see no reason for the change. Fnagaton 10:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstood what the comment means. Wikipedia is not a repository of links and the site is just a personal web page. Sarenne 10:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
No you are wrong, the comment doesn't contain a good explanation of why the change was made. I looked at the site, it contains good information and is as valid as some of the other sites listed in the article. Anyway, I'm not asking you, I'm asking the author of the change. Fnagaton 11:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not wrong, I said that the comment only indicates that the revert was made using WP:POP, nothing more. I only added reasons why, IMO, this link should be removed. Sarenne 11:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong because your claim at 10:53 is incorrect. I again remind you that I'm not asking you, I'm asking the editor who made the change. Fnagaton 11:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Then ask him on his talk page. It's perfectly reasonable that another editor is going to give you a valid answer (to both your original question and to your misunderstanding regarding the summary) if you ask on the article's talk. Chris Cunningham 11:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
At last a sensible suggestion. However I have noticed that a number of links in the list are either dead, point towards a warez FTP site or advertise PCs with little relevance to the C64. So I'm going to edit the list. Fnagaton 11:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
When someone adds a link, and another one reverts, you should ask for the reason why it was added, not for the reason why it was removed again. Just take a look at the edit history, which reveals that the link was reverted because it has been added by an account that contributed nothing but multiple links to the site, and even seems to be named after it. Linkspam by its very definition.
Re "Added previous link since it contains info which is as valid as the rest of these in the list." [8]: The existence of other links is not a valid reason for adding another. It looks like just another random C64 site. What would it add to an encyclopedic article? Femto 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: "What would it add to an encyclopedic article?" I think it adds another reference to a site that contains good information. For example, the game database is large, even though it doesn't contain the one I wrote (hmph!), the articles are well written and it also contains older items from some of the C64 magazines of the time. Fnagaton 15:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This justifies its inclusion in a link directory - which Wikipedia is not. (Incidentally, DMOZ is, and through its link here the site is already available.) Sure, the Internet is full of good information. Same question remains (and which should be asked about all links): What would be this site's relevance to the content of this article? Femto 16:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rhyme

Is it just me or does "Commodore 64" kind of rhyme? 71.0.240.56 01:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Weird Al agrees (~1:11). -- mattb 00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Write an in-depth article about it :-)

[edit] Keys flying off

The function keys on my C64c used to occasionally bounce off after hitting them too hard, and I spent many hours searching under my bed for the lost spring. It is evident that commodore didn't spend very much on their keyboards.

commodore keyboards were considered very good for low-end computers in the early days. most of the competition had membrane or chicklet keys. also, i've heard later models like the 64c were built more cheaply to satisfy demand and maximize profits

[edit] Technical question

I was wondering if someone might help me understand the C64's graphics modes a little better...

  1. Text mode: 40×25 characters; 256 user-defined chars (8×8 pixels, or 4×8 in multicolor mode); 4-bit color RAM defines foreground color
  2. Bitmap modes: 320×200 (1 unique color + background in each 8×8 block), 160×200 (1 unique color + 3 common colors in each 4×8 block)

For one, am I correct in assuming the multi-color text had the same limitations in colors-per-area as the bitmap mode?

And in that case, how did the colors change across the line? If I understand the description correctly, there were four color registers (right?), one that was used by the entire screen ("background" I assume) and then three that could be changed in the 4×8 block. But how did one actually change the colors?

I'm trying to get some sort of common understanding with the Atari machines. On those the 160x192 mode had four colors (period), and with some trickery one could arrange to modify them on-the-fly. Line-by-line was easy (which is why you saw so many "rainbow" effects on that machine), but it was even possible to do it in the midst of a line, with some problems.

But the description above of the C64 suggests that there was no such trickery involved, and I recall many C64 games that seemed to use lots of different colors, so I'm assuming this was easier on that platform. Can someone describe this for me?

Maury 00:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The multicolour text mode used one unique colour, and three common colours (background + two extra colours) for each character. I don't believe it is possible to change a block's colours in the middle of a horizontal line. I've heard it is possible to change them between horizontal lines, though. As I understand it, this is done by forcing a bad scan line interrupt on each scan line, rather than every 8th, as the Commodore 64 normally does. Don't ask me how to implement it, though.
What I don't understand is the change in the specs of the multicolour bitmap mode from "1 unique colour + 3 common colours" to "3 unique colour + 1 common colour". Where are the extra 2 unique colours stored? There are one thousand 4*8 pixels blocks. Storing one unique colour for each is going to take half a byte per block, this means five hundred bytes. For hires bitmap mode, the unique colours are stored as half of each byte in a thousand-byte area, with the other half of the bytes going to waste. But storing three unique colours is going to take one-and-a-half thousand bytes, which do not fit in to the screen colour map area $D800-$DBE7 even if you use every bit. Where are you going to store the extra five hundred bytes? I no longer have a Commodore 64 but I do have the VICE emulator, so I could try it out for myself, but unfortunately I no longer remember how to use the bitmap modes. JIP | Talk 06:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Two of the colors come from what the PRG calls Screen Memory, which normally stores the characters on the screen. The third comes from Color Memory, which normally stores the colors of the characters on the screen. Color Memory is the $D800-$DBE7 area you're talking about; Screen Memory can be set to be in various locations but defaults to $0400-$07E7. (You could change two of the colors in every cell by setting up multiple color maps and switching between them; the setup would take ~1K of RAM per color set but you only need to set one byte to switch everything.) -- Parody 05:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. This matches what I've read from the on-line version of the C64 Programmer's Reference Manual. It also says that the screen memory holds the colours for the hires mode as well, does this mean that in hires mode, each 8×8 pixel block has two unique colours? JIP | Talk 16:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clock speed

As I understand it, one of the reasons for Commodore's success in the 1980s was its aquisition of MOS technology, which gave them easy access to the 6502 and other chips. How come the C64 ran its cpu at 1.02Mhz when e.g. the Ataris ran theirs at 1.79MHz? Why let the competition be that much faster when you have the cpu factory? Drhex 13:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) Commodore MOS Technology only made the chip; they did not control how fast they were clocked by other people like Atari or Apple. (2) From what I've been told, the C=64's CPU speed is limited by its interface with the VIC video chip. If it tries to run faster, the CPU and VIC can no longer talk to one another (which is why the screen goes blank when you switch to 2 megahertz mode on a C128). ----- As for why the VIC does not run faster, I don't know. Probably because the VIC is synchronized to the NTSC standard. In Europe with the PAL standard, the VIC runs even slower (~0.97 megahertz) in order to maintain sync with the PAL televisions. (3) A side-effect of that is PAL music plays too fast when used on an NTSC machine. - Theaveng 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C64 Palette

I'm writing a post-processing fragment shader to display graphics in the format of old 8-bit systems (useless, but fun), I found the ZX Spectrum graphic modes article very useful. Not too sure where to put it, but if anyone needs the C64 palette, I found it here: http://alex.kazik.de/en/convert.html Bitplane 15:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a neat little tool. I tried it using an actual C64 image - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C64_Armalyte.png - and the results were fairly good. ----- I then tried a JPEG image of a JVC camera. The only problem is that, while it reduces the color palette, it doesn't take into account C64 limitations such as "only 4 colors per 8x8 block". It's doubtful that a real C64 could create pictures that look that good. - Theaveng 22:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
On the C64 using FLI and other extended graphics mode techniques it is possible to use the full palette in every 4x8 block. Fnagaton 15:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't that cause an unpleasant flicker effect (like interlace on an Amiga)? - Theaveng 16:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It depends on the exact technique used as each technique has technical pros and cons. For example one technique may use a lot of CPU and IRQ time, another might not allow all sprites to be used on the same scan line etc. Fnagaton 17:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collapse of Commodore

I think there should be a section about the collapse of Commodore. They had 40% market share at one point, and had their moment in the sun. But why did it end? Was it horrible business decisions, a lack of innovation, what did it? I think this would be a great project for someone with more time than I. :) 24.13.141.176 18:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You might find the Commodore International article's History section enlightening. -- Parody 12:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it's worth considering a short blurb on it's collapse. Anatocis (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commodore 64 Technical information

The technical tweaks one could accomplish in software is one of the important aspects of this machine and what made it so popular. So looking at the article and talk page I was thinking how it may be useful to include some more detailed technical analysis of some of the more well known features of the custom chips, for example being able to draw in the border areas or displaying more than eight hardware sprites. But then I was struck with how this would make the article much larger so instead how about starting a new topic to cover this detailed information? Fnagaton 15:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Can we swap the picture of the keyboard at the top for one of the whole computer?—ScouterSig 20:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean the one at the top of the article? That is the whole computer. (1541 floppy drive and color TV set not included.) -- Parody 04:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Say what!? Pardon my ignorance of all things older than me, but if that's the case, why does the article not mention that at all? I would think it's kind of important. —ScouterSig 13:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It's perfectly normal for 80s era computers see eg ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPC, Vic 20 and even later machines like the Atari ST and/or Amiga (500). Not worth noting here. --Pak21 13:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I wonder what exactly Scoutersig thinks is missing? Is he expecting a "tower box" to sit on the floor? That stuff is already inside the keyboard. A floppy disk drive? Not necessary if you're just playing games off cartridges. A CRT or LCD? Just use your TV! ----- The keyboard is truly the whole computer; all the other stuff is optional, and nice to have, but not necessary. Perhaps that should be stated in the article, but I think it's rather self-evident that the computer is inside the keyboard. (Same as a laptop; computer is inside the keyboard.) - Theaveng (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...I can understand that someone who has only seen modern machines (where typically the motherboard is in its own box or is permanently attached to its monitor in some way) could be confused. Even though I think it's pretty self-evident based on the description and the other pictures in the article, a change like "The Commodore 64 is an 8-bit all-in-one home computer..." might be a good idea.
As far as the picture goes, I don't think there's any need to change it. I've looked through a number of articles for a wide variety of electronic products and the majority of them are shown either without peripherals attached or only with things that come with the system (like the Intellivision's controllers) attached. -- Parody (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
One more thing that might be helpful is adding a picture to the Hardware section taken from the back or back-right side of a C=64, showing (and labeling?) the various ports. -- Parody (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
In their ads, Commodore often showed a C64 attached to the family television (and mom and dad laughing with the kids). Maybe we should do that... demonstrate through the picture how the computer operates (no need for an expensive monitor; just hook it up to your TV!). In fact that's how I have my C64 connected right now, using the S-video connection. Looks and works great, with a nice large 30 inch screen. I suspect most Commodore owners just used a spare television rather than buy a $300 computer monitor. - Theaveng (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sales figures

This was previously specified as 17 million on the basis of some guy posting a message in a Google Groups forum claiming the Guinness Book of Records' figure of 30 million was wrong - on the basis of his memory![9] Sorry, that's not good enough, 30 million it is until a more authoritative source can be found. Halsteadk (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the bugs...

From the article:

The Commodore 64's BASIC V2, the programming language which came built-in with the computer, can be crashed by executing PRINT""+-x (where x is any integer), or by attempting to create a BASIC program with an initial line numbers 350720 to 353279.

Without any information on the underlying bugs this is meaningless. Shinobu 06:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

makes perfect sense to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maximum number of sprites

The PAL C64 can display 8 sprites per line, each sprite is 21 pixels high, resulting in 14 * 21 * 8 = 112 maximum full size sprites on the 310 scanlines (with 16 scanlines not showing sprites). By moving the sprites every frame it is possible to get 120 of them. It is also possible to use a special VIC trick to make sprites 17 pixels high, resulting in 144 sprites (as invented by Crossbow). These are not full-size sprites though. Rrelf (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's possible to make Sprites that are only 1 scanline high, an effect used in many games to create star-like objects in the background of some video games. Using this trick you could get 288*8 == 2300 sprites onscreen, but not very useful. ----- By the way, how did you get 310 scanlines? PAL is only 288 visible scanlines per field (with the remaining lines reserved to vertical blanking). - Theaveng (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. There are many demos that EASILY exceed the 120 sprites you keep claiming. - Theaveng (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
No, these are not sprites, but parts of sprites. It is not possible to have 1-pixel sprites with the VIC chip - if you enable a sprite at a certain scanline, the sprite will be drawn on the following 21 scanlines no matter what you do. Single-pixel sprites are just not possible with the VIC chip. The current world record with showing full VIC sprites is 144, which was done by Crossbow in Krestage, which he does by utilizing a special trick with the $d017 y-expansion register. Prior to that, 120 sprites was the maximum. Here are some relevant discussions: "Is 120 the max number of full height sprites that can be displayed?" and "Sprite Multiplexing - Myth Busted ?". Rrelf (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Chartshoworiginal.jpg

Image:Chartshoworiginal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laptop?

So is this some sort of laptop? No wonder this company went down; they're so stupid, they put the keyboard on the outside and the screen on the inside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.57.33 (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Point?'

Without objection, I will change the statement "At one point (1983/84/85), the Commodore 64 dominated the market with approximately 40% share" to "for a substantional period (1983/84/85), the Commodore 64 dominated the market with approximately 40% share." Three years is hardly a 'point,' no offense to the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkthatgotfunk (talk • contribs) 11:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)