Talk:Commodore 64/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 From stubs to articles 2 What kind of dollars? 3 Swollen tech spec secs 4 The Final Cartridge III 5 'CBM 64' vs 'CBM64' and 'Commodore 64' vs 'Commodore C64' 6 Simons' BASIC: apostrophe antics 7 Why BASIC 2.0? 8 LOAD":*",8,1 vs. LOAD "*",8,1 9 C64 Hardware Section 10 Wow! 11 Image 12 Capitalized or lowercase words immediately after initial numbers on a line?

From stubs to articles

There are several stubbish pages on the Commodore & accessories. Computers: Commodore 64, Commodore 128. Disk drives for the above: Commodore 1540, Commodore 1570, Commodore 1571. Do they stand any chance of getting longer? Would a merge into a single article on the devlopment of the Commodore home computer be better? -- Tarquin

By now I think the C64 article is OK in length (ditto for the PET, VIC-20 &c), and I (or someone else maybe) will certainly see to it that the C128 article is expanded with more info, including coverage of the C128D (or linking to a separate article on the latter). The same goes for the peripheral unit articles, more will surely come. Due to this I think a merge as such is unneccessary, but perhaps a combined 'timeline'-article with links to the specific computers could clarify things for Wikipedia-users unfamiliar with Commodore. -- Wernher 11:35, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree. The articles are significant enough to stand on there own and don't need to be merged. -- Popsracer 11:38, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(This belongs on Talk:Commodore International, but the thread is here, so...) Recently I threw in a few more disk drive model stubs, but with the first hints of technical info for each, although amusingly I botched the hard drive models -- they were 9060/9090 but I originally entered 9260/9290. I also added some model name redirects, and a few tightly knit family models are currently merged but could be split later. (4040 includes 2031/2031LP; 8050 includes 8250 and SFD-1001.) However, as of this writing there's now a CBM storage devices category, so perhaps the growing exhaustive list of models in various articles should be replaced by a link to the category? -- Todd Vierling 03:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What kind of dollars?

Which currency are these $ dollar values given in: US,Canadian,Australian,etc? --SD6-Agent 21:33, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Has since been fixed, I notice (still -- not much of a chance that the prices were given in AUD, though, but I see your (rhetorical) point, of course :-). --Wernher 22:26, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Swollen tech spec secs

I'm not so sure whether the current very long/detailed tech spec section is the best way of describing the 64's greatness, as long as the VIC-II and SID is thoroughly treated in their own articles. If nobody protests, I shall therefore trim down those subsections in the present article (perhaps down to their previous contents), which should be more than enough. The VIC-II and SID articles were written for a purpose (and to make it clear, lest we get any misunderstandings: I do think the 64's video & audio specs are historically important, but I think the article gets too bloated the way it is now -- in my view, trimming it down to display the most essential parts of the specs would be much better for the readers, and it would no doubt pull the more interested ones into the VIC-II and SID articles anyway). --Wernher 22:26, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I guess it could be cut down a bit, but what should be deleted? Specifications are usually long, and sometimes it's nice to have a summary in one place, without have to wade through another article. Just a thought... Pixel8 00:19, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I kind of both agree and disagree... Oh well. Still, summary is an instrumental word here; I would like the summary specs of the VIC-II & SID to be just that, with the full monty to be had at the respective articles. Perhaps I'll trim the stuff down a little bit (will of course leave in the most important spec items of the two very, if not outright most important, chips of the beloved '64. I just want to keep the article nice and consise. BTW, cool (and most befitting) username. :-) --Wernher 19:08, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I trimmed the VIC-II and SID specs down today, following my argument above. I think the remaining items in a nice, concise way relates the most significant features of those chips, with a lot more details to be found in their respective articles. I still do more or less insist that that's the way it's meant to be, in the grand scheme of things (life, the universe, and everything, y'know...). :-) --Wernher 22:41, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Final Cartridge III

Hey everyone, I added a new article about the The Final Cartridge III, which I'm sure many of you remember ;)

Great! In time, we should get articles about most of the very common carts for the '64, of which the FCIII is a prominent example (of course, I myself think that the Action Replay series of carts were the kings of '64 utility cartdom). :-) --Wernher 11:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There was also the Super Snapshot (up to v5) Cartridge that had a button on it to freeze the state of the computer and you could do all sorts of things like ulimited lives and change sprites or even the memory as well as loading programs super fast by simply pushing the commodore+runstop keys. The designers were Ron Smith and Marcel LeBlanc. Cleo Nov 17, 2005

'CBM 64' vs 'CBM64' and 'Commodore 64' vs 'Commodore C64'

I just reverted a change from 'CBM 64' to 'CBM64' in the intro para. IIRC, the former was more common than the latter, but a Google search doesn't indicate much difference in usage between the two (5780 vs 3420 hits). Comments, anyone? --Wernher 17:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Familiar to this, it should be mentioned, that the full name is 'Commodore C64' and not 'Commodore 64'. At least, this is what I am aware of. The VIC20 was also not 'Commodore 20'. I remember even VC64 as model-name. Anyone with more info on this ? I come here from the Amiga page, where I have changed 'Commodore 64' to 'Commodore C64' and now I want to keep consistancy within the Encyclopedia. I owned a C64 and believe its model name was VC64, however, C64 is the common model name and its manufacturer behind is Commodore. I owned a model for the German market. --Anonymous

I have indeed got some more info on this, and it's as follows: The full name of the machine is 'Commodore 64', period. This is not really disputed. AFAIK, all CBM documentation uses 'Commodore 64' consistently throughout; never once have I seen the form 'Commodore C64' in any official documentation. I can't even remember to have seen it in any third-party docs that I have -- and I have quite a lot (too much to be 'normal' for one person, anyway...). Finally, while not exactly judicially authoritative, consider that a Google search for "Commodore 64" returns roughly 1,500,000 hits, compared with about 64,700 for "Commodore C64". --Wernher 02:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This computer was very popular in Sweden but for some reason many people and even stores and magazines referred to it as VIC-64 (both with and without hyphen) in Sweden (possibly in other countries too?), maybe this should be mentioned somewhere in the article? --81.233.232.225

Now that's very interesting (and completely new info to me, for one). That said, such a name would be quite logical for a machine that succeeded the VIC-20---but perhaps CBM marketing came to the conclusion that sales of the much more feature-rich, 'new generation' C64 wouldn't be helped by having too close a connection to the VIC-20?

The VIC-64 name should be mentioned, I guess. Do you have any docs on this? --Wernher 18:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no "official" docs but if you type in VIC-64 in Google you'll get some 1800+ hits, mostly various personal sites and auctions in Swedish. I did however find this thread in a Google newsgroup with more info about this (post number 7 being particularly interesting). --81.233.232.225

I remember seeing it written as C=64 (with the C= representing the Commodore logo). In fact, this is how it used to be typed in many BBSs, magazine articles and program sources. But the poster is right, I've never seen it used officially as C64 but 'Commodore 64'. Keep in mind that a Google search will return common and colloquial uses, not necessarily authoritative ones. DZ-Jay 16:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

People on a keyboard used C=64 because it was a sort of disambiguation, I think, clearly more than C64 (which sounds vaugely like short hand for "Capacitor 64" or some part), and more than C-64 (which "newbies" sometimes used).Terryeo 02:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that C64 is ambigious -- it happens to be the name of another fairly important computer →Raul654 16:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Simons' BASIC: apostrophe antics

Just to make this clear once and for all: Simons' BASIC was written by David Simons (note that his name ends with an "s"), and so the apostrophe goes after the name—not before the "s". --Wernher 21:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why BASIC 2.0?

Actually the reason for putting BASIC 2.0 rather than 4.0 in the C-64 wasn't to reduce cost. Commodore had an arrangement that allowed them to use whatever implementation of Microsoft BASIC they wanted. The reason for putting it in really was to keep the C-64 from being too attractive of a competitor to the PET/CBM line. Of course, that move backfired. --Dave Farquhar 03:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. According to the "Design case history" article (see References), which directly quotes the designers, it was because it would have required more ROM (= more cost). The 64 has the same amount of ROM, 20K, as the VIC-20. Mirror Vax 17:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

LOAD":*",8,1 vs. LOAD "*",8,1

LOAD "*" does not quite mean "load the first program on the disk". It actually means "load the last program accessed, or if none, the first program". LOAD ":*" loads the first program. Mirror Vax 16:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, since this keeps coming up, how about if I explain the controversy, and then we can see what we have to do to clean it up?

LOAD"*",8,1 loads the last program accessed on the disk. If no last program has been accessed, it loads the first program on the disk. Since this command was usually issued when the computer was first turned on, it effectively loads the first program. The documentation with a lot of (if not most) commercial software specified LOAD"*",8,1. Even though it's not technically correct, the way most 64 owners used their machines, it worked.

LOAD"0:*",8,1 is the correct syntax for loading the first program on the disk. This is a holdover from the PET and its dual-drive floppies, such as the 4040. Drive 0 was the default drive in Commodore DOS, so it could usually be abbreviated LOAD":*",8,1 especially since the 1541 only has one drive in the unit.

Unfortunately I think it would detract from the article to put this whole explanation right where the example of LOAD"*",8,1 shows up.

I have one idea. We could say LOAD"0:*",8,1 (often abbreviated LOAD":*" or LOAD"*" which, when the machine is first turned on, all effectively mean the same thing)... Anyone else have any other ideas? --Dave Farquhar 12:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LOAD anything,8 or LOAD anything,8,1 cannot be abbreviated to LOAD anything, because if no device number is supplied, the Commodore 64 defaults to device number 1, which is the cassette tape drive. — JIP | Talk 18:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

That was the bummer, soon as you used a 5 1/4 floppy you had to type the whole command instead of just LOAD <carriage return>. You had to specify "1" which meant typing the whole command and it was in ROM so you couldn't change the default device.Terryeo 02:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

C64 Hardware Section

I had hoped to add this to the hardware section, but as the article is already over the preferred 30KB limit (as of 2005/06/16) I have refrained from adding it. Is it worth adding? Probably needs trimming too. Comments please, thx.

Cost reduction was the driving force for hardware revisions to the C64's motherboard. Reducing manufacturing costs was vitally important to Commodore's survival during the price war and leaner years of the 16-bit era. The C64's original (NMOS based) motherboard would go through two major redesigns, (and numerous sub-revisions) exchanging positions of the VIC-II, SID and PLA chips. Initially, a large proportion of the cost was lowered by reducing the number of discrete components used, such as diodes, resistors etc. thumb|right|350px|An early C64 motherboard. (Rev A. PAL 1982) The VIC-II was manufactured with 5 micrometer NMOS technology, clocked at 8MHz. At such a high clock rate, it generated a lot of heat, forcing MOS Technology to use a ceramic DIL package. The ceramic package dissipated heat more effectively than plastic, but it was more expensive. After a redesign in 1983, the VIC-II was encased in a plastic DIL package, which helped reduce costs substantially, but it did not eliminate the heat problem. Without a ceramic package, the VIC-II required the use of a heatsink. To avoid extra cost, the metal RF shielding doubled as the heatsink for the VIC, although not all units shipped with this type of shielding. With the exception of the U.S and West Germany, most C64s shipped with a cardboard RF shield, coated with a layer of metal foil. The effectiveness of the cardboard was highly questionable, and worst still it acted as an insulator, blocking airflow which trapped heat generated by the SID, VIC and PLA chips. The SID was manufactured using NMOS at 7 and in some areas 6 micrometers. The prototype SID and some very early production models featured a ceramic DIL package, but unlike the VIC-II, these are extremely rare as the SID was encased in plastic when prodcution started in early 1982. thumb|right|350px|A C64c motherboard ("C64E" Rev. B PAL 1992) In 1986 Commodore released the last revision to the "classic" C64 motherboard. It was otherwise identical to the 1984 design, except that it now used 2x32KB DRAM chips rather than the usual 8x8KB. After the release of the C64C, MOS Technology began to reconfigure the C64's chipset to use HMOS technology. The main benefit of using HMOS was that it required less voltage to drive the IC, which consequently generates less heat. This enhanced the overall reliability of the SID and VIC-II. The new chipset was re-numbered to 85xx in order to reflect the change to HMOS. In 1987 Commodore began to ship C64Cs with a totally redesigned motherboard commonly known as a "short board". The new board used the new HMOS chipset, featuring new 64-pin PLA chip. The new "SuperPLA" as it was dubbed, integrated many discrete components and TTL chips. The 2114 color RAM was integrated into the last revision of the PLA.

Pixel8 12:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Add it. Mirror Vax 14:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. It's longish, sure, but it's good information. Just one minor correction: I know some models of U.S. C-64s did use the cardboard/foil shield. I have an idea for shortening the article: What about putting the 64C information in a separate article? Dave Farquhar 17:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. About the cardboard shield, was it C64s or early pre-1987 C64Cs? I know that all HMOS based C64Cs NTSC or PAL had cardboard, because they don't require a heatsink. I had just assumed that all US C64s (using a "classic" board) would have a proper metal shield, because of stricter RF (FCC) guidelines. I don't think there would be enough information to warrant a separate C64C article, it would be a stub at best. I could however move the VIC-II and SID information to their respective articles, but I would rather keep it here, to show how the hardware developed over the years. What I wrote above is the most compact version I could come up with, without sacrificing details. So I'm wondering what (if anything) should I cut? Pixel8 22:33, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

This is a little shorter and I think retains virtually all of the important information.

Cost reduction remained a driving force throughout the C64's lifetime, and the motherboard went through several hardware revisions to that end. The C64's original NMOS based motherboard went through two major redesigns and numerous sub-revisions. Much of the improvement was due to a lower number of discrete components, such as diodes and resistors. The most immediately visible difference between these boards is the position of the VIC-II, SID, and PLA chips. The VIC-II was manufactured with 5 micrometer NMOS technology and clocked at 8 MHz. At such a high (for the time) clock rate, it generated a lot of heat and forced MOS Technology to use a ceramic DIL package, which dissipated heat more effectively than plastic, but at a higher cost. In 1983 the VIC-II was redesigned and repackaged in plastic, which reduced cost but necessitated use of a heatsink. To avoid extra cost, Commodore made the metal RF shielding double as the heatsink for the VIC, although in many countries the C64 shipped with a cardboard metal-coated RF shield of questionable effectiveness and which served as a heat trap. The SID was manufactured using NMOS at 7 and in some areas 6 micrometers. The prototype SID and some very early production models had ceramic DIL packaging, but these are very rare, as the SID went into production with plastic packaging in early 1982. In 1986, Commodore made one last revision to the "classic" C64 motherboard, substituting 2x32KB DRAM chips for the 8x8KB chips in the 1984 design. After the release of the C64C, MOS Technology began to revise the C64 chipset for HMOS technology, which required lower voltage and thus, less heat, enhancing the overall reliability of both the SID and VIC-II. The new chipset was renumbered to 85xx to reflect the change. In 1987, Commodore began shipping C64Cs with a totally redesigned motherboard commonly known as the "short board." This board used the new HMOS chipset, which featured a new 64-pin PLA chip. This new "SuperPLA" integrated many discrete components and TTL chips. The 2114 color RAM was integrated into the last revision of the PLA.

Probably the ideal is somewhere between your version and mine, but yes, it's usually possible to trim without deleting information. Maybe now would be a good time to take a stab at doing the same type of edit to the entire article? Dave Farquhar 03:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After looking at some other articles, (featured ones at that) which are way over 30K, I might as well just add it as is. Pixel8 12:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wow!

Guys and girls, I've just got to say that I don't often come across articles as well-written, informative and as interesting as this one! Once my tiny little FAC objection is sorted out, I'll give an Enthusiastic Support! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I second the WOW! The C64 was the first computer I ever owned after using only TR(a)S(h)-80s in school. I was truly unimpressed by them the first time I saw one. They had plastic, instead of metal, cases and NO built-in monitors. 7 years later I finally got around to trading in my faithful ol 64 for an Amiga (another powerful, affordable breed near and dear to my nerd heart). Good section about the drives too. The first 1541s were so terrible they had to be recalled, the first time I know of a defective peripheral got recalled. The one I had was a noisy beast, whose heads would go out of alignment everytime my cat farted. But it did get hot enough to keep my coffee warm in the winters. Plus I discovered those rocking Epyx carts. Thanks for a fine article and the tech-nostalgia trip! Now where'd I put that old "Adore my 64!" button...--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh almost forgot Enthusiastic Support. "sys64738" ;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I typed that sys command more than once. Terryeo 02:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Image

Head image looks awful on a 800x600 screen res. It should really be a thumbnail with an appropriate caption. - 220.101.78.60 05:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Capitalized or lowercase words immediately after initial numbers on a line?

Does anyone know of a WKP std/policy on this? For example, which of the following is correct:

• A nice children's song
  • Capitalized
  • 3 Little pigs
  • Lowercase
  • 3 little pigs

We should be able to agree on how to do this. Any comments? --Wernher 21:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh no! Not another capitalisation style issue! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The correct answer: "Three Little Pigs" ;-) --feline1 11:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)