Talk:Commodore 64/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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

Best-selling computer of all time?

There's no question the Commodore 64 was one of, if not the, best-selling computer of its time. But it seems highly unlikely that it "remains the best-selling computer model of all time", after 20 years that have seen a massive worldwide explosion of computer purchasing. Do we have a reliable source for this claim that is reasonably current enough to justify this statement? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It's quite likely that it remains the best-selling computer model of all time, since computer models don't get produced for eleven years nowadays. Rather, they get replaced every few months. Of course, it depends also on how exactly you define computer model. Gestumblindi 00:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I considered that, too, but what I'm after is sourced justification for such a statement in Wikipedia, as we don't do original research. As it stands, even my toned-down revision isn't really acceptable, as we have no source for it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Jeff Q, you're definitely on the right track here; indeed, the C64 is the best-selling computer model ever, where "model", IMO, is to be understood as a «computer model which, during its entire lifetime, has had no official hardware changes/versions with backward (n)or forward compatibility issues in relation to any other model made by the same manufacturer». Following this definition, the original IBM PC is one computer model while the IBM AT is quite another one, due to the strict 'two-way compatibility' clause. A 100% two-way compatible Compaq clone would constitute yet another model, going by the 'same manufacturer' clause. However, the same definition covers all of the C64's different HW versions, including the C64C. Or? --Wernher 18:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
It would be ideal if someone could find sales figures of the C64, this would probably justify the statement made — Wackymacs 10:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Wackymacs, for getting the point. WE NEED SOURCES, not more bald statements, however promising they may seem to the individuals making them. Wernher's statement is just another unsourced assertion. We need not even get into what constitutes a model, which can engender an entirely new debate; what we need is a published, contemporary source, or this claim must be removed until one is found. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree, of course; we definitely need sources. I just wanted to put the "model" term into perspective. --Wernher 13:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has described the source for the cited statement above, I've changed the text to read "one of the best-selling computers of all time". Even this statement is inappropriate without sources. Presumably someone took the trouble to collect the sales data mentioned earlier in the lead paragraph, so it would help if they could mention the source of this information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduction and the Video Game Crash

I thought the introduction should be a little bit more serviceable. Not perfectly happy with what I put down--the second paragraph was a little bit strained, because I was trying to figure out how to make the "video game crash" reference not seem like it came out of nowhere. I also didn't want to just delete it from the introduction. Using the three-paragraph intro rule of thumb, I was going for:

  • PARA1 : what is it?
  • PARA2 : why's it important?
  • PARA3 : what's going on with it now?

Despite that my belief that the introductions to articles shouldn't be jumbles of numbers, I thought it was relevant to mention the 64 Kilobytes of memory in the first paragraph. In any case, changes welcome. Metaeducation 06:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Redundant information

A lot of information in the introduction is repeated later in the article. Is this ok? Being such a good article, I don't want to cut the introduction down to one paragraph. - Squilibob 09:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

Under trivia, it mentions that the C64 can be crashed by typing: PRINT""+-0. Unfortunately, I couldn't get this to work. Is this a typo? I found a page[1] that has something similar (PRINT0+""+-0), which does work. It also has some similar bugs for other systems and devices. --KertDawg 16:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Reversion of Ylee edits (23 Oct)

Just a quick explanation. I reverted your contribution because it reduced the introduction to one paragraph. It needs to be at least 3 paragraphs to make a decent intro, and to fill the space on the main page when the article is selected for Today's Featured Article. Pixel8 21:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll redo my edits while retaining a few paragraphs in the introduction. Yeechang Lee 01:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Abbreviated name forms for the Commodore 64

A quick "google test" reveals what I thought I remembered; "CBM 64" (with a space) is several orders of magnitude more common than "CBM64". Also, I think "C64" and "CBM 64" were more common in use than "C=64", but, unfortunately, no search engines that I know of are punctuation-sensitive (so, as of today, we have no simple way of checking the occurance frequencies of "C 64", "C=64", "C-64", etc...). --Wernher 01:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Bulletin board talk of the period, back then, often used C=64. Terryeo 01:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

A few more screenshots (demos)

I was thinking maybe it'd be a good idea to put a few more screenshots on this page (as well as the page with software), but from various Commodore 64 demos? I would do it myself but I don't know how to upload pictures, but if anyone could make a few screenshots of both old-school (around 1987-1989, when most demos featured raster bars and scrolling texts among other effects) and newer demos, it'd be a nice addition, as this represents another way of using this classic computer. If anyone is interested in doing this, you can find several demos at www.c64.ch

I can also add that some demos I recommend screenshots from, if they're added that is, would be "Deus Ex Machina" by Crest (released in 2000), rated by many as maybe the best demo ever on the Commodore 64. Other choices could include "Dutch Breeze" by Blackmail (released in 1991), "Biba 2 - Dream Injection" by Arise (released in 2002) and an old school demo like "Back Strike" by Science 451 (released in 1988). All of these can be found on the site I linked to above. Maybe one screenshot from each of these, in chronological order, could work out? --Anonymous

Copyright status of ROMs

What is the current copyright status of C64 internal ROMs? --Anonymous

Possible NPOV violation?

Some parts of this otherwise-excellent entry about our beloved C-64 reads as advertisement/marketing for certain ("new") pieces of hardware and software. These latter-day projects are quite worthy in their own right, and righteously merit some kind of mention (perhaps as links to their OWN articles/websites + very very brief description). However, given the illustrious history of ancillary equipment available for C-64 over the years and presently, I don't see why these particular items should merit attention above the rest. I invite you to read the C-64 entry in toto. Can you spot what I describe? Am I right, wrong, or just out in left field?

What do you think? --Anonymous

I have had the same thoughts recently. I think you are onto something with your suggestion of making the coverage of recent projects be somewhat discreet and 'sober' to avoid an unencyclopedic look of this article. --Wernher 01:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I assume you are talking about Creative Micro Designs hardware? The info about CMD hardware is quite extensive, it would be better to transfer it to the CMD article. A list of notable CMD products should remain, with a very brief description of each. From what I can see, this isn't a NPOV issue as such, so I'll be bold and remove the NPOV tag. Pixel8 16:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Er, I didn't really think specifically of CMD, no. I just seemed to remember some entries about other products, but now that I look closer I see that the current situation is quite OK (might I have thought of some SW... don't remember). The CMD stuff IMO is significant, in that CMD was one of the most 'serious' 3rd party hardware developers-manufacturers for the 8-bit range. Datel was another, as I'm sure you remember. --Wernher 18:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Coloured background text mode

The Commodore 64 also has a "coloured background text mode". In this mode, the number of unique character glyphs on screen is quartered (64 possible glyphs), and there is more than one available background colour for the characters. One background colour is the screen background colour, two more are different background colours, and there was a fourth one, but I don't remember how it is selected. The glyph's character code's uppermost two bits define which background colour is used. Could this be inserted into the technical specifications? — JIP | Talk 16:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, this point reminds me of the machine langage programming discussions we used to get into. I don't have the references and don't remember the forth selection detail though. Its a great article guys, I always wondered what the production costs were, now I know.Terryeo 01:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

BASIC ROM and Kernel ROM sizes

Mirror Vax: why have you undone my change about the BASIC ROM and Kernel ROM sizes? If you've got a C64 Programmer's Reference Guide, it'll show that the changes I made were correct. Also see this C64 memory map from an old Compute! magazine if you don't have the Programmer's Reference Guide handy. Also, you didn't really offer any sort of edit-summary to explain why you did what you did, other than "rv", which would really have been helpful. Unless I'm missing something important (wouldn't be the first time), I'm inclined to undo your change.--King V 18:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The article has an embedded comment that explains it: "the BASIC continues into the upper ROM chip". The Basic and Kernel are 8K for bank switching purposes, of course. Mirror Vax 19:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I think I follow (and your explanation led me to search a bit more, where I found a C-64 ROM disassembly here. So, if I follow the disassembly and your explanation, the memory maps that tended to label BASIC as A000-BFFF and Kernal as E000-FFFF were sort of fudging, and that BASIC actually covers A000-BFFF, then jumps over and continues from E000 to approximately E400 or thereabouts, correct?--King V 20:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. It has very little practical significance. Mirror Vax 21:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
True enough. Still, it's nice to know, anyway. Can't believe I've been under the wrong impression about this for over 20 years! Anyway, thanks for the clarification.--King V 21:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Term "Personal Computer"

Although today we would classify the Commodore 64 (and other Commodore computers) as a Personal Computer, back in their day they were classified as "Micro-computers". Should this be reflected in the synopsis window of the main page?

In fact, a personal computer (or PC) was a term that referred to the IBM computer line and the many "clones" that copy it.

Come to think of it, even today I would not consider the C64 a PC.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/m/Talk%7ECommodore_64_Archive_2_5408.html"