What seems like articles for the 64/128

[Stephane Richard]

I say what seems like articles, because they seem to be select articles, some of which mention Twin Cities 128.  I though some of them were interesting so I'm putting the link here :-).

http://www.icpug.org.uk/national/archives/contents.htm

Enjoy

[Brendon]

I say what seems like articles, because they seem to be select articles, some of which mention Twin Cities 128.  I though some of them were interesting so I'm putting the link here :-).

http://www.icpug.org.uk/national/archives/contents.htm

Enjoy

Some of the PET stuff is rather interesting. the PET range is a muchforgotten about group of machines unfortunately. Important though because the B128/256 grew out of these & the C128 owes more to the Series II machines than it does to the C64.

Brendon

[RobertB]

Important though because the B128/256 grew out of these & the C128 owes more to the Series II machines than it does to the C64.

That's not the feeling I got after I read the book, "On the Edge: The Spectacular Rise and Fall of Commodore".  What is your source? (and if it is in the same book, let me know!)

Truly,
Robert Bernardo
Fresno Commodore User Group
http://videocam.net.au/fcug

[OzOne]

Hi Robert,

Important though because the B128/256 grew out of these & the C128 owes more to the Series II machines than it does to the C64.

That's not the feeling I got after I read the book, "On the Edge: The Spectacular Rise and Fall of Commodore".  What is your source? (and if it is in the same book, let me know!)

The C128 can trace it's roots back to the 6509 range of machines via the unreleased D128. There's a good write up about the D128 at Cameron Kaisers' site. The direct link is this - http://www.floodgap.com/retrobits/ckb/secret/d128.html

Oz

[RobertB]

The C128 can trace it's roots back to the 6509 range of machines via the unreleased D128. There's a good write up about the D128 at Cameron Kaisers' site. The direct link is this - http://www.floodgap.com/retrobits/ckb/secret/d128.html

Well, according to what Bil Herd said (from the link at the above site):

Now the very very very early concept of the C128 was based on the D128, a 6509 based creature (boo... hiss).  The engineers on the project had tacked a VIC chip onto the otherwise monochrome (6845 based) in an effort to add some
color to an otherwise drab machine. No one dreamed that C64 compatibility was possible so no one thought along those lines. I was just coming off of finishing the PLUS 4 (before they added that AWFUL built in software to it) and even though I had done exactly what I was told to do I was not happy with the end result and had decided to make the next machine compatible with _something_ instead of yet another incompatible CBM machine. (I won't go into the "yes Virginia there is Compatibility" memo that I wrote that had the lawyers many years later still chuckling, suffice it to say I made some
fairly brash statements regarding my opinion of product strategy) Consequently, I was allowed/forced to put my money where my mouth was and I took over the C128 project. I looked at the existing schematics once and then started with a new design based on C64ness.

Now whether you consider the roots of the C128 being with the D128, that is one's opinion.  As you can read, Bil found that a "very very very early concept" of the C128 in the D128.  To me, that does not mean that the C128 actually had its "roots" there.  I agree with Bil's tag, "...then started with a new design based on C64ness".

Hmm, maybe I should write to Bil to clear this up,
Robert Bernardo
Fresno Commodore User Group
http://videocam.net.au/fcug

[commodor]

Irregardless of what it was based on (D128/C64 whatever), the addition of the 64 mode ultimately crippled the machine.

~@commodor@~

[RobertB]

Irregardless of what it was based on (D128/C64 whatever), the addition of the 64 mode ultimately crippled the machine.

Irregardless of whether it was based on the D128 or C64, the addition of the C64 mode made the C128 much more useful.

I guess I'm in Bil Herd's camp of compatibility,
Robert Bernardo
Fresno Commodore User Group
http://videocam.net.au/fcug

[commodor]

Hi Robert,

Irregardless of what it was based on (D128/C64 whatever), the addition of the 64 mode ultimately crippled the machine.

Irregardless of whether it was based on the D128 or C64, the addition of the C64 mode made the C128 much more useful.

I guess I'm in Bil Herd's camp of compatibility,
Robert Bernardo
Fresno Commodore User Group
http://videocam.net.au/fcug

I stand by my earlier comment - the C128 was crippled by the inclusion of C64 compatibilty. The much more powerful 40 & 80 coulm modes were ignored by developers because the 64 mode. Where there was native mode software available, it was vastly superior to the C64 versions (look at the productivity software available in 80 colum mode for example).

Again looking at the 80 colum mode, there were demos made that displayed just how good the VDC could be with graphic stuff that was pretty much equal to what the PC's EGA display of the day could do.

BASIC 7 compared to BASIC 2 ? No contest!

Unfortunately Commodore was backed into a corner with the C64.

~@commodor@~

[airship]

C64 compatibility was ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL to the success of the C128. That being said...

What the C128 needed was a 65816, which I know was discussed by the engineering team. Of course, as it cost a few cents more, it was nixed by CBM management.

The Z80 choice for CP/M was definitely a mistake. CP/M was dying when the C128 was introduced, and was a very, very lame effort by Commodore to provide access to existing business software.

The 80286 was widely available at the time, and while not as cheap as the Z80, it was a two-year-old chip by then and affordable. CP/M was available for it, and it would have run MS-DOS (or one of the easier-to-obtain 3rd party clones), GEM, and even Windows 1.01 when it came along in Nov. '85.  (Windows was already well-known in the industry, though it hadn't been released yet, so CBM management SHOULD have known it was coming.)

The Mac had already been introduced (with the '85 SuperBowl ad) months before the C128. Anyone with their ear to the ground in the industry would have known they would have to compete with it.

Imagine a C128 with TWO 16-bit processors, the 65816 & 80286 running at 4MHz, with system-supported concurrent dual-processing power, 128K-4MB bankable and REU-able RAM, full VDC access & simultaneous two-screen display, stereo SIDs, expansion slots, a fast IEEE interface port (like the PETs), real RS-232 port, real parallel port, etc. (I know, some of this is starting to sound a lot like the C65). Imagine Windows running on one screen and a C64 game on the other, concurrently! It would have been as big a shock to the computing community as the Amiga was later. Even CBM marketing couldn't have killed it.

But  I still LOVE my C128!

I'd love to hear Bil Herd's thoughts on this...

[Guest]

What the C128 needed was a 65816, which I know was discussed by the engineering team. Of course, as it cost a few cents more, it was nixed by CBM management.

This is not actually the case.  Bil Herd has publicly stated that he and Mensch had disagreement about the architecture of the 65816 and decided not to use it for the 128.  I think that 64-mode had a lot to do with it as well as it wouldn't have allowed for 100% compatibility due to not having the 6510's unsupported op codes and differences in how locations $00 and $01 are used by the CPU.

[airship]

Ah! Well, if there were actual engineering reasons... but I somehow suspect it was mostly a matter of philosophy. They could have jiggered in the 0 and 1 stuff with a custom version of the 65816 or by gluing on a couple of external chips. There are several sites on the Intertubes that explain how to do this.

( http://www.baltissen.org/newhtm/10to816.htm )

I'm sure they were VERY unconcerned about supporting any software that used illegal op codes.

[Guest]

Hmmm, I don't know about that statement concerning illegal op codes; it's not consistent with the near-fanatical quest for compatibility that Herd was on during the 128's development.

I'm more surprised that the C65 didn't have the 65816 as it seem it would have been a more natural fit there since complete 64 compatibility wasn't a priority.

[bacon]

Imagine a C128 with TWO 16-bit processors, the 65816 & 80286 running at 4MHz, with system-supported concurrent dual-processing power, 128K-4MB bankable and REU-able RAM, full VDC access & simultaneous two-screen display, stereo SIDs, expansion slots, a fast IEEE interface port (like the PETs), real RS-232 port, real parallel port, etc. (I know, some of this is starting to sound a lot like the C65). Imagine Windows running on one screen and a C64 game on the other, concurrently! It would have been as big a shock to the computing community as the Amiga was later. Even CBM marketing couldn't have killed it.

All this would have made the 128 much more expensive, and it wouldn't have been nearly as succsessful as it was. Remember, it was a huge success by any standard, with 5 million machines sold. Sure, compared to the C64's ~17-20 million sold it only looks as a moderate success, but most other computer companies could only dream of selling 5 million units of one model.

Besides, the machine you describe would have been a direct competitor to the Amiga which was released only a few months later. That would have been a serious marketing blunder, even by Commodore's standards.

[airship]

If you made the thing in various models with different features - as they did with the Amiga and with generations of PCs and Macs since - you could have kept the price way down on the entry-level models. If they were in the same chassis with the same expandability, it would have been a huge selling point. They could have gone out the door at C128/C128D prices (maybe even a C64-priced and featured model), with PC/Mac-level prices for the high end machines.

The marketing blunder Commodore made with the Amiga (and I discussed this in one of my columns in COMPUTE!) was in not marketing it as a game machine, as it was originally intended to be.

The videogame industry was in a slump at the time, and everyone assumed that meant that it was a flash in the pan. They were wrong, as Nintendo proved just months after CBM bought Amiga Inc. (Of course, the secret agenda of the Amiga developers was to turn it into a computer, anyway.)

Just think what CBM would have become if they had been the ones to rekindle the videogaming industry. People now would be saying "Nintend-who? Forget them. I want an AMIGA videogame for Christmas!".

Under those conditions, a super C128 (the C65 would have done very nicely) would have blown the doors off the PC industry. And the Amiga computer would have been an even BIGGER deal if it was introduced 2-3 years later as a computer that was 100% compatible with the world's #1 game machine. It still would have been light-years ahead of the competition. Remember, it was industry-wide wonderment over the Amiga that spurred PC developers to improve their machines so quickly. Without it, PC development would have continued to move at a snail's pace.

Don't get me wrong - I loved my Amigas, and I love my C128, and still think they're the best machines ever created. I just like playing 'what if'.