Thread View: comp.sys.ibm.advocacy
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by Seidel Daniel F
Wed, 08 Apr 1992 04:44
C64 vs IBM486
Author: Seidel Daniel F
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 04:44
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 04:44
76 lines
2996 bytes
2996 bytes
64 Good reasons that the Commodore 64 surpasses the IBM
(or any clone) 486 machine.
1. Has a graphics co-processor (sprites).
2. Flat memory (all directly accessible).
3. Lots of software written *SPECIFICALLY* for it.
4. Basic in ROM.
5. Built in joystick ports.
6. Hardware debugged.
7. Don't have to worry about an Apple lawsuit.
8. No noisy fan.
9. Not crippled by compatibility with previous machines.
10. Not compatible with 8088.
11. Won't be made obsolete by the 586.
12. Good user manual.
13. Has cartridge port (built in ROM expander).
14. Superior sound capability (can be hooked to external speakers).
15. Volume of sound can be adjusted.
16. Standard color graphics.
17. Can draw with shapes on sides of keys (alt-A, ctrl-B, etc.).
18. Brand name.
19. Can be made Z80 compatible.
20. Bus runs at full speed of processor.
21. Can support 5 drives.
22. Machine well documented.
23. Sturdy (can survive multiple 3 foot falls).
24. Small foot-print.
25. TV adapter included.
26. Doesn't need a cache.
27. Memory map is well documented.
28. Highly integrated design.
29. Much larger user base.
30. Bus has same number of bits as processor (no bottle neck).
31. No bloated programs on 47 low density disks.
32. Higher sales in Europe especially Eastern Europe.
33. No waiting on IBM or Microsoft.
34. Avoid brutal comparisons to workstations.
35. Maximum repair cost $100.
36. Cheap!
37. Sprite collision detection.
38. OS does not fall back to DOS on large error.
39. OS takes full advantage of the hardware.
40. OS is in ROM.
41. Much lighter (notebook like weight).
42. 64C has GUI.
43. Software is inexpensive.
44. Can play music with floppy drive.
45. More reliable.
46. Bitmaps take less memory.
47. No supersonic directory listings.
48. Never have to use DOS.
49. Longer useful life.
50. Upgrade drive to 1571.
51. Upgrade path to 128.
52. Programs smaller and easier to understand.
53. Can use 27" screen (family room TV or projection TV).
54. Great first computer.
55. Fond childhood memories.
56. Might be in attic (don't have to go out and buy one).
57. Won't depreciate much more.
58. Fits into allowance.
59. Low power consumption.
60. Basic architecture is newer.
61. More games.
62. Better looking.
63. Can be emulated by the Commodore Amiga at full speed.
64. Boots to OS *MUCH* faster.
Do you realize how much worse the 486's look compared to a Commodore
Amiga instead of the lowly Commodore 64?!?!
Re: C64 vs IBM486
Author: Jason Hawes
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 11:50
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 11:50
28 lines
1425 bytes
1425 bytes
From article by cs455138@ucs.usl.edu (Seidel Daniel F):
>
> 64 Good reasons that the Commodore 64 surpasses the IBM
> (or any clone) 486 machine.
[64 rather pushy but humorous reasons]
> 42. 64C has GUI.
Yes this is 1992
One thing I dont like about MS-DOS machines is that there is
no GUI. Most of what you do with any computer can be done in
much less time using a GUI then in DOS.
This is why I find the other OS's I use regularly {Amiga
Workbench, Mac Finder, Open Windows} much more productive.
Whenever I sit down at my friends PC to copy ten unrellated
files on to a floppy it takes ages (compared to 10secs with
a GUI), and I find myself saying "Why do I have to do this,
it's 1992 for God's sake !
MS-DOS is an outdated OS, designed in 1970's, with a _very_
short life expectancy. That's why IBM have joined Apple to
make pink right ? An OO OS that can easily be updated.
Can you really imagine people using MS-DOS in the year 2000 ?
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads