| Posted By
Papa_Bear
on 2016-09-15
15:51:58
|  Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
glancing over the wiki it seems like it could have done much better. more ram for basic a better floppy drive. sorts of things like that...
|
|
Posted By
JamesC
on 2016-09-15
17:23:31
| Re: Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
In our opinion, yes the Plus/4 is better than the 64. More available RAM, the RS-232 routines go through a true 6551 chip (up to 19kbps), more colors and a better BASIC.
But the 64 has sprites and better sound, which makes the 64 better for graphic-oriented games.
The largest reason the Plus/4 failed in the US was because it lacked 64 compatibility ... and retailers tried to sell it as an upgrade to the 64. 
|
|
Posted By
JamesD
on 2016-09-15
20:11:00
| Re: Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
As far as I could tell, most retailers in the US didn't try to sell the Plus/4 at all.
I never saw one outside of a magazine.
I did see Ataris and C64s in stores though.
|
|
Posted By
Papa_Bear
on 2016-09-16
02:38:15
| Re: Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
Dang I bet the plus/4 would have been pretty successful if it was compatible with most things
|
|
Posted By
Litwr
on 2016-09-16
07:54:18
| Re: Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
IMHO C264 might be the purger of all 8-bit PC market. 64 KB RAM, faster CPU and disk drives, more colors, ... for $79 at 1984. It might eliminate even C64. But Jack Tramiel was fired instead...
|
|
Posted By
JamesC
on 2016-09-16
13:16:57
| Re: Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
JamesD - my parents looked at one at Montgomery Ward, I was with them at the time. But they ended up buying from Sears, since they had a Sears charge card. 
Kmart had C16's on display through March 1985 or so, as well as genuine Commodore accessories. I bought a 1351 joystick as well as a generic datasette (1531 compatible) there.
None of the major stores carried much in the way of software, however. I ended up mail-ordering most all of mine.
|
|
Posted By
MIRKOSOFT
on 2016-09-16
18:38:55
| Re: Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
I'm 128er, in my eyes was 264 Series big step forward - perfect possibilities, features, much more powerful than C64. There was problem with compatibility with "famous" C64 (I know, my irony is for 64ers that I'm wrong), but look at C128 - has many features which makes it perfect computer, but compatibility with C64 got for C128 problems with old C64 features and limits, even this causes less software for native mode, but it is only in games - system software amount is much more than for C64. I mean plussy features are not limited by old hardware of C64... This benefit is C128 missing 'cause marketing step C64 inside.
Miro
|
|
Posted By
JamesD
on 2016-09-17
01:47:56
| Re: Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
Well, I guess I didn't go into a Wards, Sears, or Toys R Us (which I see also carried the Plus/4 in a Computer Chronicles episode).
|
|
Posted By
MMS
on 2016-09-17
08:10:48
 | Re: Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
Actually I was surprised, that VIC-II was kept almost in the same form in C128, while they implemented an EXTRA expensive VDC chip without real use of it (except the 80 char mode for CP/M), not to mention the still very-very limited 16 color palatte. It had a potentials to get closer to Amiga, but as C16 limited the games developped for the 264 series due to low RAM, the initial 16K version VDC killed the more serious applications. What a shame, that C128 could have 64K RAM from the beginning, and the result is only half as good as could have been.
(the VGA 320x200 chunky mode with selectable 256 color palette (from 16M) takes exactly 64K RAM, and see how beautiful games were made with that low resolution and color palette, just to mention few, Eye of Beholder, Lion King, Alladin, Lands of Lore, Day of the Tentacle, Wolfstein 3D, Indy, Monkey Island, etc)
|
|
Posted By
JamesD
on 2016-09-17
11:38:51
| Re: Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
I think Commodore would have been better off just modifying the VIC-II to have a high speed mode, to have more colors, to have a 128K upgrade, and to ditch the Plus/4 and C128.
|
|
Posted By
MIRKOSOFT
on 2016-09-17
15:11:07
| Re: Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
Yes, C128 and 128D have 16K VDC-RAM what makes bitmap mode unusable, in res. 640x200 only monochrome. VIC-IIe was modified only for keyboard extension, 2MHz toggle, but one thing is better - 320x400 Real Interlace. But compare this 16 color mode with plussy 121 color mode 320x464... VIC-IIe is in C128 for only one purpose only - C64 mode. And exactly this chip limits C128 generally - 8502 works with not faster than 1,3MHz...and it's overclocked - normally 1MHz.
I'm 128er and fan of not very known Commodore 900 - it had VDC 8563 with 128K VideoRAM. I don't understand how it was working 'cause 128's VDC 8563/8568 can addressing 64K only, or if was VDC changed between end of C900 development and beginning C128 VDC implementation.
Looking to theory - to 64K VideoRAM fits 1024x512, C900 native was 1024x800. Current reached levels of VDC are 800H, 800V, tested was 1024x292 text mode but there were broken characters, so not success.
Miro
|
|
Posted By
Lavina
on 2016-09-17
15:37:01
 | Re: Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
it was not nice to leave out Sprites and SID. They were top notch and without it Plus4 was doomed to have worse SW supply so in the end it failed. They wanted to sell it with 3+1 but I'm pretty sure nobody used that feature too much. So it's a RAM extended C16 with a useless extra SW package.
|
|
Posted By
MMS
on 2016-09-18
18:54:59
| Re: Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
actually, TED would have been enough for music with few modifications (though they planner to make it as a competitor of ZX Spectrum, and two chasnnnels are more than one ). And it was never planned to be a playing computer, but more an educational tool, though I do not know why they did not provide anything mode educational than 3+1.
If you see the list below, you can see, that it would not make the TED IC much more advanced, but only a little more complex with better useability.
SOUND
-They would implement 4 simple channels channels of music, not two.
It is visible, that even with 3 SID channels you need tricks if you want to make MUSIC.
With that only step, the SID FRQ emulation would become much more easy, now a lot fo trick required in rastertime to play a 3 channle music on 2 channels.
-Provide lower frequencies than the current 110Hz. That's ridiculous, no bass is possible
-Add next to the (most complex) white noise the sawtooth, triangle and sinewave form.
Even without any advanced ADSR programming the SID has (and makes the IC complex), they could make defintive difference to square waves we currently have in the atmosphere of music. (softer and harsher part would better separate).
-The 4 channels should have been organized in two stereo channels output, with independent 8-8 bit volume register.
We know, how much it improves the quality of the digi playback, if the output is not 3, 4 or 5 bit resolution, but 8 bit. Though at that time the Amiga was still in development (with 4 independetn 8bit D/A channel), 2 independent 8 bit volume could make a real difference in music possibilities, please check Soundblaster, MOD playback, and all the others. It is just simple D/As, with resistor ladders within the IC. Actually you do not need LOOONG and BIG samples. Some very short few byte samples can make a very good music, see chip mod music, sometimes only 12-20KB size.
GFX:
-Sprite: the holy grail
Actually, if instead of 2 fix color and 2 variable color they would use the 2KB betweeen $1000 and $1800. It could be a new gfx mode: they could have TWO color maps, and that would result 4 variable color in EACH 8x8 matrix, and with the rich color palette in the multicolor of would be just fantastic. But then there is no real background color, like in case of HIRES mode.
The C64 gfx conversion would be a kid's play (even now it is not so complex, but still some limitations), and from SW-sprite point of view the "front" or "rear" color map could be used to simulate sprites.
But this GFX mode would mean, that C16 would have never born in this form, only with 32KB RAM, as after switching to GFX mode even that small 2KB for BASIC would not exist at all.
|
|
Posted By
JamesD
on 2016-09-18
17:51:06
| Re: Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
It's easy to say something wouldn't be difficult, it's another matter if you are trying to fit a design in a fixed number of gates that can fit on a certain size die... which is how the TED became what it is.
I think with a little more room they could have had 4 channel audio, but the SID was out of the question due to the complexity. Of all suggested changes, I think 4 channels (or at least 3) is probably the most feasible.
I think an 8 bit DAC could have been included on the existing die.
Sprite hardware requires a lot of timing, DMA, counters, etc... which take up quite a bit of space on the die.
That's why I think a blitter would have been a better option. I *think* it would require fewer gates to implement, and it's more flexible than sprites anyway. A trade off that is in some ways an enhancement.
It would probably require a larger die than the existing TED though.
|
|
Posted By
MMS
on 2016-09-18
18:54:35
| Re: Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
I think Blitter is a complex device. I am not an expert, but I always though it is like an FPU for GFX.
|
|
Posted By
JamesD
on 2016-09-18
22:42:00
| Re: Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
I've seen the code for an FPGA blitter and an FPU... the size difference isn't even close! FPUs are huge. Though that is for a modern bitmap where color was encoded as the value written to screen memory instead of a separate memory location.
Remember, the C64 joystick? That has a blitter in it. At least the later versions do anyway. I believe it only works with the new 256 color mode, but it does have one. 256 color mode makes it easy since no logical operation with the destination memory has to take place.
*edit*
I forgot that a DAC has ANALOG circuitry, so that wouldn't be inside the TED, it would be external.
|
|
Posted By
gerliczer
on 2016-09-19
03:58:14
| Re: Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
Actually, the question is somewhat wrong, or at least that's what I think. The two are not really comparable, because they were designed for different market segments. C64 was seemingly geared towards the entertainment segment, while the Plus/4 seems to be more of a business machine. The 64 is a higher end machine, the Plus/4, and the C16/C116 even more, looks like an entry level offering. It's "tragedy" was that the suits didn't have the foggiest idea what it was about, and they managed to chase away the only guy who knew.
|
|
Posted By
JamesD
on 2016-09-19
18:06:21
| Re: Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
The TED was targeted at inexpensive machines like the ZX-81, TS-1000, Spectrum, MC-10, VZ200, etc...
It was supposed to be for the 116.
Then someone decided to pitch it at business... but without a substantial upgrade, and with meh built in software. By the time the TED machines came out, the C64 had dropped in price and skyrocketed in popularity.
Release the 116 worldwide at the target price and the intended competition craps a brick.
Release the Plus/4 at too high a price with too lofty goals and little more to offer and everyone calls it the Minus 4.
Really, I like the Plus/4 more than the C64 because of the better BASIC, more colors, faster CPU, and built in DOS commands. But begging it to be compared to the C64 by pricing the Plus/4 the same without some unique niche feature was silicon suicide.
Keep in mind the machines were selling once they were priced cheaper. But Commodore needed production facilities to keep up with demand for the C64 so they dropped the TED line.
*edit*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPD5N43VIsk
|
|
Posted By
SVS
on 2016-09-21
14:08:37
 | Re: Is the Plus/4 more advanced then the 64?
The reply is: YES
|
|
| |
Copyright © Plus/4 World Team, 2001-2024 |
