View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:58 am



Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 8-Bit Computer wars. Pick your favourtie or add... 
Author Message

Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2014 4:56 pm
Posts: 5
Location: Canada
...to this list and tell us why (hoping to open a can of delectable worms, so chip in...).

Apple IIe (enhanced) - 65c02
TRS-80 COCO III - 6809
Commodore 64 - 6510
TS1000/ZX81 -Z80

Why these as choices for me? These were all available for sale at the same time and arguably the most popular machines of that time. I am aware that the differences in the CPU of the Apple IIe -e (65c02) and C64 (6510) are minimal at best but they are both extremely important machines in 8-bit history and represent very different design paradigms.

By no means a comprehensive comparison but here is my order on these 4, and very briefly why:

#1 - Apple IIe Enhanced
Pros:
>>> So wonderfully and marvelously expandable
>>> Broadest software/hardware support of the group
>>> Most "professional " (era specific) look and feel of the group
>>> Can run CP/M (with optional Z80 card)
>>> PRODos wasn't half bad and had HD support
>>> 65c02!
>>> 80 column support
>>> (almost) True lower case support
>>> Most language support

Cons:
>>> Not the fastest in this group
>>> Initially a bit portly (before expansion)
>>> Dos 3.3 and earlier kinda sucked
>>> Phi2 not available on expansion bus!! What was Wozniak smokin'?

#2 - TRS-80 COCO III
Pros:
>>> Fastest of the group
>>> 6809 (~65816 caliber CPU)
>>> Best graphics of the group
>>> Best base disk/DOS system
>>> OS/9 and NitrOS-9 - multi-user, multitasking OS's with re-entrant code support.
>>> Awesome memory expansion availability (flat under OS/9 and NitrOS-9)
>>> 80 Column support
>>> Nice built-in BASIC and line edititing

Cons:
>>> Internal expansion limited to memory and CPU
>>> Suffered from "expansion sprawl"
>>> "Home PC" (era specific) look and feel (2nd best keyboard though)
>>> Reputation as game machine
>>> Infernal PS is analog and can only marginally (at best) handle most memory upgrades
>>> Arguably poorest software support

C64
Pros:
>>> Really awesome sound!!! No others came close.
>>> Best built-in BASIC and screen editing capability
>>> Small initial size (before expansion)
>>> Huge after market support in both hardware and software
>>> Games galore, and then some. Great ones too.

Cons:
>>> Slow for the group
>>> 3rd smallest stock memory
>>> Suffers from 'expansion sprawl'
>>> Disks, but no DOS. Takes 3 months to really learn how to format a disk (~exaggeration).
>>> SLOW I/O. Can brew a 9 cup carafe of coffee before the C64 can load MS Multi-plan.
>>> 3rd best keyboard
>>> Computer running disk drive as powerful as the main processor, but still WOEFULLY slow
>>> "Home PC" (era specific) look and feel
>>> Reputation as game machine
>>> I know I mentioned it, but did I get across how pitiful the disk support is?

TS1000/ZX81
Pros:
>>> Cheap like borscht. The local hardware store was selling them for as little as $19.95
>>> Takes up less space than a paperback
>>> Popular
>>> Absolutely incredulous software support. There were full business accounting packages created for this machine including Accounts receivable, Accounts payable, General journal and General ledger, Balance Sheet and Trial Balance. All using cassette tape files!!!!! WTF!
>>> Really ingenious device. A computer in 4 chips that anyone can afford.

Cons:
>>> Keyboard? What keyboard?
>>> suffered horribly from expansion sprawl.
>>> Expansion connector was a primary fault. Sucked so bad I still use it as a vacuum cleaner.
>>> No supported internal expansion
>>> No supported disk storage
>>> "Toy" (era specific) look and feel
>>> Speed. Are you kidding?
>>> What's that word "graphics"? Not sure it has any applications here
>>> Absolutely no animation capability. Yeah, don't even go there.

_________________
Bill


Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:43 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 2:01 am
Posts: 116
Location: Sacramento, CA, United States
I personally owned an Apple II+ (bought in 1981) and a C-64 (bought in 1983), and enjoyed both immensely. I favored the Apple for its better keyboard feel and better video quality (I hooked both to an old 13" Sanyo color TV, Apple on channel 33 and C-64 on channel 4, IIRC).

The C-64 had better audio and video specifications, but the V2 BASIC didn't support them, so it was ML or a bunch of (slow) POKEs.

The Apple had a very nice ML monitor (CALL -151) built-in.

The Apple Floppy Drive was much faster than the C-64 Drive.

DOS 3.3 was a bit strange with its ?CHR$(4)"..." stuff, but it worked okay, and wedged itself into the command line.

The C-64 full-screen editor was more powerful than the Apple's ESC sequences and right-arrow copy, but I had no trouble using either.

I spent time with both side-by-side for a few years, but never really caught C-64 fever, and sold it to my uncle. I continued to use my Apple for work and play into the early 90s. It's still in my attic somewhere, and fired up without complaint (other than that old familiar disk head boot chatter) a few years ago. It's an old friend that I will always keep nearby. AppleWin is far more convenient for a quick "fix" now and then, however.
Attachment:
apwin1.JPG
apwin1.JPG [ 66.68 KiB | Viewed 10165 times ]

If I crank AppleWin's speed up to maximum, this program runs in just a few seconds:
Attachment:
apwin2.JPG
apwin2.JPG [ 105.47 KiB | Viewed 10165 times ]

Mike


Mon Aug 04, 2014 3:36 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:03 am
Posts: 285
Location: California
Regarding speed of the Apple II: There was a Forth engine plug-in board that would have been cool to try. I was looking at a programming magazine from 1982 and came across an ad for MicroSpeed for the Apple II. At the top it says in big letters, "TEST-FLY A $20 MILLION JET ON AN APPLE? YES. WITH MICROSPEED." It starts by saying,

    At the Bethesda Naval Research Center, they've discovered the power of MicroSPEED. The Navy's engineers use this remarkable hardware/software combination to "fly" an advanced fighter aircraft in real time-- even making vertical landings on a simulated carrier deck. A "crash" is merely another learning experience, and an opportunity to modify the research aircraft-- inside the Apple-- to improve tomorrow's combat planes. Surprised that such a sophisticated task is possible on the Apple? So were the Navy's officials, and many others who have discovered THE MICROSPEED DIFFERENCE <snip> ...and incredible Forth extensibility <snip>
As I understand it, this was a 4MHz Forth-hardware (ie, stack computer) plug-in board for the Apple II, and the MicroSpeed software for it came on a single 5.25" floppy.

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources


Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:11 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:54 pm
Posts: 1780
Seems this board from Applied Analytics(?) used AMD's AM9511 Arithmetic Processing Unit (more or less an FPU?) as did other contemporary boards. It used RDY to hold the 6502 off until results were available.

Search for [am9511 microspeed forth] for more from several INFOWORLD and usenet posts.

Cheers
Ed


Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:04 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:57 am
Posts: 13
I'll take the 8085 as my personal favourite 8bitter. Awesome for control and real-time interrupts.

Z80 is nice and I like its chained interrupt structure, when using the proper Z80 perpheral devices, though some of the 4byte instructions can get tedious.

6809 is a rather powerful 8bitter, and while I have some CPUs chips I do not have a 6809 system, but I plan to build one.

2650 has an awesome instruction set and remineds me of the minicomputer sets of the day. Has a few limitations, such as 32k memory limit and its 8k pages.


Mon Jan 05, 2015 4:01 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:03 am
Posts: 285
Location: California
Quote:
I'll take the 8085 as my personal favourite 8bitter. Awesome for control and real-time interrupts.

How fast is its interrupt response? The 6502's interrupt sequence is 7 clocks (like 7 T-states), and, on average, it will take 2 clocks to finish an already-started instruction before it can start the interrupt sequence. It is not unrealistic to handle a million interrupts per second at 20MHz if the interrupt-service routine is minimal (like to just increment a counter).

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources


Mon Jan 05, 2015 6:08 am
Profile WWW

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:54 pm
Posts: 1780
The Signetics 2650 is new to me, I think. Interesting.
http://www.cpu-world.com/Arch/2650.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signetics_2650


Mon Jan 05, 2015 8:19 am
Profile

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:57 am
Posts: 13
Hi,

I have two 2650 systems.... a home built Electronics Australia (EA2650) kit and a Central Data system. The EA2650 used current loop at the time, but I have since modified it to communicate RS232 by using a MX232 chip.

The Central Data 2650 system is a strange device, mostly because the way the shared application/video memory is used, that each char is 16 bytes (IIRC) apart. So, to write "abc" to the screen you would (for example) put "a" in $4000, "b" in $4010 and "c" in $4020... or something like that. It can be expanded easily to accommodate S100 cards, and outputs data on composite video. It has no keyboard and expects a parallel ASCII keyboard. I usually jury-rig and AIM65 to provide this function. Maybe it's me, but I always think that's pretty cool and majorly old school... to use your AIm65 as the ASCII keyboard for a 2650 system.

I got a handful of 2650 processors, which makes me want to build a 2650 system from scratch (modify the original PIPBUG to provide more commands). However, it is not a processor I have a great familiarity with at the moment.

EA2650 system.... http://messui.the-chronicles.org/comp/2650.pdf
Central Data 2650.... http://www.old-computers.com/museum/com ... ?c=45&st=1

In response to 6502 vs 8085 in regards to interrupts... it's not a speed thing. I just like the vectored interrupts on the 8085, and the extra vectored interrupts by employing the 8259, which can be cascaded. It's a simple chip that is easy to use and program, as too is the 6502. Just... I like the 8085 slightly better. I guess that is because I cut my teeth (so to speak) on the 8080/8085 chips. It's like comparing a DC-7C to an L1049... they're both old, they're both great and both have their fortes and foibles, and that's why we love them. ;)


Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:19 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:33 am
Posts: 165
Apple IIe

Pros:

The Print Using statement was very helpful.
The disk was fast.
Had 80 columns
I think the Apple IIe could handle higher modem speeds than the Commodore 64.
ML Monitor support?

Cons:

Price Gouged
Correct me if I am wrong but it wouldn't boot unless you had a disk.

Commodore 64

Was inexpensive
Booted from ROM
I think it was easier to program in some respects but I lack the technical expertise of the Apple II to make this a definitive statement.. Sprites and programmer defined fonts made the computer easier to do something.
Got many people their start in computers.

The Commodore 64 had some programs written in ML which were very very fast like Raid on Bungeling Bay from Br0derbund which was really fast. There were a couple of games from magazines which were totally written in ML which were extremely fast.

The 1541 would have been sped up if Commodore ever fixed the bug in the Commodore 64.
I think Compute and Compute's Gazette favored the Commodore 64 although they included support for the Apple II.

Cons: Lack of memory
No Print Using Statement.


Mon Jan 05, 2015 4:39 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:54 pm
Posts: 1780
It has to be Acorn's BBC micro for me. The OS offers a very clean interface, seamlessly supports a second processor and neatly integrates facilities offered by ROMs (four ROM sockets in the base machine, two typically populated with BASIC and Disk Filing System.) The BASIC is fast, has some features for structured programming, offers good graphics and sound and, best of all, has an integrated assembler. The machine also has useful I/O ports: two parallel ports, a bus expansion, disk interface, analogue inputs and serial i/o. Widely used for industrial control as well as the original educational intent. Oh, and there was a networking option, generally used in education to allow for a central fileserver.

Against this, the machine wasn't cheap, and only had 32k of RAM of which from 1k to 20k serviced the screen, depending on selected resolution, and up to 6k used by BASIC and the OS. Later models had up to 128k of RAM in various nooks and crannies, easing the pressure a bit and offering 28k to BASIC programs.


Mon Jan 05, 2015 4:57 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 2:01 am
Posts: 116
Location: Sacramento, CA, United States
@ChuckT: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I wasn't aware of a PRINT USING statement in ROM Applesoft BASIC on the //e, which wasn't changed from the ][+ much at all. The memory map of the //e was a bit more sophisticated, and lower-case was fully supported on the base model for the first time in that series. The auto-start monitor ROM would try to boot from disk if a drive was present, but I believe that it could be aborted into ROM BASIC without too much fuss. The TRS-80's Level II Microsoft BASIC had far more features, but was noticeably slower than the Apples and Commodores, if memory serves me. I also liked the 40-bit floats over the choice between 32 and 64-bit floats on the Tandy (slower or much slower).

@BigEd: I never got the chance to use a BBC micro in person, but it looks like a very capable machine, and I probably would have bought one of those instead of a C=64, if I had known one to be available at the time, higher price notwithstanding. The BASIC program listings I've seen for it show it to be a cut above the other 8-bit BASICs with which I'm familiar, even the optional "business BASICs" and extensions that were available for some of the other systems.

A fully-loaded cassette-storage ][ or ][+ had a lot of room for BASIC programs, from $0800 all the way up to $bfff, but the hi-res graphics buffer and DOS gobbled up a significant chunk. Woz's decision to allow 16K RAM users access to hi-res placed the page-1 buffer hard-wired into locations $2000 to $3fff, which proved to be inconvenient for large BASIC programs, because they had to contort themselves around it or not use it at all (for display purposes I mean).

Mike


Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:12 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:38 pm
Posts: 53
The old machines were incredibly **** - in general - when you look back at them.
Bad gfx, bad audio, proprietary solutions.

The C= 64 is the clear winner, pretty much on price alone, but I also feel it is the most balanced machine of them all.
Something like the BBC C and the Amstrad CPC range both share the same flaws: Too much memory eaten by the display and not enough cpu or chipset support to handle it with grace.
ZX80/81 is not much more than a 2600. Just too simple.
VIC-20 I kinda like, but it was killed by its parent. It did what it was intended to.
The Apples offer no help to the cpu with display handling.
The ZX Spectrum is kinda honest in its approach and has a sense of balance, but no doublebuffering of the display...
The A8 is nice. With the right price it could have done better. A few things show as being 1979 though.
The C= 64 should have taken a few more clues from the TI and A8 chips they studied. Would it have killed them to fix the 1541 interface? The only ones that bested Bill Gates in business, but it kinda shows in the BASIC version.
Plus/4 is just a big facepalm. At the intended price it could have been an idea.
The Dragon/Coco needed more colour.
MSX and near-clones had the TI gfx that were ...not my first choice.
Oric: Warped gfx modes.
Enterprise: Too late.
I'm missing a lot of other machines, but they can mainly be summed up as Z80 (and the odd 6502) with off-the-shelf chips, but to pick them instead of any others they really would need to compete on price and for that Commodore was king.

What might be more interesting to discuss was which machine was the best for a certain niche of applications? I know software developers had a pretty interesting spread in what they used for cross-development.


Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:31 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:54 pm
Posts: 1780
A8 was obscure to me, but I suppose you mean the Atari 800 and co:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_8-bit_family

I think any preference for the C64 is likely to be a preference for games and demos: the sounds and the sprites and the graphics effects. Those strengths of the Beeb which appeal to me are a preference for computing: the OS, the languages, the architecture.

It's impossible to disregard a preference for price as well: that's where the Sinclair machines had their major strength.

Anybody any love for the CP/M capable micros from Amstrad, or similar?

Cheers
Ed


Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:09 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:38 pm
Posts: 53
BigEd wrote:
the OS, the languages, the architecture.

Many fine parts there, but it has 32K ram with a 20K screenmode. You can't even doublebuffer it. What kind of balance did the designers have in mind? Oh, and 8 colours with 4 bits. I believe the Atom or some other sibling actually had 16.
So, very strong in some parts, while facepalm in others. As I said, it becomes more interesting when we look at more special interests.
I think it was used for both editing and assembling thanks to fast disks, additional CPUs, and a fast base cpu.


Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:42 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:54 pm
Posts: 1780
Indeed, the basic Beeb has 32k, and there are screenmodes which use 20k. But there are also screen modes down to 1k, and the Master which can use a different bank for screen memory, and second processors which range from 6502 or Z80 with 64k through to 80186, 32016 and ARM with rather more. That's the point of the architecture. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Micro_expansion_unit)

I don't think dismissive language is the best way to discuss the various merits and demerits of the machines. We are surely grown out of the schoolyard rivalries.


Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:09 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DotBot and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software