Jump to content

Talk:Commodore 64/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Past vs. Present Tense

I noticed, starting in the lead, the Commodore is referred to in the present tense. Is it still being produced and sold commercially in any appreciable fashion? If not, why do we not us the past tense? Out of curiousity I looked at Apple IIe and IBM PC jr. Unfortunately, it was not definitive...one is present tense, one past. In general, I think common parlance would lean toward past tense unless something was actively still being produced. I'm not set on this, just wondering what the rationale was for the present tense? In other arenas, things that used-to-be-but-are-no-more (Try "Edsel", "R.E.M") we use the past tense. The argyment that there are still c64s out there being used would apply to Edsels as well, for instance, but we wouldn't say the Edsel IS a car model...it WAS a car model. We tend to refer to manufactured goods in tenses baded on the currency of their production, not on whether there are still units floating around in service.204.65.34.246 (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


Well then, to be consistent, I guess someone should come along and edit all of those other articles about things that still exist but are long-discontinued and talked about in the past tense even though copies of them still exist somewhere, to present tense *because* copies of them still exist somewhere, the same way as old TV shows and movies are written about in the present tense here on the Wiki. There's even a WP:... rule about it somewhere, but I don't remember the address.

Bands and other groups that have disbanded and... "disgrouped...," and are *still* that way, *should* still be written as in the past tense because there are no more legitimately literal copies of them that exist, unlike the old models of merchandise (which someone somewhere has almost certainly got one copy of). Take a look at things that are *way* older than microcomputers, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph_cylinder s, for example, and notice that they, too, are written about in the *present* tense!

Thanks for the heads-ups about IBM PCjr and the Edsel! ;-)

As pointed out above, there is an MOS regarding this, and I believe that it states essentially that if something still exists, then it's to be in the present tense, regardless of age or production status. However, just as above, I can't seem to find the darn thing... Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!

[Comment from block evading sock redacted]

No, it does not. So you're thinking that the Commodore 64 is a work of fiction? There is no "in favor of"; as stated above, that's just what it actually is. Just like notability itself, the subject exists as an everpresent work and design, whether all copies of it have become unpopular, totally disintegrated, or have been magically rounded up and destroyed. This is basic logical grammar. And yes, I have spent years correcting the tense in classic technology articles. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 10:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Bias against Apple?

It seems that "when compared to contemporary systems such as the Apple II, at a price that was well below the circa US$ 1200 demanded by Apple." is biased against Apple. Should this be corrected? 173.167.18.97 (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Not really, seems valid to me. What do you suggest? Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Part of the sentence is [C64 . . .] 'had favorable sound and graphical specifications'. The word 'favorable' makes it a bit unclear. Was the C64 was both cheaper with higher spec, or equivalent or lower spec but good considering the price? The sentence is probably too long. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
It's deliberately unclear, since the Apple came in various models and the resolution available depended on adding memory. The sound was definitely inferior, and it was far more expensive.122.151.62.187 (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
This is obviously biased and unclear, so I edited accordingly. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 10:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify the edit : The Apple II's price of $1200 was for the system unit only. A monitor ($1200) and disk drive ($1500) was extra. You also needed a 16kb RAM expansion ($400) to run the disk drive on the contemporary Apple II+ (48k).DiamondView98 (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Correction needed to sentence regarding sales in 1985?

The article currently states: "Although rumors spread in late 1983 that Commodore would discontinue the C64,[33] Commodore sold about one million C64s in 1985 and 3.5 million by mid-1985."

Shouldn't this instead read "about one million C64s in 1984" to be consistent with "and 3.5 million by mid-1985" that follows?

I have no source to support a correction other than "it doesn't make sense to me as it is".

134.228.3.19 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)John Fleitz promethium13@yahoo.com

64GS - repackaged Vs rereleased

It would be more accurate to say "repackaged" rather than "re-released" as there were physical differences between the models - the 64GS was not the same as the C=64, so "re-release" is not completely accurate.

When you repackage something, you're making it different - when you re-release something, you're just churning out the same old same old.

Also, just because another editor disagrees with any given interpretation doesn't automatically make it vandalism. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Commodore 64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit war / binary prefix

It seems we have an edit war here. I'm not going to take part except by changing the units once after this edit (and for my first time in this article, unless I'm mistaken), but since I believe the kibibytes instead of kilobytes to be clearly the correct term here as per WP:MOSNUM, and since it's rather obvious the issue is not going to be resolved otherwise, on the next revert I'm making a Request for Comment on this issue. I ask that before reverting back to SI prefixes you state the specific reasons for going against WP:MOSNUM here, preferably tersely, for the people handling the RfC. You might want to note that the discussion is also going on in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). However it seems the support for changing the style which was overwhelmingly elected in 2005 is quite weak, and the current MoS obviously should apply until the decision to change it.

My sole reason for why KiB should be used for the unit is that that's what was overwhelmingly agreed upon in WP:MOSNUM, in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/archive22#Unit Disagreement, MiB vs. MB, and discussed over and over in e.g. archives 39, 65 and 66 of the same page, and is simply not going to change because a few new people (note that I wasn't there making the decision myself) have hard feelings on the issue.

From WP:MOSNUM: "If a contributor changes an article's usage from kilo- etc. to kibi- etc. where the units are in fact binary, that change should be accepted." It's dead simple. --SLi 23:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with switching to IEC units is that then you open the door for people to say that "The Commodore 64 contained 64 kibibytes of RAM". No, it didn't. It contained 64 KB, not 64 KiB. That's 65,536 bytes, or 65.536 KiB... NOT 64 KiB or 65 KiB. Saying "65.536 KiB" just sounds awkward. Even today, when referring to RAM memory, modern computers use MB, GB, or TB... not MiB, GiB, or TiB. It's only hard drives and storage devices that use MiB, GiB, or TiB to describe their capacity. 24.117.80.197 (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
You cite a guideline but you don't cite the guidelines that I have already cited in the history that are from the parent article of the MoS and that means you are looking at one guideline in isolation without considering the wider issues discussed in the MoS. Nowhere in the article sources are IEC prefixes used. Therefore to impose IEC prefixes goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Disputes over style issues "it has been stable in a given style, do not change it without some style-independent reason" (for you to cite the MoS makes it a style reason of course) and because the article and the sources are not consistent. As always if you can show a majority of sources relevant to this article that use IEC prefixes then please link them and talk about making the binary prefix changes. I would suggest waiting for the results of the vote on the MoS talk page related to this issue instead of trying to force the issue on a single article. Lastly if you wish to continue to talk about this issue then do so on the correct MoS talk page since that is much better than trying to start debates on lots of talk pages about the same subject. Fnagaton 23:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I have mixed feeling about the new prefixes for the IEC units. (My main gripe with them is that they are awkward to speak.) I consider old prefixes (with a note to that effect) nominally acceptable when there are no SI units in an article. If an article includes SI units, then the specific prefixes must be adhered to for clarity—even if "kibibytes" makes your lips fall off.
—überRegenbogen (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Keys flying off

The function keys on my C64c used to occasionally bounce off after hitting them too hard, and I spent many hours searching under my bed for the lost spring. It is evident that commodore didn't spend very much on their keyboards.

I never, EVER, had that problem, and I owned a C64c. In fact, I have two of them in my closet, both of which work perfectly (and neither one is missing any keys, nor have they ever had any keys bounce off). Sounds like you purchased a 64c that should not have passed quality control (which did happen from time to time... quality control doesn't always catch everything.) 24.117.80.197 (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
commodore keyboards were considered very good for low-end computers in the early days. most of the competition had membrane or chicklet keys. also, i've heard later models like the 64c were built more cheaply to satisfy demand and maximize profits

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Commodore 64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Rationalizing the Trivia

Basically, I took the Trivia and divived it into two major groups. The software related issues were left in the same section but which was given a more accurate name. The two other points related to the high prevelance of defective C64s at product launch and to the homage paid to the C64 in GTA Vice City were simply moved to appropriate sections and contextualized.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carambola (talk • contribs) 21:27, November 22, 2006 (UTC).

Excellent organizing, nice work! ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 10:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

¶ One bit of trivia I was glad to find and insert was the "birthday" of the C-64, namely its first public appearance, which turned out to be the Las Vegas Consumer Electronics Show, running January 7th thru 11th, 1982. I had struggled long and hard to find this date, even writing (in vain) to the Commodore Corp., but finally finding it thanks to the internet. Sussmanbern (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Collapse of Commodore

I think there should be a section about the collapse of Commodore. They had 40% market share at one point, and had their moment in the sun. But why did it end? Was it horrible business decisions, a lack of innovation, what did it? I think this would be a great project for someone with more time than I. :) 24.13.141.176 18:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You might find the Commodore International article's History section enlightening. -- Parody 12:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it's worth considering a short blurb on it's collapse. Anatocis (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Mostly, it's because of bad marketing decisions, such as cancelling Commodore's in-house magazine (appropriately named "Commodore") because "We're a computer company, not a magazine company", and barely advertising in other magazines (in particular, not promoting the Amiga as much as they should have done.) Or so I've heard; I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. 67.61.121.158 (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

¶ My opinion on this has not been much valued but the Commodore Corp got a tad greedy and tried to hustle its own devotees by introducing unnecessary and unhelpful "replacement" computers. The C-64 had a normal lifespan of about 5 or 6 years (not much different from a current Dell PC for Windows) but the Commodore people couldn't wait for the normal attrition to introduce the next generation. It tried to rush C-64 enthusiasts by ending production of the C-64 and offering the Commodore Plus-4, which was essentially a machine of similar strengths with the dubious advantages of firmware for four productivity programs (word processing, spreadsheet, database, and something else, I think graphics) that would load by pushbutton - except that (1) the Plus-4 couldn't run C-64 software so everything collected for the predecessor was rendered useless (and very little was offered for the Plus-4), and (2) the four firmware programs were no better than the programs already available for the C-64. The Plus-4 failed so badly that within a few months it was being offered as a prize in some magazine contests - and not many bothered to compete for them. Then Commodore churned out the C-128 which promised to run faster and also run C-64 software - but it couldn't do both; it could run the fairly limited choice of C-128 software faster but when running C-64 software it had to shift down to be as slow as before. And then Commodore came up with the Amiga, which wouldn't run any C-64 or C-128 software and was mostly for artwork instead of productivity. Finally, Commodore gave up on all that and attempted a DOS-type PC called the Pony, which failed utterly. If they had continued producing C-64s, even while producing these more elaborate models, they would have retained a definite share of the market even into the 21st century. Sussmanbern (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Commodore 64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Atari comparison, FCC emissions

The article says:

The Atari 400 and 800 had been designed to accommodate previously stringent FCC emissions requirements and so were expensive to manufacture.

The Atari 400, 800, and Commodore 64 were all designed to meet exactly the same FCC Part 15 Class B limits on unintentional radiators. The FCC did not relax those requirements after the Atari computers were designed. It's true that the Atari computers were more expensive to manufacture, due to their more robust industrial design, including use of an aluminum base casting. While I don't know why Atari did that, it may have been that the industrial designers were accustomed to designing very robust products that could take a lot of physical abuse, and weren't told to make it dirt cheap. In any case, the quote as written is false, and I'm inclined to simply remove it unless someone rewords it to be more accurate. --Brouhaha (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Commodore 64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Most popular?

I find it hard to believe the first line of this article: "The Commodore 64 is the best-selling single personal computer model of all time." The article referenced by the footnote makes the same claim but doesn't back it up with any numbers. Shouldn't a cite for that claim include proof? Mick 05:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There should indeed be proof, but if you think about this logically the statement is almost certainly true. Prior to the explosion in IBM PC compatible sales, computers were proprietary and thus there were far fewer manufacturers than there are today, each with a larger share of the market. The production run of the C64 was 7 years - computers today are lucky if they last a year. A large market share for a long period will set an impressive record - one that's unlikely to be broken unless something like the OLPC really takes off. Terryhfs (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily: for the US market that's certainly true, and the Europe specific contemporaries almost certainly didn't out strip it, but there's also the Asian/Japanese market to consider which has almost no presence of western computers, but a massive domestic market. You had the MSX (which even extended to Europe with significant popularity), but the PC8801 series dominated the 8-bit computer market in Japan followed by the PC-9801. So figures regarding those are needed as well unless the C64's claim is made more specific to exclude those. (with the MSX and PC-8801 series you both had a number of revisions and upgrades compared to the C64 which went through only minor changes aside from board revisions and cost reduction; albeit it would be no different from including the 400+800+XL+XE computers when comparing figures for the Atari 8-bits) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kool kitty89 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


I think these references to the C64 being the "best-selling computer of all time" should be removed. If you look at the number of iPhones sold, iPads sold, XBox 360s sold, PS3s sold, they all outsell the C64, they are all computers, the Xbox 360 allows you to build your own software on it using the XNA program, the PS3 had the "Other OS" feature, and the iOS devices are quickly replacing traditional desktops. According to the Wiki article on Computers, they are a "... general purpose device that can be programmed to carry out a finite set of arithmetic or logical operations." That can perfectly describe a device like the iPad or XBox or PS3. No one ever considered the C64 a serious computer anyways, it was underpowered for its time, and was generally used as a gaming console more than anything. The C64 back then really is what something like the Raspberry Pi is now. Nabeel_co (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

So, if no one has any objections in the next couple days, I'm going to go ahead and replace the line "During the C64's lifetime, sales totalled between 12.5 and 17 million units, making it the best-selling single personal computer model of all time." with something along the lines of "During the C64's lifetime, sales totalled between 12.5 and 17 million units. While often cited as the 'best-selling single personal computer model of all time', with the advent of mobile computing in the form of smartphones, and tablets, it is no longer true, as many different computing devices have outsold the C64 since it's initial sale.". Nabeel_co (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I object. The C64 was a general purpose personal computer, not a specialized media player, or phone, or embedded system. Wishy-washy "computing devices" dilutes the importance of the statement. The significance is that the home computer was a whole new category of consumer electronics. We bought 64's *because* they were computers, not because they fit in our pockets. Everybody already had a phone or some kind of music box...but the idea of having an "electronic brain" in the house was quite novel at the time. I think the statement as it is, is the most accurate and cnocise description. A phone is not a personal computer. (Do any of these modern novelties even hang around long enogh to sell 10 million units? Don't they bring out a new model every 90 days or so? )--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Wtshymanski, for the same reasons. We are talking specifically about personal computers, not devices that contain computing abilities - otherwise we could (facetiously - yet correctly) say that microwave ovens have outsold the C=64, or that the Toyota Corolla has, because it contains an ECU.
Also, I beg to differ with the OP's comment that "No one ever considered the C64 a serious computer anyways" - many people did just that, and some still do, regardless of computational power. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The Commodore 64 was the Ford Model T of personal computers. There were a wide variety of applications available, see this 1983 advertisement. [1] I have known dozens of programmers that got their start on the Commodore 64. BASIC language programming was a common skill for computers users in the 1980s. Jim Butterfield wrote the classic book "Machine Language for the Commodore 64, 128, and Other Commodore Computers." How many users write programs for an iPhone or XBOX? -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
A hell of a lot more people write applications for mobile devices then did for the C64 I can guarantee that. And to say that a Smartphone or a tablet isn't a personal computer for general use is insanity. The average person spends more time on their smartphone or tablet now a days then their computers. You are applying 1980s logic in 2012. The article is about a 1980s computer, it's not supposed to be written in 1980s style.
It's like you are saying that the Meridian PBX was the best selling PBX, and now that people do PBXs through software, such as Asterisk, Meridian cant be outsold. The way the same tasks are done have changed. You cant apply the same logic and rational used 30 years ago on todays technology, or an article written in todays age.
Also, you can't compare the auto market with the computer and electronics market, there are more people who buy electronics world wide then cars.
And for your reference, the definition of a personal computer from wikipedia: "A personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end-user with no intervening computer operator."
Smartphones, tablets, and whatnot all perfectly fit with this definition. From any way you look at it, mobile devices are personal computers too.Nabeel_co (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree- at least iPad is a general purpose personal computer - just in a different form factor, but not more so than IBM PC1 compared to Commodore 64 194.137.52.222 (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This hasn't really been resolved. At the moment, the opening paragraph makes a very bold claim, which is still in discussion here. It is also rather distracting, as it immediately discusses the dispute surrounding this claim rather than the achievements of the computer. I propose that this topic should be moved lower, to a section on sales and other achievements, where the nuances can be more fully described, and that the opening para should instead feature a well sourced statement making clear the importance of the machine. NeatlyTiled (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. "the highest selling computer of all time" is a heck of a statement to have without a reference, and should be moved out of the lead at the absolute least.--NukeofEarl (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
"highest selling computer of the 20th century" is likely true and safer description. A smartphones primary purpose isn't a computer, plus the name of the group makes it obvious they aren't just a computer, so they are excluded. PCs could be the highest, but they are a group, not a SPECIFIC computer model, so they are excluded. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


I don't know if I would consider an iPhone or tablet as a "general purpose computer" even though I admit that it could be used for just about anything that a "normal" computer could be used for. I'm a software developer and I can promise you that no phone or tablet could handle the workload I put on it with my many copies of IntelliJ, Chrome, AQT, Sublime, etc. all open at the same time. So for *ME*, a phone/tablet is NOT a general purpose computer. So, maybe it would be easier to claim that the C64 was the largest 8-bit general purpose computer ever sold? cbmeeks 16:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbmeeks (talk • contribs)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Commodore 64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Commodore 64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

edit

The latest revision in the aging Apple II line, the Apple IIe, had higher-resolution graphics modes than the C64.[1][2]

The maximum resolution of the Apple IIe (which came out after the C64 anyway) was 280 x 192 in 6 colours.101.178.163.92 (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


Reason for using short commands

I was a Commodore 64 programmer back in '83 & '84.

Using short commands (usually the first letter, then shift and the second) it was possible to make BASIC lines more than two display rows long. The C64 could not parse more than two display rows when the subsequent code was LISTed.[25]

We use to call this "programming with tokens" or "tokenized programming". The reason we did it was to save memory. Although the C64 had a whopping 64K of memory, we were finding more creative ways of filling that memory with larger and larger programs. Programming by using tokens saved a lot of memory on the device as it didn't have to store the full text for a command but only the 2-byte token for any command. It was also why we avoided the use of all spaces and combined as many programming commands in a single line as we could get away with. Although it made the code almost impossible to read and maintain it saved precious memory that we had to preserve like our very last drop of water in the desert. In later years they came up with BASIC compilers to save even more memory than this tokenized approach.

207.12.237.2 (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Mark Lawler

The Commodore 64 stores BASIC instructions in memory as tokens anyway, regardless of how they are written in. It's a basic principle on how the whole BASIC interpreter works in the first place. If the instructions were actually stored letter by letter the interpreter wouldn't understand them. Using the "shift-second letter" trick only speeds up typing, and allows writing longer lines. It has no effect on memory usage or execution speed. Avoiding spaces does help, however. 194.100.223.164 (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, in a manner of speaking, it does. Every line requires a minimum of 6 bytes of RAM: Two bytes for a link to the location of the next line in memory (or 00 00 to indicate that this is the last line in the program), two bytes for the line number, which was stored as an unsigned 16-bit integer, one byte for an instruction such as PRINT or REM, and one byte to indicate the end of the line. So, every line number you save by merging lines, saves 5 bytes of RAM (not 6, because you still have to separate commands with a colon). Memory-saving techniques like this were more important on an unexpanded VIC-20 than the Commodore 64, of course. 67.60.195.130 (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd read that the shortcut typing was not an intended feature, but rather the exploitation of a bug. The typing of the shifted character was sufficient to create a match with the nearest item in the lookup table of commands. WHPratt (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)WHPratt
It was merely a feature of the variety of Microsoft Basic that was used. But all Microsoft BASIC chips had tokenised commands using two characters ; that's how they managed to squeeze a whole BASIC interpreter into an 8 kb ROM.123.3.16.124 (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, CBM BASIC, Applesoft BASIC, and Atari BASIC only used one byte for each command (not two), because there were only 71 keywords in Commodore BASIC. Atari BASIC took this a step further by tokenizing variable names as well, which limited your program to just 128 unique variable names (because the other tokens were needed for BASIC keywords). 67.60.195.130 (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Technical question

I was wondering if someone might help me understand the C64's graphics modes a little better...

  1. Text mode: 40×25 characters; 256 user-defined chars (8×8 pixels, or 4×8 in multicolor mode); 4-bit color RAM defines foreground color
  2. Bitmap modes: 320×200 (1 unique color + background in each 8×8 block), 160×200 (1 unique color + 3 common colors in each 4×8 block)

For one, am I correct in assuming the multi-color text had the same limitations in colors-per-area as the bitmap mode?

And in that case, how did the colors change across the line? If I understand the description correctly, there were four color registers (right?), one that was used by the entire screen ("background" I assume) and then three that could be changed in the 4×8 block. But how did one actually change the colors?

I'm trying to get some sort of common understanding with the Atari machines. On those the 160x192 mode had four colors (period), and with some trickery one could arrange to modify them on-the-fly. Line-by-line was easy (which is why you saw so many "rainbow" effects on that machine), but it was even possible to do it in the midst of a line, with some problems.

But the description above of the C64 suggests that there was no such trickery involved, and I recall many C64 games that seemed to use lots of different colors, so I'm assuming this was easier on that platform. Can someone describe this for me?

Maury 00:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The multicolour text mode used one unique colour, and three common colours (background + two extra colours) for each character. I don't believe it is possible to change a block's colours in the middle of a horizontal line. I've heard it is possible to change them between horizontal lines, though. As I understand it, this is done by forcing a bad scan line interrupt on each scan line, rather than every 8th, as the Commodore 64 normally does. Don't ask me how to implement it, though.
What I don't understand is the change in the specs of the multicolour bitmap mode from "1 unique colour + 3 common colours" to "3 unique colour + 1 common colour". Where are the extra 2 unique colours stored? There are one thousand 4*8 pixels blocks. Storing one unique colour for each is going to take half a byte per block, this means five hundred bytes. For hires bitmap mode, the unique colours are stored as half of each byte in a thousand-byte area, with the other half of the bytes going to waste. But storing three unique colours is going to take one-and-a-half thousand bytes, which do not fit in to the screen colour map area $D800-$DBE7 even if you use every bit. Where are you going to store the extra five hundred bytes? I no longer have a Commodore 64 but I do have the VICE emulator, so I could try it out for myself, but unfortunately I no longer remember how to use the bitmap modes. JIP | Talk 06:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Two of the colors come from what the PRG calls Screen Memory, which normally stores the characters on the screen. The third comes from Color Memory, which normally stores the colors of the characters on the screen. Color Memory is the $D800-$DBE7 area you're talking about; Screen Memory can be set to be in various locations but defaults to $0400-$07E7. (You could change two of the colors in every cell by setting up multiple color maps and switching between them; the setup would take ~1K of RAM per color set but you only need to set one byte to switch everything.) -- Parody 05:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. This matches what I've read from the on-line version of the C64 Programmer's Reference Manual. It also says that the screen memory holds the colours for the hires mode as well, does this mean that in hires mode, each 8×8 pixel block has two unique colours? JIP | Talk 16:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
For hi-res mono, yeah, each 8x8 block had its own foreground and background color. For hi-res multicolor, the pixels got "fat" and each two bits selects from 3 unique colors (two in the screen memory and one in the color me in multicolour modemory) per 4x8 block along with a global background color. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.236.178 (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
So is the bitmapped resolution 320 x 200 and the "multicolour mode" only refers to the colour memory, for instance, is collision detection in multicolour mode by every pixel pair, or by every pixel ? So using Spectrum terminology, hires is one background colour and one foreground colour per 8x8 character block and in multicolour its 1 background colour and 3 foreground colours per 8x8 block, with pixels paired to share attribute bits, giving a "visible" resolution of 160 x 200 ? So that would make a hires sprite monochrome (1 bkg + 1 fore) and a multicolour sprite 3 colour (1 bkg + 3 fore) ? 120.20.116.86 (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Rhyme

Is it just me or does "Commodore 64" kind of rhyme? 71.0.240.56 01:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Weird Al agrees (~1:11). -- mattb 00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Write an in-depth article about it :-)
pun: Pomo d'ore (Amerindian miners) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4100:5D00:747E:10CF:9B60:2CD0 (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Resolution and border

It's probably worth noting here and/or at MOS Technology VIC-II that the screen resolution of 320x200 (plus other resolutions, depending on the mode) is excluding the border. This becomes more significant once you realise that programmers used raster interrupts to display graphics in the border, despite this not being intended by the people who designed the machine. The practical result is that the resolution is higher than it is designed to be. More details are at webpages such as http://hitmen.c02.at/temp/palstuff/ but I doubt any of them would qualify as a noteworthy source of citations by Wikipedia's standards, given the niche interest of this information.

Borders don't count - the resolution is still 320x200 despite clever tricks to make it appear more so. Similar tricks were used on the Spectrum (notably by Design Design, whose games were always slick programming exercises), and on the BBC - where Elite didn't use the border but hovered between two modes (4 & 5) in order to display more than it should be able to. Regardless, we still call the resolution what was intended - 320x200, 256x192 and 320x256/160x256 respectively.
In short - such tricks weren't limited to the C64, and are not official resolutions. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The trick use by Elite on the BBC didn't increase the number of pixels, the vertical resolution remained at 256 rows but in the lower third of the screen the horizontal resolution was halved in order to allow 4 colours to be displayed instead of 2. Modes 4 and 5 both use the same number of bytes per scanline. Raybellis (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

THEC64

Is it time for a THEC64 article now? It's due out in December and sounds pretty sweet. It should at least have it's own section. No? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

C64C (C64-II) / c64-wiki.com

There is some essential information missing in this article. The C64C's (C64-II) picture is not even shown!

Someone has started a new wiki project for the Commodore hardware. Why not merge the stuff? http://www.c64-wiki.com/index.php/C64C http://www.c64-wiki.com/index.php/File:C64c.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:D512:1900:A50D:C5D6:5EE7:528F (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

At one point, Commodore changed its operating system microchip without (much of) an announcement. The result was that a few programs that worked on the first generation C-64 wouldn't work on the newer models. In particular, a highly touted program named (IIRC) Tiny People in Your Computer, a sort of inspiration for the Windows' Sim City, wouldn't run on the second generation C-64 and I had to haunt thrift stores to buy up much used first generation C-64s to run that program.Sussmanbern (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Sales

Are there any good sales figures for the UK?Halbared (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Commodore 64 palette

Commodore 64 palette
Hexadecimal RGB value Name
#000000 Black
#626252 Dark-Gray
#898989 Mid-Gray
#adadad Light-Gray
#ffffff White
#9f4e44 Red
#cb7e75 Light Red
#6d5412 Brown
#a1683c Orange
#c9d487 Yellow
#9ae29b Light Green
#5cab5e Green
#6abfc6 Cyan
#887ecb Light Blue
#50459b Blue
#a057a3 Purple

The colours in this palette are not in the order of the actual colour indices in the Commodore 64. Instead, they are in some random aesthetically pleasing order that bears no relation to the order of colours actually used. Should the colours be rearranged? JIP | Talk 20:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think a reference to the acutal palette index should be in order. How about adding an index column and making the table sortable? --Zac67 (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I see you already did this, thanks for that. Now the only funny thing is that after you click on some column to sort the table, the only way to get the original aesthetically pleasing order back is to reload the whole article. Maybe we should get rid of that and make the table ordered by colour index by default? JIP | Talk 23:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The sx-64 was not the first color laptop

sanyo came first. sorry for no caps, keyboard is dying

sources: http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/sanyo775/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euhp8Vn2FTw&vl=en


KinneticSlammer (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"Laptop" *g*. Interesting - we'd need to have a better source for the availability date though. Other pages state 1984 with a review dating from 1985. --Zac67 (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Neutron64's contribution, reverted by Chaheel Riens

curprev 20:25, 12 February 2022‎ Chaheel Riens talk contribs‎ 118,843 bytes −946‎ Undid revision 1071419881 by Neutron64 (talk) what you need is some reliable third party sources to support the inclusion. undo Tag: Undo curprev 14:27, 12 February 2022‎ Neutron64 talk contribs‎ 119,789 bytes +946‎ I have added the UNI64 C64 computers and described how the development of these new C64 computers started. I have not put any links to the manufacturers, because that will probably be seen as advertising, which is not intended. It is only to point out that these computers were developed and exist. It would not be good if they were not mentioned in Wikipedia, because these new developments are unique.

I agree with Chaheel Riens here, (who reverted the contribution while I was investigating the Web store in question, www.uni64.com! lol) The UNI64 "computers" are actually unpopulated PCBs, they do not only lack cases and peripherals, they do not even have major components to make the boards functional. The PCBs have to be populated (apparently) by the user, with with salvaged original Commodore64 parts necessary (Perhaps SID can be replaced with "ARMSID", but this is problematic all around). I suggest Neuron64 look up "notable" and "notability" on Wikipedia. The "uniqueness" of the product is irrelevant to whether it gets included in Wikipedia. New contributions do need third party sources to confirm notability. 75.71.166.197 (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Commodore 64 Mods section or page?

In the last couple of years there's been an increasing number of third-party mods that enhance or change the C-64. I've mentioned a couple here but I am wondering if we should create a new page specific to that which we can refer to rather than this page becoming cumbersome? EggsHam (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The sidebar's Connectivity section claims that the CIA chips implemented an RS-232 interface, but researching the subject suggests that it was a bit more generic than that. Should it actually say "GPIO/RS-232/keyboard", or "GPIO/User port serial/Keyboard"? The latter of the two seems more informative to me. Regardless, I suggest that "keyboard" be capitalized. 2602:301:7764:AC00:B6D7:9679:4A33:AFEA (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Sales figures error

The article states - "Company sales records, however, indicate that the total number was about 12.5 million."

The sited source for this says nothing of the sort, in fact it states that company sales records indicate the number to be 17 million, whilst the original research done by the sited source indicates 12.5 million based on the collecting of serial numbers 86.166.89.91 (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Commodore Amiga?

As per my comments on the C=128 talk page, it seems to me that the Amiga can be considered a successor to the C=64, form a customer upgrade point of view, whereas from a technical point of view it would be the C=128. None of this is contradicted by my comments on the C=128 talk page, and in fact those comments support this point of view. You are - of course - welcome to have a different point of view, but please discuss it here as part of BRD, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Predecessor/successor, or not one? Editors can't make up their minds which criteria to stick with!

Seeking the opinions of several editors here. Let's make infobox lists of a given device's predecessors and its successors in each article that they can apply to, and this article is one example of many. But what rule(s) should we use to determine what supposedly makes a predecessor or successor or not one? Which would make more sense to you other editors about which devices to include or leave out of one of those lists, and what's the maximum number of devices should we put in the list on one side or/and the other?

For example: this computer model is kind of in the middle of all of Commodore's 8-bit computers, and all of them are similar in at least two ways besides being 8-bit, in that they all run on at least a CPU that's some version of the MOS 6502, and they all run some version of Commodore BASIC. Additional similarities are found in all official releases outside the PET and CBM-II B(usiness) line (the P[ersonal] version, more like a 20 or 64 wasn't officially released), besides the Educator 64, in that they have color graphics and advanced sound, and all of those but the Max Machine are directly compatible with Y/C and composite monitors such as the 1701/'2 and compatible with the most mainstream 15-series disk drives, and probably all the printers that use that same (IEC) port without an interface. And notice that the TED/264's character set is even very similar to the 64 and 128's. So in that sense, all of the 8-bit ones could be seen in the lineup of predecessors and successors, such as this: MOS KIM-1, PET series, CBM-II series (including B128), VIC-20, 64 series, TED/264 series (16, 116, Plus/4), (regular; non-B) 128 series. And then we would head out of the 8-bit world and into the PC series and Amiga series.

But then there are the differences between some of the 8-bit computers that put some of them into different sublines, that have the potential to be seen by some as making them not belong in one big lineup of predecessors and/or successors. For example, the PET series and the B(usiness) version of the CBM-II only have 2 colors: black and green. And while the CBM-II does have a SID, the sound on the PET series is only very elementary. (That makes sense, because the first time I touched a PET was in ELEMENTARY school, ha!) (And then the CBM-II P[ersonal] version not only has the SID but the VIC-II, but wasn't released. I'm just listing it here, but not the also unreleased 65, because the B[usiness] version of the CBM-II, including the B128, was released, so I figured that I should differentiate.) Then the 20, 64, and (non-B-) 128 are in the same subcamp in that they all have SID sound and the VIC-II chip. But while the TED/264 series, which came out between the 64 and and non-B 128, also have multicolor and advanced sound, they do so by way of the TED chip instead of VIC-II and SID, and those have the most colors: 121 instead of just 16! And then the non-B 128 came out, but they included 64 mode with it and went back to using the VIC-II for that reason so it wasn't going to be even more complex than it already would be to keep it 64-compatible, while also adding the VDC and Z-80 anyway. So in this sense we can see that there are a few or several small predecessor/successor lines within the full 8-bit line: MOS KIM-1 in and of itself, PET, CBM-II B, VIC-II, and TED or 264. And then past the 8-bit line, the PC and Amiga.

So which would make more sense to some of you other registered editors, such as somewhat recent ones who have made what appear to me to be somewhat substantial edits of these Commodore articles besides my own, like @Zac67:, @General Ization:, @Bumm13:, and @Sijambo:?

1. To have a jumbled up mess like some of these articles used to, where there was no distinct division between types of computers, where some were accepted as pred/sucs but still others weren't included, with no real rhyme or reason?

2. To accept all the 8-bit computers in one brand, such as Commodore, as one big lineup of pred/sucs but then show some upgrade examples as successors past the 8-bit line, such as PC and Amiga as the (main) 128's successor here at Commodore and the Macintosh as that of II series over there at Apple?

3. To sever all the sublines of a certain brand as not having any pred/sucs outside of themselves due to strict architectural differences, such as here in Commodore: pre-VIC ones only, only ones with a VIC-II, TED ones only, and then especially PC only and Amiga only?

4. Or to fix all of the related articles in one brand up to take on option 3, but make one weird exception that puts one of the machines with a completely different architecture as one oddball exception to the rule from #3, making it still a supposed "successor" with no real basis, even though all the other articles would adhere strictly to option 3?

Whatever we decide to do, let's just make sense of the whole thing by not having different rules for different articles, especially those that are related, because doing so just makes the encyclopedia look inconsistently sloppy, less of a place that people can depend on as a reference tool because one article about a given device insists on saying something about that device is one way while another article insists on it being at least somewhat the opposite of that. What supposed point is there to insist on having mismatches like that when we should be able to correct them easily?

MaxxFordham (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and I might as well include you from a year ago right here in the talk page, @EggsHam:. MaxxFordham (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, why didn't you continue the discussion I started above? And secondly, what is actually wrong with the current setup? Each article is dealt with on a per-article basis, and for some that means the best course of action is to include the 16-bit successor, and for some, maybe not. Each decision is made on its own merit - there's no need to insist on a one-rule-for-all and try to apply it in some Draconian/gate-keepery fashion. You may feel that the current situation is a jumbled up mess, but I don't, and nor it seems do other editors, as this has never been a problem with anybody else, not even if you expand your view to include consoles - the Sega Genesis article claims the successor to be the Saturn, but should it not be the 32X? That's listed as "related". And apparently nobody - including myself - who edits that article cares about the minutiae it creates. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
@Chaheel Riens: "What is actually wrong with the current setup?" It's really not obvious to you? I conformed the C128 article to match these others, but then Zac and you started insisting that whole "Oh no, you can't do that; they're not in the same line-up because they're not in the same architecture!" thing, and put it back. And you were fine as long as I just left that there without making changes to other related articles. Right? So then I was like, "K, if the C128 can't be in the line-up with ones that don't share as much of the architecture, then it doesn't make sense for the others to be, either. But oh no, once I tried to get all the other articles to fit the rules that you and Zac set up for the C128, you wouldn't have it You see how it's like, "Damned if I do, but damned if I don't"?
How can you fight so hard for "Oh no, we can't have computers with somewhat different architectures be in succession line-ups with each other" but then contradict yourselves with, "Oh, but wait, no, the Amiga, which isn't even at all the same architecture (except that it has advanced sound and color graphics) has to be included still"? Why do you think it's "OK" to be "talking from both sides of your mouth" like that? What's so "special" about the Amiga line that you believe it should be listed as the supposed "successor" of the EIGHT-BIT 64 when you had just got done saying, along with Zac, that, "Oh no, no, you can't do that; the architectures are TOO DIFFERENT" between ones that are both EIGHT-BIT and both use several of the same drives and printers, but somehow, "Oh yeah, the Amiga line is a successor" even though the Amiga isn't at all compatible without some major adaptation except maybe some mice, joysticks, and basic A/V (crappy composite and any old stereo system is all)? How can you go, "Wait, we have to apply this rule between some 8-bitters" but then that all goes out the window with, "Oh, no, wait, this 16-bit one is magically a 64 successor anyway," especially when you don't even have the same as the 128's successor even though the 128 is already the 64's successor? What if someone goes and adds the Amiga as the 128's successor then? And as long as we do that, then why shouldn't we add the PET back, as well as the KIM-1, as the VIC-20's predecessors?
And did you forget that this is an 'encyclopedia? Why should each decision in a single article have "its own merit" when the supposed "merit" of one article's decision is a contradiction of what somebody wants for another, related article? If you're going to have a serious encyclopedia then why don't you act like it by making sure all the related articles cross-check each other accurately? And if you and other editors weren't worried about the articles matching before, then why do you lord over one or two articles now, especially to want them to contradict each other while you contradict yourselves? And why are you even more vocal about this than Zac is, despite his being the first one to counter my line-up change on C128? And why do you believe your desire to have things inconsistent between articles supposedly supersedes my desire to have them support each other, so you're all revert-happy in the name of B/R/D, so you revert more than once before the "D" cycle, but somehow it's "wrong" for me to revert your inconsistency before the "D" cycle? Why should your reversion be more allowed than mine?
MaxxFordham (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
@MaxxFordham: Please try to keep your contribution concise and to the point. There's no need to keep repeating arguments. Currently, you're drowning out the discussion and I don't even read it all.
The Amiga is vastly different in technology and history but it's the C64's successor 'in spirit' and perceived as such by a large number of people in the community. Whether that is relevant to this article is debatable, it might depend on a good source. --Zac67 (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
MaxxFordham, as far as I'm aware the only reason editors have revert[ed] more than once before the "D" cycle is because you weren't following BRD yourself, and reversions were to reinstate the status quo while discussion was ongoing.
For example, you made a change to the C=64 article here and I reverted it, as you were fully aware that the Predecessor/successor topic was under discussion elsewhere. You chose to ignore that and reinstated your proposal - and that's why I reverted you again, reminding you of BRD at the same time. That was also when I started discussion on this very page on 1st October which you ignored, and created this new discussion two days later. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ "PC – Model 5150". old-computers.com. Retrieved September 13, 2008.
  2. ^ "Apple IIe". old-computers.com. Retrieved September 13, 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commodore_64/Archive_3&oldid=1250822457"