Talk:Commodore 64/Archive 1

message: There are several stubbish pages on the Commodore & accessories. Computers: Commodore 64, Commodore 128. Disk drives for the above: Commodore 1540, Commodore 1570, Commodore 1571. Do they stand any chance of getting longer? Would a merge into a single article on the devlopment of the Commodore home computer be better?
-- Tarquin
:By now I think the C64 article is OK in length (ditto for the PET, VIC-20 &c), and I (or someone else maybe) will certainly see to it that the C128 article is expanded with more info, including coverage of the C128D (or linking to a separate article on the latter).  The same goes for the peripheral unit articles, more will surely come.  Due to this I think a merge as such is unneccessary, but perhaps a combined 'timeline'-article with links to the specific computers could clarify things for Wikipedia-users unfamiliar with Commodore. -- Wernher 11:35, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The articles are significant enough to stand on there own and don't need to be merged.  -- Popsracer 11:38, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: (This belongs on Talk:Commodore International, but the thread is here, so...)  Recently I threw in a few more disk drive model stubs, but with the first hints of technical info for each, although amusingly I botched the hard drive models -- they were 9060/9090 but I originally entered 9260/9290.  I also added some model name redirects, and a few tightly knit family models are currently merged but could be split later.  (4040 includes 2031/2031LP; 8050 includes 8250 and SFD-1001.)  However, as of this writing there's now a CBM storage devices category, so perhaps the growing exhaustive list of models in various articles should be replaced by a link to the category? -- Todd Vierling 03:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: From stubs to articles

message: Which currency are these $ dollar values given in: US,Canadian,Australian,etc? --SD6-Agent 21:33, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Has since been fixed, I notice (still -- not much of a chance that the prices were given in AUD, though, but I see your (rhetorical) point, of course :-).  --Wernher 22:26, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What kind of dollars?

message: I'm not so sure whether the current very long/detailed tech spec section is the best way of describing the 64's greatness, as long as the VIC-II and SID is thoroughly treated in their own articles. If nobody protests, I shall therefore trim down those subsections in the present article (perhaps down to their previous contents), which should be more than enough. The VIC-II and SID articles were written for a purpose (and to make it clear, lest we get any misunderstandings: I do think the 64's video & audio specs are historically important, but I think the article gets too bloated the way it is now -- in my view, trimming it down to display the most essential parts of the specs would be much better for the readers, and it would no doubt pull the more interested ones into the VIC-II and SID articles anyway). --Wernher 22:26, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it could be cut down a bit, but what should be deleted? Specifications are usually long, and sometimes it's nice to have a summary in one place, without have to wade through another article. Just a thought... Pixel8 00:19, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of both agree and disagree... Oh well. Still, summary is an instrumental word here; I would like the summary specs of the VIC-II & SID to be just that, with the full monty to be had at the respective articles. Perhaps I'll trim the stuff down a little bit (will of course leave in the most important spec items of the two very, if not outright most important, chips of the beloved '64. I just want to keep the article nice and consise. BTW, cool (and most befitting) username.  --Wernher 19:08, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I trimmed the VIC-II and SID specs down today, following my argument above. I think the remaining items in a nice, concise way relates the most significant features of those chips, with a lot more details to be found in their respective articles. I still do more or less insist that that's the way it's meant to be, in the grand scheme of things (life, the universe, and everything, y'know...).  --Wernher 22:41, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Swollen tech spec secs

message: Just to make this clear once and for all: Simons' BASIC was written by David Simons (note that his name ends with an "s"), and so the apostrophe goes after the name—not before the "s". --Wernher 21:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Simons' BASIC: apostrophe antics

message: Actually the reason for putting BASIC 2.0 rather than 4.0 in the C-64 wasn't to reduce cost. Commodore had an arrangement that allowed them to use whatever implementation of Microsoft BASIC they wanted. The reason for putting it in really was to keep the C-64 from being too attractive of a competitor to the PET/CBM line. Of course, that move backfired. --Dave Farquhar 03:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. According to the "Design case history" article (see References), which directly quotes the designers, it was because it would have required more ROM (= more cost). The 64 has the same amount of ROM, 20K, as the VIC-20. Mirror Vax 17:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why BASIC 2.0? 

message: Guys and girls, I've just got to say that I don't often come across articles as well-written, informative and as interesting as this one! Once my tiny little FAC objection is sorted out, I'll give an Enthusiastic Support! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the WOW! The C64 was the first computer I ever owned after using only TR(a)S(h)-80s in school. I was truly unimpressed by them the first time I saw one. They had plastic, instead of metal, cases and NO built-in monitors. 7 years later I finally got around to trading in my faithful ol 64 for an Amiga (another powerful, affordable breed near and dear to my nerd heart). Good section about the drives too. The first 1541s were so terrible they had to be recalled, the first time I know of a defective peripheral got recalled. The one I had was a noisy beast, whose heads would go out of alignment everytime my cat farted. But it did get hot enough to keep my coffee warm in the winters. Plus I discovered those rocking Epyx carts. Thanks for a fine article and the tech-nostalgia trip!  Now where'd I put that old "Adore my 64!" button...--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Heh, I typed that sys command more than once. Terryeo 02:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow! 

message: Head image looks awful on a 800x600 screen res. It should really be a thumbnail with an appropriate caption. - 220.101.78.60 05:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Does anyone know of a WKP std/policy on this? For example, which of the following is correct:
*A nice children's song
** Capitalized
** 3 Little pigs
** Lowercase
** 3 little pigs
We should be able to agree on how to do this. Any comments? --Wernher 21:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no! Not another capitalisation style issue! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct answer: "Three Little Pigs" ;-) --feline1 11:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalized or lowercase words immediately after initial numbers on a line?