Talk:Commodore 64/Archive 2

message: There's no question the Commodore 64 was one of, if not the, best-selling computer of its time. But it seems highly unlikely that it "remains the best-selling computer model of all time", after 20 years that have seen a massive worldwide explosion of computer purchasing. Do we have a reliable source for this claim that is reasonably current enough to justify this statement? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite likely that it remains the best-selling computer model of all time, since computer models don't get produced for eleven years nowadays. Rather, they get replaced every few months. Of course, it depends also on how exactly you define computer model. Gestumblindi 00:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I considered that, too, but what I'm after is sourced justification for such a statement in Wikipedia, as we don't do original research. As it stands, even my toned-down revision isn't really acceptable, as we have no source for it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Jeff Q, you're definitely on the right track here; indeed, the C64 is the best-selling computer model ever, where "model", IMO, is to be understood as a «computer model which, during its entire lifetime, has had no official hardware changes/versions with backward (n)or forward compatibility issues in relation to any other model made by the same manufacturer». Following this definition, the original IBM PC is one computer model while the IBM AT is quite another one, due to the strict 'two-way compatibility' clause. A 100% two-way compatible Compaq clone would constitute yet another model, going by the 'same manufacturer' clause. However, the same definition covers all of the C64's different HW versions, including the C64C. Or? --Wernher 18:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be ideal if someone could find sales figures of the C64, this would probably justify the statement made — Wackymacs 10:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, Wackymacs, for getting the point. WE NEED SOURCES, not more bald statements, however promising they may seem to the individuals making them. Wernher's statement is just another unsourced assertion. We need not even get into what constitutes a model, which can engender an entirely new debate; what we need is a published, contemporary source, or this claim must be removed until one is found. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally agree, of course; we definitely need sources. I just wanted to put the "model" term into perspective. --Wernher 13:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best-selling computer of all time? 

message: I thought the introduction should be a little bit more serviceable.  Not perfectly happy with what I put down--the second paragraph was a little bit strained, because I was trying to figure out how to make the "video game crash" reference not seem like it came out of nowhere.  I also didn't want to just delete it from the introduction.  Using the three-paragraph intro rule of thumb, I was going for:
* PARA1 : what is it?
* PARA2 : why's it important?
* PARA3 : what's going on with it now?
Despite that my belief that the introductions to articles shouldn't be jumbles of numbers, I thought it was relevant to mention the 64 Kilobytes of memory in the first paragraph.  In any case, changes welcome. Metaeducation 06:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction and the Video Game Crash 

message: A lot of information in the introduction is repeated later in the article. Is this ok? Being such a good article, I don't want to cut the introduction down to one paragraph. - Squilibob 09:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant information

message: Under trivia, it mentions that the C64 can be crashed by typing: PRINT""+-0.  Unfortunately, I couldn't get this to work.  Is this a typo?  I found a page that has something similar (PRINT0+""+-0), which does work.  It also has some similar bugs for other systems and devices.  --KertDawg 16:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Just a quick explanation. I reverted your contribution because it reduced the introduction to one paragraph. It needs to be at least 3 paragraphs to make a decent intro, and to fill the space on the main page when the article is selected for Today's Featured Article. Pixel8 21:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. I'll redo my edits while retaining a few paragraphs in the introduction. Yeechang Lee 01:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of Ylee edits (23 Oct) 

message: A quick "google test" reveals what I thought I remembered; "CBM 64" (with a space) is several orders of magnitude more common than "CBM64". Also, I think "C64" and "CBM 64" were more common in use than "C=64", but, unfortunately, no search engines that I know of are punctuation-sensitive (so, as of today, we have no simple way of checking the occurance frequencies of "C 64", "C=64", "C-64", etc...). --Wernher 01:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bulletin board talk of the period, back then, often used C=64. Terryeo 01:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abbreviated name forms for the Commodore 64

message: Some parts of this otherwise-excellent entry about our beloved C-64 reads as advertisement/marketing for certain ("new") pieces of hardware and software.  These latter-day projects are quite worthy in their own right, and righteously merit some kind of mention (perhaps as links to their OWN articles/websites + very very brief description).  However, given the illustrious history of ancillary equipment available for C-64 over the years and presently, I don't see why these particular items should merit attention above the rest.  I invite you to read the C-64 entry in toto.  Can you spot what I describe?  Am I right, wrong, or just out in left field?  
What do you think? --Anonymous
:I have had the same thoughts recently. I think you are onto something with your suggestion of making the coverage of recent projects be somewhat discreet and 'sober' to avoid an unencyclopedic look of this article. --Wernher 01:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you are talking about Creative Micro Designs hardware? The info about CMD hardware is quite extensive, it would be better to transfer it to the CMD article. A list of notable CMD products should remain, with a very brief description of each. From what I can see, this isn't a NPOV issue as such, so I'll be bold and remove the NPOV tag. Pixel8 16:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I didn't really think specifically of CMD, no. I just seemed to remember some entries about other products, but now that I look closer I see that the current situation is quite OK (might I have thought of some SW... don't remember). The CMD stuff IMO is significant, in that CMD was one of the most 'serious' 3rd party hardware developers-manufacturers for the 8-bit range. Datel was another, as I'm sure you remember. --Wernher 18:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible NPOV violation?

message: The Commodore 64 also has a "coloured background text mode". In this mode, the number of unique character glyphs on screen is quartered (64 possible glyphs), and there is more than one available background colour for the characters. One background colour is the screen background colour, two more are different background colours, and there was a fourth one, but I don't remember how it is selected. The glyph's character code's uppermost two bits define which background colour is used. Could this be inserted into the technical specifications? — JIP | Talk 16:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, this point reminds me of the machine langage programming discussions we used to get into. I don't have the references and don't remember the forth selection detail though. Its a great article guys, I always wondered what the production costs were, now I know.Terryeo 01:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coloured background text mode 

message: Mirror Vax: why have you undone my change about the BASIC ROM and Kernel ROM sizes?  If you've got a C64 Programmer's Reference Guide, it'll show that the changes I made were correct.  Also see this C64 memory map from an old Compute! magazine if you don't have the Programmer's Reference Guide handy.  Also, you didn't really offer any sort of edit-summary to explain why you did what you did, other than "rv", which would really have been helpful.  Unless I'm missing something important (wouldn't be the first time), I'm inclined to undo your change.--King V 18:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has an embedded comment that explains it: "the BASIC continues into the upper ROM chip". The Basic and Kernel are 8K for bank switching purposes, of course. Mirror Vax 19:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I think I follow (and your explanation led me to search a bit more, where I found a C-64 ROM disassembly here.  So, if I follow the disassembly and your explanation, the memory maps that tended to label BASIC as A000-BFFF and Kernal as E000-FFFF were sort of fudging, and that BASIC actually covers A000-BFFF, then jumps over and continues from E000 to approximately E400 or thereabouts, correct?--King V 20:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It has very little practical significance. Mirror Vax 21:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough.  Still, it's nice to know, anyway.  Can't believe I've been under the wrong impression about this for over 20 years!  Anyway, thanks for the clarification.--King V 21:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BASIC ROM and Kernel ROM sizes 

message: Unless i get negative feedback here, I'll try to clean up the link section a bit, and remove at least the most obvious plugs and unnecessary webpages. ("After a 64 game? Then find it here!"). All I did now was remove the "great commodore 64 link page" which was butt ugly and kept telling me my computer was full of errors.
--Virtualsky 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone and eradicated the extlinks section. Good riddance. How that got through FA review is beyond me. Chris Cunningham 10:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That's a lot of links! 

message: The different models should be incorporated into the History section. The article doesn't read chronologically just now.
The images should also be spaced around the article and appropriately captioned. Tying them to sections makes the article's image coverage spotty and disrupts page layout. Chris Cunningham 13:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History reorg 

message: I had included a reference that the C-64 was sometimes unofficially referred to as the VIC-64 during its pre-release and immediately after its release, however this information was removed from the article.  This name variant can be confirmed in magazine reviews, rumours, and advertisements ca. 1982/83 (i.e. COMPUTE! magazine).  It was also a name that occurred in popular speech around that time, as people anticipated and talked about the new computer - and it stuck for a while afterwards.  Anyone who was a Commodore user during the early 1980s could easily have heard someone refer to the new, mysterious "VIC-64".  Seeing as this is a factual, verifiable and once popular variant of the name (although no longer in use), I think it should be included in the article.  I am curious as to why this was removed, seeing as "C=64", which appears in the article, is not an "official" designation either.  I can provide period magazine scans of this name in actual use if needed for the article.
VIC-64 also seems to be an official variant of the name in Sweden (Google search will provide examples) or this link:
Perhaps since this name variant has fallen from popular use, it can be included in the Trivia section.
--205.193.82.252 17:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of VIC-64 as a variant name of computer 

message: Not accusing any editors from this debate (it could have been anyone, including me, or just a passer-by). But now this is getting ugly.  Using an anonymous open proxy is not a way to win this 'battle'. Femto 11:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another one.  I've semi-protected the article for 3 days. Femto 12:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for helping to spot the open proxy editor. Is it possible to check the logs to see if someone has used a rare version of a browser or forgot to clean their cookies before making those edits? I'd like to see the culprit found. Fnagaton 17:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Far as I know Wikipedia does not keep such logs (though there may be manual checks in cases of libel, criminal offenses, etc.) Let's keep things in perspective. In cases of continued policy violations by a particular suspect one might try a checkuser to see if anyone logged in from the IP. However since these were IP edits it means the person cleared their login cookies. Knowing who is the coward that edited from varying IPs wouldn't stop reverts from new proxies in any case. (And, personally, I do prefer the IEC version—but not without clear consensus.) Femto 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ugh, that's really lame. Why does Wikipedia allow such anonymous open proxies? Wasn't the anonymizing Tor network at least entirely blocked? --SLi 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, editing from open proxies is not allowed, and Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies does its best to keep up with them. Femto 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyway, I think the semiprotection was definitely here a good idea. Perhaps it should stay at least until there is some consensus. --SLi 22:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Even if semi-protection is probably a good idea, I don't see any reason why you reverted the changes. The current article is internally inconsistent. There are both SI and IEC symbols to designate binary capacities. Sarenne 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article is not inconsistent. The actual binary prefix issue is being discussed on the relevant MoS talk page Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Fnagaton 19:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry but using "kilobyte" or "KB" to designate 1024 B and using "MiB" to designate 1024*1024 B is not really consistent. Sarenne 19:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then change it to be MB instead to make it consistent with the article and the reliable sources. Fnagaton 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proxies

message: Not sure if this is worty of inclution here, reports about Wolfgang Priklopil (Natascha Kampusch kidnapper) using a Commodore 64 as his main computer, and that it's giving the police some trouble retrieving copies of his records have been cropping up all over the news lately   . --Sherool (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess the main reason why the police are having difficulties are because they're looking in vain for the C64's hard drive. Priklopil surely has several hundreds of 5.25" floppy disks containing files that might incriminate him, but the police are oblivious of the concept of floppy drives. JIP | Talk 08:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "There are emulators available which can make a modern PC capable of running Commodore 64 programmes but Maj Gen Lang said it would be difficult to transmit the data from Priklopil's machine to a modern computer "without loss".  ----  Here's a crazy thought: Don't transfer it.  Just read the data directly from the Commodore 64.  (Duh)  -  Theaveng 18:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commodore 64 in the news 

message: I added this as a line in the trivia section.  What do you think?
--Ceaser 12:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thinking the same 

message: I'm writing a post-processing fragment shader to display graphics in the format of old 8-bit systems (useless, but fun), I found the ZX Spectrum graphic modes article very useful. Not too sure where to put it, but if anyone needs the C64 palette, I found it here: http://alex.kazik.de/en/convert.html Bitplane 15:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a neat little tool.  I tried it using an actual C64 image - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C64_Armalyte.png - and the results were fairly good.  -----  I then tried a JPEG image of a JVC camera.  The only problem is that, while it reduces the color palette, it doesn't take into account C64 limitations such as "only 4 colors per 8x8 block".   It's doubtful that a real C64 could create pictures that look that good.  -  Theaveng 22:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the C64 using FLI and other extended graphics mode techniques it is possible to use the full palette in every 4x8 block. Fnagaton 15:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't that cause an unpleasant flicker effect (like interlace on an Amiga)?  -  Theaveng 16:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the exact technique used as each technique has technical pros and cons. For example one technique may use a lot of CPU and IRQ time, another might not allow all sprites to be used on the same scan line etc. Fnagaton 17:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  C64 Palette 

message: The technical tweaks one could accomplish in software is one of the important aspects of this machine and what made it so popular. So looking at the article and talk page I was thinking how it may be useful to include some more detailed technical analysis of some of the more well known features of the custom chips, for example being able to draw in the border areas or displaying more than eight hardware sprites. But then I was struck with how this would make the article much larger so instead how about starting a new topic to cover this detailed information?  Fnagaton 15:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commodore 64 Technical information 

message: :Image:Chartshoworiginal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Chartshoworiginal.jpg

message: I can accept calling the error handler quirk an easter egg, even though was accidental. But it is totally not a screen saver—at least not without changing the colours first. ("Screen saver" does not mean "video eye candy".)—überRegenbogen (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reason that it is in quotations is to show that it may be referred to as 'screen saver' but it actually is not a screen saver. XF Law (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "screen saver" easter egg (error handler quirk) 

message: Hi. I did some work on expanding the references. Is anyone interested in filtering some external links? There may be a bit many, but thats just IMHO. XF Law (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I had added a sentence mentioning a web server that is running on a C64, which was removed as "non-notable triva". I disagree with this. Anyone have any opinions? fgroover (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-notable trivia? 

message: Can anyone estimate the total number, and size, of commercial games produced and published for the Commodore 64? I was wondering if they would all fit on a single 1 GiB USB memory stick. JIP | Talk 08:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best place to find this out would be on Gamebase64. This is the most accurate and full database of C64 games (both published and unpublished) on the Internet. Perhaps this site should be included in the External Links section? Jimbo 17:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The site says they have recorded 18800 games. Assuming each of them takes up one Commodore 64 single-side floppy disk (664 blocks = 166 kiB) then the total size would be 3,120,800 kiB = (roughly) 3047.7 MiB = (roughly) 2.9762 GiB. So no, they won't all fit on one 1 GiB USB memory stick. But I came pretty close - they will fit on a 4 GiB USB memory stick, which are already commercially available. JIP | Talk 17:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Compress them somehow and they will easily fix on a 1 GB memory stick, most game's data isn't compressed on the disks so even ZIP will do the trick. —Feuermurmel 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have a like-for-like comparison with the ZX Spectrum? I know that had at least 6500 individually-released (ie not only in compilations) games in the UK alone.--MartinUK 19:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but there were games wich needed more than one floppy disks. For example F-14 Tomcat (4) or Gunship (2). Of course most games are much smaller than a floppy. 84.0.117.134 (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total number of games produced for the Commodore 64? 

message: So is this some sort of laptop? No wonder this company went down; they're so stupid, they put the keyboard on the outside and the screen on the inside.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.57.33 (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: haha. assumed to be funny, so laughing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stentie (talk • contribs) 15:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laptop? 

message: Without objection, I will change the statement "At one point (1983/84/85), the Commodore 64 dominated the market with approximately 40% share" to "for a substantional period (1983/84/85), the Commodore 64 dominated the market with approximately 40% share." Three years is hardly a 'point,' no offense to the author.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkthatgotfunk (talk • contribs) 11:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I 've changed it again to "1983-85" 162.136.192.1 (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed - in the context of all eternity, 3 years is hard to reconcile with 'a substantial period'. Terryhfs (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Point?' 

message: According to the article's I/O ports section, "some early C64 units used a 5-pin DIN connector that only contained CVBS output". That sentence has a footnote that refers to the following website, which says
[E]arly versions of the C64 have a 5 pin DIN connector while later versions have an 8 pin. The two are wired exactly the same, except that the 8 pin connector has a separated chroma (color) output. Earlier C64's didn't output separate Y/C video.
However, to clarify, both my Commodore 64 manual and this website shows the same 5-pin port that does have a luminance signal. So it appears the 5-pin port had a luminance signal, but not a dedicated chroma signal. However, I think it's possible the chroma signal can be functionally substituted with the composite video signal, but I'm not certain about my video signal knowledge. --Bavi H (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the sentence about the 5-pin AV port in the article. I may investigate later how to add the website with the 5-pin port diagram as a reference, if the website is considered an appropriate reference. If others know how, feel free to help. --Bavi H (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  5-pin video port 

message: From the article:
:* 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, so lines constructed in this fashion could not be edited - to make changes to them, the user would have to re-type them from scratch.
While it is indeed true that this way of shortening the commands works (verified by personal experience), it has to be noted that the cited reference does not mention this at all. JIP | Talk 18:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Program lines more than 2 lines long 

message: This was previously specified as 17 million on the basis of some guy posting a message in a Google Groups forum claiming the Guinness Book of Records' figure of 30 million was wrong - on the basis of his memory! Sorry, that's not good enough, 30 million it is until a more authoritative source can be found. Halsteadk (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales figures and GuinnessRecord

message: The image :File:Club Caribe title screen.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Club Caribe title screen.gif

message: The "Online gaming" section contains the following poorly organized sentence:  "At the time AOL was a Commodore 64 only online service, known as Quantum Computer Services, with just a few thousand subscribers, and was called Quantum Link."  I would suggest changing it to "At the time AOL was known as Quantum Computer Services, and provided a Commodore 64 only online service called Quantum Link to just a few thousand subscribers."  This should help to clarify the distinction between the name of the service and the name of company providing that service.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.225.208 (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online gaming 

message: I made a change to the article to remove undue attention from a specific commercial emulator available in the Apple Appstore and replaced it with a more general sentance stating the various systems which can emulate the C64, including iOS. Stop removing this and replacing it with what amounts to as an advertisement for a commercial product.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunzuki123 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page vandalism/advertising a commercial product 

message: *Griggs, Brandon. "The Commodore 64, that '80s computer icon, lives again." CNN. May 9, 2011.
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Seems this guy is on a crusade to delete many screenshots Special:Contributions/RJaguar3 in this article (C64) related to networking. No opposition!? Electron9 (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image deletion mania!! 

message: During the Commodore 64's lifetime, sales totaled 30 million units, making it the best-selling single personal computer model of all time.[2] For a substantial period of time (1983-1986), the Commodore 64 dominated the market with between 30% and 40% share and 2 million units sold per year,[3] outselling the IBM PC clones, Apple computers, and Atari computers. Sam Tramiel, a former Atari president said in a 1989 interview "When I was at Commodore we were building 400,000 C64s a month for a couple of years."[4]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.187.165 (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the 2 million figure is for US sales only. But the article referenced isn't very clear...  Dendlai (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Coomodore Austral;ia definitely claimed sales of 20 million.  The issue is confused as they were made in more than one factory, and also under licence in the eastern bloc.123.3.16.124 (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This paragraph terribly contradictory. Best 4 years of sales @ 2 million do not equal 30 million total. Better research needed. 

message: http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_C64.aspx
Commodor is remaking the Commodore 64 with modern updates. I am surprised this is was not in the article on Wikipedia--71.226.205.8 (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here.  I found a good article providing some additional details.  http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/112510/new-commodore-64-nyt 216.69.219.3 (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I think it should not be in this article at all, since it is not a relaunch of the commodore 64 at all. It just looks similar, but it shares none of the functionality of the c64. It is not even compatible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.192.205 (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Expandable?   Really?  How many modems can you plug into it?   216.99.201.8 (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of them bringing it back updated? 

message: As I understand it, one of the reasons for Commodore's success in the 1980s was its aquisition of MOS technology, which gave them easy access to the 6502 and other chips. How come the C64 ran its cpu at 1.02Mhz when e.g. the Ataris ran theirs at 1.79MHz? Why let the competition be that much faster when you have the cpu factory? Drhex 13:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) Commodore MOS Technology only made the chip; they did not control how fast they were clocked by other people like Atari or Apple.  (2)  From what I've been told, the C=64's CPU speed is limited by its interface with the VIC video chip.  If it tries to run faster, the CPU and VIC can no longer talk to one another (which is why the screen goes blank when you switch to 2 megahertz mode on a C128).  -----  As for why the VIC does not run faster, I don't know.  Probably because the VIC is synchronized to the NTSC standard.  In Europe with the PAL standard, the VIC runs even slower (~0.97 megahertz) in order to maintain sync with the PAL televisions.   (3)  A side-effect of that is PAL music plays too fast when used on an NTSC machine.  - Theaveng 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Just calculated: NTSC 263x65x60 = 1,0257 MHz, PAL 312*63*50 = 0,9828 MHz - Sandy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.246.34.60 (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clock speed 

message: "As was common for home computers of the time, the C64 incorporated a ROM based version of the BASIC programming language."
Why was the reference to the fact that the interpreter ROM was licensed from Microsoft removed ?
:::Where do you get the idea that the ROM was subject to licensing?   And which ROM are you talking about, anyway?   Are you talking about $A000-BFFF or some other ROM?
There is a very important difference between an interpreter (which converts BASIC to op-codes straight away) and a compiler (which compiles into op-codes and runs the machine code programme).  If you don't know the difference don't revert !203.39.81.92 (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you haven't studied $A000-BFFF in depth, stop complaining about how Microsoft was supposed to have owned a piece of it.   Be specific, and cite the exact memory range you believe was owned by Microsoft (and purportedly licensed out to Commodore).  216.99.201.192 (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was that Commodore (like Apple) purchased the program outright ; hence the lack of reference in memory, unlike the MSX machines.  Atari and Texas Instruments developed their own versions.  I'm looking for a reference.123.3.20.19 (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BASIC 

message: I think this is a strange way to put it, and in any case it's a completely subjective claim.  There are documented differences between the 6581 and the 8580 of course; in particular the 6581 has a much poorer signal to noise ratio, and a less resonant filter.  These might be better qualities to cite instead.
Also, many SID crazies do prefer the 6581 (I'm one of them) but many also prefer the 8580.  The way the article is written now seems biased in favor of the 6581.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.134.250 (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The 8580 didn't play samples the same way as the 6581 ; it garbled the theme tune on "Nemesis The Warlock" by Martech and "Lightforce" by Faster Than Light, for instance.  I think it had something to do with the way the registers interfaced with the microprocessor.  Samples used a "spare" register that was not used by the wave generators, hence you could get four soundwaves (3 generated + 1 sampled) on the C64.123.3.20.153 (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  6581 has a "crisper" sound? 

message: Interesting Find.  CBM prg Studio allows you to type a BASIC or machine code program in using a nice Windows environment and convert it to a '.prg' file which you can run on an emulator, or even real hardware.  http://www.ajordison.co.uk/screenshots.html  • Sbmeirow • Talk •  01:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  CBM prg Studio  

message: The Navy CIS season 4 part 14, that is actually filmed in this decade.., mentions Commodore 64 circa ~30 minutes in when they found the software for "ARES" and makes the comparison that you need something to run it on like a PlayStation.. or Commodore 64 ;-), something new unlike McGyver that also used C64 on occasion. Electron9 (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navy CIS refers to Commodore 64 :-) 

message: With regard to this edit, and surrounding edits:
I find myself conflicted over it.  Whilst I agree that Youtube videos are rarely candidates for inclusion - and have remvoed many an edit on such grounds - I feel that this one may be an exception.
The video is clearly very well made, looks very good (especially in the HD format) and references many C=64 games, both in their original format and a modern rendering.  (Although I'm amused that one of the more prominent sections dedicates itself to Manic Miner which was a star of the C=64's arch enemy.)  There is also reference to many of the demo coders, and to cassette inlays of games as well.
The only thing that I think is a letdown is that the music should be a chiptune.
A fan of the C=64 will be able to watch this video and wallow in nostalgia, whilst a newcomer to the C=64 will be able to watch it and gain a quick history of the games, the quantity, and other developments/coders that surounded the machine.
Youtube clips are not exclusively banned from Wiki, and that "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page".  This video meets the requirements as set out, so I'm reinstating it.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube video 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Commodore-64-Computer.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 25, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-03-25. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Commodore-64-Computer.jpg]] to appear as POTD 

message: There isn't a citation for this statement:  "The C64 would later rival the Spectrum in popularity in the latter half of the 1980s, eventually outselling the Spectrum after 1985."  Its a very specific assertion, which needs a citation or should be amended or dropped.  Also, it needs to be clarified as to whether it refers to the European market as a whole, or the UK market which has just been used in the paragraph for price comparisons.  NeatlyTiled (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Winning the market war' - Europe citations 

message: Address	Size[kB]	Description	Description    	Description  	Description
0x0000 	32.0            	RAM        	RAM            	RAM          	
0x8000 	8.0             	RAM        	RAM            	Cartridge ROM	
0xA000 	8.0             	RAM        	RAM            	Basic ROM    	
0xC000 	4.0             	RAM        	RAM            	RAM          	
0xD000 	4.0             	RAM   	 I/O 	Character ROM	
0xE000 	8.0             	RAM        	RAM            	KERNAL ROM   	
 I/O is divided like this:
Address (hex)	Size in bytes	Description
0000 - 0001  	2            	On-chip processor I/O port that controls presence of  Basic, KERNAL, Character ROM, and I/O (D000-DFFF) in the processor address space. Tape I/O for writing, key pressed, and motor drive too.
D000 - D3FF  	1024         	Video: VIC-II
D400 - D7FF  	1024         	Audio: SID
D800 - DBFF  	1024         	RAM for color graphics
DC00 - DCFF  	256          	CIA #1: Keyboard, joystick, mouse, datasette, IRQ control.
DD00 - DDFF  	256          	CIA #2: Serial bus (floppy), RS-232, NMI control.
DE00 - DEFF  	256          	I/O Area #1 mapped directly from cartridge port /I/O1 pin 7.
DF00 - DFFF  	256          	I/O Area #2 mapped directly from cartridge port /I/O2 pin 10.
Note that even if chips like the video chip VIC-II only uses 64 memory addresses it will use up 1024 addresses because not all address bits are decoded. In the same manner the audio SID uses 32 addresses, and the CIA uses 16 addresses.
Electron9 (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memory map 

message: From the article:The Commodore 64's BASIC V2, the programming language which came built-in with the computer, can be crashed by executing PRINT""+-x (where x is any integer), or by attempting to create a BASIC program with an initial line numbers 350720 to 353279.Without any information on the underlying bugs this is meaningless. Shinobu 06:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole comment about "initial line numbers 350720 to 353279" is true, BUT utterly irrelevant, since anybody who wrote programs for the C64 were aware that only line numbers between 0 and 64000 were valid.  In regards to the whole PRINT ""+-x bug, that's a weakness in the version of Microsoft BASIC that was the foundation of all 8-bit Commodore and Apple computers (in the Apple IIe, it doesn't crash, but it does dump you into the built-in Machine Language monitor).  Not only that, it's a TYPE MISMATCH error... you cannot add a number to a string.  Both of these bugs are the type of mistakes that no programmer would *ever* deliberately make. 67.61.121.158 (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

text: makes perfect sense to me  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   actually I agree, it makes no sense...doesn't really add anything to the article, and it's also improper grammar (with an initial line numbers?).  Clearly someone with too much time on their hands discovered this; it serves no value to anyone else.  162.136.192.1 (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the bugs... 

message: >"The proprietary design usually led to "freezing" after a few hours, so many serious users - such as programmers - used their own dual circuit power supplies instead[dubious – discuss][citation needed]."
Freezing was definitely a problem on hot days.  The rest of the sentence was added to agree with the previous version.  If you disagree, or you think it needs a citation - remove it !  123.3.20.19 (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This happened most often with the "black bricks".  Simply put, Commodore didn't want ANYONE messing around with their power supplies (which makes sense, there's stuff in there that carries enough power to kill you even after it's been left unplugged for a week), so the whole circuit board was surrounded by a solid brick of epoxy, and then a plastic case around that.  Can you say "NO VENTILATION"?  Eventually it would develop a "thermal flaw" in the filtering capacitor and/or the voltage regulator, so it worked fine as long as the PSU was kept cool, but once it warmed up, you'd get a power surge that would cause the computer to freeze, and might even destroy the DRAM if the surge were big enough.  Most people ended up either making their own (all you need is a switching 5Vdc switching wallwart and a 9Vac transformer), or converted a Commodore 128 PSU by attaching an adapter or cutting off the end of the cord and replacing it with a C64 7-pin DIN connector, or buying a PSU from a 3rd-party manufacturer. 67.61.121.158 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I forgot to mention, if you were stuck with the black brick, the best way to prolong its life was to always unplug it when the computer wasn't turned on. 67.61.121.158 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Power supply

message: The sourcing for this article is somewhat sporadic.  I'm planning to go through the external links and see if there are any that easily marry up with the unsourced content, and will place some citation needed placeholders where necessary.  There's lots on the C64, and it should hopefully be possible to settle into a tightly sourced article.  At the moment, there are very many statements - both general and specific - that look rather Spartan without citations. NeatlyTiled (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources