It is always interesting to go back and play the "what if" game with
computers. Like:

What if Commodore had released the Commodore 64 back in 1979, to
compete with the then relatively new Apple II and Atari 400/800
machines?

What would have been the target price for the 64?

Let's suspend belief for a moment and say that the technology was
available to develop a relatively inexpensive, 64k computer using MOS
technology chips in mid-1979.

Would the 1979 version of the C64 have incorporated the VIC-I, without
the SID, and just a tone noise generator (to cut costs)? Or would
Commodore have had the knowledge to develop the SID and VIC-II before
1980?

How would Commodore's market for the 64 have been different? Would they
have sold as many as 22 million C64s? Would the retail market for the
64 last as long as it did (1982-1992 or so)?

I'm almost certain that if the idea for the 64 was implemented by
Commodore engineers in 1979 (instead of 1982) that Jack Tramiel would
have stayed at Commodore longer and the Commodore company as we know it
may have survived an extra 2 to 3 years longer than it actually did.

The VIC probably would have been scrapped in favor of the 64, and the
128 may have come about in 1982 (instead of 1985).

This doesn't really affect the Amiga, as the Amiga technology wasn't
really readily available until 1984 (128KB, 4,096 color Lorraine
prototype).

Would love to hear ideas and theories on this subject. Have long
considered time and place a key part to market success of a computer. I
know that the 64 was "right place, right time, right market," but it
may have flopped if introduced in 1979 (too far ahead of its time, plus
too expensive to manufacture).

What would a C64 have cost in 1979 dollars? $1500?

Paul

<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1127512504.487920.233160@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It is always interesting to go back and play the "what if" game with
> computers. Like:
>
> What if Commodore had released the Commodore 64 back in 1979, to
> compete with the then relatively new Apple II and Atari 400/800
> machines?
>
> What would have been the target price for the 64?
>
> Let's suspend belief for a moment and say that the technology was
> available to develop a relatively inexpensive, 64k computer using MOS
> technology chips in mid-1979.
>
> Would the 1979 version of the C64 have incorporated the VIC-I, without
> the SID, and just a tone noise generator (to cut costs)? Or would
> Commodore have had the knowledge to develop the SID and VIC-II before
> 1980?
>
> How would Commodore's market for the 64 have been different? Would they
> have sold as many as 22 million C64s? Would the retail market for the
> 64 last as long as it did (1982-1992 or so)?
>
> I'm almost certain that if the idea for the 64 was implemented by
> Commodore engineers in 1979 (instead of 1982) that Jack Tramiel would
> have stayed at Commodore longer and the Commodore company as we know it
> may have survived an extra 2 to 3 years longer than it actually did.
>
> The VIC probably would have been scrapped in favor of the 64, and the
> 128 may have come about in 1982 (instead of 1985).
>
> This doesn't really affect the Amiga, as the Amiga technology wasn't
> really readily available until 1984 (128KB, 4,096 color Lorraine
> prototype).
>
> Would love to hear ideas and theories on this subject. Have long
> considered time and place a key part to market success of a computer. I
> know that the 64 was "right place, right time, right market," but it
> may have flopped if introduced in 1979 (too far ahead of its time, plus
> too expensive to manufacture).
>
> What would a C64 have cost in 1979 dollars? $1500?
>
> Paul
>

Probably would have went the way of the CompuColor I or II, which (except 
for sound) were comparable to the 64, except introduced in 1976/1977, and 
had a "friendlier" basic then any commodore product prior to the 128.

dunric@yahoo.com wrote:

> It is always interesting to go back and play the "what if" game with
> computers. Like:
> 
> What if Commodore had released the Commodore 64 back in 1979, to
> compete with the then relatively new Apple II and Atari 400/800
> machines?
> 
> What would have been the target price for the 64?
> 
> Let's suspend belief for a moment and say that the technology was
> available to develop a relatively inexpensive, 64k computer using MOS
> technology chips in mid-1979.
> 
> Would the 1979 version of the C64 have incorporated the VIC-I, without
> the SID, and just a tone noise generator (to cut costs)? Or would
> Commodore have had the knowledge to develop the SID and VIC-II before
> 1980?
> 
> How would Commodore's market for the 64 have been different? Would they
> have sold as many as 22 million C64s? Would the retail market for the
> 64 last as long as it did (1982-1992 or so)?
> 
> I'm almost certain that if the idea for the 64 was implemented by
> Commodore engineers in 1979 (instead of 1982) that Jack Tramiel would
> have stayed at Commodore longer and the Commodore company as we know it
> may have survived an extra 2 to 3 years longer than it actually did.
> 
> The VIC probably would have been scrapped in favor of the 64, and the
> 128 may have come about in 1982 (instead of 1985).
> 
> This doesn't really affect the Amiga, as the Amiga technology wasn't
> really readily available until 1984 (128KB, 4,096 color Lorraine
> prototype).
> 
> Would love to hear ideas and theories on this subject. Have long
> considered time and place a key part to market success of a computer. I
> know that the 64 was "right place, right time, right market," but it
> may have flopped if introduced in 1979 (too far ahead of its time, plus
> too expensive to manufacture).
> 
> What would a C64 have cost in 1979 dollars? $1500?
> 
> Paul
It would have failed miserably. Technology is only 1/3 the puzzle. Timing is
another 1/3. ( and then marketing is another 1/3 ).

> 
>>It is always interesting to go back and play the "what if" game with
>>computers. Like:
>>
>>What if Commodore had released the Commodore 64 back in 1979, to
>>compete with the then relatively new Apple II and Atari 400/800
>>machines?
>>
>>
>>Paul
>>
> Probably would have went the way of the CompuColor I or II, which (except 
> for sound) were comparable to the 64, except introduced in 1976/1977, and 
> had a "friendlier" basic then any commodore product prior to the 128.
> 
> T

I'll have to disagree. The CompuColor included a disk drive and monitor, 
which would make the final price far higher than the C64.

Curtis

>>>
>> Probably would have went the way of the CompuColor I or II, which (except 
>> for sound) were comparable to the 64, except introduced in 1976/1977, and 
>> had a "friendlier" basic then any commodore product prior to the 128.
>>
>> T
>
> I'll have to disagree. The CompuColor included a disk drive and monitor, 
> which would make the final price far higher than the C64.

The ones I remember only had an 8-track tape drive.

Tom Lake

I like Buddhist women - They think I have the body of a god! 

<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1127512504.487920.233160@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It is always interesting to go back and play the "what if" game with
> computers. Like:
>
> What if Commodore had released the Commodore 64 back in 1979, to
> compete with the then relatively new Apple II and Atari 400/800
> machines?
>
> What would have been the target price for the 64?
>
> Let's suspend belief for a moment and say that the technology was
> available to develop a relatively inexpensive, 64k computer using MOS
> technology chips in mid-1979.

Didn't they have 64K CBM computers back in 1979. I swore it was among the 
CBM models.
Let's not forget that any computer made in 1979 would have not quite had 
even the VIC-I and if did - it would be a VIC-64. (VIC-20 with 64K internal 
RAM). The SID was a result of another project not even C64 related initially 
and eventually became part of the C64 because of the FAR superior video. The 
VIC-I was barely made in 1979 and the VIC-II was a product to make a 
superior graphics chip than the VIC-I chip so that there would be better 
graphics functionality. Let's not forget that the VIC-II was developed from 
the knowledge of the VIC-I. If the VIC-I was skipped and they just kept 
going at improving the graphics chip. What we would have had - would be a 
VIC-I with sprites and graphics mode. But this probably would not have been 
released until say a year after the VIC-I was originally introduced. Which 
probably would have made a significant difference in what a VIC-II would be 
like. I probably would suspected the VIC-II would logically have been like 
the current VIC-II mixed with the TED chip and there possibly would have 
been even the SID chip. So in other words, the VIC-20 might have been 
actually introduced say, late 1980/1981 and around 1983 - we probably would 
have had a C64 with 128 colors, TED/VIC-20 like sound + SID sound voices 
(which probably would have been an interesting way of producing sound with 
the available voices. In fact it would have been interesting actually if the 
VIC-20 with a better VIC-I with sprites and graphic modes like our current 
VIC-II and was introduced in late 1981/early 1982 and the C64 introduced in 
1983 - of course the higher 320x200 resolution and the SID chips development 
AND their would have been a demand for 121 colors like what was implemented 
in the Plus/4. The Plus/4 probably wouldn't have existed and the C64 would 
have been more like a cross between the C64 and Plus/4 (yeah - the DTV is a 
bit like that.)

Would Commodore 64 marketed well. I think so, The C64 would have actually 
marketed well if it was delayed until mid 1983  with a VIC-II which would 
have had 121/128 colors (or even 241/256 colors, all VIC-II features with 
the VIC-I like sound plus SID chip which would have been mixed in with the 
rest of the voices and we probably would have had like 6-7 or 8 voices with 
all the fluent sound of the C64 and original VIC-20 sounds mixed in. Which 
would have been interesting. The kick off for the C64 and the big surge in 
computer sales began in late 83. The C64's big sale was in 1983/1984. 1982 
was a slower year in the C64 history. In 1983/1984 would have been just 
perfect. The extra color which would have been the demand if the VIC-20 had 
sprites and multicolor mode. This would have put a big edge on Apple 
big-time.

Introducing the C64 in 1983 with an REU option would have been cool. People 
would have upgraded to C64 for the 256 color option. If the C64 had a 64K 
upgrade option like the Apple IIe with allowing the VIC-II to have 64K 
direct addressing mode which the 64K upgrade would have given. This would 
have been interesting with 128K RAM and 64K fully available to the VIC-II 
like on the C-128 but the VIC-II having the option of having a 64K video 
mode. There would be some very interesting options because even in 1982 - C= 
had marketing of the B-128 around the same time. So to think of it, there 
probably would have been a very interesting outcome because 1983 was a very 
great time to have 256 color computer with VIC-20 sound PLUS SID chip all in 
one. This probably would have been quite a suprising computer as it would 
have been CLEARLY the an awesome computer to play with. It would have been 
just bitchin' if by 1983 that they had 256 colors per pixel at the time.

This would have been probably one of the coolest PCs at the time. Well 
beating the Apples, Atari 400s/800s and the IBMs and anything else out there 
in the 8 bit line and even the TI.

Though, these would of are would ofs and will not make a difference in the 
end.

All we can really hope for the brand (if we dare), is something distinctive 
and cool and very well done - be done by Commodore/Yeahronimo which I should 
by now refer to them more and more as Commodore as it appears as the 
Commodore aspect of things are consuming more and more of Yeahronimo and 
ultimately Yeahronimo becoming essentially Commodore one little inch at a 
time.

<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1127512504.487920.233160@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It is always interesting to go back and play the "what if" game with
> computers. Like:
>
> What if Commodore had released the Commodore 64 back in 1979, to
> compete with the then relatively new Apple II and Atari 400/800
> machines?
>
> What would have been the target price for the 64?
>
> Let's suspend belief for a moment and say that the technology was
> available to develop a relatively inexpensive, 64k computer using MOS
> technology chips in mid-1979.
>
> Would the 1979 version of the C64 have incorporated the VIC-I, without
> the SID, and just a tone noise generator (to cut costs)? Or would
> Commodore have had the knowledge to develop the SID and VIC-II before
> 1980?
>
> How would Commodore's market for the 64 have been different? Would they
> have sold as many as 22 million C64s? Would the retail market for the
> 64 last as long as it did (1982-1992 or so)?
>
> I'm almost certain that if the idea for the 64 was implemented by
> Commodore engineers in 1979 (instead of 1982) that Jack Tramiel would
> have stayed at Commodore longer and the Commodore company as we know it
> may have survived an extra 2 to 3 years longer than it actually did.
>
> The VIC probably would have been scrapped in favor of the 64, and the
> 128 may have come about in 1982 (instead of 1985).
>
> This doesn't really affect the Amiga, as the Amiga technology wasn't
> really readily available until 1984 (128KB, 4,096 color Lorraine
> prototype).
>
> Would love to hear ideas and theories on this subject. Have long
> considered time and place a key part to market success of a computer. I
> know that the 64 was "right place, right time, right market," but it
> may have flopped if introduced in 1979 (too far ahead of its time, plus
> too expensive to manufacture).
>
> What would a C64 have cost in 1979 dollars? $1500?


Personally, I think it would have either failed, or, would have simply 
waited to catch on until later...unless the price was low.  My reasoning for 
this is because the Atari 2600 was introduced in 1977.  This gave consumers 
5 years of relatively new technology (and relatively new technology wars) to 
get used to.  So, considering the number of people that dropped a lot of 
money between 1977 and 1979 for the 2600, which at the time was a major 
purchase for most households, it is unlikely that they would be anxious to 
replace it with something else just 1.5-2 years later at an even greater 
expense.  In fact, it might have made the Atari 2600 'computer' add-on 
actually release and sell well because it would have been much cheaper to 
buy, and it goes with an existing piece of equipment.

Now.. if the price were low, however, then the C64 could have easily kicked 
some butt back then simply because the graphics on the C64 almost always 
rivaled the arcades from day one.  Yeah.. there was the whole computer 
aspect of it.. but the majority of buyers bought it because their kids SAID 
they would do homework on it, when actually, they just played games and 
traded software on it. :)  (Yes, we all learned something from it, for 
sure.. ) 

Ziggy wrote:

> It would have failed miserably. Technology is only 1/3 the puzzle. Timing is
> another 1/3. ( and then marketing is another 1/3 ).

Another way to say that is that technology is much more than hardware
.... it is also the supporting software and wetware (that stuff between
your ears).

I don't think that the C64 would have succeeded without the platform
laid by the VIC-20 (just as the Apple ][ and Apple 1), so imagining the
C64 in 79 is imagining the VIC-20 even earlier.  And that was based on
the platform laid by the previous CBM computers.

Roughly the right time, roughly the right place, roughly the right
price point.  If there had been an 8-bit follow-up that did the
follow-up thing right, they might be making them in East Asia right now
for $5 each in lots of 2,000, like Nintendo knock off DTV games.

Ziggy wrote:

[...]

> 
> It would have failed miserably. Technology is only 1/3 the puzzle. Timing is
> another 1/3. ( and then marketing is another 1/3 ).

I once thought so too.. Now, the longer I live the more I tend to 
believe that technology is no more than 1/4, timing 1/4 and the rest is 
marketing. It doesn't pay to make things good. It pays to make them 
cheap crap and use the money saved on the product development to fool 
people into believing that this is a very sophisticated stuff and that 
they can't really live without it ;-)

dunric@yahoo.com wrote:
> It is always interesting to go back and play the "what if" game with
> computers. Like:
> 
> What if Commodore had released the Commodore 64 back in 1979, to
> compete with the then relatively new Apple II and Atari 400/800
> machines?
> 
> What would have been the target price for the 64?
> 
> Let's suspend belief for a moment and say that the technology was
> available to develop a relatively inexpensive, 64k computer using MOS
> technology chips in mid-1979.
> 
> Would the 1979 version of the C64 have incorporated the VIC-I, without
> the SID, and just a tone noise generator (to cut costs)? Or would
> Commodore have had the knowledge to develop the SID and VIC-II before
> 1980?
> 
> How would Commodore's market for the 64 have been different? Would they
> have sold as many as 22 million C64s? Would the retail market for the
> 64 last as long as it did (1982-1992 or so)?
> 
> I'm almost certain that if the idea for the 64 was implemented by
> Commodore engineers in 1979 (instead of 1982) that Jack Tramiel would
> have stayed at Commodore longer and the Commodore company as we know it
> may have survived an extra 2 to 3 years longer than it actually did.
> 
> The VIC probably would have been scrapped in favor of the 64, and the
> 128 may have come about in 1982 (instead of 1985).
> 
> This doesn't really affect the Amiga, as the Amiga technology wasn't
> really readily available until 1984 (128KB, 4,096 color Lorraine
> prototype).
> 
> Would love to hear ideas and theories on this subject. Have long
> considered time and place a key part to market success of a computer. I
> know that the 64 was "right place, right time, right market," but it
> may have flopped if introduced in 1979 (too far ahead of its time, plus
> too expensive to manufacture).
> 
> What would a C64 have cost in 1979 dollars? $1500?
> 
> Paul
> 
The closest computer to a C64 back in 1979 would be the TI99/A4

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=236

Only less memory....


Regards
	Glenn...

Usenet wrote:

> The closest computer to a C64 back in 1979 would be the TI99/A4
>
> http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=236
>
> Only less memory....

The entry is a little misleading as to the date. The TI-99/4 came out
in 1979, the 4A in 1980. But other than that... the main differences
were the 99/4 had a calculator-style keyboard (large chiclet style) and
no bitmap mode. Some internal differences were the 99/4 had no user
interrupt hook and only a couple of keyboard modes. But originally it
was designed for "handheld units", of which there would be up to four
for four players. These were to be infrared. And if you put two
together, they'd be in the same map as the keyboard itself. So you
could have four-player games, or two-player games with full keyboards.

But this thread is all about "might-have-beens". Too bad.

Ben

"Rick Balkins" <nospam.rickbalkins@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> writes:

> The VIC-I was barely made in 1979

It is said that Commodore developed the VIC-I in 1978, meant for
arcade manufacturers and alike. After not being able to find a
market, they designed a home computer around the video chip and
some surplus RAM, to be released in June 1980.

So the hypothetical question maybe should be: what if CBM already
in 1978 had seen the light and launched the VIC-20. It probably had
been more expensive, in line with the Atari and TI computers. Would
it have become an economic flop, putting Commodore out of business
or a novelty success, paving way for the C64 in early 1981?

There are so many what ifs and possible alternative time lines.
Remember that there was a 40 column VIC-I under development, which
was never produced in favour of the "VIC-30" project, known as C64.
Maybe a 40 column VIC-20 in late 1979 would have delayed the C64 to
its actual release date anyway.

> around 1983 - we probably would have had a C64 with 128 colors,

Even considering what actually happened, why didn't Commodore try to
improve on the C64 instead of introducing another low-end computer
onto a market that in late 1984 was rather satiated? I'm interested
in what if the TED series had never existed and the C65/128 - with
improved graphics, sound, memory and processing power - had been
available in early 1985. It may have killed the best seller C64,
and maybe the reason why this machine never really saw the light
was that C= sensed the future was in 16 bits.

> we probably would have had like 6-7 or 8 voices

Jeff Minter in an interview in 1984 described his dream computer;
lots of sprites, colours, voices in stereo, powerful but easy to
use Basic. Then he commented on that Commodore at that moment in
many ways were going the other way with their next home computer.

> The extra color which would have been the demand if the VIC-20 had 
> sprites and multicolor mode.

The VIC-I chip *has* multicolour mode. Really blocky resolution, but
it is there.

-- 
Anders Carlsson

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:58:24 +0100, Usenet
<usenet@glennmillar.plus.com> wrote:

>The closest computer to a C64 back in 1979 would be the TI99/A4
>
>http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=236
>
>Only less memory....
>
>
>Regards
>	Glenn...


I dont think so.  The Atari 800 is most similar to the c64, infact
Commodore engineers were told "here is an A800, build something like
this" or some such words (so the legend goes).   

I think if you want to know what the pricing of the c64 would have
been, look at the Atari 800 and the c64 might have been a c48 in 79

"Anders Carlsson" <anders.carlsson@mds.mdh.se> wrote in message 
news:k2gfyruxqf7.fsf@legolas.mdh.se...
> "Rick Balkins" <nospam.rickbalkins@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> writes:
>
>> The VIC-I was barely made in 1979
>
> It is said that Commodore developed the VIC-I in 1978, meant for
> arcade manufacturers and alike. After not being able to find a
> market, they designed a home computer around the video chip and
> some surplus RAM, to be released in June 1980.

I didn't recall it in 1978 but thanks for letting me know.
I possible perspective would have been a VIC-I in 40 col. with sprites and 
all the key features which came about by the time of VIC-II. Which would 
have likely been able to be successfully completed by 1979 and a VIC-20 
released at the same date as the VIC-20 released anyway. THe definition of 
the VIC-II would have likely been defined as an enhanced form of the VIC-I 
because the VIC-I would have by 1979 been very much like the VIC-II is on 
the C64 (not exact but close to.) The VIC-II probably would have been 
defined with 121/128 or 240/256 colors. Likely 256 colors. Color table would 
possibly have been mapped with far more options.

The C64 probably would have succeeded well in 1983 as in introductory date 
because the BIG boom in the C64 sales kicked in late 83 and early 84. The 
VIC-20 released with sprites and all with VIC-20 sound would have been 
impressive and at approximately the right time for posibly a little better 
sales comparative to the VIC-20 sales as is. Because the VIC-20 would have 
been more like the C64 in video quality. By 1983, the C64 would have then 
had the 256 colors, possibly more hardware sprites and sprites in 8 bpp. 
Imagine 8 bpp highres cell gfx. Which would have been probably or a mode 
where each cell is 64 bytes instead of 64 bits in hires like screen RAM 
where each byte represents the background color of cell and the bitmap 
respresents the foreground color of each pixel. When foreground equal say 
zero then it is background color. So 65000 bytes total for the screen.

320x200 = 64,000 bytes and a screen RAM of 1000 bytes representing only 
background color. Of course this would be an additional mode to an existing 
mode. The C64 probably would have had actually 128K. 64K main memory area 
and a 64K secondary memory that the VIC-II would be able access. This would 
have been something interesting to see back then in 1983. SID sound. 256 
colors. Of course the timing was still good for a computer like that in 
1983/1984 at the C64 price range compared to the Apple and Atari computers. 
Its graphics would have been surpassing most arcade machines by 1986. This 
would have been at that time an awesome feat. The C64 would have even been 
fighting comparatively well all the way into 1996 in the mainstream. It 
would have had established itself by the time Apple got the IIgs into the 
market place. Not to mention being VIC-I backward compatible (so VIC-20 disk 
games would have been well playable on the C64. New games made to use the 
256 colors. Imagine the splash screens in all those games would have looked 
like compared to other computers in 1983/1984 in the C64 price range.

This would have seriously scared Nintendo by then and Commodore might have 
even gained dominance against Nintendo. This would have been interesting if 
that did happen. The year of 1983/1984 was a relatively good time for home 
computers. So that might have actually been better for Commodore. VIC-II 
having the ability to operate in a 128K area of memory would have probably 
been an interesting approach.

> So the hypothetical question maybe should be: what if CBM already
> in 1978 had seen the light and launched the VIC-20. It probably had
> been more expensive, in line with the Atari and TI computers. Would
> it have become an economic flop, putting Commodore out of business
> or a novelty success, paving way for the C64 in early 1981?
>
> There are so many what ifs and possible alternative time lines.
> Remember that there was a 40 column VIC-I under development, which
> was never produced in favour of the "VIC-30" project, known as C64.
> Maybe a 40 column VIC-20 in late 1979 would have delayed the C64 to
> its actual release date anyway.
>
>> around 1983 - we probably would have had a C64 with 128 colors,
>
> Even considering what actually happened, why didn't Commodore try to
> improve on the C64 instead of introducing another low-end computer
> onto a market that in late 1984 was rather satiated? I'm interested
> in what if the TED series had never existed and the C65/128 - with
> improved graphics, sound, memory and processing power - had been
> available in early 1985. It may have killed the best seller C64,
> and maybe the reason why this machine never really saw the light
> was that C= sensed the future was in 16 bits.
>
>> we probably would have had like 6-7 or 8 voices
>
> Jeff Minter in an interview in 1984 described his dream computer;
> lots of sprites, colours, voices in stereo, powerful but easy to
> use Basic. Then he commented on that Commodore at that moment in
> many ways were going the other way with their next home computer.
>
>> The extra color which would have been the demand if the VIC-20 had
>> sprites and multicolor mode.
>
> The VIC-I chip *has* multicolour mode. Really blocky resolution, but
> it is there.

Didn't recall that as a bitmap mode. Though it is interesting.

What happened with Amiga is quite probably the what would have happened 
with C64 in 1979: Too much too early.

-Miika

Anders Carlsson wrote:

> Even considering what actually happened, why didn't Commodore try to
> improve on the C64 instead of introducing another low-end computer
> onto a market that in late 1984 was rather satiated? I'm interested
> in what if the TED series had never existed and the C65/128 - with
> improved graphics, sound, memory and processing power - had been
> available in early 1985. It may have killed the best seller C64,
> and maybe the reason why this machine never really saw the light
> was that C= sensed the future was in 16 bits.

Tramiel-era CBM  was not into improving on a best selling design.

As Bil Herd and Dave Haynie noted, the Tramiel-era 116 was designed to 
take over the Timex/Sinclair market, the $49.00 machine.  If you compare 
the two, you'll note the 116 was vastly superior, and the price point 
was possible given Commodore's ability to produce ICs in house, etc. 
But, as control was pulled away from Tramiel and he planned to move on 
because of it, management decided first to scale up the 116 to a 
full-fledged machine, and then another group decided to repackage the 
116 as the C-16.  We saw it as the follow-on to the C64, but it was not 
originally defined that way.

The 128 was an attempt to push into the business market, but did learn 
from the mistakes of the Plus/4 launch.  Vendors would ill tolerate a 
machine not compatible with the 64.

Jim


-- 
Jim Brain, Brain Innovations
brain@jbrain.com                                http://www.jbrain.com
Dabbling in WWW, Embedded Systems, Old CBM computers, and Good Times!

Like having Captain Kirk telling people that the Vic was a friendly
computer when no software was available???

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:34:27 +0200, silverdr
<silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote:

>Ziggy wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> 
>> It would have failed miserably. Technology is only 1/3 the puzzle. Timing is
>> another 1/3. ( and then marketing is another 1/3 ).
>
>I once thought so too.. Now, the longer I live the more I tend to 
>believe that technology is no more than 1/4, timing 1/4 and the rest is 
>marketing. It doesn't pay to make things good. It pays to make them 
>cheap crap and use the money saved on the product development to fool 
>people into believing that this is a very sophisticated stuff and that 
>they can't really live without it ;-)

Hey Hey Hey NOW! It was a friendly computer.  There was absolutely no
buggy or virus riddled software available ... at that time.

Of course, friendliness and competence are two distinct issues.  Anyone
who thought it must be a competent computer because Capt. Kirk said so
is going to get parted from their money "soon", as the saying goes.

Jerry Rioux wrote:
> Like having Captain Kirk telling people that the Vic was a friendly
> computer when no software was available???

> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:34:27 +0200, silverdr
> <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote:
> >I once thought so too.. Now, the longer I live the more I tend to
> >believe that technology is no more than 1/4, timing 1/4 and the rest is
> >marketing. It doesn't pay to make things good. It pays to make them
> >cheap crap and use the money saved on the product development to fool
> >people into believing that this is a very sophisticated stuff and that
> >they can't really live without it ;-)

Jerry Rioux wrote:

>>
>>>It would have failed miserably. Technology is only 1/3 the puzzle. Timing is
>>>another 1/3. ( and then marketing is another 1/3 ).
>>
>>I once thought so too.. Now, the longer I live the more I tend to 
>>believe that technology is no more than 1/4, timing 1/4 and the rest is 
>>marketing. It doesn't pay to make things good. It pays to make them 
>>cheap crap and use the money saved on the product development to fool 
>>people into believing that this is a very sophisticated stuff and that 
>>they can't really live without it ;-)

 > Like having Captain Kirk telling people that the Vic was a friendly
 > computer when no software was available???

More or less.. :-P

But hey, every VIC came _with_ software out of the box. There was BASIC 
inside...

"Rick Balkins" <nospam.rickbalkins@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> writes:

>> The VIC-I chip *has* multicolour mode. Really blocky resolution, but
>> it is there.
> 
> Didn't recall that as a bitmap mode. Though it is interesting.

No, not bitmap. Multicolour characters. I believe those are two
different things, which can be combined. You can simulate a bitmap
using user defined characters, and can do it either in hires or
multicolour mode - see the slideshow in VIMM by Pu-239 etc.

-- 
Anders Carlsson

Jim Brain <brain@jbrain.com> writes:

> As Bil Herd and Dave Haynie noted, the Tramiel-era 116 was designed to 
> take over the Timex/Sinclair market, the $49.00 machine.

I don't know about the US, but in Europe, Sinclair (Spectrum) in
early 1984 already was gaining a huge 3rd party software market 
and user base, which would be just as tough as price to compete 
with. I'm sure there were other manufacturers also trying to sell 
only on low price around then.

If the 116/TED had been backwards compatible with the VIC-20, 
maybe based on the 40-column VIC-I and had a "22 column" mode, 
I would give it more credibility. In the end, it was announced 
as the VIC-20 replacement in a time where very few people would 
consider to buy a VIC-20 anyway.

-- 
Anders Carlsson

It occurred to me that Jim Brain wrote in comp.sys.cbm:
> As Bil Herd and Dave Haynie noted, the Tramiel-era 116 was designed to 
> take over the Timex/Sinclair market,

That would explain the horrible keyboard on the European 116....

-- 
    Martijn van Buul - pino@dohd.org - http://www.stack.nl/~martijnb/
	 Geek code: G--  - Visit OuterSpace: mud.stack.nl 3333
 The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...' Isaac Asimov