Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Commodore 64 released September 1, 1982

dfarq.homeip.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 186 posts

Re: Commodore 64 released September 1, 1982

#111

Post by mgkimsal »

ajross wrote: post #72
krzyk wrote: post #39

Being behind Iron Curtain I sold (well, my parents, I was too young) my Atari 65 XE + tape reader (which I received as a gift in 1988) and got C64 (the original ovalish one) with 1541 in 1990, it was bundled together with a set of hundreds (pirated of course, that was the reality back then) of 5 1/4" discs with various software and games. It was like receiving internet in a package. Entering incantations like: "LOAD…

> "LOAD .... 8,1" (I don't remember the middle part). Interestingly this was sort of the beginning of the end of digital computers as an operator-centered environment. So, the LOAD command took three arguments: the first was a filename (which was typically the first/only file in the directory for commercial disks, so the wildcard "*" was typically used); the second was a device number on the bus (8 was the first flop…

Or you got the epyx fast load cartridge and could hit 'run/stop-restore' keys together to automatically type LOAD "*",8,1 and ENTER

Re: Commodore 64 released September 1, 1982

#112

Post by tclancy »

the_af wrote: post #61
Towaway69 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The magic in the air in those days will never be replicated. You say it “magic”, it wasn’t “better” or “different” or “worse”, it was a kind of magic that happens when tech is new and folks experiment. I’m sure many will look back in 40 years and say the same about AI - we’re living through the magical age of AI. Just as we did when we got our C64’s back in the day ;) EDIT: Perhaps I should clarify what I meant. Th…

I get what you mean but I think it's fundamentally different. The folks back then had more control over the (limited) capabilities of the hardware, and in order not to just blindly type code from a magazine (which we all did) you had to develop a good understanding. The folks with AI today have much better capabilities with (for most, anyway) much lesser understanding of what's going on. Both are magic, but one is ti…

>I get what you mean but I think it's fundamentally different.

Well, every generation thinks they invented sex, right? Who knows what wild things they may learn to invent? Maybe even Skynet!

Re: Commodore 64 released September 1, 1982

#113

Post by wazoox »

martypitt wrote: post #79
mkovach wrote: post #30

Ahh, the Commodore 64. I never had one. I had a TI-99/4A with a Forth cartridge, while my friends had VIC-20s and C64s. Such an odd and wonderful time to be into computers. I managed to put together a decent Space Invaders clone in Forth that beat their Commodore BASIC version. I considered this an important victory and still have bragging rights when I see one of them. Eventually my parents realized that, despite th…

This thread prompted me to go and find out what my first computer was -- I have vague memories of it. Turns out, it was a Sega SC-3000H, back before Sega decided it was a console company. Also, interestingly, it was really only popular in NZ/Aus (I grew up in NZ). I have very clear memories of spending hours copying BASIC code of games, line-by-line from the monthly Sega magazine into the BASIC editor, playing it for…

Yep, it was a "pre-MSX" like a couple of other machines like the Spectravideo SV-328... My first computer was a Casio PB100 (with the 1.5KB extension, so much memory! :D ), then the Sony HB75 (an MSX).

Re: Commodore 64 released September 1, 1982

#114

Post by RetroTechie »

mig39 wrote: post #102
wateralien wrote: post #31

I had a ZX Spectrum and learned Basic and played a ton of pirated games on that. My school had Commodore 64s - but I didn't use them much. They didn't really know how to teach for them and there was no hacking around allowed.

I visited this ZX Spectrum museum in this summer: https://loadzx.com/en/ So strange to stumble upon this blast from the 80s in a small town in the middle of Portugal. But I think this reinforces the fact that the Spectrum was to Europe what the C64 was to North America. Anyway, wonderful memories in there!

The Speccy was very popular in Spain (and I'd assume Portugal too). As well as -probably not coincidence- in South American countries.

Arab countries & Europe's Eastern block each have their own computing histories that's very different from the usual US-centric tale.

Re: Commodore 64 released September 1, 1982

#115

Post by gtk40 »

wateralien wrote: post #32

Greetings, fellow old people.

Funny enough, I'm only in my early 30s and grew up with the Commodore 64. It was the basement computer that I could do whatever I wanted to, whereas the Windows computer (initially 3.1 and got upgraded all the way to 98) computer upstairs had to be shared and had more supervision. So I enjoyed writing a lot of code and trying things. I managed to have quite a collection of software and accessories just by asking around who still had stuff in the late 90s and early 00s in their basement for an 80s computer, and more did than you would expect.

Re: Commodore 64 released September 1, 1982

#116

Post by ajross »

mgkimsal wrote: post #111
ajross wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "LOAD .... 8,1" (I don't remember the middle part). Interestingly this was sort of the beginning of the end of digital computers as an operator-centered environment. So, the LOAD command took three arguments: the first was a filename (which was typically the first/only file in the directory for commercial disks, so the wildcard "*" was typically used); the second was a device number on the bus (8 was the first flop…

Or you got the epyx fast load cartridge and could hit 'run/stop-restore' keys together to automatically type LOAD "*",8,1 and ENTER

Oh sure, but that was a hack. The rest of the market (even in 1982) had already moved on, c.f. the ROM on the 1978 Disk II card that could load and run a boot sector automatically. Having an "operator" was a design paradigm, and my point was that it was already antiquated even then.

Re: Commodore 64 released September 1, 1982

#118

Post by the_af »

tclancy wrote: post #112
the_af wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you mean but I think it's fundamentally different. The folks back then had more control over the (limited) capabilities of the hardware, and in order not to just blindly type code from a magazine (which we all did) you had to develop a good understanding. The folks with AI today have much better capabilities with (for most, anyway) much lesser understanding of what's going on. Both are magic, but one is ti…

>I get what you mean but I think it's fundamentally different. Well, every generation thinks they invented sex, right? Who knows what wild things they may learn to invent? Maybe even Skynet!

I made a specific point, it cannot be simply deflected with "every generation always thinks ".

Re: Commodore 64 released September 1, 1982

#119

Post by gxd »

reaperducer wrote: post #58
le-mark wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was jealous of the speccy basic. The ms basic the c64 shipped was anemic, you had to have deep, hard to obtain hardware knowledge to do anything with it. Custom characters and character gfx were the most accessible for kids. I pieced together switching out character ram by comparing games in magazines when I was 13. Really impressed my father.

deep, hard to obtain hardware knowledge It came with a very detailed book. And Commodore sold another even-more-detailed-yet-still-cheap book that was so complete that it even included a big fold-out schematic diagram of the motherboard. Would I have preferred to be able to do DRAW CIRCLE 0, 1, 23 instead of a long series of POKEs? Sure, because I was a kid and wanted to do things the easy way. But those POKEs taught…

I've wondered about whether modern computers should come with the comprehensive manuals of the era. The Raspberry Pi 400 attempted to do it. But the problem isn't as much that companies don't want to ship these big manuals, but it's that 1) Nobody would read them because of the Internet and, most importantly, 2) you can't create comprehensive documentation of a modern computer in a reasonably sized book.

The biggest change from the good old days is that one could truly hope to fully understand a machine. The C64 was a bit harder, but not impossible. But the Speccy was simple enough that a near-100% understanding was achievable. This feeling of full control is what we lost.

Post reply on HN