Talk:Commodore 128

Cursor keys
It is said that Previous Commodores had only two cursor keys, which required using the shift key to move the cursor up or left.. This not true, as the computers of the 264-series (C16, Plus/4, and C116) had four cursor keys. Only VIC20 and C64 had 2 cursor keys.Leo72 (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Commodore 128. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129021635/http://www.kirps.com/web/main/_blog/all/in-memory-of-the-commodore-c128.shtml to http://www.kirps.com/web/main/_blog/all/in-memory-of-the-commodore-c128.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Cursor keys
The phrase "previous commodores had only two cursor keys" was not correct, because it let mean that C16 & +4 had 2 cursor keys too but they instead had single cursor keys (for a number of 4). Fiexd. Leo72 (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Predecessor = Commodore Plus/4, 16, 116
You have changed predecessor=C64 to predecessor=Commodore Plus/4, 16, 116 and undid my revert of that. Why would you think that your edit improves the predecessor info.? Removing the C64 is ridiculous as it's by architecture and by compatibility the direct predecessor. The Plus/4, C16, C116 were a different line, not too similar in architecture, and entirely incompatible in software. With the same logic you could include VIC-20, PET 2001 and KIM-1 as predecessors. --Zac67 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * No, Zac67, you misunderstood me a little. Besides, you're wrong about the compatibility. All Commodore 8-bit computers are somewhat compatible in software because they all have a form of Commodore BASIC and they all use a version of the MOS 6502 CPU, so some of their machine language would be the same too. Not that there's much software out there that could run across the board, but the point still remains that they are at least a little bit software-compatible. The 64 is probably hardly, if at all, any more compatible with the 128 in 128 mode than the 264s are with the 64 or 128 mode, especially the 128 in 80-column and CP/M modes, because that part of the architecture is that much different too; especially the CPU for that (remember, the 128 has 2 CPUs, one of which is shared by the 128 and 64 modes). These machines are also all somewhat hardware-compatible, because, for example, you can use an 8050 drive on a PET, and on a 128 and maybe also the 264s with a small bit of adaptation, and a 1551 drive that's made for the 264s also on the 128 and others with a reasonable adaptation, and you can very easily use a 1541 on the 264s, 128, 64, and 20 without any adaptation. Not so with the Amiga line with its 1010 drive, and not so with the Commodore PC line with its drives.


 * I don't know where you got that I was talking about hoping to remove the 64 as a predecessor of the 128 in order to meet my logic. But of course my edit improves that article; it makes it more consistent with the others that are like that. So why wouldn't it be an improvement? No, what I was saying is that the article of the Commodore 16 (which I meant to put in the edit summary) says that the 16's preds are the 20 and 64s, and that its sucs are the 128s and Amigas. But especially the Amiga isn't in the same line. So why is it on there? But it is. And as the 116 and +4 are in the same subcamp as the 16, the same thing goes for them. So if the 16's and 116's article says they are the preds of the 128, and that it and even the Amiga are their sucs, then why shouldn't the 128's article say so too, as well as saying that that its suc is the Amiga line?


 * And if you're gonna include the Amiga, then why not also include the PET, KIM-1, and PC lines? See, I wouldn't even have the Amiga and PC lines there, but I would include the whole 8-bit line-up, including the B128/CBM-II, unless the rule is to just include up to the 2 preds and 2 sucs. So why are you trying to prevent one article from doing what the ones about the other Commodore 8-bit computers do? In other words, why would you think your edit of reverting one that supposedly improves the consistency between articles is the actual "improvement"? Why would you rather destroy the consistency between articles?


 * MaxxFordham (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a hard no from me - the successor to the C=64 is clearly the C=128 and vice versa. For a start this is stated in the lead:   so if you want to change the infobox, you also need to change the body of the article.  I'm all for discussing the nuances of computer hierarchy, but it happens while the original version of the article is in place, not with a disputed change.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, Chahell Riens, I forgot to fix it in the lead to match. So let's do that, then. Also, that's not the original version of the article; it's had many changes over the years since it was submitted to the Wikipedia. Again, if the 128 in 128 mode is very little more compatible with the 64 than the 264s are to it, and the other articles even include the Amiga, which isn't even 8-bit, then why shouldn't the 264s be included with the other 8-bits in pred/suc? Why shouldn't this article be matched with the others that say the same things?


 * MaxxFordham (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Of course it isn't the original version of the article, but that's not the point. You're suggesting a change to the current version of the article, and that's what we're discussing the pros and cons of.  You can't consider reverting a change (obvious vandalism notwithstanding) that was made anything more than a few months ago to be a valid reversion under the BRD process - otherwise I would be perfectly justified by removing all mention of both successor and predecessor on the grounds that it wasn't in this version from back in 2007.  That's obviously nonsense, and it's a pretty weak position to base your argument on.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What I said about what you said about the article's originality is actually not one of the points that I was basing my argument on. I simply said what I said about it because what you said about it seemed ridiculous. If it's "not the point" that this isn't the original version of the article, then why did you mention that as if it is the case and was one of the points?
 * Also, B/R/D doesn't require the next R to be a few months out. It doesn't say anything about that; you just can't make more than 3 non-antivandalism reversions of the same part of the article within a day. But of course some Wikiers get overzealous about that and still call repeated reversions that happen like that but don't break that limit "edit-warring." So if that's what so many of them think then they should ask Jimbo for a rule change that reflects that. But you can see that I didn't go back to make another reversion after we started getting into this in here. When I REreverted the one time, Zac hadn't made me aware of the D that he had already started, but here we are, so we're good.
 * Also, I'm not getting notified of new replies in here now; I'm not sure why. Maybe you can help me fix that. I got Zac's ping but that was it.
 * MaxxFordham (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Apparently, you ignore (or lack understanding of) how Commodore spawned different products. The 128 was designed (see hardware architecture, built around the VIC-II/VIC-II E video chip) and marketed as a direct successor to the 64. Compatibility with respect to BASIC isn't really relevant imho, as minimalist BASIC programs run on any implementation. What defined the software market on the 64 was system-specific, machine-level software, and that software only runs on the 64 and on the 128 (in 64 mode), on nothing else. In reverse, the 128 runs its own software and the 64's (in compatibility mode), nothing else.
 * In contrast, the Plus/4/C16 family is a completely different, TED-based product line, that was (at least partially) intended for a more professional market, between the VIC-20/64 home computers and the CBM line. Your reference to peripherals: 'with a little bit of adaption' pretty much anything is possible. However, you can't run an 8050 or a 1551 on a C128 without a hardware adapter with some non-trivial circuitry. That's not compatible.
 * Your references to other models/products and what their articles say isn't relevant here, we're discussing this article now. Issues in other articles may be addressed later.
 * Also, please recheck your understanding of WP:BRD: you may be bold, I revert and then we discuss – without you restoring your edit before reaching a consent. --Zac67 (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, Zac, I did not just ignore B/R/D. When I REreverted this article you hadn't written your segment here yet. If you had already posted here, though, then I wouldn't have rereverted that. And you can see that I haven't since then.
 * I knew that there was first the pre-VIC-II line (KIM/PET/B), with whatever video chip those are based on, then the VIC-II line (what happened to the VIC-I?), interrupted by the TED line before we got back to a VIC-II machine with VDC also. And then the 16-bit series, AKA Amiga. But since all of the 8-bit Commodore computers from the 20 forward have at least 16 colors and that big border (except the Educator 64/PET 64) and some form of sound processor, and are all based on the 6502 CPU, and since the 20 forward can all run the serial disk drives and printers--so no, they are NOT "completely different"; it's the Amiga and PC lines that are completely different (besides also being Commodore computers, of course)--AND since the articles outside the main 128 (not the B/"PET" one) mostly have/had pred/suc that mixed the 8-bitters together, I figured that was the standard and did it here too.
 * And I didn't see why you two (so far) would work so hard to make this ONE article the exception to that rather than also going to the other articles to match them. I don't have a problem with splitting them up into the PET line, VIC-II line, and TED line (a.k.a. 264, for some odd reason), but let's just be consistent. It's not just about "Well, this isn't about the other articles; just this one!" Yes, it IS about the other articles too, because there's no good point in fixing, or at least "fixing," one article if you're not gonna try to do so to others that might have the same problem, or at least "problem." I mean... at least no point in being so zealous about the one if you don't at least look for others like it to handle in the same way. Because when you don't do that, you demonstrate that you don't really care about applying the rules across the board. It doesn't make sense. I mean... OK, not that you can guarantee to apply all the rules across every article in the site all at once, but we should at least try to do it to the first several obvious ones that we can spot right off the tops of our heads. Should we not? Because if you don't, leaving the other articles in the shape that you don't want this one in, it looks like the rules are actually that way instead of this way. In fact, that's precisely why I did this edit here (but just forgot to apply it to the prose too, yet). So if you have a beef with it here, then have a beef with it on the others too, and let's fix (or "fix") those. But if you don't have a beef with it on those, then why push so hard about it here on this one?
 * Why is it that so many of you Wikipedians just watch over ONE article from a certain "clan" of them and just fight to maintain that ONE, but not give any consideration that others like them are breaking the same rule(s) that you're fighting about on the one, but you just ignore those others? If you're gonna push so hard for one thing on one article then why don't you have enough gumption to go to the other similar ones you can find and do the same, like in this case, all the other Commodore 8-bit computer ones (or even keep looking for other device article outside of Commodore computers that might also have pred/suc misalignments like this and fix those too)?
 * MaxxFordham (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * , Oh, and now I've put this page on my watch list. --"Maxx"

You seem to be doing a fine job already - with a few exceptions, such as here?

I've checked over the entire Amiga line, Vic-20, Commodore 64 and the Commodore Plus/4 articles, and all of them are now strictly linear (with some branching, especially for the Amiga) going Vic-20 -> C=64 -> C=128 - with the Amiga being treated as a separate line, and not appearing in the "successor/predecessor" parameter at all. Amiga is mentioned in the 64/128 articles, but not in the context of it being a direct successor - although I think it should be mentioned as a logical (not in the computing sense) successor.

Out of curiosity I also checked ZX Spectrum and Atari 8-bit family - those are slightly different in that the entire range is bunched up into a single article, so there is no linear successor, and as such the relevant infobox field does include the next generation (QL and Atari ST respectively) instead.

I think it depends on the definition one uses of the term "predecessor" and "successor", From a family point of view, the successor to the C=64 is the C=128, but from a use point of view, the C=64's successor was most likely to be the Amiga. Few people - I imagine - would have upgraded from a C=64 to a C=128 - most would have gone to a 16bit machine. The infobox help is equally vague, and just says

PS: It's "Chaheel", not "Chahell". Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)