Talk:Commodore 64

Commodore Amiga?
As per my comments on the C=128 talk page, it seems to me that the Amiga can be considered a successor to the C=64, form a customer upgrade point of view, whereas from a technical point of view it would be the C=128. None of this is contradicted by my comments on the C=128 talk page, and in fact those comments support this point of view. You are - of course - welcome to have a different point of view, but please discuss it here as part of BRD, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Predecessor/successor, or not one? Editors can't make up their minds which criteria to stick with!
Seeking the opinions of several editors here. Let's make infobox lists of a given device's predecessors and its successors in each article that they can apply to, and this article is one example of many. But what rule(s) should we use to determine what supposedly makes a predecessor or successor or not one? Which would make more sense to you other editors about which devices to include or leave out of one of those lists, and what's the maximum number of devices should we put in the list on one side or/and the other?

For example: this computer model is kind of in the middle of all of Commodore's 8-bit computers, and all of them are similar in at least two ways besides being 8-bit, in that they all run on at least a CPU that's some version of the MOS 6502, and they all run some version of Commodore BASIC. Additional similarities are found in all official releases outside the PET and CBM-II B(usiness) line (the P[ersonal] version, more like a 20 or 64 wasn't officially released), besides the Educator 64, in that they have color graphics and advanced sound, and all of those but the Max Machine are directly compatible with Y/C and composite monitors such as the 1701/'2 and compatible with the most mainstream 15-series disk drives, and probably all the printers that use that same (IEC) port without an interface. And notice that the TED/264's character set is even very similar to the 64 and 128's. So in that sense, all of the 8-bit ones could be seen in the lineup of predecessors and successors, such as this: MOS KIM-1, PET series, CBM-II series (including B128), VIC-20, 64 series, TED/264 series (16, 116, Plus/4), (regular; non-B) 128 series. And then we would head out of the 8-bit world and into the PC series and Amiga series.

But then there are the differences between some of the 8-bit computers that put some of them into different sublines, that have the potential to be seen by some as making them not belong in one big lineup of predecessors and/or successors. For example, the PET series and the B(usiness) version of the CBM-II only have 2 colors: black and green. And while the CBM-II does have a SID, the sound on the PET series is only very elementary. (That makes sense, because the first time I touched a PET was in ELEMENTARY school, ha!) (And then the CBM-II P[ersonal] version not only has the SID but the VIC-II, but wasn't released. I'm just listing it here, but not the also unreleased 65, because the B[usiness] version of the CBM-II, including the B128, was released, so I figured that I should differentiate.) Then the 20, 64, and (non-B-) 128 are in the same subcamp in that they all have SID sound and the VIC-II chip. But while the TED/264 series, which came out between the 64 and and non-B 128, also have multicolor and advanced sound, they do so by way of the TED chip instead of VIC-II and SID, and those have the most colors: 121 instead of just 16! And then the non-B 128 came out, but they included 64 mode with it and went back to using the VIC-II for that reason so it wasn't going to be even more complex than it already would be to keep it 64-compatible, while also adding the VDC and Z-80 anyway. So in this sense we can see that there are a few or several small predecessor/successor lines within the full 8-bit line: MOS KIM-1 in and of itself, PET, CBM-II B, VIC-II, and TED or 264. And then past the 8-bit line, the PC and Amiga.

So which would make more sense to some of you other registered editors, such as somewhat recent ones who have made what appear to me to be somewhat substantial edits of these Commodore articles besides my own, like, , , and ?

1. To have a jumbled up mess like some of these articles used to, where there was no distinct division between types of computers, where some were accepted as pred/sucs but still others weren't included, with no real rhyme or reason?

2. To accept all the 8-bit computers in one brand, such as Commodore, as one big lineup of pred/sucs but then show some upgrade examples as successors past the 8-bit line, such as PC and Amiga as the (main) 128's successor here at Commodore and the Macintosh as that of II series over there at Apple?

3. To sever all the sublines of a certain brand as not having any pred/sucs outside of themselves due to strict architectural differences, such as here in Commodore: pre-VIC ones only, only ones with a VIC-II, TED ones only, and then especially PC only and Amiga only?

4. Or to fix all of the related articles in one brand up to take on option 3, but make one weird exception that puts one of the machines with a completely different architecture as one oddball exception to the rule from #3, making it still a supposed "successor" with no real basis, even though all the other articles would adhere strictly to option 3?

Whatever we decide to do, let's just make sense of the whole thing by not having different rules for different articles, especially those that are related, because doing so just makes the encyclopedia look inconsistently sloppy, less of a place that people can depend on as a reference tool because one article about a given device insists on saying something about that device is one way while another article insists on it being at least somewhat the opposite of that. What supposed point is there to insist on having mismatches like that when we should be able to correct them easily?

MaxxFordham (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and I might as well include you from a year ago right here in the talk page,. MaxxFordham (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, why didn't you continue the discussion I started above? And secondly, what is actually wrong with the current setup?  Each article is dealt with on a per-article basis, and for some that means the best course of action is to include the 16-bit successor, and for some, maybe not.  Each decision is made on its own merit - there's no need to insist on a one-rule-for-all and try to apply it in some Draconian/gate-keepery fashion.  You may feel that the current situation is, but I don't, and nor it seems do other editors, as this has never been a problem with anybody else, not even if you expand your view to include consoles - the Sega Genesis article claims the successor to be the Saturn, but should it not be the 32X?  That's listed as "related".  And apparently nobody - including myself - who edits that article cares about the minutiae it creates.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "What is actually wrong with the current setup?" It's really not obvious to you? I conformed the C128 article to match these others, but then Zac and you started insisting that whole "Oh no, you can't do that; they're not in the same line-up because they're not in the same architecture!" thing, and put it back. And you were fine as long as I just left that there without making changes to other related articles. Right? So then I was like, "K, if the C128 can't be in the line-up with ones that don't share as much of the architecture, then it doesn't make sense for the others to be, either. But oh no, once I tried to get all the other articles to fit the rules that you and Zac set up for the C128, you wouldn't have it You see how it's like, "Damned if I do, but damned if I don't"?


 * How can you fight so hard for "Oh no, we can't have computers with somewhat different architectures be in succession line-ups with each other" but then contradict yourselves with, "Oh, but wait, no, the Amiga, which isn't even at all the same architecture (except that it has advanced sound and color graphics) has to be included still"? Why do you think it's "OK" to be "talking from both sides of your mouth" like that? What's so "special" about the Amiga line that you believe it should be listed as the supposed "successor" of the EIGHT-BIT 64 when you had just got done saying, along with Zac, that, "Oh no, no, you can't do that; the architectures are TOO DIFFERENT" between ones that are both EIGHT-BIT and both use several of the same drives and printers, but somehow, "Oh yeah, the Amiga line is a successor" even though the Amiga isn't at all compatible without some major adaptation except maybe some mice, joysticks, and basic A/V (crappy composite and any old stereo system is all)? How can you go, "Wait, we have to apply this rule between some 8-bitters" but then that all goes out the window with, "Oh, no, wait, this 16-bit one is magically a 64 successor anyway," especially when you don't even have the same as the 128's successor even though the 128 is already the 64's successor? What if someone goes and adds the Amiga as the 128's successor then? And as long as we do that, then why shouldn't we add the PET back, as well as the KIM-1, as the VIC-20's predecessors?


 * And did you forget that this is an 'encyclopedia? Why should each decision in a single article have "its own merit" when the supposed "merit" of one article's decision is a contradiction of what somebody wants for another, related article? If you're going to have a serious encyclopedia then why don't you act like it by making sure all the related articles cross-check each other accurately? And if you and other editors weren't worried about the articles matching before, then why do you lord over one or two articles now, especially to want them to contradict each other while you contradict yourselves? And why are you even more vocal about this than Zac is, despite his being the first one to counter my line-up change on C128? And why do you believe your desire to have things inconsistent between articles supposedly supersedes my desire to have them support each other, so you're all revert-happy in the name of B/R/D, so you revert more than once before the "D" cycle, but somehow it's "wrong" for me to revert your inconsistency before the "D" cycle? Why should your reversion be more allowed than mine?


 * MaxxFordham (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Please try to keep your contribution concise and to the point. There's no need to keep repeating arguments. Currently, you're drowning out the discussion and I don't even read it all.
 * The Amiga is vastly different in technology and history but it's the C64's successor 'in spirit' and perceived as such by a large number of people in the community. Whether that is relevant to this article is debatable, it might depend on a good source. --Zac67 (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * MaxxFordham, as far as I'm aware the only reason editors have is because you weren't following BRD yourself, and reversions were to reinstate the status quo while discussion was ongoing.
 * For example, you made a change to the C=64 article here and I reverted it, as you were fully aware that the Predecessor/successor topic was under discussion elsewhere. You chose to ignore that and reinstated your proposal - and that's why I reverted you again, reminding you of BRD at the same time.  That was also when I started discussion on this very page on 1st October which you ignored, and created this new discussion two days later. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Added line for inclusion in "Home computer" list
I added Category:Home computers as the last line of the article so that the Commodore 64 will appear in the Category:Home_computers list. The process is a black box to me, so if I did it wrong, please correct. Oh, and post here what I did wrong. UrQuan3 (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You did nothing wrong, but it's already categorized in Category:Commodore 64 which in turn belongs to Category:Commodore 8-bit computers which is then part of Category:Home computers. --Zac67 (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Color RAM question?
How is it possible that with 512 bytes of color RAM 40x25 characters (1000) are stored and each character? needs 1 byte for 2 colors of the 16 palette, 4 bits are necessary for each color, therefore the color RAM should be at least 1000 bytes. Hooankee (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As detailed in the article, the color SRAM (2114) is 1024x4, sufficient for 16 foreground colors for 40x25 characters (with 24 nibbles unused). --Zac67 (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I said 2 colors each 8x8 cell, you need double memory. This is the same memory you need for 4x8 with 4 colors, you still need a full 1Kb. Hooankee (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)