To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Yeah, and it was almost abusive - at the end, pushing those already long-obsolete 8bit machines (not only Commodore) into places which, well, just didn't have much of any other choice. Powerful and quite inexpensive (if you wanted, if you settled for slightly older but still powerful) hardware - coming from the economies of scale, standardisation, and constant upgrade cycle of PC world - was much nicer, ~decade later.
Well, and the C64 did get at least a cosmetic upgrade halfway through (together with many hw revisions). Overall, we're sort of returning to the dynamics of the 80s, when the same CPU (among 6502, Z80, 68k) was good for a decade - because it largely wasn't the dominating factor in performance and/or was good enough, anyway.
Ywah, we're not setting specs in stone so much - but again, that's a good thing.
Edited 2012-06-27 18:27 UTC
Specs didn't matter much, because they didn't chance I guess.
Developers, who were called programmers back then, knew what the specs were. I think that's a great advantage.
Apple doesn't have many computers in their line-up, but even the same model can differ in memory or processing power. Let alone over a period of 2-3 years. Different hardware, different operating systems.
The C64 didn't change and programmers learned to squeeze everything out of it. And if it ran fine at their end it would at yours.
I have a feeling a lot of coding issues these days are solved with more brute force than clever and efficient tinkering of code. Then again can you spend so much time on things in a world that moves so fast these days.





Member since:
2011-05-12
The C64 sold for 10 years!
Try making a computer now and sell it for even 5 years without upgrading it.