Tandy TRS 80 vs. Commodore 64 vs Apple IIc

[spaceman]

which was the most powerful machine?

 

[shilala]

Beats me.
We ran trs 80's in high school, and most everyone had a commodore 64 at home.
I've never seen a IIc.

 

[suse920]

WRONG FORUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111111111111

 

[EatSpam]

They're all 1mhz machines, IIRC...

 

[mcmanager]

The Apple II C could run from 1Mhz to 4Mhz (II C+)and have up to 1MB of ram! (vs the C64's 64KB) so there's absolutely no competition.

It was also the last apple computer to ship with video hardware that was comparable to everyone else in the industry!

 

[Bassyhead]

The C64 I would think over the TRS-80. The TRS-80 is an older machine and I think it came with 4 or 16KB of RAM while the Commodore had 64 and later 128KB.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
They're all 1mhz machines, IIRC...

I believe you are right EatSpam, but we all know Mhz isn't everything

 

[FoBoT]

i had an apple II , it had color and sound

 

[DaveSimmons]

The TRS-80 model 1 had a lo-res display and was black and white without a sound chip. The Coco added higher res color and sound.

Commodore 64 had better video and sound hardware than Apple and the Coco, including game-oriented features like pixel-level hardware fine scrolling, sprites, and user-defined font sets to use as maps/backgrounds.

The Atari 800 had better graphics hardware though, since it used a display list and color palette.

Most people don't realize this, but the Amiga was the successor to the Atari 800, while the Atari ST was actually the successor to the Commodore 64: The Atari engineers moved to Commodore while Jack Trammeil (sp?) left Commodore and took over Atari.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
The TRS-80 model 1 had a lo-res display and was black and white without a sound chip. The Coco added higher res color and sound.

Commodore 64 had better video and sound hardware than Apple and the Coco, including game-oriented features like pixel-level hardware fine scrolling, sprites, and user-defined font sets to use as maps/backgrounds.

The Atari 800 had better graphics hardware though, since it used a display list and color palette.

Most people don't realize this, but the Amiga was the successor to the Atari 800, while the Atari ST was actually the successor to the Commodore 64: The Atari engineers moved to Commodore while Jack Trammeil (sp?) left Commodore and took over Atari.

I upgraded my Coco II to a 2 MHZ Hitachi CPU and 1 meg of Ram. I re-wrote a custom BIOS using assembly language so had a 10 meg Winchester Hard drive on it. A year or so later they came out with a seagate kit that was able to upgrade to a 20 meg seagate hard drive.

 

[episodic]

What about the c65?

http://www.machine-room.org/computers/71/

There are actually a few working commodore prototypes

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I upgraded my Coco II to a 2 MHZ Hitachi CPU and 1 meg of Ram. I re-wrote a custom BIOS using assembly language so had a 10 meg Winchester Hard drive on it. A year or so later they came out with a seagate kit that was able to upgrade to a 20 meg seagate hard drive.

I never had hard drives for my TRS-80 model 1, Atari, or C=64 just tape drives and floppies. For the TRS-80 I did wire a RO33 teletype to it to act as a printer.

I did quite a bit of 6502 assembly coding for the Atari and C=64, but it was game related (a fast drawing library for the Atari, and a few assembly-based games for the C-64) (young Dave - from my cheesy '99 website).

Good times

 

[sswingle]

I loved my Apple IIc. Had dual monitors. One green, one full color. Spent hours putting a baseball card collection into it, just for it to become pointless when we got our 386.