commodore 64/128 question
spectre at floodgap.com
Fri Sep 1 20:14:49 CDT 2006
> > Some people complain about "128 compatibility" when what they're really
> > observing is glitchiness between 64 fastloaders written for the 1541
> > trying to run on a 1571. EA games were notorious for that; I kept a 1541
> > around specifically for that purpose. Booted from a 1541, the 128 ran it
> > fine.
> Thanks a ton for all the good info! I think I recall a lot of software was
> specific to the 1541 drive with regards to copy protection. Will this
> software typically run on a 1571, and will the 1541 run on the 128 along
> with a 1571?
This was a minority of titles, and I think later versions of the 1571 ROM
corrected many of these problems. Even on the earlier revisions, most games
and loaders ran without comment, and anything after 1985 is virtually
guaranteed to be tested on both.
> > The only other disadvantage is that the 128 is kind of wasteful,
> > space-wise. It may be low slung, but it will take up most of a desk.
> Really? I thought it was shorter than the C64, and only a few inches deeper?
Its height is smaller, but it's over double the footprint, give or take.
Mind you, if someone offered me a 64 or a 128, I would choose the 128, if
that helps you make up your mind. I don't have a C64 on my desk; I have a
128DCR, and I run all of my 64 software on it, plus all the added features
of being a 128 (true 80-column 640x400 graphics with a CGA monitor; fast
serial transfers; 16-64K of additional VRAM which can be accessed from 64
mode as "cache"; and 2MHz mode). Really, the 128 is a very worthy successor
to the 64.
--------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ ---
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- Watch out, Citizens. Marx's tomb is a communist plot. ----------------------
More information about the cctech