ral-clan wrote:It's a rather complete setup though (right down to a Commodore made desk).
Pics!
I think I posted these years ago when I first joined, but here it is again:
(click on this picture to enlarge it)
You can see there is a space for a 1541 drive. What you can't see is that behind the VIC-20 there is a metal shelf for a 1702 monitor (cables pass underneath it).
On the drawer, the little silver circle is a Commodore chickenhead logo, but that has faded a lot over time.
I believe this desk was purchased at a "Beaver Lumber" here in Ontario, Canada - a Home Depot type store (strange, but I guess they were branching out at the time).
As far as I know, this desk was a product exclusive to Commodore Canada. I think a lot of Commodore's filing cabinets for the international market and the original sheet metal PET case, etc. were all made at a Commodore factory in Canada.
When I bought my VIC20, the competitors were the Atari400, the TRS80 and the TI99/4a. The C64 came out a year after I got my VIC20.
While the C64 was more impressive and quickly became more popular when I was a kid, the VIC20 was the system which introduced me to 6502 machine code (VICMON), which blew my mind at the time. Therefore, back in the days, I stuck with the VIC20 until I lost interest in computing for a while.
Today I still prefer the VIC20 and do not own a C64 or any other Commodore. This limited machine remains more interesting, perhaps due to its boundaries. And denial is such a fantastic community, making the choice even easier.
In 1984 was pretty happy to quickly drop the VIC-20 in favour of the C64 (based on the games), but in retrospect, if I had been a bit less into games and more into programming / electronics - my needs could have totally been satisfied with the VIC-20.
ral-clan wrote:In 1984 was pretty happy to quickly drop the VIC-20 in favour of the C64 (based on the games), but in retrospect, if I had been a bit less into games and more into programming / electronics - my needs could have totally been satisfied with the VIC-20.
Today, the VIC-20 is my favourite.
Not to mention, the VIC-20 had some pretty decent word processing and spreadsheet stuff. So maybe if I had been older, or more into just using the VIC for productivity stuff, I wouldn't have felt the need to upgrade to a C64.
I wonder; for those that decided they didn't want to upgrade to a C64 era maybe it was a good time picking up all the VIC-20 hardware and software at discount prices when the C64 took over. Might have been a good time for those who stuck with the PET as well.
When did the PET get discontinued, by the way? I know it had more of a business user base, so maybe it got supported longer than the VIC.
ral-clan wrote:Not to mention, the VIC-20 had some pretty decent word processing and spreadsheet stuff.
Agree, but spreadsheets / word processors implementing a 40 column layout would have been developed, and never were.
ral-clan wrote:When did the PET get discontinued, by the way? I know it had more of a business user base, so maybe it got supported longer than the VIC.
1982: after the VIC was introduced and the C64 was on its way, Tramiel realized he had to develop entry-level machines ("for the masses") instead of small business / educational ones ("for the classes"). Chuck Peddle disagreed, and Commodore lost the first piece; but this is history.
ral-clan wrote:Not to mention, the VIC-20 had some pretty decent word processing and spreadsheet stuff.
Agree, but spreadsheets / word processors implementing a 40 column layout would have been developed, and never were.
Not entirely - DATA20 corporation shipped a spreadsheet and word processor with their 40/80 column display board. Not a common piece of hardware, admitedly.
As far as I'm concerned, the Vic 20 and Commodore 64 are essentially the same machine. The Commodore 64 is a Vic 20 with the upgrades many Vic 20 owners wanted: A 40 column display and greater memory. Other than that, it's essentially the same machine, with the same 16 colours, same BASIC V2.0, same processor, same clock speed, same peripheral ports, same keyboard, same shape and size. I remember seeing the two on display in a department store at around 1983, with the Commodore 64 on the left, and the Vic 20 on the right. The 64 had a mob of people crowded around it, with a line of people waiting for their 5 minutes with it. The Vic 20 had nobody around it, and I was free to play with it as long as I wanted. I noticed how similar the two were, and wondered about the foolishness of "Mob" mentality.
If I was asked this question back in 1985, I'd definitely go for the Commodore 64. It was what everyone had, and represented excellent value. Today, like many others here, I wish I had stuck with the Vic a little longer. The unexpanded Vic was a lens that allowed a single programmer to imagine and develop an arcade quality game, with sound and fast graphics, in a reasonable amount of time. The limitations forced the programmer to concentrate on only the important elements of the game; a skill required for many successful artists. The removal of unnecessary elements is a refining process that the unexpanded Vic forced me into. It was also a platform on which my money went a long way. People were dumping Vic 20 stuff in yardsales for dirt cheap as soon as they upgraded to the Commodore 64. Regrettably, this was an opportunity which I never fully capitalized on.
Personally, I like to have both machines around, and I do. If I could only pick one, it would be the Vic. Unexpanded, it's an excellent creative lens; expanded, it's entertaining to see how much it could do and discover how others worked around its limitations, like generating a 40 column display. It's easy to see how the Vic provided the foundation for the C64's success.
PaulQ wrote:As far as I'm concerned, the Vic 20 and Commodore 64 are essentially the same machine. The Commodore 64 is a Vic 20 with the upgrades many Vic 20 owners wanted: A 40 column display and greater memory. Other than that, it's essentially the same machine, with the same 16 colours, same BASIC V2.0, same processor, same clock speed, same peripheral ports, same keyboard, same shape and size. I remember seeing the two on display in a department store at around 1983, with the Commodore 64 on the left, and the Vic 20 on the right. The 64 had a mob of people crowded around it, with a line of people waiting for their 5 minutes with it. The Vic 20 had nobody around it, and I was free to play with it as long as I wanted. I noticed how similar the two were, and wondered about the foolishness of "Mob" mentality.
If I was asked this question back in 1985, I'd definitely go for the Commodore 64. It was what everyone had, and represented excellent value. Today, like many others here, I wish I had stuck with the Vic a little longer. The unexpanded Vic was a lens that allowed a single programmer to imagine and develop an arcade quality game, with sound and fast graphics, in a reasonable amount of time. The limitations forced the programmer to concentrate on only the important elements of the game; a skill required for many successful artists. The removal of unnecessary elements is a refining process that the unexpanded Vic forced me into. It was also a platform on which my money went a long way. People were dumping Vic 20 stuff in yardsales for dirt cheap as soon as they upgraded to the Commodore 64. Regrettably, this was an opportunity which I never fully capitalized on.
Personally, I like to have both machines around, and I do. If I could only pick one, it would be the Vic. Unexpanded, it's an excellent creative lens; expanded, it's entertaining to see how much it could do and discover how others worked around its limitations, like generating a 40 column display. It's easy to see how the Vic provided the foundation for the C64's success.
One of my favourite parts about the VIC-20 is that when somebody does something new and impressive on it - it really feels like "WOW" - this is a special surprise, because no one (even the designers) ever expected this little machine could do anything like that.
Because the C64 is a higher spec machine, when it does graphics and sound tricks, etc., it doesn't seem quite as remarkable - it was designed to do that sort of stuff.
Last edited by ral-clan on Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
The VIC chip was designed in '76, when Break-Out was the state of the art for arcade machines. Recent demoscene stuff done with that hardware would have astounded MOS's engineers.
