Obviously, they are comparing to only the high-end competitors (e.g., Atari 800 but not the 400, and no TI 99/4A which also used their own chips like Commodore touted as a selling point, nor the TRS-80 Color Computer that was intended for home use unlike the Model III business computer). Buyers who knew the real set of alternatives, at and below the C64's price point, might question why they need 64KB RAM, when the popular lower-priced competitors not shown in the table also did fine games and Basic programming (the main uses of home computers) while costing less money.

Then there's structuring "TV Output" as a feature of the C64, which they say the TRS-80 Model III doesn't have. But that's because the TRS-80 has an integrated display monitor, while the C64 includes no display in that price comparison.

I don't know what "'Smart' Peripherals" are. But that IBM PC defined industry standard peripheral interfaces for years.

The competitors also had obvious strengths not shown. Want your word processor to be in crisp 80-column text? A real spreadsheet program? Math coprocessor? Better graphics? Option to upgrade to a hard disk drive?

That lead me to this:

https://www.vintagecomputing.com/index.php/archives/2833/why...

Buy it for twice the price.

So it should have cost $298 then?

Wasn't it better to end the sentence with "at half the price"?

I had a similar experience when I got to college and my roommate and I compared our computers- I had a PC and he had an Amiga, and when he explained what it could do it was clearly superior, but it just didn't "feel right" to me.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better)

[0] https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=595&year1=1982...

The First table clearly pitches the computer as a workhorse more than a game machine. When it came down to it, the thing that really mattered for most work cases was simply how much readable text can you display at once. Colour, and sound were nice, but couldn't compete with just the ability to show information.

High end workstations of the era gave you decent resolution bitmapped displays long before they focused on colour.

I was lucky enough to grow up in a household that had at various times TRS-80, a PET, CBM8032, VIC-20 and a C64 (plus others, the Casio fx9000P, was nice but I never had the tools to go beyond BASIC) . If you wanted a computer that could do a bit of everything the C64 was a good choice, If you wanted games, it was an excellent choice, but If you wanted to work, characters on screen was what you wanted.

It’s a shame that poor management, product fragmentation, and failure to respond to IBM/Microsoft killed the company.

Then I had a 486 vga pc that could barely scroll a game at 60fps (except for ones like jazz jackrabbit with its hardware scrolling wizardry) and I coveted the Amiga with its smooth scaling and rotation and 4 channel samples.

The Accolade Ace of Aces (WW2 combat flight sim) wasn't released until 1986.

It seems that this may have been a different Ace of Aces -- perhaps a version of the Nova tabletop game that never got released.

Anybody know anything about this?

Wait, the what now? Now I’m off to learn what a Max Machine is.

3KB of RAM. So little room, I needed to write most of my apps in Machine Code. That was OK. At school, I had an STD Bus-Based 6800, with 256B.

Was a very good learning experience.

How quaint!

I loved the 6809-based Coco but, at the time, I felt it was inferior to the C64 and Atari 400/800 because it had no sprites, far fewer colors, lower resolution, lower clock speed, etc. Because I didn't yet understand computer architecture and simply believed the specs in the brochure, it was only much later, during my computer-industry career, that I grew to understand that the Coco, which I'd felt so insecure about, was really pretty ideal for my young self to learn on. The built-in Microsoft Extended Color BASIC was far superior to the ROM BASIC the C64 shipped with. Perhaps more importantly, the comprehensive, illustrated BASIC manuals Radio Shack commissioned are still legendary for being excellent for beginners to self-teach. And, unlike many of its peers, that ROM BASIC had extensive native commands for graphics, sound and music from day 1.

Once I'd written a bunch of graphic games entirely in BASIC, I advanced to learn assembly language because it was the only way to draw more and bigger objects faster. Fortunately, Radio Shack offered a ROM cartridge-based 6809 editor/assembler that was unreasonably good for a cheap home computer. And the Motorola 6809 CPU, being the little brother of the legendary 68000 was really an 8/16-bit CPU with an elegantly orthogonal instruction set which supported advanced addressing modes and many features neither the 6502 nor Z80 had. Things like re-entrant, relocatable, program counter relative code, separate user and system stacks, a multiply instruction and multiple levels of interrupts. Today it's considered the most powerful 8-bit CPU of that era (in fact, Apple originally intended the Macintosh to use the 6809). Radio Shack even offered a multi-tasking, multi-user, Unix-like operating system for their 8-bit, 64K 'toy' home computer.

Of course, back then I didn't know how good I had it since my only experience was with the computer I owned and I still believed the impression I formed from that beautiful C64 brochure. It wasn't until the mid and late 90s when there were piles of C64s and Ataris at thrift stores for $5 and $10 that I really understood that the C64's 320x200 resolution and 256 colors weren't all available at the same time, at least for regular users (short of advanced programmer tricks and esoteric demo scene hacks far beyond a beginning coder). Once the computers I'd lusted after were nearly free (or actually free when people just gave them to me vs throwing them out), I managed to acquire ALL of the widely available 8-bit and 16-bit computers I'd never been able to afford in the 80s and actually play with them.

Only then did I understand a 0.89 Mhz 6809 was two to three times faster than a 1 Mhz 6502 and that I'd 'grown up' in programming understanding interrupt driven multi-tasking, managing multiple stacks and using index register indirection, which made pointers feel natural when I later learned C on 68000-based computers. Even the lack of hardware sprites in my 'poor Coco' forced me to figure out software sprites using bit masks and XOR in assembler - and I had a blazingly fast CPU to do it with. Even the higher resolution and colors of the C64 and Atari didn't turn out to actually be that much higher than my Coco. Setting aside the amazing tricks demo scene coders eventually figured out on all these machines, in practice, as a beginning assembly language game coder back then I would probably have only used 3-color sprites on a background with an effective 160 x 192 resolution background. My Coco had four colors (although from a more limited palette) at an effective resolution of 128 x 192 and, being entirely software-based, I could do anything with those pixels that I could figure out how to CPU blit in one frame. With no hardware graphics to rely on, work around or trick, it was always just my code and the unforgiving pace of the CRT beam. This kept me focused from day 1 on cycle-counting performance and intense code optimization, which made my practical experience with real-time graphics more Apple II-like - except with 2 to 3 times more CPU power to throw at it. Sure, I didn't have the hardware GFX I'd lusted after in that brochure but those capabilities weren't quite as accessible to novices as I'd assumed - and what I got instead had some pretty sizable advantages I didn't appreciate at the time in shaping and preparing the programmer I would later become.

To be clear, I'm not being critical of the C64, today I revere and respect all of these classic machines. They're each great in their own unique way, and each one represents a different vision of what personal computing could be. That's a big part of what I miss about 80s home computing and the reason I've collected over a hundred different models of non-Intel 8-bit and 16-bit home computers over the years (all the commonly available Apple, Atari, Commodore, Sinclair, Amstrad, Amiga machines a few dozen more rare 8-bits from around the world). It's just ironic how my teen self misunderstood the specs in that brochure and how it led to an undeserved inferiority complex which existed only in my head.

This is one of the best takeaways from this ad. Because they owned MOS, Commodore had an advantage over their competitors that is commonly replicated today.

Is there a port to the 6502, or did they run a computer in a cartridge to do that?

This was the first I’ve heard that Commodore made their own hardware.

This is probably why Weird Science is one of my favorite films, because it captures that period where imaginations ran wild. The simple video games were fine as we used our imagination to fill in the gaps.

Tech these days has long lost it's magic. The 'AI' boom tried to recreate the buzz with nonsensical claims that it has failed to deliver. It's all smoke and mirrors these days.

I think the last time I was truly wowed was when Shazam appeared. That was 23 years ago.