On 2005-07-08 13:54, karingal wrote:
Come the era of the ST and Amiga there were so many more components that made up a computer as the graphic and soound capabilities got much greater. In the early 80's the CPU was virtually everything .
Can't agree with that, otherwise everything with one CPU would be just like anything else with the same; the C64 "experience" is defined by it's audio, video and I/O hardware more than it's (relatively stock) CPU in the same way the Spectrum "experience" is governed by the support hardware around the Z80a.
The C64 isn't the same as even the 264 series, despite them sharing characteristics and a base CPU (the 264 hardware uses a 7501, which can clock up to 1.75MHz in fast mode) because the VIC-II/SID combination work and act differently to the TED.
On 2005-07-08 13:54, karingal wrote:
If you're talking about software compatability then that would make most emulators the real thing... I don't think so.
He means compatible as in the programs run identically on all three processors; the 65xx series and their 85xx offspring are command compatible down to the stable illegal opcodes , in fact i believe most of the unstable illegals "break" in the same way between the three of them.
On 2005-07-08 10:16, na_th_an wrote:
Personally I find the C64 palette too pale and the CPC palette too saturated - I wonder if someone suffered epileptic attacks while playing some CPC games :D
You know, since the C64 has standard composite PAL or NTSC output you can use the Saturation wheel on your favourite TV or composite monitor to MAKE the C64 palette saturated? ;)
Sadly, I can't :p I've only tried C64 through emulation, and that's what I saw: sad pale colours, completely opposed to CPC's high-on-stheroids palette (great to create Doraemon games).
Do you know something? You are all forgetting the MSX-2. That one was (technically speaking) the most featured 8 bits computer.
You DO know that emulators hardly look like the real thing? Also, recent Vice (C64 emu) versions have PAL emulation and lots of video settings, including saturation.
Wow this thread took off again over night.
People are STILL talking about games as a measure of the computer.
Niether computer was released as a games machine.
To the person that said the CPU is THE main thing in a computer, try running doom 3 on a 286 PC, still a PC but aint gonna happen.
Try running a 128k spectrum game on a 48k spectrum..aint gonna happen.
Commodore OFFICALLY released the C128 as a direct next step from the c64. If the makers say its the new model then guess what, its the new model.
I agree that sales dont mean its the best, however the same therefore applies when talking about games then. More/better games does not using your arguement = the best machine.
Fact is Commodore SUPPORTED AND DEVELOPED their product line much better and further than Sinclair ever did. Support is a major factor also in determining the best.
Sinclair simply rehashed the same hardware with minor tweaks (Amstrad did a better job but agian rehashed their CPC components with it).
The Commodore 128 was a VAST improvement over the c64 still maintaining backward compatablity. Dual CPU, Video mem upgrade, Built in floppy, Memory upgradable to 640k.
Now surely most of you have to agree that supporting your product has a big impact on its grading as 'best'
"Now surely most of you have to agree that supporting your product has a big impact on its grading as 'best'"
Thats just rubbish. Sinclair never had enough money as Commodore who obviously sold a ton in America as well as Europe and who had much more funds than the british owned Sinclair.
Windows is 'supported' but how many people hate Windows and Microsoft ? All because Commodore were 'supporting their product' doesnt have a huge grading on it being the best.
Come on how many times, no one is gonna convert a C64 fan and no ones gonna convert a Spectrum fan. Going on and on about stuff like this is absurd. How many Speccy users were there in the States compared to Commodore ? Hardly any ! We're never gonna convert you, an american Commodore user are we ? Just like you wont convert any of the british Sinclair users. Ridiculous.
I dont give a monkeys if one machine was a better upgrade than the other, i loved the Speccy +2 and Speccy +3, had enjoyment with both. (slaps head), christ, 20 years on and still the geeks argue about what the better computer was (sigh).
On 2005-07-08 13:54, karingal wrote:
Come the era of the ST and Amiga there were so many more components that made up a computer as the graphic and soound capabilities got much greater. In the early 80's the CPU was virtually everything .
I would even say that it's the exact opposte: in the early 80s the video/sound hardware was virtually everything. Look at the Atari XL/XE or C64... These computers ARE their video and sound hardware.
Sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more strongly if I tried. Sound and graphics count for very little, the playability of games is much more important and the CPU is the most important element when it comes to this.
Where the display does count is in the speed with which it can be manipulated, and here the Spectrum's tiny display file plays its part in enabling data and graphics to be shifted around quickly, not to mention the fact that this reduces the amount of memory required to store the graphics.
On 2005-07-08 15:21, jonathan wrote:
Sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more strongly if I tried. Sound and graphics count for very little, the playability of games is much more important and the CPU is the most important element when it comes to this.
100% agree with you. The main reason we're playing 20 year old games isnt the sound or graphics (compare any of this to Playstation II games nowadays!), its the gameplay which over years cant be beaten.
Although I'm a hardcore C64 fan, I also have a soft spot for the Speccy. Keep in mind Commodore fans, most speccy fans are 1st class wind-up merchants... They come up with outrageous comparisons which flatter the Spectrum at the expense of the C64 just to get a reaction out of you! (Kragingal and Arjun you guys crack me up!) If they aren't trying to wind you up, then beware, they are akin to religious fanatics! Nothing you say can ever change their opinion.
I wish speccy people would be a little more open minded. You don't see this chillike behaviour on Lemon or the Atari groups. Sure we might make a crack now and then, but on WOS and comp.sys.sinclair, its a way of life! Nostalgia is one thing, but to regress to childhood arguments (and probably other emotional baggage of being a speccy owner in those days lol), it just makes your credibility even lower with other computer fans.
As much as I love the speccy, it is clearly a limited computer (which is also apart of it's charm), but to call it better than the C64, well it's like saying black is white! It just isn't true. Of course there are a few things that the Spectrum can do better, like BASIC, 3D and isometric games (although the C64 could replicate the latter without much trouble.) But when you consider everything else, keyboard, sound, data storage options etc, the C64 is hard to beat. It may be hard to accept, but that's the way I see it. If you just can't except the C64 being better, then the CPC is much closer to the speccy and its a better spectrum than the spectrum!
On 2005-07-08 15:21, jonathan wrote:
Sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more strongly if I tried. Sound and graphics count for very little, the playability of games is much more important and the CPU is the most important element when it comes to this.
Where the display does count is in the speed with which it can be manipulated, and here the Spectrum's tiny display file plays its part in enabling data and graphics to be shifted around quickly, not to mention the fact that this reduces the amount of memory required to store the graphics.
Sound and graphics count for little when you are a spectrum owner, I mean what choice do you have? hehe :p
As for speed, it obviously had to be smaller, since it had to fit in 48K, as opposed to 64K. Also having a software driven screen also restricts the size, in preference for speed. This was not a benefit as you seemed to have made out, but a restriction which home computers had to face at some point.
On 2005-07-08 15:35, psj3809 wrote:
100% agree with you. The main reason we're playing 20 year old games isnt the sound or graphics (compare any of this to Playstation II games nowadays!), its the gameplay which over years cant be beaten.
But at the time, graphics and sound did matter. To some it still does. To compare it to games today is rather pointless, not to mention totally unfair.
On 2005-07-08 15:21, jonathan wrote:
Sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more strongly if I tried. Sound and graphics count for very little, the playability of games is much more important and the CPU is the most important element when it comes to this.
Where the display does count is in the speed with which it can be manipulated, and here the Spectrum's tiny display file plays its part in enabling data and graphics to be shifted around quickly, not to mention the fact that this reduces the amount of memory required to store the graphics.
Yes exactly. The charcter based displays of the C64 make scrolling games VERY easy to implement. Instead of 16K as on CPC or 6K on ZX you only need to move 1K to scroll the entire screen. And then you only need to move those 1K for hardscrolling... softscrolling is done by the gfx hardware aswell.
EDIT:
Also forgot to mention the C64 sprites... Instead of manipulating lots of bytes inside the bitmap with AND/OR, you only need to change the X and Y position and sometimes the pointer to the gfx data of a sprite.
[ This Message was edited by: Fr?hn on 2005-07-08 16:12 ]
On 2005-07-08 16:06, bb64 wrote:
But at the time, graphics and sound did matter. To some it still does. To compare it to games today is rather pointless, not to mention totally unfair.
This is true, you can't compare modern games to Spectrum/C64/CPC ones as the gameplay mechanics have changed, and not for the better in the majority of cases.
On 2005-07-08 15:51, bb64 wrote:
I wish speccy people would be a little more open minded. You don't see this chillike behaviour on Lemon or the Atari groups.
If you think this behaviour is childlike and you consider yourself so 'grown up', then why are you bothered by it anyway?
Sure we might make a crack now and then, but on WOS and comp.sys.sinclair, its a way of life!
Besides just rambling, could you show some actual proof of 'our' way of life?
On 2005-07-08 15:21, jonathan wrote:
Sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more strongly if I tried. Sound and graphics count for very little, the playability of games is much more important and the CPU is the most important element when it comes to this.
i'm going to have to disagree strongly there because the CPU has nothing to do with playability on any platform, that's purely down to the ability (or lack thereof) of the developers. What makes a game playable on any machine is a developer or team who know what they can and can't get away with and who don't cripple the game itself by trying to do more than their skills or the hardware allow for.
As an example, look at Bionic Commando on the C64; there's two versions that were independently developed, one in the U.K. and the other in America. and they're very noticeably different.
On 2005-07-08 15:21, jonathan wrote:
Where the display does count is in the speed with which it can be manipulated, and here the Spectrum's tiny display file plays its part in enabling data and graphics to be shifted around quickly, not to mention the fact that this reduces the amount of memory required to store the graphics.
The Spectrum screen is three times the size of the C64's screen RAM and six times that of the Atari 8bit, both can shift data around faster and that's before we factor in hardware sprites removing the need to store pre-rolled graphics and masks so if you're conceeding that display speed is important...? =-)
On 2005-07-08 16:06, bb64 wrote:
But at the time, graphics and sound did matter. To some it still does. To compare it to games today is rather pointless, not to mention totally unfair.
This is true, you can't compare modern games to Spectrum/C64/CPC ones as the gameplay mechanics have changed, and not for the better in the majority of cases.
On 2005-07-08 15:51, bb64 wrote:
I wish speccy people would be a little more open minded. You don't see this chillike behaviour on Lemon or the Atari groups.
If you think this behaviour is childlike and you consider yourself so 'grown up', then why are you bothered by it anyway?
Sure we might make a crack now and then, but on WOS and comp.sys.sinclair, its a way of life!
Besides just rambling, could you show some actual proof of 'our' way of life?
Looks like I've touched a nerve here. :)
Oh about proof go to google groups for comp.sys.sinclair and type in "C64" or "Commode" or "brown" that should give you plently of hits
[ This Message was edited by: bb64 on 2005-07-08 16:32 ]
(Quote) How many Speccy users were there in the States compared to Commodore ? Hardly any ! We're never gonna convert you, an american Commodore user are we ? Just like you wont convert any of the british Sinclair users. Ridiculous. " (Quote)
Dude I'm English and only moved to USA in '97
[ This Message was edited by: beanz on 2005-07-08 16:34 ]
Incidently I spent a fortune shipping my speccy gear and a PAL tv over to the states so I am a speccy lover. I use my speccy while the c64 gathers dust.
C64 is still a superior machine though, just not as much fun.
On 2005-07-08 16:28, bb64 wrote:
Oh about proof go to google groups for comp.sys.sinclair and type in "C64" or "Commode" or "brown" that should give you plently of hits
Google for 'Sinclair' or 'rubber keys' on comp.sys.cbm. Pot. Kettle.
On 2005-07-08 16:51, Paul van der Laan wrote:
Google for 'Sinclair' or 'rubber keys' on comp.sys.cbm. Pot. Kettle.
And you'll find when "sinclair" and "rubber keys" are mentioned, it will usually be from a C.S.S instigated flamewar. So "pot kettle", I don't think so...
On 2005-07-08 16:00, bb64 wrote:
Sound and graphics count for little when you are a spectrum owner, I mean what choice do you have? hehe :p
As for speed, it obviously had to be smaller, since it had to fit in 48K, as opposed to 64K. Also having a software driven screen also restricts the size, in preference for speed. This was not a benefit as you seemed to have made out, but a restriction which home computers had to face at some point.
Oh dear, I really shouldn't be admitting this.
Believe me - the Spectrum's small screen size is a major benefit. Try writing a Spectrum game then porting it to the CPC, you'll have a lot of rethinking and reworking to do.
Let me explain about the RAM. The headline 48K or 64K INCLUDES the screen memory, which games cannot use for program code, graphic data or anything else. As the CPC and C64 use more display RAM the amount of memory available to the programmer is reduced, and as the bulk of any game is data - a large part of which is for graphics - The Spectrum programmer will often find himself with slightly more room than his counterparts on the C64 and CPC.
On 2005-07-08 16:58, bb64 wrote:
And you'll find when "sinclair" and "rubber keys" are mentioned, it will usually be from a C.S.S instigated flamewar. So "pot kettle", I don't think so...
Polite request: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL. That is all. Thank you.
My last post on this particular subject on this site is as follows...
I owned FOUR 8-bit models... To a lesser extent in terms of enjoyment, the Acorn Electron, then the three personal FAVOURITES of mine the CPC, C64 and Spectrum 48K (then 128K+).
I went through a period during this wonderful era buying the same games (or more precisely my parents buying games) for each model (where possible obviously). I did this as I loved playing the different versions and comparing them... some kind of child fetish I suppose.
From experience the C64 was usually the better version of the three with some notable exceptions (Short Circuit best on CPC, TMHT (coin-op) best on the Speccy for example) so from a NEUTRAL point of view this was how it was.
I loved all three models and they each had their own little quirks but all in all the C64 was the superior.
Emulation reaffirmed my views and I suggest you all try doing the same.
On 2005-07-08 16:59, jonathan wrote:
As the CPC and C64 use more display RAM the amount of memory available to the programmer is reduced, and as the bulk of any game is data - a large part of which is for graphics - The Spectrum programmer will often find himself with slightly more room than his counterparts on the C64 and CPC.
Depends on the mode used, if bitmap mode is on then the C64 needs 9,000 bytes of RAM and the colour RAM if multicolour mode is enabled so there's still more RAM left overall compared to a 48K Spectrum. However, the majority of C64 games aren't using a bitmap and run in character mode and that's a mere 1,000 bytes of screen and the colour RAM so there's still 63K left after that initial overhead for graphics and data, the smallest screen RAM of the three platforms.
i haven't counted the colour RAM for a reason, it's a block of 1,000 bytes (of which only the lower nybble is used) but isn't part of the main 64K; it shadows the actual RAM at $D800 but the space underneath it can be used for graphics, data or certain kinds of code too.
My last post on this particular subject on this site is as follows...
I owned FOUR 8-bit models... To a lesser extent in terms of enjoyment, the Acorn Electron, then the three personal FAVOURITES of mine the CPC, C64 and Spectrum 48K (then 128K+).
I went through a period during this wonderful era buying the same games (or more precisely my parents buying games) for each model (where possible obviously). I did this as I loved playing the different versions and comparing them... some kind of child fetish I suppose.
From experience the C64 was usually the better version of the three with some notable exceptions (Short Circuit best on CPC, TMHT (coin-op) best on the Speccy for example) so from a NEUTRAL point of view this was how it was.
I loved all three models and they each had their own little quirks but all in all the C64 was the superior.
Emulation reaffirmed my views and I suggest you all try doing the same.
Robbo.
I agree, I love all home computers, which is why I collect them. If I hated the speccy so much, why would I bother collecting every model made? I even have a SAM Coupe! I know mentioning the C64 in a positive way here is a hanging offence, (that's why I haven't posted much). I'm sorry if my opinion isn't popular here, but not every speccy fan has to automatically hate the C64. And I would like to consider myself a fan, but it's hard when fans have to blindy bash the C64 to get on with people in here.
Comments
Can't agree with that, otherwise everything with one CPU would be just like anything else with the same; the C64 "experience" is defined by it's audio, video and I/O hardware more than it's (relatively stock) CPU in the same way the Spectrum "experience" is governed by the support hardware around the Z80a.
The C64 isn't the same as even the 264 series, despite them sharing characteristics and a base CPU (the 264 hardware uses a 7501, which can clock up to 1.75MHz in fast mode) because the VIC-II/SID combination work and act differently to the TED.
He means compatible as in the programs run identically on all three processors; the 65xx series and their 85xx offspring are command compatible down to the stable illegal opcodes , in fact i believe most of the unstable illegals "break" in the same way between the three of them.
Your mother is a goat of dubious personal hygeine. =-)
Sadly, I can't :p I've only tried C64 through emulation, and that's what I saw: sad pale colours, completely opposed to CPC's high-on-stheroids palette (great to create Doraemon games).
Do you know something? You are all forgetting the MSX-2. That one was (technically speaking) the most featured 8 bits computer.
People are STILL talking about games as a measure of the computer.
Niether computer was released as a games machine.
To the person that said the CPU is THE main thing in a computer, try running doom 3 on a 286 PC, still a PC but aint gonna happen.
Try running a 128k spectrum game on a 48k spectrum..aint gonna happen.
Commodore OFFICALLY released the C128 as a direct next step from the c64. If the makers say its the new model then guess what, its the new model.
I agree that sales dont mean its the best, however the same therefore applies when talking about games then. More/better games does not using your arguement = the best machine.
Fact is Commodore SUPPORTED AND DEVELOPED their product line much better and further than Sinclair ever did. Support is a major factor also in determining the best.
Sinclair simply rehashed the same hardware with minor tweaks (Amstrad did a better job but agian rehashed their CPC components with it).
The Commodore 128 was a VAST improvement over the c64 still maintaining backward compatablity. Dual CPU, Video mem upgrade, Built in floppy, Memory upgradable to 640k.
Now surely most of you have to agree that supporting your product has a big impact on its grading as 'best'
Thats just rubbish. Sinclair never had enough money as Commodore who obviously sold a ton in America as well as Europe and who had much more funds than the british owned Sinclair.
Windows is 'supported' but how many people hate Windows and Microsoft ? All because Commodore were 'supporting their product' doesnt have a huge grading on it being the best.
Come on how many times, no one is gonna convert a C64 fan and no ones gonna convert a Spectrum fan. Going on and on about stuff like this is absurd. How many Speccy users were there in the States compared to Commodore ? Hardly any ! We're never gonna convert you, an american Commodore user are we ? Just like you wont convert any of the british Sinclair users. Ridiculous.
I dont give a monkeys if one machine was a better upgrade than the other, i loved the Speccy +2 and Speccy +3, had enjoyment with both. (slaps head), christ, 20 years on and still the geeks argue about what the better computer was (sigh).
Sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more strongly if I tried. Sound and graphics count for very little, the playability of games is much more important and the CPU is the most important element when it comes to this.
Where the display does count is in the speed with which it can be manipulated, and here the Spectrum's tiny display file plays its part in enabling data and graphics to be shifted around quickly, not to mention the fact that this reduces the amount of memory required to store the graphics.
Egghead Website
Arcade Game Designer
My itch.io page
100% agree with you. The main reason we're playing 20 year old games isnt the sound or graphics (compare any of this to Playstation II games nowadays!), its the gameplay which over years cant be beaten.
I wish speccy people would be a little more open minded. You don't see this chillike behaviour on Lemon or the Atari groups. Sure we might make a crack now and then, but on WOS and comp.sys.sinclair, its a way of life! Nostalgia is one thing, but to regress to childhood arguments (and probably other emotional baggage of being a speccy owner in those days lol), it just makes your credibility even lower with other computer fans.
As much as I love the speccy, it is clearly a limited computer (which is also apart of it's charm), but to call it better than the C64, well it's like saying black is white! It just isn't true. Of course there are a few things that the Spectrum can do better, like BASIC, 3D and isometric games (although the C64 could replicate the latter without much trouble.) But when you consider everything else, keyboard, sound, data storage options etc, the C64 is hard to beat. It may be hard to accept, but that's the way I see it. If you just can't except the C64 being better, then the CPC is much closer to the speccy and its a better spectrum than the spectrum!
aka MOS-6581 on Lemon :p
Sound and graphics count for little when you are a spectrum owner, I mean what choice do you have? hehe :p
As for speed, it obviously had to be smaller, since it had to fit in 48K, as opposed to 64K. Also having a software driven screen also restricts the size, in preference for speed. This was not a benefit as you seemed to have made out, but a restriction which home computers had to face at some point.
But at the time, graphics and sound did matter. To some it still does. To compare it to games today is rather pointless, not to mention totally unfair.
EDIT:
Also forgot to mention the C64 sprites... Instead of manipulating lots of bytes inside the bitmap with AND/OR, you only need to change the X and Y position and sometimes the pointer to the gfx data of a sprite.
[ This Message was edited by: Fr?hn on 2005-07-08 16:12 ]
This is true, you can't compare modern games to Spectrum/C64/CPC ones as the gameplay mechanics have changed, and not for the better in the majority of cases.
Egghead Website
Arcade Game Designer
My itch.io page
Besides just rambling, could you show some actual proof of 'our' way of life?
i'm going to have to disagree strongly there because the CPU has nothing to do with playability on any platform, that's purely down to the ability (or lack thereof) of the developers. What makes a game playable on any machine is a developer or team who know what they can and can't get away with and who don't cripple the game itself by trying to do more than their skills or the hardware allow for.
As an example, look at Bionic Commando on the C64; there's two versions that were independently developed, one in the U.K. and the other in America. and they're very noticeably different.
The Spectrum screen is three times the size of the C64's screen RAM and six times that of the Atari 8bit, both can shift data around faster and that's before we factor in hardware sprites removing the need to store pre-rolled graphics and masks so if you're conceeding that display speed is important...? =-)
Too bloody right...
Oh about proof go to google groups for comp.sys.sinclair and type in "C64" or "Commode" or "brown" that should give you plently of hits
[ This Message was edited by: bb64 on 2005-07-08 16:32 ]
Dude I'm English and only moved to USA in '97
[ This Message was edited by: beanz on 2005-07-08 16:34 ]
C64 is still a superior machine though, just not as much fun.
And you'll find when "sinclair" and "rubber keys" are mentioned, it will usually be from a C.S.S instigated flamewar. So "pot kettle", I don't think so...
Oh dear, I really shouldn't be admitting this.
Believe me - the Spectrum's small screen size is a major benefit. Try writing a Spectrum game then porting it to the CPC, you'll have a lot of rethinking and reworking to do.
Let me explain about the RAM. The headline 48K or 64K INCLUDES the screen memory, which games cannot use for program code, graphic data or anything else. As the CPC and C64 use more display RAM the amount of memory available to the programmer is reduced, and as the bulk of any game is data - a large part of which is for graphics - The Spectrum programmer will often find himself with slightly more room than his counterparts on the C64 and CPC.
Egghead Website
Arcade Game Designer
My itch.io page
Polite request: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL. That is all. Thank you.
I'm a troll for telling the truth? wow...
No need to reply anyway since he's out of arguments.
My last post on this particular subject on this site is as follows...
I owned FOUR 8-bit models... To a lesser extent in terms of enjoyment, the Acorn Electron, then the three personal FAVOURITES of mine the CPC, C64 and Spectrum 48K (then 128K+).
I went through a period during this wonderful era buying the same games (or more precisely my parents buying games) for each model (where possible obviously). I did this as I loved playing the different versions and comparing them... some kind of child fetish I suppose.
From experience the C64 was usually the better version of the three with some notable exceptions (Short Circuit best on CPC, TMHT (coin-op) best on the Speccy for example) so from a NEUTRAL point of view this was how it was.
I loved all three models and they each had their own little quirks but all in all the C64 was the superior.
Emulation reaffirmed my views and I suggest you all try doing the same.
Robbo.
Depends on the mode used, if bitmap mode is on then the C64 needs 9,000 bytes of RAM and the colour RAM if multicolour mode is enabled so there's still more RAM left overall compared to a 48K Spectrum. However, the majority of C64 games aren't using a bitmap and run in character mode and that's a mere 1,000 bytes of screen and the colour RAM so there's still 63K left after that initial overhead for graphics and data, the smallest screen RAM of the three platforms.
i haven't counted the colour RAM for a reason, it's a block of 1,000 bytes (of which only the lower nybble is used) but isn't part of the main 64K; it shadows the actual RAM at $D800 but the space underneath it can be used for graphics, data or certain kinds of code too.
I agree, I love all home computers, which is why I collect them. If I hated the speccy so much, why would I bother collecting every model made? I even have a SAM Coupe! I know mentioning the C64 in a positive way here is a hanging offence, (that's why I haven't posted much). I'm sorry if my opinion isn't popular here, but not every speccy fan has to automatically hate the C64. And I would like to consider myself a fan, but it's hard when fans have to blindy bash the C64 to get on with people in here.