propeller versus commadore 64
whiteoxe
Posts: 794
I had a Commodore 64 , 100 years ago. you could make games on display ona TV.
What has the Propeller gotover the Commodore. Can I use my commodore to send and receive data from he serialport ?
How fast is rhe commodore 64 compared tothe propeller.
Can the propeller be connected to a TV ?
Any answeres please?
WhiteOxe.
What has the Propeller gotover the Commodore. Can I use my commodore to send and receive data from he serialport ?
How fast is rhe commodore 64 compared tothe propeller.
Can the propeller be connected to a TV ?
Any answeres please?
WhiteOxe.
Comments
The Commodore 64 had 64K of memory, an interface to a cassette recorder, and used a modified version of a 6502 microprocessor.
Now the Propeller has 32K of memory, some of which has to be used for programs. There is a 6502 emulator that can execute 6502 programs somewhat slower than a real 1MHz 6502 (the clock speed used in the Commodore 64). I think someone has been working on a simulator for the sound chip used in the Commodore 64, but I don't remember how far they've gotten.
Now the Prop (natively) is faster than the Commodore. It can do fancier video output. It can do many things with audio that the Commodore could not have done. The Prop could be used to re-implement some of the games played with the Commodore. The 6502 emulator could be extended to emulate the 6510 (what's used in the Commodore). Someone could probably write a compatible video driver and could clean up and extend the sound chip simulator. We're talking about a lot of work, but doable. There might have to be some restrictions or compromises because of the way the Prop generates video.
There's already a lot of TV video demo programs for the Prop. Some of these are text-only, some are graphics. There were quite a few games written for the Prop as part of the Hydra project. These need only a few changes to also work with some of the other Prop boards.
A prop is relevant today. It's a multi-processor, which was somewhat exotic at the time of the C64. It's also got arguably superior graphics, though you have to work for it at times, where lots of things on a C64 are easier, just because it was less complex overall, IMHO. Maybe that's not strictly true. Prop graphics can be really easy, it's the lower level sprites and such that take the work. Lots of work has been done too. Plenty to play with, and that play can be in SPIN, which just isn't all that tough compared to what one would do to really push a 8 bitter.
The C64 is self-contained, and the prop can do that too, but then again you still have to work for it, and I think the C64 is better as a stand alone system. Almost as good as an Apple, on par with an Atari, with trade-offs all over the place.
On the other hand, a Propeller really just works with your PC, and that's cool. If one wants to do that with a C64, it's possible to do with emulation, but getting to and from the real deal takes hardware, and work, where the prop just takes a cable, or maybe SD card, and it's not so much work, and a lot less hardware.
If you are looking for that C64 experience, the Prop is GREAT!! The graphics playground is a lot of fun, and hits right in that retro sweet spot, with some oomph. If you work for it, amazing things can happen, or you can just do fun stuff fairly easy.
Props can run a SID chip virtually, emulated, on just one of the little COG cpu's, and that's cool too.
There are some games, and there are a lot more and better games for a C64. Prop isn't looking all that hot there, but you can see the code for the games (well, most of them), and change it to do stuff. I used to like to do that with the Apple and Atari, and it was harder then. Easier now.
The relevancy is the Prop is made today, and newer ones are coming, and this forum of great people are here, where sometimes it's hard to connect what really works on a C64, to the people, to today, but that just could be me.
I look at my Atari and CoCo 3 machine, kind of want a Apple again after all this time, and what do I want to do? Put a Prop in it!!
One important metric is emulation, and we've got Props doing CP/M computers, and a NES, which I think is amazing. Can't really do those things on a C64. Not that a C64 is bad --it's not. You were just asking what differentiates the prop.
One more small thing. I carry a Propeller around in my laptop bag, and jam on it when I can. That's awesome, and I can't do that with a retro computer, just because they are big, and they kind of need stuff. A prop can fit into a small bag, with a video capture, headphones, power, and a usb cable. That sounds like a lot, but it really isn't. I just leave the cable ends sticking out, and connect them when it's time, disconnect when it's not. A cheap battery runs for a long time, and there is always wall power, or a larger battery that could run for days. Your call there. I just use a rechargeable 9V, and carry a couple of them.
Does that help?
For hardware comparisons, I will use a propeller Demo board for a fair comparison since you cannot really compare a computer to a chip.
The C64 had a 1MHz 8bit 6510 processor, and 64KB of memory.
The propeller chip has 8 80(or so)MHz processors with 2KB of memory each. They share 32KB memory in the hub. So, the C64 had a bit more memory(16B), but a whole lot less processing power. For a few dollars, serial 32KB SRAMs could be added to give the propeller more accessable memory
The C64 had a SID chip for sound.
The propeller can run on one of it's processors, a SIDcog to emulate it. Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJcbxrdErkY for a demo and search the forums for the code.
The C64 could have a serial 1541 floppy drive. It stored 160KB/side
The propeller demo board comes with a 32KB(maybe 64KB now) serial EEPROM to boot off. If you want more storage, I would recommend some 10Kohm resistors and one of these:
http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=544 that will allow you to add GB's of space at arround $5/GB
The C64 could do some pretty good TV graphics for it's time with the VIC II. It could do 16 colors, and lower resolution (something like 320x200) out to TV or composite monitor.
The propeller can connect to the tv, both pal and ntsc. I think on the demo board you are limited to 64 colors, but I am not sure on the tv side. The demo board also has VGA, which gives you 64 colors and/or resolutions up to 1600x1200(something my Amiga couldn't even do!). The graphics capabilities are mostly limited by the RAM. There is processing power there in the cogs to do sprites and other special things. In short, way more graphics horsepower than the VIC II.
The C64 could have an RS232 serial ported added via an adapter
The propeller chip can do more than 12 serial ports at up to 115200 baud. It does it in software. The demo board is limited to 8 io's (4 serial ports to be broken out), but if you are not using the VGA, you can use that port for up to 4 more.
On the C64, addressing the expansion port has to have address select hardware to put an IO device into the memory map somewhere (if I remember correctly).
The propeller chip can address the pins directly through the outa[pin] array. Because the propeller is a microcontroller, memory is mapped separately. I/O is way faster, and easy too.
On the C64, there is many games and much other software available.....literally thousands of titles.
The propeller has many (hundreds maybe) of objects in the FREE propeller object exchange at: http://obex.parallax.com/ There are also some games available, but most of them are on the Hydra forum.
Hopefully OBC will come in here also as he did some things combining a C64 and a propeller
ZiCog by heater and other variants by pullmoll emulate the Z80 and run faster with RamBlade than a real 4MHz Z80. I am unsure of the speed of DracBlade, etc.
We use a microSD (or SD) card to simulate disk (or tape). Under CPM we have 8 * 8MHz drives.
And the best part is we can load this by software from the SD card, so it can be a CPM machine one minute, a prop system the next, and possibly a Commodore 64 the next.
One last point - you can insert wait states to slow the emulation for playing games - IIRC Drac does this!
I would recommend that you start out with the Demo Board(with the book), but next get a PEKit as it teaches you much.
Another thing that I forgot to mention is that the C64 didn't and doesn't AFAIK have a forum with such helpful people, nor a company to back you up that has the same kind of commitment to support.
I must ask the question. What is it that you would like to do?
Take Care,
Doug
The Propeller is current hardware. The Propeller has support. The people who designed the Commodore 64 have all moved on to do other things as Commodore went bankrupt. You can get support from Parallax. You can't get support from the former Commodore company. The advantages of Parallax is you can learn how to use the hardware and most Commodore users were just playing with the software side of things which is what you can also do with the Propeller. You can play with the Propeller and if you manage to break one, you can get a new part. If you play with the hardware side of the Commodore 64, the only replacement parts you might get are off of Ebay, yard sales or internet sales and you have to be good at soldering and handling static electricity. If you compare the ages of the hardware, there are a lot of years between when the 6502 was sold and when the first Propeller was sold. The Propeller is newer technology and can do some things the 6502 technology can't.
The Commodore 64 ran at 1 MHZ. I believe the Propeller is much much faster.
The disk drive was around 9600 bps but the RS-232 port didn't achieve much better than about 2400 bps. There were fast load cartridges but there was a hardware error for the 1541 disk drive that kept it from achieving speeds it was meant to be and when they fixed the bug, the people who managed the circuit board space had already taken the leads out because they were looking to save money by using less materials so it never got fixed until the 1571 disk drive came along.
The programming space of the Commodore 64 had about 38K available memory and it wasn't hard for me to write programs that ran out of variable space so you had to be very good at memory management.
The limitations of the 1541 disk drive was that you were working with buffers the size of 2 kilobytes.
Commodore did things to kill off the Commodore 128 to boost Amiga sales.
The negatives of Commodore was they didn't write their own operating system. Their operating system was written by Microsoft. Commodore didn't do enough in terms of research and development until the Amiga technology came along and that was too late. The reason they didn't do enough research and development was because they kept cutting the price of their computer eliminating their profit margin to keep out the competition that never developed. Instead of adding more silicon to the Commodore 16, they added less which meant the company was doing things to move backwards. They also had legal problems as their tank that held hazarous waste was leaking which led to a million dollar fine from the EPA.
Investing in new hardware is the way to move forward. Some people estimate the Commodore 64 would cost $1400 today in parts due to inflation.
Iwas surprised that the 64 ran at 1Mhz. I think the Sinclair runs at 4Mhz, also the Sinclair will have a different powere plug desighned to run on a differentpowere suply,i dontknwothe voltsoramps of English powere points but there is likley some kind of conversion, else i can just run it off batteries.
I dont think there is any difference worth a mention as to whther the 64 was better or worse thanthe Sinclair. Except Sinclair people seemed to dislike the rubber keys on the sinclair. Does any one know hie the TRS-80stackedup to there twomachines. TRS-80 are the most pricey old homecomputers on severalsites I looked at.?
When i get started I willstart posting about it.Thankoufor all the replies. Ihave an idea whatbI am now upagainst.
I also have ^64 and Sinclair ZX emulators on my pc.I now need a manual. I think itI cant get mostof itworkinginthe emulators Iwont buy the computers. Also Ill see if there are any commoxore and sinclair forums.
I think that is partly why I'm enjoying these microcontrollers.
I still own several CBM machines to this day. (It's where the name "Oldbitcollector" comes from, although my wife laughs about my gray hair and says that it has double meaning now.)
There are several parallels which the Propeller and the Commodore 64 seem to meet.
The Commodore 64 was a stable programming platform. Unlike Windows if it crashed it was generally repeatable and I can still run programs from thirty years ago on my current C64's. I defy you to run an early DOS program on a PC today. It will require emulation, tinkering, and frustration.
The Propeller is exactly the same way. A program which runs on a working Propeller chip today will work thirty years from now. No doubt about it. The Propeller tool, now that's another discussion.
In the early years of the Commodore 64, there wasn't a lot of knowledge and information readily available for it. User Groups were formed for people to share their knowledge and learn from others. (and trade programs, pirated or otherwise) I remember attending two different user groups a month for years. and making many great friendships that I still have today as a result. Today on the Propeller we have forums where we can meet daily if you choose, a chat night every other week online as Savage Circuits, and even three different physical meets (UPENE, UPEC, and UPEW). Again I've meet and befriended so many who have the same enthusiasm we had with the 64.
The Commodore 64 was UNDERSTANDABLE. You could take the time to learn every nuance of the language, and the machine. They even included a copy of the schematic in every box! The Propeller has the same openness.
The Commodore 64 was APPROACHABLE. From the first hour you were programming sounds, making sprites move across the machine. We have the same ability with the Propeller. Everything from the extreme basics of the OREDEMO to Assembly. There is instant feedback and instant gratification which sets the hook and pulls you in for more.
Commodore Business Machines was INNOVATIVE! They invented technology concepts that we still use today. IEC serial bus is the same concept we use in USB. Parallax is also innovative. They push the boundaries everywhere they can. They are not afraid of producing a product that doesn't just fall in line with what everyone else is doing.
We have an excellent SID emulation for the Propeller, easy access to gaming, even a version of BASIC which feels alot like our old friend. The Propeller isn't quite as self-contained, but it's getting closer all the time. I have a feeling that the C3 will be able to be compared to a modern Commodore computer. (Only a LOT smaller). The only thing that lacks presently is the ability to load a PRG file into the memory of a Propeller to play an old game. I'll put money on that changing very soon.
OBC
The Sid Chip can be emulated with the Propeller chip or an Atmega chip.
I found a couple of chips that can do graphics. The disk drive can be replaced with SD or CF cards.
I would like to do this project but it is such a big undertaking.
People on the Commodore boards don't want to do it and their complaint is that it wouldn't be fast enough to get enough throughput on the Internet. I would still like to do it but I am not experienced enough, it is time consuming and there is a cost factor. I would like to hear people's thoughts here.
On Prop I, I think we have darn near all the pieces. Maybe use a couple of props.
Ideally, I would add a Prop to something like a Apple ][ before I built up my own computer. Those things have nice slots, with all the right signals exposed, and have the grunt work done, leaving just the code to blend the two together, and do applications.
Chuckz,
It seems the surest way to get an 'impossible' project done is for someone to tell the engineer it can't be done. Those are fightin' words for an engineer!
CMD made a Super CPU and even though it was very popular, CMD is now out of business and Intel's X86 architecture won out because it is a monster. There are a lot of nay sayers out there who say you can't compete with Intel because of market share and costs. People were hoping that PowerPC would have beaten Intel but it didn't.
Metal Dust - a new C64 game with CMD-SuperCPU support!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rcJ7BRbXX4
Could the Prop 1 handle a C64 emulator? Yes and no. You could probably have the emulator run basic, maybe sprites, maybe sound(if there are enough cogs left). But then you get to games written in asm that requires tight timing for scrolling/background manipulation and sprite multiplexing, and the end result would probably be a mess. Also a lot of the games use illegal op codes, so if those are not emulated in the 6502 core then those won't even run.
Could it be if you threw a lot of chips at it? Sure, but the majority of these projects are created by 1 person and rarely replicated because of the complexity to rebuild the circuitry.
We already have:
- Sound emulation running in one cog
- 6502 emulation running in one cog
That's a good start.
@Chuckz
I'm A LOT more impressed with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnmIqmkIGVg, because it runs on a stock 1Mhz C64.
It's amazing what can be achieved with tricks like "character scrolling" and scanline interrupt driven sprite reposition.
@JT Cook
Illegal op codes isn't very common at all in games prior to 1990.
Illegal op codes are most commonly found in Demos and in a few games from the 1990s.
I think you need to have the CIA datasheets to do something like this and you probably need to have at least a prop for each processor.
I don't know if you can get the right timing down so that is why I think I should abandon the past and go with a "Commodore like" platform. The reason is that you don't have the rights to their Basic, fonts and operating system as it is copyrighted and it is the only way to move forward because Commodore could have come out with the C-65 and that would have been more advanced but it was too early in the design phase. Another company has the rights to the IP, name and trademark so there is already competition and lawyers.
The Prop needs to do 65C816 emulation.
I made a C64 emulator on the PC, just to learn the system and see if I could, and I ran into a lot of problem running games until I added illegal op codes. Looking back that could be due to the trainers/intros that are on virtually every c64 game you find, but it would definitely be a factor.
The Prop 1 is not a good candidate for a C64 emulator. With that said, the Prop 1 is a great candidate as a video game MCU. There are several games/programs that do things that the C64, Atari 800, Sega Master System, NES, and other systems just could not do. And what is easier, programming in 6502 asm to a clunky 5 1/2" drive or program in SPIN on PC and dump it to a super fast SD card?
CPU: MOS 6502, 1MHz
RAM: 5K (3.5K for the user)
Display: 22 X 23 text
176 X 184, 16 colors max
We have 6502 emulation covered and there are certainly enough converted roms out there for testing. I doubt that any of the "powers that be" would care given we didn't force them to look at it. I can't imagine that Gateway owns VIC20. Bet this would make a perfect C3 project.
OBC
The Commodore patent status is here and I can't verify its completion or accuracy:
http://www.minimig.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=90
As far as the software side, you would probably have to let the user supply the Rom images to keep from being sued because it isn't any different than file sharing.
@JT Cook
In my latest 6502 emulator (used in my Sid Dumper tool), I havn't implemented illegal op code support at all. When debugging which op codes are used when playing SID tunes, I havn't even come across one single SID tune using an illegal opcode.
Luckily, I didn't have to care about illegal op codes in my HuC6280 emulator (used in my PCe emulator), because they didn't migrate from the 6502.
Agree'd, the ROMS as only as far away as a quick google search.
OBC
I have to admit only learning to program when VB.NET was out. it was enourmous fun ,though programing picaxe and propeller and getting those chips to control stuff was maybe evenmore enjoyable. even though i was and ampretty cluless about electronics these forums or the people in them make many things in reach of accomplishing even for thepretty cluless