My research about graphics of the Pro

[AndrewZ]

I'm sure at least some of you guys know this, but in this online pro manual:
Guide to Writing a P /OS 1/0 Driver and Advanced Programmer's Notes

https://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp11/pro3xx/POS/AA-BT73A-TH_Guide_to_Writing_a_POS_Driver_and_Advanced_Programmers_Notes_198404.pdf

Chapter 9 has info on accessing video registers and video memory:
9.1.4 Access to Video Memory Through the Bus It is possible for the CPU to read from and write to the video display memory without using the device registers - because the memory can be programmed to be on the bus. P/OS uses this configuration. The video memory occupies a partition called BITMAP, and the system video handler creates a region called TFWBMP, which fills it. An application can attach the region and map to all or a portion of it.
TFWBMP is 32KB, of which the first 30KB corresponds to the displayed portion of the memory. Note that the least significant portion of the first word of the region corresponds to the upper left corner of the screen. .If there is an Extended Bit Option (EBO) in the system, all three planes of memory share the same 32KB bus address space. To read from or write to any of the planes (whether or not there is an EBO), the memory reference enable bit (bit 5) in its plane control register must be set to 1. If there is an EBO, the memory reference enable bit can be set for more than one plane. Reads will come from each plane - in ascending order (1, 2, 3) that has the memory reference enable bit set. Plane numbers are defined by the hardware and do not nBcessarily correspond to any software numbering scheme. Writes will go to all planes that have the memory reference enable bit set. Remember that a transfer, once started, can take a long time. Check the Done bit before modifying any registers other than the X and Y registers unless you are certain that the transfer is complete.

 

[vol.litwr]

I'm sure at least some of you guys know this, but in this online pro manual:
Guide to Writing a P /OS 1/0 Driver and Advanced Programmer's Notes

https://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp11/pro3xx/POS/AA-BT73A-TH_Guide_to_Writing_a_POS_Driver_and_Advanced_Programmers_Notes_198404.pdf

Chapter 9 has info on accessing video registers and video memory:
9.1.4 Access to Video Memory Through the Bus It is possible for the CPU to read from and write to the video display memory without using the device registers - because the memory can be programmed to be on the bus. P/OS uses this configuration. The video memory occupies a partition called BITMAP, and the system video handler creates a region called TFWBMP, which fills it. An application can attach the region and map to all or a portion of it.
TFWBMP is 32KB, of which the first 30KB corresponds to the displayed portion of the memory. Note that the least significant portion of the first word of the region corresponds to the upper left corner of the screen. .If there is an Extended Bit Option (EBO) in the system, all three planes of memory share the same 32KB bus address space. To read from or write to any of the planes (whether or not there is an EBO), the memory reference enable bit (bit 5) in its plane control register must be set to 1. If there is an EBO, the memory reference enable bit can be set for more than one plane. Reads will come from each plane - in ascending order (1, 2, 3) that has the memory reference enable bit set. Plane numbers are defined by the hardware and do not nBcessarily correspond to any software numbering scheme. Writes will go to all planes that have the memory reference enable bit set. Remember that a transfer, once started, can take a long time. Check the Done bit before modifying any registers other than the X and Y registers unless you are certain that the transfer is complete.

Of course, it is the better way, but it requires a lot more effort...

 

[AndrewZ]

Apologies that this isn't directly graphics related. My Pro 350 is now getting fatal errors while running, 000300 / 000004. In Appendix A of Pro Series Technical Manual Vol 1 this shows as "Odd address or other trap 4". This is not a program run time error or a boot error. It often happens while in Edit. It just started happening and now it happens consistently. Any thoughts on the cause and the cure?

 

[shirsch]

Could be caused by bad memory or, more likely, oxidation on the bus connectors or internal DIP connectors where the memory boards plug in.

 

[vol.litwr]

This thread prompted me to write an article about the photos on the first PC.

 

[stanp]

This thread prompted me to write an article about the photos on the first PC.

Nicely done! It puts the early history of color graphics into perspective.

 

[AndrewZ]

Wow! This is an excellent and thorough description of early bitmapped image display. My first computer with color graphics was a Sun 360 workstation in 1987, but it supported only 16 colors from a fixed palette. Pictures did not look good. In 1990 I bought a PC clone with an ATI Wonder VGA card. It supported 256 color mapped colors in 640x480. Pictures looked pretty good. I was using Rayshade then to render 3D graphics and create simple animations. To display these on Windows 3.0 my business partner and I created the first animation program on Windows, Animaxx. It was a simple design. It would load a small sequence of bitmaps into RAM, assuming one common 256 color palette, and play them back. About the same time I adapted Tom Lane's IJG JPEG from UNIX to Windows and was the first person to use JPEG on a PC This was the dawn of 24-bit color images on the PC. On a 386 you would wait patiently for 10 seconds while your image was decompressed. It seemed we were in less of a rush back then

 

[vol.litwr]

Nicely done! It puts the early history of color graphics into perspective.

This article would not have been possible without your help.

Wow! This is an excellent and thorough description of early bitmapped image display. My first computer with color graphics was a Sun 360 workstation in 1987, but it supported only 16 colors from a fixed palette. Pictures did not look good. In 1990 I bought a PC clone with an ATI Wonder VGA card. It supported 256 color mapped colors in 640x480. Pictures looked pretty good. I was using Rayshade then to render 3D graphics and create simple animations. To display these on Windows 3.0 my business partner and I created the first animation program on Windows, Animaxx. It was a simple design. It would load a small sequence of bitmaps into RAM, assuming one common 256 color palette, and play them back. About the same time I adapted Tom Lane's IJG JPEG from UNIX to Windows and was the first person to use JPEG on a PC This was the dawn of 24-bit color images on the PC. On a 386 you would wait patiently for 10 seconds while your image was decompressed. It seemed we were in less of a rush back then

You started the JPEG era on the PC! Fantastic. And thank you for your kind words about my blog entry. But I still don't have any proof (a screenshot) that the Pro 350 or 325 were actually capable of showing nice pictures...

 

[czunit]

This thread reminded me about how much I liked color graphics on my Pro/350 back in the 1980's. I recently got another 350 (have had 380's since then but no AVO) but it doesn't have the color board.

So I just did a make an offer ($70) on Ebay for a pair of boards listed for $150 with a "I will give them a good home" comment. He accepted and they will be here this weekend.

Sometimes it works. Now to figure out if my color video cable to BNC will drive either my NeXT color monitor or a BNC-VGA adapter that works for my Sun 386i's. We shall see.

 

[cjs]

It's worth noting that from the very start of the '80s there was a whole world of microcomputers happening in Japan where the graphics were generally far ahead of those in North America and Europe, on sub-$1000 machines, too (though the Yen was quite weak at the time). RGB outputs and monitors were quite standard in Japan from about 1979 onwards, allowing for very clear high-resolution displays. The 1981 Fujitsu FM-8 (6809 CPU) was one of the first to offer 640×200 graphics in eight colours; this quickly became the low-end standard. The NEC PC-8801 (Z80 CPU) was released later that year with 640×400 8-colour graphics. By 1985 the Fujitsu FM77AV was doing 320×200 4096-colour graphics (no hold-and-modify or other tricks here: it was a true 4096-colour display with every colour available on every pixel) and the the PC-8801mkIISR was close behind with 640×200 and 640×400 512-colour modes. This demo gives some idea of the capabilities.



Those were the relatively cheap machines (sub-$1000 for the base machine, though going well over $1000 once you added a couple of diskette drives and a monitor), more oriented towards gaming and home use than the business-oriented 16-bit computers that also started appearing in the early '80s. The NEC N5200 (8086 CPU), released in 1981, was one of the first commercially available microcomputers to use the NEC μPD7220 chip. The graphics option for it offered a 640×475 display (I don't know how many colours, but I'm guessing 8), but the chip was capable of much more; the N5200/07 in 1985 was doing 1120×780 in 8 colours. That chip was also used in the PC-98 series (1982 onwards) that basically owned the Japanese business market until IBM clones finally got VGA, which enabled western graphics to catch up with Japanese graphics.

 

[vol.litwr]

@czunit It would be great if you could run my Mandelbrot generator on your 350. This program doesn't require the presence of the EBO.
@cjs Thank you for the information on the top of the range FM-7 and PC-8800. I did not know about these systems. It seems they were extremely rare even in Japan... However, I am going to add information about them to my blog entry. I hope to finish this task this weekend. However, let me share some thoughts about Japanese personal computers. IMHO they were generally no more advanced than the best American or British systems.
The main drawback of the Japanese systems is their weak CPU. The first multicolor models of the FM-77 (the 85-86) used the 6509 @1.6MHz and this is roughly equivalent to the 68000 at 3-4 MHz. The later FM-7s were 25% faster, equivalent to the 68000 at 4-5 MHz. This did not allow 4096 colour graphics to be handled effectively. The 18bpp graphics of the FM77AV 40SX (1988) look like super slow nonsense for the old 8-bit CPU. I'm very curious why they didn't use the Toshiba 6309 instead of the Motorola 6809. The Toshiba chip could give a 100-150% speed boost.
According to Wikipedia, the PC-8801mkIISR is only capable of using 2 colours on the 640x400 screen or 8 colours on the 640x200 screen with a palette size of 512 colours. However, some later models (since 1987) of the PC-8800 are capable of using 65536 colors on the 320x200 screen. This was before the X68000 got its 512x512 16 planes graphics in 1988. The PC-88 VA uses a very unusual processor, the NEC μPD9002, which can be used in two compatibility modes, the Z80 and the 8086. Apparently, the PC-88 only uses the Z80 mode. So we can assume that the μPD9002 @8MHz of the PC-88 VA has the same performance as the Z80@8MHz, which is about the same as the 68000 at 4-5MHz. So the best PC-88 and FM-7 models have roughly the same performance, which is 40-50% below the first Amiga.
IMHO if the C64 was allowed on the Japanese market, it could simply crush all the Japanese 8-bit computers before they were born. The C64 released in 1982 was much better than the MSX-1 released in 1983. The C64 was even better than the MSX-2 released in 1985 in several key features. The C64 had the superior sound chip and hardware horizontal scrolling. The Amiga could help to crush other home systems.
It seems that the Japanese probably had a small advantage over other world producers in the area of cheap video subsystems for the period 1985-88. But these advantages were rather relative, as the DEC Pro was capable of working with 4096 colours since 1982. There was the PGC which was capable of displaying 640x480 graphics with 256 colours using the 4096 color palette since 1984. The Amiga had the faster CPU and fast graphics modes with 32/64 free colors and it was not expensive. The British Pluto II video card, available since 1985, is capable of displaying 256 colours from the 24-bit palette (the true colour!) on the 768x576 screen.

 

[AndrewZ]

This thread reminded me about how much I liked color graphics on my Pro/350 back in the 1980's. I recently got another 350 (have had 380's since then but no AVO) but it doesn't have the color board.

So I just did a make an offer ($70) on Ebay for a pair of boards listed for $150 with a "I will give them a good home" comment. He accepted and they will be here this weekend.

Sometimes it works. Now to figure out if my color video cable to BNC will drive either my NeXT color monitor or a BNC-VGA adapter that works for my Sun 386i's. We shall see.

Do you have the rare Sun "Sidewinder" 386 workstation? I heard about it in about '89 and then it was gone. I have the Pro color graphics card but my 350 has a memory issue and is no longer stable.

 

[cjs]

@cjs Thank you for the information on the top of the range FM-7 and PC-8800. I did not know about these systems. It seems they were extremely rare even in Japan...

Lol. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's fairly massively wrong. The PC-8001/8801 series was the most popular 8-bit home microcomputer in Japan ever, and the most popular overall in the early '80s straight through until 16-bit started to take over the home.

IMHO they were generally no more advanced than the best American or British systems.

If you're comparing early '80s 8-bit computers to late-'80s 16-bit computers, yeah. Not really a fair comparison, though, is it?

The main drawback of the Japanese systems is their weak CPU. The first multicolor models of the FM-77 (the 85-86) used the 6509 @1.6MHz and this is roughly equivalent to the 68000 at 3-4 MHz. The later FM-7s were 25% faster, equivalent to the 68000 at 4-5 MHz.

All FM77s were 2 MHz. I'm not sure where you're getting the 1.6 MHz bit. Perhaps you're thinking of the 1.2 MHz FM-8, released in 1981? This was replaced in 1982 by the 2 MHz FM-7.

But that's only half the story, of course, since the graphics subsystem on both was actually run by a second 6809 processor, allowing the system to do game logic and render graphics in parallel on the two processors. This helps make up for, e.g., lack of sprites.

The AY-3-8910 sound chip (optional on the FM-8; standard on the FM-7) wasn't quite as good as the C64's SID (both were three voices plus noise, but the SID had filters), but overall the FM-8/FM-7 blow away the C64 in terms of capabilities, including a faster main CPU, a second CPU, more RAM (112K vs. 64K), much higher resolution graphics, and so on. All this a year before the C64 even came out.

(Also, it may be worth nothing that by 1985 the C64 had fallen far behind on sound; both the FM77 series and the PC-8801 series had added 3-6 additional voices of FM sound by that point, which could be used along with the PSG sound.)

By your standards, the "weak CPU" issue is a problem with the Apple II, Atari 8-bit series, Commodore 64, Sinclair Spectrum, and pretty much any western computer from the early '80s, probably because you're comparing these with 16-bit computers from 1985 onwards. Perhaps you can see the issue with that comparison.

The PC-88 VA uses a very unusual processor, the NEC μPD9002, which can be used in two compatibility modes, the Z80 and the 8086.

Yeah. You can pretty much ignore that machine; it was a late release of the 8-bit era (1987) and a weird hybrid between the PC-8801 series and PC-9801 series; the PC-88 VA was never very popular nor well supported.

So the best PC-88 and FM-7 models have roughly the same performance, which is 40-50% below the first Amiga.

From 1981 through 1985 their performance was infinitely faster than the Amiga, since the Amiga didn't exist.

IMHO if the C64 was allowed on the Japanese market, it could simply crush all the Japanese 8-bit computers before they were born.

The C64 was not only "allowed" on the Japanese market, but was available here, in a Japanese version. (As were the PET, Radio Shack TRS-80, and the Apple II J-Plus before it. The VIC-20 was even a Japanese-developed machine, released in Japan before it was released in North America.) That the C64 wasn't very successful here was not due to lack of availability; it was due to it being an inferior computer.

Also, your timelines here seem to be utterly random. The C64 was supposed to crush the FM-7 series "before [it was] born" despite coming out a year after the that series started? (And three years after the first PC-8001?) And why do you keep comparing mid- to late-80s 16-bit machines with Japanese 8-bit machines from the early '80s? Rather than to, say, the PC-9801 and X68000 of the late '80s?

Though if the whole point here is to see who had better graphics first, just compare early '80s to early '80s machines.

It seems that the Japanese probably had a small advantage over other world producers in the area of cheap video subsystems for the period 1985-88.

The huge advantage was from 1981-1985; it was lessening by 1985-88, though arguably still there until the IBM PC completely took over the home computer and gaming market. Especially if you consider not just what machines were actually available, but what people were buying. The Amiga was a great machine, but never terribly popular; over the Amgia's entire lifetime it never sold as well as the C64 during the same years. Though that's not really relevant as to who first had graphics capable of doing photos.

But these advantages were rather relative, as the DEC Pro was capable of working with 4096 colours since 1982.

True. But if you're going to compare graphics workstations costing tens of thousands of dollars with home computers, even the Amiga utterly fails with, "too little, too late." I'm not sure what the point of that is.

 

[vol.litwr]

Lol. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's fairly massively wrong. The PC-8001/8801 series was the most popular 8-bit home microcomputer in Japan ever, and the most popular overall in the early '80s straight through until 16-bit started to take over the home.

I only wrote about the late models since 1986 that were capable of showing photos. They are the Sharp X1 turbo Z, Fujitsu FM-77AV, NEC PC-88 VA. It seems that they were very rare and there is almost no software that can use their new multicolour modes.

All FM77s were 2 MHz. I'm not sure where you're getting the 1.6 MHz bit. Perhaps you're thinking of the 1.2 MHz FM-8, released in 1981? This was replaced in 1982 by the 2 MHz FM-7. But that's only half the story, of course, since the graphics subsystem on both was actually run by a second 6809 processor, allowing the system to do game logic and render graphics in parallel on the two processors. This helps make up for, e.g., lack of sprites.

The site shows that the first models of the FM77AV have the reduced frequency of 1.6 MHz. The second processor in a graphics card can theoretically help, but has it actually been used by mainstream software? Are there libraries to handle sprites etc? IMHO the idea of the second processor actually worked rather poor in the 80s.

The AY-3-8910 sound chip (optional on the FM-8; standard on the FM-7) wasn't quite as good as the C64's SID (both were three voices plus noise, but the SID had filters), but overall the FM-8/FM-7 blow away the C64 in terms of capabilities, including a faster main CPU, a second CPU, more RAM (112K vs. 64K), much higher resolution graphics, and so on. All this a year before the C64 even came out.

I doubt the first FM7 and FM8 had that much RAM, it was too expensive. The FM-8 even used the exotic and expensive bubble RAM. The C64 has 16 colors while the first FM7 has 8.

(Also, it may be worth nothing that by 1985 the C64 had fallen far behind on sound; both the FM77 series and the PC-8801 series had added 3-6 additional voices of FM sound by that point, which could be used along with the PSG sound.)

Maybe in theory the late Japanese FM77, PC8801 etc have more advanced audio systems than the SID, but we have tons of excellent music for the SID and Amiga and almost nothing for the Japanese systems except MSX-2 AY3 music.

The C64 was not only "allowed" on the Japanese market, but was available here, in a Japanese version. (As were the PET, Radio Shack TRS-80, and the Apple II J-Plus before it. The VIC-20 was even a Japanese-developed machine, released in Japan before it was released in North America.) That the C64 wasn't very successful here was not due to lack of availability; it was due to it being an inferior computer.

I agree that the processor of the FM7 is much (2-3 times) faster than in the C64. The processor of the PC-8800 is only up to 50% faster. But the main feature of any computer is its software. The C64 has excellent games, GEOS, productivity soft, etc. You know the primitive VIC-20 had some success in Japan and this means that the much more advanced the C64 might have had the great success if it had been allowed. The C64 was also cheaper.
In addition, there is evidence that the C64 gained a certain amount of popularity in Japan in the 90s because of its popularity and its super software...

The Amiga was a great machine, but never terribly popular; over the Amgia's entire lifetime it never sold as well as the C64 during the same years. Though that's not really relevant as to who first had graphics capable of doing photos.

There were other systems that could display photos, but the Amiga actually did it. The Dec Pro missed that opportunity for 40 years! The relatively low popularity of the Amiga was caused more by the Commodore management, who probably had some serious reasons to act rather strangely at times. BTW the same is very true for the DEC management.

But if you're going to compare graphics workstations costing tens of thousands of dollars with home computers, even the Amiga utterly fails with, "too little, too late." I'm not sure what the point of that is.

The DEC Pro was not that much expensive, its price was close to the IBM PC with a similar configuration.

 

[vol.litwr]

@cjs I have added information about multicolor Japanese PC to my blog entry. Thanks.

Japan produced other computers capable of beautifully displaying photographic images. The X68000 succeeded the previous Sharp X1 line of computers, which had been in production since 1982. The top-of-the-line X1 turbo Z, which was in production since 1986, has a 320x200 video mode with 4096 free colours, with a palette of the same 4096 colours. Surprisingly, the main processor of this top-end model was, as on the initial model, the Z80@4MHz, which is clearly too small for the video mode, where the screen image requires almost 96 KB of video memory.

Fujitsu, better known as a major player in the mainframe business, had been producing the FM-7 line of computers since 1982. The top-end versions of these computers were labelled FM-77 and were produced from 1984. Starting with the FM77AV, produced from 1985, they could use a video mode similar to the X1 turbo Z. And the latest models from the end of 1987 could even display 18 bpp (262144 free colours!) in a 320x200 image. The processor for all FM-77s was the Motorola 6809 at frequencies ranging from 1.6 (pre-1987) to 2 MHz (from 1987). Although the later FM-77 models were faster than the Sharp X1, they were not much faster and it was not enough to use 12 bpp graphics effectively, let alone 18 bpp. One wonders why they didn't use the pin-compatible Hitachi 6309 instead of the 6809. The 6309 can be up to 50% faster at the same frequency.

NEC, Japan's largest chip and personal computer manufacturer, had been producing various variants of the PC-8800 series of computers since 1981. Some models of this line, produced from 1987, supported graphics up to 640x408 with 256 free colours or 640x204 with 65536 free colours from a palette of 65536 colours. However, the multicolour modes of the PC-8800, FM-77 and X1 were almost never used. And these models themselves, capable of showing colour photos, were rare even in Japan and completely unknown in other countries.

 

[vol.litwr]

The C64 was supposed to crush the FM-7 series "before [it was] born" despite coming out a year after the that series started? (And three years after the first PC-8001?)

The FM-7 first model appeared at the same 1982 as the C64. The FM-8 was from 1981 but it was very exotic and expensive. Wikipedia claims that the first PC-8001 appeared in 1981 and had very primitive 160x100 graphics with 8 colors.

 

[vol.litwr]

By your standards, the "weak CPU" issue is a problem with the Apple II, Atari 8-bit series, Commodore 64, Sinclair Spectrum, and pretty much any western computer from the early '80s, probably because you're comparing these with 16-bit computers from 1985 onwards. Perhaps you can see the issue with that comparison.

I just wrote that the top Japanese 8-bit systems had CPUs that were too weak to effectively handle their advanced graphics. So those graphics were more of an unusable extra. The C64, Apple II etc were simply better balanced.

 

[cjs]

Ok, I'm going to get a bit sarcastic here, because between your carelessness with dates and your lack of understanding of computing systems outside your special little happy realm of Amiga, you're missing a lot of good and interesting information. Sorry, but not sorry.

I only wrote about the late models since 1986 that were capable of showing photos.

Ah, that would explain it! Presumably the photos I showed you from an actual 1985 model are not actually "photos." Or you don't believe that photos before 1986 "count."

They are the Sharp X1 turbo Z, Fujitsu FM-77AV, NEC PC-88 VA. It seems that they were very rare and there is almost no software that can use their new multicolour modes.

Yup. Fujitsu was so totally wrong thinking that they released the FM-77AV in 1985, when it was actually 1986. And of course 512 colours is not enough to display photos, which is why NEC V2 graphics don't count.

As for rare, what can I say? Yes, of course they were rare, because non-Americans don't count when it comes to who has computers, right?

The site shows that the first models of the FM77AV have the reduced frequency of 1.6 MHz.

Ah! Right:

Silly me, I had thought that the 2 MHz operating mode was more common, because most software I'd encountered here in Japan doesn't use the MMR. But you of course know better than me what the MMR is and why most software was using it. Perhaps you can enlighten me about this.

The second processor in a graphics card can theoretically help, but has it actually been used by mainstream software?

Perhaps not. Perhaps you can explain to me how you would display something on an FM-7 without using the second processor. I can't figure that out myself, nor have any of the FM-7 game programmers figured that out, but we all wait for you to enlighten us.

I doubt the first FM7 and FM8 had that much RAM, it was too expensive.

Yup, you must be right. The actual FM-8 and FM-7s that I own must have fake chips plugged into the motherboard, and my programs that actually use that memory mysteriously work despite that memory not actually existing.

The FM-8 even used the exotic and expensive bubble RAM.

Ok, you just blew me up here; I don't even know how to be sarcastic about this any more. Do you even know how bubble memory was used back in the day? It was a mass storage device, not main memory. Presumably now you complain about USB sticks and SSDs as being "exotic and expensive" and think that they should be replaced by DRAM.

The C64 has 16 colors while the first FM7 has 8.

Yup. But the C64 has no RGB, so the display looks terrible in comparison, and that's even before you start comparing the C64's 320×200 resolution with the FM-7's 640×200 resolution. (The C64 cannot even display 320 pixels across, except in black and white, because the only way you'll ever get that with CVBS output is to use a monochrome monitor.)

Maybe in theory the late Japanese FM77, PC8801 etc have more advanced audio systems than the SID, but we have tons of excellent music for the SID and Amiga and almost nothing for the Japanese systems except MSX-2 AY3 music.

You don't have "tons of excellent music" for OPL systems because you're ignorant can't be arsed to do a very basic YouTube search. You could start with the bog-standard YS II soundtrack, which isn't anything special for the PC-8801mkIIsR, and then go on to, say, this bit of the Grounseed - Akira soundtrack (PC-98, but same sound chips), which clearly blows away the C64. And that's long before you get into anybody doing seriously interesting tracker stuff.

I agree that the processor of the FM7 is much (2-3 times) faster than in the C64.

Well, bingo, there you go. 2-3 times faster processor, and 75% more memory, and a second processor for graphics, for about 20% cheaper, at 1982 exchange rates.

The processor of the PC-8800 is only up to 50% faster. But the main feature of any computer is its software. The C64 has excellent games, GEOS, productivity soft, etc.

Would you say you're pretty familiar with all the software available for the FM-7 series?

You know the primitive VIC-20 had some success in Japan...

Not really. The Japanese designed and made VIC-20 was far more successful in North America and Europe, because it didn't have the harsh competition that it had in Japan.

...and this means that the much more advanced the C64 might have had the great success if it had been allowed.

Dude, it was "allowed". We had Japanese C64s, just as we had Japanese VIC-20s (before the VIC-20 came out) and Japanese Apple IIs and Japanese TRS-80s and Japanese Commodore PETs. It just wasn't good enough to compete here, and thus ended up worse off than even against the Spectrum in the U.K.

The C64 was also cheaper.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. The FM-7 was ¥127,000 at it's introduction in 1982. Have a look at historical exchange rates to help you out to figure out what this is in USD.

In addition, there is evidence that the C64 gained a certain amount of popularity in Japan in the 90s because of its popularity and its super software...

I would love to see this evidence.

There were other systems that could display photos, but the Amiga actually did it.

Yeah. Not like that demo I showed you that was displaying photos before the Amgia did it.

The DEC Pro was not that much expensive, its price was close to the IBM PC with a similar configuration.

Sorry, which configuration was this? You seem to be comparing 1992 PC configurations with 1985 DEC Pro configurations. But feel free to point out particular models in the same year of release.

The FM-7 first model appeared at the same 1982 as the C64.

Yes, exactly my point. It was a cheaper system with 75% more memory, more processing power, and much better graphics (at the slight cost of 8 colours instead of 16).

The FM-8 was from 1981 but it was very exotic and expensive.

For you, yes. For those of us in Japan, cheaper than an Apple II. And far better than anything Commodore offered that year.

Wikipedia claims that the first PC-8001 appeared in 1981 and had very primitive 160x100 graphics with 8 colors.

You need to find the real Wikipedia, which says:

And yes, 160x100 with 8 colours. But also 80x25 text with 8 colours. Which one of your computers was doing anything like that even five years later?

I just wrote that the top Japanese 8-bit systems had CPUs that were too weak to effectively handle their advanced graphics. So those graphics were more of an unusable extra. The C64, Apple II etc were simply better balanced.

Yeah, if you play the games, you'll see the difference. Or even watch them on YouTube. But you don't, so you won't.

 

[cjs]

BTW, as just a random "pretty nice sound" and "decent graphics" demo from the first year after the PC-8801mkIISR was released in '85, try the Slipheed demo. (In particular, try to replicate the text at 04:30 on a C64, if you think you're particularly clever.)

 

[vol.litwr]

Ah, that would explain it! Presumably the photos I showed you from an actual 1985 model are not actually "photos." Or you don't believe that photos before 1986 "count."
Yup. Fujitsu was so totally wrong thinking that they released the FM-77AV in 1985, when it was actually 1986. And of course 512 colours is not enough to display photos, which is why NEC V2 graphics don't count.

Thanks I like your good mood. I hope I can try to improve it a bit more.
So you claim that the FM77AV from 1985 can show photos like the Sharp X1 turbo Z. I agree I made a typo and confused 1986 and 1985 to please you. Are you happier now? But you confused me too, you claimed that I was correct when wrote about 1986 for the FM77AV, didn't you? I use 1985 in my blog entry, should I correct this?
The NEV v2 mode has a palette of 512 colors but only 8 free colors. You can't correctly show color photos using only 8 colors, it is a well known fact.

As for rare, what can I say? Yes, of course they were rare, because non-Americans don't count when it comes to who has computers, right?

Less than 950,000 PC-8800 were shipped, for the FM-7 this number is less than 220,000. The top models after 1985 were a smaller part of the whole.

Perhaps you can explain to me how you would display something on an FM-7 without using the second processor. I can't figure that out myself, nor have any of the FM-7 game programmers figured that out, but we all wait for you to enlighten us.

I am just curios was there a sprite library for the co-pro?

Yup, you must be right. The actual FM-8 and FM-7s that I own must have fake chips plugged into the motherboard, and my programs that actually use that memory mysteriously work despite that memory not actually existing.

Ok, the 64 KB was the standard for the first FM-7. I have confused your figure for the total amount of RAM with the amount of CPU RAM.

Ok, you just blew me up here; I don't even know how to be sarcastic about this any more. Do you even know how bubble memory was used back in the day? It was a mass storage device, not main memory. Presumably now you complain about USB sticks and SSDs as being "exotic and expensive" and think that they should be replaced by DRAM.

I just wrote that it was an expensive technology that was removed from later models. Anyway, the FM-8 was costly and much slower than the FM7 that was also much cheaper.

Yup. But the C64 has no RGB, so the display looks terrible in comparison, and that's even before you start comparing the C64's 320×200 resolution with the FM-7's 640×200 resolution. (The C64 cannot even display 320 pixels across, except in black and white, because the only way you'll ever get that with CVBS output is to use a monochrome monitor.)

You made a rather controversial claim. The IBM PC CGA shows much better colors on an analog display than on an RGB one... Actually I had a Commodore but now I use emulators and they show distinct 320 color pixels. Modern emulators are very accurate. It would be great if you could prove your point. The Commodore has multicolor mode that has the 160x200 graphic resolution, the pixels in this mode are twice as wide as in hires mode.
Watch this nice C64 picture. Can the FM-7 graphics present something similar?
Moreover the C64 has smooth hardware horizontal scrolling, a killer feature that allowed the VIC-20 to kill the TI-99/4a despite the latter's had hardware sprites and other advantages.

You don't have "tons of excellent music" for OPL systems because you're ignorant can't be arsed to do a very basic YouTube search. You could start with the bog-standard YS II soundtrack, which isn't anything special for the PC-8801mkIIsR, and then go on to, say, this bit of the Grounseed - Akira soundtrack (PC-98, but same sound chips), which clearly blows away the C64. And that's long before you get into anybody doing seriously interesting tracker stuff.

It seems I overestimated the audio capabilities of the late FM-7 and PC-8800. They just use more audio channels. I like the music on the AY3, but it is simply impossible to listen to it for long. Your ear just starts to hurt. The SID produces much warmer and better music. I am not an audio hardware expert, but it seems that the SID filters do the magic.

Well, bingo, there you go. 2-3 times faster processor, and 75% more memory, and a second processor for graphics, for about 20% cheaper, at 1982 exchange rates. Would you say you're pretty familiar with all the software available for the FM-7 series?

C64 prices soon began to drop. And check your logic. Only about 100,000 units of the FM-77AV were shipped between 1985 and 1989. So it was a marginal thing even for Japan. The MSX and the PC-8800 were much more popular. But the C64 was much better than the MSX-1 or the PC-8800. So if the C64 was allowed there, it could easily crush all the Japanese home gaming computers.
Actually I like the FM-7. It has a powerful processor, interesting co-processor graphics, and a pretty good audio system. But somehow it could not compete with theoretically less powerful machines. I don't know why. You know Japanese things much better than I do. It would be great if you could share your knowledge with us.
I know that the software list for the FM-7 is much shorter than for the MSX and the software list for the FM-7 is much shorter than for the MSX. I know that MSX can run CP/M and FM-7 can run OS-9. However, neither MSX-2 nor FM-7 had anything like GEOS software, such as the excellent GeoWrite, GeoCalc, ...
BTW the C64 also has a second co-pro for graphics, the VIC-II.

Dude, it was "allowed". We had Japanese C64s, just as we had Japanese VIC-20s (before the VIC-20 came out) and Japanese Apple IIs and Japanese TRS-80s and Japanese Commodore PETs. It just wasn't good enough to compete here, and thus ended up worse off than even against the Spectrum in the U.K.

Your claim that the C64 was in Japan in 1982 is correct, but only for a short time. It seems that the big changes within Commodore affected their Japanese strategies very much. The Amiga didn't reach Japan either.

I would love to see this evidence.

https://www.lemon64.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=79532 and you can find more if you want this.

Yeah. Not like that demo I showed you that was displaying photos before the Amgia did it.

The Amiga was released before the FM77AV, and the C64 was released before the FM7.

Sorry, which configuration was this? You seem to be comparing 1992 PC configurations with 1985 DEC Pro configurations. But feel free to point out particular models in the same year of release.

Sorry, but you are completely missed this information. Check this out. And you can easily find more proof of this.

You need to find the real Wikipedia, which says:
View attachment 1273583
And yes, 160x100 with 8 colours. But also 80x25 text with 8 colours. Which one of your computers was doing anything like that even five years later?

We are talking about the PC-8800 not the PC-8000 and the PC-8800 was released in 1981 with very primitive 160x100 graphics.

BTW, as just a random "pretty nice sound" and "decent graphics" demo from the first year after the PC-8801mkIISR was released in '85, try the Slipheed demo. (In particular, try to replicate the text at 04:30 on a C64, if you think you're particularly clever.)

It reminds me the famous Elite game. IMHO the graphics on the BBC Micro was smoother but I accept that the FM-7 shows more details.