• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Commodore 16 and Commodore Plus/4

T

tezza

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Messages
4,731
Location
New Zealand
Just an update on some additions to my collection to anyone who might be interested:

I was given both a C16 and a Plus/4 by someone who didn't want them They were untested and had no PSUs.

The PSU on the Commodore 16 was easy. I just used a spare one I had for my Sinclair Spectrum. The PSU issue on the Plus/4 was solved by changing the square socket to a round one poached off a C64 junk-board plus some jumpering. I could then use the C64 PSU.

Both machines booted! The C16 is fine but the Plus/4 had an issue with tracks lifting off the delicate ribbon keyboard connector. I managed to hack up a fix but it will probably only last as long as the next time I unplug it. Despite this some of the keys take a fair amount of pressing to get a response. I'm sure it's the membrane rather than the connector at fault here. The feel of the Plus/4 keyboard has to be one of the worst I've come across. Very mushy, similar to my Atari 130XE.

As with my recent TI-99/4a find, getting these two machines made me find out a lot more about them. Even though they are certainly not classics and are generally derided, the whole TED thing is an interesting part of Commodore history in it's own right. I'll probably add them to my formal collection, get a software library, write a restoration article, make a video etc.

They will give me something to play with in the coming winter months here in New Zealand. :) The TI-99/4a will be done first though.

Tez
 
I've always thought that the Commodore 16 was a bit of a square peg for a round hole... the market had moved beyond such small memory amounts by then, and if people were going to spend money, why not spend the extra bit and get the Commodore 64? I wonder how many people bought the C16 thinking it could run C64 software.

I have to agree about the Plus/4 keyboard. In pictures, it looks fantastic, but in reality it was pretty obnoxious. I also thought that the 4 productivity programs were a neat gimmick, but ultimately hindered the computer for software development.

For the record, my TED chip lasted about two weeks and blew up. And that was the end of my Plus/4 ownership, I used it as an excuse to get something else.
 
I should also mention that I eventually got a Commodore 128 (128D, to be precise). That's a fantastic machine, and if it weren't for the Plus/4 the C128 wouldn't have been what it was, so ultimately I'm glad that the Plus/4 existed.
 
I have a C16 and think the color scheme looks pretty nice, better then the C64/C64C. No idea why commodore would release a 16KB machine when they did, or why they would change the ports so you needed special power bricks joysticks and stuff.
 
I agree on the C16 charcoal/grey colour scheme. I like it. I stands out from others of the day.

Tez
 
The Commodore 264 series was created as a response to the Sinclair ZX Spectrum (with the rubber-keyboard C116) and the Japanese MSX machines (with the C264). But along the way, somebody at Commodore got the bright idea to put the C116 in the same case as the VIC-20 and C64 and call it the C16, and to bundle the C264 with some buggy business software in ROM and call it the Plus/4. I'm sure Jack Tramiel would not have approved either decision, but by that time he was already gone from Commodore and they probably decided that they had already spent too much money on developing the 264 series to cancel it entirely.

The C16 was marketed as a replacement for the VIC-20 (even though it wasn't compatible with VIC-20 software or hardware) and although Commodore insisted it wasn't intended to compete with or to replace the C64, the Plus/4 was originally priced about the same as the C64 in the USA. So it was a total mess and neither model sold well, except in Europe where the C64 was more expensive and the market for low-cost home computers had not dried up so quickly like it did in the USA in 1984.

The TI-99/4A is built like a tank compared to the Plus/4, and that's part of why TI left the home computer business -- they couldn't make them cheap enough to keep up with the price war between them and Commodore and Atari. The TI-99/4A is a solidly-built, fun-to-use computer, but at least here in the USA, it has no collector's value -- you can easily find them for $10 or less, including games and accessories.
 
I thought the plus/4 was a pretty interesting attempt. It's hard to retro-relate to what the genuine thoughts would be back then on whether folks would buy in to it but I do think it was an interesting realization of bundling some common apps to make it instantly productive. If they had done that with a system with a regular keyboard perhaps it could have been a bit more successful.
 
barythrin said:
I thought the plus/4 was a pretty interesting attempt. It's hard to retro-relate to what the genuine thoughts would be back then on whether folks would buy in to it but I do think it was an interesting realization of bundling some common apps to make it instantly productive. If they had done that with a system with a regular keyboard perhaps it could have been a bit more successful.
Click to expand...

The Sinclair QL fit into the same market segment at roughly the same time as the plus/4 of inexpensive business computer sold with a mediocre integrated software package. On the PC side, bunches of clone companies tossed in similar software to create equivalent setups. Just something in the water at the time. Businesses spent slightly more and got better computers with better software instead.

The problem with the Plus/4 was something endemic to early 80s computer business: design a cheap system then add items that increase manufacturing cost without permitting increases in retail pricing. A business C64 would have fetched higher prices with much smaller development costs.
 
I remember the local coin/stamp/baseball card store had a C64 with 1541 setup as a database for their inventory and want lists in the 1980's. There was no real reason to buy a business version of the C64 when the C64 itself was good enough.
 
Something designed for personal "serious use" (small business or even database/spreadsheet and wordprocessing tasks at home) has to look and feel professional. In my view PART of the reason of the failures (in both cases there were other big reasons) of both the C Plus/4 and the Sinclair QL, was that they just felt/were too toy-like for serious uses. Both had terrible keyboards, and a cheap look/feel.

I must admit to being quite disappointed when I finally got hold of both these machines, to discover just how cheap and nasty they felt to use (you don't see this just from an ad). In both these cases, the penny-pinching really showed up.

To me, a good keyboard is essential if the market is for those who intend to use the keyboard a lot (as opposed to using a joystick a lot).

Tez
 
Of course you could still buy one of the later PET/CBM models if you wanted a serious business computer from Commodore, although of course you wouldn't be able to get one for $88 like you could get the Plus/4 for after it ended up at the surplus liquidators. :)

Steve Benway's review of the C16 is worth watching, if you haven't already... he does have a rather negative opinion of the machine, but he does give a good explanation of Commodore's original intent in designing the 264 series and how it all went wrong:

 
The first time I saw/used/heard of a C16 and Plus/4 was at a friend's house in 1990. I've never seen one in a store or in the wild and I've been to garage sales, op shops and second hand dealers almost every week since 1990, so I've been very unlucky or they are extremely rare here or both.

We just used them for playing games, I liked the look of them but that was mostly because I'd never seen them before.

I look forward to your videos on these.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly there seems to be a few active sites supporting these machines. New programs and demos are being made, so some people still love them. (-:
http://www.plus4world.com/
http://www.commodore16.com/

At least I know now where to go to get software. I want to get one of the 1541 solid-state replacement solutions first though.

I'm not sure if the video comment was meant for me or vwestlife, as we both review machines. However I'm sure I will do a review of both the C16 and Plus/4 once I've got software and had a good play. It will be later rather than sooner though as they are low on the priority list. My video run has come to a halt for a few weeks as a non-computer project soaks up my weekends.

Tez
 
As someone who's somehow ended up owning two plus/4, lemme clue you in to a little tidbit...

When they are new/low usage, the keyboards are bloody brilliant, one of the best of the era in machines of that form factor; BUT ... THEY AGE LIKE MILK! -- literally they fade like cheap brake pads; the springs start making creaking noises, they no longer push back as hard, Lemmy help you if any of them 'snap', The plastics seem to degrade into a rough dust you can feel scratching on every keypress, until eventually they jam and won't go up and down at all until you completely break it down for a cleaning and re-alignment -- and to be frank, once you do that, they're NEVER the same again.

Pretty much once the springs loosen up and you can hear them on every keypress, it's doomed.

To me one of the biggest problems of the plus/4 is the same problem that plagued the PCJr -- non-standard connectors that are pin to pin compatible with existing connectors; if it's wiring compatible the ONLY excuses for changing them is the connector is cheaper, or attempting to introduce vendor lock-in. When it comes to cheaper, it's like these companies never realized that saving a few pennies between a 10 cent and 12 cent per unit box of 1000 pieces doesn't mean anything if it's going to cost you sales. Goofy mini-din on the plus/4, BERG connectors on the PCJr, or even (excuse me as I blaspheme) the goofy "cost saving" tricks woz played with the Apple II (that STILL ended up 50% more expensive for everything than it's nearest competitor) - they cause problems that are more likely to make people NOT buy the system. (probably why despite being knee deep in computers since 1977, I never even saw an Apple II in person until 1988, and they were locked away at my high school as they cost too much to risk letting students damage them... no, that's not a joke)

These 'race to the bottom' systems simply cut corners people didn't want cut.
 
I was a loyal Commodore user from the get go but always hated the springy keyboards. Is the Plus/4 like that? I've been playing around with my 116 and that keyboard is no joy... but not as bad as I had heard. Certainly not as bad as the Sinclair ZX81. I want to get a plus/4 and 16 to complete the set.
 
I can confirm that the keyboard feel of the C16 is exactly the same as the C64. In fact, I find it strange that Commodore gave their lowest-cost computer (the C16) the same ruggedly-built, solid, sturdy case and keyboard as the C64, while the more expensive "business" model (Plus/4) got a cheap brittle plastic "toy" case and flimsy keyboard with rubber arrow key buttons. Don't you think it should've been the other way around!?
 
Also consider the C116 with its rubber keyboard, which I think represents the very first model in the line, although it may not have materialized until long past the 264, 364 and 232 models. Something I always wondered if whether a membrane keyboard with rubber keys is that much cheaper to manufacture than the full travel rubber dome keyboards that Commodore already purchased off Mitsumi in huge volumes. That meaning would it really have kept the price down, and how much does the plastic shell cost per square inch? I suppose if the original target a RRP of $49 could have been held, even for a 16K machine, it would have been a moderate success at places but with feature creep and delays it didn't become that super cheap computer to give the ZX Spectrum a run for its money.

Regarding the ZX Spectrum, it was released in the UK in the spring of 1982 if I recall correctly. The TED prototype was out in August 1983, and would at best have hit the Christmas sales of 1983. Even then the ZX would have had almost 2 years worth of software, user groups, books, marketing etc to defeat itself to a new Commodore computer that had very little or no backwards compatibility anyway. To me it would have made more sense to manufacture a MAX Machine, either with movable rubber keys instead of the touch keyboard, or full VIC/C64 keyboard. I've seen rumoured figures from the summer of 1983 that a C64 would cost less than a VIC-20 to manufacture, but I'm not sure those figures are authentic. In any case, something like a "Commodore 32" with VIC-II, SID and less RAM than a C64 might have been possible to sell at a competitive price already by the spring or summer of 1983. Of course it would have effectively killed off the VIC-20 by a year earlier than it did. There also was the VIC-40 project, replacing the VIC chip in the VIC-20 with a 40 column one but I've learned it would have required too fast, too expensive SRAM to work so probably it was not the ZX Spectrum killer after all.
 
Membrane keyboards with keycaps cost about half what a proper keyboard would in similar quantities. I suspect the bigger reason for the Plus/4 having the keyboard it got was the costs of retooling a manufacturing plant to produce slightly larger cases and keyboards that would be needed to added a full set of cursor keys to a C64 derivative. So Commodore lost many millions in liquidated merchandise because they saved a few million up front.
 
Funny how the companies that sold equipment for serious work (Northgate, IBM) had the best and longest lasting keyboards made. Commodore and Atari had the worst keyboards for home use. Even DELL , Gateway, and Apple had decent keyboards early on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top