XPost: comp.sys.cbm   
   From: as@sci.fi   
      
   Cameron Kaiser  writes:   
      
   >>As best I can estimate - and an article in the IEEE Spectrum magazine   
   >>supports this - the matter was discussed within Commodore, and it was   
   >>decided that VIC-20 compatibility was more important than disk speed.   
   >  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   >>Perhaps the prospect of a 1541 redesign was an important part of the   
   >>decision, since current inventories needed to be taken into account.   
      
   > Therefore it was management's decision to make the 1541 still be a 1540 for   
   > VIC-20 users, meaning there was no hope for the 64. This comes from Jim   
   > Butterfield, who is generally not noted for merely 'interesting claims'.   
      
   Jim Butterfield is certainly highly regarded, but when he contradicts   
   an actual C64 design engineer, I doubt. Then again, "as best I can   
   estimate" is hardly a firm statement.   
      
   The IEEE Spectrum article Butterfield mentions is presumably the one   
   from 1985 available at   
   http://www.commodore.ca/gallery/magazines/c64_design/c64_design.htm.   
   It quotes Al Charpentier who says marketing wanted VIC-20   
   compatibility for the C64, but in the end C64's VIC-20 compatibility   
   is extremely minimal. It isn't even compatible with the 1540. I don't   
   really see any support in there for a requirement that the 1541 needed   
   to be VIC-20 compatible.   
      
   I think I'll rather believe Robert Russell on this.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)