classic battle atari 8bit vs commodore 64

[phuzaxeman]

The battle was never Commodore 64 vs Spectrum in North America. It was Apple versus everybody.

 

 

The question is, why people anyhow could prefer something created by Apple. Even the new I-Phone i would not by , because it's from that rotten fruit club.

Actually, if someone would say: Buy an Imac or a C64 for your live, I would buy the C64... even if I never got used to it.

 

 

if you're in the film or music biz, the majority if not all of them use macs.....macs are the industry standard in those fileds.

Edited July 20, 2007 by phuzaxeman

[Jetboot Jack]

Hardly phuzaxeman, whilst some people might use MAC's - that's their preference...

 

99% of animators, film editors, mo-cap studios, modellers, etc etc use PC systems - at least from my experience on set or in the studio and from anecdotal evidence of friends I have a places like Pixar and PDI...

 

sTeVE

[emkay]

if you're in the film or music biz, the majority if not all of them use macs.....macs are the industry standard in those fileds.

 

The truth is that people who write reports for magazines not only use Mac's. They talk about them like of the 7th world wonder.

Actually, some spended money onto the right place and an opinion can be changed ...

And who's opinion is better to be influenced than of peoples that is read by other people?

 

In real a Mac is nothing else than a PC with an incompatible OS that now can be used with windows and the Hardware is 2nd choice that is only as double as expensive, because of the styling.

 

The most interesting thing is that Apple is not able to do a proper working I-Net Browser for Windows....

[Jetboot Jack]

Back on topic

 

The problem with the comparison of the machines is the lack of definition for the criteria for comparing.

 

Is it one of these:

• Which machine is the more capable games machine - i.e. which machine is home to the most and best QUALITY of games?
  
• Which machine is capable of displaying the highest quality images - defined by resolution, color depth, has the most examples of screen artwork that subjectivley are most visually satisfying?
  
• Which machine is the most flexible and user friendly as a home office machine?
  
• Which machine has the most powerful hardware (chip features), and demonstrates it?
  

If we can agree on which one it is (or another one) then perhaps we can have a debate.

 

BUT I feel personally that we need to work on demonstrating the A8's features - C64 owners can point to subjectively amazing pieces of artwork, superb demos and great games with ease - the faithful here can posit their belief in the machine, but hardly any tangible examples that stack up (I'm not saying no good examples, but not many)...

 

sTeVE

[Goochman]

My neighbor got a C64 and a crap load of games/utilities that I never got for my 800/130XE. Many of these games/apps were of better quality (EA titles anyone ) - Therefore in my book the C64 wins by a slim margin since noob programming in basic was easier and I learned more than my neighbor

[Fröhn]

Fröhn, it seems to me that you have some misunderstanding about the flip semantics in DirectX. Note that Ms infinite wisdom changed the defaults across versions.

 

[...]

 

Some crappy drivers might not follow exactly, and some cards are unable to implement all the options. But disregarding driver issues and hardware limitations, what you want is an async call.

So basically it's all there and it works, but nobody ever uses it? I have NEVER seen a single example of a 100% smooth animation under windows/directx. Even the most basic examples which only do flip calls and 1 small blit are NOT 100% smooth.

 

The truth is that people who write reports for magazines not only use Mac's. They talk about them like of the 7th world wonder.

Hehe true. Which reminds me of this page:

 

One thing PC users can do that Mac users can't

 

The problem with the comparison of the machines is the lack of definition for the criteria for comparing.

 

Is it one of these:

[*]Which machine is the more capable games machine - i.e. which machine is home to the most and best QUALITY of games?

Depends a lot on the game genre.

 

3D games -> A8

Jump'n'run games -> C64

 

[*]Which machine is capable of displaying the highest quality images - defined by resolution, color depth, has the most examples of screen artwork that subjectivley are most visually satisfying?

Lot's of colors but low resolution -> A8

Less colors but high resolution -> C64

 

[*]Which machine is the most flexible and user friendly as a home office machine?

Faster default disk IO -> A8

GEOS -> C64

 

[*]Which machine has the most powerful hardware (chip features), and demonstrates it?

The A8 has a lot of graphic modes, is very flexible in using them without hacks and has a palette of 128 colors.

The C64 has a way better sprite engine and color cells on every mode.

[peteym5]

No it doesn't. You can do 99% smooth scrolling, but not 100%. Every now and then it will STILL jump, even though there is loads of CPU time free. DirectX only provides the possibility to wait for a vertical blank or to flip with a backbuffer and wait for vblank, however it does NOT say which vertical blank it will wait for. The next one? Perhaps... but not always.

 

If by not 100% you mean that sometimes you might get a glitch, well you are right. That's precisely a realtime issue.

Realtime is not needed as long as enough free CPU time is there to compensate. Look at AmigaOS, it can do 100% smooth scrolling without disabling the scheduler.

 

It is precisely a realtime issue. The API does say it will wait for the next vertical blank. What it cannot do is to guarantee that.

 

No free CPU time can compensate for the lack or realtime behavior. And of course that AmigaOS is much more realtime than Windows. Still if some Amiga low level task will block the CPU for a full frame, then nothing can help it. The difference is that you don't have nearly as many current processes, tasks and drivers on the Amiga as on the PC (and that possibly the Amiga OS is optimized for giving higher priority to the video).

 

This is also an issue of your PCs hardware. Newer Video Cards and CPUs. I have written a side scrolling BoulderDash clone on the PC, and it scrolls just fine. There are some programming tricks that can be done to get fine scrolling. Most people are developing Direct3D games now.

 

http://www.petermeyer.net is my website. game is called Boulder Evader. I am currently involved with a 3D RPG maker called Realm Magic

 

About my statement about 128 colors on the A8 verses 16 on the C64. Atari actually has 256, but only available on GTIA modes (80x192). I believe I read somewhere the reason you only had 8 lumas available on Antic modes was that there was an error made in production and Atari was rushing their system to market. Also Atari ended up with a huge stockpile of ANTIC and GTIA chips and why the same chips ended up all the 8bit systems up to the XE game system put out in 1987.

 

I know engineers at Atari were proposing upgrades, but the owners did not go for it. Personally I wish Atari updated the chipset before marketing the XL and XE series and have it backward compatible. Imagine have 8 or 16 players instead of 4 players + 4 missiles? All 16 lumas available for your Antic Modes? The Text color independent from the background?

Edited July 20, 2007 by peteym5

[emkay]

http://www.petermeyer.net is my website. game is called Boulder Evader. I am currently involved with a 3D RPG maker called Realm Magic

 

Hm...

 

I wanted to try out your Boulder Evader game. But it simply cannot be started by an "COMDLG32.OCX may be to old" ERROR.

 

Actually, I have Vista Ultimate 64 bit. The OCX (5.1.43.19) is dated to 1997. I guess it's by the 64 Bit "WOW32" compatibility thingy. Perhaps on 32 bit Vista is a newer one. Now it's my question, were to get a full working file without buying a Visual Basic license ...

Isn't it possible to make the games without that library?

Edited July 20, 2007 by emkay

[peteym5]

http://www.petermeyer.net is my website. game is called Boulder Evader. I am currently involved with a 3D RPG maker called Realm Magic

 

Hm...

 

I wanted to try out your Boulder Evader game. But it simply cannot be started by an "COMDLG32.OCX may be to old" ERROR.

 

Actually, I have Vista Ultimate 64 bit. The OCX (5.1.43.19) is dated to 1997. I guess it's by the 64 Bit "WOW32" compatibility thingy. Perhaps on 32 bit Vista is a newer one. Now it's my question, were to get a full working file without buying a Visual Basic license ...

Isn't it possible to make the games without that library?

 

Yes thankyou, I have to look into this personally. This does demonstrate a problem with PC and Microsoft, you make your program on an older version, MS updates everything and creates problems. I also discovered an older version is on my site. I will looking into the COMDLG32.OCX problem. It is necessary component for the editor that allows you to open and select files. Some sites may have this file, need to do some Google searching.

Edited July 20, 2007 by peteym5

[Jetboot Jack]

Fröhn - I can see where you are going, but I think this reductive approach does serve a meaningful comparison...

 

Which machine is the more capable games machine - i.e. which machine is home to the most and best QUALITY of games?

 

Depends a lot on the game genre.

 

3D games -> A8

Jump'n'run games -> C64

 

I think that subdivision is not really important, it is the overall catalogue, as a whole which system has the largest number of AAA games that have met with the best critical and consumer reception. Strength in one genre and weakness in another should even the comparison out if such genre specific divisions do exist IMHO...

 

 

Which machine is capable of displaying the highest quality images - defined by resolution, color depth, has the most examples of screen artwork that subjectivley are most visually satisfying?

 

Lot's of colors but low resolution -> A8

Less colors but high resolution -> C64

 

Again - subdivision, but not very useful since it does not create a rule to judge side by side. Objectively high quality images images require lots of colors and detail (pixels) to allow the most flexible image creation approach as an artist and those features are appreciated as a consumer. However it's not the artist but the flexibility of the tool and the images that exist that display the visual quality that count I believe..

 

Which machine is the most flexible and user friendly as a home office machine?

 

Faster default disk IO -> A8

GEOS -> C64

 

I'm no fan of GEOS, so take my thoughs with a pinch of why not just get an ST or Amiga For me some bolt on OS does not define the quality of word processing, spreadsheet flexibility, printing or other actual tools for office use. What programs exist that are world class and mark out that platform as providing a superior productivity experience, a poor emulator of GEM IMHO is not a differentiator...

 

Which machine has the most powerful hardware (chip features), and demonstrates it?

 

The A8 has a lot of graphic modes, is very flexible in using them without hacks and has a palette of 128 colors.

The C64 has a way better sprite engine and color cells on every mode.

 

Yes I know that, but which machine can shift the most data per frame, can provide the most support for applications (lets say games) to allow the programmer to focus on design features rather than ways to twist the machine into performing against it's nature???

 

And again - where are the examples?

Edited July 20, 2007 by Jetboot Jack

[emkay]

3D games -> A8

Jump'n'run games -> C64[/b]

 

I think that subdivision is not really important, it is the overall catalogue, as a whole which system has the largest number of AAA games that have met with the best critical and consumer reception. Strength in one genre and weakness in another should even the comparison out if such genre specific divisions do exist IMHO...

 

In 3D Games the A8 clearly is the better machine. Today reading on retrogamer made me sad a little, when it came to "Hard Drivin' ". This game was a must for the a8. But doesn't exist at all. really, the C64 version isn't playable at all and on CPC and Spectrum it looks quite ok. On the A8 the game could have been as twice as fast with 16 colours....

 

Whether Jump and Run games are better on the C64 depends on the usage of sprites and the used graphics mode. While Turricen never could be reached by the A8 like on c64, some "Dizzy" game" easily could outdo the c64 version. Because, the hires mode with PM Overlay does, what the C64 does in colour mode. It changes always two colours...

 

Which machine is capable of displaying the highest quality images - defined by resolution, color depth, has the most examples of screen artwork that subjectivley are most visually satisfying?

 

Lot's of colors but low resolution -> A8

Less colors but high resolution -> C64

 

Again - subdivision, but not very useful since it does not create a rule to judge side by side. Objectively high quality images images require lots of colors and detail (pixels) to allow the most flexible image creation approach as an artist and those features are appreciated as a consumer. However it's not the artist but the flexibility of the tool and the images that exist that display the visual quality that count I believe..

 

Clearly, without interlace, Fröhn is right. With the ATARI you can do clearly colour balanced images, while the C64 pictures are sometimes "off" but keep more screen information.

 

Which machine is the most flexible and user friendly as a home office machine?

 

Faster default disk IO -> A8

GEOS -> C64

 

I'm no fan of GEOS, so take my thoughs with a pinch of why not just get an ST or Amiga For me some bolt on OS does not define the quality of word processing, spreadsheet flexibility, printing or other actual tools for office use. What programs exist that are world class and mark out that platform as providing a superior productivity experience, a poor emulator of GEM IMHO is not a differentiator...

 

Well, C64 people always say their machine can do Hispeed transfers. But, I'm pretty sure: If commodore was sure about the stable function with all their Machines, they would have built it in by standard.

Edited July 20, 2007 by emkay

[phuzaxeman]

Hardly phuzaxeman, whilst some people might use MAC's - that's their preference...

 

99% of animators, film editors, mo-cap studios, modellers, etc etc use PC systems - at least from my experience on set or in the studio and from anecdotal evidence of friends I have a places like Pixar and PDI...

 

sTeVE

 

my experience in the film industry is limited but most people in the field i've seen use macs.

 

as far as the music industry(which is my field), mac owns the field.

 

i'm not a mac owner or fan btw.

[javiero]

You know, i once owned a c64 with a 1541 drive, plain and simple no gimmicks, please don't give that trash and let me compare the machines out of the box.

Well the c64 is a piece of trash, i have to admit some games looked fantastic but the eternal loading was unbearable... also, why get into basic to run a disk?, no dos?, my god the c64 was made for gaming no doubt about it.

The A8 is a beauty, nothing beats the phisics of the 800, and the disk acces is fast!! with the 1050.

 

Anyway the day the c64 died it just died, i didn't cryed... no hurt in my soul and in the other hand the A8 is still alive and kicking. Besides i have Action! so what else can i hope for??

 

Out of the box the A8 was miles away ahead of the C64...

Edited July 20, 2007 by javiero

[Goochman]

emkay - Hard Drivin on the 8bit with good speed and 16 colors on screen? Do tell?

[FastRobPlus]

Goochman - can you please change your avatar? Every time I see it it reminds me that the Aiari never got a version of Ultima 4 with a sound track. And then I spend the next hour or so crying.

[Heaven/TQA]

Javiero.... ehm... switch on C64...type LOAD"*",8,1 to "boot" a disc... i can not see "why you have to enter basic to start a game"...

 

now think of that a disc containing several files which you want to load... or choose from...what do you do on atari? boot a dos (37 sectors for dos.sys, 42 for dup.sys if i am right for dos 2.5) or a game dos... on c64 c64... load"filename",8,1:run.... or via directory... i do not see that as a weak to be honest... vice verser i never understood why i need to boot a dos to access disc drive... while on vic20 or c64 all functions are build in.... there are SIO/DSKIO routines in OS rom...so little bit more (killing self test f.e.) and you could have a game dos or a simple dos build in...

 

or why does a 1540 from vic-20 has 180k disc capacity and 810 - 80k and 1050 127k? you can upload code to 1541 and have own fast loaders without to reformate discs to have special sector skew.... the only issue with the 1541 i do not like is really the slowness by default...

[supercat]

Well, C64 people always say their machine can do Hispeed transfers. But, I'm pretty sure: If commodore was sure about the stable function with all their Machines, they would have built it in by standard.

 

When Commodore produced the VIC-20, they designed a new serial-bus protocol which was conceptually similar than IEE-488, but required fewer wires and could thus be built more cheaply. The protocol was not designed well from a speed perspective, but on a 5K machine speed wasn't really a factor. Commodore sold a disk drive (1540) and a printer (1526?) that used this protocol.

 

When Commodore produced the C64, the protocol had a problem: data bytes are clocked by the sending device and the protocol would fail if the receiver couldn't keep up. On the Commodore 64, the processor will pause for 40 cycles, 25 times per frame (these pauses are called 'badlines'). At the rate the 1540 sent data, this would prevent reliable operation. Commodore had a few options here:

 

-1- Give the C64 an IEE-488 interface, and let it use the existing PET drives. Maybe offer a 1540 interface as an option (see #3).

 

-2- Use the existing interface, but blank the screen during disk access.

 

-3- Use the existing interface, but add hardware to latch clock and data in such a way as to survive the 'badlines'.

 

-4- Use the existing interface, adding hardware in #3, but also define a faster compatible protocol sharing the same wires (so a 1540 would work at "old speed" but a new drive could work faster).

 

-5- Scrap the existing interface, and come up with something new and better.

 

-6- Design the VIC-II chip to make badlines less severe or to eliminate them entirely when not using sprites (there are 65 phase-1 cycles per line which can be used without stalling the CPU; the video chip needs 40 cycles per line plus 40 for every eighth. Split the 40 bytes for every eight scanlines into eight groups of five, and there would be 20 phase 1 clocks per line remaining--enough for six sprites.

 

-7- Keep the design of the existing interface, but produce a new drive that doesn't send data as fast. Compatibility with the 1526 would be maintained, but the 1540 would be useless unless a user blanked the screen before use.

 

I don't know if #6 would have been feasible. I can't see any good argument for #7, beyond the fact that it's what Commodore actually did.

[supercat]

I am sure the C64 could display more onscreen colors with color mapping but was limited to 16 of them.

 

The Commodore 64 has three character modes and two bitmap modes for non-sprite display. All modes use a 40x25 matrix of cells; depending upon modes, each cell may either be high-res (8x8 pixels; one background and one foreground color) or multicolor (4x8 double-wide pixels; one background and three fourground colors)

 

Character modes:

 

-- Normal: Each cell shows one of 256 patterns using an independently-selectable foreground color (1 of 16) and a common background color (1 of 16).

 

-- Extended-background character mode: Each cell shows one of 64 patterns using an independently-selectable forground color (1 of 16), and independently selects one of four common background colors.

 

-- Multicolor character mode: Each cell shows 1 of 256 patterns, and is independently-selectable as hires mode (using foreground colors 0-7 only and a common background color) or multicolor mode (using one independently-selectable foreground color 0-7 only, two common foreground colors, and a common background color)

 

Bitmap modes:

 

-- Hires: Each 8x8 cell has an independent foreground and background color (both chosen from 16).

 

-- Multicolor: Each 4x8 cell has three independent foreground colors and a common background color (any of which can be any of 16)

 

The 16-color limitation (and the 8-foreground-colors limitation for multicolor character mode) doesn't allow for the nice gradient effects one often sees on Atari's games, but the ability to set the colors for each 8x8 cell independently (and also to select hires/multicolor on a per-cell basis in multicolor mode) make up for a lot.

[javiero]

Javiero.... ehm... switch on C64...type LOAD"*",8,1 to "boot" a disc... i can not see "why you have to enter basic to start a game"...

 

now think of that a disc containing several files which you want to load... or choose from...what do you do on atari? boot a dos (37 sectors for dos.sys, 42 for dup.sys if i am right for dos 2.5) or a game dos... on c64 c64... load"filename",8,1:run.... or via directory... i do not see that as a weak to be honest... vice verser i never understood why i need to boot a dos to access disc drive... while on vic20 or c64 all functions are build in.... there are SIO/DSKIO routines in OS rom...so little bit more (killing self test f.e.) and you could have a game dos or a simple dos build in...

 

or why does a 1540 from vic-20 has 180k disc capacity and 810 - 80k and 1050 127k? you can upload code to 1541 and have own fast loaders without to reformate discs to have special sector skew.... the only issue with the 1541 i do not like is really the slowness by default...

I know, but i like the A8 doses a lot, really, it gave me the control over the disk... And type load, how i hated that and it is typed in the basic screen i think... about the space the 1050 was a mistake of Atari but they corrected it with the XF551 and at the same time brought in more flaws. Still i think out of the box the A8 never had a real contender in the 8bit arena.

[Goochman]

Goochman - can you please change your avatar? Every time I see it it reminds me that the Aiari never got a version of Ultima 4 with a sound track. And then I spend the next hour or so crying.

 

Lol - sad that the Atari couldve produced the best version of it! I the ST version had it and didnt do much for me. The U3 music eventually got on my nerves

 

U4 on the 8bit was still fun!

[peteym5]

I agree that DOS on Atari disks was more user friendly than the C64. Atari could turn off its basic to give you 8k more ram. I have stated before that I always thought of controlling everything from within Basic on the C64 was more difficult. You had to write little programs to do simple disk functions that were menu options on the Atari DOS. The other advantage the Atari had was that DOS could be upgraded and had DOS manufactured by different companies. Like MYDOS, SUPERDOS, and the MS-DOS like Sparta DOS. I would like to say the Atari was more flexible operating systems. Also with the option of turning the Basic off, you could use a disk loaded Basic, like Turbo Basic XL or another programming language.

[supercat]

I agree that DOS on Atari disks was more user friendly than the C64. Atari could turn off its basic to give you 8k more ram.

 

The Commodore 64 allows the processor to switch out any combination of ROM banks so as to allow access to 65,534 bytes plus 1024 nybbles of RAM. There are a number of utilities, both in disk and cartridge form, that patch the basic and/or kernel. I think my favorite is the Fast Assembler published in Compute's Gazette.

[Fröhn]

Whether Jump and Run games are better on the C64 depends on the usage of sprites and the used graphics mode. While Turricen never could be reached by the A8 like on c64, some "Dizzy" game" easily could outdo the c64 version. Because, the hires mode with PM Overlay does, what the C64 does in colour mode. It changes always two colours...

Talking about "Dizzy" games you have to know that those games were absolute low budget releases which were sold for £1.99 in the UK. Most of those games are just quick Spectrum ports and in no way show any C64 specific stuff.

 

Dizzy - The Ultimate Cartoon Adventure (1988, Spectrum port)

Treasure Island Dizzy (1989, Spectrum port)

Fantasy World Dizzy (1990, Spectrum port)

Magicland Dizzy (1990, Spectrum port)

Spellbound Dizzy (1991, Spectrum port)

Dizzy - Prince of the Yolkfolk! (1991, Spectrum port)

Panic Dizzy (1991)

Dizzy - Down the Rapids (1992)

Crystal Kingdom Dizzy (1992)

Bubble Dizzy (1992)

 

Well, C64 people always say their machine can do Hispeed transfers. But, I'm pretty sure: If commodore was sure about the stable function with all their Machines, they would have built it in by standard.

I have used fastloader cartridges on C64 for 20 years now. They ARE stable. The reasons why Commodore never did their own: They feared compability problems. That's also the reason why the C128 offers so little C128 features in it's C64 mode.

 

I agree that DOS on Atari disks was more user friendly than the C64. Atari could turn off its basic to give you 8k more ram. I have stated before that I always thought of controlling everything from within Basic on the C64 was more difficult.

Erm what exactly makes it more difficult to turn off the basic ROM in the C64? It's pretty much the same on both compuers, 1 bit needs to be changed to turn off the basic ROM.

 

The other advantage the Atari had was that DOS could be upgraded and had DOS manufactured by different companies. Like MYDOS, SUPERDOS, and the MS-DOS like Sparta DOS. I would like to say the Atari was more flexible operating systems.

Implementing another DOS can be done on pretty much every homecomputer.

 

Also with the option of turning the Basic off, you could use a disk loaded Basic, like Turbo Basic XL or another programming language.

There are tons of disk loaded programming languages and compilers on C64 too. And a few ones which are cartridge based.

[peteym5]

The Atari 8-bit could also use the ram under the OS Rom while programs still accessed the rom itself, and with the 130XE, you had access to 128k or more. I can say both systems had its ways of accessing most of the main 64k.

 

Something that doomed both the Commodore 64 and Atari 8-bit was when the companies developed 16bit computers, they basically abandoned the 8-bit 6502 based computer because the 16bit 68000 based systems were not backward compatible. Apple attempted something with the Apple II GS with a 65816. When IBM & Cloners went from the 8-bit 8088 to the 16bit 80x86. the systems were backward compatible. You can run programs on your PC that date back to the original 1980 IBM-PC. Now imagine if Atari made a 16bit 65816 based system with updated graphic chips that were backward compatible chipset back in 1985? It would have a large game base with an opportunity to have new software to take advantage of the new system. Maybe ANTIC chips that can support higher resolution, GTIA with multicolor players. Both had addressing room available to do things. I know you could have done the same with a Commodore 64, update the VIC II chip. I know the Commodore 128 had a VIC III chipset. Both companies probably would have survived longer if they would have considered other options.

 

I would not mind tinkering with an Atari 8-bit with that Videoboard XE, 65816, duel Pokeys to answer some of these What-Ifs. Also would do a Commodore VIC III based computer with a 65816 cpu. I am not sure what clock speed they had it to, but I would push it to the max the technology allowed.

 

Something I am meaning to ask a Commodore guru, I have a few cassette tapes with games written for the VIC-20 and I no longer have a system and was looking for someone who might wanna try to transfer them to the PC so I can run them on an emulator. I am not sure they can be read because they sat in my parents basement for 20 years.

Edited July 21, 2007 by peteym5

[emkay]

Something that doomed both the Commodore 64 and Atari 8-bit was when the companies developed 16bit computers, they basically abandoned the 8-bit 6502 based computer because the 16bit 68000 based systems were not backward compatible.

 

That reminds me about something

 

The Commi guys always deny that the AMIGA comes originally from ATARI. Well, ATARI wanted to built a 16 bit machine that was compatible with the 8-bit line. Jay Miner wanted to go a fully new way.

Well.... Guess why the chipset clocking is a "multiple" of the A8...

1,79 / 3,58 / 7,16 / 14,32 ....

Even the first Chipset had ATARI names like "PorTIA" and so on.

 

If guess, if Miner stayed at ATARI, the XL line would have been something like an Hybrid between the 800 and the AMIGA 1000.

And a faster computer with a 65xx(x) cpu easily could be clocked by a straight ratio to have full backward compatibility.