Atari Vs C64 --- 80s Computer scene etc chat...

[Fröhn]

Don't forget: Cave Wizard on GTW

[Cybergoth]

Again, I tell you I have loads of Sid tunes on C64 FLOPPY DISKS, covering the 1983 -1992 Sid era. Nothing to check. I have ALL THE TUNES. I DO NOT NEED ANYMORE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND? I HAVE LISTENED TO THEM ALL. (I printed this in caps, in case you do that 'lalala' thing).

 

no, you DONT HAVE ALL THE TUNES. you are missing 16 years of sid tunes and 16 years of development which resulted in having the sid sound better. which you refuse to check out to get a picture as of what the SID can do at its best. anyways you're not qualifiyed to be engaged in an argument which makes sense. so farewell. please dont even reply to this. bye.

 

Even when stopping at 1992, it's still ridiculous claims, since European SID music from 1986 onwards is miles better than anything that has ever been done on the Pokey.

The Last Ninja 2 Soundtrack was done in 1988. Feel free to show me anything on the Pokey past or present that is coming close to it.

Here, people buy it on CD!

 

Really, the SID is to Pokey what Pokey is to the PC-Speaker.

[TMR]

Again, I tell you I have loads of Sid tunes on C64 FLOPPY DISKS, covering the 1983 -1992 Sid era. Nothing to check. I have ALL THE TUNES. I DO NOT NEED ANYMORE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND? I HAVE LISTENED TO THEM ALL. (I printed this in caps, in case you do that 'lalala' thing).

 

no, you DONT HAVE ALL THE TUNES. you are missing 16 years of sid tunes and 16 years of development which resulted in having the sid sound better. which you refuse to check out to get a picture as of what the SID can do at its best. anyways you're not qualifiyed to be engaged in an argument which makes sense. so farewell. please dont even reply to this. bye.

 

Even when stopping at 1992, it's still ridiculous claims, since European SID music from 1986 onwards is miles better than anything that has ever been done on the Pokey.

 

At this point i'd like to invoke Thomas's Rule which states "if a couple of programmers say something, it must be true". =-)

[peteym5]

You know we can argue which is better forever on here. Every once in awhile one of these Atari vs 'another system' threads come up and this is not the first one vs Commodore. Last year we had http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...0&hl=vs+c64 that went on for weeks.

 

Remember that both computers were abandoned by their manufacturers. Would have been great if upgraded models became available which increased graphics capabilities and speed. That is maintaining backwards compatibility and being able to run the older software (directly, without emulation)

 

I find it funny that commodore owed MOS that manufactured the 6502, but did not build faster CPUs to upgrade the C64. I know the C128 had a 2mhz cpu, but could only be used in C128 mode.

 

I can say Commodore did some goofy things with their stuff, like you have to boot with BASIC and type in some command to load your game from disk. Also all the different Commodore systems like Pet, Vic-20, Commodore 16, all not being compatible with each other always got me. At least the Atari 130xe and XEGS can run everything back to the 800XL and the 800 with a translator. All the Apple II computers kept to a compatible standard. However, all these companies dumped the 6502 based systems for the 68000 based systems around 1985. Your 2+Ghz Pentium (or Athlon) based PC can run software dating back to the early 1980s.

 

Oh yes, by the way, remember who took over Atari in 1984, after he left Commodore and continued manufacturing Atari 8-bit models for a few more years. You cannot say he did not see it as a great system.

[Cybergoth]

You know we can argue which is better forever on here. Every once in awhile one of these Atari vs 'another system' threads come up and this is not the first one vs Commodore. Last year we had http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...0&hl=vs+c64 that went on for weeks.

 

It's a fun thing to do once a year though. You'll always learn things. This one got me motivated to finally try Crownland, so these discussions can't be that bad a thing

[frogstar_robot]

You know we can argue which is better forever on here. I know the C128 had a 2mhz cpu, but could only be used in C128 mode.

 

Agreed. You'd think some people never mentally got past the age of 15. "My 30 year old computer is better than your 30 year computer!"

 

"Uh uh!"

"Uh huh!"

 

....

 

Let's get real here. Any computer made after 1990 or so will spank both the A8 and the C-64 in every respect. By the time you can emulate either one with reasonable accuracy......

 

Incidentally, it is possible to get the 2Mhz speed in C-64 mode. This also goes back to what a said several pages ago about the C-64 design being more modular. Everything in an A8 or any Jay Miner style architecture is based around even multiples of the vertical video refresh. This makes reclocking an A8 take a bit a more circuitry and you'll still have to operate at an integer multiple of the master clock. This is a tradeoff because that's also what makes the A8 "tricks" possible.

Edited April 24, 2008 by frogstar_robot

[thomasholzer]

Again, I tell you I have loads of Sid tunes on C64 FLOPPY DISKS, covering the 1983 -1992 Sid era. Nothing to check. I have ALL THE TUNES. I DO NOT NEED ANYMORE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND? I HAVE LISTENED TO THEM ALL. (I printed this in caps, in case you do that 'lalala' thing).

 

no, you DONT HAVE ALL THE TUNES. you are missing 16 years of sid tunes and 16 years of development which resulted in having the sid sound better. which you refuse to check out to get a picture as of what the SID can do at its best. anyways you're not qualifiyed to be engaged in an argument which makes sense. so farewell. please dont even reply to this. bye.

 

Even when stopping at 1992, it's still ridiculous claims, since European SID music from 1986 onwards is miles better than anything that has ever been done on the Pokey.

The Last Ninja 2 Soundtrack was done in 1988. Feel free to show me anything on the Pokey past or present that is coming close to it.

Here, people buy it on CD!

 

Really, the SID is to Pokey what Pokey is to the PC-Speaker.

 

Well, since I lived in the UK from 1987 - 2004, I did not miss any European Sid music. I even seen some of those Sid performing bands live in the UK. (Why should I buy the Last Ninja 2 CD, I have the game).

 

What's this you going on about 'I refuse...to do this or that'? Are you some kind of German.....'you vill do dis..or you vill be shot'. Get real.

Edited April 24, 2008 by thomasholzer

[thomasholzer]

Again, I tell you I have loads of Sid tunes on C64 FLOPPY DISKS, covering the 1983 -1992 Sid era. Nothing to check. I have ALL THE TUNES. I DO NOT NEED ANYMORE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND? I HAVE LISTENED TO THEM ALL. (I printed this in caps, in case you do that 'lalala' thing).

 

no, you DONT HAVE ALL THE TUNES. you are missing 16 years of sid tunes and 16 years of development which resulted in having the sid sound better. which you refuse to check out to get a picture as of what the SID can do at its best. anyways you're not qualifiyed to be engaged in an argument which makes sense. so farewell. please dont even reply to this. bye.

 

Even when stopping at 1992, it's still ridiculous claims, since European SID music from 1986 onwards is miles better than anything that has ever been done on the Pokey.

 

At this point i'd like to invoke Thomas's Rule which states "if a couple of programmers say something, it must be true". =-)

 

Exactly, here are mostly amateurs (few exceptions), and programmers do know best. At last one person with sense (besides me).

Edited April 24, 2008 by thomasholzer

[Rybags]

The C-128 was able to use 2 MHz for the CPU in '64 mode, although only with the screen disabled or during the 112 scanlines of non-display.

But, it wasn't used a great deal in the commercial arena at the time, but at least one Hewson game took advantage of it.

 

The 128 was a sad story in a way, didn't stand a chance being priced so close to the Amiga.

 

I reckon they'd have been better off just having a "better 64" with the better BASIC, more RAM and extra speed. CPM was all but dead by then anyway since the PC had become the industry standard and Macs were starting to do well.

 

Of course Atari made the tragic error of getting rid of too many people and not being able to sort the XEM system out.

[TMR]

Remember that both computers were abandoned by their manufacturers. Would have been great if upgraded models became available which increased graphics capabilities and speed. That is maintaining backwards compatibility and being able to run the older software (directly, without emulation)

 

There was in the C64's case, s'called the C64DX (or C65) and it was cancelled during development; the most common explanation offered is that it got too close to the Amiga's specs and would've interfered with Amiga sales, i don't know how true that is but it did manage quite a bit more than a stock C64.

 

I find it funny that commodore owed MOS that manufactured the 6502, but did not build faster CPUs to upgrade the C64. I know the C128 had a 2mhz cpu, but could only be used in C128 mode.

 

Actually, it could be used at any time but, because the VIC-II won't work correctly when it's in 2MHz mode (and that applies to the C128 mode too, not just to when in C64 mode), it's not used much; there are a few games that shunt the C128 in C64 up to 2MHz for the borders where it doesn't matter about the mess it makes of the graphics (since they're not visible) and gain a significant amount of CPU grind for it, everything Andrew Braybrook did from Alleykat onwards at least detects and usually utilises a C128 in this way.

 

I can say Commodore did some goofy things with their stuff, like you have to boot with BASIC and type in some command to load your game from disk.

 

i prefer it that way personally, it means that if i have a disk with four or five games on i don't have to mess around with menus and so forth, i just load what i want.

 

Also all the different Commodore systems like Pet, Vic-20, Commodore 16, all not being compatible with each other always got me. At least the Atari 130xe and XEGS can run everything back to the 800XL and the 800 with a translator.

 

They can't run 7800 or 2600 code though... the reason being those are different machines, not part of a range in the same way the Commodore machines mostly are.

 

All the Apple II computers kept to a compatible standard. However, all these companies dumped the 6502 based systems for the 68000 based systems around 1985.

 

Commodore didn't dump the C64, it was in production until the early 1990s in it's original form; i don't think any other 8-bit can claim that?

 

Oh yes, by the way, remember who took over Atari in 1984, after he left Commodore and continued manufacturing Atari 8-bit models for a few more years. You cannot say he did not see it as a great system.

 

Why not? Jack Attack saw machines as ways to make profit, if they're good or not doesn't need to factor into that in the same way that VHS out-sold Betamax.

[vdub_bobby]

I find Mayhem graphics too similar across levels. It gets boring after a while which gives you no incentive to play that game. Crownland Graphics (possibly mainly due to changing color schemes) was suprising and much more rewarding to me.

 

thats your personal opinion... what matters here is mayhem does 9 colors (max possible is 12tho) with no tricks while atari needs tricking to get 14-17, and a lot from that is not true ingame graphics, but stuff lke water and some clouds, in the play area you have it more close to 5-7 colors with all the tricks. while the c64 can do 12 colors without any tricks. thats the HW difference.

I don't understand this comment...is it trickery to use a DLI to change colors? That seems utterly basic. Anyway, the A8 should be able to get 10 colors on a line with no trickery, not even using DLIs - right? 4 PM color registers, 5 PF color registers + background. You can do that in BASIC, can't you?

 

And while we're talking subjective...Mayhem looks very colorful, but I think mixing hires sprites and lores sprites looks pretty dorky.

 

All that said, only having 4-5 real sprites and the virtually useless hires mode on the A8 pales in comparison to the C64's 8 sprites + somewhat useful hires.

Edited April 24, 2008 by vdub_bobby

[TMR]

At this point i'd like to invoke Thomas's Rule which states "if a couple of programmers say something, it must be true". =-)

 

Exactly, here are mostly amateurs (few exceptions), and programmers do know best. At last one person with sense (besides me).

 

But the programmers (Frohn and Cybergoth) are saying that the SID is much better than POKEY so, by your own rule, you're wrong. Nice one, saves a lot of mucking about. =-)

[TMR]

I don't understand this comment...is it trickery to use a DLI to change colors? That seems utterly basic.

 

In thise case i think "without tricks" means "it'll sit there on it's own without the CPU doing anything" and DLIs are CPU activity...

[thomasholzer]

At this point i'd like to invoke Thomas's Rule which states "if a couple of programmers say something, it must be true". =-)

 

Exactly, here are mostly amateurs (few exceptions), and programmers do know best. At last one person with sense (besides me).

 

But the programmers (Frohn and Cybergoth) are saying that the SID is much better than POKEY so, by your own rule, you're wrong. Nice one, saves a lot of mucking about. =-)

 

Of course I am not wrong, can you read....(few exceptions)? So they like Sid better. I like Sid and Pokey the same actually. (I never said Pokey was better, if you'd care to read this thread*). Nicer one, TMR. Anyway, programmers were talking about the machine itself, not just the soundchip.

 

* I've done it for you:

>>>>>I said: Sid is not much better than Pokey, just listen to 'The Big Demo'. Anyway, Pokey's were used in numerous arcade machines. <<<<<

Edited April 24, 2008 by thomasholzer

[Oswald]

You know we can argue which is better forever on here.

 

well even a big bunch of atarians are saying that the c64 is better. then there are the rest refusing it until they die, with them we can go on forever indeed. some cant even admit that c64s charmode with 12 possible colors 256 chars and mixable hires/multicolor mode on a per char basis is better than 128 chars with 5 colors, or that c64's 16 colors in hires/multicolor modes are superior to those of the atari. and we havent spoken about sprites yet. there's nothing to argue about here in fact.

[Oswald]

Agreed. You'd think some people never mentally got past the age of 15. "My 30 year old computer is better than your 30 year computer!"

 

agreed, some people will never admit that c64 is better in gfx and sound and games in general. see my post above.

 

 

Incidentally, it is possible to get the 2Mhz speed in C-64 mode. This also goes back to what a said several pages ago about the C-64 design being more modular. Everything in an A8 or any Jay Miner style architecture is based around even multiples of the vertical video refresh. This makes reclocking an A8 take a bit a more circuitry and you'll still have to operate at an integer multiple of the master clock. This is a tradeoff because that's also what makes the A8 "tricks" possible.

 

wrong.

 

you can get 2mhz in c64 mode in a c128, but then the display will go garbage. and thats because of the same thing you thing is something special and exclusive to the atari: the whole timing of the machine is built around the video chip. at both c128 and c64, but even the vic 20 c16 plus4 whichever you pick. this is not a jay miner style architecture, its 80s 8bit computer style architecture. and changing display modes on the fly or midlie is also not a8 trick exclusively, but simply how the hw architectures worked in the 80s.

[thomasholzer]

You know we can argue which is better forever on here. I know the C128 had a 2mhz cpu, but could only be used in C128 mode.

 

Agreed. You'd think some people never mentally got past the age of 15. "My 30 year old computer is better than your 30 year computer!"

 

"Uh uh!"

"Uh huh!"

 

 

>>>>>Oswald said: agreed, some people will never admit that c64 is better in gfx and sound and games in general. see my post above.<<<<<

 

 

 

But Oswald is trying his best.

Edited April 24, 2008 by thomasholzer

[Cybergoth]

you can get 2mhz in c64 mode in a c128, but then the display will go garbage.

 

I think the C128 can only do ~30% more calculations in C64 mode, but not twice as much. IIRC will Test Drive 2 run slightly faster on the C128 because of that. Not sure if other games will make use of that too. The Freescape titles maybe?

[thomasholzer]

you can get 2mhz in c64 mode in a c128, but then the display will go garbage.

 

I think the C128 can only do ~30% more calculations in C64 mode, but not twice as much. IIRC will Test Drive 2 run slightly faster on the C128 because of that. Not sure if other games will make use of that too. The Freescape titles maybe?

 

Gunship, runs much smoother in 128 mode.

[Oswald]

I don't understand this comment...is it trickery to use a DLI to change colors? That seems utterly basic. Anyway, the A8 should be able to get 10 colors on a line with no trickery, not even using DLIs - right? 4 PM color registers, 5 PF color registers + background. You can do that in BASIC, can't you?

 

then think about it this way: the c64 has "DLIs" aswell, but it doesnt need to use them to get 12 colors on screen in charmode. also the c64 can get 16 colors on a line without using sprites in any of its modes.

 

see, you need extra codings, and atari "sprites" to do things that doesnt even match what the c64 can do without extra code and sprites.

[frogstar_robot]

The 128 was a sad story in a way, didn't stand a chance being priced so close to the Amiga.

 

 

Besides a relic compared to the 16 bitters coming, the C128 was subject to the same market disease higher memory models of the A8 suffered from. Any A8 could be counted on to have 16K while others could have anywhere from 24K to 128K (factory..I'm not counting 3rd party mods and their differing banking schemes). So many games especially the ports that are sparking so much frisson in this thread would go for the 16K target. In the same vein, why develop for the C128's capabilities when the installed base of C64s was so much larger? A few houses like Hewson made games that were enhanced on the C128 but well playable on the C64 but most didn't even bother.

 

It took a awhile for this lesson to sink in. I think this also why enhancements to game consoles generally don't fly unless sold WITH the game.

[vdub_bobby]

I don't understand this comment...is it trickery to use a DLI to change colors? That seems utterly basic. Anyway, the A8 should be able to get 10 colors on a line with no trickery, not even using DLIs - right? 4 PM color registers, 5 PF color registers + background. You can do that in BASIC, can't you?

 

then think about it this way: the c64 has "DLIs" aswell, but it doesnt need to use them to get 12 colors on screen in charmode. also the c64 can get 16 colors on a line without using sprites in any of its modes.

Well, sure. I just thought the way you put it was odd. I mean, sure, DLIs are kinda tricky, but you might as well code for an Intellivision or an Odyssey2 if you aren't going to use them. A8 games that don't use DLIs frequently look worse than the better 2600 games, for crying out loud!

 

But in any case, I'm not arguing that the A8 > C64 or vice versa; was just wondering what you meant, exactly. Thanks for clarifying.

Edited April 24, 2008 by vdub_bobby

[Cybergoth]

A few houses like Hewson made games that were enhanced on the C128 but well playable on the C64 but most didn't even bother.

 

That would've been Graftgold, whose early games got published through Hewson. The changes were only marginal and the games would still run in C64 mode though.

 

IIRC the # of native, commercial C128 games is a single digit. There's an enhanced version of "The Last V8", 2-3 Infocom games and 1-2 Ultimas, that's it, or? Mobygames lists 9, but I think some like Qix are DB errors.

[peteym5]

Also all the different Commodore systems like Pet, Vic-20, Commodore 16, all not being compatible with each other always got me. At least the Atari 130xe and XEGS can run everything back to the 800XL and the 800 with a translator.

 

All the Apple II computers kept to a compatible standard. However, all these companies dumped the 6502 based systems for the 68000 based systems around 1985.

 

 

They can't run 7800 or 2600 code though... the reason being those are different machines, not part of a range in the same way the Commodore machines mostly are.

 

Commodore didn't dump the C64, it was in production until the early 1990s in it's original form; i don't think any other 8-bit can claim that?

 

Oh yes, by the way, remember who took over Atari in 1984, after he left Commodore and continued manufacturing Atari 8-bit models for a few more years. You cannot say he did not see it as a great system.

 

Why not? Jack Attack saw machines as ways to make profit, if they're good or not doesn't need to factor into that in the same way that VHS out-sold Betamax.

 

I was referring to the computers themselves. I do acknowledge the 2600/7800 was not compatible with the 8-bit and even served as a problem with the 5200. Have to admit the 5200 was a disaster because it was not compatible with the 2600, but the 400/800 as well. Even though it used the 8-bit video and audio chips. Atari did do a smart thing with making the 7800 able to run the 2600 carts, the dumb thing was Jack Tremial held onto it until he seen Nintendo making the game industry comeback. Would have been a cool ideal if they had a system capable of running 5200/8bit software as well. With 8-bit line Atari did stay pretty close to a hardware standard and allowed each model run the same software. I cannot say the same for Commodore Pet, Vic-20, (16, +4,) and 64. Every generation of system had different chips, different memory maps, and some you had to buy new peripherals for. You can hook the same Atari tape and disk drives from the 400 to the XEGS. Also Atari did manufacture the 8-bit line from 1979 and ended in the late 80s.

 

The reasons why Jack Tremial kept the 8-bit line going is because there was an extensive software library for it already and was still growing. Atari had a huge surplus of the ICs, which made it cheaper to build more machines. The XE line did sell well considering that 16bit computers were on the market at the same time. Remember the average 16bit computer was over $500 USD, where 8bit systems like the 130XE and Commodore 64 were still much cheaper and why these system were still selling into the late 80s.

[frogstar_robot]

agreed, some people will never admit that c64 is better in gfx and sound and games in general. see my post above.

 

I attempting to be tasteful but it's real tossup between you and emkay who the king of the 15 year olds are. Do you truly expect to argue everyone in an A8 forum into falling prostrate at the alter of the grand and glorious C64? For crying out loud, have you eschewed food and sleep just to rebut everyone on the net that liked their Ataris better?

 

I'm interested in the history and workings of the machines I dug when I was a kid and will accept correction if I get something wrong but care little which is "better". Though I do find Miner style "scanline generator" chipsets neat and no C64s don't generate video the same way an A8 does (You're quite welcome to like the other way better). And yes the C64 architecture is a bit more flexible in terms of clocking it's components. Yeah there's some challenges doing it for a C64 but a 20Mhz "superCPU" is more difficult for an A8. Again, I'm making no claim of superiority. I just find A8s and Amigas elegant from an engineering point of view. You'll just have to forgive if I'm still able to look back on them fondly in spite of your tactless trashing.