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

[Oswald]

The thing is: we both know what the C64 can do. And we are in an Atari forum, so we shouldn't expect everyone here falling on his knees, saying "yes, the C64 is the almighty best 8bit computer ever build". And why should one expect that?

 

I havent came here to hear everyone saying that. I came to defend the c64, against statements like this:

 

QUOTE (atariksi @ Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:42 AM) *

For some reason Commodore 64/128 spread better than Atari 8-bits although most people would agree that the Ataris are and were better machines than C64/128

 

 

It would be boring if everyone is a C64 freak

 

yeah, no more my system is better flamewars would be boring

[Vigo]

The ST actually has a YM2149, which is basically a clone of the AY-8910 (except some small enhancements).

 

I'm not sure if I got you properly, the Genny sure must've had a next generation chip compared to the Atari ST? At least I can't imagine the ST being capable of doing the music from Streets of Rage?

 

The Genesis has a 4 OP 6 channel YM2612 FM synthesizer, in combination with a 4 voice SN76489 square wave generator inherited from the Master System. The ST has just the usual shitty YM2149 3 channel sqare wave generator.

[Vigo]

I havent came here to hear everyone saying that. I came to defend the c64, against statements like this:

 

QUOTE (atariksi @ Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:42 AM) *

For some reason Commodore 64/128 spread better than Atari 8-bits although most people would agree that the Ataris are and were better machines than C64/128

 

 

That's what I meant with "cringeworthy statements". There are also lots of Spectrum users arguing with "more vibrant colours" (RGB primaries) and "much clearer sound" against the C64. And they will continue to do so, no matter how much energy you invest here, because they don't even understand what you are talking about.

 

You also have to see it this way: we are talking about low level tech stuff here, but most people make such remarks because of other factors, like the Atari had much better floppy handling out of the box. They don't care how much sprites and rastersplits your FLI routine can handle.

Edited April 25, 2008 by Vigo

[Oswald]

That's what I meant with "cringeworthy statements". There are also lots of Spectrum users arguing with "more vibrant colours" (RGB primaries) and "much clearer sound" against the C64. And they will continue to do so, no matter how much energy you invest here.

 

wahaha, you know speccy users very well, I see anyhow you are right. I give up on prooving, lets see if anything else interesting is to come to this thread

[thomasholzer]

That's what I meant with "cringeworthy statements". There are also lots of Spectrum users arguing with "more vibrant colours" (RGB primaries) and "much clearer sound" against the C64. And they will continue to do so, no matter how much energy you invest here.

 

wahaha, you know speccy users very well, I see anyhow you are right. I give up on prooving, lets see if anything else interesting is to come to this thread

 

Please no, for once I'm with you Oswald, we had the WoS boys here quite a while ago. Lucky for us they didn't stay long, despite of all, you are welcome here.

 

 

But I still stand by the fact that if you want to defend the C64 against A8, you gotta own both, play games, music, use applications and whatnot, lets say over numerous months (or years), do programming on A8 (learn all that programming stuff on A8 the equal way you know on C64 ), learn all inside tricks like you know on C64, use peripherals on A8 like you know on C64, compare both, give yourself an overall idea how A8 works, and only then you can give an accurate comparison picture. But looking around on the net a bit searching for A8, watching some bad YouTube videos or whatever, and then mouthing off here, just doesn't hack it.

Just don't come back saying......but atariksi, blah blah....... rise above that.

Edited April 25, 2008 by thomasholzer

[TMR]

That's what I meant with "cringeworthy statements". There are also lots of Spectrum users arguing with "more vibrant colours" (RGB primaries) and "much clearer sound" against the C64. And they will continue to do so, no matter how much energy you invest here, because they don't even understand what you are talking about.

 

It's good for a giggle even with the occasional arrogant wazzock taking part and, for those of us who are technically minded, there's always some new wrinkle to learn. My own interest in the A8 series was forgotten in 1985 when i got my first C64 and those hardware sprites and that sound chip (that's almost how i thought about it back then, seriously... in italics) and was rekindled during a similar... erm, discussion to this that was cross-posted over assorted 8-bit newsgroups. Since then i've written Atari 8-bit demos and games and plan to do more of the latter if i can find time - i've all but stopped demo coding generally, not in the right mindset for it these days. It's pretty much why all the review columns i write tend to cover A8 stuff as much as Spectrum or C64 too.

 

i'm hoping to do something to release into the ABBUC competition for this year, the previous ones have produced some truly kick-arse software... i just don't know what i want to do yet. (Oh, that's not a request for suggestions by the way - i have enough ideas to start with, just haven't settled on which to use... and i need to move over to MADS it seems!)

Edited April 25, 2008 by TMR

[emkay]

The thing is: we both know what the C64 can do. And we are in an Atari forum, so we shouldn't expect everyone here falling on his knees, saying "yes, the C64 is the almighty best 8bit computer ever build". And why should one expect that?

 

Because the C64 is all but allmighty? Look at that football. The A8 can display this in 16 shades of one colour if the creator decides.

16 colours are not 16 colours when the single colour isn't interchangeable.

 

You clearly can see for what the hires of the C64 was built for: Simply having a text mode with clear colour separations. Which isn't a bad thing, but it is unusefull for real images, as a "standard" C64 freak will tell us.

 

And about SID sound. Well I like many tunes, but People had to learn "SID music is music". After this "learning effect" , you can get into it.

 

To make something clear (hopefully Oswald is reading my post correctly the first time ) : I don't like most of the POKEY tunes. But this is no fault of the A8 . POKEY Development is somehow an ugly duckling in the A8 scene. Just like the fact that 99% of the ASMA plays all stored tunes correctly, but simple Triangle isn't available and using timing correct filter results in cancelling of the sounds in the emulation. And so on...

[atarian63]

Since no one can really proof history, you can tell all you want, trying someone to believe it or not

 

since the c64/1541 engineers are still alive you can decide to believe them or not

 

Fact: Big C did all necessary to push their Product. But the biggest problem-> the low data transfer <- they never could handle any better? Making the slow machine more suitable for business usage by doing really nothing but change the code?

 

Fact: c64 never targeted the business market. the opposite: it was the first computer to be sold in shopping malls. Business computers were the pricey bloated shitty IBM and Apple, already in those early times.

 

Good Lord...

 

Good Lord indeed. with so many bullshit from you, you could have gotten a fact right by mistake, but you even fail in that

 

The only assumption here is that they have seen problems during the development of the hardware. So they used the "handshake" methode to assure either the communication or the stability of the chipset.

 

Good Lord , SIO uses handshakes aswell. thats because the atari chips are faulty/unstable mr einstein?

 

Have a look at the manifold defective C64s in the first time. Possibly caused by fastloaders...

 

:-o :rolling: no comment :-o :lol:

 

 

Possibly, the C64s that outlived until today could all hande fastloaders , because the ones who couldn't hanlde it, died in the 80s already.

 

possibly. the only question remains: how dares one talk about c64 and hardware whithout not even knowing what are handshakes for, and thinking that fastloaders killed c64s :-o :-o

 

We were a dealer for both back in the day, I can tell you for a fact as we had a semi load of Atari and C64 per month, C64 defects were very high. Not like Xbox 360 now, but very high, sometimes as high as 20-25% . Atari defect rates were maybe 3% . Customers would really be pissed back then, cant blame them.

[deathtrappomegranate]

Much as I hate these incessant "my obsolete technology is better than your obsolete technology" threads, I must say that it has been cool to hear from Oswald.

 

Unlike most of the other threads on this necrophiliac subject, there have, at least, been a few interesting diversions in this one. Surely there's little point in flogging the horse any more, though.

Edited April 25, 2008 by deathtrappomegranate

[Oswald]

We were a dealer for both back in the day, I can tell you for a fact as we had a semi load of Atari and C64 per month, C64 defects were very high. Not like Xbox 360 now, but very high, sometimes as high as 20-25% . Atari defect rates were maybe 3% . Customers would really be pissed back then, cant blame them.

 

I believe you, but what I am talking about there is emkay's saying that c64's went wrong because of fastloaders. I am not denying that early c64 production was poor.

[atarian63]

Well, I bought an ST in 87 hopefully it was a better machine than the A8. After ~ 18 months I had enough of that "thing" , sold it and bought an AMIGA 2000 in 1989. I never regreted it.

 

It's no wonder, since the Amiga is the real successor to the A8. Both share the same design philosophies in the hardware.

 

And in terms of scrolling, sprites and sound, the A8 easily outperforms the ST...

It's just that POS o/s that commodore hung on it. I have had several as a dealer for myself and always return the amiga to my store in short order, what a crappy awful o/s! Crash happy etc. I just hated them. The hardware is great, too bad it wasn't an Atari as was intended.

Edited April 25, 2008 by atarian63

[MEtalGuy66]

Ok. Im gonna stick my 2 cents in here..

 

I do own several of both platforms (C=64 and atari 8-bit)..

 

I think that the atari is a much better organized machine from the hardware and OS standpoint. But I also think that based on the games and demos that have been done on both machines, the average person can see that in terms of squeezing the utmost in graphics and sound out of the machine, the C=64 is the superior platform. From a coding standpoint, I think most people when asked which machine they ENJOY working with, they might say the ATARI.. But when asked which machine has the better capability, given every possible trick and contortion that the hardware can be made to do, the C=64 is gonna win, hands down.

 

Thats MY oppinion.. And Someone else might easily think exactly the opposite.. But thats what I think..

 

No flame intended, none expected in return..

 

Thank you...

[emkay]

It's just that POS o/s that commodore hung on it. I have had several as a dealer for myself and always return the amiga to my store in short order, what a crappy awful o/s! Crash happy etc. I just hated them. The hardware is great, too bad it wasn't an Atari as was intended.

 

The AMIGAOS was a 32 Bit and real multitasking OS. Being a pioneer there, it was hard to prevent all possible errors, and faulty software did the rest.... Seeing afterwards, how easy the AMIGAOS was to handle and to upgrade, The OS did very few mistakes compared to others.

But seeing a standard single task DOS (named TOS) with some graphical interface going down once a day proves what?

 

And, actually, If ATARI had the rights on the AMIGA, I bet, history would have repeated. The "AMIGA" was sold sparely and Commodore had some 16 Bit "C64" available at the half price (at the start) .

[Oswald]

Look at that football. The A8 can display this in 16 shades of one colour if the creator decides.

 

the creator decided:

 

 

16 colours are not 16 colours when the single colour isn't interchangeable.

 

16 colors are 16 colors. 27 monkeys are 27 monkeys, and 6 buttplugs are 6 buttplugs under all circumstances.

 

You clearly can see for what the hires of the C64 was built for: Simply having a text mode with clear colour separations. Which isn't a bad thing, but it is unusefull for real images, as a "standard" C64 freak will tell us.

 

no emkay, you clearly can not see, a 800xl is blocking your eyes the c64 has textmode for textmode, and the hires bitmap mode is for gfx. but really thinking with your brains what do you think was a8 hires mode built for? with no color separations ? gfx? right, then why is the c64 hires mode not good for gfx? it can even have either 2 colors only just like a8, or much more!

 

 

And about SID sound. Well I like many tunes, but People had to learn "SID music is music". After this "learning effect" , you can get into it.

 

people have to learn any "music" its not like when you get born, you come out equipped with liking guiter piano and whatever sounds

[MEtalGuy66]

Well, I bought an ST in 87 hopefully it was a better machine than the A8. After ~ 18 months I had enough of that "thing" , sold it and bought an AMIGA 2000 in 1989. I never regreted it.

 

It's no wonder, since the Amiga is the real successor to the A8. Both share the same design philosophies in the hardware.

 

And in terms of scrolling, sprites and sound, the A8 easily outperforms the ST...

It's just that POS o/s that commodore hung on it. I have had several as a dealer for myself and always return the amiga to my store in short order, what a crappy awful o/s! Crash happy etc. I just hated them. The hardware is great, too bad it wasn't an Atari as was intended.

 

The crappiest system AMIGA ever made was so far beyond the scale of the most advanced machine ATARI ever made that its like comparing a Mercedez Benz to a Yugo.

 

And if you break out the hardware reference manuals for any given model-generation of both brands, and start stacking features and capabilities side by side, the ATARI people are gonna shut their mouth really quickly.. If you do the same with the OS, the atari side doesnt have the first "leg to stand on" at all..

 

Finally, if you consider both systems in terms of scalability and manufacturer/vendor hardware support, your looking at the difference between

[1]the easy use of hundreds of megs or even gigs of contiguous ram, MANY options in CPU upgrades, commonly available ethernet cards, MANY CHOICES in industry leading video harware, and an OS that fully and easily supports all of it...

 

and [2] A machine that has to be hard-soldered and hacked to get any degree of expandability out of, the manufacturer (more often than not) did not even release expansions that they had planned/promised for any given generation, most third party hardware manufacturers were afraid to support it due to drastic changes in architectural/interface standards from one generation to the next, The OS is a non multitasking, machine/generation specific piece of hard-code that is much more of a limitation than an advantage from a scalability standpoint.

 

You people can bitch about this all you want, but its the damn truth.. Trameil was extemely overconfident in his grasp of the nature of the market/industry when he took on atari, and he made some piss poor decisions.. The absolute WORST of which was cancellation of the development contract with AMIGA technlogies, and he deserved what he got... The ST was, at best, a reasonable attempt at removing his foot from his own arse...

[supercat]

The AMIGAOS was a 32 Bit and real multitasking OS. Being a pioneer there...

 

Allocating non-relocatable objects on a global heap is a horrible design, and I don't really see much excuse for it. The Macintosh's 1984 implementation of handles wasn't perfect, but it was quite workable. I really can't understand any reason why something that's designed to be a multi-application operating system wouldn't (1) encourage programmers to use relocatable data as much as possible, and (2) allocate relocatable and non-relocatable storage separately (probably doing one top-down and the other bottom-up in a shared pool) so that relocatable objects won't fragment the space for non-relocatable ones.

 

I'm sure the Amiga OS had some good features, but some of its failings were absolutely crippling.

[supercat]

Isn't it caused by the size of available commands?

 

From what I remember of an Outpost Atari (Byte magazine) some decades ago, the slowness of Atari BASIC is primarily attributable to one unfortunate design decision: using BCD math for almost everything.

 

I don't know the exact numeric format on the Atari, but a value of "49152" would be stored in memory as something like "49 15 20 00 00 05" [the last number is the exponent]. This storage format applied to constants and variables, but not to line numbers.

 

Thus, if the program wants to print out variable "A" which equals 49152, all it has to do is figure out how to format it; there's no need to convert binary to decimal first. Thus, printing is nice and easy.

 

On the other hand, if the program wants to do something like "POKE A,123" then the computer has to multiply 4 by ten, add 9, multiply that result by ten, add 1, multiply that result by ten, add 5, multiply that result by ten, and add 2, at which point it will have the address. Then it has to multiply 1 by ten, add 2, multiply that result by ten, and add 3, at which point it will have the data. At that point it can do the actual store.

 

One thing which would have helped the speed of both Microsoft-based BASICs (Commodore, Applesoft, etc.) as well as Atari BASIC would have been the ability to have a special 'exponent' flag value that would indicate the first two bytes of the number held an integer. This would require adding an extra check to routines that can only work with floating-point numbers, but it would have greatly improved performance in many cases (unlike QBASIC which squawks when an integer operation overflows, I would simply have the result get converted to floating point in that case).

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I am really enjoying the discussion. At least the non-flaming, rational parts.

 

What I am missing are some counter examples from the Atari side. We have seen lots of nice C64 graphics and links to many, many sounds, but hardly anything from the Atari.

 

Let me see and hear the best of BOTH sides.

[Oswald]

Allocating non-relocatable objects on a global heap is a horrible design, and I don't really see much excuse for it. The Macintosh's 1984 implementation of handles wasn't perfect, but it was quite workable. I really can't understand any reason why something that's designed to be a multi-application operating system wouldn't (1) encourage programmers to use relocatable data as much as possible, and (2) allocate relocatable and non-relocatable storage separately (probably doing one top-down and the other bottom-up in a shared pool) so that relocatable objects won't fragment the space for non-relocatable ones.

 

I'm sure the Amiga OS had some good features, but some of its failings were absolutely crippling.

 

 

here is a reason for you: 1985. Preemptive -Multitasking 32 bit OOP Operating System with GUI, libraries, datatypes, command line, plug n play, multimedia. it was unmatched for 10 years.

[Vigo]

Because the C64 is all but allmighty? Look at that football. The A8 can display this in 16 shades of one colour if the creator decides.

16 colours are not 16 colours when the single colour isn't interchangeable.

 

Sorry, but that last sentence makes no sense at all. 16 colours are 16 colours.

 

And, for your information, I am quite knowledgeable on both systems, and I know that the Atari can display it in 16 shades. But only at 1/2 resolution as the C64 version.

 

You clearly can see for what the hires of the C64 was built for: Simply having a text mode with clear colour separations. Which isn't a bad thing, but it is unusefull for real images, as a "standard" C64 freak will tell us.

 

Again, a nonsense statement. You have hires/multicolor textmode on C64 and hires/multicolor graphics mode on c64. Saying it is unuseful for images is hilarious, considering all the ten thousands of pictures being made in these modes.

 

 

Showing how "unuseful" the standard C64 hires mode is. Not even accounting for special modes like AFLI, where you actually can have 2 independent colours per 8 pixel stripe...

 

And about SID sound. Well I like many tunes, but People had to learn "SID music is music". After this "learning effect" , you can get into it.

 

Again, this doesn't make any sense at all. The whole architecture of the SID is straightforward based on 70's classic analogue synthesizer architectures, with a waveform generator, an envelope generator, ring modulation and a multimode filter. Sounds like this had been used before more than 15 years earlier, just listen to Walter/Wendy Carlos "Switched on Bach". The only difference here is that no one implemented it on one single chip before.

 

To make something clear (hopefully Oswald is reading my post correctly the first time ) : I don't like most of the POKEY tunes. But this is no fault of the A8 . POKEY Development is somehow an ugly duckling in the A8 scene. Just like the fact that 99% of the ASMA plays all stored tunes correctly, but simple Triangle isn't available and using timing correct filter results in cancelling of the sounds in the emulation. And so on...

 

Even if you would have better support in this area, you can not beat something on another 8 bit system which is even very hard to emulate on a modern PC. I would really like to hear the same filter sweeps SID can do on Pokey, or the same modulation effects and complex waveforms. We are talking about stuff which takes a big performance hit when being emulated on a PC.

 

Yes, it is correct that writing a 4 channel DIGI routine is actually easier on Pokey. But then again, I can have real 8 bit samples on the SID using PWM.

 

And if that sounds downputting now, don't worry, the A8 easily outperforms it's official successor, the Atari ST, in terms of sound.

 

I love both machines, but some "arguments" being presented here are really cringeworthy.

 

Yes, there are things which the Atari can do better. The memory layout of the bitmap is better suited for 3D scenarios. The Atari has a much larger colour palette. And the CPU is faster. These are features which allow for scenarios being constructed where the Atari performs better than the C64. Which is VERY VERY impressive for a 1978 archtecture.

 

BUT, overall, you can create LOTS MORE scenarios on the C64 which are impossible to do equal on the Atari. Big surprise, the C64 is NEWER, wohoo! It combines a lot of design philosophies which had been discovered in the years between the 1978 and 1982.

 

I must restrain myself now making the same mistake as Oswald, discussing technical aspects with non-technical minded people. You can simply not win against "arguments" like "16 colours are not 16 colours". 2+2=5. Room 101.

Edited April 25, 2008 by Vigo

[frogstar_robot]

people have to learn any "music" its not like when you get born, you come out equipped with liking guiter piano and whatever sounds

 

I believe the point he was trying to get at is that chip music is an acquired taste and most non-geeks aren't going to want to listen to much of it. Take something like Switched On Bach, a geek will appreciate what Wendy Carlos got out the electronic music equivalent of a stone ax. Most people will just hear beeps and boops that sound something like high school music class.

 

Past a certain point, I feel the same way myself. Early seventies synths did best accompanied by guitars, drums, and so forth. Except for few Kraftwerk type acts, they weren't the entire show. The SID was an amazingly capable thing to find in an early eighties home computer and better in most ways than what Carlos made that album with. The appetite for pure SID (or POKEY for that matter) chiptunes outside our little geek universe is limited at best.

[Oswald]

people have to learn any "music" its not like when you get born, you come out equipped with liking guiter piano and whatever sounds

 

I believe the point he was trying to get at is that chip music is an acquired taste ...

 

it doesnt matters anyways since that argument equals those of the spectrum fans: "more vibrating colors", and "more clean sound". makes no sense. Because he is trying to use it against the SID only, while not having the brains to realise that the same applies to Pokey aswell.

[Allas]

This debate is very long. I'll try to explain more short what are the real situation between C64 and Atari graphics.

 

There are basically 2 resolutions of working:

 

320x200 : C64 is the best on whatever picture or game could show graphics on this res. Even if C64 not using the map color. The hi-res of Atari is very basically due to the early design of the system.

 

160x200 : Ok, there are many nice pictures on C64, but all are built on 16 colors of a fixed palette of 16 colors. I can see the human part (the artist) do the great difference between Atari can do and C64 do. For example this is a clean picture 160x200 on Atari:

 

 

It's an early graphic from 85' that show clearly how Atari manage with DLIs the colors. DLIs is a trick? ... oh no DLIa and VBIs if the natural food of everyday on Atari. Looks nice, something primitive at the style of "put colors to do a great total screen". With the help of an artist The colors for every line could be treated carefully to enhance the image, and the results. Of course, in the same way, C64 enhance his painting but with other restrictions.

 

Even with that, C64 have the better way to get all colors on screen, again thanks to the map color. But there are a hole in his possibilities,... C64 only can manage 16 colors, always the same 16 colors. There is no chance to choice others from a palette. Atari have this advantage, and can use extra colors from his palette (always with the limitations), with help of DLIs, can fill the screen with more than 8 color that is the prom of color C64 use on his games. And the better of all, are 8 colors (or more) choice from a palette. So you can get good screen, and can refresh every level with other colors from his palette of 256 colors.

 

There are a lot of games that show that, for example, I choice ALLEY CAT, to see on fast and easy way how Atari manage the colors on screen with success. Maybe it's not the best example, but it's easy to view how Atari do.

 

Of Course, always there are some type of games that go better with a map color.

 

 

Other resolutions:

 

Atari here have the monopoly. Always there are interesting modes:

 

 

And in this topic Atari generate advantages on critical stages of development. More complex games requires memory and extra CPU speed. Besides Atari is more fast than C64, could easily gain more extra cycles using some of this modes (for example 160x100x4),... ok.. ok with a loss of quality graphics, but sometimes is necessary (for example Yoomp!).

 

Not always a gain over some topic should be mean a total advantage as you can see. Games as Crownland, Space Harrier or Yoomp (for saying some of last productions) show some details that can't be filled with a C64. So I finally think, all depend what are you doing or want to do. Honestly, I think most of the little or moderate ideas for a game could be programmed easily, better and fast with a C64. But i'm not sure with those games with high pretensions.

Edited April 26, 2008 by Allas

[Rybags]

One thing I notice especially in C-64 pictures - they rely heavily on dithering.

So, you're effectively halving your resolution mixing 2 colours to get a perceived third. Of course, the same happens on the Atari if it's using APAC or CIN.

 

Atari BASIC slowness comes down to the slow FP ROM, and the fact that it is optimised towards efficient use of program space, and cramming in lots of commands into 8K.

 

BCD is in no way a slowdown - many computers store constants as ASCII strings and they have to get converted to BCD before being used in calculations.

Forget integer variables too on the C64. You lose one byte for the % sign in the variable name each reference, plus they also get converted from integer to FP for use in calculations.

 

Another shortfall of Atari BASIC is that it uses line numbers as GOTO targets (some BASICs used memory offsets and had to recalculate every one when new lines were entered). The biggest downfall was that for GOTOs, RETURNS, NEXT - any branch situation, it searches from the start of the program for the target.

The C-64 as I understand it, compares the high byte of the target line with the current one, then makes the decision to look forward or start at the beginning of the program for it's target line.

Edited April 26, 2008 by Rybags

[thomasholzer]

it doesnt matters anyways since that argument equals those of the spectrum fans

 

 

Nevertheless, the ZX Spectrum was the number one selling computer in the UK. C64 might have been the worlds best selling computer, but in UK it only played second fiddle.

Edited April 26, 2008 by thomasholzer