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

[atariksi]

It's not a fact because I stated that if you were only making that argument then the IBM PC would be the choice.

 

and what sense does that make? If my only argument in this a8 vs c64 flaming would be that c64 handles hires better, then you would say that "BUT the ibm pc can do better" ?!??!

 

I.e., if you were there at that time "80s Computer Scene...", if you're only argument was C64 has better resolution, I would say, "buy a PC". It's not flaming for me. But unfortunately, that's all it is for you.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I'll let the logicians determine whether it's the same argument 3 times.

This is getting boooring.

[TMR]

Without tricks, anything that has sprite height greater than 21 will not be doable on your C64. With tricks, atari can handle more IRQs, DLIs, etc. than the C64 due to the greater CPU speed.

 

Of course it can do objects taller than 21 pixels without tricks, put one sprite below the other and it's a 42 pixel high object, no big deal and any CPU grind the C64 can display four of those on a single scanline in multicolour or high res (which is more than the four single-colour players and twice as many as multicolour players). And once we start talking about using CPU power all bets are off, have a look at this screenshot;

 

 

That's a boss stage of Turrican 2 and the boss, taking up a large proportion of the right hand half of the screen there, is several screens high and moves aroud quite a bit - and it's all sprites (in fact, the red detail under it is high res characters which is something else the Atari hasn't got the option of doing, mixing those into a multi-colour display).

[TMR]

I.e., if you were there at that time "80s Computer Scene...", if you're only argument was C64 has better resolution, I would say, "buy a PC". It's not flaming for me. But unfortunately, that's all it is for you.

 

It's not his only point and never has been throughout the discussion, so it's somewhat moot.

[atariksi]

Without tricks, anything that has sprite height greater than 21 will not be doable on your C64. With tricks, atari can handle more IRQs, DLIs, etc. than the C64 due to the greater CPU speed.

 

Of course it can do objects taller than 21 pixels without tricks, put one sprite below the other and it's a 42 pixel high object, no big deal and any CPU grind the C64 can display four of those on a single scanline in multicolour or high res (which is more than the four single-colour players and twice as many as multicolour players). And once we start talking about using CPU power all bets are off, have a look at this screenshot;

 

 

That's a boss stage of Turrican 2 and the boss, taking up a large proportion of the right hand half of the screen there, is several screens high and moves aroud quite a bit - and it's all sprites (in fact, the red detail under it is high res characters which is something else the Atari hasn't got the option of doing, mixing those into a multi-colour display).

 

I already gave the example where I used it. It was used for curtains closing with a picture behind it. It requires full height and width including overscan and the sprites were colored with DLIs.

[atariksi]

I.e., if you were there at that time "80s Computer Scene...", if you're only argument was C64 has better resolution, I would say, "buy a PC". It's not flaming for me. But unfortunately, that's all it is for you.

 

It's not his only point and never has been throughout the discussion, so it's somewhat moot.

Read his recent posts if you want to represent him.

[Oswald]

I.e., if you were there at that time "80s Computer Scene...", if you're only argument was C64 has better resolution, I would say, "buy a PC". It's not flaming for me. But unfortunately, that's all it is for you.

 

It's not his only point and never has been throughout the discussion, so it's somewhat moot.

Read his recent posts if you want to represent him.

 

 

how about arguing in an intelligent&cultered way, and neglecting saying stuff like "if your argument was this then I would say that" ?

[TMR]

I already gave the example where I used it. It was used for curtains closing with a picture behind it. It requires full height and width including overscan and the sprites were colored with DLIs.

 

That doesn't matter, you said "With tricks, atari can handle more IRQs, DLIs, etc. than the C64 due to the greater CPU speed" and i've just shown you a sprite-generated object that is 160 pixels tall on screen (and stops there because the play area stops there) and getting close to 500 pixels high all told. A curtain effect doesn't trump that - after all, without seeing it i don't even know if the door effect in Rocket Ranger (with it's second layer of sprite objects behind) or the wipes i put into my demo INC D021 top it yet.

[jdh]

What's the biggest thread ever on the Atari Age Atari8 bit computers forum?

 

Anyway, this argument was settled in the mid to late 80s.

 

 

Atari is better because the TV said so

 

@TMR thanks for the links - impressive stuff!

[emkay]

Nice! ... IDE64 transfer aprox 70K/seg . Similar transfer rate we have on Atari.

The C64 demo video was built with great quality. The Matrix movie was digitized, but I see there is bad quality on the capture of single frames. Now the run is what machine reach the 60fps! (with sound please)

 

 

Don't forget the C64 version doesn't play sound there. The "Impressice Stuff" orginally was a MP3 connected to the line in of the machine. The ATARI version plays sound, which seems using a CPU cycle count, the C64 may have all in all (loading the sound data also from HD)

AND: The visual stuff again: The A8 resolution is really straight showing a 64x192 screen with always the maximum of data.

On the C64 you see a clever choosing between the hires and charset resolution (resulting by the colour usage restriction of the standard textmode. At the end it looks like a heavily broken video codec, and you have to fight tending between "very good" and "lousy crap".

 

 

To Oswalds Post about C64 killing ATARI: I think, people who blame Commodore for their marketing really don't have a clue about marketing itself. Looking at today's PC market, and comparing it, Tramiel sold a "4 years old" PC with a good painting on the case, making people believe it was the best they can buy.

Heck, I remember, when Tramiel "captured" ATARI, they started to say the same about the XE system as they did some years ago for the C64: Best graphics and sound....

But, as we can see, Tramiel hasn't got the victory as he had at commodore...

[TMR]

I.e., if you were there at that time "80s Computer Scene...", if you're only argument was C64 has better resolution, I would say, "buy a PC". It's not flaming for me. But unfortunately, that's all it is for you.

 

It's not his only point and never has been throughout the discussion, so it's somewhat moot.

Read his recent posts if you want to represent him.

 

i don't need to, you're mischaracterising what he's said in the bit i've quoted above; your argument was that if his only argument was that the C64 has better resolution and it isn't and has never been.

[TMR]

I think, people who blame Commodore for their marketing really don't have a clue about marketing itself. Looking at today's PC market, and comparing it, Tramiel sold a "4 years old" PC with a good painting on the case, making people believe it was the best they can buy.

 

You're grossly over-simplifying things; if all "Tramiel" (or more accurately, his marketing people) had to do was trot out a campaign that said "C64 - it's the bestest" it would've worked again when tried for the XE series. Marketing simply doesn't work like that and there were several other factors in play such as favourable write-ups in magazines, a developing software library that was pretty impressive, a good price for the target market, word of mouth and so forth; when Commodore finally pulled the plug on the C64 it was because the sales had finally dropped too low to warrant production runs, but they stopped advertising or marketing it well before that point and some of the other factors kept it in play.

[emkay]

You're grossly over-simplifying things; if all "Tramiel" (or more accurately, his marketing people) had to do was trot out a campaign that said "C64 - it's the bestest" it would've worked again when tried for the XE series. Marketing simply doesn't work like that and there were several other factors in play such as favourable write-ups in magazines, a developing software library that was pretty impressive, a good price for the target market, word of mouth and so forth; when Commodore finally pulled the plug on the C64 it was because the sales had finally dropped too low to warrant production runs, but they stopped advertising or marketing it well before that point and some of the other factors kept it in play.

 

 

As I wrote: It was Commodore selling the C64 with this success. Tramiel himeself wasn't even capable of seeing Gold if it drops on his foot.

Same with the AMIGA. C did everything correct here (but now with the real advanced hardware of the AMIGA). Later they began to make wrong decisions, like making the OS incompatible and to force "old" AMIGA Users to build OS Switches if they want to use new programs...

That's why Microsoft grew more and more. They found a ways of having ca high compatibilty down to 4-6 year old machines.

Just add a library to the old os, makes it possible to use newer software on the old os.... and so on.

But that's another story.

Edited April 27, 2008 by emkay

[TMR]

As I wrote: It was Commodore selling the C64 with this success. Tramiel himeself wasn't even capable of seeing Gold if it drops on his foot.

 

But i disagree because Commodore's marketing and particularly after Tramiel left was haphazard at best and in some territories it was appalling; POS leaflets with errors and ridiculously poor screenshots to "sell" the machine (on the occasions they could be bothered), some questionable decisions regarding pack-in games and i'd love to have been at the meeting where the C64GS was put forward because it just had to be after a very successful lunchtime trip to the pub! "Lets pretend the C64 is a console, that'll work! You're my beshtest mate you are [hic]..."

[Heaven/TQA]

das wird mir zu blöd so langsam... or so to say... i am out of here for couple of time as soon as the guys here get serious... and not doing "my car my house my wife"...

[thomasholzer]

Right, so far we discovered that th A8 can you anything the C64 could or can, or should that be the other way round, the C64 can do most of the things the A8 can do very well.

Let me put in the real winner, were software is concerned, the Apple ][ (That'll brighten it up a bit):

 

16.000 titles by 1985, and Apple ][ was supported until 1993, so overall estimate by 1993: 20.000 titles.

And 1000s of original classics on Apple][, still being played today in some form or another.

Edited April 27, 2008 by thomasholzer

[Rybags]

16,000 titles - but these days you'd maybe bother with 160 of them.

[Oswald]

I already gave the example where I used it. It was used for curtains closing with a picture behind it. It requires full height and width including overscan and the sprites were colored with DLIs.

 

who cares about your curtain effect?

 

the fact is you fail to admit something thats as obvious that the a8 cpu is faster: c64s sprites are better.

 

I am all here admitting the advantages of the a8, while you repeatedly (I have asked you now like 5 times!) fail to bring an example where the a8 sprites does better in a game AND refuse after that that the c64 sprites are BETTER.t

 

either get off this thread, or start admitting reality, just like heaven, and a bunch of other atarians already do. coz you are arguing here with athari fans adwell not just c64 fans with your biased views.

[Oswald]

Right, so far we discovered that th A8 can you anything the C64 could or can, or should that be the other way round, the C64 can do most of the things the A8 can do very well.

 

no, it cant do this for example, so your sentence is a big phat lie:

 

 

 

and this is just one of many things it cant do a c64 can.

[Heaven/TQA]

Oswald... but sometimes you are fanatic like hell, too...

[emkay]

As I wrote: It was Commodore selling the C64 with this success. Tramiel himeself wasn't even capable of seeing Gold if it drops on his foot.

 

But i disagree because Commodore's marketing and particularly after Tramiel left was haphazard at best and in some territories it was appalling; POS leaflets with errors and ridiculously poor screenshots to "sell" the machine (on the occasions they could be bothered), some questionable decisions regarding pack-in games and i'd love to have been at the meeting where the C64GS was put forward because it just had to be after a very successful lunchtime trip to the pub! "Lets pretend the C64 is a console, that'll work! You're my beshtest mate you are [hic]..."

 

Wasn't it Tramiel who decided to put a less achieved soundchip inside the C64 to have it cheaper than with a SID, because he feared for low selling counts? But today things are clear... Look at the Plus 4, the real heritage of what Tramiel wanted. Better in all aspects but sound, the Plus 4 lost in every case.

Even the ST, build at ATARI clearly shows where the Tramiels gone.... The ST was nothing but a 16 Bit "Plus 4" without a textmode. Even the "colour cells" are there....

Edited April 27, 2008 by emkay

[Oswald]

Right, so far we discovered that th A8 can you anything the C64 could or can, or should that be the other way round, the C64 can do most of the things the A8 can do very well.

Let me put in the real winner, were software is concerned, the Apple ][ (That'll brighten it up a bit):

16.000 titles by 1985, and Apple ][ was supported until 1993, so overall estimate by 1993: 20.000 titles.

And 1000s of original classics on Apple][, still being played today in some form or another.

 

you're like the other zealot guy comparing c64 to PCs and Amigas. probably because in the atari field you are loosing out big time, but this time c64 beats even the shitty apple:

 

"]In total (according to Gamebase 64) there exist well over 20,000 unique game titles for the Commodore 64 - perhaps the largest game catalog for any home computer or game console to date, and easily rivaling the quantity of games produced for the["

 

"The Commodore 64 amassed a large software library of nearly 10,000 commercial titles"

[Oswald]

Oswald... but sometimes you are fanatic like hell, too...

 

I dont think I should accept all these lies. and spectrum fan level idiotic statements you think I should ?

[Oswald]

Don't forget the C64 version doesn't play sound there. The "Impressice Stuff" orginally was a MP3 connected to the line in of the machine. The ATARI version plays sound, which seems using a CPU cycle count, the C64 may have all in all (loading the sound data also from HD)

 

emkay, your knowledge about computers is ammazingly small, or you either have some serious problems in reading and memorizing a text. as I already wrote the sound is coming from the audio out of a cd-rom drive. and thats no MP3, and not connected to the line in of the machine.

 

AND: The visual stuff again: The A8 resolution is really straight showing a 64x192 screen with always the maximum of data.

On the C64 you see a clever choosing between the hires and charset resolution (resulting by the colour usage restriction of the standard textmode. At the end it looks like a heavily broken video codec, and you have to fight tending between "very good" and "lousy crap".

 

wtf does mean "always the maximum data" ? c64 uses aswell "always the maximum data" for the screen why wouldn it ??!

and there is no choosing between hires and charset resolution. its textmode all the way, with charsets being optimized to each screen.

the standard textmode has 16 colors, while the effect is running in multicolor which has 4 colors. so its NOT the color usage restriction of standard textmode.

you can not get a single fact right. how about stopping commenting on stuff you dont seem to have the slightest clue of ?

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I dont think I should accept all these lies. and spectrum fan level idiotic statements you think I should ?

Yes, just let go. This thread is hopeless now anyway.

 

Some guys here are looking more and more childish.