Most accessible 8-bit?

[TMR]

Yes, you are right, the question was about accessibility rather than cost but I don't think the topic starter ("a super noob like me") would love to spend this amount of money just to play all beautiful C64 games.

 

i never said he should did i, in fact i never even said he should get a C64 either - you seem to be confusing me with someone else.

 

It's just everso slightly annoying that now theres a solution for the C64 that can actually match the Atari devices it just seems like people here are jumping on any reason to give it a kicking; it comes across as very insecure. And if you're going to write off a solution purely because it's more expensive (especially when that solution does so much more for that price that anyone, noob or otherwise, can use) then the Sinclair Spectrum was cheaper than the C64 or Atari 8-bit so perhaps he should get one of those instead.

[+Philsan]

Yes, you are right, the question was about accessibility rather than cost but I don't think the topic starter ("a super noob like me") would love to spend this amount of money just to play all beautiful C64 games.

 

i never said he should did i, in fact i never even said he should get a C64 either - you seem to be confusing me with someone else.

 

It's just everso slightly annoying that now theres a solution for the C64 that can actually match the Atari devices it just seems like people here are jumping on any reason to give it a kicking; it comes across as very insecure. And if you're going to write off a solution purely because it's more expensive (especially when that solution does so much more for that price that anyone, noob or otherwise, can use) then the Sinclair Spectrum was cheaper than the C64 or Atari 8-bit so perhaps he should get one of those instead.

 

I am not confusing you with someone else; you never said the topic starter should buy a C64 and I never said that.

I have said it is easier to transfer files to Atari and you have replied that three devices do pretty much the same thing.

As I have explained, the first 2 devices you have mentioned don't do the same thing.

The third device do the same things and others but it is not cheap.

That's all.

I think it's you that are confusing me with someone else.

I like 1941 Ultimate, I have waited for a similar solution for many years (I have bought MMC64 and 64HDD), when I have known about it I have posted a message in an Italian C64 forum, in the future perhaps I'll buy it; I don't give it a kick at all!

[TMR]

I have said it is easier to transfer files to Atari and you have replied that three devices do pretty much the same thing.

As I have explained, the first 2 devices you have mentioned don't do the same thing.

The third device do the same things and others but it is not cheap.

 

So in other words, it's just as easy to transfer files for either machine, which is the point i pulled you up on wasn't it. Glad we've got that sorted out. =-)

[carmel_andrews]

Only thing i remember about the c64 was that it relied too heavily on so called 'turbo loaders' to get the tape/disk system to load the software at anything like a decent speed...i'm guessing assuming that c64 equivalents of sio-pc/to sd/to usb and my ide etc suffer the same problem...i.e a reliance on 'turbo loaders' to get decent loading speed

 

Whilst i accept the A8 tape loading wasn't brilliant, the only reason why turbo loaders were never propular with the A8 is mostly due to the fact that Atari chose different manufacturers for the 1010/xc11/12 etc and whilst they were 'electronically' identical, there might have been issues or prob's in the various turbo upgrades like the eastern euro. ones as well asthe microdiscount/rambit turbo upgrades and using them in the different versions of the 1010/xc11/12

 

If memory recalls, the only tape game released that used hi-speed loading (without the aid of any mod's to the hardware) was Americana's 'Dimension X'

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, you are right, the question was about accessibility rather than cost but I don't think the topic starter ("a super noob like me") would love to spend this amount of money just to play all beautiful C64 games.

 

i never said he should did i, in fact i never even said he should get a C64 either - you seem to be confusing me with someone else.

 

It's just everso slightly annoying that now theres a solution for the C64 that can actually match the Atari devices it just seems like people here are jumping on any reason to give it a kicking; it comes across as very insecure. And if you're going to write off a solution purely because it's more expensive (especially when that solution does so much more for that price that anyone, noob or otherwise, can use) then the Sinclair Spectrum was cheaper than the C64 or Atari 8-bit so perhaps he should get one of those instead.

[+Philsan]

So in other words, it's just as easy to transfer files for either machine, which is the point i pulled you up on wasn't it. Glad we've got that sorted out. =-)

I haven't tested 1941 Ultimate but yes, I think we can say that now it's just as easy to transfer files for either machines but for the C64 you have to spend near 4 times more.

[TMR]

So in other words, it's just as easy to transfer files for either machine, which is the point i pulled you up on wasn't it. Glad we've got that sorted out. =-)

I haven't tested 1941 Ultimate but yes, I think we can say that now it's just as easy to transfer files for either machines but for the C64 you have to spend near 4 times more.

 

You really have to stop going on about the price, you'll start to get a twitch! (And what happened in 1941 then...?)

Edited August 4, 2008 by TMR

[Marius]

Hey Folks,

 

Is this AGAIN going to be such a dumb 'which is better? C64 / Atari 8bit' thread?

 

I really really REALLY hope not.

 

Thanks

M.

[TMR]

Only thing i remember about the c64 was that it relied too heavily on so called 'turbo loaders' to get the tape/disk system to load the software at anything like a decent speed...i'm guessing assuming that c64 equivalents of sio-pc/to sd/to usb and my ide etc suffer the same problem...i.e a reliance on 'turbo loaders' to get decent loading speed

 

Not really, it's more the other way around because the majority of these C64 devices don't work with fastloaders because they're not directly simulating the disk drive fully and are merely pretending; for data transfer that isn't so much of an issue because they give about three times the transfer speed anyway due to the way they work so a simple disk to disk or file copier can quite happily shuffle data to and from a real drive with them. And, as long as the program has the option of disabling it's software fastloader like most "jewel" cracks do (since doing so makes them load quickly on emulators as well) they'll work quite happily anyway.

 

But the 1541 Ultimate actually pretends to be the entire drive including all of the electronics, so when the more serious fast loaders that upload their own management and even decompression code to the disk drive's RAM for it's CPU to execute (the drive has it's own 6502 and 2K onboard) it can deal with most of them and, as the firmware is improved, it'll eventually do just about everything. It'll also deal with any jewel crack that uses a RAM expansion as a virtual drive and eventually will allow tape loading from TAP files by the look of it.

 

MMC64 is a different matter again, not much supports it but the programs that do load like the clappers because it's all done as parallel data transfers through the cartridge port rather than over the IEC serial bus (i have a third party 3.5" disk drive that does that, the software on the cart is rubbish but the transfer rates are bloody scary!)

[TMR]

Is this AGAIN going to be such a dumb 'which is better? C64 / Atari 8bit' thread?

 

I really really REALLY hope not.

 

Actually, it's more of a comparison of various SD and MMC solutions between the two, not the machines themselves... =-)

 

Thanks

 

Y'welcome. =-)

[+remowilliams]

The C64 has 64TPC (PC to IEC serial), MMC2IEC and the 1541 Ultimate, they do pretty much the same thing.

No offense to the others, but the 1541U is in a different universe than those other products.

 

If you are talking about 64HDD, I have it: awful compared to SIO2PC (also usb, nice GUI, Vista compatible)

Yes, sadly 64HDD is an experience in user hostility.

[JamesD]

The 1200xl has arguably the nicest keyboard... but the standard ROM has some compatibility issues so modding would be a priority.

 

The 1200XL ROM is different, yes... but I think the compatibility issues are overstated. Is there a list somewhere of stuff that works on the 800XL ROM but not the 1200XL? Everything I've thrown at mine seems to work fine (mostly games).

 

 

I agree 100%. I have the 32-in-1 OS upgrade in my 1200XL now, so compatibility with every A8 version is what I have now, but before the upgrade I tried 100's of games/titles on my 1200XL and never had a single problem with compatibility. I think that the compatibility issues were really between the 800 and 1200XL, which is were this "incompatibility" myth stems from, as all the later XL models had the very same incompatibilities to the 800, but the 1200XL was the first, so it's incompatibility reputation is the one that lived on through mis/disinformation. In any case there are only about half a dozen programs between the 800 and later models that only work on the 800 without OS mods. So it's all very overated anyway.

And the original poster wanted to kinda stay away from hard modding, soldering, etc...

He was interested in the out of the box experience.

 

BTW, when I first read the thread I thought he was just talking about 8 bit Ataris.

 

The Apple II series is pretty accessible, mods are plugging in a card, IIe's are plentiful with drives, etc. The IIgs is better but a little more expensive. A IIc is a great all in one machine and it's compact. The Laser 128EX would be the best clone. Apple also had a pretty good BASIC. Apple II programming books are probably the easiest to find of any 8 bit. It also has a game library that rivals the C64 if not surpassing it in some ways due to the common use of the floppy. However, unless you have an add on sound board like the Mockingboard, the sound is horrid and those boards are rare.

 

If you want to program in BASIC... Tandy CoCo is the hands down winner. Preferably the CoCo III. Microsoft's later BASICs for the PC were based on the same syntax. The CoCo also has the 6809 which is arguably the most powerful 8 bit CPU and I'd say it's the only one that supports high level languages well. The 6502 is horrid for stack based languages like C (though the 65816 in the IIgs isn't bad). However, floppy drives aren't as common for it and neither are programming books. The CoCo had one of the best library of knockoffs of arcade games simply because most major game companies ignored it and rarely if ever sued anyone for copyright infringement.

 

The 64 is the best for sprite graphics but I think if you go for the 64 you might be better off getting the C128.

[carmel_andrews]

TMR...A question about using HD (Hard disks/drives) upgrades on the C64

 

Does the c64 have the same prob. the a8 has with using hard drives i.e a limit on the size of each partition and a limit on how many hd partitions or devices the c64 can access

 

As far as i recall, on the a8, you are limited to a max of 16-48/50 meg for a partition and a max of 8 or 9 devices or partitions for atari dos and compatibles

 

Does the c64 have the same limitations or can you have unlimited sizes of partition and unlimited partitions on the c64

 

 

just curious, that's all

[Oswald]

Apple also had a pretty good BASIC. Apple II programming books are probably the easiest to find of any 8 bit. It also has a game library that rivals the C64 if not surpassing it in some ways due to the common use of the floppy.

 

?!... I bet c64 has the most programming books around (most popular machine) and all c64 games does work with a floppy. I dont think it even surpasses atari 8 bit game library...

 

The 64 is the best for sprite graphics but I think if you go for the 64 you might be better off getting the C128.

 

you forgot the graphics, and the sound I wouldnt advise the c128, as there's hardly a handful of games which are using it's capabilities.

[Bryan]

But the 1541 Ultimate actually pretends to be the entire drive including all of the electronics, so when the more serious fast loaders that upload their own management and even decompression code to the disk drive's RAM for it's CPU to execute (the drive has it's own 6502 and 2K onboard) it can deal with most of them and, as the firmware is improved, it'll eventually do just about everything. It'll also deal with any jewel crack that uses a RAM expansion as a virtual drive and eventually will allow tape loading from TAP files by the look of it.

 

You know, it never occurred to me how much more difficult it would be to emulate the 1541. Since the typical Atari drive only has a simple command structure it's easy to cover all the bases. But on the 1541 people were often uploading code so you end up needing a full emulator.

[+Philsan]

You really have to stop going on about the price, you'll start to get a twitch!

Thanks but I am in good physical shape. Yesterday I have played a football match scoring an header's goal!

 

Before 1541 Ultimate, I was interested in 1541-III.

Unfortunately at the time it was impossible to buy it because the author had no time to build more units after the first orders.

Now I read that he will build again units for those who are unable to build one themselves.

Have you tested this device? Compatibility level?

Edited August 6, 2008 by Philsan

[TMR]

Now I read that he will build again units for those who are unable to build one themselves.

Have you tested this device?

 

i've not had a chance no, i'm always somewhat... financially challenged shall we say. i do plan on getting MMC2IEC in the near future (to replace the DOS box and XE1541 i currently use) and then a 1541u at some point, though.

[doctorclu]

Is there anything like the MyIde for the C=64? Something that I can add a flash drive to a C=64?