Atari v Commodore

[Allas]

well, I try not to participate in these "yearly 100+ posts Atari vs CBM threads" but.. I never liked the colors of this thing in the emulator

 

here.. a better color version..

 

xscroll_v2.zip

 

 

one good thing about this scroll demo is that, "practically" it doesn't use cpu time, because of the nice tricks you can do with the display lists and the LMS's.. and they are 4x4 wide mode screens, of 48x28 characters (I don't remember why I don't used the fifth color).. also the foreground scrolls at a speed of 1 pixel per frame (horizontally and vertically), so the "background" scrolls at 1/2 pixel per frame (I know, I know.. one every two frames), but it doesn't look "bad"..

 

NRV

 

Your demo is perfect for this discussion. Slow scrolls can be managed very well with adequate timings on VBI. Thank you for the new set colors, it looks fine. I guess you saved the 5th color to use as char bullets (White color as on Turrican C64 game)

[atariksi]

C64 needs a bit CPU overhead for scrolling, but A8 needs much much more for software sprites. In the end it's easier to code a scrolling game with sprites on C64 and that's the main reason why the C64 was the bigger market success.

 

No man, the best seller computer always be the cheaper computer. (And this, nothing to do with the quality, its a matter of marketing. Other way, C64 have a respectable quality for his time)

When i bought my C64, i knew has scroll hardware, but never suspect how powerful in comparison with Atari after many years after.

Even, other computers without scroll by hardware sold more games than Atari 8bit.

 

If you were building a computer today and had to choose scrolling hardware between having hscrl/vscrl bits with 1/640 width accuracy (2I2F color clocks) vs. Atari scrolling hardware with 4 hsrcl/vscrl bits (4I color clocks) along with LMS, DL, etc., I would still choose the Atari.

[Crazyace]

Nowadays I'd just use a 3D card and get subpixel scroll accuracy

[Fröhn]

it's easier to code a scrolling game with sprites on C64 and that's the main reason why the C64 was the bigger market success

NO it was not the hardware that made it popular - it was CHEAP and so it sold a lot, so there was huge demand for software, so people wrote lots for it, so it was attractive to more users, so it sold more etc...

Following that logic the ZX Spectrum would be the most selling home computer. But it isn't. Price isn't everything, but also what you get for the price.

[Fröhn]

You still have not explained how you can have a 160*240 sprite overlay and a bitmap behind it (or in front of it).

Ofcourse I have explained that. But I will explain again: By setting up new Y-positions every 21 rasterlines. Doesn't need to be accurate, VIC2 will only look at the Y-positions after the currently displayed sprites are finished. And ofcourse by updating sprite vectors too.

[dwhyte]

Doesn't it all boil down to eight bit, Chuck Peddle goodness? How the support chips supplemented it is kind of moot as long as the context and content can be enjoyed...

[Jetboot Jack]

Following that logic the ZX Spectrum would be the most selling home computer. But it isn't. Price isn't everything, but also what you get for the price.

 

Exactly - in those markets where the ZX spectrum was sold/marketed properly (read the UK) it DID sell hugely well despite being utter rubbish, a bit like the CPC being popular in certain markets too, very good value for money, technically poor tho'...

 

sTeVE

 

ALthough my comments may be tinged with Z80 negativity

Edited April 6, 2009 by Jetboot Jack

[TMR]

What's in a name. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

 

If you tried tell people that your rose was actually a daffodil in order to prove you had the sweetest smelling one, the men in white coats would be popping by to take you on a little trip. You can't go around renaming stuff just to suit your own arguments, that's constantly been my point despite all the obfuscation you've attempted to introduce.

 

Regardless of whether you are in 160*200 or 320*200, you keep scrolling by half a color clock, the color cannot be retained. Nothing vague but your understanding of it (see msg #3065).

 

As i've repeatedly said you're wrong there. Heaven's just told you in #3169 that you're wrong, potatohead in #3170 and there are thousands of C64 games that scroll at half a clock.

 

Do you have a problem reading a simple reply (msg #3013) or are just too biased to admit you misunderstood the point? Frohn mentioned that he can do full screen height sprites (which implies overscan) and he can use for image enhancement.

 

A sprite layer generally can go into upper and lower borders. When i said i'd code it in #3080, i mentioned that it was going to be the basics of an enhancement layer which obviously means it's meant to overlay/underlay the 320x200 or 160x200 screen in order to enhance it; the layer itself can head into the upper and lower borders very easily, but since it's an enhancement layer and there's nothing there to enhance so i didn't see the bloody point of going there!

 

My point was there's not enough cycles (every 20 or so lines) once you have overscan and sprite multiplexing to cover the screen.

 

Where you're being vague there (and partly why you're wrong) is that the overscan being discussed is specifically into the upper and lower borders (in order to go up to full height) which is a simple matter of writing to the vertical smooth scroll register twice a frame with a relatively large margin of error for each.

 

You method of having only two screen rams also I don't accept.

 

Okay, i'll explain how it works rather than coding it and the same thing'll work for enhancement or more general sprite layers...

 

In order to change the seven sprite data pointers (this actually changes all eight, but only seven horizontally expanded sprites are needed to cover the 320 pixel wide area) it's just a matter of having two sets of pointers (and therefore two screen RAMs) like i've said; for the first row of sprites, the first set of pointers is governing what they look like and, whilst they're in the process of being displayed, the second set of pointers is fed values for the second row of sprites. When the first row finishes the hardware moves the sprites down and a quick LDA / STA changes from the first to second set of pointers before the new sprites start so the gap you theorised doesn't happen. Then as the second row of sprites is displayed, the sprites are moved again and the now off-screen first set of pointers are refreshed with the values for the third row; the second row finishes, the hardware moves the sprites and another LDA / STA changes back to the first set of pointers just as seamlessly as before. Then just rinse and repeat for the rest of the area covered.

 

i can also think of ways ways to just use one set of pointers, but at least one of them would be twice as complex to explain and very memory hungry.

 

Re-READ what I wrote: I was talking about both and you are asking which I am talking about.

 

You said "Yeah, I was talking about both 320 resolution scrolling and 320 mode." so fine you're talking about both there but when you went on to say "Both machines have a way of doing 320*200 resolution but neither machine uses it in most of their games." and that's the vague bit; it only talks about the resolution of the screen (since it's got a vertical dimension) so it doesn't naturally imply that you mean scrolling as well. And you need to clarify what constitutes "most of their games" because that's pretty vague in itself.

[TMR]

C64 1/320 scroll with 1/50 updating is the same (on speed) with 2/320 Atari scroll with 2/50 updating. There is no problem with the 2/320 movement scroll on Atari, is enough.

 

Atariksi and i were specifically discussing smoothness (even if he keeps trying to change the subject to a more broad one) so of the two machines, the one that isn't dropping 25 frames out of 50 is going to be producing the smoother movement. 25FPS is perfectly workable yes and the minimum speed to fool the human eye if memory serves (but not the maximum speed as i've seen people on other forums say previously), but that doesn't make it as smooth as 50FPS; many can see the difference, some to a surprisingly high level.

[Crazyace]

The spectrum sold for 129 at launch , when the c64 was 399 , so even though the hardware sucked in comparision it still sold.

The Amstrad was actually far more competitive with the C64 - and it had some nice points ( like the 16 colour/pixel 160 mode, and a 640pixel high res mode ) , and the fact that it came with a monitor!

[youki]

it's easier to code a scrolling game with sprites on C64 and that's the main reason why the C64 was the bigger market success

 

NO it was not the hardware that made it popular - it was CHEAP and so it sold a lot, so there was huge demand for software, so people wrote lots for it, so it was attractive to more users, so it sold more etc...

 

Hardware performance NEVER drives the market place - otherwise we might have seen the Lynx being popular or the Megadrive dead quickly, but we didn't

 

sTeVE

 

What makes the success of a computer or console, it is not the price and not the performance , it is just a matter of marketting and chance (to be at the right place at the right moment...).

 

In early 80 , there were bunch of machines that were technically lot better than C64 or Atari XL , but they didn't have success unfortunaly due mainly to poor marketting

[Crazyace]

Any particular machines in mind?

[Bryan]

Market success depends on a lot of factors and will always be a combination of skill, luck, value, promotion and timing. At its launch, the 64 offered the best performance per dollar and the market for home computers was expanding. The other computer manufacturers created the void that Commodore filled.

 

Atari's mistake was steering their entire line in the high-end direction of the 1200-1450XL to compete with Apple.

[frogstar_robot]

C64 needs a bit CPU overhead for scrolling, but A8 needs much much more for software sprites. In the end it's easier to code a scrolling game with sprites on C64 and that's the main reason why the C64 was the bigger market success.

 

No man, the best seller computer always be the cheaper computer. (And this, nothing to do with the quality, its a matter of marketing. Other way, C64 have a respectable quality for his time)

When i bought my C64, i knew has scroll hardware, but never suspect how powerful in comparison with Atari after many years after.

Even, other computers without scroll by hardware sold more games than Atari 8bit.

 

I'll have to go along with this. The issues being debated here would mostly only have been known to professional game developers at the time and for that matter they wouldn't know many of the tricks used by today's developers or have the advantage of every A8 or C-64 that is ever going to be made frozen in stone. Both machines are comparable enough in ability that it really wouldn't have been a selling point compared to something like a Timex Sinclair where the low capability is obvious even to a novice.

 

It would have been parents buying these things for their kids for the most part. Price, the kid wanting what his friends have, the games on the shelf, marketing, and other factors of this nature would have been the deciders. Prior to the XL line, the C-64 definitely delivered more bang for the buck. The 400/800 was priced in the stratosphere by comparison. And a C-64 for $129 has little trouble making a toy looking 400 at $300+ look very very sick. The XL line fixed the price problem after giving the C-64 over a year to establish itself in homes and hearts and neither Warner Atari or Tramiel Atari marketed things very well.

Edited April 6, 2009 by frogstar_robot

[youki]

Any particular machines in mind?

 

About machine better than C64 and Atari which didn't have commercial success.?

 

I thought about the lansay 64 for instance. Very impressive machine for its time.

 

but also the Exel 100 from Exelvision and the serie of Thomson M06 , TO8 , TO9 that cames a little bit later that are technically very good in fact but never exploited.

[Jetboot Jack]

AFAIK...

 

The Lansay 64 (Elan Enterprise) staggered out in 1985 - 6 years after the 800 entered retail...

 

The Exelvision started life in around 1983/1984 - 4/5 years after the 800 went on sale!

 

The Thomsons (aren't they CoCo clones, albeit with better font handling?) - I admit I am ignorant of them, but from what I see online the M06 was released in 1986 - 7 years after the 800...

 

Hardly the 800's competition are they - they should be better released so far after the 800!

 

sTeVE

Edited April 6, 2009 by Jetboot Jack

[youki]

AFAIK...

 

The Lansay 64 (Elan Enterprise) staggered out in 1985 - 6 years after the 800 entered retail...

 

The Exelvision started life in around 1983/1984 - 4/5 years after the 800 went on sale!

 

The Thomsons (aren't they CoCo clones, albeit with better font handling?) - I admit I am ignorant of them, but from what I see online the M06 was released in 1986 - 7 years after the 800...

 

Hardly the 800's competition are they - they should be better released so far after the 800!

 

sTeVE

 

I compare in term of "product" (in the mean of marketting) no technology used in it.

the 800XL (not the 800) appear on the market in 1983

the C64 appears on the market in 82

the Exel 100 , end of 83 .

the lansay 64 , in 84 .

the mo6 & co serie : in 1985

[Bryan]

Hardly the 800's competition are they - they should be better released so far after the 800!

 

sTeVE

 

The contemporaries of the 800 are The Apple II, The VIC-20, TRS-80 Model I...

 

I'd say the 800 was quite revolutionary.

[Crazyace]

Any particular machines in mind?

 

About machine better than C64 and Atari which didn't have commercial success.?

 

I thought about the lansay 64 for instance. Very impressive machine for its time.

 

but also the Exel 100 from Exelvision and the serie of Thomson M06 , TO8 , TO9 that cames a little bit later that are technically very good in fact but never exploited.

 

Do you mean the Enterprise ( I guess Lansay was another name for it ) - that was nice hardware, but it didn't actually come out till nearly 1985 - when the ST and Amiga were entering the market

The Exel 100 looked pretty cool? How fast was it in practice?

Did the Thomson machines have sprites - a lot of the game screenshots look similar to zx spectrum screens

[Allas]

Yes, there was a lot of great computers on 1985. Basically, with the technical enhancing on industry.

I would prefer a 8bit computer with 320x200 with at least 16 colors, 128K, but the great C64 success keep the 8bit industry on his standards.

 

I like Atari 1979 tech, with a little memory enhancements was very competitive hardware. There is no computer on his time that could be compared, only C64 that came on 1982 was built on competitive tech.

[Heaven/TQA]

C64 needs a bit CPU overhead for scrolling, but A8 needs much much more for software sprites. In the end it's easier to code a scrolling game with sprites on C64 and that's the main reason why the C64 was the bigger market success.

 

Fröhn... that's good... "a bit CPU" overhead... for moving every screen byte around... (except using the "Mayhem" method of course...)

[Atari_Owl]

Hardly the 800's competition are they - they should be better released so far after the 800!

 

sTeVE

 

The contemporaries of the 800 are The Apple II, The VIC-20, TRS-80 Model I...

 

I'd say the 800 was quite revolutionary.

 

I think you mean the PET rather than the Vic 20 - i not sure a 1981 computer can really be seen completely as contemporary

 

Would not the real contemporaries be:

 

Significantly before but developing

Apple II

TRS80 Model I

 

About the same time

Sharp MZ80K

DAI

NASCOM 1&2

Commodore PET

 

Shortly After

Atom

Coco

ZX80

NewBrain

 

and a few other minor ones - perhaps more significant in other regions.

 

 

Much as i have a fondness for some of these, more so than for Atari, I'll still admit the 800 WAS very a significant step, and regardless of this massive thread and whether or not the C64 is better, it bloody well should have been, coming so many years down the line.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Atari_Owl

[atariksi]

C64 1/320 scroll with 1/50 updating is the same (on speed) with 2/320 Atari scroll with 2/50 updating. There is no problem with the 2/320 movement scroll on Atari, is enough.

 

Atariksi and i were specifically discussing smoothness (even if he keeps trying to change the subject to a more broad one) so of the two machines, the one that isn't dropping 25 frames out of 50 is going to be producing the smoother movement. 25FPS is perfectly workable yes and the minimum speed to fool the human eye if memory serves (but not the maximum speed as i've seen people on other forums say previously), but that doesn't make it as smooth as 50FPS; many can see the difference, some to a surprisingly high level.

 

Until you stop trying to make false accusations, you won't understand what I am saying. You are purposely trying to find fault rather than understand something really simple. If you want to PROVE that I changed the subject, do it but otherwise keep your mouth shut.

[atariksi]

What's in a name. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

 

If you tried tell people that your rose was actually a daffodil in order to prove you had the sweetest smelling one, the men in white coats would be popping by to take you on a little trip. You can't go around renaming stuff just to suit your own arguments, that's constantly been my point despite all the obfuscation you've attempted to introduce.

 

...

Again missed the point. Analogies are used to help you dull-headed people understand things. Bitplanes work the same way as the multicolor players do on Atari. (period). Go talk to Shakespeare if you don't understand.

 

>As i've repeatedly said you're wrong there. Heaven's just told you in #3169 that you're wrong, potatohead in #3170 and there are thousands of C64 games that scroll at half a clock.

 

Wrong. I stated the color is not retained. YOU ARE CHANGING THE SUBJECT. YOU CAN SCROLL especially if it's just luminance.

 

>A sprite layer generally can go into upper and lower borders. When i said i'd code it in #3080, i mentioned that it was going to be the basics of an enhancement layer which obviously means it's meant to overlay/underlay the 320x200 or 160x200 screen in order to enhance it; the layer itself can head into the upper and lower borders very easily, but since it's an enhancement layer and there's nothing there to enhance so i didn't see the bloody point of going there!

 

No, you got the resolutions wrong and then falsely accused me of bringing overlay into the picture.

 

>Where you're being vague there (and partly why you're wrong) is that the overscan being discussed is specifically into the upper and lower borders (in order to go up to full height) which is a simple matter of writing to the vertical smooth scroll register twice a frame with a relatively large margin of error for each.

 

You stated I brought overlay into the picture after you misunderstood the point.

 

>You said "Yeah, I was talking about both 320 resolution scrolling and 320 mode." so fine you're talking about both there but when you went on to say "Both machines have a way of doing 320*200 resolution but neither machine uses it in most of their games." and that's the vague bit; it only talks about the resolution of the screen (since it's got a vertical dimension) so it doesn't naturally imply that you mean scrolling as well. And you need to clarify what constitutes "most of their games" because that's pretty vague in itself.

 

Because scrolling was already being discussed so the I was only answering regarding the varous modes Allas had pictured.

[atariksi]

...

Again, we're not talking about all of it and just the smoothness, please stop trying to change the subject. And on the C64 the colours are retained so it's hugely useful and would be on the A8 if the same were true.

...

You keep using straw-man arguments and chewbacca defense (which I am showing you how not just accusing you). You directly stated colors are retained and now you are stating it can scroll. Two different things. Here again, you told me I was changing the subject when I have been sticking to the same point-- color is not retained. I proved you were being vague and using straw-man arguments; you just feel like samething back to me like some children's name calling contest.

 

Your opinions don't change reality.