Atari v Commodore

[atariksi]

>Normally, you do use joystick for input (duh). Joystick is being used for input to read in 2 frames/second and digitized audio and text/code. CIA chips could have been 8-bits but they tied up 5 bits to $DC00 port and 5 bits to $DC01 port thus disallowing BYTE mode access. Even in nibble mode, it's slower than Atari.

 

Yes, I have mentioned that normally you use the joystick port for reading the joystick. That can be considered as I/O. But on the c64 there are better solutions for getting data into the computer. You have also mentioned that the joystick port can only read nibbles, but on other ports you can read in bytes. One can modificate the 1541 & c64 so that the data flow between them is parallel 8 bits. similarly you can connect a C64 to a PC through a 8 bit parallel cable. So I dont understand why would/should one use the joyport for a this comparison when there are better solutions. Taking the best solution on one machine and a bad one another one is an unfair comparison.

 

...

 

No it's a fair comparison comparing similar aspects of the hardware. Sprites vs. sprites. Joystick port vs. joystick ports. Graphics modes vs. graphics modes. Text modes vs. text modes. Etc. Original point was in all the aspects I listed, C64 was inferior and that's the fact. I don't have to modify any hardware to do byte mode access. Now you want me to modify 1541 interface to use 8-bits. You are CHANGING the subject to modifying hardware and using other hardware.

 

>>It has a keyboard buffer-- wording is "too restricted" as compared to Atari. Normally, you can type something on the keyboard without having to worry about if someone moved the joystick. It causes problems if you are bursting data through the joystick port and can't allow keystrokes to be struck. Good compromise or "cheaper" design philosophy of overloading functionality to save a few cents.

 

>Then I might have misunderstood you. You wrote "OS on C64 too restricted to buffer up keys". Doesnt that mean, that the C64 OS cant buffer the keystrokes? I thought you ment that. Now you change the subject to HW restrictions. What are we talking about? About the ability of the C64 OS not being able to buffer keystrokes, or the problem of interfering joy/keyb input ? We should make that clear so the argument makes sense, and doesnt hop between OS's inability to buffer keystrokes and HW interference of joy/key inpout. These are two distinct matters.

 

Both points were listed under one item. They are related. To make it simple for you, if I am reading joystick data, no keyboard functionality is occurring.

 

>Also as I wrote above and in my previous post, using joystick port for data I/O is a bad idea, as there are other 8 bit parallel ports for that available. If you pick a bad solution you will get a bad solution. If you pick a non joy/keyb 8 bit parallel port, then you can read the keyboard while reading 8 bit data aswell.

 

It's not my problem your joystick is implemented in an inferior way to Atari's. We also have cartridge interfaces and other ports. They are compared separately.

 

>>Unrelated to (4) above. You want to playback 4 different voices at their own frequency, you don't have 4 DACs. You don't have 2 DACs (which is what I am using currently). Stop the bullcrap about 3 channel true 8 bits samples-- you are premixing in software. You have only one DAC.

 

>I had no premixing in my mind. By carefully playing with the inner ADSR counters & freq & other registers of the SID, each of the 3 channels can play 8 bit digi audio. After restarting the freq counter you always wait a constant time before applying the DAC level, but by changing the frequency the triangle wave will reach a different value & with some tricks you can hold the old DAC level while all this happens. When the freq counter reached the desired level you can then apply it to the channel and hold the value until you repeat the process.

 

You are mixing things up. That's a software simulation of a DAC not a real DAC. You can also simulate higher bits DACs on Atari. There's only one 4-bit DAC (in hardware) on C64 which you can play unrestricted samples on and there's 4 on Atari. That's a simple point.

 

>>Hello, I clearly stated target was 16K machine-- it works on all Atari 8-bit computer models every made 400/800/600XL/800XL/65XE/130XE/etc. I can also do 160*200 on Atari in more gray scale (or shades of any other color) than C64. But wait, point (5) above was you can't do gray-scale imagery not resolution.

 

>You said: "Can't display gray scale images", and nothing about 16k restrictions (you're changing the subject again) . no 16k c64's exists all c64's are the same. but what does this all have to do with wether a machine can display grayscale images or not ? C64 has grey colors, then I assume it can display greyscale images.

 

It can't display 16 grayscale images. All the imagery is 16-gray scale. You did understand it was 16-gray scale since you stated you can do it at higher resolution.

 

>So, your point is that c64's joystick port is not as good for data transfer as atari's? Indeed it isnt. The c64 has its dedicated 8 bit I/O ports, you just need a cable to use them. There's no reason to use the joyports instead of them.

 

So than admit it and not state that I have my "facts wrong". So to summarize again removing your confused understanding:

 

Atari joysticks are superior to C64s.

Atari can display gray-scale imagery better than C64.

Atari can play 4 channel multifreq DACs; C64 is stuck with one DAC.

Atari can boot system externally.

C64 has problems with keyboard/joystick interference (OS and h/w).

 

So basically, I don't know why you bother replying to the message to begin with if you agree with the above.

[atariksi]

yes... I know... and of course Alternare Reality... HERO... Keystone Kapers... Pitfall II... 7 Cities of Gold... MULE... Spelunker...

International Karate... Blue Max

 

but unfortunatly... there are lot of games where the c64 version is better or where no A8 Version exists...

 

BMX Simulator

Last V8

Zybex

Ghostbusters

Ultima series

 

or Bards Tale Series... Uridium... Paradroid... Microprose Soccer... Ghost and Goblins... Summer Games II/Wintergames/World Games...

 

just to name few out of the thousands... sad but true...

 

If a machine was developed for more, it will have more software database so you can find more games for it in general. Now what hardware aspect of the game makes the game superior-- if it's the same thing-- wider sprites or higher resolution sprites horizontally. Than that's not enough to make the machine superior.

[atariksi]

Please.. the Vic was an utter failure in the US. The main market at the time.

Yeps a real failure on the main market. With 18 million sold units... And with C128 selling another 4 million. May I mention that the entire A8 line sold just about 4 million too?

Vic 20 a mostly non starter, Not C64, what can I say, the public often is not too bright.

Sorry I don't know commonsore terminology. To me a vic means vic20.

 

Your original statement was that the VIC was an utter market failure in the US. Sorry, but you got that wrong. VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It was absolutely not a technical breakthrough, but more people could afford it than Ataris. If I remember right from the C= Book "on the Edge" VIC20 was originally a few weeks own hobby project of Bob Yannes ( SID designer). He just wanted to build a computer around the already existing but unused VIC-I gfx chip for fun. But when he showed it to one of his bosses, the machine got eventually made it to be seen by Jack Tramiel who instantly ordered it to be manufactured

 

Don't follow your logic. Just because it sold 1 million does not mean it was NOT a failure. You should see how much crap people sell out there that breaks down after a few weeks or a few months. Jack Tramiel ordered many things to be manufactured that were inferior to current technology in the market. Quantity of sales does not make a machine superior nor does more software titles for a particular machine make that machine superior.

 

Even if no game was ever written for Atari that used the GTIA modes, GPRIOR effects, etc., I would still say Atari is superior since I know what it is capable of from the hardware perspective. Of course, for people who are not into technical stuff, it's good to have demos/games available that use the hardware optimally.

 

The original statement was that the VIC20 was an utter market failure in the US. That statement is wrong. VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It's not a Hardware comparison.

 

Yeah but I am arguing you can market anything and the system be a piece of crap regardless of whether you call it a "success" or "failure" by quantity.

[atariksi]

Hm. You name two game, the C64 never can reach their qualities, and say you're not convinced that the A8 is better ?

 

???...what games your mean. Except that the 64 version will look surely different, i'm pretty sure it can reach their qualites with no problem.

Your space harrier is very nice (mainly if you compare to the 2 awfull version the c64 had), but if you take a good C64 coder and give him the same amount of time you Space Harrier has been developper, you will have a result as good if not better. it will look different surely , but will be as good. no doubt about that.

...

 

See that's called mental speculation. There is doubt about that until you prove otherwise. Remember now, you want to see evidence so you see evidence that something on Atari is superior but you still think C64 is superior. That means you are biased. You don't care about any evidence that supports the Atari side.

 

Now, let's say somebody forces you to see some GTIA images enhanced with GPRIOR effects/overlays; now regardless of how many hours the C64 coder spends coding, the images will be inferior on C64. Now if you search the entire planet and find more images that use your quirky text-mode extended color RAM based graphics mode, that does not mean your graphics are superior because you found more images. Atari hardware still has more hardware support for graphics modes/colors/gprior/etc.

[Wolfram]

>No it's a fair comparison comparing similar aspects of the hardware. Sprites vs. sprites. Joystick port vs. joystick ports. Graphics modes vs. graphics modes. Text modes vs. text modes. Etc. Original point was in all the aspects I listed, C64 was inferior and that's the fact. I don't have to modify any hardware to do byte mode access. Now you want me to modify 1541 interface to use 8-bits. You are CHANGING the subject to modifying hardware and using other hardware.

 

No, its an unfair comparison. on c64 people use joyport to read joys, and I/O port to read data. Nobody will use the c64's joyport in a real life situation to read in data because c64 has better solutions. But why you on atari use the joystick port to read in data? no other 8bit ports available? and how will you play a game and read both joy input at the same time ? the c64 can do that.

 

so atari has to use joyport for I/O, and music chip for timing, looks like the c64 has more features. it has dedicated non shared joystick I/O timer and music functions.

 

>>It has a keyboard buffer-- wording is "too restricted" as compared to Atari. Normally, you can type something on the keyboard without having to worry about if someone moved the joystick. It causes problems if you are bursting data through the joystick port and can't allow keystrokes to be struck. Good compromise or "cheaper" design philosophy of overloading functionality to save a few cents.

 

>Then I might have misunderstood you. You wrote "OS on C64 too restricted to buffer up keys". Doesnt that mean, that the C64 OS cant buffer the keystrokes? I thought you ment that. Now you change the subject to HW restrictions. What are we talking about? About the ability of the C64 OS not being able to buffer keystrokes, or the problem of interfering joy/keyb input ? We should make that clear so the argument makes sense, and doesnt hop between OS's inability to buffer keystrokes and HW interference of joy/key inpout. These are two distinct matters.

 

>Both points were listed under one item. They are related. To make it simple for you, if I am reading joystick data, no keyboard functionality is occurring.

 

In your original statement you have wrote that "c64 OS is too restricted to buffer keystrokes". you have said nothing about joy/keyb interference. those two points were not listed under one item. So you were simply wrong. the c64 OS can and does buffer keystrokes.

 

>Also as I wrote above and in my previous post, using joystick port for data I/O is a bad idea, as there are other 8 bit parallel ports for that available. If you pick a bad solution you will get a bad solution. If you pick a non joy/keyb 8 bit parallel port, then you can read the keyboard while reading 8 bit data aswell.

 

>It's not my problem your joystick is implemented in an inferior way to Atari's. We also have cartridge interfaces and other ports. They are compared separately.

 

Its nobody's problem. c64 doesnt has to use the joyport for I/O as it has other and better solutions. it makes no sense to use it for I/O comparisons. just like its probably easyer to hit in a piece of nail into wood with a8 as a c64. but it doesnt makes sense.

 

>>Unrelated to (4) above. You want to playback 4 different voices at their own frequency, you don't have 4 DACs. You don't have 2 DACs (which is what I am using currently). Stop the bullcrap about 3 channel true 8 bits samples-- you are premixing in software. You have only one DAC.

 

>I had no premixing in my mind. By carefully playing with the inner ADSR counters & freq & other registers of the SID, each of the 3 channels can play 8 bit digi audio. After restarting the freq counter you always wait a constant time before applying the DAC level, but by changing the frequency the triangle wave will reach a different value & with some tricks you can hold the old DAC level while all this happens. When the freq counter reached the desired level you can then apply it to the channel and hold the value until you repeat the process.

 

>You are mixing things up. That's a software simulation of a DAC not a real DAC. You can also simulate higher bits DACs on Atari. There's only one 4-bit DAC (in hardware) on C64 which you can play unrestricted samples on and there's 4 on Atari. That's a simple point.

 

it doesnt matter how its done. it is possible to play 3 8 bit individual digi channels with it, which you said its not. so you were wrong.

 

>>Hello, I clearly stated target was 16K machine-- it works on all Atari 8-bit computer models every made 400/800/600XL/800XL/65XE/130XE/etc. I can also do 160*200 on Atari in more gray scale (or shades of any other color) than C64. But wait, point (5) above was you can't do gray-scale imagery not resolution.

 

>You said: "Can't display gray scale images", and nothing about 16k restrictions (you're changing the subject again) . no 16k c64's exists all c64's are the same. but what does this all have to do with wether a machine can display grayscale images or not ? C64 has grey colors, then I assume it can display greyscale images.

 

>It can't display 16 grayscale images. All the imagery is 16-gray scale. You did understand it was 16-gray scale since you stated you can do it at higher resolution.

 

originally you said c64 cant display grayscale images. it can. you were wrong.

 

>So, your point is that c64's joystick port is not as good for data transfer as atari's? Indeed it isnt. The c64 has its dedicated 8 bit I/O ports, you just need a cable to use them. There's no reason to use the joyports instead of them.

 

>So than admit it and not state that I have my "facts wrong". So to summarize again removing your confused understanding:

 

>Atari joysticks are superior to C64s.

 

only when you use them for I/O. but the c64 has its dedicated IO features, and it makes no sense to use something for I/O which wasnt even ment to be, when there are better solutions.

 

>Atari can display gray-scale imagery better than C64.

 

it cant. c64 will use more data to display a picture. in 5 colors and double the resolution.

 

>Atari can play 4 channel multifreq DACs; C64 is stuck with one DAC.

 

you originally said c64 cant play multifreq digis. you were wrong. it can.

 

>Atari can boot system externally.

 

never claimed it cant.

 

>C64 has problems with keyboard/joystick interference (OS and h/w).

 

that was not your original claim. stick to them. you said c64 os cant buffer key. but you were wrong because it can.

[Wolfram]

Please.. the Vic was an utter failure in the US. The main market at the time.

Yeps a real failure on the main market. With 18 million sold units... And with C128 selling another 4 million. May I mention that the entire A8 line sold just about 4 million too?

Vic 20 a mostly non starter, Not C64, what can I say, the public often is not too bright.

Sorry I don't know commonsore terminology. To me a vic means vic20.

 

Your original statement was that the VIC was an utter market failure in the US. Sorry, but you got that wrong. VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It was absolutely not a technical breakthrough, but more people could afford it than Ataris. If I remember right from the C= Book "on the Edge" VIC20 was originally a few weeks own hobby project of Bob Yannes ( SID designer). He just wanted to build a computer around the already existing but unused VIC-I gfx chip for fun. But when he showed it to one of his bosses, the machine got eventually made it to be seen by Jack Tramiel who instantly ordered it to be manufactured

 

Don't follow your logic. Just because it sold 1 million does not mean it was NOT a failure. You should see how much crap people sell out there that breaks down after a few weeks or a few months. Jack Tramiel ordered many things to be manufactured that were inferior to current technology in the market. Quantity of sales does not make a machine superior nor does more software titles for a particular machine make that machine superior.

 

Even if no game was ever written for Atari that used the GTIA modes, GPRIOR effects, etc., I would still say Atari is superior since I know what it is capable of from the hardware perspective. Of course, for people who are not into technical stuff, it's good to have demos/games available that use the hardware optimally.

 

The original statement was that the VIC20 was an utter market failure in the US. That statement is wrong. VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It's not a Hardware comparison.

 

Yeah but I am arguing you can market anything and the system be a piece of crap regardless of whether you call it a "success" or "failure" by quantity.

 

I have said the VIC20 was a huge market success which is true. So can you please stay on topic and argue/accept to what I have said. Instead of arguing against something I havent said ?

[atariksi]

Please.. the Vic was an utter failure in the US. The main market at the time.

Yeps a real failure on the main market. With 18 million sold units... And with C128 selling another 4 million. May I mention that the entire A8 line sold just about 4 million too?

Vic 20 a mostly non starter, Not C64, what can I say, the public often is not too bright.

Sorry I don't know commonsore terminology. To me a vic means vic20.

 

Your original statement was that the VIC was an utter market failure in the US. Sorry, but you got that wrong. VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It was absolutely not a technical breakthrough, but more people could afford it than Ataris. If I remember right from the C= Book "on the Edge" VIC20 was originally a few weeks own hobby project of Bob Yannes ( SID designer). He just wanted to build a computer around the already existing but unused VIC-I gfx chip for fun. But when he showed it to one of his bosses, the machine got eventually made it to be seen by Jack Tramiel who instantly ordered it to be manufactured

 

Don't follow your logic. Just because it sold 1 million does not mean it was NOT a failure. You should see how much crap people sell out there that breaks down after a few weeks or a few months. Jack Tramiel ordered many things to be manufactured that were inferior to current technology in the market. Quantity of sales does not make a machine superior nor does more software titles for a particular machine make that machine superior.

 

Even if no game was ever written for Atari that used the GTIA modes, GPRIOR effects, etc., I would still say Atari is superior since I know what it is capable of from the hardware perspective. Of course, for people who are not into technical stuff, it's good to have demos/games available that use the hardware optimally.

 

The original statement was that the VIC20 was an utter market failure in the US. That statement is wrong. VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It's not a Hardware comparison.

 

Yeah but I am arguing you can market anything and the system be a piece of crap regardless of whether you call it a "success" or "failure" by quantity.

 

I have said the VIC20 was a huge market success which is true. So can you please stay on topic and argue/accept to what I have said. Instead of arguing against something I havent said ?

 

I am making a legitimate point regardless of whether you call Vic20 market a success or failure and you don't want to reply to it.

[atariksi]

>No it's a fair comparison comparing similar aspects of the hardware. Sprites vs. sprites. Joystick port vs. joystick ports. Graphics modes vs. graphics modes. Text modes vs. text modes. Etc. Original point was in all the aspects I listed, C64 was inferior and that's the fact. I don't have to modify any hardware to do byte mode access. Now you want me to modify 1541 interface to use 8-bits. You are CHANGING the subject to modifying hardware and using other hardware.

 

No, its an unfair comparison. on c64 people use joyport to read joys, and I/O port to read data. Nobody will use the c64's joyport in a real life situation to read in data because c64 has better solutions. But why you on atari use the joystick port to read in data? no other 8bit ports available? and how will you play a game and read both joy input at the same time ? the c64 can do that.

 

so atari has to use joyport for I/O, and music chip for timing, looks like the c64 has more features. it has dedicated non shared joystick I/O timer and music functions.

...

 

You are lost. Original argument: I was pointing to areas where Atari was superior to C64. You ARE CHANGING THE SUBJECT. You don't want to compare joystick I/O. So then don't reply to the argument when Atari joystick I/O is superior to C64's joystick I/O. You can play joystick games and read in joystick data since most Atari games load into memory and then start. And even if they don't you can plug in joystick just like people swap mouse/joystick.

 

>>Both points were listed under one item. They are related. To make it simple for you, if I am reading joystick data, no keyboard functionality is occurring.

 

>In your original statement you have wrote that "c64 OS is too restricted to buffer keystrokes". you have said nothing about joy/keyb interference. those two points were not listed under one item. So you were simply wrong. the c64 OS can and does buffer keystrokes.

 

Yes, they are. Go back and read it again. And "c64 OS is too restricted to buffer keystrokes" DOES NOT mean it CANNOT buffer keystrokes. It's restricted in doing so.

 

>>It's not my problem your joystick is implemented in an inferior way to Atari's. We also have cartridge interfaces and other ports. They are compared separately.

 

>Its nobody's problem. c64 doesnt has to use the joyport for I/O as it has other and better solutions. it makes no sense to use it for I/O comparisons. just like its probably easyer to hit in a piece of nail into wood with a8 as a c64. but it doesnt makes sense.

 

It makes sense. Atari joystick I/O is superior. I am using it and many other devices use it. And I even know C64 devices that use Joystick I/O. You are too biased to compare reality.

 

>>You are mixing things up. That's a software simulation of a DAC not a real DAC. You can also simulate higher bits DACs on Atari. There's only one 4-bit DAC (in hardware) on C64 which you can play unrestricted samples on and there's 4 on Atari. That's a simple point.

 

>it doesnt matter how its done. it is possible to play 3 8 bit individual digi channels with it, which you said its not. so you were wrong.

 

You are still wrong. Atari can play back 4 DAC channels simultaneously so Atari has the edge. If I use software simulation I can claim I can play back 8 voices given I have a higher CPU speed. You are restricted in playing back emulated voices-- it's not like you can write a digital sample every few cycles with STX 53761 or STY 53763.

 

>originally you said c64 cant display grayscale images. it can. you were wrong.

 

You are dumb. You know the context in which it was written? Of course not. Someone reposted the curtains demo which uses 16-gray. I posted a reply claiming there's MPDOS which is more than the demo does. If you ever understood the remark, you would know it's obvously 16-gray. You CANNOT DISPLAY 16-gray period. Stop mixing up words.

 

>only when you use them for I/O. but the c64 has its dedicated IO features, and it makes no sense to use something for I/O which wasnt even ment to be, when there are better solutions.

 

Joystick i/o is inferior on C64. Admit it or you are biased.

 

>>Atari can display gray-scale imagery better than C64.

 

>it cant. c64 will use more data to display a picture. in 5 colors and double the resolution.

 

I repeat: Atari can display gray-scale imagery better than C64. We can talk about other modes once you admit it.

 

>>Atari can play 4 channel multifreq DACs; C64 is stuck with one DAC.

 

>you originally said c64 cant play multifreq digis. you were wrong. it can.

 

It cannot. You are using software tactics-- I am comparing hardware. Show me how you play a sample at 11Khz and 13Khz using your hardware. You are wrong.

 

>>C64 has problems with keyboard/joystick interference (OS and h/w).

 

>that was not your original claim. stick to them. you said c64 os cant buffer key. but you were wrong because it can.

 

Go back and read the original claim.

[atariksi]

...

Space Harrier indeed proves that in real life game situations a8 needs to interlace the colors to get more than 4 on the screen. How do you think would it display 128 ?

 

That's biggest bullcrap I have ever heard on this thread. You claim you have 320*200*16 mode which is complete bullcrap. Color RAM is only 40*25 so how do you get 320*200*16 even with overlays. Atari has GTIA modes and it has overlays as well. Atari can do a lot more in it's DLI with color changes than you can with your raster interrupts. I have yet to see 160*200*16 on C64.

[atariksi]

I spent few hours on Youtube comparing C64 and A800 version of the same game.

 

In most of the case C64 games seems better.

 

And to quote one comment put by "sctriplefox" on a video :

 

I love the Atari but I have to admit that the C64 usually looks better in period games....Atari can look better only if the game is designed around the hardware. Good for tech demos and hobbyists, not so good for commercial products with limited time/budget.

 

 

So it tends to confirm that in the "real" life , the C64 is a better machine. More polyvalent, more homogeneous.

..

Err. So you sat around watched some videos and decided the C64 is a better machine although knowing Atari can do better if the software wasn't limited by time/budget/etc. That's mixing software with hardware. That's what I pointed out previously that limited experimental approach won't work. Even Apple had tons of software -- some of which never existed on C64 or Atari. So if most Apple software used it's 6 colors and Atari used 4 colors because they didn't feel they want to put time in to use/learn other techniques to generate more colors, does that make Apple computer better than Atari computer? No. That's an invalid argument.

 

>@Atariksi . Can i see somewhere what you do with your Atari? I'm new to this forums , may be your work is very famous here, but i have never seen what you did.

 

You missed out on everything! Okay, I'll give a brief summary of what I do in relation to this thread shortly...

 

Okay, here's a summary of MPDOS if you are unbiased enough to read it:

 

It's a software that lets you do distributive processing for Atari and Amiga. I'm only going to describe ONE example of software running on 16K A8 w/PC as server for CDROM reads/writes/decompressing:

 

(1) Data is read from CD-- pictures, text, audio, code, etc. and decompressed on the fly and transmitted from PC parallel ports to Atari through it's joystick ports after booting up Atari using SIO. You never have to touch Atari.

(2) Atari reads data through joystick ports (nibble mode or byte mode)

(3) Atari executes the command from PC-- show graphics, play audio, display text, strike a key, execute code, etc.

(4) Atari plays audio at up to 21Khz using streaming audio

(5) Atari shows video frames at up to 2frames/second using streaming video; graphics converted on-the-fly to gray scale (as of now-- working on ANTIC K)

(6) If needed Atari reads on more code from PC side and executes that on the fly.

 

Atari plays back entire 2 GB of multimedia CDROM data originally written for PC. You can't do any of the above on C64--

(1) C64 won't let you boot from external source without writing some stuff like "LOAD "*",8,1".

(2) Joystick port r/w on C64 has to be nibble mode and 1.79X slower even in nibble mode and much much slower if I use BYTE mode on Atari.

(3) OS on C64 too restricted to buffer up keys; in fact keyboard interferes with joystick data i/o.

(4) Can't play back multifreq audio DAC data on C64

(5) Can't display gray scale images what to speak of enhanced modes like ANTIC K

(6) Even if I want to show colored images and play single channel DAC audio, C64 CPU is too slow to be processing data buffering from PC end at reasonable rate.

 

Thanks to some people's confusion and trying to change the subject, I am reposting the original message. It's correct as it stands. To read a BYTE from C64 joystick port, you have to read a nibble, do 4 rotates and AND/OR in next nibble. OS relies on timer to read it's keyboard and if you are doing real-time joystick input, you have to shut-down the keyboard limiting interactivity; timers also need to be shut-down sometimes to do real-time transfers so it's restrictive. C64 can't playback multifreq DAC data (as far as hardware support goes) at 21Khz or even lower rates what to speak of doing it in software. If you ran the demo previously posted, you know gray-scale mode is graphics 9 mode.

[Bryan]

This is actually kind of fun. I don't know if Wolfram was expecting atariksi's style of 'debate'.

 

Also, having all bbcode stripped out of lengthy quotes and replaced with '>' just makes it all the more chaotic.

 

/me goes to make popcorn

Edited April 12, 2009 by Bryan

[atariksi]

This is actually kind of fun. I don't know if Wolfram was expecting atariksi's style of 'debate'.

 

Also, having all bbcode stripped out of lengthy quotes and replaced with '>' just makes it all the more chaotic.

 

/me goes to make popcorn

 

It's easier to understand if I reply point by point rather than quote the entire message back and people don't even know which point I'm reply to.

 

Wolfram's style is wherever Atari is superior just compare it with something else. So Atari has 16 gray which cannot be done on C64 so argue some other graphics mode. Atari has better joystick i/o, so argue some other port. Atari has more DACs so argue it can be done in software. Etc. Etc. Essentially compare apples and oranges.

[Bryan]

It's easier

to understand if I reply

point by point rather than

quote the entire message back

and people don't

even know which

point I'm reply to.

Break it up however you like.

 

use [quote] and [/quote]

 

Use Preview to make sure it's legible.

[atarian63]

Please.. the Vic was an utter failure in the US. The main market at the time.

Yeps a real failure on the main market. With 18 million sold units... And with C128 selling another 4 million. May I mention that the entire A8 line sold just about 4 million too?

Vic 20 a mostly non starter, Not C64, what can I say, the public often is not too bright.

Sorry I don't know commonsore terminology. To me a vic means vic20.

 

Your original statement was that the VIC was an utter market failure in the US. Sorry, but you got that wrong. VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It was absolutely not a technical breakthrough, but more people could afford it than Ataris. If I remember right from the C= Book "on the Edge" VIC20 was originally a few weeks own hobby project of Bob Yannes ( SID designer). He just wanted to build a computer around the already existing but unused VIC-I gfx chip for fun. But when he showed it to one of his bosses, the machine got eventually made it to be seen by Jack Tramiel who instantly ordered it to be manufactured

Sorry, you are wrong, it never got market penetration and most who bought it found they could not do anything much with it and there was little to no software and what little there was was very hard to find as nobody carried it. With Atari you could go lots of places like Sears,Service Merchandise, Burdines,Lazarus and most major retailers. Also I still hate SID sounds, really grates on my nerves.

[atarian63]

This is actually kind of fun. I don't know if Wolfram was expecting atariksi's style of 'debate'.

 

Also, having all bbcode stripped out of lengthy quotes and replaced with '>' just makes it all the more chaotic.

 

/me goes to make popcorn

 

It's easier to understand if I reply point by point rather than quote the entire message back and people don't even know which point I'm reply to.

 

Wolfram's style is wherever Atari is superior just compare it with something else. So Atari has 16 gray which cannot be done on C64 so argue some other graphics mode. Atari has better joystick i/o, so argue some other port. Atari has more DACs so argue it can be done in software. Etc. Etc. Essentially compare apples and oranges.

yup!

[Fröhn]

Fair is that the Last Ninja series were playable crap. People only liked them, because the C64 shows colours and has nice Sid tunes in it.

Amazing. We have the same opinion on that topic

[potatohead]

He will get schooled, just like everybody else has.

 

On the matter of I/O, Atari 400 & 800 have 16 digital I/O's available, and they can be latched. There are 8 paddle type I/O's available too. Even with the ports cut down to just two, Atari game port options are superior to the C64. They are more flexible too. If you want them as I/O do that; otherwise, they are just inputs. Classic Atari approach here. That idea is true throughout the machine.

 

The many graphics options and how they operate with one another (sprite priority, OR for color, and collision), means being able to build a ton of displays! Atari machines have a lot of texture here that C64 does not. The downside is having to build displays for a given work, but the upside is being able to actually build them! That is what gives the Atari it's advantages over time.

 

C64 takes the dedicated approach, where specific functionality was targeted. Where that was done, the machine performs very well. It also means there is less potential to repurpose what those hardware elements actually do.

 

When the scope leaves that core set of feature / function, C64 does not compete well, having to make it up with a slower CPU.

 

Another example is screen DMA. If you want to, it's possible to drive the Atari screen and sprites directly, like the 2600 does, or go the other way and have ANTIC do most of it. Such a display can be narrow, normal or wide, depending on the need and attached display. C64 targeted the NTSC safe area, and sees limits today because of that.

 

What we are going to find over the next 10 years is Atari will be capable of ever increasing display complexity, and the C64 will have shown it's stuff. I'm not seeing very many VIC II breakthroughs, but still am seeing lots of unexploited features in ANTIC / GTIA.

 

Most of these discussions surround marginalizing those "out of scope" problem areas for C64. As an Atarian, it's easy to say the sprite engine is great on C64, as is the 320 pixel color resolution. Love it. There are niches where that plays very, very well, and it's appreciated by everyone.

 

On Atari, color resolution is 160, but that really doesn't prevent any title from happening, and there are lots of colors. And we've got a faster CPU, and display system that allows for coarser resolution choices, combined with scrolling both with serious hardware assist. That means 3D games, and big map scrolling games play very well. Why is it so hard to admit that from the C64 camp?

 

Frankly, I like the 160 pixel resolution and color sets. And I love the scrolling. Always have. This is a matter of taste, and perhaps that's an Atari deal too. Because the display and sound system has more texture, the average Atari fan has a wider level of acceptance for display options. We are just used to seeing lots of interesting stuff, because that's what our machines do! C64 isn't like that so much, because it's built for a rather specific display set.

 

IMHO, the flexibility approach is the more superior one, because over time, display capabilities change and the body of programming knowledge builds. On an Atari machine, the smarter you are, or the more you have learned from those that came before, and the harder you work, the more the machine does. This is true for C64, but not with as much texture as it is on Atari.

 

IMHO, the art potential on the Atari is superior because of this, unless you like 16 color, dithered pixel art, and that's the only kind of art possible. Sorry, but the scope is wider than that. It's wider, because the Atari exists!

 

So then, on sound, SID tunes are great. They really, really are. Love the chip. But, if I want game sounds with a lot of texture, POKEY is the better deal. Because of how the Atari was built, SID like sounds are possible and arriving with more clarity each year. Takes work, but when somebody invests that work on Atari, the machine delivers. Why is it so hard then to accept other sounds as being good sounds? Could be be that same old dedicated / vs flexible bit again?

 

I think it is.

 

In any case, these are the kinds of things that keep me going back to Atari machines. So much progress has happened, and more is coming! This is a great time to have an Atari, IMHO. There is a lot of talent, hardware projects are ever present, and the machines are showing a lot of potential, right down to the lowly VCS!

[atariksi]

Also in real life game situations G2F techniques are useless. Just like you cant use C64's most advanced cpu driven non interlaced 320x200x16 formats for games, neither can you use G2F format on Atari. Not even with a higher clocked cpu.

 

Not quite useless.

 

Consider a situation on both machines where 20 character lines use 100% of the CPU for G2F, iFLI, whatever.

That's 160 of 312 scanlines on PAL. Consider that we have the remaining 40 just normal text type stuff for score, status, whatever.

 

C-64, leaves you about 9,600 cycles free considering 200 lost for 5x40 character fetches, compared to the normal of ~ 19,280.

 

Atari, leaves you about 15,500 cycles free considering 1,800 lost for 5x40 character fetches and 40x40 charmap fetches, compared to the normal of ~ 26896.

 

And, you're not totally wasting the kernal section of the screen... with some creative programming you can put the spare cycles to good use doing housekeeping stuff that you might normally do during VBlank.

 

That's the Frohn type argument-- that it's useless. The fact is that everytime you re-use a color on Atari, you are picking from 128 (or 256 in Gr.9) so you are going to get a color closer to what it should be in the real picture.

 

Note the bias, they call their 320*200 mode as having 16 colors (although its restricted) but if Atari re-uses colors horizontally and vertically and with GPRIOR in 320*200, that's still considered to be 320*200*2 mode.

[Bryan]

Note the bias, they call their 320*200 mode as having 16 colors (although its restricted) but if Atari re-uses colors horizontally and vertically and with GPRIOR in 320*200, that's still considered to be 320*200*2 mode.

 

I know how much fun it is arrogantly calling everyone else biased, but 320 mode is one place where the Atari is clearly outclassed.

 

Atari's 320 mode is 1.5 colors. You get to pick one color and two shades. If you want more color you can throw CPU cycles or your Players at the screen, but the 320 mode is nothing like what the 64 has.

 

The 64 can have a separate color for every character, in any order, anywhere and everywhere on the screen. Try generating arbitrary character coloring in Atari's 320 mode. It won't work, and you'll consume all your CPU time and and RAM trying.

 

On top of that, if the Atari is allowed to use players then the 64 can also use its high-resolution sprites for additional 320 coloring.

 

You think there's no advantage to the 64 as long as you can theoretically simulate something sort-of like it on the Atari using all available resources? I'd stick to discussing the things the Atari actually does better.

[atariksi]

Note the bias, they call their 320*200 mode as having 16 colors (although its restricted) but if Atari re-uses colors horizontally and vertically and with GPRIOR in 320*200, that's still considered to be 320*200*2 mode.

 

I know how much fun it is arrogantly calling everyone else biased, but 320 mode is one place where the Atari is clearly outclassed.

 

Atari's 320 mode is 1.5 colors. You get to pick one color and two shades. If you want more color you can throw CPU cycles or your Players at the screen, but the 320 mode is nothing like what the 64 has.

 

The 64 can have a separate color for every character, in any order, anywhere and everywhere on the screen. Try generating arbitrary character coloring in Atari's 320 mode. It won't work, and you'll consume all your CPU time and and RAM trying.

 

On top of that, if the Atari is allowed to use players then the 64 can also use its high-resolution sprites for additional 320 coloring.

 

You think there's no advantage to the 64 as long as you can theoretically simulate something sort-of like it on the Atari using all available resources? I'd stick to discussing the things the Atari actually does better.

 

I was arguing labeling it a 16 color mode where as atari's is still considered a 2-color mode. He specifically mentioned CPU driven so obviously they are using CPU time as well (and perhaps sprites). Technically, 320*200*16 is 32Kbytes of RAM. I did not say I can theoretically simulate their mode. He is the one who argued he can simulate the DACs. And by the way, you can induce some colors horizontally with GPRIOR mode 0 w/o incurring CPU cycles or RAM.

[potatohead]

Well, with essentially NO CPU intervention, the C64 can put 16 colors up on a 320x200 screen. The user can choose any two of them per 8x8 character cell.

 

Sprite overlays, again with very little CPU intervention, means applying those colors in higher densities, or having moving objects in color, on top of the 320x200 screen.

 

Agreed with Bryan on this one. This is a very nice capability, and something an Atari does not do at all. There is a ton of things C64 machines can't do that Atari machines can, and a whole lot of them are kick ass. Why fight on this one?

[atariksi]

Well, with essentially NO CPU intervention, the C64 can put 16 colors up on a 320x200 screen. The user can choose any two of them per 8x8 character cell.

 

Sprite overlays, again with very little CPU intervention, means applying those colors in higher densities, or having moving objects in color, on top of the 320x200 screen.

 

Agreed with Bryan on this one. This is a very nice capability, and something an Atari does not do at all. There is a ton of things C64 machines can't do that Atari machines can, and a whole lot of them are kick ass. Why fight on this one?

 

Not fighting the cell 8*8 coloring but that's 40*25 not 320*200. That was the argument. I have seen 320*200*16 modes on other machines like Atari ST, EGA, VGA, Amiga, etc. and it's not what this is. I am making it clear since he did state (in a biased way) that Atari is pretty much restricted to 4 colors unless it does interlace. That's a biased and incorrect statement whereas stating C64 320*200*16 is restricted is true.

 

You can do a 40*25 color cell system with sprites on Atari for setting text background color.

[Bryan]

I was arguing labeling it a 16 color mode where as atari's is still considered a 2-color mode.

 

It is a 16-color mode. It limits you to cell-coloring, but it happily cranks out 16 colors with no CPU intervention. It's primary use is multi-colored high-res text which would be a wonderful thing to have on the Atari.

 

He specifically mentioned CPU driven so obviously they are using CPU time as well (and perhaps sprites).

 

Those things will only give you more color freedom. It's a 16-color screen either way. So, the 64 trades a larger palette for more color freedom. That works great for games, but of course makes images look a little odd.

 

Technically, 320*200*16 is 32Kbytes of RAM.

 

Right, but it's correctly a 320 mode with 4-bit cell coloring. If you took Atari's 320 mode and added a processor that could change a color register 40 times per line, you'd have something like what the 64 does. It's really a step beyond Atari's mode. Heck, I wish the Atari could put any two colors side-by-side in 320 mode.

 

This shows the power of the 64's text mode:

 

I did not say I can theoretically simulate their mode. He is the one who argued he can simulate the DACs. And by the way, you can induce some colors horizontally with GPRIOR mode 0 w/o incurring CPU cycles or RAM.

 

Yeah, for any extra color you lose players or CPU time. I know it can be done and the better Atari programmers do it all the time. The 64 just has a great set of 320 features, while the Atari fares better at things that work at lower resolutions.

[atariksi]

I was arguing labeling it a 16 color mode where as atari's is still considered a 2-color mode.

 

It is a 16-color mode. It limits you to cell-coloring, but it happily cranks out 16 colors with no CPU intervention. It's primary use is multi-colored high-res text which would be a wonderful thing to have on the Atari.

 

He specifically mentioned CPU driven so obviously they are using CPU time as well (and perhaps sprites).

 

Those things will only give you more color freedom. It's a 16-color screen either way. So, the 64 trades a larger palette for more color freedom. That works great for games, but of course makes images look a little odd.

...

 

Well, he was talking about imagery not text coloring. Always treated palette and color choices independently.

 

And I only declare people bias based on what they stated not whimsically. You can read some of his comments he made earlier in this page like:

 

>>Atari can display gray-scale imagery better than C64.

 

>it cant. c64 will use more data to display a picture. in 5 colors and double the resolution.

[Bryan]

And I only declare people bias based on what they stated not whimsically. You can read some of his comments he made earlier in this page like:

 

>>Atari can display gray-scale imagery better than C64.

 

>it cant. c64 will use more data to display a picture. in 5 colors and double the resolution.

 

Ah, In the case of 160 resolution b&w images Atari has the advantage.

 

C64:

 

1. Has 5 gray-shades from black to white.

2. Color restriction: Can display all 5 and can display 4 per cell.

 

Atari:

 

1. Has 8 shades from black to white in 160 mode.

2. Color restriction: Can display 5 out of 8 and can display 4 per cell in Antic mode 4.

3. The Atari can display full overscan.

 

So I agree.