Atari v Commodore

[potatohead]

BETA was the far superior tech. VHS won out, because it was cheap and better marketed.

 

The studios liked it because on VHS, only 1/2 the color resolution was available for home recording, where on BETA, the full color resolution was there. They saw this as a way to limit copies.

 

Not that it stopped anyone.

 

The point being that the C64 selling so many almost insures it wasn't the best or superior tech. History shows us this out over and over and over.

 

Most really superior tech exists in clear niches. That's where the Atari is.

[atariksi]

GPRIOR + full hardware collision makes for some very interesting game + graphics displays, with pixel perfect detection.

 

Those might be simpler displays, but they are fast and fun to play games on.

 

This is an Atari strength for sure.

 

 

--->Cells are real graphics modes! (our buddy Wolfram)

 

Well, on the Propeller micro I'm enjoying right now, the reference graphics driver code used cells, or tiles. One of the very first things that happened was a re-write of it to provide nice, linear addressing! Linear addressing is simpler and takes less of the CPU to manipulate. Given the lower C64 CPU speed, with respect to an Atari machine, those cells are a significant drain on the machine that doesn't need to be there.

 

Of course, cells are real graphics modes, because the entire world knows the C64 does real graphics, making the cells a real graphics mode.

 

You can't make this stuff up!

 

They are graphics modes, but I am distinguishing design here. It's cheaper to design graphics modes this way if you already have the text modes done.

 

Cell-based graphics are extensions to text modes; design a text mode and with some little hardware extend to a graphics mode rather than build graphics modes from scratch. I did this with CGA (as I mentioned). You extend the 80*25 text mode to graphics mode by decreasing cell height to 2 instead of 8, intermixing various ASCII characters to get the double or quadruple the horizontal resolution. As you say, it's more CPU time to access than linear graphics modes.

[potatohead]

Showing a nice production to others is how it is supposed to work!

 

Of course people are gonna do that!

 

Registering here, just to defend the C64 kind of sucks. Big difference Wolfram.

[potatohead]

GPRIOR + full hardware collision makes for some very interesting game + graphics displays, with pixel perfect detection.

 

Those might be simpler displays, but they are fast and fun to play games on.

 

This is an Atari strength for sure.

 

 

--->Cells are real graphics modes! (our buddy Wolfram)

 

Well, on the Propeller micro I'm enjoying right now, the reference graphics driver code used cells, or tiles. One of the very first things that happened was a re-write of it to provide nice, linear addressing! Linear addressing is simpler and takes less of the CPU to manipulate. Given the lower C64 CPU speed, with respect to an Atari machine, those cells are a significant drain on the machine that doesn't need to be there.

 

Of course, cells are real graphics modes, because the entire world knows the C64 does real graphics, making the cells a real graphics mode.

 

You can't make this stuff up!

 

They are graphics modes, but I am distinguishing design here. It's cheaper to design graphics modes this way if you already have the text modes done.

 

Cell-based graphics are extensions to text modes; design a text mode and with some little hardware extend to a graphics mode rather than build graphics modes from scratch. I did this with CGA (as I mentioned). You extend the 80*25 text mode to graphics mode by decreasing cell height to 2 instead of 8, intermixing various ASCII characters to get the double or quadruple the horizontal resolution. As you say, it's more CPU time to access than linear graphics modes.

 

Totally.

 

Was laughing at REAL graphics modes... There is kind of an Orwellian implication that non-cell display RAM addressing isn't REAL or serious.

[Wolfram]

2) c64 is the best selling computer model of all times. 20-30 mill units (WITHOUT c128, plus4, etc) vs 4 mill ALL A8bits included. Your personal opinion may differ but the valid general worldwide public view is that it was THE 8bit computer.

 

It does not matter much, even if 100 mln units of C-64 were sold, because actually, for example, here (in Poland) the proportion is reverse: in 1990 almost everyone had or had had an Atari, and C-64 were rare. Now the only really existing 8-bit community is A8 fans too, and C-64 fans are rare. Even if it weren't so, do you really think that even an isolated fangroup cares, what is "THE 8-bit" in press? The 8-bit is what they have in their home.

 

So, do you really think, that I care, that C-64 sold "20-30 mln units" somewhere, mainly on another continent? These are just numbers, nothing else.

 

- I have written "worldwide public view". that rules out seperate countries.

 

- the c64 community is obviously much bigger than the a8. 20-30 mill vs 4 mill machines sold go, figure. all major PC demoparties have dedicated c64 demo/gfx/music compos even today. or just check the nr of c64 related videos on youtube vs a8 ones. you are denying facts & reality.

[drac030]

I have read here numerous times comments like "cool this game will show it to the c64 freaks finally who got the better machine"

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?a...=%2Bc64+finally

 

Actually, the second post that shows up is yours own The greatest extent of matches comes from this thread, which, as you remarked yourself, was partly sacrificed to game comparisons. An unfair argument, Mr Wolfram

[Wolfram]

BETA was the far superior tech. VHS won out, because it was cheap and better marketed.

 

The studios liked it because on VHS, only 1/2 the color resolution was available for home recording, where on BETA, the full color resolution was there. They saw this as a way to limit copies.

 

Not that it stopped anyone.

 

The point being that the C64 selling so many almost insures it wasn't the best or superior tech. History shows us this out over and over and over.

 

Most really superior tech exists in clear niches. That's where the Atari is.

 

following your logic, the lowest selling computer must be the best. it doesnt makes sense.

[potatohead]

How could I have missed all that C64 activity?

 

Jeeze Wolfram!

 

If you had not dropped in, I might have missed it all. Thanks man! Looks like I'll have to go and pick up a C64, so I'm not missing out.

 

What a friend you are! Have you considered doing this full time? There are a lot of people who haven't gotten the word. They could really use your help.

[Wolfram]

GPRIOR + full hardware collision makes for some very interesting game + graphics displays, with pixel perfect detection.

 

Those might be simpler displays, but they are fast and fun to play games on.

 

This is an Atari strength for sure.

 

 

--->Cells are real graphics modes! (our buddy Wolfram)

 

Well, on the Propeller micro I'm enjoying right now, the reference graphics driver code used cells, or tiles. One of the very first things that happened was a re-write of it to provide nice, linear addressing! Linear addressing is simpler and takes less of the CPU to manipulate. Given the lower C64 CPU speed, with respect to an Atari machine, those cells are a significant drain on the machine that doesn't need to be there.

 

Of course, cells are real graphics modes, because the entire world knows the C64 does real graphics, making the cells a real graphics mode.

 

You can't make this stuff up!

 

They are graphics modes, but I am distinguishing design here. It's cheaper to design graphics modes this way if you already have the text modes done.

 

Cell-based graphics are extensions to text modes; design a text mode and with some little hardware extend to a graphics mode rather than build graphics modes from scratch. I did this with CGA (as I mentioned). You extend the 80*25 text mode to graphics mode by decreasing cell height to 2 instead of 8, intermixing various ASCII characters to get the double or quadruple the horizontal resolution. As you say, it's more CPU time to access than linear graphics modes.

 

two third of the VICII is dedicated for sprites. thats why bitmap gfx is cell based there was not much space left. I think its a good compromise. Majority of games were 2d, sprites made it anyway unnecessary to write bitmap by hand. bitmap games suffer a little from this, but majority of games gets huge benefits because of the sprites.

[potatohead]

BETA was the far superior tech. VHS won out, because it was cheap and better marketed.

 

The studios liked it because on VHS, only 1/2 the color resolution was available for home recording, where on BETA, the full color resolution was there. They saw this as a way to limit copies.

 

Not that it stopped anyone.

 

The point being that the C64 selling so many almost insures it wasn't the best or superior tech. History shows us this out over and over and over.

 

Most really superior tech exists in clear niches. That's where the Atari is.

 

following your logic, the lowest selling computer must be the best. it doesnt makes sense.

 

No, my logic is that the best computer is NEVER the best selling one. The BEST computer will exist in a niche, right along side the crappy computers. The reason for this is the combination of cost and marketing selects the best compromise technology as most people don't differentiate well enough to value the BEST technology, so it ends up a niche thing.

[atariksi]

>okay then clear me up. how do you read in 5 bits using nibble mode ?

 

>I don't have to unless I am transmitting 5-bit digital audio samples. Both machines can do 5-bits on joystick ports. Most of the data is bytes so on C64, you have to read two nibbles (at lower speed) and combine them into a byte using more CPU time.

 

sorry, joysticks are read with one instruction. and joysticks provide 5 bit information. so explain me how is that nibble mode ? also you have to be really stupid / an atari fan not to use the 8bit ports, and put together bytes from nibbles on the c64.

 

...

Sorry, you don't understand how Atari joysticks work. You can pair up the joysticks and read 8-bit values using LDA 54016. No rotates, nibble merging required. You are too stupid to see such a simple point and replying before even reading my post:

 

>>Your example does not apply since joysticks are very popular amongst 8-bit machines and Amiga/Atari ST as well. Joysticks are easier and cheapter to interface in SOFTWARE. Unless you build custom hardware, like IDE64 or whatever you call it, joysticks are the way to go for parallel communications.

 

>my example applies perfectly. you desperately want to use the 4 bit I/O on the c64 when it has 8 bit ports. you make not much sense.

 

Once you admit atari joysticks are superior to C64s, we can discuss other i/o ports. Fair enough?

 

>>No, you are not being consistent then. If you want to compare hardware, Atari wins-- it has 4 DACs vs. 1 on SID. If you don't know how many DACs SID has, then why are you arguing. If you want to allow for software simulation of additional DACs/voices, then you add CPU burden. If you want to allow CPU burden, then don't complain when Atari does it's DLIs, IRQs, kernels, etc.

 

>you are changing subject again. you said c64 cant play multifreq digis. thats not true. it can. the end.

 

It can't at Atari's rate of 21Khz even in SOFTWARE. Your software/joystick interface is too slow. But I was comparing hardware.

 

>>If you want to compare which hardware is superior, then stick to hardware comparisons. Whatever C64 does in software, Atari will outdo due its higher CPU speed.

 

>changing subjects again. you said c64 cant stream animation & digi voice. it can. the demo showcasing 160x200x~16 at ~12 fps and digi music prooves it.

 

Why are you taking each point as if they are unrelated to each other? You have to understand within the context of the joystick interface. First you have to accept that then you can argue other points. Obviously, if you use some other hardware interface, the rate of transmission changes.

 

It's you who is not sticking to the subject.

[drac030]

you are denying facts & reality.

 

Just where exactly I am denying facts and reality?

 

Accept one fact (& reality): 30 mln of C-64 units, and the number of C-64 fans out there, and the number of videos on youtube:

 

1) does not mean that the C-64 is in any way superior, as other pointed out (aka "crap always sells well")

 

2) does not mean anything (good nor bad) to an Atari user.

 

To explain you the second point in simple terms: you know, Ataris sold in quantity big enough to create a mass which keeps the community alive, provide support, new hardware and software. This is what we're interested in. The number of C-64 sold (or number of VW Kaefer sold ever etc.) is complete abstraction and has no influence on an atari user. You can tell us that C64 sold in 300 mln, or 3 units, that will make no difference (or do you really care how many bikes are sold in China every year? Why?)

[atariksi]

GPRIOR + full hardware collision makes for some very interesting game + graphics displays, with pixel perfect detection.

 

Those might be simpler displays, but they are fast and fun to play games on.

 

This is an Atari strength for sure.

 

 

--->Cells are real graphics modes! (our buddy Wolfram)

 

Well, on the Propeller micro I'm enjoying right now, the reference graphics driver code used cells, or tiles. One of the very first things that happened was a re-write of it to provide nice, linear addressing! Linear addressing is simpler and takes less of the CPU to manipulate. Given the lower C64 CPU speed, with respect to an Atari machine, those cells are a significant drain on the machine that doesn't need to be there.

 

Of course, cells are real graphics modes, because the entire world knows the C64 does real graphics, making the cells a real graphics mode.

 

You can't make this stuff up!

 

They are graphics modes, but I am distinguishing design here. It's cheaper to design graphics modes this way if you already have the text modes done.

 

Cell-based graphics are extensions to text modes; design a text mode and with some little hardware extend to a graphics mode rather than build graphics modes from scratch. I did this with CGA (as I mentioned). You extend the 80*25 text mode to graphics mode by decreasing cell height to 2 instead of 8, intermixing various ASCII characters to get the double or quadruple the horizontal resolution. As you say, it's more CPU time to access than linear graphics modes.

 

two third of the VICII is dedicated for sprites. thats why bitmap gfx is cell based there was not much space left. I think its a good compromise. Majority of games were 2d, sprites made it anyway unnecessary to write bitmap by hand. bitmap games suffer a little from this, but majority of games gets huge benefits because of the sprites.

 

So then don't say the 1/3 of the VICII is superior to the ANTIC/GTIA combo producing the graphics modes/scrolling/DLIs/overscan/etc.

[+wood_jl]

You will not accept it, but this is my honest opinion: when someone cant accept that someone else's machine is better/had bigger succes, then comes the flaming.

Or when Commodore users flock to Atari forums and can't accept that Atari users perfer their machines! All in good fun, though.

 

As c64 was THE computer in the 8bit era speccy/amstrad/a8 fans must flame it.

Sure, to you and many others C64 was THE computer. To me - and others - it was the A8. That doesn't make me flame the C64; it makes me visit Atariage!!!

 

 

Look at this thread, it was started to look for games that were better on a8 than on c64 by an a8 guy.

Uh oh, it's the "Atari guy who concedes C64 was better" arguement again!

 

On c64 forums noone starts such threads because they know majority of c64 games are better than on other 8 bit platforms, there's no need to search for examples and ask people to bring them up, they are all over the place. Also noone feels the need to prove c64 is better than whatever 8bit, so no such threads start up on c64 forums.

No doubt then that there are NOT legions of A8 users entering C64 forums to flamewar. That would be why no such threads start up there. Here, legions of C64 users DO enter this Atari forum to indulge in flames. Seems simple enough.

 

Once again, all in good fun, as the sparring is enjoyable for many, as this thread - and countless like it before - is always very popular. What's truly funny are the people who participate in this thread and complain about it "tired of this thread" (etc.) but keep clicking on it! HA HA HA! Sometimes I don't have time to keep up with this thread, but I keep coming back to it, and I'm not complaining! Good day to you gents.

Edited April 13, 2009 by wood_jl

[Wolfram]

you are denying facts & reality.

 

Just where exactly I am denying facts and reality?

 

 

 

where you said a8 has the only real user base left. c64 has much more users and more active. also as said: all major demoparties organize c64 competitions. but not a8 ones. that tells something doesnt it.

[Fröhn]

Tramiels strategy was always: Release cheap, underdone piece of crap onto the market to divert the competition.

 

Advertise like crazy, brainwash the public.

You can't blame a businessman for being a businessman. And concerning the ads: The only ads I can remember from the 80s were Atari ads on TV.

[drac030]

where you said a8 has the only real user base left.

 

Could you please cite the place, where I am saying this?

[atariksi]

Sorry a GFX chip which needs cpu intervention to display more than 5 colors in 320/160 modes is clearly inferior to GFX chip which can show 16 colors in all of its modes without any cpu intervention

 

Sorry, a GFX chip that needs CPU intervention to display animation is clearly inferior to GFX chip which can display animation even if the CPU is halted

 

His comment is easily refuted; here's a simple piece of software to display 19 colors/scanline without CPU intervention in 320*200 (no DLIs, no IRQs, etc.) in BASIC w/o any ASM:

 

10 PRINT "Atari BASIC program to show Player/PF ORing w/GPRIOR colors in 320*200"

20 PRINT "By Krishna Software Inc."

30 GRAPHICS 8

40 POKE 704,16:POKE 705,32:POKE 706,130:POKE 707,132:POKE 623,32+16

50 POKE 710,136:POKE 711,232

60 COLOR 1:PLOT 256,0:DR. 256,159:PLOT 258,0:DR. 258,159

70 PLOT 265,0:DR. 265,159:PLOT 267,0:DR. 267,159:PLOT 0,0:DR.319,159

80 FOR T=53256 TO 53265:POKE T,255:N.T

90 POKE 53248,108:POKE 53249,124:POKE 53250,160:POKE 53251,176

100 POKE 53252,168:POKE 53253,184:POKE 53254,200:POKE 53255,152

RUN

[+wood_jl]

Tramiels strategy was always: Release cheap, underdone piece of crap onto the market to divert the competition.

 

Advertise like crazy, brainwash the public.

You can't blame a businessman for being a businessman. And concerning the ads: The only ads I can remember from the 80s were Atari ads on TV.

 

 

Tramiel was hip on releasing cheap crap, no doubt. I think he lost the "advertise like crazy" thing when he got to Atari (although the cheap crap idea survived). There were TONS of Commodore ads under Tramiel, and I remember few Atari ads under him. I guess he was using Irving Gould's money for Commodore ads and was too cheap to use his own at Atari.

Edited April 13, 2009 by wood_jl

[Wolfram]

>Sorry, you don't understand how Atari joysticks work. You can pair up the joysticks and read 8-bit values using LDA 54016. No rotates, nibble merging required. You are too stupid to see such a simple point and replying before even reading my post:

 

I did a little research.

 

Sorry, you don't understand how C64 joysticks work. You can read the state of the joystick all 5 bits in one go, so its atleast 5 bits, and its all done using a 8 bit I/O port. so you were wrong from the very start. c64's joystick port is aswell 8 bit. you can stop now and go home.

[Fröhn]

Showing a nice production to others is how it is supposed to work!

 

Of course people are gonna do that!

 

Registering here, just to defend the C64 kind of sucks. Big difference Wolfram.

So what? The topic is "Atari v Commodore". People have registered to post on other threads too, why blame someone for registering for this one?

[drac030]

Sorry, you don't understand how C64 joysticks work. You can read the state of the joystick all 5 bits in one go, so its atleast 5 bits, and its all done using a 8 bit I/O port. so you were wrong from the very start. c64's joystick port is aswell 8 bit. you can stop now and go home.

 

Wolfram, Atari joystick I/O ports allow to transmit 8 bits at once, not 5.

[Fröhn]

Tramiel was hip on releasing cheap crap, no doubt. I think he lost the "advertise like crazy" thing when he got to Atari (although the cheap crap idea survived). There were TONS of Commodore ads under Tramiel, and I remember few Atari ads under him. I guess he was using Irving Gould's money for Commodore ads and was too cheap to use his own at Atari.

At the time when Tramiel bought Atari, Atari was nearly dead and without money. How many ads can you pay if you got no money?

[Wolfram]

where you said a8 has the only real user base left.

 

Could you please cite the place, where I am saying this?

 

 

"Now the only really existing 8-bit community is A8 fans too, and C-64 fans are rare"

 

I hope I dont have to argue of the different wording. I dont have a photographic memory, so excuse me.

[potatohead]

Showing a nice production to others is how it is supposed to work!

 

Of course people are gonna do that!

 

Registering here, just to defend the C64 kind of sucks. Big difference Wolfram.

So what? The topic is "Atari v Commodore". People have registered to post on other threads too, why blame someone for registering for this one?

 

Because he's not really adding any value.

 

I've registered in places to say stuff and learn stuff. Most of us have. When that is the ONLY purpose stated, it's entertainment at others expense. Now, if we see contributions from Wolfram that add value here, it's all in good fun; otherwise, really what we are seeing is somebody who saw a ripe trolling opportunity.

 

And to be really clear, I clarified the difference in activities. I didn't blame Wolfram for anything really. Just highlighting that his current actions suck. There isn't a blame there, just a statement of fact that served to diffuse the high ground he had taken earlier.

 

He's completely free to continue to suck, and many will derive significant entertainment from it, myself included. All good.