Atari v Commodore

[atariksi]

Well, if you go all table-based, the Atari does it much the same... and you don't need to restrict X to avoid a >255 offset.

 

Did you ever try to disable DL when all instructions are LMS? Did it repeat LMS instruction or just the mode with 40 byte offset (or 48 byte offset in overscan)?

[Rybags]

Hmmm...

 

I think I've tried various combos like DLI, scroll etc. and pretty sure it just behaves as if subsequent instructions are mode only.

[Wolfram]

...

fandal etc. Which machine was my son able to get his honors science project done on? The Atari helped him to an A+ and to be inducted into the National Junior Honor Society of Secondary Schools. My daughter did the same thing. Both of them felt the Atari was better. Both were able to use the machines to a good purpose.

...

Perhaps, you can get them to write "Thanks to Atari 800" on the certificate. I also used to participate in science fairs when I was in high school and there was always a whole bunch of Apple projects, some C64 and some Atari 8-bit and some PCs. All the first place winners were always from Atari 8-bit or PCs and second were C64 or PCs and never saw anyone with with an Apple. I saw once someone control a walking robot from an Atari 800XL w/256K memory expansion.

 

wow, and what does that proove? I didnt even know 8bit atari computer's exists into the 2000's. I had an amiga, the only thing I knew about atari that its some kind of crap 16bit machine.

 

It's an observation of mine that Atari 8-bits won (me and others) science fairs. Presentations were more colorful for one thing with nice scrolling title screens. I never stated it was in 2000s; it was actually in 1980s. I also used amigas in science fairs in late 1980s and early 1990s. Later the projects were incorporated into results you see here:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=320359212377

 

I can state a true observation without getting emotionally biased toward one machine unlike you.

 

I have also just stated a true observetion, without getting emotionally biased, and a bonus: without personal attacks.

[youki]

When i started to post in this thread it was just to post some game that are better on Atari 800 than on C64.

 

I didn't even think what machine is better than other. for me it was 2 excellent 8 bits i love.

 

And then reading ,participating the discussion and doing more research on available software / hardware on both machine.

 

I'm now convinced that the C64 is a slighty better machine. (i also agree that in 1979 nothing was better than the A800!! , i also agree that in 1982 C64 had not a so advanced technology for his time as the A800 had in 1979)

 

Atari have few specific points where it is better , like more "color" (in fact it has only 16... but with different intensities) , a faster processor and a DLI .

But if you consider that faster processor and more color make a machine better , it would mean that the Atari 2600 would better than a C64... I think Atari 2600 have 128 color palette and a 1.19Mhz processor , so better than a C64 with a 0.9XXX Mhz and 16 colors..

 

But overall (for gaming) the c64 is more homegenous , more easy to exploit , better designed because his features are more "accessible" for programmer and as consequence of that : have better game in general.

 

Considering hardware extension , hacking etc... Both machine have tons of very good hardware /hack that have been produced. So i think on this point both machine are at equality.

 

So i won't sell my 2 Atari 800 xl , my 130Xe ,my 600 xl and my XE Game System . But i will promote my 3 C64C , my C64S , my C64G and my SX64 has best machine of 1982 technology!

 

both Machine have their own soul , and it is what love in old computing , sould of machine , what ever the hardware was!

[atariksi]

When i started to post in this thread it was just to post some game that are better on Atari 800 than on C64.

 

I didn't even think what machine is better than other. for me it was 2 excellent 8 bits i love.

 

And then reading ,participating the discussion and doing more research on available software / hardware on both machine.

 

I'm now convinced that the C64 is a slighty better machine. (i also agree that in 1979 nothing was better than the A800!! , i also agree that in 1982 C64 had not a so advanced technology for his time as the A800 had in 1979)

...

I know some things you didn't research...

[Gury]

Going through this forum topic, thinking of another pointless 8-bit Atari vs C64 fight, it makes me think, in particular, what C64 people are trying to prove (fanaticly and very biased I must say). I used and played both machines, with Atari as a overall winner. If I had to choose another 8-bit home computer besides my A8s, it would be BBC B+, Coco 3 or ZX Spectrum. They are different, with unique features and of course, missing capabilities of mentioned computers above (which have similar capabilities).

 

Really, I don't know why C64 people insist to come here so frequently in hope to change people's thinking and interest. We Atarians know which machine is best and don't really care about C64 and never will.

[potatohead]

I just added a CoCo3 to my 8 bit collection. Great machine. Much prefer it to C64.

[Wolfram]

I just added a CoCo3 to my 8 bit collection. Great machine. Much prefer it to C64.

 

I've just added ths to my collection:

 

 

 

Great machine. Much prefer it to atar.

 

[youki]

I just added a CoCo3 to my 8 bit collection. Great machine. Much prefer it to C64.

 

I've just added ths to my collection:

 

 

 

Great machine. Much prefer it to atar.

 

 

Lol!!!!

 

You know that hardware can theoricaly calculate faster than an Atari or a C64.

Some japanese guy managed to prove that.

So , according to Atariksi and few others criterias ti means this hardware is more powerfull than Atari 800. (and of course infinitly more powerfull than a C64).

[invisible kid]

nevermind, had a question, but I answered it myself, heheh.

Edited April 14, 2009 by invisible kid

[Wolfram]

So PLOT X,Y = (Y&63)*256+(X/8)+Y&192.

 

 

that's a bit overcomplicated doesnt looks more simple than plotting something on the c64.

 

plotting to c64 bitmap, width restricted to 32 "bytes":

 

...

Width in above equation is 0..511 not 0..255 (32 bytes).

 

If you know the vertical quadrant you are plotting in, the ANDs aren't needed. MUL by 256 obviosly isn't needed and X/8 is a look-up.

 

so can you provide the code? so we can see how much a8 benefits from the better bitmap arrangement.

[+CyranoJ]

Can someone (a mod) please move this thread to the jaguar section where it belongs?

[Heaven/TQA]

So PLOT X,Y = (Y&63)*256+(X/8)+Y&192.

 

 

that's a bit overcomplicated doesnt looks more simple than plotting something on the c64.

 

plotting to c64 bitmap, width restricted to 32 "bytes":

 

...

Width in above equation is 0..511 not 0..255 (32 bytes).

 

If you know the vertical quadrant you are plotting in, the ANDs aren't needed. MUL by 256 obviosly isn't needed and X/8 is a look-up.

 

so can you provide the code? so we can see how much a8 benefits from the better bitmap arrangement.

 

should be very obvious... but I guess you never had kind of linear bitmap lines with your "charmode"-bitmap mode (I know what I am talking about... as in process of converting Berzerk 800 which uses standard linear 40 bytes x 192 scanlines vram which has to be converted to the vic bitmap mode...

[xxl]

> plotting to c64 bitmap, width restricted to 32 "bytes":

 

> so can you provide the code? so we can see how much a8 benefits from the better bitmap arrangement.

 

 

about 4 cycle faster and without restriction :-)

[Wolfram]

> plotting to c64 bitmap, width restricted to 32 "bytes":

 

> so can you provide the code? so we can see how much a8 benefits from the better bitmap arrangement.

 

 

about 4 cycle faster and without restriction :-)

 

assuming 256 byte wide scanlines it should be faster than that imho.

[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.

 

Sorry, you are wrong. The first computer to ever sell 1 million units had market penetration, and is/was a market success.

Total flop and wholly unsupported at the consumer level unlike Atari. I know a few people back in the day that bought one as it was cheap. They however did nothing with it and could not find software for it. Yeah.. that a real success

 

VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It was a huge market success.

Say it all you like. Still wrong. Here in the US. (main computer market) it was a flop. Success generally means that people dev for it and it's available easily to the public. It was not. Kind like the Virtual Boy, sold a bunch, no software, flop. Actually I think Virtual boy did better

Most of those machine sold here were never used. It was a novelty based on price.It was the cheapest machine around and people bought it. People wanted to be part of the emerging "computer age". Not understanding anything about machines they chose the cheapest one.

Besides the machine sucked. Give me an Atari 400/800 anyday.Heck at that time a 2600 was a much better choice. Consumers at the time were buying machine for games mostly. Commodore had no great license games and really nothing to offer even if you could find software for it.

It's only thing was that it was cheap. Made a great doorstop,closet liner, landfill filler, take your pick.

We had neighbors who had one setup on the coffee table. They showed it off. When asked what it did they turned it on and we all looked at it. I asked what they could do with it and the answer was that they had no idea. They never did.

 

You are wrong. The original claim was that it was a market huge market success. the first computer ever selling over 1 million unit is a huge market success. Market success is to be measured in sales numbers.

Keep trying. Still wrong. Again market success or failure is obvious when nearly nobody writes software for your system. As in programmers are trying to make money. As is obvious VIC20 failed.Not mainstream. Atari,Apple, Heck Tandy and TI(not a bad system) had more available and Atari and Apple had 1st tier titles as well. Vic failed. I can't even believe we are having this conversation about such a joke of a system. Were you even alive at the time?

 

Stop redefining the meaning of market success. VIC20 was a HUGE market success. whatever you say. Its not like I dont agree with most of you're seeing. But its all offtopic, changing subject. One thing you can never take away from the VIC20: first ever computer to ever sell 1 million units. and that means a huge market success.

 

edit: interesting note from spiceware. VIC20 sold 2.5 millon. more than half of ALL a8 models put together.

It's a fact. You just don't like hearing it. They sold a million pos doorstops with no 1st tier software and no availability of software. You'll just have to deal with it. Maybe Lemon64 would fit your few. I imagine there are many there with the same lame excuse. I lived during that period. Did you?

[atarian63]

I just added a CoCo3 to my 8 bit collection. Great machine. Much prefer it to C64.

 

I've just added ths to my collection:

 

 

 

Great machine. Much prefer it to atar.

 

Isn't that a Vic 20? I bet they did sell a million, also answers the no software question.

[+wood_jl]

C64s have 16mb memory/32bit CPU upgrades something nobody has ever managed for any Atari.

How many memory banks and of what size? What software is it good for? I guess if you could get good RAMdisk software going and maybe serve some web pages (since that's all the rage these days with C64 according to another Commie). More importantly, you could then put that 2400 baud (300cps) 1541 out to pasture, as long as you have a good battery backup.

 

32 bit CPU upgrades.? Sure! Why aren't you on the Amiga forums trying to get them to "upgrade" to C64.

C64s have SID2SID stereo mods and players BUT also with the ability to drive one using the output of the other same as a real synth.

A8 has dual Pokey, but I hardly see the point. Could get a 25 year old Casio keyboard for $10 that sounds better, and then you'd actually HAVE a real synth if it gets you off.

C64s have 512mb memory expansions.

Whoaaa.... 16 megs a paragraph ago, now 512 megs. Isn't it a GAZILLION GAZILLION megs?

C64s have full on analogue synthesizer bass station modifications like Prophet64/MSSSIAH that are used by many professional composers

So now a C64 can be used as a web server, 32-bit computer, professional synth, and composer's tool - all in 2009. Who'd have known there was no need to ever manufacture anything newer? What on Earth were they thinking when the ceased production? Why did they even contrive the C128 (or Amiga)? And all this time, I thought it was just being compared to A8.

What I want to know, is how I can get a 427 side-oiler or maybe Hemi in there. Or maybe there's a Prius mod so it's eco-friendly.

C64s have about 4 or 5 IDE or MMC/SD card loaders that emulate the original disk drive and do more just like the SIO ones.

Oh please; that's boring. Anything (even A8) can do that. You were on a roll above. Does emulating the original disc drive mean it runs at 2400 baud?

AND I have yet to be even shown a SINGLE VIDEO CLIP of a piece of code more complex and elegant than the Enforcer II level 2 demo or electric guitar sound achieved without sampling demos I posted and yet the debate still rages which hardware is better

I have yet to see a 512MB C64 with 32-bit processor and 2 SIDS replacing web servers and professional music equipment. ponder.

PS I just wanted to add on a side note, I actually picked up a Sony Betamax player a few years ago (ok 10!!) and recorded a few things from cable TV and the difference I can assure you was NOT 4$

At the time I owned a Panasonic top end VHS player that was regularly awarded the most praise in A/V publications and the comparison was amazing.

The grain/noise was noticeably less on Beta

The picture detail level was higher on Beta

The colour resolution was a lot better and more stable on strong colours.

The freeze frames and slow motion on the Sony Betamax were almost digital in quality.

The sound quality was noticeably better (this is HiFi/Stereo sound track I am talking about on both with Dolby B & C on the Sony Beta)

Anybody who has recorded with a good VCR and tape from a digital cable box or DTV converter box will be pleasantly surprised at the quality, compared to recording from degraded analog sources as they did years ago. Who really cares about videotapes anymore? I guess a real Sony fanboy could still be sore over Betamax. I hope you're not rooting for Blu Ray to kill DVD soon, or it'll be time to grease the nether regions and bite a pillow when you want a movie.

VHS won simply because both machines and movies were available for RENTAL on VHS not Betamax. Technical specs on paper are meaningless unless you actually used two top of the range machines of both formats and compared them side to side.

Most people I talked to thought it had something do with the longer VHS tapes. Most people didn't care. As long as it worked and didn't look horrible, nobody cared about top range machines and comparisons.

[+SpiceWare]

PS I just wanted to add on a side note, I actually picked up a Sony Betamax player a few years ago (ok 10!!) and recorded a few things from cable TV and the difference I can assure you was NOT 4$

 

At the time I owned a Panasonic top end VHS player that was regularly awarded the most praise in A/V publications and the comparison was amazing.

..

Also EVERY video machine be it beta or VHS could both playback and record via direct phono inputs for sound and video which is worth bearing in mind and the only way to really compare machines

That's the thing though, when the VCRs were first coming out the only connections on the TVs was RF. Via RF the image difference between BETA and VHS was so small as to be meaningless, but the time difference major - you couldn't leave for the evening and record a 2 hour movie via BETA, but you could via VHS. By the time video connections where added to TVs, when it would have made a difference for BETA (because by then it also supported longer recording times), VHS had already won the market.

[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

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.

 

Sorry, you are wrong. The first computer to ever sell 1 million units had market penetration, and is/was a market success.

Total flop and wholly unsupported at the consumer level unlike Atari. I know a few people back in the day that bought one as it was cheap. They however did nothing with it and could not find software for it. Yeah.. that a real success

 

VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It was a huge market success.

Say it all you like. Still wrong. Here in the US. (main computer market) it was a flop. Success generally means that people dev for it and it's available easily to the public. It was not. Kind like the Virtual Boy, sold a bunch, no software, flop. Actually I think Virtual boy did better

Most of those machine sold here were never used. It was a novelty based on price.It was the cheapest machine around and people bought it. People wanted to be part of the emerging "computer age". Not understanding anything about machines they chose the cheapest one.

Besides the machine sucked. Give me an Atari 400/800 anyday.Heck at that time a 2600 was a much better choice. Consumers at the time were buying machine for games mostly. Commodore had no great license games and really nothing to offer even if you could find software for it.

It's only thing was that it was cheap. Made a great doorstop,closet liner, landfill filler, take your pick.

We had neighbors who had one setup on the coffee table. They showed it off. When asked what it did they turned it on and we all looked at it. I asked what they could do with it and the answer was that they had no idea. They never did.

 

You are wrong. The original claim was that it was a market huge market success. the first computer ever selling over 1 million unit is a huge market success. Market success is to be measured in sales numbers.

Keep trying. Still wrong. Again market success or failure is obvious when nearly nobody writes software for your system. As in programmers are trying to make money. As is obvious VIC20 failed.Not mainstream. Atari,Apple, Heck Tandy and TI(not a bad system) had more available and Atari and Apple had 1st tier titles as well. Vic failed. I can't even believe we are having this conversation about such a joke of a system. Were you even alive at the time?

 

Stop redefining the meaning of market success. VIC20 was a HUGE market success. whatever you say. Its not like I dont agree with most of you're seeing. But its all offtopic, changing subject. One thing you can never take away from the VIC20: first ever computer to ever sell 1 million units. and that means a huge market success.

 

edit: interesting note from spiceware. VIC20 sold 2.5 millon. more than half of ALL a8 models put together.

It's a fact. You just don't like hearing it. They sold a million pos doorstops with no 1st tier software and no availability of software. You'll just have to deal with it. Maybe Lemon64 would fit your few. I imagine there are many there with the same lame excuse. I lived during that period. Did you?

 

wow man, face it: already even 2 of the atari guys have corrected you, one of them even said it had software, pheripherals, etc etc etc. VIC20 was a huge market success. you just cant face the reality.

[Wolfram]

A8 has dual Pokey, but I hardly see the point. Could get a 25 year old Casio keyboard for $10 that sounds better, and then you'd actually HAVE a real synth if it gets you off.

 

 

25 year casio keyboards can do this really?

 

 

also pokey's are not built into various commercial boxes which are used to make music. no wonder why SID is used for that and Pokey is not.

 

you are just playing it like emkay. A8 cant do turrican? no problem. lets compare c64 turrican to amiga version, now we can say it sucks. you do the same trolling.

[+SpiceWare]

It's a fact. You just don't like hearing it. They sold a million pos doorstops with no 1st tier software and no availability of software.

No availability of software? Per Wiki's VIC 20 entry

The ease of programming the VIC and availability of an inexpensive modem combined to give the VIC a sizable library of public domain and freeware software

...

As for commercial software offerings, an estimated 300 titles were available on cartridge, and another 500+ titles were available on tape.

1st tier software? Hadn't heard that term before, I imagine you mean First Party?

 

First party would be Commodore

 

Third party would be others. The few I have are from Thorn Em, Imagic, Parker Brothers, HesWare and even Atari.

 

You'll just have to deal with it.

In this instance, you're the one that needs to deal with it

I lived during that period. Did you?

Are you sure you did In the small town I grew up in, software such as the above was readily available at KMart.

[Allas]

When i started to post in this thread it was just to post some game that are better on Atari 800 than on C64.

 

I didn't even think what machine is better than other. for me it was 2 excellent 8 bits i love.

 

And then reading ,participating the discussion and doing more research on available software / hardware on both machine.

 

I'm now convinced that the C64 is a slighty better machine. (i also agree that in 1979 nothing was better than the A800!! , i also agree that in 1982 C64 had not a so advanced technology for his time as the A800 had in 1979)

 

Atari have few specific points where it is better , like more "color" (in fact it has only 16... but with different intensities) , a faster processor and a DLI .

But if you consider that faster processor and more color make a machine better , it would mean that the Atari 2600 would better than a C64... I think Atari 2600 have 128 color palette and a 1.19Mhz processor , so better than a C64 with a 0.9XXX Mhz and 16 colors..

 

But overall (for gaming) the c64 is more homegenous , more easy to exploit , better designed because his features are more "accessible" for programmer and as consequence of that : have better game in general.

 

Considering hardware extension , hacking etc... Both machine have tons of very good hardware /hack that have been produced. So i think on this point both machine are at equality.

 

So i won't sell my 2 Atari 800 xl , my 130Xe ,my 600 xl and my XE Game System . But i will promote my 3 C64C , my C64S , my C64G and my SX64 has best machine of 1982 technology!

 

both Machine have their own soul , and it is what love in old computing , sould of machine , what ever the hardware was!

 

 

The 25 greatest pcs of all time

Edited April 14, 2009 by Allas

[Rybags]

300 cartridges. Impressive.

 

Then again, it's the only valid media for a pissant system with a measly 5K RAM.

 

Atari were notorious tightarses with the amount of RAM in their consoles (128 bytes, 4K for 2600/7800), but at least they had the brains to not bother with less than 16K for it's computers.

[FastRobPlus]

Great machine. Much prefer it to atar.

 

 

In all fairness, the atar was a notoriously weak machine.