Atari v Commodore

[potatohead]

No it's not! (Impossible to argue color preferences) Easy to just express what we like and go from there.

 

The C64 color set is limited. Lots of computers have this problem, not just the C64. Hell, look at the Color Computer I and II. Fugly!!

 

We are used to seeing displays with a lot of different texture.

 

You get a lot of colors on the screen and a lot of action. Game kernels latch the display to the game, and there is a feel to that a lot of people really like. Lower resolution options, with the sprites make for fast action, big scrolling and other things.

 

These things bring a lot of texture to the display. It's totally possible to have lots of colors on the screen, and make good use of them. There are limits, of course, but there are always limits. Atari is stronger where vertically arranged screens are in play. Color schemes per level, ala ARCHON, for example, are something Atari users are expecting to see where it makes sense.

 

Wide screens, narrow screens, ordinary screens and NO non-sprite screens all come into play.

 

As a C64 enthusiast, these things have less overall value, BECAUSE the machine doesn't do them! Every C64 game looks the same. The look it has is a good one, don't get me wrong there. But it is a very specific look.

 

An Atari machine makes good overall use of all the elements of the display. Area, intensity, color, detail, operations. (scrolling, sprites, priority, collision, overlap operators). C64 focuses on (detail and operations), at the expense of color, intensity and area.

 

With audio it works the same way. POKEY has a lot of texture! Volume, number of channels, available frequencies, output bandwidth, effects like noise. SID concentrates on frequencies and specific effects aimed at music at the expense of output bandwidth, number of channels, and actual noises.

 

I like the Atari machines better because of these things. Texture is the best way I can put it. Lots of very different experiences are possible on the Atari machines. Many of those overlap with those available on the C64 too. Where the focus was applied to the C64, it does a great job. Often the better job. No question.

 

On those areas where it was not the focus, C64 is lacking, and the result of that is just less texture and variety.

 

This goes all the way back to the VCS. Look at that thing! Despite it being very elementary, it can generate an amazing number of displays! The Atari 8 bit computers are the same way. I think that is just better overall, simply because most experiences are possible. Some of them are not going to be quite as good as those brought to us on more dedicated hardware, but they are still possible.

 

Going through the Atari 8 bit demos, I see just a ton of different stuff. And more of that remains to be exploited because of how the chips were designed.

 

I don't think it's possible to say the C64 is the better overall machine, when it's capability set isn't the better overall. I've never thought that, never will. And will easily say that where C64 is well tuned, it's a great machine. If it offered more variety, I would appreciate it more like I do the Atari ones.

 

So, Wolfram here's the challenge. It's quite easy to express what I just did, and give a great machine the consideration it's due. (and the C64 is a great 8 bit machine) How about returning the favor in like kind by not marginalizing those things Atari users find valuable?

 

Re: Atari age being Atari only.

 

One of the very coolest things about this site is the high level of non-Atari stuff. I love it, and didn't mean to imply this was the "Atari Only Zone". It's not, but Atari is strong here, with many core Atarians sharing time and code with us regularly. That's all.

Edited April 16, 2009 by potatohead

[Wolfram]

I have no problem admitting the a8's strengths. many colors are nice, faster cpu yeah, pokey ehmm the misstuned musics when it plays 4 channels are horrible, display list is cool, especially lms, and the scrolling is nice, widescreen, more than 200 lines is cool too.

 

16 shades bigpixel modes are awesome for demos with the faster cpu.

 

But it looks like the c64 is focusing on the important things.

 

back when it mattered which was better, it was about games and not demos, and majority of games were 2d. and games has to be colorful in a good resolution with moving objects. c64 supports all that better.

 

yeah 256 colors, they are cool, I often wished the c64 had more colors. BUT its fucking hard to display fex. 16 in 160x200, let alone 320x200 (dont come with the rainbows, we are talking of real life like placed colors). yes there are a handful of pictures doing it. but it needs a pc editor and the year 200x. back when it mattered it was 4 colors, or wide pixels & 16 shades vs c64 displaying 16 in 160x200 happily, without having to fuck around.

 

display list, lms, etc yaddayadda, cool features. but when on the c64 you can do most of that with a raster irq, it seems to be an overkill. and when it mattered in the heydays, a game hardly used more than 2 display modes. scrolling with lms, cool! but making soft sprites is 20 times harder, than scrolling with the cpu...

 

60 bits for collision.. well jay miner instead could have made 16 pixel wide sprites, or something more useful like that. as life showed serious games never use such features.

 

especially the wide pixel modes A8 reads character pointers for charmode anyway, that could have been used for colors, and use the silicon space of the bigpixel modes. but you have 256 colors, that needs 8 bits... well you can read 2x 4 bit colors on that space. 16 colors is a very clever design compromise infact...

 

 

Comparing these features... makes me think A8 gfx chip probably uses the same amount of silicon space as VICII. VICII throws most of it on sprites, a8 has the display list, many colors, etc.

 

a8 definitly has the upper hand in demos, to write something positve to the end

[potatohead]

Well, the word is "focused". All the core actions are long over.

 

And it's today too, not then.

 

Good games on Atari are happening today. Have to mention YOOMP! It's worth a setup all by itself. (and that's my plan, after playing the thing) Good hardware projects are happening for Atari today. Good demos happen today, and there continues to be ongoing exploitation of the chips today.

 

So given there is support for both opinions (and there is), claiming the C64 is the better box really isn't all that defensible, now is it?

 

And that's the core point, many tried to make earlier on.

[Allas]

c64 palette is like the ZX Spectrum pallette...

 

Few "ugly" c64 image with his "ugly" palette.

 

.

.

.

 

Finally... i think i like what is ugly!

 

Most of those screens doesn't look exactly on my real C128.

Despite, all of them have good draw, good painting, but terrible colors. This is like view Spectrum enhanced pictures.

Why not sent simple draws, to avoid to disguise the real fact that C64 have only 16 colors (most of them ugly).

[the maddestman]

I'd like to see a game as good as Star Raiders on the A800 on the C64. Fantastic game that one, and I think corners would need to be cut to get it to work on the C64 - starfield would have to be less dense, starbases wouldn't be able to colour cycle like they do on A800. I have no doubt it could be done, but I don't think it could be done to the same standard - particularly in an 8K ROM!

[Rybags]

Star Raiders would be a walk in the park.

 

As it is, it's relatively slow compared to what either machine is capable of. That's the price you pay by fitting it in 8K.

 

Little space for tables or unwound loops. It even restricts itself to only using the bottom 8K of RAM, which is part of the reason it only uses Gr. 7.

[FastRobPlus]

Star Raiders would be a walk in the park.

 

As it is, it's relatively slow compared to what either machine is capable of. That's the price you pay by fitting it in 8K.

 

Little space for tables or unwound loops. It even restricts itself to only using the bottom 8K of RAM, which is part of the reason it only uses Gr. 7.

 

Very likely easy to do now.

But Star Raiders is a "launch title" and is of higher quality than any launch title I can think of for the C64. I think the thread was to compare the same games to see where the Atari was actually better. The first space shooter I'm aware of for the C64 was Neutral Zone, which was beautiful for the time but had awful playability and lagged far behind Star Raiders from a technical perspective. (And also from a 3D perspective perspective )

[FastRobPlus]

All those picture looks great, but here there is 29 colors... who can do more?

 

 

Commodore Plus/4

72 colors

 

but Powrooz rules anyway

 

I have to say, this pic looks really nice. I know almost nothing about the Plus4, but this is much better than the C64.

[potatohead]

The plus 4 made the other trade-off.

 

It's got nice resolution and a great color palette, but no sprites...

 

Looks cool too. Always liked this machine.

 

The CPU clock is what the Atari one is.

[Wolfram]

Star Raiders would be a walk in the park.

 

As it is, it's relatively slow compared to what either machine is capable of. That's the price you pay by fitting it in 8K.

 

Little space for tables or unwound loops. It even restricts itself to only using the bottom 8K of RAM, which is part of the reason it only uses Gr. 7.

 

Very likely easy to do now.

But Star Raiders is a "launch title" and is of higher quality than any launch title I can think of for the C64. I think the thread was to compare the same games to see where the Atari was actually better. The first space shooter I'm aware of for the C64 was Neutral Zone, which was beautiful for the time but had awful playability and lagged far behind Star Raiders from a technical perspective. (And also from a 3D perspective perspective )

 

suddenly it does matter again what mattered in the heydays. but when I say the c64 focused technically better on what mattered in the heydays, that does not matter because now is now.

 

launch title this or that, c64 sold more, as a8 fans admit it almost everyone of them bought a c64, eventho they think its a bad machine. I wonder why...

Edited April 17, 2009 by Wolfram

[+wood_jl]

There is no doubt that this thread is fun. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here. (message to the complainers)

 

There is also no doubt that you die-hard advocates (you know who you are) are considerably knowledgeable - as well as vocal - in your opinions. Talk about some good learning - to see this kind of discussion!

 

But, I think it's reasonable to understand and admit that these machines are much more similar than different, considering the vast number of years that have passed since *either* was significant on either the computer or gaming front. Sure, I get sucked up into it, and I'll *never* give up my Atari tendencies.

 

It's hard to admit that the cold war is over. Back when opinions translated into sales for these machines (and their successors), opinions mattered, and the more vocal the better. Every Commodore sold was like someone shitting into the mouth of Atari. If someone deemed *your* opinion of merit back then, it may have translated into an additional sale of your choice, and increased popularity of your choosen machine and implied survival (or continued dominance) of its respective manufacturer. What the fuck difference does it make today, now that computers (and consoles) are **thousands** of times more complex and powerful? I just think it's easy to get caught up in the old thinking, as if the cold war is still on, and these companies are still in business. I catch myself doing it, of course.

 

Why doesn't this debate CONCENTRATE on what really mattters today in an actual comparison of these machines - the ease of - and developments that accomodate - MODERN ownership. Commodore 64s are no longer $595. You can get one for $20. People spend that much on beer in one sale. Ataris are the same way. All the software you can handle is available FREE and on the web, and one burnable CD or DVD will probably contain the entire library. Owning both in the modern age is like eating Burger King one day and Taco Bell the next. Back then (80s) a choice had to be made; now monthly cell phone or cable bills exceed (perhaps by multiples) what each is worth, and the companies are out of business. What exactly is the point of the arguement, then? Do I have to pretend I can't afford both, then engage in arguement?

 

Since the companies are long dead, neither machine remotely relevant in the modern sense, and either available for purchase for the cost of one night's drinking, update your attitude. I'm not talking about joining hands and singing Kumbaya; I'm talking about buying *YOUR* confounded machine for beer money, rather than $595. Immediately, I want to play the games that were not available on "my" system, and then I'll explore from there. Let's begin with a game of Hyper Sports.

 

I understand the nostalgia behind the purchase of antique floppy drives. I remember saving up for an Atari 810 on layaway that was close to $600 and then the Atari 1050 came out at $340 at AAFES, and that was my first disc drive. I kind of want one for nostalgia alone. I sure as hell don't want to use one: (1) It's a pain swapping discs instead of PC mouse clicks on APE, (2) I can't buy discs anyway, (3) real discs would be slow and unreliable, and (4) old disc systems are subject to failure anyway, (5) it would literally take HUNDREDS of floppies to accomodate all the free shit I've downloaded. Device emulation is obviously the way to go.

 

So it's going to be an expensive, complicated bitch to hook up your system to the PC. That's too bad. It's an absolute piece of cake for the Atari with SIO2PC and the USB connector. $50 and you're down with everything you need. www.atarimax.com and finished. What kind of shit do I need to emulate the 1541 in order to do this? How much does it cost? Where can I get it? That's not the debate? Let's debate color pallettes instead?

 

Everyone wants to debate color pallettes and sound chips. What the fuck difference does that make when I can buy the competition for $20 when all I want to do is play Hyper Sports for cheap - right now - and not on a blasted emulator? Modern gamers must laugh at the intensity of debate over obsolete features.

[Wolfram]

The plus 4 made the other trade-off.

 

It's got nice resolution and a great color palette, but no sprites...

 

Looks cool too. Always liked this machine.

 

The CPU clock is what the Atari one is.

 

its not a tradeoff. plus4 was to be a compatitor to the speccy, so it was designed to use cheap HW. to make a long story short: tramiel left, C= fucked up, plus4 ended in the pricerange being a competitor to the c64.

[potatohead]

Absolutely true! We are at today

 

Star Raiders is due for some remakes and ports. We've lots of great advances in know how now. That game is a work of art. Needs to be played more than it probably is.

[Barnacle boy]

Everyone wants to debate color pallettes and sound chips. What the fuck difference does that make when I can buy the competition for $20 when all I want to do is play Hyper Sports for cheap - right now - and not on a blasted emulator? Modern gamers must laugh at the intensity of debate over obsolete features.

 

What's so bad about emulators? Just play both systems on a modded xbox on a big TV in your lounge room. Quick loading, savestates, re-mappable controls, and best of all, you can save the $20 dollars for beer... or is that sacrilegious?

[FastRobPlus]

Absolutely true! We are at today

 

Star Raiders is due for some remakes and ports. We've lots of great advances in know how now. That game is a work of art. Needs to be played more than it probably is.

 

I wonder what a Star Raiders 3 could be given the level of coding we see toady. It's actually hard for me to want an update since the original was so minimalistic and so good (kinda like Space War in that respect.)

Edited April 17, 2009 by FastRobPlus

[Wolfram]

So it's going to be an expensive, complicated bitch to hook up your system to the PC. That's too bad. It's an absolute piece of cake for the Atari with SIO2PC and the USB connector. $50 and you're down with everything you need. www.atarimax.com and finished. What kind of shit do I need to emulate the 1541 in order to do this? How much does it cost? Where can I get it? That's not the debate? Let's debate color pallettes instead?

 

indeed, the better retrocomputer today is - let all other factors aside like nr & quality of software offered nr of machines sold in the heydays, etc etc - which is cheaper to be hooked up to a pc... sounds like atariski with his joystick port mania.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Wolfram

[+wood_jl]

[indeed, the better retrocomputer today is - let all other factors aside like nr & quality of software offered nr of machines sold in the heydays, etc etc - which is cheaper to be hooked up to a pc... sounds like atariski with his joystick port mania.

 

You mean it's NOT?? Who gives a shit how many C64s or Ataris they sold in 1985? It's TODAY, and I want easy, cheap peripheral emulation. You're actually going to debate the necessity of this point? Are you really serious? Come on, man. Be reasonable. I don't care WHICH system you advocate. You're actually going to question the value of easy, cheap peripheral emulation? I just want to be clear on your position before I comment further, because it seems that you understand the value of what I'm advocating here.

 

Joystick port mania? Hell, if I can't get cheap, easy, affordable peripheral emulation down, the joystick ports will lie dormant. Come on, convince me that I **CAN** get cheap, easy, affordable peripheral emulation for your choice. Otherwise, convince me that it is NOT necessary. Sorry, but pretending that "number of machines sold" in the heydays isn't worth a squirt of piss. Convice me, and not only do you WIN the arguement, but I'll **GLADLY** buy A C64 and play Hyper Sports. I actually want you to win this one (because I'd be winning in the end too) but it looks to be a bit of a challenge......

[AtariNerd]

Simple idea, maybe not so simple in execution, but...

 

It might be an interesting exercise for some of the programming gurus to join together and try porting over some of their games/apps to other systems. Since they share so much in common, it's not so outrageous an undertaking. Tweak them to match the others systems strengths. This way one gets a feel, understanding of the other system/s , gain new challenges and everyone benefits. Mostly...

 

Or just load up an emulator...*sacrilege*

 

::::flees::::

[potatohead]

Hear, hear!!

 

That's where I'm at too. As far as emulation goes, it's a great thing. I run stuff --lots of different stuff in emulators all the time. Hell, half the time I don't keep it. But, I do want to participate in the sharing of it. Emulators power our development today.

 

I wrote Ooze for the VCS in a compiled basic. (go Batari Basic!) That was a kick ass experience, that would not have happened, if it were not for emulation. Lots of people played my creation, some on the real deal, others on emulators, like the one I wrote it on. Today, that is the shit! It's why a lot of people are here.

 

Edit: Emulation and PC bridge hardware, not Ooze! Sorry...

 

Playing on the real hardware is special though. You get the look, the texture, the feel and that's worth a setup for sure.

 

Take Star Raiders, as a great example of this. On an emulator, it's not the same experience. It is possible to appreciate the game, but the whole story is in front of the tube, with the sound turned up! That game slowness adds a bit of texture to the whole thing that was not intended, but turned out just great. Right when the action gets intense, you get a little time warp and can power through, or hear the damage and wonder if you are cooked!

 

I could care less who emulates what and why. IMHO, it's all good because users of emulation drive better emulation. Developers on real machines drive better emulation and from that we get better software. The PC makes this whole cycle really, really easy. And with the SIO2SD, the hardware can stand alone. And I am absolutely gonna get one of those things. Best thing since sliced bread.

 

CoCo has one, Apple has one, Atari has one! C64... does it have one?

 

If not, get cracking instead of bitching and advocating! That is where the action is, and where it will be going forward. Nobody is gonna go for the disks, unless they are hard core, or want to do testing, or like to collect. Everybody else will be emulating the whole she-bang, or using their PC to bridge the gap. I know I can't take a C64 seriously without one of these devices. The reason is that I wouldn't have the time to use the damn thing! And using it is what having it and sharing and talking about it is where it is all at.

 

There is one other subtle thing in play here too. Without PC bridge devices, the old hardware fades and does not see as much development. Emulators depend on feedback, or they don't evolve. That feed back does not happen without people hammering on the original hardware. That's the secret sauce for retro / home brew.

 

As for debating older features... on one hand, it's kind of goofy. We all never gave up the cold war --and I know I get those child hood feelings, dishing out some smack. On the other, it's educational, and the foundation for whatever scene there is on the machine.

 

Somebody somewhere is saying, "Oh yeah? Top this!", and so it goes another round. Necessary evil, IMHO. Just did this with the CoCo 3, posting up 160x200x256 color display. Had forgotten all about it, until one thread and some thrashing back and forth triggered the memory. Got told "no way". Felt great when I posted up the screenie. I have a CoCo 3 now too. Looking forward to doing some stuff with it.

 

Want to know what's getting in the way? Difficulty until I have the PC bridge device. Cassette files are good, but only so good. (and on that box, a computer can make them and it can read them very easily. Of course, there are people building stuff, and so they will get a few of my dollars, and the retro economy, such as it is, goes another cycle.

 

Game on!

 

Personally, I think it's good to separate ego from the hardware though. I freaking love Atari, and will tell you why. But, if that does not resonate, or I find you love C64, CoCo, Apple, Speccy, etc... it's all good! Trust me when I say, I'll live if it's got more sprites and such, but the same in reverse ought to be true, right?

 

Right.

 

One other context I think is worth the debate is those features and their impact on the games overall. Much of gaming was shaped by those features and how they played out manifests today. Knowing what they are, why they mattered, etc... means knowing something about the history of gaming and knowing when somebody raises the bar every so often. Or, on new platforms, like micros, being able to appreciate good effort and skill when it is shown off.

 

(goes off to hack on the Propeller)

Edited April 17, 2009 by potatohead

[Wolfram]

[indeed, the better retrocomputer today is - let all other factors aside like nr & quality of software offered nr of machines sold in the heydays, etc etc - which is cheaper to be hooked up to a pc... sounds like atariski with his joystick port mania.

 

You mean it's NOT?? Who gives a shit how many C64s or Ataris they sold in 1985? It's TODAY, and I want easy, cheap peripheral emulation. You're actually going to debate the necessity of this point? Are you really serious? Come on, man. Be reasonable. I don't care WHICH system you advocate. You're actually going to question the value of easy, cheap peripheral emulation? I just want to be clear on your position before I comment further, because it seems that you understand the value of what I'm advocating here.

 

Joystick port mania? Hell, if I can't get cheap, easy, affordable peripheral emulation down, the joystick ports will lie dormant. Come on, convince me that I **CAN** get cheap, easy, affordable peripheral emulation for your choice. Otherwise, convince me that it is NOT necessary. Sorry, but pretending that "number of machines sold" in the heydays isn't worth a squirt of piss. Convice me, and not only do you WIN the arguement, but I'll **GLADLY** buy A C64 and play Hyper Sports. I actually want you to win this one (because I'd be winning in the end too) but it looks to be a bit of a challenge......

 

if you want to be convinced to buy an 1541 ultimate, look at the entertainment/buck spent ratio, what do you get for your money:

 

- Pirates!, Zak McKracken, Maniac Mansion, Last Ninja, IK+ , Archon, Wasteland, Laser Squad,Turrican,Summer Games,Elite, Bubble Bobble, Project Firestart, Defender of the Crown, MicroProse Soccer, Winter Games, Leaderboard Golf, Impossible Mission, Giana Sisters, Creatures ,World Games, Armalyte, California Games, Airborne Ranger, Mayhem in Monsterland,Neuromancer and so on.

 

~30 000 sid music

~20 000 games

~73 000 scene releases

 

- biggest active 8 bit community

[Wolfram]

And with the SIO2SD, the hardware can stand alone. And I am absolutely gonna get one of those things. Best thing since sliced bread.

 

CoCo has one, Apple has one, Atari has one! C64... does it have one?

 

there's 3-4 SD card HW stuff for c64.

[Barnacle boy]

Take Star Raiders, as a great example of this. On an emulator, it's not the same experience. It is possible to appreciate the game, but the whole story is in front of the tube, with the sound turned up! That game slowness adds a bit of texture to the whole thing that was not intended, but turned out just great. Right when the action gets intense, you get a little time warp and can power through, or hear the damage and wonder if you are cooked!

 

Do any of these things - the sound, the slowness, the intensity, the time warp, etc - not happen when playing under emulation? Honest question.

[potatohead]

Last time I played, they did.

 

Let me put it this way. Do you like film?

 

Watching an old film on DVD isn't like watching it on the screen. Emulation is the same way with retro computing.

 

Either this matters to a given person, or it does not, which is why I personally don't care who emulates what and why. It's all good.

 

IMHO, there will be enough people that like having the real deal so as to not be a problem.

 

Took the VCS into work the other day. Tell you what. Showing them a cool game on a computer screen is just a cool old game on a screen. When the machine is sitting there, controllers to be picked up, felt and enjoyed, it's different. One person said, "I've not played Atari in years!". Now they had, but it was emulated. "Playing Atari" happens with an Atari...

 

For me, that made the work of repairing, restoring and modding that VCS worth it. Was just as much fun to share as it was to play and tinker.

 

Emulators are not bad. They just don't do that kind of thing.

 

Now, put that emulator inside the case? Ha! That's playing Atari to most people. Funny how that works.

Edited April 17, 2009 by potatohead

[potatohead]

Wolfram, do those devices completely eliminate the need for a 1541?

 

In other words, does the C64 see them the same way it does the 1541, or are there issues?

[+wood_jl]

Simple idea, maybe not so simple in execution, but...

 

It might be an interesting exercise for some of the programming gurus to join together and try porting over some of their games/apps to other systems. Since they share so much in common, it's not so outrageous an undertaking. Tweak them to match the others systems strengths. This way one gets a feel, understanding of the other system/s , gain new challenges and everyone benefits. Mostly...

 

Or just load up an emulator...*sacrilege*

 

::::flees::::

 

Nobody's going to port anything over. Nobody's going to do anything.

 

In order to win this debate, someone need only make it as easy to use a C64 with a PC and virtual device emulation - as an Atari 8-bit. That's it.

 

We can argue 'till we're blue in the face about who sold more systems in the heyday, who is obsessed with joystick ports, who has the better color pallete (256 > 16 last time I checked) etc. The fact is that it doesn't matter at all who sold more systems 20 years ago. The debate is "should I get your system" and that hinges upon "how much does it cost and how easy is it?" That, of course, hinges upon "How much does it cost to do this?" and "How easy is it to do this?" and "Where can I get what is necessary to to do this?"

 

Notice that rather than answer these basic questions, the opposition will turn back to "how many systems were sold back in the day" and "quality of software" etc. Number of systems sold back in the day is irrelevant, and quality of software is too - **UNLESS** I can get that "quality" software running on a real machine with practical, affordable peripheral emulation.

 

If practical, affordable, available peripheral emulation DOES NOT EXIST, then the arguement will turn to "it's not necessary" by comparing the request to "joystick port obsessions" or other such gibberish.

 

Let me break it down for Commodore owners: I respect the machine and it has games I want to play. I downloaded a couple of GIGS of everything your machine has to offer. I want to play my free shit on a $20 C64. What do I need to make this happen, where can I get it, and how much does it cost?

 

I'll answer the question FOR your end (from mine). If you download a couple gigs of free Atari shit, you can get an SIO2PC from www.atarimax.com, and it will cost $30 (RS-232 serial) to $50 (USB 2.0). That's it; end of inquiry; question answered. I've answered the questions that I'm asking of you. Sorry (for you) you can't do the same. Sucks losing, doesn't it? Skirt the issue, why don't you (and you will).

 

COMMIE USERS:

What does it take from your end? I'm supposed to pretend this doesn't matter? I've already said if you "win" this one I win too, because I will actually BUY one of "your" computers; remember I want to play Hyper Sports and it's not on A8. Oh, you don't have an answer for this? You'd rather debate SID issues, color pallettes (or lack of them in your case) or number of units sold 25 years ago? That's because when you DO NOT have the answers, it's convenient to interject subterfuge with shit like that. After all, if you can't answer the questions and win the debate, you can attempt to attract attention and somehow feel better about themselves with such nonsense as "Mine sold more, and I was THERE back in 1985." Well, where the fuck are all those other gazillion users now? If you had an easy, practical, affordable, functional peripheral emulator maybe you'd get some of those former users back, and actually attract some new users. Nobody's going to "port" jackshit over; if they're too lazy and/or uninformed to answer these basic questions (that I HAVE answered from my end) then they're sure-as-shit not going to lift a finger in any other regard, least of all answering my simple questions. (smile!)