Atari v Commodore

[Wolfram]

I'll ship it to you for free to help you out. Given a CPU at 1.79Mhz,

 

so its the cpu which is faster, and not the joystick port. the ports are doing the same job. none of them is better.

 

The Atari uses the POKEY for the timers not the PIA

 

so the atari doesnt uses the PIA timers for anything ? atleast their interrupt lines are soldiered in ? are there timers on those PIA's at all, if the machine uses Pokey timers as you say?

 

and the POKEY timers are resolute to 558ns; CIA is fed with a 1Mhz clock so it's timing is also inferior to that of the Atari.

 

CIA can be fed with whatever Mhz, it doesnt makes it a bad chip if its fed with a slower one, and it doesnt makes it a better chip its fed with a faster clock. from the machine's point of view the timers are equally accurate: 1 cycle = 1 tick on both.

 

you need to find an application which needs to measure an outside event at atleast 1.79 Mhz accuracy so that the advantage of this shows.

[atariksi]

Wrong. We are talking about implementation as Rybags pointed out. Atari has both joystick ports tied to one 8-bit port. Atari even reads nibbles at higher frequency.

Both joysticks on one port... except for the fire buttons. Following your way of argumentation again:

 

Atari needs 3 LDAs to fully read 2 joys where C64 only needs 2 LDAs.

Atari needs 2 LDAs to fully read 1 joy where C64 only needs 1 LDA.

 

But I don't really see the point in this.

 

Looks like you came into the middle of the argument. Originally, we were talking i/o transfers through joystick ports and I stated that I can read Atari joystick in BYTE mode and in nibble mode. C64 has to read only in 4-bit or 5-bit mode. 5-bit mode is not as useful as 4-bit since nibble packing is easier than 5-bit packing into bytes. You use 1 LDA at higher CPU speed to read a BYTE on Atari. You use two LDA and then nibble packing to get one BYTE read on C64. As far as reading a normal joystick device, that's another argument whether you actually want to read trigger line along with joystick directions. And you did not take into account CPU speed in your above.

[Wolfram]

Particular the C64 was build upon the achievement, MOS reached by creating Atari Hardware.

 

vice versa. Atari needed MOS for its achievements, and not MOS needed atari.

[Wolfram]

I agree CIA is a superior chip than PIA but the way it's implemented, it's functionality can be performed better on Atari with its chipset.

 

great. lets agree on this, and close this topic.

[atariksi]

I agree CIA is a superior chip than PIA but the way it's implemented, it's functionality can be performed better on Atari with its chipset.

 

great. lets agree on this, and close this topic.

 

It does not address the point to have a chip that is superior but loses in I/O transfers and timing. It's useless from software perspective.

[Bryan]

I just checked my NTSC C64. The color carrier phase does alternate on each line.

[Fröhn]

Looks like you came into the middle of the argument. Originally, we were talking i/o transfers through joystick ports and I stated that I can read Atari joystick in BYTE mode and in nibble mode.

But why would you do IO via joystick ports on C64? You have a full 8 bit parallel port + serial port at the C64 userport available. No need to misuse the joyports.

[Wolfram]

I agree CIA is a superior chip than PIA but the way it's implemented, it's functionality can be performed better on Atari with its chipset.

 

great. lets agree on this, and close this topic.

 

It does not address the point to have a chip that is superior but loses in I/O transfers and timing. It's useless from software perspective.

 

sure. c64's CIA chips are useless from software perspective.

[Wolfram]

Looks like you came into the middle of the argument. Originally, we were talking i/o transfers through joystick ports and I stated that I can read Atari joystick in BYTE mode and in nibble mode.

But why would you do IO via joystick ports on C64? You have a full 8 bit parallel port + serial port at the C64 userport available. No need to misuse the joyports.

 

so he can win the argument.

[atariksi]

I'll ship it to you for free to help you out. Given a CPU at 1.79Mhz,

 

so its the cpu which is faster, and not the joystick port. the ports are doing the same job. none of them is better.

 

The Atari uses the POKEY for the timers not the PIA

 

so the atari doesnt uses the PIA timers for anything ? atleast their interrupt lines are soldiered in ? are there timers on those PIA's at all, if the machine uses Pokey timers as you say?

 

and the POKEY timers are resolute to 558ns; CIA is fed with a 1Mhz clock so it's timing is also inferior to that of the Atari.

 

CIA can be fed with whatever Mhz, it doesnt makes it a bad chip if its fed with a slower one, and it doesnt makes it a better chip its fed with a faster clock. from the machine's point of view the timers are equally accurate: 1 cycle = 1 tick on both.

 

you need to find an application which needs to measure an outside event at atleast 1.79 Mhz accuracy so that the advantage of this shows.

 

Joystick ports are implemented better on Atari as far as I/O transfers go. They don't do the same job; there's cycle differences per transfer which adds up.

 

PIA does not have internal timers; you have to simulate them externally by triggering proceed/pia lines. You should have asked like this first before attacking people's statements.

 

Faster clocked chips are better (not overclocked). 1.79Mhz timing is related to color clock timing-- you can set up an IRQ at particular color clocks since 3.57/2 = 1.79 just like on Amiga 3.57*2 = 7.16Mhz (used by Copper). It's better to have timing integer multiple of video signal for IRQs/DLIs/etc. That's the internal aspect. Externally, yes the higher resolution timing also helps. You can transmit data using a more accurate RATE or comute a more accurate sampling rate for Audio playback. Many other uses.

[Bryan]

6520 PIA. No timers.

[atariksi]

Looks like you came into the middle of the argument. Originally, we were talking i/o transfers through joystick ports and I stated that I can read Atari joystick in BYTE mode and in nibble mode.

But why would you do IO via joystick ports on C64? You have a full 8 bit parallel port + serial port at the C64 userport available. No need to misuse the joyports.

 

Now you are being biased. It's called "misuse" for you to use the joystick ports for I/O. So I guess the computereyes frame grabber also misused the joystick ports. I guess Covox voice module also misused the joystick ports. You fail to understand that DB9 joystick port was standard at the time and you build something for one machine, you can easily make it multiplatform. It's like parallel ports-- it's better to have many modes of operation like EPP/ECP/BPP/SPP rather than just one. So Atari lets you read 4-bit data like others but it pairs them together and lets you read BYTEs as well.

 

It's more expensive to produce cables targetted to specific nonstandard ports on particular machines. Remember, this is all software interface after you connect the cable.

[atariksi]

Looks like you came into the middle of the argument. Originally, we were talking i/o transfers through joystick ports and I stated that I can read Atari joystick in BYTE mode and in nibble mode.

But why would you do IO via joystick ports on C64? You have a full 8 bit parallel port + serial port at the C64 userport available. No need to misuse the joyports.

 

so he can win the argument.

 

Showing your bias again. Sign of a soar loser. Why don't you give him your argument of putting in a hardware module on the user port to allow faster transfers.

[atariksi]

I agree CIA is a superior chip than PIA but the way it's implemented, it's functionality can be performed better on Atari with its chipset.

 

great. lets agree on this, and close this topic.

 

It does not address the point to have a chip that is superior but loses in I/O transfers and timing. It's useless from software perspective.

 

sure. c64's CIA chips are useless from software perspective.

 

Re-read. Your emotional bias is preventing you from understanding. Use example of FAT AGNUS I gave.

[atariksi]

...

Well, they thought a TV set cannot display colours in hires. I really wonder who decided to chose limiting the Atari to luma only in hires. Every other TV standard easily was able to show colours in "hires".

 

It does not seem the limit was because lack of hardware-- since PMs do allow you to color text foreground and background. They didn't combine that PM technology with their display mode because they probably wanted to use their previous Atari 2600 designs.

[Wolfram]

I agree CIA is a superior chip than PIA but the way it's implemented, it's functionality can be performed better on Atari with its chipset.

 

great. lets agree on this, and close this topic.

 

It does not address the point to have a chip that is superior but loses in I/O transfers and timing. It's useless from software perspective.

 

sure. c64's CIA chips are useless from software perspective.

 

Re-read. Your emotional bias is preventing you from understanding. Use example of FAT AGNUS I gave.

 

I have just repeated what you have said: CIA chips in the c64 are useless from software perspective (because a8 is faster!).

 

its funny how after this you attack me with bias in each of your post

[atariksi]

I agree CIA is a superior chip than PIA but the way it's implemented, it's functionality can be performed better on Atari with its chipset.

 

great. lets agree on this, and close this topic.

 

It does not address the point to have a chip that is superior but loses in I/O transfers and timing. It's useless from software perspective.

 

sure. c64's CIA chips are useless from software perspective.

 

Re-read. Your emotional bias is preventing you from understanding. Use example of FAT AGNUS I gave.

 

I have just repeated what you have said: CIA chips in the c64 are useless from software perspective (because a8 is faster!).

 

its funny how after this you attack me with bias in each of your post

 

You are reading it out of context. Having a superior chip is useless from the software perspective if the implementation is inferior to an inferior chip. I rather have a PIA than a CIA. Got it? You are the one making attacks on people without understanding what is being stated. You wanted to close the topic just by claiming CIA is superior chip when that superiority does not show from software perspective. You keep making the same claim-- joystick i/o is the same after being disproven several times. I gave the FAT AGNUS example many many weeks ago in this thread. You are like a frog in a well who despite people giving evidence of an Atlantic ocean kept insisting his well is the biggest body of water on the planet.

[atariksi]

also firmware did not exist back then.

 

Crap.

 

Just because it's not living on Flashable EEPROM doesn't mean you don't call it firmware.

 

He doesn't even understand the Atari joystick port interface is superior to C64 so I wonder how he'll understand that it's even superior to the Amiga joystick port interface although Amiga has higher clock speed (7.16Mhz).

[Wolfram]

You are reading it out of context. Having a superior chip is useless from the software perspective if the implementation is inferior to an inferior chip. I rather have a PIA than a CIA. Got it? You are the one making attacks on people without understanding what is being stated. You wanted to close the topic just by claiming CIA is superior chip when that superiority does not show from software perspective. You keep making the same claim-- joystick i/o is the same after being disproven several times. I gave the FAT AGNUS example many many weeks ago in this thread. You are like a frog in a well who despite people giving evidence of an Atlantic ocean kept insisting his well is the biggest body of water on the planet.

 

 

so... if you cant accept that I'm agreeing with you, I have even agreed that the CIA is useless...

 

so that's not enough, well then let's continue

 

 

1. the CIA is not useless. if calling CIA useless is not biased then nothing in this world is.

 

2. "You wanted to close the topic just by claiming CIA is superior chip when that superiority does not show from software perspective."

 

It was YOUR claim. I have not claimed anything. I have said I agree with YOUR claim. So its not enough when I agree with your claim, because a post later you will find "errors" in your claim, and attack me for agreeing with what you have claimed! its hillarious really!

 

I agree CIA is a superior chip than PIA but the way it's implemented, it's functionality can be performed better on Atari with its chipset.

 

great. lets agree on this, and close this topic.

 

see? its YOUR claim, not mine. I havent claimed anything as you say.

 

Besides CIA's superiority DOES SHOW from software perspective.

 

- 4x 16 bit timers & SID, vs Pokey either doing music or timing.

- 2x time of day clock

 

thats clear superiority. live with it.

 

faster system clocks doesnt makes the PIA's better. only I/O. and slower system clock doesnt make's the CIA useless. only from your "perspective".

Edited April 18, 2009 by Wolfram

[atariksi]

You are reading it out of context. Having a superior chip is useless from the software perspective if the implementation is inferior to an inferior chip. I rather have a PIA than a CIA. Got it? You are the one making attacks on people without understanding what is being stated. You wanted to close the topic just by claiming CIA is superior chip when that superiority does not show from software perspective. You keep making the same claim-- joystick i/o is the same after being disproven several times. I gave the FAT AGNUS example many many weeks ago in this thread. You are like a frog in a well who despite people giving evidence of an Atlantic ocean kept insisting his well is the biggest body of water on the planet.

 

 

I have already agreed with you that the CIA is useless. you can stop now mr unbiased.

 

Chewbacca defense.

 

You rather argue your out of context point of uselessness.

[Wolfram]

You are reading it out of context. Having a superior chip is useless from the software perspective if the implementation is inferior to an inferior chip. I rather have a PIA than a CIA. Got it? You are the one making attacks on people without understanding what is being stated. You wanted to close the topic just by claiming CIA is superior chip when that superiority does not show from software perspective. You keep making the same claim-- joystick i/o is the same after being disproven several times. I gave the FAT AGNUS example many many weeks ago in this thread. You are like a frog in a well who despite people giving evidence of an Atlantic ocean kept insisting his well is the biggest body of water on the planet.

 

 

I have already agreed with you that the CIA is useless. you can stop now mr unbiased.

 

Chewbacca defense.

 

You rather argue your out of context point of uselessness.

 

uselessnes was your point. so you're attacking yourself. besides re-read the post I have edited it since then

[atariksi]

You are reading it out of context. Having a superior chip is useless from the software perspective if the implementation is inferior to an inferior chip. I rather have a PIA than a CIA. Got it? You are the one making attacks on people without understanding what is being stated. You wanted to close the topic just by claiming CIA is superior chip when that superiority does not show from software perspective. You keep making the same claim-- joystick i/o is the same after being disproven several times. I gave the FAT AGNUS example many many weeks ago in this thread. You are like a frog in a well who despite people giving evidence of an Atlantic ocean kept insisting his well is the biggest body of water on the planet.

 

 

I have already agreed with you that the CIA is useless. you can stop now mr unbiased.

 

Chewbacca defense.

 

You rather argue your out of context point of uselessness.

 

uselessnes was your point. so you're attacking yourself. besides re-read the post I have edited it since then

 

You don't understand what is Chewbacca defense. The main point has been shoved under the rug because you find it better to pick on something more recent to confuse people as to what the argument is.

 

The *superiority* of the CIA chip over PIA is useless from software perspective.

[+wood_jl]

Clear advantage? More like achilles heel, for sure. Doesn't the 1541 run like 300 characters per second, or 2400 baud? Maybe that's the slowest (std) speed, but SUPER slow.

I think it's about 4-5000 baud including disk access (not pure bus transfer speed). But that's just the original firmware.

 

So they used some tricks with special loaders (etc) to speed it up. Guess what? That doesn't make it fast.

I have to disagree. Good fastload routines achieve up to 10 kB/sec including disk access. Pure bus speed would be 30 kB/sec there. SIO is quite slow compared to that.

 

So it was a disadvantage 30 years ago (relative to A8) and it's a disadvantage now (relative to A8 peripheral emulation). So now, just exactly what is that "clear advantage?"

There is no "clear" advantage but it can easily be faster than SIO and you got a 2nd CPU + RAM which you might use for other stuff too.

 

Given small length of games in early 1980s, by the time your fastloader loads and kicks in, the game on Atari will already have been loaded.

 

Oh, and SIO is fast also; the default is 19,200 bps. I am driving it at 59659bps w/o problems. That rate is not upper limit as it just happens to be evenly divisible into both PC and Atari timers (1789790/30 = 1193180/20 = 59659bps). External clocked SIO easily gets >300,000 bps.

 

 

Thank you! I was going to say that "Warp Speed" SIO (which used to require a modded "Happy" floppy drive, but which the feature-laden, affordably priced $50 SIO2PC happily supports) I thought hit 57,600 bps. Very close to your figure, yours may be accurate since you seem to know more about this stuff.

 

So suddenly - according to biased Commodore users - the system with the infamously slowest drives [READ: 20 MINUTES TO COPY A SINGLE DISC!!!!!] the world has ever known - now SUDDENLY kicks the shit of of Atari SIO running 5x,xxx baud. Do you know how laughable this is? You can't even pretend to be fair in a debate, and that is absolutely shameful.

 

From Wikipedia's entry on the 1541:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_1541

 

As implemented on the VIC-20 and Commodore 64, CBM DOS could transfer only about 300 bytes per second, which translated to about 20 minutes to copy one disk—10 minutes of reading time, and 10 minutes of writing time. However, since both the computer and the drive could easily be reprogrammed, third parties quickly wrote more efficient firmware that would speed up drive operations drastically. Without hardware modifications, some "fast loader" utilities managed to achieve speeds of up to 4 kB/s.

 

I think it's about 4-5000 baud including disk access (not pure bus transfer speed). But that's just the original firmware.

I have to disagree. Good fastload routines achieve up to 10 kB/sec including disk access. Pure bus speed would be 30 kB/sec there. SIO is quite slow compared to that.

 

Last time I checked, 300 bytes per second X (8 bits/1 byte) = 2400 bits per second. Does that math confirm with you?

 

Likewise, 4kB per second is NOT 10kB per second. Agreed?

 

Atari's default "slow" 19,200bps/1024 (1K) = 18.75 kB/sec.

"Warp Speed" 57,600bps/1024 (1K) = 56.25 kB/sec. SIO Max. SIO not "slow" compared to Commie.

 

You'd never get those throughputs at all, but you'd get something in the ballpark, something relevant. With Warp Speed, you'd likely get something in the middle between those numbers. Please provide us with some evidence for this 4-5000 baud on Commie drives, as well as 10 kB per second. I've provided evidence quite to the contrary.

 

So they used some tricks with special loaders (etc) to speed it up. Guess what? That doesn't make it fast.

 

guess what it's faster than a8 ever will be. it was faster when it mattered. and now when it doesnt matters anymore you take the advantage which made it faster and turn the tables and make it a disadvantage. very creative arguing I have to admit.

 

No, guess what: You're not only wrong, but EXTREMELY biased. You should be ashamed of yourself, and argue with the numbers and link I have provided above. There are no tables to turn. Your computer has the slowest and shittiest disc system ever mass-marketed, PERIOD. You just can't admit this. My arguing is not creative, it is factual, and I have attempted to back it up by providing supportive evidence. YOUR arguing is creative, on the other hand.

[Wolfram]

The *superiority* of the CIA chip over PIA is useless from software perspective.

 

2x 16 bit timers with various modes & interrupt triggering, and a Time of Day clock is not useless from software perspective.

[atariksi]

The c64's lowercase letters are identical to the Atari's, no doubt about it.

 

 

hehheh... nicking the Atari's font. That's kinda funny.

 

 

It is not identical... it is not the same color by default!!

 

And the C64 ones looks better!

 

 

Color values are not in the ROM character bitmaps.

I guess everyone gets used to their character sets-- Dr. Frog loved his well and thought all other wells and oceans were inferior.