Atari v Commodore

[atariksi]

you have stated something you bring the evidence, or else its not true. because I deny it.

 

That's your problem... You're in denial....

 

Exactly. He modified my quotes in post #4442 and #4445. He also modified his own several times.

[Wolfram]

you have stated something you bring the evidence, or else its not true. because I deny it.

 

That's your problem... You're in denial....

 

Exactly. He modified my quotes in post #4442 and #4445. He also modified his own several times.

 

 

yes. I have changed fontsize in your post, but that's hardly tampering, what you have said remained unchanged and shows how do you change the subjects:

 

 

- you said: "CIA superiority IS useless compared to what PIA has to offer."

- then I have showed you its not useless

- then you answer: "The real point is joystick i/o speed"

 

sorry I cant follow that.

 

once you say CIA superiority is useless compared to PIA, then you say thats not the point, but joystick I/O speed.

 

you are changing the subject from answer to answer and not me. here is the evidence.

[atariksi]

you have stated something you bring the evidence, or else its not true. because I deny it.

 

That's your problem... You're in denial....

 

Exactly. He modified my quotes in post #4442 and #4445. He also modified his own several times.

 

 

yes. I have changed fontsize in your post, but that's hardly tampering, what you have said remained unchanged and shows how do you change the subjects:

 

 

- you said: "CIA superiority IS useless compared to what PIA has to offer."

- then I have showed you its not useless

- then you answer: "The real point is joystick i/o speed"

 

sorry I cant follow that.

 

once you say CIA superiority is useless compared to PIA, then you say thats not the point, but joystick I/O speed.

 

you are changing the subject from answer to answer and not me. here is the evidence.

 

Because you are suffering from schizophrenia. That point was originally made in the context of discussing joystick i/o.

[atariksi]

>yes. I have changed fontsize in your post, but that's hardly tampering,

 

Don't give your opinion. It's tampering. I already stressed the word that I wanted-- you can't know my mind better than me.

[atariksi]

I prefer the speed of the atari game cartridges

 

That is similar to what he wound up stating after desperately trying to tell me the joystick i/o is same, he realized it's better to change subjects and compare it with some other port.

[Wolfram]

you have stated something you bring the evidence, or else its not true. because I deny it.

 

That's your problem... You're in denial....

 

Exactly. He modified my quotes in post #4442 and #4445. He also modified his own several times.

 

 

yes. I have changed fontsize in your post, but that's hardly tampering, what you have said remained unchanged and shows how do you change the subjects:

 

 

- you said: "CIA superiority IS useless compared to what PIA has to offer."

- then I have showed you its not useless

- then you answer: "The real point is joystick i/o speed"

 

sorry I cant follow that.

 

once you say CIA superiority is useless compared to PIA, then you say thats not the point, but joystick I/O speed.

 

you are changing the subject from answer to answer and not me. here is the evidence.

 

Because you are suffering from schizophrenia. That point was originally made in the context of discussing joystick i/o.

 

sorry but if YOU talk about "CIA superiority IS useless compared to what PIA has to offer.", and I give an answer to it thats straight on subject. look at that sentense again:

 

"CIA superiority IS useless compared to what PIA has to offer."

 

so CIA is better, but still useless? how can something be both better and useless ? the sentence denies itself.

 

 

 

compared to PIA, CIA has extra functions CIA can do everything a PIA can do AND MORE! how is that useless compared to PIA ? you are in reality denial!

[Wolfram]

>yes. I have changed fontsize in your post, but that's hardly tampering,

 

Don't give your opinion. It's tampering. I already stressed the word that I wanted-- you can't know my mind better than me.

 

and I am allowed aswell to stress the words I find important in your text. it happens everywhere with quotes, you know. just usually its in itallic. but nobody calls it tampering, because it doesnt changes the text itself.

[atariksi]

you have stated something you bring the evidence, or else its not true. because I deny it.

 

That's your problem... You're in denial....

 

Exactly. He modified my quotes in post #4442 and #4445. He also modified his own several times.

 

 

yes. I have changed fontsize in your post, but that's hardly tampering, what you have said remained unchanged and shows how do you change the subjects:

 

 

- you said: "CIA superiority IS useless compared to what PIA has to offer."

- then I have showed you its not useless

- then you answer: "The real point is joystick i/o speed"

 

sorry I cant follow that.

 

once you say CIA superiority is useless compared to PIA, then you say thats not the point, but joystick I/O speed.

 

you are changing the subject from answer to answer and not me. here is the evidence.

 

Because you are suffering from schizophrenia. That point was originally made in the context of discussing joystick i/o.

 

sorry but if YOU talk about "CIA superiority IS useless compared to what PIA has to offer.", and I give an answer to it thats straight on subject. look at that sentense again:

 

"CIA superiority IS useless compared to what PIA has to offer."

 

so CIA is better, but still useless? how can something be both better and useless ? the sentence denies itself.

 

 

 

compared to PIA, CIA has extra functions CIA can do everything a PIA can do AND MORE! how is that useless compared to PIA ? you are in reality denial!

 

And how does CIA superiority make the joystick i/o superior? See it's off subject! If you didn't modify your posts, go back and read it when I first stated it. I clearly stated that I won't discuss timers until you admit joystick i/o on atari is superior-- unless you modified something there as well.

[atariksi]

>yes. I have changed fontsize in your post, but that's hardly tampering,

 

Don't give your opinion. It's tampering. I already stressed the word that I wanted-- you can't know my mind better than me.

 

and I am allowed aswell to stress the words I find important in your text. it happens everywhere with quotes, you know. just usually its in itallic. but nobody calls it tampering, because it doesnt changes the text itself.

 

It does change it. I stressed the word "superiority"-- you are stressing the entire line and out of context. Stick to modifying your own posts.

[atariksi]

atariksi,

 

>Atari has both joystick ports tied to one 8-bit port. Atari even reads nibbles at higher frequency.

 

same as on c64. higher read speed comes from the higher CPU speed, and has nothing to do with the IO chip itself. its just another way telling a8's cpu is faster. it has nothing to do with the "joystick port".

 

 

>Joystick ports are inferior on C64. Add in the keyboard interference and you are set.

 

its just the same and c64's chip doing the "joyport" offers slightly more. thats all.

 

No, you can have CPU setup which insert wait states on I/O calls like PC does. So the fact that they timed the I/O ports at the same frequency is another gain for the Atari since net throughput is higher for I/O. We are talking I/O speed. It's the samething with timers-- PC originally running at 4.77Mhz decided to divide CPU speed by 3 and then feed it's timer chip 8253 (PIT) so their timing accuracy is 1/119318Mhz = 840ns. 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.

 

I am putting this back in context because our confused friend has used Chewbacca defense to throw everything off subject.

[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.

 

You can read it from posts 4375..4380 establishing context of joystick I/O transfers. Never talked about timers which is a different animal and specifically stated it in following repost:

[atariksi]

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.

 

Let's first agree joystick I/O is superior on Atari then we can talk 2*16 timers...

 

Post 4401. QED.

[Wolfram]

And how does CIA superiority make the joystick i/o superior? See it's off subject! If you didn't modify your posts, go back and read it when I first stated it. I clearly stated that I won't discuss timers until you admit joystick i/o on atari is superior-- unless you modified something there as well.

 

I havent said CIA makes c64's joy I/O superior, so why do you ask that? it wouldnt make A8's I/O superior either. the CPU makes A8's joy I/O faster, I have told you several times already. The I/O ports can do the same on both machines. It's the same chip core used for it.

[Wolfram]

>yes. I have changed fontsize in your post, but that's hardly tampering,

 

Don't give your opinion. It's tampering. I already stressed the word that I wanted-- you can't know my mind better than me.

 

and I am allowed aswell to stress the words I find important in your text. it happens everywhere with quotes, you know. just usually its in itallic. but nobody calls it tampering, because it doesnt changes the text itself.

 

It does change it. I stressed the word "superiority"-- you are stressing the entire line and out of context. Stick to modifying your own posts.

 

no it doesnt changes the text itself. and stressing parts in quotes is regarded as a normal thing everywhere in the world.

[potatohead]

Question: can the 64 set its joystick pins to output? (sorry, I scanned back and couldn't find if that had been answered).

 

...and can they be latched?

 

You can set direction on joystick ports on both PIA and CIA. Amiga uses same CIA chips but they weren't stupid enough to map the keyboard/paddles/etc. on top of the parallel port and split the parallel port so you are forced to use nibbles to output to a parallel port. Are you talking about latching like Triggers do on Atari?

 

Yep.

[Wolfram]

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.

 

its still not useless from software perspective. its the chip that makes possible keyboard/paddles/joystick/serial/rs232/parallel I/O on the c64. including timer interrupts, time of day clocks and what not. and you call it useless from software perspective.....

Edited April 18, 2009 by Wolfram

[Wolfram]

atariksi,

 

>Atari has both joystick ports tied to one 8-bit port. Atari even reads nibbles at higher frequency.

 

same as on c64. higher read speed comes from the higher CPU speed, and has nothing to do with the IO chip itself. its just another way telling a8's cpu is faster. it has nothing to do with the "joystick port".

 

 

>Joystick ports are inferior on C64. Add in the keyboard interference and you are set.

 

its just the same and c64's chip doing the "joyport" offers slightly more. thats all.

 

No, you can have CPU setup which insert wait states on I/O calls like PC does. So the fact that they timed the I/O ports at the same frequency is another gain for the Atari since net throughput is higher for I/O. We are talking I/O speed. It's the samething with timers-- PC originally running at 4.77Mhz decided to divide CPU speed by 3 and then feed it's timer chip 8253 (PIT) so their timing accuracy is 1/119318Mhz = 840ns. 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.

 

 

and CIA can do everything PIA can, and MORE! so you can have CPU setup which insert wait states on I/O calls like PC does. etc etc yaddayadda.

[potatohead]

Wolfram, you are just cooked buddy.

 

What's your end game? You've annoyed the people here that matter. Nobody is going to give you any thing now. Why bother?

 

And you did it too. LOL!!! Is that working for you ok?

 

When quoting, it's good form to leave it alone, or if emphasis is desired, do it, then cite your emphasis.

 

eg:

 

Bob says, "Wolfram is a buffoon!"

 

Joe reads this, and considers the matter and comes to a slightly different conclusion.

 

Joe then posts up a quote with emphasis, but is honest about it:

 

Joe says, "What Bob really means is, "Wolfram is [ACTING LIKE] a buffoon". (Emphasis Mine)"

 

Then follows up with his explanation. Joe says, "Really, he's got identity and ego issues surrounding the C64. If the topic were different, probably nobody would notice."

 

The point here is that the chain of conversation is unbroken. It's clear to the follow on reader that Joe is willing to give Wolfram some additional consideration, and Bob is not. Putting that meaning into the context of a quote is good form, but it's got to be cited, or it's just manipulation.

 

 

Also good form, is to edit a post and state, "Edit". When you go back through mine, you will see that for all but minor league gaffes, where it's a grammar or spelling, or wrong or missing word thing.

 

Finally, if significant edits are occurring to a post that is public, stating that is not a bad idea either.

 

 

Let me know how else I can help!

Edited April 18, 2009 by potatohead

[atariksi]

And how does CIA superiority make the joystick i/o superior? See it's off subject! If you didn't modify your posts, go back and read it when I first stated it. I clearly stated that I won't discuss timers until you admit joystick i/o on atari is superior-- unless you modified something there as well.

 

I havent said CIA makes c64's joy I/O superior, so why do you ask that? it wouldnt make A8's I/O superior either. the CPU makes A8's joy I/O faster, I have told you several times already. The I/O ports can do the same on both machines. It's the same chip core used for it.

 

Wrong again. I won't help you this time by explaining it over again.

[atariksi]

Question: can the 64 set its joystick pins to output? (sorry, I scanned back and couldn't find if that had been answered).

 

...and can they be latched?

 

You can set direction on joystick ports on both PIA and CIA. Amiga uses same CIA chips but they weren't stupid enough to map the keyboard/paddles/etc. on top of the parallel port and split the parallel port so you are forced to use nibbles to output to a parallel port. Are you talking about latching like Triggers do on Atari?

 

Yep.

 

I know you can do input in output mode on PIA but not latching. Only triggers are latched. But there's two IRQ lines (Proceed & Interrupt) which can be used to read in data when needed so you don't need to latch the data. The IRQ status is latched and cleared by reading 54016/54017.

[atariksi]

>>Finally, if significant edits are occurring to a post that is public, stating that is not a bad idea either.

 

Yeah, if people keep editing their posts (long time after), then some people's replies may have to be edited. That's the worst Chewbacca defense ever-- people go back to read it and say "What the hell is replying to something else for???"

 

I never gave him permission to stress anything I stated.

[FastRobPlus]

Wolfram, you are just cooked buddy.

 

What's your end game? You've annoyed the people here that matter. Nobody is going to give you any thing now. Why bother?

 

That one's just a common troll. And as long as folks feed him, he'll never go. Do what I did with the lot of them and set the forum to mask their comments.

[atariksi]

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.

bps is "bits per second". Since there is also start and stop bits, a byte needs 10 bits.

 

19200 bps = 1.875 kB/sec

57600 bps = 5.625 kB/sec

 

Now that's bus transfer only! No disk access counted.

 

...

You don't know that. My loader can read in data 59659bps using internally clocked sio without stopping until entire file is in memory.

 

 

>The numbers I measured INCLUDE disk access, they are from actual loading times and not theoretic bus transfer speeds.

 

The fact that loaders vary and their software has to be first uploaded to the drive adds to overhead. And that upload has to occur using 1541 default slow protocol. Drive simulators will be faster even at same bits/second due to almost ZERO seek time. You can also bit-bang the SIO port or better use the externally clocked mode which will use POKEY HARDWARE to sample and shift in data for you at ZERO CPU time and also allow you to trigger off an VSERIN IRQ or used polled mode or cycle exact mode. As I stated I can do 357,000 bps using this mode w/o any hardware modifications to the Atari. The only thing lacking in this mode is ability to BOOT software using this mode. First you can upload a special boot block (128 bytes) and then trigger off this mode.

[Wolfram]

I never gave him permission to stress anything I stated.

 

I dont need permission. its normal, happens everyday everywhere with quotes that some parts get stressed.

[atariksi]

...

 

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.

...

 

The real formula for internally clocked SIO data is: freq = 1.789790Mhz/(2*(Audf+7)). So you see if you plug in Audf=8, you get 1789790/30 = 59659. Slightly less on PAL. If you plug in Audf=9 which is next slower value, you will get 55930bps.