Atari v Commodore

[atariksi]

Hey! this thread is dying!

...

I recently received a "1541 Ultimate", which is a cartridge for the C64. It has a serial port on it, which plugs to the C64's drive port. It accepts SD card, which disk images are on. They are "D64" images, which are analagous to "ATR" images on the Atari. There are 3 buttons: ...

Those features are not that of a C64. You can add hardware to any machine. Do the comparison of I/O on both machines w/o using hardware add-ons (like hook-up a cable between two Ataris/two C64s/PC-Atari/PC-C64 and transfer a huge file).

Well, sure you can add the hardware....if it's made. I know of nothing like this for the Atari. Then again, it's not really necessary to emulate the processor in the 1050, as it is necessary to emulate the 6502 in the 1541 for total compatibility. Hence SIO2PC is all you need with the Atari, and is cheaper, but you're bound to a PC via USB. The fact that the 1541 Ultimate **IS** made for the C64 is a plus for the C64, as it is likely a "1050 Ultimate" will never be made.

 

...

 

There's better hardware for Atari. But you are no longer talking C64 vs. Atari once you bring in any and all hardware add-ons regardless of time frame. Bigger issue is that NOT everyone is going to have the hardware so you can't really program for it. We discussed this thread using standard machines. If you want to now add someone's specific set-ups, then I win hands down. I can hook up as many PCs as I want and do distributive programming on them and use Atari as the master system...

[atarian63]

Hey! this thread is dying!

 

There are some other possibilities:

 

(1) there are no more C64 users left on the planet, or

(2) they finally realized the truth that their system is in fact an inferior computer when compared to Atari 800/XL/XE

(3) they finally realized that their arguments are nothing more than name-calling with no substance

(4) they chickened out

(5) they are waiting for someone to discover another glitch/quirk in the C64 like the overloading color RAM before they start declaring again C64 is better.

(6) they got so used to C64 emulators that accidentally they ran a PC game and found that there are machines with more than 16 colors (Frog in the well argument).

That was good! Perhaps you are right,though you know your comments will bring them back again.

[atarian63]

Hey! this thread is dying!

 

Thank goodness we have the likes of you around to bump it:

 

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/necromancer.htm

Thank was really good! Thank you! Made my day!

[+wood_jl]

Hey! this thread is dying!

 

Thank goodness we have the likes of you around to bump it:

 

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/necromancer.htm

Thank was really good! Thank you! Made my day!

 

Actually, you did revive the thread!! Let's hear it for 300 pages on it!!!!

Place yer bets.....place yer bets!!

[atariksi]

Hey! this thread is dying!

 

There are some other possibilities:

 

(1) there are no more C64 users left on the planet, or

(2) they finally realized the truth that their system is in fact an inferior computer when compared to Atari 800/XL/XE

(3) they finally realized that their arguments are nothing more than name-calling with no substance

(4) they chickened out

(5) they are waiting for someone to discover another glitch/quirk in the C64 like the overloading color RAM before they start declaring again C64 is better.

(6) they got so used to C64 emulators that accidentally they ran a PC game and found that there are machines with more than 16 colors (Frog in the well argument).

That was good! Perhaps you are right,though you know your comments will bring them back again.

 

So far only things that C64 fans have attacked me on are my examples (like Frog in the well) and some theories (done in humor) like listed above. Need someone to try to answer or deal with the arguments presented.

[saehn]

Hey! this thread is dying!

 

There are some other possibilities:

 

(1) there are no more C64 users left on the planet, or

(2) they finally realized the truth that their system is in fact an inferior computer when compared to Atari 800/XL/XE

(3) they finally realized that their arguments are nothing more than name-calling with no substance

(4) they chickened out

(5) they are waiting for someone to discover another glitch/quirk in the C64 like the overloading color RAM before they start declaring again C64 is better.

(6) they got so used to C64 emulators that accidentally they ran a PC game and found that there are machines with more than 16 colors (Frog in the well argument).

That was good! Perhaps you are right,though you know your comments will bring them back again.

 

So far only things that C64 fans have attacked me on are my examples (like Frog in the well) and some theories (done in humor) like listed above. Need someone to try to answer or deal with the arguments presented.

 

None of those are really arguments, and if you truly believe any of them then I think that perhaps you don't get the idea of retro computing in general. I mean, seriously... one computer "superior" to the other? So subjective. What's with the inferiority complex? I hardly see any of this kind of behavior on C64 forums. A better attitude is "who cares?". You like what you like, what's the point in comparing your computer to someone else's?

[atariksi]

Hey! this thread is dying!

 

There are some other possibilities:

 

(1) there are no more C64 users left on the planet, or

(2) they finally realized the truth that their system is in fact an inferior computer when compared to Atari 800/XL/XE

(3) they finally realized that their arguments are nothing more than name-calling with no substance

(4) they chickened out

(5) they are waiting for someone to discover another glitch/quirk in the C64 like the overloading color RAM before they start declaring again C64 is better.

(6) they got so used to C64 emulators that accidentally they ran a PC game and found that there are machines with more than 16 colors (Frog in the well argument).

That was good! Perhaps you are right,though you know your comments will bring them back again.

 

So far only things that C64 fans have attacked me on are my examples (like Frog in the well) and some theories (done in humor) like listed above. Need someone to try to answer or deal with the arguments presented.

 

None of those are really arguments, and if you truly believe any of them then I think that perhaps you don't get the idea of retro computing in general. I mean, seriously... one computer "superior" to the other? So subjective. What's with the inferiority complex? I hardly see any of this kind of behavior on C64 forums. A better attitude is "who cares?". You like what you like, what's the point in comparing your computer to someone else's?

 

None of those are really argument. Nobody said they were. Your point that it's all subjective is also no argument. The arguments were given before the above list. Read those and then explain why you think that it's subjective. It's not an inferiority complex. It's called reality. It's not behavior problem either-- that you can see from C64 people who resorted to name calling in this thread and left.

 

By the way, some C64 guy already made your argument regarding "it's all subjective". I guess you missed that one. To say something is "all subjective" is self-contradictory. In order for "it's all subjective" to be true your statement has to be taken as objective. Talk about the arguments made in the thread. Thanks.

[saehn]

None of those are really arguments, and if you truly believe any of them then I think that perhaps you don't get the idea of retro computing in general. I mean, seriously... one computer "superior" to the other? So subjective. What's with the inferiority complex? I hardly see any of this kind of behavior on C64 forums. A better attitude is "who cares?". You like what you like, what's the point in comparing your computer to someone else's?

 

None of those are really argument. Nobody said they were. Your point that it's all subjective is also no argument. The arguments were given before the above list. Read those and then explain why you think that it's subjective. It's not an inferiority complex. It's called reality. It's not behavior problem either-- that you can see from C64 people who resorted to name calling in this thread and left.

 

By the way, some C64 guy already made your argument regarding "it's all subjective". I guess you missed that one. To say something is "all subjective" is self-contradictory. In order for "it's all subjective" to be true your statement has to be taken as objective. Talk about the arguments made in the thread. Thanks.

 

I see what you mean, those weren't really your arguments but rather "theories done mostly in humor". Regarding your request that I talk about those 250+ pages of "arguments", no thanks. Those weren't going anywhere for anyone, in my opinion. You're right, my assertion that it's all subjective isn't an argument. It's intended to point out that argument on the subject is rather pointless. People like whichever computer they like, according to their own experiences and perspectives. Stats alone don't make a computer.

 

But to address a point: "to say something 'all subjective' is self-contradictory". That's kind of silly. According to that rationale, no one can ever say that a topic is all subjective. When something is objective, it is demonstrably evident according to rational thought. Two plus two equals four. The sun is a burning ball of gas. Sodium chloride is a compound comprised of Na and Cl.

 

When we say that something is subjective, we are noting that there is an element of opinion. Red candy is better than green candy. I love her more than Judy. Atari vs. Commodore. DLI vs. FLI. Four colors out of 128 vs. 16 at once. What is the basis for the opinion? Who asks the question? In what context? Objectively: A8 has more colors than the C64. Subjectively: the C64 allows better access to the colors. I'm sure you can understand the distinction.

 

Finally, I was referring to the fact the "discussion" on the subject had died off, and that it was incendiary to write up those ten "humorous theories".

[atariksi]

None of those are really arguments, and if you truly believe any of them then I think that perhaps you don't get the idea of retro computing in general. I mean, seriously... one computer "superior" to the other? So subjective. What's with the inferiority complex? I hardly see any of this kind of behavior on C64 forums. A better attitude is "who cares?". You like what you like, what's the point in comparing your computer to someone else's?

 

None of those are really argument. Nobody said they were. Your point that it's all subjective is also no argument. The arguments were given before the above list. Read those and then explain why you think that it's subjective. It's not an inferiority complex. It's called reality. It's not behavior problem either-- that you can see from C64 people who resorted to name calling in this thread and left.

 

By the way, some C64 guy already made your argument regarding "it's all subjective". I guess you missed that one. To say something is "all subjective" is self-contradictory. In order for "it's all subjective" to be true your statement has to be taken as objective. Talk about the arguments made in the thread. Thanks.

 

I see what you mean, those weren't really your arguments but rather "theories done mostly in humor"...

 

It's based on truth so it's likely it has happened to many. I know for Apple platform, many abondoned it for one or more of those reasons.

 

> Regarding your request that I talk about those 250+ pages of "arguments", no thanks. Those weren't going anywhere for anyone, in my opinion.

 

You want to declare something about the arguments presented but you don't want to read them. Okay, perhaps you want me to list some that you can look at? Or are you already convinced with your blind assertion that it's subjective and I shouldn't bother with it.

 

>You're right, my assertion that it's all subjective isn't an argument. It's intended to point out that argument on the subject is rather pointless. People like whichever computer they like, according to their own experiences and perspectives. Stats alone don't make a computer.

 

People can like whatever computer they want but there's the objective reality that one machine is better than another when you compare the various hardware aspects.

 

>But to address a point: "to say something 'all subjective' is self-contradictory". That's kind of silly. According to that rationale, no one can ever say that a topic is all subjective. When something is objective, it is demonstrably evident according to rational thought. Two plus two equals four. The sun is a burning ball of gas. Sodium chloride is a compound comprised of Na and Cl.

 

Funny, that's what I stated in the thread-- it has to be based on rational thought or proveable by experiment. See it would have helped you if you had read some of the thread. And many things have repeated so even reading the first 114 pages would be good enough since the name-calling C64 fanatics jumped in afterwards. You can't call an entire topic subjective if YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IS IN IT. If you don't want to read it, say somethings which you consider subjective and don't make declarations about something you don't know anything about.

 

>When we say that something is subjective, we are noting that there is an element of opinion. Red candy is better than green candy. I love her more than Judy. Atari vs. Commodore. DLI vs. FLI. Four colors out of 128 vs. 16 at once. What is the basis for the opinion? Who asks the question? In what context? Objectively: A8 has more colors than the C64. Subjectively: the C64 allows better access to the colors. I'm sure you can understand the distinction.

 

See that's one argument that was already made. A8 does allow access to more colors in GTIA modes and your FLI is more restricted than DLIs since we don't have to kill the sprites to increase color content. And it's 256 colors not 128-- you can mix modes although it's easier per scanline.

 

>Finally, I was referring to the fact the "discussion" on the subject had died off, and that it was incendiary to write up those ten "humorous theories".

 

It's not incendiary; it's true for many people although humerous at the same time.

[atariksi]

Here's simple program of to show more colors per scanline without involving DLIs or IRQs or re-using color registers:

 

10 PRINT "Atari BASIC program to show 38 colors/scanline in Graphics 11"

20 PRINT " By Krishna Software Inc."

30 GRAPHICS 11

40 POKE 704,2:POKE 705,4:POKE 706,10:POKE 707,12:POKE 623,16+32+192

50 POKE 708,4:POKE 709,8:POKE 710,2:POKE 711,8:POKE 712,4

60 POKE 53248,80:POKE 53249,88:POKE 53250,160:POKE 53251,176

70 POKE 53252,112:POKE 53253,120:POKE 53254,128:POKE 53255,136

80 FOR T=53256 TO 53265:POKE T,255:NEXT T:POKE 53256,1:POKE 53257,1

90 FOR T=0 TO 79:COLOR T:PLOT T,0:DR. T,191:NEXT T

100 GOTO 100

RUN

[oky2000]

Here's simple program of to show more colors per scanline without involving DLIs or IRQs or re-using color registers:

 

10 PRINT "Atari BASIC program to show 38 colors/scanline in Graphics 11"

20 PRINT " By Krishna Software Inc."

30 GRAPHICS 11

40 POKE 704,2:POKE 705,4:POKE 706,10:POKE 707,12:POKE 623,16+32+192

50 POKE 708,4:POKE 709,8:POKE 710,2:POKE 711,8:POKE 712,4

60 POKE 53248,80:POKE 53249,88:POKE 53250,160:POKE 53251,176

70 POKE 53252,112:POKE 53253,120:POKE 53254,128:POKE 53255,136

80 FOR T=53256 TO 53265:POKE T,255:NEXT T:POKE 53256,1:POKE 53257,1

90 FOR T=0 TO 79:COLOR T:PLOT T,0:DR. T,191:NEXT T

100 GOTO 100

RUN

 

Raster bars do not make a game, fast moving independent objects of a large size, simple setup and simple facility to re-use AND unrestricted 4 colours per 8x8 pixel block anywhere on the screen with zero CPU time are more useful really for a home computer.

 

I stopped posting because as interesting as it was there was nothing I saw as impressive as either...

 

A. Enforcer II level II demo for graphical sophistication...nothing else on any 8bit system has come so close to looking like a twin 68000 based Konami arcade game from the Gradius era of mid to late 1980s 16bit arcade technology

 

and...

 

B. No Pokey tune that either aesthetically or technically sounded better than SID even a simple thing like making a believable electric guitar sound like the standard SID waveform using Wizball tune I linked (the most popular soundchip benchmark in the 80s to show off awesome soundchips like Amiga's Paula etc)

 

So people can think what they like, I don't see the point in posting in here anymore. It's like showing a fundamental christian a dinoasaur fossil and having them run off on a tangent about theories of how powerful god is or what kind of sandals jesus was wearing when he turned the water to wine! LoL Believe what you want anyway, like I said I only posted those examples 150 pages earlier in the hope of some truly spectacular games or sounds/music on A8 being posted but it just turned into fanboy wankery so I stopped bothering sorry

[saehn]

You want to declare something about the arguments presented but you don't want to read them. Okay, perhaps you want me to list some that you can look at? Or are you already convinced with your blind assertion that it's subjective and I shouldn't bother with it.

 

I read some of them. If you read them all, then all I can say is "wow".

 

better - adj. - of superior quality or excellence

 

Better is a subjective concept and is not quantifiable. It cannot be demonstrated objectively via experiment. You cannot say, for example, that Michael Jackson is a better singer than Madonna and then expect to ever present that as an objective perspective. You could list all the levels of tone attainable by each singer, the relative vocabulary of each singer's lyrics, etc... and none of that would necessarily matter. A thing is greater than the sum of its parts. A computer and the options/abilities that it presents to a user depends on more then just tech specs.

 

If you don't understand the difference between subjective and objective, there's not really any point in discussing this.

 

People can like whatever computer they want but there's the objective reality that one machine is better than another when you compare the various hardware aspects.

 

No. Again, you can address quantifiable concepts like number of colors, number of keys, number of voices, and such... but those added together do not necesarily make one computer better than the other. For example, I don't care A8s can get 256 colors because there's no easy-to-use graphics editor that I'm aware of that lets you draw in those colors effectively. Further, the one PC-based A8 graphics editor (AKA font convertor) is a bear to use. C64 users, by comparison have several PC editors, and using interlaced colors on the C64 is easy via the real computer or a PC. Pretty subjective, eh?

 

Funny, that's what I stated in the thread-- it has to be based on rational thought or proveable by experiment. See it would have helped you if you had read some of the thread. And many things have repeated so even reading the first 114 pages would be good enough since the name-calling C64 fanatics jumped in afterwards. You can't call an entire topic subjective if YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IS IN IT. If you don't want to read it, say somethings which you consider subjective and don't make declarations about something you don't know anything about.

 

Already addressed above. What's the big deal about having to "prove" that one computer is better than another? That's what I mean by inferiority complex, although I probably should have said it in a nicer way.

[Jetboot Jack]

For me a standout reason why the A8 is better than the C64 is simple time...

 

In 1980 I bought (or had bought for me as I was only 13) an Atari 800.

 

There was NO computer even close to the 800 in terms of graphical performance or audio flexibility in 1980, let alone 1979 when the machine was first released.

 

Polyphonic audio was unheard of in home computers, color indirection (color registers) was unique to the 800, a palette of 128 (nee 256) colors, hardware sprites, 4 joystick ports, hardware scrolling, upgradable memory, STAR RAIDERS, games on cassette, disc and cartridge - it made the apple II look like a dinosaur.

 

Sure there were competitors, the Ti99 came along right around the same time, but lacked so many key features of the 800 it was a clearly inferior system in general terms.

 

So there you have it, a uniquely powerful computer with no peer 3 years before the C64 appeared (1982) - so that alone make it better for me, 'cos I got to play AMAZING games for 2 years before C64 owners even got their machines. 3 years of awesome Atari arcade ports on cart, innovative games from the founding father's of the games industry - games that changed my life and propelled me into a career in video games - all before the C64 even appeared.

 

So no thank you, whilst I appreciate the machine (as I stated earlier in this thread), it means nothing to me in personal terms - and whilst it was home to some very interesting games, it's place in my gaming history is null...

 

sTeVE

[atariksi]

You want to declare something about the arguments presented but you don't want to read them. Okay, perhaps you want me to list some that you can look at? Or are you already convinced with your blind assertion that it's subjective and I shouldn't bother with it.

 

I read some of them. If you read them all, then all I can say is "wow".

 

better - adj. - of superior quality or excellence

...

Sorry, but 1.79Mhz is better than 1.0Mhz is a quantifiable item and the word better can be used for objective things as well as subjective things.

 

>If you don't understand the difference between subjective and objective, there's not really any point in discussing this.

 

You don't. Word "better" is not limited to subjective things.

 

>No. Again, you can address quantifiable concepts like number of colors, number of keys, number of voices, and such... but those added together do not necesarily make one computer better than the other. For example, I don't care A8s can get 256 colors because there's no easy-to-use graphics editor that I'm aware of that lets you draw in those colors effectively.

 

Huh. 256 is ALWAYS better than 16 just like true color is always better than 8-bit color. Nothing subjective about it. Having a PC editor or not has NOTHING to do with the FACT about the C64/Atari palette size. And if the overall hardware is superior on one machine, it does make that machine better than the other.

 

>Further, the one PC-based A8 graphics editor (AKA font convertor) is a bear to use. C64 users, by comparison have several PC editors, and using interlaced colors on the C64 is easy via the real computer or a PC. Pretty subjective, eh?

 

You are DEAD wrong here. Interlace is superior (better) on A8 since the shading produces less flicker than your restricted palette.

 

>>Funny, that's what I stated in the thread-- it has to be based on rational thought or proveable by experiment. See it would have helped you if you had read some of the thread. And many things have repeated so even reading the first 114 pages would be good enough since the name-calling C64 fanatics jumped in afterwards. You can't call an entire topic subjective if YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IS IN IT. If you don't want to read it, say somethings which you consider subjective and don't make declarations about something you don't know anything about.

 

>Already addressed above. What's the big deal about having to "prove" that one computer is better than another? That's what I mean by inferiority complex, although I probably should have said it in a nicer way.

 

Already answerd. It's not called inferiority complex. Get your definitions straight. You don't care to prove which machine is superior than you shouldn't be replying. You have stated your opinion-- you don't care. So leave it at that. I do like to know which machines are better than others and many others do as well. What a lame argument.

[atariksi]

Here's simple program of to show more colors per scanline without involving DLIs or IRQs or re-using color registers:

 

10 PRINT "Atari BASIC program to show 38 colors/scanline in Graphics 11"

20 PRINT " By Krishna Software Inc."

30 GRAPHICS 11

40 POKE 704,2:POKE 705,4:POKE 706,10:POKE 707,12:POKE 623,16+32+192

50 POKE 708,4:POKE 709,8:POKE 710,2:POKE 711,8:POKE 712,4

60 POKE 53248,80:POKE 53249,88:POKE 53250,160:POKE 53251,176

70 POKE 53252,112:POKE 53253,120:POKE 53254,128:POKE 53255,136

80 FOR T=53256 TO 53265:POKE T,255:NEXT T:POKE 53256,1:POKE 53257,1

90 FOR T=0 TO 79:COLOR T:PLOT T,0:DR. T,191:NEXT T

100 GOTO 100

RUN

 

Raster bars do not make a game, fast moving independent objects of a large size, simple setup and simple facility to re-use AND unrestricted 4 colours per 8x8 pixel block anywhere on the screen with zero CPU time are more useful really for a home computer.

 

...

Huh. 4 colors in 8*8 is ALSO RESTRICTIVE. If you have 8*8 with 16 colors per pixel than you need 32 bytes to address for true unrestricted 8*8. Amongst the two machines, only GTIA mode which is exemplified with above program is unrestricted with 16 colors/pixel in 80*200. You can add more color to the mode or enhance its resolution using GPRIOR/Sprites.

 

>I stopped posting because as interesting as it was there was nothing I saw as impressive as either...

 

You didn't see anything that favored your machine.

 

>A. Enforcer II level II demo for graphical sophistication...nothing else on any 8bit system has come so close to looking like a twin 68000 based Konami arcade game from the Gradius era of mid to late 1980s 16bit arcade technology

 

It doesn't really prove anything definitively if you show games on both systems where one is better than another. There are other factors involved as recently mentioned.

 

>B. No Pokey tune that either aesthetically or technically sounded better than SID even a simple thing like ...

 

That's what is called fanboyism. There is NO PROOF of this statement that you have made. It's just your emotional expression.

 

>So people can think what they like, I don't see the point in posting in here anymore.

 

You need to correct yourself. "So people can PROVE what they like, I don't see the point..."

 

>It's like showing a fundamental christian a dinoasaur fossil and having them run off on a tangent about theories of how powerful god is or what kind of sandals jesus was wearing when he turned the water to wine! LoL Believe what you want anyway, like I said I only posted those examples 150 pages earlier in the hope of some truly spectacular games or sounds/music on A8 being posted but it just turned into fanboy wankery so I stopped bothering sorry

 

You are one of the contributors to the "fanboy wankery". Nobody is stopping anyone from posting games for A8 which are better than C64 and many were posted mostly early on in the thread. Your analogy of dinosaur fossils does not apply here. Proving something rationally or via experiment is different from someone claiming this fossil belongs to a dinosaur where neither rational argument nor way to prove experimentally is given. Maybe the fossil belonged to a human and some fossils were mixed up during the course of time due to earthquakes, tornadoes, plate shifting, etc. Don't compare theories with proven things.

[Crazyace]

Sure there were competitors, the Ti99 came along right around the same time, but lacked so many key features of the 800 it was a clearly inferior system in general terms.

I wonder how different things might have been if the TI hadn't been hamstrung ( ie - if the proper CPU had been applied, and the machine had been programmable in assembly out of the box )

 

So there you have it, a uniquely powerful computer with no peer 3 years before the C64 appeared (1982) - so that alone make it better for me, 'cos I got to play AMAZING games for 2 years before C64 owners even got their machines. 3 years of awesome Atari arcade ports on cart, innovative games from the founding father's of the games industry - games that changed my life and propelled me into a career in video games - all before the C64 even appeared.

 

That's the really cool thing with the a8 - it did come out first, and it's colour output wasn't really matched till the c16/plus4. The c64 did have better sprites ( and more of them ) and better graphics modes, but it's amazing how well the a8 kept up.

 

It's impossible to clone Enforcer exactly - but that's fine as Enforcer is a showcase for the C64 graphic strengths.

[Jetboot Jack]

That's the really cool thing with the a8 - it did come out first, and it's colour output wasn't really matched till the c16/plus4. The c64 did have better sprites ( and more of them ) and better graphics modes, but it's amazing how well the a8 kept up.

 

Exactly, it's not an arms race - who wouldn't expect a machine 3 years later to be more powerful!!! What is amazing is that it was just a "bit" better - it evolved rather than revolutionized.

 

I personally see the 2600, the 800 and the Amiga as a single coherent design - and think it a huge shame that legacy has gone. The Lynx was nice, the 3DO interesting, but the connection was weak between those later systems and what I feel personally is the heart of American video games, those original 3 generations of Jay Miner led hardware from 1977 to around 1990...

 

sTeVE

[carmel_andrews]

was'nt the texas machine techincally a 16bit cpu

[frogstar_robot]

I wonder how different things might have been if the TI hadn't been hamstrung ( ie - if the proper CPU had been applied, and the machine had been programmable in assembly out of the box )

 

Sears and K-Mart would often keep a TI with Parsec running as the store demo. That game really wowed me back in the day. I suppose two answers to your question are "ColecoVision" and "Adam". They had basically the same VDP chip though the CPUs driving them differed. Properly marketed as a console system with good licenses perhaps it could have done as well as the Colecovision but I recall that licensed titles were a TI weakness. You got games that were almost exactly like Pac-Man or Galaga but proper ports didn't come until later. It wasn't really hobbled with Adam's kludges but that system being relatively open did little to rescue it. The TI was pretty solid technically but didn't seem to have terribly savvy marketing behind it. 16-bit chip hype aside, it really only kept pace with Atari and Commodore. Little about it is markedly superior to either machine.

[atarian63]

Here's simple program of to show more colors per scanline without involving DLIs or IRQs or re-using color registers:

 

10 PRINT "Atari BASIC program to show 38 colors/scanline in Graphics 11"

20 PRINT " By Krishna Software Inc."

30 GRAPHICS 11

40 POKE 704,2:POKE 705,4:POKE 706,10:POKE 707,12:POKE 623,16+32+192

50 POKE 708,4:POKE 709,8:POKE 710,2:POKE 711,8:POKE 712,4

60 POKE 53248,80:POKE 53249,88:POKE 53250,160:POKE 53251,176

70 POKE 53252,112:POKE 53253,120:POKE 53254,128:POKE 53255,136

80 FOR T=53256 TO 53265:POKE T,255:NEXT T:POKE 53256,1:POKE 53257,1

90 FOR T=0 TO 79:COLOR T:PLOT T,0:DR. T,191:NEXT T

100 GOTO 100

RUN

 

Raster bars do not make a game, fast moving independent objects of a large size, simple setup and simple facility to re-use AND unrestricted 4 colours per 8x8 pixel block anywhere on the screen with zero CPU time are more useful really for a home computer.

 

I stopped posting because as interesting as it was there was nothing I saw as impressive as either...

 

A. Enforcer II level II demo for graphical sophistication...nothing else on any 8bit system has come so close to looking like a twin 68000 based Konami arcade game from the Gradius era of mid to late 1980s 16bit arcade technology

 

and...

 

B. No Pokey tune that either aesthetically or technically sounded better than SID even a simple thing like making a believable electric guitar sound like the standard SID waveform using Wizball tune I linked (the most popular soundchip benchmark in the 80s to show off awesome soundchips like Amiga's Paula etc)

 

So people can think what they like, I don't see the point in posting in here anymore. It's like showing a fundamental christian a dinoasaur fossil and having them run off on a tangent about theories of how powerful god is or what kind of sandals jesus was wearing when he turned the water to wine! LoL Believe what you want anyway, like I said I only posted those examples 150 pages earlier in the hope of some truly spectacular games or sounds/music on A8 being posted but it just turned into fanboy wankery so I stopped bothering sorry

Wow, a non believer insulting believers. See Ya!

[atarian63]

Sure there were competitors, the Ti99 came along right around the same time, but lacked so many key features of the 800 it was a clearly inferior system in general terms.

I wonder how different things might have been if the TI hadn't been hamstrung ( ie - if the proper CPU had been applied, and the machine had been programmable in assembly out of the box )

 

So there you have it, a uniquely powerful computer with no peer 3 years before the C64 appeared (1982) - so that alone make it better for me, 'cos I got to play AMAZING games for 2 years before C64 owners even got their machines. 3 years of awesome Atari arcade ports on cart, innovative games from the founding father's of the games industry - games that changed my life and propelled me into a career in video games - all before the C64 even appeared.

 

That's the really cool thing with the a8 - it did come out first, and it's colour output wasn't really matched till the c16/plus4. The c64 did have better sprites ( and more of them ) and better graphics modes, but it's amazing how well the a8 kept up.

 

It's impossible to clone Enforcer exactly - but that's fine as Enforcer is a showcase for the C64 graphic strengths.

But still few colors and a slower cpu.

[saehn]

Sorry, but 1.79Mhz is better than 1.0Mhz is a quantifiable item and the word better can be used for objective things as well as subjective things.

 

Again, you miss the major point. Faster is not necessarily better. Faster is quantifiable. Better is not. Faster megahertz is not necessarily better.

 

>If you don't understand the difference between subjective and objective, there's not really any point in discussing this.

 

You don't. Word "better" is not limited to subjective things.

 

Examine the definition. Better is related to superior, which is subjective. Superior is defined by by an individual, who decides what is most important to him.

 

Huh. 256 is ALWAYS better than 16 just like true color is always better than 8-bit color. Nothing subjective about it. Having a PC editor or not has NOTHING to do with the FACT about the C64/Atari palette size. And if the overall hardware is superior on one machine, it does make that machine better than the other.

 

Spoken like a non-artist. More colors does not necessarily equal more better. No, PC editors do not have anything to do with palette size, they have to do with total experience of a machine in a modern environment. As for your "hardware=better" comment, that is an engineer's perspective, not a user's perspective. Usability and software functionality are more important than theoretical possibilities.

 

You are DEAD wrong here. Interlace is superior (better) on A8 since the shading produces less flicker than your restricted palette.

 

I wasn't discussing flicker, I was discussing usability and accessibility. Both are important to the person creating pixel works. And for what it's worth, flicker on a real machine on a TV/monitor is neglible for CBM, as I suppose it is for A8. But again, even still... I hardly ever use it. 16 colors (easily placeable, easily accessible) are enough to produce the massive amount of pixel art that exists in the C64 scene. Without the struggles of DLIs, PMGs, etc.

 

Already answerd. It's not called inferiority complex. Get your definitions straight. You don't care to prove which machine is superior than you shouldn't be replying. You have stated your opinion-- you don't care. So leave it at that. I do like to know which machines are better than others and many others do as well. What a lame argument.

 

Once more: it's not an argument... it's me pointing out that argument isn't possible because a machine is more than its specs. It's the total experience, which varies from user to user. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. Your insistence that one is "better" than another comes across as nonsensical.

[atariksi]

...

That's the really cool thing with the a8 - it did come out first, and it's colour output wasn't really matched till the c16/plus4. The c64 did have better sprites ( and more of them ) and better graphics modes, but it's amazing how well the a8 kept up.

...

 

C16/plus4 also didn't match it's color output and as already discussed it was incompatible with previous machines and a late comer. C64 does not have better graphics modes. Perhpas, you just meant to repeat the word "color RAM" again. Here's a list of standard graphics modes http://www.atarimagazines.com/v3n5/allmodes.html some of which are:

 

2 GR.0 TEXT 40 40 - 24 8 1* 960

3 NONE TEXT 40 40 - + 10 1* +

4 GR.12(XL) TEXT 40 40 20 24 8 5 960

5 GR.13(XL) TEXT 40 40 10 12 16 5 480

6 GR.1 TEXT 20 20 20 24 8 5 480

7 GR.2 TEXT 20 20 10 12 16 5 240

8 GR.3 GRAPH 10 40 20 24 8 4 240

9 GR.4 GRAPH 10 80 40 48 4 2 480

A GR.5 GRAPH 20 80 40 48 4 4 960

B GR.6 GRAPH 20 160 80 96 2 2 1920

C GR.14(XL) GRAPH 20 160 160 192 1 2 3840

D GR.7 GRAPH 40 160 80 96 2 4 3840

E GR.15(XL) GRAPH 40 160 160 192 1 4 7680

F GR.8 GRAPH 40 320 160 192 1 1* 7680

----GTIA standard modes-----------

G Gr.9 GRAPH 40 80 160 192 1 16 7680

H Gr.10 GRAPH 40 80 160 192 1 9 7680

I GR.11 GRAPH 40 80 160 192 1 16 7680

 

Many of these don't even exist on C64 much less have better versions of them. And don't mention FLI or stuff like that since Atari can enhance it's modes as well with ANTIC Mode K and so forth. Did you like miss all the pictures posted in this thread (including my Antic mode K picture)?

 

>It's impossible to clone Enforcer exactly - but that's fine as Enforcer is a showcase for the C64 graphic strengths.

 

Certainly, if C64 game exploits it's better horizontal sprites and color RAM it would be hard to port to Atari. But there are many situations where Atari colors, cpu frequency, i/o speed, etc. would make that application undoable on C64.

[atariksi]

That's the really cool thing with the a8 - it did come out first, and it's colour output wasn't really matched till the c16/plus4. The c64 did have better sprites ( and more of them ) and better graphics modes, but it's amazing how well the a8 kept up.

 

Exactly, it's not an arms race - who wouldn't expect a machine 3 years later to be more powerful!!! What is amazing is that it was just a "bit" better - it evolved rather than revolutionized.

...

sTeVE

 

I don't see the "bit" better at all. I see at inferior in all graphics scenarios except for the 320*200 color RAM useage and sprites horizontally.

It's graphics modes are more like CGA which EXISTED at the time of C64. A bit inferior to CGA since CGA also supported 640*200 and had 80*25*16 color RAM vs. 40*25*16 color RAM corresponding to its text mode (which also was able to do FLI type stuff). Atari graphics require a VGA to render -- way ahead of its time. On top of that Atari does easier overscan, easier underscan, hardware hscroll, hardware vscroll, a display list system for mixing modes, DLI w/WSYNC, etc. etc. As explained before, it uses a text-char based tiled graphics mode which is harder to address.

[atariksi]

Sorry, but 1.79Mhz is better than 1.0Mhz is a quantifiable item and the word better can be used for objective things as well as subjective things.

 

Again, you miss the major point. Faster is not necessarily better. Faster is quantifiable. Better is not. Faster megahertz is not necessarily better.

...

 

I wanted to miss that point: "faster is not necessarily better". Because FASTER IS ALWAYS BETTER for the CPU. I rather have $1.79 rather than $1.02. Now go write some thesis about what better means and show it to some philosopher rather than me. And not only is the Atari CPU at 1.79Mhz > 1.02Mhz but it also happens to divide evenly into the color clock signal of TVs for better synching up CPU cycles with graphics rendered.

 

>Examine the definition. Better is related to superior, which is subjective. Superior is defined by by an individual, who decides what is most important to him.

 

Neither "better" is subjective nor "superior" is subjective. They are English words. The sentence they are used in determines whether they are being used for subjective or objective things.

 

>>Huh. 256 is ALWAYS better than 16 just like true color is always better than 8-bit color. Nothing subjective about it. Having a PC editor or not has NOTHING to do with the FACT about the C64/Atari palette size. And if the overall hardware is superior on one machine, it does make that machine better than the other.

 

>Spoken like a non-artist. More colors does not necessarily equal more better.

 

If you can't understand that more colors is better and faster CPU is better for Atari/C64, you will NEVER understand the other more complex analysis like why Atari is superior and better (i.e. C64 is worse, inferior) for cycle exact coding, timing, I/O speed, etc.

 

>No, PC editors do not have anything to do with palette size, they have to do with total experience of a machine in a modern environment.

 

PC editors have NOTHING to do with your experience of C64/Atari. They are more to do with your experience of PCs. You need a PC editor to compute your cell-based graphics scheme and try to optimally figure out the colors for your overly-restricted palette by doing differential equations and dithering and so forth.

 

>As for your "hardware=better" comment, that is an engineer's perspective, not a user's perspective. Usability and software functionality are more important than theoretical possibilities.

 

There's nothing theoretical about 256 > 16 colors, 1.79Mhz > 1.02Mhz, etc. Nor do you need to hire an engineer to understand.

 

>I wasn't discussing flicker, I was discussing usability and accessibility. Both are important to the person creating pixel works. And for what it's worth, flicker on a real machine on a TV/monitor is neglible for CBM, as I suppose it is for A8. But again, even still... I hardly ever use it.

 

Flicker is less for shades that are closer together and Atari has a 80*200*16 shade mode which becomes 160*200*30 or 192*240*30 (overscanned). You don't need any PC editor to use these interlace modes since you can easily convert an image directly to these modes without using Calculus.

 

>16 colors (easily placeable, easily accessible) are enough to produce the massive amount of pixel art that exists in the C64 scene. Without the struggles of DLIs, PMGs, etc.

 

Both machines have their restrictions in amount of colors put on screen simultaneously, but what I notice is that people who know the restrictions and paint accordingly can generate good artwork. But this is true for both platforms, Atari can also use GPRIOR to put more colors w/o using DLIs. Atari PMGs don't hog up much CPU time (5 DMA cycles/scanline). C64 color RAM hogs up 40+ DMA cycles every 8th scanline. In case, you didn't know: 5*8 = 40; see cycles equal out although Atari has more cycles to spare. So if you don't want to allow DLIs, at least allow 40 extra cycles for PMGs.

 

>Once more: it's not an argument... it's me pointing out that argument isn't possible because a machine is more than its specs. It's the total experience, which varies from user to user. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. Your insistence that one is "better" than another comes across as nonsensical.

 

A machine is more than it's specs is for those who tie in their memories and emotions to the machine. From an objective perspective, a machine is EXACTLY what is its specs.