Atari v Commodore

[oky2000]

I just want everyone to notice how successful Rockford has been. This thread had nearly come to a halt but after a few of his anti-Atari posts everybody's at each other again. Really some top-notch trolling.

 

The problem is when someone comes here with the sole intention of posting screenies that are better on C64, certain Atarians get all defensive and take anything posted by anyone as being an attack.

 

Since Rockford started his posting I've defended the A8 against head over heels and even played both versions to a point I'd remembered the C64 one slowing down to prove even if only to myself that the A8 one doesn't. That means nothing though, it'll be ignored in my Atari Karma because I'm still seen as a C64 fanboy.

 

If only people weren't so eager to jump down other people's throats it'd be a lot quieter despite "trolls".

 

 

Pete

I assumed that the whole reason this thread was started was because many games look better on the 64, so we should have a thread to point out games that look better on the A8. IMO it's sort of implied that A8 games do not regularly trounce 64 games.

 

I'll say it again: the designs are 3 years apart. Show me another machine from 1979 that has the sound and graphics capability of the Atari 800. Under Warner Communications, Atari stopped innovating and eventually Commodore kicked their ass. Atari out-did the Vic-20, then Commodore out-did the 800. Simple as that. I think Atari had the more elegant design overall, but you can't argue with the amount of color the 64 puts on the screen or the price point they achieved.

 

All this talk about timers and whatnot is really irrelevant. These systems were propelled by the games and games need video-based interrupts.

 

Yes but how much was a VIC-20 and how much was the Atari 400? $299 vs $549 and the only difference was 3kb (5kb on the VIC and 8kb on the 400) so a totally different market.

 

Jack Tramiel has been directly quoted in many books to say the VIC-20 was nothing more than a sacrificial lamb whilst the real computer was being worked on which became the C64, this was to prevent the competition and the japanese who wanted to get into the US/EU home computer market from copying the design. You can knock it all you like but the VIC-20 wasn't bad for a cheap knock-off to hold off the competitors' spies from stealing the design or reverse engineering the real home computer planned (ie the C64).

 

Also the C64 launched in January 1982....and from Wikipedia "The machines were announced in late 1978 as the 400 and 800, although they weren't widely available until November 1979" so that's 2 years 1 month not 3 years....and considering the C64 was designed from scratch in less than a year but the A8 is modified Stella hardware which already existed in 1976/7 it's not a huge difference in time to go on about. In fact the A8 is the only Video/Audio technology in all their 8 bits except the 7800 which was designed by other companies where as at Commodore you have

 

VIC 1 (VIC20 graphics and sound)

VIC-II (nothing in common to VIC-1) + SID

TED (sound and graphics of Plus/4 C16)

VDC (native 64kb graphics system of the C128)

 

In basically the same period of time Atari (78-84) worked on 8 bits as oppossed to Commodore home computer division (80-86)

 

(prior to the VIC no work was ever done on a home computer designs...PET doesn't count as none of the custom chips/casings were ever used for the VIC20 for cost reasons)

[sack-c0s]

yawwn...

 

you guys do realise that I've managed to learn 68k assembler and a whole new machine (Atari ST), whilst all you've done is have this stupid 300+ page argument, right?

 

Just saying is all...

[oky2000]

No the reason I exclude it is because they're not even simple RAM cartridges and NEVER existed to purchase in the lifetime of the machine. They are full on mini electronics projects like installing 1mb upgrades inside an original ST (not STF/STFM/STE) requiring the case to be opened usually. IF it was a simple cartridge and IF it was available at the time of sale of any A8 fine but it is neither unlike the Commodore branded 256/512kb cartridge expansions. If you show me a 1980s sale receipt for a 520XE or 320XE I am happy to accept these 320/512kb machines

 

why do C64 gyus sometimes defend nonsense? I never have heard of a "64K" era.It was always named "8-Bit" era. RAM size never was limited to 64K, except it was expensive. It was more expensive in the time when the A8 was developed, and it was less expensive in the time when the C64 was developed.

 

If you buy a PC, it is not called a Hardware change when adding some RAM.

Soldering, plugging.... is the difference. If people wanted to buy an AMIGA with the option for a big RAM expansion, they bought an A2000. If people wanted to buy a cheaper machine, they had to solder, if they wanted more than 1MB of RAM in their A500.

And so on....

And , if people bought an A8, they bought the option for plugging big RAM into the cartridge and/or the Parallel Bus.

 

Alke if RAM or ROM was built into the expansion. It was there in the 80s.

It's only the lacking of "interrest", caused by not seeing a huge mountain of money at the end of the tunnel, they preferred to create programs on the C64 with it's simpler to use hardware features, so the "possible" features were not added to the A8 programs.

 

Something like a 16 colour "Rescue on Fractalus" or "Koronis Rift" or "The Eidolon" with full animated objects and realtime monitoring, could have been done without the loss of any framerate. Digi speech not to forget.

 

Having them only available as a cartridge, back in those days, was even a very good copy protection. And people would have bought it..... also before the C64 arrived

 

Was there a 256kb Atari computer sold EVER? No.

 

Was there a 256kb/512kb/1mb plug in cartridge sold by Atari or anyone from 1979 to 1990? No.

 

Therefore we are comparing two different machines and their expansions AVAILABLE AT THE TIME. You could probably interface a 64bit AMD Phenom to an 8bit computer (the same way a 68xxx CPU controls a PPC CPU in Amiga accellerators) given enough time and money doesn't mean jack shit in this argument and the result is neither a Commodore or Atari.

 

The Atari 400/800 is 48k, 800XL is 64kb and the XE range 64 or 128kb for the purpose of this argument....on all these machines there is no empty RAM sockets so this is the maximum the board is designed for. I never said anything about 64k limit (although actually you are wrong, most 8 bit machines are limited to 64kb and need to use bank switching to access any more any way so it is a limitation of sorts) tough shit if you don't like it, that's what Atari made...they made no Atari 130XEs with blank holes on the motherboard or empty RAM sockets...not my problem really.

 

And why are we doing this? Well you are comparing 8bit Atari machines and hardware to 8bit Commodore machines and hardware (well it is in the 8bit forum section so bit stupid to decide now it is not just for 8bit machines) and well it doesn't really count if it doesn't run on a machine PRODUCED BY ATARI OR COMMODORE. Did Atari sell 320kb 8bit motherboard? nope so therefore no such 'ATARI' machine exists or existed in the history of Atari and is nothing more than a bastard creation of some nerds and geeks 30 years later to be soldered ontop of 1970s/80s hardware. It stopped being an 'Atari' when it was prodded and poked with a soldering iron

 

In that sense the C64/128 wins out anyway as the 1750/51 RAM carts are stock Commodore items you can buy from ebay today and plug into your C64/128 the day it arrives on your door step ........ in fact there were people using 256/512kb C64s and C128s in the 80s too

 

Look at it this way...what's to stop me reverse engineering a 256 colour version of VIC-II using the FPGA from the C64 DTV and engineering it into a pin compatible plug-in for a real C64...does that now mean this now becomes a C64 with VGA graphics? You have to draw the line somewhere and sensible people will draw the line at the maximum capabilities of sound/graphics/memory/cpu OF THE LAST PRODUCTION MODEL MANUFACTURED.

[popmilo]

It took me three days to catch up with you guys posting every 5 minutes, but I made it!

 

Sorry, you messed up. C64 sprites are shorter, cover less area, more difficult to multiplex, and not necessarily better in all cases.

Sorry, A8 PMgs are narrower, cover less area horizontally, and are less colorfull, and can not be in hires.

And in my opinion are more difficult to multiplex, and not better in most of cases.

 

Show me one thing PMGs can do that is impossible on C64.

I can show you many many examples of C64 sprite usage that A8 PMGs can not ever do. Not even in combination with software sprites and GPRIOR effects...

 

Nor does one strength outdo many many other strengths on A8. If people targetted A8's strengths in a game, it would be impossible to port to C64.

So it is C64s "strength"! Yes! Finally you admit it

 

And considering A8s strengths, I bet me and many other "C64-ers" (including Pete) would love to see them used in a new project...

 

Just because you have wider sprites which makes it difficult to port to A8, doesn't make it superior. I bet if you made the 24*21 sprites move it high speed during a frame, they would be hard to port to Amiga.

Width of C64s sprites is not difficult to port to A8 - its impossible.

[atariksi]

Wrong again. If nothing else comes to mind you implied that I wouldn't admit to the kb and joystick having problems. If you were honest you'd admit that. It was not mentioned anywhere I've ever read on this forum and suddenly you bring it out as a direct reply to me. It was directed at me.

 

 

eg

 

You want to discuss problems (you started this), then don't deny your kb/joystick interference problems or any others that get mentioned. Okay, so now you want to do fault-finding-- okay explain the normal res/PMGs border problem so we can discuss that.

 

 

And that's not aimed at me? as a direct post to me? THAT is what has pissed me off today that when I said "hold on, you can't just presume that" instead of just saying ok I can't you go off on a tirade and an attack of trying to change your meaning to get out of admitting that timers interrupt pokey music. Which I'd already agreed to posssssts before didn't mean you couldn't have music.

 

 

 

Pete

 

And you didn't care to think why in the middle of a heated debate of "timers affected POKEY music" that I would suddenly start speaking of an unrelated topic of KB/joystick interference??? I used it as an analogy to explain reuseability of resources not as a SEPARATE point. Whether you accept the kb/joystick interference was only relevant to you understanding the analogy. I am not trying to twist myself out of it that's why I said-- if you don't want to accept the analogy-- then leave it alone.

 

Another example of the same presumption from you.

 

 

"If you think it's fine for you to say that timers affect music (in general) then you should also accept a perfectly valid statement that joystick input is erroneous on C64 due to keyboard interference or vice versa."

 

 

I cared very much to think why. Out of the blue you come up with some supposed analogy, aim it at me which is blatant from the quote I posted earlier "then don't deny" and I even said, hold on you cant presume I wouldn't agree to that. From then on your replies just became nonsense, you refused to admit you'd implied I wouldn't agree that kb/joystick was along the same lines as the timer/pokey problem and try ever escape route possible down to kicking the whole thing off again tonight and making me waste even more time on you.

 

 

Pete

 

"Then don't deny" meaning you should accept the analogy (as related to POKEY argument) not that you are denying accepting kb/joystick problem since we never discussed it before.

 

Now you're trying to take it out of context. Go back and read it all or even my last few posts. "then don't deny" can in no way mean I should accept an analogy, that obviously wasn't your meaning at the time, if it was you'd have said so when I asked about it.

 

 

I'll post your other message once again.

 

"If you think it's fine for you to say that timers affect music (in general) then you should also accept a perfectly valid statement that joystick input is erroneous on C64 due to keyboard interference or vice versa."

 

You just can't expect me to believe either of your 2 similar posts I've quoted weren't directed at me as if I've ever disagreed to it at some point.

 

 

Pete

If you think you know better than me whether I was analogizing to your POKEY generalization or making a separate point, then that's the misunderstanding. Obviously, when I reply to you, it's directed at you. It's all there on page 302 if anyone wants to read it and figure it out himself as to the context.

[atariksi]

yawwn...

 

you guys do realise that I've managed to learn 68k assembler and a whole new machine (Atari ST), whilst all you've done is have this stupid 300+ page argument, right?

 

Just saying is all...

 

I would say there are some interesting topics that came up-- not all stupid. The thread took a vacation at page 114 for 16 days and then another 16 days vacation on page 284 so C64 fanatics could gather more troops and tried to figure out another plan of attack.

[atariksi]

It took me three days to catch up with you guys posting every 5 minutes, but I made it!

 

Sorry, you messed up. C64 sprites are shorter, cover less area, more difficult to multiplex, and not necessarily better in all cases.

Sorry, A8 PMgs are narrower, cover less area horizontally, and are less colorfull, and can not be in hires.

And in my opinion are more difficult to multiplex, and not better in most of cases.

 

Show me one thing PMGs can do that is impossible on C64.

I can show you many many examples of C64 sprite usage that A8 PMGs can not ever do. Not even in combination with software sprites and GPRIOR effects...

 

Nor does one strength outdo many many other strengths on A8. If people targetted A8's strengths in a game, it would be impossible to port to C64.

So it is C64s "strength"! Yes! Finally you admit it

 

And considering A8s strengths, I bet me and many other "C64-ers" (including Pete) would love to see them used in a new project...

 

Just because you have wider sprites which makes it difficult to port to A8, doesn't make it superior. I bet if you made the 24*21 sprites move it high speed during a frame, they would be hard to port to Amiga.

Width of C64s sprites is not difficult to port to A8 - its impossible.

 

You should really read the entire post before replying. And no, you did not catch up yet because I already admitted sprites were strength of C64 many times in this thread including the very post you replied to. I said that even Amiga will have difficulty with 24*21 sprites in certain cases (dynamic situation). It's not always impossible even on A8 though since you may not be using them all horizontally or there may be enough bandwidth to do some in software.

 

Sorry, you messed up. C64 sprites are shorter, cover less area, more difficult to multiplex, and not necessarily better in all cases.

Sorry, A8 PMgs are narrower, cover less area horizontally, and are less colorfull, and can not be in hires.

And in my opinion are more difficult to multiplex, and not better in most of cases.

 

Being narrower doesn't refute that they are shorter. "Cover less area horizontally" means narrower as well and area usually refers to 2D (l*w) so 8*256 is area covered by one sprite. Atari sprites have different ways to color them-- normally games like Hero, Spy Hunter, etc. use DLIs to color the sprites so they are not necessarily less colorful (in some cases, they are more colorful) and if you don't need that many on a line pairing sprites does give you more colors even horizontally. Multiplexing them is easier on A8 -- it's only one HPOS write per sprite. I already said C64 sprites "not necessarily better in all cases"-- meaning they are better usually. There were some examples given earlier where Atari sprites are better.

[atariksi]

No, the fact IS that Rockford is here just to tease us Atarians and come with things we all already know. Sure C64 has more hardware sprites and it is easier to make 2D scrolling games, but still A8 can do similar or better things. We rather don't go beyond "games" department.

 

On many occasions when new fine A8 game or demo product comes out to the public, many times the only argument C64 fanboys could manage to produce is something like that: oh, it can be done on C64 either... oh, how hard it is to start doing something on A8... oh in sploh...

C64 doesn't have more hw sprites, it has 8 like A8. And they are bigger, better, more flexible and easier to multiplex. So no, in the case of sprite based stuff the A8 cannot do similar or better things.

 

Sorry, you messed up. C64 sprites are shorter, cover less area, more difficult to multiplex, and not necessarily better in all cases.

 

Nor does one strength outdo many many other strengths on A8. If people targetted A8's strengths in a game, it would be impossible to port to C64. Just because you have wider sprites which makes it difficult to port to A8, doesn't make it superior. I bet if you made the 24*21 sprites move it high speed during a frame, they would be hard to port to Amiga.

 

... A8 being impossible to port to C64? A generalisation, something I thought wasn't allowed around here but yes, something like NRVs Project is "impossible" in as far as C64 doesn't have the colours or the CPU to handle it as well as the A8 can but it can do a reasonable job (mood). Other games that are more CPU intensive (Head over Heels for example) are harder to port...

 

I'm only going to answer the part about generalization here since that's related to the topic we discussed. If you use deductive logic, you can generalize. You cannot generalize based on a specific situation. For example, DLIs suck because I need an interrupt within a mode line in char mode. My statement is a conditional-- if you target A8 strengthS (plural) then it would be impossible to port since there are many strengths of A8 which cannot be made up for in software-- CPU speed cannot be made up for, timer accuracy cannot be made up for with software algorithms, shading cannot be made up for in software, etc. You can make up for certain things like taller sprites.

[andym00]

Sorry, you messed up. C64 sprites are shorter, cover less area, more difficult to multiplex, and not necessarily better in all cases.

Sorry, A8 PMgs are narrower, cover less area horizontally, and are less colorfull, and can not be in hires.

And in my opinion are more difficult to multiplex, and not better in most of cases.

 

For gods sake, just step away from the keyboard..

Edited September 7, 2009 by andym00

[atariksi]

Sorry, you messed up. C64 sprites are shorter, cover less area, more difficult to multiplex, and not necessarily better in all cases.

Sorry, A8 PMgs are narrower, cover less area horizontally, and are less colorfull, and can not be in hires.

And in my opinion are more difficult to multiplex, and not better in most of cases.

 

For gods sake, just step away from the keyboard..

 

You should since there's Popmilos quote right after that but the "\quote" got deleted. Learn how to read before you reply.

[PeteD]

It's just getting hysterical now. He's replying to me so he IS talking to me but he's not talking TO me he's using an analogy despite there being no inference of such as it was a direct reply. Funny stuff this logic of your Atariksi.

 

I can't generalise in my posts but you can in yours because you use "deductive logic"? Just another excuse to not concede a point. Just like not replying to the rest of my points in my long post last night. Why not just take a chance and agree that you made mistakes in your "deductive logic" there. Your head won't fall off if you admit it, I promise.

 

If I can't say DLIs aren't as flexible as raster interrupts (NOT DLIs suck) then you just take away one of the more important parts of the C64s way of doing games and therefore attempt to nullify anyones statements about those.

 

Why don't you come up with a design for a game that the C64 can't do? Not just one with 256 colours but using all this superior hardware that the C64 can't handle, and a "real" game. If you did a mainly CPU driven game then of course a lower speed CPU can't compete but what is all this extra hardware going to do that the C64 can't? You generalise again and presume that this is true. What difference are timers going to make to a game? I won't even use someone elses argument that YOU have to code it on C64 to prove it can't be done just do the A8 version and let the C64 guys do the C64. 30 years and there's a handful of games that are superior on A8 and that's because of the CPU and they've already been mentioned 100 times in this thread.

 

I gave you every chance in that long post to think about your attitude and your auto-defense system against everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% (just look how many people you're arguing with at the same time) and you wouldn't take it. Wouldn't just say, ok, on at least some of the counter points or comparisions you are right. All that gets ignored and you go on the defensive again.

 

Maybe you were sent from the future? From Cyberdyne Systems maybe? Certainly you absolutely will not stop but I think your cpu got damaged as your logic is often flawed.

 

Pete

[atariksi]

It's just getting hysterical now. He's replying to me so he IS talking to me but he's not talking TO me he's using an analogy despite there being no inference of such as it was a direct reply. Funny stuff this logic of your Atariksi.

 

I can't generalise in my posts but you can in yours because you use "deductive logic"? Just another excuse to not concede a point. Just like not replying to the rest of my points in my long post last night. Why not just take a chance and agree that you made mistakes in your "deductive logic" there. Your head won't fall off if you admit it, I promise.

...

You are generalizing that I WASN'T allowing you to generalize. Your POKEY generalization is wrong. That does not mean I am NOT allowing you to generalize. You should take time to understand what you are saying. I see a few people with blue eyes does not mean everyone has blue eyes (I said this many times before in this thread). It's not an excuse nor is it my mistake. You are GROSSLY mistaken. You should admit you cannot generalize from a few events to apply for eternity. It requires deductive logic-- take a course if you need more help.

 

>If I can't say DLIs aren't as flexible as raster interrupts (NOT DLIs suck) then you just take away one of the more important parts of the C64s way of doing games and therefore attempt to nullify anyones statements about those.

 

Go back and read what I wrote about DLIs and that example wasn't what you wrote. You are clearly admitting you misunderstand here. I never said "YOU WROTE DLIs SUCK".

 

Rest not worth replying to.

[PeteD]

 

Never admit you're wrong. Not answer the things you can't defend, twist and turn your and other peoples words over and over. I hate to tell you but when you're replying to me and post things like you do then I have every right to presume they're aimed directly at me. You infer so with everything you type then when I say wait a minute, you're putting words into my mouth again it's always not what you meant.

 

My post last night was almost an olive branch to see if you'd have ANY decency at all, but alas no, I hoped for too much. I'm done. I'd prefer if you see a post from me PLEASE don't reply to it as I have no interest in anything that comes from you.

 

 

Pete

[atariksi]

 

Well, you're very much a "glass-half-full" guy when it comes to Atari's capabilities. I love the Atari, but I completely understand why programmers who get paid to finish the job would have an easier time converting most games to the 64. It wasn't economically feasible to hire 1337 hAx0rz to get every ounce of performance out of the A8. Of course, today we have programmers who take the time.

 

Depends on "what was done" ...

2D games in 320x200 with 16 colours ist something we "could" approach somehow.

But, really, some effort with 3D really would have been reached on the A8, as some game like "Katakis" or "Turrican" was reached on the C64.

The Atari was done for creating fullscreen stuff. But, coders tried to chase C64 in some case. They could have done some "pre Wolfenstein 3D" with the same cost of development instead.

As you might have seen already. Everyone today prefers a worse looking 3D game and even the finest 2D game gets mediocre votes.

As I wrote many times before:

 

The fact that the C64 broke with the "rule" of hardware growth, and the success on the market, resulted in a halt for 3D development. 3D was good even from 1979 to 1982 and started again after 1992. This is exactly the lifespan of the C64.

Without the success of the C64 in that time, and the given hardware of the A8, we could have seen serious 3D games on the A8 before 1985.

 

That's a good point-- chasing the C64. That's why some people start thinking C64 is superior because they are trying to map C64-hardware targetted software to A8 (or even other 8-bit platforms) rather than target games for their own hardware. Amiga has great sprite-based software but they didn't need 24-pixel sprites to make it.

[atariksi]

 

Never admit you're wrong. Not answer the things you can't defend, twist and turn your and other peoples words over and over. I hate to tell you but when you're replying to me and post things like you do then I have every right to presume they're aimed directly at me. You infer so with everything you type then when I say wait a minute, you're putting words into my mouth again it's always not what you meant.

 

My post last night was almost an olive branch to see if you'd have ANY decency at all, but alas no, I hoped for too much. I'm done. I'd prefer if you see a post from me PLEASE don't reply to it as I have no interest in anything that comes from you.

 

 

Pete

 

You are using straw-man arguments. (period) I haven't twisted anything. Replies to you are aimed at you. Your long post was grossly mistaken as some others. If you have no interest, you don't reply. I don't accept your FALSE ACCUSATIONS and wild generalizations.

[PeteD]

I realised I fell into one of your argumentative traps I was warned about Well done.

 

"If I can't say DLIs aren't as flexible as raster interrupts (NOT DLIs suck) then you just take away one of the more important parts of the C64s way of doing games and therefore attempt to nullify anyones statements about those."

 

Where do I accuse you of saying that I said "DLIs suck"? If that were the case I'd expect something along the lines of "I never said DLIs SUCK!!" Following your reasoning there is absolutely nothing wrong with what I said, simply that I was including your "DLIs suck" in my reply and inferring that that is not what I think. But wait, it was a reply to you so I MUST have meant it as an accusation. Oh wait, following your logic that isn't the case.

 

 

 

Pete

[atariksi]

I realised I fell into one of your argumentative traps I was warned about Well done.

 

"If I can't say DLIs aren't as flexible as raster interrupts (NOT DLIs suck) then you just take away one of the more important parts of the C64s way of doing games and therefore attempt to nullify anyones statements about those."

 

Where do I accuse you of saying that I said "DLIs suck"? If that were the case I'd expect something along the lines of "I never said DLIs SUCK!!" Following your reasoning there is absolutely nothing wrong with what I said, simply that I was including your "DLIs suck" in my reply and inferring that that is not what I think. But wait, it was a reply to you so I MUST have meant it as an accusation. Oh wait, following your logic that isn't the case.

 

 

 

Pete

 

It's related to how you treated the KB/joystick issue as well as you misunderstanding me regarding what I said about DLIs so I warned you it's not you saying "DLIs suck"-- it another example. You just made another false accusation--"following your logic". Logic is same for everyone. It's your generalizations I have a problem with since they don't follow logic. Where did I say that you cannot generalize anything?

[PeteD]

It is indeed related to your kb/joystick nonsense, in the fact that there you claim it wasn't aimed at me, yet when I post something OBVIOUSLY not accusing you of anything then that's no good because it's the same as a totally different argument and it's my fault AGAIN.

 

Still no admitting you're wrong. Fair enough, I give up.

 

 

 

Full of it.

[atariksi]

It is indeed related to your kb/joystick nonsense, in the fact that there you claim it wasn't aimed at me, yet when I post something OBVIOUSLY not accusing you of anything then that's no good because it's the same as a totally different argument and it's my fault AGAIN.

 

Still no admitting you're wrong. Fair enough, I give up.

 

 

 

Full of it.

 

Thanks for going back to that topic again about kb/joystick and not answering the question about generalization-- shows your true colors. KB/Joystick issue is not nonsense. If you give up, don't argue-- it's self-contradictory.

[PeteD]

It is indeed related to your kb/joystick nonsense, in the fact that there you claim it wasn't aimed at me, yet when I post something OBVIOUSLY not accusing you of anything then that's no good because it's the same as a totally different argument and it's my fault AGAIN.

 

Still no admitting you're wrong. Fair enough, I give up.

 

 

 

Full of it.

 

Thanks for going back to that topic again about kb/joystick and not answering the question about generalization-- shows your true colors. KB/Joystick issue is not nonsense. If you give up, don't argue-- it's self-contradictory.

 

 

ROFL so you can miss out all the important points in my posts that don't suit you but I can't miss one of yours? You're altering my meanings again, I mean YOUR nonsense whilst talking about kb/joystick NOT that kb/joystick is nonsense. You know full well I agreed that was a problem on C64 but once again you'll twist it.

 

As for logic (I suppose you never heard of faulty logic) Yours seems flawed to me and other people. Maybe its just the ones who don't agree with you 100%? Logic is only fact IF you know 100% what you're talking about and as I proved in last nights long post you don't, you make assumptions. But that's fine for you isn't it?

 

And now to win again you have to bait me with more wheedling then say I'm contradictory because I continue to argue. Well I'm sorry, if only for myself but I won't let you try to make me look like I'm in the wrong and that you NEVER are.

 

 

Pete

[atariksi]

I realised I fell into one of your argumentative traps I was warned about Well done.

...

That's another false accusation and unverified speculative remark that a few C64 fans have made. You haven't realized it nor the others who have made such remarks against me-- you are ASSUMING it. I have no argumentative traps.

[atariksi]

It is indeed related to your kb/joystick nonsense, in the fact that there you claim it wasn't aimed at me, yet when I post something OBVIOUSLY not accusing you of anything then that's no good because it's the same as a totally different argument and it's my fault AGAIN.

 

Still no admitting you're wrong. Fair enough, I give up.

 

 

 

Full of it.

 

Thanks for going back to that topic again about kb/joystick and not answering the question about generalization-- shows your true colors. KB/Joystick issue is not nonsense. If you give up, don't argue-- it's self-contradictory.

 

 

ROFL so you can miss out all the important points in my posts that don't suit you but I can't miss one of yours? You're altering my meanings again, I mean YOUR nonsense whilst talking about kb/joystick NOT that kb/joystick is nonsense. You know full well I agreed that was a problem on C64 but once again you'll twist it.

 

As for logic (I suppose you never heard of faulty logic) Yours seems flawed to me and other people. Maybe its just the ones who don't agree with you 100%? Logic is only fact IF you know 100% what you're talking about and as I proved in last nights long post you don't, you make assumptions. But that's fine for you isn't it?

 

And now to win again you have to bait me with more wheedling then say I'm contradictory because I continue to argue. Well I'm sorry, if only for myself but I won't let you try to make me look like I'm in the wrong and that you NEVER are.

 

 

Pete

Then you shouldn't give up if you want to continue arguing. That's a self-contradictory statement. What's wrong with this deduction? If you can find something wrong with this deduction, we can continue. Otherwise, you are on your own with "your" logic.

[Heaven/TQA]

yawwn...

 

you guys do realise that I've managed to learn 68k assembler and a whole new machine (Atari ST), whilst all you've done is have this stupid 300+ page argument, right?

 

Just saying is all...

 

move.l #$a0000,(a0)+

 

 

yeah, uneblievable how much energie is put into this thread instead of coding...

[PeteD]

yawwn...

 

you guys do realise that I've managed to learn 68k assembler and a whole new machine (Atari ST), whilst all you've done is have this stupid 300+ page argument, right?

 

Just saying is all...

 

move.l #$a0000,(a0)+

 

 

yeah, uneblievable how much energie is put into this thread instead of coding...

 

Ste'86 is going to punch my lungs out for wasting time on here instead of finishing the Fist bg editor so he can touch up any problem bits

 

btw, I just bought a 65xe I kind of feel like smashing it when it arrives

 

 

Pete

[popmilo]

...That's a good point-- chasing the C64. That's why some people start thinking C64 is superior because they are trying to map C64-hardware targetted software to A8 (or even other 8-bit platforms) rather than target games for their own hardware.

Me for example, I am not trying to map "C64-hardware targetted software" - I am trying to map generalized 2d-jump-n-run-fire-arcade-platform-shooter genre game to A8 ...

Yes, I got in love of that genre on C64 because that was the first computer that I had and Turrican is one my favourites...

But since then, I played games like that in Arcade, on Amiga, on Atari ST, on Nes, Snes,Sega megadrive, mobile phone, palm, windows, linux...

 

Don't tell me I should dismiss any idea of game for A8, just because there were good games like that on C64.

 

A8 does not have really good game like that...

I guess timeframe of its popularity is one of the reasons...

I think it can be made but objective limits are there...

 

Amiga has great sprite-based software but they didn't need 24-pixel sprites to make it.

Its 8 16-pixel,3-color,dma-channel, copper controlled, reusable sprites + blitter chip did the trick...

16<24 has nothing to do with it...

 

You can not compare that with A8s 4 8-pixel, 1 color, DLI colored, reusable only in certain part of screen only with heavy cpu usage, without blitter chip...