Atari v Commodore

[atarian63]

I like the game comparisons also. No worries there. It's good to see lots of older titles side by side. Always interesting.

 

As for giving up Atari, no way. As for checking out a C64, absolutely! At some point, that will happen, as it would for other interesting 8 bitters. For me personally, it's a matter of time, space and dollars. Picked up a CoCo 3 a while back, and am saving my pennies for a PC adapter / SD device. Now is the time to collect these goodies, as has been said here.

 

As for the style, if it's just entertainment Rockford wants, I'll largely pass, unless a good opportunity presents itself. Then it's game on! Those of you reading this thread long enough know I'm totally up for that.

 

So yeah, keep posting. No worries here.

 

You know, I am using a C128 since 1987, sometimes I also used an Apple 2, but get one (C64 or 128), try it out, there's some real classics to be found within the US software range. Stay away from UK softs as boredom sets in quite quickly after a few minutes with those games. Exceptions are softs from Thalamus, System 3, Hewson, Level 9, Rainbird, but that's it really. But try some US classics, Starflight, Zak McKracken, Alter Ego, Space Rogue, LCP, Times of Lore, Bards Tale III....etc. Huge list of classics

Kind of on a different note.. in the St/Amiga days we used to import euro games for St and Amiga. They would come out weeks to months earlier and sometime never in the US. That was where all the cool stuff was coming from for quite some time. That packaging was cheesy but who cares?

[potatohead]

If I had the room, I would totally have a well equipped Apple ][ setup. I loved those machines, and of all the 8 bitters, ended up with probably the strongest productivity applications. A serious Apple setup was very expensive, but also quite capable.

 

Agreed on lots of classics. For the amount of rampant copying going on in the schools, plenty of Apple users paid for their software --a trend that continues to this day. Despite the limitations of the machines, they were a nice target for development.

 

IMHO, having a good 80 column display was a driver for those productivity applications. A C128 would be very similar here. Both A8 and C64 were somewhat limited by their display options, with a good 80 column display being marginal at best. (I would give C64 the edge here, for it's better signal quality, and decent color text options, BTW.)

 

I thought Apple 8 bit machines were sold well into the 90's, and remain fairly well supported in their community today. The C64 was hardly the Apple killer. The target markets were just different, with C64 established as a nice home computer, but not a "serious" computer, like the Apple 8 bitters were positioned as.

[atarian63]

If I had the room, I would totally have a well equipped Apple ][ setup. I loved those machines, and of all the 8 bitters, ended up with probably the strongest productivity applications. A serious Apple setup was very expensive, but also quite capable.

 

Agreed on lots of classics. For the amount of rampant copying going on in the schools, plenty of Apple users paid for their software --a trend that continues to this day. Despite the limitations of the machines, they were a nice target for development.

 

IMHO, having a good 80 column display was a driver for those productivity applications. A C128 would be very similar here. Both A8 and C64 were somewhat limited by their display options, with a good 80 column display being marginal at best. (I would give C64 the edge here, for it's better signal quality, and decent color text options, BTW.)

 

I thought Apple 8 bit machines were sold well into the 90's, and remain fairly well supported in their community today. The C64 was hardly the Apple killer. The target markets were just different, with C64 established as a nice home computer, but not a "serious" computer, like the Apple 8 bitters were positioned as.

Yep. seems like Apple was the leader, being chased by atari, who in turn didn't pay attention to Commodore chasing them..

Funny old world!

[atariksi]

The colours got restricted intentionally to have a different brigtness of the background colour. It was done by the fact that NTSC is not able to show real colours in hires.

 

Not true at all.

 

Simple NTSC signals, where the color reference is consistent across all scan lines, combined with a non-vertically interlaced frame yields the color limitations. The 160 pixel mode is consistent with these limitations, and is commonly referenced as the "color clock". Better NTSC signal characteristics are possible, and with them comes better color at higher resolutions.

 

The Atari video system is based off the simple NTSC signal. This is exactly why all the scrolling, PM graphics, etc... are keyed to it. A half pixel shift with that signal, would throw all the colors off.

 

That leads to why the 320 pixel mode is limited in the way it is. Changing the intensity of a pixel won't significantly impact the color of it. The color is impacted though, just depends on the base color chosen. In monochrome, the Atari resolution is 320 pixels. In color, it's 160, assuming the 40 byte DMA setting.

...

Not quite. Atari NTSC (800XL) doesn't artifact at color clock boundaries. You can easily test with PLOT/DRAWTO by trying to draw vertical lines at 320*200 in blue and brown and white and you will see that blue is always 1/2 color clock offset from brown. I am assuming default palette settings with POKE 710,0. So it does do colors at various points at 320 resolution.

 

The C64 video system outputs a better NTSC signal. Color is interlaced horizontally. It's video system can address color at 320 pixels, and do so without significant color changes. That's where all the 320 pixel smooth scrolling comes from. Because of this, there really is no color limitation at 320 pixels, other than the usual smearing and such that would occur, depending on the display used.

...

It does have problems having different colors on consecutive locations. Both machines use a 3.57Mhz color burst. Atari has the limitation of not being able to set the foreground text color directly-- it comes from whatever the background/sprite background color is. You can scroll in software at 1/2 color clock on Atari but artifacted colors get screwed. I think PAL will be different for both machines.

[potatohead]

The colours got restricted intentionally to have a different brigtness of the background colour. It was done by the fact that NTSC is not able to show real colours in hires.

 

Not true at all.

 

Simple NTSC signals, where the color reference is consistent across all scan lines, combined with a non-vertically interlaced frame yields the color limitations. The 160 pixel mode is consistent with these limitations, and is commonly referenced as the "color clock". Better NTSC signal characteristics are possible, and with them comes better color at higher resolutions.

 

The Atari video system is based off the simple NTSC signal. This is exactly why all the scrolling, PM graphics, etc... are keyed to it. A half pixel shift with that signal, would throw all the colors off.

 

That leads to why the 320 pixel mode is limited in the way it is. Changing the intensity of a pixel won't significantly impact the color of it. The color is impacted though, just depends on the base color chosen. In monochrome, the Atari resolution is 320 pixels. In color, it's 160, assuming the 40 byte DMA setting.

...

Not quite. Atari NTSC (800XL) doesn't artifact at color clock boundaries. You can easily test with PLOT/DRAWTO by trying to draw vertical lines at 320*200 in blue and brown and white and you will see that blue is always 1/2 color clock offset from brown. I am assuming default palette settings with POKE 710,0. So it does do colors at various points at 320 resolution.

 

The C64 video system outputs a better NTSC signal. Color is interlaced horizontally. It's video system can address color at 320 pixels, and do so without significant color changes. That's where all the 320 pixel smooth scrolling comes from. Because of this, there really is no color limitation at 320 pixels, other than the usual smearing and such that would occur, depending on the display used.

...

It does have problems having different colors on consecutive locations. Both machines use a 3.57Mhz color burst. Atari has the limitation of not being able to set the foreground text color directly-- it comes from whatever the background/sprite background color is. You can scroll in software at 1/2 color clock on Atari but artifacted colors get screwed. I think PAL will be different for both machines.

 

The Apple ][ is the best example of this. It uses only artifacting for it's color graphics. On a monochrome screen, it can do 280 pixels by 192 pixels. That is the core resolution of the machine. For the Atari, this is 320 pixels x however many scanlines you care to draw. Let's just say 192, for the sake of discussion.

 

In monochrome then, the resolution of the Atari 8 bit computers is 320 pixels, assuming 40 byte DMA, per line, in the same way it is for the Apple being 280.

 

When color is considered, the meaning of resolve comes into play. On the Atari, there are even pixels, and odd pixels, and two pixels together. (other combos are possible, but let's just keep those out of scope) Even pixels produce one color, odd pixels produce another color, and two pixels together form a white pixel, or a brighter colored pixel, if the color for that scan line is something other than black.

 

If one wants red pixels, for example, then it is required to plot only those pixels that are red. If one wants green pixels, it is required to plot only the green ones. Those bit patterns are 01 and 10. To resolve these requires two bits, which divides the monochrome resolution by two.

 

For Atari, this is 160 pixels, in the 40 byte DMA, and for Apple it's 140 pixels.

 

Another way to put this is there being 160 possible positions where a pixel of a given color can occur.

 

Now, let's talk color cells. An Apple has them. An Atari kind of has them, if we consider overlaying sprites.

 

On the Apple, the color cell is the high bit of each graphics screen byte. So then, it's possible to position any of the 4 colors available on the machine anywhere on the scan line, with the restriction that within a given byte, only two colors are possible. On the Atari, several sprites could be used to obtain a few colors per scan line in the high resolution mode.

 

So coarse metrics, like "number of colors per scan line" look good on Atari! Line up all the sprites, use the artifacting, and a whole lot of colors can actually occur!

 

Let's see:

 

Say the scan line is black. So, we get black, red, green, white. That's 4 colors at a resolution of 160 pixels, according to the meaning of "resolve" above. Color each of the sprites differently, and you get the color of the sprite, a brighter shade of that color, and two artifacted colors. So then, that's 4 more colors * 4 sprites, for a total of 16, adding together and we get 20, colors per scan line.

 

When comparing specs, this looks really good. However, implementing that comes with a whole series of limitations and exclusions. The fine print, as is often said. That list of limitations and exclusions is a short book, with the whole story untold, which is why this thread is interesting, BTW.

 

The key metric is this: None of those combinations actually allows any of those colors, to be positioned anywhere on the scan line. That is where the 160 pixel color resolution number comes from. The actual size of the color pixel, depending on the display can be smaller, and that's a precision of 320 pixels. Big difference.

 

I included the Apple in this post because it perfectly demonstrates the difference between the two. The size of a pixel is a matter of precision. C64 and Atari are the same in this department. The RESOLUTION, or addressability of the pixels in color is a different metric. Apple and Atari both have color RESOLUTION that is one half their monochrome RESOLUTION, even though a color pixel can be created that is as PRECISE as a monochrome one is.

 

Where movement, addressing, etc... are concerned, Ataris are single color clock machines. That's the color resolution, all tricks aside.

 

I included the tricks and number of colors comparison to highlight how those metrics differ as well. On number of colors per scan, Ataris can post up some nice numbers. Where addressing those pixels is concerned and where positioning them is concerned, the realistic numbers for Ataris are not all that stellar, particularly when compared against color cells.

 

Color cells are easy, consistent, and flexible. I like them.

 

The C64 color resolution is 320 pixels. This is because of how it generates it's video signal. C64 does interlaced color, meaning that a color pixel can be created that is as precise as a monochrome one. Additionally, those color pixels can exist, and appear as the "same color", depending on the quality of display connected, at any of the 320 positions possible. The color cells limit the number of colors present to two per byte of screen data. Factor in the sprites, and it's clear the machine can get all of it's 16 colors on a scan line, and do that for more combinations than the Atari can, and it can do it with less programmer effort, for most of those combinations than the Atari can.

 

Now, those colors might differ somewhat, depending on the display, and on what other colors are present in the screen area adjacent to the pixel being discussed. These are display artifacts, and with a display of sufficient quality, can be ignored.

 

Color resolution on the C64 is equal to it's monochrome resolution, and that resolution is 320 pixels. Any pixel on the C64 is as precise as any other pixel, whether or not it's a color pixel or not. Because of this, objects and scrolling can occur with 320 pixel PRECISION in color. On Ataris, and Apples just for comparison, this can only be done in monochrome.

 

So then, Atari monochrome resolution and bitmap graphics precision is 320 pixels. In color, this is 160 pixels for both, and for sprites it's always 160 pixels, whether or not the sprite is monochrome or color. Those are the facts, assuming the 40 byte DMA setting is used for bitmap / character graphics. A much easier way to express this is in terms of the color clock. Atari has color clock resolution and precision for color, and 1/2 color clock for monochrome bitmap / character graphics.

 

C64 simply has 320 pixel resolution and precision, sprites and bitmap, color or monochrome. Put in Atari terms, it's resolution is simply 1/2 color clock, and that's the end of it.

 

On a good quality display, I see no problems with the 1/2 color clock scrolling and or positioning of things on C64.

 

 

Edit Add: As for the video signals, it's true both machines output the same color reference. They have to, or their display signals would not actually display!

 

The key difference between Atari, Apple and a lot of other machines from that time period, and the C64 is in the timing relationship between that color reference and the pixel clock.

 

On an Atari, Apple, etc... The color reference and pixel clock are the same on every scan line. This is what makes artifacting occur with an NTSC signal.

 

The C64 doesn't do this. The pixel clock timing alternates every scan line, which doubles it's color resolution. This is why artifacting does not occur on that machine with an NTSC signal.

 

(Some artifacting does occur, but it's not the same as seen on Ataris, and that's not really useful, other than to provide a bit of texture to differentiate one colored region and another. On a good quality display ie: the ones C= shipped, those artifacts are pretty much non-existent, resulting in just a dot pattern, like any other high quality display would render. On a composite video connection, this may manifest as some slightly different color, but isn't anything like the artifacting that would occur on an Atari or Apple type signal.)

 

To see a great example of the differences, take a look at my blog where I've been working on quality text drivers. The most recent entry uses both horizontal and vertical interlace to render some damn good looking text on an ordinary composite video connection. Those are not S-video screen captures, but plain old composite ones. I expect the S-video display captures I'll do this week, to more or less double the quality seen there. If you go back a few entries, you will see an Atari style signal, and the color resolution differences. They are significant.

 

When both interlaces are combined, NTSC color resolution is quite good, able to render 64 column displays in many, but not all color combinations, very well on a composite signal.

 

When only horizontal interlaced timing is used (C64 style) the resolution goes down a bit, but still is clearly higher than when static color timing (Atari) is used.

 

I'm posting this partially because I am very interested in the video signal part of things right now, and because it's just silly to try and marginalize the good quality display engineering that went into the C64. That is one of the machines best features!

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/blog/105/entry-6489-40-64-and-80-column-text-driver-for-propeller/ (this one shows monochrome displays, and color displays with both horizontal and vertical interlaced used)

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/blog/105/entry-3953-propeller-atari-style-text-driver/ (this one shows Atari style video timing --and the 40 column color text rendered there is what GTIA would look like, if it were capable of 320 pixel addressable color)

 

The 40 column color screenies are very revealing as to the core differences between the machines at the signal level. Those screen shots are software video drivers that model video timings very close to what an Atari or C64 would actually do, with the better 40 column display actually using both interlace modes, or "scan doubling" for the max effect. Honestly, a C64 would look nearly that good, if it had a larger color palette to work from, just FYI.

Edited October 5, 2009 by potatohead

[Rockford]

Thanks for kind words and suggestions As for my style of writing, I'd rather stick to it.

Let me guess: You made a bet with someone that you can induce a doubling of the number of posts in this thread within 6 weeks?

 

 

Nope, I'm not wicked enough

 

 

 

Anyway, if Rockford didn't show up here, a lot of (interesting) side-line discussions here wouldn't exist anyway, and there were many good ones. Keep posting

I'm not Lucifer or Satan or any other sort of devil anymore. Hooray ! but seriously I find this discussion very interesting too.

[emkay]

I'm not Lucifer or Satan or any other sort of devil anymore. Hooray ! but seriously I find this discussion very interesting too.

 

Actually, also if people don't like your style, you're one of those who act on the topic itself

[Rockford]

35 - FOOTBALLER OF THE YEAR

 

C64

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has better music, graphics, sprites and more colours. The atari version has very poor music, ugly sprites and works at lower resolution. C64 scores again.

 

ATARI

ATARI

ATARI

[atarian63]

35 - FOOTBALLER OF THE YEAR

 

C64

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has better music, graphics, sprites and more colours. The atari version has very poor music, ugly sprites and works at lower resolution. C64 scores again.

 

ATARI

ATARI

ATARI

1986, post Golden age! Doh! Still does not learn...

Edited October 5, 2009 by atarian63

[atarian63]

Here is some c64 from the classic age of Atari 1983

[emkay]

35 - FOOTBALLER OF THE YEAR

 

The C64 version has better music....

 

Not really. I remember loading the game on the A8 just to listen to the tune. It has something really .... call it a "definition"

[+wood_jl]

If I had the room, I would totally have a well equipped Apple ][ setup. I loved those machines, and of all the 8 bitters, ended up with probably the strongest productivity applications. A serious Apple setup was very expensive, but also quite capable.

 

Agreed. Apple II was the first Micro I'd seen....let alone used. Games of stuff like "Oregon Trail" (etc) on an Apple II was a de rigueur right of passage for anyone old enough to have been in elementary school in the late 1970s. I wanted one....bad. It was (perhaps) $3500 for a II plus with one drive and a green screen....in 1979 dollars. No way the folks would shit out for one. So I threw newspapers to get a used Atari 400 and 410, thinking of it as a cheap substitute and not knowing of its strengths, as an elementary school child. I also liked the "Evil-Knievel" type game where you'd jump the cars (or busses??) with a motorcycle. Not exactly hardcore gaming here....

 

When the IIe came out and they finally got lower case (!!!!!!) and "extended" 80-col cards....that really did a lot to bolster the II as a "serious" machine. It's just a crying shame that Atari (and Commodore) couldn't find a workable 80-col solution. (Let's politely not discuss the XEP-80, and recognize the Bit-3 as the fluke that it was).

 

Agreed on lots of classics. For the amount of rampant copying going on in the schools, plenty of Apple users paid for their software --a trend that continues to this day. Despite the limitations of the machines, they were a nice target for development.

No doubt there was copying. My first-ever floppy disc(s) were of the Apple II persuasion, and it would be some time before I could afford a disc drive for A-8. 800s were $899 and 810s were roughly $700 during this period - where I used an 800/410 combo. Content on those discs? Pirated Apple II games - and I didn't even own one!

 

IMHO, having a good 80 column display was a driver for those productivity applications. A C128 would be very similar here. Both A8 and C64 were somewhat limited by their display options, with a good 80 column display being marginal at best. (I would give C64 the edge here, for it's better signal quality, and decent color text options, BTW.)

 

No doubt the 80-col made people take it seriously, in an era of $5500 PC 5150s. The "slots" were all the envy for a decade. C128 - in my opinion - never really factored into the equation, however. I was **SO** jealous of C= users when the 128 came out - it's just a dream in an alternate reality that Atari would whip up an A8 counterpart. The reality is that it came too late, got NO software support, and hardly anyone seems to give a shit about it now. When I got "back" into 8-bitting a few years ago and talked to many C= users, I inquisitioned them as to why they didn't seem to give a crap about the 128....they just love the 64. "No software" I kept hearing. I still think the 128 was a slick deal for its day, but I have to admit a 520ST was about the same price as a fully-equipped C128 system, and the 520ST definitely got the software and a whole lot more for similar dollar.

 

I thought Apple 8 bit machines were sold well into the 90's, and remain fairly well supported in their community today. The C64 was hardly the Apple killer. The target markets were just different, with C64 established as a nice home computer, but not a "serious" computer, like the Apple 8 bitters were positioned as.

 

The fond memories of the Apple II kind of crash when you try to play one today....actually just an emulator. One ISO torrent was for DVD-ROM of most of the II's game library. I was shocked at how (sadly) atrocious the II graphics were....worse than I remember, and I still play Atari 2600, mind you. I think "Dig Dug" illustrates it best....you've never seen such egregiously bad dithering patterns as they try to simulate the various layers of "dirt" in the game. Oh my God this thing is bad.

 

Which brings up an interesting point: Why is the Atari such a target of rabid, delirious Commodore users, and the Apple II is not? I mean, the Atari was cheaper, and DEFINITELY more capable architecture. It would seem the Apple II should *really* be subject to the ire of C= users. It pales in comparison to C64 compared to how the A8 measures up. I think the fact that wacko Commies flock to this forum to argue (and somehow feel better about themselves, as if THEY created the C64 by merely being one out of 17 MILLION) should seek out the vastly inferior and vastly overpriced Apple II. Oh, I guess they don't see it as a threat. Such a comparison would be ludicrous. But with the Atari it is not, the Atari is not definitely inferior (despite its pre-dating the categorically primative Vic-20), and the fact that the Atari can hold a candle seems to burn the ass of a few Commodore users - hence the rivalry. I should think any rabid Commodore aficionado worth his salt would go after the bigger dog and the easier fight....Apple. The fact that they are here trying to make you burn your Atari speaks volumes about your Atari by virtue of the fact that THEY are here. It does contend! Rabid, overzealous C= users coming here to attempt to shit on your Atari is - by its very nature - a salute to the Atari architecture and the "threat" (note the quotes) that it presents to C= superiority. If that wasn't the case, they'd be off hassling Apple users....but they're not....they're here....and their very presence is indicative of Atari-8 ingenuity.

[frenchman]

 

Which brings up an interesting point: Why is the Atari such a target of rabid, delirious Commodore users, and the Apple II is not? I mean, the Atari was cheaper, and DEFINITELY more capable architecture. It would seem the Apple II should *really* be subject to the ire of C= users. It pales in comparison to C64 compared to how the A8 measures up. I think the fact that wacko Commies flock to this forum to argue (and somehow feel better about themselves, as if THEY created the C64 by merely being one out of 17 MILLION) should seek out the vastly inferior and vastly overpriced Apple II. Oh, I guess they don't see it as a threat. Such a comparison would be ludicrous. But with the Atari it is not, the Atari is not definitely inferior (despite its pre-dating the categorically primative Vic-20), and the fact that the Atari can hold a candle seems to burn the ass of a few Commodore users - hence the rivalry. I should think any rabid Commodore aficionado worth his salt would go after the bigger dog and the easier fight....Apple. The fact that they are here trying to make you burn your Atari speaks volumes about your Atari by virtue of the fact that THEY are here. It does contend! Rabid, overzealous C= users coming here to attempt to shit on your Atari is - by its very nature - a salute to the Atari architecture and the "threat" (note the quotes) that it presents to C= superiority. If that wasn't the case, they'd be off hassling Apple users....but they're not....they're here....and their very presence is indicative of Atari-8 ingenuity.

 

Because.....there was no European Apple 2 market (think vastly overpriced like in US and triple that for Europe). As you can see the most C64ers jealous of the A8 here are from the UK, tape users. I mean, Apple 2 users wouldn't be seen dead using a....cassette...you gotta be kidding.

But there you have it, in UK it was Spectrum + tape, C64 + tape, some fdd, Amstrad + tape....in Germany they had C64 + fdd, A8 + fdd, Schneider....and France had their own Thompson computers, and that was that, sorry no Apple 2 popularity in Europe.

Edited October 5, 2009 by frenchman

[atarian63]

No so bad looking but this is c64 1988

 

Lemon64 says "Bionic Commando, the USA version is not only bad, but a steaming pile of dog crap."

[atarian63]

MMM MMM MMM very impressive c64 1988 as well! Sheesh!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdDKo9rmwKw

Edited October 5, 2009 by atarian63

[atarian63]

 

Which brings up an interesting point: Why is the Atari such a target of rabid, delirious Commodore users, and the Apple II is not? I mean, the Atari was cheaper, and DEFINITELY more capable architecture. It would seem the Apple II should *really* be subject to the ire of C= users. It pales in comparison to C64 compared to how the A8 measures up. I think the fact that wacko Commies flock to this forum to argue (and somehow feel better about themselves, as if THEY created the C64 by merely being one out of 17 MILLION) should seek out the vastly inferior and vastly overpriced Apple II. Oh, I guess they don't see it as a threat. Such a comparison would be ludicrous. But with the Atari it is not, the Atari is not definitely inferior (despite its pre-dating the categorically primative Vic-20), and the fact that the Atari can hold a candle seems to burn the ass of a few Commodore users - hence the rivalry. I should think any rabid Commodore aficionado worth his salt would go after the bigger dog and the easier fight....Apple. The fact that they are here trying to make you burn your Atari speaks volumes about your Atari by virtue of the fact that THEY are here. It does contend! Rabid, overzealous C= users coming here to attempt to shit on your Atari is - by its very nature - a salute to the Atari architecture and the "threat" (note the quotes) that it presents to C= superiority. If that wasn't the case, they'd be off hassling Apple users....but they're not....they're here....and their very presence is indicative of Atari-8 ingenuity.

 

Because.....there was no European Apple 2 market. As you can see the most C64ers jealous of the A8 here are from the UK, tape users. I mean, Apple 2 users wouldn't be seen dead using a....cassette...you gotta be kidding.

But there you have it, in UK it was Spectrum + tape, C64 + tape, some fdd, Amstrad + tape....in Germany they had C64 + fdd, A8 = fdd, Schneider....and France had their own Thompson computers, and that was that, sorry no Apple 2 popularity in Europe.

They were probably wise enough there not to pay that extreme amount for such a graphically lesser computer.

[PeteD]

Realistically there's not that much "targeting" going on here. There's Rockford posting comparison pics and that tends to just end in some banter then there's a few of us here on the more technical side who came to learn A8 but won't have the wool pulled over our eyes by people touting incorrect info or misconceptions. There are admittedly on occasions other "visitors" who tend to get a bit out of order for no apparent reason.

 

When arguments start over hardware and not just software it tends to be because someone claims one thing is a better way of doing something, eg taller but thinner/mono PMGs over shorter but wider and multicolour "sprites". There's no attack on the A8 meant, just on people's belief that ONLY the way that Atari does it is the best method. To me that's more overzealous A8 people than C64 people, refusing to budge an inch and at least say, "ok, in situation X C64 sprites are better". That's even been happening to a degree just over the last week or so which makes a refreshing change. I think some overly defensive A8 people have realised us "non A8" intruders aren't ALL here to say the A8 is inferior. Hell, I don't even own a C64 but I just bought a 65XE to test code on but I'll still argue in favour of the C64 if A8 people are seemingly claiming their hardware is better just for the hell of it. Maybe they believe it, in which case sometimes people learn more about other hardware in this thread than just guessing what it's capable of. Maybe they just prefer say POKEY to SID, that's absolutely fine to most of us "Rabid" folk but there's no need for them to say "SID IS SHIT!" outright, no technical reasoning behind it, seemingly just it's not A8, it's not good.

 

 

Pete

[PeteD]

MMM MMM MMM very impressive c64 1988 as well! Sheesh!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdDKo9rmwKw

 

 

ROFL that's magnificent

[PeteD]

No so bad looking but this is c64 1988

 

Lemon64 says "Bionic Commando, the USA version is not only bad, but a steaming pile of dog crap."

 

Yeah, pesky American coders The UK produced version was much better

 

 

Pete

[atarian63]

MMM MMM MMM very impressive c64 1988 as well! Sheesh!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdDKo9rmwKw

 

 

ROFL that's magnificent

Yeah, that's what is so silly here, both sides have some really pathetic examples

[atarian63]

Realistically there's not that much "targeting" going on here. There's Rockford posting comparison pics and that tends to just end in some banter then there's a few of us here on the more technical side who came to learn A8 but won't have the wool pulled over our eyes by people touting incorrect info or misconceptions. There are admittedly on occasions other "visitors" who tend to get a bit out of order for no apparent reason.

 

When arguments start over hardware and not just software it tends to be because someone claims one thing is a better way of doing something, eg taller but thinner/mono PMGs over shorter but wider and multicolour "sprites". There's no attack on the A8 meant, just on people's belief that ONLY the way that Atari does it is the best method. To me that's more overzealous A8 people than C64 people, refusing to budge an inch and at least say, "ok, in situation X C64 sprites are better". That's even been happening to a degree just over the last week or so which makes a refreshing change. I think some overly defensive A8 people have realised us "non A8" intruders aren't ALL here to say the A8 is inferior. Hell, I don't even own a C64 but I just bought a 65XE to test code on but I'll still argue in favour of the C64 if A8 people are seemingly claiming their hardware is better just for the hell of it. Maybe they believe it, in which case sometimes people learn more about other hardware in this thread than just guessing what it's capable of. Maybe they just prefer say POKEY to SID, that's absolutely fine to most of us "Rabid" folk but there's no need for them to say "SID IS SHIT!" outright, no technical reasoning behind it, seemingly just it's not A8, it's not good.

 

 

Pete

Actually having the c64 folks (most of them) around has made things more interesting. Also we A8'rs secretly want more games and hope to get some from you all! Overall it's been fun!

[Bryan]

The C64 doesn't do this. The pixel clock timing alternates every scan line, which doubles it's color resolution. This is why artifacting does not occur on that machine with an NTSC signal.

 

A couple quick points...

 

Early VICII's don't alternate the color phase on each line, but you still can't get Atari-style artifacting because the pixel clock is not a simple multiple of the NTSC color frequency. The 64's clock is slightly faster which is why the left and right borders are larger (screen is narrower) than on the Atari. Anyway, on the 64, an on-off pixel pattern won't make the nice 3.579MHz oscillation you need for artifacting to work.

[+wood_jl]

ONLY the way that Atari does it is the best method. To me that's more overzealous A8 people than C64 people, refusing to budge an inch and at least say, "ok, in situation X C64 sprites are better". That's even been happening to a degree just over the last week or so which makes a refreshing change. I think some overly defensive A8 people have realised us "non A8" intruders aren't ALL here to say the A8 is inferior. Hell, I don't even own a C64 but I just bought a 65XE to test code on but I'll still argue in favour of the C64 if A8 people are seemingly claiming their hardware is better just for the hell of it.

 

I absolutely read you. I come from the other end - years of "hatred" (strong word, not for real) for the C64 (and Commodore stuff in general) and now that 8-bit systems are relics (etc etc) I've come to APPRECIATE how similar the C64 *IS* to A8....in the year 2009. If I run into some games that are better than the A8 counterpart, or - what's more - 8-bit games that *never* saw the light of day on A8 - I'm perfectly pleased! The fact that I can now run SD cards and can claim to have never having owned the DOGSHIT that was purported to be 1541 - all the while reaping the strengths of the C64 platform (thank-you, 1541 Ultimate) brought me into the C= camp. I love all this 8-bit stuff. I even got a Vic-20 since the "Mega-cart" came out, and it's up there in my favorite retro systems....I love it, much as I appreciate the C64 now. I just don't get this "us vs. them" mentality as it isn't 1984 anymore. I should think that 8-bit enthusiasts should have much appreciation to share...particularly in 2009. It seems, however, that some can't move on....and can only make themselves feel better by trashing the opposite brand......AS IF (1) they had anything to do with it (or anything) and (2) these companies were still in business!!! HA HA! They're not, YOU (Not you Pete, just "you" in general) didn't invent a damn thing, so relax and each to his own!

[TMR]

Lemon64 says "Bionic Commando, the USA version is not only bad, but a steaming pile of dog crap."

 

Yeah, pesky American coders The UK produced version was much better

 

Shh, don't tell frenchman that, he probably hasn't noticed that for some genres the Americans had to get UK dev teams to write their games for them. =-)

[frenchman]

Actually Retro Gamer had a feature on UK/USA comparisons where the (same) games were develeoped by two different companies. It's a UK magazine btw.

 

I still prefer the Activision (USA) version of Aliens than the Electric Dreams (UK) version. As for Bionic Commando, only played it on NES, so I cannot compare UK/US versions of the C64 game.

 

Also, many UK coders already programmed for US software houses during the 80s or even founded them, ever heard of Lord British?

Edited October 6, 2009 by frenchman