Atari v Commodore

[Goochman]

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?

 

I could be wrong here but LB lived in Texas during his programming career and might have grown up there - He is technically English but I wouldnt count him as a born and bred UK developer who started Origin for US games.

[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?

 

I could be wrong here but LB lived in Texas during his programming career and might have grown up there - He is technically English but I wouldnt count him as a born and bred UK developer who started Origin for US games.

 

Well he wasn't. He only started coding in US. Still British though.

[potatohead]

@Bryan -- thanks for the info. Did later VICII's alternate, or is that just the pixel clock difference? I seem to remember my old C64 alternating. You probably caught me on that before. I'm not gonna go dig through and look. Did learn plenty since then however

 

Just the pixel clock being different, will significantly improve color rendering. I was toying with that last week. Some clocks work very well, others shimmer.

 

The point I was trying to hammer home absolutely clear is the Atari being a 160 pixel @ 40Byte DMA color machine. That keeps coming up somehow, and it bugs me because the signal is one of the better attributes of the C64. I liked it then, and I like it now.

[potatohead]

@wood_jl: Totally! Looking back on some Apple titles reveals they are fugly!! Others hold up pretty well. ROBOTRON, of all games, holds up very well. Some, like CHOPLIFTER, DROL, are still decent to me. There is a feel to the Apple versions of these that I really like. Has to do with the all bitmap graphics and the variable speed the games will run at, depending on what is going on. Edit: It's quite the trick to keep an Apple game well balanced too. There is no time reference. You can see this in some games where the action requirements change, so does the pitch, movement, everything. It's like turning a speed wheel up and down!

 

But, if a workstation is what you wanted, the Apple 8 bitter was it. Slots, good 80 Column display, on the later models, Double High Res graphics were serviceable too. For programming / hacking, there was just a ton of stuff to work with.

 

I couldn't agree more about the Ataris punching well above their weight, given when they were made. In the end, the two machines are very similar, each with a little of this and that. Had the two been combined, with slots back then? Killer!

Edited October 6, 2009 by potatohead

[atarian63]

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!

It's really easy to understand brand loyalty! It like football teams or cars. Mine is great and yours sucks till the day we die! Fan ism is all around us everyday. People love to fight and argue. It's just the way the majority of people are.

My example would be I would never own, drive or ride in a japanese car

OR

I really dislike Ohio state football and that crappy university.(I attended for a time I know) So I have fun irritating the crazies here in Columbus Ohio( I graduated from University of South Florida)

Edited October 6, 2009 by atarian63

[TMR]

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.

 

Yes, i know it's a UK magazine... i've been writing for them since issue 51, it's sort of hard to avoid noticing after about eighteen months. =-)

 

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.

 

The American coders made a total and utter hash of things with Bionic Commando and for some bizarre reason, the same team was let loose on Side Arms too and that was equally shite, but since it ran on PAL we ended up with it in the UK rather than a locally developed version.

 

In almost every case where there are PAL and NTSC versions of a game, either the PAL one is better or the NTSC version was written by a British coder.

 

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

 

Well yeah, but most people think of him as American because he was born here but raised there... his dad was an astronaut an' everything! =-)

[TMR]

It's really easy to understand brand loyalty! It like football teams or cars. Mine is great and yours sucks till the day we die! Fan ism is all around us everyday. People love to fight and argue. It's just the way the majority of people are.

 

[scratches head] That's the thing... i'm not particuarly brand loyal as such, i've owned, programmed for and sold both Atari and Commodore kit over the years and, whilst i preferred the latter, it doesn't preclude me having an interest in any other platforms. i don't hate the A8 in the slightest (if i did, it'd be incredibly hard to explain all the code i've written and time spent playing games), i just like the C64 more and personally believe it's the more rounded machine overall... but you try having that opinion round these parts.

[atariksi]

It's really easy to understand brand loyalty! It like football teams or cars. Mine is great and yours sucks till the day we die! Fan ism is all around us everyday. People love to fight and argue. It's just the way the majority of people are.

 

[scratches head] That's the thing... i'm not particuarly brand loyal as such, i've owned, programmed for and sold both Atari and Commodore kit over the years and, whilst i preferred the latter, it doesn't preclude me having an interest in any other platforms. i don't hate the A8 in the slightest (if i did, it'd be incredibly hard to explain all the code i've written and time spent playing games), i just like the C64 more and personally believe it's the more rounded machine overall... but you try having that opinion round these parts.

 

It's more rounded physically on the corners compared to Atari 800, but that's not important really. I think people who want the better computer would want a more rounded machine technically (hardware-wise) like Atari 400/800/XL/XE:

 

1. CPU Freq 1.78979Mhz

2. Rock solid timing and more accurate (No indeterminate signals to throw off cycle-exactness)

3. Easy overscanning

4. LMS -- easy to access more video memory, mirror images, repeat scanlines, etc.

5. VScroll/HScroll on per scanline basis (8-dir scrolling windows)

6. More priorities and playfields (and GPRIOR mode 0 mostly unexplored)

7. Linear and easy to use high color depth modes (GTIA)

8. Fast keyboard reading

9. Faster joystick I/O and SIO I/O (16-bit reads/writes)

10. Display lists w/various modes (use by themselves or for speeding up screen updates)

11. WSYNC for easier to start writing cycle-exact code

12. DLIs (more optimal than raster IRQs)

13. BOOT Up to cassette files or disk files (without user intervention)

14. A lot more collision detection combinations (60-bits)

15. 4 DACs w/more accurate sampling rate (lower latency)

16. Better interlace (due to more shades to reduce flicker)

17. More colors/shades (bigger palette)

18. Horizontal re-use of hardware registers (much easier)

[atariksi]

@Bryan -- thanks for the info. Did later VICII's alternate, or is that just the pixel clock difference? I seem to remember my old C64 alternating. You probably caught me on that before. I'm not gonna go dig through and look. Did learn plenty since then however

 

Just the pixel clock being different, will significantly improve color rendering. I was toying with that last week. Some clocks work very well, others shimmer.

 

The point I was trying to hammer home absolutely clear is the Atari being a 160 pixel @ 40Byte DMA color machine. That keeps coming up somehow, and it bugs me because the signal is one of the better attributes of the C64. I liked it then, and I like it now.

 

If you do overscan, it's 48Bytes of DMA for the graphics data. Anyway, when my C64 was working it was having problems with the different colors on consecutive pixels or retaining the colors while scrolling in 1/320 of screen width amount. Here's an article that claims TV resolution is the limiting factor:

 

http://www.atariarchives.org/c1bag/page203.php

[potatohead]

@Bryan -- thanks for the info. Did later VICII's alternate, or is that just the pixel clock difference? I seem to remember my old C64 alternating. You probably caught me on that before. I'm not gonna go dig through and look. Did learn plenty since then however

 

Just the pixel clock being different, will significantly improve color rendering. I was toying with that last week. Some clocks work very well, others shimmer.

 

The point I was trying to hammer home absolutely clear is the Atari being a 160 pixel @ 40Byte DMA color machine. That keeps coming up somehow, and it bugs me because the signal is one of the better attributes of the C64. I liked it then, and I like it now.

 

If you do overscan, it's 48Bytes of DMA for the graphics data. Anyway, when my C64 was working it was having problems with the different colors on consecutive pixels or retaining the colors while scrolling in 1/320 of screen width amount. Here's an article that claims TV resolution is the limiting factor:

 

http://www.atariarchives.org/c1bag/page203.php

 

Overscan / underscan ie: DMA setting has no impact on this discussion. The reality is the Atari machines cannot address color at 320 pixel resolution, in 40 byte DMA. The only reason I'm referencing the DMA number is for the sake of discussion. Changing the DMA means using more or less of the screen, but it does not change the pixel / color addressing capability of the machine.

 

Bryan mentioned early VIC II chips did not alternate the color phase. On a composite display, those would have shown some color changes on a smooth scroll. On an S-video type display, those color changes would be marginal at best.

 

My point remains the C64 addresses all pixels the same, color or monochrome, and that resolution is 320 pixels. The Atari machines cannot address color at that resolution, only 1/2 that resolution.

 

The article you cite states that the horizontal resolution limit of a TV is about 160 points. This is true for a non-color interlaced signal. In Atari land, this is 160 pixels. In TI land, this is 256 pixels, and in Apple land it's 140 pixels. The TI developers overdrove the chroma a little bit, meaning most colors display well, while others won't display so well. The TI, by the way, has 256 pixel color resolution, because it can address 256 colored pixels, and if I recall, there are no differences between monochrome pixels and color ones.

 

Two issues here: One is the display device. If you look at the screenies in my blog, display devices have come a long way from the 80's, where very few TV's would actually render a good signal well. IMHO, the Atari resolution was realistic. Many people purchased color monitors to get better visuals than your average TV would provide. Those screen captures are from an ordinary composite signal. Clearly, more than 160 pixels are possible, with color interlacing these days, where it was highly likely not to be the case then. Let's be clear that the intended resolution of a machine is not determined by the display device used with it. These are different things.

 

The other issue is the intended resolution of the machine. Quite simply, that intended resolution for Ataris is one half that intended for C64. 160 vs 320 This is an artifact of the design choices each team employed, having nothing to do with the display used to render the product of that design.

 

What a person actually gets then is a function of how much they want to invest in a display. These days, displays that can render 320 color pixels are cheap!! Back then, they were harder to find and expensive, which is why C= sold nice monitors. Their machine would take good advantage of them.

 

There isn't a whole lot more to this.

 

No "mine had trouble", or "TV's won't do it", or "with overscan Ataris do blah...", or "tiny color pixel artifacts = addressable pixels", or "TV displays render the difference moot", etc...

 

It's just half; namely, the Atari being half the C64.

 

This is not a big deal. It just is.

 

I'll bet a dollar you can't say it. HALF. Come on, say it! HALF.

 

(See Barnacle? Works both ways

Edited October 6, 2009 by potatohead

[potatohead]

BTW: That article brought back some good memories exploring artifacting on my 400 as a high schooler. At the time, I had a modified color TV that would display a full frame, much like many PC capture cards would today. It had a comb filter, and when well tuned, would resolve the color detail very well.

 

It was about that time I understood how the Apple did things, and thought it all kind of cool.

 

Later that year, I got a C64 and ran it on the same TV. It looked considerably better, didn't know why then, but I do now

 

I remember reading that book and totally enjoying it, and many other great COMPUTE! publications then. Good times.

Edited October 6, 2009 by potatohead

[Rybags]

 

Bryan mentioned early VIC II chips did not alternate the color phase.

 

I don't quite get this...

 

I didn't think NTSC did any such thing anyway... on PAL, you have to keep the Phase Alternation in step otherwise you get the wrong colours.

 

I think it was established that GTIA doesn't do Phase Alternation, it's supposedly done externally. It came up a bit when I was developing the Interlace (480i) mode... in some cases I'd get every second field with the wrong colours, and it was because I was sending too many Sync pulses which upset the even/odd, up/down relationship that a PAL TV expects.

[+save2600]

Wow - this is quite the thread. More info here than NASA ever needed to send monkeys into outer space! lol

 

Quick and overly simplistic 2009 observations since getting back into the 8-bits, having ditched them in the 80's:

 

C64: better screen resolution w/ varying modes, better collision detection, tighter gameplay, more discrete or apparent colours and MUCH better sound (thanks SID) - HORRIBLE load times, goofily shaped computer sits too high, superior keyboard with non-intuitive cursor control, cheaper feeling case, but superior PCB materials/design and excellent compatibility with software and peripherals.

 

Atari 8-bit: super quick load times, blocky/chunky graphics, good collision detection, universal<>familiar & generic looking character font/number/scoring graphics (letters and numbers), mediocre (but again, familiar) sound that is adequate, superior case and plastic material design (not talking PCB), horrible compatibility (hardware, but especially software) within its own family.

 

To my tastes, the Atari is "good enough" all the way around. But has always sort of seemed like a "poor mans" computing platform. More toy than computer. And what kind of computing r-tard ever needed audible key press beeps or blips? I dunno... I admire all the effort and diversity of the software available, but the universal fonts/numbers/screenmodes throughout all the games (either too large or too small for starters) and utilities have always seemed more cartoonish than arcade or professional like. Don't get me wrong, I love the 8-bit, it's a treat to use and enjoy, but overall; it does somehow feel inferior to the C64. Having said that, I abhor the C64's load times and as a result, will probably NOT be spending too much time revisiting it's catalogue. I'd love to though since I'm just breaking in this 1541 emulating SD card doo-dad and have a JiffyDOS chip on the way. 10x faster... gosh I surely hope so. You learn early on in school though that nothing times whatever is still nothing. lol I can literally play a full game of 'whatever' on my A8 as it takes to load a single game on the C64!

 

C64 had Sammy Lightfoot, but I can't seem to find an A8 version... does one exist? There's a handful of other C64 titles I can't think of now that did not have Atari equivalents either. Oh, and Kickman rocks on the C64 - the Atari version is predictably lame :-( lol

Edited October 6, 2009 by save2600

[atarian63]

Wow! C64 sure has come far by 1989!

Here is the high quality "Hard Drivin" for c64,circa 1989!Domark a UK company no less.

I think Atari 2600 could do better!

Edited October 6, 2009 by atarian63

[atarian63]

here is the youtube of c64 Hard Drivin circa 1989!

Check the guys funny commentary! So funny!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itieolBgV70

Edited October 6, 2009 by atarian63

[Rybags]

C64: better screen resolution w/ varying modes, better collision detection, tighter gameplay, more discrete or apparent colours and MUCH better sound (thanks SID) - HORRIBLE load times, goofily shaped computer sits too high, superior keyboard with non-intuitive cursor control, cheaper feeling case, but superior PCB materials/design and excellent compatibility with software and peripherals.

 

No.

 

Varying modes? It doesn't have many at all.

Better collison detection? It's so poor that many games don't bother using it.

Tighter gameplay? No.

More discreet/apparent colours? No. On an Atari, you could quite easily put all 256 colours within 3 or 4 scanlines, and display more than 16 colours within a character cell.

Superior keyboard? To the 400 and XEGS (feel) maybe, but that's about as far as it goes.

Superior PCB/materials? When compared to some XE models, but no way is it better than 400/800 or the XLs.

[atarian63]

Wow - this is quite the thread. More info here than NASA ever needed to send monkeys into outer space! lol

 

Quick and overly simplistic 2009 observations since getting back into the 8-bits, having ditched them in the 80's:

 

C64: better screen resolution w/ varying modes, better collision detection, tighter gameplay, more discrete or apparent colours and MUCH better sound (thanks SID) - HORRIBLE load times, goofily shaped computer sits too high, superior keyboard with non-intuitive cursor control, cheaper feeling case, but superior PCB materials/design and excellent compatibility with software and peripherals.

 

Atari 8-bit: super quick load times, blocky/chunky graphics, good collision detection, universal<>familiar & generic looking character font/number/scoring graphics (letters and numbers), mediocre (but again, familiar) sound that is adequate, superior case and plastic material design (not talking PCB), horrible compatibility (hardware, but especially software) within its own family.

 

To my tastes, the Atari is "good enough" all the way around. But has always sort of seemed like a "poor mans" computing platform. More toy than computer. And what kind of computing r-tard ever needed audible key press beeps or blips? I dunno... I admire all the effort and diversity of the software available, but the universal fonts/numbers/screenmodes throughout all the games (either too large or too small for starters) and utilities have always seemed more cartoonish than arcade or professional like. Don't get me wrong, I love the 8-bit, it's a treat to use and enjoy, but overall; it does somehow feel inferior to the C64. Having said that, I abhor the C64's load times and as a result, will probably NOT be spending too much time revisiting it's catalogue. I'd love to though since I'm just breaking in this 1541 emulating SD card doo-dad and have a JiffyDOS chip on the way. 10x faster... gosh I surely hope so. I can literally play a full game of 'whatever' on my A8 as it takes to load a single game on the C64. LOL!

 

C64 had Sammy Lightfoot, but I can't seem to find an A8 version... does one exist? There's a handful of other C64 titles I can't think of now that did not have Atari equivalents either. Oh, and Kickman rocks on the C64 - the Atari version is predictably lame :-( lol

That is hilarious, the c64 BECAME popular by being the poor man's computer. That's entirely how they did it.

[atariksi]

Wow - this is quite the thread. More info here than NASA ever needed to send monkeys into outer space! lol

 

Quick and overly simplistic 2009 observations since getting back into the 8-bits, having ditched them in the 80's:

 

C64: better screen resolution w/ varying modes, better collision detection, tighter gameplay, more discrete or apparent colours and MUCH better sound (thanks SID) - HORRIBLE load times, goofily shaped computer sits too high, superior keyboard with non-intuitive cursor control, cheaper feeling case, but superior PCB materials/design and excellent compatibility with software and peripherals.

 

Atari 8-bit: super quick load times, blocky/chunky graphics, good collision detection, universal<>familiar & generic looking character font/number/scoring graphics (letters and numbers), mediocre (but again, familiar) sound that is adequate, superior case and plastic material design (not talking PCB), horrible compatibility (hardware, but especially software) within its own family.

 

To my tastes, the Atari is "good enough" all the way around. But has always sort of seemed like a "poor mans" computing platform. More toy than computer. And what kind of computing r-tard ever needed audible key press beeps or blips? I dunno... I admire all the effort and diversity of the software available, but the universal fonts/numbers/screenmodes throughout all the games (either too large or too small for starters) and utilities have always seemed more cartoonish than arcade or professional like. Don't get me wrong, I love the 8-bit, it's a treat to use and enjoy, but overall; it does somehow feel inferior to the C64. Having said that, I abhor the C64's load times and as a result, will probably NOT be spending too much time revisiting it's catalogue. I'd love to though since I'm just breaking in this 1541 emulating SD card doo-dad and have a JiffyDOS chip on the way. 10x faster... gosh I surely hope so. I can literally play a full game of 'whatever' on my A8 as it takes to load a single game on the C64. LOL!

 

C64 had Sammy Lightfoot, but I can't seem to find an A8 version... does one exist? There's a handful of other C64 titles I can't think of now that did not have Atari equivalents either. Oh, and Kickman rocks on the C64 - the Atari version is predictably lame :-( lol

That is hilarious, the c64 BECAME popular by being the poor man's computer. That's entirely how they did it.

 

Exactly. Even Atari 400 w/membrane keyboard had mostly socketed chips and heavy metal shieldings and thus more expensive to build. He/she's probably been hanging around the C64 forums too long so picked up on some wrong and completely rubbish ideas about collision detection, compatibility, etc. C64 is NOT compatible with its older machines. A8 series are all compatible with each other on register level. Only on OS level there's some problems with applications bypassing the vectors for more speed. As I said, KB is slower to read, and as far as resolution goes most games don't use the 320*200 nor does 160*200 look blocky on TVs. And games can use 320*200 for scores or whatever if they wanted to. Probably been playing on emulators too long.

[potatohead]

On NTSC, it's optional. When it is done, even scans are in phase, odd scans are 180 degrees opposite phase. Both produce the same "color", but at a different location on the screen.

 

When viewed on a monochrome device, or on a PC capture card with good resolution, the non-interlaced, Atari style color, appears as vertical stripes. Interlaced color appears as a checkerboard, alternating each frame.

[potatohead]

Damn double post again.

 

Re: Key Click. High end 10K plus Silicon Graphics Workstations provided this option. I always kind of liked it, and on the 400, it made perfect sense given the coke proof keyboard.

Edited October 6, 2009 by potatohead

[+wood_jl]

Wow! C64 sure has come far by 1989!

Here is the high quality "Hard Drivin" for c64,circa 1989!Domark a UK company no less.

I think Atari 2600 could do better!

 

WOW!! This really shows off the POWER that is the C64.

 

C64 :!: shows it's seperiority :!: AGAIN!!!

[atarian63]

Wow! C64 sure has come far by 1989!

Here is the high quality "Hard Drivin" for c64,circa 1989!Domark a UK company no less.

I think Atari 2600 could do better!

 

WOW!! This really shows off the POWER that is the C64.

 

C64 :!: shows it's seperiority :!: AGAIN!!!

superiority,helps to spell correctly... inferiority maybe.

Edited October 6, 2009 by atarian63

[potatohead]

!!!! D00DS! a7aR1 R00lZ !!!!

[Allas]

Wow! C64 sure has come far by 1989!

Here is the high quality "Hard Drivin" for c64,circa 1989!Domark a UK company no less.

I think Atari 2600 could do better!

 

WOW!! This really shows off the POWER that is the C64.

 

C64 :!: shows it's seperiority :!: AGAIN!!!

 

 

Superiority?

Did you forget games is only a percent of the machine capatibilities?

How about the Utils, Aplications, Tools, Educatives, demos? ... On these topics map color and sprites are not relevant, instead the 128K and a fast processor is very welcomed.

 

C64 is a great computer, designed specifically for games. Have nice features for his time, but have some cons. Ohhhh... those cons, that's the main reason why Atari vs C64 topics exist.

[atariksi]

Wow! C64 sure has come far by 1989!

Here is the high quality "Hard Drivin" for c64,circa 1989!Domark a UK company no less.

I think Atari 2600 could do better!

 

WOW!! This really shows off the POWER that is the C64.

 

C64 :!: shows it's seperiority :!: AGAIN!!!

superiority,helps to spell correctly... inferiority maybe.

 

I think it was a joke. He was imitating Rockford who puts up thousand emotion icons for every sentence he writes.

 

Clearly, everyone prefers beautiful games (w/more colors/shades) and variety then same dull looking colors.