Atari v Commodore

[Bryan]

It's cool how forward-thinking the A8 engineers were in this regard. Atari didn't invent these things, but they did consider how to eliminate problems for the user. Ever try to connect two 1541's to the C64?

 

[Looks at two 1541s and a 1581 connected to his C64] Erm yeah, easy enough...?

How did you do it? Did you take two 1541's out of the box and flip a little switch in the back to make one of them drive 2 and then plug them in?

 

I had a buddy who had 2 1541's and he always kept the 2nd one off because of the procedure needed to "soft-assign" device 9. All the 1541's problems were fixable, but I think C= really botched it.

 

All drives were shipped from the factory as device #8, with no

jumpers cut. The jumpers, by the way, are two tiny silver half-circles

with a "dash" in the center. They resemble a fat letter H. To open a

jumper, cut the dash with a sharp knife. If you accidently cut the wrong

one, you can apply a blob of solder to re-connect the two half-circles, or

just lay a small bit of wire across it and solder it. Don't heat it for

more than a few seconds or you will lift the trace off the board. Jumpers

are usually marked 1 (or A) and 2 (or B). To change the device number from

the factory setting of #8 to device #9, cut the jumper marked 1 or A. For

device 10, cut the one marked 2 or B. If you cut both jumpers, you have

device 11.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Bryan

[Wrathchild]

That kinda reminds me... I don't recall my 1010 tape deck needing an Azimuth Head Alignment Kit... just a few replacement 'play' buttons

Edited December 4, 2008 by Wrathchild

[Oswald]

As I stated, "If you know your code." Another way to put it is that code must be aligned on boundaries so when IRQ hits, it's not in the middle of the instruction.

Spoken like a true 2600 programmer.

 

true bullshit indeed. defeats the whole purpose of having an interrupt and a main code which should be able to do something useful apart from synching itself to the irq. which is I doubt is possible other then some dumb loops synched to the irq, and why would you want an irq and a "main" program when both of them is synched to the same event anyway. you can rather just busy wait to some event then.

[Oswald]

How did you do it? Did you take two 1541's out of the box and flip a little switch in the back to make one of them drive 2 and then plug them in?

 

I had a buddy who had 2 1541's and he always kept the 2nd one off because of the procedure needed to "soft-assign" device 9. All the 1541's problems were fixable, but I think C= really botched it.

 

the 1541 went trough numerous disasters in its design phase. the smallest problems of all was inconvinient the device nr setup.

[Garak]

How did you do it? Did you take two 1541's out of the box and flip a little switch in the back to make one of them drive 2 and then plug them in?

 

Can't speak for TMR, but all I did was plug my devices in out-of-box. Didn't have to open any of them up first nor use a software method to change device numbers. All I needed to do was flip a switch on the back of some of them - which I might add isn't a terribly hard thing to do.

 

That kinda reminds me... I don't recall my 1010 tape deck needing an Azimuth Head Alignment Kit... just a few replacement 'play' buttons

 

I have a Commodore 'Datasette' I used since the early 80's. I never needed an Azimuth Head Alignment kit either.

 

Garak

[FastRobPlus]

If anything, Atari could probably lay more claim to Plug & Play than it could ever hope to for USB (SIO devices downloading drivers, XL/XE PBI protocols etc).

It's cool how forward-thinking the A8 engineers were in this regard. Atari didn't invent these things, but they did consider how to eliminate problems for the user. Ever try to connect two 1541's to the C64?

 

yeah, they can copy a whole disk without any c64 interaction. great stuff

 

 

I'm gonna call this an urban legend. Not the bit about copying without C64 interaction. The part about two 1541 drives both staying in alignment long enough to copy a disk.

[Oswald]

If anything, Atari could probably lay more claim to Plug & Play than it could ever hope to for USB (SIO devices downloading drivers, XL/XE PBI protocols etc).

It's cool how forward-thinking the A8 engineers were in this regard. Atari didn't invent these things, but they did consider how to eliminate problems for the user. Ever try to connect two 1541's to the C64?

 

yeah, they can copy a whole disk without any c64 interaction. great stuff

 

 

I'm gonna call this an urban legend. Not the bit about copying without C64 interaction. The part about two 1541 drives both staying in alignment long enough to copy a disk.

 

I have never saw or heard about a disaligned drive only of datasettes so I'm gonna call yours an urban legend.

[Bryan]

How did you do it? Did you take two 1541's out of the box and flip a little switch in the back to make one of them drive 2 and then plug them in?

 

Can't speak for TMR, but all I did was plug my devices in out-of-box. Didn't have to open any of them up first nor use a software method to change device numbers. All I needed to do was flip a switch on the back of some of them - which I might add isn't a terribly hard thing to do.

 

What were these "devices"? 1541's?

 

I miss my 810's that sounded like someone was breaking down the door.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Bryan

[emkay]

sure...but claim was using timer IRQs instead of WSYNC. And to get cycle exact sync without WSYNC...

 

This thoughts are still wrong as any other try of doing it like C64...

 

Why do this thoughts always come to the mind of an A8 coder, heaven?

Why not simply assure that this feature is a fine solutiion on the A8, making many things easy?

 

It's like the first picture you see on in Graph2 font.... A C64 conversion... sometimes I'm getting speechless.... really...

Edited December 4, 2008 by emkay

[Garak]

What were these "devices"? 1541's?

 

Two are, yes: 1541C and 1541-II. The third is a FD-2000 (A 1581 compatible drive).

 

Garak

[Bryan]

It would be interesting to map everyone's relative position and what they're hoping to express in these debates.

[Bryan]

What were these "devices"? 1541's?

 

Two are, yes: 1541C and 1541-II. The third is a FD-2000 (A 1581 compatible drive).

 

Garak

Well, I would consider that a "no." I know they eventually fixed it, but the 1541-C came out in 1986, and the II was after that.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Bryan

[Oswald]

What were these "devices"? 1541's?

 

Two are, yes: 1541C and 1541-II. The third is a FD-2000 (A 1581 compatible drive).

 

Garak

Well, I would consider that a "no." I know they eventually fixed it, but the 1541-C came out in 1986, and the II was after that.

 

its ammusing how the atari fans all had a c64/128 and know everything even about the drives. why so if the a8 was so much better ?

[Garak]

Well, I would consider that a "no." I know they eventually fixed it, but the 1541-C came out in 1986, and the II was after that.

 

"No" to what? They aren't 1541 drives? Of course they are. If we're going to split hairs like that then even the originally introduced 1541's aren't 1541's since there were variations in board design and drive mechanisms from early on (before the C and II variants were released).

 

Garak

[Bryan]

Well, I would consider that a "no." I know they eventually fixed it, but the 1541-C came out in 1986, and the II was after that.

 

"No" to what? They aren't 1541 drives? Of course they are. If we're going to split hairs like that then even the originally introduced 1541's aren't 1541's since there were variations in board design and drive mechanisms from early on (before the C and II variants were released).

 

Garak

You're simply exploiting the fact that I was a little vague (which is because I don't have a gallery of C= drives sitting in front of me).

 

I brought up that the 1541 was unfriendly because you had to modify it to make it drive 2. You're saying, "Ah Ha! Commodore called more than one drive by the 1541 moniker!! - Gotcha!"

 

It's true, in 1986 (four years later, in the 16-bit era) a new drive (the 1541-C) fixed the problem. Although it was a totally new design, we're only having this discussion because Commodore didn't call the new drive the 1542.

 

So, to clarify, my point was: the drive model called "1541", which was manufactured for 4 years and had several revisions (I own ones with two different drive mechs), had some really annoying problems. I only made that point in reference to what I though was some nice human engineering on Atari's part, several years earlier.

[FastRobPlus]

If anything, Atari could probably lay more claim to Plug & Play than it could ever hope to for USB (SIO devices downloading drivers, XL/XE PBI protocols etc).

It's cool how forward-thinking the A8 engineers were in this regard. Atari didn't invent these things, but they did consider how to eliminate problems for the user. Ever try to connect two 1541's to the C64?

 

yeah, they can copy a whole disk without any c64 interaction. great stuff

 

 

I'm gonna call this an urban legend. Not the bit about copying without C64 interaction. The part about two 1541 drives both staying in alignment long enough to copy a disk.

 

I have never saw or heard about a disaligned drive only of datasettes so I'm gonna call yours an urban legend.

 

Wikipedia is your friend:

 

Excerpt:

The drive head misalignment issue

The drive-head mechanism was notoriously easy to misalign, and had a tendency to make a 'machine-gun' rattle when out of alignment or when formatting a new disk. Some people even wrote code to vibrate the head at different frequencies to play simple tunes such as Daisy Bell, Amazing Grace, and, perhaps most appropriately, When I'm Sixty-Four. The most common cause of the 1541's drive head knocking and subsequent misalignment, however, was copy protection schemes on commercial software.

[Bryan]

What's interesting is that the early 810's had no track 0 sensor either. (MPI mech?)

[Oswald]

Wikipedia is your friend:

 

me and my friends probably had an updated drive-head mechanism.

 

google is my friend:

 

==> Atari 1050

 

"You've been plugging and unplugging the SIO cable with the 1050 power pack

plugged in, right? That's a no-no. Most of the time it's Okay, but about 1

in 10, 20 times, it will blow out 'U-1'. It's a CA/LM 3086 I.C. at the right,

rear of the main board. A 14 pin DIL chip."

 

==> Atari XF551

 

Rotaton rate: 300RPM. Since all other Atari-specific drives run at 288RPM,

this results in rare compatibility issues. Specifically, these commercial

disks do not load in, and can be damaged by, the XF551:

[Oswald]

You're simply exploiting the fact that I was a little vague (which is because I don't have a gallery of C= drives sitting in front of me).

 

perfectly suitable against ppl arguing a8 came in 1978, but when it comes to tech specs, they use a 5 year later modell as a basis.

[Garak]

You're simply exploiting the fact that I was a little vague (which is because I don't have a gallery of C= drives sitting in front of me).

 

I brought up that the 1541 was unfriendly because you had to modify it to make it drive 2. You're saying, "Ah Ha! Commodore called more than one drive by the 1541 moniker!! - Gotcha!"

 

Well, you were vague, which is why I asked what you were saying "no" to. For all I know you could have been saying "no" to the 1541C/II's being not of the drive line or about their ease of use which was being discussed earlier. However, to respond to your post I did make an assumption of what your "no" was about and went with the former (hey, this is a debate thread after all. )

 

It's true, in 1986 (four years later, in the 16-bit era) a new drive (the 1541-C) fixed the problem. Although it was a totally new design, we're only having this discussion because Commodore didn't call the new drive the 1542.

 

Ah, but the 1541C don't have any switches on the back of it either (granted, a few might for all I know. The ones I've seen don't). The 1541-II does though.

 

So, to clarify, my point was: the drive model called "1541", which was manufactured for 4 years and had several revisions (I own ones with two different drive mechs), had some really annoying problems. I only made that point in reference to what I though was some nice human engineering on Atari's part, several years earlier.

 

I will agree that the lack of switches on the original 1541s was a silly decision. But then Tramiel wasn't known for being, uh, cost cutting, for no reason. Also, the earliest 1541s were easier to get out of alignment I will also agree about (still talking pre-C/II here).

 

I know people who had/still have the first 1541's out and really they've had no complaints about still using them.

 

Garak

[Bryan]

Wikipedia is your friend:

 

me and my friends probably had an updated drive-head mechanism.

 

google is my friend:

 

==> Atari 1050

 

"You've been plugging and unplugging the SIO cable with the 1050 power pack

plugged in, right? That's a no-no. Most of the time it's Okay, but about 1

in 10, 20 times, it will blow out 'U-1'. It's a CA/LM 3086 I.C. at the right,

rear of the main board. A 14 pin DIL chip."

It's true you're not supposed to plug/unplug with the power on, but I've never had a failure from it (although the quote says "power pack plugged in" which is strange).

 

==> Atari XF551

 

Rotaton rate: 300RPM. Since all other Atari-specific drives run at 288RPM,

this results in rare compatibility issues. Specifically, these commercial

disks do not load in, and can be damaged by, the XF551:

There are a handful of games that rely on sector spacing (ms timing) for their copy protection and they fail on the XF-551. I've never seen a damaged disk unless it formatted itself as a pirate-busting move. The main problem with the XF-551 was the weak traces at the SIO ports that would break when plugging/unplugging cables.

 

I like mine, but this drive was a Jack-T special.

[Fröhn]

I wasn't talking about how GTIA generates color. I was talking about how it generates pixel data.

 

The Atari can change the color at the 160 rate. It can change the luminance at the 320 rate and does so by expressing sequences of PF1 of PF2 lum bits on opposite phases of the pixel clock. He asked if the color could change at that rate and I said no, because it can't. Internally, GTIA clocks pixels at the 160 rate.

When it comes to that: With PM underlays you can change the chrominance at 320 rate (like C64). But ofcourse no display device will be able to display that.

 

NTSC programmers use the term "color clock" to represent a Mode E pixel since they're the same size. It avoids confusion unless you're talking to PAL programmers who have separate pixel and color clocks.

 

So, you can usually substitute '160-pixel' for 'color clock'.

No you can't since only NTSC systems have 1 mode E pixel = 1 color clock. On PAL 1 mode E pixel is 1.25 color clock.

 

[Looks at two 1541s and a 1581 connected to his C64] Erm yeah, easy enough...?

How did you do it? Did you take two 1541's out of the box and flip a little switch in the back to make one of them drive 2 and then plug them in?

Yes exactly. There are two DIP switches on the back of the 1541 to select one of four device numbers. Just like on Atari drives.

 

I had a buddy who had 2 1541's and he always kept the 2nd one off because of the procedure needed to "soft-assign" device 9. All the 1541's problems were fixable, but I think C= really botched it.

Your buddy should have read the manual.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Fröhn

[Bryan]

You're simply exploiting the fact that I was a little vague (which is because I don't have a gallery of C= drives sitting in front of me).

 

perfectly suitable against ppl arguing a8 came in 1978, but when it comes to tech specs, they use a 5 year later modell as a basis.

I don't argue that way.

 

Here's my position:

 

The 800 had the best abilities from 79-82. The 64 was more bang for the buck and had more capable hardware, although I feel it was a little rough around the edges. The 64 was the best choice until the ST/Amiga days (82-85).

 

Atari began to lose focus and engineers and the 1200XL was a serious mis-step.

 

The Atari 800XL was a good value and had a good software library, but probably wasn't the best choice for a first-time buyer.

 

I hate the design of the XE's.

 

In my opinion, it makes both machines leaders but at different times.

 

 

As a caveat, I think the Atari has an unusual range of capabilities and you can squeeze more out of it with clever programming than with most systems which makes it fun for those who like cycle-counting and whatnot.

 

I also think Atari fans are nuts if they think everything can be done in high-res with 256 colors if only someone would code it. However, I'm all for trying everything and seeing what works.

 

I also (also) think that the Atari 800 never got the respect it deserved for being such a powerful and well-crafted machine (mostly due to Atari's bungling of it), so maybe I code the A8 for chivalrous reasons. The 64 is pretty well respected the world over.

 

-Bry

[Tezz]

wow it didn't take long for this thread to decend again. A lot of posts today. Hopefully the entire A8 forum here is not totally taken up by one thread of arguments.

 

The point written about G2F being some new revolutionary technique born from the latest cross platform tools is not right at all. It's far from anything new. I was doing this manually in the eighties normally working it out on paper, ok not to such a degree but not for the want of trying. There were earlier native tools too like GED around and we did create something to a lesser degree. What is true is that there was no complete user friendly tool (native or cross) that went to the level of G2F to facilitate the procedure which is a big shame. The PC tool that Tebe has created (and is continuing to develop) is great, having a utility like that separating the technicalities from the creativity means that you are not stifled. So yes it is a valid point to a degree that you can probably achieve more now with this modern tool, however that is still subjective and it was done back in the day. Archer Maclean used the technique in International Karate for example.

[Oswald]

You're simply exploiting the fact that I was a little vague (which is because I don't have a gallery of C= drives sitting in front of me).

 

perfectly suitable against ppl arguing a8 came in 1978, but when it comes to tech specs, they use a 5 year later modell as a basis.

I don't argue that way.

 

Here's my position:

 

The 800 had the best abilities from 79-82. The 64 was more bang for the buck and had more capable hardware, although I feel it was a little rough around the edges. The 64 was the best choice until the ST/Amiga days (82-85).

 

Atari began to lose focus and engineers and the 1200XL was a serious mis-step.

 

The Atari 800XL was a good value and had a good software library, but probably wasn't the best choice for a first-time buyer.

 

I hate the design of the XE's.

 

In my opinion, it makes both machines leaders but at different times.

 

 

As a caveat, I think the Atari has an unusual range of capabilities and you can squeeze more out of it with clever programming than with most systems which makes it fun for those who like cycle-counting and whatnot.

 

I also think Atari fans are nuts if they think everything can be done in high-res with 256 colors if only someone would code it. However, I'm all for trying everything and seeing what works.

 

I also (also) think that the Atari 800 never got the respect it deserved for being such a powerful and well-crafted machine (mostly due to Atari's bungling of it), so maybe I code the A8 for chivalrous reasons. The 64 is pretty well respected the world over.

 

-Bry

 

damn. all I can do is agree.