Atari v Commodore

[+SpiceWare]

Are Atari users secure enough in their love for Atari that they just stick to Atari Age and don't feel the need to cross over?

Lemon64 is a Commodore 64 only site, AtariAge is not an Atari 8-Bit only site

 

I came here because of the VCS. I happened to see this topic from the main Forum list, saw some erroneous info and was quickly attacked by rabid Atari fans for daring to correct it.

[TMR]

Is it because Atari users - being a smaller group (and fringe) don't have the numbers to do that? Is it that they don't care? Are Atari users secure enough in their love for Atari that they just stick to Atari Age and don't feel the need to cross over? I'm just very curious - as everyone should be - why there is the discrepancy?

 

Perhaps they're far less secure in their conviction than you believe them to be and feel the need to start topics like this one in a safe environment where they know what kind of response it'll get to somehow reassure themselves and each other from time to time...?

[frenchman]

I wonder what happened to 'stevelanc', I bet he was an insecure C64 user and turned into STE86, the unknowledgable C64 gamer

[frogstar_robot]

Obviously since we've been discussing 'computers' I opted to leave out the VCS and family since it would be clearly out-gunned in on-screen appearances when compared to the the Ultimax & Commodore-GS consoles

 

I hear 2600 Pac-Man and Donkey Kong sound effects used all over the places in movies and commercials. I suppose those noises must be included in stock collections of foley effects. They're probably described in generic terms like Video Game Bleeping #3 and those using them may not have any idea where they came from. Used that way they only get funnier over time because games have used predominantly digitized sound since the early 90s but older people who didn't play video games probably still think of "beeps and boops" in connection with video games.

[Albert]

I wonder what happened to 'stevelanc', I bet he was an insecure C64 user and turned into STE86, the unknowledgable C64 gamer

You are now banned from posting for a week.

 

Keep it coming and there will be nobody left to post in this thread!

 

..Al

[Rockford]

As always, you are wrong.

http://www.old-compu...r.asp?st=1&c=98

http://www.old-compu...r.asp?st=1&c=27

 

 

Forget this site. Informations were not exactly from the same time and false entrys are obvious.

The 800XL with FLOPPY was far more expensive than a C64 with a floppy in the middle of 1985. But to be fair, I bought the 800XL with a 1010 Recorder at a special pricing. The 1050 I bought some months later.

 

The 183 Euro equivalent is for the Atari 600, the 800 XL price is not listed on that site.

You are wrong again, it shows the price of 800 XL and the old-computers is spot on:

"183 EUR (december 84)" - it roughly gives 170 GBP

The second source confirms that:

December (84) "In the UK, the 800XL price cut was from 170 to 130 pounds."

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/atari-8-bit/faq/section-95.html

[Rockford]

and how would u say that $299 = £250 in 1984? i saw no reference for £250 and u would most certainly not get any enchange rate to match that in 84.

 

also as an illuminating note it has to be said that in june of 1985 (thats FIVE) c64s in the uk were £199 with a casette deck and that 1541 were virtually the same price again.

 

so they were hardly the cheap ass option that u fellers would have us all believe were they?

 

another myth busted by rockford.

 

No, another fact twisted with a biased mentality and the myth of C64 being more expensive being propated. I purchased my Atari 800 for $899 and around that time C64 was around $500. Just doing some random searches on the internet is not going to help. You have compare prices at same time from start of marketing of C64 and onwards where the starting is more significant. What the heck is the point of finding some expensive prices if the C64 is already flooded the market (i.e., inferior product has already saturated the market and left no choice to the competitor but to drop prices and take losses).

Again, I was talking about A800 XL vs C64, NOT A800 vs C64 (scroll up). So, who is twisting the facts ? It seems that only you

Weren't you told by the moderators to stop with the insults? Knock it off.

Saying that somebody twists facts isn't an insult, so let's not try to be holier than Pope, shall we ? Besides it wasn't me who started writing that, was it ? If in doubt look up at atariksi post.

[Rockford]

 

XL machines in 84 were being liquidated at a loss by cheap ass Jack Tramiel from Commodore.

Actually the machines were not at a loss as he got the companie for a song and a dance,but there were better machines than the c64 so it was quite a bargain. I believe consumer reports in the us said in 84 or 85 the 800xl was a best buy!

This is all different than the 1982 to 84 interation of the poor quality and cheaply made c64.

 

so again for the hard of hearing apparently..

 

in late 1984 the "superior" 800xls were being liquidated at £130 and in the middle of '85 the "cheaply made crap old c64" were starting to sell like hot cakes at £175-200. what exactly does that do to your constantly repeated theory of the 64 outselling the a8 simply because it was cheaper. because it obviously wasn't the case.

Straight to the point. It's the essence.

[Rockford]

Today another classic (I'd even say super classic) from the "golden age".

 

41 - WIZARD OF WOR

 

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has much better graphics (in hi-res), sprites and handling. The Atari version works in ugly low resolution and the playing area is smaller. C64 wins again.

 

ATARI

ATARI

[maiki]

Atari 800

C-64

 

The results speak themselves. Obviously what you are trying to compare here is different stages of technology. Remmber that Atari 800 dates back to 1979 (or 78) whereas C-64 was developed during 1981 and 82!!! That speaks for itself. On the pictures above you clearly see, what is the real situation with these two computers. Atari is simply older architecture... it has the same CPU (6510 or 6502 who cares when we know that there is Z80A in ZX Spectrum I know...) BUT much less capable graphics chip... very limited HW based sprites capabilities compared to C-64 (you see that bicycle riders right?) and very limited colours-at-once possibilities compared to much more advance C-64's VIC II chip. Obviously there is one advantage for the Atari 800 series: colour palette. But that's pretty much it. Again, you try to compare older with newer technologies... that's not fair...

 

Af for Tramiel, he just messed up the whole Atari gaming HW (delayed 7800)... just look at ST series with no HW sprites and hardly any scrolling capabilities... in a way, Atari 800 owns poor non gaming (!!!) ST series from this point of view...

 

As we all know without a strong CPU you are stuck with other co-processors, and since both Atari 800 and C-64 doesn not offer enough of resources to handle video games like we were used in arcades (sprite overflow especially on A800 but C-64 also, background flickering...)... than programmers have to look for a system that has a strong CPU so that they can solve the problem of not having enough HW sprites etc.. in software... and that's why most ZX Spectrum games own both these 65xx based slow systems...

[Lazarus]

The XL was again light years better in quality. C64 was made with tin foil,literally..Also the 1200xl was released in 82 like the c64, so very nice in quality and one of the best keyboards ever.

The big majority of C64s has a quite heavy metal shielding. Tin foil was only used in the very early C64 models.

[Rockford]

Atari 800

C-64

 

The results speak themselves. Obviously what you are trying to compare here is different stages of technology. Remmber that Atari 800 dates back to 1979 (or 78) whereas C-64 was developed during 1981 and 82!!! That speaks for itself. On the pictures above you clearly see, what is the real situation with these two computers. Atari is simply older architecture... it has the same CPU (6510 or 6502 who cares when we know that there is Z80A in ZX Spectrum I know...) BUT much less capable graphics chip... very limited HW based sprites capabilities compared to C-64 (you see that bicycle riders right?) and very limited colours-at-once possibilities compared to much more advance C-64's VIC II chip. Obviously there is one advantage for the Atari 800 series: colour palette. But that's pretty much it. Again, you try to compare older with newer technologies... that's not fair...

 

Af for Tramiel, he just messed up the whole Atari gaming HW (delayed 7800)... just look at ST series with no HW sprites and hardly any scrolling capabilities... in a way, Atari 800 owns poor non gaming (!!!) ST series from this point of view...

 

As we all know without a strong CPU you are stuck with other co-processors, and since both Atari 800 and C-64 doesn not offer enough of resources to handle video games like we were used in arcades (sprite overflow especially on A800 but C-64 also, background flickering...)... than programmers have to look for a system that has a strong CPU so that they can solve the problem of not having enough HW sprites etc.. in software... and that's why most ZX Spectrum games own both these 65xx based slow systems...

You obviously haven't read the whole topic, but that's okey, since it has been a loooooong ride If you only knew what people write here. Some of them even encourage me to compare old classic games from the "golden era".

[Allas]

--

Edited October 11, 2009 by Allas

[invisible kid]

Are Atari users secure enough in their love for Atari that they just stick to Atari Age and don't feel the need to cross over?

Lemon64 is a Commodore 64 only site, AtariAge is not an Atari 8-Bit only site

 

I came here because of the VCS. I happened to see this topic from the main Forum list, saw some erroneous info and was quickly attacked by rabid Atari fans for daring to correct it.

But surely the Atari 8 bit forum is an Atari 8 bit only forum?

[oky2000]

 

As for Tramiel, he just messed up the whole Atari gaming HW (delayed 7800)... just look at ST series with no HW sprites and hardly any scrolling capabilities... in a way, Atari 800 owns poor non gaming (!!!) ST series from this point of view...

 

 

That's unfair, Tramiel spent his own personal money buying what was a business on the brink of receivership AND he had zero money left, the fact that he built a machine with peanuts that was BETTER than that overpriced poncey Macintosh says a lot. Custom hardware takes time and a lot of money to produce, and Atari was bleeding money through the walls and selling off 800XL or XE machines cheap was not going to save Atari because that ship had sailed a long time a go hit the rocks and sunk without a trace. The future was 16bit and having the 2nd best out of 4 available 16 bit options for the cheapest price of all 4 was all he could do with the resources and money left. He didn't have money to burn on fancy shmancy rubbish like Apple

 

And yes it was a massive mistake for him to leave Commodore and yes if he hadn't have bought Atari there would be no ST/7800/Lynx/Falcon/Jaguar...Atari would have died with the 800XL and that's that,it was already worth less as a company than it's assets and no chance of the 8bit Atari sales increasing by the mid 80s.

[oky2000]

and how would u say that $299 = £250 in 1984? i saw no reference for £250 and u would most certainly not get any enchange rate to match that in 84.

 

also as an illuminating note it has to be said that in june of 1985 (thats FIVE) c64s in the uk were £199 with a casette deck and that 1541 were virtually the same price again.

 

so they were hardly the cheap ass option that u fellers would have us all believe were they?

 

another myth busted by rockford.

Here in the US, they were $199 at a time when Atari was $349. So not only was the c64 cheaper is was so incredibly cheaply made.

When exactly and which Atari ? A800 or A800 XL ? They were differently priced (since 800 XL was cheaply made), and I was talking about A800 XL (scroll up if needed).

The XL was again light years better in quality. C64 was made with tin foil,literally..Also the 1200xl was released in 82 like the c64, so very nice in quality and one of the best keyboards ever.

 

Light years ahead how? They weren't released in the same decade.

 

The colour resolution available in the C64 screen resolutions is superior be it 320x200 or 160x200, the sound chip is light years ahead of pokey, the sprites are light years ahead of PMs, the CPU is the same and only set at 1mhz as the VIC-II is running at 15mhz...2mhz C64 would require a 30mhz VIC-II to sync and seeing as 15mhz was already pushing the envelope of 1982 silicon.......

 

The Commodore 128D has a better keyboard than the 1200XL so does the MK1 VIC-20 with 'pet keys' and the 1200XL was the same basic (inferior) graphics and sound and priced itself out of the market and products like that were probably responsible for making Atari as a company worthless and trading in the red with no hope of escape.

 

Instead of wasting their time making white elephants like the 1200XL what they needed to do is update the sound, colour resolution (ANY 16 colours anywhere on screen in 160x200 with NO CPU assist or DLI rubbish) and replace the pathetic old technology of PM graphics with something better or atleast as good as sprites. 1200XL = bankrupcy.

[+CharlieChaplin]

 

Yepp, we have FS2. The first others which come into my mind are:

 

Star Wars (Ian Copeland version )

Battlezone

Tomahawk

Shadow Hawk One

 

and with a little bit of good will you can also take

 

F-15 Strike Eagle (Enemy Jets are at least 3D) and

GATO

 

into account.

 

Does your "glorious 8" include "Alley Cat" and "Final Legacy" (still enjoy the destroyer sequence)?

Could you please recapitulate your "glorious 8" titles?

 

yes can definitely include Tomahawk (i had forgotten totally that one even tho i had it myself).

and to a lesser degree battlezone, but yes still in there.

 

shadow hawk 1 and starwars however hmmm no. not "real" 3d because u have no control over your own movement. star wars looks like a decent conversion tho.

 

sorry cant do f15 either (even tho it was one of my 1984 favourites) simply because it relies on sprites and characters to much. same as the other MP stuff till gunship really. but it is more "vector" than the rest of them.

 

Gato i cant tell from the screenies. possibly a "no" simply because it probably works like Silent Service?

 

as for Alley Cat and Final Legacy well tbh these look ok for their time but i really want to see stuff thats of "dropzone" "ik" sort of quality

 

This isnt just trolling btw i want to see if there ARE any really good looking games to compare against when doing graphics.

 

post more stuff with screenies if u can saves me having Atarimania open all the time

 

Steve

 

 

 

Hmm,

how about Omnitrend`s Universe, Fighter Pilot (the Digital Integration version, not that other crap with the same name), Blaster, Henry`s House (just nice+colourful, not 3D of course), or some of the newer colourful stuff like Crownland (req. 128k), Yoomp, Mindblast, Getris, Nibbly, Mule Wars, Animal Party, Dynablaster, Yie Ar Kung Fu (req. 320k), Bombjack (req. 320k) or the newly ported ISO-3D games Knight Lore, Nightshade, etc.

 

[And err, while you were talking about real 3D, vector graphics ain`t real 3D !! The ISO stuff is also not real 3D, just ISO-3D and also the 3D dungeons ain`t real 3D !! Even tv or cinema is not real 3D, except you go to a 3D cinema like IMAX or watch a special 3D movie with 3D glasses. On Atari (or C64) its the same, real 3D requires 3D glasses, as of yet I know only two programs on the A8 that are real 3D with red-green glasses: Superski and Bird Man, both by AMC-Verlag...]

 

-Andreas Koch.

[potatohead]

IMHO, the PM system has a feel that is different from sprites. Just having a few more of them would make all the difference in the world.

 

What I don't get is the need for validation. Both machines are just great! And we all like what we like, right?

 

All of the good C64 strengths have been (with a bit of arm twisting) recognized and noted. I think the same is true for the A8 strengths.

 

These do not completely overlap, meaning there are scopes of possible things that are out of scope for either machine, also meaning neither machine can dominate the other one.

 

What this means is we've got the best of 8 bit land in both machines, and that means fun and game art. That's what it means. Today, neither is sold. The world has moved on, but for those people, who enjoy the era. What else is there?

 

Carry on everybody. I'm quite sure more entertainment, and interesting tech / game discussion will come about, and that's good where I'm concerned.

[potatohead]

Re: Real 3D & 3D glasses.

 

Somebody needs to hook a set of those LCD shutter style glasses to the joystick ports of these machines and do some simple, fun 3D action games. PAL is a bit slow for this @ 25Hz, but still plenty good, so long as overall depth and contrast are not excessive. Red / Green is ok and kind of fun, but the shutters are where it's at.

[atarian63]

Poor job, poor programming. The same usual.

 

'The same usual' indeed.

 

I think the same usual in question is in fact your same usual golden rule, which apparently goes like so:

 

Any bad game on Atari can be safely dismissed as a mere case of poor programming and/or being past the elusive GOLDEN AGE.

 

Any bad game on c64 is damning proof of the system being a blight upon mankind!!!

 

 

 

BTW, on the previous page you said:

 

What a silly reply, you have been show the facts on many occasions and still just dont get it.

...so I invited you to clearly state any facts you've presented that I haven't grasped. Have you managed to come up with anything yet, or was that just a bit of good ol' bluff and bluster?

You are supposed to be discussing games not using insults. Thanks I have reported it.

[Chickybaby]

Enough all of you. Use the damn ignore button if someone bothers you that much. There have been plenty of warnings and this is getting rediuculous.

[atarian63]

and how would u say that $299 = £250 in 1984? i saw no reference for £250 and u would most certainly not get any enchange rate to match that in 84.

 

also as an illuminating note it has to be said that in june of 1985 (thats FIVE) c64s in the uk were £199 with a casette deck and that 1541 were virtually the same price again.

 

so they were hardly the cheap ass option that u fellers would have us all believe were they?

 

another myth busted by rockford.

Here in the US, they were $199 at a time when Atari was $349. So not only was the c64 cheaper is was so incredibly cheaply made.

When exactly and which Atari ? A800 or A800 XL ? They were differently priced (since 800 XL was cheaply made), and I was talking about A800 XL (scroll up if needed).

The XL was again light years better in quality. C64 was made with tin foil,literally..Also the 1200xl was released in 82 like the c64, so very nice in quality and one of the best keyboards ever.

 

Light years ahead how? They weren't released in the same decade.

 

The colour resolution available in the C64 screen resolutions is superior be it 320x200 or 160x200, the sound chip is light years ahead of pokey, the sprites are light years ahead of PMs, the CPU is the same and only set at 1mhz as the VIC-II is running at 15mhz...2mhz C64 would require a 30mhz VIC-II to sync and seeing as 15mhz was already pushing the envelope of 1982 silicon.......

 

The Commodore 128D has a better keyboard than the 1200XL so does the MK1 VIC-20 with 'pet keys' and the 1200XL was the same basic (inferior) graphics and sound and priced itself out of the market and products like that were probably responsible for making Atari as a company worthless and trading in the red with no hope of escape.

 

Instead of wasting their time making white elephants like the 1200XL what they needed to do is update the sound, colour resolution (ANY 16 colours anywhere on screen in 160x200 with NO CPU assist or DLI rubbish) and replace the pathetic old technology of PM graphics with something better or atleast as good as sprites. 1200XL = bankrupcy.

do you bother to read? the statement said quality and comparing keyboards that came out many years later makes no sense at all, and if you want to use you comparison. The 1400XL and 1450xld models that were prototyped and boards produced were light years better in features as well. Also Atari had over 2000 title available in 1982. C64 had a few crappy launch titles.

Edited October 12, 2009 by atarian63

[potatohead]

LOL@Chicky: It's like herding cats isn't it?

 

(Hey, somebody has to do it, glad it's not me! Stay strong!)

[atarian63]

 

As for Tramiel, he just messed up the whole Atari gaming HW (delayed 7800)... just look at ST series with no HW sprites and hardly any scrolling capabilities... in a way, Atari 800 owns poor non gaming (!!!) ST series from this point of view...

 

 

That's unfair, Tramiel spent his own personal money buying what was a business on the brink of receivership AND he had zero money left, the fact that he built a machine with peanuts that was BETTER than that overpriced poncey Macintosh says a lot. Custom hardware takes time and a lot of money to produce, and Atari was bleeding money through the walls and selling off 800XL or XE machines cheap was not going to save Atari because that ship had sailed a long time a go hit the rocks and sunk without a trace. The future was 16bit and having the 2nd best out of 4 available 16 bit options for the cheapest price of all 4 was all he could do with the resources and money left. He didn't have money to burn on fancy shmancy rubbish like Apple

 

And yes it was a massive mistake for him to leave Commodore and yes if he hadn't have bought Atari there would be no ST/7800/Lynx/Falcon/Jaguar...Atari would have died with the 800XL and that's that,it was already worth less as a company than it's assets and no chance of the 8bit Atari sales increasing by the mid 80s.

I do believe he did what he could and do appreciate have had 8bit products for many more years. Not to mention the St line which I enjoyed greatly. 7800,lynx etc. It was just that it was too little to late. Leaving Commodore was a good thing as for some dumb reason he and Gould could not get along. Though Commodore without Jack did work well either.

Kind of like Atari without Nolan or Jay Miner.

[potatohead]

Why is "lemon64" lemon, BTW? It's catchy, don't get me wrong there. I'm just curious...

 

I read that "The Home Computer Wars" linked here earlier. Jack Tramiel was awesome. Just flat out brutal, awesome. Damn good read. The way I like to see it is that he punched well above his weight being able to take an Atari in trouble, get down right ugly, bring it back, and compete. That takes something a whole lot of people don't have.

 

Would love to have met the guy.

Edited October 12, 2009 by potatohead