Atari v Commodore

[+SpiceWare]

Rabid goes both ways, it seems, but somehow the rabid Atari users don't "invade" Commodore forums for the sole purpose of flamewar; I'd say Atari Age is a reasonable place for them.

Are there Commodore users here who signed up just for this thread? I thought they were like me, already a member of Atari Age because of interest in something Atari related, who happened to see the topic from the forum overview.

[+SpiceWare]

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

How could a topic titled Atari v Commodore be Atari only?

Exactly, it's not. Maybe it shouldn't be here at all. Maybe they should move it to Classic Computing. It was okay when it was more civil than not, but now it's a different story.

This is the proper forum. It if where Sinclair vs Commodore then the Classic Computing forum would be the appropriate place.

[Albert]

Rabid goes both ways, it seems, but somehow the rabid Atari users don't "invade" Commodore forums for the sole purpose of flamewar; I'd say Atari Age is a reasonable place for them.

Are there Commodore users here who signed up just for this thread?

I'm pretty sure there are.

 

..Al

[atariksi]

 

Atari sprites and sound chip work as they are supposed to. If you had to simulate the C64 sprites on A8, that would be problematic. And doing overscan is problematic on C64 and Atari ST.

 

ah but u do have to simulate 64 sprites don't u?

thats been the problem for 25 years. and the main reason there have been about 4 decent games in that time.

 

Steve

 

You don't have to simulate C64 sprites-- only if you are porting stuff over from C64. Of course, I would agree that more sprites on A8 would help a lot since they are inter-related to getting more colors in hires as well as 160*200. GTIA modes have enough colors. I suggested before (also someone else) about using the empty PMBase so it has 8 sprites rather than 5 and 8 missiles which use the same data as one of the players.

 

 

I've post this on another Thread some time ago.

(On Priority 8, it is wrong, P8/P9 must have to be up all PFs/Ps.):

 

1

 

* +

 

* Report Icon Report

* Back to top

* Reply Icon MultiQuote

* Reply Icon Reply

 

User is online José Pereira Icon

Posted Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:54 PM

Post #64

 

*

 

* Icon

* Chopper Commander

 

* Posts: 246

* Joined: 02-March 05

* Location: Lisbon - Portugal

 

 

Hello.

 

I've been reading this one. So, I started thinking what was better in an A8 new model if I was on that time.

 

The most important thing it's 100% compability with the oldest models.

I started yesterday my Web finding to remember/learn all adresses from A8. Then, I join my ideas in some not used adresses.

 

And this new machine (VA8 - VIRTUAL ATARI 8BIT) could be like this:

 

1st - The same resolutions/PFs/DLIs./Overlaps/... Like older real ones.

2st - Improvement on PMs. The most important for me in a games machine.

 

A.) - FOUR NEW PMs.:

PM5/6/7/8

Find 5 unusued locations - 53261-PM4 / 53262-PM5 / 53263-PM6 / 52264-PM7 / 53276 - all this 4 missiles joined (I call it now P9) - Hardware COLOUR registers (read only).

The same oldest ones: 52266->53269 - PM0->PM3 Hardware COLOUR registers. P5 in PF3 colour (Now I call it P8) here 53275, and/or new adress 53275

53270->53273 - PF0->PF3 " " " . Backgr. Colour in 53274.

(16 colours registers)

 

 

53275/53276 - This 2 are free - I am thinking what to put here. No PF0/PF1 on Inverse because it will be impossible to maintain compability, as I will explain later.

53277 - 0 Disables all PMs and 3 enables them (for the oldest and the newest).

53278 - collision register cleanner (the same).

54279 High Bit of PMBASE here (the same).

 

B.) - PMs. SIZES:

53256 - P0 size and new P4 (same size as P0)

52257 - P1 size and new P5 "

53258 - P2 " P6

53259 - P3 " P7

53276 - Old P5 (now I call it P8) and P9 (M4+M5+M6+M7 joined as a single player)

 

C.) - HORIZONTAL POSITIONS:

The same 53248 to 53255 (P0->P3 and M0->M3)

New ones: Someone can help here I am not sure if 53240->53247 it's free for P4->P7 and M4->M7, or any other possible)?

 

 

D.) - SIZES:

559,62 (Single line resol.) and 46 (double line resol.) for the oldest and new ones.

 

 

E. - ) PRIORITIES:

Bit 0-3 - Priority select

Bit 4 - Fifth Player enebled

Bit 5 - PMs. Multicolour

Bit 6/7 - Special GTIA Display modes select.

So, all the same, but:

 

Priority 1:

PM0

PM1

PM4

PM5

PM2

PM3

PM6

PM7

(P8)

(P9)

PF0

PF1

PF2

PF3

BACKR.

 

 

 

PRIORITY 2:

PM0

PM1

PM4

PM5

(P8)

(P9)

PF0

PF1

PF2

PF3

PM2

PM3

PM6

PM7

BACKGR.

 

 

PRIORITY 4:

PF0

PF1

PF2

PF3

(P8)

(P9)

PM0 -> PM7

BACKGR.

 

 

PRIOTITY 8:

PF0

PF1

PM0 -> PM7

(P8)

(P9)

PF2

PF3

BACKGR.

 

AND WHY LIKE THIS? Because no new PFs. added and PM4/5 overlap with PF0/PF1 and PM6/7 with PF2/3.

All the same, compability 100%, I think?

 

 

 

 

MORE COLOURS ON SCREEN: HOW MANY?

PF0->PF3 single - 4colours

PM0->PM7 single - 8 colours

P8/P9 - 2 colours

Backgr. - 1 colour

PM0/PM1/PF0/PF1-7 colours (Different overlap possibilities)

PM2/PM3/PF2/PF3-7 colours

PM4/PM5/PF0/PF1-7 colours

PM6/PM7/PF2/PF3-7 colour

P8 -1 colour

P9 -1 colour

TOTAL MAXIMUM = 45 COLOURS ON EACH LINE.

 

 

 

 

WRITE ADRESSES:

704->707 (PM0->PM3) colours.

708->711 (PF0->PF3) colours.

712 Backgr. colour.

Now, where to put PM4/5/6/7 and P8/9? I'm trying to find it?

 

 

 

 

GTIA MODES: 9&11 (the same)

Mode 11 - Now 16 Hues with 16 differnt luminances.

 

PLAYERS AND MISSILES SIZES: WILL IT BE POSSIBLE TO ADDED 5 on 53256 to 53260 to have Hi-resol. PMs.? who answers this? it will be great!.

 

 

 

Join this with 2POKEY, 8 channels mono or stereo (2x4 channels) and you'll had a tremendous magnificent, wonderfull, the greatest........

 

 

This could be done without any new chip?

And now, if this are unusued adresses, it will be possible to simply add to an emulator, and have a virtual new A8?

 

 

 

Best reggards.

Yours Atarilly,

José Pereira.

 

Yeah, I think there were several people suggesting changes for GTIA/ANTIC in another thread that retains backward compatibility as well (which is very significant). As far as POKEYs, that already exists-- dual/quad POKEYs just never became part of standard features of the machine. In fact, they tried to cut off features like the two extra joystick ports.

[atariksi]

...And don't forget, you can easily mix high-res and standard multicolour-res graphics as needed.

That's one of the nice features of the 64 that I've always liked, having that available mix of hi and low res elements would be something I'd love the A8 to have available (amongst others ). It's possible to a degree with some cpu grunt to mix modes on the same scanline exploiting the well known GTIA quirk of course. I did the Chimera picture below this way a few years back.

 

So, the restrictions of our colour usage in hi-res can be overcome somewhat with miscanline mode and colour changes along with pm under/over lays which you can see some examples from Tebe below.

 

Of course, we get a whole repertoire of graphics mode to mix on per scan line basis; I think there are more GTIA/other mode quirks not yet explored. For example, ANTIC mode 2 with GTIA transitions also seems to give another mixed mode result.

[Tezz]

Of course, we get a whole repertoire of graphics mode to mix on per scan line basis; I think there are more GTIA/other mode quirks not yet explored. For example, ANTIC mode 2 with GTIA transitions also seems to give another mixed mode result.

I think so too, I was working and experementing with this a while back. This is still one of the shortcomings of the current emulators though unfortunately so I can only really test on the real thing. The new Altirra emulator looked more promising when I checked out some of the test routines on it although I haven't made a direct comparison of the results against the hardware yet. I should do that next when I get some time aside.

[potatohead]

There was at least one contributor, who stated he signed up to defend the C64 side of this thing. Between Al and Spiceware.

[Rockford]

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.

 

heh. I remember that. Weren't you accused of being blinded by love for the Vic20 or something?

 

 

 

 

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.

 

It's kind of ironic that the guy who was peppering his posts with things like Barnacle Butt the bottom dweller and Rocky the dullard in mama's basement and Aren't you dead yet? and posting vids of guys lighting farts is now trying to hunt out insults where there are none.

 

LOL

[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.

 

A800 was contemporary of C64. 800XL came later. There were a bunch of ads in magazines and the prices clearly were higher for A8s.

 

So anyone thinking A8s were cheaper than C64s is doing something wrong in his analysis.

 

 

 

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.

Facts are facts C64 started as the cheapo model, poorly made and sold cheap, that continued until Jack Tramiel sold liquidation 800xl's for a dump price, Quite a great deal for users considering the superior quality.

Also sold boatloads of 800xl's during 85 and 86, like a semi load every other week.C64 on the otherhand slowed down during this period.People are cheap.

So it actually was the case.

 

Atariksi is partially wrong, whereas atarian63 is completely wrong again. Let's facts talk for themselves.

 

ATARI 800 XL

"The 800XL has sold almost 500,000 units through 1984" --Atari's Sigmund Hartmann, Atari Explorer magazine, Summer 1985, p. 33.

 

"By the end of 1984, the Atari 800XL will have sold more than 600,000 units since its introduction more than a year ago, according to Kenneth Lim of Dataquest, a market research firm in San Jose." InfoWorld January 7/14, 1985”

 

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

 

COMMODORE 64

During the Commodore 64's lifetime, sales totalled 17 million units, making it the best-selling single personal computer model of all time. For a substantial period of time (1983-1986), the Commodore 64 dominated the market with between 30% and 40% share and 2 million units sold per year, outselling the IBM PC clones, Apple computers, and Atari computers. Sam Tramiel, a former Atari president said in a 1989 interview "When I was at Commodore we were building 400 000 C64s a month for a couple of years."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64

 

So, in other words it means that in 2 months Commodore sold more C64s than Atari A800XLs in its whole market lifetime (it was replaced by 65XE in 1985), even though ATARI 800 XL was cheaper than C64 :!: Atari 65 XE (US$99.95) was even cheaper than ATARI 800 XL but the most striking fact was that ATARI 130 XE with 128kb RAM was also cheaper (it cost US$149.95.) than C64 :!: It didn't help at all and C64 dominated the market till the end of both computers. C64 was indeed cheaper than ATARI 800 (NOT 800 XL) and ATARI 1200 XL (which was a flop) only in the short period of time (1 year, from September 1982 till fall 1983). From that point of time (800XL launch), ATARI was always a cheaper choice. So, let’s compare – 1 year of C64 cheapness contra 8 years of A8 cheapness (ATARI stopped production in 1991, Commodore did it 2 years later). These are hard facts based on reality. Like them or not.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Rockford

[Rockford]

42 - BISMARCK - THE NORTH SEA CHASE

 

C64

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has much better graphics (in hi-res) and more colours. The Atari version works in ugly low resolution with very limited colours. C64 is better again.

 

ATARI

ATARI

ATARI

[+wood_jl]

Rabid goes both ways, it seems, but somehow the rabid Atari users don't "invade" Commodore forums for the sole purpose of flamewar; I'd say Atari Age is a reasonable place for them.

Are there Commodore users here who signed up just for this thread? I thought they were like me, already a member of Atari Age because of interest in something Atari related, who happened to see the topic from the forum overview.

 

Tell me, in all seriousness, if you SINCERELY believe that Rockford, Oswald, and Wolfram own Ataris. Do you really? I'm serious; I'd like to know. Colecovision owners come here to flamewar 5200 owners. Does it seem all that impossible that it could occur for other platforms? You may be here because you like one certain Atari, but do you think everyone is in your position? Just curious: You like the 2600 but you don't like the similar 400/800? Why not?

[+SpiceWare]

There was at least one contributor, who stated he signed up to defend the C64 side of this thing. Between Al and Spiceware.

I wouldn't consider 1 person an invasion.

[invisible kid]

You might want to check a few pages back, an admin revoked your posting privileges for a week. You wouldn't want to make it worse.

You've got the wrong person, that was frenchman.

 

..Al

I was going by this on the top of page 406

No all I see is an obsessive compulsive twat replying to rockford and polluting the thread with playground nonsense. At least go find some games or something half useful or go and chew on some garlic mate

 

*yawnnnnnnnnnnnn*

You just lost your posting privileges for a week. Anyone else?

 

..Al

Just trying to save him from further trouble though, otherwise none of my business.

Edited October 12, 2009 by invisible kid

[+SpiceWare]

Tell me, in all seriousness, if you SINCERELY believe that Rockford, Oswald, and Wolfram own Ataris.

 

Considering how popular the VCS was, it's entirely possible they had one or played one at a friend's house.

 

Colecovision owners come here to flamewar 5200 owners.

 

AtariAge sells ColecoVision Homebrews, and even has a forum for Coleco Programming. Said forum was link #2 when I Googled "ColecoVision Programming", so between the homebrews and the forum it's not at all surprising that somebody interested in the ColecoVision would find AtariAge.

 

Just curious: You like the 2600 but you don't like the similar 400/800? Why not?

 

Unless I'm mistaken, the only thing I've ever said against the 400/800 was that I disliked the 400's membrane keyboard. I even added ATASCII support to my MusicTerm software so I could call a friend's BBS that was run on an Atari. In this post I posted links to support Allas' post about the Atari's use of artifact colors(Allas was responding to Barnacle boy's post w/monochrome screenshots of Nebulous).

[invisible kid]

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

How could a topic titled Atari v Commodore be Atari only?

Exactly, it's not. Maybe it shouldn't be here at all. Maybe they should move it to Classic Computing. It was okay when it was more civil than not, but now it's a different story.

This is the proper forum. It if where Sinclair vs Commodore then the Classic Computing forum would be the appropriate place.

If the thread stayed on topic, I would agree. The poster asked the Atari 8 bit forum which of the titles released on both Atari 8 bit and Commodore 64, the Atari version was better. A pro-Atari 8 bit subject. A look at the Atari 8 bit in a positive light, in the Atari 8 bit forum. Makes sense to me. Once the thread attracted a relatively large c64 audience and there was Atari 8 bit bashing it doesn't seem appropriate here. Mind you I'm talking about bashing, not the measured discourse that we have all learned from.

 

But also I don't feel that strongly about whether it should be in this forum, so I will drop this point. It's just that this thread is like a car accident that you feel compelled to stare at, sucking energy from other positive threads. Plus, it can cause people to respond in ways in which they regret(me included), because they get caught up in it. But I am going to make an effort to phase out of it.

[Albert]

Just trying to save him from further trouble though, otherwise none of my business.

You're right, and I just fixed it so the posting ban is in effect again.

 

..Al

[TMR]

Colecovision owners come here to flamewar 5200 owners.

 

AtariAge sells ColecoVision Homebrews, and even has a forum for Coleco Programming. Said forum was link #2 when I Googled "ColecoVision Programming", so between the homebrews and the forum it's not at all surprising that somebody interested in the ColecoVision would find AtariAge.

 

Just imagine if Atari Age started selling C64 homebrew... the fights that'd start after that!!

 

(i think i'm the only C64 coder here with homebrew cartridges to his name...? =-)

[PeteD]

 

If the thread stayed on topic, I would agree. The poster asked the Atari 8 bit forum which of the titles released on both Atari 8 bit and Commodore 64, the Atari version was better. A pro-Atari 8 bit subject. A look at the Atari 8 bit in a positive light, in the Atari 8 bit forum. Makes sense to me. Once the thread attracted a relatively large c64 audience and there was Atari 8 bit bashing it doesn't seem appropriate here. Mind you I'm talking about bashing, not the measured discourse that we have all learned from.

 

But also I don't feel that strongly about whether it should be in this forum, so I will drop this point. It's just that this thread is like a car accident that you feel compelled to stare at, sucking energy from other positive threads. Plus, it can cause people to respond in ways in which they regret(me included), because they get caught up in it. But I am going to make an effort to phase out of it.

 

The problem with a thread with "Vs" in the title though is you're asking for trouble. Within the first page there's already someone saying the A8 is a more powerful machine and someone asking them to quantify it. Off topic within 20 posts, what else can you expect for the next 400+ pages

 

 

Pete

Edited October 12, 2009 by PeteD

[Albert]

Just imagine if Atari Age started selling C64 homebrew... the fights that'd start after that!!

 

(i think i'm the only C64 coder here with homebrew cartridges to his name...? =-)

Commodore 64 Cynthcart..

 

 

 

..Al

[TMR]

If the thread stayed on topic, I would agree. The poster asked the Atari 8 bit forum which of the titles released on both Atari 8 bit and Commodore 64, the Atari version was better. A pro-Atari 8 bit subject. A look at the Atari 8 bit in a positive light, in the Atari 8 bit forum. Makes sense to me.

 

Shame it went down the tubes within the first couple of pages after an Atarian started using it as an excuse to give the C64 a kicking then, really...

 

It's just that this thread is like a car accident that you feel compelled to stare at, sucking energy from other positive threads.

 

To be honest, i disagree because i've seen more interest in the A8 on a technical level from this single thread than anything else around it; feck it, i've already got the domain registered for an entire site dedicated to this kind of discussion and if i ever get the damned templates done... =-)

[TMR]

Just imagine if Atari Age started selling C64 homebrew... the fights that'd start after that!!

 

(i think i'm the only C64 coder here with homebrew cartridges to his name...? =-)

Commodore 64 Cynthcart..

 

Oh my goodness, it's the end of the universe as we know it - quick, let me change what i said to say "C64 game homebrew" before the walls of reality come crashing down! =-)

[potatohead]

The tech discussion has been absolutely great.

 

The cost is just keeping nice control to power through the rough spots. When you get that forum up, I'll gladly participate.

[atarian63]

 

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.

 

A800 was contemporary of C64. 800XL came later. There were a bunch of ads in magazines and the prices clearly were higher for A8s.

 

So anyone thinking A8s were cheaper than C64s is doing something wrong in his analysis.

 

 

 

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.

Facts are facts C64 started as the cheapo model, poorly made and sold cheap, that continued until Jack Tramiel sold liquidation 800xl's for a dump price, Quite a great deal for users considering the superior quality.

Also sold boatloads of 800xl's during 85 and 86, like a semi load every other week.C64 on the otherhand slowed down during this period.People are cheap.

So it actually was the case.

 

Atariksi is partially wrong, whereas atarian63 is completely wrong again. Let's facts talk for themselves.

 

ATARI 800 XL

"The 800XL has sold almost 500,000 units through 1984" --Atari's Sigmund Hartmann, Atari Explorer magazine, Summer 1985, p. 33.

 

"By the end of 1984, the Atari 800XL will have sold more than 600,000 units since its introduction more than a year ago, according to Kenneth Lim of Dataquest, a market research firm in San Jose." InfoWorld January 7/14, 1985”

 

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

 

COMMODORE 64

During the Commodore 64's lifetime, sales totalled 17 million units, making it the best-selling single personal computer model of all time. For a substantial period of time (1983-1986), the Commodore 64 dominated the market with between 30% and 40% share and 2 million units sold per year, outselling the IBM PC clones, Apple computers, and Atari computers. Sam Tramiel, a former Atari president said in a 1989 interview "When I was at Commodore we were building 400 000 C64s a month for a couple of years."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64

 

So, in other words it means that in 2 months Commodore sold more C64s than Atari A800XLs in its whole market lifetime (it was replaced by 65XE in 1985), even though ATARI 800 XL was cheaper than C64 :!: Atari 65 XE (US$99.95) was even cheaper than ATARI 800 XL but the most striking fact was that ATARI 130 XE with 128kb RAM was also cheaper (it cost US$149.95.) than C64 :!: It didn't help at all and C64 dominated the market till the end of both computers. C64 was indeed cheaper than ATARI 800 (NOT 800 XL) and ATARI 1200 XL (which was a flop) only in the short period of time (1 year, from September 1982 till fall 1983). From that point of time (800XL launch), ATARI was always a cheaper choice. So, let’s compare – 1 year of C64 cheapness contra 8 years of A8 cheapness (ATARI stopped production in 1991, Commodore did it 2 years later). These are hard facts based on reality. Like them or not.

Wrong again as usual..or always

The price drop happened after Atari had been sold and Commode had had 2-3 years of software dev and cheapo sales to build a user base, by that time it did not matter if Tramiels dropped the price or remade the unit to be more cost effective (i.e. cheap like c64) the game was up by then. The damage from the crash to atari's reputation did them in. C64 up until the tramiel/atari price drop/dump was always the cheaper choice. Though quality was always sketchy at best.

These are the actual facts from someone who sold and serviced both throughout the entire period.

[atarian63]

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.

 

That has not been my experience. I have 2 Commodore 64s and they are both the later model (breadbin) and they both had (past tense) the cardboard with tinfoil for the heat shield. I promptly discarded that crap in the hopes of cooling and longevity.

 

I have a later model Vic-20 and it has real metal shielding.

 

[incidentally, I enjoy these computers, in case you're wondering]

Kinda like Bally Astrocade, you have to remove the RF sheild or they flake out.

[atarian63]

That has not been my experience. I have 2 Commodore 64s and they are both the later model (breadbin) and they both had (past tense) the cardboard with tinfoil for the heat shield. I promptly discarded that crap in the hopes of cooling and longevity.

To me the original breadbins are the earlier models. The majority of C64s are C64Cs, those are the ones being sold most over the longest time.

 

And I heard discarding the tin foil was very common

The 64c was a much improved machine,built to a better standard with a low failure rate. Though it was later in the life cycle of c64 it was around a long time,even I guess after it was long dead in the us,dead being after 87.

See I can say something positive about 64c

Edited October 13, 2009 by atarian63