Atari v Commodore

[Bryan]

I have to agree that Rockford is clearly only selecting games that look better on the Commodore 64 versus the Atari 8-bit. The example of Knight Orc is particularly egregious. Sure, the C64 version is clearly better (unless you prefer pure text adventures), but all this shows is that for whatever reason the developer didn't put as much effort into the Atari 8-bit version. It does nothing to show that one machine is better than the other.

 

Whew! I was beginning to think I was the only one who noticed. I see no point in the Knight Orc comparison for those reasons you've stated. I love the other comparisons, regardless of outcome.

I put him on ignore as soon as I realized he was only here to stir the pot.

[andym00]

Oh, so now you want to debate "gameplay" of a text adventure? Let's hear your "semblance of justification" for dragging "gameplay" into the discussion of a text-adventure? Maybe next time...??

 

No, you misunderstand.. I don't care about the game-play comparisons.. But, earlier in this thread, it was suddenly all about the game-play not the graphics (or anything else for that matter) when the discussion was focused around a certain game on the A8 which measured up sub-par graphically.. I was just wondering if we were in for a repeat performance, and that's where my disappointment lay..

[atariksi]

no, that is his point entirely, to tick of the members here at atariage. He does a poor ,selective job so it's more entertaining to watch his silliness as he is really contributing nothing.

 

I don't think that's quite true, indeed the thread (ignoring the actual thread title for now) was going to be awfully short anyway given it's original intentions (which I doubt given the actual title), ...

 

That's your speculation. Regardless, if the thread is short so be it. Start your own thread if it's different. You think it's okay to hodge-podge any topic with biased perspectives to spoil things for others.

 

If you really believe he's doing a bad job, pull up some games where the A8 does in fact trump the 64..

...

That's also your biased view of analyzing things. You can have a superior system w/less games. Proof is provided by technical analyses. This actually complements the topic of the thread since you know why the games are better or worse as opposed to just posting things that are opposed to the original topic. There are degrees of difference from original topic and going 180 degrees in reverse in a biased fashion won't cut it.

 

But rather than get heated, if it's so entertaining to watch, then just grab some more popcorn and make yourself more comfortable..

...

Follow your own advice then.

 

My own learnings from this thread led me to my own excursion into programming the A8, and is leading me more to understanding why you've got what you have software-wise.. I've found it to be an absolutely frustrating machine that is utterly remorseless in it's ability to eat cpu cycles ...

The world is more beautiful if the C64 didn't exist with it color-distorted pictures. All machines have their style of programming. You are admitting you are just starting and already drawing absurd conclusions.

 

For me the linear graphics modes, more colors, higher throughput, etc. work fine for me and much easier than using C64 style.

[atariksi]

i think it's fairly safe to say that we went against the original spirit of the thread around halfway down the first page though, pulling Rockford up for that now isn't particularly fair considering how far off that topic just about everybody involved has gone...?

I think it was pretty much eternally doomed with this post, plain and simple.. The events that follow were entirely predictable.. That's your ground zero

 

Technical aspects were discussed even before that post. Your mental speculations of pinpointing some particular post just exposed your own hatred for certain posters. And Albert is correct in repeating the topic since several posters recently have ASSUMED that the topic is comparison of any games (better or worse) which it is not. So once you know what the topic is, you're free to violate that subject.

[atariksi]

It's a draw! Let's all be friends, OK

 

Seriously though, both had strengths and weaknesses. The A800 was fast and colourful, the C64 had a more versiltile sound chip and the ability to mix hi-res sprites with low-res background images.

 

Not really. Only if you go by the absurd logic that having many games that exploit the SAME hardware features of better sprites and color RAM constitues the topmost of computers have to offer.

 

They basically keep repeating the same thing and seeing how many people fall for it. A800 is a COMPUTER. Go compare with A7800 if you want to compare just sprites and colors in hi-res.

[PeteD]

 

 

Then lock it, ban him, do whatever because this thread hasn't been on topic for a veeeeeery long time and for the past day at least it's been people crying about Rockford who has only suffered abuse for at least being in the spirit of the thread and comparing games. Atarians have done much worse over the last 400+ pages.

 

 

Pete

 

Why would anyone have to lock/ban/whatever? Why not just point it out? [DONE]

 

Because it sounds like the mods are getting as sick as I am about all the whining going on when even they start whining too. It's been "pointed out" countless times already and he's not going to stop unless he's made to, and why should he?

 

 

Pete

[atariksi]

i think it's fairly safe to say that we went against the original spirit of the thread around halfway down the first page though, pulling Rockford up for that now isn't particularly fair considering how far off that topic just about everybody involved has gone...?

I think it was pretty much eternally doomed with this post, plain and simple.. The events that follow were entirely predictable.. That's your ground zero

 

Yeah well, we all know that bias and I got sick of proving it wrong a long time ago. I wouldn't mind if there was a fair comparison but even when you try to compare say sprites vs PMGs (which he decided since I joined went in favour of PMGs) and go multicolour,wider,more per scanline Vs taller, better priorities with background etc, even that type of comparison would suit me but I tried that and just got ranted at.

 

I really hadn't noticed until now that he'd changed tack on that one

I simply stopped reading most of the lunatic propaganda when the sprite systems were being compared in M/Pixels per second.. Someone still owes me a keyboard cleaning for that

 

I didn't-- you are just too confused to understand simple English (because you're overcome by hatred and bias as proven by you picking on one post). I stick by that post still. I provided examples where Atari sprites can do better than C64 but didn't say A8 sprites are better. Now, if I was Rockford, I would probably just keep repeating that example of 2000+ sprites or other scenarios of cycle-free sprites.

[atariksi]

only in a selective bias fashion in order to get some reaction. Lame examples. Just trolling.

I have to agree that Rockford is clearly only selecting games that look better on the Commodore 64 versus the Atari 8-bit. The example of Knight Orc is particularly egregious. Sure, the C64 version is clearly better (unless you prefer pure text adventures), but all this shows is that for whatever reason the developer didn't put as much effort into the Atari 8-bit version. It does nothing to show that one machine is better than the other.

 

This does go against the original spirit of the thread, in which the original poster asked to see examples of games that are better on the Atari 8-bit. Here is the first post for those who need a refresher.

 

..Al

 

Then lock it, ban him, do whatever because this thread hasn't been on topic for a veeeeeery long time and for the past day at least it's been people crying about Rockford who has only suffered abuse for at least being in the spirit of the thread and comparing games. Atarians have done much worse over the last 400+ pages.

 

 

Pete

 

Why would anyone have to lock/ban/whatever? Why not just point it out? [DONE]

 

Because sore losers rather than admit defeat have to ruin the fun for everyone. That's the only motive I can see. Their too biased to admit their mistakes and try to find fault with others.

Don't participate if you don't like it.

[MEtalGuy66]

One thing I remember not liking at all, concerning the "playability" of INFOCOM text adventures on the ATARI, was the fact that it seemed to access the disk drive every time you typed something. My brother had some of the same INFOCOM games that I did, on his Apple II, and it hardly ever accessed the disk. My atari had 256k total ram, and his Apple had 128k. I dont know if the apple version of the games utilized the extended ram, and the atari versions did not, or what in fact the reason for this was.. But I remember being really annoyed by it.

 

Also, Ive never played INFOCOMs on the C=64... Given the snail-speed of the 1541, I can imagine that must have been REALLY ANNOYING if Infocom games employed a similar system to the ATARI one.

[PeteD]

 

Because sore losers rather than admit defeat have to ruin the fun for everyone. That's the only motive I can see. Their too biased to admit their mistakes and try to find fault with others.

Don't participate if you don't like it.

 

I'm not suggesting the thread is locked, I'm suggesting people stop complaining when they have the power to do something about it.

 

 

Pete

[atariksi]

...

Well, the entire implication of "which has the better game" would be the "better" machine - or at least that's what all the trollers are trying to say, as they claim "C64 crushes Atari again" as it does in this case...

 

And that's faulty logic to draw a conclusion about the machine based on a few games; you have to get to the technical aspects of the games (and other applications) to know the machine better.

[Bryan]

My own learnings from this thread led me to my own excursion into programming the A8, and is leading me more to understanding why you've got what you have software-wise.. I've found it to be an absolutely frustrating machine that is utterly remorseless in it's ability to eat cpu cycles in return for the most basic of on-screen gubbins, at resolutions that are considered normal on most platforms.. But I persevere nonetheless because I'm a curious monkey

 

This really isn't fair. At its conception, it was the friendliest home computer ever designed. It had excellent color support, sprite hardware, 4 channel audio, and could be expanded by a total novice. Only in comparison to machines designed years later does it appear to have serious shortcomings. Such is the nature of retrocomputing. Better hardware was always just around the corner. Atari dropped the ball and someone else took the lead.

[PeteD]

My own learnings from this thread led me to my own excursion into programming the A8, and is leading me more to understanding why you've got what you have software-wise.. I've found it to be an absolutely frustrating machine that is utterly remorseless in it's ability to eat cpu cycles in return for the most basic of on-screen gubbins, at resolutions that are considered normal on most platforms.. But I persevere nonetheless because I'm a curious monkey

 

This really isn't fair. At its conception, it was the friendliest home computer ever designed. It had excellent color support, sprite hardware, 4 channel audio, and could be expanded by a total novice. Only in comparison to machines designed years later does it appear to have serious shortcomings. Such is the nature of retrocomputing. Better hardware was always just around the corner. Atari dropped the ball and someone else took the lead.

 

To come to Andy's defence, I don't think he's disagreeing with you. For it's time it's a nice machine and it's intriguing to us coders who have started writing games for it to find out just what is possible. It's that coder search for answers that's keeping us going, those of us who have worked on C64 and other more capable platforms, despite the initial uphill struggle of rewriting/optimising/thinking of different methods to do things. If it was a dire box of cogs and pulleys I don't think any of us would be bothering.

 

I've actually already spent way more time coding PC apps to handle my data for Exploding Fist than writing A8 code. That took me a few days to get the system set up how I want it, the background drawing, a software sprite routine to draw the Exploding Fist guys, etc. I'm just sidetracking myself with something else today after STE dug up some old C64 graphics last night, I've "massaged" them into the A8 for a quick something that may end up being a quick nothing

 

 

Pete

[analmux]

...It's just interesting to see that now suddenly the game-play isn't the all important defining factor as it was with previous games that were graphically sub-par, where it was argued the graphics weren't the important factor....

Almost as interesting as the fact that most C64-based visitors here are claiming a game is better on C64 because of the better gfx.

[analmux]

...I just meant that since there ARE no graphics on the Atari version, why are we spending so much time arguing about it?...

No need to argue indeed. I recall STE's logic: There is no gfx in the Atari version, so u have no 'problem' with it either. When comparing a game, we'd like to compare gfx vs. gfx, msx vs. msx etc. Now, in this case we can't make any comparison at all. So, there's no winner either.

[+wood_jl]

Oh, so now you want to debate "gameplay" of a text adventure? Let's hear your "semblance of justification" for dragging "gameplay" into the discussion of a text-adventure? Maybe next time...??

 

No, you misunderstand.. I don't care about the game-play comparisons.. But, earlier in this thread, it was suddenly all about the game-play not the graphics (or anything else for that matter) when the discussion was focused around a certain game on the A8 which measured up sub-par graphically.. I was just wondering if we were in for a repeat performance, and that's where my disappointment lay..

 

Ok, I get you. I do appreciate fair, equitable comparisons. I don't care who wins; I have BOTH A8 and C64 and I appreciate both. It seems that fairness is a **really** tough thing to come by. Forgive me for the impure supposition that several participants of this thread are in pursuit of anything but fairness. :( But I read you.

[+wood_jl]

 

 

Then lock it, ban him, do whatever because this thread hasn't been on topic for a veeeeeery long time and for the past day at least it's been people crying about Rockford who has only suffered abuse for at least being in the spirit of the thread and comparing games. Atarians have done much worse over the last 400+ pages.

 

 

Pete

 

Why would anyone have to lock/ban/whatever? Why not just point it out? [DONE]

 

Because it sounds like the mods are getting as sick as I am about all the whining going on when even they start whining too. It's been "pointed out" countless times already and he's not going to stop unless he's made to, and why should he?

 

 

Pete

 

I get you. However, being an idiot/troll (nobody in particular implied here) isn't beyond the rules here; only direct name-calling (etc) is. Certain participants really know how take advantage of said situation, like a pathogenic facultative anaerobic microbe infecting a hemorrhoid, they move into deeper tissue where they set up shop (here on Atari Age A8 forum, no less) and they adapt and survive, flying just under the radar of policy, spewing what ye expect them to. I imagine the proprietor (of this site) must maintain a standard of fairness....the very one the microbe flies under.....unfortunately.

[Albert]

I get you. However, being an idiot/troll (nobody in particular implied here) isn't beyond the rules here; only direct name-calling (etc) is. Certain participants really know how take advantage of said situation, like a pathogenic facultative anaerobic microbe infecting a hemorrhoid, they move into deeper tissue where they set up shop (here on Atari Age A8 forum, no less) and they adapt and survive, flying just under the radar of policy, spewing what ye expect them to. I imagine the proprietor (of this site) must maintain a standard of fairness....the very one the microbe flies under.....unfortunately.

The Forum Guidelines actually do list trolling as unacceptable behavior:

 

Trolling

 

Trolling isn't always easy to define, but it generally is easy to spot. Trolling usually involves disrupting a thread by posting messages that are off-topic, rude, inciting, and so forth. We recognize that topics will often veer off course for one reason or another, but when an individual member repeatedly disrupts threads in a negative fashion, that member will be warned. Trolling also includes creating new threads for the purpose of starting flame wars (known as "flamebait").

Some people are quite adept at walking a fine line when it comes to trolling.

 

..Al

[+wood_jl]

One thing I remember not liking at all, concerning the "playability" of INFOCOM text adventures on the ATARI, was the fact that it seemed to access the disk drive every time you typed something. My brother had some of the same INFOCOM games that I did, on his Apple II, and it hardly ever accessed the disk. My atari had 256k total ram, and his Apple had 128k. I dont know if the apple version of the games utilized the extended ram, and the atari versions did not, or what in fact the reason for this was.. But I remember being really annoyed by it.

 

Also, Ive never played INFOCOMs on the C=64... Given the snail-speed of the 1541, I can imagine that must have been REALLY ANNOYING if Infocom games employed a similar system to the ATARI one.

 

I haven't seen your name around here in so long I was wondering if you're still around! How many XF551s do you own, again? (looking at your pic) Serious question for you [sorry to depart from Commodore vs. Atari topic here] but CAN YOU or CAN YOU NOT get 800XL to 320K easily? (also, insert implications/ramifications of "Freddy" 800XL vs "standard" 800XL and please comment). Seems like a question(s) right up your alley. Most appreciative of potential reply. [back to flamewar now]

Edited October 14, 2009 by wood_jl

[+wood_jl]

 

Because sore losers rather than admit defeat have to ruin the fun for everyone. That's the only motive I can see. Their too biased to admit their mistakes and try to find fault with others.

Don't participate if you don't like it.

 

I'm not suggesting the thread is locked, I'm suggesting people stop complaining when they have the power to do something about it.

 

I submit that if I were the proprietor/management of this site, I'd like to feel free to jump in the debate and disagree (or agree) without artificially tripping the mechanism of censure. I don't know the proprietor from a hill of beans, but I think they do a reasonably good job here, and they certianly deal with their share of flamer-troller-troublemakers. I should think that "Atari" is an inflammatory word, from the frequency of such dealings. Perhaps we can conduct "official" interviews of Colecovision and Commodore users and find out if that is true. (Pardon to those who own/appreciate multiple systems, of course)

[andym00]

My own learnings from this thread led me to my own excursion into programming the A8, and is leading me more to understanding why you've got what you have software-wise.. I've found it to be an absolutely frustrating machine that is utterly remorseless in it's ability to eat cpu cycles in return for the most basic of on-screen gubbins, at resolutions that are considered normal on most platforms.. But I persevere nonetheless because I'm a curious monkey

 

This really isn't fair. At its conception, it was the friendliest home computer ever designed. It had excellent color support, sprite hardware, 4 channel audio, and could be expanded by a total novice. Only in comparison to machines designed years later does it appear to have serious shortcomings. Such is the nature of retrocomputing. Better hardware was always just around the corner. Atari dropped the ball and someone else took the lead.

 

 

I think you've misunderstood what I meant.. It wasn't meant as if to say I hate the machine or to knock the machine, the opposite in fact.. I enjoy it, because it's a challenge and there's so much more it can do I think.. Hell, why would I still be programming any 6502 machine today if it wasn't solely for the fun value.. But on this machine everyt-ime you get a great idea of how to do something it bites you back through the sheer lack of cycles to achieve it, so something else has to give in your master-plan, and it becomes a huge juggling act (more so than I've encountered on other 8bits I've programmed) to keep everything in the air..

 

Much of this is very specific to my stuff I've been writing, I know there's a multitude of ways of doing things, but I wanted lots of sprites, really, lots of the buggers, so I'm not here to discuss why or how I did something, just to give you an example of what I meant..

 

For example the players, do their job as described on the tin, but you eat through cycles like there's no tomorrow maintaining them, only doing so for the colours they bring, and then the 6502 isn't the exactly the best chip in town for software sprites either, so by the time you've got the display system you want you've either burnt through memory or reached a suitable trade-off between speed and memory.. That's the observation I made about seeing what you have software wise.. And I never really appreciated the 64 sprite system quite as much as I do now..

 

The realisation that in software (in a practical system) I can push maybe 10 C64 sized sprites using all the CPU (and still having something left to work with) was somewhat of a shock, in ways compounded through some of the misinformation I'd read here.. And hence all the half vertical resolution games in many of the games I've seen using more than a few sprites.. What easier way to get a (not insubtantial) number of cycles back to improve things ? And on NTSC machines I don't even want to think just yet of the number of cycles missing once again..

 

The way you can scroll the screen is lovely using LMS stuff, but the 4K boundary bites you if you're not looking, and combined with the fastest software sprites this is a major headache when you have no ability to clip sprites when you've gone for brute speed, the price you then pay is redrawing twice when a sprite overlaps the line where the screen wraps vertically, which is a royal pain in the arse performance wise if you've got a number of them straddling that zone.. And this is where the frustration sets in.. Trying to find the sweet spot between how the hardware works, and how to maximise its use from a software point of view, and how to achieve the goals in mind as quickly as possible from a cycle point of view..

 

edit: Bit about Atari and sprites removed, because that was wrong.. I completely forgot about the Lynx and it's rather mental sprite system (mental in a good way!) and the Jags ability to bang out sprites..So yeah, they got it right from the 7800 onwards, ball, missile and player dropping all the way.. />Anyway.. I do like the A8, and I'm having fun programming on it and seeing what it can do, and finding the sweet spot for performance for the stuff I'm writing, but for me, that doesn't even involve the possibility of half-vertical res. , or not running in a frame, or running in some tiddly window that doesn't fill the screen.. Full screen, full res, and running in a frame.. All of those cop-outs are half the reason why I wanted to have a pop at the A8.. It seems to me that it has been horribly under-utilised..

 

And too finally put all of the above in its proper context, for what I'm working on, I need around a metric bucket-load of software sprites moving on screen, all with PM underlays, on a screen in wide mode, 232 lines high, running in one frame, at full vertical resolution (non of this half res rubbish).. I can manage it, but not without having gone through countless different sprite routines and sprite multiplexers to achieve what I want.. You name it, I've tried it.. I've got the performance I want at last, but it's been a major uphill struggle to get there.. And the amount of memory I've burnt through just to achieve my display system and a workable solution to the game is astronomical in both cycles and memory compared to what I would have exhausted on the 64.. In fact the memory issue is one of the deciders over whether something is workable or not.. Of course you can just throw 320K of RAM at it, but where's the fun in that ?

 

But.. That's where the "utterly remorseless in it's ability to eat cpu cycles" comment comes from in my earlier post.. Never before have I expended so many cycles and so much memory for such little on screen return..

 

Anyway, I'm rambling, time to stop

Edited October 14, 2009 by andym00

[+wood_jl]

My own learnings from this thread led me to my own excursion into programming the A8, and is leading me more to understanding why you've got what you have software-wise.. I've found it to be an absolutely frustrating machine that is utterly remorseless in it's ability to eat cpu cycles in return for the most basic of on-screen gubbins, at resolutions that are considered normal on most platforms.. But I persevere nonetheless because I'm a curious monkey

 

This really isn't fair. At its conception, it was the friendliest home computer ever designed. It had excellent color support, sprite hardware, 4 channel audio, and could be expanded by a total novice. Only in comparison to machines designed years later does it appear to have serious shortcomings. Such is the nature of retrocomputing. Better hardware was always just around the corner. Atari dropped the ball and someone else took the lead.

 

Excellent point. In a day of absolute incompatibility and rapidly-advancing technology, I think they (Atari) did well to sacrifice advancement in order to maintain compatibility. Isn't this the hallmark struggle of hi-tech progress? To think the A8 predated the Vic-20 and had to endure clean-sheet later designs such as the Commodore 64 (which learned from - and copied from) speaks well for the A8 technology. Doesn't mean it's the "absolute best" mind you - it is not. It just speaks well for it. That's all. I suppose that's too much to ask for from flamer/trollers. I still maintain I enjoy the screenshot comparisons, because I really do appreciate both. Sorry if it's not the one YOU prefer.

[andym00]

To think the A8 predated the Vic-20 and had to endure clean-sheet later designs such as the Commodore 64 (which learned from - and copied from) speaks well for the A8 technology.

 

There's nothing I can think of on the 64 that strikes me as being wholly copied or even remotely based upon anything from the A8.. Lessons learnt, maybe, but I can't think of anything that jumps out as being obvious..

 

The similarities kind of stop with them both having a 6502 and sharing a character based screen.. That's literally it..

 

So, in your expert opinion would you care to enlighten me what was copied ?

[+wood_jl]

My own learnings from this thread led me to my own excursion into programming the A8, and is leading me more to understanding why you've got what you have software-wise.. I've found it to be an absolutely frustrating machine that is utterly remorseless in it's ability to eat cpu cycles in return for the most basic of on-screen gubbins, at resolutions that are considered normal on most platforms.. But I persevere nonetheless because I'm a curious monkey

 

This really isn't fair. At its conception, it was the friendliest home computer ever designed. It had excellent color support, sprite hardware, 4 channel audio, and could be expanded by a total novice. Only in comparison to machines designed years later does it appear to have serious shortcomings. Such is the nature of retrocomputing. Better hardware was always just around the corner. Atari dropped the ball and someone else took the lead.

 

 

I think you've misunderstood what I meant.. It wasn't meant as if to say I hate the machine or to knock the machine, the opposite in fact.. I enjoy it, because it's a challenge and there's so much more it can do I think.. Hell, why would I still be programming any 6502 machine today if it wasn't solely for the fun value.. But on this machine everyt-ime you get a great idea of how to do something it bites you back through the sheer lack of cycles to achieve it, so something else has to give in your master-plan, and it becomes a huge juggling act (more so than I've encountered on other 8bits I've programmed) to keep everything in the air..

 

Much of this is very specific to my stuff I've been writing, I know there's a multitude of ways of doing things, but I wanted lots of sprites, really, lots of the buggers, so I'm not here to discuss why or how I did something, just to give you an example of what I meant..

 

For example the players, do their job as described on the tin, but you eat through cycles like there's no tomorrow maintaining them, only doing so for the colours they bring, and then the 6502 isn't the exactly the best chip in town for software sprites either, so by the time you've got the display system you want you've either burnt through memory or reached a suitable trade-off between speed and memory.. That's the observation I made about seeing what you have software wise.. And I never really appreciated the 64 sprite system quite as much as I do now..

 

The realisation that in software (in a practical system) I can push maybe 10 C64 sized sprites using all the CPU (and still having something left to work with) was somewhat of a shock, in ways compounded through some of the misinformation I'd read here.. And hence all the half vertical resolution games in many of the games I've seen using more than a few sprites.. What easier way to get a (not insubtantial) number of cycles back to improve things ? And on NTSC machines I don't even want to think just yet of the number of cycles missing once again..

 

The way you can scroll the screen is lovely using LMS stuff, but the 4K boundary bites you if you're not looking, and combined with the fastest software sprites this is a major headache when you have no ability to clip sprites when you've gone for brute speed, the price you then pay is redrawing twice when a sprite overlaps the line where the screen wraps vertically, which is a royal pain in the arse performance wise if you've got a number of them straddling that zone.. And this is where the frustration sets in.. Trying to find the sweet spot between how the hardware works, and how to maximise its use from a software point of view, and how to achieve the goals in mind as quickly as possible from a cycle point of view..

 

edit: Bit about Atari and sprites removed, because that was wrong.. I completely forgot about the Lynx and it's rather mental sprite system (mental in a good way!) and the Jags ability to bang out sprites..So yeah, they got it right from the 7800 onwards, ball, missile and player dropping all the way.. />Anyway.. I do like the A8, and I'm having fun programming on it and seeing what it can do, and finding the sweet spot for performance for the stuff I'm writing, but for me, that doesn't even involve the possibility of half-vertical res. , or not running in a frame, or running in some tiddly window that doesn't fill the screen.. Full screen, full res, and running in a frame.. All of those cop-outs are half the reason why I wanted to have a pop at the A8.. It seems to me that it has been horribly under-utilised..

 

And too finally put all of the above in its proper context, for what I'm working on, I need around a metric bucket-load of software sprites moving on screen, all with PM underlays, on a screen in wide mode, 232 lines high, running in one frame, at full vertical resolution (non of this half res rubbish).. I can manage it, but not without having gone through countless different sprite routines and sprite multiplexers to achieve what I want.. You name it, I've tried it.. I've got the performance I want at last, but it's been a major uphill struggle to get there.. And the amount of memory I've burnt through just to achieve my display system and a workable solution to the game is astronomical in both cycles and memory compared to what I would have exhausted on the 64.. In fact the memory issue is one of the deciders over whether something is workable or not.. Of course you can just throw 320K of RAM at it, but where's the fun in that ?

 

But.. That's where the "utterly remorseless in it's ability to eat cpu cycles" comment comes from in my earlier post.. Never before have I expended so many cycles and so much memory for such little on screen return..

 

Anyway, I'm rambling, time to stop

 

 

Wow, I think this was an excellent post. Hat off to you, regardless of anything said previously. This kind of thought makes the entire thread worthwhile. Respect.

[Rockford]

More selective pics. more trolling..

Do tell how this is trolling - it's rather valid. The Atari version is an embarrassment next to those 2 pics. The truth may hurt, but this isn't trolling.

 

Stephen Anderson

Do tell how it's not trolling.. Always the same selective examples designed to illicit a negative response complete with smart ass comment and smileys..

Amazing..

Just because the truth may hurt doesn't make Rockford a troll.

...

You don't know the truth-- that's the problem. You are ASSUMING he's being truthful while the C64 bias obviously oozes out of him.

 

 

How do you know that ? Oh, I always forget that you are the one, who can read people's minds. Scary stuff.