Atari v Commodore

[Rockford]

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.

 

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...?

 

(And again, to my mind what Rockford is doing is far less like trolling than what Gury did previously.)

 

added to the fact that u really dont need 420 posts to say:

 

Rescue on Fractalus, Koronis Rift and Ballblazer u mean?

 

Steve

LOL

[Rockford]

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

ROTFL andym00 please......

[Rockford]

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.

And that was a huge blow for me.

[Rockford]

1,2,3.........23,24,25 TWENTY FIVE (if I haven't missed one) WHINING POSTS (including one from admin) !!!! Holy crap....atarians, get a grip, after all it's just one game. I know it's been a painful example, but let's not behave like sissys. Anyway, today for a change something for faint hearted, something to soothe nerves. A game that could anesthetize even Mike Tyson during fight night. Yeap it's time for some golf simulator.

 

44 - PRO GOLF

 

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has better graphics in hi-res and more colours. The Atari has ugly low-res graphics and limited number of colours (mostly muddy green ). I'm a little bit afraid to say that C64 is better again.

 

ATARI

ATARI

[+wood_jl]

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

Uh, I don't claim to be the expert..you do. Why don't you compare the Vic-20 to the Atari8, then compare to the C64 to the A8, figure out what was improved, then enlighten us, since you're the goddamned expert, and claim to be. I certainly don't. But since you've such humongous balls, I think you should have a go at it.

[andym00]

Uh, I don't claim to be the expert..you do. Why don't you compare the Vic-20 to the Atari8, then compare to the C64 to the A8, figure out what was improved, then enlighten us, since you're the goddamned expert, and claim to be. I certainly don't. But since you've such humongous balls, I think you should have a go at it.

 

 

Don't put words in my mouth..

You claim the Commodore machines copied ideas from the A8s..

I can't see where.. So perhaps you can share this knowledge ?

Just a list of copied ideas and/or lessons learnt would suffice.. Something brief..

 

 

 

 

 

[Albert]

1,2,3.........23,24,25 TWENTY FIVE (if I haven't missed one) WHINING POSTS (including one from admin) !!!! Holy crap....atarians, get a grip, after all it's just one game. I know it's been a painful example, but let's not behave like sissys.

You're pushing your luck now.

 

..Al

[atarian63]

1,2,3.........23,24,25 TWENTY FIVE (if I haven't missed one) WHINING POSTS (including one from admin) !!!! Holy crap....atarians, get a grip, after all it's just one game. I know it's been a painful example, but let's not behave like sissys. Anyway, today for a change something for faint hearted, something to soothe nerves. A game that could anesthetize even Mike Tyson during fight night. Yeap it's time for some golf simulator.

 

44 - PRO GOLF

 

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has better graphics in hi-res and more colours. The Atari has ugly low-res graphics and limited number of colours (mostly muddy green ). I'm a little bit afraid to say that C64 is better again.

 

ATARI

ATARI

I kinda like the A8 version, easier on the eyes. Probably plays smoother due to better graphics setup and faster cpu.

[atarian63]

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.

Just did the same, a waste of skin that one.

[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.

 

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.

 

Atari allowed their top engineers to leave, and then wasted millions on unfinished/unreleased/unrealistic hardware concepts. IMO it was lack of focus that took them down. It's exactly like Nolan Bushnell said, they didn't have a long-range plan- they just didn't get it.

[Bryan]

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..

Ah understood.

 

Yeah, that's pretty much how my projects go. I start out with a pie-in-the-sky plan and then scale it back as needed. The best thing is when you discover a short-cut that gives you something back.

[atarian63]

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), and it's not as if the original poster stuck around long enough to see the thread unfold.. And besides that, the 'Golden 8' were covered in pretty short order anyway in other threads if I remember rightly.. It was more a case of light blue touch-paper.. Stand well back.. Which he indeed did very well..

 

Either way, it's an informational thread, and has been eye-opening to me not only from the technical aspect which I've enjoyed in here (and indeed led to me programming the thing), but also the lunatic technical hocus-pocus believed some of the barely clinging to reality fringe, some of whom appear likely to argue the earth is flat given half a chance.. But that aside..

 

If you really believe he's doing a bad job, pull up some games where the A8 does in fact trump the 64.. And that means posting both platforms pictures, not just one as you seemed to think the games rules say..

I'd love to see them, everyone would, but I'm believing they're simply not there.. If he really is doing such a bad job, then I'd expect there to be a positive thunderstorm of posts showing and demonstrating how the A8 is clearly better, but there isn't, which is all the more remarkable given the enemy territory brave lone Rockford solider seems to have parachuted into.. But there's no counter to his posts ? Apart from name-calling.. Why ?

 

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

 

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

A fairly reasoned post. Yes there are many examples and hopefully I'll have some time to dig for them. Atarimania is excellent! A great resource. I have found a few others that have many games not listed there though only one or no screen shot. Hard to have time. I must imagine old Rockford either is not working (no insult if you are not) or just has one mission in life and has the time for digging.

 

As for Al's original statement a few messages back about the original posters intent.

Here it is:

Does anybody have any views on where any titles were launched on both Atari and Commodore - and the Atari version is the better of the two?

 

Steve

 

You are correct there have been some really interesting things here on the technical side. Though not a programmer I can appreciate the problems presented here in both platforms. Back in the days I was strictly a hardware guy. Fix,repair,upgrade etc.

 

Maybe I'll take you advise and make some popcorn and watch BBoy and Rockford entertain me.

[+wood_jl]

Uh, I don't claim to be the expert..you do. Why don't you compare the Vic-20 to the Atari8, then compare to the C64 to the A8, figure out what was improved, then enlighten us, since you're the goddamned expert, and claim to be. I certainly don't. But since you've such humongous balls, I think you should have a go at it.

 

 

Don't put words in my mouth..

You claim the Commodore machines copied ideas from the A8s..

I can't see where.. So perhaps you can share this knowledge ?

Just a list of copied ideas and/or lessons learnt would suffice.. Something brief..

 

o.k...b.u.t..l.e.t.s..d.o..it..s.l.o.w.l.y. Let's acknowlege that A8 came BEFORE everything but PET, which licked balls to the Nth degree that you still taste it (and somehow, I submit that you LIKE IT)

 

Let's do it in order of chronology, to avoid confusion.

 

How fast was Atari 400/800 processor? Vic 20 processor? 64 processor? Oh shit, no improvement there!! Ah! Move on!

 

How many colors did Atari 400 have? Vic 20? Commodore 64? Oh shit, no improvement there!!! Ah! Move on!

 

How was A8 sound? Vic-20 sound (oh shit, regression), then Commodore 64 sound? (minus the missing voice, C64 sound very good).

 

How many sprites did A8 have? Vic-20 (GOOF!!!), then C64? Ok, 64 did well but it was about time.

 

Brief enough? You claim to be the expert. Sorry; I work in health care, so while I can claim to saving a few livers, I can't claim to be the end-all computer man that you are. Since you are, tell me EXACTLY what software titles that you've coded, that uphold your ballsy claim to fame? Oh, I haven't heard of any? Oh, you're just a blowhard? Heh! I figured just as much. Carry on. (P.S. if you coded anything from Donkey Kong to the Paperclip word processor, I apologize in advance - hypothetically - but in reality I expect you to bite where the sun don't shine.

[Lazarus]

Don't put words in my mouth..

You claim the Commodore machines copied ideas from the A8s..

I can't see where.. So perhaps you can share this knowledge ?

Just a list of copied ideas and/or lessons learnt would suffice.. Something brief..

 

o.k...b.u.t..l.e.t.s..d.o..it..s.l.o.w.l.y. Let's acknowlege that A8 came BEFORE everything but PET, which licked balls to the Nth degree that you still taste it (and somehow, I submit that you LIKE IT)

 

Let's do it in order of chronology, to avoid confusion.

 

How fast was Atari 400/800 processor? Vic 20 processor? 64 processor? Oh shit, no improvement there!! Ah! Move on!

 

How many colors did Atari 400 have? Vic 20? Commodore 64? Oh shit, no improvement there!!! Ah! Move on!

 

How was A8 sound? Vic-20 sound (oh shit, regression), then Commodore 64 sound? (minus the missing voice, C64 sound very good).

 

How many sprites did A8 have? Vic-20 (GOOF!!!), then C64? Ok, 64 did well but it was about time.

He didn't ask for comparisions, he asked for stolen ideas. In some interview a Commodore engineer said they looked at the A8, TI99 and Intellivision and build their ideas on top. Since that quote I heard a lot of Atari people claim "Commodore stole everything from Atari" which is utter nonsense.

[+CharlieChaplin]

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.

 

 

Well,

it was annoying then - but nowadays its easy: Use an alternative OS like QMEG-OS (or any other OS that enables booting from XRAM/Ramdisk instead of a floppy-drive), copy your Infocom disk to XRAM/Ramdisk with a sectorcopier, finally re-direct drive 8 (the XRAM/Ramdisk) to drive 1 and off you go. Everything will now be loaded from XRAM instead of floppy-drive. And if you happen to have a battery-saved XRAM (like the 512k XRAM by mega-hz) you could even power-off the A8 and continue to play the Infocom game some days later...

 

-Andreas Koch.

Edited October 14, 2009 by CharlieChaplin

[MEtalGuy66]

He didn't ask for comparisions, he asked for stolen ideas. In some interview a Commodore engineer said they looked at the A8, TI99 and Intellivision and build their ideas on top. Since that quote I heard a lot of Atari people claim "Commodore stole everything from Atari" which is utter nonsense.

 

 

Hahah. that wasn't a Commodore Engineer! That was Carmel Andrews (our token retard).. Apparently, a few years back, he convinced the editor of some on-line newsletter that he was someone of historical authority. The article is still on the web, as well as the backpedaling apologetic follow-up article that the mag had to post when actual commodore engineers contacted him and stated what utter B*LLSH!T it was...

Edited October 14, 2009 by MEtalGuy66

[Bryan]

He didn't ask for comparisions, he asked for stolen ideas. In some interview a Commodore engineer said they looked at the A8, TI99 and Intellivision and build their ideas on top. Since that quote I heard a lot of Atari people claim "Commodore stole everything from Atari" which is utter nonsense.

 

If Commodore copied anything it was arcade hardware which was frequently tile/sprite based and usually fully discrete TTL logic. I could draw a lot of parallels between the 64 and a PacMan PCB. However, I have no doubt that MOS was capable of building these circuits from scratch.

[MEtalGuy66]

 

Well,

it was annoying then - but nowadays its easy: Use an alternative OS like QMEG-OS (or any other OS that enables booting from XRAM/Ramdisk instead of a floppy-drive), copy your Infocom disk to XRAM/Ramdisk with a sectorcopier, finally re-direct drive 8 (the XRAM/Ramdisk) to drive 1 and off you go. Everything will now be loaded from XRAM instead of floppy-drive. And if you happen to have a battery-saved XRAM (like the 512k XRAM by mega-hz) you could even power-off the A8 and continue to play the Infocom game some days later...

 

-Andreas Koch.

 

Why on earth would I do that, when I could just use my MIO ramdisk? The MIo has all those features already present in it's firmware.. I can make up to a 960k ramdrive, sector copy whatever I want to it, and then assign it as D1: and boot from it.. and its nonvolatile as long as power is supplied to the MIO..

 

Anywayze.. Thats not the point.. The poitn I was trying to make is that there IS such thing as "playability" in text adventures..

Edited October 14, 2009 by MEtalGuy66

[+wood_jl]

Don't put words in my mouth..

You claim the Commodore machines copied ideas from the A8s..

I can't see where.. So perhaps you can share this knowledge ?

Just a list of copied ideas and/or lessons learnt would suffice.. Something brief..

 

o.k...b.u.t..l.e.t.s..d.o..it..s.l.o.w.l.y. Let's acknowlege that A8 came BEFORE everything but PET, which licked balls to the Nth degree that you still taste it (and somehow, I submit that you LIKE IT)

 

Let's do it in order of chronology, to avoid confusion.

 

How fast was Atari 400/800 processor? Vic 20 processor? 64 processor? Oh shit, no improvement there!! Ah! Move on!

 

How many colors did Atari 400 have? Vic 20? Commodore 64? Oh shit, no improvement there!!! Ah! Move on!

 

How was A8 sound? Vic-20 sound (oh shit, regression), then Commodore 64 sound? (minus the missing voice, C64 sound very good).

 

How many sprites did A8 have? Vic-20 (GOOF!!!), then C64? Ok, 64 did well but it was about time.

He didn't ask for comparisions, he asked for stolen ideas. In some interview a Commodore engineer said they looked at the A8, TI99 and Intellivision and build their ideas on top. Since that quote I heard a lot of Atari people claim "Commodore stole everything from Atari" which is utter nonsense.

 

Colorful (moreso than the competition) graphics well-animatated (moreso than the competition) with better sound (moreso than the competition) were Atari hallmarks. Cheaper than the competition. (Apple 2? TRS-80? what was cheaper or better at the time???) Then came the C64. Nothing was stolen? Surely the Edsel took something from the Model T. Likewise with 8-bits.

[MEtalGuy66]

the Edsel and Model T were both Ford Motor Company Products... How would they "steal" their own design?

 

The point is:

 

Comparing features of existing products and purposely designing YOUR product better is not the same as "stealing" design characteristics.. Carmel had said that Commodore engineers actually "reverse engineered" the ATARI 8-bit chipset and used it as a basis for their C= 64 design..

Edited October 14, 2009 by MEtalGuy66

[+wood_jl]

the Edsel and Model T were both Ford Motor Company Products... How would they "steal" their own design?

 

The point is:

 

Comparing features of existing products and purposely designing YOUR product better is not the same as "stealing" design characteristics.. Carmel had said that Commodore engineers actually "reverse engineered" the ATARI 8-bit chipset and used it as a basis for their C= 64 design..

 

I agree. They didn't reverse-engineer it. I should have compared a Mustang and Camaro or something more obvious, but where's the dividing line between actually reverse-engineering, and just saying "Hey, that sh*t looks pretty good? Let's make that sh*t or something that does that sh*t or similar sh*t??? I guess as long as I make the Atari lose, I gain points in this forum. Ok, Atari loses. Yes, I find I have a lot of fun with my C64. Disclaimer: only reason the Atari loses is because so many would have it that way. Doesn't affect my fun, but somehow seems necessary for this crowd. I like both, have fun with both. Somehow, it's difficult to suggest you like Atari-8 - and (as I'm so fond of reminding everybody) IN AN ATARI-8 FORUM WITHIN AN ATARI SITE, NONETHELESS. I guess Commodore should fire-up Auschwicz and throw the few remaining Atari users in. Commodore users can man the red-hot poker and avenge Tramiel.

[Barnacle boy]

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

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding The Knight Orc Controversy (Coming soon, from Robert Ludlum), I wonder if the few posters here who are complaining that the comparison is somehow invalid would have objected if the situation were reversed. Imagine if the Atari version had graphics while c64 version was text only, and it had been posted earlier in the thread as an example of a game being better on Atari than on c64. Would the guys complaining now have piped up saying it didn't count? Or would they have accepted that, yes, the lack of graphics is a valid and significant negative point in the comparison.

 

I agree that Rockford could be less inflammatory with his wording in his comparisons. But still, instead of beating around the bush with cries of 'TROLL!', or with talk about the original purpose of the thread (a few hundred pages after derailment), or with objecting to each and every comparison (doesn't count cos one doesn't have graphics! not golden age! lazy programmer! etc), why not just come out and say "I don't want to see any more examples where the c64 version of a game is better than the Atari version."

 

And fair enough if you don't want to see any more. This is Atariage. You come here to soak up some Atari goodness. Maybe one day TMR will fire up his platform agnostic site for these discussions and everyone can go at it until the cows come home. But at the moment, it's looking like some of you have realised that Rockford probably has a list of fifty or more comparisons to get through, and you're looking for ways to shut him down without really acknowledging why you wish he'd just go away.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Barnacle boy

[Barnacle boy]

Re: Knight Orc

 

I just meant that since there ARE no graphics on the Atari version, why are we spending so much time arguing about it? The Atari version sucks. Let's move on and compare games that DO have graphics, so we can compare screenshots, which are the meat-and-potatoes of this thread. By "not a valid comparison" I meant that it's silly to try to assess the Atari against the beautiful Commodore version when there's nothing to compare. Sure, it's the same title so everyone who wants to frame the entire arguement around that fact alone....enjoy yourselves. I'd just rather move on and compare screenshots of things that are - in my opinion - more comparable - such as comparative graphical screenshots from each platform, of equivalent games.

 

 

Sorry, I missed this post earlier. I wish I hadn't missed it, because you have helped me see your point. While I think the comparison is valid in itself, I certainly agree that comparisons in which both versions actually have graphics are not only more interesting in general, but can lead to some cool insights into why the graphics might have been handled a certain way on each platform, and even how it could have been done better.

 

Oddly enough, after those Bop'n'Rumble shots I posted earlier, I spent a surprisingly long time dreaming about how DLIs could have been used to make the game better looking. (I think I might be in danger of catching emkayitis! )

 

As a matter of fact, I'd like to see more examples of Atari games that make good use of DLI colour splits. I don't mean just whacking a gradient in a sky (although that can look very nice) or just a somewhat distracting rainbow colourbar effect behind some background (Alternate Reality style), but actual clever use of colour splits. I remember the example reworking of Konami's Ping Pong that was floating around these forums some time ago (by Tezz, I think?). That was pretty damn cool. As was TMR's sneak preview of his Atari shmup. I actually get a real kick out of seeing shots like that. After spending so many years carefully choosing pixels from the good old c64 16-colour palette, there's something strangely thrilling about seeing non-c64 colours and shades put to good use in that very familiar 160px resolution.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Barnacle boy

[MEtalGuy66]

personally, i just like the ATARI better.. It's true you can squeeze more tricks out of the commodore chipset.. But I like the atari better.. i liek it's OS.. I like it's hardware design.. Hell, i even like its characteristic limitations.. I have both systems.. On sits on a shelf collecting dust.. guess which one that is..

[TMR]

I agree. They didn't reverse-engineer it. I should have compared a Mustang and Camaro or something more obvious, but where's the dividing line between actually reverse-engineering, and just saying "Hey, that sh*t looks pretty good? Let's make that sh*t or something that does that sh*t or similar sh*t???

 

The dividing line is that reverse engineering involves copying the function of something (either by a process of analysing it's operation or directly ripping the thing to bits and seeing how it ticks) and there's too many differences between Atari's hardware and Commodore's (as well as a logical progression from the PET to the later machines) to claim that happened; both the A8 and C64 have sprites, but they handle them differently, both have a bitmapped screen but deal with them differently, the way they generate multicolour is the same but that's true of other platforms, colour selection in character-based modes is different.

 

Somehow, it's difficult to suggest you like Atari-8 - and (as I'm so fond of reminding everybody) IN AN ATARI-8 FORUM WITHIN AN ATARI SITE, NONETHELESS.

 

Yes, you're very fond of reminding people but, as has also been said previously, just because this is an A8 forum within an Atari site, that does not insulate people from having potentially inflamatory claims or false accusations questioned or indeed rebuked.

 

As for the sarcasm about it being difficult to suggest you like the A8, read what the C64 people are actually saying and most of them are here because they find the machine interesting and a significant number of them are looking at it from a programming standpoint, there's not many Atarians who seem to be willing to take their love that far.