Atari v Commodore

[Bryan]

Another key word is MORE. You get more beautiful results with more colors and shades. If you had 256 colors, C64 pictures wouldn't be as ugly as they are.

 

You heard it here first folks! The line between beautiful and ugly falls precisely between the 800 and the 64.

[STE'86]

 

Another key word is MORE. You get more beautiful results with more colors and shades. If you had 256 colors, C64 pictures wouldn't be as ugly as they are.

 

if so it does beg the question:

 

why do the developers of G2F (which u all seem to quote as tho it was the most awesome software available) use these "ugly" c64 images to demo their software of what the Atari should/could/might be able to display?

 

its a very odd choice on their part if anyone except you thought they were ugly wouldnt u say? (have u actually considered its JUST you?)

 

and on the subject of many shades, it is i'm afraid supremely boring to draw an image with many colours simply because half the fun is whether u can actually pull it off with a limited palette. when u know it can be done because u have 256/truecolour why bother? u may as well use a scan or a photo.

 

Steve

[TMR]

Another key word is MORE. You get more beautiful results with more colors and shades. If you had 256 colors, C64 pictures wouldn't be as ugly as they are.

 

You heard it here first folks! The line between beautiful and ugly falls precisely between the 800 and the 64.

 

[scratches head] so that makes the C64DTV beautiful...? A8 style 256 colour palette with sixteen colours a scanline before the CPU needs to get involved, the C64's hardware sprites, the option of either approach for bitmapped graphics, a variation on the A8's memory window and a C64-style DMA to get at expansion memory, what is essentially a reduced power SID and all strapped to a 6502... and if it's a DTV2 or better, full-blown 8BPP bitmap and character modes and a two source blitter.

[TMR]

Time for a classic!

 

 

Full half hour...

 

 

Pete

Personally, I'm looking forward to the "being hit on the head lessons."

 

They're called "programming an 8-bit", presumably you can't remember them due to concussion...? =-)

[PeteD]

Time for a classic!

 

 

Full half hour...

 

 

Pete

Personally, I'm looking forward to the "being hit on the head lessons."

 

They're called "programming an 8-bit", presumably you can't remember them due to concussion...? =-)

 

Noooo, coding on 8 bits isn't like that at all. Now if only I could remember who I am and where I live...

 

 

Pete

[potatohead]

LOL!!!

 

This turn is kind of entertaining for me. I'm going to submit this to the discussion:

 

The art comes from the limitations. That's why any of us are here. We appreciate the art. It's expressed in all sorts of ways:

 

C64 pixel artists (and I really like most of the pictures linked, they are quite good all things considered)

Device independent OS (Atari 8 bitter)

Various demo / scene productions (both machines)

Music (both machines)

Small code doing big things (both machines)

Atari Pixel artists / programmers (On Atari, I think you must be both for the better productions)

Design(Atari mostly --The 400 is one of the most striking 8 bit computers made, I kept it for that reason alone, never fails that somebody will pick it up and start talking about their machine, whatever it is, IMHO, an Icon, like the Joystick is an Icon)

 

and so it all goes.

 

The "beauty" is in the eyes of the beholder. The artist does it to express themselves in some way, and is rewarded when someone else recognizes that.

 

Where "the art" is concerned, I find I like the more coarse texture, color gradients, or just cycling, or combinations, found on the Atari best. I believe this works a lot like imprinting does. A Jay miner chip has a feel to it. Jay didn't go for resolution as much as he did color, and options. The CBM VIC II went for resolution. My early computing experiences were TRS 80, which I never found all that beautiful, VCS, Atari computers, Apple, TI, then later in the game C64.

 

None of these machines has enough to really work without limits, so we have art as a result of that. And as has been pointed out, very similar art exists for all of them. The limits are similar for all of them. I know I didn't imprint on a C64 as well as I did the other machines. One thing I've seen from this monster thread is that the kind of things seen on both machines are very similar. This is something I totally appreciate.

 

Why does the demoscene exist? People gather at places (breakpoint, assembly, etc...) and do interesting things with hardware that's all manner of odd, limited, you name it?

 

It exists for the art, and the challenge and recognition of expressing it. It also exists for the memories too.

 

IMHO, given these things, to say that one machine is more "beautiful" than the others is just kind of selfish. I've done it before, so nobody take that personal. It's selfish because our own imprinting is special to us, and depending on where you lived and what you had, that imprinting is kind of something we don't really choose.

 

There is a growing scene on micros today. Why? Because the chips are interesting, and they have limits, there is a challenge, etc... Why do modern scenes place limits, such as 4K, 64K, etc...? Because where there are limits, there is art, that's why.

 

I think it's far more enlightening to share why we favor some art over others, and own that for our reasons, than it is to poo-poo others appreciation for the art they find compelling enough to even discuss, let alone spend time expressing.

 

On a side note: Can those C64DTV things run all older C64 software, through expansion, add on, modification? If so, I think building up one of those with that device wood_jl got would be an absolute kick.

Edited October 15, 2009 by potatohead

[PeteD]

 

On a side note: Can those C64DTV things run all older C64 software, through expansion, add on, modification? If so, I think building up one of those with that device wood_jl got would be an absolute kick.

 

With some hardware modding you can flash it and push a new set of games onto it. Sometimes they need "fixing" to run properly.

 

Some gumph here http://picobay.com/dtv_wiki/index.php?title=C64_DTV_Hacking_Wiki

 

btw, totally agree with the rest of your post.

 

 

Pete

[potatohead]

 

On a side note: Can those C64DTV things run all older C64 software, through expansion, add on, modification? If so, I think building up one of those with that device wood_jl got would be an absolute kick.

 

With some hardware modding you can flash it and push a new set of games onto it. Sometimes they need "fixing" to run properly.

 

Some gumph here http://picobay.com/dtv_wiki/index.php?title=C64_DTV_Hacking_Wiki

 

btw, totally agree with the rest of your post.

 

 

Pete

 

Of all the things Atari, I seriously wish we had seen a project like this. There is still time, so maybe... [crosses fingers]

[TMR]

On a side note: Can those C64DTV things run all older C64 software, through expansion, add on, modification? If so, I think building up one of those with that device wood_jl got would be an absolute kick.

 

It's not a straight out "yes" because there are some incompatibilities and it's preferable to use a version 2 or better C64DTV because the first version isn't as accurate, but generally speaking yes; modifying a C64DTV to convert it is a matter of soldering on a PS/2 keyboard connector, connections for the serial bus (all marked out on the PCB, designer Jeri Ellsworth's gift to the community) and, if it's DTV2 or DTV3, reversing two of the resistors because some twonk at the manufacturers got them reversed. After that, from what i gather it should work fine with the majority of C64 games.

 

At the moment, there are only two C64DTV-specific games and both require at DTV2 or better for the 8BPP graphics modes, one is a modified version of Boulder Dash done by the members of Tristar and Red Sector Inc. and the other is own Blok Copy which looks like this:

 

 

i've been meaning to write an action game for all models of DTV, though...

[atarian63]

Much as I hate to say anything nice about c64, as there are many shortcomings..

It has some nice pics, some of which I grabbed from someone here.

Just shows what can be done with work,time and a good artist. I can appreciate that at least.

[flashjazzcat]

This thread never ceases to amaze me, and not just by virtue of its astounding longevity. It seems to have turned into an argument about aesthetics, and aesthetics really are subjective. Personally, I love black and white films. I hate colourised black and white films. That said, there are many colour films I enjoy. I used to draw portraits in pencil: pure monochrome. I've spent hundreds of pounds on fancy digital cameras and I often end up purposely removing the colour and upping the grain. Why? It looks nice.

 

More colour might equal more beauty to some: to others it won't. It really depends how that extra colour is used. Sometimes it's used appallingly badly on the Atari. Other times, it's used well. The nicest, most subtle mono mode on the Atari is hobbled by the awful 4:1 aspect ratio. If the devil is in the detail, higher res (C64) would always win hands down. But it doesn't always win. I have - however - seen some quite stunning still images from the C64. The real artistry there has to do with the artist himself: those limitations we talk about, working within 16 colours. Similarly with the Atari, where the limitation is not colour but resolution.

 

The Atari has (realistically) much lower resolution when more colours are available. The C64 can have more colour at higher resolution, but from a very limited palette. Great things can be done with both. Personally, the "artsy" pictures from the C64 have tended to have the edge from what's been posted in this thread. But that's just my (subjective) opinion.

 

An argument on aesthetics... I tend to think of a gallery full of critics, mulling over the merits of Warhol vs Monet, or a heated debate on the pros and cons of Damien Hirst and the Pre-Raphaelites. But this C64 vs Atari thing is turning into more of a fist fight, or even something from an episode of Jeremy Kyle/Jerry Springer - albeit with unusually articulate guests.

 

I don't think there's much "ugly" about either computer. Many things - with the benefit of hindsight - appear garish, primitive, or naive. But even these adjectives are styles of painting.

 

Uh... I'm rambling on too much. Every now and then I notice remarks in this topic I want to respond to: usually because most of the rest of the forum has remained almost static for a whole day while this one races ahead at virtually a post a minute.

[PeteD]

 

On a side note: Can those C64DTV things run all older C64 software, through expansion, add on, modification? If so, I think building up one of those with that device wood_jl got would be an absolute kick.

 

With some hardware modding you can flash it and push a new set of games onto it. Sometimes they need "fixing" to run properly.

 

Some gumph here http://picobay.com/dtv_wiki/index.php?title=C64_DTV_Hacking_Wiki

 

btw, totally agree with the rest of your post.

 

 

Pete

 

Of all the things Atari, I seriously wish we had seen a project like this. There is still time, so maybe... [crosses fingers]

 

It's been done for pretty much everything else and someone did start an FGPA 800 but it seemed to fizzle out.

 

 

Pete

[TMR]

Of all the things Atari, I seriously wish we had seen a project like this. There is still time, so maybe... [crosses fingers]

 

It's been done for pretty much everything else and someone did start an FGPA 800 but it seemed to fizzle out.

 

Weird thing is... expansions/rebuilds like these take the fun away from coding for an 8-bit, i did enjoy learning the C64DTV to do Blok Copy and i've had fun writing RAM expansion-based scroll engines for the C64 a few weeks ago, but for some reason it's nowhere near the almost perverse pleasure i've had from rewriting the sprite handlers i came up with for the A8 three times so far...

[TMR]

This thread never ceases to amaze me, and not just by virtue of its astounding longevity. It seems to have turned into an argument about aesthetics, and aesthetics really are subjective.

 

The bad news is that you're disagreeing with an Atarian and agreeing with me... sorry. =-)

 

But this C64 vs Atari thing is turning into more of a fist fight, or even something from an episode of Jeremy Kyle/Jerry Springer - albeit with unusually articulate guests.

 

Tell you what, i'll do everyone here a deal; if we get on Jeremy Kyle, we all go at it great guns until the little fecker least expects it, then we all jump on him!

[potatohead]

Totally.

 

When the limitations are gone, so is that spark of doing something great. IMHO, this has a lot to do with the expectations surrounding actual old hardware. Back in the day, an extra color or something was a big deal! People noticed. The state of the art was crude, with lots of open doors, niches for people to do their thing and be recognized for it.

 

Putting some expansion on that is a cheat, plain and simple.

 

This is why I personally am not for expansions, though I think I would be for building one. Ironic that is. The hardware challenge has recognition, but once done, the spark kind of fades.

 

Always found that kind of weird.

 

I like micros today too, for the same limitations. Blowing the expectations out of the water on the modern day micros works just like it did for the old computers.

 

Another thing about those expectations is they are right about where one person, or maybe a small team, can really do something great, without having to carry the burdens needed to meet expectations on more capable hardware. This is kind of the essence of gaming to me. I really love all of it. Playing, programming, watching, etc... It's just a great level of computing, whether new or old.

[PeteD]

Of all the things Atari, I seriously wish we had seen a project like this. There is still time, so maybe... [crosses fingers]

 

It's been done for pretty much everything else and someone did start an FGPA 800 but it seemed to fizzle out.

 

Weird thing is... expansions/rebuilds like these take the fun away from coding for an 8-bit, i did enjoy learning the C64DTV to do Blok Copy and i've had fun writing RAM expansion-based scroll engines for the C64 a few weeks ago, but for some reason it's nowhere near the almost perverse pleasure i've had from rewriting the sprite handlers i came up with for the A8 three times so far...

 

It's because the originals ARE the originals It's that sense of achievement of doing something on original old kit especially after all this time. I did some C64 stuff as a test the other week that I never would have thought of in the 80s but my multi platform experience between then and now taught me lots of new techniques and broadened my thinking on attacking certain problems. Definitely got to have a bit of masochist in you though

 

 

Pete

[Crazyace]

Definitely got to have a bit of masochist in you though

 

Pete

 

Only if you are working on 2600 code

[TMR]

Definitely got to have a bit of masochist in you though

 

Pete

 

Only if you are working on 2600 code

 

[shrugs] i'm a masochist anyway...

[PeteD]

Definitely got to have a bit of masochist in you though

 

Pete

 

Only if you are working on 2600 code

 

No, that's just downright insane behaviour

 

 

Pete

[+thegoldenband]

I'm reminded of the famous line by William Morris, quoted on the jacket of Racing The Beam -- "You can't have art without resistance in the materials." Beauty and theoretical technical capability (like number of colors, etc.) are two totally different and independent qualities, and while technical capability can be useful in the service of beauty, sometimes beauty specifically springs from the limitations of the medium.

 

As for atariksi's post, most of it speaks for itself without needing additional commentary from me, but I do want to correct one factual point. While I have never owned a working C64 or Atari 8-bit computer (I do own a C64 that's currently out of commission), I most certainly have used both computers quite a bit, as well as owning a 5200 back in the day for over a decade.

 

But ownership is not a reliable indicator of a person's history with a machine, since many of us who couldn't afford to purchase our own computers had opportunities to use them at school, at work, or at the homes of friends or relatives. I wasn't able to buy my first modern computer (a Mac G3) until the late 1990s, yet I came to the machine with a high level of proficiency, since I'd been using other people's Macs since 1984, had been using Macs professionally since 1993, and had some experience programming on other platforms.

 

In any event, one's technical expertise has nothing to do with their ability to gauge whether a person is being civil and reasonable, or rude and destructive -- these things don't depend on the subject matter. One need not know much about computers at all to spot the difference between someone who's being polite and respectful towards his peers and equals, and someone who is doing the opposite. The Internet makes it easy to act boorishly and get away with it, but I wouldn't advise talking to the patrons at your local bar with the kind of tone and attitude some of you have been taking with people here, or you may be in for a very rude awakening.

Edited October 15, 2009 by thegoldenband

[Lazarus]

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)..

No, as far as I remember it was Al Charpentier from MOS.

 

EDIT:

 

Actually it was Charles Winterble:

 

http://www.commodore.ca/gallery/magazines/c64_design/2.jpg

Edited October 15, 2009 by Lazarus

[flashjazzcat]

This thread never ceases to amaze me, and not just by virtue of its astounding longevity. It seems to have turned into an argument about aesthetics, and aesthetics really are subjective.

The bad news is that you're disagreeing with an Atarian and agreeing with me... sorry. =-)

Good grief... I know that. This is exactly the kind of hair-trigger reaction I'm on about. It's also patronising. Most of the (rare) comments I've made on this thread happen to have erred in favour of the C64's graphics. No particular agenda - I just try to be a balanced kind of guy. There's no reason to assume I'm any kind of Atari die-hard fanboy just because I love the machine and write software for it.

[PeteD]

This thread never ceases to amaze me, and not just by virtue of its astounding longevity. It seems to have turned into an argument about aesthetics, and aesthetics really are subjective.

The bad news is that you're disagreeing with an Atarian and agreeing with me... sorry. =-)

Good grief... I know that. This is exactly the kind of hair-trigger reaction I'm on about. It's also patronising. Most of the (rare) comments I've made on this thread happen to have erred in favour of the C64's graphics. No particular agenda - I just try to be a balanced kind of guy. There's no reason to assume I'm any kind of Atari die-hard fanboy just because I love the machine and write software for it.

 

Don't take to heart fella, that there's TMR's special cheeky =-) at the end. I really don't think he was having a pop, merely having a little chuckle at what usually happens when someone dares agree with someone tarred with the C64 brush

 

Unless of course I should mind my own beesewax, Jason?

 

 

Pete

Edited October 15, 2009 by PeteD

[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.

Hahah. that wasn't a Commodore Engineer! That was Carmel Andrews (our token retard)..

No, as far as I remember it was Al Charpentier from MOS.

 

EDIT:

 

Actually it was Charles Winterble:

 

http://www.commodore.ca/gallery/magazines/c64_design/2.jpg

But all that says is they examined the machines to figure out what their machine needed to have. That's just due diligence.

[emkay]

 

if so it does beg the question:

 

why do the developers of G2F (which u all seem to quote as tho it was the most awesome software available) use these "ugly" c64 images to demo their software of what the Atari should/could/might be able to display?

 

 

I wonder if this question is somehow serious. Many pictures were simply converted to show that it is possible. It also is easier to use available resources. Not all people -using the A8- were as talented as Powrooz.

 

Some clues:

Pictures with more than 200 pixel height or with more than 16 colours are hardly C64 sourced