Atari v Commodore

[frogstar_robot]

 

It's really interesting. They really hammer their argues over and over again... I'd bet that they finally will stop, if we all say that the C64 was the all over "far superior" machine. But why spreading a lie?

The retarded CPU and the hard colour limits, the 3.6kHz restriction, only 3 channels, the huge borders, the slow Floppy access

... just NO ! It's only if you like this combinaton, you could get happy with it.

 

But impressive things have been done to ameliorate those limitations and I always respect a good hack. Anyhoo, I'll let them have their fastloaders if they quit banging on about our memory expansions.

[emkay]

Some good points in oky2000's reply. I could agree that Gyruss is a little bit controversial, but saying that A8 version is superior is seriously laughable !

 

 

 

It's really intresting "how less" some people were achieved when it comes to technical details.

 

Gyruss , and many more games, just like Popeye, Rescue on Fractalus, and others , run at approx. 80% speed when running them on PAL machines. This belongs to the VBI dependand programming, without doing adjustments for their PAL counterparts.

This doesn't means that PAL Ataris were slower. It's just that the 50Hz show less frames per second.

In fact they could run even faster due to the lesser cycle stealing on PAL Ataris.

[andym00]

But impressive things have been done to ameliorate those limitations and I always respect a good hack. Anyhoo, I'll let them have their fastloaders if they quit banging on about our memory expansions.

 

Ummm, since it's entirely software and doesn't use anything beyond that available on a stock machine (with a disk drive, obviously) I don't see why that should entail any consideration in kind for the A8 ? You might as well say, the 64 can use a multiplexer if they stop banging on about our memory expansion..

[Lazarus]

But impressive things have been done to ameliorate those limitations and I always respect a good hack. Anyhoo, I'll let them have their fastloaders if they quit banging on about our memory expansions.

Extra RAM on A8 = homebrew hardware

Fastloader on C64 = software

[PeteD]

Some good points in oky2000's reply. I could agree that Gyruss is a little bit controversial, but saying that A8 version is superior is seriously laughable !

 

 

 

It's really intresting "how less" some people were achieved when it comes to technical details.

 

Gyruss , and many more games, just like Popeye, Rescue on Fractalus, and others , run at approx. 80% speed when running them on PAL machines. This belongs to the VBI dependand programming, without doing adjustments for their PAL counterparts.

This doesn't means that PAL Ataris were slower. It's just that the 50Hz show less frames per second.

In fact they could run even faster due to the lesser cycle stealing on PAL Ataris.

 

But if games are locked to a frame and ran inside one frame on NTSC they would then run easily within one frame on PAL BUT the NTSC one would run 20% faster... So people comparing speeds of games by saying "hey the Atari versions IS NTSC so is faster" is kind of odd, especially if the C64 version runs in NTSC as well.

 

If you're going to be talking about VBIs the you mustn't confuse "running faster" with "processing more".

 

 

Pete

[frogstar_robot]

But impressive things have been done to ameliorate those limitations and I always respect a good hack. Anyhoo, I'll let them have their fastloaders if they quit banging on about our memory expansions.

Extra RAM on A8 = homebrew hardware

Fastloader on C64 = software

 

Up to 128k was factory supported and configurations beyond that were commercially sold. Furthermore, use of up to 128k is common and customary though an unmodded 800XL suffices to run 99% of what's out there.

 

The fastloader may indeed be software but if you want to talk about hardware the C64 disc system is quite the nasty can of worms. It's nice the things can be used as a sort of co-processor and I did envy the larger stock capacity back in day but they largely preclude the sort of peripheral emulation that is common with A8s. I can emulate a stack of drives of arbitrary size up to 16M, printers, and modems with 10 bucks in Rat Shack parts and an old laptop. The best analogous solution for the C64 is the rather expensive and limited production 1541 Ultimate to emulate a 1541 to use SD cards....and SD card drives are an A8 option as well. It's good that was done but relatively dumb peripherals seem the better trade-off here.

[Lazarus]

Up to 128k was factory supported and configurations beyond that were commercially sold. Furthermore, use of up to 128k is common and customary though an unmodded 800XL suffices to run 99% of what's out there.

But then it's C128 vs 130XE and not C64 vs 800XL

 

The fastloader may indeed be software but if you want to talk about hardware the C64 disc system is quite the nasty can of worms.

I don't see any hardware problems? It's just a standard DD drive mech with some small computer. The only "bad" thing about 1541s is the slow CBM DOS routines which can be replaced by uploading own code to the drive.

 

The best analogous solution for the C64 is the rather expensive and limited production 1541 Ultimate to emulate a 1541 to use SD cards....and SD card drives are an A8 option as well. It's good that was done but relatively dumb peripherals seem the better trade-off here.

1541u is far more than just a drive emulation. It also emulates the Commodore RAM expansions including their DMA controller, it emulates several multifunction carts like Action Replay etc which give you a lot of resident tools like machine language monitor, basic extensions, resident fast loader, freezer etc etc.

[frogstar_robot]

 

I don't see any hardware problems? It's just a standard DD drive mech with some small computer. The only "bad" thing about 1541s is the slow CBM DOS routines which can be replaced by uploading own code to the drive.

 

 

The small computer IS the problem. It does very little to enhance the drive over what was available for other micros and it must be emulated or replicated if you want to replace it with anything. With other micros, it is only necessary to understand the protocol and timing requirements to emulate/replace their drives. This certainly isn't trivial to do but can be done with software and minimal additional hardware. With the C-64, speaking the drive protocol is of course a minimal challenge though that is replaced by the much more difficult problem of emulating another 6502 based machine.

 

Though I have to wonder here. Vice and all other competent Commodore emulators have to emulate the 1541/71 drive logic in order to run everything. How hard would it be to lash that emulation to a hardware adapter so that APE-like peripheral emulation could come to the Commodores?

 

And as I said in the earlier post. An unmodded 800XL suffices to run most things and that is a 64K machine. It is only excluded from a small handful of games, a rather more significant selection of demos, and limited audience utility software like BBSes that buffered everything up in big ramdisks. The size of that big memory library is probably comparable to C128-only library.

[Lazarus]

 

I don't see any hardware problems? It's just a standard DD drive mech with some small computer. The only "bad" thing about 1541s is the slow CBM DOS routines which can be replaced by uploading own code to the drive.

 

The small computer IS the problem. It does very little to enhance the drive over what was available for other micros and it must be emulated or replicated if you want to replace it with anything.

The little computer offers a nice advantage: You don't need to boot a DOS and you don't need drivers for different devices and filesystems.

 

With other micros, it is only necessary to understand the protocol and timing requirements to emulate/replace their drives.

So you need a slightly bigger FPGA. Not much of a difference. The 1541 isn't exactly hard to emulate.

 

Though I have to wonder here. Vice and all other competent Commodore emulators have to emulate the 1541/71 drive logic in order to run everything. How hard would it be to lash that emulation to a hardware adapter so that APE-like peripheral emulation could come to the Commodores?

That's already been done years ago, but requires MS-DOS ofcourse.

[frogstar_robot]

 

So you need a slightly bigger FPGA. Not much of a difference. The 1541 isn't exactly hard to emulate.

 

Though I have to wonder here. Vice and all other competent Commodore emulators have to emulate the 1541/71 drive logic in order to run everything. How hard would it be to lash that emulation to a hardware adapter so that APE-like peripheral emulation could come to the Commodores?

.

.

.

That's already been done years ago, but requires MS-DOS ofcourse.

 

It apparently is difficult enough that only one old PC implementation exists and one viable modern hardware replacement exists. A custom FPGA certainly doesn't match the ease of 10 bucks worth of breadboard parts. The best A8 interfaces are USB and indeed have custom chips but that isn't necessary to have a serial port based solution that still outperforms the standard A8 floppy drives.

 

Not needing a DOS isn't a huge advantage. Things like games can get by with minimal loaders. I haven't seen that the requirement for a DOS inherently makes other 8-bits harder to use or necessarily saps a lot of system resources. I notice that even today peripherals tend not to be that smart. Excessive logic in them wasn't a great idea then and usually isn't now.

Edited October 23, 2009 by frogstar_robot

[atariksi]

lol you're off again now u think the coast is clear arent you atariski and emkay?

 

the offer still stands to put your money where you mouth is (i doubt anyone but Bill Gates has that sort of money tho)

 

AND come on over to TMR's forum

 

and sign up for an A8/c64 "code off"

 

you like very much to "talk the talk" about how superior the A8 is and how easily u can do this and that. How about u "walk the walk" for once on here?

 

stop telling us how its better than the c64 and show us for a change eh?

 

or just bottle out and vanish for a few days like last time till u think its clear again.

 

Steve

 

We already know the ATARI 800 is far better, otherwise the Commodore 64 supporters wouldn't try so desperately to defend their machine over here (and posting mostly ga-ga information).

 

 

well come on and show us then.

 

tell u what, if any of the "big talkers" on here have the bottle to go for it, i'll even try to provide the graphics for what they want. i cant say fairer than that.

 

Steve

 

You're going to provide the graphics targetted for Atari or ported from C64?

[atariksi]

 

second.. As was shown earlier in the thread Gyruss A8 is the superior version.

 

 

Nothing was "shown" to me as being superior. Just some people saying the A8 is better doesn't prove anything, same as you guys keep saying about Rockford's posts. As far as I'm concerned both Gyruss versions are ok, they each have their faults.

 

 

Pete

Actually what we have said about rockfords post are accurate. Selective crap just to elicit a negative reaction. in other words.. trolling.

 

You misunderstand I think. I'm not saying what anyone thinks about Rockford's posts is correct or incorrect, I'm saying that nobody has proven A8 Gyruss is better apart from A8 guys saying it's so. And yet if Rockford posts a comparison and says the C64 version is better he gets told it isn't half the time. There's no "proof" either way.

 

 

 

Pete

 

 

GYRUSS:

 

Only one detail of C64 version is good against Atari version, C64 version use 160x200 res meanwhile Atari use 160x100 res. But despite this:

 

- Atari animations are really good. Anbd don't forget Atari Gyruss is a NTSC version, so if you look on a real NTSC or emulator configured at NTSC you'll find a extraordinary 60fps.

- Planet looks better drawed on Atari version with his "worse-res"

- Stars move faster and more smoothly

- Enemies don't flick on Atari version

- C64 version doesn't have perfect collision on enemies, specially when they are so far.

- C64 version show some glitches on the video when mixing the text messages on screen

 

It's easy to choose the Atari version, you only need some playing minutes.

 

And:

-A8 uses hardware collision detection and software collision detection uses up more CPU time.

-A8 switches palette every scene which adds to the beauty of this beast.

-A8 is 16K ROM or disk-based so it loads faster (like most things).

-A8 has pause mode which C64 could have benefitted from to show its hi-res.

 

A8 wins hands down. You can't just say "hi-res" for a fast-paced game like this.

[PeteD]

-A8 uses hardware collision detection and software collision detection uses up more CPU time.

 

Are you sure? Can you supply the relevant code snippet? I'd imagine it's pmg to pf collisions in which case how does it tell what enemy it collided with? Besides which how does an internal bit of code like that make a difference to how good the game is as long as it works?

 

-A8 switches palette every scene which adds to the beauty of this beast.

True, not sure what it adds to the game though and imo it has some pretty horrid colour combinations but that could be the fault of anyone/anything.

 

 

-A8 is 16K ROM or disk-based so it loads faster (like most things).

C64 Gyruss came on cartridge.

 

-A8 has pause mode which C64 could have benefitted from to show its hi-res.

A pause mode? In an arcade game? That's just for lamers

 

 

A8 wins hands down. You can't just say "hi-res" for a fast-paced game like this.

 

Your opinion, no proof there of it winning hands down.

 

 

Pete

[STE'86]

You're going to provide the graphics targetted for Atari or ported from C64?

 

well the general consensus of opinion favours PC format indexed colour files available to either machine and immediately usable by neither. that way the coders can decide on how they intend to utilize the source images and what compromises they need to make to make it work for their particular mode or hardware.

 

also that way neither can "steal a march" on the other. in fact doing graphics as 4 colour source would make it a very level playing field as this can be immediately converted to either machine and be "tweaked" using pmgs on the a8 and colour ram on the 64.

 

but i am open to requests if u have something specific in mind.

 

can we expect to see u over there shortly then?

 

Steve

[atariksi]

GYRUSS:

 

Only one detail of C64 version is good against Atari version, C64 version use 160x200 res meanwhile Atari use 160x100 res. But despite this:

 

- Atari animations are really good. Anbd don't forget Atari Gyruss is a NTSC version, so if you look on a real NTSC or emulator configured at NTSC you'll find a extraordinary 60fps.

- Planet looks better drawed on Atari version with his "worse-res"

- Stars move faster and more smoothly

- Enemies don't flick on Atari version

- C64 version doesn't have perfect collision on enemies, specially when they are so far.

- C64 version show some glitches on the video when mixing the text messages on screen

 

It's easy to choose the Atari version, you only need some playing minutes.

 

The double in vertical resolution doesn't help in the C64 version, because of the rotating animations.

And the stars in the background really hurt the gameplay there. This caleidoskopic effect you see very often in C64 games. "Chars" get reused with slighty changed content, to reduce this.

The Atari version of Gyruss is rounded up, just the arcade with a full half of the resolution, while the C64 is still a botch job, just like other games where the slow CPU must get worked out by VICII features.

 

Yeah, they should have realized they are targetting a home computer so trying to go for the arcade resolution and speed was a bad trade-off. Better off sacrificing resolution and going for the smooth playback. And we're comparing C64 vs. A8 so no need to bring arcade into the picture. It's mental deranged thing to overload the CPU and cause flicker (due to resolution, collision detection, etc.) rather than go for the smooth playback. I still pick Atari pac-man at 160*200 rather than the PC CGA pac-man at 320*200 with flicker. Pause is useless for an arcade but useful for home games where you don't have to put a quarter in. Colorful scene changes spices up the variety. Only fanboys of C64 would claim C64 is superior.

[atariksi]

Some good points in oky2000's reply. I could agree that Gyruss is a little bit controversial, but saying that A8 version is superior is seriously laughable !

 

 

 

It's really intresting "how less" some people were achieved when it comes to technical details.

 

Gyruss , and many more games, just like Popeye, Rescue on Fractalus, and others , run at approx. 80% speed when running them on PAL machines. This belongs to the VBI dependand programming, without doing adjustments for their PAL counterparts.

This doesn't means that PAL Ataris were slower. It's just that the 50Hz show less frames per second.

In fact they could run even faster due to the lesser cycle stealing on PAL Ataris.

 

Well, if you argue with Rockford, you just have to do random searches on the internet and do a speculative reconstruction. For example, you can prove A2600 of Gyruss is better by the price:

 

C64 full disk version:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370198398604

 

Just the manual for the A2600 version is more expensive:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260310066266

[PeteD]

Instead of guessing how games work and saying that makes another version superior people should go disassemble them like I just did, and did the other day with RoF to show it does actually draw the whole landscape every time.

 

The reason Gyruss flickers on C64 is because it's trying to display too many hardware sprites and so "interlaces" them, a trick seen many times on A8 games. It's nothing to do with CPU time. It also uses hardware collision registers in probably the same way the A8 version would have to, "something" bullet like has collided with "something" enemy/ship like, then work out in software what that was.

 

 

Of course I won't mention that with a little bit of work the C64 version didn't need to flicker, that would be along the lines of could've, should've, would've

 

 

 

Pete

[+Stephen]

Instead of guessing how games work and saying that makes another version superior people should go disassemble them like I just did, and did the other day with RoF to show it does actually draw the whole landscape every time.

 

Pete

Yeah, but that takes a little bit of effort doesn't it Much easier to argue here than to try and code something.

 

Stephen Anderson

[atarian63]

-A8 uses hardware collision detection and software collision detection uses up more CPU time.

 

Are you sure? Can you supply the relevant code snippet? I'd imagine it's pmg to pf collisions in which case how does it tell what enemy it collided with? Besides which how does an internal bit of code like that make a difference to how good the game is as long as it works?

 

-A8 switches palette every scene which adds to the beauty of this beast.

True, not sure what it adds to the game though and imo it has some pretty horrid colour combinations but that could be the fault of anyone/anything.

 

 

-A8 is 16K ROM or disk-based so it loads faster (like most things).

C64 Gyruss came on cartridge.

 

-A8 has pause mode which C64 could have benefitted from to show its hi-res.

A pause mode? In an arcade game? That's just for lamers

 

 

A8 wins hands down. You can't just say "hi-res" for a fast-paced game like this.

 

Your opinion, no proof there of it winning hands down.

 

 

Pete

compare the play to the arcade, there is your proof. Really simple.

[PeteD]

 

Your opinion, no proof there of it winning hands down.

 

 

Pete

compare the play to the arcade, there is your proof. Really simple.

 

And what if I have and still don't agree? If you're going to say MAME doesn't count I know a few MAME dev's who would disagree and I'll bet everyone else apart from you on here comparing versions doesn't own the cab, so if you can tell me exactly where the cab differs to MAME I'll take that into account. Both C64 and A8 have things wrong with them. Neither is as good as the arcade, what makes the A8 one superior? Besides, Atariksi said we're comparing C64 to A8 not the arcade

 

I honestly do like both versions equally and I'm trying to make the point that nobody can make someone else agree on something subjective. Rockford gets endless shit for posting comparisons BECAUSE he posts ones where he's gone out of his way to find "superior" C64 games yet when something is fairly close like Gyruss and people are having to invent/guess at stuff to say A8 is better it sounds like it's arguing for arguments sake, or rather for the need to win that argument and say A8 is a superior machine.

 

 

Pete

[Heaven/TQA]

now again another repeated Heaven comment... save your energy and CODE!

[Rockford]

 

Well, if you argue with Rockford, you just have to do random searches on the internet and do a speculative reconstruction. For example, you can prove A2600 of Gyruss is better by the price:

 

C64 full disk version:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370198398604

 

Just the manual for the A2600 version is more expensive:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260310066266

Funny, so far, only atarians have compared random games on different platforms (as you have just done). I've been comparing only C64 & A8 games. You know, day by day, meticulously according to my list. So, it's rather far from random, don't you think ? LOL But as always, you are the one who knows what other people think and do.

[Rockford]

Today another "random" game. LOL

 

52 - WORLD SOCCER

 

C64

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has better hi-res graphics and more colours. The Atari version has worse graphics with limited colours. C64 wins again.

 

ATARI

ATARI

ATARI

[atariksi]

But impressive things have been done to ameliorate those limitations and I always respect a good hack. Anyhoo, I'll let them have their fastloaders if they quit banging on about our memory expansions.

 

Ummm, since it's entirely software and doesn't use anything beyond that available on a stock machine (with a disk drive, obviously) I don't see why that should entail any consideration in kind for the A8 ? You might as well say, the 64 can use a multiplexer if they stop banging on about our memory expansion..

 

I don't see any problem with fast loaders, but you have to count in the overhead of uploading the code, not the same for all software, and not present on boot-up. And Atari I/O speed up just requires one boot block and is also doable all in software and that I/O speed far exceeds C64's I/O speed.

[atariksi]

...

A8 wins hands down. You can't just say "hi-res" for a fast-paced game like this.

 

Your opinion, no proof there of it winning hands down.

 

 

Pete

compare the play to the arcade, there is your proof. Really simple.

 

I doubt any arcade game would take the flicker graphics over smoother display even at half resolution. All flicker modes are inferior to flickerless modes. Otherwise, atari sprites can outdo c64 sprites.

 

I wonder if someone implemented the "insert quarter" gadget for A8 or C64 and then claim this is a closer to arcade.