Atari v Commodore

[Bryan]

I would agree Atari 800 keyboard is superior (and more expensive to make) than Atari 800XL keyboard. I think some people just get used to one keyboard and falsely think the others are inferior. I still haven't found the warm reset key on the C64 keyboard.

 

I thought the 64 had a decent keyboard for low cost machine: full stroke and not mushy. I thought the layout was mildly insane, though. The old Stackpole keyboards on the 800 were nice with gold-plated contacts but prone to breaking which caused the keys to fall out. There was a later version made by Mitsumi which was similar in feel to the 1200XL keyboard.

[atariksi]

Never said 8 cyl is better than 4 cyl. One uses more resources although gives better speed.

Never said you did, it's a comparitve example.

...

It still does not make sense since I don't agree 8 cyl is always better.

 

>Different architectures use hardware in different ways, so cpu speed alone is irrevelant to what is getting done per cycle.

 

I always compared each hardware aspect separately in this thread and left combining the resources to the creativity. Yeah, you may have another hardware support that may make it better in some applications like the Copper does in the Amiga, but then the Amiga would win in the custom chips catagory but still would lose in the CPU speed catagory when compared to faster CPUs.

 

>Yes, the A8 CPU is clocked "faster" then that of the C64. Happy. Now, explain how that is "better" in application given the architecture differences.

 

The way to look at it is to take a C64 w/1.79mhz and one with 1Mhz and see which one you would prefer. You can always slow things down.

Your problem is you are already combining various hardware aspects where one may be superior on one machine than another (mixing things up).

 

>No, more colors is nothing more the more colors. It's only "better" if you care about that in relation to what you want/need. If you don't, then it's moot. I mean, are you trying to say that the A8 is better then every pre-1987 IBM/Clone PC that ever came out because they didn't have 256 colors yet?

 

You can always use less color modes.

 

>Get what I'm saying yet?

 

You are mixing up different aspects of the hardware.

[atariksi]

Yeah, even the standard 1.19Mhz timer on the PC cannot be used in Windows 2000/XP/Vista thanks to the HLI (hardware-limited interface, a.k.a API). But even if you have a high resolution timer, the caching, power management, dynamic frequency changes, non-standard hardware leading to inconsistently timed API calls, etc. will throw off timing unless you program for the worst case in which case you are not going to optimally use your 2+Ghz processor nor your hardware. That's one thing great about standardized machines like Amiga, Atari, C64, etc. is that you can directly access the hardware and know it'll be the same on the other machine. Earlier PCs were more exact than modern PCs.

 

Current consoles sometimes are programmed to the bare metal because it isn't customary to upgrade consoles apart from more space for savegames and whatnot. Early PCs used to have that in common with consoles but no longer. The model then was to hug the bare metal with display kernals and whatnot. Games would be developed on and look good on the primary platform then look half-hearted elsewhere.

 

These days sheer brute force is used to present (mostly) consistent APIs regardless of underlying hardware. I too romanticize and am nostalgic about machines where you can know everything about what ever memory location and every chip does. But the current way is much more practical. I can run atari800 on Windows, OS X , Linux, handheld consoles, phones and as long as a certain minimum of graphics capability and cpu cycles are available, the same reasonable approximation of my old computer works the same on all of them. Yeah it leads to bloat. And it is an obscene waste of computing resources compared to the spare but efficient 8-bits we grew up on. But this way allows for a very broad ecosystem of development and the inability to host that ecosystem is why nobody but Apple is still around....and they build machines out of PC parts too these days.

 

It was good that programs were targetted directly to hardware I/O. Apple missed out on those because of lack of hardware or using API-based standards. That's where PCs have taken a hit in creativity-- by limited to API-based games and applications rather than standardizing on hardware I/O ports and letting people be more creative. I mean you could still protect some ports like disk I/O, but in general hardware should be standardized on I/O ports for maximum efficiency. And of course processors could have been made to be more exact.... more later.

 

Okay, I had to leave before I could finish this. I wanted to give the example of VGA and keyboards. Keyboards on PCs used the standard 60h-64h ports and the VGAs used the A000:0000 memory map and various standard ports like 3D0h, 3C0h, etc. Many many companies made keyboards and VGA cards, but they used the same I/O ports so applications could either go through BIOS, use some library, or go directly to the I/O ports. The standard was on the hardware level rather than some API. Now given the standard I/O ports, you had some applications that checked for horizontal retrace and do things like change colors and other stuff (like we do on Amiga, Atari, etc.). Now you have to either rewrite the entire screen via BitBlt() or similar function or call stuff like GetMessage() which are inexact as to how many cycles they will take. So real-time effects are limited to what the API allows you to do.

[emkay]

>Yes, the A8 CPU is clocked "faster" then that of the C64. Happy. Now, explain how that is "better" in application given the architecture differences.

 

The way to look at it is to take a C64 w/1.79mhz and one with 1Mhz and see which one you would prefer. You can always slow things down.

 

 

Probably many games did not attract me on the C64 because I used the Atari before. Seeing all this trickerys for compensating the slower CPU, one recognizes on the first sight then.

Beginning with 2D Drop Zone (with reduced enemies) jumping over ISO 3D in Head over Heels(Objects do not move at the same time) getting back to 2D Turrican (hard triggered enemies) and hitting the Goal with 3D like Rescue on Fractalus where even optimized code didn't help in performing anything on the C64.

 

Really, a 2MHz C64 with this Colour RAM and reading every colour of this 16 registers from a 256 colour palette plus a 4 channel SID with a better frequency edge than 3,5kHz given, no debate was going on here.

 

Ok....

There also was no debate going on here, if the XL series got some upgraded GTIA and the POKEY got a real 16 bit upgrade. And to double the system speed was even possible in 1983.

 

 

But, if both happened, the debate was going on again

[kenfused]

emkay... aehm... Atariski mentioned that Joust is doing 8 sprites per line and it does not...

 

Okay, you tell me how many sprites does it show on a scanline when you are playing two players with the dragon flying around in expert mode? Or do I have a hacked version that has 8 sprites per scanline.

4 at any given 1/60th of a second.

[Artlover]

Yeah, you may have another hardware support that may make it better in some applications like the Copper does in the Amiga, but then the Amiga would win in the custom chips catagory but still would lose in the CPU speed catagory when compared to faster CPUs.

"CPU Speed Catagory"? - You're just proving my point. You're hung up on raw numbers taken out of context of the whole.

 

I don't understand that thinking at all. Particularly in the idea of the debate. Comparing the capabalities of two machines. As in, what can you do with it.

 

Not C64/A8, but if you have two machines, one is twice as fast as the other, but both perform exactly the same, then that faster speed is irrelevant. As a matter of fact, it raises questions like: Why does your machine need to be twice as fast in order to accomplish the same thing.

 

Generally in the real world, the better worker is the one who can do more with less, not the one who does less with more.

 

The way to look at it is to take a C64 w/1.79mhz and one with 1Mhz and see which one you would prefer.

A 1.79mhz C64 compared to a 1.02mhz C64 would be faster, yes. And? That's not the debate. Neither is if the Atari CPU is faster then the C64 CPU and even if it was it, that still doesn't answer if an A8 will benchmark faster then a C64.

 

Back in 1984, a magazine by the name of "Your Computer" used benchmarks from another old school magazine Kilobaud Microcomputing to compare the C64, 800XL, BBC Micro and Sinclair Spectrum. I've been trying to track them down to see what they did exactly, but have had no luck in weeks of searching. From the article (link follows), I suspect they are basic. Anywho.... The Sinclair did the worst despite being the fastest (3.5mhz), and Atari did worse then the C64. The BBC micro came out on top by a large margin despite being only 2mhz. Here's a link: http://www.gondolin.org.uk/hchof/reviews/yc-atari800xl.html

 

Now, before anyone jumps on me. I conceed basic is not a good test since the basic interpreters of these machines are not equal and it doesn't get to the low level hardware of them. But still, it's an interesting factoid none the less.

 

It shows even then, how the machine performed was the benchmark, not what was under the hood. That's still the same benchmark that exists today with modern consoles and computers. Maybe we shouldn't "fix" a standard that already exists, and use it instead.

 

Your problem is you are already combining various hardware aspects where one may be superior on one machine than another (mixing things up).

Your problem is you think a singular hardware aspect alone determines it worth rather then what it does (singleing things out).

 

Every single one of these Vs. threads is the same. Be it 7800 or Coleco, or whatever. They are about comparing what they can do compared to one another, but always degenerate into throwing hardware specs around which in and of themselves have little bearing of what they can actually "do compared to one another." Why. Why does it ALWAYS have to be this way?

[Shannon]

If your comparing the A8 to CGA then I would say a definitive yes. CGA had some ugly ass colors. The spectrum was not that far behind.

Edited December 8, 2008 by Shannon

[Heaven/TQA]

If your comparing the A8 to CGA then I would say a definitive yes. CGA had some ugly ass colors. The spectrum was not that far behind.

 

btw... is there a particular reason for being the cga colours so badly choosen? pink, grey and what ever?

[Rybags]

Back in 1984, a magazine by the name of "Your Computer" used benchmarks from another old school magazine Kilobaud Microcomputing to compare the C64, 800XL, BBC Micro and Sinclair Spectrum. I've been trying to track them down to see what they did exactly, but have had no luck in weeks of searching. From the article (link follows), I suspect they are basic. Anywho.... The Sinclair did the worst despite being the fastest (3.5mhz), and Atari did worse then the C64. The BBC micro came out on top by a large margin despite being only 2mhz. Here's a link: http://www.gondolin.org.uk/hchof/reviews/yc-atari800xl.html

 

Now, before anyone jumps on me. I conceed basic is not a good test since the basic interpreters of these machines are not equal and it doesn't get to the low level hardware of them. But still, it's an interesting factoid none the less.

 

It's well known that Atari's Basic is slow and the Floating Point routines play a large part, as do lack of optimisation in Basic such as lookahead for branches rather than starting at the beginning of the code every time.

 

Comparing Basic performance of computers isn't very indicitive of actual power - it's like comparing a Camaro to a Mustang by counting how many shopping bags you can fit in the back.

[Artlover]

If your comparing the A8 to CGA then I would say a definitive yes. CGA had some ugly ass colors.

But it compensated with much higher resolution too.

 

I used to view my porno gif's on the A800 because the C64 gif viewer at the time was a bit lame, but more colors or not, I prefered 16 color EGA on my PC because there was more, er, detail, in the pictures.

[Heaven/TQA]

It certainly didn't have the same amount of people doing ML, only people like you who can't do shit. Btw guys like you already scared of lots of productive people who were pissed off by Atari scene before they even started.

Was this comment really necessary? How do you think insulting FastRobPlus in any way contributes positively to this thread? It doesn't. Further comments of this nature from anyone will result in immediate removal from the 8-bit forum. If you can't discuss this topic in a rational manner, then please stop posting in it.

Then remove me please. All I can say is: I tried to get 3 different graphics people to do A8 gfx for my stuff, and all of them got rather pissed by the A8 scene quickly, either by finding their graphics ripped by some A8 lamer with their tags removed or by the general attitude.

 

Na, you are one of the "less emotional" c64 guys out there... and really people ripped gfx? they can only ripp gfx when they have been released???

 

I guess we are a smaller scene with less active people... in terms of ppl let me have a look who I can remember:

 

code:

 

pps, eru, fox, xxl, Bryan, Pete, Tebe, TMR, Cybernoid, Raster, Fandal, Probe and some other additional polish/czech guys

 

gfx:

 

a little bit more ppl... thanks to Tebe but only in terms of static pictures... in terms of sprites? (PG, Emkay, Kaz, Powrooz et al.)

 

msx:

 

quite few (Miker, Emkay, Sal come to my mind...)

 

hardware:

 

quite few but can not remember this morning...

 

now...look...compared to c64 scene... puh...not much??? not many active people?

[Heaven/TQA]

emkay... aehm... Atariski mentioned that Joust is doing 8 sprites per line and it does not...

 

Okay, you tell me how many sprites does it show on a scanline when you are playing two players with the dragon flying around in expert mode? Or do I have a hacked version that has 8 sprites per scanline.

 

joust handles more than 8 virtual sprites but they get multiplexed. play it in higher levels and then press space for pause when there are more than 4 sprites on a horizontal line and you get the flickering like in Konami NES or Gameboy games... ("ring buffer")

[Allas]

This discussion is being very long, I think where is the recurrence error, there is a basic reason: the Atari had its golden age before 85 and the C64 after that year. The history describes one irrefutable fact : the C64 won the prices war, and for this reason had the biggest sales, soon great software companies put concentration only on the C64. Oh, and i can guess how much money they invest on developing new software and portings.

 

I don't want to hear someone adding other commentaries, because is a easy principle. Nobody in 80's can choose exactly the better machine, only they choose a good machine with the lowest price, with more games, with more people interested. C64 is a good machine, have nice features for his time. Why they don't choose Atari computer (a good computer in his time too),.... despite the game database, the price is very important, and Atari cost twice the C64 on 1983.

 

I see along this post and other post, C64 users can't take notice about the real power of an Atari computer. It seems happens this:

 

- He hadn't a chance to appreciate the best games of the golden age of Atari ( before 84), maybe not his preferred style game, or simply considered "old games". Then, he choose Atari games from 1985-1994, but in this period Atari haven't the same companies that invest great money for the portings or new games. Only existed independent companies that use only the 20% of the Atari power. We can appreciate in this period a lot of games without colors, bad portings, loose of the fine animation from his golden period. This caused bad impression on C64 people for Atari games.

 

- Technically, he thinks as a C64 or PC or Spectrum programmer. The Atari has a design very different. I want to say, all models have differences, but the Atari is really very different. I think someone needs a couple of years programming and studying the Atari to understand his real potential. Someone could believe a C64 user waste time on this?

 

That explain why users of C64 believe that their machine is superior. The real truth is : a machine produced in 1982 should be better than the old design of Atari (1979), but there were some details that they failed (due to cost production?). I believe honestly that if the C64 can not clearly stand as a higher design compared to other machines, then I'd prefer the best and older model, inspire more respect.

[Shawn Jefferson]

Some of the problems comparing games programmed on both the Atari and C64 is that different programmers with different skillsets, and perhaps under different constraints (time and budget) may come up with wildly different ports.

 

Look at Amaurote for one example, or Racing Destruction Set as another.

 

It might be interesting to compare games that were written by the same person on each platform, where that person was considered to have some skill on each platform. Archer Maclean maybe?

Edited December 8, 2008 by Shawn Jefferson

[Oswald]

Still now, i can't understand why the c64 version are poorly programmed at details level. There aren't intermediate screens, no initial helicopter, and the worse of all, only 3 levels (instead the 6 of original game), no map color. Maybe someone can explain why nobody create a complete c64 commando version.

 

Levels have to be loaded from disk. Would you want to wait 20 minutes for loading a single level? I could bet that they made it smaller to save loading time. And perhaps they spent a lot of money for the soundtrack. The C64 one's beats the Arcade by far.

 

"There is an interesting story behind Commando. I went down to their

office and started working on it late at night, and worked on it

through the night. I took one listen to the original arcade version

and started working on the c64 version. I think they wanted some

resemblance to the arcade version, but I just did what I wanted to do.

By the time everyone arrived at 8.00am in the morning, I had loaded

the main tune on every C64 in the building! I got my cheque and was on

a train home by 10.00 am..." (RH)

[Oswald]

The programmers reference guide was really cool for the C64 ( and the older Vic20 one ) but one problem with the C64 vs the A8 was the support in Basic for graphics and sound. Commodore really skimped by supplying pretty much the same basic they had with the original PET.. ( I read that they had some special deal which saved royalties )

De Re Atari and Mapping the Atari were good references for the A8, but they took a while to come out.

 

there were basic extensions out, the best one being:

 

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

 

it had supported all what the c64 could do, going as far as having a built in sprite editor, and commands to automagically move/animate sprites do music, scroll the screen, besides the "usual" line, circle, etc, etc, etc. it could even do split screen modes (hires from 10 -> text mode till row 10 then hires bitmap mode)

[Tezz]

"There is an interesting story behind Commando. I went down to their

office and started working on it late at night, and worked on it through the night. I took one listen to the original arcade version and started working on the c64 version. I think they wanted some resemblance to the arcade version, but I just did what I wanted to do. By the time everyone arrived at 8.00am in the morning, I had loaded the main tune on every C64 in the building! I got my cheque and was on a train home by 10.00 am..." (RH)

Yes, I have read about this in the past too. A very cool and unassuming guy was Mr Hubbard.

[Tezz]

I guess we are a smaller scene with less active people... in terms of ppl let me have a look who I can remember:

Well, the A8 scene has aparently not as big a following as the C64, that's as maybe but there are a lot of active guys here and working on some significant stuff. There's certainly several more that could be added to that list including yourself

[Oswald]

Commodore 64 (1982)

The Commodore 64 sits on a mile-high pedestal in the adolescent memories of millions of people, but its keyboard design--shared by Commodore's earlier VIC-20--was incredibly clumsy. One glance at it reveals three major flaws. It was visually confusing, with too many symbols printed on each key. The computer's anti-ergonomic 2-inch height made it extremely hard on the wrists of untrained typists. And the keyboard's layout leaves much to be desired, with numerous examples of poor key placement. For example, the Home/Clear key sat directly to the left of Delete (Backspace), resulting in users' making repeated accidental hits and sending the cursor back up to the top of the screen. In addition, the layout was peppered with an unusually large number of nonstandard keys such as Run/Stop and Restore. Luckily, most C64 owners remained oblivious to these problems: More often than not, they used the C64 for playing games with joysticks, saving the heavy computing work for dad's IBM PC. - PC World's 10 Worst Keyboards, Nov 1 2007

 

most shitty review of a keyboard ever...:

 

1. look at your pc keyboard, do you see 2-3 symbols on the keys on the top face to them ? now tell me that is NOT VISUALLY CONFUSING?? the c64 has the extra symbols on the front face of the keys. VISUALLY CONFUSING MY ASS.

2. for example on the pc the home key sats directly beside the INSERT and the PAGE UP button, not possible to make an accidental hit? gimme a break.

3. unusually large number of nonstandard keys? my ass. run/stop, shift lock,restore, that makes THREE.

4. c64ers used joysticks to play games because a) they had joysticks, b) most games didnt handle keyboard.

[Oswald]

It certainly didn't have the same amount of people doing ML, only people like you who can't do shit. Btw guys like you already scared of lots of productive people who were pissed off by Atari scene before they even started.

Was this comment really necessary? How do you think insulting FastRobPlus in any way contributes positively to this thread? It doesn't. Further comments of this nature from anyone will result in immediate removal from the 8-bit forum. If you can't discuss this topic in a rational manner, then please stop posting in it.

 

Thanks,

 

..Al

 

iirc I have already reported this FastRobPlus guy for personal insults. yet he is here.

[Oswald]

A reading about C64 ....

 

http://wayoftherodent.com/features/64%203%...4%20history.htm

 

wow the c64 managed to get some guys so pissed off not owning it, that they spend their time by creating homepages against it? going as far to collect 64 abusive facts? I have doubts the guy writing that is totally normal

[Oswald]

Probably many games did not attract me on the C64 because I used the Atari before. Seeing all this trickerys for compensating the slower CPU, one recognizes on the first sight then.

Beginning with 2D Drop Zone (with reduced enemies) jumping over ISO 3D in Head over Heels(Objects do not move at the same time) getting back to 2D Turrican (hard triggered enemies) and hitting the Goal with 3D like Rescue on Fractalus where even optimized code didn't help in performing anything on the C64.

 

c64 atleast HAS drop zone,& headoverheels, the quality is just slightly worse.

 

BUT

 

how do you even dare to bring up TURRICAN, it DOESNT even EXISTS ON the A8, so what do you want to say my dear ?

[Oswald]

I see along this post and other post, C64 users can't take notice about the real power of an Atari computer. It seems happens this:

 

- Technically, he thinks as a C64 or PC or Spectrum programmer. The Atari has a design very different. I want to say, all models have differences, but the Atari is really very different. I think someone needs a couple of years programming and studying the Atari to understand his real potential. Someone could believe a C64 user waste time on this?

 

technically the a8 is just as different as any 8 bit machine from the era. I see nothing in the HW that would need some years of studying, everything is pretty straightforward.

 

That explain why users of C64 believe that their machine is superior.

 

just look at the games. that'll explain.

[emkay]

how do you even dare to bring up TURRICAN, it DOESNT even EXISTS ON the A8, so what do you want to say my dear ?

 

This fact is repeated frequently and should be clear to everyone. The question is, whether Oswald somewhere in time get this into his brain.

The Atari got less interested by software developers: It's all about marketing.

[Fröhn]

The Atari got less interested by software developers: It's all about marketing.

No it's not. Commodore marketting sucked too.