Atari v Commodore

[Allas]

The Atari 400 computer was released basically for gaming people. The 800 was released at a high cost for seriously purposes, so it has a good solid keyboard in it.The best in his time.

[Artlover]

You can compare various aspects of the hardware one on one as I have already done.

Which is all find and dandy if that was the point. It wasn't, it was about comparing what the two machines can accomplish in relation to one another. That point can be argued with no discussion of hardware.

 

It's like the arguments of sprites and stuff. Who cares. You don't even really need sprites to make a moveable object to begin with. How many well defined moveable objects of such&such size can machine A display without flicker - how many well defined moveable objects of same such&such size can machine B display without flicker. -- That's an fair comparison of effective accomplishment, how each machine does it is completely irrelevant to that point.

 

Or number of colors. IFL - Can the C64 accomplish displaying video output that visually appear to have more then 16 colors. Yes. -- So what is the argument beyond trying to prove superiority via an irrelevant spec that ignores produceable functionality?

 

I never said that *ONE* aspect can determine one machine being superior to another.

Yet you make arguments like '1.79>1.02=Atari is better'.

 

That's your opinion as well. It'll be pretty hard to go through all the "Vs." threads that ever took place on the planet and make such a claim.

Fair enough.

 

Let me revise that then: Every single one of these Vs threads here on AtariAge and that I have ever read and/or been invovled in myself are the same.

[miker]

With regard to Turrican, I've been reading back about the project that the Our5oft guys were working on back in 92/93 as I couldn't recall what was discussed last year about it when the details of it emerged. There was actually quite conciderable progress made on it at the time. The engine was 95% complete and they had already eight 16 pixel 4/5 colour software sprites with the main character using the p/m's. Reading back through that thread from last year I wonder whether the guys were concidering at the time to pick up where they left off back then? Does anyone have any additional info on it? Were the sources ever made available?

 

Actually, the chances of releasing the sources are rather high. Thus it's only matter of time.

 

Well, i'll let you know.

 

[Allas]

Here, the worst PC keyboards of all time. This time Commodore wins 4 vs 1

At least the 400 keyboard looks very cool, properly for minimal use on gaming cartridges. It was not designed for programmers.

 

The 10 Worst PC keyboards of All time

Edited December 8, 2008 by Allas

[Artlover]

Yeah, some of them do flicker (@30Hz) but there are 8 sprite birds on a line during game play (whether 60Hz or 30Hz).

You're slipping. You're ignoring hardware and going by produceable functionality here.

[emkay]

Yet you make arguments like '1.79>1.02=Atari is better'.

 

One cannot deny it. Seeing the powerful Amiga (ECS) not able to outperform the ST with simple 3D operations, because the ST's CPU is clocked only 11% higher than the Amiga's CPU.

On the ATARI8 you have gains from C64 to the A8 between 30% to 200%, depending on the different modes of both machines.

[FastRobPlus]

Atari people like to mention how sleek the 800 is, yeah, the XL is. The original 800 wasn't no where near as close. As a matter of fact, if you look at some of the specific complaints against the C64 in this regard, like it's keyboard: "The computer's anti-ergonomic 2-inch height", it's laughable. I just dug my old 800 out and measured it. The 800's keyboard starts at 3" high. Feel free to check yourself.

 

Really, how can someone honestly say with a straight face the ergonomics of the 800 is better then the C64 when by one of the very standards they use to base this claim on, the 800 is worse? Or are we going by that more=better argument? In that case, if I raised the C64 up an inch so it's keyboard matched the height of the 800, would that make it better?

 

Was that the argument? I seem to remember the real argument around the looks and the keyboard began when you said something like "Let's not forget that the Atari 400 and 800 look worse and have worse keyboards than the C64."

Your claim was laid out and refuted in very short order. I appreciate you trying to salvage some level of parity here, (height is similar, color is similar, etc) but let's keep in mind your original premise was not "Let's agree the C64/Atari 800 are about the same", It was "Let's at least agree the C64 was sleeker/nicer than the Atari 800"

 

Can't honestly compare things if you are going to use a double standard in order to satisfy your bias.

So you do understand!

 

Atari used a crappy keyboard on their first computer, and fixed it on their second. CBM was using real keyboards on their first computer.

Wow, square one city! Short summary of the past 10 pages:False.

Edited December 8, 2008 by FastRobPlus

[Artlover]

Yet you make arguments like '1.79>1.02=Atari is better'.

 

One cannot deny it.

Still waiting for someone to show me some cold hard standardized bechmark results.

[Tezz]

Actually, the chances of releasing the sources are rather high. Thus it's only matter of time.

 

Well, i'll let you know.

 

Awesome. Thanks Miker.

[emkay]

Yet you make arguments like '1.79>1.02=Atari is better'.

 

One cannot deny it.

Still waiting for someone to show me some cold hard standardized bechmark results.

 

 

Start to make a C64 version of Space Harrier with a real Gameplay resolution of 160x100, and see the C64 whining.

Using graphics? Too slow. It would end in a "Mood" resolution of 40x50

Using multiple Sprites? This would slowdown the cpu to effective 500-600MHz. Not much for game calculations, where the Atari has around 1.5MHz left. Oops... this made my calculations wrong. The Gain would be up to 300% then

[Gury]

Yet you make arguments like '1.79>1.02=Atari is better'.

 

One cannot deny it.

Still waiting for someone to show me some cold hard standardized bechmark results.

It is true C64's processor power is strongly linked to VIC II chip, but that still doesn't make it any stronger or equal compared to A8. A8's chipset works together perfectly, with raw 6502 CPU power still remaining. The perfect examples of A8's processor power being superior than C64 are, for example, applications independent of graphics chip, like compression, decompression utilities and so on. Poking 559 with 0 makes Atari 8-bit even faster for about 30%, with DMA disabled.

Edited December 8, 2008 by Gury

[Cybergoth]

Yet you make arguments like '1.79>1.02=Atari is better'.

 

One cannot deny it.

Still waiting for someone to show me some cold hard standardized bechmark results.

 

It will just excute _any_ code 1.75 times faster...

[Crazyace]

Yeah, some of them do flicker (@30Hz) but there are 8 sprite birds on a line during game play (whether 60Hz or 30Hz).

 

This is just wrong - there are only 4 birds on a line at a time - that's why you see flickering. ( Next you'll be claiming 16 sprites per line @15Hz )

[potatohead]

Yet you make arguments like '1.79>1.02=Atari is better'.

 

One cannot deny it.

Still waiting for someone to show me some cold hard standardized bechmark results.

 

It will just excute _any_ code 1.75 times faster...

 

LOL!

 

There it is. What it means depends on the task at hand, just like it always has.

[atarian63]

But for all practical purposes, Commodore destroyed Atari all the way through the end of the 16 bit era - until PC and Mac put the smack down and established that these "specialty home PCs" were dinosaurs from a special era.

 

I'm not really a blind Atari fanatic. I'm more of a blind Jay Miner fanatic. From my perspective, that guy led the industry in innovation wire-to-wire right up until his death:

Atari VCS

Atari 8-bit

Amiga

 

Those three systems formed the founding spirit of an industry that still thrives today. In fact, t's no surprise that the two largest independent game developers (Activision, and EA) got their start on the VCS and the Atari 800 respectively. And many of the remaining 3rd party developers survived not by backing the C64 or even the Nintendo, but by backing the Amiga.

Infogrames comes to mind, though they did multiple platforms and I think some C64.

[Fröhn]

Yet you make arguments like '1.79>1.02=Atari is better'.

 

One cannot deny it.

Still waiting for someone to show me some cold hard standardized bechmark results.

It will just excute _any_ code 1.75 times faster...

No it won't. Depending on gfx mode it would be 1.2 to 1.5 times faster.

[atarian63]

Yet you make arguments like '1.79>1.02=Atari is better'.

 

One cannot deny it.

Still waiting for someone to show me some cold hard standardized bechmark results.

Are there any? I remeber seeing them start in the PC days, probably worked better since the machines were all basically the same. How would you even do it in a fair way since the Atari and C64 are so different and would it mean anything anyway as previously mentioned great programming can make up for lots of things just like custom chips can..

[Heaven/TQA]

Yeah, some of them do flicker (@30Hz) but there are 8 sprite birds on a line during game play (whether 60Hz or 30Hz).

 

This is just wrong - there are only 4 birds on a line at a time - that's why you see flickering. ( Next you'll be claiming 16 sprites per line @15Hz )

 

Definitly...

[Heaven/TQA]

re: keyboard...

 

aren't we talking about the GAMES?

[Artlover]

Was that the argument?

I got one of these ugly C64 I models (brown, bread box style)

Seems to have been mentioned.

 

 

Your claim was laid out and refuted in very short order. I appreciate you trying to salvage some level of parity here, (height is similar, color is similar, etc) but let's keep in mind your original premise was not "Let's agree the C64/Atari 800 are about the same", It was "Let's at least agree the C64 was sleeker/nicer than the Atari 800"

It was more about refuting the repeated claims that the Atari was sleeker/nicer then the C64, which is valid only when you get to the XL series. When it comes to the original 800, yeah, I do believe there is evidence supporting that the C64 is sleeker/nicer.

 

1: It's smaller and lighter. Same qualities Atari apparently thought were important and implimented on the XL and later computers.

2: It's lower - ergo, more egonomic by some of the same critera A8'ers use to judge.

 

 

 

Can't honestly compare things if you are going to use a double standard in order to satisfy your bias.

So you do understand!

Beyond my claim that the C64 is more ergonomic then the original 800, which I do find hard to argue given the above, when have I ever tried to claim the C64 was "better" then the A8? I've always been in the camp that realisticly, they are pretty much both the same in the end. Most of my replies are strictly a matter of trying to dismiss claims that the A8 is better, but rather are mostly equal. There are too many biased C64'ers in this thread grasping at straws all the same as A8'ers in some asinine contest to think they are better too. Given most of the replies here, I tend to believe I'm the least biased person here.

 

Oh, I did mention Zaxxon too, but that was actually 100% on topic with the intent of this thread by the OP too. Tho to be honest, I don't see why the A8 version was as bad as it was as I believe it could have done better.

 

Why exactly is it so important for either side to think they are "better" anyways? Is everyone on both sides really that insecure about their choices?

 

I have, like, and use(d) both. Both have their good & bad points, both can more or less do the same thing. They are in the same league meant to compete with one another. How anyone can quanitivly call one better then the other is ridiculous and futile.

 

 

Atari used a crappy keyboard on their first computer, and fixed it on their second. CBM was using real keyboards on their first computer.

Wow, square one city! Short summary of the past 10 pages:False.

Only in terms of considering 400 first and 800 second. My mistake. I was wrong there.

 

To that end (since someone else wanted to turn it in this direction): Who was using real keyboards first. Sorry, not false. CBM PET was using a real keyboard by 1978. A year before the 800.

[Artlover]

Yet you make arguments like '1.79>1.02=Atari is better'.

 

One cannot deny it.

Still waiting for someone to show me some cold hard standardized bechmark results.

 

It will just excute _any_ code 1.75 times faster...

ANY code?

 

http://www.gondolin.org.uk/hchof/reviews/yc-atari800xl.html

Taking Benchmarks 1 to 7 from Kilobaud Microcomputing, the Atari 800XL averages 29.2 seconds, which is between the Commodore 64 (25.1 seconds) and Sinclair Spectrum (33.6 seconds). But the BBC is much faster (10.7 seconds)!

Maybe you would like to qualify your statement a little more?

[Artlover]

re: keyboard...

 

aren't we talking about the GAMES?

This thread hasn't been on-topic since post #18. Why bring it up now?

[FastRobPlus]

It was more about refuting the repeated claims that the Atari was sleeker/nicer then the C64, which is valid only when you get to the XL series. When it comes to the original 800, yeah, I do believe there is evidence supporting that the C64 is sleeker/nicer.

I believe that you believe that.

 

1: It's smaller and lighter. Same qualities Atari apparently thought were important and implimented on the XL and later computers.

2: It's lower - ergo, more egonomic by some of the same critera A8'ers use to judge.

 

Smaller and lighter equals less materials used in construction and less channel operation cost. It's cost reduction 101 and the reason that cheap, thin plastic and barely-meets-the-FCC regulation RF shielding is the norm. It's not what customers want beyond the fact that it makes the unit cheaper and more affordable.

I think most folks would like a solid oak hand built office desk but to keep cost down they go to Ikea and buy a cheap and flimsy particleboard laminate desk. Does that proove that those desks are better or more desirable?

 

Beyond my claim that the C64 is more ergonomic then the original 800, which I do find hard to argue given the above, when have I ever tried to claim the C64 was "better" then the A8?

I was referring precisely to that claim.

 

Atari used a crappy keyboard on their first computer, and fixed it on their second. CBM was using real keyboards on their first computer.

Only in terms of considering 400 first and 800 second. My mistake. I was wrong there.

 

To that end (since someone else wanted to turn it in this direction): Who was using real keyboards first. Sorry, not false. CBM PET was using a real keyboard by 1978. A year before the 800.

 

I see you can make any unit the "first" and then build a straw man argument around it. Okay, since you want the Atari 400 to be Atari's “first” so very, very badly, let's compare it to the KIM-1, which I will arbitrarily state is Commodore's “first.”

 

Hmm... looks like the 400 has the better keyboard after all.

Edited December 8, 2008 by FastRobPlus

[Irgendwer]

Since Amaurote A8 doesn't use sprites I didn't add them to the calculation. The A8 version would be 40% faster if a 1:1 port to C64 would be done (or other way round: C64 version would run at 70% of the A8 speed)...

 

I think you have to respect also the uncomfortable video-memory-organization of the C64 which results in an additional loss of

performance when blitting...

 

CU

Irgendwer

[HiroProX]

One cannot deny it. Seeing the powerful Amiga (ECS) not able to outperform the ST with simple 3D operations, because the ST's CPU is clocked only 11% higher than the Amiga's CPU.

On the ATARI8 you have gains from C64 to the A8 between 30% to 200%, depending on the different modes of both machines.

 

Actually, on both of those machines, 3-D could only be accomplished via CPU power due to neither machine having any custom hardware for 3-D operations at all. So for 3-D, the difference 11% higher clock speed made mattered. This is why 3-D didn't really take off on the Amiga until the proliferation of 030 and 040 accelerators. And Atari lost their early lead mainly because 020+ accelerators on ST's broke too much software, though that was the fault of developers insisting on using 68000 specific dirty tricks that Motorola had been warning for years would fail on later processors.

 

Now I find ST vs. Amiga comparisons amusing, because at that point Atari and Commodore had effectively traded design teams. The ST is more closely related to the C64, and the Amiga is the direct descendant of the A8.

Edited December 9, 2008 by HiroProX