Atari v Commodore

[Oswald]

At this point, still desperately needing the C64 to be better than the Atari, they start to bring up other arguments:

“At least we can agree that the C64 was better looking!”

“At least we can agree that the C64 was better built!”

“At least we can agree that Commodore was a better-managed company!”

“At least we can all agree the Amiga was better, and a spiritual ancestor of the Commodore 64!”And so on….

 

huh? all that stupid issues are being brought up by a8 people. nobody cares about looks, and company management and shit when they know by heart their machine is better

[Artlover]

The point was to compare the various aspects of the hardware of both machines.

Let's read Post #1, shall we.

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?

Comparing the final product of a piece of software avaialble on both machines. Maybe it's your point, but it's wasn't the point of this thread.

 

What you can accomplish with a machine is limited by its hardware.

True. Tho it doesn't have anything to do with this with this thread which is is specificly refering to comparing things that were/are accomplishable on both.

 

Once you know the hardware aspects of both machines, you can see to what extent some software is approaching the limits of the hardware.

True. But if you can still accomplish something within the limits of the hardware, then those limits are irrelevant.

 

Only programmers trying to show off to each other care about how little CPU resources or how little memory they used to do something. No one else does if the results are the same.

 

It is relevant how the machine does it because the more hardware support you have, the more you can use the CPU for other things.

"Other Things"? Guess thats what I get for trying to make it simple.

 

Lets try this again.....

 

If I write a game for two computers, both games are 100% complete and look/feel/play exactly the same only one uses sprites and one uses char groups, then yes, it is irrelevant.

 

Huh, you just contradicted yourself. You stated above "a display without flicker" and now you are talking about generating more than 16 colors using a flickering mode.

Two different examples with two different critera. Futher, it's not even the same kind of flicker.

 

That's your own conclusion. I listed various aspects of the hardware not just 1.79Mhz>1Mhz.

Yeah like 4 channels>3 channels, and 256 colors>16 colors.

 

Along with comments like:

 

the bigger the palette the better.

 

"My conclusion"? Sorry, what have your last 144 posts in this thread comparing numbers & specs been about then if not trying to show the Atari is better?

 

And if you think you don't need to know anything about the hardware, you cannot justify a claim like Atari cannot make a better Zaxxon or whatever else.

I never made such a claim. Quite the contrary.

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.

[Oswald]

Now let's hear no more talk of how the C64 looked as good as any Atari 8-bit.

 

its always a8 people who bring up this stupid shit. personally I find the c64 nice, but I know I'm biased so I never bring this up. who gives a fuck anyway how does it look. what matters is what can it do.

[Oswald]

only demo version of Space Harrier needs 128K RAM, current cart version needs 64K RAM. (Cart is 1MB though!)

 

 

wow. and a8 people are comparing THAT to a c64 game which is 22 yrs old, and has all levels and everything in 64k....

 

Yep! Finally an 8-bit computer getting the real Space Harrier! Makes me sad C64 game development has ground to a halt and won't benefit...

 

http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=73770

http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=67119

http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=38521

[potatohead]

It's better because I say it is Oswald!

 

The only discussion from there is whether any of us agree on the WHY! Love the back and forth, as lots of goodies always comes out of that, but make no mistake. A8 is the better machine.

 

Why?

 

Because I say it is. That's the one I kept, that's the one I 8bit game on, that's the one I look for new productions on, and that's the one I share with others, and most importantly, the one I will buy stuff for. I'll buy new homebrew titles, for A8 and VCS, and I'll buy gear to continue to enjoy the machine.

 

If I thought other machines were better, they would be the ones where I did all those things. Isn't the case though. I suspect that's true for a lot of people here on AA.

 

Cheers man.

Edited December 9, 2008 by potatohead

[xxl]

c64 is fine machine with much more games...

 

but can you do that on c64?

-

emulate other machine? in this case zx spectrum...

or... bbc micro? appleII? (example:

)

on atari (thanks Antic) it is rather easy.

 

c64 had speccy emu in the early 80s. there's even a full port of speccy's basic interpreter. for the record: c64 could emulate speccy's screen better as it can do 8 of the speccy colors pretty accurately, and the bitmap is almost the same.

 

the knight lore game is a PORT not an emulation. check wikipedia to see whats the difference.

 

no, c64 have no zx emulator :-) only zxbasic interpreter . you cant run zx spectrum machine code only zx spectrum basic code

 

first version of knight lore was emulation final was port :DDD

- emulation

- port

[Oswald]

The 800xl was light years better in construction than C64, at least they used actual steel sheilding, the c64 used tinfoil cardboard, it was laughable

 

I think the steel shielding is laughable when a tinfoil cardboard is enough. why would anyone want kgs of steel in a machine ?!

This is a stupid point to still be arguing: My computer's shielding is better made than your computer's shielding. I know, let's compare the rubber feet!

 

I agree. add case design, keyboard quality, etc.

Yeah, but at least case design and keyboard were external things that affected the user to some degree. Complaining about shielding is like lamenting the brand of resistors used.

 

I mentioned them because in my eyes there's no true difference.

[Bryan]

I mentioned them because in my eyes there's no true difference.

You know what had a truly ugly case and keyboard? The TI-99!

Edited December 9, 2008 by Bryan

[Oswald]

If I thought other machines were better, they would be the ones where I did all those things. Isn't the case though. I suspect that's true for a lot of people here on AA.

 

LOL. you know I have sold my c64 to be able to buy an a1200. now I frankly thought the amiga is better, but in a year or two I had a c64 setup again. I missed it.

[Bryan]

If I thought other machines were better, they would be the ones where I did all those things. Isn't the case though. I suspect that's true for a lot of people here on AA.

 

LOL. you know I have sold my c64 to be able to buy an a1200. now I frankly thought the amiga is better, but in a year or two I had a c64 setup again. I missed it.

I owned an 800 -> 800XL -> 1040ST -> Mega ST -> Falcon030 -> PC.

 

I picked up other machines along the way too, but those were my main ones. Today I only have the PC and 800XL set up. I don't miss the ST at all.

 

-Bry

[Artlover]

18 - BREAK IT

 

Atari screenshots

 

This game is similar to Arkanoid levels. Ohhh....The C64 it's a pity, I can't see anymore. Atari have fast action and it's repleted of bonuses. I'd prefer playing Atari Break it! instead Arkanoid.

 

C64 screenshot

 

oh you found the uglyest arkanoid clone on the c64, and compared it to the best arkanoid clone on the atari. how objective..

 

Surprisingly, the C64 screenshot is in fact Break It. But I'll have to agree with you there; a comparison of Arkanoid itself on both systems would be much more fair.

 

It's just two random games sharing the same name, not two versions of the same game. It's as pointless as comparing Aztec Challenge.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Oswald]

no, c64 have no zx emulator :-) only zxbasic interpreter . you cant run zx spectrum machine code only zx spectrum basic code

 

uh oh, well then a8 is better than the c64 because *drums* it has a horribly slow (literally unusable) ZX EMULATOR!

 

edit:

 

by the way as a8 people use 85' machines for comparison I can happily bring up the c128 with its - YES!- built in z80. imagine how good it can emulate speccy software we dont even need to write an emulator

Edited December 9, 2008 by Oswald

[atarian63]

No, most c64s were the old brown ugly ones. Cheaply made.

 

yeah, indeed. cheaply made. one of the keys of c64's succes. xl/xe line was basically a cost reducing design so that they can keep up with the c64's price. they were cheaply made. y'know

Sorry they were not, the XL line started in 82 with the 1200xl, commodore was not considered anything when the unit was design in 81.

Also the quality of those units (800xl) was much higher than a C64. Sorry to disturb your viewpoints with facts.

 

This has been covered before,

Dumb public/Cheap price

Late 83/Crash/Lost distribution channel/Customer does not buy what customer can't see.

[Bryan]

by the way as a8 people use 85' machines for comparison I can happily bring up the c128 with its - YES!- built in z80. imagine how good it can emulate speccy software we dont even need to write an emulator

That's an interesting point. Did the Z80 use the same system RAM as the 6502? How did that work? Did the 6502 have to be stopped?

 

 

edit: (6510, sorry)

Edited December 9, 2008 by Bryan

[atarian63]

I mentioned them because in my eyes there's no true difference.

You know what had a truly ugly case and keyboard? The TI-99!

Sure did but certainly better made than C64

I know quite a few people who had this as their first PC. Bought mostly when they were clearing them out. Again consumers didn't know much as pc's were still relatively new, they just wanted one as it seemed they might be missing something. Again PRICE. Though not a bad pc.

[atarian63]

The 800xl was light years better in construction than C64, at least they used actual steel sheilding, the c64 used tinfoil cardboard, it was laughable

 

I think the steel shielding is laughable when a tinfoil cardboard is enough. why would anyone want kgs of steel in a machine ?!

This is a stupid point to still be arguing: My computer's shielding is better made than your computer's shielding. I know, let's compare the rubber feet!

 

I agree. add case design, keyboard quality, etc.

Yeah, but at least case design and keyboard were external things that affected the user to some degree. Complaining about shielding is like lamenting the brand of resistors used.

 

I mentioned them because in my eyes there's no true difference.

open the case, there is a huge difference. The case itself is nicer, heavy sheilding, better kb, just the feel of quality.

[atarian63]

At this point, still desperately needing the C64 to be better than the Atari, they start to bring up other arguments:

“At least we can agree that the C64 was better looking!”

“At least we can agree that the C64 was better built!”

“At least we can agree that Commodore was a better-managed company!”

“At least we can all agree the Amiga was better, and a spiritual ancestor of the Commodore 64!”And so on….

 

huh? all that stupid issues are being brought up by a8 people. nobody cares about looks, and company management and shit when they know by heart their machine is better

That's why we own A8's here

 

Cheers!

[Crazyace]

The best situations come about when both sides admit that there are advantages to the other platform.

It is foolish to deny the C64 sprite capabilities ( they are 75% of the chip ), and the fact that the sprites and the colour graphics are 320 and the scrolling are at 320 pixel resolution is a major advance.

But for the time the Atari was a major advance, and the colour capabilities are still ahead of the C64, and the faster CPU is helpful in some situations. And , Antic allows much easier manipulation of large maps - ( I remember many early C64 games only scrolling the main charset , not the colour map ... I read that Mayhem uses a Vic hack to scroll colour ram though - it would be interesting to know what the hack is )

[xxl]

no, c64 have no zx emulator :-) only zxbasic interpreter . you cant run zx spectrum machine code only zx spectrum basic code

 

uh oh, well then a8 is better than the c64 because *drums* it has a horribly slow (literally unusable) ZX EMULATOR!

 

edit:

 

by the way as a8 people use 85' machines for comparison I can happily bring up the c128 with its - YES!- built in z80. imagine how good it can emulate speccy software we dont even need to write an emulator

 

'85 ? why? i can run zx emulator on '79 atari, apple2 emu also, so bbc micro/acorn electron (cpc soon) (thanks antic) :-) c64 can emulate one of this machine? even on '85 commy?

[Oswald]

No, most c64s were the old brown ugly ones. Cheaply made.

 

yeah, indeed. cheaply made. one of the keys of c64's succes. xl/xe line was basically a cost reducing design so that they can keep up with the c64's price. they were cheaply made. y'know

Sorry they were not, the XL line started in 82 with the 1200xl, commodore was not considered anything when the unit was design in 81.

Also the quality of those units (800xl) was much higher than a C64. Sorry to disturb your viewpoints with facts.

 

This has been covered before,

Dumb public/Cheap price

 

haha yeah, and the public who bought a8 was ofcourse very smart. the dumb bought c64s....

 

sorry they were, except the 1200, the c64 is the reason for the 800xl/xe...:

 

"The timing was particularly bad for Atari Inc.; the 1200XL was a flop, and the earlier machines were too expensive to produce to be able to compete at the rapidly falling price points. The solution was to replace the 1200XL with a machine that users would again trust, while at the same time lowering the production costs to the point where they could compete with Commodore.

 

Starting with the 1200XL design as the basis for a new line, Atari Inc. engineers were able to add a number of new IC's to take over the functions of many of those remaining in the 1200XL. While the 1200XL fit onto a single board, the new designs were even smaller, simpler, and as a result much less expensive. To reduce cost even further, manufacturing of a new series of machines was set up in the far east.

 

Several versions of the new design, the 600XL, 800XL, 1400XL and 1450XLD were announced at the 1983 Summer CES. "

[Oswald]

by the way as a8 people use 85' machines for comparison I can happily bring up the c128 with its - YES!- built in z80. imagine how good it can emulate speccy software we dont even need to write an emulator

That's an interesting point. Did the Z80 use the same system RAM as the 6502? How did that work? Did the 6502 have to be stopped?

 

edit: (6510, sorry)

 

yes. you wrote some memory adress and one cpu stopped, the other started. used same memory & address bus. the most interesting thing about this that the c128 cant boot up without the z80 because the z80 starts first (because of some weird compatibility issue of a c64 cartridge.. adding the z80 solved it )

[Oswald]

 

huh? all that stupid issues are being brought up by a8 people. nobody cares about looks, and company management and shit when they know by heart their machine is better

That's why we own A8's here

 

then why do you go on endlessly with the a8 is nicer etc bullshit ?

[Oswald]

But for the time the Atari was a major advance, and the colour capabilities are still ahead of the C64, and the faster CPU is helpful in some situations. And , Antic allows much easier manipulation of large maps - ( I remember many early C64 games only scrolling the main charset , not the colour map ... I read that Mayhem uses a Vic hack to scroll colour ram though - it would be interesting to know what the hack is )

 

there was a reason c64 had only 16 color. it would be a much worse machine with more colors. it could only have only 1-2 free colors/chars fex. think of the bandwidth available to read the color & nr of bits.... and we havent talked yet of the chip space all that colors would have eaten up.

 

you dont need a hack to scroll the color ram. just many games spared the cpu power&lazyness, etc... mayhem uses a hack though indeed, but it scrolls the whole screen horizontally. it uses a vic "bug" to do it. it is possible to scroll the whole screen horizontally using just 1-2 rasterline of time. the screen will wrap around, one problem tho: the wrapping around is not perfect, the screen will be 1 character row "scrolled up" after scrolling 40 chars with this.

[Fröhn]

Yep! Finally an 8-bit computer getting the real Space Harrier! Makes me sad C64 game development has ground to a halt and won't benefit...

Halt? http://www.binaryzone.org/psytronik/

 

uhh the c128 is horrible when I compare to what it should been. the gfx doesnt changed they just added a 2nd video chip which could do 80 column, charmode, and ugly colors hires bitmap.

Funny enough for the VDC of the C128 the first 18 registers are exactly the same as the CRTC in the Amstrad CPC

 

That's an interesting point. Did the Z80 use the same system RAM as the 6502? How did that work? Did the 6502 have to be stopped?

 

edit: (6510, sorry)

No 6510 , C128 had 8502 which is a HMOS + 2 MHz version of the 6510.

 

Z80 and 8502 share the same bus, there is a flag to stop the one processor and start the other. The Z80 isn't really worth the hazzle, because the 8502 @ 2 MHz is faster. Switching the CPUs is quite confusing actually, since two different assembler languages are involved and two different program counters.

[Gury]

xxl, don't worry. You did great work with ZX and Apple emulators already. Knowing that you are preparing BBC and CPC emulators, njami. Just ignore these insults made by Oswald, don't bother. We all know it is impossible to do that stuff on C64.