Atari 5200 vs. CelecoVision

[atariksi]

This is what I like about this forum. It is the year 2009 and we are still arguing about which early 1980s video game system is the best .

 

Really though, I have both and I don't think I have really noticed any huge differences between the two.

 

I wasn't really arguing yet; just asking about CPU differences and already got attacked so it seems some people are being overly protective of their attachments.

[NoahsMyBro]

Back in the early 80's I badly wanted a 5200, CV, and a Vectrex. Of course, being 13 I was at the mercy of my parents, and only got the 5200. I very vaguely recall being asked which of the three was my preference, but I'm not sure about that. Regardless, the 5200 was my first choice.

 

25+ years later, I've long-since acquired a Vectrex & a Colceovision, and the 5200 is still my favorite. I *like* the 5200 controllers when they aren't broken. I prefer the color scheme and the 'look' of the 5200 games. I like the styling of the console itself. I like the storage compartment for the controllers, and I even like the concept of the auto-switchbox, as well as having the power cord go to the back of the TV instead of across the floor to the console itself.

 

When I finally got my Colecovision 11 or 12 years ago, I was very excited. I couldn't wait to finally play what I thought then was the best home translation of Donkey Kong (excluding MAME). As soon as I tried it I hated it. In my opinion, the controllers with the Cv were almost as bad the Intellivision in terms of comfort and ergonomics, and the controller responsiveness was slow, something that isn't solved by swapping a different controller into place.

 

I disliked the Cv for the same reasons I disliked the Intellivision - the system felt slower than the Ataris of the day, and I disliked the controllers.

 

None of this has anything to do with the technical specs, the merits of which I'm not qualified to judge. As for me, I preferred the 5200, hands-down.

[atariksi]

So you don't mislead others, I'm going to reply to your biased emotional response.

 

I wasn't comparing with modern machines-- just with Colecovision vs. Atari 5200.

The TMS9918 uses the same basic architecture as any "modern" game machine. Tile based, sprites are controlled by VDP registers, no need for "video kernels"...

...

Kernels can be used for anything-- sprite replication, color register re-use, timing I/O ports, splitting graphics modes, digitized audio playback, etc. if your system can do all these w/o kernel, good.

 

>>Obviously, if you have a true color display, kernel isn't needed for making more colors available per scanline.

 

>Yeah, of course, I had forgotten. 128 colors but only 4 on any given scanline...

 

You should first learn more about the system before you criticize it. It's easy to get 23 colors/scanline in 192*240 overscanned mode (160*200 normal) w/o any kernels or DLIs. You can even use GPRIOR mode 0 in 320*200 mode. Your analysis is biased or due to your ignorance.

 

>>given two similar systems at around the same resolution, it's better to have a system with bigger palette.

 

>Is 160x192 around the same resolution as 256x192? 160x192 is 18K pixels less, or yet, 256x192 offers 60% more pixels on screen... Do the math…

 

You should have done the math before replying. Atari has many graphics modes besides 160*192. But the point that I made that a bigger palette is always better is true regardless of whether you have a few more pixels horizontally. Higher color depth makes up for some loss in resolution. Go do the research if you don't think so.

 

>>That does not make any sense. There's no cycle stealing in HBLANK and VBLANK and even during display, you can build a DL that gives you access to more cycles where you need them. It's all customizable.

 

>Excellent, the platform where you can choose what you want: good graphics and crap processing or crap graphics and good processing…

 

That's your mental concoction. I can do good graphics and good processing. You have already proven your ignorance of the Atari hardware above so your point is meaningless. In fact, you don't even have a good graphics mode; you have to basically use some redefined character set to build a good graphics mode. Atari has linear graphics modes as well as text-based modes.

 

>>And even if you take into account DMA cycle counts, we can still do a comparison as to which can execute some piece of code faster.

 

>May I ask why that specific piece of code?

 

It's completely arbitrary. Just wanted to get a feel for what it does.

 

>>Let's see what the difference is. If the difference is large, DMA cycles may not matter.

 

>There is table here showing that CPU performance can improve up to 47%(!!) when DMA is disabled (of course that means no graphics). Do you really think that 47% doesn't matter?

 

I didn't even know how many cycles that code takes on Z80 when I asked the question so how can I state whether 47% makes a difference or not. You just like attacking people without understanding their intent. You have repeated this point three times now-- DMA cycles. Why not add hardware scrolling and overscan/underscan and multiple mode mixing, DLIs, IRQs, etc. since they all have to be figured into making a good graphics screen? And you are wrong regarding DMA cycles, I can reduce DMA cycles depending on application w/o affecting graphics.

 

>>I wouldn't be asking for the cycle times, if I already drew the conclusion. I haven't drawn any conclusion regarding which processor is better since I don't do any Z80 programming. And nobody is answering seems to indicate there's something wrong with the Z80 or nobody here knows anything about it. So this topic should be shut-down. Nobody can compare two systems if they nothing about the processors that are controlling the entire hardware.

 

>So you don't get what you ask and now you want the topic to shutdown? How about I give you a Z80 piece of code and you convert it to 6502?

 

If you can't answer it, let someone else. I don't need your help. You are completely ignorant of how an Atari works and desperately trying to find fault with it so it would be hard to trust anything you wrote anyway. It's a simple point-- in a topic of Coleco vs. Atari 5200, processor comparisons should also be stated. Atari processor speed directly affects it's timers, I/O speed, etc.

[youki]

Concerning the controller, it just a question of habit.

 

i remember when i got my CV for christmas in 83 (or 82) , i hated the controller and don't really like donkey kong.

 

I used to play on my Friend's VCS with Atari CX 40 joystick.

 

But at this time, having only that console and 2 games (Donkey kong and Turbo) , i had no choice, i have to play with.

 

but after few hours , i started to master Donkey kong and take the habit of the controller. And then , i finally loved the controller (and DK too) , at the point that i bought an Atari CX 24 (proline) controller because it had almost the same shape than the CV one , and used it on all computer and console i had and have now. (i still use it!!)

[CARTRIDGE STEALER]

This is what I like about this forum. It is the year 2009 and we are still arguing about which early 1980s video game system is the best .

 

Really though, I have both and I don't think I have really noticed any huge differences between the two.

 

Coleco had better games. why wouldnt you like it? and coleco has much more.

[opcode]

So you don't mislead others, I'm going to reply to your biased emotional response.

Ok, I'm going to reply yours too...

 

Kernels can be used for anything-- sprite replication, color register re-use, timing I/O ports, splitting graphics modes, digitized audio playback, etc. if your system can do all these w/o kernel, good.

Sprite replication, yes (I can have 64 sprites on screen, for example). Color register re-use, no, the TMS9918 doesn’t have any. I/O ports (?for what?). Splitting graphics modes, possible, but useless, as the TMS9918 can always use Graphics II, 256x192, 16 colors in the same scanline. Digitized audio playback, yes. No kernel needed...

 

You should first learn more about the system before you criticize it. It's easy to get 23 colors/scanline in 192*240 overscanned mode (160*200 normal) w/o any kernels or DLIs. You can even use GPRIOR mode 0 in 320*200 mode. Your analysis is biased or due to your ignorance.

First of all, I must admit that I was wrong. After checking my Atari Hardware Manual I found out that the Antic can produce not 4, but 5 colors per scanline in some of the character modes. 5 colors... now that's impressive.

Now you are saying me that I can have mode 0 with 320x200 and 23 colors/scanline. Damn manual... Ok, let me check... Hm, tested all my 5200 cartridges. Didn't find any game with more than 5 colors per scanline and 160x200 resolution... Well, I don't have all the games, perhaps the ones I don't have can do 23 colors, or even 10. Ah, wait, perhaps the Atari 800 can do that. Hm, checked my cartridges, I found some games with incredible 80x192 pixels (or should I say macropixels) using a lot of colors.... But no game with 160x200 using more than 5 colors/scanline... Strange...

Oh, of course, why didn’t I think of that before? Homebrews, homebrews must use 23 colors/scanline. Of course, back in 1982/83 people didn’t know how to program the 5200, even think the hardware had been around for years… But ok, lets check some of the bests homebrews: Adventure II, 5 colors (nice graphics by the way). Beef Drof, still 5 colors. Castle Crisis, no, 5 colors. Koffi: Yellow Kopter, damn, still 5 colors….

Those games using 23 colors/scanline are pretty elusive.

Now, wait a minute, don’t tell me that the only thing using 23 colors/scanline is some fancy European demo?! Demo scene, you know, those guys masturbating over technical demos that serve no practical purpose…

 

You should have done the math before replying. Atari has many graphics modes besides 160*192.

Of course it has, 320x192 with 2 colors (or should I say 1 1/2). Again I am impressed. Probably developers were impressed too, because they all used that mode…. NOT!

 

But the point that I made that a bigger palette is always better is true regardless of whether you have a few more pixels horizontally. Higher color depth makes up for some loss in resolution. Go do the research if you don't think so.

That is true if you have lots of colors, not 5… hehe…

 

That's your mental concoction. I can do good graphics and good processing. You have already proven your ignorance of the Atari hardware above so your point is meaningless.

My ignorance is based on my experience with REAL Atari 800/5200 games.

 

In fact, you don't even have a good graphics mode; you have to basically use some redefined character set to build a good graphics mode. Atari has linear graphics modes as well as text-based modes.

I can argue that linear graphics modes aren’t especially useful with most types of games. In fact, lets see: NES (character mode only), SMS (character mode only), Genesis (character mode only), SNES (character mode only). Strange, not many 2D video games used linear graphic mode. And none used display lists or anything remotely similar to the Atari 800. I wonder why…

 

Why not add hardware scrolling and overscan/underscan and multiple mode mixing, DLIs, IRQs, etc. since they all have to be figured into making a good graphics screen?

Hardware scroll, I will concede that the TMS9918 doesn’t have that.

Multiple modes mixing, irrelevant when your best graphic mode has all the features available. So I don’t need to give up resolution to get more colors, etc.

DLIs, only meaningful on Atari machines.

IRQs, we both have that.

And the only things I need to figure out with the TMS9918 are the graphics that I’m going to use for background and sprites. I don’t need to program the whole video system.

 

And you are wrong regarding DMA cycles, I can reduce DMA cycles depending on application w/o affecting graphics.

I hope it isn’t as elusive as the 23 colors thing.

BTW, I just checked the official Atari Hardware Manual again, and they give an example of DMA use there. Using mode 0, 320x192, 2 colors/scanline, requires 36% of all machine cycles per frame. That leaves the CPU with 64% of cycles, or we can say roughly that it is like the CPU is running at 1.15MHz. But ok, I know that the 6502 can execute opcodes very fast… all 10 of them….

 

If you can't answer it, let someone else. I don't need your help. You are completely ignorant of how an Atari works and desperately trying to find fault with it so it would be hard to trust anything you wrote anyway.

You know, I really enjoyed all of this, but I believe that I have better things to do than waste my time here debating theoretical Atari capabilities. I suggest we go program some real games for those machines, then we can discuss, based on that we have produced, which machine is the best.

I am done here…

Edited June 10, 2009 by opcode

[mcjakeqcool]

Don't get me wrong, the 5200 was awsome, but the ColecoVision was better. But I love both!

[atariksi]

So you don't mislead others, I'm going to reply to your biased emotional response.

Ok, I'm going to reply yours too...

...

Whatever I wrote I have code to prove it. I wasn't just declaring your stuff biased-- I can prove it's your bias and/or ignorance.

 

>>Kernels can be used for anything-- sprite replication, color register re-use, timing I/O ports, splitting graphics modes, digitized audio playback, etc. if your system can do all these w/o kernel, good.

 

>Sprite replication, yes (I can have 64 sprites on screen, for example). Color register re-use, no, the TMS9918 doesn’t have any. I/O ports (?for what?). Splitting graphics modes, possible, but useless, as the TMS9918 can always use Graphics II, 256x192, 16 colors in the same scanline. Digitized audio playback, yes. No kernel needed...

 

Sorry, you didn't understand. I can re-use colors on Atari up to 256 colors per screen so it IS useful. Splitting graphics modes is also useful to go let's say from 16-shade mode to 16-hue mode on GTIA. Your 16 colors are restricted, it's not actually a 4-bit depth mode at 256*192. You can use digitized audio playback within a kernel or outside one. And using text modes for scoreboards mixed with graphics modes SPEEDs up the machine and draw time.

 

>>You should first learn more about the system before you criticize it. It's easy to get 23 colors/scanline in 192*240 overscanned mode (160*200 normal) w/o any kernels or DLIs. You can even use GPRIOR mode 0 in 320*200 mode. Your analysis is biased or due to your ignorance.

 

>First of all, I must admit that I was wrong. After checking my Atari Hardware Manual I found out that the Antic can produce not 4, but 5 colors per scanline in some of the character modes. 5 colors... now that's impressive.

 

You're still wrong. I can do 96*240*16 unrestricted. I find this mode quite useful unlike what you speculate. I can do 192*240 with 23 colors/scanline w/o kernels or DLIs.

 

>Now you are saying me that I can have mode 0 with 320x200 and 23 colors/scanline. Damn manual... Ok, let me check...

 

You shouldn't argue from some manual you read or misread. There's tons of documents and code samples using GPRIOR to get extra colors. And not everything is in the manuals-- producing interlaced 160*Y*30 images is based on an algorithm of combining two graphics modes.

 

>Hm, tested all my 5200 cartridges. Didn't find any game with more than 5 colors per scanline and 160x200 resolution...

 

I saw 50 people with blue eyes and decided everyone has blue eyes. Nice logic. If you noticed, I was arguing someone's point that A5200 hardware is on PAR with Coleco. I differ on this as A5200 is SUPERIOR to Coleco from hardware perspective.

 

>Those games using 23 colors/scanline are pretty elusive.

 

It doesn't work that way. Which hardware is superior in being able to show more colors/scanline. It's Atari 5200 regardless of which mode-- GTIA, 192*240, 384*240, etc.

 

>Now, wait a minute, don’t tell me that the only thing using 23 colors/scanline is some fancy European demo?! Demo scene, you know, those guys masturbating over technical demos that serve no practical purpose…

 

You are in more ignorance than I figured. I have several programs written back in 1980s that use 23 colors/scanline. You can do 38 colors/scanline in GTIA modes w/o involving DLIs/color re-use.

 

>>You should have done the math before replying. Atari has many graphics modes besides 160*192.

 

>Of course it has, 320x192 with 2 colors (or should I say 1 1/2). Again I am impressed. Probably developers were impressed too, because they all used that mode…. NOT!

 

You didn't understand once again and STILL wanted to criticize. You can use GPRIOR mode 0 in 320*192 mode as well to get more colors. I'll leave you in your ignorance.

 

>>But the point that I made that a bigger palette is always better is true regardless of whether you have a few more pixels horizontally. Higher color depth makes up for some loss in resolution. Go do the research if you don't think so.

 

>That is true if you have lots of colors, not 5… hehe…

 

Because you don't know about 23 colors/scanline nor GTIA modes nor mixing the two.

 

>>That's your mental concoction. I can do good graphics and good processing. You have already proven your ignorance of the Atari hardware above so your point is meaningless.

 

>My ignorance is based on my experience with REAL Atari 800/5200 games.

 

Yes, ignorance can be based on REAL Atari observations. Your experience is limited to 4-5 colors/scanline.

 

>>In fact, you don't even have a good graphics mode; you have to basically use some redefined character set to build a good graphics mode. Atari has linear graphics modes as well as text-based modes.

 

>I can argue that linear graphics modes aren’t especially useful with most types of games. In fact, lets see: NES (character mode only), SMS (character mode only), Genesis (character mode only), SNES (character mode only). Strange, not many 2D video games used linear graphic mode. And none used display lists or anything remotely similar to the Atari 800. I wonder why…

 

Keep wondering. It's cheaper to extend text modes into graphics modes than to have both supported by hardware.

 

>>Why not add hardware scrolling and overscan/underscan and multiple mode mixing, DLIs, IRQs, etc. since they all have to be figured into making a good graphics screen?

 

>Hardware scroll, I will concede that the TMS9918 doesn’t have that.

>Multiple modes mixing, irrelevant when your best graphic mode has all the features available. So I don’t need to give up resolution to get more colors, etc.

 

You have to use up CPU to emulate bigger text modes which costs you CPU cycles; it's better if it's supported by hardware.

 

>DLIs, only meaningful on Atari machines.

 

Not true. Many machines have similar features-- Amiga has copper lists/interrupts and C64 has raster interrupts and believe it or not, they are not used for only changing colors.

 

>IRQs, we both have that.

 

It's better if they are tied to video clocks.

 

>And the only things I need to figure out with the TMS9918 are the graphics that I’m going to use for background and sprites. I don’t need to program the whole video system.

 

>>And you are wrong regarding DMA cycles, I can reduce DMA cycles depending on application w/o affecting graphics.

 

>I hope it isn’t as elusive as the 23 colors thing.

 

That was your fault for not knowing.

 

>BTW, I just checked the official Atari Hardware Manual again, and they give an example of DMA use there. Using mode 0, 320x192, 2 colors/scanline, requires 36% of all machine cycles per frame. That leaves the CPU with 64% of cycles, or we can say roughly that it is like the CPU is running at 1.15MHz. But ok, I know that the 6502 can execute opcodes very fast… all 10 of them….

 

You missed the point. I never compared the cycle times of the two processors-- that was what I was asking but you attacked the question with a fault-finding attitude. ANTIC can also scroll each of those scanlines individually, set a new graphics mode in any of those lines, overscan/underscan any part of the display, etc. all of which would eat up cycles on Coleco systems.

 

>>If you can't answer it, let someone else. I don't need your help. You are completely ignorant of how an Atari works and desperately trying to find fault with it so it would be hard to trust anything you wrote anyway.

 

>You know, I really enjoyed all of this, but I believe that I have better things to do than waste my time here debating theoretical Atari capabilities.

 

I'll post some code to PROVE you wrong that they are just theoretical. You wasted your own time and mine by stating things that are FALSE and misleading.

[atariksi]

Don't get me wrong, the 5200 was awsome, but the ColecoVision was better. But I love both!

 

I don't see that from the hardware perspective.

[DracIsBack]

I saw 50 people with blue eyes and decided everyone has blue eyes. Nice logic.

 

That's like CV Gus.

- A few stores in my area (near the Coleco factories) had Colecovision games until 1987 so this must be the same everywhere else.

 

- And I see more Colecos in the used stores (near the Coleco factories) than 5200s, so this must also be the same everywhere.

 

- And because there are more used Colecos in a few stores in my neighborhood (near the Coleco factory), that translates into definitive proof that Coleco sold more than 5200.

[opcode]

You should have shared your 23 colors/scanline code back in the 80s. Can you imagine that? We would be living in a different world, Atari would still be around and we would be playing the Atari 26000 now!

NES wouldn't have had a chance against the might 5200 and its 256 colors on screen and 23 colors/scanline, all in magnificent 80x192 resolution.

It's too bad you didn't, because now we are stuck with 5200 games using only 5 colors/scanline… Don't you feel guilt?

Sorry, couldn't resist...

Edited June 10, 2009 by opcode

[atariksi]

I've played the Coleco a lot and enjoyed it due to the high number of fine arcade conversions. The Atari 5200 also interests me, though I've never played it, because I don't see how a machine with analogue controls can work with games meant for a digital stick.

 

I still use digital joysticks (Atari 800 type) with A5200. Some games I use paddles. And some I have yet to play.

[atariksi]

You should have shared your 23 colors/scanline code back in the 80s. Can you imagine that? We would be living in a different world, Atari would still be around and we would be playing the Atari 26000 now!

NES wouldn't have had a chance against the might 5200 and its 256 colors on screen and 23 colors/scanline, all in magnificent 80x192 resolution.

It's too bad you didn't, because now we are stuck with 5200 games using only 5 colors/scanline… Don't you feel guilt?

Sorry, couldn't resist...

 

There's many reasons for making games that don't fully exploit the hardware features of a particular machine, but hardware is what it is.

 

And you are wrong again, at 80*192, you get 38 colors/scanline not 23 colors/scanline (without involving DLIs/IRQs):

 

10 PRINT "Atari BASIC program to show 38 colors/scanline in Graphics 11"

20 PRINT " By Krishna Software Inc."

30 GRAPHICS 11

40 POKE 704,2:POKE 705,4:POKE 706,10:POKE 707,12:POKE 623,16+32+192

50 POKE 708,4:POKE 709,8:POKE 710,2:POKE 711,8:POKE 712,4

60 POKE 53248,80:POKE 53249,88:POKE 53250,160:POKE 53251,176

70 POKE 53252,112:POKE 53253,120:POKE 53254,128:POKE 53255,136

80 FOR T=53256 TO 53265:POKE T,255:NEXT T:POKE 53256,1:POKE 53257,1

90 FOR T=0 TO 79:COLOR T:PLOT T,0:DR. T,191:NEXT T

100 GOTO 100

RUN

[opcode]

I cannot wait for all the 5200 games that people will create now using your routine... I just hope they don't use 80x192, because frankly that resolution sucks...

[Jetboot Jack]

I never had a colecovision back in the day, I did lust after DK, Zaxxon, Buck Rogers etc...

 

But I had an 800, kinda like a 5200 with a keyboard, I had to put up with games that looked like these, games the 5200 could do - please don't tell me the CV could mange these, especially when there are more than 4 sprites on a line, ANY proper multicolor characters, smooth scrolling, more than 16 colors on screen etc etc...

Edited June 10, 2009 by Jetboot Jack

[frogstar_robot]

I never had a colecovision back in the day, I did lust after DK, Zaxxon, Buck Rogers etc...

 

But I had an 800, kinda like a 5200 with a keyboard, I had to put up with games that looked like these, games the 5200 could do - please don't tell me the CV could mange these, especially when there are more than 4 sprites on a line, ANY proper multicolor characters, smooth scrolling, more than 16 colors on screen etc etc...

 

Only if the 800 in question has only 16K ram. 800s were supported up to 48K with up to 3 Atari manufactured 16K RAM packs. Those games could be ported but some would have bankswitch ROM at least.

 

Going in the 5200 -> A8 direction is generally easier as A8s in use after '82 or so generally had at least 48K and probably 64K ala 800XL.

 

Incidentally the A8 chipset was originally slated to be used in a console long before the 5200 came out. The success of the PET and Apple IIs caused Atari to rethink. IMHO, they made a mistake by making it incompatible to the A8. They could have done an "XEGS minus the keyboard" and made titles that didn't need the keyboard. Furthermore don't even bother with a keyboard add-on. But if you did upgrade to an 800XL say then all your carts would still work.

[Jetboot Jack]

Aside from Bomb Jack (I put that in just for fun) - all these could be done on bankswitched (BBSB style) carts for the 5200 I reckon

 

The bottom line is the 5200 was in a different league than the CV - it's a shame Atari (and others) didn't exploit it.

 

sTeVE

[atariksi]

I never had a colecovision back in the day, I did lust after DK, Zaxxon, Buck Rogers etc...

 

But I had an 800, kinda like a 5200 with a keyboard, I had to put up with games that looked like these, games the 5200 could do - please don't tell me the CV could mange these, especially when there are more than 4 sprites on a line, ANY proper multicolor characters, smooth scrolling, more than 16 colors on screen etc etc...

 

What's the name of that driving simulation? It looks better than Pole Position.

[atariksi]

Aside from Bomb Jack (I put that in just for fun) - all these could be done on bankswitched (BBSB style) carts for the 5200 I reckon

 

The bottom line is the 5200 was in a different league than the CV - it's a shame Atari (and others) didn't exploit it.

 

sTeVE

 

RAM and ROM were expensive back then so there's one reason; so what's the maximum ROM bankswitched carts can do? Nowadays with cheaper priced ROMs, it may be possible to put entire GTIA interlaced or noninterlaced animation on a cartridge as well as use long kernels....

[youki]

I never had a colecovision back in the day, I did lust after DK, Zaxxon, Buck Rogers etc...

 

But I had an 800, kinda like a 5200 with a keyboard, I had to put up with games that looked like these, games the 5200 could do - please don't tell me the CV could mange these, especially when there are more than 4 sprites on a line, ANY proper multicolor characters, smooth scrolling, more than 16 colors on screen etc etc...

 

What's the name of that driving simulation? It looks better than Pole Position.

 

You mean the racing game on the picture?

 

it is elektra glide , i think.

[atariksi]

I never had a colecovision back in the day, I did lust after DK, Zaxxon, Buck Rogers etc...

 

But I had an 800, kinda like a 5200 with a keyboard, I had to put up with games that looked like these, games the 5200 could do - please don't tell me the CV could mange these, especially when there are more than 4 sprites on a line, ANY proper multicolor characters, smooth scrolling, more than 16 colors on screen etc etc...

 

What's the name of that driving simulation? It looks better than Pole Position.

 

You mean the racing game on the picture?

 

it is elektra glide , i think.

 

Thanks. I'll have to try it out...

[mcjakeqcool]

It's a shame that Atari did'ent do better, it would be really cool if they still ruled the roost in 2009.

[atariksi]

I never had a colecovision back in the day, I did lust after DK, Zaxxon, Buck Rogers etc...

 

But I had an 800, kinda like a 5200 with a keyboard, I had to put up with games that looked like these, games the 5200 could do - please don't tell me the CV could mange these, especially when there are more than 4 sprites on a line, ANY proper multicolor characters, smooth scrolling, more than 16 colors on screen etc etc...

 

Only if the 800 in question has only 16K ram. 800s were supported up to 48K with up to 3 Atari manufactured 16K RAM packs. Those games could be ported but some would have bankswitch ROM at least.

 

Going in the 5200 -> A8 direction is generally easier as A8s in use after '82 or so generally had at least 48K and probably 64K ala 800XL.

 

Incidentally the A8 chipset was originally slated to be used in a console long before the 5200 came out. The success of the PET and Apple IIs caused Atari to rethink. IMHO, they made a mistake by making it incompatible to the A8. They could have done an "XEGS minus the keyboard" and made titles that didn't need the keyboard. Furthermore don't even bother with a keyboard add-on. But if you did upgrade to an 800XL say then all your carts would still work.

 

Good point regarding compatibility. It seems they purposely memory mapped the chips to different locations except for ANTIC which remained at $D400 which meant your display routines that directly use hardware still would work the same. They mapped it:

 

$C000 GTIA instead of $D000

$E800 POKEY instead of $D200

$F800 Character Set ROM instead of $E000 although that's relocatable via software.

-$Infinity PIA instead of $D300 (maybe because they wanted to make system cheaper than A8 computer)

[atariksi]

I cannot wait for all the 5200 games that people will create now using your routine... I just hope they don't use 80x192, because frankly that resolution sucks...

 

GTIA was way beyond anything at the time: I created some nice digitized images touched up by sprite overlays to enhance resolution. Here's one:

[youki]

I cannot wait for all the 5200 games that people will create now using your routine... I just hope they don't use 80x192, because frankly that resolution sucks...

 

GTIA was way beyond anything at the time: I created some nice digitized images touched up by sprite overlays to enhance resolution. Here's one:

 

It is nice, but we are talking about game console... now on you picture add a real game mechanics....