Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl

[TMR]

Pal Atari 800 1.77 Mz

Pal C64 0.985 Mhz

 

That makes a difference of 0.902 Mhz

 

Almost twice as fast main processor in Atari 800

 

Yes it is... as long as the screen and sprites are all turned off, otherwise the A8's CPU power drops to the approximates i quoted previously.

 

Now we're talking sprites again?

 

A talk about the "amount of colours" to choose from and the "quality of them".

 

No you weren't, you were quite specifically talking about processor speeds at that point. Processor speed on both machines is affected by what the video hardware is up to, both have DMA fetches for sprites and screen but the C64 is affected far less despite having more going on. The Atari also has to deal with more data shifting for sprites, juggle software sprites and spends quite a bit of time locked into time-consuming loops generating all those bloody rainbows so it's probably for the best it's faster - it has to do a lot more...

 

Then i talking about that C64 only has 16 colours to choose from, no more. And that's why you can't create graphics like on the A8, ST or Amiga who uses fine hues of colour in many games.

 

Don't talk rubbish, the A8 can't produce games that look like the Amiga or ST either; 160x192 with 128 colour palette and five colours a scanline is bloody leagues away from even 320x200x16 from 512 on the ST.

[DimensionX]

Pal Atari 800 1.77 Mz

Pal C64 0.985 Mhz

 

That makes a difference of 0.902 Mhz

 

Almost twice as fast main processor in Atari 800

 

Yes it is... as long as the screen and sprites are all turned off, otherwise the A8's CPU power drops to the approximates i quoted previously.

 

Now we're talking sprites again?

 

A talk about the "amount of colours" to choose from and the "quality of them".

 

No you weren't, you were quite specifically talking about processor speeds at that point. Processor speed on both machines is affected by what the video hardware is up to, both have DMA fetches for sprites and screen but the C64 is affected far less despite having more going on. The Atari also has to deal with more data shifting for sprites, juggle software sprites and spends quite a bit of time locked into time-consuming loops generating all those bloody rainbows so it's probably for the best it's faster - it has to do a lot more...

 

Then i talking about that C64 only has 16 colours to choose from, no more. And that's why you can't create graphics like on the A8, ST or Amiga who uses fine hues of colour in many games.

 

Don't talk rubbish, the A8 can't produce games that look like the Amiga or ST either; 160x192 with 128 colour palette and five colours a scanline is bloody leagues away from even 320x200x16 from 512 on the ST.

 

You can easily creat fine hues of any colour on both A8, ST and Amiga.

 

Something impossible on C64 and Spectrum thanks to their limited colour palette.

 

The game Ballblazer from Lucasarts

 

You can't do this on a C64 or Spectrum, it's impossible thanks to the limited colourpalette.

 

Edited April 24, 2010 by DimensionX

[Atarigmr]

Who have enough patience please continue

[TMR]

Please TMR, can you listen to what i say?

 

It's you who isn't listening.

 

I talking about colours, how many you can choose from, and the quality of them.

 

Atari is better in that area because of a much larger palette.

 

NO YOU BLOODY HAVEN'T JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT JUST COLOURS. You've repeatedly said it had better graphics and for just one more time before i get thoroughly sick of saying it, having more colours alone (and how many more times to i have to say that before you realise i've said it?) does not equate to having better graphics and never will.

[TMR]

Who have enough patience please continue

 

Nah, i've had enough... if i don't walk away now i'll just report him to the admins as a troll or something.

[DimensionX]

Please TMR, can you listen to what i say?

 

It's you who isn't listening.

 

I talking about colours, how many you can choose from, and the quality of them.

 

Atari is better in that area because of a much larger palette.

 

NO YOU BLOODY HAVEN'T JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT JUST COLOURS. You've repeatedly said it had better graphics and for just one more time before i get thoroughly sick of saying it, having more colours alone (and how many more times to i have to say that before you realise i've said it?) does not equate to having better graphics and never will.

 

No, i didn't say that. I said that the colours is better on Atari, not the graphics. That is two different things. C64 might handle sprites better, be more flexible, but it don't beat Atari for colours.

 

And if you think that i said graphics you should read this.

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/142211-commodore-64-vs-atari-800-xl/page__view__findpost__p__1996406

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/142211-commodore-64-vs-atari-800-xl/page__view__findpost__p__1996408

 

And about the main processor.

 

Why i posted that was because TMR said that Atari didn't hade an "almost twice as fast" main processor.

 

Wrong, it has an almost twice as fast main processor, the Pal version is 0.902 Mhz faster then a Pal C64 processor. And if we trying to change that, the Mhz is still the same.

Edited April 24, 2010 by DimensionX

[DimensionX]

Sorry, now i'm off to finish some stuff on my other blog.

 

To you guys. I'm sure that you are skilled programmers and big fans to C64. Nothing wrong about that. More the opposite, i'm glad to meet people who still like the old computers because i'm a big retro fan myself.

 

But STOP this fanboy stuff, it almost makes me hate the C64 even if i don't want to do that, it's like fanatic linux fansboys in action. Why can't you admit that A8 has better colours because of a much bigger palette? Is that so hard to admit? Both machines is great in their own ways and have their own unique qualities. I don't mind at all if C64 is better at 100 other things, but definitely NOT in the colour area thanks to a much larger palette.

 

Have a nice weekend.

[TMR]

NO YOU BLOODY HAVEN'T JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT JUST COLOURS. You've repeatedly said it had better graphics and for just one more time before i get thoroughly sick of saying it, having more colours alone (and how many more times to i have to say that before you realise i've said it?) does not equate to having better graphics and never will.

 

No, i didn't say that. I said that the colours is better on Atari, not the graphics.

 

What, you didn't say this lot then...?

 

Atari's graphics was better thanks to Jay Miners awesome Antic chip

 

C64 won't beat Atari 800 in the graphics department

 

i just want to show why Atari was the best 8bit computer in graphics.

 

C64 was a good computer in many ways, but i can't match the graphics on the Atari 800.

 

C64 can't use alternate fine nuances of red, green or any other colour. Atari can do all that. Therefore Atari is the better machine in the graphics department.

 

If that lot wasn't you, someone's been using your account.

[TMR]

But STOP this fanboy stuff, it almost makes me hate the C64 even if i don't want to do that, it's like fanatic linux fansboys in action. Why can't you admit that A8 has better colours because of a much bigger palette? Is that so hard to admit?

 

It's fanboys like you that stop me finishing Atari 8-bit projects; i look at the garbage you've posted and feel like the months of work i put into getting my scrolling engine going is a waste of time because you'd be happy with a stupid sodding rainbow behind some shoddy four colour graphics.

[TMR]

Why i posted that was because TMR said that Atari didn't hade an "almost twice as fast" main processor.

 

Wrong, it has an almost twice as fast main processor, the Pal version is 0.902 Mhz faster then a Pal C64 processor. And if we trying to change that, the Mhz is still the same.

 

Oops, missed this amongst all the other instances of proving you wrong; yes, the CPU is clocked at 0.9MHz faster BUT NOT ALL OF THAT CPU POWER IS AVAILABLE so trying to prove some ridiculous and pointless "point" by subtracting one speed from the other only goes to prove that you don't understand the subject enough to be making that comparison.

[GroovyBee]

you'd be happy with a stupid sodding rainbow behind some shoddy four colour graphics.

 

I'll be Bungle and you can be Jeffrey... Mmmmmkay

[TMR]

you'd be happy with a stupid sodding rainbow behind some shoddy four colour graphics.

 

I'll be Bungle and you can be Jeffrey... Mmmmmkay

 

After all that shouting, Zippy would be more appropriate...

[popmilo]

...stupid sodding rainbow behind some shoddy four colour graphics.

Now I feel depressed about my stupid project that has a rainbow behind some three colour graphics

 

p.s. I know what you mean but its just so complicated to do anything else

Edited April 24, 2010 by popmilo

[GroovyBee]

<sarcasm on>Since we are being subjective here... The C64 is more powerful because it has more keys on the keyboard. Its even more powerful than WOPR from WarGames because that doesn't have a keyboard. WOPR does have nice flashing lights and a countdown display though. Pity they omitted that from the C64 design . <sarcasm off>

[PeteD]

Fanboys fanboys FANBOYS!!

 

Haven't you lot learned yet that if you don't back an Atari machine you're immediately wrong and a fanboy, doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. No doubt the other trolls will be out soon to tell you how much of a wanker you are for arguing with A8 people.

 

 

Pete

[TMR]

Fanboys fanboys FANBOYS!!

 

Haven't you lot learned yet that if you don't back an Atari machine you're immediately wrong and a fanboy, doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. No doubt the other trolls will be out soon to tell you how much of a wanker you are for arguing with A8 people.

 

Hey, if they weren't all scared of FWar... (nice avatar, by the way! =-)

[DimensionX]

NO YOU BLOODY HAVEN'T JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT JUST COLOURS. You've repeatedly said it had better graphics and for just one more time before i get thoroughly sick of saying it, having more colours alone (and how many more times to i have to say that before you realise i've said it?) does not equate to having better graphics and never will.

 

No, i didn't say that. I said that the colours is better on Atari, not the graphics.

 

What, you didn't say this lot then...?

 

Atari's graphics was better thanks to Jay Miners awesome Antic chip

 

C64 won't beat Atari 800 in the graphics department

 

i just want to show why Atari was the best 8bit computer in graphics.

 

C64 was a good computer in many ways, but i can't match the graphics on the Atari 800.

 

C64 can't use alternate fine nuances of red, green or any other colour. Atari can do all that. Therefore Atari is the better machine in the graphics department.

 

If that lot wasn't you, someone's been using your account.

 

I knew that you would post something like that, therefore i posted two links to my postings that i posted earlier today.

 

Now, did you use my links?

 

No?

 

Then you should have saved youself some work.

 

I wrote earlier this afternoon

 

One of the links was to this posting.

 

At first i belived that Atari was the best computer for graphics. Then i learned several new things and changed my mind. C64 is better om some things, sprite handling for exemple. So i call it a tie. Both are capable computers in their own rights, but on different things. The same thing with ZX Spectrum. At first i thought it was a quite worthless very limited computer. Then i learned more and Spectrum wasn't so bad after all. Some of the demos i have seen were quite impressive and some of the games was even tastful to look at.

 

Next time, use my links and save yourself some unnecessary work.

[DimensionX]

But STOP this fanboy stuff, it almost makes me hate the C64 even if i don't want to do that, it's like fanatic linux fansboys in action. Why can't you admit that A8 has better colours because of a much bigger palette? Is that so hard to admit?

 

It's fanboys like you that stop me finishing Atari 8-bit projects; i look at the garbage you've posted and feel like the months of work i put into getting my scrolling engine going is a waste of time because you'd be happy with a stupid sodding rainbow behind some shoddy four colour graphics.

 

I'm not a fanboy of any kind, in fact i hate fanboys and fanatics. I'm trying to talk to you, i can't because you are not listening. I have changed my mind several times under this diskussion.

 

Have you?

 

Well, is Atari the better computer in the colour area? Thanks to a much larger palette?

[DimensionX]

Who have enough patience please continue

 

Nah, i've had enough... if i don't walk away now i'll just report him to the admins as a troll or something.

 

Do you report all people who don't think that you're a master programmer on the worlds best computer? With an unlimited palette of almost uncountable 16 colours?

 

In a Atari forum?

 

C'mon, get real.

 

I suggest that we end this diskussion for now, because you can't take any criticism, and neither can Atarigmr. You don't even bother to use any links i give you. Well, i don't want to be called troll from someone who don't even listen to any arguments.

 

This discussion is over for me.

 

Sure, go ahead and report me. Show what nasty postings i make that not even contain the word troll.

 

I'm outta here...

 

Because speaking to you...is like speaking to a wall.

[PeteD]

The problem with the A8 palette (and this has been argued about endlessly before) is it really isn't that great when you look at it. It's severely limited in colours, it's got lots of shades but shades of a small subset of a possible range of RGB values. There's no decent red for a start. Then comes the fact that you're more limited in how that palette can be shown on screen. Like you said, people who don't know better see the speccy as a poor competitor, until you realise you can have any 2 colours in any 8x8 square, something the Atari can't do.

 

Of course there are situations where the A8 can show more colours than nearly all of the other 8 bits but in a decent looking (and to me 4:1 pixel AR isn't decent, 2:1 is bad enough) and usable (not taking up most of the CPU time or by it's method imposing limits on what is possible using those colours). Same goes for the C64, if you want a screen with as many colours as possible you're going to be displaying a bitmap mode graphic and (apart from the hardware sprites) doing anything with that has big limitations.

 

Basically the C64 sacrificed a larger range of colours for a 2bpp mode for screen and sprites with colour RAM, sprite multicolours, individual sprite colours etc, the A8 sacrifices resolution to get 16 colours/shades. Saying one is better than the other then trying to boil it down to, "A8 has a bigger palette so it must be better", is simplifying it too much.

 

 

Pete

[GroovyBee]

And peace reigned over the programming forum again.

 

Damn! Spoke too soon

[DimensionX]

The problem with the A8 palette (and this has been argued about endlessly before) is it really isn't that great when you look at it. It's severely limited in colours, it's got lots of shades but shades of a small subset of a possible range of RGB values. There's no decent red for a start. Then comes the fact that you're more limited in how that palette can be shown on screen. Like you said, people who don't know better see the speccy as a poor competitor, until you realise you can have any 2 colours in any 8x8 square, something the Atari can't do.

 

Of course there are situations where the A8 can show more colours than nearly all of the other 8 bits but in a decent looking (and to me 4:1 pixel AR isn't decent, 2:1 is bad enough) and usable (not taking up most of the CPU time or by it's method imposing limits on what is possible using those colours). Same goes for the C64, if you want a screen with as many colours as possible you're going to be displaying a bitmap mode graphic and (apart from the hardware sprites) doing anything with that has big limitations.

 

Basically the C64 sacrificed a larger range of colours for a 2bpp mode for screen and sprites with colour RAM, sprite multicolours, individual sprite colours etc, the A8 sacrifices resolution to get 16 colours/shades. Saying one is better than the other then trying to boil it down to, "A8 has a bigger palette so it must be better", is simplifying it too much.

 

 

Pete

 

Before i leave, i will answer you.

 

That would have been true IF the C64 palette was less limited.

 

16 colours makes all games look the same. You can't even make gradients with only 16 colours. If the C64 palette have been a bit larger i could have bought that argument. But now it's way to limited.

 

That's my honest opinion.

 

And if you don't agree with that, it's okey by me.

[PeteD]

 

In a Atari forum?

 

 

 

Anyone owning or having knowledge of any other machine, please leave your opinions at the door. Free thinking will not be tolerated

 

 

Pete

[DimensionX]

And peace reigned over the programming forum again.

 

Damn! Spoke too soon

 

Aaah, at last, someone with some humour. I laughted at your previous posting.

 

Thanks.

 

And have a great weekend.

[PeteD]

 

 

Before i leave, i will answer you.

 

That would have been true IF the C64 palette was less limited.

 

16 colours makes all games look the same. You can't even make gradients with only 16 colours. If the C64 palette have been a bit larger i could have bought that argument. But now it's way to limited.

 

That's my honest opinion.

 

And if you don't agree with that, it's okey by me.

 

Of course I agree that the C64 palette is limited, I just said so, but if you think it makes all the games look the same and the A8's palette doesn't, I STRONGLY suggest you go check out some screenshots on both machines. There's a reason why people who don't know much about the A8 think all the games are "mono" and that same thinking probably applies to people who say all C64 games look the same.

 

 

Pete