Atari 8bit is superior to the ST

[atariksi]

I am not streaming tons of data into the ST's joystick port because it's too slow for that.

And because there's absolutely no sane reason to do that on the ST.

 

Although ST is inferior even on joystick reads by themselves, you shouldn't think people are insane to use joystick ports for uses other than reading a joystick/mouse. Just consider the parallel port on PC 8088 machines. All those projects done on it were expected to perform equal or better on the next PC not degrade performance. And they were originally meant for LPT (line printers). But parallel ports went from SPP->BPP->EPP->ECP and each time they improved in speed. So someone takes his A8 machine with all it's add-ons like ComputerEyes, Video titlers, Covox, parrot, etc. and can't use them on a NEW so-called superior machine because they decided to degrade the joystick ports, reduce the shades, remove hardware scrolling, remove overscan hardware, and do away with sprites.

 

I had the 4 player adaptor for Gauntlet (I or II can't remember ) that used the parallel port to give two more db9 sockets- I guess that would allow you to plug in your Atari 800 joystick peripherals.... You'd need new software though.

 

That would have been good if they standardized the parallel port on ST for gaming interface. But then games like Zany Golf, Marble Madness, etc. that employ mice probably won't work with parallel ports.

[kool kitty89]

I certainly don't mean a "7800 vs" war; let's be clear I really like Atari stuff. I like the NES but I'm no Nintnedo fanboy....I much prefer(red) Atari stuff in general to Nintendo because Atari stuff is "dear to my heart" (tear) since I grew up with it. Nevertheless, my senses still work, and what's so dazzling about the 7800? I think it's easy to overrate the 7800 out of love for the Atari name. Yeah, it had a lot sprites. Then how come all those sprites didn't help Galaga - perhaps the system's trump card - compared to NES? Everything moves slow and jerky. We'll give it a pass for the crap sound because it only has TIA. But how can these 2 versions of Galaga compete?

 

7800 Galaga

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBbLbO500mU

NES Galaga

 

The NES one definitely seems to be of higher production value, most of the sound is better and such, but in spite of this the 7800 version has several advantages. The spites tend to move much more smothely on the 7800, sometimes about the same but when in formation at the top, the NES have very choppy motion. Also, unless those are all software "sprites" there should be a lot of flicker, then again that's quite obviously an emulator recording. The 7800 has awesome death explosions, extremely wimpy ones on NES, in spite of the smaller size, I think a fair number of enemies are actually more colorful on the 7800. And of course, the NES is running at a higher resolution.

 

And of course, you take a video with a stock 7800 playing through RF with awful deinterlacing atrifacts from the video capturing, compared to emulation on the NES.

 

 

Edit: Judging by the lack of flicker, but rather frequent shearing (plus the choppy motion of the formation), I'm thinking the NES is using software sprites.

 

See:

(wimpy explosion at 1:16 -see your 7800 vid at 1:14 for awsome explosion -better animation too)

also:

(this one's in the correct aspect ratio)

 

Plus here's a much better quality recording of the 7800:

Edited December 18, 2009 by kool kitty89

[atarian63]

A "REAL' Galaga would be very nice!

 

I'll have to pass on that. Its not the sort of game I like to make.

Well if you ever did I am sure it would be greatly improved!

[atariksi]

So what's that - a dozen or so ?

 

I bet if you made a list of MIDI-enhanced games of the 3,000 or whatever were released on the ST, you'd be lucky to hit 50.

Sure. It all depends on how you look at it. I acknowledge that the absolute number of games that used midi was small.

 

But, I'm guessing that the Sierra Adventures were played by a heck of a lot more people than most of those remaining 2978 games.

 

I'd be surprised if almost every ST owner that had games didn't have at least one of them.

 

But the number of people who had: (1) An ST, (2) A Sierra Adventure, and (3) a Casio CZ-101 (or whatever) was a small number. I believe that's the point he's trying to make.

 

[On the other hand, I think "Karate Kid Part 2" supported the MIDI because I remember it playing in the store.]

 

Good point. ST was considered to be cheaper than the Amiga/Mac/Apples out there but if a MIDI keyboard is considered part of the audio features of ST then the price of the MIDI keyboard has to be added in there. I had a few keyboards back then but none had MIDI ports as the MIDI keyboards were expensive back then. Then again, perhaps Amiga can emulate the MIDI audio through it's DACs and make it's price overall cheaper than ST. ST was a better option than Macs though at that time.

[Crazyace]

I am not streaming tons of data into the ST's joystick port because it's too slow for that.

And because there's absolutely no sane reason to do that on the ST.

 

Although ST is inferior even on joystick reads by themselves, you shouldn't think people are insane to use joystick ports for uses other than reading a joystick/mouse. Just consider the parallel port on PC 8088 machines. All those projects done on it were expected to perform equal or better on the next PC not degrade performance. And they were originally meant for LPT (line printers). But parallel ports went from SPP->BPP->EPP->ECP and each time they improved in speed. So someone takes his A8 machine with all it's add-ons like ComputerEyes, Video titlers, Covox, parrot, etc. and can't use them on a NEW so-called superior machine because they decided to degrade the joystick ports, reduce the shades, remove hardware scrolling, remove overscan hardware, and do away with sprites.

 

I had the 4 player adaptor for Gauntlet (I or II can't remember ) that used the parallel port to give two more db9 sockets- I guess that would allow you to plug in your Atari 800 joystick peripherals.... You'd need new software though.

 

That would have been good if they standardized the parallel port on ST for gaming interface. But then games like Zany Golf, Marble Madness, etc. that employ mice probably won't work with parallel ports.

 

The normal joystick ports are fine for games - I only mentioned it as you seemed hung up on not being able to use esoteric A8 hardware on the ST. Most actual ST hardware of that kind plugged into the cartridge port though.

[Thorsten Günther]

The normal joystick ports are fine for games - I only mentioned it as you seemed hung up on not being able to use esoteric A8 hardware on the ST. Most actual ST hardware of that kind plugged into the cartridge port though.

 

The numerous interfaces of the ST have been utilized for various purposes - the Gauntlet II four player adaptor for the parallel port being one of the more prominent solutions. The cartridge port has been used for music hardware (C-Lab Unitor 2, Steinberg Midex), alternate OSes (SMS/2, Aladin, Spectre GCR), scanners and mass storage (including an adaptor for parallel-port ZIP drives), the ACSI port for printers, scanners, ethernet interfaces (via ACSI-SCSI converters) and mass storage. The MIDI ports allowed for an ad-hoc token-ring network for games (Midi-Maze, Oxyd), and I presume there's many more uses for the interfaces I can't remember (lab interfaces anyone?).

 

As much as I like my A8 computers (since my 800XL was the first computer I ever bought), I always hated the lack of standard interfaces. Not being able to connect a standard tape recorder, printer or modem was a major drawback of this particular hardware, plus virtually every piece of hardware was SIO, and even the Turbo-Freezer XL (the only PBI hardware I ever owned) needed 5V from a joystick port to work due to the lack of a +5V pin on the PBI.

 

Thorsten

[Shredder11]

So what's that - a dozen or so ?

 

I bet if you made a list of MIDI-enhanced games of the 3,000 or whatever were released on the ST, you'd be lucky to hit 50.

Sure. It all depends on how you look at it. I acknowledge that the absolute number of games that used midi was small.

 

But, I'm guessing that the Sierra Adventures were played by a heck of a lot more people than most of those remaining 2978 games.

 

I'd be surprised if almost every ST owner that had games didn't have at least one of them.

 

But the number of people who had: (1) An ST, (2) A Sierra Adventure, and (3) a Casio CZ-101 (or whatever) was a small number. I believe that's the point he's trying to make.

 

[On the other hand, I think "Karate Kid Part 2" supported the MIDI because I remember it playing in the store.]

 

Good point. ST was considered to be cheaper than the Amiga/Mac/Apples out there but if a MIDI keyboard is considered part of the audio features of ST then the price of the MIDI keyboard has to be added in there. I had a few keyboards back then but none had MIDI ports as the MIDI keyboards were expensive back then. Then again, perhaps Amiga can emulate the MIDI audio through it's DACs and make it's price overall cheaper than ST. ST was a better option than Macs though at that time.

 

 

Which year approx are we talking? My first keyboard with MIDI was a cheap four octave Casio MT-540 with sampled sounds in mid 1989, I bought it from my mother's mail order catalogue on a weekly basis for a year but I forget the price though. It cannot have been much because my own income as an eighteen year old was £30 a week approx (later in 1989 I then earned £100+ per week), plus I was still buying Amstrad CPC464 games at that point too!

 

[+wood_jl]

I certainly don't mean a "7800 vs" war; let's be clear I really like Atari stuff. I like the NES but I'm no Nintnedo fanboy....I much prefer(red) Atari stuff in general to Nintendo because Atari stuff is "dear to my heart" (tear) since I grew up with it. Nevertheless, my senses still work, and what's so dazzling about the 7800? I think it's easy to overrate the 7800 out of love for the Atari name. Yeah, it had a lot sprites. Then how come all those sprites didn't help Galaga - perhaps the system's trump card - compared to NES? Everything moves slow and jerky. We'll give it a pass for the crap sound because it only has TIA. But how can these 2 versions of Galaga compete?

 

7800 Galaga

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBbLbO500mU

NES Galaga

 

The NES one definitely seems to be of higher production value, most of the sound is better and such, but in spite of this the 7800 version has several advantages. The spites tend to move much more smothely on the 7800, sometimes about the same but when in formation at the top, the NES have very choppy motion. Also, unless those are all software "sprites" there should be a lot of flicker, then again that's quite obviously an emulator recording. The 7800 has awesome death explosions, extremely wimpy ones on NES, in spite of the smaller size, I think a fair number of enemies are actually more colorful on the 7800. And of course, the NES is running at a higher resolution.

 

Are you kidding? Maybe the Youtube video is poor or something...or is stuttering on your connection. The NES version is fast and smooth (and better in every other way too). Maybe you're not a Galaga aficianado. The 7800 version is jerky; you can practically see the string of ships stop and start momentarily when they're flying in a string formation, entering the screen.

 

In short, the NES version looks, sounds, and plays very close to the arcade. The explosions aren't the best on either one, but they're not germane to the gameplay. The aliens looking and moving like they do in the arcade game is. Until the Namco Museum collection on PS1 (and everything else) this jaw-dropping version of Galaga was stunningly close to the arcade, compared to watered-down lame-ass versions. I thought about including a youtube version of the arcade for comparison, but figured the game was famous and well-known enough that it was obvious the NES version was amazingly close, for the time. Evidently not. I suppose there's no point; because we're on Atari Age, someone's going to argue the 7800 version is fantastic. I understand that. Maybe our senses operate differently. This game has been a favorite of mine since I was a little kid and have spent countless quarters on it, and much time playing it on pretty much every home/handheld platform. I love Atari stuff but I love Galaga too, and the NES version is an order of magnitude better. I thought Youtube video of each was proof enough for a comparison. I'll just have to concede - in the interest of minimizing wasted time and effort - this argument; the 7800 fanboys can have this one. If the video isn't acceptable, nothing is and there's no point in continuing this point. Anybody who knows, plays and appreciates Galaga knows better.

[andym00]

Are you kidding? Maybe the Youtube video is poor or something...or is stuttering on your connection. The NES version is fast and smooth (and better in every other way too). Maybe you're not a Galaga aficianado. The 7800 version is jerky; you can practically see the string of ships stop and start momentarily when they're flying in a string formation, entering the screen.

 

In short, the NES version looks, sounds, and plays very close to the arcade. The explosions aren't the best on either one, but they're not germane to the gameplay. The aliens looking and moving like they do in the arcade game is. Until the Namco Museum collection on PS1 (and everything else) this jaw-dropping version of Galaga was stunningly close to the arcade, compared to watered-down lame-ass versions. I thought about including a youtube version of the arcade for comparison, but figured the game was famous and well-known enough that it was obvious the NES version was amazingly close, for the time. Evidently not. I suppose there's no point; because we're on Atari Age, someone's going to argue the 7800 version is fantastic. I understand that. Maybe our senses operate differently. This game has been a favorite of mine since I was a little kid and have spent countless quarters on it, and much time playing it on pretty much every home/handheld platform. I love Atari stuff but I love Galaga too, and the NES version is an order of magnitude better. I thought Youtube video of each was proof enough for a comparison. I'll just have to concede - in the interest of minimizing wasted time and effort - this argument; the 7800 fanboys can have this one. If the video isn't acceptable, nothing is and there's no point in continuing this point. Anybody who knows, plays and appreciates Galaga knows better.

 

 

Don't just concede!! The youtube captures are properly shit.. Even the hd one KoolKitty linked to isn't right.. If I had a capture card on this machine I'd grab you some of it just to show you it at its native frame rate.. But I haven't, so I'd suggest go play it on the real thing.. Granted the 7800 ports got problems, but it's actually pretty damn good in most regards and surprisingly faithful in more ways than NES version And amazingly shows TIA sound doing something kind of musical

Yes, it could do with a rewrite, and that's on my list of things to do for both the A8 & 7800, because it's also my one true love of a game from the early 80s The 7800 version though, I'd want to bring more inline with Galaga'88 though..

[walter_J64bit]

What I like about the 8-bit it's has big fan base and new games and apps are all ways coming out. :thumbsup:

[atariksi]

I am not streaming tons of data into the ST's joystick port because it's too slow for that.

And because there's absolutely no sane reason to do that on the ST.

 

Although ST is inferior even on joystick reads by themselves, you shouldn't think people are insane to use joystick ports for uses other than reading a joystick/mouse. Just consider the parallel port on PC 8088 machines. All those projects done on it were expected to perform equal or better on the next PC not degrade performance. And they were originally meant for LPT (line printers). But parallel ports went from SPP->BPP->EPP->ECP and each time they improved in speed. So someone takes his A8 machine with all it's add-ons like ComputerEyes, Video titlers, Covox, parrot, etc. and can't use them on a NEW so-called superior machine because they decided to degrade the joystick ports, reduce the shades, remove hardware scrolling, remove overscan hardware, and do away with sprites.

 

I had the 4 player adaptor for Gauntlet (I or II can't remember ) that used the parallel port to give two more db9 sockets- I guess that would allow you to plug in your Atari 800 joystick peripherals.... You'd need new software though.

 

That would have been good if they standardized the parallel port on ST for gaming interface. But then games like Zany Golf, Marble Madness, etc. that employ mice probably won't work with parallel ports.

 

The normal joystick ports are fine for games - I only mentioned it as you seemed hung up on not being able to use esoteric A8 hardware on the ST. Most actual ST hardware of that kind plugged into the cartridge port though.

 

They are useable for games, but not as good as they can be even for games. It's not so esoteric since there's a lot of custom hardware (not commercial) built using the joystick ports. In fact, there's a book written just for making projects with joystick ports. Cartridge port is nonstandard. Parallel port was a standard port like DB9 joysticks back then since IBM, Amiga, and some other machines had them. More on this in my next reply.

[atariksi]

...

As much as I like my A8 computers (since my 800XL was the first computer I ever bought), I always hated the lack of standard interfaces. Not being able to connect a standard tape recorder, printer or modem was a major drawback of this particular hardware, plus virtually every piece of hardware was SIO, and even the Turbo-Freezer XL (the only PBI hardware I ever owned) needed 5V from a joystick port to work due to the lack of a +5V pin on the PBI.

 

Thorsten

 

Joystick port was also a standard. I don't know about PBI, but the parallel port on ST also lacks a +5V so using devices meant they had to supply their own power. And ST parallel port lacks some industry standard signals. Take a look:

 

Pin   PC Parallel         Atari ST          Amiga 1000
1     Strobe              Strobe            Strobe/drdy
2..9  D0..D7              D0..D7            D0..D7
10    Ack                 N.C.              Ack
11    Busy                Busy              Busy
12    Paper               N.C.              Paper
13    Select (In)         N.C.              Select
14    Autofeed            N.C.              GND
15    Error               N.C.              GND
16    Init                N.C.              GND
17    Select (out)        N.C.              GND
18..25 GND                GND               GND*

*Amiga has pins 23 to +5V and 25 as Reset

 

Amiga 1000 was the only parallel port with the +5V, but it already had superior joysticks as well.

[Crazyace]

They are useable for games, but not as good as they can be even for games. It's not so esoteric since there's a lot of custom hardware (not commercial) built using the joystick ports. In fact, there's a book written just for making projects with joystick ports. Cartridge port is nonstandard. Parallel port was a standard port like DB9 joysticks back then since IBM, Amiga, and some other machines had them. More on this in my next reply.

 

Seemed pretty fine for games when I used them. But I guess you would want the 5V supply for projects - ( Was there a standard for current draw.. I never saw one ) If so just use an external supply

Apple and Tandy didn't use the same joysticks, so they weren't really standard - and even IBM had different joysticks - they were probably more of a standard

[kool kitty89]

Are you kidding? Maybe the Youtube video is poor or something...or is stuttering on your connection. The NES version is fast and smooth (and better in every other way too). Maybe you're not a Galaga aficianado. The 7800 version is jerky; you can practically see the string of ships stop and start momentarily when they're flying in a string formation, entering the screen.

 

No, I mean the movement of th einvaders is chunky when scrolling horizontally in formation, say like Space Invaders on the 2600. (movement of th emanuevering ships is pretty smooth, but fine on 7800 as well, other than the aspect ratio being a little funky due to the resolution not being compenated for completely, so not round loops)

[peteym5]

I never owned an ST and never really had an interest in one. I went from the 8-bit to the PC because I was never impressed with the ST line. When the Atari 400/800 was first released in 1979, it was a superior computer to the Apple II, TRS-80, and it took Commodore a few years before releasing the 64 which is the closest equivalent. When the ST was released in 1985, it was inferior to the Amiga and not much better than the PC or MAC. By the time the TT030 & Falcon became available, PCs with VGA graphics and higher processor speeds were became more popular.

 

I know many of the sound & music people complain about being limited to 3 sound channels like the C64 or the first 520ST and favor the 4 channel POKEY based 8-bit computers (5 if you include the console channel). I always say the sounds seem more rich on the Atari 8-bit systems because of having 4 channels. It can have 3 or 4 channels for music and occasionally have one play a sound effect.

[atariksi]

They are useable for games, but not as good as they can be even for games. It's not so esoteric since there's a lot of custom hardware (not commercial) built using the joystick ports. In fact, there's a book written just for making projects with joystick ports. Cartridge port is nonstandard. Parallel port was a standard port like DB9 joysticks back then since IBM, Amiga, and some other machines had them. More on this in my next reply.

 

Seemed pretty fine for games when I used them. But I guess you would want the 5V supply for projects - ( Was there a standard for current draw.. I never saw one ) If so just use an external supply

Apple and Tandy didn't use the same joysticks, so they weren't really standard - and even IBM had different joysticks - they were probably more of a standard

 

Joysticks can seem fine but when you time them you can tell where one machine is spending more time than another. Well at least ST used a digital joystick, the Apple/IBM joysticks were analog and that made them worse overall. Atari digital joystick standard was more prevalent and more of a standard in those days as most Apple/IBM machines weren't used for games. In fact, the gameport didn't exist in many machines until you added some ISA card. Atari joystick interface was faster than Apple/IBM gameport as well.

[oky2000]

The Falcon was absolutely a perfect improvement for music production with it's 16bit audio processing capabilities thanks to the DSP. On the other hand all that happened between the Atari 800 model and the Atari 130XE was a 300% increase in memory...zero graphics chip improvements or sound hardware changes, no change in CPU speed either...so if any machine died from lack of development (to fight off the SID and VIC-II advantages) it was the A8.

 

I remember you making this point about the lack of development of the A8 back in one of the flamewar threads. It is true, but I don't think you can accurately criticise the A8 because of it. Why? Look at the other occurances of "advancing the platform:" How much software came out for the STe after they advanced to it? How much Falcon software actually came out - games and the like? How many specific Apple IIgs games came out? How much Commodore 128-specific software came out? I certainly suspect it would have been a similar situation. The only platform that ever got away with "advancement" is the PC. Why? I don't know. SOMEBODY SPECULATE AS TO WHY! The market got so huge it was possible????? The 'genius' of DOS and Windows? (cough, cough)

 

 

For a long time after the ST/Falcon was launched musicians still flocked to use Cubase and Steinberg software on Atari hardware....who really hankered after an A8 apart from retro enthusiasts during the ST/Amiga/Snes/Genesis years? Exactly.

 

But people using their Falcons to control MIDI could just have easily used a 520ST, couldn't they? I'm not familar with the software you're talking about, but did it really use the DSP? How much software actually used the DSP?

 

Actually about the PC you are wrong, it took a hell of a long time (years) for VGA option to be implemented in PC games, many of the classic Amiga games are only available in EGA (ie C64-o-vision). The other advancements in PC tech were pretty much CPU related and seeing as everything in the PC is done in software (scrolling, blitting, dual playfield effects etc etc) therefore adding more Mhz to your PC improves the fluidity and speed of even arcade games....this means buying new PC=existing games play better automagicamally. Go and check out how crap Rocket Ranger and It Came from the Desert are on EGA PC...it's not pretty! By 1991 games had 75% started to offer VGA graphics which funnily enough were pilferred from existing Genesis/Megadrive SNES or Amiga graphics...rarely re-drawn just for the PC by the big software houses making arcade games as per Amiga/Consoles of the time. And remember VGA was available from early 1987 onwards...so 4 years to finally support it...that's not fantastic is it?

 

This would also have worked for Atari with the STFM...changing the CPU from 8mhz to 12mhz then 16mhz on a yearly basis would have made a significant improvement. If you don't believe me try playing Gauntlet 1 on STeem in 12mhz and 16mhz modes....see the difference? Lotus II Turbo on ST also benefits hugely with a 16Mhz 68000. In fact I think Atari made a mistake developing the anything other than the sample playback part of the STE. Had they just stuck a 16mhz 680000 18 months after the STMs launch they would have been onto a winner for the reasons above...for a company to make any incompatible/glitchy game work flawlessly in 16mhz is a few hours work at most...which Atari could have funded for big releases.

 

With the Amiga it's different the custom chips are the key to the speed and as all the code for games using them is frame locked and stuck to specific DMA timings based on the chipset bandwidth you won't see an improvement in Lotus II Turbo on an Amiga with either a 16mhz 680000 or 66mhz 68060...it's not how it works.

 

Commodore's 128 was a dodo (they were just fapping their todgers until Amiga came along, ditto with the +4 and C16). In 128 mode it was stuck at 1mhz and for TV compatible display resolutions it was stuck with the same VIC-II chip, and the SID chip was identical whether you used 40 or 80 column mode. You should think of the C128 as a C64 compatible 128mb business orientated machine (which let's face it with 80 column being the only change in features via the VDC graphics controller it's a C64 with just 128mb), so software houses saw no need to re-code a game that would look and sound the same on a TV and run on an identical CPU speed...why bother? Games would look and sound the same 99% of the time...and more memory = more complex game...but who will bother to spend 1000s writing new levels for a game only 100 people can play!

 

2. You can use the DSP in the Falcon to process 16bit samples and save them direct to hard disk etc and then use the DSP to add important tuning effects like echo/reverb etc, and it was much more powerful than the Mac/PC alternative. Also Cubase was in colour which was easier to use for budding musicians new to such software. You have to remember the 90s and late 80s all musicians caught onto the fact that the most financially viable method of making music was to use a single keyboard and many samples rather than 5 different bits of Midi kit costing 1000s to achieve the same result. One dumb Midi keyboard unit + 16bit samples (via just a domestic CD recorder and your CD collection) = massive WIN

[oky2000]

You could say similar for A8 games on the ST - practically any fullscreen smooth h-scrolling game.

 

Just look at h-scrollers on the ST - most run in a smallish window, and even then they often jump 4 pixels at a time.

 

Sure, the 68000 CPU is a generation and a half ahead of the 6502. But the sound subsystem is a jump backwards. And don't bother bringing MIDI into the equation, practically nobody I know who had an ST used it.

 

Graphically, the 1st gen ST was a disappointment. Page aligned screen origin plus kludgy bitplane arrangement does not make for a gaming machine.

 

TBH, what rescued the system was raw CPU grunt. Although it only managed to bring the system to parity or slightly above existing 8-bit machines, but lagged significantly compared with the likes of Amiga and the Genesis/Megadrive and SNES.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lnbS-ILkkI

 

As enchanted land shows, smooth 8 way pixel by pixel scrolling with many many colours via DLI type palette swap effects is very very possible on a stock STFM...not Atari's fault a lot of people weren't as talented as some groups like TCB is it?

 

Would you rather play A8 Gauntlet with smoother scrolling or ST Gauntlet 1? hmmm guess what 99% of the world would choose as the better game, and as 'better' is subjective then the majority wins. The ST can replicate the A8 player missiles in its sleep....the C64 vs ST was the real problem and always prevented many a C64 owner buying one. Worse sound, much more powerful sprites to replicate in software...16 fixed vs 16 any colours on screen. We did this to death in the Atari vs Commodore thread but at 160x200 resolution the C64 slam dunked the A8 every time with 16 colours almost any char block on screen, massive amounts of multiplexed sprites and a superior (to the ST and A8) sound chip. As the C64 was the biggest selling computer of all time obviously C64 arcade/action games mad owners (rightly) holding back on a purchase.

 

But still I'd rather play ST Gauntlet 1 than C64 Gauntlet 1 (which is light years ahead of the monochromatic rubbish on A8 palmed off as Gauntlet already). Ditto if Rescue on Fractalus/Koronis Rift/Eidolon were ever done on the ST it would be superior to the C64/A8 fact. Star Raiders could have been programmed a lot better on the ST but is still as good (but different style) to the A8. All Magnetic Scrolls adventure games (Pawn/Guild/Jinxter etc) are and always will be superior on the ST to the C64/A8. Encounter is not as good as Backlash, ST Mercenary rocks...Space Harrier on ST/A8....Lotus II on ST vs any A8 racing game etc etc.

 

I am actually struggling to think of an A8 game that would slamdunk the ST version...which this thread is implying by the A8 wolves barking up no? I am open to suggestions of course, but honestly I can't think of one at this moment in time.

 

Personally the blitter wasn't essential, a 16mhz CPU and better sound would have worked fine for most games programmers (not marketing men or flame war producing fanboys quoting hardware statistics of course)...rewriting code for a blitter is a huge task....tweaking VBL timings for a 16mhz CPU is lunchbreak stuff for any seasoned ASM coder

[oky2000]

I never owned an ST and never really had an interest in one. I went from the 8-bit to the PC because I was never impressed with the ST line. When the Atari 400/800 was first released in 1979, it was a superior computer to the Apple II, TRS-80, and it took Commodore a few years before releasing the 64 which is the closest equivalent. When the ST was released in 1985, it was inferior to the Amiga and not much better than the PC or MAC. By the time the TT030 & Falcon became available, PCs with VGA graphics and higher processor speeds were became more popular.

 

I know many of the sound & music people complain about being limited to 3 sound channels like the C64 or the first 520ST and favor the 4 channel POKEY based 8-bit computers (5 if you include the console channel). I always say the sounds seem more rich on the Atari 8-bit systems because of having 4 channels. It can have 3 or 4 channels for music and occasionally have one play a sound effect.

 

 

This is pure drivel. What the hell are you talking about? The PC in 1985 was CGA...4 colour crap and 4 fixed super gaudy colours like cyan yellow and magenta all running on pathetic ADLIB sound or even WORSE PC speaker (like a Sinclair/Timex computer!) the PC was slamdunked by the C64 even AFTER the Amiga was launched in 1986 haha Defender of the Crown on C64 is better than ugly ugly PC beeping EGA rubbish please! The Mac wasn't half the computer the ST was...it was a ZX81 with a 68000 CPU...pure rubbish and overpriced to boot. And yet both cost 200-300% MORE than an STM and SM124 and 1mb drive. Better OS, faster CPU, cheaper, much more colourful, actually had some sound and sample playback capability in games (play ST Gauntlet 1 on A8 and PC EGA before complaining, it's a classic example of what even moderately competent but ambitious programmers can achieve..and is almost as good as the Sega Genesis/Megadrive version with some optimisations in the h-scroll routines!)

 

Have you played ANY macintosh classic games? any EGA games let alone CGA games on the PC? It is a real shitfest, I am sorry but that single comment alone makes any argument you make completely redundant. It's people like you that bought PCs in the day of superior machines that has made home computing the stale putrid Windows infested shitfest it is today *rollseyes* It's 2010 in a few weeks time and yet still 95% of the worlds computers running the latest Microsoft CRAP need to be forcibly shut down hard by the power switch because there was ONE SPECK OF DUST on my DVD+R disc as it was writing to it. Yeah that's real progress we are stuck with now thanks to dumb dumbs in the 80s and 90s who didn't have the intelligence NOT to buy P.O.S. PCs and won-over by Intel/Microsoft loving fanboys spouting their Mhz bullshit haha.

 

(this is why I own a cheap computer and every console known to man instead...the fun is on consoles now. And as Microshits were losing $150+ dollars at the time I got my 360 and xbox1 it's OK)

[+wood_jl]

 

(this is why I own a cheap computer and every console known to man instead...the fun is on consoles now. And as Microshits were losing $150+ dollars at the time I got my 360 and xbox1 it's OK)

 

I agree with this. I have flip-flopped a couple of times with my favorite gaming system being a PC **or** a console. I think it must have been during the Playstation/Saturn times (has it been that long?) that I pretty much gave up on PC gaming. I was really into it back when it was 3Dfx Voodoo vs. PowerVR NEC. I can't believe how long ago that has been. Since then, pretty much just consoles. I still played Janes WW2 flight simulator for years and it seemed to work with the pussy graphics hardware that came in the (cheapie) PCs I have had, because the game was old and cheapie onboard video/hardware had advanced. Haven't bought a PC game title since then, don't know what's available, don't know where to buy PC games, don't know what's current in PC gaming cards, don't care either.

 

One of the things that pissed me off was when my PC Sega Rally wouldn't play on a newer version of Windows (98??). It worked on Win95 and whatever version of DirecX they had back then. When I tried to install it on my new machine and the game informed me I needed to "upgrade" my DirectX when I was way past whatever version it was looking for.....I decided I want my games for "keeps" so I can play them indefinitely, like consoles. Thankfully, Sega Rally still plays on my Saturn, Sega Rally 2 still plays on my Dreamcast.....etc...etc...etc.

Edited December 20, 2009 by wood_jl

[Heaven/TQA]

You could say similar for A8 games on the ST - practically any fullscreen smooth h-scrolling game.

 

Just look at h-scrollers on the ST - most run in a smallish window, and even then they often jump 4 pixels at a time.

 

Sure, the 68000 CPU is a generation and a half ahead of the 6502. But the sound subsystem is a jump backwards. And don't bother bringing MIDI into the equation, practically nobody I know who had an ST used it.

 

Graphically, the 1st gen ST was a disappointment. Page aligned screen origin plus kludgy bitplane arrangement does not make for a gaming machine.

 

TBH, what rescued the system was raw CPU grunt. Although it only managed to bring the system to parity or slightly above existing 8-bit machines, but lagged significantly compared with the likes of Amiga and the Genesis/Megadrive and SNES.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lnbS-ILkkI

 

As enchanted land shows, smooth 8 way pixel by pixel scrolling with many many colours via DLI type palette swap effects is very very possible on a stock STFM...not Atari's fault a lot of people weren't as talented as some groups like TCB is it?

 

Would you rather play A8 Gauntlet with smoother scrolling or ST Gauntlet 1? hmmm guess what 99% of the world would choose as the better game, and as 'better' is subjective then the majority wins. The ST can replicate the A8 player missiles in its sleep....the C64 vs ST was the real problem and always prevented many a C64 owner buying one. Worse sound, much more powerful sprites to replicate in software...16 fixed vs 16 any colours on screen. We did this to death in the Atari vs Commodore thread but at 160x200 resolution the C64 slam dunked the A8 every time with 16 colours almost any char block on screen, massive amounts of multiplexed sprites and a superior (to the ST and A8) sound chip. As the C64 was the biggest selling computer of all time obviously C64 arcade/action games mad owners (rightly) holding back on a purchase.

 

But still I'd rather play ST Gauntlet 1 than C64 Gauntlet 1 (which is light years ahead of the monochromatic rubbish on A8 palmed off as Gauntlet already). Ditto if Rescue on Fractalus/Koronis Rift/Eidolon were ever done on the ST it would be superior to the C64/A8 fact. Star Raiders could have been programmed a lot better on the ST but is still as good (but different style) to the A8. All Magnetic Scrolls adventure games (Pawn/Guild/Jinxter etc) are and always will be superior on the ST to the C64/A8. Encounter is not as good as Backlash, ST Mercenary rocks...Space Harrier on ST/A8....Lotus II on ST vs any A8 racing game etc etc.

 

I am actually struggling to think of an A8 game that would slamdunk the ST version...which this thread is implying by the A8 wolves barking up no? I am open to suggestions of course, but honestly I can't think of one at this moment in time.

 

Personally the blitter wasn't essential, a 16mhz CPU and better sound would have worked fine for most games programmers (not marketing men or flame war producing fanboys quoting hardware statistics of course)...rewriting code for a blitter is a huge task....tweaking VBL timings for a 16mhz CPU is lunchbreak stuff for any seasoned ASM coder

 

Enchanted Land... I Love The CareBears... and Thalion... the Smooth big "LOADING" scroller is kicking, too... and the sync smooth scrolling the raster fx... and the main menu... I really like the game... and I even played it through... without a trainer...

 

sad but the TCB routines were not available for everyone... so only Thalion used them... and not in every game...

[atariksi]

You could say similar for A8 games on the ST - practically any fullscreen smooth h-scrolling game.

 

Just look at h-scrollers on the ST - most run in a smallish window, and even then they often jump 4 pixels at a time.

 

Sure, the 68000 CPU is a generation and a half ahead of the 6502. But the sound subsystem is a jump backwards. And don't bother bringing MIDI into the equation, practically nobody I know who had an ST used it.

 

Graphically, the 1st gen ST was a disappointment. Page aligned screen origin plus kludgy bitplane arrangement does not make for a gaming machine.

 

TBH, what rescued the system was raw CPU grunt. Although it only managed to bring the system to parity or slightly above existing 8-bit machines, but lagged significantly compared with the likes of Amiga and the Genesis/Megadrive and SNES.

...

As enchanted land shows, smooth 8 way pixel by pixel scrolling with many many colours via DLI type palette swap effects is very very possible on a stock STFM...not Atari's fault a lot of people weren't as talented as some groups like TCB is it?

...

Bullcrap. It's being done in software at more CPU cost than A8. You shouldn't need people hacking their monitor frequencies in a cycle-exact manner to reduce CPU cost. SYNC scrollers-- "Self-destruct Your New CRT" scrollers. Given rate of crashing on ST and other machines at the time with unstable OSes, I would say those games should come with a WARNING like cigarette boxes.

 

Would you rather play A8 Gauntlet with smoother scrolling or ST Gauntlet 1? hmmm guess what 99% of the world would choose as the better game, and as 'better' is subjective then the majority wins...

Looking at just scrolling, I'll take the A8 scrolling. Better is not subjective if you compare one to one the hardware aspects.

 

The ST can replicate the A8 player missiles in its sleep....the C64 vs ST was the real problem and always prevented many a C64 owner buying one. Worse sound, much more powerful sprites to replicate in software...16 fixed vs 16 any colours on screen...

No the ST can neither replicate C64 sprites nor A8 sprites as both can be spread out all over the full overscanned display using only a few cycles. That's comparing one to one. And ST doesn't have a sleep mode.

 

We did this to death in the Atari vs Commodore thread but at 160x200 resolution the C64 slam dunked the A8 every time with 16 colours almost any char block on screen, massive amounts of multiplexed sprites and a superior (to the ST and A8) sound chip. As the C64 was the biggest selling computer of all time obviously C64 arcade/action games mad owners (rightly) holding back on a purchase.

...

Well, you are speaking off-topic with your C64 drivel (troll bait). As beaten to death in the thread, A8 hardware can put out more colors than C64 in 160*200 but games usually didn't employ GPRIOR mode 0 techniques or horizontally re-using colors. And why just stick to 160*200, why not 192*240, GTIA modes, and other graphics features of A8.

 

But still I'd rather play ST Gauntlet 1 than C64 Gauntlet 1 (which is light years ahead of the monochromatic rubbish on A8 palmed off as Gauntlet already). Ditto if Rescue on Fractalus/Koronis Rift/Eidolon were ever done on the ST it would be superior to the C64/A8 fact. Star Raiders could have been programmed a lot better on the ST but is still as good (but different style) to the A8. All Magnetic Scrolls adventure games (Pawn/Guild/Jinxter etc) are and always will be superior on the ST to the C64/A8. Encounter is not as good as Backlash, ST Mercenary rocks...Space Harrier on ST/A8....Lotus II on ST vs any A8 racing game etc etc.

...

Stop with the excuses. Either you compare hardware one on one (like I did) or you compare games as they are and NOT draw any conclusion about the hardware from them. I can also make excuses regarding A8 games being suboptimal as well for color useage and speed.

 

I am actually struggling to think of an A8 game that would slamdunk the ST version...which this thread is implying by the A8 wolves barking up no? I am open to suggestions of course, but honestly I can't think of one at this moment in time.

Because you can't read. You mentioned some yourself. I only collect the games I like and from that Boulderdash and Joust that I recently played will slamdunk the ST versions. Now tell me the excuse that if ST had turned the monitor sideways and set starting video addresses, it would have had a better hscroll in boulderdash.

 

Personally the blitter wasn't essential, a 16mhz CPU and better sound would have worked fine for most games programmers (not marketing men or flame war producing fanboys quoting hardware statistics of course)...rewriting code for a blitter is a huge task....tweaking VBL timings for a 16mhz CPU is lunchbreak stuff for any seasoned ASM coder

 

No, blitter is still better than doing it all in software. You have this misunderstanding that CPU speed alone can make up for lack of all other hardware. Let me give you an example-- 16-bit ISA VGA cards barely can muster 2MBytes/second using the fastest instructions REP MOVSD. Now even if you double the processer speed, you still won't get any faster. The I/O limit has been reached. So if you wanted to scroll a 640*480 screen in software, you have to update 150K for each frame or 150K*60 = 9MBytes/second so it's IMPOSSIBLE to do smooth scrolling on an ISA VGA in software regardless of how fast your CPU is.

[Crazyace]

Using sync scroll code gave a real boost to scrolling ( especially vertical scrolling - horizontal still had the 16 pixel limitations ) - It's a pity that it wasn't more widely available in games earlier. Also it's not killing CRT monitors, it's just an unforeseen use of the hardware in the same way as the GPRIOR=0 hack on the 8 bit.

The STe should have been the original ST though - although I agree with oky2000 that a faster 68000 would have made up for a blitter more that anything else...

( Imagine if it had been at 10MHz 68000 at launch , the increased clock would have supported 512 pixels/16 colours using full overscan )

[Crazyace]

 

Personally the blitter wasn't essential, a 16mhz CPU and better sound would have worked fine for most games programmers (not marketing men or flame war producing fanboys quoting hardware statistics of course)...rewriting code for a blitter is a huge task....tweaking VBL timings for a 16mhz CPU is lunchbreak stuff for any seasoned ASM coder

 

No, blitter is still better than doing it all in software. You have this misunderstanding that CPU speed alone can make up for lack of all other hardware. Let me give you an example-- 16-bit ISA VGA cards barely can muster 2MBytes/second using the fastest instructions REP MOVSD. Now even if you double the processer speed, you still won't get any faster. The I/O limit has been reached. So if you wanted to scroll a 640*480 screen in software, you have to update 150K for each frame or 150K*60 = 9MBytes/second so it's IMPOSSIBLE to do smooth scrolling on an ISA VGA in software regardless of how fast your CPU is.

 

What's that got to do with the ST though?

[peteym5]

 

When the ST was released in 1985, it was inferior to the Amiga and not much better than the PC or MAC. By the time the TT030 & Falcon became available, PCs with VGA graphics and higher processor speeds were became more popular.

 

 

 

This is pure drivel. What the hell are you talking about? The PC in 1985 was CGA...4 colour crap and 4 fixed super gaudy colours like cyan yellow and magenta all running on pathetic ADLIB sound or even WORSE PC speaker (like a Sinclair/Timex computer!) the PC was slamdunked by the C64 even AFTER the Amiga was launched in 1986 haha Defender of the Crown on C64 is better than ugly ugly PC beeping EGA rubbish please! The Mac wasn't half the computer the ST was...it was a ZX81 with a 68000 CPU...pure rubbish and overpriced to boot. And yet both cost 200-300% MORE than an STM and SM124 and 1mb drive. Better OS, faster CPU, cheaper, much more colourful, actually had some sound and sample playback capability in games (play ST Gauntlet 1 on A8 and PC EGA before complaining, it's a classic example of what even moderately competent but ambitious programmers can achieve..and is almost as good as the Sega Genesis/Megadrive version with some optimisations in the h-scroll routines!)

 

What I am referring to is the first STs did not offer much better resolution & color depth than that was on the PC with an EGA card. I have played games in EGA mode and a ST version of the same game was not much better. Atari under Jack Tremial was trying to insert the ST into the business market but did not seem to invest in getting software development for the ST. The PC was already becoming a stable for a personal computing not because of video games, but all the useful application software on the market for it. Already in 1985 there were dozens of word processors, spreadsheets, database, and all other types of software that made the PC more attractive. From the start, the PC was easy to upgrade and modify, add memory, faster CPU, and swap out cards. The ST had everything soldered to the motherboard and typical of Tremial expected people to buy a whole new computer for something better. You cannot take a ST at 8MHZ and convert to a Falcon without desoldering chips. Most of the PC clones, even a electronics novice can swap out the graphics card.