Best A8 spreadsheet...

[opcode]

Hi,

 

What is the best spreadsheet program available for the A8? SynCalc? VisiCalc?

 

And kind of unrelated (but not really), how can I produce 4 colors using 320 resolution on the A8 (actually I think it is 2 colors with two lumis each)? I have seen some recent applications using that. Looks like it is character mode, where they are using a two colors palette and each character can use 2 lumis of the same color. Seems undocumented to me...

 

Eduardo

[+MrFish]

There are several character modes and one bitmapped mode that can give 320 pixels across. You get one color and two luminances. The additional colors you're seeing in various instances are obtained by placing a player or a missile in a given location on the 320 screen. You're limited to 160 resolution for players and missiles, but you can still give the impression that those different color regions are using 320 by using careful placement. The player or missile doesn't overlay or underlay the playfield pixels (as in 160 res modes), but rather just color them and they retain their luminosity.

[Roydea6]

Hi,

 

What is the best spreadsheet program available for the A8? SynCalc? VisiCalc?

 

Eduardo

 

 

I used SpeedCalc the few times I needed a spreadsheet for the Atari, never used SynCalc, and VisiCalc was I little confusing back then.

[atariksi]

Mr. Do game (one playing in HSC theaters this week) is using artifacting for multiple colors in 320*200 mode. If you see the extras piling up at the lower left, they look like crap without the artifacting.

 

The science behind color in 320*200 mode as far as Atari hardware goes is that the color of the pixel is the luminance set by 709 (53271) and the chrominance of the background color 710 (53272) or if sprites are present above this PF2 then those determine the chrominance component. What the TV does with that information is another matter.

[+MrFish]

Mr. Do game (one playing in HSC theaters this week) is using artifacting for multiple colors in 320*200 mode. If you see the extras piling up at the lower left, they look like crap without the artifacting.

 

The problems with artifacting are:

 

1. Artifacted colors don't have 320 pixel resolution

2. Artifacted colors are fixed and limited

3. All Ataris can't produce artifacted colors (PAL, or NTSC Ataris utilizing monitor port)

Edited May 29, 2010 by MrFish

[opcode]

Ok, I was actually refering to these:

[opcode]

The player or missile doesn't overlay or underlay the playfield pixels (as in 160 res modes), but rather just color them and they retain their luminosity.

 

Hm... Now that is very interesting...

Still, that explains SAM and BOSS, but not TRS (right?). Too many blue areas there, unless there is another trick for that many sprites?

And why does the cursor look opaque in the BOSS screenshot?

 

Eduardo

[+MrFish]

The player or missile doesn't overlay or underlay the playfield pixels (as in 160 res modes), but rather just color them and they retain their luminosity.

 

Hm... Now that is very interesting...

Still, that explains SAM and BOSS, but not TRS (right?). Too many blue areas there, unless there is another trick for that many sprites?

And why does the cursor look opaque in the BOSS screenshot?

 

Eduardo

 

Players and missiles have an option for setting the width of their pixels (per player and missile). Using quadruple width players and missiles can cover the standard width playfield.

 

All of those examples above are using players/missiles to get their extra colors, or in some cases "display list interrupts" for changing the playfield color.

Edited May 29, 2010 by MrFish

[Bryan]

The player or missile doesn't overlay or underlay the playfield pixels (as in 160 res modes), but rather just color them and they retain their luminosity.

 

Actually, I believe the player affects the color and luminance of the off pixels and only the color of the on ones. That way a player overlay allows 2 colors and 3 shades.

[+MrFish]

The player or missile doesn't overlay or underlay the playfield pixels (as in 160 res modes), but rather just color them and they retain their luminosity.

Actually, I believe the player affects the color and luminance of the off pixels and only the color of the on ones. That way a player overlay allows 2 colors and 3 shades.

 

Yes, I meant the lit pixels. The background's luminance and color is affected.

[atariksi]

Mr. Do game (one playing in HSC theaters this week) is using artifacting for multiple colors in 320*200 mode. If you see the extras piling up at the lower left, they look like crap without the artifacting.

 

The problems with artifacting are:

 

1. Artifacted colors don't have 320 pixel resolution

2. Artifacted colors are fixed and limited

3. All Ataris can't produce artifacted colors (PAL, or NTSC Ataris utilizing monitor port)

 

Artifacted colors have 320-based positioning so you can mix sprites with them to get the apparent high resolution. I don't know what it looks like on PAL but the DIN port does produce artifacting.

[+MrFish]

Mr. Do game (one playing in HSC theaters this week) is using artifacting for multiple colors in 320*200 mode. If you see the extras piling up at the lower left, they look like crap without the artifacting.

The problems with artifacting are:

 

1. Artifacted colors don't have 320 pixel resolution

2. Artifacted colors are fixed and limited

3. All Ataris can't produce artifacted colors (PAL, or NTSC Ataris utilizing monitor port)

Artifacted colors have 320-based positioning so you can mix sprites with them to get the apparent high resolution. I don't know what it looks like on PAL but the DIN port does produce artifacting.

From one standpoint you do have 320 point positioning for artifacted pixels. From the standpoint of a single artifacted color, you don't. It will be restricted to every other line.

 

"...the DIN port does produce artifacting"? Hmmm... this hasn't been my experience. Unless you're talking about hooking up a composite connector to this port. Most people are using this connector for S-Video or some type of monitor that uses croma and luma. I'm saying this to show that you will exclude a lot of people from seeing your software as you intend it if you decide to use artifacting. I believe you'll find very little, if any, software developed using artifacting these days.

[opcode]

Excellent, thanks guys for all the answers. I think that solves the mistery or the 3 "colors" per scanline.

 

Now back to the main topic, does/did someone here use A8 spreadsheets, and if so which one is the most powerful available. I heard SynCalc is pretty good, though I haven't tried it yet.

 

Eduardo

[+MrFish]

I've used spreadsheets extensively on PCs, but never had the inclination to do so on an Atari.

 

The manual for VisiCalc is available in this torrent: 96 Atari Books

 

having a quick look, it seems the function format used in VisiCalc is compatible with SynCalc. SynCalc looks to be the more user friendly of the two, but without the manual it may not prove to be so.

[Atari8guy]

Of Syncalc, Visicalc and SAM, I prefer Syncalc. It's easiest to navigate and can be run from an .xex file. I remember using speedcalc back in the 80's but don't remember enough about it to pass judgement.

 

I own the first three I mentioned as well as the documentation, and I still use Syncalc. Though in my opinion Visicalc has a bit more power to it. It's just slower.

[opcode]

I've used spreadsheets extensively on PCs, but never had the inclination to do so on an Atari.

 

Really? Did you have the chance to use the original Lotus 1-2-3 (I mean, version 1.0)? Do you know where I can find the manual?

 

The manual for VisiCalc is available in this torrent: 96 Atari Books

 

Actually I have the original A8 VisiCalc here. The problem is that I don't have anything else to compare it to, expect for modern spreadsheets.

 

having a quick look, it seems the function format used in VisiCalc is compatible with SynCalc. SynCalc looks to be the more user friendly of the two, but without the manual it may not prove to be so.

 

Indeed, I saw some screenshots and SynCalc looks more user friendly. The box also says that it supports larger sheets.

 

Eduardo

[+MrFish]

I've used spreadsheets extensively on PCs, but never had the inclination to do so on an Atari.

Really? Did you have the chance to use the original Lotus 1-2-3 (I mean, version 1.0)? Do you know where I can find the manual?

I actually started using them on a Mac first, with ClarisWorks, and then migrated over to Excel and other GUI based products. So, I've never even used any MS-DOS based spreadsheets. I do remember Lotus being very popular back then though.

[opcode]

Of Syncalc, Visicalc and SAM, I prefer Syncalc. It's easiest to navigate and can be run from an .xex file. I remember using speedcalc back in the 80's but don't remember enough about it to pass judgement.

 

I own the first three I mentioned as well as the documentation, and I still use Syncalc. Though in my opinion Visicalc has a bit more power to it. It's just slower.

 

Very interesting. So you think VisiCalc is the most powerful of the pack...

Considering that Visicalc was the first spreadsheet ever, that possibly means the A8 isn't very well represented in that category.

And I find it very weird that I cannot find much information about Lotus 1-2-3 on the Internet.

Anyway, I just ordered a copy of SynCalc, and also found a complete copy of Lotus 1-2-3 v2.1 on eBay. That should give me some material for research...

[+bob1200xl]

I worked for IBM at the time the PC came out - our office got one (1) whole machine, no HD (didn't exist), locked in a computer cabinet so no unauthorized personnel could use it. As I remember, IBM BASIC was about twice as fast as Atari BASIC and VisiCalc was actually slower on screen updates than the 8-bit.

 

 

Bob

 

 

 

Of Syncalc, Visicalc and SAM, I prefer Syncalc. It's easiest to navigate and can be run from an .xex file. I remember using speedcalc back in the 80's but don't remember enough about it to pass judgement.

 

I own the first three I mentioned as well as the documentation, and I still use Syncalc. Though in my opinion Visicalc has a bit more power to it. It's just slower.

 

Very interesting. So you think VisiCalc is the most powerful of the pack...

Considering that Visicalc was the first spreadsheet ever, that possibly means the A8 isn't very well represented in that category.

And I find it very weird that I cannot find much information about Lotus 1-2-3 on the Internet.

Anyway, I just ordered a copy of SynCalc, and also found a complete copy of Lotus 1-2-3 v2.1 on eBay. That should give me some material for research...

[opcode]

I worked for IBM at the time the PC came out - our office got one (1) whole machine, no HD (didn't exist), locked in a computer cabinet so no unauthorized personnel could use it. As I remember, IBM BASIC was about twice as fast as Atari BASIC and VisiCalc was actually slower on screen updates than the 8-bit.

 

 

Bob

 

Interesting. So by that point both machines were more less in the same level. Of course the PC had 80 columns from day 1, right? That makes me wonder what could have happened if Atari had been more aggressive with their computer line.

[cfernan]

Hi,

 

What is the best spreadsheet program available for the A8? SynCalc? VisiCalc?

 

I think that best spreadsheet is integrated into Mini Office II,

 

See THIS

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/uploads/monthly_05_2010/post-15877-127518684414_thumb.jpg