Is the C64 too different to A8 to ever have meaningful comparison?

[Faicuai]

(...) Some of that is, as oky2000 has just said of me, because i look at things from a programmer's perspective but those features are what made some of my favourite C64 games possible as well.

 

And enough people were impressed with the C64 that it outsold pretty much every other 8-bit computer on the top 25 you linked to; from my own experience selling computers in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the C64 was the last 8-bit out of the market and going pretty strong quite a way into the 16-bit era up until production stopped because Commodore fell apart.

(...)

 

 

No doubt that the programmer's perspective is (also in my opinion) the best way to transcend "subjective obscurantism" and save a thread like this from descending into chaos (fortunately, it is NOT the case, now)...

 

However, it seems to me that the C64's real contribution may not be in the absolute level of HW improvement but the Price/Value ratio, instead, where it really struck-a-cord in the computer market... right before DESTROYING it (that's the C64 legacy: a 64K, cheaply-built (lower quality), mass-market-oriented, "arcade spec'd" home computer, also priced as cheaply as possible, and coming 3-4 years LATER than Atari's Home Computer line... all of which eventually left Commodore and the whole Home Computing market in SHAMBLES, while the PC-centric value proposition took-off at MUCH HIGHER prices!).

 

It is no wonder then (to me), why it did not make it into PC World's Top-25. Having said this, I do concede that one thing was the relative evaluation of these machines BACK in their days, whereas another different thing (altogether) is comparing them TODAY, more from a historical / retrospective point-of-view.

 

As for me, it seems pretty clear what the C64 (real) advantages seem to be (thanks to some specific contributors, right here)... But, honestly, I would NEVER exchange the quality, "lineage" and technological / historical value of my A800 from anything Commodore built (after 1980)... except the Amiga itself (and I say this after handling, selling and using them, for quite some time).

 

In any case, and as you have mentioned, plenty of opinions and points-of-view on this (forever-hot) topic!

[TMR]

Is it true that titles on the Atari were deliberately stunted because of either the need to support every machine, all the way back to the 400

 

It was more a want than a need and purely on the part of the people holding the purse strings; say 40% of your potential audience has 64K and 60% has 48K (random percentages because i have no clue either way), if your primary concern is money are you going to write a 64K or 48K game?

 

or because Commodore actually paid developers to so? Or are those just rumors?

 

Nah, that's as much bunk as the stories about Elite conversion contracts having a stipulation about not improving the game over the BBC Micro original or how Atarisoft crippled the C64 versions of their games to make the A8 look better... =-)

[TMR]

However, it seems to me that the C64's real contribution may not be in the absolute level of HW improvement but the Price/Value ratio, instead, where it really struck-a-cord in the computer market... right before DESTROYING it (that's the C64 legacy: a 64K, cheaply-built (lower quality), mass-market-oriented, "arcade spec'd" home computer, also priced as cheaply as possible, and coming 3-4 years LATER than Atari's Home Computer line... all of which eventually left Commodore and the whole Home Computing market in SHAMBLES, while the PC-centric value proposition took-off at MUCH HIGHER prices!).

 

In the UK our market didn't collapse like that; the C64 was a mainstay of computing for over a decade and what kept Commodore UK afloat during the Amiga's formative years. Depending on where you were in the UK, our market's move to the PC was sometimes delayed until well after VGA was commonplace and even then it wasn't an overnight transition - i was still selling A1200s and Terminator 2 C64 packs when Commodore filed for bankruptcy and, when Escom took over the Amiga line, continued to sell A1200s for a while afterwards as well.

 

It is no wonder then (to me), why it did not make it into PC World's Top-25. Having said this, I do concede that one thing was the relative evaluation of these machines BACK in their days, whereas another different thing (altogether) is comparing them TODAY, more from a historical / retrospective point-of-view.

 

In either case the C64 probably should have made the list; back in the day it rocked up with hardware that, as the story goes[1], when it was first shown at CES there were people from Atari coming over to ask how it was done for the retail price and if Atari's engineers were impressed... and looking back at that era now, the machine that shifted significantly more units worldwide and took home computers into more homes than any other deserves a mention for that achievement alone.

 

But, honestly, I would NEVER exchange the quality, "lineage" and technological / historical value of my A800 from anything Commodore built (after 1980)... except the Amiga itself (and I say this after handling, selling and using them, for quite some time).

 

 

[shrugs] i've got both. =-)

 

[1] Paraphrasing from memory, based on something in the book On The Edge.

[pixelmischief]

Then let's do the old "Champions" thing. If Commodore fans rolled out their representative pinnacle software achievement, and Atari fans did the same, what would they be? On the Atari side, for example, I might be inclined to push Project M, the GUI Project, or Yoomp! forward.

[Bill Loguidice]

Then let's do the old "Champions" thing. If Commodore fans rolled out their representative pinnacle software achievement, and Atari fans did the same, what would they be? On the Atari side, for example, I might be inclined to push Project M, the GUI Project, or Yoomp! forward.

 

Tough to do. I'd be inclined to point to released games rather than demos, proofs of concepts, or programs that require unusual amounts of memories or accelerators. I'm thinking games like Alternate Reality: The City on the Atari 8-bit side and Mayhem in Monsterland on the C-64 side. Ultimately, when each is programmed to its full potential, each is pretty damned impressive.

[high voltage]

The most famous Brit coder worldwide is Lord British (Origin).

Edited August 15, 2013 by high voltage

[TMR]

The most famous Brit coder worldwide is Lord British (Origin).

 

 

Lord British was another name i didn't know back in the day, mostly because the Ultima series completely passed me by (as i suspect it did for a lot of people in the more tape-based areas of the UK and Europe).

 

i'd expect Rob Hubbard or perhaps Peter Molyneux to be more generally recognised outside the UK off the top of my head.

[oky2000]

I've never seen Rob Hubbard's Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or whatever that game he wrote was

 

Most famous coder I don't know, infamous probably I.Gray of Intercraptor Micros and their horrible arcade rip-offs of the early 80s.........which I collect now for some perverse reason haha.

 

David Crane wrote for both and he is pretty famous world wide.

[oky2000]

Tough to do. I'd be inclined to point to released games rather than demos, proofs of concepts, or programs that require unusual amounts of memories or accelerators. I'm thinking games like Alternate Reality: The City on the Atari 8-bit side and Mayhem in Monsterland on the C-64 side. Ultimately, when each is programmed to its full potential, each is pretty damned impressive.

 

I think your last sentence hits the nail right on the head of what I really wanted this thread to be about. Different but in the hands of the right person pretty damned good nonetheless.

 

In the last 3 years I've probably played 3000+ C64 or VIC-20 games (and pushed half of them as gameplay vids onto Youtube's servers haha) but sometimes the most subtle things are as awesome as the most OTT impressive stuff like Enforcer 2 unreleased/unfinished game you can see. It's almost as impressive as Metal Dust on a C64 + 65816 based Super CPU accelerator. I don't play enough Atari stuff (working on it!!) to comment. Back to the little things, OK well there's this obscure little uncategorizable game called Zaga/Zaga Mission. It's Isometric so there is a lot of masking going on which exceeds the complexity of Last Ninja as the screen scrolls AND the helicopter blades sound is just spot on...exactly how you are imaging it would be right now even though you've never seen it. That's talented coding for a 1984 game but oh so subtle people miss it, and concentrate on the most excellent gameplay of the title too.

 

What really did stun me at the time was reading about Technicolor Dream by Red Rat Software on the A8, those screen shots in Atari User UK magazine review were just jaw droppingly awesome. I imagined Wanted:Monty Mole using such lovely red roof tiles on an A8 version at the time (knew even less about Atari then than I do now technically so what do you expect lol)

[TMR]

I've never seen Rob Hubbard's Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or whatever that game he wrote was

 

Very few people have actually seen Razzmatazz because the company disappeared before release, but that's not really what i meant; he coded all those music drivers, that makes him a famous British coder.

[oky2000]

Very few people have actually seen Razzmatazz because the company disappeared before release, but that's not really what i meant; he coded all those music drivers, that makes him a famous British coder.

 

Oh yeah I know that, he mentioned his game as part of his talk at some conference (which is on youtube) so I knew his coding was what gave him those excellent instruments in his tunes. David Whittaker coded at least two full games too, one is Lazy Jones and the other is Punchy. Both are pretty good games too

[Keatah]

Kind of agree, I view the Apple II the same way I view my 4000 series PET. Lovely machines, really well designed but a bit lacking out of the box in stock config compared to other machines at the time (and in the UK really expensive for both). They are important early machines as is the TI99/4A however. Actually the TI99/4A is a nice machine too except for the crappy joysticks. Shame.

 

Architecture wise, the Apple II has little in common with the C64 and 400/800. The Apple II has a lot of lineage in the discrete logic of the 1970's single board experimenter kits and trainers. Think of the Apple II as the deluxe, ready-made version.

 

The Apple II didn't get any custom chips till the IIgs came to be. Understand the //e's MMU and IOU don't count because they're just the same discrete logic stuffed into one chip.

 

And even then, the IIgs is not a part of the II line-up. It's some sort of held-back and retarded Macintosh or something. It's a hybrid of some other 16-bit design, and a //e compressed into one MEGA II chip slapped on in order to keep the II name.

 

The C64 and 400/800 are designed around Custom Chips. In fact, the custom chipsets were made first and then the rest of the computer formed itself around them during the design phase.

 

It also needs to be noted that the VIC chip was made first as an industrial display controller. Commodore failed to market it, and then got the idea to build the Vic-20 around it later.

 

The Atari ANTIC-GTIA-POKEY combination was designed from the get-go as a gaming chipset, and work began on these chips while the VCS was just getting to market!

 

I think you'll all agree that the 400/800 has faster, more colorful graphics and animation than the C64. More color saturation too. The Atari games are more responsive and immersive. The 400/800 games come closer to arcade style and action than anything on the C64. Playability just seems so much better and you are more in-touch with the gaming code. Afterall it has an arcade/gaming chipset built-in!

 

Sorry for over-emphasizing custom chips and all that, but they are simply MAGIC!

Edited August 16, 2013 by Keatah

[Bill Loguidice]

I think you'll all agree that the 400/800 has faster, more colorful graphics and animation than the C64. More color saturation too. The Atari games are more responsive and immersive. The 400/800 games come closer to arcade style and action than anything on the C64. Playability just seems so much better and you are more in-touch with the gaming code. Afterall it has an arcade/gaming chipset built-in!

 

No, I will not agree with that over-simplification, sorry. I prefer to play in the world of "show me," rather than "tell me," kind of like all the talk of the immense power of the Jaguar versus what we've actually gotten to this point. Raw specs are one thing, but if one or more factors conspire against tapping into that power, then it's pretty much moot. We all know too well the countless past systems from nearly every company that has had one bottleneck or another that has limited what should otherwise be something pretty incredible, whether it's a limited bus or difficulty to make all the cores work together, limited memory, etc.

[oky2000]

Architecture wise, the Apple II has little in common with the C64 and 400/800. The Apple II has a lot of lineage in the discrete logic of the 1970's single board experimenter kits and trainers. Think of the Apple II as the deluxe, ready-made version.

 

The Apple II didn't get any custom chips till the IIgs came to be. Understand the //e's MMU and IOU don't count because they're just the same discrete logic stuffed into one chip.

 

And even then, the IIgs is not a part of the II line-up. It's some sort of held-back and retarded Macintosh or something. It's a hybrid of some other 16-bit design, and a //e compressed into one MEGA II chip slapped on in order to keep the II name.

 

The C64 and 400/800 are designed around Custom Chips. In fact, the custom chipsets were made first and then the rest of the computer formed itself around them during the design phase.

 

It also needs to be noted that the VIC chip was made first as an industrial display controller. Commodore failed to market it, and then got the idea to build the Vic-20 around it later.

 

The Atari ANTIC-GTIA-POKEY combination was designed from the get-go as a gaming chipset, and work began on these chips while the VCS was just getting to market!

 

I think you'll all agree that the 400/800 has faster, more colorful graphics and animation than the C64. More color saturation too. The Atari games are more responsive and immersive. The 400/800 games come closer to arcade style and action than anything on the C64. Playability just seems so much better and you are more in-touch with the gaming code. Afterall it has an arcade/gaming chipset built-in!

 

Sorry for over-emphasizing custom chips and all that, but they are simply MAGIC!

 

Oh yeah the Apple II is basic as pants but it did have colour via the orange/blue/white/black system on NTSC that Tandy used (but never worked on the identical Dragon 32 PAL machines in the UK so they were rubbish lol) which is why I compared them to the PET series. The only custom chip the PET has is the CRTC which is essentially like a 99.99999% diluted version of Denise on the Amiga and essentially replaces a general purpose electron beam controller in a Commodore 1701 monitor etc.

 

I don't agree about the comments as the speed of Uridium (horizontal) and Alleykat (vertical) lightning fast scrolling whilst still allowing pixel perfect movement and direction changes at 0.02s is no small task. Plenty of C64 games have parallax scrolling too (not Copperlist/DLI type non overlapping, nope Konami arcade style fullscreen transparent parallax like Megadrive and SNES or arcades) As I said both machines are nice but find different things difficult to do. 80% of the VIC is devoted to Sprites so naturally to do something like the 64 animated overlapping hi-res bats on screen moving on my Halloween demo is not something the A8 could do without breaking a sweat with additional software sprites, and the C64 has a much more flexible approach to graphic modes as sprites can be hi-res OR multicolour at any time even during multiplexing the same hardware sprite and even multicolour bitmap/char mode screens (which can be mixed with hi-res char mode on an individual 8x8 pixel block basis willy nilly too remember) are scrolled in 1/320th horizontally effectively being the equivalent of sub pixel scroll accuracy in hardware despite the addressable screen being 160 pixels wide in multicolor mode.

 

I know there are other A8 specific excellent features too and things that the C64 does not do natively in hardware.

 

I do agree totally that the raw output of the C64 palette is not massively different in luma and the chroma levels and is not highly saturated of course but at the same time even my bargain bucket Prinztronic portable TV had brightness/contrast/colour controls and at no point did my real C64 in 1983 look worse after adjusting these than my VCS did (with different settings on those three dials of course) or VIC-20 so when people go mad on Lemon64 going on and on about perfectly replicating the low saturated colours of the VIC-II in VICE palettes et it makes no sense in reality and the threads always end in "yeah and so you just adjusted your TV/monitor to suit your taste and so it's a complete waste of time" at which point the thread dies off for another 12 months

 

I totally accept some games will be almost the same, some clearly better on A8 and some on C64 (for the same reason that Shadow of the Beast is better on Amiga 500 than 1991 Super Nintendo but Gunbee is worse than Pop n Twinbee on SNES). I am adult enough to admit I ALWAYS play Rescue on Fractalus on my Atari 800XL on cartridge for example, but play Spy Hunter on tape on my C64 as it loads in about 2 minutes! How often the differences occur doesn't bother me really any more nor does why this is the case, the only thing that bothers me is how little A8 stuff I have and I have a huge mountain to climb in terms of getting all the cool A8 stuff I really really want to own for real and no longer emulate. Surely that is the biggest compliment I can give a machine, that I am using funds earmarked for a C64G and SX64 to fund the purchase of a 600XL/400/800 and XEGS? Oh and thanks to some eagle eyed members here now looking for a specific Sony professional video monitor as used in the 600XL UK adverts as a dedicated Atari usage monitor to sit next to my 1701

[ricortes]

Is the C64 too different to A8 to ever have meaningful comparison?

Apple II GS was released September 15, 1986

Amiga 1985

The Atari ST is a home computer released by Atari Corporation in June 1985

IBM Personal Computer/AT 1984

Commodore 64 introduced in January 1982

IBM PC August 12, 1981

The VIC-20 June 1980 *Japan VIC-1001 USA release 1981

TRS-80 Color Computer launched in 1980

4000-series PET 1980

Atari 800 1979

Apple II introduced in 1977

TRS-80 1977

 

No just too ridiculous to compare computers that were designed that many years apart. It would be just as fair to compare the C64 to the Amiga, AT, or ST, I'm sure the C64 fans would cry foul.

Is the C64 too different to a Ford Focus to ever have meaningful comparison?

 

 

Ford Focus comes with 4 tires and a spare, C64 didn't get them until Gerald Foosberry mounted them on his C64 as a $4000 after market add on in 2008. For Focus comes with air conditioning optional, unavailable on a C64. C64 doesn't even come with windshield wipers or turn signals.

[Magic Knight]

I agree on the timeline, however since Atari had in mind that the A8 was still a strong contender for 'that' time in the market (lets face it - the whole of the 80's) then the comparison is just.

 

Had Atari brought out a next gen model instead of the XL series (which lets face it was the ataris answer to approach the market for the next few years) then i think it would be a different world with this im sure.

[Bill Loguidice]

I agree on the timeline, however since Atari had in mind that the A8 was still a strong contender for 'that' time in the market (lets face it - the whole of the 80's) then the comparison is just.

 

Had Atari brought out a next gen model instead of the XL series (which lets face it was the ataris answer to approach the market for the next few years) then i think it would be a different world with this im sure.

 

Again, it's not that the Atari 8-bit wasn't technologically competitive or in some ways better than the C-64, it was that Atari was unable to drop the price fast enough and get standardized on a higher memory configuration. I think that was the main failing. If Atari was able to play the price game when TI (with the 4A) and Commodore (with the VIC-20) were duking it out, they might have retarded the C-64's future chances at its own successive, rapid price drop and gaining the foothold that it did.

[Hatta]

What's remarkable is how well the 400/800, released in 1979, are able to compete with the C64 released 3 years later. They released newer models, but they really only differed from the 400/800 in the amount of RAM, the keyboard style, and video output.

 

Compare the Apple II which was released in 1977. It was a huge success, but graphically never matched the Atari 800 released only 2 years later.

[Bill Loguidice]

What's remarkable is how well the 400/800, released in 1979, are able to compete with the C64 released 3 years later. They released newer models, but they really only differed from the 400/800 in the amount of RAM, the keyboard style, and video output.

 

Compare the Apple II which was released in 1977. It was a huge success, but graphically never matched the Atari 800 released only 2 years later.

 

True, but I suppose it's also conversely remarkable that the C-64, released in 1982, didn't need any changes (other than cosmetics) for the remainder of its life almost 10 years later. As for the Apple II, that base platform lasted until late 1993. All three are pretty remarkable in that regard in their own way.

[kenjennings]

True, but I suppose it's also conversely remarkable that the C-64, released in 1982, didn't need any changes (other than cosmetics) for the remainder of its life almost 10 years later.

 

?? They released a version packaged like a PET. They released one "portable" with a built in monitor. They added 128K, 80 column video and a faster processor just a few years after introduction. That's more than just cosmetic case changes.

 

Though, after having turned the personal computer market into a flushing toilet, could they have done anything with a 6502-based system to elevate the situation? They already had the Amiga, so there wasn't much they could really do to advance the 64 with higher specs without damaging the Amiga. Apple tried to make the 6502 Apple II into a Mac-ish Amiga hybrid with the GS with some success, but it helped that Apple's starting point was not a platform that the public identified as a low-end toy.

[Bill Loguidice]

?? They released a version packaged like a PET. They released one "portable" with a built in monitor. They added 128K, 80 column video and a faster processor just a few years after introduction. That's more than just cosmetic case changes.

Though, after having turned the personal computer market into a flushing toilet, could they have done anything with a 6502-based system to elevate the situation? They already had the Amiga, so there wasn't much they could really do to advance the 64 with higher specs without damaging the Amiga. Apple tried to make the 6502 Apple II into a Mac-ish Amiga hybrid with the GS with some success, but it helped that Apple's starting point was not a platform that the public identified as a low-end toy.

 

I'm talking about the base platform, the C-64, not changing. Of course they had different form factors and successors, but none replaced the original target 64K machine. You could always count on the base machine from 1982 right up until the platform was officially discontinued. The same cannot be said of the Apple II and Atari 8-bit. A bog standard Apple II from 1977 and Atari 8-bit from 1979 would not be able to run the same games that later models could. That's the point.

 

Also, you can make fun of the C-64 all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it was an important product that sold in bunches. It was important to have a platform like that, whether you like it or not or blame it (incorrectly) for killing off the market for the Atari 8-bit.

 

The Apple IIgs is a completely different topic. It never really had a chance, like the CoCo 3 never really had a chance, because each respective company's priorities were with other product lines (Mac and Tandy 1000-series, respectively).

[Magic Knight]

The Atari 8 bit is forgotten for its main achievement: 800, XL, 130XE and XEGS over 10 years with mainly hardware and minimal software changes.

 

The C64 had very little change from a later period, and a comparatively single change from a 64k to 128k model and did a chunk of success with its subtle switch to the C128

 

Its a pity the software companies backed the c64 more (especially in europe) but Jack Tramiels success was his nemesis when he backed a different horse during the mid 80's and Jack can only blame himself for his actions during the 80's

 

Marketing played a bigger part than spec's during this high competitive age and im sure there were some 8-bits that werent given a chance due to the money spent during the atari's vs commodore pissing competition during the 80's .

 

the uk's speccy was a cash cow during this period and its around position 80 in the top 100 specification rating during this time. (more games than any uk developer yet 1 sound channel and the crappiest graphics imaginable).

 

Its a toughie with the comparison stakes, but commodore i feel made better use of the sound and got lucky with the developers & sales. Atari was light years ahead with the hardware but never progressed when it had the chance (twice) ,....

[TMR]

The C64 had very little change from a later period, and a comparatively single change from a 64k to 128k model and did a chunk of success with its subtle switch to the C128

 

We-eell, the C128 was more than just a 128K C64 and sold as a different machine with C64 compatibility. Whilst it was on sale, the C64 kept plodding along as well and, because the latter was already popular, publishers didn't really support the C128 because they could just write a C64 game and sell it to both (see 48K games for 64K and 128K Atari 8-bits). The majority of the C128-specific games have a half-arsed feel (some have been converted to run on the C64) and most of what's left are just text adventures that use the 80 column mode.

 

The emulators don't support any of the cool, undocumented stuff at all right now, otherwise i'd be prodding at the C128 after i get my A8 game done. =-)

 

Its a pity the software companies backed the c64 more (especially in europe) but Jack Tramiels success was his nemesis when he backed a different horse during the mid 80's and Jack can only blame himself for his actions during the 80's

 

From what i gather Tramiel didn't arrive on the Atari scene until the middle of 1984, the A8 hardware was five by that point and it seems that software houses were already starting to move away for whatever reason.

 

the uk's speccy was a cash cow during this period and its around position 80 in the top 100 specification rating during this time. (more games than any uk developer yet 1 sound channel and the crappiest graphics imaginable).

 

i'm not sure that was down to marketing though, we were in a recession at that point and the Spectrum sold in bucketloads because it was significantly cheaper; parents being badgered by little Johnny into getting a computer saw that and decided that, if it was going to be a fad, the cheapest machine was the best option. After a while it reached a critical mass and Johnny was asking for a Spectrum because he could borrow (or indeed copy) games off his friends at school.

[carmel_andrews]

TMR....Thats why i mentioned the thing about 'homebrew development later on in my post

 

Perhaps if more of them formed 'co operatives' (i.e clubbed together to share costs etc) they could have given the big boys a run for their money, after all like these days, not everyone is after a AAA rated game or licvenced properties, tie in's etc, people are and were interested in original content as well

 

Something i guerss even you know quite a bit about being a 'homebrewer'

[Faicuai]

(...)

 

Also, you can make fun of the C-64 all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it was an important product that sold in bunches. It was important to have a platform like that, whether you like it or not or blame it (incorrectly) for killing off the market for the Atari 8-bit.

 

(...)

 

 

CORRECTION: "before killing off the market for the Atari 8bit, the Home-Computer market, and ITSELF".

 

I would recommend reading "On The Edge: The Spectacular Rise And Fall Of Commodore". I had the fortune to speak and WORK (during the last five years) with the actual PEOPLE that are part of the story, directly working at Commodore during such days. Particularly, folks in Supply Chain/Management positions.

 

The C64 seems more of an economical-icon rather than a technological achievement. It is what it is, though.