Colecovision Vs. NES in graphics.

[JamesD]

I don't think Coleco foresaw dual pass dot matrix printers that printed letter quality being available by 1985.

Put that in the letter you send them in the wayback machine and the daisy wheel is probably gone.

[gamecat80]

Cleaner? As opposed to dirtier? Is that anything like crisper?

 

Yes, crisper........or "cleaner". Sprites with more solid, bright colors look "clean" to me. Gives a more "cartoony" look, which I like. Some prefer more colors.

 

"pure sound waves"? You mean sounds that don't exist anywhere in nature?

If you want to be an early 8 bit purest to your fond childhood memories, that's your right. I run into people like that all the time.

The question is, does everyone else think that way?

 

The FM synth sounds sure as hell don't exist in nature either - they actually sound LESS natural to me than do pure square/triangle sound waves. Not a purist, I just like what I like and don't care what everyone else thinks.

 

More YM2203 music:

https://www.youtube....h?v=zCNZpn5lBj0

https://www.youtube....h?v=TU4GJgwDCbQ

 

Maybe this makes other people's ears hurt but I think it sounds pretty good.

 

Seriously? That does make my ears hurt and reinforces what I think. I'd take the TI, AY, POKEY, and Ricoh soundchips any day over the YM "synth" soundchip. To each his/hers own. Btw, I understand that the early arcades mostly used TI and AY soundchips.

Here are a couple examples:

 

 

 

In a way, some old systems like Intellivision and ColecoVision sound more "arcade" than later systems because they used the same soundchips as the early arcades. It's just that each arcade machine usually used multiple TI or AY soundchips for more channels and made better use of those chips than did the home consoles.

[retroillucid]

Humm....

We are in 86 here....

Edited August 6, 2013 by retroillucid

[NIAD]

Humm....

We are in 86 here....

Yeah, but no ColecoVision and definetly no ADAM Computer by this time as you know all too well. The tank was almost on empty and the likes of the Alf doll, StarCom and Sectaurus were not going to save the company. Funny thing is, they still had huge stocks of CVs and ADAMs, especially once everything was returned to them by repair centers such as Honeywell, that were eventually sold off to ADAM's House (eColeco), American Design Components and some others a few years later.

[almightytodd]

I don't think Coleco foresaw dual pass dot matrix printers that printed letter quality being available by 1985.

Put that in the letter you send them in the wayback machine and the daisy wheel is probably gone.

With so many "what if"s" associated with the rise and fall of ColecoVision, it's hard to say for sure what might have happened if Adam hadn't had such reliability problems out of the gate. But let's pretend that they had Adam ready to ship; reliable, and marketed in early September for an October release well in advance of Christmas.

 

The idea with a "video game turns into a computer" strategy, is that little Jimmy gets a home computer for Christmas that is also a ColecoVision, with the understanding that he is going to use said computer for his school-work. He starts handing in essays and research papers that have been written with a word-processor and printed with a daisy-wheel printer and suddenly his grades go shooting up, because he's competing with all of his classmates who are still turning in their work written in cursive.

 

And since typing is about four times faster than writing in long-hand, he gets his work done in less time, and has more time for video games. From the standpoint of getting American households with teenagers to invest in their first home computer, it was actually a fairly sound strategy. The cost of the computer was way less than an Apple, and with an Apple, you still don't have any way to print out your work unless you buy a printer. And sure, that daisy-wheel printer would be obsolete within four years, but by then, Jimmy has graduated and is on his way to college.

 

But as we've all observed, with every other Adam being returned as faulty during their rushed pre-Christmas launch, we'll never know if the "it comes with a printer" strategy might have paid off...

[retroillucid]

 

Yeah, but no ColecoVision and definetly no ADAM Computer by this time as you know all too well. The tank was almost on empty and the likes of the Alf doll, StarCom and Sectaurus were not going to save the company. Funny thing is, they still had huge stocks of CVs and ADAMs, especially once everything was returned to them by repair centers such as Honeywell, that were eventually sold off to ADAM's House (eColeco), American Design Components and some others a few years later.

 

What I mean to say is the ADAM DID NOT contributed for the fall of Coleco Industries

 

My guess is when Coleco saw the video game market collapse, they simply pull the plug on CV and ADAM

funny thing is they advertised the CV in the 1985 Coleco Catalog and they don't mentionned any new upcomming games... Guess they had to sell te overstock

 

 

[retroillucid]

 

 

Back then, my father's cousin just bough his ColecoVision when the rise of computers started

It was in early 1983, and he sold his entire brand new (well, almost) ColecoVision stuff to my father so he can buy his computer

Alot of people did that apparently....

 

Crash did happen later that year, and in 1984 most of people stop buying games (at full price at least)

M parents were still buying FEW Colecovision games for us, the kids, remember my bro receiving the Expansion Module #2 that xmas

In 1985, we RARELY played our ColecoVision, we were in Arcades at that time.... All the time!

I just remember playing some Montezuma's Revenge with my childhood friend in 1986, again, we played rarely though

 

Yeah, rarely.... Until that same friend rent a NES system in 1987

I was totally blown away!

I then spent less time in Arcades and start playing home when we got our Deluxe Set that xmast 87

This remain my 2nd favorite system after the CV

 

Where are the good games now? Where are THE arcades? Where are the 80's ?

 

Thanks god, there is people making new games for those systems and keep those systems alive!

 

Thanks god, there's AtariAge to feed us all!

 

 

ColecoVision is more alive than ever!

 

[youki]

Back then, my father's cousin just bough his ColecoVision when the rise of computers started

It was in early 1983, and he sold his entire brand new (well, almost) ColecoVision stuff to my father so he can buy his computer

Alot of people did that apparently....

 

Exactly what i did too. Sold all my colecovision stuff (console, 2600 adapter, Turbo Module and games ) to be able to buy a C64! (in fact i wanted to keep my colecovision , but my father said me "if you want a C64, you have to sell you console first" ).

 

But despite my love for the coleco, i have to admit i had no regret . The C64 is a damn good computer!. and i learnt programming on it!. The best Machine ever!

[retroillucid]

 

 

Exactly what i did too. Sold all my colecovision stuff (console, 2600 adapter, Turbo Module and games ) to be able to buy a C64! (in fact i wanted to keep my colecovision , but my father said me "if you want a C64, you have to sell you console first" ).

 

But despite my love for the coleco, i have to admit i had no regret . The C64 is a damn good computer!. and i learnt programming on it!. The best Machine ever!

 

Funny, he also wanted a C64.

[high voltage]

Crash was in 1984, not 1983.

[retroillucid]

Crash was in 1984, not 1983.

Started at the fall/winter of 83

[microprocessor]

CPU wise, back in 1997 - four years before the first MiniGame compo - there were a series of programming battles between the Commodore 64 (1 MHz 6510, running 6502 code) and the ZX Spectrum (3.58) MHz Z80) to see which computer/CPU would be most efficient on various tasks and algorithms, counted in clock cycles. If I understand the conclusion right, it ended with the C64 had a 3:1 advantage, which evens out due to the ZX running at a higher frequency. You can find some of the results here: http://www.ffd2.com/fridge/speccy/

 

the people that wrote this doc is a ***little*** pro-c64 . In the good old days i've done 6502 / z80 assembler programming [not for the zx or c64, but for other devices]. I can assure you that the 6502 @ 1Mhz is way slower than a 3.5Mhz z80 on the typical usage.

the people does not take into consideration a lot of *real* factors. just take into consideration that @ those speed, a memory access on 6502 take 2us and the corresponding z80 about 1,9 microseconds. However, while the z80 can, with this type of memory access address the entire 64K range, to have 64K adressing on 6502 you will have to do a non 0-page addressing that is slower than the fastest (2us).

The problem on the 6502 is this: paradoxically, because the few general purpose registers are available, and more frequent memory access is needed even for simple operations, the 6502 should have faster memory accesses than z80 to compete. Instead, the slow memory access on 6502 this is the weak point of this cpu.

For example, in a real situation, to compensate for the lack of registers, one should use 0 page addressing, but a simple inc "register" instruction on the z80 take 1.3us, while the inc <zero page> takes 3us.

The few amount of registers, force us to emulate memory pointers with two bytes stored in 0 page. then one could use the sofphisticated pre/post indexing to de-reference the data stored, but this is dramatically slow: from 4us to 6us on the average, depending on the condition and addressing mode used.

Now, even the z80 have some addressing modes (like indexed using IX,IY registers) that are a true slowness, but they are avoided when non dramatically needed. On the 6502 you cannot avoid to address memory to do things!

Obviously, a 6502 or z80 guru can argument in flavor or cons of each cpu, with a properly tailored asm code. The hand made examples, however does not prove anything.

'Real life' is however different. Most of zx spectrum games, converted to c64, that cannot take advantages from the advanced gfx hw on c64 and rely on cpu to do sw sprites, were, after conversion from z80/zx code and optimization almost 20-30% slower than the z80 counterpart.

In the real life, the same code, could be 25% to 300% faster on z80 than on 6502 (with 6502 @1mhz and z80@3mhz) depending on the situation.

I agree, however, that the clock speed comparison is a true non-sense. (That is the reason i've posted the timings in microseconds)

[youki]

 

the people that wrote this doc is a ***little*** pro-c64 . In the good old days i've done 6502 / z80 assembler programming [not for the zx or c64, but for other devices]. I can assure you that the 6502 @ 1Mhz is way slower than a 3.5Mhz z80 on the typical usage.

the people does not take into consideration a lot of *real* factors. just take into consideration that @ those speed, a memory access on 6502 take 2us and the corresponding z80 about 1,9 microseconds. However, while the z80 can, with this type of memory access address the entire 64K range, to have 64K adressing on 6502 you will have to do a non 0-page addressing that is slower than the fastest (2us).

The problem on the 6502 is this: paradoxically, because the few general purpose registers are available, and more frequent memory access is needed even for simple operations, the 6502 should have faster memory accesses than z80 to compete. Instead, the slow memory access on 6502 this is the weak point of this cpu.

For example, in a real situation, to compensate for the lack of registers, one should use 0 page addressing, but a simple inc "register" instruction on the z80 take 1.3us, while the inc <zero page> takes 3us.

The few amount of registers, force us to emulate memory pointers with two bytes stored in 0 page. then one could use the sofphisticated pre/post indexing to de-reference the data stored, but this is dramatically slow: from 4us to 6us on the average, depending on the condition and addressing mode used.

Now, even the z80 have some addressing modes (like indexed using IX,IY registers) that are a true slowness, but they are avoided when non dramatically needed. On the 6502 you cannot avoid to address memory to do things!

Obviously, a 6502 or z80 guru can argument in flavor or cons of each cpu, with a properly tailored asm code. The hand made examples, however does not prove anything.

'Real life' is however different. Most of zx spectrum games, converted to c64, that cannot take advantages from the advanced gfx hw on c64 and rely on cpu to do sw sprites, were, after conversion from z80/zx code and optimization almost 20-30% slower than the z80 counterpart.

In the real life, the same code, could be 25% to 300% faster on z80 than on 6502 (with 6502 @1mhz and z80@3mhz) depending on the situation.

I agree, however, that the clock speed comparison is a true non-sense. (That is the reason i've posted the timings in microseconds)

 

 

without entering in technical details.

 

at the usage a 6502 and a Z80 are more or less egual. some things are better on Z80 other on 6502 . and if you compare the huge set of software done for both you can not really say which one would be the best.

 

The notable differences we can see on the different machine are due to other hardwares and co-processors .

 

If you compare game between Spectrum and C64 , a huge majority are better on C64 but not due to the processor but Hardware Sprite, Hardware Scroll and SID that the c64 has.

 

If you "port" directly a spectrum game from z80 to 6502 without exploiting additionnal hardwares on C64... you can see the result with the game Chase HQ for instance... Fantastic on Spectrum , Horribly Slow on C64 . But it does not mean the C64 couldn't have a lot better version , but not the way it has been done.

 

So if you analyze the range of software done with both processor on various computer. They are more or less equal.

 

BUT.... if you analyze the hardware where these software runs... you will see that most of 6502 machines runs between 0.8 and 2 Mhz , and that most of z80 between 3 and 5 Mhz.

 

=> 6502 is faster!

[carlsson]

As regarding the documents and results on Steve Judd's page, it might as simple as the people in comp.sys.sinclair couldn't bother less about a programming challenge, while the people in comp.sys.cbm acquired the very best C64 programmers the scene had to offer in order to present the best possible solutions for isolated programming tasks. Indeed, I know that Z80 code is more compact in terms of size but not sure about it generally being that much faster to execute.

 

Anyway, the comparison between the Colecovision and NES relates to more issues than which could decode a MP3 faster, calculate chess moves or something else that is highly CPU dependent.

[microprocessor]

 

without entering in technical details.

 

at the usage a 6502 and a Z80 are more or less egual. some things are better on Z80 other on 6502 . and if you compare the huge set of software done for both you can not really say which one would be the best.

 

The notable differences we can see on the different machine are due to other hardwares and co-processors .

 

If you compare game between Spectrum and C64 , a huge majority are better on C64 but not due to the processor but Hardware Sprite, Hardware Scroll and SID that the c64 has.

 

If you "port" directly a spectrum game from z80 to 6502 without exploiting additionnal hardwares on C64... you can see the result with the game Chase HQ for instance... Fantastic on Spectrum , Horribly Slow on C64 . But it does not mean the C64 couldn't have a lot better version , but not the way it has been done.

 

So if you analyze the range of software done with both processor on various computer. They are more or less equal.

 

BUT.... if you analyze the hardware where these software runs... you will see that most of 6502 machines runs between 0.8 and 2 Mhz , and that most of z80 between 3 and 5 Mhz.

 

=> 6502 is faster!

Have you seen gng for zx spectrum? it does scrolling by brute force blitting about 6.5KB. @ a 25fps. Try it with a c64 without using VIC-II hw capabilities.

And one thing: if you go @2mhz with 6502 you need more faster DRAM chips, but with faster chips you can use a 8Mhz z80 without problems, so the ratio is the same.

 

Believe me, as a electronic engineering i know what i tell.

 

Effectively, a 1Mhz for 6502 clock speed is 'normal' like it's normal a 3.5mhz for a z80. the mhz ratio does not mean anything. The z80 divide the higher clock rate to very small micro operations, the 6502 not. So it's normal that the z80 run at higher frequency. It's not a coincidence that the first z80 developed ran @2.5mhz. This high frequency *WAS* required by design.

 

Where the z80 wins on 6502 is not the clock rate that is a fake comparison. It's the architecture. The registers approach has proved to be more efficient. Even modern processors, including RISC have a lot of registers.

What i like of the 6502 is the more orthogonal instruction set. The z80 instruction set is somewhat chaotic

[youki]

Have you seen gng for zx spectrum? it does scrolling by brute force blitting about 6.5KB. @ a 25fps. Try it with a c64 without using VIC-II hw capabilities.

And one thing: if you go @2mhz with 6502 you need more faster DRAM chips, but with faster chips you can use a 8Mhz z80 without problems, so the ratio is the same.

 

Believe me, as a electronic engineering i know what i tell.

 

Effectively, a 1Mhz for 6502 clock speed is 'normal' like it's normal a 3.5mhz for a z80. the mhz ratio does not mean anything. The z80 divide the higher clock rate to very small micro operations, the 6502 not. So it's normal that the z80 run at higher frequency. It's not a coincidence that the first z80 developed ran @2.5mhz. This high frequency *WAS* required by design.

 

Where the z80 wins on 6502 is not the clock rate that is a fake comparison. It's the architecture. The registers approach has proved to be more efficient. Even modern processors, including RISC have a lot of registers.

What i like of the 6502 is the more orthogonal instruction set. The z80 instruction set is somewhat chaotic

 

GnG on Zx spectrum uses pre-shifting for its scrolls. the part that scroll amount 5.5k and to have played it a lot on spectrum i doubt it runs at 25 frames/seconds. I would say 15 Frame/seconds. But still plays very well and impressive on the spectrum and a real technical achievement. But i more impressed by Chase HQ i have already mentionned.

 

you should read these article , it is very interresting and quite objective i think.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-face-off-zx-spectrum-vs-commodore-64

 

Personnaly i love both machine, i grew up with a C64 but i discovered Spectrum's Gems later. But as programmer, i prefer code in 6502 than Z80. Just a matter of taste.

[microprocessor]

 

GnG on Zx spectrum uses pre-shifting for its scrolls. the part that scroll amount 5.5k and to have played it a lot on spectrum i doubt it runs at 25 frames/seconds.

 

 

 

 

Personnaly i love both machine, i grew up with a C64 but i discovered Spectrum's Gems later. But as programmer, i prefer code in 6502 than Z80. Just a matter of taste.

 

for fps:

Yes, 5.5K. about framerate i'm sure. It's 150KB / sec of bruce force copying. The z80 @ 3.5 can do this and have a moderate iddle time for logic.

 

In my experience, pushing the 6502 to have the same results that a z80 have is really hard, when you came to high troughtput scenarios or CPU bound code. When we started to use the z80 in place of the 6502, we were a bit sceptic, and i can assure you that i really do not like the non ortoghonal asm. Later, we changed a lot our perspective: the z80 was sell @ about 5 times the price of a 6502, but it worth the price. we do not need any trick to get reasonable performances. Obviously, if you need only to drive an automatic coffee .machine both processor can do the work very well.

The z80 also have built-in refresh for DRAM so we were able to remove additional circuitry.

the 6502 have the small advantage of the 50%-50% use of the databus that allows for a simpler bus arbitration, but in the c64 this leads to a true disadvantage: you are binding the cpu speed with the VIC-II speed. So it's difficult to increase the CPU speed without having trouble for the video part. It's not by accident that on C128 engineers choose the road to turn-off the VIC-II to get a more speedy machine (2Mhz).

The other alternative was to implement some custom arbitration logic, that in the end would have the same effect that doing this with a z80: a discrete loss of performances due to the need to sync the bus

In a gaming scenario, however a lot is influenced by dedicated hw and not only the CPU, so i'm not surprised of higher quality of games available for the c64.

Edited November 26, 2013 by microprocessor

[MaximRecoil]

Sorry, I hate all Japanese style joypads, even now, with PS3 or whatever awful console, they are wrong, as they are the wrong way around when compared to a decent joystick (Joystick: Control = right hand, Fire = left hand).

The Japanese NES style joypad with the wrong controlling device and was forced onto the American public. Even the lettering is 'Japanese style' not Western.

JOYPAD = WRONG WRONG WRONG

 

They should have made a choice for launching NES in USA:

 

At least in Europe we had the excellent Konix Speed King for NES and the Spectravideo NES Joystick

 

"Japanese style joypads" aren't "the wrong way around"; Atari CX-40 and similar joysticks were the wrong way around. The gamepads simply use the standard arcade control panel format, which is: joystick on the left, buttons on the right.

 

In terms of required level of dexterity, it goes:

 

1. Trackball

2. Buttons

3. Joystick

 

This is why arcade trackball games usually have the trackball on the right and buttons on the left. When there are only buttons and a joystick, the buttons require more dexterity than the joystick, so they usually go on the right. When there is only a joystick (e.g. Pac-Man), it is usually placed in the middle, and the user can choose which hand he wants to use.

 

I think it would be funny to watch a typical right-handed person try to play e.g. Williams Defender (1980):

 

 

If someone wrong-wayed the controls on him:

 

[+5-11under]

"Japanese style joypads" aren't "the wrong way around"; Atari CX-40 and similar joysticks were the wrong way around. The gamepads simply use the standard arcade control panel format, which is: joystick on the left, buttons on the right.

 

In terms of required level of dexterity, it goes:

 

1. Trackball

2. Buttons

3. Joystick

 

This is why arcade trackball games usually have the trackball on the right and buttons on the left. When there are only buttons and a joystick, the buttons require more dexterity than the joystick, so they usually go on the right. When there is only a joystick (e.g. Pac-Man), it is usually placed in the middle, and the user can choose which hand he wants to use.

 

I think it would be funny to watch a typical right-handed person try to play e.g. Williams Defender (1980):

 

 

If someone wrong-wayed the controls on him:

Wrong is a pretty strong word. Plenty of people, including myself, crossed our arms while playing games like that. Actually, two of my friends usually played Defender together... one driving and one shooting.

 

Edit: I have no idea about the trackball, but for me, I would definitely put the joystick ahead of the button(s) for dexterity requirements. Yes, I'm right-handed.

Edited November 27, 2013 by 5-11under

[MaximRecoil]

Wrong is a pretty strong word. Plenty of people, including myself, crossed our arms while playing games like that. Actually, two of my friends usually played Defender together... one driving and one shooting.

I've seen people do that, but the number of people that didn't do that probably outnumbered the ones that did by at least 100 to 1. The only person I specifically remember doing that was my friend Corey on Ikari Warriors, which made no sense whatsoever in his case, because he still used the joystick with his left hand, but he chose to cross his right hand under his left to use the alternate pair of buttons that are to the left of the joystick, instead of simply using the pair of buttons to the right of the joystick, which do the exact same thing (they are wired in parallel). He did that when we were kids in '87, and he still does it today on the Ikari Warriors machine that I now own. I mean, Ikari Warriors has an ambidextrous button layout, which should eliminate anyone feeling the need to cross-hand the controls. He has no explanation why he does that, other than he's always done it that way.

 

There will always be exceptions to anything. My father for example, is right-handed but he shoots a gun and a bow left-handed.

 

Edit: I have no idea about the trackball, but for me, I would definitely put the joystick ahead of the button(s) for dexterity requirements. Yes, I'm right-handed.

A digital joystick requires very little dexterity; at the most they only register 8 directions (Defender was only 2-way), and each direction is either on or off. On the other hand, with games that require rapid button presses; well, I've never known any right-handed person who could tap faster with his left hand than with his right. I also doubt that many right-handed people could tap out a specific sequence of button presses across multiple buttons faster with their left hand than with their right.

 

In my case, I can use a digital joystick equally well with either hand, I have no strong preference either way, with the exception of Nintendo Arm Wrestling, but that's only because it requires rapid back and forth movement of the joystick, much like rapid button pressing. But Nintendo understood that that kind of use of a joystick required more dexterity than is normally needed for a joystick, so they put the joystick on the right, rather than on the left like with other Nintendo arcade games, and with other arcade games in general.

 

If I have to tap buttons rapidly with my left hand, or do precisely timed sequences of button presses across multiple buttons, I hate it, and I can't do it well at all. I'll either find a way to use my right hand or not play the game.

 

As for trackballs, it is the same idea as using a mouse, and most right-handed people are terrible at using a mouse with their left hand.

Edited November 27, 2013 by MaximRecoil

[NIAD]

The real odditity for me concerning controller layouts is that back in the day (late 70's and 80's) when I played countless games in the arcade with the joystick on the left, it felt absolutely right to me. Even years later when I purchased the Arcade Power Stick for the Genesis, the joystick on the left felt correct to me and my friends can attest to this fact with how badly I would beat them when playing NHL Hockey with this controller.

 

So when CollectorVision developed and released the Arcade Quality Controller for the ColecoVision and gave the option of the joystiick being placed on the left or right side, I naturally went with it on the left side. Well, low and behold, the joystick being on the left side with the fire buttons on the right just doesn't feel right to me anymore although I should really make a point of using this tremendous controller solely for a while to see if the "feel and touch" will come back to me.

 

The mouse example is a great one... I've noticed the inability to use my left hand with a mouse adequately especially when visiting all my favorite porn sites!!!

[Pixelboy]

The mouse example is a great one... I've noticed the inability to use my left hand with a mouse adequately especially when visiting all my favorite porn sites!!!

Too much information, Jim.

[NIAD]

Too much information, Jim.

So you understood exactly what I was talking about! I guess you've experienced this sort of dilemna as well.

[Kiwi]

The real odditity for me concerning controller layouts is that back in the day (late 70's and 80's) when I played countless games in the arcade with the joystick on the left, it felt absolutely right to me. Even years later when I purchased the Arcade Power Stick for the Genesis, the joystick on the left felt correct to me and my friends can attest to this fact with how badly I would beat them when playing NHL Hockey with this controller.

 

So when CollectorVision developed and released the Arcade Quality Controller for the ColecoVision and gave the option of the joystiick being placed on the left or right side, I naturally went with it on the left side. Well, low and behold, the joystick being on the left side with the fire buttons on the right just doesn't feel right to me anymore although I should really make a point of using this tremendous controller solely for a while to see if the "feel and touch" will come back to me.

 

The mouse example is a great one... I've noticed the inability to use my left hand with a mouse adequately especially when visiting all my favorite porn sites!!!

Sounds like you need an upgrade that mouse to a track ball. Problem solved.

[frank_c]

The mouse example is a great one... I've noticed the inability to use my left hand with a mouse adequately especially when visiting all my favorite porn sites!!!

 

That's because you probably grew up using your right hand while holding the magazine in your left...