Jetboot Jack Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 Hmmmm - the A1200 was a good machine, but its unit sales compared to the installed userbase of A500's was TINY. And the CD32 sold through in very average numbers too, plus its hideously unrelaible drive mechanism made development for it agony -- you couldn't use the whole CD surface for data. Ask me how I know -- I was part of a team that produced several games on A1200 and CD32 at Microrpose (Pirates Gold, Gunship, XCOM, Impossible Mission etc)... Both machines were niche sellers compared to the A500 -- support for these units died pretty quickly from the big publishing community even in Europe -- several small developers/publishers kept doing stuff long after the death knell had sounded... sTeVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwiliteZoner Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 One thing that hurt Atari as far as games go, is that they had 4 or so machines ranging from 16k to 64k. They and others had to make games that would basically run on all of the above. Could you imagine some of the arcade conversions using the available memory of the 800.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svenski Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 Vigo, As someone who was selling A1200s, A600s and CD32s at the time, I stand by my original comments. The comparison with the 1200XL was like I said - new machine, new design, it put people off. Sure people began to see past it but in no way were A1200 sales anywhere near as good as those of the A500 or A500+. We had A500s stacked up to the ceiling. As for the CD32, yeah, sure it was a big seller, thats why there were sooooooo many titles released for it. Come on. The fact that it was a good machine has nothing to do with the fact it was a sales flop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigo Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Vigo, As someone who was selling A1200s, A600s and CD32s at the time, I stand by my original comments. The comparison with the 1200XL was like I said - new machine, new design, it put people off. Sure people began to see past it but in no way were A1200 sales anywhere near as good as those of the A500 or A500+. Hmmm, the A500+ a good seller? The machine, which was abused by gamers due to incompatible Kickstart 2.0? The A500+ was, like the A600 a flop. The A1200 not. It was quickly accepted by the market, and in 1994, the number of AGA game releases already superceeded the number of ECS/OCS games. We had A500s stacked up to the ceiling. A little calculation: A500 introduced in 1987, discontinued in 1992 -> 5 years staying in the market. A1200 introduced in late 1992, discontinued (by Commodore) in early 1994. Hardly 2 years of time. Remember: the A500 wasnt a big hit until 1989. But most A500s you are referring to were probably unsold A500+s... As for the CD32, yeah, sure it was a big seller, thats why there were sooooooo many titles released for it. Come on. The fact that it was a good machine has nothing to do with the fact it was a sales flop. I hope you know that the CD32 was released in late 1993. Due to Commodores demise in April 1994, it had no real chance for further software support. But the CD32 sold very well in the UK. It gave (for a short time) the MegaCD a hard time. Commodore even managed to put out the MPEG cartridge gefore they died (now a rare collectors item). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigo Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Vigo, As someone who was selling A1200s, A600s and CD32s at the time, I stand by my original comments. The comparison with the 1200XL was like I said - new machine, new design, it put people off. Sure people began to see past it but in no way were A1200 sales anywhere near as good as those of the A500 or A500+. Hmmm, the A500+ a good seller? The machine, which was abused by gamers due to incompatible Kickstart 2.0? The A500+ was, like the A600 a flop. The A1200 not. It was quickly accepted by the market, and in 1994, the number of AGA game releases already superceeded the number of ECS/OCS games. We had A500s stacked up to the ceiling. A little calculation: A500 introduced in 1987, discontinued in 1992 -> 5 years staying in the market. A1200 introduced in late 1992, discontinued (by Commodore) in early 1994. Hardly 2 years of time. Remember: the A500 wasnt a big hit until 1989. But most A500s you are referring to were probably unsold A500+s... As for the CD32, yeah, sure it was a big seller, thats why there were sooooooo many titles released for it. Come on. The fact that it was a good machine has nothing to do with the fact it was a sales flop. I hope you know that the CD32 was released in late 1993. Due to Commodores demise in April 1994, it had no real chance for further software support. But the CD32 sold very well in the UK. It gave (for a short time) the MegaCD a hard time. Commodore even managed to put out the MPEG cartridge gefore they died (now a rare collectors item). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigo Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Server hung Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svenski Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Vigo, I guess you were on your own little Island somewhere if you consider either the CD32 or the Mega CD to have been a success. In the end Sega could hardly give the Mega CD away. As for the range of CD32 titles, I guess you're conveniently forgetting the CD32 versions of A500 titles that were rushed onto CD perhaps with, perhaps not, a couple of extra graphical menus or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetboot Jack Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 I resemble that remark -- "CD32 versions of A500 titles that were rushed onto CD" I can assure you that Pirates Gold and Gunship 2K were lovingly reworked for CD32 -- I remember well the design agony of converting the full keyboard control of Gunship to the noxious joypad that system had!!! Not to mention all the fun of making the save games fit into the tiny save RAM the CD 32 sported! Of course we added titillating FMV for Gunship too - what CD title would be complete without it? sTeVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon-paul Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 well as some one who has Atari 8 bits and Amiga's i can confirm that the CD-32 was a reletively big machine over here in the UK, Then commodore went belly up. Just as the Cd-Sega system was starting to take over (more due to the lack of CD32s around). Then The Playstation arrived, and the rest was history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApolloBoy Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 Why the heck are you guys talking about the Amiga? The thread's supposed to be about comparing the Atari 8-bits against the C64! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shannon Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Ask me how I know -- I was part of a team that produced several games on A1200 and CD32 at Microrpose (Pirates Gold, Gunship, XCOM, Impossible Mission etc)... sTeVE Hey.. does that mean you live in Maryland? Wasn't microprose located in maryland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetboot Jack Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Shannon - I workerd for Microprose from early to mid 90's -- but at their UK office, where all the XCom stuff and the Amiga stuff was developed... sTeVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetboot Jack Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Back on topic -- the C64 SUX sTeVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Back on topic -- the C64 SUX No, Atari suxx0rz and C64 r0xx0rz! [Ahem] sorry, not sure where that came from...? =-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Back on topic -- the C64 SUX No, Atari suxx0rz and C64 r0xx0rz! [Ahem] sorry, not sure where that came from...? =-) Wich system was the best was depending on its programmers... The C64 had allways more enthusiastic programmers than the ATARI 8-bits ... in the past and today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 These machines take very different approaches to generating audio/video which makes them each good at different types of games. The 64's hardware is very much like early 80's videogame hardware, has better sprites, but lacks the easy-to-use linear bitmap modes of the Atari. The main difference is that the 64 doesn't have the sophisticated OS that the Atari does with it's driver (IOCB) structures and such. The 64 has only one path of execution, and that is to dump you into BASIC (At least if the Atari loses power, it can boot back up and pick up where it left off). Had the firmware issues of the 64 been ironed out from the start (and heck, the 1541 too - unbearable load times, & why the difficulty of adding a 2nd drive?), it could have been a very friendly machine. Instead, everyone had to live without any reasonable disk management utilities (none came with the 1541) and had to memorize LOAD "BLAHBLAH",8,1 Of course, let's not forget the real 6502 stinker, the Apple II! The dumb terminal that thinks it's a computer! -Bry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 C64 has two features, that are the reason for its success. The "more" in Colors in Hi-Res (Text+Sprites) and the promised SID-Sound. This two features made Games in new styles by easy programming possible. not only more colors in hires. also charset modes had more colors + the possibility to mix the resolutions. a good example might be "the last v8". there you can compare the abilities pretty good since the game itself is more or less the same on 800xl and c64, but you see the graphical differences. the atari version has a smooth scrolling top area with 4 colors in 160x200 resolution and a 4 color bitmap in 160x200 color resolution below it. the c64 version had 16 colors + mixed resolutions (160x200 and 320x200) in the smooth scrolling area and a 16 color bitmap below it. i mention this because you see the "out of the box" abilities of both machines in this game pretty good. no hardware tricks except for split-screen used... To save the XL/XE series ATARI had to do better Human Interfaces (easier to program) in graphics and sound. Or to create libraries, that would have made it easier to program this machines at optimum. i have to disagree here. when a saw a C64 for the first time it was all easy. you could use everything out of the box. when a friend of mine got an atari 800xl none of us was able to load anything from disk. we simply didn't understand all that "dos" thing etc so we declared that machine as useless and went back to c64 business very fast. so much for the better user interface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 when a saw a C64 for the first time it was all easy. you could use everything out of the box. when a friend of mine got an atari 800xl none of us was able to load anything from disk. we simply didn't understand all that "dos" thing etc so we declared that machine as useless and went back to c64 business very fast. so much for the better user interface. Well I am trying to understand??? Were there some mystical voices that told you: "Use the load "...",8,1 " .... "Use the load "...",8,1 " ???? And to insert a boot disk like on the XL/XE was not to do in anyway? Where was the problem to read "Load from disc" to load a program at the Disc Utility Package? The named drives by D1 D2.... that are logical named by the Discdrive and the Drivenumber... Was this never to understand? But it was simple to understand, that a Discdrive is named by "8" and the Run Command is named by a "1"...... This is really curious.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 And to insert a boot disk like on the XL/XE was not to do in anyway? Where was the problem to read "Load from disc" to load a program at the Disc Utility Package? see, some 13 year old kids might not understand the concept of booting some dos before being able to load anything. we found that c64 was far easier to use. and honestly i still prefer the "include DOS in the rom and have a cheaper basic" towards "have a great basic and no dos". But it was simple to understand, that a Discdrive is named by "8" and the Run Command is named by a "1"...... you are talking in riddles to me. where does "1" mean "RUN"? you load a file with LOAD "bla",8 and then type RUN... that ,8,1 is just for machine code programs not loaded to basic start adress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 Fröhn, out of the box C64??? come on... basic is built in in both machines... so... tell me what is easier to understand: poke 54280,color (can't remember the actual color registers of C64 anymore...) or atari's "setcolor" instruction??? or "sound channel, freq, distor, volume" on atari... or even "color1:plot x,y: drawto x2,y2"... all built in...so i found atari far more easier to understand than the "poke machine" c64... you mentioned "out of the box"... even zx spectrum is easier to programm... no just kidding... and for programming you would not need to boot any software but my fave on c64 is still the "load"$",8 instruction... without learning this command i was unable to play pirate games on demo pods in the city... hve but it's just a matter of taste at the end of the day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 i have to disagree here. when a saw a C64 for the first time it was all easy. you could use everything out of the box. when a friend of mine got an atari 800xl none of us was able to load anything from disk. we simply didn't understand all that "dos" thing etc so we declared that machine as useless and went back to c64 business very fast. so much for the better user interface. Let's see, loading your typical commercial game Atari 800 vs Commodore 64: Atari 800: 1:00:00 Turn on drive 1:00:03 Insert disk 1:00:05 Turn on computer 1:00:06 Game is loading 1:00:28 Enjoy Game Commodore 64: 1:00:00 Turn on drive 1:00:03 Insert disk 1:00:05 Turn on computer 1:00:08 Computer says READY 1:00:10 Take disk back out to read LOAD "AWESOMEGAME",8,1 from the label 1:00:13 Put disk back in 1:00:16 Type in LOAD "AWESOMEGAME",8,1 1:00:24 Computer is SEARCHING 1:00:26 Computer is LOADING 1:01:00 Computer is still LOADING 1:01:25 Suspect something is wrong, flip open 1541 door. Busy light blinks. Quickly close door again. 1:01:37 Computer is still LOADING. Take bathroom break. 1:01:45 Game is loaded 1:02:15 Return from bathroom break and Enjoy Game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 Fröhn, out of the box C64??? come on... basic is built in in both machines... so... tell me what is easier to understand: poke 54280,color (can't remember the actual color registers of C64 anymore...) or atari's "setcolor" instruction??? [...] all built in...so i found atari far more easier to understand than the "poke machine" c64... you mentioned "out of the box"... that's exactly what i mean: i prefer weak basic + dos towards strong basic without dos. another nice side-effect of a lame basic is that you get into assembler coding very fast and the result was a lot of assembler programmers. anyway, fact remains that this dos disk thing was a major drawback for us kids back then. we didnt like it not to be able to do stuff without that booting. on c64 we soon were able to hack music out of games, rip character sets etc and on atari 800xl... we were able to load a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukey Shay Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 It really makes no difference. I my circle, you'd pick up whatever commands and shortcuts that were supported by your computer. Neither Basic was fully explained to the novice without a manual in-hand to point out the values for colors and such...so that is really beside the point...you WOULD learn it pronto. And disk drives were learned even faster out of necessity. Therefore, all Basic's were easily learned (as well as the arguments that go with the commands), and machine language was ESSENTIAL if you wanted to get the most out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Jefferson Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 anyway, fact remains that this dos disk thing was a major drawback for us kids back then. we didnt like it not to be able to do stuff without that booting. on c64 we soon were able to hack music out of games, rip character sets etc and on atari 800xl... we were able to load a game. I don't know about you, but I played games much more often than hacking them. Games were just plain easier on the Atari to load... DOS wasn't difficult to deal with, especially later on when almost everyone I knew with Atari computers had SpartaDOS and a hard drive attached to their machine. I don't think many people would argue that the disk system on the C64 was better than the Atari. The C64 benefitted from being released later with the graphics and sound technology though, but I don't think the disk technology was up to snuff. It was just fate that caused me to buy an Atari computer... I could have easily bought a C64. I'm glad I didn't though... there's just something about the Atari that I find more appealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 you are talking in riddles to me. where does "1" mean "RUN"? you load a file with LOAD "bla",8 and then type RUN... that ,8,1 is just for machine code programs not loaded to basic start adress. This was told to me by C64 freaks again and again... Because the Games didn't start, if the "1" was needed and without the "1" you had to type run. I tried out once to by a C128 and used the commands to load the games... Woa...In the time that a game like Test Drive was loaded, it was possible to load Drop Zone triple and to get a new Highscore... So I didn't get the C128 and the rest is nothing I take care about though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.