Do you like both?

[ApolloBoy]

Do you like both the 8-bits and the C64? I do. Both computers have very good qualities and I like them for what they are. Although I do admit I'm tad bit biased to the C64 since it was my first 8-bit computer system (my dad gave all his C64 and VIC-20 stuff to me about a year ago). I mean, my C64 has a disk drive, a printer, and a Datasette. My 800XL (which is coming in the mail since my 600XL didn't work) only has a 1050 disk drive, but that'll soon change as soon as I get ahold of a 1010 and a 1020...

[Nukey Shay]

If you have a disk drive, why would you even want a tape drive? Cassettes fail much too often to be of any use. Oh, and they are slower too.

 

I'd suggest getting a SIO2PC to supplement your current system.

 

In answer to the topic...yes, I love 'em both.

[ApolloBoy]

If you have a disk drive, why would you even want a tape drive?  Cassettes fail much too often to be of any use.  Oh, and they are slower too.

 

I just want it so that both systems will match up.

[+Sauron]

If you have a disk drive, why would you even want a tape drive?  Cassettes fail much too often to be of any use.  Oh, and they are slower too.

 

I'd suggest getting a SIO2PC to supplement your current system.

 

In answer to the topic...yes, I love 'em both.

 

I'd imagine that a cassette drive would come in handy in case you come across software that's cassette only.

 

Oh yeah, I like both too, and I'd imagine anyone who's used both a C64 and an Atari 8bit would be the same way. They're both great systems.

[Nukey Shay]

You probably have an old Walkman laying around somewhere right? Just use a black felt marker and write "Atari 1010" on it. Problem solved...and it will work -almost- as well as a real one.

[Nukey Shay]

I'd imagine that a cassette drive would come in handy in case you come across software that's cassette only.

AFAIK the only commercial programs that I'm aware of that haven't been archived someplace (which you can access using SIO2PC) is the Language series. Any others?

[Bryan]

Boy, this topic has been covered.

 

Personally, I'm an Atari fan. I think that no personal computers were more advanced for their day (1978) than good old Candy & Coleen. Atari produced the friendliest & most refined computing platform the world had seen, then failed to tell the world about it (remember the 64's media blitz?). Meanwhile, the Apple was crude, complicated & underpowered and sold like hotcakes at twice the price.

 

The 64 is a good gaming platform, because it's similar to the hardware in early '80s arcade games (especially early Namco stuff) & it's like having a Coleco Adam that actually works, but I felt it lacked the refinement of the Atari (it acts no different than a VIC-20 or a PET when turned on) but we all know price is everything to Jack. If all you want to do is play games or bang on hardware, though, who cares.

 

Remember, the 64 was released 4 years after the 800, and although the 800's graphics system is extremely versitile (and is the precursor to the Amiga's chipset), there's no way the Atari can match the resolution of most 64 graphics. GTIA produces basically monochrome (duo-chrome) graphics at 320 and is designed to be used in its 160 mode for games.

 

I've found most 64 and Apple users (Apple users are worse, though) to be very snotty toward Atari. An Apple II friend of mine was blown away over and over by Atari demos and games, and he'd still shrug it off and say "yeah, but it's just a game machine." Of course all he did was play ugly games on his "professional" apple. Many 64 users just consider Ataris to be outdated garbage.

 

So, in the end, the 64 was very successful (heck, I picked mine up with a drive for $10) but it's already had the attention it deserves, and I prefer to spend my time getting the most out of the original multimedia computer!

 

-Bry

[Nukey Shay]

That's one argument that I always failed to see the logic in..."it's just a game machine". EVEN IF that were true, there's a lot of calculations going on in games, and they have to be speedy doing it. Those same aspects can be applied to spreadsheets if you wanted And I always thought it was dumb that Applesoft was widely used in schools to teach Basic, when Atari Basic almost eliminated syntax error possibilities...and Logo (for the younger set) looked much better.

 

So his statement is translated to "It's just a game machine...I prefer my computer to be as slow and unattractive as me."

[Nukey Shay]

That's one argument that I always failed to see the logic in..."it's just a game machine". EVEN IF that were true, there's a lot of calculations going on in games, and they have to be speedy doing it. Those same aspects can be applied to spreadsheets if you wanted And I always thought it was dumb that Applesoft was widely used in schools to teach Basic, when Atari Basic almost eliminated syntax error possibilities...and Logo (for the younger set) looked much better.

 

So his statement is translated to "It's just a game machine...I prefer my computer to be as slow and unattractive as me."

[TMR]

The 64 is a good gaming platform, because it's similar to the hardware in early '80s arcade games (especially early Namco stuff) & it's like having a Coleco Adam that actually works, but I felt it lacked the refinement of the Atari (it acts no different than a VIC-20 or a PET when turned on)...

 

Personally i prefer that "it's on, it's ready" approach to computing the Commodore machines have, it's probably founded in familiarity since i started out on a VIC20 and tried moving to an 800XL.

 

Remember, the 64 was released 4 years after the 800, and although the 800's graphics system is extremely versitile (and is the precursor to the Amiga's chipset), there's no way the Atari can match the resolution of most 64 graphics.

 

The C64's chipset was supposedly in the design phase as far back as 1979 and originally intended for arcade use, Jack Attack decided to get the engineers to put a machine together around them.

 

Since we had the Sinclair Spectrum, C64 and later the Amstrad CPC as the mainstream in the UK i never really saw any C64/Atari rivalry; a lot of the time the Atari was relegated to the same league as the BBC Micro or Dragon 32 which is a pity.

 

The Apple machines didn't seem to get a following over here, i've only ever seen one Apple II.

 

I've found most 64 and Apple users (Apple users are worse, though) to be very snotty toward Atari.

 

Not all C64 users are... =-)

 

i suspect that quite a bit of that will be defensiveness about their own purchases, the C64 and Spectrum had a lot of that back in the day over here with a myriad of "my computer is better than yours" fights in playgrounds, workplaces and multi-format magazines breaking out...

 

An Apple II friend of mine was blown away over and over by Atari demos and games, and he'd still shrug it off and say "yeah, but it's just a game machine."

 

Considering how the Apple was weak on just about every front that's hardly an argument, i suspect it only gets employed when the speaker's own machine has naff all capability in the graphics and/or sound departments. That "game machine" argument is a mainstay of the Spectrum vs. C64 wars... =-)

 

Come to think of it, are there any Apple II demos out there...? i found some average games but nothing that really hammers the thing.

[Bryan]

Personally i prefer that "it's on, it's ready" approach to computing the Commodore machines have, it's probably founded in familiarity since i started out on a VIC20 and tried moving to an 800XL.

 

I know C= owners considered DOS to be a pain, but it was really an indication of things to come. Today all computers load the majority of their OS from disk, and as an Atari ST owner, it was actually a pain having an old version of TOS in ROM with no easy way to upgrade. Amiga owners made the same arguments about kickstart, etc. that Atari 8-bitters made. Some very powerful DOSes (approaching the abilities of MSDOS) were developed for the Atari. Of course, a hard drive made this more practical.

 

The C64's chipset was supposedly in the design phase as far back as 1979 and originally intended for arcade use, Jack Attack decided to get the engineers to put a machine together around them.

 

The 64 would have made a very good console if the videogame market had held up. Jack made the right decision, though.

 

Since we had the Sinclair Spectrum, C64 and later the Amstrad CPC as the mainstream in the UK i never really saw any C64/Atari rivalry; a lot of the time the Atari was relegated to the same league as the BBC Micro or Dragon 32 which is a pity.

 

There are so many lame computers out there, aren't there!

 

The Apple machines didn't seem to get a following over here, i've only ever seen one Apple II.

 

Yeah, Apples were everywhere here. Apple did a good thing and got their products into schools (my high school had rooms filled with them!), which provided an incentive to buy them for kids at home.

 

I've found most 64 and Apple users (Apple users are worse, though) to be very snotty toward Atari.

 

Not all C64 users are... =-)

 

No, not all.

 

i suspect that quite a bit of that will be defensiveness about their own purchases, the C64 and Spectrum had a lot of that back in the day over here with a myriad of "my computer is better than yours" fights in playgrounds, workplaces and multi-format magazines breaking out...

 

I don't know much about the Spectrum, but doesn't everything made for that system look like crap??

 

Considering how the Apple was weak on just about every front that's hardly an argument, i suspect it only gets employed when the speaker's own machine has naff all capability in the graphics and/or sound departments.  That "game machine" argument is a mainstay of the Spectrum vs. C64 wars... =-)

 

What are all the most powerful PC's purchased for? GAMES!!! You just don't get the best games on lousy hardware. Oh well, people had to justify these purchases back then, and I guess "playing games" was considered a waste of money.

 

Come to think of it, are there any Apple II demos out there...?  i found some average games but nothing that really hammers the thing.

 

Quite the contrary, everything really hammers the thing. I'm sure there are some demos, but there really are no unexploited features on the Apple. There are no sprites, the color mode looks terrible, and there's no sound chip..... and they sold millions.

 

 

-Bry

[Fröhn]

XL/XE machines and the C64 are some of the very few "interesting" 8 bit computers. you can do awesome hardware tricks and have lot's of special features which only the XL or the C64 have and no other machine.

 

for example the spectrum or amstrad hardware makes me yawn. everything there is just Z80 and that's it. no nice hardware tricks possible and nothing really amazing. and the Z80 is too weak to do nice things on his own.

[Bryan]

XL/XE machines and the C64 are some of the very few "interesting" 8 bit computers. you can do awesome hardware tricks and have lot's of special features which only the XL or the C64 have and no other machine.

 

for example the spectrum or amstrad hardware makes me yawn. everything there is just Z80 and that's it. no nice hardware tricks possible and nothing really amazing. and the Z80 is too weak to do nice things on his own.

 

The Z80 is a giant cycle waster, but since it does RAM refresh on the CPU, it was easy to design (junk) with. As a CPU it has some nice features, but you're right, until you clock it at 4-6MHz or so, it can't get out of its own way.

 

-Bry

[TMR]

XL/XE machines and the C64 are some of the very few "interesting" 8 bit computers. you can do awesome hardware tricks and have lot's of special features which only the XL or the C64 have and no other machine.

 

Yup, agree there and the Plus/4 and VIC20 are in the same league, the VIC is only just being discovered now as a demo platform and some of the results have been brutal.

 

for example the spectrum or amstrad hardware makes me yawn. everything there is just Z80 and that's it. no nice hardware tricks possible and nothing really amazing. and the Z80 is too weak to do nice things on his own.

 

The Spectrum has some excellent demos considering it offers next to no help at all. There are CPC demos that hammer the CTRC to do high speed scrolling and so forth, but there's nothing as fascinating as the display list on the Atari or smooth scroll "features" like FLI or border removal on the C64.

 

The pervert in me would quite like to have a go coding Apple IIe or BBC Micro demos but i'm not sure if i'm that much of a masochist... =-)

[TMR]

The 64 would have made a very good console if the videogame market had held up. Jack made the right decision, though.

 

The C64 was a console, the Max Machine (aka Ultimax) was released alongside the original C64 and didn't do a lot for the same reason the C64GS didn't later on; what's the point of paying for a console if the games work on the computer?

 

I don't know much about the Spectrum, but doesn't everything made for that system look like crap??  

 

Well, it has a reasonable screen system, 256x192 with 8x8 attribute cells and an eight colour palette with two brightnesses for each colour (you have "bright" mode on or off so it's not possible to mix two shades of blue into one 8x8 space for example).

 

The main "problem" (depending on how you see it) is a lack of hardware sprites or indeed hardware anything to do with moving graphics; scrolling, sprites, whatever you want are done with CPU power and at 3.5MHz and 6K or so for a screen (and no double buffering) that limits options somewhat.

 

Come to think of it, are there any Apple II demos out there...?  i found some average games but nothing that really hammers the thing.

 

Quite the contrary, everything really hammers the thing. I'm sure there are some demos, but there really are no unexploited features on the Apple. There are no sprites, the color mode looks terrible, and there's no sound chip..... and they sold millions.

 

Well, Spectrum demos do quite a bit with a bare bones system, so i really must go looking for stuff to see how much the coders actually achieved...

[DracIsBack]

Remember, the 64 was released 4 years after the 800, and although the 800's graphics system is extremely versitile (and is the precursor to the Amiga's chipset),

 

No. The Atari computers were the precurser to the Amiga. Same designers. Think of the Lynx, 3DO, Atari 8-bit and Amiga all coming from the same family.

 

there's no way the Atari can match the resolution of most 64 graphics.

 

True. On the other hand, there's no way the C64 can match the colours of the Atari or the flexibility in the display modes. And, on the other hand still, the C64's sprite capabilities were better.

[Bryan]

Remember, the 64 was released 4 years after the 800, and although the 800's graphics system is extremely versitile (and is the precursor to the Amiga's chipset),

 

No. The Atari computers were the precurser to the Amiga. Same designers. Think of the Lynx, 3DO, Atari 8-bit and Amiga all coming from the same family.

 

So, how exactly was I wrong?

 

-Bry

[Nukey Shay]

I was wondering that myself

Maybe he's got something against parentheses?

[Bryan]

I guess he thought I was calling the 64 the precursor to the Amiga, when in fact, Copper has a little black & white picture of Antic on his mantle.

 

-Bry

[Wrathchild]

If you have a disk drive, why would you even want a tape drive?  Cassettes fail much too often to be of any use.  Oh, and they are slower too.

 

I just want it so that both systems will match up.

 

Cassettes don't match up to well, the Atari ones ran at about 300 baud IIRC. Large (48K) games took around 15 minutes to load (Hardball and Red Max being worth the wait though ). Not much was done with writing software 'fast-loaders' as was done with the C64. Some hardware mods were done/available around central Europe, but aside from that I only ever saw one game (Galactic Chase) that was recorded at a higher baud and used the fact the operating system will dynamically adjust its calculations in order to read the data correctly.

 

Question: Was there a technical reason why a turbo-loader couldn't be done in software?

 

Regards,

 

Mark

[Bryan]

Cassettes don't match up to well, the Atari ones ran at about 300 baud IIRC. Large (48K) games took around 15 minutes to load (Hardball and Red Max being worth the wait though ). Not much was done with writing software 'fast-loaders' as was done with the C64. Some hardware mods were done/available around central Europe, but aside from that I only ever saw one game (Galactic Chase) that was recorded at a higher baud and used the fact the operating system will dynamically adjust its calculations in order to read the data correctly.

 

Question: Was there a technical reason why a turbo-loader couldn't be done in software?

 

Regards,

 

Mark

 

I think the default rate for cassettes was 600 baud. You could use a higher rate, but the tolerances of the 410 made it a risky proposition. The 1010 had better electronics and was better able to handle higher load speeds.

 

-Bry