Schmutzpuppe Posted September 16, 2003 Author Share Posted September 16, 2003 As we all know, the CPC was the best PC of its time...and it is only mentioned to compare .-) I think the best was the Enterprise but as you can see, good hardware and commercial success don't necessarily depend on each other... Here you can find some technical data: http://www.mumm.ac.be/%7Ecammejpm/enterpri..._ent/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 Ooops... did I write C16 But the VIC 20 is the ancestor to the C16.... similar the 400 is to the 600XL Hmm' date=' only in a loose sense - the C64 is related directly to the VIC because they share two generations of the same video chip but the 264 series are powered by the all-in-one TED. As we all know' date=' the CPC was the best PC of its time...and it is only mentioned to compare .-)[/quote'] i'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here...? =-) The CPC is a flawed machine, the 4 colour 320x200 mode only gets 4 colours, all the graphics modes take 16K a screen and there's no hardware smooth scroll or sprites to help out... Please ask yourself' date=' which company was the synonym for games[/quote'] Firebird' date=' Hewson, Thalamus or Rainbow Arts. =-) [/quote'] Hmmm... which is sounding more authentical? Commodore Games ATARI Games That was my point, there's no one company to point at as a synonym because it varies from genre to genre and format to format. The Chipsets were done' date=' the CPUs were available and the compatibility to the 8-bits was given....The AMIGA found his buyers and the ST too.... There was enough money for 16 Bit machines to put most 8-bits into the garbage-can.[/quote'] Yeah, but it's a perception thing i think; trying to sell what is essentially a supercharged 8bit machine at the same price break as the new technology (which is how a cranked Atari on the Amiga chipset or the C64DX, which shared a lot of properties with the Amiga, would be viewed) is difficult and it's like being offered a standard and turbo model of a car with only a minimal difference in price, most buyers'll go for the turbo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 Please compare: 1981 C16 with colored chars 1982 Spectrum with colored chars 1983 ATARI XL with luminance only (the same like the 400/800 in 1978) 1983 C64 with 4colored Bitmap and color-blocks for colored text 1984 Amstrad CPC464 (640x200(green) 320x200 color-bitmap) Now list it the other way. What features did the Atari have that those machines are lacking? How many lack sprite capabilities? How many have hardware scrolling and relocatable screens? You can't tell me that the Spectrum is an example of what Atari should have been doing. -Bry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 there is really only two things which were on my atari wishlist: - 16 colors @ 160x200 - 8 32x32x4 sprites a la 7800... the 4x 8x256x1 player sucked a lot... but i love - antic with display list - gtia gfx modes - vscrol, hscrol + custom gfx modes - wsync all stuff which seem to be impossible on ALL 8bit machines at that time...1st changed with copper list on lovely amiga... hve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 and yes... i know 7800 the sprite size is customisable via DLL... just in case somebody is complaining... i meant just the separated colors possible for each sprite... hve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 there is really only two things which were on my atari wishlist: - 16 colors @ 160x200 - 8 32x32x4 sprites a la 7800... 16 colors in a bitmapped type of graphics would have needed to much CPU time to handle. So here is the cause with the color-block overlay like on the C64. 16 colors in a bitmap -> 16000 Bytes 16 Colors by overlay -> 8000 Bytes bitmap + 1000 Bytes in overlay with blocks of 40x25 resolution On the XL something similar happens with the PM Overlay and PRIOR 0. The big mess is that only 50% of the screen are overlayed without any big CPU Usage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 As we all know, the CPC was the best PC of its time...and it is only mentioned to compare .-) I think the best was the Enterprise but as you can see, good hardware and commercial success don't necessarily depend on each other... Here you can find some technical data:http://www.mumm.ac.be/%7Ecammejpm/enterprise/bouman_ent/index.html The main secret of a successfull shipping is to sell something, so someone can by something You wanted to buy a C64 .... so you had to go into a store and buy one You wanted to buy a XL ... so you had to go into a store and buy one You wanted to buy a CPC ... so you had to go into a store and buy one You wanted to buy a Enterprise.... so you had to wait until one arrived in the store Well. I think the Enterprise was intentionally build for Elite Users and ended up as Garbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 Please compare: 1981 C16 with colored chars 1982 Spectrum with colored chars 1983 ATARI XL with luminance only (the same like the 400/800 in 1978) 1983 C64 with 4colored Bitmap and color-blocks for colored text 1984 Amstrad CPC464 (640x200(green) 320x200 color-bitmap) Now list it the other way. What features did the Atari have that those machines are lacking? How many lack sprite capabilities? How many have hardware scrolling and relocatable screens? You can't tell me that the Spectrum is an example of what Atari should have been doing. -Bry For real? -The PMg is shurely not to compare with any Sprite-Hardware The Speccy is not an example of what Atari should been doing, it is an example of what ATARI had to add to the XL series. The 400/800 was released 5 years previous to the XL series. Especially in the cause J.M. leaved ATARI, it was the easiest way to update the GTIA with an overlay-function to make the XL more serious. Even doubling the available PMg at the half resolution would have been revolutional....And to load some "sprites" in a dedicated RAM of allmost 1K would not have ruined ATARI. At the END Atari did nothing new on the XL series for real. But they sold it as a new line. Others puttet alot of hours and money into new techniques and had to build cheaper machines... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmutzpuppe Posted September 16, 2003 Author Share Posted September 16, 2003 The main secret of a successfull shipping is to sell something, so someone can by something You wanted to buy a C64 .... so you had to go into a store and buy one You wanted to buy a XL ... so you had to go into a store and buy one You wanted to buy a CPC ... so you had to go into a store and buy one You wanted to buy a Enterprise.... so you had to wait until one arrived in the store Well. I think the Enterprise was intentionally build for Elite Users and ended up as Garbage. You can also call it mismanagement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZylonBane Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 -The PMg is shurely not to compare with any Sprite-Hardware Player/Missile graphics ARE sprites. The only difference is the name. These days Atari programmers use the terms interchangeably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 -The PMg is shurely not to compare with any Sprite-Hardware Player/Missile graphics ARE sprites. The only difference is the name. These days Atari programmers use the terms interchangeably. Yeah, I'm getting a little bored with this "The Atari rules, but everything else is better" thread. I'm really surprized you didn't jump in earlier with all the nonsense going on in here. My take on the Player/Sprite thing is that although the Atari way of doing it is called "Player/Missile Gfx", when you create a little dude with them, you can call him a Player or a Sprite. Many uses of Players don't result in the creation of a Sprite. How's that? All computers have strengths and weaknesses, but the Atari had more strengths than most, and better peripherals than just about anyone. It was pretty rare for a computer company to release improved but compatible versions of their 8-bit chipsets. What usually came along was an incompatible design, so I can't fault Atari for the XL series. It did what it was supposed to do: bring the cost of the 800 down. I think Apple spread themselves too thin trying to sell the expensive and slow Apple IIgs against the more powerful but spartan Macintosh. I don't think Atari could have afforded to support 2 active platforms. -Bry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Yeah, I'm getting a little bored with this "The Atari rules, but everything else is better" thread. Is it possible you are not willing to get what I am talking about? Back to the C64 and the Second Reality Demo...: This demo is build upon two abilities of the C64...: The SID and his filtering... This ability of colorblocks... Other features like ..: DL DLI 4-channel Higher CPU speed 256 colors faster Disk-access etc. is absolutely is alike and useless for this demo But everyone is highly amazed about the colorfull graphics and the soundquality.... no one is asking about: DL DLI 4-channel Higher CPU speed 256 colors faster Disk-access etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Yeah, I'm getting a little bored with this "The Atari rules, but everything else is better" thread. I'm really surprized you didn't jump in earlier with all the nonsense going on in here. Well personally i'd rate the Atari as the second best 8bit i've come across after the C64 of course [grins, looks innocent, notes it's not working and runs for it! =-] Seriously, of the list of machines that have appeared so far i can't comment on the Enterprise but i'd say the Atari does better for specs than all but the C64 (i promise i'm trying to be impartial here). Ignoring consoles, the only 8bit i can think of that hasn't been mentioned that is capable of topping either machine would be the Amstrad CPC+ series but they were a while in coming and released alongside 16bit machines. Not saying i don't like the other machines, just trying to make a (reasonably) level-headed evaluation of them which i'm sure people will disagree with... =-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Yeah, I'm getting a little bored with this "The Atari rules, but everything else is better" thread. Is it possible you are not willing to get what I am talking about? No, I know exactly what you're talking about, but it's 20 years too late. Yes, Atari could have done all sorts of things. We all know how screwed up Atari's management was by the early 80's. If I wanted to criticize an 8-bit computer, I could come up with hundreds of shortcomings even of the 64! If all that mattered to us was having the best capabilities then we'd all be PC (or at least Amiga) programmers. There must be something endearing about old, lame hardware (thousands of Spectrum users can't be wrong... well, maybe). Pick the computer you like best, warts and all, and then deal with it. Wishing won't create HPOSP7 or COLPF8. Back to the C64 and the Second Reality Demo...: I'll have to check it out. -Bry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Yeah, I'm getting a little bored with this "The Atari rules, but everything else is better" thread. I'm really surprized you didn't jump in earlier with all the nonsense going on in here. Well personally i'd rate the Atari as the second best 8bit i've come across after the C64 of course [grins, looks innocent, notes it's not working and runs for it! =-] I think this is reasonable. The Atari can do some very impressive things that the 64 cannot, but when it comes to practical abilities, the 64 wins. I feel the Atari was better as a computer system with better ease of use and expansion (TMR may disagree), but it loses to a newer system on gaming ability. Before the 64, however, nothing could touch it. As I've said before, one of the coolest things about the Atari is all the stuff it could be doing that's never been written. I've figured out (theoretically) how to code several 64 games with no loss of color, and maybe someday I'll get some proof-of-concept exe's done. Not saying i don't like the other machines, just trying to make a (reasonably) level-headed evaluation of them which i'm sure people will disagree with... =-) I think it's refreshing to hear a 64 user stick up for the Atari at all. Most of them call it crap. -Bry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Second Reality 64 is good, but I've seen some of those effects done better in Atari demos (they've probably been done better in 64 demos too). I think if someone really wanted to tackle it, a good Second Reality could be done on the A8 (the music wouldn't be as good, since the PC version uses several SID-like instruments). -Bry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 The Atari can do some very impressive things that the 64 cannot, but when it comes to practical abilities, the 64 wins. I feel the Atari was better as a computer system with better ease of use and expansion (TMR may disagree) Well the ease of use is i suspect a subjective thing (so no comment =-) and, as far as the expansion goes, it took a while for the larger C64 expansions to arrive so no real disagreement from over 'ere. Since the late 1980s the C64 has been heavily crankable but most of the people i knew at that point and indeed know now stick to a standard machine, an Action Replay 6 or Final Cartridge 3 in the back and a 1541 drive or two. but it loses to a newer system on gaming ability. Before the 64, however, nothing could touch it. [Nods] Yup, nothing close before the C64 and only the CPC+ can really out-perform either machine after. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 Second Reality 64 is good, but I've seen some of those effects done better in Atari demos (they've probably been done better in 64 demos too). I think if someone really wanted to tackle it, a good Second Reality could be done on the A8 (the music wouldn't be as good, since the PC version uses several SID-like instruments). -Bry The bad is, there will never be a comparable Demo on the A8. The only thing I can assure you is, POKEY can sound better than you ever would consider...The SID-Style itself is no problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 But everyone is highly amazed about the colorfull graphics and the soundquality....no one is asking about: DL DLI 4-channel Higher CPU speed 256 colors faster Disk-access etc. DL: in most cases you need it for simple screen splitting, and do you see the difference if it's done via raster interrupts or a display list? DLI: that's the same as the c64 raster interrupts. Higher CPU speed: it's not that much higher... less than 30% due to all the graphics dma and refresh cycles. on c64 the cpu runs at 1 mhz and the bus runs at 2 mhz so almost all graphic dma and all refresh cycles are "invisible" to the cpu. faster Disk-access: that's luckily a matter of software on c64, every demo has it's own fast loader. so that's no issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 fröhn... but you know that DL (or "mini copperlist") can be very handy for nice effects and splitscreens etc... if you are used to them you won't miss them... this was my 1st big thing i thought when touched in 1991 my 1040ste... and i thought... oh no... no display list... and on my 1200 i loved them... hve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 fröhn... but you know that DL (or "mini copperlist") can be very handy for nice effects and splitscreens etc... if you are used to them you won't miss them... yes i agree that it's very handy, same as WSYNC (which the c64 also doesn't have) but both have one in common: they're not essential. if you have them, nice. if you don't have them, do it in another way... but you CAN do the same things without DL and WSYNC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 Higher CPU speed: it's not that much higher... less than 30% due to all the graphics dma and refresh cycles. on c64 the cpu runs at 1 mhz and the bus runs at 2 mhz so almost all graphic dma and all refresh cycles are "invisible" to the cpu. Where did you get your Information? Everything on the original C64 is handled by 0,987MHz(pal). This includes CPU, VIC, SID, RAM, COLORRAM etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 Everything on the original C64 is handled by 0,987MHz(pal). This includes CPU, VIC, SID, RAM, COLORRAM etc... wrong, the bus runs at 1.97 mhz. every second cycle is always used for the VIC-II so most dma accesses run completely invisible to the cpu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 Everything on the original C64 is handled by 0,987MHz(pal). This includes CPU, VIC, SID, RAM, COLORRAM etc... wrong, the bus runs at 1.97 mhz. every second cycle is always used for the VIC-II so most dma accesses run completely invisible to the cpu. Once again...where did you get your information? a) The Clock-generator works at 0,987MHz... b) 40 bytes reading on colormem cost 40 cpu cycles.... so the bus speed must be exactly like the CPU speed... So please enlighten us .-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 Once again...where did you get your information?a) The Clock-generator works at 0,987MHz... the clock is at 17.734475 mhz and all other clocks needed in the c64 are generated from that. b) 40 bytes reading on colormem cost 40 cpu cycles.... so the bus speed must be exactly like the CPU speed...[ So please enlighten us .-) every graphic mode on the c64 (hires characters, multicolor characters, hires bitmap, multicolor bitmap) needs 9500 bytes of memory. 8000 bytes bitmap data, 1000 bytes color data or character offsets, 500 bytes color data. those 8000 bytes are fetched invisible to the cpu. the 500 bytes color data are also fetched invisible to the cpu... only the 1000 bytes color/charoffsets will cause 40 bytes being fetched every 8th rasterline. btw, fetching 40 bytes doesn't cost 40 cpu cycles... it costs 41-43 (depending on the opcode executed when the dma is started). Quote 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
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.