atari 8bit and commodore 8 bit

[carmel_andrews]

I notice that on the various atari 8bit w/s's, that people alway's seem to be making comparisons between the commodore and atari 8bit systems

 

Well I'm about to bring this discussion hopefully to a stop period (as the americans say)

 

I say this because in recent months I have been in communication with one of the principles/owners of one of the better known Atari general w/s's

 

I asked them, that since the vic 20 was released after the atari 800/400 was released, and that until the release of the atari 8bit, commodore had nothing technologically to out technology atari

 

Anyway, they responded by saying that they knew one of the chief cbm engineers working on the vic/c64 hardware, i think they said the engineers name was bob yannes (don't ask me how to pronounce the family name)

 

And furthermore, to bring cbm, technology wise into line with the atari 8bit, they basically reverse engineered everything, or to use the cbm engineers wording 'basically tore into the a8's hardware' (joystick interface, custom hardware chips etc,etc) the only thing they didn't reverse engineer the 6510, as commodore already owned the company that originated the 6510 (which is basically a crippled 6502)

 

So next time, some snotty cbm 8'er compares his system with the atari 8bit, you can tell them why it's similar

[sack-c0s]

well most of the C64/Atari 8-bit dialogue that has been going on here has been borring ideas and styles from each machine and trying it out on the other to up the stakes on both sides, so ironically this is the first platform-snobbery post I've seen in a long time.

 

The 64 has its strengths as does the A8. they're both interesting machines so live with it

[Tickled_Pink]

The problem for the A8 in its 'heyday' was the pricing of the C64 and what seems to have been a more vigorous advertising campaign. The Atari failed quite badly in the UK due to the available (or the lack of) quality software. There was a some stuff coming out of the budget houses but it was mostly crap and on tape (I was lucky enough to be given a 1050 with the XL and 1010 for Christmas in '85).

 

The C64 had an abundance of software and that's what killed off the Atari as a viable platform. It's strange when you think of it, though. The Atari is a beauty to program and there is no doubt that Atari, even through the Tramiel era when the ST was launched, knew how to build an OS. I don't think I'd have learned anywhere near as much about programming if I'd gone for the C64 and Amiga - those machines would probably have put me off (saw the Amiga Kernel some years ago ... what a nightmare).

 

But hardware wise there is little difference in overall spec between the A8 and C64. While the A8 is a little more advanced graphically and is slightly faster, the C64 has the infamous SID chip (although Pokey is no slouch either). I felt that the C64 looked and felt even cheaper than the XL as well.

 

So apart from that, was there any other reason for me to choose the XL over the C64?

 

Jeez ... the C64 was just so goddamn ugly!

[Fröhn]

...  6510 ... (which is basically a crippled 6502)

??? why is the 6510 crippled ??? it has a 6502 core.

 

The C64 had an abundance of software and that's what killed off the Atari as a viable platform. It's strange when you think of it, though.

uhm in case you didn't know: when the c64 started it didn't have any software too. what killed the A8 was the success of the C64. a bit like ebay: the majority of people focusses on one platform and forgets about others. what made the c64 a success was more or less a lucky combination between people getting attention to home computers and the c64 being better suited to nice 80s sprite based games.

 

While the A8 is a little more advanced graphically and is slightly faster, the C64 has the infamous SID chip

not exactly. also the graphical capabilities of the c64 were more advanced except for only 16 colors.

 

Jeez ... the C64 was just so goddamn ugly!

?

[sack-c0s]

...  6510 ... (which is basically a crippled 6502)

??? why is the 6510 crippled ??? it has a 6502 core.

 

same instruction set as the one in the A8, it just has some memory handling hardware for banking a couple of bits of ROM/RAM in and out, so technically it does more

[Atari Smeghead]

I think you're missing out on the more important comment here...

 

Well I'm about to bring this discussion hopefully to a stop period (as the americans say)

 

Do we say that? I don't say that. Did I miss a meeting where we decided to say that?

 

Smeg

[Markimus of K.]

I think you're missing out on the more important comment here...

 

Well I'm about to bring this discussion hopefully to a stop period (as the americans say)

 

Do we say that? I don't say that. Did I miss a meeting where we decided to say that?

 

Smeg

 

Yeah, I caught that right away too. How do you "end" a discussion by starting a new thread?

 

But maybe that's just me....

[TMR]

Do we say that?  I don't say that.  Did I miss a meeting where we decided to say that?

 

Yes you did, it was originally block-voted by your union but a designated representative should have made you aware of "your" decision by now. Please start saying it as soon as possible, otherwise all the English people who have to live up to the cliche of drinking tea all the time are going to get really narked off - you ever tried downing seven cups a day?! =-)

[emkay]

...  6510 ... (which is basically a crippled 6502)

??? why is the 6510 crippled ??? it has a 6502 core.

 

 

The 6510 is nothing else than the 6502-Sally... in principle.

While the A8 is a little more advanced graphically and is slightly faster, the C64 has the infamous SID chip

not exactly. also the graphical capabilities of the c64 were more advanced except for only 16 colors.

 

Actually... the C64 had/has its advantages in the color resolution, but...

 

If 3D Graphics were recommended as they are recommended today, the C64 would have seen no light, because programmers would have tried to do 3D Games in low res. charmode on the A8.

Using gr. 7 did speedup Rescue on Fractalus to more than the double speed of the C64 version. Using Charmode would give "textures" to the Screen and another quadruple speedup in Graphics.... a.s.o.

 

Yes... I know... "IF, when ...."

[Curt Vendel]

I notice that on the various atari 8bit w/s's, that people alway's seem to be making comparisons between the commodore and atari 8bit systems

 

Well I'm about to bring this discussion hopefully to a stop period (as the americans say)

 

I say this because in recent months I have been in communication with one of the principles/owners of one of the better known Atari general w/s's

 

I asked them, that since the vic 20 was released after the atari 800/400 was released, and that until the release of the atari 8bit, commodore had nothing technologically to out technology atari

 

Anyway, they responded by saying that they knew one of the chief cbm engineers working on the vic/c64 hardware, i think they said the engineers name was bob yannes (don't ask me how to pronounce the family name)

 

And furthermore, to bring cbm, technology wise into line with the atari 8bit, they basically reverse engineered everything, or to use the cbm engineers wording 'basically tore into the a8's hardware' (joystick interface, custom hardware chips etc,etc) the only thing they didn't reverse engineer the 6510, as commodore already owned the company that originated the 6510 (which is basically a crippled 6502)

 

So next time, some snotty cbm 8'er compares his system with the atari 8bit, you can tell them why it's similar

 

Carmel...

 

You are correct, I meet with Bob Yannes several years back (he was one of the engineers who designed the VIC 20/C64 chipset - he created the SID) and during an afternoon of conversation he basically told me that they took the 800 and heavily examine it and basically copied the design.

 

 

 

Curt

[Fröhn]

If 3D Graphics were recommended as they are recommended today, the C64 would have seen no light, because programmers would have tried to do 3D Games in low res. charmode on the A8.

Using gr. 7 did speedup Rescue on Fractalus to more than the double speed of the C64 version. Using Charmode would give "textures" to the Screen and another quadruple speedup in Graphics.... a.s.o.

i bet that rescue on fractalus was faster on A8 mainly because the cpu has almost twice the clock speed there. especially due to the fill method used in fractalus the bitmap layout is almost irrelevant.

[Fröhn]

You are correct, I meet with Bob Yannes several years back (he was one of the engineers who designed the VIC 20/C64 chipset - he created the SID) and during an afternoon of conversation he basically told me that they took the 800 and heavily examine it and basically copied the design.

yes, some things are very similar. the charmode, the softscrolling, the graphic modes and some other things. but the c64 is no exact copy. they left out features and added others. for example, they made the display very unflexible on c64. you have 40x25 charmode and same size bitmap modes. this is sometimes a disadvantage but ofcourse this was done to gain something: the way better sprites. the border of the c64 is basically the price to be paid for them.

[Tickled_Pink]

when the c64 started it didn't have any software too. what killed the A8 was the success of the C64. a bit like ebay: the majority of people focusses on one platform and forgets about others. what made the c64 a success was more or less a lucky combination between people getting attention to home computers and the c64 being better suited to nice 80s sprite based games.

 

The UK market was probably the best place to witness market forces at work at that time. The ZX81 and Sinclair Spectrum sold in bucketloads primarily on price (although the original Speccy was a cute and surprisingly capable little machine - only a single custom logic chip. Rest were off the shelf parts) whereas nobody could afford the US machines at the time, such as the 400, 800 and Apple. So when Commodore brought out a machine that was at least equal to Atari's and Apple's machines, and released it at a much cheaper price than their rivals, software or no software, who was going to win?

 

Of course, after capturing those who may otherwise have bought an Atari or Apple following the initial launch, software houses began to develop more and more software for the likes of the Spectrum and C64 and the Atari and Apple machines were largely forgotten outside the US ... when Atari did bring out the cheaper XL machines, Commodore and Sinclair had already run away with the UK market and there were many more quality titles available for those two machines than Atari.

 

Wouldn't surprise me if a similar thing happened in the US.

[emkay]

i bet that rescue on fractalus was faster on A8 mainly because the cpu has almost twice the clock speed there. especially due to the fill method used in fractalus the bitmap layout is almost irrelevant.

 

Just don't forget, that especially in those double lined modes, on the Atari, every second line is drawn out of the graphics-chip-memory.

The C64 has to draw all pixel by software.

[Fröhn]

So when Commodore brought out a machine that was at least equal to Atari's and Apple's machines, and released it at a much cheaper price than their rivals, software or no software, who was going to win?

speccy because it was the cheapest at the time.

 

anyway, i'm not sure if the c64 really was cheaper than an atari machine when it came out. it cost quite a fortune, especially with disk drive. the c64 cost quite a fortune then. example: in the middle of 1984 a c64 + disk drive still is sold at 1400 DM, and that's already 1 and a half year after the c64 release.

 

but the c64 really "took off" in the years 1986-1988. that's when the market exploded and an unbelievable amount of games was produced + many people bought the machine because everybody had it and lot's of games to copy. the price of a c64 without drive was still at 550 DM then while you could buy atari 800 xl for 190 DM. it was NOT the price which brought success to the c64.

[Goochman]

When the c64 came out it was considerably cheaper than the 800 which was available at the time.

 

The 1200XL debacle came next and was still priced more than the C64 - It was only when the 800XL came out that the units were similarly priced (timetables in Europe are prob different than in the states)

 

One thing Id like to clear up - I heard a long time ago that Commodore forced development shops to sign agreements that made them produce games for the C64 in order to get the development system/support. That is one of the reasons almost every game had a C64 port and software was produced for a long time. Fact or Fiction?

[Fröhn]

One thing Id like to clear up - I heard a long time ago that Commodore forced development shops to sign agreements that made them produce games for the C64 in order to get the development system/support.  That is one of the reasons almost every game had a C64 port and software was produced for a long time.  Fact or Fiction?

commodore did a few games themselves on cartridge, just like atari. the games were usually poor quality and they only did very few of them. i have never heard of them contracting other companies.

[TMR]

One thing Id like to clear up - I heard a long time ago that Commodore forced development shops to sign agreements that made them produce games for the C64 in order to get the development system/support.  That is one of the reasons almost every game had a C64 port and software was produced for a long time.  Fact or Fiction?

 

Fiction to my knowledge, there's no special development system for the C64 since the PET and VIC tools could be and were modified over with fairly little effort.

[Dr. Van Thorp]

One thing Id like to clear up - I heard a long time ago that Commodore forced development shops to sign agreements that made them produce games for the C64 in order to get the development system/support.  That is one of the reasons almost every game had a C64 port and software was produced for a long time.  Fact or Fiction?

 

I don't even understand the premis of this claim. What was it that these shops were developing that would justify doing an extra project for the C-64? Were they PET developers? To sell a thousand PET programms, they were forced by Commodore to sell a hundred thousand Commodore 64 programs?

 

And why were these developers so dependent on Commodore?

[Goochman]

The theory was in order to be a licensed developer shop (suppor or whatever that gets you) you had to commit to developing titles for X amount of years and anything developed for other platforms would be released for the C64 (maybe things on Apple/Atari). Nothing to do with Pet development.

 

Anyhow,

Seems like no one heard of this arrangement so Ill file it under fiction.

[Tickled_Pink]

It would be surprising, considering that the old systems were pretty open and there were a host of third-party tools - at least later. If such agreements were introduced by Commodore (or even Atari), they would have been fairly quickly deemed to be unecessary by developers as soon as these third party tools and documents became available.

[Dr. Van Thorp]

The theory was in order to be a licensed developer shop (suppor or whatever that gets you) you had to commit to developing titles for X amount of years and anything developed for other platforms would be released for the C64 (maybe things on Apple/Atari).  Nothing to do with Pet development.

 

Anyhow,

Seems like no one heard of this arrangement so Ill file it under fiction.

 

I can't see how Commodore could have had any control whatsoever over people that were developing products for the Apple or Atari. This has to be some sort of urban myth created by someone that didn't know much about how business works.

[Goochman]

The theory was in order to be a licensed developer shop (suppor or whatever that gets you) you had to commit to developing titles for X amount of years and anything developed for other platforms would be released for the C64 (maybe things on Apple/Atari).  Nothing to do with Pet development.

 

Anyhow,

Seems like no one heard of this arrangement so Ill file it under fiction.

 

I can't see how Commodore could have had any control whatsoever over people that were developing products for the Apple or Atari. This has to be some sort of urban myth created by someone that didn't know much about how business works.

 

Well I wouldnt say Nintendo and Sony havent used their powers to prevent games showing up on other consoles. Ever heard of Phear for the Jaguar?

[Jeff Lodoen]

I heard Commodore worked closely with Electronic Arts so the Amiga would have software on arrival... Positive action not restraint.

 

Atari tried to thwart third-party development for the 400/800, by offering no technical docs. Try to find a non-Atari prog before 1981. Even those were crappy using Applish techniques. Then John Harris broke the "code"...

[Artlover]

The thing to remember is back in the early days, there was no such thing as licensing 3rd party companies. That didn't become all the rave till what, the mid 80's?