Atari XL/XE vs ZX Spectrum... And the winner is...

[Foebane]

As of right now I am actually 32, FYI.

 

For your information, Speccy owners, my very first computer was a ZX81. My parents were proud I was able to concoct a "wriggling spider" animation in next to no time.

 

Come on, in the 1980s, how many "my computer's better than yours" arguments were floating around between kids? At the time, I never got into that as I felt excluded from those main competitors in the market (having an A8) and I didn't have enough information on the competitor's specs to be able to form my own opinion.

 

BUT, I finally got into that childish habit when I was 16+. How?

 

I got an ST in 1989, but I then decided on the Amiga. About a year later, I meet someone who later becomes my best friend, except for the fact he goes on about my "crappy Amiga" all the time, when he has... an ST!

 

I eventually go round to his house, where I discover his vast collection of Speccy tapes (his previous machine).

 

All this is immaterial as by this time we have both gotten PCs, and this pointless arguing goes out the window.

 

But, years later, I finally get full information about the Speccy's... specs, and with emulation examples, I finally decide it's not a machine I would want. I guess I'd been spoiled by superior, if not cheaper, hardware. It's not my fault, it's what my parents got me.

 

BTW, my parents got me the A8 as they didn't want me playing games all the time. I was 11 at the time.

 

And so everything leads up to that beknighted thread I started on the WoS board that Malc74 pointed to.

 

I suppose my outburst was a last vestige of my wanting to be part of that "my computer's better than yours" moronic crowd...

 

...which I feel ashamed for and regret, having read all the posts until now.

[Gunstar]

The Apple II, C64 and Atari lines are rightly comparible becuase they all used the 6502 processor or variant and similiar co-processors to some degree, the speccy used a Z80 processor, so it like comparing a car to a motorcycle, they are both vehicles, but they are very different machines.

Uh? Compatible? No way! There is much more to "compability" than just the CPU.

897448[/snapback]

better learn to read english better; I sai COMPARABLE NOT COMPATIBLE!!!

[Osbo]

The Apple II, C64 and Atari lines are rightly comparible becuase they all used the 6502 processor or variant and similiar co-processors to some degree, the speccy used a Z80 processor, so it like comparing a car to a motorcycle, they are both vehicles, but they are very different machines.

Uh? Compatible? No way! There is much more to "compability" than just the CPU.

897448[/snapback]

better learn to read english better; I sai COMPARABLE NOT COMPATIBLE!!!

897676[/snapback]

 

excuse me... but u said 'comparible' sounds more like 'compatible' to me

[Gunstar]

It really is comparing apples to oranges here anyway; The Apple II, C64 and Atari lines are rightly comparible becuase they all used the 6502 processor or variant and similiar co-processors to some degree, the speccy used a Z80 processor, so it like comparing a car to a motorcycle, they are both vehicles, but they are very different machines.

Or, if you want, it's like comparing a Mercedes to a Yugo if you like. They were meant for different price ranges and markets, even if they both do get the job done, one is obviously a higher class, not to insult the spectrum, but it just shouldn't be compared to other 8-bits since they use completely different CPU's. Comparing Atari ST/TT/Falcons and Amiga 1000/2000/4000 and Macintosh models is also acceptable do to comparible classes, processors and features, but you generally don't compare any of them to a Silcon Graphics machine either (of the same time period) becuase it out-classes them. Might as well compare the Saturn, PS1, Jaguar and 3DO to the Gamecube, Xbox and PS2 and Dreamcast. Or the 2600/7800 to the SNES and Genesis. While it may have been an innocent attempt at conversation, they just aren't meant to be compared really (XL/XE and Spectrum).

897257[/snapback]

 

The Spectrum and Atari 8 bits are not a generation apart like that. The fact is, a lot of the best games of the 1980s appeared on the Spectrum. The Atari 8-bits influence in the UK was somewhere near nil. The Spectrum is the equal of any 8-bit machine be it computer, console or whatever in terms of great games, simply because there were so many. I haven't played the Atari 8 bits in depth yet, but I'd doubt that it would have a higher standard of top notch games than the Spectrum. That wouldn't be possible, would it?

897443[/snapback]

You COMPLETELY missed my point. It's got NOTHING to do with software or popularity in ANY way.

[deathtrappomegranate]

Come on, in the 1980s, how many "my computer's better than yours" arguments were floating around between kids?

 

Same answer as to "How many kids had computers?"

 

Really, all of these "X vs Atari" threads are pointless. All of this stuff has been discussed many times.

 

It doesn't matter which machine was, or is, "better". It doesn't matter. Really.

[Tickled_Pink]

Come on, in the 1980s, how many "my computer's better than yours" arguments were floating around between kids?

 

Same answer as to "How many kids had computers?"

 

Really, all of these "X vs Atari" threads are pointless. All of this stuff has been discussed many times.

 

It doesn't matter which machine was, or is, "better". It doesn't matter. Really.

897682[/snapback]

Today it doesn't. There is no competition (except perhaps the X-box v PS2 argument). The old machines are done and dusted so the argument is pointless except in a historical and, above all, objective context.

 

At the time though I remember getting into some ferocious arguments with a BBC Micro owner. I was always pretty easy to wind up ...

[Spector]

It really is comparing apples to oranges here anyway; The Apple II, C64 and Atari lines are rightly comparible becuase they all used the 6502 processor or variant and similiar co-processors to some degree, the speccy used a Z80 processor, so it like comparing a car to a motorcycle, they are both vehicles, but they are very different machines.

Or, if you want, it's like comparing a Mercedes to a Yugo if you like. They were meant for different price ranges and markets, even if they both do get the job done, one is obviously a higher class, not to insult the spectrum, but it just shouldn't be compared to other 8-bits since they use completely different CPU's. Comparing Atari ST/TT/Falcons and Amiga 1000/2000/4000 and Macintosh models is also acceptable do to comparible classes, processors and features, but you generally don't compare any of them to a Silcon Graphics machine either (of the same time period) becuase it out-classes them. Might as well compare the Saturn, PS1, Jaguar and 3DO to the Gamecube, Xbox and PS2 and Dreamcast. Or the 2600/7800 to the SNES and Genesis. While it may have been an innocent attempt at conversation, they just aren't meant to be compared really (XL/XE and Spectrum).

897257[/snapback]

 

The Spectrum and Atari 8 bits are not a generation apart like that. The fact is, a lot of the best games of the 1980s appeared on the Spectrum. The Atari 8-bits influence in the UK was somewhere near nil. The Spectrum is the equal of any 8-bit machine be it computer, console or whatever in terms of great games, simply because there were so many. I haven't played the Atari 8 bits in depth yet, but I'd doubt that it would have a higher standard of top notch games than the Spectrum. That wouldn't be possible, would it?

897443[/snapback]

You COMPLETELY missed my point. It's got NOTHING to do with software or popularity in ANY way.

897679[/snapback]

 

Well, you are saying that it's like comparing an Atari 2600 to a SNES or Genesis. That means that you do not know what you are talking about, simple as that.

[Spector]

It really is comparing apples to oranges here anyway; The Apple II, C64 and Atari lines are rightly comparible becuase they all used the 6502 processor or variant and similiar co-processors to some degree, the speccy used a Z80 processor, so it like comparing a car to a motorcycle, they are both vehicles, but they are very different machines.

Or, if you want, it's like comparing a Mercedes to a Yugo if you like. They were meant for different price ranges and markets, even if they both do get the job done, one is obviously a higher class, not to insult the spectrum, but it just shouldn't be compared to other 8-bits since they use completely different CPU's. Comparing Atari ST/TT/Falcons and Amiga 1000/2000/4000 and Macintosh models is also acceptable do to comparible classes, processors and features, but you generally don't compare any of them to a Silcon Graphics machine either (of the same time period) becuase it out-classes them. Might as well compare the Saturn, PS1, Jaguar and 3DO to the Gamecube, Xbox and PS2 and Dreamcast. Or the 2600/7800 to the SNES and Genesis. While it may have been an innocent attempt at conversation, they just aren't meant to be compared really (XL/XE and Spectrum).

897257[/snapback]

 

The Spectrum and Atari 8 bits are not a generation apart like that. The fact is, a lot of the best games of the 1980s appeared on the Spectrum. The Atari 8-bits influence in the UK was somewhere near nil. The Spectrum is the equal of any 8-bit machine be it computer, console or whatever in terms of great games, simply because there were so many. I haven't played the Atari 8 bits in depth yet, but I'd doubt that it would have a higher standard of top notch games than the Spectrum. That wouldn't be possible, would it?

897443[/snapback]

You COMPLETELY missed my point. It's got NOTHING to do with software or popularity in ANY way.

897679[/snapback]

 

Double post.

Edited July 25, 2005 by Spector

[MosDN]

This is interesting. Atari vs. Spectrum....

 

A pall of mine had a 130XE in the eighties and I had a Spectrum 48k.

 

He used to come to my place to play Spectrum games, I used to go to his place to play Atari games.

 

The difference was that I had several hundred Spectrum games (mostly illegal) and he had only a few Atari games (also mostly illegal).

 

Atari games used to be expensive, Spectrum games cheap.

For every Atari game you could buy at least 20 Spectrum games.

 

No, the real "contest" was C64 vs. Spectrum in those days.

 

This was the situation in the netherlands in the eighties.

[Fröhn]

Atari games used to be expensive, Spectrum games cheap.

For every Atari game you could buy at least 20 Spectrum games.

Huh? The cheap games from Mastertronic, Firebird, Codemasters etc etc were available for all platforms for the same price.

[emkay]

This is interesting. Atari vs. Spectrum....

 

A pall of mine had a 130XE in the eighties and I had a Spectrum 48k.

 

He used to come to my place to play Spectrum games, I used to go to his place to play Atari games.

 

The difference was that I had several hundred Spectrum games (mostly illegal) and he had only a few Atari games (also mostly illegal).

 

Atari games used to be expensive, Spectrum games cheap.

For every Atari game you could buy at least 20 Spectrum games.

 

No, the real "contest" was C64 vs. Spectrum in those days.

 

This was the situation in the netherlands in the eighties.

899088[/snapback]

 

 

 

If I remember correctly, the only successful machine here was the C64.

Everyone had it, everyone had (at least) 400 illegal copies & everyone tought his friend to have a C64(C128) aswell.

That's why I had a C128 for 14 days at home. I played several games, that were not available for the A8 (Test Drive, Sanxion etc.) , but I never got "warm" with the Commodore and gave it back.

But, that's another story.

In the mean time, when 8-bits were "ruling", It was possible to buy the huge ( )amount of "2" games for the A8... no, it were 3

-Ballblazer

-Masters of Time

-International Karate

IK came double sided... One side for XL, one side for C64.

 

The, more than 200, Cassettes I have, are all bought via shipping.

 

Since '85 I remember that Schneider (Amstrad) Games were available in almost every store.... besides C64 Games.

Spectrum nearly didn't exist.

Edited July 26, 2005 by emkay

[MosDN]

If I remember correctly, the only successful machine here was the C64.(....)Spectrum nearly didn't exist.

 

The situation in Holland was a bit different. There was a large Spectrum userbase

(read copynetwork ) next to a huge C64 userbase.

 

A lot of my friends had Speccys, but more friends had C64s (and one friend had an Atari)

Even the MSX was bigger

[deathtrappomegranate]

I had a Spectrum myself.

 

I couldn't afford an A8. I knew that the A8 was a better machine. I had hundreds of Spectrum programs, and loads of extra hardware, but I would have traded it all for an Atari 800 and a few carts.

 

I had friends with BBC computers. In many respects, they were also better than the Spectrum. As were the C64, the Camputers Lynx, the Enterprise 64/128, the Oric (to some extent), some MSX machines (I would have liked a Yamaha CX5M), and others.

 

The Spectrum was a dog to program, and had many limitations. Many good things were done with it, largely because of the huge UK userbase. I still wanted an A8.

 

I bought a Spectrum because that was the best machine that I could afford.

 

It really does not matter a jot whether one machine was "better" than another. If we can now make progress with these old machines, then let's do so. Futile arguments about our own favourites are irrelevant, and probably impede progress.

 

There are many good ideas circulating here about how to push the A8 further. Endless comparisons with other systems are useless, unless they make some kind of constructive input into the process. Unfortunately, they tend not to.

[ZylonBane]

Looking at the Spectrum's specifications, it seems like the audio/visual hardware is roughly around the level of an EGA PC with just the built-in speaker for sound. A fair enough comparison?

[MosDN]

Looking at the Spectrum's specifications, it seems like the audio/visual hardware is roughly around the level of an EGA PC with just the built-in speaker for sound. A fair enough comparison?

899234[/snapback]

 

Yes, sound was a bit of a joke on the Spectrum 48k. Later models had a real soundchip onboard and sound through external speakers.

[AussieAtari]

At the time of release in Australia, the Spectrum was cheaper, an alternative to the Commodore juggernaut and we had a lot of locally developed (the great Melbourne House) software and magazines from the UK to support it and it seemed to promote home programming fun by it's design. Whereas the C64 was like the PC of today - buy a program and load it. The BASIC was unique and buyers did not seem to purchase a C64 for home programming (I used to sell all of the home computers in the early '80's so am talking from experience).

 

The Atari computers were all available here but a bit too expensive and did not enjoy the software range and user support of the other two popular machines (the TI99/4A and TRS-80 sold better, especially the latter, plus Apple had a very big presence).

 

As for now, I enjoy both units just as much, the Spectrum for the "British" games (Dizzy, Skool Daze, head Over Heels etc) and the Atari which I like to play around with connecting it to my home network and mucking around with it's peripherals.

 

They are all different and all great, and judging from this forum, stir up a bit of emotion in us all .

Edited May 15, 2006 by AussieAtari

[ZylonBane]

Wow dude, that was TOTALLY worth digging up a year-old (and very stupid) thread.

[highendsystems]

Comparing systems this way is something you'd expect from small children (my father has better specs than yours...)

 

 

I agree, this was something I did back in the mid 80's. I was once allowed to

demonstrate my 800XL at a Commodore users group. They scoffed and

laughed at my Atari "toy" until I booted up Alternate Reality City, then they

got BA's 'bad attitudes' and basically ran me out. The Apple IIe didn't compare

as a gamer because of PC-speaker bleeps, and could only display 4 colours at

one time if the monitor allowed (many were amber monochrome). One 8-bit

that rarely gets mentioned on the forums are the Tandy CoCo's. The child which

still lurks deep inside me even at 34, has the urge to say "see there, my Atari

kicks your Commodes ass!" hehe....peace brothers and sisters!

[Gury]

Comparing systems this way is something you'd expect from small children (my father has better specs than yours...)

 

I agree, this was something I did back in the mid 80's. I was once allowed to

demonstrate my 800XL at a Commodore users group. They scoffed and

laughed at my Atari "toy" until I booted up Alternate Reality City, then they

got BA's 'bad attitudes' and basically ran me out. The Apple IIe didn't compare

as a gamer because of PC-speaker bleeps, and could only display 4 colours at

one time if the monitor allowed (many were amber monochrome). One 8-bit

that rarely gets mentioned on the forums are the Tandy CoCo's. The child which

still lurks deep inside me even at 34, has the urge to say "see there, my Atari

kicks your Commodes ass!" hehe....peace brothers and sisters!

If I have to choose, I choose Atari There are many vs vs threads arounds, which are pointless, because people there wants to make their computers superior, but they are far from that. I like my Atari, with good balanced hardware features. Retro/classic games are forever!!! Not counting hours I spent for this classy computer to type in magazine listings and playing games.

[MEtalGuy66]

Heh. I had one of those timex 2048 machines.. It was neat.. Keyboard sucked though. I think I donated it to "good will" or the "salvation army" back in like 84 when I got my 800xl.

[Fröhn]

Looking at the Spectrum's specifications, it seems like the audio/visual hardware is roughly around the level of an EGA PC with just the built-in speaker for sound. A fair enough comparison?

No, the Spectrum graphics does not even come close to EGA. EGA has a resolution up to 640x350 and 16 colors (from a palette of 64) at the same time. The Spectrum graphics is 256x192 and is basically only a 2 color screen, which is enhanced by having the ability to choose two colors per 8x8 pixel block. But ofcourse even those two colors per 8x8 block cannot be selected without restrictions: both colors have to be of the same brightness, that's why Spectrum graphics always contrast to black (light black = dark black).

[Rybags]

I think EGA was a typo, he meant CGA.

[thomasholzer]

To know which computer is 'better than yours' you have to own both (in whichever argument this might be(--C-64 vs XL or Speccy vs XL--), use them for at least one year, try out and compare all hardware/software available on both systems, and only after that you can have a clear picture and an argument for an honest opinion.

 

For example: I am an XL/FDD and C-64/FDD user since 1986, I know for a fact which computer is better, but I am not telling....

 

---------------------------

Anyway, the Speccy was a 'British' computer, mostly unknown outside it's homeland, which is comparable to the Apple ][, which was a 'real' USA only computer (not very popular outside USA).

Nevertheless, the Spectrum software range is about 10.000 (Yes, I know WoS boasts about 15.000, but they are cheating), and the Apple ][ had about 16.000 titles in 1985 already (source EG May 85, see below), so both are successful in their own right.

The XL has the biggest cartridge range of any 8-bit home Computer (500+), and the C-64 is somewhere in the middle of all this.

 

All of the above had something good going for them, the Spectrum introduced us to many (now) famous UK programmers, as did the C-64. Of course, as we all know that the C-64 is also the best selling 8-bit computer of all time (source; Guinness Book of Records). The Atari was the most famous, due to the name, and the Apple ][ was a real USA rags to riches story (source: Triumph of the Nerds video).

 

Edited June 9, 2006 by thomasholzer

[Allas]

I have C64/FDD and 800XL/FDD since 1983, and have more than 1000 titles in Disks for every system. That is a fact, that best capabilities of both machines are getting by the demos, really i dont see any demo in real machine until last year.

 

In other way, to say what system is better, is relative. If you are musician you'll get impresive by a computer with better musical capatibilities, y you are a GFX artist, the you'll get more impresive for colors and nice combinations, if you are a electronic man maybe you'll get more impresive for the OS and extend captibilities of the system.

 

I know what system is better, but isn't necesary to say it.

[gorf68]

These arguments have and always will be pointless and silly.

 

It all comes down to what machine you personaly like the best, that's what makes it 'better'.

 

I don't care what anybody says, my VIC-20 is still the bestest computer in the history of ever!!!