TI-99/4a

[AussieAtari]

I've had my TI since new and it is pretty much bullet proof and gets duted off every once in a while for a bout of Parsec and Munch Man. I still use the original joysticks which are a pain, so I might add to my TI playing pleasure by seeking out an adaptor and use my Wico sticks.

 

Keying programs in to the undersized keyboard is a pain but the carts are foolproof and the use of additinal memory wihtin the actual carts made for some great quality games for the system.

 

Wasn't the biggest claim to faim for the TI, hardware-wise, that it was the first home computer with a 16-bit processor and used technology from the space program?

[JB]

 

Wasn't the biggest claim to faim for the TI, hardware-wise, that it was the first home computer with a 16-bit processor and used technology from the space program?

I know the "first 16-bit computer" claim featured prominently.

But so did "Bill Cosby likes it."

[AussieAtari]

Ah yes, I have a reasonable collection of the catalogues and brochures for the TI that feature Bill and those tremendous '80s fashions.

Edited July 6, 2006 by AussieAtari

[MacbthPSW]

The video and sound chips in the Adam and Colecovision were very similar to the 99/4a, and I believe the sound chip (or a close relative) ended up in the PCjr and Tandy 1000. With a less quirky processor and a freer attitude towards third-party publishers, it would have really given the C-64 a run for the money. The decade could have turned out very differently.

While I have a 99/4a, and appreciate it, I really can't see how it can compare favourably to the C-64's video and sound capabilities. Any particular specs you're thinking of?

 

Seems to me the TI would have needed a lot more to give the C-64 some competition - in addition to the processor and third-party policies, a significantly cheaper price (both for the computer, and the peripherals) and/or video hardware better suited to the coming trends in gaming (NES-style platformers, etc.) that the C-64 was able to handle fairly well.

[Dave Farquhar]

While I have a 99/4a, and appreciate it, I really can't see how it can compare favourably to the C-64's video and sound capabilities. Any particular specs you're thinking of?

 

Seems to me the TI would have needed a lot more to give the C-64 some competition - in addition to the processor and third-party policies, a significantly cheaper price (both for the computer, and the peripherals) and/or video hardware better suited to the coming trends in gaming (NES-style platformers, etc.) that the C-64 was able to handle fairly well.

 

Sure... The 256x192 graphics is a limitation (the 64 was 320x200) but it had 32 sprites, to the 64's 8. The 64 had limitations that were overcome with programming later in the machine's life; presumably the 99 would have had a similar fate. The sound wasn't as good as the 64's SID chip, but you had SID at the top, then you had the TI and the sound chip from the Atari 800 line, and from there, sound capabilities really fell off the cliff.

 

The lower price would have been necessary, yes, but if the TI's price had been in line with the 64 *and* the two machines had software libraries comparable in size, things would have gotten interesting. TI would have had to refresh it with more memory to stay competitive, but TI and Commodore were the only vertically-integrated manufacturers, so they were the two most evenly matched companies.

 

TI probably still wouldn't have won, but I wonder what would have happened if Commodore had had a true nemesis.

 

And I mean no disrespect to the 64 whatsoever... I was a huge Commodore fan, up to the bitter end. I remember selling PCs at retail in 1994, and when customers would point at the shelves and ask me which one I had, I'd say, "Something you can't buy anymore," referring to my Amiga. Yeah, I was bitter.

[supercat]

Sure... The 256x192 graphics is a limitation (the 64 was 320x200) but it had 32 sprites, to the 64's 8. The 64 had limitations that were overcome with programming later in the machine's life; presumably the 99 would have had a similar fate.

 

I believe the TI was limited to four sprites per scan line; the C64 could do eight. Showing more than eight sprites on screen took some extra code, but it wasn't all that hard. The TI had hardware to take care of sprite switching, instead of relying upon software to do it, but I'd still award the 64 as having superior sprite handling.

 

Really, the only advantage I can see to the TI's graphics is that its dot clock is further away from the chroma rate than that of the C64; it consequently has fewer chroma artifacts; also, the NTSC video of even early TIs was pretty good, while the NTSC color generation of early C64's wasn't. I'm actually surprised I haven't noticed an option in VICE to select among the three types of VIC-II chips I've seen, since the differences do affect code.

[Bill Brasky]

 

Sure... The 256x192 graphics is a limitation (the 64 was 320x200) but it had 32 sprites, to the 64's 8. The 64 had limitations that were overcome with programming later in the machine's life; presumably the 99 would have had a similar fate. The sound wasn't as good as the 64's SID chip, but you had SID at the top, then you had the TI and the sound chip from the Atari 800 line, and from there, sound capabilities really fell off the cliff.

 

Are there any c-64 games that use the 320x200 resolution? I've played A LOT of c-64 games and they sure don't look higher res than any CV/Adam/MSX games. They look more like Atari 5200 resolution. I don't think the SID sound chip sounds all that good. Every game has that very bloopy sameness to it. I cringe in pain when I load up a c64 game and hear another one of those Euro-disco sounding bloop-bloop-bleep-bloop tunes at the "cracked by" screen.

[supercat]

Are there any c-64 games that use the 320x200 resolution? I've played A LOT of c-64 games and they sure don't look higher res than any CV/Adam/MSX games. They look more like Atari 5200 resolution. I don't think the SID sound chip sounds all that good. Every game has that very bloopy sameness to it. I cringe in pain when I load up a c64 game and hear another one of those Euro-disco sounding bloop-bloop-bleep-bloop tunes at the "cracked by" screen.

 

The C64 could display single-color objects at 320x200 mode, or multi-color objects in 160x200 mode. The Commodore allowed those modes to be mixed, even on a scan line, to a much greater extent than any other platform I know of. Each sprite could be individually switched between hires and multicolor mode, and in the text modes it was possible to switch between hires and multicolor mode on a per-character basis (unfortunately, turning turning on this ability forfeited eight character colors).

 

As for sound, the C64 only had three voices, compared with the Atari's four or the TI's three plus noise, but in all other regards the sound was superior to those other systems. The C64 is probably the only mainstream computer to feature a programmable analog filter on its sound output. This allows for many effects that can't be done on other platforms, though accurate emulation is tricky. BTW, filter characteristics varied somewhat over the years the C64 and C128 were produced; a few games like Dragonriders of Pern sound very nice on some machines and a bit "squelched" on others.

[MacbthPSW]

Sure... The 256x192 graphics is a limitation (the 64 was 320x200) but it had 32 sprites, to the 64's 8.

I guess I should be trying to find out more specifics about the TI sprites. As pointed out in this thread, the C64's sprites can be reused, so the limit is really 8 per horizontal area, and then the CPU power to y-sort the sprites and change the registers at 50/60hz. It was very common for 16-32 sprites to be onscreen at once. This re-use wasn't just a neat hack made late in the C64's life, it was even mentioned in the C64 Programmer's Reference Guide, written in 1982 (page 151).

 

The 64 had limitations that were overcome with programming later in the machine's life; presumably the 99 would have had a similar fate.

While some neat C64 tricks were discovered in the late 80's and early 90's, they were of almost no use in games. Mayhem in Monsterland (released in 1993) was one of the only games that used such tricks. Sure, some slight refinements were made throughout the 80s, but within the first two years of the C64's life games were already making good use of all of it's strengths - smooth scrolling, reusing sprites, many simultaneous colours...

 

If the TI graphic chip really is similar to what the ColecoVision has, then it must suffer from the same problem - slow, chunky scrolling that no amount of clever code can really solve. How about those 32 sprites? Are they as large as the C-64's (24x21)? As flexible colour-wise?

 

TI would have had to refresh it with more memory to stay competitive, but TI and Commodore were the only vertically-integrated manufacturers, so they were the two most evenly matched companies.

Very good point.

 

And I mean no disrespect to the 64 whatsoever... I was a huge Commodore fan, up to the bitter end. I remember selling PCs at retail in 1994, and when customers would point at the shelves and ask me which one I had, I'd say, "Something you can't buy anymore," referring to my Amiga. Yeah, I was bitter.

The store I was selling Amigas and DOS/Windows PCs at went out of business a year before Commodore did, so I didn't have that experience, but I can still sympathize

[MacbthPSW]

I'm actually surprised I haven't noticed an option in VICE to select among the three types of VIC-II chips I've seen, since the differences do affect code.

Options->Video Standards gives the choice of PAL, NTSC, and old NTSC, which should cover any code timing differences (63, 65 and 64 cycles per line and 312, 263 and 262 lines per frame respectively).

 

I don't think the SID sound chip sounds all that good. Every game has that very bloopy sameness to it. I cringe in pain when I load up a c64 game and hear another one of those Euro-disco sounding bloop-bloop-bleep-bloop tunes at the "cracked by" screen.

The SID is capable of making a wide range of sounds, though there's certainly a large amount of SID music that sounded "the same". Can you name a pre-1985 computer or console that sounds better or different?

 

Maybe check out a few of these C64 games and see if they help you change your mind about the music: Tetris, Delta, IK+, Monty on the Run, Master of Magic, Skate or Die (Title Music), Sanxion (Title), Wizball (Game Over and High Score tunes), any of the Last Ninja series... that's enough for now

 

And to get back on topic, I should set up my TI again and have some fun with it.

[supercat]

I'm actually surprised I haven't noticed an option in VICE to select among the three types of VIC-II chips I've seen, since the differences do affect code.

Options->Video Standards gives the choice of PAL, NTSC, and old NTSC, which should cover any code timing differences (63, 65 and 64 cycles per line and 312, 263 and 262 lines per frame respectively).

 

There were three NTSC variations I've actually owned. My original C64 was 64x262. I replaced the video chip because the old one had a couple of damaged sprites, and the new chip was 65x262. Then my Commodore 128 was 65x263. One could tell the video rate by looking at a solid color on the screen. The old C64 would show vertical stripes. The replacement video chip would show a stationary checkerboard. The C128 would show a flashing checkerboard.

 

I wonder why Commodore didn't start using an odd line length until the later video chips? It really improved the color appearance quite considerably.

[MacbthPSW]

There were three NTSC variations I've actually owned. My original C64 was 64x262. I replaced the video chip because the old one had a couple of damaged sprites, and the new chip was 65x262.

Interesting, I've never heard of 65x262. Any guess what the VIC revision number would be? Weird that I've never heard mention of this before. I wonder if I have one in my collection of 64s...

 

I wonder why Commodore didn't start using an odd line length until the later video chips? It really improved the color appearance quite considerably.

Stupid engineers? You're right though, the 64 cycle VICs have really lousy output.

[+remowilliams]

Every game has that very bloopy sameness to it. I cringe in pain when I load up a c64 game and hear another one of those Euro-disco sounding bloop-bloop-bleep-bloop tunes at the "cracked by" screen.

That's what you get for playing cracked software! You're very lucky this guy didn't show up!

 

 

[MacbthPSW]

Spent the last hour with my 99/4a for the first time in at least a few years. I had some fun, because I like and appreciate all 8 (okay, 16 if you insist) bit stuff. But I really don't see how this machine can be viewed as any sort of serious competition for the C-64. TI as a company could have given Commodore a run, but not with this computer, and I think they chose wisely when they bowed out.

 

Anyway, some comments from my experience:

 

I had just bought a couple VIC-20 audio/video cables from 8-Bit Classics at the Midwest Gaming Classic, and yes, they work great with the 99/4a. I'm glad that was brought up, as I probably would have forgotten and tried using the old RF otherwise. The picture is really sharp with that cable - I hooked it up to one of my Commdore 1702 monitors.

 

Is that BLOOP noise normal when the TI is powered up? What's up with that??

 

The keyboard feels pretty good to type on, but it was really a poor choice to try to cram all that functionality into so few keys. It's bad enough needing to shift and ctrl and fctn around for some common keys, like cursor keys, but to need it just to erase (aka delete/back space)? Bizarre. I'll admit that C64 keyboards are a little non-standard with the cursor keys and so on, but they're not nearly this painful. The Timex/Sinclair 1000 is the only computer I know of that's worse.

 

I wrote a couple short BASIC programs, and I don't believe I've ever seen such a slow BASIC. Just a FOR/NEXT loop printing the numbers 1-10 was so slow that you could watch each number being printed individually. It's nice that the language has built-in commands to handle graphics and sound, but the language seems so slow it'd be nearly useless.

 

BASIC appears to have a 28 column screen. The C-64's 40 column screen, while certainly not business class, lent itself much more nicely to word processing and programming. A few C64 word processors had 80 column modes that were useable.

 

I played through my small game collection too.

 

Parsec is quite cool - though it's clear that even the fairly small area of the screen that scrolls is pushing the limits of what the TI can do smoothly.

 

Alpiner really shows that the hardware can't handle scrolling well. Why didn't the programmer make the climber out of sprites, since they had 32 of them to throw around? And back to the scrolling, I don't think the software maturity argument holds out either - check out Lemans for the C-64, one of the very first titles released, and the full-screen scrolling is quite nice and smooth.

 

Munch Man is the kind of game that either system could handle reasonably well, since it's just a single, non-scrolling screen. Pretty fun.

 

Same goes for Car Wars, though, not so fun.

 

Finally, this isn't a fault of the hardware, but what's up with games waiting for you to press "BACK" after the game is over? I mean, it's annoying enough having to hit RESET on the Atari 2600, or slapping F1 on the C64 for games that don't let you hit fire to start, but having to do a two key combo is really dumb.

[supercat]

I wrote a couple short BASIC programs, and I don't believe I've ever seen such a slow BASIC. Just a FOR/NEXT loop printing the numbers 1-10 was so slow that you could watch each number being printed individually. It's nice that the language has built-in commands to handle graphics and sound, but the language seems so slow it'd be nearly useless.

 

There's also no way to load assembly-language games from tape unless you have either an Extended Basic or Monitor cartridge.

 

Finally, this isn't a fault of the hardware, but what's up with games waiting for you to press "BACK" after the game is over? I mean, it's annoying enough having to hit RESET on the Atari 2600, or slapping F1 on the C64 for games that don't let you hit fire to start, but having to do a two key combo is really dumb.

 

Commodore has a few "WWTT?" features as well. The dual-character-set PETASCII is irksome, but understandable in a way. But why did they replace the backslash with the £ character? And do both "@", "£" and "pi" need dedicated keys?

[JB]

I wrote a couple short BASIC programs, and I don't believe I've ever seen such a slow BASIC. Just a FOR/NEXT loop printing the numbers 1-10 was so slow that you could watch each number being printed individually. It's nice that the language has built-in commands to handle graphics and sound, but the language seems so slow it'd be nearly useless.

Yah. TI BASIC was broken.

Apparently it doesn't directly interpret to assembly, but to the GPL language built into the system ROM, which is THEN interpreted to assembly.

 

It also lacked a lot of basic functionality(no pun intended). Peek and poke were missing, which was made worse by the fact that sprite controls weren't present in TI BASIC either.

 

TI Extended BASIC fixed most of TI BASIC's flaws. I think it was sped up too, but I'm not sure.

 

BASIC appears to have a 28 column screen. The C-64's 40 column screen, while certainly not business class, lent itself much more nicely to word processing and programming. A few C64 word processors had 80 column modes that were useable.

Yah, it was a tad cramped. Call it excessive overscan compensation.

 

You don't use BASIC for wordprocessing though, and TI Writer was a 40-column display.

 

 

I played through my small game collection too.

 

Parsec is quite cool - though it's clear that even the fairly small area of the screen that scrolls is pushing the limits of what the TI can do smoothly.

Scrolling definitely wasn't the TMS9918's strong point.

But most of the screen is scrolling, even if there's not exactly a lot of data to move in the starfield.

 

Alpiner really shows that the hardware can't handle scrolling well. Why didn't the programmer make the climber out of sprites, since they had 32 of them to throw around?

Alpiner was widely regarded as a really bad game even when it was new. Bad games rarely make a good sample.

And I think the climber IS sprites(at least his body).

 

 

And back to the scrolling, I don't think the software maturity argument holds out either - check out Lemans for the C-64, one of the very first titles released, and the full-screen scrolling is quite nice and smooth.

Is it the norm, though? I'm not too familiar with the C64 library.

 

There's always exceptions. Some 1st-gen titles pull all the stops out and wind up being competitive with titles that come out a few years later. But most don't.

 

Finally, this isn't a fault of the hardware, but what's up with games waiting for you to press "BACK" after the game is over? I mean, it's annoying enough having to hit RESET on the Atari 2600, or slapping F1 on the C64 for games that don't let you hit fire to start, but having to do a two key combo is really dumb.

Many games would accept un-func'ed 8 and 9 as redo and back for exactly that reason. All games accepted un-func'ed arrow keys(thank goodness).

[MacbthPSW]

Is it the norm, though? I'm not too familiar with the C64 library.

It became the norm - by the mid 80s, most action/arcade type games were running at a full 50/60 fps. Check out Uridium, Thing On A Spring or Wizball for a few good examples.

 

No matter what video mode the C64 is in, it's capable of scrolling at single hires pixel increments both horizontally and vertically. So even when it's in one of the multi-colour 160 double-wide pixel modes, it can still scroll as if there were 320 pixels across. The A8 can't do this - it can only scroll by full pixels, so, half the scrolling resolution of the C64 in 4 colour mode. They're equally smooth for vertical scrolling.

 

Back to the TI-99/4a - what is the maximum number of video bytes that can be moved per frame? The C64 really has no problem moving it's 1000 (assuming just a 4 colour map) bytes of screen memory around every frame, or the 2000 bytes (including colour memory for 16 simultaneous colours) if scrolling is limited to a maximum of 4 pixels per frame. Of course, scrolling a smaller portion of the screen around is a possibility if other tasks (sprite multiplexer, or enemy AI) are taking too much time.

Edited July 7, 2006 by MacbthPSW

[JagFan422]

so am i going to have fun with this machine or not? I got the power supply coming within a couple days as well as some controllers. But I don't know what games to get for this, i'm trying to win an auction that has a couple games and some educational stuff.

 

The games are Parsec and Yahtzee, the other 4 are educational programs, but are the 2 games any fun? Any you guys could recommend.

 

I'm more of a console gamer and have just recently started to get into the older home computers.

[TuzenTCA]

I really enjoyed, and still continue to enjoy the TI-99/4A. I guess that Yahtzee might be fun, and Parsec is great. I suggest you get TI-Invaders, as, IMHO, it is the best home port of Space Invaders. I like Connect-Four as a kid, and Hunt the Wumpus I still play. Car Wars, and Munch Man are fun. Alpiner is another good game. Most of the ultracommons for the system are really fun to play.

 

--James

[JB]

It became the norm - by the mid 80s, most action/arcade type games were running at a full 50/60 fps. Check out Uridium, Thing On A Spring or Wizball for a few good examples.

But I'm asking if it was the norm in early titles.

 

so am i going to have fun with this machine or not? I got the power supply coming within a couple days as well as some controllers. But I don't know what games to get for this, i'm trying to win an auction that has a couple games and some educational stuff.

 

The games are Parsec and Yahtzee, the other 4 are educational programs, but are the 2 games any fun? Any you guys could recommend.

Parsec is one of the system's "killer apps."

 

Yahtzee is, well, Yahtzee. If you just LOVE dice games and can't blackmail anyone into playing with you, a computer version is all right, but other than that...

[MacbthPSW]

It became the norm - by the mid 80s, most action/arcade type games were running at a full 50/60 fps. Check out Uridium, Thing On A Spring or Wizball for a few good examples.

But I'm asking if it was the norm in early titles.

No, really smooth scrolling wasn't the norm early on - it became expected as the software and programmers matured. Some early titles did it, and over the next few years that became the norm.

 

But I'm arguing that no amount of programmer/software maturity would overcome the TI's weaknesses. That's why I'm asking for hard numbers, like the speed that video memory can be manipulated at.

 

The C-64 had a full 10 years of active commercial life, but that only happened because it's hardware was capable enough to (nearly) keep up with the type of games the NES helped popularize, and still do a good job at the type of games that don't work so well on consoles.

[JB]

It became the norm - by the mid 80s, most action/arcade type games were running at a full 50/60 fps. Check out Uridium, Thing On A Spring or Wizball for a few good examples.

But I'm asking if it was the norm in early titles.

No, really smooth scrolling wasn't the norm early on - it became expected as the software and programmers matured. Some early titles did it, and over the next few years that became the norm.

M'kay.

 

But I'm arguing that no amount of programmer/software maturity would overcome the TI's weaknesses. That's why I'm asking for hard numbers, like the speed that video memory can be manipulated at.

Dunno, honestly.

 

The C64 WAS designed much later, though(the 4a was a mild upgrade to the 4, which came out in '79. 64 hit in '82).

The 99/8 might've been more competitive(it had signifigant system RAM instead of just video RAM!), but I dunno if the video hardware was updated.

[SteveW]

The 99/8 might've been more competitive(it had signifigant system RAM instead of just video RAM!), but I dunno if the video hardware was updated.

According to the old-computers website, the TI-99/8 was going to use the TMS9918A, so it was pretty much the same chip as the TI-99/4A. Which made it downwardly compatible, so you could pop in your Munch Man cartridge and still play it, but because of the upgraded CPU, would play incredibly fast. I'd love to play Tunnels of Doom on a TI-99/8, it'd be great to zip through it.

[JB]

The 99/8 might've been more competitive(it had signifigant system RAM instead of just video RAM!), but I dunno if the video hardware was updated.

According to the old-computers website, the TI-99/8 was going to use the TMS9918A, so it was pretty much the same chip as the TI-99/4A. Which made it downwardly compatible, so you could pop in your Munch Man cartridge and still play it, but because of the upgraded CPU, would play incredibly fast. I'd love to play Tunnels of Doom on a TI-99/8, it'd be great to zip through it.

But on the other hand, it wouldn't have any new video features.

 

Parsec seems to be one of the very few games to use the 9918A-specific graphics mode, though. Was a difficult mode to work with due to the way the memory was mapped.

 

 

 

My father says it was intended to use a TMS9928. But I can't find any information on that part, and it's possible it was just a bug-fix to the 9918A.

Edited July 9, 2006 by JB

[uosipa llamxew]

so am i going to have fun with this machine or not? I got the power supply coming within a couple days as well as some controllers.

 

I bought my TI 99/4a to play Moon Mine - a great shooty game that I enjoyed in school as a kid. I only have a few games, but I also get a kick out of Hunt the Wumpus.

 

Your Favorite TI game? <--- Another thread over at Particles.org