Atari Vs C64 --- 80s Computer scene etc chat...

[emkay]

you can not get a single fact right. how about stopping commenting on stuff you dont seem to have the slightest clue of ?

 

In fact, why do you still write here? If you only say "ATARI" you start lying and insulting other people.

 

The video clearly shows "colourartefacts" that come from the colour cells (40x25 resolution).

 

And, the Tune was an "MP3" before coming to the media. Also, the sound isn't produced by the C64, The external player is connected to the audio "wire" .... alike how you name it.

[Oswald]

Wasn't it Tramiel who decided to put a less achieved soundchip inside the C64 to have it cheaper than with a SID, because he feared for low selling counts? But today things are clear... Look at the Plus 4, the real heritage of what Tramiel wanted. Better in all aspects but sound, the Plus 4 lost in every case.

Even the ST, build at ATARI clearly shows where the Tramiels gone.... The ST was nothing but a 16 Bit "Plus 4" without a textmode. Even the "colour cells" are there....

 

another comment which shows your huge lack of knowledge, and making up fairytales by yourself. c64 was always to go with the SID and was never to go with any other soundchip. in fact commodore havent got any other standalone soundchip, except the SID.

 

secondly the plus4 is not better in all aspects, and it doesnt matter if you ment c64 or a8, coz its weaker than both.

 

thirdly ST has no color cells:

 

1. 320x200 pixels, 16 colours out of 512 (50 or 60Hz)

2. 640x200 pixels, 4 colours out of 512 (50 or 60Hz)

3. 640x400 monochrome running at 72Hz

 

there's nothing today you can get right. please stop ridiculing yourself.

[Oswald]

you can not get a single fact right. how about stopping commenting on stuff you dont seem to have the slightest clue of ?

 

In fact, why do you still write here? If you only say "ATARI" you start lying and insulting other people.

 

The video clearly shows "colourartefacts" that come from the colour cells (40x25 resolution).

 

And, the Tune was an "MP3" before coming to the media. Also, the sound isn't produced by the C64, The external player is connected to the audio "wire" .... alike how you name it.

 

you have only prooved again that you have not the slightest clue of what that c64 animation is doing.

 

I have been going to Breakpoint with the guys who made this video. I have seen it on real HW. I have seen that the cd-rom (which you keep calling external player and mp3) was not connected to the audio in line of the c64. So, who is lying here ? I have seen it, I was there. You wasnt there you havent seen it.

 

last: there are no color artefacts, because it only uses 4 colors at a time. and 4 colors at a time can be used without artefacts on the c64.

Edited April 27, 2008 by Oswald

[Oswald]

Later they began to make wrong decisions, like making the OS incompatible and to force "old" AMIGA Users to build OS Switches if they want to use new programs...

 

another one of your false facts. you have atleast one in each of your posts?

 

Amiga OS was compatible with itself from start to end, no amiga user ever had to build OS swithces.

 

secondly new programs usually dont work on the older OS, but the programs written for the older OS works on the newer ones. that's what's called backward compatibility. learn about it.

 

just like programs written for Vista dont run on XP.

 

Tommorow I will explain you whats the difference between boys and girls.

[Vigo]

You can't change opinions of fanatics, even with the most elaborate technical explanations. They won't give one inch to aknowledge technical facts, and if it comes apparent, they will switch arguments like "bah, but an IBM PC can do it better, therefore it is useless on C64", although we are discussing A8 vs C64 matters.

 

Fact is, you can not beat the C64 in many scenarios because of 2 simple reasons:

 

- MUCH better sprite handling

- MUCH better colour resolution

 

These are the biggest disadvantages the Atari architecture has over the C64, and this is THE reason why it is possible to create action games on the C64 which are simply impossible to do on the A800. Every A800 Player/Missile trick can be easily recreated on the C64, but you can NEVER achieve the amount of sprite pixels per line the C64 can handle. Furthermore, the C64 allows easily mixing different resolutions whithin a screen. You can easily place a multicolor character right next to a hires character. You can easily overlap a hires sprite on top of a multicolor sprite, there is no limit. From a gaming perspective, what counts is gameplay. With more sprites, you can manipulate more objects on the screen, thus you can create more gameplay.

 

That is, for example, the reason why the C16 is kicked its ass by both A800 and C64, although this machine is superior to both machines in terms of colour resolution. It has no sprites, and for manipulating bitmaps, it is simply too slow.

 

The only exception I make here is 3D games, which are better suited on the A800.

 

Sure, the A800 has a bigger colour palette. But what good does a big colour palette do if you are very limited in the ways how to use it, expecially in X-direction? Sure, you can create very beautiful vertical gradients using DLI's, and by reducing the resolution even more, you can actually use all 16 shades per line. But the point is that, although the C64 only has 16 colours, you are much more free to distribute them across the screen without losing quality. That is the reason why you can actually make a C64 game look more colourful than an A8 game, despite the more limited palette of the C64. It's the choice between looking at pixelated rainbows or a crisp 16 colour picture. All pictures shown here so far underline this fact.

[Oswald]

vigo: amen.

[thomasholzer]

Right, so far we discovered that th A8 can you anything the C64 could or can, or should that be the other way round, the C64 can do most of the things the A8 can do very well.

Let me put in the real winner, were software is concerned, the Apple ][ (That'll brighten it up a bit):

16.000 titles by 1985, and Apple ][ was supported until 1993, so overall estimate by 1993: 20.000 titles.

And 1000s of original classics on Apple][, still being played today in some form or another.

 

you're like the other zealot guy comparing c64 to PCs and Amigas. probably because in the atari field you are loosing out big time, but this time c64 beats even the shitty apple:

 

"]In total (according to Gamebase 64) there exist well over 20,000 unique game titles for the Commodore 64 - perhaps the largest game catalog for any home computer or game console to date, and easily rivaling the quantity of games produced for the["

 

"The Commodore 64 amassed a large software library of nearly 10,000 commercial titles"

 

 

Come on guys, Oswald knows nothing, he never even used an A8, and now he's dissing Apple ][, which he obviously never used or owned either. He's just dissing other computers, nothing more. MY C64 IS BETTER THAN ALL OTHER 8-bitters IN THE WORLD.

 

Oswald, you promised not to reply to my posts, CAN'T EVEN GET THAT RIGHT EITHER??

 

Yes, I am familiar with GameBase64, being a C128 user myself, but they include titles in their database made from BDCK, PCS, SEUCK, Lode Runner and many other game making software, so you gotta at least take away 5000 software titles out the the GB64 database. Unless, you want to include those in your C64 count, because the Apple ][ had many more Construction Kits than C64, but then you gotta add on more to the Apple ][ range, which of course, boosts the Apple software base even larger. So, NO the C64 does not beat the ...in your own words....shitty (charming language, but to be expected) Apple, you just haven't got a clue have you.

Edited April 27, 2008 by thomasholzer

[thomasholzer]

I dont think I should accept all these lies. and spectrum fan level idiotic statements you think I should ?

Yes, just let go. This thread is hopeless now anyway.

 

Some guys here are looking more and more childish.

 

 

Just guy, singular, by the name of Oswald.

[Bryan]

Now then, how many Ataris do that: http://www.c64web.com/

Somebody attempted it once... http://kl.net/atari/

 

[Bryan]

that other video you shouldnt have linked its the 2nd coming of flicker hell on earth.

 

Got to agree there. It's watchable on a real machine, but the codec couldn't deal with it.

[Bryan]

Anyway, this argument was settled in the mid to late 80s.

 

 

Atari is better because the TV said so

 

Wow.. all the evidence we need.

[Bryan]

Oswald... but sometimes you are fanatic like hell, too...

 

I dont think I should accept all these lies. and spectrum fan level idiotic statements you think I should ?

It's not about accepting them, it's about your fanatical need to keep arguing.

 

Go into an Apple II forum and try to get everyone to agree with you. Those guys are even crazier than you and will argue that a 1-bit speaker is better than SID, and that blurry colors and no sprites are better than VIC-II.

 

-Bry

Edited April 27, 2008 by Bryan

[jdh]

Anyway, this argument was settled in the mid to late 80s.

 

 

Atari is better because the TV said so

 

Wow.. all the evidence we need.

 

There was supposed to be some irony in my post.

 

Like somebody summarised above.

Let's just accept the Atari is better at some things and the C64 is better at others.

Both machines have a great history and have more potential, look forward to seeing more great things this year!

 

Hopefully then Oswald can get some rest and go back to C64 coding or whatever he does.

 

Jon

[Bryan]

Anyway, this argument was settled in the mid to late 80s.

 

 

Atari is better because the TV said so

 

Wow.. all the evidence we need.

 

There was supposed to be some irony in my post.

I know. I was sarcastically agreeing with your sarcastic post.

[atarian63]

Mainly it just shows the stupidity of people who buy a product of low manufacturing quality.

 

they didnt loose anything. they could exchange the faulty ones in, right ? and the working ones are not known for breaking down all the time, everyone's running around with 20+ years old c64s. and once again this has nothing to do with the machine's capabilities.

 

For us Atari sold much better. the C64 was a real hassle and mainly was viewed by our staff as junk.

 

that doesnt change the fact its the best selling computer of all time, and regarded as the ford-t model of computers.

 

You also seem to miss that commodore was a narrowly focused company in a very small market at the time.Here in the US c64 was pretty much done by 1988. Most dealers had moved on to Atari ST or Amiga, mac or IBM. Atari was THE arcade company at the time as well as video games, computers were but a small portion of the company.

 

and how does this add up to the c64s capabilities vs a8bit? btw you seem to miss that amiga was c= product aswell. A recent survey shwed that only 3% of the People here in Hungary had atari as a first computer and more than 50% had a c64. and personally I havent heard of Atari 8bit line into the 2000's. nor NES nor 2600 nor nothing everyone and his dog had a c64. I have heard of atari ST's, but only rumoured as the underdog to the amigas.

 

No one was selling c64 in a noticeable way here in the U.S. after 1988. Must be some weird foreign thing.

 

yeah, the weird foreign thing being that people live from much less money outside the US and cant afford to jump each year to the next nextgen computer/console. Just so you can picture: Al Bundy in the series is just a piss poor shoeseller, but his house and state of living in Europe would have belonged to the richer people.

 

 

The laughable c64 commercials.. Puhleez, an educational computer...

 

laughable or not they have worked, according to atari and mattel research. period.

 

 

And that Commodore link.. I see they are real big, like not even on the stock exchange..

 

you started this pathethic my company still exists game I just pointed you out to the fact C= exists as a company not only in name, just so you know I win

 

Thought you decided in a previous post that you have had enough of this arguement.. why are you still here?

 

because its fun to tell you how c64 brought atari on its knees, and see you going upset

Wow you are a whiner! Even when you lose, you think you win! Pathetic

Commodore is gone and is not on the exchange, you lost. Period.

 

The many faulty ones caused people to return them and buy something else. Hardly a success.

 

The model T of computers is the IBM PC not the c64, not even close. As for capabilities before we dropped the C64 etc, they were kind of on par if you could put up with the defects and problems with the C64. It just felt like a cheap piece of crap. Not polished like an 800 or 800xl or even an apple.

 

Too bad for you, must be rough living in the backwater.

 

So you are telling me you live in a poor country with nothing better to do. Just what I figured you are a troll. Do you have a cow to milk or something troll?

 

Amiga was sold my commodore but Atrai paid for the hardware dev. i.e. it was supposed to be the ATaro 1600XL. You should be loving Atari since you love the Amiga and to you AMiga is Commodore. Must be frustrating.

 

Hungary as a barometer of PC sales probably does not or never did register in a corporate sales mindset. I magine total pc sales in that era. when the c64 /atari were still viable 1882 to 1988 were say what.. 3000 or so. Who cares.

[atarian63]

What's the biggest thread ever on the Atari Age Atari8 bit computers forum?

 

Anyway, this argument was settled in the mid to late 80s.

 

 

Atari is better because the TV said so

 

@TMR thanks for the links - impressive stuff!

That's so funny! Jack Tramiel doing a Commodore on commodore. SO cool!

[Cybergoth]

And that's it for this years Atari vs. C64 discussion. Thanks everybody for coming and join us next year again

 

Seriously I'm just closing this now, before someones going to leave with hurt feelings or so. This has been mostly fun so far and I think everything has been said anyway, so better stop it now before it starts to degenerate

 

EDIT: Bryan had already typed this when I was locking the thread:

 

In response to Oswalds "The 64 is the Model T of computers? Sounds about right to me:"

 

To make a Model T accelerate, move two levers near the steering wheel. The lever on the right was the throttle (or engine speed), and the lever on the left adjusted the time that the spark plugs fired. These levers needed to be set properly before the engine could be started.

 

The three pedals on the floor of the Model T were for the brake on the right, reverse in the middle to make the Model T go backwards, and a pedal on the left to shift the gears from low to high speed. A lever on the floor worked the brakes as well as the clutch. Pulling the lever toward the driver would set the parking brake and help keep the car from moving while parked. When the lever was placed in the middle, the transmission would be in neutral.