301 replies to this topic

[emkay]

atarian63, on Sat May 19, 2012 7:57 PM, said:

oky2000, on Thu May 10, 2012 7:56 AM, said:

Actually don't buy the 2005 book, your heart will break when you hear that if Amiga (AKA Hi-Toro) had more money in 1983 their Lorraine computer (identical hardware to Commodore Amiga 1000) could have been finished 12 months earlier same time as that 128k $5000 Macintosh piece of shit. I felt very sorry for Dave/Jay/RJ and how such geniuses struggled

Best of all it would have come out as intended as an ATARI!!!

Blah

As Commodore and Atari lost their full "workability" , they really should have joined.
An "Amiga" from a low end to high end for everyones budget would have been there fast. All could have shared a well achieved OS "AmigaDos optimized for DTP , Gfx&sound development".  Marketing based on that of the C64, it would have successed even over the PC.

[fernando marrin]

Love everything Atari but still think the mighty 64 Rocks ...

Edited by fernando marrin, Mon May 21, 2012 2:14 PM.

[Tickled_Pink]

I never really gave the C64 a second glance. The article hit the nail on the head for me ... what's the point of having a system that looks so goddamn ugly and feels cheaper than a machine half its price? If you spend more on something, you don't expect it to feel like it's made from paper mache and sticky tape. It's why I never bothered with the machine back in the day and don't really have a need to get one to add to my collection.

In fact, when I did get one about 4 years ago as part of a bundle I picked up, I just took it apart and sold the parts on eBay rather than try to fix its faulty keyboard. The Spectrum, on the other hand, is for me much more of an engineering marvel. It was designed by a very small team of engineers and it looks amazing to me. How many did Commodore have at their disposal when designing the system and its custom chips ... and how much did each company spend developing these two machines? On that basis alone, the Spectrum wins hands down for me.

[high voltage]

Hm lots of basic (and advanced)  functionality is missing on the ZX, I think Mr Clive saved a few bucks (pounds) too many. Alone the lack of a 'real' typewriter layout keyboard was a huge mistake. Keys needed to share 5 functions. What else is missing? No sound, no colours, no joystick ports etc...

Edited by high voltage, Mon May 21, 2012 2:53 PM.

[fernando marrin]

high voltage, on Mon May 21, 2012 2:50 PM, said:

Hm lots of basic (and advanced)  functionality is missing on the ZX, I think Mr Clive saved a few bucks (pounds) too many. Alone the lack of a 'real' typewriter layout keyboard was a huge mistake. Keys needed to share 5 functions. What else is missing? No sound, no colours, no joystick ports etc...

Ohhh, The Speccy
It
Still it has it share of amazing games,
And though the palette is very limited, the resolution is way better
Than c64 or even a8

[potatohead]

Wait a minute.  Isn't the Speccy 256x192?  With tricks, it can double the vertical resolution as can the Atari 8 bit as Rybags shows, and there is a 512 pixel mode, displayable on some models...  but really, that's an oddity as the common machines had 256 pixels.

The C64 offers 320 pixel color resolution, the Atari 8 bit offers 160 pixel (normal DMA) color resolution, or 320 pixel monochrome resolution.  (It can change the luma value at 320 pixel resolution, but color changes happen at 160 pixel boundaries)

Anyone ever try an NTSC Speccy with that 512 pixel mode?  Is artifacting possible, or does it do phase change color for better overall resolution?

[JamesD]

potatohead, on Mon May 21, 2012 8:35 PM, said:

Wait a minute.  Isn't the Speccy 256x192?  With tricks, it can double the vertical resolution as can the Atari 8 bit as Rybags shows, and there is a 512 pixel mode, displayable on some models...  but really, that's an oddity as the common machines had 256 pixels.

The C64 offers 320 pixel color resolution, the Atari 8 bit offers 160 pixel (normal DMA) color resolution, or 320 pixel monochrome resolution.  (It can change the luma value at 320 pixel resolution, but color changes happen at 160 pixel boundaries)

Anyone ever try an NTSC Speccy with that 512 pixel mode?  Is artifacting possible, or does it do phase change color for better overall resolution?

I don't think the Speccy can double pixel resolution.
The Timex Sinclair has higher resolution modes built in, perhaps that's what you were thinking of?
Now, the Speccy normally only changes foreground and background colors every 8 (I think) lines and by modifying the color data on the fly you can increase the color resolution.

[potatohead]

http://en.wikipedia....hres_monochrome

I've seen references to this before and am somewhat confused over which models display that as dot addressable...  I think I am thinking of the Timex Sinclair computers.

[Rybags]

That 512 mode is pretty much irrelevant, the Sinclair made machines and I suspect even Amstrad ones never did it.
Sam Coupe had partial Spectrum compatability but few people would have bought it for that reason.

The 256 mode is nothing special - 2 colours per 8x8 cell.

I fail to see why some people can even put the Spectrum in the same class as 8-bit machines like A8 or C64.  The video/audio capabilities are primitive in comparison.
Realistically, it's an "expensive toy" in a similar manner to a Vic-20.

[JamesD]

potatohead, on Mon May 21, 2012 9:00 PM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....hres_monochrome

I've seen references to this before and am somewhat confused over which models display that as dot addressable...  I think I am thinking of the Timex Sinclair computers.

Quote

only SAM COUPE mode 3 four colour version of this mode(24KB- 2bits per pixel) Timex Sinclair computers and some Russian clones can display it.

Edited by JamesD, Mon May 21, 2012 9:34 PM.

[TMR]

Rybags, on Mon May 21, 2012 9:27 PM, said:

That 512 mode is pretty much irrelevant, the Sinclair made machines and I suspect even Amstrad ones never did it.

That's right, the Sinclair and Amstrad machines all offer just the 256x192 pixel with 8x8 pixel attribute mode. Higher resolutions and more colours are limited to the Timex machines, clones.or machines with the recently-developed ULAPlus.

Rybags, on Mon May 21, 2012 9:27 PM, said:

I fail to see why some people can even put the Spectrum in the same class as 8-bit machines like A8 or C64.  The video/audio capabilities are primitive in comparison.

The main reason is software rather than hardware, being cheap it put home computers in the hands of a huge number of inventive coders who wouldn't otherwise have got the chance, subsequently there are some excellent Spectrum games and it carved a niche for itself doing games with "quirky British humour" (i dislike the term, but i'm still on the first caffeinated drink of the day so it'll have to do).

And that software library must be good, otherwise xxl wouldn't be putting so much time and effort into porting bits of it to the A8. =-)

[high voltage]

Few software titles of course will shine on A8, of course they didn't on ZX.

[fernando marrin]

potatohead, on Mon May 21, 2012 8:35 PM, said:

Wait a minute.  Isn't the Speccy 256x192?  With tricks, it can double the vertical resolution as can the Atari 8 bit as Rybags shows, and there is a 512 pixel mode, displayable on some models...  but really, that's an oddity as the common machines had 256 pixels.

The C64 offers 320 pixel color resolution, the Atari 8 bit offers 160 pixel (normal DMA) color resolution, or 320 pixel monochrome resolution.  (It can change the luma value at 320 pixel resolution, but color changes happen at 160 pixel boundaries)

Anyone ever try an NTSC Speccy with that 512 pixel mode?  Is artifacting possible, or does it do phase change color for better overall resolution?

didn't mean resolutions on paper,

put a c64 and a speccy game side to side

usually the spectrum version looks better , though mostly monochrome

[TMR]

fernando marrin, on Tue May 22, 2012 3:33 AM, said:

didn't mean resolutions on paper,

put a c64 and a speccy game side to side

usually the spectrum version looks better , though mostly monochrome

Well, "better" is subjective opinion of course but the majority of C64 games use the 2:1 pixel multicolour mode because the designers chose to do that. If you compare like for like, the earlier Dizzy games, Monty on the Run or Star Quake are all 1:1 pixel graphics and a higher resolution on the C64.

(This comparison has to be done on real hardware of course, emulator screenshots aren't stretched out in the same way the real machine is on a telly...)

[TMR]

high voltage, on Tue May 22, 2012 1:49 AM, said:

Few software titles of course will shine on A8, of course they didn't on ZX.

In your opinion perhaps, but the various communities worldwide playing Spectrum games would disagree with you and just about everything xxl has converted has been received very well by A8 gamers so that's quite a lot of shininess in other people's eyes.

[Mclaneinc]

My goodness, its made it to 11 pages and no turf wars so far

Well the odd minor fracas but no casualties as yet, amazing...

[high voltage]

Ah yes I worded it wrong: of the approx 10.000 games available on ZX only a very playable few are of worthy converting to A8 , which will be enjoyed by many people worldwide.

[TMR]

high voltage, on Tue May 22, 2012 5:58 AM, said:

Ah yes I worded it wrong: of the approx 10.000 games available on ZX only a very playable few are of worthy converting to A8 , which will be enjoyed by many people worldwide.

Again subjective terms; "very playable" can't be quantified because some people write off just about everything on the Spectrum whilst others would call about a third of those 12,500 plus titles very playable - even if some "consensus" were ever reached, most people would probably find at least one in ten of that library "very playable" and 1,250 games is more than some 8-bits got in total!

As for what is or isn't "worthy", the chances are that the people doing the work'll be shifting over things you don't consider worth the effort but they're doing it because they think it's worthwhile so, again, opinions vary; the same goes for my conversion of Kikstart from the C16, not everyone agrees but i bloody love that game and wanted it on the C64 so off i went with a disassembler.

[fernando marrin]

TMR, on Tue May 22, 2012 3:51 AM, said:

fernando marrin, on Tue May 22, 2012 3:33 AM, said:

didn't mean resolutions on paper,

put a c64 and a speccy game side to side

usually the spectrum version looks better , though mostly monochrome

Well, "better" is subjective opinion of course but the majority of C64 games use the 2:1 pixel multicolour mode because the designers chose to do that. If you compare like for like, the earlier Dizzy games, Monty on the Run or Star Quake are all 1:1 pixel graphics and a higher resolution on the C64.

(This comparison has to be done on real hardware of course, emulator screenshots aren't stretched out in the same way the real machine is on a telly...)

so you 're saying they chose to lower the resolution of their c64 games?
don't think so...

[TMR]

fernando marrin, on Tue May 22, 2012 11:19 AM, said:

so you 're saying they chose to lower the resolution of their c64 games?
don't think so...

Yup, i'm saying that because it's the case; at 320x200 the C64 gets two colours per character cell whilst at 160x200 it gets four (ignoring sprites) and for many designers that extra colour control was and indeed is a selling point; the C64 can quite obviously work at 320x200 because games like Monty on the Run or Starquake are doing it, but C64 gamers would complain about "Speccy ports" if it wasn't done well.

Running at lower resolutions for better colour depth isn't a C64-only thing either, the Amstrad CPC, Atari 8-bit or BBC Micro all have at least one mode with a higher resolution than the Spectrum too but a significant number of developers on each machine favoured the lower resolution 2:1 ratio options because they offered better colour control.

[Heaven/TQA]

TMR good mention of your Kikstart... is not an release waiting? and what about another release waiting for Sack's msx?

[TMR]

Heaven/TQA, on Tue May 22, 2012 12:14 PM, said:

TMR good mention of your Kikstart... is not an release waiting?

No, i was considering an A8 conversion but never got around to it... i think i still have the resourced Plus/4 and updated C64 code around somewhere though.

[frogstar_robot]

fernando marrin, on Tue May 22, 2012 11:19 AM, said:

so you 're saying they chose to lower the resolution of their c64 games?
don't think so...

TMR rightly points out most 8-bits gave more color options at lower resolutions.  There is also the matter of CPU and memory.  If that hi-res screen is anything other than a static backdrop then CPU will be spent animating it.  High res screens are also more costly in terms of RAM.  Charmode helps, especially on the 64 with it's 256 charsets, but costly nonetheless.

This was really obvious with some the late 80s PCs that had 640x400x16 screens with no sprites, no blitter, and no hardware scrolling.  Stills of these games would look great in the magazines but you had to actually play them to see very little was animated.  I always loved driving games with mostly static dashboards and a very small view out the front windshield.

[Tickled_Pink]

high voltage, on Mon May 21, 2012 2:50 PM, said:

Hm lots of basic (and advanced)  functionality is missing on the ZX, I think Mr Clive saved a few bucks (pounds) too many. Alone the lack of a 'real' typewriter layout keyboard was a huge mistake. Keys needed to share 5 functions. What else is missing? No sound, no colours, no joystick ports etc...

Pardon? You sure you're not confusing it with the ZX81?

The original Speccy had sound, albeit through a built-in speaker. Later revisions added a Yamaha sound chip.

Um ... it was called SPECTRUM for a reason ... it was Sinclair's first colour computer.

The lack of a joystick port was a problem for me but it was easily rectified since there were several add-on interfaces available. They were added as standard in later editions.

You're also missing the point of the Spectrum. Sinclair were aiming for a sub £100 price point for a colour computer - something that was unheard of in the day. They didn't manage it at launch but did it a few months later when they dropped the price of the 16K model (it was £125 at launch, which in itself was incredible at the time). It was the Raspberry-Pi of its age ... a computer with most of the bells and whistles taken out to reduce cost. If you wanted more functionality then you had to pay for it. And when you think about it, that's what you did when you bought a C64 or A8 ... you paid for the extra functionality.

[high voltage]

Yep, it had sound (a buzz), yep it had colour (that's why most games were monochrome), and the Spectrum missed the point of being a useful computer.

As I mentioned numerous times here, I had (have) a C128, an A8, my neighbour had a C64, my other poor neighbour had a Spectrum. My C64 buddy and me we visited the Speccy owner guy to play some 'good' games. After 1/2 hour of laughing our socks off, we went back playing CLASSIC games on C64 and/or A8. Our Speccy owner friend came along actually, leaving his SX to bite the dust.

Edited by high voltage, Wed May 23, 2012 1:59 AM.