mehguy Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Which is better to buy? Based on these categories: Game Library Affordability (in 2015) Ease of use Ease of programming Obscurity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rybags Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Game library - sheer numbers, C64. Maybe double or triple but for both machines into the thousands. Quality, good and bad for both but the best graphically on ST easily eclipse the C64. Affordability - not much difference. Most STs have inbuilt floppy drive but the machine itself will be more than C64 by maybe half. But you can spend more than the C64 price for a floppy drive for it. Ease of use - for plain gaming it's not a lot different. ST autoboots or point/click to load. C64 usually a simple Load command. Ease of programming - C64 Basic probably easiest of anything for both to learn/use but close to least capable. ST has plenty of "serious" languages around. OK, you can do C, Forth and the like on the C64 but such HLLs can be frustrating in that plenty of memory is used for not much return. Obscurity - ST is somewhat forgotten in comparison. From a collector's POV expecting some sort of rarity, don't hold your breath in either case, millions made of both and more than enough of both around to meet demand. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Loguidice Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I don't really get the comparison myself. The C-64 "wins" in every category, but it's also 8-bit technology versus 16-bit technology. There is greater complexity and challenges on the 16-bit side, but also greater potential upsides. Frankly, you either want an 8-bit computing experience or you want an 16-bit computing experience. I don't see the either/or possibilities here. As for the C-64, it has brilliant modern day homebrew support and works more effectively on a wider variety of displays, which are just some of the factors of why it's "better," though, as I stated, not really "better." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesD Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 (edited) In response to the original question... why? Edited April 9, 2015 by JamesD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OLD CS1 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+save2600 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Weird comparison for sure, but a pretty important factor not mentioned is reliability. C64 FTW! Then yeah, there's also the "minor" thing as the game library to consider. OTOH, ST wins in the obscurity dept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsson Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 The C64, in particular if you get a breadbox, also takes a bit less desk space if you are short of it and only have room for one vintage computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rybags Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Reliability, I'd not sway too far in either direction. Both were built with the JT "make it cheaper!!!" philosophy so share similar sins. Inbuilt sound (non STe/Falcon) aside, the ST trounces it by a mile in every category, but when put into perspective of expectations from machines of that era, the C64 excels and the pre-STe disappoints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+save2600 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Reliability, I'd not sway too far in either direction. Both were built with the JT "make it cheaper!!!" philosophy so share similar sins.nes of that era, the C64 excels and the pre-STe disappoints. I guarantee you there exists more users with reliable C64 systems and working disk drives than there exist ST systems and users with working disk drives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rybags Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) I doubt it. 1541 was one of the worst in that regard. They're externally sourced mechs in both cases anyway, at least the ST drive doesn't bash the head which is the cause of many of the 1541s woes. There were more C64s sold than STs, so more users probably exist - the sheer numbers means little. Plus, C64 is a more authentic retro system, Amiga and ST are just underpowered cousins of today's GUI machines. Which for me at least, makes the later machines less interesting. Edited April 10, 2015 by Rybags Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+remowilliams Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Commodore 64 VS Atari ST 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie_ Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 I kind of get the comparison... I always noticed if I liked a C64 game, I was almost certain to find a 16 bit version of that game for the ST. Not to say said game was better for being 16 bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willsy Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Er, the Atari ST is a 32-bit machine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Loguidice Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Er, the Atari ST is a 32-bit machine. It's not necessarily incorrect to call either the ST or Amiga 16-bit machines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr SQL Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 It's not necessarily incorrect to call either the ST or Amiga 16-bit machines. I think it's more accurate to call it a hybrid machine since the CPU is 32-bit but placed on a 16-bit bus for compatibility with the systems 16-bit parts. It's still running 32-bit code though; the 80386 was it's contemporary (also a 32-bit CPU on a 16-bit bus) and I've seen those systems running pure 32-bit codebases like NT and sql server, albiet very very slowly. My favourite was when Intel got carried away and began identifying the instruction set not with numbers, but as Screaming Sidney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rybags Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 '286 is more contemporary to the plain 68000. '386 more comparable to 68020/30. '486 to 68040. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willsy Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) I think it's more accurate to call it a hybrid machine since the CPU is 32-bit but placed on a 16-bit bus for compatibility with the systems 16-bit parts. It's still running 32-bit code though; the 80386 was it's contemporary (also a 32-bit CPU on a 16-bit bus) and I've seen those systems running pure 32-bit codebases like NT and sql server, albiet very very slowly. My favourite was when Intel got carried away and began identifying the instruction set not with numbers, but as Screaming Sidney I don't agree with that either The 99/4A runs on a TMS9900 which is most definitely a 16-bit chip. It's native word size is 16-bit. The 68000 native word size is 32 bit and it can address a lot more memory than 64K. However, having said all that, the ST in the Atari ST's name is supposed to mean "sixteen/thirty two" - a reference to the ST's specific architecture. So perhaps I'm wrong and you're right. It's certainly a 32 bit cpu but is the *machine* 32 bit? Perhaps not. Yet I'd call the 4A a 16 bit machine. Not 8 bit! Aggggghhhhh! Edited April 10, 2015 by Willsy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+save2600 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Ahhh, jeez.... here we go. May as well talk about the Jaguar's architecture next. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesD Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Don't even get me started on how people call CPUs 8, 16 or 32 bit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr SQL Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 '286 is more contemporary to the plain 68000. '386 more comparable to 68020/30. '486 to 68040. The 286 is a 16-bit chip on a 16-bit bus and can't run 32-bit code, the 68k can run circles around it. I don't agree with that either The 99/4A runs on a TMS9900 which is most definitely a 16-bit chip. It's native word size is 16-bit. The 68000 native word size is 32 bit and it can address a lot more memory than 64K. However, having said all that, the ST in the Atari ST's name is supposed to mean "sixteen/thirty two" - a reference to the ST's specific architecture. So perhaps I'm wrong and you're right. It's certainly a 32 bit cpu but is the *machine* 32 bit? Perhaps not. Yet I'd call the 4A a 16 bit machine. Not 8 bit! Aggggghhhhh! I agree the TI is a 16-bit machine, the CoCo too with it's 6809; I know the CoCo had an 8-bit bus but notsure about the TI. Like the CoCo, lack of awesome accelerator hardware for graphics and minimal sound limited the machines power and required greater programming skills. The c64 and the Atari 8-bit line felt more powerful than their bits would indicate for having such awesome accelerator hardware for sound and graphics. The ST can't match the subtractive analouge synth in the c64, I don't think anything can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Loguidice Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 I believe we had this discussion before, but there's no way the CoCo is a 16-bit computer just because the 6809 has some 16-bit properties. I'm comfortable with classifying the TI-99/4 and 4a as 16-bit computers and the Mattel Intellivision as a 16-bit console if need be, but both were still very much rooted in the 8-bit world architecturally speaking. Those platforms are perfectly illustrative though of how difficult it is to classify systems, which obviously carried through to platforms like the Macintosh, ST, and Amiga. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mehguy Posted April 11, 2015 Author Share Posted April 11, 2015 the main reason im asking is that ive narrowed my selection of vintage computers i wanna buy for the first time on these 2. If you guys have any other computers you guys would recommend, throw them at me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OLD CS1 Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Not the fault of the ST, but a lot of the games I see for the ST are terribly disappointing and do not exploit its capabilities by any means. In many, many cases the Amiga or Commodore 64 conversions are superior. Not all, but many, IMNSHO. I would still love to get my hands on a 1040STe, or a Mega. Hell, I might be happy with just a plain 520ST. My grandfather had a 520 and he did a lot of CADD work on it for his job (he designed electric motors and such.) It was my first exposure to a native GUI OS on a home computer before I got an Amiga (specifically worded to exclude GEOS on the Commodore as non-native.) In fact, I might have gone the Atari ST route had it not been for how amazing Shadow of the Beast is on the Amiga While I still feel comparing the Commodore 64 and Atari ST are apples and oranges, more to OP's question: I can generally find more Commodore 64 and accessories than Atari ST. The cost of the units are generally commensurate to their abilities, so I would say that makes it an even playing field. As for games, I really do not know as I have such a library for my Commodore 64 and Amiga that I do not often go trawling; but I do know that there are healthy TOSEC collections for both 64 and ST. Now, which one you want to go for will depend upon what your ultimate purpose is. For instance, if you want to do MIDI I would say go for the ST as there are a few good MIDI packages available and the MIDI is built-in, while with the C64 there are a couple of good programs available but the MIDI is a separate device and I do not see them often. If you want really good games the Commodore 64 library boasts some fantastic titles, but the Atari ST has far better graphics and arcade-like abilities for titles which take advantage of that. Desktop publishing, word processing, drawing, or CADD: while the 64 has plenty of nice packages for these, the ST beats it hands-down. Hardware hacking: that might take some research as the 64 is great to hack, but I understand the ST does not lack in that department. etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OLD CS1 Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 the main reason im asking is that ive narrowed my selection of vintage computers i wanna buy for the first time on these 2. If you guys have any other computers you guys would recommend, throw them at me. That is asking for a hail-storm of recommendations. I think every single one of us has a special heart-throb from the home computer era. I programmed on Apple and Atari 8-bits, but I would not recommend them simply because they do not exist in certain spots of my history, while the TI-99/4A, Commodore 64, and Amiga do. I know a couple of guys who would go VIC-20 over the Commodore 64. I know some die-hard Apple guys, one guy who is an anything-Z80-based nut, TRS-80 fans, on and on and on. Have you tried emulators to see which might be more appropriate for your purposes? Whichever you get, I will tell you there is nothing more satisfying than getting a setup from someone who has loved and cared for them. More often than not, they will also have the best collection of software or hardware to showcase what the machine can do. Getting a system from someone like this makes it more personal. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mehguy Posted April 11, 2015 Author Share Posted April 11, 2015 also another thing, is software hard to find in the wild? other than ebay, is it common? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.