youki

when i count color in your snap , there are 7931 colors. It seems a graphic filter (may put by the emulator?) has been apply on it.

the 2 images where you say it fetchs more color , in fact don't have more color here. (at least in your snapshop). The girl has 16 colors , and the eagle has only 14. and the flowers 16.

yeah, this picture just prooves that: the cpu can sit iddle while showing this. you need cpu intervention just to get more than a few colors (not shades). and even so you're nowhere near to this flexibility. Could somebody take the same picture and do it on a A800 ? It could be interresitng to compare the result.

I have always loved sharp's computers! I don't have X1 unfortunaly yet. But i own a good old MZ80K !

It is funny, i have never considered AtariAge as an pure Atari Site. For me "Atari Age" was more like a date in time. Like "Stone age" in the pre-history. So we talk about all what happened in that time not only Atari. The name Atari behing justified by the fact Atari was the first to introduce a post "pong type" video console. In Fact, for me , AtariAge was more or less synonymous of 8bitsAge. Of course there is lot of "Atari" things , Atari being a major actor of Videogame history , and mainly in U.S. (i guess this site is U.S based?). Personnaly , I registered here because of the Colecovision programming topics. And then i discover a very interresting forums , and funny thread as this never ending one. I like this kind of battle , it remind me the time where , in my country, we have friendly war between Amstrad CPC users and C64 users (Atari being unfortunaly almost inexistant in our 8bit war) , or Atari ST vs Amiga. There are very nice guys here, but unfortunaly i have the feeling that some are taking too seriously this kind of battle. Men it is is just a game! Keep kool And be sure that your machine is the best ... for you and it is that is important! That is funny also, is you consider all these wars.. the only winner in fact is.... the PC!!!... and i 'd said unfortunaly. Anyway we all agreed that C64 is the best 8bits of this area! (i'm just kidding...)

It just prove how atari does not evolve nor try to inovate. It did really once and then ... you have alway more or less the same machine with light improvement (when there is...). Commodore at least, even if they took some strange decision and produced some silly things... butr they at least try to do new things. (of course i speak about computers not console) PET , VIC 20 , C64, C128 , C16/ Plus 4 , Amiga Series . All have different technologies and incompatible !. at Atari what we have? As computer we have A400/800 (and all derivative up to 130XE) and the Atari ST series. If you consider video game console, it is better, you have: the VCS, the 5200 (which share technology with the 800xl) , XE Game System (that share techo also with A800) , the 7800 (a good one!) , the Lynx (that is in fact not Atari by Epyx) , the jaguar (where they tried to sell a 16/32bit console as a 64bits....).

Yes, i think what you propose is a really good idea. Sinistar , even it is not one of my favorites games, would perfect for this kind of competition. But I doubt we will find somebody willing to compete.

Try SIO2SD Often available on eBay UK assembled or IIRC from AA member Lotharek Fully built and cased. Theres a thread here where Lotharek talks about some of his pre-built upgrades and kits. thanks a lot.

Why you would need this kind of device? It exists at least 4 SD card reader for C64 , you can put thousands of disk image on one SD card, and access it directly from the C64 as if it is real disk. the more advanced i think is the 1541 III: http://jderogee.tripod.com/project1541.htm you have also that aone : http://www.vesalia.de/e_mmc64.htm and the 2 i have : the SD2IEC http://www.nkcelectronics.com/sd2iec-boar2.html and MMC2IEC http://www.nkcelectronics.com/mmc2iec-comm...tion-devic.html Why don't you write this displaced content in Lemon64 forums, where it belongs to? Displaced? why? I just answered to wood_jl. What is the problem? Does this type of device exists for Atari 800 xl? I have only a SIO2PC (a old one not USB) and if i can find a device for XL that can use a SD Card as disk drive without the need of additionnal software on the machine. I will buy one for sure. The SIO2PC is good but having to have my old laptop connected to my Atari each time i want play a game is painfull for me.

Why you would need this kind of device? It exists at least 4 SD card reader for C64 , you can put thousands of disk image on one SD card, and access it directly from the C64 as if it is real disk. the more advanced i think is the 1541 III: http://jderogee.tripod.com/project1541.htm you have also that aone : http://www.vesalia.de/e_mmc64.htm and the 2 i have : the SD2IEC http://www.nkcelectronics.com/sd2iec-boar2.html and MMC2IEC http://www.nkcelectronics.com/mmc2iec-comm...tion-devic.html

Give 128k to a Vic20 , and i'm sure you can do something close to your space harrier. And in 1979 , 2 year before the vic20 , you couldn't even imagine be able to afford 128k for ram... first Atari 800 had 16k . ... at a resolution of 40x25 ... surely. You Commie guys put TOO much miracles into the RAM expansion. This one comes with a 12K EXE. So from it's size it would run on the VIC 20. the Vic20 had only 3.5k . Seems Atari can do only kind of plasma effect. All demo i see have poor colors and plasma. Strange for a machine with 128 or 256 colors... Anyway, i don't say that the VIC20 is better than an Atari 800. I just say it is an honorable machine and surely not the worst computer of 80's as somebody said previously.

Give 128k to a Vic20 , and i'm sure you can do something close to your space harrier. And in 1979 , 2 year before the vic20 , you couldn't even imagine be able to afford 128k for ram... first Atari 800 had 16k .

the VIC 20 the worst computer of the 80s???? hum... just have a look to these demos , done on a UNEXPANDED vic 20 ...(it means 3.5k of ram) .. seing the production on Atari 800...to do the same thing (suposing it is possible) you would surely need 320k extension... but as stated previously... 320k is the standard on A800... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6tWm3kwE7E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocQIA3zKqXs And don't forget to wath with the sound!!

I've just added ths to my collection: Great machine. Much prefer it to atar. Lol!!!! You know that hardware can theoricaly calculate faster than an Atari or a C64. Some japanese guy managed to prove that. So , according to Atariksi and few others criterias ti means this hardware is more powerfull than Atari 800. (and of course infinitly more powerfull than a C64).

When i started to post in this thread it was just to post some game that are better on Atari 800 than on C64. I didn't even think what machine is better than other. for me it was 2 excellent 8 bits i love. And then reading ,participating the discussion and doing more research on available software / hardware on both machine. I'm now convinced that the C64 is a slighty better machine. (i also agree that in 1979 nothing was better than the A800!! , i also agree that in 1982 C64 had not a so advanced technology for his time as the A800 had in 1979) Atari have few specific points where it is better , like more "color" (in fact it has only 16... but with different intensities) , a faster processor and a DLI . But if you consider that faster processor and more color make a machine better , it would mean that the Atari 2600 would better than a C64... I think Atari 2600 have 128 color palette and a 1.19Mhz processor , so better than a C64 with a 0.9XXX Mhz and 16 colors.. But overall (for gaming) the c64 is more homegenous , more easy to exploit , better designed because his features are more "accessible" for programmer and as consequence of that : have better game in general. Considering hardware extension , hacking etc... Both machine have tons of very good hardware /hack that have been produced. So i think on this point both machine are at equality. So i won't sell my 2 Atari 800 xl , my 130Xe ,my 600 xl and my XE Game System . But i will promote my 3 C64C , my C64S , my C64G and my SX64 has best machine of 1982 technology! both Machine have their own soul , and it is what love in old computing , sould of machine , what ever the hardware was!

???...what games your mean. Except that the 64 version will look surely different, i'm pretty sure it can reach their qualites with no problem. Your space harrier is very nice (mainly if you compare to the 2 awfull version the c64 had), but if you take a good C64 coder and give him the same amount of time you Space Harrier has been developper, you will have a result as good if not better. it will look different surely , but will be as good. no doubt about that. There is a bunch of good ISO 3D game on C64. What kind of game you think about? What you call serious 1st person shooter on Atari?

Well said. I don't think we can say having a hardware on a personnal computer that only "creators" could really exploit, is a good design. Doing something that nobody can really use... that is a strange conception of "good". and 30 years after the original design it wouldn't have been really exploited.... let me laugh... I'm the first to think that produced game for Atari could have been lot better if more effort was put into them. But seing all the demo and all games done recently (like crownland , whoomp , space harrier, bombjack which are really good ) , i'm not convinced that the machine is better than the c64.

Okay, so if you agree hardware is better (as also shown in this thread), then why claim the opposite by just looking at some selection of software. As I stated earlier and others have stated people developed for non-GTIA systems, lesser memory, were ports from other systems, etc. Certain things like using more memory and GTIA modes is easy to do on Atari, but they weren't used. Other things like using 4 DACs, temporal dithering (interlacing), kernel coding, etc. may require more work on the developer's part. There's hardly any games earlier on that use kernels which saves a ton of cycles rather on interrupting the CPU every DLI. >But the fact is that there is more game better on C64 than the opposite. That's not a fact. That's your opinion. As Heaven, Allas, and others have listed software which is better on Atari. hum...i think it is my english that is bad... I never said that there is no Atari game that are better then C64 game , i have even posted some in this thread. I say that there are lot of more C64 game better than Atari game that Atari games better then C64. That is the fact. I don't agree the Atari's Hardware is better. I jut say on the paper it could seems better. But in facts , i didn't see any evidence that the hardware is better. In addition, in another posts, you are talking about your 320k machine as "standard" , and i think i read the C64 is limited to 64k..etc..etc.. If now you want compare customized machine. We can take a c64 with 1Mbyte of ram , a super CPU and a 1541 III . Look and listen what you can obtain with just with a super CPU plugged on a stock c64: and that' no a DEMO , it is a real GAME!

I just say that in general C64 version of a same game is better than Atari version. Despite you claim that Atari has a better hardware. And i agree on the "paper" Atari hardware could seems better. But the fact is that there is more game better on C64 than the opposite. So what can be the reason , if the Atari hardware is better ? - Atari developper are not good ? (i don't think so) - No enough time to develop? (could be in the past, but in that case what about modern production that are very good but still not a the level of a very good c64 game) - Atari hardware is harder to exploit. in that case, i don't consider Atari Hardware being better. - The Atari Hardware is in fact not better than c64 one. But, searching on youtube, i have finally found something that the C64 is not able to do!!! This clone of Ghost'n goblins : Even if you really want, you can not do that on C64....

That's the problem , you say Atari can do better , the fact is that overall Atari don't do better in real life. C64 software was also limited by time/budget/etc... business law applies also to c64. I just saw the curtain.xex , i guess it needs a real hardware , because on my emulator , i see strange behavior and then a simple image changing its palette. In a certan way the Apple 2 could be considered as better than XL and C64. His extensibility was exceptionnal. So you can argue, it is because the C64 is easier to program than the XL. You need more to time to invest in learning to exploit theXL machine etc...etc.. it would just prove that the C64 is smarter designed. A little like if you compare the Sega Saturn and the Playstation 1 . The hardware of the Saturn was better, but so hard to program and badly designed that the Playstation win and can be considered as better. (because better game, more game, more sells). (netherless i prefer the saturn)

You are following some blind speculation that anything produced by Atari down the road MUST have better technology.

easy to imagine. You would have had the Amiga in 1982.

The real advance is the fact of having higher clocked RAM cheaply available. That's why normal VICII activities do not interfere with the CPU memory handling. And that is simply caused by the timely later development of the C64's layout. When the development was done for the A8, then RAM was multiple times higher prized. When the C64 was developed, the RAM was faster clock-able and cheaper available. So the C64 is better!

Yes, the chip VIC2 but NOT the C64. The VIC2 has not been designed for the C64. But for a video game console Commodore was planning and didn't released. And then as they had it ready , they used it in the C64 to not spend money developping another a new chip. the fact that the C64 is technically so good is pure luck. Surely not due to Tramiel "technology" strategy.... Tramiel wanted to keep production cost as lower as possible.

I agree with you. Technology speaking, i think there is no doubt that the Atari 800 win. The C64 has not been designed to be technology advanced , it has been designed to cost the less as possible. Commodore used some component they had , and luckily they had some component ready for a game console they planned . So the C64 have luckly profited of that technology. Otherwise i'm sure it wouldn't have sprites for instance. But thanks to good ingeneer it has been smartly designed. I don't the A800 has been designed in the some optic. I think the target was more a high end machine.