Wolfram

the atari 8 bit fans willingly create screens with that slogan, sporting cheap is good ("power without the price"), in the same time a8 fans call c64 for being cheap, bad. prooves the bias. It only proves your misunderstanding of the word cheap. It has many meanings-- go look it up in the dictionary. At the time of A8, only the PGA graphics card from IBM allowed for 16 shades of colors for personal computers and it cost thousands of dollars. The A8 allowed for 16-shaded colors and cost less than a thousand. That's an example of getting that same feature without paying thousands of dollars. indeed the word cheap has many meanings for atari fans. in a8 context cheap is good, and in c64 context cheap is bad. the proof is out there as I have shown.

I wouldn't trust a word of what he states. He's more biased than TMR and misinformed as well. Everything that C64 cannot do is subjective or useless for him. He reminds me of the story of Dr. Frog in a well. He was stuck in a well and regardless of how many other frogs told him there's an Atlantic Ocean out there, he kept insisting there is nothing better than this well. This is the best. I cannot have any other better home. Such narrow-minded individuals are a complete disgrace to computer society. He can't even accept the Atari has a superior palette what to speak of Joystick ports, hundreds of graphics modes, better interlace graphics, etc. etc. He's a complete waste of time thus far. you got it all wrong. proof from a previous post: http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...t&p=1728306 now please stop with the personal insults, which have no truth.

so you cant afford $150 ? are you still a kid on parent's money ? c64 has 10x and better games for 3x the money. so just think for a moment about nr of stuff&quality/buck ratio.

there's 3-4 SD card HW stuff for c64.

You mean it's NOT?? Who gives a shit how many C64s or Ataris they sold in 1985? It's TODAY, and I want easy, cheap peripheral emulation. You're actually going to debate the necessity of this point? Are you really serious? Come on, man. Be reasonable. I don't care WHICH system you advocate. You're actually going to question the value of easy, cheap peripheral emulation? I just want to be clear on your position before I comment further, because it seems that you understand the value of what I'm advocating here. Joystick port mania? Hell, if I can't get cheap, easy, affordable peripheral emulation down, the joystick ports will lie dormant. Come on, convince me that I **CAN** get cheap, easy, affordable peripheral emulation for your choice. Otherwise, convince me that it is NOT necessary. Sorry, but pretending that "number of machines sold" in the heydays isn't worth a squirt of piss. Convice me, and not only do you WIN the arguement, but I'll **GLADLY** buy A C64 and play Hyper Sports. I actually want you to win this one (because I'd be winning in the end too) but it looks to be a bit of a challenge...... if you want to be convinced to buy an 1541 ultimate, look at the entertainment/buck spent ratio, what do you get for your money: - Pirates!, Zak McKracken, Maniac Mansion, Last Ninja, IK+ , Archon, Wasteland, Laser Squad,Turrican,Summer Games,Elite, Bubble Bobble, Project Firestart, Defender of the Crown, MicroProse Soccer, Winter Games, Leaderboard Golf, Impossible Mission, Giana Sisters, Creatures ,World Games, Armalyte, California Games, Airborne Ranger, Mayhem in Monsterland,Neuromancer and so on. ~30 000 sid music ~20 000 games ~73 000 scene releases - biggest active 8 bit community

indeed, the better retrocomputer today is - let all other factors aside like nr & quality of software offered nr of machines sold in the heydays, etc etc - which is cheaper to be hooked up to a pc... sounds like atariski with his joystick port mania.

its not a tradeoff. plus4 was to be a compatitor to the speccy, so it was designed to use cheap HW. to make a long story short: tramiel left, C= fucked up, plus4 ended in the pricerange being a competitor to the c64.

Very likely easy to do now. But Star Raiders is a "launch title" and is of higher quality than any launch title I can think of for the C64. I think the thread was to compare the same games to see where the Atari was actually better. The first space shooter I'm aware of for the C64 was Neutral Zone, which was beautiful for the time but had awful playability and lagged far behind Star Raiders from a technical perspective. (And also from a 3D perspective perspective ) suddenly it does matter again what mattered in the heydays. but when I say the c64 focused technically better on what mattered in the heydays, that does not matter because now is now. launch title this or that, c64 sold more, as a8 fans admit it almost everyone of them bought a c64, eventho they think its a bad machine. I wonder why...

I have no problem admitting the a8's strengths. many colors are nice, faster cpu yeah, pokey ehmm the misstuned musics when it plays 4 channels are horrible, display list is cool, especially lms, and the scrolling is nice, widescreen, more than 200 lines is cool too. 16 shades bigpixel modes are awesome for demos with the faster cpu. But it looks like the c64 is focusing on the important things. back when it mattered which was better, it was about games and not demos, and majority of games were 2d. and games has to be colorful in a good resolution with moving objects. c64 supports all that better. yeah 256 colors, they are cool, I often wished the c64 had more colors. BUT its fucking hard to display fex. 16 in 160x200, let alone 320x200 (dont come with the rainbows, we are talking of real life like placed colors). yes there are a handful of pictures doing it. but it needs a pc editor and the year 200x. back when it mattered it was 4 colors, or wide pixels & 16 shades vs c64 displaying 16 in 160x200 happily, without having to fuck around. display list, lms, etc yaddayadda, cool features. but when on the c64 you can do most of that with a raster irq, it seems to be an overkill. and when it mattered in the heydays, a game hardly used more than 2 display modes. scrolling with lms, cool! but making soft sprites is 20 times harder, than scrolling with the cpu... 60 bits for collision.. well jay miner instead could have made 16 pixel wide sprites, or something more useful like that. as life showed serious games never use such features. especially the wide pixel modes A8 reads character pointers for charmode anyway, that could have been used for colors, and use the silicon space of the bigpixel modes. but you have 256 colors, that needs 8 bits... well you can read 2x 4 bit colors on that space. 16 colors is a very clever design compromise infact... Comparing these features... makes me think A8 gfx chip probably uses the same amount of silicon space as VICII. VICII throws most of it on sprites, a8 has the display list, many colors, etc. a8 definitly has the upper hand in demos, to write something positve to the end

Don't even say "ugly" as long as you don't find a C-64 picture that doesn't consist mostly of violet and brown This really gets boring, man, everything C-64 fans bring as fine picture is violet-brown. thats ur personal preference, the fact remains: the c64 displays nicer pictures while sitting idle than a8 using up all its resources like crazy. That was funny, what do you want to say? Those C64 picture use all the graphical power, that a C64 can do. Simply, not use other resources, because whatever raster, hidden register, sprite trick doesn't collaborate with any color more after the 16th. That's all. Other way most of the C64 painting are using visual effects thanks to the great quality artist you have in your scene. Why not comparing more simple screens, as for example, game intro screens? This would be examine better the potential without "tricky visual effects" I'm not doubt you really like the C64 palette. After all these years seeing C64 pictures is natural. Spectrum users prefers a lot his palette color too, and I must to admit they have some really cool mixings. I'd like to see you talk my native language, and then maybe I could make fun of you... how come you never pick on emkay ? his english is bad enough if you want to find someone to pick on this.... to the topic: I am talking about the x-ray picture. that one does not use tricks. that picture dwarfes what the a8 can do without using the cpu or its "sprites". and here are some game intro screens: (default mode again, except the rasters) ...and yes I dont find the a8 palette pleasing, but arguing about a personal subjective preferencesmakes no sense. so lets just forget that, and your opinion about the c64's palette.

Don't even say "ugly" as long as you don't find a C-64 picture that doesn't consist mostly of violet and brown This really gets boring, man, everything C-64 fans bring as fine picture is violet-brown. thats ur personal preference, the fact remains: the c64 displays nicer pictures while sitting idle than a8 using up all its resources like crazy. Wolfram.... the c64 palette is ugly... it might be the best choice of the range of colours but don't try to convince us who are used to 256 colours (16 colours & 16 lums) thanks... what you are used to is 4 color / monocolor / 16 shades of the same color screens, thats what the a8 can do, while the c64 displays 16. uglyness is a personal opinion. doesnt computes, and impossible to argue about.

Don't even say "ugly" as long as you don't find a C-64 picture that doesn't consist mostly of violet and brown This really gets boring, man, everything C-64 fans bring as fine picture is violet-brown. thats ur personal preference, the fact remains: the c64 displays nicer pictures while sitting idle than a8 using up all its resources like crazy.

obviously the c64. without extra effort you have ugly 4 color or 16 shades of one color in huge pixels. the c64 can have both 16colors on highres picture AND many many sprites moving. A8 uses up its CPU and "sprite" resources, to come close to what the c64 does without using cpu or sprites.

well for one thing: that simple fact made almost all a8 fans to buy a c64. while almost no "original" c64 user went out to get a8. this 2 facts tells a lot.

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.

the atari 8 bit fans willingly create screens with that slogan, sporting cheap is good ("power without the price"), in the same time a8 fans call c64 for being cheap, bad. prooves the bias.

this is what you call a flat shaded non polygone object. and you call me a troll, when you just lie straight into everyone's face when the screenshot you have provided prooves you wrong in your very same post. link for proof: http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...t&p=1727154

Well, 'cheap' follows Jack wherever he goes. you mean success. I don't think it worked that well with Atari. He kept it around for another generation of hardware, but eventually ran it into the ground. Jaguar anyone? That was the slogan of Jack's Atari. I never liked that slogan and I never liked the poor quality of the XE's. Back off, white bread. Who the f*ck are you? The caucasion equation????? Bwah ha ha! I'm kidding. I couldn't agree more. Just wanted a rise out of ya. The criticism is valid, and stands, but 8-bit Atari users should be glad the ol' Commodore (communist, no less) tycoon kept the machine ALIVE that he'd been tryingo to kill - for so long. I think it strengthened the A8 line. Of course, if you disagree, I'd like to help you out an offer you $2 for each 8-bit computer you have - regardless of brand. The hookup/interface cost more! Jack Tramiel as a comunist? I never thought I'm gonna live to see that sentence.

You know what? I stop acting on Wolfram's ignorant trolling. It's unbelievable, how infantile he is acting here. Argue turning, wrong thinking, faulty knowledge ... Not worthy to write one other word here... what is your problem ? - I have said it uses 16 dithered shades of 4 colors and you attack that statement. for what reason? its a fact. - you have said it repeats pixels without giving any proofs. - then you attack the effect for doing exactly the same the a8 effect does. - previously you say the effect doesnt does something which obviously it does. - you call all c64 owners a "self liar". and finally its me who is trolling. wow. thats a bold one emkay. so just ignore me. ignore the facts I write, if you cant face them.

Wait - you guys have your own guide now? no, I have hacked into your computer, and saw it there.

I agree that sounds nice... Can a C64 produce exactly the same music as this MIDIbox? nope. not at all - the drums are not done by the sid. - there is more than one sid used - dedicated HW tweaks the sid regs. but this is how a c64 sounds when working with 3 sids: http://www.demodungeon.com/temp/earmind.zip (mp3&executable)

proof of sid being able to produce mainstream quality music....

they havent got the money/infrastructure/know how, to make their own backward compatible cpus/other chips. especially in the case of the ST.