Wolfram

Space Harrier on a8 is better than what the c64 could do at its best. But bear in mind existing c64 space harriers were done in a few weeks, using 64k ram. A8 space harrier is being developed since years and years and using 128k. Comparing those two games is not really fair in this sense. c64 version uses 30-40% of the machine's potential while the a8 one is pretty much maxxed out. I have seen c64s doing "Teletext" news, used to display "no broadcast signals", display Train start schedules on trainstations, hooked up with genlock to display texts over TV programs, etc. as for props, from the to of my head: T3 uses a C= PET, just like that british sitcom about the life of helpdesk nerds (dont remember its name now). you're missing out on c64 then: ide hdd&cdrom, 20mhz cpu with up to 16 megs ram, 1541&cartridge emulator cart with mmc card storing disk/cart images, a cart with TCP/IP&clock port with swapabble cart images, c64 dtv a little toy emulating the c64 or on its own mode a wonder machine with capabilities between c64/amiga500, c64 built in a laptop, C-one, various devices utilising the sid being used as music devices on their on right by musicians... thats more than a bit stretching nevertheless c64 is just as flexible, new drives are just as compatible with old software, SIO equals the C= serial bus, etc. yeah, if I dont want I cant do anything with the a8 either. and it wont proove anything. and what games have you loaded up on c64/atari? you are missing out a lot, see my list above about c64 hw extensions. bullshit. have seen zillion of people asking for help on c64 forums, all got friendly help.

that's a bit overcomplicated doesnt looks more simple than plotting something on the c64. plotting to c64 bitmap, width restricted to 32 "bytes": ldy y ldx x lda scanlinestart,y sta $fe lda scanlinestart,y sta $ff ldy horoffset,x lda (),y ora mask,x sta (),y

Yeps a real failure on the main market. With 18 million sold units... And with C128 selling another 4 million. May I mention that the entire A8 line sold just about 4 million too? Vic 20 a mostly non starter, Not C64, what can I say, the public often is not too bright. Sorry I don't know commonsore terminology. To me a vic means vic20. Your original statement was that the VIC was an utter market failure in the US. Sorry, but you got that wrong. VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It was absolutely not a technical breakthrough, but more people could afford it than Ataris. If I remember right from the C= Book "on the Edge" VIC20 was originally a few weeks own hobby project of Bob Yannes ( SID designer). He just wanted to build a computer around the already existing but unused VIC-I gfx chip for fun. But when he showed it to one of his bosses, the machine got eventually made it to be seen by Jack Tramiel who instantly ordered it to be manufactured Sorry, you are wrong, it never got market penetration and most who bought it found they could not do anything much with it and there was little to no software and what little there was was very hard to find as nobody carried it. With Atari you could go lots of places like Sears,Service Merchandise, Burdines,Lazarus and most major retailers. Also I still hate SID sounds, really grates on my nerves. Sorry, you are wrong. The first computer to ever sell 1 million units had market penetration, and is/was a market success. Total flop and wholly unsupported at the consumer level unlike Atari. I know a few people back in the day that bought one as it was cheap. They however did nothing with it and could not find software for it. Yeah.. that a real success VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It was a huge market success. Say it all you like. Still wrong. Here in the US. (main computer market) it was a flop. Success generally means that people dev for it and it's available easily to the public. It was not. Kind like the Virtual Boy, sold a bunch, no software, flop. Actually I think Virtual boy did better Most of those machine sold here were never used. It was a novelty based on price.It was the cheapest machine around and people bought it. People wanted to be part of the emerging "computer age". Not understanding anything about machines they chose the cheapest one. Besides the machine sucked. Give me an Atari 400/800 anyday.Heck at that time a 2600 was a much better choice. Consumers at the time were buying machine for games mostly. Commodore had no great license games and really nothing to offer even if you could find software for it. It's only thing was that it was cheap. Made a great doorstop,closet liner, landfill filler, take your pick. We had neighbors who had one setup on the coffee table. They showed it off. When asked what it did they turned it on and we all looked at it. I asked what they could do with it and the answer was that they had no idea. They never did. You are wrong. The original claim was that it was a market huge market success. the first computer ever selling over 1 million unit is a huge market success. Market success is to be measured in sales numbers. Keep trying. Still wrong. Again market success or failure is obvious when nearly nobody writes software for your system. As in programmers are trying to make money. As is obvious VIC20 failed.Not mainstream. Atari,Apple, Heck Tandy and TI(not a bad system) had more available and Atari and Apple had 1st tier titles as well. Vic failed. I can't even believe we are having this conversation about such a joke of a system. Were you even alive at the time? Stop redefining the meaning of market success. VIC20 was a HUGE market success. whatever you say. Its not like I dont agree with most of you're seeing. But its all offtopic, changing subject. One thing you can never take away from the VIC20: first ever computer to ever sell 1 million units. and that means a huge market success. edit: interesting note from spiceware. VIC20 sold 2.5 millon. more than half of ALL a8 models put together.

indeed. amen.

more uniformly round is not good because they roll on eachother more easily, making the package more easily damaged.

I don't count on you having a photographic memory, but I could possibly count on you being able to read, and, while in doubt, have the posts recorded by the forum for consultation. The exact citation is: "It does not matter much, even if 100 mln units of C-64 were sold, because actually, for example, here (in Poland) the proportion is reverse: in 1990 almost everyone had or had had an Atari, and C-64 were rare. Now the only really existing 8-bit community is A8 fans too, and C-64 fans are rare." You're also supposed to be able to read the sentences (I even put them in separate passage) and understand them properly in the context. And now, once it is clarified that you were wrong accusing me of denying reality, please take the time and reply to the post no. 3812, aka "do you really care, how many bikes are produced yearly in China, and if so, why you do" 1) oh, my sincere apologies, i have not missunderstood it on purpose. 2) asking tricky questions will not change the fact that c64 is the best selling computer ever, and was THE 8 bit computer for most people. 3) somehow I doubt poland had more a8's than c64's. The poland c64 scene was huge in the 90s. I bet they produced more c64 demos at that period than all a8 demos put together.

Could you please cite the place, where I am saying this? "Now the only really existing 8-bit community is A8 fans too, and C-64 fans are rare" I hope I dont have to argue of the different wording. I dont have a photographic memory, so excuse me.

>Sorry, you don't understand how Atari joysticks work. You can pair up the joysticks and read 8-bit values using LDA 54016. No rotates, nibble merging required. You are too stupid to see such a simple point and replying before even reading my post: I did a little research. Sorry, you don't understand how C64 joysticks work. You can read the state of the joystick all 5 bits in one go, so its atleast 5 bits, and its all done using a 8 bit I/O port. so you were wrong from the very start. c64's joystick port is aswell 8 bit. you can stop now and go home.

Just where exactly I am denying facts and reality? where you said a8 has the only real user base left. c64 has much more users and more active. also as said: all major demoparties organize c64 competitions. but not a8 ones. that tells something doesnt it.

They are graphics modes, but I am distinguishing design here. It's cheaper to design graphics modes this way if you already have the text modes done. Cell-based graphics are extensions to text modes; design a text mode and with some little hardware extend to a graphics mode rather than build graphics modes from scratch. I did this with CGA (as I mentioned). You extend the 80*25 text mode to graphics mode by decreasing cell height to 2 instead of 8, intermixing various ASCII characters to get the double or quadruple the horizontal resolution. As you say, it's more CPU time to access than linear graphics modes. two third of the VICII is dedicated for sprites. thats why bitmap gfx is cell based there was not much space left. I think its a good compromise. Majority of games were 2d, sprites made it anyway unnecessary to write bitmap by hand. bitmap games suffer a little from this, but majority of games gets huge benefits because of the sprites.

following your logic, the lowest selling computer must be the best. it doesnt makes sense.

It does not matter much, even if 100 mln units of C-64 were sold, because actually, for example, here (in Poland) the proportion is reverse: in 1990 almost everyone had or had had an Atari, and C-64 were rare. Now the only really existing 8-bit community is A8 fans too, and C-64 fans are rare. Even if it weren't so, do you really think that even an isolated fangroup cares, what is "THE 8-bit" in press? The 8-bit is what they have in their home. So, do you really think, that I care, that C-64 sold "20-30 mln units" somewhere, mainly on another continent? These are just numbers, nothing else. - I have written "worldwide public view". that rules out seperate countries. - the c64 community is obviously much bigger than the a8. 20-30 mill vs 4 mill machines sold go, figure. all major PC demoparties have dedicated c64 demo/gfx/music compos even today. or just check the nr of c64 related videos on youtube vs a8 ones. you are denying facts & reality.

yes. I have read here numerous times comments like "cool this game will show it to the c64 freaks finally who got the better machine"

so VHS was not a succes but BETA was ? come on. you're not making sense.

>okay then clear me up. how do you read in 5 bits using nibble mode ? >I don't have to unless I am transmitting 5-bit digital audio samples. Both machines can do 5-bits on joystick ports. Most of the data is bytes so on C64, you have to read two nibbles (at lower speed) and combine them into a byte using more CPU time. sorry, joysticks are read with one instruction. and joysticks provide 5 bit information. so explain me how is that nibble mode ? also you have to be really stupid / an atari fan not to use the 8bit ports, and put together bytes from nibbles on the c64. >Your example does not apply since joysticks are very popular amongst 8-bit machines and Amiga/Atari ST as well. Joysticks are easier and cheapter to interface in SOFTWARE. Unless you build custom hardware, like IDE64 or whatever you call it, joysticks are the way to go for parallel communications. my example applies perfectly. you desperately want to use the 4 bit I/O on the c64 when it has 8 bit ports. you make not much sense. >No, you are not being consistent then. If you want to compare hardware, Atari wins-- it has 4 DACs vs. 1 on SID. If you don't know how many DACs SID has, then why are you arguing. If you want to allow for software simulation of additional DACs/voices, then you add CPU burden. If you want to allow CPU burden, then don't complain when Atari does it's DLIs, IRQs, kernels, etc. you are changing subject again. you said c64 cant play multifreq digis. thats not true. it can. the end. >there are examples where the c64 does this. doesnt matter what you say it will not change this FACT. you can talk until the end of the universe, those demos will still exist. >If you want to compare which hardware is superior, then stick to hardware comparisons. Whatever C64 does in software, Atari will outdo due its higher CPU speed. changing subjects again. you said c64 cant stream animation & digi voice. it can. the demo showcasing 160x200x~16 at ~12 fps and digi music prooves it.

wow, finally something interesting. thats a very cool possiblity indeed. on the downside it eats up memory like crazy.

>>(2) Joystick port r/w on C64 has to be nibble mode and 1.79X slower even in nibble mode and much much slower if I use BYTE mode on Atari. >iirc, joystick is atleast 5 bits up,down,left,right,fire. so its wrong from the very start. >Bullcrap. Changing your answer again. That's now a new argument and it's still wrong. Slow-down is more if you read 5-bits at a time because you have to buffer in bytes. Oh, I forget, you never even understood what's happening. okay then clear me up. how do you read in 5 bits using nibble mode ? >secondly this just shows that the atari has no other 8 bit I/O port than the c64 if it has to use the joyport for that... >Dead wrong. You can run an 8-bit i/o through cartridge port, PBI port, etc. You can do externally clocked SIO at almost same rate as joystick 8-bit i/O. accepted. >As any sane people will use 8 bit I/O on the c64 and not the joyport its an unfair comparison. doesnt comply with real life situations. >It's a fair comparison for joystick ports! Duh! no. its like : a: my car is better than your car because it's exhaust blows away the dust better. b: it's an unfair compariosn because my car came with a vacuum cleaner which is even better than that, and instead of blowing the dust all over the place it sucks it in. a: bullcrap. its a fair comparison. stick to exhausts! Duh! >>(3) OS on C64 too restricted to buffer up keys; in fact keyboard interferes with joystick data i/o. >wrong, c64 OS does buffer up keys. second part is right. but again in real life people will not use joyport for I/O as there's a better solution. this comparison makes no sense. >Can't stick to comparing joysticks, then stop replying. see the car example. >>(4) Can't play back multifreq audio DAC data on C64 >wrong, it can. >It can't play MULTIFREQ samples since you only have ONE DAC. I specifically mentioned it plays up to 21Khz; you try to do this via software, everything else will slow down to a crawl and it's not as good as hardware support which is what I am comparing. one dac or three dac, doesnt matter. SID can play 3 channel 8 bit samples. I dont know how many DAC's the SID has, but it doesnt matter. it doesnt matter HOW does it. it can DO it. I could similarly claim A8 cant display pictures because it does it with different silicon than VICII. this is getting VERY stupid. come on! >>(5) Can't display gray scale images what to speak of enhanced modes like ANTIC K >wrong. it can display gray scale images. >It can't display the images being discussed which are 16-gray. You are taking it out of context. yeah, but that was not the statement I have attacked, which was wrong. >>(6) Even if I want to show colored images and play single channel DAC audio, C64 CPU is too slow to be processing data buffering from PC end at reasonable rate. >wrong. there are examples where the c64 does that. >Hello. You want me to do the DACs in software and use nibble mode at lower CPU speed and think I'm still going to get same throughput. That's bunch of bullcrap. there are examples where the c64 does this. doesnt matter what you say it will not change this FACT. you can talk until the end of the universe, those demos will still exist. edit: oh and ofcourse you would use nibble mode. there are the 8 bit ports, but you must use nibble mode. holy god.

That's biggest bullcrap I have ever heard on this thread. You claim you have 320*200*16 mode which is complete bullcrap. Color RAM is only 40*25 so how do you get 320*200*16 even with overlays. Atari has GTIA modes and it has overlays as well. Atari can do a lot more in it's DLI with color changes than you can with your raster interrupts. I have yet to see 160*200*16 on C64. sorry I cant state every time the correct c64 gfx restrictions, it would take like 3 sentences. Fact is: c64 can do a lot more gfxwise without any cpu intervention, than atari. just to get more than 5 colors onscreen in a 160 (not talk about 320) mode, you need the help of the cpu. while the c64 cpu can sit idle and show more colors in most of the cases (in games!) than atari with cpu assistance. thats clearly an inferior gfx chip design. No, you are dead wrong. GFX design is superior on Atari; I can use a DL instruction on every line to set hscroll/vscroll/blank lines/etc. You have same graphics modes as Atari: 160*200*4, 320*200*2; you have color RAM whereas Atari has GPRIOR effects-- both do not use up CPU time. But on top of that Atari has the programmable graphics and many many more modes than C64. It also has GTIA modes with 16-shades which are impossible for C64 to produce. On top of that, in interlace the more shading choices give less flicker so the interlace modes are also superior to that of C64. - Sorry a GFX chip which needs cpu intervention to display more than 5 colors in 320/160 modes is clearly inferior to GFX chip which can show 16 colors in all of its modes without any cpu intervention, and we havent talked about sprites yet. GPRIOR effects are neat, but inferior to c64's color map. - ?! c64 havent got the same graphic modes as atari. - c64 has also programmable graphics. you can change mode anytime anywhere. whats so special about that? - nr of modes doesnt make anything better. especially when they are modes worse than c64's. the 16 shade mode is the only one rivaling the c64, but its only useable for demo stuff & very lowres but highcolor pictures. - interlace modes are not built in modes.

Yes, I am looking at this thread. And I looked at threads at the places I mentioned before. These were flamewars, but 1) these weren't exist without involvement of C-64 fans who came there, 2) these were started in respective groups, mostly by the C-64 fans. It is easy to guess, why C-64 groups apparently rarely suffer from that: viz. users of other computers less aggressively come there to "debate". So, your explanation is not likely. I.e. it is not that "ZX/Amstrad/A8 fans flame C-64", it is exactly the other way around, it is C-64 fans who come to other groups (or cross-post to other newsgroups etc.) to "debate" something, in which locals are not really very interested. ... You write that "C-64 was THE 8-bit computer". Maybe for you. For me THE 8-bit computer, these days and now, is A8. I really don't care if anyone else has anything else. So that does not seem a valid argument, either. 1) it will be impossible to proove that mostly who starts these flamewars, our opinion differs, lets just stop that here. 2) c64 is the best selling computer model of all times. 20-30 mill units (WITHOUT c128, plus4, etc) vs 4 mill ALL A8bits included. Your personal opinion may differ but the valid general worldwide public view is that it was THE 8bit computer.

Yeps a real failure on the main market. With 18 million sold units... And with C128 selling another 4 million. May I mention that the entire A8 line sold just about 4 million too? Vic 20 a mostly non starter, Not C64, what can I say, the public often is not too bright. Sorry I don't know commonsore terminology. To me a vic means vic20. Your original statement was that the VIC was an utter market failure in the US. Sorry, but you got that wrong. VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It was absolutely not a technical breakthrough, but more people could afford it than Ataris. If I remember right from the C= Book "on the Edge" VIC20 was originally a few weeks own hobby project of Bob Yannes ( SID designer). He just wanted to build a computer around the already existing but unused VIC-I gfx chip for fun. But when he showed it to one of his bosses, the machine got eventually made it to be seen by Jack Tramiel who instantly ordered it to be manufactured Don't follow your logic. Just because it sold 1 million does not mean it was NOT a failure. You should see how much crap people sell out there that breaks down after a few weeks or a few months. Jack Tramiel ordered many things to be manufactured that were inferior to current technology in the market. Quantity of sales does not make a machine superior nor does more software titles for a particular machine make that machine superior. Even if no game was ever written for Atari that used the GTIA modes, GPRIOR effects, etc., I would still say Atari is superior since I know what it is capable of from the hardware perspective. Of course, for people who are not into technical stuff, it's good to have demos/games available that use the hardware optimally. The original statement was that the VIC20 was an utter market failure in the US. That statement is wrong. VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It's not a Hardware comparison. Yeah but I am arguing you can market anything and the system be a piece of crap regardless of whether you call it a "success" or "failure" by quantity. Wrong. you said "Don't follow your logic. Just because it sold 1 million does not mean it was NOT a failure. " it was not a market failure. it was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. Wrong because I never stated the word market. the entire a8 line sold 4 million unit. VIC20 alone 1 million. if thats a failure all a8 models are a horrible utter flop.

... whereas you should have said that it was intended as irony Behind the scene some wonder why it seems to be a common attitude of C-64 fans to come to other fora and attempt to initiate flamewars (aka "debate that C-64 is better than your computer", as it could be put more exactly). I haven't done any research on that, but it seems so to me also; mainly because some time ago (2-3 years) I was browsing various fora and usenet groups for 8-bit computers, and what I have seen: in ZX Spectrum group there was a flamewar between locals and such incoming C-64 fans, in the Amstrad group there was a flamewar between locals and such incoming C-64 fans,... also on PL atari newsgroup there was a flamewar between locals and incoming C-64 fans etc. What happens here repeatedly, we all know. I haven't seen a flamewar between Amstrad fans and ZX fans on ZX group. So, I missed this, or it is really so that C-64 guys like to "debate" so much? You will not accept it, but this is my honest opinion: when someone cant accept that someone else's machine is better/had bigger succes, then comes the flaming. In my amiga times I bloody hated the pcs for getting ahead of "my" HW/OS. As c64 was THE computer in the 8bit era speccy/amstrad/a8 fans must flame it. Look at this thread, it was started to look for games that were better on a8 than on c64 by an a8 guy. On c64 forums noone starts such threads because they know majority of c64 games are better than on other 8 bit platforms, there's no need to search for examples and ask people to bring them up, they are all over the place. Also noone feels the need to prove c64 is better than whatever 8bit, so no such threads start up on c64 forums. Its like the thing with Michael Schumacher, all non Schumi fans hate him for having to see him win for long long years everything (including me), and they desperately love to proove that he is a lousy driver and only won so much because of cheating, and his teammates letting him win. Also fans of other drivers dont attack each other, because there's Schumi the nr1 person to hate. Also Schumi fans dont start threads how other pilots suck, they dont need to proove that Schumi prooved it already.

Except that these points are not close enough for your usage of the term to be taken as irony, especially when one of your respectable colleagues a while earlier (and before emkay's post, IIRC) blamed Atari memory extensions as a whole for being "nonstandard" or or something like this (I don't remember the exact wording). Thus I stepped in to remind you both that it is not your position to teach us, what's standard here and what's not. As simple as that. I know that trolling is a difficult task, but you came here voluntarily I am sorry. I have instantly told you it was irony. it should have ended there. I do so now.

Yeps a real failure on the main market. With 18 million sold units... And with C128 selling another 4 million. May I mention that the entire A8 line sold just about 4 million too? Vic 20 a mostly non starter, Not C64, what can I say, the public often is not too bright. Sorry I don't know commonsore terminology. To me a vic means vic20. Your original statement was that the VIC was an utter market failure in the US. Sorry, but you got that wrong. VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It was absolutely not a technical breakthrough, but more people could afford it than Ataris. If I remember right from the C= Book "on the Edge" VIC20 was originally a few weeks own hobby project of Bob Yannes ( SID designer). He just wanted to build a computer around the already existing but unused VIC-I gfx chip for fun. But when he showed it to one of his bosses, the machine got eventually made it to be seen by Jack Tramiel who instantly ordered it to be manufactured Sorry, you are wrong, it never got market penetration and most who bought it found they could not do anything much with it and there was little to no software and what little there was was very hard to find as nobody carried it. With Atari you could go lots of places like Sears,Service Merchandise, Burdines,Lazarus and most major retailers. Also I still hate SID sounds, really grates on my nerves. Sorry, you are wrong. The first computer to ever sell 1 million units had market penetration, and is/was a market success. Total flop and wholly unsupported at the consumer level unlike Atari. I know a few people back in the day that bought one as it was cheap. They however did nothing with it and could not find software for it. Yeah.. that a real success VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It was a huge market success. Say it all you like. Still wrong. Here in the US. (main computer market) it was a flop. Success generally means that people dev for it and it's available easily to the public. It was not. Kind like the Virtual Boy, sold a bunch, no software, flop. Actually I think Virtual boy did better Most of those machine sold here were never used. It was a novelty based on price.It was the cheapest machine around and people bought it. People wanted to be part of the emerging "computer age". Not understanding anything about machines they chose the cheapest one. Besides the machine sucked. Give me an Atari 400/800 anyday.Heck at that time a 2600 was a much better choice. Consumers at the time were buying machine for games mostly. Commodore had no great license games and really nothing to offer even if you could find software for it. It's only thing was that it was cheap. Made a great doorstop,closet liner, landfill filler, take your pick. We had neighbors who had one setup on the coffee table. They showed it off. When asked what it did they turned it on and we all looked at it. I asked what they could do with it and the answer was that they had no idea. They never did. You are wrong. The original claim was that it was a market huge market success. the first computer ever selling over 1 million unit is a huge market success. Market success is to be measured in sales numbers.

... was the adjective "nonstandard", which you applied to the Atari RAM extensions, and Frohn used similar wording a while earlier. As I said, your public fails to see your "irony" as the point I raised was different, than emkay's. Making it even clearer: I wasn't discussing C-64 games or C-64 as a whole, but the attitude of the C-64 fanboys, which (the attitude) is also known to me from other debates of this type. The attitide being: treat Atari as C-64, and blame all the differences as "odd", "nonstandard" etc. This is why I called your statement arrogant. which statement was simply ironizing emkay's aproach of "lets forget SID digis because that's non standard", so in fact we're talking here about atari fanboy attitude.

Ofcourse they are. That's why the Lucasfilm Games were not as fast as the A8 could do, after code optimising. there's no supercomputer calculations. its 8 bit 6510 (? or whatever revision) calculations. neither the 6510 nor the a8 count as a supercomputer, nor 6510 code.