Wolfram
-
Content Count
369 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Wolfram
-
-
...Space Harrier indeed proves that in real life game situations a8 needs to interlace the colors to get more than 4 on the screen. How do you think would it display 128 ?
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.
-
Best example for worse Iso 3D is the last ninja series.the last ninja series are the best ever selling games of the c64, and in fact are amongst the best c64 games. you really shouldnt go there. With your kind of argumentation I could easily pull out the stunt that rescue on fractalus has worse 3d than c64. C64 has many many 3d games which has features unseen in ROF.
So let's just play it fair.
Fair is that the Last Ninja series were playable crap. People only liked them, because the C64 shows colours and has nice Sid tunes in it.
"Many 3D" ... well, Quality <> Quantity. There is really no 3D game on the C64 worth a word to write, except to mention that they were slow, ugly, and playable crap, if you're not C64 biased.
OK, some rastertrick games like Trailblazer were fast. But that's a different story.
Some games like Head over Heels use programming tricks like interleaved object movement, where on the A8 the objects move at the same time.
and so on...
Fair is that the Last Ninja series sold hundredthousands, people wouldnt have bought it if they were thinking it's crap. Your opinion vs 100 000s of people weighs very little.
C64 has many flight sim games with filled 3d, 6 degree of freedom movement, different camera views, missions, various weapons to equipp
your plane with, take off/landing, etc etc. People loved playing them. If you dont like them it doesnt matte. Its your lonely biased oppinion (without not even playing those games let alone knowing about them) vs ten thousands of people again.
-
Also in real life game situations G2F techniques are useless. Just like you cant use C64's most advanced cpu driven non interlaced 320x200x16 formats for games, neither can you use G2F format on Atari. Not even with a higher clocked cpu.Not quite useless.
Consider a situation on both machines where 20 character lines use 100% of the CPU for G2F, iFLI, whatever.
That's 160 of 312 scanlines on PAL. Consider that we have the remaining 40 just normal text type stuff for score, status, whatever.
C-64, leaves you about 9,600 cycles free considering 200 lost for 5x40 character fetches, compared to the normal of ~ 19,280.
Atari, leaves you about 15,500 cycles free considering 1,800 lost for 5x40 character fetches and 40x40 charmap fetches, compared to the normal of ~ 26896.
And, you're not totally wasting the kernal section of the screen... with some creative programming you can put the spare cycles to good use doing housekeeping stuff that you might normally do during VBlank.
G2F modes needs atleast an AI level game kernel to make objects move around and have more than (non rainbow style) 5 colors. 9600 or 15500 cycles, doesnt matter, not possible to use it in real life for a real game. (scrolling background sprites, bullets, etc all moving around, or even make it a 3d game)
-
nonstandard ram expansionsYou're really very funny with this. One question: if 320K is a "nonstandard" RAM expansion, then which one is "standard"? 1064?
RAM expansions that needs soldiering are nonstandard. If you had to soldier your PC to get 2gigs ram instead of 1, would you call that a standard expansion?
-
Please.. the Vic was an utter failure in the US. The main market at the time.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.
-
Please.. the Vic was an utter failure in the US. The main market at the time.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.
-
Atariski,
as you're changing the subjects lets go back to the original claims:
>Atari plays back entire 2 GB of multimedia CDROM data originally written for PC. You can't do any of the above on C64--
(>1) C64 won't let you boot from external source without writing some stuff like "LOAD "*",8,1".
right
>(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. 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. while c64 has both joy and other 8 bit ports. 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.
(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.
(4) Can't play back multifreq audio DAC data on C64
wrong, it can.
(5) Can't display gray scale images what to speak of enhanced modes like ANTIC K
wrong. it can display gray scale images.
(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.
-
Please.. the Vic was an utter failure in the US. The main market at the time.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.
I have said the VIC20 was a huge market success which is true. So can you please stay on topic and argue/accept to what I have said. Instead of arguing against something I havent said ?
-
>No it's a fair comparison comparing similar aspects of the hardware. Sprites vs. sprites. Joystick port vs. joystick ports. Graphics modes vs. graphics modes. Text modes vs. text modes. Etc. Original point was in all the aspects I listed, C64 was inferior and that's the fact. I don't have to modify any hardware to do byte mode access. Now you want me to modify 1541 interface to use 8-bits. You are CHANGING the subject to modifying hardware and using other hardware.
No, its an unfair comparison. on c64 people use joyport to read joys, and I/O port to read data. Nobody will use the c64's joyport in a real life situation to read in data because c64 has better solutions. But why you on atari use the joystick port to read in data? no other 8bit ports available? and how will you play a game and read both joy input at the same time ? the c64 can do that.
so atari has to use joyport for I/O, and music chip for timing, looks like the c64 has more features. it has dedicated non shared joystick I/O timer and music functions.
>>It has a keyboard buffer-- wording is "too restricted" as compared to Atari. Normally, you can type something on the keyboard without having to worry about if someone moved the joystick. It causes problems if you are bursting data through the joystick port and can't allow keystrokes to be struck. Good compromise or "cheaper" design philosophy of overloading functionality to save a few cents.
>Then I might have misunderstood you. You wrote "OS on C64 too restricted to buffer up keys". Doesnt that mean, that the C64 OS cant buffer the keystrokes? I thought you ment that. Now you change the subject to HW restrictions. What are we talking about? About the ability of the C64 OS not being able to buffer keystrokes, or the problem of interfering joy/keyb input ? We should make that clear so the argument makes sense, and doesnt hop between OS's inability to buffer keystrokes and HW interference of joy/key inpout. These are two distinct matters.
>Both points were listed under one item. They are related. To make it simple for you, if I am reading joystick data, no keyboard functionality is occurring.
In your original statement you have wrote that "c64 OS is too restricted to buffer keystrokes". you have said nothing about joy/keyb interference. those two points were not listed under one item. So you were simply wrong. the c64 OS can and does buffer keystrokes.
>Also as I wrote above and in my previous post, using joystick port for data I/O is a bad idea, as there are other 8 bit parallel ports for that available. If you pick a bad solution you will get a bad solution. If you pick a non joy/keyb 8 bit parallel port, then you can read the keyboard while reading 8 bit data aswell.
>It's not my problem your joystick is implemented in an inferior way to Atari's. We also have cartridge interfaces and other ports. They are compared separately.
Its nobody's problem. c64 doesnt has to use the joyport for I/O as it has other and better solutions. it makes no sense to use it for I/O comparisons. just like its probably easyer to hit in a piece of nail into wood with a8 as a c64. but it doesnt makes sense.
>>Unrelated to (4) above. You want to playback 4 different voices at their own frequency, you don't have 4 DACs. You don't have 2 DACs (which is what I am using currently). Stop the bullcrap about 3 channel true 8 bits samples-- you are premixing in software. You have only one DAC.
>I had no premixing in my mind. By carefully playing with the inner ADSR counters & freq & other registers of the SID, each of the 3 channels can play 8 bit digi audio. After restarting the freq counter you always wait a constant time before applying the DAC level, but by changing the frequency the triangle wave will reach a different value & with some tricks you can hold the old DAC level while all this happens. When the freq counter reached the desired level you can then apply it to the channel and hold the value until you repeat the process.
>You are mixing things up. That's a software simulation of a DAC not a real DAC. You can also simulate higher bits DACs on Atari. There's only one 4-bit DAC (in hardware) on C64 which you can play unrestricted samples on and there's 4 on Atari. That's a simple point.
it doesnt matter how its done. it is possible to play 3 8 bit individual digi channels with it, which you said its not. so you were wrong.
>>Hello, I clearly stated target was 16K machine-- it works on all Atari 8-bit computer models every made 400/800/600XL/800XL/65XE/130XE/etc. I can also do 160*200 on Atari in more gray scale (or shades of any other color) than C64. But wait, point (5) above was you can't do gray-scale imagery not resolution.
>You said: "Can't display gray scale images", and nothing about 16k restrictions (you're changing the subject again) . no 16k c64's exists all c64's are the same. but what does this all have to do with wether a machine can display grayscale images or not ? C64 has grey colors, then I assume it can display greyscale images.
>It can't display 16 grayscale images. All the imagery is 16-gray scale. You did understand it was 16-gray scale since you stated you can do it at higher resolution.
originally you said c64 cant display grayscale images. it can. you were wrong.
>So, your point is that c64's joystick port is not as good for data transfer as atari's? Indeed it isnt. The c64 has its dedicated 8 bit I/O ports, you just need a cable to use them. There's no reason to use the joyports instead of them.
>So than admit it and not state that I have my "facts wrong". So to summarize again removing your confused understanding:
>Atari joysticks are superior to C64s.
only when you use them for I/O. but the c64 has its dedicated IO features, and it makes no sense to use something for I/O which wasnt even ment to be, when there are better solutions.
>Atari can display gray-scale imagery better than C64.
it cant. c64 will use more data to display a picture. in 5 colors and double the resolution.
>Atari can play 4 channel multifreq DACs; C64 is stuck with one DAC.
you originally said c64 cant play multifreq digis. you were wrong. it can.
>Atari can boot system externally.
never claimed it cant.
>C64 has problems with keyboard/joystick interference (OS and h/w).
that was not your original claim. stick to them. you said c64 os cant buffer key. but you were wrong because it can.
-
Best example for worse Iso 3D is the last ninja series.the last ninja series are the best ever selling games of the c64, and in fact are amongst the best c64 games. you really shouldnt go there. With your kind of argumentation I could easily pull out the stunt that rescue on fractalus has worse 3d than c64. C64 has many many 3d games which has features unseen in ROF.
So let's just play it fair.
-
The SID takes advantage of the higher clocked cpu. The sound is much better than what the SID is normally capable of. The video prooves it, and the SID does make the digi sounds. What else would make it? the CIA chips ?
In theory
It is caused by a design flaw of the C64. The "flaw" was reduced with the 8xxx version of the SID which makes this type of digitizing useless. It's similar to the Highspeed Disk access. IT doesn't run on all C64 machines, thus it never went to be a standard there.
Space Harrier indeed proves that in real life game situations a8 needs to interlace the colors to get more than 4 on the screen. How do you think would it display 128 ?Look at G2F. Add the GPRIOR functions that it does not support.... and then think about a ten times faster CPU...
Even without the faster CPU, the usage of the players can be changed to simple shape usage overlayed by the playfield colours.
with this kind of arguing, similarly I can claim that all demos that use nonstandard ram expansions only exists in theory. lets start with numen... . So please can we finally agree that the SID benefits from higher clocked cpu regarding metal dust, it has better sound than normal SID, and the SID does the digi sound?
G2F supports static GFX, and G2F pictures hardly ever use more than 20-25 colors. Also in real life game situations G2F techniques are useless. Just like you cant use C64's most advanced cpu driven non interlaced 320x200x16 formats for games, neither can you use G2F format on Atari. Not even with a higher clocked cpu.
-
You have not understand what I wrote. I wrote that SID doesn't take advantage by the higher clocked CPU. SID does not make the digi sounds at all. The voices also do not "sound" better.Space Harrier proves all already.
The SID takes advantage of the higher clocked cpu. The sound is much better than what the SID is normally capable of. The video prooves it, and the SID does make the digi sounds. What else would make it? the CIA chips ?
Space Harrier indeed proves that in real life game situations a8 needs to interlace the colors to get more than 4 on the screen. How do you think would it display 128 ?
-
"soundwise SID gets no advantage". Emkay, have you turned your speakers on? the game has digi music and sound effects.Listen to the "Digi-Music" . Doesn't it sound really worse for a super CPU based Digi-Music ?
Sometimes I really wonder if people really can imagine, what the A8 is capable of, when using a super CPU for such game.
Look. You see a limited value of Sprites, you see a limited value of colours and you hear "Digi-Music" without really clean sounds.
Just like the good old C64 offers.
On the A8 you'd gain real clean sounds, 128 colours on the screen, and a screen full of big moving objects.
please dont change the subject. you said that the supercpu doesnt has "sid advantage" which is not true. this is the only c64 game with high quality (c64wise) ingame digi music & sfx thanks to the supercpu.
as for your other claims: we have a c64 bullet hell game with 16 colors, with a screen full of big moving objects with digi music&sfx vs your imagination, which doesnt proves anything.
-
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!
Sadly that game is far from what you could do with a supercpu. Most of the game could be done in a stock machine except the sounds, where the supercpu shines here is only the digitized music. With a supercpu and so much ram it should have used 16 color bitmap gfx for the background without repeating a single graphic object.
"soundwise SID gets no advantage". Emkay, have you turned your speakers on? the game has digi music and sound effects.
-
Please.. the Vic was an utter failure in the US. The main market at the time.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.
-
>Normally, you do use joystick for input (duh). Joystick is being used for input to read in 2 frames/second and digitized audio and text/code. CIA chips could have been 8-bits but they tied up 5 bits to $DC00 port and 5 bits to $DC01 port thus disallowing BYTE mode access. Even in nibble mode, it's slower than Atari.
Yes, I have mentioned that normally you use the joystick port for reading the joystick. That can be considered as I/O. But on the c64 there are better solutions for getting data into the computer. You have also mentioned that the joystick port can only read nibbles, but on other ports you can read in bytes. One can modificate the 1541 & c64 so that the data flow between them is parallel 8 bits. similarly you can connect a C64 to a PC through a 8 bit parallel cable. So I dont understand why would/should one use the joyport for a this comparison when there are better solutions. Taking the best solution on one machine and a bad one another one is an unfair comparison.
>It has a keyboard buffer-- wording is "too restricted" as compared to Atari. Normally, you can type something on the keyboard without having to worry about if someone moved the joystick. It causes problems if you are bursting data through the joystick port and can't allow keystrokes to be struck. Good compromise or "cheaper" design philosophy of overloading functionality to save a few cents.
Then I might have misunderstood you. You wrote "OS on C64 too restricted to buffer up keys". Doesnt that mean, that the C64 OS cant buffer the keystrokes? I thought you ment that. Now you change the subject to HW restrictions. What are we talking about? About the ability of the C64 OS not being able to buffer keystrokes, or the problem of interfering joy/keyb input ? We should make that clear so the argument makes sense, and doesnt hop between OS's inability to buffer keystrokes and HW interference of joy/key inpout. These are two distinct matters.
Also as I wrote above and in my previous post, using joystick port for data I/O is a bad idea, as there are other 8 bit parallel ports for that available. If you pick a bad solution you will get a bad solution. If you pick a non joy/keyb 8 bit parallel port, then you can read the keyboard while reading 8 bit data aswell.
>Unrelated to (4) above. You want to playback 4 different voices at their own frequency, you don't have 4 DACs. You don't have 2 DACs (which is what I am using currently). Stop the bullcrap about 3 channel true 8 bits samples-- you are premixing in software. You have only one DAC.
I had no premixing in my mind. By carefully playing with the inner ADSR counters & freq & other registers of the SID, each of the 3 channels can play 8 bit digi audio. After restarting the freq counter you always wait a constant time before applying the DAC level, but by changing the frequency the triangle wave will reach a different value & with some tricks you can hold the old DAC level while all this happens. When the freq counter reached the desired level you can then apply it to the channel and hold the value until you repeat the process.
>Hello, I clearly stated target was 16K machine-- it works on all Atari 8-bit computer models every made 400/800/600XL/800XL/65XE/130XE/etc. I can also do 160*200 on Atari in more gray scale (or shades of any other color) than C64. But wait, point (5) above was you can't do gray-scale imagery not resolution.
You said: "Can't display gray scale images", and nothing about 16k restrictions (you're changing the subject again) . no 16k c64's exists all c64's are the same. but what does this all have to do with wether a machine can display grayscale images or not ? C64 has grey colors, then I assume it can display greyscale images.
>Those images don't look so good. Anyway, the point was joystick port transfers not some special hardware like IDE64.
Perhaps, I need to take out my Amiga<->Atari interface and start using the Video Toaster to do some output. On Atari joystick ports, I can do LDA/STA..LDA/STA in BYTE mode without any additional hardware.
So, your point is that c64's joystick port is not as good for data transfer as atari's? Indeed it isnt. The c64 has its dedicated 8 bit I/O ports, you just need a cable to use them. There's no reason to use the joyports instead of them.
-
Please.. the Vic was an utter failure in the US. The main market at the time.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
-
Atari plays back entire 2 GB of multimedia CDROM data originally written for PC. You can't do any of the above on C64--(1) C64 won't let you boot from external source without writing some stuff like "LOAD "*",8,1".
(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.
(3) OS on C64 too restricted to buffer up keys; in fact keyboard interferes with joystick data i/o.
(4) Can't play back multifreq audio DAC data on C64
(5) Can't display gray scale images what to speak of enhanced modes like ANTIC K
(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.
Hello all,
Interesting thread. I have to admit I have registered to defend the commie side
, particularly this post has got a lot of facts wrong:(2) normally you never use josytick ports on the c64 for I/O, other than the joystick. the two CIA chips together has 4 8 bit wide I/O ports, so it would be stupid not to use them.
(3) the first part is not true, the c64 OS has a keyboard buffer. the 2nd: normally you either type or play a game, I think its a good compromise rather than something that causes problems.
(4) the latest SID discovery makes it possible to play back 3 channel true 8 bit samples.
(5) can display 160x200 5 color grayscale images. not 16, but the resolution is higher.
(6)
also there is a demo which displays a streamed animation from pc at 160x200x16 & digi music, sorry but couldnt find a video for it. its really rare, as it needs special pc-c64 cable. this one's transfer speed is: lda IOport sta mem lda IOport sta mem lda IOport sta mem and so on..
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Atari v Commodore
in Atari 8-Bit Computers
Posted
you could even try to read in a byte from the lightpen on the c64 if you want to make it pale in comparison. fact is c64 has its dedicated 8 bit I/O and dedicated joystick port. while it seems you can only use the joyport to read 8 bits on atari. c64 is simply more feature rich, and you take this fact to turn it down. very creative I have to admit.