Wolfram

let me remind you to the XE series. were the a8 chips like 7-8 years old by then, with very little changes?

Isn't that what the past 200 someodd pages has been? What differences does it make now. This war ain't going anywhere, as is always the case, might as well start another that isn't going to end up anywhere either. It wasn't a flame war up to page 114 (a little here and there), but after page 114 (when this thread took a vacation for a few weeks), some confused people decided to DEFEND the C64 (with vulgarity/personal attacks/etc.) rather than argue truthfully. I can see atarian doing that right now & seen no c64 people doing that.

I guess you agree that a few post earler Blyan used it for that reason to...

& businessmen. Visicalc does ring a bell I guess ? businessmen bought a pc. wrong again badram. when pc didnt exist? yeah. I can imagine.. btw better stop the name callings, it denies atariski's statements that its done by c64 fans.

the girl hardly uses much colors, but still needs A8 to use its CPU and sprites to help out. its not a "built-in" mode. c64 can display superior gfx and sit idle. or throw up some sprites on top of that. there's 8 of them and they are 24 pixels wide vs a8 4 and 8 pixel wide... on the c64 you also dont need to copy data up/down to have a sprite move up/down. clearly all much better for the typical 80s 2d game. So are you saying, that the 256 color ball demo looks better on C64 in 16 color? so you're going for the straw man argument again ?

lets compare what software is available then... c64 wins again. hands down.

the girl hardly uses much colors, but still needs A8 to use its CPU and sprites to help out. its not a "built-in" mode. c64 can display superior gfx and sit idle. or throw up some sprites on top of that. there's 8 of them and they are 24 pixels wide vs a8 4 and 8 pixel wide... on the c64 you also dont need to copy data up/down to have a sprite move up/down. clearly all much better for the typical 80s 2d game.

Then you really need a doctor ... c64 a8 all the same. you can have so much difference between different type CRTs and slightly different settings. c64: a8: which grass/road color is more realistis ?

I have further clarified my points. Face it, c64 offers so much more. Sprites, SID, and gfx modes which are not restricted to 4-5 color at 160x200. or 2 at 320x20...

c64 can display more colors in real life situations than a8. games, pictures, text, you name it. dont need to go down to 80x pixel size, and STILL having restrictions for the brick sized pixesl.... its not a question of preference. A8 needs a highly specialized PC editor, and utilising its sprite engine AND the cpu this display c64 like pictures in 160x200. C64 can utilise its colors using no extra cpu/sprites and still better at that than a8 after so much effort. there's no more realism coming out of the bigger palette at all. check the g2f gallery, all pictures look like bad c64 pictures with the palette changed. and the best ones are copyed from c64.

I have not said that, nor suggested. what I have said was right. the end. Then the Atari800 can display 16 color off the shelf too. This is also true. yes. and it can only do it at 80x pixel size. which is also true. while on the c64 you have this in charmode: the gfx a8 can present in games are inferior.

I have not said that, nor suggested. what I have said was right. the end. edit: this post has been answered while I was editing it. I have recopyed the original text for correctness.

Can you PLEASE stop saying this? It's NOT a 16 color bitmap mode no matter what you say or think. It's a tile based system. It's not the same. can you please correct me in what I've really stated, and not correcting me in something I havent stated ? "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man I think he misread your post. There is a difference between the "c64 could display 16color off the shelf" and "c64 CAN display 16color off the shelf" (which is not true, otherwise we could say that the Atari can display 256 color off the shelf too ) c64 can display all of its colors without having to help with the cpu. its a very hard fact. a8 is not able to do more than 5 at 160x200, and having to use 80x200 brick resolution to display 16 different color... which are still limited by hue/chrome. c64 charmode without cpu help: it just looks better. c64 gfx modes doesnt need cpu help to make up for the a8, its vice versa. that tells a thing or two about the gfx HW.

Can you PLEASE stop saying this? It's NOT a 16 color bitmap mode no matter what you say or think. It's a tile based system. It's not the same. can you please correct me in what I've really stated, and not correcting me in something I havent stated ? "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

?!! and you are the sockpupet of who ?

& businessmen. Visicalc does ring a bell I guess ?

not giving away an inch in this argument, prooves nothing about the a8. it does only say things about you.

yeah I enjoyed your fruitless discussion with tmr about sprites endlessly... how dare you present such lies ? You are crossing the borders here. can you imagine that something can be both better and cheaper than something else? so when a8 got cheaper then it was previously, it became a worse system ? if the c64 was sold at $1200 it would have been a better system ? commodore owned a chip factory so could produce computers way much cheaper, and thats why the c64 was cheaper, not because it was designed to be a cheap ass, like the speccy.

Apple sold a lot of less capable machines at an even higher price. Atari's approach was wrong- pure and simple. the basic apple was less capabe, but it was very expandable, like pcs. c64 was schoolboy's game machine, apple targeted bizz, and they had visicalc to sell it to businessmen, who had the money, unlike schoolboys going for c64/a8.

YOU have a problem if your strongest point is claiming that if you're not giving away an inch in the argument, prooves something about your computer. yeah thats bold. it was you inserting a deal closer. I have debunked it, and now youre debunking the debunker saying I am closing the deal...

And it doesn't come close to tieing. As you agreed before, marketing is a field by itself nothing to do with inferior/superior technology. The fact is C64 selling more means worse for the people in general since they are saturating the marketing with an inferior product and thus gave people less of a chance to get the best computing had to offer. wrong. people wouldnt have bought the a8 anyway at that prize. thats why they got a c64 and not an a8. they had X money for a computer and they didnt wanted to spend x+y. c64 showed that when it came out, so it ment good for the people they could have a computer (offering more for the less money). later a8 got down to the c64 prize range aswell. which shows that the c64 technology wasnt cheap=crap, but simply commodore could produce similar technology much cheaper in 82, and at that atari was lagging behind.

what stiff competition!? 30 mill single model c64 vs 500 000 single model of a8s check the software support, fanbase, etc. c64 does the avg 80s game hands down better. commercially better supported games/hw/etc. I wonder why would anyone want a computer in the 80's which costs more, has less games, can do less colors (in real life situ!) hell not even colored hires text!!, worse sound, etc. all that mattered was gaming, gfx & sound. c64 could display 16color off the shelf, a8 needs to be in 200x and a pc editor, and the cpu jump in hops to do similar pokey? need to be in 200x to find some new waveforms, which SID does off the shelf. just ask heaven which one is easyer to code, he's straight into both machines, just like tmr, and they both would pick c64. edit: huh and havent even mentioned SPRITES so far. the a8 just can make up with the cpu to equal what the c64 can do with its sprites, and colorful modes. edit2: "Face it, if the machines were not very, very solid, this discussion would be a cake walk, given all the effort seen to hammer "Atari Sucks" or "Atari is second best" home." yeah, remember the spectrum guys? or just look at atariksi. doesnt proves anything.

CHEWBACCA DEFENSE!!!!

(fixed)