Jump to content
Have You Played Atari Today?
2600|5200|7800|Lynx|Jaguar|Forums|Store  

Wolfram

Banned
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    369

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Wolfram

  2. Posted

    And I don't want to say anything else at the risk of starting a flame war.

    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. :P

     

    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.

  4. Posted

    Apple targeted schools! :roll: Duh. Just one more wrong badram.

     

    & businessmen. Visicalc does ring a bell I guess ?

    businessmen bought a pc. wrong again badram.

     

    when pc didnt exist? yeah. I can imagine.. :ponder: btw better stop the name callings, it denies atariski's statements that its done by c64 fans.

  5. Posted

    I don't really know why you choose a so called "built-in" graphic mode. The A8 "offers so much more"

     

    Btw. I prefer the A8 version of the blue max.

     

     

    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 ?

  6. Posted

    Looks like the thread has been reset and we're back to the old arguments again. I still say a direct comparison of hardware features misses the point:

     

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

  7. Posted

    I don't really know why you choose a so called "built-in" graphic mode. The A8 "offers so much more"

     

    Btw. I prefer the A8 version of the blue max.

     

     

    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.

  8. Posted · Edited by Wolfram

    there's no more realism coming out of the bigger palette at all

     

    Then you really need a doctor ...

     

    c64

    2261.gif

     

    a8

    face_c64_tebe.png

     

     

    all the same. you can have so much difference between different type CRTs and slightly different settings.

     

     

     

    c64:

    score1.jpg

     

     

    a8:

     

    blue_max_atari_us.gif

     

    which grass/road color is more realistis ? :D

  9. Posted

    And this means that "the xxx can display 16 color off the shelf" means nothing. At least no conclusion can be made.

     

    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...

  10. Posted

    None of the two computers can display their full palette in any resolution without restrictions. Who prefers what is subjective. Also depends on what to display.

    "Wizzard of Wor" (my favorite when I was a child) benefits from the higher resolution. Using 256 color palette wouldn't add to the game.

    "Alternate reality" gains a lot from the bigger palette, and the lower (less than 320x200) resolution doesn't really matter.

     

    If you want to display a picture of something from the real life (a picture from the nature f. example), the 256 color palette gives more "realistic" result, sacrificing at the altar of the resolution.

    On c64 the picture would be more detailed, but the colors wouldn't fit that much.

     

    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.

  11. Posted

    "c64 CAN display 16color off the shelf" suggests that there is a certain resolution, where the colors of every pixel an be any of the 16. It is not the case. The Amiga and the ST can do that. In gr11 on A800 the color of every "pixel" can be any of the 16, though the resolution is only 80x192.

    "c64 can display all of its colors without having to help with the cpu" is a totally different statement.

     

    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:

     

    large.jpg

     

    the gfx a8 can present in games are inferior.

  12. Posted · Edited by Wolfram

    "c64 CAN display 16color off the shelf" suggests that there is a certain resolution, where the colors of every pixel an be any of the 16.

     

    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.

  13. Posted · Edited by Wolfram

    c64 could display 16color off the shelf

     

    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:

     

    large.jpg

    mayhem.gif

     

    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.

  14. Posted

    c64 could display 16color off the shelf

     

    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

  17. Posted

    Here Wolfram...

     

    The door is open man! I'll even step aside and hold it open for you:

     

    Game on man. All those potential C64 users are right there, waiting for you to get the word out.

     

    Lemme know when you've had enough!

     

    ..and that's not a closer. It is just the state of things. Put out as much effort as you want to. Clearly, if there was significant potential to change minds up and prove Atari isn't the better of the two machines, very significant ground would have been made long before you arrived. It's not like it hasn't been tried regularly over time, and in many venues, not just this one.

     

     

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

  18. Posted · Edited by Wolfram

    Actually, this discussion was very informative and constructive until Wolfman and a general C64 sidekick Barnacle Boy showed up.

     

    yeah I enjoyed your fruitless discussion with tmr about sprites endlessly...

     

     

    They mostly just call people names and deny reality and think they are arguing rationally.

     

    how dare you present such lies ? You are crossing the borders here.

     

     

    C64 was meant to be a cheaper system (inferior quality to their own PET products), yet people hallucinate they are superior.

     

    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.

  19. Posted · Edited by Wolfram

    wrong. people wouldnt have bought the a8 anyway at that prize. thats why they got a c64 and not an a8.

     

    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.

  20. Posted · Edited by Wolfram

    Edit: There is nothing wrong with the Speccy guys, or Atariski. If you have to hammer somebody else to make YOUR machine look better, YOU have a problem.

     

    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. ;)

     

    Each of your deal closers got debunked nicely. The last guy got debunked, and the next guy will get debunked too.

     

    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...

  21. Posted

    Well, considering the Atari was first, and it presents such stiff competition, it's absolutely the BEST.

     

    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.

     

    With a several year advantage, and the rapid state of change in computing, C64 coming up a TIE in the best, very generous, case, isn't getting it done.

    ...

     

    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.

  22. Posted · Edited by Wolfram

    Well, considering the Atari was first, and it presents such stiff competition, it's absolutely the BEST.

     

    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.

     

    With a several year advantage, and the rapid state of change in computing, C64 coming up a TIE in the best, very generous, case, isn't getting it done.

     

    (And I didn't forget SID)

     

    :P

     

     

    what stiff competition!? 30 mill single model c64 vs 500 000 single model of a8s :P 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 :P 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. :D doesnt proves anything.

AtariAge
Forums
Store
General
Follow AtariAge

Copyright ©1998-2021 AtariAge

×
×
  • Create New...