Wolfram
-
Content Count
369 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Wolfram
-
-
While we're flame-warring over Commdore/Atari discs....It is conceptually strange for an Atari user to use Commodore discs. I think the Atari has the better DOS system. From BASIC, you load and save programs, that's it. Everything else is done either from a DOS menu, or a command prompt (a la MS-DOS). Many discs (games, etc) are "boot" discs and you don't have to do anything. This seems way more straightforeward and easy for beginners. Atari also had a ton of different DOSses. MyDOS was the best menu-driven DOS and of course SpartaDOS was the command prompt. Disable BASIC by removing the cartridge, or holding OPTION on power-up. It's surprising that this wasn't copied, as these are great features that pre-date the Commodore.
On the Commodore, to get a directory you load a wildcard ($) IN BASIC and then do a BASIC "LIST" command. A strange-looking (to outsiders) directory will list. What is that? Something that's loaded into BASIC that is NOT a BASIC program? There's no DOS menu or command prompt? Why not? There's no boot disc? There's no way to disable BASIC?
on c64:
- load"$",8 is just using the command prompt on c64, like typing dir on msdos on pc. no dir listing is possible on atari from the prompt? whats so strange about this?
- you dont have to boot DOS up, its in the ROM
- you dont need BASIC cartridge to have BASIC, its in the ROM
- you can have different DOSes (and BASICs). JiffyDOS was just mentioned.
- BASIC is also the command prompt, and part of the OS, and DOS alltogether on the c64, so its pointless to disable it, any program can "disable" it (make the cpu read ram in place of basic rom) if it needs to, with 2 instructions.
-
I'm sorry I overlooked this post earlier so please forgive my responding out of order.the 1541 Ultimate will emulate any Fast Loader cart of choice (or just whatever cart, even game carts). So the speed/handling issue will be not a problem with it.That's not entirely correct. The 1541 Ultimate utilizes the expansion port so fast load cartridges can't be plugged in at the same time. You could use a cartridge port expander but there are some technical issues that may preclude them from working as intended. The 1541 Ultimate itself emulates, for lack of a better term, several of the more popular utility cartridges, all of which include fast load functionality. When using the built-in cartridges, yes, the fast load functionality will decrease load times. At present, the 1541 Ultimate does NOT support cartridge images (.crt) so saying it will "emulate any Fast Loader cart of choice (or just whatever cart, even game carts" is inaccurate and misleading.
yes I got carried away there. as the Retro Replay -which is pretty old tech by now - makes it possible to use different .crt files I thought the new 1541U does the same straight away. I was wrong.
anyway the best utility cartridges are supported, that means up to 16x the speed of the original 1541 speed. however most of the multiload stuff will not run at 16x speed, only the first file. from the time a program started its up on it wether it uses its own custom slow loader (which is the case most of the time), or if its written system friendly it will stay on 16x speed, or if you have a good crack (look for Nostalgia/Remember cracks of games!) you can pick between its own fastloader/system friendly mode.
Street Rod for example can be "hacked" (redirect load vector to AR loader) with Action Replay with a few keypresses so it will use 16x speed, sadly tho its an exception and usually that doesnt works.
edit: you might know all of the above already, I have written it down to give info to other guys.
-
Heh!!You are a better man than I. I really am not sorry. Not that I think I did anything that horrible. Just a bit of fun. But, here's the thing. If there isn't some push back of that kind, people get sucked in. Better to just bring that to the table straight away. If the person is just off on a rant, that shows up quick enough, apologies given all around, and we game on!
On the other hand, if they've got some axe to grind, that comes out too, and the end game is realized that much quicker.
Wolfram: It's never too late to just set that axe down. Do it man! Retro is a kick, and there is lots to do, and great people to share it with. Think hard about that.
before you will make things up: my statement to wood has nothing to do with what you said above. you had a great deal of constant personal bitching on me and you still try to act like mr wiseboy. its pathethic.
-
Apology to Wolfram:The only reason a die-hard Commodore user to come into an Atari forum is to stir up emotions in a flamewar. You succeeded!
Nevertheless, I apologize for name-calling, etc. You still have every right to be here, and you shouldn't be called anything. My apologies for losing my cool and calling you names in such a childish fashion.
However, this doesn't validate your arguements!
I accept the apology. Its very nice from you. As a deal I'll try to be more of an observer from now on than "stirer". I got tired by now anyway.
-
Actually, I'd call most 5 1/4" disc systems - or dare I say all floppy systems - somewhat shitty. Slow, noisy, and unreliable. Somehow, I'll bet the 1541 Ultimate is not as slow as a physical disc - at the very least because there's no seek time at all.An actual 1541 is bulky and has overheating issues. The likelihood that an Ebay'd one would work flawlessly is probably not good. So you're telling me to expect all of this from the 1541 Ultimate? Should I praise the 1541, or trash-talk the 1541 Ultimate to please you?
1541U will emulate even the FastLoader carts for you. So loading up ~50k will take not much time (depends on speeder cart). It is necessary to emulate the 1541 as accurate as possible, because for loading timing is crucial, and all timing is done via software with fastloaders. all c64 fastloaders use their own protocol done via software.
-
There are ways to use Amigas with IDE hard drives which kills much of the motivation for an SIO2PC style interface.A1200 has IDE controller built in, and its pretty much compatible with A500. But if you decide you can beef it up into a machine which is internet/mp3/doom/quake etc capable. I have surfed the web on an A1200 with 68030 16 megs fast, and 80mb hdd. boy it was painfully slow looking now back
-
BTW I kind of want a VIC 20 now. The "1541 Ultimate" device either works in a C64 as a cartridge (press a button and special screen pops up for you to select the disc image) or in "stand alone" mode in which it merely plugs into the floppy disc port. As I understand it, it'll work on VIC 20. I remember playing "Lunar Lander" (or clone) on VIC.thats ironic. the decision to make the 1541 compatible to VIC20 made it a slow drive which you like to attack, but now the same decision works in your favor.
-
But the keyboard problem I was talking about is their regular C64 keyboard which cannot be used while you are using joystick port i/o. If you press joystick button or move joystick it registers as keyboard key presses.Yep, that's because the joysticks are wired to the same CIA registers as the keyboard.
If you had to read joystick inputs along with a lot of keystrokes (e.g. for a complex flight sim or something alike) you would first have to read the joystick without reading the keyboard simultaneously and check if some of it's switches are closed and thereby could cause interference with some of the keys you want to test, and then skip the scanning of any interfering keys depending on the joystick readout.
Or, for a less complex control setup, just use some of the 24 keys that never interfere with joystick inputs
yes thats a problem, but you can circumvent it like you said, or picking key which doesnt interfere. I have played a few games needing both joy/keyboard input and never found this to be a problem. the most annoyance I got out of this was when my buddy wiggled the joystick to fuck up my typing "LOAD "$",8
-
However, I have to admit I'm about to get a C64 myself now, and the sole reason I am now is because of "Ultimate 1541" which means I DON'T have to use theat shitty disc system.The 1541 Ultimate was created to reproduce the functionality of the 1541 disk drive as accurately and thoroughly as possible and therefore it is subject to the same limitations as the original hardware. When you speak of the "shitty disc system", are you making reference to the speed at which data is transferred between the 64 and 1541? If so, be aware that when used as a 1541, the 1541 Ultimate will not be any faster than a 1541 and depending on the revision of the 1541 ROM that you use, it will present the same annoyances (like the save-with-replace bug, for example). It's a 1541 reproduction, warts and all. No historical revisionism.
I hope you someday describe the 1541 Ultimate as being as shitty as a 1541. That would be a great compliment indeed.
the 1541 Ultimate will emulate any Fast Loader cart of choice (or just whatever cart, even game carts). So the speed/handling issue will be not a problem with it.
-
The Sega controllers don't use a standard method for the extra buttons they put. But the keyboard problem I was talking about is their regular C64 keyboard which cannot be used while you are using joystick port i/o. If you press joystick button or move joystick it registers as keyboard key presses.which is not a problem, as 99% of the I/O solutions doesnt use the joystick port for the I/O. because it wasnt designed to be used for I/O like on the atari. C64 has other dedicated ports for I/O.
also in 99,9% of the cases you dont want to type and do I/O at the same time on 8 bit systems. because they are not modern OS, where you can type on a forum while loading. the computer does either this or that.
-
You can only compare standard hardware.... and on the c64 the standard hardware does not use the joystick port for data I/O. you are contradicing yourself.
-
So?He's not right. You can't just randomly choose an analogy and think it applies.
indeed but you are oh so right. you are comparing ports being used for something they werent on most of the machines. apples and oranges.
-
In all the machines compared, obviously the joystick ports are good enough for reading a joystick (else manufacturer would be in deep trouble for even making a joystick port on their machine). But it was a de facto standard amongst A8, C64, Vic-20, C128, Sega, Amiga, Atari ST, etc. while PC had the 15 pin gameport (called joystick port). So just as they compared parallel port performance back in those days amongst PCs, I compared the joystick i/o. And as I stated before, it allowed you to make a multiplatform device like they made ZIP drives for parallel ports although the parallel port was meant for printers (and was called LPT port). There's no other port on C64 that's also available on the other machines compared. If you want to compare non-standard ports or other ports, be my guest-- it's comparing apples and oranges.You deny the reality that on many computers joystick ports were used for joysticks, and other ports were standard for I/O, unlike on atari. Its pointless to compare ports for using for something they werent 99% of the time.
-
Windows XP may have built-in drivers for various USB devices so you think they are all standard, but try hooking up the same devices under Windows '98SE and you'll see quickly that you need specific drivers for specific mice, joysticks, flash drives, keyboards, etc. depending on brand. And cycles required to read a joystick device is not a simple IN AL,DX. It's multiple instructions even at low-level and newer OS won't let you do direct i/o anyway.yes, very realistic. WIN98SE: everybody uses one and worries about the nr of cycles it needs to read the joystick ports.
-
Even if you wrote your own low-level method of access, you will find you still need more cycles to read the joystick than Atari 8-bit!and then you fall into your own trap: c64 can read one or both of his joystick ports in less cycles than atari. not that anybody cared except you.
-
when did I attack you as a person? I doubt that... it is not attacking when I am saying please read tech docs first...re-read. I have listed you as an exception of the attacking crowd
edit: ie. I have said quite the contrary.
-
Actually, C64 would get the worst rating if you started doing keyboard and joystick i/o together since PC and Atari can do interrupt based keyboard i/o whereas C64 OS won't be able to buffer any keys while joystick i/o was taking place.Looking at mathematical computations, we can state a similar comparison that:
PC > Atari ST > Amiga > Atari 8-bit > C64
This is assuming standard machines (not with math coprocessors).
The c64 OS doesnt use the joystick ports for I/O because they were never intended to be. (The c64 OS infact never cares about joystick ports.) c64 has a dedicated parallel and serial I/O port, for doing (DATA) I/O, and beside using that it can just happily read the keyboard too. Not that it's a real life like situation, that you do both loading/typing/joystick movements at the same time. Does your solution on atari support reading keyboard/loading on the same time? Is there any use of that?
-
It was a done topic until it was perked up again due to misinformation being spread regarding it. Way back in this thread, I did comparison of joystick i/o for PCs, C64s, Atari STs, Atari 8-bit, Amiga, etc. and the results were:Atari 8-bit > Amiga > C64 > Atari ST > PCs. PCs, to be fair, don't have digital joysticks so their analog joystick timing through port 201h suffers through the waiting for one-shots to complete.
which is a pointless&unfair comparison. because except the A8 all of the listed computers have and use another solution for I/O and not their joystick port.
to repeat myself this comparison is like:
- hey my car's exhaust is better than your because it can blow dust off better than yours!
- thats true, but my car came with a vacuum cleaner t do that job, and it can suck dust in, which is even better
- bah, dont change the subject its exhaust vs exhaust!!
-
Regarding joystick ports, it's not a minor difference if you are transferring data through it.so its a minor difference, because c64 almost never uses the joystick ports for transferring data. the c64 uses in 99% of the time its serial port or its parallel port.
and in these days there are cartridges doing TCP/IP networking, which are the shit, and cartridges using memory cards. joystick porti I/O on the c64 is a rare non standard solution.
-
Hear, hear. Oswald, I apologize for even the suggestion of comparison to such a prick. Likewise, Frohn - I disagree on some points but you still have my respect.I find it interesting how much DAMAGE blow-hards like Wolfram actually do for the Commodore community. Wolfram (I know you're reading (in chicken-shit fashion and won't address this issue).
I dont think my behaviour does damage. You wear the a8 glasses and dont notice, how everyone except the "atari versions of Fröhn" like Bryan for example, or Heaven, goes on calling me soar loser, fucker, and such just attacking me in person endlessly. While you will find me not doing these name callings, I just ignore them, because I'd like to argue about numbers, which behaviour you simply address as "chicken-shit" fashion. You bring some forums as examples how this should settle, and I just agree, there are no namecallings, no one calls anyone behaving like a "chicken-shit" because he's just ignoring the post who dont do anything but attack someone in person.
Remember the disk drive speed debate? You have asked for numbers (in very angry style, shouting in capitalls, generalizing how I dont bring proofs, calling what I said bullshit, saying I never argue correctly etc etc) and I have just ignored or your attacks, and politely I have gave you your numbers, and the end result was that I was right. Using real disk drives on both sides, or in same cases even a8 disk simulators for comparison the 1541 is faster.
And likewise the guys over on Lemon64, I have no problem admitting (just read back a few pages for proof) that the A8 cpu is faster, Display list is a nice feature, ROF is faster etc. etc. what makes THIS thread going on forever some guys not being able to accept some of the c64's similarly obvious strengths.
Like atariksi comes and says stuff like "CIA is superior but from a software point its useless compared to what the PIA has to offer". Can maybe YOU explain me how CIA is useless, when it can do everything PIA does, and MORE. Can you explain me the chips doing keyboards/joys/paddles/c64 sio/rs232/parallel I/O/etc etc how are useless for the software?
So I went to Lemon64, expeciting a Borg Collective of buttholes like the Wolfram.and what is your reason calling me a butthole ? You're and others just going on and on calling me names. I have given you the numbers, I am not attacking anyone in person, like many of you do here with all this namecalling etc, and I end up being the butthole.? You and others just turned the whole thing into a personal debate! Whats the problem? Its like 5-6 guys trying to bully me off the site because I will just not accept stuff like "atari's multicolor sprites are superior" or "c64 OS cant buffer keystrokes" or "CIA is useless", and so on.
Wolfram - I suggest you apologize for your attempts at making all Commodore users look like pricks, and just admit that it's a personal problem you have, or you wouldn't be here. Everyone's on to you now.so you are there on it again. I will just ignore all this shit you are throwing on me, and this was the last time I have adressed this issue.
-
But you'd still have to get a disk drive for the C64, at least one, I suppose.?! well if you want to do something with a computer you usually need a peripheral or something.
Not with the 800XL, it's got a built-in cartridge port-of course, you can always add drives on if you want. Does the C64 have a built-in disk drive? And how large (inches) were the disks? I've never played one. At least the games are FINALLY getting onto the Virtual Console here in the US!
its all the same on both machines. cartridg ports,disk drives (not built in), disk sizes, etc. c64 is already on the Virtual Console.
-
The fact that loaders vary and their software has to be first uploaded to the drive adds to overhead. And that upload has to occur using 1541 default slow protocol. Drive simulators will be faster even at same bits/second due to almost ZERO seek time. You can also bit-bang the SIO port or better use the externally clocked mode which will use POKEY HARDWARE to sample and shift in data for you at ZERO CPU time and also allow you to trigger off an VSERIN IRQ or used polled mode or cycle exact mode. As I stated I can do 357,000 bps using this mode w/o any hardware modifications to the Atari. The only thing lacking in this mode is ability to BOOT software using this mode. First you can upload a special boot block (128 bytes) and then trigger off this mode.The fact that drive simulators vary and their host pc has to be first booted up to the drive adds to overhead. I hear you "but it has to be done only once". well, same goes to drive speeder software. Also dont forget that you're comparing here 21st century technology vs 80s. thats a "fair" comparison right? and you even want to add the software upload overhead to the c64's time for being even more "fair", but you forget about the pc preparations overhead....
a fair comparison is:
HW modded a8 drive vs software uploaded 1541
the 1541 isnt even changed in HW and still is faster. so really fair would be using a 1541 modded to send 8bits parallel... -
I never gave him permission to stress anything I stated.I dont need permission. its normal, happens everyday everywhere with quotes that some parts get stressed.
-
atariksi,>Atari has both joystick ports tied to one 8-bit port. Atari even reads nibbles at higher frequency.
same as on c64. higher read speed comes from the higher CPU speed, and has nothing to do with the IO chip itself. its just another way telling a8's cpu is faster. it has nothing to do with the "joystick port".
>Joystick ports are inferior on C64. Add in the keyboard interference and you are set.
its just the same and c64's chip doing the "joyport" offers slightly more. thats all.
No, you can have CPU setup which insert wait states on I/O calls like PC does. So the fact that they timed the I/O ports at the same frequency is another gain for the Atari since net throughput is higher for I/O. We are talking I/O speed. It's the samething with timers-- PC originally running at 4.77Mhz decided to divide CPU speed by 3 and then feed it's timer chip 8253 (PIT) so their timing accuracy is 1/119318Mhz = 840ns. I agree CIA is a superior chip than PIA but the way it's implemented, it's functionality can be performed better on Atari with its chipset.
and CIA can do everything PIA can, and MORE! so you can have CPU setup which insert wait states on I/O calls like PC does. etc etc yaddayadda.
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
rename is there. the rest is missing. a fair comparison would be looking at the first dos on the A8 side.