DimensionX

I will give you something to look at, and think about. IF C64 was as good as Atari 800? Why, didn't any of the games looked like this? You tell me. Let me guess. It can't be done with only 16 colours? PNG, 684x9564px, 434 KB (0.42 MB) Atari 800 was the true "rainbow machine" with it's clear colours that C64 never could produce. We saw them even in the early games from 1982. Atari 800 was the 8bit Amiga in many ways.

Oh for crying out loud... it has 128 colours for the graphics modes being discussed because that's what CTIA Atari 8-bits kick out and the GTIA machines retain that presumably for compatibility. If we're talking about misunderstandings, that's your starting point. Yes, thanks for repeating what i've already told you... s'just a shame you didn't say that when you talked about a "256 colour mode used in many games for Atari" previously. Except of course they did repeat colours a lot on the A8 because many games use similar luminances to get bias relief and other related graphical styles. There are limits as to which colours can be used for hardware sprites as well if they're pairing off to generate multicolour objects, so sometimes the "clear colours" you've been wibbling on about were chosen more because when their values are ORed together they produce a desired third colour, not because they're somehow the "right" colours to use. And as i've already said repeatedly that argument is utter bunk anyway because it's not just about the palette - for many people, a well drawn graphic in a fixed sixteen colours will still look better than a badly drawn one with a 128 colour palette to choose from and that's because it's subjective; trying to justify it with rubbish like the "clear colours" thing doesn't hold any water at all, if we're going around inventing ridiculous terms like that i'll just call the entire C64 palette "sparkly" and say that trumps "clear". i never said that you hate the C64, so stop trying to put words into my mouth. You're still missing the point. The point is that the programmer can choose exactly what colours to use from a big palette of colours. Something that is impossible on C64 where you only have 16 colours to work with. You can't choose that special red nuance you want to put on that dark red cube. You have to use one of that available 16 colours. And there isn't more then one red nuance left to choose from. On Atari you can choose among many nuances of red to find just the right one that you want. Even if you only use 12 colours for your game. Old Computers.com wrote Perhaps you should change the info on Wiki? PNG, 321x362px, 5 KB (0 MB) C64 in PAL version didn't even had 1 Mhz CPU frequency. PNG, 340x360px, 5 KB (0 MB) Of the screenshots i posted, can you find some bad drawing in the Atari version of the game? No? Neither can i. And i didn't say that you called me a C64 hater, i only wanted to make clear that i'm not. I trying to be honest instead. C64 was a good computer in many ways, but i can't match the graphics on the Atari 800. If it could, i would be the first one to say so and agree with you. I don't say that every Atari 800 game looks much better then it's C64 counterpart, then i would be lying. What i say is that Atari is capable of producing graphical effects in the games that is beyond what C64 can handle. C64 can't produce multicolorspreads with it's 16 colours for exempel. C64 can't use alternate fine nuances of red, green or any other colour. Atari can do all that. Therefore Atari is the better machine in the graphics department.

No, there isn't really - there were a few discussions a couple of weeks back about the possibility of getting something running from it's graphics but i don't think anybody had a working sprite engine that can even manage half of what the C64 version is doing at the same framerate. There are some good horizontally scrolling shooters out there such as Zybex (probably my personal favourite, although the C64 version is far more colourful and detailed), Lowca, Kult or Humanoid but there's nothing handling the sprite counts of the busier C64 games. Only in the very loose sense it'll be a horizontally scrolling shoot 'em up. Perhaps you missunderstand what i'm trying to say? Atari has a palette of 256 different colours, but you can't use all of them at the same time, unless you perform some clever programming. But that's not the point. The point is to be able to choose from a big palette of colours, which C64 can't. What i basically mean is that Atari has a much bigger palette to choose colours from. Not that Atari all the time uses 128 or 256 different colours at once on screen. In C64 games you'll see the same colours all the time because lack of a big palette to choose any other colours from. If we watch 30 different games on Atari, you will se much difference in coloursetting, even if Atari just use 4 different colours for that particular game. On C64 it's the same colours all the time from game to game. You will recognize the typical green colour that C64 produces in game after game after game. That don't happend on Atari because of a much bigger palette to choose from. And because Atari has so much more colours to choose from, you can create fine hues of colours which is impossible on the C64. And that's why the Atari games looks so much better. The explanation for that Atari games in many cases looks more clear is because the creator can choose just the right colour to fit from a big palette of colours. Something impossible on C64. No, i don't hate C64 at all, i use VICE to play C64 games all the time, i just want to show why Atari was the best 8bit computer in graphics. I even bought a Vic 20 in 1983.

Download this emulator for Atari 800 (by far the best emulator) http://a800win.atari-area.prv.pl/ Now...go to homesofts page and download thousands of games and demos. http://www.mushca.com/f/atari/index.php?idx=1 I'm sure that you will find something that's similar to gradius and armalyte.

C64 games often looked very similar thanks to very limited 16 colour palette while Atari games had way more variation in colour thanks to it's 256 colour palette, no matter how many it used on screen at the same time. C64 suffered from the same syndrome as ZX Spectrum with it's very limited palette of colours to choose from and most Spectrum games looked the same (colourvise). I recognize this green, i have seen it in the last 10 games i played earlier today. And even if C64 use it's colours well, the games looks pretty much the same thanks to the very limited colour palette. Graphics like this was impossible to do on the C64 who couldn't handle shades of colours. C64 version to the left, you would be forced to use only single colours in this version while the Atari version used gradiant shading. Look at the hues in the Atari version, much finer shading while C64 version have to use very different colours like white and dark red. You could even antialize the games thanks to Atari 800's huge colour palette. Something impossible to do on the C64 Gradiant shading was impossible to do on the C64, compare these screens. Huge difference. While the C64 version used only single colours the Atari version contained multigradient colours. The games on Atari looked much cleaner because bigger choice between used colours

i have looked at Action Biker on both machines a lot because i've completed it on both a couple of times over the years - but this whole "clear colour" thing is just subjective rubbish; apart from anything else, these are emulator screenshots so the palettes are all but guaranteed to be at least a little off the mark for both. I owned an Atari 800 for about 6 years, then i got an Atari ST 1988. Me and a friend often compared the games on my Atari 800 and his C64 and the Atari version almost always looked a bit better. The display is quite different between the machines and Atari has a much finer palette. C64 has way more intense colours then Atari 800, just like Atari ST while Atari 800 has much finer spread between the colours. If you look at many screens the atari version is almost always a bit darker and has much finer colour spread, just like the orginal computers. C64 had 16 colors to work with while Atari had 256 to choose from. It's hard to compare a computer capable of only 16 colours with one equipped with 256. Besides that, it was possible to get 256 colours at the same time. I'll quote Wiki

When you say "many", you presumably mean "not many" since the A8 doesn't have a 256 colour mode; APAC is there on PAL machines with GTIA (so nowhere near universal) but only offers a mere 80x96 pixels over the standard screen area and there's no more than a handful of games actually using it because it's very CPU intensive. The screenshots you've posted don't work in a "256 colour mode" either for two reasons; the first is that they're mostly using CTIA modes which only have 128 colours available and the second is that the actual modes they're using have a maximum of five colours per scanline for the playfield and the rest of what you're seeing is being produced by the CPU constantly updating the colour registers during the frame. Nobody has denied that the A8 has a larger palette than the C64 but just having a larger palette alone proves bugger all; look at Gauntlet or Action Biker from your own comparisons, the C64 versions have more colours in use because the hardware offers more flexibility with those 16 colours. I think it's a quite similar situation between C64 and Atari 800 as between Amiga and Atari ST. Both Atari 800 and Amiga share those clear colours that both C64 and Atari ST lacks, no matter how many colours they use on screen at the same time. It's the quality of the colours, and even if they just use 3 colours on screen you'll notice the difference at once. If you look at actionbiker for exemple, sure, C64 use more colours but Atari's are much cleaner. Same thing with Flip and Flip, the colours on Atari is so much clearer. It's not quantity but the quality on the colours. C64 often use very different colours from real dark to very light while the Atari use much finer shades of colour instead. Not even the ST could produce those clear colours from the Atari 800 games.

The Atari 7800 obviously! Thought so...my first guess was jaguar. As long as it lasted.

Jnes is my favourite. Before that i used FCEultra. http://www.emulator-zone.com/doc.php/nes/jnes.html

Here we go again... This discussion has been done to death. See the A8 forum for more details. Aha, i'm new in this forum. Hmmmm, who won?

Those channels are 8-bit frequencies whilst the C64 offers 16-bit; if the A8 wants to match the C64 on that front (forgetting all the extra waveforms and so forth) the channels have to start pairing off. No, that's just hyperbole and the C64's graphics hardware can more than hold it's own next to the A8 in many cases - you just need to stop trying to "prove" things with comparisons like these (it's never worked all the other times people have tried it) and start looking at the best examples on the C64, the ones that weren't converted for whatever reason. If we play this "comparison" game yet again it works both ways, games like Last V8, Action Biker (oh, count the colours in those screenshots, for the backgrounds the C64 has nine whilst the A8 only five), Panther or Red Max have more colour and much finer horizontal scrolling, others such as Blinky's Scary School, Draconus or Zybex are more colourful on the C64 and run at twice the vertical resolution and so on. On paper it's about 75% faster (which isn't "almost twice" really) but anyone who has tried to program on both knows that in practice it's more like 50% or less depending on the screen mode in use. Ok, where's the C64's 256 colour mode used in many games for Atari? Besides that, Atari has a much more smooth pallette and more clear colours. Look at boulder dash for exemple, no boulder dash on C64 has even come near the atari version of the game through the years. This is typical Atari 800 graphics that was used already 1983 thanks to it's 256 colour mode PNG, 684x1752px, 89 KB (0.09 MB)

In the spirit of the first post in this topic: This is "programming" section, and we should try to make something new on both machines and see which one offers what. And then make some conclusions. Not based only on what was done in '80s. I agree, but new games are made today too, for both machines. And demoprogrammers have exploited the hardware on both machines for many years. Classic computers never dies, they just get better. To compare C64 and Atari 800 it's like comparing Atari ST with Amiga, who's the better machine? The conclusion? There isn't such thing because every computer have it's own charm and special way of running a game. Either you'll like it, or not. Besides that, every computer has it's strengths and weaknesses, you will not find a single computer that is best on everything. Amiga had better graphics and sound but Atari had a much simpler OS and arkitecture plus a great monochrome screen which made the ST more stable and perfect for serious applications. C64 won't beat Atari 800 in the graphics department, but it has way better sound. Which computer is best? None, it depends on what you're looking for. PS: It's interesting to compare ZX Spectrum to C64 and Atari 800 too.

Let's see C64 had better sound but Atari had more soundchannels. Atari's graphics was better thanks to Jay Miners awesome Antic chip that let Atari 800 perform things that not even Atari ST could handle. Atari's main processor was almost twice as fast as the main processor in C64. The only real advantage that i can see for C64, was software support. The hardware in Atari 800 was years ahead of it's time and Atari 800 was by far the most advanced 8bit computer, thanks to Jay Miner. One funny thing is that Jay Miner later built the Amiga, the most advanced 16 bit computer with it's clear colours, 4 channel sound and good hardware support. It was in some way the 16 bit version of Atari 800. Some of the people who created C64 later created the Atari ST. And the winner is... Atari 800 XL

Well, let's compare? C64 vs Atari 800XL C64 to the left and Atari to the right You can right away see that the colours are much more clean on the Atari. On games like koronis rift the Atari version is superior. When C64 often used one colour the Atari version was multicolored, like in MR Robot for exemple. The Antic chip let Atari produce graphical effects that was inpossible to do on other 8bit computers. For at quick peek, check the attachment. Then check out these screenshot maps. You can't really argue against that Atari 800 XL had the better graphics thanks to better hardware support. PNG, 669x2256px, 130 KB (0.13 MB) PNG, 732x2130px, 121 KB (0.12 MB) PNG, 668x1500px, 93 KB (0.09 MB) PNG, 732x2555px, 148 KB (0.14 MB)