Will this mode ever be fully available?

[Will this mode ever be fully available?]

Thanks for all replies, I still think the atari 8 bit is a wonderful machine...I like it much more than the c64.

[Will this mode ever be fully available?]

I have again started learning asm programming on the 800xl and I am reading this topic about colours on screen.

Can somebody tell me if it is possible to have more than 4 colours in 160*192 mode? I accept the fact that 320*192 has only 1 colour. I have read many topics about the 80*192 resolution, but my opinion is that the picture on screen will be too rough, I know in 80*192 you can have many colours but for me 160*192 looks like a nice resolution.

Thanks.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

This was posted over in the A8 forum, but what a great Pokey conversion! Awesome sawtooth at 0:27.

 

 

Pokey's not so bad. Too bad no one figured out how to do that sooner.

 

Great! I enjoyed this very much, thanks for giving the link!

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

Ok, final post on this one because I think we're talking at cross purposes..

 

I don't think you're saying SID is mega thin, I'm just disagreeing with you (right from my first ending reply) that I don't think it is and that you're saying something subjective that others don't agree with.

 

As for the SID coming later than POKEY I wasn't implying that MUST mean it's better, just it does have a more synth like design, something that barely existed in POKEYs day. Having 2 synths and the better one being the earlier one kind of means nothing to this comparison unless one has POKEY and the other has SID in it. I've got a few guitars, some people think old strats etc are better, I prefer my more modern models that have better hardware etc, ergo, SID is better? no, not what I'm saying.

 

okies? I'm done with this one now because it's going nowhere as it's all subjective anyway.

 

*edit for typos*

 

Pete

 

Hmmm well fine to me.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

 

 

Well okay, I have to say to the best in following way : The SID just sounds not as powerfull or thick as the pokey does. I know the basssounds of the SID are good, very good!, but when you combine the soundchannels of the pokey you also can get fat sounds (bass). And I do not believe what many people say that pokey is NOTHING compared to the SID...pokey is capable of so many sounds many people just do not know.

 

I have both the c64 and atari xl and I compared games, demo's and also simple programming those machines a bit and I notice the difference I said. Yes Indeed the c64 does have amazing bassounds, but I already learned from the Roland Juno 60 and JX3P that more possibilities (before looking any further with programming) not always mean fatter or thicker or more professional sound.

 

Well I for one have never said POKEY is "nothing" compared to SID. It's just a different beast entirely. SID was built specifically for music (it's basically a synth on a chip) whereas POKEY happens to be able to play sound (not sure if it's by clever design or accident, I don't know as much about the history/design process of POKEY) and that's not a diss, it's more of a multi-function chip whereas SID is dedicated (and came later).

 

It can certainly do a lot more than a lot of people would expect and so far it's probably got the best sound effects (C64 gamers weren't really interested in FX anyway) and combining waveforms as you say can produce some better sounds but I still wouldn't say SID was thin, and it doesn't have to combine waveforms. If you think so that's ok, I have zero problem with that, as has already been discussed, people hear things differently. There's also the difference with what you can hear on SID because of the filters (that was a really bad design problem) and then fixing that but going to the 8580 which can produce even fatter sounds.

 

You may have also noticed my on my first reply to you ie I'm having a little joke about differences of opinion on subjective things like what sounds best to you or what looks best to DimensionX.

 

 

Pete

 

Sorry I have to make things more clear to you and set things straight. The SID chip does not sound mega thin or something, it is not that I mean blehhhhhhh bad sound Noooooo. It just sound not as powerful as the pokey does.

You say : The SID is younger as the pokey, well let me tell you that that doesn't matter at all. Why you shall ask? As I said before I owned a Roland Juno 60 and Roland JX3P, the juno was built in 1981/1982, the jx3p in 1983 and includes MIDI which the juno doesn't have.

So you can say that the jx3p with new stuff will sound better but unfortunately it doesn't. The JX3P sounds thin, really thin, BUT has more possibilities like having one voice more to combine two sawtooths. The Juno cannot do that, it cannot combine two sawtooths.

Even more ridiculous, the models after the JX3P like the JX8P I have programmed a lot in a shop doesn't even come close to the Juno.

 

So what does a later time says according to quality? I learned : Nothing!

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

SID, thin? Now you're talking crazy

 

Pete

 

Hmmmm more thin than pokey, or are you telling me my stereo amplifier is damaged? And no I do not use cheap speakers.

 

Can you give some examples of things you're using to compare? The thing with SID is it's capable of a huge variety of sounds and is well know for being fatter (or is that phatter) for bass sounds. It all depends on what envelopes are used, what waveforms, what filters etc.

 

I think POKEY sounds a little more powerful and more "machine like" but I wouldn't say SID is thin unless that's what the musician wanted.

 

 

Pete

 

Well okay, I have to say to the best in following way : The SID just sounds not as powerfull or thick as the pokey does. I know the basssounds of the SID are good, very good!, but when you combine the soundchannels of the pokey you also can get fat sounds (bass). And I do not believe what many people say that pokey is NOTHING compared to the SID...pokey is capable of so many sounds many people just do not know.

 

I have both the c64 and atari xl and I compared games, demo's and also simple programming those machines a bit and I notice the difference I said. Yes Indeed the c64 does have amazing bassounds, but I already learned from the Roland Juno 60 and JX3P that more possibilities (before looking any further with programming) not always mean fatter or thicker or more professional sound.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

You know what arguments I got in a lot as a kid?

 

(wait for it...)

 

Apple II vs. Anything.

 

I like Steve Wozniak. He's a very gifted engineer and he is largely responsible for ushering in the PC era... but if you read what he says about designing computers, it's all about the art of minimalism. Apple didn't develop custom ASICs because Woz could get basic functionality using off-the-shelf logic parts. That's quite an achievement but it resulted in a pretty crude computer. No sound hardware (just a speaker connected to an IO port), no sprites, no scrolling, none of the things that help make a good action game. At least it had slots so you could work around some of the limitations.

 

And the price! The cost of entry for a II was over $1K and a usable configuration was between $2K-$4K. You gotta give Apple credit because they built a solid image a sold tons of them. But everyone I knew with an Apple was totally snotty. Everything else was a piece of crap toy compared to their glorious system. I think part of the standard sales pitch was to convince people they were buying a Mercedes and everything else was an old Chevy. Maybe they needed something to feel good about while the rest of us played colorful fast scrolling games with music.

 

There was some good Apple software and it was well supported, but it's got to be one of the hardest systems to create anything decent on. The Apple II was a groundbreaking machine when it was released in '77 (two years before the much more capable Atari 800) but I wonder how many AA members outside the US have even seen one.

 

I worked with apple in the 90s in a computer company and I learned a lot in that time. Apple could do some amazing things. I also know that many many records in the housemusic scene in the 90s had a carton cover drawn on the apple. Also many musicians swear by apple. For what I have seen and discovered those machines were great!

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

SID, thin? Now you're talking crazy

 

Pete

 

Hmmmm more thin than pokey, or are you telling me my stereo amplifier is damaged? And no I do not use cheap speakers.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

Reading about the sid vs pokey stuff I have to put some words on this vs talking.

 

I always made music, started only serious when the Atari Falcon came. Sorry the Amiga could not handle my wishes at that time. Nowadays I use the PC with professional soundcard and professional software, but STILL I am 8 bit computerlover and honestly more Atari 800xl lover than c64.

About the sid vs pokey stuff I see a link to the studiosynthesizers I owned. I owned a Roland Juno 60 and Roland JX3P. Both are studioequipment.

The JX3P had more possibilities and one more voice, so I always thought that's better then the Juno 60, but boy I was wrong. The Juno 60 sounds much more powerfull and richer. I always connected computers to stereo amplifiers and I noticed the Pokey chip has more richer sound (combine the channels and you will be amazed even more) then the sid had. The Sid sounded more thin and lacks power even when it had basically seen more possibilities (or one more voice).

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

And yes, i like A8's special graphics that no other computer can display.

 

Apart from the Amstrad CPC Plus. Or the CoCo3. Or the MSX2, MSX2+ or MSX Turbo R. Or even supercharged C64s like the C64DX and C64DTV. Or even the Commodore 264 series. For graphics that "no other computer can display" there are a lot of machines that can either display what you're talking about or do it better out there...

 

In that case i don't think that you understand what i mean by Atari graphics. Does Amstrad CPC has the Antic and GTIA chip? If not, it can't display what i call Atari graphics. No game on my Amstrad or MSX emulator even looks like an Atari game, no matters how many colours they use. Atari ST can't display A8 graphics either.

 

A8 is exactly like Spectrum, unique in it's way to display graphics.

 

Not even the XL series could match the outstanding colours of the first Atari 800 model.

 

I disagree with you about the colours on atari 800 vs XL. Why should the Atari engineers made the colours in the Atari XL less beautiful than that of the old 800, it is more logical that the XL should be an enhancement in colours of the 800.

I agree with you that the atari machines are very beautiful with graphics (hmmm for what I have seen on atari). There is also a slideshow somewhere on youtube, showing pictures from some guy who can paint very well on the atari. Some pictures are really amazing which I also have never seen on atari.

 

Because of this...

 

(Frankly, we have never been particularly bothered by the "colorsmear" problem the author describes in his article: But we tried this simple hardware rewiring project at Antic and, in our judgement, it produced a more vibrant and intense 800XL color display on our monitors. In fact, it seemed to make 800XL color look a lot more like the outstanding color of the old Atari 800.

http://www.atarimagazines.com/v5n7/xlcolorboost.html

 

The difference is that the orginal Atari 800 was much better built and much more expensive. Too expensive. That's why they had to build a cheeper model, the XL series.

 

Hmmmm this is hard for me, because I never played with the old 800. But I also never had colourproblems on the xl machine. You're saying the games look better on the old 800 than on the xl????? I cannot believe that, as PeteD say Antic is Antic, so I see no problem for the xl.

 

BUT WHY OWH WHY would Atari put a machine on the market, which is less than the machine before, WHILE they have to compete with the newer machines like those from Commodore. I think this is impossible. As company you better put a machine on the market which is at LEAST the same as the old one but with enhanced features no matter at what area.

 

Because old Atari 800 was to expensive to make. They had to come up with a cheaper model to be able to compet with Commodore. Else gamers would by the cheaper computer. The old models was VERY expensive to buy. The price for the orginal Atari 800 in Sweden was almost was about 650 euro.

 

Well I never had problems with my 600 and 800xl and I never have seen strange things on screen so hmmmmm.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

And yes, i like A8's special graphics that no other computer can display.

 

Apart from the Amstrad CPC Plus. Or the CoCo3. Or the MSX2, MSX2+ or MSX Turbo R. Or even supercharged C64s like the C64DX and C64DTV. Or even the Commodore 264 series. For graphics that "no other computer can display" there are a lot of machines that can either display what you're talking about or do it better out there...

 

In that case i don't think that you understand what i mean by Atari graphics. Does Amstrad CPC has the Antic and GTIA chip? If not, it can't display what i call Atari graphics. No game on my Amstrad or MSX emulator even looks like an Atari game, no matters how many colours they use. Atari ST can't display A8 graphics either.

 

A8 is exactly like Spectrum, unique in it's way to display graphics.

 

Not even the XL series could match the outstanding colours of the first Atari 800 model.

 

I disagree with you about the colours on atari 800 vs XL. Why should the Atari engineers made the colours in the Atari XL less beautiful than that of the old 800, it is more logical that the XL should be an enhancement in colours of the 800.

I agree with you that the atari machines are very beautiful with graphics (hmmm for what I have seen on atari). There is also a slideshow somewhere on youtube, showing pictures from some guy who can paint very well on the atari. Some pictures are really amazing which I also have never seen on atari.

 

Because of this...

 

(Frankly, we have never been particularly bothered by the "colorsmear" problem the author describes in his article: But we tried this simple hardware rewiring project at Antic and, in our judgement, it produced a more vibrant and intense 800XL color display on our monitors. In fact, it seemed to make 800XL color look a lot more like the outstanding color of the old Atari 800.

http://www.atarimagazines.com/v5n7/xlcolorboost.html

 

The difference is that the orginal Atari 800 was much better built and much more expensive. Too expensive. That's why they had to build a cheeper model, the XL series.

 

Hmmmm this is hard for me, because I never played with the old 800. But I also never had colourproblems on the xl machine. You're saying the games look better on the old 800 than on the xl????? I cannot believe that, as PeteD say Antic is Antic, so I see no problem for the xl.

 

BUT WHY OWH WHY would Atari put a machine on the market, which is less than the machine before, WHILE they have to compete with the newer machines like those from Commodore. I think this is impossible. As company you better put a machine on the market which is at LEAST the same as the old one but with enhanced features no matter at what area.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

And yes, i like A8's special graphics that no other computer can display.

 

Apart from the Amstrad CPC Plus. Or the CoCo3. Or the MSX2, MSX2+ or MSX Turbo R. Or even supercharged C64s like the C64DX and C64DTV. Or even the Commodore 264 series. For graphics that "no other computer can display" there are a lot of machines that can either display what you're talking about or do it better out there...

 

In that case i don't think that you understand what i mean by Atari graphics. Does Amstrad CPC has the Antic and GTIA chip? If not, it can't display what i call Atari graphics. No game on my Amstrad or MSX emulator even looks like an Atari game, no matters how many colours they use. Atari ST can't display A8 graphics either.

 

A8 is exactly like Spectrum, unique in it's way to display graphics.

 

Not even the XL series could match the outstanding colours of the first Atari 800 model.

 

I disagree with you about the colours on atari 800 vs XL. Why should the Atari engineers made the colours in the Atari XL less beautiful than that of the old 800, it is more logical that the XL should be an enhancement in colours of the 800.

I agree with you that the atari machines are very beautiful with graphics (hmmm for what I have seen on atari). There is also a slideshow somewhere on youtube, showing pictures from some guy who can paint very well on the atari. Some pictures are really amazing which I also have never seen on atari.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

You may call me stupid, but I am convinced that the atari is still not fully discovered.

It is possible that people have to push the atari to its limits for being the same as the c64 is some cases.

Both machines I think have to be pushed to their limits to be the same in capabilities.

 

Like I said before many people thought that the ST was not able to do some things the Amiga could, thanks to some clever demo coders it suddenly became possible.

The same just has to go for the older machines, why not push the older machines to their limits and in some areas I believe okay its already done.

For example guys : When we see a finished port of Turrican on the atari xl (the beginning can be seen on youtube) I think the c64 guys (who think their machine is the best) will admit that the atari xl can do more than they think.

I also read on the internet that there are more games in development, is seems that those games promise a lot.

 

I stay with my opinion that both c64 and atari xl are about the same.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

It's nice to see and read that there are still a lot of people spending time on the atari xl and c64.

I think things according to graphics and sound will become even more interesting, because of more knowledge of both machines. Maybe you find me stupid, but the 8 bit I like more to discover as the 16 bit ST and Amiga.

I hope I will be a good Atari xl coder someday, I am glad I already learned a lot in the past.

 

Maybe we can do some more peace talking between each other about which machine is the best, in my opinion already said both are about the same in possibilities, you just have to know how to code things.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

 

 

Well I agree with you that gameplay is the most important part, but I think that you also have to create at least a decent display and decent sound.

But I think it is not a big problem anymore to make a decent display and decent sound because there is meanwhile so much knowlegde in the heads of the programmers that everybody will be satisfied...

 

I think the problem is Atari gamers are happy with ANYTHING new for their machine. As Atarigmr said, Spectrum owners are more forgiving, probably because they're sensible about the machines limitations. C64 gamers don't mind something that doesn't look so great but kind of expect things that DO look and sound good. Atari it's kind of a middle ground. There's been so little new stuff over the past 20 odd years (including pro stuff to the end of it's actual sales life) compared to some other platforms that anything playable is great, but at the same time I think everyone wishes there were more impressive looking games. It's simply time constraints for people working on them for a lot of games. eg ports of Space Harrier, NRV's APAC 256 colour Wolfenstein clone, IK+ etc some of this stuff has been in dev for 5 years!

 

 

Pete

 

Maybe it is my problem, but for what I have seen and learned (machinecode) in the past and seen on youtube I am convinced that both machines are about the same in possibilities.

I just cannot believe that some games of the c64 cannot be done on the atari XL.

If you can see what some coders did on ST, really everybody said it is impossible. But as I said before some coders did the job. Unfortunately there are not enough coders (like those st coders) on the atari XL. I do not know what is is, people just do not like to programm the atari or there are simple not enough coders around like the c64 has.

 

A part of my opinion comes from the words of Atariski in a thread like this on this website, he seems to be a advanced atari 8 bit programmer and I just believe what he said, but again this is only a part of what my opinion is.

 

You can pull a conclusion out of my words : There is no better machine between these two (atari xl and c64.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

To all programmers in this thread...

 

Remember, a game it not only about graphics and animation, or even sound. The hard part is to write a great game that is fun to play containing well thoughout levels, good balance and lots of replay value that really make this game great and fun to play. A "one more go" game. Else you can write a demo instead. Very few programmers can make a great game. Nintendo was outstanding good at making simple games that really was fun to play and had lots of replay value. Even if they just used simple LCD displays, like Game & Watch.

 

Many programmers forget that part and concentrate their effort on graphics and sound instead. I think anyone who makes a great fun game does more for these old computers then anything else. Because todays youngsters will not be impressed of any graphics on a C64 or Atari 800. But a real good game would impress them a lot more. So instead of to just show off some graphics and sound, make a fun and great game instead. It can be a simple puzzle game, or a real fun platform game, but it will have to be fun to play.

 

That's great such a wish, but I think many people (also atari people) like nice graphics and sound too at the same time. Hmmm I think programming a game in 2010 like a game from 1983 would be a bit of a shame, people expect (also most atari xl people) nice graphics and sound too. Also in my opinion I think a decent and nice graphical/sound programmed game will be attractive for most people to just play the game. If we can have both why not?

 

Graphics and sound is always secondary. Most importand is to make a game fun to play. Nice graphics will not make a good game but it can enhance an already good game.

 

Well I agree with you that gameplay is the most important part, but I think that you also have to create at least a decent display and decent sound.

But I think it is not a big problem anymore to make a decent display and decent sound because there is meanwhile so much knowlegde in the heads of the programmers that everybody will be satisfied...

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

To all programmers in this thread...

 

Remember, a game it not only about graphics and animation, or even sound. The hard part is to write a great game that is fun to play containing well thoughout levels, good balance and lots of replay value that really make this game great and fun to play. A "one more go" game. Else you can write a demo instead. Very few programmers can make a great game. Nintendo was outstanding good at making simple games that really was fun to play and had lots of replay value. Even if they just used simple LCD displays, like Game & Watch.

 

Many programmers forget that part and concentrate their effort on graphics and sound instead. I think anyone who makes a great fun game does more for these old computers then anything else. Because todays youngsters will not be impressed of any graphics on a C64 or Atari 800. But a real good game would impress them a lot more. So instead of to just show off some graphics and sound, make a fun and great game instead. It can be a simple puzzle game, or a real fun platform game, but it will have to be fun to play.

 

That's great such a wish, but I think many people (also atari people) like nice graphics and sound too at the same time. Hmmm I think programming a game in 2010 like a game from 1983 would be a bit of a shame, people expect (also most atari xl people) nice graphics and sound too. Also in my opinion I think a decent and nice graphical/sound programmed game will be attractive for most people to just play the game. If we can have both why not?

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

I am already searching for machinecode learning books, to fresh up my 6502 knowlegde.

 

You'll be wanting Atari Archives as a starting place then, either read them on the web or thrash your printer for a while. =-)

 

Thanks for your advise, I did discovered pages like mapping the atari etc.

 

De Re Atari and Atari Roots are well worth a look as well, they're the two i used when i picked the Atari up previously.

 

Yesss I did find something like that, I will take a better look at it thanks.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

I am already searching for machinecode learning books, to fresh up my 6502 knowlegde.

 

You'll be wanting Atari Archives as a starting place then, either read them on the web or thrash your printer for a while. =-)

 

Thanks for your advise, I did discovered pages like mapping the atari etc.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

But for the c64 coders here on this forum, I must say : The c64 is a great machine and sure there are games not seen on Atari XL, but there also were more c64 coders of course at that time.

Let us for example wait what the Polish coders are planning to do and maybe some new coders around on this earth.

I personally think both machines are about the same, not in specifications but in possibilities and I fully understand the c64 users around here why they think in that way they think.

But I have to admit I have a little more love for the Atari XL.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

This looks like the also never ending fight between the ST and Amiga...I remember very good that the Amiga guys always said the ST couldn't to that until some clever coders did the job. Can you imagine even on ST? The Amiga without the custom chips.

The Atari 800xl does have the custom chips like the Amiga but I must say it is really a shame that it take sooooo long before things become better on Atari XL. Until I watched Polish scene demos I always doubted about the possibilities of the Atari XL.

Why can things from the c64 not be possible on Atari XL when it is still not proved, maybe some clever polish coders (like the swedish coders in the ST scene) can do the job. I also programmed the c64 and the XL in machinecode back in the day, but I moved too soon to the 16 bit computers so I did not finish my machinecode study on the 8 bit, but I know that much more is possible than most (c64) people think.

 

We had a lot of good coders in Sweden under the late 80's and eraly 90's for Atari ST. TCB was most famous i think. We had lots of good tracker musicians as well in this country. Polen seems to be no:1 for the Atari 8bit.

 

Yeahhh Swedish coders rule!!!! I also must say that I always found the ST scene nicer than the Amiga scene, my best friend in that time had the Amiga 500 so I also went with him to Amiga parties.

For the 8 bit Atari it indeed is Poland who do a very good job, I think even the best job. For example I saw a demo of Turrican on youtube for the Atari XL (That is from Polish coders right?)...well it seems to me a good beginning of a great job for the Atari XL.

 

I also think like you that Atari xl can do more than everyone thinks...I spoke to many XL coders in the past en I learned a lot, but also my best friend was a c64 machinecoder and he learned me a lot about c64 possibilities.

Still many things are not yet proved on the Atari XL and I think that is a shame, there are Atari XL coders around who can do amazing things on Atari XL but just do not have the time to make a game...we Atari XL lovers wish for coders the DO have the time for great games on the Atari XL.

 

One problem is that C64 has been so much more used and explored the A8 because of a much bigger userbase. I'm sure of that A8 has several unexplored bits to discover yet.

 

Always a pleasure to meet someone who like demos on the ST and XL.

 

Yeah I really enjoyed the Atari ST and XL demos...in fact a few time ago I did nothing anymore with Atari or commodore. I produce music nowadays on the PC but some months ago I was surfing on the internet and I suddenly became again in love with the old computers especially what I discovered on the Atari XL and Commodore 64. I asked my dad if he still had a 8 bit computer at home and he said : "Yes I still have an Atari 800XL" I was happy and I got the Atari 800XL from my dad. Now I am gonna exploring the XL again like I did in the 80s. I am already searching for machinecode learning books, to fresh up my 6502 knowlegde.

 

Here in the Netherlands there still are Atari XL users and I am planning to propose an Atari XL club and I know there are coders between them, maybe we can code together for the XL, but nothing is sure for now.

 

1 thing I learned from the past is that they in that time said it is not possible on the ST became a reality on the ST.

And so I think when the Atari XL coders go on exploring the XL we can expect some amazing things in the future, I am sure about that.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

This looks like the also never ending fight between the ST and Amiga...I remember very good that the Amiga guys always said the ST couldn't to that until some clever coders did the job. Can you imagine even on ST? The Amiga without the custom chips.

The Atari 800xl does have the custom chips like the Amiga but I must say it is really a shame that it take sooooo long before things become better on Atari XL. Until I watched Polish scene demos I always doubted about the possibilities of the Atari XL.

Why can things from the c64 not be possible on Atari XL when it is still not proved, maybe some clever polish coders (like the swedish coders in the ST scene) can do the job. I also programmed the c64 and the XL in machinecode back in the day, but I moved too soon to the 16 bit computers so I did not finish my machinecode study on the 8 bit, but I know that much more is possible than most (c64) people think.

 

We had a lot of good coders in Sweden under the late 80's and eraly 90's for Atari ST. TCB was most famous i think. We had lots of good tracker musicians as well in this country. Polen seems to be no:1 for the Atari 8bit.

 

Yeahhh Swedish coders rule!!!! I also must say that I always found the ST scene nicer than the Amiga scene, my best friend in that time had the Amiga 500 so I also went with him to Amiga parties.

For the 8 bit Atari it indeed is Poland who do a very good job, I think even the best job. For example I saw a demo of Turrican on youtube for the Atari XL (That is from Polish coders right?)...well it seems to me a good beginning of a great job for the Atari XL.

 

I also think like you that Atari xl can do more than everyone thinks...I spoke to many XL coders in the past en I learned a lot, but also my best friend was a c64 machinecoder and he learned me a lot about c64 possibilities.

Still many things are not yet proved on the Atari XL and I think that is a shame, there are Atari XL coders around who can do amazing things on Atari XL but just do not have the time to make a game...we Atari XL lovers wish for coders the DO have the time for great games on the Atari XL.

[Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl]

This looks like the also never ending fight between the ST and Amiga...I remember very good that the Amiga guys always said the ST couldn't to that until some clever coders did the job. Can you imagine even on ST? The Amiga without the custom chips.

The Atari 800xl does have the custom chips like the Amiga but I must say it is really a shame that it take sooooo long before things become better on Atari XL. Until I watched Polish scene demos I always doubted about the possibilities of the Atari XL.

Why can things from the c64 not be possible on Atari XL when it is still not proved, maybe some clever polish coders (like the swedish coders in the ST scene) can do the job. I also programmed the c64 and the XL in machinecode back in the day, but I moved too soon to the 16 bit computers so I did not finish my machinecode study on the 8 bit, but I know that much more is possible than most (c64) people think.

[classic battle atari 8bit vs commodore 64]

Actually it seems to me, that the atari is still not pushed to its limits. I used Atari 8 bit and c64 for years and I did a lot of reading/research. Also i have programmed both machines in the past.

I remember the ST/Amiga times when a lot of people say the ST cannot do this cannot do that blablabla, but some clever ST coders (demoscene) did the job. So I think this is the same for the atari 8 bit. Its only a shame that it takes more than 20 years to prove that the atari xl for example is just as good as the c64 in cases where the c64 beated the atari xl.

I do not think that games like Turrican is impossible to do on atari xl, I still believe that it is possible. I also looked at the Turrican clone for the xl on you tube and this demo promise a lot I think.

 

Also there is a lot of talking about the sound side of the xl and the c64. Well that's very interesting, because I can make a link to the synthesizers I owned and I discovered a interesting fact. Both the Roland Juno and Jx3P synthesizers are studioequipment, but there is a huge difference between the sound of both machines.

The Jx3P has more possibilities but the Juno sounds more professional, thicker sound/nicer sound. The JX3p sounds thin.

This is the same case in MY opinion with the c64 and the xl. The c64 seems to have more possibilities but sounds a lot more thin than the atari xl soundchip. Plus I think when you do some deeper programming with the Atari xl I think you will get more out of it, I am not sure if that will bring you the same results as the c64 but you can try.