Vigo

This is not true. It isn't hard to use DLIs and change color registers every zone, so you could have a different 4-color background palette for every row of tiles. With the same argument, you could say that the 7800 easily displays 320x200 in 256 colours, and rivals VGA graphics... DLI's are a very limited workaround for the lack of tile colour attributes. They, again, need your game to be specifically designed for the 7800. My statement about the limitations of indirect mode, remain true. And if you are using 12 colour indirect mode, there is no more DMA time left for background and objects. The 7800 does no screen wraparound, so you have to waste a whole lot of cycles to update the screen, even with double buffering. And concerning the "difficulty" of updating the NES graphics ram: what's so difficult about setting up the address and then write to the data port? The NES PPU even increments the VRAM address for you, either in 1 or 32 address steps, which is ideal to write vertical stripes to update the screen borders. You ever coded on the NES? You think that Display Lists and Holey DMA for objects are easier to handle??? Never ever with full colour attributes. Plus, you forget the fact that MARIA stalls the 6502 for DMA accesses, the NES PPU on the contrary has its own seperate graphics bus from the 6502. And I know that with even more extra hardware, you could make a doom clone for the 7800... Umm, I never said that was the main problem. I was always referring to the main problem of the 7800, that indirect mode supports no colour attributes. That the 7800 lacks the colour/resolution combination of the NES is just another problem... You obviously did not read my posts, too.

Theoretically yes, but you also have a horizontal screen position register, which is used in Space Manbow for scrolling. That's why at the borders, you see characters disapperaring, because it moves the whole screen up to 8 pixels to the left, and then repositions it. No offense, but I think the MSX2 is much better equipped for scrolling games than the ST (except the weak 3,58Mhz Z80 CPU). The 9938 even can blit memory regions around in VRAM, plus it has 32 hardware sprites. The ST practically has only the 68000 to do all the dirty work.

Unfortunately, the 9918 has fixed screen parameters, so the only method for scrolling is VRAM copy. The successor of the 9918, the 9938 however, can do fine scrolling: (Space Manbow, great game, it just sucks that now, the poor 3,58Mhz Z80 is seriously getting in trouble...) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqF5tsT0c-o And the 9938 capabilities allow for a very faithful rendition of XEVIOUS: If you really need a cool computer system with lots of hidden gems, get an MSX2 machine!

That's why Penguin Adventure plays to the Hardware's strength, because Pseudo 3D is something which the NES for example, couldn't do better, despite the fact that the NES hardware supports scrolling.

The biggest issue with the TMS9918 and most of its deriatives (including the NES/SNES PPU, Master System/Genesis VDP, and the YAMAHA V9938/V9958, but NOT the PC-Engine VDP!) is that you can only write to VRAM in either VBLANK or forced blanking time, which kind of forces you to restrict yourself on how much video data can be manipulated per frame, and doing game calculations during active display. On the other hand, the video chip does very neat things as incrementing VRAM addresses after a write/read access, which, in combination of writing to a single register, can be faster than copying a memory mapped screen in CPU space. The 9918 is one of the most copied chip designs in the 80's, almost every japanese console is based on its design philosophy, and in most cases, even has the exact video timing (10,73 / 5,37 Mhz pixel clock). Btw, if you want to get an idea what the Colecovision could have done given more life time, just look at later MSX1 games. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHlTlLZ5a1I...feature=related (Although these use the SCC soundchip) My favourite MSX1 game: (Hideo Kojima's (Metal Gear) first game) It's the sequel to this Colecovision game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fi_hzXcqr8 Which is also available on MSX (with MUCH better SCC sound): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfxk0mTuFSo

Yeah, sometimes it seems to be. That's the biggest problem with collectors. Maybe one day, i will stumble upon a Falcon or Jaguar. I'd really would like to have a go at making a decent devcart for the Jaguar. EDIT: ah, sorry, wasn't aware of the JagCF.

Ok, now I get what you mean. But I thought you can add 32bit ram to your Falcon...? Another interesting Atari machine, sadly, it's been quite sought after.

No, the Falcon has a fully fledged 68030, the 68030 has a full 32bit ALU. And before you ask, the 68030 supports dynamic bus sizing, meaning it supports 8, 16 and 32bit bus sizes. Damn,posted again!

It's sad that considering the 68000 is a 16bit CPU (16bit ALU), your remarks against me have the words "mindless drone" written all over them. I'm sorry to shatter your world, but you are the "follower" and "repeater", and thus, seem to know nothing. you hit the nail right on the head there, everyone claiming the Jaguar is NOT 64 bit is indeed a 'repeater' and a 'follower', believing something you probably read in ASM or Power Play years ago. As for a 'mindless drone', I see your location is Germany, so you obviously being German and should know all about 'mindless drones'. Okay guys, the niveau finally hit the bottom. Just one last thing: no matter how much you desperately try to bring my nationality into play (which pretty much tells us much more about you than me), the fact remains that I am right, and you are wrong, 68000 is NOT a 32bit CPU. I know that truth comes at a price, especially in a fanatic place like this. I have been proven right on all my assumptions and points about this forum, so I am going to leave now, because frankly, I don't need this shit. I am not THAT much of a masochist. And yes, I know quite a bit about mindless drones. Think about it.

Sorry to disappoint, but it's not a pissing contest. End it at that. It has become on the moment you started, for no good reason, calling my experience on 6502 coding into question. YOU started it, YOU end it.

68k in terms of a family, yes there are true 32bit variants of it (starting with 68020). The 68000 and 68010 (and the obscure 68012) however, are 16bit processors. They have an 16 bit ALU. With the same argument, one could call the Z80 and 6809 16bit processors. Tell me the 2 big numbers which Sega put on their first generation Genesis console? And don't tell me now, they purposely undevalued the bitness of their system, though it probably would make quite a funny read.

Read my rebuttal concerning this. 68k is considered a 16bit (not 32bit) CPU because it has a 16bit ALU, not because it has a 16bit external data bus. Similarly the z80 is considered an 8bit CPU despite having 16bit registers and limited 16bit operations for the same reason. On the other hand, 8088 and 80386SX are considered 16 and 32bit CPUs despite having 8 and 16bit data buses respectively. 68k was a 16bit CPU microcoded around a forward thinking 32bit ISA. I agree with you, although the definition gets quite complicated considering the Z80 CPU for example has only a 4bit ALU (a heritage from the 8080), which is used in consecutive cycles to compute the upper and lower half of a byte operand (which is also the reason the Z80 has such large cycle times). Apparently, it allowed Faggin to save logic gates at the expense of speed, but again, the design as it came out allowed for higher clock frequencies. However, the Z80 also is capable of 16bit operations, and it was never labeled a 16bit CPU, too. Thank you, most people don't get the fact that I actually really like the Jaguar, but I detest the distortion around this machine fueled by its parent company and its fans. Thanks for your acknowledgement, especially considering that our first meeting was quite a heated debate either. I don't like to give my credentials here, because frankly, that's neither anyone's business here, nor does it change one bit if I am right or wrong in a technical discussion. I have lots of experience in both hardware and software design (I have coded on many different CPU architectures in assembler, my high level language experience goes from BASIC to C++, I know several hardware languages from AHDL to VHDL), and since I am a fan of classic videogame & computer systems, I do know a lot about the different architectures. Everyone who is trying to fool me on this, is in for a bad awakening. I am no expert in Jaguar coding, but reading the technical documentation, I simply know that it has 2x32bit RISC CPU's with DSP components embedded in their instruction set, a 16bit CISC CPU, and a 64bit main bus, which is used for what it is most needed, fast manipulation of graphics. That's great, because the designers did indeed implement the 64bit aspects of the system where they are most needed. But, it does NOT make the Jaguar a 64bit system. Atari should have NEVER done this mistake to advertise it that way, and it only shows how desperate they were to get the attention of the mainstream media. The line you draw here seems to be where it is most convenient.

It's sad that considering the 68000 is a 16bit CPU (16bit ALU), your remarks against me have the words "mindless drone" written all over them. I'm sorry to shatter your world, but you are the "follower" and "repeater", and thus, seem to know nothing.

It has always been the unwritten consensus in the industry that bitness of a system is always defined by the bitness of the CPU. Systems had, long before the Jaguar, more complex bus systems which could have allowed manufacturers to use similar, distorted marketing phrases and arguments like Atari with the Jaguar. He simply does it without realizing. He may have his subjective view on matters (and no doubt it is subjective) but there IS objectivity around, just by looking around and evaluating other architectures. Sony never announced the PS2 as a 2048bit machine. Sega quickly stopped announcing the Dreamcast as 128bit, realizing that they would have been on the same path as Atari with this nonsense. The debate is only here, because only Jaguar fans are repeating Atari's higly misleading marketing crap. Naming the Jaguar a 64bit machine has some serious effects on the bitness of other machines, which, as Exocrine already said, hurt the Atari much more than it helped, since no one took Atari seriously, rightfully. If the Jaguar is a 64bit machine, my C64 is a 12bit machine (bus size) and my home PC is a 256bit machine (graphics bus size). Do you realize that this pretty much invalidates and undermines the whole bitness discussion? That it is, in effect, quite worthless to put this 64bit on the machine, despite marketing hype? As Exophase rightfully remarked, Atari probably killed the whole bitness hype by delivering a "64bit machine" which would not deliver what people thought 64bit would stand for. It backfired pretty heavily. I better be quick to announce the 12-bitness of the C64, because that is gonna be the next trend then...

Marketing bull or not, the system is 64 bits wide. You dont need 64 bits for computations. The system BUS is 64bit wide. And I never said you need 64bits for computations. So you basically agree that the Jaguar is not a 64bit system, fine. Where do you get that he agrees with you out of that quote? Are you shrooming? Are the letters dancing around and rearranging themselves on the page for you? The statement that the Jaguar CPU's can not do 64bit computations (otherwise, he would not have put it directly after his frst statement) is an acknowledgement that the Jaguar is not a 64bit machine. Bus size does NOT determine the bitness of a system, it is NO standard practice to rate systems that way. This paradox sentence is a perfect example how contradictory Gorf's whole statements about the Jaguar are, and he knows it. He knows that: but his funny fixation on the Jaguar being 64bits, and the energy he invests in defending that statement, even when giving him hard facts about other architectures which would NEED to be rated differently if the Jaguar is 64bit, is what is both funny and annoying about him. And when I saw this thread and the first posts appearing in it, i was instantly reminded of the funny discussion we had about a year ago. If he would have just admitted "yes, the way the Jaguars bitness is rated is unorthodox, however, it is still a great machine", there would never be any problems, but no, in order to hold this marketing nonsense up, he comes with a mixture of dishonesty, outright lying and distortion, just for these stupid numbers "64". Developers normally tend to discuss these matters rationally, it is usually only the fan mob who is getting so irrational, but in this case, Gorf is a "speciality", you can really feel he truly loves the Jaguar, and he is ready to put everything over board just to keep the other 32bits.

The 7800 development kit was quite good. An Atari ST, 6502 assembler, devcart & tools to calculate the encryption. Quite comfortable, what else do you need for an 8 bit system?

Marketing bull or not, the system is 64 bits wide. You dont need 64 bits for computations. The system BUS is 64bit wide. And I never said you need 64bits for computations. So you basically agree that the Jaguar is not a 64bit system, fine. And it is what makes my C64 12bit, and my home PC a 256bit system. I think in the end, most systems will only benefit from your and Atari's self made definition of bitness. And yes, you are repeating this marketing bull, like a true, defensive worshipper. About what? What to expect from you? I am in no way surprised, and I know it only gets better the more you are trying to prove your point, which is funny since you already contradicted yourself so many times. Realizing that, you are now starting to target me instead of Exophase.

Yeah much like your nonsense ranting about the NES is so much superior to the 7800, blah, blah, blah....do us all a favor. Go start shit elsewhere. Just the kind of answer to expect from you. Further diverting the discussion, and lying about/distorting what I am saying, the kind of talk you would expect from someone being defensive.

Okay, another pissing contest. My statement neither reveals my skills at 6502 optimizing nor does your statement invalidate the FACT that the 6502 has one of the most crippled register architectures out there, and all 6502 optimization out there is to bend yourself coping with these limitations, while on 68k, you simply need not to think about those issues. Have you ever written a Genesis game? Who are you to say how Genesis games (or any other game on a 68000 platform) should be written? I repeat it, because that was the line you misquoted from my post in your very first post and taken out of context. I only used this particular quote for this particular example, but YOU are the one now starting to cram another useless discussion down my throat about things I never said, nor ever disputed. And besides, read your first posts again where you clearly stated that in no case, 32bit optimization is useful for the Genesis, which is simply horse pucky! It quite suits you indirectly calling me dense, but starting a whole discussion by misquotinq my first statement, and discussing again, points which I already made myself clear. Your assumptions are vague and pretty general ("a game does not need this"). If I have an 68000, who stops me from using the benefits of this architecture? Are you coming to me now, telling me I should not, because that's not what the Genesis is supposed to do? Lol, focused on getting on my nerves. From my standpoint, it is much more powerful, but if you would have read the thread, it would have become quite clear what I meant. How do you know where I come from? I have coded on many different CPU architectures, and yes, the 68k was indeed the most pleasent for me, it's a beautiful CISC design. I'm sorry if my remarks awake "bitness envy" in you. Yeah, whooopie doo, exactly the same I posted in every 2nd post up before you came up with this useless provocation. I already wrote software and designed hardware for the PC-Engine, so don't tell ME how much it shines. My self made Flash card development system for the PC-Engine. Completely with 1MB ram, file browser, and loads files at about 350-400 KB/s. Currently not operative because I am using the SRAM's and the flash chip in other projects.

If you are using full 160x resolution, you can have only have 4 colours for the entire background (including pipes, clouds, etc.). The moving objects can retain their colours.

cool, thanks!

Both. You can do more things with less instructions on the 68000 than the 6502. Furthermore, the register set of the 6502 is a huge cripplement. But I am repeating myself now. I never argued that the Genesis *required* an 68k. But nevertheless, it has one, and it can be used. The 32bit registers can be used for efficient memory manipulations. Again, I am repeating myself now. Your main point was that the 32bit instructions can not be put to good use into "lower life forms" like the Genesis, and I showed you the opposite. The 6502 simply has no instructions which can do the same, since the register size is always the same size as the memory bus, and thus, you ALWAYS need multiple register<->memory transfer instructions to manipulate more than 8 bit of data, while the 68k can perform operations larger than its native bus size (32bit) with just 1 single instruction, and thus, saves the opcode fetch cycles required to manipulate the 2nd set of 16bit data. But again, I am repeating myself. Pretty narrow minded if you ask me. If you code for the Genesis, you can always make use of the 68k, it just depends on the application you are writing for it. If you ask me, I am getting pretty tired of this topic now.

Another question: where can I get the GTIA schematics? Someone mentioned in the other thread he was able to obtain "fuzzy" schematics.

Vigo has said, in other threads, that regardless of specs, the world did not see the best that the 7800 could do. He's also said that the library did not always reflect the capabilities of the system. Don't bother, it is now very obvious he doesn't read/comprehend my posts. ...PAL 7800 isn't meant to be played on a PAL television...

Is this a joke? Almost everything you quote in your post is also explained in my posts. And I wonder how you can deduce what 160A and 160B modes are without reading the technical documentation... In fact, you are the only one here complaining and whining in this thread about how I explain the capabilities of the 7800. And I still think you don't understand anything. And this is the biggest laughter out of your random mumblings: :lol: :lol: :lol: LOL, frankly, you know SHIT about television and colour encoding standards. So even the PAL version of the 7800 wasn't designed to run on a standard European television? This is getting better & better. What I hate about people like you is, despite your lack of knowledge, YOU ALWAYS want to be right, thinking you can tell ME what I do not understand. This post has made my evening, I am still lauging..