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

mrroman

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    15

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mrroman

  1. Posted

    I always thought that C64 has 128 chars as Atari. Why you have to change charset to other to use small letters on C64?

     

    The C64's uppercase charset (in fact, this applies to the entire Commodore 8bit line since the PET set the standard) contains a load of extra ROM graphics characters, whilst the lowercase contains the upper and lower case characters and a reduced set of graphics characters - in both cases the latter 128 characters are inverted but all bets are off when user defined characters are in use because all 256 chars can be defined independently.

     

     

    Good to know. I was mistaken by negative chars.

  2. Posted

    I wonder if the c64 having more characters in its character set for redefining has anything to do with it not being done like that on Atari? - I would have expected to see at least some attempt at it too.

     

    The C64 has 256 characters. TMR mentioned once, that several games change the characterset by rasters, which is much easier on the small ATARI.

    OUTRUN came along in 1988. It was actually the time, after ATARI dropped support for the 8bits and before the eastern Europe growth for the A8.

    But, I think this isn't the problem. It's more the "out of the book" programming plus some fears not to have 50fps(60fps) for a game, that stopped even homebrewers from converting such games.

     

    I always thought that C64 has 128 chars as Atari. Why you have to change charset to other to use small letters on C64?

  6. Posted

    Well, I really dig the sound of both of those. They have that nice crunchy synth sound I dig so much. One thing, though, why do people still try to use the same old 'siddish' instruments... can't new sounds be programmed?  

     

    Perhaps you did follow my thread ".... ears bleeding". The whole thread is about new soundings, how to create them, what's not possible and where are the problems with the available trackers.

    The response ist extremely low, because most of them don't sound sid'dish. So while the SID-PLAYER is much more noisy, everybody seems to be happy, because it sounds sid'dish.

     

    sounds/instruments we haven't heard before? or is the pokey limited in that regard? or are people doing it solely to prove that the pokey can sound as good as the sid?

     

    Actually, SID is the more flexible music chip. To play SID-Music with POKEY, will reduce POKEY to 2 voices.

    Another technical problem is the missing ability of creating sine-waves, which is making pokey always sounding noisy in deeper notes.

     

    On the other hand, SID always sounds a bit "dull" and most SID-tunes are suffering by that.

    Optimizing POKEY-programming in a way like G2F does with the graphics, will give multiple more possibilities to pokey music... even in "standard VBI" programming.

    Due to the multiple generators and functionality of the generators together and with the 4 sound channels.... with an optimized programming, one could reach a real PAR between SID and POKEY, even if the styles are different.

     

    But, at the end, the only (?) style that is requested, seems to be the SID-style :roll:

     

    SID only produces saw,square and triangle waves. smooth bases are built by low pass filtering. in example by swiety are also emulated lowpass filters.

  8. Posted

    Hi' date=' Nir!!!

    Try another way: PC BMP format is Atari format compatible (you must cut probably 56 bytes first from BMP) to simply convert between Atari<>PC.

    So, maybe... You try add first 56 bytes from oryginally BMP (320x192 of coz) to Atari 8-bit graphics and read it with Paint on PC. Now, You can read BMP in Photoshop (for example), do it something, write as BMP or read in Paint, cut 56 bytes and read on real Atari as Graphics 8...

    See ya!!![/quote']

     

    ;) exactly, and don't forget then the picture on an intel machine is upside down.

     

    not quite. it's upside down only in windows.

  9. Posted

    Back in the early 1990s, I used to drill holes in DD disks and format them as HD but it didn't always work and it seems like those makeshift HD's were highly susceptible to bitrot.

     

    I don't think it works the other way around (HD-to-DD).  The few times I have tried it on my ST (TOS 1.4), it never worked.

     

    Anyone want to try a few HD's on some different models (STE/Mega) and see if it is possible to read them as 720Kb?

     

    - Steve

     

    this hole, which to be cover, is to recognize which disk are you using. is it dd or hd. if you format disk as dd without covering the hole (on hd floppy ), it will format it in hd manner, not in dd. you must format it with covered hole also on MegaSTE/TT with HD floppy.

     

    after that, i formated even damaged hd disk and they fully worked as dd. that's because it's using lower density to write on dd.

  12. Posted

    as i know, code compiled by compiler is divided on two parts. code and data. constances are stored as data. other is allocated in runtime. local variables are stored on stack and other, dynamic are stored on heap. execution of code on stack and heap whould be denied. i think all programs are written that way.

  13. Posted

    doesn't it depend on implementation? amd in their new cpu gives special attribute to segment, which forbids execution of code. it will be used in patch for win xp in service pack 2.  motorola 68k doesn't give you that possibilities.  

     

     

    Imho is this executable protection attribute a worse solution.

    How will it work with the available software to give full protection and compatibility?

    Will the available software still run when the protection is activated?

    Installing some emulation software will remove this "security" and it does not help against stack overflows though.

     

    exploit is started by changing return address of function. if i good remember, code of exploit is running on stack. so if you set stack segment to not execute code, exploit couldn't be started.

  14. Posted

    you talking about utopia. in today's level of complex it is impossible to build motherboard without failures. it is also another reason, software and hardware is produced very fast. if someone told you in mid 80ies that he built computer in few months, you would laugh on it. Atari ST was build in 6 months (if i good remember) and was very buggy (that's why TOS was booted from disk).

     

    you are saying about service pack that you apply. win xp is system from 2001 (in 3 years atari released two TOSes and many patches, and it was not very complicated system) . you must be aware that people make mistakes.

  15. Posted

    The Intel cpus are sharing one Heap and one Stack for their multitasking environment.

     

    doesn't it depend on implementation? amd in their new cpu gives special attribute to segment, which forbids execution of code. it will be used in patch for win xp in service pack 2. motorola 68k doesn't give you that possibilities.

     

    i agree that today's computers don't depend on hardware. i think amiga and pegasos chose ppc because upgrades for amiga used ppc. i also think that it could be written os that implements tos and gem api so soft could be easy ported to new platform. someone could write emulator which would run soft for m68k. it would also implement old hardware.

     

    in music, old hardware is implemented as software emulators, because it's cheaper and more useful.

AtariAge
Forums
Store
General
Follow AtariAge

Copyright ©1998-2021 AtariAge

×
×
  • Create New...