classic battle atari 8bit vs commodore 64

[Faicuai]

You only talked about doing 60FPS video originally, no other implications were stated...

 

 

(...) and in both cases it doesn't work if you take the extra hardware in the cartridge away. The Atari player seems to be (...) presenting the ANTIC with data for it's DMA directly from the cartridge where the C64 code I was talking about just "loads" data into the RAM where the VIC-II is looking for it. (...)

 

(...) If "stock" includes a whacking great IDE interface plugged into the cartridge port, then you're working with a very odd definition of the term there...

 

Just read carefully, and go back to the original post: " (...) with native chipset (no HW modifications of any kind, other than the cart.) " (copy-paste).

 

The cart is STORAGE (not ram). It could be a "mech" HD capable of delivering 500 KB/sec throughput. Don't bang your head against a wall here, because it would be perfectly OK. if such storage device is ALSO used on the C64 for this purpose. After all, HOW on this world do you think that the (non-stock) RAM expansion for the C64 would be filled with 100-500 Mbytes of raw video-encoded data?

 

And don't forget a fundamentally key aspect of this process: that Atari's 6502 is LOCKED-in at full speed during the playback (there is NO time for anything else, that's why it is more of "show of power" than actual application, for now). I wonder what would happen if we bring its clock down to 1.0Mhz... sounds like something will not work...

 

In any case, I assure you NO one around here will stop you from showing us how the C64 would do it in such conditions. Go ahead, be our guest!

Edited October 31, 2018 by Faicuai

[flashjazzcat]

In the case of Avery's video player, the Atari (i.e. the ANTIC chip's DMA) does the donkey work of streaming bytes from the IDE data register. The CPU simply sets up the multi-sector request, services NMIs for the custom display, and feeds audio to POKEY. The cartridge (SIDE) presents nothing more than a set of IDE registers, and the only external processing going on is performed by the IDE controller itself (on the CF card).

[Keatah]

So... your first post is a necrobump of a thread that's been dormant for 8 years?

 

I don't see a problem here. It's great to be reminded of past perspectives. And better than starting a new thread - of which someone would then complain a topic exists.

[_The Doctor__]

 

I don't see a problem here. It's great to be reminded of past perspectives. And better than starting a new thread - of which someone would then complain a topic exists.

because mechamania is possibly just restarting the thread and won't be back to even see it? Or laugh when he returns to see what went on 6 months a year or more trollingly later?

 

edit... a quick check ...

Member Since 29 Mar 2018

Last Active Apr 3 2018 9:57 AM

one and only post....

was for that exact date and time, never to return and check for or read an answer. LOL

Edited October 31, 2018 by _The Doctor__

[_The Doctor__]

In the case of Avery's video player, the Atari (i.e. the ANTIC chip's DMA) does the donkey work of streaming bytes from the IDE data register. The CPU simply sets up the multi-sector request, services NMIs for the custom display, and feeds audio to POKEY. The cartridge (SIDE) presents nothing more than a set of IDE registers, and the only external processing going on is performed by the IDE controller itself (on the CF card).

Basically it.

nuff said! FJC FTW! I think I see a double rainbow!

Edited October 31, 2018 by _The Doctor__

[peteym5]

Something I came across when I was looking to port some of my games over to the Commodore 64, was that there is not much currently in the way of making cartridges for the Commodore 64. Also, I could not find any information about bank switching cartridges. I could take a security risk and make games on floppy. I had one time considering bringing my Secretum Labyrinth series of games over to the Commodore 64. Appears the market for home brew software for that platform is much smaller than what it is for the Atari.

 

Secretum Labyrinth will be a good one to port over because the screen mapping and using multi-colored sprites can be easily ported over to the Commodore 64. I am also working on porting the game for the Atari 7800 as well.

[shoestring]

Every computer system is going to have advantages and disadvantages when comparing them to each other. Between the companies Atari and Commodore, I favor what Atari did with using the same chipset throughout the 8-bit line and maintaining a high amount of compatibility from the 400 to the XEGS. IBM and Apple also did this practice. Commodore was the company with every computer model, you had to buy new software and sometimes new peripherals.

 

 

Keeping the chipset the same throughout the 8-bit line was a mistake IMO, that didn't do Atari any favours. They simply were not able to produce a low cost machine quick enough to compete with the c64. This allowed the c64 to gain momentum and surpass it in sales whilst its price dropped to a point where nobody was able to compete. Commodore had a very strong supply chain here in Australia, something Atari lacked.

 

I don't understand how anyone can consider having multiple models ( 16kb to 64kb machines ) with the same chipset an advantage. There were far too many models to choose from. Would have been better had they focused on marketing the 800xl and retailing it at a competitive price.

[popmilo]

For being so technically insignificant, the C64 really was remarkably successful. Though I know you could say the same, and to even greater extent, about the ZX Spectrum.

"techically insignificant" ?

 

Now don't take my head off for being puzzled by your statement, I'm just trying to figure out where are you coming from ?

 

Imho, pretty honest description is like it says in Wikipedia page:

- Commodore produced many of its parts in-house to control costs, including custom integrated circuit chips from MOS Technology. It has been compared to the Ford Model T automobile for its role in bringing a new technology to middle-class households via creative and affordable mass-production.^[13]

- "the SID has features like the envelope generator, previously not found in home computer sound chips.[2][3]

- About designing VIC chip: "The design was partly debugged by fabricating chips containing small subsets of the design, which could then be tested separately. This was easy since MOS Technology had both its research and development lab and semiconductor plant at the same location.^[5]

[_The Doctor__]

Gotta love Wikipedia it's so fascinatingly written and censured by fanboi's of all kinds, I love how folks can't edit their own biographies because even though they lived it and have all proof in hand... wiki oversight has what some *ss hat posted and likes it.... wiki is written handled an maintained by whoever passes by.

 

It has to be true... it's on the internet!

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/If_it_is_on_the_Internet_it_must_be_true

 

some people say...

it been said that...

it's been compared to...

most times all by the person writing or making up the article...

repeat it enough times and the supposed corroborating information comes from the source itself.... reminds me of something in real life on the news all the time..

 

sid is slow, buggy, muffled, inferior, and dies easily.

so bad it went back to the drawing board and still it fails...

Hardly a Robust Model T Ford...

perhaps they meant to 'contrast' it against such a thing.

 

let's quote two fan bois opinions on slightly different subjects and act like it is somehow a fact. And in fact Brian admits he's a fan boy writing about his favorite computer through his distorted lens..

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1462758959/commodore-the-amiga-years-book

mind you this is his next installment about the Amiga stuff.. **** scroll down to the introduction, hardly unbiased****. Consider your sources folks.

 

Why the Atari has been compared to the start of the whole gaming universe!

and now that's on the internet as well ! I always dig a little deeper.

Edited October 31, 2018 by _The Doctor__

[peteym5]

 

Keeping the chipset the same throughout the 8-bit line was a mistake IMO, that didn't do Atari any favours. They simply were not able to produce a low cost machine quick enough to compete with the c64. This allowed the c64 to gain momentum and surpass it in sales whilst its price dropped to a point where nobody was able to compete. Commodore had a very strong supply chain here in Australia, something Atari lacked.

 

I don't understand how anyone can consider having multiple models ( 16kb to 64kb machines ) with the same chipset an advantage. There were far too many models to choose from. Would have been better had they focused on marketing the 800xl and retailing it at a competitive price.

It is a matter of companies producing software for the machines and have to work harder to write programs for each machine. The Atari 8-bit has a very big library of software, and the Commodore 64 has the largest Library for the Commodore 8-bits. I know we talk about games, graphics, sound, music, but how are these computers useful as computers. Running math, programming languages, database, word processor, and spreadsheet applications. People on here know me as a programmer and I can tell you that is a major pain in the ass to support different platforms.

 

From what I understand when Atari was going from the 400/800 to the 600XL/800XL was that they were trying to make a lower cost machine to compete. But they could not get it together and on the market soon enough. I am not sure if any R&D went into making more advance graphics and sound chips. I know they were trying to consolidate the Antic/GTIA down to a single chip. A solution would be to put something together with extra abilities and be backward compatible Antic/GTIA modes.

 

Commodore worked themselves into a corner going from the ViC-20 to 64 in that how the VIC-20 memory was mapped with the VIC I chip mapped at $9000 that created on obstacle to make the Commodore 64 being backward compatible with the VIC-20. I think the VIC II and other chips mapped in the $Dxxx just as it was with the Atari 8-bit. Also created a 24K limit for Basic on the Vic-20.

 

 

Another failure on Commodore was the +4/16, releasing those after the 64. C64 should had been the platform standard. I know they were more popular over in Europe, but many Americans kept with the Commodore 64. I do not see why they did not made the Commodore 64 with some built in Software for the +4. or make a model with less RAM

[carlsson]

I'm just trying to figure out where are you coming from ?

 

Oh, I was just being sarcastic and going with the flow in this thread of Atari die-hards who can't think of anything positive about the C64. It made me wonder how many Atari-bashing threads there are on Lemon64, if there are any such threads or if the C64 only people simply ignore the Atari 8-bits once existed.

 

Regarding peteym5 writing about the lack of support for C64 cartridges, it seems that RGCD has released quite a bunch of excellent 16K homebrews for the C64 in the past few years. Most of them have been available as freely downloadable, but they still manage to sell cartridges for the collectors. There also are the EasyFlash type cartridges that can hold 1 MB or more, if 16K is not enough for your project.

 

And don't worry about piracy, your game will be cracked and put on CSDb within a week after you have released it. If you're lucky, the first cracker group will just post a picture without a downloadble link to let you sell your game for another 2 weeks, then post the binaries. If you have the attitude to screw with pirates (we had a such joker here before), they probably won't play nice with you. That is a double edged sword, and part of why I personally don't feel entirely comfortable in the C64 scene, though I've been a Commodore user for 34 years now (and got my first Atari 8-bit about 10-11 years ago).

[popmilo]

 

Oh, I was just being sarcastic and going with the flow in this thread of Atari die-hards who can't think of anything positive about the C64. It made me wonder how many Atari-bashing threads there are on Lemon64, if there are any such threads or if the C64 only people simply ignore the Atari 8-bits once existed.

All good

 

And yeah, my take on c64 guys is just like that - mostly Atari is out of sight, out of their mind. When I showed some of them what Atari can do, they were very pleasantly surprised.

[carlsson]

Seriously, my biggest issue about the Atari 8-bit was how it was priced back then. I know in the US, Atari were reasonably good at following Commodore into the price war once they got the XL models out - the earlier 400/800 models not so much. However over here the Atari importer/agent was not able to get good deals from Atari USA and the USD exchange rate was hitting them particularly bad, so by the summer of 1984, you could almost get a C64 + 1541 for the same money a bare Atari 800XL would cost you.

 

Now you can argue until the cows come home that an 800XL is worth twice as much as a C64, but to customers back then, there was little difference between the two and it would be a very hard sell why you should pay 80% more just to get a computer with the Atari brand instead of the Commodore brand. No wonder every man and his dog got a C64 (or ZX Spectrum if you didn't have so much money) and Atari owners would be those who already were converts, absolutely sure it was the only computer to get no matter its cost.

[kiwilove]

There was always advantages/disadvantages with staying with the basic chipset - for the Atari 8-bit line.

 

Like with those who went with the Atari 400 versus Vic-20 buyers - Atari 400 buyers would have changed over to one with a better keyboard - say the Atari 800 or 800XL - but could keep all of their other stuff - peripherals and software. The small exception being a few software that weren't compatible. Whereas Vic-20 buyers would have to have a complete changeover - maybe only keeping their joysticks? Maybe the cost factor difference / loss would not have been of much anyway - that it was more of a factor in one's head - how you felt about it? Vic-20 owners would not admit to how crap it's hardware really was - and certainly the C-64 was a vast improvement - but XL owners had only a marginal improvement over the 400/800 line.

 

Of course it was the build quality that was different - Atari being of a better quality over Commodore's cheapness.

Tramiel learned from his previous encounter with TI in the calculator market - that he went with vertical integration to get cheap enough chips available for his machines (notably the C-64) - which allowed him to price the C-64 cheap enough to become the market leader.

Without this price advantage - would the C-64 have still streaked ahead?

 

Technically - people are saying here - they each had their own advantages/disadvantages to cope with. Maybe someone will put together a comparison video that illustrates this - not only about the games software - but all other areas as well?

So that viewers can make up their own mind - which one was actually better? than the other?

Some may still say - it's still a draw?

 

Harvey

 

.

[fujidude]

Seriously, my biggest issue about the Atari 8-bit was how it was priced back then. I know in the US, Atari were reasonably good at following Commodore into the price war once they got the XL models out - the earlier 400/800 models not so much. However over here the Atari importer/agent was not able to get good deals from Atari USA and the USD exchange rate was hitting them particularly bad, so by the summer of 1984, you could almost get a C64 + 1541 for the same money a bare Atari 800XL would cost you.

 

Now you can argue until the cows come home that an 800XL is worth twice as much as a C64, but to customers back then, there was little difference between the two and it would be a very hard sell why you should pay 80% more just to get a computer with the Atari brand instead of the Commodore brand. No wonder every man and his dog got a C64 (or ZX Spectrum if you didn't have so much money) and Atari owners would be those who already were converts, absolutely sure it was the only computer to get no matter its cost.

 

Yeah I agree. To the many of the great unwashed masses at that time, both machines were seen essentially as equivalents, yet the price was notably higher for the Atari. I think that, more than any other factor is what made the C64 gain dominance in market share. And then, the more popular a platform gets, the more that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Because a bigger user base begets more software (and hardware add-ons) development, which then in turn begets even larger user base. I think Atari should have stopped reducing the quality once they developed the original XLs. Those were still put together far better than CBM stuff. Atari should have actually advertised more, and presented that difference. A lot of people will a bit pay more if there is good reason to.

[TMR]

Just read carefully, and go back to the original post: " (...) with native chipset (no HW modifications of any kind, other than the cart.) " (copy-paste).

The problem is that I disagree with the wording and see the cartridge as a modification to the system as a whole, adding new features like an IDE interface. Apparently people here don't feel that way however purely because the host machine is unmodified - which is a bit of an odd argument - but okeydokey then, we just have to apply the same definition evenly...

 

I've also been talking about a completely unmodified C64 (well, it has a blue power LED) with a Turbo Chameleon cartridge, meaning it's also "no HW modifications of any kind, other than the cart" and can therefore be described as "stock". But here's the thing... that "stock" C64 has 20Mb of RAM (16Mb connected via DMA which can transfer at a byte per cycle, this is what I've been talking about so yeah, "stock" apparently), over 6MHz of CPU grunt and a slew of other features because all of that is provided by the cartridge.

 

C64 upgrades like the RAM expansion I've been talking about aren't hardware modifications to the machine, they go in through the cartridge port... and now a "stock" C64 is over three times faster than an Atari 8-bit, right? =-)

[peteym5]

And don't worry about piracy, your game will be cracked and put on CSDb within a week after you have released it. If you're lucky, the first cracker group will just post a picture without a downloadble link to let you sell your game for another 2 weeks, then post the binaries. If you have the attitude to screw with pirates (we had a such joker here before), they probably won't play nice with you. That is a double edged sword, and part of why I personally don't feel entirely comfortable in the C64 scene, though I've been a Commodore user for 34 years now (and got my first Atari 8-bit about 10-11 years ago).

What I would do if I port anything over to a Commodore platform, is never post anything, anywhere that there is code testing memory locations to see if it is still running from the original cartridge and running in RAM. Let someone post something if they discover it, Then the author would not be responsible for starting any bashing, and they should just not respond to it. You really going to market the software for real hardware, not emulation. Show that you support your own product only it its original form.. It only serves as a deterrent, and not a 100% preventive. If someone has a public database, they should be obligated to comply with the wishes of the author or be held liable. It is more likely software be pirated through bit-torrents going through proxy servers.

Edited October 31, 2018 by peteym5

[_The Doctor__]

now quote super rare add-ons that few have as the rule rather than the exception. as noted you can get video using multiple storage devices, rather than admit that you conflate the issues and obfuscate what's going on... but this is to be expected... and you are still pushing a hypothetical as if it's real... you can't do it without continually moving the goal posts till eventually it will be on... oh wait an Amiga is based on the Atari 8 bit, one of Jay's designs.. you don't have another machine based off the c64's architecture... the c128 sort of abandoned it as well but that's as close as you will get...and not every c128 has all VDC

even when using an REU, the REU will not be able to magically solve the 63/64/65 clocks per line issue.

other solution require a bit of work to get happy with an NTSC machine...what's worse is each of the ram expansions are not all compatible to each other..

turbo chameleon? The "old" american 64-Cycle C64 and the argentinian "Drean" (PAL-N) C64 can not be used.

so much prattle so little time..

Edited November 1, 2018 by _The Doctor__

[carlsson]

For that matter, cartridges that try to overwrite themselves etc have been in the business since the early days of the VIC-20, and it wasn't particularly hard to circumvent that protection. I think what you need to do is a game that runs in cartridge ROM at $8000 and at the same time stores game data in the RAM behind it, putting a routine somewhere in RAM which allows you to switch the cartridge out and back in again. It would make cracking the cartridge a little harder as it would require the program to be rewritten. If you can fill nearly all the RAM with generated content so there is no space to host the main program, you're doing pretty well IMHO.

[Faicuai]

The problem is that I disagree with the wording and see the cartridge as a modification to the system as a whole, adding new features like an IDE interface. Apparently people here don't feel that way (...)

 

But here's the thing... that "stock" C64 has 20Mb of RAM (16Mb connected via DMA which can transfer at a byte per cycle, this is what I've been talking about so yeah, "stock" apparently), over 6MHz of CPU grunt and a slew of other features because all of that is provided by the cartridge.

 

C64 upgrades like the RAM expansion I've been talking about aren't hardware modifications to the machine, they go in through the cartridge port... and now a "stock" C64 is over three times faster than an Atari 8-bit, right? =-)

 

That's pure BULLSHIT.

 

Let me state this again, and clearly, for you:

1. STOCK CPU.
2. STOCK GFX chipset.
3. STOCK Audio chipset (15Khz or better audio, one ch. or better)
4. 32K-64K of ON-BOARD, STOCK ram (eg. RAM delivered FROM FACTORY)
5. STOCK CPU + SYSTEM timing / clock (CPU, GFX, RAM, bus, etc.).
6. STOCK system bus + ports.
7. Any external storage capable of delivering (bytes) to host machine's cart. port @ 500+ KB/sec of throughput, reading directly from 100-500 MBytes of available space in such storage solution, so data can be then fetched and moved by host machine's CPU and / or GFX chipset.
8. 60 fps.

There is NO WAY (none, zero, zippo, nul) to enable 60fps video if you do not have ample storage. A dumb-ass EXTERNAL RAM expansion IS NOT suitable STORAGE for video-encoded data (unless you can handle 1.5 to 2.0 TeraBytes of RAM, like my Z840 workstation). Therefore (and naturally), there should not be any objection if a similar C64-based video player, also relies on such storage solution.

 

As I mentioned before: don't argue over what you can't really argue. But, instead, enlighten all us with how the C64's ARCHITECTURE would handle this, and show it us all WORKING. It will have a pretty high technical value for most of us here, I assure you. Set the example, lead the way!

Edited November 1, 2018 by Faicuai

[carlsson]

Vic-20 buyers would have to have a complete changeover - maybe only keeping their joysticks?

Items 100% compatible between the VIC-20 and C64:

• Datassette C2N / 1530
• Floppy drive 1541 (even 1540 if you upgrade the ROM or POKE 53265,0 when loading on the C64)
• Printers like 1515, 1525
• Joysticks, paddles etc
• Composite video cable if you got one of those
• A few userport devices, like modems, RS-232, though not all as the userport is not 100% identical
• Power supply (assuming you've got a VIC-20CR with DIN style power, though the C64 seems to draw a little more power so better use the proper PSU)

Items you have partial use of if you upgrade from the VIC-20:

• Floppy disks, in case you even had a floppy drive (though only a few of the programs would be executable)
• Very few tapes, which actually could be loaded and if the program was basic enough, even execute

Items you have no use of if you upgrade:

• Most of the tapes with software that utilizes the graphics, sound, inputs and memory map of the VIC-20
• Cartridges of all kinds, both games, utilities, memory expansions and everything else

So yes, anyone upgrading from an Atari 400 to a 600XL or even 800XL would have use of far more stuff from their old computer than anyone upgrading from a VIC-20 to a C64, but you could keep much more peripherals in particular than only the joysticks...

Edited October 31, 2018 by carlsson

[_The Doctor__]

another if you do this or modify that you might have partial use of post. all very vague

[Faicuai]

. (..). The CPU simply sets up the multi-sector request, services NMIs for the custom display, and feeds audio to POKEY. The cartridge (SIDE) presents nothing more than a set of IDE registers, and the only external processing going on is performed by the IDE controller itself (on the CF card).

Correct!!!

 

Moreover, the 6502 is running RED HOT to keep up with Antic's "gargantuan" data-strem... If this is happening @ 1.8Mhz, the player may very well NOT work if CPU clock is slowed down to an even punier 1Mhz (C64), assuming data is still moved 8 bits at a time. Or, most likely, audio would be dropped out altogether, and you no longer have a real movie player!

Edited November 1, 2018 by Faicuai

[Ute]

Best 25 PCs of ALL TIME:

 

https://www.pcworld.com/article/126692/greatest_pcs_of_all_time.html?page=5

 

Atari 800, page 5.

 

Commodore 64? Not in the list... And there are strong and objective reasons for it.

 

I remember, when I was a kid, my first job was at a computer store, in sales, and worked with ALL models, all sorts of computers. Bit by bit, gram by gram, the 800/XL was certainly the better system, overall... and pretty decently engineered THREE years BEFORE the C64!!!

 

Many people don't really know that IBM went to ATARI HQ's to discuss how to incporate the 800 as their Home / Personal computer product... sames as Bill Gates, which was hired by Atari as contractor... and then fired for being late... (of course, he chose to put all his energy with IBM, not a bad carreer move, at all)!

 

 

To be fair that list is crap.

 

It also ranks the Apple 2 as the best pc ever, and the Apple 2 and Mac ahead of the Amiga. Amiga beat the F*ck out of those two computers in every way possible.

 

Hell, my Atari's are certainly better than an Apple 2, and arguably better than a Mac.

 

While I preferred my 130XE and 800 over the C64, to say that the top selling computer of all time doesn't deserve a place in the top 25 pc's ever is wrong.

[Faicuai]

To be fair that list is crap.

 

It also ranks the Apple 2 as the best pc ever, and the Apple 2 and Mac ahead of the Amiga. Amiga beat the F*ck out of those two computers in every way possible.

 

Hell, my Atari's are certainly better than an Apple 2, and arguably better than a Mac.

 

While I preferred my 130XE and 800 over the C64, to say that the top selling computer of all time doesn't deserve a place in the top 25 pc's ever is wrong.

 

Well, by that standard, the Victor 9000 / Sirius-1 beats the *sh_t* out of your Amiga, considering the time of its introduction and raw capabilities... and it is not in that list, either. Am I upset for that? Not really! I actuallly believe that the Xerox system SHOULD be at the very top of the list, and for decades more to come!... but it is not... After all, EVERTYTHING we know and see today about graphical computing actually comes from there! :-)

 

Just because we don't like the results, or simply don't want to accept the underlying driver / criteria of the selection, does NOT invalidate the list.

 

That list is not about the raw / anbsolute capabilities of the equipment... but rather their design philosophy, their time and place in history, and the amount of innovation they brought at their time of introduction.

 

The C64, unfiortunately, with its cheapo-manufacturing, bare-to-the-bones OS framework, pretty slow CPU BUT a turbo-charged graphics processor and LOW price... was introduced right at the moment when 16bit and graphical computing were already on their way (as you can see on that list, if you really read it). Atari and Apple already advanced and innovated in the 8bit domain, 3-5 years BEFORE, and that is why the C64 is not in that list (it does not really take that much effort to figure out, though).

 

That you don't like it, is a very different story. Go and write something to the authors, or, even better, come up with your own list!

Edited November 1, 2018 by Faicuai