Atari v Commodore

[Albert]

I wonder how to find a conclusion. Either both Computers, the A8 and the C64 are no "complete" ones.

Frankly, you're not going to reach a consensus. While I was always an 8-bit fan (my first computer was an 800XL--learned BASIC and 6502 Assembly on it, ran several BBSs on it over the years, and played a million games on them), I understand that both the Atari 8-bit and Commodore 64 computers have their pros and cons.

 

I also wonder why Oswald is still allowed doing insulting A8 friends and bashing the A8 without any consequences.

I have not paid very close attention to his posts and nobody has complained about him. Please feel free to point out any specific posts that have been abusive. But don't do that in this thread, either use the Report button or send me a PM.

 

It's one of the factors why I wanted to remove all entrys I ever made in this forums and to leave this all....

Please do not do that, as I can pull posts en masse back from the dead, I have done so in the past and will do so again if necessary in the future. But it wastes my time and your time.

 

..Al

[Tezz]

MK. There is no conclusion to a pointless thread of arguments comparing two different systems with their own different limitations. This thread was originally innocently started by a member to compare which was the better version of games that appeared on both systems and has since been hyjacked into a 1200+ post slanging match.

 

I wouldn't worry about peoples opinions seemingly being swayed by these arguments, remember that not all members here are totally hardcore Atari. A lot enjoy the whole 8-bit era and enjoy it all subjectively. We're all aware of the Atari strong points. The limitations are the fun things to overcome

 

BTW. you forgot xxl from your list maybe? and Pr0be, Tebe, Vega, and Fox (although no longer active)

Edited December 5, 2008 by Tezz

[Bryan]

i don't accept your definition no because the Atari itself is quite clearly telling me that i've got two sprites and they can optionally work in tandem when the multicolour mode is enabled; i looked at a few books on Atari Archives just to confirm my memory, none of the ones i checked said that enabling multicolour gets you two multicolour sprites rather than four working in pairs either.

 

I'm trying to figure out why this is even a big deal to atariksi without re-reading the last 40+ pages. If you call them separate sprites, then it's a nifty feature that they can work together. If you call them a single sprite then congrats! You've just reduced the system to fewer available sprites. Doesn't matter what you call it- what you can do with it remains the same.

[Bryan]

I also wonder why Oswald is still allowed doing insulting A8 friends and bashing the A8 without any consequences.

I have not paid very close attention to his posts and nobody has complained about him. Please feel free to point out any specific posts that have been abusive. But don't do that in this thread, either use the Report button or send me a PM.

Here's the thing. If Oswald is defending the 64 in a topic called "Atari v Commodore" then I don't think there's much reason to boot him. If only Atari owners debated then I think we would have concluded that the 64 causes genital warts by now.

 

If he jumps into legitimate Atari discussions with bashing, that's another thing.

 

-Bry

[deathtrappomegranate]

So I still cannot understand people saying " the C64 is the better computer

It's not difficult to understand, it's just tribalism.

 

When I saw the original post, my heart sank. Another "my obsolete computer is better than your obsolete computer" argument, just like many others that we've had here.

 

Whether one or the other machine is "better" is a value judgment, an entirely subjective matter. People will regard one or other system as "better" depending upon what, to them, "better" means. People seem to hold one view or another because of how they perceive each machine, because of what it means to them.

 

These arguments are meaningless. Is chess "better" than badminton? Is Coke "better" than Pepsi?

 

After reading the OP, my first reaction was to post a message like "Not again, please stop this nonsense," but I'm glad that I didn't. A fair bit of the discussion in this thread has been quite interesting, and if people are moved to do some coding as a result, then that would be great. It's a pity that some people seem to enjoy antagonising each other so much.

[Bryan]

I don't think they're completely meaningless because some computers have abilities that others don't. I think if we defined a system with a 4-pixel monochrome display, 3 bytes of RAM, and a 1.36Hz CPU, we could all agree that systems sucks. If we defined a system that could do realtime 100fps photo-realistic ray-tracing and 10 channel surround while running at 5% CPU load, we could all agree that system rocks. What's interesting is when the systems aren't that different. Can you decide objectively? I think I'm a lot more objective than I used to be.

[deathtrappomegranate]

I don't think they're completely meaningless because some computers have abilities that others don't. I think if we defined a system with a 4-pixel monochrome display, 3 bytes of RAM, and a 1.36Hz CPU, we could all agree that systems sucks. If we defined a system that could do realtime 100fps photo-realistic ray-tracing and 10 channel surround while running at 5% CPU load, we could all agree that system rocks. What's interesting is when the systems aren't that different. Can you decide objectively? I think I'm a lot more objective than I used to be.

Of course, different computers have different specifications. However, whether one is "better" than another is a subjective argument, because it requires an exercise of balancing the relative attributes of the systems concerned, and the criteria used will depend upon the preferences of whoever happens to be making the comparison.

 

It would, for example, be perfectly possible to argue that an abacus is better than a quad-core PC, from more than one viewpoint. The discussion might be more interesting when the articles to be compared are relatively similar, but the result of such comparisons is rarely of any use.

 

As regards the present 48+ page discourse, I can't think of any reason why anyone should care about whether anyone else thinks that the C64 is better or worse than the A8. It just doesn't matter. At all.

[Artlover]

To concure with the last few posts.....

 

Better is still not a matter of "fact"

 

It is and always has been a matter of personal subjective opinion based on individuals specificly picking and choosing what criteria matters to them that makes their choice better to them in their eyes. This applies to both sides of the argument.

 

In the decades that this crap has been going on, I've still yet to see anyone on either side make any argument or submit any proof that signifigantly proved one was better then the other. It's always the same stuff. Ive got a faster CPU, I've got better sprites, I've got 4 voices, I can make better sound with my 3, I've got more color, blah, blah, blah. Whatever.

 

So 26 years later, we're still exactly where we were when we started.

 

 

A8 users think their A8's are better then C64's for the reasons that they choose that validate their perspective.

C64 users think their C64's are better then A8's for the reasons that they choose that validate their perspective.

 

You're both right.

 

The problem for the past 26 years has always been when one deludes themselves into beliving that only their perspective and criteria matter, that their opinion is somehow a fact and therefore everyone else is just wrong. It gets old and doesn't reflect well of them.

[Fröhn]

I'm trying to figure out why this is even a big deal to atariksi without re-reading the last 40+ pages. If you call them separate sprites, then it's a nifty feature that they can work together. If you call them a single sprite then congrats! You've just reduced the system to fewer available sprites. Doesn't matter what you call it- what you can do with it remains the same.

atariski says that the feature of combining two sprites to multicolor display is "one sprite" just to disallow TMR to use two C64 sprites in a similar way for comparision

Edited December 6, 2008 by Fröhn

[atarian63]

I also wonder why Oswald is still allowed doing insulting A8 friends and bashing the A8 without any consequences.

I have not paid very close attention to his posts and nobody has complained about him. Please feel free to point out any specific posts that have been abusive. But don't do that in this thread, either use the Report button or send me a PM.

Here's the thing. If Oswald is defending the 64 in a topic called "Atari v Commodore" then I don't think there's much reason to boot him. If only Atari owners debated then I think we would have concluded that the 64 causes genital warts by now.

 

If he jumps into legitimate Atari discussions with bashing, that's another thing.

 

-Bry

I dunno, the bad language has to go Not to mention it's an Atari site, do any of us go to Lemon64 and start arguments?

[Artlover]

I don't think they're completely meaningless because some computers have abilities that others don't. I think if we defined a system with a 4-pixel monochrome display, 3 bytes of RAM, and a 1.36Hz CPU, we could all agree that systems sucks. If we defined a system that could do realtime 100fps photo-realistic ray-tracing and 10 channel surround while running at 5% CPU load, we could all agree that system rocks.

It's not meaningless in the context of that example, but other examples can be made to show that it is meaningless.

 

How about...

 

2x2 pixel 24bit color display, 16k of ram, 1ghz cpu, 8 mono fixed frequency tone generators

-vs.-

80x60 pixel monochrome display, 512k of ram, 33mhz cpu, 2 stereo synths

 

Based just on the numbers - Which system sucks and which system rocks?

 

Raw numbers are completely meaningless and only subjectively matter to people who care about that particular aspect in liue of the bigger picture.

[atarian63]

After 10 years nobody will remember the 5200, or 800XL, or C64, or Spectrum... Only one computer will survive with new productions:

 

I'm doubt that. c64 holds the largest active user base regarding any 8 bit computer sytem. also I believe more ppl know it than the vcs or spectrum or etc. alltogether.

Hardly.. Atari 2600 is the most famous of them all. When you say Atari which is the beginning of games to the general public, they are thinking of the 2600. C64 and even the 8 bit Atari's are an afterthought if at all at least to the general public.

[atarian63]

I think you should open an "oswald" topic with emkay and alison, and discuss related stuff there.

 

 

edit: you know what I'll answer: its endlessly funny arguing so that the opposite side tries to claim the impossible and is clearly wrong in the moment they stop its boring. if an amiga zealot would come to a c64 forum I wouldnt try to explain him how the c64 is better nor do I try to explain how the c64's cpu is faster as an a8. but its really enterteining seeing atariski "prooving" atari sprites are better or emkay saying a8 can do 48 color last ninja

So you are saying you are just here to be a pain, right? Well that sucks, I think most kids here would rather not play with you. I imagine you had a "does not work and play well with others" on a report card at some point in your life.

Edited December 6, 2008 by atarian63

[Allas]

13 - BLACK LAMP

 

Atari screenshots

 

Well, this time is a later 80 game (1989). Different versions according the capabilities of the machines. C64 use many colors, the final screen is something as a cartoon mode, in the other side Atari use variations of the same color, give a result of medieval aspect. Both, have good music and are different pieces. I'd prefer the Atari version.

 

C64 screenshots

Edited December 6, 2008 by Allas

[Bryan]

I don't see arguing over superiority as being worth much, but I think discussing what makes a machine superior to another is interesting. What features are important, and why?

 

Most people used 8-bit computers to play games, and so sprites and playfield features deserve some emphasis. I didn't know very many people who tried to run a business on their computers back then- maybe some light word-processing and such, though.

 

I prefer the Atari, but that's subjective. There's things I don't like about the 64, but I recognize that it generally had better looking software.

[atariksi]

i don't accept your definition no because the Atari itself is quite clearly telling me that i've got two sprites and they can optionally work in tandem when the multicolour mode is enabled; i looked at a few books on Atari Archives just to confirm my memory, none of the ones i checked said that enabling multicolour gets you two multicolour sprites rather than four working in pairs either.

 

I'm trying to figure out why this is even a big deal to atariksi without re-reading the last 40+ pages. If you call them separate sprites, then it's a nifty feature that they can work together. If you call them a single sprite then congrats! You've just reduced the system to fewer available sprites. Doesn't matter what you call it- what you can do with it remains the same.

 

I was arguing that Atari multicolor sprites are better implementation than C64 multicolor sprites. Yes, I did agree that this would reduce number of sprites. After TMR loses the argument, he tries to change the premises like he did with his sprite Y position argument. Two multicolor Atari sprites give you 6 colors + black + any priority conflict colors. Two C64 multicolor sprites gives 4 colors. End of argument. Now he's arguing that I should use Atari monochrome sprite and compare with C64 multicolor sprite (i.e., compare apples w/oranges) since Atari came to him (in the middle of the night) and told him that they are two sprites not one multicolor sprite (after arguing for a while it's semantics). I gave him the example of Amiga bitplanes and Amiga sprite merging but I guess he did not read it or did not understand it. The definition of multiple player color is here:

 

http://www.atariarchives.org/c1bag/page192.php

 

And it agrees with reality and with Commodore's Amiga Hardware Reference Manual. I don't see the point in wasting my time arguing over apples and oranges. According to his warped logic, Atari ST 640*200*4 mode is superior to Amiga's 640*200*4 mode since Amiga is using TWO bitplanes. Of course, what can you expect from someone who initially was arguing that the Atari's palette being superior to C64's is a subjective thing. I get the drift that he just keeps repeating the samething regardless of what is reality until someone accepts him. Then you got a couple of people who did not understand the argument jump into it and try to refute me without taking the facts into account.

 

His mentality is pretty clear to me. If I gave the question that one 18-wheeler shop-rite truck and one BMW get on the George Washington Bridge at the same time going at 70mph and let go of the gas peddle at the same time, who will get across the bridge faster? So after the issue is done and over with, he'll claim Shop-rite does not have 18-wheelers! They are just a trailer and a front vehicle! Of course, he's not as bad as the other two people who are trying to find fault without even knowing what the argument is!

[atariksi]

You can program for the worst case and assume certain things in the PCs case. But in real-time programming scenarios when something critical needs to be done, you do need to know exactly how many cycles it takes and not an average. So what if a video skips a frame once in a while or if the word processor/browser takes a few thousand extra cycles initially than later, but what happens if you want to control an external device or update a display for some medical system that can't afford to go out of sync. It gets worse w/newere OSes with all these background tasks running that people have no control over (especially if the software is spyware and hogging up your resources).

 

That is what a RTOS and/or kernel level programming is for. Medical devices with such requirements don't run things like Windows or even Linux. Things like QNX give you time guarantees though what you have are dead reliable high resolution timers and rather high-level APIs rather than access to the bare metal unless you're developing or modifying drivers for specialty devices on those systems.

 

Low-cost embedded systems are pretty much the last bastion of code that has to hug and squeeze every last bit of performance out the bare metal.

 

Yeah, even the standard 1.19Mhz timer on the PC cannot be used in Windows 2000/XP/Vista thanks to the HLI (hardware-limited interface, a.k.a API). But even if you have a high resolution timer, the caching, power management, dynamic frequency changes, non-standard hardware leading to inconsistently timed API calls, etc. will throw off timing unless you program for the worst case in which case you are not going to optimally use your 2+Ghz processor nor your hardware. That's one thing great about standardized machines like Amiga, Atari, C64, etc. is that you can directly access the hardware and know it'll be the same on the other machine. Earlier PCs were more exact than modern PCs.

[atariksi]

...

On the Atari, you have to copy anytime you are moving vertically even... unless you do something strange that compromises reusing the sprites further down the screen, or use up lots of memory (which no one would every do except in a some sort of tech demo.) I don't understand what Atariksi is talking about.

 

You don't know what I'm talking about that's why I am not replying to your points.

[atariksi]

I don't think they're completely meaningless because some computers have abilities that others don't. I think if we defined a system with a 4-pixel monochrome display, 3 bytes of RAM, and a 1.36Hz CPU, we could all agree that systems sucks. If we defined a system that could do realtime 100fps photo-realistic ray-tracing and 10 channel surround while running at 5% CPU load, we could all agree that system rocks. What's interesting is when the systems aren't that different. Can you decide objectively? I think I'm a lot more objective than I used to be.

Of course, different computers have different specifications. However, whether one is "better" than another is a subjective argument, because it requires an exercise of balancing the relative attributes of the systems concerned, and the criteria used will depend upon the preferences of whoever happens to be making the comparison.

 

It would, for example, be perfectly possible to argue that an abacus is better than a quad-core PC, from more than one viewpoint. The discussion might be more interesting when the articles to be compared are relatively similar, but the result of such comparisons is rarely of any use.

 

As regards the present 48+ page discourse, I can't think of any reason why anyone should care about whether anyone else thinks that the C64 is better or worse than the A8. It just doesn't matter. At all.

 

If you argue from hardware capability, it's objective. If you argue what's beneficial to someone in a particular circumstance, it can be subjective. CPU clock rate, colors, sprites, graphics modes, timers, gameport I/O, etc. are all objectively measureable things. I guess you can get a conflict/debate on hardware when things are too close to call and result does not make a significant difference.

[Allas]

Don't care. C64 users feel his 16 colors are enough and that's right. With some effort they can reproduce good pictures and make good games with 8/16 colors. Congratulations! again it's enough and better that many 8bit counterparts.

 

But Atari can do better work with his 128 colors, it has proved in the past and recently on later productions. Don't be confused with arguments like Atari can't get 4 pixels per horizontal line. It's a restriction... ok... but there are own ways how to use many colors on screen and one important thing (don't said before) these 128 colors can be used along different stages along the game.

 

Nowadays, the most of screens are LCD widescreen, goodbye to the artifacts or PAL effects. Welcome to the Atari interlaced screen that don't flicker on a LCD at absolutely (even on old NTSC TVs). Welcome to future Atari games that can use the widescreen area.

 

C64 have a great sprite engine. Easily you can do the most of arcades and create games without effort. On Atari machines, creating a good software (game) cost a lot of brain and effort. Yes, it's hard, but you can get unreachable results. Always C64 users will think his machine can do better everything, because they have no imagination for the Atari power (always think on C64 methods)

 

Honestly, C64 is nothing without his sprites. I can't remember any good C64 game without sprites.

 

However it will be fun, what happens on future years.

 

About the yearly production of C64, it will be good to know how much SOFTWARE (no including images, music, demos) from 2007 or 2008 had been released for the C64. Is dying the C64?

[frogstar_robot]

Yeah, even the standard 1.19Mhz timer on the PC cannot be used in Windows 2000/XP/Vista thanks to the HLI (hardware-limited interface, a.k.a API). But even if you have a high resolution timer, the caching, power management, dynamic frequency changes, non-standard hardware leading to inconsistently timed API calls, etc. will throw off timing unless you program for the worst case in which case you are not going to optimally use your 2+Ghz processor nor your hardware. That's one thing great about standardized machines like Amiga, Atari, C64, etc. is that you can directly access the hardware and know it'll be the same on the other machine. Earlier PCs were more exact than modern PCs.

 

Current consoles sometimes are programmed to the bare metal because it isn't customary to upgrade consoles apart from more space for savegames and whatnot. Early PCs used to have that in common with consoles but no longer. The model then was to hug the bare metal with display kernals and whatnot. Games would be developed on and look good on the primary platform then look half-hearted elsewhere.

 

These days sheer brute force is used to present (mostly) consistent APIs regardless of underlying hardware. I too romanticize and am nostalgic about machines where you can know everything about what ever memory location and every chip does. But the current way is much more practical. I can run atari800 on Windows, OS X , Linux, handheld consoles, phones and as long as a certain minimum of graphics capability and cpu cycles are available, the same reasonable approximation of my old computer works the same on all of them. Yeah it leads to bloat. And it is an obscene waste of computing resources compared to the spare but efficient 8-bits we grew up on. But this way allows for a very broad ecosystem of development and the inability to host that ecosystem is why nobody but Apple is still around....and they build machines out of PC parts too these days.

Edited December 6, 2008 by frogstar_robot

[potatohead]

I like the Speccy graphics. Like Apple graphics too.

 

I'm surprised there aren't some great Beagle Brothers paint double high-res pictures online. That mode was essentially 160x192x16, with higher res options, if you wanted them and were careful about artificating.

 

The Apple IIe came out in 1983 , the original graphics was effectively 140x192x6 ( b+w + 2 possible colours/7 pixels )

 

 

...here's one picture... http://www.flickr.com/photos/blakespot/2417886747/

 

and some more here: http://toastytech.com/about/myap.html

 

Thanks!

 

My apologies for the post up thread. It didn't go where I thought it would. I enjoy the passion for the older computers. It's a really great thing in this day, to be able to still enjoy them like we do. And the emulation comments are just spot on. Entire environments then fit on a thumb drive, you can lose in your pocket today.

 

Just didn't want the emotion to end up damaging that. In all other respects, game on! From that sport comes the occasional person with that idea that pushes it all just a bit farther, and that's really what I like to see.

 

So then, the question to Oswald was not why is he here in an inflammatory way, but more like "Aren't you here to see the old machines do cool stuff like the rest of us are, and if so, isn't there some quarter to be given for that?" That's all. I've no beef.

 

Text sometimes is a PITA.

 

...and if we are to talk about SID less sound, can't we include the system speaker, or the AM Radio tricks? LOL!!!

 

Game on!

[Alison DeMeyer]

The next person who resorts to name calling will be kicked out of the 8-bit forum indefinitely.

 

..Al

 

Yes, very civil of you, Oswald does name calling and you telling ME I will be banned? (I regard your answer was directed towards me, if not I accept your apology).

And you even replied towards emkay: I have not paid very close attention to his posts. I suggest you'd better. (Oswald started calling emkay 'shitboy' or shittyboy, something like that, it's pretty nasty anyway, but if you can't even bother reading posts, I won't backtrack to find out exactly).

I only told the truth about Oswald as he never even coded an Atari 8bit computer and seems to know better, but YOU BLAME ME?

Edited December 6, 2008 by Alison DeMeyer

[Alison DeMeyer]

Loser

Loser.

Loser.

Who don't you just go away.

 

 

'Who don't you just go away?', that doesn't even make sense. Learn English.

 

(Found time to check me out though, didn't you?)

 

And anyway, I love my Atari 8 bit computer, this is ATARI Age, if I'm not mistaken?

Edited December 6, 2008 by Alison DeMeyer

[ApolloBoy]

The next person who resorts to name calling will be kicked out of the 8-bit forum indefinitely.

 

..Al

 

Yes, very civil of you, Oswald does name calling and you telling ME I will be banned? (I regard your answer was directed towards me, if not I accept your apology).

 

He wasn't directing it specifically at you, just at anyone who hurled insults next. Relax.