Atari v Commodore

[Allas]

Crownland not finished? What do you mean?

 

Anyway, the discussion is pointless because, for one thing, comparing Atari and C64 is ridiculous. Too many hiccups and years lost on the Atari side where NOTHING was happening.

 

It makes a lot of difference when you have a market that can boost your creativity. Progress in programming techniques has always been linear on the C64, not so on the Atari due to a number of circumstances: the "crash", poor marketing, high prices... Atari never was a serious contender in the UK either and this is where A LOT of time was lost.

 

--

Atari Frog

http://www.atarimania.com

 

Crownland seems very short for a game and don't seem to be really challenging for a game. Seeing the video, it looks like more an very nice interactive demo. But i can be wrong , i will try to test it as soon as possible.

 

I also agree it is ridiculous to compare Atari and C64 . But guys here pretend the opposite and want to compare, so it is why i ask to prove what they say by fact and not theory.

 

Personnaly i really love the 2 machines. The only thing i can say is that both are very good. which one is the best... commercially it is cleary the C64 , in term of overall quality of commercially released games it is also the C64. But Technically i could not say each machine having their own domain where they are better than the other.

 

 

Exactly, you have seen the demo of Crownland. The completed version is not on youtube.

Both games have some similarities, but you have to consider that Mayhem is the top scrolling platform game reach on a C64 (at 99% of his features) after years of knowledge experimenting with different techniques. Meanwhile Crownland is the first seriously attempt on Atari to do this type of games. Despite all, Crownland have some nice features as: solid 13-18 color on screen, triple parallax movements on some stages, transparency simulation on the water.

 

In general, technically there are a lot of differences on both machines, but the most important are:

 

- C64 has map color (letting use 8 or 16 color on screen)

- C64 has better engine sprite

 

But Atari have:

 

- Atari has 256 palette colors

- Atari has 1.79Mhz CPU

- Atari has 128K

 

On software as Utilities, Applications, Educative programs, Operating Systems, Tools, you have the better possibilities on Atari computers, because there is no major influence of sprites and map color on this type of software. Instead, the features of Atari are very welcome.

 

On game software, there are basically:

 

- 3D games: Isometric, vectorial, FPs or another type of games that needs calculating and extensive use of CPU, Atari have the con here.

 

- 2D games: Here C64 have the power, at least of 70% of type games that could be created. Meanwhile, you use more sprites and more color background you get more advantage. And the 99% of discussions, came just for this topic.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Allas

[Fröhn]

A poor reply. I stand my ground: The A8 cannot compete with the sprite engine of the C64. Whatever I do on C64, you won't be able to do the same on A8.

[Bryan]

Going back to an earlier point, I don't think the 64 vs. 800 makes much sense because the machines are years apart. I also don't think Atari can win the 64 vs 800XL debate because of Atari's aging hardware.

 

I think the most interesting debate is which one represented the biggest advance in technology. Was the 800 a bigger step forward in 1979 or was the 64 a bigger step forward in 1982? I don't think anyone could deny that both machines were highly significant but which machine fares better against what was available at the time.

 

Exhibit A:

The Atari 400 and 800 introduced some radical concepts into the market. A full-color home PC with flexible ASIC based bitmap, sprite and multi-voice sound hardware was unheard of. The OS was well thought out and the machine put an unusual emphasis on user friendliness.

 

Exhibit B:

The Commodore 64 offered improved graphics and sound capability that approached the level of coin-op games of the day. It also offered a whopping 64K of RAM for the lowest price on the market. I consider some of the 64's games to be unrivaled until the 16-bit era.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Bryan

[drac030]

A poor reply. I stand my ground: The A8 cannot compete with the sprite engine of the C64. Whatever I do on C64, you won't be able to do the same on A8.

 

Might be, but its also vice versa. So you always loose in this comparison anyway, because C-64 is 3 years younger, so it should be unquestionnably better. But it is not, a machine designed in 1978 is stil able to compete, and is in many respects better (256 colors, for example, faster CPU, more memory, better firmware, solid hardware etc.).

 

Like emulate Pokey using bare C-64, so that you'll be able to replay 4-channel tunes - Święty has emulated the SID on Pokey, and has released the SID Player, perhaps it does not play perfectly, but well enough that C-64 people listening to this on a Forever party initially thought that the machine contained real SID. So it is your move now.

Edited April 10, 2009 by drac030

[Fröhn]

A poor reply. I stand my ground: The A8 cannot compete with the sprite engine of the C64. Whatever I do on C64, you won't be able to do the same on A8.

 

Might be, but its also vice versa. So you always loose in this comparison anyway, because C-64 is 3 years younger, so it should be unquestionnably better. But it is not, a machine designed in 1978 is stil able to compete, and is in many respects better (256 colors, for example, faster CPU, more memory, better firmware, solid hardware etc.).

3 years where A8 could have owned the market... but it didn't. And "more memory" is not true for almost all A8 models including XL.

 

Święty has emulated the SID on Pokey, and has released the SID Player

No he hasn't. SID playing is a bit more than "playing melodies of SID tunes".

[youki]

Crownland not finished? What do you mean?

 

Anyway, the discussion is pointless because, for one thing, comparing Atari and C64 is ridiculous. Too many hiccups and years lost on the Atari side where NOTHING was happening.

 

It makes a lot of difference when you have a market that can boost your creativity. Progress in programming techniques has always been linear on the C64, not so on the Atari due to a number of circumstances: the "crash", poor marketing, high prices... Atari never was a serious contender in the UK either and this is where A LOT of time was lost.

 

--

Atari Frog

http://www.atarimania.com

 

Crownland seems very short for a game and don't seem to be really challenging for a game. Seeing the video, it looks like more an very nice interactive demo. But i can be wrong , i will try to test it as soon as possible.

 

I also agree it is ridiculous to compare Atari and C64 . But guys here pretend the opposite and want to compare, so it is why i ask to prove what they say by fact and not theory.

 

Personnaly i really love the 2 machines. The only thing i can say is that both are very good. which one is the best... commercially it is cleary the C64 , in term of overall quality of commercially released games it is also the C64. But Technically i could not say each machine having their own domain where they are better than the other.

 

 

Exactly, you have seen the demo of Crownland. The completed version is not on youtube.

Both games have some similarities, but you have to consider that Mayhem is the top scrolling platform game reach on a C64 (at 99% of his features) after years of knowledge experimenting with different techniques. Meanwhile Crownland is the first seriously attempt on Atari to do this type of games. Despite all, Crownland have some nice features as: solid 13-18 color on screen, triple parallax movements on some stages, transparency simulation on the water.

 

In general, technically there are a lot of differences on both machines, but the most important are:

 

- C64 has map color (letting use 8 or 16 color on screen)

- C64 has better engine sprite

 

But Atari have:

 

- Atari has 256 palette colors

- Atari has 1.79Mhz CPU

- Atari has 128K

 

On software as Utilities, Applications, Educative programs, Operating Systems, Tools, you have the better possibilities on Atari computers, because there is no major influence of sprites and map color on this type of software. Instead, the features of Atari are very welcome.

 

On game software, there are basically:

 

- 3D games: Isometric, vectorial, FPs or another type of games that needs calculating and extensive use of CPU, Atari have the con here.

 

- 2D games: Here C64 have the power, at least of 70% of type games that could be created. Meanwhile, you use more sprites and more color background you get more advantage. And the 99% of discussions, came just for this topic.

 

Yes, i totally agree with what you are saying here.

 

except may be just one point when you say :

 

Both games have some similarities, but you have to consider that Mayhem is the top scrolling platform game reach on a C64 (at 99% of his features) after years of knowledge experimenting with different techniques.

 

Embedded Atari Technology in XL/XE date from 1979 , C64 is from about 1982 . ( i take argument i could read in that thread somewhere ) . So Atari 's programmer had 3 years more than C64 programmer to master the knowledge of their machine.

[Bryan]

3 years where A8 could have owned the market... but it didn't. And "more memory" is not true for almost all A8 models including XL.

I don't know how much market share should matter today. The PC eventually pwnd everyone.

 

As far as memory goes, the 800 was originally an expandable system and upgrades were made by several 3rd parties. For this reason Atari users were more comfortable with the idea from the start. The availability of memory upgrades was a nice perk for Atari users, but I agree Atari didn't offer 128K until very late in the game.

 

Święty has emulated the SID on Pokey, and has released the SID Player

No he hasn't. SID playing is a bit more than "playing melodies of SID tunes".

I believe the player digitally plays the correct waveforms as well.

[Fröhn]

- Atari has 256 palette colors

No it hasn't. It's 128 colors in most modes + PMs. 256 only works in one GTIA mode and the 256 color mode which only works on PAL machines. No to mention that 160x200 = 4 colors and 320x200 = 2 colors. Doesn't matter what palette, 4 colors will always look like 4 colors and 2 colors will always look like 2 colors.

 

- Atari has 1.79Mhz CPU

Which loses many cycles to ANTIC. So in the end it's just 20% faster than the 0.985 MHz CPU of the C64. Nothing left of the "2 times faster" which atariski dreams of.

 

- Atari has 128K

I could pull out the C128 now. Or I could mention that no XL and no 400/800 has 128k.

[Heaven/TQA]

may I remember this...

 

it takes now for looong time just to get a proper working softsprite routine in my game... ok...of course one reason is that my coding skills seems not good enough to speed things up...

 

but as I mentioned in the Beyond Evil thread... on C64 I simply made more possible in less than 1 hour than on A8...

 

and look at the details... I doubt that you can mimik same thing on A8... (f.e. multicolour 12x21 sprites in 60 fps over highres text plus colour ram changes...)

c64g.zip

[youki]

Going back to an earlier point, I don't think the 64 vs. 800 makes much sense because the machines are years apart. I also don't think Atari can win the 64 vs 800XL debate because of Atari's aging hardware.

 

I think the most interesting debate is which one represented the biggest advance in technology. Was the 800 a bigger step forward in 1979 or was the 64 a bigger step forward in 1982? I don't think anyone could deny that both machines were highly significant but which machine fares better against what was available at the time.

 

Exhibit A:

The Atari 400 and 800 introduced some radical concepts into the market. A full-color home PC with flexible ASIC based bitmap, sprite and multi-voice sound hardware was unheard of. The OS was well thought out and the machine put an unusual emphasis on user friendliness.

 

Exhibit B:

The Commodore 64 offered improved graphics and sound capability that approached the level of coin-op games of the day. It also offered a whopping 64K of RAM for the lowest price on the market. I consider some of the 64's games to be unrivaled until the 16-bit era.

 

 

I agree with you.

 

I think the most interesting debate is which one represented the biggest advance in technology. Was the 800 a bigger step forward in 1979 or was the 64 a bigger step forward in 1982? I don't think anyone could deny that both machines were highly significant but which machine fares better against what was available at the time.

 

Technology speaking, i think there is no doubt that the Atari 800 win.

 

The C64 has not been designed to be technology advanced , it has been designed to cost the less as possible.

Commodore used some component they had , and luckily they had some component ready for a game console they planned . So the C64 have luckly profited of that technology. Otherwise i'm sure it wouldn't have sprites for instance.

But thanks to good ingeneer it has been smartly designed.

 

I don't the A800 has been designed in the some optic. I think the target was more a high end machine.

[Heaven/TQA]

and yes... we should remember that 3 years difference... 1978/79 machine vs 1982 machine... for that I have to admit that I am quite happy...

[Allas]

Yes, i totally agree with what you are saying here.

 

except may be just one point when you say :

 

Both games have some similarities, but you have to consider that Mayhem is the top scrolling platform game reach on a C64 (at 99% of his features) after years of knowledge experimenting with different techniques.

 

Embedded Atari Technology in XL/XE date from 1979 , C64 is from about 1982 . ( i take argument i could read in that thread somewhere ) . So Atari 's programmer had 3 years more than C64 programmer to master the knowledge of their machine.

 

I was referring to years of effective working on the machine. For every year (365 days) of continue work on a C64 machine, maybe there are a couple of days of Atari development. Just the consequence of the success on the sales.

 

Other way, it should be interesting to compare how much money was invest to create Mayhem on Monsterland, maybe a $5000? or more?... And how much was the sales earnings.

Crownland is a freeware production. No invest, no earnings (ok, the $250 on ABBUC contest )

[Bryan]

- Atari has 1.79Mhz CPU

Which loses many cycles to ANTIC. So in the end it's just 20% faster than the 0.985 MHz CPU of the C64. Nothing left of the "2 times faster" which atariski dreams of.

One thing I like about Atari's method is that although the CPU is quite slow during the visible screen, it is very fast during VBLANK. If you're not double-buffering this gives you more time to modify the graphics between frames.

[Heaven/TQA]

he ment adding one player per rasterline by repositioning on the rasterline.

 

I ment adding/re-using/repositioning 4 more player with the same shape.

 

 

I hope, you haven't forgot the demo:

 

 

 

It's that type of player reusing... 4 player used 2 times per scanline = 1920 different moving oneline "sprites" possible

Missiles were not used there but could be added.

 

 

klar... of course I am remembering that demos... but you know and I know that it is an easy job to do the 2 PM vertical scrollers on c64... (top/bottom border can be removed for the fx and then simply 4 c64 sprites... multiplexed vertical... no problem at all... and...to beat the a8 version... they could have different colours...

[Fröhn]

The C64 has not been designed to be technology advanced , it has been designed to cost the less as possible.

Pure bulls**t. The VIC2 has been designed to be the most competitive sprite engine of it's time and that's just what it is.

 

Commodore used some component they had

Yes, and they had VIC2 and SID.

 

Damn I am f**king annoyed of this crap. All this "ooooooh A8 could have been much better if only the evil companies/coders/whatever had done that". NO! The C64 can do 2D games much much easier than the A8. On C64 a Crownland engine is just a matter of coding a week. And even after that its far from "cutting edge" on C64, it's just a straight forward job.

[drac030]

And "more memory" is not true for almost all A8 models including XL.

 

I am discussing today's Ataris and today's C-64. Look around, how many people here have machines with 320K RAM, hard drives etc. And you are trying to impress us with what? Vanilla 64k machine which has what? Sprites?

 

Święty has emulated the SID on Pokey, and has released the SID Player

No he hasn't. SID playing is a bit more than "playing melodies of SID tunes".

 

You are mixing up SID2Pokey (which is what you say) with the SID Player.

[drac030]

- Atari has 256 palette colors

No it hasn't. It's 128 colors in most modes + PMs. 256 only works in one GTIA mode and the 256 color mode which only works on PAL machines.

GR.9 works in PAL and NTSC and it allows to display 256 colors on ALL machines. Now you're mixing the ordinary GR.9 with some software mode, that allows to display 256 colors in 80x96 as in 8-bit per pixel manner, which really does work only on PAL. Anyway, even if it "only" works in GR.9 (and in all remaining modes the palette is 128 colors), this makes C-64 no comparison (16 colors, half of them either violet or brown).

 

- Atari has 1.79Mhz CPU

Which loses many cycles to ANTIC.

 

So what? It is still faster than C-64.

[Fröhn]

I am discussing today's Ataris and today's C-64. Look around, how many people here have machines with 320K RAM, hard drives etc. And you are trying to impress us with what? Vanilla 64k machine which has what? Sprites?

An Atari with some polish 320k expansion soldered in is no true Atari to me.

 

And on C64 for 320k I just have to plug in the REU 1764 from Commodore. No soldering required, but luckily also only a few tools require it so you can take your 1982 C64 and run 2009 software. Which I can't do on any of my three A8s.

 

Using 320k to prove to be "better" just shows your lameness.

 

You are mixing up SID2Pokey (which is what you say) with the SID Player.

No I'm not. Except for Alankilas SID emulation there isn't even an acceptable SID emu on PC.

[youki]

Pure bulls**t. The VIC2 has been designed to be the most competitive sprite engine of it's time and that's just what it is.

 

Yes, the chip VIC2 but NOT the C64. The VIC2 has not been designed for the C64. But for a video game console Commodore was planning and didn't released.

 

And then as they had it ready , they used it in the C64 to not spend money developping another a new chip.

 

the fact that the C64 is technically so good is pure luck. Surely not due to Tramiel "technology" strategy.... Tramiel wanted to keep production cost as lower as possible.

[Bryan]

The C64 has not been designed to be technology advanced , it has been designed to cost the less as possible.

Pure bulls**t. The VIC2 has been designed to be the most competitive sprite engine of it's time and that's just what it is.

People don't properly separate the chips from the overall implementation.

 

MOS produced these advanced chips, and Jack said, "Great! How cheaply can we build a computer around them?" So, the 64 is an advanced chipset in re-used VIC-20 packaging.

 

The fact that the C64 is technically so good is pure luck. Surely not due to Tramiel "technology" strategy.... Tramiel wanted to keep production cost as lower as possible.

It was the fortunate convergence of several things at Commodore and a good business decision.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Bryan

[emkay]

It's that type of player reusing... 4 player used 2 times per scanline = 1920 different moving oneline "sprites" possible

Missiles were not used there but could be added.

Yeps and C64 sprite engine can do the same (but with 320px wave) without sprite doubling by just using the sprites which are there. That's part of what I ment with "C64 sprite engine beats A8 sprite engine any day".

 

Hm...

 

On the A8 you do simply a reuse of the players. It cost a lda sta command.

On the C64 it cost lda sta commands for all 8 sprites every scanline. As we know, every "sprite-start" cost extra dma cycles on the C64, causing a cpu slowdown.

I wonder how much cpu cycles get lost from the already slower machine, when all sprites were reused every scanline.

 

The demo at least shows that a vertical shooter can have very much more moving objects on the screen than every produced game shows. Actually 4 "coloured sprites" and the missiles were still free for the shots or else.

DLIs can easily move through the displaylist and graphics mode "interleave" can bring hires and 16 colours per scanline into the game. It's all there, to have very good action shooters. And there would be no need for some coloured border or big scoreboard like on the C64... Yeah... Atari has not THE hires colour capabilities as the c64, but there is no need for bying a 20" monitor, to have a fast 14" gamescreen.

Edited April 10, 2009 by emkay

[drac030]

n C64 a Crownland engine is just a matter of coding a week. And even after that its far from "cutting edge" on C64, it's just a straight forward job.

 

So do a parallax scroller on wide screen (i.e. with opened left and righ borders) on C-64, and maybe don't return until you're done with that.

[drac030]

An Atari with some polish 320k expansion soldered in is no true Atari to me.

 

It does not have to be a true Atari for you, it is enough, if it is a true Atari for us. BTW. a "polish 320k expansions" do not exist.

 

And on C64 for 320k I just have to plug in the REU 1764 from Commodore. No soldering required, but luckily also only a few tools require it so you can take your 1982 C64 and run 2009 software.

 

Which (the 2009 software) is equally crap as it was in 1982.

 

Using 320k to prove to be "better" just shows your lameness.

 

Any Atari2600 coder will prove YOUR lameness, then, for using 64 KB in your C-64, if this has to be an argument

 

You are mixing up SID2Pokey (which is what you say) with the SID Player.

No I'm not.

 

Yes, you are. Anyway, do even SUCH Pokey emulation on your beloved SID, I am really not insisting that it has to be perfect. It is enough if it resembles the characteristic Pokey tone and uses 4 channels.

 

This, and the widescreen parallax scroller, should keep you busy for at least a week. Unless, of course, you fry your lovely soap-box by inadvertedly connecting a joystick, while the power is on.

[emkay]

People don't properly separate the chips from the overall implementation.

 

MOS produced these advanced chips, and Jack said, "Great! How cheaply can we build a computer around them?" So, the 64 is an advanced chipset in re-used VIC-20 packaging.

 

 

Advanced chips? Haven't I already pointed out that there still is a huge difference?

When the Atari was released, it was superior to most Arcade machines, while the C64's technology, was already overtaken by Arcades of 1980-1982.

 

If the SID really was an advanced chip, it would had have the possibility of using free waveforms. And, if VICII was something like an advanced chip, it would had have 256 colours at least.

[Allas]

- Atari has 256 palette colors

No it hasn't. It's 128 colors in most modes + PMs. 256 only works in one GTIA mode and the 256 color mode which only works on PAL machines. No to mention that 160x200 = 4 colors and 320x200 = 2 colors. Doesn't matter what palette, 4 colors will always look like 4 colors and 2 colors will always look like 2 colors.

 

You right, I must type 128/256 better. 128 palette color is the most adequate for the most software existing.

But, the GTIA 256 color modes works on NTSC too. GTIA modes was create on NTSC first and for American market.

C64 have the same features on graphical modes 160x200 with 4 colors, and 320x200 x 2 colors. The map color give the difference (i write as a feature on C64). The omission of map color on a Atari computer is a directly consequence of the old 1979 tech. The way Atari can handle the manipulation are the DLIs, not as practical as the map color, but help a little.

 

This sentence is not about how much color you can display, because every computer have his own method with advantages or disadvantages. Only means about the palette color where you can make a choice of colors.

 

- Atari has 1.79Mhz CPU

Which loses many cycles to ANTIC. So in the end it's just 20% faster than the 0.985 MHz CPU of the C64. Nothing left of the "2 times faster" which atariski dreams of.

 

As a programmer you know, every extra cycle is important. There are most of these 2D games that Atari can do it better because the extra cycles. Meanwhile not use the extra cycles on games that require to equal the 8 sprites of C64.

 

- Atari has 128K

I could pull out the C128 now. Or I could mention that no XL and no 400/800 has 128k.

 

Here a brief of C128 review:

 

Mode CP/M : Not used intensive and can't compete with Atari on over all the type of software on the market.

 

Mode C64: Just what is on discussion, but have the same 64K. If someone cand use the extra 64K, well it not has enough popularity to be considered as a feature.

 

Mode C128: In theory better than Atari, but who cares, reduced amount software below the minimum levels, do the C128 a great piece of garbage, only remembered for his C64 mode. ( I have one)