atariksi Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 not 100% true... if you were go through the thread... just as a reminder... rescue on fractalus koronis rift eidolon donkey kong star raiders 2 the great american great cross... electra glide mercenary ballblazer dimension x (oops...no c64 version) dropzone henry's house zone ranger montezuma's revenge ... Pacman and others some noted were conspiracy by Atarisoft to produce inferior versions on C64 to make Atari look better. I won't mention names but his ID starts with O. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorf Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 ok...must be alcohol... or other drugs... I dont drink but may well consider it after this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 ok...must be alcohol... or other drugs... I dont drink but may well consider it after this thread. I'm constantly reminded of the Monty Python argument skit. I paid for an argument! no you didn't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 (edited) Please.. the Vic was an utter failure in the US. The main market at the time. Yeps a real failure on the main market. With 18 million sold units... And with C128 selling another 4 million. May I mention that the entire A8 line sold just about 4 million too? Vic 20 a mostly non starter, Not C64, what can I say, the public often is not too bright. Sorry I don't know commonsore terminology. To me a vic means vic20. Edited April 12, 2009 by atarian63 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I'm surely becoming sick of this thread... It was originally about which games were better on the A8 than the C64... If you gentlemen really want to make this an issue then... I'm an A8 person... Through and through... But show me a demo that's better on the A8 than . Numen doesn't even come close; let alone work within 64 kilobytes. I love my A8's... But face it everyone... The C64 is the better machine. How do you like them apples? I challenge anyone to prove me wrong... Not with words or technical statistics, but with software... Someone or some group please code a demo that will murder the C64 and tie this thread off... That crappy sound has to go! Grates on my nerves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwhyte Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 That crappy sound has to go! Grates on my nerves! lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastRobPlus Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I can't believe this thread is still going... Come on guys, give it a rest. A version of this thread pops up every year. It was only a matter of time before it finally reached escape velocity no longer even needs to rest between revivals. In fact, if you look at the last few weeks, you see every so often a new user or a user that does not post to often come in and say "OK, let's all finally agree that the Commodore is better" I think as long as those guys keep showing up, we can keep this thread live indefinitely. I do hope it shuts down sooner or later so I can open up my new topic: "Atari vs Commodore Threads: Which forums are better at them?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Atari plays back entire 2 GB of multimedia CDROM data originally written for PC. You can't do any of the above on C64-- (1) C64 won't let you boot from external source without writing some stuff like "LOAD "*",8,1". (2) Joystick port r/w on C64 has to be nibble mode and 1.79X slower even in nibble mode and much much slower if I use BYTE mode on Atari. (3) OS on C64 too restricted to buffer up keys; in fact keyboard interferes with joystick data i/o. (4) Can't play back multifreq audio DAC data on C64 (5) Can't display gray scale images what to speak of enhanced modes like ANTIC K (6) Even if I want to show colored images and play single channel DAC audio, C64 CPU is too slow to be processing data buffering from PC end at reasonable rate. Hello all, Interesting thread. I have to admit I have registered to defend the commie side , particularly this post has got a lot of facts wrong: (2) normally you never use josytick ports on the c64 for I/O, other than the joystick. the two CIA chips together has 4 8 bit wide I/O ports, so it would be stupid not to use them. (3) the first part is not true, the c64 OS has a keyboard buffer. the 2nd: normally you either type or play a game, I think its a good compromise rather than something that causes problems. (4) the latest SID discovery makes it possible to play back 3 channel true 8 bit samples. (5) can display 160x200 5 color grayscale images. not 16, but the resolution is higher. (6) also there is a demo which displays a streamed animation from pc at 160x200x16 & digi music, sorry but couldnt find a video for it. its really rare, as it needs special pc-c64 cable. this one's transfer speed is: lda IOport sta mem lda IOport sta mem lda IOport sta mem and so on.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Please.. the Vic was an utter failure in the US. The main market at the time. Yeps a real failure on the main market. With 18 million sold units... And with C128 selling another 4 million. May I mention that the entire A8 line sold just about 4 million too? Vic 20 a mostly non starter, Not C64, what can I say, the public often is not too bright. Sorry I don't know commonsore terminology. To me a vic means vic20. Your original statement was that the VIC was an utter market failure in the US. Sorry, but you got that wrong. VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It was absolutely not a technical breakthrough, but more people could afford it than Ataris. If I remember right from the C= Book "on the Edge" VIC20 was originally a few weeks own hobby project of Bob Yannes ( SID designer). He just wanted to build a computer around the already existing but unused VIC-I gfx chip for fun. But when he showed it to one of his bosses, the machine got eventually made it to be seen by Jack Tramiel who instantly ordered it to be manufactured Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 ...In fact, if you look at the last few weeks, you see every so often a new user or a user that does not post to often come in and say "OK, let's all finally agree that the Commodore is better" I think as long as those guys keep showing up, we can keep this thread live indefinitely. ... Looks like another one just popped up. It would be better if they came asynchronously in parallel like the joystick ports rather than in serial fashion like the 1541 drive. That would cut down on number of repeat posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Atari plays back entire 2 GB of multimedia CDROM data originally written for PC. You can't do any of the above on C64-- (1) C64 won't let you boot from external source without writing some stuff like "LOAD "*",8,1". (2) Joystick port r/w on C64 has to be nibble mode and 1.79X slower even in nibble mode and much much slower if I use BYTE mode on Atari. (3) OS on C64 too restricted to buffer up keys; in fact keyboard interferes with joystick data i/o. (4) Can't play back multifreq audio DAC data on C64 (5) Can't display gray scale images what to speak of enhanced modes like ANTIC K (6) Even if I want to show colored images and play single channel DAC audio, C64 CPU is too slow to be processing data buffering from PC end at reasonable rate. Hello all, Interesting thread. I have to admit I have registered to defend the commie side , particularly this post has got a lot of facts wrong: ... No that post was a working example so the facts are right. Facts are always right. Opinions can be wrong or right. Your opinion is wrong as shown below. >(2) normally you never use josytick ports on the c64 for I/O, other than the joystick. the two CIA chips together has 4 8 bit wide I/O ports, so it would be stupid not to use them. Normally, you do use joystick for input (duh). Joystick is being used for input to read in 2 frames/second and digitized audio and text/code. CIA chips could have been 8-bits but they tied up 5 bits to $DC00 port and 5 bits to $DC01 port thus disallowing BYTE mode access. Even in nibble mode, it's slower than Atari. >(3) the first part is not true, the c64 OS has a keyboard buffer. the 2nd: normally you either type or play a game, I think its a good compromise rather than something that causes problems. It has a keyboard buffer-- wording is "too restricted" as compared to Atari. Normally, you can type something on the keyboard without having to worry about if someone moved the joystick. It causes problems if you are bursting data through the joystick port and can't allow keystrokes to be struck. Good compromise or "cheaper" design philosophy of overloading functionality to save a few cents. >(4) the latest SID discovery makes it possible to play back 3 channel true 8 bit samples. Unrelated to (4) above. You want to playback 4 different voices at their own frequency, you don't have 4 DACs. You don't have 2 DACs (which is what I am using currently). Stop the bullcrap about 3 channel true 8 bits samples-- you are premixing in software. You have only one DAC. >(5) can display 160x200 5 color grayscale images. not 16, but the resolution is higher. Hello, I clearly stated target was 16K machine-- it works on all Atari 8-bit computer models every made 400/800/600XL/800XL/65XE/130XE/etc. I can also do 160*200 on Atari in more gray scale (or shades of any other color) than C64. But wait, point (5) above was you can't do gray-scale imagery not resolution. >(6) also there is a demo which displays a streamed animation from pc at 160x200x16 & digi music, sorry but couldnt find a video for it. its really rare, as it needs special pc-c64 cable. this one's transfer speed is: lda IOport sta mem lda IOport sta mem lda IOport sta mem and so on.. Those images don't look so good. Anyway, the point was joystick port transfers not some special hardware like IDE64. Perhaps, I need to take out my Amiga<->Atari interface and start using the Video Toaster to do some output. On Atari joystick ports, I can do LDA/STA..LDA/STA in BYTE mode without any additional hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Please.. the Vic was an utter failure in the US. The main market at the time. Yeps a real failure on the main market. With 18 million sold units... And with C128 selling another 4 million. May I mention that the entire A8 line sold just about 4 million too? Vic 20 a mostly non starter, Not C64, what can I say, the public often is not too bright. Sorry I don't know commonsore terminology. To me a vic means vic20. Your original statement was that the VIC was an utter market failure in the US. Sorry, but you got that wrong. VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It was absolutely not a technical breakthrough, but more people could afford it than Ataris. If I remember right from the C= Book "on the Edge" VIC20 was originally a few weeks own hobby project of Bob Yannes ( SID designer). He just wanted to build a computer around the already existing but unused VIC-I gfx chip for fun. But when he showed it to one of his bosses, the machine got eventually made it to be seen by Jack Tramiel who instantly ordered it to be manufactured Don't follow your logic. Just because it sold 1 million does not mean it was NOT a failure. You should see how much crap people sell out there that breaks down after a few weeks or a few months. Jack Tramiel ordered many things to be manufactured that were inferior to current technology in the market. Quantity of sales does not make a machine superior nor does more software titles for a particular machine make that machine superior. Even if no game was ever written for Atari that used the GTIA modes, GPRIOR effects, etc., I would still say Atari is superior since I know what it is capable of from the hardware perspective. Of course, for people who are not into technical stuff, it's good to have demos/games available that use the hardware optimally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youki Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I just say that in general C64 version of a same game is better than Atari version. Despite you claim that Atari has a better hardware. And i agree on the "paper" Atari hardware could seems better. ... Okay, so if you agree hardware is better (as also shown in this thread), then why claim the opposite by just looking at some selection of software. As I stated earlier and others have stated people developed for non-GTIA systems, lesser memory, were ports from other systems, etc. Certain things like using more memory and GTIA modes is easy to do on Atari, but they weren't used. Other things like using 4 DACs, temporal dithering (interlacing), kernel coding, etc. may require more work on the developer's part. There's hardly any games earlier on that use kernels which saves a ton of cycles rather on interrupting the CPU every DLI. >But the fact is that there is more game better on C64 than the opposite. That's not a fact. That's your opinion. As Heaven, Allas, and others have listed software which is better on Atari. hum...i think it is my english that is bad... I never said that there is no Atari game that are better then C64 game , i have even posted some in this thread. I say that there are lot of more C64 game better than Atari game that Atari games better then C64. That is the fact. I don't agree the Atari's Hardware is better. I jut say on the paper it could seems better. But in facts , i didn't see any evidence that the hardware is better. In addition, in another posts, you are talking about your 320k machine as "standard" , and i think i read the C64 is limited to 64k..etc..etc.. If now you want compare customized machine. We can take a c64 with 1Mbyte of ram , a super CPU and a 1541 III . Look and listen what you can obtain with just with a super CPU plugged on a stock c64: and that' no a DEMO , it is a real GAME! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youki Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Also, I know I've not yet seen all the Atari can do. Yeah it's harder to program for. But, that difficulty is a manifestation of very capable hardware designed by people who knew their stuff and worried about the little things. I suspect I've seen what the C64 can do. In these times, now, here today, that's a powerful differentiator between the two machines. Atari has stories to tell yet, and that keeps things moving. Well said. I don't think we can say having a hardware on a personnal computer that only "creators" could really exploit, is a good design. Doing something that nobody can really use... that is a strange conception of "good". and 30 years after the original design it wouldn't have been really exploited.... let me laugh... I'm the first to think that produced game for Atari could have been lot better if more effort was put into them. But seing all the demo and all games done recently (like crownland , whoomp , space harrier, bombjack which are really good ) , i'm not convinced that the machine is better than the c64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Look and listen what you can obtain with just with a super CPU plugged on a stock c64: and that' no a DEMO , it is a real GAME! Lol. know the game. But, what to say? Graphically, it still stands on the C64 , soundwise SID gets no advantage. And, hey, even with the Super CPU and the Hardwaresprites it shows less moving objects than Space Harrier on the A8. Well, it plays clean digi voices. But May I remind about this one? Full 3D Motions and clean digis with a 1.79MHz CPU.... Actually. You can put 1GB RAM onto the C64, but it will never do something like this: http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=31521 256 colours 3D animations with Alphablending. The 2nd part calculates a 16 brightess based object and plays a clean digi tune, at the same time. Really, to set the limit of a machine by the built in RAM is ridiculous. Both machines were built to have memory enhancements. At least through the built in ROM of a cartridge. The Concept of the A8 also allows a 2nd Pokey in the Module-Port. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 >Normally, you do use joystick for input (duh). Joystick is being used for input to read in 2 frames/second and digitized audio and text/code. CIA chips could have been 8-bits but they tied up 5 bits to $DC00 port and 5 bits to $DC01 port thus disallowing BYTE mode access. Even in nibble mode, it's slower than Atari. Yes, I have mentioned that normally you use the joystick port for reading the joystick. That can be considered as I/O. But on the c64 there are better solutions for getting data into the computer. You have also mentioned that the joystick port can only read nibbles, but on other ports you can read in bytes. One can modificate the 1541 & c64 so that the data flow between them is parallel 8 bits. similarly you can connect a C64 to a PC through a 8 bit parallel cable. So I dont understand why would/should one use the joyport for a this comparison when there are better solutions. Taking the best solution on one machine and a bad one another one is an unfair comparison. >It has a keyboard buffer-- wording is "too restricted" as compared to Atari. Normally, you can type something on the keyboard without having to worry about if someone moved the joystick. It causes problems if you are bursting data through the joystick port and can't allow keystrokes to be struck. Good compromise or "cheaper" design philosophy of overloading functionality to save a few cents. Then I might have misunderstood you. You wrote "OS on C64 too restricted to buffer up keys". Doesnt that mean, that the C64 OS cant buffer the keystrokes? I thought you ment that. Now you change the subject to HW restrictions. What are we talking about? About the ability of the C64 OS not being able to buffer keystrokes, or the problem of interfering joy/keyb input ? We should make that clear so the argument makes sense, and doesnt hop between OS's inability to buffer keystrokes and HW interference of joy/key inpout. These are two distinct matters. Also as I wrote above and in my previous post, using joystick port for data I/O is a bad idea, as there are other 8 bit parallel ports for that available. If you pick a bad solution you will get a bad solution. If you pick a non joy/keyb 8 bit parallel port, then you can read the keyboard while reading 8 bit data aswell. >Unrelated to (4) above. You want to playback 4 different voices at their own frequency, you don't have 4 DACs. You don't have 2 DACs (which is what I am using currently). Stop the bullcrap about 3 channel true 8 bits samples-- you are premixing in software. You have only one DAC. I had no premixing in my mind. By carefully playing with the inner ADSR counters & freq & other registers of the SID, each of the 3 channels can play 8 bit digi audio. After restarting the freq counter you always wait a constant time before applying the DAC level, but by changing the frequency the triangle wave will reach a different value & with some tricks you can hold the old DAC level while all this happens. When the freq counter reached the desired level you can then apply it to the channel and hold the value until you repeat the process. >Hello, I clearly stated target was 16K machine-- it works on all Atari 8-bit computer models every made 400/800/600XL/800XL/65XE/130XE/etc. I can also do 160*200 on Atari in more gray scale (or shades of any other color) than C64. But wait, point (5) above was you can't do gray-scale imagery not resolution. You said: "Can't display gray scale images", and nothing about 16k restrictions (you're changing the subject again) . no 16k c64's exists all c64's are the same. but what does this all have to do with wether a machine can display grayscale images or not ? C64 has grey colors, then I assume it can display greyscale images. >Those images don't look so good. Anyway, the point was joystick port transfers not some special hardware like IDE64. Perhaps, I need to take out my Amiga<->Atari interface and start using the Video Toaster to do some output. On Atari joystick ports, I can do LDA/STA..LDA/STA in BYTE mode without any additional hardware. So, your point is that c64's joystick port is not as good for data transfer as atari's? Indeed it isnt. The c64 has its dedicated 8 bit I/O ports, you just need a cable to use them. There's no reason to use the joyports instead of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Please.. the Vic was an utter failure in the US. The main market at the time. Yeps a real failure on the main market. With 18 million sold units... And with C128 selling another 4 million. May I mention that the entire A8 line sold just about 4 million too? Vic 20 a mostly non starter, Not C64, what can I say, the public often is not too bright. Sorry I don't know commonsore terminology. To me a vic means vic20. Your original statement was that the VIC was an utter market failure in the US. Sorry, but you got that wrong. VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It was absolutely not a technical breakthrough, but more people could afford it than Ataris. If I remember right from the C= Book "on the Edge" VIC20 was originally a few weeks own hobby project of Bob Yannes ( SID designer). He just wanted to build a computer around the already existing but unused VIC-I gfx chip for fun. But when he showed it to one of his bosses, the machine got eventually made it to be seen by Jack Tramiel who instantly ordered it to be manufactured Don't follow your logic. Just because it sold 1 million does not mean it was NOT a failure. You should see how much crap people sell out there that breaks down after a few weeks or a few months. Jack Tramiel ordered many things to be manufactured that were inferior to current technology in the market. Quantity of sales does not make a machine superior nor does more software titles for a particular machine make that machine superior. Even if no game was ever written for Atari that used the GTIA modes, GPRIOR effects, etc., I would still say Atari is superior since I know what it is capable of from the hardware perspective. Of course, for people who are not into technical stuff, it's good to have demos/games available that use the hardware optimally. The original statement was that the VIC20 was an utter market failure in the US. That statement is wrong. VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It's not a Hardware comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I'm the first to think that produced game for Atari could have been lot better if more effort was put into them. But seing all the demo and all games done recently (like crownland , whoomp , space harrier, bombjack which are really good ) , i'm not convinced that the machine is better than the c64. Hm. You name two game, the C64 never can reach their qualities, and say you're not convinced that the A8 is better ? Well, Bomb Jack beats at least the C64 version. Nut, I think the C64 can do THIS game much better by the fact that it can be done at 320x200 movement there and in colour. Crownland has some logical bugs and this style of game could be done, beating partially the C64. Vertical shooters could easily outdo C64, but only if there goes a big bang and some guy start programming the Atari, where Archer McLean stopped. Heck, the C64 was not even able to have a full working Archon version. How can such machine be better? Well, As I had stated out already. Look, what is done on the C64 and you will know what the machine can do 100%. Sidescrollers will always be faster on the C64. And Hires is in colour is there on the C64 easily. But there is NO serious 1st person or ISO 3D game available on the C64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Look and listen what you can obtain with just with a super CPU plugged on a stock c64: and that' no a DEMO , it is a real GAME! Sadly that game is far from what you could do with a supercpu. Most of the game could be done in a stock machine except the sounds, where the supercpu shines here is only the digitized music. With a supercpu and so much ram it should have used 16 color bitmap gfx for the background without repeating a single graphic object. "soundwise SID gets no advantage". Emkay, have you turned your speakers on? the game has digi music and sound effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allas Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I'm the first to think that produced game for Atari could have been lot better if more effort was put into them. But seing all the demo and all games done recently (like crownland , whoomp , space harrier, bombjack which are really good ) , i'm not convinced that the machine is better than the c64. mmm... could you tell me specifically in detail what do you see on those games (Crownland, Yoomp, Space Harrier, Bombjack) that didn't convince Atari is better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drac030 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 mmm... could you tell me specifically in detail what do you see on those games (Crownland, Yoomp, Space Harrier, Bombjack) that didn't convince Atari is better? Specifically, Atari proves worse here, because too many colors are displayed and it is not that half of them are brown; and this is to what a game must be limited to, because this is so on the C-64, and if you think otherwise, then it shows your lameness. And you can't use more than 4 colors in 160x192 because this the gfx mode the Atari defined, and what the factory does for you, it is sacred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Pacman and others some noted were conspiracy by Atarisoft to produce inferior versions on C64 to make Atari look better. Pacman is absolutely no reference. It doesnt make use of the A8s or C64s hardware at all, it could look exactly the same on both platforms without any effort. Btw, I agree with Heavens list. Those games show where the strengths of the A8 are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 "soundwise SID gets no advantage". Emkay, have you turned your speakers on? the game has digi music and sound effects. Listen to the "Digi-Music" . Doesn't it sound really worse for a super CPU based Digi-Music ? Sometimes I really wonder if people really can imagine, what the A8 is capable of, when using a super CPU for such game. Look. You see a limited value of Sprites, you see a limited value of colours and you hear "Digi-Music" without really clean sounds. Just like the good old C64 offers. On the A8 you'd gain real clean sounds, 128 colours on the screen, and a screen full of big moving objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 not 100% true... if you were go through the thread... just as a reminder... rescue on fractalus koronis rift eidolon donkey kong star raiders 2 the great american great cross... electra glide mercenary ballblazer dimension x (oops...no c64 version) dropzone henry's house zone ranger montezuma's revenge ... You just forgot Archon, Rainbow Walker, Amaurote... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allas Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Just a little tour to remember Atari games tour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts