Atari v Commodore

[Wolfram]

the VICII can be made to read more then twice as much data per scanline as A8 gfx chip does.

 

How?

 

80 accesses for screeen/charmap, 20 bytes of colour nybbles, 8 bytes sprite pointers, 24 bytes sprite data = 132 btyes

 

Atari maximum = 96 accesses for screen/charmap, 5 bytes PMG data, 3 bytes Display List = 104 bytes

 

And, in that worst case scenario, the Atari still has 9 cycles free for the CPU.

 

I was assuming 40 char wide mode, and that the a8 doesnt read character pointer each line, only each 8th. if these assumptions are correct then on each 7 lines out of 8 we can compare 40 charmap access+5pmg+3 display list vs 132 on c64. it looks like a ridiculous comparison, but in fact this is what makes it possible to shrink the color cells on the c64 and put sprite overlays on picture to make color density really close to true 160x200x16.

[frenchman]

I like it, Wolfram just created an account to be proven wrong over and over again. He'll end up like Frohn, TMR, Bryan. Why do these C64'er just can't accept the A8 being superior, already three years before?

 

Oh, and more sales create the better computer? How does that work then? Explain. It's like saying Baywatch is the BEST TV show ever, because it was the most watched program on planet Earth.

 

Clearly for C64 the rule is: Quantity = Quality. Yeah right, carry on smoking.

[Wolfram]

I like it, Wolfram just created an account to be proven wrong over and over again. He'll end up like Frohn, TMR, Bryan. Why do these C64'er just can't accept the A8 being superior, already three years before?

 

Oh, and more sales create the better computer? How does that work then? Explain. It's like saying Baywatch is the BEST TV show ever, because it was the most watched program on planet Earth.

 

Clearly for C64 the rule is: Quantity = Quality. Yeah right, carry on smoking.

 

thousands of superior games on c64 proove quantity and both quality being better there. You can just close your eyes and say its not true. Nobody can stop you from doing that.

[Rybags]

I was assuming 40 char wide mode, and that the a8 doesnt read character pointer each line, only each 8th. if these assumptions are correct then on each 7 lines out of 8 we can compare 40 charmap access+5pmg+3 display list vs 132 on c64. it looks like a ridiculous comparison, but in fact this is what makes it possible to shrink the color cells on the c64 and put sprite overlays on picture to make color density really close to true 160x200x16.

 

Still crap.

 

You can force shorter character cells on both machines.

 

And, on non-badlines in normal width mode, it's Atari=45, C-64=72... still nowhere near 2x

[potatohead]

Wolfram, it would be good to read up on the machines you are trying to hammer. Most of us did that, or owned a C64. Why not return the favor and avoid gaffes like this?

[Wolfram]

Wolfram, on some Atari models, there are 4 game ports. They work perfectly for I/O as well as for game controllers.

 

If somebody wants to do I/O, and provide game controllers on Atari machines, they can, and they can do it just like the C64 does with it's dedicated I/O port. All of the Atari game / I/O ports (because that is what they are, as Atari itself used them this way) work the same way, leaving the purpose up to the user / developer. This is the classic Atari approach where the hardware was not dedicated in most cases. Flexible hardware design delivers lots of options for the developer / user.

 

So then, if somebody wants to, they get 16 I/O's, latched or not, mind you, or they get a lot of game controllers, up to including 8 paddles, with hardware assist for reading them. The device used for the interface clearly provides for bi-directional, latched communication with the machine, so that's what it delivers.

 

This "we have an I/O port for that" business really doesn't count for much.

 

On the matter of grey scales, this comes down to a matter of taste. Given all the display options on Atari, being able to display greys isn't the same as having 16 of them. Each grey scale matters. Machines where there are 4, 5, or 3 intensities look a lot more coarse than those with 8, 16, 32. The strength of the C64 lies in it's 320 pixel color resolution. It shows detail well. That is a good strength.

 

Those intensities being available across all the hues on Atari really makes a difference in the texture and overall variety of screen displays possible. This isn't a strength of the C64.

 

As for RAM, bring it on! The more we have on the 8bitters, and the easier it is for people to do it, the better the machines are. I absolutely refuse to consider anything less. Many active Atari users and developers are pushing RAM onto the machines. It can be done on a cart, soldered into a machine, added to the PBI, or any combination. All good. We can get the most out of the machines that way. Why not? It's not all that hard, and getting easier with each pass.

 

If I were you, I would add some RAM to the C64

 

I'm going to get a 130XE, and add RAM and the stereo POKEY, just to play YOOMP! I didn't have such a goal earlier, but with productions like that, why not? (and I don't think the extra RAM is needed for that title, but why not, since the stereo POKEY upgrade is getting done, might as well add the RAM.)

 

This is happening with retro machines in general. This evening, I just finished up modding my VCS for newer video display options. People are building carts that will do 64K and above. The old 400 is next, so I can enjoy titles on that one on newer displays. Companies started this back in the day, and the trend has continued. The easier it is, the more people do it, and we all game on.

 

...or be a purist, and that's cool too.

 

... and all c64s comes with 4 8 bit I/O ports, not just some.

 

as for HW extensions regarding c64: 16megs with 20mhz cpu, IDE HDD&CD ROM, mmc card readers including IDE ones, 1541 emulator on cart using mmc to store disk images & cartridge emulation, true TCP/IP HW, c= factory ram expansion with DMA, SCSI HDD support, quad sid, the list goes on and on.

 

fact is c64 scene is bigger than a8, and because of that none of the HW add ons became a standard, someone has this someone has that, it makes only sense to develop stuff for the standard HW. if the a8 scene were in the same situation: large quantity of games being produced into the 90s (for standard hw) with large user base, the situation would be the same there too.

[potatohead]

So?

[Wolfram]

I was assuming 40 char wide mode, and that the a8 doesnt read character pointer each line, only each 8th. if these assumptions are correct then on each 7 lines out of 8 we can compare 40 charmap access+5pmg+3 display list vs 132 on c64. it looks like a ridiculous comparison, but in fact this is what makes it possible to shrink the color cells on the c64 and put sprite overlays on picture to make color density really close to true 160x200x16.

 

Still crap.

 

You can force shorter character cells on both machines.

 

And, on non-badlines in normal width mode, it's Atari=45, C-64=72... still nowhere near 2x

 

 

on the a8 shorter cells are not really an advantage. while c64 makes higher color density out of it.

 

and 90 vs 72 is near to 2x. not nowhere near.

[+wood_jl]

I'm surely becoming sick of this thread...

 

I doubt it. You're here voluntarily, aren't you?

 

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.

 

So the fact that you declare yourself an A8 person through and through is somehow supposed to validate your opinion that the C64 is "the better machine?" Please explain the purported logic behind this. Barry Goldwater would be proud of you if he were still living.

 

 

"The better machine" is a relative term (better in which way??) , and it is relative to each person making their individual choice. For many Commodore users, it is "the better machine" to them, which is why they own it. Ditto for Atari users. Clearly, it is logical for users in each camp to own what they feel is "the better machine." Yet here's (allegedly) and Atari user who boldly claims the C64 is "the better machine." What kind of person would keep the inferior machine? What kind of person would post about their inferior choice? Furthermore, what kind of person would purport such preposterous logic as a credential in such a debate? I strongly suggest you obtain what you declare to be "the better machine" rather than advocate it from a ridiculous position.

 

How do you like them apples? I challenge anyone to prove me wrong...

 

But didn't you just say you were sick of this thread? You excell at internal contradiction, son. Stop pretending you're sick of this thread, and get rid of that inferior hardware you're using.

[potatohead]

What's your end game Wolfram?

 

Think you are gonna come to AA and just pound it home and convince the many great people here that they are wasting their time? That you really are right, the C64 just kicks so much ass that we all should be sorry we even questioned it?

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

Fact is, I signed up here because I kept my Atari machine, because I liked it more than my old C64 machine. (don't worry, it got a good home) Fact is, I signed up here because of the great home brew scene for VCS, and because good A8 production and programming news runs through here. Nice crowd too.

 

Most of them don't pull this kind of crap.

 

You signed up for what again? To defend the C64? Are you fucking kidding me? It's an old POS to most of the planet. Be lucky there are others that appreciate it as much as you do. Same goes for most all retro computing.

 

So, here we like Atari machines and think they are the shit.

 

Them there is the facts.

Edited April 13, 2009 by potatohead

[emkay]

The 64 can have a separate color for every character, in any order, anywhere and everywhere on the screen. Try generating arbitrary character coloring in Atari's 320 mode. It won't work, and you'll consume all your CPU time and and RAM trying.

 

The 64 can have 2 separate colors out of 16 , for every character, in any order, anywhere and everywhere on the screen, in the range where VICII is acting on the screen. With a clever usage of players, midline changes and DLIs, you can do a mix of hires an colour mode with up to 128 colours on the Atari, not on the C64. It won't work, and you'll consume all your CPU time and and RAM trying.

 

On top of that, if the Atari is allowed to use players then the 64 can also use its high-resolution sprites for additional 320 coloring.

 

Which also gives no additional colour to the screen.

Edited April 13, 2009 by emkay

[Barnacle boy]

Now, let's say somebody forces you to see some GTIA images enhanced with GPRIOR effects/overlays

Feel free to post some. I don't mind being forced to see some colourful pics!

 

High color content (or shades) makes up for lack of resolution as far as human perception goes.

Yes, that's true to a certain extent, but when you make the resolution too low, the loss of detail leads to an overly blurry looking image.

 

Those intensities being available across all the hues on Atari really makes a difference in the texture and overall variety of screen displays possible. This isn't a strength of the C64.

I agree. The colour limitations of the atari is clearly a matter for debate, but the range offered by the palette kicks arse. I think the c64 offers a strong selection of colours given that it's restricted to only 16, but man oh man it would have been nice to be able to choose those colours from a broad palette like the Atari's.

 

As for RAM, bring it on! The more we have on the 8bitters, and the easier it is for people to do it, the better the machines are.

I guess it's just a different approach. One of the cool things for c64 owners during the 80s and 90s was seeing more tricks and cooler stuff get coaxed out of their machine without requiring changes to the hardware. They went from seeing those early games that often didn't use the hardware effectively (often atari or apple ports), to seeing their machine do things they didn't expect were possible. As the flow of new games continued, C64 users became accustomed to seeing newer software set higher benchmarks on the same old hardware. I think this history and the old thrill of seeing new tricks plays a large part in giving c64 owners an interest in seeing the limits pushed even further without hardware changes.

[potatohead]

This has continued to happen on Atari also.

 

We are seeing more of what the hardware can do. IMHO, there remains more unexploited features in the Atari machines than C64 machines.

 

RAM just adds to that. It's easy to appreciate both.

[emkay]

and 90 vs 72 is near to 2x. not nowhere near.

 

 

4/5 ~ 2 ?

 

Customer: Hi, I want to buy a computer. How much will it cost.

Seller: Well, about 900$

C: OK. I have near 900$, can we negotiate the pricing?

S: Well, my offer is 880$

C: But I only have 720$

S: Are you nuts? I won't sell it that cheap. Come back after getting serious.

[Heaven/TQA]

ok. ok... maybe we should turn back to the original question and I try to explain as an Atari programmer for more than 20 years (Jesus... ok...I did not say I am a good one... )

 

well... what I love on the A8 while coding:

 

simple DLI setting up in combination of creativly using the display list. So I do not have to actually count rasterlines but I tell the display list "here colour change"...

 

having different graphics mode right out of the box (basic) was a plus as my first games where gr.1 games.

 

so...the actuall games used charbased stuff... I loved the larger colour palette even when I could use only 4/5 without tricks... it was a matter of choice....

 

but when it came down to sprite handling I hate this machine... really...I hated to move data around for a simple repositioning. I hated to waste 2 sprites to get a multicolour one...

 

ok... caming from VIC20 I was in wonderland...

 

for demo coding the machine was/is a dream... simply because I could do stuff with a 1979 machine what my 1040st could not do...

 

the "chunky" modes are great and the 16 shade modes....

 

but when I was turning into game development I realise the difference... and how hard it is to code on both machines and to push the machines... (I mean coding a game on both machines in parallel) both machines look similar through newbies eyes (sound, sprites, colours, charmodes) but in detail it takes more efford on one machine to do this as it does on the other... same like in the first months where Atari ST stuff was simply ported to Amiga and later the ST got weaker versions when Amiga was lead platform...

 

nowaday I would enjoy hardware sprites instead of software ones, colour ram instead of 5th bit charmodes+PM underlay+DLIs, highres text modes by char cell next to a 4 col char, 256 definable chars vs 128...

Edited April 13, 2009 by Heaven/TQA

[Barnacle boy]

We are seeing more of what the hardware can do. IMHO, there remains more unexploited features in the Atari machines than C64 machines.

 

RAM just adds to that. It's easy to appreciate both.

Fair enough, but there's also the romanticism of being able to say "Gee, the machine I bought in 1984/85/whenever could have done this back then if only this program were written at the time." Which kind of has more of an allure than "...if only this program and 320k RAM were available at the time."

 

And you must admit, it's a little underwhelming when you see something like Yie Ar Kung-Fu on Atari, looking pretty much the same as the 1985 c64 version yet requiring five times the RAM.

[frenchman]

I like it, Wolfram just created an account to be proven wrong over and over again. He'll end up like Frohn, TMR, Bryan. Why do these C64'er just can't accept the A8 being superior, already three years before?

 

Oh, and more sales create the better computer? How does that work then? Explain. It's like saying Baywatch is the BEST TV show ever, because it was the most watched program on planet Earth.

 

Clearly for C64 the rule is: Quantity = Quality. Yeah right, carry on smoking.

 

thousands of superior games on c64 proove quantity and both quality being better there. You can just close your eyes and say its not true. Nobody can stop you from doing that.

 

 

Yes of course, you are right. 1000s of quality C64 games. I am closing my eyes, I can see them now, 1000s, no millions in fact. I'm floating, I am smoking what you are smoking, this is some good shit indeed.

[emkay]

This has continued to happen on Atari also.

 

We are seeing more of what the hardware can do. IMHO, there remains more unexploited features in the Atari machines than C64 machines.

 

RAM just adds to that. It's easy to appreciate both.

 

 

On the C64, you might be right. The machine wasn't intended to create digi sounds. Only a flaw of the computer's design made it possible to have this.

That's why 8580 SIDs have problems with digis (the flaw got minimized). People found other exploits for those machines, to have digi sounds, but you can forget this 4bit thingy. This only works with the 658x revisions.

On the Atari side, well, I don't know even one used feature, the machine wasn't intended to do. Even the gr. 10 resolution offset is a simple and clean machine feature, because it's the time where the palette has to be set for the GTIA.

Sadly, the Atari has no exploit that makes anything better. But, probably, someone may find the "forgotten PAL" switch that turns colours on in hires on the A8

Edited April 13, 2009 by emkay

[FastRobPlus]

thousands of superior games on c64 proove quantity and both quality being better there. You can just close your eyes and say its not true. Nobody can stop you from doing that.

 

"Thousands?" "Superior?" To what? You have a secret Star Raiders killer you've been sitting on since 1979? What's that? You weren't even around in 1979? Let's consult the GDC video game hall of fame for a sec...

1. Spacewar! (1962)

2. Star Raiders (1979)

3. Zork (1980)

4. Tetris (1985)

5. SimCity (1989)

6. Super Mario Bros. 3 (1990)

7. Civilization I/II (1991)

8. Doom (1993)

9. Warcraft series (beginning 1994)

10. Sensible World of Soccer (1994)

 

Did you spot the C64 game on the list? Is it Zork? Tetris? Super Mario 3?

Amazing... the C64 in its long history never got an exclusive game that could match up with a game that came out on the A8 years before the C64 was invented!

 

Oh, wait. Perhaps you meant now, here in 2009 you have thousands( ) of "better" games...

Except - C64 doesn't have a game as good as Yoomp! yet.

[emkay]

Except - C64 doesn't have a game as good as Yoomp! yet.

 

I bet, we will see soon "C64 Yoomp! " Perhaps with a mirrored tube, or a smaller one based on some Sprites, simulating a tube (might look a bit empty then, so they will add a 16 colour image behind it, killing all the 3D feeling. Or, the game wants to reach the original's qualities but reaches only half the frames per second.

Everyone will be happy then, because C64 can do it better....:S

 

[emkay]

Or Turrican. Clumsy playability, compared to the AMIGA version. But, who cares about playability? 16 colours and SID music proves all , if you're C64 biased.

Edited April 13, 2009 by emkay

[Allas]

We are seeing more of what the hardware can do. IMHO, there remains more unexploited features in the Atari machines than C64 machines.

 

RAM just adds to that. It's easy to appreciate both.

Fair enough, but there's also the romanticism of being able to say "Gee, the machine I bought in 1984/85/whenever could have done this back then if only this program were written at the time." Which kind of has more of an allure than "...if only this program and 320k RAM were available at the time."

 

And you must admit, it's a little underwhelming when you see something like Yie Ar Kung-Fu on Atari, looking pretty much the same as the 1985 c64 version yet requiring five times the RAM.

 

 

Too much problem with the RAM point. To have more RAM on Atari is the same thing that the Replay Cartridge on C64 users. So you find on every place Atarians trying to extend his computer with more RAM.

 

But, for C64 users, a stock Atari 130XE (128K) is enough, and have still great amount of RAM. There only exist two games (on all Atari collection) that use 320K expanded memory: Yie ar Kung Fu and Bomb Jack. Other great games as Crownland (128K), Yoomp! (64K), Space Harrier (128K) works on Ataris without mods.

[Wolfram]

Or Turrican. Clumsy playability, compared to the AMIGA version. But, who cares about playability? 16 colours and SID music proves all , if you're C64 biased.

 

/emkay mode on

 

or rescue on fractalus. shitty, almost no colors, slideshow framerate, not enough visibility, piece of junk compared to Call of Duty 2. but who cares about all that? 128 colors proves all if you're a8 biased.

 

/emkay mode off

[Wolfram]

Except - C64 doesn't have a game as good as Yoomp! yet.

 

 

turrican has much more replay value and fun factor if you ask me. or stunt car racer, or defender of the crown. well the list can go on endlessly.

[Wolfram]

I like it, Wolfram just created an account to be proven wrong over and over again. He'll end up like Frohn, TMR, Bryan. Why do these C64'er just can't accept the A8 being superior, already three years before?

 

Oh, and more sales create the better computer? How does that work then? Explain. It's like saying Baywatch is the BEST TV show ever, because it was the most watched program on planet Earth.

 

Clearly for C64 the rule is: Quantity = Quality. Yeah right, carry on smoking.

 

thousands of superior games on c64 proove quantity and both quality being better there. You can just close your eyes and say its not true. Nobody can stop you from doing that.

 

 

Yes of course, you are right. 1000s of quality C64 games. I am closing my eyes, I can see them now, 1000s, no millions in fact. I'm floating, I am smoking what you are smoking, this is some good shit indeed.

 

Pall Mall