Atari v Commodore

[drac030]

the original argument which you attacked

 

... was the adjective "nonstandard", which you applied to the Atari RAM extensions, and Frohn used similar wording a while earlier. As I said, your public fails to see your "irony" as the point I raised was different, than emkay's.

 

Making it even clearer: I wasn't discussing C-64 games or C-64 as a whole, but the attitude of the C-64 fanboys, which (the attitude) is also known to me from other debates of this type. The attitide being: treat Atari as C-64, and blame all the differences as "odd", "nonstandard" etc. This is why I called your statement arrogant.

[Wolfram]

ah, so there's no "supercomputer calculations" on a8 at all. thanks for clearing that up.

 

Ofcourse they are. That's why the Lucasfilm Games were not as fast as the A8 could do, after code optimising.

 

there's no supercomputer calculations. its 8 bit 6510 (? or whatever revision) calculations. neither the 6510 nor the a8 count as a supercomputer, nor 6510 code.

[Wolfram]

the original argument which you attacked

 

... was the adjective "nonstandard", which you applied to the Atari RAM extensions, and Frohn used similar wording a while earlier. As I said, your public fails to see your "irony" as the point I raised was different, than emkay's.

 

Making it even clearer: I wasn't discussing C-64 games or C-64 as a whole, but the attitude of the C-64 fanboys, which (the attitude) is also known to me from other debates of this type. The attitide being: treat Atari as C-64, and blame all the differences as "odd", "nonstandard" etc. This is why I called your statement arrogant.

 

 

which statement was simply ironizing emkay's aproach of "lets forget SID digis because that's non standard", so in fact we're talking here about atari fanboy attitude.

[Fröhn]

Yes, except, as you yourself argued, it is uncommon to use more than 64K RAM, so even if a program uses an extension, probably only few use it. Different situation here, RAM extensions are common, so more software uses them.

RAM expansions are also common on C64. Pretty much every active owner of a C64 has a cartridge like Action Replay, Retro Replay or 1541U running which comes with extra ROM and RAM. The CBM REU expansions are also relatively common. But the difference is that it's not seen as "requirement" to run software. They COULD use it but they don't do it because they want to write "C64" software and not "C64 + addon" software.

[atarian63]

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

Sorry, you are wrong, it never got market penetration and most who bought it found they could not do anything much with it and there was little to no software and what little there was was very hard to find as nobody carried it. With Atari you could go lots of places like Sears,Service Merchandise, Burdines,Lazarus and most major retailers. Also I still hate SID sounds, really grates on my nerves.

 

Sorry, you are wrong. The first computer to ever sell 1 million units had market penetration, and is/was a market success.

Total flop and wholly unsupported at the consumer level unlike Atari. I know a few people back in the day that bought one as it was cheap. They however did nothing with it and could not find software for it. Yeah.. that a real success

 

VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It was a huge market success.

Say it all you like. Still wrong. Here in the US. (main computer market) it was a flop. Success generally means that people dev for it and it's available easily to the public. It was not. Kind like the Virtual Boy, sold a bunch, no software, flop. Actually I think Virtual boy did better

Most of those machine sold here were never used. It was a novelty based on price.It was the cheapest machine around and people bought it. People wanted to be part of the emerging "computer age". Not understanding anything about machines they chose the cheapest one.

Besides the machine sucked. Give me an Atari 400/800 anyday.Heck at that time a 2600 was a much better choice. Consumers at the time were buying machine for games mostly. Commodore had no great license games and really nothing to offer even if you could find software for it.

It's only thing was that it was cheap. Made a great doorstop,closet liner, landfill filler, take your pick.

We had neighbors who had one setup on the coffee table. They showed it off. When asked what it did they turned it on and we all looked at it. I asked what they could do with it and the answer was that they had no idea. They never did.

[drac030]

which statement was simply ironizing emkay's aproach of "lets forget SID digis because that's non standard"

 

Except that these points are not close enough for your usage of the term to be taken as irony, especially when one of your respectable colleagues a while earlier (and before emkay's post, IIRC) blamed Atari memory extensions as a whole for being "nonstandard" or or something like this (I don't remember the exact wording). Thus I stepped in to remind you both that it is not your position to teach us, what's standard here and what's not. As simple as that.

 

I know that trolling is a difficult task, but you came here voluntarily

[drac030]

They COULD use it but they don't do it because they want to write "C64" software and not "C64 + addon" software.

 

For me they can even limit themselves to 3.5K (f.e. because VIC-20 has this much RAM or so), this is unrelated in any way to standards of RAM (or any other hardware) usage accepted here.

 

I of course could add a remark, that RAM expansions for C-64 mentioned by you, and also cartridges like Action Replay apparently mean that <irony>"you are dissatisfied with the original CBM hardware"</irony>, i.e. bare C-64 plus vanilla 1541. 3800 baud is not enough? Incredible, isn't this the factory standard?

[Wolfram]

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

Sorry, you are wrong, it never got market penetration and most who bought it found they could not do anything much with it and there was little to no software and what little there was was very hard to find as nobody carried it. With Atari you could go lots of places like Sears,Service Merchandise, Burdines,Lazarus and most major retailers. Also I still hate SID sounds, really grates on my nerves.

 

Sorry, you are wrong. The first computer to ever sell 1 million units had market penetration, and is/was a market success.

Total flop and wholly unsupported at the consumer level unlike Atari. I know a few people back in the day that bought one as it was cheap. They however did nothing with it and could not find software for it. Yeah.. that a real success

 

VIC20 was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units. It was a huge market success.

Say it all you like. Still wrong. Here in the US. (main computer market) it was a flop. Success generally means that people dev for it and it's available easily to the public. It was not. Kind like the Virtual Boy, sold a bunch, no software, flop. Actually I think Virtual boy did better

Most of those machine sold here were never used. It was a novelty based on price.It was the cheapest machine around and people bought it. People wanted to be part of the emerging "computer age". Not understanding anything about machines they chose the cheapest one.

Besides the machine sucked. Give me an Atari 400/800 anyday.Heck at that time a 2600 was a much better choice. Consumers at the time were buying machine for games mostly. Commodore had no great license games and really nothing to offer even if you could find software for it.

It's only thing was that it was cheap. Made a great doorstop,closet liner, landfill filler, take your pick.

We had neighbors who had one setup on the coffee table. They showed it off. When asked what it did they turned it on and we all looked at it. I asked what they could do with it and the answer was that they had no idea. They never did.

 

You are wrong. The original claim was that it was a market huge market success. the first computer ever selling over 1 million unit is a huge market success. Market success is to be measured in sales numbers.

[Wolfram]

which statement was simply ironizing emkay's aproach of "lets forget SID digis because that's non standard"

 

Except that these points are not close enough for your usage of the term to be taken as irony, especially when one of your respectable colleagues a while earlier (and before emkay's post, IIRC) blamed Atari memory extensions as a whole for being "nonstandard" or or something like this (I don't remember the exact wording). Thus I stepped in to remind you both that it is not your position to teach us, what's standard here and what's not. As simple as that.

 

I know that trolling is a difficult task, but you came here voluntarily

 

I am sorry. I have instantly told you it was irony. it should have ended there. I do so now.

[drac030]

I have instantly told you it was irony.

 

... whereas you should have said that it was intended as irony

 

Behind the scene some wonder why it seems to be a common attitude of C-64 fans to come to other fora and attempt to initiate flamewars (aka "debate that C-64 is better than your computer", as it could be put more exactly).

 

I haven't done any research on that, but it seems so to me also; mainly because some time ago (2-3 years) I was browsing various fora and usenet groups for 8-bit computers, and what I have seen: in ZX Spectrum group there was a flamewar between locals and such incoming C-64 fans, in the Amstrad group there was a flamewar between locals and such incoming C-64 fans,... also on PL atari newsgroup there was a flamewar between locals and incoming C-64 fans etc. What happens here repeatedly, we all know. I haven't seen a flamewar between Amstrad fans and ZX fans on ZX group. So, I missed this, or it is really so that C-64 guys like to "debate" so much?

[Wolfram]

I have instantly told you it was irony.

 

... whereas you should have said that it was intended as irony

 

Behind the scene some wonder why it seems to be a common attitude of C-64 fans to come to other fora and attempt to initiate flamewars (aka "debate that C-64 is better than your computer", as it could be put more exactly).

 

I haven't done any research on that, but it seems so to me also; mainly because some time ago (2-3 years) I was browsing various fora and usenet groups for 8-bit computers, and what I have seen: in ZX Spectrum group there was a flamewar between locals and such incoming C-64 fans, in the Amstrad group there was a flamewar between locals and such incoming C-64 fans,... also on PL atari newsgroup there was a flamewar between locals and incoming C-64 fans etc. What happens here repeatedly, we all know. I haven't seen a flamewar between Amstrad fans and ZX fans on ZX group. So, I missed this, or it is really so that C-64 guys like to "debate" so much?

 

You will not accept it, but this is my honest opinion: when someone cant accept that someone else's machine is better/had bigger succes, then comes the flaming. In my amiga times I bloody hated the pcs for getting ahead of "my" HW/OS. As c64 was THE computer in the 8bit era speccy/amstrad/a8 fans must flame it. Look at this thread, it was started to look for games that were better on a8 than on c64 by an a8 guy. On c64 forums noone starts such threads because they know majority of c64 games are better than on other 8 bit platforms, there's no need to search for examples and ask people to bring them up, they are all over the place. Also noone feels the need to prove c64 is better than whatever 8bit, so no such threads start up on c64 forums.

 

Its like the thing with Michael Schumacher, all non Schumi fans hate him for having to see him win for long long years everything (including me), and they desperately love to proove that he is a lousy driver and only won so much because of cheating, and his teammates letting him win. Also fans of other drivers dont attack each other, because there's Schumi the nr1 person to hate. Also Schumi fans dont start threads how other pilots suck, they dont need to proove that Schumi prooved it already.

[atariksi]

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.

 

Yeah but I am arguing you can market anything and the system be a piece of crap regardless of whether you call it a "success" or "failure" by quantity.

 

Wrong. you said "Don't follow your logic. Just because it sold 1 million does not mean it was NOT a failure. " it was not a market failure. it was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units.

Wrong because I never stated the word market.

[drac030]

when someone cant accept that someone else's machine is better/had bigger succes, then comes the flaming. In my amiga times I bloody hated the pcs for getting ahead of "my" HW/OS. As c64 was THE computer in the 8bit era speccy/amstrad/a8 fans must flame it. Look at this thread

 

Yes, I am looking at this thread. And I looked at threads at the places I mentioned before. These were flamewars, but 1) these weren't exist without involvement of C-64 fans who came there, 2) these were started in respective groups, mostly by the C-64 fans.

 

It is easy to guess, why C-64 groups apparently rarely suffer from that: viz. users of other computers less aggressively come there to "debate". So, your explanation is not likely. I.e. it is not that "ZX/Amstrad/A8 fans flame C-64", it is exactly the other way around, it is C-64 fans who come to other groups (or cross-post to other newsgroups etc.) to "debate" something, in which locals are not really very interested.

 

I remember well the flame from the PL newsgroup. The C-64 fanboy, who came (and started it) was completely unable to accept, that A8 is not a C-64, thus you have to f.e. accept some differences, if you want to effectively use the machine; e.g. that you cannot load a directory - not true, you can - and then load a game in the C-64 manner (LOAD "$",8 etc.). He complained it indefinitely, and was unable to accept the fact, that on this system you load binaries from DOS or bootloader, and the Atari BASIC is not the main UI. He simply insisted that it should behave as C-64, and any difference is an evidence, that the A8 is worse (despite the obvious advantages of booting, which however A8 does, and C-64 does not). Later, as I was paying attention to that, I observed similar view, in greater or lesser extent, also in some other C-64 fanboys, so it might be perceived as typical for at least some group of these (but occurring suspiciously often).

 

You write that "C-64 was THE 8-bit computer". Maybe for you. For me THE 8-bit computer, these days and now, is A8. I really don't care if anyone else has anything else. So that does not seem a valid argument, either.

[atariksi]

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.

 

...

You want to go back to original point. You attacking something without ever seeing it or understanding it. That proves you are biased. The above is what you wrote originally. Since then you have modified your views. Joystick ports are used for I/O in real life situations. If you ever saw my project, it's as REAL as it gets.

 

You have first understand a point before you try to refute it. And go back a few messages and you'll see it's 16-gray scale or run the demo and you'll see it's 16-gray scale.

[Wolfram]

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.

 

Yeah but I am arguing you can market anything and the system be a piece of crap regardless of whether you call it a "success" or "failure" by quantity.

 

Wrong. you said "Don't follow your logic. Just because it sold 1 million does not mean it was NOT a failure. " it was not a market failure. it was the first computer to ever sell 1 million units.

Wrong because I never stated the word market.

 

the entire a8 line sold 4 million unit. VIC20 alone 1 million. if thats a failure all a8 models are a horrible utter flop.

[potatohead]

So, the Atari is to the C64 like the Amiga is to the PC?

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

"hated the PC"

 

Dude, it's hardware. The point of it is to enjoy that hardware you like, not go and find places where you feel you can validate those feelings. Like I asked above, "what is your end game?" Seems you are confused Wolfram.

 

Your C64 is a really cool old computer. Enjoy it. It rocks.

 

It's just not an Atari. That's what we enjoy here.

 

This isn't hard.

[atariksi]

Atariski,

 

as you're changing the subjects lets go back to the original claims:

...

Bullcrap. You never understood what I was talking about. You already changed your answer as I just proved to you by quoting your own answer.

 

>>(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.

 

>iirc, joystick is atleast 5 bits up,down,left,right,fire. so its wrong from the very start.

 

Bullcrap. Changing your answer again. That's now a new argument and it's still wrong. Slow-down is more if you read 5-bits at a time because you have to buffer in bytes. Oh, I forget, you never even understood what's happening.

 

>secondly this just shows that the atari has no other 8 bit I/O port than the c64 if it has to use the joyport for that...

 

Dead wrong. You can run an 8-bit i/o through cartridge port, PBI port, etc. You can do externally clocked SIO at almost same rate as joystick 8-bit i/O.

 

>As any sane people will use 8 bit I/O on the c64 and not the joyport its an unfair comparison. doesnt comply with real life situations.

 

It's a fair comparison for joystick ports! Duh!

 

>>(3) OS on C64 too restricted to buffer up keys; in fact keyboard interferes with joystick data i/o.

 

>wrong, c64 OS does buffer up keys. second part is right. but again in real life people will not use joyport for I/O as there's a better solution. this comparison makes no sense.

 

Can't stick to comparing joysticks, then stop replying.

 

>>(4) Can't play back multifreq audio DAC data on C64

 

>wrong, it can.

 

It can't play MULTIFREQ samples since you only have ONE DAC. I specifically mentioned it plays up to 21Khz; you try to do this via software, everything else will slow down to a crawl and it's not as good as hardware support which is what I am comparing.

 

>>(5) Can't display gray scale images what to speak of enhanced modes like ANTIC K

 

>wrong. it can display gray scale images.

 

It can't display the images being discussed which are 16-gray. You are taking it out of context.

 

>>(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.

 

>wrong. there are examples where the c64 does that.

 

Hello. You want me to do the DACs in software and use nibble mode at lower CPU speed and think I'm still going to get same throughput. That's bunch of bullcrap.

[atariksi]

Thanks to some people's confusion and trying to change the subject, I am reposting the original message. It's correct as it stands. To read a BYTE from C64 joystick port, you have to read a nibble, do 4 rotates and AND/OR in next nibble. OS relies on timer to read it's keyboard and if you are doing real-time joystick input, you have to shut-down the keyboard limiting interactivity; timers also need to be shut-down sometimes to do real-time transfers so it's restrictive. C64 can't playback multifreq DAC data (as far as hardware support goes) at 21Khz or even lower rates what to speak of doing it in software. If you ran the demo previously posted, you know gray-scale mode is graphics 9 mode.

 

you could even try to read in a byte from the lightpen on the c64 if you want to make it pale in comparison. fact is c64 has its dedicated 8 bit I/O and dedicated joystick port. while it seems you can only use the joyport to read 8 bits on atari. c64 is simply more feature rich, and you take this fact to turn it down. very creative I have to admit.

 

I am ready to compare other ports once you admit your joystick i/o is inferior to A8s. Otherwise, I don't need to waste time with a biased person who attacks people without even understanding what is being stated.

[Bryan]

I got my first 800 in 1981. Not too long afterward I got a 300 baud modem and starting calling local BBS's. The original platform haters were the Apple II guys. It seems they showed up on all the BBS's and would start trash talking. Specs didn't matter to them, because everything that wasn't an Apple was a "toy."

 

I don't think the 64 guys were ever as bad as the snobby Apple crowd.

[atariksi]

...

Space Harrier indeed proves that in real life game situations a8 needs to interlace the colors to get more than 4 on the screen. How do you think would it display 128 ?

 

That's biggest bullcrap I have ever heard on this thread. You claim you have 320*200*16 mode which is complete bullcrap. Color RAM is only 40*25 so how do you get 320*200*16 even with overlays. Atari has GTIA modes and it has overlays as well. Atari can do a lot more in it's DLI with color changes than you can with your raster interrupts. I have yet to see 160*200*16 on C64.

 

sorry I cant state every time the correct c64 gfx restrictions, it would take like 3 sentences. Fact is: c64 can do a lot more gfxwise without any cpu intervention, than atari. just to get more than 5 colors onscreen in a 160 (not talk about 320) mode, you need the help of the cpu. while the c64 cpu can sit idle and show more colors in most of the cases (in games!) than atari with cpu assistance. thats clearly an inferior gfx chip design.

 

No, you are dead wrong. GFX design is superior on Atari; I can use a DL instruction on every line to set hscroll/vscroll/blank lines/etc. You have same graphics modes as Atari: 160*200*4, 320*200*2; you have color RAM whereas Atari has GPRIOR effects-- both do not use up CPU time. But on top of that Atari has the programmable graphics and many many more modes than C64. It also has GTIA modes with 16-shades which are impossible for C64 to produce. On top of that, in interlace the more shading choices give less flicker so the interlace modes are also superior to that of C64.

[Wolfram]

when someone cant accept that someone else's machine is better/had bigger succes, then comes the flaming. In my amiga times I bloody hated the pcs for getting ahead of "my" HW/OS. As c64 was THE computer in the 8bit era speccy/amstrad/a8 fans must flame it. Look at this thread

 

Yes, I am looking at this thread. And I looked at threads at the places I mentioned before. These were flamewars, but 1) these weren't exist without involvement of C-64 fans who came there, 2) these were started in respective groups, mostly by the C-64 fans.

 

It is easy to guess, why C-64 groups apparently rarely suffer from that: viz. users of other computers less aggressively come there to "debate". So, your explanation is not likely. I.e. it is not that "ZX/Amstrad/A8 fans flame C-64", it is exactly the other way around, it is C-64 fans who come to other groups (or cross-post to other newsgroups etc.) to "debate" something, in which locals are not really very interested.

 

...

 

You write that "C-64 was THE 8-bit computer". Maybe for you. For me THE 8-bit computer, these days and now, is A8. I really don't care if anyone else has anything else. So that does not seem a valid argument, either.

 

 

1) it will be impossible to proove that mostly who starts these flamewars, our opinion differs, lets just stop that here.

2) c64 is the best selling computer model of all times. 20-30 mill units (WITHOUT c128, plus4, etc) vs 4 mill ALL A8bits included. Your personal opinion may differ but the valid general worldwide public view is that it was THE 8bit computer.

[potatohead]

Atari is better because I say it is. It's that simple. Many here will say the same thing. And they will give their reasons why. Nobody here is threatened by others who feel differently.

 

We don't need you to validate our appreciation of some fine home computers.

 

You however, appear to need us!

 

Why is that Wolfram?

 

Feeling threatened? Do you harbour some doubt as to how kick ass that C64 really is?

 

Or, are you confused?

 

Maybe you are one of those people who can only feel good when others feel like crap. You know you can get help with that! Just ask. Many people have been there man. I feel for you buddy.

[Wolfram]

...

Space Harrier indeed proves that in real life game situations a8 needs to interlace the colors to get more than 4 on the screen. How do you think would it display 128 ?

 

That's biggest bullcrap I have ever heard on this thread. You claim you have 320*200*16 mode which is complete bullcrap. Color RAM is only 40*25 so how do you get 320*200*16 even with overlays. Atari has GTIA modes and it has overlays as well. Atari can do a lot more in it's DLI with color changes than you can with your raster interrupts. I have yet to see 160*200*16 on C64.

 

sorry I cant state every time the correct c64 gfx restrictions, it would take like 3 sentences. Fact is: c64 can do a lot more gfxwise without any cpu intervention, than atari. just to get more than 5 colors onscreen in a 160 (not talk about 320) mode, you need the help of the cpu. while the c64 cpu can sit idle and show more colors in most of the cases (in games!) than atari with cpu assistance. thats clearly an inferior gfx chip design.

 

No, you are dead wrong. GFX design is superior on Atari; I can use a DL instruction on every line to set hscroll/vscroll/blank lines/etc. You have same graphics modes as Atari: 160*200*4, 320*200*2; you have color RAM whereas Atari has GPRIOR effects-- both do not use up CPU time. But on top of that Atari has the programmable graphics and many many more modes than C64. It also has GTIA modes with 16-shades which are impossible for C64 to produce. On top of that, in interlace the more shading choices give less flicker so the interlace modes are also superior to that of C64.

 

- Sorry a GFX chip which needs cpu intervention to display more than 5 colors in 320/160 modes is clearly inferior to GFX chip which can show 16 colors in all of its modes without any cpu intervention, and we havent talked about sprites yet. GPRIOR effects are neat, but inferior to c64's color map.

 

- ?! c64 havent got the same graphic modes as atari.

 

- c64 has also programmable graphics. you can change mode anytime anywhere. whats so special about that?

 

- nr of modes doesnt make anything better. especially when they are modes worse than c64's. the 16 shade mode is the only one rivaling the c64, but its only useable for demo stuff & very lowres but highcolor pictures.

 

- interlace modes are not built in modes.

[www.atarimania.com]

Four million units? Where does that number come from?

 

--

Atari Frog

http://www.atarimania.com

[drac030]

2) c64 is the best selling computer model of all times. 20-30 mill units (WITHOUT c128, plus4, etc) vs 4 mill ALL A8bits included. Your personal opinion may differ but the valid general worldwide public view is that it was THE 8bit computer.

 

It does not matter much, even if 100 mln units of C-64 were sold, because actually, for example, here (in Poland) the proportion is reverse: in 1990 almost everyone had or had had an Atari, and C-64 were rare. Now the only really existing 8-bit community is A8 fans too, and C-64 fans are rare. Even if it weren't so, do you really think that even an isolated fangroup cares, what is "THE 8-bit" in press? The 8-bit is what they have in their home.

 

So, do you really think, that I care, that C-64 sold "20-30 mln units" somewhere, mainly on another continent? These are just numbers, nothing else.