Atari v Commodore

[Rybags]

Who gives a toss how many C64s sold?

 

That's like saying the VW Beetle is better than anything BMW has ever made because it sold more.

[potatohead]

But Drac, you have to care!

 

THOSE ARE BIG ASS NUMBERS MAN! THE WORLD IS LAUGHING.

 

Our buddy Wolfram is here to help us out, you know, see the light before it's too late!

[atariksi]

...

( Actually, for atariksi I guess if I wanted a fast data transfer having a direct dma to/from memory would beat joystick ports anyday. Do any of the parrallel buses on the XL or XE support that kind of DMA? )

 

I prefer to compare apples to apples. Joystick ports are superior on A8. They are even superior to those on Amiga, C64, and PC as I have done tons of joystick I/O on Amigas, Ataris, C64s, and PCs. I have all the timings. Now if you want to compare some other port, be my guest. I think switching banked RAM is faster than DMA!

[drac030]

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

 

Sorry, a GFX chip that needs CPU intervention to display animation is clearly inferior to GFX chip which can display animation even if the CPU is halted

[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.

 

- 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.

 

Okay, let see how you would do a scrolling Graphics 1/2 mode which I stated before-- but I guess you missed all those posts.

 

Okay, so you are being biased again-- you are claiming you can switch graphics modes but that's CPU intervention is it not? You don't have DL that does it for you. Interlace modes are built-in if you think you can switch graphics modes since it's one DLI toggling buffer pointer. I can also do things without CPU intervention which C64 cannot do-- I can replicate sprites even in overscan without CPU intervention. I can OR with playfields (PF0..3) various sprites (how many playfields does C64 support). I can do collision detection for 60-bits of combinations. How much software support do you need even counting the vague collision register of C64.

 

GTIA modes are useful. You can mix GTIA modes with the other 14 built-in graphics modes as well.

[atariksi]

Colors aren't the only thing lacking though on c64 graphics end. More CPU speed also works great for graphics. REAL graphics modes also helps as cell-based plotting is not that good especially since ANTIC can make each scan line power of two. Then of course, as we already discussed the DL options for horiz/vert. scrolling, blank lines, mode switches, etc.

 

Don't know what you mean by 40*20*16. I was just stating the fact that 320*200*16 on C64 is not a true 16 color mode; great for text-based coloring like CGA low-res text mode, but not as a 16-color graphics mode. By the way, CGA also had a 16-color palette only and it also offered similar features as C64 like reducing char height to generate graphics modes like 160*200*16. You can show C64 graphics on CGA, but you can't show Atari graphics even on EGA w/o screwing up colors.

 

in fact lack of colors are present on a8. 128 colors makes not much sense when you need to be in 2009 and use a pc (g2f) to display more then 4-5 of them in a sensefull way on a picture. Its a bad design compromise. c64 compromises cpu speed and color palette for graphics that can display 16 colors with almost no effort. A8:you have cpu speed and many colors, which you can hardly display. urgh. give me the machine which can display its palette without having to sweat and swear and code the whole display, and which can display more colors than the other which has a bigger palette. no thank you. I dont need many colors when I cant use them.

 

also cell based bitmap modes are real graphics modes. why wouldnt they be ? you can use them. they are there. they display more colors than a8's "real" modes.

 

and by the way the VICII when it came out was the best GFX chip on the market. Sitting in a computer which was amongst the cheapest models of the time. The SID was the best sound chip aswell. There's no wonder the c64 was a huge success.

 

Graphics modes usually don't use cells to draw with. Atari has both methods. I can set scanline width to 256 and draw graphics and compute x,y by simply writing to high byte for Y position and and low byte for X position. Ever try that on C64? For you it's okay to keep using CPU but for Atari it's not.

[potatohead]

GPRIOR + full hardware collision makes for some very interesting game + graphics displays, with pixel perfect detection.

 

Those might be simpler displays, but they are fast and fun to play games on.

 

This is an Atari strength for sure.

 

 

--->Cells are real graphics modes! (our buddy Wolfram)

 

Well, on the Propeller micro I'm enjoying right now, the reference graphics driver code used cells, or tiles. One of the very first things that happened was a re-write of it to provide nice, linear addressing! Linear addressing is simpler and takes less of the CPU to manipulate. Given the lower C64 CPU speed, with respect to an Atari machine, those cells are a significant drain on the machine that doesn't need to be there.

 

Of course, cells are real graphics modes, because the entire world knows the C64 does real graphics, making the cells a real graphics mode.

 

You can't make this stuff up!

Edited April 13, 2009 by potatohead

[Wolfram]

>>(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.

 

okay then clear me up. how do you read in 5 bits using nibble mode ?

 

>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.

 

accepted.

 

>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!

 

no. its like :

 

a: my car is better than your car because it's exhaust blows away the dust better.

b: it's an unfair compariosn because my car came with a vacuum cleaner which is even better than that, and instead of blowing the dust all over the place it sucks it in.

a: bullcrap. its a fair comparison. stick to exhausts! 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.

 

see the car example.

 

>>(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.

 

one dac or three dac, doesnt matter. SID can play 3 channel 8 bit samples. I dont know how many DAC's the SID has, but it doesnt matter. it doesnt matter HOW does it. it can DO it. I could similarly claim A8 cant display pictures because it does it with different silicon than VICII. this is getting VERY stupid. come on!

 

>>(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.

 

yeah, but that was not the statement I have attacked, which was wrong.

 

>>(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.

 

there are examples where the c64 does this. doesnt matter what you say it will not change this FACT. you can talk until the end of the universe, those demos will still exist. edit: oh and ofcourse you would use nibble mode. there are the 8 bit ports, but you must use nibble mode. holy god.

Edited April 13, 2009 by Wolfram

[drac030]

Interlace modes are built-in if you think you can switch graphics modes since it's one DLI toggling buffer pointer.

 

You can switch between two displays without CPU intervention: just two DLs chained and the second JVB pointing to the begin of the chain.

[atariksi]

...

right. finally someone unbiased.

 

...

 

No, finally someone that agreed with you on something.

[Wolfram]

Graphics modes usually don't use cells to draw with. Atari has both methods. I can set scanline width to 256 and draw graphics and compute x,y by simply writing to high byte for Y position and and low byte for X position. Ever try that on C64? For you it's okay to keep using CPU but for Atari it's not.

 

 

wow, finally something interesting. thats a very cool possiblity indeed. on the downside it eats up memory like crazy.

[oky2000]

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.

 

What most people, even Commodore fanatics, don't know is the VIC-20 was merely a stalling tactic specifically created to throw off the Japanese companies from creating anything that would threaten Commodore's plans. Jack Tramiel was absolutely convinced the Japanese were his biggest threat to ruining his plans for home computer market domination so the plan was...

 

1. Create something quite good for a low price that the Japanese will dissect for 6-12 months to work out how it works and how much it costs in order to gauge the competition.

2. Whilst the competition is busy looking at the diversionary tactic that was the VIC-20 Commodore complete the more advanced successor to this machine.

 

So there you have it, there was nothing wrong with the VIC-20, it was NEVER meant to be taken seriously just simply a sacrificial lamb that laid its life down for the C64. By the time the Japanese (and Atari and Apple etc) worked out the VIC-20 the C64 was pretty much finished, so it served its purpose, the factories were eventually needed to produce the C64 not the VIC-20 once capacity was an issue so it was discontinued. By the time anybody worked out how the C64 was done for the low price AND that unless they owned their own chip designing and manufacturing company like Commodore it was not possible to compete. Why do you think all the components are similar like printers,drives and interfaces, tape decks, ports,casings,keyboards, power supplies....

 

The rest is history as the C64 is STILL the worlds most popular single type computer ever sold, and this is all documented in books by people who worked on designing the machines or directly worked with Jack on business strategy. Don't bother disputing this fact it is all confirmed by researchers involved in some notable books from the man himself...cunning old Jack (the only man in the world to ever come out on top in any dealings with Microsoft btw) The VIC-20 served its role perfectly, Commodore never expected it to be as successful as it was which is why the original idea of a cheap all in one machine was toyed with....the 264 series. A 16k machine like the Commodore 16 was intended to be launched for $50 by Jack...but he left Commodore before it was finished and then the remaining idiots there beefed it up and ended up with a competitor to their own C64 as well as an overpriced and underpowered Commodore 16 as launched.

[drac030]

thats a very cool possiblity indeed. on the downside it eats up memory like crazy.

 

The display memory technically eats up the same amount of memory as normally, only the DL will be longer (for ANTIC can address 64K address space). For a 192-line display you use 40 bytes of each page, and get continuous blocks of memory above $C000. You can use 216 bytes on pages $00-$BF to store smaller chunks of data, short subroutines etc. A bit of trouble, but not so bad.

[atariksi]

>>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.

 

>okay then clear me up. how do you read in 5 bits using nibble mode ?

 

I don't have to unless I am transmitting 5-bit digital audio samples. Both machines can do 5-bits on joystick ports. Most of the data is bytes so on C64, you have to read two nibbles (at lower speed) and combine them into a byte using more CPU time.

 

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

 

>no. its like :

 

Your example does not apply since joysticks are very popular amongst 8-bit machines and Amiga/Atari ST as well. Joysticks are easier and cheapter to interface in SOFTWARE. Unless you build custom hardware, like IDE64 or whatever you call it, joysticks are the way to go for parallel communications.

 

>>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.

 

>one dac or three dac, doesnt matter. SID can play 3 channel 8 bit samples. I dont know how many DAC's the SID has, but it doesnt matter. it doesnt matter HOW does it. it can DO it. I could similarly claim A8 cant display pictures because it does it with different silicon than VICII. this is getting VERY stupid. come on!

 

No, you are not being consistent then. If you want to compare hardware, Atari wins-- it has 4 DACs vs. 1 on SID. If you don't know how many DACs SID has, then why are you arguing. If you want to allow for software simulation of additional DACs/voices, then you add CPU burden. If you want to allow CPU burden, then don't complain when Atari does it's DLIs, IRQs, kernels, etc.

 

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

 

>yeah, but that was not the statement I have attacked, which was wrong.

 

That's why you should read the posts in context. Run the demo posted or run the full version (real thing) MPDOS Pro.

 

>>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.

 

>there are examples where the c64 does this. doesnt matter what you say it will not change this FACT. you can talk until the end of the universe, those demos will still exist.

 

If you want to compare which hardware is superior, then stick to hardware comparisons. Whatever C64 does in software, Atari will outdo due its higher CPU speed.

[Rybags]

Tramiels strategy was always: Release cheap, underdone piece of crap onto the market to divert the competition.

 

Advertise like crazy, brainwash the public.

 

Worked with the Vic 20. Worked with the C-64. Worked with the Atari ST.

[potatohead]

There is this too:

 

When does the superior tech win? Ever?

 

VHS -vs- BETA = VHS -->just an example.

 

SGI -vs- SUN, HP = SUN & HP (SGI had the best hardware software tech)

 

So, C64 selling millions means it's not the best, just the cheapest and well marketed!

 

The very best technology often ends up being a niche, because it lacks the cost advantage necessary for the masses to adopt it in sufficient numbers. C64 was very widely adopted. Total given. That does not make it the best. In fact, the odds are against that very fact, given the history of technology adoption over time.

[drac030]

The rest is history as the C64 is STILL the worlds most popular single type computer ever sold, and this is all documented in books by people who worked on designing the machines or directly worked with Jack on business strategy. Don't bother disputing this fact it is all confirmed by researchers involved in some notable books from the man himself

 

This is not disputed. Just tell me, why I am supposed to care? I could care, if I was Tramiel, certainly Otherwise even 300 mln C-64s sold is completely unrelated to my life and hobbies.

[potatohead]

Seriously.

 

Wolfram, why is it that you need to defend the C64? Isn't it self-evident that it's the best? You believe that right?

 

So then, why the need to validate that here?

 

Are you somehow threatened by the great Atari goings on here at AA?

 

Get a chubby from mixing it up with other people?

 

Worried that maybe the C64 isn't getting it's fair share of love?

[Heaven/TQA]

Graphics modes usually don't use cells to draw with. Atari has both methods. I can set scanline width to 256 and draw graphics and compute x,y by simply writing to high byte for Y position and and low byte for X position. Ever try that on C64? For you it's okay to keep using CPU but for Atari it's not.

 

 

wow, finally something interesting. thats a very cool possiblity indeed. on the downside it eats up memory like crazy.

 

that's exactly what I have used when porting Venus Express from C64 to Atari... on C64 Aleksi copied the stuff into vram while I simply setup a 24x256 display list...

 

it is also handy for gameboy like scrolling methods (bufferlines outside the visible screen) or even hardcoded "new" scrolltechniques only possible with Antic "weird" display list structures...

[Ransom]

The rest is history as the C64 is STILL the worlds most popular single type computer ever sold, and this is all documented in books by people who worked on designing the machines or directly worked with Jack on business strategy. Don't bother disputing this fact it is all confirmed by researchers involved in some notable books from the man himself

 

This is not disputed. Just tell me, why I am supposed to care? I could care, if I was Tramiel, certainly Otherwise even 300 mln C-64s sold is completely unrelated to my life and hobbies.

 

You should care because there's a lot of Commodore computers sitting in landfills, leeching poisons into the environment.

 

Meanwhile, we frugal Atarians keep marching along, using our obviously inferior systems with low sales numbers.

 

Because of course anything that sells more must be of higher quality. Just look at McDonald's hamburgers versus any other prepared food. Which sells more? McD's of course! And that's why we know they're serving the highest-quality food in the world.

Edited April 13, 2009 by Ransom

[atariksi]

>>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.

 

Quantity of sales does not make it a success or failure is my point. Marketing is a field in itself-- using all sorts of means to get people to buy stuff unrelated to whether the hardware is superior to another hardware.

[Wolfram]

>okay then clear me up. how do you read in 5 bits using nibble mode ?

 

>I don't have to unless I am transmitting 5-bit digital audio samples. Both machines can do 5-bits on joystick ports. Most of the data is bytes so on C64, you have to read two nibbles (at lower speed) and combine them into a byte using more CPU time.

 

sorry, joysticks are read with one instruction. and joysticks provide 5 bit information. so explain me how is that nibble mode ? also you have to be really stupid / an atari fan not to use the 8bit ports, and put together bytes from nibbles on the c64.

 

 

 

>Your example does not apply since joysticks are very popular amongst 8-bit machines and Amiga/Atari ST as well. Joysticks are easier and cheapter to interface in SOFTWARE. Unless you build custom hardware, like IDE64 or whatever you call it, joysticks are the way to go for parallel communications.

 

my example applies perfectly. you desperately want to use the 4 bit I/O on the c64 when it has 8 bit ports. you make not much sense.

 

 

>No, you are not being consistent then. If you want to compare hardware, Atari wins-- it has 4 DACs vs. 1 on SID. If you don't know how many DACs SID has, then why are you arguing. If you want to allow for software simulation of additional DACs/voices, then you add CPU burden. If you want to allow CPU burden, then don't complain when Atari does it's DLIs, IRQs, kernels, etc.

 

you are changing subject again. you said c64 cant play multifreq digis. thats not true. it can. the end.

 

 

 

>there are examples where the c64 does this. doesnt matter what you say it will not change this FACT. you can talk until the end of the universe, those demos will still exist.

 

>If you want to compare which hardware is superior, then stick to hardware comparisons. Whatever C64 does in software, Atari will outdo due its higher CPU speed.

 

changing subjects again. you said c64 cant stream animation & digi voice. it can. the demo showcasing 160x200x~16 at ~12 fps and digi music prooves it.

[potatohead]

I think I've got Wolfram figured out.

 

Really, he's a great guy, who just can't stand to see another loyal C64 user getting hammered by those Atari lovin heathens! They might lose their faith, unless somebody steps up to represent C64.

[Wolfram]

>>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.

 

Quantity of sales does not make it a success or failure is my point. Marketing is a field in itself-- using all sorts of means to get people to buy stuff unrelated to whether the hardware is superior to another hardware.

 

so VHS was not a succes but BETA was ? come on. you're not making sense.

[Wolfram]

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.

 

yes. I have read here numerous times comments like "cool this game will show it to the c64 freaks finally who got the better machine"