Atari v Commodore

[atariksi]

Continuous blocks of memory above $C000-- what did you mean by that?

 

I only mean, that if you setup the DL so that every line of the 256x192/2 ( narrow GR. 8 ) starts on separate page (like, line 0, addresses $0000-$001F, line 1: addresses $0100-$011F etc.), then the area of $0000-$BFFF is divided into areas of 224 bytes each interleaved with screen data. Only after $C000 you get 4k continuous block of free RAM and then another 10k, where you can put your program.

 

This way PLOT X,Y writes under Y * 256 + ( X / 8 )

 

Okay, I just had another thought regarding this. Just re-use the same memory again after a power of 2 scanlines. So in narrow mode, you have 256/32 = 8 times you can use the same page. So if vertical resolution is 256, every 32 scanlines you come back to same page and offset by 32. For normal mode or wide screen mode, re-use memory after every 64 bytes. So every 64 scanlines, you go back to original page and offset by 64. So PLOT X,Y = (Y&63)*256+(X/8)+Y&192.

[drac030]

So PLOT X,Y = (Y&63)*256+(X/8)+Y&192.

 

Sure, but that's two AND #'s more, so it depends what you may sacrifice (memory or runtime). Note that you can put much of the program in the "interleaved" pages, as long as the tables and pieces of code are not longer than 224 bytes each, so you can save much of the memory above $C000 this way. Also, on 130XE there's plenty of space in the extension, so if there's code that doesn't directly write to the display, you can put a lot of such code and data there (leaving the ANTIC in the conventional RAM).

Edited April 13, 2009 by drac030

[+SpiceWare]

BETA was the far superior tech. VHS won out, because it was cheap and better marketed.

Not true. While BETA was slightly better in the picture format(250 vs 240 horizontal lines), it wasn't that noticeable on the average consumers TV(remember, everything was hooked up via RF). Contrast that to where VHS was noticeably superior, no matter what TV you had - it could record 2 hours while BETA was limited to 1. Sure Sony extended the recording times later(as did VHS), but by then it was to late. It's hardly possible to say that 4% better picture detail makes BETA a "far superior tech" in comparison to VHS's 100% better recording time - recording time is part of the tech

 

And back to the topic at hand - seems that some might be purposely misunderstanding the "1 million VIC 20s sold" - the statement was that VIC was the first computer to sell 1 million, but that wasn't the end of it - they sold 2.5 million in all by the time Commodore retired the machine. Sure its hardware may not have been as technically advanced as other systems, but it was hardly a failure. You wouldn't say the 2600 was a failure because it's hardware was so limited compared to other video game systems, would you?

[frenchman]

3) somehow I doubt poland had more a8's than c64's. The poland c64 scene was huge in the 90s. I bet they produced more c64 demos at that period than all a8 demos put together.

 

 

Wolfram doubts everything where C64 obviously had less success in some countries. He is probably believing that the C64 outsold the Spectrum in the UK. What a dreamer, keep smoking those Pall Malls.

[potatohead]

I don't think the VIC 20 was a failure at all. Plenty of people had them, software was developed for them, and then things moved on.

 

A failure would be like the Tandy MC-10, or something.

 

Re: BETA True enough, though I remember noting the difference in quality in recording back then. True that VHS and BETA, where playback of material was concerned was equal enough. Nobody noticed that.

 

When it came time to do your own recording, that's where BETA shined. So then, the compromise was in the features offered and price and such. Most people used the VCR to watch movies and record some stuff for time shifting, etc... playback of movies was the killer app though. Those people that really wanted to use their VCR as an authoring tool, were limited by VHS, and they were fewer in number too. The slower start for BETA played a part in this, and makes the analogy a bit more messy.

 

BETA II and BETA III were used for authoring, and III still is, where super-VHS ended up being sort of like AM Stereo.

 

My only point in that example was to highlight how the most popular tech is almost always not the best tech.

[_The Doctor__]

Whenever Atari coders make something good or better than what was available on the c=64 the statement is ... you can't compare what people code today vs what they coded then.... I submit you can since it is still the same hardware. It is simply being used more to it's potential. If a person can not handle that then it is their character flaw or failing. The fact is that Atari based computers , coders, and hackers continue to produce better products than what was available for the commodore then and in an increasing number what is available for them now. The most venerable line of computers from the 8 bit era is has and always will be the Jay Miner associated machines.

 

That being said, it would seem that when the Atari platform starts seeing better software, hardware, and disk operating systems in development, the whole commodore campaign begins again. The onslaught of complaints and discouragement flood the forums and developers mailboxes in an effort to end the projects. This had played out time and time again. I suggest that we spend our time on our projects and set our efforts to make a better version of anything the C crowd has been going on about. That puts an end to it. I for one know that the Atari's flexibility is why it was used in the Movie and television industry firsthand. Never saw a C= 8 bit machine doing any work horse tasks save being a prop. The later on Amiga was a Jay Miner machine, is it's own entity, it continued on after Commodore was long since dead. I love the pokey Amiga mod. showing off the pokey hardware driven by the AMI, it shows the 8 bit hardware being pumped!

Time and time again I am seeing new devices and new software that puts anything I had on my old commodore to shame.

 

I recently dug out my old commodore equipment to view some of the cited posting on real equipment on both machines. Guess which machines are back in boxes? In fact I kinda am glad for one thing. My son and daughter BOTH are now using the old 8-bit Atari machines. Seems the commodore did not get their interest. The kids had full access to lemon64 etc. and fandal etc. Which machine was my son able to get his honors science project done on? The Atari helped him to an A+ and to be inducted into the National Junior Honor Society of Secondary Schools. My daughter did the same thing. Both of them felt the Atari was better. Both were able to use the machines to a good purpose.

 

 

You can speak of ambiguous, non tangible debates all you want. In the real world I can observe the results on the screen, from speakers, and on paper.

 

The Atari's flexible i/o structure and architecture is making it a viable platform even today.

The Atari was used to do real time monitoring of 64 precisely calculated saline solutions providing graphic as well as hard data to define temperature gradients within fluids over time. We were unable to get the commodore to do this. We were able to get the Atari to do it.

 

As far as games go, again. during the last two parties had at our house, everyone was at the Atari 8-bits, one or two messed with the c64 and soon joined all the others at the Atari. Which do you think I believe is better?

 

Quibble for an Eternity, but the current Atari software and devices are leaps and bounds beyond what I am seeing for the C64/128. My hats off to the Atari, Sparta Dos project, Atarimax, sio2sd, and the myriad of coders who are taking this machine one step further!. I asked for advice from the commodore crowd and all I got was, we're better! It can do it! This or that machine is a poor choice. When I asked Atari users they gave help, suggestions, and software/hardware solutions that simply worked.

[potatohead]

Happy fun debate aside, I think it's extremely cool that your kids are doing projects with Atari computers.

 

The 8 bit time is a special time. Capability was just there enough to get stuff done, but overall device complexity was still very low, considering what we see so often today. Anytime kids can see that, no matter the computer, it is a very good thing.

Edited April 13, 2009 by potatohead

[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.

 

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.

Keep trying. Still wrong. Again market success or failure is obvious when nearly nobody writes software for your system. As in programmers are trying to make money. As is obvious VIC20 failed.Not mainstream. Atari,Apple, Heck Tandy and TI(not a bad system) had more available and Atari and Apple had 1st tier titles as well. Vic failed. I can't even believe we are having this conversation about such a joke of a system. Were you even alive at the time?

Edited April 13, 2009 by atarian63

[atarian63]

BETA was the far superior tech. VHS won out, because it was cheap and better marketed.

 

The studios liked it because on VHS, only 1/2 the color resolution was available for home recording, where on BETA, the full color resolution was there. They saw this as a way to limit copies.

 

Not that it stopped anyone.

 

The point being that the C64 selling so many almost insures it wasn't the best or superior tech. History shows us this out over and over and over.

 

Most really superior tech exists in clear niches. That's where the Atari is.

 

following your logic, the lowest selling computer must be the best. it doesnt makes sense.

 

No, my logic is that the best computer is NEVER the best selling one. The BEST computer will exist in a niche, right along side the crappy computers. The reason for this is the combination of cost and marketing selects the best compromise technology as most people don't differentiate well enough to value the BEST technology, so it ends up a niche thing.

Very True! I have been in retail for like 25 years and that logic applies to most things. Computers,Cars,gadgets of all types.

Very astute of you! :D Well put!

Edited April 13, 2009 by atarian63

[+wood_jl]

The most venerable line of computers from the 8 bit era is has and always will be the Jay Miner associated machines.

 

Commodore users love to hail Jay Miner as a hero and vault him to celebrity status - when we're talking about 16-bit computers, because they're branded "Commodore." If it's the 8-bit generation, why Jay Miner's work was crap, however. How unbiased!

[atariksi]

...

fandal etc. Which machine was my son able to get his honors science project done on? The Atari helped him to an A+ and to be inducted into the National Junior Honor Society of Secondary Schools. My daughter did the same thing. Both of them felt the Atari was better. Both were able to use the machines to a good purpose.

...

Perhaps, you can get them to write "Thanks to Atari 800" on the certificate. I also used to participate in science fairs when I was in high school and there was always a whole bunch of Apple projects, some C64 and some Atari 8-bit and some PCs. All the first place winners were always from Atari 8-bit or PCs and second were C64 or PCs and never saw anyone with with an Apple. I saw once someone control a walking robot from an Atari 800XL w/256K memory expansion.

[atariksi]

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!

 

They are graphics modes, but I am distinguishing design here. It's cheaper to design graphics modes this way if you already have the text modes done.

 

Cell-based graphics are extensions to text modes; design a text mode and with some little hardware extend to a graphics mode rather than build graphics modes from scratch. I did this with CGA (as I mentioned). You extend the 80*25 text mode to graphics mode by decreasing cell height to 2 instead of 8, intermixing various ASCII characters to get the double or quadruple the horizontal resolution. As you say, it's more CPU time to access than linear graphics modes.

 

Totally.

 

Was laughing at REAL graphics modes... There is kind of an Orwellian implication that non-cell display RAM addressing isn't REAL or serious.

 

I guess you mean cell based display isn't REAL. Commodore really had good text displays with PET machines (I happen to have one of those). They had an excellent 80-column text display. So they were experts in cell-based graphics and thus their color RAM and so forth. But that "cheaper" philosophy affected the C64 since they didn't put that 80-column in that machine.

[atariksi]

...

fandal etc. Which machine was my son able to get his honors science project done on? The Atari helped him to an A+ and to be inducted into the National Junior Honor Society of Secondary Schools. My daughter did the same thing. Both of them felt the Atari was better. Both were able to use the machines to a good purpose.

...

Perhaps, you can get them to write "Thanks to Atari 800" on the certificate. I also used to participate in science fairs when I was in high school and there was always a whole bunch of Apple projects, some C64 and some Atari 8-bit and some PCs. All the first place winners were always from Atari 8-bit or PCs and second were C64 or PCs and never saw anyone with with an Apple. I saw once someone control a walking robot from an Atari 800XL w/256K memory expansion.

 

Forgot to add that these projects were computer & engineering science projects some of which ended up in the Knoxville World Fair (including mine). Many used joystick ports for controlling stuff. Atari Joystick port was de facto standard in those days as all machines C64, Vic20, Ataris, Atari ST, Amiga, Sega all basically used the same joystick port. Even frame grabbers (ComputerEyes) used joystick port, Parrot audio digitzier, Covox Voice recognition, touch tablets, paddles, etc. etc.

[potatohead]

Yep. Joystick ports on Atari are simple and useful.

 

Here's another one:

 

Being THE 8 bit home computer is like AOL BEING the Internet... 'ya just gotta look at who is making the call.

[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.

Keep trying. Still wrong. Again market success or failure is obvious when nearly nobody writes software for your system. As in programmers are trying to make money. As is obvious VIC20 failed.Not mainstream. Atari,Apple, Heck Tandy and TI(not a bad system) had more available and Atari and Apple had 1st tier titles as well. Vic failed. I can't even believe we are having this conversation about such a joke of a system. Were you even alive at the time?

 

Stop redefining the meaning of market success. VIC20 was a HUGE market success. whatever you say. Its not like I dont agree with most of you're seeing. But its all offtopic, changing subject. One thing you can never take away from the VIC20: first ever computer to ever sell 1 million units. and that means a huge market success.

 

edit: interesting note from spiceware. VIC20 sold 2.5 millon. more than half of ALL a8 models put together.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Wolfram

[Wolfram]

So PLOT X,Y = (Y&63)*256+(X/8)+Y&192.

 

 

that's a bit overcomplicated doesnt looks more simple than plotting something on the c64.

 

plotting to c64 bitmap, width restricted to 32 "bytes":

 

ldy y

ldx x

 

lda scanlinestart,y

sta $fe

lda scanlinestart,y

sta $ff

 

ldy horoffset,x

 

lda (),y

ora mask,x

sta (),y

[atariksi]

...

Registering here, just to defend the C64 kind of sucks. Big difference Wolfram.

 

It's better to accept the truth rather than mislead/misinform just to defend C64 or A8.

[Rybags]

Well, if you go all table-based, the Atari does it much the same... and you don't need to restrict X to avoid a >255 offset.

[atariksi]

So PLOT X,Y = (Y&63)*256+(X/8)+Y&192.

 

 

that's a bit overcomplicated doesnt looks more simple than plotting something on the c64.

 

plotting to c64 bitmap, width restricted to 32 "bytes":

 

...

Width in above equation is 0..511 not 0..255 (32 bytes).

 

If you know the vertical quadrant you are plotting in, the ANDs aren't needed. MUL by 256 obviosly isn't needed and X/8 is a look-up.

[FastRobPlus]

[quote name='Wolfram' post='1725656'

 

No, my logic is that the best computer is NEVER the best selling one. The BEST computer will exist in a niche, right along side the crappy computers. The reason for this is the combination of cost and marketing selects the best compromise technology as most people don't differentiate well enough to value the BEST technology, so it ends up a niche thing.

Very True! I have been in retail for like 25 years and that logic applies to most things. Computers,Cars,gadgets of all types.

Very astute of you! :D Well put!

 

 

So you are saying the C64 is the Wii of the 1980s?

[Rybags]

Nah. I think the Intellivision takes that title.

 

Weird controllers, and it's sports games were the only thing going for it.

[oky2000]

Whenever Atari coders make something good or better than what was available on the c=64 the statement is ... you can't compare what people code today vs what they coded then.... I submit you can since it is still the same hardware. It is simply being used more to it's potential. If a person can not handle that then it is their character flaw or failing. The fact is that Atari based computers , coders, and hackers continue to produce better products than what was available for the commodore then and in an increasing number what is available for them now. The most venerable line of computers from the 8 bit era is has and always will be the Jay Miner associated machines.

 

That being said, it would seem that when the Atari platform starts seeing better software, hardware, and disk operating systems in development, the whole commodore campaign begins again. The onslaught of complaints and discouragement flood the forums and developers mailboxes in an effort to end the projects. This had played out time and time again. I suggest that we spend our time on our projects and set our efforts to make a better version of anything the C crowd has been going on about. That puts an end to it. I for one know that the Atari's flexibility is why it was used in the Movie and television industry firsthand. Never saw a C= 8 bit machine doing any work horse tasks save being a prop. The later on Amiga was a Jay Miner machine, is it's own entity, it continued on after Commodore was long since dead. I love the pokey Amiga mod. showing off the pokey hardware driven by the AMI, it shows the 8 bit hardware being pumped!

Time and time again I am seeing new devices and new software that puts anything I had on my old commodore to shame.

 

I recently dug out my old commodore equipment to view some of the cited posting on real equipment on both machines. Guess which machines are back in boxes? In fact I kinda am glad for one thing. My son and daughter BOTH are now using the old 8-bit Atari machines. Seems the commodore did not get their interest. The kids had full access to lemon64 etc. and fandal etc. Which machine was my son able to get his honors science project done on? The Atari helped him to an A+ and to be inducted into the National Junior Honor Society of Secondary Schools. My daughter did the same thing. Both of them felt the Atari was better. Both were able to use the machines to a good purpose.

 

 

 

You can speak of ambiguous, non tangible debates all you want. In the real world I can observe the results on the screen, from speakers, and on paper.

 

The Atari's flexible i/o structure and architecture is making it a viable platform even today.

The Atari was used to do real time monitoring of 64 precisely calculated saline solutions providing graphic as well as hard data to define temperature gradients within fluids over time. We were unable to get the commodore to do this. We were able to get the Atari to do it.

 

As far as games go, again. during the last two parties had at our house, everyone was at the Atari 8-bits, one or two messed with the c64 and soon joined all the others at the Atari. Which do you think I believe is better?

 

Quibble for an Eternity, but the current Atari software and devices are leaps and bounds beyond what I am seeing for the C64/128. My hats off to the Atari, Sparta Dos project, Atarimax, sio2sd, and the myriad of coders who are taking this machine one step further!. I asked for advice from the commodore crowd and all I got was, we're better! It can do it! This or that machine is a poor choice. When I asked Atari users they gave help, suggestions, and software/hardware solutions that simply worked.

 

What a load of blind deaf and dumb trolling rubbish.

 

C64s have 16mb memory/32bit CPU upgrades something nobody has ever managed for any Atari.

C64s have SID2SID stereo mods and players BUT also with the ability to drive one using the output of the other same as a real synth.

C64s have 512mb memory expansions.

C64s have full on analogue synthesizer bass station modifications like Prophet64/MSSSIAH that are used by many professional composers

C64s have about 4 or 5 IDE or MMC/SD card loaders that emulate the original disk drive and do more just like the SIO ones.

 

AND I have yet to be even shown a SINGLE VIDEO CLIP of a piece of code more complex and elegant than the Enforcer II level 2 demo or electric guitar sound achieved without sampling demos I posted and yet the debate still rages which hardware is better

 

PS I just wanted to add on a side note, I actually picked up a Sony Betamax player a few years ago (ok 10!!) and recorded a few things from cable TV and the difference I can assure you was NOT 4$

 

At the time I owned a Panasonic top end VHS player that was regularly awarded the most praise in A/V publications and the comparison was amazing.

 

The grain/noise was noticeably less on Beta

The picture detail level was higher on Beta

The colour resolution was a lot better and more stable on strong colours.

The freeze frames and slow motion on the Sony Betamax were almost digital in quality.

The sound quality was noticeably better (this is HiFi/Stereo sound track I am talking about on both with Dolby B & C on the Sony Beta)

 

It was very easy to see the difference between the two as looking at the logos for various channels like the Sci-Fi channel were instantly a lot sharper. VHS won simply because both machines and movies were available for RENTAL on VHS not Betamax. Technical specs on paper are meaningless unless you actually used two top of the range machines of both formats and compared them side to side. The difference sure as hell isn't 4% just like a 2megapixel digital camera with a Carl Zeis lense will out do a generic wallmart 4megapixel camera every time. The results always speak for themselves.

 

Also EVERY video machine be it beta or VHS could both playback and record via direct phono inputs for sound and video which is worth bearing in mind and the only way to really compare machines

[Wolfram]

Whenever Atari coders make something good or better than what was available on the c=64 the statement is ... you can't compare what people code today vs what they coded then....

 

Space Harrier on a8 is better than what the c64 could do at its best. But bear in mind existing c64 space harriers were done in a few weeks, using 64k ram. A8 space harrier is being developed since years and years and using 128k. Comparing those two games is not really fair in this sense. c64 version uses 30-40% of the machine's potential while the a8 one is pretty much maxxed out.

 

 

I for one know that the Atari's flexibility is why it was used in the Movie and television industry firsthand. Never saw a C= 8 bit machine doing any work horse tasks save being a prop.

 

I have seen c64s doing "Teletext" news, used to display "no broadcast signals", display Train start schedules on trainstations, hooked up with genlock to display texts over TV programs, etc. as for props, from the to of my head: T3 uses a C= PET, just like that british sitcom about the life of helpdesk nerds (dont remember its name now).

 

Time and time again I am seeing new devices and new software that puts anything I had on my old commodore to shame.

 

you're missing out on c64 then: ide hdd&cdrom, 20mhz cpu with up to 16 megs ram, 1541&cartridge emulator cart with mmc card storing disk/cart images, a cart with TCP/IP&clock port with swapabble cart images, c64 dtv a little toy emulating the c64 or on its own mode a wonder machine with capabilities between c64/amiga500, c64 built in a laptop, C-one, various devices utilising the sid being used as music devices on their on right by musicians...

 

 

 

The Atari's flexible i/o structure and architecture is making it a viable platform even today.

 

thats more than a bit stretching nevertheless c64 is just as flexible, new drives are just as compatible with old software, SIO equals the C= serial bus, etc.

 

The Atari was used to do real time monitoring of 64 precisely calculated saline solutions providing graphic as well as hard data to define temperature gradients within fluids over time. We were unable to get the commodore to do this. We were able to get the Atari to do it.

 

yeah, if I dont want I cant do anything with the a8 either. and it wont proove anything.

 

As far as games go, again. during the last two parties had at our house, everyone was at the Atari 8-bits, one or two messed with the c64 and soon joined all the others at the Atari. Which do you think I believe is better?

 

and what games have you loaded up on c64/atari?

 

Quibble for an Eternity, but the current Atari software and devices are leaps and bounds beyond what I am seeing for the C64/128.

 

you are missing out a lot, see my list above about c64 hw extensions.

 

I asked for advice from the commodore crowd and all I got was, we're better! It can do it! This or that machine is a poor choice. When I asked Atari users they gave help, suggestions, and software/hardware solutions that simply worked.

 

bullshit. have seen zillion of people asking for help on c64 forums, all got friendly help.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Wolfram

[Wolfram]

...

fandal etc. Which machine was my son able to get his honors science project done on? The Atari helped him to an A+ and to be inducted into the National Junior Honor Society of Secondary Schools. My daughter did the same thing. Both of them felt the Atari was better. Both were able to use the machines to a good purpose.

...

Perhaps, you can get them to write "Thanks to Atari 800" on the certificate. I also used to participate in science fairs when I was in high school and there was always a whole bunch of Apple projects, some C64 and some Atari 8-bit and some PCs. All the first place winners were always from Atari 8-bit or PCs and second were C64 or PCs and never saw anyone with with an Apple. I saw once someone control a walking robot from an Atari 800XL w/256K memory expansion.

 

wow, and what does that proove? I didnt even know 8bit atari computer's exists into the 2000's. I had an amiga, the only thing I knew about atari that its some kind of crap 16bit machine.

[atariksi]

...

fandal etc. Which machine was my son able to get his honors science project done on? The Atari helped him to an A+ and to be inducted into the National Junior Honor Society of Secondary Schools. My daughter did the same thing. Both of them felt the Atari was better. Both were able to use the machines to a good purpose.

...

Perhaps, you can get them to write "Thanks to Atari 800" on the certificate. I also used to participate in science fairs when I was in high school and there was always a whole bunch of Apple projects, some C64 and some Atari 8-bit and some PCs. All the first place winners were always from Atari 8-bit or PCs and second were C64 or PCs and never saw anyone with with an Apple. I saw once someone control a walking robot from an Atari 800XL w/256K memory expansion.

 

wow, and what does that proove? I didnt even know 8bit atari computer's exists into the 2000's. I had an amiga, the only thing I knew about atari that its some kind of crap 16bit machine.

 

It's an observation of mine that Atari 8-bits won (me and others) science fairs. Presentations were more colorful for one thing with nice scrolling title screens. I never stated it was in 2000s; it was actually in 1980s. I also used amigas in science fairs in late 1980s and early 1990s. Later the projects were incorporated into results you see here:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=320359212377

 

I can state a true observation without getting emotionally biased toward one machine unlike you.