Jump to content
IGNORED

Atari v Commodore


stevelanc

Recommended Posts

Since it is so difficult to properly emulate the 1541 (that 1541 Ultimate has a giant FPGA!) why not connect to the PC by hacking the 1541?

It has to be cycle accurate emulation which rules all multitasking OS'es for PC out and even under DOS it doesn't work too well. There is one solution for DOS: 64HDD.

...

It depends on the tolerance level of the data i/o in the C64. Amiga floppy drive simulation works fine even under Windows XP:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=320359641478

 

>Also keep in mind that LPT ports have no future. Many PCs already don't have one, and those who have one often have an incompatible LPT chipset which is barely enough to connect a printer but doesn't allow for those hacking cables anymore.

 

What's so incompatible about them? As long as they have enough bandwidth, you should be able to use them. And you can always pop in a PCI LPT card in desktop machines. Only in new laptops, they stopped using LPT ports. Even many of the EPROM programmers use LPT.

 

>Possible, but why PC and why at all when you can replace the entire drive with an FPGA and not only the drive mech.

 

For one thing, it's easier to organize files/disk images on PC... You can simulate multiple drives, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since it is so difficult to properly emulate the 1541 (that 1541 Ultimate has a giant FPGA!) why not connect to the PC by hacking the 1541?

It has to be cycle accurate emulation which rules all multitasking OS'es for PC out and even under DOS it doesn't work too well. There is one solution for DOS: 64HDD.

...

It depends on the tolerance level of the data i/o in the C64. Amiga floppy drive simulation works fine even under Windows XP:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=320359641478

 

>Also keep in mind that LPT ports have no future. Many PCs already don't have one, and those who have one often have an incompatible LPT chipset which is barely enough to connect a printer but doesn't allow for those hacking cables anymore.

 

What's so incompatible about them? As long as they have enough bandwidth, you should be able to use them. And you can always pop in a PCI LPT card in desktop machines. Only in new laptops, they stopped using LPT ports. Even many of the EPROM programmers use LPT.

 

>Possible, but why PC and why at all when you can replace the entire drive with an FPGA and not only the drive mech.

 

For one thing, it's easier to organize files/disk images on PC... You can simulate multiple drives, etc.

 

 

Just learned of the HuX Floppy Emulator that is similar, and works for Amiga and ST:

 

http://www.torlus.com/floppy/

 

Wish I heard from someone who knew how well it worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Commodore users (since there's so many of you in this thread).

 

 

Anybody have any experience with this:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/C64TPC-Connect-Commodo...1QQcmdZViewItem

 

 

If that's all it takes - and I don't need a whole desk (or box) full of Commodore stuff, maybe I'll acquire one of your off-brand computers when I run across one. Then I'll see what the fuss is about. I wonder if all the Ataris here will beat it up when I'm at work. Oh yeah, the computers don't fight - only the users.

 

 

you dont want such stuff for the c64. it wont run anything with a custom loader. I dont know if you already know this so I just exlain anyway: all c64 fastloaders, and 99% of games and ALL demos load using custom loaders. this means uploading code to the 1541 drive's ram. the 1541 has to be emulated so such loaders will wirk. c64 to pc solutions only emulate the default protocol, and not the full 1541 -> c64tpc and similar doesnt runs shit except onefilers. if you want a system which runs almost anything get an 1541 ultimate: http://www.1541ultimate.net/content/index.php

 

 

Then how do the emulators play the C64 games? See torrents listed as "C64 emulator and hundreds of games" etc and there's (I think) hundreds of "filename.D64" type files in a huge torrent. What, are these games cracked or something? I played "hyper sports" in an emulator and it worked, but didn't try much else. Why wouldn't those files work on actual C64 hardware if they work in an emulator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Commodore users (since there's so many of you in this thread).

 

 

Anybody have any experience with this:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/C64TPC-Connect-Commodo...1QQcmdZViewItem

 

 

If that's all it takes - and I don't need a whole desk (or box) full of Commodore stuff, maybe I'll acquire one of your off-brand computers when I run across one. Then I'll see what the fuss is about. I wonder if all the Ataris here will beat it up when I'm at work. Oh yeah, the computers don't fight - only the users.

 

 

you dont want such stuff for the c64. it wont run anything with a custom loader. I dont know if you already know this so I just exlain anyway: all c64 fastloaders, and 99% of games and ALL demos load using custom loaders. this means uploading code to the 1541 drive's ram. the 1541 has to be emulated so such loaders will wirk. c64 to pc solutions only emulate the default protocol, and not the full 1541 -> c64tpc and similar doesnt runs shit except onefilers. if you want a system which runs almost anything get an 1541 ultimate: http://www.1541ultimate.net/content/index.php

 

 

Then how do the emulators play the C64 games? See torrents listed as "C64 emulator and hundreds of games" etc and there's (I think) hundreds of "filename.D64" type files in a huge torrent. What, are these games cracked or something? I played "hyper sports" in an emulator and it worked, but didn't try much else. Why wouldn't those files work on actual C64 hardware if they work in an emulator?

 

Emulators don't have to get the timing right (and they don't). For them, one cycle can take 500 ns and next one 700 ns... But they do have to emulate the 1541 drive features even without proper timing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You C64 guys bore me by wasting my time with your self lying...

 

you should realise, that such statements tells a millions words about you, but nothing about the c64 guys.

 

 

 

As every time. What is not allowed for The A8, the C64 coders use to do it and everything is allright.

You blame the games on the A8 only having 4 colours (which isn't really true also) , but dithered 4 colours to "16" colours is "Atari equal"...

Holy crap...

Open your eyes and look at the difference man!

The Atari's objects use all 16 shades for having a clean lightsource , embossing and fadings...

 

sorry, I dont really get whats your problem. I have said it uses 16 shades made out of 4 colors&dithering, which in fact it does. nothing else of anything what you imply above. can you accept basic facts?

 

You see at the first movement the depending changing of screen ranges. Possibly they get changed a bit, but most of the whole graphics content has this "similar popping"

 

okay. show it in the code or show it in the screenshots: which pixels are repeated. you'd better just act like you havent ever stated this one.

 

 

It is a "flat object. It has neither curved faces nor a real light source. Well it looks like gouraud. That is right.

 

indeed. it is the same as your a8 example. no curved faces, no real light source. now what is your problem with that?

 

You know what? If this is "Atari quality" to you. I say that the Atari can have a Turrican that looks like the Amiga version ;)

Hm... bad comparision. Better would fit, to say that the Atari can have a Call of Duty 2 version at playable framerates.

 

dont change the subject. you have said this is something a c64 cant even get come close to. the fact is it can. it shows a more detailed tunel, and much bigger objects. one of them has infact plasma instead of gouraud on its sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on the tolerance level of the data i/o in the C64. Amiga floppy drive simulation works fine even under Windows XP:

 

....

 

What's so incompatible about them? As long as they have enough bandwidth, you should be able to use them. And you can always pop in a PCI LPT card in desktop machines. Only in new laptops, they stopped using LPT ports. Even many of the EPROM programmers use LPT.

 

the tolerance level of the data I/O depends on the loader you write. its all up to you. you change all the voltage leveles by hand in software. thats why very accurate emulation is required.

 

whats so incompatible about LPT ports? well in the beginning (~1996) you could straight connect them to 1541 drives. nowadays you need diodes condensators and whatnot to make it work because of the LPT HW changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's so incompatible about them? As long as they have enough bandwidth, you should be able to use them. And you can always pop in a PCI LPT card in desktop machines. Only in new laptops, they stopped using LPT ports. Even many of the EPROM programmers use LPT.

I have encountered some LPT chipsets which discarded all features not required for connecting a printer. For example: No independent direction of upper and lower nibble etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then how do the emulators play the C64 games? See torrents listed as "C64 emulator and hundreds of games" etc and there's (I think) hundreds of "filename.D64" type files in a huge torrent. What, are these games cracked or something? I played "hyper sports" in an emulator and it worked, but didn't try much else. Why wouldn't those files work on actual C64 hardware if they work in an emulator?

The emulators also emulate a disk drive and base everything on the internal emulator "clock".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@atariski: At 4:36 there are 1024 one scanline high "sprites" on C64.

 

Other than that this demo is pretty much outdated (from 1998).

How did you calculate 1024? How many per line is the key point since you need some horizontal replication to go beyond the 2000 sprites.

I didn't calculate it. I read the note on side 2 of the demo and I looked at the routine which changes 4 sprite X-positions per scanline. 256 rasterlines * 4 = 1024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know that the Vic 20 was THAT bad.

 

Just a reminder of what could Atari could have done several years before ;)

 

 

 

Give 128k to a Vic20 , and i'm sure you can do something close to your space harrier.

 

And in 1979 , 2 year before the vic20 , you couldn't even imagine be able to afford 128k for ram... first Atari 800 had 16k .

 

 

... at a resolution of 40x25 ... surely.

 

You Commie guys put TOO much miracles into the RAM expansion.

 

This one comes with a 12K EXE. So from it's size it would run on the VIC 20.

 

 

the Vic20 had only 3.5k .

 

Seems Atari can do only kind of plasma effect. All demo i see have poor colors and plasma. Strange for a machine with 128 or 256 colors...

 

Anyway, i don't say that the VIC20 is better than an Atari 800. I just say it is an honorable machine and surely not the worst computer of 80's as somebody said previously.

 

hahaha... I think the most plasma fx I have seen on c64 demos... even in 2009... ;)

 

The first thing Graham showed me last year on A8 was a similar fx while he explained me how chunky modes go with c64... ;)

 

Only thing that could make VIC20 discussion pertinent in a C64 vs. Atari thread would be if C64 is backward compatible with Vic20. It's not like it has same chipset like Atari 5200 has same chipset as Atari 800.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@atariski: At 4:36 there are 1024 one scanline high "sprites" on C64.

 

Other than that this demo is pretty much outdated (from 1998).

How did you calculate 1024? How many per line is the key point since you need some horizontal replication to go beyond the 2000 sprites.

I didn't calculate it. I read the note on side 2 of the demo and I looked at the routine which changes 4 sprite X-positions per scanline. 256 rasterlines * 4 = 1024.

 

So it doesn't run on NTSC machines?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's so incompatible about them? As long as they have enough bandwidth, you should be able to use them. And you can always pop in a PCI LPT card in desktop machines. Only in new laptops, they stopped using LPT ports. Even many of the EPROM programmers use LPT.

I have encountered some LPT chipsets which discarded all features not required for connecting a printer. For example: No independent direction of upper and lower nibble etc.

 

No LPTs have a direction setting for upper/lower nibble. Some cables are made so that they use the 5-bits of input control lines for data input (nibble at a time). Bidirectional LPTs (which has been a standard since PS/2s) allow you to change direction of the D0..D7 lines (all input or all output).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@atariski: At 4:36 there are 1024 one scanline high "sprites" on C64.

 

Other than that this demo is pretty much outdated (from 1998).

How did you calculate 1024? How many per line is the key point since you need some horizontal replication to go beyond the 2000 sprites.

I didn't calculate it. I read the note on side 2 of the demo and I looked at the routine which changes 4 sprite X-positions per scanline. 256 rasterlines * 4 = 1024.

 

So it doesn't run on NTSC machines?

 

sure not. ntsc and pal c64's have different nr of cycles / line. this one is timed for pal machines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on the tolerance level of the data i/o in the C64. Amiga floppy drive simulation works fine even under Windows XP:

 

....

 

What's so incompatible about them? As long as they have enough bandwidth, you should be able to use them. And you can always pop in a PCI LPT card in desktop machines. Only in new laptops, they stopped using LPT ports. Even many of the EPROM programmers use LPT.

 

the tolerance level of the data I/O depends on the loader you write. its all up to you. you change all the voltage leveles by hand in software. thats why very accurate emulation is required.

 

whats so incompatible about LPT ports? well in the beginning (~1996) you could straight connect them to 1541 drives. nowadays you need diodes condensators and whatnot to make it work because of the LPT HW changes.

 

Certain people used the older LPT output lines to do input (like using STROBE line for output and input) which was not in the spec. Newer LPTs added support for ECP/EPP/BiDir modes and newer LPTs don't support the STROBE line for input (or other output lines for input). But you can get the same functionality by using the various modes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only thing that could make VIC20 discussion pertinent in a C64 vs. Atari thread would be if C64 is backward compatible with Vic20. It's not like it has same chipset like Atari 5200 has same chipset as Atari 800.

 

It just prove how atari does not evolve nor try to inovate. It did really once and then ... you have alway more or less the same machine with light improvement (when there is...).

 

Commodore at least, even if they took some strange decision and produced some silly things... butr they at least try to do new things. (of course i speak about computers not console)

 

PET , VIC 20 , C64, C128 , C16/ Plus 4 , Amiga Series . All have different technologies and incompatible :) !.

 

at Atari what we have? As computer we have A400/800 (and all derivative up to 130XE) and the Atari ST series.

 

 

If you consider video game console, it is better, you have: the VCS, the 5200 (which share technology with the 800xl) , XE Game System (that share techo also with A800) , the 7800 (a good one!) , the Lynx (that is in fact not Atari by Epyx) , the jaguar (where they tried to sell a 16/32bit console as a 64bits....).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just save this one here, so next time I can show it to the one who says cheap=bad. ;)

 

post-2829-1239335943_thumb.png

 

I think for the most part "cheap" meant lower quality parts or substitute parts; just like using a cardboard for shielding instead of metal casing (or a bomb calorimeter in Atari 800s case).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only thing that could make VIC20 discussion pertinent in a C64 vs. Atari thread would be if C64 is backward compatible with Vic20. It's not like it has same chipset like Atari 5200 has same chipset as Atari 800.

 

It just prove how atari does not evolve nor try to inovate. It did really once and then ... you have alway more or less the same machine with light improvement (when there is...).

...

 

You can have backward compatibility and still innovate. All PCs going back to 8088 -> 80286 -> 80386 -> 80486 -> Pentium I -> Pentium II -> etc. are backward compatible.

 

>Commodore at least, even if they took some strange decision and produced some silly things... butr they at least try to do new things. (of course i speak about computers not console)

 

>PET , VIC 20 , C64, C128 , C16/ Plus 4 , Amiga Series . All have different technologies and incompatible :) !.

 

>at Atari what we have? As computer we have A400/800 (and all derivative up to 130XE) and the Atari ST series.

 

They should have made Atari ST/Amiga backward compatible with Ataris/C64s or whatever. Making newer computers incompatible means people have to buy new software (even from same company/same title). And all the confusion regarding what works with what and different media formats as well.

 

>If you consider video game console, it is better, you have: the VCS, the 5200 (which share technology with the 800xl) , XE Game System (that share techo also with A800) , the 7800 (a good one!) , the Lynx (that is in fact not Atari by Epyx) , the jaguar (where they tried to sell a 16/32bit console as a 64bits....).

 

Atari did not evolve its chipset, but that has nothing to do with compatibility; they could have made a newer chipset that was backward compatible like OCS->ECS->AGA on Amiga.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would have been killer to have some 8 bit compatibility in the ST.

 

I actually liked all the goofy C= computer efforts. In hindsight, it looks very much like they just threw stuff up, hoping it would stick like the C64 did, but at the time it was cool to checkout the various computers.

 

To me it also was interesting because it denied other machines shelf space! If there are lots of C= offerings, then it's harder for others to do the same. Doing the other machines may well have been worth that alone.

 

@spiceware: Totally agreed on your last coupla posts. People need to be rational about this stuff. Kind of sucks otherwise. IMHO, it is very good to see where the strengths are on the machines and play to that, or work on innovating around that. When people go down that road, very good stuff happens for our older machines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just save this one here, so next time I can show it to the one who says cheap=bad. ;)

 

post-2829-1239335943_thumb.png

 

That was the slogan of Jack Tramiel , did the same terrible movements on Atari. He didn't take care to expand the quality design on 8bit line, destroy the perfect 7800 line (who could be the better 8bit console, better than NES), and change the Amiga technology instead his own chunky tech ST line, very similar to C64 tech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just save this one here, so next time I can show it to the one who says cheap=bad. ;)

 

post-2829-1239335943_thumb.png

Well, 'cheap' follows Jack wherever he goes. :)

 

you mean success.

 

anywhow, jack has nothing to do with the 8 bit line, you still sport that slogan on a 8bit screen. probably bcoz you're proud to be cheap. the thing you love to bully c64 with :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...