Atari v Commodore

[atariksi]

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

 

 

This must be through your C64 filter since the 128 color rainbow is missing on the Fuji

 

Perhaps, he's still using B&W television.

[+SpiceWare]

@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.

Thanks. This thread's a lot more interesting after adding a some of those irrationals to the "Ignore Users List".

[Wolfram]

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

 

 

I'm not sure I'm rading your broken English correctly, but I suspect you are just trying (and failing) at simple trolling...

 

no, there have been numerous examples of c64 being called cheap thus bad. Also I'm not sure if you speak any language other than your native (I guess) english as good as I speak english. but anyway its really simple: you are just out of arguments. the troll's guide rule #3 says: when you're out of arguments, start being a grammarnazi.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Wolfram

[Wolfram]

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.

 

 

they havent got the money/infrastructure/know how, to make their own backward compatible cpus/other chips. especially in the case of the ST.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Wolfram

[Bryan]

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

 

Well, 'cheap' follows Jack wherever he goes.

 

you mean success.

I don't think it worked that well with Atari. He kept it around for another generation of hardware, but eventually ran it into the ground. Jaguar anyone?

 

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

That was the slogan of Jack's Atari.

I never liked that slogan and I never liked the poor quality of the XE's.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Bryan

[Bryan]

@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.

Thanks. This thread's a lot more interesting after adding a some of those irrationals to the "Ignore Users List".

It's hard to ignore people when the entire thread is being quoted... oh wait, those are probably the people you ignored.

[Fröhn]

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?

Changing topics again to find new ways to attack C64 stuff? No it doesn't run on NTSC machines, many C64 demos do not run on NTSC. Btw, before you are complaining about C64 demos again: The very same is true for A8 demos.

 

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.

4 sprites per line used = 1024, so if all 8 sprites would be used = 2048. In the same way only theoretical as your 2000 moving sprites on A8.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Fröhn

[Wolfram]

 

proof of sid being able to produce mainstream quality music....

[roland p]

 

proof of sid being able to produce mainstream quality music....

I agree that sounds nice... Can a C64 produce exactly the same music as this MIDIbox?

[FastRobPlus]

the troll's guide rule #3 says: when you're out of arguments, start being a grammarnazi.

 

Wait - you guys have your own guide now?

[Wolfram]

 

proof of sid being able to produce mainstream quality music....

I agree that sounds nice... Can a C64 produce exactly the same music as this MIDIbox?

 

nope. not at all

 

- the drums are not done by the sid.

- there is more than one sid used

- dedicated HW tweaks the sid regs.

 

but this is how a c64 sounds when working with 3 sids:

 

http://www.demodungeon.com/temp/earmind.zip

(mp3&executable)

[Wolfram]

the troll's guide rule #3 says: when you're out of arguments, start being a grammarnazi.

 

Wait - you guys have your own guide now?

 

no, I have hacked into your computer, and saw it there.

[emkay]

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

 

...

 

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?

 

...

 

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.

 

...

 

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

 

...

 

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.

 

 

You know what? I stop acting on Wolfram's ignorant trolling.

 

It's unbelievable, how infantile he is acting here. Argue turning, wrong thinking, faulty knowledge ...

Not worthy to write one other word here...

[atariksi]

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?

Changing topics again to find new ways to attack C64 stuff? No it doesn't run on NTSC machines, many C64 demos do not run on NTSC. Btw, before you are complaining about C64 demos again: The very same is true for A8 demos.

 

...

Hello-- you are reading too much into it. It's just a question-- not an attack. There are A8 software that run on both by checking the PAL register.

 

>>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.

 

>4 sprites per line used = 1024, so if all 8 sprites would be used = 2048. In the same way only theoretical as your 2000 moving sprites on A8.

 

You misunderstood. I gave a way of doing 2000+ moving sprites on both NTSC and PAL. It's not theoretical-- it works just fine when I used it for image enhancement. You also miscalculated-- 4 per line * 256 scanlines = 1024 but once you do 8 per line, you have less time available on every 20th line or so to replicate the Y-positions and shape ptrs which Atari does not have to do. So let's see your cycle time for NTSC and PAL for 2000+ sprites on C64.

[FastRobPlus]

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

 

...

 

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?

 

...

 

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.

 

...

 

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

 

...

 

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.

 

 

You know what? I stop acting on Wolfram's ignorant trolling.

 

It's unbelievable, how infantile he is acting here. Argue turning, wrong thinking, faulty knowledge ...

Not worthy to write one other word here...

 

Okay - agree with this. No more feeding as of this moment.

[Wolfram]

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

 

...

 

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?

 

...

 

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.

 

...

 

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

 

...

 

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.

 

 

You know what? I stop acting on Wolfram's ignorant trolling.

 

It's unbelievable, how infantile he is acting here. Argue turning, wrong thinking, faulty knowledge ...

Not worthy to write one other word here...

 

what is your problem ?

 

- I have said it uses 16 dithered shades of 4 colors and you attack that statement. for what reason? its a fact.

- you have said it repeats pixels without giving any proofs.

- then you attack the effect for doing exactly the same the a8 effect does.

- previously you say the effect doesnt does something which obviously it does.

 

- you call all c64 owners a "self liar".

 

and finally its me who is trolling.

 

wow.

 

thats a bold one emkay. so just ignore me. ignore the facts I write, if you cant face them.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Wolfram

[+wood_jl]

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

 

Well, 'cheap' follows Jack wherever he goes.

 

you mean success.

I don't think it worked that well with Atari. He kept it around for another generation of hardware, but eventually ran it into the ground. Jaguar anyone?

 

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

That was the slogan of Jack's Atari.

I never liked that slogan and I never liked the poor quality of the XE's.

 

Back off, white bread. Who the f*ck are you? The caucasion equation?????

 

Bwah ha ha! I'm kidding. I couldn't agree more. Just wanted a rise out of ya. The criticism is valid, and stands, but 8-bit Atari users should be glad the ol' Commodore (communist, no less) tycoon kept the machine ALIVE that he'd been tryingo to kill - for so long. I think it strengthened the A8 line. Of course, if you disagree, I'd like to help you out an offer you $2 for each 8-bit computer you have - regardless of brand. The hookup/interface cost more!

[Wolfram]

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

 

Well, 'cheap' follows Jack wherever he goes.

 

you mean success.

I don't think it worked that well with Atari. He kept it around for another generation of hardware, but eventually ran it into the ground. Jaguar anyone?

 

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

That was the slogan of Jack's Atari.

I never liked that slogan and I never liked the poor quality of the XE's.

 

Back off, white bread. Who the f*ck are you? The caucasion equation?????

 

Bwah ha ha! I'm kidding. I couldn't agree more. Just wanted a rise out of ya. The criticism is valid, and stands, but 8-bit Atari users should be glad the ol' Commodore (communist, no less) tycoon kept the machine ALIVE that he'd been tryingo to kill - for so long. I think it strengthened the A8 line. Of course, if you disagree, I'd like to help you out an offer you $2 for each 8-bit computer you have - regardless of brand. The hookup/interface cost more!

 

Jack Tramiel as a comunist? I never thought I'm gonna live to see that sentence.

[AtariNerd]

When this thread reaches 4096 "bites" , I predict an overflow error (as if this hasn't already happened?!?) ,with many illegal opcodes flooding the main system bus, causing the system to reset. Perhaps an pre-emptive archiving and cold boot are necessary, to maintain system integrity and restore core functions...perspective.

[Rybags]

Or maybe Option F from DOS.

 

It's just become a festival of rediculous walls of quote text and trivial one-upmanship.

[emkay]

When this thread reaches 4096 "bites" , I predict an overflow error (as if this hasn't already happened?!?) ,with many illegal opcodes flooding the main system bus, causing the system to reset. Perhaps an pre-emptive archiving and cold boot are necessary, to maintain system integrity and restore core functions...perspective.

 

The best way to prevent this overflow, is to stop replying to this nonsense those C64 "users" spread.

 

There is really no sense to act on their logics...

 

C64 is slower than the Atari, but C64 can do all the Atari can do, even if slower.

Atari cannot do stuff that the C64 can do, if it is slower.

 

C64 has 16 colours in most game, Atari can only have 4 colours in game.

On the Atari dithered colours are not allowed. On The C64 colour dithering reaches Atari qualities

 

Flat shaded cubes on the C64 are the same as complex polygone based shapes on the Atari. So the C64 can do the same as the A8 can do.

 

And if all logics are still to simple.... they use a logic shift register to adjust everything to their correctness, like:

 

If Atari's Joystickports were better, the C64 has 16 colours!

...

 

And, ofcourse. Not to forget that all needed colours are 16 and everything about music, you'll find in the SID.

Edited April 16, 2009 by emkay

[potatohead]

This is when you just flat out tell them Atari is the better machine!

 

It's better, simply because you say so, and are joined by a nice community of people who also say so.

 

The only way this does not work is if they can make enough noise so as to disturb things.

 

I sure think the Atari is the better machine. I like the games, I like the graphics, I like the system design, OS, controllers, etc... I like the people here on AA too. We've got good home brewers, fun community, lots of technical know how, and hardware projects surrounding great old machines!

 

This is a hell of a package. I'm quite happy to be a small part of it.

 

And the bonus, when you go down this road, is it then is completely possible to recognize and appreciate the C64 strengths! It's got great sprites and 320 resolution color and SID. All good stuff! ---> It's just not Atari stuff.

 

From there, we all like what we like, and since this is AA, it's clearly Atari, and that is not an exclusive thing. Somebody goes and does something cool on a TI, C64, VIC, Oric, etc... and it's all retro. All cool, and maybe ports can happen!

 

All of that crap is gonna get said because, if what a person values can be changed, then their machine of choice, or it's value perception can be changed. Again, we like what we like, and really being honest about that works best.

[Fröhn]

You misunderstood. I gave a way of doing 2000+ moving sprites on both NTSC and PAL. It's not theoretical-- it works just fine when I used it for image enhancement.

For image enhancement ( = no movement) it might work. But in this case I see an advantage on C64 side since it can cover the entire screen with the same resolution sprites but without the need to reposition anything in X since 8 sprites = 192 pixels wide = more than a 160 px image.

 

You also miscalculated-- 4 per line * 256 scanlines = 1024 but once you do 8 per line, you have less time available on every 20th line or so to replicate the Y-positions and shape ptrs which Atari does not have to do.

Once you discard the movement, you also have more time per rasterline. If you can do 4 per line with movement it's easy to see you can do more without movement. 7 is easily done, 8 may be done with nice register shuffling. Also mind that C64 sprites are wider too. Where you get 8 pixels on A8 for "image enhancement", you get 24 on C64.

 

The Y-positions can be changed anywhere in the sprite, so whenever you have the same X-position twice you can simply update an Y-position instead.

[atariksi]

You misunderstood. I gave a way of doing 2000+ moving sprites on both NTSC and PAL. It's not theoretical-- it works just fine when I used it for image enhancement.

For image enhancement ( = no movement) it might work. But in this case I see an advantage on C64 side since it can cover the entire screen with the same resolution sprites but without the need to reposition anything in X since 8 sprites = 192 pixels wide = more than a 160 px image.

 

You also miscalculated-- 4 per line * 256 scanlines = 1024 but once you do 8 per line, you have less time available on every 20th line or so to replicate the Y-positions and shape ptrs which Atari does not have to do.

Once you discard the movement, you also have more time per rasterline. If you can do 4 per line with movement it's easy to see you can do more without movement. 7 is easily done, 8 may be done with nice register shuffling. Also mind that C64 sprites are wider too. Where you get 8 pixels on A8 for "image enhancement", you get 24 on C64.

 

The Y-positions can be changed anywhere in the sprite, so whenever you have the same X-position twice you can simply update an Y-position instead.

 

Original point was moving 8*1 2000+ sprites okay so let's stick to it. I used moving sprites for image enhancement. I change X position of sprites every scanline. They can just be moving sprites w/o image enhancement and the cycles will be the same. Stop the bullcrap about x-position occurring twice; each sprite has an independent x position setting being the same is RARE occurrence and even when it does occur you need to use a modified kernel and even then, Atari also gains those same cycles. You only have time for 7 sprites per scanline with some scanlines 8 until you hit the y-position/shape ptr change, when your C64 runs out of time. Game Over. Sorry you could not get extended time as your points did not reach 2000+.

[Fröhn]

Original point was moving 8*1 2000+ sprites okay so let's stick to it. I used moving sprites for image enhancement. I change X position of sprites every scanline. They can just be moving sprites w/o image enhancement and the cycles will be the same.

Sprite splitting alone is no "movement".

 

Stop the bullcrap about x-position occurring twice; each sprite has an independent x position setting being the same is RARE occurrence and even when it does occur you need to use a modified kernel and even then, Atari also gains those same cycles.

Modified Kernel? Why would I need a modified Kernel?

 

You only have time for 7 sprites per scanline with some scanlines 8 until you hit the y-position/shape ptr change, when your C64 runs out of time. Game Over. Sorry you could not get extended time as your points did not reach 2000+.

The reason why you need to reposition the PMs that often is, that they only cover 40 pixels a rasterline so if you want to enhance a 160 px image you need to move the PMs where you just need them.

 

Ok but on C64 you don't need to do that at all. The sprites are already 192 pixels per rasterline, there is simply no need to reposition sprites to get them where you need because the entire screen is plastered with sprites already. Wherever you are in the image, there is a sprite. Fine that you are able to get 2000 non-moving sprite stripes on screen which don't move, but it's not a sign of A8 superiority if you need it for something that the C64 can do without it and can do it even better without it.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Fröhn