jvas Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 "c64 CAN display 16color off the shelf" suggests that there is a certain resolution, where the colors of every pixel an be any of the 16. It is not the case. The Amiga and the ST can do that. In gr11 on A800 the color of every "pixel" can be any of the 16, though the resolution is only 80x192."c64 can display all of its colors without having to help with the cpu" is a totally different statement. I have not said that, nor suggested. what I have said was right. the end. Then the Atari800 can display 16 color off the shelf too. This is also true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 "c64 CAN display 16color off the shelf" suggests that there is a certain resolution, where the colors of every pixel an be any of the 16. It is not the case. The Amiga and the ST can do that. In gr11 on A800 the color of every "pixel" can be any of the 16, though the resolution is only 80x192."c64 can display all of its colors without having to help with the cpu" is a totally different statement. I have not said that, nor suggested. what I have said was right. the end. Then the Atari800 can display 16 color off the shelf too. This is also true. yes. and it can only do it at 80x pixel size. which is also true. while on the c64 you have this in charmode: the gfx a8 can present in games are inferior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 "c64 CAN display 16color off the shelf" suggests that there is a certain resolution, where the colors of every pixel an be any of the 16. "c64 CAN display 16color off the shelf" means what it means: c64 can display 16 color as is. its a fact. None of the two computers can display their full palette in any resolution without restrictions. Who prefers what is subjective. Also depends on what to display. "Wizzard of Wor" (my favorite when I was a child) benefits from the higher resolution. Using 256 color palette wouldn't add to the game. "Alternate reality" gains a lot from the bigger palette, and the lower (less than 320x200) resolution doesn't really matter. If you want to display a picture of something from the real life (a picture from the nature f. example), the 256 color palette gives more "realistic" result, sacrificing at the altar of the resolution. On c64 the picture would be more detailed, but the colors wouldn't fit that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 it just looks better. That's exactly what I was writing before.... This eye cancer pic looks better ... Not to mention that this "16 colour example" uses 13 colours at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 "c64 CAN display 16color off the shelf" suggests that there is a certain resolution, where the colors of every pixel an be any of the 16. It is not the case. The Amiga and the ST can do that. In gr11 on A800 the color of every "pixel" can be any of the 16, though the resolution is only 80x192."c64 can display all of its colors without having to help with the cpu" is a totally different statement. I have not said that, nor suggested. what I have said was right. the end. Then the Atari800 can display 16 color off the shelf too. This is also true. yes. and it can only do it at 80x pixel size. which is also true. while on the c64 you have this in charmode: the gfx a8 can present in games are inferior. And this means that "the xxx can display 16 color off the shelf" means nothing. At least no conclusion can be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 None of the two computers can display their full palette in any resolution without restrictions. Who prefers what is subjective. Also depends on what to display."Wizzard of Wor" (my favorite when I was a child) benefits from the higher resolution. Using 256 color palette wouldn't add to the game. "Alternate reality" gains a lot from the bigger palette, and the lower (less than 320x200) resolution doesn't really matter. If you want to display a picture of something from the real life (a picture from the nature f. example), the 256 color palette gives more "realistic" result, sacrificing at the altar of the resolution. On c64 the picture would be more detailed, but the colors wouldn't fit that much. c64 can display more colors in real life situations than a8. games, pictures, text, you name it. dont need to go down to 80x pixel size, and STILL having restrictions for the brick sized pixesl.... its not a question of preference. A8 needs a highly specialized PC editor, and utilising its sprite engine AND the cpu this display c64 like pictures in 160x200. C64 can utilise its colors using no extra cpu/sprites and still better at that than a8 after so much effort. there's no more realism coming out of the bigger palette at all. check the g2f gallery, all pictures look like bad c64 pictures with the palette changed. and the best ones are copyed from c64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 And this means that "the xxx can display 16 color off the shelf" means nothing. At least no conclusion can be made. I have further clarified my points. Face it, c64 offers so much more. Sprites, SID, and gfx modes which are not restricted to 4-5 color at 160x200. or 2 at 320x20... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 there's no more realism coming out of the bigger palette at all Then you really need a doctor ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 (edited) there's no more realism coming out of the bigger palette at all Then you really need a doctor ... c64 a8 all the same. you can have so much difference between different type CRTs and slightly different settings. c64: a8: which grass/road color is more realistis ? Edited April 24, 2009 by Wolfram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 None of the two computers can display their full palette in any resolution without restrictions. That's not 100% true because the C64 can display all of it's 16 colors at 80x200 resolution without restrictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 That's exactly what I was writing before.... This eye cancer pic looks better ... It should be mentioned that this is all crappy emulation palettes which have nothing to do with how things look on the real thing. Same for A8 emulators btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 (edited) there's no more realism coming out of the bigger palette at all Then you really need a doctor ... c64 a8 all the same. you can have so much difference between different type CRTs and slightly different settings. c64: a8: which grass/road color is more realistis ? I don't really know why you choose a so called "built-in" graphic mode. The A8 "offers so much more" Btw. I prefer the A8 version of the blue max. Edited April 24, 2009 by jvas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I don't really know why you choose a so called "built-in" graphic mode. The A8 "offers so much more" Btw. I prefer the A8 version of the blue max. the girl hardly uses much colors, but still needs A8 to use its CPU and sprites to help out. its not a "built-in" mode. c64 can display superior gfx and sit idle. or throw up some sprites on top of that. there's 8 of them and they are 24 pixels wide vs a8 4 and 8 pixel wide... on the c64 you also dont need to copy data up/down to have a sprite move up/down. clearly all much better for the typical 80s 2d game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 This war ain't going anywhere, as is always the case, might as well start another that isn't going to end up anywhere either. Let's just roll gun control and P&R into this and have one galactic sized cluster f*ck. Jesus, Republicans sure love guns! Well, you never know when those C64 zombies will show up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Looks like the thread has been reset and we're back to the old arguments again. I still say a direct comparison of hardware features misses the point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Looks like the thread has been reset and we're back to the old arguments again. I still say a direct comparison of hardware features misses the point: lets compare what software is available then... c64 wins again. hands down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I don't really know why you choose a so called "built-in" graphic mode. The A8 "offers so much more" Btw. I prefer the A8 version of the blue max. the girl hardly uses much colors, but still needs A8 to use its CPU and sprites to help out. its not a "built-in" mode. c64 can display superior gfx and sit idle. or throw up some sprites on top of that. there's 8 of them and they are 24 pixels wide vs a8 4 and 8 pixel wide... on the c64 you also dont need to copy data up/down to have a sprite move up/down. clearly all much better for the typical 80s 2d game. So are you saying, that the 256 color ball demo looks better on C64 in 16 color? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I don't really know why you choose a so called "built-in" graphic mode. The A8 "offers so much more" Btw. I prefer the A8 version of the blue max. the girl hardly uses much colors, but still needs A8 to use its CPU and sprites to help out. its not a "built-in" mode. c64 can display superior gfx and sit idle. or throw up some sprites on top of that. there's 8 of them and they are 24 pixels wide vs a8 4 and 8 pixel wide... on the c64 you also dont need to copy data up/down to have a sprite move up/down. clearly all much better for the typical 80s 2d game. So are you saying, that the 256 color ball demo looks better on C64 in 16 color? so you're going for the straw man argument again ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I don't really know why you choose a so called "built-in" graphic mode. The A8 "offers so much more" Btw. I prefer the A8 version of the blue max. the girl hardly uses much colors, but still needs A8 to use its CPU and sprites to help out. its not a "built-in" mode. c64 can display superior gfx and sit idle. or throw up some sprites on top of that. there's 8 of them and they are 24 pixels wide vs a8 4 and 8 pixel wide... on the c64 you also dont need to copy data up/down to have a sprite move up/down. clearly all much better for the typical 80s 2d game. So are you saying, that the 256 color ball demo looks better on C64 in 16 color? so you're going for the straw man argument again ? Sorry. "c64 can display superior gfx and sit idle" vs "A800 can display superior gfx and doesn't sit idle" Both are true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Here Wolfram... The door is open man! I'll even step aside and hold it open for you: Game on man. All those potential C64 users are right there, waiting for you to get the word out. Lemme know when you've had enough! ..and that's not a closer. It is just the state of things. Put out as much effort as you want to. Clearly, if there was significant potential to change minds up and prove Atari isn't the better of the two machines, very significant ground would have been made long before you arrived. It's not like it hasn't been tried regularly over time, and in many venues, not just this one. not giving away an inch in this argument, prooves nothing about the a8. it does only say things about you. I think you are being told to move along and stop being a troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Is it just me, or do I get the feeling that Wolfram is a sockpuppet of Oswald? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 (edited) wrong. people wouldnt have bought the a8 anyway at that prize. thats why they got a c64 and not an a8. Apple sold a lot of less capable machines at an even higher price. Atari's approach was wrong- pure and simple. the basic apple was less capabe, but it was very expandable, like pcs. c64 was schoolboy's game machine, apple targeted bizz, and they had visicalc to sell it to businessmen, who had the money, unlike schoolboys going for c64/a8. Apple targeted schools! Duh. Just one more wrong badram. I have a 1050 with "Elementary School Giessen" engraved on the top of it cool! one of the lucky few. Wish my school had them back then.We had worthless early apples Edited April 24, 2009 by atarian63 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Apple targeted schools! Duh. Just one more wrong badram. & businessmen. Visicalc does ring a bell I guess ? businessmen bought a pc. wrong again badram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 (edited) c64 could display 16color off the shelf Can you PLEASE stop saying this? It's NOT a 16 color bitmap mode no matter what you say or think. It's a tile based system. It's not the same. can you please correct me in what I've really stated, and not correcting me in something I havent stated ? "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man he sure loves Wiki, tries to use it to make up for a lack of experience. Edited April 24, 2009 by atarian63 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 wrong. people wouldnt have bought the a8 anyway at that prize. thats why they got a c64 and not an a8. Apple sold a lot of less capable machines at an even higher price. Atari's approach was wrong- pure and simple. Could someone explain, why Apple always could sell crap for high prizes? Even today they sell a worse PC with a sucking OS and people buy that stuff. Beeing cool, beeing elite, for having this crap. Another phenomenon is the Digital Rights Management. Everyone is blaming Microsoft for it, though Win 7 will be the 1st OS supporting it directly. Apple uses it in Ipods for years now and spreaded it "all over the world" .... but the blamers go very low. Heck, I even wouldn't consider bying an Iphone, because it has the rotten Apple on it. Apple should cut down on modifying English vocabulary (at least in useage) with all this iThis and iThat. I thought iMac meant intel Mac. Pretty soon Congress may have to pass a law iCanned-- stop Apple from biasing the English dictionary toward words beginning with "i". It's not even capitalized properly. It sounds like "I run". Do you see Joe run? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts