ParanoidLittleMan Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 On 3/13/2020 at 2:43 AM, oky2000 said: ... The Atari PC1 uses the awful 8088 type of tech, which is about 400% slower on executing code than ... So, that PC1 runs SW backwards : 100% - 400% = -300% . No wander that was not sold well ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 On 3/13/2020 at 4:07 AM, DarkLord said: <cough> I'd play the Atari ST versions... I totally agree, I would never play something like Defender of the Crown on an EGA PC instead of on the ST I had at the time, there never was a need to play any games on EGA PC, either the ST, Amiga or C64 I owned during the 80s would always did a better job, and as you are probably inferring the ST version plays better than the Amiga and looks nicer than the C64 disk only version so even if I had it on all 3 machines I would actually play the ST version most often (plus I never ever owned a disk drive for any 8 bit computer and a cinemaware game is not enjoyable with a tape multiload). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 On 3/15/2020 at 4:30 AM, ParanoidLittleMan said: So, that PC1 runs SW backwards : 100% - 400% = -300% . No wander that was not sold well ? I have no idea why it didn't sell well to companies that needed a compact and compatible 8088 EGA based machine (Amstrad PC1512 was CGA) for their office, perhaps like Lexus branching out from parent company to hide its less professional product range Atari should have made a new brand name to stick on their PC machines. Office equipment buyers probably were put off recommending the excellent value EGA compatible PC1 with comparatively small desktop case size simply because of the name Atari. I do remember finding a technical explanation on a website why an original 8088 based 4mhz PC actually executes code more slowly than the 1mhz 6510 of the C64 with lots of different machine code tests. But yes that should say 75% slower or 8086 is 400% faster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wally1 Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 On 2/26/2020 at 2:27 AM, DarkLord said: ? Irrelevant. you say... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DarkLord Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 Most of the time, I logon to Atari Age for great Atari content, witty conversation, and lots of camaraderie. Today, I got the above... /sigh. Quote 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
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.