HIP/Visdom2

[Heaven/TQA]

the beeper and the keyboard...

[TMR]

What would you say is the most impressive thing on the Spectrum?

 

Graphically' date=' anything that scrolls less than 8 pixels at a time because it's [i']all[/i] being done with CPU power. Sonically, the Tim Follin music driver that simulates 5 voices (one with samples) on a single channel beeper.

[analmux]

You can do it by creating a new GTIA that is showing colors instead of only a brightness variation of the background.

 

What the heck.... that's what I am working on with the 2nd video (although it's no single chip mod) !!! I thought you wanted to keep the original system instead of a modified system.

 

You're right. If Antic is on the bus' date=' then the CPU is stopped. Antic has no way of knowing that the current cycle is part 2 of a NOP (the 6502 has no Memory Request pin so it is assumed that every cycle is a read or write).[/quote']

 

The Antic doesn't have to know that. I'd have to check on my real machine as soon as I'm back home from vacation' date=' but it seems logical to me that the CPU only stops processing (on a Halt) when it needs memory access the next cycle. Its bus is in tri-state mode when doing internal processing. I assume the CPU knows best when it needs bus access!!

 

There's a problem' date=' though, and that is that RAM refresh doesn't happen on these maxed out lines. If you did one after the other you would lose the contents of RAM. That's why Antic only allows it in 1 line out of every 8.[/quote']

 

You wish. You can have a maximum of 2 lines out of 9.

 

Just make a Dlist in charmode 2 or 4 with 48 screenlines with the Vscrol-enable bit on on alternating lines. You'd get 24 * 9 scanlines in which chardata is read twice in 9 scanlines!!!

 

-----

mux

[emkay]

You can do it by creating a new GTIA that is showing colors instead of only a brightness variation of the background.

 

What the heck.... that's what I am working on with the 2nd video (although it's no single chip mod) !!! I thought you wanted to keep the original system instead of a modified system.

 

 

You are totally right. I puttet this into the discussion to avoid the words "not possible".... nothing else

[deathtrappomegranate]

What would you say is the most impressive thing on the Spectrum?

 

Jeez' date=' this is a busy thread!

 

"Impressive" covers a multitude of sins. In terms of pure gameplay (the most important thing for these computers in the 80s), Manic Miner and Jetpac were class leaders. Lords of Midnight was incredibly involving for the time, and took up many hours of my time.

 

Impressive, by getting the most out of the hardware in a technical sense, must be some of the Russian demos. OK, mostly not usable outside demos, but certainly impressive to anyone who tried to write assembler games on the Spectrum in the early-mid 80s...

 

Some of the stuff at http://www.zxdemo.org/ can be good, although there is far too much of the "Gangster-Rap"-style self-aggrandisement nonsense that you always see on the demo scene.

 

The Russians used Sinclair hardware long after it was obsolete elsewhere, and went to extraordinary lengths to squeeze performance out of those machines. But, even when they were current, programmers managed to emulate much more powerful hardware by writing tight code. No hardware assistance means thinking about your CPU cycles.

 

I was a seriously bad Z80 programmer. It took me 2 years to write a "Scramble" clone, and I cursed Clive Sinclair for every minute of that time because the Spectrum was so programmer-unfriendly. It took me months to work out a smooth scrolling routine, and more months to do software sprites.

 

I haven't written an assembly-language program in 16 years...

 

...but I did buy a Spectrum on eBay recently.

 

 

[jindroush]

Aren't 3 cycle nops just void reads from the memory?

 

Well' date=' they're instructions that don't have any effect. Look at the undocumented opcodes, and you'll see there are a lot of them with different clock lengths.

[/quote']

 

Yeah, I've seen the docs. But _IF_ they're what I'm talking about, i.e. nop instruction with memory access, they may be used for an I/O triggering also. (Instead of STA WSYNC, for example).

[Bryan]

Aren't 3 cycle nops just void reads from the memory?

 

Well' date=' they're instructions that don't have any effect. Look at the undocumented opcodes, and you'll see there are a lot of them with different clock lengths.

[/quote']

 

Yeah, I've seen the docs. But _IF_ they're what I'm talking about, i.e. nop instruction with memory access, they may be used for an I/O triggering also. (Instead of STA WSYNC, for example).

 

The Undocumented NOPs do read from addresses. Once they write to an address, they cease being a NOP.

 

-Bry

[Bryan]

You're right. If Antic is on the bus' date=' then the CPU is stopped. Antic has no way of knowing that the current cycle is part 2 of a NOP (the 6502 has no Memory Request pin so it is assumed that every cycle is a read or write).[/quote']

 

The Antic doesn't have to know that. I'd have to check on my real machine as soon as I'm back home from vacation' date=' but it seems logical to me that the CPU only stops processing (on a Halt) when it needs memory access the next cycle. Its bus is in tri-state mode when doing internal processing. I assume the CPU knows best when it needs bus access!!

[/quote']

 

Actually, you're assuming that Sally (the XL/XE 6502) allows more CPU cycles per line than the standard 6502 in the 400/800.

 

In the 400/800, the CPU is stopped by Antic during the 1st half (low) of a clock cycle. The clock is physically stopped and held low because read data is not latched by the CPU until the 2nd half of a cycle, and write data isn't put on the data on the bus until the 2nd half of the cycle. (look at a 6502 datasheet). Antic simply prolongs the low half of a CPU cycle which leaves the data lines floating. For Antic to address RAM, the Address bus needs to float too, so there are 2 74LS244's to isolate the CPU during the Antic cycle.

 

In the XL/XE, the 244's and clock halting circuits are built into Sally, but the function is the same. The CPU cannot execute any cycles while Antic is on the bus.

 

There's a problem' date=' though, and that is that RAM refresh doesn't happen on these maxed out lines. If you did one after the other you would lose the contents of RAM. That's why Antic only allows it in 1 line out of every 8.[/quote']

 

You wish. You can have a maximum of 2 lines out of 9.

 

Just make a Dlist in charmode 2 or 4 with 48 screenlines with the Vscrol-enable bit on on alternating lines. You'd get 24 * 9 scanlines in which chardata is read twice in 9 scanlines!!!

 

Umm, okay (nitpicking...). If you're VSCROLing, then the characters may be shorter than 8 lines, but the idea is the same- Refresh is not suspended often enough to do damage. I suppose that if you write to VSCROL on every line, and use the right Display List, you could fool Antic into making every line a new "bad-line" and screw up your RAM.

 

-Bry

[Bryan]

Some of the stuff at http://www.zxdemo.org/ can be good, although there is far too much of the "Gangster-Rap"-style self-aggrandisement nonsense that you always see on the demo scene.

 

Okay, I've looked at some screenshots, and it looks like Spectrum stuff. Colored squares and all. I'm not in danger of becoming a Spectrum fan.

 

What I'm curious about is that some demos seemed to show 2 unrelated colors in the same space (blue on red - I thought you got 2 shades of the same color per cell). How is that done?

 

Oh yes, and TMR:

 

I just wanted you to know I've lightened up on the 64 quite a bit since you've been here.

 

-Bry

[TMR]

Okay, I've looked at some screenshots, and it looks like Spectrum stuff. Colored squares and all. I'm not in danger of becoming a Spectrum fan.

 

Graphically it runs at 256x192 and, if a good artist is let loose on it, the results can be stunning. Game-wise, there are some much good games out there too; stuff like Zynaps or Chronos do incredible work as far as scrolling blasters go, Alien 8 and the other isometric 3D platformers are the foundation for the genre and I, Of The Mask did filled 3D vectors very well indeed. On the demo front, some of the products out there are totally stunning for a machine that's basically pulling about the same CPU power as the Atari but has no video support hardware.

 

What I'm curious about is that some demos seemed to show 2 unrelated colors in the same space (blue on red - I thought you got 2 shades of the same color per cell). How is that done?

 

It's the other way around, you get eight colours at two brightnesses (black looks pretty much the same at either luminance, although it's possible to tell the difference on some modulators apparently) and each 8x8 cell can have two colours but they have to be the same brightness.

 

(The C64's hi-res bitmap mode shares the attribute-based colour system except that it's allowed to use any two of it's 16 colours per 8x8 cell.)

 

Oh yes, and TMR:

 

I just wanted you to know I've lightened up on the 64 quite a bit since you've been here.

 

i'm told that i have this affect on people! =-)

[emkay]

 

(The C64's hi-res bitmap mode shares the attribute-based colour system except that it's allowed to use any two of it's 16 colours per 8x8 cell.)

 

 

The main cause for those colour-cells was to create colors for Text.

Here you can see that ATARI made the biggest mistake they could have done on the A8. Computers that were shipped since 1983' date=' had the possibility of colored text. It was simply necessary for creating red (-) and black(+) numbers and going straight to the ability of showing BTX(Datex-) Screens. But the XL and the later XE series did either not get such abilities.

 

Oh yes, and TMR:

 

I just wanted you to know I've lightened up on the 64 quite a bit since you've been here.

 

i'm told that i have this affect on people! =-)

 

I don't need to be lighten up to the C64 because my second name is AMIGA

But ... in fact... a "normal "C64 coder would not have outlived here. It is in your open minded manner... talking about good and bad and doing some well stuff for the A8. Do you know "another hardcore C64 freak" who is doing similar (Outside Cosine )?

[analmux]

Actually, you're assuming that Sally (the XL/XE 6502) allows more CPU cycles per line than the standard 6502 in the 400/800.

 

You're right. I've tested it on my real machine, and it doesn't do what I assumed. So, to correct my earlier statement:

 

"In the first half of a (gr.0 or 12) rasterline a NOP is 4 characters wide and in the second half it is 2 characters wide"

 

Off course there is the 2 character wide band at the right edge of the screen where no DMA takes place (due to the retarded GTIA).

 

You can also make use of some void reads (3cycle NOPs) or 'void' writes to a dummy register in zeropage (also 3cycles) for getting more accuracy on which location you want the color-reg-change to have effect.

 

@ bryede

 

The antic doesn't allow badlines (only extended lines) when messing with Vscrol. It's only possible to copy f.e. a graphics 9 line 4 times (out of Antic's own memory, thus without reading a line of graphics from memory four times over). So the 2 full DMA lines per 9 rasterlines should be a maximum.

 

-----

mux

[TMR]

The main cause for those colour-cells was to create colors for Text.  

Here you can see that ATARI made the biggest mistake they could have done on the A8. Computers that were shipped since 1983, had the possibility of colored text. It was simply necessary for creating red (-) and black(+) numbers and going straight to the ability of showing BTX(Datex-) Screens. But the XL and the later XE series did either not get such abilities.

 

The VIC20 is character based with a colour per 8x8 pixel cell too, that was 1981 if memory serves and the Spectrum was 1982. The problem, at least from Atari's point of view i suspect, is that changing how the machine works essentially reinvents the machine and probably knackers backward compatibility - the former costs money in R&D, the latter costs money because a new machine base needs to be established rather than just relying on what is there already.

 

That's a big difference between Commodore and Atari as companies i think; Commodore pretty much "threw away" the old userbase when they put a new machine out so PET users had to get a VIC20, VIC users had to get a C64 and so forth. On the other hand, Atari tried to keep the upgrades to their machines incremental but backward compatible so the new kit had a ready-made software and user base but also the option of running new software specifically for it.

 

Both options have advantages and disadvantages and, to be honest, i'm buggered if i know which is the better! =-)

 

But ... in fact... a "normal "C64 coder would not have outlived here. It is in your open minded manner... talking about good and bad and doing some well stuff for the A8. Do you know "another hardcore C64 freak" who is doing similar (Outside Cosine )?

 

Most of the coders are fairly open-minded, i suspect their interests are more the machines they knew previously than anything else since there's recently been so much interest in the VIC20 demo scene and a small influx of C64 talent to the Plus/4 as well. Personally, i find all 8bit machines interesting and my initial interest in the Atari was a mixture of "ooh, i wonder what this can do?" combined with my rather miserabe failure with my 800xl the first time around due to a lack of decent tools. Now my interest is fueled more by the abilities of the machine, exactly the same reason i write C64 code...

[emkay]

The VIC20 is character based with a colour per 8x8 pixel cell too, that was 1981 if memory serves and the Spectrum was 1982.

 

 

OK. I mentioned the year 1983 because the XL series were released there. A computer-manufacturerer with real intensions for professional use of their machines, had to put out computers with the ability of colored characters.

I doubt there were really reasons at ATARI to keep any compatibility.

The ROM has incompatibilities and an additional graphicscontroller that would have had access in the 16K above 48K (the 800 software never used) was possible. So allmost every available Software would have no collisions with the new hardware.

The only reason for pointing it out was their destroyed masterplan when Jay Miner leaved ATARI.

[Bryan]

The problem, at least from Atari's point of view i suspect, is that changing how the machine works essentially reinvents the machine and probably knackers backward compatibility - the former costs money in R&D, the latter costs money because a new machine base needs to be established rather than just relying on what is there already.

 

Yeah, Atari chose a straightforward linear bitmap with color indirection method, which is certainly a nice programming model (it's like 2-bit VGA), but it limited the color. I think the main reason for it is that it allowed Antic to create so many different modes, since a cell-based method is pretty much a fixed thing.

 

That's a big difference between Commodore and Atari as companies i think; Commodore pretty much "threw away" the old userbase when they put a new machine out so PET users had to get a VIC20, VIC users had to get a C64 and so forth.  On the other hand, Atari tried to keep the upgrades to their machines incremental but backward compatible so the new kit had a ready-made software and user base but also the option of running new software specifically for it.

 

Both options have advantages and disadvantages and, to be honest, i'm buggered if i know which is the better! =-)

 

I think when Atari originally designed the 800, they were going all out to make the best possible machine. They included a lot of "ease-of-use" features like a single serial interface for all devices, and they hired Shepardson Microsystems to design an expandable OS and BASIC. I think Atari put more effort into into the 800 than Commodore was putting into their machines at the time. Atari had too much invested in the original design.

 

On the other hand, Commodore wasn't afraid to put out a whole new machine when they had a couple new chips available. Compatibility didn't turn out to be such an issue. Heck, the Plus4 shows that they thought it still wasn't an issue once the 64 was a hit.

 

Most of the coders are fairly open-minded, i suspect their interests are more the machines they knew previously than anything else since there's recently been so much interest in the VIC20 demo scene and a small influx of C64 talent to the Plus/4 as well.

 

I think a big reason for the compu-wars is that each machine threatened the survival of the others. The A8 took a big hit when the 64 came out. Suddenly ours wasn't regarded as the coolest machine to have, and the computer press and the software houses turned away. Innovation on the A8 became less and less important and 64 sales skyrocketed. Today they're all obsolete, so we can get back to having fun.

 

Personally, i find all 8bit machines interesting and my initial interest in the Atari was a mixture of "ooh, i wonder what this can do?" combined with my rather miserabe failure with my 800xl the first time around due to a lack of decent tools.  Now my interest is fueled more by the abilities of the machine, exactly the same reason i write C64 code...

 

I find them all interesting, but I don't think are are any as significant as the 800 and the 64. I think those 2 designs pushed the envelope more than any other in their day. The Apple was first, but was pricey and it lagged far behind in capabilities. The Tandy computers were too crude as well. The TI-99 was very expensive and hard to use (and not really an 8-bit). And then there's all those foreign machines that never made it here.

 

It would be cool if we could take a PC with all our tools back in time and do some 8-bit coding in the day when it was worth $$$.

 

-Bry

[Bryan]

OK. I mentioned the year 1983 because the XL series were released there. A computer-manufacturerer with real intensions for professional use of their machines, had to put out computers with the ability of colored characters.

 

I think it's more important in hindsight, but at the time the A8 was still a competent home computer, but just a little less of game machine than the 64. I'm glad Atari didn't ditch compatibility with the 800's hardware, as I already had a fairly decent 800 system in 83.

 

I doubt there were really reasons at ATARI to keep any compatibility.

The ROM has incompatibilities and an additional graphicscontroller that would have had access in the 16K above 48K (the 800 software never used) was possible. So allmost every available Software would have no collisions with the new hardware.

 

The new OS was very compatible. The problems were due to programmer error, but most things worked. Additional graphics controllers cost money. By '83 the cost of computers had come way down, so everyone was cutting costs. At least you now had access to all 64K. Atari had limited the 800 to 48K because they thought you'd never want to switch out the OS.

 

It would have been nice if Atari had improved the chipset, but I don't think the 800XL was anything to be ashamed of. It was a cost-reduced 800 with more capabilities. The XE's are another matter- they were just cheap.

 

The only reason for pointing it out was their destroyed masterplan when Jay Miner leaved ATARI.

 

If Jay had stayed, he would have worked on a 68000 machine, not a new 8-bit chipset.

 

-Bry

[TMR]

I think a big reason for the compu-wars is that each machine threatened the survival of the others. The A8 took a big hit when the 64 came out. Suddenly ours wasn't regarded as the coolest machine to have, and the computer press and the software houses turned away. Innovation on the A8 became less and less important and 64 sales skyrocketed. Today they're all obsolete, so we can get back to having fun.

 

Well, i can't comment on the Atari side of the fence but certainly i know that the "my machine is better than yours" arguments stemmed from that threat combined with a bit of personal pride. For some Spectrum users (especially the U.K. based ones) those arguments are part of the nostalgia for them.

 

I find them all interesting, but I don't think are are any as significant as the 800 and the 64. I think those 2 designs pushed the envelope more than any other in their day. The Apple was first, but was pricey and it lagged far behind in capabilities.

 

The Spectrum is probably a pivotal machine in that it introduced a lot of markets to truly inexpensive home computing; the British market was kickstarted by the Spectrum and the price war it caused with the other 8bits, it was huge in parts of Europe and a large percentage of the former USSR cut their teeth on the rubber keyed wonder when the rest of us had the first 32bit consoles trying to tempt us. It also proved quite well that programming skill could overcome hardware limitations (a lesson that the games industry sadly forgot in the 1990s).

 

It would be cool if we could take a PC with all our tools back in time and do some 8-bit coding in the day when it was worth $$$.

 

Oh if only... i've had dreams about doing this! =-)

[emkay]

 

I think it's more important in hindsight, but at the time the A8 was still a competent home computer, but just a little less of game machine than the 64. I'm glad Atari didn't ditch compatibility with the 800's hardware, as I already had a fairly decent 800 system in 83.

 

Releasing a computer in 1983 without colored text was to create a horse-wagon and sell it as a new car. I assume a big mess to it depending on further shipment, because colors were essential.... for games AND for the not so unimportant professional market. ATARI did once a CTIA-GTIA upgrade but the real essential upgrade never happened...

To help the XL/XE series (... after the left of by Jay Miner ....) outliving on the market, only an upgrated GTIA was necessary. The CPU itself was really fast enough that time. ATARI itself even had really enough time to look around and to see what would be necessary...

 

 

 

If Jay had stayed, he would have worked on a 68000 machine, not a new 8-bit chipset.

 

 

 

If Jay had stayed, the next step was written down for a new MOS Machine...

Maybe a Computer like the AMIGA would have followed by a later progression...

[deathtrappomegranate]

Some of the stuff at http://www.zxdemo.org/ can be good, although there is far too much of the "Gangster-Rap"-style self-aggrandisement nonsense that you always see on the demo scene.

 

Okay, I've looked at some screenshots, and it looks like Spectrum stuff. Colored squares and all. I'm not in danger of becoming a Spectrum fan.

 

What I'm curious about is that some demos seemed to show 2 unrelated colors in the same space (blue on red - I thought you got 2 shades of the same color per cell). How is that done?

-Bry

 

I wish I knew!

 

My Spectrum coding skills were severely limited. It took me forever to work out how to move anything smoothly on the screen. Z80 assembler seemed pretty logical at the time, but the Sinclair hardware was designed (mostly) to keep costs down.

 

Back in the mid-80s, I was repeatedly amazed by the ability of the programmers of commercial material. More recently, demo coders have achieved some fine displays. As always, though, proof of concept code is easier to achieve than a functional application.

[Bryan]

Releasing a computer in 1983 without colored text was to create a horse-wagon and sell it as a new car. I assume a big mess to it depending on further shipment, because colors were essential.... for games AND for the not so unimportant professional market. ATARI did once a CTIA-GTIA upgrade but the real essential upgrade never happened...

 

Okay, well you've been arguing that the A8 is really powerful and that programmers just didn't know what they were doing. Now you're saying that the machine wasn't powerful enough. No matter how much we discuss it, we can't change history, which is:

 

A: The 800 was a revolutionary design offering a level of graphics, sound and user friendliness never before seen in a consumer-level computer. It was pretty much the undisputed hardware champion for several years. Unfortunately, the software market was in its infancy, and the advanced hardware would go largely underutilized.

 

B: The computer market was growing slowly and prices were still high. The 64 came along into this environment and quickly dominated with its low cost and advanced gaming power.

 

C: A couple years later 68000 based computers came along and rendered them both obsolete.

 

64's are really cheap, and they have colored text. You can get one and mess with it and no one's going to be mad.

 

If Jay had stayed, he would have worked on a 68000 machine, not a new 8-bit chipset.

If Jay had stayed, the next step was written down for a new MOS Machine...

Maybe a Computer like the AMIGA would have followed by a later progression...

 

Jay said the reason he left was because Atari had no interest in a 68000 based design. I don't really know if a new 6502 design would have made it to market. Atari's main focus after the 400/800 was a new game console design that was scrapped and the 5200 was released instead. Perhaps something like the 7800 would have come out sooner if the engineers had stayed.

 

-Bry

[emkay]

Okay, well you've been arguing that the A8 is really powerful and that programmers just didn't know what they were doing. Now you're saying that the machine wasn't powerful enough.  

 

You have to see the difference:

 

1) The resolution of 160x192 was good enough for every game in that time. And with clever softwaretricks you can push the hell out of this machine (if you wish )

 

2)The Resolution of 320 x 192 was needed for good readable characters by using 40 columns.

 

Please compare:

 

1981 C16 with colored chars

1982 Spectrum with colored chars

1983 ATARI XL with luminance only (the same like the 400/800 in 1978)

1983 C64 with 4colored Bitmap and color-blocks for colored text

1984 Amstrad CPC464 (640x200(green) 320x200 color-bitmap)

 

When ATARI released the 400/800, they shipped a computer with breathtaking features.

When ATARI released the 800XL an old computer was sold... with some lies included.

The Amstrad 464 was shipped around 2 months later than the 800 XL and it was a completely new system....

 

So the main question is: What did ATARI in that 5 years after releasing the 400/800?

 

 

 

 

B: The computer market was growing slowly and prices were still high. The 64 came along into this environment and quickly dominated with its low cost and advanced gaming power.

 

 

Please ask yourself, which company was the synonym for games

 

 

C: A couple years later 68000 based computers came along and rendered them both obsolete.

 

Shure?

 

The C64 did outlive until 1992... when ST and AMIGA were going to die too.

 

The real cleverness on the C64 was build into the chips...

 

Only 16 colors, but every color is chosen by hand to build allways good looking images.

SID has only 3 voices, but the active analog filter can be programmed to create new sounding-styles until today

 

Take a look at Second Reality 64....

 

 

 

Jay said the reason he left was because Atari had no interest in a 68000 based design. I don't really know if a new 6502 design would have made it to market. Atari's main focus after the 400/800 was a new game console design that was scrapped and the 5200 was released instead. Perhaps something like the 7800 would have come out sooner if the engineers had stayed.

 

 

 

There are 16 Bit 65xxx CPUs available. And take a look at the 7,14 MHz of the AMIGAs chipset. The 68000 will be handled at 8MHz...normally

So, when Jay had stayed at ATARI,...

[analmux]

Releasing a computer in 1983 without colored text was to create a horse-wagon and sell it as a new car....

 

[Ant-fucking mode]

Is everyone forgetting about the textmodes gr. 1 and 2 ??? With 4 colors for 8*8 fonts.

[/Ant-fucking mode]

 

("Ant-fucking" is the translation of the Dutch word for nitpicking )

 

 

-----

mux

[emkay]

Releasing a computer in 1983 without colored text was to create a horse-wagon and sell it as a new car....

 

[Ant-fucking mode]

Is everyone forgetting about the textmodes gr. 1 and 2 ??? With 4 colors for 8*8 fonts.

[/Ant-fucking mode]

 

("Ant-fucking" is the translation of the Dutch word for nitpicking )

 

 

-----

mux

 

 

They would be color-cells like on the Speccy, if two colors were changable.

 

To get color-cells on the XL/XE you have the chance to overlay PM...

[TMR]

Please compare:

 

1981 C16 with colored chars

 

The C16 and Plus/4 were both 1985, the VIC20 was 1981.

 

1982 Spectrum with colored chars

1983 ATARI XL with luminance only (the same like the 400/800 in 1978)

1983 C64 with 4colored Bitmap and color-blocks for colored text

1984 Amstrad CPC464 (640x200(green) 320x200 color-bitmap)

 

The CPC's 320x200 mode is four colours, it's not attribute based and bears more resemblance to the Atari's 160x192 mode with double resolution. It still takes 16K to store a screen (as does the 160x200 16 colour mode).

 

Please ask yourself, which company was the synonym for games

 

Firebird, Hewson, Thalamus or Rainbow Arts. =-)

 

The C64 did outlive until 1992... when ST and AMIGA were going to die too.

 

The C64's lifespan was 1982 to 1993 but that doesn't stop it being an obsolete machine by the end.

 

There are 16 Bit 65xxx CPUs available. And take a look at the 7,14 MHz of the AMIGAs chipset. The 68000 will be handled at 8MHz...normally

 

Commodore were trying that with the C64DX (aka the C65) - two SID chips, the VIC-III (capable of 4096 colours) and an internal 3.5" drive all powered by a 65816. But it would have cost too much, the C64 was a nice cheap little starter machine around the end of the 1980s and the Amiga was their flagship and the new box would have cost close to the latter's price so it's development was discontinued.

 

i suspect that a 65C02 or 65816 based Atari wouldn't have been commercially viable for similar reasons; the cost of the 16bit chips was prohibitive at that time if a company was planning a low end cost machine.

[emkay]

Please compare:

 

1981 C16 with colored chars

 

The C16 and Plus/4 were both 1985' date=' the VIC20 was 1981.

 

[/quote']

 

Ooops... did I write C16

But the VIC 20 is the ancestor to the C16.... similar the 400 is to the 600XL

 

 

Please ask yourself' date=' which company was the synonym for games[/quote']

 

Firebird, Hewson, Thalamus or Rainbow Arts. =-)

 

 

Hmmm... which is sounding more authentical?

 

Commodore Games

ATARI Games

 

 

The C64's lifespan was 1982 to 1993 but that doesn't stop it being an obsolete machine by the end.

 

 

Hey... that's longer than the original ST or AMIGA OCS/ECS did it ... .-)

 

 

i suspect that a 65C02 or 65816 based Atari wouldn't have been commercially viable for similar reasons; the cost of the 16bit chips was prohibitive at that time if a company was planning a low end cost machine.

 

The Chipsets were done, the CPUs were available and the compatibility to the 8-bits was given....

The AMIGA found his buyers and the ST too.... There was enough money for 16 Bit machines to put most 8-bits into the garbage-can.

 

By using the AMIGAs "pre prototype" Chipset, as planned at ATARI, there would have been no 16 Bit CPU necessary to create great games up to 1991, when the NEO GEO arrived (which was better in every way). The 68000 made a good working multitasking OS on the AMIGA possible. So while searching on the harddisk for files or calculating fractals, you could view fullscreen demos without a loss of one fps. And I am not talking about Task-switching

But that's another thing...