atari 8bit and commodore 8 bit

[Dr. Van Thorp]

The licensing of developers came in to existance when the console manufacturers got really greedy, and decided that they needed to make money on every game sold. To do this, the machines had to be sophisticated enough to have patentable cartidge designs or encription.

 

Even some game controllers have encrypted signals that are sent through the wire to the game system, so that controller manufacturers can't make unlicensed controllers.

 

Greedy bastards.

[Dr. Van Thorp]

To bring this back to the original topic of the Commodore 64 being a copy of the Atari 800:

 

There are some similarities; same number of columns and rows, similar graphics modes, etc.

 

Atari has more colors. C-64 has better sound and a better sprite system.

 

I could imagine Commodore's engineering team buying an Atari 800, and giving it a look-over to see what the competition is up to. They probably did the same with Apple-II, TI99/4a, and CoCo.

 

I don't think that the similarities of the Atari and Commodore machines are unique enough to be called copies. Apple-II and many others had 40 columns. TI/994A had programmable characters, and eight sprites (the sprites were 8x8 pixels).

 

I found this web page: http://www.pepto.de/projects/colorvic/ which has a bit of information about Commodore's color system for computers, and I think that they surpassed Atari at least for vividness and clairity of colors, if not for quantity. So their's at least one place where there is documentation of original thought at Commodore.[/url]

[TMR]

There are some similarities; same number of columns and rows, similar graphics modes, etc.

 

The number of rows are different and the Atari has the option to overscan and indeed "underscan" (is that a word or did i just make it up? =-) the display, something the C64 has to fake.

 

I could imagine Commodore's engineering team buying an Atari 800, and giving it a look-over to see what the competition is up to. They probably did the same with Apple-II, TI99/4a, and CoCo.

 

To be honest, i can't see that since a lot of what the C64 is comes from it's older brothers; the VIC20 is the first in the line to have the multicolour character system along with the colour attribute system that went on to give the C64 sixteen colours a scanline without tricks and the PET had the screen layout (character mapped, 40x25 cells arranged in rows) when it was released in 1977 so that predates the 400 i believe...?

 

As you said, the Apple II had multicolour graphics (from my wanderings a while ago, i think they're managed in about the same way in memory) so it's equally likely that the VIC's system is based on that rather than the Atari.

[Vigo]

To bring this back to the original topic of the Commodore 64 being a copy of the Atari 800:

 

There are some similarities; same number of columns and rows, similar graphics modes, etc.

 

The C64 uses the exact screen layout which has been used by the PET2001 (1977) for the first time. Even the pixel clock is nearly the same (8Mhz vs 8.08Mhz). So it´s wrong to claim that it copied this scheme from the Atari.

 

Atari has more colors. C-64 has better sound and a better sprite system.

 

And the C64 had of course colour attributes for characters and bitmaps which, despite its 16 colours (which were very well chosen) enables it to display more colourful graphics.

 

I could imagine Commodore's engineering team buying an Atari 800, and giving it a look-over to see what the competition is up to. They probably did the same with Apple-II, TI99/4a, and CoCo.

 

In some article it was said that they basically copied and enhanced the TI99/4A sprite system.

 

I don't think that the similarities of the Atari and Commodore machines are unique enough to be called copies. Apple-II and many others had 40 columns. TI/994A had programmable characters, and eight sprites (the sprites were 8x8 pixels).

Nope, the TI994A had 32 sprites, which were 16x16 pixels in size. However, only 4 of them could be displayed each scanline.

 

If you want to compare a machine to the Atari 800, compare the Amiga. The Amiga has MUCH more in common with it than the C64:

 

- Exact the same chipset layout (ANTIC,GTIA,POKEY vs AGNUS, DENISE, PAULA)

- like the Atari, sprite DMA can be switched off and gfx data can be fed to the sprite registers in software

- same pixel clock in lores mode (7.15Mhz)

- The Amiga copper is a more flexible enhancement of ANTIC

 

No wonder, since they were designed by the same chip designer.

[+doctorclu]

"If you want to compare a machine to the Atari 800, compare the Amiga. The Amiga has MUCH more in common with it than the C64:

 

- Exact the same chipset layout (ANTIC,GTIA,POKEY vs AGNUS, DENISE, PAULA)

- like the Atari, sprite DMA can be switched off and gfx data can be fed to the sprite registers in software

- same pixel clock in lores mode (7.15Mhz)

- The Amiga copper is a more flexible enhancement of ANTIC

 

No wonder, since they were designed by the same chip designer."

 

Whoo hoo!! Someone brought up the point I wanted to be brought up, but I thought would be out of place here. Yeh, the Atari 800 is my favorite computer hands down. I still use one mainly since I drooled over one as a teeneager but could never afford it. Love the look, the keyboard, all the slots and all and all, it is just a fun machine. That only machine that ever came close to it's fun and adaptiveness was the Atari TT-030.

 

But having messed with an Atari 800, a C=64, Atari ST's, and Amigas, it is very true. The Amiga feels like a 800. Of course I've said all this before. But the new part to mention is, in the future I will widdle down my collection to the 800 / Amiga thread. Not that I worship the chip designer, Jay Miner, but I like the concept of the Atari 800 and that style of computer. Perhaps I wonder if the Amiga One continues that thread with the G3 and G4 processor? Hmmm...

 

Jay mentioned that he liked the Atari 800, but always wanted a more mature version of it, and said the Amiga was that computer.

 

Am I much into Amigas? Well, not really, well yet. They are the most stubborn computers I've yet to work with (and I've worked with at least eight or so unique platforms, not including game systems.) I have had three hard drive failures, mainly due to old SCSI drives, so a little daunting.

 

However, there is a Amiga group here in Dallas I like to join and sit with for dinner... perhaps the closest to a Atari 800... or at least Jay Miner, fan club that exists. Close enough.

 

I tinkered with an Amiga 3000 and later a 2000... got ethernet and DSL working with system 3.9 and crude MP3's and other thinkering before it crashed on me. I think I know enough to know what they are talking about, and glad to see what a 16/32 bit Atari 800 would have been like.

 

But I will sit amoungst them with my "Mini-Amiga" (the 800) from now on. They are happy for the company and the membership, so it works out. And I get to talk techese to some fun people. It works.