Page 24 of 145

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 1:17 pm
by oswald
gury wrote:
oswald wrote:
neuromancer wrote: The fact that the Atari came out c. 3 years earlier means it didn't have as up to date hardware as the c64 (obviously), so what it can do in comparison to the c64 is even more impressive, imho
dont forget that hardware developed much slower back then, in fact when the atari came out the cpu built in was already FOUR years old technology, and 7 years old for the c64. things werent like today. People was happy if they could afford a nice machine at all and they did not care about processing speed or ram or anything much.
Don't forget Atari CPU is 6502C, 2x faster than Commodore's 6510. Custom chips like ANTIC, GTIA and POKEY make it very fast machine.
at what speed are you clocked? c64 is slightly less then 1mhz. also the atari gfx cheap is stealing heavy cycles from your cpu which makes the comparison harder.

in fact the c64's sloweness comes from the fact that (I think) that the vic and the 6510 are using the memory buss alternativaly So the clockspeed is 2mhz effectively, 1mhz goes to the 6510 and 1mhz to the vic. But thats not enough as the vic steals 25*40 cycles on stock screens, and each sprite from 2-3 on each scanline.

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 1:19 pm
by gury
New pictures for Atari 8-bit:
http://atari.online.pl/v01/index.phtml? ... ct=nowinki

Atari 8-bit can easily compete with C64!
New game called Crownland on the way (demo for now):

Image
Image
Image

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 1:24 pm
by gury
oswald wrote: at what speed are you clocked? c64 is slightly less then 1mhz. also the atari gfx cheap is stealing heavy cycles from your cpu which makes the comparison harder.
Atari CPU: 6502 / 6502C
1.79Mhz
1.77MHz
Different for Europe (PAL) and overseas.

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 1:30 pm
by Matt_B
TMR wrote:Generally, the VIC-II is the "magic" and the 6510 doesn't add anything to to the pot by itself, in fact it's only a few minor tweaks away from being a stock 6502. What gives the C64 a speed advantage over the BBC, CPC or Spectrum is the character-based screen modes; most scrolling games run in character mode because it takes 2,000 bytes for a screen compared to 10,000 for multicolour bitmap, 6,912 bytes for the Spectrum screen and about 16K for the CPC (i forget for the BBC, 16K again i believe...?).
It's either 1K, 8K, 10K, 16K or 20K for the BBC Micro. The 1K mode is most useful for text adventures as it gives you the most free RAM. There were a few games written for it though, most notably the Acornsoft Arcade Action pack. The 8K and 16K modes are effectively text only as they skip scanlines between character rows. The 20K modes are rarely used in more sophisticated games as it just takes up too much RAM. So, most games tend to use the 10K modes which either gives 160x200 with 4 colours or 320x200 with 2 colours.

By fiddling with the CRTC registers you can get a whole host of undocumented modes with overscan and split screen effects on both the CPC and BBC Micro. However, they all have the same pixel densities and colour restrictions as the documented modes.

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 1:31 pm
by neuromancer
oswald wrote:
neuromancer wrote: The fact that the Atari came out c. 3 years earlier means it didn't have as up to date hardware as the c64 (obviously), so what it can do in comparison to the c64 is even more impressive, imho
dont forget that hardware developed much slower back then, in fact when the atari came out the cpu built in was already FOUR years old technology, and 7 years old for the c64. things werent like today. People was happy if they could afford a nice machine at all and they did not care about processing speed or ram or anything much.
Yes, that's true - I'm well aware of this; my first machine was a ZX81, in '83, a Spectrum in '84, a 130XE in '86, An ST in '87 - no pc until 1994 (always behind the times!) Buying a machine a couple of years or more after it was released was fine (you'd never do that today, unless you're going retro of course...) and as you say those machines generally used technology that was already some years old (which helped lower the costs to manageable levels - wasn't the Amstrad originally due a 65xx but used a Z80 instead for cost reasons?)

I hadn't realised that the C64 6510 was actually clocked slower than the Atari 6502C (as I mentioned when this was pointed out) - here's a question then, has anyone compared Mercenary on the two platforms (where I'd expect that the use of vectors relies mainly on raw CPU grunt)

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 1:37 pm
by oswald
gury wrote:New pictures for Atari 8-bit:
http://atari.online.pl/v01/index.phtml? ... ct=nowinki

Atari 8-bit can easily compete with C64!
New game called Crownland on the way (demo for now)
yeah it can compete but cannot win.

while the c64 can display all of its 16 colors, your screenshots show 8 colors (some more faked with raster tricks)

Image

Image

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 1:40 pm
by oswald
neuromancer wrote: Yes, that's true - I'm well aware of this; my first machine was a ZX81, in '83, a Spectrum in '84, a 130XE in '86, An ST in '87 - no pc until 1994
lol, I haven't _owned_ a pc till like 2003 (!!!:)

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 1:41 pm
by neuromancer
oswald wrote:
neuromancer wrote: Yes, that's true - I'm well aware of this; my first machine was a ZX81, in '83, a Spectrum in '84, a 130XE in '86, An ST in '87 - no pc until 1994
lol, I haven't _owned_ a pc till like 2003 (!!!:)
I wouldn't class that as a bad thing though! (except for emulation)

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 1:43 pm
by neuromancer
oswald wrote:
gury wrote:New pictures for Atari 8-bit:
http://atari.online.pl/v01/index.phtml? ... ct=nowinki

Atari 8-bit can easily compete with C64!
New game called Crownland on the way (demo for now)
yeah it can compete but cannot win.

while the c64 can display all of its 16 colors, your screenshots show 8 colors (some more faked with raster tricks)
yeah, but it's a nice raster trick :wink:

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 2:52 pm
by Dudley
oswald wrote:
Dudley wrote:
oswald wrote: yeah, the c64 is in the guinnes world book as the best selling machine ever probably because the Atari 8-bit was better. Get real man.
Indeed, just like the Toyota Corolla is the greatest car ever made and the best single ever is "Do they know its Christmas" and the best PC game ever is Myst.
c64 being the machine sold the most is a fact.
Toyota being the greatest ca is a an opinion.

so what you have just stated is that "facts are like opinions". maybe you can up with better ?
No, you said the fact that it sold the most meant it was the best.

This leaves two options

a) You agree the other things listed are also the best of their genre

or

b) You admit that part of your argument was utter trash.

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:08 pm
by neuromancer
Dudley wrote:
oswald wrote:
Dudley wrote: Indeed, just like the Toyota Corolla is the greatest car ever made and the best single ever is "Do they know its Christmas" and the best PC game ever is Myst.
c64 being the machine sold the most is a fact.
Toyota being the greatest ca is a an opinion.

so what you have just stated is that "facts are like opinions". maybe you can up with better ?
No, you said the fact that it sold the most meant it was the best.

This leaves two options

a) You agree the other things listed are also the best of their genre

or

b) You admit that part of your argument was utter trash.
isn't it worse than this, with the best single (on volume of sales) being the Elton John remake of Candle In The Wind (Diana Tribute)...?

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:17 pm
by oswald
Dudley wrote: No, you said the fact that it sold the most meant it was the best.
no I have not. but its a good indicator. aswell as this one:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?la ... 2=atari800

I have proved several times that the c64 had better graphics.
The sid sounds better. (give it a try http://sid.oth4.com/?search=dane)
The cpu was the same. Your speed advantage melts as soon as it comes to games and displaying sprites.

our gfx/video/cia chips are suprerior, the cpu is the same so that which one is better not hard to tell: c64.

that makes 2 out of 3 cases the c64 is better, and in one case its better only in certain circumstands.

what else do you need to confess?

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:22 pm
by SirClive
you still haven't proved a thing.

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:25 pm
by oswald
I have. waiting for your pathetic ass ugly speccy shots that can do better:
oswald wrote:
gury wrote:New pictures for Atari 8-bit:
http://atari.online.pl/v01/index.phtml? ... ct=nowinki

Atari 8-bit can easily compete with C64!
New game called Crownland on the way (demo for now)
yeah it can compete but cannot win.

while the c64 can display all of its 16 colors, your screenshots show 8 colors (some more faked with raster tricks)

Image

Image

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:27 pm
by oswald
dear mr clive, do you have the balls to tell us that the speccy can do better than whats below. Cant wait to see you telling (lying) :D
oswald wrote:
Pengwin wrote: I feel the Atari was superior in some aspects, particularly the graphics. It also had a better basic language then the C64 and it hit the market 3 years before the C64, in fact 3 years before anything else that could touch it (IMHO).
who cares about your 3 years, how does that atari make a better machine than c64? Eniac is 40 years earlier so is it betteR?

learn your lessons about c64 graphics:

Image
Image
Image

50fps platform game ingame gfx:

Image
Image