Atari vs C64 // was: 8-Bit Computer Poll

Discuss and discover all the great games of yesteryear!

Moderators: mknott, NickThorpe, Darran@Retro Gamer, MMohammed, lcarlson

Locked

Best 8-Bit

ZX Spectrum
109
41%
Commodore 64
121
46%
Amstrad CPC 464
25
10%
BBC Micro
8
3%
 
Total votes: 263

User avatar
TMR
Posts: 5756
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:56 am
Location: Leeds, U.K.
Contact:

Post by TMR » Sat May 19, 2007 5:55 am

potatohead wrote:Well TMR, software sprites can have hardware assist or not. Hardware assist could be in the form of a blitter chip, for example. This is why I phrased things as I did, not out of poor understanding of how sprites do and don't work.

(kinda pops the bubble huh?)
Not really, because i'd consider a blitted object as hardware-drawn since... well, it's drawn by hardware and, far more to the point, which 8-bit in the generation we're discussing actually has a blitter to even require that kind of distinction in the first place? Right now i can only think of one 8-bit computer overall that has one and, if i were to bring it into the discussion, i'd be pushng the envelope so far the stamp would fall off.
potatohead wrote:IMHO, the two machines are well balanced in this regard. The faster CPU clock in the Atari against hardware sprites in the C64. There are quite a number of scenarios where these two factors balance out, which is the basis for my comment.
There are a lot of cases where a game has been designed or at least redesigned to take this difference into consideration, but that's not the same thing; look at Zybex on the two machines, they move the same number of similarly-sized objects at the same speed but the C64 is runnig twice the vertical resolution. Considering what i found out yesterday, i have a suspicion it's because there wouldn't always be enough CPU time per frame (or indeed memory, since doing software sprites at speed usually requires pre-rolling and multiple display buffers) to match the C64 version and not as much because of the programming.
potatohead wrote:Of course, to you, the C64 is the ultimate censored! That's fine, but it really is showing you know.
To me, the C64 is the best overall hardware of the generation it's being compared to; i certainly make no apologies for that because nobody else is apologising for their opinion either, the difference is that i've got a fair bit of time with at least half of the machines under discussion and i'd like to at least think i have some of the technical knowledge to compare them on a level that moves away from personal reminiscing and rose coloured spectacles - i'm picking up more knowledge as we go, which in itself is far more interesting to me than pointing at the same game on two platforms and saying "that machines better because this game is".

i realise that taking this approach to comparison might offend some people but i'm not going to apologise for that either and, if we weren't meant to at least explore all forms of comparison, the start of the thread would have limited the discussion and it doesn't do that.
potatohead wrote:Call your mamma in the room and show her the fanboy you really are!
i can't really do that, my mum lives over 200 miles away - i'll tell her you called.

(Fanboy? Dear Rassilon you've not seen me being a fanboy, i can get much worse and i'm proud of it. =-)

markstclair2010
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 3:58 pm

Post by markstclair2010 » Sat May 19, 2007 6:30 am

A friend gave me his old Atari 800XL. The games on that machine never impressed me..... nothing special. I've seen prettier graphics on the C64.

And the Atari's sound?
Eh.
Even a lowly Nintendo NES could produce better sound.

oswald
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 7:55 am

Post by oswald » Sat May 19, 2007 6:55 am

potatohead wrote: BTW: I didn't keep the C64 however. Still have my VCS & still have my original Atari 400 from that time period. Both of these machines remain distinctive in my mind. I like the game experiences, I like the design, solid construction, variety of input devices, colors, sounds, etc...

I put the A400 out in the game room, people come by and check it out! It looks cool, plays 4 player games, etc... The C64 looks like crap, by comparison. Sorry, but that's just another element to the discussion not being considered here.

It's a holistic thing, not just a few tech specs...
really which machine you trashed and which kept really doesnt add up to arguments, it only shows your personal preference which we already know.
The C64 looks like crap, by comparison.
ah, pathethic arguments, you start to sound like the speccy fans, comparing speccy red vs c64 red color and other nonsense censored :D the a400 doesnt even have a proper keyboard, which makes it the candidate for crap.... :) secondly, which looks better is a personal preference again which cannot be measured.

Image
Image

oh and c64 HW sprites kick the ass of a 1.8mhz 6502 soft sprites any day any time.. :)

User avatar
walrus
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 5:29 am

Post by walrus » Sat May 19, 2007 8:18 am

It is a poll so logically it follows that it is about preference rather than technical specs, etc., which keep being quoted and dragging this thread to a new level of boredom.

To compare technical specs would be comparing facts and wouldn't require a poll, that could be covered by an article. A poll is designed to gain opinion but that is exactly what too many posters on this thread don't want to see mentioned. All of the things which other people are saying and keep being dismissed are exactly what I would expect to see discussed here. I don't care about graphical capabilities or custom hardware, what matters to me is which one provided users with the most fun or whatever. Yeah, most people will go for the machine they owned but some owned or had access to more than one and it was interesting seeing their views. But anyone who seemed keen to discuss this side of things seems to have been driven away by the constant pummelling of technical specifications and the thread has suffered for it. That's just my opinion though.

gury
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 4:45 am
Contact:

Post by gury » Sat May 19, 2007 8:30 am

You are right Walrus. Now for something completely different. How about the sexiest 8-bit computer of all time?

The answer is obvious. Atari 8-bit line of home computers:

Image
Image
Image
Image
You are welcome to visit http://gury.atari8.info/

User avatar
RetroRik
Posts: 2712
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:00 am
Location: Corby, England, UK
Contact:

Post by RetroRik » Sat May 19, 2007 8:38 am

gury wrote:You are right Walrus. Now for something completely different. How about the sexiest 8-bit computer of all time?

The answer is obvious. Atari 8-bit line of home computers:
I agree with this. Never owned an Atari XL or XE but my mate did and i really liked the look of them and if i remember the keyboards were really smooth and confortable like a modern day PC keyboard.
( or did i dream it.? )

Regards

RIK
Image

User avatar
necronom
Posts: 5648
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:23 pm
Location: Middlesbrough

Post by necronom » Sat May 19, 2007 9:00 am

I think the 800XE looks very nice, but the others are ugly (including the very ugly A400 that oswald posted). I think the original C64 looks better than all except the XE.

From a stylish ("looks" over "practicality") point of view, the Spectrum looks very good. The later ones were not so good looking though.

The C64c I would say is as good looking as anything else. I'll have to get one one day (along with a PET), when I have room.

oswald
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 7:55 am

Post by oswald » Sat May 19, 2007 9:04 am

yeah just keep up with idiotic stuff like that. like which one tasted the better, or weighs the least/most, worst/best smell when put on fire, etc, etc. really the possibilities are unlimited. too bad when it comes to games / userbase /etc that really counts you loose it out. :lol:
gury wrote:You are right Walrus. Now for something completely different. How about the sexiest 8-bit computer of all time?
The answer is obvious.:
Image
yeah thx mr gury :)

User avatar
Emperor Fossil
Posts: 1705
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Already rockin the Christmas cap, WOOOOH!

Post by Emperor Fossil » Sat May 19, 2007 9:05 am

Yeah, those later Ataris look nice, but the A400 is truly a membranous monstrosity. It's like the designer was told: 'Make it look kinda futuristic... like, y'know, something from Star Trek. But make it look really cheap, too."

And yeah, the C64c is definitely a nice-looking bit of kit. Still like the gentlemanly c64 though.

gury
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 4:45 am
Contact:

Post by gury » Sat May 19, 2007 9:11 am

oswald wrote:yeah just keep up with idiotic stuff like that. like which one tasted the better, or weighs the least/most, worst/best smell when put on fire, etc, etc. really the possibilities are unlimited. too bad when it comes to games / userbase /etc that really counts you loose it out. :lol:
yeah thx mr gury :)
I don't know, Oswald, what is bothering you. You have the "attitude" and you seem to be offended every time new stuff is shown, which is not just "biased" C64 stuff. You are wrong again, games / userbase is not important. Atari's userbase is big enough. What is the problem with games? We Atarians like to play Atari games.

I like to read tech stuff of any computer. So I liked what TMR talked about, but you just keep going with C64 superiority crap. People will continue to use the computers of choice, no matter which period or which technical specifications they are made of.
You are welcome to visit http://gury.atari8.info/

gury
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 4:45 am
Contact:

Post by gury » Sat May 19, 2007 9:24 am

And replacement of image above is just childish. You really have the problem, Oswald.
You are welcome to visit http://gury.atari8.info/

User avatar
TMR
Posts: 5756
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:56 am
Location: Leeds, U.K.
Contact:

Post by TMR » Sat May 19, 2007 9:30 am

walrus wrote:To compare technical specs would be comparing facts and wouldn't require a poll, that could be covered by an article.
Hey, i'd do it if they'd let me... =-)

Nah, to be honest it would probably generate a longer thread where people complained about inaccuracies, bias, whatever no matter how neutral i kept it.
walrus wrote:All of the things which other people are saying and keep being dismissed are exactly what I would expect to see discussed here. I don't care about graphical capabilities or custom hardware, what matters to me is which one provided users with the most fun or whatever.
If this thread were in the "all about the games" sub, you'd probably have a point, although i'd still argue the toss because the technical specs are vast part of what made and indeed makes these machines so interesting for me (as well as what shapes a lot of the best games) and obviously i'm not alone in that thinking; you'd have nothing to complain about if i were and there wouldn't be people asking for a more technical thread or sub forum over in Q&A.

User avatar
Sega2006
Posts: 6161
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:29 pm
Location: Stevenage

Post by Sega2006 » Sat May 19, 2007 9:37 am

It does seem, that things are going a little OTT. This Thread is to show basically to show what your Favorite 8-Bit computer was, not to have a go at others for their Choice. Its Nice that you enjoy making Pictures using the Hardware but please stop going on and on about how Graphics or somthing is better on the C64, Oswald. I personally prefer the Spectrum purely for playability purposes, Graphics hold no grounds to me if the game is essentially crap
Watching you sleep since 1990

User avatar
TMR
Posts: 5756
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:56 am
Location: Leeds, U.K.
Contact:

Post by TMR » Sat May 19, 2007 9:46 am

RetroRik wrote:I agree with this. Never owned an Atari XL or XE but my mate did and i really liked the look of them...
Nah, for sexiest i'd be going for the CDTV; it looked like it belonged next to hi-fi equipment, that's how cool that looked (and the fact that it was a Kick 1.3 Amiga which had issues booting from floppy 'cos the drive's buffer took more RAM than the stock A500 drive is neither here nor there =-)

Image
RetroRik wrote:...and if i remember the keyboards were really smooth and confortable like a modern day PC keyboard.
( or did i dream it.? )
The action isn't quite the same, although the XL in particular has a very nice action that feels better than a lot of PC keyboards i've used over the years and it's about as nice for prolonged use as the C128 or C128D.

User avatar
walrus
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 5:29 am

Post by walrus » Sat May 19, 2007 10:01 am

TMR wrote: If this thread were in the "all about the games" sub, you'd probably have a point, although i'd still argue the toss because the technical specs are vast part of what made and indeed makes these machines so interesting for me (as well as what shapes a lot of the best games) and obviously i'm not alone in that thinking; you'd have nothing to complain about if i were and there wouldn't be people asking for a more technical thread or sub forum over in Q&A.
I don't have a problem with technical capabilities being discussed, I found it quite interesting early on, but it has taken over the thread completely and keeps being brandished as if it is the killer weapon which will convert everyone to the same way of thinking by someone who seems unable to accept that anyone could possibly derive enjoyment from any other machine. By fun, I certainly wasn't only refering to games and I don't think that would be the correct forum for this thread. I just think that some of posters here have pursued that one line of argument far beyond the others and the quality of posts have suffered for it.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests