Jump to content
IGNORED

Atari v Commodore


stevelanc

Recommended Posts

18 - BREAK IT

 

post-6191-1228791304_thumb.png post-6191-1228791309_thumb.png post-6191-1228791314_thumb.png

Atari screenshots

 

This game is similar to Arkanoid levels. Ohhh....The C64 it's a pity, I can't see anymore. Atari have fast action and it's repleted of bonuses. I'd prefer playing Atari Break it! instead Arkanoid.

 

post-6191-1228791406_thumb.png

C64 screenshot

Edited by Allas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The c64 had it for Years and years, the models you mention were much later in the c64's life, the vast majority of the c64s were the cardboard foil type, in other works cheap.

"much later" = the huge majority of C64s. For every old tinfoil C64 there are 20 C64C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could also be argued that this is what eventually killed Commodore. They got lucky when they got the Amiga, but what did they do with it? Mainly, they cost reduced it and tried to repeat the sucess of the C64 even as the home computer age was coming to a close.

Atari under Jack T had serious QC issues too. I remember having a discussion with an Atari dealer about the fact that many bands were taking ST's on the road for the MIDI capabilities, only to have the machines flake out on stage. Atari was using cheap sockets for the PLCC's and the machines couldn't take being moved all the time. The Macs weren't having such problems and you only needed to be embarrassed a couple times on stage before you jumped ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 - BREAK IT

 

post-6191-1228791304_thumb.png post-6191-1228791309_thumb.png post-6191-1228791314_thumb.png

Atari screenshots

 

This game is similar to Arkanoid levels. Ohhh....The C64 it's a pity, I can't see anymore. Atari have fast action and it's repleted of bonuses. I'd prefer playing Atari Break it! instead Arkanoid.

 

post-6191-1228791406_thumb.png

C64 screenshot

What game is that C64 screenshot from? I did a look up and can't find a C64 Break-it.

 

Since you mentioned Break-It! is simmilar to Arkanoid, here is C64's Arkanoid (which is also face paced and has lots of bonuses and power-ups)

 

post-2829-1228792980_thumb.pngpost-2829-1228792983_thumb.png

post-2829-1228792987_thumb.pngpost-2829-1228792990_thumb.png

post-2829-1228792993_thumb.png

Edited by Artlover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing takes 20 minutes to load from disk on the Commodore. There aren't even that many TAPE games that take that long to load.

 

There are some programs on the C64 whose protection-scheme loaders were much slower than the normal loader, as though that wasn't bad enough. I think the normal loader was about 800 bytes/second, but there were some games whose loaders couldn't even manage 300 bytes/second. For a program to take 20 minutes to load, however, would require a load speed of only 54 bytes per second (assuming a full 64K needed to be loaded). Tape might be that slow if the program was subdivided into 192-byte blocks, but were any programs that size subdivided in such a fashion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The c64 had it for Years and years, the models you mention were much later in the c64's life, the vast majority of the c64s were the cardboard foil type, in other works cheap.

"much later" = the huge majority of C64s. For every old tinfoil C64 there are 20 C64C.

 

aaaand... let me guess. The 64C outsold the C64 20 to 1?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most folks would like a solid oak hand built office desk but to keep cost down they go to Ikea and buy a cheap and flimsy particleboard laminate desk. Does that proove that those desks are better or more desirable?

 

I don't know if you've ever tried to pick up a hardwood desk. They're a lot lighter than pressboard ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 - BREAK IT

 

post-6191-1228791304_thumb.png post-6191-1228791309_thumb.png post-6191-1228791314_thumb.png

Atari screenshots

 

This game is similar to Arkanoid levels. Ohhh....The C64 it's a pity, I can't see anymore. Atari have fast action and it's repleted of bonuses. I'd prefer playing Atari Break it! instead Arkanoid.

 

post-6191-1228791406_thumb.png

C64 screenshot

 

This is a ridiculous comparison... are you even comparing the same games here??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some programs on the C64 whose protection-scheme loaders were much slower than the normal loader, as though that wasn't bad enough. I think the normal loader was about 800 bytes/second, but there were some games whose loaders couldn't even manage 300 bytes/second. For a program to take 20 minutes to load, however, would require a load speed of only 54 bytes per second (assuming a full 64K needed to be loaded). Tape might be that slow if the program was subdivided into 192-byte blocks, but were any programs that size subdivided in such a fashion?

This is the first time I hear about that. I don't think you are right, never seen a "slow loader" on C64, most protection schemes were also fastloaders.

 

aaaand... let me guess. The 64C outsold the C64 20 to 1?

Exactly. When A8 basically died in 1985, C64 just started at that time. The big majority of C64s were sold after 1985.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What game is that C64 screenshot from? I did a look up and can't find a C64 Break-it.

 

Since you mentioned Break-It! is simmilar to Arkanoid, here is C64's Arkanoid (which is also face paced and has lots of bonuses and power-ups)

 

I'm comparing same title productions only, according to the request of this topic. Arkanoid Atari version is inferior to C64 version. Other side, I think Atari have better developed breakout style games than Arkanoid. Break it! is one of them for example.

Edited by Allas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some programs on the C64 whose protection-scheme loaders were much slower than the normal loader, as though that wasn't bad enough. I think the normal loader was about 800 bytes/second, but there were some games whose loaders couldn't even manage 300 bytes/second. For a program to take 20 minutes to load, however, would require a load speed of only 54 bytes per second (assuming a full 64K needed to be loaded). Tape might be that slow if the program was subdivided into 192-byte blocks, but were any programs that size subdivided in such a fashion?

This is the first time I hear about that. I don't think you are right, never seen a "slow loader" on C64, most protection schemes were also fastloaders.

 

 

And that's not all. If the drive have a read error, then you must turn off the drive, the computer, and start all again. Ooops!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What game is that C64 screenshot from? I did a look up and can't find a C64 Break-it.

 

Since you mentioned Break-It! is simmilar to Arkanoid, here is C64's Arkanoid (which is also face paced and has lots of bonuses and power-ups)

 

I'm comparing same title productions only, according to the request of this topic. Arkanoid Atari version is inferior to C64 version. Other side, I think Atari have better developed breakout style games than Arkanoid. Break it! is one of them for example.

 

Yes, but you use some other c64 game than Arkanoid in your comparison pictures. What is this game, and how is it relevant to your comparison between Arkanoid (c64) and Break-It (Atari)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What game is that C64 screenshot from? I did a look up and can't find a C64 Break-it.

 

Since you mentioned Break-It! is simmilar to Arkanoid, here is C64's Arkanoid (which is also face paced and has lots of bonuses and power-ups)

 

I'm comparing same title productions only, according to the request of this topic. Arkanoid Atari version is inferior to C64 version. Other side, I think Atari have better developed breakout style games than Arkanoid. Break it! is one of them for example.

 

Yes, but you use some other c64 game than Arkanoid in your comparison pictures. What is this game, and how is it relevant to your comparison between Arkanoid (c64) and Break-It (Atari)?

 

Here the first post from this topic:

 

Does anybody have any views on where any titles were launched on both Atari and Commodore - and the Atari version is the better of the two?

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The c64 had it for Years and years, the models you mention were much later in the c64's life, the vast majority of the c64s were the cardboard foil type, in other works cheap.

"much later" = the huge majority of C64s. For every old tinfoil C64 there are 20 C64C.

No, most c64s were the old brown ugly ones. Cheaply made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What game is that C64 screenshot from? I did a look up and can't find a C64 Break-it.

 

Since you mentioned Break-It! is simmilar to Arkanoid, here is C64's Arkanoid (which is also face paced and has lots of bonuses and power-ups)

 

I'm comparing same title productions only, according to the request of this topic. Arkanoid Atari version is inferior to C64 version. Other side, I think Atari have better developed breakout style games than Arkanoid. Break it! is one of them for example.

 

Yes, but you use some other c64 game than Arkanoid in your comparison pictures. What is this game, and how is it relevant to your comparison between Arkanoid (c64) and Break-It (Atari)?

 

Here the first post from this topic:

 

Does anybody have any views on where any titles were launched on both Atari and Commodore - and the Atari version is the better of the two?

 

Steve

 

So, what "title" are you comparing where the Atari version is better here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aaaand... let me guess. The 64C outsold the C64 20 to 1?

Exactly. When A8 basically died in 1985, C64 just started at that time. The big majority of C64s were sold after 1985.

 

Thought so.

According to the best guess available (Ars Technica) the C64 sold over half of it's eventual estimated 22-30 million units from 1983 through 1986, that's before the 64C was introduced. That makes it awful hard to have more 64Cs than C64s. let alone 20:1!

I'm guessing you are viewing history through the lens of the particular country and time you grew up in. Nostalgic perhaps, but not very accurate. Your reality was not my reality. By the time late '86 and early '87 rolled around here in the US, many of us had moved to Amiga, Atari ST, and the MS-DOS clones. Those of us who stayed with Atari 8-bit and C64 stayed because we already owned all the equipment. We weren't buying the 8-bit in large quantities, but we knew they were still selling okay overseas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some programs on the C64 whose protection-scheme loaders were much slower than the normal loader, as though that wasn't bad enough. I think the normal loader was about 800 bytes/second, but there were some games whose loaders couldn't even manage 300 bytes/second. For a program to take 20 minutes to load, however, would require a load speed of only 54 bytes per second (assuming a full 64K needed to be loaded). Tape might be that slow if the program was subdivided into 192-byte blocks, but were any programs that size subdivided in such a fashion?

This is the first time I hear about that. I don't think you are right, never seen a "slow loader" on C64, most protection schemes were also fastloaders.

 

aaaand... let me guess. The 64C outsold the C64 20 to 1?

Exactly. When A8 basically died in 1985, C64 just started at that time. The big majority of C64s were sold after 1985.

64 c models didnt show up until 86 or 87, C64 came out in 82, c64 was mostly dead here in the U.S. by 1988,most had moved on to amiga or Atari St or Mac also the early turbo XT clones. So most units were the dingy brown ones. By the time 64c and 128 128d etc were out it was mostly over,never the big hit the original was. Atari XL/XE sold into 87,by then as with c64 most were moving on to other platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the normal loader was about 800 bytes/second, but there were some games whose loaders couldn't even manage 300 bytes/second.

The normal load speed was only 300 bytes/sec. With a good fastloader, you could get upto 8+k/second.

 

For a program to take 20 minutes to load, however, would require a load speed of only 54 bytes per second (assuming a full 64K needed to be loaded). Tape might be that slow if the program was subdivided into 192-byte blocks, but were any programs that size subdivided in such a fashion?

Tape was about 60 bytes/second. There were suposidly fast loaders for tape that could bring that up to like 500-600 bytes/sec, tho I can't say I've ever personally seen or used a tape fast loader on the c64.

 

Zaxxon on tape took exactly 20 minutes to load, and was loading several individual segements of code.

 

As far as disk goes, only thing I could think of that would make it really slow was if the program was accessing and trying to index in memory a huge SEQ datafile. I guess that could be considered load time, but really the program is already loaded and it's the data access that's slow.

 

Nothing takes 20 minutes to load from disk on the Commodore. There aren't even that many TAPE games that take that long to load.

I clocked Zork at about 20 minutes even though the loading screen said about 10 IIRC. There were several other games that took about as long.

I was looking through my collection, I have many copies of Zork 1,2 and 3 but none of them have a loading screen that tells me what the estimated time is. They all ask if I'm loading from a 1541 drive, then just say " the story is loading ..." for a couple of minutes till the infocom copyright screen comes up and the game starts a few momments after that. I also have a copy of Zork Quest that has a countdown timer bar made up of *'s, but I'm dismissing that one because it's an ESI/Fairlight scene release (read pirate & modified w/an intro) not a copy of an original so I don't know if that's something they added or was original to the game.

 

Did Infocom make signifigant changes between revisions that were sold that could have effected this? Maybe you have an earlier revision then the copies of originals I have before they fixed any loading time issues (if they did)?

 

My Zork 1 is Rev 88, my Zork 2 is Rev 48, and my Zork 3 is Rev 17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 - BRISTLES

 

post-6191-1228799188_thumb.png post-6191-1228799194_thumb.png post-6191-1228799200_thumb.png

post-6191-1228799206_thumb.png post-6191-1228799211_thumb.png

Atari screenshots

 

The same game in both machines. There are difference on the colors used. I'd prefer the Atari version, looks more cool, colors has been chosen from his large palette. High levels it so frustating, I hate the girl who put her hands on my recently painted walls. ;)

 

post-6191-1228799450_thumb.png post-6191-1228799456_thumb.png post-6191-1228799462_thumb.png

post-6191-1228799469_thumb.png post-6191-1228799476_thumb.png

C64 screenshots

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking through my collection, I have many copies of Zork 1,2 and 3 but none of them have a loading screen that tells me what the estimated time is. They all ask if I'm loading from a 1541 drive, then just say " the story is loading ..." for a couple of minutes till the infocom copyright screen comes up and the game starts a few momments after that. I also have a copy of Zork Quest that has a countdown timer bar made up of *'s, but I'm dismissing that one because it's an ESI/Fairlight scene release (read pirate & modified w/an intro) not a copy of an original so I don't know if that's something they added or was original to the game.

 

Did Infocom make signifigant changes between revisions that were sold that could have effected this? Maybe you have an earlier revision then the copies of originals I have before they fixed any loading time issues (if they did)?

 

My Zork 1 is Rev 88, my Zork 2 is Rev 48, and my Zork 3 is Rev 17.

 

I'm basing this from memory, and even at that I never owned a C64. My best friend had one back in the day, although I spent enough time on it to have claimed to own one myself. :) I'm going off memory here, so I may be mistaking it for another game where it said it should take about 10 minutes. However, I do remember timing it one time and it took around 20 minutes to load. There were several other games that took a significantly long time to load, such as The Last V8 and Finders Keepers that I can recall off the top of my head. The Last V8 was a copied disc, but the Zork games and Finders Keepers were all originals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm comparing same title productions only, according to the request of this topic.

Fair enough, but I think we might have hit a gray area here.

 

Different games can share the same name, particularly when released years apart. Even more so with something so generic. If you want to make a generic breakout clone, what would you call it? Brick out, Break it, Bloc Buster, etc... Even on Atarimania, they list several games called "Pong". One is a pong clone, one is a platformer game.

 

To that end, yes, there is a game called Break-It! for both computers, but I don't think they originate from the same source.

 

Break-It for the C64 came out in 1986, and it's source of inspiration is unclear. The game has no title, no credits, no nothing. No one knows who wrote it. Only noname.64 even lists it as being a valid C64 title.

 

Arkanoid for the C64 and A8 came out in 1987.

 

Break-It for the A8 came out in 1988, and was an improved from the original Arkanoid clone.

 

 

I think this one needs to be chaulked up to mistaken identity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did customers want less shielding? Did customer's want a less heavy-duty chassis? Do customer's ever want less?

Did the general consumer know or care?

 

On my C64 and A8, I ripped that sheidling out anyways. Still have them all, lord knows why.

 

The 800xl was light years better in construction than C64, at least they used actual steel sheilding, the c64 used tinfoil cardboard, it was laughable :D
[Only the early C64s had that paper stuff.
The c64 had it for Years and years, the models you mention were much later in the c64's life, the vast majority of the c64s were the cardboard foil type, in other works cheap.

Sorry, but the C64 did only use the paper foil shielding for a short time. Now a lot of units were produced during that time, so it stands that alot will have the paper shielding, but they did change that in the original C64's history. I've got several, all have metal. Also have like 4 or 5 C64 motherboards from the original style, and only one of them had paperfoil. Also have a couple of C64C boards, also metal.

 

Again, never mattered to me anyways, I ripped that crap out first time I opened them. Just got in the way of upgrades like the StereoSid, Pokey-Gumby, 320k Mem, UltraSpeed O/S and stuff anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did customers want less shielding? Did customer's want a less heavy-duty chassis? Do customer's ever want less?

Did the general consumer know or care?

 

On my C64 and A8, I ripped that sheidling out anyways. Still have them all, lord knows why.

 

The 800xl was light years better in construction than C64, at least they used actual steel sheilding, the c64 used tinfoil cardboard, it was laughable :D
[Only the early C64s had that paper stuff.
The c64 had it for Years and years, the models you mention were much later in the c64's life, the vast majority of the c64s were the cardboard foil type, in other works cheap.

Sorry, but the C64 did only use the paper foil shielding for a short time. Now a lot of units were produced during that time, so it stands that alot will have the paper shielding, but they did change that in the original C64's history. I've got several, all have metal. Also have like 4 or 5 C64 motherboards from the original style, and only one of them had paperfoil. Also have a couple of C64C boards, also metal.

 

Again, never mattered to me anyways, I ripped that crap out first time I opened them. Just got in the way of upgrades like the StereoSid, Pokey-Gumby, 320k Mem, UltraSpeed O/S and stuff anyways.

Sorry, we were a dealer and repair center and they (c64) DID use that crappy tin foil for a very long time, you are incorrect. It just shows how cheap and flimsy the unit was. We even had sample units on display, that amazed customers to see how much difference there was in the machines quality. Units shipping in 86 still had the tin foil.Thats 4 years after introduction.

Edited by atarian63
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...