Atari v Commodore

[frogstar_robot]

My point was that in the US, all you ever see for sale are brown ones.

 

I've only seen one but a buddy of mine had a 64C. I mistook it for a 128 at first. As long as aesthetics are cricket, It felt solid to me and I liked the low profile.

 

As for on-topic, I've seen Fractalus and Koronis Rift on both and my experience mirrors what others have mentioned. Lucasfilm did a good job playing to the A8's strengths.

 

I also found a nice collection of C-64 game video clips on Archive.org:

 

http://www.archive.org/details/C64Gamevideoarchive

 

So while we're on the subject, I also prefer Defender on the A8 to the C-64:

 

http://www.archive.org/details/C64Gamevide...hive14-Defender

 

(5200 version but it looks the same)

 

C-64 Defender is higher res but I think the explosion effects and sound effects were better done on the Atari. I heard somewhere that A8/5200 Defender is a port from the Apple II and uses few of the A8's abilities save perhaps the slight edge in CPU power.

[FastRobPlus]

20 - CROSSBOW

 

A simple game for Atari, is a lot of fun for the XEGS users o whenever have the gunlight controls. Instead the C64 version has a bad gfx look, and bored loading times to get the next level or menu. Really this game is not fun with joysticks.

 

Didn't know it was ported by sculptured software. They did good work but they also drove Bill Williams out of game development so they’re really sort of evil.

[Allas]

21 - CRYSTAL CASTLES

 

Atari screenshots

 

I didn't expect nothing less for the company who create this game. Atari have the best porting and two versions for anyone who is interested. Excellent sound effects a great idea on his time.

 

C64 screenshots

[+Sauron]

Wow, A8 Crossbow looks better than the 7800 version, which looks like almost a direct port from the C64.

[R.Cade]

The Crystal Castles C64 version you are comparing is the unreleased Atarisoft prototype version. The widely available one was the Thundervision port.

[Artlover]

Wow, A8 Crossbow looks better than the 7800 version, which looks like almost a direct port from the C64.

That's true of many 7800 games that are on the C64. They always look pretty much exactly the same.

[Artlover]

The Crystal Castles C64 version you are comparing is the unreleased Atarisoft prototype version. The widely available one was the Thundervision port.

True, Atarisoft and Thundervision/US Gold (which is worse)

 

C64 Thundervision/US Gold.

 

I'd rather play the Atarisoft port then the TV/USG one.

[+MrFish]

20 - CROSSBOW

 

Atari screenshots

 

A simple game for Atari, is a lot of fun for the XEGS users o whenever have the gunlight controls. Instead the C64 version has a bad gfx look, and bored loading times to get the next level or menu. Really this game is not fun with joysticks.

 

C64 screenshots

 

Allas, it seems a little unfair to use more screenshots for the Atari version. If the Atari version is truly better (at least by simple visuals), then a screen-for-screen comparison should be given.

[Allas]

22 - DEFENDER

 

Atari screenshots

 

This time C64 have the best colors in it, but the action and impressive explosions are on Atari version. On advanced levels you feel like the boss of the universe!, thanks for the 1.7Mhz speed.

 

In February 1980 Williams Electronics decided to hire Eugene Javis to create his first video game called DEFENDER. Jarvis was a fanatic of the violence and action, so he focused on chaos when he starting the design of his first video game. First, he think on a game similar to Space Invaders, after a few time he change the concept for an Asteroids clone. he wasn't happy with the size of screen:

 

"I came up with scrolling the screen, making the field larger than the actual screen. The DEFENDER world turned out to be three and one-half screens or seven screens or something. Having a universe that was larger than the screen, that was just a huge, huge breakthrough.

My original idea was to go one direction. I tended to want to go left to right. My friend told me that was bogus, that you needed to be able to go backward. Changing the program to make it backward was a pain in the ass, but he finally talked to me into it."

 

"Somewhere during that time, I just wanted to put all my stuff in a box and quit. I don't know why I didn't actually quit. Everyone was hassling me on spending so much time on these little astronauts guys.

Around this time, a really talented guy joined the team. His name was Sam Dicker. He was about 19 years old.

He did really incredible effects for the game. All of a sudden, we were blowing up things, we had some sound going, and it was starting to get fun."

 

- Eugene Jarvis -

 

At 1983, Steve Baker ported the arcade DEFENDER game for Atari 800 machines.

 

C64 screenshots

Edited December 10, 2008 by Allas

[atarian63]

sure...

 

Beach Head 1 was ok compared to the c64, Beach Head 2, not...sound wise it is missing a lot... (comic bubbles vs samples f.e.) so I suspect that the conversion was not done in same energy. I was glad that they used DLIs for more colours... at least...

 

same btw. for Raid over Moscow...

 

Allas, can you post screenshots? Thanks!

Thanks!

That was it, beach head 2, I had never seen the Atari version.

[potatohead]

IMHO, that Atari Defender port does look a lot like the Apple version. Doesn't use enough of the machines capabilities. I love this game, and this port just isn't up to snuff. The C64 version is more colorful, hat tip there for sure. I think I agree with the balance between color and action.

 

This one is just begging for some love with the skills available today.

 

On the Atari, how come P/M isn't used more? Could easily be used for an overlay on the shots, to color those right up. Also could be used to spice up the top screen, and or draw in some enemies, such as a POD, for color as well.

 

Motion is 4 pixel. Ugh! Also enemy collisions to player shot resolve for the whole line! Ruins the game, frankly.

 

I can understand that shortcut for Apple ][, but not Atari, or C64 honestly.

 

Does the C64 do that? One shot blasts away everything on the line, no matter what?

 

Also largely missing, or under implemented is the dynamic screen rendering done in the Arcade version. ...at least this is on the Atari one. How about C64?

[HiroProX]

Partially, it was Jay Miner's fault to leave Atari. Actually, Atari wanted to make a "Amiga" with downward compatibility. Doing so, the line could have stand until today.

But Miner wanted to create the machine with the 68000 instead, they couldn't come to a conclusion and Miner left Atari.

 

The Amiga died by a similar fact. Owning an Amiga 2000 with Harddisk etc. 2 years later, Commodore kicked the old users right in the ass, by having no compatibility either downward and upward. Just some workarounds were done. You needed Hardware workarounds with Kick-switches or else. No software update or else was given.

So I decided to change to a PC after 1994 where you always had a cross compatibility for over 6 years...

 

Downward compatibility was unrealistic at the time. Since the WDC 65816 was still several years away, the only way to implement it would have been a 6502C as well as a 68000. The end result would have been far closer to the C128. And the biggest problem the C128 had, was being compatible with the C64. As a result, every company coded software for the C64 and the C128's abilities were rarely used. If Miner had yielded to the pressure to make the Amiga backwards compatible with the A8, software companies would have just coded for A8's in order to maximize potential market size.

 

And actually, 99% of Amiga software incompatibilites were due to programmers using 68000 specific hacks that Motorola themselves advised against using because they could guarantee those tricks would not work with later 680x0 series CPUs (and those tricks were broken by the 68012 and up).

[HiroProX]

Now I find ST vs. Amiga comparisons amusing, because at that point Atari and Commodore had effectively traded design teams. The ST is more closely related to the C64, and the Amiga is the direct descendant of the A8.

 

what I find amusing is how a8 fans are constantly trying to claim a piece of amiga's fame. but the amiga was C='s. without C= there would have been no amiga, just ripped off chips in an atari pc. so stop stealing, and stick to c64 vs a8.

 

The Amiga OCS was Jay Miner & Co.'s baby, and is a follow up of their previous work on the chipset for the A8. Agnus was a further enhancement to ANTIC, Denise was an improved version of GTIA with outputs for RGB video as well as composite, and Paula was an improved POKEY.

 

The ST, was designed by the same team that designed the C64, and in the end is a classic example of the universal truth that Jack Tramiel was an idiot. Atari had their own 68000 based machine in the works codenamed "Silver and Gold" when he bought them out. The video and audio chipset for this did eventually surface later, as the video system was kludged onto the Atari Transputer as a video subsystem, and the sound chip was AMY.

[supercat]

As a result, every company coded software for the C64 and the C128's abilities were rarely used. If Miner had yielded to the pressure to make the Amiga backwards compatible with the A8, software companies would have just coded for A8's in order to maximize potential market size.

 

Changing a few gates on the C-128 would have made it a much better computer. IMHO, the biggest problem was that there was no way to create an "enhanced" C64 mode which would allow the use of the C128 features. Given that the C128 left some extended goodies enabled (e.g. the display chip at $D600) I see no reason they couldn't have included a mode that left the MMU at $D500 but was otherwise C64-compatible. Such a mode could have made it easy to have programs that would run on either a C64 or C128, but would benefit from the extra features of the latter.

[Artlover]

Changing a few gates on the C-128 would have made it a much better computer. IMHO, the biggest problem was that there was no way to create an "enhanced" C64 mode which would allow the use of the C128 features. Given that the C128 left some extended goodies enabled (e.g. the display chip at $D600) I see no reason they couldn't have included a mode that left the MMU at $D500 but was otherwise C64-compatible. Such a mode could have made it easy to have programs that would run on either a C64 or C128, but would benefit from the extra features of the latter.

Still would not have provoked software makers to write extended C64 software, since most people (C64 users) would not beable to use those features.

 

Since only C-128 users could take advantage of it, might as well just write it for the C-128. Which they generally wouldn't. So you'de still end up with C64 only software in the end so as to not alienate the base with "features" they couldn't use for a computer they didn't have.

[Shawn Jefferson]

xxl, don't worry. You did great work with ZX and Apple emulators already. Knowing that you are preparing BBC and CPC emulators, njami. Just ignore these insults made by Oswald, don't bother. We all know it is impossible to do that stuff on C64.

 

Seconded! This emulation is awesome in and of itself, but even better is that it has led to some great ports and I hope to more in the future!

 

(Although I wouldn't call Oswald's post insulting, just boasting about what the C64 can do. Let's turn the Turrican tables and ask why it hasn't been done already?)

[Fröhn]

The ST, was designed by the same team that designed the C64, and in the end is a classic example of the universal truth that Jack Tramiel was an idiot.

Bullshit! The designer of the VIC-II (Albert Charpentier) and the designer of the SID (Robert Yannes) both left CBM after the C64 and build Ensoniq. They never had anything to do with Atari.

 

And concerning Tramiel: Ofcourse he destroyed Atari. He was running Commodore and ofcourse did everything to destroy his opponents during that time. When he left Commodore and bought Atari, Atari was already without money.

[Rybags]

There was an "enhanced" C-64 mode on the 128, however unintentional.

 

You can run in 2 MHz mode in the borders. Some software took advantage of it.

[emkay]

Bullshit! The designer of the VIC-II (Albert Charpentier) and the designer of the SID (Robert Yannes) both left CBM after the C64 and build Ensoniq. They never had anything to do with Atari.

 

The man in the the round is Shiraz Shivji....

[Irgendwer]

PS: Is there something like 'Landscape' on the C64? I really like to know...

 

Found it under the other name (was hard to remember): Stealth

 

Atari-Version:

+ background GFX / colours

+ fighter GFX / colours

+ plays more fluid

+ sound FX is richer

 

C64:

+ opponent Gfx (richer sprites)

- tower is somewhat disappointing compared to the Atari version

 

Try it out.

 

CU

Irgendwer

[atariksi]

The point was to compare the various aspects of the hardware of both machines.

Let's read Post #1, shall we.

...

You are a hypocrite since you yourself don't follow your own advice. You shouldn't be replying to this if you think it's not relevant to the thread.

 

>If I write a game for two computers, both games are 100% complete and look/feel/play exactly the same only one uses sprites and one uses char groups, then yes, it is irrelevant.

 

Some software runs the same on Apple, C64, Atari but that does not make them equal on the hardware level.

 

>>Huh, you just contradicted yourself. You stated above "a display without flicker" and now you are talking about generating more than 16 colors using a flickering mode.

 

>Two different examples with two different critera. Futher, it's not even the same kind of flicker.

 

If you want to compare real colors, compare real ones. If you want to compare flickering colors compare flickering colors on both.

 

>>That's your own conclusion. I listed various aspects of the hardware not just 1.79Mhz>1Mhz.

 

>Yeah like 4 channels>3 channels, and 256 colors>16 colors.

 

Sorry, I never wrote that first part. But I did write stuff on factoring out WSYNC.

 

>"My conclusion"? Sorry, what have your last 144 posts in this thread comparing numbers & specs been about then if not trying to show the Atari is better?

 

I did show the Atari is better in various hardware aspects, but you want to cloud things like some others are trying to do as well.

 

>>And if you think you don't need to know anything about the hardware, you cannot justify a claim like Atari cannot make a better Zaxxon or whatever else.

 

> I never made such a claim. Quite the contrary.

 

Post #1422:

 

I've got one word:

 

ZAXXON

 

No amount of Atari bias in the world can make that better then the C64 version.

[atariksi]

Many cartoons are 24 fps - which means 24 individual pictures / second. Sprite flickering is still 60 pictures per second - and each only has 4 sprites in this case.

 

The problem with multiplexing isn't the rate, it's the persistence of the tv/monitor which causes the image to quickly fade and flicker. When movie frames are shown on a screen, they are kept up there for almost the entire interval without fading.

 

But the problem is the rate - the persistance is pretty well defined for NTSC/PAL - and multiplexing sprites flicker.

The original comparision with cartoons was invalid as it tried to imply that 30 Hz sprite flicker was the same as 24fps cartoons.

( 24 fps movies are often shown 3 times at 72 fps - and 24fps cartoons are often doubled up for PAL )

 

I'm quite interested in horizontal reuse of players - but I think it will consume the cpu cycles quite quickly

 

Persistence do in effect make it as if the image is being doubled. Even Amiga in interlace is writing to every other field and causes flicker but if the fade to black is slower, it reduces the flicker. I have re-used horizontal players multiple times-- in fact 9 players total on one scanline by doubling Players 0..3 and using Player 5 as is since it's too complex to double on one scanline.

[atariksi]

The best situations come about when both sides admit that there are advantages to the other platform.

It is foolish to deny the C64 sprite capabilities ( they are 75% of the chip ), and the fact that the sprites and the colour graphics are 320 and the scrolling are at 320 pixel resolution is a major advance.

But for the time the Atari was a major advance, and the colour capabilities are still ahead of the C64, and the faster CPU is helpful in some situations. And , Antic allows much easier manipulation of large maps - ( I remember many early C64 games only scrolling the main charset , not the colour map ... I read that Mayhem uses a Vic hack to scroll colour ram though - it would be interesting to know what the hack is )

 

If you are going to state "faster CPU is helpful in some situations", you mine as well be fair and use the same for 1/320 pixels scrolling is helpful in some situations and C64s wider or 320 resolution sprites are helpful in some situations. And inversely, Atari's high sprites are helpful in some situations.

 

I get color graphics in Atari's 320 mode especially with priority set to 0.

 

I would think that 320 resolution sprites would require more cycles to set as it's no longer an 8-bit value; need to check for overflow and set the MSB in some other register.

[atariksi]

No, 1.77Mhz - 1MHz issue

Which doesn't mean as much as you think. 1.77 MHz of A8 are 20-50% faster than the 0.985 MHz of the C64 due to the heavy A8 DMA load. In case of 256x192 hires (speccy res) it is ~40%. The raw numbers don't tell as much as you think.

 

I don't see how you get that range of 20-50%. At upper limit, you are losing 9 cycles for refresh per scanline for a total of 262*9 = 2358 cycles of the 29868 cycles available. That would drop you to about 1.65Mhz still 68% faster than 0.985Mhz.

[emkay]

I don't see how you get that range of 20-50%. At upper limit, you are losing 9 cycles for refresh per scanline for a total of 262*9 = 2358 cycles of the 29868 cycles available. That would drop you to about 1.65Mhz still 68% faster than 0.985Mhz.

 

Not to forget that the "dirty" lines also take CPU time away on the C64. 0,985Mhz is also not reachable then...