actual differences between TI-994/A & CV games
walt...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
TI-994/A and the ColecoVision, to my knowledge, have the same CPU.
I find this quite wacky.
My question is: why do the games on the two systems differ so much?
Why no gr8 arcade hits available on the TI, yet they are on the CV? OKay,
probably obvious marketing differences and constraints.
Yet atarisoft gave TI a chance, and made some REALLY good games. The
TI-994/A version of Donkey Kong is excellent.
--
walt...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
1979 Triumph Spitfire 1500(under restoration)
http://www.umn.edu/nlhome/m235/walt0101/index.html
Bruce Tomlin
>TI-994/A and the ColecoVision, to my knowledge, have the same CPU.
No, they have the same *graphics chip*. (Well almost the same. Coleco
used the RGB version for some reason, so that's an RGB RF modulator in
there.)
>Why no gr8 arcade hits available on the TI, yet they are on the CV? OKay,
>probably obvious marketing differences and constraints.
Probably because the Coleco died so quickly? And after The Crash,
companies thought nobody wanted anything except "real computer" warez.
So when *did* the 99/4A die anyhow? I'm talking about when they had that
final $20 rock-bottom clean-out-our-warehouse price.
Laurent.DESNOGUES
> Interesting pondering...
>
>
> TI-994/A and the ColecoVision, to my knowledge, have the same CPU.
No. The TI had a 16bit TMS9900 (made by TI) and
the Colecovision a Z80.
Laurent
Craig N Taylor
: Interesting pondering...
: TI-994/A and the ColecoVision, to my knowledge, have the same CPU.
: I find this quite wacky.
: My question is: why do the games on the two systems differ so much?
Didja know that the C64 had the same CPU as the Atari 2600? Actually,
I think the NES also used a 6502, but it might have been modified... The
Sega Master System had the same CPU as the Coleco too, but it probably
had a higher clock speed and a better video array.
: Yet atarisoft gave TI a chance, and made some REALLY good games. The
: TI-994/A version of Donkey Kong is excellent.
Hmmm... never played it... I always liked the C64 much better,
mainly because it was easier to program and you didn't have to save to an
audio tape..... Had a descent version of Donkey Kong too, but I don't
think it had all the levels, and Q*bert was killer...
Craig
walt...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
>So when *did* the 99/4A die anyhow? I'm talking about when they had that
>final $20 rock-bottom clean-out-our-warehouse price.
TI screwed us over on September 1, 1983. The TI had more potential
than it was used for. Sure it had poor graphics power compared to the
other machines, but that shouldn't keep it down. After all, they made
a gazillion games for the Atari 2600, right? If I could only go back
in time, I'd be a developer for TI-994/A software, even though
I don't know a single thing about assembly language.
There were a few good knock-offs of current software titles made for the
ti many years later. TI Runner(I hated it when they made any software
apps with TI in the beginning) was an excellent clone of Loderunner, even
though the guys were twice as tall as the Br0derbund version.
There was also Junkman Jr., I think a perfect copy of Jumpman. But I
don't remember either title very well.
TI Invaders was a perfect clone of Space Invaders. Too bad they didn't
strike up a licensinig with Taito. Just a few graphics changes and they
could of easily had it.
Hmm. The memories. Tunnels of Doom was by far one of the best RPGs for it
back in the early 80s. And to think it was made by TI!
Dennis Gale Brown
>walt...@maroon.tc.umn.edu wrote:
> Didja know that the C64 had the same CPU as the Atari 2600? Actually,
>I think the NES also used a 6502, but it might have been modified... The
The C64 uses a 6510, but close enough. [sorry, I've been hounded about this
"mistake" so often, I just had to hound someone myself! :) ]
Let's see... everything 8-bit by Atari used some form of the 6502.
The VIC-20 uses a 6502, right?
The Apple 8-bits use a 6502.
How about the Commodore PET? And 128?
I wonder if anyone has tried to make a "generic" 6502 emulator, then
build emulated architectures around it (like Marat Fayzullin has done
with the Z80 (MSX, ColecoVision, and Gameboy--and maybe someday,
Marat will feel insipred to make an SMS emulator too?)). It would be a neat
way to get a lot of popular old machines emulated in one fell swoop
(ok, maybe it's not that easy). The world really needs 7800 and NES
emulators!
--
Dennis Brown - d...@owlnet.rice.edu - Fan of ROM-based games & systems
Visit the Classic Home Games Museum at http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~dgb/museum/
CudaBert
Gale Brown) writes:
>I wonder if anyone has tried to make a "generic" 6502 emulator, then
>build emulated architectures around it (like Marat Fayzullin has done
>with the Z80
I've written a 6502 emulator for WinDoze, but it can be easily ported. If
anybody wants the source I'll give it to ya, it is written entirely in
BC++ 4.5. On a P90, it runs between 400,000 and 800,000 IPS depending on
how it's tweaked :-)
--
Web page? We don't need no stinking Web page!
Like 2600 stuff? Check out:
ftp://ftp.magicnet.net/pub/users/cudabert
Anthony Chapman
writes
>
>There was also Junkman Jr., I think a perfect copy of Jumpman. But I
>don't remember either title very well.
>
>TI Invaders was a perfect clone of Space Invaders. Too bad they didn't
>strike up a licensinig with Taito. Just a few graphics changes and they
>could of easily had it.
>
>Hmm. The memories. Tunnels of Doom was by far one of the best RPGs for it
>back in the early 80s. And to think it was made by TI!
>
Remember PARSEC? That was cool!
--
Anthony Chapman
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
walt...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
> Remember PARSEC? That was cool!
OH yes. Those wacky invaders.
I'd LOVE to get the sound effects from when the enemy ships are about to
attack.
They were simple warning bells and whistles, but they were awesome.
I'd put 'em into my windows events alongside my Defender, Joust and
Pacman SFX.
You could get 'em eeasily. Just jack in the TI to a soundblaster, but
make sure your ship is drifting backwards whne you get the warning
sounds. That way you won't get the ship noise.
Anyone wanna do it? No, I'm not gonna pay for it, and no I'm not
gonna participate in an auction for it, and no I'm not gonna
trade for it(wel, maybe, I'll give you URLS for some nice SFX)
Julie Brandon
On 29 Feb 1996 06:41:21 -0500, top...@aol.com (Topgoro) wrote:
>Hi!
>
>I may be interested in writing a 2600 emulator for the PC,
>using assembly language so it can run on slower machines.
[grin] I personally doubt you'd get anywhere, it is a serious
project.
The 2600 does not have video memory, as such, nor does it have
automatically generated vertical sync signal (i.e. the signal that
says "we're finished display this screen, lets start again and make a
new frame.) The poor processor has to do all of these things itself;
i.e. the timing for the sync. signals, and also writing many of the
graphics to the screen.
This means your emulator would have to emulate the timings of the 65XX
processor *exactly* to work, and you'd have to emulate a TV screen
scanning etc. to pick up the screen data.
It would *not* be like writing an emulator for a C64, Sinclair
Spectrum, or something like that.
>Does the 2600 microprocessor use the same instruction set
>as that of the C64?
Very similar one I think. Check out the "Stella" manual on the
various Atari 2600 home pages, that'll help you find out about the
more technical side of the 2600 (from the programming point of view.)
A very interesting document actually if you really want to know what
goes on inside a 2600.
Ta-ta for now!
Love,
Julie.
Bruce Tomlin
>This means your emulator would have to emulate the timings of the 65XX
>processor *exactly* to work, and you'd have to emulate a TV screen
>scanning etc. to pick up the screen data.
Oh, and don't forget to tell him about the lovely collision detect. Like
how Freeway reads it twice per line, once for the left player, then once
for the right player. You've got to emulate that timing, too.
>It would *not* be like writing an emulator for a C64, Sinclair
>Spectrum, or something like that.
You gotta love it how they talk like the hard part is over when they've
got the CPU emulated. The CPU is the *easy* part. Most of the emulators
that are out there are for systems that have display buffer video, which
is a piece of cake to emulate. The 2600 and the Vectrex video displays
are "live and direct", and that's what makes them so difficult to emulate.
The only reason that any 2600 emulators exist at all right now is because
of the higher interest level.