8 bit demo competition Rules

16 views
Skip to first unread message

Brix

unread,
Oct 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/27/98
to

My suggestions:

Any 8 bitter is allowed (also NES and PC's), But limited to 6 Mhz Clockrate, to have a
somewhat fair competition.

Hardware:
Stock Unit, Floppy/Tape, Color/Monocrome Monitor. That's all.
No Cartridges, no memory-enhancements, no turbocards and no soundenhancements (eg. Synergy
Sid card for plus/4).

Voting:
The whole crowd votes, but votesheets contain the Scene the voter belongs to.
Scene dependant Percentage-voting: Means, if 1 of 10 CPC-sceners votes atari, Atari gets
10 percent from the CPC-Scene. If 100 of 1000 C-64 sceners vote Atari, Atari gets 10
percent from the C-64 Scene.
So we avoid that a big scene has too much influence, just because of its size.
To avoid selfvoting, selfvoting is NOT allowed. Means: Atari voters vote for C-64, Spec
and CPC, but not for Atari-Demos. C-64 voters vote Atari, Spec and CPC, etc, but no C-64
Demo.

To get a clear overall impression AND to avoid mass-contributions we limit the amount of
demos to 5 Contributions per System.

The Demo doesn't need to be unreleased. To be fair, we let each scene chose it's
contestants. As a C-64 Scener I would probably chose "Dutch Breeze/BML", "Tower
Power/CML", "Parts/Oxyron", "Last Traktor III/Horizon" and "Spasmolytic/Censor" to
compete for C-64.
With this rule we get the best demos from each system to show real abilities, not just the
abilities of one or 2 lazy coders who try to code a fast crap demo for this competition.

All Demos will be recorded on VHS-Video to avoid Problems with Videobeamer-connections.

Wouldn't that be a proper rule for... eeeehh maybe TP 8 in Denmark?

-Brix/Plush-

Harcon

unread,
Oct 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/27/98
to
Brix wrote:
>
> The whole crowd votes, but votesheets contain the Scene the voter belongs to.
> Scene dependant Percentage-voting: Means, if 1 of 10 CPC-sceners votes atari, Atari gets
> 10 percent from the CPC-Scene. If 100 of 1000 C-64 sceners vote Atari, Atari gets 10
> percent from the C-64 Scene.

And if all dragon owners (yes all 1 of them!!) votes speccy, then the
speccy scene get 100% support from the dragon scene???? Also, will the
6mhz limitation include underclocked comps? or compss running at there
normal capacity

David Cantrell

unread,
Oct 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/27/98
to
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 16:10:20 +0100, w_g...@NOSPAMbielefeld.netsurf.de
(Brix) enlightened us thusly:

>
>My suggestions:
>
>Any 8 bitter is allowed (also NES and PC's), But limited to 6 Mhz Clockrate, to have a
>somewhat fair competition.

So no PcW16? Why not just limit it to 'any computer which uses an
8-bit data bus'? Don't forget that the machines with faster
processors tend to have to shift more memory around on the screen so
things balance out.

Incidentally, my proposed '8-bit data bus' rule disqualifies PCs
unless they have an 8088 or 80188 CPU.

As to your idea of having an award for 'best use of hardware',
unfortunately, the vast majority of 8-bitters are unaware of the
capabilities of other platforms and would not be able to make an
informed decision.

--
David Cantrell, part-time Unix/perl/SQL/java techie
full-time chef/musician/homebrewer
occasional CPC user
http://www.ThePentagon.com/NukeEmUp

Graham Briggs

unread,
Oct 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/27/98
to
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, David Cantrell wrote:

-)>My suggestions: >Any 8 bitter is allowed (also NES and PC's), But
-)limited to 6 Mhz Clockrate, to have a >somewhat fair competition.

That would allow an Amstrad NC100 to enter...

-)So no PcW16? Why not just limit it to 'any computer which uses an
-)8-bit data bus'?

Sinclair QL?

-)Incidentally, my proposed '8-bit data bus' rule disqualifies PCs
-)unless they have an 8088 or 80188 CPU.

Oh no!

Graham


gt7...@gatech.edu

unread,
Oct 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/27/98
to
From: Nuke...@ThePentagon.com (David Cantrell)

>Incidentally, my proposed '8-bit data bus' rule disqualifies PCs
>unless they have an 8088 or 80188 CPU.

But what about Pentiums that have ISA slots (with the AT
extension bit pulled out)?
Cheers,
Phil


>--
>David Cantrell, part-time Unix/perl/SQL/java techie
> full-time chef/musician/homebrewer
> occasional CPC user
> http://www.ThePentagon.com/NukeEmUp

--
Philip C. Tsao (gt_7...@prism.gatech.edu) <- remove the '_'
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332, USA
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt7357a
WWW page: http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt7357a

Clockmeister

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to

gt7...@gatech.edu wrote in article <715cia$i...@catapult.gatech.edu>...


> From: Nuke...@ThePentagon.com (David Cantrell)
> >Incidentally, my proposed '8-bit data bus' rule disqualifies PCs
> >unless they have an 8088 or 80188 CPU.
>
> But what about Pentiums that have ISA slots (with the AT
> extension bit pulled out)?
> Cheers,

He means eight bit data bus on the processor, in which case only the
8088/80188 applies.


Andrew Cadley

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to

Brix wrote in message ...
:
:My suggestions:
:
:Any 8 bitter is allowed (also NES and PC's), But limited to 6 Mhz

Clockrate, to have a
:somewhat fair competition.


That's not a particulary good way of limiting speed though, is it? I mean,
*everyone* who has been even vaguely following any of these threads should
know by that a 6Mhz 6502 would be faster than a 6Mhz Z80. The same goes for
other processor flavours.

:Hardware:


:Stock Unit, Floppy/Tape, Color/Monocrome Monitor. That's all.
:No Cartridges, no memory-enhancements, no turbocards and no
soundenhancements (eg. Synergy
:Sid card for plus/4).


Sounds fair to me. By "No Cartridges" I presume we aren't excluding them for
NES demos. :) Or to supply BASIC to a CPC+ (which wouldn't do anything
without one) or other machines which absolutely have to have them. Just
things like Fastloader cartridges or Sideways ROMS.

:Voting:
:The whole crowd votes, but votesheets contain the Scene the voter belongs


to.
:Scene dependant Percentage-voting: Means, if 1 of 10 CPC-sceners votes
atari, Atari gets
:10 percent from the CPC-Scene. If 100 of 1000 C-64 sceners vote Atari,
Atari gets 10
:percent from the C-64 Scene.

:So we avoid that a big scene has too much influence, just because of its


size.
:To avoid selfvoting, selfvoting is NOT allowed. Means: Atari voters vote
for C-64, Spec
:and CPC, but not for Atari-Demos. C-64 voters vote Atari, Spec and CPC,
etc, but no C-64
:Demo.


But smaller scenes get a bigger influence? And what about people who sort of
belong in two scenes, do they have to choose one, or are they excluded from
both?

:To get a clear overall impression AND to avoid mass-contributions we limit


the amount of
:demos to 5 Contributions per System.
:
:The Demo doesn't need to be unreleased. To be fair, we let each scene chose
it's
:contestants. As a C-64 Scener I would probably chose "Dutch Breeze/BML",
"Tower
:Power/CML", "Parts/Oxyron", "Last Traktor III/Horizon" and
"Spasmolytic/Censor" to
:compete for C-64.
:With this rule we get the best demos from each system to show real
abilities, not just the
:abilities of one or 2 lazy coders who try to code a fast crap demo for this
competition.


Well, I really don't think mass contribution was ever going to be a problem,
especially if the demo has to be written in assembly. Also if released demos
are allowed then its unlikely we will see any new demos, unless the deadline
is ages away. Who wants to try to compete with say Shock on the Speccy, or
Logon's The Demo on a CPC. However, if they are excluded people might try a
little intro type demo, or something.

:All Demos will be recorded on VHS-Video to avoid Problems with
Videobeamer-connections.


How? Sure its easy for machines like the Speccy and C64 which broadcast
their piss-poor displays to a TV, but those with proper graphics *have* to
use a monitor. Are you supposed to sit in front of the screen with a
camcorder, trying to get a decent picture of the display? Are people
supposed to base their decisions on a fuzzy, out of focus picture?

Furthermore, how are people going to see these videos? I know, maybe we
could turn them into multi-megabyte mpegs or avis and upload them to a
website. Of course if we had restricted tricks to what an emulator can mimic
we wouldn't have this problem, now would we.

What the hell is a Videobeamer anyway?

:Wouldn't that be a proper rule for... eeeehh maybe TP 8 in Denmark?


Eh? What's TP 8? Is it some sort of convention? If so, why don't people just
take machines along instead of pissing about with videotapes?

AndyC

David Cantrell

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to
On 27 Oct 1998 21:05:14 GMT, gt7...@gatech.edu enlightened us thusly:

>From: Nuke...@ThePentagon.com (David Cantrell)
>>Incidentally, my proposed '8-bit data bus' rule disqualifies PCs
>>unless they have an 8088 or 80188 CPU.
>
> But what about Pentiums that have ISA slots (with the AT
>extension bit pulled out)?

I assume there's a smiley there somewhere.

Kira L. Brown

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to
In message <Pine.LNX.4.05.981027...@www-stu.cai.cam.ac.uk>
Graham Briggs <gb...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, David Cantrell wrote:
>
> -)So no PcW16? Why not just limit it to 'any computer which uses an
> -)8-bit data bus'?
>
> Sinclair QL?

...has an 8bit databus.

kira.

--
This is a tagline.

Green Been

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to
On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Kira L. Brown wrote:

-)> -)So no PcW16? Why not just limit it to 'any computer which uses an
-)> -)8-bit data bus'?
-)> Sinclair QL?
-)...has an 8bit databus.

Yup, a 68008.

That would beat the other computers, except that the QL sucked mightily
when it came to graphics and sound. Sinclair really knew how to woo
customers, and how to fit 100% of the components on the circuit board...

[demo competition]

Just limit the entries to computers which are commonly taken to be 8-bit,
have keyboards, and were reasonably popular somewhere in the world
sometime. If a million New Brains were sold in Dubai, then they can enter
too... I take reasonably popular to mean had several releases by top
software houses (of the time), and sold >10,000...

A special entry can be created for souped up computers, so those 10MHz
Enterprise 64's can enter.

1k demos, 4k demos and full size demos.
Best Slideshow / music disk.

How about an award for best serious software? This is just as valid,
because some 8-bitters were more suited to this than games. I suppose CPM
has to be banned though, or entered as a platform in its own right.

Graham

Why doesn't Pine recognise comp.sys.acorn anyway?
I wonder what great demo effects can be created on an Aim65?


lo...@my.sig

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to
In the sacred domain of comp.sys.sinclair didst Kira L. Brown <kbr...@neutralino.demon.com.uk> eloquently scribe:
: In message <Pine.LNX.4.05.981027...@www-stu.cai.cam.ac.uk>
: Graham Briggs <gb...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

:> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, David Cantrell wrote:

:>
:> -)So no PcW16? Why not just limit it to 'any computer which uses an
:> -)8-bit data bus'?
:>
:> Sinclair QL?

: ...has an 8bit databus.

But not for long....
I wish that damned Goldfire would hurry UP!!!!
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5...@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk| "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| Finalist in:- | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.12 GCS>$ d-(dpu) s+/- a C++ US++ P L/L+ E-- W+ N++ o+ K PS+ w-- M+/++ |
|PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ X+/X++ R+ tv+ b+ DI+ D+ G e>e++ h/h+ !r!| Space for hire |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Hill

unread,
Oct 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/29/98
to
On 28-Oct-98 01:19:28, Clockmeister wrote Re: 8 bit demo competition Rules:

>gt7...@gatech.edu wrote in article <715cia$i...@catapult.gatech.edu>...
>> From: Nuke...@ThePentagon.com (David Cantrell)
>> >Incidentally, my proposed '8-bit data bus' rule disqualifies PCs
>> >unless they have an 8088 or 80188 CPU.
>>
>> But what about Pentiums that have ISA slots (with the AT
>> extension bit pulled out)?
>> Cheers,
>He means eight bit data bus on the processor, in which case only the
>8088/80188 applies.

How about a Sinclair QL with its 68008? It has an 8bit data bus IIRC :)

--
Paul


Ville Jouppi

unread,
Oct 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/29/98
to
On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 22:53:08 +0000, Green Been <gb...@cam.ac.uk>
wrote:

>I wonder what great demo effects can be created on an Aim65?

If you're talking unexpanded, then maybe a jerk-scroller.. :-)
--
Universal CBM, PEZ, and TI-calc nut, Scout, Glider pilot, "Student"
Email: vjo...@sci.fi, URL: http://www.sci.fi/~vjouppi/
GSM: +358-40-5679999, IRCNet: Jope
A4000|CSII040/40MHz/28MB|CV64/2MB|2*512MB|1942

Brix

unread,
Oct 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/29/98
to
In article <3635F331...@cs.strath.ac.uk>, ik...@cs.strath.ac.uk says...

> Brix wrote:
> >
> > The whole crowd votes, but votesheets contain the Scene the voter belongs to.
> > Scene dependant Percentage-voting: Means, if 1 of 10 CPC-sceners votes atari, Atari gets
> > 10 percent from the CPC-Scene. If 100 of 1000 C-64 sceners vote Atari, Atari gets 10
> > percent from the C-64 Scene.
>
> And if all dragon owners (yes all 1 of them!!) votes speccy, then the
> speccy scene get 100% support from the dragon scene???? Also, will the
> 6mhz limitation include underclocked comps? or compss running at there
> normal capacity

Huh, that would mean we need a minimum of voters for each scene - thanks for this hint.
I think I had the Stock computer - rule, which means "not overclocked" "not underclocked"
- just the clockrate it has usually without modification.

-Brix/Plush-

Brix

unread,
Oct 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/29/98
to
In article <3635ff06.13461746@thunder>, Nuke...@ThePentagon.com says...

> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 16:10:20 +0100, w_g...@NOSPAMbielefeld.netsurf.de
> (Brix) enlightened us thusly:
>
> >
> >My suggestions:
> >
> >Any 8 bitter is allowed (also NES and PC's), But limited to 6 Mhz Clockrate, to have a
> >somewhat fair competition.
>
> So no PcW16? Why not just limit it to 'any computer which uses an
> 8-bit data bus'? Don't forget that the machines with faster
> processors tend to have to shift more memory around on the screen so
> things balance out.

Not bad either, but I'd prefer the 8bit processor rule - the adressbus size is rather hard
to find out on exotic machines.. those dudes could tell you anything.



> Incidentally, my proposed '8-bit data bus' rule disqualifies PCs
> unless they have an 8088 or 80188 CPU.

> As to your idea of having an award for 'best use of hardware',


> unfortunately, the vast majority of 8-bitters are unaware of the
> capabilities of other platforms and would not be able to make an
> informed decision.

The best use of hardware can't be found out by the public, that's true.
Most C-64 sceners don't know about mode-splitting on CPC and most CPC-Sceners probably
don't know about the difficulties of high-color-density in C64-Graphics or Sprites-over-
FLI tricks.
My intention was more to give an award for the "BEST LOOKING EFFECTS MADE WITH AN 8 BIT
MACHINE" than giving an award for best use of hardware.

-Brix/Plush-

Brix

unread,
Oct 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/29/98
to
In article <Pine.LNX.4.05.981027...@www-stu.cai.cam.ac.uk>,
gb...@cam.ac.uk says...

> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, David Cantrell wrote:
>
> -)>My suggestions: >Any 8 bitter is allowed (also NES and PC's), But
> -)limited to 6 Mhz Clockrate, to have a >somewhat fair competition.
>
> That would allow an Amstrad NC100 to enter...

I don't know that machine - would it be a problem?

-Wanja-

Brix

unread,
Oct 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/29/98
to
In article <Pine.LNX.4.05.98102...@www-stu.cai.cam.ac.uk>,
gb...@cam.ac.uk says...

> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Kira L. Brown wrote:
>
> -)> -)So no PcW16? Why not just limit it to 'any computer which uses an
> -)> -)8-bit data bus'?
> -)> Sinclair QL?
> -)...has an 8bit databus.
>
> Yup, a 68008.
>
> That would beat the other computers, except that the QL sucked mightily
> when it came to graphics and sound. Sinclair really knew how to woo
> customers, and how to fit 100% of the components on the circuit board...
>
> [demo competition]
>
> Just limit the entries to computers which are commonly taken to be 8-bit,
> have keyboards, and were reasonably popular somewhere in the world
> sometime. If a million New Brains were sold in Dubai, then they can enter
> too... I take reasonably popular to mean had several releases by top
> software houses (of the time), and sold >10,000...

That would be C64/128,Spectrum,Amstrad CPC464/664/6128, Atari 800Xl (and it's little
brother), Spectravideo (MSX).

> 1k demos, 4k demos and full size demos.
> Best Slideshow / music disk.

1k Demos are rather useless, they only show coding abilities, and too less Graphic-
abilities.

When we do such competition on a usual eent, like TP8, Mekka/Symposium or so, we won't
have time for various competitions. We have to get it all in one.

Full size demos provide all - good music, good GFX, good code.
This is why I suggested that each scene sends a choice of 5 of their best demos ever
released to the competition.
Note: The Effect counts - no matter how hard the code is, if it looks ugly, it will me
misjudged by the voters.

> How about an award for best serious software? This is just as valid,
> because some 8-bitters were more suited to this than games. I suppose CPM
> has to be banned though, or entered as a platform in its own right.

Not bad, but how do you compare POVRAY to LIGHTWAVE 3d or even Lotus123 for example? I
have problems with this, because you cannot judge by the amout of features (a GFX-Program
that also rubs you dick, switches the TV on/off and controls your CD-Player isn't really
what I call a good GFX-Program, when it has one brush only).
You can also NOT judge the usability, because some prefer A mouse with GUI, some prefer
Key-shortcuts, some Pulldownmenus, some windows... the more you get used to the software
the more you'll like it maybe (or not).. judging the usability requires a fair experience,
which is pretty hard to gain during a short competition.

-Brix/Plush-

Brix

unread,
Oct 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/29/98
to
In article <716nk7$r...@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>, a.p.c...@uea.ac.uk says...

>
> Brix wrote in message ...
> :
> :My suggestions:
> :
> :Any 8 bitter is allowed (also NES and PC's), But limited to 6 Mhz

> Clockrate, to have a
> :somewhat fair competition.
>
> That's not a particulary good way of limiting speed though, is it? I mean,
> *everyone* who has been even vaguely following any of these threads should
> know by that a 6Mhz 6502 would be faster than a 6Mhz Z80. The same goes for
> other processor flavours.

Yes, but do you want someone to compete with a 20Mhz clocked 8-bit machine (if there was
one).
This is just to eliminate too fast machines. Most stock units are in this area anyway (3,5
Mhz spectrum, 2 Mhz C128, 1 Mhz C-64)
Note, I'm talking about stock units. Others are not allowed.

> :Hardware:
> :Stock Unit, Floppy/Tape, Color/Monocrome Monitor. That's all.
> :No Cartridges, no memory-enhancements, no turbocards and no
> soundenhancements (eg. Synergy
> :Sid card for plus/4).
>
> Sounds fair to me. By "No Cartridges" I presume we aren't excluding them for
> NES demos. :) Or to supply BASIC to a CPC+ (which wouldn't do anything
> without one) or other machines which absolutely have to have them. Just
> things like Fastloader cartridges or Sideways ROMS.

NES has no floppy-drive, nor has an ATARI 2600. We make exceptions of the rules when the
machines have nothing but a cartridge port, also when the machine needs a cartridge to
work (like the mentioned CPC+ or TI66)

> :Voting:
> :The whole crowd votes, but votesheets contain the Scene the voter belongs


> to.
> :Scene dependant Percentage-voting: Means, if 1 of 10 CPC-sceners votes
> atari, Atari gets
> :10 percent from the CPC-Scene. If 100 of 1000 C-64 sceners vote Atari,
> Atari gets 10
> :percent from the C-64 Scene.

> :So we avoid that a big scene has too much influence, just because of its
> size.
> :To avoid selfvoting, selfvoting is NOT allowed. Means: Atari voters vote
> for C-64, Spec
> :and CPC, but not for Atari-Demos. C-64 voters vote Atari, Spec and CPC,
> etc, but no C-64
> :Demo.
>
> But smaller scenes get a bigger influence? And what about people who sort of
> belong in two scenes, do they have to choose one, or are they excluded from
> both?

Chose one.
Other ways would be excluding all competing scenes from voting and letting the PC
community decide or letting the whole Partypeople vote (of course still no selfvoting
allowed).

> :To get a clear overall impression AND to avoid mass-contributions we limit
> the amount of
> :demos to 5 Contributions per System.
> :
> :The Demo doesn't need to be unreleased. To be fair, we let each scene chose
> it's
> :contestants. As a C-64 Scener I would probably chose "Dutch Breeze/BML",
> "Tower
> :Power/CML", "Parts/Oxyron", "Last Traktor III/Horizon" and
> "Spasmolytic/Censor" to
> :compete for C-64.
> :With this rule we get the best demos from each system to show real
> abilities, not just the
> :abilities of one or 2 lazy coders who try to code a fast crap demo for this
> competition.
>

> Well, I really don't think mass contribution was ever going to be a problem,
> especially if the demo has to be written in assembly. Also if released demos
> are allowed then its unlikely we will see any new demos, unless the deadline
> is ages away. Who wants to try to compete with say Shock on the Speccy, or
> Logon's The Demo on a CPC. However, if they are excluded people might try a
> little intro type demo, or something.

I think to show the best of all is the best solution. So we get a clear impression what is
possible, and not what os possible in time. Let the best compete with the best. No
deadline.

> :All Demos will be recorded on VHS-Video to avoid Problems with
> Videobeamer-connections.
>
> How? Sure its easy for machines like the Speccy and C64 which broadcast
> their piss-poor displays to a TV, but those with proper graphics *have* to
> use a monitor. Are you supposed to sit in front of the screen with a
> camcorder, trying to get a decent picture of the display? Are people
> supposed to base their decisions on a fuzzy, out of focus picture?

Here is the reason why all should be on Video. A SCART-Plug always gives a fair picture. I
doubt there will be any 8-bit machine that needs more than this.
Btw: On a videobeamer every picture (even from PCs) is a bit blury as the limit goes
for all machines it isn't such a problem...

> Furthermore, how are people going to see these videos? I know, maybe we
> could turn them into multi-megabyte mpegs or avis and upload them to a
> website. Of course if we had restricted tricks to what an emulator can mimic
> we wouldn't have this problem, now would we.

The competition will be held on a usual convention. So no need to upload it anywhere.

> What the hell is a Videobeamer anyway?

A machine that throws the picture, seen on the monitor or TV-screen to a Wall. Cinema-
size. So the whole voting Public in the competition room can see it.

> :Wouldn't that be a proper rule for... eeeehh maybe TP 8 in Denmark?
>
> Eh? What's TP 8? Is it some sort of convention? If so, why don't people just
> take machines along instead of pissing about with videotapes?

[TP8]
Yes it is a 3-days convention held around christmas in Denmark.

[videotapes]
On those conventions there were always problems with connecting all the different machines
(Pc,Acorn,C-64,Amiga) to the Videobeamer, because of different plugs and signals. So now
the standard for all non-PC's is to record the Demos on VHS a short time before the
competition.
This is done by the Organizers of the Party together with a guy who has the knowledge and
who brings the machine to play the demo.

-Brix/Plush-

Bruce R. McFarling

unread,
Oct 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/30/98
to
On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, David Cantrell wrote:

> On 27 Oct 1998 21:05:14 GMT, gt7...@gatech.edu enlightened us thusly:
>
> >From: Nuke...@ThePentagon.com (David Cantrell)

> >>Incidentally, my proposed '8-bit data bus' rule disqualifies PCs
> >>unless they have an 8088 or 80188 CPU.
> >

> > But what about Pentiums that have ISA slots (with the AT
> >extension bit pulled out)?
>

> I assume there's a smiley there somewhere.

I think its an excellent idea. As long as the data pins on the
processor above d7 have been snipped (to prevent cheating with 16bit and
wider data access), let them in.

Virtually,

Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
ec...@cc.newcastle.edu.au


David Cantrell

unread,
Oct 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/30/98
to
On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 22:09:37 +0100, w_g...@NOSPAMbielefeld.netsurf.de
(Brix) enlightened us thusly:

>Not bad either, but I'd prefer the 8bit processor rule - the adressbus size is rather hard

>to find out on exotic machines.. those dudes could tell you anything.

You can always tell the width of the data bus from what CPU the
machine has. The address bus likewise, but we're ignoring that.

For example, all Z80s have an 8-bit data bus.

>My intention was more to give an award for the "BEST LOOKING EFFECTS MADE WITH AN 8 BIT
>MACHINE" than giving an award for best use of hardware.

Unfair, as some machines are far better suited to good looking effects
than others. eg, the C64 would beat the NC100 every time.

bma...@iglou.com

unread,
Oct 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/30/98
to

On 1998-10-27 gt7...@gatech.edu said:
>>Incidentally, my proposed '8-bit data bus' rule disqualifies PCs
>>unless they have an 8088 or 80188 CPU.
>But what about Pentiums that have ISA slots (with the AT
>extension bit pulled out)?

Maybe if you removed the simms and used 8-bit ISA cards for memory...
Anyone who would go to all that trouble to win an 8-bit competition
should be in therapy. But seriously, some Tandy PCs had an 80286 CPU and
an 8-bit bus.

Net-Tamer V 1.08X - Test Drive

Brix

unread,
Oct 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/31/98
to
In article <3640ac97.238107500@thunder>, Nuke...@ThePentagon.com says...

> On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 22:09:37 +0100, w_g...@NOSPAMbielefeld.netsurf.de
> (Brix) enlightened us thusly:
>
> >Not bad either, but I'd prefer the 8bit processor rule - the adressbus size is rather hard
> >to find out on exotic machines.. those dudes could tell you anything.
>
> You can always tell the width of the data bus from what CPU the
> machine has. The address bus likewise, but we're ignoring that.
>
> For example, all Z80s have an 8-bit data bus.

C-64 has an 8Bit data and a 16Bit Adress bus.

> >My intention was more to give an award for the "BEST LOOKING EFFECTS MADE WITH AN 8 BIT
> >MACHINE" than giving an award for best use of hardware.
>
> Unfair, as some machines are far better suited to good looking effects
> than others. eg, the C64 would beat the NC100 every time.

This is why this is a good chance to compare the 8 Bitters, isn't it?
It is called "competition".
What else do you want to compare than the output?
I often see people here moaning about their speccy being cooler, their C-64 being finer..
R-type on Speccy being best whileas on C-64 it should have been bull..
Games are based on GFX and playability. Playability comes with speed and precision. Both
are things that can greatly be tested in a demo-competition.
This competition is to show the machine's abilities, not the coders'.
-Brix-

Darren Spiteri

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to
In comp.sys.cbm Clockmeister <gerr...@tnet.com.au> wrote:
> He means eight bit data bus on the processor, in which case only the
> 8088/80188 applies.

How about including an 8bit address bus limit, which I feel is the real
deciding factor that the system is actually 8bit. This includes the mainstream
65xx, Z80 and 68xx processors. IMHO, a processor isn't 8bit without that FFFF
limit, bankswitched memory notwithstanding.
--
+-\___ ___ ______ __ __/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\-+
: / __)| _ \||_ _| /__/_/ NOTE: Above email address is fictitious. :
|:__ \: _:: :: : @# '') "Bunch of savages in this town..." - Dante |
`(____/|_|><|_||_|><><\__3- - -*(at)hempseed(dot)com><><><><><><><><><>'

D. Peschel

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to
In article <6peh17.v18.ln@bucket>, Darren Spiteri <Sp...@spam-free.UUCP> wrote:

>
>How about including an 8bit address bus limit, which I feel is the real
>deciding factor that the system is actually 8bit. This includes the mainstream
>65xx, Z80 and 68xx processors. IMHO, a processor isn't 8bit without that FFFF
>limit, bankswitched memory notwithstanding.

The limit you mention is 16 bits.

An 8-bit address limit only lets you address 256 bytes of memory. That's not
enough for even a fantastically well-coded demo.

This doesn't change your point, of course.

-- Derek

lo...@my.sig

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to
In the sacred domain of comp.sys.sinclair didst Darren Spiteri <Sp...@spam-free.UUCP> eloquently scribe:

: In comp.sys.cbm Clockmeister <gerr...@tnet.com.au> wrote:
:> He means eight bit data bus on the processor, in which case only the
:> 8088/80188 applies.

: How about including an 8bit address bus limit, which I feel is the real


: deciding factor that the system is actually 8bit. This includes the mainstream
: 65xx, Z80 and 68xx processors. IMHO, a processor isn't 8bit without that FFFF
: limit, bankswitched memory notwithstanding.

8 *BIT* address bus? Surely you're joking. We're talking 8 BIT machines
here, y'know, not 4 bit.

Of course, if you want to play with a machine with a maximum addressable
memory range of 256 bytes, go right ahead.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5...@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |

Andrew Cadley

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to

Brix wrote in message ...
:In article <716nk7$r...@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>, a.p.c...@uea.ac.uk says...

:>
:> Brix wrote in message ...

:Yes, but do you want someone to compete with a 20Mhz clocked 8-bit machine
(if there was
:one).

Not if it's some bolt on SCPU alike. Are you suggesting it would be fair to
compare a 6Mhz 6502 machine (if such a beast exists) with a 6Mhz Z80
machine?

The PCW16 is about 16Mhz, but it's a sodding word processor. It's not
exactly going to be easy to create a stunning demo on it, is it?

:This is just to eliminate too fast machines. Most stock units are in this


area anyway (3,5
:Mhz spectrum, 2 Mhz C128, 1 Mhz C-64)
:Note, I'm talking about stock units. Others are not allowed.


Yes, but there *are* stock Z80 machines that reach, or go above the 6Mhz
limit. I don't see why they should be excluded. If, as you say, we stick to
stock machines then it won't really be a problem limiting speed anyway.
There aren't any mega high speed 8 bits that I know of.


:NES has no floppy-drive, nor has an ATARI 2600. We make exceptions of the


rules when the
:machines have nothing but a cartridge port, also when the machine needs a
cartridge to
:work (like the mentioned CPC+ or TI66)


Okay. In the case of machines like the CPC+ (again) which *has* got a disc
drive/tape deck, do you *have* to stick to the BASIC cartridge, or could you
write your demo for a cartridge instead? Believe me, it can make a *big*
difference, because the advanced hardware is wired up to suit cartridge
games better.

If not, what about if you stick to 64K ram and no keyboard, making it
compatible with the GX4000 console?

I just fancy writing a GX demo really...

:Other ways would be excluding all competing scenes from voting and letting


the PC
:community decide or letting the whole Partypeople vote (of course still no
selfvoting
:allowed).


It's a toughy. Imagine for example if their were 50 Speccy owners and 49 C64
owners and no-one else. The C64 would *have* to win. Okay, I'll admit, it's
a slightly contrived example, but you could conceivably end up with
something similar.

:I think to show the best of all is the best solution. So we get a clear


impression what is
:possible, and not what os possible in time. Let the best compete with the
best. No
:deadline.


Does the C64 come under a different category to the C128? What about the CPC
and Plus machines? Or the Speccy and SAM? (tricky one that)

The problem being that SAM demos would obviously get entered over and above
Speccy ones, 'cos there bound to be a bit fancier. There is also the small
problem of finding demos for the more obscure machines. There are only about
3 demos which are CPC+ "enhanced", less which are dedicated solely to it and
most of them are on my "ones that got away" list. :-(

:Here is the reason why all should be on Video. A SCART-Plug always gives a


fair picture. I
:doubt there will be any 8-bit machine that needs more than this.
:Btw: On a videobeamer every picture (even from PCs) is a bit blury as the
limit goes
:for all machines it isn't such a problem...


I see your point. The problem I was trying to highlight is that not all
machines output a TV signal. The CPC won't without extra hardware and even
then the quality of hi-res MODE 2 images aren't going to be very good if
someone decides to use them.

:The competition will be held on a usual convention. So no need to upload it
anywhere.


Are there any conventions which are easy for *everyone* to get to. Somehow,
I don't think so, which is why I'd prefer a net based competition. There are
emulators for most machines capable of the majority of hardware tricks. I
reckon that would be easier for most people.

:> What the hell is a Videobeamer anyway?


:
:A machine that throws the picture, seen on the monitor or TV-screen to a
Wall. Cinema-
:size. So the whole voting Public in the competition room can see it.


Hmmm. I think you'll find it a tad hard to connect one to a CPC though,
given the lack of TV out.

:[TP8]


:Yes it is a 3-days convention held around christmas in Denmark.


Egad! I'm a poor student, m'lud. I can barely afford a day trip to London,
let alone three days in Denmark. Oi'll be scrimping me pocket's just to
'ford a cu'ple o' prezzies this year.

Ahem.

I can't afford that option. :-(

:[videotapes]


:On those conventions there were always problems with connecting all the
different machines
:(Pc,Acorn,C-64,Amiga) to the Videobeamer, because of different plugs and
signals. So now
:the standard for all non-PC's is to record the Demos on VHS a short time
before the
:competition.

I see. Still seems a bit of a contrived way of doing things though.

:This is done by the Organizers of the Party together with a guy who has the


knowledge and
:who brings the machine to play the demo.


Finding someone with both knowledge, a CPC+ and the money to travel to
Denmark might be a shade tricky though. The machine isn't exactly rare, but
they aren't found on every market stall either.

The monitors are also *bloody* cumbersome things at the best of times.

AndyC

Jon Melbo

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
On Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:56:38 +1100, Darren Spiteri
<Sp...@spam-free.UUCP> wrote:

>How about including an 8bit address bus limit, which I feel is the real
>deciding factor that the system is actually 8bit. This includes the mainstream
>65xx, Z80 and 68xx processors. IMHO, a processor isn't 8bit without that FFFF
>limit, bankswitched memory notwithstanding.

Ahh, that is a 16-bit address bus. An 8-bit address bus would yield
merely 256 bytes of addressable memory.


David Cantrell

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 17:21:04 +0100, w_g...@NOSPAMbielefeld.netsurf.de
(Brix) enlightened us thusly:

>In article <3640ac97.238107500@thunder>, Nuke...@ThePentagon.com says...
>


>> You can always tell the width of the data bus from what CPU the
>> machine has. The address bus likewise, but we're ignoring that.
>>
>> For example, all Z80s have an 8-bit data bus.
>
>C-64 has an 8Bit data and a 16Bit Adress bus.

And the relevance of that point is? ...

David Cantrell

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
On Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:56:38 +1100, Darren Spiteri
<Sp...@spam-free.UUCP> enlightened us thusly:

>In comp.sys.cbm Clockmeister <gerr...@tnet.com.au> wrote:
>> He means eight bit data bus on the processor, in which case only the
>> 8088/80188 applies.
>

>How about including an 8bit address bus limit, which I feel is the real
>deciding factor that the system is actually 8bit. This includes the mainstream
>65xx, Z80 and 68xx processors.

The Z80 has a 16-bit address bus. How else could you have a 16 bit
address like 0xFFFF?

> IMHO, a processor isn't 8bit without that FFFF
>limit, bankswitched memory notwithstanding.

Please consult the nearest primary school for some counting lessons.

David Cantrell

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
On 1 Nov 1998 14:47:13 GMT, dpes...@u.washington.edu (D. Peschel)
enlightened us thusly:

>In article <6peh17.v18.ln@bucket>, Darren Spiteri <Sp...@spam-free.UUCP> wrote:
>
>>
>>How about including an 8bit address bus limit, which I feel is the real
>>deciding factor that the system is actually 8bit. This includes the mainstream

>>65xx, Z80 and 68xx processors. IMHO, a processor isn't 8bit without that FFFF
>>limit, bankswitched memory notwithstanding.
>


>The limit you mention is 16 bits.
>
>An 8-bit address limit only lets you address 256 bytes of memory. That's not
>enough for even a fantastically well-coded demo.

Hmmm ... did anyone here enter the competition to write something to
run on 'Baby' at its 50th birthday bash?

David Cantrell

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
On 30 Oct 1998 17:48:22 -0500, bma...@iglou.com enlightened us
thusly:

>But seriously, some Tandy PCs had an 80286 CPU and an 8-bit bus.

I find that somewhat difficult to believe, as the 80286 had 16 data
pins on the chip. What did the CPU in this Tandy machine do when it
came across 16-bit memory access instructions like MOV AX,[whatever] ?

Darren Spiteri

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
On Mon, 02 Nov 1998 05:35:28 GMT, Jon Melbo wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:56:38 +1100, Darren Spiteri
> <Sp...@spam-free.UUCP> wrote:

> >How about including an 8bit address bus limit, which I feel is the real
> >deciding factor that the system is actually 8bit. This includes the mainstream
> >65xx, Z80 and 68xx processors. IMHO, a processor isn't 8bit without that FFFF
> >limit, bankswitched memory notwithstanding.

> Ahh, that is a 16-bit address bus. An 8-bit address bus would yield


> merely 256 bytes of addressable memory.

D'oh. :}

Kira L. Brown

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
In message <36429649.235444020@thunder>
Nuke...@ThePentagon.com (David Cantrell) wrote:

> On 30 Oct 1998 17:48:22 -0500, bma...@iglou.com enlightened us
> thusly:
>
> >But seriously, some Tandy PCs had an 80286 CPU and an 8-bit bus.
>
> I find that somewhat difficult to believe, as the 80286 had 16 data
> pins on the chip. What did the CPU in this Tandy machine do when it
> came across 16-bit memory access instructions like MOV AX,[whatever] ?

Multiplex.

Kira L. Brown

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
In message <364195fb.235366839@thunder>
Nuke...@ThePentagon.com (David Cantrell) wrote:


> Hmmm ... did anyone here enter the competition to write something to
> run on 'Baby' at its 50th birthday bash?

I did...

Can't disappoint the spirit of Auntie Alan, can we?

kira.

Antoine Pitrou

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to

> Okay. In the case of machines like the CPC+ (again) which *has* got a disc
> drive/tape deck, do you *have* to stick to the BASIC cartridge, or could you
> write your demo for a cartridge instead? Believe me, it can make a *big*
> difference, because the advanced hardware is wired up to suit cartridge
> games better.

What makes you say that ? (except the supplementary memory brought by
the ROMs of the cartridge).

David Cantrell

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
On Mon, 02 Nov 1998 20:12:06 +0000, Kira L. Brown
<kbr...@neutralino.demon.com.uk> enlightened us thusly:

Ahh ... so it had a weird memory controller; but the bus between the
processor and the memory controller was still 16-bit ;-)

Peter Sørensen

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
>
> This is why this is a good chance to compare the 8 Bitters, isn't it?
> It is called "competition".
> What else do you want to compare than the output?
> I often see people here moaning about their speccy being cooler, their C-64 being finer..
> R-type on Speccy being best whileas on C-64 it should have been bull..

Yes!, and how a game plays/look has some to do with the hardware, but
most often it is the coders (in-)ability to master the hardware that
really makes the difference. Having said that, it is true that some
hardware makes it a lot easier to make a desent game even for half bad
coder. I think it's the difference between the c64 and the speccy, the
c64 got sprite/hardware scroll which is pretty easy to make something
run fast and looking good one, but gameplay migth be crap
nevertheless... on speccy a bad coder would make it all look bad...


> Games are based on GFX and playability. Playability comes with speed and precision. Both
> are things that can greatly be tested in a demo-competition.

Yes, but again gameplay can't. I have made a 'few' demos for the CPC's
(some freakz have even said they were good...)
but the game's I tried to write were not at all good, so does it make
the CPC lame for games ??? or just make me a bad game coder??? (I think
the true is somewere in the middle ;->)

> This competition is to show the machine's abilities, not the coders'.

This must be a joke!!, you can't distinguish the two!
A lame coder can make even the best Nintendo 64 hardware look like crap,
compared to a cool coded ZX81 demo! (Just to make a point)

Unfortunately I haven't see the tread from the start so I don't know
what the idea with the competition was, but I think a
demo competition between coders on each machine could be cool, or as
secondary goal, a competion between coders on different machines. But in
the last case, the judgment should ofcourse be best use of specific
hardware, making it best 'looks' nomatter what (8bit-) hardware would be
unfair to older machines. (In the case of a 'best looks' compo. I think
the old Enterprise system would have a great chance of winning, if one
could find a good coder for it, as it as I remember it, got some cool
hardware for sprites/hardware windows)


--
Peter Sørensen
n...@kom.auc.dk

The solution to many problems lies in having somebody else do the work.
[Andrew S. Tanenbaum]

Brix

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to

> :Yes, but do you want someone to compete with a 20Mhz clocked 8-bit machine
> (if there was
> :one).
>
> Not if it's some bolt on SCPU alike. Are you suggesting it would be fair to
> compare a 6Mhz 6502 machine (if such a beast exists) with a 6Mhz Z80
> machine?

What I'm, suggesting is to give limits so no Supernatural Hardware can enter.
Of course The Speccy had about 3 Mhz and the C-64 had 0.98, but I'm talking about stock
machines only, so you won't have to compete with a 3Mhz C-64.

> The PCW16 is about 16Mhz, but it's a sodding word processor. It's not
> exactly going to be easy to create a stunning demo on it, is it?

If there was a good coder, he could even sweep some machines with stunning 3-d effects,
even if he only had 2 colors (Dithered Gouraud shading, etc) or greyscales.
But as I think 16Mhz would bee too much processor power to be comparable to the other
machines, the PCW16 would be out of competition.

> :This is just to eliminate too fast machines. Most stock units are in this


> area anyway (3,5
> :Mhz spectrum, 2 Mhz C128, 1 Mhz C-64)
> :Note, I'm talking about stock units. Others are not allowed.
>

> Yes, but there *are* stock Z80 machines that reach, or go above the 6Mhz
> limit. I don't see why they should be excluded. If, as you say, we stick to
> stock machines then it won't really be a problem limiting speed anyway.
> There aren't any mega high speed 8 bits that I know of.

Well, if there was no problem, then I'd say let's keep that limits.
Why exclude them? I think we should limit the competition to "comparable" machines only.
If you look at 32 Bit systems, you get problems when you want to set up a democompetition,
because the Acorn A3010 and the PentiumII/300 are too far apart, when you look at the
clockspeeds, and clockspeed is a part of performance too.
The limit is just to exclude too fast machines, so we get a rather fair competition.

> :NES has no floppy-drive, nor has an ATARI 2600. We make exceptions of the


> rules when the
> :machines have nothing but a cartridge port, also when the machine needs a
> cartridge to
> :work (like the mentioned CPC+ or TI66)
>

> Okay. In the case of machines like the CPC+ (again) which *has* got a disc
> drive/tape deck, do you *have* to stick to the BASIC cartridge, or could you
> write your demo for a cartridge instead? Believe me, it can make a *big*
> difference, because the advanced hardware is wired up to suit cartridge
> games better.

If the machine would NOT run without a cartridge, it is allowed.
If the machine runs without a cartridge, the demo has to be coded for use without any add
on.
Example: I could write a Demo that uses a C-64's Ram Expansion Unit's DMA to blitter
Animated Hires fullscreen Graphics on the C-64 screens and make 'em go crazy, but as the
C-64 does not need this Ram Expansion Unit it is not allowed.
Generally Demos on Cartridges are only allowed, if the machine cannot load Demos from
Disc/Tape.
So a CPC 464/664/6128, Atari 800xl/320xe, Commodore 64/128 and Spectrum HAVE to run the
Demo from Disc/Tape, and the demos MUST NOT use Hardware Expansion units, like a Ram
Expansion, Hardware-Basic Expansion, SCPU-Turbocard, Stereo/quattro Soundchip-add ons,
etc.
A C-116 plus4, may also NOT use the Synergy SID Card.
A NES has no Discdrive/Tapedrive available, so the Demo may be run from Cartridge.
In case of a CPC664 the demo must be run from a 3" disc drive, C64 must come from Tape or
the standard 5-1/4" drive (1541,1541-II), no SFD or FD Floppies or HD's allowed.

> If not, what about if you stick to 64K ram and no keyboard, making it
> compatible with the GX4000 console?

Sticking to 64K ram would disqualify the C128 and the CPC6128 which still can be compared
to a C-64 or CPC664 or Atari 800xl, so the 64K Ram limit would be unfair.
The machine may have a Keyboard, but does not have to in my opinion, because a NO
KEYBOARD-rule would disqualify the NES,the C64gs and the Atari 2600.

> I just fancy writing a GX demo really...

Then do it :) if the GX is below 6 Mhz, has an 8 bit proz. it is just fair to compare it
with the others isn't it?

> :Other ways would be excluding all competing scenes from voting and letting


> the PC
> :community decide or letting the whole Partypeople vote (of course still no
> selfvoting
> :allowed).
>

> It's a toughy. Imagine for example if their were 50 Speccy owners and 49 C64
> owners and no-one else. The C64 would *have* to win. Okay, I'll admit, it's
> a slightly contrived example, but you could conceivably end up with
> something similar.

Huh, so how do you think we should make the voting?
We have to disqualify selfvoting in some way, so no BIG C64 scene e.g. could selvote
itself to the top.
My suggestion is, that selfvoting is forbidden, and ALL Scenes are voting. Since this
Competition will be held on a big Computer Event with mostly PC People there, it will be
fair enough in my opinion.
I'm, still thinking about the rules, so maybe I can organize something like an 8 bit
democompo on one of the forthcoming events like Mekka Symposium or Siliconvention.

> :I think to show the best of all is the best solution. So we get a clear


> impression what is
> :possible, and not what os possible in time. Let the best compete with the
> best. No
> :deadline.
>

> Does the C64 come under a different category to the C128? What about the CPC
> and Plus machines? Or the Speccy and SAM? (tricky one that)

No categories. Just one competition.

Another way of voting would be to show all the demos mixed, without telling the system it
belongs to, and let the whole partypeople decide which demo is the best. For that we could
even allow selfvoting, as the PC-Scene is voting too and selfvoters will get less
important then. Since most PC people do not always know which demo comes from which system
(they may guess, but they can't be always sure).
The result now tells you, which Scene had the most points (like a constructor's
championship in formula 1) and which scene produced the best demo (in the opinion of the
voters).

For 15 Demos, the first demo will get 15 points, the 15th demo gets 1 point.
This however requires, that each scene gives exactly 5 Demos to the competition, when
there are 3 scenes.. if a scene cannot provide such an amount of demos it is rather bad
for it, but the major scenes will be able to chose 5 demos, will they?

> The problem being that SAM demos would obviously get entered over and above
> Speccy ones, 'cos there bound to be a bit fancier. There is also the small
> problem of finding demos for the more obscure machines. There are only about
> 3 demos which are CPC+ "enhanced", less which are dedicated solely to it and
> most of them are on my "ones that got away" list. :-(

the same applies to the C128, where I know NO demo (I think there exist a few, but I
haven't seen one yet).. Although I am a Commodore-lover, I would say: Bad luck.

> :Here is the reason why all should be on Video. A SCART-Plug always gives a


> fair picture. I
> :doubt there will be any 8-bit machine that needs more than this.
> :Btw: On a videobeamer every picture (even from PCs) is a bit blury as the
> limit goes
> :for all machines it isn't such a problem...
>

> I see your point. The problem I was trying to highlight is that not all
> machines output a TV signal. The CPC won't without extra hardware and even
> then the quality of hi-res MODE 2 images aren't going to be very good if
> someone decides to use them.

Well, it is surely possible to get a composite signal (like Choma/Luma or linear RGB) from
the CPC's port, isn't it? Both can be conected to a Videorecorder's SCART cable and thus
provide a picture that is good enough. C64's Hires will be somewhat worse than on a
monitor too, but as this is a problem for all machines it isn't unfair.

> :The competition will be held on a usual convention. So no need to upload it
> anywhere.
>

> Are there any conventions which are easy for *everyone* to get to. Somehow,
> I don't think so, which is why I'd prefer a net based competition. There are
> emulators for most machines capable of the majority of hardware tricks. I
> reckon that would be easier for most people.

How do you want to vote on the net? I mean I could use a mailbomber to send you
100,000,000 votes for the C-64 scene under different names.
How can I watch the demo, when I have no CPC here and my Computer is too slow for an
Emulator? When I cannot afford to download 100,000 MB of Mpeg?
I think such a party with about 2000-4000 People is representive enough.
Believe me, the whole C-64 scene also cannot be on a big party, but the result is somewhat
fair anyway. I don't know how often you have been on such events, but I can tell you from
my experience that this is a very common way to do competitions on the C-64 and this way
is accepted as being fair by the whole C-64 community.

> :> What the hell is a Videobeamer anyway?


> :
> :A machine that throws the picture, seen on the monitor or TV-screen to a
> Wall. Cinema-
> :size. So the whole voting Public in the competition room can see it.
>

> Hmmm. I think you'll find it a tad hard to connect one to a CPC though,
> given the lack of TV out.

Linear RGB, Crominance/Luminance? Some signal like that?
Then it'll be no problem.
Then you just need the specs for the CPC's plug and a SCART-Plug to built an adaptor.

> :[TP8]


> :Yes it is a 3-days convention held around christmas in Denmark.
>

> Egad! I'm a poor student, m'lud. I can barely afford a day trip to London,
> let alone three days in Denmark. Oi'll be scrimping me pocket's just to
> 'ford a cu'ple o' prezzies this year.

I can't also be there, but I'm a hell of interested which C-64 releases there will be..
and if there is something released I can quickly suck it from an FTP Site.
I also don't worry that the votes will be unfair.
Just the way it is.
Who sais that only the 8Bit scenes may vote? Let the PC people vote too, and you get an
even fairer result with less patriotism.

> :This is done by the Organizers of the Party together with a guy who has the


> knowledge and
> :who brings the machine to play the demo.
>

> Finding someone with both knowledge, a CPC+ and the money to travel to
> Denmark might be a shade tricky though. The machine isn't exactly rare, but
> they aren't found on every market stall either.

Well, if we say that only the real important machines take part (the unimportant ones are
rather unlikely able to collect enough demos) then it'll be no problem.
I will for sure find someone who has a CPC 664/6128 or an Atari 800xl to play a demo.
The only problem left would be the adaptors for a SCART-Signal and that this guy gets the
best demos to record them on VHS.
We even managed to do an ACORN-Democompetition, even though their monitors are another
world (that beast has so damned many screenmodes, that it is uncountable - so the
monitors are quite scary too).

-Brix-


Brix

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
In article <6peh17.v18.ln@bucket>, Sp...@spam-free.UUCP says...

> In comp.sys.cbm Clockmeister <gerr...@tnet.com.au> wrote:
> > He means eight bit data bus on the processor, in which case only the
> > 8088/80188 applies.
>
> How about including an 8bit address bus limit, which I feel is the real
> deciding factor that the system is actually 8bit. This includes the mainstream
> 65xx, Z80 and 68xx processors. IMHO, a processor isn't 8bit without that FFFF
> limit, bankswitched memory notwithstanding.
>
C64 has a 16 Bit adress bus. And an 8 Bit Data bus.
That was a no go.
-Brix-

lo...@my.sig

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
In the sacred domain of comp.sys.sinclair didst Brix <w_g...@NOSPAMbielefeld.netsurf.de> eloquently scribe:
:> How about including an 8bit address bus limit, which I feel is the real

:> deciding factor that the system is actually 8bit. This includes the mainstream
:> 65xx, Z80 and 68xx processors. IMHO, a processor isn't 8bit without that FFFF
:> limit, bankswitched memory notwithstanding.
:>
: C64 has a 16 Bit adress bus. And an 8 Bit Data bus.
: That was a no go.

*ALL* 8 bits had an 8 bit data bus and a 16 bit address bus.
Your point?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5...@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk| "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| Finalist in:- | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.12 GCS>$ d-(dpu) s+/- a C++ US++ P L/L+ E-- W+ N++ o+ K PS+ w-- M+/++ |
|PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ X+/X++ R+ tv+ b+ DI+ D+ G e>e++ h/h+ !r!| Space for hire |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kev Thacker

unread,
Nov 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/4/98
to
On Tue, 03 Nov 1998 20:12:13 GMT, "Peter Sørensen" <n...@kom.auc.dk>
wrote:

>unfair to older machines. (In the case of a 'best looks' compo. I think
>the old Enterprise system would have a great chance of winning, if one
>could find a good coder for it, as it as I remember it, got some cool
>hardware for sprites/hardware windows)

There were some demo coders. There was a massive following in Hungary.
I have seen a screen shot from a Enterprise demo, it looked very
impressive. I think this demo also had sampled music.
Unfortunatly, we will have to wait for a good emulator to arrive to
see these demos, because the number of Enterprise computers to be
found is very small.

Kev


Darren Spiteri

unread,
Nov 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/4/98
to
On Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:14:05 +0100, Brix wrote:
> In article <6peh17.v18.ln@bucket>, Sp...@spam-free.UUCP says...
> > In comp.sys.cbm Clockmeister <gerr...@tnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > He means eight bit data bus on the processor, in which case only the
> > > 8088/80188 applies.
> >
> > How about including an 8bit address bus limit, which I feel is the real
> > deciding factor that the system is actually 8bit. This includes the
> > mainstream 65xx, Z80 and 68xx processors. IMHO, a processor isn't 8bit
> > without that FFFF limit, bankswitched memory notwithstanding.
> >
> C64 has a 16 Bit adress bus. And an 8 Bit Data bus.
> That was a no go.

It's a typo, note: FFFF, which is obviously a 16bit word. The limits of a
<=16bit address bus and an 8bit data bus define what we would call an 8bit
computer. This excludes the 8086 and 68008, which obviously aren't 8bit
processors.

David Cantrell

unread,
Nov 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/5/98
to
On Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:13:29 +1100, Darren Spiteri
<Sp...@spam-free.UUCP> enlightened us thusly:

>The limits of a <=16bit address bus and an 8bit data bus define what we


>would call an 8bit computer.

No, that defines what YOU would call an 8bit computer

>This excludes the 8086 and 68008, which obviously aren't 8bit processors.

8086 - 16-bit, with a 16-bit data bus.
68008 - never used it, so dunno
8088 - questionable (16-bit registers but 8-bit data bus).

The 8088 does indeed have 16-bit registers, but it addresses memory in
segments of 64K (sound familiar?) and communicates with the rest of
the world 8 bits at a time.

lo...@my.sig

unread,
Nov 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/5/98
to
In the sacred domain of comp.sys.sinclair didst David Cantrell <Nuke...@ThePentagon.com> eloquently scribe:
: 8086 - 16-bit, with a 16-bit data bus.

: 68008 - never used it, so dunno

8 Bit data bus. 20 Bit address bus. 32 bit registers.

--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
|u5...@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk|in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| Finalist in:- |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

Brix

unread,
Nov 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/6/98
to

> > This competition is to show the machine's abilities, not the coders'.
>
> This must be a joke!!, you can't distinguish the two!
> A lame coder can make even the best Nintendo 64 hardware look like crap,
> compared to a cool coded ZX81 demo! (Just to make a point)

Of course, a lame coder makes the best machine look shitty, but I think
that on all popular machines there have been enough good coders. And the
best on each machine are for sure about equally able.

> Unfortunately I haven't see the tread from the start so I don't know
> what the idea with the competition was, but I think a
> demo competition between coders on each machine could be cool, or as
> secondary goal, a competion between coders on different machines.

My idea was to let each system chose it's best 5 demos as contestants and
show all demos on a democompetition at a major computer event, like The
Party (Denmark), Mekka/Smposium (Germany) or similar.
The we let the whole crowd vote the best Demo. As the majority of the crowd
will be PC guys, I expect the "selfvotes" (honest people don't do that) to
be rather unimportant.
After the votes are counted we can make a Ranking list with Demo/Computer
in it (that is of course published on the internet), so the people can
decide for themselves which computer seems to be the best performer.

> But in
> the last case, the judgment should ofcourse be best use of specific
> hardware, making it best 'looks' nomatter what (8bit-) hardware would be

> unfair to older machines. (In the case of a 'best looks' compo. I think
> the old Enterprise system would have a great chance of winning, if one
> could find a good coder for it, as it as I remember it, got some cool
> hardware for sprites/hardware windows)

Some computers have better Graphics, some have sprites but less colors,
some have many colors but bad resolution, some have a fast processor and
some have lotsa custom chips. Every system has its highlight, every one its
bad spot.
I think this 8 bit democompo would be a very cool event for the entire 8
bit computer scene, whether it is C64 or Atari or CPC.
A kind of get-together of scenes who once fighted eachother like MAC and PC
do now.
Let's show the 16bitters and Pentiums, what 8 Bit can do!

-Brix/Plush (C64)-


Brix

unread,
Nov 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/6/98
to

> : C64 has a 16 Bit adress bus. And an 8 Bit Data bus.

> : That was a no go.
>
> *ALL* 8 bits had an 8 bit data bus and a 16 bit address bus.
> Your point?

The point was that the prevoius poster wanted to limit the adressbus to 8
bit, but the databus.
-Brix-


Brix

unread,
Nov 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/6/98
to

> > > How about including an 8bit address bus limit, which I feel is the
real
> > > deciding factor that the system is actually 8bit. This includes the
> > > mainstream 65xx, Z80 and 68xx processors. IMHO, a processor isn't
8bit
> > > without that FFFF limit, bankswitched memory notwithstanding.
> > >
> > C64 has a 16 Bit adress bus. And an 8 Bit Data bus.
> > That was a no go.
>
> It's a typo, note: FFFF, which is obviously a 16bit word. The limits of a

> <=16bit address bus and an 8bit data bus define what we would call an
8bit
> computer. This excludes the 8086 and 68008, which obviously aren't 8bit
> processors.

For me 8 bit computer means: 8 bit processor, because the CPU is what
computes, not the bus.. the bus only transfers data.
-Brix-


Brix

unread,
Nov 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/6/98
to

> The 8088 does indeed have 16-bit registers, but it addresses memory in
> segments of 64K (sound familiar?) and communicates with the rest of
> the world 8 bits at a time.

Intel calls the 8088 an 8 bit processor, I think the manufacturer's
specification is word.
-Brix-


Jon Melbo

unread,
Nov 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/6/98
to

The 8088 is a 16-bit processor with 8-bit data bus interfacing. It is
in fact an 8086 which was cut down to an 8-bit data bus.


Carlsson, Anders

unread,
Nov 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/6/98
to
Nuke...@ThePentagon.com (David Cantrell) writes:

> 8088 - questionable (16-bit registers but 8-bit data bus).

I didn't follow this part of the thread too closely, but did someone
mention e.g. the TMS9900 yet, which I don't know much about, but it
was supposed to be one of the first true 16-bitters. If so, would a
Texas TI-99/4A owner be disqualifyed from the contest?

Maybe the limitation should not be clock frequency or bit width, but
the number of Mflops, dhrystones or similar measurement the processor
can perform. How does a 3 MHz Z80 or a 1 MHz 6502 compare to e.g. a
MicroVAX I (from 1984, which has a VUPS rate of 0.3) ?

--
Anders Carlsson

Darren Spiteri

unread,
Nov 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/6/98
to
On Thu, 05 Nov 1998 12:59:48 GMT, David Cantrell wrote:
> <Sp...@spam-free.UUCP> enlightened us thusly:

> >The limits of a <=16bit address bus and an 8bit data bus define what we
> >would call an 8bit computer.
> No, that defines what YOU would call an 8bit computer

No, it defines what is called an 8 bit computer. How else would you describe
an 8bit system? >16 bit address bus or >8 bit data bus?

> >This excludes the 8086 and 68008, which obviously aren't 8bit processors.

> 8086 - 16-bit, with a 16-bit data bus.
> 68008 - never used it, so dunno

So, you agree with me. The 68008 is 32bit internally with an 8bit external
data bus. But it can directly map >16 bits of memory directly so doesn't count
under the above definition.

> 8088 - questionable (16-bit registers but 8-bit data bus).

> The 8088 does indeed have 16-bit registers, but it addresses memory in
> segments of 64K (sound familiar?) and communicates with the rest of
> the world 8 bits at a time.

The Z80 and 68xx series can also operate directly on 16bit words by pairing
registers as does the 8088. The Z80 also has full 16bit registers, as does the
8088. However, the 8088 can address more than 64k, even though it does it in
16bit blocks. This puts it apart from the rest of the 8bit pack which can only
address $FFFF.

The 8080 and 8085 processors, of which the 8088 and Z80 are both derivatives,
ARE 8bit processors.

Andrew Cadley

unread,
Nov 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/6/98
to

Antoine Pitrou wrote in message <363E1B13...@mail.dotcom.fr>...
:
:> Okay. In the case of machines like the CPC+ (again) which *has* got a

disc
:> drive/tape deck, do you *have* to stick to the BASIC cartridge, or could
you
:> write your demo for a cartridge instead? Believe me, it can make a *big*
:> difference, because the advanced hardware is wired up to suit cartridge
:> games better.
:
:What makes you say that ? (except the supplementary memory brought by

:the ROMs of the cartridge).

Things like split screen, DMA sound etc can fill up a large chunk of the
main 64K. It can also get quite tricky to arrange sprite images so that you
can copy them into the ASIC, since it pages in at the same point as the
extra memory (unless you use a CPM set-up.)

With cartridge software you can page the ROM containing your sprites at
8000h or C000h, where it doesn't get in the way. You can also put at screen
at 0000h, stick a lower ROM over the top of it and make use of write-through
to access more than 64K at one time and keep mode 1 interrupts enabled.

AndyC

Peter Sørensen

unread,
Nov 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/6/98
to
Brix wrote:
>
(Stuff cut out)

>
> > :Here is the reason why all should be on Video. A SCART-Plug always gives a
> > fair picture. I
> > :doubt there will be any 8-bit machine that needs more than this.
> > :Btw: On a videobeamer every picture (even from PCs) is a bit blury as the
> > limit goes
> > :for all machines it isn't such a problem...
> >
> > I see your point. The problem I was trying to highlight is that not all
> > machines output a TV signal. The CPC won't without extra hardware and even
> > then the quality of hi-res MODE 2 images aren't going to be very good if
> > someone decides to use them.
>
> Well, it is surely possible to get a composite signal (like Choma/Luma or linear RGB) from
> the CPC's port, isn't it? Both can be conected to a Videorecorder's SCART cable and thus
> provide a picture that is good enough. C64's Hires will be somewhat worse than on a
> monitor too, but as this is a problem for all machines it isn't unfair.
>

The idea of making the 'blind' voting is fine, and that would be easier
with all the demos recoreded on VCR,
BUT it will _NOT_ work for CPC (and properly BBC) demos. Here is the
reason:

The video chip of the CPC (The all famous 6845) is capable of being
programmed to all kinds
of different screen refresh rates, and it is used in _ALL_ demos just
looking reasonable, things like having a
vertical (or even horzontal) sync in the middle of the screen, 45Hz
frame rate, ustable horzontal sync and a lot more of tricks, makes no
problems for (standard) CPC monitors (fx. the Philips 8833, often used
for Amiga, have trouble with some CPC tricks), but a VCR will totaly
fuck-up the picture, it can't sync properly to that kind of signal. I
know, I tried sending a preview of one of my demos (on video tape) to a
contact once, diden't work.

Ofcourse you could say that split-screens are forbidden for CPC demos,
but that's like saying the C64 can't use it's sprites, in other words,
most of the power of the machine will disappear...


> > Finding someone with both knowledge, a CPC+ and the money to travel to
> > Denmark might be a shade tricky though. The machine isn't exactly rare, but
> > they aren't found on every market stall either.


Not necessarily so....

---======*****************************************************======---

Peter Sørensen
Herningvej 15, lejl. 154
9220 Aalborg Øst
>Denmark<
^^^^^^^^^

Currently associated with:
Aalborg University, Institute of Electronic Systems
Fredrik Bajers Vej 7, DK-9220, Aalborg Øst, Denmark.

---======*****************************************************======---

Andrew Cadley

unread,
Nov 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/12/98
to

Peter Sørensen wrote in message <36437A89...@kom.auc.dk>...

:Ofcourse you could say that split-screens are forbidden for CPC demos,


:but that's like saying the C64 can't use it's sprites, in other words,
:most of the power of the machine will disappear...


Nonsense. I've written this really cool palette rotation thing in BASIC.
It's cool. Honest. We could still win. ;->

:> > Finding someone with both knowledge, a CPC+ and the money to travel to


:> > Denmark might be a shade tricky though. The machine isn't exactly rare,
but
:> > they aren't found on every market stall either.

:Not necessarily so....


:Peter Sørensen


: Herningvej 15, lejl. 154
: 9220 Aalborg Øst
: >Denmark<
: ^^^^^^^^^

D'oh.

Well I s'pose thats my best excuse for not trying used up. I might just have
a fiddle and see what I can do on Multimachine or Arnold. Trouble is getting
it to still work on a CPC+ afterwards. :-)

AndyC

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages