Spectrum Emulator for C64
A Commodore 64 fan
Andrew Barker <ca4...@isis.sund.ac.uk> wrote:
>Yup, the speccy is 3.5Hmz whereas the C64 was only 1Mhz.
You're right. But the instructions in the 6510 used less cycles to
execute...
>However, and its a big however. Similar to the Amiga the C64 had custom
>chips to do music and various graphics and things.
That's very true.
>You need a 40Hmz Machine or above to run the C64 at full speed. For the
>spectrum you need just 25Hmz.
40 mhz to emulate a C64 at full speed ? Are you kidding ?
The fastest C64 emulator (which doesn't emulate the C64 at 100%) needs
at least a 486/100 with a fast video card to get full speed without
skipping frames. The sound emulation is not very good, and, of course,
doesn't emulate SID filters and some VIC screen effects.
CCS64, one of the best C64 emulators, needs a Pentium 133, and that's
without emulating the SID filters!
>So as you can tell from this it is more complex to emulate a C64 (taking
>into consideration all its processors) than to emulator a speccy.
It's MUCH more complex.
>Its the same principle as Emulating an Amiga as appose to a PC. The PC
>can be emulated quit quickly in retrospect to a PC or other machine
>emulating an Amiga.
Right.
Regards!
A Commodore 64 fan
l.d....@bra0202.wins.icl.co.uk wrote:
>How come I can easily get full speed using C64S on my DX2-66 then?
Because:
1) You tested the speed in a non graphic intesive program or
2) You're skipping frames
>Emulators are no good for estimating the complexity of a machine because
>they are all different.
That's true.
>Given that CCS64 requires a P133 I'd draw the
>conclusions that it's either 'written in C' or 'written very badly' rather
>than 'C64 is more complex than the Spectrum'.
That's not true, CCS64 emulates the C64 in a single cycle mode,
because it's the only way to try to get 100% compatibility.
That's why it needs a Pentium 133.
>That said, it's blatantly obvious to anyone that the 64 hardware is much
>harder to emulate than the Spectrum's. Just not THAT hard.
Yes it is.
A c64 fan.
Damien Burke
On Thu, 22 May 1997 18:31:15 GMT,
c64...@commodore.rulez.the.world (A Commodore 64 fan) wrote:
...well it doesn't matter what he wrote because it's obviously a
troll attempt. Check the Newsgroups: line.
--
//// Damien Burke (replace d.c.u in address with demon.co.uk if replying)
//// Spectrum pages: http://www.jetman.demon.co.uk/speccy/
//// New to this group? Read this: http://www.jetman.demon.co.uk/speccy/faq/
Mitch Parker
First off. The reason WHY both machines are so hard to emulate is because
the HARDWARE has to be emulated also. You have to put in chip timings,
functions to represent state tables of chips, and functions to properly
redo clock cycles on any speed machine.
Second: The commodore 64 had a lot of these custom chips that need to be
emulated, such as the 6510, SID, VIC-II, and various other ones. I posess
several computers CAPABLE in processing power of emulating a 64, but will
not use the emulators (no insult to the writers of these emulators at
all), and still use my 64, because the 64 is better than the emulators at
running 64 products.
Third: Get on Node 99 and grab the source to something like the 64 Unix
emulator, and/or UAE. THen you come and tell me that you can do that.
Enough with the theoretical discussion of how to emulate stuff. It's a
balls-hard task to do. As a matter of fact, I look at that C code and
wonder what the hell some of that stuff does (and I program for a living).
Virtual Machines (the academic term for what emulators are) are a good
area to study, but building one is a dedicated and difficult task.
MBP
Alvin R. Albrecht
On Wed, 21 May 1997, A Commodore 64 fan wrote:
> >Yup, the speccy is 3.5Hmz whereas the C64 was only 1Mhz.
> You're right. But the instructions in the 6510 used less cycles to
> execute...
The Z80 is faster than a 6510. This debate has been done here
before. You could make a better case with a 6809, but not a 6510.
> 40 mhz to emulate a C64 at full speed ? Are you kidding ?
> The fastest C64 emulator (which doesn't emulate the C64 at 100%) needs
> at least a 486/100 with a fast video card to get full speed without
> skipping frames. The sound emulation is not very good, and, of course,
> doesn't emulate SID filters and some VIC screen effects.
Implementing filters doesn't take more than adding & multiplying a few
numbers.
> >So as you can tell from this it is more complex to emulate a C64 (taking
> >into consideration all its processors) than to emulator a speccy.
> It's MUCH more complex.
But that *doesn't* make for a better machine. What is done in hardware on
the C64 is done in software on the Spectrum. Putting in fancy sprite
hardware is a certain way to guarantee that your machine becomes obsolete
quickly because your competitor, the machine driven by software, can
change its look by rewriting the programs. As long as there is enough
speed under the hood, the graphical sophistication of programs is
limited only by the programmer's ability and imagination. The machine
driven by fancy hardware is doomed never to improve. Witness blocky
graphics in many C64 games, slow 3d perspective games and games that
couldn't be done properly on a C64 that were done on other platforms
(Spectrum's Carrier Command, for example).
The fancy hardware does, however, make the C64 capable of being a games
machine because without it, there isn't enough steam under the hood to
make anything playable. And that doesn't make the C64 a poor machine, in
fact the hardware makes it interesting.
As a matter of fact all these mcibtyc debates are a farce because all
computers are functionally identical. What makes the difference is how
fast they are, how much memory they have and the quality of their i/o.
Alvin
foolishly answering a troll
Paul Newport
Alvin R. Albrecht <albr...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote in article
<Pine.A32.3.93.970523...@srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca>...
>
>
> But that *doesn't* make for a better machine. What is done in hardware
on
> the C64 is done in software on the Spectrum. Putting in fancy sprite
> hardware is a certain way to guarantee that your machine becomes obsolete
> quickly because your competitor, the machine driven by software, can
> change its look by rewriting the programs. As long as there is enough
> speed under the hood, the graphical sophistication of programs is
> limited only by the programmer's ability and imagination. The machine
> driven by fancy hardware is doomed never to improve. Witness blocky
> graphics in many C64 games, slow 3d perspective games and games that
> couldn't be done properly on a C64 that were done on other platforms
> (Spectrum's Carrier Command, for example).
>
> The fancy hardware does, however, make the C64 capable of being a games
> machine because without it, there isn't enough steam under the hood to
> make anything playable. And that doesn't make the C64 a poor machine, in
> fact the hardware makes it interesting.
>
> As a matter of fact all these mcibtyc debates are a farce because all
> computers are functionally identical. What makes the difference is how
> fast they are, how much memory they have and the quality of their i/o.
>
>
> Alvin
> foolishly answering a troll
>
>
people that
refuse to accept the 64's superiority over the Spectrum!
The idea that by giving a machine fancy sprite hardware etc, made the
machine
obsolete is utterly ridiculous, the spectrum was made obsolete before the
64
simply because it didn't have any special capabilities.
A 64 had hardware scrolling, sprites, and an amazing sound chip, what did
the
spectum have a Z80 and colour clash! Take a look at early 64 games like
Thing On A spring, Loco, Last Ninja and Star Paws, the graphics and sound
on
these games were way above what the spectrum offered at the time. And in
later
years the 64 games were astonishing, take a look at Mayhem In Monster land
or
Creatures.
A spectrum couldn't manage those games even if it was running at twice its
speed!
The point here is that hardware capabilities like what the 64 had
complement the
machine and give it the edge, the idea that a machine is obsolete because
it has
hardware advantages it ludicrous. Software sprites can still be used even
on
machines that have these capabilities. Look what the Amiga did to the ST,
primarily
because of its superior hardware in the early days.
As for IO and Memory, remember the 64 had 64K, a proper disk drive, and in
this department the 64 was also superior - after all have you ever seen LCP
or
Defender of the Crown on a spectrum with is micro drive!
The statement you made:
"As long as there is enough speed under the hood, the graphical
sophistication of
programs is limited only by the programmer's ability and imagination."
This is utter tosh! Of course the processor speed is important, but at the
end of the
day if you haven't got good graphics chips or sound around it, whats the
point!
Just look at the PC, the machine is brilliant now, but you take away that
fancy 64
bit graphics card, and that 16 bit sound card, and leave the processor! Its
a load
of rubbish!
The PC is so good today, because of its superior hardware that complements
its
processor.
Its true that you can do amazing things in software with a fast processor,
but at the
end of the day if you haven't got good surrounding hardware you are always
going to
be limited. True, that the spectrum could handle some 3d type games better
than the
64 due to its faster processor, but then there were even exceptions to
this, just
look at Tau Ceti for evidence of this.
At the end of the day this debate was won years and years ago by the 64.
Its high time that you recognised the legacy of the 64 instead of knocking
its
abilities. I suppose you still think that a CGA PC was better than an Amiga
because it had a faster processor!
Mark J.P. Vergeer
Hi there,
Both owned a speccy and a c64. Liked both machines.
For the c64 I even had a program that emulated spectrum basic and
allowed you to load programs from spectrum tapes via the datasette.
It did a lot of stuff, even strange memory pokes and tricks.
Cheers, Mark
Damien Burke
On 24 May 1997 11:00:52 GMT, "Paul Newport"
<Stringfe...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>As for IO and Memory, remember the 64 had 64K, a proper disk drive, and in
>this department the 64 was also superior - after all have you ever seen LCP
>or
>Defender of the Crown on a spectrum with is micro drive!
LCP? Came out on tape. I dare say it still loaded faster than
the C64's disk version.
>The PC is so good today, because of its superior hardware that complements
>its
>processor.
Crap. What superior hardware? PCs are purely power-driven. I can
put any video card I want in and no programmer can support
*every* different one to the fullest so they support to the
lowest possible level, which may be VESA or DirectX or whatever.
But the CPU is the powerful bit.
Radioactive Warrior
Damien Burke wrote:
>
> On 24 May 1997 11:00:52 GMT, "Paul Newport"
> <Stringfe...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >The PC is so good today, because of its superior hardware that complements
> >its processor.
>
> Crap. What superior hardware? PCs are purely power-driven. I can
> put any video card I want in and no programmer can support
> *every* different one to the fullest so they support to the
> lowest possible level, which may be VESA or DirectX or whatever.
> But the CPU is the powerful bit.
> --
Well stated! ONLY a complete fool would buy a computer that didn't
come with synthesized sound and advanced graphics base built in... The
PC's are the TRS-80's of the present. I consider the c64 vastly
superior to the TRS-80 as I consider the MAC vastly superior to the PC.
Now that I've insulted 99% of the population, feel free to flame away...
--
Radioactive Warrior
A Commodore 64 fan
"Alvin R. Albrecht" <albr...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote:
>> You're right. But the instructions in the 6510 used less cycles to
>> execute...
>
>The Z80 is faster than a 6510. This debate has been done here
>before. You could make a better case with a 6809, but not a 6510.
The Z80A which is inside de Spectrum, doesn't run at 4 mhz, but only
at 3.54 mhz,
I didn't say that the 6510 is faster than the Z80A, just that you
can't compare just the Mhz because in the 6510 instructions use less
cycles than in the Z80A.
>> skipping frames. The sound emulation is not very good, and, of course,
>> doesn't emulate SID filters and some VIC screen effects.
>
>Implementing filters doesn't take more than adding & multiplying a few
>numbers.
It seems that you have NO IDEA about the S.I.D. (6581).
You have to use a lot of computer power in order to emulate them, it's
not just "adding & multiplying" as you say.
>> It's MUCH more complex.
>
>But that *doesn't* make for a better machine. What is done in hardware on
>the C64 is done in software on the Spectrum.
Hahahahahaha.
Yeah, emulate sprites in a Spectrum :)
You'll always have that awful color mixing, because you can't have
more than 2 colors (ink and paper) in the same 8*8 square.
Or try to control the way the computer updates the screen (the
raster).
> Putting in fancy sprite
>hardware is a certain way to guarantee that your machine becomes obsolete
>quickly because your competitor, the machine driven by software, can
>change its look by rewriting the programs.
Hahaha again :)
The spectrum can't do by software lots of things that the C64 can do
by hardware... so your point does not apply.
And, if I follow the way you think, modems that use computer power in
order to work are better than the ones than do everything by hardware.
> As long as there is enough
>speed under the hood, the graphical sophistication of programs is
>limited only by the programmer's ability and imagination.
Sure, in a machine where a lots of programs had to be in only two
colors and the others had a lot of awful color mixing :)
> The machine
>driven by fancy hardware is doomed never to improve.
So the machine that has only one video mode, 256*192.
Do you know that in a C64 you can even put graphics in the borders ?
And remember that the spectrum has only 48K, and the screen is always
in the same place in memory.
> Witness blocky
>graphics in many C64 games, slow 3d perspective games and games that
>couldn't be done properly on a C64 that were done on other platforms
>(Spectrum's Carrier Command, for example).
Haha :)
Most games that are incredible in the C64, are very bad done in the
Spectrum, look at Green Beret for example.
>The fancy hardware does, however, make the C64 capable of being a games
>machine because without it, there isn't enough steam under the hood to
>make anything playable.
Yeah, the Spectrum without the Z80 can do anything either, so what ?
> And that doesn't make the C64 a poor machine, in
>fact the hardware makes it interesting.
Yeah, I agree.
>As a matter of fact all these mcibtyc debates are a farce because all
>computers are functionally identical. What makes the difference is how
>fast they are, how much memory they have and the quality of their i/o.
I agree too.
>Alvin
>foolishly answering a troll
This is not a troll, it may be an interesting exchange of ideas.
Belive me that I don't hate Spectrums, lots of my friends had them,
and I even emulate them sometimes, but the C64 is really better.
A C64 fan that doesn't hate Spectrums, but knows that they can't be
compared to the incredible C64.
Andrew Cadley
A Commodore 64 fan <c64...@commodore.rulez.the.world> wrote in article
<3389cd28...@commodore64.com>...
> "Alvin R. Albrecht" <albr...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> The Z80A which is inside de Spectrum, doesn't run at 4 mhz, but only
> at 3.54 mhz,
>
> I didn't say that the 6510 is faster than the Z80A, just that you
> can't compare just the Mhz because in the 6510 instructions use less
> cycles than in the Z80A.
But your missing the point, it's quite easy to compare them by performing
the time taken to peform common tasks like looping. Tests such as this show
that the z80 is faster overall.
> >But that *doesn't* make for a better machine. What is done in hardware
on
> >the C64 is done in software on the Spectrum.
>
> Hahahahahaha.
> Yeah, emulate sprites in a Spectrum :)
> You'll always have that awful color mixing, because you can't have
> more than 2 colors (ink and paper) in the same 8*8 square.
>
Yeah, and commie 64's always had problems trying to scroll colour screens
because of the way the screen layout worked. Not to mention the fact that
it was damn near impossible to work with bitmap graphics unless they were
static.
> Or try to control the way the computer updates the screen (the
> raster).
Raster bars were found in just about every spectrum demo I ever saw and
other computers, like the SAM Coupe could do it much better than the C64.
> > Putting in fancy sprite
> >hardware is a certain way to guarantee that your machine becomes
obsolete
> >quickly because your competitor, the machine driven by software, can
> >change its look by rewriting the programs.
>
> Hahaha again :)
> The spectrum can't do by software lots of things that the C64 can do
> by hardware... so your point does not apply.
If you mean multicolour sprites then yes your right, but have you ever seen
a decent 3D game on the C64.
> And, if I follow the way you think, modems that use computer power in
> order to work are better than the ones than do everything by hardware.
Think about what you're saying for a moment, modems with a dedicated
processor that simply runs a program on an EPROM can easily be enhanced to
take advantage of new standards etc.
> > As long as there is enough
> >speed under the hood, the graphical sophistication of programs is
> >limited only by the programmer's ability and imagination.
>
> Sure, in a machine where a lots of programs had to be in only two
> colors and the others had a lot of awful color mixing :)
And the Amstrad CPC could do a much better job of colour graphics than
either of the two machines, but yet it still suffered from an amazing
number of *speccy* ports.
> > The machine
> >driven by fancy hardware is doomed never to improve.
>
> So the machine that has only one video mode, 256*192.
> Do you know that in a C64 you can even put graphics in the borders ?
>
So could the CPC, and it did a better job at it, with more colours.
> And remember that the spectrum has only 48K, and the screen is always
> in the same place in memory.
Actually the C64, Speccy and CPC all had about the same amount of memory,
given that there were different requirements for video memory.
> > Witness blocky
> >graphics in many C64 games, slow 3d perspective games and games that
> >couldn't be done properly on a C64 that were done on other platforms
> >(Spectrum's Carrier Command, for example).
>
> Haha :)
> Most games that are incredible in the C64, are very bad done in the
> Spectrum, look at Green Beret for example.
>
All I can say is Carrier Command. :-)
> >The fancy hardware does, however, make the C64 capable of being a games
> >machine because without it, there isn't enough steam under the hood to
> >make anything playable.
>
> Yeah, the Spectrum without the Z80 can do anything either, so what ?
>
I'm sorry, but that is just a silly argument isn't it.
> > And that doesn't make the C64 a poor machine, in
> >fact the hardware makes it interesting.
>
> Yeah, I agree.
>
So do I.
> >As a matter of fact all these mcibtyc debates are a farce because all
> >computers are functionally identical. What makes the difference is how
> >fast they are, how much memory they have and the quality of their i/o.
>
> I agree too.
You won't get any arguments from me either.
> >Alvin
> >foolishly answering a troll
>
> This is not a troll, it may be an interesting exchange of ideas.
>
> Belive me that I don't hate Spectrums, lots of my friends had them,
> and I even emulate them sometimes, but the C64 is really better.
>
> A C64 fan that doesn't hate Spectrums, but knows that they can't be
> compared to the incredible C64.
I don't hate C64's either. IMHO the CPC had the best hardware/software
combination and I really loved mine, but I *still* find myself playing
speccy games more often.
As for your previous comments about the C64 being harder to emulate, did
you now there is a single CPC+ emulator available for the PC, yet.
Andy
rjfm2
Mitch Parker <mbp...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>Third: Get on Node 99 and grab the source to something like the 64 Unix
>emulator, and/or UAE.
Node99 is still down...
Rob.
rjfm2
"Alvin R. Albrecht" <albr...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote:
>As a matter of fact all these mcibtyc debates are a farce because all
>computers are functionally identical. What makes the difference is how
>fast they are, how much memory they have and the quality of their i/o.
Unless you start talking about parallel computers or neural nets or
analog coomputers!
Rob.
P.S. Stonkers?
rjfm2
Radioactive Warrior <NOS...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Well stated! ONLY a complete fool would buy a computer that didn't
>come with synthesized sound and advanced graphics base built in... The
>PC's are the TRS-80's of the present. I consider the c64 vastly
>superior to the TRS-80 as I consider the MAC vastly superior to the PC.
>Now that I've insulted 99% of the population, feel free to flame away...
MACs are crap...that my opinion..
Never had a C64, but I was very disappointed with Uridium on a
emulator after all the hype.
Rob.
Damien Burke
I don't know why I'm bothering, but here we go...
On Sun, 25 May 1997 05:28:07 GMT,
c64...@commodore.rulez.the.world (A Commodore 64 fan) wrote:
>You have to use a lot of computer power in order to emulate them, it's
>not just "adding & multiplying" as you say.
Strike me dead if I'm wrong, but isn't "just" adding &
multiplying all a computer really does?
>Yeah, emulate sprites in a Spectrum :)
Yes. Try playing some Speccy games.
>You'll always have that awful color mixing, because you can't have
>more than 2 colors (ink and paper) in the same 8*8 square.
Wrong. Never seen any rainbow processor stuff, have you? All
done in *software* of course.
>The spectrum can't do by software lots of things that the C64 can do
>by hardware... so your point does not apply.
And the 64 can't do by hardware many *more* things a Speccy can
do by software.
>Do you know that in a C64 you can even put graphics in the borders ?
And on the Speccy. Try playing Sentinel.
>And remember that the spectrum has only 48K,
Or 128K.
> and the screen is always
>in the same place in memory.
Not on the 128K ones.
>Most games that are incredible in the C64, are very bad done in the
>Spectrum, look at Green Beret for example.
An excellent *game* on both machines. The MSX version's graphics
are better than the Speccy's, but the game itself is crap. Your
point?
Andrew Cadley
Damien Burke <dam...@jetman.d.c.u> wrote in article
<338852a1...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> I don't know why I'm bothering, but here we go...
>
> On Sun, 25 May 1997 05:28:07 GMT,
> c64...@commodore.rulez.the.world (A Commodore 64 fan) wrote:
>
> >You have to use a lot of computer power in order to emulate them, it's
> >not just "adding & multiplying" as you say.
>
> Strike me dead if I'm wrong, but isn't "just" adding &
> multiplying all a computer really does?
>
Strike me dead if I'm also wrong but isn't multiplying just repeated
addition.
Andy
Andrew Cadley
Andrew Cadley <A.P.C...@uea.ac.uk> wrote in article
<01bc6919$6a0d80e0$04b8de8b@w9622136>...
>
>
> A Commodore 64 fan <c64...@commodore.rulez.the.world> wrote in article
> <3389cd28...@commodore64.com>...
> > "Alvin R. Albrecht" <albr...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote:
> As for your previous comments about the C64 being harder to emulate, did
> you now there is a single CPC+ emulator available for the PC, yet.
>
> Andy
Erm, that doesn't make much sense does it. ;-)
I'll try again:
As for your previous comments about the C64 being harder to emulate, did
you know there is not a single emulator available for the PC, yet.
/me mumbles something about PC's needing rubber keyboards
Andy
Alvin R. Albrecht
On 24 May 1997, Paul Newport wrote:
> I really find it hard to believe that after all this time there are still
> people that refuse to accept the 64's superiority over the Spectrum!
And the gloves are off! :-)
> The idea that by giving a machine fancy sprite hardware etc, made the
> machine obsolete is utterly ridiculous, the spectrum was made obsolete
> before the 64 simply because it didn't have any special capabilities.
> A 64 had hardware scrolling, sprites, and an amazing sound chip,
Let me make my point clearer then. Take your basic C64 + fancy hardware.
This would be equivalent to a C64 running a 6510 that's say six times
faster without any fancy hardware. Why? Because the extra speed in the
6x faster 6510 can handle the sprites & video effects that used to be
handled by the dedicated hardware. Had the microprocessor industry
continued to further develop 8bit CPUs at the same pace they pursued 16bit
and 32bit CPUs, that would have meant waiting another 2-3 years for the 6x
faster 6510 to appear. Effectively, what the fancy hardware has given you
is a 2-3 year head start on competing micros based on 6510s.
Once those 2-3 years have come to pass, the competition (or perhaps
Commodore) would have a cheap 6510 computer capable of the same things as
a C64. BUT, it wouldn't be limited by the special hardware's limits. IE
- by purely software control, you could decide how many sprites you wanted
(not limited to the 8? on the C64), how big they would be, etc. The C64
on the other hand can't do software generated sprites very well because
its processor is too slow. You could argue that the C64 would have a 6x
faster 6510 put in to keep up with the competition. Sure, but the fancy
hardware is still made obsolete. By setting graphical capability in
stone (hardware), you are planning your own obsolescence a few years in
the future. The graphical capability of the 6510 based machine driven by
software depends only on the speed of the CPU.
I know how eager you are to claim that the C64 was 2-3 years ahead of
everyone else when it came out because of the special hardware. This
would only be true if the 6510 was the fastest thing available and it
wasn't.
About the SID, that's in another post.
> what did the spectum have a Z80 and colour clash! Take a look at early
> 64 games like
My Spectrum in 1983 had four video modes: the Spectrum's, two Spectrum
displays for animation, a 512x192 monochrome mode, a hi-res colour mode
where the colour clash is limited to eight pixels rather than 64. It also
comes with the AY-chip used in the ST and 128K Spectrum and with circuitry
built in to support significant memory expansion. This is the American
48k Spectrum (the ts2068). But I'm still willing to argue on the 48k
Spectrum's behalf.
> Thing On A spring, Loco, Last Ninja and Star Paws, the graphics and
> sound on these games were way above what the spectrum offered at the
> time.
The hardware of the C64 made the state-of-the-art on the C64 readily
available to everyone immediately. On a software driven machine like the
Spectrum, programmers have to develop skill in order to make the best use
of the machine's resources and that takes time. (I am *not* inferring
that C64 programmers are unskilled here!)
> The point here is that hardware capabilities like what the 64 had
> complement the machine and give it the edge, the idea that a machine is
> obsolete because it has hardware advantages it ludicrous.
See my point above. Putting high level graphics support in hardware is
tantamount to planned obsolescence.
> Software sprites can still be used even on
> machines that have these capabilities.
True, but not on machines with a 1MHz 6510 :-). And as pointed out above,
fancy hardware is made obsolete by faster processors.
> As for IO and Memory, remember the 64 had 64K,
How much RAM after video was subtracted?
> a proper disk drive, and in this department the 64 was also superior -
> after all have you ever seen LCP or Defender of the Crown on a spectrum
> with is micro drive!
Ahem. Proper disk drive? The C64 disk drive was slower than my cassette
tape. And it cost twice as much as PC drives. If you are interested, I
still own my old system which includes one 3.5" disk drive and one 5.25"
disk drive. It takes ~3 seconds to load up a 48k snapshot from the net.
It has a special feature to save snapshots of programs loaded from tape to
disk so transferring of tape software to disk was a trivial exercise.
BTW, LCP came out on cassette tape and in later years, many games were
released as "multiloads" - loading several parts from tape. I also
transferred many of these to disk without much trouble.
> The statement you made:
> "As long as there is enough speed under the hood, the graphical
> sophistication of
> programs is limited only by the programmer's ability and imagination."
> This is utter tosh! Of course the processor speed is important, but at the
> end of the day if you haven't got good graphics chips or sound around
> it, whats the point!
With a very fast processor, you don't need to be limited by fancy
hardware. You only need a something to generate a picture and put out
sound samples.
> I suppose you still think that a CGA PC was better than an Amiga
> because it had a faster processor!
Where is the Amiga today? The speed of the PC is more important than the
fancy hardware of the Amiga.
Alvin
The Starglider
A had nothing against the C64, mainly because I knew that it was no
threat to the spectrum. These are the reasons why:
1. The spectrum 48K had 48K of RAM, the C64 had 32K RAM.
2. Spectrum Graphics, although lower in colour quality, had finer
pixels, making for better detail of pictures.
3. In the advent of the AY chip in 128K speccy's, which, incidentally,
was easier to program, better tunes came out.
4. Faster processor in the spectrum.
5. Faster loading of games on spectrum.
6. Easier programming language on spectrum.
7. More games for spectrum.
8. More spectrum units sold in UK.
9. More peripherals for your needs on spectrum.
10. More capable for pure mathematics so games like Mercenary (which I
know came out for the C64 first), ran smoother as the processor could
cope with the maths quicker.
11. Vector graphic games were also out for the C64, for similar reasons.
These were what I could remember at the moment, I did used to have a
list of about 25 reasons why, but I've forgotten!
--
**************The Starglider****************
* E-Mail:starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk * _WW_
* Web site:http://www.thespian.demon.co.uk * /_ _\
******************************************** | O O |
___________________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo___________
The Starglider
In article <01bc6927$e8eb3160$04b8de8b@w9622136>, Andrew Cadley
<A.P.C...@uea.ac.uk> writes
>
>I'll try again:
>
>As for your previous comments about the C64 being harder to emulate, did
>you know there is not a single emulator available for the PC, yet.
>
>/me mumbles something about PC's needing rubber keyboards
>
>Andy
>
The Starglider
In article <338852a1...@news.demon.co.uk>, Damien Burke
<dam...@jetman.d.c.u> writes
>I don't know why I'm bothering, but here we go...
>
>On Sun, 25 May 1997 05:28:07 GMT,
>c64...@commodore.rulez.the.world (A Commodore 64 fan) wrote:
>
>>You have to use a lot of computer power in order to emulate them, it's
>>not just "adding & multiplying" as you say.
>
>Strike me dead if I'm wrong, but isn't "just" adding &
>multiplying all a computer really does?
>
multiplication etc... are done by clever use of the carry flags.
>>Yeah, emulate sprites in a Spectrum :)
>
>Yes. Try playing some Speccy games.
>
And let's see a C64 do some cutting edge shaded vectors.
>>You'll always have that awful color mixing, because you can't have
>>more than 2 colors (ink and paper) in the same 8*8 square.
>
>Wrong. Never seen any rainbow processor stuff, have you? All
>done in *software* of course.
>
The spectrum made up for the colour problem because of the lower
resolution of the C64. The speccy could do some VERY detailed graphics.
That's how Jack the Ripper got an 18 Certificate.
>>The spectrum can't do by software lots of things that the C64 can do
>>by hardware... so your point does not apply.
>
>And the 64 can't do by hardware many *more* things a Speccy can
>do by software.
>
The C64 would be useless as anything else BECAUSE of it's hardware. That
was it's downfall, as the C64 could not be used for anything BUT a games
machine. A bad move by commodore cutting corners.
>>Do you know that in a C64 you can even put graphics in the borders ?
>
>And on the Speccy. Try playing Sentinel.
>
And Beach Head II, Paperboy and others.
>>And remember that the spectrum has only 48K,
>
>Or 128K.
>
And the 48K had more than the C64, which was 64K INCLUDING THE ROM. The
RAM of a C64 is more like 32K.
>> and the screen is always
>>in the same place in memory.
>
>Not on the 128K ones.
>
Having the screen in the same place in memory was good, as then you
could write a simple page-flipping routine for better animations.
>>Most games that are incredible in the C64, are very bad done in the
>>Spectrum, look at Green Beret for example.
>
>An excellent *game* on both machines. The MSX version's graphics
>are better than the Speccy's, but the game itself is crap. Your
>point?
Anyway, look at Starglider! Or was about Our Quazatron to the C64
version (which was a different name that I can't remember!), but it was
a top-down view. Look, the C64 had more colours and a good sound chip to
it's benefit, but they pale in comparison to the fact that the spectrum
was a more flexible, easier machine, and THAT'S why they sold more in
the UK.
Andrew Cadley
The Starglider <starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<yFWf7HAa...@thespian.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <01bc6927$e8eb3160$04b8de8b@w9622136>, Andrew Cadley
> <A.P.C...@uea.ac.uk> writes
> >
> >I'll try again:
> >
> >As for your previous comments about the C64 being harder to emulate, did
> >you know there is not a single emulator available for the PC, yet.
> >
> >/me mumbles something about PC's needing rubber keyboards
> >
> >Andy
> >
> That's not true, actually, there is C64S, which is terrible >:-)
Arrggggghhh!!!!!!!!
I screwed it up *again*, what I was trying to say is, no one has
successfully emulated a CPC plus on the PC, yet. At least until Paul
Hogson's emulator is finsihed. :-)
Andy
Alvin R. Albrecht
On Sun, 25 May 1997, A Commodore 64 fan wrote:
> The Z80A which is inside de Spectrum, doesn't run at 4 mhz, but only
> at 3.54 mhz,
> I didn't say that the 6510 is faster than the Z80A, just that you
> can't compare just the Mhz because in the 6510 instructions use less
> cycles than in the Z80A.
Yes, but a more thorough examination will show the Z80 faster and in many
areas much faster (ie when doing anything in memory not in page 0). The
proof is in the putting: why are 3d games so slow on the C64? Even at
3.5MHz, the Z80 is still faster than the 1MHz 6510.
> >Implementing filters doesn't take more than adding & multiplying a few
> >numbers.
> It seems that you have NO IDEA about the S.I.D. (6581).
> You have to use a lot of computer power in order to emulate them, it's
> not just "adding & multiplying" as you say.
I do know a little about the SID. I didn't say emulating a SID was easy,
just the filter part. The SID has a LP and BP filter, yes? A digital
LP/BP filter is nothing more than a short difference equation. It seems
the emulator writers have already solved the lion's share of the SID
emulation problem.
> Yeah, emulate sprites in a Spectrum :)
Sprites are movable images superimposed on a more or less static
background. Kind of difficult to make an arcade game without 'em, and
there were a few of those made for the Spectrum ;).
> You'll always have that awful color mixing, because you can't have
> more than 2 colors (ink and paper) in the same 8*8 square.
Depends how big the sprites are. The bigger the sprites, the less the
colour clash problem. I direct you to R-Type (a damn good game besides)
and Popeye. If colour clash is a problem, the sprites are made
monochrome. Spectrum programmers became skilled in dealing with colour
clash.
On a C64, large sprites = blocky graphics, but not on a Spectrum.
> The spectrum can't do by software lots of things that the C64 can do
> by hardware... so your point does not apply.
I disagree. The fundamental limitation on the Spectrum is the colour
resolution, which can't be changed (though by software, you can get 8
colours in one character square rather than 1 as you state above). In the
C64, it's speed which never allows it to do anything more than the special
hardware can do.
> And, if I follow the way you think, modems that use computer power in
> order to work are better than the ones than do everything by hardware.
Yes. Modems are now computers in themselves rather than dedicated
hardware. A programmable device is always more flexible than a hard wired
device.
> And remember that the spectrum has only 48K, and the screen is always
> in the same place in memory.
The C64 doesn't have more than 40K when you subtract the RAM used by
video. A 2nd display file is available on the 128k Spectrum and the
American 48K Spectrum.
> Most games that are incredible in the C64, are very bad done in the
> Spectrum, look at Green Beret for example.
I think you picked a poor example. Green Beret on the Spectrum is very
close to the arcade version.
> >The fancy hardware does, however, make the C64 capable of being a games
> Yeah, the Spectrum without the Z80 can do anything either, so what ?
That doesn't make much sense.
> A C64 fan that doesn't hate Spectrums, but knows that they can't be
> compared to the incredible C64.
I honestly believe that this depends a large part on what you bought your
computer for. As a learning tool, the Spectrum is far better than the
C64. It had a good version of BASIC to learn programming on, a Z80 at its
heart to learn assembly language for the most popular 8 bit microprocessor
- a skill that is still valuable today as Z80s are used all over the place
in controllers, a simple construction that made it an electronics
hobbyist's dream. The Spectrum encouraged the user to peek under the hood
and learn how it worked.
The C64 on the other hand produced a lot of computer users, I believe.
For games, the Spectrum could do things faster and at higher resolution.
The C64 brought music and better colour. Which is better for games? The
C64 is better at platform games than the 48K Spectrum but not on games
that can't be reduced to a finite number of moving sprites. The AY chip
in the 128k Spectrum and the ts2068 (US 48k Spectrum) levelled the sound
field. The ts2068's 512x192 mode with its high resolution might be able
to offset the colour display ability of the C64.
Alvin
Benedikt Eric Heinen
"Paul Newport" <Stringfe...@btinternet.com> writes:
>I really find it hard to believe that after all this time there are still
>people that refuse to accept the 64's superiority over the Spectrum!
Oh guys, why can't you just stop that kind of nosensical disucssions?
The C64 and Spectrum were just about even from their abilities - the C64
had the better sprites (hardware sprites) and the better sound, but it
had the lower 16 color resolution (not mentioning the spectrum attribute
clashes), and was not as fast in true 3D graphics (i.e. compare the speed
of Elite on both platforms).
Also, the disk drive allowed the C64 owners to have more graphics in their
games, where the spectrum owners were basically limited to their 48K - only
a very little number of games actually loaded more parts during the course of
the game (i.e. The Eidolon).
OTOH, the Spectrum programmers were forced into becoming better programmers,
since they had to stick with the memory the machine offered. If you take a
look at Tower Of Babel (Atari ST/Amiga) you'll notice what I mean. ToB was
written by Pete Cooke - one of the best Spectrum games authors, and though
games for 3-5 floppies were pretty common at the time ToB was released, it
still fitted onto a single disk...
In general neither of the two could say 'my machine was superior', both
parties could only say 'my machine was better in this aspect, but not as
good in this other aspect'.
I chose to buy a Spectrum at the time, because I didn't like most of the
typical 64 arcades, but rather found real 3D games more interesting.
Nowadays, if I had to choose between the two machines again, I'd still
go for the Spectrum - but I wouldn't try and blame someone else for buying
a C64...
>A 64 had hardware scrolling, sprites, and an amazing sound chip, what did
>the spectum have a Z80 and colour clash!
Another thing - it isn't good style to just say 'this is good and this is
bad'. The Z80 was at its time a brilliant processor - and its lifespan lasted
longer than the 6502 processors. I know a couple of companies still
manufacturing hardware on Z80 basis, because on that processor it's easier
and cheaper to do, than on many others (for instance, the Z80 generates the
RAM refresh signals itself, therefore eliminating the need for extra hardware
to do that).
>Take a look at early 64 games like Thing On A spring, Loco, Last Ninja and
>Star Paws, the graphics and sound on these games were way above what the
>spectrum offered at the time.
Great, go on - start and compare both sides. Take Elite for example. I've
seen the C64 crawl as soon as a Targoid and 1 or 2 Targons were on your
screen. The Spectrum still managed to play that bit somewhat fluently...
The Spectrum managed to get 4 or 5 Targons on screen, before it became
really slow.
Another example is Starglider - not only does this game run fluently on
a Spectrum, even though it was designed for a 16 bit system (Atari ST/Amiga),
but it also had extra missions in the Spectrum128 version, that it didn't
even have on ST/Amiga.
Also, the color clashing was definetely a drawback in colorful shoot-em-ups,
but there are many games, that dealt with this very well - i.e. Sabre Wulf.
>As for IO and Memory, remember the 64 had 64K, a proper disk drive, and in
>this department the 64 was also superior - after all have you ever seen LCP
>or Defender of the Crown on a spectrum with is micro drive!
Well, yes - as I wrote before, the disk drive belongs to the C64's advantages.
There were a few disk drives out (Opus, Beta, Disciple), which used better
capacities (720K 3 1/2" disks compared to 2*150K floppies on the C64),
*but* unfortunately, no company ever released a game on floppy disk.
Still this should not be a reason to start stating things, that aren't true.
LCP had been released on the Spectrum, and it didn't even have to load
additional stuff once it was in memory.
>The PC is so good today, because of its superior hardware that complements
>its processor.
btw. as you're singing the hymn on the PC now, you know that that the PPro or
Pentium II and the Z80 got the same ancestor? The 8080...
>True, that the spectrum could handle some 3d type games better than the
>64 due to its faster processor, but then there were even exceptions to
>this, just look at Tau Ceti for evidence of this.
Tau Ceti only used Pseudo-3D not real-3D like Elite, Starion, StarStrike,
Star Glider and the like.
So, please guys - let's try and settle this. None of the two was
better than the other!
Benedikt
--
signoff
Hiroshima '45 Chernobyl '86 Windows '95
Stephen Judd
My friend, you are sadly, wholly, thoroughly mistaken in your assertions.
From them I deduce that:
a) You have no meaningful experience programming 6510s
b) You have no meaningful experience programming C-64s.
I, on the other hand, have no meaningful experiences programming Z80's
and Spectrums; the primary difference here is that I will make no
claims concerning the capabilities of the Spectrum.
In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970525...@srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca>,
Alvin R. Albrecht <albr...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>Let me make my point clearer then. Take your basic C64 + fancy hardware.
>This would be equivalent to a C64 running a 6510 that's say six times
Think so, eh? Here is a test for you: take a look at some of the CGA and EGA
games written for the IBMs around the same time. These are machines that
ran at 10MHz at least. The 8088 has multiple general-purpose registers,
on-chip multiplication instructions, 16-bit addressing, and all sorts of
other nice things. You can select almost any game you want, and compare
it to the 64 version, and see for yourself how much CPU is needed to make
up for a simple graphics chip.
In fact, you are free to increase the processor speed by a factor of twenty.
If you think you can emulate sprites, well, I think you are quite wrong,
and I'd like to see you try.
As a matter of fact, I happen to have a 20MHz 65816 in my 64 here. What
do you know, I can do processing _and_ let VIC handle sprites and such.
How is a fast processor + no VIC superior to a fast processor+VIC?
(Hint: it isn't)
The value of dedicated graphics chips is self-evident by simply examining
e.g. an arcade game, an SGI Iris, a Playstation, etc. The whole point
is that you can use the processor for things like computations, instead
of managing the screen.
Keep in mind that the Commodore 64 had over a 10-year production run, and
sold more units than any other single machine type. That's not exactly the
sign of a computer which went obsolete 2-3 years after its introduction,
in fact it is the exact opposite.
>fancy hardware is made obsolete by faster processors.
What a silly thing to say.
>Where is the Amiga today? The speed of the PC is more important than the
>fancy hardware of the Amiga.
The Amiga, in all its various forms, is still used in many areas including
the video markets. That is a testament to the importance of a good
design -- how many PC's in "professional" use are more than 1-2 years
old?
The PC thrives on planned obsolescense -- because the processor does all
the work, you always need a faster processor. I'd rather have a computer
which was well-designed in the first place.
-S
Stephen Judd
In article <01bc6919$6a0d80e0$04b8de8b@w9622136>,
Andrew Cadley <A.P.C...@uea.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>A Commodore 64 fan <c64...@commodore.rulez.the.world> wrote in article
><3389cd28...@commodore64.com>...
>
>> at 3.54 mhz,
>>
>> I didn't say that the 6510 is faster than the Z80A, just that you
>> can't compare just the Mhz because in the 6510 instructions use less
>> cycles than in the Z80A.
>
>the time taken to peform common tasks like looping. Tests such as this show
>that the z80 is faster overall.
For instance... ?
Since it's quite easy, I'd be interested in seeing the test.
>If you mean multicolour sprites then yes your right, but have you ever seen
>a decent 3D game on the C64.
Yes.
-S
Stephen Judd
Another expert speaks!
In article <iFSb7KAK...@thespian.demon.co.uk>,
The Starglider <starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <338852a1...@news.demon.co.uk>, Damien Burke
><dam...@jetman.d.c.u> writes
>>
>>Strike me dead if I'm wrong, but isn't "just" adding &
>>multiplying all a computer really does?
>>
>In actual fact, a computer can only "ADD", the rest of the
>multiplication etc... are done by clever use of the carry flags.
There are several ways to do multiplication. Repeatedly adding a number
to itself is the worst way. There is nothing clever done with the
carry flag; shift and add routines work in a very straightforward way.
The fastest routines use tables in a clever way.
If any of you guys are actually interested in learning about multiplication
routines, instead of gesticulating wildly in the air as you speak,
take a look at my web page (and read my articles in C=Hacking).
>And let's see a C64 do some cutting edge shaded vectors.
Let's see Polygonamy.
While you're at it, take a look at dim4. I daresay that today's fast
computers would have an incredibly difficult time duplicating that
program (due simply to the lack of redefinable character sets),
let alone attempting to do it in 4k.
>The C64 would be useless as anything else BECAUSE of it's hardware. That
>was it's downfall, as the C64 could not be used for anything BUT a games
>machine. A bad move by commodore cutting corners.
A bold assertion, but I have always found one's ass to be a bad source
of information and reference.
A great many people use their 64's for very useful work. In fact, the
majority of users today do so -- you just can't keep playing the same
games for 15 years. And why is it still useful as a computer today?
Obviously because it was well designed, and can still do most tasks people
need done.
>And the 48K had more than the C64, which was 64K INCLUDING THE ROM. The
>RAM of a C64 is more like 32K.
The RAM of a C64 is more like 64k. In addition to the RAM, there are
two ROM chips, each of which is 8k. The I/O chips take up 4k. A
cartridge can use all 64k. Any other program can use the 60k not
occupied by the I/O chips, in addition to the ROMs.
While it's a foreign concept (literally) to many Europeans, a disk
drive extends that much further: once freed of the shackles of a
tape drive, you can store things on disk and retrieve them when
needed -- a basic form of random access virtual memory (and one of the many
reasons those of us in the USA are so shocked to learn that so many
Europeans used tape drives, and are so disappointed when we see the tape
versions of our favorite games).
Almost any program developed after 1985 in the US used this to great
advantage.
>it's benefit, but they pale in comparison to the fact that the spectrum
>was a more flexible, easier machine, and THAT'S why they sold more in
>the UK.
And sold far less everywhere else in the free world. That's a very brave
logic you posess.
You can argue with success, but not in the case of the 64. Without
much marketing, and without any substantial improvements in the basic
design, it was produced for over a decade and sold an enormous number
of units -- the #1 selling computer of all time. And it is still not
only used but actively developed for, both in hardware and software.
If you really don't understand the reasons, then I suggest that you
do a little research on the subject: visit some web sites, get ahold
of a 64, use a variety of programs on it, and try programming it.
You might be amazed at just what can't be done on a 64.
Russ Juckes
ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Stephen Judd) wrote:
> Let's see Polygonamy.
You're too late for that. I've settled down with just the one girl now, and
left the other two (Andi & Sheena - regular posters here may remember the
names,) back oop north.
Although we were together for six years, and... oh, wait, POLYGONamy? Ah,
um, I thought you said, er, quick - next post!
--
"My God... It's full of stars..." rus...@edgemail.ha1.com
http://www.raiden.demon.co.uk
Russ Juckes
ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Stephen Judd) wrote:
>> Where is the Amiga today? The speed of the PC is more important than
>> the fancy hardware of the Amiga.
> The Amiga, in all its various forms, is still used in many areas
> including the video markets. That is a testament to the importance of a
> good design -- how many PC's in "professional" use are more than 1-2
> years old?
Well, the Spectrum is still being used today, and caused you to post all this
flamage. So I'd say that's a pretty good testament to design as well,
wouldn't you, even if it's only being emulated?
Russ Juckes
ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Stephen Judd) wrote:
>> If you mean multicolour sprites then yes your right, but have you ever
>> seen a decent 3D game on the C64.
> Yes.
Well?
I suppose Zaxxon was quite good, better than the ZX version, and the
Colecovision's version...
Interestingly enough though, Paradroid, which was a top-down game, (and
bloody brilliant,) became a (bloody brilliant) isometric 3D game when it made
it to the ZX.
Damien Burke
On 25 May 1997 21:14:06 GMT, ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Stephen
Judd) wrote:
>If any of you guys are actually interested in learning about multiplication
>routines, instead of gesticulating wildly in the air as you speak,
>take a look at my web page (and read my articles in C=Hacking).
This sounds truly fascinating but I think I'll pass...
>A great many people use their 64's for very useful work. In fact, the
>majority of users today do so -- you just can't keep playing the same
>games for 15 years. And why is it still useful as a computer today?
>Obviously because it was well designed, and can still do most tasks people
>need done.
I know a bloke runs a nuclear power station with a ZX81 you
know.
>While it's a foreign concept (literally) to many Europeans, a disk
>drive extends that much further: once freed of the shackles of a
>tape drive, you can store things on disk and retrieve them when
>needed
This really takes the piss, and is the usual US = shiny techno
place, Europe = fifthy medieval dungeon bollocks. Seeing as
these 'European' tape drives (drive?) were faster than your 64's
disk drive, I don't think we missed out there, did we?
>And sold far less everywhere else in the free world.
Absolute utter crap. Please list every single country where the
64 outsold the Speccy, and please explain why you do not class
countries such as Portugal as being in this lovely 'free world'
you Yanks are always on about. And while you're at it, why not
drop the 'free' bit entirely and we'll ask the East Europeans
and Russians which 8-bit machine was more successful, eh?
>of units -- the #1 selling computer of all time.
And there was me thinking that was the 80x86 based PC.
fus set.
Damien Burke
>In actual fact, a computer can only "ADD", the rest of the
>multiplication etc... are done by clever use of the carry flags.
Depends what level you're going to. Microcode? Invidual gates?
Do we include shift instructions etc.? But bleurgh, back to 64
bashing...
XmikeX
The Starglider <starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk> said :
>A had nothing against the C64, mainly because I knew that it was no
>threat to the spectrum. These are the reasons why:
Translation : "My mother and father bought a Spectrum, and well...I spent
the next decade justifying their purchase."
--
>1. The spectrum 48K had 48K of RAM, the C64 had 32K RAM.
Translation : "I know the C64 had 64K RAM but my counselor advised me that
denial is the most efficient way to combat penis-envy."
--
>2. Spectrum Graphics, although lower in colour quality, had finer
>pixels, making for better detail of pictures.
Translation : "I should have invented some pseudo-history where Spectrum
Graphics became Silicon Graphics, but I just wasn't THAT creative."
--
>3. In the advent of the AY chip in 128K speccy's, which, incidentally,
>was easier to program, better tunes came out.
Translation : "I obviously feel that the base 48K spectrum was righteously
and thoroughly outclassed by the C64."
--
>4. Faster processor in the spectrum.
Interesting statement.
--
>5. Faster loading of games on spectrum.
Hey, cool...!
--
>6. Easier programming language on spectrum.
...a Windows95 user!?
--
>7. More games for spectrum.
HAHAHAHEHeheheoheeehahahahahooohahohhhahahaoohohooohahahahhohohhhhahahahhhaha
ahahahohoahoahhahhoahohoahaaoaaoooooohahahhahaaahH Hohoahah haooh HOhOHO hoha
hHHOhohOhoH hAHAHAhHAHAHA hohohohohahah HO HOHO OHo HAHAHahaheehehihihiiiihah
hohohohooooooooohohahhaehehehehahahahehehahohOHOHohohoHIhihIHihIHIHHEEEHEEHEE
ahahaaoahoahoahoahhahhahhoaaoehoehoehoehoehohhehheheeeeeeeheheeeh ehehe ehehe
--
>8. More spectrum units sold in UK.
Yeah? Wow..."another cross for England to bear".
--
>9. More peripherals for your needs on spectrum.
See response to #7.
>10. More capable for pure mathematics so games like Mercenary (which I
>know came out for the C64 first), ran smoother as the processor could
>cope with the maths quicker.
"...could cope with the maths quicker." :)
--
>11. Vector graphic games were also out for the C64, for similar reasons.
Praise for C64??? Excellent!
--
>These were what I could remember at the moment, I did used to have a
>list of about 25 reasons why, but I've forgotten!
Translation : "I'm 14 years old!!"
XmX
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, 227, any
and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to xmi...@eyrie.stanford.edu
or xmi...@eyrie.org is subject to a download and archival fee in the
amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes unconditional acceptance by both
sender and any organization represented in the aforementioned nonsolicited
commercial E-mail. --->> "By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a
computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine.
Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to
such equipment. Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned
Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500,
whichever is greater, for each violation."
Daniel Dahlberg
> > Strike me dead if I'm wrong, but isn't "just" adding &
> > multiplying all a computer really does?
> >
>
> addition.
>
> Andy
How about division? Tht's the operation that takes the longest to
perform (next to loading Turbo 250 on the good ol' 64 :) )
// Daniel
Daniel Dahlberg
> >And the 64 can't do by hardware many *more* things a Speccy can
> >do by software.
> >
> was it's downfall, as the C64 could not be used for anything BUT a games
> machine. A bad move by commodore cutting corners.
> >
> >And on the Speccy. Try playing Sentinel.
> >
> And Beach Head II, Paperboy and others.
> >
> >
> And the 48K had more than the C64, which was 64K INCLUDING THE ROM. The
> RAM of a C64 is more like 32K.
> >>in the same place in memory.
> >
> >
> Having the screen in the same place in memory was good, as then you
> could write a simple page-flipping routine for better animations.
> >>Spectrum, look at Green Beret for example.
> >
> >are better than the Speccy's, but the game itself is crap. Your
> >point?
> Anyway, look at Starglider! Or was about Our Quazatron to the C64
> version (which was a different name that I can't remember!), but it was
> a top-down view. Look, the C64 had more colours and a good sound chip to
> was a more flexible, easier machine, and THAT'S why they sold more in
> the UK.
This is beginning to look like the old Amiga vs Atari debate that later
turned into the Amiga vs PC debate. (Of course, everybody knows that the
Amiga is one of the best machines ever made... :) )
Daniel Dahlberg
>> This is utter tosh! Of course the processor speed is important, but at the
> > end of the day if you haven't got good graphics chips or sound around
> > it, whats the point!
>
> With a very fast processor, you don't need to be limited by fancy
> hardware. You only need a something to generate a picture and put out
> sound samples.
>
> > I suppose you still think that a CGA PC was better than an Amiga
> > because it had a faster processor!
>
> Where is the Amiga today? The speed of the PC is more important than the
> fancy hardware of the Amiga.
>
> Alvin
Well, if you consider that Commodere didn't do a useful thing for Amiga
until the A4000 was released, you can't really blame the machine. I
still haven't seen a PC from 1986 that can match my old A500.
When Commoder finally awoke and realized they were starting to lose
it, it was to late. The A600 was a joke, the A1200 came too late, and
the CDTV and that other CD-game console (CD32?) didn't help Commodre
much either.
Oh, by the way, how much of the hardware from '86 are you still using
in your machine today? I'm sure you haven't just upgraded your CPU since
then.
Alvin R. Albrecht
On 25 May 1997, Stephen Judd wrote:
> >In actual fact, a computer can only "ADD", the rest of the
> >multiplication etc... are done by clever use of the carry flags.
> There are several ways to do multiplication. Repeatedly adding a number
> to itself is the worst way. There is nothing clever done with the
> carry flag; shift and add routines work in a very straightforward way.
> The fastest routines use tables in a clever way.
When you shift a register, where does the extra bit go? The carry flag?
When you decide whether to add in the multiplicand to the running product,
what do you test? The carry flag?
> If any of you guys are actually interested in learning about multiplication
> routines, instead of gesticulating wildly in the air as you speak,
> take a look at my web page (and read my articles in C=Hacking).
I don't think I'll learn anything new, thanks. Insults are really
uncalled far. These comments were made in jest in order to inject a
little humour in the debate.
> >The C64 would be useless as anything else BECAUSE of it's hardware. That
> >was it's downfall, as the C64 could not be used for anything BUT a games
> >machine. A bad move by commodore cutting corners.
> A bold assertion, but I have always found one's ass to be a bad source
> of information and reference.
The special hardware in the C64 extended its life. It also allowed
Commodore to select a cheaper (and slower) processor in the 6510 for the
functionality it aimed for.
> A great many people use their 64's for very useful work. In fact, the
> majority of users today do so -- you just can't keep playing the same
> games for 15 years. And why is it still useful as a computer today?
> Obviously because it was well designed, and can still do most tasks people
> need done.
There is nary a sane soul here who will argue with the success of the C64.
Obviously, it appealed to a lot of people and not for no reason.
If you want to be honest, nobody in everyday life needs more than an 8bit
machine to get day to day tasks done.
> >And the 48K had more than the C64, which was 64K INCLUDING THE ROM. The
> >RAM of a C64 is more like 32K.
> The RAM of a C64 is more like 64k. In addition to the RAM, there are
> two ROM chips, each of which is 8k. The I/O chips take up 4k. A
> cartridge can use all 64k. Any other program can use the 60k not
> occupied by the I/O chips, in addition to the ROMs.
Are you leaving out the amount of memory taken by the display on purpose?
;-)
> While it's a foreign concept (literally) to many Europeans, a disk
> drive extends that much further: once freed of the shackles of a
> tape drive, you can store things on disk and retrieve them when
I wouldn't refer to a C64 disk drive as a liberator from tape drives.
Especially given that it was slower than my cassette recorder. The tape
drives were faster, but admittedly less reliable. There were disk systems
making use of PC drives made available, including the one I own. I can
load a snapshot in 3 seconds; how long does it take for your C64 to load a
game? But because a standard never emerged, games were realeased for the
lowest common denominator.
The motivation behind the tape drive was lower cost. The C64 disk drive
was no bargain especially given its performance.
> needed -- a basic form of random access virtual memory (and one of the many
> reasons those of us in the USA are so shocked to learn that so many
> Europeans used tape drives, and are so disappointed when we see the tape
> versions of our favorite games).
Are you confusing cassette tape with tape drive? Tape drives, though
sequential, are fast enough to appear random access.
> >it's benefit, but they pale in comparison to the fact that the spectrum
> >was a more flexible, easier machine, and THAT'S why they sold more in
> >the UK.
> And sold far less everywhere else in the free world. That's a very brave
> logic you posess.
I think you are misinformed. The Spectrum sold well everywhere except in
North America because Sinclair's partner, Timex, decided to withdraw from
the market shortly after releasing the American Spectrum.
> You can argue with success, but not in the case of the 64. Without
> much marketing, and without any substantial improvements in the basic
> design, it was produced for over a decade and sold an enormous number
> of units -- the #1 selling computer of all time. And it is still not
> only used but actively developed for, both in hardware and software.
The same can be said of the Spectrum. Being an American, I don't think you
are too aware of how successful a machine the Spectrum was. A large part
of the difference in number of units sold is attributable to the fact that
the Spectrum was mostly absent from the American market.
Alvin
Alvin R. Albrecht
On 25 May 1997, Stephen Judd wrote:
> My friend, you are sadly, wholly, thoroughly mistaken in your assertions.
> From them I deduce that:
> a) You have no meaningful experience programming 6510s
I have meaningful experience programming 6809s. I view the 6809 as a
beefed up 6502(6510). Am I wrong in this assertion?
> b) You have no meaningful experience programming C-64s.
You are correct.
> I, on the other hand, have no meaningful experiences programming Z80's
> and Spectrums; the primary difference here is that I will make no
> claims concerning the capabilities of the Spectrum.
Why not? If you make a mistake, someone will correct you. I expect that
when I make a "thoroughly mistaken" assertion that I will be corrected.
> Alvin R. Albrecht <albr...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote:
> >Let me make my point clearer then. Take your basic C64 + fancy hardware.
> >This would be equivalent to a C64 running a 6510 that's say six times
> Think so, eh? Here is a test for you: take a look at some of the CGA and EGA
> games written for the IBMs around the same time. These are machines that
> ran at 10MHz at least. The 8088 has multiple general-purpose registers,
[ early PC games were crap despite the speed advantages of the hardware ]
> ... and see for yourself how much CPU is needed to make
> up for a simple graphics chip.
> In fact, you are free to increase the processor speed by a factor of twenty.
> If you think you can emulate sprites, well, I think you are quite wrong,
> and I'd like to see you try.
And yet the humble Spectrum running a 3.5MHz Z80 can smoothly animate
larger and more sprites than the C64 and its special hardware.
I picked a number 6, which seemed reasonable to me with a 6510. It's a
flexible number, but I think you overestimate the amount of computing
power required to put up sprites on a screen of the C64's resolution.
Or perhaps I overestimate the speed of the 6510? A Z80 at 3.5 MHz can put
up sprites adequately enough on a Spectrum resolution screen. On a
Commodore 64's, with higher colour resolution, it'd have to be a bit
faster, but not much.
> As a matter of fact, I happen to have a 20MHz 65816 in my 64 here. What
> do you know, I can do processing _and_ let VIC handle sprites and such.
> How is a fast processor + no VIC superior to a fast processor+VIC?
If the 20MHz C64 were available ten years ago, and you were making games
using the built in sprite hardware, your competition would bury you
because their software sprites would put your games to shame. Yes, the
hardware makes your task easier as a programmer, but you'd have inferior
results.
Now pretend you are the hardware manufacturer. You have a C64 at 1MHz
with the special chips and a C64ish at 20MHz with no chips. Which is more
cost effective given that the 20MHz C64ish machine can do better graphics?
Now I ask you, why do you want special chips in your C64 20MHz machine?
Games can only go so fast. You can only make so much use of the original
64's screen resolution. Perhaps it would be time to upgrade the display?
My original point was that a 1MHz C64 + video hardware is not superior to
another computer without video hardware. Faster processors can make up
for the difference + more.
> The value of dedicated graphics chips is self-evident by simply examining
> e.g. an arcade game, an SGI Iris, a Playstation, etc. The whole point
Dedicated hardware allows a designer to select slower CPUs which lead to a
simpler motherboard = lower costs. Now tell me, with this special display
hardware, what would you say the lifetime of these machines are? How long
would a machine that allowed you to upgrade to a faster processor last?
Or a better resolution? (IE- this is your IBM PC. They haven't changed
all that much over the years).
> is that you can use the processor for things like computations, instead
> of managing the screen.
Yes, which buys you a short term advantage over competitors for a period
of time. Then the hardware becomes a liability when competitors can
produce equivalent machines without the hardware (ie lower cost).
It is not a good idea to burn high level graphics support in hardware.
> Keep in mind that the Commodore 64 had over a 10-year production run, and
> sold more units than any other single machine type. That's not exactly the
> sign of a computer which went obsolete 2-3 years after its introduction,
> in fact it is the exact opposite.
The C64 was made obsolete by the PC and other 16bit/32 bits that came out.
The C64 survived in the low end 8bit market simply because the industry
moved to 16bits and a higher cost bracket.
The Spectrum was also a very successful computer with nearly 10 years of
production. And the numbers would probably surprise you.
> the video markets. That is a testament to the importance of a good
> design -- how many PC's in "professional" use are more than 1-2 years
> old?
PCs haven't changed much over time.
> The PC thrives on planned obsolescense -- because the processor does all
> the work, you always need a faster processor. I'd rather have a computer
> which was well-designed in the first place.
No. You always need a faster processor because software writing is a
business. Time is money and it always takes less time to produce software
that runs adequately on the hardware owned by the majority of customers.
That and the hype that drives people to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade.
Alvin
Andrew Cadley
Stephen Judd <ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote in article
<5ma843$p...@news.acns.nwu.edu>...
> As a matter of fact, I happen to have a 20MHz 65816 in my 64 here. What
> do you know, I can do processing _and_ let VIC handle sprites and such.
> How is a fast processor + no VIC superior to a fast processor+VIC?
>
> (Hint: it isn't)
>
Okay, take another example. Look at a 68030 Amiga, notice how programmes
don't bother using the blitter. Why? Simply because the processor can shift
data around a *lot* faster. Sure the hardware is still useful, but it is
superceded by the fact that it's easier to fit a faster processor than to
upgrade the custom chipset.
> The value of dedicated graphics chips is self-evident by simply examining
> e.g. an arcade game, an SGI Iris, a Playstation, etc. The whole point
> is that you can use the processor for things like computations, instead
> of managing the screen.
>
Yeah, and how many 2D games have you seen on the Playstation. Not a lot I
can tell you, simply because the hardware is much more suited to 3D.
> Keep in mind that the Commodore 64 had over a 10-year production run, and
> sold more units than any other single machine type. That's not exactly
the
> sign of a computer which went obsolete 2-3 years after its introduction,
> in fact it is the exact opposite.
>
I personally think that had more to do with the fact that the C64 was never
upgraded as much as the speccy. I mean we had in total 7 models (IICC),
wheras CBM only really had the C64 and laughable C128 before they moved on
to the Amiga.
> The Amiga, in all its various forms, is still used in many areas
including
> the video markets. That is a testament to the importance of a good
> design -- how many PC's in "professional" use are more than 1-2 years
> old?
>
Yeah but it's hardly the market leader it was a few years ago is it. I'm
certainly not anti-Amiga, I really hope Gateway 2000 treat it properly and
bring out a PPC version along the lines of phase 5's. However for now I'll
stick to my Pentium PC, the Amiga just does'nt cut it in the modern market
anymore.
> The PC thrives on planned obsolescense -- because the processor does all
> the work, you always need a faster processor. I'd rather have a computer
> which was well-designed in the first place.
Nonsense, the vast majority of PC hardware remains the same. So you might
buy a faster processor, you may even get a better motherboard, but you can
keep the graphics and network cards etc.
Due to the Amiga's all-in-one design, it is not so easy to upgrade. That's
why there have only ever been two *real* designs, the older OCS/ECS
machines and the newer (well okay, slighty less old) AGA machines.
Andy
Andrew Cadley
Russ Juckes <rus...@raiden.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<n900...@raiden.demon.co.uk>...
> ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Stephen Judd) wrote:
>
> >> If you mean multicolour sprites then yes your right, but have you ever
> >> seen a decent 3D game on the C64.
> > Yes.
> Well?
> I suppose Zaxxon was quite good, better than the ZX version, and the
> Colecovision's version...
> Interestingly enough though, Paradroid, which was a top-down game, (and
> bloody brilliant,) became a (bloody brilliant) isometric 3D game when it
made
> it to the ZX.
I was refering to *true* 3D games, not just isometric jobby's. Elite, the
freescape games, Carrier Command etc, all ran better on the speccy.
Andy
Jason Compton
Andrew Cadley (A.P.C...@uea.ac.uk) wrote:
: Yeah, and how many 2D games have you seen on the Playstation. Not a lot I
: can tell you, simply because the hardware is much more suited to 3D.
No, because Sony doesn't like to allow 2D games to be released on the
Playstation. That's what delayed the release of Worms.
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
Editor-in-Chief, Amiga Report Magazine Anchor, Amiga Legacy
WWW - http://www.cucug.org/ar/ www.xnet.com/~jcompton/
To see reflected there...the trees, the sky, the lily fair...
Stephen Judd
In article <n900...@raiden.demon.co.uk>,
Russ Juckes <rus...@raiden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Stephen Judd) wrote:
>
>>> Where is the Amiga today? The speed of the PC is more important than
>>> the fancy hardware of the Amiga.
>
>> including the video markets. That is a testament to the importance of a
>> good design -- how many PC's in "professional" use are more than 1-2
>> years old?
>
>flamage. So I'd say that's a pretty good testament to design as well,
>wouldn't you, even if it's only being emulated?
Nowhere do I recall attempting to make any sort of comment on the
quality, design, or usability of the Spectrum. In fact, I recall
prefacing that post with a statement to the contrary. Nowhere did
I mention emulation. My statement above looks to be a comment on the Amiga.
In summary: I completely fail to see anything resembling a connection
between your comments and my post. It strikes me as being rather
akin to a broken pencil.
(Pointless)
evetS-
Stephen Judd
In article <n900...@raiden.demon.co.uk>,
Russ Juckes <rus...@raiden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Stephen Judd) wrote:
>
>
>You're too late for that. I've settled down with just the one girl now, and
>left the other two (Andi & Sheena - regular posters here may remember the
>names,) back oop north.
>
>Although we were together for six years, and... oh, wait, POLYGONamy? Ah,
>um, I thought you said, er, quick - next post!
:)
Yes indeed, the only demo illegal in all 50 states except Utah :).
evetS-
...Who was, incidentally, just in Utah, where a polygamist compound
was pointed out to me, whose leader apparently has 13 wives and
56 children. (!)
Stephen Judd
In article <3389c30b...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Damien Burke <dam...@jetman.d.c.u> wrote:
>On 25 May 1997 21:14:06 GMT, ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Stephen
>Judd) wrote:
>
>>drive extends that much further: once freed of the shackles of a
>>tape drive, you can store things on disk and retrieve them when
>
>This really takes the piss, and is the usual US = shiny techno
>place, Europe = fifthy medieval dungeon bollocks. Seeing as
Quite the opposite. I simply put the question to you: is anything
in my above statement erroneous? As I see it, it contains three
main points, here outlined for the tunneled of vision:
1. Most Europeans used tape drives instead of disk drives.
2. A disk drive is much more flexible than a tape drive.
3. Some Europeans, yourself perhaps, often don't
understand why a disk drive is more useful than a tape
drive, perhaps because they've never had one, or used
programs which take advantage of a disk drive. See
point #1.
As to the spurious nationalistic accusational sanctimony, I find
that many people, when they have nothing really spectacular or witty
to say, resort to attempting to change the subject with spurious
nationalistic accusational sanctimony.
The most elusive thing however is why some Europeans think that the
USA views them all as ignorant peons, who when taken city by city
have an aggregate I.Q. sufficient for shoe tying*. In point of fact,
most people in the USA cannot even find Europe on a map, let alone
care what Europeans are doing or thinking. I thus take such statements
as statements of general insecurity, for reasons unknown.
* Although it would explain Tony Blair ;-) ;-)
>these 'European' tape drives (drive?) were faster than your 64's
>disk drive, I don't think we missed out there, did we?
I have no idea. As I have said, I have no experience with Spectrums.
Tape drives on the 64 are certainly not as fast as disk drives on
the 64 though, especially accelerated disk drives.
Somehow, though, I thought my point was that a disk drive was much more
flexible and useful than a tape drive. Ah well...
>>And sold far less everywhere else in the free world.
>
>Absolute utter crap. Please list every single country where the
>64 outsold the Speccy, and please explain why you do not class
>countries such as Portugal as being in this lovely 'free world'
>you Yanks are always on about. And while you're at it, why not
Yeah, we kicked your ass in 1776 and again in 1812, so there.
>drop the 'free' bit entirely and we'll ask the East Europeans
>and Russians which 8-bit machine was more successful, eh?
>
>>of units -- the #1 selling computer of all time.
>
>And there was me thinking that was the 80x86 based PC.
Well, that would explain why you are wrong.
evetS-
The Starglider
In article <5maqam$6...@flood.xnet.com>, Jason Compton
<jcom...@typhoon.xnet.com> writes
>Andrew Cadley (A.P.C...@uea.ac.uk) wrote:
>: Yeah, and how many 2D games have you seen on the Playstation. Not a lot I
>: can tell you, simply because the hardware is much more suited to 3D.
>
>No, because Sony doesn't like to allow 2D games to be released on the
>Playstation. That's what delayed the release of Worms.
>
* NVG UPDATES:n...@thespian.demon.co.uk * /_ _\
The Starglider
In article <5matra$4...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Stephen Judd
<ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> writes
>In article <3389c30b...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>Damien Burke <dam...@jetman.d.c.u> wrote:
>>On 25 May 1997 21:14:06 GMT, ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Stephen
>>Judd) wrote:
>>
>>>While it's a foreign concept (literally) to many Europeans, a disk
>>>drive extends that much further: once freed of the shackles of a
>>>tape drive, you can store things on disk and retrieve them when
>>>needed
>>
>>This really takes the piss, and is the usual US = shiny techno
>>place, Europe = fifthy medieval dungeon bollocks. Seeing as
>
>Quite the opposite. I simply put the question to you: is anything
>in my above statement erroneous? As I see it, it contains three
>main points, here outlined for the tunneled of vision:
>
> 1. Most Europeans used tape drives instead of disk drives.
time.
> 2. A disk drive is much more flexible than a tape drive.
> 3. Some Europeans, yourself perhaps, often don't
> understand why a disk drive is more useful than a tape
> drive, perhaps because they've never had one, or used
> programs which take advantage of a disk drive. See
> point #1.
And it wasn't the PC as well, that was considered a business computer.
>
>As to the spurious nationalistic accusational sanctimony, I find
>that many people, when they have nothing really spectacular or witty
>to say, resort to attempting to change the subject with spurious
>nationalistic accusational sanctimony.
>
>The most elusive thing however is why some Europeans think that the
>USA views them all as ignorant peons, who when taken city by city
>have an aggregate I.Q. sufficient for shoe tying*. In point of fact,
>most people in the USA cannot even find Europe on a map, let alone
>care what Europeans are doing or thinking. I thus take such statements
>as statements of general insecurity, for reasons unknown.
>
why should we listen to what they have to say?
>
>>these 'European' tape drives (drive?) were faster than your 64's
>>disk drive, I don't think we missed out there, did we?
>
>I have no idea. As I have said, I have no experience with Spectrums.
>Tape drives on the 64 are certainly not as fast as disk drives on
>the 64 though, especially accelerated disk drives.
here had some experience of the C64! If you have NO experience of the
Spectrum, then don't compare.
>
>Somehow, though, I thought my point was that a disk drive was much more
>flexible and useful than a tape drive. Ah well...
>
program in 10 minutes, and a disc drive that loaded the same game in 8.5
mins, I would go for a disc drive. But at least the spectrum could load
a 128K game in under 6 minutes!
>>>And sold far less everywhere else in the free world.
>>
>>Absolute utter crap. Please list every single country where the
>>64 outsold the Speccy, and please explain why you do not class
>>countries such as Portugal as being in this lovely 'free world'
>>you Yanks are always on about. And while you're at it, why not
>
>Yeah, we kicked your ass in 1776 and again in 1812, so there.
>
TWICE!
>>drop the 'free' bit entirely and we'll ask the East Europeans
>>and Russians which 8-bit machine was more successful, eh?
>>
>>>of units -- the #1 selling computer of all time.
>>
>>And there was me thinking that was the 80x86 based PC.
>
>Well, that would explain why you are wrong.
>
> evetS-
The Starglider
In article <5maa2u$p...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Stephen Judd
<ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> writes
>>In article <338852a1...@news.demon.co.uk>, Damien Burke
>><dam...@jetman.d.c.u> writes
>>>
>>>multiplying all a computer really does?
>>>
>>multiplication etc... are done by clever use of the carry flags.
>
>There are several ways to do multiplication. Repeatedly adding a number
>to itself is the worst way. There is nothing clever done with the
>carry flag; shift and add routines work in a very straightforward way.
>The fastest routines use tables in a clever way.
and they stated that computers can only ADD.
>
>If any of you guys are actually interested in learning about multiplication
>routines, instead of gesticulating wildly in the air as you speak,
>take a look at my web page (and read my articles in C=Hacking).
>
routines, but at the end of the day, the computer takes your
mathematics, and uses it's own method to work out the results. You can't
stop that.
>>And let's see a C64 do some cutting edge shaded vectors.
>
>Let's see Polygonamy.
>
>While you're at it, take a look at dim4. I daresay that today's fast
>computers would have an incredibly difficult time duplicating that
>program (due simply to the lack of redefinable character sets),
>let alone attempting to do it in 4k.
>
>>was it's downfall, as the C64 could not be used for anything BUT a games
>>machine. A bad move by commodore cutting corners.
>
>A bold assertion, but I have always found one's ass to be a bad source
>of information and reference.
>
>A great many people use their 64's for very useful work. In fact, the
>majority of users today do so -- you just can't keep playing the same
>games for 15 years. And why is it still useful as a computer today?
>Obviously because it was well designed, and can still do most tasks people
>need done.
in conversation in pubs etc... everyone mentions games like JSW, Knight
Lore, Sabre Wulf, and how they "must really dig out their speccies from
the attic and play them again" (No!!! You'll set off the attic bug!!!)
>
>>And the 48K had more than the C64, which was 64K INCLUDING THE ROM. The
>>RAM of a C64 is more like 32K.
>
>The RAM of a C64 is more like 64k. In addition to the RAM, there are
>two ROM chips, each of which is 8k. The I/O chips take up 4k. A
>cartridge can use all 64k. Any other program can use the 60k not
>occupied by the I/O chips, in addition to the ROMs.
>
Honestly now...
>While it's a foreign concept (literally) to many Europeans, a disk
>drive extends that much further: once freed of the shackles of a
>tape drive, you can store things on disk and retrieve them when
>reasons those of us in the USA are so shocked to learn that so many
>Europeans used tape drives, and are so disappointed when we see the tape
>versions of our favorite games).
>
usefull piece of equipment!
>Almost any program developed after 1985 in the US used this to great
>advantage.
>
>>was a more flexible, easier machine, and THAT'S why they sold more in
>>the UK.
>
>And sold far less everywhere else in the free world. That's a very brave
>logic you posess.
because of his efforts in pushing Computer technology forward? Um...
er... what was the C64's creators name anyway?
>
>You can argue with success, but not in the case of the 64. Without
>much marketing, and without any substantial improvements in the basic
>design, it was produced for over a decade and sold an enormous number
>of units -- the #1 selling computer of all time. And it is still not
>only used but actively developed for, both in hardware and software.
>
>do a little research on the subject: visit some web sites, get ahold
>of a 64, use a variety of programs on it, and try programming it.
>
>You might be amazed at just what can't be done on a 64.
>
> -S ( http://stratus.esam.nwu.edu/~judd/fridge )
didn't work and got a speccy instead. That was the best decision I ever
made in my life!
rjfm2
c64...@commodore.rulez.the.world (A Commodore 64 fan) wrote:
>Most games that are incredible in the C64, are very bad done in the
>Spectrum, look at Green Beret for example.
hahahahahaha...the spectrum version of GB was great as the actual
arcade code shows (via MAME)...
Rob.
rjfm2
The Starglider <starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>That's not true, actually, there is C64S, which is terrible >:-)
Well there is Win64...which would be nice if the author ever gets
rounds to make it more compatible.
Rob.
rjfm2
dam...@jetman.d.c.u (Damien Burke) wrote:
>An excellent *game* on both machines. The MSX version's graphics
>are better than the Speccy's, but the game itself is crap. Your
>point?
Are you sure about this?, the MSX version looks terrible when run
under fMSX...
Rob.
rjfm2
ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Stephen Judd) wrote:
>You can argue with success, but not in the case of the 64. Without
>much marketing, and without any substantial improvements in the basic
>design, it was produced for over a decade and sold an enormous number
>of units -- the #1 selling computer of all time. And it is still not
>only used but actively developed for, both in hardware and software.
Of course you forget to mention the continued use (and programs still
being written) in the former eastern block countries.
Rob.
Jason
The Starglider:
> A had nothing against the C64, mainly because I knew that it was no
> threat to the spectrum. These are the reasons why:
> 1. The spectrum 48K had 48K of RAM, the C64 had 32K RAM.
39K for BASIC, but who the hell uses BASIC? 63K for an average machine
code programmer.
> 2. Spectrum Graphics, although lower in colour quality, had finer
> pixels, making for better detail of pictures.
We have the same mode (there was a slideshow released about 1985 with a
lot of Speccy loading screens) but our res is a bit higher (the C64's
screen is 40 characters wide and 25 high, so our screen is 320*200 pixels).
And with a bit of prodding at the VIC chip, it's possible to extend that
out into the side borders, adding a maximum of 96 pixels, making it
416*200.
Oh, we *also* have AFLI, which is the same pixel res, but the attribute
"squares" are only one pixel high, so eight of them fit into one char area
and therefore cuts back *considerably* (with careful planning, *totally*)
on the clash.
> 3. In the advent of the AY chip in 128K speccy's, which, incidentally,
> was easier to program, better tunes came out.
Better than the Spectrum, yes. Better than the SID, no chance. The ease
of programming arguement doesn't apply, if it did the VIC 20's sound would
be better than the AWE64. The AY couldn't keep up with SID. Simple as
that.
> 4. Faster processor in the spectrum.
Yes, but as has been pointed out, it's on it's own. The speed of the
processor *alone* is all well and good on a theoretical level (such as
a "debate") but quite frankly useless if the other machine has support
hardware. C64 versus Spectrum *doesn't* boil down to 6510 versus Z80a,
it's *far* more complex than that.
> 5. Faster loading of games on spectrum.
I've seen Street Fighter II on the Speccy, don't give me that rubbish. =-)
Fastest tape load: 35 seconds for Crazy Comets (about 18K long)
Fastest disk load: 10 seconds for just about anything with an ARv6Pro.
> 6. Easier programming language on spectrum.
If you're talking BASIC, then yes, but at the risk of becoming repetitive,
who the hell uses BASIC? If you're talking Z80... Well, I've never tried
it, but Sean/Cosine did and couldn't get on with it. Sean knows 6502,
68000 (taught himself in a month), 8086, and C.
> 7. More games for spectrum.
Bzzzt! Wrong answer! =-) Sorry, but since there are C64 games in production
*to this day* from the UK, Europe, Australia and the U.S. I'm afraid you'll
find that you're wrong.
> 8. More spectrum units sold in UK.
Doesn't say much, does it? I think the UK counts as less than four percent
of the world market, doesn't it?
> 9. More peripherals for your needs on spectrum.
Okay, well if you think that's the case I won't mention hard disks, RAM
expansions, printer interfaces, fast modems and GEOS then. Ever seen a
Spectrum with 1Mb of RAM and 1Gb of hard disk, a 3.2Mb floppy drive and
a 14k4 modem, all remounted in a tower case? I've seen a C64 like that.
And it had an accellerated processor.
As for my own personal needs, well my C128D, 1541, 1581 and Action Replay
(along with a C64B, 1541 and another AR) cover most of the jobs I do with
the C64. The only reason I don't take it online is that it's normally
doing other jobs whilst my Amiga takes care of internet stuff and I don't
want to tie it up. (At the mo, the C128D is Timecrunching a file and the
C64B is running a demo, err... [Checks disk] Cucumber Juice 2 by the
Hitmen.)
> 10. More capable for pure mathematics so games like Mercenary (which I
> know came out for the C64 first), ran smoother as the processor could
> cope with the maths quicker.
Okay, so about twenty five percent of your final count of games were faster
(rough estimate of how many 3D games available on the Speccy) but when it
came to scrolling and sprites... Well, lets just say that Armalyte was
out, wasn't it? =-)
> 11. Vector graphic games were also out for the C64, for similar reasons.
Someone didn't tell the programmers... That's an interesting thought,
I'd quite like to see the Speccy do texture mapping. If the C64 can do
it, surely the Speccy can...? =-) Oh, and if you show me the Speccy's
Wolfenstein clone, I'll show you RFX and No-Name's...
> These were what I could remember at the moment, I did used to have a
> list of about 25 reasons why, but I've forgotten!
Okay, a few back at you:
1) The C64 has more video modes, one matching the Spectrum (with hardware
sprite support and a wider screen), two of a lower resolution with better
colour control and two character modes. As well as all the "created" modes,
such as FLI (16 colours per char, 148*200), AFLI (16 colours par char,
296*200) IFLI (16 colours per char, 296*200 interlaced) and IAFLI (16 colours
per char, 592*200 interlaced).
2) The VIC chip has some extra, undocumented "features" that can be used
to a programmers advantage, allowing bitmaps to be scrolled at a vast speed
(32 pixels a frame, 50 frames a second, for example) and, with a mask at
the top of the screen, in all directions too. It's possible to open the
upper, lower and sideborders to expand the screen, reposition the hardware
sprites, making more available (the record stands at 120 sprites, all moving
over a bitmap, by Crest), alter the smooth scroll value on every rasterline,
produce repeated chars in the upper and lower borders and swing them around
and a myriad of other possible tricks.
A simple example, try scrolling the whole Speccy screen one screen width
horizontally in under 1,000 cycles. I can do it on the C64, at a speed of
eight pixels a frame. That works out at 10,000 bytes of data shifted in
one 50th of a second.
3) The SID chip is more flexible than the AY. Due to the extra control
of the waveforms it's possible to emulate up to five channels on the
stock three, and play polyphonic digi sound over that, giving a total of
seven channels. Add to that note multiplexing and arpeggio and you can
gain another three or four pseudo channels. You also get ring and sync
modulation, two filters which can be applied to any or all channels and
with the assistance of multi-speed players the sound quality and flexibility
can be increased further.
4) Large active user base (not solely relying on retro gaming and/or
emulation, most C64 users of old are *still* C64 users *now*).
--
Jason =-)
_______________________________________________________________________
TMR / / / / / / / /\
/ /__/ / / /__/ / / / /__/ Email: t...@cosine.demon.co.uk / /
/ /\_/ / /__ / / / / __// Cosine Homepage: / /
/ /__/ / / / / / / / / / http://www.cosine.demon.co.uk / /
/_____/_____/_____/__/__/__/_____/_____________________________________/ /
\_____\_____\_____\__\__\__\_____\_____________________________________\/
Jason
Steve Judd:
> ...In point of fact, most people in the USA cannot even find Europe on a
> map, let alone care what Europeans are doing or thinking. I thus take
> such statements as statements of general insecurity, for reasons unknown.
Starglider:
> We rest our case, if most people in the US can't find Europe on a map,
> why should we listen to what they have to say?
Because it doesn't matter how bad a persons geography is, even if it
extends to not being able to find their arse with both hands, as long as
they know the subject in question the opinion is valid.
Starglider:
> these 'European' tape drives (drive?) were faster than your 64's
> disk drive, I don't think we missed out there, did we?
Well, you did if you actually believe that, I'm afraid.
Stephen Judd:
> I have no idea. As I have said, I have no experience with Spectrums.
> Tape drives on the 64 are certainly not as fast as disk drives on
> the 64 though, especially accelerated disk drives.
Starglider:
> Then what the bloody hell are you doing then??? At least a lot of us
> here had some experience of the C64! If you have NO experience of the
> Spectrum, then don't compare.
I don't believe you know as much about the C64 as you think. Please see
the list of corrections I've posted to the other thread in response to
your list of reasons.
> Well or course it would! If i had a tape player that loaded a 40K
> program in 10 minutes, and a disc drive that loaded the same game in 8.5
> mins, I would go for a disc drive. But at least the spectrum could load
> a 128K game in under 6 minutes!
Err, I can load a 60K game in under six seconds from disk (well, including
the time the head takes for the head to track to the dir, and back to the
start of the file, about ten to twenty seconds, but it's still faster).
That's where most of the problem is stemming from. You're talking about
C64's of the 1980's, we're *using* C64's of the 1990's. The basic machine
remains the same, but it's a rare C64 that doesn't have disk and a fastload
these days, both of mine do. A few of the C64 users reading this are using
C64's connected to the internet. Anyone on comp.sys.sinclair doing that?
Jonathan Tranter
In article <5maa2u$p...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Stephen Judd
<ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> writes
>Another expert speaks!
<snip>
>A great many people use their 64's for very useful work. In fact, the
>majority of users today do so -- you just can't keep playing the same
>games for 15 years. And why is it still useful as a computer today?
>Obviously because it was well designed, and can still do most tasks people
>need done.
Yes I agree, the C64 versions of Microsoft Office and Lotus Smartsuite
are very good.
>While it's a foreign concept (literally) to many Europeans, a disk
>drive extends that much further: once freed of the shackles of a
>tape drive, you can store things on disk and retrieve them when
>needed -- a basic form of random access virtual memory (and one of the many
>reasons those of us in the USA are so shocked to learn that so many
>Europeans used tape drives, and are so disappointed when we see the tape
>versions of our favorite games).
>
>Almost any program developed after 1985 in the US used this to great
>advantage.
Hmmmmmmm... can't help thinking "the foreign concept..." line is going
to send this discussion downhill somewhat! But thanks for educating us
non-Americans about the advantages of a disk drive, it was really
helpful.
I remember having the tape version of Dragon's Lair on my C64. Dragon's
Lair was a multi-stage game, and while you was playing one stage the
next stage was loading in. The disk version didn't do this making it
worse than the tape version, so the latter medium did have some better
versions of games. Creating a usable computer that was affordable by
most was the prime aim of Sinclair Research, and the fact that this
meant using televisions, cassette recorders and (random-access)
Microdrives was unavoidable.
When disk drives did become cheaper I guess most Speccy users didn't
find the need to upgrade for whatever reason, I don't know. The Spectrum
did have reliable and fast 3.5"" and 3"" drives, and of course the
former is still the standard storage medium today. Also at the risk of
being wrong, was the humble Microdrive faster than the Commodore disk
drive ? Even the standard Speccy tape i/o routines were nearly as fast
as the standard C64 disk routines.
>>it's benefit, but they pale in comparison to the fact that the spectrum
>>was a more flexible, easier machine, and THAT'S why they sold more in
>>the UK.
>
>And sold far less everywhere else in the free world. That's a very brave
>logic you posess.
Not *everywhere* else, no doubt you'll get a complete accurate list from
other people. It's important to remember that Commodore, who are now
dead (sadly for you Stephen, bought out by Europeans), had a much bigger
marketing machine than a small outfit such as Sinclair. I think that the
fact that in the UK (where Sinclair were able to compete with Commodore)
the Speccy outsold the C64, is a good example of the Speccy's dominance.
>You can argue with success, but not in the case of the 64. Without
>much marketing, and without any substantial improvements in the basic
>design, it was produced for over a decade and sold an enormous number
>of units -- the #1 selling computer of all time. And it is still not
>only used but actively developed for, both in hardware and software.
I like the statement "You can argue with success, but not in the case of
the 64.". Why not, because you don't want anybody to ? Also I don't
understand "not much marketing". Commodore just produced the machine and
didn't tell anybody about it, is that it ? How did Commodore undermarket
the C64 compared to Atari, Sinclair or Amstrad ?
>If you really don't understand the reasons, then I suggest that you
>do a little research on the subject: visit some web sites, get ahold
>of a 64, use a variety of programs on it, and try programming it.
Most of us readers of any of the three newsgroups are quite researched
on the subject otherwise we wouldn't subscribe. I speak for many people
(although not all obviously) who owned both the Speccy and the C64 when
I say that I much preferred my Speccy for a whole host of reasons. The
C64 was better for arcade style games, but as you said very well
yourself, games are not the only important issue.
>You might be amazed at just what can't be done on a 64.
Yes, if you pressed the C= key and Shift repeatedly you got all of the
letters to jump up and down... (I assume you meant "can be done!")
Jonathan Tranter
e-mail: jona...@wolves4westbrom2.demon.co.uk
Microprocessor Simulation Software: www.wolves4westbrom2.demon.co.uk
Nate_DAC
> A had nothing against the C64, mainly because I knew that it was no
> threat to the spectrum. These are the reasons why:
Ok I've watched this long enough, I've gotta add my two cents in here...
> 1. The spectrum 48K had 48K of RAM, the C64 had 32K RAM.
Wrong. The C64 has 64K. After the standard screen is subtracted from
this, 63K. (1K screen, 1K of banked color ram).
64K-9K=55K if you have a full bitmapped screeen turned on. (8K bitmap, 1K
memory mapped color, and the 1K of banked color ram)
> 2. Spectrum Graphics, although lower in colour quality, had finer
> pixels, making for better detail of pictures.
Can't argue there, but this too depends on which video modes you are
comparing. Thru some fancy software tricks, you can get a 64 to do
296x200 in 16 colors (still some color clash, but not usually a problem if
you are careful about how you draw)..
Such a mode is called IFLI, and while exteremely processor intensive, does
prove that the 64's gfx can be pushed pretty high, and this IFLI trick is
well beyond what the hardware could do without software.
In other wirds, with just the right software tricks, the C64 can do just
about anything graphics wise, inside that 320x200 area.
Seems many PC's (even my cousin's PSX and Super Nintendo) still use low
res 320x200 or similar, for many animated graphics routines.
> 3. In the advent of the AY chip in 128K speccy's, which, incidentally,
> was easier to program, better tunes came out.
I take it the AY chip is the Spectrum's sound chip?
Remember tho just because something is easr to program, doesn't make it
better, however I know nothing of the AY chip, and not a lot about SID, so
I'll just shut up here..
I will say that a SID chip can do multi-track digital music quite easily.
Modplay 128 is an example of this. Not the world's best sound comes from
my program, but it does work (I'm not the world's best coder) :)
> 4. Faster processor in the spectrum.
I am curious..
Have all of us fogotten about the various accellerators for the 64?
Turbo-Master (4.09Mhz), Flash 8 (8Mhz) and Super CPU (20Mhz) all give the
64 an edge. Far as I know the Flash-8 and the SCPU are the only two that
are now available (the SCPU is fairly new, just came out 6 months ago or
so)
> 5. Faster loading of games on spectrum.
What'S the typical load time for say, a 40K file?
On a 64 you can load this in 3 to 6 seconds depending on the DOS cartridge
you use. Most of these upgrades require nothing but the ROM cartridge,
and no extra cables.
Some old systemslike Dolphin DOS, are even faster. I've read claims of
copying an entire 1541 disk (about 170K) in about 8 seconds.
> 6. Easier programming language on spectrum.
Depends on your point of view. a seasoned 6510 programmer would prolly
say the same thing about the 6510. I consider it's language easy to use.
> 7. More games for spectrum.
Can't argue here, as I simply don't know :)
> 8. More spectrum units sold in UK.
Again, I don't know here, but I think that the 64 sold some 11 million
units during it's 10-year lifespan, in the states. Not sure about other
countries.
> 9. More peripherals for your needs on spectrum.
Such as?
> 10. More capable for pure mathematics so games like Mercenary (which I
> know came out for the C64 first), ran smoother as the processor could
> cope with the maths quicker.
This is dependent on the person who programs the math routines, however in
the end the Speccy should still outrun an unaccellerated 64, since the
processor speed is the determining factor here, as opposed to fancy I/O
hardware.
> 11. Vector graphic games were also out for the C64, for similar reasons.
I've seen quite a few fast vectors for the C64. It's a shame they are all
in demos (Have you seen The Last Traktor 3 or Dawnfall?).
_/ _/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/
_/_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/
_/ _/_/ _/-'-'_/ _/ _/-' _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/
nat...@dfw.net -- Specializing in Digital Sound on your Commodore
Using BitchX for the IRC Rules!! -- Do *YOU* have the best!?
Nate_DAC
> was it's downfall, as the C64 could not be used for anything BUT a games
> machine. A bad move by commodore cutting corners.
I used my 64 for a long time for a lot more than just games. Come to
think of it, there was a point where I didn't play any games.
Now I use my 128 for the net, a 64 could do this just as well (tho
slower). Ok ok so soft80 screens are difficult for some to read, so what.
> And Beach Head II, Paperboy and others.
Paperboy puts the border stuff so low (or high?) into the border area that
I can't read the numbers, they're partially offscreen :)
> And the 48K had more than the C64, which was 64K INCLUDING THE ROM. The
> RAM of a C64 is more like 32K.
Wrong.
The C64 has 64K of RAM, 20K of ROMs, and 4K of I/O device space.
The ROM's can be banked out (and usually are under any serious program)
to reveal the entire 64K are if necessary.
the memory map goes something like this:
$0000-$00FF Zero Page
$0100-$01FF Stack
$0200-$03FF System variables for BASIC
$0400-$07FF Screen memory for standard 40x25 text, plus some sprite
pointers and a few unused bytes
$0800-$9FFF About 38K Free RAM, always visible
$A000-$BFFF 8K BASIC Rom, or RAM
$C000-$CFFF 4K Free RAM, always visible
$D000-$DFFF 4K System I/O, or Character ROM, or RAM
$E000-$FFFF 8K Kernal ROM, or RAM
$FFF0-$FFFF System interrupt vectors, etc.
Under this memory map lies a full 64K ram from $0002 to $FFFF.
$0000/1 are used for the processor's onboard 7 bit parallel I/O port
controls.
Every byte of the64K area can be used to program, tho it's not smart to
use $0000-$1FFF or $FFF0-$FFFF since these are needed by both the
processor and the user program to maintain the system.
Even the area used by the screen can have a program running inside it, as
is evident in many demos, you see the screen briefly fill with garbage,
that'S actually some small program usually to de-pack or uncrunch the
demo's data.
> >> and the screen is always
> >>in the same place in memory.
> >
> >Not on the 128K ones.
Not in the 64 either. There are a few resitrctions, but you can move the
screen anywhere you want, with the exception for $1000-$1FFF I believe it
is, and another similar area above $8000. Those area conbtain ROM shadows
which are only visible to the video chip, the processor still sees RAM in
there areas.
(Someone correct me on the locations of the character rom shadows in banks
0 and 2 please?)
Bill Hoggett
On 25-May-97 Andrew Cadley <A.P.C...@uea.ac.uk> wrote:
>Arrggggghhh!!!!!!!!
>I screwed it up *again*, what I was trying to say is, no one has
>successfully emulated a CPC plus on the PC, yet. At least until Paul
>Hogson's emulator is finsihed. :-)
:-) I thought that's what you were trying to say, so I refrained from
mentioning all the C64 emulators available. It's true there's no CPC+
emulator out there, even though there are some CPC ones. Is Paul's
emulator going to be a portable one, or is it PC specific ?
---
Bill Hoggett (aka BeeJay) <hog...@airtime.co.uk>
IF GOD IS LIFE'S SERVICE PROVIDER WHY HAVEN'T I GOT HIS I.P. NUMBER ?
Bill Hoggett
On 26-May-97 The Starglider <starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5maqam$6...@flood.xnet.com>, Jason Compton
><jcom...@typhoon.xnet.com> writes
>>Andrew Cadley (A.P.C...@uea.ac.uk) wrote:
>>: Yeah, and how many 2D games have you seen on the Playstation. Not a lot I
>>: can tell you, simply because the hardware is much more suited to 3D.
>>
>>No, because Sony doesn't like to allow 2D games to be released on the
>>Playstation. That's what delayed the release of Worms.
>>
>Well, then that's a bloody stupid thing to do on Sony's part, isn't it!!
I think the idea is that 2D games don't show off the advantage of the
Playstation graphics over most other platforms, hence they should be
discouraged to enhance the machine's image. It's a *stupid* idea but
there you are...>
Bill Hoggett
On 25-May-97 rjfm2 <ke...@rjfm2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Radioactive Warrior <NOS...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Well stated! ONLY a complete fool would buy a computer that didn't
>>come with synthesized sound and advanced graphics base built in... The
>>PC's are the TRS-80's of the present. I consider the c64 vastly
>>superior to the TRS-80 as I consider the MAC vastly superior to the PC.
>>Now that I've insulted 99% of the population, feel free to flame away...
>MACs are crap...that my opinion..
>Never had a C64, but I was very disappointed with Uridium on a
>emulator after all the hype.
Having played Uridium on a real C64, my guess is that the emulator was
crap. I agree about the Macs tho'... ;-)
Bill Hoggett
On 24-May-97 Mark J.P. Vergeer <Ver...@Rullf2.MedFac.LeidenUniv.NL> wrote:
>Hi there,
>Both owned a speccy and a c64. Liked both machines.
>For the c64 I even had a program that emulated spectrum basic and
>allowed you to load programs from spectrum tapes via the datasette.
>It did a lot of stuff, even strange memory pokes and tricks.
>Cheers, Mark
Hey, LOOK. We've made it full circle.
Bill Hoggett
On 26-May-97 Stephen Judd <ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
>While it's a foreign concept (literally) to many Europeans, a disk
>drive extends that much further: once freed of the shackles of a
>tape drive, you can store things on disk and retrieve them when
>needed -- a basic form of random access virtual memory (and one of the many
>reasons those of us in the USA are so shocked to learn that so many
>Europeans used tape drives, and are so disappointed when we see the tape
>versions of our favorite games).
Generally true, but the reason for lack of Disk Drive support in Europe
was the greed of Commodore. In their effort to make their price more
attractive they cut out _all_ storage devices from the C64 as originally
distributed. That's right, when my parents splashed out what was a considerable
amount of money at the time (early 1984), the C64 came without _any_ storage
device, or joystick, or any software at all. I had to save up my pocket
money for ages before I could buy a tape drive. I remember writing a cricket
game in BASIC - inspired by seeing Test Match on the Speccy - and leaving
the computer on at all times because I had no way of saving my work. After
the first power cut I always copied the code into a notebook at the end of
the day in case of accidents. A disk drive was out of the question, since
Commodore were charging more for that than the C64 itself.
Disk drives. Pah, you were lucky...
>Almost any program developed after 1985 in the US used this to great
>advantage.
In some cases, yes. However, it is my view that the restricted resources
often resulted in higher quality, because the programmers were forced to
push the boundaries of their machine rather than just use up a little
more disk space. Some of the best games I've ever played came on single load
tapes.
>>it's benefit, but they pale in comparison to the fact that the spectrum
>>was a more flexible, easier machine, and THAT'S why they sold more in
>>the UK.
>And sold far less everywhere else in the free world. That's a very brave
>logic you posess.
>You can argue with success, but not in the case of the 64. Without
>much marketing, and without any substantial improvements in the basic
>design, it was produced for over a decade and sold an enormous number
>of units -- the #1 selling computer of all time. And it is still not
>only used but actively developed for, both in hardware and software.
>If you really don't understand the reasons, then I suggest that you
>do a little research on the subject: visit some web sites, get ahold
>of a 64, use a variety of programs on it, and try programming it.
As long as it's not in BASIC. That really was some monstrosity Commodore
inflicted on us, you know.
Bill Hoggett
On 26-May-97 Russ Juckes <rus...@raiden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Stephen Judd) wrote:
>> Let's see Polygonamy.
>You're too late for that. I've settled down with just the one girl now, and
>left the other two (Andi & Sheena - regular posters here may remember the
>names,) back oop north.
Hey! I'm "oop north". Can I have their address ? :-)
Bill Hoggett
On 25-May-97 The Starglider <starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <338852a1...@news.demon.co.uk>, Damien Burke
><dam...@jetman.d.c.u> writes
>>I don't know why I'm bothering, but here we go...
>>
>>On Sun, 25 May 1997 05:28:07 GMT,
>>c64...@commodore.rulez.the.world (A Commodore 64 fan) wrote:
>>
>>>You have to use a lot of computer power in order to emulate them, it's
>>>not just "adding & multiplying" as you say.
>>
>>Strike me dead if I'm wrong, but isn't "just" adding &
>>multiplying all a computer really does?
>>
>In actual fact, a computer can only "ADD", the rest of the
>multiplication etc... are done by clever use of the carry flags
How true. Computers are *really* dumb, when you get right down to it. :)
They are quite fast at being dumb though.
>>>Yeah, emulate sprites in a Spectrum :)
>>
>>Yes. Try playing some Speccy games.
>>
>And let's see a C64 do some cutting edge shaded vectors.
That's not it's strong point, just as sprites aren't the Spectrum's forte,
whatever you guys say. Each machine does some things better than the other.
>>>You'll always have that awful color mixing, because you can't have
>>>more than 2 colors (ink and paper) in the same 8*8 square.
>>
>>Wrong. Never seen any rainbow processor stuff, have you? All
>>done in *software* of course.
>>
>The spectrum made up for the colour problem because of the lower
>resolution of the C64. The speccy could do some VERY detailed graphics.
>That's how Jack the Ripper got an 18 Certificate.
I don't know that the higher resolution "made up" for the colour problem,
as you put it. It's just one of those things the Spectrum is better at,
just as colour is handled better on the C64.
>>>The spectrum can't do by software lots of things that the C64 can do
>>>by hardware... so your point does not apply.
>>
>>And the 64 can't do by hardware many *more* things a Speccy can
>>do by software.
>The C64 would be useless as anything else BECAUSE of it's hardware. That
>was it's downfall, as the C64 could not be used for anything BUT a games
>machine. A bad move by commodore cutting corners.
True, Commodore made lots of mistakes, but I don't regard the Speccy as
any more useful other than a games machine either.
>>>And remember that the spectrum has only 48K,
>>
>>Or 128K.
>>
>And the 48K had more than the C64, which was 64K INCLUDING THE ROM. The
>RAM of a C64 is more like 32K.
According to an old book I have, all 48k machines were really 64k ones,
with the only difference being the amount the programmer can access for
his/hers own use. That's why you could access 50K on the Apple II if you
removed the high res gfx and DOS. If my information is correct, you could
access about 40K of RAM on a Speccy. This more than you could access on
the C64 _in BASIC mode_, about 38K. However, the C64 also allowed you
a further 22K accessible through machine code only.
Let's leave the 128 Speccys and C128 out of this.
>>>Most games that are incredible in the C64, are very bad done in the
>>>Spectrum, look at Green Beret for example.
>>
>>An excellent *game* on both machines. The MSX version's graphics
>>are better than the Speccy's, but the game itself is crap. Your
>>point?
>Anyway, look at Starglider! Or was about Our Quazatron to the C64
>version (which was a different name that I can't remember!), but it was
>a top-down view. Look, the C64 had more colours and a good sound chip to
>it's benefit, but they pale in comparison to the fact that the spectrum
>was a more flexible, easier machine, and THAT'S why they sold more in
>the UK.
That might be true. Of course, the fact that the Speccy was also considerably
cheaper (even the software was cheaper) might have a lot to do with it.
Bill Hoggett
On 26-May-97 The Starglider <starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5matra$4...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Stephen Judd
><ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> writes
>>
>>Quite the opposite. I simply put the question to you: is anything
>>in my above statement erroneous? As I see it, it contains three
>>main points, here outlined for the tunneled of vision:
>>
>> 1. Most Europeans used tape drives instead of disk drives.
>Because we had the intelligence to know which one's were better at the
>time.
Err, no. It's because we didn't really get the choice. Hardware companies
just made the disk drives too expensive over here. Why do you think things
like microdrives and wafadrives were developed, after all. You can't do
very good random access on a tape. :)
>> 2. A disk drive is much more flexible than a tape drive.
>Except the C64's.
No, again. The 1541 was horribly slow, no doubt about it, but even so it
was far more flexible than messing about with multi-load tapes.
>> 3. Some Europeans, yourself perhaps, often don't
>> understand why a disk drive is more useful than a tape
>> drive, perhaps because they've never had one, or used
>> programs which take advantage of a disk drive. See
>> point #1.
>Steady on!! It was Europe who started the whole home computer market!
>And it wasn't the PC as well, that was considered a business computer.
Oh god. Here goes another USA vs rest of ignorant world debate... :-)
>>As to the spurious nationalistic accusational sanctimony, I find
>>that many people, when they have nothing really spectacular or witty
>>to say, resort to attempting to change the subject with spurious
>>nationalistic accusational sanctimony.
>>
>>The most elusive thing however is why some Europeans think that the
>>USA views them all as ignorant peons, who when taken city by city
>>have an aggregate I.Q. sufficient for shoe tying*. In point of fact,
>>most people in the USA cannot even find Europe on a map, let alone
>>care what Europeans are doing or thinking. I thus take such statements
>>as statements of general insecurity, for reasons unknown.
>>
>We rest our case, if most people in the US can't find Europe on a map,
>why should we listen to what they have to say?
You have to remember that World maps in the US end with Canada in the
north and Mexico in the South. Besides, I don't think those people
who can't find Europe on a map could find Idaho on a map, or even hold
the darn thing the right way up, so I don't think we need worry about them
much.
>>>>And sold far less everywhere else in the free world.
>>>
>>>Absolute utter crap. Please list every single country where the
>>>64 outsold the Speccy, and please explain why you do not class
>>>countries such as Portugal as being in this lovely 'free world'
>>>you Yanks are always on about. And while you're at it, why not
>>
>>Yeah, we kicked your ass in 1776 and again in 1812, so there.
>That's only in your country. We liberated the world from nazi rule...
>TWICE!
<Groan!>
>>>drop the 'free' bit entirely and we'll ask the East Europeans
>>>and Russians which 8-bit machine was more successful, eh?
>>>
>>>>of units -- the #1 selling computer of all time.
>>>
>>>And there was me thinking that was the 80x86 based PC.
>>
>>Well, that would explain why you are wrong.
>You stupid git! THat was a joke! At least we have a sense of humour.
It's a European sense of humour, you know. Americans just can't understand
it. Watch their sitcoms and see what I mean.
rjfm2
Jason <t...@cosine.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Because it doesn't matter how bad a persons geography is, even if it
>extends to not being able to find their arse with both hands, as long as
>they know the subject in question the opinion is valid.
Since you are a committed C64 user, why are you reading this newsgroup
which about sinclair computers?
Rob.
Damien Burke
>I take it the AY chip is the Spectrum's sound chip?
Yes. And SID was *far* better, there's no doubt about that. Any
Speccy owner arguing *that* one is simply insane.
>Have all of us fogotten about the various accellerators for the 64?
They aren't relevant. We should be comparing the straight 64 and
Speccy (and variants) - not enhanced ones. I'm sure you can find
a nice fast Z80 to put in a Speccy; come to think of it I'm
pretty sure there's some Russian clone that does that.
>What'S the typical load time for say, a 40K file?
>
>On a 64 you can load this in 3 to 6 seconds depending on the DOS cartridge
>you use.
But what about using no tricks, just the standard tape deck? Of
course, the Speccy was never limited to a specific tape deck -
you could use whatever you wanted. *Without* hardware upgrades
several highly accelerated tape loaders were developed for the
Speccy.
>> 6. Easier programming language on spectrum.
>
>Depends on your point of view. a seasoned 6510 programmer would prolly
>say the same thing about the 6510. I consider it's language easy to use.
I would guess he was talking about BASIC. Sinclair BASIC is
probably responsible for a lot more programmers being in the
business of programming than any other version besides perhaps
BBC BASIC.
The 64, and to some extent the Amiga, both handicapped their
users slightly because of the unfriendly programming
environment. I would guess that a higher proportion of Sinclair
owners actually got their hands dirty with some coding compared
to CBM owners, simply because it was more accessible. The
manuals supplied with early Spectrums were incredibly good -
full 'learning to program' stuff, not just basic reference
stuff.
--
//// Damien Burke (replace d.c.u in address with demon.co.uk if replying)
//// Spectrum pages: http://www.jetman.demon.co.uk/speccy/
//// New to this group? Read this: http://www.jetman.demon.co.uk/speccy/faq/
Damien Burke
>Are you sure about this?, the MSX version looks terrible when run
>under fMSX...
Been a while since I played it, and never tried it on fMSX but I
was pretty sure it looked good. Static at least - when it moves
people tend to look askance at it.
Po-Ching Lives!
I think it's time to stand up with Stephen.
In <Pine.A32.3.93.970525...@srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca> "Alvin R. Albrecht" <albr...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> writes:
>I have meaningful experience programming 6809s. I view the 6809 as a
>beefed up 6502(6510). Am I wrong in this assertion?
Extremely wrong. The only thing 680x series have in common with 65xx
is that they're bus compatible. They're not even made by the same
company! If it were a beefed up 65xx, then you would expect to see
the same opcodes, same quirks, etc., and you simply don't.
>And yet the humble Spectrum running a 3.5MHz Z80 can smoothly animate
>larger and more sprites than the C64 and its special hardware.
Hmm. Let's test this assertion. In front of me is a C128 in 64 mode with a
raster hack designed to force the VIC-II to repaint its sprites four
times from four sets of shadow sprite registers. 32 sprites and
negligible loss in speed. I've seen people make 64 sprite hacks. Do
64 sprites on a software-based video system and I guarantee you'll
see the performance hit from hell.
>Or perhaps I overestimate the speed of the 6510? A Z80 at 3.5 MHz can put
>up sprites adequately enough on a Spectrum resolution screen. On a
>Commodore 64's, with higher colour resolution, it'd have to be a bit
>faster, but not much.
This shows how LITTLE you know about the 64's video architecture.
Sprites on the 64 are a totally different videoplane. They aren't
treated as part of the hires matrix at all as far as the machine is
concerned. (Witness the fact that sprites are totally functional in
40x25 text mode, which I doubt is possible on the Spectrums.)
>Now I ask you, why do you want special chips in your C64 20MHz machine?
>Games can only go so fast. You can only make so much use of the original
>64's screen resolution. Perhaps it would be time to upgrade the display?
Really? Why is it, then, that 486/66's seem to be restricted to
320x200 in most games I play?
>Dedicated hardware allows a designer to select slower CPUs which lead to a
>simpler motherboard = lower costs. Now tell me, with this special display
>hardware, what would you say the lifetime of these machines are? How long
>would a machine that allowed you to upgrade to a faster processor last?
>Or a better resolution? (IE- this is your IBM PC. They haven't changed
>all that much over the years).
>
>It is not a good idea to burn high level graphics support in hardware.
So I assume you won't be buying your PC a 3-D accelerator card? How
can you implement stuff like transparency, alpha-channel effects,
MIP mapping, bi-/tri-linear filtering and all that good stuff with a
faster and faster processor without wasting time on it? For the
record, the 64 is totally upgradable. Didn't you read Stephen's
point about the new SuperCPUs? Are you still going to claim that a
3.5MHz Spectrum with NO sidecar chips is going to wax a 20MHz,
16-bit C64 with an impressive list of dedicated hardware? Are you
still going to claim that the 64's power has topped out?
More importantly, the premise you're arguing under is 100% flawed.
The argument that faster processors beat out dedicated hardware is
flat out wrong. Want proof? The fastest computer in the world is not
a Cray, it's a low-speed parallel processor unit used for
calculating n-body problems. This unit, created by a Japanese
astronomer and whimsically named GRAPE, uses a dedicated chip for
one single calculation, which is gravimetric potential (as I
recall). What the calculation is, isn't important. This machine is
realizing petaFLOP speed without throwing brute force at the problem
simply because it's always more efficient to make a dedicated
solution than a versatile one. There's less code to go through.
Read this article in Discover magazine (either the latest issue or
the one before, I forget).
Now you want to use the flexibility argument at me, right? Fine. You
tell me one application that the Spectrum runs that the 64 with all
its dedicated hardware does not. Don't name specific software
packages at me because I don't know them. Tell me what type of
software the Spectrum runs that the 64 doesn't, and I'm willing to
bet I can prove you wrong.
>> Keep in mind that the Commodore 64 had over a 10-year production run, and
>> sold more units than any other single machine type. That's not exactly the
>> sign of a computer which went obsolete 2-3 years after its introduction,
>> in fact it is the exact opposite.
>The C64 was made obsolete by the PC and other 16bit/32 bits that came out.
>The C64 survived in the low end 8bit market simply because the industry
>moved to 16bits and a higher cost bracket.
And where did the Spectrum go? The Spectrum was just as obsolete and
its market share sunk like cement. The 64 ruined many other 8-bit
machines at the time, too. Where's the Acorn? The Exidy Sorceror?
The CoCo? Heck, where's the MSXs? (Hint, one is in my closet.)
>> The PC thrives on planned obsolescense -- because the processor does all
>> the work, you always need a faster processor. I'd rather have a computer
>> which was well-designed in the first place.
>No. You always need a faster processor because software writing is a
>business. Time is money and it always takes less time to produce software
>that runs adequately on the hardware owned by the majority of customers.
Would you like to tell that to me again? I write software
professionally for the 64 as a side business. Somehow I haven't
found the need to upgrade. I suppose I'm abnormal, I guess.
Cameron Kaiser
cka...@ucsd.edu
www.computerworkshops.home.ml.org/
Bill Hoggett
>Jason <t...@cosine.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Rob.
Take a look at the message header Rob, and you should find the answer.
(clue: crossposting)
Lane Todd Denson
> >And sold far less everywhere else in the free world.
>
> Absolute utter crap. Please list every single country where the
> 64 outsold the Speccy, and please explain why you do not class
> countries such as Portugal as being in this lovely 'free world'
> you Yanks are always on about. And while you're at it, why not
> and Russians which 8-bit machine was more successful, eh?
But the real question is, who really cares about sales of 15-year old
technology? I love the C64, but I could care less if it sold 1 unit or
a million.
--
If olive oil comes from olives, and peanut oil comes from peanuts, where
do we get baby oil from?
Lane Todd Denson (la...@edge.net)
http://ltd.simplenet.com
Spike
Nate_DAC (nat...@dfw.dfw.net) wrote:
: Even the area used by the screen can have a program running inside it, as
: is evident in many demos, you see the screen briefly fill with garbage,
: that'S actually some small program usually to de-pack or uncrunch the
: demo's data.
This trick has been used on the speccy as well....
I remember a game copier that used that to get at the full game RAM without
corruption, so you could copy/dissasemble/etc it.....
: Not in the 64 either. There are a few resitrctions, but you can move the
: screen anywhere you want, with the exception for $1000-$1FFF I believe it
: is, and another similar area above $8000. Those area conbtain ROM shadows
: which are only visible to the video chip, the processor still sees RAM in
: there areas.
Just out of curiosity, but why would you WANT to move the screen location?
I can understand banking in a different RAM band into the screen to
facilitate smoother animation, but what's the point in moving the actual
location?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5...@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ 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! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spike
Nate_DAC (nat...@dfw.dfw.net) wrote:
: > 4. Faster processor in the spectrum.
:
: I am curious..
:
: Have all of us fogotten about the various accellerators for the 64?
:
: Turbo-Master (4.09Mhz), Flash 8 (8Mhz) and Super CPU (20Mhz) all give the
: 64 an edge. Far as I know the Flash-8 and the SCPU are the only two that
: are now available (the SCPU is fairly new, just came out 6 months ago or
: so)
When did these 'accelerators' show up?
We are arguing about the speccy THEN, not extra-expanded beyond the scope of
the no-longer supporded by sinclair speccy....
Are these late '80s or early '90s revelations?
And much more importantly... How much did they cost in the UK?
: > 5. Faster loading of games on spectrum.
:
: What'S the typical load time for say, a 40K file?
We're comparing STANDARD speccy tape with STANDARD C64 here.
Big deal if it could be MADE to work faster. Disk drives are SUPPOSED to.
It's just that for some reason best known by commodore, theirs DIDN'T...
: On a 64 you can load this in 3 to 6 seconds depending on the DOS cartridge
: you use. Most of these upgrades require nothing but the ROM cartridge,
: and no extra cables.
Witb a speccy interface 1 and Microdrives, it might take 10 - 20 seconds.
(But then, microdrives were infinite loop tape drives. Not random access.)
Anyone with Opus or Disciple experience who can say how fast REAL disk
drives were?
: Some old systemslike Dolphin DOS, are even faster. I've read claims of
: copying an entire 1541 disk (about 170K) in about 8 seconds.
Not all that fast. It'd take my QL about that amount of time for a similar
file. Pretty standard disk access time if you ask me....
(For the 1980's)
: > 6. Easier programming language on spectrum.
:
: Depends on your point of view. a seasoned 6510 programmer would prolly
: say the same thing about the 6510. I consider it's language easy to use.
The Z80 has a much more.... fertile instruction set.
It has a lot of nifty features.
AND, much more importantly, it's I/O bus doesn't take up valuable address
space. Instead, it has special in/out commands to handle I/O....
: > 7. More games for spectrum.
:
: Can't argue here, as I simply don't know :)
:
: > 8. More spectrum units sold in UK.
:
: Again, I don't know here, but I think that the 64 sold some 11 million
: units during it's 10-year lifespan, in the states. Not sure about other
: countries.
The Speccy must have sold over 1 million in the UK.
(And when you think about the difference in populations between the UK and
US.....)
: > 9. More peripherals for your needs on spectrum.
:
: Such as?
Oh, the usual.... Digitisers/joysticks/Multiface (hot button/NMI device used
commonly for breaking into games, but also has more serious uses) /disk
drives/parallel printer interfaces/speach synths/MIDI/proper sound boards
(before the 128). I even heard rumours of an enhanced graphics/colour card,
but I don't know if anything came of it.....
: > 10. More capable for pure mathematics so games like Mercenary (which I
: > know came out for the C64 first), ran smoother as the processor could
: > cope with the maths quicker.
:
: This is dependent on the person who programs the math routines, however in
: the end the Speccy should still outrun an unaccellerated 64, since the
: processor speed is the determining factor here, as opposed to fancy I/O
: hardware.
Yep.
: > 11. Vector graphic games were also out for the C64, for similar reasons.
:
: I've seen quite a few fast vectors for the C64. It's a shame they are all
: in demos (Have you seen The Last Traktor 3 or Dawnfall?).
Never heard of 'em.....
Spike
Stephen Judd (ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
: Quite the opposite. I simply put the question to you: is anything
: in my above statement erroneous? As I see it, it contains three
: main points, here outlined for the tunneled of vision:
:
: 1. Most Europeans used tape drives instead of disk drives.
: 3. Some Europeans, yourself perhaps, often don't
: understand why a disk drive is more useful than a tape
: drive, perhaps because they've never had one, or used
: programs which take advantage of a disk drive. See
: point #1.
Are you talking NOW????? In THIS DAY and AGE????
You appear to be talking in present tense!
What planet are you living on, if youthink people on this side of the pond
use TAPE drives????
: As to the spurious nationalistic accusational sanctimony, I find
: that many people, when they have nothing really spectacular or witty
: to say, resort to attempting to change the subject with spurious
: nationalistic accusational sanctimony.
You started it....
: The most elusive thing however is why some Europeans think that the
: USA views them all as ignorant peons, who when taken city by city
: have an aggregate I.Q. sufficient for shoe tying*. In point of fact,
: most people in the USA cannot even find Europe on a map, let alone
: care what Europeans are doing or thinking. I thus take such statements
: as statements of general insecurity, for reasons unknown.
:
: * Although it would explain Tony Blair ;-) ;-)
<mork>
Ahhh, humour.... AAAR AAAR AAAR....
</mork>
Mind you, it would explain the vacant grin...
.
: >these 'European' tape drives (drive?) were faster than your 64's
: >disk drive, I don't think we missed out there, did we?
:
: I have no idea. As I have said, I have no experience with Spectrums.
: Tape drives on the 64 are certainly not as fast as disk drives on
: the 64 though, especially accelerated disk drives.
The thing about us over 'ere was, we bought computers that were affordable.
If memory serves, (I'm probably underestimating the price here), when the
Commode 64 used to cost 320 quid, the Speccy used to cost 130.
Now, if you wanted a TAPE player for the C64, then that'd set you back
another 50 or so. A disk drive would cost another 250 or so quid.
So... For the price of 130, + maybe 15 or 20 quid for a good tape recorder,
my 48K speccy had just as many games, a lot better, than the commodore.
SO, what would you pay, if you were a schoolkid with 1.50 or 2 quid pocket
money every week?????
: Somehow, though, I thought my point was that a disk drive was much more
: flexible and useful than a tape drive. Ah well...
In most cases yes, but the standard, overpriced C64 disk drive was the
biggest joke of the decade.
: >>And sold far less everywhere else in the free world.
: >
: >Absolute utter crap. Please list every single country where the
: >64 outsold the Speccy, and please explain why you do not class
: >countries such as Portugal as being in this lovely 'free world'
: >you Yanks are always on about. And while you're at it, why not
:
: Yeah, we kicked your ass in 1776 and again in 1812, so there.
What's portugal got to do with revolutions in america?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5...@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk| "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
|Andrew Halliwell | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
|Principal subjects in:- | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
Spike
Paul Newport (Stringfe...@btinternet.com) wrote:
: As for IO and Memory, remember the 64 had 64K,
So? How much of that was RAM? ANd how much was available to the user?
: a proper disk drive,
That was SLOWER than the spectrum loading from tape.....
and in
: this department the 64 was also superior - after all have you ever seen LCP
: or
: Defender of the Crown on a spectrum with is micro drive!
Who cares? Face the facts.
The spectrum was 1/3 the price of the Commode.
The spectrum had a FAR superior BASIC. (The Commode one was almost
non-existant).
This led to people LEARNING to PROGRAM.
The spectrum users came up with one HELL of a lot of nifty programming
techniques that the C64 users didn't.
Prime example: Tim Follin with his multi-channel sound.
The spectrum had a Z80, a far superior and much easier to program CPU.
: The statement you made:
: "As long as there is enough speed under the hood, the graphical
: sophistication of
: programs is limited only by the programmer's ability and imagination."
:
: This is utter tosh! Of course the processor speed is important, but at the
: end of the
: day if you haven't got good graphics chips or sound around it, whats the
: point!
Innovation. Imagination.
Tim Follin could get some AMAZING sounds out of the speccy beeper.
These programming techniques lead to BETTER GAMES.
: Just look at the PC, the machine is brilliant now, but you take away that
: fancy 64 bit graphics card, and that 16 bit sound card, and leave the
: processor! Its a load of rubbish!
Yes? And your point? Even without a graphics card, the PC could still handle
hi-res graphics with a little coaxing and programming trickery.
EVEN the ZX81 had hi-res capability.
: The PC is so good today, because of its superior hardware that complements
: its processor.
Which is then TOTALLY let down by the crap that microsoft throws at it.
So?
: Its true that you can do amazing things in software with a fast processor,
: but at the end of the day if you haven't got good surrounding hardware you
: are always going to
: be limited. True, that the spectrum could handle some 3d type games better
: than the
: 64 due to its faster processor,
So kind to admit it.
What happened to your nifty graphics hardware then, eh?
: At the end of the day this debate was won years and years ago by the 64.
Only when using your rules, which are of course biased to YOUR commode.
: Its high time that you recognised the legacy of the 64 instead of knocking
: its abilities.
You stop knowcking the speccy, we'll stop knocking the C64.
(And the chances of either happening are 10^my overdraft. This argument has
become so ingrained in our psyches, we'll be still arguing about C64 vs
Speccy in 2050!)
I suppose you still think that a CGA PC was better than an Amiga
: because it had a faster processor!
No PC was ever worth anything. They're all crap, outdated, and reverse
compatible to a stupid level.
They even insisted on keeping a processor that could think it was an 8086
until a couple of years ago.
PCs were crap compared to even the spectrum in those days, and the QL could
have blown it out of the water if it'd been handled properly at the time.
Spike
A Commodore 64 fan (c64...@commodore.rulez.the.world) wrote:
: Hahahahahaha.
: Yeah, emulate sprites in a Spectrum :)
: You'll always have that awful color mixing, because you can't have
: more than 2 colors (ink and paper) in the same 8*8 square.
Always comes down to this, doesn't it...
"My computer can show 100000 colours in a single inch, whereas yours can
only show 2... Hehehehehe...."
This still doesn't prove anything.
Some of the games on the speccy have been stunning.
(And one hell of a lot of them are more playable...)
: Or try to control the way the computer updates the screen (the
: raster).
Yes, been there, done that....
So?
: > Putting in fancy sprite
: >hardware is a certain way to guarantee that your machine becomes obsolete
: >quickly because your competitor, the machine driven by software, can
: >change its look by rewriting the programs.
:
: Hahaha again :)
: The spectrum can't do by software lots of things that the C64 can do
: by hardware... so your point does not apply.
And the spectrum can do a lot of things that the C64 CAN'T DO!
Your point?
: And, if I follow the way you think, modems that use computer power in
: order to work are better than the ones than do everything by hardware.
This has nothing to do with anything.
The spectrum was just as expandable (or even more so) than the C64.
: So the machine that has only one video mode, 256*192.
: Do you know that in a C64 you can even put graphics in the borders ?
<sarcasm>
WoW! THAT'S NEVER BEEN DONE ON THE SPECCY!!!!
</sarcasm>
Actually, it has.
: And remember that the spectrum has only 48K, and the screen is always
: in the same place in memory.
Ahhh, the memory argument (again).
How easy is it for you to access memory in the C64?
And why is having a FIXED screen location BAD?
Fixed screens are good, for all concerned.
(Who would WANT to have to find the screen if they wanted to do something
nifty to it?)
: > Witness blocky
: >graphics in many C64 games, slow 3d perspective games and games that
: >couldn't be done properly on a C64 that were done on other platforms
: >(Spectrum's Carrier Command, for example).
:
: Haha :)
: Most games that are incredible in the C64, are very bad done in the
: Spectrum, look at Green Beret for example.
The same could be said for the other way around as well.....
Look at all the Ultimate games as a prime example.
: >The fancy hardware does, however, make the C64 capable of being a games
: >machine because without it, there isn't enough steam under the hood to
: >make anything playable.
:
: Yeah, the Spectrum without the Z80 can do anything either, so what ?
Without the 6510, the commode can't do ANYTHING.
Your point? Without it's graphics chips, the C64 is still a computer.
Without the 6510, it's a doorstop, although many would argue that that's all
it's worth WITH a 6510.
: > And that doesn't make the C64 a poor machine, in
: >fact the hardware makes it interesting.
:
: Yeah, I agree.
Shame about the firmware, eh?
: Belive me that I don't hate Spectrums, lots of my friends had them,
: and I even emulate them sometimes, but the C64 is really better.
Nope.
: A C64 fan that doesn't hate Spectrums, but knows that they can't be
: compared to the incredible C64.
:
Nope. Wrong again.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5...@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk| |
|Andrew Halliwell | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
|Principal subjects in:- | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
Spike
Andrew Cadley (A.P.C...@uea.ac.uk) wrote:
: Strike me dead if I'm also wrong but isn't multiplying just repeated
: addition.
Depends on how it's done.
Sometimes, it's faster to just left-shift the bytes....
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5...@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk| "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
|Andrew Halliwell | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
|Principal subjects in:- | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
Spike
XmikeX (xmi...@eyrie.org) wrote:
:
:
: The Starglider <starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk> said :
:
: >A had nothing against the C64, mainly because I knew that it was no
: >threat to the spectrum. These are the reasons why:
: Translation : "My mother and father bought a Spectrum, and well...I spent
: the next decade justifying their purchase."
Actual translation (in my case): I saved up months for the computer, and
finally bought it. AND IT WAS BETTER FOR ME!
I Liked messing around with BASIC, learned a lot about programming.
How many C64 owners does it take to change... NONONONO!!!!
got into programming compared to Speccy users?
: >1. The spectrum 48K had 48K of RAM, the C64 had 32K RAM.
:
: Translation : "I know the C64 had 64K RAM but my counselor advised me that
: denial is the most efficient way to combat penis-envy."
As has been mentioned before, HOW MUCH AVAILABLE TO THE USER?
How much for other system related stuff? i.e. SCREEN.
And if it had 64K of RAM? How was it addresses?
The 6510 only HAD 64K of address space, so where did the ROM and I/O fit?
Memory paged? Thought so.....
: >2. Spectrum Graphics, although lower in colour quality, had finer
: >pixels, making for better detail of pictures.
:
: Translation : "I should have invented some pseudo-history where Spectrum
: Graphics became Silicon Graphics, but I just wasn't THAT creative."
Utter crap. The speccy DID have a finer resolution then the commode.
: >3. In the advent of the AY chip in 128K speccy's, which, incidentally,
: >was easier to program, better tunes came out.
:
: Translation : "I obviously feel that the base 48K spectrum was righteously
: and thoroughly outclassed by the C64."
I think he's got a monty-python translation book here.....
: --
:
: >4. Faster processor in the spectrum.
:
: Interesting statement.
Glad you admit it.
: >6. Easier programming language on spectrum.
:
: ...a Windows95 user!?
And you call COMMODORE BASIC EASY TO PROGRAM??????
Errrr.... What planet are you living on?
Also, the Z80 was easier to program and more flexible than the 6510.
: >10. More capable for pure mathematics so games like Mercenary (which I
: >know came out for the C64 first), ran smoother as the processor could
: >cope with the maths quicker.
:
: "...could cope with the maths quicker." :)
Which led to MUCH faster/smoother games.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5...@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
R. T. Cunningham
On Mon, 26 May 1997 19:08:39 GMT, ke...@rjfm2.demon.co.uk (rjfm2)
wrote:
>Jason <t...@cosine.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Because it doesn't matter how bad a persons geography is, even if it
>>extends to not being able to find their arse with both hands, as long as
>>they know the subject in question the opinion is valid.
>
>Since you are a committed C64 user, why are you reading this newsgroup
>which about sinclair computers?
>
>Rob.
>
Helloooooo, anyone home? Rob, these messages have been crossposted to
3 different newsgroups! Wake up and read the header fields.
Sam.
Jason <t...@cosine.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>these days, both of mine do. A few of the C64 users reading this are using
>C64's connected to the internet. Anyone on comp.sys.sinclair doing that?
What, with a proper IP connection or just a terminal emulator? If it's
the second we gave that up aaaages ago cos it got boring, so now we
all run BBS's on MK14s.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Where am I" - Charlie Chuck. s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk
http://www.greenaum.demon.co.uk/
Andrew Cadley
Jason Compton <jcom...@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote in article
<5maqam$6...@flood.xnet.com>...
> Andrew Cadley (A.P.C...@uea.ac.uk) wrote:
> : Yeah, and how many 2D games have you seen on the Playstation. Not a lot
I
> : can tell you, simply because the hardware is much more suited to 3D.
>
> No, because Sony doesn't like to allow 2D games to be released on the
> Playstation. That's what delayed the release of Worms.
Of course not, *they* don't want anyone to know that it's crap at them now
do they.
Andy
Andrew Cadley
Alvin R. Albrecht <albr...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote in article
<Pine.A32.3.93.970525...@srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca>...
> Or perhaps I overestimate the speed of the 6510? A Z80 at 3.5 MHz can
put
> up sprites adequately enough on a Spectrum resolution screen. On a
> Commodore 64's, with higher colour resolution, it'd have to be a bit
> faster, but not much.
I have to disagree here. The Amstrad CPC has a fairly high resolution
colour screen and the Z80 manages to whip sprites round at a remarkable
rate, as anyone who's played the beaut' Prehistorik II will surely agree.
Andy
Andrew Cadley
Daniel Dahlberg <E9...@EFD.LTH.Swe> wrote in article
<3388C6...@EFD.LTH.Swe>...
> > > Strike me dead if I'm wrong, but isn't "just" adding &
> > > multiplying all a computer really does?
> > >
> >
> > Strike me dead if I'm also wrong but isn't multiplying just repeated
> > addition.
> >
> > Andy
>
> How about division? Tht's the operation that takes the longest to
> perform (next to loading Turbo 250 on the good ol' 64 :) )
>
> // Daniel
Disvision is just a slightly fancier algorithm, using shifting and
subtracting, instead of shifting and adding.
And as anyone will tell you, in signed arithmetic, adding and subtracting
are practically the same operation. The speed difference comes about
because the method is a little more complex.
Andy
Andrew Cadley
The Starglider <starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<VBkWaLAT...@thespian.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <5maa2u$p...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Stephen Judd
> <ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> writes
> >Another expert speaks!
> >
> >In article <iFSb7KAK...@thespian.demon.co.uk>,
> >The Starglider <starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>In article <338852a1...@news.demon.co.uk>, Damien Burke
> >><dam...@jetman.d.c.u> writes
> I don't know ANYONE who still uses a C64! But when retro gaming comes up
> in conversation in pubs etc... everyone mentions games like JSW, Knight
> Lore, Sabre Wulf, and how they "must really dig out their speccies from
> the attic and play them again" (No!!! You'll set off the attic bug!!!)
That's cos the speccy was *much* more lovable :-)
BTW, better an easily fixed attic bug than an uncollectable object (as in
the C64 version)
> That's right mate, it's called the truth. Was the C64 maker knighted
> because of his efforts in pushing Computer technology forward? Um...
> er... what was the C64's creators name anyway?
Well it was, erm, ah, a blind monkey prehaps. ;-)
> >If you really don't understand the reasons, then I suggest that you
> >do a little research on the subject: visit some web sites, get ahold
> >of a 64, use a variety of programs on it, and try programming it.
> >
> >You might be amazed at just what can't be done on a 64.
Especially if you can wait for it to load something. ;-)
> > -S ( http://stratus.esam.nwu.edu/~judd/fridge )
> I had a C64... for about a week, took it back to the shop, said it
> didn't work and got a speccy instead. That was the best decision I ever
> made in my life!
> --
I had one for three weeks, and then chucked it in the bin. What a pile of
crap.
Andy
Andrew Cadley
Jonathan Tranter <jona...@wolves4westbrom2.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<gMjhbTAd...@wolves4westbrom2.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <5maa2u$p...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Stephen Judd
> <ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> writes
> >You might be amazed at just what can't be done on a 64.
>
> Yes, if you pressed the C= key and Shift repeatedly you got all of the
> letters to jump up and down... (I assume you meant "can be done!")
>
Nah, better than that, just type 395800 (IIRC) into the Basic editor and
watch the machine crash. Now that's a classic. ;-)
Andy
Andrew Cadley
XmikeX <xmi...@eyrie.org> wrote in article <5majpp$a...@eyrie.org>...
>
>
> The Starglider <starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk> said :
>
> >A had nothing against the C64, mainly because I knew that it was no
> >threat to the spectrum. These are the reasons why:
>
> Translation : "My mother and father bought a Spectrum, and well...I spent
> the next decade justifying their purchase."
Which never required as much effort as the poor goits who had to justify
their parents pathetic selection of the C64.
> >1. The spectrum 48K had 48K of RAM, the C64 had 32K RAM.
>
> Translation : "I know the C64 had 64K RAM but my counselor advised me
that
> denial is the most efficient way to combat penis-envy."
The C64 *had* 64K but a large chunk of this was unusable reducing it to
~40K.
> >2. Spectrum Graphics, although lower in colour quality, had finer
> >pixels, making for better detail of pictures.
>
> Translation : "I should have invented some pseudo-history where Spectrum
> Graphics became Silicon Graphics, but I just wasn't THAT creative."
Translation : I can't say anything better about C64 graphics, without
lying.
> >3. In the advent of the AY chip in 128K speccy's, which, incidentally,
> >was easier to program, better tunes came out.
>
> Translation : "I obviously feel that the base 48K spectrum was
righteously
> and thoroughly outclassed by the C64."
Translation : I shall deny all knowledge of the C128 because it was a
steaming pile of crap which spent most of it's time in C64 mode.
> >4. Faster processor in the spectrum.
>
> Interesting statement.
Traslation : Um, another point to the speccy I guess.
> >5. Faster loading of games on spectrum.
>
> Hey, cool...!
Translation : My argument is rapidly fading.
> >6. Easier programming language on spectrum.
>
> ...a Windows95 user!?
Translation : Ny insulting another OS people might forget what I've been
saying about the C64/speccy debate.
> >7. More games for spectrum.
>
>
HAHAHAHEHeheheoheeehahahahahooohahohhhahahaoohohooohahahahhohohhhhahahahhhah
a
Translation : When losing an argument badly, use burst of sporadic laughter
to try and throw your opponent.
> >8. More spectrum units sold in UK.
>
> Yeah? Wow..."another cross for England to bear".
Translation : How did I get involved in this anyway.
> >9. More peripherals for your needs on spectrum.
>
> See response to #7.
See reponse to no. 7. :-)
> >10. More capable for pure mathematics so games like Mercenary (which I
> >know came out for the C64 first), ran smoother as the processor could
> >cope with the maths quicker.
>
> "...could cope with the maths quicker." :)
Repeat sentence in the hope that it is no longer true.
> >11. Vector graphic games were also out for the C64, for similar reasons.
>
> Praise for C64??? Excellent!
In desparate moments take your opponents arguments out of context to try
and win some cheap points.
> >These were what I could remember at the moment, I did used to have a
> >list of about 25 reasons why, but I've forgotten!
>
> Translation : "I'm 14 years old!!"
Translation : Oh smeg, I've lost this argument so I'll resort to personal
abuse.
Andy
Andrew Cadley
Daniel Dahlberg <E9...@EFD.LTH.Swe> wrote in article
<3388C8...@EFD.LTH.Swe>...
> This is beginning to look like the old Amiga vs Atari debate that later
> turned into the Amiga vs PC debate. (Of course, everybody knows that the
> Amiga is one of the best machines ever made... :) )
>
Yeah, long live the Amiga. however I'm *still* sticking with my Pentium
until something along the lines of Phase 5's A/box comes along to tempt me
back to workbench. :-)
Andy
Andrew Cadley
Jason <t...@cosine.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<970526110...@cosine.demon.co.uk>...
> The Starglider:
programmer.
>
> > 2. Spectrum Graphics, although lower in colour quality, had finer
> > pixels, making for better detail of pictures.
>
> We have the same mode (there was a slideshow released about 1985 with a
> lot of Speccy loading screens) but our res is a bit higher (the C64's
> screen is 40 characters wide and 25 high, so our screen is 320*200
pixels).
> And with a bit of prodding at the VIC chip, it's possible to extend that
> out into the side borders, adding a maximum of 96 pixels, making it
> 416*200.
>
Ha, ha ha. That's nothing, the CPC had a standard mode which allowed
640*200. Using overscan you could take this up to 768*240, full screen.
> Oh, we *also* have AFLI, which is the same pixel res, but the attribute
> "squares" are only one pixel high, so eight of them fit into one char
area
> and therefore cuts back *considerably* (with careful planning, *totally*)
> on the clash.
You could do something similar on the speccy, commonly know as Rainbow
processing.
> > 3. In the advent of the AY chip in 128K speccy's, which, incidentally,
> > was easier to program, better tunes came out.
>
> Better than the Spectrum, yes. Better than the SID, no chance. The ease
> of programming arguement doesn't apply, if it did the VIC 20's sound
would
> be better than the AWE64. The AY couldn't keep up with SID. Simple as
> that.
Have to disagree there. having owned both I'd say that the AY *definately*
produced better music. Though most speccy software, even demos, never
really pushed it. Listen to a Digitracker tune on a CPC (which also had an
AY) and it'll blow away any SID tune.
> > 4. Faster processor in the spectrum.
>
> Yes, but as has been pointed out, it's on it's own. The speed of the
> processor *alone* is all well and good on a theoretical level (such as
> a "debate") but quite frankly useless if the other machine has support
> hardware. C64 versus Spectrum *doesn't* boil down to 6510 versus Z80a,
> it's *far* more complex than that.
Well, at least that's one C64 supporter who will at least admit the Z80 was
faster. :-)
>
> > 5. Faster loading of games on spectrum.
>
> I've seen Street Fighter II on the Speccy, don't give me that rubbish.
=-)
SF II was a multiloading 128K game and was an absolute pile of pants so I
refuse to take it into account. ;-)
> > 6. Easier programming language on spectrum.
>
> If you're talking BASIC, then yes, but at the risk of becoming
repetitive,
> who the hell uses BASIC? If you're talking Z80... Well, I've never
tried
> it, but Sean/Cosine did and couldn't get on with it. Sean knows 6502,
> 68000 (taught himself in a month), 8086, and C.
Well I know, Z80, 68k (taught himself in 3 days and then had to suffer an
entire University course on), C++, Pascal, Delphi ...
I've even tried 6502 and thought it was more than just a little bit crap.
> > 7. More games for spectrum.
>
> Bzzzt! Wrong answer! =-) Sorry, but since there are C64 games in
production
> *to this day* from the UK, Europe, Australia and the U.S. I'm afraid
you'll
> find that you're wrong.
>
Witness the fact that JSW 128K is *still* being worked on, believe it or
not people are still writing for the speccy. Even if only for fun.
I myself am currently too busy getting round to doing my CPC+ version of
JSWII to do anything for my humble speccy. :-(
> > 8. More spectrum units sold in UK.
>
> Doesn't say much, does it? I think the UK counts as less than four
percent
> of the world market, doesn't it?
>
Okay, how many illegal C64 clones d'ya reckon there are in the former
soviet union. Not many I'll bet, there all to busy with their turbo super
speccys.
> > 9. More peripherals for your needs on spectrum.
>
> Okay, well if you think that's the case I won't mention hard disks, RAM
> expansions, printer interfaces, fast modems and GEOS then. Ever seen a
> Spectrum with 1Mb of RAM and 1Gb of hard disk, a 3.2Mb floppy drive and
> a 14k4 modem, all remounted in a tower case? I've seen a C64 like that.
> And it had an accellerated processor.
>
The speccy owners never felt the need to and so much crap onto their
machine, it worked perfectly as it was. ;-)
Anyway, my current speccy has 16Mb of RAM, a 1.2Gb Hard disk, a 100Mhz
pentium and a Diamond Stealth 3D 2000 driving it (oh and I occasionly use
win95 on it when I'm bored).
> > 10. More capable for pure mathematics so games like Mercenary (which I
> > know came out for the C64 first), ran smoother as the processor could
> > cope with the maths quicker.
>
> Okay, so about twenty five percent of your final count of games were
faster
> (rough estimate of how many 3D games available on the Speccy) but when it
> came to scrolling and sprites... Well, lets just say that Armalyte was
> out, wasn't it? =-)
>
Are you sure? Wasn't that the +2A/+3 only one or have the mists of time
diddled my memory. I think you'll find it was available, I definately
remember the adverts in YS.
> > 11. Vector graphic games were also out for the C64, for similar
reasons.
>
> Someone didn't tell the programmers... That's an interesting thought,
> I'd quite like to see the Speccy do texture mapping. If the C64 can do
> it, surely the Speccy can...? =-) Oh, and if you show me the Speccy's
> Wolfenstein clone, I'll show you RFX and No-Name's...
Hmm, I think that's just 'cos commercial interest in the speccy was gone
before Doom clones became the only thing people wanted to program. ;-)
radical software apparently had an almost finished doom clone for the CPC
until commercial interest disappeared there, so I guess there is nothing to
stop the speccy having one.
<suddenly handed a copy of latest Russian specQuake demo>
How do they do that?
> > These were what I could remember at the moment, I did used to have a
> > list of about 25 reasons why, but I've forgotten!
>
> Okay, a few back at you:
>
> 1) The C64 has more video modes, one matching the Spectrum (with hardware
> sprite support and a wider screen), two of a lower resolution with better
> colour control and two character modes. As well as all the "created"
modes,
> such as FLI (16 colours per char, 148*200), AFLI (16 colours par char,
> 296*200) IFLI (16 colours per char, 296*200 interlaced) and IAFLI (16
colours
> per char, 592*200 interlaced).
The CPC can easily whip any of those modes, which is teh reason that I
still beleive it was the best of the three *main* eight bits, even before
you take into account the 'plus' features which make the C64's sprites look
pathetic.
> 2) The VIC chip has some extra, undocumented "features" that can be used
> to a programmers advantage, allowing bitmaps to be scrolled at a vast
speed
> (32 pixels a frame, 50 frames a second, for example) and, with a mask at
> the top of the screen, in all directions too. It's possible to open the
> upper, lower and sideborders to expand the screen, reposition the
hardware
> sprites, making more available (the record stands at 120 sprites, all
moving
> over a bitmap, by Crest), alter the smooth scroll value on every
rasterline,
> produce repeated chars in the upper and lower borders and swing them
around
> and a myriad of other possible tricks.
Once again, effects such as this were all done on the CPC (even Hardware
sprites on the machines that never had them) only better. Take into account
the plus machines, which could manage *pixel* perfect hardware scrolling
(this could be done on older ones at full screen width) in all directions,
split screens, 4096 colour displays and 16 colour hardware sprites at a
resolution equivalent to 640*200.
The CPC could even manage this in games, and not just fancy demos, see
Prehistorik II or Cauldron III for classic examples.
> A simple example, try scrolling the whole Speccy screen one screen width
> horizontally in under 1,000 cycles. I can do it on the C64, at a speed
of
> eight pixels a frame. That works out at 10,000 bytes of data shifted in
> one 50th of a second.
You could easily do this on the humble CPC, with it's lushious hardware
scrolling. On a plus you could probably do it pixel by pixel, without
shifting a single byte of data at all.
I reckon you could probably match the frame rate on a speccy, given the
speed of an LDIR instruction, although exactly how you'd compare cycles
given the difference in processor speed/instruction cycle length.
> 4) Large active user base (not solely relying on retro gaming and/or
> emulation, most C64 users of old are *still* C64 users *now*).
That surely is 'cos C64 owners were *always* too cheap to upgrade to a
better machine, like say ....
.. a speccy. :-)
Andy
Andrew Cadley
Jason <t...@cosine.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<970526114...@cosine.demon.co.uk>...
> Steve Judd:
> That's where most of the problem is stemming from. You're talking about
> C64's of the 1980's, we're *using* C64's of the 1990's. The basic
machine
> remains the same, but it's a rare C64 that doesn't have disk and a
fastload
> these days, both of mine do. A few of the C64 users reading this are
using
> C64's connected to the internet. Anyone on comp.sys.sinclair doing that?
> --
> Jason =-)
Ah, now I see it's taken 10 years to get to a stage where your disk drives
work faster than a cassette player. ;-)
Okay, well um given that I don't have a Russian turbo speccy, or even a Sam
coupe (anyone fancy writing a Win 95 emulator), I'll just have to simulate
a 90's speccy by loading up Z80 and not putting any slowdown on my P100.
/me try's to play R-type and dies in about .5ns having traversed half the
level
Ah, lets see a C64 beat those frame rates. ;-)
Andy
Andrew Cadley
Bill Hoggett <hog...@airtime.co.uk> wrote in article
<2854.7085...@airtime.co.uk>...
> On 26-May-97 Stephen Judd <ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> As long as it's not in BASIC. That really was some monstrosity Commodore
> inflicted on us, you know.
>
Apparently, Mulder and Scully investigate how they managed to claim it was
a BASIC interpreter in the next series of the X files. :-)
Andy
Andrew Cadley
Bill Hoggett <hog...@airtime.co.uk> wrote in article
<649.7085T...@airtime.co.uk>...
> :-) I thought that's what you were trying to say, so I refrained from
> mentioning all the C64 emulators available. It's true there's no CPC+
> emulator out there, even though there are some CPC ones. Is Paul's
> emulator going to be a portable one, or is it PC specific ?
Nah, better than that. It's Win 95 specific, *everyone* will just have to
upgrade, Bill Gates will rule the world and we'll all wish we'd bought
CPC+'s instead of PC's.
Or something.
> ---
> Bill Hoggett (aka BeeJay) <hog...@airtime.co.uk>
>
> IF GOD IS LIFE'S SERVICE PROVIDER WHY HAVEN'T I GOT HIS I.P. NUMBER ?
And what are his monthly fees like?
Andy
Andrew Cadley
Bill Hoggett <hog...@airtime.co.uk> wrote in article
<3855.7085...@airtime.co.uk>...
> On 25-May-97 The Starglider <starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <338852a1...@news.demon.co.uk>, Damien Burke
> ><dam...@jetman.d.c.u> writes
>
> >>I don't know why I'm bothering, but here we go...
> >>
> >>On Sun, 25 May 1997 05:28:07 GMT,
> >>c64...@commodore.rulez.the.world (A Commodore 64 fan) wrote:
> >The spectrum made up for the colour problem because of the lower
> >resolution of the C64. The speccy could do some VERY detailed graphics.
> >That's how Jack the Ripper got an 18 Certificate.
>
> I don't know that the higher resolution "made up" for the colour problem,
> as you put it. It's just one of those things the Spectrum is better at,
> just as colour is handled better on the C64.
>
And better still by Amstrad marvy little CPC range.
> >The C64 would be useless as anything else BECAUSE of it's hardware. That
> >was it's downfall, as the C64 could not be used for anything BUT a games
> >machine. A bad move by commodore cutting corners.
>
> True, Commodore made lots of mistakes, but I don't regard the Speccy as
> any more useful other than a games machine either.
>
Course CPC owners had *fast* disc drives and better hi-res modes, which is
probably why there is *still* software being developed for them. Not to
mention the fact that some CPC software, Protext springs to mind, has been
succesfully converted to the Amiga and PC.
> >>>And remember that the spectrum has only 48K,
> >>
> >>Or 128K.
> >>
CPC's could push this up as far as 576K, excluding ROMS.
> Let's leave the 128 Speccys and C128 out of this.
Only because the Speccy 128 was an improvement, wheras the C128 was a
disappointment. :-)
> That might be true. Of course, the fact that the Speccy was also
considerably
> cheaper (even the software was cheaper) might have a lot to do with it.
Speccy games on cassette cost *exactly* the same as C64 cassettes so that's
another silly argument.
Andy
--
Who seems to be defending the CPC viewpoint, despite being a die hard
ZX-phile.
Andrew Cadley
Andrew Cadley <A.P.C...@uea.ac.uk> wrote in article
<01bc6a65$46f2f520$04b8de8b@w9622136>...
>
>
> Jason <t...@cosine.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> <970526110...@cosine.demon.co.uk>...
> Have to disagree there. having owned both I'd say that the AY
*definately*
> produced better music. Though most speccy software, even demos, never
> really pushed it. Listen to a Digitracker tune on a CPC (which also had
an
> AY) and it'll blow away any SID tune.
>
Oops wrote all that and completely forgot to mention the fact that the CPC+
could play back 3 channel 4-bit sampled music at 15kHz, without any
processor intervention at all. Which quite frankly leaves all the others
standing.
Andy
The Starglider
In article <5mcn62$4nb$1...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, Po-Ching Lives!
<cka...@sdcc17.ucsd.edu> writes
>More importantly, the premise you're arguing under is 100% flawed.
>The argument that faster processors beat out dedicated hardware is
>flat out wrong. Want proof? The fastest computer in the world is not
>a Cray, it's a low-speed parallel processor unit used for
>calculating n-body problems. This unit, created by a Japanese
>astronomer and whimsically named GRAPE, uses a dedicated chip for
>one single calculation, which is gravimetric potential (as I
>recall). What the calculation is, isn't important. This machine is
>realizing petaFLOP speed without throwing brute force at the problem
>simply because it's always more efficient to make a dedicated
>solution than a versatile one. There's less code to go through.
>Read this article in Discover magazine (either the latest issue or
>the one before, I forget).
>
wait for it... an Intel computer! Finished and tested literally at the
start of this year, the Intel Supercomputer has over 2000 CPU's in it,
and it is capable of 400 terraflops (trillion floating point processes
per second). SO WHY SHOULD WE LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOU CAN'T GET YOUR
FLAWED FACTS RIGHT!
--
**************The Starglider****************
* E-Mail:starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk *
* Web site:http://www.thespian.demon.co.uk * _WW_
* NVG UPDATES:n...@thespian.demon.co.uk * /_ _\
******************************************** | O O |
___________________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo___________
Andrew Cadley
Damien Burke <dam...@jetman.d.c.u> wrote in article
<3389c4e...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> On Mon, 26 May 1997 10:10:43 -0500, Nate_DAC
> <nat...@dfw.dfw.net> wrote:
> But what about using no tricks, just the standard tape deck? Of
> course, the Speccy was never limited to a specific tape deck -
> you could use whatever you wanted. *Without* hardware upgrades
> several highly accelerated tape loaders were developed for the
> Speccy.
These were usually just the standard loader with a shorter delay. This code
was often stolen and used by CPC coders as an anti-pirate protection, go
figure. :-)
Andy
Adrian Bartel
On 27 May 1997 06:15:10 GMT, "Andrew Cadley" <A.P.C...@uea.ac.uk>
wrote:
>
>Ha, ha ha. That's nothing, the CPC had a standard mode which allowed
>640*200. Using overscan you could take this up to 768*240, full screen.
>
Uh... would you mind taking a minute to "remind" everyone here exactly
what a CPC is, and how it is related to, say, a Spectrum 48k (which,
if I'm not mistaken, accounted for most the Spectrums sold?).
If we really must argue the relative merits of the C64 and Spectrum,
we may as well compare near equivalent machines. If you're going to
bring later generation machines (128k, +2, +3, CPC etc etc) then they
should be compared in the light of the C128 (I admit, not a
particularly enduring design) and probably the Amiga as well.
Cheers
Adrian
PS. So who's next to throw something in to try to antagonise us
CBM'ers? :-)
---------------------------------------------
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of
your calculations." -- Tolkien
Adrian Bartel
On 27 May 1997 06:45:40 GMT, "Andrew Cadley" <A.P.C...@uea.ac.uk>
wrote:
>
>
>Bill Hoggett <hog...@airtime.co.uk> wrote in article
><2854.7085...@airtime.co.uk>...
>> On 26-May-97 Stephen Judd <ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
>
>> As long as it's not in BASIC. That really was some monstrosity Commodore
>> inflicted on us, you know.
>>
>
>Apparently, Mulder and Scully investigate how they managed to claim it was
>a BASIC interpreter in the next series of the X files. :-)
>
It's X-files stuff indeed. Ever notice that it's based on a BASIC
interpreter from .... Microsoft!
It's interesting that the C64 had Commodore BASIC v2 and the next
version to get out in meangful numbers was v7 on the 128? (which was
actually rather pleasant to use). Seems like the intermediate
versions got swallowed up CBM machines that didn't make the big time.
Cheers
Adrian
Andrew Cadley
Adrian Bartel <bart...@telkom.co.za> wrote in article
<338a8f42.3363570@news>...
> On 27 May 1997 06:15:10 GMT, "Andrew Cadley" <A.P.C...@uea.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Ha, ha ha. That's nothing, the CPC had a standard mode which allowed
> >640*200. Using overscan you could take this up to 768*240, full screen.
> >
>
> Uh... would you mind taking a minute to "remind" everyone here exactly
> what a CPC is, and how it is related to, say, a Spectrum 48k (which,
> if I'm not mistaken, accounted for most the Spectrums sold?).
I can't *believe* that you didn't know this. The CPC was Amstrad's direct
competitor to the C64 and Speccy (before they bought it). It had superior
graphics, a better BASIC interpreter, a built in cassette deck or disc
drive. It came with 64K or 128K as standard (long before the other two did)
and an AY sound chip.
If you want to compare the later generation machines like the C128 and
Speccy 128's then you have to include the CPC+ range which had a nifty ASIC
chip supplying hardware features that could make C64 owners drool. :-)
Andy
Adrian Bartel
On 27 May 1997 06:45:40 GMT, "Andrew Cadley" <A.P.C...@uea.ac.uk>
wrote:
>
>
>Bill Hoggett <hog...@airtime.co.uk> wrote in article
><2854.7085...@airtime.co.uk>...
>> On 26-May-97 Stephen Judd <ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
>
>> As long as it's not in BASIC. That really was some monstrosity Commodore
>> inflicted on us, you know.
>>
>
As I was saying about the dreaded Nicrsoft having a hand in it...
from http://vanbc.wimsey.com/~danf/cbm/languages.html
$ Microsoft V1.0 BASIC [PET] (Microsoft)
Built-in to the PET 2001.
$ Microsoft V2.0 BASIC [C64,PET] (Microsoft)
Built-in to C64 and PET 30xx.
$ Microsoft V3.5 BASIC [264] (Microsoft)
Built-in to Plus/4, C16 and 116 (264 series). Adds disk,
graphics, sound commands, etc. with partial compatibility with BASIC
V4.0. Includes 80
commands.
$ Microsoft V3.6 BASIC [CLCD] (Microsoft)
Built-in to Commodore LCD computer. Adds some improvements to
BASIC V3.5.
$ Microsoft V4.0 BASIC [PET] (Microsoft)
Built-in to some PET/CBM machines. Adds disk commands to BASIC
V2.0.
$ Microsoft V4.5 BASIC [B-series] (Microsoft)
$ Microsoft V7.0 BASIC [C128] (Microsoft)
Built-in to C128 (in 128 mode). Superset of BASIC V3.5.
$ Microsoft V10.0 BASIC [C65] (Microsoft)
Built-in to C65 (in 65 mode). Superset of BASIC V7.0.
Adrian Bartel
On 27 May 1997 05:09:27 GMT, "Andrew Cadley" <A.P.C...@uea.ac.uk>
wrote:
>
>
Actually, you're probably thinking of 350800, which, along with serval
similar numbers, will crash a lot of BASIC interpreters. For this and
more fun see:
http://www.hut.fi/Misc/cbm/docs/hidden.html
Leif Roar Moldskred
In comp.emulators.cbm The Starglider <starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >What the calculation is, isn't important. This machine is
> >realizing petaFLOP speed
^^^^^^^^
> HA HA HA HA HA!!! YOU ARE WRONG! The fastest computer in the world is...
> wait for it... an Intel computer! Finished and tested literally at the
> start of this year, the Intel Supercomputer has over 2000 CPU's in it,
> and it is capable of 400 terraflops
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
400 terraflops = 400 * 10E12 = 0.4 petaflops.
If the machine he mentioned do perform as well as it was claimed; the
intel-computer is lagging _way_ behind.
Leif Roar Moldskred
=============================================================
le...@stud.ntnu.no Dimna or: Steinberget 35A
(+47) 73 50 94 31 N-6065 Ulsteinvik N-7018 Trondheim
=============================================================
Questions are never indiscreet. Answers sometimes are.
- Oscar Wilde
=============================================================