The C64 was crap!
Andrew Cadley
Jason wrote in message ...
:Andy:
:> I seen many a game get a massive review score and still be crap.
:> Especially in the "old" days, when many magazines seemed easily
:> corruptable.
:
:But about eight mags can't all be wrong/bribed now, can they? =-)
Well half of the magazines were probably the kind of crap mags that never
gave anything less than 80%, half of whats left did their reviews based on a
couple of screenshots and a fuzzy description by the programmer (Or like
Sinclair User, based on the back of a packet of cornflakes). Which leaves us
with two. One which let a clueless YTS trainee do the review and one that
took a bribe/free meal. ;-)
:Jason =-)
:But big spaceships are *supposed* to be like that, they're big and
:uniform in colour. I mean how many times have *you* seen a couple of
:little green blobs with spray cans givin' the ship a touch up? I've yet
:to see a lethal mega-star-dreadnought with "squibble was 'ere!" scrawled
:down one side in red, dribbly letters...
But how are you supposed to take seriously a threat from a bunch of
intergalactic invaders who haven't even managed the basics of interior
design. Everybody knows the side with the coolest spaceships always wins.
:Andy [About RetroGrade]:
:> Actually I'd got to level two, but I didn't (and still can't) see any
:> parallax effects on the vertical bit.
:
:As you drop into the first duct, watch the grey tiles at the sides
:between the two blue platforms move slower as you drop. That's parallax
:that is, guvnor.
[Squinting really hard]
Is it? Hmmm, where's that magnifying glass gone? Ah yes here it is. Blimey
you're right, now I wonder why I didn't notice that before?
There are much better examples of parallax in CPC games like Stormlord,
Shadow of The Beast, Wacky Races, Thanatos, Xyphoes Fantasy...
:[Re: Mayhem I.M.]:
:> Any game in which you only seem to die because you lose your lives
:> trying to do a little jump correctly is just silly.
:'Ow come I never seem to have this problem and Tony/Cosine can walk the
:little bugger, then?
Because you're used to it. I'm getting the hang of it now, but it's still a
bit crap.
:> Fred's back 3, the only FB I could find in an easy to use format was
:> okay. I still prefer Fluff on the pluses and Prehistorik II has more
:> to it, even if it has some annoying quirks.
:
:Well, if you *keep* having to resort to the plus stuff... =-)
Okay then, in no particular order: Turrican 1&2, Addams Family, Savage,
Rainbow Islands, Rick Dangerous 1&2, Trantor (more samples I forgot),
Stormlord 1&2, need I go on?
:Jason =-)
:> Didn't we all agree (well, Starglider wanted to do it) to rule out
:> anything after the original releases of the various machines?
:Andy:
:> So he was only including 16K speccy games? I don't remember that.
Jason:
:I think he said it when Nate mentioned his C128 tower. Dunno if he was
:ruling out the 48K and 128K machines, though... =-)
Well a C128 tower is not a stock machine, so I'd rule it out. A 6128+ is, so
it's allowable IMHO.
:No, but I can quite happily point out that whilst the C128 and +3 were
:released fairly close to each other and the machines they were based on,
:the CPC+ series were released quite a considerable time *after* both of
:them and indeed after the ST and Amiga. Leading to phrases like "it
:took *that* long to get it working" and "a generation behind at the time
:of release". =-)
But if Amstrad hadn't got all there top bods (Hi Cliff!) working on making
the Speccy less crap, then we'd have had the plus range much earlier. It was
the Speccy that held the CPC back, although we had the last laugh when
Amstrad killed the +3 to make way for the 6128+. <evil grin>
:VICE is almost as close as CCS (at least CCS 1.09, 2 beta is a major
:leap) and C64S is okay as long as things like VSP or LineCrunching
:aren't used to do scrolling, as is Frodo PC. That said, I've only ever
:tried to *write* something in CCS v2 with an Action Replay cartridge
:image running, nothing else would be usable.
Well I'm using the v2 beta to try stuff out on. I've never used VICE and
C64S is a hideous beast. Frodo PC is okay, but the user interface on the
Windows version at least, is unbelievably unfriendly. (So just like a normal
C64 then? Ed)
AndyC
Jason
> Well half of the magazines were probably the kind of crap mags that
> never gave anything less than 80%, half of whats left did their
> reviews based on a couple of screenshots and a fuzzy description by
> the programmer (Or like Sinclair User, based on the back of a packet
> of cornflakes). Which leaves us with two. One which let a clueless YTS
> trainee do the review and one that took a bribe/free meal. ;-)
Well, obviously I can't speak for the integrity of the Speccy and CPC
magazine community but, apart from that embarrassing incident with the
charts the CF we've never had that problem from the C64 people.
Said reviews came from various sources by the way, not just the C64
mags.
Jason =-)
> But big spaceships are *supposed* to be like that, they're big and
> uniform in colour. I mean how many times have *you* seen a couple of
> little green blobs with spray cans givin' the ship a touch up?
Andy:
> But how are you supposed to take seriously a threat from a bunch of
> intergalactic invaders who haven't even managed the basics of interior
> design.
Maybe they're colourblind? Or like minimalism. And since most of the
1970's sci-fi leant a lot on the brushed steel look they may just be
*late*...
> Everybody knows the side with the coolest spaceships always wins.
*We* do, but they don't speak our language to know that...
Jason =-)
> As you drop into the first duct, watch the grey tiles at the sides
> between the two blue platforms move slower as you drop. That's
> parallax that is, guvnor.
Andy:
> [Squinting really hard]
> Is it? Hmmm, where's that magnifying glass gone? Ah yes here it is.
> Blimey you're right, now I wonder why I didn't notice that before?
'Cos it's only a quarter of the screen wide and half a screen high?
> There are much better examples of parallax in CPC games like
> Stormlord, Shadow of The Beast, Wacky Races, Thanatos, Xyphoes
> Fantasy...
There are much better examples of parallax in C64 games as well, but
that one is quite pretty with all the colour. One of the earliest was
Suicide Express which uses a similar system of foreground parallax to
Prehistorik II. And as for Flimbo's Quest...
Jason =-)
> Well, if you *keep* having to resort to the plus stuff... =-)
Andy:
> Okay then, in no particular order: Turrican 1&2...
I've only got Turrican 2 for the CPC here but I *certainly* wouldn't
mention it in this list if I were you. Garbage version.
> Addams Family, Savage, Rainbow Islands, Rick Dangerous 1&2, Trantor
> (more samples I forgot), Stormlord 1&2, need I go on?
So far you've named seven games (not including the Turricans and if I
were you I wouldn't) and all of them exist on the C64. Rainbow Islands
is the only one that doesn't move entirely at 50FPS...
> No, but I can quite happily point out that whilst the C128 and +3 were
> released fairly close to each other and the machines they were based
> on, the CPC+ series were released quite a considerable time *after*
> both of them and indeed after the ST and Amiga.
Andy:
> But if Amstrad hadn't got all there top bods (Hi Cliff!) working on
> making the Speccy less crap, then we'd have had the plus range much
> earlier.
And if Commodore hadn't been worrying about the sales of the Amiga we'd
have had the C65. "If" doesn't come into it, the CPC+ was released at a
time when Commodore had a 16bit machine out.
> Well I'm using the v2 beta to try stuff out on. I've never used VICE
> and C64S is a hideous beast.
VICE is quite close (it's sort of like CCS1.09). C64S is good for slow
machines, if you're willing to lose a lot of compatibility...
> Frodo PC is okay, but the user interface on the Windows version at
> least, is unbelievably unfriendly.
[Mutters something about the way MultiMachine doesn't seem to be able to
display properly on his machine unless he doesn't use borders]
Sorry, what were you saying?
--
Jason =-)
_______________________________________________________________________
TMR / / / / / / / /\
/ /__/ / / /__/ / / / /__/ Email: t...@cosine.demon.co.uk / /
/ /\_/ / /__ / / / / __// Cosine Homepage: / /
/ /__/ / / / / / / / / / http://www.cosine.demon.co.uk / /
/_____/_____/_____/__/__/__/_____/_____________________________________/ /
\_____\_____\_____\__\__\__\_____\_____________________________________\/
Paul Hodgson
Jason wrote in message ...
>Andy:
>> Frodo PC is okay, but the user interface on the Windows version at
>> least, is unbelievably unfriendly.
>
>[Mutters something about the way MultiMachine doesn't seem to be able to
>display properly on his machine unless he doesn't use borders]
>
>Sorry, what were you saying?
Multi-machine ? Oh yeah that thing I wrote :) V1.31b has been around for a
long long long time and I *WAS* going to release V1.32b last wednesday which
is far more stable in the sound/display/gui part. However some nice IRC soul
sent me a virus and I am only now getting back up to speed (lost to much
work). However V1.32b will be this week unless some other disaster befalls
me.
Ivar Fiske
> So far you've named seven games (not including the Turricans and if I
> were you I wouldn't)
Turrican 2 got good reviews in most CPC-magazines. In never understood
why...
The screen is so small that its hard to see the baddies before they are
at you. I admit I have't played it a lot so there may be a game in there
after all. But I was not impressed by its graphics, scrolling or
playability.
> And if Commodore hadn't been worrying about the sales of the Amiga we'd
> have had the C65. "If" doesn't come into it, the CPC+ was released at a
> time when Commodore had a 16bit machine out.
The Amiga 1000 was released in 1986, a year after the CPC 6128. Very
expensive at the time and it had few games, but I won't even try to
compere the CPC to it. By the way, Commodore didn't do much to Amiga
much through the years that wasn't there when they got it from the
Amiga-company in the first place. Too bad Atari didn't want the Amiga at
the time...
--
Ivar Fiske
Geoff Oltmans
> Amiga-company in the first place. Too bad Atari didn't want the Amiga at
> the time...
As far as I'm aware, Atari WAS interested in the Amiga and was poised to
get it via default on loan until Commodore stepped in, bought the
company and paid off Amiga, Inc.'s debt to Atari.
FWIW though, do you *REALLY* think that Atari would have done a better
job with the Amiga? I doubt it myself. Just look at the success that
Atari had with the ST and Jaguar. Atari promised much, and rarely
delivered.
*Geoff!*
Andrew Cadley
Jason wrote in message ...
:magazine community but, apart from that embarrassing incident with the
:charts the CF we've never had that problem from the C64 people.
In my experience almost all computer mags back then were like that. Hell,
most of them still are.
:Said reviews came from various sources by the way, not just the C64
:mags.
I thought they probably did.
[Armalyte graphics]
:Maybe they're colourblind? Or like minimalism. And since most of the
:1970's sci-fi leant a lot on the brushed steel look they may just be
:*late*...
Or maybe that's just an excuse for why the graphics are shite. I think so.
:> Everybody knows the side with the coolest spaceships always wins.
:
:*We* do, but they don't speak our language to know that...
Then how come they always appear from their spaceships an use the old "take
me to your leader" line? They just don't want you to think they talk
English, to make you feel inferior.
:Andy:
:> [Squinting really hard]
:> Is it? Hmmm, where's that magnifying glass gone? Ah yes here it is.
:> Blimey you're right, now I wonder why I didn't notice that before?
:
:'Cos it's only a quarter of the screen wide and half a screen high?
No, 'cos it's crap. That's why. :-)
:There are much better examples of parallax in C64 games as well, but
:that one is quite pretty with all the colour. One of the earliest was
:Suicide Express which uses a similar system of foreground parallax to
:Prehistorik II. And as for Flimbo's Quest...
I should hope so too, because if that's the best you can offer you really
have no chance, do you?
:Andy:
:> Okay then, in no particular order: Turrican 1&2...
:
:I've only got Turrican 2 for the CPC here but I *certainly* wouldn't
:mention it in this list if I were you. Garbage version.
Well okay, turrican 2 is a bit dodgy but the first ones pretty good.
Although that said, the C64 version of turrican 2 isn't a whole lot better,
IMHO.
:> Addams Family, Savage, Rainbow Islands, Rick Dangerous 1&2, Trantor
:> (more samples I forgot), Stormlord 1&2, need I go on?
:
:So far you've named seven games (not including the Turricans and if I
:were you I wouldn't) and all of them exist on the C64. Rainbow Islands
:is the only one that doesn't move entirely at 50FPS...
Erm, eight I think you'll find. I couldn't find a working C64 version of
Addams Family though, so we'll leave that out for now. All the rest, with
the possible exception of RD2, have superior graphics on the CPC and yet
play the same on both. In fact, Trantor and Savage alone prove that a well
programmed CPC can wipe the floor with a C64.
:And if Commodore hadn't been worrying about the sales of the Amiga we'd
:have had the C65. "If" doesn't come into it, the CPC+ was released at a
:time when Commodore had a 16bit machine out.
But it *was* still released. Just because it can beat an ST at a lot of
things, doesn't mean it should get left out with the 16 bits. I mean,
Commodore had a 16 bit machine out when the Speccy 128s were launched,
where's the difference?
:> Frodo PC is okay, but the user interface on the Windows version at
:> least, is unbelievably unfriendly.
:
:[Mutters something about the way MultiMachine doesn't seem to be able to
:display properly on his machine unless he doesn't use borders]
:
:Sorry, what were you saying?
I was saying that perhaps it's time to upgrade to the latest DirectX
drivers. :-)
AndyC
Jason
> Amiga-company in the first place. Too bad Atari didn't want the Amiga at
> the time...
Geoff Oltmans:
> As far as I'm aware, Atari WAS interested in the Amiga and was poised
> to get it via default on loan until Commodore stepped in, bought the
> company and paid off Amiga, Inc.'s debt to Atari.
Jack "Attack" Tramiel had just brought Atari from Warner and he wanted a
big stick to beat the people who had booted him out of Commodore with.
He was poised to do that with the Amiga when Commodore snatched it at
the last minute. Atari's own effort was built pretty much in Jack's
usual style (tell the designers what you want and hold a gun to their
heads until it's done! =-) and the ST came out first.
> FWIW though, do you *REALLY* think that Atari would have done a better
> job with the Amiga? I doubt it myself. Just look at the success that
> Atari had with the ST and Jaguar. Atari promised much, and rarely
> delivered.
And as for the Falcon... They came up with a seriously nice 32bit
machine, gave it lots of fun toys and the processor power to back them
up and (apart from the fact it looked like a sun-tanned ST) generally
got it *right*. And where was the support, the marketing or *anything*
to push the machine to the public...?
It has been commented, fairly I'd say, that Commodore were sometimes
found lacking when it came to pushing their product, but even at their
worst I can't remember a time when they fouled up as royally as Atari
did with the Falcon.
Paul Hill
>Jason wrote:
>> And if Commodore hadn't been worrying about the sales of the Amiga we'd
>> have had the C65. "If" doesn't come into it, the CPC+ was released at a
>> time when Commodore had a 16bit machine out.
>The Amiga 1000 was released in 1986, a year after the CPC 6128. Very
>expensive at the time and it had few games, but I won't even try to
>compere the CPC to it. By the way, Commodore didn't do much to Amiga
>much through the years that wasn't there when they got it from the
>Amiga-company in the first place. Too bad Atari didn't want the Amiga at
>the time...
Atari did want the Amiga (IIRC they even invested money). Commodore
offered a hell of a lot more money, that's all.
--
Paul
Ivar Fiske
> Geoff Oltmans:
> > As far as I'm aware, Atari WAS interested in the Amiga and was poised
> > to get it via default on loan until Commodore stepped in, bought the
> > company and paid off Amiga, Inc.'s debt to Atari.
>
> Jack "Attack" Tramiel had just brought Atari from Warner and he wanted a
> big stick to beat the people who had booted him out of Commodore with.
> He was poised to do that with the Amiga when Commodore snatched it at
> the last minute.
I have been under the impression that the Amiga-designers designed the
Atari 800-series and that the Amiga were intended for Atari-glory
(doom?) But due the financial problems of Atari at the time this didn't
happen.
--
Ivar Fiske
Peter Sørensen
>
> Ivar Fiske:
> > Amiga-company in the first place. Too bad Atari didn't want the Amiga at
> > the time...
>
> > As far as I'm aware, Atari WAS interested in the Amiga and was poised
> > to get it via default on loan until Commodore stepped in, bought the
> > company and paid off Amiga, Inc.'s debt to Atari.
>
> Jack "Attack" Tramiel had just brought Atari from Warner and he wanted a
> big stick to beat the people who had booted him out of Commodore with.
> He was poised to do that with the Amiga when Commodore snatched it at
> usual style (tell the designers what you want and hold a gun to their
> heads until it's done! =-) and the ST came out first.
>
> > FWIW though, do you *REALLY* think that Atari would have done a better
> > job with the Amiga? I doubt it myself. Just look at the success that
> > Atari had with the ST and Jaguar. Atari promised much, and rarely
> > delivered.
>
> And as for the Falcon... They came up with a seriously nice 32bit
> machine, gave it lots of fun toys and the processor power to back them
> up and (apart from the fact it looked like a sun-tanned ST) generally
> got it *right*. And where was the support, the marketing or *anything*
> to push the machine to the public...?
>
> It has been commented, fairly I'd say, that Commodore were sometimes
> found lacking when it came to pushing their product, but even at their
> worst I can't remember a time when they fouled up as royally as Atari
> did with the Falcon.
> --
I think the Falcon had the same problem as the CPC+: too late on the
marked, no matter how good they might have been at promoting the stuff.
At the time the Falcon hit the marked, PC's were begining to be very
popular and powerfull, demo's started looking better than Amiga demo's,
so why invest in an Falcon, when the PC was bound to be better, bigger,
cheaper and larger support??
I though about buying an Falcon (as replacement for the crap A500 I
had), but found PC being the better choice.
I think you very right in stating that Commodore were very good at
promoting there computers, both the c64 and the Amiga.
Others (like Sinclair) was lame as hell...
--
Peter Sørensen
n...@kom.auc.dk
The solution to many problems lies in having somebody else do the work.
[Andrew S. Tanenbaum]
Chris Young
>I though about buying an Falcon (as replacement for the crap A500 I
>had), but found PC being the better choice.
So what was wrong with the A1200, then? Seeing that it appeared at
about the same time for about the same amount of £££s? And was better
than the Falcon. And you could have used all of your existing
software with it.
Chris
--
Your Sinclair: A Celebration
http://www.bigfoot.com/~ysac
Unsatisfactory Software - "because it is"
http://www.unsatisfactory.freeserve.co.uk
Geoff Oltmans
> Jack "Attack" Tramiel had just brought Atari from Warner and he wanted a
> big stick to beat the people who had booted him out of Commodore with.
> He was poised to do that with the Amiga when Commodore snatched it at
> the last minute. Atari's own effort was built pretty much in Jack's
> usual style (tell the designers what you want and hold a gun to their
> heads until it's done! =-) and the ST came out first.
The whole design philosophy regarding the ST seems to have been to beat
Commodore to the market. Virtually every piece of the ST was a stock
off-the-shelf component, including the TOS.
> And as for the Falcon... They came up with a seriously nice 32bit
> machine, gave it lots of fun toys and the processor power to back them
> up and (apart from the fact it looked like a sun-tanned ST) generally
> got it *right*. And where was the support, the marketing or *anything*
> to push the machine to the public...?
Amen...the Falcon is a great computer. But as you say, the support just
wasn't there. In fact, I've NEVER seen one in person before!! :) We used
to get all sorts of literature for it when I worked at an Atari
Authorized Dealer, but that was at the point when we were getting out of
the Atari biz...just no interest in our area for it.
*Geoff!*
Geoff Oltmans
> I have been under the impression that the Amiga-designers designed the
> Atari 800-series and that the Amiga were intended for Atari-glory
> (doom?) But due the financial problems of Atari at the time this didn't
> happen.
That's right, many of the peopel that were involved with the Amiga
designed the early 8-bit Ataris. Not surprising, really, since Amiga
company goes back before the Amiga computer, and they made
accessories/games for the Atari 2600.
*Geoff!*
Jason
> Or maybe that's just an excuse for why the graphics are shite. I think
> so.
That's more than a tad rich coming from the land of the CPC where the
phrases "quick port", "Speccy graphics" and "CPC version" are commonly
used together (normally with "sod it, they'll never notice").
> Then how come they always appear from their spaceships an use the old
> "take me to your leader" line? They just don't want you to think they
> talk English, to make you feel inferior.
"Take me to your leader" is just something they learnt from terrestrial
television. They only know that, "I'll have a 'p' please, Bob" and
"biiiiig hug!".
Andy:
> Blimey you're right, now I wonder why I didn't notice that before?
Jason =-)
> 'Cos it's only a quarter of the screen wide and half a screen high?
Andy:
> No, 'cos it's crap. That's why. :-)
Oh, I forgot, the CPC did it so much better in... erm... Remind me
again, what was the name of that vertical scrolling game with overlay
parallax that moves at 50FPS? Oh yes, NonExistent, that's the one.
I must admit I spent a good few minutes trying to spot the parallax in
Prehistorik II and finally it came down to "oh, he means those *trees!*"
Jason =-)
> There are much better examples of parallax in C64 games as well, but
> that one is quite pretty with all the colour. One of the earliest was
> Suicide Express which uses a similar system of foreground parallax to
> Prehistorik II. And as for Flimbo's Quest...
Andy:
> I should hope so too, because if that's the best you can offer you
> really have no chance, do you?
Never said it was the *best* now, did I? I like Retrograde because I
like shoot-em-ups, the parallax is just a pretty add-on.
If you want real parallax, check out Flimbo's Quest. Oh, and don't let
the joke version on the CPC fool you, the C64 version *does* have
scrolling, parallax, an ingame soundtrack *and* it moves at 50FPS... =-)
> Well okay, turrican 2 is a bit dodgy but the first ones pretty good.
Unless you like your games playable.
> Although that said, the C64 version of turrican 2 isn't a whole lot
> better, IMHO.
Look, I know CPC+ users are used to being in a minority, but don't you
think you're taking things *too* far here?! Everybody *else* liked it,
after all they all wanted it converted to their machines from the C64
original *didn't* they? =-)
Jason =-)
> So far you've named seven games and all of them exist on the C64.
> Rainbow Islands is the only one that doesn't move entirely at 50FPS...
Andy:
> Erm, eight I think you'll find.
Force of habit, counting from 0 again...
> I couldn't find a working C64 version of Addams Family though, so
> we'll leave that out for now.
Just imagine the CPC version at 50FPS, with a better soundtrack and a
higher res on the player sprite and hey, presto! Can we say "another
Speccy code/C64 graphics rush job"? I know we can... =-)
> All the rest, with the possible exception of RD2, have superior
> graphics on the CPC and yet play the same on both.
Most of 'em have the *C64* graphics. How can something be better than
itself?! And as for "play the same", well most of 'em drop frames,
something the C64 versions don't.
> In fact, Trantor and Savage alone prove that a well programmed CPC can
> wipe the floor with a C64.
Well, I'm not sure about Trantor, I never liked the game and the C64
version was weak. It had smoother scrolling than the CPC version but it
was weak. But as for Savage... Well, if "wipe the floor" translates as
"have more colour but move a *lot* slower *despite* the smaller screen
area *and* not playing any music ingame" then maybe you're right. Nah,
that can't be what you meant... =-)
Jason =-)
> And if Commodore hadn't been worrying about the sales of the Amiga
> we'd have had the C65. "If" doesn't come into it, the CPC+ was
> released at a time when Commodore had a 16bit machine out.
Andy:
> But it *was* still released. Just because it can beat an ST at a lot
> of things, doesn't mean it should get left out with the 16 bits. I
> mean, Commodore had a 16 bit machine out when the Speccy 128s were
> launched, where's the difference?
The difference is that the CPC+ is based on graphics architecture that
wasn't available when the C64, CPC and Speccy 48K were released, the
Speccy 128 isn't. You can't argue the CPC's case with a machine that
couldn't have been *constructed* until *several* *years* after the
original release, it was only a gleam in a hardware designers eye back
in 1982/3 in the same way that machines like the Sam and the C65 were.
Jason =-)
> [Mutters something about the way MultiMachine doesn't seem to be able
> to display properly on his machine unless he doesn't use borders]
> Sorry, what were you saying?
Andy:
> I was saying that perhaps it's time to upgrade to the latest DirectX
> drivers. :-)
There's a version *after* DirectX 6?! Bloody hell, I only got *these* a
few *days* ago...
Jason
> I have been under the impression that the Amiga-designers designed the
> Atari 800-series and that the Amiga were intended for Atari-glory
> (doom?) But due the financial problems of Atari at the time this
> didn't happen.
The late Jay Miner was involved in both (the Super GTIA mode on the
XL/XE Ataris is his baby, I believe) but the Amiga was being developed
by a totally stand-alone company for their own purposes (they
manufactured joysticks, amongst other things).
The financial problems at Amiga meant they had to look for someone to
come in and work with them (it wasn't a buy out, the two companies
survived in tandem for a while). Atari showed a *big* interest under
it's new, fatter, management but C= stepped in at the very last minute
and said "'ave *that!*"
Jason
> I though about buying an Falcon (as replacement for the crap A500 I
> had), but found PC being the better choice.
Chris Young:
> So what was wrong with the A1200, then? Seeing that it appeared at
> about the same time for about the same amount of £££s? And was better
> than the Falcon.
As much as I love my A1200, the Falcon had a *lot* going for it and spec
for spec could better the A1200. It really *was* Atari's lousy
marketing that killed the Falcon, they didn't support it enough software
wise and didn't push the machine on TV or in magazines.
> And you could have used all of your existing software with it.
Except that, at the time of release, a lot of the software *wasn't*
working. We had to wait for the ReloKick and similar tools before about
90/95% of software worked. And take it from someone who was selling the
Amiga back then, it was a @*$%ing nightmare! I had a list the size of a
small telephone directory of what games worked, what didn't, what were
okay with a kick down...
Ivar Fiske
> But as for Savage... Well, if "wipe the floor" translates as
> "have more colour but move a *lot* slower *despite* the smaller screen
> area *and* not playing any music ingame" then maybe you're right.
Have you seen the CPC-version on a CPC?
--
Ivar
Jason
> The whole design philosophy regarding the ST seems to have been to
> beat Commodore to the market.
I don't think you need the "seems to" in there. =-) The story I've
heard from various sources involves Jack, just after Commodore did the
disappearing trick with Amiga, steaming into the R&D department and
basically reeling off a bunch of specs.
It *had* to be a 68000, it *had* to have 256 colours, regardless of how
many could be on screen at once and it *had* to have a GUI. I don't
think he mentioned sound, they threw an AY in and hoped for the best.
=-)
After that, it was a case of getting it to the market first and stealing
the "first home 16bit machine" thunder, then using heavy advertising and
as many "dirty" tricks as possible to keep it there. Like the CES
"Boing Ball" display...
Jason [Re: the Falcon =-]
> And where was the support, the marketing or *anything* to push the
> machine to the public...?
Geoff:
> Amen...the Falcon is a great computer. But as you say, the support
> just wasn't there. In fact, I've NEVER seen one in person before!! :)
I met one in the plastic, as it were, on two occasions. One was a show
and it was running Cubase. In *colour!* Well, the Atari bods I was
with were impressed... =-) The second time I got to see a few games
(including the specially done Minter game) and one of Sanity's demos and
that was a *lot* more indicative of what the beast could do.
> We used to get all sorts of literature for it when I worked at an
> Atari Authorized Dealer...
We didn't even get *that* out of 'em, we had to keep pestering for the
few scraps of glossy paperwork they sent. We sold one and it disgraced
itself by going wrong under warranty... =-(
Richard Fairhurst
> [AndyC:]
> > Addams Family, Savage, Rainbow Islands, Rick Dangerous 1&2, Trantor
> > (more samples I forgot), Stormlord 1&2, need I go on?
>
> So far you've named seven games (not including the Turricans and if I
> were you I wouldn't) and all of them exist on the C64. Rainbow Islands
> is the only one that doesn't move entirely at 50FPS...
Yeah, but Stormlord's shit on the C64. No J Dave, for starters, and
what's the use of a whizzy sound chip if J Dave doesn't use it? :-)
--
| Richard Fairhurst
| National Tasty e-zine: www.systemed.u-net.com
| The point is not to put poetry at the disposal of the revolution,
| but to put the revolution at the disposal of poetry.
Jason
> But as for Savage... Well, if "wipe the floor" translates as
> "have more colour but move a *lot* slower *despite* the smaller screen
> area *and* not playing any music ingame" then maybe you're right.
Ivar Fiske:
> Have you seen the CPC-version on a CPC?
I have, but not recently. I'm using MultiMachine and CPE and unless
it's a *lot* faster on the refresh than what those two are giving me
it's not pulling what I'd consider a reasonable rate. The C64 version
is 50FPS, how fast is the CPC version, then?
While I'm at it, how good are those two emulators for speed? If a game
is actually going at full framerate will they show it?
Jason
> So far you've named seven games and all of them exist on the C64. Rainbow
> Islands is the only one that doesn't move entirely at 50FPS...
Richard Fairhurst:
> Yeah, but Stormlord's shit on the C64.
I thought it was okay, but it was seriously impressive on a technical
front, it scrolls a large chunk of the screen as a bitmap *without*
using any of the tricks at 50FPS. Funnily enough, I've been thinking
about this recently and I *think* I can better it for space shifted...
> No J Dave, for starters, and what's the use of a whizzy sound chip if
> J Dave doesn't use it? :-)
I consider that a *blessing*, myself. No, in fact, I consider it much
*more* than that, but I find it nearly *impossible* to get across
exactly *how* happy I am that he never managed to learn 6502. And I'm
really not joking, compared to the music the C64 folk got on
Netherworld, Cybernoid, Cybernoid 2, Stormlord and Stormlord 2
(especially Netherworld and Cybernoid 2), his stuff is *pants*.
Axel Berger
GO>The whole design philosophy regarding the ST seems to have been to
GO>beat Commodore to the market.
GO>Amen...the Falcon is a great computer.
Beg to differ. One fact you must not overlook is, that on leaving
Commodore Tramiel took Shiraz Shivjy (sp?) the brilliant designer of
the C64 with him to do the ST. Some time during the development of the
TT Shivjy left, which is supposedly why it was not only late but the
design is bungled in serveral places. The falcon is so full of
stupidities and inconsistencies that is was never really considered by
the dedicated German Atari supporters.
Tschö wa
Axel
Ivar Fiske
>
> Jason wrote:
> > But as for Savage... Well, if "wipe the floor" translates as
> > "have more colour but move a *lot* slower *despite* the smaller screen
> > area *and* not playing any music ingame" then maybe you're right.
>
> > Have you seen the CPC-version on a CPC?
>
> I have, but not recently. I'm using MultiMachine and CPE and unless
> it's a *lot* faster on the refresh than what those two are giving me
> it's not pulling what I'd consider a reasonable rate. The C64 version
> is 50FPS, how fast is the CPC version, then?
>
> While I'm at it, how good are those two emulators for speed? If a game
> is actually going at full framerate will they show it?
I will have a look at it after work. I haven't used CPC-emulators for a
while as there has to many things they didn't emulate good enough like
sound, CRT-effects, resolution.
--
Ivar Fiske
Ivar Fiske
> >
> > Jason wrote:
> > > But as for Savage... Well, if "wipe the floor" translates as
> > > "have more colour but move a *lot* slower *despite* the smaller screen
> > > area *and* not playing any music ingame" then maybe you're right.
This I believe to be correct for the Multimachine emulation.
> > Ivar Fiske:
> > > Have you seen the CPC-version on a CPC?
> >
> > I have, but not recently. I'm using MultiMachine and CPE and unless
> > it's a *lot* faster on the refresh than what those two are giving me
> > it's not pulling what I'd consider a reasonable rate. The C64 version
> > is 50FPS, how fast is the CPC version, then?
Fast and smooth on a real CPC. 30, 50 or 100 frames/s I wouldn't know.
Anyway it looks good and runs smooth.
> > While I'm at it, how good are those two emulators for speed? If a game
> > is actually going at full framerate will they show it?
CPE 51 the one I had at hand at home crashed on my Pentium 2 300 so I
can't answer for that one.
Multimachine ran Savage at a really low framerate on the same machine.
Mode 2 text and graphics (640x200) looked good with the graphics level
set to the maximum level.., like a CPC would look with a sharper monitor
than the usual CPC ones. This sharpness in the emulator makes mode 0
graphics look worse as the resolution is only 160x 200 in this mode.
There seems to be a fault in the emulated sound, it "cracks" at the
beginning of some sound.
--
Ivar Fiske
Andrew Cadley
Paul Hodgson wrote in message
<911136042.29175.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
:Multi-machine ? Oh yeah that thing I wrote :) V1.31b has been around for a
:long long long time and I *WAS* going to release V1.32b last wednesday
which
:is far more stable in the sound/display/gui part. However some nice IRC
soul
:sent me a virus and I am only now getting back up to speed (lost to much
:work). However V1.32b will be this week unless some other disaster befalls
:me.
WHAT!?!?!
How come I'm still using V1.30b and V1.31b isn't on the web page? It's all a
cover up isn't it? A secret agenda to keep me in the dark. Well I'm onto
you, I know what this is all about. You're all out to get me. (Don't you
think you're getting just a tad paranoid? Ed) Paranoid? Me? *Who* told you
that?
AndyC
Jason
> But as for Savage... Well, if "wipe the floor" translates as
> "have more colour but move a *lot* slower *despite* the smaller screen
> area *and* not playing any music ingame" then maybe you're right.
Ivar:
> This I believe to be correct for the Multimachine emulation.
I'm getting the same from CPE, at a guess it's updating once every
fourth or fifth frame. The scroll seems to move in eight pixel jumps
when I nudge it along though.
> CPE 51 the one I had at hand at home crashed on my Pentium 2 300 so I
> can't answer for that one.
I'm getting a reasonable speed from some stuff, but the minute it needs
more than a few colours everything slows down. But I don't know if this
is the game or the emulator...
Andrew Cadley
Jason wrote in message ...
:> Or maybe that's just an excuse for why the graphics are shite. I think
:> so.
:
:That's more than a tad rich coming from the land of the CPC where the
:phrases "quick port", "Speccy graphics" and "CPC version" are commonly
:used together (normally with "sod it, they'll never notice").
And that reflects on the capabilites of the machine how exactly? I suppose
the C64 never had *any* speccy ports did it? Hmm Dizzy looks strikingly
familiar...
:I must admit I spent a good few minutes trying to spot the parallax in
:Prehistorik II and finally it came down to "oh, he means those *trees!*"
Perhaps opening yours eyes in future would be a good idea. The
trees/clouds/rocks etc certainly stand out more than a tiny bit of grey
pattern in the background.
:If you want real parallax, check out Flimbo's Quest. Oh, and don't let
:the joke version on the CPC fool you, the C64 version *does* have
:scrolling, parallax, an ingame soundtrack *and* it moves at 50FPS... =-)
Not a bad effort I suppose. Although it commits the cardinal sin of platform
games, holes in the floor which are virtually indistinguishable from the
floor itself. That and it looks plug ugly as well.
:Look, I know CPC+ users are used to being in a minority, but don't you
:think you're taking things *too* far here?! Everybody *else* liked it,
:after all they all wanted it converted to their machines from the C64
:original *didn't* they? =-)
It was converted to other platforms, whether they wanted it or not is an
entirely different matter.
:Most of 'em have the *C64* graphics. How can something be better than
:itself?! And as for "play the same", well most of 'em drop frames,
:something the C64 versions don't.
But they don't have the *same* graphics, now do they. It isn't surprising
that they are similar, given both machines have similar graphics resolutions
and it is often the same artist, but they aren't the same. It is very easy
to spot the difference, the CPC ones are well coloured and remarkably clear.
The C64 ones lean towards monochrome and attempt to blend *every* colour
with brown, in the misguided belief that it doesn't look crap.
:Well, I'm not sure about Trantor, I never liked the game and the C64
:version was weak. It had smoother scrolling than the CPC version but it
:was weak. But as for Savage... Well, if "wipe the floor" translates as
:"have more colour but move a *lot* slower *despite* the smaller screen
:area *and* not playing any music ingame" then maybe you're right. Nah,
:that can't be what you meant... =-)
No, "wipe the floor" translates as, you can tell what each sprite is
actually supposed to be and don't even notice the marginally slower
scrolling on the 2D levels.
:The difference is that the CPC+ is based on graphics architecture that
:wasn't available when the C64, CPC and Speccy 48K were released, the
:Speccy 128 isn't. You can't argue the CPC's case with a machine that
:couldn't have been *constructed* until *several* *years* after the
:original release, it was only a gleam in a hardware designers eye back
:in 1982/3 in the same way that machines like the Sam and the C65 were.
But that same graphics architecture *was* available when the 128K speccies
and the C128 were launched. It might have been expensive, but it was there
and the possibility of incorporating into into the machines was there. That
they never did it is another matter altogether...
:There's a version *after* DirectX 6?! Bloody hell, I only got *these* a
:few *days* ago...
Well then go and buy a less crap video card. :-)
AndyC
Andrew Cadley
Jason wrote in message ...
:> So far you've named seven games and all of them exist on the C64.
Rainbow
:> Islands is the only one that doesn't move entirely at 50FPS...
:
:Richard Fairhurst:
:> Yeah, but Stormlord's shit on the C64.
:
:I thought it was okay, but it was seriously impressive on a technical
:front, it scrolls a large chunk of the screen as a bitmap *without*
:using any of the tricks at 50FPS. Funnily enough, I've been thinking
:about this recently and I *think* I can better it for space shifted...
Ooooh, scrolling the screen as a bitmap. I *wish* the CPC version did that.
Especially if it had a parallax background as well and a better selection of
colours. Oh it does, doesn't it. :-)
AndyC
Paul Hodgson
Andrew Cadley wrote in message <73224h$c...@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>...
I'll start again.
Stage 1 insert brain,
stage 2 remember current version "V1.30b",
stage 3 announce new version "V1.31b".
Sorry brain stopped whilst typing previous message :) New rev is now
imminent, just updating the website.
Robert Parratt
>But that same graphics architecture *was* available when the 128K speccies
>and the C128 were launched. It might have been expensive, but it was there
>and the possibility of incorporating into into the machines was there. That
>they never did it is another matter altogether...
If you go and search out the story of the C128, you'll find that there was
immense trouble with the machine, having being hacked together from
discontinued commodore projects.
--
*Happy* with the quoting?
rob...@parratt.freeserve.NOSPAMEVER.co.uk
Remove NOSPAMEVER to use
Andrew Cadley
Robert Parratt wrote in message
<739r5e$d52$1...@newsreader5.core.theplanet.net>...
:
[I wrote]
:>But that same graphics architecture *was* available when the 128K speccies
:>and the C128 were launched. It might have been expensive, but it was there
:>and the possibility of incorporating into into the machines was there.
That
:>they never did it is another matter altogether...
[Robert wrote]
:If you go and search out the story of the C128, you'll find that there was
:immense trouble with the machine, having being hacked together from
:discontinued commodore projects.
That doesn't surprise me in the least. But it also doesn't alter my point
that the C128 *could* have had SAM/CPC+ graphics at the time it was
released. That, to me at least, justifies including the CPC+ in such
"discussions".
:*Happy* with the quoting?
Almost. :-)
Try and leave the relevant attributions in so we can see *who* your
responding to. It's not *that* hard to do with OE, is it?
(Well you seem to manage it and you've all the know how of a poorly trained
tomato. Ed) Right that's it, out of those brackets and say that to my face,
you pesky twat. (Yikes! Ed)
AndyC
Jason
for the delay in responding, but I had a few articles and a load of
files to link...
Jason =-)
> That's more than a tad rich coming from the land of the CPC where the
> phrases "quick port", "Speccy graphics" and "CPC version" are commonly
> used together (normally with "sod it, they'll never notice").
Andy:
> And that reflects on the capabilites of the machine how exactly?
It reflects the company's opinion of the machine, we got *some* ports,
you got a *lot* of ports... Hewson (since we're talking Stormlord
below) are a prime example, the games tended to start on the C64 or
Speccy, the other machine got a complete re-build during conversion (new
code, graphics and sound) and the CPC just got whatever could be cobbled
together from the bits.
> I suppose the C64 never had *any* speccy ports did it? Hmm Dizzy looks
> strikingly familiar...
And I said it looked shyte the day I saw it, and the same goes for Chase
HQ and Starglider, both of those apparently use badly botched ports of
the Speccy code.
Jason =-)
> I must admit I spent a good few minutes trying to spot the parallax in
> Prehistorik II and finally it came down to "oh, he means those
> *trees!*"
Andy:
> Perhaps opening yours eyes in future would be a good idea. The
> trees/clouds/rocks etc certainly stand out more than a tiny bit of
> grey pattern in the background.
A tiny grey pattern that fills up to *half* the screen. And you tell
*me* to open *my* eyes...?! Those trees *are* a bit shit though, aren't
they? I mean, on the C64 we had Suicide Express, which did something
similar at 50FPS about four years before *and* you didn't need to buy a
new *machine* to see it... =-)
Jason =-)
> If you want real parallax, check out Flimbo's Quest...
Andy:
> Not a bad effort I suppose. Although it commits the cardinal sin of
> platform games, holes in the floor which are virtually
> indistinguishable from the floor itself. That and it looks plug ugly
> as well.
And that relates to the scrolling in what way? It *still* does overlay
parallax scrolling at *full* *framerate*, something that you still
haven't produced a single example of on the CPC.
> The C64 ones lean towards monochrome and attempt to blend *every*
> colour with brown, in the misguided belief that it doesn't look crap.
It doesn't. On a real C64. CCS has the brown set too light, it's
supposed to be almost the same luminance as the blue and looks a lot
better next to grey that way.
Jason =-)
> But as for Savage... Well, if "wipe the floor" translates as
> "have more colour but move a *lot* slower *despite* the smaller screen
> area *and* not playing any music ingame" then maybe you're right.
Andy:
> No, "wipe the floor" translates as, you can tell what each sprite is
> actually supposed to be and don't even notice the marginally slower
> scrolling on the 2D levels.
Since when did "marginally slower" mean the same as "*half* the speed"?
I need a new dictionary, mine doesn't give that definition. And *still*
no soundtrack and a smaller screen... =-)
Jason =-)
> I thought it was okay, but it was seriously impressive on a technical
> front, it scrolls a large chunk of the screen as a bitmap *without*
> using any of the tricks at 50FPS...
Andy:
> Ooooh, scrolling the screen as a bitmap. I *wish* the CPC version did
> that. Especially if it had a parallax background as well and a better
> selection of colours. Oh it does, doesn't it. :-)
The *stars* (if Retrograde isn't doing parallax the CPC version of
Stormlord *certainly* isn't with a bloody starfield! =-) would have been
slightly clever *if* the scrolling was at 50FPS, the graphics had
colours that *didn't* look like they were chosen just for luminance,
shifted a larger screen area and managed an ingame soundtrack.
Otherwise, there's not a lot to compare, really... =-)
Ivar Fiske
> And I said it looked shyte the day I saw it, and the same goes for Chase
> HQ and Starglider, both of those apparently use badly botched ports of
> the Speccy code.
I remember reading reviews of the 8-bit versions of Chase HQ in C&VG.
The C64 version looked crap compared to Spectrum-version and according
to the review it got score of around 30%. It was slow and badly
programmed. The Spectrum and Amstrad CPC version got around 90% and had
different graphics. I doubt the C64-version was a port although it was
badly programmed.
The CPC-version on the other hand has the look of typical Spectrum-port
and was probably ported. Not a bad thing as the Spectrum-version was so
playable.
I don't doubt that the C64 has more good games than the Amstrad CPC.
BTW, is there any thruth in that the Spectrum can not do anything else
while playing sounds?
--
Ivar Fiske
Derek Jolly
<snip>
>BTW, is there any thruth in that the Spectrum can not do anything else
>while playing sounds?
The 48K Speccy can't, but the 128K can as it uses the AY-3-8912 sound
chip.
--
Derek Jolly (jol...@xtetraworld.com) (Remove the 'x' for e-mail)
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are
subtle and will piss on your computer." --Bruce Graham
Garbled Broadcast
[ Chase HQ ]
-)The CPC-version on the other hand has the look of typical Spectrum-port
-)and was probably ported. Not a bad thing as the Spectrum-version was so
-)playable.
I remember buying the game - the loading screen was a Spectrum port, but
the ingame graphics were very good and quite fast - nothing like a
Spectrum in fact. Some of the code might have been nicked from the
Spectrum, but not any of the graphics code at least. I thought it was a
great game, and it did have some sampled sound, I am sure of it...
-)I don't doubt that the C64 has more good games than the Amstrad CPC.
There were a lot more C64's sold than CPCs (about 20:3 ratio?) so you have
to expect that most games publishers would put their best programmers on
the C64 version of any particular game. The CPC was the best overall 8-bit
computer to be sold in any mass volume, with hi-res graphics for
text-processing and other business stuff, and colourful games modes. It
might not have had the best hardware for any particular area
(games/business), but it competed well by striking a balance. The C64 was
primarily a games machine and as such had pretty much the best hardware
for it for many years. The CPC would have been a much better games machine
if more money and time was spent on designing it, but at what cost?
How many more CPCs would have been sold if there was no bundled monitor
though, and a built in modulator? Perhaps twice as many?
Graham
Brix
jol...@xtetraworld.com ) says...
> Zap! went Captain Fribb's raygun as Ivar Fiske approached.
>
> <snip>
> >BTW, is there any thruth in that the Spectrum can not do anything else
> >while playing sounds?
>
> The 48K Speccy can't, but the 128K can as it uses the AY-3-8912 sound
> chip.
Haha, and YOU say a better machine than a C-64?
No 50fps paralax-scrollers, action without sound... oh, god..
-Brix-
Brix
> There were a lot more C64's sold than CPCs (about 20:3 ratio?) so you have
> to expect that most games publishers would put their best programmers on
> the C64 version of any particular game. The CPC was the best overall 8-bit
> computer to be sold in any mass volume, with hi-res graphics for
> text-processing and other business stuff, and colourful games modes. It
> might not have had the best hardware for any particular area
> (games/business), but it competed well by striking a balance. The C64 was
> primarily a games machine and as such had pretty much the best hardware
> for it for many years. The CPC would have been a much better games machine
> if more money and time was spent on designing it, but at what cost?
The text processors and business-software highly depend on the programmers. Using a
proportional font and extending the text into the Border you can have even more than 80
characters on some lines. Of course you need to do some programming tricks.
I don't really know all the business and word-processing programs on CPC, but I think if
soneone would give enough patience and skill in it, it is possible to equal the
performance with a C64 for sure.
I won't ever doubt that it is easier on CPC to program good business software - maybe this
is the reason why it is better (or why there is more of this kind on cpc).
> How many more CPCs would have been sold if there was no bundled monitor
> though, and a built in modulator? Perhaps twice as many?
A lot more for sure... twice? Hm, maybe.
I think the CPC just needed the C-64s SID chip, the modulator and the ability to display
hardware-sprites and it would have been the superior Homecomputer on the Market during the
80s.. although I don't really like the Z80.. a 6510 on 2 Mhz would have been better and
faster (the C-64 is 1 Mhz clocked, because of the VIC - the 6510 won't ever worry..)
-Brix-
Jason
> And I said it looked shyte the day I saw it, and the same goes for Chase
> HQ and Starglider, both of those apparently use badly botched ports of
> the Speccy code.
Ivar:
> I remember reading reviews of the 8-bit versions of Chase HQ in C&VG.
> The C64 version looked crap compared to Spectrum-version and according
> to the review it got score of around 30%.
It *really* didn't deserve it.
> It was slow and badly programmed. The Spectrum and Amstrad CPC version
> got around 90% and had different graphics. I doubt the C64-version was
> a port although it was badly programmed.
The cars are sprites, the console was different, but the way the road is
handled is the same, just a *lot* slower. The *big* giveaway is that
the screen is 32 characters wide and in mono whilst the cars are in
multicolour. =-)
> BTW, is there any thruth in that the Spectrum can not do anything else
> while playing sounds?
From what I've heard (literally) it depends on what's playing and how,
the AY can quite happily do things at the same time as other stuff but
if you want something more complex out of the beeper than some spot FX
it has to be hammered. The Tim Follin player has to take complete
control to do it's job, for example.
Ivar:
> I don't doubt that the C64 has more good games than the Amstrad CPC.
Graham:
> There were a lot more C64's sold than CPCs (about 20:3 ratio?) so you
> have to expect that most games publishers would put their best
> programmers on the C64 version of any particular game.
Not quite the case, companies like Firebird, System 3, Thalamus and
Hewson, who produced some truly classic C64 software tended to use
freelancers a lot, so did Ocean, for their original titles, the dirge
seems to be mostly in-house. Most of the best C64 programmers, people
like Sensible Software, Kinetic Design, Cyberdyne Systems and Apex
Computer Productions weren't there because they were put on a job by the
company, they did it because that was the machine they'd chosen to
produce on.
> The C64 was primarily a games machine and as such had pretty much the
> best hardware for it for many years.
It wasn't really designed that way though, the C64 had hardware that, at
time of release, was fairly spiffy for business as well, it just got
left behind a lot faster on that front.
> How many more CPCs would have been sold if there was no bundled
> monitor though, and a built in modulator? Perhaps twice as many?
I do agree there, the monitor was nice, but it made the machine too
expensive, an *optional* monitor where you didn't have to have it but
could add it either at time of purchase or later would have been better.
Alvin Albrecht
> hardware-sprites and it would have been the superior Homecomputer on the Market during the
> 80s.. although I don't really like the Z80.. a 6510 on 2 Mhz would have been better and
> faster (the C-64 is 1 Mhz clocked, because of the VIC - the 6510 won't ever worry..)
Any serious computer had to be z80 based in the early '80s. With its massive
popularity (it is still the most popular microprocessor in the world, BTW) & software
base to go with it (CP/M), it was almost used exclusively by manufacturers of
business machines. Until Big Blue came along of course.
But a 6510 @ 2MHz...I don't think you would find a lot of people to agree with
you outside the C64 community.
Alvin
Alvin Albrecht
> > >BTW, is there any thruth in that the Spectrum can not do anything else
> > >while playing sounds?
Sort of. The 48k Spectrum is a very simple machine really. You could almost
think of it as a minimal z80 machine.
What it has for sound is a clicker, a 1 bit D/A. Frequency of clicks is
controlled by software. You can either play your tunes with a subroutine
that monopolizes the CPU in carefully counted out timing or you could
try your hand at real time programming: do a little computation, click,
do a little computation, click, etc. Examples of the latter include
JetSet Willy and Gilligan's Gold which play music in game.
> > The 48K Speccy can't, but the 128K can as it uses the AY-3-8912 sound
> > chip.
The AY chip has its own frequency counters, so naturally it requires
little CPU attention to play in game music a la SID - reload the registers
during the frame interrupt.
> Haha, and YOU say a better machine than a C-64?
> No 50fps paralax-scrollers, action without sound... oh, god..
Of course, you don't need any 50fps scroller to make a smoothly
animated scroll. You also don't need special video hardware
to make games if your CPU is fast enough for the resolution it
must handle.
Alvin
Simon Cooke
ability to display
>hardware-sprites and it would have been the superior Homecomputer on the
Market during the
>80s.. although I don't really like the Z80.. a 6510 on 2 Mhz would have
been better and
>faster (the C-64 is 1 Mhz clocked, because of the VIC - the 6510 won't ever
worry..)
Ummm... ignoring the fact that you'd be limited to 256 bytes of stack space,
no it wouldn't be faster than a Z80.
Z80's around the time of the CPC were running at 6MHz.
Simon
Andrew Cadley
Jason wrote in message ...
:for the delay in responding, but I had a few articles and a load of
:files to link...
Blimey, I thought this thread had died. I turn me back for five minutes and
it's like it never went away. Tsk!
:A tiny grey pattern that fills up to *half* the screen. And you tell
:*me* to open *my* eyes...?! Those trees *are* a bit shit though, aren't
:they? I mean, on the C64 we had Suicide Express, which did something
:similar at 50FPS about four years before *and* you didn't need to buy a
:new *machine* to see it... =-)
Only half the screen? Well that *is* tiny according to my dictionary. ;-)
And it isn't just those palm trees on the first level. There are some beaut
clouds later on and the trees in the Ewoky village bit are bloody amazing.
:Andy:
:> Not a bad effort I suppose. Although it commits the cardinal sin of
:> platform games, holes in the floor which are virtually
:> indistinguishable from the floor itself. That and it looks plug ugly
:> as well.
:And that relates to the scrolling in what way?
It doesn't. It just looks crap, thats all.
:It *still* does overlay
:parallax scrolling at *full* *framerate*, something that you still
:haven't produced a single example of on the CPC.
Really? I could've sworn I'd already mentioned Prehistorik II. Okay so it
uses snap scrolling, but it *still* does overlay parallax at 50FPS. Even the
vanilla version has three levels of parallax (Static copper-style horizon,
raster text scroll and then the main foreground)
:It doesn't. On a real C64. CCS has the brown set too light, it's
:supposed to be almost the same luminance as the blue and looks a lot
:better next to grey that way.
Hmmm. Well even assuming it doesn't look as crap as it does on emulators
they still have a tendency to look near-monochrome.
:Since when did "marginally slower" mean the same as "*half* the speed"?
:I need a new dictionary, mine doesn't give that definition. And *still*
:no soundtrack and a smaller screen... =-)
Mine does. :-) As for the soundtrack, I'd still prefer a copy of the Manics
latest album in the background than the music in any game, 8 bit or
otherwise.
:The *stars* (if Retrograde isn't doing parallax the CPC version of
:Stormlord *certainly* isn't with a bloody starfield! =-) would have been
:slightly clever *if* the scrolling was at 50FPS, the graphics had
:colours that *didn't* look like they were chosen just for luminance,
:shifted a larger screen area and managed an ingame soundtrack.
I never said Retrograde wasn't doing parallax. I just said it looked shite.
Well, once you've had someone point out to you that it is actually there at
all. As for the colours in stormlord, I suspect they were chosen because
they look cool and nothing to do with luminance at all.
Of course, if the C64 was doing what it does and matching the colour density
of the CPC then *maybe*, just maybe, I'd be impressed.
AndyC
Andrew Cadley
Brix wrote in message ...
:The text processors and business-software highly depend on the programmers.
Using a
:proportional font and extending the text into the Border you can have even
more than 80
:characters on some lines. Of course you need to do some programming tricks.
A CPC could do 160 column fixed width text without any programming tricks.
Allthough it might be something of an eyestrain. Using proportional fonts
doesn't make that much of a difference since your working with a bitmap
anyway. (Okay it's still f*cking tricky to program, but that's nothing to do
with the CPC)
:I don't really know all the business and word-processing programs on CPC,
but I think if
:soneone would give enough patience and skill in it, it is possible to equal
the
:performance with a C64 for sure.
Doubt it. Even ignoring the CPC's higher resolution screen, the ability to
put programs in ROM and have them available from start-up (ala Protext and
Maxam) gives the CPC a massive advantage over the other machines.
Having CPM (crap as it is) from day 1 was also a big advantage.
:> How many more CPCs would have been sold if there was no bundled monitor
:> though, and a built in modulator? Perhaps twice as many?
:
:A lot more for sure... twice? Hm, maybe.
I dunno. Reading high-res text of a TV set would've been damn near
impossible, throwing away that loverly business software. And you'd have
killed off almost every single fancy demo trick that ever existed for the
machine. Sure the monitor was a bastard cost wise, but it really is worth it
in the long run.
:I think the CPC just needed the C-64s SID chip, the modulator and the
ability to display
:hardware-sprites and it would have been the superior Homecomputer on the
Market during the :80s.. although I don't really like the Z80.. a 6510 on 2
Mhz would have been better and
:faster (the C-64 is 1 Mhz clocked, because of the VIC - the 6510 won't ever
worry..)
You're thinking along the right lines. A CPC with hardware sprites, better
sound, support for analogue joysticks, a few thousand extra colours and
maybe some extra fancy gubbins would be cool. If only I could lay my hands
on such an amazing machine...
AndyC
Ivar Fiske
> Ivar:
> > I remember reading reviews of the 8-bit versions of Chase HQ in C&VG.
> > The C64 version looked crap compared to Spectrum-version and according
> > to the review it got score of around 30%.
>
> It *really* didn't deserve it.
I'm sorry about this but I was thinking about Wec Le Mans. Sorry!
--
Ivar Fiske
thurstan.johnston
Glider Rider and the shoot em up level of Agent x 2 (which I bought for
25p at the time in WH Smith!)
The amstrad had a higher resolution, e.g compare Renegade on the 2
computers.
I still love and use my amstrad but would like to get hold of a c64 with
a load of games
Paul Hodgson
thurstan.johnston wrote in message <36657E...@virgin.net>...
>The c64 sound was much better than the amstrads, the one exception being
>Glider Rider and the shoot em up level of Agent x 2 (which I bought for
>25p at the time in WH Smith!)
>
Thats two ;)
thurstan.johnston
> >The c64 sound was much better than the amstrads, the one exception being
> >Glider Rider and the shoot em up level of Agent x 2 (which I bought for
> >25p at the time in WH Smith!)
> >
>
> Thats two ;)
Ooops!!
Jason
> minutes and it's like it never went away. Tsk!
What can I say, I had deadlines and the only way to meet them was to
ignore this thread for a while... =-)
Jason =-)
> ...It *still* does overlay parallax scrolling at *full* *framerate*,
> something that you still haven't produced a single example of on the
> CPC.
Andy:
> Really? I could've sworn I'd already mentioned Prehistorik II. Okay so
> it uses snap scrolling, but it *still* does overlay parallax at 50FPS.
I'm still finding it difficult to believe that anything with a refresh
*that* slow in the emulators is actually doing 50FPS. And even if it is
we get to the bit about the CPC+ being a latecomer...
> Even the vanilla version has three levels of parallax (Static copper-
> style horizon, raster text scroll and then the main foreground)
Does Mutlimachine not show this, then? Okay, so we'll skip those
examples since I can't see the parallax, I'll mention Hawkeye and
Rubicon, which both have a similar scroller to Flimbo and you produce
two more examples that actually get somewhere near full framerate that I
can see in the emu, okay?
> Hmmm. Well even assuming it doesn't look as crap as it does on
> emulators they still have a tendency to look near-monochrome.
And the majority of CPC graphics I've seen are *in* monochrome. There
are some that aren't but then again, we've got loads on the C64 that
aren't as well starting with MiM and working backwards...
> ...As for the soundtrack, I'd still prefer a copy of the
> Manics latest album in the background than the music in any game, 8
> bit or otherwise.
This is because you've not had a lot of choice, really... =-)
> I never said Retrograde wasn't doing parallax. I just said it looked
> shite. Well, once you've had someone point out to you that it is
> actually there at all.
Okay, so I'm saying the starfield in Stormlord looks shite then, it's
too slow. That said, so is the rest of the game. =-)
> As for the colours in stormlord, I suspect they were chosen because
> they look cool and nothing to do with luminance at all.
So, they didn't change the stone blocks from three greys to cyan, grey
and brown because the CPC hasn't got three greys, then? Next you'll be
telling me the rocks in Rick Dangerous are blue because the programmers
thought it looked better... [snigger]
> Of course, if the C64 was doing what it does and matching the colour
> density of the CPC then *maybe*, just maybe, I'd be impressed.
Ah, you're going to have to tell me how your obviously defective
dictionary defines "colour density" as well then, 'cos I've put a screen
grab of both versions next to each other and the CPC is using an exact
drop of the C64 graphics, just with crap colours and in less screen
space. Oh, except that the lead sprite on the C64 has less colours
*but* this is because he's in a higher res.
Christer
says...
> I remember reading reviews of the 8-bit versions of Chase HQ in C&VG.
> The C64 version looked crap compared to Spectrum-version and according
> to the review it got score of around 30%.
I remember that i played CHQ in the arcades and bought it the same day it
appeared on the C64. However, i played it for about 30 seconds and then
smashed the cassette with a hammer!
Imagine the rage i felt against imagine/ocean at that time :-)
I have only done this two times (the other crap game i smashed after a
few minutes was Knightrider, also by Ocean) but i regret destroying those
games.(i'm gonna download them to get a few laughs)
> It was slow and badly
> programmed. The Spectrum and Amstrad CPC version got around 90% and had
> different graphics. I doubt the C64-version was a port although it was
> badly programmed.
It must have been a quick port.. I can't think of another reason to
use monochrome hires-graphics (green and black, if im not mistaken).
> The CPC-version on the other hand has the look of typical Spectrum-port
> and was probably ported. Not a bad thing as the Spectrum-version was so
> playable.
Yep. I found the Speccy version to be quite impressive. My regards to the
coders (NOT the C64 version :-)
> BTW, is there any thruth in that the Spectrum can not do anything else
> while playing sounds?
Well, i'm not exactly an zx expert, but im pretty sure it's possible.
It's just that it takes a lot of cpu power to get the timing right.
(fiddling with the 1-bit soundregister)
/Christer
angel...@my-dejanews.com
judge.1.hat...@innocent.com (Christer) wrote:
> In article <3663D2...@adm.hioslo.no>, Ivar....@adm.hioslo.no
> says...
>
> > I remember reading reviews of the 8-bit versions of Chase HQ in C&VG.
> > The C64 version looked crap compared to Spectrum-version and according
> > to the review it got score of around 30%.
>
> I remember that i played CHQ in the arcades and bought it the same day it
> appeared on the C64. However, i played it for about 30 seconds and then
> smashed the cassette with a hammer!
> > The CPC-version on the other hand has the look of typical Spectrum-port
> > and was probably ported. Not a bad thing as the Spectrum-version was so
> > playable.
We're not actually talking about *Chase HQ* here, are we? The CPC version of
Chase HQ looked nothing like the Speccy version! CHQ *was* very playable, but
it sounds like some of the people posting in this thread are actually
remembering a completely different game...
Philip Lynx
<<...through the darkness of the night...>>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Brix
says...
> > I think the CPC just needed the C-64s SID chip, the modulator and the ability to display
> > hardware-sprites and it would have been the superior Homecomputer on the Market during the
> > 80s.. although I don't really like the Z80.. a 6510 on 2 Mhz would have been better and
> > faster (the C-64 is 1 Mhz clocked, because of the VIC - the 6510 won't ever worry..)
>
> popularity (it is still the most popular microprocessor in the world, BTW) & software
> base to go with it (CP/M), it was almost used exclusively by manufacturers of
> business machines. Until Big Blue came along of course.
>
> But a 6510 @ 2MHz...I don't think you would find a lot of people to agree with
> you outside the C64 community.
Before you react, please read this one through completely..
Ataris, the first Apples, the SVI-Spectravideo, and the BBCmicros were all 6502 based
systems... so there'll be enough people to agree with the type of processor.
You know that the 6502 (and 6510) needs less cycles per operation than the Z80, because it
uses pipelining, don't you? That causes the 6502 at 1 Mhz to be about as fast as a 3 Mhz
clocked Z80.
So you'd need a 6 Mhz Z80 to match the speed of a 2 Mhz 6502. Nowadays people are glad if
they have the same speed with less clock-frequency... the big advantage of MACs compared
to IBM-compatibles, by the way.
There is basically no problem to port CP/M to 6510 code, but e.g. Apple had their own OS,
so they did not need CP/M.. like most of the other 65xx based systems (BBC had ADFS for
example).
This is why you won't find CP/M on 65xx systems.. they didn't think they needed it..
although I think it would have been a good thing, b.t.w. , because CP/M was very popular.
There is also no real problem in compiling Pascal sourcecodes for CP/M programs to 65xx..
this would have provided a good portability between Z80 based CP/M programs and 65xx based
CP/M programs.
Did you know that IBM wanted a 6502 as a processor for their Systems, before Intel showed
up with a great list of further improvements ? Nearly none of the "future projects" was
started in the Intel Labs, and only some got realized. Read the book "inside intel" to get
a clue.
I think both processors had their advantages in their instruction set, but 65xx surely had
a better use of clockcycles... no one could deny that.
Imagine the CPC had a 65xx at 2 Mhz from start AND CP/M.. then you wouldn't ever have
thought about what it was like if it had a Z80 then.. you were used to it as much as you
are to the Z80 now.. maybe you would have wished the 65xx had a few of the good Z80
features (as 65xx programmer have). I'm pretty sure that Z80 coders sometimes wished the
Z80 would need as less cycles per instruction as the 65xx does, don't you?
65xx at 2 Mhz would have been faster that a Z80 at 3 Mhz, so with a 2 Mhz 6510 you would
have had a FASTER CPC or Spectrum.. hey, who dislikes a FAST machine? The faster the
better.
Anyway.. I don't want to break off any system-discussion again... just think about it
objective and you get a clue what I'm trying to say.
-Brix-
--
Listening to your car radio doesn't make you an amatuer radio operator.
Driving said car doesn't make you an automotive engineer. Hell, even
speaking doesn't make you a linguist. Yet, somehow, playing "Doom" seems to make one
a bona fide computer hobbyist, qualified to scorn me and my lowly C64.
Personal HP: http://www.plush.de/brix
GO64!magazine
CSW-Verlag
Goethestr.22
71364 Winnenden
Deutschland
Tel:/Fax: +49(0)7195/61120
GO64!magazine: http://www.go64.c64.org
Brix
> Ummm... ignoring the fact that you'd be limited to 256 bytes of stack space,
> no it wouldn't be faster than a Z80.
Where is the problem with that? 256 Bytes stack is enough when you don't need the stack as
often as a Z80 does.
The 6510 has pretty fast indexing.. no need for the PUSH instruction Z80 has.
The PHA and PLA instructions of the 6510 are used to push and pull single bytes onto the
stack.. they need 4 cycles for the operation (push/pull on/from stack and
increase/decrease Stackpointer).. we only use them to temporaly store a value or two..
Of course if you think Z80 you need a large stack.. but if you think 6510 you don't.
> Z80's around the time of the CPC were running at 6MHz.
I'm pretty sure that the CPC 664 and 464 had a 3 Mhz clocked Z80 and that was as fast as
6510 at 1 Mhz..
A 6 MHZ Z80 is again not faster than a 2Mhz 6510.. it matches the performance.
Clockspeed is not equal processor speed, you know?
Anyway.. I don't know how fast the 65xx was clocked "around the time of the CPC" (CPC was
built later than the C64), but I'm pretty sure they have made it faster too since the
6510. And the version used for the C-64 could easily be overclocked to 2 Mhz without any
harm (don't know if someone clocked the 6510 faster).
I guess "around the time of the CPC" the 65xx has reached about 4 Mhz.
Gotta ask an ol' processor guru about that if I find someone.
Brix
says...
> The c64 sound was much better than the amstrads, the one exception being
> Glider Rider and the shoot em up level of Agent x 2 (which I bought for
> 25p at the time in WH Smith!)
>
> computers.
>
> I still love and use my amstrad but would like to get hold of a c64 with
> a load of games
Damn right.. I wished my CPC didn't break.
The problem is: When I find a working CPC, where do I get the 3" Discs from? I'm no
soldering-hero, so I won't ever try to install a 3.5" drive on my own.. btw: does a 3.5"
drive work as perfectly as a 3" drive does on CPC ?
Brix
> :I don't really know all the business and word-processing programs on CPC,
> but I think if
> :soneone would give enough patience and skill in it, it is possible to equal
> the
> :performance with a C64 for sure.
>
> Doubt it. Even ignoring the CPC's higher resolution screen, the ability to
> put programs in ROM and have them available from start-up (ala Protext and
> Maxam) gives the CPC a massive advantage over the other machines.
Ok, ignoring the higher resolution.. it is a big advantage for CPC users and makes it
easier for Programmers to code good business software, but your ROM-statement doesn't
work:
Did you ever hear about Cartridges on the C-64? They have an EPROM or ROM on it and make
Programs available at startup.. you could also replace the C64 by an Eprom and install
some switches.. does the same Job, but isn't as nice if you want to replace software.
> Having CPM (crap as it is) from day 1 was also a big advantage.
>
> :> How many more CPCs would have been sold if there was no bundled monitor
> :> though, and a built in modulator? Perhaps twice as many?
> :
> :A lot more for sure... twice? Hm, maybe.
>
> I dunno. Reading high-res text of a TV set would've been damn near
> impossible, throwing away that loverly business software. And you'd have
> killed off almost every single fancy demo trick that ever existed for the
> machine. Sure the monitor was a bastard cost wise, but it really is worth it
> in the long run.
Maybe this is the reason why they didn't really try to install 80 characters display on a
stock C64 - it was useless unless you had a Monitor. There has been a 80characters card
for the C-64 but it wasn't perfect.
> :I think the CPC just needed the C-64s SID chip, the modulator and the
> ability to display
> :hardware-sprites and it would have been the superior Homecomputer on the
> Market during the :80s.. although I don't really like the Z80.. a 6510 on 2
> Mhz would have been better and
> :faster (the C-64 is 1 Mhz clocked, because of the VIC - the 6510 won't ever
> worry..)
>
> You're thinking along the right lines. A CPC with hardware sprites, better
> sound, support for analogue joysticks, a few thousand extra colours and
> maybe some extra fancy gubbins would be cool. If only I could lay my hands
> on such an amazing machine...
Good that someone understands what I'm trying to say, and doesn't feel insultet if I think
about combining the advantages of both machines.
BTW: the CPCplus had such things, hadn't it ?
Brix
says...
> > Haha, and YOU say a better machine than a C-64?
> > No 50fps paralax-scrollers, action without sound... oh, god..
>
> Of course, you don't need any 50fps scroller to make a smoothly
> animated scroll. You also don't need special video hardware
> to make games if your CPU is fast enough for the resolution it
> must handle.
I know, but scrolling 2 pixel wide and having 25 fps is stoddering like hell (you ever
tried that?), so the faster you scroll the more fps you need to have a smooth scroll (this
is why you have a motion blur in good and fast raytracing animations).
Anyway.. the Z80 at 3.5 Mhz was only slightly faster than the 65xx at 1 Mhz (1 Mhz 6510
equals about 3 Mhz Z80.. a 3.5 Mhz Z80 has 3.5/3 = 1.16 the speed of 1 Mhz 6510.. let's
round up, so the 3.5 Mhz Z80 is 0.2 times faster).
So we have a 3.5 Mhz Z80 in a speccy being 0.2 times faster than a 6510 at 1 Mhz.
I'm pretty sure that Videochips make up more of 0.2 processor performance.
thurstan.johnston
128k!!!
MAybe it was a speccy port, but if it was it had been souped up greatly
Andrew Cadley
:> Really? I could've sworn I'd already mentioned Prehistorik II. Okay so
:> it uses snap scrolling, but it *still* does overlay parallax at 50FPS.
:
:I'm still finding it difficult to believe that anything with a refresh
:*that* slow in the emulators is actually doing 50FPS. And even if it is
:we get to the bit about the CPC+ being a latecomer...
Trust me, its definately doing 50FPS. The problem is that certain demo
techniques, like rapid palette switching can slow down the emulators by an
awful lot. And Prehistroik 2 changes the palette very, very, *very* often.
:> Even the vanilla version has three levels of parallax (Static copper-
:> style horizon, raster text scroll and then the main foreground)
:
:Does Mutlimachine not show this, then? Okay, so we'll skip those
:examples since I can't see the parallax, I'll mention Hawkeye and
:Rubicon, which both have a similar scroller to Flimbo and you produce
:two more examples that actually get somewhere near full framerate that I
:can see in the emu, okay?
Multimachine will show the static backgroundy bit (which is admittedly a bit
crap on the vanillas) but the raster text just looks like a bunch of thin
colur stripes. You need either a real CPC (best option) or one of the next
generation emulators (CaPriCe and Arnold) to see it. Although if you think
Multimachine is slow...
If you ignore Prehistorik 2 then, well, basically you've won. I mean, let's
face facts. Our screen is something like 16 times bigger than yours. Add to
that the fact you only need to manipulate 8 bytes to pull off a basic
parallax effect, whereas we need to redraw a large portion of the screen.
Without using just about every trick in the book, you'd struggle to do 50FPS
full screen scrolling. You *might*, possibly be able to, just about, do
simple Retrograde-ish, parallax with some palette manipulation but I don't
know of anything that does and I doubt it's really worth it.
:> ...As for the soundtrack, I'd still prefer a copy of the
:> Manics latest album in the background than the music in any game, 8
:> bit or otherwise.
:
:This is because you've not had a lot of choice, really... =-)
Well plenty of SNES and PC stuff has in game music and most of it has me
reaching for the volume control. I guess I just prefer *real* music. :-)
:> I never said Retrograde wasn't doing parallax. I just said it looked
:> shite. Well, once you've had someone point out to you that it is
:> actually there at all.
:
:Okay, so I'm saying the starfield in Stormlord looks shite then, it's
:too slow. That said, so is the rest of the game. =-)
Well that's all right then. 'cos it is a bit shit, but at least it's there.
:)
:So, they didn't change the stone blocks from three greys to cyan, grey
:and brown because the CPC hasn't got three greys, then? Next you'll be
:telling me the rocks in Rick Dangerous are blue because the programmers
:thought it looked better... [snigger]
So what if we don't have three greys. I wouldn't start counting colours if
*I* were you, 'cos I've a feeling we'd win. :) As for Rick D. I certainly
wouldn't start boasting about the C64 graphics if I were you, I mean, yellow
and *grey* platforms, don't you have enough yellows or something? As for the
badguys, well, let's just say they're, um, a bit minimalist.
:Ah, you're going to have to tell me how your obviously defective
:dictionary defines "colour density" as well then, 'cos I've put a screen
:grab of both versions next to each other and the CPC is using an exact
:drop of the C64 graphics, just with crap colours and in less screen
:space. Oh, except that the lead sprite on the C64 has less colours
:*but* this is because he's in a higher res.
According to my dictionary, it's the number of colours in a small space.
So anywhere the main sprite is has a higher colour density then doesn't it?
So does the status panel (A *yellow* moon, what's that all about then?)
AndyC
Andrew Cadley
Ivar Fiske wrote in message <3664F...@adm.hioslo.no>...
:I'm sorry about this but I was thinking about Wec Le Mans. Sorry!
That explains a lot, 'cos that was just a quick port. Although, of course,
it surfaced again later on as Burnin' Rubber. A game *so* cool, just about
every plus or GX owner has it.
;-)
AndyC
lo...@my.sig
:> Ummm... ignoring the fact that you'd be limited to 256 bytes of stack space,
:> no it wouldn't be faster than a Z80.
: Where is the problem with that? 256 Bytes stack is enough when you don't need the stack as
: often as a Z80 does.
But the 6502/10 needs the stack one hell of a lot more than the Z80.
The z80 has a hell of a lot more register space, so the stack only tends to
get used for extra fast memory access (by relocating it temporarily), or for
storing procedure return calls.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5...@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk| |
| Andrew Halliwell | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| Finalist in:- | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.12 GCS>$ d-(dpu) s+/- a C++ US++ P L/L+ E-- W+ N++ o+ K PS+ w-- M+/++ |
|PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ X+/X++ R+ tv+ b+ DI+ D+ G e>e++ h/h+ !r!| Space for hire |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Wykes
<Ivar....@adm.hioslo.no> burnt calories typing the following:
>Jason wrote:
>
>> And I said it looked shyte the day I saw it, and the same goes for Chase
>> HQ and Starglider, both of those apparently use badly botched ports of
>> the Speccy code.
<snip>
>
>The CPC-version on the other hand has the look of typical Spectrum-port
>and was probably ported. Not a bad thing as the Spectrum-version was so
>playable.
>
No it wasn't, the loading screen was the same but the graphics were
CPC. It was coded by the same people on both machines so i'm sure
there was some common code but nothing that would classify it as a
port-over.
David
David Wykes
burnt calories typing the following:
>Right, back to normal after most of issue 12 of Commodore Zone. Sorry
>for the delay in responding, but I had a few articles and a load of
>files to link...
>
>Jason =-)
>> That's more than a tad rich coming from the land of the CPC where the
>> phrases "quick port", "Speccy graphics" and "CPC version" are commonly
>> used together (normally with "sod it, they'll never notice").
>
>Andy:
>> And that reflects on the capabilites of the machine how exactly?
>
>It reflects the company's opinion of the machine, we got *some* ports,
>you got a *lot* of ports... Hewson (since we're talking Stormlord
>below) are a prime example, the games tended to start on the C64 or
>Speccy, the other machine got a complete re-build during conversion (new
>code, graphics and sound) and the CPC just got whatever could be cobbled
>together from the bits.
Hewson a prime example?
I can't quite rememvber thinking that Exolon, Cybernoid 1 & 2 or
Stormlord ever reminded me of spectrum graphics.
I seem to remember Stormloard & Vybernoid looking C64 like but i
suspect that was due to having common graphic artists, not due to it
being a portover. Besides Raff cecco was a CPC/Spectrum programmer
anyway so the games were written for them and then converted to the
C64.
I think a lot of the ports came down to there being a lack of decent
programmers who knew how to get the best out of the CPC. The Spectrum
came first and people learnt on that before the CPC came out which
needed more work to get the best out of it.
David Perry said he was "challenged" to get Trantor scrolling smoothly
on the CPC because Probe didn't think it could be done. Needless to
say he proved them wrong.
David
Andrew Cadley
Brix wrote in message ...
:
:Ok, ignoring the higher resolution.. it is a big advantage for CPC users
and makes it
:easier for Programmers to code good business software, but your
ROM-statement doesn't
:work:
Trust me, it does.
:Did you ever hear about Cartridges on the C-64? They have an EPROM or ROM
on it and make
:Programs available at startup.. you could also replace the C64 by an Eprom
and install
:some switches.. does the same Job, but isn't as nice if you want to replace
software.
Yeah, but you can only have one cartridge in at a time. I know what you're
thinking, that you'd only want to use one piece of software at a time
anyway, so it doesn't matter.
However, a CPC could have Protext in ROM giving you a handy wordprocessor
for typing letters using ProSpell to spellcheck it. Or you might use it for
typing assembly code which you naturally compile using Maxam. All this is
saved to your 3.5" disc drive, which supports a number of different formats,
thank to Parados. Then you drop into Basic, which itself has been heavily
extended by the large number of RSXs you recently blew into your own EPROM.
:> You're thinking along the right lines. A CPC with hardware sprites,
better
:> sound, support for analogue joysticks, a few thousand extra colours and
:> maybe some extra fancy gubbins would be cool. If only I could lay my
hands
:> on such an amazing machine...
:
:Good that someone understands what I'm trying to say, and doesn't feel
insultet if I think
:about combining the advantages of both machines.
Of course I'm not insulted, I'm expecting the next sentence you type.
:BTW: the CPCplus had such things, hadn't it ?
Muhahahahahah! World domination is at last mine! :)
AndyC
Jason
> Trust me, its definately doing 50FPS. The problem is that certain demo
> techniques, like rapid palette switching can slow down the emulators
> by an awful lot. And Prehistroik 2 changes the palette very, very,
> *very* often.
Alright, I'll have to take your word for it, I don't know anyone who has
a real machine to be able to see it in the "flesh".
> If you ignore Prehistorik 2 then, well, basically you've won. I mean,
> let's face facts. Our screen is something like 16 times bigger than
> yours.
And you have the almighty Z80, wasn't that supposed to be the great
equaliser to the C64's video hardware? How big *is* your screen then?
> Add to that the fact you only need to manipulate 8 bytes to pull off a
> basic parallax effect, whereas we need to redraw a large portion of
> the screen.
[To everybody who hasn't seen Flimbo or the other games, they use more
complex parallax than just a repeated character]
> Well plenty of SNES and PC stuff has in game music and most of it has
> me reaching for the volume control. I guess I just prefer *real*
> music. :-)
SNES and PC games have me doing the same, but I can't think of anything
"real" that I prefer to SID based music.
Jason =-)
> ...Next you'll be telling me the rocks in Rick Dangerous are blue
> because the programmers thought it looked better... [snigger]
Andy:
> So what if we don't have three greys. I wouldn't start counting
> colours if *I* were you, 'cos I've a feeling we'd win. :)
Not if you want a good framerate out of it. =-)
> As for Rick D. I certainly wouldn't start boasting about the C64
> graphics if I were you, I mean, yellow and *grey* platforms, don't you
> have enough yellows or something?
Blue rocks... [hysterics] Ahem. Okay, so the C64 version of RD is
using a minimal palette because they wanted to scroll the screen fast,
but it *still* didn't have to resort to... [giggle] No, I'm not going
to say it again. =-)
> So anywhere the main sprite is has a higher colour density then
> doesn't it?
Tradeoff, the C64 lead sprite is twice the res and only sacrifices three
colours. Seems fair to me. =-)
Kev Thacker
>Multimachine will show the static backgroundy bit (which is admittedly a bit
>crap on the vanillas) but the raster text just looks like a bunch of thin
>colur stripes. You need either a real CPC (best option) or one of the next
>generation emulators (CaPriCe and Arnold) to see it. Although if you think
>Multimachine is slow...
rasters to define hills and mountains in the background. However, it
is fast. Unfortunatly, CaPriCe doesn't emulate the CPC+, but I expect
it's a matter of time.
Kev
Garbled Broadcast
-)However, a CPC could have Protext in ROM giving you a handy
-)wordprocessor for typing letters using ProSpell to spellcheck it. Or
-)you might use it for typing assembly code which you naturally compile
-)using Maxam. All this is saved to your 3.5" disc drive, which supports
-)a number of different formats, thank to Parados. Then you drop into
-)Basic, which itself has been heavily extended by the large number of
-)RSXs you recently blew into your own EPROM.
This is part of the CPC I always wanted. Now add Advanced Art Studio into
a ROM (I wish they had done that) and you would have a great machine! It
would have been cool if Amstrad had put Protext or ParaDOS (or ROMDOS) in
that spare 16k on the CPC+ cartridge though. (the cost withstanding of
course)
Would it be possible to create you own Plus cartridge? i.e. put BASIC and
AmsDOS on it, as normal, but also put Protext, Prospell, ProFile(?),
ParaDOS and (CPC+) BASIC extensions in the rest of the 128k a cartridge
could hold? Hell, Amstrad could have sold the CPC+ as an off the shelf
small business machine as well as a games machine, just by having a
different cartridge. Of course there was the PCW, but...
-):BTW: the CPCplus had such things, hadn't it ?
-)Muhahahahahah! World domination is at last mine! :)
:)
Graham
David Cantrell
enlightened us thusly:
>There is basically no problem to port CP/M to 6510 code, but e.g. Apple had their own OS,
>so they did not need CP/M.. like most of the other 65xx based systems (BBC had ADFS for
>example).
Wrong. Whilst it would be possible to port the CP/M OS to run on a
65xx, porting 1000s of applications would not be practical. That's
why, for instance, Acorn released a Z80 co-processor module for the
BBC B, so it could run CP/M software.
>This is why you won't find CP/M on 65xx systems.. they didn't think they needed it..
>although I think it would have been a good thing, b.t.w. , because CP/M was very popular.
CP/M _applications_ were popular. Please don't confuse the OS with
the applications which it was used for.
>There is also no real problem in compiling Pascal sourcecodes for CP/M programs to 65xx..
>this would have provided a good portability between Z80 based CP/M programs and 65xx based
>CP/M programs.
Lots of CP/M software was written in assembler.
>Imagine the CPC had a 65xx at 2 Mhz from start AND CP/M..
Hello Heathrow tower, this is BA203. We've just been passed by a pig,
climbing past 15,000 ft and accelerating towards Mach 2.
> then you wouldn't ever have
>thought about what it was like if it had a Z80 then.. you were used to it as much as you
>are to the Z80 now.. maybe you would have wished the 65xx had a few of the good Z80
>features (as 65xx programmer have). I'm pretty sure that Z80 coders sometimes wished the
>Z80 would need as less cycles per instruction as the 65xx does, don't you?
>65xx at 2 Mhz would have been faster that a Z80 at 3 Mhz, so with a 2 Mhz 6510 you would
>have had a FASTER CPC or Spectrum.. hey, who dislikes a FAST machine? The faster the
>better.
You would have also needed faster peripheral components, adding to the
price.
>Anyway.. I don't want to break off any system-discussion again... just think about it
>objective and you get a clue what I'm trying to say.
We are all plenty clued up, and most of us are quite familiar with
both 65xx and Z80. There's no need to be so rude.
--
David Cantrell, part-time Unix/perl/SQL/java techie
full-time chef/musician/homebrewer
occasional CPC user
http://www.ThePentagon.com/NukeEmUp
Gerard Sweeney / Hackers Anonymous
> Unfortunatly, CaPriCe doesn't emulate the CPC+, but I expect
> it's a matter of time.
Well, I suppose now that she isn't doing the Wonderbra ads anymore, she's
got a bit more spare time on her hands :-)
Toodle-pip!
Gerard
--
Gerard Sweeney - Hackers Anonymous/Team Amiga
Visit The Hackers Anonymous Speccy Playground for Hack Attack 3
where you're always likely to get a good POKE (fnar!).
Or look for speccy games using the NVG catalogue. All at:
http://fly.to/ha3 , http://fly.to/nvgcat or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/4871
Jason
> Hewson are a prime example, the games tended to start on the C64 or
> Speccy, the other machine got a complete re-build during conversion
> (new code, graphics and sound) and the CPC just got whatever could be
> cobbled together from the bits.
David Wykes:
> I can't quite rememvber thinking that Exolon, Cybernoid 1 & 2 or
> Stormlord ever reminded me of spectrum graphics.
Cybernoid 2 and Stormlord used drops of the C64 graphics. *Please* read
what I said, I didn't say they were drops of Spectrum graphics, just
"cobbled together from the bits". Okay, so it was a *slightly* hefty
generalisation (Cybernoid had it's own graphics but, rather tellingly,
Cybernoid 2 didn't) but thinking of Hewson's stock there was nothing I
can think of that actually *originated* on the CPC and was converted to
the other platforms.
I'm interested to know if I'm wrong there, my memory *is* wobbly
sometimes and a title may have escaped me but I *really* can't think of
one.
> Besides Raff cecco was a CPC/Spectrum programmer anyway so the games
> were written for them and then converted to the C64.
In the case of Stormlord, the Speccy version came first, the C64 version
second and the CPC third. Otherwise, how did the CPC get the C64's
graphics? Unless Hugh *suddenly* decided he wanted to originate stuff
from another format...
> I think a lot of the ports came down to there being a lack of decent
> programmers who knew how to get the best out of the CPC. The Spectrum
> came first and people learnt on that before the CPC came out which
> needed more work to get the best out of it.
The Spectrum came before the C64 as well, but we still have our own
legendary programmers, a good machine shouldn't have to worry about it's
forerunners like that.
Brix
> >There is basically no problem to port CP/M to 6510 code, but e.g. Apple had their own OS,
> >so they did not need CP/M.. like most of the other 65xx based systems (BBC had ADFS for
> >example).
>
> Wrong. Whilst it would be possible to port the CP/M OS to run on a
> 65xx, porting 1000s of applications would not be practical. That's
> why, for instance, Acorn released a Z80 co-processor module for the
> BBC B, so it could run CP/M software.
The C128 had a Z80 coprocessor too to run CP/M.
> >This is why you won't find CP/M on 65xx systems.. they didn't think they needed it..
> >although I think it would have been a good thing, b.t.w. , because CP/M was very popular.
>
> CP/M _applications_ were popular. Please don't confuse the OS with
> the applications which it was used for.
Didn't mean to do this. An OS is nothing without it's applications of course, but
comparing CP/M to QDos for example is a clear thing: Qdos loses.
> >There is also no real problem in compiling Pascal sourcecodes for CP/M programs to 65xx..
> >this would have provided a good portability between Z80 based CP/M programs and 65xx based
> >CP/M programs.
>
> Lots of CP/M software was written in assembler.
I know, but most of the Games that were ported from 65xx to Z80 and the other way round
was written in Assembler too.. and still they managed it.. and I think we could agree that
porting Business applications is easier than porting games, where the hardware must be
driven to the max.
What I was about to say was that the CP/M system could have set a certain frame for the
applications, as far as system calls are concerned. This would have made porting easier.
> >Imagine the CPC had a 65xx at 2 Mhz from start AND CP/M..
>
> Hello Heathrow tower, this is BA203. We've just been passed by a pig,
> climbing past 15,000 ft and accelerating towards Mach 2.
:)
> >then you wouldn't ever have
> >thought about what it was like if it had a Z80 then.. you were used to it as much as you
> >are to the Z80 now.. maybe you would have wished the 65xx had a few of the good Z80
> >features (as 65xx programmer have). I'm pretty sure that Z80 coders sometimes wished the
> >Z80 would need as less cycles per instruction as the 65xx does, don't you?
> >65xx at 2 Mhz would have been faster that a Z80 at 3 Mhz, so with a 2 Mhz 6510 you would
> >have had a FASTER CPC or Spectrum.. hey, who dislikes a FAST machine? The faster the
> >better.
>
> You would have also needed faster peripheral components, adding to the
> price.
Hm, when the components (e.g. RAM and I/O) you need can be clocked fast enough for a Z80
then a slower clock with a faster Processor-architecture isn't really a problem I guess.
> >Anyway.. I don't want to break off any system-discussion again... just think about it
> >objective and you get a clue what I'm trying to say.
>
> We are all plenty clued up, and most of us are quite familiar with
> both 65xx and Z80. There's no need to be so rude.
I didn't mean to be rude. Maybe it sounded this way, but this may be because English is
not my native language. I'm just making my own thoughts about some things and try to
explain my point in a position that is (hopefully) objective. As I mentioned in this
newsgroup before I was programming a CPC too when I started (ok, it was Basic, but who
cares).. I still like both machines: CPC and C-64.
Brix
> In the sacred domain of comp.sys.sinclair didst Brix <br...@NOSPAMplush.de> eloquently scribe:
>
> :> Ummm... ignoring the fact that you'd be limited to 256 bytes of stack space,
> :> no it wouldn't be faster than a Z80.
>
> : Where is the problem with that? 256 Bytes stack is enough when you don't need the stack as
> : often as a Z80 does.
>
> But the 6502/10 needs the stack one hell of a lot more than the Z80.
> The z80 has a hell of a lot more register space, so the stack only tends to
> get used for extra fast memory access (by relocating it temporarily), or for
> storing procedure return calls.
I'm using the stack on a C-64 rather seldom.. and nearly everyone I know uses is as seldom
as possible too. This is not because the stack is so small, but because of the LIFO-
structure. When I miss a register I just store the data in a Zeropage-Adress (1 byte
adress size and faster access than 16bit adress access).
Brix
> thinking, that you'd only want to use one piece of software at a time
> anyway, so it doesn't matter.
>
> for typing letters using ProSpell to spellcheck it. Or you might use it for
> typing assembly code which you naturally compile using Maxam. All this is
> saved to your 3.5" disc drive, which supports a number of different formats,
> thank to Parados. Then you drop into Basic, which itself has been heavily
> extended by the large number of RSXs you recently blew into your own EPROM.
1st: You can have more than one Program on a ROM-cartridge.
2nd: If you need more space, you simply apply a port-switcher switching 3 coartridges or
more.
3rd: There is a device called RAM link. It has up to 4MB of accu buffered memory.. that
should be enough to hold all applications you need ready to be loaded in less than a
second.
> :> You're thinking along the right lines. A CPC with hardware sprites,
> better
> :> sound, support for analogue joysticks, a few thousand extra colours and
> :> maybe some extra fancy gubbins would be cool. If only I could lay my
> hands
> :> on such an amazing machine...
> :
> :Good that someone understands what I'm trying to say, and doesn't feel
> insultet if I think
> :about combining the advantages of both machines.
>
> Of course I'm not insulted, I'm expecting the next sentence you type.
>
> :BTW: the CPCplus had such things, hadn't it ?
>
> Muhahahahahah! World domination is at last mine! :)
:) not really world domination, but the best stock 8 bit machine I've heard of so far :)
Whether I like the Z80 or not, if the machine around the processor is cool it makes up all
the disadvantages of the cycle-wasting of the processor.
Brix
>
> > Add to that the fact you only need to manipulate 8 bytes to pull off a
> > basic parallax effect, whereas we need to redraw a large portion of
> > the screen.
>
> [To everybody who hasn't seen Flimbo or the other games, they use more
> complex parallax than just a repeated character]
Check the games Turrican and Turrican2 on C64:
50fps 8-way Paralax scrolling, 3 Layers (2 layers are complex multicolor graphics 1 is a
repeated HIRES character), hundreds of sprites (some are animated multiplexed sprites, the
rest are "sprites" of the CPC's kind we call BOBs), the playersprite is a hires-on-
multicolor overlay sprite.. not to mention that it has sound effects and stunning Music in
some levels (the levels are damn huge by the way). The game to beat for CPC and Spectrum.
I played it on Amiga too and I must say that it is not better at all, if you forget about
the finer graphics.. the difference is very small.
lo...@my.sig
That depends WHICH QDOS you're talking about.
MY QDOS beats CP/M hands down. It's a 32bit OS with such nice features as
SuperBASIC as a command language, Pre-emptive multitasking, windows,
easy-to-write and link in extentions....
If you're talking about the one for the PC the devolved into MSDOS, then
that's a different matter.
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
|u5...@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk|in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| Finalist in:- |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
Simon Matthews
> soldering-hero, so I won't ever try to install a 3.5" drive on my own.. btw: does a 3.5"
> drive work as perfectly as a 3" drive does on CPC ?
:-)
Don't worry - it's easy to install a 3.5" drive either as a replacement
to drive A or as a new drive B. Just an IDC connector (for the drive)
and an edge/amphenol connector for the CPC and a bit of 34 way ribbon
cable. Might also need a power supply, but it's not at all difficult to
set up.
--
Simon Matthews ------------------- s.j.ma...@btl.mds.qmw.ac.uk
Gotta see 'em make 'em pay the price..... chop "btl." to reply
* Unsolicited e-mail sent to me involving the words "virus" and *
* "warning" will be returned with a huge file attached. Thanks. *
Andrew Cadley
Brix wrote in message ...
t...@cosine.demon.co.uk ) says...
:Check the games Turrican and Turrican2 on C64:
Check the game Prehistorik II on the CPC:
:50fps 8-way Paralax scrolling, 3 Layers (2 layers are complex multicolor
graphics 1 is a
:repeated HIRES character),
50fps 8-way Parallax scrolling, 3 layers (Either, 1 static copper-esque
background, 1 27 colour raster text scroll and the main 16 colour foreground
*OR* 1 Even more copper-esque 16-ish colour background with hills and stuff
that scrolls vertically, the main 16 (different) colour game screen and a 15
(again different) colour foreground, depending on which version you play)
:hundreds of sprites (some are animated multiplexed sprites, th
:rest are "sprites" of the CPC's kind we call BOBs), the playersprite is a
hires-on-
:multicolor overlay sprite..
Agian, tons of sprites from the animated bushes that rustle in the wind to
the absolutely f*cking gigantic gorilla who shakes the entire screen as he
leaps about. And every single one of them is a BOB (the hardware sprites in
the plus version are multiplexed to produce the foreground layer).
And of course, it's all in widescreen.
:not to mention that it has sound effects and stunning Music in
:some levels (the levels are damn huge by the way). The game to beat for CPC
and Spectrum.
Sound effects and stunning music on every single level. Well, if you can
drag yourself away from the *gorgeous* stereo sampled music on the title
screen of the plus version.
Unfortunately you haven't got a snowballs chance in hell of ever converting
it fully to the Speccy or C64. :-)
AndyC
Andrew Cadley
Brix wrote in message ...
:1st: You can have more than one Program on a ROM-cartridge.
Doesn't really help if you want to buy the programs separately though.
:2nd: If you need more space, you simply apply a port-switcher switching 3
coartridges or
:more.
:3rd: There is a device called RAM link. It has up to 4MB of accu buffered
memory.. that
:should be enough to hold all applications you need ready to be loaded in
less than a
:second.
And are they both supported by the OS as standard, i.e. can you store
extensions to BASIC in there? And can different ROM programs recognise and
co-operate with each other if both are present, with that sort of setup?
::) not really world domination, but the best stock 8 bit machine I've heard
of so far :)
:Whether I like the Z80 or not, if the machine around the processor is cool
it makes up all
:the disadvantages of the cycle-wasting of the processor.
Yes but one by one I'm converting C64 owners over to the CPC+. Soon
*everyone* will be using one and my plan will be complete. Muhahahahaha!
Ahem.
AndyC
Andrew Cadley
Garbled Broadcast wrote in message ...
[
CPC ROMs]
:This is part of the CPC I always wanted. Now add Advanced Art Studio into
:a ROM (I wish they had done that) and you would have a great machine! It
:would have been cool if Amstrad had put Protext or ParaDOS (or ROMDOS) in
:that spare 16k on the CPC+ cartridge though. (the cost withstanding of
:course)
I don't think there was a "spare" 16K. I think it was actually used by
Burnin' Rubber.
:Would it be possible to create you own Plus cartridge? i.e. put BASIC and
:AmsDOS on it, as normal, but also put Protext, Prospell, ProFile(?),
:ParaDOS and (CPC+) BASIC extensions in the rest of the 128k a cartridge
:could hold? Hell, Amstrad could have sold the CPC+ as an off the shelf
:small business machine as well as a games machine, just by having a
:different cartridge. Of course there was the PCW, but...
Theoretically, yes. However you'd need to find a source for the ACID
protection chip (tricky) or make some kind of bypass type thing to use one
from another cart (like some Codemasters NES games).
Personally, I'd kill for the opportunity to write some cart stuff, are the
specs for a .CPR file online somewhere?
AndyC
Andrew Cadley
Jason wrote in message ...
:Andy:
:And you have the almighty Z80, wasn't that supposed to be the great
:equaliser to the C64's video hardware? How big *is* your screen then?
16K as opposed to your 1K. Now I don't recall anybody claiming the Z80 gave
you 16 times better performance. Although P2, with a little help from the
other hardware, shows that it can certainly hold its own.
:> Add to that the fact you only need to manipulate 8 bytes to pull off a
:> basic parallax effect, whereas we need to redraw a large portion of
:> the screen.
:
:[To everybody who hasn't seen Flimbo or the other games, they use more
:complex parallax than just a repeated character]
I didn't mean to imply that's what Flimbo was using, but the *principle* is
still the same.
:SNES and PC games have me doing the same, but I can't think of anything
:"real" that I prefer to SID based music.
Hmmm, well if you prefer a 4 bit soundchip to proper instruments, well, er,
I don't think anyone can help you. ;-)
:Andy:
:> So what if we don't have three greys. I wouldn't start counting
:> colours if *I* were you, 'cos I've a feeling we'd win. :)
:
:Not if you want a good framerate out of it. =-)
Let me get this straight. You've accepted that Prehistorik 2 (which has 27
colours on-screen) has 50FPS and yet you *still* think you can get more
colours on screen at a higher framerate.
I think not.
:Blue rocks... [hysterics] Ahem. Okay, so the C64 version of RD is
:using a minimal palette because they wanted to scroll the screen fast,
:but it *still* didn't have to resort to... [giggle] No, I'm not going
:to say it again. =-)
So, despite all your claims that 50FPS is piss easy in full colour on the
64, you're now admitting that it isn't as easy as you'd like us to think...
:Tradeoff, the C64 lead sprite is twice the res and only sacrifices three
:colours. Seems fair to me. =-)
Looks better in multicolour though. :-)
AndyC
Andrew Cadley
Brix wrote in message ...
aral...@concentric.net )
:says...
:Before you react, please read this one through completely..
Have done. Twice in fact.
:You know that the 6502 (and 6510) needs less cycles per operation than the
Z80, because it
:uses pipelining, don't you? That causes the 6502 at 1 Mhz to be about as
fast as a 3 Mhz
:clocked Z80.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Absolutely brimming over with wrongability.
The 6502 is *not* pipelined, which would imply a CPI of 1 instruction per
cycle. It has an instruction prefetch, which is not the same thing by a long
shot.
:So you'd need a 6 Mhz Z80 to match the speed of a 2 Mhz 6502. Nowadays
people are glad if
:they have the same speed with less clock-frequency... the big advantage of
MACs compared
:to IBM-compatibles, by the way.
Clock speed is now far more irrelevant than ever before. RISC processors,
like PowerPC, are *much* more suited to pipelining and superscaler
implementations. Which is how they perform better at lower clock rates.
:Did you know that IBM wanted a 6502 as a processor for their Systems,
before Intel showed
:up with a great list of further improvements ? Nearly none of the "future
projects" was
:started in the Intel Labs, and only some got realized. Read the book
"inside intel" to get
:a clue.
I was under the impression IBM were considering 68K, but went for 80x86
because they already had the rights to manufacture them themselves.
:I think both processors had their advantages in their instruction set, but
65xx surely had
:a better use of clockcycles... no one could deny that.
But the Z80 was hardwired instead of microcoded, which is why it could be
clocked much faster. Now if they'd hardwired the 6502...
:65xx at 2 Mhz would have been faster that a Z80 at 3 Mhz, so with a 2 Mhz
6510 you would
:have had a FASTER CPC or Spectrum.. hey, who dislikes a FAST machine? The
faster the
:better.
Well, by the time the CPC was launched there were 6Mhz Z80s, but using one
would have meant higher costs and probably required faster support chips,
etc...
:Anyway.. I don't want to break off any system-discussion again... just
think about it
:objective and you get a clue what I'm trying to say.
I can see where your coming from, I just don't agree. Z80 has lots of nice
features like dynamic RAM refreshing and separate IO space which are much
better than the 6502 equivalent. However they tend to get overlooked in this
sort of discussion...
AndyC
Andrew Cadley
Brix wrote in message ...
:> Wrong. Whilst it would be possible to port the CP/M OS to run on a
:> 65xx, porting 1000s of applications would not be practical. That's
:> why, for instance, Acorn released a Z80 co-processor module for the
:> BBC B, so it could run CP/M software.
:
:The C128 had a Z80 coprocessor too to run CP/M.
Clocked at a crippling 2MHz though. :-(
AndyC
Andrew Cadley
Kev Thacker wrote in message <3667a68...@reading.news.pipex.net>...
:It doesn't show the raster background properly either. That uses split
:rasters to define hills and mountains in the background. However, it
:is fast. Unfortunatly, CaPriCe doesn't emulate the CPC+, but I expect
:it's a matter of time.
Well there's always Arnold. All I need is a 400Mhz PII...
:-)
AndyC
Andrew Cadley
Brix wrote in message ...
:
:I'm pretty sure that the CPC 664 and 464 had a 3 Mhz clocked Z80 and that
was as fast as
:6510 at 1 Mhz..
4Mhz. Although it doesn't get full performance, because of the way it is
interfaced to the gate array.
AndyC
John/Lori
> cycle. It has an instruction prefetch, which is not the same thing by a long
> shot.
Another one!
I'm curious what you mean by pipelined, that you think it doesn't,
apply to the 6502.
Not that I'm disputing your usage, the meaning either has shifted
or is shifting.
But the 6502 was originally touted as, and has always been known for,
being pipelined.
And as an 'Oh BTW', I once read of plans to build a 32 bit RISC
processor
based on the 6502. (well maybe "plans" is to strong a word, exploring
the possibility, maybe)
Antoine Pitrou
Andrew Cadley wrote:
> Let me get this straight. You've accepted that Prehistorik 2 (which has 27
> colours on-screen) has 50FPS and yet you *still* think you can get more
> colours on screen at a higher framerate.
erm, sorry Andrew, but on a normal CPC, Prehistorik 2's scrolling is maybe 50 fps,
but certainly not the sprites animation !! they're awfully slow, and that's why I've
always thought this game is a pile of shit : no gameplay !
Antoine.
Kira L. Brown
John/Lori <he...@spamsuxdoitnow.com> wrote:
> And as an 'Oh BTW', I once read of plans to build a 32 bit RISC
> processor
> based on the 6502. (well maybe "plans" is to strong a word, exploring
> the possibility, maybe)
Hmmm... ever programmed an ARM? Interesting that.
kira.
--
This is a tagline.
The Starglider
writes
>Jason =-)
>> Hewson are a prime example, the games tended to start on the C64 or
>> Speccy, the other machine got a complete re-build during conversion
>> (new code, graphics and sound) and the CPC just got whatever could be
>> cobbled together from the bits.
>
>David Wykes:
>> I can't quite rememvber thinking that Exolon, Cybernoid 1 & 2 or
>> Stormlord ever reminded me of spectrum graphics.
>
>Cybernoid 2 and Stormlord used drops of the C64 graphics. *Please* read
>what I said, I didn't say they were drops of Spectrum graphics, just
>"cobbled together from the bits". Okay, so it was a *slightly* hefty
>generalisation (Cybernoid had it's own graphics but, rather tellingly,
>Cybernoid 2 didn't) but thinking of Hewson's stock there was nothing I
>can think of that actually *originated* on the CPC and was converted to
>the other platforms.
out *AFTER* the Spectrum version???
ROTFLOL
There was an ongoing diary written by Raf himself in Crash! magazine
about him writing the games for the speccy.
--
**************The Starglider**************** CHANGE d.c.u PART OF
* E-Mail:starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk * ADDRESS TO:
* Web site:http://www.thespian.demon.co.uk * demon.co.uk
* NVG UPDATES:n...@thespian.demon.co.uk * TO REPLY.
* ICQ Number:1773852 * _WW_
* WWPAGER:http://wwp.mirabilis.com/1773852 * /_ _\
******************************************** | O O |
___________________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo___________
Garbled Broadcast
-)> The 6502 is *not* pipelined, which would imply a CPI of 1
-)instruction per > cycle. It has an instruction prefetch, which is not
-)the same thing by a long > shot.
I wouldn't go as far as saying the 6502 was a fully pipelined processor,
but it is more pipelined than other 8-bit chips. In this case, it is just
an instruction prefetch, probably done when the previous instruction is
executing, so the processor is doing more than one thing at once, and thus
getting better overall usage out of its silicon.
Many processors did an instruction prefetch, it is a shame that the Z80
didn't, but I believe that the Z180 and Z380 do (not 100% sure, but these
processors only take 1-3 clock cycles per instruction, so this seems a
reasonable assumption). I never saw them [any of the other processors that
is] described anywhere as pipelined.
Of course, for it to be pipelined by any reasonable modern definition (see
any hardware book in the last 15 years) you would see that to be truly
pipelined the processor would have to be split up into probably at least 3
separately concurrently functioning blocks, fetch, decode, and execute.
Perhaps the 6502 can do extremely fast decode on the wires into the
execution part of the chip, as most RISC processors can, thus missing this
stage out (and adding register read and write stages, writeback to a
previous stage, and a lot more).
Of course, the 6502 is not superscalar!
Oh, does the 6502 flush its "pipeline" on a branch instruction? Perhaps it
has a branch prediction unit on-board, or perhaps it does every available
option and then scraps the unwanted one... :)
What we need is a 4MHz Z80 that can do 1 instruction per clock cycle, thus
CPC owners would not need to cripple their video circuitry to have a
faster CPC...although I doubt it is that easy.
Graham
John/Lori
only applys to the way (computer) processors are organized?
Jason
> I'm using the stack on a C-64 rather seldom.. and nearly everyone I
> know uses is as seldom as possible too. This is not because the stack
> I just store the data in a Zeropage-Adress (1 byte adress size and
> faster access than 16bit adress access).
According to my PRG, a write to the zeropage takes just as long as a
push to the stack but reading back takes a cycle *less* than pulling the
stack.
I tend to just keep stuff in the tape buffer, it's one cycle longer to
write to (it's part of the normal RAM) but the same speed to read
back...
Alvin Albrecht
>
> > The 6502 is *not* pipelined, which would imply a CPI of 1 instruction per
> > cycle. It has an instruction prefetch, which is not the same thing by a long
> > shot.
>
>
> I'm curious what you mean by pipelined, that you think it doesn't,
> apply to the 6502.
The 6502 is not pipelined in the modern definition of the word.
They may have called it "pipelined" twenty years ago when the
meaning of pipelined processor was a little immature.
What you'd call it today would be instruction prefetch. Basically
a way to avoid wasting bandwidth on the data bus while the CPU was
busy.
The z80 used these empty cycles to automatically perform a refresh
on connected DRAMs - one of its selling points.
Alvin
Alvin Albrecht
> I'm using the stack on a C-64 rather seldom.. and nearly everyone I know uses is as seldom
> as possible too. This is not because the stack is so small, but because of the LIFO-
> structure. When I miss a register I just store the data in a Zeropage-Adress (1 byte
> adress size and faster access than 16bit adress access).
Having a small (relatively speaking) & fixed stack and page zero space is not a disadvantage
if you only run assembly programs in a single process environment.
It can become a disadvantage, for example, for language compilers which rely on
stacks to pass parameters to subroutines. It also makes it very difficult to do
any sort of multitasking without special hardware to bank memory in and out of
the zero page / stack area.
Not to mention all the neat tricks a relocatable 16 bit stack affords you :).
Alvin
Brian Watson
>Would it be possible to create you own Plus cartridge? i.e. put BASIC and
>Amsdos on it, as normal, but also put Protext, Prospell, ProFile(?),
that's Promerge and/or Protype - the print enhancer
>Parados and (CPC+) BASIC extensions in the rest of the 128k a cartridge
>could hold?
If it were I, as the current copyright holder of the ex-Arnor CPC/PCW
programs such as Protext etc, wouldn't mind at all.
I.e; permission is given .. blah .. blah .. etc .. etc....
--
Brian
Brian Watson
you're
>> thinking, that you'd only want to use one piece of software at a time
>> anyway, so it doesn't matter.
Unless the programs Protext, Promerge, Prospell, Maxam (assembler) etc are
acting together as a suite.
>>
>> However, a CPC could have Protext in ROM giving you a handy word
processor
>> for typing letters using Prospell to spellcheck it. Or you might use it
for
>> typing assembly code which you naturally compile using Maxam. All this is
>> saved to your 3.5" disc drive, which supports a number of different
formats,
>> thank to Parados. Then you drop into Basic, which itself has been heavily
>> extended by the large number of RSXs you recently blew into your own
EPROM.
>
>1st: You can have more than one Program on a ROM-cartridge.
But don't forget you need an operating system on it as well.
>2nd: If you need more space, you simply apply a port-switcher switching 3
cartridges
The rom board option is sounding more attractive<g>
> or
>more.
Good grief!
>3rd: There is a device called RAM link. It has up to 4MB of accu buffered
memory.. that
>should be enough to hold all applications you need ready to be loaded in
less than a
>second.
Bit slow for a standard CPC with a rom box , but still....
>> :> You're thinking along the right lines. A CPC with hardware sprites,
>> better
>> :> sound, support for analogue joysticks, a few thousand extra colours
and
>> :> maybe some extra fancy gubbins would be cool. If only I could lay my
>> hands
>> :> on such an amazing machine...
I think we're talking (sssh!) PC or Mac, aren't we?
>> :BTW: the CPC plus had such things, hadn't it ?
>>
>> Muhahahahahah! World domination is at last mine! :)
>
>:) not really world domination, but the best stock 8 bit machine I've heard
of so far :)
SAM Coupe/Elite, anyone?
--
Brian
Jason
> And you have the almighty Z80, wasn't that supposed to be the great
> equaliser to the C64's video hardware? How big *is* your screen then?
Andy:
> 16K as opposed to your 1K.
Erm, 2K actually, but...
> Now I don't recall anybody claiming the Z80 gave you 16 times better
> performance. Although P2, with a little help from the other hardware,
> shows that it can certainly hold its own.
...on the C64, Stormlord runs in bitmap mode. Our bitmap screen is
10,000 bytes long. I seem to remember *everyone* not on the C64
reckoned the Z80 was at least twice as fast as the 6510, so why is
Stormlord *four* times slower on the CPC? =-)
Just for the record, no VSP or Linecrunching bugs are used, Stormlord is
really moving that entire area at 50FPS just using the standard VIC-2
functions. *That's* why I was impressed.
Jason =-)
> [To everybody who hasn't seen Flimbo or the other games, they use more
> complex parallax than just a repeated character]
Andy:
> I didn't mean to imply that's what Flimbo was using, but the
> *principle* is still the same.
I know you didn't, but I didn't want any confusion. =-) Mind you, if
Flimbo and co. moved their parallax by redefining the characters there
wouldn't be enough frame time left to do 50FPS. It uses something a lot
more sneaky...
Andy:
> Let me get this straight. You've accepted that Prehistorik 2 (which
> has 27 colours on-screen) has 50FPS and yet you *still* think you can
> get more colours on screen at a higher framerate.
I've accepted your word that *one* game does it but I've not *seen* it
or anything else that can make any claims...
Jason =-)
> Blue rocks... [hysterics] Ahem. Okay, so the C64 version of RD is
> using a minimal palette because they wanted to scroll the screen fast,
> but it *still* didn't have to resort to... [giggle] No, I'm not
> going to say it again. =-)
Andy:
> So, despite all your claims that 50FPS is piss easy in full colour on
> the 64, you're now admitting that it isn't as easy as you'd like us to
> think...
It is piss easy, as long as you don't try to use a bitmap, RD uses just
enough colour that it doesn't have to use bitmap mode (and still
maintains the 320x200 stuff). Mayhem is a better example, that's
running in character mode but has tons of colour and even shifting a
bitmap isn't too hard if you know how, you've seen Fred's Back...
Blue rocks... [snigger]
Jason =-)
> Tradeoff, the C64 lead sprite is twice the res and only sacrifices
> three colours. Seems fair to me. =-)
Andy:
> Looks better in multicolour though. :-)
The Speccy users wouldn't agree, the C64 uses an enhanced version of
*their* lead sprite. =-)
Jason
> I can't quite rememvber thinking that Exolon, Cybernoid 1 & 2 or
> Stormlord ever reminded me of spectrum graphics.
Jason =-)
> Cybernoid 2 and Stormlord used drops of the C64 graphics. *Please*
> read that I said, I didn't say they were drops of Spectrum graphics,
> just "cobbled together from the bits". Okay, so it was a *slightly*
> hefty generalisation (Cybernoid had it's own graphics but, rather
> tellingly, Cybernoid 2 didn't) but thinking of Hewson's stock there
> was nothing I can think of that actually *originated* on the CPC and
> was converted to the other platforms.
Starglider:
> Are you saying that the speccy version of Cybernoid 2 and Stormlord
> came out *AFTER* the Spectrum version???
Nope, I never mentioned the Speccy in that context (and I *certainly*
didn't mention either coming out prior to it's *own* release) since I
assumed we *all* know which version came first, what I said was that the
*CPC* version was done after the C64 version.
Please pay attention, *there's* a good wireframe. =-)
Brix
> In the sacred domain of comp.sys.sinclair didst Brix <br...@NOSPAMplush.de> eloquently scribe:
> : Didn't mean to do this. An OS is nothing without it's applications of course, but
> : comparing CP/M to QDos for example is a clear thing: Qdos loses.
>
> That depends WHICH QDOS you're talking about.
> If you're talking about the one for the PC the devolved into MSDOS, then
> that's a different matter.
I was talking about this one
-Brix-
Brix
> Z80, because it
> :uses pipelining, don't you? That causes the 6502 at 1 Mhz to be about as
> fast as a 3 Mhz
> :clocked Z80.
>
> Wrong, wrong, wrong. Absolutely brimming over with wrongability.
>
> cycle. It has an instruction prefetch, which is not the same thing by a long
> shot.
We had a thread about this on comp.sys.cbm
Ask Cameron Kaiser vor the details or for the complete thread, my newsreader has already
dumped the articles.
It depends on how you define "Pipelining". There was a time where people called
Instruction prefetch "pipelining".. now it is just one thing among the pipelining-
criterias.
Anway.. still if you don't call it pipelining but instruction-prefetch, it is STILL
something the Z80 has NOT. Bummer.
> :So you'd need a 6 Mhz Z80 to match the speed of a 2 Mhz 6502. Nowadays
> people are glad if
> :they have the same speed with less clock-frequency... the big advantage of
> MACs compared
> :to IBM-compatibles, by the way.
> Clock speed is now far more irrelevant than ever before. RISC processors,
> like PowerPC, are *much* more suited to pipelining and superscaler
> implementations. Which is how they perform better at lower clock rates.
And, does it prove me any wrong? This is what I just said.
High speed with low frequency gives you an advantage: As soon as you closed up to the
latest Technology (e.g. copper) and get the same frequencies than your "opponent" you'll
have the better performance.
> :Did you know that IBM wanted a 6502 as a processor for their Systems,
> before Intel showed
> :up with a great list of further improvements ? Nearly none of the "future
> projects" was
> :started in the Intel Labs, and only some got realized. Read the book
> "inside intel" to get
> :a clue.
>
> I was under the impression IBM were considering 68K, but went for 80x86
> because they already had the rights to manufacture them themselves.
No, Intel had the rights and as they got problems to deliver in time they gave the rights
to AMD too, who were cloning Zilogs at that time.
> :I think both processors had their advantages in their instruction set, but
> 65xx surely had
> :a better use of clockcycles... no one could deny that.
>
> But the Z80 was hardwired instead of microcoded, which is why it could be
> clocked much faster. Now if they'd hardwired the 6502...
The 6510 changed several times in c-64 History. We had Cmos and Nmos chips for example.
I'm no 6510 guru, so I can't tell you closer details. I'll leave this space blank, but I
suppose it got hardwired one day.. development goes on, you know.
> :65xx at 2 Mhz would have been faster that a Z80 at 3 Mhz, so with a 2 Mhz
> 6510 you would
> :have had a FASTER CPC or Spectrum.. hey, who dislikes a FAST machine? The
> faster the
> :better.
>
> Well, by the time the CPC was launched there were 6Mhz Z80s, but using one
> would have meant higher costs and probably required faster support chips,
> etc...
A 2 Mhz 6510 would have been about as fast as the Z80 at 6 Mhz. So a 2 mhz 6510 would have
been cheap enough and clocked slow enough to get alright with the usual support chips.
I think this is a good reason. But hey, if you like Z80 or 6510 is a matter of taste too.
> :Anyway.. I don't want to break off any system-discussion again... just
> think about it
> :objective and you get a clue what I'm trying to say.
>
> I can see where your coming from, I just don't agree. Z80 has lots of nice
> features like dynamic RAM refreshing and separate IO space which are much
> better than the 6502 equivalent. However they tend to get overlooked in this
> sort of discussion...
As I'm always saying: Both systems had their good points.
Brian Watson
>Theoretically, yes. However you'd need to find a source for the ACID
>protection chip (tricky) or make some kind of bypass type thing to use one
>from another cart (like some Codemasters NES games).
Parados goes into a cart and replaces the original OS part of the chip. I
don't know how much room is then left over, however.
Rob Scott's the man for investigations along these lines, as he has the
rights to supply Parados on cart.
--
Brian
Sam Holloway
Ah, yes. What a magazine. Which QDOS? Very popular, I understand, if a
little quick and dirty... :-)
I had many a friend who sweared by 4DOS (instead of me, who just swore
at it, as my old PC had a really weird incompatability problem that
meant 4DOS wouldn't run. MS and DR were fine, though). Some of the
little tricks it could do were very useful - aliasing and UNIX-style
command line completion spring to mind.
--------------------------
Sam Holloway, Cambridge
e-mail : sr...@cam.ac.uk
WWW : http://srh.ml.org
ICQ# : 8489466 - get it!
--------------------------
Darren Salt
Oh look. Two who own machines using said 32 bit RISC processors based on the
6502 have just posted to this thread. :-)
(I'm sure that I've posted something like this before...)
--
| Darren Salt anti-UCE | Spectrum +3, | nr. Ashington,
| ds@youmustbejoking,demon | Risc PC, A3010, | Northumberland
| arcsalt@spuddy,mew,co,uk | BBC Master 128 | Toon Army
| Let's keep the pound sterling
Nothing is as useless as a general maxim.