Showing all 41 replies.
>>
>>12616503
Just because a machine is more powerful doesn't mean the games on it are any better.
Amiga has plenty of ports of games originally designed for and released on the C64, that are somehow significantly worse on the Amiga. How's the quality of the Atari 800 ports then?
>>
>>
>>
File: virtuoso_desktop_performace_studio_d7.jpg (208.3 KB)
> wanted to provide for 8-bit computers is something instant- where you don't need to wait for results, spending an hour composing a frame and then going to the next frame and trying to manipulate it.
>Compact discs hold gigabytes of information, so we realized that to achieve any controlled representation of sound that was anything close to realtime, we had to get the numbers down. You can't expect to manipulate 80K in one second and be very flexible, even on a 16mHz computer. So we came up with a whole new set of theories about how sound is broken down. We realized that the difference between sound and light was only a matter of frequency, so we knew we could apply the same theories to graphics and animation.
>We decided to deal with representations based on dynamic principles, where the numbers are related to dynamic changes in the sound or the visual. By developing this system, we began achieving enormously efficient representations of moving objects, both sound and visual.
>>
>>
>>
>>12616514
>>12616519
Atari 800 had a ton of great games, but most of them were made before 1986. The C64 kept getting games well into the early 90s.
Still, I'd get Atari over C64. C64's build quality is shit and the disk drive was slow and expensive.
>>
>>
>>
The 800XL was 50 bucks more expensive than the Commodore 64 in 1983, and Commodore themselves went out of their way to sell Commodore 64s to schools at a discount price, leading to their prevalence. Everyone at school saw a C64.
It didn't exactly help that A)everyone knew that Atari had fucked up the gaming scene terribly, leading to a bad image overall, and B)the Atari 800XL's peripheral ecosystem was a cataclysmic mess.
>>
>>12617113
Yes and no. The way those cartridges work is fun.
Commodore's disk drives were so expensive because they were basically just mini-computers, and that means you can program said computers to do your bidding. The MOS 6522 VIA in the 1541(the main disk drive sold for the Commodore 64) had a hardware bug which prevented proper serialization. Commodore's solution was to instead send it one bit at a time, without changing the verification process. This resulted in it verifying every single bit(interrupting the VIA chip in the process.)
Speedloaders basically circumvent this by either changing the verification process, preventing the disk drive from verifying each sector before sending it, or in at least one case I saw, adding a compression algorithm on the disk drive itself to reduce the number of bits sent.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>12616503
>better than the Commodore 64 in every way
That was the plan but it didn't work out
>America didnt care
Because it was an 800 from 1978 that cost $1000 in 1983. You are possibly the dumbest of dumb fuck retards this board has seen today.
>the 800XL always wins.
Very few people bought it. Meanwhile C64 went on to be the best selling 8-bit micro in history.
>>12617283
Every school I went to had C64s. Maybe you just went to poorfag schools for retards?
>>
>>
>>12617852
Yes. All the schools I went to had C64s. They weren't poor, they didn't want to use trash technology that was out of date by 1983. The Apple 2 was 5 years old when the c64 was released. The only people still using Apple 2s in schools after 1985 were poorfag public school systems stuck on these hideously expensive contracts for Apple to keep supplying out of date fucking trash. You must be fucking dumb or a heroin addict where the opiates have clouded your remaining iq digit.
>>
>>12617846
>>12617902
Larping zoomer. Schools didn't have C64s.
>>
>>12617902
As a gaming machine, the C64 was far more advanced than the Apple II. Otherwise, the Apple II at that point was better suited for a school environment. It supported far more educational software, more memory, a more reliable disk drive, and 80 column text.
>>
>>
>>
File: Synap0012.jpg (108.3 KB)
actual anon who was around back then. atari owners got a wake-up call when every game they purchased was the B side of the floppy. C64 was the A side and you knew it back then. But it was ok because it was still a hell of a computer at the time and it was known that atari had the better sound capabilities (but that's about it).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>