🎲 The video contains two hidden messages? Who will find and decrypt/decode them? ✒ Please write many comments! I want to know your opinions! Additionally the more comments, the more RUclips promotes the channel! Thank you!
Moim zdaniem oba komputery się uzupełniają. Mam oba komputery. Pierwszym było A65 w 1985 . C64 kupiłem dopiero w 2016 box nie używany od kuzyna. Nie patrzę na nie który jest lepszy. Oba są super. Jest tak że są gry i programy których nie będzie na Atari a są na Commodore i odwrotnie. Chociaż uważam że w latach 80 Atari było zaniedbane przy programowaniu gier. Po prostu powstawały śmieci. Jak dobre gry mogą być produkowane pokazały polskie firmy grami takie jak : Tanks, Misja, Fred, Robbo i wiele innych. Takie moje wnioski
@@ITGuyinaction I say that because I had an Atari 800xl as a kid. My friends had c64. And I was always so jealous because their machine was so much better. Especially after 1987 the c64 games was much much better. There was no game like last ninja 2 or Gianna sisters on Atari 8bit
I never realized how much nicer the colors on the Atari were until I watched this. Just look at the river on that game, it only looks like water on the Atari... Then again, I'm always looking for ways Atari is better - LOL!
My two cents: @4:54 No, that wasn't "better design" of Commodore. C64 didn't share memory access with video chip that much because CPU was clocked at lower speed and video chip could access memory in between CPU cycles. The better design was that of Atari, to have 80% faster CPU and let video chip halt the CPU when needed. That was still much more cycles left for the CPU, especially that you could turn the video off or switch to a graphic mode that didn't need that much memory access. @10:25 Atari 800XL actually had 62KB of RAM. 2KB was permanently mapped to hardware registers. C64 could access whole 64KB. As to which is better... it's a tough call. C64 has 16 ugly colors, but it gives much more freedom to use them all over the screen. Atari has 128 better colors but using more than 5 in a single scan line comes with a lot of restrictions. The best-looking C64 games look better than the best-looking Atari games, no doubt. SID (C64) offered soft, dynamic, futuristic, really impressive sound. Although many tunes that shouldn't sound that futuristic just sounded better on POKEY (Atari), Klatwa (here @16:57) is a good example, another well known is Draconus, but there are more. The better looking games for C64 are partially result of better suited hardware, and partially result of difference in popularity of both computers which was in turn result of marketing policies. The biggest game developers just didn't see money in developing for less popular Atari system. Given that Atari is almost 3 years older platform, the fact that we can even discuss which is better tells a lot about how ahead of its time Atari 800 was.
@@b213videoz I'm wondering why Atari released the solution which seemed not to be finalised... ex. hardware scrolling in only one direction? Or was it somehow related to the fact that in case of Atari sprites have the height equal to the screen height?
I owned both. True the C64 had more games. However, the Atari was engineered much better - more polished. Especially the Disk Operating System. The Atari had a disk drive that rarely went out of alignment, had command lines that made sense and were much easier to remember when copying files and such, and the Atari's drive was even faster than the Commodore's, even when the C64 had the Epyx fast load cartridge plugged in! I always regretted selling my Atari 800xl to get a C64 !
😉 True! Probably it would be good to prepare next episode from this series discussing more deeply those aspects you listed! Thanks for visiting my small channel!
And the ATARI drives were not even running on the max speed that POKEY would support for serial communication. They "only" used 19200baud even though later mods made over 100Kbaud possible. What I heard/read was that the original engineers could not get any serial test hardware supporting more than 19200, and so they got stuck with that. Also the SIO serial device bus that allowed to daisy chain multiple devices was pretty much a predecessor to USB, even the original USB developers refer to it as part of their inspiration.
Always funny when Commodore fans boast about the C64 being better than the Atari 8-bits. They always conveniently forget that the Atari hardware is 3 years older! Really should be comparing the Vic-20 to the Atari 400.
@@ITGuyinaction The introductory prices that Wikipedia gives are: Atari 400: US$550 Atari 800: US$1,000 Vic 20 US$299.95 C64 $595 This matches well with my memories of prices in Sweden (which were 10 X these but in Swedish Crowns) And note that the original Atari 800 only came with 8 KB so it was even more expensive if you wanted to expand it to the full 48 KB From what I recall Atari dropped their prices to match Commodore in 82 or 83. But of course, Commodore replied and the C64 was soon down to $395. And the prices kept dropping for all.
The Atari, considering it is 1979 technology, actually holds it's own very well, at least until the end of its life in the mid-80's when it was getting lazy ports of games. The more fair comparison would be to the Vic 20 (a system that also came out a few years after the 800).
🤔😉 Perhaps it's somehow a new idea for a new video... Although I guess many people were rather comparing Atari XL/XE with C64 in the 80s at least in Europe...
What a war it was. I used to argue and compare for years about why my Atari was better than the C64. This later similarly happened here in Canada as I compared my Amiga 500 and later Amiga 1200 with a DOS PC; however, this was pre-Doom though. After Doom happened and 3DFX cards showed themselves, I ended up in the PC camp, but still have a fondness for my 8 and 16 bit systems. Fantastic video thank you!
😀👍🍻 Thank you for visiting and for your nice comment! Yeah 3dfx was a game changer at that time! Nice that I have viewers in so many different countries of the world! Big hello to Canada!
Atari was developed in 1977 and released in 1979. It had a better operating system, much better disk i/o, quicker, plug and play peripherals, and was built like a tank. C-64 came along years later and was slightly better in some areas.
Yeah, the areas you mentionned are not discussed too often and many people forget about them. But I fully agree with you here! Thank you for visiting my small channel. I hope you will subscribe it! 💪😀
Let's face it: C64's sound is amazing with its SID chip BUT Atari wasn't much worse, Atari produced sounds far better than any AY3 could and I know most would disagree but I find Atari sound superior to NES. It just happens that SID was a masterpiece of a sound chip - so be it 🤪 Sonicwise C64 was a king but Atari was a queen.
I'm an Atari guy, but both were great machines. All micros of the time were riddled with crippling limitations, but the C64 and 800XL/65XE were VERY close. Nearly every comparison came with a "BUT" - e.g., faster CPU clock BUT higher video penalty; more colors BUT fewer per line; more voices BUT fewer synth capabilities; faster disk drive BUT lower capacity. As far as I know, the only clear wins were on the C64 side: more/better sprites, more customizable glyphs, and a more useful 40-column text mode. Still, programming those things was all about using cleverness to work around the limitations. Title developers often produced great results on one platform, whereas ports thrown together by hired guns tended to be misleadingly inferior. Side-by-side comparisons don't tell the whole story.
I always enjoy coming back here and read comments in this video . I love facts and this is what I am going to offer. Did the Atari 8bit had an edge in overall visuals. Tough call. C64 has a far better color and memory management allowing better control of its color palette, great hi res images, while the A8's large color palette and large number of modes allow graphic screens with 60+ colors and 265 color video playback (with sound). There are many games that do look better on the A8 but it depends on the type of game. Did the C64 had an edge in sound? Lets check the hardware on those two machines. The C64 rocked a cut down Roland synth chip. It was the best synth chip (based on specs) ever used on a home computer.....but it was just that a synth. Synth chips were a dead end for the industry and Amiga's Paula sound chip with PCM capabilities was the machine that rendered these "traditional" chips dead. But wait, according to Jay Miner, Pokey was the first sound chip with PCM abilities and high pass filtering (in two channels) specs that later were adopted and expanded in all 4 channels of Paula. This is why Pokey doesn't suffer from slowdowns when rendering digital samples while rendering graphics for games, demos or video playback. We do have two chips with different characters so we need to compare their music library. Unfortunately most people in both camps ignore the vast number of tunes that were written by real artists for the Pokey chip. (mainly polish composers). A quick visit over to the ASMA project and a fast browse through the huge list of tunes and songs will render your initial statement questionable. Here is a "short list" of the best composers (in my opinion) that make will help you realize the capabilities of the A8 sound. BeWu, Wieczor, Marucha,DJ V, Chiummo, VinsCool,X-Ray, Triace, StaxX, XTD, Ce-Pumpkin, Flash, Samurai, Kjmann, 505, Miker, MCH, PG, Raster, Dhor, Jimpack, Stanley, Dj Andrey Balkonsky, Makary Brauner, Gnome Design, Kozyca, SoTe, V0yager, Farkas, Tatqoo, GMX, Fred Booker, Synthpopalooza, Chip Champion, Marcys, Trener, AceMan, Zilq, Caruso, Born, SuperJet Spade, Cedyn, Lorien, Chema64, Bac, XLent, Fragmare, Greg, Benjy, Buettner, Kulor, Profi, Buettner, Dojwa, Zaborowski, Casper, Seabrush, Slaves, Strobe,TDC, Morgoth, Poison, Sandor, Emkay, KE-Soft, Xxl, Hu-Soft, CEvE-Soft, I do enjoy SID tunes a lot, but I have to point that, C64 has a weakness. Its Graphics and Sound are monotonous. Almost all game screen and soundtrack shares the same character. No matter how nice new software sounds or looks.... the same few colors and "instruments" are used again and again.
Back in the 80s, what we didn't know about the 8-bit war was that the real war was between Jack Tramiel and his many successors at CBM fighting to see who's the cheapest. Most of the stuff about the C64/128 and XL/XE that we thought at the time was "cutting edge" was really just executives "cutting corners." The real innovation was done by the programmers who made thousands of great games in spite of graphics chips that have no sprites or can't scroll a background without wasting thousands of clock cycles. If the C64 didn't have a SID chip and the XL didn't have 256 colors, we'd all have been Apple users by 1987.
Yeah, this history of 8-bit computers is really fascinating and we could have long chat... I hope that you will visit my channel more often! Thank you for this comment!
Both are good computers, but many times, the c64 version was better bc it was programmed to use more memory. Often Atari games were only 48 k or 16 k. Thus, Atari was not always putting its best foot forward. My buddy had a C64 and we would use each other's computer often.
To quote the common saying of the era...Atari Rulez. Commie Droolz. (I would have preferred Commodore sprites to Atari's PM graphics, but the Atari colour gradient capabilities opened doors locked shut on most other systems. With both the XL and the STe, I made the correct choice for me when TI walked away from the 4A...but the 4A is the one I still own and use every day.)
I always felt it was too close to call, the C=64's popularity meant more programmers got more out of it with their software, but on paper, Atari edge in Graphics, C=64 edge in sound... But the Atari SIO was a genius solution and influenced the USB format (several people worked on both).
I had an Atari 800XL, and absolutely loved it! It led to me getting the bigger, 16/32bit brother, the Atari 520ST!!! I'll take Atari over Commodore any time!
Using a chess game to compare computers isn't a good test, because how good a computer player is is dependent on the algorithm it uses. It has nothing to do with the "brain" (the CPU). Though, memory would be a deciding a factor. However, since you're comparing computers with the same memory capacity, there should be no difference there.
I fully agree. It's rather some kind of joke or sth which is expected to arouse some curiosity of viewers. Even if we don't treat this seriously, I believe it's interesting to have a look on this game. However it might also lead to some conclusions. Ex. that many depends on algorithm or just simply "the luck" as computer with slower processor won with the one having theoretically more power. And in case of chess, computing power matters. 😜
Atari had better Star Raiders. Later games for C64 took better advantage of the more memory. Some games I owned came with both versions on one disk which I would bring to a friends house. In Some instances, the programs were identical.
🤔🤔🤔 More memory? True, but that difference is quite minor... However I would agree that in many cases programs were quite similar as they were created since the beginning with the idea of preparing many versions for different computers. Thus they wanted to make porting as easy as possible.
19:29 This is categorically false. The 1571 disk drive can only operate as a 1541 when hooked up to a C64 or a 128 in c64 mode. That means single sided disks and the slow speed of a 1541. The 1581, OTOH, can store about 800k in 64 mode, but it is still at the speed of a 1541 when hooked to a C64 or a 128 in 64 mode. Though disk speed up routines dramatically increase the speed. A 64 can load a 50k program from a 1581 (3.5" disk) with a disk speed up routine in like 6 or 8 seconds.
Opps, I didn't paid attention to all those details... Point for you! 💙 However please pay attention on the fact that this summary is simplified and made from the point of view of the given peripheral device, thus maximum possibilities are presented and not from the point what are the possibilities when connected to which computer.
It's hard to compare. Each is better than the other in some aspects. C64 wins hands down on sound. The sprites are implemented differently with c64 easier to use but Atari over all more versatile. Atari has better color depth. And the combination of ANTIC and GTIA allows for some clever effects. Of course there's plenty of c64 tricks as well.
👍 👍 👍 🍀 I fully agree that it's hard to compare these two computers. Concerning sound, I would have one remark. POKEY had also quite good possibilities but some things were not hardware supported as in case of SID but required using main processor to help. However Atari processor had higher speed so... Still I return to the conclusion as at the beginning, hard to compare! 👽🧟👽
what i find odd is that most comparisons forget that you can hold select on the atari to give you an extra 8k of ram for machine code software and for some odd reason the sid chip is usually the "winner" yet the almost 4 year older pokey chip can actually emulate the sid (but not vice versa).
They were both great systems. Commodore had better sound and was better at tile style graphics, especially with more colors available for modified character set graphics. The Atari is in many ways much more powerful, but with some limitations. The Atari can display many more colors, but there are severe limits as to how many colors can be on the same horizontal line. The ability to program the display list gave it lots of graphics possibilities with its big color palate & color registers that can shift a screen color with a single poke. The SIO peripheral bus for the Atari was very advanced and was engineered by the same person who developed USB. In fact, SIO is kind of a predecessor to USB and it is multidevice & plug-in-play, way before PCs. Even today, there is the FUJI-NET SIO device that provides internet & wifi functionality through unmodified SIO port. Ironically, the Commodore Amiga was better and was developed by the Atari 8-bit engineers compared to the Atari ST, which was more Commodore-ish in many ways. The companies 16-bit offerings seemed to switch roles.
😉👊 Very good remarks! In fact, if Atari engineers had proposed a different color display model, e.g. defining colors per 8x8 pixel area, it would have been much easier to create attractive graphics.
People who didn't live through this period (early 80's), simply can't comprehend what Star Raiders looked like in 1980 - a true 3D space game with action AND strategy elements. Also, seeing all those colors in the demos meant a LOT back then in an age where most computers that had color had 8 or 16 at MOST. I was SOLD. Most people who had an older 8-bit probably used a TV. I did on my Atari 400. The result was that more colors overcame resolution that you really couldn't see on a TV anyway - between pixel blurring and color drift. To this day when I use Altirra, I purposely give the image a 'fuzzy' adjust, as this is what I remember from those days. Now for games... Tile-based games? Commodore wins, no question. But look at any of the Lucasfilm games (Fractalus, Ballblazer, etc.) The custom display lists on the Atari, coupled with the color ranges and greater CPU speed meant a WAY better experience on the Atari machines. It really depended on what kind of games you enjoyed. I wasn't into the beat-em-ups or vertical scrolling shooters, and that definitely mattered because Commodore did those best. Basic was horrific on BOTH machines - worse on the 64, but only slightly. Basic on the Atari was one of the slowest out of any 8-bit machine. However, as on the C64, there were other options. I ended up getting into compiled languages through something called 'Action!' Action would compile very BASICy commands into machine language, which you would then execute. I coded an anti-aliasing program originally written in pseudo-code in Byte magazine. That could take 7 minutes in Mode 9 to process a full screen image. In Action!, it took less than 5 SECONDS. Either machine was a great introduction to IT, and that's where I still work today.
@@Chordonblue Yeah, some theoretical possibilities were partially destroyed by not enough good software provided especially in the first years after release, including far from being perfect BASIC. Although there were many BASIC improved versions. If you only had it on cartridge, it was changing a lot. And sure your example with BASIC/Action! shows very well lost opportunities. Please just have a look on the games developed for both computers in the latest years...
I loved your presentation, and I must admit I have a soft spot for Atari, being an Atari kid. Based on the examples alone, Atari had the upper hand in graphics. While the Commodore had better sound back then, the Atari, with its iconic Pokey sound chip, has a more retro vibe that truly captures the essence of a classic era. The Commodore, while also great, might not evoke the same nostalgia because it moved away from that era's sound. The Atari, in my opinion, does a fantastic job of preserving that retro charm. Looking forward to watching more from your channel..
👍 Thank you for nice words! And I hope you subscribe and you will visit my channel more often. yeah both computers are great and give a lot of emotions! It's great to return to the old days!
18:17 good example of how SID is inappropriate sound effects chip. Probably capable of doing more accurate sound effects but very often developers made games sound like someone was playing an 8bit keyboard for effects. 18:25 much better effects for the era and this game. There is much that is not discussed in this video. The build quality is much better on the A8's. The 800, 1200XL (and about %20 of 800XL's) have excellent mechanical keyboards. The C64 keyboard is bad, worse then almost all A8 keyboards afaik. Today you can buy an untested A8 and it is likely to work fine. Not so for C64's. (probably very good idea to replace capacitors on all) This video did not show actual combat gameplay in Star Raiders II on A8 which is fantastic. C64 looks terrible in this game (bad port). A8 had a much, much better DOS system from early on. I liked how C64 multicolored text was for BBSing and Ultima IV and V, etc. This video fails to mention that C64 sprite engine was overall more capable, not just different. C64 - more colors in high resolution but much less colors in lower resolution. There are graphics effects that A8 can do that are not possible on C64 (and vice versa) like the game Yoomp. Complicated subject. Overall the A8's are faster and more responsive in games. SIO on A8 is very nice but does have some limitations like half duplex operation for RS232 modems was not ideal. C64 had far better market utilization of the 'user port' than the A8 PBI bus port, which went mostly unused. There are some modern A8 PBI/ECI expansions releasing finally =) 4 joystick ports on the 800 was seldom utilized but it was still great for those games like MULE and others. I think the A8's had more peripherals like the very nice trackballs, numeric keypad, paddles, etc. A8's can use Amiga and ST mice as-is since the A8's have perfect compliance with Atari's own 9pin joystick standard afaik. The 800's have excellent video output quality, unlike early C64 models. 800XL composite output is mediocre. XE models improved video quality over XL. The 1200XL build quality, size and keyboard are all fantastic and noteworthy. C64 while far more successful did not approach the 1200XL for quality but the price was terrible =) 1200XL had compatibility issues early on, but there are a few ways to fix that. Easiest way back-in-the-day was to install an 800 OS B ROM set. C64 was far more available worldwide and price was 'cheaper' and had much more commercial software from '85 and afterwards. The general guideline is that C64 is better for later era 80's games/software. A8 for earlier 80's. A8 had a much better and successful console conversion with the XEGS, which is actually a great machine There is more but time is short. Cheers.
Oh, wow! You wrote so much! The plan was to prepare the second episode with more details as continuation of this one but seeing how slowly this channel is growing I have doubts if I should "invest" more in it. Or perhaps it would be better to discuss other more popular subjects bringing more viewers. Not sure how long I will continue with this channel having so modest results. Even you, being highly interested in 8-bit computers, you didn't decide to subscribe this channel. I would be curious why?Just in order to understand better why my videos don't attract more viewers...
@@ITGuyinaction It's up to you. I didn't subscribe because I'm slow to do so. If I see your vids and enjoy them over months or even a year then I'll sub. It's difficult to understand your accent for me. Your enthusiasm is great. Your videos need to flow faster and quickly get to the point(s), IMO. I think this video would be better served to have side-by-side comparison of gameplay instead of one or the other (smaller window was too small). Work on improving the presentation. Sometimes it's not about facts but about inspiring and enthusiasm and sharing. Have a great weekend! Hope to see more from you. Keep at it and be sure to not burn yourself out. One video a month is probably fine.
@@gamedoutgamer Thanks for those hints. They help me to understand why people don't decide to stay longer on my channel (at least part of them). With accent, I'm foreigner and it's some kind of international English. Not so many people complain but I know it's far from being perfect. I also expect that it will be more international channel then ex. USA channel or UK channel. In order to make life easier I give subtitles. Added manually subtitles also turn on the possibility to translate automatically them to many different languages by google. I have also impression that many visitors expect more fun in the videos. I will check what I can do... Thanks one again for help! 😀
You're kidding about keyboards, right? All C64 keyboards, both old breadbin and the latest C64C, were great and fast to type on. They are simply but excellently designed. If you can't get a key to work, try taking it out and see how much dust there is. Clean the whole keyboard, lightly grease the springs, and it will run like new. Keyboard on the C128 is even better . On the 800 XL is very well and honestly made, but I personally have a better version - it came in maybe 5 different versions with different quality - according to an article on the internet. Obviously you have never tried the 800XE or 130XE keyboard because it is a horror. At least the one that shipped to Europe. To make that keyboard usable for fast typing, users had to modify it - puncturing the rubber pads under each key. Atari skimped on absolutely everything with the XE models, and the keyboard took the brunt of it.
In the 80s I had, and still have, an 800XL, but have also used the C64. I love both systems. The side-by-side game demonstrations and comparisons are great. Some games look better on one or the other, likely due to the developer's ability to take advantage of the features. ITGuyInAction, what software did you use to make this video? I like the style.
True, a lot depends on developers (and probably also on marketing/accounting guys how much they are ready to pay for games programming). For video editing I used Shotcut, however I highly do not recommend it. It contains many bugs and has terrible performance issues during editing. Concerning export performance is not a problem as I usually do it at night. However I had few situations already when project working ok in editing mode was causing crashes in export mode either the video looked differently in editing mode and after export. The only good thing is that it's free of charge and I'm used to it (as you discover problems usually when making longer and more advanced videos).
I think Atari suffered a bit in being a platform (8-bit series) rather than Commodore just being the one computer (C64). In Commodore’s case, that meant game developers targeted 64K whereas for Atari they often targeted 48K to be compatible with their older machines.
🤔🤔🤔🤔 Hmm... that could be the reason, especially in the first years after 800XL launch. Although I believe that here the fact that C64 was released earlier than 800XL could be crucial as many comments under this video suggest. What do you think about this idea?
@@ITGuyinaction As far as I’m aware, the XL and XE models were mostly just RAM upgrades and some new ROM. So even if the 800XL came out after the C64, it was still pretty much an upgraded 800 which in turn was a late 70s computer.
Wikipedia says the Commodore 128 sold 2.5 million units, and the entire Atari 8-bit family collectively sold 4 million units. So I think it’s more than fair to compare the Commodore 128 vs. The Atari 130XE. Your statement that the commodore 128 wasn’t that popular matches conventional wisdom, but it also seems to be untrue.
🤔🤔🤔🤔 Ok, I agree it could be better and more precisely said. However if you compare C128 with C64, then C128 seems to be not so much popular... I still hope that despite this small "bug" you enjoyed the video, did you?
@@GeoNeilUK The C128 would have sold better, as it individually sold about 60% of the units of the entire Atari 8-bit line added together. Though learning today how good the Pokey chip was years before the SID chip came out, I'm kind of jealous of the experiences the Atari owners had when I had a mere VIC-20. :)
Well yes, Commodore 64 is better than Atari 8-bit BUT many games are better on Atari (River Raid, Ninja, Blue Max, Star Raiders II... the masterpiece Star Raiders 1 doesn't even exist on C64). The real problem with Atari 8-bit it was murdered in 1985 - and not by Commodore 64, NO, it was backstabbed by its own brother Atari ST
Thank you for visiting my small channel. Looking on the comments, I believe that there are many C64 supporters but also many 8-bit Atari supporters. Concerning Atari ST, in my humble opinion, it was just a progress and the same story like with C64 and Amiga.... Don't you think so?
@@ITGuyinaction Well thank you 😊 As for Atari ST I think it was an abomination - not a progress: no hardware sprites, pathetic AY3 sound chip...seriously
@@b213videoz Yeah, from this point... We have many strange decisions. However let's remember that both Atari and Commodore had negotiations with Amiga guys to add Amiga to their fleet. Commodore won and Atari was in trouble. I fully agree that Atari ST should be much better. And many 8-bit Atari lovers decided to buy as their next computer... Commodore Amiga. C'est la vie.
@@b213videoz When I got my first ST in 1990 I had a Yamaha TG55 connected via MIDI, and *all* computer sound chips sounded pathetic by comparison, even my beloved SID which I still have and use today. I think the C64 and 800XL were both fantastic computers. Some games were better on one machine or the other and the best place a kid could be in the 80s was to own a c64 and have a couple friends with Ataris and Apples so you could experience everything.
I was a massive Atari fan back in the day who chose a 600xl with cassette instead of a C64 with a floppy, but as you said, followers of sport teams are often blind regarding who's best. I do know that longevity wise, Commodore custom chips got hotter and are more prone to overheating and failure, but some well placed heatsink can reduce this problem. I celebrate both today, but absolutely love my Atari's.
💪😀 Yeah, as you said followers of sport teams are sometimes blind. And we were sometimes blind as well discussing our computers features. How many emotions did it cause? 😀Sometimes it's simply not so easy to say what is better. Sure if we take one mathematical criteria, ex. numbers of units sold, then we can easily determine the winner. However if we try to have very wide view, then finding one winner is not possible. And why one criteria is better than other? I can also see how many emotions my video causes today after 30-40 years. And it forces me to think a lot about that! 😀 Thanks a lot for watching and for commenting! It helps! 🍀
The Atari range came out 3 years before the C64, of which Commodore engineers ripped the 800 to pieces to lets say be 'inspired' with their own design (it is always easier to copy and improve on others work.) Whilst the C64 did have better sprites and normal color modes which it should being 3 years newer, the 800 was more flexible overall. As a sound chip SID might have some cool features, but overall the 4 channels of pokey had more capability. The SDIO on the Atari was vastly faster and superior (the tape was too as it could also play audio through the computer) to the C64's Serial system; oh and the C64 even copied the Atari Joystick ports as they could not come up with their own system (talking about Commodores boat stealing Ataris paddle.) The C64 is a cool computer, but for 3 years newer it should have been much better, oh and should have been able to display RED color. On the other hand, if you look at newer games being developed like 'Space Harrier' and others, the old Atari can still outclass the C64 when properly programmed.
👍 👍 👍 You mentioned many good points. Those 3 years should make bigger difference in C64 capabilities. In particular I can't understand why colour palette was limited to 16 ones. However from marketing point of view, C64 was more successful than Atari XL/XE. Thanks you for sharing this remarks and I hope you decided to subscribe my small channel. 😀
While I can agree on some of these points, please let me disagree about the Pokey vs SID. I have created music with both, and I am sad to say that the Pokey is worse in every single aspect by magnitudes. Sure, the single edge over the SID is that is has four channels compared to three of the SID, but you have to combine two channels to be able to play notes accurately, as a single channel just have an 8 bit frequency precision, making it impossible to play all (most) western notes. The SID has three channels with high enough precision to play four octaves. Also, the SID has four different waveforms to choose from, which also can be combined to some extent, for each of the three voices individually, while the Pokey has only square waves with a selectable degree of blended noise (or distortion as Atari liked to call it). The SID can also let the voices modulate each other with various functions like ring modulation and oscillator sync. And, of course, an analog multimode filter to top it off. Not saying the Pokey is incapable. It is very much more capable than its predecessor, TIA from the VCS. You can make really great music with it. One edge to the Atari is that it is pretty easy to add another Pokey chip and there are plenty of tools and demos (perhaps even games?) supporting that. And sure, the sound of the Pokey cannot really be reproduced on the SID. I am just saying that compared to the SID, the Pokey is very weak in most every aspect, and I'd take a single SID over dual Pokies six out of seven days a week. I still love the Pokey for what it is, but I cannot let the statement "the Pokey has more capability" go unchallenged.
@@johansmolinski I'm not music expert so it's difficult for me to go more deeply here. However thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge and experiences. I'm sure that they are valuable for many of us! Thanks a lot! And please be my frequent visitor! 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍
Read an interview with Bob Yannes (SID). He could not confidently state that SID was better than POKEY. The Atari chip is not user friendly, SID is. POKEY is capable of complex waveforms, it has a 3 channel mode with exclusive interupts. If this capability was exploited, it would have been amazing. Afterall, POKEY can emulate SID.
Point for you. 👍 However they are still quite similar constructions I believe... And there is the question if and how much Commodore profited from "having those 3 additional years"?
2 года назад+1
@@ITGuyinaction Graphics and sound. Sprites with more width and more colors. And the SID, which is always the differentiating element that the Comodoronians always put. Its management of sound waves is far superior to that of the three channels plus a noise generator, from the Atari.
@ That's even more complicated. SID is for sure a great chip but POKEY also have good possibilities. However here some things have to be done in "a software way" which means using main processor power. Remembering that Atari has quicker processor, it's of course easier. With sprites they are quite different. In my opinion the main difference here is the maximum height and the lack of hardware scrolling in one direction in case of Atari. I'm sure that we could have here a long discussion...
I miss the days, not the excitement they offered..because we are essentially living the golden era of the 8-bits right now! Never before we had so many things available to our disposal!. New games, demos, music, programs in a monthly basis, hardware add-ons and upgrades and a global network for their distribution . We even are able to repair our own machines by posting a description of the problem we are experiencing. Most of us have some additional cash allowing to enjoy more systems than just the platform of our childhood..not to mention emulation. For me the era never really ended to be honest. I always had my 8bit and 16bit either hooked on a CRT or emulated them on my PC and I followd the homebrew scene without really taking a serious break. I had the pleasure following the Polish Atari 8bit scene, almost from the start, through the classic webpages of the platform even if I always lived miles away.
I loved my C=64 But was always dissapointed that it only had 16 colors. What were they thinking? I with it would have had a minimum of 32 colors or better yet at least 64 colors. I feel that's the only place they dropped the ball when designing her. She had a great sound chip though. Very versatile.
🤔🤔🤔🤔 For me this decision about having so limited colour palette is also bit strange especially that at the time of C64 release, there were other consoles and computers having more colours and they knew that they had to be competitive. On the other hand, was it perhaps one of the factors allowing to reduce the price and having better profit margin? As history shows, it didn't interrupt them to having one of the best selling computer in the 8-bit era. Thanks for visiting my small channel and for subscribing. 😀
@ITGuyinaction Yeah the C=64 is the top selling home computer of all time. I only had an Atari 2600 and my C=64. I still wish they had put at least 32 colors and at the time I never realized how muted the colors were. They could have been more vibrant as well. But I agree it was all probably done for a better prophet margin. Great comparison video. I enjoyed watching it.
All Technical Comperison wont change that the C64 clearly won the Market back then! And to be Honest, where were the real Stunning Titles for C64 in this Video??? All the " WOW This runs on a Stock C64 !?!?! WTF " games are missing.
@@TrockeyTrockey in case of Competition it clearly lost. That dosent mean it was a Bad machine. VHS won against Beta even that Beta was the better System. Who knows what gems there would have been, if the atari was maxed out like the Commodore.
Nice to see you revisiting this topic! Its always interesting to see people arguing on why their childhood experiences were superior compared to others who happened to own a different computer than theirs ! lol The truth is that everyone who owned an 8bit machine had a blast in their early years (years of bad TV and radio reception lol) and they wouldn't change it for the world. No matter how fast the processor ran or how many colors per scanline it displayed.... the one thing it mattered was always the game that drew us to our friend's machines. I grew up with memories from 4 machines (Atari XL, Atari ST, CPC6128,Amiga) and now I own them all plus a ZX Spectrum and a C64. To be honest I just like to repair ,upgrade and keep them in good shape...and maybe play some pacman lol. I prefer my first 8bit machine(atari) over all others and its capabilities have nothing to do with it! If I compare them I would point out Amstrad's vivid but small color palette and the compact nature of the machine, which I love and appreciate today. I would also point out Spectrum's unique aesthetics in sound and graphics plus it's speed. C64 was an improved version(in some aspects) of the 800 atari machines that didn't really manage to beat Jay Miner's 8bit Architecture. The Atari kept the upper hand in 3d games and its ability to have its games look so different due to its large color palette, modes and effects. Pokey is still giving a hell of a fight with a small help coming from the rest of the system's architecture. C64 had a huge commercial success for a good reason(not just price) but technically it was nothing special...and your videos revisiting the topic prove just that.
Hello! Big hello to Greece! Yeah your remarks are very good in my humble opinion! But isn't the same now? That we only partially take into consideration technical aspects with cold blood, but we take also partially our decision basing on marketing bla bla bla... Moreover quite often it's not easy to compare technical devices as in one area X is better, and in other area Y is better. And then we have the dillema what values of importance to give to both areas... Btw, I have similar approach as you. I prefer repair and to "play with old electronics" than just spend hours learning about new games etc... Although on my small channel there are also videos about software and one about the games developped after 2000 year. P.S. Lucky you having CPC6128!
@@ITGuyinaction Let me be honest here. I also enjoy picking on "arrogant" users by pointing out the pros and cons of all 8bits machines! I also get in discussions on why i.e. Yoomp!, Stunt car racer, Space harrier, Pang, Rescue on Fractalus, Total eclipse etc are better on the Atari machine.....even if I have never played most of these games lol. Its more of a nostalgia driven habit(from school) than seeking any acknowledgement ...on how great our parents were when they decided to buy the computer we grew up with....without asking us.! I will agree with you. Comparing devices technically doesn't really provide the whole or a meaningful picture especially when we deal with a complex system of hardware and software. Coders can make a machine look amazingly good or really bad. So I can not really see how your channel could do without videos on software and games, especially with newer projects that are the best tech demos for these machines. And yes I was really lucky to have a CPC6128 in my collection!!! A friend of mine was kind enough to send it to me for a restoration job and he decided to let me keep it!
@@nickolasgaspar9660 I'm wondering what next video to prepare on my small channel. Should I somehow continue this subject and how... P.S. Lucky you having such friends! Wow!
I never had an 8-bit computer, I started with the Amiga, After having some experience with emulating both computers and playing plenty of games I can tell the differences. C64 has more detailed graphics when it comes to sprites etc, but Atari has better/bigger color palette, which in the case of C64 is very dull. Of course it depends on the game, because I've seen some newer homebrew C64 games that look pretty vibrant somehow. The difference between sound chips is obvious. C64's SID was way ahead of anything else in the 8-bit world. But I heard some fantastic POKEY music and I couldn't believe my ears. The CPU speed made difference in stuff like loading programs, tape/disk speeds etc, but it wan't important in the games I played. Maybe some productivity software took advantage of that like word processors for example. Both machines are fun and have different qualities on their own. With talented programmers that proved their capabillities it would be hard to choose which one to get.
🤔🤔🤔 Thanks a lot for you comment! I hope that you subscribe my small channel and you will visit it from time to time. Definitely it would be good to prepare second part for this video to address more some of the areas you've just mentioned. However not so many viewers here doesn't encourage me to do this. Do you have perhaps any ideas how I should promote my channel to get more viewers? Regards!
@@ITGuyinaction I subscribed. I think that not making more videos, because you have not enough subscribers is wrong thinking. You need to be active and also be more 'versatile'. You can review computers, consoles, games and accesories for them. Look at LGR. Dude reviews tons of stuff from the old tech area including stupid and absurd accessories and gadgets all this is made in a charming way with humor and attention to details. This is only my impression. Keep working and don't let anything or anyone to bring you down. ✊
@@mattx5499 Well, I don't want to repeat other channels. I would like to find some kind of niche which will attract many viewers. Sure it will not be 100% new stuff but I don't want too much to repeat the ideas of others. Moreover I would like, let's say, 70-80% of my videos to be valid and interesting ex. in 10-20 years (even if interest might be lower than nowadays). That means I don't want to focus on accessories which are now on top but in 1-2 years everyone will forget them. Moreover even if I agree with argument that number of videos could be higher, I'm surprised that having 16 quite good videos (perhaps not perfect but solidly good) I have so less viewers comparing to other channels with similar number of videos. I think that there is sth wrong with yt algorithm which cant find group of people being interested in these videos. Probably after dividing channel into two, I should create both channels from zero and not to transform the old one into one of two new ones... But that's the long story and we could drink a lot of good coffee taking about that... Still big thank you for being here and subscribing my small channel. 😀
OK I am totally biased because I had the Atari 800XL, but come on...aesthetically, the C64 doesn't hold a candle to the 800XL's sleek and futuristic design. It still looks better than any LED-pimped PC I've ever seen since. I will die on that hill 😁
@@ITGuyinaction I had an XE and it was a great computer, but design-wise I still prefer the XL :) The XE's design worked really well for the ST line, which were larger and better suited for that. That said, I really liked the Amiga! It was amazing.
@@ITGuyinaction Amazing how that happens as we get older 😁 I remember seeing a link about some company rebuilding the 800XL with today's tech and ports, wish I'd saved the link but it looked amazing!
The VIC-II and the SID chips amounted to a dynamic duo - on balance, or in net effect, due this duo, the edge goes to the C64. And the C64 struck a better balance (in terms of design) of economic and engineering considerations. There were grounded reasons as why the C64 outsold Atari in 8-bit computers category. The Atari were good computers, and absent the C64 they would have been top of the 8-bit home computing hill.
I believe it's not so simple. But for sure every comment enriches my small channel. Thanks a lot for visiting and I hope you will be my frequent guest.
If that was the case you could easily said that the Tandy CoCo was as good (or even better) because most of the things came from Motorola schematics. By the way, the Atari 8 bit line used custom chips besides the standard ram and cpu. Those custom chips were made by a team (that later made the Amiga) who worked together, so it isn't that they were completly doing their own things without a plan. The main reason why the C64 outsold the Atari 800XL was because it was a year earlier at the market. The Atari 400/800 series were too expensive at that time. Atari didn't react that fast and that is something they only can blame thereselves. If we only look to the hardware of different several 8 bit machines, neither the C64 or Atari XL are the best.. I own both of them and love them, but it is the truth. Systems like the Sam Coupé, MSX2+ or the Enterprise 64/128 are a bit more advanced.
@@xXTheoLinuxXx True, that Atari models before 800XL were not too successful because of price and also lower possibilities. And it could be that those few months of difference in release Commodore 64 and Atari 800XL made a huge difference. Sam Coupe or MSX2+ are much younger guys... We could have probably a long discussion here with many cups of good tea... Thanks for your comments and being here!
@@ITGuyinaction back in the day a year makes a lot of difference. Another example from that period (in the UK) is between Acorn and Sinclair. Acorn produced the BBC Micro which was expensive and had all the bells and whistles that the ZX Spectrum didn't have, so they produced a little brother which was more like a ZX Spectrum, but at the time it was released it was too late. At that time when you buyed a computer you already knew someone who had a Spectrum or Commodore, so if you need some help it was easier to ask help. The only thing that did work was a discount, that is why MSX did it pretty well in The Netherlands. People who worked for Philips could buy these models in the employee shops with a discount. Oh and thank you for posting this video!
@@xXTheoLinuxXx Oh yeah, it was before Internet era and that might be the main reason - you had a friend to ask in case of problems. And true that this "magic year" of difference changed a lot! Thanks for visiting my small channel and being so active! 😀
@@ITGuyinaction yes, and funnily, many atari 8 bit fans at that time had no idea of this (like me) and went Atari ST thinking it was next in line whereas the true successor was the Amiga. I gave up on the ST for an Amiga after a couple of years, held my nose and bought a Commodore Amiga. had I known the chipset designer story I would have breathed more easily! 😝😝
@@gk4929 I still had many friends who after XL/XE bought... Amiga. Perhaps not being even fully aware of that that many Atari people worked on Amiga but for much better features/price factor...
At the time, with the Internet not being a thing yet, and even BBS access being out of question for me at the cost of phone minutes in (west) Germany, I did not know back then when I actually switched from an Atari 130XE to an Amiga. There were some clear hints though, the most obvious one being the clock frequency being exactly 4x the odd value of the 8bit Ataris (7.09MHz vs. 1.77MHz for PAL models), but also the way graphic modes could be changed mid screen ....
21:04 This is a stupid statement from an exceptionally stupid man. The US fought a two front war and utterly destroyed both sides. Trameil gets a lot of unearned credit for the Commodore 64. Jack didn't invent the 64. He had no knowledge or experience in a technical background. The one thing he did well was cost cutting. But he cut costs so much that Commodore wasn't making money. When he did make money, he didn't invest it. What Jack did was run commodore and MOS semiconductors into the ground. Despite selling the best selling computer of all time, Jack BANKRUPTED Commodore and left in a shambles. He then took over Atari and ran it into the ground and bankrupted it. Neither could undo Jack's damage.
I know that Jack Tramiel might be treated as controversial person by some guys. However the story of his life is very interesting nevertheless the final opinion and for me very inspiring. We could probably have long discussion about his business decisions which some were very genius and some very controversial at least from the perspective of one guy living in Eastern Block and not being able to "taste West too much". However I think that in business it's always like that that sometimes you go in the good direction and sometimes in less good. You are not able to predict everything and you have to take the risk. It's much easier to look on that from the perspective of many years which passed... And true he was more businessman than technical guy. In Poland he was treated as iconic guy by many. We could have a long chat about that...
@@ITGuyinaction I don't disagree that he had an interesting life. I don't even disagree that he was pivotal in both Commodore and post-Warner Atari. But what I do disagree with was that he was some kind of business genius. Jack got kicked out of Commodore because of how bad he ran it. MOS technology is a perfect example. Not only did they make the wildly successful 6502, but they also were selling Atari the ROMS for the cartridge based games. It had some very good engineers with lots of successful products. YET, both MOS and Commodore were run into the ground under Jack's leadership. There is no denying that. The same is true for Atari, though I do think the demise of Atari is only partially Jack's fault. Jack has certainly earned his name in the history of computer technology. But as a giant? No way. To be entirely fair to Jack, almost every tech company that existed in 1984 is gone today. Whether it's DEC or Osbourne on the hardware side or word perfect corporation or visi corp in the software space, they are all long gone and forgotten by everyone besides geeks like us who are interested in retro-tech.
I'm very curious what would be the opinions of other guys in this matter visiting my small channel... It might happen that my view here is biased because as I said Tramiel was very iconic person for me. On the other hand failure might be caused by many reasons and it's easy to find and blame one person for that which is not always justified. Managing companies is always very complex and as you noticed many of those 1980s companies don't exist any longer... I still admire Tramiel that leaving country destroyed after war and having probably terrible war experiences, he came to USA with few dollars in his pocket (or perhaps even without any dollar) and he did so much...
@@ITGuyinaction I concede there were many forces eating away at both Atari and Commodore. OTOH, they both appeared at the right time with adequate hardware. Nobody every says "well, Jack and Bushnell both were just lucky to be at the right place at the right time with the right product" Everyone says they were geniuses even though their success was just as attributable to circumstances beyond their control as their failures were. IMHO, the main problem with Jack was he was obsessed with lowering costs and not profits and reinvestment. Jack chronically under-invested in both Commodore and Atari. Atari was a lot more understandable in this respect. Atari was fighting a much harder battle than Commodore did while it was under his control. In Atari, jack was trying to rescue a mismanaged company that had been run into the ground and then stripped. Keep in mind that Jack didn't come to the US in 1977. Commodore had been around for decades before the PET. Yes, there is certainly a lot to be admired in his coming to America and creating a profitable business. He did see the writing on the wall with his typewriters and then again with the calculators. All props for that.
Commodore C128 user here, since 1985 and since now several weeks ATARI-800XL User 🤫 I had no clue about Atari-Computer, but have accidentally {suggested by RUclips} watched a Commodore C64 vs Atari-800 battle {games were compared} Noticeable was that ATARI-Games were not so sharp, but blurry and some were actually slower than Atari! So i got curious why that was so... Checked the Atari specs quickly: Atari had 1.79 CPU, 3 Co-Processors and 256 colors {later i found it's actually 16 base colors and 16 different luminance values each = 256} That's why the same games for Commodore C64 and Atari are never the same = different base colors! Well, that required some deeper investigation and so i pushed the green button to start collecting everything about Atari-800{XL} and Co. That were fascinating weeks {it was like 1979 or better said 1985 when i received C128} End result was that i grabbed a few GB of information about Atari 400/800/800XL and even 65XE{800XE} and 130XE. Naturally, i found out why Atari needed 1.79 MHz {or 1.77 PAL} CPU in first place already back in 1979 {one major reason was: the whole system wouldn't work with less than that} And why C64 picture was always sharp and clear compared to Atari are the strange Atari resolutions since 1979. In fact, Atari did not made any significant changes in regard even after C64 hit the market! They just added few more graphic modes, some extra functions and rename it to GTIA {CTIA before {1977}}. However, even resolutions were no match for Commodore C64. GTIA with max. 80 x 192 pixels 9/16 colors was outdated even before the Commodore C64 was born. In my opinion, Atari missed the opportunity to make CPU upgrade to 8MHz {or at least 6 MHz} and to upgrade the GTIA to 320x200 {or even 256} pixels resolution! That would have with high probability bury the Commodore C64 very quickly for good! Why 6 or 8 MHz? That is the second reason why Atari used 1.79 as default CPU! It's the way ANTIC {CTIA,GTIA} and POKEY are connected. ANTIC is delivering the necessary data via DMA, but to do that, it needs take the control over the CPU and while doing that, the rest of the system is 'on hold' which has drastic influence on overall system performance. Not doable with only 1MHz or even less than that! But 6/8MHz CPU Well, i can see your thoughts: Why some games are than faster than C64 versions anyway! That's easy: It's because there is also a way to access GTIA directly and let ANTIC {the CPU cycles thief} dream sweet dreams... However, it is a complicated procedure. And very probably back in the days it wasn't practiced a lot. As today too, also then everything was a deadline matter! Not to mention that getting hands on any system information was like searching for gold. That changed later but programmer base was already established. Atari made the same mistake as also Commodore did. Commodore just wasn't able to make a worthy successor to replace Commodore C64. Atari wasn't able to properly replace Atari-400/800... And as time was passing by, 16-bit computers wanted to see some daylight... And that then definitely killed small 8-bit brothers and sisters. Conclusion: I am happy with my Commodore C128 despite the fact that it wasn't really made with necessary love. And I am now also happy with Atari-800XL {as emulation for now}. And latest for the next Christmas, a real one, WOULD BE FANTASTIC! 😁 Same can be said for other Atari 400/800/800XL/130XE users. I bet they are also happy. {800XE is actually 65XE so I'll just put it in Atari-800XL basket } At the moment i am fighting my way through Display List, Fonts, memory addresses and definitely Player-Missile-Area etc. Synapse-Assembler is my tool. {First thing i did was to turn off key-clicks with poke 731,1! That 'creature' killed my last nerve } Very nice video btw. i learned a few new facts! Thanks a lot.
👍😁😜 Thank you a lot for this long comment and so many interesting threads. However I can't agree with that the Atari image was not sharp. It's rather the question how computer was connected to tv. You could easily get a very good quality image when using s-video (true that the first XL copies had only video composite). Concerning ANTIC/GTIA I agree that some good start was somehow wasted with bad "construction" of graphics modes. Ex. they could divide image on 8x8 pixel blocks and give the possibility to define ex. 2 different colours for each block etc. (sth similar like in C64). Moreover observing Atari development, I was really disappointed that they didn't propose new updated versions when it counted about hardware, ex. sth like XL+ with 8MHz, new graphic modes etc.). In practice it was the same 8-bit computer produced during so many years with very minor modifications like new case, more RAM (but using it was not so easy) etc. Another thing is that quite often software companies were preparing the same game for few different computers (Atari, Commodore, ZX Spectrum etc.) aligning it to the computer with the lowest possibilities and not using many tricks (specific to only one platform) which could make that software much better. P.S. I hope you will visit my channel from time to time! 😉😀👍
I am quite surprised to say that the Atari games I have seen mostly look better than the C64 versions. Also the demos I have seen on Atari are very impressive too. You can see that C64 has slightly better resolutions and obviously the SID chip rules when it comes to music... but aside from that it does seem that the Atari is superior. When I was a kid I knew someone that had most computers, so I got to use them all and compare to C64. Except atari, nobody seemed to have one of those, so I never got to use one.
🤪💪😀 Difference in resolution doesn't matter. I would say Atari had better graphics but it was more difficult to get "maximum power" than in case of Commodore. However when it comes about sprites, it's not so black and white for me and there is no clear winner here. Concerning SID, we could have probably long discussion with many glasses of beer. 🍻 However what is the most important, we can now rediscover both computers from some perspective. Btw, I highly encourage you to have a look on my video about games for Atari developed after 2000. And sure please be my frequent guest. 😀
@@ITGuyinaction of course resolution matters, this directly affects how's many pixels you get on the screen. You might want to learn what it actually means before dismissing it
@@RussMichaels Sure, I know that. 😜Do you really believe that guy working with computers since 40 years doesn't know what the resolution is? 🤔🤔🤔🤔 I thought about sth different. Difference in maximum resolution between C64 and Atari 800XL is so small that it doesn't have any impact when comparing both computers. For C64 we have 320x200 pixels, for Atari 800XL we have 320x192 pixels. We can simply forget about this difference.
@@ITGuyinaction yes clearly since you said above that resolution doesn't matter. That were your words, not mine.fyi I was a programmer for many years ago I know exactly what resolution means and what difference it makes.
@@RussMichaels Do you really believe that 8 pixels more give such a significant difference? It's just 4 percent more of total number of pixels... (8x320) 🤔🤔🤔🤔 Ok, let's then stay with our opinions... I believe we can still keep peace even having a bit different opinion about this aspect. 😀
Well, the goal of this video is not to compare old with new but to compare two iconic 8-bit computers. That's why I treat this comparison old with new as some kind of "far side plot" and I don't spend too much time on it. Perhaps it's the idea for completely new video to go more deeply here including also colours/graphics etc. comparison?
Bit depth really did not matter very much in most games. The Atari's could generate 256 colors and used them in some minor ways, the vast majority of games were 16 color with maybe some color cycling on occasion. So most games were 16 color on both machines, with a better color cycling title screen on Atari.
@@bitset3741 That's not so easy. In case of Atari, using interrupts (or changing additionally Antic program), you could easily get much more colours on one screen.
This is like comparing the C64 to the Nintendo NES in terms of years apart. Atari 8 bits were designed in 1977-78 released in 1979 at a time the components were very expensive. Commodore were quite lazy but took advantage of cheaper components and easier regulations. They also bought the Amiga team (ex Atari designers).
🤔🤔🤔 That's more complicated... True that the Atari 400/800 are older... but first "new" Atari 800XL is younger than the C64... There are many comments below this video concerning that and influence on success of the C64 on the market... Btw, Commodore bought MOS and that also gave them strong position! With Amiga that's another story...
I really can't understand why Commodore guys didn't give to C64 better colour palette. Any idea what could be the reasons? Even Atari 2600 designed few years earlier had much more colours (not counting SECAM version).
@@ITGuyinactionI have read one of the designers saying they picked the colors arbitrarily because they thought they looked nice. Definitely not artists… the biggest Achilles heel of commodore graphics were the drab unsaturated colors.
@@datacipher Partially probably because of "artistic" impressions, but partially because of technical limitations and the way how PAL and NTSC systems work. However it's quite strange for me that C64 had only 16 colors as even Atari 2600 released few years earlier had much more colors... Strange decision. Thanks for visiting my small channel. P.S. I really like your nick! 😉
@@ITGuyinaction Here's what I wsa referring to: "I'm afraid that not nearly as much effort went into the color selection as you think. Since we had total control over hue, saturation and luminance, we picked colors that we liked. In order to save space on the chip, though, many of the colors were simply the opposite side of the color wheel from ones that we picked. This allowed us to reuse the existing resistor values, rather than having a completely unique set for each color" - Robert Yannes
@@ITGuyinaction C64 was a great 8 bit computer of course, one of the very best. But I really believe the Atari 8 bits series didn't get all the recognition they deserved, that's why I'm pushing for the 800 xl here.
Pity that both Atari and Commodore didn't improve I/O (although in case of Atari disk drives were quite ok but tape readers...). Thank you for visiting my small channel. I hope you will visit me more often! Regards!
Probably you can point many other things which are missing... However my goal was to focus on technical aspects here. That's why I didn't put this information.
They are both grand machines. It depends on what games you want. If a game game out for Atari and took advantage of it's features it would never translate properly or vise versa. I will always favor the Atari over the reason the floppy disk was way faster than the hobbled down 1541. Commodore however was easier to program the sprites vs player missile graphics. Now, with the modern hardware you can get really close the gap. When you have Atari AVG cart vs Commodore FungFu Flash, or the FujiNET coming out for Atari and Commodore, easy ram expansions for the two machines. Now if you want to compare C128 to Atari 130XE, that would be Commodore all the way, the 80 column mode, along with burst mode, GEOS takes it for Commodore.
Seems like atari was faster, had better graphics, faster storage options and more often than not the better game version, while the commodore had the more capacable sound chip, which on the other hand was severely limited by having too few voices to do bass/chord/melody/percussion. Truth be told, since the SIDs filters always felt a bit out of place within the 8bit retro sound context, I'd much rather take pokeys higher voice count and authentic 8bit brutality :) And let's not forget that ataris scrolling was a lot smoother too. All in all, well, atari wins this in surprisingly clear fashion 😎
I'm wondering how much SID was better than POKEY and how much marketing guys told us it's better. Still I believe it's good to return to those days. Thanks for visiting my small channel! Please don't forget to subscribe! 🎅👍
@@ITGuyinaction well, as a music producer who's deep into chip tune stuff (and also an 80s kid) , I can exactly tell you : SID has some more waveforms and modulation possibilities, and it has filters. Pokey doesn't have filters. That's pretty much it. And that's where it becomes subjective, because filters strike me as a rather pointless bonus in the context of 8bit chiptune aestethic. The best way to make the c64 sound nicely era-appropriate is to turn the filters off. And then we are left with the polyphony that is not enough for the basics. Soundtracks like M. U. L. E. Or alternate reality demonstrate that problem nicely: if you want "drums", you can only do one bass and one melody note. No chords for you. And quick arpeggios as fake polyphony (as I. E. alternate reality used) only get you so far. As a result, both of these iconic soundtracks sound lame on SID. It just doesn't have the polyphony to properly reproduce the composition. It's for that reason that to me personally, even though I'm very much an ensoniq guy (that's the people who created SID), SID and Pokey see much more eye to eye than most people admit. Cause pokey was also much fatter. Both in single oscillator mode, but especially when you decided to double a voice with a slight pitch offset for extra fatness, something the SID of course could also do, but people rarely did because then you've burnt already 2 voices and have only one left. Long story short : Sound is more complex than just going "look, there's filters on the feature list of A, but not B, therefore A wins".
@@zorglub667 Wow! Thank you a lot for sharing this! You are a real expert here! I can only learn from you! I'm sure that your comment will be very interesting to the viewers of my small channel! All the best for New Year 2024!
"Truth be told, since the SIDs filters always felt a bit out of place within the 8bit retro sound context, I'd much rather take pokeys higher voice count and authentic 8bit brutality :)" In what way? For me the SID is the best sound chip used in an 8 bit micro hands down based on how tunes created with the chip sound, which to me is the only metric that should be used to judge a sound chip. What the SID lacked in voices, it benefitted from what you could do with those voices and the POKEY only had one more voice than the SID. You weren't comparing a chip with only 3 voices and another with 8. The AY had 4 voices, the 2A03 had 5 and an (official) way of playing samples (the SID sample playback was done through a bug which they "fixed" in the 8580) you weren't going to avoid appregios on the Atari machines. Also, what do you achieve by doubling the POKEY's voices? 16 bit resolution? That gives you TWO voices with that, the SID already had THREE voices with that much resolution. I thikn you're talking less through your credntials as a chiptuner and more through nostalgia for your own childhood system. You were an Atari kid rather than a Commodore one!
I appreciate the comparison as a fan of some Atari originals (though played on my C64). Especially in the UK, little was known of that series, though, of course, the ST was very big later on. Still, I find the 8-bit world more interesting, as each machine is so very different to the next, and not in small ways. One thing I should mention is that these games are far from being the highest-rated on the C64 and seem to be using its abilities in a pretty simple way. But with that said, what do I think of the comparison? Atari pros- much wider colour range, making for more vibrant game worlds. Better sound effects, especially when there is background music going on. The processor looks like it can enable some very sophisticated experiences. I'd imagine the legendary Lucasfilm games worked a lot better on it. Commodore- much better music from the SID. To my ears, it just isn't close and it's my fave for 8-bit sound, just so much more musical and sophisticated. This is what a synth rather than a sound chip FX can do. The resolution looks consistently higher in all these games. The colours are very limited, true, but the dull colours make for simpler and more realistic-looking games. It's hardly an advantage; it's more of a bad design choice. But it made for the 'familiar look' of the Commie games, just as the SID gave them a 'familiar sound'. And this is what makes it such a classic, having a certain look with enough definition to make it expressive. In conclusion- 8 bit is a fascinating space despite of and in a sense even thanks to the limitations. We, who mostly know about the C64 and ZX Spectrum series, should get to know Atari better. If for no other reason than for the creative, luminously coloured games that were simply unique to that system.
👍 Thank you for this very interesting comment. Why did Commodore decide to limit C64 colour palette so much according to your opinion? As I can see here some kind of discrepancy. Very interesting music chip, quite good sprites (it's difficult to compare them directly with Atari but trying to be short I would say that C64 had slightly better sprites than XL/XE or at least much easier programmable) and... other graphics possibilities below average... (although again it was easier to get good results without using so many tricks as in XL/XE).
The game shown at the end very much looks like it was converted to the C64 from the Atari rather than being built with the VIC-II in mind. There's a lot that could be done to improve the graphics!
Yeah, it was converted from Atari. However it was quite common at that time that a game created for one computer was next transferred to other platforms, sometimes to 10-20 different ones.
@@ITGuyinaction Lazy greed is why the second thought machine get's little more usually than making it function on another machine. Common in the industry back then and even now. But as a business man I get their thinking, but Quality is still important...even in business.
Having owned both, the C64 & Atari 800XL, in the 80s, I can attest that the Atari 8 bit was best. The Atari was well polished, well engineered. The C64 had a slow slow buggy buggy disk drive system - made slow from a bug that carried over from the Vic 20, I've read. Commands on the Atari made sense - on the C64 commands were a headache: for example, OPEN 1,8,15,"R:NEWNAME=TEMPFILE":CLOSE 1 to rename a file on the C64. The Atari 8 bit was released 2.x years earlier, but it held it's own: having the same processor chip but it was clocked considerably faster than the C64's chip & had nearly identical graphics (the C64 on very slightly higher). The only advantage of the C64, to me, is the Commodore simply had more games (as it was the #1 selling computer). When I sold my Atari 800XL to then buy a C64, I had many many regrets afterwards!
Thanks a lot for this comment. You mention very important area. Atari system software was much better in many aspects, including the ones you listed. I'm curious why Commodore had much better sales and much more games while two computers were so similar and I would say Atari had many advantages comparing with C64. Even of course it's not black and white. I hope you to see you more often on my small channel. 😀
@@ITGuyinaction really 2 factors made the c64 win out. 1) Price. Jack Tramiel started the price wars, and on top of that, the 400 and 800 needed a ton of RF shielding because of the FCC requirements at the time. By the time that was changed, the C64 was ready to ship, and could be made and sold for less. The XL line was the 'cost reduction models. 2) lowest common denominator. The 400 had 16kb of ram, and the 800 had 48kb. Most games were coded to work on 48kb for many years, while the c64 would started out with 64kb, so coders would utilize that.
@@slaapliedje Not sure, if we should compare 400/800 with C64. As 800 XL was released just a bit later than C64, and in 1982 1200XL was launched. Thus it would be very interesting to show the reasons why 1200XL/800XL having at least comparable if not better possibilities didn't win when fighting for place on the market. Was that because 400/800 were weaker and 1200XL had some weak points and 800XL being real C64 competitor was released few months too late? Did it cause that situation? Who was in practice first?
@@slaapliedje One thing comes also to my mind. Jack Tramiel, as Commodore boss, made one very smart step buying MOS. Do you agree with me? It allowed him somehow to control indirectly Atari prices (which was buying chips from MOS) and having probably higher profit margin on C64 (using also MOS chips), he could spend more on marketing...
@@ITGuyinaction agreed, though I think that was after the initial success of the c64 due to a lower price and being newer, then the pricing wars could really kick off after they bought MOS.
It would also be necessary to show games that are on C64 and not on Atari. Because these are the best games (!!!) from the C64, Atari doesn't have them at all. It's also funny to compare colors, because Atari theoretically has many more of them, but they are practically not used in games! And C64 games are much more colorful :D
Well, if you want to show C64 only games, it would be also fair to present Atari only games. Concerning colours, I don't agree. At the beginning, after release, it was true that many games didn't use more advanced tricks. But with time it changed a lot...
@@ITGuyinaction But since the mid-1980s, Atari games have no longer been produced. There are no newer and better ones. There are a lot of great games on the C64 from the late 80s and 90s, as well as modern ones. Show these colorful Atari games? How many are there? Most games have 4 colors - black, gray, brown and grey :D
@@BaltazarZX Please just have a look on my other videos on my channel. And for sure you will find also many more videos on other channels. Games for Atari are still being developed. Sure not commercially but it's even better...
@@BaltazarZX There is a webpage called Indie retro news. There you will find lists of homebrew games for all 8bit platforms by model. The atari 8bit homebrew scene is only third behind the C64 and Speccy and in hardware add-ons and upgrades its up there with the most popular retro machines (if not first). In addition to that, most significant modern game ports tend to look and play better on the Atari platform. The correct statement should be "Some C64 games are more colorful and others are not". Here are some games as an example. Shared tiles:Bosconian, Attack of the Mutant Camels, Encounter, bombjack, Elektra glide, Frogger II, Guard(Tangent), Assembloids, Mr Robot and his Factory, stealth, Space Harrier, International Karate RC/RCX Exclusive titles: Albert, Animal Party, Betty issues, Breakit22, Callisto, Contagion, Crownland, DITCH, Dimo's Quest/dungeon, Rainbow walker, The extirpator, Excelsor, Marbled, The last squadron, RGB, Timeslip, Bubble shooter, Cavernia, Creep, Crystal Crisis, Cygnus, Heli in Caves, Deathzone, Detonationix, Dizzy, Fire chief, onEscape, skyscraper,
I had an 800 XL at that time, but got a C64 long after both machines were discontinued, so I could do side by side comparisons, and found the experience to be similar on both. I do have to give the edge to the C64 sound chip, though. Also, everyone at the Atari club that I belonged to used Commodore monitors. They were just better than any other monitor that worked with the Atari machines.
My personal opinion and I will try to be brief. The C64 had better graphics than the Atari because even though it had fewer colours, it could display more colours at higher resolutions and the sprites were much better than the Atari player missiles. Furthermore, it was easier to program than the Atari which had a very sophisticated but complex design. Furthermore, the SID sound chip was much better than the POKEY at music but many preferred the latter for sound effects. When it came to processors, the ATARI was about 80% faster on paper, about 40% in real life applications, which is a big difference. Overall, I would say the ATARI was a state of the art system for 1979 and it was leaps and bounds ahead of anything else. The design was so good that it could compete with the C64 which was a 1982 system. Finally, games always seem to play better on the Atari...my guess is that it is because of the faster processor. Both are classic systems, but the Atari , in my opinion, is the de facto cult computer of the 80s and the C64 is the mainstream master. They are basically the best 8 bit computers of the 80s.
Yeah, both machines were quite interesting! And it's the best to have both now! P.S. Do you know that you could modify Antic processor program and add those few missing lines to get C64 resolution?
I want an Atari 800XL first, then I want an Apple 2gs, then I'd take the C64. Of course, the 2gs isn't 8 bit... I'd still take an Apple 2 second over the c64 though, simply because the disk operating system is much better on Apple (and Atari)
In a chess game with 2 players with equal strength, the white player is more likely to win or at least draw, while the black player can already be happy about a draw and does not really "need" to win. I enjoyed your video but still I have to point out (as a atari person) that this was not really 100% fair. The Atari 8bit computers are great, but the c64 was a monster, like 8bit on steroids to be honest. It was just (much) faster, has better sound and music, more programs and games. However I really like the facts that the Atari colorpalette was that great on the other hand. Even the Atari ST was only showing 16colors (without tricks), that is at the same time great (for the atari 8bit) and a shame (for the later ST series).
Concerning chess game, I was wondering if someone raise this point. Thus point for you. Should I repeat this game but reversing now which computer is the first player? 😜 Concerning technical possibilities, Atari was faster and here it's difficult to discuss with numbers. Concerning sound and music that might depend on individual opinion as there are areas where Atari is better and areas where Commodore is better. At least it's my humble opinion.
@@ITGuyinaction np, I made a similar video about chess on the Atari ST some time ago and did not cared about it as well :D ruclips.net/video/9thcEaDdCgI/видео.html
First off thanks for making this great video, I found it to be very interesting. I owned both machine and loved them both. The overall specification and games was very close, but I would give it to Atari. My reason this conclusion is the Atari was based on 2 to 3 years older hardware. In the 70s and 80s, hardware advances in a couple of years was quite high. The CBM64 had at least two years hardware advances over the Atari, but it could still hold it's own. One massive advantage the CBM64 had over Atari was the Amazing SID chip, even though the developers made good use of Atari's Pokey Chip.
👍👍👍 Thank you for this nice comment. I hope you will visit my small channel more often. Returning to the merits, it's a very good conclusion. I would also add here the sprites which were quite different but probably a bit better for C64.
C64 was the superior machine. The sprites were superior to Atari's, as were the bitmap modes. You could have a max of 4 colours per scanline in 160x200 Atari mode, and 16 at 80x200, whereas in c64 bitmap mode you could have all 16 (albeit with constraints) in both 160x200 and 320x200. Then there is SID. The Atari CPU was faster and colour range superior though.
Well, I fully agree that the way of using colours was much programmer friendly in case of C64. In Atari to get many colours you had to use interrupts or to modify Antic program (or both). Concerning sprites, here it's not so black and white. Sure C64 had hardware support of moving sprites in both directions while Atari only in one (the second had to be done "in software way"). However Atari sprites are much bigger (full screen height) which sometimes you can use it in creative way. Still thank you for visiting my channel and I hope you subscribe it! 😀
Sprites - agree. Atari sprites had lower resolution. It was visible at some games. For me, sprites was main difference. But about other factors, machines are similar.
@@TrockeyTrockey Well, I would say resolution was similar. Just C64 sprites were wider (more pixels). And Atari sprites had much bigger height (=full screen height but in practice full height was not used).
I owned both in the 80s. The Atari was very well engineered and polished. The C64, disk in particular, was slow slow & bugyy buggy. I much preferred the Atari.
As I see it. The major disadvantage of the C64 is the odd color palette with its gloomy shades where some colors are far too dominant instead of using a standard RGB palette. Every game looks "C64" because of that. The dull colours that lacks luster and brilliance in every game. C64's soundchip is perhaps TOO "synthy" for it's own good. Great for music but not so good on sound effekts. You encounter the same syndome as with colours. Every game sounds synth-C64. Nintendo NES was much better balanced and featured a PCM channel as well. Else the C64 was a great computer for it's time but it will never even come close to the fantasic raster colour effects you can watch in many games on the Atari 8bit computer. Compare Alternate Reality on both computers to verify that.
Thank you for this post. You mentioned very important points. However we could also discuss ex. build quality or operating systems features (or rather ROM features). I hope you will visit my channel from time to time.
That's funny: most people berate C64 for its colours - to me they look ok, what I felt disappointed about C64 is...blocky graphics, the same is true about Atari but I was growing up playing on ZX-Spectrum where there's only 1 graphical mode 256×192, both C64 and Atari support even higher resolution with even more crispy graphics but most games (or rather their developers) didn't bother with it
In my opinion, the colors on the C64 are perfectly fine. They were chosen by the human eye, not some machine scale. The only "bug" was in the later versions of the C64 with the VIC 8565, which was produced by a different process, and resulted in blander colors than the earlier 6569. You can see how good those mere 16 colors are in the graphic creations of demoscene, for example. You can display practically anything real with it.
@@ITGuyinaction Audio on both are good shame they messed up on the ST and put inferior chip to the 8bit Atari. I liked the tune on the Atari 8bit Elektra Glide and International Karate.
@@mas2743 I have impression that Atari ST was a computer created being in hurry. Atari wanted to have 16 bit model but as it was not enough advanced they decided to simplify their life...
Atari could have been a tremendous success but the talented developers were focused on the 64. I had a Commodore bread bin but looking bad it's kinda sad that it got all the hype and attention.
@@brucetungsten5714 👍 Why do you think that developers preferred Commodore than Atari? Or perhaps was this rather commercial decision or some kind of influence of games companies managers or even informal contacts of Commodore?
Except for sound, Atari, did everything better. Unfortunately, their price kept them from competing as effectively as they could have if they were cheaper.
🤔🤔🤔 I don't think only the price. Some guys commenting here probably pointed quite well, that C64 was released approx. 1 year earlier than Atari 800XL and that "magic year" made a huge difference. And Atari 400/800/1200XL, released earlier, were not very competitive due to price but also due to some not fully prepared features/software. Did you enjoy this video? I hope you will visit more often my small channel. It would be very nice. 😀
@@ITGuyinaction Atari messing about with the 1200XL and 600XL and not having any 800XL in the shops for Christmas 1983 was the nail in the coffin for the 8-bit line.
Ah, I like both sound chips. The Commodore 64 has a fuller sound, but if you can use the Atari chip, that dirty-sounding POKEY chip giving it some bass. However, it sounds like the C64 chip was used more and many Atari games mostly had the music on the title screen. It sounds like the 2 extra channels could really help the ATARI sound. One name keeps coming up on both systems: Rob Hubbard.
I wouldn't call POKEY as chip giving dirty-sounding ha ha... One thing is sure, both chips give so much different sound. In my humble opinion it's a real pity that POKEY and SID were not doubled in each computer to make depending on some switch either stereo sound either 2 times more channels mono sound. Now it's for sure possible to get such an extension but at that time...
I really like the Pokey. It has way more charm than the C64 bubble-overdose we have in our brain. Not so harsch (dirty is the last word I would relate to the Pokey), it is butter smooth! Especially some Atari arcade cabs pushed the Pokey to amazing heights. For example Super Sprint is one of the best sounding Pokey machines ever.
🎅❄☃ There is sth in that! All the best for the New Year! I also highly recommend visiting my little channel more often and subscribing! I will be very delighted!
The C64 wins the war but Atari wins some battles (edge cases) for example take a look at the homebrew port of Sega's Arcade Game Space Harrier to Atari 8-bit, it will blow you away!
@@ITGuyinaction excluding homebrew mayhem on monsterland pushes the hardware the most and exploits undocumented tricks. Almost looks like a 16-bit platformer. With homebrew included: Super Mario Bros. and Sonic the Hedgehog.
Well it was never a war to begin with. The video attempted to compare two 8bit platforms with different architectures and custom silicons. C64 won the market during their commercial life but things changed when people without monetary interest started creating stuff on the A8. I will argue that both machines have pros and cons but I need to point out some examples where the A8 proves it value against its worthy competitor. Lets start with newer titles that can be found on both platforms. 1.Yoomp! the Atari version is better, the screen is bigger, the animation and trajectory of the ball is superior, the effects are far more colorful. 2. Total Eclipse. Superior framerate. 3. Stunt Car racer, Superior framerate 4. Guard (A8) vs Tangent(C64), Superior speed and colors. 5. You already mentioned Space Harrier 6.Prince of Persia. Superior graphics without those annoying slowdowns. 7. Assembloids, Superior graphics. 8.Bomb Jack/Gacek at least equally good if not better in some aspects (screen real estate ) Now the Atari also have the 16-bit(ish) platformers , like Albert, Betty Issues and Crownland(my friend thought I sent him a mame game video). You can also check RGB, Mario bros Arcade XE, Timeslip, the new IK RC and RCX which also look great and of cource TRAX (Chaos engine) on the making. And what About Dimo's quest/dungeon, Atari blast, Callisto, Break it 22, Marbled, The last squadron...etc etc etc. I can go on and on talking about so many amazing creations of talented people on the A8 but the point is that the winner of the commercial "war" was not that special imho.
Don't forget that the Atari 8-bit was 3 years before the C64. A more real competitor was the Commodore VIC-20 and Apple II. Which didn't have nearly as good graphics and sound as Atari. The Atari is not far behind in performance and that makes it a good competitor even to the C64.
If you take into consideration Atari 400/800, then true. And in fact differences between 800 and 800XL were quite small. The biggest was memory size. In many countries, Atari 800XL was the most often compared with Commodore 64 and that's why I decided to prepare this video. I still think that Atari 400/800/1200XL/800XL/... was a revolutionary project!
@@ITGuyinaction Yes, that's what i mean too. The Atari 8-bit was a great computer that stood up well against the C64 even though it was 3 years earlier with other competitors in mind. I like the pokey sound more ;) I think zx spectrum was slightly bigger than Atari here in Sweden.
Both computers are using the self same moves in that chess game! It's not about the technology, it's about the games. The C64 had 7,000 more games than the Atari 800!!! And because of the huge sales of the C64 you had much more education, utility and programming software.
its clear each has its own advantages. You can clealry see that C64 wins on gfx and sound but Atari wins on systems specs, speed etc. Judging by the specs, you would expect the Atari to have better games most of the time, but this doesn;t appear to be the case. In most cases C64 games and apps look better. A slightly higher screen resolution with more pixels to play with makes the games look slightly better and less blocky. Looks like C64 has smoother scrolling too. I would say the atari excels at 3D/vector games due to its faster CPU, like Infiltrator, mercenary, elite etc. From a developers perspective, I imagine Atari was the better system to work with in many ways. But for end user, C64 wins on visuals and sounds.
🤔🤔🤔 We have already had quite interesting discussion about resolution in comments thus please have a look on it. One thing is for sure C64 won when it comes about number of games on the market and number of sold units. However concerning technical possibilities I would vote here for Atari even if concerning sound I would have doubts here...
@@commanderObvious The music is a bit different however... I'm wondering how much it's related with audio chip possibilities and how much with the fact that SID supported more things in hardware way making preparing music much easier...
They're both fantastic home computers and retro game consoles. There's more than enough love to go around. Throw in the ZX Spectrum and Apple II/IIgs and you're living in a golden age.
Atari can only do 2/4 colours (not shades of 1 colour) per scanline or character row backgrounds due to lack of attribute/color RAM in 320x192/160x192, there is no escaping that. Even the Sinclair Spectrum can do 16 per row with zero CPU/system bandwidth displays. The reality is the Atari software support was dropped when stunning games like Law of the West for C64 came out, no 8bit system can replicate those C64 graphics technically or replicate the bullet hell C64 shoot 'em up Enforcer even today.
It's more complicated. Depending on the mode, Atari can do 2-16 colors per scanline. Additionally when using interrupts, you can easily change colors set per scanline. True that in the most popular mode used by many games, you can use only 4 colors per scanline. However chagning those 4 colors in each scanline, you can easily get all 128 or 256 colors in the whole image. It's just the invention of the programmer, how he will manage this limitation. Moreover using interrupts, you can also change screen mode somewhere in the middle of the screen. So ex. in top part you can have 2 colors per scanline mode, in the middle 4 colors per scanline and in the bottom 16 colors per scanline. Atari is very flexible here.
@@ITGuyinaction As I understand it the 1979 and later 1980 GTIA update chipset can only do what the C64 does without colour ram if you want any colour combination not weird any colour/any luminance. That's 2 colours in hi-res 320x192 etc, 4 colours in 160x192. Resolutions lower than that are not applicable unless you were upgrading from a Fairchild Channel F :) You have more colours sure but it is impossible to do C64 games like 320x200 law of the west. Rastaconverter with millions of iterations would have trouble replicating C64 Law of the West screenshots and that display uses zero CPU/raster time or VIC-II bandwidth on a C64. It's just how it is, in 1979 Atari didn't think about attribute/color RAM and this is the negative side for gaming. You just have to accept some things, C64 can't due Atari Rescue on Fractalus, Atari can't do 3rd generation 16 colour per scanline C64 games like Law of the West. No need to get upset, I didn't build the 1979 vs 1981 chips :)
@@retrotronics1845 Yeah, I fully agree that colors per 8x8 pixels idea (Commodore) is much better than Atari idea colors per screen (or per scanline if we use interrupts but it's a bit tricky even if not much). Additionally for C64 we can use interrupts but it's not possible to extend 16 colors pallette which for me is a huge limitation. In theory there are solutions achieving more colors with some colors interlacing but I don't count them as the result is very bad in my opinion. Concerning lower resolutions for Atari, true that they are not very usefull but in some situations you can also use them for sth especially if you use them only in part of the screen (ex. for displaying some counters of found objects, number of lives etc.). In general creating interesting games for 8-bit computers required a lot of creativity. Moreover C64 was newer model and it also gave to it some advantage. Not counting that some Atari XL/XE solutions have roots in Atari 2600 console. And Atari in most (all?) countries was significantly cheaper than Commodore (having its own chip factory which was a very good business decision). Probably we could have a lot discussion about that with a lot of glasses of good beer or wine ha ha... 🤪
@@ITGuyinaction It amazes me that some of the games were so similar to each other, more than any other popular format of the time. despite their graphics hardware being complete opposites. I have spent all day converting images to the C64 equivalent of Rastaconverter for Atari and as I always knew for pictures it's better to have more colours than higher resolution. Still I did make 2 nice pictures of a white 1988 BMW M3 on tarmac :) If I could have two machines in the 1980s it would be C64 and Atari 800XL or 800 48k. I actually wanted an Atari 800 but it was too expensive so I got a C64. Both are great machines to be honest. There's loads of Atari games I haven't played for decades but looking forward to as a treat for finishing work on my house, like obscure hidden gems like Alleykat which I loved playing on my friend's Atari 800 but only Atari owners really know exists, shame it should get a cool Amiga conversion one day.
@@retrotronics1845 I'm so happy that my video caused so long and interesting discussion! I keep my fingers crossed for your the best 8-bit experiences in the nearest time! It's always good to return to the memories from childhood. 😀👍
I am not sure what was the situation in the other parts of the world but in Hungary the C64 was the winner. Not because of any technical reasons but probably due to the better price and the fact that they were smuggled into the country semi-officially (turning a blind eye by the government) in large numbers. It was not worth to buy a technically better Atari if all your classmates had Commodores. And even the local computer gaming magazines didn't care about the Atari. We had two main mags (Commodore World and 576KByte) and they had articles for Commodores Amigas and later for PCs.
Good point! True that your friends choice quite often determined your choice! And 8-bit Atari was really popular only in few countries including Poland. Thanks for visiting my small channel and I hope you will have a look on my videos from time to time! 👍🎥
It's hard to believe a Soviet country got any Western computers. Going by the arcade games, the Soviet Union was WAY behind the West in small computers. The Soviets lagged well behind in large computer systems as well. I know various Soviet countries would import parts, but not entire computers. Atari really wasn't technically better either. Pokey is vastly inferior to the SID and the Vic II is superior to the Atari's video chip. While the early Atari built 800s were very well built, the earliest ones dramatically overbuilt, than the C64, the later 800s were not built very well at all.
@@tarstarkusz Hungary was called the “most happy barrack” of the socialist countries because at the 70-80s the dictatorship was much softer than in many surrounding countries. There is a documentary series called “Vakondok” which talks about this era of computing. The company called Novotrade was founded then and the leader talks about importing these machinse despite the COCOM regulations. They also built a successful industry of writing computer games here for their British partners. edit: "Moleman 4." is the documentary which talks about this topic.
@@tarstarkusz How it was in Hungary, our friend @gabor222 explained. Concerning Poland there were two chains of the shops called Pewex and Baltona. Despite those shops were Polish one and in Poland you were not allowed to use there national currency but only foreign ones (and also sth we called false dollars but that's another story). And without any problems you could buy there foreign computers: Atari, Timex, Commodore and also other electronic devices imported from West like tv-sets, audio equipment made by well known manufactures like Sony, Panasonic, Technics etc. Thus the only question was... to have money! Long story!
@@gabor222 I think that also Czechoslovakia and East Germany (DDR) were in quite good situation and were quite rich as for East countries at those times.
@@FutureChaosTV Well, It might be cultural difference (or result of some country standards). Now sure from where it comes in my video, but as a child I used this quite often. Generally in Poland we don't use thousands separators in most cases. In the past I even saw quite good article about that but currently I'm not capable to find it. However please have a look: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator#Digit_grouping and here ux.stackexchange.com/questions/23667/is-using-a-comma-as-a-number-separator-a-cultural-thing Both the character used as separator and after how many digits we put separator depend on the country. Moreover please note that this channel is watched in many different countries and this way of writing might be better as people will not confuse it with their local standards, in particular they will not confuse it with decimal mark. Still thank you for visiting my small channel and I hope you will watch my videos from time to time! 😀
@@ITGuyinaction With small numbers you can just opt to not use the separator. F.e. 1300 or 13000. Easiest maybe is just to use empty space to group the digits for big numbers f.e. 13 000 000. Use what you want. Just be prepared that the way you write it you will probably have this discussion in every video ;-)
STAR RAIDERS 2 isnt a better game than the first . Its actually a game that was supposed to be the videogame of the movie The Last Starfighter . It doesn't look as good as the original STAR RAIDERS . No way Commodore could duplicate the ATARI 8 bit version . The 64 just wasn't as powerful as the ATARI 8 bit line .
Actually, an unreleasesd version of Star Raiders II exists - it is fairly similar to the 1st one, in terms of look and feel, but present a few enhancements (sounds, graphics, gameplay). To my knowledge, Aric Wilmunder worked on it and got it to the point of being almost finished, but it was shelved, for some reasons. I got my hands on it and frankly, I was impressed by it - much more than I was by the "Last Starfighter renamed" version (which is otherwise a very fine game and stands on its own).
Have you ever programmed Atari in assembler? When programming in BASIC, yes it was true. But there were more modes than you write, one with even 16 colours per screen. And please remember from 256 colours palette. In assembler I would say it was limitation per line and not per screen. Concluding, please learn more about Atari assembly programming. 🤪💪😀
@@ITGuyinaction I have written assembly language for both the Atari 8 bit computers, and the VCS as well as the C64 and Apple 8 bit computers. Really, I was just commenting on the video omitting the Atari 4 color character mode. With GTIA modes disabled, one can get 2, 4 and 5 color character displays in a variety of resolutions. The 5 color mode was not made available from BASIC using the keywords. With GTIA turned on, those same modes provide color data for the 80 pixel wide GTIA graphics modes, and in that case one can get 16 colors on screen easily. As I recall, there were three basic choices: One was a set of 16 hues at a given intensity value, another was 16 shades of grey at a given hue value, and the final one used all the color registers as a palette type mode, but only 9 (or was it 11?) colors were addressable that way. You won't see me in these comment pages, ever again. :(
@@DougDingus Why do you want to analyse ANTIC only modes? From end user perspective, as this video is made, only cooperation of ANTIC and GTIA matters. In practice, not counting very sophisticated situations, ANTIC and GTIA were treated as one video chip when programming. From BASIC, having two chips was not visible at all, from assembler more but mostly addressing different registers of both chips. If Atari put everything into one chip keeping the same registers, noone would notice this from programming perspective. Not sure why you feel offended. You wrote incorrect information (or at least highly simplified and imprecise) and that's why I addressed that. P.S. For all those who are interested in all graphics modes of Atari, I put some links the video description. In particular this one might be interesting having all modes listed: www.atarimania.com/faq-atari-400-800-xl-xe-what-is-an-atari-8-bit-computer_3.html
@@ITGuyinaction Oh boy. I wrote nothing incorrect. The ONLY reasons for my comment were: 1. Fun video. 2. An Atari can deliver 2, 4 or 5 color character modes. See 15:42 in the video. You have only 2 and 5 colors there. Really, that's it! I supplied some other info figuring you would be interested given you mentioned assembly language. While I am talking about that part of the video, it's worth mentioning an Atari can display 25, and even more lines of character graphics with a small change to the display list. A BASIC programmer may not know that, but an assembly programmer will. I am not offended at all. No worries there. Now, I really am going to go and will not respond again, but will read whatever you choose to write. Take care, live well, have fun. Seriously.
Er... you're too nice to Jack Tramiel, he literally ruined Atari for short term gains, and letting his son run the show. Heck even at Commodore he ruined quite a bit, and his pettiness delayed the Amiga (as they originally were designed it for Atari but due to him being a dick ... welll long history, but much of the Atari 8 bit line is like a precursor to the Amiga). He really should never have been the head of Atari or Commodore as he ran at least one of these companies into the ground.
🤔🤔🤔🤔 Sometimes I'm wondering if preparing video about Jack Tramiel would be a good idea... Although I guess that guys living in USA could tell much more here than just a normal guy being born in communistic country and having terrible problems to get access to this Western mysterious computers world...
@@ITGuyinaction In this case, communism was the least of Tramiels problems. He could need some communism the way he treated the people who worked for him at Atari. Sorry, it's a bit of a harsh joke, but there are quite a few interviews about him screwing up Commodore and later Atari, like how the Atari 7200 was delayed by him and then limited. It would have been ready to take on the NES with a far better audio solution had he just listened to the engineering team working on it. Sorry if I'm being a bit harsh in both words and replies. I guess I'm just a bit "salty" about Atari's demise lol .
Me I also regret that Atari was not so successful with the next products as we would expect. From another side, we might not know all those things Tramiel knew at that time... and we also know more that what was available to Tramiel when taking decisions. Pity we can't have discussion with him to understand better his actions...
@@DehnusNorder And one thing more, by saying "guy being born in communistic country" I though about myself... Although for sure it's also true in case of Tramiel!
@@ITGuyinaction Jack Tramiel is a survivor of the Holocaust, he got out a bit before the Russians got in. And.. I always find it hard to call Russians "communist", when they just continued the colonialist expansion of the Tzars, but then "Communist!". I really dislike the Russian leadership, from Tzars to "Communist party" to now Putin. It seems their leadership has always been expansionist and corrupt. Sorry my hatred is showing a bit.
Keep in mind that Tramiel was ousted from Commodore before snatching up Atari which was facing problems because they didn't expect their console to reach end-of-life.
At that time consoles and computers were sth fully new thus... not sure if others really knew what would be the expected lifespan. But true that after very good start, Atari seemed to be quite passive later... They offered for long time almost the same products... and their Atari ST was also quite average on the marked when released...
The Atari was awesome, but it couldn't match the higher res sprites and charm of the SID chip on the C64. The SID chip is magical, really. So many times I would just sit and listen to my favourite title or loading music on a game.
With sprites it's not so black and white... Concerning SID, it's not so easy. For sure SID was much easier for programming and many things were controlled in hardware way, comparing to POKEY which required much more software tricks.
@@ITGuyinaction Loved the phat SID filters and how C64 music evolved to become more uniquely stylized. POKEY has that quintessential chip music sound which we all love, but as a synth nerd I prefer depth and characteristics of SID. Rob Hubbard, Jeroen Tel and Matt Gray captured my imagination like nothing else, and even to this day when I introduce my younger friends in the music industry to SID their reaction is always a big smile followed by "Woah". Good times.
@@ITGuyinaction It does indeed, and the C64 scene is also still very much alive too. Lots of great new music still being composed out of passion and love for the SID.
True but you can take into consideration also 400/800/600XL/1200XL and later 65XE/130XE/800XE computers. In my video I selected 800XL as one example of big Atari 8-bit family. However 1200XL is also not far from C64.
There was zero difference in the chipset of any of the Atari models. The only thing we got sadly was more RAM in later years. The Atari chipset was from 1979. Nothing fanboy about that fact.
@@MoparStephen 👍 True. Sure it depends what do you mean exactly by that. As there were some minor improvements. However from the perspective of these the most important chips like microprocessor, ANTIC, GTIA, POKEY and from software developer perspective nothing changed. I was wondering many times why Atari didn't introduce any new model and chips being backward compatible but with new features. They did this somehow in case of Atari 2600/7800 consoles but not in case of XL/XE 8-bit series of computers.
Our famous Dutch 8-bit computer came with a "Steam store" before the internet. With a subscription of 10 guilders/month, you could download all the games you liked. You also paid 10ct per 512byte, so a game of like 20kB was another 4 guilders in download fee. Still cheap if you considered C64 games to cost like 60 guilders. All games were with a freeware license, so you were allowed copying on events or with friends.
I think when you put the C64 against any machine based on the 6502, anything made by Commodore wins because it was Commodore that were making the 6502 CPU. They supplied the chip. They controlled the supply. Anyone else using the 6502 in a home computer was competing against Commodore. If Commodore wanted to, they could have stopped selling or licensing the 6502 and put all of those competitors out of business, It's just that there was too much of a market for the 6502, they made more money from selling the chips than they lost through their competitors using that chip. And when you consider that those competitors included the BBC Micro and the NES as well as the Atari 8 bit range, wsho knows how computing history would have turned out. Also, I always thought that in Eastern Europe, it was the Sinclair ZX Spectrum that was king as it was easier for the Warsaw Pact engineers to clone! Either that wasn't the case in Poland or you have a really low opinion of the Spectrum. Jack Tramiel really was the American Clive Sinclair!
🤔🤔🤔🤔 Well... Decision about buying MOS was a very good one! However business is business. I've never heard about any serious shortages in 6502 delivery for others thus it means Commodore didn't mind that other companies produced their computers basing on that microprocessor. However it might also mean that their margin on C64 was much higher that ex. margin of Atari on Atari 800XL. We could have a long discussion about that area with a big glass of good beer. 🍺 Concerning Eastern Europe, I have impression that Poland could be a specific case. Atari computers were so popular here that probably it wasn't the case of any other Eastern European Bloc countries. Jack Tramiel roots counted here? However C64 and ZX Spectrum/Timex devices were also quite common. And true that in Soviet Union, but also in many other countries, ZX Spectrum clones were created, including Poland. However I've never heard about any Atari XL/XE clone in my country. Do you know any story about such a case? It might be related with the fact that making a copy of POKEY, ANTIC or GTIA was quite challenging... Thanks for visiting my small channel and I hope that you are supporting it by your subscription! 👍
I have C64 Maxi and Atari Mini - the C64 wins comfortably mainly because of the greater number of great titles. It's a pity the Atari never got the Last Ninja games and there are many other other great titles that never made it to the Atari.
The Atari 800 is a 48k computer, not a 64k computer. Even the "64k" 65xe or 800xl are not really 64k (to be fair, neither is the C64) as video ram, fonts and basic itself take a pretty decent amount of RAM from both computers. Also, the 128 was a very popular computer, it's just that almost all games would run the 128 in 64 mode. Making the comparison between games that exist on both is a bit unfair to both. This is especially true of later games. The 64 had a lot more games in the late 80s and early 90s. I don't think the Atari 8 bit line had any in the 90s. Later games tended to exploit the machines more thoroughly as did games released on only 1 of the systems. To me, the biggest flaw in Atari's computer is mono sprites.
We could have a long discussion about memory organisation and it concerns all computers, not only Atari. Moreover please don't forget that you could turn on and off Basic interpreter gaining in this way some additional precious kB. Concerning Commodore 128 I probably wrote this from perspective of my region. It could happen that in some countries it was quite popular. When it comes games comparison, it's never easy to be done. True that "modern games" are capable to squeeze much more out of the hardware. Btw, have you watched my video about games for 8-bit Atari developed after 2000? Sprites.... long story. However please note that Atari had also colourful sprites at the cost of having them less. Big thank you for all those comments and for enriching my channel in this way. I hope that you subscribe it! ♥
@@ITGuyinaction The main problem with comparing games on 2 systems is the game tends to be written to the lowest common denominator. They generally don't have machine specific features. Like the atari is exceptional at X and the Commodore exceptional at Y and so both x and y are not in the game. This particularly harmed the Amiga but also applies to various 8 bit systems. AFAIK, the Atari 8 bit line can only display multicolor sprites by stacking different sprites on top of each other. So a 4 color sprite would consume 3 sprites. This tends to eat up sprites. I haven't seen your video, but I have seen many videos of modern homebrews. Some are pretty impressive. Can you tell me the name of the video? I'd like to see it.
@@tarstarkusz Concerning the lowest common denominator theory I fully agree here. Especially that many of older games were done for commercial purposes mostly - thus quickly, with fixed budget and in order to get the highest income. Concerning colourful sprites, I'm sure you can easily get more materials on the Internet. Saying shortly, if you combine two sprites into one, the OR operation is being done thus you can get one additional colour then as a gift. Additionally you can turn on some mode of interference with background and it can gives also some colours even if in practice it's not used often (it's OR operation between sprite colour and background game colour). Moreover as sprites are the full screen height, you can profit from this and change colours using interrupts every few lines taking also into consideration much richer colour palette. Smart developer can squeeze a lot from that. For example it's possible to "multiply" number of sprites. The video I mentioned is on my channel with the title "Polish games for Atari 8-bit developed after 2000 (amazing graphics and music)". Enjoy!
no i pokazałęs ....ze jak Polacy zrobili gre to "protagoniscie" niemcu i pełno sfastyk wszedzie :P :P raczej za granica nie kojarza Hansa Klossa i serialu :) Ale material spoko - fajnie porównianie - pamietam wojne c64 z atarowcami ... na papierze Atari wyglada lepiej :)
It is nice video. But not very objective, i bet you are clearly on the Atari Side. The choice of the games and you comments really make me feel that. I love the 2 machines, on the paper the Atari seems better that the c64 , but in practice not . C64 is really easy to handle, to program and you can have very good result with lot of less effort than the Atari XL. Even today we compare the production on C64 and the one of Atari XL/XE the C64 dominates. When you see fantastic games on Atari XL/XE general they requires additional hardware , ram extension , etc .. and won't run on stock machine. Or you find very nice game nicely colored (compared to C64 games) but generally theses games are poor in gameplay. Nice, but poor. Because the tricks used to make them nice impose limitation to what you can do as game mecanism. In your video why you did not compare Green Beret on C64 and Atari , instead of Hans Kloss for instance. They are lot of games that are better on Atari than C64 .. but if you consider the complete offer , there are lot of more game better on C64. Games i find better on the Atari , are generally all the early Atari games release on cartridge like Moon Patrol , donkey Kong, defender etc.. or a game like Henry 's House , Drop Zone , Rescue on fractalus, Mercenary .. generally the highest processor speed of the atari is an adventage on 3d games. BTW, very nice video , i love it :)
True. I was in Atari team in 80s. However I tried to make this comparison objective even if of course it's not fully possible. I decided to present games which were available in first years after introducing both computers on the market. I would agree that C64 is easier for programming as more things are supported by hardware. On the other hand, skilful programmers in my opinions could squeeze more from Atari. Yes some games for Atari require additional hardware extensions but it's less than 1% (it's a bit more probably in case of games released in the last years and even less in case of games released in 80s or 90s). Thanks for visiting my small channel. It's always good to discuss.
ruclips.net/video/DMx935rda-s/видео.html Prince of Persia on Atari XL/XE is an example, what could be on these machines done, far better graphics than on C64, absolutely stunning !!!
As an Atari user for the last....40 years, I can say PoP is a great example on what Atari can do, but there is nothing graphically in that game that the C64 can't reproduce. (except maybe the lack of slowdowns that all 8bits and ST experience but not on the A8). The C64 isn't a bad system. The only bad thing about it was that even if it came 3 years later it didn't really managed to offer something more compared to the A8s. Many say that "SID was en evolution" and I remind people that all synth chips were a de-evolution compared to the Pokey "Hybrid" (synth/PCM capabilities).
@@nickolasgaspar9660 👍 👍 👍 I believe that SID could be and interesting subject for one of next videos... Do you have perhaps any interesting comparisons of both?
@@ITGuyinaction So your goal is to start a war! lol. I have been browsing ASMA project for years now and I can offer many suggestions. If you need any information about such a video I will happily share whatever I have learn about those two chips.!
@@nickolasgaspar9660 👍 👍 👍 I can't promise such a video in the nearest time as you can see lately I have less time and less motivation for making videos. However if you have any interesting papers, please feel free to send them to me. I will be more than happy reading them! ❤
We have embedded 5 dollar boards which have way more power than those old computers. I remember seeing an Atari ST emulation running on a cheap arm based arduino clone (I think it was a Teensy)!
Yeah, those 8-bit computers were much less powerful than we can imagine today. But still they provided many functionality and a lot of fun! Due to very simple "operating system" and way of programming (usually assembler for more advanced software).
@@ITGuyinaction Definitely, that was also the reason for the invention of the raspberry pi computer line. Modern computers are more like VCRs back then, you used them but rarely tinkered with them, aka the barrier to get something out of it was too high, the raspberry pi reintroduced that tinkering angle again, funnily it first was picked up by us geezers who immediately saw the value of the GPIOs and easy programmability, but nowadays it even is present in schools for projects.
VIC chip was by no means a simple chip, it was a very complex chip in its day, and some of its features were only discovered years later, such as the ability to unscroll an entire bitmap (VSP) with minimal CPU load. Atari did have heaps of graphics modes, but none of them allowed you to make a game with fine graphics and many colors. In audio, channels had to be doubled to keep it from sounding fake, but even then a lot of music (typically the second and third voices, while the first is doubled 2 channels) has slightly fake notes, and for a person used to superfine SID, Pokey music can sound pretty unpleasant. Atari should have just released a brand new computer in the 80s (they even planned to in 1983, but it didn't happen), this way it was just outdated hardware that developers didn't want to make games on since the mid-80s. What's the point of 256 colours if you can only use them in some rainbow effects, or 40x100 resolution etc :D
Yeah, VIC-II and GTIA were very complex chip. In fact sprites management was more complex than generating "normal" graphics. Pity that Atari introduced some "artificial" limitations. Probably there were result of some time pressure. Additionally XL/XE family has many in common with Atari 400/800. Thank you for this comment and I hope you will visit my channel from time to time. 😀
Your post clearly shows how LITTLE you know about programming graphics on the Atari. The Atari can scroll the entire screen with very little CPU time needed. You can even scroll different parts of the screen in different directions, and the Commodore? Atari can't make games with "fine" graphics???? Atari's high res mode has higher resolution than the Commodore. And Atari can't use many in a game???? You need to look at some of the recent games from Europe, they don't seem to have any trouble use multiple colors. And Atari of course can mix different graphic and text modes on the same screen, and the Commodore?
@@shanebell1 Everything you described - scrolling through different parts of the screen, mixed graphic modes on one screen, all very easy to do on the commodore, and a lot of games use it too. Difference is that on the Atari it was done via a displaylist, whereas on the C64 programmer had to create such a similiar "displaylist" by fine-timing the raster register. Maybe you can't do math, but the hires on the Atari were 320x192, and on C64 320x200. Moreover, hires was only in 2 colors for the whole screen in base Atari screen, and they weren't even 2 different colors, but 2 lumas of a single color. C64 had attribute graphics, where 8x8 box had 2 different colors - paper and ink, just like on the ZX Spectrum. But games there used the 160x192 mode more, because there could be 3 different colors in the attribute plus a background color, same for the whole frame. I have an Atari at home, I've had quite a bit of time with it, but much more with the C64. Try looking at some new demos, like Next Level, or Wonderland series. To see what it can run on a basic 64kB configuration with floppy drive. Without Atari cheats, where 1088kB is needed for a decent demo 🙂
@@shanebell1 👍 What I can add to your comment, all those things were possible for Atari, but they required many programming tricks, ex. using interrupts, modifying display list etc. It could be done more "developer friendly". And from this perspective some Commodore solutions were better as they didn't require so deep understanding of hardware. Moreover on my channel there is very interesting video about Polish games developed for Atari after 2000. It presents quite well how much it's possible to squeeze from this computer although it's also possible to find other good examples among Western homebrew games.
@@petrk2603 🤔🤔🤔🤔 Not being sure why, but yt has treated your comment as suspicious and has sent it to moderation. For sure I approve it and thanks for it as this discussion is very interesting. Perhaps yt prefers Atari ha ha... 😜
As if the chess wouldn't be exactly the same logic... Were these games selected because it's all the Atari had ? . c64 has much better games than anything shown here, atleast upto the half the video where I got bored.
Pity to hear that you were bored. Yes there are more chess games and perhaps one day I will prepare similar "fight" in another software although please remember that it will still not prove anything...
@@ITGuyinaction thanks for the reply... To put the exact same program head to head is kind of pointless... They should have atleast be different in some way other than the CPU it's using, unless you time the calculations... Anyway it had to be a tough video to make considering the Atari has junk games... Cheers dude
@@1st_ProCactus The difference in hardware is too small to make here any significant difference... Moreover we are not fully sure if the algorithm is exactly the same in both cases... It could happen that when preparing different versions they introduced some improvements in the meantime...
@@ITGuyinaction Look, the SID chip is a nice sound chip but there isn't anything the POKEY can't do that it can...it just needs it to be done in software. Also remember the 6502 runs almost 2 x the speed of the commodore so it can and often does handle the sound load even with high quality impressive gaming going on. Truth be told, the POKEY is about a zillion times more reliable than the SID......they failed alot then and over time tend to blow up now. The C64 was a great machine but It was hardly technically superior to the Atari 8's.
@@GORF_EMPIRE True that SID is much easier to be programmed than POKEY. And perhaps there is a secret which explains why so many people think that SID is much better. And let's add to this better marketing...
Actually there is a contest, mainly due to personal aesthetics and preferences. This is why different people prefer different things. Both systems are great, they do things differently and they manage to trade blows in so many aspects which is fun.
in many cases the 800xl is much better for gaming in graphics ... but many 800xl games dont use the full potential of the machine as it was only conversion from c64, there are a few that blasts away the c64, like return to fractalus, stealth, koronis rift, alternate reality and so on ... the only better thing of the c64 is the bass of the soundchip but also only 3 voices instead of 4 in the 800xl
Many games developed in 80s were "aligned down" which means were prepared to work on the computer with the lowest possibilities... and when doing conversion they didn't profit for some additional features of better computers. Life and... business... Thanks for visiting my small channel. I hope that you've decided to subscribe it. 😀🙏
@@carlacespede3489 Great to hear that! I highly encourage you to have a look on other videos on my small channel and to share your impressions! I hope you enjoy them! Please be my guest! 😀
Those embarrassing comparisons again. If any of you think that Atari was better, please show me on that computer games like: The Last Ninja series, Creatures series, Mayhem in Monsterland, Sam's Journey, MicroProse Soccer and many, many more! "By their fruits you shall know them".
![👨💻 [Grand] IT Guy in action](http://yt3.ggpht.com/lVO60-f_jGS47p5h23-rQCNsPd541HDWTfS0l5M0fJk-YmUNdgW11TdLjLZxoAubFcfIYhU=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
🎲 The video contains two hidden messages? Who will find and decrypt/decode them? ✒ Please write many comments! I want to know your opinions! Additionally the more comments, the more RUclips promotes the channel! Thank you!
Moim zdaniem oba komputery się uzupełniają. Mam oba komputery. Pierwszym było A65 w 1985 . C64 kupiłem dopiero w 2016 box nie używany od kuzyna. Nie patrzę na nie który jest lepszy. Oba są super. Jest tak że są gry i programy których nie będzie na Atari a są na Commodore i odwrotnie. Chociaż uważam że w latach 80 Atari było zaniedbane przy programowaniu gier. Po prostu powstawały śmieci. Jak dobre gry mogą być produkowane pokazały polskie firmy grami takie jak : Tanks, Misja, Fred, Robbo i wiele innych. Takie moje wnioski
@@ukaszl589 👍 👍 👍 🇵🇱 www.youtube.com/@Informatykwakcji/featured
C64 is so much better gaming experience. Commodore always won the race. Later with the glorious Amiga 500 which killed the Atari st.
@@mal-avcisi9783 Yeah in case of Amiga I would agree. In case of C64... 🤫
@@ITGuyinaction I say that because I had an Atari 800xl as a kid. My friends had c64. And I was always so jealous because their machine was so much better. Especially after 1987 the c64 games was much much better. There was no game like last ninja 2 or Gianna sisters on Atari 8bit
I never realized how much nicer the colors on the Atari were until I watched this. Just look at the river on that game, it only looks like water on the Atari... Then again, I'm always looking for ways Atari is better - LOL!
Sometimes it's good to have two videos one next to each other... Then the difference is so visible...
My two cents:
@4:54 No, that wasn't "better design" of Commodore. C64 didn't share memory access with video chip that much because CPU was clocked at lower speed and video chip could access memory in between CPU cycles. The better design was that of Atari, to have 80% faster CPU and let video chip halt the CPU when needed. That was still much more cycles left for the CPU, especially that you could turn the video off or switch to a graphic mode that didn't need that much memory access.
@10:25 Atari 800XL actually had 62KB of RAM. 2KB was permanently mapped to hardware registers. C64 could access whole 64KB.
As to which is better... it's a tough call.
C64 has 16 ugly colors, but it gives much more freedom to use them all over the screen.
Atari has 128 better colors but using more than 5 in a single scan line comes with a lot of restrictions.
The best-looking C64 games look better than the best-looking Atari games, no doubt.
SID (C64) offered soft, dynamic, futuristic, really impressive sound. Although many tunes that shouldn't sound that futuristic just sounded better on POKEY (Atari), Klatwa (here @16:57) is a good example, another well known is Draconus, but there are more.
The better looking games for C64 are partially result of better suited hardware, and partially result of difference in popularity of both computers which was in turn result of marketing policies. The biggest game developers just didn't see money in developing for less popular Atari system.
Given that Atari is almost 3 years older platform, the fact that we can even discuss which is better tells a lot about how ahead of its time Atari 800 was.
From this perspective you are right! However I'm wondering if "Atari solution" could be still improved?
Yes by a better hardware sprite support
@@b213videoz I'm wondering why Atari released the solution which seemed not to be finalised... ex. hardware scrolling in only one direction? Or was it somehow related to the fact that in case of Atari sprites have the height equal to the screen height?
I owned both. True the C64 had more games. However, the Atari was engineered much better - more polished. Especially the Disk Operating System. The Atari had a disk drive that rarely went out of alignment, had command lines that made sense and were much easier to remember when copying files and such, and the Atari's drive was even faster than the Commodore's, even when the C64 had the Epyx fast load cartridge plugged in! I always regretted selling my Atari 800xl to get a C64 !
😉 True! Probably it would be good to prepare next episode from this series discussing more deeply those aspects you listed! Thanks for visiting my small channel!
And the ATARI drives were not even running on the max speed that POKEY would support for serial communication. They "only" used 19200baud even though later mods made over 100Kbaud possible.
What I heard/read was that the original engineers could not get any serial test hardware supporting more than 19200, and so they got stuck with that.
Also the SIO serial device bus that allowed to daisy chain multiple devices was pretty much a predecessor to USB, even the original USB developers refer to it as part of their inspiration.
Always funny when Commodore fans boast about the C64 being better than the Atari 8-bits. They always conveniently forget that the Atari hardware is 3 years older! Really should be comparing the Vic-20 to the Atari 400.
When comparing to VIC-20 what would be the most important points according to your opinion?
Sure, Atari 8-bits were very advanced. But they were also very expensive in their first years compared to the Vic and the 64.
@@AthleticDesign I don't remember prices now... But C64 wasn't cheap... Do you have perhaps any link to historical data with prices?
@@ITGuyinaction The introductory prices that Wikipedia gives are:
Atari 400: US$550
Atari 800: US$1,000
Vic 20 US$299.95
C64 $595
This matches well with my memories of prices in Sweden (which were 10 X these but in Swedish Crowns)
And note that the original Atari 800 only came with 8 KB so it was even more expensive if you wanted to expand it to the full 48 KB
From what I recall Atari dropped their prices to match Commodore in 82 or 83. But of course, Commodore replied and the C64 was soon down to $395. And the prices kept dropping for all.
@@AthleticDesign What about Atari 800XL prices?
The Atari, considering it is 1979 technology, actually holds it's own very well, at least until the end of its life in the mid-80's when it was getting lazy ports of games. The more fair comparison would be to the Vic 20 (a system that also came out a few years after the 800).
🤔😉 Perhaps it's somehow a new idea for a new video... Although I guess many people were rather comparing Atari XL/XE with C64 in the 80s at least in Europe...
What a war it was. I used to argue and compare for years about why my Atari was better than the C64. This later similarly happened here in Canada as I compared my Amiga 500 and later Amiga 1200 with a DOS PC; however, this was pre-Doom though. After Doom happened and 3DFX cards showed themselves, I ended up in the PC camp, but still have a fondness for my 8 and 16 bit systems. Fantastic video thank you!
😀👍🍻 Thank you for visiting and for your nice comment! Yeah 3dfx was a game changer at that time! Nice that I have viewers in so many different countries of the world! Big hello to Canada!
Atari was developed in 1977 and released in 1979. It had a better operating system, much better disk i/o, quicker, plug and play peripherals, and was built like a tank. C-64 came along years later and was slightly better in some areas.
Yeah, the areas you mentionned are not discussed too often and many people forget about them. But I fully agree with you here! Thank you for visiting my small channel. I hope you will subscribe it! 💪😀
The sound being one crucial area - for many people
@@MiccaPhone Which sound chip do you like more?
Let's face it: C64's sound is amazing with its SID chip BUT Atari wasn't much worse, Atari produced sounds far better than any AY3 could and I know most would disagree but I find Atari sound superior to NES.
It just happens that SID was a masterpiece of a sound chip - so be it 🤪
Sonicwise C64 was a king but Atari was a queen.
Don’t forget the Atari ran 79% faster, had 5 total channels of sound (4 POKEY, 1 CTIA/GTIA), and could display colors other than brown.
I'm an Atari guy, but both were great machines. All micros of the time were riddled with crippling limitations, but the C64 and 800XL/65XE were VERY close. Nearly every comparison came with a "BUT" - e.g., faster CPU clock BUT higher video penalty; more colors BUT fewer per line; more voices BUT fewer synth capabilities; faster disk drive BUT lower capacity.
As far as I know, the only clear wins were on the C64 side: more/better sprites, more customizable glyphs, and a more useful 40-column text mode. Still, programming those things was all about using cleverness to work around the limitations. Title developers often produced great results on one platform, whereas ports thrown together by hired guns tended to be misleadingly inferior. Side-by-side comparisons don't tell the whole story.
Yeah, I agree that in fact both computers were quite close and their comparison is not black and white. Thank you for visiting my small channel.
The C64 had an edge in sound, but The 800XL had an edge in overall visuals with 256 colors.
😺👍🕹 What about combining them into one? Perhaps it's a bit pity that both companies didn't merge but on the other hand...
I always enjoy coming back here and read comments in this video . I love facts and this is what I am going to offer.
Did the Atari 8bit had an edge in overall visuals. Tough call. C64 has a far better color and memory management allowing better control of its color palette, great hi res images, while the A8's large color palette and large number of modes allow graphic screens with 60+ colors and 265 color video playback (with sound). There are many games that do look better on the A8 but it depends on the type of game.
Did the C64 had an edge in sound? Lets check the hardware on those two machines. The C64 rocked a cut down Roland synth chip. It was the best synth chip (based on specs) ever used on a home computer.....but it was just that a synth. Synth chips were a dead end for the industry and Amiga's Paula sound chip with PCM capabilities was the machine that rendered these "traditional" chips dead. But wait, according to Jay Miner, Pokey was the first sound chip with PCM abilities and high pass filtering (in two channels) specs that later were adopted and expanded in all 4 channels of Paula. This is why Pokey doesn't suffer from slowdowns when rendering digital samples while rendering graphics for games, demos or video playback.
We do have two chips with different characters so we need to compare their music library. Unfortunately most people in both camps ignore the vast number of tunes that were written by real artists for the Pokey chip. (mainly polish composers).
A quick visit over to the ASMA project and a fast browse through the huge list of tunes and songs will render your initial statement questionable. Here is a "short list" of the best composers (in my opinion) that make will help you realize the capabilities of the A8 sound.
BeWu, Wieczor, Marucha,DJ V, Chiummo, VinsCool,X-Ray, Triace, StaxX, XTD, Ce-Pumpkin, Flash, Samurai, Kjmann, 505, Miker, MCH, PG, Raster, Dhor, Jimpack, Stanley, Dj Andrey Balkonsky, Makary Brauner, Gnome Design, Kozyca, SoTe, V0yager, Farkas, Tatqoo, GMX, Fred Booker, Synthpopalooza, Chip Champion, Marcys, Trener, AceMan, Zilq, Caruso, Born, SuperJet Spade, Cedyn, Lorien, Chema64, Bac, XLent, Fragmare, Greg, Benjy, Buettner, Kulor, Profi, Buettner, Dojwa, Zaborowski, Casper, Seabrush, Slaves, Strobe,TDC, Morgoth, Poison, Sandor, Emkay, KE-Soft, Xxl, Hu-Soft, CEvE-Soft,
I do enjoy SID tunes a lot, but I have to point that, C64 has a weakness. Its Graphics and Sound are monotonous. Almost all game screen and soundtrack shares the same character. No matter how nice new software sounds or looks.... the same few colors and "instruments" are used again and again.
Back in the 80s, what we didn't know about the 8-bit war was that the real war was between Jack Tramiel and his many successors at CBM fighting to see who's the cheapest. Most of the stuff about the C64/128 and XL/XE that we thought at the time was "cutting edge" was really just executives "cutting corners."
The real innovation was done by the programmers who made thousands of great games in spite of graphics chips that have no sprites or can't scroll a background without wasting thousands of clock cycles. If the C64 didn't have a SID chip and the XL didn't have 256 colors, we'd all have been Apple users by 1987.
Yeah, this history of 8-bit computers is really fascinating and we could have long chat... I hope that you will visit my channel more often! Thank you for this comment!
Both are good computers, but many times, the c64 version was better bc it was programmed to use more memory. Often Atari games were only 48 k or 16 k. Thus, Atari was not always putting its best foot forward. My buddy had a C64 and we would use each other's computer often.
👍 Using limited Ram memory was rather result of some historical limitations of previous models. C64 didn't have any older compatible brothers.
To quote the common saying of the era...Atari Rulez. Commie Droolz.
(I would have preferred Commodore sprites to Atari's PM graphics, but the Atari colour gradient capabilities opened doors locked shut on most other systems. With both the XL and the STe, I made the correct choice for me when TI walked away from the 4A...but the 4A is the one I still own and use every day.)
👍😎👌
I always felt it was too close to call, the C=64's popularity meant more programmers got more out of it with their software, but on paper, Atari edge in Graphics, C=64 edge in sound... But the Atari SIO was a genius solution and influenced the USB format (several people worked on both).
Very good comment! And yeah, SIO was a very innovative solution those days! Thanks for visiting my small channel and I hope that you subscribe! 😀
True, but i personally like ataris 8 bit gritty sound more.
I had an Atari 800XL, and absolutely loved it! It led to me getting the bigger, 16/32bit brother, the Atari 520ST!!! I'll take Atari over Commodore any time!
Yeah memories, emotions play very important role in our life! For me Atari will be also very close to my heart! ❤ Forever! ❤
Using a chess game to compare computers isn't a good test, because how good a computer player is is dependent on the algorithm it uses. It has nothing to do with the "brain" (the CPU). Though, memory would be a deciding a factor. However, since you're comparing computers with the same memory capacity, there should be no difference there.
I fully agree. It's rather some kind of joke or sth which is expected to arouse some curiosity of viewers. Even if we don't treat this seriously, I believe it's interesting to have a look on this game. However it might also lead to some conclusions. Ex. that many depends on algorithm or just simply "the luck" as computer with slower processor won with the one having theoretically more power. And in case of chess, computing power matters. 😜
Atari had better Star Raiders. Later games for C64 took better advantage of the more memory. Some games I owned came with both versions on one disk which I would bring to a friends house. In Some instances, the programs were identical.
🤔🤔🤔 More memory? True, but that difference is quite minor... However I would agree that in many cases programs were quite similar as they were created since the beginning with the idea of preparing many versions for different computers. Thus they wanted to make porting as easy as possible.
19:29 This is categorically false. The 1571 disk drive can only operate as a 1541 when hooked up to a C64 or a 128 in c64 mode. That means single sided disks and the slow speed of a 1541. The 1581, OTOH, can store about 800k in 64 mode, but it is still at the speed of a 1541 when hooked to a C64 or a 128 in 64 mode. Though disk speed up routines dramatically increase the speed. A 64 can load a 50k program from a 1581 (3.5" disk) with a disk speed up routine in like 6 or 8 seconds.
Opps, I didn't paid attention to all those details... Point for you! 💙 However please pay attention on the fact that this summary is simplified and made from the point of view of the given peripheral device, thus maximum possibilities are presented and not from the point what are the possibilities when connected to which computer.
Jiffy dos speeds them up however.
@@a4000t Jiffydos is great if you don't mind expense and surgery on both the computer and the drive.
@@a4000t Thank you for this hint!
@@tarstarkusz Surgery...
It's hard to compare. Each is better than the other in some aspects. C64 wins hands down on sound. The sprites are implemented differently with c64 easier to use but Atari over all more versatile. Atari has better color depth. And the combination of ANTIC and GTIA allows for some clever effects. Of course there's plenty of c64 tricks as well.
👍 👍 👍 🍀 I fully agree that it's hard to compare these two computers. Concerning sound, I would have one remark. POKEY had also quite good possibilities but some things were not hardware supported as in case of SID but required using main processor to help. However Atari processor had higher speed so... Still I return to the conclusion as at the beginning, hard to compare! 👽🧟👽
800xl all the way. Picking up new game at computer expos back in the day, £7-10 each
👍👍👍
what i find odd is that most comparisons forget that you can hold select on the atari to give you an extra 8k of ram for machine code software and for some odd reason the sid chip is usually the "winner" yet the almost 4 year older pokey chip can actually emulate the sid (but not vice versa).
👍 👍 👍 Very good points!
They were both great systems. Commodore had better sound and was better at tile style graphics, especially with more colors available for modified character set graphics. The Atari is in many ways much more powerful, but with some limitations. The Atari can display many more colors, but there are severe limits as to how many colors can be on the same horizontal line. The ability to program the display list gave it lots of graphics possibilities with its big color palate & color registers that can shift a screen color with a single poke. The SIO peripheral bus for the Atari was very advanced and was engineered by the same person who developed USB. In fact, SIO is kind of a predecessor to USB and it is multidevice & plug-in-play, way before PCs. Even today, there is the FUJI-NET SIO device that provides internet & wifi functionality through unmodified SIO port.
Ironically, the Commodore Amiga was better and was developed by the Atari 8-bit engineers compared to the Atari ST, which was more Commodore-ish in many ways. The companies 16-bit offerings seemed to switch roles.
😉👊 Very good remarks! In fact, if Atari engineers had proposed a different color display model, e.g. defining colors per 8x8 pixel area, it would have been much easier to create attractive graphics.
Totally agree and amazing how the 16 bits character basically were the opposite of companies ethos but then Jack switched too
@@kennethgibson456 👍
People who didn't live through this period (early 80's), simply can't comprehend what Star Raiders looked like in 1980 - a true 3D space game with action AND strategy elements. Also, seeing all those colors in the demos meant a LOT back then in an age where most computers that had color had 8 or 16 at MOST. I was SOLD.
Most people who had an older 8-bit probably used a TV. I did on my Atari 400. The result was that more colors overcame resolution that you really couldn't see on a TV anyway - between pixel blurring and color drift. To this day when I use Altirra, I purposely give the image a 'fuzzy' adjust, as this is what I remember from those days.
Now for games... Tile-based games? Commodore wins, no question. But look at any of the Lucasfilm games (Fractalus, Ballblazer, etc.) The custom display lists on the Atari, coupled with the color ranges and greater CPU speed meant a WAY better experience on the Atari machines. It really depended on what kind of games you enjoyed. I wasn't into the beat-em-ups or vertical scrolling shooters, and that definitely mattered because Commodore did those best.
Basic was horrific on BOTH machines - worse on the 64, but only slightly. Basic on the Atari was one of the slowest out of any 8-bit machine. However, as on the C64, there were other options. I ended up getting into compiled languages through something called 'Action!' Action would compile very BASICy commands into machine language, which you would then execute. I coded an anti-aliasing program originally written in pseudo-code in Byte magazine. That could take 7 minutes in Mode 9 to process a full screen image. In Action!, it took less than 5 SECONDS.
Either machine was a great introduction to IT, and that's where I still work today.
@@Chordonblue Yeah, some theoretical possibilities were partially destroyed by not enough good software provided especially in the first years after release, including far from being perfect BASIC. Although there were many BASIC improved versions. If you only had it on cartridge, it was changing a lot. And sure your example with BASIC/Action! shows very well lost opportunities. Please just have a look on the games developed for both computers in the latest years...
I loved your presentation, and I must admit I have a soft spot for Atari, being an Atari kid. Based on the examples alone, Atari had the upper hand in graphics.
While the Commodore had better sound back then, the Atari, with its iconic Pokey sound chip, has a more retro vibe that truly captures the essence of a classic era. The Commodore, while also great, might not evoke the same nostalgia because it moved away from that era's sound. The Atari, in my opinion, does a fantastic job of preserving that retro charm.
Looking forward to watching more from your channel..
👍 Thank you for nice words! And I hope you subscribe and you will visit my channel more often. yeah both computers are great and give a lot of emotions! It's great to return to the old days!
18:17 good example of how SID is inappropriate sound effects chip. Probably capable of doing more accurate sound effects but very often developers made games sound like someone was playing an 8bit keyboard for effects. 18:25 much better effects for the era and this game.
There is much that is not discussed in this video. The build quality is much better on the A8's. The 800, 1200XL (and about %20 of 800XL's) have excellent mechanical keyboards. The C64 keyboard is bad, worse then almost all A8 keyboards afaik.
Today you can buy an untested A8 and it is likely to work fine. Not so for C64's. (probably very good idea to replace capacitors on all)
This video did not show actual combat gameplay in Star Raiders II on A8 which is fantastic. C64 looks terrible in this game (bad port).
A8 had a much, much better DOS system from early on.
I liked how C64 multicolored text was for BBSing and Ultima IV and V, etc.
This video fails to mention that C64 sprite engine was overall more capable, not just different.
C64 - more colors in high resolution but much less colors in lower resolution.
There are graphics effects that A8 can do that are not possible on C64 (and vice versa) like the game Yoomp. Complicated subject.
Overall the A8's are faster and more responsive in games.
SIO on A8 is very nice but does have some limitations like half duplex operation for RS232 modems was not ideal.
C64 had far better market utilization of the 'user port' than the A8 PBI bus port, which went mostly unused. There are some modern A8 PBI/ECI expansions releasing finally =)
4 joystick ports on the 800 was seldom utilized but it was still great for those games like MULE and others.
I think the A8's had more peripherals like the very nice trackballs, numeric keypad, paddles, etc.
A8's can use Amiga and ST mice as-is since the A8's have perfect compliance with Atari's own 9pin joystick standard afaik.
The 800's have excellent video output quality, unlike early C64 models. 800XL composite output is mediocre. XE models improved video quality over XL.
The 1200XL build quality, size and keyboard are all fantastic and noteworthy. C64 while far more successful did not approach the 1200XL for quality but the price was terrible =) 1200XL had compatibility issues early on, but there are a few ways to fix that. Easiest way back-in-the-day was to install an 800 OS B ROM set.
C64 was far more available worldwide and price was 'cheaper' and had much more commercial software from '85 and afterwards.
The general guideline is that C64 is better for later era 80's games/software. A8 for earlier 80's.
A8 had a much better and successful console conversion with the XEGS, which is actually a great machine
There is more but time is short. Cheers.
Oh, wow! You wrote so much! The plan was to prepare the second episode with more details as continuation of this one but seeing how slowly this channel is growing I have doubts if I should "invest" more in it. Or perhaps it would be better to discuss other more popular subjects bringing more viewers. Not sure how long I will continue with this channel having so modest results. Even you, being highly interested in 8-bit computers, you didn't decide to subscribe this channel. I would be curious why?Just in order to understand better why my videos don't attract more viewers...
@@ITGuyinaction It's up to you. I didn't subscribe because I'm slow to do so. If I see your vids and enjoy them over months or even a year then I'll sub. It's difficult to understand your accent for me. Your enthusiasm is great. Your videos need to flow faster and quickly get to the point(s), IMO. I think this video would be better served to have side-by-side comparison of gameplay instead of one or the other (smaller window was too small). Work on improving the presentation. Sometimes it's not about facts but about inspiring and enthusiasm and sharing. Have a great weekend! Hope to see more from you. Keep at it and be sure to not burn yourself out. One video a month is probably fine.
@@gamedoutgamer Thanks for those hints. They help me to understand why people don't decide to stay longer on my channel (at least part of them). With accent, I'm foreigner and it's some kind of international English. Not so many people complain but I know it's far from being perfect. I also expect that it will be more international channel then ex. USA channel or UK channel. In order to make life easier I give subtitles. Added manually subtitles also turn on the possibility to translate automatically them to many different languages by google. I have also impression that many visitors expect more fun in the videos. I will check what I can do... Thanks one again for help! 😀
You're kidding about keyboards, right? All C64 keyboards, both old breadbin and the latest C64C, were great and fast to type on. They are simply but excellently designed. If you can't get a key to work, try taking it out and see how much dust there is. Clean the whole keyboard, lightly grease the springs, and it will run like new. Keyboard on the C128 is even better . On the 800 XL is very well and honestly made, but I personally have a better version - it came in maybe 5 different versions with different quality - according to an article on the internet. Obviously you have never tried the 800XE or 130XE keyboard because it is a horror. At least the one that shipped to Europe. To make that keyboard usable for fast typing, users had to modify it - puncturing the rubber pads under each key. Atari skimped on absolutely everything with the XE models, and the keyboard took the brunt of it.
In the 80s I had, and still have, an 800XL, but have also used the C64. I love both systems. The side-by-side game demonstrations and comparisons are great. Some games look better on one or the other, likely due to the developer's ability to take advantage of the features.
ITGuyInAction, what software did you use to make this video? I like the style.
True, a lot depends on developers (and probably also on marketing/accounting guys how much they are ready to pay for games programming). For video editing I used Shotcut, however I highly do not recommend it. It contains many bugs and has terrible performance issues during editing. Concerning export performance is not a problem as I usually do it at night. However I had few situations already when project working ok in editing mode was causing crashes in export mode either the video looked differently in editing mode and after export. The only good thing is that it's free of charge and I'm used to it (as you discover problems usually when making longer and more advanced videos).
@@ITGuyinactionDavinci Resolve is free and unbelievably good.
I think Atari suffered a bit in being a platform (8-bit series) rather than Commodore just being the one computer (C64). In Commodore’s case, that meant game developers targeted 64K whereas for Atari they often targeted 48K to be compatible with their older machines.
🤔🤔🤔🤔 Hmm... that could be the reason, especially in the first years after 800XL launch. Although I believe that here the fact that C64 was released earlier than 800XL could be crucial as many comments under this video suggest. What do you think about this idea?
@@ITGuyinaction As far as I’m aware, the XL and XE models were mostly just RAM upgrades and some new ROM. So even if the 800XL came out after the C64, it was still pretty much an upgraded 800 which in turn was a late 70s computer.
@@OldAussieAds True! Difficult to give one simple answer here...
Atari had better visuals and sound tho...
@@branojuraj9063 Why do you think that the sound is better in Atari?
Wikipedia says the Commodore 128 sold 2.5 million units, and the entire Atari 8-bit family collectively sold 4 million units. So I think it’s more than fair to compare the Commodore 128 vs. The Atari 130XE. Your statement that the commodore 128 wasn’t that popular matches conventional wisdom, but it also seems to be untrue.
🤔🤔🤔🤔 Ok, I agree it could be better and more precisely said. However if you compare C128 with C64, then C128 seems to be not so much popular... I still hope that despite this small "bug" you enjoyed the video, did you?
But how many Atari 130XEs sold compared to Commodore 128s?
@@GeoNeilUK Who will find such data? 🤪
@@ITGuyinaction I loved the video, definitely. Sorry for not being more clear about that! :)
@@GeoNeilUK The C128 would have sold better, as it individually sold about 60% of the units of the entire Atari 8-bit line added together. Though learning today how good the Pokey chip was years before the SID chip came out, I'm kind of jealous of the experiences the Atari owners had when I had a mere VIC-20. :)
Well yes, Commodore 64 is better than Atari 8-bit BUT many games are better on Atari (River Raid, Ninja, Blue Max, Star Raiders II... the masterpiece Star Raiders 1 doesn't even exist on C64). The real problem with Atari 8-bit it was murdered in 1985 - and not by Commodore 64, NO, it was backstabbed by its own brother Atari ST
Thank you for visiting my small channel. Looking on the comments, I believe that there are many C64 supporters but also many 8-bit Atari supporters. Concerning Atari ST, in my humble opinion, it was just a progress and the same story like with C64 and Amiga.... Don't you think so?
@@ITGuyinaction Well thank you 😊
As for Atari ST I think it was an abomination - not a progress: no hardware sprites, pathetic AY3 sound chip...seriously
@@b213videoz Yeah, from this point... We have many strange decisions. However let's remember that both Atari and Commodore had negotiations with Amiga guys to add Amiga to their fleet. Commodore won and Atari was in trouble. I fully agree that Atari ST should be much better. And many 8-bit Atari lovers decided to buy as their next computer... Commodore Amiga. C'est la vie.
@@b213videoz When I got my first ST in 1990 I had a Yamaha TG55 connected via MIDI, and *all* computer sound chips sounded pathetic by comparison, even my beloved SID which I still have and use today.
I think the C64 and 800XL were both fantastic computers. Some games were better on one machine or the other and the best place a kid could be in the 80s was to own a c64 and have a couple friends with Ataris and Apples so you could experience everything.
Back-stabbed? No, by 1985, it was time for Atari to move on to something better. The real tragedy of the ST was that it was a wanna-be Amiga.
I was a massive Atari fan back in the day who chose a 600xl with cassette instead of a C64 with a floppy, but as you said, followers of sport teams are often blind regarding who's best. I do know that longevity wise, Commodore custom chips got hotter and are more prone to overheating and failure, but some well placed heatsink can reduce this problem. I celebrate both today, but absolutely love my Atari's.
💪😀 Yeah, as you said followers of sport teams are sometimes blind. And we were sometimes blind as well discussing our computers features. How many emotions did it cause? 😀Sometimes it's simply not so easy to say what is better. Sure if we take one mathematical criteria, ex. numbers of units sold, then we can easily determine the winner. However if we try to have very wide view, then finding one winner is not possible. And why one criteria is better than other? I can also see how many emotions my video causes today after 30-40 years. And it forces me to think a lot about that! 😀 Thanks a lot for watching and for commenting! It helps! 🍀
The Atari range came out 3 years before the C64, of which Commodore engineers ripped the 800 to pieces to lets say be 'inspired' with their own design (it is always easier to copy and improve on others work.) Whilst the C64 did have better sprites and normal color modes which it should being 3 years newer, the 800 was more flexible overall. As a sound chip SID might have some cool features, but overall the 4 channels of pokey had more capability. The SDIO on the Atari was vastly faster and superior (the tape was too as it could also play audio through the computer) to the C64's Serial system; oh and the C64 even copied the Atari Joystick ports as they could not come up with their own system (talking about Commodores boat stealing Ataris paddle.) The C64 is a cool computer, but for 3 years newer it should have been much better, oh and should have been able to display RED color. On the other hand, if you look at newer games being developed like 'Space Harrier' and others, the old Atari can still outclass the C64 when properly programmed.
👍 👍 👍 You mentioned many good points. Those 3 years should make bigger difference in C64 capabilities. In particular I can't understand why colour palette was limited to 16 ones. However from marketing point of view, C64 was more successful than Atari XL/XE. Thanks you for sharing this remarks and I hope you decided to subscribe my small channel. 😀
While I can agree on some of these points, please let me disagree about the Pokey vs SID. I have created music with both, and I am sad to say that the Pokey is worse in every single aspect by magnitudes. Sure, the single edge over the SID is that is has four channels compared to three of the SID, but you have to combine two channels to be able to play notes accurately, as a single channel just have an 8 bit frequency precision, making it impossible to play all (most) western notes. The SID has three channels with high enough precision to play four octaves. Also, the SID has four different waveforms to choose from, which also can be combined to some extent, for each of the three voices individually, while the Pokey has only square waves with a selectable degree of blended noise (or distortion as Atari liked to call it). The SID can also let the voices modulate each other with various functions like ring modulation and oscillator sync. And, of course, an analog multimode filter to top it off.
Not saying the Pokey is incapable. It is very much more capable than its predecessor, TIA from the VCS. You can make really great music with it. One edge to the Atari is that it is pretty easy to add another Pokey chip and there are plenty of tools and demos (perhaps even games?) supporting that. And sure, the sound of the Pokey cannot really be reproduced on the SID. I am just saying that compared to the SID, the Pokey is very weak in most every aspect, and I'd take a single SID over dual Pokies six out of seven days a week.
I still love the Pokey for what it is, but I cannot let the statement "the Pokey has more capability" go unchallenged.
@@johansmolinski I'm not music expert so it's difficult for me to go more deeply here. However thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge and experiences. I'm sure that they are valuable for many of us! Thanks a lot! And please be my frequent visitor! 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍
Read an interview with Bob Yannes (SID). He could not confidently state that SID was better than POKEY. The Atari chip is not user friendly, SID is.
POKEY is capable of complex waveforms, it has a 3 channel mode with exclusive interupts. If this capability was exploited, it would have been amazing. Afterall, POKEY can emulate SID.
@@abstractcache 👍👍👍👍 Man, I like you a lot! 😀 P.S. Seriously I fully agree with you!
You are comparing a 1979 machine with other from 1982. The technology changed fast at these era.
Point for you. 👍 However they are still quite similar constructions I believe... And there is the question if and how much Commodore profited from "having those 3 additional years"?
@@ITGuyinaction Graphics and sound. Sprites with more width and more colors. And the SID, which is always the differentiating element that the Comodoronians always put. Its management of sound waves is far superior to that of the three channels plus a noise generator, from the Atari.
@ That's even more complicated. SID is for sure a great chip but POKEY also have good possibilities. However here some things have to be done in "a software way" which means using main processor power. Remembering that Atari has quicker processor, it's of course easier. With sprites they are quite different. In my opinion the main difference here is the maximum height and the lack of hardware scrolling in one direction in case of Atari. I'm sure that we could have here a long discussion...
Very good point, 3 years at that time made difference.
i miss the 8-bit days always exciting
🍺🏆👍 Yeah! At that 8-bit era computers were delivering much more excitement that nowadays...
I miss the days, not the excitement they offered..because we are essentially living the golden era of the 8-bits right now! Never before we had so many things available to our disposal!. New games, demos, music, programs in a monthly basis, hardware add-ons and upgrades and a global network for their distribution . We even are able to repair our own machines by posting a description of the problem we are experiencing. Most of us have some additional cash allowing to enjoy more systems than just the platform of our childhood..not to mention emulation.
For me the era never really ended to be honest. I always had my 8bit and 16bit either hooked on a CRT or emulated them on my PC and I followd the homebrew scene without really taking a serious break. I had the pleasure following the Polish Atari 8bit scene, almost from the start, through the classic webpages of the platform even if I always lived miles away.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 👍 👍 👍 I really enjoy reading the comments like yours! Yeah the 8-bit era has never really ended!
I loved my C=64 But was always dissapointed that it only had 16 colors. What were they thinking? I with it would have had a minimum of 32 colors or better yet at least 64 colors. I feel that's the only place they dropped the ball when designing her. She had a great sound chip though. Very versatile.
🤔🤔🤔🤔 For me this decision about having so limited colour palette is also bit strange especially that at the time of C64 release, there were other consoles and computers having more colours and they knew that they had to be competitive. On the other hand, was it perhaps one of the factors allowing to reduce the price and having better profit margin? As history shows, it didn't interrupt them to having one of the best selling computer in the 8-bit era. Thanks for visiting my small channel and for subscribing. 😀
@ITGuyinaction Yeah the C=64 is the top selling home computer of all time. I only had an Atari 2600 and my C=64. I still wish they had put at least 32 colors and at the time I never realized how muted the colors were. They could have been more vibrant as well. But I agree it was all probably done for a better prophet margin. Great comparison video. I enjoyed watching it.
@@SchardtCinematic 👍 Thank you for nice words! Have you watched any other videos here? I really recommend. 😜
@@ITGuyinaction I haven't had a chance to yet. But plan to soon.
@@SchardtCinematic 👍☕
All Technical Comperison wont change that the C64 clearly won the Market back then! And to be Honest, where were the real Stunning Titles for C64 in this Video??? All the " WOW This runs on a Stock C64 !?!?! WTF " games are missing.
👽🧟👽 Yeah I agree that in terms of the position on the market (number of units sold and number of games), C64 is the winner.
Commodore was No.1 but it doesn't mean Atari "lost". Atari-8 was very popular machine, too.
@@TrockeyTrockey in case of Competition it clearly lost. That dosent mean it was a Bad machine. VHS won against Beta even that Beta was the better System. Who knows what gems there would have been, if the atari was maxed out like the Commodore.
@@TrockeyTrockey I believe it's even more complicated. And it depends also on the country.
@@me1701-A Good point!
Nice to see you revisiting this topic! Its always interesting to see people arguing on why their childhood experiences were superior compared to others who happened to own a different computer than theirs ! lol
The truth is that everyone who owned an 8bit machine had a blast in their early years (years of bad TV and radio reception lol) and they wouldn't change it for the world.
No matter how fast the processor ran or how many colors per scanline it displayed.... the one thing it mattered was always the game that drew us to our friend's machines. I grew up with memories from 4 machines (Atari XL, Atari ST, CPC6128,Amiga) and now I own them all plus a ZX Spectrum and a C64.
To be honest I just like to repair ,upgrade and keep them in good shape...and maybe play some pacman lol. I prefer my first 8bit machine(atari) over all others and its capabilities have nothing to do with it!
If I compare them I would point out Amstrad's vivid but small color palette and the compact nature of the machine, which I love and appreciate today. I would also point out Spectrum's unique aesthetics in sound and graphics plus it's speed. C64 was an improved version(in some aspects) of the 800 atari machines that didn't really manage to beat Jay Miner's 8bit Architecture. The Atari kept the upper hand in 3d games and its ability to have its games look so different due to its large color palette, modes and effects. Pokey is still giving a hell of a fight with a small help coming from the rest of the system's architecture. C64 had a huge commercial success for a good reason(not just price) but technically it was nothing special...and your videos revisiting the topic prove just that.
Hello! Big hello to Greece! Yeah your remarks are very good in my humble opinion! But isn't the same now? That we only partially take into consideration technical aspects with cold blood, but we take also partially our decision basing on marketing bla bla bla... Moreover quite often it's not easy to compare technical devices as in one area X is better, and in other area Y is better. And then we have the dillema what values of importance to give to both areas... Btw, I have similar approach as you. I prefer repair and to "play with old electronics" than just spend hours learning about new games etc... Although on my small channel there are also videos about software and one about the games developped after 2000 year. P.S. Lucky you having CPC6128!
@@ITGuyinaction Let me be honest here. I also enjoy picking on "arrogant" users by pointing out the pros and cons of all 8bits machines! I also get in discussions on why i.e. Yoomp!, Stunt car racer, Space harrier, Pang, Rescue on Fractalus, Total eclipse etc are better on the Atari machine.....even if I have never played most of these games lol. Its more of a nostalgia driven habit(from school) than seeking any acknowledgement ...on how great our parents were when they decided to buy the computer we grew up with....without asking us.!
I will agree with you. Comparing devices technically doesn't really provide the whole or a meaningful picture especially when we deal with a complex system of hardware and software. Coders can make a machine look amazingly good or really bad.
So I can not really see how your channel could do without videos on software and games, especially with newer projects that are the best tech demos for these machines.
And yes I was really lucky to have a CPC6128 in my collection!!! A friend of mine was kind enough to send it to me for a restoration job and he decided to let me keep it!
@@nickolasgaspar9660 I'm wondering what next video to prepare on my small channel. Should I somehow continue this subject and how... P.S. Lucky you having such friends! Wow!
Oh my god. Enough is enough already. It's been over 40 years.
🤔🤔 Please look on other comments. Those computers and their comparison still cause a lot of emotions nowadays...
I never had an 8-bit computer, I started with the Amiga, After having some experience with emulating both computers and playing plenty of games I can tell the differences. C64 has more detailed graphics when it comes to sprites etc, but Atari has better/bigger color palette, which in the case of C64 is very dull. Of course it depends on the game, because I've seen some newer homebrew C64 games that look pretty vibrant somehow. The difference between sound chips is obvious. C64's SID was way ahead of anything else in the 8-bit world. But I heard some fantastic POKEY music and I couldn't believe my ears. The CPU speed made difference in stuff like loading programs, tape/disk speeds etc, but it wan't important in the games I played. Maybe some productivity software took advantage of that like word processors for example. Both machines are fun and have different qualities on their own. With talented programmers that proved their capabillities it would be hard to choose which one to get.
🤔🤔🤔 Thanks a lot for you comment! I hope that you subscribe my small channel and you will visit it from time to time. Definitely it would be good to prepare second part for this video to address more some of the areas you've just mentioned. However not so many viewers here doesn't encourage me to do this. Do you have perhaps any ideas how I should promote my channel to get more viewers? Regards!
@@ITGuyinaction I subscribed. I think that not making more videos, because you have not enough subscribers is wrong thinking. You need to be active and also be more 'versatile'. You can review computers, consoles, games and accesories for them. Look at LGR. Dude reviews tons of stuff from the old tech area including stupid and absurd accessories and gadgets all this is made in a charming way with humor and attention to details. This is only my impression. Keep working and don't let anything or anyone to bring you down. ✊
@@mattx5499 Well, I don't want to repeat other channels. I would like to find some kind of niche which will attract many viewers. Sure it will not be 100% new stuff but I don't want too much to repeat the ideas of others. Moreover I would like, let's say, 70-80% of my videos to be valid and interesting ex. in 10-20 years (even if interest might be lower than nowadays). That means I don't want to focus on accessories which are now on top but in 1-2 years everyone will forget them. Moreover even if I agree with argument that number of videos could be higher, I'm surprised that having 16 quite good videos (perhaps not perfect but solidly good) I have so less viewers comparing to other channels with similar number of videos. I think that there is sth wrong with yt algorithm which cant find group of people being interested in these videos. Probably after dividing channel into two, I should create both channels from zero and not to transform the old one into one of two new ones... But that's the long story and we could drink a lot of good coffee taking about that... Still big thank you for being here and subscribing my small channel. 😀
I cringe at the thought of loading games on the C64...
@@mjp29 You mean tape recorders or floppy disks units? With Atari it wasn't so cool with cassettes unless you had floppy disk drive...
Some of the hacked games I used to play on my Atari had "War to all commodore users" in the startup screen.
🤔🤔🤔🤔
OK I am totally biased because I had the Atari 800XL, but come on...aesthetically, the C64 doesn't hold a candle to the 800XL's sleek and futuristic design. It still looks better than any LED-pimped PC I've ever seen since. I will die on that hill 😁
What do you think about Atari XE series comparing to 800XL?
@@ITGuyinaction I had an XE and it was a great computer, but design-wise I still prefer the XL :) The XE's design worked really well for the ST line, which were larger and better suited for that. That said, I really liked the Amiga! It was amazing.
@@kirk1968 When I was a teenager, I definitely preferred XE design. Now... I definitely prefer XL design... 😜
@@ITGuyinaction Amazing how that happens as we get older 😁 I remember seeing a link about some company rebuilding the 800XL with today's tech and ports, wish I'd saved the link but it looked amazing!
@@kirk1968 Please just visit Community tab on my channel. 😜 I'm also following this project being curious how it will finish...
You're definitely Atari 8-bit fan XD. Cheers!
☺ Have you enjoyed this video?
The VIC-II and the SID chips amounted to a dynamic duo - on balance, or in net effect, due this duo, the edge goes to the C64. And the C64 struck a better balance (in terms of design) of economic and engineering considerations. There were grounded reasons as why the C64 outsold Atari in 8-bit computers category. The Atari were good computers, and absent the C64 they would have been top of the 8-bit home computing hill.
I believe it's not so simple. But for sure every comment enriches my small channel. Thanks a lot for visiting and I hope you will be my frequent guest.
If that was the case you could easily said that the Tandy CoCo was as good (or even better) because most of the things came from Motorola schematics. By the way, the Atari 8 bit line used custom chips besides the standard ram and cpu. Those custom chips were made by a team (that later made the Amiga) who worked together, so it isn't that they were completly doing their own things without a plan. The main reason why the C64 outsold the Atari 800XL was because it was a year earlier at the market. The Atari 400/800 series were too expensive at that time. Atari didn't react that fast and that is something they only can blame thereselves. If we only look to the hardware of different several 8 bit machines, neither the C64 or Atari XL are the best.. I own both of them and love them, but it is the truth. Systems like the Sam Coupé, MSX2+ or the Enterprise 64/128 are a bit more advanced.
@@xXTheoLinuxXx True, that Atari models before 800XL were not too successful because of price and also lower possibilities. And it could be that those few months of difference in release Commodore 64 and Atari 800XL made a huge difference. Sam Coupe or MSX2+ are much younger guys... We could have probably a long discussion here with many cups of good tea... Thanks for your comments and being here!
@@ITGuyinaction back in the day a year makes a lot of difference. Another example from that period (in the UK) is between Acorn and Sinclair. Acorn produced the BBC Micro which was expensive and had all the bells and whistles that the ZX Spectrum didn't have, so they produced a little brother which was more like a ZX Spectrum, but at the time it was released it was too late. At that time when you buyed a computer you already knew someone who had a Spectrum or Commodore, so if you need some help it was easier to ask help. The only thing that did work was a discount, that is why MSX did it pretty well in The Netherlands. People who worked for Philips could buy these models in the employee shops with a discount. Oh and thank you for posting this video!
@@xXTheoLinuxXx Oh yeah, it was before Internet era and that might be the main reason - you had a friend to ask in case of problems. And true that this "magic year" of difference changed a lot! Thanks for visiting my small channel and being so active! 😀
Atari wins. Because Jay Miner, who went on to create the Amiga computer.
True Amiga had Atari roots... P.S. I hope that you enjoyed this video and that you subscribe my small channel. 🙏🤛
@@ITGuyinaction yes, and funnily, many atari 8 bit fans at that time had no idea of this (like me) and went Atari ST thinking it was next in line whereas the true successor was the Amiga. I gave up on the ST for an Amiga after a couple of years, held my nose and bought a Commodore Amiga. had I known the chipset designer story I would have breathed more easily! 😝😝
@@gk4929 I still had many friends who after XL/XE bought... Amiga. Perhaps not being even fully aware of that that many Atari people worked on Amiga but for much better features/price factor...
At the time, with the Internet not being a thing yet, and even BBS access being out of question for me at the cost of phone minutes in (west) Germany, I did not know back then when I actually switched from an Atari 130XE to an Amiga. There were some clear hints though, the most obvious one being the clock frequency being exactly 4x the odd value of the 8bit Ataris (7.09MHz vs. 1.77MHz for PAL models), but also the way graphic modes could be changed mid screen ....
@@hartmutholzgraefe 👍🕹 Yeah Amiga vs Atari it was a huge difference... Btw, what are your personal experiences with BBS?
What game is that last game with the german officer?
It's a "Hans Kloss" from LK Avalon. Game based on polish war sensational TV series. Music in game also comes from this series.
I always give titles in my videos. 😜 Making additional textes always takes so much time...
21:04 This is a stupid statement from an exceptionally stupid man. The US fought a two front war and utterly destroyed both sides. Trameil gets a lot of unearned credit for the Commodore 64. Jack didn't invent the 64. He had no knowledge or experience in a technical background. The one thing he did well was cost cutting. But he cut costs so much that Commodore wasn't making money. When he did make money, he didn't invest it.
What Jack did was run commodore and MOS semiconductors into the ground. Despite selling the best selling computer of all time, Jack BANKRUPTED Commodore and left in a shambles. He then took over Atari and ran it into the ground and bankrupted it. Neither could undo Jack's damage.
I know that Jack Tramiel might be treated as controversial person by some guys. However the story of his life is very interesting nevertheless the final opinion and for me very inspiring. We could probably have long discussion about his business decisions which some were very genius and some very controversial at least from the perspective of one guy living in Eastern Block and not being able to "taste West too much". However I think that in business it's always like that that sometimes you go in the good direction and sometimes in less good. You are not able to predict everything and you have to take the risk. It's much easier to look on that from the perspective of many years which passed... And true he was more businessman than technical guy. In Poland he was treated as iconic guy by many. We could have a long chat about that...
@@ITGuyinaction I don't disagree that he had an interesting life. I don't even disagree that he was pivotal in both Commodore and post-Warner Atari. But what I do disagree with was that he was some kind of business genius. Jack got kicked out of Commodore because of how bad he ran it. MOS technology is a perfect example. Not only did they make the wildly successful 6502, but they also were selling Atari the ROMS for the cartridge based games. It had some very good engineers with lots of successful products. YET, both MOS and Commodore were run into the ground under Jack's leadership. There is no denying that. The same is true for Atari, though I do think the demise of Atari is only partially Jack's fault.
Jack has certainly earned his name in the history of computer technology. But as a giant? No way. To be entirely fair to Jack, almost every tech company that existed in 1984 is gone today. Whether it's DEC or Osbourne on the hardware side or word perfect corporation or visi corp in the software space, they are all long gone and forgotten by everyone besides geeks like us who are interested in retro-tech.
I'm very curious what would be the opinions of other guys in this matter visiting my small channel... It might happen that my view here is biased because as I said Tramiel was very iconic person for me. On the other hand failure might be caused by many reasons and it's easy to find and blame one person for that which is not always justified. Managing companies is always very complex and as you noticed many of those 1980s companies don't exist any longer... I still admire Tramiel that leaving country destroyed after war and having probably terrible war experiences, he came to USA with few dollars in his pocket (or perhaps even without any dollar) and he did so much...
@@ITGuyinaction I concede there were many forces eating away at both Atari and Commodore. OTOH, they both appeared at the right time with adequate hardware. Nobody every says "well, Jack and Bushnell both were just lucky to be at the right place at the right time with the right product" Everyone says they were geniuses even though their success was just as attributable to circumstances beyond their control as their failures were.
IMHO, the main problem with Jack was he was obsessed with lowering costs and not profits and reinvestment. Jack chronically under-invested in both Commodore and Atari. Atari was a lot more understandable in this respect. Atari was fighting a much harder battle than Commodore did while it was under his control. In Atari, jack was trying to rescue a mismanaged company that had been run into the ground and then stripped.
Keep in mind that Jack didn't come to the US in 1977. Commodore had been around for decades before the PET. Yes, there is certainly a lot to be admired in his coming to America and creating a profitable business. He did see the writing on the wall with his typewriters and then again with the calculators. All props for that.
Yeah, we really could have here long, long chat... 👍🥃☕🍷🍺🏆👍
Commodore C128 user here, since 1985 and since now several weeks ATARI-800XL User 🤫
I had no clue about Atari-Computer, but have accidentally {suggested by RUclips} watched a Commodore C64 vs Atari-800 battle {games were compared}
Noticeable was that ATARI-Games were not so sharp, but blurry and some were actually slower than Atari!
So i got curious why that was so... Checked the Atari specs quickly:
Atari had 1.79 CPU, 3 Co-Processors and 256 colors {later i found it's actually 16 base colors and 16 different luminance values each = 256}
That's why the same games for Commodore C64 and Atari are never the same = different base colors!
Well, that required some deeper investigation and so i pushed the green button to start collecting everything about Atari-800{XL} and Co.
That were fascinating weeks {it was like 1979 or better said 1985 when i received C128}
End result was that i grabbed a few GB of information about Atari 400/800/800XL and even 65XE{800XE} and 130XE.
Naturally, i found out why Atari needed 1.79 MHz {or 1.77 PAL} CPU in first place already back in 1979 {one major reason was: the whole system wouldn't work with less than that}
And why C64 picture was always sharp and clear compared to Atari are the strange Atari resolutions since 1979.
In fact, Atari did not made any significant changes in regard even after C64 hit the market!
They just added few more graphic modes, some extra functions and rename it to GTIA {CTIA before {1977}}.
However, even resolutions were no match for Commodore C64.
GTIA with max. 80 x 192 pixels 9/16 colors was outdated even before the Commodore C64 was born.
In my opinion, Atari missed the opportunity to make CPU upgrade to 8MHz {or at least 6 MHz} and to upgrade the GTIA to 320x200 {or even 256} pixels resolution!
That would have with high probability bury the Commodore C64 very quickly for good!
Why 6 or 8 MHz?
That is the second reason why Atari used 1.79 as default CPU!
It's the way ANTIC {CTIA,GTIA} and POKEY are connected. ANTIC is delivering the necessary data via DMA, but to do that, it needs take the control over the CPU and
while doing that, the rest of the system is 'on hold' which has drastic influence on overall system performance. Not doable with only 1MHz or even less than that!
But 6/8MHz CPU
Well, i can see your thoughts: Why some games are than faster than C64 versions anyway!
That's easy: It's because there is also a way to access GTIA directly and let ANTIC {the CPU cycles thief} dream sweet dreams... However, it is a complicated procedure.
And very probably back in the days it wasn't practiced a lot. As today too, also then everything was a deadline matter!
Not to mention that getting hands on any system information was like searching for gold. That changed later but programmer base was already established.
Atari made the same mistake as also Commodore did. Commodore just wasn't able to make a worthy successor to replace Commodore C64.
Atari wasn't able to properly replace Atari-400/800... And as time was passing by, 16-bit computers wanted to see some daylight...
And that then definitely killed small 8-bit brothers and sisters.
Conclusion:
I am happy with my Commodore C128 despite the fact that it wasn't really made with necessary love.
And I am now also happy with Atari-800XL {as emulation for now}. And latest for the next Christmas, a real one, WOULD BE FANTASTIC! 😁
Same can be said for other Atari 400/800/800XL/130XE users. I bet they are also happy. {800XE is actually 65XE so I'll just put it in Atari-800XL basket }
At the moment i am fighting my way through Display List, Fonts, memory addresses and definitely Player-Missile-Area etc.
Synapse-Assembler is my tool. {First thing i did was to turn off key-clicks with poke 731,1! That 'creature' killed my last nerve }
Very nice video btw. i learned a few new facts! Thanks a lot.
👍😁😜 Thank you a lot for this long comment and so many interesting threads. However I can't agree with that the Atari image was not sharp. It's rather the question how computer was connected to tv. You could easily get a very good quality image when using s-video (true that the first XL copies had only video composite). Concerning ANTIC/GTIA I agree that some good start was somehow wasted with bad "construction" of graphics modes. Ex. they could divide image on 8x8 pixel blocks and give the possibility to define ex. 2 different colours for each block etc. (sth similar like in C64). Moreover observing Atari development, I was really disappointed that they didn't propose new updated versions when it counted about hardware, ex. sth like XL+ with 8MHz, new graphic modes etc.). In practice it was the same 8-bit computer produced during so many years with very minor modifications like new case, more RAM (but using it was not so easy) etc. Another thing is that quite often software companies were preparing the same game for few different computers (Atari, Commodore, ZX Spectrum etc.) aligning it to the computer with the lowest possibilities and not using many tricks (specific to only one platform) which could make that software much better. P.S. I hope you will visit my channel from time to time! 😉😀👍
I am quite surprised to say that the Atari games I have seen mostly look better than the C64 versions. Also the demos I have seen on Atari are very impressive too.
You can see that C64 has slightly better resolutions and obviously the SID chip rules when it comes to music... but aside from that it does seem that the Atari is superior.
When I was a kid I knew someone that had most computers, so I got to use them all and compare to C64. Except atari, nobody seemed to have one of those, so I never got to use one.
🤪💪😀 Difference in resolution doesn't matter. I would say Atari had better graphics but it was more difficult to get "maximum power" than in case of Commodore. However when it comes about sprites, it's not so black and white for me and there is no clear winner here. Concerning SID, we could have probably long discussion with many glasses of beer. 🍻 However what is the most important, we can now rediscover both computers from some perspective. Btw, I highly encourage you to have a look on my video about games for Atari developed after 2000. And sure please be my frequent guest. 😀
@@ITGuyinaction of course resolution matters, this directly affects how's many pixels you get on the screen. You might want to learn what it actually means before dismissing it
@@RussMichaels Sure, I know that. 😜Do you really believe that guy working with computers since 40 years doesn't know what the resolution is? 🤔🤔🤔🤔 I thought about sth different. Difference in maximum resolution between C64 and Atari 800XL is so small that it doesn't have any impact when comparing both computers. For C64 we have 320x200 pixels, for Atari 800XL we have 320x192 pixels. We can simply forget about this difference.
@@ITGuyinaction yes clearly since you said above that resolution doesn't matter. That were your words, not mine.fyi I was a programmer for many years ago I know exactly what resolution means and what difference it makes.
@@RussMichaels Do you really believe that 8 pixels more give such a significant difference? It's just 4 percent more of total number of pixels... (8x320) 🤔🤔🤔🤔 Ok, let's then stay with our opinions... I believe we can still keep peace even having a bit different opinion about this aspect. 😀
Comparing clock speed and RAM sizes between old and new is always interesting, how to factor in bit depth though?
Well, the goal of this video is not to compare old with new but to compare two iconic 8-bit computers. That's why I treat this comparison old with new as some kind of "far side plot" and I don't spend too much time on it. Perhaps it's the idea for completely new video to go more deeply here including also colours/graphics etc. comparison?
Bit depth really did not matter very much in most games. The Atari's could generate 256 colors and used them in some minor ways, the vast majority of games were 16 color with maybe some color cycling on occasion.
So most games were 16 color on both machines, with a better color cycling title screen on Atari.
@@bitset3741 That's not so easy. In case of Atari, using interrupts (or changing additionally Antic program), you could easily get much more colours on one screen.
This is like comparing the C64 to the Nintendo NES in terms of years apart. Atari 8 bits were designed in 1977-78 released in 1979 at a time the components were very expensive. Commodore were quite lazy but took advantage of cheaper components and easier regulations. They also bought the Amiga team (ex Atari designers).
🤔🤔🤔 That's more complicated... True that the Atari 400/800 are older... but first "new" Atari 800XL is younger than the C64... There are many comments below this video concerning that and influence on success of the C64 on the market... Btw, Commodore bought MOS and that also gave them strong position! With Amiga that's another story...
I wish the C64 had the beautiful colors of the Atari.
I really can't understand why Commodore guys didn't give to C64 better colour palette. Any idea what could be the reasons? Even Atari 2600 designed few years earlier had much more colours (not counting SECAM version).
@@ITGuyinactionI have read one of the designers saying they picked the colors arbitrarily because they thought they looked nice. Definitely not artists… the biggest Achilles heel of commodore graphics were the drab unsaturated colors.
@@datacipher Partially probably because of "artistic" impressions, but partially because of technical limitations and the way how PAL and NTSC systems work. However it's quite strange for me that C64 had only 16 colors as even Atari 2600 released few years earlier had much more colors... Strange decision. Thanks for visiting my small channel. P.S. I really like your nick! 😉
@@ITGuyinaction Here's what I wsa referring to: "I'm afraid that not nearly as much effort went into the color selection as you think. Since we had total control over hue, saturation and luminance, we picked colors that we liked. In order to save space on the chip, though, many of the colors were simply the opposite side of the color wheel from ones that we picked. This allowed us to reuse the existing resistor values, rather than having a completely unique set for each color" - Robert Yannes
@@datacipher Very interesting! I'm wondering why Atari did sth fully opposite here...
the Atari 800XL, of course
👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 Of course! 😀 Seriously, what do you think about C64?
@@ITGuyinaction C64 was a great 8 bit computer of course, one of the very best. But I really believe the Atari 8 bits series didn't get all the recognition they deserved, that's why I'm pushing for the 800 xl here.
@@2001pl 👍 👍 👍
The disk I/O of the C64 was painfully slow. You needed the Epyx Fast Load cartridge to make it easier to endure.
Pity that both Atari and Commodore didn't improve I/O (although in case of Atari disk drives were quite ok but tape readers...). Thank you for visiting my small channel. I hope you will visit me more often! Regards!
Missing the numbers / units sold of each one
Probably you can point many other things which are missing... However my goal was to focus on technical aspects here. That's why I didn't put this information.
AFAIK it's roughly 18M for C64 models and about 5.6M for all A8 models.
@@gamedoutgamer Some time ago I tried to find the exact data and different sources provided different values which was quite surprising...
They are both grand machines. It depends on what games you want. If a game game out for Atari and took advantage of it's features it would never translate properly or vise versa. I will always favor the Atari over the reason the floppy disk was way faster than the hobbled down 1541. Commodore however was easier to program the sprites vs player missile graphics. Now, with the modern hardware you can get really close the gap. When you have Atari AVG cart vs Commodore FungFu Flash, or the FujiNET coming out for Atari and Commodore, easy ram expansions for the two machines. Now if you want to compare C128 to Atari 130XE, that would be Commodore all the way, the 80 column mode, along with burst mode, GEOS takes it for Commodore.
👍😁 Yeah, both computers are worth to have them and to have fun with them! P.S. I don't want to compare C128 to 130XE... 😜
Seems like atari was faster, had better graphics, faster storage options and more often than not the better game version, while the commodore had the more capacable sound chip, which on the other hand was severely limited by having too few voices to do bass/chord/melody/percussion.
Truth be told, since the SIDs filters always felt a bit out of place within the 8bit retro sound context, I'd much rather take pokeys higher voice count and authentic 8bit brutality :)
And let's not forget that ataris scrolling was a lot smoother too.
All in all, well, atari wins this in surprisingly clear fashion 😎
I'm wondering how much SID was better than POKEY and how much marketing guys told us it's better. Still I believe it's good to return to those days. Thanks for visiting my small channel! Please don't forget to subscribe! 🎅👍
@@ITGuyinaction well, as a music producer who's deep into chip tune stuff (and also an 80s kid) , I can exactly tell you : SID has some more waveforms and modulation possibilities, and it has filters. Pokey doesn't have filters.
That's pretty much it.
And that's where it becomes subjective, because filters strike me as a rather pointless bonus in the context of 8bit chiptune aestethic. The best way to make the c64 sound nicely era-appropriate is to turn the filters off.
And then we are left with the polyphony that is not enough for the basics. Soundtracks like M. U. L. E. Or alternate reality demonstrate that problem nicely: if you want "drums", you can only do one bass and one melody note. No chords for you. And quick arpeggios as fake polyphony (as I. E. alternate reality used) only get you so far. As a result, both of these iconic soundtracks sound lame on SID. It just doesn't have the polyphony to properly reproduce the composition.
It's for that reason that to me personally, even though I'm very much an ensoniq guy (that's the people who created SID), SID and Pokey see much more eye to eye than most people admit. Cause pokey was also much fatter. Both in single oscillator mode, but especially when you decided to double a voice with a slight pitch offset for extra fatness, something the SID of course could also do, but people rarely did because then you've burnt already 2 voices and have only one left.
Long story short : Sound is more complex than just going "look, there's filters on the feature list of A, but not B, therefore A wins".
@@zorglub667 Wow! Thank you a lot for sharing this! You are a real expert here! I can only learn from you! I'm sure that your comment will be very interesting to the viewers of my small channel! All the best for New Year 2024!
"Truth be told, since the SIDs filters always felt a bit out of place within the 8bit retro sound context, I'd much rather take pokeys higher voice count and authentic 8bit brutality :)"
In what way?
For me the SID is the best sound chip used in an 8 bit micro hands down based on how tunes created with the chip sound, which to me is the only metric that should be used to judge a sound chip.
What the SID lacked in voices, it benefitted from what you could do with those voices and the POKEY only had one more voice than the SID. You weren't comparing a chip with only 3 voices and another with 8. The AY had 4 voices, the 2A03 had 5 and an (official) way of playing samples (the SID sample playback was done through a bug which they "fixed" in the 8580) you weren't going to avoid appregios on the Atari machines.
Also, what do you achieve by doubling the POKEY's voices? 16 bit resolution? That gives you TWO voices with that, the SID already had THREE voices with that much resolution.
I thikn you're talking less through your credntials as a chiptuner and more through nostalgia for your own childhood system. You were an Atari kid rather than a Commodore one!
@@GeoNeilUK 🤔🤔🤔 Interesting remarks!
I appreciate the comparison as a fan of some Atari originals (though played on my C64). Especially in the UK, little was known of that series, though, of course, the ST was very big later on. Still, I find the 8-bit world more interesting, as each machine is so very different to the next, and not in small ways. One thing I should mention is that these games are far from being the highest-rated on the C64 and seem to be using its abilities in a pretty simple way. But with that said, what do I think of the comparison?
Atari pros- much wider colour range, making for more vibrant game worlds. Better sound effects, especially when there is background music going on. The processor looks like it can enable some very sophisticated experiences. I'd imagine the legendary Lucasfilm games worked a lot better on it.
Commodore- much better music from the SID. To my ears, it just isn't close and it's my fave for 8-bit sound, just so much more musical and sophisticated. This is what a synth rather than a sound chip FX can do. The resolution looks consistently higher in all these games. The colours are very limited, true, but the dull colours make for simpler and more realistic-looking games. It's hardly an advantage; it's more of a bad design choice. But it made for the 'familiar look' of the Commie games, just as the SID gave them a 'familiar sound'. And this is what makes it such a classic, having a certain look with enough definition to make it expressive.
In conclusion- 8 bit is a fascinating space despite of and in a sense even thanks to the limitations. We, who mostly know about the C64 and ZX Spectrum series, should get to know Atari better. If for no other reason than for the creative, luminously coloured games that were simply unique to that system.
👍 Thank you for this very interesting comment. Why did Commodore decide to limit C64 colour palette so much according to your opinion? As I can see here some kind of discrepancy. Very interesting music chip, quite good sprites (it's difficult to compare them directly with Atari but trying to be short I would say that C64 had slightly better sprites than XL/XE or at least much easier programmable) and... other graphics possibilities below average... (although again it was easier to get good results without using so many tricks as in XL/XE).
The game shown at the end very much looks like it was converted to the C64 from the Atari rather than being built with the VIC-II in mind. There's a lot that could be done to improve the graphics!
Yeah, it was converted from Atari. However it was quite common at that time that a game created for one computer was next transferred to other platforms, sometimes to 10-20 different ones.
@@ITGuyinaction Lazy greed is why the second thought machine get's little more usually than making it function on another machine. Common in the industry back then and even now. But as a business man I get their thinking, but Quality is still important...even in business.
@@GORF_EMPIRE 🤔🤔🤔🤔
Having owned both, the C64 & Atari 800XL, in the 80s, I can attest that the Atari 8 bit was best. The Atari was well polished, well engineered. The C64 had a slow slow buggy buggy disk drive system - made slow from a bug that carried over from the Vic 20, I've read. Commands on the Atari made sense - on the C64 commands were a headache: for example, OPEN 1,8,15,"R:NEWNAME=TEMPFILE":CLOSE 1 to rename a file on the C64. The Atari 8 bit was released 2.x years earlier, but it held it's own: having the same processor chip but it was clocked considerably faster than the C64's chip & had nearly identical graphics (the C64 on very slightly higher). The only advantage of the C64, to me, is the Commodore simply had more games (as it was the #1 selling computer). When I sold my Atari 800XL to then buy a C64, I had many many regrets afterwards!
Thanks a lot for this comment. You mention very important area. Atari system software was much better in many aspects, including the ones you listed. I'm curious why Commodore had much better sales and much more games while two computers were so similar and I would say Atari had many advantages comparing with C64. Even of course it's not black and white. I hope you to see you more often on my small channel. 😀
@@ITGuyinaction really 2 factors made the c64 win out. 1) Price. Jack Tramiel started the price wars, and on top of that, the 400 and 800 needed a ton of RF shielding because of the FCC requirements at the time. By the time that was changed, the C64 was ready to ship, and could be made and sold for less. The XL line was the 'cost reduction models. 2) lowest common denominator. The 400 had 16kb of ram, and the 800 had 48kb. Most games were coded to work on 48kb for many years, while the c64 would started out with 64kb, so coders would utilize that.
@@slaapliedje Not sure, if we should compare 400/800 with C64. As 800 XL was released just a bit later than C64, and in 1982 1200XL was launched. Thus it would be very interesting to show the reasons why 1200XL/800XL having at least comparable if not better possibilities didn't win when fighting for place on the market. Was that because 400/800 were weaker and 1200XL had some weak points and 800XL being real C64 competitor was released few months too late? Did it cause that situation? Who was in practice first?
@@slaapliedje One thing comes also to my mind. Jack Tramiel, as Commodore boss, made one very smart step buying MOS. Do you agree with me? It allowed him somehow to control indirectly Atari prices (which was buying chips from MOS) and having probably higher profit margin on C64 (using also MOS chips), he could spend more on marketing...
@@ITGuyinaction agreed, though I think that was after the initial success of the c64 due to a lower price and being newer, then the pricing wars could really kick off after they bought MOS.
It would also be necessary to show games that are on C64 and not on Atari. Because these are the best games (!!!) from the C64, Atari doesn't have them at all. It's also funny to compare colors, because Atari theoretically has many more of them, but they are practically not used in games! And C64 games are much more colorful :D
Well, if you want to show C64 only games, it would be also fair to present Atari only games. Concerning colours, I don't agree. At the beginning, after release, it was true that many games didn't use more advanced tricks. But with time it changed a lot...
@@ITGuyinaction But since the mid-1980s, Atari games have no longer been produced. There are no newer and better ones. There are a lot of great games on the C64 from the late 80s and 90s, as well as modern ones. Show these colorful Atari games? How many are there? Most games have 4 colors - black, gray, brown and grey :D
@@BaltazarZX Please just have a look on my other videos on my channel. And for sure you will find also many more videos on other channels. Games for Atari are still being developed. Sure not commercially but it's even better...
@@BaltazarZX There is a webpage called Indie retro news. There you will find lists of homebrew games for all 8bit platforms by model. The atari 8bit homebrew scene is only third behind the C64 and Speccy and in hardware add-ons and upgrades its up there with the most popular retro machines (if not first). In addition to that, most significant modern game ports tend to look and play better on the Atari platform.
The correct statement should be "Some C64 games are more colorful and others are not".
Here are some games as an example.
Shared tiles:Bosconian, Attack of the Mutant Camels, Encounter, bombjack, Elektra glide, Frogger II, Guard(Tangent), Assembloids, Mr Robot and his Factory, stealth, Space Harrier, International Karate RC/RCX
Exclusive titles: Albert, Animal Party, Betty issues, Breakit22, Callisto, Contagion, Crownland, DITCH, Dimo's Quest/dungeon, Rainbow walker, The extirpator, Excelsor, Marbled, The last squadron, RGB, Timeslip, Bubble shooter, Cavernia, Creep, Crystal Crisis, Cygnus, Heli in Caves, Deathzone, Detonationix, Dizzy, Fire chief, onEscape, skyscraper,
I had an 800 XL at that time, but got a C64 long after both machines were discontinued, so I could do side by side comparisons, and found the experience to be similar on both. I do have to give the edge to the C64 sound chip, though. Also, everyone at the Atari club that I belonged to used Commodore monitors. They were just better than any other monitor that worked with the Atari machines.
I can't say too much about monitors as... I used normal tv-set then... Lucky you!
@d4qatoa 👍 👍 👍 🍀
to be precise, Commodore only built the plastics for those monitors .
My personal opinion and I will try to be brief. The C64 had better graphics than the Atari because even though it had fewer colours, it could display more colours at higher resolutions and the sprites were much better than the Atari player missiles. Furthermore, it was easier to program than the Atari which had a very sophisticated but complex design. Furthermore, the SID sound chip was much better than the POKEY at music but many preferred the latter for sound effects. When it came to processors, the ATARI was about 80% faster on paper, about 40% in real life applications, which is a big difference. Overall, I would say the ATARI was a state of the art system for 1979 and it was leaps and bounds ahead of anything else. The design was so good that it could compete with the C64 which was a 1982 system. Finally, games always seem to play better on the Atari...my guess is that it is because of the faster processor. Both are classic systems, but the Atari , in my opinion, is the de facto cult computer of the 80s and the C64 is the mainstream master. They are basically the best 8 bit computers of the 80s.
Yeah, both machines were quite interesting! And it's the best to have both now! P.S. Do you know that you could modify Antic processor program and add those few missing lines to get C64 resolution?
I had both and preferred the Atari as it was well polished - much better engineered !
@@mjp29 👍
I want an Atari 800XL first, then I want an Apple 2gs, then I'd take the C64. Of course, the 2gs isn't 8 bit... I'd still take an Apple 2 second over the c64 though, simply because the disk operating system is much better on Apple (and Atari)
@@mjp29 🤔🤔🤔 Interesting choice! I wouldn't say no for having some small collection of old Apple computers...
In a chess game with 2 players with equal strength, the white player is more likely to win or at least draw, while the black player can already be happy about a draw and does not really "need" to win. I enjoyed your video but still I have to point out (as a atari person) that this was not really 100% fair. The Atari 8bit computers are great, but the c64 was a monster, like 8bit on steroids to be honest. It was just (much) faster, has better sound and music, more programs and games. However I really like the facts that the Atari colorpalette was that great on the other hand. Even the Atari ST was only showing 16colors (without tricks), that is at the same time great (for the atari 8bit) and a shame (for the later ST series).
Concerning chess game, I was wondering if someone raise this point. Thus point for you. Should I repeat this game but reversing now which computer is the first player? 😜 Concerning technical possibilities, Atari was faster and here it's difficult to discuss with numbers. Concerning sound and music that might depend on individual opinion as there are areas where Atari is better and areas where Commodore is better. At least it's my humble opinion.
@@ITGuyinaction np, I made a similar video about chess on the Atari ST some time ago and did not cared about it as well :D ruclips.net/video/9thcEaDdCgI/видео.html
Great! We all know that the chess games of this type should not be treated too serious... 😜
First off thanks for making this great video, I found it to be very interesting. I owned both machine and loved them both. The overall specification and games was very close, but I would give it to Atari. My reason this conclusion is the Atari was based on 2 to 3 years older hardware. In the 70s and 80s, hardware advances in a couple of years was quite high. The CBM64 had at least two years hardware advances over the Atari, but it could still hold it's own. One massive advantage the CBM64 had over Atari was the Amazing SID chip, even though the developers made good use of Atari's Pokey Chip.
👍👍👍 Thank you for this nice comment. I hope you will visit my small channel more often. Returning to the merits, it's a very good conclusion. I would also add here the sprites which were quite different but probably a bit better for C64.
The combined RAM of all Commodore 64s ever manufactured sums up to around one terabyte if using high sales estimates.
😜 I've never though like this... Interesting... Thanks for visiting my small channel and I hope you will make step in more often. Enjoy! 😀🙏
C64 was the superior machine. The sprites were superior to Atari's, as were the bitmap modes. You could have a max of 4 colours per scanline in 160x200 Atari mode, and 16 at 80x200, whereas in c64 bitmap mode you could have all 16 (albeit with constraints) in both 160x200 and 320x200. Then there is SID. The Atari CPU was faster and colour range superior though.
Well, I fully agree that the way of using colours was much programmer friendly in case of C64. In Atari to get many colours you had to use interrupts or to modify Antic program (or both). Concerning sprites, here it's not so black and white. Sure C64 had hardware support of moving sprites in both directions while Atari only in one (the second had to be done "in software way"). However Atari sprites are much bigger (full screen height) which sometimes you can use it in creative way. Still thank you for visiting my channel and I hope you subscribe it! 😀
Sprites - agree. Atari sprites had lower resolution. It was visible at some games. For me, sprites was main difference. But about other factors, machines are similar.
@@TrockeyTrockey Well, I would say resolution was similar. Just C64 sprites were wider (more pixels). And Atari sprites had much bigger height (=full screen height but in practice full height was not used).
I owned both in the 80s. The Atari was very well engineered and polished. The C64, disk in particular, was slow slow & bugyy buggy. I much preferred the Atari.
@@mjp29 👍
As I see it. The major disadvantage of the C64 is the odd color palette with its gloomy shades where some colors are far too dominant instead of using a standard RGB palette. Every game looks "C64" because of that. The dull colours that lacks luster and brilliance in every game.
C64's soundchip is perhaps TOO "synthy" for it's own good. Great for music but not so good on sound effekts. You encounter the same syndome as with colours. Every game sounds synth-C64.
Nintendo NES was much better balanced and featured a PCM channel as well.
Else the C64 was a great computer for it's time but it will never even come close to the fantasic raster colour effects you can watch in many games on the Atari 8bit computer. Compare Alternate Reality on both computers to verify that.
Thank you for this post. You mentioned very important points. However we could also discuss ex. build quality or operating systems features (or rather ROM features). I hope you will visit my channel from time to time.
That's funny: most people berate C64 for its colours - to me they look ok, what I felt disappointed about C64 is...blocky graphics, the same is true about Atari but I was growing up playing on ZX-Spectrum where there's only 1 graphical mode 256×192, both C64 and Atari support even higher resolution with even more crispy graphics but most games (or rather their developers) didn't bother with it
In my opinion, the colors on the C64 are perfectly fine. They were chosen by the human eye, not some machine scale. The only "bug" was in the later versions of the C64 with the VIC 8565, which was produced by a different process, and resulted in blander colors than the earlier 6569. You can see how good those mere 16 colors are in the graphic creations of demoscene, for example. You can display practically anything real with it.
The Atari never got the love it deserved due to the C64 success. I consider the Atari 8 bit superior just look at that Space Harrier remake.
Yeah! I think the same. And what do you think about audio side of both computers?
@@ITGuyinaction Audio on both are good shame they messed up on the ST and put inferior chip to the 8bit Atari. I liked the tune on the Atari 8bit Elektra Glide and International Karate.
@@mas2743 I have impression that Atari ST was a computer created being in hurry. Atari wanted to have 16 bit model but as it was not enough advanced they decided to simplify their life...
Atari could have been a tremendous success but the talented developers were focused on the 64. I had a Commodore bread bin but looking bad it's kinda sad that it got all the hype and attention.
@@brucetungsten5714 👍 Why do you think that developers preferred Commodore than Atari? Or perhaps was this rather commercial decision or some kind of influence of games companies managers or even informal contacts of Commodore?
Except for sound, Atari, did everything better. Unfortunately, their price kept them from competing as effectively as they could have if they were cheaper.
🤔🤔🤔 I don't think only the price. Some guys commenting here probably pointed quite well, that C64 was released approx. 1 year earlier than Atari 800XL and that "magic year" made a huge difference. And Atari 400/800/1200XL, released earlier, were not very competitive due to price but also due to some not fully prepared features/software. Did you enjoy this video? I hope you will visit more often my small channel. It would be very nice. 😀
@@ITGuyinaction Atari messing about with the 1200XL and 600XL and not having any 800XL in the shops for Christmas 1983 was the nail in the coffin for the 8-bit line.
@@Daz5Daz I agree! Btw, Thanks for visiting my small channel! How did you find it?
Ah, I like both sound chips. The Commodore 64 has a fuller sound, but if you can use the Atari chip, that dirty-sounding POKEY chip giving it some bass. However, it sounds like the C64 chip was used more and many Atari games mostly had the music on the title screen. It sounds like the 2 extra channels could really help the ATARI sound.
One name keeps coming up on both systems: Rob Hubbard.
I wouldn't call POKEY as chip giving dirty-sounding ha ha... One thing is sure, both chips give so much different sound. In my humble opinion it's a real pity that POKEY and SID were not doubled in each computer to make depending on some switch either stereo sound either 2 times more channels mono sound. Now it's for sure possible to get such an extension but at that time...
I really like the Pokey. It has way more charm than the C64 bubble-overdose we have in our brain. Not so harsch (dirty is the last word I would relate to the Pokey), it is butter smooth! Especially some Atari arcade cabs pushed the Pokey to amazing heights. For example Super Sprint is one of the best sounding Pokey machines ever.
@@2kBofFun 👍 Yeah, both sound chips produce so much different sound...
I had both and there was never a winner.
🎅❄☃ There is sth in that! All the best for the New Year! I also highly recommend visiting my little channel more often and subscribing! I will be very delighted!
The C64 wins the war but Atari wins some battles (edge cases) for example take a look at the homebrew port of Sega's Arcade Game Space Harrier to Atari 8-bit, it will blow you away!
Which games are the top of the top ones for C64 and showing the best its possibilities (especially from the latest years) in your opinion?
@@ITGuyinaction excluding homebrew mayhem on monsterland pushes the hardware the most and exploits undocumented tricks. Almost looks like a 16-bit platformer. With homebrew included: Super Mario Bros. and Sonic the Hedgehog.
Correction: Mayhem in Monsterland (not on)
@@pjsampras7072 👍
Well it was never a war to begin with. The video attempted to compare two 8bit platforms with different architectures and custom silicons.
C64 won the market during their commercial life but things changed when people without monetary interest started creating stuff on the A8.
I will argue that both machines have pros and cons but I need to point out some examples where the A8 proves it value against its worthy competitor.
Lets start with newer titles that can be found on both platforms.
1.Yoomp! the Atari version is better, the screen is bigger, the animation and trajectory of the ball is superior, the effects are far more colorful.
2. Total Eclipse. Superior framerate.
3. Stunt Car racer, Superior framerate
4. Guard (A8) vs Tangent(C64), Superior speed and colors.
5. You already mentioned Space Harrier
6.Prince of Persia. Superior graphics without those annoying slowdowns.
7. Assembloids, Superior graphics.
8.Bomb Jack/Gacek at least equally good if not better in some aspects (screen real estate )
Now the Atari also have the 16-bit(ish) platformers , like Albert, Betty Issues and Crownland(my friend thought I sent him a mame game video). You can also check RGB, Mario bros Arcade XE, Timeslip, the new IK RC and RCX which also look great and of cource TRAX (Chaos engine) on the making. And what About Dimo's quest/dungeon, Atari blast, Callisto, Break it 22, Marbled, The last squadron...etc etc etc.
I can go on and on talking about so many amazing creations of talented people on the A8 but the point is that the winner of the commercial "war" was not that special imho.
Don't forget that the Atari 8-bit was 3 years before the C64. A more real competitor was the Commodore VIC-20 and Apple II. Which didn't have nearly as good graphics and sound as Atari. The Atari is not far behind in performance and that makes it a good competitor even to the C64.
If you take into consideration Atari 400/800, then true. And in fact differences between 800 and 800XL were quite small. The biggest was memory size. In many countries, Atari 800XL was the most often compared with Commodore 64 and that's why I decided to prepare this video. I still think that Atari 400/800/1200XL/800XL/... was a revolutionary project!
@@ITGuyinaction Yes, that's what i mean too. The Atari 8-bit was a great computer that stood up well against the C64 even though it was 3 years earlier with other competitors in mind. I like the pokey sound more ;) I think zx spectrum was slightly bigger than Atari here in Sweden.
@@ingegas100 What were the most popular 8-bit computers in Sweden?
@@ITGuyinaction Commodore 64 was the most popular computer and before that Vic 20.
@@ingegas100 👍
Both computers are using the self same moves in that chess game! It's not about the technology, it's about the games. The C64 had 7,000 more games than the Atari 800!!! And because of the huge sales of the C64 you had much more education, utility and programming software.
Yeah, I fully agree with you! Thank you for visiting my small channel and please do me a favour and visit it from time to time! 🙏😀
its clear each has its own advantages.
You can clealry see that C64 wins on gfx and sound but Atari wins on systems specs, speed etc.
Judging by the specs, you would expect the Atari to have better games most of the time, but this doesn;t appear to be the case. In most cases C64 games and apps look better.
A slightly higher screen resolution with more pixels to play with makes the games look slightly better and less blocky.
Looks like C64 has smoother scrolling too.
I would say the atari excels at 3D/vector games due to its faster CPU, like Infiltrator, mercenary, elite etc.
From a developers perspective, I imagine Atari was the better system to work with in many ways. But for end user, C64 wins on visuals and sounds.
🤔🤔🤔 We have already had quite interesting discussion about resolution in comments thus please have a look on it. One thing is for sure C64 won when it comes about number of games on the market and number of sold units. However concerning technical possibilities I would vote here for Atari even if concerning sound I would have doubts here...
@@ITGuyinaction I think anyone who has listened to a lot of game music knows that the SID is the best.
Atari certainly is not bad though.
@@commanderObvious The music is a bit different however... I'm wondering how much it's related with audio chip possibilities and how much with the fact that SID supported more things in hardware way making preparing music much easier...
Yikes. Sounds like you recorded the Atari store demo in PAL mode.
💪😁🔥🔥🔥 Europeans usually prefer PAL (some also SECAM) and we are not compatible with NTSC... 🤪
They're both fantastic home computers and retro game consoles. There's more than enough love to go around. Throw in the ZX Spectrum and Apple II/IIgs and you're living in a golden age.
👍 👍 👍 🍀
@d4qatoa 👍
you forgot the CPC and the MSX systems.😉
Atari can only do 2/4 colours (not shades of 1 colour) per scanline or character row backgrounds due to lack of attribute/color RAM in 320x192/160x192, there is no escaping that. Even the Sinclair Spectrum can do 16 per row with zero CPU/system bandwidth displays. The reality is the Atari software support was dropped when stunning games like Law of the West for C64 came out, no 8bit system can replicate those C64 graphics technically or replicate the bullet hell C64 shoot 'em up Enforcer even today.
It's more complicated. Depending on the mode, Atari can do 2-16 colors per scanline. Additionally when using interrupts, you can easily change colors set per scanline. True that in the most popular mode used by many games, you can use only 4 colors per scanline. However chagning those 4 colors in each scanline, you can easily get all 128 or 256 colors in the whole image. It's just the invention of the programmer, how he will manage this limitation. Moreover using interrupts, you can also change screen mode somewhere in the middle of the screen. So ex. in top part you can have 2 colors per scanline mode, in the middle 4 colors per scanline and in the bottom 16 colors per scanline. Atari is very flexible here.
@@ITGuyinaction As I understand it the 1979 and later 1980 GTIA update chipset can only do what the C64 does without colour ram if you want any colour combination not weird any colour/any luminance. That's 2 colours in hi-res 320x192 etc, 4 colours in 160x192. Resolutions lower than that are not applicable unless you were upgrading from a Fairchild Channel F :) You have more colours sure but it is impossible to do C64 games like 320x200 law of the west. Rastaconverter with millions of iterations would have trouble replicating C64 Law of the West screenshots and that display uses zero CPU/raster time or VIC-II bandwidth on a C64. It's just how it is, in 1979 Atari didn't think about attribute/color RAM and this is the negative side for gaming. You just have to accept some things, C64 can't due Atari Rescue on Fractalus, Atari can't do 3rd generation 16 colour per scanline C64 games like Law of the West. No need to get upset, I didn't build the 1979 vs 1981 chips :)
@@retrotronics1845 Yeah, I fully agree that colors per 8x8 pixels idea (Commodore) is much better than Atari idea colors per screen (or per scanline if we use interrupts but it's a bit tricky even if not much). Additionally for C64 we can use interrupts but it's not possible to extend 16 colors pallette which for me is a huge limitation. In theory there are solutions achieving more colors with some colors interlacing but I don't count them as the result is very bad in my opinion. Concerning lower resolutions for Atari, true that they are not very usefull but in some situations you can also use them for sth especially if you use them only in part of the screen (ex. for displaying some counters of found objects, number of lives etc.). In general creating interesting games for 8-bit computers required a lot of creativity. Moreover C64 was newer model and it also gave to it some advantage. Not counting that some Atari XL/XE solutions have roots in Atari 2600 console. And Atari in most (all?) countries was significantly cheaper than Commodore (having its own chip factory which was a very good business decision). Probably we could have a lot discussion about that with a lot of glasses of good beer or wine ha ha... 🤪
@@ITGuyinaction It amazes me that some of the games were so similar to each other, more than any other popular format of the time. despite their graphics hardware being complete opposites. I have spent all day converting images to the C64 equivalent of Rastaconverter for Atari and as I always knew for pictures it's better to have more colours than higher resolution. Still I did make 2 nice pictures of a white 1988 BMW M3 on tarmac :) If I could have two machines in the 1980s it would be C64 and Atari 800XL or 800 48k. I actually wanted an Atari 800 but it was too expensive so I got a C64. Both are great machines to be honest. There's loads of Atari games I haven't played for decades but looking forward to as a treat for finishing work on my house, like obscure hidden gems like Alleykat which I loved playing on my friend's Atari 800 but only Atari owners really know exists, shame it should get a cool Amiga conversion one day.
@@retrotronics1845 I'm so happy that my video caused so long and interesting discussion! I keep my fingers crossed for your the best 8-bit experiences in the nearest time! It's always good to return to the memories from childhood. 😀👍
I am not sure what was the situation in the other parts of the world but in Hungary the C64 was the winner. Not because of any technical reasons but probably due to the better price and the fact that they were smuggled into the country semi-officially (turning a blind eye by the government) in large numbers. It was not worth to buy a technically better Atari if all your classmates had Commodores. And even the local computer gaming magazines didn't care about the Atari. We had two main mags (Commodore World and 576KByte) and they had articles for Commodores Amigas and later for PCs.
Good point! True that your friends choice quite often determined your choice! And 8-bit Atari was really popular only in few countries including Poland. Thanks for visiting my small channel and I hope you will have a look on my videos from time to time! 👍🎥
It's hard to believe a Soviet country got any Western computers.
Going by the arcade games, the Soviet Union was WAY behind the West in small computers. The Soviets lagged well behind in large computer systems as well.
I know various Soviet countries would import parts, but not entire computers.
Atari really wasn't technically better either. Pokey is vastly inferior to the SID and the Vic II is superior to the Atari's video chip. While the early Atari built 800s were very well built, the earliest ones dramatically overbuilt, than the C64, the later 800s were not built very well at all.
@@tarstarkusz Hungary was called the “most happy barrack” of the socialist countries because at the 70-80s the dictatorship was much softer than in many surrounding countries. There is a documentary series called “Vakondok” which talks about this era of computing. The company called Novotrade was founded then and the leader talks about importing these machinse despite the COCOM regulations. They also built a successful industry of writing computer games here for their British partners. edit: "Moleman 4." is the documentary which talks about this topic.
@@tarstarkusz How it was in Hungary, our friend @gabor222 explained. Concerning Poland there were two chains of the shops called Pewex and Baltona. Despite those shops were Polish one and in Poland you were not allowed to use there national currency but only foreign ones (and also sth we called false dollars but that's another story). And without any problems you could buy there foreign computers: Atari, Timex, Commodore and also other electronic devices imported from West like tv-sets, audio equipment made by well known manufactures like Sony, Panasonic, Technics etc. Thus the only question was... to have money! Long story!
@@gabor222 I think that also Czechoslovakia and East Germany (DDR) were in quite good situation and were quite rich as for East countries at those times.
Dude , who writes numbers like this
What do you mean?
@@ITGuyinaction f.e. *'* as a comma...
"1'300" should be either 1.300 (Germany/Europe) or 1,300 (U.S./UK?)
@@FutureChaosTV Well, It might be cultural difference (or result of some country standards). Now sure from where it comes in my video, but as a child I used this quite often. Generally in Poland we don't use thousands separators in most cases. In the past I even saw quite good article about that but currently I'm not capable to find it. However please have a look: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator#Digit_grouping and here ux.stackexchange.com/questions/23667/is-using-a-comma-as-a-number-separator-a-cultural-thing Both the character used as separator and after how many digits we put separator depend on the country. Moreover please note that this channel is watched in many different countries and this way of writing might be better as people will not confuse it with their local standards, in particular they will not confuse it with decimal mark. Still thank you for visiting my small channel and I hope you will watch my videos from time to time! 😀
@@ITGuyinaction With small numbers you can just opt to not use the separator.
F.e. 1300 or 13000.
Easiest maybe is just to use empty space to group the digits for big numbers f.e.
13 000 000.
Use what you want.
Just be prepared that the way you write it you will probably have this discussion in every video ;-)
@@FutureChaosTV I will re-think that... Comments are always great as they help in this channel growth! 😺👍🕹
STAR RAIDERS 2 isnt a better game than the first . Its actually a game that was supposed to be the videogame of the movie The Last Starfighter . It doesn't look as good as the original STAR RAIDERS . No way Commodore could duplicate the ATARI 8 bit version . The 64 just wasn't as powerful as the ATARI 8 bit line .
😉👊
Actually, an unreleasesd version of Star Raiders II exists - it is fairly similar to the 1st one, in terms of look and feel, but present a few enhancements (sounds, graphics, gameplay). To my knowledge, Aric Wilmunder worked on it and got it to the point of being almost finished, but it was shelved, for some reasons. I got my hands on it and frankly, I was impressed by it - much more than I was by the "Last Starfighter renamed" version (which is otherwise a very fine game and stands on its own).
@@buffalodebill1976 🤔 Business decisions... They had huge influence on IT and they still have...
13:15 - The surname wasa changed to easier saying - orginal was: Trzmiel.
🤔🤔🤔🤔 Concerning surname, there are many comments. Please have a look when having a bit of time.
The Atari character graphics were 2, 4 or 5 colors. Fun video!
Have you ever programmed Atari in assembler? When programming in BASIC, yes it was true. But there were more modes than you write, one with even 16 colours per screen. And please remember from 256 colours palette. In assembler I would say it was limitation per line and not per screen. Concluding, please learn more about Atari assembly programming. 🤪💪😀
@@ITGuyinaction I have written assembly language for both the Atari 8 bit computers, and the VCS as well as the C64 and Apple 8 bit computers.
Really, I was just commenting on the video omitting the Atari 4 color character mode.
With GTIA modes disabled, one can get 2, 4 and 5 color character displays in a variety of resolutions. The 5 color mode was not made available from BASIC using the keywords.
With GTIA turned on, those same modes provide color data for the 80 pixel wide GTIA graphics modes, and in that case one can get 16 colors on screen easily. As I recall, there were three basic choices:
One was a set of 16 hues at a given intensity value, another was 16 shades of grey at a given hue value, and the final one used all the color registers as a palette type mode, but only 9 (or was it 11?) colors were addressable that way.
You won't see me in these comment pages, ever again. :(
@@DougDingus Why do you want to analyse ANTIC only modes? From end user perspective, as this video is made, only cooperation of ANTIC and GTIA matters. In practice, not counting very sophisticated situations, ANTIC and GTIA were treated as one video chip when programming. From BASIC, having two chips was not visible at all, from assembler more but mostly addressing different registers of both chips. If Atari put everything into one chip keeping the same registers, noone would notice this from programming perspective. Not sure why you feel offended. You wrote incorrect information (or at least highly simplified and imprecise) and that's why I addressed that. P.S. For all those who are interested in all graphics modes of Atari, I put some links the video description. In particular this one might be interesting having all modes listed: www.atarimania.com/faq-atari-400-800-xl-xe-what-is-an-atari-8-bit-computer_3.html
@@ITGuyinaction Oh boy. I wrote nothing incorrect.
The ONLY reasons for my comment were:
1. Fun video.
2. An Atari can deliver 2, 4 or 5 color character modes.
See 15:42 in the video. You have only 2 and 5 colors there.
Really, that's it!
I supplied some other info figuring you would be interested given you mentioned assembly language.
While I am talking about that part of the video, it's worth mentioning an Atari can display 25, and even more lines of character graphics with a small change to the display list. A BASIC programmer may not know that, but an assembly programmer will.
I am not offended at all. No worries there.
Now, I really am going to go and will not respond again, but will read whatever you choose to write.
Take care, live well, have fun. Seriously.
@@DougDingus 🥰 Happy to hear that! I hope you will have some time in future to have a look on other videos! 😀
Er... you're too nice to Jack Tramiel, he literally ruined Atari for short term gains, and letting his son run the show. Heck even at Commodore he ruined quite a bit, and his pettiness delayed the Amiga (as they originally were designed it for Atari but due to him being a dick ... welll long history, but much of the Atari 8 bit line is like a precursor to the Amiga). He really should never have been the head of Atari or Commodore as he ran at least one of these companies into the ground.
🤔🤔🤔🤔 Sometimes I'm wondering if preparing video about Jack Tramiel would be a good idea... Although I guess that guys living in USA could tell much more here than just a normal guy being born in communistic country and having terrible problems to get access to this Western mysterious computers world...
@@ITGuyinaction In this case, communism was the least of Tramiels problems. He could need some communism the way he treated the people who worked for him at Atari. Sorry, it's a bit of a harsh joke, but there are quite a few interviews about him screwing up Commodore and later Atari, like how the Atari 7200 was delayed by him and then limited. It would have been ready to take on the NES with a far better audio solution had he just listened to the engineering team working on it.
Sorry if I'm being a bit harsh in both words and replies. I guess I'm just a bit "salty" about Atari's demise lol .
Me I also regret that Atari was not so successful with the next products as we would expect. From another side, we might not know all those things Tramiel knew at that time... and we also know more that what was available to Tramiel when taking decisions. Pity we can't have discussion with him to understand better his actions...
@@DehnusNorder And one thing more, by saying "guy being born in communistic country" I though about myself... Although for sure it's also true in case of Tramiel!
@@ITGuyinaction Jack Tramiel is a survivor of the Holocaust, he got out a bit before the Russians got in. And.. I always find it hard to call Russians "communist", when they just continued the colonialist expansion of the Tzars, but then "Communist!". I really dislike the Russian leadership, from Tzars to "Communist party" to now Putin. It seems their leadership has always been expansionist and corrupt.
Sorry my hatred is showing a bit.
Keep in mind that Tramiel was ousted from Commodore before snatching up Atari which was facing problems because they didn't expect their console to reach end-of-life.
At that time consoles and computers were sth fully new thus... not sure if others really knew what would be the expected lifespan. But true that after very good start, Atari seemed to be quite passive later... They offered for long time almost the same products... and their Atari ST was also quite average on the marked when released...
The Atari was awesome, but it couldn't match the higher res sprites and charm of the SID chip on the C64. The SID chip is magical, really. So many times I would just sit and listen to my favourite title or loading music on a game.
With sprites it's not so black and white... Concerning SID, it's not so easy. For sure SID was much easier for programming and many things were controlled in hardware way, comparing to POKEY which required much more software tricks.
@@ITGuyinaction Loved the phat SID filters and how C64 music evolved to become more uniquely stylized. POKEY has that quintessential chip music sound which we all love, but as a synth nerd I prefer depth and characteristics of SID. Rob Hubbard, Jeroen Tel and Matt Gray captured my imagination like nothing else, and even to this day when I introduce my younger friends in the music industry to SID their reaction is always a big smile followed by "Woah". Good times.
@@FILIPOSCAR 🤪 Yeah, SID has quite "special" sound!
@@ITGuyinaction It does indeed, and the C64 scene is also still very much alive too. Lots of great new music still being composed out of passion and love for the SID.
@@FILIPOSCAR That's true! 🤪
The 800XL, the nearest competitor, was released in 1983, the C64 was released in 1982. Facts matter, Atari fanboys.
True but you can take into consideration also 400/800/600XL/1200XL and later 65XE/130XE/800XE computers. In my video I selected 800XL as one example of big Atari 8-bit family. However 1200XL is also not far from C64.
There was zero difference in the chipset of any of the Atari models. The only thing we got sadly was more RAM in later years. The Atari chipset was from 1979. Nothing fanboy about that fact.
@@MoparStephen 👍 True. Sure it depends what do you mean exactly by that. As there were some minor improvements. However from the perspective of these the most important chips like microprocessor, ANTIC, GTIA, POKEY and from software developer perspective nothing changed. I was wondering many times why Atari didn't introduce any new model and chips being backward compatible but with new features. They did this somehow in case of Atari 2600/7800 consoles but not in case of XL/XE 8-bit series of computers.
@@ITGuyinaction Yes they did. The GTIA was released in Nov 1981 and was an upgrade of the CTIA inside the early 400/800's. Most 400/800's have GTIA.
@@gamedoutgamer True! Point for you!
The 800xl was great but software was so hard to buy back then.
So hard to buy? 🤔🤔🤔🤔
Yep...in the UK it was. @@ITGuyinaction
@@siturl5834 Yeah, I've heard that Atari computers were not at all popular in UK. And it was so much different comparing ex. to Poland...
Our famous Dutch 8-bit computer came with a "Steam store" before the internet. With a subscription of 10 guilders/month, you could download all the games you liked. You also paid 10ct per 512byte, so a game of like 20kB was another 4 guilders in download fee. Still cheap if you considered C64 games to cost like 60 guilders. All games were with a freeware license, so you were allowed copying on events or with friends.
I think when you put the C64 against any machine based on the 6502, anything made by Commodore wins because it was Commodore that were making the 6502 CPU. They supplied the chip. They controlled the supply.
Anyone else using the 6502 in a home computer was competing against Commodore. If Commodore wanted to, they could have stopped selling or licensing the 6502 and put all of those competitors out of business, It's just that there was too much of a market for the 6502, they made more money from selling the chips than they lost through their competitors using that chip.
And when you consider that those competitors included the BBC Micro and the NES as well as the Atari 8 bit range, wsho knows how computing history would have turned out.
Also, I always thought that in Eastern Europe, it was the Sinclair ZX Spectrum that was king as it was easier for the Warsaw Pact engineers to clone! Either that wasn't the case in Poland or you have a really low opinion of the Spectrum. Jack Tramiel really was the American Clive Sinclair!
🤔🤔🤔🤔 Well... Decision about buying MOS was a very good one! However business is business. I've never heard about any serious shortages in 6502 delivery for others thus it means Commodore didn't mind that other companies produced their computers basing on that microprocessor. However it might also mean that their margin on C64 was much higher that ex. margin of Atari on Atari 800XL. We could have a long discussion about that area with a big glass of good beer. 🍺 Concerning Eastern Europe, I have impression that Poland could be a specific case. Atari computers were so popular here that probably it wasn't the case of any other Eastern European Bloc countries. Jack Tramiel roots counted here? However C64 and ZX Spectrum/Timex devices were also quite common. And true that in Soviet Union, but also in many other countries, ZX Spectrum clones were created, including Poland. However I've never heard about any Atari XL/XE clone in my country. Do you know any story about such a case? It might be related with the fact that making a copy of POKEY, ANTIC or GTIA was quite challenging... Thanks for visiting my small channel and I hope that you are supporting it by your subscription! 👍
I have C64 Maxi and Atari Mini - the C64 wins comfortably mainly because of the greater number of great titles. It's a pity the Atari never got the Last Ninja games and there are many other other great titles that never made it to the Atari.
If you mean the 80s and 90s, that's true. Now there are many great new titles on Atari, including... The Last Ninja! 🤪
@@ITGuyinaction Nobody has done Impossible Mission yet
The Atari 800 is a 48k computer, not a 64k computer. Even the "64k" 65xe or 800xl are not really 64k (to be fair, neither is the C64) as video ram, fonts and basic itself take a pretty decent amount of RAM from both computers.
Also, the 128 was a very popular computer, it's just that almost all games would run the 128 in 64 mode.
Making the comparison between games that exist on both is a bit unfair to both. This is especially true of later games. The 64 had a lot more games in the late 80s and early 90s. I don't think the Atari 8 bit line had any in the 90s. Later games tended to exploit the machines more thoroughly as did games released on only 1 of the systems.
To me, the biggest flaw in Atari's computer is mono sprites.
We could have a long discussion about memory organisation and it concerns all computers, not only Atari. Moreover please don't forget that you could turn on and off Basic interpreter gaining in this way some additional precious kB. Concerning Commodore 128 I probably wrote this from perspective of my region. It could happen that in some countries it was quite popular. When it comes games comparison, it's never easy to be done. True that "modern games" are capable to squeeze much more out of the hardware. Btw, have you watched my video about games for 8-bit Atari developed after 2000? Sprites.... long story. However please note that Atari had also colourful sprites at the cost of having them less. Big thank you for all those comments and for enriching my channel in this way. I hope that you subscribe it! ♥
@@ITGuyinaction The main problem with comparing games on 2 systems is the game tends to be written to the lowest common denominator. They generally don't have machine specific features. Like the atari is exceptional at X and the Commodore exceptional at Y and so both x and y are not in the game. This particularly harmed the Amiga but also applies to various 8 bit systems.
AFAIK, the Atari 8 bit line can only display multicolor sprites by stacking different sprites on top of each other. So a 4 color sprite would consume 3 sprites. This tends to eat up sprites.
I haven't seen your video, but I have seen many videos of modern homebrews. Some are pretty impressive. Can you tell me the name of the video? I'd like to see it.
@@tarstarkusz Concerning the lowest common denominator theory I fully agree here. Especially that many of older games were done for commercial purposes mostly - thus quickly, with fixed budget and in order to get the highest income. Concerning colourful sprites, I'm sure you can easily get more materials on the Internet. Saying shortly, if you combine two sprites into one, the OR operation is being done thus you can get one additional colour then as a gift. Additionally you can turn on some mode of interference with background and it can gives also some colours even if in practice it's not used often (it's OR operation between sprite colour and background game colour). Moreover as sprites are the full screen height, you can profit from this and change colours using interrupts every few lines taking also into consideration much richer colour palette. Smart developer can squeeze a lot from that. For example it's possible to "multiply" number of sprites. The video I mentioned is on my channel with the title "Polish games for Atari 8-bit developed after 2000 (amazing graphics and music)". Enjoy!
@@ITGuyinaction I watched it. Thanks.
@@tarstarkusz 👍
no i pokazałęs ....ze jak Polacy zrobili gre to "protagoniscie" niemcu i pełno sfastyk wszedzie :P :P raczej za granica nie kojarza Hansa Klossa i serialu :)
Ale material spoko - fajnie porównianie - pamietam wojne c64 z atarowcami ... na papierze Atari wyglada lepiej :)
🤔🤔🤔 P.S. 🇵🇱 ruclips.net/user/Informatykwakcjifeatured
It is nice video. But not very objective, i bet you are clearly on the Atari Side. The choice of the games and you comments really make me feel that. I love the 2 machines, on the paper the Atari seems better that the c64 , but in practice not . C64 is really easy to handle, to program and you can have very good result with lot of less effort than the Atari XL. Even today we compare the production on C64 and the one of Atari XL/XE the C64 dominates. When you see fantastic games on Atari XL/XE general they requires additional hardware , ram extension , etc .. and won't run on stock machine. Or you find very nice game nicely colored (compared to C64 games) but generally theses games are poor in gameplay. Nice, but poor. Because the tricks used to make them nice impose limitation to what you can do as game mecanism. In your video why you did not compare Green Beret on C64 and Atari , instead of Hans Kloss for instance. They are lot of games that are better on Atari than C64 .. but if you consider the complete offer , there are lot of more game better on C64. Games i find better on the Atari , are generally all the early Atari games release on cartridge like Moon Patrol , donkey Kong, defender etc.. or a game like Henry 's House , Drop Zone , Rescue on fractalus, Mercenary .. generally the highest processor speed of the atari is an adventage on 3d games. BTW, very nice video , i love it :)
True. I was in Atari team in 80s. However I tried to make this comparison objective even if of course it's not fully possible. I decided to present games which were available in first years after introducing both computers on the market. I would agree that C64 is easier for programming as more things are supported by hardware. On the other hand, skilful programmers in my opinions could squeeze more from Atari. Yes some games for Atari require additional hardware extensions but it's less than 1% (it's a bit more probably in case of games released in the last years and even less in case of games released in 80s or 90s). Thanks for visiting my small channel. It's always good to discuss.
ruclips.net/video/DMx935rda-s/видео.html Prince of Persia on Atari XL/XE is an example, what could be on these machines done, far better graphics than on C64, absolutely stunning !!!
Oh yeah! 🍺🏆👍
As an Atari user for the last....40 years, I can say PoP is a great example on what Atari can do, but there is nothing graphically in that game that the C64 can't reproduce. (except maybe the lack of slowdowns that all 8bits and ST experience but not on the A8). The C64 isn't a bad system. The only bad thing about it was that even if it came 3 years later it didn't really managed to offer something more compared to the A8s. Many say that "SID was en evolution" and I remind people that all synth chips were a de-evolution compared to the Pokey "Hybrid" (synth/PCM capabilities).
@@nickolasgaspar9660 👍 👍 👍 I believe that SID could be and interesting subject for one of next videos... Do you have perhaps any interesting comparisons of both?
@@ITGuyinaction So your goal is to start a war! lol. I have been browsing ASMA project for years now and I can offer many suggestions. If you need any information about such a video I will happily share whatever I have learn about those two chips.!
@@nickolasgaspar9660 👍 👍 👍 I can't promise such a video in the nearest time as you can see lately I have less time and less motivation for making videos. However if you have any interesting papers, please feel free to send them to me. I will be more than happy reading them! ❤
We have embedded 5 dollar boards which have way more power than those old computers.
I remember seeing an Atari ST emulation running on a cheap arm based arduino clone (I think it was a Teensy)!
Yeah, those 8-bit computers were much less powerful than we can imagine today. But still they provided many functionality and a lot of fun! Due to very simple "operating system" and way of programming (usually assembler for more advanced software).
@@ITGuyinaction Definitely, that was also the reason for the invention of the raspberry pi computer line. Modern computers are more like VCRs back then, you used them but rarely tinkered with them, aka the barrier to get something out of it was too high, the raspberry pi reintroduced that tinkering angle again, funnily it first was picked up by us geezers who immediately saw the value of the GPIOs and easy programmability, but nowadays it even is present in schools for projects.
@@werpu12 The same philosophy is behind Arduino...
VIC chip was by no means a simple chip, it was a very complex chip in its day, and some of its features were only discovered years later, such as the ability to unscroll an entire bitmap (VSP) with minimal CPU load. Atari did have heaps of graphics modes, but none of them allowed you to make a game with fine graphics and many colors. In audio, channels had to be doubled to keep it from sounding fake, but even then a lot of music (typically the second and third voices, while the first is doubled 2 channels) has slightly fake notes, and for a person used to superfine SID, Pokey music can sound pretty unpleasant. Atari should have just released a brand new computer in the 80s (they even planned to in 1983, but it didn't happen), this way it was just outdated hardware that developers didn't want to make games on since the mid-80s. What's the point of 256 colours if you can only use them in some rainbow effects, or 40x100 resolution etc :D
Yeah, VIC-II and GTIA were very complex chip. In fact sprites management was more complex than generating "normal" graphics. Pity that Atari introduced some "artificial" limitations. Probably there were result of some time pressure. Additionally XL/XE family has many in common with Atari 400/800. Thank you for this comment and I hope you will visit my channel from time to time. 😀
Your post clearly shows how LITTLE you know about programming graphics on the Atari. The Atari can scroll the entire screen with very little CPU time needed. You can even scroll different parts of the screen in different directions, and the Commodore?
Atari can't make games with "fine" graphics???? Atari's high res mode has higher resolution than the Commodore. And Atari can't use many in a game???? You need to look at some of the recent games from Europe, they don't seem to have any trouble use multiple colors. And Atari of course can mix different graphic and text modes on the same screen, and the Commodore?
@@shanebell1 Everything you described - scrolling through different parts of the screen, mixed graphic modes on one screen, all very easy to do on the commodore, and a lot of games use it too. Difference is that on the Atari it was done via a displaylist, whereas on the C64 programmer had to create such a similiar "displaylist" by fine-timing the raster register. Maybe you can't do math, but the hires on the Atari were 320x192, and on C64 320x200. Moreover, hires was only in 2 colors for the whole screen in base Atari screen, and they weren't even 2 different colors, but 2 lumas of a single color. C64 had attribute graphics, where 8x8 box had 2 different colors - paper and ink, just like on the ZX Spectrum. But games there used the 160x192 mode more, because there could be 3 different colors in the attribute plus a background color, same for the whole frame. I have an Atari at home, I've had quite a bit of time with it, but much more with the C64. Try looking at some new demos, like Next Level, or Wonderland series. To see what it can run on a basic 64kB configuration with floppy drive. Without Atari cheats, where 1088kB is needed for a decent demo 🙂
@@shanebell1 👍 What I can add to your comment, all those things were possible for Atari, but they required many programming tricks, ex. using interrupts, modifying display list etc. It could be done more "developer friendly". And from this perspective some Commodore solutions were better as they didn't require so deep understanding of hardware. Moreover on my channel there is very interesting video about Polish games developed for Atari after 2000. It presents quite well how much it's possible to squeeze from this computer although it's also possible to find other good examples among Western homebrew games.
@@petrk2603 🤔🤔🤔🤔 Not being sure why, but yt has treated your comment as suspicious and has sent it to moderation. For sure I approve it and thanks for it as this discussion is very interesting. Perhaps yt prefers Atari ha ha... 😜
As if the chess wouldn't be exactly the same logic... Were these games selected because it's all the Atari had ? . c64 has much better games than anything shown here, atleast upto the half the video where I got bored.
Pity to hear that you were bored. Yes there are more chess games and perhaps one day I will prepare similar "fight" in another software although please remember that it will still not prove anything...
@@ITGuyinaction thanks for the reply... To put the exact same program head to head is kind of pointless... They should have atleast be different in some way other than the CPU it's using, unless you time the calculations... Anyway it had to be a tough video to make considering the Atari has junk games... Cheers dude
@@1st_ProCactus The difference in hardware is too small to make here any significant difference... Moreover we are not fully sure if the algorithm is exactly the same in both cases... It could happen that when preparing different versions they introduced some improvements in the meantime...
@@ITGuyinaction I assume it's exactly the same
🤔🤔🤔🤔
you should at least be IT enough to verify your facts before you publish them ie.... VIC II vs ANTIC + gtia
🤔🤔🤔 What do you mean?
@@ITGuyinaction ANTIC+GTIA still outclasses the VICII in abilities but some clever C64 boys out there can do some impressive stuff with that machine.
No contest.. 800XL had way better sound and graphics as well as cartridge slot , floppy disc (later).
With sound, it might be risky...
@@ITGuyinaction Look, the SID chip is a nice sound chip but there isn't anything the POKEY can't do that it can...it just needs it to be done in software. Also remember the 6502 runs almost 2 x the speed of the commodore so it can and often does handle the sound load even with high quality impressive gaming going on. Truth be told, the POKEY is about a zillion times more reliable than the SID......they failed alot then and over time tend to blow up now. The C64 was a great machine but It was hardly technically superior to the Atari 8's.
@@GORF_EMPIRE True that SID is much easier to be programmed than POKEY. And perhaps there is a secret which explains why so many people think that SID is much better. And let's add to this better marketing...
Actually there is a contest, mainly due to personal aesthetics and preferences. This is why different people prefer different things. Both systems are great, they do things differently and they manage to trade blows in so many aspects which is fun.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 ❤😏 Yeah!
in many cases the 800xl is much better for gaming in graphics ... but many 800xl games dont use the full potential of the machine as it was only conversion from c64, there are a few that blasts away the c64, like return to fractalus, stealth, koronis rift, alternate reality and so on ... the only better thing of the c64 is the bass of the soundchip but also only 3 voices instead of 4 in the 800xl
Many games developed in 80s were "aligned down" which means were prepared to work on the computer with the lowest possibilities... and when doing conversion they didn't profit for some additional features of better computers. Life and... business... Thanks for visiting my small channel. I hope that you've decided to subscribe it. 😀🙏
ATARI ATARI ATARI WINS!
Have you enjoyed the video?
@@ITGuyinaction OF COURSE, BUT I'M AN ATARI FAN
@@carlacespede3489 Great to hear that! I highly encourage you to have a look on other videos on my small channel and to share your impressions! I hope you enjoy them! Please be my guest! 😀
@@ITGuyinaction Thank you very much for your invitation, your videos are very good, keep it up... regards
@@carlacespede3489 😀😀😀
Those embarrassing comparisons again. If any of you think that Atari was better, please show me on that computer games like: The Last Ninja series, Creatures series, Mayhem in Monsterland, Sam's Journey, MicroProse Soccer and many, many more! "By their fruits you shall know them".
🤔🤔🤔🤔
There were games better on Atari including Donkey Kong, Alternate Reality, and World Karate Championship.
@@ks-bg5uk Haha, don't make me laugh and get yourself better glasses! ;)
@@ks-bg5uk 🤪💪😀
@@marekgab9047 my family owned and grew up with both systems. I know both the c64 and Atari both well. Those games I mentioned are the truth.