On 2005-07-13 12:43, Fr?hn wrote:
The only difference (except for the different size of area) is that on C64 you can use ANY color as foreground and ANY color as background color in a 8x8 color cell...
Eh? On the spectrum you can use any colour as the foreground colour (INK) and any colour as the background colour (PAPER) as well. So, what gives?
I suppose you could argue that, yes. Ok, so you can't have 2 different bright attributes in one char square. So, is that your case for graphical superiority? I'm impressed!
Edit: Ironical you should quote the example of "red" for the colour argument considering that the c64 has the strangest hue of red I've seen! :)
[ This Message was edited by: Arjun on 2005-07-13 15:33 ]
On 2005-07-13 15:24, Arjun wrote:
I suppose you could argue that, yes. Ok, so you can't have 2 different bright attributes in one char square. So, is that your case for graphical superiority? I'm impressed!
Erm no, it was just an example of a graphic mode so similar to the Spectrum mode that one can not argue about C64 "blocky graphics" anymore.
There are means to increase the color resolution, for example on C64 you can do similar things like "Spectrum multicolor"... That is: Reducing the color cell size down to 8x1 pixels. This is possible on Spectrum too, but the problem on Speccy is that it is incompatible on different Spectrum models, while on C64/C128 the same routine works on ALL models.
Another way to increase color resolution are the C64 sprites. Since they are independent from the bitmap/character graphic, you can use them to create another graphic layer and work around the restrictions of the color cells.
An example of a picture which uses small color cells and sprite layer:
On 2005-07-12 12:13, Fr?hn wrote:
Even the Speccy camp has to agree that the C64 indeed HAS the better graphics, simply because it can display any graphic the Spectrum can display and adds even more freedom to that (not bound to two colors of the same brightness level in a color cell for example).
Yes, but the tradeoff was the graphic resolution don't you? So it's not a better mode, just a different one.
If you are claiming technical superiority on the basis that c64 had different graphic modes to choose from, well that's your opinion. My opinion is that ultimately the modes offered a trade off between colours and resolution but ultimately they weren't any better than what the Speccy offered.
And what's this about discounting software for the machines. It's the software which defined the machines! Where would we be without all the apps and games for the computers? If it hadn't been for some amazing programmers writing some amazing games that squeezed every ounce from the machines, we wouldn't be sitting here having these arguments!
You speccy guys that want to drag in the +2a +3 etc are conveienently forgetting the graphics modes of the C128. Quit being selective in which models we are talking about, if we are including the whole 'model' line as half the posters have been, then commdore wins hands down on the graphics front..ala the c128.
As for the software, well, where would the software be without the hardware...chicken, egg..
On 2005-07-13 16:42, beanz wrote:
You speccy guys that want to drag in the +2a +3 etc are conveienently forgetting the graphics modes of the C128. Quit being selective in which models we are talking about, if we are including the whole 'model' line as half the posters have been, then commdore wins hands down on the graphics front..ala the c128.
As for the software, well, where would the software be without the hardware...chicken, egg..
As I've pointed out before the C128 isn't strictly an upgrade as in Spectrum 128, with the Spectrum 128 only the extra memory and soundchip have been added whilst with the C128 virtually every chip in the machine has changed.
I don't call that an upgrade, more of a redesign.
On 2005-07-13 16:42, beanz wrote:
You speccy guys that want to drag in the +2a +3 etc are conveienently forgetting the graphics modes of the C128. Quit being selective in which models we are talking about, if we are including the whole 'model' line as half the posters have been, then commdore wins hands down on the graphics front..ala the c128.
As for the software, well, where would the software be without the hardware...chicken, egg..
As I've pointed out before the C128 isn't strictly an upgrade as in Spectrum 128, with the Spectrum 128 only the extra memory and soundchip have been added whilst with the C128 virtually every chip in the machine has changed.
I don't call that an upgrade, more of a redesign.
As I said before Commodore release the c128 as a DIRECT upgrade to the c64 and had full compatability. Ill go with commdores opinion on this one :D
On 2005-07-13 16:42, beanz wrote:
You speccy guys that want to drag in the +2a +3 etc are conveienently forgetting the graphics modes of the C128. Quit being selective in which models we are talking about, if we are including the whole 'model' line as half the posters have been, then commdore wins hands down on the graphics front..ala the c128.
As for the software, well, where would the software be without the hardware...chicken, egg..
As I've pointed out before the C128 isn't strictly an upgrade as in Spectrum 128, with the Spectrum 128 only the extra memory and soundchip have been added whilst with the C128 virtually every chip in the machine has changed.
I don't call that an upgrade, more of a redesign.
As I said before Commodore release the c128 as a DIRECT upgrade to the c64 and had full compatability. Ill go with commdores opinion on this one :D
Is that then why there are a small number of C64 games that won't work on the C128?
On 2005-07-13 16:42, beanz wrote:
You speccy guys that want to drag in the +2a +3 etc are conveienently forgetting the graphics modes of the C128. Quit being selective in which models we are talking about, if we are including the whole 'model' line as half the posters have been, then commdore wins hands down on the graphics front..ala the c128.
As for the software, well, where would the software be without the hardware...chicken, egg..
As I've pointed out before the C128 isn't strictly an upgrade as in Spectrum 128, with the Spectrum 128 only the extra memory and soundchip have been added whilst with the C128 virtually every chip in the machine has changed.
I don't call that an upgrade, more of a redesign.
As I said before Commodore release the c128 as a DIRECT upgrade to the c64 and had full compatability. Ill go with commdores opinion on this one :D
Is that then why there are a small number of C64 games that won't work on the C128?
Ok, Ill change in NEAR full compaiblity... now go run a speccy +3 game on your 48k rubber model!
On 2005-07-13 16:42, beanz wrote:
You speccy guys that want to drag in the +2a +3 etc are conveienently forgetting the graphics modes of the C128. Quit being selective in which models we are talking about, if we are including the whole 'model' line as half the posters have been, then commdore wins hands down on the graphics front..ala the c128.
As for the software, well, where would the software be without the hardware...chicken, egg..
As I've pointed out before the C128 isn't strictly an upgrade as in Spectrum 128, with the Spectrum 128 only the extra memory and soundchip have been added whilst with the C128 virtually every chip in the machine has changed.
I don't call that an upgrade, more of a redesign.
As I said before Commodore release the c128 as a DIRECT upgrade to the c64 and had full compatability. Ill go with commdores opinion on this one :D
Is that then why there are a small number of C64 games that won't work on the C128?
Ok, Ill change in NEAR full compaiblity... now go run a speccy +3 game on your 48k rubber model!
Ok, but only if you run a C128 game on your C64...
On 2005-07-13 19:34, karingal wrote:
Is that then why there are a small number of C64 games that won't work on the C128?
The C128 is 100% compatible if you do not touch the extra C128 registers which are unused in a C64. Even the most wicked VIC and SID trickery is working.
As I've pointed out before the C128 isn't strictly an upgrade as in Spectrum 128, with the Spectrum 128 only the extra memory and soundchip have been added whilst with the C128 virtually every chip in the machine has changed.
If the C128 is a so much different computer, how do you explain that it is a lot more compatible to the original C64 then the later Spectrum models are towards the original 48K Speccy?
So what? It is 100% compatible as long as you stick to C64 registers. Where is the problem with that? Unlike later Spectrum models it IS 100% compatible.
Is anyone else here a believer that Karingal has never coded in his life? such short sighted replies.
OK K, here's the technical reason.
C128 has exactly same chipset as c64, plus a z80 and VDC.
In the c64, banks of registers are mirrored in their address space. For example, the VIC registers are mapped from $d000 to $d02e. However, due to the address decoding hardware the registers are mirrored a number of times.
Noone should really have cause to use the mirrored registers - it was *always* a bad idea, since something else might be mapped there sooner or later. However, as is always the way, a couple of programmers used those mirrored registers in a game. Unfortunately for them, the c128 *does* map something else there - the 2Mhz switch and the extended keyboard port.
So again, bad coding. You do realise ofcourse there are maybe half a dozen games that have problems on c128, from the 18000+ available for c64?
Is this gonna be like your 'resolution' argument? Are you gonna grab hold of an insignificant point and not let it go like my 3 year old does? "HAHAHAHA, look! The c128 ISNT c64 compatible if you put an AXE through it!!!!"
So the c128 *is* an upgraded c64. Talk to Bill Herd, the guy who designed it. So is the c65 for that matter.
On 2005-07-14 01:25, devnull wrote:
Is anyone else here a believer that Karingal has never coded in his life? such short sighted replies.
YAWNNNNNN, I done my fair share of programming on the Z80 and 6502 chips.
OK K, here's the technical reason.
C128 has exactly same chipset as c64, plus a z80 and VDC.
In the c64, banks of registers are mirrored in their address space. For example, the VIC registers are mapped from $d000 to $d02e. However, due to the address decoding hardware the registers are mirrored a number of times.
Noone should really have cause to use the mirrored registers - it was *always* a bad idea, since something else might be mapped there sooner or later. However, as is always the way, a couple of programmers used those mirrored registers in a game. Unfortunately for them, the c128 *does* map something else there - the 2Mhz switch and the extended keyboard port.
So again, bad coding. You do realise ofcourse there are maybe half a dozen games that have problems on c128, from the 18000+ available for c64?
Programmers will always use whatevers at their disposal to get as much as they can out of machine. Telling them they can't use certain registers is laughable.
One of your 'colleagues' accepted that the C128 wasn't 100% compatible with the C64.
I suspect it's more than a half dozen games.
Is this gonna be like your 'resolution' argument? Are you gonna grab hold of an insignificant point and not let it go like my 3 year old does? "HAHAHAHA, look! The c128 ISNT c64 compatible if you put an AXE through it!!!!"
The fact that C64 graphics are blocky and chunky is insignificant????
Jonathon Cauldwell considers the Spectrum to be the better machine and thats good enough for most people round here.
So the c128 *is* an upgraded c64. Talk to Bill Herd, the guy who designed it. So is the c65 for that matter.
All these 'upgrades' and he still couldn't design a machine as good as the Spectrum...
It's like saying.. The Austin Allegro is a better car than a Vauxhall Viva, because the ride is better, but a Vauxhall Viva is better because it is better built. No-one is going to build another Vauxhall Viva or Austin Allegro, because both are old, and have been superceded many times over.
We like them for nostalgic reasons. These arguments are pointless.
I favour the Spectrum, because I owned it before the Commodore 64. It's not to say that I don't love the C64 too.
No-one is going to change their opinion on which is the 'best machine', however much you argue over small technical differences.
On 2005-07-13 15:56, Fr?hn wrote:
There are means to increase the color resolution, for example on C64 you can do similar things like "Spectrum multicolor"...
So, tell me, why do 98% of the games have "blocky graphics" (which they do) if the c64 had high-res mode with colour abilities? Probably b'cos it would look similar to the Speccy graphics and so they went with the more-colours-sod-the-resolution idea?
An example of a picture which uses small color cells and sprite layer:
On 2005-07-14 07:35, Arjun wrote:
So, tell me, why do 98% of the games have "blocky graphics" (which they do) if the c64 had high-res mode with colour abilities? Probably b'cos it would look similar to the Speccy graphics and so they went with the more-colours-sod-the-resolution idea?
You answer the question yourself: Hardly anyone likes graphics with color clashes.
Anyway the argument was "the C64 has blocky graphics" and not "the C64 games have blocky graphics".
All these 'upgrades' and he still couldn't design a machine as good as the Spectrum...
Oh yeah sure. Nobody else except Sinclair is able to put together a Z80, a bit of RAM and the ULA. You may not have noticed it, but the Spectrum hardly HAS any design.
[ This Message was edited by: Fr?hn on 2005-07-14 11:40 ]
On 2005-07-14 11:39, Fr?hn wrote:
Oh yeah sure. Nobody else except Sinclair is able to put together a Z80, a bit of RAM and the ULA. You may not have noticed it, but the Spectrum hardly HAS any design.
But the programmers were far more inventive with it than the C64 and it ain't in a horrible beige/brown box and have blocky graphics...
Oh and the ultimate negative.. Jeff Minter likes the C64...
On 2005-07-14 11:53, karingal wrote:
But the programmers were far more inventive with it than the C64 and it ain't in a horrible beige/brown box and have blocky graphics...
Oh yeah, that's why thousands of programming tricks exist on C64 while the only real trickery on Speccy apart from plain programming is "multicolor" which doesn't even work on all Spectrums...
[ This Message was edited by: Fr?hn on 2005-07-14 12:18 ]
Comments
Eh? On the spectrum you can use any colour as the foreground colour (INK) and any colour as the background colour (PAPER) as well. So, what gives?
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
Edit: Ironical you should quote the example of "red" for the colour argument considering that the c64 has the strangest hue of red I've seen! :)
[ This Message was edited by: Arjun on 2005-07-13 15:33 ]
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
There are means to increase the color resolution, for example on C64 you can do similar things like "Spectrum multicolor"... That is: Reducing the color cell size down to 8x1 pixels. This is possible on Spectrum too, but the problem on Speccy is that it is incompatible on different Spectrum models, while on C64/C128 the same routine works on ALL models.
Another way to increase color resolution are the C64 sprites. Since they are independent from the bitmap/character graphic, you can use them to create another graphic layer and work around the restrictions of the color cells.
An example of a picture which uses small color cells and sprite layer:
http://www.oxyron.de/html/c64c.jpg
You speccy guys that want to drag in the +2a +3 etc are conveienently forgetting the graphics modes of the C128. Quit being selective in which models we are talking about, if we are including the whole 'model' line as half the posters have been, then commdore wins hands down on the graphics front..ala the c128.
As for the software, well, where would the software be without the hardware...chicken, egg..
I don't call that an upgrade, more of a redesign.
As I said before Commodore release the c128 as a DIRECT upgrade to the c64 and had full compatability. Ill go with commdores opinion on this one :D
Ok, Ill change in NEAR full compaiblity... now go run a speccy +3 game on your 48k rubber model!
Best game hardware : Atari 8-bit
Best computer: BBC
[ This Message was edited by: ivarf on 2005-07-13 22:23 ]
If the C128 is a so much different computer, how do you explain that it is a lot more compatible to the original C64 then the later Spectrum models are towards the original 48K Speccy?
Don't make me laugh, it either is or it isn't...
OK K, here's the technical reason.
C128 has exactly same chipset as c64, plus a z80 and VDC.
In the c64, banks of registers are mirrored in their address space. For example, the VIC registers are mapped from $d000 to $d02e. However, due to the address decoding hardware the registers are mirrored a number of times.
Noone should really have cause to use the mirrored registers - it was *always* a bad idea, since something else might be mapped there sooner or later. However, as is always the way, a couple of programmers used those mirrored registers in a game. Unfortunately for them, the c128 *does* map something else there - the 2Mhz switch and the extended keyboard port.
So again, bad coding. You do realise ofcourse there are maybe half a dozen games that have problems on c128, from the 18000+ available for c64?
Is this gonna be like your 'resolution' argument? Are you gonna grab hold of an insignificant point and not let it go like my 3 year old does? "HAHAHAHA, look! The c128 ISNT c64 compatible if you put an AXE through it!!!!"
So the c128 *is* an upgraded c64. Talk to Bill Herd, the guy who designed it. So is the c65 for that matter.
Programmers will always use whatevers at their disposal to get as much as they can out of machine. Telling them they can't use certain registers is laughable.
One of your 'colleagues' accepted that the C128 wasn't 100% compatible with the C64.
I suspect it's more than a half dozen games.
The fact that C64 graphics are blocky and chunky is insignificant????
Jonathon Cauldwell considers the Spectrum to be the better machine and thats good enough for most people round here. All these 'upgrades' and he still couldn't design a machine as good as the Spectrum...
It's like saying.. The Austin Allegro is a better car than a Vauxhall Viva, because the ride is better, but a Vauxhall Viva is better because it is better built. No-one is going to build another Vauxhall Viva or Austin Allegro, because both are old, and have been superceded many times over.
We like them for nostalgic reasons. These arguments are pointless.
I favour the Spectrum, because I owned it before the Commodore 64. It's not to say that I don't love the C64 too.
No-one is going to change their opinion on which is the 'best machine', however much you argue over small technical differences.
So, tell me, why do 98% of the games have "blocky graphics" (which they do) if the c64 had high-res mode with colour abilities? Probably b'cos it would look similar to the Speccy graphics and so they went with the more-colours-sod-the-resolution idea?
See above question.
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
Now thats the best argument put forward so far. I totally agree, and its on a level that even I can understand.
Anyway the argument was "the C64 has blocky graphics" and not "the C64 games have blocky graphics".
Oh yeah sure. Nobody else except Sinclair is able to put together a Z80, a bit of RAM and the ULA. You may not have noticed it, but the Spectrum hardly HAS any design.
[ This Message was edited by: Fr?hn on 2005-07-14 11:40 ]
Oh and the ultimate negative.. Jeff Minter likes the C64...
[ This Message was edited by: Fr?hn on 2005-07-14 12:18 ]
Actually, hardly anyone ever likes chunky graphics either!
And I suppose c64 game programmers are fools to use blocy graphics when c64 doesn't have blocky graphics (as you claim)? Hmm.. I can understand that!
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.