Wooohoo how about these then for a true fLame war ( quoting from memory as the most amusing way of provoking speccy/c64 owners with factual distortions ):
The spectrum was 3 times faster than the C64!
True
The C64 had a CPU that could do 5 times as much work as the Zilog!
Bollocks
The C64 had three colours: mud brown, shit brown and green.
True
The C64 was blocky.
True
The C64 was big, heavy and stank.
True
The spectrum had rubber keys.
Bollocks.
Attribute clash!
Feature!!!
Rampack wobble
ZX81????
Tape loading times on the C64/Spectrum were slower.
Bollocks
The C64 had a floppy disk drive ( that was crap )
True
The spectrum had the most games.
True
The spectrum can only do bleeps.
Bollocks
No one could seriously program anything useful on the C64 in basic.
The spectrum was 3 times faster than the C64!
The C64 had a CPU that could do 5 times as much work as the Zilog!
While the 6502 generally can execute most of its instructions a bit faster than the Z80 (I think the fastest 6502 instructions can complete in 3 clock cycles, and the fastest Z80 in four cycles, and the longest 6502 instructions generally take around 7 or 8 cycles, but the longest Z80 instructions can take a whopping 21 cycles), that's forgetting that the really lengthy Z80 instructions do the work of several instructions on the 6502. And the Z80 can be clocked faster - 3.5 times faster, in the case of the Spectrum -vs- C64. So not only do you have CPU instructions that do more (meaning shorter programs), you have a higher clock speed anyway. The Z80 also has separate I/O space meaning devices don't eat into your 64K memory address space.
It's the shame Atari 8-bit line of home computers was not included in that vote. This is great machine!!!
Yep, great machine, especially when you consider that it was on the market three years before the Spectrum and C64. However, thanks to some very poor marketing by Atari, it made even less impact on the UK market than the Amstrad CPC so it would never have figured in the poll.
Yep, great machine, especially when you consider that it was on the market three years before the Spectrum and C64. However, thanks to some very poor marketing by Atari, it made even less impact on the UK market than the Amstrad CPC so it would never have figured in the poll.
Even in its home market the Atari 8-bits only had moderate success (when compared to the c64 or the spec in uk). It hardly sold until the early '80s despite being out much earlier. Why? Because they tried to sell it for $1000.
Even in its home market the Atari 8-bits only had moderate success (when compared to the c64 or the spec in uk). It hardly sold until the early '80s despite being out much earlier. Why? Because they tried to sell it for $1000.
To be fair, they were aiming to compete with the Apple II, Commodore PET and Tandy TRS-80 at launch which were all around the same price. On paper, it should have killed the lot of them as it had nearly twice as powerful a CPU as well as vastly superior graphics and sound hardware. The original Atari 800 was also a very expensive machine to build which didn't leave them much scope for price cutting.
I think the main mistakes they made were crippling down the 400 so badly that it made a very poor baseline spec for developers, and taking over four years to get a low cost successor onto the market. The 800XL still did quite well in the US when it eventually did appear in '83, but you can only imagine what would have happened if it had already been in stores when the C64 was launched. Might we be talking a completely different flame war here? :grin:
To my mind, the real home-computer marketing disaster was Texas Instruments'; they made the mistake of trying to sell the original US model (the TI99/4) in the UK -- unmodified, meaning that to use it (at least in colour), purchasers also had to spend ?1000 on an NTSC TV, which couldn't be used for anything else! :o
TI eventually realised the error of their ways, and released a PAL version called the TI99/4a (imaginative rebranding, hey?), but by then the damage was done...
I never make misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs — oh, sod it.
To be fair, they were aiming to compete with the Apple II, Commodore PET and Tandy TRS-80 at launch which were all around the same price. On paper, it should have killed the lot of them as it had nearly twice as powerful a CPU as well as vastly superior graphics and sound hardware. The original Atari 800 was also a very expensive machine to build which didn't leave them much scope for price cutting.
I think the main mistakes they made were crippling down the 400 so badly that it made a very poor baseline spec for developers, and taking over four years to get a low cost successor onto the market. The 800XL still did quite well in the US when it eventually did appear in '83, but you can only imagine what would have happened if it had already been in stores when the C64 was launched. Might we be talking a completely different flame war here? :grin:
The 800 was aimed at those machines but it had a problem. Image.
Atari was seen as a game company where Apple and the TRS-80 were being adopted by businesses, Universities, schools, etc...
It was too expensive to be just a games machine and the 400 with the membrane keyboard and limited RAM didn't go over well. Sure you could upgrade it with after market parts but those weren't available right off and I wonder just how many dealers even offered them.
There were several other strikes against it.
It has a non-standard BASIC which didn't go over well with a lot of people and it was slow even though the machine was relatively fast. A lot of early benchmarks were done in BASIC and with Apple IIs and TRS-80s benchmarking faster it makes the Atari a tough choice for someone that wants to learn how to program.
It was released at least a year after the other machines. The other machines had built up a rapidly growing list of 3rd party software titles and magazines where the Atari just had a few cartridges and tapes from the company at first.
Most importantly, Atari responded to changes in the market slower than their competitors. Other companies introduced machines that were very competitive feature or price wise.
Tandy introduced the Model II/III and later IV to attract business and professionals. They also introduced the Color computer which was fairly cheap to produce and used off the shelf parts. Adding Extended BASIC made it very attractive to programmers. Later introductions like Flex and OS-9 broadened it's appeal beyond the low end market.
Apple introduced the IIe which was cheaper to produce than earlier models but offered more RAM and 80 column cards from the factory. Sure it was expensive but you got 128K and a "professional" display.
The C64 was an obvious direct competitor in the games market where Atari was accepted.
Low cost machines like the Speccy were introduced in Europe.
Tandy made the Coco cheaper to produce and added more RAM.
And finally, 16 bit machines entered the fray.
Essentially, Atari had a constant moving target for it's market.
Instead of upgrading the machine and continuing to target the high end market they dove into a price war and just tried to survive by making the machines cheaper to build.
I think if they had made the machine cheaper to build but also added more RAM when the XL series came out it would have justified choosing Atari over cheaper machines.
Worse yet, Atari management blindly canceled many software projects that would have also made the Atari more attractive than the C64. I think there are at least a dozen games that were canceled even though they were close to completion. Sinistar, Kangaroo, Berzerk and other stuff you wouldn't find licensed anywhere else were all axed even though they were mostly playable.
Along with canceled software was canceled hardware and they got rid of many of their best people.
Ti made their own mistakes. The hardware was rushed to market and the design crippled it's 16bit CPU. A chicklet keyboard on a $1000 machine. It only sold with the Ti monitor at first. They were slow to introduce expansion devices. They entered the price war rather than making a more attractive machine. They tried to control the third party software market rather than support it.
Simple way to stuff an internet poll ( that doesn't require logins ):
Vote.
Clear cookies.
Vote.
Clear cookies.
Vote.
If the poll doesn't work then, chances are it has a record of your ip address ( dumb, because it won't allow those hidden behind a network proxy like NTL users have ) then simply recycle your net connection and vote:
Comments
While the 6502 generally can execute most of its instructions a bit faster than the Z80 (I think the fastest 6502 instructions can complete in 3 clock cycles, and the fastest Z80 in four cycles, and the longest 6502 instructions generally take around 7 or 8 cycles, but the longest Z80 instructions can take a whopping 21 cycles), that's forgetting that the really lengthy Z80 instructions do the work of several instructions on the 6502. And the Z80 can be clocked faster - 3.5 times faster, in the case of the Spectrum -vs- C64. So not only do you have CPU instructions that do more (meaning shorter programs), you have a higher clock speed anyway. The Z80 also has separate I/O space meaning devices don't eat into your 64K memory address space.
Yep, great machine, especially when you consider that it was on the market three years before the Spectrum and C64. However, thanks to some very poor marketing by Atari, it made even less impact on the UK market than the Amstrad CPC so it would never have figured in the poll.
My flamewar is better than yours! :p :lol:
misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs— oh, sod it.Even in its home market the Atari 8-bits only had moderate success (when compared to the c64 or the spec in uk). It hardly sold until the early '80s despite being out much earlier. Why? Because they tried to sell it for $1000.
Write games in C using Z88DK and SP1
To be fair, they were aiming to compete with the Apple II, Commodore PET and Tandy TRS-80 at launch which were all around the same price. On paper, it should have killed the lot of them as it had nearly twice as powerful a CPU as well as vastly superior graphics and sound hardware. The original Atari 800 was also a very expensive machine to build which didn't leave them much scope for price cutting.
I think the main mistakes they made were crippling down the 400 so badly that it made a very poor baseline spec for developers, and taking over four years to get a low cost successor onto the market. The 800XL still did quite well in the US when it eventually did appear in '83, but you can only imagine what would have happened if it had already been in stores when the C64 was launched. Might we be talking a completely different flame war here? :grin:
TI eventually realised the error of their ways, and released a PAL version called the TI99/4a (imaginative rebranding, hey?), but by then the damage was done...
misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs— oh, sod it.Atari was seen as a game company where Apple and the TRS-80 were being adopted by businesses, Universities, schools, etc...
It was too expensive to be just a games machine and the 400 with the membrane keyboard and limited RAM didn't go over well. Sure you could upgrade it with after market parts but those weren't available right off and I wonder just how many dealers even offered them.
There were several other strikes against it.
It has a non-standard BASIC which didn't go over well with a lot of people and it was slow even though the machine was relatively fast. A lot of early benchmarks were done in BASIC and with Apple IIs and TRS-80s benchmarking faster it makes the Atari a tough choice for someone that wants to learn how to program.
It was released at least a year after the other machines. The other machines had built up a rapidly growing list of 3rd party software titles and magazines where the Atari just had a few cartridges and tapes from the company at first.
Most importantly, Atari responded to changes in the market slower than their competitors. Other companies introduced machines that were very competitive feature or price wise.
Tandy introduced the Model II/III and later IV to attract business and professionals. They also introduced the Color computer which was fairly cheap to produce and used off the shelf parts. Adding Extended BASIC made it very attractive to programmers. Later introductions like Flex and OS-9 broadened it's appeal beyond the low end market.
Apple introduced the IIe which was cheaper to produce than earlier models but offered more RAM and 80 column cards from the factory. Sure it was expensive but you got 128K and a "professional" display.
The C64 was an obvious direct competitor in the games market where Atari was accepted.
Low cost machines like the Speccy were introduced in Europe.
Tandy made the Coco cheaper to produce and added more RAM.
And finally, 16 bit machines entered the fray.
Essentially, Atari had a constant moving target for it's market.
Instead of upgrading the machine and continuing to target the high end market they dove into a price war and just tried to survive by making the machines cheaper to build.
I think if they had made the machine cheaper to build but also added more RAM when the XL series came out it would have justified choosing Atari over cheaper machines.
Worse yet, Atari management blindly canceled many software projects that would have also made the Atari more attractive than the C64. I think there are at least a dozen games that were canceled even though they were close to completion. Sinistar, Kangaroo, Berzerk and other stuff you wouldn't find licensed anywhere else were all axed even though they were mostly playable.
Along with canceled software was canceled hardware and they got rid of many of their best people.
Ti made their own mistakes. The hardware was rushed to market and the design crippled it's 16bit CPU. A chicklet keyboard on a $1000 machine. It only sold with the Ti monitor at first. They were slow to introduce expansion devices. They entered the price war rather than making a more attractive machine. They tried to control the third party software market rather than support it.
Vote.
Clear cookies.
Vote.
Clear cookies.
Vote.
If the poll doesn't work then, chances are it has a record of your ip address ( dumb, because it won't allow those hidden behind a network proxy like NTL users have ) then simply recycle your net connection and vote:
Vote.
Clear cookies.
Recycle network connection.
Vote.
Clear cookies.
Recycle network connection.
Vote.
Clear cookies.
Recycle network connection.
http://www.commodoregaming.com
Oh dear!
Now someone please tell Alan Sugar because it's not done!
I hope they bomb.
Oh no..............