The problem then would be ensuring compatibility with existing games, and getting new games to take advantage of the upgrade. If you look at what happened with the Amstrad Plus range, there was a distinct lack of developers stepping forward to work on them.
I think that's the story of most such enhanced machines; they never go on to sell enough for it to be worth the while for developers to use their extra features. However, the 128K Spectrum bucked that trend and there's certainly more than a smattering of 128K-only games that could have utilized better graphics had they been available. Perhaps we could have had Carrier Command in colour rather than stippled fills, and Where Time Stood Still in glorious greyscale, for instance.
On the other hand, they'd have to be fairly easy to use and not deliver too much of a performance hit. Otherwise it'd have the same problems as the C128.
The problem then would be ensuring compatibility with existing games, and getting new games to take advantage of the upgrade.
Software houses were slow to take advantage of the features the 128 did provide. On the other hand compatibility isn't that difficult. The Chloe 280SE has several video modes, including an 80x25 text mode, and will still run 99.9% of existing Spectrum and Timex software.
The problem then would be ensuring compatibility with existing games, and getting new games to take advantage of the upgrade. If you look at what happened with the Amstrad Plus range, there was a distinct lack of developers stepping forward to work on them.
Compatibility is easy - you just use a port address no-one else has used to turn the extra features on or off. As for exploiting it, consider how much use was made of the 128K memory and sound.
I wouldn't say the CPC+ range is a good example as there were so few developers interested in the basic CPC, never mind an enhanced one.
Though it's fair to say that the more advanced the enhancement, the more difficult it is to exploit whilst still retaining backward compatibility with the masses who own whatever earlier model.
On the other hand, they'd have to be fairly easy to use and not deliver too much of a performance hit. Otherwise it'd have the same problems as the C128.
The C128 has a performance hit with the 80 column display, for the 40 column mode which is the one that at least suits action games it had improvements to what the C64 did like double buffering of colour RAM and the option of spinning up to 2MHz for the border area; Commodore's documentation is a little dry but these are covered and the 2MHz thing was used on a couple of C64 titles as well. There's a couple of undocumented "features" as well, none of which have ever been used in a game... at least not to date. =-)
The C128's problem wasn't the difficulty of using the extra features (2MHz in the borders is a simple, well documented pair of LDA/STA commands for example), but more that it was already C64 compatible so people looked at it and just thought "if i do a C64 game i can sell it to C128 users too!". Commodore didn't make the effort to get game developers looking more at the machine to see what it could do that the C64 couldn't so they mostly didn't try.
It might have been the cheapest computer they made, but didn't it continue to outsell the CPC?
Not sure about numbers Andrew - no doubt it was probably quite even. However, I suspect the profit margin was greater on a +2 than CPC - either way I am sure Lord Sugar was very happy with the deal. Owning both the Spectrum and CPC gave Amstrad time to establish themselves in the SME market with their PCW and PC compatibles.
Overall I think Amstrad did a fantastic job for the British computer industry and in their own way brought serious computing within the reach of the masses.
The C128's problem wasn't the difficulty of using the extra features (2MHz in the borders is a simple, well documented pair of LDA/STA commands for example), but more that it was already C64 compatible so people looked at it and just thought "if i do a C64 game i can sell it to C128 users too!". Commodore didn't make the effort to get game developers looking more at the machine to see what it could do that the C64 couldn't so they mostly didn't try.
Thinking about it, the main problem for the C128 was probably that the C64 was still selling, and in larger numbers. It would make little sense not to develop games that would run on both machines.
In contrast, 128K models of the Spectrum were the only ones on the market from mid-1986 onwards, so it was only going to be a matter of time until the majority of people still buying games had the more powerful machine.
I'm sure I read somewhere that one of the reasons the C64 sold in huge numbers in America was because Commodore had a very appealing (and clever) trade-in campaign.
The campaign allowed you to trade-in an older micro computer and receive a significant reduction ($100?) on the cost of the C64.
I'm not saying this is THE reason why the C64 sold so well, I'm saying this was ONE of the reasons, which helped market a great machine.
I'm sure I read somewhere that one of the reasons the C64 sold in huge numbers in America was because Commodore had a very appealing (and clever) trade-in campaign.
The main reason it sold so well was that it ruthlessly undercut the cost of every other computer on the market. Because Commodore owned MOS which produced the 6502, VIC and SID chips, they were able to operate on tiny margins which their competitors just couldn't compete with.
One of the reasons the ZX81/TS1000 sold well in the US was that there were people buying them (for $49) to take advantage of Commodore's trade-in deal. Commodore didn't mind in the slightest as they were still making a profit, but seeing the simplicity of the ZX81's design gave them the idea for the machine that became the Plus/4.
As for MOS, not only could they make chips cheaper than everyone else, they also gave Commodore a massive advantage in designing them, as they could jump the queue to run off a few prototypes in days where everyone else would have to wait several weeks to get theirs back. Given how the first couple of issues of the Spectrum went out with fixes soldered onto the motherboard, that's something they could probably have used.
Thinking about it, the main problem for the C128 was probably that the C64 was still selling, and in larger numbers. It would make little sense not to develop games that would run on both machines.
That too really, Commodore knew the C128 couldn't be sold at the same price point as the C64 so, since it was something of a cash cow for them and producing a reasonably constant income, had to keep selling it. Another part of the problem was Commodore not being much cop at marketing by that point; they didn't push the machine properly for the home market since they'd decided to aim for SOHO and made very little effort to get publishers onboard.
One of the reasons the ZX81/TS1000 sold well in the US was that there were people buying them (for $49) to take advantage of Commodore's trade-in deal. Commodore didn't mind in the slightest as they were still making a profit, but seeing the simplicity of the ZX81's design gave them the idea for the machine that became the Plus/4.
If memory serves, the Spectrum was apparently the inspiration for the 264 series and the ZX81 inspired the VIC 20.
If memory serves, the Spectrum was apparently the inspiration for the 264 series and the ZX81 inspired the VIC 20.
They'd had a good look at the Spectrum before work started in earnest on the 264, but it wasn't on sale in the US at the time and it was the ZX81 that surprised them by being able to undercut the VIC-20 and kicked off the project.
The VIC-20 was launched well before the ZX81 too. They might just have seen a few ZX80s knocking about while they were putting the finishing touches to it, but I doubt it'd have had that much influence. The design of the VIC chip itself dates back to 1977, making it one of Commodore's earliest projects with MOS.
That would make more sense but I didn't think the ZX80 was sold in the US so I'm not sure Tramiel would even have been aware of it.
It was sold in the US, Sync magazine was launched on the back of the ZX80 and MicroAce ZX80 clone and a few US ZX80s turn up on ebay from time to time.
That would make more sense but I didn't think the ZX80 was sold in the US so I'm not sure Tramiel would even have been aware of it.
Commodore were international and Jack was very hands on to the point where he'd travel regularly between branches to see what his teams and the competition were up to.
Commodore were international and Jack was very hands on to the point where he'd travel regularly between branches to see what his teams and the competition were up to.
I can't see Sir Clive ever doing that :)
30+ years on and just like in the school yard, we're still debating this topic :)
My own personal opinion is that both computers are great machines. I really can't say one was better than the other because when one was a poor game on the other system it was great. Sure the c64 had all kinds of nice features but the developers for the spectrum over came a lot of obstacles.
A good example is Uridium were all of the C64 community said it would never came out on the Spectrum, but as we all know it did come out and was just as good as the C64 version.
The C64 did have its short comings with a slow CPU and anything with vector graphics just wasn't up to the Spectrum speed of doing things.
So to conclude I think both machines have pros and cons and i think this fanboy argument is null and void and has been for a long time. Both machines are great and if you dont own them then go and get some of the most epic legendary machines ever in computing history.
So to conclude I think both machines have pros and cons and i think this fanboy argument is null and void and has been for a long time. Both machines are great and if you dont own them then go and get some of the most epic legendary machines ever in computing history.
Well said. I am a relative newcomer to the Sinclair world, having been a VIC, C64, then Amiga owner, so it's a new world of games for me to discover.
I'd seen many games released on the Spectrum that came later - and worse - to the C64. (I'm sure there were as many that suffered when they went the reverse route.) It's nice to now see them on the original system.
I'm glad that many solid gold classics did survive intact, though: The Hobbit, Lords of Midnight, Ant Attack, Cassette 50. No hang on, scrub that last one!
My own personal opinion is that both computers are great machines. I really can't say one was better than the other because when one was a poor game on the other system it was great. Sure the c64 had all kinds of nice features but the developers for the spectrum over came a lot of obstacles.
That's true of every 8-bit computer though, it's just that the obstacles are different and not necessarily easy to see; for example, Uridium slings a significant number of software sprite bullets around but people don't always notice.
So to conclude I think both machines have pros and cons and i think this fanboy argument is null and void and has been for a long time.
That doesn't stop it being interesting though, or indeed a significant part of the 8-bit nostalgia for some people. i'm not even sure it's fair to use the "f" word in this context personally, those kinds of argument tend to be far less civil.
I have to agree. I liked the Spectrum's quirks and limitations as well as liking it's strengths. I mean, the beeper could sound great (it often wasn't, in the early years, of course, but when it was done well it could produce very good music and sound effects), and I liked the rubber keyboard (which I thought was great for playing games, though I'd no doubt have hated to use it if I were a professional typist), and the 'clean' graphics (I mean clean as in all of the colours were bright, and not muddy).
Of course, that's my subjective opinion, and probably if I'd been a C64 or CPC or BBC owner then I'd have loved that machine instead, for all that machine's strengths and quirks. All I can really say is that no matter what I saw on my mates' C64s or CPCs, or the BBCs and Acorn Atoms that I saw in school, I never once wished I'd had that machine INSTEAD of the Spectrum. I loved almost the whole Spectrum experience, from the games, the magazines, the people we swapped games/tips/help with, and even now it's great to meet someone for the first time and find out that they were a Spectrum owner back in the day, and reminisce about the good times. And the games most people seem to remember are Manic Miner, Jetset Willy, Lords of Midnight, Knightlore, Dizzy (which I ****ing hate! :evil:), Head Over Heels, etc.
I had a 48K Spectrum with a microdrive and later modified a Dk'Tronics ZX81 typer keyboard for Spectrum. I did hate a lot of things in Spectrum. The sound was just awful, the keyboard must have been some evil joke and the microdrive was a direct descendant of satan.
I did envy my friends for having computers with a proper keyboard, a floppy drive and 40/80 characters on a display row! When I finally had managed enough money to buy Disciple (there was also other uses for pocket money like models and miniatures) I had no money to buy a decent floppy drive, sigh. Instead I got a massive full height 5.25" brick that was almost equally unreliable as microdrive.
Anyway, there was still something that made me stick with Spectrum. Most probably economics but something other as well. The support group around me was good. Games did have a good gameplay. And most importantly I was leaning more towards programming thus it was a challenge for me to replicate stuff I saw on cracking scene productions (mainly early C64 stuff). I quite quickly understood that some tricks and routines I saw in Spectrum games were creations of some really brilliant people. I wanted to be one. I also loved to write my own games. Some of them got soon rather "advanced" in my eyes. And I was the coolest Z80 dude in town :grin: For that it did not matter if I had Spectrum or C64.. the keyboard and floppy thing was still a bit of an issue, though :lol:
Anyway, as of today, it is amazing what folks crank out of C64, Spectrum, CPC etc. Some Spectrum stuff is just amazing and undeniably some C64 stuff is mind blowing.
I dont pay too much attention to the C64 demo scene lately, but few days ago I noticed this demo with incredible almost photorealistic fli pictures.
I've seen before extraordinary fli picture, but this is really impressive..
On the technical side, I wonder how the hell did they manage to make this?
One comment on yt says "The trick is to represent every second frame of a different color on the same pixel, thereby to mix the two colors."
Its translation from German, but I am still not quite sure what it means?
Is it possible to apply this technique to the Spectrum and get a similar result?
Here is a video.. pictures from (7:35), especially Terminator 3 one, looks brutal:
"The trick is to represent every second frame of a different color on the same pixel, thereby to mix the two colors."
Its translation from German, but I am still not quite sure what it means?
I dont pay too much attention to the C64 demo scene lately, but few days ago I noticed this demo with incredible almost photorealistic fli pictures.
I've seen before extraordinary fli picture, but this is really impressive..
On the technical side, I wonder how the hell did they manage to make this?
One comment on yt says "The trick is to represent every second frame of a different color on the same pixel, thereby to mix the two colors."
Its translation from German, but I am still not quite sure what it means?
Is it possible to apply this technique to the Spectrum and get a similar result?
that's algo's work (a fellow londoner :) ) so dunno where the german comment is from... he specialises/is well known for audio / video compression experimenting.. and it's pre-processed on pc, and the c64 is acting as a player pretty much. not sure if he knows any z80 or what of his work could be recycled.
so for attempting it on any machine, a more powerful machine would have to do number crunching first.. some say it's cheating .. some don't.
there are loads of tricks for getting extra colours on c64.. from overlaying sprites onto an image or flicking colours very quickly to make it appear a new one is there.
the logo for example.. thats down to timing.. looks better on a real c64.
and f'ings to the spectrum loser for ripping the car gfx for their own demo without crediting them.
It was one of the youtube comments (on German) for this video, as an attempt to explain these pictures.
I didnt find any tech info from the autors, so I wonder how they made these impressive pictures.
Of course, if its possible to produce something similar with spectrum, I'd like to know how?
This CSAM tool looks fantastic, I'll definitely try it out...
One comment on yt says "The trick is to represent every second frame of a different color on the same pixel, thereby to mix the two colors."
Its translation from German, but I am still not quite sure what it means?
Yes, it's a well known technique - display pixels of different colours in following frames to blend them into a new colour.
I din't know how commies call it but in Spectrum world it is called gigascreen. It has a downside effect -flickers more or less, depending on monitor. Youtube movie compression probably inadvertently makes it look much better than it is in reality.
One comment on yt says "The trick is to represent every second frame of a different color on the same pixel, thereby to mix the two colors."
On the C64 there are different colours with the same or at least very similar levels of luminance, if you flip between two of those each frame like light blue and medium grey or light green and yellow the result looks like a new colour with almost no flicker. A less convoluted version of this is used in Mayhem In Monsterland on some of the enemies and most people don't notice it's there. =-)
Comments
I think that's the story of most such enhanced machines; they never go on to sell enough for it to be worth the while for developers to use their extra features. However, the 128K Spectrum bucked that trend and there's certainly more than a smattering of 128K-only games that could have utilized better graphics had they been available. Perhaps we could have had Carrier Command in colour rather than stippled fills, and Where Time Stood Still in glorious greyscale, for instance.
On the other hand, they'd have to be fairly easy to use and not deliver too much of a performance hit. Otherwise it'd have the same problems as the C128.
Software houses were slow to take advantage of the features the 128 did provide. On the other hand compatibility isn't that difficult. The Chloe 280SE has several video modes, including an 80x25 text mode, and will still run 99.9% of existing Spectrum and Timex software.
I wouldn't say the CPC+ range is a good example as there were so few developers interested in the basic CPC, never mind an enhanced one.
Though it's fair to say that the more advanced the enhancement, the more difficult it is to exploit whilst still retaining backward compatibility with the masses who own whatever earlier model.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
Unfortunately, no such address exists.
The C128 has a performance hit with the 80 column display, for the 40 column mode which is the one that at least suits action games it had improvements to what the C64 did like double buffering of colour RAM and the option of spinning up to 2MHz for the border area; Commodore's documentation is a little dry but these are covered and the 2MHz thing was used on a couple of C64 titles as well. There's a couple of undocumented "features" as well, none of which have ever been used in a game... at least not to date. =-)
The C128's problem wasn't the difficulty of using the extra features (2MHz in the borders is a simple, well documented pair of LDA/STA commands for example), but more that it was already C64 compatible so people looked at it and just thought "if i do a C64 game i can sell it to C128 users too!". Commodore didn't make the effort to get game developers looking more at the machine to see what it could do that the C64 couldn't so they mostly didn't try.
Not sure about numbers Andrew - no doubt it was probably quite even. However, I suspect the profit margin was greater on a +2 than CPC - either way I am sure Lord Sugar was very happy with the deal. Owning both the Spectrum and CPC gave Amstrad time to establish themselves in the SME market with their PCW and PC compatibles.
Overall I think Amstrad did a fantastic job for the British computer industry and in their own way brought serious computing within the reach of the masses.
Paddy
Thinking about it, the main problem for the C128 was probably that the C64 was still selling, and in larger numbers. It would make little sense not to develop games that would run on both machines.
In contrast, 128K models of the Spectrum were the only ones on the market from mid-1986 onwards, so it was only going to be a matter of time until the majority of people still buying games had the more powerful machine.
The campaign allowed you to trade-in an older micro computer and receive a significant reduction ($100?) on the cost of the C64.
I'm not saying this is THE reason why the C64 sold so well, I'm saying this was ONE of the reasons, which helped market a great machine.
The main reason it sold so well was that it ruthlessly undercut the cost of every other computer on the market. Because Commodore owned MOS which produced the 6502, VIC and SID chips, they were able to operate on tiny margins which their competitors just couldn't compete with.
As for MOS, not only could they make chips cheaper than everyone else, they also gave Commodore a massive advantage in designing them, as they could jump the queue to run off a few prototypes in days where everyone else would have to wait several weeks to get theirs back. Given how the first couple of issues of the Spectrum went out with fixes soldered onto the motherboard, that's something they could probably have used.
That too really, Commodore knew the C128 couldn't be sold at the same price point as the C64 so, since it was something of a cash cow for them and producing a reasonably constant income, had to keep selling it. Another part of the problem was Commodore not being much cop at marketing by that point; they didn't push the machine properly for the home market since they'd decided to aim for SOHO and made very little effort to get publishers onboard.
If memory serves, the Spectrum was apparently the inspiration for the 264 series and the ZX81 inspired the VIC 20.
They'd had a good look at the Spectrum before work started in earnest on the 264, but it wasn't on sale in the US at the time and it was the ZX81 that surprised them by being able to undercut the VIC-20 and kicked off the project.
The VIC-20 was launched well before the ZX81 too. They might just have seen a few ZX80s knocking about while they were putting the finishing touches to it, but I doubt it'd have had that much influence. The design of the VIC chip itself dates back to 1977, making it one of Commodore's earliest projects with MOS.
Seems unlikely given the VIC 20 came out before the ZX81.
Yeah, sorry... meant the ZX80. That's what i get for posting when i'm running around like a headless chicken before Revival =-)
That would make more sense but I didn't think the ZX80 was sold in the US so I'm not sure Tramiel would even have been aware of it.
It was sold in the US, Sync magazine was launched on the back of the ZX80 and MicroAce ZX80 clone and a few US ZX80s turn up on ebay from time to time.
Commodore were international and Jack was very hands on to the point where he'd travel regularly between branches to see what his teams and the competition were up to.
I can't see Sir Clive ever doing that :)
30+ years on and just like in the school yard, we're still debating this topic :)
Hmm, I would never change my ZX81 for the Vic20.
Although I would like to get the Vic one day, to the collection, heh.
Another thing is with Spectrum. Those are games and demos I like the most, among the "8-bitters". :)
I play Amiga & Atari ST games but on 8bit platform - I use only Spectrum games.
A good example is Uridium were all of the C64 community said it would never came out on the Spectrum, but as we all know it did come out and was just as good as the C64 version.
The C64 did have its short comings with a slow CPU and anything with vector graphics just wasn't up to the Spectrum speed of doing things.
So to conclude I think both machines have pros and cons and i think this fanboy argument is null and void and has been for a long time. Both machines are great and if you dont own them then go and get some of the most epic legendary machines ever in computing history.
Well said. I am a relative newcomer to the Sinclair world, having been a VIC, C64, then Amiga owner, so it's a new world of games for me to discover.
I'd seen many games released on the Spectrum that came later - and worse - to the C64. (I'm sure there were as many that suffered when they went the reverse route.) It's nice to now see them on the original system.
I'm glad that many solid gold classics did survive intact, though: The Hobbit, Lords of Midnight, Ant Attack, Cassette 50. No hang on, scrub that last one!
That's true of every 8-bit computer though, it's just that the obstacles are different and not necessarily easy to see; for example, Uridium slings a significant number of software sprite bullets around but people don't always notice.
That doesn't stop it being interesting though, or indeed a significant part of the 8-bit nostalgia for some people. i'm not even sure it's fair to use the "f" word in this context personally, those kinds of argument tend to be far less civil.
I had a 48K Spectrum with a microdrive and later modified a Dk'Tronics ZX81 typer keyboard for Spectrum. I did hate a lot of things in Spectrum. The sound was just awful, the keyboard must have been some evil joke and the microdrive was a direct descendant of satan.
I did envy my friends for having computers with a proper keyboard, a floppy drive and 40/80 characters on a display row! When I finally had managed enough money to buy Disciple (there was also other uses for pocket money like models and miniatures) I had no money to buy a decent floppy drive, sigh. Instead I got a massive full height 5.25" brick that was almost equally unreliable as microdrive.
Anyway, there was still something that made me stick with Spectrum. Most probably economics but something other as well. The support group around me was good. Games did have a good gameplay. And most importantly I was leaning more towards programming thus it was a challenge for me to replicate stuff I saw on cracking scene productions (mainly early C64 stuff). I quite quickly understood that some tricks and routines I saw in Spectrum games were creations of some really brilliant people. I wanted to be one. I also loved to write my own games. Some of them got soon rather "advanced" in my eyes. And I was the coolest Z80 dude in town :grin: For that it did not matter if I had Spectrum or C64.. the keyboard and floppy thing was still a bit of an issue, though :lol:
Anyway, as of today, it is amazing what folks crank out of C64, Spectrum, CPC etc. Some Spectrum stuff is just amazing and undeniably some C64 stuff is mind blowing.
I've seen before extraordinary fli picture, but this is really impressive..
On the technical side, I wonder how the hell did they manage to make this?
One comment on yt says "The trick is to represent every second frame of a different color on the same pixel, thereby to mix the two colors."
Its translation from German, but I am still not quite sure what it means?
Is it possible to apply this technique to the Spectrum and get a similar result?
Here is a video.. pictures from (7:35), especially Terminator 3 one, looks brutal:
http://zx-pk.ru/
I assume much the same as so called "gigascreen"
that's algo's work (a fellow londoner :) ) so dunno where the german comment is from... he specialises/is well known for audio / video compression experimenting.. and it's pre-processed on pc, and the c64 is acting as a player pretty much. not sure if he knows any z80 or what of his work could be recycled.
http://csdb.dk/release/?id=127922
so for attempting it on any machine, a more powerful machine would have to do number crunching first.. some say it's cheating .. some don't.
there are loads of tricks for getting extra colours on c64.. from overlaying sprites onto an image or flicking colours very quickly to make it appear a new one is there.
the logo for example.. thats down to timing.. looks better on a real c64.
and f'ings to the spectrum loser for ripping the car gfx for their own demo without crediting them.
I didnt find any tech info from the autors, so I wonder how they made these impressive pictures.
Of course, if its possible to produce something similar with spectrum, I'd like to know how?
This CSAM tool looks fantastic, I'll definitely try it out...
http://zx-pk.ru/
Yes, it's a well known technique - display pixels of different colours in following frames to blend them into a new colour.
I din't know how commies call it but in Spectrum world it is called gigascreen. It has a downside effect -flickers more or less, depending on monitor. Youtube movie compression probably inadvertently makes it look much better than it is in reality.
Something similar on Spectrum:
Ruthesford's Revenge:
http://zxdemo.org/productions/15210/
On the C64 there are different colours with the same or at least very similar levels of luminance, if you flip between two of those each frame like light blue and medium grey or light green and yellow the result looks like a new colour with almost no flicker. A less convoluted version of this is used in Mayhem In Monsterland on some of the enemies and most people don't notice it's there. =-)