But thats the thing, because you grew up with it your so used to it and your opinion on the best computer probably wont change.
99% of peoples opinions here wont so as usual we're just going round in circles. I think its good though the majority of people now can try games on either machine, the ones who dont are losing out.
On 2005-07-07 10:23, TMR wrote:
Yup, there were a large percentage of users who cracked games, coded, composed or drew graphics for crack intros or demos, built or upgraded utilities or developed games that were distributed via the demo scene, cracking scene...
A large percentage of elite home users who know machine code? Perhaps. A majority percentage of ordinary users of c64? I think not! ;)
i didn't say a majority of users, i said a large percentage and i was talking relatively; ten percent of C64 users learning to code would be a lot of people, for example and the transition from "POKE53280,0" to "LDA #0 / STA 53280" is a far smaller one than going from "BORDER 0" to it's machine code equivalent...
Is this the same Tim Follin who described his music as sounding like a "vacuum cleaner with a nail stuck in it" or the same Tim Follin who knocked out several rather nice C64 tunes with some heavy filter and ring modulation use...? =-)
Obviously, not the same Tim Follin then! ;)
Nah, the guy I was talking about did things with just a humble beeper. No SID claptrap required.
...if you do the maths the Z80 is about twice as fast blah blah...
Can't comment on Mercenary since I haven't played even the Speccy version! But if what you are saying is true, that's pretty good stuff. But is this kind of thing consistent or did you pick Mercenary because it's the only game that plays well on the c64? :p
You eat worms and smell of wee wee - that better? =-)
You, sir, are a buffoon (as someone once so eloquently put it). :)
On 2005-07-08 01:03, karingal wrote:
I'm not really sure you can call the C128 a new version of the C64 if the C128 does not even use the same CPU as the C64.
So it doesn't really count.
In that case you can't count the +2a and the 3 either, they were made by a completely different company! They didnt use the same sound chip/beeper, didnt use the same memory didnt use the same keyboard, case, the added also a different video output etc etc etc.....Cpu is just a component, there was more than one component change in the spectrum models you are quoting.
By the way, the ADDED and addition CPU...they didnt change it.
/boggle
The CPU isn't a component but THE component which defines a machine. Either of CPU's in the C128 were not the same as the C64, in fact hardly anything was the same in the C128 compared to the C64, the compatibility with the C64 was software based which according to you in a previous post comparing the machines internal software wasn't part of the argument.
The Spectrum was bought by Amstrad and therefore had the complete right to call their machines a Spectrum. Internally the Spectrum was exactly the same with a improved soundchip and addition 64k of memory. It didn't have a new video output but an ADDITIONAL video output, the original video putput was still there.
Given those facts it is quite clear that the C128 was a completely new machine whilst the Spectrum +2 and +3 were upgrades.
Is my PC no longer a PC because I switch it from Intel to AMD?
Saying that is a completely pointless comparision because as we all know computers have changed beyond all recognition since the 80's and are designed in a completely different way these days.
On 2005-07-08 10:06, TMR wrote:
Is this the same Tim Follin who described his music as sounding like a "vacuum cleaner with a nail stuck in it" or the same Tim Follin who knocked out several rather nice C64 tunes with some heavy filter and ring modulation use...? =-)
Obviously, not the same Tim Follin then! ;)
Nah, the guy I was talking about did things with just a humble beeper. No SID claptrap required.
That's a shame, i quite liked the one who made the nail in the vacuum cleaner comment... Chronos is excellent. =-)
On 2005-07-08 10:31, Arjun wrote:
Can't comment on Mercenary since I haven't played even the Speccy version! But if what you are saying is true, that's pretty good stuff. But is this kind of thing consistent or did you pick Mercenary because it's the only game that plays well on the c64? :p
i picked Mercenary for two reasons, firstly because it proves the point about a lot of 3D stuff on the C64 being poorer not because of the hardware but because of programming and secondly because it's not a Spectrum or C64 game to start with, it's an Atari 8bit game that was ported to both.
It's also a good game on all the formats, play the damned thing. =-)
On 2005-07-08 10:31, Arjun wrote:
You eat worms and smell of wee wee - that better? =-)
You, sir, are a buffoon (as someone once so eloquently put it). :)
And you've got a face like a three week old bogey that's been left in the sun. Your go. =-)
On 2005-07-08 10:16, na_th_an wrote:
Personally I find the C64 palette too pale and the CPC palette too saturated - I wonder if someone suffered epileptic attacks while playing some CPC games :D
It's funny. In my place, it was more an Speccy vs. CPC argument all over the place. In fact, I just know 1 guy who owned a C64.
Yeah, Spain was one of the CPCs strongest markets, second only to France.
Colours that are just as saturated can be found in many games on the Nintendo Gamecube and Sega Dreamcast. It looks a bit cartony and childlike, but often works well.
Here in Norway and Scandinavia C64 was the main force. 9 out of 10 computers were C64s and later Amiga followed up on the Commodore dominance
On 2005-07-07 22:48, Robbo wrote:
Best Graphics? C64/CPC
And are you sure about the Amstrad having the best graphics? I would check out the number of colours per mode if I were you and the number of pixels per mode.
The Amstrad CPC has 3 main modes
160x200 16 colour
320x200 4 colour
620x200 2 colour
from a palette of 27 very lively colours.
The colours can be put to close together which means nice shading effects can be done. The CPC was delievered with an RGB monitor and gave a way better picture than the TVs of the time.
All modes are fully bitmapped. No colourclash, no restrictions on where to put the colours which you have on the C64/Spectrum. 3D-isometric games looks better on the CPC as they use 4 colours, all Spectrum games I have seen of this type is monochrome.
No hardwaresprites, large screen 16 KB, many lazy Spectrum ports gfx wise, e.g. Last Linja 2. But big plus for the many Spectrum-ports with good playability.
An fast hardwarescroll exists but are unfortunately not much used, an example can be found in TLL(Tornado Low Level).
I am not in doubt that the CPC has the best stillimage graphics, but the Spectrum and C64 is better at moving its screen. Their screens are so small and the C64 has hardware to back it up as well. That means that the games on the CPC should be designed in a different way to take advantage of its strenghts. Just like many games have done on the C64 or Spectrum. unfortunately the CPC came late to the market and it didn't get its share of games that made fair use of the hardware
[ This Message was edited by: ivarf on 2005-07-08 09:48 ]
16 colours in a low resolution, the Spectrum used 15 colours fullstop so how does that make the CPC display better?
The CPC suffered the same fate as the C64 i.e. blocky graphics.
To be fair though I don't think anyone really made full use of the CPC graphically capabilities.
On 2005-07-08 10:50, karingal wrote:
the Spectrum used 15 colours fullstop
It used 15 colours but with some serious restrictions, e.g. colourclash and only 2 colours pr 8x8 character. But even Amiga HAM-mode has colourclash ;)
Plus to both C64 and Spectrum for having character based screens (as well?) as it makes many games faster.
On 2005-07-08 10:41, karingal wrote:
The CPU isn't a component but THE component which defines a machine. Either of CPU's in the C128 were not the same as the C64, in fact hardly anything was the same in the C128 compared to the C64
No, the CPU was an 8502, a minor upgrade from the 8500 in the E revision C64 to add a couple of extra features for the C128 side but after that the video and sound were handled by a VIC-II and SID respectively, parts that were directly interchangeable with C64 ones.
On 2005-07-08 11:01, ivarf wrote:
Plus to both C64 and Spectrum for having character based screens (as well?) as it makes many games faster.
The Spectrum isn't character based, it's bitmap and attribute so the screen RAM was (from memory) 6K compared to the 16K of the CPC (and 2K for the C64 in character mode) so the Speccy's speed advantage comes from only needing to move a third of the data and having that extra half a MHz on the clock speed.
The CPC does have the ability, however, to mess with it's screen origin points and use those to move things around; the horizontal resolution is a little low but i believe it can shift on a pixel line by pixel line basis vertically and Mission Genocide (by Paul "Spindizzy" Shirley) is a good example of that working.
On 2005-07-08 10:43, TMR wrote:
i picked Mercenary for two reasons, firstly because it proves the point about a lot of 3D stuff on the C64 being poorer not because of the hardware but because of programming
Which brings us nicely to the point: WHY were so many 3d stuff on the c64 coded lamely by the programmers? Lets see: c64 has more memory, hardware sprites (nothing to do with 3d but even so), faster opcodes execution but hey, guess who had the better programmers for 3D (like so many other genres) - the Speccy! Strange co-incidence that eh?
and secondly because it's not a Spectrum or C64 game to start with, it's an Atari 8bit game that was ported to both.
Yep. That I know, and the AtariST version is better! :)
And you've got a face like a three week old bogey that's been left in the sun. Your go. =-)
Rich coming from an infected genital of an empty ferret. :)
I knew you werent being that serious, i hoping you werent !
But its just so funny this argument/discussion still goes on after all those years.
Name one person who had a computer in the 80's and after a discussion like this went 'yeah your right, my computer was crap, yours was much better'. No one !!!
After about 8 years or so in the boom in the 80's, then 10 years with retro gaming on emulators we're all stuck in our ways. No C64 fan will go 'yeah the Speccy was better' and no Speccy fan will go 'the C64 was better'. Just going round in circles as always
The Spectrum isn't character based, it's bitmap and attribute so the screen RAM was (from memory) 6K compared to the 16K of the CPC (and 2K for the C64 in character mode) so the Speccy's speed advantage comes from only needing to move a third of the data and having that extra half a MHz on the clock speed.
The CPC does have the ability, however, to mess with it's screen origin points and use those to move things around; the horizontal resolution is a little low but i believe it can shift on a pixel line by pixel line basis vertically and Mission Genocide (by Paul "Spindizzy" Shirley) is a good example of that working.
Very nice explanation. :)
It is the display-chip that make it posible to change the origin point. Unfortunately it was not to well documented at the time, only a few programmers used it in games. This is the same chip as used on the BBC and PC CGA. You can see the CGA-colours in some BBC-games, I assume it is only some BBC-screen modes that has the awful CGA-palette.
[ This Message was edited by: ivarf on 2005-07-08 11:41 ]
On 2005-07-08 11:08, TMR wrote:
so the Speccy's speed advantage comes from only needing to move a third of the data and having that extra half a MHz on the clock speed.
The CPC was clocked at the full 4Mhz, the Speccy at 3.54Mhz, so I don't think that was it. :)
The CPC does have more memory contention though which slows it down a bit. It's considerably more predicatable than the Speccy though and a good programer can negate the effects through careful selection of instructions.
The CPC does have the ability, however, to mess with it's screen origin points and use those to move things around; the horizontal resolution is a little low but i believe it can shift on a pixel line by pixel line basis vertically and Mission Genocide (by Paul "Spindizzy" Shirley) is a good example of that working.
You can do some truly evil stuff by playing with the CRTC registers. Sadly as a latecomer to the market, few programmers learned to take full advantage of the hardware. Even those who did sometimes dropped cool hardware based routines in favour of software scrolls for fear of damaging equipment if people weren't using Amstrad monitors (Savage for example)
On 2005-07-08 11:49, AndyC wrote:
Even those who did sometimes dropped cool hardware based routines in favour of software scrolls for fear of damaging equipment if people weren't using Amstrad monitors (Savage for example)
May that give problems with RGB-scarts TVs, TV-modulators or Amiga-screens when used with a CPC? Or just for some of them?
[ This Message was edited by: ivarf on 2005-07-08 12:02 ]
On 2005-07-08 10:31, Arjun wrote:
Can't comment on Mercenary since I haven't played even the Speccy version! But if what you are saying is true, that's pretty good stuff. But is this kind of thing consistent or did you pick Mercenary because it's the only game that plays well on the c64? :p
Ofcourse the C64 lacks in the 3D area, but i said that already.
On 2005-07-08 01:03, karingal wrote:
I'm not really sure you can call the C128 a new version of the C64 if the C128 does not even use the same CPU as the C64.
So it doesn't really count.
The first C64s use a 6510, the later models use an 8500... So the later C64 models are no C64s either? The 8502 is just the 2 MHz version of the 8500.
On 2005-07-08 10:41, karingal wrote:
The CPU isn't a component but THE component which defines a machine.
The Atari ST is an Amiga because both use the 68000 as CPU? The Amstrad CPC is a ZX Spectrum because both have a Z80?
The C64 is defined by it's video, sound, I/O hardware and it's 6502 instruction set. The 6510, 8500 and 8502 are all 100% software compatible.
On 2005-07-08 10:16, na_th_an wrote:
Personally I find the C64 palette too pale and the CPC palette too saturated - I wonder if someone suffered epileptic attacks while playing some CPC games :D
You know, since the C64 has standard composite PAL or NTSC output you can use the Saturation wheel on your favourite TV or composite monitor to MAKE the C64 palette saturated? ;)
On 2005-07-08 10:16, na_th_an wrote:
Personally I find the C64 palette too pale and the CPC palette too saturated
You know, since the C64 has standard composite PAL or NTSC output you can use the Saturation wheel on your favourite TV or composite monitor to MAKE the C64 palette saturated? ;)
Clean bright glowing colours?
Yes, I noticed the smiley... :)
[ This Message was edited by: ivarf on 2005-07-08 13:16 ]
On 2005-07-08 10:57, karingal wrote:
the 6502 has:
3 General Purpose Registers
1 Stack pointer Register
the Z80 has
14 General Purpose Registers
5 Special Purpose Registers.
How can the 6502 have more registers than the Z80???
You forgot the Zeropage :) It is used as an "external set of registers". The first 256 bytes of memory can be accessed very fast, an example:
LDX $03 - loads byte from adress $0003 into X-register... uses 3 clock cycles.
LDA ($40),Y - loads the 16 bit adress stored in the adresses $0040 and $0041, adds content of Y-register to that adress and uses the result as adress to read from memory... 5 clock cycles. This is why i called the zeropage "128 adress registers", since you can use pairs of these bytes for adressing.
On 2005-07-08 11:49, AndyC wrote:
The CPC was clocked at the full 4Mhz, the Speccy at 3.54Mhz, so I don't think that was it. :)
Sausages... sorry Andy, getting my numbers mixed up. =-)
On 2005-07-08 11:49, AndyC wrote:
The CPC does have more memory contention though which slows it down a bit. It's considerably more predicatable than the Speccy though and a good programer can negate the effects through careful selection of instructions.
i was right about the CPU load needed to software scroll the screen wasn't i...?
On 2005-07-08 11:49, AndyC wrote:
You can do some truly evil stuff by playing with the CRTC registers. Sadly as a latecomer to the market, few programmers learned to take full advantage of the hardware. Even those who did sometimes dropped cool hardware based routines in favour of software scrolls for fear of damaging equipment if people weren't using Amstrad monitors (Savage for example)
How reliable is CTRC hammering then, will something "simple" like Mission Genocide or Zarkon (since i rather like that one) work on every machine or are there exceptions?
On 2005-07-08 10:57, karingal wrote:
the 6502 has:
3 General Purpose Registers
1 Stack pointer Register
the Z80 has
14 General Purpose Registers
5 Special Purpose Registers.
How can the 6502 have more registers than the Z80???
You forgot the Zeropage :) It is used as an "external set of registers". The first 256 bytes of memory can be accessed very fast, an example:
LDX $03 - loads byte from adress $0003 into X-register... uses 3 clock cycles.
LDA ($40),Y - loads the 16 bit adress stored in the adresses $0040 and $0041, adds content of Y-register to that adress and uses the result as adress to read from memory... 5 clock cycles. This is why i called the zeropage "128 adress registers", since you can use pairs of these bytes for adressing.
I would hardly call those extra registers as you need the correct values stored in the 1st 256 locations in the first place. The Z80 can do the same in all 64k (albeit not as fast).
On 2005-07-08 11:40, ivarf wrote:
This is the same chip as used on the BBC and PC CGA. You can see the CGA-colours in some BBC-games, I assume it is only some BBC-screen modes that has the awful CGA-palette.
i'm considering trying to code something on the Beeb but haven't got around to looking closely at the hardware, but from memory it's not the same model of CTRC and only offers eight colours onscreen with a fixed palette rather than sixteen from a bigger palette...?
[ This Message was edited by: TMR on 2005-07-08 13:52 ]
On 2005-07-08 10:31, Arjun wrote:
Can't comment on Mercenary since I haven't played even the Speccy version! But if what you are saying is true, that's pretty good stuff. But is this kind of thing consistent or did you pick Mercenary because it's the only game that plays well on the c64? :p
Ofcourse the C64 lacks in the 3D area, but i said that already.
On 2005-07-08 01:03, karingal wrote:
I'm not really sure you can call the C128 a new version of the C64 if the C128 does not even use the same CPU as the C64.
So it doesn't really count.
The first C64s use a 6510, the later models use an 8500... So the later C64 models are no C64s either? The 8502 is just the 2 MHz version of the 8500.
On 2005-07-08 10:41, karingal wrote:
The CPU isn't a component but THE component which defines a machine.
The Atari ST is an Amiga because both use the 68000 as CPU? The Amstrad CPC is a ZX Spectrum because both have a Z80?
Thats just being pedantic.
Come the era of the ST and Amiga there were so many more components that made up a computer as the graphic and soound capabilities got much greater. In the early 80's the CPU was virtually everything .
The C64 is defined by it's video, sound, I/O hardware and it's 6502 instruction set. The 6510, 8500 and 8502 are all 100% software compatible.
If you're talking about software compatability then that would make most emulators the real thing... I don't think so.
Incidently, I know it's been said before but well done everyone for putting forward sensible reasoned arguments to express their point of view and opinion. It's nice to get into a discussion like this and not end up resort to petty insults and name calling.
(Looks like Mel hasn't discovered this thread yet :D)
On 2005-07-08 13:48, karingal wrote:
I would hardly call those extra registers as you need the correct values stored in the 1st 256 locations in the first place.
You need to store the correct values into the registers too :)
On 2005-07-08 13:54, karingal wrote:
Come the era of the ST and Amiga there were so many more components that made up a computer as the graphic and soound capabilities got much greater. In the early 80's the CPU was virtually everything .
I would even say that it's the exact opposte: in the early 80s the video/sound hardware was virtually everything. Look at the Atari XL/XE or C64... These computers ARE their video and sound hardware.
Comments
99% of peoples opinions here wont so as usual we're just going round in circles. I think its good though the majority of people now can try games on either machine, the ones who dont are losing out.
i didn't say a majority of users, i said a large percentage and i was talking relatively; ten percent of C64 users learning to code would be a lot of people, for example and the transition from "POKE53280,0" to "LDA #0 / STA 53280" is a far smaller one than going from "BORDER 0" to it's machine code equivalent...
What makes a user "elite", anyway...?
Obviously, not the same Tim Follin then! ;)
Nah, the guy I was talking about did things with just a humble beeper. No SID claptrap required.
Can't comment on Mercenary since I haven't played even the Speccy version! But if what you are saying is true, that's pretty good stuff. But is this kind of thing consistent or did you pick Mercenary because it's the only game that plays well on the c64? :p
You, sir, are a buffoon (as someone once so eloquently put it). :)
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
The Spectrum was bought by Amstrad and therefore had the complete right to call their machines a Spectrum. Internally the Spectrum was exactly the same with a improved soundchip and addition 64k of memory. It didn't have a new video output but an ADDITIONAL video output, the original video putput was still there.
Given those facts it is quite clear that the C128 was a completely new machine whilst the Spectrum +2 and +3 were upgrades.
Saying that is a completely pointless comparision because as we all know computers have changed beyond all recognition since the 80's and are designed in a completely different way these days.
That's a shame, i quite liked the one who made the nail in the vacuum cleaner comment... Chronos is excellent. =-)
i picked Mercenary for two reasons, firstly because it proves the point about a lot of 3D stuff on the C64 being poorer not because of the hardware but because of programming and secondly because it's not a Spectrum or C64 game to start with, it's an Atari 8bit game that was ported to both.
It's also a good game on all the formats, play the damned thing. =-)
And you've got a face like a three week old bogey that's been left in the sun. Your go. =-)
Yeah, Spain was one of the CPCs strongest markets, second only to France.
Colours that are just as saturated can be found in many games on the Nintendo Gamecube and Sega Dreamcast. It looks a bit cartony and childlike, but often works well.
Here in Norway and Scandinavia C64 was the main force. 9 out of 10 computers were C64s and later Amiga followed up on the Commodore dominance
The CPC suffered the same fate as the C64 i.e. blocky graphics.
To be fair though I don't think anyone really made full use of the CPC graphically capabilities.
1 Program counter
3 General Purpose Registers
1 Processor Status Register
1 Stack pointer Register
the Z80 has
1 Program counter
14 General Purpose Registers
1 Flag Register
5 Special Purpose Registers.
How can the 6502 have more registers than the Z80???
Its great C64 fans coming here for a discussion, so far they havent really been totally one sided.
Until you open up your views a bit its difficult to take what you are saying as real. Each machine has positives and negatives
It used 15 colours but with some serious restrictions, e.g. colourclash and only 2 colours pr 8x8 character. But even Amiga HAM-mode has colourclash ;)
Plus to both C64 and Spectrum for having character based screens (as well?) as it makes many games faster.
No, the CPU was an 8502, a minor upgrade from the 8500 in the E revision C64 to add a couple of extra features for the C128 side but after that the video and sound were handled by a VIC-II and SID respectively, parts that were directly interchangeable with C64 ones.
The Spectrum isn't character based, it's bitmap and attribute so the screen RAM was (from memory) 6K compared to the 16K of the CPC (and 2K for the C64 in character mode) so the Speccy's speed advantage comes from only needing to move a third of the data and having that extra half a MHz on the clock speed.
The CPC does have the ability, however, to mess with it's screen origin points and use those to move things around; the horizontal resolution is a little low but i believe it can shift on a pixel line by pixel line basis vertically and Mission Genocide (by Paul "Spindizzy" Shirley) is a good example of that working.
Which brings us nicely to the point: WHY were so many 3d stuff on the c64 coded lamely by the programmers? Lets see: c64 has more memory, hardware sprites (nothing to do with 3d but even so), faster opcodes execution but hey, guess who had the better programmers for 3D (like so many other genres) - the Speccy! Strange co-incidence that eh?
Yep. That I know, and the AtariST version is better! :)
Rich coming from an infected genital of an empty ferret. :)
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
No, no, you've got it all wrong. I am pro-Speccy all right but all this "c64 is crap" business is purely to wind people up. That's how bored I am. :)
Oh ok, I lied. c64 is crap! :D
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
But its just so funny this argument/discussion still goes on after all those years.
Name one person who had a computer in the 80's and after a discussion like this went 'yeah your right, my computer was crap, yours was much better'. No one !!!
After about 8 years or so in the boom in the 80's, then 10 years with retro gaming on emulators we're all stuck in our ways. No C64 fan will go 'yeah the Speccy was better' and no Speccy fan will go 'the C64 was better'. Just going round in circles as always
Very nice explanation. :)
It is the display-chip that make it posible to change the origin point. Unfortunately it was not to well documented at the time, only a few programmers used it in games. This is the same chip as used on the BBC and PC CGA. You can see the CGA-colours in some BBC-games, I assume it is only some BBC-screen modes that has the awful CGA-palette.
[ This Message was edited by: ivarf on 2005-07-08 11:41 ]
The CPC was clocked at the full 4Mhz, the Speccy at 3.54Mhz, so I don't think that was it. :)
The CPC does have more memory contention though which slows it down a bit. It's considerably more predicatable than the Speccy though and a good programer can negate the effects through careful selection of instructions.
You can do some truly evil stuff by playing with the CRTC registers. Sadly as a latecomer to the market, few programmers learned to take full advantage of the hardware. Even those who did sometimes dropped cool hardware based routines in favour of software scrolls for fear of damaging equipment if people weren't using Amstrad monitors (Savage for example)
May that give problems with RGB-scarts TVs, TV-modulators or Amiga-screens when used with a CPC? Or just for some of them?
[ This Message was edited by: ivarf on 2005-07-08 12:02 ]
The first C64s use a 6510, the later models use an 8500... So the later C64 models are no C64s either? The 8502 is just the 2 MHz version of the 8500.
The Atari ST is an Amiga because both use the 68000 as CPU? The Amstrad CPC is a ZX Spectrum because both have a Z80?
The C64 is defined by it's video, sound, I/O hardware and it's 6502 instruction set. The 6510, 8500 and 8502 are all 100% software compatible.
Clean bright glowing colours?
Yes, I noticed the smiley... :)
[ This Message was edited by: ivarf on 2005-07-08 13:16 ]
LDX $03 - loads byte from adress $0003 into X-register... uses 3 clock cycles.
LDA ($40),Y - loads the 16 bit adress stored in the adresses $0040 and $0041, adds content of Y-register to that adress and uses the result as adress to read from memory... 5 clock cycles. This is why i called the zeropage "128 adress registers", since you can use pairs of these bytes for adressing.
Sausages... sorry Andy, getting my numbers mixed up. =-)
i was right about the CPU load needed to software scroll the screen wasn't i...?
How reliable is CTRC hammering then, will something "simple" like Mission Genocide or Zarkon (since i rather like that one) work on every machine or are there exceptions?
i'm considering trying to code something on the Beeb but haven't got around to looking closely at the hardware, but from memory it's not the same model of CTRC and only offers eight colours onscreen with a fixed palette rather than sixteen from a bigger palette...?
[ This Message was edited by: TMR on 2005-07-08 13:52 ]
Come the era of the ST and Amiga there were so many more components that made up a computer as the graphic and soound capabilities got much greater. In the early 80's the CPU was virtually everything . If you're talking about software compatability then that would make most emulators the real thing... I don't think so.
(Looks like Mel hasn't discovered this thread yet :D)