Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Commodore » Commodore 8-bit » Re: ATARI is crap!
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310393] Fri, 29 January 2016 16:24 Go to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Adelbert Affenstaat

The ATARI 800 only has crappy games, because the ATARI has crappy sprites,
crappy colours and a mediocre sound chip.

The C64 is MUCH better!

The SID is great, the VIC is great, the C64 is great!


"Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:n73r5f$rj1$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> The C64 has much better sound, much better graphics and there are more and
> better games!
>
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310417 is a reply to message #310393] Fri, 29 January 2016 18:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <n8gla1$9k2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Adelbert Affenstaat <a@ff.e>
wrote:
> "Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:n73r5f$rj1$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>
>> The C64 has much better sound, much better graphics and there are more and
>> better games!
>
> The ATARI 800 only has crappy games, because the ATARI has crappy sprites,
> crappy colours and a mediocre sound chip.
>
> The C64 is MUCH better!
>
> The SID is great, the VIC is great, the C64 is great!

From memory, the early Atari models also had the same ridiculous
membrane "keyboard" as Sinclair's toys.
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310500 is a reply to message #310417] Sat, 30 January 2016 10:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ken Springer is currently offline  Ken Springer
Messages: 41
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 1/29/16 4:36 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In article <n8gla1$9k2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Adelbert Affenstaat <a@ff.e>
> wrote:
>> "Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> news:n73r5f$rj1$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>
>>> The C64 has much better sound, much better graphics and there are more and
>>> better games!
>>
>> The ATARI 800 only has crappy games, because the ATARI has crappy sprites,
>> crappy colours and a mediocre sound chip.
>>
>> The C64 is MUCH better!
>>
>> The SID is great, the VIC is great, the C64 is great!
>
> From memory, the early Atari models also had the same ridiculous
> membrane "keyboard" as Sinclair's toys.

IIRC, only the 400 had the membrane keyboard. The 800 and later all had
keyboards.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 42.0
Thunderbird 38.0.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310532 is a reply to message #310393] Sat, 30 January 2016 13:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Harry Potter is currently offline  Harry Potter
Messages: 1304
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 4:24:22 PM UTC-5, Adelbert Affenstaat wrote:
> The ATARI 800 only has crappy games, because the ATARI has crappy sprites,
> crappy colours and a mediocre sound chip.
>
> The C64 is MUCH better!
>
> The SID is great, the VIC is great, the C64 is great!
>
I kind of agree. I tried Atari emulators, and, well, they were like toys--hard-to-use toys. Of course, I think the Vic20 was mostly a toy also, but programming on a Vic20 I think is more worth it. :)
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310551 is a reply to message #310500] Sat, 30 January 2016 16:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <n8ijjh$6np$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
<wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
> On 1/29/16 4:36 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> In article <n8gla1$9k2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Adelbert Affenstaat <a@ff.e>
>> wrote:
>>> "Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>> news:n73r5f$rj1$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>>
>>>> The C64 has much better sound, much better graphics and there are more and
>>>> better games!
>>>
>>> The ATARI 800 only has crappy games, because the ATARI has crappy sprites,
>>> crappy colours and a mediocre sound chip.
>>>
>>> The C64 is MUCH better!
>>>
>>> The SID is great, the VIC is great, the C64 is great!
>>
>> From memory, the early Atari models also had the same ridiculous
>> membrane "keyboard" as Sinclair's toys.
>
> IIRC, only the 400 had the membrane keyboard. The 800 and later all had
> keyboards.

That's why I said "early Atari models". :-)

That crappy "keyboard" is probably one of the reasons we bought the VIC
20 instead.
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310552 is a reply to message #310532] Sat, 30 January 2016 16:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <8470f86c-1c7f-480a-b06d-64f4c9e459ae@googlegroups.com>,
Harry Potter <rose.joseph12@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 4:24:22 PM UTC-5, Adelbert Affenstaat wrote:
>>
>> The ATARI 800 only has crappy games, because the ATARI has crappy sprites,
>> crappy colours and a mediocre sound chip.
>>
>> The C64 is MUCH better!
>>
>> The SID is great, the VIC is great, the C64 is great!
>
> I kind of agree. I tried Atari emulators, and, well, they were like
> toys--hard-to-use toys. Of course, I think the Vic20 was mostly a toy also,
> but programming on a Vic20 I think is more worth it. :)

Yep, the good ol' days of programming, when you had a whopping 1K of
RAM to play with, so had to program efficiently ... unlike these days
of lazy, over-bloated, inefficient code. :-(

Write the "Hellow World" program on a VIC 20 BASIC and it takes up a
few bytes. Write it on a modern computer in something RealBASIC, build
the application, and it takes up a megabyte or more, thanks mostly to
all the pointlessly included libraries that aren't even needed.
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310553 is a reply to message #310551] Sat, 30 January 2016 17:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ken Springer is currently offline  Ken Springer
Messages: 41
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 1/30/16 2:02 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In article <n8ijjh$6np$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>> On 1/29/16 4:36 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>> In article <n8gla1$9k2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Adelbert Affenstaat <a@ff.e>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>> news:n73r5f$rj1$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>> >
>>>> > The C64 has much better sound, much better graphics and there are more and
>>>> > better games!
>>>>
>>>> The ATARI 800 only has crappy games, because the ATARI has crappy sprites,
>>>> crappy colours and a mediocre sound chip.
>>>>
>>>> The C64 is MUCH better!
>>>>
>>>> The SID is great, the VIC is great, the C64 is great!
>>>
>>> From memory, the early Atari models also had the same ridiculous
>>> membrane "keyboard" as Sinclair's toys.
>>
>> IIRC, only the 400 had the membrane keyboard. The 800 and later all had
>> keyboards.
>
> That's why I said "early Atari models". :-)

But, but, a 400 is only a model, not models! LOL

> That crappy "keyboard" is probably one of the reasons we bought the VIC
> 20 instead.

I looked at the VIC 20, screen display was much better for the Atari
400/800, so I went with the 800.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 42.0
Thunderbird 38.0.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310575 is a reply to message #310552] Sat, 30 January 2016 18:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Harry Potter is currently offline  Harry Potter
Messages: 1304
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 4:05:39 PM UTC-5, Your Name wrote:
> Yep, the good ol' days of programming, when you had a whopping 1K of
> RAM to play with, so had to program efficiently ... unlike these days
> of lazy, over-bloated, inefficient code. :-(
>
> Write the "Hellow World" program on a VIC 20 BASIC and it takes up a
> few bytes. Write it on a modern computer in something RealBASIC, build
> the application, and it takes up a megabyte or more, thanks mostly to
> all the pointlessly included libraries that aren't even needed.

I agree totally! Optimize a modern game for speed by 30%, and you will be able to do 30% more special effects on a certain computer or the same on a 30% slower computer, so optimizing can *still* help. :) Just my opinion.
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310576 is a reply to message #310575] Sat, 30 January 2016 19:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <8292ce39-ce29-4863-9b6b-cb0369aee1a8@googlegroups.com>,
Harry Potter <rose.joseph12@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 4:05:39 PM UTC-5, Your Name wrote:
>>
>> Yep, the good ol' days of programming, when you had a whopping 1K of
>> RAM to play with, so had to program efficiently ... unlike these days
>> of lazy, over-bloated, inefficient code. :-(
>>
>> Write the "Hellow World" program on a VIC 20 BASIC and it takes up a
>> few bytes. Write it on a modern computer in something RealBASIC, build
>> the application, and it takes up a megabyte or more, thanks mostly to
>> all the pointlessly included libraries that aren't even needed.
>
> I agree totally! Optimize a modern game for speed by 30%, and you will be
> able to do 30% more special effects on a certain computer or the same on a
> 30% slower computer, so optimizing can *still* help. :) Just my opinion.

Games are one of the few places that code is still optimised, at least
to some degree and only really for speed ... but you'll notice that
older hardware gets kicked out of the recommended specs pretty quickly
and only the "latest and greatest" hardware is supported.
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310577 is a reply to message #310553] Sat, 30 January 2016 19:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <n8jd9f$lhc$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
<wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
> On 1/30/16 2:02 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> In article <n8ijjh$6np$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/29/16 4:36 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> In article <n8gla1$9k2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Adelbert Affenstaat <a@ff.e>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > "Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>> > news:n73r5f$rj1$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The C64 has much better sound, much better graphics and there are more
>>>> >> and better games!
>>>> >
>>>> > The ATARI 800 only has crappy games, because the ATARI has crappy
>>>> > sprites, crappy colours and a mediocre sound chip.
>>>> >
>>>> > The C64 is MUCH better!
>>>> >
>>>> > The SID is great, the VIC is great, the C64 is great!
>>>>
>>>> From memory, the early Atari models also had the same ridiculous
>>>> membrane "keyboard" as Sinclair's toys.
>>>
>>> IIRC, only the 400 had the membrane keyboard. The 800 and later all had
>>> keyboards.
>>
>> That's why I said "early Atari models". :-)
>
> But, but, a 400 is only a model, not models! LOL

Depends on how you look at it ... there was certainly more than one
Atari 400 ever made. :-p

There were later "proper" keyboards released for the Atari 400, but
most were simply rubbish you clipped on top, so made no real difference
to the life expectancy of the membrane underneath (and in fact could
make it even worse).



>> That crappy "keyboard" is probably one of the reasons we bought the VIC
>> 20 instead.
>
> I looked at the VIC 20, screen display was much better for the Atari
> 400/800, so I went with the 800.

The quality of the screen display was partly governed by what you
plugged the computer into - plugging it into a crappy old B/W TV is
different to a then-modern-day colour TV. :-)
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310580 is a reply to message #310577] Sat, 30 January 2016 20:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ken Springer is currently offline  Ken Springer
Messages: 41
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 1/30/16 5:39 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In article <n8jd9f$lhc$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>> On 1/30/16 2:02 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>> In article <n8ijjh$6np$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>>> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/16 4:36 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> > In article <n8gla1$9k2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Adelbert Affenstaat <a@ff.e>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >> "Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>> >> news:n73r5f$rj1$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The C64 has much better sound, much better graphics and there are more
>>>> >>> and better games!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The ATARI 800 only has crappy games, because the ATARI has crappy
>>>> >> sprites, crappy colours and a mediocre sound chip.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The C64 is MUCH better!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The SID is great, the VIC is great, the C64 is great!
>>>> >
>>>> > From memory, the early Atari models also had the same ridiculous
>>>> > membrane "keyboard" as Sinclair's toys.
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, only the 400 had the membrane keyboard. The 800 and later all had
>>>> keyboards.
>>>
>>> That's why I said "early Atari models". :-)
>>
>> But, but, a 400 is only a model, not models! LOL
>
> Depends on how you look at it ... there was certainly more than one
> Atari 400 ever made. :-p


ROFL


> There were later "proper" keyboards released for the Atari 400, but
> most were simply rubbish you clipped on top, so made no real difference
> to the life expectancy of the membrane underneath (and in fact could
> make it even worse).
>
>
>
>>> That crappy "keyboard" is probably one of the reasons we bought the VIC
>>> 20 instead.
>>
>> I looked at the VIC 20, screen display was much better for the Atari
>> 400/800, so I went with the 800.
>
> The quality of the screen display was partly governed by what you
> plugged the computer into - plugging it into a crappy old B/W TV is
> different to a then-modern-day colour TV. :-)
>


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 42.0
Thunderbird 38.0.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310586 is a reply to message #310580] Sat, 30 January 2016 23:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <n8jmki$6t1$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
<wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
> On 1/30/16 5:39 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> In article <n8jd9f$lhc$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/30/16 2:02 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> In article <n8ijjh$6np$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>>>> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>>> > On 1/29/16 4:36 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> >> In article <n8gla1$9k2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Adelbert Affenstaat <a@ff.e>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>> "Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>> >>> news:n73r5f$rj1$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> The C64 has much better sound, much better graphics and there are more
>>>> >>>> and better games!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The ATARI 800 only has crappy games, because the ATARI has crappy
>>>> >>> sprites, crappy colours and a mediocre sound chip.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The C64 is MUCH better!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The SID is great, the VIC is great, the C64 is great!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> From memory, the early Atari models also had the same ridiculous
>>>> >> membrane "keyboard" as Sinclair's toys.
>>>> >
>>>> > IIRC, only the 400 had the membrane keyboard. The 800 and later all had
>>>> > keyboards.
>>>>
>>>> That's why I said "early Atari models". :-)
>>>
>>> But, but, a 400 is only a model, not models! LOL
>>
>> Depends on how you look at it ... there was certainly more than one
>> Atari 400 ever made. :-p
>
> ROFL

Then again, you might be right ... maybe Atari did only manage to sell
one Atari 400 computer and buried the rest alongside their ET game.
;-)

I don't remember anyone I know ever having an Atari. They were fairly
popular in America, but less popular everywhere else. Rich gits bought
Apple II, normal people bought Commodore, and cheapskates and idiots
bought Sinclair. :-)
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310587 is a reply to message #310580] Sun, 31 January 2016 00:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ken Springer is currently offline  Ken Springer
Messages: 41
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 1/30/16 6:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
> On 1/30/16 5:39 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> In article <n8jd9f$lhc$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/30/16 2:02 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> In article <n8ijjh$6np$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>>>> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>>> > On 1/29/16 4:36 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> >> In article <n8gla1$9k2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Adelbert Affenstaat <a@ff.e>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>> "Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>> >>> news:n73r5f$rj1$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> The C64 has much better sound, much better graphics and there are more
>>>> >>>> and better games!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The ATARI 800 only has crappy games, because the ATARI has crappy
>>>> >>> sprites, crappy colours and a mediocre sound chip.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The C64 is MUCH better!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The SID is great, the VIC is great, the C64 is great!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> From memory, the early Atari models also had the same ridiculous
>>>> >> membrane "keyboard" as Sinclair's toys.
>>>> >
>>>> > IIRC, only the 400 had the membrane keyboard. The 800 and later all had
>>>> > keyboards.
>>>>
>>>> That's why I said "early Atari models". :-)
>>>
>>> But, but, a 400 is only a model, not models! LOL
>>
>> Depends on how you look at it ... there was certainly more than one
>> Atari 400 ever made. :-p
>
>
> ROFL
>
>
>> There were later "proper" keyboards released for the Atari 400, but
>> most were simply rubbish you clipped on top, so made no real difference
>> to the life expectancy of the membrane underneath (and in fact could
>> make it even worse).
>>
>>
>>
>>>> That crappy "keyboard" is probably one of the reasons we bought the VIC
>>>> 20 instead.
>>>
>>> I looked at the VIC 20, screen display was much better for the Atari
>>> 400/800, so I went with the 800.
>>
>> The quality of the screen display was partly governed by what you
>> plugged the computer into - plugging it into a crappy old B/W TV is
>> different to a then-modern-day colour TV. :-)

I wasn't referring to the quality of the output device, but the display
resolution. VIC 20 176 X 184 Atari 800 320 X 192


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 42.0
Thunderbird 38.0.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310592 is a reply to message #310587] Sun, 31 January 2016 01:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <n8k5d1$6ug$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
<wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
> On 1/30/16 6:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
>> On 1/30/16 5:39 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>> In article <n8jd9f$lhc$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>>> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/30/16 2:02 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > That crappy "keyboard" is probably one of the reasons we bought the VIC
>>>> > 20 instead.
>>>>
>>>> I looked at the VIC 20, screen display was much better for the Atari
>>>> 400/800, so I went with the 800.
>>>
>>> The quality of the screen display was partly governed by what you
>>> plugged the computer into - plugging it into a crappy old B/W TV is
>>> different to a then-modern-day colour TV. :-)
>
> I wasn't referring to the quality of the output device, but the display
> resolution. VIC 20 176 X 184 Atari 800 320 X 192

Maybe, but plug the VIC20 into a good quality screen and it can look
better than the Atari plugged into a crap quality screen. :-)
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310661 is a reply to message #310592] Sun, 31 January 2016 09:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ken Springer is currently offline  Ken Springer
Messages: 41
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 1/30/16 11:38 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In article <n8k5d1$6ug$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>> On 1/30/16 6:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
>>> On 1/30/16 5:39 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> In article <n8jd9f$lhc$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>>>> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>>> > On 1/30/16 2:02 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That crappy "keyboard" is probably one of the reasons we bought the VIC
>>>> >> 20 instead.
>>>> >
>>>> > I looked at the VIC 20, screen display was much better for the Atari
>>>> > 400/800, so I went with the 800.
>>>>
>>>> The quality of the screen display was partly governed by what you
>>>> plugged the computer into - plugging it into a crappy old B/W TV is
>>>> different to a then-modern-day colour TV. :-)
>>
>> I wasn't referring to the quality of the output device, but the display
>> resolution. VIC 20 176 X 184 Atari 800 320 X 192
>
> Maybe, but plug the VIC20 into a good quality screen and it can look
> better than the Atari plugged into a crap quality screen. :-)

Now, that's not fair! LOL Plug them into the same screen. Of course,
back then it was likely to be a TV, and the size of the TV also made a
difference.

When I bought my 800, I bought a 10" TV for the monitor. Salesman
thought I was nuts. "Too small", he said. It was great!. Went back
and told him how good it was, and talked him into trying it. All of a
sudden, all the display Atari systems had those TVs attached.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 42.0
Thunderbird 38.0.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310662 is a reply to message #310393] Sun, 31 January 2016 15:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dombo is currently offline  Dombo
Messages: 210
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Op 29-Jan-16 om 22:24 schreef Adelbert Affenstaat:
> The ATARI 800 only has crappy games, because the ATARI has crappy sprites,
> crappy colours and a mediocre sound chip.

The Atari 800 could display many more colors than the C64.

> The C64 is MUCH better!
>
> The SID is great, the VIC is great, the C64 is great!

Agreed.
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310663 is a reply to message #310661] Sun, 31 January 2016 19:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <n8l631$630$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
<wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
> On 1/30/16 11:38 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> In article <n8k5d1$6ug$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/30/16 6:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
>>>> On 1/30/16 5:39 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> > In article <n8jd9f$lhc$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>>>> > <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>>> >> On 1/30/16 2:02 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> That crappy "keyboard" is probably one of the reasons we bought the VIC
>>>> >>> 20 instead.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I looked at the VIC 20, screen display was much better for the Atari
>>>> >> 400/800, so I went with the 800.
>>>> >
>>>> > The quality of the screen display was partly governed by what you
>>>> > plugged the computer into - plugging it into a crappy old B/W TV is
>>>> > different to a then-modern-day colour TV. :-)
>>>
>>> I wasn't referring to the quality of the output device, but the display
>>> resolution. VIC 20 176 X 184 Atari 800 320 X 192
>>
>> Maybe, but plug the VIC20 into a good quality screen and it can look
>> better than the Atari plugged into a crap quality screen. :-)
>
> Now, that's not fair! LOL Plug them into the same screen. Of course,
> back then it was likely to be a TV, and the size of the TV also made a
> difference.
>
> When I bought my 800, I bought a 10" TV for the monitor. Salesman
> thought I was nuts. "Too small", he said. It was great!. Went back
> and told him how good it was, and talked him into trying it. All of a
> sudden, all the display Atari systems had those TVs attached.

Our VIC20 was originally plugged into the biggish (for the time) family
lounge room TV, but later we got a smaller one especially for it and
the later C64 (although also occasionally used to watch TV shows). I
can't remember what sizes they were though.

Later at university and work I used the first Macs which were little 9"
screens monochrome. I used those for years in various Mac models.

When I later got my 17" screen it seemed massive - I'm still using a
17" CRT screen. :-)
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310664 is a reply to message #310393] Sun, 31 January 2016 19:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <878u35tldj.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
<janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> wrote:
> Harry Potter wrote on 30. January 2016:
>>
>> On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 4:05:39 PM UTC-5, Your Name wrote:
>>> Yep, the good ol' days of programming, when you had a whopping 1K of
>>> RAM to play with, so had to program efficiently ... unlike these days
>>> of lazy, over-bloated, inefficient code. :-(
>>>
>>> Write the "Hellow World" program on a VIC 20 BASIC and it takes up a
>>> few bytes. Write it on a modern computer in something RealBASIC, build
>>> the application, and it takes up a megabyte or more, thanks mostly to
>>> all the pointlessly included libraries that aren't even needed.
>>
>> I agree totally! Optimize a modern game for speed by 30%, and you will
>> be able to do 30% more special effects on a certain computer or the
>> same on a 30% slower computer, so optimizing can *still* help. :) Just
>> my opinion.
>
> Back in the days I used Windows (until 2001) I already noticed that for
> example the installation of a graphic card driver was pure bloat. I seem
> to recall the package had some 200 MB already.
>
> I let it extract but not complete (asked to accept the EULA at that
> point) and looked into the %TEMP% directory where it unpacked
> itself. Copied some .ini, .inf, .ocx, .drv and a few other files
> elsewhere, and aborted the installation (which cleaned itself up). Then
> just right clicked the .inf file and it would install just the driver which
> worked after a reboot. And none of the flash animation bloat what would
> had otherwise come with it to waste disk space.
>
> I would assume today it's even worse. You probably don't get a GPU driver
> smaller than 1GB? *g*

Printer driver installers are extremely bad. For some idiotic reason
some printer makers think it's a clever idea to pointlessly put a load
of separate drivers all in the same massive download. :-\
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310708 is a reply to message #310663] Sun, 31 January 2016 21:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ken Springer is currently offline  Ken Springer
Messages: 41
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On 1/31/16 5:24 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In article <n8l631$630$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>> On 1/30/16 11:38 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>> In article <n8k5d1$6ug$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>>> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/30/16 6:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
>>>> > On 1/30/16 5:39 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> >> In article <n8jd9f$lhc$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>>>> >> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> On 1/30/16 2:02 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> That crappy "keyboard" is probably one of the reasons we bought the VIC
>>>> >>>> 20 instead.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I looked at the VIC 20, screen display was much better for the Atari
>>>> >>> 400/800, so I went with the 800.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The quality of the screen display was partly governed by what you
>>>> >> plugged the computer into - plugging it into a crappy old B/W TV is
>>>> >> different to a then-modern-day colour TV. :-)
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't referring to the quality of the output device, but the display
>>>> resolution. VIC 20 176 X 184 Atari 800 320 X 192
>>>
>>> Maybe, but plug the VIC20 into a good quality screen and it can look
>>> better than the Atari plugged into a crap quality screen. :-)
>>
>> Now, that's not fair! LOL Plug them into the same screen. Of course,
>> back then it was likely to be a TV, and the size of the TV also made a
>> difference.
>>
>> When I bought my 800, I bought a 10" TV for the monitor. Salesman
>> thought I was nuts. "Too small", he said. It was great!. Went back
>> and told him how good it was, and talked him into trying it. All of a
>> sudden, all the display Atari systems had those TVs attached.
>
> Our VIC20 was originally plugged into the biggish (for the time) family
> lounge room TV, but later we got a smaller one especially for it and
> the later C64 (although also occasionally used to watch TV shows). I
> can't remember what sizes they were though.
>
> Later at university and work I used the first Macs which were little 9"
> screens monochrome. I used those for years in various Mac models.
>
> When I later got my 17" screen it seemed massive - I'm still using a
> 17" CRT screen. :-)

I've got 3 systems here with 19" CRTs, 1 dual boot XP/Vista. 1 PowerMac
6400, 1 Hades 060 Atari clone.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 44.0
Thunderbird 38.0.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310711 is a reply to message #310708] Sun, 31 January 2016 22:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <n8mgrk$br8$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
<wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
> On 1/31/16 5:24 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> In article <n8l631$630$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/30/16 11:38 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> In article <n8k5d1$6ug$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>>>> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>>> > On 1/30/16 6:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
>>>> >> On 1/30/16 5:39 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> >>> In article <n8jd9f$lhc$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>>>> >>> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>> On 1/30/16 2:02 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> That crappy "keyboard" is probably one of the reasons we bought the
>>>> >>>>> VIC 20 instead.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I looked at the VIC 20, screen display was much better for the Atari
>>>> >>>> 400/800, so I went with the 800.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The quality of the screen display was partly governed by what you
>>>> >>> plugged the computer into - plugging it into a crappy old B/W TV is
>>>> >>> different to a then-modern-day colour TV. :-)
>>>> >
>>>> > I wasn't referring to the quality of the output device, but the display
>>>> > resolution. VIC 20 176 X 184 Atari 800 320 X 192
>>>>
>>>> Maybe, but plug the VIC20 into a good quality screen and it can look
>>>> better than the Atari plugged into a crap quality screen. :-)
>>>
>>> Now, that's not fair! LOL Plug them into the same screen. Of course,
>>> back then it was likely to be a TV, and the size of the TV also made a
>>> difference.
>>>
>>> When I bought my 800, I bought a 10" TV for the monitor. Salesman
>>> thought I was nuts. "Too small", he said. It was great!. Went back
>>> and told him how good it was, and talked him into trying it. All of a
>>> sudden, all the display Atari systems had those TVs attached.
>>
>> Our VIC20 was originally plugged into the biggish (for the time) family
>> lounge room TV, but later we got a smaller one especially for it and
>> the later C64 (although also occasionally used to watch TV shows). I
>> can't remember what sizes they were though.
>>
>> Later at university and work I used the first Macs which were little 9"
>> screens monochrome. I used those for years in various Mac models.
>>
>> When I later got my 17" screen it seemed massive - I'm still using a
>> 17" CRT screen. :-)
>
> I've got 3 systems here with 19" CRTs, 1 dual boot XP/Vista. 1 PowerMac
> 6400, 1 Hades 060 Atari clone.

I bought this PowerMac G3 brand new nearly 20 years ago and it has
outlived three 17" CRT displays, so far. The original Apple one died,
then the Samsung replacement died, and now I've got a Dell (exactly the
same as the previous Samsung except for the logo!) re-purposed from an
old Windoze PC that was thrown out.
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310923 is a reply to message #310664] Mon, 01 February 2016 13:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: NOSPAM.Kurt.Weiske

Re: Re: ATARI is crap!
By: Your Name to janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net on Mon Feb 01 2016 01:29 pm

YN> Printer driver installers are extremely bad. For some idiotic reason
YN> some printer makers think it's a clever idea to pointlessly put a load
YN> of separate drivers all in the same massive download. :-\

If you poke around, you can find the "administrator" driver bundle -- it's just
the bare minimum needed to install the driver on a server, to be pushed to the
client. It's the driver minus the system tray app, the monitor app, the app
that tries to sell you toner/paper/ink...
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #310959 is a reply to message #310923] Tue, 02 February 2016 15:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <454426331@f1.n770.z1199.fidonet.org>, Kurt Weiske
<NOSPAM.Kurt.Weiske@f1.n770.z1199.fidonet.org> wrote:
> Re: Re: ATARI is crap!
> By: Your Name to janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net on Mon Feb 01 2016 01:29 pm
>
> YN> Printer driver installers are extremely bad. For some idiotic reason
> YN> some printer makers think it's a clever idea to pointlessly put a load
> YN> of separate drivers all in the same massive download. :-\
>
> If you poke around, you can find the "administrator" driver bundle -- it's
> just the bare minimum needed to install the driver on a server, to be pushed
> to the client. It's the driver minus the system tray app, the monitor app,
> the app that tries to sell you toner/paper/ink...

The problem is downloading the "driver" in the first place. You often
have to download a HUGE file with a pile of rubbish for multiple
printers you don't even have.

Once you have the file you may be able to dig around in it.
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #311298 is a reply to message #310711] Fri, 05 February 2016 11:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Clu is currently offline  Clu
Messages: 72
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Member
Ahhh, the Commode-door computer. *

Love that fast loading floppy drive you have there. SLIGHTLY faster
than the Atari cassette drive. :D

Let's see... (looks in my journals from the 80's for more insults for
the Commodore).

Uggg.. nope, nothing else comes to mind. Actually like and own both
computers. And VP of an Amiga club. :D

ATARI RULZ!!!



. . Doctor Clu -drclu@swbell.net (member of...)
)\,,/ PRISON BOARD BBS==972-329-0781 / telnet://rdfig.net
/(- _O) Fido/Dovenet Messages, Games, chat, newsgroup & Mail
( \____ ) Atari / Commodore BBS list (X at main then A or C)


* Ironic we used to use this insult then the Atari Jaguar with a CD add
on looked like a tiolet. :D
Re: ATARI is crap! [message #311313 is a reply to message #311298] Fri, 05 February 2016 15:57 Go to previous message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <n92jo2$v4g$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Clu <drclu@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> Ahhh, the Commode-door computer. *
>
> Love that fast loading floppy drive you have there. SLIGHTLY faster
> than the Atari cassette drive. :D
>
> Let's see... (looks in my journals from the 80's for more insults for
> the Commodore).
>
> Uggg.. nope, nothing else comes to mind. Actually like and own both
> computers. And VP of an Amiga club. :D
>
> ATARI RULZ!!!
>
> * Ironic we used to use this insult then the Atari Jaguar with a CD add
> on looked like a tiolet. :D

Yep Ataris make great doorstops ... because they're heavier than
Sinclair's rubbishy toys. ;-)
  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: SpeedCalc user manual in .EPUB format:
Next Topic: Official FAQ comp.binaries.cbm (semimonthly posting)
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Thu Mar 28 13:59:46 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06371 seconds