|
|
| Re: ATARI is crap! [message #328150 is a reply to message #328142] |
Sun, 17 January 2016 00:14   |
|
|
Originally posted by: Michael Glaser
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 1:28:18 PM UTC-8, Harald Habenichts wrote:
> The C64 has much better sound, much better graphics and there are more and
> better games!
C64's suck. PC's have better sound, better graphics, and there are more and better games?
Do I win?
|
|
|
|
| Re: ATARI is crap! [message #328153 is a reply to message #328150] |
Fri, 22 January 2016 14:40 |
Trevor
Messages: 23
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
My phone has better sound, graphics, and games because I can run an
Atari emulator on it! ;)
Michael Glaser wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 1:28:18 PM UTC-8, Harald Habenichts wrote:
>> The C64 has much better sound, much better graphics and there are more and
>> better games!
>
> C64's suck. PC's have better sound, better graphics, and there are more and better games?
>
> Do I win?
|
|
|
|
| Re: ATARI is crap! [message #328158 is a reply to message #328142] |
Mon, 25 January 2016 13:32 |
CharlieChaplin
Messages: 2
Registered: January 2013
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Am Dienstag, 12. Januar 2016 22:28:18 UTC+1 schrieb Harald Habenichts:
> The C64 has much better sound, much better graphics and there are more and
> better games!
And what do you do here ?!? Go to a C64 forum or group and leave us alone.
|
|
|
|
| Re: ATARI is crap! [message #328165 is a reply to message #328142] |
Fri, 29 January 2016 16:24 |
|
|
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 #328166 is a reply to message #328165] |
Fri, 29 January 2016 18:36 |
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 #328167 is a reply to message #328166] |
Sat, 30 January 2016 10:08 |
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 #328168 is a reply to message #328167] |
Sat, 30 January 2016 16:02 |
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 #328169 is a reply to message #328168] |
Sat, 30 January 2016 17:26 |
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$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>> >
>>>> > The C64 has much better sound, much better graphics and there are more and
>>>> > better games!
>>>>
>>>> The ATARI 800 only has crappy games, because the ATARI has crappy sprites,
>>>> crappy colours and a mediocre sound chip.
>>>>
>>>> The C64 is MUCH better!
>>>>
>>>> The SID is great, the VIC is great, the C64 is great!
>>>
>>> From memory, the early Atari models also had the same ridiculous
>>> membrane "keyboard" as Sinclair's toys.
>>
>> IIRC, only the 400 had the membrane keyboard. The 800 and later all had
>> keyboards.
>
> That's why I said "early Atari models". :-)
But, but, a 400 is only a model, not models! LOL
> That crappy "keyboard" is probably one of the reasons we bought the VIC
> 20 instead.
I looked at the VIC 20, screen display was much better for the Atari
400/800, so I went with the 800.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 42.0
Thunderbird 38.0.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
|
|
|
|
| Re: ATARI is crap! [message #328170 is a reply to message #328169] |
Sat, 30 January 2016 19:39 |
Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <n8jd9f$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$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The C64 has much better sound, much better graphics and there are more
>>>> >> and better games!
>>>> >
>>>> > The ATARI 800 only has crappy games, because the ATARI has crappy
>>>> > sprites, crappy colours and a mediocre sound chip.
>>>> >
>>>> > The C64 is MUCH better!
>>>> >
>>>> > The SID is great, the VIC is great, the C64 is great!
>>>>
>>>> From memory, the early Atari models also had the same ridiculous
>>>> membrane "keyboard" as Sinclair's toys.
>>>
>>> IIRC, only the 400 had the membrane keyboard. The 800 and later all had
>>> keyboards.
>>
>> That's why I said "early Atari models". :-)
>
> But, but, a 400 is only a model, not models! LOL
Depends on how you look at it ... there was certainly more than one
Atari 400 ever made. :-p
There were later "proper" keyboards released for the Atari 400, but
most were simply rubbish you clipped on top, so made no real difference
to the life expectancy of the membrane underneath (and in fact could
make it even worse).
>> That crappy "keyboard" is probably one of the reasons we bought the VIC
>> 20 instead.
>
> I looked at the VIC 20, screen display was much better for the Atari
> 400/800, so I went with the 800.
The quality of the screen display was partly governed by what you
plugged the computer into - plugging it into a crappy old B/W TV is
different to a then-modern-day colour TV. :-)
|
|
|
|
| Re: ATARI is crap! [message #328171 is a reply to message #328170] |
Sat, 30 January 2016 20:06 |
Ken Springer
Messages: 41
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 1/30/16 5:39 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In article <n8jd9f$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 #328172 is a reply to message #328171] |
Sat, 30 January 2016 23:49 |
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$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> The C64 has much better sound, much better graphics and there are more
>>>> >>>> and better games!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The ATARI 800 only has crappy games, because the ATARI has crappy
>>>> >>> sprites, crappy colours and a mediocre sound chip.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The C64 is MUCH better!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The SID is great, the VIC is great, the C64 is great!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> From memory, the early Atari models also had the same ridiculous
>>>> >> membrane "keyboard" as Sinclair's toys.
>>>> >
>>>> > IIRC, only the 400 had the membrane keyboard. The 800 and later all had
>>>> > keyboards.
>>>>
>>>> That's why I said "early Atari models". :-)
>>>
>>> But, but, a 400 is only a model, not models! LOL
>>
>> Depends on how you look at it ... there was certainly more than one
>> Atari 400 ever made. :-p
>
> ROFL
Then again, you might be right ... maybe Atari did only manage to sell
one Atari 400 computer and buried the rest alongside their ET game.
;-)
I don't remember anyone I know ever having an Atari. They were fairly
popular in America, but less popular everywhere else. Rich gits bought
Apple II, normal people bought Commodore, and cheapskates and idiots
bought Sinclair. :-)
|
|
|
|
| Re: ATARI is crap! [message #328173 is a reply to message #328171] |
Sun, 31 January 2016 00:17 |
Ken Springer
Messages: 41
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 1/30/16 6:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
> On 1/30/16 5:39 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> In article <n8jd9f$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 #328174 is a reply to message #328173] |
Sun, 31 January 2016 01:38 |
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 #328175 is a reply to message #328174] |
Sun, 31 January 2016 09:35 |
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 #328176 is a reply to message #328165] |
Sun, 31 January 2016 15:56 |
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 #328177 is a reply to message #328175] |
Sun, 31 January 2016 19:24 |
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 #328178 is a reply to message #328177] |
Sun, 31 January 2016 21:45 |
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 #328179 is a reply to message #328178] |
Sun, 31 January 2016 22:31 |
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 #328182 is a reply to message #328179] |
Fri, 05 February 2016 11:49 |
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 #328184 is a reply to message #328182] |
Fri, 05 February 2016 15:57 |
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. ;-)
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
