Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 7/17/84; site piggy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxj!houxm!piggy!dlm
From: dlm@piggy.UUCP (Daryl Monge)
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari
Subject: Re: Atari 800XL superior to c64?
Message-ID: <282@piggy.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Dec-84 16:03:35 EST
Article-I.D.: piggy.282
Posted: Wed Dec 19 16:03:35 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Dec-84 23:40:22 EST
References: <212@eneevax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 23

Couldn't let this go by...

The ATARI player/missle graphics may not scroll vertically, but they have
the 'feature' of being able to cover the entire screen, top to bottom, in
the 8 pixel horizontal range.  Although this is more difficult to scroll
up and down, it is more flexible. 

It is true that there is no attack/decay in the atari voice system, but 
there are 4 true voices vs the c64 3+1 white noise.  The atari voices can
also be clocked by various sources, and can even be combined into fewer
voices for a wider range.

The c64 8x8 block garbage is hardly flexible.  I prefer a standard bit map,
although less colorful, and work with artifacting in a straight forward
manner.  I have seen the documentation on the c64 graphics system and
the 800 is far superior in capability overall, especially the display
list system.  I don't believe the c64 has anything like the powerful atari
display list processor.

Daryl Monge
AT&T Bell Labs
Holmdel, NJ
..!ihnp4!piggy!dlm