Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eneevax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!eneevax!ravi
From: ravi@eneevax.UUCP (Ravi Kulkarni)
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari
Subject: Atari 800XL superior to c64?
Message-ID: <212@eneevax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Dec-84 17:26:58 EST
Article-I.D.: eneevax.212
Posted: Mon Dec 17 17:26:58 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Dec-84 02:16:55 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Maryland, EE Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 26

I have noticed several comments in this newsgroup stating that
the graphics on the atari is superior to the c64. I personally
have a c64 although today the atari is a better buy. However, I
always thought that the c64 had better graphics and sound
hardware than the atari. I realize that for basic programming
the atari graphics and sound is very easy to use since the
keywords are built into basic. But for applications programs
and games the c64 seems to have the edge. It has 16 colors in
the hi res mode (limited to two different colors in any 8x8 block)
vs only 2 shades for the atari. The sprites in the c64 can be
moved in the x and y directions where as the player missiles
in the atari can only be moved horizontally. The sound chip on
the c64 is a real synthesizer with ADSR features, filtering, the
ability to modulate one voice with another, and external input
as compared with atari's more primitive distortion parameters.
I have heard that the 800XL's have a newer antic chip that
allows more graphics modes, but on the surface at least the
c64 seems to have the edge. I am sure that there are some arguments
for the atari that I may have missed and I would enjoy hearing
more pro's and con's about the two machines.



-- 
ARPA:	eneevax!ravi@maryland
UUCP:   [seismo,allegra]!umcp-cs!eneevax!ravi