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