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