Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.cbm > #6765 > unrolled thread

Re: ATARI is crap!

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.cbm

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: ATARI is crap! "Adelbert Affenstaat" <a@ff.e> - 2016-01-29 22:24 +0100
    Re: ATARI is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-30 12:36 +1300
      Re: ATARI is crap! Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2016-01-30 08:08 -0700
        Re: ATARI is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-31 10:02 +1300
          Re: ATARI is crap! Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2016-01-30 15:26 -0700
            Re: ATARI is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-31 13:39 +1300
              Re: ATARI is crap! Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2016-01-30 18:06 -0700
                Re: ATARI is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-31 17:49 +1300
                Re: ATARI is crap! Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2016-01-30 22:17 -0700
                  Re: ATARI is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-31 19:38 +1300
                    Re: ATARI is crap! Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2016-01-31 07:35 -0700
                      Re: ATARI is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-02-01 13:24 +1300
                        Re: ATARI is crap! Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2016-01-31 19:45 -0700
                          Re: ATARI is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-02-01 16:31 +1300
                            Re: ATARI is crap! Clu <drclu@swbell.net> - 2016-02-05 10:49 -0600
                              Re: ATARI is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-02-06 09:57 +1300
    Re: ATARI is crap! Harry Potter <rose.joseph12@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 10:56 -0800
      Re: ATARI is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-31 10:06 +1300
        Re: ATARI is crap! Harry Potter <rose.joseph12@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 15:26 -0800
          Re: ATARI is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-31 13:37 +1300
          Re: ATARI is crap! Andreas Kohlbach <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2016-01-31 17:49 -0500
            Re: ATARI is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-02-01 13:29 +1300
              Re: ATARI is crap! NOSPAM.Kurt.Weiske@f1.n770.z1199.fidonet.org (Kurt Weiske) - 2016-02-02 06:58 +1200
                Re: ATARI is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-02-03 09:31 +1300
    Re: ATARI is crap! Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2016-01-31 21:56 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#6765 — Re: ATARI is crap!

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!
> 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#6767

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6771

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!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6774

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6776

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!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6779

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.   :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6780

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!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6781

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.  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6782

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!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6783

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.  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6785

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!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6788

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.  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6790

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!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6793

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6798

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6799

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.  ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6772

On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 4:24:22 PM UTC-5, Adelbert Affenstaat wrote:
> 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!
> 
I kind of agree.  I tried Atari emulators, and, well, they were like toys--hard-to-use toys.  Of course, I think the Vic20 was mostly a toy also, but programming on a Vic20 I think is more worth it.  :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6775

In article <8470f86c-1c7f-480a-b06d-64f4c9e459ae@googlegroups.com>,
Harry Potter <rose.joseph12@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 4:24:22 PM UTC-5, Adelbert Affenstaat wrote:
> > 
> > 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!
> 
> I kind of agree.  I tried Atari emulators, and, well, they were like
> toys--hard-to-use toys.  Of course, I think the Vic20 was mostly a toy also,
> but programming on a Vic20 I think is more worth it.  :)

Yep, the good ol' days of programming, when you had a whopping 1K of
RAM to play with, so had to program efficiently ... unlike these days
of lazy, over-bloated, inefficient code.  :-(

Write the "Hellow World" program on a VIC 20 BASIC and it takes up a
few bytes. Write it on a modern computer in something RealBASIC, build
the application, and it takes up a megabyte or more, thanks mostly to
all the pointlessly included libraries that aren't even needed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6777

On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 4:05:39 PM UTC-5, Your Name wrote:
> Yep, the good ol' days of programming, when you had a whopping 1K of
> RAM to play with, so had to program efficiently ... unlike these days
> of lazy, over-bloated, inefficient code.  :-(
> 
> Write the "Hellow World" program on a VIC 20 BASIC and it takes up a
> few bytes. Write it on a modern computer in something RealBASIC, build
> the application, and it takes up a megabyte or more, thanks mostly to
> all the pointlessly included libraries that aren't even needed.

I agree totally!  Optimize a modern game for speed by 30%, and you will be able to do 30% more special effects on a certain computer or the same on a 30% slower computer, so optimizing can *still* help.  :)  Just my opinion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6778

In article <8292ce39-ce29-4863-9b6b-cb0369aee1a8@googlegroups.com>,
Harry Potter <rose.joseph12@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 4:05:39 PM UTC-5, Your Name wrote:
> > 
> > Yep, the good ol' days of programming, when you had a whopping 1K of
> > RAM to play with, so had to program efficiently ... unlike these days
> > of lazy, over-bloated, inefficient code.  :-(
> > 
> > Write the "Hellow World" program on a VIC 20 BASIC and it takes up a
> > few bytes. Write it on a modern computer in something RealBASIC, build
> > the application, and it takes up a megabyte or more, thanks mostly to
> > all the pointlessly included libraries that aren't even needed.
> 
> I agree totally!  Optimize a modern game for speed by 30%, and you will be
> able to do 30% more special effects on a certain computer or the same on a
> 30% slower computer, so optimizing can *still* help.  :)  Just my opinion.

Games are one of the few places that code is still optimised, at least
to some degree and only really for speed ... but you'll notice that
older hardware gets kicked out of the recommended specs pretty quickly
and only the "latest and greatest" hardware is supported.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.cbm

csiph-web