C128 better than Atari 520 ST?

[PeterJ]

ok here is my take on the conversion from the ST to the Amiga.

i think the problem was most with arcade games, and the reason was they did no care for any of the platform, they only care for to finish them, so they could get some sale before people forget about the game (the picture on the box just needed to look like the arcade)
many times the firm that made the arcade did not give any of the code or graphic to the company that converted the games. so they had to start from bottom or reused the same routines over and over. (there for many of the same type arcade games, was converted by the same companies)

ok and now the point.
if they did a good conversion like super sprint, and you convert it to Amiga, then it will also run great on the Amiga.
but if they did covert a crappy port for the ST of course it will also run like s..t on the Amiga, many of those game could also have been made to run better on the ST, but they did not care for us,
why should they use a lot of extra time and money to make it run nice on the Amiga, and maybe delay the game for months.

just to give you a little example, i have read a great thread here at eab, where StringRay describes how poor one ST arcade game was converted.
http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=74604&page=2

and just to take a game we all like to hate outrun (both Amiga and ST user) it have 2 68000 running 12.5 mhz, one of them is use alone to make the road.
128 sprites on screen at one time, 2 tile layers, 1 text layer, 1 sprite layer with hardware sprite zooming, 1 road layer, can draw 2 roads at once, translucent shadows.

so if you wanted to make a really good version of the about, i think you really needed to optimize the hell out of it.

no i my book a troll is a person that keep spreading mud/fud after others, look at you post about my first.

you wrote

Originally Posted by Flash951

We talk about the 1 MHz 8 bit C64 versus Atari 520 ST. On the Atari forums they talk about Amiga 500 versus Atari 520 ST, and they are pretty much confident in every way that Atari 520 ST kick the Amiga's ass. LOL

why do you said that I and others think that the " Atari 520 ST kick the Amiga's ass" if that is not trolling then i don't know what it is.

and that was the reason for i joint here, but i will not answer more to this, don't want to troll, so if you have more to say to me, please PM me.

[Flash951]

Because I've read some threads like that lately. I've never said that was some new threads or have mentioned you, have I? You have no reason to take a post like that personal. Do you need links to the threads I referred to so you can investigate the issue further?

This thread is about C128 and Atari, now you start about Outrun, Amiga. That's OK, just stop harassing me with more bullshit now.

Enough, here is a serious comment about the last serious post:

Outrun is one of my all time favorite on the arcade, because of this I've restored an arcade cabinet and got it running perfectly.

I also accidentally got the original disks for Atari ST, the graphic or music was not bad at all.

Someone made a good Outrun compare for all systems on YouTube. The MSX port was most true to the Arcade version, but slow as xxx.

The Arcade, hard to beat, special designed hardware, expensive to produce I've read, they recommended the shops to charge double for play .

The Arcade version in addition also uses about 12000 colors at screen I think.

[PeterJ]

you got a PM

the reason i mentions outrun was because of post 56-57 and about the bad conversions from atari to Amiga, and i have also hear them and said them many times, but lately i have just come to this conclusion, that the main reason why so many conversion was bad on both system was probably because they did not care for us only for our money.

i also love outrun try look here, don't know if you know it.
http://reassembler.blogspot.dk/p/can...un-engine.html

[Photon]

PeterJ, Flash951: please don't double post, add to your original posts instead.

PeterJ: the problem at the time was that because the ST had the same CPU and only the CPU, very many Amiga games were ported, and only used the CPU.

Whether you're porting or not, the quality of the game is as always up to the quality the developers can achieve and the time frame in which to achieve it.

Likely, various 8-bit computers suffered from porting, but they did not have much custom hardware to take advantage of, the C64 being the exception.

Now, if publishers had paid Amiga developers for a separate version like they did C64 developers, game quality would again be up to the developer and time frame. The games could still be good or bad, but many of them would be written for the platform, like the C64 programmers did.

For example, Gods can run full framerate on Amiga 500, even though it's supposedly written to take advantage of the STE Blitter. So we enjoyed the nice graphics, but suffered the horrible, laggy framerate of Bitmap Brothers' ST version.

It was just game after game... it got annoying after a while. Of course, we got a few gems as well, but performance-wise: not from those developers.

[Flash951]

Yes, I'm fully aware of the CanonBall "project", have tested it. Works very well.

[PeterJ]

ok no double post got it

i have remove my original answer to your question Photon, don't think that people here, are ready for new ideas why the arcade to Amiga conversions suck.

[Supamax]

PLEASE some moderator close this stupid thread.

[john1979]

Originally Posted by Supamax

PLEASE some moderator close this stupid thread.

Don't like a thread? Don't bother to carry on reading or post in it. There's plenty of other threads to look at.

I've found this thread interesting reading. Especially Photon's technical comparison on the previous page.

[amilo3438]

Please, let's not compare oranges with lemons ... C128 can be compared only with other 8-bit computers, such as a CPC series f.e. (M68000 16/32-bit computers are completely different world).

The ST series is made with the intention of being as much more accessible to the masses (read: less expensive and not necessarily the best), while the Amiga is made as technically advanced computer (read: the price is not important).

Interestingly, regardless of ST was well worn with Amiga almost the entire time of its existence, so there are games that work well on both computers (such as Vroom f.e. and probably others similar [ Show youtube player ]).

p.s.
I remember when I bought a disk drive for my c64, after 3 months I was all tired and I decided to move on to the next level ... into account came ST or Amiga. But in the end I decided to Amiga only because I wanted to stay true to Commodore brand.

Also those who have had a ZX Spectrum probably were very satisfied with the Atari ST computers.

[Hewitson]

Originally Posted by amilo3438

Also those who have had a ZX Spectrum probably were very satisfied with the Atari ST computers.

[Supamax]

Originally Posted by john1979

I've found this thread interesting reading. Especially Photon's technical comparison on the previous page.

Photon's post is not objective.
It took into consideration secondary elements.

I can only repeat what I wrote some posts ago:

How in h*ll can you say this?
This thread is nonsense, you're comparing apples with peas...
Almost all C64 games/demos have 160x200 resolution (*) while all ST games have 320x200 resolution, more colors and with a faster (and 16-bit) CPU.

About sound, yes, the SID is much better than the ST audio chip.

(*) apart from some 320x200 games "cloned" from the ZX Spectrum versions (es. Head over Heels), but they are slower and suffer from the same color clash (hardware sprites excluded).

Graphic is (way) better, CPU is better, memory is better, machine class is better.

Note: I never had a ST; I have 2 C64, 2 A500, 1 A600HD

[john1979]

Originally Posted by Supamax

It took into consideration secondary elements.

I can only repeat what I wrote some posts ago:

That's a strange argument for wanting to end a thread.

Photon's post is not objective.....

Graphic is (way) better, CPU is better, memory is better, machine class is better.

Neither is yours.

[Supamax]

Originally Posted by john1979

Neither is yours.

It is.
I'm "defending" the ST not because I had it or I like it, but simply because I really don't see how anyone could say that what I wrote below is wrong:
ST graphic is (way) better, CPU is better, memory is better, machine class is better.

[Flash951]

Well said john1929, I totally agree on your last posts. I also found Photons post interesting. If SupaMax don't like this thread and find it stupid, why doesn't he stop posting and visit some other threads?

[Megol]

CPC: chunky 16 color mode, high resolution 640x200 mode, AY sound chip.
Enterprise 64/128*: chunky 16 and 256 color modes, 256 color palette, high resolution 640x512 mode, custom sound chip more capable than the AY**, direct sample support with stereo 6 bit DACs.

The C64 have no all points addressable graphics modes, the CPC and Enterprise does. The C64 have no high resolution mode - CPC & Enterprise does.
The C64 have no proper operating system, but CPC and Enterprise both support a CP/M type system.

So those two computers are better than the C64. And as (according to some people) the C64 is better than the Atari ST the CPC and more so the Enterprise should be even more superior.

But this is just ridiculous! The C64 have sprites and a semi-tiled graphics layout that fits many types of games better than a chunky layout. But for some kinds of games a chunky layout is superior. The C64 have a sound chip that have more advanced features than the AY - but still some music simply sounds better on the AY, it's hard to avoid the characteristic SID sound.

Selecting some specific features of some computers and then trying to extrapolate things from them is idiotic...

(* Tip: it's much easier to write "enterprise 128" when searching for this home computer as enterprise computers have been 64 bit for a long time)
(** IIRC)

[AF2013]

I am not being funny.

Amiga Graphics is Better than ST or even STE( 32 colours vs 16 colours!)

ST Had better CPU than Amiga(e.g. 8Mhz vs 7 Mhz)

As either Sounds computer as I cant compare it but I do know that when come game music....it always better on Amiga( for example...supercar 2, speedball 2, shadow of the beast and so on!)

[john1979]

Originally Posted by Supamax

It is.
I'm "defending" the ST not because I had it or I like it, but simply because I really don't see how anyone could say that what I wrote below is wrong:
ST graphic is (way) better, CPU is better, memory is better, machine class is better.

Graphic.
The C128 had better graphics as it had hardware scrolling and sprites. Resolution and number of colours is not everything.

CPU.
The Atari ST had to tie much more to the CPU than the 128 did (given the above), so it is arguable the 128 had it best. Saying one CPU is faster than the other doesn't present the whole story.

Memory.
I agree. More is always better.

Machine class.
This is meaningless?

[Supamax]

Originally Posted by john1979

Graphic.
The C128 had better graphics as it had hardware scrolling and sprites. Resolution and number of colours is not everything.

It's not everything but sure is a lot for a microcomputer.
It's not so important having hardware scrolling or sprites (basically monocolor, I suppose, like the C64) if it has half the resolution and less colors.
Be realistic then: which C128 (not C64) game used hardware scrolling?
Which C128 game (are there C128-only games? With hardware scrolling?) is good enough to be compared to ST ones?
Which C128 productivity software can be taken into consideration and compared to ST ones?

EDIT: I'll put it another way. Is there a C128-only software which would make you buy a C128 instead of an Atari ST?

[Megol]

Originally Posted by AF2013

I am not being funny.

Amiga Graphics is Better than ST or even STE( 32 colours vs 16 colours!)

Most games used 16 color modes. The copper helps a bit though.

ST Had better CPU than Amiga(e.g. 8Mhz vs 7 Mhz)

Don't the ST hardware force instructions to be a multiple of 4 cycles? That should remove most of the clock advantage.
Edit: was more complicated than I remembered: http://pasti.fxatari.com/68kdocs/Ata...eCounting.html

As either Sounds computer as I cant compare it but I do know that when come game music....it always better on Amiga( for example...supercar 2, speedball 2, shadow of the beast and so on!)

Almost always. There's at least one game with better music on the ST (can't remember which one - was on youtube).

[Flash951]

Originally Posted by john1979

Graphic.
The C128 had better graphics as it had hardware scrolling and sprites. Resolution and number of colours is not everything.

ANSWER: C128 RGBI output: (Wikipedia)
Fully programmable, typical modes are 320x200, 640×200, and 640×400 (interlaced)

Which C128 productivity software can be taken into consideration and compared to ST ones?

ANSWER: Maybe GEOS128 and the productivity software for it?


EDIT: I'll put it another way. Is there a C128-only software which would make you buy a C128 instead of an Atari ST?

ANSWER: Maybe the 15000+ games (30 000 registered in C64 database) you can use in C64 mode would count for some owners? Maybe also all the CPM software that you can use, if you were into that?

Which C128 game (are there C128-only games? With hardware scrolling?) is good enough to be compared to ST ones?

ANSWER: In C64 mode, I would say that some games, example: Last Ninja 2 and Armalyte is better on the C64/C128 than both Amiga and ST version.

The C64 have no proper operating system, but CPC and Enterprise both support a CP/M type system.

ANSWER: C128 has CPM built in, both C128 and C64 can use GEOS, CPM is on cartridge with Z80 cpu for the C64 (slow and little used).