C128 better than Atari 520 ST?

[amilo3438]

Originally Posted by john1979

Machine class.
This is meaningless?

Of course that ST is much higher class... you can not run a MacOS on C128 (or easily transfer data from C128 to a PC like you can on a ST).
In addition, is there in general someone who has used the C128 in serious purposes like Business!? (I do not know anyone)

[Flash951]

C128 was initially marketed as a business machine, that's why they put in a Z80 CPU and CPM, and made it so complex and expensive to produce. So you can us CPM business software, and you can use GEOS and all the business software for GEOS. GEOS took advantage of all features of the C128. With a program like BIg Blue you kan use 360 KB MSDOS floppies with the 1571 disk drive that was made for C128.

[PeterJ]

so by your logic, then the C128 is also better then a computer using a ET4000.
i know which card i would prefer to see my holidays picture on, hardware scrolling and sprites in not everything

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.

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?

[Photon]

Originally Posted by Supamax

Photon's post is not objective.
It took into consideration secondary elements.
Graphic is (way) better, CPU is better, memory is better, machine class is better.

This sounded like criticism, yet you agree with my comparison since your first 3 there each got 1-0 vs C128 - so the final score should be all right?

To be honest, I don't know how a comparison would look to be more objective than mine. You're welcome to give it a try, but my 9 points are sensible points to compare when choosing between computers, then and now. In other words, you can apply my style of comparison today, to choose between, say, two laptops, or two Android tablets.

My post answered the original post and was more on-topic and less subjective than many other posts in the thread.

[amilo3438]

Originally Posted by Flash951

C128 was initially marketed as a business machine, that's why they put in a Z80 CPU and CPM, and made it so complex and expensive to produce. So you can us CPM business software, and you can use GEOS and all the business software for GEOS. GEOS took advantage of all features of the C128. With a program like BIg Blue you kan use 360 KB MSDOS floppies with the 1571 disk drive that was made for C128.

Market performance... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodo...et_performance

quote:
"relatively little software for the C128's native mode appeared, leading some users to regret their purchase"

Wheres that Software? -> http://archive.org/stream/run-magazi.../n133/mode/2up

quote:
"But ultimately the C128 could not compete with the new 16/32-bit systems, which outmatched it and the rest of its 8-bit generation in nearly every aspect."

[Flash951]

The history can't be changed, no secret that Commodore failed big time at marketing and failed to get software houses interested in developing for this machine. Interesting reading, 5.7 mill. units sold worldwide in 4-5 years, could be worse. An "office" magazine for C64/C128 computer, first time I've seen that one, interesting.

[IFW]

Fact, and take this from someone working in the games industry: the lead platform is always the weaker hardware, as long as it has a significant market share, and you should expect this from the majority of the studios.
It simply saves costs; some may add features for a better platform, some would just aim for feature parity, and the cheapest way to achieve that is using the lowest common denominator as the target.
Once the lowest common denominator platform has no significant market share, the second one in order will be used instead, and the platform will be dropped.
The only exceptions are platform exclusive games, or if you can source a platform specific port very cheaply.

[Zippy Zapp]

Hey the C128 did get Ultima V. It was a hybrid disk, IIRC, but you only got the full music soundtrack if you ran it in 128 mode. The C64 version had no music. At the time, Ultima games were some of my favorites so it was cool to hear the music too. The Amiga and ST ports were out the next year but I think only the C128 version had the full soundtrack. So in this case the C128 wins over the ST.

[Flash951]

Even some C64 games wins over both Amiga and ST ports

[frank_b]

Originally Posted by 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.

Gods doesn't use the ST blitter. Chronicles of Omega and Zool do. That's why they run at 50 hz vs 3 vbl like gods

[PeterJ]

use most of this evening to read up on the c128, finding and comparing videos..
ok i don't know what you guys can see that i don't, i have not been able to fine a single video that showing a game in c128 native mode, i have also not been able to find a single video, where i think that the it beats the Atari ST.
so could guys please post some link for i can't sure find them

a shame that there was not more that made software for it (in c128 mode)
over 4 mil units, one would have thought that you could earn some good money on it.

[Flash951]

I think there was reasons for choosing C128 back in 1985 instead of the ST or Amiga:

1. In 1985, more than 2000 commercial games in C64 mode and more 1000 new games released every year at that time, Amiga and ST was new and had very few games yet.

2. Many friends had C64, millions sold, Amiga and ST was new, you would be "outside".

3. You got access to cheap office software in GEOS128: geoBASIC, geoCable, geoCalc, geoChart, geoDex, geoDraw, geoFAX, geoLabel, geoPaint, geoProgrammer, geoPublish, geoWrite, Writer 64.

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by Flash951

C128 was initially marketed as a business machine, that's why they put in a Z80 CPU and CPM, and made it so complex and expensive to produce. So you can us CPM business software, and you can use GEOS and all the business software for GEOS. GEOS took advantage of all features of the C128. With a program like BIg Blue you kan use 360 KB MSDOS floppies with the 1571 disk drive that was made for C128.

Well Plus/4 was also business machine, CPM was part of ZX Spectrum due availability of external extensions, C128 was 2 computers in one C64 + Z80 and most of its new features was not useable by games...

Please provide me data about how many FLOPS is performed by C128 and by ST- then we can judge fairly both machines (no FPU, software emulation, floating are used in business on regular way).

[roy bates]

c128, 8502@2mhz + z80@4mhz 8bit
520, 68000@8mhz 16bit

not sure how many flops you would get out of a integer unit.

[amilo3438]

Originally Posted by roy bates

c128, 8502@2mhz + z80@4mhz 8bit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodo...Specifications

quote:
"Zilog Z80 @ 4 MHz (running at an effective 2 MHz because of wait states in order to allow the VIC-II video chip access to the system bus)"

EDIT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_128#CP.2FM_mode

quote:
"The C128 runs CP/M noticeably slower than most dedicated CP/M systems, as the Z80 processor runs at an effective speed of only 2 MHz (instead of the more common 4 MHz). From the source code of the C128 CP/M implementation, it is clear that the engineers originally planned to make it possible to run CP/M in the "fast" mode as well, with the 40-column output turned off and the Z80 running at an effective 4 MHz; however, this feature did not correctly function on the first-generation C128 hardware."

[Flash951]

I would say C128 is more like 3 computers in one:
C64
C128 (usable for games, but very few were developed)
CP/M (not usable for games).

FLOPS? 68K kick 8502 and Z80 ass of course, no one question which CPU is most powerfull.

[amilo3438]

Originally Posted by Flash951

I would say C128 is more like 3 computers in one:
C64
C128 (usable for games, but very few were developed)
CP/M (not usable for games).

You know what usually happens if you like to appeal everyone? (No one will take it seriously.)

Gaming and serious business obviously do not go together.

EDIT:
Can you imagine the productivity in the office where they were installed c128?

[Megol]

So the CPM mode doesn't support 4MHz mode with the VDC? Always thought it did.
Learn something new every day, even about old systems

[PeterJ]

i think this videos sum it up pretty nice, showing the power between those 2 computers

Elite C128
[ Show youtube player ]

Atari ST
[ Show youtube player ]

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by Flash951

FLOPS? 68K kick 8502 and Z80 ass of course, no one question which CPU is most powerfull.

So you have your answer, ST side to this have better graphics (and lack of HW scrolling or HW sprite is not so painful in business usage scenario, also SW on ST showing that it is capable to overcome most of C64 advantages).