Scali wrote on 2023-09-26, 07:05:

aries-mu wrote on 2023-09-25, 20:44:

Still, let's assume our PC-hobby is more popular. We must be less 'effective' or less 'committed' (or probably both) in creating something out of it!

I don't think it is.
PC's are rather boring, generic machines.

…until you start to really explore them, for example by discovering what could have been done on simple, „generic” 8088 XT in the past — but (unfortunately) it has been done only many years later… just imagine something like that shown in 1986, when Amiga was all the rage.
Actually it's not about what kind of machine you own, but rather what can you do with that gear. You can do much more with old PC, than with old Amiga, Atari or anything else — because of the availability of the software, docs, programming tools etc.

Max Headroom wrote on 2023-10-03, 20:10:

…until you start to really explore them, for example by discovering what could have been done on simple, „generic” 8088 XT in the past — but (unfortunately) it has been done only many years later… just imagine something like that shown in 1986, when Amiga was all the rage.

Yea, I actually did the sprite and 3D parts for 8088 MPH.
Still think PCs are boring, generic machines compared to a C64.
Someone once described 8088 MPH as something like: "okay, 8088, CGA and PC speaker are bad, but look what we can do anyway".
I guess that pretty much sums it up for me. The PC never had that 'special' feeling the C64 and Amiga had (I had all three machines in the 80s/early 90s).
The C64 is actually what introduced me to the demoscene via early crack intros and some of the first standalone 'demos' ever made, by 1001 Crew and such.
The Amiga is what got me coding my own demos and stuff.
And ironically my most well known demo ended up being a PC demo.

Scali wrote on 2023-10-03, 20:33:

Max Headroom wrote on 2023-10-03, 20:10:

…until you start to really explore them, for example by discovering what could have been done on simple, „generic” 8088 XT in the past — but (unfortunately) it has been done only many years later… just imagine something like that shown in 1986, when Amiga was all the rage.

Yea, I actually did the sprite and 3D parts for 8088 MPH.

Congratulations then! Nice work! 😀

Still think PCs are boring, generic machines compared to a C64.

Then I came the reversed route, it seems: from VIC-20, through C-64 and then C-128 to PC. Why not Amiga? You surely remember the popularity of Turbo Pascal during late 80s and early 90s, and I couldn't have TP on Amiga.
Indeed at that time I had that feeling „although I can do various things in TP, apart of this my PC is somewhat boring compared to that multimedial Amiga” etc. — but the time soon changed, when SB and VGA became available.
And a few years ago — when I became interested in x86 ML — I discovered (somewhat late, but still…) that language of that „boring” CPU is much more powerful and interesting than ML of my good old C-64. Actually no wonder, since 6502 was created as kind of world's first microcontroller; its (mis)use as a „heart” of many well-known systems, starting with Apple, was only because of its very attractive price.
Yes, I have C-64 as something that brings back fond memories — but I'm more interested in exploring that „boring” x86 and — recently — ARM on RPi and its clones.
Well, if PCs are that boring, how it's possible that Abrash created so interesting book about programming them? 😉

Max Headroom wrote on 2023-10-03, 20:50:

Yes, I have C-64 as something that brings back fond memories — but I'm more interested in exploring that „boring” x86 and — recently — ARM on RPi and its clones.

The Amiga has a 68000, and an 8088 is to an 68000 what an 8088 is to a 6502.
So I was never really a fan of coding x86 assembly. I've always found it an outdated and cumbersome architecture compared to the 68000, or the PPC that I also did assembly for back in the day.

Max Headroom wrote on 2023-10-03, 20:50:

Well, if PCs are that boring, how it's possible that Abrash created so interesting book about programming them? 😉

He wrote that book in 1997. Those were VERY different PCs from the ones that were available when the C64 was still relevant.
And it wasn't so much the machines that were interesting, it was just the raw power that was available on a system. It could have been any architecture (Apple still competed well with the PPC arch back in those days, their machines were about as capable as x86-powered ones), but the PC was the most readily available.
That's the difference with a C64 or an Amiga. The C64's VIC-II chip is literally unique. You don't find it in any other machine than the C64 and its close Commodore cousins. It has a very specific way of drawing the screen, as a combination of reprogrammable character sets, sprites and colorram, and an instantly recognizable palette. You can do all sorts of chip-specific tricks with it.
Likewise, nothing sounds like a C64, its SID chip is unique, and you can program all kinds of special effects on it.
The Amiga also has a unique architecture with the copper and blitter, that you can program in ways that are unique to the Amiga.

Most stuff on PC just uses the hardware as a simple framebuffer, just dropping pixels in memory with the CPU. You can do that on any system with a CPU and a framebuffer. It's just, generic.
What we did with 8088 MPH is one of the rare exceptions to that rule. It uses the hardware in ways that are only possible on a specific PC with that exact hardware and timing. That's par for the course with C64 and Amiga stuff, as well as many other platforms.
Even so, you were limited in what you could do on a PC, because the hardware just isn't very capable.

I'm afraid I'm not experienced enough to make a proper statement here, but..
I think the C64 was fine as a radio terminal (RTTY, AMTOR/PR, SSTV/Weather FAX) and for controlling things, like robot arms and relay cards. Maybe driving a plotter or a CNC machine. Maybe as a tool in a lab, as well.

These teenagers used a C64 to do orbital prediction for a space shuttle in the mid-80s.
That way, they could make a contact with an astronaut.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41y2ITIS8AE

The C64 also was a popular terminal for EPROM dumping/writing, I think. Via USER port/module port, a home-built EPROM burner could be interfaced.

On PC platform, the same tasks was very expensive a few years later. EPROM burners like Galep and Willem were incredible expensive.

So old C64's were still in use in the 90s, working for a single, specialized task.

The Amiga in turn was a bit different, maybe.
It was great in the 1980s, but quickly became dated in the 90s.

Personally, I have a book in my shelf (Highlight Amiga) about raytracing that originally started with the Amiga, praising it.
In the early 90s, about 1-2 years later when it was re-released, it now was all about PC and VGA.
Then, Windows 3.1 and finally 32-Bit/Windows NT..

Anyhow, the Amiga was at least on eye level with the PC.
Even a bit after VGA debuted (Amiga could do HAM mode graphics in still mode, ~4096 colours).
Especially the Amiga 2000 (and 1500) had been used by professionals.
For drawings, for digitizing (frame grabber), for painting etc.

Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_j48O50crQ&t=130

The A2000 was like an IBM AT, but with m68k processor and better graphics.
It also had internal slots, floppy drives and hard disks could be installed (say, filecards), a video slot was available, too. Ideal for a flicker-fixer/scandoubler (31,5 KHz output).

Ironically, it's exactly the A2000 that had been neglected or even hated by the Amiga community, maybe.
It was considered being too IBM, it was not a wedge design, it was seen as being too ugly..

Speaking of the Amiga community.. It was very, um, vocal in the late 80s/early 90s.
Reading the letters in Amiga Joker/PC Joker and other computer magazines wasn't exactly for the faith hearted. There were a lot of PC <-> Amiga users arguments at the time.

Anyway, the Amiga at least got the recognition it deserved, even it was short.
Or as some once said, "don't be sad that it's gone, be happy that it happened"

Incidentally the video memory om the C64 doesn' t reflect cartesian coordinates. I'm not going to bother describing it. But one thing most if not all (early) pc video cards had was a straitforward bitmap. Cartesian, beginning in the upper left corner. You had to use a set of awkward instructions, or I'll admit nifty boolean logic to translate cartesian coordinates on a C64.

Scali wrote on 2023-10-03, 21:04:

Max Headroom wrote on 2023-10-03, 20:50:

Yes, I have C-64 as something that brings back fond memories — but I'm more interested in exploring that „boring” x86 and — recently — ARM on RPi and its clones.

The Amiga has a 68000, and an 8088 is to an 68000 what an 8088 is to a 6502.
So I was never really a fan of coding x86 assembly. I've always found it an outdated and cumbersome architecture compared to the 68000, or the PPC that I also did assembly for back in the day.

I'm aware it was very good processor — it was very successful, anyway — still even 68k wasn't ideal. And if so — we have to do our choices among several not ideal processors… I found x86 „not that bad” (of course not ideal also).

That's the difference with a C64 or an Amiga. The C64's VIC-II chip is literally unique. You don't find it in any other machine than the C64 and its close Commodore cousins. It has a very specific way of drawing the screen, as a combination of reprogrammable character sets, sprites and colorram, and an instantly recognizable palette. You can do all sorts of chip-specific tricks with it.

Yes, I agree with you.

Likewise, nothing sounds like a C64, its SID chip is unique, and you can program all kinds of special effects on it.

I assure you: nothing sounds like my Maxi Sound 64 Home Studio II soundcard (or any other featuring Dream chipset). 😀
That being said: I like chiptunes, but not only SID — there is good stuff created also for AdLib.

The Amiga also has a unique architecture with the copper and blitter, that you can program in ways that are unique to the Amiga.

Yes, it was something fantastic during late 80s — but since early 90s that „raw power” of 486 CPUs + accelerated VGAs combined — won!

Most stuff on PC just uses the hardware as a simple framebuffer, just dropping pixels in memory with the CPU. You can do that on any system with a CPU and a framebuffer. It's just, generic.

Why not, if that works, and one can achieve interesting effects using that? The creators of Amiga designed copper, blitter etc. not because they had too much free time — but exactly because they didn't have at that time that mentioned „raw power”! If they had that at their disposal — would they really create all that blitters, increasing Amiga's final price?

What we did with 8088 MPH is one of the rare exceptions to that rule. It uses the hardware in ways that are only possible on a specific PC with that exact hardware and timing. That's par for the course with C64 and Amiga stuff, as well as many other platforms.
Even so, you were limited in what you could do on a PC, because the hardware just isn't very capable.

That's challenging, isn't it? 😉

Jo22 wrote on 2023-10-03, 21:22:

I'm afraid I'm not experienced enough to make a proper statement here, but..
I think the C64 was fine as a radio terminal (RTTY, AMTOR/PR, SSTV/Weather FAX) and for controlling things, like robot arms and relay cards. Maybe driving a plotter or a CNC machine. Maybe as a tool in a lab, as well.

These teenagers used a C64 to do orbital prediction for a space shuttle in the mid-80s.

Indeed C-64 can do all of the above — but of course it was well-known back in the day as gaming machine, first of all. We had plenty of fun with our C-64s. 😀
Have a look here…

Max Headroom wrote on 2023-10-03, 21:33:

I'm aware it was very good processor — it was very successful, anyway — still even 68k wasn't ideal. And if so — we have to do our choices among several not ideal processors… I found x86 „not that bad” (of course not ideal also).

Once the 386 arrived, x86 became better, but the original 16-bit mode with segmented memory and very limited addressing modes, where most instructions could only use a few hardwired registers, it's very 70s. The 68k feels way more modern with its 32-bit linear addressing space and orthogonal instructionset. You just have 8 data registers and 8 address registers, and you can use any of them for any instruction.
Ironically I prefer coding 16-bit on the PC, because I like that early era. It's more of a challenge for a coder.

Max Headroom wrote on 2023-10-03, 21:33:

That being said: I like chiptunes, but not only SID — there is good stuff created also for AdLib.

AdLib was nice, but was rarely pushed anywhere near its full potential, unlike the SID.

Max Headroom wrote on 2023-10-03, 21:33:

Yes, it was something fantastic during late 80s — but since early 90s that „raw power” of 486 CPUs + accelerated VGAs combined — won!

Not because they were inherently better. Just because Commodore wasn't updating their machines fast enough.
If you look at the demoscene, the Amiga 1200 with a 68060 accelerator board became somewhat of a standard for later Amiga demos.
It can do pretty much the same things as a 486 with localbus. Quake-like software-rendered 3D and such.

Max Headroom wrote on 2023-10-03, 21:33:

Why not, if that works, and one can achieve interesting effects using that? The creators of Amiga designed copper, blitter etc. not because they had too much free time — but exactly because they didn't have at that time that mentioned „raw power”! If they had that at their disposal — would they really create all that blitters, increasing Amiga's final price?

Yea, that's what they said back then. But as said before: look at your current PC, and they'd prove you wrong.
You have a modern GPU in there, which is like the blitter and copper, only even MORE advanced. Full 3D acceleration, video encoding/decoding, even AI processing these days.
Yes, you actually DO need graphics-specific hardware, because the raw power of a CPU doesn't cut it.
Commodore had been right all along, as had the various other companies that designed their own graphics chips with special blitting, line-drawing or more advanced 2D/3D rendering stuff.

kant explain wrote on 2023-10-03, 21:33:

Incidentally the video memory om the C64 doesn' t reflect cartesian coordinates. I'm not going to bother describing it. But one thing most if not all (early) pc video cards had was a straitforward bitmap. Cartesian, beginning in the upper left corner. You had to use a set of awkward instructions, or I'll admit nifty boolean logic to translate cartesian coordinates on a C64.

Not true. CGA has a weird memory layout where even scanlines are in one page of memory and odd scanlines are in another. And it packs 4 pixels into a byte, so you have to do all sorts of bit-trickery as well to address individual coordinates.
Hercules is even worse, it has a 4-way interleaving of scanlines, so spread over 4 pages.

The huge advantage of the C64 is that its storage is far more compact, so you need to modify less bytes to update the screen. That makes it a LOT faster than CGA in most cases. The character sets can be used as tiled graphics.

Scali wrote on 2023-10-03, 21:48:

Max Headroom wrote on 2023-10-03, 21:33:

I'm aware it was very good processor — it was very successful, anyway — still even 68k wasn't ideal. And if so — we have to do our choices among several not ideal processors… I found x86 „not that bad” (of course not ideal also).

Once the 386 arrived, x86 became better, but the original 16-bit mode with segmented memory and very limited addressing modes, where most instructions could only use a few hardwired registers, it's very 70s. The 68k feels way more modern with its 32-bit linear addressing space and orthogonal instructionset. You just have 8 data registers and 8 address registers, and you can use any of them for any instruction.
Ironically I prefer coding 16-bit on the PC, because I like that early era. It's more of a challenge for a coder.

Well I gave you a link to an article, where 68k wasn't just praised, but also its inconveniences have been discussed.
Anyway 68k vs x86 it's the rivalry of the past, 68k isn't relevant today anymore — while x86 still is — and instead 68k we've got ARM. It has nice ML, especially ARM32 (they crippled it somewhat in AArch64).

AdLib was nice, but was rarely pushed anywhere near its full potential, unlike the SID.

Indeed.

Not because they were inherently better. Just because Commodore wasn't updating their machines fast enough. If you look at the d […]
Show full quote

Max Headroom wrote on 2023-10-03, 21:33:

Yes, it was something fantastic during late 80s — but since early 90s that „raw power” of 486 CPUs + accelerated VGAs combined — won!

Not because they were inherently better. Just because Commodore wasn't updating their machines fast enough.
If you look at the demoscene, the Amiga 1200 with a 68060 accelerator board became somewhat of a standard for later Amiga demos.
It can do pretty much the same things as a 486 with localbus. Quake-like software-rendered 3D and such.

Yes, I recall the series „History of the Amiga” on ArsTechnica, they described the fatal decisions of Commodore's (mis)management.

Yea, that's what they said back then. But as said before: look at your current PC, and they'd prove you wrong. You have a modern […]
Show full quote

Max Headroom wrote on 2023-10-03, 21:33:

Why not, if that works, and one can achieve interesting effects using that? The creators of Amiga designed copper, blitter etc. not because they had too much free time — but exactly because they didn't have at that time that mentioned „raw power”! If they had that at their disposal — would they really create all that blitters, increasing Amiga's final price?

Yea, that's what they said back then. But as said before: look at your current PC, and they'd prove you wrong.
You have a modern GPU in there, which is like the blitter and copper, only even MORE advanced. Full 3D acceleration, video encoding/decoding, even AI processing these days.
Yes, you actually DO need graphics-specific hardware, because the raw power of a CPU doesn't cut it.
Commodore had been right all along, as had the various other companies that designed their own graphics chips with special blitting, line-drawing or more advanced 2D/3D rendering stuff.

This does not deny the fact, that there was a time when this „raw power” was more than enough.

Scali wrote on 2023-10-03, 21:52:

Not true. CGA has a weird memory layout where even scanlines are in one page of memory and odd scanlines are in another. And it […]
Show full quote

kant explain wrote on 2023-10-03, 21:33:

Incidentally the video memory om the C64 doesn' t reflect cartesian coordinates. I'm not going to bother describing it. But one thing most if not all (early) pc video cards had was a straitforward bitmap. Cartesian, beginning in the upper left corner. You had to use a set of awkward instructions, or I'll admit nifty boolean logic to translate cartesian coordinates on a C64.

Not true. CGA has a weird memory layout where even scanlines are in one page of memory and odd scanlines are in another. And it packs 4 pixels into a byte, so you have to do all sorts of bit-trickery as well to address individual coordinates.
Hercules is even worse, it has a 4-way interleaving of scanlines, so spread over 4 pages.

The huge advantage of the C64 is that its storage is far more compact, so you need to modify less bytes to update the screen. That makes it a LOT faster than CGA in most cases. The character sets can be used as tiled graphics.

What exactly have I said that isn't true? Accessing individual pixels on a C64 is definitely not in a cartesian manner. In basic or assembler.

I don't think I ever programmed a cga card (except in basic). On a Tandy 2000 I did some assembly programming (using bios) and it's straitforward. Therefore cga would be identical, on that level. Programming the bare metal on any system is likely goimg to be strange.

All I did was point out A FACT, and your retort begins with "not true". That's like saying someone is telling a lie. Not very polite.

Max Headroom wrote on 2023-10-03, 22:02:

This does not deny the fact, that there was a time when this „raw power” was more than enough.

It wasn't. Look at consoles from the era, like the 3DO, PlayStation, Nintendo 64 or the Atari Jaguar.
They would have been a LOT more expensive, larger and more powerhungry if they had to rely merely on a CPU with "raw power".
It was just a weird period in time where the original home/personal computers with custom chipsets had failed to keep up with developments, so off-the-shelf PC hardware could compensate with brute force.
Game consoles were still doing the custom hardware thing.
And in the professional market, companies like SGI also did custom hardware.
Raw power wasn't "more than enough", it's just that the market had temporarily dried up for regular home/personal machines, so raw power was all you got, until companies like 3DFX entered the arena.

kant explain wrote on 2023-10-03, 22:14:

What exactly have I said that isn't true?

"But one thing most if not all (early) pc video cards had was a straitforward bitmap"
Which should have been obvious from the fact that I explained exactly how pixels are stored: not in a straightforward bitmap.

kant explain wrote on 2023-10-03, 22:14:

I don't think I ever programmed a cga card (except in basic). On a Tandy 2000 I did some assembly programming (using bios) and it's straitforward. Therefore cga would be identical, on that level. Programming the bare metal on any system is likely goimg to be strange.

BIOS gives you an abstraction with a putpixel-routine, so it hides the memory layout (at the cost of it being very slow and therefore unusable for any kind of action game). Doesn't mean the memory layout is a straightforward bitmap.
You can do the exact same on a C64, or any system for that matter.

Scali wrote on 2023-10-03, 22:28:

Max Headroom wrote on 2023-10-03, 22:02:

This does not deny the fact, that there was a time when this „raw power” was more than enough.

It wasn't. Look at consoles from the era, like the 3DO, PlayStation, Nintendo 64 or the Atari Jaguar.
[..]

Yes, it was. 😀
We're talking about PCs, not about consoles. And there were quite a few years, I mean the early 90s, when game creators were releasing their games (for PCs) designed for „lowest common denominator” (cheapest VGA) — so almost every game was using mode 13h. It was quite enough to offer a game with quite attractive graphics — and AdLib/Soundblaster sound and gameplay made the rest.
3dfx and then era of all that „heavy” 3D games (featuring textures, raytracing, that whole technology), that require accelerators — and which lasts until today — is somewhat different story. It's next stage of the games' evolution.

I there's a psychological factor here from a marketing perspective, I think people have an easier time with a singular item as a unified concept ie : amiga 500 or a console like a snes than a diy combination of parts.
I guess that's why when people look at Microsoft or Apple they think in terms of jobs or gates and not the full team of engineers.

Because even when you hit the 90s and pcs did have S3 cards and sound blasters and voodoos which are arguable equivalent to an amiga "custom" chipset just more modular and lets face it the rest of the hardware the cpu and sn74 glue logic chips are basically off the shelf , people still don't feel warm and fuzzy for 486s or pentium of that period vs their commodore systems.

Another good example is a tandy 1000 or a pc jr vs a generic pc , permanently solder some some custom or semi custom chips on the pcb and slap some branding on it and boom instant classic.

I mean consoles these days are basically just pcs and the switch a tegra but people will feel more nostalgia for them in the future than your current average amd or intel based pc.

The point IS the C64 DOESN'T have such facities.

You can program computer graphics in BASIC. you can also in assembler, utilizing bios subroutines. Or various other languages. In each you have access of simplicity of straitforward cartesian mapping of pixels. With either of the first 2 the Commodore 64 offers no such facilities . It's firmware is a known dumpster fire. I'm not knocking it, I'm just stating the facts. To produce bit mapped graphics on a C64 is anything but straitforward. Especially for.the amateur programmer. Someone getting their feet wet with graphics programming has more hassles to deal with as opposes to any color equipped pc.

We've already stated the 5150 had it's own home computer type ammenities. How many years was the C64 in production? And never were the godawfully slow disk routines redone at the very least. Out of the box a C64 wasn't a particularly pleasant experience. Amd before it's price bottomed out, by the time you added whatever was necessary to make it useable, you spent enough to buy a pc.

Most games weren't all that I might add. Granted anything programmed for cga wasn't either. But if you spent money on a pc, at least you had upgrades to your heart's.content. The C64 excelled in sound. But the graphics were awkward and unspectacular. And had 40 colums of text. And composite output. No serious work could be done on one for very long.

kant explain wrote on 2023-10-03, 23:17:

The point IS the C64 DOESN'T have such facities. [..]

…because the aim of Jack Tramiel was to offer as cheap (still capable) home-computer (not professional PC) as possible. They were saving even a dollar or two on ROM chips, that's why C-64 had just that atrocious, spartan CBM BASIC V2 (created by (in)famous Bill).

Most games weren't all that I might add. Granted anything programmed for cga wasn't either. But if you spent money on a pc, at least you had upgrades to your heart's.content. The C64 excelled in sound. But the graphics were awkward and unspectacular.

The graphics of C-64 was very good, if you compare it to the graphics of the other home-computers created in the beginning of 80s. Of course the programmers had to learn first, how to push it to its limits; it had to take some time.

And had 40 colums of text. And composite output. No serious work could be done on one for very long.

…because it was created as home-computer, not as professional PC for businesspeople. The Tramiel's motto was „computer for the masses”. Still in the 80s (and even later) many people were doing also quite serious work on their C-64, not just playing games. Like invoicing, for example — yes, 40 columns was quite enough for that.

The console was 600 usd in 1982. The 1541 was 400. And slow as molasses. It seems to me they could have spent a wee bit of money refining the firmware in it's 13 years of production. And they sold millions.

I hate to bring it up again. But by 1985 you could have a Tandy 1000 or 520st for the same. A world of difference. I wasn't particularly a fan of the 1000. But it was a hell of a lot more value for tje same money. I returned my Tandy 1000. I most definitely would have returned a similarly priced (though without a monitor) Commie computer. These were products back in the day. You didn't go dropping a grand on things very often. When you did it had to make good sense. As a vintage piece I love the C64/128. But spending as much on either, compared to a real computer, just didn't make a lot of sense.

Edit: the 64 + 1541 (-II in my case) were tremendous values when they were 100 us or so apiece. It wasn't my first choice or any choice at all in 1985. When prices came down I treated myself.

It was a competitor to the Apple 2 really, and hugely popular then and now. Personally if I was buying a computer in 1985, I would have gone with a Mac, but that’s just personal preference.

A lot of this stuff is just about personal preference and what you like. Lots of people love the C64, others love the Tandy or pc, whatever you like is great. People are naturally going to like different stuff especially when nostalgia comes into it. Whatever a collector likes that’s just what they’re into, nothing wrong that, we all like different stuff just like we all like different flavors of ice cream.

It’s actually awesome that we all like different stuff because there’s so much selection, so many cool computers, so many cool things to learn about and see and use. It would be boring if we all liked the same stuff. Half the fun is all the different stuff different people like.