News:

Printed Amstrad Addict magazine announced, check it out here!

Main Menu
avatar_Ygdrazil

Speccy vs CPC - battle of the Ages

Started by Ygdrazil, 16:46, 12 June 09

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Xyphoe

Hey man thanks for your reply, I'll reply to each bit below like you did to clear anything up. Lets keep this friendly and nice, we're not attacking each other here :)

Quote from: ukmarkh on 19:15, 25 June 09
You didn't need to post here or get involved...

Sorry, what do you mean by that? I'm not someone who's come across from Retro Gamer forums just to post here on this topic.. I've been on cpczone forums for years! And that TACGR forums before that! As for getting involved, this is an open forum right?

Quote from: ukmarkh
and I'm not sure if you're in some way insinuating that I'm just here to recite posts and comments from RetroGamer, in order to cause some sort of trouble.

No but I'm concerned that you *may* be doing this. I don't mean this as any slight or attack on you, but from reading RG forums too for a long time I'm sure I remember a long time ago you posting on there saying that the Amstrad WAS the most powerful (although, this was a long time ago and apologies in advance if that wasn't you or it was a different comment, but you did post that dreadful Amstrad Action 'trendsetter' article that claimed such stuff like 'Shadow Of The Beast was developed on the CPC'...in the 10 things you didn't know about the CPC topic) and it appears if so you're now saying the opposite after being involved with much discussion about the merits of the machines over there. I was just a little puzzled and curious about this, and just concerned that you're taking for gospel truth words that have been written that may not be true or at least the full picture especially if you're taking up the mantle and huge responsibility of finishing the CPC book. So that's no disrespect intended to you or anyone else on other forums etc but that you may find 'better' answers on here from the people really developing hardcore stuff like Executioner, Longshot, Arnoldemu, etc.

Quote from: ukmarkh
I don't appreciate how you've aimed the 'how to suck eggs story' at me, using your car as an analogy. I have my own mind, just as everyone else on here, and naturally along with having a brain people form opinions about certain things.

Well, if I'm being honest .. yes the first paragraph of my reply was aimed towards you and the tone deliberately slightly patronising because frankly I was annoyed at how you replied to Longshot which I thought was very rude (I could understand what he was saying despite not being perfect English) and how it appeared to me you put your statements across and changing your tune from a while back. Plus dude with all due respect you can't tell me some of your own posts in the past haven't been taken badly by people. It confused and annoyed me slightly, but thats maybe because I'm just passionate about the CPC and will 'defend its honour' perhaps sometimes a little too strongly (the original post I changed because I thought it was too angry and attacking you) - its just a little more shocking seeing statements from someone who's really supported and contributed to the CPC (dont get me wrong - I think you're really cool for doing all the YouTube vids, the hard work into the CPC book etc).

The car analogy wasn't specifically aimed at you at all, but a general comment on how people as a whole get into these discussions about things not just about retro computers about 'what is the best' and more often than not completely pointless.

The discussion tho *is* fun, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be talked about but that we should be careful what we lay down as 'fact' and how it is presented.

Quote from: ukmarkhI also think that TMR is a long time admirer of the CPC, by all means he loves the C64 to bits, but that doesn't mean his opinion is any less valid or untruthful. He comes across as an experienced and level headed sort of guy, maybe on par with executioner in some respects.

Probably begrudgingly so  ;) But yes, I don't necessarily disagree with 95% of what he's said.

Quote from: ukmarkhHow you can say you can't compare a machines technical ability by looking and comparing its back catalogue of game software searches me... games are what make and sell a machine, they push the hardware to its boundaries, hardware is nothing without the sum of its software, and this is what all tech comparisons should be based on. If Amstrad didn't intend the CPC as a games computer, why on earth did they fall over themselves to release Amsoft, and package the machine with ten free games?

I'm sorry but just how is that relevant? It's only relevant if you're talking about the 'popularity' of the machine. Isn't the discussion originally about what is more powerful? OK if we're talking specifically 8-bit home computers technically the Sam Coupe is more powerful than the CPC, but only had about 30 games ever realeased for it! Compare its version of Lemmings to the CPCs. Just because it had less games doesn't make it less powerful, indeed for any machine that had 1000 games released but only 10 of which were 'awesome'.

Quote from: ukmarkhAs for favouring one machine over another, well I'm certainly guilty of that, It's Amstrad CPC 6128 all the way for me, and always will be... but that doesn't mean my investigation or opinions should be distorted or corrupt in regards to the other machines.

Good man  ;D And yep, I hope it doesn't - I just want to clarify that with you  :)


Quote from: ukmarkhI personally like talking about this age old topic, I find the 8-bit computer really fascinating, and when people start talking technical about such things, I'm in my element. And no! I don't really wanna stop talking about such things either. It's a technical forum, I'd like to improve my knowledge of the CPC, and other 8-bit and 16-bit computers, no matter how subjective you believe a topic of conversion to be.

Cool! And I'm enjoying this discussion too! We're all passionate about these things, and I certainly dont want to turn our discussion into something personal. No no, not at all.

Quote from: ukmarkhI've no idea about that, Everyone I knew that owned an Amstrad only played games on it, including myself... my brother used a PCW for his homework. From a quick search on the tinternet, and looking at the popular apps of the time, i.e. Mini Office II and a few more that escape me... all pretty much saw a commercial release on the C64 and Speccy.

Furry muff. There was probably 3 or 4 us at secondary school that had disk based CPC's who used them for doing homework etc - I handed in all my essays for school and college printed from my DMP  ;D I knew about the same amount of people for both Speccy and C64 who didn't. In fact my primary school has 6128s there ... indeed my first 6128 came from my music teacher!

Quote from: ukmarkhGood on you, and it's the same with me... but some of the closed minded comments on here, are unbelievable and unfounded towards the C64 and Speccy.

Yea man, we can't all help being a little biased. I have to admit I'm jealous sometimes of seeing the C64 conversion and getting a little angry at Mr Sugar inside! heh

Quote from: ukmarkhI'd hardly call the scrolling in those games smooth, acceptable yes... but did Shinobi feature music in the 64K version?

Ohh, fair enough - I've probably only been playing the 128k version. But there's probably other examples out there.

Quote from: ukmarkh25fps? The average according to tests I've ran, are around 12fps. You can use any video capture software out there to see this for yourself. Not many games ran at 25fps.

Aye, yea thats why I mentioned Emperor Fossil earlier who did all those tests initially. It was illuminating, but to be honest didn't change the fact the most of the games were still hugely enjoyable and 'other factors' put them ahead of the conversions that ran with more fps.

Quote from: ukmarkhI'd disagree... as did Amstrad Action back in the day.

Heh, I wouldn't always trust Amstrad Action  ;) j/k!

Gryzor

Ohhh-kay....

Quote from: ukmarkh on 00:41, 25 June 09
In the one hand you say Lotus looks and plays like a Speccy port, and that = awful, but that doesn't make any sense and is contradictory, as you've said in the past that you love R-Type, and that is a blatant Speccy port if ever I've seen one? Please explain, my head hurts now?  

Well,
.

R-Type, despite looking speccy-like, is a sublime, very playable, and full of character game. That one spectrum port plays awesome does not mean that an awful-looking, slow, tiny-playing-area and with bad gameplay title should follow. Check out the other CPC racers...


Quote from: Xyphoe
I did all my school and then later college work on my 6128!

And not only you. My neighbor did his entire PhD on a 6128+DMP.

Quote from: ukmarkh
You didn't need to post here or get involved...

I'm sorry, didn't get that. Maybe you'd like to withdraw that comment?

Quote from: ukmarkh
Everyone I knew that owned an Amstrad only played games on it, including myself.[...]all pretty much saw a commercial release on the C64 and Speccy.

That's because we were young boys. I've seen lots of people *working* with the 6128, and back in the day the neighborhood video club and soccer betting office used CPCs to run the business... As for the Speccy and c64 releases, do you really imagine yourself working with THOSE versions after seeing the CPC ones?

Quote from: ukmarkh
I'd disagree... as did Amstrad Action back in the day.

Logical fallacy: Appeal to Authority. Proves nothing.

Please, guys, no matter what, leave personal accusations and attacks out of this. I'm serious.

Longshot

QuoteThere was probably 3 or 4 us at secondary school that had disk based CPC's who used them for doing homework etc - I handed in all my essays for school and college printed from my DMP

Yes. And that was my case too. At university school, we worked on IMS5000 systems based on CP/M and one project had to be coded in Turbo Pascal. We had two 5"1/4 drives to save our work. Unfortunately, these drives were so old that they destroy the disk (and the files) after some write operations. I'd adjusted the disk format of cpc to the Ims standard (easy with Amsdos) and so, i was able to work my Turbo Pascal project on the Cpc (i'd more ram with CPM+ that on IMS system... :P) . Lot of friends had used my Cpc to create backup of their precious files...About me , the cpc was one of the first 8bit reliable with storage. And that was a very good reason to buy it when you had experimented before some other systems... ::)
[ hope to be understood... :'( ]
Rhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!

ivarf

Quote from: ukmarkh on 19:15, 25 June 09
I also think that TMR is a long time admirer of the CPC         
Haha, NO!

From the Retrogamer forum

TMR wrote:
Did it need mentioning yet again? Especially considering the C64 has a slightly higher resolution than the CPC in that mode...

Ivarf wrote:
Whats the resolution and colourmode the Commodore 64 is using here? I have always thought the c64 is using 160x200 in 16 colour mode with atributes which limits the placement of the colours

TMR wrote:
Colour placement depends on the mode, Flimbo's Quest is running in multicolour character mode so one colour per 4x8 pixel character and three shared that can be split during the display (not including the sprite colours which are independent).

The resolution is 160x200 pixels (well, strictly speaking 152x200 since the hardware scrolling is enabled and the movement resolution is still 320x200 since that's a constant) and the pixel ratio is about the same as mode 0 on the CPC, but since the C64 has larger borders around that area, a direct comparison on the same monitor would see the C64 pixels being pushed into less space on screen, meaning they're at a higher resolution overall.


Ivarf wrote:
I didn't know the C64s border were that large. Thanks for the detailed description of how the graphics works on the C64 

When and if I will be playing one of my C64 or Zx Spectrums again I will be playing on a 28" PAL TV. My CPC uses a 14" RGB monitor. MY Spectrum surely is lowres compared to MY CPC 

Leonie

I don't believe in Speccy
I don't believe in Atari 8-Bit
I don't believe in C64


I just believe in me
My CPC and me
And that's reality.
  :)



Thank you John for inspiring.
Have a good time in heaven.

ukmarkh

Quote from: Leonie on 20:04, 14 May 10
I don't believe in Speccy
I don't believe in Atari 8-Bit
I don't believe in C64


I just believe in me
My CPC
and me
And that's reality.  :)



Thank you John for inspiring.
Have a good time in heaven.


This is a massive Delorean post, but fcuk yeah! Go Leonie... CPC forever!

Leonie

#56
Quote from: ukmarkh on 20:27, 14 May 10
This is a massive Delorean post, but fuck yeah! Go Leonie... CPC forever!

Pardon my asking, but what´s "Delorean post"?  ???

ukmarkh

Quote from: Leonie on 20:40, 14 May 10

Pardon my asking, but what´s "Delorean post"?  ???

Just means this is an old topic I haven't seen in a while.

Leonie

#58
@ ukmarkh:

There is a default in your quotation of my post.
Please correct it, it spoils my art!

ukmarkh

Quote from: Leonie on 21:11, 14 May 10
@ ukmarkh:

There is a default in your quotation of my post.
Please correct it, it draggles my art!

To remove it, just press the any key?

MacDeath

#60
We also use the term threadomancy...
like Necromancy's Raise Dead spells but on threads...

On another way, the Amstrad is far more powerfull than the speccy in term of video and graphicall capability.

A CPC6128 remains far more powerfull  than a Speccy 48k in many aspects... (Video, sound...even Datastorage...).

And the best car is not always the one that win the Race : it's the best pilot that wins the race.

CPC was mostly poorly piloted.

Also Speccy was for Geeks, CPC was for artists. 8)

Ok Clive married Angie Bowness.

But this girl would look ugly pictured on a Speccy...
While a rastered Mode1 or Mode0 full screen on CPC or PLUS would simply put the Bowner in Bowness... :P

betpet

You can't compare two machines by the games they run like this.  It makes no sense.  That would be like me writing an application in Java with code optimised for the PC and then comparing performance between the PC and the MAC.  With the number of Speccy ports we used to get, that is the only real accurate analogy. 

The only way you can really compare them is to compare the hardware and then benchmark the machines in a number of tasks optimised to their specific strengths.

Personally, I feel that if the Speccy was the 'better machine' they'd have written code for the Amstrad and ported to the Spectrum, not vice versa. Since the Amstrad was the better machine, they wrote the code for the Speccy and ported it over with minimal changes to the Amstrad. Of course many ports didn't perform as well as the Speccy equivalent.  The original code was written to take advantage of the Speccy hardware! :)
Old Amstrad CPC 6128 owner. New Amstrad CPC 464 and 6128 owner. Getting back the love!

MacDeath

#62
QuoteThe only way you can really compare them is to compare the hardware and   then benchmark the machines in a number of tasks optimised to their   specific strengths.
To be fair, on purely "serious application" matter... both have the same Z80...
I don't think there would be a great difference in.. say... a mathematic resolution ?

Actually... the Amstrad's Spectrum are quite compairable to Amstrad's CPC in term of Hardware offer...

Same kind of casing, Same disk/Tape drives...

Same sort of keyboard...CPC only having the Extrra F0-F9 keys ?

Perhaps even almost the same amount of RAM if you take the 6128 into account...



So the Games are quite the stuff it is at.


But, well...
To me, Monocolour games or colourclashing games is no better than slow game.

And I like the fact CPC have a decent palette and proper modes to use it.

Sounds ?
not that different too.
OK AY on speccy is faster... and perhaps a MIDI port on Speccy ?


Yet as you told, the CPC can actually "run" Speccy programs with only few alterations (despite doing this badly) while speccy can't do shit with Amstrad stuff...

Sounds : Many speccy 48 have no AY sound.
Video : A speccy is actually half a Mode2 screen in display... and yyou caan't get coloured sprites with decent mask and so on unless colour clashes on speccy... or sqimply run monocolour game area...

Gryzor

Every time I read about the Speccy's "high-res graphics"... it just cracks me up.

MacDeath

#64
To add to the injury and madness, speccy fans also often tell that most speccy ports have a smaller screen on CPC so it have a poor resolution...
While speccy is so "HighRez" and Awesome large screen with so few border...


Well...
Even a full screen Mode0 is actually more detailed than a speccy IMO...
Considering the vertical additions... and the extra colours...

Fact is, if you actually compare speccy and CPC on same-size screen...
both speccy in its only graphic "mode" and a CPC in real 320x200x4 mode...

The CPC is quite better.
Ok, only 4 colours instead of "8"...
But fine 3 or even 4 levels ditherings, detailed stuff not character bond... and so on...

And the pixels are actually smallers on CPC.

No wonder the Eastern Scene had to customize clones with extra stuff in it...

Oh, and simply display the orange on screen... Speccyfags cannot do this... ;)

Shredder11

I wonder if the CPC would have existed if it was not for the Spectrum really kickstarting the UK home owning scene?  Amstrad have always been opportunistic parasites and saw the rapid succes of the Speccy and the market it helped create, so Mr Sugar waded in to try and make a killing.  I got a CPC464 in 1987, a few years after my Spectrum 48K in 1983 and I love them both dearly.  Sure we all know which has the better technical spec, but let us not forget the contribution the Spectrum gave to the creation of the CPC.
Amstrad CPC6128, 3.5" Ext' Floppy, SD HxC Floppy Emulator

Gryzor

Nobody quite forgets that... in my view Sugar would probably have made something sooner or later even if it weren't for the Speccy. I mean, there *were* other producers in the UK and, most importantly, abroad, so the micro was sure to catch on at some point. At which point Sugar would probably reiterate his recipe for simplicity and price.

MacDeath

#67
Sugar's philosophy was "don't give more than what is needed".

This explains why the CPC don't have some "extra cool features".

Such as Sprites and scrolls...

Stuff like MSX per exemples, included a lot of funny stuffs...
But did it helps betterly ?

Nope really, too much different specs...
You had a MSX2 to play MSX1 games ? pfeww...

But ok, I had an amstrad CPC to play Spectrum games, lol...

Amstrad CPC was quite regular in it's specifications.

Ok, my CPC6128 could have used a bit more its extra 64k.
But hey, I didn't have to wait half an hour  to load ghames.

If the CPC range had included more varied specs... this just wouldn't have worked.
Just see the PLUS...

special case of course, but.

The good point was that the CPC was costdown... yet had the minimum good features to be proper.
Colours of course, and Sound... in a complete bundle.

The only point we could really critisize is the lack of RAM.
By 1985 all the CPC range should have switched to 128K RAM and be bundled with a proper mouse...

This could also enable the "same motherboard" philosophy... as was done on PLUS range.


Also perhaps the use of some "not as good" CRTC on some series... but this is a Demomaker stuff...


It is to notice that the CPC464's keyboard is simply excellent.
(I used mine as a model for the pixart rendition...)

Large, comfortable, colourfull... I think this is the reason why the 464 wasn't turned into a 4128 with a more compact design, as the 6128 or the Spectrums from Amstrad (+2 and +3)...

You simply have the same comfort as on a PC keyboard (same dimensions...).
And it is just too perfect for children or even coders despite the bad placement of the arrow keys.

CPC6128 should have retained the Blue keys of the 664...

FatAgnus

#68
Quote from: MacDeath on 10:37, 07 April 11
The only point we could really critisize is the lack of RAM.
By 1985 all the CPC range should have switched to 128K RAM and be bundled with a proper mouse...


Wow... 128k+mouse as "default" configuration in early 1985... that's called Macintosh.
RAM was the most costly component in that years, and proper mouse environment based on Z80 and 3" disks...yup!
CPC6128 was too much expensive for a lot of us, so making 128k as a default "entry" level, could kill Amstrad.
And 1985 was "the year" of CPC464 in a lot of countries (i.e. Spain). CPC6128 was the "I'm better than you" option here that year!

MacDeath

Quoteso making 128k as a default "entry" level, could kill Amstrad.
But they did it with their spectrums... :'( :'( :'(

arnoldemu

Quote from: MacDeath on 10:37, 07 April 11
Sugar's philosophy was "don't give more than what is needed".

I am sure it is more about price than what is needed.

I read somewhere that people were asking for 128k machines, and also seperately asking for disc machines.
The CPC6128 ended up being both, and of course was more expensive.

The market in France pushed more towards people getting a cpc6128.
My games. My Games
My website with coding examples: Unofficial Amstrad WWW Resource

FatAgnus

80's were a very fast years! +2 sucess was reached 1986, one year later.
Anyway, the history could be slightly different in each country, but IMHO, Amstrad do it very well in that EARLY years.
They failed when DOCUMENTING their hardware (perhaps CRTC variants are the guilty ones)
And, of course, they avoid jumping to M68000 at late 80s, a must if you want to survive.
And then we meet Amiga. And Spectrum ones meet ST (only trolling!  :laugh: )



arnoldemu

Quote from: FatAgnus on 12:01, 07 April 11
They failed when DOCUMENTING their hardware (perhaps CRTC variants are the guilty ones)
Generally their documentation was quite good if you were interested in the firmware, AMSDOS or CPM. Of course, the documentation on the hardware was not so exact.

In the UK at least, the problem was that the best documentation manual "SOFT968" became hard to find and was in short supply.

It is a pity they didn't document that they used different crtc, and other information, otherwise we could have had more games that utilised demo like techniques.
My games. My Games
My website with coding examples: Unofficial Amstrad WWW Resource

FatAgnus

#73
Right, and you are from UK. Could you imagine to obtain it from Spain in 1985?  :'(
Here you could only buy 2 books, mainly z80+firmware.
Magazines throw you a few bits about CRTC (very very very few bits)


But UNDOCUMENTED MACHINES were a common here, I IMPORTED FROM USA all my Amiga books (Amiga System Developer's Guide, Amiga Hardware Reference Manual... with them I learned English... that explains a lot of things!  :D )


Until "PC INTERNO", i386+VESA times, you can't learn to work at hardware-level in Spanish! (Michael Tischer's book translation, sorry)

einoeL

Quote from: FatAgnus on 10:57, 07 April 11
And 1985 was "the year" of CPC464 in a lot of countries (i.e. Spain). CPC6128 was the "I'm better than you" option here that year!

I don't like the 464, it's an ugly CPC.
The CPC6128 is the love of my life.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod