22-page 2013 controversial topic about the Amstrad CPC on an Amiga forum

[lmimmfn]

The original Amigas GUI was slower than the actual one for the CPC.

I dont understand this, the CPC doesnt have a GUI, it simply has a UI, also how was Workbench slow? you mean A1000 initially requiring the Kickstart ROM to be loaded from disk as it wasnt ready to burn to ROM or?

[MaV]

Oh, it's not a double standard—it's just perspective. The Atari 8-bit was already packed with potential, and people are still uncovering new ways to push it further. The CPC, on the other hand, needed good programmers and to perform miracles just to break free from "Speccy mode."

So the good CPC programmers had to resort to "magic" to make things happen, while the Atari 8-bit scene uncovered new ways to push the system further, as if the potential was only there on the Atari 8-bits. Besides that the CPC never was packed with potential it seems.
It is not a matter of perspective, you're basically calling us idiots except for a few chosen ones.

That is a textbook example of a double-standard.

Besides the Spectrum mode was grounded in the laziness of companies when porting games to the CPC because the CPC had the ability to change the screen to the dimensions of the Spectrum.
You're confusing things that happened in the 80s with tricks uncovered in recent times, whether on the CPC or the Atari.


Sigh. Anyway, the recent (2021?) Atari game Albert from Poland is a wonderful example how bigger sprites can be implemented on the Atari 8-bits, right? (Perhaps there are better recent examples?)
On the other hand, there is a nice little demonstration by French guys to show how sub pixel vertical scrolling is possible on the CPC.

Let's honor both of these cases by acknowledging mankind's ingenuity.

[overange]

Oh, it's not a double standard—it's just perspective. The Atari 8-bit was already packed with potential, and people are still uncovering new ways to push it further. The CPC, on the other hand, needed good programmers and to perform miracles just to break free from "Speccy mode."

So the good CPC programmers had to resort to "magic" to make things happen, while the Atari 8-bit scene uncovered new ways to push the system further, as if the potential was only there on the Atari 8-bits. Besides that the CPC never was packed with potential it seems.
It is not a matter of perspective, you're basically calling us idiots except for a few chosen ones.
That is a textbook example of a double-standard.
Besides the Spectrum mode was grounded in the laziness of companies when porting games to the CPC because the CPC had the ability to change the screen to the dimensions of the Spectrum.
You're confusing things that happened in the 80s with tricks uncovered in recent times, whether on the CPC or the Atari.
Sigh. Anyway, the recent (2021?) Atari game Albert from Poland is a wonderful example how bigger sprites can be implemented on the Atari 8-bits, right? (Perhaps there are better recent examples?)
On the other hand, there is a nice little demonstration by French guys to show how sub pixel vertical scrolling is possible on the CPC.
Let's honor both of these cases by acknowledging mankind's ingenuity.

Ah, so now it's "magic" when CPC programmers do it but "uncovering potential" when other systems devs do it? Sounds more like selective wording than a real difference. Both systems had their strengths and limitations, and both benefited from developers pushing the boundaries over time.

The CPC absolutely had potential—it just wasn't always given the chance to shine thanks to lazy ports and rushed development back in the day. That doesn't mean the capability wasn't there; it just means it took longer for people to tap into it properly.
And no, nobody's calling anyone an "idiot"—unless you're suggesting that discovering new tricks on one system is "genius" while doing the same on another is just "desperation." The reality is, clever programmers have been pushing all these machines to their limits, whether it's Albert on the Atari or sub-pixel scrolling on the CPC.

At the end of the day, it's not about one being inherently superior; it's about what people do with them. So yeah, let's acknowledge the ingenuity across the board—without pretending one side had all the magic while the other just stumbled around in the dark.

[Prodatron]

That's it, I so I don't understand why you started this again here.

[eto]

Ah, so now it's "magic" when CPC programmers do it but "uncovering potential" when other systems devs do it? S

Are you trolling for fun or do you really not recognize that it was you who made that comparison?

First you say about the Atari "Atari 8-bit computers were so good that people are still discovering how much they could actually do. "
and 1.5h later this about the CPC: "but let's be honest, needing years of effort just to make it work properly isn't exactly a bragging right."

Just in case you are not trolling: what's the difference? Why is it "discovering greatness" in one case and "needing years to make it work properly" in the other case?

[Prodatron]

I still have no idea if he is a troll or if he makes fun with "friendly fire" (like he said).

[MaV]

Ah, so now it's "magic" when CPC programmers do it but "uncovering potential" when other systems devs do it?

You mentioned "performed miracles", I substituted "magic" to show you how people conceive how you formulated it.

Really, re-read your first post, and ask yourself why people see a double-standard in the way you formulated it instead of going after the one poster who pointed that out in good faith.

[eto]

I still have no idea if he is a troll or if he makes fun with "friendly fire" (like he said).

My guess: testing ChatGPT how "well" it can start a typical 80s schoolyard flame war.

[andycadley]

I've always found the A8 to be an intriguing system, although it never really made much of an impact in the UK. Some of it's spec seems a bit weird though (only 80 pixels across the screen in 16 colour mode!!!)

I get the impression from atariage that most people who program it do so in BASIC, which also seems a bit unusual, compared to most systems where coders usually gravitate towards assembly languages.

[overange]

I still have no idea if he is a troll or if he makes fun with "friendly fire" (like he said).

My guess: testing ChatGPT how "well" it can start a typical 80s schoolyard flame war.

You are correct, you all basically had a conversation with AI, It just shows how quick and easy AI can give answers like this and the potential to troll and cause conflict. just like the original post.
I asked originally asked AI to break it down for me, but it responded like it wanted to be part of the conversation, so it stood in for me  

The atari 8 bit is because I have used it previously for researching technical stuff, and it gives me the answers far quicker than trawling google or AA or even asking in in a forum post, and it assumed that I am a fan boy....

For my own personal thoughts, I do not care what system is best, I like it because that's my choice not yours.

But what this has taught me is how the different community's are so passionate towards their favourite systems and how the community's treat each other and how they treat others who try and say otherwise.

To end my bit and apologise to anyone who may of gotten offended, this is me cancelling myself from this conversation.

[ZorrO]

The C64 and Amiga fanboy communities have always seemed the most aggressive and blind to me. 

They are the ones who are most likely to see only advantages in their own computers, and only disadvantages in others. And they never admit that there may be exceptions.

[cwpab]

I like the contributions from @overange , but I can see how some may find offensive that he pastes AI without letting us know.

Thanks to his messages, I've found interesting stuff about the Atari 8 bit family:

- A top 100 Atari 8 bit game video
- A longplay of the Saboteur conversion from 2016
- A longplay of the original version of Bruce Lee

It must have been a very different gaming experience. In addition to the lack of monitor, shared with other machines:

- The palette is very brown, but somehow I find it less annoying that the depressing C64 one.
- They got no Saboteur, Saboteur 2, Batman the movie or Gryzor.
- But they got many other classic american games, including Atari arcades.

(About the Saboteur conversion, they add a different intro and music... and I don't like them, especially the music)

(About the Bruce Lee version, it looks like we've been living a lie for decades: the "difficult room" was much more playable on the Atari version compared to the CPC version)

[Prodatron]

I like these as well:

Numen Demo:


A8GOS:

[robcfg]

Don't forget the great demos by Lamers like Cyberpunk!

[Anthony Flack]

I like all of these machines. They all have things that make them special. I am fascinated by the Atari 8 bits because I never owned one, I only ever knew one person who owned one, but they were so distinctive, the hardware is so different. Terrible sound, lovely colour, ahead of its time, really different. I'm sure they do have a lot of untapped potential. One day I'll buy one and start messing with it. 

I don't like the Amstrad's palette all that much. It's mathematically derived which is useful in some ways, but it also means you got several shades of pale greeny-blue which are almost indistinguishable from one another, when a couple more shades of grey would have been far more appreciated. Or some of that brown which the C64 gets mocked for, but in the world of orange tree trunks and blue rocks they could have helped a lot. 

I do like what people do these days, treating it as a 125 colour palette with dithering, but you need a big enough image for that. Some people are very clever at using the palette to full effect with perceptive tricks, but there are many more games that look garish. Perhaps it's because I started with a green screen...

I have heard some criticism of my Bomb Jack port for using Mode 1 and not being colourful enough. It's funny to me that a lack of colour can be controversial, when there are games being released to modern systems with 1 bit graphics, to great success and acclaim. But on the CPC, the community would be offended. Monochrome like a Spectrum! It made me think of doing a mode 1 game in ONLY black and white, in the style of a modern 1 bit game. Ideally make it a really good game just to annoy folk. Well, it's just an idle thought.

But hmm you COULD do it in full overscan and double buffer with bitplanes if you were only using two colours... people wouldn't mistake THAT for the Spectrum.

[retro space]

I see both machines as quintessential PAL computers. So they are brothers in a way! They are in the small selection of computers that embrace 50Hz with a higher vertical line count, unlike most other machines from the eighties with NTSC targetted line counts around 192-200 lines.
To me a CPC has more in common with an Amiga, than an Amiga with a C64. Although both Commodore, they seem to come from a different planet.

[eto]

To me a CPC has more in common with an Amiga,

I read that a lot, but seriously, what do they have in common? 

The CPC was developed for the home market, in a hurry with minimal cost in mind. Therefore based on outdated but cheap standard ICs that cleverly work together and had the luck that there was some software that was well suited to make it look better than it actually was - basically just a clever combination of already outdated technology that made it a perfect "compromise": nothing technologically outstanding good - also nothing outstanding bad - basically "good enough" to convince people that it's all you need. It's not as good as the computer at work for serious stuff, but still good enough. It's not as good as the C64 for games, but still good enough. It's not as cheap as the Speccy but still okay. 

I'm not even sure how it is possible to compare that philosophy to the Amiga. It wasn't even meant to be a home computer. It was meant to revolutionize. The Amiga was a professional system that was later adjusted to also work for the home market.  It's based on specifically developed custom chips where years of effort were put not only into hardware architecture but also into its OS. Something like that did not exist before. It was visionary and mind blowing when it came out. 

I would understand if someone says the CPC and the Atari ST have a lot in common as (imho) they were developed based on the same philosophy with similar advantages and disadvantages (regarding their respective generation). But the Amiga is a totally different story. 

[retro space]

To me a CPC has more in common with an Amiga,

I read that a lot, but seriously, what do they have in common?

• Both have a very flexible powerful architecture outperforming similar systems sharing the same CPU.
• Good quality RGB output with full PAL support
• Great quality BASIC/OS software with humans in mind, other than may crap BASIC or weird OS commands like DOS or impossible BASIC versions on say C64/Apple II.
• Good and fast built in floppydrive
• Good selection of ports/expansion options
• Compact all-in-one case
• Great games library
• Good 80 character support for business use
• Affordable

[McArti0]

I would understand if someone says the CPC and the Atari ST have a lot in common as (imho) they were developed based on the same philosophy

Exactly!

[Gryzor]

To me a CPC has more in common with an Amiga,

I read that a lot, but seriously, what do they have in common?

• Both have a very flexible powerful architecture outperforming similar systems sharing the same CPU.
• Good quality RGB output with full PAL support
• Great quality BASIC/OS software with humans in mind, other than may crap BASIC or weird OS commands like DOS or impossible BASIC versions on say C64/Apple II.
• Good and fast built in floppydrive
• Good selection of ports/expansion options
• Compact all-in-one case
• Great games library
• Good 80 character support for business use
• Affordable

I'll also add:

-they both ran on electricity
-they have keys facing upwards
-both names begin with A

[retro space]

To me a CPC has more in common with an Amiga,

I read that a lot, but seriously, what do they have in common?

• Both have a very flexible powerful architecture outperforming similar systems sharing the same CPU.
• Good quality RGB output with full PAL support
• Great quality BASIC/OS software with humans in mind, other than may crap BASIC or weird OS commands like DOS or impossible BASIC versions on say C64/Apple II.
• Good and fast built in floppydrive
• Good selection of ports/expansion options
• Compact all-in-one case
• Great games library
• Good 80 character support for business use
• Affordable

I'll also add:

-they both ran on electricity
-they have keys facing upwards
-both names begin with A

If we start doing "flauw",
The names don't start with an A. Commodore vs Amstrad, Amiga vs CPC. So they are opposite. ACCA.
I think they share a similar vibe. You may not agree, but I like them for similar reasons. Even Symbos reeks Workbench.

[McArti0]

-both names begin with A

I'll tell you more, it starts with "Am"

[rexbeng]

[cwpab]

Haha, nice Amstrad meme for a friday night!

[Anthony Flack]

The ST does feel a bit like a 16 bit CPC. The CPC itself is a bit like a BBC crossed with a Spectrum.

Commodore had their own chip factory so all their machines are full of kooky custom chips that set them apart from everyone else.