CPCWiki forum

Some days ago I found this "gem":

English Amiga Board: Amstrad CPC, much better than I thought it would be! (https://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=69434)

The topic is 22 pages long and was open from 2013 to 2016, when it was closed due to personal attacks.

While some users are definitely a bit too disrespectful to other users, and some say very negative things about the CPC, others express their opinions kindly and a few users say they like the CPC (especially some French users).

While the topic is 12 years old, it's an example of how controversial the CPC can be. Seems many people either love it or hate it.

Among the arguments the CPC haters say, it's the "colors are too bright"... Could they have a point? Have we been fooling ourselves all these years?

In any case, the topic shows unexpected keyboard wars about the CPC on non-CPC territory, and maybe there are some points we can address over here.

QuoteAmong the arguments the CPC haters say, it's the "colors are too bright"...

Coming from the Commodore world, it's understandable...  ;D

Quote from: cwpab on 10:08, 15 March 25the "colors are too bright"... Could they have a point?

It's exactly the same argument as saying "the C64 colours are too brownish".

The question is: for what? C64 pictures can be more "realistic" or "natural" but you can't get a bright red or yellow for Arcade style games.
Bombjack DX for the C64 is a great example for that. The backgrounds are stunning - but the foreground elements and sprites are bland and lack contrast.

Personally I prefer bright colours like the ones of the CPC colours as imho they make a much better impression in Arcade style games. But we also have to admit that there have been many "sun burned" faces on loading screens or blue colours as replacements for greyscales.

Indeed. All the early 8-bit machines had some degree of compromise in what colours were available and that inevitably meant some scenarios were compromised. The Speccy and CPC favoured more saturated colours, where the C64 was a lot more muted (at least on PAL machines - the colours being slightly different on NTSC).

The ridiculous arguments over tape loading speed in that thread are somewhat hilarious though.

Quote from: cwpab on 10:08, 15 March 25Among the arguments the CPC haters say, it's the "colors are too bright"... Could they have a point? Have we been fooling ourselves all these years?

As much as I adore the CPC, I also think its colour palette is almost uncouthly bright and that mode 0 is, well, overrated. I don't think these are its strong suits. (Here's another reason to appreciate Bomb Jack Extra Sugar.)

BTW, bashing a 8bit micro on an Amiga forum is also extremely childish. Non?

I enjoyed that, thanks for sharing. Well,I could only read the first 9 and the last two pages. How it went:

-hey guys, guess what, I tried the 464 and it wasn't as bad as I thought!

-ARE YOU KIDDING ME THE C64 WAS THE BEST

-NO THE SPECTRUM WAS THE BEST

-Guys, the MSX was also the best *shy laugh*

-I'm only saying, the CPC had a lot of good games, some even better than the c64 or the Speccy

-CHASE HQ SUCKED BALLS AND NOW I'M NOW GOING TO COMPARE A CARTRIDGE-FUELED 64K LOAD WITH A NORMAL 128K LOAD GUUUUUUURRRRRGLE

Pity it was locked at that exact point, it was quite fun

In the end, the best machine is the one you grew up with. ;)

Deja Vu:

https://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/general-discussion/someone-doesn-t-like-the-cpc/
https://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/general-discussion/memories-of-amstrad-sh*t-quality-products/

Ah yes, the eternal struggle of retro computing enthusiasts trying to pretend their beloved 8-bit systems were actually good.
Now is coming from an Atari 8 Bit fanboy - Oh no do not shoot me :D 

Meanwhile, the Atari 8-bit machines were sitting there like a forgotten deity, casually flexing on the competition while the rest of the industry played catch-up.
Let's talk about the "competition" (if you can even call it that):

• The ZX Spectrum – Oh, you mean the system that had all the colours of a melted box of crayons but could only use about two at a time? Hope you enjoy your monochrome headache. And that beeper sound—truly an audio experience akin to a fax machine being tortured.
• The Amstrad CPC – Cute. Really, it tried. But what's the point of having nice colours when the system moved slower than a pensioner in a mobility scooter? Great for waiting, though—patience-building and all that.
• The BBC Micro – Ah yes, the "serious" computer. Perfect if you wanted to type out your 500th line of BASIC code just to make a square move half an inch across the screen.
• The MSX – The system that couldn't decide what it wanted to be. A glorified typewriter? A gaming machine? A karaoke machine? Who knows? It was basically the tech equivalent of someone trying to do everything and succeeding at none of it.

And then there's the Amiga—yes, I hear you, fanboys. "BuT tHe AmIgA wAs 16-bIt!!" And yet, it still spent most of its life running software that looked like an Atari 8-bit game with a fresh coat of paint. Just admit it: the Amiga was basically an overpriced, overhyped, glorified ST with a slightly better sound chip.
Meanwhile, the Atari 8-bit machines?

• 128-color palette? ✅
• Custom graphics chips that were years ahead of their time? ✅
• A sound chip that wasn't an afterthought? ✅
• Sprites that didn't look like they were drawn by a drunk pixel artist in MS Paint? ✅

Atari 8-bit computers were so good that people are still discovering how much they could actually do. So while the rest of the 8-bit world was out here struggling to display more than two colours without flickering into oblivion, Atari's machines were casually running some of the best-looking games of the era.
In conclusion, the Atari 8-bit computers were the true unsung heroes of the 8-bit world. The rest? A mix of industrial design accidents, budget office machines, and "home computers" that made you work harder than your dad's tax return software.

Stay mad, Spectrum and Amiga fans. Stay mad. 😎

Quote from: overange on 22:51, 15 March 25

• The MSX – The system that couldn't decide what it wanted to be. A glorified typewriter? A gaming machine? A karaoke machine? Who knows? It was basically the tech equivalent of someone trying to do everything and succeeding at none of it.

First good joke :D With 8 million sold units the MSX was the most successful homecomputer after the Commodore C64 (12 million). It was fucking successful. It is always funny that some ignored it like in DE, in UK or in the US and didn't have any clue about the rest of the world, so they thought the MSX failed, which is weird, as it was sold much more like e.g. the Atari 8bit, CPC, etc. :D
"trying to do everything" - it did not try it, it just DID it with much success. For music, video, etc. It was even used on the MIR space station. Something, about other 8bit homecompiuter platforms could just dream about, what it always makes it strange to read such assumptions.

Quote from: overange on 22:51, 15 March 25

• The Amstrad CPC – Cute. Really, it tried. But what's the point of having nice colours when the system moved slower than a pensioner in a mobility scooter? Great for waiting, though—patience-building and all that.

The CPC wasn't the best for games in the past, as it didn't have sprites but a big screen ram. But as soon as you know how to do it, you can do extremly cool stuff - sometimes about what an A8 only can dream about.

Quote from: overange on 22:51, 15 March 25Meanwhile, the Atari 8-bit machines?

• 128-color palette? ✅
• Custom graphics chips that were years ahead of their time? ✅
• A sound chip that wasn't an afterthought? ✅

- the palette which is terrible limited to use; either only greyscales for a choosen colour or something else limited
- the graphic chip, which makes games like Cybernoid nearly impossible because of its limitations
- the sound chip, which could not even hit a correct note
Jay Miner was a great guy, but you had all these 1970ies-style limitations.

Quote from: overange on 22:51, 15 March 25And then there's the Amiga—yes, I hear you, fanboys. "BuT tHe AmIgA wAs 16-bIt!!" And yet, it still spent most of its life running software that looked like an Atari 8-bit game with a fresh coat of paint. Just admit it: the Amiga was basically an overpriced, overhyped, glorified ST with a slightly better sound chip.

The original Amigas GUI was slower than the actual one for the CPC. And no, the Amiga was the successor of the Atari8 (Jay Miner), and has nothing to do with the more primitive Atari ST. It just suffered under the cheap ST game ports, like the Amstrad did with Spectrum ports. I start to wonder if you have any ideas about all this things?

Quote from: overange on 22:51, 15 March 25Atari 8-bit computers were so good that people are still discovering how much they could actually do. So while the rest of the 8-bit world was out here struggling to display more than two colours without flickering into oblivion, Atari's machines were casually running some of the best-looking games of the era.
In conclusion, the Atari 8-bit computers were the true unsung heroes of the 8-bit world. The rest? A mix of industrial design accidents, budget office machines, and "home computers" that made you work harder than your dad's tax return software.

The A8 is the coolest 6502 machine I know, with a great and friendly scene, as I met them every year at the big Fujiama party. E.g. I love(d) my exciting talks with FlashJazzCat, which you will know, if you are an A8 guy.

Like all machines, which can (optional) have a very low screen ram, it can do great game/demo tricks, which are not possible in this way on a CPC. But I guess you all know that the CPC is superiour to the A8 in several disciplines, for sure not in all.

Quote from: overange on 22:51, 15 March 258-bit world was out here struggling to display more than two colours without flickering into oblivion

And Atari 8-bit 4  ;D :P

Quote from: overange on 22:51, 15 March 25Just admit it: the Amiga was basically an overpriced, overhyped, glorified ST with a slightly better sound chip.

and pre emptive multitasking, animation beast, broadcast machine, music studio, the first multimedia computer and many more.

Quote from: overange on 22:51, 15 March 25Atari 8-bit computers were so good that people are still discovering how much they could actually do.

yes. still how to make a scroll  :o :laugh:

BTW. CPC is very "safe" equipment....  WAIT &0300,1  :picard:

Quote from: Prodatron on 23:48, 15 March 25

Quote from: overange on 22:51, 15 March 25

• The MSX – The system that couldn't decide what it wanted to be. A glorified typewriter? A gaming machine? A karaoke machine? Who knows? It was basically the tech equivalent of someone trying to do everything and succeeding at none of it.

First good joke :D With 8 million sold units the MSX was the most successful homecomputer after the Commodore C64 (12 million). Itwas fucking successful. It is always funny that some ignored it like in DE, in UK or in the US and didn't have any clue about the rest of the world, so they thought the MSX failed, which is weird, as it was sold much more like e.g. the Atari 8bit, CPC, etc. :D
"trying to do everything" - it did not try it, it just DID it with much success. For music, video, etc. It was even used on the MIR space station. Something, about other 8bit homecompiuter platforms could just dream about, what it always makes it strange to read such assumptions.

Quote from: overange on 22:51, 15 March 25

• The Amstrad CPC – Cute. Really, it tried. But what's the point of having nice colours when the system moved slower than a pensioner in a mobility scooter? Great for waiting, though—patience-building and all that.

The CPC wasn't the best for games in the past, as it didn't have sprites but a big screen ram. But as soon as you know how to do it, you can do extremly cool stuff - sometimes about what an A8 only can dream about.

Quote from: overange on 22:51, 15 March 25Meanwhile, the Atari 8-bit machines?

• 128-color palette? ✅
• Custom graphics chips that were years ahead of their time? ✅
• A sound chip that wasn't an afterthought? ✅

- the palette which is terrible limited to use; either only greyscales for a choosen colour or something else limited
- the graphic chip, which makes games like Cybernoid nearly impossible because of its limitations
- the sound chip, which could not even hit a correct note
Jay Miner was a great guy, but you had all these 1970ies-style limitations.

Quote from: overange on 22:51, 15 March 25And then there's the Amiga—yes, I hear you, fanboys. "BuT tHe AmIgA wAs 16-bIt!!" And yet, it still spent most of its life running software that looked like an Atari 8-bit game with a fresh coat of paint. Just admit it: the Amiga was basically an overpriced, overhyped, glorified ST with a slightly better sound chip.

The original Amigas GUI was slower than the actual one for the CPC. And no, the Amiga was the successor of the Atari8 (Jay Miner), and has nothing to do with the more primitive Atari ST. It just suffered under the cheap ST game ports, like the Amstrad did with Spectrum ports. I start to wonder if you have any ideas about all this things?

Quote from: overange on 22:51, 15 March 25Atari 8-bit computers were so good that people are still discovering how much they could actually do. So while the rest of the 8-bit world was out here struggling to display more than two colours without flickering into oblivion, Atari's machines were casually running some of the best-looking games of the era.
In conclusion, the Atari 8-bit computers were the true unsung heroes of the 8-bit world. The rest? A mix of industrial design accidents, budget office machines, and "home computers" that made you work harder than your dad's tax return software.

The A8 is the coolest 6502 machine I know, with a great and friendly scene, as I met them every year at the big Fujiama party. E.g. I love(d) my exciting talks with FlashJazzCat, which you will know, if you are an A8 guy.
Like all machines, which can (optional) have a very low screen ram, it can do great game/demo tricks, which are not possible in this way on a CPC. But I guess you all know that the CPC is superiour to the A8 in several disciplines, for sure not in all.

MSX – The 'Successful' Jack of All Trades?

Ah yes, the MSX, the system that was so successful that even its fans have to remind people it existed. 8 million units? Fantastic. But let's be real: a lot of those were in Japan, where anything that made a beep and had a keyboard got sold in droves. Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, the MSX was the gaming equivalent of those weird brands of cola you only find in discount stores—technically drinkable, but nobody really asks for it.
And sure, it went to space. Great. So did a calculator. If being used on MIR is the standard for greatness, then I guess we should all be worshipping the Texas Instruments TI-82 as the pinnacle of computing.

Amstrad CPC

Yes, programmers eventually discovered tricks to make the CPC do impressive things... but let's be honest, needing years of effort just to make it work properly isn't exactly a bragging right. That's like saying, "Sure, my car has no engine, but if you push it down a hill, it really flies!"
That said, I genuinely like the CPC. If it had received more attention and hadn't been stuck as a dumping ground for Speccy ports, we'd have seen far more of the great looking titles that are only now being produced.

Atari 8-bit's 'Limitations'?

• "The palette is terrible limited to use."
   Right, because 128 colours is so limiting. Maybe if it had a glorious 16 colours like a Spectrum, that'd be much better? 🤣
• "The graphics chip makes Cybernoid nearly impossible."
   Ah yes, because one game having issues totally invalidates an entire system. Meanwhile, on other platforms, you were lucky if the game even looked like the box art.
• "The sound chip couldn't even hit a correct note."
  POKEY could do four channels of audio magic while others were out here sounding like dial-up modems choking on a peanut.

And let's not forget: Jay Miner was a great guy... which is why he designed hardware that was actually good.

The Amiga – Glorified Successor or Just Overpriced?

• "The Amiga was the successor to the A8."
   Yes, in the same way a Porsche 911 is the "successor" to a VW Beetle—sure, there's a connection, but one is a refined masterpiece, and the other was... well, a Beetle. The Amiga was great, but let's not pretend it didn't get bogged down by  weird business decisions (cough Commodore cough).
• "The Amiga's GUI was slower than the CPC's actual one."
   Right. And a Ferrari with the handbrake on is slower than a bicycle. Doesn't mean the bike is better. AmigaOS was decades ahead of its time, but sure, let's compare it to a system that still used keyboard commands for basic functions.
• "The Amiga had nothing to do with the primitive ST."
   Funny, because a lot of ST ports say otherwise. I get it—Amiga fans want to pretend the ST was some long-lost cousin they'd rather not talk about at family gatherings. But let's not rewrite history here.

Atari 8-bit – The Real Deal

Look, I respect that people love their own machines. But let's be honest: if we're talking about which 8-bit system had the most forward-thinking hardware, the Atari 8-bit line was it.

• The MSX? A confused hybrid.
• The CPC? nice colours.
• The Spectrum? A keyboard calculator with a superiority complex.
• The Amiga? Amazing, but burdened by bad ports.

Meanwhile, the Atari 8-bit just worked, looked fantastic, and punched way above its weight class. The fact that it still surprises people today just proves how ahead of its time it really was.
And yeah, Fujiama is great— FlashJazzCat is one of the best A8 guys out there and tells it like it is ( just watch his recent videos on the Side3 Cartridge problems ).
But that doesn't change the fact that the Atari 8-bit didn't need excuses. 😎

This should keep the discussion lively! 😆

Quote from: McArti0 on 00:02, 16 March 25

Quote from: overange on 22:51, 15 March 25Atari 8-bit computers were so good that people are still discovering how much they could actually do.

yes. still how to make a scroll  :o :laugh:

Oh, come on now! The Atari 8-bit has scrolling—it's just that mere mortals need to decipher ancient scrolls and summon the ghost of Jay Miner to fully unlock its secrets. Meanwhile, other systems just slap a couple of tiles around and call it a day. Where's the fun in that? 😆

QuoteAtari 8-bit computers were so good that people are still discovering how much they could actually do.

QuoteYes, programmers eventually discovered tricks to make the CPC do impressive things... but let's be honest, needing years of effort just to make it work properly isn't exactly a bragging right.

Your posts are amusing, but please make up your mind. It's one or the other, otherwise it's double standards.

Quote from: MaV on 01:08, 16 March 25

QuoteAtari 8-bit computers were so good that people are still discovering how much they could actually do.

QuoteYes, programmers eventually discovered tricks to make the CPC do impressive things... but let's be honest, needing years of effort just to make it work properly isn't exactly a bragging right.

Your posts are amusing, but please make up your mind. It's one or the other, otherwise it's double standards.

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."

That said, being in the middle and having your own opinion is perfectly fine—no one's forcing you to pick a side. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter which machine did what better, as long as you enjoy it. But hey, where's the fun in a retro debate without a little friendly fire? 😆

Yeah I think these debates are fun as long as we keep it "as a joke".

I did some research some years ago about the Atari 8 bit family, as admitedly I didn't know shit about them living in Spain. I found that the graphics were cute.

However, I just googled it again and saw that, like all 8 bit computers except for one, they didn't include their own monitors, so the CPC wins.  ;D

I'm still confused about the CPC colors, though... Are they really too bright? Here are 2 screenshots I selected in 10 seconds by refreshing CPC Game Reviews (https://www.cpcgamereviews.com/) until a couple of interesting random games appear:

Quote from: cwpab on 08:02, 16 March 25Or maybe these are the normal colors and the people complaining about this are too used to the C64 goth kid (https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=9ae5aa3fc2568651&q=goth+kid&udm=2&fbs=ABzOT_CWdhQLP1FcmU5B0fn3xuWpA-dk4wpBWOGsoR7DG5zJBkzPWUS0OtApxR2914vrjk4ZqZZ4I2IkJifuoUeV0iQteOy-xbGIUoZJQoB64EJVfNDMHuaG7j8mzaInHpPzgknhGwcUyNPDg5tg57dkNZbacVYh6URrdU5psyJ0ERtXfqSsKaJl1HaPhF7_nZzTUpQVA1Ie&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3mK_8g46MAxV-VKQEHXaBKGUQtKgLegQIExAB&biw=1152&bih=599&dpr=1.25) palette?

Absolutely not "normal". But it's not just the brightness. I think it's the choice of saturated colors as well. I fancy the MSX palette lately with its toned-down colors. It stands somewhere in-between CPC and C64. Don't you think?


(https://i.ibb.co/N6rYYh1S/parodius-japan-alt-1-0748.webp) (https://imgbb.com/)

the problem with CPC colors was in the CTM640/644 monitor, it did not have a color saturation control system and a knob that is in every TV. There was no problem with the modulator on the TV. Spectrum should have the same problem (bright colors) but it was almost always connected to a TV where there was a color saturation control knob.

https://www.isprzet.pl/en/handheld-power-cutters/cut-off-saw-norton-clipper-ctm-640.html

Quote from: cwpab on 08:02, 16 March 25Are they really too bright? Here are 2 screenshots I selected in 10 seconds by refreshing CPC Game Reviews (https://www.cpcgamereviews.com/) until a couple of interesting random games appear:

Perfect examples that actually proof the point that they are "too saturated". 

Soldiers in bright blue colour tones, a tank that sticks out everywhere with it's bright green shining armour. 

A green sidewalk and bright red ... I have no idea what it should be. 

Imho those colours are perfectly fine for a game and I like the comic-like appearance of the games, so I am fine with it, but I can understand that people don't like it. 

Quote from: MaV on 01:08, 16 March 25Your posts are amusing, but please make up your mind. It's one or the other, otherwise it's double standards.

Exactly my thoughts.  ;D

Quote from: overange on 00:17, 16 March 25This should keep the discussion lively! 😆

:picard:

Quote from: eto on 11:09, 16 March 25Perfect examples that actually proof the point that they are "too saturated".

Soldiers in bright blue colour tones, a tank that sticks out everywhere with it's bright green shining armour.

A green sidewalk and bright red ... I have no idea what it should be.

Imho those colours are perfectly fine for a game and I like the comic-like appearance of the games, so I am fine with it, but I can understand that people don't like it.

The problem is exacerbated by our modern LCD screens though.
On CRT monitors, colours are less flashy.

For consumers, the more you pay, the more powerful the machine is (not true of early PCs, but eh). Nothing to brag about.
For demomakers, it's ironic to shame the limitations, as the whole point of demomaking is to circumvent those limitations.
The CPC hits the sweet spot between shitty enough to have to be creative, not so shitty the results are meh no matter what, and full of potential. I might be biased though.
Long live the Archimedes.

Quote from: Prodatron on 23:48, 15 March 25The 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?

Quote 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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1o1Gk-6gGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNfWa4CyehE

Quote from: MaV on 18:46, 16 March 25

QuoteOh, 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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1o1Gk-6gGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNfWa4CyehE

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.

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

Quote from: overange on 21:14, 16 March 25Ah, 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 (https://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/general-discussion/22-page-2013-controversial-topic-about-the-amstrad-cpc-on-an-amiga-forum/msg248900/#msg248900) 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 (https://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/general-discussion/22-page-2013-controversial-topic-about-the-amstrad-cpc-on-an-amiga-forum/msg248907/#msg248907): "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?

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

Quote from: overange on 21:14, 16 March 25Ah, 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.

Quote from: Prodatron on 22:16, 16 March 25I 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.

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.

Quote from: eto on 22:28, 16 March 25

Quote from: Prodatron on 22:16, 16 March 25I 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.

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.

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 (https://youtu.be/7or1jzRTVio?si=6-F_4fhq_J0iBnqo) video
- A longplay of the Saboteur conversion from 2016 (https://youtu.be/f8Tl-dcXIT0?si=Zi_6-COETuCdDCHU)
- A longplay of the original version of Bruce Lee (https://youtu.be/8GtyUE2jY2M?si=sSG56X_gdJ1qwKK1)

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 (https://youtu.be/HtBF7lBZWGw?si=FPlgt56w8yz4GQ6Q&t=659) compared to the CPC version (https://youtu.be/8GtyUE2jY2M?si=DKXZ6Mm56X1Mf8D2&t=687))

I like these as well:

Numen Demo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2Abi02Tlwk

A8GOS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T14dL9MeMHE

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

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.

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.

Quote from: retro space on 09:26, 21 March 25To 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. 

Quote from: eto on 10:50, 21 March 25

Quote from: retro space on 09:26, 21 March 25To 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

Quote from: eto on 10:50, 21 March 25I 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!

Quote from: retro space on 12:11, 21 March 25

Quote from: eto on 10:50, 21 March 25

Quote from: retro space on 09:26, 21 March 25To 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

Quote from: Gryzor on 16:21, 21 March 25

Quote from: retro space on 12:11, 21 March 25

Quote from: eto on 10:50, 21 March 25

Quote from: retro space on 09:26, 21 March 25To 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.

Quote from: Gryzor on 16:21, 21 March 25-both names begin with A

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

(https://i.postimg.cc/Bbnp6htL/TIA.png)

Haha, nice Amstrad meme for a friday night!

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.

The Amiga is mostly a continuation of the Atari 8-bit line (for obvious reasons). The ST is a lot more like the CPC or Spectrum in that most things are achieved through sheer CPU grunt.

The C64 was mostly an evolutionary dead end, although you can see similar traits in dedicated games consoles I guess.

Audio-wise, the next evolution of the Commodore 64 was the Ensoniq digital sampling keyboard.