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

[cwpab]

Some days ago I found this "gem":

English Amiga Board: Amstrad CPC, much better than I thought it would be!

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.

[robcfg]

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

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

[eto]

the "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.

[andycadley]

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.

[dodogildo]

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?

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?

[Gryzor]

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

[norecess464]

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

[Prodatron]

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/

[overange]

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  

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. 😎

[Prodatron]

• 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 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.
"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.

• 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.

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? ✅

- 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[McArti0]

8-bit world was out here struggling to display more than two colours without flickering into oblivion

And Atari 8-bit 4 

[VincentGR]

Just 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.

[McArti0]

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

yes. still how to make a scroll 

[McArti0]

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

[overange]

• 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 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.
"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.

• 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.

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? ✅

- 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.

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.

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?

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.

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! 😆

[overange]

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

yes. still how to make a scroll 

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? 😆

[MaV]

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

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.

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

[overange]

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

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.

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? 😆

[cwpab]

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. 

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 until a couple of interesting random games appear:

Or maybe these are the normal colors and the people complaining about this are too used to the C64 goth kid palette?

[dodogildo]

Or maybe these are the normal colors and the people complaining about this are too used to the C64 goth kid 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?

[McArti0]

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

[eto]

Are they really too bright? Here are 2 screenshots I selected in 10 seconds by refreshing CPC Game Reviews 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. 

[eto]

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

Exactly my thoughts. 

This should keep the discussion lively! 😆

[Pollo]

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.

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

[m_dr_m]

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.