CPCWiki forum

I was thinking about a more open poll/topic, e. g. "What is your 2nd favorite 8-bit computer?", but in the end I decided to do a Vs. between the 2 most successful ones.

I suspect the ZX Spectrum will win here as its games look very similar to mode 1 games on the CPC, but I'm not sure.

In my case, I prefer the ZX Spectrum for several reasons. Firstly, because I played 4 of them back in the day:

- 1985-ish where I played Cookie, my first video game, on my dad's 48k sitting on the living room's floor.

- 1989-ish where I played Bomb Jack at some friend's house in his room sitting in proper chairs.

- 1991-ish where I played Batman (the movie) at some other friends house sitting on the living room's floor.

- 1997, where I played Jetpack after borrowing one from a friend (I know it sounds ridiculous, but this was not "retro": this was a proper machine to play games that I wanted to try because I didn't have a PC at the time and was still saving for the PSX... the experiment failed because there were only a few simple games, and things like Matchday 2 or Saboteur were not there).

All of them were tape machines, as far as I remember.

But also and most importantly, because one of my favorite gaming memories of all time is discovering a ZX Spectrum emulator in 1997 and playing most of my CPC games for the first time since 1992, when the evil disk drive belt broke and my dad gave the CPC away cheaply (actually I played them one day in 1995 visiting a friend with a surviving CPC... and I gave him my original games, such a great idea in hindsight!). I also tried many random games on that emulator, discovering gems like Tornado Low Level or Alien.

The Commodore 64 is a weird machine I discovered much later, basically on Youtube. Never knew anyone who had one personally here in Spain. There are many games, even more than for the ZX Spectrum, but the color palette is so "emo" that I find it a bit unpleasant even compared to the kitsch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch) Speccy display.

Also, while certainly most C64 fans are cool guys, the number of anal fans seems to be shockingly high compared to other retro computers. For example, a few years ago I remember one or two Spanish C64 fans creating huge drama and feuds on Twitter over the machine modern game catalog and hidden capabilities, even stating that the colors were actually happy if displayed on a proper TV. Things that you would normally find immature when you're 20 years old, made by 45 year olds. So yeah, that didn't exactly help me appreciate the machine more.

What's your perception of these 2 machines? Am I correct to assume most of you prefer the Speccy?

Outside of the CPC, I went for the C64 due to the criminal amount of bad spectrum ports the CPC got, I didn't really like the whole blend in with the background syndrome.

A lot of fun C64 games out there that I got exposed to, which I'll list and why.

Kikstart II: Horizontal split screen 2 player is so much fun that you could burn hours on it.
Outrun: Predetermined tracks, but so fast and so smooth.
Continental Circus: More proof that the C64 *can* do a racing game once the programmers were arsed.
Buggy Boy: Best 8bit version of this game out there, the CPC version was just way too slow.
Ghosts N Goblins: Put the original CPC version to shame, and I liked the CPC version
Kung Fu Master: So close to the arcade version, however the graphics on the level 3 boss are a crime.
The Last Ninja: There is no version better than the C64 version, the CPC didn't even get it. It got Last Ninja II and it was such a bad speccy port that it even emulated the beeper speaker sound!

Just my 2,000,000 euros worth though. :)

The C64 has some nice and interesting features that made it a great game console and music device - and beats the CPC in those areas. That is at least interesting.

But the (original) Speccy is just awful compared to the CPC. The only reason to prefer it could be that the original versions of crappy Speccy ports run faster on the original machine (and are not crappy there). But then again, I would probably almost always prefer the C64 version. If not for the eye watering colour clash then at least so I don't have to listen to the clicks and farts of the Speccy speaker.

ZX Spectrum +3 ?   8)

C64 just for the energetic scene and great demos. And for the fantastic Ultimate 1541 + Assembly64 integration! (Which is the best thing ever happened for any retro computer since 80s)
(Don't get me wrong, I also am big fan of Speccy and using it actively)

My first computer was a Speccy, so it's always going to win out for me. Although the joy of the modern world is that we don't really have to choose one any more, just fire up an emulator and play whatever. Which is pretty amazing when you think about it.

I like the games better on c64 but I like programming more than game playing and for that I'd have to choose the zx spectrum. I did many years ago make some software in c64 but it wasn't as fun programming. I'm keen to get Vision Basic as that looks incredible for  c64 basic compiler. 

Don't rely on memory, just compare the games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wce82Q54dpA&list=PLIX9fyYxV0k_CanGbwkXdtlhmdtO62ZRW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsV2sw3ulg4&list=PLxOanVBhqd3tGbtF6YywnVMgSg9Gip6nB


C64 has a larger resolution, better colors, uses colors more freely, faster Basic, and normal command entry, and sprites, while ZX only has the DRAW command. C64 wins. And wide pixels more similar to CPC. :)

Quote from: ZorrO on 19:28, 18 April 24C64 has a larger resolution, better colors, uses colors more freely, faster Basic, and normal command entry, and sprites, while ZX only has the DRAW command. C64 wins. And wide pixels more similar to CPC. :)

Not really. In the higher resolution (320*200) the C64 can still only have 2 colours per 8*8 pixel square, except that one of those colours also has to be shared across the whole screen. So it's actually less capable of using colours freely compared to the Spectrum in that regard.

I think it's arguably about which had the fastest BASIC, but absolutely undeniable that the C64 had the most limited. It was completely lacking in any graphics commands at all and most of the things you'd expect from an 80s home computer relied on resorting to long lists of POKEs. 

It's a good machine for playing games on, but not much of a programmer's machine unless you were prepared early on to dive into assembly language (or buy an extension cartridge like Simon's BASIC to get a decent environment).

For me it apears to be very obvious that the C64 is much better than the Spectrum. The original ULA graphics just sucks.
Because of my old memories I voted for the C64, as 99% of my friends had a commodore and noone a Spectrum, and so I had - beside of my CPC - very nice moments with C64 games in the mid/end 80ies.

What is very cool about the Spectrum is that it created one of the best Z80 coders ever. That is always the advantage of limited systems.

C64 is a better computer and I love the SID.
I have both, but I feel better with ZX games so, speccy it is.

Quote from: VincentGR on 22:34, 18 April 24and I love the SID.

SID is.. well.. just loveable  :)

C64

I say this since I got a Spectrum Next, and truly realised how awful the plain old Spectrum was.

However on a 'preferableness / £' metric they are about equal - that awfulness came cheap.

C64 has SID, some ability to mix colours, sprites and hardware scrolling and 64KB. As a games machine it was far superior to the Spectrum. It also, due to its massive US sales, had a lot of business software that may have paled in comparison with the CPC due to 40 column limitation and overuse of blue, but at least wasn't 32 column.

However if you had a Spectrum as your first computer, I can understand the nostalgia weight that applies.

C64 was amazing by the time it came. Just comparing C64 games to Atari 8bit games, C64 wins far..  I compare these computers because pricing was similar.
ZX was same year, but waaay cheaper. Of course I would prefer a C64.., but price counts.

Btw, I met first a C64, a cousin got one along with a BASIC course.. and 2 years later, 1985, I got my CPC...

The 64 is winning here because people are more technical, but I suspect the ZX Spectrum would win among regular CPC users.

Because seriously, guys, don't you feel an emotional attachment to the Speccy games because of the simliarity with CPC mode 1 games? But running at their original faster speed! (and with color clash).

I mean, I know it's not possible that everyone has its CPC broken due do disk drive belt at 12 and then "recovers" it thanks to a Speccy emulator when he's 17 because somehow the CPC emulator arrived many months later to me, but... Don't you feel anything when you run the original Saboteur 1 and 2 and Matchday 2?

Quote from: Sykobee (Briggsy) on 10:25, 19 April 24that awfulness came cheap.

oh I love that comment :-)

Quote from: cwpab on 11:22, 19 April 24Because seriously, guys, don't you feel an emotional attachment to the Speccy games because of the simliarity with CPC mode 1 games?

Exactly the opposite. Whenever I see the Speccy in action I am reminded that it's the reason (okay, okay, not the Speccy per se but the decision makers) we got so many crappy ports.

But: it's also clear that without the Speccy we would not have gotten the CPC. It was a great example for Amstrad how to build a cheap computer based on standard components and at the same time it was the perfect example for what to avoid. 

Quote from: Prodatron on 21:09, 18 April 24What is very cool about the Spectrum is that it created one of the best Z80 coders ever.

Who is that person? 

Regarding Speccy ports.. My heart is always with the Speccy originals - because they run smoother and play better (even with the color clash) than our crappy versions in 90% of the cases.

I voted for the Speccy because it was my first computer (the 16k version) and I have fond memories of playing some cute games like Pssst!, Tranz Am, Jetpac, Froggy, Skooldaze and lot of others which I don't remember right now. Those games had some cuteness to them which the C64 games back then were lacking. And I was not very fond of Commodore in the 80s .. I did play my fair amount of C64 games at friends places, but I think I was also too influenced by the graphics style and the strong colours of the Speccy to be able to appreciate how most games on the C64 looked.

I had totally forgotten about Tranz Am. It's a shame it was released too early for the CPC. It's an example of why I like retro games. It gives me serious Saboteur vibes: it's amazing that 1 or 2 guys could create such original and expansive games with barely any references.

What a nice Speccy exclusive!

PS: It looks like the 2 brothers from Ultimate later founded Rare, where they programmed games on a cool farmhouse (https://www.google.com/search?q=Manor+Farmhouse+in+Twycross&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#lpg=ik:CAoSLEFGMVFpcE1kaGQ0WFR6ZHc3Qm5VeGVpU2ZIRi1tSWJHVEhhcnlLOEk3OTFH) (they said this environment helped them, I think it's a similar case to Lucasfilm Games ranch).

Quote from: cwpab on 11:22, 19 April 24The 64 is winning here because people are more technical, but I suspect the ZX Spectrum would win among regular CPC users.

Because seriously, guys, don't you feel an emotional attachment to the Speccy games because of the simliarity with CPC mode 1 games? But running at their original faster speed! (and with color clash).

I mean, I know it's not possible that everyone has its CPC broken due do disk drive belt at 12 and then "recovers" it thanks to a Speccy emulator when he's 17 because somehow the CPC emulator arrived many months later to me, but... Don't you feel anything when you run the original Saboteur 1 and 2 and Matchday 2?

God no! Mode 1 when done right is really nice, don't get me wrong.

But lazy Speccy ports made me utterly detest that machine (and I have a +3 here!)
The original Spectrum rubber keyed abortion has nothing lovable for me personally, having to buy an expansion just to use a joystick, and the worst external tape interface. How many times have I seen rtape load error?

Then the Amstrad versions from the +2 onwards had their own issues. Constantly chopping and changing the ULA's and causing all sorts of compatibility problems.
And don't get me started on the utter shitshow that the +2b was from a hardware perspective. @CraigsBar will vouch for me on this one.

Sorry, but the Spectrum was bargain basement, and with that, you got bargain basement quality.

Quote from: cwpab on 11:22, 19 April 24The 64 is winning here because people are more technical, but I suspect the ZX Spectrum would win among regular CPC users.

Because seriously, guys, don't you feel an emotional attachment to the Speccy games because of the simliarity with CPC mode 1 games? But running at their original faster speed! (and with color clash).

I mean, I know it's not possible that everyone has its CPC broken due do disk drive belt at 12 and then "recovers" it thanks to a Speccy emulator when he's 17 because somehow the CPC emulator arrived many months later to me, but... Don't you feel anything when you run the original Saboteur 1 and 2 and Matchday 2?

I never liked Spectrum games. The only game I liked to play on Spectrum was "Pang", and it was because I couldn't do it on my CPC. I cannot even play them on emulators. Sure, I could enjoy some of them, but I just don't like Spectrum games at all.

Then look at Last Ninja trilogy for example, or many other c64 games. It is not a matter of nostalgia, because I never played on a C64 as a kid, they are just good games on a good enough system.

My alternative system of choice would have been MSX2 anyway, as playing with my uncle's MSX2 was the reason I wanted a computer, but my parents (luckily) were addressed by the shop-assistant to get a CPC6128 instead (that was in 1989).

I find it a bit odd that here in Spain, none of my friends as a kid had a C64... but one had an MSX.

I don't think the MSX sales were very good in Europe or USA, right?

Of those 2 it has to be the C64 all the way. It's just more of a computer games machine. Although I never had either back in the day I was a CPC guy so why would I?

I had the best machine that I used for all my college and university assignments.... And oh let me play pang. 

I do not believe that either the C64 or speccy have a real 80 column display so are pretty useless for serious use. The C64. Excels at sprite driven games. The speccy excels at..... Erm..... propping a door open? 😉

So yeah of the 2 options it's a C64 for me. Unless you allow the Sam coupe and C128 in as further developments on the C64 and speccy platforms, in which case Sam Coupe wins it by miles.

Quote from: cwpab on 16:11, 19 April 24I don't think the MSX sales were very good in Europe or USA, right?

Wikipedia reports 9m MSX sold worldwide, 7m in Japan alone. Leaving 2m for US, EU and rest of the world..

Quote from: cwpab on 16:11, 19 April 24I find it a bit odd that here in Spain, none of my friends as a kid had a C64... but one had an MSX.

I don't think the MSX sales were very good in Europe or USA, right?

MSX was popular in the Netherlands. Philips produced several models over the years. 

My wife and I are both into retrocomputing, and she recently asked me, if I were coding games back then, and if I could only code each game for a single 8-bit machine, which machines would be in my mix over time.

The Apple II starts the list in 1977. Since neither the TRS-80 nor the PET can do graphics, that's an easy choice.

In 1979, the Atari 800. It's got sprites, sound, a variety of useful graphics modes, support for split screen, hardware scrolling. I'm not convinced that the Apple II keeps much of an edge for any use cases other than some very specific niches.

In 1982, I add the C64 in the mix, its sprites are a major upgrade from the Atari, and its graphics modes allow for quite some tricks, such that it's awesome for platformers and for tile-based games. The Atari remains firmly in place for anything that requires a true bitmap framebuffer or hardware scrolling.

The MSX in 1983 opens other possibilities, its graphics chip is quite narrow such that it's very good at what it does well but falls apart quickly in other situations, it's in no way a generalist but I think it can do games that would have been surprisingly difficult up to that point.

In 1984, I'm adding the CPC, for games that need the specifics of its graphics modes, and are OK with the performance cost involved. E.g. 3D racing games. Oddly enough, while I feel that there are few domains where the CPC stands out far ahead of the other machines, I also feel that it's got fewer weaknesses and that there are few 8-bit games that can't be reasonably done on a CPC, and it's the first 8-bit machine that makes me feel that way.

In 1985, the MSX2 pretty much replaces everything in 8-bit, but the Amiga makes 8-bit obsolete. From here, the 8-bit world remains centered on MSX. In 1990, the MSX TurboR is incredibly advanced compared to the CPC Plus.

Note that the ZX Spectrum never makes my list, there's too little that it can do at the time that's out of reach of both the Atari 800 and the C64. Same about the BBC Micro, or the Thomson TO/MO series, or the VIC-20, or the IBM PC against their respective competition at the time, they're all too little too late in my book.

@andycadley - You are wrong about colors in 320x200 in C64. There is a whole byte for colors in the letter. 4 bits for background and 4 bits for pen. And ZX has 3 bits for background and 3 bits for pen. For example, it cannot use light and dark green in one letter, but C64 can. It's 160x200, in C64 we have 4 colors per letter, including one common to the entire screen. This allows you to flash whole screen by modifying one byte, which ZX cannot do. And ZX does not have option to use 4 colors per letter.

CPC doesn't have CIRCLE command, who cares? FOR DRAW SIN COS NEXT draws circle faster than the CIRCLE command in ZX. :)
It is similar with the lack of PLOT and DRAW commands in C64. One line of BASIC with FOR POKE NEXT draws vertical and horizontal lines faster than ZX. And diagonal lines are only a bit slower than ZX.

In my opinion it's not true C64 Basic is suck, and Simon's Basic not make Basic better. More useful is few short command in Final cartridge, and even better Black Box. Most important difference is C64 Basic is almost twice faster than ZX Basic, with that you can do everything easier.

There is nothing better in ZX compare to C64. Only sentimental reasons make people like ZX.

Quote from: ZorrO on 19:45, 19 April 24@andycadley - You are wrong about colors in 320x200 in C64. There is a whole byte for colors in the letter. 4 bits for background and 4 bits for pen. And ZX has 3 bits for background and 3 bits for pen. For example, it cannot use light and dark green in one letter, but C64 can. It's 160x200, in C64 we have 4 colors per letter, including one common to the entire screen. This allows you to flash whole screen by modifying one byte, which ZX cannot do. And ZX does not have option to use 4 colors per letter.

Nope. The C64 Color RAM is only 4 bit, which means in high res character mode you can have all 16 colours with a limit of 1 chosen colour per 8*8 cell and 1 entirely shared background colour.

You can get more colours on screen by using multicolour character mode. In that case you have a shared background colour and two other shared character colours, the fourth colour is selectable on a per character basis but can only be chosen from the first 8 colours. Why 8? Well it's because the upper bit of the four bit colour RAM is instead used to indicate whether the character should be hig or low res. High res characters can only use the shared background colour and the per character colour though.

There's also Extended Multicoloured Character mode, in which case the number of characters available on screen is reduced from 256 down to just 64 and the spare 2 bits of each character code is instead used to select one of four background colours.

There are also two bitmap modes which allow more flexible colour placement at the expense of using a lot more RAM (thus really only being suitable for static images given the lack of CPU grunt)

Standard bitmap mode allows 2 colours per 8*8 cell, but you can select the two colours independently from the full 16 colour set.

Multicolour bitmap mode allows 4 colours per 8*8 cell each of which can be any of the 16 available. One is the shared background colour, the other three selectable per cell

Meanwhile the Spectrum has a much simpler display, it's a pure bitmap but colours come from it's attribute RAM. Each 8*8 cell can specify freely one of the 8 colours for the background and one of the 8 colours for the foreground. A single bit allows choosing either "bright" or "non bright" colours (which applies to both foreground and background) and another bit can periodically switch the foreground/background colours to make a flashing effect.


And, of course, none of these are as flexible as our humble CPC which can use either 2, 4 or 16 colours per pixel dependent on screen resolution without any restrictions on how many colours can be in any one area, nor on which of the available colours they can be.

I mean... Sentimental reasons aside, and I can understand those, can you really compare the two? If you were a kid again and there were only two options, would you ever go for the Speccy if you had the money?

I guess that depends what "had the money" means, as well as what you wanted out of a computer. The C64 was a lot more money at the time and you could buy a Speccy and a hell of a lot of games for the same price.And if you wanted to learn programming, the C64 was a terrible choice. It was better overall if you wanted to play arcade style games, but that's because it was essentially designed originally as an arcade machine. It's all a bit moot though, we can emulate all of them and play whatever version of just about anything. We don't even have to suffer the C64's terrible loading times!

I had no money, so I knew I would only buy a computer once. I borrowed a Unipolbrit, I was disgusted by the Atari, I had a C64 from a friend and I wasn't crazy about it.
So the matter was clear, 80 columns and LPT only had CPC.