Atari 800 on a Commodore 1702 monitor

[rhurst]

Ok, I accidentally discovered that there is a monitor port on the side of my Atari 800 computer (I thought it was a cassette port). And, it's pin arrangement is the same for my VIC 20 cable, so . . .

I plugged it in and it works!! Interestingly, the cable works better (both video & sound) using the front audio / video ports than the rear ports with the split chroma/luma. I suspect it is because the video cable I bought a couple of years back is not properly wired for chroma/luma. Alas, the C64 cable I have has an extra pin in the center spot, and I won't go messing with that -- plus it has an S/VIDEO adapter on the other end in addition to the RCA jacks.

Despite the combine video signal, it looks, sounds, and plays absolutely terrific on the 1702! So why do I feel like a traitor?

[saehn]

Ok, I accidentally discovered that there is a monitor port on the side of my Atari 800 computer (I thought it was a cassette port). And, it's pin arrangement is the same for my VIC 20 cable, so . . .

I plugged it in and it works!! Interestingly, the cable works better (both video & sound) using the front audio / video ports than the rear ports with the split chroma/luma. I suspect it is because the video cable I bought a couple of years back is not properly wired for chroma/luma. Alas, the C64 cable I have has an extra pin in the center spot, and I won't go messing with that -- plus it has an S/VIDEO adapter on the other end in addition to the RCA jacks.

Despite the combine video signal, it looks, sounds, and plays absolutely terrific on the 1702! So why do I feel like a traitor?

Eh, I was interested in A8's for a bit but the community really turned me off. Not very active by comparison, somewhat fanatical at times. And while the computers themselves seemed OK, the graphic abilities turned out to be much too limiting for me.

[rhurst]

It's interesting and refreshing to hear such an open assessment about Atari and its following community... I think "fanatical" fits the billing justly. Not to all, mind you, but it is a lot more apparent in that space. And a shame, really. At the time, Atari 8-bits were a good computer that fell between a costly home computer and the outrageous Apple personal computer. And that identity crisis was too confusing for the computer-phobic masses.

Commodore was much more friendly in that respect, despite its marketing and manufacturing deficiencies. Those were correctable; arrogance and greed are not.

... but I do like hooking one up to a Commodore monitor. Sweet!

[Bacon]

At the time, Atari 8-bits were a good computer that fell between a costly home computer and the outrageous Apple personal computer.

And don't forget that when the Atari 800 and 400 were released in 1979 they were just as far ahead of the competition technology-wise as the C64 was three years later, with dedicated sound, graphics, and I/O chips; not to mention sprites and a 256-color palette.

[rhurst]

Certainly not forgotten, but I am missing your point. And no one can make an argument that Atari 400 was any more useful than a game machine, so let's stick with the 800 model which stacks up more evenly with the C64.

So even C64 -- three years later -- had a lower price-point, with inexpensive peripherals that made up the home computer. Atari computing suffered from expensive and unreliable peripherals, with incompatibilities in their DOS releases. At that price, their models were an expensive game machine and had little value as a home computer.

I own an Atari 800 and a TON of cartridge games. Even their first two floppy drives. The "computer" plays decent games. And my WICO trackball works on some of the better arcade ports in Centipede and Missile Command.

[dano]

Wow, you guys are pretty hard on the Atari and it's community. There are fanatics in every community that I've seen so far. The 400/800 seem to be very well designed, I use SpartaDOS and find it way easier to use than Commodore's Basic, and the system is very expandable too. Not to start a flame war or anything but I find the system to be very much on-par with the C64 despite being 3 years older.

[saehn]

Wow, you guys are pretty hard on the Atari and it's community. There are fanatics in every community that I've seen so far.

Which part was us being pretty hard on the Atari and its community?

As a graphician, I don't like the 160x192 multicolor mode because it only supports three colors unless one uses crazy PM (sprite) tricks through the very difficult to use "Graf2xex" (spelling) font editor, or whatever it is.

Regarding the fanatics part, I've never seen anyone on the Commodore boards saying that the C64 is objectively better than other computers... and I've seen A8 fans say that on the AA forums. It's a silly statement for any computer, it's all a matter of taste. There was a 500+ post thread on AA about C64 vs. A8, quoting all kinds of arcane tech specs. It felt like too many of them had a chip on their shoulders.

The 400/800 seem to be very well designed, I use SpartaDOS and find it way easier to use than Commodore's Basic, and the system is very expandable too. Not to start a flame war or anything but I find the system to be very much on-par with the C64 despite being 3 years older.

No doubt about the BASIC, CBM BASIC kind of sucks. However, C64s have access to all kinds of easy-to-use aftermarket DOS/BASIC expansions as well (like SpartaDOS).

I'd use the A8 too if I either grew up with it, was impressed by its capabilities, or if it had a more active scene. None of those seem to be true, so I'm just not interested. More power to those who are.

I find the games, graphics, and sound capabilities to be much more powerful on the C64, but again... it's all a matter of taste.

[dano]

I didn't mean that the wrong way, actually I had seen the AA forum A8 vs C64 and was thinking about it too, it seemed like there were just as many fanatics on both sides there. I agree, it's a matter of taste. The vic-20 was my first "retro-computer" and I've always had a special attachment to it

[rhurst]

Yeah, I just wanted to openly agree with saehn ... I read those posts, too, and it was such a turn off. Why wouldn't you want to embrace a talent like saehn in your 8-bit community? Not that anyone would miss me in the Atari space, but I only hobby program for CBM 8-bits because it has consistently been a friendlier place back then & now -- where you can have an open dialogue with impunity.

I still like playing retro games regardless of the platform. Each had their share of gems and duds. But I don't have to like or dislike the 'culture' that gravitated to each. So, I dislike the Atari community (and I despise the Apple community even more -- then & now).

[English Invader]

As Atari forums go, this one's pretty good:
http://www.atari-forum.com/index.php

No real fanatics to speak of, but plenty of hobbyists who know their stuff and don't really have a lot of time for idle chit-chat/flame wars etc.

[rhurst]

Wow, that's a huge forum. Thanks for the link.

[hawk]

An Atari 400 was my first computer, and back then, I thought it was the bees-knees. The 64 hadn't been release yet, and it was a choice of the 400 (16k) or VIC-20 (3.5k). It turns out that there's more to selecting a computer than on specs alone.

I was the only person I knew who had an Atari. My friends had ZX81, VIC-20, TRS-80 CoCo. All of them had far more access to information regarding their platforms than I did, and hence could make full use of them.

Back then I wanted to write text adventure games, but I found the lack of string arrays very limiting in the Atari BASIC when it came to converting any of the games published for other platforms.

As already mentioned, peripherals were horrendously expensive when compared to other brands, and it wasn't until a few years ago that I found out why the Atari data cassette was so unreliable. (And how to fix it.)

I still have my original 400, but it's now a XEGS that's connected to my Amiga 1000 monitor. These days I have a disk drive, but the interface protocol implemented by Atari means that it's much easier to setup a PC as full peripherals (including printer) than it is on Commodore.

All that said, as a recent owner of a VIC-20, it's the machine that gets played with the most. And part of that is the community here on Denial. I haven't caught up with Victragic for some time, but he lives not too far from me. Because the VIC-20 died prematurely, it was never extended as far as the C64. Now users are finding out what it's really capable of, and are coming up with some amazing results. It's no longer about the technical specs of a machine. If you want the best performance, just use a PC! It's all about making it do more than the designers ever intended.

Me...I haven't actually created anything of use yet (on either platform), but that doesn't stop me enjoying the products of others, and tinkering around the edges. The VIC-20 is just one of the platforms that has my interest, but right now, it's the one that has MOST of my interest.

[saehn]

Now users are finding out what it's really capable of, and are coming up with some amazing results. It's no longer about the technical specs of a machine. If you want the best performance, just use a PC! It's all about making it do more than the designers ever intended.

Definitely agree there. I see that there's a sweet spot between capability and restrictions that was achieved in the C64. I loved Amiga at the time, but now it seems too powerful. Retrocomputing is like origami for me: trying to render something amazing from minimalist beginnings.