>better than the Commodore 64 in every way>America didnt carewhy did this happen? the 800XL is a monster and every game that exists on both machines, the 800XL always wins.
>>12616503Just because a machine is more powerful doesn't mean the games on it are any better.Amiga has plenty of ports of games originally designed for and released on the C64, that are somehow significantly worse on the Amiga. How's the quality of the Atari 800 ports then?
>>12616503Because they have an unexplained dislike of computers, even despite making them
>>12616514most of the 8-bit Lucasfilm games were coded for the 800XL and then ported to the C64, like Rescue on Fractalus, Ballblazer, The Eidolon and Koronis Rift.
> wanted to provide for 8-bit computers is something instant- where you don't need to wait for results, spending an hour composing a frame and then going to the next frame and trying to manipulate it.>Compact discs hold gigabytes of information, so we realized that to achieve any controlled representation of sound that was anything close to realtime, we had to get the numbers down. You can't expect to manipulate 80K in one second and be very flexible, even on a 16mHz computer. So we came up with a whole new set of theories about how sound is broken down. We realized that the difference between sound and light was only a matter of frequency, so we knew we could apply the same theories to graphics and animation.>We decided to deal with representations based on dynamic principles, where the numbers are related to dynamic changes in the sound or the visual. By developing this system, we began achieving enormously efficient representations of moving objects, both sound and visual.
>>12616503i received one for xmas 1987. barely used it. only found one or two places that sold games.
>>12616515But the C64 did well in North AmericaAlmost every Gen X nerd had one
>>12616514>>12616519Atari 800 had a ton of great games, but most of them were made before 1986. The C64 kept getting games well into the early 90s.Still, I'd get Atari over C64. C64's build quality is shit and the disk drive was slow and expensive.
Atari2600 was just good enough at the time for Americans.
>>12616986>the disk drive was slowDidn't this turn out to be a software problem and there was a cartridge that would make it faster?
The 800XL was 50 bucks more expensive than the Commodore 64 in 1983, and Commodore themselves went out of their way to sell Commodore 64s to schools at a discount price, leading to their prevalence. Everyone at school saw a C64.It didn't exactly help that A)everyone knew that Atari had fucked up the gaming scene terribly, leading to a bad image overall, and B)the Atari 800XL's peripheral ecosystem was a cataclysmic mess.
>>12617113Yes and no. The way those cartridges work is fun. Commodore's disk drives were so expensive because they were basically just mini-computers, and that means you can program said computers to do your bidding. The MOS 6522 VIA in the 1541(the main disk drive sold for the Commodore 64) had a hardware bug which prevented proper serialization. Commodore's solution was to instead send it one bit at a time, without changing the verification process. This resulted in it verifying every single bit(interrupting the VIA chip in the process.)Speedloaders basically circumvent this by either changing the verification process, preventing the disk drive from verifying each sector before sending it, or in at least one case I saw, adding a compression algorithm on the disk drive itself to reduce the number of bits sent.
>>12617163It also didn't help that Atari was bought by Jack Tramiel in 1984 and stores absolutely HATED that man.
>>12617163>Everyone at school saw a C64Where I lived it was all Apple at schools
>>12617263Every school had Apple II computers. I don't know what Anon is smoking
>>12617283Maybe he's European? I don't know kind of computers they used in school. But I also only saw Apple IIs with the occasional Macintosh or IIGS in school.
>>12616503>better than the Commodore 64 in every wayThat was the plan but it didn't work out>America didnt careBecause it was an 800 from 1978 that cost $1000 in 1983. You are possibly the dumbest of dumb fuck retards this board has seen today. >the 800XL always wins.Very few people bought it. Meanwhile C64 went on to be the best selling 8-bit micro in history.>>12617283Every school I went to had C64s. Maybe you just went to poorfag schools for retards?
>>12617846>Poorfag school bought the more expensive computers.You didn’t think that one through, did you?
>>12617852Yes. All the schools I went to had C64s. They weren't poor, they didn't want to use trash technology that was out of date by 1983. The Apple 2 was 5 years old when the c64 was released. The only people still using Apple 2s in schools after 1985 were poorfag public school systems stuck on these hideously expensive contracts for Apple to keep supplying out of date fucking trash. You must be fucking dumb or a heroin addict where the opiates have clouded your remaining iq digit.
>>12617846>>12617902Larping zoomer. Schools didn't have C64s.
>>12617902As a gaming machine, the C64 was far more advanced than the Apple II. Otherwise, the Apple II at that point was better suited for a school environment. It supported far more educational software, more memory, a more reliable disk drive, and 80 column text.
>>12617846>Because it was an 800 from 1978opinion discarded. you know nothing of the 800XLs hardware compared to the C64
>>12617932our school had Neo Geos skill issue
actual anon who was around back then. atari owners got a wake-up call when every game they purchased was the B side of the floppy. C64 was the A side and you knew it back then. But it was ok because it was still a hell of a computer at the time and it was known that atari had the better sound capabilities (but that's about it).
>>12616503>things youtube told meuser is underage
>>12618075>atari had the better soundName 3 examples
>>12620078Atari had 4 sound channels. SID had 3 and a sample channel that almost nobody uses.
Sucks that it didn't get more attention / software.Seems like a cool system. The C64 was hard to beat though.
>>12623141It lost the price war. It was graphically more versatile than C64, and the CPU was more powerful.
>>12620063>everyone smarter than me is youtube!!!
>>12617171And what praytell was the optimal solution for an efficient speed loader?
>>12617902My little methodist school in a rich suburban pocket still had a few Apple IIs in 1998 lel. Some schools didn't prioritize computer assisted education until the early 2000s.
>>12617949I think he's trollin' ya, feller.
