what was best Sinclair,commodore or amstrad

[Damrabbit]

imo it was the sinclair i had a speccy 48k while my one mate had a commodore vic 20 the other had c64 and my other had an amstrad cpc464 with a colour moniter while i was envious of the graphics and the c64's sound i think the speccy had the better games range
what do you think

[stroppa]

I was an amstrad fanboy back in the day, so I'll have to go with that.

[MD]

Well the Sinclair Spectrum 48K was the best eraser of the lot as it would rub out all those pencil marks. The Commodore 64c was the best doorstop, if you wedge it right then it would keep doors open until you closed them. The Amstrad was the best at just being in the way, esp if you didn't have a desk and had to use it on the floor so someone could trip over it and maybe killing them. Wonder how many people where killed by 8 bit computers...

Yeah its a pointless arguement as you generally got what you were given so if you had an Oric 1 or a Dragon 32 you tried to think of ways of why it was better then your rich mates Commodore 64 or the guy that got a Spectrum and hundreds of games whilst you played a version of space invaders for the nth time.

[Afterbirth]

Technically, and for sound, the C64 was the best. As for graphics, well, The speccy was really cool arcade conversions (Outun, which springs to mind, was dire on the C64) BUT the trade off was that the graphics were normally in two colours.
The Commodore could do certain genres better. Ghost and Goblins is a classic as was Greet Beret and Paperboy (So platformers then?).
Graphically and gameplay wise the speccy could match everything the C64 could, but with less colours, thats all.
Towards the end of its life, the C64 was really pushed by companies like Thalamus, Codemasters, Players, and Bloodhouse.
The Amstrad was technically in the middle, but always third place. Amstrad arrived quite late in the war to be compared to the other two and very few games were any better on the Amstrad.

[Jay]

Graphically the Spectrum was very limited. 2 colours per 8x8 pixel square led to either monochrome games or loads of colour clash. The C64 fared better having two modes - a hi-res mode similar to the speccy, and a lo-res mode which was the cause of many C64 games looking blocky, but allowed many more colours per character square. Later C64 games used a clever technique which involved switching rapidly between the two modes between screen refreshes, allowing for colourful sprites with hi-res 'outlines'. The C64 also had hardware sprites (8, though this was pushed to an incredible 100+ in later years) and hardware scrolling. The Spectrum had none of these. The only genre where the Spectrum excelled graphically was wireframes. I think this is because the Speccy had a lightly higher clock speed than the C64, but maybe one of the more techy posters can confirm this?

Sonically, the C64 again pissed all over the Spectrum. The Spectrum's beeper vs the 64's three-channel SID chip? Erk. Clever programmers still managed to get some phenomenal sounds out of the Spectrum's one-channel beeper including speech. Later versions of the Spectrum included a Yamaha sound chip. Not up to the standard of the SID by any means, but a huge improvement. Sadly not many games supported it.

Considering the limitations of the Spectrum when compared to the C64, there are a remarkable number of fantastic Spectrum games. Examples of Spectrum versions of games being better than their Commodore equivalent include Commando and Bomb Jack, and some games just couldn't be done on the C64 - eg, Starstrike.

So which was the best? Um .. the MSX

[mid]

Given that its the retro equivalent of posting "which is best: PS2, Gamecube or XBox" in GD, its never going to get a definitive answer.

The best I can do for you is say this:

If you only had a Spectrum, then its fairly pointless faffing with emulators of the other two. Firstly its illegal (and bad and wrong etc.) More to the point, with a few exceptions nostalgia is a seriously major part of it all, and emulating games you don't remember gets real dull real soon.

Partly because, with hindsight, there were just as many crap ones as there are now, but mainly because, when presented with a thousand games at once to choose from, you'll never bother to put the effort in to get into these games unless the initial "I remember this!" hook is there.

[bcass]

Later versions of the Spectrum included a Yamaha sound chip. Not up to the standard of the SID by any means, but a huge improvement. Sadly not many games supported it.

You are joking aren't you? Visit my site for proof of otherwise. Also, it wasn't a Yamaha chip, it was a General Instruments chip.

[Ady]

Later versions of the Spectrum included a Yamaha sound chip. Not up to the standard of the SID by any means, but a huge improvement. Sadly not many games supported it.

You are joking aren't you? Visit my site for proof of otherwise. Also, it wasn't a Yamaha chip, it was a General Instruments chip.

It was the same chip in the Atari ST. It had one square wave form and a noise generator. It was awful and was no way comparable to the chip in the C64. Some equivalent tunes were OK, but to say it pumped out better music is crazy talk.

[bcass]

Later versions of the Spectrum included a Yamaha sound chip. Not up to the standard of the SID by any means, but a huge improvement. Sadly not many games supported it.

You are joking aren't you? Visit my site for proof of otherwise. Also, it wasn't a Yamaha chip, it was a General Instruments chip.

It was the same chip in the Atari ST.

Wrong. Just plain wrong mate. The Atari ST used the YM2149 chip which is by no means identical to the AY38910/2 as used in the Spectrum/CPC.

It had one square wave form and a noise generator. It was awful and was no way comparable to the chip in the C64. Some equivalent tunes were OK, but to say it pumped out better music is crazy talk.

I didn't say it was more capable than the SID chip did I? Nobody did, so why you resorted to infering as such is beyond me. Anyway, judging by the ignorance evident in the rest of your post I doubt you've even listened to any of the AY files at my site. I challenge you not to like the stuff that David Whittaker/Tim Follin/Jonathan Dunn (for example) produced on the AY. The stuff they did on the AY couldn't always be considered 'equivalents' to the C64 releases either as many of the tunes in equivalent games were composed differently on the AY. For example, Follin's LED Storm title track is totally different on the AY. Also, there are many instances where the AY renditions could be considered superior, especially in Whittakers case, who composed on the AY first and ported his music to other formats later.

Anyway, its a matter of taste and preference. Personally, I love chip music from all formats, ranging from the X68000 to the Amiga. To dismiss one format in preference of another is a tad short-sighted considering the technical achievements that were made in audio terms on all formats.

[2 Point]

Spectrum by a country mile.

It was British for starters, a rare and beautiful thing.

As a learning tool the Spectrum was unsurpassed, with all the commands on the keyboard with context sensitive syntax checking. Well supported in schools and therefore the home, this was much more than a games machine.

Do kids of today try and write their own games in the way we used to? I doubt it, far to easy to download an emu and a load of roms rather than pore over assembler and C. Sound like an old bast, but those were the days.

[Papercut]

The Atari 800XL was probably technically the best machine of the era, but had the weakest games... although the definitive versions of Mercenary, Encounter, Alternate Reality, Dropzone and IK appeared on the 800XL, as well as many quality arcade ports. Joust in particular was fantastic on the 800XL.

The cpu power and graphics ability were (just) superior to the C64, but the sound chip was inferior to the SID. Better than anything else though, and it handled low frequencies a lot better than the SID did (it could do drums!). Atari 8 bit machines also had the best peripherals.

Its funny that everyone remembers the C64 as being very expensive (at least until the late 80s), but the Atari 8 bit machines and peripherals cost even more.

However, overall, the C64 was the best 8bit machine of the mid-80s by a large margin. The main weakness of the C64 was the limited color palette, and compared to the Atari 800XL blocky sprites, but the 800XL suffered a premature death.

The spectrum had a pleasant blip of decent games early in its life (83/84) but once coders got used to the 8 bit machines the sheer ****eness of the spectrum hardware compared to anything else left it trailing way behind.

Am I alone in thinking that Manic Miner was just a poor man's Miner 2049'er?

Some of the best games and coders to ever come out of the uk came from the C64.

The Amstrad - you are joking aren't you? Apart from a decent color palette, I can't think of anything good about that machine at all. From the same company that killed the spectrum, nice one.

[bcass]

I don't think there is any evidence that the C64 was more of a home coders machine than the Spectrum was. Certainly, the Spectrum was easier to code due to its minimal design. I think the C64 was more like a console than a home computer, especially in respect of its custom hardware. After all, the biggest developer in the UK at the moment (RARE) have their humble beginings on the Spectrum. There were strenghs and weaknesses of each machine. Obviously with the C64 being the 'arcade' experience and the Spectrum being home to perhaps more cerebral games. The Spectrum was very noticably better at wireframe/polygons than the C64. Just compare StarWars, Starglider and Driller for proof. Even stuff you wouldn't expect to be better on the Spectrum, like Head Over Heels. The Spectrum version is far faster and a better game for it. To be honest, you either had to own both machines or at least have access to both if you wanted a perfectly rounded gaming experience back then.

[Ady]

Wrong. Just plain wrong mate. The Atari ST used the YM2149 chip which is by no means identical to the AY38910/2 as used in the Spectrum/CPC.

I stand corrected. And you are right. A composer from back in the day even said the ST's chip wasn't as good as the Spectrum's.

I didn't say it was more capable than the SID chip did I? Nobody did, so why you resorted to infering as such is beyond me.

It's called a misuderstanding. I misread your post, that's all. My apologies.

Anyway, judging by the ignorance evident in the rest of your post I doubt you've even listened to any of the AY files at my site.

:igh::

I've heard AY music before. Some of my friends owned 128K Spectrums.

I challenge you not to like the stuff that David Whittaker/Tim Follin/Jonathan Dunn (for example) produced on the AY.

Some of it's OK, but nothing wow.

The stuff they did on the AY couldn't always be considered 'equivalents' to the C64 releases either as many of the tunes in equivalent games were composed differently on the AY. For example, Follin's LED Storm title track is totally different on the AY...

Yes, yes, I know. No neeed to evangelise...

Also, there are many instances where the AY renditions could be considered superior, especially in Whittakers case, who composed on the AY first and ported his music to other formats later.

This probably explains why I always thought his muisc was bleepy. Can't say I was a Whittaker fan.

Anyway, its a matter of taste and preference. Personally, I love chip music from all formats, ranging from the X68000 to the Amiga. To dismiss one format in preference of another is a tad short-sighted considering the technical achievements that were made in audio terms on all formats.

Again. It was a misunderstanding. No need to get so defensive and jump down my throat, mate.

[bcass]

OK, fair enough Ady. No offense taken. The AY chip is often looked down upon, and I admit that technically it is inferior to the SID. However, chip music isn't just about the qualities of the sounds they produce. It is the artistic element which gives rise to interest in chip music, and the way in with the extreme limitations of (especially) the early sound chips were used for creative purposes. There are some magnificent examples of Spectrum 'beeper' music even, where sound chips aren't even used, its just the porcessor sending signals to a buzzer. Benn Daglish, Whattaker and Follin made superb use of this unbeleivably limited technology. Its about the spirit of the era - people making things work way beyond their intended design. Something which doesn't seem to happen too often these days.

[Ady]

OK, fair enough Ady. No offense taken. The AY chip is often looked down upon, and I admit that technically it is inferior to the SID. However, chip music isn't just about the qualities of the sounds they produce. It is the artistic element which gives rise to interest in chip music, and the way in with the extreme limitations of (especially) the early sound chips were used for creative purposes. There are some magnificent examples of Spectrum 'beeper' music even, where sound chips aren't even used, its just the porcessor sending signals to a buzzer. Benn Daglish, Whattaker and Follin made superb use of this unbeleivably limited technology. Its about the spirit of the era - people making things work way beyond their intended design. Something which doesn't seem to happen too often these days.

I know. As I recall, Agent X on the Spectrum was shocking good. But yes, you're right in saying it doesn't happen anymore. As the lifecycle of an average machine is so short (around 5 years), like fickle teenagers, developers are quick to drop a machine when something better comes along. As such, the thrill off seeing a machine pushed beyond its supposed limits towards the end of its life is something that doesn't happen these days.

And to think, machines like the C64 and Spectrum lasted about 10 yeaars, wheras your average console does 5. How times change.