The author’s hypocrisy (part 1)

Debunking Buyers’ Guide liars!!!! (Part 1)

I can now reveal that the main reason I thought it was OK to buy a Commodore 64 back in 1984 was because of all the lies, half truths, or fairy stories told about it in the buyers’ guide “The A-Z of Personal Computers”!

Whilst your correspondent is sure that the author’s readers are all stunned by this revelation, it is also incredibly hypocritical of him to damn others since his blog is built on lies, half truths and fiction, as well as an unhealthy does of factual errors. And the entire post doesn’t actually present any “evidence” about The A-Z Of Personal Computers either, making it something of a waste of time.

Here’s a link to a video comparing the Atari 8 bitters to the C64

No, this is a video comparing a specific game on the two, it can’t be considered a comparison of the machines and isn’t even a fair comparison at a software level since the C64 version of Attack Of The Mutant Camels was released in the first year of the machine’s lifespan (and was written on an imported American machine sent to the developer by an American publisher) whilst the Atari 8-bit had been around for five years beforehand; a lot of extra documentation pops up in half a decade and the year between C64 and Atari 8-bit versions is more than enough time to learn more about programming.

But if the author somehow feels that presenting that video backs his arguments up that’s ridiculously easy to debunk, here’s the same reviewer talking about Green Beret on the C64, Atari 8-bit and Amstrad CPC…

…where he concludes that only the C64 version is worth playing.

It doesn’t stop there, though. Here’s a video showing an Amiga slide show converted for the Atari 8 bit machines. The quality isn’t as good as the Amiga, but try doing this on the C64!!!!

The author has repeatedly stated that he is “trying to limit [his] blog to the period early 1984 to April 1985” and yet the slideshow in that video wasn’t released until after that window. But we’ll ignore that hypocrisy dear reader because, whilst the C64 isn’t able to copy those  software-driven images[1] pixel for pixel, the same is true in the other direction as well – here is a video from a RAM expanded C64 that the Atari 8-bit is completely incapable of reproducing even a single frame from exactly:

The mode is software-driven as well, running at 320 by 200 pixels with sixteen colours and far more than just two per 8 by 8 pixel attribute cell. There are also a couple of slideshows, one using converted images which loads from a RAM expansion and the other is a series of hand drawn pictures which loads from disk.

So, that tells you about how I came to buy, read, and believe in “The A-Z of Personal Computers”. Now you can look forward to reading how this magazine made me think that the Commodore 64 was an excellent computer, with amazing graphics and sound which was an excellent choice for me to learn how to program games and music on!!!!

This should be amusing, seeing the author trying to excuse his own failings yet again when tens if not hundreds of thousands of people learnt to program and made music with the C64.

[1] The mode relies on interleaved scanlines of colour and luminance, that’s where the “scanlines” come from. A similar trick can be used on the C64 to get around forty unique colours.

This entry was posted in Debunking and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.