Atari 2600+ vs. Atari 7800+ – Which Should You Get? | Hacker News Reader

Atari 2600+ vs. Atari 7800+ – Which Should You Get?

goto10retro.com

38 pointsrbanffy75 comments

The title is wrong, it's about the recent Atari 2600+ and 7800+, not the original models.

Alas, the 7800 had better graphics but was hobbled by keeping the original TIA sound chip from the 2600.

> Speaking of game loading, it is surprisingly slow. You plug in a cartridge and turn on the 7800+, which takes a moment, and then there is a “Loading game” screen that takes 15 to 20 seconds to actually load the game.

This would have been nearly instantaneous on the original console. You could hit reset and be back at the title screen basically before you'd leaned back from pushing the button.

It is very funny that as computers have become more powerful, we've lost the incentive (and probably the skills, outside of the demoscene) to make things run fast and close to the bone.

Also, I think "disappointing joypad" is faithful to the Atari experience, having used those spongy suckers for many hours in the early 90s.

Prior to the Internet/Web any sort of pause in software was anathema. Now AppleOS spins for 20 or 30 seconds on file security checks.

I seem to remember my old Commodore 64 being fully booted and READY at its BASIC REPL in about a second. Shorter than it took for the CRT to warm up. A computer from 40 years ago. How we have fallen!

Cartridges were probably pretty fast to load, but I don't expect that Commodore's floppy drives were particularly fast, even if they were much faster than cassette tape.

No, you're right. None of the IO devices were very fast.

Cartridges weren't "loaded" at all. They were ROM which was mapped directly into the CPU's accessible memory.

The loading part is inserting the cartridge. ;-)

I was an Apple ][ (well, Franklin Ace, technically) guy back in the day, but my high school used mostly C64s. The slow speed of Commodore floppies infuriated me. And they even had their own CPU inside the drive! By all rights, they should have been faster than Apple drives which were run by the computer's CPU.

Not sure about the commodore but atari's floppy drive was connected via a 19200 bps serial connection so even for those days it was really slow.

Both atari 8 bit and commodore had a disk drive with a trimmed down 6502 in it so you basically bought a second computer. This is why the drives cost more than the computer itself.

The Commodore serial bus ran at 3200bps, the 1541 disk drive maxed out around 400bps stock.

Wow that's hardly faster than the tape recorder :O

So the atari was relatively fast! I never knew. I didn't have the disk drive until I was much older.

um, what? how many times would a game get to a point that would require you to remove the disk from the drive to replace with a different disk because all of the data didn't fit on one disk?

pausing was not unusual.

> Prior to the Internet/Web any sort of pause in software was anathema

We should really go back to the blazing speed of cassette tapes, floppy disks, and optical media.

> Now AppleOS spins for 20 or 30 seconds on file security checks.

Trying to recreate the experience of loading a program from floppy or optical drives.

I feel your pain though: syspolicyd is my sworn enemy. Not only does it cause apps to hang on startup (ugh) while it tries to phone home (no thanks), it also periodically decides it needs to rescan all huge files it can find (like game updates that I've downloaded over the years) in case they might have suddenly turned into known malware. Whenever my laptop heats up for no obvious reason, it's usually some infernal combination of evil macOS demons (not a typo), (syspolicyd, mdworker, photoanalysisd).

It's a shame that in the current malware environment syspolicyd seems to serve enough of a useful purpose (for some subset of Mac users) to be turned on by default.

Your memory is faulty.

Let's take a trip back to 1992.

In 1992, unless you were rich you had a $2,000 386SX-33 sourced from parts out of the back of Computer Shopper magazine.

Here is a 386SX-33 running Windows 3.1 (1992) launching WordPerfect for Windows 5.2 (1992) a perfect representation of what a normal, typical, average person in 1992 would have as a PC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYjrX2P4iY4

WordPerfect takes 45 seconds just to start. You dropped $350 on an ATI Wonder that has hardware acceleration of Windows 3.1 video calls just to get smooth window moving and resizing.

What about a 486? Lol you didn't have a 486, those were for CAD workstations and servers. You had a 386.

Three years later, lusting after Windows 95 and frustrated with slow performance, you shell out ANOTHER $2,000 on a Pentium 75 with 8MB of ram and a 528MB hard drive.

Sure, with the lower FSB that means you're less than half the performance of a Pentium 133 despite having 56% the clock, but you're a regular person with regular person money.

Windows 95 takes over a minute to boot, Space Cadet Pinball takes 15 seconds to launch, and you buy City Streets for Windows which takes 3-5 seconds to redraw its viewport every single time you reposition the map.

From the day you could first afford a PC you chased upgrades: more ram, a hard drive with a higher rotational speed and bigger cache, holy crap they can do 3d in hardware now, can I afford a 256kB COAST module?

Then one day, in about 2011-2012 that all stops. Sandy Bridge. SSDs. Now you only upgrade every 4-6 years: when performance doubles or windows stops supporting your CPU or you drop your laptop and break it.

This guy gets it!

And even that 386 was hot stuff in 1992. I was in high school then and stuck with a 286 with 16-color graphics and like a 40mb hard drive or something. We got a 486 right around Christmas 1993 I think, which was a mind blowing upgrade at the time. 256 colors in DOS video games and Windows could display 16k colors. CD-ROMs that had little postage stamp videos and we got one of those CD-ROM encyclopedias.

We had like 286 class machines in most of the lab my senior year of High school in 1994 with amber displays and we learned Turbo Pascal on them. The school had a handful of 486s but they were setup to run exactly the same software as the 286s, no Windows for us. They must have waited till they replaced everything to start using Windows.

In spring 1995 I spent like $250 (or was it $500?) of my summer job earnings on 4MB RAM for our 486 to get Doom to run better. The upgrade struggle was real. That was a ton of money for me and my parents thought I was absolutely nuts but eventually gave in.

When I went to college I spent essentially my entire summer's earnings on my first laptop, it was close to $4k back then and it was not exactly great!

The original Macintosh (1984) wasn't too bad:

System 1.1 boot: 0:12-0:30 (~18s)

MacWrite startup: 2:10-2:25 (~15s)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pGz9Zwsz_I

Steve Jobs on Macintosh boot time: https://www.folklore.org/Saving_Lives.html

Once the editor was open- key pressed tended to be instant.

It is not funny but completely insulting to the customer.

The people selling those consoles should feel ashamed about this. It shows complete lack of care for the customer.

Any emulator can load those cartridges near instantaneous. This does not show lack of optimization but lack of complete care. It probably boots up the whole operating system or something similarly insane.

This is plastic rubbish preying on nostalgia. They can't even get the basic function of playing the games right.

You will have a better time just playing the games on a cheap laptop. It is one of the easiest systems to emulate anyway.

and yet they sell them like hot cakes. so either the customers don't care, or the customers don't even notice. younger players that are used to waiting for loading probably don't notice at all. only older people might even remember, but the younger kids won't believe them because the olds memory is probably not right.

I wish games still came with instruction manuals; then you would have something to read while you wait 15 minutes for the base game to install, followed by however long it takes to download and install 60GB worth of day 1 patches and updates.

I'm a casual gamer at most lenient definitions of my gaming time. I got tired of having an hour to kill, and half of that time being spent on updates. It pretty much was the final nail in the coffin for my interest in gaming.

Of course I'm ignoring any needed system or firmware updates. For a while Sony's updates seemed magically synchronized to my gaming schedule.

Or try being an online gamer, buying a new game or expansion, installing the game and all of its update patches, and finding that there is a multi-hour queue to log on and actually play the game.

Fortunately remote play allows you to boot up your console remotely from your smartphone, install any updates, and get into the login queue. So when you get home you can log on and play for 5 minutes before the servers shut down for maintenance.

It's a fair bit of engineering to design an interface to the original ROMs that can map them into the memory space of whatever modern hardware they're using. It's much easier to design an interface that allows you to bit-bang the data out of the ROM and snarf it into RAM. The loading game screen might've been the only way to keep costs below a certain threshold.

And I have a 2600+. Games usually take ~2-3s to load on it.

Interesting. I wonder why TFA said 15-20s? An optimized small Linux boot takes ~1s, so what is the delay from?

Still likely a lot faster than loading a PS1/2/3 game from optical disc. And miles ahead of installing a game on PS4/5 (and downloading gigabytes of patches.)

It's not clear if we're talking consistently about the sizes. If 15-20s is referring to a 7800 cartridge that's up to 48kb, that makes sense. This subthread is talking about 2600 games up to 4kb.

Also it's not clear how the console reads cartridges with bankswitching hardware. It can't really know if a cart has that. So it may just have to try all the common schemes on every cart, and read through the entire ROM space multiple times in case anything changed. That would account for the timing.

If you were to write a program to make the Atari 2600 copy its own ROM--not that A) it had the RAM and B) it ever had a need, it would very roughly take about 15-20 cycles per byte, and 15-20 more cycles per 256 bytes for looping. Heavily depends on the code used to copy it, probably less if optimized.

The 6507 is a 1Mhz cpu, and again very roughly about 64,000 microseconds to copy 4096 bytes, or twice as many to copy 8192 bytes. Under a second on the original hardware.

So even 2-3 seconds is a long time. Is the embedded OS on the 2600+ bit-banging the ROM via GPIO pins? Is it a Python script doing that from userspace (lol maybe something recycled from a ROM dumper's toolkit posted on some random forum in the early 00's)? Not bad for a script to do that in 2-3 seconds to be honest if that's what it is.

> 15 to 20 seconds to actually load the game

Hmm, this is disappointing and something that they should really fix.

As I understand it, the whole advantage of ROM cartridges on Atari-like systems is that no loading is required - the games run directly off the cartridge ROM. Enthusiast emulation systems can boot in a couple of seconds.

The Nintendo Switch cartridges are more like a read-only file system, but games still load quickly without a lengthy installation process and can usually run without an internet connection.

In the classic cartridge systems, you plug in the cartridge, and the data is directly accessible on the bus of the system. Some milliseconds to initialize hardware, and the game can start.

What they're doing here is dumping the cartridge, and loading it into an emulator. That, and probably the boot of whatever OS the device is running, is the "load time" for the game.

The games had encryption that delayed start up.

I assume this whole thing is Linux based? (Not that Linux is bad, just it does take a bit of time to boot.)

You're better off getting an original Atari, and a box CRT set, and enjoying the experience as it was intended without frame delay. (These games are a lot easier to play when you don't have to wait for the on screen response.)

The other thing is the original paddle controls are a lot more fun for games like Circus Atari or Night Driver than a gamepad.

If you don't like the classic joystick, then between the Commodore and Atari extended line of joysticks, you can find a suitable alternative.

I prefer my original 800XL with FujiNet... I love that thing.

What Atari games are actually worth playing?

I think that's not far off the same as asking what 1890s films are worth watching. You could watch a couple for a bit of novelty and an idea of what technology was like but none of them are "good".

It really depends on your expectations. None of these games will be comparable to today's AAA games, but a lot of them are very playable and similar to today's casual in-browser games, with some animation and resolution limits.

I would have to agree. About the only Atari games that are actually fun are Missile Command and Space Invaders, and then not for very long.

Yars' revenge is pretty good. I'm guessing these don't boot homebrew, but synthcart allows you to play music.

I think they can run from cartridges, so if you have one loaded with homebrew games, they should work. Most Atari 2600 games had no copy protection.

Flashcarts don't work unless you devote the entire flash to a single ROM (some of them can do this). This is because the console snarfs the entire contents of the ROM into RAM first, rather than mapping the ROM directly into the CPU's memory space like the original consoles did. So the bank-switching tricks that flashcarts use to provide multiple ROM options on original hardware don't work on these. This is also why the 2600+'s pack-in multicart has a janky, DIP-switch solution to select a game.

Many large carts (8K and larger) also don't work, at least not without the firmware knowing how to bankswitch to read the whole ROM, so a fw update may be required.

> This is because the console snarfs the entire contents of the ROM into RAM first

The console itself should never know the cart is not a simple ROM with some bank-switching logic. Since Flash (or an SD card) isn't ROM, the ROM image will always be loaded into the cartridge RAM by the microcontroller software. There were many different strategies back then, so the ROM would need to have a file attached telling the on-cartridge microcontroller how bank switching worked on that title.

All you'd need is some UI to make it easier to switch between titles.

Most flashcarts have a UI that is shown on first boot; when a game is selected, the ROM for that game is loaded into the flashcart RAM, the appropriate bank switching or mapping logic emulated, the ROM banks remapped into the console address space replacing the UI code, and the console reset or told to jump to boot the game.

This doesn't work on the Atari 2600+ and 7800+ because those systems attempt to load the entire game ROM into their own RAM on boot and run the game from there. You might get the UI, but unlike in the actual hardware there is no rereading of the ROM directly. It's all done from what the system captured into RAM on first boot. So if a new game were to be loaded into that address space, the modern console wouldn't see it.

The boot menu uses some form of bank switching to get to the actual game ROMs and their specific switching strategy, if any. The 2600+ and 7800+ would need to know the method (a write to a specific address, perhaps) to get to the specific part of the ROM on a bank-switched game anyway.

I never tried that, so I might be very wrong in my assumptions.

In the case of the imaginary cartridge with the UI, changing the ROM that’s mapped to the cartridge space with the physical UI and resetting the console without resetting the card controller should do the trick.

The bank switching mechanisms in all commercially released games can be enumerated and emulated by the 2600+, but I think they just haven't gotten around to updating the firmware. Many bank-switched commercial games still don't work afaik.

Flashcarts are more of a crapshoot. They use unknown bank switching mechanisms and Atari does not want to support their use.

> In the case of the imaginary cartridge with the UI...

Not so imaginary! This is what the pack-in cart that comes with the 2600+ does, there are DIP switches for game selection on the cart itself. I don't know of any flashcarts that do even this, let alone something more sophisticated with buttons and an LCD readout like a Gotek drive emulator or something. Would be nice though...

I have a soft spot for 400/800/XL/XE versions of PAC-MAN and Donkey Kong. They are both pretty close to the arcade originals.

We used the term "arcade quality" back then.

Now even my Apple TV is significantly better than anything I can find at an arcade.

My all-time favorites would be Missile Command, Megamania (2600), Galaga (7800), Centipede (7800), Ms Pac Man (7800).

I don't have a 7800 on hand, and haven't started up my XEGS in some time, so I might remember more titles.

Playing home arcade ports doesn’t have much appeal to me except for nostalgia when you can just as easily emulate the “real thing”. Activision and Imagic titles at least have some originality. River Raid(s), Atlantis, Cosmic Ark, Demon Attack, Alien Brigade, etc.

I'm not a gamer myself - I enjoy using these machines as computers, programming them and learning the different techniques people used back then. I was employed to write educational software for Apple IIs in the mid 80's, and it's interesting how the same tricks have different implementations across various platforms.

2600 games worth playing: River Raid II, Pitfall, Jungle Hunt, Ghostbusters, Lock n Chase, Cosmic Ark, Demon Attack, Mountain King

Vanguard, Adventure, Track and Fields (with controller), Pitfall, Berzerk, Kung Fu Master

It's not the most complex game, but my favourite of all time is Frostbite.

Same!

I'd say my favorite 2600 game is Super Breakout in progressive mode. Warlords is also pretty fun with four people and two sets of paddles.

There's a lot of games out there with really tight gameplay loops. Much fewer with deep gameplay, though. So it kind of depends on what you're looking for.

Here are the ones that stood the test of time for me:

Joystick games

- Adventure

- Frogger

- Frogs and Flies

- Surround (fun with 2 player)

- Turmoil

- Joust

- Dragonfire

- Pitfall and Pitfall II

- Stampede (really good Activision game)

- Towering Inferno

- Space War (think Asteroids but 2 player combat)

- Combat (the brown levels with ricochet bullets are super fun)

Paddle games

- Astroblast (can use joystick but 10x better with paddles)

- Video Olympics (this is a 70s pong console in Atari cart form and has 4 player games)

- Warlords (fun with multiplayer)

Supercharger games

- Dragonstomper (if you like RPGs)

Whilst the Atari 2600+ and Atari 7800+ are faithful reproductions, the controller’s of this era are all kinds of horrible.

They don’t even come close to a modern game controller, and these new systems would benefit from a modern interpretation rather than being a faithful rerelease.

There is a more standard controller: https://atari.com/products/cx78-gamepad

They released this in the 80s with the 7800, and they make it for the Atari 7800+, including a wireless version

Luckily most home computers of the era plus the Sega Master System and Genesis/Mega Drive used the same joystick port and wiring so many better controllers have been made and some are still being made.

Paddle controllers and trackballs are ideal for games that were designed for them. Analog joysticks are a different experience.

Personally I liked joysticks and never understood why d-pads became the standard after the NES. They remind me of playing games with cursor keys and just seem less fun.

sounds like these two + systems are essentially the same system, but with a different case and controller.

miSTer all the way.

miSTer is a technical marvel, but from all the YouTube videos I've seen it seems the gains from miSTer over the latest emulators is not noticeable.

It's always been about implementing hardware in hardware, rather than software.

Sure, software-based emulators for old hardware exist, but miSTer and its community have clear preference for the FPGA approach.

And, of course, timing accuracy aside, where miSTer excels is in the ecosystem it has created. The overall UX.

The software emulator community is trying (with efforts such as e.g. retroarch) but isn't quite there.

It depends. Where FPGAs excel is at using actual period hardware, such as CRTs and peripherals. For less powerful platforms, software emulation is quite enough for the casual gamer.

I can't stress this enough, however: the physical interaction with the device is extremely important. Even being a software emulator inside a physical C64 reproduction, the fact it's a tiny ARM SoC in there is irrelevant - typing on a physical C64 keyboard makes it much closer to any FPGA connected to a PC keyboard.

I love my MiSTer, and I don't regret buying it, but I'd be lying if I said it was "worth" it; software emulators for every system that the MiSTer runs already exist and have gotten very good.

I bought my MiSTer mostly as a "how neat is that?" purchase. I think it's kind of cool to not only be able to run the games, but have a direct recreation of the hardware to do it. I wish I could regale you with tales of lower latency and how it has made me better at Donkey Kong Country, but I feel like most of the differences I see are probably placebo, especially since I just plug it into an LCD TV, not some fancy low-latency OLED or a period-accurate CRT.

If your goal is to play SNES games, you're likely to have a comparable (or even better) experience downloading Higan or something, but even if it's placebo, something about it feels more accurate to me.

Plus FPGAs are just cool.

Have a MiSTER but for Super Nintendo games I picked up the Analogue SuperNT.

Is there a substantial difference between the two?

One plays physical games

I know that, but from a gameplay perspective can you tell much of a difference?

I’m honestly not sure. I think when I picked up the MiSTER it was still early enough that SNES stuff was still being heavily worked on.

miSTer is an open source ecosystem with open source cores.

The SuperNT uses a proprietary core from Analogue.

I fully prefer an open source core I can fix/modify, YMMV.

There's ways to do that with the miSTer as well.

Most don't, just because inconvenient. For most, SRAM savegame dumping is plenty.

True.

MiSTER doesn’t quite have the usability of the Analogue systems.

I use the MiSTER more for computers than consoles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com