I don't understand why people are still using crappy doorstoppers like the 
Sinclair Spectrum and ugly black and white heaps of trash like the ATARI 800 
XL.

Both of these computers failed in the 80s and look at the graphics of the 
Spectrum - ugly, monochrome, no scrolling and no sprites.

The ATARI has only 3 ugly colors, ugly sprites and bad scrolling. 99% of 
ATARI games are crap.

All the games are MUCH superior on the C64 and the C64 truly is the king of 
home computers!

So please throw away your ATARIs and Spectrums and buy a C64 on ebay!

And verily, didst Lloyd Hearsewave <sore_printer@yahoo.com> hastily babble thusly:
> I don't understand why people are still using crappy doorstoppers like the 
> Sinclair Spectrum and ugly black and white heaps of trash like the ATARI 800 
> XL.
> 
> Both of these computers failed in the 80s and look at the graphics of the 
> Spectrum - ugly, monochrome, no scrolling and no sprites.
> 
> The ATARI has only 3 ugly colors, ugly sprites and bad scrolling. 99% of 
> ATARI games are crap.
> 
> All the games are MUCH superior on the C64 and the C64 truly is the king of 
> home computers!
> 
> So please throw away your ATARIs and Spectrums and buy a C64 on ebay!
> 
> 
> 
Very poor, 1/10.
Hints on improving your trollery...
1: restrict your trolling to a single computer and group. Including both
atari and sinclair in a single post just smacks of laziness.
2: Stick to the facts. Lies never did the trick.
3: on second thoughts, just give up, you've not got the nack and you never
will...

-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste!         |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   |  I can SMELL!!!  KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and    |
|            in            |  get out the puncture repair kit!"              |
|     Computer Science     |     Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf              |

On 16/01/2011 13:51, Lloyd Hearsewave wrote:
> I'm a moron and I can't even be bothered to troll properly

yawn.

In comp.sys.atari.8bit Lloyd Hearsewave <sore_printer@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The ATARI has only 3 ugly colors, ugly sprites and bad scrolling.

Considering the Atari 8-bits can do 9 paletted colors (or 5 paletted via
sprites, plus 16 shades) per scanline, you must be confusing it with
Atari Pong. ;)

I admit, I've been jealous of the C=64 for the sheer number of games
that kept coming out long after the 16-bits showed up, but honestly,
if I were to 'upgrade' from my 800XL and 1200XL, it'd be an Amiga of
some sort.  I could never stand the C=64 BASIC & OS... so clunky.
(Being an Atari guy made the switch to Unix/Linux easy ;) )

-- 
-bill!
Sent from my computer

On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:53:47 -0800 da kidz on comp.sys.sinclair were rappin'
to MC Angry Dove:

> You can't play Star Raiders on Commodore!!!!!!!!!!!

You can't EAT Star Raiders on a commode.  No, hold on, I'm thinking of
Space Raiders.  And you can, but it perhaps isn't "socially
acceptable".

Chris


-- 
+-------------------------------------------+
| Unsatisfactory Software - "because it is" |
|  http://www.unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk  |
| Your Sinclair: A Celebration              |
+- http://www.yoursinclair.co.uk -----------+

DISCLAIMER: I may be making all this stuff up again.

In article <4d3331e1$0$44026$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, 
bill@newbreedsoftware.com says...
> In comp.sys.atari.8bit Lloyd Hearsewave <sore_printer@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The ATARI has only 3 ugly colors, ugly sprites and bad scrolling.
> 
> Considering the Atari 8-bits can do 9 paletted colors (or 5 paletted via
> sprites, plus 16 shades) per scanline, you must be confusing it with
> Atari Pong. ;)
> 
> I admit, I've been jealous of the C=64 for the sheer number of games
> that kept coming out long after the 16-bits showed up, but honestly,
> if I were to 'upgrade' from my 800XL and 1200XL, it'd be an Amiga of
> some sort.  I could never stand the C=64 BASIC & OS... so clunky.
> (Being an Atari guy made the switch to Unix/Linux easy ;) )
> 
> 
You can't play Star Raiders on Commodore!!!!!!!!!!!

Am 16.01.2011 23:07, schrieb Chris Young:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:53:47 -0800 da kidz on comp.sys.sinclair were rappin'
> to MC Angry Dove:
>
>> You can't play Star Raiders on Commodore!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> You can't EAT Star Raiders on a commode.  No, hold on, I'm thinking of
> Space Raiders.  And you can, but it perhaps isn't "socially
> acceptable".

There were times when trolls bothered and at least tried to get their 
facts straight (well, except for Sinclap, that is) when starting a flame 
war.

But this one is way too late, as all thes obsolete computers are dirt 
cheap nowadays and can easily be tested on emulators as well as Youtube 
videos.

The C64 has a very good sprite engine for it's time (best of the three), 
and good sound (also presumably the best of the three).

The A8 had less freely distributable colours (usually just 4 per line 
except for mode 10 with only 80 pixels horizontal resolution and 9 
colours and mode 12/13 - multi-colour text modes with the inverted bit 
generating a fifth colour - mode 9 and 11 each have 16 colours), but can 
change graphics modes, colour and player/missile registers between lines 
(a capability inherited from the VCS, but relegated to ANTIC) and has 
great scrolling and overscan capabilities. The sound isn't too bad also, 
but good results apparently require more CPU cycles than than the C64 
needs to achive good sound with the SID. It also has a significantly 
faster CPU, which helps a lot in games like Rescue on Fractalus.

Depending on the programmers' talents and game type, either one may have 
the better version of a game, but the C64 has the much larger library 
due to it's greater success.

The Sinclair has no sprites, bad sound, only two colours on any 8x8 
pixel grid, yet it is astounding what programmers achieved on such 
humble hardware (the Speccy version of Starglider e.g. looks incredibly 
fast for an 8-bit computer). One should also not forget that the Speccy 
was created as a no-frills, entry-level computer for a bargain price, 
while the A8 were very expensive when first published in 1979 and the 
C64 had the advantage of vertical integration with MOS - resulting in 
the better price/performance ratio.

Thorsten

This is how war begins...

Am 16.01.2011 18:58, schrieb Bill Kendrick:
> In comp.sys.atari.8bit Lloyd Hearsewave<sore_printer@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>> The ATARI has only 3 ugly colors, ugly sprites and bad scrolling.
>
> Considering the Atari 8-bits can do 9 paletted colors (or 5 paletted via
> sprites, plus 16 shades) per scanline, you must be confusing it with
> Atari Pong. ;)
>
> I admit, I've been jealous of the C=64 for the sheer number of games
> that kept coming out long after the 16-bits showed up, but honestly,
> if I were to 'upgrade' from my 800XL and 1200XL, it'd be an Amiga of
> some sort.  I could never stand the C=64 BASIC&  OS... so clunky.
> (Being an Atari guy made the switch to Unix/Linux easy ;) )
>

Thorsten G�nther wrote:

> But this one is way too late, as all thes obsolete computers are dirt
> cheap nowadays and can easily be tested on emulators as well as
> Youtube videos.

A scroller of the speccy (e.g. from 'digital brains' software) is
scrolling as smooth as a scroller of the amiga (e.g. from any intro),
when using emulators on PC.
I have that another way within my recollection ;-)

Emulators.... tsk 
 
> The C64 has a very good sprite engine for it's time (best of the
> three), and good sound (also presumably the best of the three).

Big sprites

and (also presumably) no shift-s!

> The Sinclair has no sprites, bad sound, only two colours on any 8x8
> pixel grid, yet it is astounding what programmers achieved on such
> humble hardware (the Speccy version of Starglider e.g. looks
> incredibly fast for an 8-bit computer).

I was impressed by the XL and the C64 at that time, too.

With an one year timeout from my 'm.i.a.' Atari VCS, it became a Speccy
48K plus 8 Cassettes ~1983. Always like/d its high-res...

Spellbound, Jet-Pac, Dragons Bane and many more... Manic Miner, Knight
Lore, Cascade Cassette 50 etc.

The atmosphere in many games is unique to me. Sound-FX are ok and
differentiable.


-- 
Daniel Mandic

I don't understand why people still fall for troll posts like this one when 
they could be out there learning how to create denial of service attacks 
andreally screwing up the internet.

 grin
Brian

-- 
Brian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Lloyd Hearsewave" <sore_printer@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:igut59$4e2$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>I don't understand why people are still using crappy doorstoppers like the 
>Sinclair Spectrum and ugly black and white heaps of trash like the ATARI 
>800 XL.
>
> Both of these computers failed in the 80s and look at the graphics of the 
> Spectrum - ugly, monochrome, no scrolling and no sprites.
>
> The ATARI has only 3 ugly colors, ugly sprites and bad scrolling. 99% of 
> ATARI games are crap.
>
> All the games are MUCH superior on the C64 and the C64 truly is the king 
> of home computers!
>
> So please throw away your ATARIs and Spectrums and buy a C64 on ebay!
>
>
> 

On 17/01/11 09:31, Brian Gaff wrote:
> I don't understand why people still fall for troll posts like this one when
> they could be out there learning how to create denial of service attacks
> andreally screwing up the internet.
>
>   grin
> Brian
Surely troll posts are distributed denial of service attacks in a broad 
sense - the more people feed the troll, the more crap piles up in 
people's spools thus slowing down the process of reading Usenet.
   also grin
-Edward

-- 
'sane', adj.: see 'unimaginative'
   on the web - http://jttlov.no-ip.org

Well I suppose if we all changed the sub line and made it clear then people 
would not actually bother to read stuff which is both off topic and rubbish.
 I would advise anyone reading via a web interface to get themselves a news 
reader, Even  Microsofts clients are better then web interfaces. One can 
just move down a line and look at what interests them and the rubbish simply 
does not matter if its here or not.


Brian

-- 
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
 graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"ec429" <ec429@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message 
news:ih15q0$p6a$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 17/01/11 09:31, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> I don't understand why people still fall for troll posts like this one 
>> when
>> they could be out there learning how to create denial of service attacks
>> andreally screwing up the internet.
>>
>>   grin
>> Brian
> Surely troll posts are distributed denial of service attacks in a broad 
> sense - the more people feed the troll, the more crap piles up in people's 
> spools thus slowing down the process of reading Usenet.
>   also grin
> -Edward
>
> -- 
> 'sane', adj.: see 'unimaginative'
>   on the web - http://jttlov.no-ip.org 

Daniel Mandic wrote:
> Thorsten G�nther wrote:
>
>> But this one is way too late, as all thes obsolete computers are dirt
>> cheap nowadays and can easily be tested on emulators as well as
>> Youtube videos.
>
> A scroller of the speccy (e.g. from 'digital brains' software) is
> scrolling as smooth as a scroller of the amiga (e.g. from any intro),
> when using emulators on PC.
> I have that another way within my recollection ;-)
>
> Emulators.... tsk
>
>> The C64 has a very good sprite engine for it's time (best of the
>> three), and good sound (also presumably the best of the three).
>
> Big sprites
>
> and (also presumably) no shift-s!
>
>> The Sinclair has no sprites, bad sound, only two colours on any 8x8
>> pixel grid, yet it is astounding what programmers achieved on such
>> humble hardware (the Speccy version of Starglider e.g. looks
>> incredibly fast for an 8-bit computer).
>
> I was impressed by the XL and the C64 at that time, too.
>
> With an one year timeout from my 'm.i.a.' Atari VCS, it became a
> Speccy 48K plus 8 Cassettes ~1983. Always like/d its high-res...
>
> Spellbound, Jet-Pac, Dragons Bane and many more... Manic Miner, Knight
> Lore, Cascade Cassette 50 etc.
>
> The atmosphere in many games is unique to me. Sound-FX are ok and
> differentiable.

I like the ZX, because it took little space in my bin and left plenty for 
the STfm that followed it.

On Jan 16, 12:58=A0pm, b...@newbreedsoftware.com (Bill Kendrick) wrote:
"I am bored. I would like y'all to engage in a flamewar for my
amusement."

Sadly, to get a full-on Atari-vs-C64 flame war, its necessary to got
into the archives.

This Guy (Lloyd Hearsewave) Apparently has nothing better to do while
he sits in his parents basement and dreams about the day that he wont
be a 35 year old virgin anymore.

I suggest that we all report his post as "Abuse" and get the post
removed. In my opinion, It's abusive to enter a discussion area about
a specific things, just to bash them and the people that use them.

Sal (kjmann)

And verily, didst BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> hastily babble thusly:
> On Jan 16, 12:58�pm, b...@newbreedsoftware.com (Bill Kendrick) wrote:
> "I am bored. I would like y'all to engage in a flamewar for my
> amusement."
> 
> Sadly, to get a full-on Atari-vs-C64 flame war, its necessary to got
> into the archives.

So atarians and commodes have flamewars too eh?
Seem to be a thoroughly disagreeable lot, the commode users.
Speccy users have never had any beef with the atari users.
:)
-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!"          |
|            in            | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
|     Computer Science     | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"                   |

On Jan 17, 10:07=A0am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
> I like the ZX, because it took little space in my bin and left plenty for
> the STfm that followed it.

I would agree that the Timex-Sinclair 1000 (the slightly modified
ZX-81 sold in the US) was the only entirely closet-compatible computer
I ever owned.

On Jan 17, 12:47=A0pm, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> So atarians and commies have flamewars too eh?

Wrong tense ~ had flamewars. It's Usenet after all, everyone had
flamewars. But that is decades in the past.

Am 17.01.2011 19:18, schrieb BruceMcF:
> On Jan 17, 12:47 pm, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>> So atarians and commies have flamewars too eh?
>
> Wrong tense ~ had flamewars. It's Usenet after all, everyone had
> flamewars. But that is decades in the past.

It�s good that most of the flamewars are now done at 4chan @ co
To Topic: I love the C64 for the soundchip. It still creates some very 
strong sounds - I cannot say anything about Atari and Spectrum, because 
I never used them.

"Lloyd Hearsewave" <sore_printer@yahoo.com> skrev i melding 
news:igut59$4e2$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>I don't understand why people are still using crappy doorstoppers like the 
>Sinclair Spectrum and ugly black and white heaps of trash like the ATARI 
>800 XL.
>
> Both of these computers failed in the 80s and look at the graphics of the 
> Spectrum - ugly, monochrome, no scrolling and no sprites.
>
> The ATARI has only 3 ugly colors, ugly sprites and bad scrolling. 99% of 
> ATARI games are crap.
>
> All the games are MUCH superior on the C64 and the C64 truly is the king 
> of home computers!
>
> So please throw away your ATARIs and Spectrums and buy a C64 on ebay!

Yeah, like Rescue on Fractalus, Star Raiders, Bounty Bob Strikes Back (ok, 
C64 version was okay, but I think the Atari one is better) and Ballblazer 
.... And M.U.L.E. (4 port Atari 800 rules) ... And Dropzone ... Oh, hell, 
most of my favourite games are superior on the Atari. I do have C64, C128, 
Vic20, +4, C16, but they are not the same to me.

One thing that is better on the C64 is George Feil's Synth Sample 3 (the 
spacey tune) ... That's brilliant, but strangely enough, I don't play many 
games on the C64

For me, it's Atari, always (old Atari, not the crappy company they are now)

On Jan 18, 6:47=A0am, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> And verily, didst BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> hastily babble thusly:
>
> > On Jan 16, 12:58=A0pm, b...@newbreedsoftware.com (Bill Kendrick) wrote:
> > "I am bored. I would like y'all to engage in a flamewar for my
> > amusement."
>
> > Sadly, to get a full-on Atari-vs-C64 flame war, its necessary to got
> > into the archives.
>
> So atarians and commodes have flamewars too eh?

You call this a flamewar?  Pah!

> Seem to be a thoroughly disagreeable lot, the commode users.

Actually, I quite like the Commode.  It had a good version of
Ghostbusters - well, the theme music was cool.  In fact, I might just
go fire up one of the C64s now...

hang on...

Damn.  It's not working - it looks like the power supply failed.
Wait, I'll find another PSU. ...

Nope.  I think that one fried too.  I'm sure I've got another one...

Damn.  That one seems to be fried.

Oh well.  Back the the +2.

--
Andrew

On Jan 17, 3:02=A0pm, lizardb0y <andrew.step...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You call this a flamewar? =A0Pah!

I said he *wanted* a flamewar, I didn't say he had the slightest hope
of getting his wish.

Why, back in the day, that inability to decipher my opaque statement
could in and of itself have been enough to get a flamewar started.

Ah, the eighties. Usenet flamewars and girl bands with eighties hair.
*sigh*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DFGYNvx9lqDQ

lizardb0y wrote:

> Actually, I quite like the Commode.  It had a good version of
> Ghostbusters - well, the theme music was cool.  In fact, I might just
> go fire up one of the C64s now...

Hmmm, bad choice... Not that the commodoe didn't have any good
conversions, but Ghostbusters is better with the XL Version by miles.
Even the sound is, in that case, more atmospheric (funky). M.U.L.E. is
an other game (also with better sound) and many more games.
Four channels is definetely more than three ;-)

Spending CPU time for sound can deliver fantastic effects (e.g. Hall),
not to forget the vacuum-cleaner like out of phase (standard) sound.

Nice computer! Expensive though...
 
> Oh well.  Back the the +2.

Have fun!


-- 
Daniel Mandic

In comp.sys.atari.8bit Thorsten G�nther <guenther@dilgar.de> wrote:
> the C64 had the advantage of vertical integration with MOS - resulting in 
> the better price/performance ratio.

I don't know much about the history of C=64, so I didn't know that.
Thanks for sharing! :)  (That reminds me, I have a book on the 64
on my Amazon wishlist that I should finally just go ahead and purchase.)

My brother had the C=64 (and lots of games).  I had the Atari (and few
games, but a powerful BASIC to keep me busy writing my own ;) )

-- 
-bill!
Sent from my computer

Sounds like someone trying to get cheap Ataris and Spectrums on eBay.

Sean.

"Lloyd Hearsewave" <sore_printer@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:igut59$4e2$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>I don't understand why people are still using crappy doorstoppers like the 
>Sinclair Spectrum and ugly black and white heaps of trash like the ATARI 
>800 XL.
>
> Both of these computers failed in the 80s and look at the graphics of the 
> Spectrum - ugly, monochrome, no scrolling and no sprites.
>
> The ATARI has only 3 ugly colors, ugly sprites and bad scrolling. 99% of 
> ATARI games are crap.
>
> All the games are MUCH superior on the C64 and the C64 truly is the king 
> of home computers!
>
> So please throw away your ATARIs and Spectrums and buy a C64 on ebay!
>
>
> 

On Jan 19, 7:16=A0pm, "Sean Huxter" <sean.hux...@SPAMverizon.net> wrote:
> Sounds like someone trying to get cheap Ataris and Spectrums on eBay.

It does, doesn't it? I wouldn't mind picking up a Spectrum if it was
available cheap. Does that mean I shouldn't have been so quick to
observe that the attempt to start an Atari / Spectrum vs Commie
flamewar on Usenet in the 21st century is absurd (though a bit
quaint)?

> "Lloyd Hearsewave" <sore_prin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:igut59$4e2$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> > So please throw away your ATARIs and Spectrums and buy a C64 on ebay!

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:23:31 -0800 (PST), "Kjmann's Atari Sales and
Service" <kjmann_atari@yahoo.com> sprachen:

>I suggest that we all report his post as "Abuse" and get the post
>removed

Is anyone even looking after Usenet any more?

Never mind him. I used all sorts of 8-bits. This thread is an
opportunity for us to come together, and finish arguments we had in
the playground 25 years ago. Or at the very least, carry them on.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"hey let's educate the brutes, we know we are superior to them anyway,
just through genetics, we are gentically superior to the working
class. They are a shaved monkey. If we educate them, they will be able
to read instructions, turn up on time and man the conveyor belts,
sorted."     #     

On 18 Jan 2011 18:19:04 GMT, bill@newbreedsoftware.com (Bill Kendrick)
sprachen:

>My brother had the C=64 (and lots of games).  I had the Atari (and few
>games, but a powerful BASIC to keep me busy writing my own ;) )

Where did you get the powerful BASIC from? No sprite or sound support,
and it couldn't even draw bloody circles! And wait, it didn't even
have proper strings! I loved the graphics and fast CPU, and Star
Raiders is legendary, but the BASIC on the Atari 8-bits was AWFUL. 

I've used several BASICs, BBC BASIC on the Z88 being a favourite, 
nicely tied in with the OS and it's channel-based control commands. I
suppose it wasn't bad on the BBC either. But Atari BASIC was matched
only by Commodore for being bloody useless. If you have to enter POKEs
to get anything done, then it's not BASIC it's slightly easier
assembly. That doesn't actually assemble, now I think of it.

The Designer's Pencil was nice tho.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"hey let's educate the brutes, we know we are superior to them anyway,
just through genetics, we are gentically superior to the working
class. They are a shaved monkey. If we educate them, they will be able
to read instructions, turn up on time and man the conveyor belts,
sorted."     #     

"greenaum" <greenaum@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:4d3ff328.606281@nntp.aioe.org...
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:23:31 -0800 (PST), "Kjmann's Atari Sales and
> Service" <kjmann_atari@yahoo.com> sprachen:
> 
>>I suggest that we all report his post as "Abuse" and get the post
>>removed

I think of them more as "amuse" than 'Abuse'. They make me laugh. 

> Is anyone even looking after Usenet any more? 

AFAIK, Usenet never was a moderated system. Had it been moderated, 
I doubt all the flaming would have had a chance to even exist. 

> Never mind him. I used all sorts of 8-bits. This thread is an 
> opportunity for us to come together, and finish arguments we 
> had in the playground 25 years ago. Or at the very least, 
> carry them on. 

How about we just carry them on and forget about those losers. 

> "hey let's educate the brutes, we know we are superior to them 
> anyway, just through genetics, we are gentically superior to the 
> working class. They are a shaved monkey. If we educate them, they 
> will be able to read instructions, turn up on time and man the 
> conveyor belts, sorted."     # 

Let them be, as this petty thing they do keeps them busy enough so 
they don't indulge in escalated activity such as: rape and murder. 

Bill 

Am 24.01.2011 22:46, schrieb greenaum:
> On 18 Jan 2011 18:19:04 GMT, bill@newbreedsoftware.com (Bill Kendrick)
> sprachen:
>
>> My brother had the C=64 (and lots of games).  I had the Atari (and few
>> games, but a powerful BASIC to keep me busy writing my own ;) )
>
> Where did you get the powerful BASIC from?

Well, I got mine from an issue of the magazine "Happy Computer", it was 
named "Turbo-BASIC XL 1.5" 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-Basic_XL>. Had to type it in, 
though. Other good BASIC dialects for the A8 usually came from OSS, but 
were way too expensive this side of the pond.

If you aim for power, though, nothing except 6502 assembly matches 
ACTION! <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action!> - sadly, this language 
was never ported to any other system (e.g. the C=64 or Apple II).

>But Atari BASIC was matched
> only by Commodore for being bloody useless.

ACK, the Atari BASIC wasn't good at all: slow, having a strange string 
handling and only few commands for graphics and sound, But what was 
important for Atari at the time: it only needed an 8K cartridge, and it 
was finished in time. You have to remember ROM and RAM were very 
expensive back in 1978 and MS BASIC needed more than 8K ROM on the 6502.

There is only one thing I liked about Atari BASIC, now that I think of 
it: the ability to use shortcuts (e.g. "G." for "GOTO" and "L." for "LIST").


Thorsten

On 1/24/2011 4:46 PM, greenaum wrote:

snip

> Never mind him. I used all sorts of 8-bits. This thread is an
> opportunity for us to come together, and finish arguments we had in
> the playground 25 years ago. Or at the very least, carry them on.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------


I never partyipate in these tirates, for all it does is rankle someones 
blood pressure.

But:  I can add this, all the machines made in the early days had their 
pluses and minisus, strong points and weak points.

the commiedoors sure sold a lot!

As long as stores had units on display that allowed one to explore a 
little I used to like going in and entering a small short program and 
let it run on the commiedoors.

5 let z=.01
10 for a = 1 to 100000
15 let z=z+.01
20 Print z
25 next a
30 goto 5

if this was let run to its conclusion shortly after the commiedoor hit a 
value of 2 (I think, after all its been many a year since these were 
store found items) errors in the math would surface and be evidenced by 
the print statement, whereas other machines might never hickup on this 
example of simple math.

On Jan 24, 2:35=A0pm, "Bill Garber" <willy4...@garberstreet.com> wrote:

> AFAIK, Usenet never was a moderated system.

rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  :)

And that group works very well,
Robert Bernardo
Fresno Commodore User Group
http://videocam.net.au/fcug
The Other Group of Amigoids
http://www.calweb.com/~rabel1/
Southern California Commodore & Amiga Network
http://www.sccaners.org

ZX81 is the king of 8-bits for sure ;-)

Regards,

Shaun.

commodorecomputerclub@googlemail.com wrote:
> ZX81 is the king of 8-bits for sure ;-)

Nothing to add to these true words!

See what ZX-TEAM has made possible with the old black doorstopper at 
15th ZX-TEAM-meeting: http://www.zx81.de

Sinclairly yours

Peter

On 1/25/2011 1:42 AM, commodorecomputerclub@googlemail.com wrote:
> ZX81 is the king of 8-bits for sure ;-)

It was what I got started on. :)

- Trevor

On Jan 25, 10:48=A0am, Peter Liebert-Adelt <pe...@zschopower.de> wrote:
> commodorecomputerc...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > ZX81 is the king of 8-bits for sure ;-)
>
> Nothing to add to these true words!
>
> See what ZX-TEAM has made possible with the old black doorstopper at
> 15th ZX-TEAM-meeting:http://www.zx81.de
>
> Sinclairly yours
>
> Peter

3D Monster Maze, Mazogs and more recent additions like PipePanic,
Virus, MazezaM, Q-Frogger and the amazing Boulder Logic is all you
need as a gamer, and those are just a few titles, there are many more
to mention for sure!

Regards,

Shaun.

In comp.sys.atari.8bit greenaum <greenaum@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Where did you get the powerful BASIC from? No sprite or sound support,
> and it couldn't even draw bloody circles! And wait, it didn't even
> have proper strings! I loved the graphics and fast CPU, and Star
> Raiders is legendary, but the BASIC on the Atari 8-bits was AWFUL. 

Well, compared to what I saw on the Apple II (which I basically considered
to be a joke of a system, as a kid ;) ) and C=64 (which had no pixel graphics
or sound commands in BASIC).

Eventually, yes, the slowness and lack of a number of useful functions
(more graphics, sprites, etc.) caused me to switch to TurboBASIC XL once
I discovered it.  It still lacked sprites, but by then I had some books
that explained how to set them up (via POKEs), and TBXL had some memory
move functions.


> I've used several BASICs, BBC BASIC on the Z88 being a favourite, 
> nicely tied in with the OS and it's channel-based control commands. I
> suppose it wasn't bad on the BBC either. But Atari BASIC was matched
> only by Commodore for being bloody useless. If you have to enter POKEs
> to get anything done, then it's not BASIC it's slightly easier
> assembly. That doesn't actually assemble, now I think of it.

Nah nah nah. :)

10 GRAPHICS 8
20 SETCOLOR 2,0,0
30 SETCOLOR 1,0,15
40 COLOR 1
50 FOR X=0 TO 359 STEP 3
60 PLOT X,0
70 DRAWTO 359-X,191
80 SOUND 0,X/2,10,8
90 NEXT X
100 SOUND 0,0,0,0


C=64 BASIC did not make that kind of functionality accessible, from what
I remember.  It all had to be done with POKEs and SYS calls, no?

-- 
-bill!
Sent from my computer

In comp.sys.atari.8bit Thorsten G�nther <guenther@dilgar.de> wrote:
> There is only one thing I liked about Atari BASIC, now that I think of 
> it: the ability to use shortcuts (e.g. "G." for "GOTO" and "L." for "LIST").

It also provided feedback on syntax errors immediately.

10250 REM SOME SUBROUTINE THAT RARELY GETS GOSUB'D
10260 PRONT "HELLO"
10270 RETURN

would result in an error the moment you entered line 10260.

I remember being uber-frustrated by Apple II's BASIC because
it would only check syntax as the program ran.  So if you have
a 1-in-a-million chance of ever landing on a line of code,
you had that much chance of knowing you made a typo. :^(

Also, I seem to recall C=64 BASIC had 2-character limits on
variable names.  e.g.

10 CARS=10
20 CAT=0
30 PRINT CARS

oops :(



-- 
-bill!
Sent from my computer

"Bill Kendrick" <bill@newbreedsoftware.com> wrote in message 
news:4d3f2c80$0$43976$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> C=64 BASIC did not make that kind of functionality accessible, from what
> I remember.  It all had to be done with POKEs and SYS calls, no?

Correct.  There were many later add-ons to expand BASIC with lots of useful 
new keywords, but they never really caught on that much.  Commodore themselves 
distributed Simon's BASIC, which added a lot of much-needed commands: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%27s_BASIC .  (A lot of utility cartridges 
also added commands that were meant more for use in immediate mode than in a 
BASIC program itself; I had a Final Cartridge III --  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cartridge -- that was truly spectacular 
back in its day.)

> Also, I seem to recall C=64 BASIC had 2-character limits on
> variable names.  e.g.

This was true of many BASICs of the day -- Apple had the same limitation.

---Joel

On Jan 25, 12:03=A0pm, b...@newbreedsoftware.com (Bill Kendrick) wrote:

> 10 GRAPHICS 8
> 20 SETCOLOR 2,0,0
> 30 SETCOLOR 1,0,15
> 40 COLOR 1
> 50 FOR X=3D0 TO 359 STEP 3
> 60 PLOT X,0
> 70 DRAWTO 359-X,191
> 80 SOUND 0,X/2,10,8
> 90 NEXT X
> 100 SOUND 0,0,0,0
>
> C=3D64 BASIC did not make that kind of functionality accessible, from wha=
t
> I remember. =A0It all had to be done with POKEs and SYS calls, no?

True.  More functionality came with BASIC 3.5 in the
Commodore Plus/4 and BASIC 7.0 in the Commodore 128.

See you at the May Atari Party,
Robert Bernardo
Fresno Commodore User Group
http://videocam.net.au/fcug
The Other Group of Amigoids
http://www.calweb.com/~rabel1/
Southern California Commodore & Amiga Network
http://www.sccaners.org

Bill Kendrick wrote:
> In comp.sys.atari.8bit greenaum <greenaum@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Where did you get the powerful BASIC from? No sprite or sound
>> support, and it couldn't even draw bloody circles! And wait, it
>> didn't even have proper strings! I loved the graphics and fast CPU,
>> and Star Raiders is legendary, but the BASIC on the Atari 8-bits was
>> AWFUL.
>
> Well, compared to what I saw on the Apple II (which I basically
> considered to be a joke of a system, as a kid ;) ) and C=64 (which
> had no pixel graphics or sound commands in BASIC).
>
> Eventually, yes, the slowness and lack of a number of useful functions
> (more graphics, sprites, etc.) caused me to switch to TurboBASIC XL
> once
> I discovered it.  It still lacked sprites, but by then I had some
> books
> that explained how to set them up (via POKEs), and TBXL had some
> memory
> move functions.
>
>
>> I've used several BASICs, BBC BASIC on the Z88 being a favourite,
>> nicely tied in with the OS and it's channel-based control commands. I
>> suppose it wasn't bad on the BBC either. But Atari BASIC was matched
>> only by Commodore for being bloody useless. If you have to enter
>> POKEs to get anything done, then it's not BASIC it's slightly easier
>> assembly. That doesn't actually assemble, now I think of it.
>
> Nah nah nah. :)
>
> 10 GRAPHICS 8
> 20 SETCOLOR 2,0,0
> 30 SETCOLOR 1,0,15
> 40 COLOR 1
> 50 FOR X=0 TO 359 STEP 3
> 60 PLOT X,0
> 70 DRAWTO 359-X,191
> 80 SOUND 0,X/2,10,8
> 90 NEXT X
> 100 SOUND 0,0,0,0
>
>
> C=64 BASIC did not make that kind of functionality accessible, from
> what
> I remember.

True, but neither did the stock Atari BASIC. There where BASIC enhancements 
like Simon's BASIC that added similar commands to C= BASIC. Ofcourse, then 
there was the problem that your programs would only work for people who had 
the same enhanced BASIC.

  It all had to be done with POKEs and SYS calls, no?

ML is really the only way to make use of graphics and sound on the old 8 
bitters anyway, if you're talking games and programs that required any kind 
of speed.

I was spoilt in that I had a CoCo2 with Extended Colour BASIC which had a 
decent BASIC but it was still hampered by it's lack of speed.

On Jan 26, 8:29=A0am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
> Bill Kendrick wrote:
> > In comp.sys.atari.8bit greenaum <green...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Where did you get the powerful BASIC from? No sprite or sound
> >> support, and it couldn't even draw bloody circles! And wait, it
> >> didn't even have proper strings! I loved the graphics and fast CPU,
> >> and Star Raiders is legendary, but the BASIC on the Atari 8-bits was
> >> AWFUL.
>
> > Well, compared to what I saw on the Apple II (which I basically
> > considered to be a joke of a system, as a kid ;) ) and C=3D64 (which
> > had no pixel graphics or sound commands in BASIC).
>
> > Eventually, yes, the slowness and lack of a number of useful functions
> > (more graphics, sprites, etc.) caused me to switch to TurboBASIC XL
> > once
> > I discovered it. =A0It still lacked sprites, but by then I had some
> > books
> > that explained how to set them up (via POKEs), and TBXL had some
> > memory
> > move functions.
>
> >> I've used several BASICs, BBC BASIC on the Z88 being a favourite,
> >> nicely tied in with the OS and it's channel-based control commands. I
> >> suppose it wasn't bad on the BBC either. But Atari BASIC was matched
> >> only by Commodore for being bloody useless. If you have to enter
> >> POKEs to get anything done, then it's not BASIC it's slightly easier
> >> assembly. That doesn't actually assemble, now I think of it.
>
> > Nah nah nah. :)
>
> > 10 GRAPHICS 8
> > 20 SETCOLOR 2,0,0
> > 30 SETCOLOR 1,0,15
> > 40 COLOR 1
> > 50 FOR X=3D0 TO 359 STEP 3
> > 60 PLOT X,0
> > 70 DRAWTO 359-X,191
> > 80 SOUND 0,X/2,10,8
> > 90 NEXT X
> > 100 SOUND 0,0,0,0
>
> > C=3D64 BASIC did not make that kind of functionality accessible, from
> > what
> > I remember.
>
> True, but neither did the stock Atari BASIC. There where BASIC enhancemen=
ts
> like Simon's BASIC that added similar commands to C=3D BASIC. Ofcourse, t=
hen
> there was the problem that your programs would only work for people who h=
ad
> the same enhanced BASIC.
>
> =A0 It all had to be done with POKEs and SYS calls, no?
>
> ML is really the only way to make use of graphics and sound on the old 8
> bitters anyway, if you're talking games and programs that required any ki=
nd
> of speed.
>
> I was spoilt in that I had a CoCo2 with Extended Colour BASIC which had a
> decent BASIC but it was still hampered by it's lack of speed.

CoCo2's Extended Colour BASIC sounds like what I grew up on - TI
Extended BASIC... had an excellent set of statements and commands, but
was pretty slow...
It did not support line-graphics, being that the graphics chip
originally used on the 99/4 had no bitmap mode - the 99/4A added
bitmap. It was a character-based graphics system, even the bitmap
mode...

But the sprite statements and sound statements were most awesome. So
were the user-defined subprograms with local variables. Too bad BASIC
was too slow to do much in...

On Jan 27, 2:02=A0am, "winston19842...@yahoo.com"
<winston19842...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 8:29=A0am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bill Kendrick wrote:
> > > In comp.sys.atari.8bit greenaum <green...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> Where did you get the powerful BASIC from? No sprite or sound
> > >> support, and it couldn't even draw bloody circles! And wait, it
> > >> didn't even have proper strings! I loved the graphics and fast CPU,
> > >> and Star Raiders is legendary, but the BASIC on the Atari 8-bits was
> > >> AWFUL.
>
> > > Well, compared to what I saw on the Apple II (which I basically
> > > considered to be a joke of a system, as a kid ;) ) and C=3D64 (which
> > > had no pixel graphics or sound commands in BASIC).
>
> > > Eventually, yes, the slowness and lack of a number of useful function=
s
> > > (more graphics, sprites, etc.) caused me to switch to TurboBASIC XL
> > > once
> > > I discovered it. =A0It still lacked sprites, but by then I had some
> > > books
> > > that explained how to set them up (via POKEs), and TBXL had some
> > > memory
> > > move functions.
>
> > >> I've used several BASICs, BBC BASIC on the Z88 being a favourite,
> > >> nicely tied in with the OS and it's channel-based control commands. =
I
> > >> suppose it wasn't bad on the BBC either. But Atari BASIC was matched
> > >> only by Commodore for being bloody useless. If you have to enter
> > >> POKEs to get anything done, then it's not BASIC it's slightly easier
> > >> assembly. That doesn't actually assemble, now I think of it.
>
> > > Nah nah nah. :)
>
> > > 10 GRAPHICS 8
> > > 20 SETCOLOR 2,0,0
> > > 30 SETCOLOR 1,0,15
> > > 40 COLOR 1
> > > 50 FOR X=3D0 TO 359 STEP 3
> > > 60 PLOT X,0
> > > 70 DRAWTO 359-X,191
> > > 80 SOUND 0,X/2,10,8
> > > 90 NEXT X
> > > 100 SOUND 0,0,0,0
>
> > > C=3D64 BASIC did not make that kind of functionality accessible, from
> > > what
> > > I remember.
>
> > True, but neither did the stock Atari BASIC. There where BASIC enhancem=
ents
> > like Simon's BASIC that added similar commands to C=3D BASIC. Ofcourse,=
 then
> > there was the problem that your programs would only work for people who=
 had
> > the same enhanced BASIC.
>
> > =A0 It all had to be done with POKEs and SYS calls, no?
>
> > ML is really the only way to make use of graphics and sound on the old =
8
> > bitters anyway, if you're talking games and programs that required any =
kind
> > of speed.
>
> > I was spoilt in that I had a CoCo2 with Extended Colour BASIC which had=
 a
> > decent BASIC but it was still hampered by it's lack of speed.
>
> CoCo2's Extended Colour BASIC sounds like what I grew up on - TI
> Extended BASIC... had an excellent set of statements and commands, but
> was pretty slow...
> It did not support line-graphics, being that the graphics chip
> originally used on the 99/4 had no bitmap mode - the 99/4A added
> bitmap. It was a character-based graphics system, even the bitmap
> mode...
>
> But the sprite statements and sound statements were most awesome. So
> were the user-defined subprograms with local variables. Too bad BASIC
> was too slow to do much in...

I started programming on a Timex-Sinclar 1000(that I still have but
doesn't fully work, and then TI99-4a), which I wrote for and had no
way of saving the programs at first but learned a bunch about basic
before I got my Atari 800 with 410 recorder(still have but upgraded to
a 130xe).  I still like to play with basic programming on the 130xe
and would like to try and convert some of my Flash games I have made
to the Atari 8 bit machines.  Here is a link to some my Flash games on
my Flash gaming site.  http://www.thepixelcastle.com/cat/4/Originals/newest=
-1.html
I am sure some I can do easily and some might take little more work,
but the challenge should be fun.

In comp.sys.atari.8bit Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
> Bill Kendrick wrote:
<snip>
> > 10 GRAPHICS 8
> > 20 SETCOLOR 2,0,0
> > 30 SETCOLOR 1,0,15
> > 40 COLOR 1
> > 50 FOR X=0 TO 359 STEP 3
> > 60 PLOT X,0
> > 70 DRAWTO 359-X,191
> > 80 SOUND 0,X/2,10,8
> > 90 NEXT X
> > 100 SOUND 0,0,0,0
> >
> >
> > C=64 BASIC did not make that kind of functionality accessible, from
> > what
> > I remember.

> True, but neither did the stock Atari BASIC.

That, right up there, is stock Atari BASIC code.  (The kind you'd get
on cartridge for the 400, 800 and 1200XL, or which was built-in on
the alter models: 600XL, 800XL, 65XE, 130XE, XEGS.)


<snip>
> ML is really the only way to make use of graphics and sound on the old 8 
> bitters anyway, if you're talking games and programs that required any kind 
> of speed.

Yes, truly.  On the other hand, as a young kid (I was about 7 or 8 when
I got my Atari 1200XL), BASIC was _incredibly_ accessible as a programming
language, and I have hundreds of 5.25" floppies rotting in my closet with
old games and other programs I wrote for myself in BASIC.

I would have loved to known 6502 assembly, but I never ended up with any
of the books or magazines that explained it.  On the other hand, I was able
to take the ML-less BASIC code from computer magazines about the C=64 and
'port' them to the Atari, to play with them.  (I learned a little about
AI by programming an inference engine and Dr. Eliza game.)  I could also
sit down on a C=64, Apple II, or IBM PC with BASIC and crank out little
programs pretty easily. ;)

As crappy as BASIC is compared to most high level languages, and as slow
as BASIC is on the old 8-bit systems, it really gave me a leg-up into the
programming career that I've had since before I even finished college.

And like I said, TurboBASIC XL was a nice crutch later on.  (Ah, finally,
I can easily blit text onto a bitmap screen. ;) )


-- 
-bill!
Sent from my computer

<winston19842005@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:6fde8dff-68d5-4677-b891-8119548016dc@l22g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 8:29 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
>Extended BASIC... had an excellent set of statements and commands, but
>was pretty slow...

....largely due to that truly bizarre graphics chip they used; like, e.g., the 
one in the C-128, it took a lot of machincations to actually transfer data to 
it...

On Jan 27, 9:54=A0am, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> <winston19842...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6fde8dff-68d5-4677-b891-8119548016dc@l22g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 26, 8:29 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
>
> >Extended BASIC... had an excellent set of statements and commands, but
> >was pretty slow...
>
> ...largely due to that truly bizarre graphics chip they used; like, e.g.,=
 the
> one in the C-128, it took a lot of machincations to actually transfer dat=
a to
> it...

Just a POV but if I imagine a world where there was only one low cost
entry level computer, whatever it was it would have been the greatest
thing since sliced bread. Doesn't matter if it was a Sinclair, Atari,
or Jupiter Ace, I would have still embraced it.

I grew up before the advent of pocket calculators and personal
computers. I still remember using slide rules and log tables when I
was taking tests in college. Even when I started work I thought a
~Wang 700 programable calculator the size of a bread box that anyone
in the building could use was an incredible tool.

Hmmm, next thing you know I'll start talking about how I walked
barefoot in the snow, uphill both ways, to school. :)

Rick

On 1/27/11 12:54 PM, in article
Qji0p.737758$Is6.403134@en-nntp-13.dc1.easynews.com, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

> <winston19842005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6fde8dff-68d5-4677-b891-8119548016dc@l22g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 26, 8:29 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
>> Extended BASIC... had an excellent set of statements and commands, but
>> was pretty slow...
> 
> ...largely due to that truly bizarre graphics chip they used; like, e.g., the
> 
> one in the C-128, it took a lot of machincations to actually transfer data to
> it...
> 

That, plus the BASIC was written in another interpreted language. TI
Extended Basic had some written in assembly, but still a lot was in GPL -
there was a GPL interpreter in ROM.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:23:02 -0800, ricortes wrote:

<snip>

> Hmmm, next thing you know I'll start talking about how I walked
> barefoot in the snow, uphill both ways, to school. :)
> 
> Rick

I'm with ya Rick - we were so far up in the head of a "holler" that our
Saturday morning cartoons came in on Sunday!  :)

-- 
Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives.!"
An Atari SW/HW based BBS - Telnet:darkforce-bbs.dyndns.org

"Ronald J. Hall" <darklord@suddenlink.net> wrote in message news:pan.2011.01.28.03.35.32.911700@suddenlink.net... 
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:23:02 -0800, ricortes wrote: 
> 
> <snip> 
> 
>> Hmmm, next thing you know I'll start talking about how I walked 
>> barefoot in the snow, uphill both ways, to school. :) 
>> 
>> Rick
> 
> I'm with ya Rick - we were so far up in the head of a "holler" 
> that our Saturday morning cartoons came in on Sunday!  :) 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Bill Kendrick wrote:
> In comp.sys.atari.8bit Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
>> Bill Kendrick wrote:
> <snip>
>>> 10 GRAPHICS 8
>>> 20 SETCOLOR 2,0,0
>>> 30 SETCOLOR 1,0,15
>>> 40 COLOR 1
>>> 50 FOR X=0 TO 359 STEP 3
>>> 60 PLOT X,0
>>> 70 DRAWTO 359-X,191
>>> 80 SOUND 0,X/2,10,8
>>> 90 NEXT X
>>> 100 SOUND 0,0,0,0
>>>
>>>
>>> C=64 BASIC did not make that kind of functionality accessible, from
>>> what
>>> I remember.
>
>> True, but neither did the stock Atari BASIC.
>
> That, right up there, is stock Atari BASIC code.  (The kind you'd get
> on cartridge for the 400, 800 and 1200XL, or which was built-in on
> the alter models: 600XL, 800XL, 65XE, 130XE, XEGS.)
>
>
> <snip>
>> ML is really the only way to make use of graphics and sound on the
>> old 8 bitters anyway, if you're talking games and programs that
>> required any kind of speed.
>
> Yes, truly.  On the other hand, as a young kid (I was about 7 or 8
> when
> I got my Atari 1200XL), BASIC was _incredibly_ accessible as a
> programming language, and I have hundreds of 5.25" floppies rotting
> in my closet with old games and other programs I wrote for myself in
> BASIC.
>
> I would have loved to known 6502 assembly, but I never ended up with
> any of the books or magazines that explained it.  On the other hand,
> I was able to take the ML-less BASIC code from computer magazines
> about the C=64 and 'port' them to the Atari, to play with them.  (I
> learned a little about
> AI by programming an inference engine and Dr. Eliza game.)  I could
> also sit down on a C=64, Apple II, or IBM PC with BASIC and crank out
> little programs pretty easily. ;)
>

I had a lot of fun programming, and as long as you were aware of the 
constraints you could still produce some interesting stuff.

> As crappy as BASIC is compared to most high level languages, and as
> slow as BASIC is on the old 8-bit systems, it really gave me a leg-up
> into the programming career that I've had since before I even
> finished college.
>
> And like I said, TurboBASIC XL was a nice crutch later on.  (Ah,
> finally, I can easily blit text onto a bitmap screen. ;) )

Unfortunately my programming didn't progress much past my "Shoot the Cabbage 
Patch Kid" for the CoCo (which I still have a copy of) and a rather 
excellent Cricket game which was just under 16K which unfortunately has been 
lost. Both were written in extended BASIC.

I really only started dabbling in ML towards the end before other 
distractions came along, and then again when I got into Commodore computers 
a bit later.

On Jan 16, 8:51=A0am, "Lloyd Hearsewave" <sore_prin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't understand why people are still using crappy doorstoppers like th=
e
> Sinclair Spectrum and ugly black and white heaps of trash like the ATARI =
800
> XL.
>
> Both of these computers failed in the 80s and look at the graphics of the
> Spectrum - ugly, monochrome, no scrolling and no sprites.
>
> The ATARI has only 3 ugly colors, ugly sprites and bad scrolling. 99% of
> ATARI games are crap.
>
> All the games are MUCH superior on the C64 and the C64 truly is the king =
of
> home computers!
>
> So please throw away your ATARIs and Spectrums and buy a C64 on ebay!

Then go the C64 newsgroups and shut the hell up you troll.

On 16/01/2011 13:51, Lloyd Hearsewave wrote:
> So please throw away your ATARIs and Spectrums and buy a C64 on ebay!

what a rubbish flame war, dead already...

first lets annoy ATARI and speccy owners: I agree, they are rubbish... 
but then they are decades out of date.
and now for the c64 owners: The C64 is also rubbish, really, it's pants.

Now for everyone: The king of home computers is clearly the IBM PC 
compatible. Sure it was more expensive back in the day, and only took 
hold in the business market at first, but which machine is on 
everybody's desk/lap? An IBM PC AT derivative.

:p

On 01/19/2011 07:16 PM, Sean Huxter wrote:
> Sounds like someone trying to get cheap Ataris and Spectrums on eBay.
>
> Sean.
>
More like he's got a stack of C64s that he's trying to unload on 
unsuspecting victims.

TJ

> "Lloyd Hearsewave"<sore_printer@yahoo.com>  wrote in message
> news:igut59$4e2$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>> I don't understand why people are still using crappy doorstoppers like the
>> Sinclair Spectrum and ugly black and white heaps of trash like the ATARI
>> 800 XL.
>>
>> Both of these computers failed in the 80s and look at the graphics of the
>> Spectrum - ugly, monochrome, no scrolling and no sprites.
>>
>> The ATARI has only 3 ugly colors, ugly sprites and bad scrolling. 99% of
>> ATARI games are crap.
>>
>> All the games are MUCH superior on the C64 and the C64 truly is the king
>> of home computers!
>>
>> So please throw away your ATARIs and Spectrums and buy a C64 on ebay!
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Am 31.01.2011 14:40, schrieb Guesser:
> Now for everyone: The king of home computers is clearly the IBM PC
> compatible. Sure it was more expensive back in the day, and only took
> hold in the business market at first, but which machine is on
> everybody's desk/lap? An IBM PC AT derivative.

IBTD. The original IBM PC and its clone army threw back computer 
development for several years. These ugly, clunky, low-tech machines 
flooded the market and customers chose them instead of buying better, 
but "incompatible" systems like those great 68K and ARM based machines 
from the mid 1980s, e.g. in too many cases (well, the Atari ST had a 
strong base in the SOHO and music market in Europe and the Commodore 
Amiga was great for games and video/graphics - e.g. the first seasons' 
CGI in both Seaquest DSV and Babylon 5 were created using Amigas, but in 
the end both these systems were washed away by the flood of cheap IBM 
clones - the only survivor being the overpriced Macintosh).


Thorsten

On 07/02/2011 13:14, Thorsten G�nther wrote:
> Am 31.01.2011 14:40, schrieb Guesser:
>> Now for everyone: The king of home computers is clearly the IBM PC
>> compatible. Sure it was more expensive back in the day, and only took
>> hold in the business market at first, but which machine is on
>> everybody's desk/lap? An IBM PC AT derivative.
>
> IBTD
>
> <snip>
>
> but in the end both these systems were washed away by the flood of cheap IBM
> clones - the only survivor being the overpriced Macintosh).

sounds like you agree to me :)

(don't forget macs are now intel machines too!)

Guesser

Op 07-Feb-11 14:14, Thorsten G�nther schreef:
> Am 31.01.2011 14:40, schrieb Guesser:
>> Now for everyone: The king of home computers is clearly the IBM PC
>> compatible. Sure it was more expensive back in the day, and only took
>> hold in the business market at first, but which machine is on
>> everybody's desk/lap? An IBM PC AT derivative.
>
> IBTD. The original IBM PC and its clone army threw back computer
> development for several years. These ugly, clunky, low-tech machines
> flooded the market and customers chose them instead of buying better,
> but "incompatible" systems like those great 68K and ARM based machines
> from the mid 1980s, e.g. in too many cases (well, the Atari ST had a
> strong base in the SOHO and music market in Europe and the Commodore
> Amiga was great for games and video/graphics - e.g. the first seasons'
> CGI in both Seaquest DSV and Babylon 5 were created using Amigas, but in
> the end both these systems were washed away by the flood of cheap IBM
> clones - the only survivor being the overpriced Macintosh).

Which is nowadays also a PC clone.

On 2/7/11 3:22 PM, in article 4d5054a7$0$30714$5fc3050@news.tiscali.nl,
"Dombo" <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote:

> Op 07-Feb-11 14:14, Thorsten G�nther schreef:
>> Am 31.01.2011 14:40, schrieb Guesser:
>>> Now for everyone: The king of home computers is clearly the IBM PC
>>> compatible. Sure it was more expensive back in the day, and only took
>>> hold in the business market at first, but which machine is on
>>> everybody's desk/lap? An IBM PC AT derivative.
>> 
>> IBTD. The original IBM PC and its clone army threw back computer
>> development for several years. These ugly, clunky, low-tech machines
>> flooded the market and customers chose them instead of buying better,
>> but "incompatible" systems like those great 68K and ARM based machines
>> from the mid 1980s, e.g. in too many cases (well, the Atari ST had a
>> strong base in the SOHO and music market in Europe and the Commodore
>> Amiga was great for games and video/graphics - e.g. the first seasons'
>> CGI in both Seaquest DSV and Babylon 5 were created using Amigas, but in
>> the end both these systems were washed away by the flood of cheap IBM
>> clones - the only survivor being the overpriced Macintosh).
> 
> Which is nowadays also a PC clone.

Well, I'm still using my "overpriced" "PC clone", a Mac mini I bought in
'06. Runs as good today as it did back then, and has outlasted many other
computers I've had. Only my Gateway in 2001 lasted 5 years, but it had gone
through several hard drives, several reinstalls of the OS, a processor
upgrade and was way too slow at the end (like having Abe Lincoln's hammer,
having replaced the head twice and the handle 5 times).

So for me, it was worth the $$$.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 15:35:11 -0500, winston19842005 wrote:

> On 2/7/11 3:22 PM, in article 4d5054a7$0$30714$5fc3050@news.tiscali.nl,
> "Dombo" <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Op 07-Feb-11 14:14, Thorsten G�nther schreef:
>>> Am 31.01.2011 14:40, schrieb Guesser:
>>>> Now for everyone: The king of home computers is clearly the IBM PC
>>>> compatible. Sure it was more expensive back in the day, and only took
>>>> hold in the business market at first, but which machine is on
>>>> everybody's desk/lap? An IBM PC AT derivative.
>>> 


Bump

On 15/02/2011 02:38, Lloyd Hearsewave wrote:

> Bump

Oh, put some bloody effort into it. What's Usenet coming to when even 
the trolls can't be arsed to do it properly?

On Jan 16, 8:51=A0am, "Lloyd Hearsewave" <sore_prin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, sloppy and lazy trolling crapola]

Aw, Christ!  Why don't you give it a rest, would ya!

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 09:51:07 +0000, Matthew Westcott wibbled:

> On 15/02/2011 02:38, Lloyd Hearsewave wrote:
> 
>> Bump
> 
> Oh, put some bloody effort into it. What's Usenet coming to when even
> the trolls can't be arsed to do it properly?

And everyone knows that "bump" puts you right at the top of everyone's 
newsreader!

-- 
Matt
http://www.mattrudge.net for wibble and guff
http://blog.mattrudge.net for Linuxy goodness

In comp.sys.atari.8bit Bill Kendrick <bill@newbreedsoftware.com> wrote:
> > True, but neither did the stock Atari BASIC.

> That, right up there, is stock Atari BASIC code.  (The kind you'd get
> on cartridge for the 400, 800 and 1200XL, or which was built-in on
> the alter models: 600XL, 800XL, 65XE, 130XE, XEGS.)

BTW, that reminds me, the Atari OS _itself_ included things like
line drawing routines, trigonometric functions, and even an admittedly
odd, kind of hard-to-use flood fill routine.

So really, BASIC just happened to make these routines available using simple
BASIC commands (PLOT, DRAWTO, COS(), SIN(), etc.), but it was, I imagine,
trivial for other languages or straight machine-language games & apps to
utilize them.


Atari BASIC's:

10 GRAPHICS 7:COLOR 1:PLOT 0,0:DRAWTO 159,95

and Action!'s:

Proc Main()
  Graphics(7)
  Color(1)
  Plot(0,0)
  Drawto(159,95)
Return

are both just wrappers to the OS routines.  Things like the OS's
"S:" (screen), "E:" (editor) and "P:" (printer) device were nice
abstractions.

You can "LIST" your program source in BASIC to the screen, but you
could also do 'LIST "D:SOURCE.LST"' to save the BASIC program as
plain-text (not tokenized, like when you do 'SAVE "D:PROGRAM.BAS"'),
or 'LIST "P:"' to print your BASIC source out to the printer.

Under DOSes, you could, for example, copy "D:MEMO.TXT" to "S:" to view
it on the screen, or to "P:" to get a hard copy.  And since additional
devices could be added to the OS ("D:" driver is usually bootloaded off
of a boot disk, though there were cartridges like SpartaDOS, too), 3rd
parties could invent new devices that could be talked to using the
standard I/O functions (e.g., what BASIC provided via wrappers:
"OPEN", "GET", "PUT", "PRINT", "INPUT", "CLOSE", "LOAD", "SAVE",
"ENTER", "LIST", "NOTE", "POINT" and "XIO").  The "R-Time 8" battery-backed-up
realtime clock cartridge was an example... or special printer drivers.


Ugh, I'm reminiscing & bragging too much. :)  Basically, Atari's
device abstractions are cool, and it's kind of the same way in Linux
with /dev, /proc, etc. :)

-bill!

On 1/16/11 8:51 AM, Lloyd Hearsewave wrote:
> I don't understand why people are still using crappy doorstoppers like the 
> Sinclair Spectrum and ugly black and white heaps of trash like the ATARI 800 
> XL.

I know, right?  Anyone who knew their shit when it came to computers had
a Mattel Aquarius, naturally.

- J.

On Feb 15, 5:32=A0pm, John Harbl <jha...@harbl.com> wrote:
> On 1/16/11 8:51 AM, Lloyd Hearsewave wrote:
>
> > I don't understand why people are still using crappy doorstoppers like =
the
> > Sinclair Spectrum and ugly black and white heaps of trash like the ATAR=
I 800
> > XL.
>
> I know, right? =A0Anyone who knew their shit when it came to computers ha=
d
> a Mattel Aquarius, naturally.
>

And most likely had just bought part in a timeshare! ;)

On Feb 15, 3:14=A0pm, b...@newbreedsoftware.com (Bill Kendrick) wrote:

>
> Ugh, I'm reminiscing & bragging too much. :) =A0Basically, Atari's
> device abstractions are cool, and it's kind of the same way in Linux
> with /dev, /proc, etc. :)
>


Probably - even the TI-99 had abstractions - everything was treated as
a file. You open a file to disk devices, serial ports, parallel ports,
everything is communicated to by records. Even the screen and keyboard
was treated as a file in BASIC (but this was only in BASIC).

Devices were easily added using Device Service Routines (DSR's) in add-
on cards or command modules (cartridges in TI-speak). Subprograms
could be added similarly. The CALL FILES routine, for specifying # of
open files allowed at once, was a subprogram in the disk controller
card, for example.

The ROM/GROM had trig routines, floating point math, cassette I/O,
keyboard scan (with support for multiple mappings, including "split
keyboard" for games), an interrupt-driven sound list routine, an
interrupt-driven sprite movement routine, and tucked in the ROM was a
subroutine that moved a small assembly program to hi-speed RAM that
rotated characters around the y-axis... always thought that was weird.

LIST could write to the screen, to a device (printer, disk), even to a
DSR added by the TE-II cartridge - so you could do a LIST "SPEECH" and
have it speak your program to you...

On 2/16/11 12:32 AM, winston19842005@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 15, 5:32 pm, John Harbl <jha...@harbl.com> wrote:
>> On 1/16/11 8:51 AM, Lloyd Hearsewave wrote:
>>
>>> I don't understand why people are still using crappy doorstoppers like the
>>> Sinclair Spectrum and ugly black and white heaps of trash like the ATARI 800
>>> XL.
>>
>> I know, right?  Anyone who knew their shit when it came to computers had
>> a Mattel Aquarius, naturally.
>>
> 
> And most likely had just bought part in a timeshare! ;)

Oddly enough, that was actually how I got mine.  More accurately, my
parents sat in on the timeshare presentation to get the computer but
never actually bought into the timeshare.

Thankfully, they subsequently realised their mistake and I ended up with
an 800XL 18 months or so later.  About the best thing the Aquarius was
capable of was using FOR/NEXT loops to bog down the CPU in such a way
that the RFI with an AM radio placed next to the computer would make
'music'.

- J.

On Feb 16, 1:09=A0am, John Harbl <jha...@harbl.com> wrote:
> On 2/16/11 12:32 AM, winston19842...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 5:32 pm, John Harbl <jha...@harbl.com> wrote:
> >> On 1/16/11 8:51 AM, Lloyd Hearsewave wrote:
>
> >>> I don't understand why people are still using crappy doorstoppers lik=
e the
> >>> Sinclair Spectrum and ugly black and white heaps of trash like the AT=
ARI 800
> >>> XL.
>
> >> I know, right? =A0Anyone who knew their shit when it came to computers=
 had
> >> a Mattel Aquarius, naturally.
>
> > And most likely had just bought part in a timeshare! ;)
>
> Oddly enough, that was actually how I got mine. =A0More accurately, my
> parents sat in on the timeshare presentation to get the computer but
> never actually bought into the timeshare.
>
> Thankfully, they subsequently realised their mistake and I ended up with
> an 800XL 18 months or so later. =A0About the best thing the Aquarius was
> capable of was using FOR/NEXT loops to bog down the CPU in such a way
> that the RFI with an AM radio placed next to the computer would make
> 'music'.
>

Yes, I remember the ad for the 'free computer'. I asked my parents to
go, but they somehow found out it was a gimmick for the timeshare...

Another good one was a promotion Texas Instruments did where you'd get
a free TI-99 if you bought carpet and had it installed...

In comp.sys.atari.8bit winston19842005@yahoo.com <winston19842005@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Probably - even the TI-99 had abstractions - everything was treated as
> a file. You open a file to disk devices, serial ports, parallel ports,
> everything is communicated to by records. Even the screen and keyboard
> was treated as a file in BASIC (but this was only in BASIC).
<snip>
> LIST could write to the screen, to a device (printer, disk), even to a
> DSR added by the TE-II cartridge - so you could do a LIST "SPEECH" and
> have it speak your program to you...

Cool!  I know practically nothing about the TI-99, so that was
fascinating.

-- 
-bill!
Sent from my computer

On 2/16/11 9:15 PM, Bill Kendrick wrote:
> In comp.sys.atari.8bit winston19842005@yahoo.com <winston19842005@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Probably - even the TI-99 had abstractions - everything was treated as
>> a file. You open a file to disk devices, serial ports, parallel ports,
>> everything is communicated to by records. Even the screen and keyboard
>> was treated as a file in BASIC (but this was only in BASIC).
> <snip>
>> LIST could write to the screen, to a device (printer, disk), even to a
>> DSR added by the TE-II cartridge - so you could do a LIST "SPEECH" and
>> have it speak your program to you...
> 
> Cool!  I know practically nothing about the TI-99, so that was
> fascinating.

IIRC, much of this could also be done with Atari Basic using the OPEN
command.  It's been a *long* time since I've used it, but my
recollection is that devices other than disks, cassette drives,
printers, etc. could be accessed that way.  I don't believe it applied
to audio, though; that could only be done via the SOUND command.

- J.

<winston19842005@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:a01e80c9-5cee-42d4-9aa3-d54410680187@x18g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>Yes, I remember the ad for the 'free computer'. I asked my parents to
>go, but they somehow found out it was a gimmick for the timeshare...

There's still a VIC-20 at my parents' house that we got from attending a 
timeshare.  We already have a C-64 at the time, so while we did plug it into a 
TV and play with it a bit, I doubt it was used for more than 10 hours in its 
entire life.

My mother came to actually start enjoying dickering with the timeshare 
salesmen -- she must have gone to at least a half-dozen of them, collecting 
those 5" black & white TVs that were also a popular giveaway, a cheezy "boat" 
(rubber raft with a small electric trolling motor), the VIC-20, and a few 
other things.