f



The Commodore 64 rules!

1. Best selling computer of all time.
2. VIC-II/SID ship.
3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
4. BBSs.
5. The most popular computer of all time.

Paul

-1
dunric (341)
12/16/2005 3:39:13 AM
comp.sys.cbm 14331 articles. 0 followers. dunric (341) is leader. Post Follow

319 Replies
6162 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 50

Paul raps

>1. Best selling computer of all time.
>2. VIC-II/SID ship.
>3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
>4. BBSs.
>5. The most popular computer of all time.

It fizzle warms tha cockles of mah heart

http://64.istheshit.net/

Shakes me up Judy!

-- 
Brotha G.
http://neighbour.istheshit.net/
-1
Brotha
12/16/2005 4:22:45 AM
> 1. Best selling computer of all time.
> 2. VIC-II/SID ship.
> 3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
> 4. BBSs.
> 5. The most popular computer of all time.

It also:

1. makes you look 10 years younger
2. goes well with peanut butter
3. cleans floors, counter tops, and windows streak-free
4. Disinfects, and de-oderizes.
5. Comes with a money-back guarantee
6. all for 4 easy payments of $19.99
-1
David
12/16/2005 4:57:33 AM
"David Murray" <spamsucks@stopspam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns972DE9385104Fneverspamnospamcom@207.115.17.102...
>
>> 1. Best selling computer of all time.
>> 2. VIC-II/SID ship.
>> 3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
>> 4. BBSs.
>> 5. The most popular computer of all time.
>
> It also:
>
> 1. makes you look 10 years younger
> 2. goes well with peanut butter
> 3. cleans floors, counter tops, and windows streak-free
> 4. Disinfects, and de-oderizes.
> 5. Comes with a money-back guarantee
> 6. all for 4 easy payments of $19.99

And you can barbeque a goat on the power supply!
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!



-1
Sam
12/16/2005 5:21:05 AM
>> 6. all for 4 easy payments of $19.99
> 
> And you can barbeque a goat on the power supply!

Actually, you can use a modern PC for that.  I saw a website once (tried to 
find the link, but alas, I couldn't)  where it showed 10 things to do with 
that old PC.  There was the fish tank, the hamster cage, etc.  But my 
favorite one was where a guy had the side off of it, sitting on a stump and 
filled with charcoal while bar-b-que'ing shish-ka-bab's over the fire.  I 
laughed my butt off when I saw that.  I mean, I work in a computer store 
and everyday people bring in these old computers (IE: 486, pentium 75, 
etc..) and ask me "what can I do with this?"  I'll usually roll off quite a 
few uses like "Well, you can use it as a door stop, or a boat anchor, or 
put it behind the tire of your car when you're changing the oil, use it for 
a step stool, or a camping chair, target practice with your REAL gun, a 
foot stool in the living room, a night-stand, the larger ones can make good 
coffee tables, etc.." I can go on for like an hour with uses for an old 
computer.. People just stare at my like I'm nuts.  Then they will sort of 
insinuate that they are wanting to use it for some kind of computer related 
task like running Office XP or something.  So I tell them, "Oh.. its no 
good as a computer, but it can doo all those other things."  But now I also 
get to mention that it can be a bar-b-que grill or a hamster cage, and 
stuff like that.
1
David
12/16/2005 5:37:16 AM
On 15 Dec 2005 19:39:13 -0800, dunric@yahoo.com wrote:

>1. Best selling computer of all time.
>2. VIC-II/SID ship.
>3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
>4. BBSs.
>5. The most popular computer of all time.
>
>Paul

Um, ok, your opinion. Why post it here? And why cross-post? Is this
another try at making a huge thread that makes no sense at all?

-- 
George Nakos AKA GGN/K�A software productions - Atari or buST!
Real programmers disdain structured programming. �Structured
programming is for compulsive neurotics who were prematurely toilet-
trained.�They wear neckties and carefully line up pencils on otherwise
clear desks.
(remove ROCKS for e-mail address)
0
George
12/16/2005 7:09:37 AM
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, George Nakos wrote:

<Kersnippety!>

> Um, ok, your opinion. Why post it here? And why cross-post? Is this
> another try at making a huge thread that makes no sense at all?

Because Paul Panks is a kook, as most of comp.sys.cbm can attest.

-uso.
0
Lyrical
12/16/2005 8:18:40 AM
Lyrical Nanoha wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, George Nakos wrote:
>
> <Kersnippety!>
>
> > Um, ok, your opinion. Why post it here? And why cross-post? Is this
> > another try at making a huge thread that makes no sense at all?
>
> Because Paul Panks is a kook, as most of comp.sys.cbm can attest.
>
> -uso.

I've been posting in comp.sys.cbm since 1995. Only 3-4 posts that I've
made in 10 years fall under those "kooky" guidelines. The rest are CBM
related. Google it up if you don't believe me. Search from 1995 to
2005.

Paul

0
dunric
12/16/2005 8:55:29 AM
Lyrical Nanoha wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, George Nakos wrote:
>
> <Kersnippety!>
>
>> Um, ok, your opinion. Why post it here? And why cross-post? Is this
>> another try at making a huge thread that makes no sense at all?
>
> Because Paul Panks is a kook, as most of comp.sys.cbm can attest.

I can imagine. Do any of his posts relate to adventure games, in particular 
trying to beg someone to do a C64 port of his adventure?

D.


0
Paul
12/16/2005 9:37:25 AM

> 1. Best selling computer of all time.
> 2. VIC-II/SID ship.
> 3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
> 4. BBSs.
> 5. The most popular computer of all time.

1. Ugly graphics.
2. Ugly slow without sprites.
3. Ugly case.
4. Ugly name.
5. Ugly users :-)

B
0
ISO
12/16/2005 10:21:10 AM
dunric@yahoo.com did eloquently scribble:
> 
> 
> 1. Best selling computer of all time.

Bullshit

> 2. VIC-II/SID ship.

Yawn

> 3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.

Big deal, so what?

> 4. BBSs.

Yes, yes, still nothing special

> 5. The most popular computer of all time.

Hah!
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste!         |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|  I can SMELL!!!  KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and    |
|            in            |  get out the puncture repair kit!"              |
|     Computer Science     |     Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf              |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/16/2005 10:34:54 AM
George Nakos <ggn@atarirocks.org> did eloquently scribble:
> 
> 
> On 15 Dec 2005 19:39:13 -0800, dunric@yahoo.com wrote:
> 
>>1. Best selling computer of all time.
>>2. VIC-II/SID ship.
>>3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
>>4. BBSs.
>>5. The most popular computer of all time.
>>
>>Paul
> 
> Um, ok, your opinion. Why post it here? And why cross-post? Is this
> another try at making a huge thread that makes no sense at all?

It is puzzling why comp.sys.atari.8bit keeps getting dragged into this.
The commode users are in denial and keep starting these threads because of
their insecurity.
(note: the threads over the past months were both started by non-css-ers)
-- 
|                          |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
|  spike1@freenet.co.uk    |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
|                          |can't move, with no hope of rescue.             |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been   |
|           in             |good to you so far...                           |
|    Computer Science      |   -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
0
spike1
12/16/2005 10:34:54 AM
Soni tempori elseu romani yeof helsforo nisson ol sefini ill des 15 Dec 2005
19:39:13 -0800, sefini jorgo geanyet des mani yeof do comp.sys.sinclair,
yawatina tan reek esk dunric@yahoo.com fornis do marikano es bono tan el:

>1. Best selling computer of all time.

Uh, I think more IBM-compatible PCs have been sold, you know.

>2. VIC-II/SID ship.

Ships eh?

>3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.

I have thousands upon thousands for other computers too.

>4. BBSs.

Yes, and?  The Spectrum had them too.

>5. The most popular computer of all time.

"Popular" in what way?  Also, "popular" != "better.  Look at EA's console
games for proof of this.

deKay
-- 
 + Lofi Gaming - www.lofi-gaming.org.uk      
 |- ugvm Magazine - www.ugvm.org.uk          
 |- My computer runs at 3.5MHz and I'm proud of that
 |- "CLART - YOU KNOWS IT"
0
deKay
12/16/2005 10:42:41 AM
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, deKay wrote:

> Soni tempori elseu romani yeof helsforo nisson ol sefini ill des 15 Dec 2005
> 19:39:13 -0800, sefini jorgo geanyet des mani yeof do comp.sys.sinclair,
> yawatina tan reek esk dunric@yahoo.com fornis do marikano es bono tan el:
>
>> 5. The most popular computer of all time.
>
> "Popular" in what way?  Also, "popular" != "better.  Look at EA's console
> games for proof of this.

One thing I've never truly understood is this: if the C64 was so popular, 
then why is the C64 retroscene so different in character to the Speccy 
retroscene?

Vague question, I know, but still...

-- 
Nick Humphries, via OBD
Your Sinclair Rock'n'Roll Years - http://www.ysrnry.co.uk
YSRnRY documentary - http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/tvprog/
The Tipshop - http://www.the-tipshop.co.uk/

0
Nick
12/16/2005 11:20:52 AM
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:20:52 +0000, "Nick Humphries, via obd"
<nickjunk@egyptus.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, deKay wrote:
>
>> Soni tempori elseu romani yeof helsforo nisson ol sefini ill des 15 Dec 2005
>> 19:39:13 -0800, sefini jorgo geanyet des mani yeof do comp.sys.sinclair,
>> yawatina tan reek esk dunric@yahoo.com fornis do marikano es bono tan el:
>>
>>> 5. The most popular computer of all time.
>>
>> "Popular" in what way?  Also, "popular" != "better.  Look at EA's console
>> games for proof of this.
>
>One thing I've never truly understood is this: if the C64 was so popular, 
>then why is the C64 retroscene so different in character to the Speccy 
>retroscene?
>
>Vague question, I know, but still...

Do you mean as in not nearly as advanced in the retro scene? I know that sounds
like a flamebait comment, but I do look at the C64 retro scene, and it's tiny in
comparison.
-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____
0
The
12/16/2005 12:12:07 PM
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Paul Dunn wrote:

> Lyrical Nanoha wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, George Nakos wrote:
>>
>> <Kersnippety!>
>>
>>> Um, ok, your opinion. Why post it here? And why cross-post? Is this
>>> another try at making a huge thread that makes no sense at all?
>>
>> Because Paul Panks is a kook, as most of comp.sys.cbm can attest.
>
> I can imagine. Do any of his posts relate to adventure games, in particular
> trying to beg someone to do a C64 port of his adventure?

No, because he writes his stuff natively for the 64, but he's done it in 
comp.sys.apple2 before.

-uso.
0
12/16/2005 1:26:04 PM
David Murray wrote:

> 
> >> 6. all for 4 easy payments of $19.99
> > 
> > And you can barbeque a goat on the power supply!
> 
> Actually, you can use a modern PC for that.  I saw a website once
> (tried to find the link, but alas, I couldn't)  where it showed 10
> things to do with that old PC.  There was the fish tank, the hamster
> cage, etc.  But my favorite one was where a guy had the side off of
> it, sitting on a stump and filled with charcoal while bar-b-que'ing
> shish-ka-bab's over the fire.  I laughed my butt off when I saw that.
> I mean, I work in a computer store and everyday people bring in these
> old computers (IE: 486, pentium 75, etc..) and ask me "what can I do
> with this?"  I'll usually roll off quite a few uses like "Well, you
> can use it as a door stop, or a boat anchor, or put it behind the
> tire of your car when you're changing the oil, use it for a step

I mean you have not the slightest idea what�s selling. The customers
you write about may think they are in a dream-store, after telling them
the uses for a 486. They only tried to check if you are even willing to
advise something useful. ;-)


I know 486 User in the Usenet and have refreshing conversation with....


Well, P75. I would suggest Win95 and Office 97. Not to mention the
plenty of (pssst abandon..) DOS Software. Dear Sir/Mam you should at
least keep your Door-Stop for such purposes. etc etc... and make one
over that and say: But don�t forget your P75 may be too fast for some
games, though Office and Co. makes no problem... but only office 95 or
97 (97 I would suggest you as it is still used by offices and can read
MS Office-files)  ... after that he/she can get interest for a faster
machine capable to drive XP and OfficeXP. But the possibility is always
real, that he/she wanted no new computer at all, this time. But after
telling about Door-Stopps, Anker, Baerbque-Grill and Hamster-Cage I
don�t think that you will see this customer, in the same store, again.

Use you fantasy for interest and not for making something bad. At least
for selling more... :-) well? Right enough?



> stool, or a camping chair, target practice with your REAL gun, a foot
> stool in the living room, a night-stand, the larger ones can make
> good coffee tables, etc.." I can go on for like an hour with uses for
> an old computer.. People just stare at my like I'm nuts.  Then they
> will sort of insinuate that they are wanting to use it for some kind
> of computer related task like running Office XP or something.  So I
> tell them, "Oh.. its no good as a computer, but it can doo all those
> other things."  But now I also get to mention that it can be a
> bar-b-que grill or a hamster cage, and stuff like that.

COM - Communicate; PUTER - The Golfer who puts the COM in the right
hole.

TRANSPUTER -





Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

P.S.: I am a trained retail salesman for Braunware (entertainment
electronics).
http://dict.tu-chemnitz.de/dings.cgi?o=3003;style=;iservice=de-en;query=
Einzelhandelskaufmann
0
Daniel
12/16/2005 2:01:23 PM
Bohus Kr�l wrote:

> 1. Ugly graphics.
> 2. Ugly slow without sprites.
> 3. Ugly case.
> 4. Ugly name.
> 5. Ugly users :-)
> 
> B


1. Clunky Block Graphic.
2. B/W Mode (Hires though)
3. Matter of choice
4. AMIGA sounds better
5. And seller





Kind Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
Daniel
12/16/2005 2:05:11 PM
dunric@yahoo.com wrote:

> 1. Best selling computer of all time.
> 2. VIC-II/SID ship.
> 3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
> 4. BBSs.
> 5. The most popular computer of all time.
> 
> Paul



1. IBM-PC
2. Antic  Moog locker GTIA+ (8x8bit special)
3. Sinclair Spectrum 16/48K, ZX 80/81....
4. AMIGA (as it can support all systems, also c64 and so)
5. ATARI




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
Daniel
12/16/2005 2:10:30 PM
> 1. Best selling computer of all time.
The Windows PC. But I think we can all agree that it's rubbish.

> 2. VIC-II/SID chip.
Can be approximated an AY chip equipped Spectrum by using the Z80 to
add extra square waves to the standard sound channels. I suspect this
would be even easier on the Atari.

> 3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
There are more programs for the Spectrum. I don't know about the Atari.
I do know that most of these programs (on all formats) are absolutely
god-awful. It's the gems that we remeber fondly, and there were
probably about the same number of those on all formats (including the
BBC micro).

> 4. BBSs.
As has already been mentioned this is not a feature of the C64. Just
like the internet, BBSes were platform independent. Perhaps the poster
is refering to the large amount of C64 software that was available for
illegal download. The availablity of this software and the willingness
of people to break the law may account for the popularity of the C64.
It certainly accounts for the popularity of the Windows PC.

> 5. The most popular computer of all time.
This would be refering to the Guinness book of records entry I suppose.
That entry simply refers to the fact that the bog-standard C64 had the
biggest production run of any computer ever. So what? The bog-standard
VW Beetle had the biggest production run of any car ever. I doubt many
would argue that the VW Beetle was the greatest car of all time,
although granted some enthusiasts probably would.

In the last cross-platform thread I asked what happened to the
cross-platform development of a side scrolling shooter that was being
written for the C64, Vic20 and Atari. I didn't get an answer. Does
anyone know what happened to it?

On the subject of cross platform development. Someone mentioned that
the C64 has an 8x1 attribute mode but I forgot the resolution. Is there
a similar mode on the Atari? I should probably cross post this to
comp.sys.amstrad.8bit as well because I don't know if the CPC has this
mode. The reason is I'm working on a game for the Spectrum SE and I'd
need some help. No one in the Speccy community seems to have the time,
but if it became a cross-platform development there might be a bit more
interest. It's not going to be processor intensive so it should be
do-able on any 8-bit platform with a disk drive (or sufficient memory
for a tape load). Would probably look at selling it through Cronosoft.
Obviously the Spectrum SE version will be useable on emulators only
(since there's still only one in existence). Drop me an email if any
programmers amongst you are interested (that includes anyone prepared
to work on the Speccy version). All I can say at this point is it's a
top-down RPG.

0
Andrew
12/16/2005 2:16:50 PM
dunric@yahoo.com wrote:

> 1. Best selling computer of all time.
> 2. VIC-II/SID ship.
> 3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
> 4. BBSs.
> 5. The most popular computer of all time.
> 
> Paul


1. Sinclair ZX81
2. Doooeeeeeeett (BEEP 1,2 - Basic command)
3. Sinclair as well
4. BMW?
5. All time?




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
12/16/2005 2:18:08 PM
David Murray wrote:


Why crossposting this rant?



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
12/16/2005 2:19:48 PM
14. spi...@freenet.co.uk
	Dec 16, 2:34 am

dun...@yahoo.com did eloquently scribble:

> 1. Best selling computer of all time.

Best selling computer of all time of one model of computer.  IBM PCs
have sold more as a whole but not the PC, XT, At etc as a single model
with consistent specs has outsold the Commodore 64.

> 2. VIC-II/SID ship.

Back in 1982 a sythesiser was something no other computer had.  And it
took years for the PC with it's internal beep speaker to get a quality
sound card to rival the 64.

> 3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.

-Big deal, so what?

Choice, variety.  There were programs for just about everything on the
Commodore 64, accounting, word processing, etc.  There are now web
browsers for it.

> 4. BBSs.
-Yes, yes, still nothing special
To many they were it was a great community if you ever were there.

> 5. The most popular computer of all time.
-Hah!

a)see #1
b)search for Commodore 64 on Google and see how popular it is.

0
larry
12/16/2005 2:47:32 PM
"larry" <larry@portcommodore.com> wrote in message
news:1134744452.303528.79780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

> b)search for Commodore 64 on Google and see how popular it is.

But are any of those sites special and/or impressive?

Popular, in the present tense, means that people (lots of people) are
doing things related to them today. Mentioning them in passing is easy
which absolutely anyone can do. Creating something special isn't.


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
0
Nick
12/16/2005 2:55:48 PM
"The Starglider" <thestarglider@wibble.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fnb5q1dn1847fqcndqicr90phbsams7ioc@4ax.com

> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:20:52 +0000, "Nick Humphries, via obd"
> <nickjunk@egyptus.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >One thing I've never truly understood is this: if the C64 was so popular, 
> >then why is the C64 retroscene so different in character to the Speccy 
> >retroscene?
> >
> >Vague question, I know, but still...
> 
> Do you mean as in not nearly as advanced in the retro scene? I know that sounds
> like a flamebait comment, but I do look at the C64 retro scene, and it's tiny in
> comparison.

That's pretty much what I'm getting at. As the C64 was more popular
(globally) that the Speccy was, why on earth aren't ex-C64 owners doing
as much as ex-Speccy owners in the retro scene?

For instance, the closest thing I've found as an equivalent to my
documentaries was a music video about loving the C64. Although
impressive, it's nowhere near close.

And no, I really don't know what I'm actually asking. :) It's a
difficult question to phrase.

Here's another one: what in the C64 retro-scene would impress non-C64
owners?



-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
0
Nick
12/16/2005 3:01:40 PM
"The Starglider" <thestarglider@wibble.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fnb5q1dn1847fqcndqicr90phbsams7ioc@4ax.com

> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:20:52 +0000, "Nick Humphries, via obd"
> <nickjunk@egyptus.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >One thing I've never truly understood is this: if the C64 was so popular, 
> >then why is the C64 retroscene so different in character to the Speccy 
> >retroscene?
> >
> >Vague question, I know, but still...
> 
> Do you mean as in not nearly as advanced in the retro scene? I know that sounds
> like a flamebait comment, but I do look at the C64 retro scene, and it's tiny in
> comparison.

That's pretty much what I'm getting at. As the C64 was more popular
(globally) that the Speccy was, why on earth aren't ex-C64 owners doing
as much as ex-Speccy owners in the retro scene?

For instance, the closest thing I've found as an equivalent to my
documentaries was a music video about loving the C64. Although
impressive, it's nowhere near close.

And no, I really don't know what I'm actually asking. :) It's a
difficult question to phrase.

Here's another one: what in the C64 retro-scene would impress non-C64
owners?



-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
0
Nick
12/16/2005 3:02:04 PM
> Use you fantasy for interest and not for making something bad. At least
> for selling more... :-) well? Right enough?
> 

Well, what you don't understand is that I work in the service department.  
So I'm not out selling computers.  These people are bringing in their 
computers wanting them to be repaired.  They often picked them up non-
working at garage sales for $5 and stuff and think they're going to get 
them repaired for $10 and have a perfectly working computer.  They have 
every intention of having us install Windows XP (which they believe is 
free, they just have to pay us to put it on there, yeah right.)  So once 
I tell them that all the upgrades to make their computer XP compatible 
(parts and label) end up being around $400 and XP itself costs $149, so 
they are lookinng at an upgrade cost of $450 or so..  then I explain that 
they can actually BUY one of our brand-new Dell systems or a slightly 
used system with XP already on it for like $250, then it suddenly makes 
more sense.  

Yes, I perfectly understand that an old computer can be used online.  I 
myself use a laptop computer which is a Pentium 133 quite often (although 
my computer on my desk is 2.53 ghz because I have to do video editing) My 
133 laptop runs Windows NT 4.0 and I run a variety of programs on in 
which are older or use low memory.  If I didn't need to do video editing, 
I could use it as my main computer.  But the difference is that I 
understand what can and cannot run properly on a Pentium 133.  I also 
know how to keep all the programs out of my startup group and I know how 
to keep spyware and viruses off so that it runs fast.  But most people 
don't.  You hand them a Pentium 133 and they will want Windows XP and 
Office XP and 200 pieces of spyware and everything to be in their startup 
group and the system will take 20 minutes to boot to the desktop and they 
will complain that it is slow.
0
David
12/16/2005 3:10:04 PM
larry@portcommodore.com did eloquently scribble:
> 
> 
> 
> 14. spi...@freenet.co.uk
>        Dec 16, 2:34 am
> 
> dun...@yahoo.com did eloquently scribble:
> 
>> 1. Best selling computer of all time.
> 
> Best selling computer of all time of one model of computer.  IBM PCs
> have sold more as a whole but not the PC, XT, At etc as a single model
> with consistent specs has outsold the Commodore 64.

Windows has sold more than any other operating system?
That's crap too.
 
>> 3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
> 
> -Big deal, so what?
> 
> Choice, variety.  There were programs for just about everything on the
> Commodore 64, accounting, word processing, etc.  There are now web
> browsers for it.

The big deal, so what implied that there's nothing special about "thousands
upon thousands of programs"
Cos there isn't. The spectrum also has that.
 
>> 4. BBSs.
> -Yes, yes, still nothing special
> To many they were it was a great community if you ever were there.

The spectrum had that too, hence the "nothing special"
 
>> 5. The most popular computer of all time.
> -Hah!
> 
> a)see #1
> b)search for Commodore 64 on Google and see how popular it is.
> 

Yawn...
-- 
|                          |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
|  spike1@freenet.co.uk    |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
|                          |can't move, with no hope of rescue.             |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been   |
|           in             |good to you so far...                           |
|    Computer Science      |   -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
0
spike1
12/16/2005 3:31:57 PM
Number 1 is false... unless you limit the scope to being the best
selling 8 bit computer of all time.
Best selling computer of all time is unfortunately, the IBM PC and
clones

0
Dave
12/16/2005 3:34:16 PM
David Murray wrote:

> Well, what you don't understand is that I work in the service
> department.  So I'm not out selling computers.  These people are
> bringing in their computers wanting them to be repaired.  They often
> picked them up non- working at garage sales for $5 and stuff and
> think they're going to get them repaired for $10 and have a perfectly
> working computer.  They have every intention of having us install
> Windows XP (which they believe is free, they just have to pay us to
> put it on there, yeah right.)  So once I tell them that all the
> upgrades to make their computer XP compatible (parts and label) end
> up being around $400 and XP itself costs $149, so they are lookinng
> at an upgrade cost of $450 or so..  then I explain that they can
> actually BUY one of our brand-new Dell systems or a slightly used
> system with XP already on it for like $250, then it suddenly makes
> more sense.
> 
> Yes, I perfectly understand that an old computer can be used online.
> I myself use a laptop computer which is a Pentium 133 quite often
> (although my computer on my desk is 2.53 ghz because I have to do
> video editing) My 133 laptop runs Windows NT 4.0 and I run a variety
> of programs on in which are older or use low memory.  If I didn't
> need to do video editing, I could use it as my main computer.  But
> the difference is that I understand what can and cannot run properly
> on a Pentium 133.  I also know how to keep all the programs out of my
> startup group and I know how to keep spyware and viruses off so that
> it runs fast.  But most people don't.  You hand them a Pentium 133
> and they will want Windows XP and Office XP and 200 pieces of spyware
> and everything to be in their startup group and the system will take
> 20 minutes to boot to the desktop and they will complain that it is
> slow.



Every Windows User is a good User. Economical seen.

To even think about if people are paying for Windows or not dazzles my
brain. If I want make money out of something, and with something
software, then I pay for it (ie. OfficeXP2002 and making invoices with
it). Windows I have bought by other reasons, though I don�t need
2,53GHz for it :-). My 96' Chipset is fullfilling any Quest and Windows
XP Sp2 fits perfectly to the hardware I mentioned. It fits even better
than NTo4 (i used Too on it, NO AGP texturing, NO DX <3), though you
need some MHz more, indeed. I would say a fast 300-400MHz CPU can do
XP. A good chipset preconditioned.

Although I do not pay only to MS. Any honourable Software Developer..




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
Daniel
12/16/2005 3:34:47 PM
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:31:57 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>larry@portcommodore.com did eloquently scribble:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 14. spi...@freenet.co.uk
>>        Dec 16, 2:34 am
>> 
>> dun...@yahoo.com did eloquently scribble:
>> 
>>> 1. Best selling computer of all time.
>> 
>> Best selling computer of all time of one model of computer.  IBM PCs
>> have sold more as a whole but not the PC, XT, At etc as a single model
>> with consistent specs has outsold the Commodore 64.
>
>Windows has sold more than any other operating system?
>That's crap too.

You just can't help yourself, can you?
0
W
12/16/2005 3:36:25 PM
David Murray probably wrote:

> These people are bringing in their computers wanting them to be repaired.  They often picked them up non- working at garage sales for $5 and stuff and think they're
> going to get them repaired for $10 and have a perfectly working computer.

Yep - I absolutely agree.  Sometimes training the (l)users what to
expect from an old PC is more trouble than it's worth.  That's why in
the company I worked for (owned) until recently, we'd decided not to
sell second-hand PCs at all due to the high-expectations low-cost
mentality.

We had our fingers burnt with this very early on in about 1994 when we
gave our old 286 PC to a friend who was starting a small business.  I
cleaned up the PC, re-formatted the 20Mb hard drive, gave her our copy
of WordStar (which we wouldn't be needing any more) and actually wrote
a small db in Clipper so that she could keep track of her clients.  All
I charged her for was a small amount of extra hardware needed (think it
needed a new keyboard or something) and she refused to pay.  Why?
Because, despite the fact that she was initially very happy, a friend
had popped in, looked at the PC and told her that all PCs should be
running Windows 3.1.  Since this PC wasn't, then she dumped it back on
our doorstep, complaining bitterly that we'd taken advantage of her
lack of knowledge!!

I learnt then that the only way to avoid problems with most
computer-illiterate people is to sell them new equipment.

/matt

0
lechien
12/16/2005 4:11:27 PM
Nick Humphries wrote:
> That's pretty much what I'm getting at. As the C64 was more popular
> (globally) that the Speccy was, why on earth aren't ex-C64 owners doing
> as much as ex-Speccy owners in the retro scene?

I wouldn't necessarily say that. I think it's universally accepted that 
the C64 doesn't have anything quite so wonderful as 
http://www.worldofspectrum.org/ , but I can think of a few areas where 
C64 activity is way ahead of the Speccy:
- The demo scene: http://noname.c64.org/csdb/
- Music remakes: http://remix.kwed.org/ , http://www.c64audio.com/
- Contiki: http://www.sics.se/~adam/contiki/
0
Matthew
12/16/2005 5:24:20 PM
So what are the Commodore 64 rules? 


0
Lion
12/16/2005 5:51:38 PM
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:51:38 -0500, "Lion Of Judah"
<sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote:

>So what are the Commodore 64 rules? 

1) You must cross-post about C64.
2) You MUST cross-post about C64.
3) Mention Turrican and the SID at every opportunity.
0
W
12/16/2005 5:57:58 PM
On 16 Dec 2005 06:47:32 -0800, larry@portcommodore.com wrote:
>
>> 2. VIC-II/SID ship.
>
>Back in 1982 a sythesiser was something no other computer had.  And it
>took years for the PC with it's internal beep speaker to get a quality
>sound card to rival the 64.

but it's all a matter of taste. I prefer the clean sound of the AY in the Speccy
128k machines more than the SID (Tim Follin's L.E.D. Storm and Level 1 of Bionic
Commando blows away anthing else on the Speccy IMHO, and Rob Hubbard's Hydrofool
tune is ace too), and didn't the Atari machines have something that could easily
equal the SID for ability?
>
>> 3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
>
>-Big deal, so what?
>
>Choice, variety.  There were programs for just about everything on the
>Commodore 64, accounting, word processing, etc.  There are now web
>browsers for it.

The spectrum too had thousands and thousands of programs, and no doubt did other
machines. The argument for the C64 having this many is mute, since it's not
remotely unique.
>
>> 4. BBSs.
>-Yes, yes, still nothing special
>To many they were it was a great community if you ever were there.

And many spectrum users were there. That's the point, another muted argument
since again it's not unique to the C64.
>
>> 5. The most popular computer of all time.
>-Hah!
>
>a)see #1
>b)search for Commodore 64 on Google and see how popular it is.

The most popular computer of all time is the PC, also the most sold. Remember
that for every one person bashing Windows (which is not the only OS it can use),
there are probably 1,000's that are perfectly happy with it.

If you want to be picky, the Gameboy is the most popular computer of all time,
as although it can't be programmed out of the box, it still "computes", and they
sold Waaaay more than the C64 in their various guises.

-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____
0
The
12/16/2005 6:11:43 PM
gOn Fri, 16 Dec 2005, The Starglider wrote:

> On 16 Dec 2005 06:47:32 -0800, larry@portcommodore.com wrote:
>>
>>> 2. VIC-II/SID ship.
>>
>> Back in 1982 a sythesiser was something no other computer had.  And it
>> took years for the PC with it's internal beep speaker to get a quality
>> sound card to rival the 64.
>
> but it's all a matter of taste. I prefer the clean sound of the AY in the Speccy
> 128k machines more than the SID (Tim Follin's L.E.D. Storm and Level 1 of Bionic
> Commando blows away anthing else on the Speccy IMHO, and Rob Hubbard's Hydrofool
> tune is ace too), and didn't the Atari machines have something that could easily
> equal the SID for ability?

The Apple needed a sound card for decent sound, but the common one had a 
pair of AY8910s.

>>> 3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
>>
>> -Big deal, so what?
>>
>> Choice, variety.  There were programs for just about everything on the
>> Commodore 64, accounting, word processing, etc.  There are now web
>> browsers for it.
>
> The spectrum too had thousands and thousands of programs, and no doubt did other
> machines. The argument for the C64 having this many is mute, since it's not
> remotely unique.

"Moot"

>>
>>> 4. BBSs.
>> -Yes, yes, still nothing special
>> To many they were it was a great community if you ever were there.
>
> And many spectrum users were there. That's the point, another muted argument
> since again it's not unique to the C64.

I was there with my brother's Apple //c.  So nothing special there either.

-uso.
0
Lyrical
12/16/2005 6:25:01 PM
dunric@yahoo.com wrote:
> Lyrical Nanoha wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, George Nakos wrote:
> >
> > <Kersnippety!>
> >
> > > Um, ok, your opinion. Why post it here? And why cross-post? Is this
> > > another try at making a huge thread that makes no sense at all?
> >
> > Because Paul Panks is a kook, as most of comp.sys.cbm can attest.
> >
> > -uso.
>
> I've been posting in comp.sys.cbm since 1995. Only 3-4 posts that I've
> made in 10 years fall under those "kooky" guidelines. The rest are CBM
> related. Google it up if you don't believe me. Search from 1995 to
> 2005.
>

This counting your recent "bed-wetting" experience?

And the many posts about recovering a game you lost many years ago,
including the dream sequences you had that you thought was an attempt
by your subconscious to provide you with a program to recover the data?

Those were just in the last month or so...

0
anoneds
12/16/2005 8:44:37 PM
W Marsh <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> did eloquently scribble:
>>Windows has sold more than any other operating system?
>>That's crap too.
> 
> You just can't help yourself, can you?

Resist a chance to make a dig at windows as a proof that good does not equal
popular or "most"?

Nope, can't resist for a second, what are you going to do about it?
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?"   |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|                                                 |
|            in            | "I think so brain, but this time, you control   |
|     Computer Science     |  the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..."  |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/16/2005 9:26:58 PM
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:26:58 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>W Marsh <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> did eloquently scribble:
>>>Windows has sold more than any other operating system?
>>>That's crap too.
>> 
>> You just can't help yourself, can you?
>
>Resist a chance to make a dig at windows as a proof that good does not equal
>popular or "most"?
>
>Nope, can't resist for a second, what are you going to do about it?

Kill you dead with my mind.
0
W
12/16/2005 9:31:07 PM
On the internet there are no rules for Commodore nor any thing elase.
In fact you can break any of the rules you wish without going to jail
except the new ones on Child Porno and I back that one up 100%
                   Kokomo Joe



**********************************************************
* Ham KH6JF AARS/MARS ABM6JF QCWA WW2 VET WD RADIO SYSTEM*
* Army MARS PRECEDED by AARS (Army Amateur Radio System) * 
*       Hi State ARMY MARS COORDINATOR                   *
**********************************************************


0
Joseph
12/16/2005 9:32:38 PM
W Marsh <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> did eloquently scribble:
>>Nope, can't resist for a second, what are you going to do about it?
> 
> Kill you dead with my mind.

Hah, your mind is insignificant compared to my power!
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
|            in            |  suck is probably the day they start making     |
|     Computer science     |  vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge            |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/16/2005 10:00:51 PM
"lechien" <hcs@iol.ie> wrote in message 
news:1134749487.494343.79980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> David Murray probably wrote:
>
>> These people are bringing in their computers wanting them to be repaired. 
>> They often picked them up non- working at garage sales for $5 and stuff 
>> and think they're
>> going to get them repaired for $10 and have a perfectly working computer.
>
> Yep - I absolutely agree.  Sometimes training the (l)users what to
> expect from an old PC is more trouble than it's worth.  That's why in
> the company I worked for (owned) until recently, we'd decided not to
> sell second-hand PCs at all due to the high-expectations low-cost
> mentality.
>
> We had our fingers burnt with this very early on in about 1994 when we
> gave our old 286 PC to a friend who was starting a small business.  I
> cleaned up the PC, re-formatted the 20Mb hard drive, gave her our copy
> of WordStar (which we wouldn't be needing any more) and actually wrote
> a small db in Clipper so that she could keep track of her clients.  All
> I charged her for was a small amount of extra hardware needed (think it
> needed a new keyboard or something) and she refused to pay.  Why?
> Because, despite the fact that she was initially very happy, a friend
> had popped in, looked at the PC and told her that all PCs should be
> running Windows 3.1.  Since this PC wasn't, then she dumped it back on
> our doorstep, complaining bitterly that we'd taken advantage of her
> lack of knowledge!!
>
> I learnt then that the only way to avoid problems with most
> computer-illiterate people is to sell them new equipment.
>

Yep, I agree, it prevents a lot of frustration down the line.



0
Clockmeister
12/16/2005 10:08:43 PM
<spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:o3aa73-ggo.ln1@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk...
> George Nakos <ggn@atarirocks.org> did eloquently scribble:
>>
>>
>> On 15 Dec 2005 19:39:13 -0800, dunric@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>1. Best selling computer of all time.
>>>2. VIC-II/SID ship.
>>>3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
>>>4. BBSs.
>>>5. The most popular computer of all time.
>>>
>>>Paul
>>
>> Um, ok, your opinion. Why post it here? And why cross-post? Is this
>> another try at making a huge thread that makes no sense at all?
>
> It is puzzling why comp.sys.atari.8bit keeps getting dragged into this.
> The commode users are in denial and keep starting these threads because of
> their insecurity.
> (note: the threads over the past months were both started by non-css-ers)

I think most Commodore users like Atari 8 bits, and vice versa so no 
insecurity there. Spectrum owners on the other hand... 


0
Clockmeister
12/16/2005 10:11:12 PM
<spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:jgnb73-68q.ln1@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk...
>W Marsh <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> did eloquently scribble:
>>>Windows has sold more than any other operating system?
>>>That's crap too.
>>
>> You just can't help yourself, can you?
>
> Resist a chance to make a dig at windows as a proof that good does not 
> equal
> popular or "most"?
>
> Nope, can't resist for a second, what are you going to do about it?

Tell you that XP leaves that steaming turd of an OS Linux for dead?


0
Clockmeister
12/16/2005 10:13:35 PM
"The Starglider" <thestarglider@wibble.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:2g06q1d3i8nksqiq1tmitqr5j6bhs2rb2h@4ax.com...
> On 16 Dec 2005 06:47:32 -0800, larry@portcommodore.com wrote:
>>
>>> 2. VIC-II/SID ship.
>>
>>Back in 1982 a sythesiser was something no other computer had.  And it
>>took years for the PC with it's internal beep speaker to get a quality
>>sound card to rival the 64.
>
> but it's all a matter of taste. I prefer the clean sound of the AY in the 
> Speccy
> 128k machines more than the SID (Tim Follin's L.E.D. Storm and Level 1 of 
> Bionic
> Commando blows away anthing else on the Speccy IMHO, and Rob Hubbard's 
> Hydrofool
> tune is ace too), and didn't the Atari machines have something that could 
> easily
> equal the SID for ability?
>>
>>> 3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
>>
>>-Big deal, so what?
>>
>>Choice, variety.  There were programs for just about everything on the
>>Commodore 64, accounting, word processing, etc.  There are now web
>>browsers for it.
>
> The spectrum too had thousands and thousands of programs, and no doubt did 
> other
> machines. The argument for the C64 having this many is mute, since it's 
> not
> remotely unique.
>>
>>> 4. BBSs.
>>-Yes, yes, still nothing special
>>To many they were it was a great community if you ever were there.
>
> And many spectrum users were there. That's the point, another muted 
> argument
> since again it's not unique to the C64.
>>
>>> 5. The most popular computer of all time.
>>-Hah!
>>
>>a)see #1
>>b)search for Commodore 64 on Google and see how popular it is.
>
> The most popular computer of all time is the PC, also the most sold.

Wrong. PC is a generic term, the hardware has substantially changed between 
each model. Of any particular model, with the same specs, the C64 is the 
highest selling computer ever. Not likely to change any time soon either. 
Guinness book of records also lists this.

 Remember
> that for every one person bashing Windows (which is not the only OS it can 
> use),
> there are probably 1,000's that are perfectly happy with it.

Damn right, I gave Linux the flick after playing with XP for a while.

> If you want to be picky, the Gameboy is the most popular computer of all 
> time,
> as although it can't be programmed out of the box, it still "computes", 
> and they
> sold Waaaay more than the C64 in their various guises.
>

Now you are talking crap, it's not nearly the same thing.


0
Clockmeister
12/16/2005 10:17:46 PM
"Andrew Owen" <aoweninoz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message 
news:1134742610.856885.46200@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> 1. Best selling computer of all time.
> The Windows PC. But I think we can all agree that it's rubbish.
>
>> 2. VIC-II/SID chip.
> Can be approximated an AY chip equipped Spectrum by using the Z80 to
> add extra square waves to the standard sound channels. I suspect this
> would be even easier on the Atari.

Rubbish, sounds nothing like the SID.

>> 3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
> There are more programs for the Spectrum. I don't know about the Atari.
> I do know that most of these programs (on all formats) are absolutely
> god-awful. It's the gems that we remeber fondly, and there were
> probably about the same number of those on all formats (including the
> BBC micro).

Agreed, except for that last bit. The BBC micro was a bit crap.

>> 4. BBSs.
> As has already been mentioned this is not a feature of the C64. Just
> like the internet, BBSes were platform independent. Perhaps the poster
> is refering to the large amount of C64 software that was available for
> illegal download. The availablity of this software and the willingness
> of people to break the law may account for the popularity of the C64.
> It certainly accounts for the popularity of the Windows PC.

Wrong on all counts.

>> 5. The most popular computer of all time.
> This would be refering to the Guinness book of records entry I suppose.
> That entry simply refers to the fact that the bog-standard C64 had the
> biggest production run of any computer ever. So what? The bog-standard
> VW Beetle had the biggest production run of any car ever. I doubt many
> would argue that the VW Beetle was the greatest car of all time,
> although granted some enthusiasts probably would.

The VW is to cars what the ZX is to computers. Fortunately there was the 
C64, a real computer with a real keyboard and real custom chips to make it 
exciting.

> In the last cross-platform thread I asked what happened to the
> cross-platform development of a side scrolling shooter that was being
> written for the C64, Vic20 and Atari. I didn't get an answer. Does
> anyone know what happened to it?

Nope, it just died in the arse I think.

> On the subject of cross platform development. Someone mentioned that
> the C64 has an 8x1 attribute mode but I forgot the resolution. Is there
> a similar mode on the Atari? I should probably cross post this to
> comp.sys.amstrad.8bit as well because I don't know if the CPC has this
> mode. The reason is I'm working on a game for the Spectrum SE and I'd
> need some help. No one in the Speccy community seems to have the time,
> but if it became a cross-platform development there might be a bit more
> interest. It's not going to be processor intensive so it should be
> do-able on any 8-bit platform with a disk drive (or sufficient memory
> for a tape load). Would probably look at selling it through Cronosoft.
> Obviously the Spectrum SE version will be useable on emulators only
> (since there's still only one in existence). Drop me an email if any
> programmers amongst you are interested (that includes anyone prepared
> to work on the Speccy version). All I can say at this point is it's a
> top-down RPG.
>

Any new development should be welcomed, I need something fresh to run on my 
brand new C64DTV. 


0
Clockmeister
12/16/2005 10:41:12 PM
"Dave" <dacooley@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1134747256.277669.261210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Number 1 is false... unless you limit the scope to being the best
> selling 8 bit computer of all time.

The scope isn't limited since the hardware and compatibility changes 
significantly between the PC models. It is an extra feather in the C64 cap 
that it achieved the success that it did without changing the hardware (in 
any real way) and over such a long period of time.

> Best selling computer of all time is unfortunately, the IBM PC and
> clones
>

I don't agree, you are generalising way too much there.




0
Clockmeister
12/16/2005 10:45:45 PM
Clockmeister wrote:

> Wrong. PC is a generic term, the hardware has substantially changed
> between each model. Of any particular model, with the same specs, the
> C64 is the highest selling computer ever. Not likely to change any
> time soon either. Guinness book of records also lists this.

What are you talking about? My IBM-PC is doing 1980-2005 Software,
indeed. DOS and WinXP Sp2.
It is a XT and an AT at the same time. And AGP-Texturing etc. for DX
and OpenGL gaming purposes. I could also a install an ISA MFL (Antique
Harddiskcontroller) Controller-Card if I am happy. ISA Soundcard I
have, that drives everything, up to XP and DirectSound w/o
crackling/hacking. :-) Not to mention the Graphiccard, which drives
DOS-Games now better than I have ever saw before. And I thought I am a
helpless oldie ;-) bez. I use ZX81 and Spectrum Software and forgot
that my Hugh-End PC can drive even older --- :-)

> 
> Remember
> > that for every one person bashing Windows (which is not the only OS
> > it can  use), there are probably 1,000's that are perfectly happy
> > with it.
> 
> Damn right, I gave Linux the flick after playing with XP for a while.
> 

Mandrake is nice and can make use of the i686. Not the P6-Core...
(586-II)

> > If you want to be picky, the Gameboy is the most popular computer
> > of all  time, as although it can't be programmed out of the box, it
> > still "computes",  and they sold Waaaay more than the C64 in their
> > various guises.
> > 
> 
> Now you are talking crap, it's not nearly the same thing.


Do remember how much crap you have wrote. Your comment about Sir
Sinclair is still making my throat stuck. Ermm... Well. We see.





Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic






0
12/16/2005 11:03:27 PM
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> did eloquently scribble:
> 
> 
> 
> <spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:jgnb73-68q.ln1@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk...
>>W Marsh <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> did eloquently scribble:
>>>>Windows has sold more than any other operating system?
>>>>That's crap too.
>>>
>>> You just can't help yourself, can you?
>>
>> Resist a chance to make a dig at windows as a proof that good does not 
>> equal
>> popular or "most"?
>>
>> Nope, can't resist for a second, what are you going to do about it?
> 
> Tell you that XP leaves that steaming turd of an OS Linux for dead?

I can't see any threat there.
what would be the point? Death by laughter?
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste!         |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|  I can SMELL!!!  KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and    |
|            in            |  get out the puncture repair kit!"              |
|     Computer Science     |     Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf              |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/16/2005 11:12:08 PM
Clockmeister wrote:

> 
> "Andrew Owen" <aoweninoz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1134742610.856885.46200@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > 1. Best selling computer of all time.
> > The Windows PC. But I think we can all agree that it's rubbish.
> > 
> > > 2. VIC-II/SID chip.
> > Can be approximated an AY chip equipped Spectrum by using the Z80 to
> > add extra square waves to the standard sound channels. I suspect
> > this would be even easier on the Atari.
> 
> Rubbish, sounds nothing like the SID.
> 


As I�ve mentioned before. The Paula is far better. More Channels, as
good analog synth, real stero and fully digital with DMA, if needed.
Maybe the ACORN Archimedes Soundchip can compare (8 channels, stereo...
all in all similar to the PAULA), but I have never heard a tune.

Up to now the AMIGA have the best Homecomputer Soundchip for me!!!!!
SID is well. But not really a beating argument for me, compared to the
Sinclair Spectrum 48K. Dooooeeeeeeett. You should try it with Video
again!




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
12/16/2005 11:21:17 PM
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:12:08 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> <spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message 
>> news:jgnb73-68q.ln1@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk...
>>>W Marsh <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> did eloquently scribble:
>>>>>Windows has sold more than any other operating system?
>>>>>That's crap too.
>>>>
>>>> You just can't help yourself, can you?
>>>
>>> Resist a chance to make a dig at windows as a proof that good does not 
>>> equal
>>> popular or "most"?
>>>
>>> Nope, can't resist for a second, what are you going to do about it?
>> 
>> Tell you that XP leaves that steaming turd of an OS Linux for dead?
>
>I can't see any threat there.
>what would be the point? Death by laughter?

Nobody takes people like you seriously. You are absolutely incapable
of looking at things objectively. You use any excuse to say "M$
sucks!". You automatically treat non-Linux users as inferiors. You
make ridiculous claims, such as "Firefox doesn't have serious
exploits". Because of the support of your back-slapping Linux pals,
you act like you are able to outclass the technical experience of a
large corporation full of top consultants, computer scientists and
researchers. You are essentially an arrogant fool.

Take a step back and stop applying binary logic to everything. Windows
has a lot of problems (as does Linux, as does Mac OS...), but it isn't
a joke. Far more talented people than you use it daily.

Linux is great, and has its place. Unfortunately, people like you
insist on bad advocacy and harm it a great deal. Save it for Slashdot,
because nobody else wants to hear it.
0
W
12/16/2005 11:23:17 PM
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:45:45 +0800, "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>"Dave" <dacooley@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:1134747256.277669.261210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Number 1 is false... unless you limit the scope to being the best
>> selling 8 bit computer of all time.
>
>The scope isn't limited since the hardware and compatibility changes 
>significantly between the PC models. It is an extra feather in the C64 cap 
>that it achieved the success that it did without changing the hardware (in 
>any real way) and over such a long period of time.

Nonsense, a PC is still a PC, regardless of the changes in hardware.

My PC, although way in advance of the one I had 10 years ago, can still run the
stuff I had back then.

So the PC is still the biggest selling computer of all time.
>
>> Best selling computer of all time is unfortunately, the IBM PC and
>> clones
>>
>
>I don't agree, you are generalising way too much there.
>
The question wasn't specific enough.

-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____
0
The
12/17/2005 12:02:57 AM
Matthew Westcott wrote:
> C64 activity is way ahead of the Speccy:
> - The demo scene: http://noname.c64.org/csdb/
> - Music remakes: http://remix.kwed.org/ , http://www.c64audio.com/
> - Contiki: http://www.sics.se/~adam/contiki/

No reason Contiki cou;dn't be ported to the speccy...
0
Curtis
12/17/2005 12:46:00 AM
Curtis F Kaylor cussed

>No reason Contiki cou;dn't be ported to the speccy...

Yo!

http://wimp.istheshit.net/

only 20 years ago today mah dawg.


-- 
Brotha G.
http://128.istheshit.net/
0
Brotha
12/17/2005 1:18:18 AM
Did you know that there are more people in the UK who have claimed to
talk to deceased loved ones on, say, a BBC Micro than Americans who
have claimed to talk to God on, say, a Commodore 64?

Must be the PAL television standard. :)

Paul

0
dunric
12/17/2005 1:33:54 AM
The C64 is a good computer, but I started with the Atari, and it wasn't
cool enough that it made me want to switch.

Some things I always disliked about the C64:

The colors/graphics always looked garish in comparison to the Atari (this
is of course, purely subjective.)

Slow load times, even with the Fastload cartridge (or whatever it was
called.)

UGLY case.  Brutally ugly.

I disliked having to type LOAD"*",8 or whatever we had to type to load a
program (although I also think that Atari made a mistake by making us
always hold down OPTION to boot the vast majority of games.)

Some things I really like about the C64:

Sprites!  Atari should have come out with a new ANTIC/GTIA that added
another couple of PMs.  That would have gone a long way in battling the
C64.  The 130XE should have had this, but instead it only had 128K.

SID.  Although I disagree that the SID outclasses the POKEY so much.  I've
heard some pretty cool tunes on the Atari, but still the C64 had more music
talent coding for it for whatever reason.  The POKEY wasn't really
harnessed as much as it could have been.

More developer support.  Atari made some very bad marketing decisions.  It
was a great architecture (for 1979, a couple of years before the C64 was
released.)

-- 
Shawn Jefferson
(fix reply to for email)
0
Shawn
12/17/2005 2:16:47 AM
"Clockmeister" wrote ...
>
> I think most Commodore users like Atari 8 bits, and vice versa so no
> insecurity there. Spectrum owners on the other hand...

I really don't know if Spectrum users are insecure, or... perhaps green with
envy because C64 users can type on real keyboards, rather than that rubber
nightmare found on the ZX.    ;-)
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!



0
Sam
12/17/2005 2:22:54 AM
"W Marsh" wrote ...

> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:26:58 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>
>>Nope, can't resist for a second, what are you going to do about it?
>
> Kill you dead with my mind.

Please don't do that...  At least not too quickly.  Make him suffer a whole
lot first!  Make him type the entire text of "War and Peace" on the rubber
keyboard of a ZX Spectrum.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!



0
Sam
12/17/2005 2:22:55 AM
The Starglider wrote:

>Nonsense, a PC is still a PC, regardless of the changes in hardware.
>  
>
BS

>My PC, although way in advance of the one I had 10 years ago, can still run the
>stuff I had back then.
>
>  
>
Oh really?  Can your current 'PC' run Bruce Lee in 16 colours in CGA 
mode.  Does it drop into BASIC if it has no boot strap? 
BTW, does your current 'PC' have a tape drive as it seems to be the 
pride of the British speccy users.  I'm wondering if I should upgrade to 
tape hardware to load windows xp.
0
Axell1 (8)
12/17/2005 2:35:04 AM
Sam Gillett wrote:

>"Clockmeister" wrote ...
>  
>
>>I think most Commodore users like Atari 8 bits, and vice versa so no
>>insecurity there. Spectrum owners on the other hand...
>>    
>>
>
>I really don't know if Spectrum users are insecure, or... perhaps green with
>envy because C64 users can type on real keyboards, rather than that rubber
>nightmare found on the ZX.    ;-)
>  
>
I think that speccy users have envy; they had the first computerized 
doorstop!
0
Axell
12/17/2005 2:39:41 AM
"W Marsh" <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> wrote in message 
news:kli6q1thm5nbm5ahivcb9onjk1j8pmv1p6@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:12:08 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>
>>Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> did eloquently scribble:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:jgnb73-68q.ln1@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk...
>>>>W Marsh <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> did eloquently scribble:
>>>>>>Windows has sold more than any other operating system?
>>>>>>That's crap too.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just can't help yourself, can you?
>>>>
>>>> Resist a chance to make a dig at windows as a proof that good does not
>>>> equal
>>>> popular or "most"?
>>>>
>>>> Nope, can't resist for a second, what are you going to do about it?
>>>
>>> Tell you that XP leaves that steaming turd of an OS Linux for dead?
>>
>>I can't see any threat there.
>>what would be the point? Death by laughter?
>
> Nobody takes people like you seriously. You are absolutely incapable
> of looking at things objectively. You use any excuse to say "M$
> sucks!". You automatically treat non-Linux users as inferiors. You
> make ridiculous claims, such as "Firefox doesn't have serious
> exploits". Because of the support of your back-slapping Linux pals,
> you act like you are able to outclass the technical experience of a
> large corporation full of top consultants, computer scientists and
> researchers. You are essentially an arrogant fool.
>
> Take a step back and stop applying binary logic to everything. Windows
> has a lot of problems (as does Linux, as does Mac OS...), but it isn't
> a joke. Far more talented people than you use it daily.
>
> Linux is great, and has its place. Unfortunately, people like you
> insist on bad advocacy and harm it a great deal. Save it for Slashdot,
> because nobody else wants to hear it.

Yep, I agree 100%.

Linux has it place, but for entertainment and general home use Linux can't 
touch XP, in fact it isn't even in the same league.



0
Clockmeister
12/17/2005 2:46:31 AM
"The Starglider" <thestarglider@wibble.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:4al6q11vrhgu48ttm3lkkdgbt10ukep73k@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:45:45 +0800, "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dave" <dacooley@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1134747256.277669.261210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>> Number 1 is false... unless you limit the scope to being the best
>>> selling 8 bit computer of all time.
>>
>>The scope isn't limited since the hardware and compatibility changes
>>significantly between the PC models. It is an extra feather in the C64 cap
>>that it achieved the success that it did without changing the hardware (in
>>any real way) and over such a long period of time.
>
> Nonsense, a PC is still a PC, regardless of the changes in hardware.

PC is a generic term, stupid.

> My PC, although way in advance of the one I had 10 years ago, can still 
> run the
> stuff I had back then.

Completely different hardware, so not comparable.

> So the PC is still the biggest selling computer of all time.

Wrong, not in the example given, stupid.

>>> Best selling computer of all time is unfortunately, the IBM PC and
>>> clones
>>>
>>
>>I don't agree, you are generalising way too much there.
>>
> The question wasn't specific enough.
>

Look it up in the Guinness book of records, stupid, it's is a specific 
claim.


0
Clockmeister
12/17/2005 2:49:07 AM
"Axell" <Axell@nosp.no.no.no> wrote in message 
news:wTKof.3888$El.379314@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Sam Gillett wrote:
>
>>"Clockmeister" wrote ...
>>
>>>I think most Commodore users like Atari 8 bits, and vice versa so no
>>>insecurity there. Spectrum owners on the other hand...
>>>
>>
>>I really don't know if Spectrum users are insecure, or... perhaps green 
>>with
>>envy because C64 users can type on real keyboards, rather than that rubber
>>nightmare found on the ZX.    ;-)
>>
> I think that speccy users have envy; they had the first computerized 
> doorstop!

Sir Clive Sinclair was responsible for the biggest selling doorstop in the 
eighties, quite an achievement that.





0
Clockmeister
12/17/2005 3:05:36 AM
"Clockmeister"  wrote ...
>
> "W Marsh" <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> wrote in message
> news:kli6q1thm5nbm5ahivcb9onjk1j8pmv1p6@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:12:08 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>I can't see any threat there.
>>>what would be the point? Death by laughter?
>>
>> Linux is great, and has its place. Unfortunately, people like you
>> insist on bad advocacy and harm it a great deal. Save it for Slashdot,
>> because nobody else wants to hear it.
>
> Yep, I agree 100%.
>
> Linux has it place, but for entertainment and general home use Linux can't
> touch XP, in fact it isn't even in the same league.

I agree with that statement.  And, I see a parallel.

The ZX Spectrum has it's place, but for entertainment and general home use 
the ZX Spectrum can't touch the Commodore 64, in fact it isn't even in the 
same league.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!



0
Sam
12/17/2005 3:42:52 AM
"Sam Gillett" <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote in message 
news:0PLof.1086$7f3.681@trnddc01...
>
> "Clockmeister"  wrote ...
>>
>> "W Marsh" <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> wrote in message
>> news:kli6q1thm5nbm5ahivcb9onjk1j8pmv1p6@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:12:08 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>>I can't see any threat there.
>>>>what would be the point? Death by laughter?
>>>
>>> Linux is great, and has its place. Unfortunately, people like you
>>> insist on bad advocacy and harm it a great deal. Save it for Slashdot,
>>> because nobody else wants to hear it.
>>
>> Yep, I agree 100%.
>>
>> Linux has it place, but for entertainment and general home use Linux 
>> can't
>> touch XP, in fact it isn't even in the same league.
>
> I agree with that statement.  And, I see a parallel.
>
> The ZX Spectrum has it's place, but for entertainment and general home use 
> the ZX Spectrum can't touch the Commodore 64, in fact it isn't even in the 
> same league.
> -- 
> Best regards,
>
> Sam Gillett

The only parallel I see is bad advocates. 


0
W
12/17/2005 3:50:28 AM

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:43a33b82$3@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
>
> I think most Commodore users like Atari 8 bits, and vice versa so no 
> insecurity there. Spectrum owners on the other hand...

I'll agree with that.  I've seen some great looking/sounding Atari stuff. 
Even though I'm a C= user, I don't have any problem saying that I've seen 
quite a few games that are better on the Atari than the C64.  As for the 
Spectrum, as I've said before, it's far more comparable to a VIC-20 than a 
C64.  Everything I've yet seen or heard from the Spectrum looks and sounds 
like crap.
-- 
  �.��� �))  -:|:-
       �.��  .����))
      Alan
   ((��.��  ..��
     -:|:-  ((�� �.�


0
Alan
12/17/2005 3:56:03 AM
"W Marsh" <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom> wrote in message 
news:43a38b06$0$29577$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Sam Gillett" <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote in message 
> news:0PLof.1086$7f3.681@trnddc01...
>>
>> "Clockmeister"  wrote ...
>>>
>>> "W Marsh" <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> wrote in message
>>> news:kli6q1thm5nbm5ahivcb9onjk1j8pmv1p6@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:12:08 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I can't see any threat there.
>>>>>what would be the point? Death by laughter?
>>>>
>>>> Linux is great, and has its place. Unfortunately, people like you
>>>> insist on bad advocacy and harm it a great deal. Save it for Slashdot,
>>>> because nobody else wants to hear it.
>>>
>>> Yep, I agree 100%.
>>>
>>> Linux has it place, but for entertainment and general home use Linux 
>>> can't
>>> touch XP, in fact it isn't even in the same league.
>>
>> I agree with that statement.  And, I see a parallel.
>>
>> The ZX Spectrum has it's place, but for entertainment and general home 
>> use the ZX Spectrum can't touch the Commodore 64, in fact it isn't even 
>> in the same league.
>> -- 
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Sam Gillett
>
> The only parallel I see is bad advocates.

There are more of you?




0
Clockmeister
12/17/2005 4:07:13 AM
"Sam Gillett" <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote in message 
news:0PLof.1086$7f3.681@trnddc01...
>
> "Clockmeister"  wrote ...
>>
>> "W Marsh" <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> wrote in message
>> news:kli6q1thm5nbm5ahivcb9onjk1j8pmv1p6@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:12:08 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>>I can't see any threat there.
>>>>what would be the point? Death by laughter?
>>>
>>> Linux is great, and has its place. Unfortunately, people like you
>>> insist on bad advocacy and harm it a great deal. Save it for Slashdot,
>>> because nobody else wants to hear it.
>>
>> Yep, I agree 100%.
>>
>> Linux has it place, but for entertainment and general home use Linux 
>> can't
>> touch XP, in fact it isn't even in the same league.
>
> I agree with that statement.  And, I see a parallel.
>
> The ZX Spectrum has it's place, but for entertainment and general home use 
> the ZX Spectrum can't touch the Commodore 64, in fact it isn't even in the 
> same league.
> -- 

heh, yeah :-)


0
Clockmeister
12/17/2005 4:09:20 AM
Chicklet keys. Yuck. :-)

Paul

0
dunric
12/17/2005 4:09:22 AM
Yes, the Atari was a nice computer, and if the C64 had never surfaced,
I would have definitely purchased an Atari. I also had a 2600. Good
machine.

Paul

0
dunric
12/17/2005 4:10:49 AM
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:13:35 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:

> Tell you that XP leaves that steaming turd of an OS Linux for dead?

Now I know you're smoking something seriously polluted!

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

0
Ronald
12/17/2005 4:31:08 AM
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:46:31 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:

> Linux has it place, but for entertainment and general home use Linux can't 
> touch XP, in fact it isn't even in the same league.

I have no problems with it here, and thats exactly what I use it for. I
have it on 3 comps in a LAN, a laptop, and a variant runs on my Atari
Falcon 060.

I'm proud to say I'm MS free.

However, I'm not slamming anyone for using XP if they wish. Thats their
choice.

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

0
Ronald
12/17/2005 4:33:30 AM
Sam Gillett rapped

>I really don't know if Spectrum users are insecure, or... perhaps green with
>envy because C64 users can type on real keyboards, rather than that rubber
>nightmare found on the ZX.    ;-)

Yo! Russian playa came ta them aid

http://keys.istheshit.net/

Shakes me up Judy!

-- 
Brotha G.
http://comp.sys.atari.istheshit.net/
0
Brotha
12/17/2005 4:33:45 AM
"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.17.04.33.29.766143@charter.net...
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:46:31 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>
>> Linux has it place, but for entertainment and general home use Linux 
>> can't
>> touch XP, in fact it isn't even in the same league.
>
> I have no problems with it here, and thats exactly what I use it for. I
> have it on 3 comps in a LAN, a laptop, and a variant runs on my Atari
> Falcon 060.
>
> I'm proud to say I'm MS free.
>
> However, I'm not slamming anyone for using XP if they wish. Thats their
> choice.

Seems like a good attitude to me. Bonus points for running on an Atari, 
also. 


0
W
12/17/2005 4:39:55 AM
"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:43a38ef4@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
> "W Marsh" <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom> wrote in message 
> news:43a38b06$0$29577$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>> "Sam Gillett" <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote in message 
>> news:0PLof.1086$7f3.681@trnddc01...
>>>
>>> "Clockmeister"  wrote ...
>>>>
>>>> "W Marsh" <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> wrote in message
>>>> news:kli6q1thm5nbm5ahivcb9onjk1j8pmv1p6@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:12:08 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I can't see any threat there.
>>>>>>what would be the point? Death by laughter?
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux is great, and has its place. Unfortunately, people like you
>>>>> insist on bad advocacy and harm it a great deal. Save it for Slashdot,
>>>>> because nobody else wants to hear it.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, I agree 100%.
>>>>
>>>> Linux has it place, but for entertainment and general home use Linux 
>>>> can't
>>>> touch XP, in fact it isn't even in the same league.
>>>
>>> I agree with that statement.  And, I see a parallel.
>>>
>>> The ZX Spectrum has it's place, but for entertainment and general home 
>>> use the ZX Spectrum can't touch the Commodore 64, in fact it isn't even 
>>> in the same league.
>>> -- 
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Sam Gillett
>>
>> The only parallel I see is bad advocates.
>
> There are more of you?

I don't think you know how to read threads properly. I'm not advocating
anything. In fact, you agreed with me further up the thread. 


0
W
12/17/2005 4:42:37 AM
On 2005-12-16, Matthew Westcott <gasman@raww.org> wrote:
> http://www.worldofspectrum.org/ , but I can think of a few areas where 
> C64 activity is way ahead of the Speccy:
> - The demo scene: http://noname.c64.org/csdb/
> - Music remakes: http://remix.kwed.org/ , http://www.c64audio.com/
> - Contiki: http://www.sics.se/~adam/contiki/

Isn't this the sort of list on which gamebase64 (http://gb64.com) should
be mentioned? :)
0
Jaymz
12/17/2005 5:59:32 AM
>1. Best selling computer of all time.
>2. VIC-II/SID ship.
>3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
>4. BBSs.
>5. The most popular computer of all time.
>
>Paul

Who cares... Not me. I had one for a short time and ended up giving it away. I 
found out my Atari 800, XL, XE where actually better computers. Take a C64 and 
an Atari 8-bit apart and you can really see the differnce. Being more popular 
does not always mean better.

0
Edward
12/17/2005 6:34:52 AM
W Marsh <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> did eloquently scribble:
>>I can't see any threat there.
>>what would be the point? Death by laughter?
> 
> Nobody takes people like you seriously. You are absolutely incapable
> of looking at things objectively. 

LOL! And YOU are?! The only times I tend to bring up the subject is when
some comparisons need to be made, such as, say, commodore being the "most
popular" compared to windows being "most sold".
My point hasn't been disproved, best does not equal "most popular".

> You use any excuse to say "M$
> sucks!". 

Why do you feel the need to leap to their defence at every opportunity?
You think they need it?

> You automatically treat non-Linux users as inferiors.

I do? I make a face when they say they use windows but I don't do much more
than that, I've had to use and install more windows systems than you've
probably used so I feel entitled to make a face.
:-p

> You
> make ridiculous claims, such as "Firefox doesn't have serious
> exploits". 

Nope, but any exploits firefox does have tend to 
a: get fixed quickly, and
b: not cause any long term system problems on operating systems built with
security in mind.

How long was the last IE exploit in the wild and known about before they
even admitted it existed? Has it been fixed yet? Does it cause serious
problems to the entire OS? Perhaps open up another vector for viruses and
malware?

> Because of the support of your back-slapping Linux pals,
> you act like you are able to outclass the technical experience of a
> large corporation full of top consultants, computer scientists and
> researchers. You are essentially an arrogant fool.

Now what's he on about?
When have I ever mentioned "back slapping linux pals"?
I don't recall ever mentioning large corporations full of consultants
either.
I do know one thing though....
a: managers believe microsoft
b: managers make the decisions on what to use
c: businesses suffer from an enertia, resistance to change.

But that believe is waining, several large (and small) companies are moving
over to linux to varying degrees and finding it a big cost saving.
 
> Take a step back and stop applying binary logic to everything. Windows
> has a lot of problems (as does Linux, as does Mac OS...), but it isn't
> a joke. Far more talented people than you use it daily.

Some of the software on windows is indeed excellent...
but the underlying platform is only where it is today because of illegal
shenanigans by its creator. And the security model of THAT is a joke.  
 
> Linux is great, and has its place. Unfortunately, people like you
> insist on bad advocacy and harm it a great deal. Save it for Slashdot,
> because nobody else wants to hear it.

Yes, linux is great. And it's place is anywhere windows can go.
Much as you'd like to disagree it's certainly more ready for the desktop
than ever before, and is still improving. AND more suited to the desktop
than windows XP is at the moment. 

Thank you Microsoft, for all that spam I receive every day, most of which is
sent by botnets created by using a virus to install a trojan-server which
begins sending out that crud to all and sundry without the owner's
knowledge.

Thank you Microsoft for that flood of viruses I got that rendered my main
e-mail account at the time totally useless because it would fill up before I
could clear it. In fact, on that day, I believe the entire internet ground
to a halt, almost everyone was affected and 3 days of e-mail were lost.

Don't try to deny it 
Don't try to defend them 
Because those things were indefensible for a software company with their
resources.
Put simply, they didn't give a damn about security. 
In fact, until the Win98SE/WinME active desktop open to the entire internet
cockup, it's obvious security wasn't even in their vocabulary.

I will continue to make jokes at the expense of microsoft. So what?  Who
does it hurt? Microsoft? I doubt it.
Think they can't take it?
They have been the butts of jokes for 30 years, why should I stop just cos
you keep whining?

You think you're doing yourself any favours attacking me everytime I take a
dig? You're looking far more fanatical than I am. You'll be attacking my
signatures next.
Tsk.

-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!"          |
|            in            | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
|     Computer Science     | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"                   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/17/2005 10:59:39 AM
dunric@yahoo.com did eloquently scribble:
> 
> 
> Did you know that there are more people in the UK who have claimed to
> talk to deceased loved ones on, say, a BBC Micro than Americans who
> have claimed to talk to God on, say, a Commodore 64?

Now that wasn't too good an argument...
 
> Must be the PAL television standard. :)

The PAL tv standard is a cause of dementia?
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |   Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a    |
|                          | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally  coded for a 4 bit |
|            in            |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|     Computer Science     |        can't stand 1 bit of competition.       |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/17/2005 10:59:40 AM
Matthew Westcott wrote:
> Nick Humphries wrote:
> 
>> That's pretty much what I'm getting at. As the C64 was more popular
>> (globally) that the Speccy was, why on earth aren't ex-C64 owners doing
>> as much as ex-Speccy owners in the retro scene?
> 
> I wouldn't necessarily say that. I think it's universally accepted that 
> the C64 doesn't have anything quite so wonderful as 
> http://www.worldofspectrum.org/

I think http://www.lemon64.com/ comes close. 
http://www.zimmers.net/anonftp/pub/cbm/index.html is a good source for 
(technical) information. The C64 stuff tends to spread over many 
websites; there is a http://www.c64.sk/, http://www.c64.cc/, 
http://www.c64.org/...etc.
0
Peter
12/17/2005 11:19:19 AM
"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.17.04.31.06.456362@charter.net...
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:13:35 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>
>> Tell you that XP leaves that steaming turd of an OS Linux for dead?
>
> Now I know you're smoking something seriously polluted!
>

Linux won't let me play my favourite games or let me run my favourite apps, 
so how is it useful to me then, champ?


0
Clockmeister
12/17/2005 11:50:34 AM
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:49:07 +0800, "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>"The Starglider" <thestarglider@wibble.co.uk> wrote in message 
>news:4al6q11vrhgu48ttm3lkkdgbt10ukep73k@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:45:45 +0800, "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Dave" <dacooley@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1134747256.277669.261210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Number 1 is false... unless you limit the scope to being the best
>>>> selling 8 bit computer of all time.
>>>
>>>The scope isn't limited since the hardware and compatibility changes
>>>significantly between the PC models. It is an extra feather in the C64 cap
>>>that it achieved the success that it did without changing the hardware (in
>>>any real way) and over such a long period of time.
>>
>> Nonsense, a PC is still a PC, regardless of the changes in hardware.
>
>PC is a generic term, stupid.
>
>> My PC, although way in advance of the one I had 10 years ago, can still 
>> run the
>> stuff I had back then.
>
>Completely different hardware, so not comparable.
>
>> So the PC is still the biggest selling computer of all time.
>
>Wrong, not in the example given, stupid.
>
>>>> Best selling computer of all time is unfortunately, the IBM PC and
>>>> clones
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't agree, you are generalising way too much there.
>>>
>> The question wasn't specific enough.
>>
>
>Look it up in the Guinness book of records, stupid, it's is a specific 
>claim.

That's the longest production run, not the biggest selling, nor the most
successful.
>
Oh, while you're reared your fairly hideous face here again, I'm still waiting
for the list and the answers to the questions I set.

Anything?
-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____
0
The
12/17/2005 12:10:54 PM
Ronald J. Hall wrote:

> 
> However, I'm not slamming anyone for using XP if they wish. Thats
> their choice.


Thank thank you very very very much that you do not slam me bez of
using XP.
Which grace you mete out to me.

Thank you, leaving me to my own choice.


Oh humble giver of permissions I will progress using XP.



(Are there more of such kind? Or is this just equity?)





Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic


 
0
Daniel
12/17/2005 12:38:57 PM
spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:


> > Must be the PAL television standard. :)
> 
> The PAL tv standard is a cause of dementia?


Hi Spike!



I think he just want to say his Commodore looks even better with the
PAL.
Dunric is a amenity exception in this Flame-War...... other are using
non-usenet insulting words, I don�t like.

It makes fun, indeed. But some comments must not be dear C64-Lamers.






Nothing for bad Spike.




Kind Regards,

Daniel Mandic

P.S.: Sinclair and Commodore are popular, but nothing as ATARI ;-)....
they still develope/manage/andmore good-quality Software, IMO. They are
really worth the brand, and many programmer can benefit I hope.
Commodore is a brand without visions, I never heard honourable mentions
about the developer etc... most are self-seeking boaster. And the
visions are getting slighter from day to day, now that Atari overrunned
the C64 totally (Atari also have very good support - ABBUC), they try
to save somthing while attacking Sinclair which have IMHO the best
Computer support I ever saw. I started with Sinclair User and I must
say, that�s it!!!! Not that lyings (maybe also of non-knowing or
aggressive business purposes) and dreamings I read in relevant german
magazines.

Don�t worry Sinclair is one of the most honourable Brands and have made
many people happy, not the mention the eurpoean-wide acceptance,
probably due to the price ezc etc etc etc.... Thanks Sinclair.
And his behaviour against Hardware-Pirates reminds to an other
honourable Person on this world.
0
Daniel
12/17/2005 1:21:25 PM
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> did eloquently scribble:
> 
> 
> 
> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
> news:pan.2005.12.17.04.31.06.456362@charter.net...
>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:13:35 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>> Tell you that XP leaves that steaming turd of an OS Linux for dead?
>>
>> Now I know you're smoking something seriously polluted!
>>
> 
> Linux won't let me play my favourite games or let me run my favourite apps, 
> so how is it useful to me then, champ?

So don't use it Simple as that. The fact is though, linux DOES have the
apps, just not the ones you like. (There's not one thing (in general, no
specific software packages please) that linux can't do that windows can

And for the most part, linux does it free and gets almost everything you could
possibly want installed as part of the installation process...

Rather than windows where you not only need to install the drivers that came
with the motherboard, you then have to go through the clickyhell of
installing works or office, plus all the other software (unless you like
playing solitaire and using notepad)
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?"   |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|                                                 |
|            in            | "I think so brain, but this time, you control   |
|     Computer Science     |  the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..."  |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/17/2005 1:31:11 PM
<spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote...
>(unless you like playing solitaire and using notepad)

Hey! don't knock it - some of us get paid to do exactly that.

MikeW


0
Mike
12/17/2005 1:57:28 PM
Mike Wynne <mikeywyn@hotmail.com> did eloquently scribble:
> 
> 
> 
> <spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote...
>>(unless you like playing solitaire and using notepad)
> 
> Hey! don't knock it - some of us get paid to do exactly that.

I know, I was one of them, remember :)
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?"   |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|                                                 |
|            in            | "I think so brain, but this time, you control   |
|     Computer Science     |  the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..."  |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/17/2005 2:27:56 PM
<spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:e27d73-n9t.ln1@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk...
>W Marsh <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> did eloquently scribble:
>>>I can't see any threat there.
>>>what would be the point? Death by laughter?
>>
>> Nobody takes people like you seriously. You are absolutely incapable
>> of looking at things objectively.
>
> LOL! And YOU are?! The only times I tend to bring up the subject is when
> some comparisons need to be made, such as, say, commodore being the "most
> popular" compared to windows being "most sold".
> My point hasn't been disproved, best does not equal "most popular".
>
>> You use any excuse to say "M$
>> sucks!".
>
> Why do you feel the need to leap to their defence at every opportunity?
> You think they need it?
>
*snip further crap*

I don't care either way. At the end of the day I think Linux probably is the 
better OS, although I doubt that it's more suitable for desktop users.

You've missed the point entirely. I simply find your rampant, blind opinions 
and constant mentioning of Linux very irritating. Sometimes ignorance gets 
to me that way.

I don't know why I'm arguing with a person who feels the need to put his 
degree in his signature! 


0
W
12/17/2005 2:32:50 PM
W Marsh <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom> did eloquently scribble:
> 
> I don't care either way. At the end of the day I think Linux probably is the 
> better OS, although I doubt that it's more suitable for desktop users.
> 
> You've missed the point entirely. I simply find your rampant, blind opinions 
> and constant mentioning of Linux very irritating. 

Then don't read what I post then.
No skin off my nose if you killfile me.
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!"          |
|            in            | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
|     Computer Science     | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"                   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/17/2005 3:28:09 PM
These Commodore vs Spectrum posts remind me of a joke:

Two guys are standing a bridge taking a leak. One turns to the other
and says "Dang this water is cold!" The other replies, "Yeah and it's
deep too!"

Bill H

0
Bill
12/17/2005 3:38:47 PM
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:50:34 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:

> 
> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
> news:pan.2005.12.17.04.31.06.456362@charter.net...
>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:13:35 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>> Tell you that XP leaves that steaming turd of an OS Linux for dead?
>>
>> Now I know you're smoking something seriously polluted!
>>
> 
> Linux won't let me play my favourite games or let me run my favourite apps, 
> so how is it useful to me then, champ?

So because it didn't work for you personally, that condemns it? Don't
think so.

Honestly, Linux won't play every game out there, and it might not play the
latest, greatest version of game "X".

Its close enough for me and my kids though. We play a lot of the following
under Linux:

World of Warcraft (or did-we let the trial sub run out)
Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction
Starcraft
Star Wars - Jedi Academy
Knights Of The Old Republic
Ditto - Sith Lords
NeverWinter Nights
Quake 4
Dungeon Siege
Doom 3
Morrowind - Elder Scrolls
Unreal Tournament 2004
Warcraft 3 (Frozen Throne)

Not counting literally hundreds of non-commercial apps and games that are
commercial quality or near commercial quality (and free).

Who needs Windoze...not me! :-)

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

0
Ronald
12/17/2005 3:53:12 PM
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:38:57 +0000, Daniel Mandic wrote:

> Ronald J. Hall wrote:
> 
>> 
>> However, I'm not slamming anyone for using XP if they wish. Thats
>> their choice.
> 
> 
> Thank thank you very very very much that you do not slam me bez of
> using XP.
> Which grace you mete out to me.
> 
> Thank you, leaving me to my own choice.
> 
> 
> Oh humble giver of permissions I will progress using XP.
> 
> 
> 
> (Are there more of such kind? Or is this just equity?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Daniel Mandic

and its ridiculous replies like this that make me wish these threads would
stay out of comp.sys.atari.8bit... :-(

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

0
Ronald
12/17/2005 3:56:03 PM
Andrew Owen wrote:

> On the subject of cross platform development. Someone mentioned that
> the C64 has an 8x1 attribute mode but I forgot the resolution.

The C64 can do 8x1 attributes with 320x200 resolution. However, like the 
Spectrum, this mode requires a lot of attention from the CPU and very 
precise timing. Normally the the VIC chip reads the attribute bytes only 
once every eight lines (the so-called "bad lines", because when the VIC 
chip reads the attribute bytes it slows down the CPU). Basically before 
every display line the VIC chip has to instructed to reread the 
attribute bytes. As far as I know there are no C64 games that use this 
mode; it requires too much CPU time and some clever undocumented tricks 
to make it work.

> Is there a similar mode on the Atari?

I don't know much about the Atari, but I believe it doesn't have 
attribute based graphics like the Spectrum and the C64. IIRC the Atari 
can display only a limited number of colors per scan-line.
0
Peter
12/17/2005 4:21:56 PM
I demand that Clockmeister may or may not have written...

> "Andrew Owen" <aoweninoz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1134742610.856885.46200@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> 1. Best selling computer of all time.
>> The Windows PC. But I think we can all agree that it's rubbish.

>>> 2. VIC-II/SID chip.
>> Can be approximated an AY chip equipped Spectrum by using the Z80 to add
>> extra square waves to the standard sound channels. I suspect this would be
>> even easier on the Atari.

> Rubbish, sounds nothing like the SID.

>>> 3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
>> There are more programs for the Spectrum. I don't know about the Atari. I
>> do know that most of these programs (on all formats) are absolutely
>> god-awful. It's the gems that we remeber fondly, and there were probably
>> about the same number of those on all formats (including the BBC micro).

> Agreed, except for that last bit. The BBC micro was a bit crap.

That's like saying "the ZX" or "the Comm..." "the Comm..." "the Comm...".

.... it's no use. I just can't say Commodore.

Elite, Exile, Repton (1, 2, 3, Infinity, but *not* 4), Citadel, Zarch. And
some others, but those are the ones which people are most likely to remember.

[snip]
-- 
| Darren Salt | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | nr. Ashington,
| RISC OS,    | s zap,tartarus,org            | Northumberland
| Linux       | @                             | Toon Army
|   How many recently-released games fit in 16K?

Among the lucky, you are the chosen one.
0
Darren
12/17/2005 6:10:36 PM
I demand that spike1@freenet.co.uk may or may not have written...

> dunric@yahoo.com did eloquently scribble:
>> Did you know that there are more people in the UK who have claimed to talk
>> to deceased loved ones on, say, a BBC Micro than Americans who have
>> claimed to talk to God on, say, a Commodore 64?

> Now that wasn't too good an argument...

>> Must be the PAL television standard. :)

> The PAL tv standard is a cause of dementia?

No, but I think that their DVB standard is a problem here: Always The Same
Crosspost...

-- 
| Darren Salt | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | nr. Ashington,
| RISC OS,    | s zap,tartarus,org            | Northumberland
| Linux       | @                             | Toon Army
|   We've got Michael Owen; Liverpool haven't...

Any given program will expand to fill all available memory.
0
Darren
12/17/2005 6:28:32 PM
I demand that Daniel Mandic may or may not have written...

> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Andrew Owen" <aoweninoz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:1134742610.856885.46200@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>>>> 2. VIC-II/SID chip.
>>> Can be approximated an AY chip equipped Spectrum by using the Z80 to add
>>> extra square waves to the standard sound channels. I suspect this would
>>> be even easier on the Atari.

>> Rubbish, sounds nothing like the SID.

> As I've mentioned before. The Paula is far better. More Channels, as good
> analog synth, real stereo and fully digital with DMA, if needed. Maybe the
> ACORN Archimedes Soundchip can compare (8 channels, stereo... all in all
> similar to the PAULA), but I have never heard a tune.

That's 8-bit logarithmic, 7 stereo positions (though the API can cope with
255). From the programmer's point of view, you have one buffer into which the
samples are dumped in interleaved format (1, 2, 4 or 8 channels).

(Newer RISC OS boxes have 16-bit sound, and upgrades were available for Risc
PCs; I've not bothered to upgrade. OTOH, there is software which allows
emulation of the 16-bit hardware...)

[snip]
-- 
| Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk
| RISC OS,    | Northumberland | s zap,tartarus,org
| Linux       | Toon Army      | @                      Say NO to UK ID cards
|                                                       http://www.no2id.net/

Good news crawls along.
0
news64 (1253)
12/17/2005 6:31:20 PM
Darren Salt wrote:

>digital with DMA, if
> > needed. Maybe the ACORN Archimedes Soundchip can compare (8
> > channels, stereo... all in all similar to the PAULA), but I have
> > never heard a tune.
> 
> That's 8-bit logarithmic, 7 stereo positions (though the API can cope
> with 255). From the programmer's point of view, you have one buffer
> into which the samples are dumped in interleaved format (1, 2, 4 or 8
> channels).

I understand. Could you make also analog Chipsound with it�s own
source,  without waves or samples? Well, that with 7 Stereo positions I
do not understand... could I play 8 voices on 7 different
stereo-positions?
 
> 
> (Newer RISC OS boxes have 16-bit sound, and upgrades were available
> for Risc PCs; I've not bothered to upgrade. OTOH, there is software
> which allows emulation of the 16-bit hardware...)
> 
> [snip]

Is there a compareable way to hear some original Archimedes 8CH Sounds
on a Soundblaster?






Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
12/17/2005 7:14:42 PM
Peter van Merkerk <merkerk@deadspam.com>:

>> Is there a similar mode on the Atari?
>
>I don't know much about the Atari, but I believe it doesn't have 
>attribute based graphics like the Spectrum and the C64. IIRC the Atari 
>can display only a limited number of colors per scan-line.

If you want to include "tricks", like using the player missile "sprites"
you can get at least 9 per scanline or using precise-timed DLIs, you can
increase that number by some small amount (since you can change both the
playfield and player/missile color registers on the fly.)

-- 
Shawn Jefferson
(fix reply to for email)
0
Shawn
12/17/2005 8:07:07 PM
I demand that Daniel Mandic may or may not have written...

> Darren Salt wrote:
>>> Maybe the ACORN Archimedes Soundchip can compare (8 channels, stereo...
>>> all in all similar to the PAULA), but I have never heard a tune.
>> That's 8-bit logarithmic, 7 stereo positions (though the API can cope with
>> 255). From the programmer's point of view, you have one buffer into which
>> the samples are dumped in interleaved format (1, 2, 4 or 8 channels).

> I understand. Could you make also analog Chipsound with its own source,
> without waves or samples?

That's the entire sound system - digital. Nothing analogue, except what's
output through the speaker(s).

> Well, that with 7 Stereo positions I do not understand... could I play 8
> voices on 7 different stereo-positions?

Each channel has its own configurable stereo setting.

>> (Newer RISC OS boxes have 16-bit sound, and upgrades were available for
>> Risc PCs; I've not bothered to upgrade. OTOH, there is software which
>> allows emulation of the 16-bit hardware...)

> Is there a compareable way to hear some original Archimedes 8CH Sounds on a
> Soundblaster?

Er... Virtual Acorn or Red Squirrel should be adequate, assuming Windows
(although I recall seeing something recently about a VA port to Mac OS X).
For Linux and other *nix-type systems, there's arcem.

  <URL:http://www.virtualacorn.co.uk/index2.htm>
  <URL:http://www.redsquirrel.fsnet.co.uk/home/home.html>
  <URL:http://arcem.sourceforge.net/>

Questions about these, where not answered by an FAQ list or search engine,
should go to one of the comp.sys.acorn groups; probably .misc.

-- 
| Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk
| RISC OS,    | Northumberland | s zap,tartarus,org
| Linux       | Toon Army      | @                      Say NO to UK ID cards
|                                                       http://www.no2id.net/

Documentation is for people who can't read.
0
news64 (1253)
12/17/2005 8:07:20 PM
"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.17.15.53.10.623806@charter.net...
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:50:34 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2005.12.17.04.31.06.456362@charter.net...
>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:13:35 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tell you that XP leaves that steaming turd of an OS Linux for dead?
>>>
>>> Now I know you're smoking something seriously polluted!
>>>
>>
>> Linux won't let me play my favourite games or let me run my favourite 
>> apps,
>> so how is it useful to me then, champ?
>
> So because it didn't work for you personally, that condemns it? Don't
> think so.
>
> Honestly, Linux won't play every game out there, and it might not play the
> latest, greatest version of game "X".
>
> Its close enough for me and my kids though. We play a lot of the following
> under Linux:
>
> World of Warcraft (or did-we let the trial sub run out)
> Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction
> Starcraft
> Star Wars - Jedi Academy
> Knights Of The Old Republic
> Ditto - Sith Lords
> NeverWinter Nights
> Quake 4
> Dungeon Siege
> Doom 3
> Morrowind - Elder Scrolls
> Unreal Tournament 2004
> Warcraft 3 (Frozen Throne)
>
> Not counting literally hundreds of non-commercial apps and games that are
> commercial quality or near commercial quality (and free).
>
> Who needs Windoze...not me! :-)
>

Good for you, but I don't want to search endlessly for something I can 
simply pick up at virtually any store.

Linux is great for wasting time IMO and I don't consider my time to be free 
when I'm wasting it searching out something that may/may not do the job.


0
Clockmeister
12/17/2005 9:29:06 PM
<spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:0ued73-qjt.ln1@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk...
> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> did eloquently scribble:
>>
>>
>>
>> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2005.12.17.04.31.06.456362@charter.net...
>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:13:35 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tell you that XP leaves that steaming turd of an OS Linux for dead?
>>>
>>> Now I know you're smoking something seriously polluted!
>>>
>>
>> Linux won't let me play my favourite games or let me run my favourite 
>> apps,
>> so how is it useful to me then, champ?
>
> So don't use it Simple as that. The fact is though, linux DOES have the
> apps, just not the ones you like. (There's not one thing (in general, no
> specific software packages please) that linux can't do that windows can

I'm sure, if you are determined enough to waste your time searching them 
out. I can't be bothered with that anymore.

> And for the most part, linux does it free and gets almost everything you 
> could
> possibly want installed as part of the installation process...

Fishing through mountains of crap as you go. No thanks, been there and done 
that.

> Rather than windows where you not only need to install the drivers that 
> came
> with the motherboard, you then have to go through the clickyhell of
> installing works or office, plus all the other software (unless you like
> playing solitaire and using notepad)

Half an hour out of your life to install everything you need is much better 
then spending an eternity looking for something that might do the job.

Nope, I'm over it but you are welcome to it.



0
Clockmeister
12/17/2005 9:32:30 PM
"The Starglider" <thestarglider@wibble.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:9008q1t5s6jspi05avkq3lcksrqf4gemrj@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:49:07 +0800, "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"The Starglider" <thestarglider@wibble.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:4al6q11vrhgu48ttm3lkkdgbt10ukep73k@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:45:45 +0800, "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Dave" <dacooley@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1134747256.277669.261210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Number 1 is false... unless you limit the scope to being the best
>>>>> selling 8 bit computer of all time.
>>>>
>>>>The scope isn't limited since the hardware and compatibility changes
>>>>significantly between the PC models. It is an extra feather in the C64 
>>>>cap
>>>>that it achieved the success that it did without changing the hardware 
>>>>(in
>>>>any real way) and over such a long period of time.
>>>
>>> Nonsense, a PC is still a PC, regardless of the changes in hardware.
>>
>>PC is a generic term, stupid.
>>
>>> My PC, although way in advance of the one I had 10 years ago, can still
>>> run the
>>> stuff I had back then.
>>
>>Completely different hardware, so not comparable.
>>
>>> So the PC is still the biggest selling computer of all time.
>>
>>Wrong, not in the example given, stupid.
>>
>>>>> Best selling computer of all time is unfortunately, the IBM PC and
>>>>> clones
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't agree, you are generalising way too much there.
>>>>
>>> The question wasn't specific enough.
>>>
>>
>>Look it up in the Guinness book of records, stupid, it's is a specific
>>claim.
>
> That's the longest production run, not the biggest selling, nor the most
> successful.

Look again.

> Oh, while you're reared your fairly hideous face here again, I'm still 
> waiting
> for the list and the answers to the questions I set.
>
> Anything?

You got the answers that you didn't like and I presented you with an 
oppertunity to present a counter arguement. You ignored it.

So just run along now and go play with your toy comparable to a VIC20.


0
Clockmeister
12/17/2005 9:37:03 PM
 Daniel Mandic raps

>Commodore is a brand without visions, I never heard honourable mentions
>about the developer etc... most are self-seeking boaster. And the
>visions are getting slighter from day to day, now that Atari overrunned
>the C64 totally (Atari also have very good support - ABBUC), they try
>to save somthing while attacking Sinclair which have IMHO the best
>Computer support I ever saw.

Hey clock this. Tha commodore aint dead n buried. It is ta be reborn.
Chillin' ta Las Vegas soon fo yo bitch ass.
Bright lights big city. Big Color. Atari n Commodore is alive.

http://tinyurl.com/dro85

Sinclair Spectrum sleeps wit tha fishes.

-- 
Brotha G.
http://comp.sys.atari.istheshit.net/
0
Brotha
12/17/2005 9:49:06 PM
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 05:29:06 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:

> Good for you, but I don't want to search endlessly for something I can 
> simply pick up at virtually any store.

Clone.

> Linux is great for wasting time IMO and I don't consider my time to be free 
> when I'm wasting it searching out something that may/may not do the job.

Mindless clone. ;-)

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

0
Ronald
12/17/2005 9:58:23 PM
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 05:32:30 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:

> Half an hour out of your life to install everything you need is much better 
> then spending an eternity looking for something that might do the job.
> 
> Nope, I'm over it but you are welcome to it.

Look, if you want to worship at the alter of
bill.gates.total.loss.of.freedom, thats fine,
thats your choice.

Please tell me why you have to post/drag it in
to comp.sys.atari.8bit? :-(

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

0
Ronald
12/17/2005 10:00:38 PM
"Bill H" wrote ...

> These Commodore vs Spectrum posts remind me of a joke:
>
> Two guys are standing a bridge taking a leak. One turns to the other
> and says "Dang this water is cold!" The other replies, "Yeah and it's
> deep too!"

Bill, what did you do after you got out of the water and dried off?
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!



0
Sam
12/18/2005 2:26:24 AM
6. And boots in 2.2 seconds, complete!!! 
7. The only expansion you will ever need is a Dolphin Dos, besides ofcourse
the 1541 drive.



0
aloh
12/18/2005 10:45:25 AM
Oberhuber raps
>
>6. And boots in 2.2 seconds, complete!!!
>7. The only expansion you will ever need is a Dolphin Dos, besides ofcourse
>the 1541 drive.

Yo! Doggy Stylin' ta tha converted mah shot calla.

-- 
Brotha G.
http://comp.sys.cbm.istheshit.net/
0
Brotha
12/18/2005 11:27:57 AM
Sam Gillett wrote:
> "W Marsh" wrote ...
> 
> 
>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:26:58 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Nope, can't resist for a second, what are you going to do about it?
>>
>>Kill you dead with my mind.
> 
> 
> Please don't do that...  At least not too quickly.  Make him suffer a whole
> lot first!  Make him type the entire text of "War and Peace" on the rubber
> keyboard of a ZX Spectrum.

What is the fixation with the Spectrum's rubber keyboard? The rubber 
keyboard lasted from something like 1982-1985. Every Spectrum made after 
1985, up until approx 1993 or so when they stopped making them, had 
plastic keys. And the Amstrad-made ones have a similar typing action to 
Mitsumi keyboards.

-- 
Alex Taylor.
0
Alex
12/18/2005 12:28:59 PM
"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.17.15.53.10.623806@charter.net...
>
> Honestly, Linux won't play every game out there, and it might not play the
> latest, greatest version of game "X".
>
> Its close enough for me and my kids though. We play a lot of the following
> under Linux:
>
> World of Warcraft (or did-we let the trial sub run out)
> Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction
> Starcraft
> Star Wars - Jedi Academy
> Knights Of The Old Republic
> Ditto - Sith Lords
> NeverWinter Nights
> Quake 4
> Dungeon Siege
> Doom 3
> Morrowind - Elder Scrolls
> Unreal Tournament 2004
> Warcraft 3 (Frozen Throne)

Sounds like somebody uses Cedega. Great prog/utility, ain't it? :)

>
> Not counting literally hundreds of non-commercial apps and games that are
> commercial quality or near commercial quality (and free).

Wine is great, too, is it not?

>
> Who needs Windoze...not me! :-)

Wish I could say that. Until Cedega matures a little more, I'm stuck with 
Windoze for a select few games. But they are constantly adding games to 
Cedega's supported list.

If you wanna try your hands at a 100% *FREE* MMORPG game, go check out 
PlaneShift, an open source mmo. http://www.planeshift.it It has some 
absolutely gorgeous graphics, too.
-- 
David Bowden
The Undead Mechanic.

AIM & Yahoo: UndeadMechanic

SPAM PROOF EMAIL ADDRESS: same as yahoo/AIM *AT* comcast *DOT* net 


0
David
12/18/2005 1:39:11 PM
Why are we talking about the C64 in THIS newgroup?

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:28:59 GMT, Alex Taylor
<alex_taylor@REMOVETHISntlworld.com> wrote:

>Sam Gillett wrote:
>> "W Marsh" wrote ...
>> 
>> 
>>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:26:58 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nope, can't resist for a second, what are you going to do about it?
>>>
>>>Kill you dead with my mind.
>> 
>> 
>> Please don't do that...  At least not too quickly.  Make him suffer a whole
>> lot first!  Make him type the entire text of "War and Peace" on the rubber
>> keyboard of a ZX Spectrum.
>
>What is the fixation with the Spectrum's rubber keyboard? The rubber 
>keyboard lasted from something like 1982-1985. Every Spectrum made after 
>1985, up until approx 1993 or so when they stopped making them, had 
>plastic keys. And the Amstrad-made ones have a similar typing action to 
>Mitsumi keyboards.

0
secretspam
12/18/2005 2:48:38 PM
SgtSilicon <secretspam@ihatespam.net> did eloquently scribble:
> 
> 
> Why are we talking about the C64 in THIS newgroup?

Because a moronic troll started a crossposted flamewar.

Again.
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!"          |
|            in            | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
|     Computer Science     | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"                   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/18/2005 3:59:55 PM
<spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:ncag73-q83.ln1@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk...
> SgtSilicon <secretspam@ihatespam.net> did eloquently scribble:
>>
>>
>> Why are we talking about the C64 in THIS newgroup?
>
> Because a moronic troll started a crossposted flamewar.
>
> Again.

I don't think it was Starglider this time.


0
Clockmeister
12/18/2005 4:08:54 PM
Clockmeister wrote:
> <spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ncag73-q83.ln1@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk...
>> SgtSilicon <secretspam@ihatespam.net> did eloquently scribble:
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are we talking about the C64 in THIS newgroup?
>>
>> Because a moronic troll started a crossposted flamewar.
>>
>> Again.
>
> I don't think it was Starglider this time.

Nope, it was Paul "write my adventure for me" Panks.

D.


0
Paul
12/18/2005 4:33:39 PM
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> did eloquently scribble:
> 
> 
> 
> <spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:ncag73-q83.ln1@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk...
>> SgtSilicon <secretspam@ihatespam.net> did eloquently scribble:
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are we talking about the C64 in THIS newgroup?
>>
>> Because a moronic troll started a crossposted flamewar.
>>
>> Again.
> 
> I don't think it was Starglider this time.

Or last time.
This time it was someone called dunric, last time (the doorstop thread) was
started by blaine.
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!"          |
|            in            | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
|     Computer Science     | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"                   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/18/2005 5:10:25 PM
In message <1134704352.937685.86610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Paul       dunric@yahoo.com wrote:
> 1. Best selling computer of all time.
> 5. The most popular computer of all time.

Please could you prove this to me and how much better selling it is 
than competing systems, and do not just quote Guiness World of Record 
which is quite often wrong on computer records.

> 2. VIC-II/SID chips.

These extra chips tried to offset the slow speed of the CPU in the
C=64 and in the process increased the price.

                BogoMips  Dhrystone Whetstones
                  in C    1.1 in C     MIPS
                          Vax Mips   in BASIC (interpreted)
PC XT           0.02      0.19-0.23   0.0015
ZX-Spectrum     0.0154     ??????     0.00052
C=64            0.0033     0.0205      ?????

The ZX Spectrum Bogomips figure was achieved using z88dk version
1.6 cross-compiling to produce a TAP file. Then the TAP file was run
in the Fuse emulator in 48K Spectrum mode. The C=64 Bogomips figure
comes from the HOWTO and was run under Vice. The Dhrystones where done
with -DROPT and compiled with C Power 2.8 (source Rick Richardson).
The Whetstones are Quick BASIC for PC/XT and ZX Spectrum BASIC (source 
Roy Longbottom), compiling or using a different language would help. 


> 3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.

The total number of programs that run on the ZX Spectrum is in 
5 figures with new releases still happening, see WoS for evidence.
The question is how many programs has the Commodore 64 got?

> 4. BBSs.

The ZX Spectrum can access and run BBSs, however BBSs were not that 
important to most people.

Most people did not buy the Atari 400 because it had 8KB RAM and a
membrane keyboard while cost more than a ZX81.
 
-- 
                       Tarquin Mills

Personal Profile
http://uk.profiles.yahoo.com/emfturing
0
Tarquin
12/18/2005 5:39:49 PM
Brotha G stammer:

> Bright lights big city. Big Color. Atari n Commodore is alive.

Desert, Death and No Water.
I think you write about a Commodore CAR-SHOW.... Do you even know the
Commodore Car? No!?

> 
> http://tinyurl.com/dro85
> 
> Sinclair Spectrum sleeps wit tha fishes.



Well, I use slang too, when I post something only read by natives. I
must not suggest where you come from :-)
Try an other language if you are not able to write a sentence to start
to finish. Esperanto!?

Do not write against Sinclair Computer and forget your pathetic attempt
to get some ATARI user in your boat :-) ROTFL





Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
Daniel
12/18/2005 7:44:14 PM
Daniel Mandic wrote:

> Do not write against Sinclair Computer and forget your pathetic
> attempt to get some ATARI user in your boat :-) ROTFL

ROTFL!

You don't even know who Brotha G is, do you?

He doesn't come from the Atari community, and he doesn't come from the 
Commodore community. He's done a hell of a lot more for the Speccy community 
than you have, I can tell you that :-p

See if you can figure out who he is!

D.


0
Paul
12/18/2005 8:23:27 PM
Paul Dunn wrote:

> ROTFL!
> 
> You don't even know who Brotha G is, do you?
> 
> He doesn't come from the Atari community, and he doesn't come from
> the Commodore community. He's done a hell of a lot more for the
> Speccy community than you have, I can tell you that :-p
> 

Mostly common. 

Should I everytime control who wrote that posting, I reply to!?
I see it.... In your case it�s Paul Dunn, I guess.

> See if you can figure out who he is!

I don�t do such things. If so I would simply ask or stumble somewhere
else upon an information about that person by chance. If not, then it
was not important or a question of my mind, I guess. :-) Never mind!

> 
> D.


Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
Daniel
12/18/2005 9:52:50 PM
Daniel Mandic wrote:
> Paul Dunn wrote:
>
>> ROTFL!
>>
>> You don't even know who Brotha G is, do you?
>>
>> He doesn't come from the Atari community, and he doesn't come from
>> the Commodore community. He's done a hell of a lot more for the
>> Speccy community than you have, I can tell you that :-p
>>
>
> Mostly common.
>
> Should I everytime control who wrote that posting, I reply to!?
> I see it.... In your case it�s Paul Dunn, I guess.

I'd suggest that before you start flaming people, you should at least read 
your own group. You flamed a rather highly respected member of CSS. The man 
who brought us the most detailed disassembly of the Spectrum ROM doesn't 
deserve to be insulted by members of his own group.

>> See if you can figure out who he is!
>
> I don�t do such things. If so I would simply ask or stumble somewhere
> else upon an information about that person by chance. If not, then it
> was not important or a question of my mind, I guess. :-) Never mind!

Well, a little research on your part would have saved you from looking a 
complete pillock.

D.


0
Paul
12/18/2005 11:43:52 PM
"Alex Taylor" wrote ...

> Sam Gillett wrote:
>> "W Marsh" wrote ...
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:26:58 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nope, can't resist for a second, what are you going to do about it?
>>>
>>>Kill you dead with my mind.
>>
>> Please don't do that...  At least not too quickly.  Make him suffer a 
>> whole
>> lot first!  Make him type the entire text of "War and Peace" on the rubber
>> keyboard of a ZX Spectrum.
>
> What is the fixation with the Spectrum's rubber keyboard?

It is not I who have a fixation with the rubber keyboard of the ZX Spectrum. 
It is the Spectrum users who actually think that they can type on them! 
:-P

> The rubber keyboard lasted from something like 1982-1985.

I'm surprised that it lasted that long!!    ;-)
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines! 


0
Sam
12/19/2005 5:19:05 AM
Posting delayed from midnight.

Paul Dunn wrote:
> Daniel Mandic wrote:
> > Brotha G stammer:
> > > Hey clock this. Tha commodore aint dead n buried. It is ta be 
> > > reborn. Chillin' ta Las Vegas soon fo yo bitch ass.
> > > Bright lights big city. Big Color. Atari n Commodore is alive.
> > 
> > Desert, Death and No Water.
> > I think you write about a Commodore CAR-SHOW.... Do you even know the
> > Commodore Car? No!?

The Citroen C5 is better.
 
> > > http://tinyurl.com/dro85
> > > 
> > > Sinclair Spectrum sleeps wit tha fishes.
> > 
> > Well, I use slang too, when I post something only read by natives. I
> > must not suggest where you come from :-)
> > Try an other language if you are not able to write a sentence to start
> > to finish. Esperanto!?

http://tinyurl.com/7ugsc

> > Do not write against Sinclair Computer and forget your pathetic
> > attempt to get some ATARI user in your boat :-) ROTFL
> 
> ROTFL!
> 
> You don't even know who Brotha G is, do you?
> 
> He doesn't come from the Atari community, and he doesn't come from the 
> Commodore community. He's done a hell of a lot more for the Speccy 
> community than you have, I can tell you that :-p

I found Daniel Mandic's posting funny :-) and do not see where the problem 
is. There is no reason why you cannot take part in a discussion over 
which was/is the best home computer (C=64 or ZX Spectrum), anybody who
has played games from Ant Attack to Zombie Zombie will know how good they 
software is on the Speccy. People can argue in different ways with C=64 
users who argue similar points for there platform it is surprising just 
what works, I do not understand what make the good advocacy that changes 
peoples computer/app/OS usage. wibble 
 
> See if you can figure out who he is!
 
Romtastic ;-) Is it Linda Barker (no it says he Ed.), OK then is it Andy 
Ounsted?

-- 
                       Tarquin Mills (Chairman)
ACCUS (Anglia Classic Computer Users Society)
http://www.speccyverse.me.uk/comp/accus/
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Spectrum/ (We want a Spectrum +4)
0
accus1 (40)
12/19/2005 11:51:15 AM
Just look at the numbers... plain and simple.

0
Dave
12/19/2005 1:52:17 PM
If you don't agree, read this (Assuming you can read) as it gives a
fairly complete history of all the personal computers on the market
since the early 80's...
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/

0
Dave
12/19/2005 2:00:07 PM
Nick Humphries <mg@the-den.clara.net> wrote:

> "larry" <larry@portcommodore.com> wrote in message
> news:1134744452.303528.79780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
> 
> > b)search for Commodore 64 on Google and see how popular it is.
> 
> But are any of those sites special and/or impressive?
> 
> Popular, in the present tense, means that people (lots of people) are
> doing things related to them today.

No, it doesn't. "Popular (adjective). Liked, admired or enjoyed by many
people or by a particular person or group." (Oxford dictionary)

Doesn't say anything about actually "doing things related to them" or
"creating something special".

-- 
[SbM]
<http://sebastienmarty.free.fr> - <http://tradintosh.free.fr>
<http://sbm.ordinotheque.free.fr> - <http://palmiciel.free.fr>
"If the French were really intelligent, they'd speak English" (W. Sheed)
0
sebastienmarty
12/19/2005 3:38:54 PM
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, SbM wrote:

> No, it doesn't. "Popular (adjective). Liked, admired or enjoyed by many
> people or by a particular person or group." (Oxford dictionary)
>
> Doesn't say anything about actually "doing things related to them" or
> "creating something special".

 	Check Roget's New Millenium Thesaurus -- "in use," "in demand," 
"superior"... oh, just too many to list.

 					Truly,
 					Robert Bernardo
 					Fresno Commodore User Group
 					http://videocam.net.au/fcug
0
Robert
12/19/2005 5:49:14 PM
"Dave" wrote ...

> If you don't agree, read this (Assuming you can read) as it gives a
> fairly complete history of all the personal computers on the market
> since the early 80's...
> http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/

Interesting.  The Spectrum _never_ had a _major_ share of the 8-bit market,
while, as the subject line of this thread reads, the Commodore 64 ruled the
8-bit world!
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!



0
Sam
12/19/2005 6:26:08 PM
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:26:08 GMT, "Sam Gillett"
<samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote:

>
>"Dave" wrote ...
>
>> If you don't agree, read this (Assuming you can read) as it gives a
>> fairly complete history of all the personal computers on the market
>> since the early 80's...
>> http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/
>
>Interesting.  The Spectrum _never_ had a _major_ share of the 8-bit market,
>while, as the subject line of this thread reads, the Commodore 64 ruled the
>8-bit world!

Do remember that the article only covers from a US perspective. If a UK/Europe
perspective was conducted, the chart would be VERY different in the 8-bit era.
-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____
0
The
12/19/2005 6:47:32 PM
"Sam Gillett" <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote in message 
news:0PLof.1086$7f3.681@trnddc01...
>
> "Clockmeister"  wrote ...
>>
>> "W Marsh" <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> wrote in message
>> news:kli6q1thm5nbm5ahivcb9onjk1j8pmv1p6@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:12:08 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>>I can't see any threat there.
>>>>what would be the point? Death by laughter?
>>>
>>> Linux is great, and has its place. Unfortunately, people like you
>>> insist on bad advocacy and harm it a great deal. Save it for Slashdot,
>>> because nobody else wants to hear it.
>>
>> Yep, I agree 100%.
>>
>> Linux has it place, but for entertainment and general home use Linux 
>> can't
>> touch XP, in fact it isn't even in the same league.
>
> I agree with that statement.  And, I see a parallel.
>
> The ZX Spectrum has it's place, but for entertainment and general home use 
> the ZX Spectrum can't touch the Commodore 64, in fact it isn't even in the 
> same league.

No, the Acorn BBC was far superior for general home use, and I'd say the 
Atari 800 was technically a better game machine....(OK sound wise pokey 
sucked slightly compared to SID..)

What could the C64 offer? Slow processor and crap disk system - a mildly 
upgraded spectrum was more usable..... 


0
john
12/19/2005 7:27:40 PM
The Starglider wrote:

>>>If you don't agree, read this (Assuming you can read) as it gives a
>>>fairly complete history of all the personal computers on the market
>>>since the early 80's...
>>>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/
>>
>>Interesting.  The Spectrum _never_ had a _major_ share of the 8-bit market,
>>while, as the subject line of this thread reads, the Commodore 64 ruled the
>>8-bit world!
> 
> 
> Do remember that the article only covers from a US perspective. If a UK/Europe
> perspective was conducted, the chart would be VERY different in the 8-bit era.

I'd agree to what you wrote with the exception of "VERY" ...
0
silverdr
12/19/2005 7:40:26 PM
"SbM" <sebastienmarty@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1h7ovvf.1j3k6gs1m0rn5sN%sebastienmarty@yahoo.fr

> Nick Humphries <mg@the-den.clara.net> wrote:
> 
> > "larry" <larry@portcommodore.com> wrote in message
> > news:1134744452.303528.79780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
> > 
> > > b)search for Commodore 64 on Google and see how popular it is.
> > 
> > But are any of those sites special and/or impressive?
> > 
> > Popular, in the present tense, means that people (lots of people) are
> > doing things related to them today.
> 
> No, it doesn't. "Popular (adjective). Liked, admired or enjoyed by many
> people or by a particular person or group." (Oxford dictionary)

Well done, you can use a dictionary.

> Doesn't say anything about actually "doing things related to them" or
> "creating something special".

So let me get this straight: you guys like the C64 enough to talk about
it, but not enough to match all the retroscene stuff produced by
Spectrum fans these days?

Given that there are more ex-C64 users than ex-Spectrum users globally,
why don't you like your machine enough to create stuff in tribute to it?

Are you sure it's more popular than the Spectrum? We seem to care a lot
more about and produce a lot more things related to the Spectrum.



-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
0
Nick
12/19/2005 7:51:00 PM
"john" <jsmith1456@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:MQDpf.48464$uR.32643@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Sam Gillett" <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote in message 
> news:0PLof.1086$7f3.681@trnddc01...
>>
>> "Clockmeister"  wrote ...
>>>
>>> "W Marsh" <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> wrote in message
>>> news:kli6q1thm5nbm5ahivcb9onjk1j8pmv1p6@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:12:08 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I can't see any threat there.
>>>>>what would be the point? Death by laughter?
>>>>
>>>> Linux is great, and has its place. Unfortunately, people like you
>>>> insist on bad advocacy and harm it a great deal. Save it for Slashdot,
>>>> because nobody else wants to hear it.
>>>
>>> Yep, I agree 100%.
>>>
>>> Linux has it place, but for entertainment and general home use Linux 
>>> can't
>>> touch XP, in fact it isn't even in the same league.
>>
>> I agree with that statement.  And, I see a parallel.
>>
>> The ZX Spectrum has it's place, but for entertainment and general home 
>> use the ZX Spectrum can't touch the Commodore 64, in fact it isn't even 
>> in the same league.
>
> No, the Acorn BBC was far superior for general home use, and I'd say the 
> Atari 800 was technically a better game machine....(OK sound wise pokey 
> sucked slightly compared to SID..)
>
> What could the C64 offer? Slow processor and crap disk system - a mildly 
> upgraded spectrum was more usable.....

Crap sound and graphics, crap keyboard and crap expansion options... the 
Spectrum is the cheap and cheerful alternative if cost is your main priority 
and not the actual computing experience.


0
Clockmeister
12/19/2005 7:54:35 PM
"silverdr" <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote in message 
news:43a70ca9@news.inet.com.pl...
> The Starglider wrote:
>
>>>>If you don't agree, read this (Assuming you can read) as it gives a
>>>>fairly complete history of all the personal computers on the market
>>>>since the early 80's...
>>>>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/
>>>
>>>Interesting.  The Spectrum _never_ had a _major_ share of the 8-bit 
>>>market,
>>>while, as the subject line of this thread reads, the Commodore 64 ruled 
>>>the
>>>8-bit world!
>>
>>
>> Do remember that the article only covers from a US perspective. If a 
>> UK/Europe
>> perspective was conducted, the chart would be VERY different in the 8-bit 
>> era.
>
> I'd agree to what you wrote with the exception of "VERY" ...

The C64 kicked ZX arse in Europe too, except in the UK which is a market 
that buys British first no matter how crap it is.


0
Clockmeister
12/19/2005 7:56:41 PM
"Tarquin Mills" <accus@use.net> wrote in message 
news:9b6d4bdb4d.Usenet@localhost.local...
> In message <1134704352.937685.86610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> Paul       dunric@yahoo.com wrote:
>> 1. Best selling computer of all time.
>> 5. The most popular computer of all time.
>
> Please could you prove this to me and how much better selling it is
> than competing systems, and do not just quote Guiness World of Record
> which is quite often wrong on computer records.

Wishing it to be so doesn't make it so.

>> 2. VIC-II/SID chips.
>
> These extra chips tried to offset the slow speed of the CPU in the
> C=64 and in the process increased the price.
>
>                BogoMips  Dhrystone Whetstones
>                  in C    1.1 in C     MIPS
>                          Vax Mips   in BASIC (interpreted)
> PC XT           0.02      0.19-0.23   0.0015
> ZX-Spectrum     0.0154     ??????     0.00052
> C=64            0.0033     0.0205      ?????
>
> The ZX Spectrum Bogomips figure was achieved using z88dk version
> 1.6 cross-compiling to produce a TAP file. Then the TAP file was run
> in the Fuse emulator in 48K Spectrum mode. The C=64 Bogomips figure
> comes from the HOWTO and was run under Vice. The Dhrystones where done
> with -DROPT and compiled with C Power 2.8 (source Rick Richardson).
> The Whetstones are Quick BASIC for PC/XT and ZX Spectrum BASIC (source
> Roy Longbottom), compiling or using a different language would help.
>

They didn't offset, they offloaded. The figures above do not in any way show 
which system was better in actual use, which ofcourse anyone with eyes and 
ears knows was the C64.

>> 3. Thousands upon thousands of programs.
>
> The total number of programs that run on the ZX Spectrum is in
> 5 figures with new releases still happening, see WoS for evidence.
> The question is how many programs has the Commodore 64 got?

Six figures more then likely.

>> 4. BBSs.
>
> The ZX Spectrum can access and run BBSs, however BBSs were not that
> important to most people.
>

Poor excuses, BBS's were very popular at one time when there was no internet 
and the C64 was a popular system to run them. The C64 was also popular in 
robotics and amateur radio. None of those niches was fed by the lowly, 
boring and unimaginative ZX.

> Most people did not buy the Atari 400 because it had 8KB RAM and a
> membrane keyboard while cost more than a ZX81.
>

Most bought a real computer instead, like the C64.



0
Clockmeister
12/19/2005 8:07:12 PM
"Nick Humphries" <mg@the-den.clara.net> wrote in message 
news:a0c9c444be76d63745d8ff90006b9431.75886@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "SbM" <sebastienmarty@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:1h7ovvf.1j3k6gs1m0rn5sN%sebastienmarty@yahoo.fr
>
>> Nick Humphries <mg@the-den.clara.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "larry" <larry@portcommodore.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1134744452.303528.79780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
>> >
>> > > b)search for Commodore 64 on Google and see how popular it is.
>> >
>> > But are any of those sites special and/or impressive?
>> >
>> > Popular, in the present tense, means that people (lots of people) are
>> > doing things related to them today.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. "Popular (adjective). Liked, admired or enjoyed by many
>> people or by a particular person or group." (Oxford dictionary)
>
> Well done, you can use a dictionary.
>
>> Doesn't say anything about actually "doing things related to them" or
>> "creating something special".
>
> So let me get this straight: you guys like the C64 enough to talk about
> it, but not enough to match all the retroscene stuff produced by
> Spectrum fans these days?
>
> Given that there are more ex-C64 users than ex-Spectrum users globally,
> why don't you like your machine enough to create stuff in tribute to it?

Because we don't need to convince ourselves that our computer doesn't suck.

> Are you sure it's more popular than the Spectrum? We seem to care a lot
> more about and produce a lot more things related to the Spectrum.
>

More C= people just use their systems without making a big noise about it. 
Commodore users aren't that insecure, really.



0
Clockmeister
12/19/2005 8:35:32 PM
"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:43a71996@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> Most bought a real computer instead, like the C64.

I genuinely don't understand how a machine which sacrificed RAM, CPU power 
and a decent ROM for more a video chip designed for games and an oddity of a 
sound chip could be described as more of a real computer than its 
competition.

I had a C64 and a Spectrum growing up. I preferred the Spectrum because it 
had better publications, better textbooks, better tools - and the games were 
more fun. There's NOTHING on the C64 that I remember fondly. In fact, when I 
was a kid and didn't know better, I thought the C64 must have been an entire 
generation behind the Spectrum because the sound seemed broken, and all game 
graphics seemed slapdash and badly designed. The machine ended up under a 
pile of books, while the other machines in the house were played until they 
gave up the ghost. 


0
Jim
12/19/2005 8:51:01 PM
"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:43a71996$6@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
> More C= people just use their systems without making a big noise about it. 
> Commodore users aren't that insecure, really.

You have to be fucking kidding - comp.sys.sinclair has had almost as many 
posts by your lot this month than it has by its own regulars. 


0
Jim
12/19/2005 8:51:57 PM
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:07:12 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:

> Most bought a real computer instead, like the C64.

Honestly, I'm just about sick to death of the C64 vs ZX thread.

Clockmeister, if you need instruction on how to remove a newsgroup, such
as comp.sys.atari.8bit, which obviously does not belong in your current
"discussion", I'll be glad to help you on how to do this...

I'm only cross-posting now, to make sure you get this message.

Thanks.

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

0
Ronald
12/19/2005 8:59:29 PM
"Jim Beam" <jimbeam@beam.com> wrote in message 
news:43a71d6a$0$23297$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
> news:43a71996$6@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>
>> More C= people just use their systems without making a big noise about 
>> it. Commodore users aren't that insecure, really.
>
> You have to be fucking kidding - comp.sys.sinclair has had almost as many 
> posts by your lot this month than it has by its own regulars.

You started it like you do every year.

And you lose every time.





0
Clockmeister
12/19/2005 9:15:08 PM
"Jim Beam" <jimbeam@beam.com> wrote in message 
news:43a71d33$0$23296$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
> news:43a71996@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>> Most bought a real computer instead, like the C64.
>
> I genuinely don't understand how a machine which sacrificed RAM, CPU power 
> and a decent ROM for more a video chip designed for games and an oddity of 
> a sound chip could be described as more of a real computer than its 
> competition.
>
> I had a C64 and a Spectrum growing up. I preferred the Spectrum because it 
> had better publications, better textbooks, better tools - and the games 
> were more fun. There's NOTHING on the C64 that I remember fondly. In fact, 
> when I was a kid and didn't know better, I thought the C64 must have been 
> an entire generation behind the Spectrum because the sound seemed broken, 
> and all game graphics seemed slapdash and badly designed. The machine 
> ended up under a pile of books, while the other machines in the house were 
> played until they gave up the ghost.

That just has to be a troll.

Nice one Jim.


0
Clockmeister
12/19/2005 9:17:07 PM
"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.19.20.59.27.586841@charter.net...
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:07:12 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>
>> Most bought a real computer instead, like the C64.
>
> Honestly, I'm just about sick to death of the C64 vs ZX thread.

Yeah me too, they can never finish what they start anyway.

> Clockmeister, if you need instruction on how to remove a newsgroup, such
> as comp.sys.atari.8bit, which obviously does not belong in your current
> "discussion", I'll be glad to help you on how to do this...

I don't need instruction, thanks anyway.

> I'm only cross-posting now, to make sure you get this message.
>

Hope you get mine too, it is the last comment I will make on the C64 vs ZX 
topic.

The C64 wins every year, I really shouldn't bother with it.

Enjoy your computers and your Christmas! 


0
Clockmeister
12/19/2005 9:19:46 PM
The Starglider wrote:

>Do remember that the article only covers from a US perspective. If a UK/Europe
>perspective was conducted, the chart would be VERY different in the 8-bit era.
>  
>

# of Doorstops vs country (relative percentage - commodore)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|____
|
|                  __________
|        _____
|____________________
  E        G       F        E
  N        E       R       U
  G        R       A       R


# of Doorstops vs country (relative percentage - spectrum)

|
|        _____
|                  _________
|
|
|
|
|
|____
|
|
|
|                
|____________________
  E        G       F        E
  N        E       R       U
  G        R       A       R

# of Tea place mats vs country

|
|       
|                 
|
|
|____
|
|
|
|
|
|
|             trace trace  trace  
|____________________
  E        G       F        E
  N        E       R       U
  G        R       A       R

I guess that you can turn place mats and doorstops into something 
usefully makes for ingenuity.   Take pride!


0
Axell1 (8)
12/19/2005 10:19:16 PM
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 05:19:46 +0800, "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>news:pan.2005.12.19.20.59.27.586841@charter.net...
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:07:12 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>> Most bought a real computer instead, like the C64.
>>
>> Honestly, I'm just about sick to death of the C64 vs ZX thread.
>
>Yeah me too, they can never finish what they start anyway.
>
>> Clockmeister, if you need instruction on how to remove a newsgroup, such
>> as comp.sys.atari.8bit, which obviously does not belong in your current
>> "discussion", I'll be glad to help you on how to do this...
>
>I don't need instruction, thanks anyway.
>
>> I'm only cross-posting now, to make sure you get this message.
>>
>
>Hope you get mine too, it is the last comment I will make on the C64 vs ZX 
>topic.
>
>The C64 wins every year, I really shouldn't bother with it.
>
>Enjoy your computers and your Christmas! 
>
Still waiting for your answers BTW.
-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____
0
The
12/19/2005 10:24:24 PM
Ronald J. Hall wrote:

>
>I'm only cross-posting now, to make sure you get this message.
>
>  
>
And please send an abuse to Panks internet service provider as you do 
not need to be drawn into this in future.
0
Axell
12/19/2005 10:25:30 PM
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:35:32 +0800, "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>"Nick Humphries" <mg@the-den.clara.net> wrote in message 
>news:a0c9c444be76d63745d8ff90006b9431.75886@mygate.mailgate.org...
>> "SbM" <sebastienmarty@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
>> news:1h7ovvf.1j3k6gs1m0rn5sN%sebastienmarty@yahoo.fr
>>
>>> Nick Humphries <mg@the-den.clara.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > "larry" <larry@portcommodore.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:1134744452.303528.79780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
>>> >
>>> > > b)search for Commodore 64 on Google and see how popular it is.
>>> >
>>> > But are any of those sites special and/or impressive?
>>> >
>>> > Popular, in the present tense, means that people (lots of people) are
>>> > doing things related to them today.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. "Popular (adjective). Liked, admired or enjoyed by many
>>> people or by a particular person or group." (Oxford dictionary)
>>
>> Well done, you can use a dictionary.
>>
>>> Doesn't say anything about actually "doing things related to them" or
>>> "creating something special".
>>
>> So let me get this straight: you guys like the C64 enough to talk about
>> it, but not enough to match all the retroscene stuff produced by
>> Spectrum fans these days?
>>
>> Given that there are more ex-C64 users than ex-Spectrum users globally,
>> why don't you like your machine enough to create stuff in tribute to it?
>
>Because we don't need to convince ourselves that our computer doesn't suck.
>
You don't need convincing since you know deep down that the C64 really does
suck.

-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____
0
The
12/19/2005 10:26:59 PM
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> did eloquently scribble:
> "Jim Beam" <jimbeam@beam.com> wrote in message 
> news:43a71d6a$0$23297$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>> "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
>> news:43a71996$6@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>>
>>> More C= people just use their systems without making a big noise about 
>>> it. Commodore users aren't that insecure, really.
>>
>> You have to be fucking kidding - comp.sys.sinclair has had almost as many 
>> posts by your lot this month than it has by its own regulars.
> 
> You started it like you do every year.

Nope, no-one here started it this time.
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
|            in            |  suck is probably the day they start making     |
|     Computer science     |  vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge            |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/19/2005 10:30:58 PM
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 05:19:46 +0800, "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>news:pan.2005.12.19.20.59.27.586841@charter.net...
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:07:12 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>> Most bought a real computer instead, like the C64.
>>
>> Honestly, I'm just about sick to death of the C64 vs ZX thread.
>
>Yeah me too, they can never finish what they start anyway.
>
>> Clockmeister, if you need instruction on how to remove a newsgroup, such
>> as comp.sys.atari.8bit, which obviously does not belong in your current
>> "discussion", I'll be glad to help you on how to do this...
>
>I don't need instruction, thanks anyway.
>
>> I'm only cross-posting now, to make sure you get this message.
>>
>
>Hope you get mine too, it is the last comment I will make on the C64 vs ZX 
>topic.
>
>The C64 wins every year, I really shouldn't bother with it.
>
>Enjoy your computers and your Christmas! 
>
Still waiting for your answers BTW.
-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____
0
The
12/19/2005 10:32:19 PM
Clockmeister rapped

>You started it like you do every year.
>
>And you lose every time.

I checked on Google and the original poster has made

5       cross-posts to comp.sys.sinclair
6       cross-posts to comp.sys.atari.8bit
438     posts to comp.sys.cbm

out of a total of 3550 usenet posts

The bed-wetter ain't one of ours.

-- 
Geoff Wearmouth
http://comp.sys.atari.istheshit.net/
0
Geoff
12/19/2005 10:40:42 PM
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 05:15:08 +0800, "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>"Jim Beam" <jimbeam@beam.com> wrote in message 
>news:43a71d6a$0$23297$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>> "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
>> news:43a71996$6@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>>
>>> More C= people just use their systems without making a big noise about 
>>> it. Commodore users aren't that insecure, really.
>>
>> You have to be fucking kidding - comp.sys.sinclair has had almost as many 
>> posts by your lot this month than it has by its own regulars.
>
>You started it like you do every year.
>
>And you lose every time.
>
You've yet to show a shred of evidence that you've "won" any argument you get
yourself involved in.

Why do you choose to ignore the repeated requests by me to answer what the C64
can do that the Spectrum can't, and for you definition of music and a musical
note, to prove that the BEEP of a spectrum isn't musical.

Why do you not answer these? Simple. You have no answers. You just don't want to
be shown up as a moronic troller who really has no idea what you're talking
about.

You harp on all day about how great the C64 is above all other machines, even
though that many other people in both groups have shown the shortcomings of both
machines.

Yes, the C64 has a higher resolution mode - largly unusable for anything
advanced like gaming.

Yes, the Speccy default attribute display can only show 2 colours per 8x8 block,
but has been proved to be overcome with little trouble and no additional
hardware.

Yes, the C64 has sprites, but so does the spectrum, regardless of hardware or
software.

yes, the 48k Spectrum only had a BEEPer for the sound, but has been programmed
to perform 5 channel sound.

There are a multitude of peripherals for the ZX range, including Disc drive
systems that blew away every C64 disc system around. there was also video
digitizers, light pens and guns, mice, joysticks, networking, and countless
others I can't be bothered to list here.

Only 2 models of Spectrum had rubber keys, the 16 and 48k models. Every model
since then had proper keys.

Commodore BASIC was very lacking and in stock BASIC could not perfom graphical
functions with simple commands like PLOT and DRAW. Even changing colours or
producing sound in BASIC was a task for the average user on the C64.

Both models could access BBS systems.

The C64 SID chip is more capable than the AY (See? When I'm not flamebaiting, I
am honest!), but preference is down to the user and I perfer the sound of the
AY.

The number of titles is huge on the C64, but I do believe that it's bigger on
the Spectrum.


Anyone feel free to make corrections to the list, but I feel you Clockmeister
will be finding it hard to pick holes in it, since you have no idea what you're
talking about.
-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____
0
The
12/19/2005 10:42:36 PM
"Geoff Wearmouth" <geoff@wearmouth.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:pWBLncCqbzpDFwqy@wearmouth.demon.co.uk...
>
> Clockmeister rapped
>
>>You started it like you do every year.
>>
>>And you lose every time.
>
> I checked on Google and the original poster has made
>
> 5       cross-posts to comp.sys.sinclair
> 6       cross-posts to comp.sys.atari.8bit
> 438     posts to comp.sys.cbm
>
> out of a total of 3550 usenet posts
>
> The bed-wetter ain't one of ours.

I stand corrected, the bed-wetter wasn't Starglider... this time.



0
Clockmeister
12/19/2005 10:59:59 PM
"The Starglider" <thestarglider@wibble.co.uk> wrote ...

> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:26:08 GMT, "Sam Gillett"
> <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Dave" wrote ...
>>
>>> If you don't agree, read this (Assuming you can read) as it gives a
>>> fairly complete history of all the personal computers on the market
>>> since the early 80's...
>>> http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/
>>
>>Interesting.  The Spectrum _never_ had a _major_ share of the 8-bit market,
>>while, as the subject line of this thread reads, the Commodore 64 ruled the
>>8-bit world!
>
> Do remember that the article only covers from a US perspective. If a
> UK/Europe
> perspective was conducted, the chart would be VERY different in the 8-bit
> era.

You are looking at this matter from a purely UK perspective.  And please
don't pretend that all of Europe was the same as the UK.

From a worldwide[1] perspective, the Commodore 64 still ruled the 8-bit era.
The Spectrum was only a minor league player.

[1] worldwide includes such far off places as Australia, Japan, etc.  We do
not need to include Antarctica as very few penguins used computers.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!




0
Sam
12/20/2005 12:12:57 AM
"Geoff Wearmouth" wrote ...
>
> Clockmeister rapped
>
>>You started it like you do every year.
>>
>>And you lose every time.
>
> I checked on Google and the original poster has made
>
> 5       cross-posts to comp.sys.sinclair
> 6       cross-posts to comp.sys.atari.8bit
> 438     posts to comp.sys.cbm
>
> out of a total of 3550 usenet posts
>
> The bed-wetter ain't one of ours.

He only started _this_ crossposted thread.  Other recent crossposted threads
were _not_ started by one of ours.

BTW, the ZX Spectrum still loses every time.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!



0
Sam
12/20/2005 12:12:59 AM
"Jim Beam" wrote ...
>
> "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:43a71996$6@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>
>> More C= people just use their systems without making a big noise about it.
>> Commodore users aren't that insecure, really.
>
> You have to be fucking kidding - comp.sys.sinclair has had almost as many
> posts by your lot this month than it has by its own regulars.

That is because this (and a few other) threads were crossposted.  There are
more of us (cbm) than there are of you (sinclair).  Which may make another
point.  The C64 is _still_ more _popular_ than the Spectrum could ever hope
to be.

The Commodore 64 rules!
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!



0
Sam
12/20/2005 12:13:00 AM
"The Starglider" wrote ...

> You don't need convincing since you know deep down that the C64 really does
> suck.

No, the C64 does not suck.  It blows.  The C64 blows the Spectrum away!
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!



0
Sam
12/20/2005 12:13:01 AM
The Starglider wrote:

[...]

> 
> Yes, the C64 has a higher resolution mode - largly unusable for anything
> advanced like gaming.
> 

Quite usable for e.g. GEOS, Stop-Press, Printfox etc. to name a few... 
oh, those aren't really games...

> Yes, the Speccy default attribute display can only show 2 colours per 8x8 block,
> but has been proved to be overcome with little trouble and no additional
> hardware.

Which still doesn't bring it close to what can be achieved with little 
trouble and no additional hardware on a 64.

> 
> Yes, the C64 has sprites, but so does the spectrum, regardless of hardware or
> software.
> 

No. C64 has sprites, whereas Spectrum can only try to emulate them (with 
limited success).

> yes, the 48k Spectrum only had a BEEPer for the sound, but has been programmed
> to perform 5 channel sound.
> 
> There are a multitude of peripherals for the ZX range,

Good. At least the same for the 64, right?

> including Disc drive
> systems that blew away every C64 disc system around.

Uh, oh! Isn't that a kind of an overstatement? Anything to back it up?

> there was also video
> digitizers, light pens and guns, mice, joysticks, networking, and countless
> others I can't be bothered to list here.

Good. Probably at least the same for the 64.

> 
> Only 2 models of Spectrum had rubber keys, the 16 and 48k models.

Those were the ones everyone has seen in the middle eighties. Then still 
some diminishing amount of Spectrum+s. Later on the Spectrum marketshare 
dropped beyond significance, hence no wonder only Spectrum fans remember 
that there were possibly some models with real keyboard (no, Spectrum+ 
one wasn't). No, even clones like Timex didn't have one.

> Every model
> since then had proper keys.

Uh, I always thought that the rubber ones were THE proper Spectrum keys. 
Anyway - what Spectrum+ brought was still a bad excuse for a keyboard. 
Something like old rubber with new, plastic caps on top and I saw people 
(hardcore Spectrum fans) complaining more about the Spectrum+ keyboard 
than about their previous, proper Spectrum keys.

> 
> Commodore BASIC was very lacking and in stock BASIC could not perfom graphical
> functions with simple commands like PLOT and DRAW. Even changing colours or
> producing sound in BASIC was a task for the average user on the C64.
> 

Right. But on the positive side that led us straight to the heart and 
guts of the machine, without time wasting, intermediate BEEP exercises.

[...]

> Anyone feel free to make corrections to the list,

Thank you. :-)
0
silverdr
12/20/2005 12:19:03 AM
Clockmeister wrote:


> 
> The C64 wins every year, I really shouldn't bother with it.
> 
> Enjoy your computers and your Christmas!



Noooooo, never!

Everything points to the Speccy48K..... You do not see it???




Merry Chrismas time� and clock your time. YOu go intothe lenghth with
your postings.... hmm, reminds me to something other enduringly .. ;-)


And there will be light ;-)...... etc.




Kind Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
Daniel
12/20/2005 12:31:36 AM
Jim Beam wrote:

> 
> I had a C64 and a Spectrum growing up. I preferred the Spectrum because it 
> had better publications, better textbooks, better tools - and the games were 
> more fun. There's NOTHING on the C64 that I remember fondly. In fact, when I 
> was a kid and didn't know better, I thought the C64 must have been an entire 
> generation behind the Spectrum because the sound seemed broken, and all game 
> graphics seemed slapdash and badly designed. The machine ended up under a 
> pile of books, while the other machines in the house were played until they 
> gave up the ghost. 
> 

That reminds me of a friend of mine (diehard Spectrum user) who was once 
talking more or less the same as you. And he kept doing it until (was 
it?) Uridium I believe when he visited another friend of mine to show 
his (was it?) Uridium on the Speccy as the latest, ultimate killer for 
the 64. After the presentation (on a TV via HF), the Commodore guy 
loaded the 64 version of Uridium and ran it (while having the machine 
connected to the amplifier and the Y/C monitor)... The result was just 
another of the millions of C64 users few weeks later. Oh, and on leaving 
the house with his Speccy in the bag he was murmuring something like 
"how could I be saying that kind of bullshit so long?"... True story. 
One of many.
0
silverdr
12/20/2005 12:33:15 AM
Clockmeister wrote:

> 
> The C64 kicked ZX arse in Europe too, except in the UK which is a
> market that buys British first no matter how crap it is.


That�s not true.

Mostly English parts are very good. But they have also other, not
British, as good or better then their own.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
12/20/2005 12:51:03 AM
The Starglider wrote:

who really has no idea
> what you're talking about.
> 
> You harp on all day about how great the C64 is above all other
> machines, even though that many other people in both groups have
> shown the shortcomings of both machines.
> 
> Yes, the C64 has a higher resolution mode - largly unusable for
> anything advanced like gaming.
> 

Yes, but that is not really a Domain of the C-64, AFAIK.

> Yes, the Speccy default attribute display can only show 2 colours per
> 8x8 block, but has been proved to be overcome with little trouble and
> no additional hardware.

B/W is also nice. Very good for astronomic purposes, not to remind
about the processing speed left for astronomical calculations, done by
the famous (my Arcade CPU) Z80

> 
> Yes, the C64 has sprites, but so does the spectrum, regardless of
> hardware or software.

Shapes are more nice, IMHO.

> 
> yes, the 48k Spectrum only had a BEEPer for the sound, but has been
> programmed to perform 5 channel sound.
> 

One BEEP on the speccy can tell me more than any doodling I hear on the
C64. Although I have to say the Speccy Beepper is much better than the
PC-Beeper. More soft, and it is fast, accurate (assembler), strange,
mystic, interrogating and more.

> There are a multitude of peripherals for the ZX range, including Disc
> drive systems that blew away every C64 disc system around. there was
> also video digitizers, light pens and guns, mice, joysticks,
> networking, and countless others I can't be bothered to list here.
> 

Yes yes... the old thematic. Paying 1500bucks for a lame C-64 Floppy,
when I could take my Standard-Tapedeck and load as fast.

> Only 2 models of Spectrum had rubber keys, the 16 and 48k models.
> Every model since then had proper keys.
> 

Nothing against the better Keyboards of Amstrad. I prefer the Speccy
gums, 56780.

> Commodore BASIC was very lacking and in stock BASIC could not perfom
> graphical functions with simple commands like PLOT and DRAW. Even
> changing colours or producing sound in BASIC was a task for the
> average user on the C64.

No Comment.

> 
> Both models could access BBS systems.
> 
> The C64 SID chip is more capable than the AY (See? When I'm not
> flamebaiting, I am honest!), but preference is down to the user and I
> perfer the sound of the AY.
> 

AY? Is that this ATARI ST stuff!?

> The number of titles is huge on the C64, but I do believe that it's
> bigger on the Spectrum.
> 

As well.

> 
> Anyone feel free to make corrections to the list, but I feel you
> Clockmeister will be finding it hard to pick holes in it, since you
> have no idea what you're talking about.


I don�t care about you and Clockmeister, but your posting describes
your skills in Usenet and the meaning of the Sinclair Spectrum.


Merry Christmas.





Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
Daniel
12/20/2005 1:14:49 AM
silverdr wrote:
> The Starglider wrote:
> 
>> including Disc drive
>> systems that blew away every C64 disc system around.
> 
> Uh, oh! Isn't that a kind of an overstatement? Anything to back it up?

Go on, I'll bite. Don't think we've covered this ground before.

Probably the best disc system for the Spectrum pre-1990 (an arbitrary 
cutoff point to make it a meaningful comparison of Speccy/C64 era 
systems; these days we're on CompactFlash, and I'll bet you are too) was 
the MGT Plus D. Supported 3.5" DSDD disks, 780K usable space as standard 
(plus 20K for directory), ~13.5Kbyte/s transfer rate, a snapshot button 
for saving memory dumps. A third-party DOS upgrade was available to give 
full support for subdirectories and random-access files.

Price: 60UKP, or 120UKP with bundled drive. (No idea what the dollar 
equivalent in 1988 would be, sorry)

http://www.worldofspectrum.org/infoseek.cgi?regexp=^MGT+Plus+D$&pub=^Miles+Gordon+Technology$

The nearest C64 equivalent I can find from a quick google is the 1581, 
but I don't see anything about transfer rates or price. Any offers?
0
Matthew
12/20/2005 1:16:24 AM
"Matthew Westcott" wrote ...

> silverdr wrote:
>> The Starglider wrote:
>>
>>> including Disc drive
>>> systems that blew away every C64 disc system around.
>>
>> Uh, oh! Isn't that a kind of an overstatement? Anything to back it up?
>
> Go on, I'll bite. Don't think we've covered this ground before.
>
> Probably the best disc system for the Spectrum pre-1990 (an arbitrary
> cutoff point to make it a meaningful comparison of Speccy/C64 era systems;
> these days we're on CompactFlash, and I'll bet you are too) was the MGT
> Plus D. Supported 3.5" DSDD disks, 780K usable space as standard (plus 20K
> for directory),

The Commodore 1581 drive used 3.5" DSDD disks and formatted to 800Kb, which
IIRC included the directory track.

> ~13.5Kbyte/s transfer rate,

When used with the C64 the 1581 wasn't that fast.  However, speed could be
greatly increased by replacing stock ROMs with JiffyDOS chips.

> a snapshot button for saving memory dumps.

Commodore drives didn't do this directly, but many third party cartridges
were available for use in the C64's expansion port which would freeze a game
and dump memory to any Commodore disk drive.

> A third-party DOS upgrade was available to give full support for
> subdirectories and random-access files.

The Commodore 1581 drive supported sub-directories in stock form.  All
Commodore disk drives supported random access files right out of the box.

> Price: 60UKP, or 120UKP with bundled drive. (No idea what the dollar
> equivalent in 1988 would be, sorry)

I paid $199 US for a 1581 drive about that time period.  The 1541 could be
found at about $119 US, and the 1571 for around $149 US.  Note that these
were discount prices.  The manufacturers suggested retail price was quite a
bit higher.  I don't remember the exchange rate for US $ vs. GB # either.

> The nearest C64 equivalent I can find from a quick google is the 1581, but
> I don't see anything about transfer rates or price. Any offers?

Information about transfer rates, both with and without JiffyDOS is available
on the web.  I have seen it, but I am too lazy to look for it right now.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!




0
Sam
12/20/2005 2:23:55 AM
"Daniel Mandic" wrote ...
>
> And there will be light ;-)...... etc.

And, when you see the light at the end of the tunnel, it will be controlled
by a Commodore 64!
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!



0
Sam
12/20/2005 2:23:56 AM
The Starglider wrote:
> Yes, the C64 has a higher resolution mode - largly unusable for anything
> advanced like gaming.

It wasn't (and isn't) used by games developers by *choice*, partly because 
trading off the res for colours is an acceptable thing to do if you have the 
option and always has been but also because gamers complained when they did; 
  calling a game a "Speccy port" was an insult in a lot of magazines for 
games like Karnov that used ported Spectrum graphics (the code being piss 
poor didn't help, of course).

The C64 can quite happily handle the Spectrum's graphics (in fact, as far as 
the VIC-II is concerned it's aways functioning at 320x200 and simply using 
bit pairs to represent colours when multicolour is enabled) and any game 
hammering along using a character-based screen could quite easily have used 
that mode.  A lot of titles even mix modes, such as the background parallax 
on Mayhem In Monsterland (and Mayhem himself) or some of the levels of 
Turricans 1, 2 and 3.

> Yes, the Speccy default attribute display can only show 2 colours per 8x8 block,
> but has been proved to be overcome with little trouble and no additional
> hardware.

The C64 can do the same, for the hi-res mode it's called AFLI (Advanced 
Flexible Line Interpretation) and, after a 24 pixel overhead at the start of 
each scanline, can produce a 296x200 pixel image with 8x1 pixel attribute 
cells.  That's higher res than the Spectrum amd i don't believe it's 
possible to rainbow process the entire width of the screen...?

There's also AHires, 320x200 with two colours per 8x8 cell and a third 
generated with hardware sprite underlays; the Spectrum can't match that 
colour depth because...

> Yes, the C64 has sprites, but so does the spectrum, regardless of hardware or
> software.

....software sprites are a significant CPU overhead and aren't able to do 
everything hardware ones can; hardware sprites have independent colours to 
the background (whereas the Spectrum has two colours an attribute cell 
regardless of if it's background or sprite detail in there) and C64 sprites 
require an average of five memory writes to set up (X position, X MSB, Y 
position, data pointer and colour), can be expanded horizontally or 
vertically, use a different mode to the screen they're over or to the other 
sprites and can even exist in the upper, lower and side borders.

> There are a multitude of peripherals for the ZX range, including Disc drive
> systems that blew away every C64 disc system around.

Commodore's own drives were crippled by the serial standard laid down when 
the VIC 20 was developed and subsequent maintaining of backward 
compatibility to VIC peripherals, but if we're talking third party hardware 
(since most Spectrum drives were it seems fair to bring in other kit for the 
C64 too) then there wasn't and indeed isn't anything to stop third party 
drives or even third party hardware like DolphinDOS or JiffyDOS ROMs being 
installed to speed the stock drives up.  A stock 1541 and C64 can run up to 
25 times faster than the default speed purely through software fastloading, 
parallel systems like DolphinDOS can make that look like standing still.

If we're talking "out of the box" solutions though, how about the TIB 
Ultimate drive?  It can could load an entire sixty-something K game in about 
eight seconds from a 3.5" DS/DD MSDOS format disk via it's own parallel 
interface to the cartridge port.

 > there was also video digitizers, light pens and guns, mice, joysticks,
 > networking, and countless others I can't be bothered to list here.

And all for the C64 as well, in fact there's no device i can think of that 
the Spectrum got that the C64 didn't apart from perhaps a joystick 
interface... well, that's not true because there were and still are four 
player adapters.

> Only 2 models of Spectrum had rubber keys, the 16 and 48k models. Every model
> since then had proper keys.

But that's still a large percentage of the overall number of machines isn't 
it?  And why change the design at all unless it needed improving...?

> Commodore BASIC was very lacking and in stock BASIC could not perfom graphical
> functions with simple commands like PLOT and DRAW. Even changing colours or
> producing sound in BASIC was a task for the average user on the C64.

Yup, i'm *never* going to say Commodore BASIC V2 is any good because i'd be 
lying (it's easier to work with on the VIC 20, higher overall CPU speed and 
smaller screen RAM y'see) but as i've also said on several occasions it 
*did* force people, myself included, to learn machine code in order to do 
something playable.  And people learning machine code and making games and 
demos is a Good Thing to my mind. =-)

> The number of titles is huge on the C64, but I do believe that it's bigger on
> the Spectrum.

Even with compilations, demos, utilities and so forth, WOS only catalogues 
12,721 titles compared to Gamebase 64's 17,450 and, since we're including 
demos in WOS's tally, best add in the 4,456 over at www.c64.ch to take it up 
to a grand total of 21,906 - nearly double.  And the archive at c64.ch is 
*woefully* incomplete too so these figures are rather conservative, the CSDb 
lists over 23,000 releases including cracked games so even if only half of 
that were demos, that's 11,500 and it's higher than half...

[Insert late night posting/possible errors disclaimer here!]
-- 
     ______________________________  _________________________________
    /                             /\/  ___/     /  ___/  /     /  ___/\
   / Website:  www.cosine.org.uk / /  /\_/  /  /__   /  /  /  /  __/\\/
  / ICQ: 44373717 IRC: TMR{C0S} / /  /__/  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /\
/_____________________________/ /_____/_____/_____/__/__/__/_____/ /
\_____________________________\/\_____\_____\_____\__\__\__\_____\/TMR
0
Jason
12/20/2005 3:08:18 AM
Ronald J. Hall wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 05:29:06 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
> 
> 
>>Good for you, but I don't want to search endlessly for something I can 
>>simply pick up at virtually any store.
> 
> 
> Clone.
> 
> 
>>Linux is great for wasting time IMO and I don't consider my time to be free 
>>when I'm wasting it searching out something that may/may not do the job.
> 
> 
> Mindless clone. ;-)
> 
I fail to see how a Linux/Windows debate fits the thread topic, and I 
certainly don't see why it's on comp,sys.atari.8bit. If you want to 
debate the relative merits of Linux and Windows, you should go to one or 
more of the Linux or Windows advocacy groups. You'll find plenty of 
people there more than ready to join in.

And for the record, I use Mandriva Linux, Windows 98SE, an Atari STe, 
and a 130XE. The one I choose to run depends on what I want to do. I 
really don't care what other people think I *ought* to use, and I don't 
care what other people want to use.

The ones who disagree with my choices are just wrong, that's all. 
Nothing to get worked up about.

TJ
0
TJ
12/20/2005 3:58:53 AM
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, The Starglider wrote:

> There are a multitude of peripherals for the ZX range, including Disc drive
> systems that blew away every C64 disc system around. there was also video
> digitizers, light pens and guns, mice, joysticks, networking, and countless
> others I can't be bothered to list here.

Could your ZX drives compete with the 1571 and 1581?  Yes, I know the 1541 
was abysmally slow, but has there even been a 3.5" drive for the Spectrum 
(I actually don't know)?  Mice, joysticks, networking, all of those exist 
on the 64.

> Commodore BASIC was very lacking and in stock BASIC could not perfom graphical
> functions with simple commands like PLOT and DRAW. Even changing colours or
> producing sound in BASIC was a task for the average user on the C64.

Yeah, even the Apple BASIC had advantages over the C= there.  You had GR, 
HGR, TEXT, COLOR=, HCOLOR=, PLOT, HLIN, VLIN and HPLOT.

> The C64 SID chip is more capable than the AY (See? When I'm not flamebaiting, I
> am honest!), but preference is down to the user and I perfer the sound of the
> AY.

From what I've read the AY is the more capable chip but the SID has a bit 
of an analog flavor to it that audiophiles prefer over the sterile sound 
of digital.

Apple sound cards invariably used AY-8910 class chips.  Of course the 
Apple ][+ was rather lame when it came to graphics and sound, being it was 
rather crudely designed for such by the Woz way back in 1977.

-uso.
0
Lyrical
12/20/2005 6:06:41 AM
On Mon, 20 Dec 2005, Daniel Mandic wrote:

>> The C64 SID chip is more capable than the AY (See? When I'm not
>> flamebaiting, I am honest!), but preference is down to the user and I
>> perfer the sound of the AY.
>
> AY? Is that this ATARI ST stuff!?

I believe the Spectrum 128 did have an AY-8910.

-uso.
0
Lyrical
12/20/2005 6:17:06 AM
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:13:00 GMT, "Sam Gillett"
<samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote:

>
>"Jim Beam" wrote ...
>>
>> "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:43a71996$6@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>>
>>> More C= people just use their systems without making a big noise about it.
>>> Commodore users aren't that insecure, really.
>>
>> You have to be fucking kidding - comp.sys.sinclair has had almost as many
>> posts by your lot this month than it has by its own regulars.
>
>That is because this (and a few other) threads were crossposted.  There are
>more of us (cbm) than there are of you (sinclair).  Which may make another
>point.  The C64 is _still_ more _popular_ than the Spectrum could ever hope
>to be.
>
Prove it. Why is the retro scene so much more in advance for the Spectrum than
the C64 if the C64 was so much more popular?
-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____
0
The
12/20/2005 8:46:59 AM
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:13:01 GMT, "Sam Gillett"
<samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote:

>
>"The Starglider" wrote ...
>
>> You don't need convincing since you know deep down that the C64 really does
>> suck.
>
>No, the C64 does not suck.  It blows.

Yes, yes it does indeed blow. Glad you can admit it.

-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____
0
The
12/20/2005 8:47:39 AM
Sam Gillett wrote:

>>>>including Disc drive
>>>>systems that blew away every C64 disc system around.
>>>
>>>Uh, oh! Isn't that a kind of an overstatement? Anything to back it up?
>>
>>Go on, I'll bite. Don't think we've covered this ground before.
>>
>>Probably the best disc system for the Spectrum pre-1990 (an arbitrary
>>cutoff point to make it a meaningful comparison of Speccy/C64 era systems;
>>these days we're on CompactFlash, and I'll bet you are too) was the MGT
>>Plus D. Supported 3.5" DSDD disks, 780K usable space as standard (plus 20K
>>for directory),
> 
> 
> The Commodore 1581 drive used 3.5" DSDD disks and formatted to 800Kb, which
> IIRC included the directory track.
> 
> 
>>~13.5Kbyte/s transfer rate,
> 
> 
> When used with the C64 the 1581 wasn't that fast.  However, speed could be
> greatly increased by replacing stock ROMs with JiffyDOS chips.

I think that around 1990 (the proposed cutoff point) most serious users 
(those used 1581) had something like AR in their expansion port, which 
brought the 1581 transfer speed to comparable level without any h/w 
modifications (didn't do any benchmarking but can do it later today)

> 
>>a snapshot button for saving memory dumps.
> 
> Commodore drives didn't do this directly, but many third party cartridges
> were available for use in the C64's expansion port which would freeze a game
> and dump memory to any Commodore disk drive.

E.g. the same AR I mentioned about. It worked extremely well but it 
wasn't considered as THE feature anyway - except by the most lame 
"hackers" and some gamers.


>>The nearest C64 equivalent I can find from a quick google is the 1581, but
>>I don't see anything about transfer rates or price. Any offers?
> 
> 
> Information about transfer rates, both with and without JiffyDOS is available
> on the web.  I have seen it, but I am too lazy to look for it right now.

JD manual says its about 6.5KiB/s. I _think_ AR does it faster and 
doesn't require any mods (ROM replacements). Of course my DolphinDOS 
equipped 1541 blows it away easily in terms of speed - not to mention 
those who had e.g. PrologicDOS, which was even faster (about 20KiB/s) - 
yes, all before 1990.
0
silverdr
12/20/2005 10:37:17 AM
On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 01:16 +0000, Matthew Westcott wrote:
> silverdr wrote:
> > The Starglider wrote:
> > 
> >> including Disc drive
> >> systems that blew away every C64 disc system around.
> > 
> > Uh, oh! Isn't that a kind of an overstatement? Anything to back it up?
> 
> Go on, I'll bite. Don't think we've covered this ground before.

I've been reading but trying to keep myself from sticking my nose in, but I 
feel I must, finally (and this time I turned off HTML! :) ).  I started to write this big long post, but then I 
realised it would make more sense to condense it into a couple of tables.

Computer + Drive speeds, roughly in order of performance:

C64/C128, Datassette drive, no fastloader:  About 45 bytes/second.
C64, All serial drives, no fastloader: About 500-700 bytes/second.
C128, 1541, no fast load:  About 500-700 bytes/second.
C64/C128, Datassette drive, with fastloader:  I've heard numbers in the 
     1KB/sec range.
C64, 1541/1571 with fast load:  About 6-7KB/sec.
C64, 1581 or FD2000, with fast load: About 7KB/sec.
C64/C128, CMD HD with fastload:  About 8KB/sec, maybe a bit more.
C64, SFD1001 (IEEE/parallel):  Should be comparable to a parallel 1541 or 
     so, but I have not heard any positive benchmarks.
C64/C128, CMD HD+RAMLink+Parallel:  15-20 KB/sec.
C64, 1541/1571 with parallel:   I've heard numbers of upwards of 25KB/sec.  
     Probably lower in practice.
C64/C128, CMD RAMLink:  About 30KB/sec if memory serves.
C64, IDE64 (expansion port):  I've heard numbers upwards of 50KB/sec.
C64/C128, RAMLink + SuperCPU Accellerator:  I've heard numbers upwards of 
     250 KB/sec (!)

C64 to PC Cable:  Not sure what kinds of speeds these can attain.  Should 
be comparable to some of the faster drives, depending on the type of cable 
in use.

In some setups, the C128 may perform a little better than the C64, due to 
it's hardware-assisted burst mode and faster CPU.

Drive sizes and capacities, in order smallest to largest:

Datasette:  Standard cassette tapes, capacity depends on tape length. 60 
     minute tapes home some 100 KB per side if I remember right.
1541:  5.25" - About 170KB per side
1571:  5.25" - About 340KB when using double-sided formatted disks
1581:  3.5" - About 800KB, DSDD disks
SFD1001:  5.25" - About 1MB on a DSHD disk I think?  Someone clarify this 
     please?
FD2000:  3.5" - About 1.6 MB on standard DSHD disks.
FD4000:  3.5" - About 3.2MB on standard ED disks.
CMD RAMDrive:  Expansion port, solid state ramdisk - 1 or 2 MB.
CMD RAMLink:  Expansion port, solid state ramdisk - up to 16MB (at the 
     user's discretion)
CMD ZIP: Essentially a CMD HD/SCSI controller with a ZIP drive, capacity 
     depends on the disks used.
CMD HD: Up to 4GB using standard SCSI-1 disks (at the user's discretion).  
     Maintainer of this device indicates future plans to exceed the 4GB 
     mark.
IDE64: Expansion port, I understand the limit is in the double digits.
C64-to-PC interfaces:  These let the C64 use a PC as a disk drive, storage 
     limited only by what the PC can handle.

Keep in mind:  In all cases, it is possible to extend the C64's DOS (and 
hence add a fastloader) *without* hardware expansions. These can just be 
loaded into memory, and often are very small (one I used to use took up 
less than 256 bytes)

-- 
"Sometimes paranoia can be helpful.  Usually, it
isn't, and when you learn that, life improves."
Vanessa Dannenberg <vanessaNOdannenberg@SPAMgmail.com>
Remove the obvious from my email address to reply.

0
12/20/2005 11:54:53 AM
"The Starglider" <thestarglider@wibble.co.uk> wrote in message
news:t6hfq1d9lr2ol6l1nskvi7ac319r9iu99i@4ax.com

> Prove it. Why is the retro scene so much more in advance for the Spectrum than
> the C64 if the C64 was so much more popular?

I'm beginning to thing that most C64 considered the machine as nothing
special, even disposable.

The Commodore machine that has a large and visible fan base to this day
is the Amiga. The C64 seems to be just a footnote in history.


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
0
Nick
12/20/2005 1:32:56 PM
"The Starglider" <thestarglider@wibble.co.uk> wrote in message
news:t6hfq1d9lr2ol6l1nskvi7ac319r9iu99i@4ax.com

> Prove it. Why is the retro scene so much more in advance for the Spectrum than
> the C64 if the C64 was so much more popular?

I'm beginning to think that most C64 users don't think that their
machine is/was anything special. Disposable, even.

The Commodore machine that has a large and visible fanbase to this day
is the Amiga.

The C64 is looking increasingly like just a footnote in history.

In other words: C64 users like their machine. Spectrum users *love*
theirs.


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
0
Nick
12/20/2005 1:36:48 PM
Nick Humphries wrote:
> I'm beginning to think that most C64 users don't think that their
> machine is/was anything special. Disposable, even.

Most Spectrum users felt the same; don't confuse your own feelings for those 
of everyone else who had one and if you subtract the number of active users 
from the number of sales that's still a large amount of landfill.  All the 
people with "i *used* to play Speccy games" (my emphasis) websites probably 
don't have their hardware any more and hence the past tense, all the C64 
people with "i'm *currently* working on" (again, my emphasis) sites still 
still have and use their C64s.

Some people post to c.s.cbm with C64s, others surf, do their taxes and so 
on, i still code games and demos and contribute to other projects.

> The Commodore machine that has a large and visible fanbase to this day
> is the Amiga.

Large?  Possibly, but only for the new hardware - you won't find any A500 
users in that lot so it's hardly the same thing.  Visible?  Again possibly 
but only because they shout and in-fight a lot.  Given a choice, i'd rather 
the C64 community.

> The C64 is looking increasingly like just a footnote in history.

Which doesn't explain why for every major Speccy site there's at least one 
C64 one; WOS has it's equivalent in Lemon, Demotopia has C64.ch *and* the 
CSDb, Raww.org pairs with C64.sk for example.  Or new games, demos, 
utilities and hardware being produced and released, as many as the Spectrum 
gets at least.  Or Cronosoft getting sales from C64 titles (since two of 
them are mine).

Or the C64DTV, that's the hardest to explain away; if the C64 were such a 
footnote, why try to trade on the Commodore brand now?  Has there been a 
Spectrum equivalent of the C64DTV, a Direct To TV device that actually 
emulates the real hardware (and can be expanded to add a serial bus for a 
stock C64 drive and a PS/2 keyboard) rather than just being software 
emulation or recodes?

Don't know about you, but if that's your idea of being a historical 
footnote, i'd bloody *love* to be a footnote like that!!
-- 
     ______________________________  _________________________________
    /                             /\/  ___/     /  ___/  /     /  ___/\
   / Website:  www.cosine.org.uk / /  /\_/  /  /__   /  /  /  /  __/\\/
  / ICQ: 44373717 IRC: TMR{C0S} / /  /__/  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /\
/_____________________________/ /_____/_____/_____/__/__/__/_____/ /
\_____________________________\/\_____\_____\_____\__\__\__\_____\/TMR
0
Jason
12/20/2005 2:58:03 PM
"Nick Humphries" <mg@the-den.clara.net> wrote in message 
news:de808ff2be3911364f92d09acf3fca3c.75886@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "The Starglider" <thestarglider@wibble.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:t6hfq1d9lr2ol6l1nskvi7ac319r9iu99i@4ax.com
>
>> Prove it. Why is the retro scene so much more in advance for the Spectrum 
>> than
>> the C64 if the C64 was so much more popular?
>
> I'm beginning to think that most C64 users don't think that their
> machine is/was anything special. Disposable, even.
>
> The Commodore machine that has a large and visible fanbase to this day
> is the Amiga.
>
> The C64 is looking increasingly like just a footnote in history.
>
> In other words: C64 users like their machine. Spectrum users *love*
> theirs.
>

Actually, I have just bought a brand new hot off the press C64 and did this 
to it...

http://www.users.on.net/~clockmeister/images/

Didn't notice a ZX version whilst I was in the shops, shame since the C64DTV 
is selling by the hundreds of thousands.

The Spectrum is largely forgotten, but everybody remembers the C64.




0
Clockmeister
12/20/2005 3:19:14 PM
"silverdr" <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote in message 
news:43a7514a$1@news.inet.com.pl...
> Jim Beam wrote:
>
>>
>> I had a C64 and a Spectrum growing up. I preferred the Spectrum because 
>> it had better publications, better textbooks, better tools - and the 
>> games were more fun. There's NOTHING on the C64 that I remember fondly. 
>> In fact, when I was a kid and didn't know better, I thought the C64 must 
>> have been an entire generation behind the Spectrum because the sound 
>> seemed broken, and all game graphics seemed slapdash and badly designed. 
>> The machine ended up under a pile of books, while the other machines in 
>> the house were played until they gave up the ghost.
>
> That reminds me of a friend of mine (diehard Spectrum user) who was once 
> talking more or less the same as you. And he kept doing it until (was it?) 
> Uridium I believe when he visited another friend of mine to show his (was 
> it?) Uridium on the Speccy as the latest, ultimate killer for the 64. 
> After the presentation (on a TV via HF), the Commodore guy loaded the 64 
> version of Uridium and ran it (while having the machine connected to the 
> amplifier and the Y/C monitor)... The result was just another of the 
> millions of C64 users few weeks later. Oh, and on leaving the house with 
> his Speccy in the bag he was murmuring something like "how could I be 
> saying that kind of bullshit so long?"... True story. One of many.

Yep, I know of a couple.



0
Clockmeister
12/20/2005 3:28:46 PM
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> did eloquently scribble:
> Poor excuses, BBS's were very popular at one time when there was no internet 
> and the C64 was a popular system to run them. The C64 was also popular in 
> robotics and amateur radio. None of those niches was fed by the lowly, 
> boring and unimaginative ZX.

Hah, you think?
The zx spectrum's edge connector made it ideal for robotics.
And yes, there were radio comms programs for the spectrum.
zxRitty (I think it was called) being one of them.
Why would the spectrum be unsuitable for ham radio data transmission?
It has audio tape as its default storage medium, seems ideally suited to me.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |   Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a    |
|                          | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally  coded for a 4 bit |
|            in            |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|     Computer Science     |        can't stand 1 bit of competition.       |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/20/2005 3:28:55 PM
Sam Gillett <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> did eloquently scribble:
> 
> 
> 
> "Daniel Mandic" wrote ...
>>
>> And there will be light ;-)...... etc.
> 
> And, when you see the light at the end of the tunnel, it will be controlled
> by a Commodore 64!

Yeah, controlling a light is all it's worth.
-- 
|                          |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
|  spike1@freenet.co.uk    |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
|                          |can't move, with no hope of rescue.             |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been   |
|           in             |good to you so far...                           |
|    Computer Science      |   -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
0
spike1
12/20/2005 3:28:56 PM
"Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@ping.at> wrote in message 
news:43a750e8$0$16894$91cee783@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The C64 wins every year, I really shouldn't bother with it.
>>
>> Enjoy your computers and your Christmas!
>
>
>
> Noooooo, never!
>
> Everything points to the Speccy48K..... You do not see it???
>

Pointing and laughing is considered rude where I'm from ;-)

>
>
> Merry Chrismas time� and clock your time. YOu go intothe lenghth with
> your postings.... hmm, reminds me to something other enduringly .. ;-)
>
>
> And there will be light ;-)...... etc.
>
>

The revelation is still there for you to behold, ours came to us years ago.

Best wishes.


0
Clockmeister
12/20/2005 3:32:13 PM
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:26:09 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:

> You have never and will  never win a ZX vs C64 comparison and that obviously 
> shits you to tears.

and here we are, still seeing stupid cross-posting tactics going on.

<sigh>

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

0
Ronald
12/20/2005 3:39:20 PM
Ummm... don't want to nitpick, but:

> ..snip.. it is the last comment I will make on the C64 vs ZX topic.

You've made several more since then and the poor old Atari group is
still caught in the cross-fire (removed from this post).

I agree with Ronald - this thread has gone on way too long.  I don't
mind one C64 vs ZX debate a year, but 2 in such a short space of time
is wearing thin.  I'm a CSS reader, I own several ZX Spectrums and am
very fond of them; none of this is going to change mine or anyone
else's mind.  No one is going to dump their Spectrum or C64 as a result
of this thread, so it's just pointless.

Sadly I can't killfile this thread because I have to view CSS through
Google Groups, but I can ignore it - which is what I'll be doing from
now on.

/matt

0
lechien
12/20/2005 4:12:20 PM
FamilyNet International Newsgate

> From: W Marsh <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@>

> Take a step back and stop applying binary logic to everything. Windows
> has a lot of problems (as does Linux, as does Mac OS...), but it isn't
> a joke. Far more talented people than you use it daily.

> Linux is great, and has its place. Unfortunately, people like you
> insist on bad advocacy and harm it a great deal. Save it for Slashdot,
> because nobody else wants to hear it.

    When my work and the world was hit hard by the "I Love You" virus, I
disconnected my PC for a day at work and brought in a Atari ST.  I was able to
dial into the network, and that was no problem.  Getting a word processor that
was in par with what was being sent at me was a fun part.  And the list just
went on and on.

    I discovered that no matter how much I did like the Atari platforms, and
maybe not as much the windows platforms, well, it was not a bad OS to use at
work and then leave at work.  :D

   Don't own a windows PC at work.  I like Atari and Macs.  But the Windows
platforms have their place.

FamilyNet <> Internet Gated Mail
http://www.familynet-international.org

0
Greg
12/20/2005 5:00:18 PM
<spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:kkgl73-stc.ln1@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk...
> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> Poor excuses, BBS's were very popular at one time when there was no 
>> internet
>> and the C64 was a popular system to run them. The C64 was also popular in
>> robotics and amateur radio. None of those niches was fed by the lowly,
>> boring and unimaginative ZX.
>
> Hah, you think?
> The zx spectrum's edge connector made it ideal for robotics.

Not nearly as much as the user port, expansion port and cassette ports and 
joystick ports on the C64.

> And yes, there were radio comms programs for the spectrum.
> zxRitty (I think it was called) being one of them.
> Why would the spectrum be unsuitable for ham radio data transmission?

Unheard of unlike the C64 and other systems which were popular among radio 
operators. Sure it is possible, but I don't know of anyone who actually used 
a ZX for that purpose.

> It has audio tape as its default storage medium, seems ideally suited to 
> me.

The default storage medium was tape for virtualy all the 8 bitters, that in 
itself proves nothing. 


0
Clockmeister
12/20/2005 5:05:11 PM
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 01:05:11 +0800, "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
><spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message 
>news:kkgl73-stc.ln1@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk...
>> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> did eloquently scribble:
>>> Poor excuses, BBS's were very popular at one time when there was no 
>>> internet
>>> and the C64 was a popular system to run them. The C64 was also popular in
>>> robotics and amateur radio. None of those niches was fed by the lowly,
>>> boring and unimaginative ZX.
>>
>> Hah, you think?
>> The zx spectrum's edge connector made it ideal for robotics.
>
>Not nearly as much as the user port, expansion port and cassette ports and 
>joystick ports on the C64.

And again, the Spectrum is limited in what way?

>
>> And yes, there were radio comms programs for the spectrum.
>> zxRitty (I think it was called) being one of them.
>> Why would the spectrum be unsuitable for ham radio data transmission?
>
>Unheard of unlike the C64 and other systems which were popular among radio 
>operators. Sure it is possible, but I don't know of anyone who actually used 
>a ZX for that purpose.

And the same goes for the C64 as well. I knew of no-one who used it for radio.
>
>> It has audio tape as its default storage medium, seems ideally suited to 
>> me.
>
>The default storage medium was tape for virtualy all the 8 bitters, that in 
>itself proves nothing. 
>
It proves that the Spectrum was more than capable of the task.

How many times have you actually used a Spectrum? how much research have you
actually done? Because everything you write points to a man who has no idea what
they are talking about.

Oh, and still waiting for the answers to the questions I set you. Why are you
avoiding all requests to those questions?
-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____
0
The
12/20/2005 5:19:05 PM
The Starglider <thestarglider@wibble.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:08:18 GMT, Jason <tmr@i.cosine.hate.org.spam.uk> wrote:
>
> >But that's still a large percentage of the overall number of machines isn't
> >it?  And why change the design at all unless it needed improving...?
> 
> We personally didn't think it needed improving. I liked the small size of the
> spectrum, and got on with the rubber keys just fine. But you knwo what
> companies are like - if it ain't broke, fix it anyway.

Now /that/ is simply ridiculous. How can you honestly say you liked the
Speccy keyboard? I tried it once : unbearable.

-- 
[SbM]
<http://sebastienmarty.free.fr> - <http://tradintosh.free.fr>
<http://sbm.ordinotheque.free.fr> - <http://palmiciel.free.fr>
"If the French were really intelligent, they'd speak English" (W. Sheed)
0
sebastienmarty
12/20/2005 5:48:46 PM
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> did eloquently scribble:
> The default storage medium was tape for virtualy all the 8 bitters, that in 
> itself proves nothing. 

I did say AUDIO...
Not all machines stored to tape using audio, did they?
If so, why did the commode require an expensive proprietory tape recorder to
save stuff (if you didn't want to take out the second mortgage required to
buy the disk drive)
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |   Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a    |
|                          | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally  coded for a 4 bit |
|            in            |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|     Computer Science     |        can't stand 1 bit of competition.       |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/20/2005 6:09:33 PM
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Says the man who's arguements have more holes in them then Swiss cheese.

No hole in Swiss cheese, sorry... Find another one.

-- 
[SbM]
<http://sebastienmarty.free.fr> - <http://tradintosh.free.fr>
<http://sbm.ordinotheque.free.fr> - <http://palmiciel.free.fr>
"If the French were really intelligent, they'd speak English" (W. Sheed)
0
sebastienmarty
12/20/2005 6:15:56 PM
spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> did eloquently scribble:
> 
>>The default storage medium was tape for virtualy all the 8 bitters, that in 
>>itself proves nothing. 
> 
> 
> I did say AUDIO...
> Not all machines stored to tape using audio, did they?
> If so, why did the commode require an expensive proprietory tape recorder

Uh, oh... expensive you say...? I believe it was noticeably cheaper than 
even the shittiest audio recorder, wasn't it? And why? To make it much 
more reliable, dear friend.

> to
> save stuff (if you didn't want to take out the second mortgage required to
> buy the disk drive)

:-)

How many thousands of square feet had to be mortgaged to afford a good 
drive for a Spectrum, huh?
0
silverdr
12/20/2005 9:36:34 PM
"silverdr" <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote in message
news:43a87961$1@news.inet.com.pl

> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

> > Not all machines stored to tape using audio, did they?
> > If so, why did the commode require an expensive proprietory tape recorder
> 
> Uh, oh... expensive you say...? I believe it was noticeably cheaper than 
> even the shittiest audio recorder, wasn't it? And why? To make it much 
> more reliable, dear friend.

Your reply makes no sense on several levels.

In the UK, the C= tape deck was indeed more expensive than standard tape
recorders, which was annoying as it masked the true cost of the C64,
unless it was bundled.


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
0
Nick
12/20/2005 10:06:39 PM
Jason wrote:

> 
> Commodore's own drives were crippled by the serial standard laid down 
> when the VIC 20 was developed and subsequent maintaining of backward 
> compatibility to VIC peripherals, but if we're talking third party 
> hardware (since most Spectrum drives were it seems fair to bring in 
> other kit for the C64 too) then there wasn't and indeed isn't anything 
> to stop third party drives or even third party hardware like DolphinDOS 
> or JiffyDOS ROMs being installed to speed the stock drives up.  A stock 
> 1541 and C64 can run up to 25 times faster than the default speed purely 
> through software fastloading, parallel systems like DolphinDOS can make 
> that look like standing still.

DolphinDOS loads the 50,5KiB file off a 1541 in 4.5 seconds. Just 
measured it again after 20 years of use of my 1541 ;-) And DolphinDOS is 
_not_ the fastest one of course.

I also measured the 1581 over serial with AR transfer protocol: about 9 
seconds for the same file. Could possibly be a little less, has the disk 
been new without many files and directories but not much - probably not 
faster than 8 seconds.

> 
> If we're talking "out of the box" solutions though, how about the TIB 
> Ultimate drive?  It can could load an entire sixty-something K game in 
> about eight seconds from a 3.5" DS/DD MSDOS format disk via it's own 
> parallel interface to the cartridge port.
> 

Hm, I haven't had one. Eight second is not fast compared to DD but not 
_that_ bad either... Where can I get one? (seriously) :-)
0
silverdr
12/20/2005 10:15:06 PM
Nick Humphries wrote:

> 
>>>Not all machines stored to tape using audio, did they?
>>>If so, why did the commode require an expensive proprietory tape recorder
>>
>>Uh, oh... expensive you say...? I believe it was noticeably cheaper than 
>>even the shittiest audio recorder, wasn't it? And why? To make it much 
>>more reliable, dear friend.
> 
> 
> Your reply makes no sense on several levels.

Well...

> 
> In the UK, the C= tape deck was indeed more expensive than standard tape
> recorders, which was annoying as it masked the true cost of the C64,
> unless it was bundled.
> 

I recall buying one for DEM 49,- (GBP 15,- ?) in 1985. I don't recall 
any regular audio _recorder_ in that range. I remeber the crappiest 
audio _players_ in the cheapest "walkman" style being sold around that 
price even later.

What are the other levels of nonsense?
0
silverdr
12/20/2005 10:27:22 PM
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:36:34 +0100, silverdr <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote:

>spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> 
>>>The default storage medium was tape for virtualy all the 8 bitters, that in 
>>>itself proves nothing. 
>> 
>> 
>> I did say AUDIO...
>> Not all machines stored to tape using audio, did they?
>> If so, why did the commode require an expensive proprietory tape recorder
>
>Uh, oh... expensive you say...? I believe it was noticeably cheaper than 
>even the shittiest audio recorder, wasn't it? And why? To make it much 
>more reliable, dear friend.

You are kidding, right? Oh, reliable, and SLOOOOOOW.
>
>> to
>> save stuff (if you didn't want to take out the second mortgage required to
>> buy the disk drive)
>
>:-)
>
>How many thousands of square feet had to be mortgaged to afford a good 
>drive for a Spectrum, huh?

hardly anything. When first released, the MGT +D interface and drive cost
�139.95.
-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____
0
The
12/20/2005 10:57:58 PM
"silverdr" <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote in message
news:43a88548$1@news.inet.com.pl

> Nick Humphries wrote:

> > In the UK, the C= tape deck was indeed more expensive than standard tape
> > recorders, which was annoying as it masked the true cost of the C64,
> > unless it was bundled.
> > 
> 
> I recall buying one for DEM 49,- (GBP 15,- ?) in 1985. I don't recall 
> any regular audio _recorder_ in that range. I remeber the crappiest 
> audio _players_ in the cheapest "walkman" style being sold around that 
> price even later.

According to the Autumn/Winter 1985 Argos catalogue, the C= tape deck
was 45 quid. A bog-standard tape recorder was 20 quid.

> What are the other levels of nonsense?

Things being more reliable if they're cheaper?


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
0
Nick
12/20/2005 11:03:23 PM
> According to the Autumn/Winter 1985 Argos catalogue, the C= tape deck
> was 45 quid. A bog-standard tape recorder was 20 quid.

I meant 1984, not 1985.


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
0
Nick
12/20/2005 11:05:15 PM
silverdr <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> did eloquently scribble:
> 
> 
> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> 
>>>The default storage medium was tape for virtualy all the 8 bitters, that in 
>>>itself proves nothing. 
>> 
>> 
>> I did say AUDIO...
>> Not all machines stored to tape using audio, did they?
>> If so, why did the commode require an expensive proprietory tape recorder
> 
> Uh, oh... expensive you say...? I believe it was noticeably cheaper than 
> even the shittiest audio recorder, wasn't it? And why? To make it much 
> more reliable, dear friend.

Cheaper? you don't seem to know how much that thing cost, do you?

> How many thousands of square feet had to be mortgaged to afford a good 
> drive for a Spectrum, huh?

They were cheaper than the 1541...
Hell, the 1541 cost more than the c64 itself!
(IIRC)
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
|            in            |  suck is probably the day they start making     |
|     Computer science     |  vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge            |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/20/2005 11:14:39 PM
Clockmeister wrote:

> Not nearly as much as the user port, expansion port and cassette
> ports and joystick ports on the C64.

Nar. That reminds me more to the lame I/O of a modern {IBM}-PC. ;-)
Fire Wire, USB (O.K. USB-Mouse is a must...at last..now :-), but not
really as a AMIGA or ATARI ST) etc... AND SM Bus. Was that all a joke?
No, the C-64 is one of the first Computer w/o extension possibilities.

All you mentioned above is useless, as it is so and so available on the
ZX-Bus. You can expand to any possible configuration - Open End!
Have I mentioned Speccy being a Personal Computer? XT, AT and more.


As Spike stated well, the Z80 is far more capable as the 6510. 

With Sinclair Computer you can become an electrician. (Please do not
make your hairstyle with your finger in the wall-socket)


And not stay a dull Joystick User, only being attentive when to press
fire next.



Well, the C-64 does have it�s place for analog entertainment, but
pleeeeeaaase forget about expandibility and many other real digital
processes. The C-64 does not even have MHz.





Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
12/20/2005 11:29:05 PM
Clockmeister wrote:

> 
> Actually, I have just bought a brand new hot off the press C64 and
> did this to it...
> 
> http://www.users.on.net/~clockmeister/images/


That TV does not fit to a C64. Ermm, I meant the furniture.
That Color-choice is blending!!!!!


Or am I in falsity and this are only tuned Kitchen-Tools.





Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

P.S.: The Spectrum (Colors probably) is already all, anything other is
too much.
0
Daniel
12/20/2005 11:57:01 PM
silverdr wrote:
> Hm, I haven't had one. Eight second is not fast compared to DD but not 
> _that_ bad either... Where can I get one? (seriously) :-)

Sadly they're quite rare, so eBay if you're lucky - i've got two and i know 
one person with a third but that's all the units i've seen since they were 
current.  They were developed in the U.K. and i believe Ocean used them for 
in-house development (some bloke on the TIB stand gave me the extended sales 
pitch when he realised i worked in a computer shop =-) for a while, i 
remember phoning them to try getting more tech info and someone mentioning 
Dave Collier's name as the firmware developer; Collier wrote Terra Cresta 
and Arkanoid for Ocean on the C64, amongst others.
-- 
     ______________________________  _________________________________
    /                             /\/  ___/     /  ___/  /     /  ___/\
   / Website:  www.cosine.org.uk / /  /\_/  /  /__   /  /  /  /  __/\\/
  / ICQ: 44373717 IRC: TMR{C0S} / /  /__/  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /\
/_____________________________/ /_____/_____/_____/__/__/__/_____/ /
\_____________________________\/\_____\_____\_____\__\__\__\_____\/TMR
0
Jason
12/21/2005 2:13:35 AM
"The Starglider" wrote ...
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:13:01 GMT, "Sam Gillett"
> <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"The Starglider" wrote ...
>>
>>> You don't need convincing since you know deep down that the C64 really
>>> does
>>> suck.
>>
>>No, the C64 does not suck.  It blows.  The C64 blows the Spectrum away!
>
> Yes, yes it does indeed blow. Glad you can admit it.

After repairing your mis-quote (intentional?), I am glad that you can admit
the C64 blows the Spectrum away.    :-P
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!



0
Sam
12/21/2005 4:49:48 AM
"Nick Humphries" wrote ...
>
> In the UK, the C= tape deck was indeed more expensive than standard tape
> recorders, which was annoying as it masked the true cost of the C64,
> unless it was bundled.

A UK-centric view.  The reason the C64, and accessories for it were so 
expensive in the UK is quite simple really.  Not only did the Queen knight 
Sir Clive, she protected his brain-farts by imposing stiff import duties on 
competitive products.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

I saw Elvis making crop circles.



0
Sam
12/21/2005 4:49:50 AM
spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> silverdr <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> did eloquently scribble:
> > How many thousands of square feet had to be mortgaged to afford a good
> > drive for a Spectrum, huh?

> They were cheaper than the 1541...
> Hell, the 1541 cost more than the c64 itself!
> (IIRC)

When I bought my first C64, it was twice the price of a 1541. And the
only home computer / floppy disk based system I could get at under
US$1,000 -- at the time US$1,000 was a hard upper limit on the system I
could buy. But wasn't I ticked off when another student at Uni had an
IBM PC, with a faster 5.25" drive and a whopping 128Kb RAM. Poser. At
least the C64 blew it away as a game machine.

Nobody actually had an Apple II in the dorm, but they would have been
widely recognised.

Before that I got a Timex-Sinclair computer. Now THAT was the world's
only perfectly closet compatible computer.  Took up next to no room and
posed next to no risk that you would be tempted to get it out again.

But this was in a Great Lakes state in the US, so the Spectrum was not
a serious alternative in terms of local support.  The Apple II and then
the IBM PC was in the next market niche up, and the only other computer
in the Commodore market niche that was a credible alternative was the
Atari.

What made the C64 so great was what people did with them. I would
assume that for someone who was in the Speccy scene, it would be the
same for them. Arguing over which is best is a fine past time, as long
as everyone bears in mind that its a silly argument with no definitive
answer except "I liked that one more".  There is, IOW, no accounting
for tastes.

0
agila61
12/21/2005 9:06:45 AM
"Sam Gillett" <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote in message
news:O95qf.57485$fY5.37930@trnddc02

> 
> "Nick Humphries" wrote ...
> >
> > In the UK, the C= tape deck was indeed more expensive than standard tape
> > recorders, which was annoying as it masked the true cost of the C64,
> > unless it was bundled.
> 
> A UK-centric view.

There's a very good reason for that...


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
0
Nick
12/21/2005 9:24:16 AM
Jason wrote:
> silverdr wrote:
> 
>> Hm, I haven't had one. Eight second is not fast compared to DD but not 
>> _that_ bad either... Where can I get one? (seriously) :-)
> 
> 
> Sadly they're quite rare, so eBay if you're lucky - i've got two and i 
> know one person with a third but that's all the units i've seen since 
> they were current.

If you or your friend would like to part with one - put me on the queue 
as first ;-) TNX.
0
silverdr
12/21/2005 11:00:51 AM
agila61@netscape.net did eloquently scribble:
> 
> 
> 
> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>> silverdr <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> did eloquently scribble:
>> > How many thousands of square feet had to be mortgaged to afford a good
>> > drive for a Spectrum, huh?
> 
>> They were cheaper than the 1541...
>> Hell, the 1541 cost more than the c64 itself!
>> (IIRC)
> 
> When I bought my first C64, it was twice the price of a 1541. And the
> only home computer / floppy disk based system I could get at under
> US$1,000 -- at the time US$1,000 was a hard upper limit on the system I
> could buy. 

I care not for your poxy american dollar.
What was the exchange rate back in the 80s?
2:1 or something? 
How much did the commode cost there?
How much did the 1541 cost?
Someone's already stated in this thread that the commodore TAPE player cost
something stupid like �50, so you can imagine your puny dollar prices of,
say, $350 were probably translated 1:1 here.

-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?"   |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|                                                 |
|            in            | "I think so brain, but this time, you control   |
|     Computer Science     |  the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..."  |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/21/2005 11:31:07 AM
Nick Humphries wrote:

> 
>>>In the UK, the C= tape deck was indeed more expensive than standard tape
>>>recorders, which was annoying as it masked the true cost of the C64,
>>>unless it was bundled.
>>>
>>
>>I recall buying one for DEM 49,- (GBP 15,- ?) in 1985. I don't recall 
>>any regular audio _recorder_ in that range. I remeber the crappiest 
>>audio _players_ in the cheapest "walkman" style being sold around that 
>>price even later.
> 
> 
> According to the Autumn/Winter 1985 Argos catalogue, the C= tape deck
> was 45 quid.

Gosh, I believe that's almost three times as I had to pay for a brand 
new one in a regular (not discount or whatever), small shop in Hamburg. 
I may understand what you meant then but no, it wasn't the same everywhere.

> A bog-standard tape recorder was 20 quid.

Which I find reasonable.

>>What are the other levels of nonsense?
> 
> 
> Things being more reliable if they're cheaper?

Could you elaborate on that? I wrote that the C2N was more reliable than 
the audio based recorders due to its analogue circuit being tuned 
specifically to handle the digital data rather than analogue audio [*]. 
And it indeed worked well. It also allowed quite fast transfers with 
high reliablility albeit of course with custom transfer routines.

[*] - interesting is that Ataris have had also a proprietary datacorder, 
which should supposedly share similar characteristics with C2N but out 
of experience it seems that those were falling well behind both the 64's 
and the Spectrum's audio based recordings in terms of reliability.


P.S. Can I find somewhere some Spectrum prgs stored as compressed audio? 
I mean mp3, ogg, aac...
0
silverdr
12/21/2005 11:45:08 AM
Nick Humphries wrote:
>>According to the Autumn/Winter 1985 Argos catalogue, the C= tape deck
>>was 45 quid. A bog-standard tape recorder was 20 quid.
> 
> 
> I meant 1984, not 1985.
> 

Well, that still doesn't make much of a change. I don't think the prices 
changed so dramatically in one year. I bought one in November 1985 for 
far lower price.
0
silverdr
12/21/2005 11:47:07 AM
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, silverdr wrote:

> Nick Humphries wrote:
>>> According to the Autumn/Winter 1985 Argos catalogue, the C= tape deck
>>> was 45 quid. A bog-standard tape recorder was 20 quid.
>> 
>> 
>> I meant 1984, not 1985.
>> 
>
> Well, that still doesn't make much of a change. I don't think the prices 
> changed so dramatically in one year. I bought one in November 1985 for far 
> lower price.

Well, there were mail order ads for Evesham Micros in Zzap magazine at the 
start of 1986 (may have been end of 1985) offering C64 tape drives for 30 
quid. Can't remember if they were clones or not.

But even so it was a needless purchase as there were great demand for tape 
recorders, so most homes had one already, so spending a significant amount 
of money on a C64-specific one was, well, significant.


-- 
Nick Humphries, via OBD
Your Sinclair Rock'n'Roll Years - http://www.ysrnry.co.uk
YSRnRY documentary - http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/tvprog/
The Tipshop - http://www.the-tipshop.co.uk/

0
Nick
12/21/2005 11:56:42 AM
spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>>Uh, oh... expensive you say...? I believe it was noticeably cheaper than 
>>even the shittiest audio recorder, wasn't it? And why? To make it much 
>>more reliable, dear friend.
> 
> 
> Cheaper? you don't seem to know how much that thing cost, do you?

Since I bought one myself, I believe I do know.

> 
>>How many thousands of square feet had to be mortgaged to afford a good 
>>drive for a Spectrum, huh?
> 
> They were cheaper than the 1541...
> Hell, the 1541 cost more than the c64 itself!
> (IIRC)

It costed about the same as the 64 at the time of 1985: around DEM 599,- 
AFAIR.
0
silverdr
12/21/2005 12:08:10 PM
The Starglider <thestarglider@wibble.co.uk> wrote:

> Not at all. Clockmeister boasts about buying a commercially available C64
> product.

I don't really know how you could define the DTV except as a
"commercially available C64 product". It's not a C64 with keyboard and
stuff, ok, but it /is/ definitely a "commercially available C64
product".

-- 
[SbM]
<http://sebastienmarty.free.fr> - <http://tradintosh.free.fr>
<http://sbm.ordinotheque.free.fr> - <http://palmiciel.free.fr>
"If the French were really intelligent, they'd speak English" (W. Sheed)
0
sebastienmarty
12/21/2005 12:09:09 PM
The Starglider wrote:

>>>
>>>>The default storage medium was tape for virtualy all the 8 bitters, t=
hat in=20
>>>>itself proves nothing.=20
>>>
>>>
>>>I did say AUDIO...
>>>Not all machines stored to tape using audio, did they?
>>>If so, why did the commode require an expensive proprietory tape recor=
der
>>
>>Uh, oh... expensive you say...? I believe it was noticeably cheaper tha=
n=20
>>even the shittiest audio recorder, wasn't it? And why? To make it much =

>>more reliable, dear friend.
>=20
>=20
> You are kidding, right? Oh, reliable, and SLOOOOOOW.

Well, depends how you define "SLOOOOOOW". The C2N I (still) have=20
transfers reliably about 0.5 KiB/s I don't know the exact numbers for=20
the Speccy but remembering the load times my Spectrum friends were=20
required to wait, I guesstimate it was about the same or perhaps even=20
slower. Do you have the numbers at hand?

>>>to
>>>save stuff (if you didn't want to take out the second mortgage require=
d to
>>>buy the disk drive)
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>How many thousands of square feet had to be mortgaged to afford a good =

>>drive for a Spectrum, huh?
>=20
>=20
> hardly anything. When first released, the MGT +D interface and drive co=
st
> =A3139.95.

When?
0
silverdr
12/21/2005 12:11:53 PM
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:45:08 +0100, silverdr <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote:


>
>P.S. Can I find somewhere some Spectrum prgs stored as compressed audio? 
>I mean mp3, ogg, aac...

Generally no.

Since the TZX format was introduced, the vast majority of tapes were converted
to this format to hold loader details for accurate archiving and emulation. The
resulting format allowed the filesize to be pretty much the same as the original
program size (barring overheads etc...)

Before that, the formats were z80, TAP and SNA.

hunt around and you may be lucky, but I personally wouldn't bother.
-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____
0
The
12/21/2005 12:17:16 PM
silverdr <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> did eloquently scribble:
> 
> 
> Nick Humphries wrote:
>>>According to the Autumn/Winter 1985 Argos catalogue, the C= tape deck
>>>was 45 quid. A bog-standard tape recorder was 20 quid.
>> 
>> 
>> I meant 1984, not 1985.
>> 
> 
> Well, that still doesn't make much of a change. I don't think the prices 
> changed so dramatically in one year. I bought one in November 1985 for 
> far lower price.

You're not entirely qualified to mention the cost of commodore stuff though,
are you?
You're not in the uk, you're in poland, so how would you know?
But the 45 quid cost for the tape drive vs however much it costs in your
country proves that, as far as prices in the uk are concerned, they don't
call it "rip off britain" for nothing.

And boy, did commodore try to rip us off.
Even with higher import duties, it wouldn't've DOUBLED the prices. 

And if they were so concerned about import duties, why not set up a
manufacturing base in the uk, and built them here? 
(If they did... then no-one can justify the price of their crap here)
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste!         |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|  I can SMELL!!!  KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and    |
|            in            |  get out the puncture repair kit!"              |
|     Computer Science     |     Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf              |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/21/2005 1:07:04 PM
Sam Gillett wrote:
> Not only did the Queen knight 
> Sir Clive, she protected his brain-farts by imposing stiff import duties on 
> competitive products.

Funny, there was me thinking that we had an elected government to do 
that sort of thing. Did someone turn this country into a dictatorship 
while I wasn't looking?
0
Matthew
12/21/2005 1:32:45 PM
Nick Humphries wrote:
> "Sam Gillett" <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote in message
> news:O95qf.57485$fY5.37930@trnddc02

>>A UK-centric view.

> There's a very good reason for that...

Not really, these are both international newsgroups so really we sort of 
have to take the entire world into consideration... =-)
-- 
     ______________________________  _________________________________
    /                             /\/  ___/     /  ___/  /     /  ___/\
   / Website:  www.cosine.org.uk / /  /\_/  /  /__   /  /  /  /  __/\\/
  / ICQ: 44373717 IRC: TMR{C0S} / /  /__/  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /\
/_____________________________/ /_____/_____/_____/__/__/__/_____/ /
\_____________________________\/\_____\_____\_____\__\__\__\_____\/TMR
0
Jason
12/21/2005 1:55:20 PM
Nick Humphries, via obd wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, silverdr wrote:

> 
> But even so it was a needless purchase as there were great demand for tape
> recorders, so most homes had one already, so spending a significant amount
> of money on a C64-specific one was, well, significant.
> 
> 

That is quite possibly the thinest argument Ive ever heard. Congratulations.

0
Simon
12/21/2005 2:19:04 PM
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Simon Scott wrote:

> Nick Humphries, via obd wrote:
>
>> But even so it was a needless purchase as there were great demand for tape
>> recorders, so most homes had one already, so spending a significant amount
>> of money on a C64-specific one was, well, significant.
>
> That is quite possibly the thinest argument Ive ever heard. Congratulations.

So you think forcing customers to spend a total of 65 quid in order to do 
the functionality of what the Spectrum can do for 20 quid is sound 
business sense and a sign of good design? Esp considering that even 20 
quid was a fortune in '84?

The C64 tape deck was crap and quite needless.

-- 
Nick Humphries, via OBD
Your Sinclair Rock'n'Roll Years - http://www.ysrnry.co.uk
YSRnRY documentary - http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/tvprog/
The Tipshop - http://www.the-tipshop.co.uk/

0
Nick
12/21/2005 2:25:59 PM
You're fooling yourself.  We're living in a dictatorship: a self-
perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes....

or maybe we can't quote Monty Python now, since they're British :)

0
lechien
12/21/2005 2:26:08 PM
Nick Humphries, via obd wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Simon Scott wrote:

> So you think forcing customers to spend a total of 65 quid in order to do
> the functionality of what the Spectrum can do for 20 quid is sound
> business sense and a sign of good design? Esp considering that even 20
> quid was a fortune in '84?
> 
> The C64 tape deck was crap and quite needless.
> 
No, Im saying 20 years later I really couldnt give a shit... you guys keep
coming up with all these arguments about why speccy is better than c64, but
unfortunately for you the jury came back about 12 years ago and its all bad
for you Im afraid. Ranting and stamping your feet doesnt change the result. 

Just get over it and move on with your life. Noone gives a crap.

0
Simon
12/21/2005 2:34:26 PM
>>>>> "AH" == spike1  <spike1@freenet.co.uk> writes:

AH> And boy, did commodore try to rip us off.

Yes, and they succeeded too. Apparently it started in the 70s with the
PET, where Commodure UK sold it for twice the US price, and it still
sold well. They even sorta lost the US market, as they were shipping
all their machines to Europe where they made a much larger profit on
each sold machine.

You can read the full story of how C= screwed themselves royally in On
the Edge:

  http://www.commodorebook.com/

-- 
    ___          .     .  .         .       . +  .         .      o   
  _|___|_   +   .  +     .     +         .  Per Olofsson, arkadspelare
    o-o    .      .     .   o         +          MagerValp@cling.gu.se
     -       +            +    .     http://www.cling.gu.se/~cl3polof/
0
MagerValp
12/21/2005 2:57:47 PM
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, MagerValp wrote:

>>>>>> "AH" == spike1  <spike1@freenet.co.uk> writes:
>
> AH> And boy, did commodore try to rip us off.
>
> Yes, and they succeeded too. Apparently it started in the 70s with the
> PET, where Commodure UK sold it for twice the US price, and it still
> sold well. They even sorta lost the US market, as they were shipping
> all their machines to Europe where they made a much larger profit on
> each sold machine.

Probably the reason why the ZX80 and ZX81 did very very well indeed by 
offering a powerful home computer (for the time!) for only a hundred quid.

Will do a proper investigation when I get around to doing the 1980/81 
chapter of the documentary (probably in 2008). Never even considered 
Commodore overcharging us. Still, the market obviously could carry it 
until Sinclair decided to move on from caculators.

-- 
Nick Humphries, via OBD
Your Sinclair Rock'n'Roll Years - http://www.ysrnry.co.uk
YSRnRY documentary - http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/tvprog/
The Tipshop - http://www.the-tipshop.co.uk/

0
Nick
12/21/2005 3:06:38 PM
Simon Scott wrote:

> Nick Humphries, via obd wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, silverdr wrote:
> 
> > 
> > But even so it was a needless purchase as there were great demand
> > for tape recorders, so most homes had one already, so spending a
> > significant amount of money on a C64-specific one was, well,
> > significant.
> > 
> > 
> 
> That is quite possibly the thinest argument Ive ever heard.
> Congratulations.


Hello Simon!



I would not say so. The Data Reliability going with Spectrum Tapes is
far better than the C64. Does the C64 even record something on the
tape, or is it just turning? Quartertrack-recording and more, brrrr..
who needs that?
I can take any CCR-RW I want... Also a Nakamichi Dragon, the least ;-)
you should give a Speccy.
CrO2, Normal and Metal Tapes, you can vary etc. etc. etc.... Fast,
reliable... DolbyNR is not working ;-(, but gives no concern of
troubles! Only if enabled.

Paying more than 50bucks for a Datasette with non-standard plugs???? I
thought you told of 'how good the C64 is expandable' and the many
Sockets it have. I am just laughing, how people could give money for
such one-way solutions. Not to mention that rant-datasette, not worth 5
Pounds Sterling.

Forget it: Cassette VS. Cassette is IMO, 3:0 for the Speccy, at least.

Also that waiting for the Volkscopmuter (Floppy Longlight) presses me
tears out of my eyes. I still (IBM-PC and quadpumping) wonder what
people are willing to pay, for non-technically adventures. Better spend
this money on a good movie, eh?



 

Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
12/21/2005 5:05:09 PM
spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>>Nick Humphries wrote:
>>
>>>>According to the Autumn/Winter 1985 Argos catalogue, the C= tape deck
>>>>was 45 quid. A bog-standard tape recorder was 20 quid.
>>>
>>>
>>>I meant 1984, not 1985.
>>>
>>
>>Well, that still doesn't make much of a change. I don't think the prices 
>>changed so dramatically in one year. I bought one in November 1985 for 
>>far lower price.
> 
> 
> You're not entirely qualified to mention the cost of commodore stuff though,
> are you?

I only remember how much I had to pay and that was less than a crappy 
generic audio recorder at that time, while being substantially more 
reliable for that particular purpose.

> You're not in the uk, you're in poland, so how would you know?
> But the 45 quid cost for the tape drive vs however much it costs in your
> country proves that, as far as prices in the uk are concerned, they don't
> call it "rip off britain" for nothing.

I guess so. But we're talking global these days. So it doesn't really 
matter how much it was in the UK (I agree that GBP 45,- seems inadequate 
to say the least) but rather if the price of the CBM's datarecorders was 
so expensive that it could really matter as a factor in the argument... 
globally.

> 
> And boy, did commodore try to rip us off.
> Even with higher import duties, it wouldn't've DOUBLED the prices. 
> 

I don't know the reasons and I am surprised myself.
0
silverdr
12/21/2005 5:39:52 PM
The Starglider wrote:

> 
>>P.S. Can I find somewhere some Spectrum prgs stored as compressed audio? 
>>I mean mp3, ogg, aac...
> 
> 
> Generally no.
> 
> Since the TZX format was introduced, the vast majority of tapes were converted
> to this format to hold loader details for accurate archiving and emulation. The
> resulting format allowed the filesize to be pretty much the same as the original
> program size (barring overheads etc...)
> 
> Before that, the formats were z80, TAP and SNA.

I presume the "z80" is the pure binary, while "SNA" is a msdos style of 
saying "SNApshot", which I understand as a freezed state of the whole 
machine?

whereas "TAP" seems to be more interesting for my purpose. I believe 
that it can be similar to the 64's TAP format, which is a faithful 
representation of the actual tape recording. In such case it should be 
easy to convert between the TAP and digital audio, which I could then 
easily  compress myself. Am I correct?

> 
> hunt around and you may be lucky, but I personally wouldn't bother.

Why not? If you use real hardware rather than emulator?
0
silverdr
12/21/2005 5:53:03 PM
Daniel Mandic wrote:
>Simon Scott wrote:

>> That is quite possibly the thinest argument Ive ever heard.
>> Congratulations.
>
>
>Hello Simon!

Yo!

Simon can't hear you. La. La. La.
Relax. New jacks get smacked.

He don't read comp.sys.sinclair

Shake mah bones Judy!

-- 
Brotha G.
http://zx.istheshit.net/
0
dude1 (9)
12/21/2005 6:13:51 PM
Nick Humphries, via obd wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, MagerValp wrote:
> 
>>>>>>> "AH" == spike1  <spike1@freenet.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> AH> And boy, did commodore try to rip us off.
>>
>> Yes, and they succeeded too. Apparently it started in the 70s with the
>> PET, where Commodure UK sold it for twice the US price, and it still
>> sold well. They even sorta lost the US market, as they were shipping
>> all their machines to Europe where they made a much larger profit on
>> each sold machine.
> 
> Probably the reason why the ZX80 and ZX81 did very very well indeed by 
> offering a powerful home computer (for the time!) for only a hundred quid.

The ZX80 and ZX81 were never powerful, not even for their time. They 
were very cheap though, making them accessible for large public, which 
is the only real reason for their success. One can admire Sinclair for 
their clever engineering (the video circuitry of the ZX80/81 is 
brilliant example of this). But Sinclair computers only competed on 
price, sacrificing other qualities to reach the lowest possible price point.
0
Peter
12/21/2005 6:27:09 PM
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:11:53 +0100, silverdr <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote:

>The Starglider wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>>The default storage medium was tape for virtualy all the 8 bitters, that in 
>>>>>itself proves nothing. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I did say AUDIO...
>>>>Not all machines stored to tape using audio, did they?
>>>>If so, why did the commode require an expensive proprietory tape recorder
>>>
>>>Uh, oh... expensive you say...? I believe it was noticeably cheaper than 
>>>even the shittiest audio recorder, wasn't it? And why? To make it much 
>>>more reliable, dear friend.
>> 
>> 
>> You are kidding, right? Oh, reliable, and SLOOOOOOW.
>
>Well, depends how you define "SLOOOOOOW". The C2N I (still) have 
>transfers reliably about 0.5 KiB/s I don't know the exact numbers for 
>the Speccy but remembering the load times my Spectrum friends were 
>required to wait, I guesstimate it was about the same or perhaps even 
>slower. Do you have the numbers at hand?

IIRC correctly, the default baud rate of the spectrum load/save routines was at
1500. Approximately a 48k program would load in about 3.5 minutes (give or take,
did depend on the speed the tape player you had - I had a sony that was
noticably faster than another one I had many years ago).

>
>>>>to
>>>>save stuff (if you didn't want to take out the second mortgage required to
>>>>buy the disk drive)
>>>
>>>:-)
>>>
>>>How many thousands of square feet had to be mortgaged to afford a good 
>>>drive for a Spectrum, huh?
>> 
>> 
>> hardly anything. When first released, the MGT +D interface and drive cost
>> �139.95.
>
>When?

Ooh, around 1988.

-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____
0
The
12/21/2005 6:33:38 PM
"Peter van Merkerk" <merkerk@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:43a99e96$0$809$3a628fcd@textreader.nntp.hccnet.nl

> The ZX80 and ZX81 were never powerful, not even for their time. They 
> were very cheap though, making them accessible for large public, which 
> is the only real reason for their success. One can admire Sinclair for 
> their clever engineering (the video circuitry of the ZX80/81 is 
> brilliant example of this). But Sinclair computers only competed on 
> price, sacrificing other qualities to reach the lowest possible price point.

It wasn't just price but the all-important power-to-price ratio.
Sinclair got that bang on, hence its success. The C64 eventually matched
that and became a serious contender only after the hefty price cut from
345 quid.

All the others, like the Oric, Lynx, Super Colour Genie, BBC B and a
hell of a lot of others got that balance wrong and failed because if it.


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
0
Nick
12/21/2005 6:49:32 PM
The Starglider wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 05:15:08 +0800, "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>"Jim Beam" <jimbeam@beam.com> wrote in message 
>>news:43a71d6a$0$23297$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>>"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:43a71996$6@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>>
>>>>More C= people just use their systems without making a big noise about 
>>>>it. Commodore users aren't that insecure, really.
>>>
>>>You have to be fucking kidding - comp.sys.sinclair has had almost as many 
>>>posts by your lot this month than it has by its own regulars.
>>
>>You started it like you do every year.
>>
>>And you lose every time.
> 
> You've yet to show a shred of evidence that you've "won" any argument you get
> yourself involved in.
> 
> Why do you choose to ignore the repeated requests by me to answer what the C64
> can do that the Spectrum can't, 

A demo comparable to "Deus ex Machina" on the C64 to name just one.

> Why do you not answer these? Simple. You have no answers. You just don't want to
> be shown up as a moronic troller who really has no idea what you're talking
> about.

Are you talking to yourself now?

> You harp on all day about how great the C64 is above all other machines, even
> though that many other people in both groups have shown the shortcomings of both
> machines.
> 
> Yes, the C64 has a higher resolution mode - largly unusable for anything
> advanced like gaming.

The high resolution mode of C64 has the same limitations as the only 
graphics mode the spectrum supports. So I guess you are really saying 
that the spectrum is largely unusable for anything advanced like gaming.

> Yes, the Speccy default attribute display can only show 2 colours per 8x8 block,
> but has been proved to be overcome with little trouble and no additional
> hardware.

But not full screen, and it keeps the CPU so busy it can do little else.

> Yes, the C64 has sprites, but so does the spectrum, regardless of hardware or
> software.

I have yet to see a colorful spectrum game were the "sprites" didn't 
suffer from color bleeding.

> yes, the 48k Spectrum only had a BEEPer for the sound, but has been programmed
> to perform 5 channel sound.

That is another way to keep the CPU busy to make you ears bleed.

> There are a multitude of peripherals for the ZX range, including Disc drive
> systems that blew away every C64 disc system around.

So you are expert on C64 disk drive system too! So how fast were those 
Sinclair compatible drives systems compared to C64 parallel disk drive 
systems (which could read the contents of an entire disk in just a few 
seconds)?

> there was also video
> digitizers, light pens and guns, mice, joysticks, networking, and countless
> others I can't be bothered to list here.

That doesn't set the ZX Spectrum apart from other systems, does it?

> Only 2 models of Spectrum had rubber keys, the 16 and 48k models. Every model
> since then had proper keys.

Later models didn't have rubber keys, but that doesn't mean that they 
had proper keys.

> Commodore BASIC was very lacking and in stock BASIC could not perfom graphical
> functions with simple commands like PLOT and DRAW. Even changing colours or
> producing sound in BASIC was a task for the average user on the C64.

Ok, the BASIC of the C64 was written for a computer that Commodore put 5 
years before on the market. But real men don't use BASIC anyway. And for 
wimps that want insist on using BASIC there are plenty of BASIC 
extensions with BEEP, PLOT, LINE, CIRCLE and god knows what else. 
Simon's BASIC even got a COLOUR (yes COLOUR, not COLOR!) command, if 
that doesn't win over I don't what does ;-)

> Both models could access BBS systems.
> 
> The C64 SID chip is more capable than the AY (See? When I'm not flamebaiting, I
> am honest!), but preference is down to the user and I perfer the sound of the
> AY.

Good for you, but the original spectrum didn't have an AY sound chip. At 
the time first spectrum with an AY sound chip came on the market 
(Spectrum 128 IIRC?) it had to compete with the C128, which had a faster 
processor and a Z80, much faster disk drive, a decent BASIC, and even 
better graphic capabilities.

> The number of titles is huge on the C64, but I do believe that it's bigger on
> the Spectrum.

Difficult to say, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the other way 
around. But for both systems there are more than plenty of titles 
available, so who cares anyway?

> Anyone feel free to make corrections to the list, but I feel you Clockmeister
> will be finding it hard to pick holes in it, since you have no idea what you're
> talking about.

You can argue as much as you like, but when you put both systems side by 
side and run de best game or demo available for each system, it isn't 
hard to tell which one is the more capable one. Of course that doesn't 
mean that you cannot have a lot fun with a ZX Spectrum too.
0
Peter
12/21/2005 7:21:22 PM
silverdr <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> did eloquently scribble:
>> Before that, the formats were z80, TAP and SNA.
> 
> I presume the "z80" is the pure binary, while "SNA" is a msdos style of 
> saying "SNApshot", which I understand as a freezed state of the whole 
> machine?

Nope, SNA and Z80 are both snapshot formats. Z80 is more advanced though,
allows snaps of the 128 machine and uses compression. SNA was the older snap
format, little used these days even though it did get extended to handle 128
mode.
 
> whereas "TAP" seems to be more interesting for my purpose. I believe 
> that it can be similar to the 64's TAP format, which is a faithful 
> representation of the actual tape recording.

Nah, tap, like sna, is the older version of tape format.
It didn't cover every eventuality and every tape loader format.
TZX fixed that.

 In such case it should be 
> easy to convert between the TAP and digital audio, which I could then 
> easily  compress myself. Am I correct?

You want TZX, there are even programs that will play the tzx to the audio
port so you can load directly into the spectrum from your pc.
(or save to tape)
playtzx being the main one, I believe.

> Why not? If you use real hardware rather than emulator?

Because WOS has a very large archives of tzx files and they can be loaded
into the real hardware with the above method.
-- 
|                          |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
|  spike1@freenet.co.uk    |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
|                          |can't move, with no hope of rescue.             |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been   |
|           in             |good to you so far...                           |
|    Computer Science      |   -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
0
spike1
12/21/2005 7:57:34 PM
In message <zlGpf.1277$1Y4.98060@news20.bellglobal.com>
          Axell <Axell@nosp.no.no.no> wrote:
> The Starglider wrote:
> > Do remember that the article only covers from a US perspective. If 
> > a UK/Europe perspective was conducted, the chart would be VERY 
> > different in the 8-bit era.
> 
> # of Doorstops vs country (relative percentage - commodore)
[snip]
> I guess that you can turn place mats and doorstops into something 
> usefully makes for ingenuity.   Take pride!

From the C=64 v Speccy Flame War FAQ
http://www.speccyverse.me.uk/comp/accus/spectrum/

Q1.1 The ZX Spectrum can be used as a door stop?
 1.2 Did the ZX Spectrum normally use REM statements to store machine code?
A1. People who say this are thinking of the ZX81 or (TS1000 which is a
    ZX81 clone) these are not Spectrums. While the ZX81 may be wedge
    shaped it will definitely not fit under a door.  

Software base for the ZX Spectrum
       9968 WoS archive minus type-ins, demos, compilations, covertapes 
      +1592 MIA
      +1707 demos 
      +3513 magazine type-ins (from TTFN, includes ZX81 etc) 
      +Timex (50+)
      +books type-ins (500+) 
      +other magazines (fanzines, non-UK etc) type-ins 
      +cover tape programs, disczines
      +PD libraries (1000+)
      +CP/M (10,000+)
      +hacked software
      +other operating systems software and emulators 
      +compatible programs (Pascal, Forth, BASIC, Basicode, C etc)
      +misc
      -duplicates
     ========
Total >30000 (easily)

There are over 4000 piece of music for downloading, and many graphic screens
as well.

The floppy disk drive speed of the MB-02 is 40-50KBs according to the 
manufacturer 8bc. 

The DTV uses a Kempston style stick which created the standard for joystick
interfaces for the ZX Spectrum, why does it not use a Commodore joystick
or are they the same. The best interface for playing games is a keyboard
and the range of game styles must be limited by only having a joystick as the
input method. JSW was easier to control on keyboard than joystick.

Like Starglider I am still waiting for Whetstone, Dhrystone 2.1 and 
any other benchmark results for the C=64 (especially interesting that
you think it cannot be beaten by the Spectrum). Atari 800 owners have
yet to submit a single result!!!! 

Table still stands at:
                BogoMips  Dhrystone  Whetstones
                  in C    1.1 in C      MIPS
                          Vax Mips    in BASIC (interpreted)
PC XT           0.02      0.19-0.23    0.0015
ZX-Spectrum     0.0154     ??????      0.00052
C=64            0.0033     0.0205       ?????
Atari 800       ????????  ?????????  ??????????

The fastest computer so far is the Sinclair ZX Spectrum.
The annual contest between the C=64 and Spectrum can be decided by
an agreed scoring system of how good each computer was. Once this is 
done other computers can be scored as well.
 
-- 
Changing MicrosOFT into Micros and OFT (Office of Fair Trading)
http://www.petitiononline.com/oftsucks/  Make the OFT investigate MS Petition
Reboot Movement (An Anti-Wintel Campaign)
http://www.speccyverse.me.uk/comp/reboot/ 
0
Tarquin
12/21/2005 9:16:16 PM
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:16:16 GMT, Tarquin Mills <accus@use.net> wrote:


>
>Like Starglider I am still waiting for Whetstone, Dhrystone 2.1 and 
>any other benchmark results for the C=64 (especially interesting that
>you think it cannot be beaten by the Spectrum). Atari 800 owners have
>yet to submit a single result!!!! 
>
Don't expect a response too soon.

The moment they realise that they are losing an argument, they alway go silent.

Isn't that right Clockmeister?

Still waiting for my answers too.
-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____
0
The
12/21/2005 9:37:13 PM
Peter van Merkerk wrote:

> Nick Humphries, via obd wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, MagerValp wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> "AH" == spike1  <spike1@freenet.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> AH> And boy, did commodore try to rip us off.
>>>
>>> Yes, and they succeeded too. Apparently it started in the 70s with the
>>> PET, where Commodure UK sold it for twice the US price, and it still
>>> sold well. They even sorta lost the US market, as they were shipping
>>> all their machines to Europe where they made a much larger profit on
>>> each sold machine.
>>
>>
>> Probably the reason why the ZX80 and ZX81 did very very well indeed 
>> by offering a powerful home computer (for the time!) for only a 
>> hundred quid.
>
>
> The ZX80 and ZX81 were never powerful, not even for their time. They 
> were very cheap though, making them accessible for large public, which 
> is the only real reason for their success. One can admire Sinclair for 
> their clever engineering (the video circuitry of the ZX80/81 is 
> brilliant example of this). But Sinclair computers only competed on 
> price, sacrificing other qualities to reach the lowest possible price 
> point.

I had a friend who swore by the BASIC for easy programming.  To me, it 
sucked, but that is from a commodore basic programming perspective.  
0
Axell1 (8)
12/21/2005 9:49:20 PM
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:37:13 +0000, The Starglider wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:16:16 GMT, Tarquin Mills <accus@use.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>>Like Starglider I am still waiting for Whetstone, Dhrystone 2.1 and 
>>any other benchmark results for the C=64 (especially interesting that
>>you think it cannot be beaten by the Spectrum). Atari 800 owners have
>>yet to submit a single result!!!! 
>>
> Don't expect a response too soon.
> 
> The moment they realise that they are losing an argument, they alway go silent.
> 
> Isn't that right Clockmeister?
> 
> Still waiting for my answers too.

Still waiting for these threads to quit being posted to
comp.sys.atari.8bit!

I can only assume at this point, that C64 owners and Spectrum owners, in
these threads, are damn fools and don't know how to stop crossposting.

(I deliberately crossposted to make sure this point is getting across.
Something that I very much don't do normally)

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

0
Ronald
12/21/2005 10:17:17 PM
I demand that Ronald J. Hall may or may not have written...

[snip]
> Still waiting for these threads to quit being posted to
> comp.sys.atari.8bit!

> I can only assume at this point, that C64 owners and Spectrum owners, in
> these threads, are damn fools and don't know how to stop crossposting.

You /could/ have set the Followup-To header appropriately... :-)

-- 
| Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk
| RISC OS,    | Northumberland | s zap,tartarus,org
| Linux       | Toon Army      | @
|   Kill all extremists!

Any shrine is better than self-worship.
0
Darren
12/21/2005 10:31:18 PM
The Starglider wrote:

> Don't expect a response too soon.
> 
> The moment they realise that they are losing an argument, they alway
> go silent.
> 
> Isn't that right Clockmeister?
> 
> Still waiting for my answers too.


A good test so far, but I do not think that any execept the 8086/88,
can beat the Z80 at astonishing 3.54MHz.

Even that, this test should be also summarized into, IMHO. I suggest
the speccy will also loose (VIC-II, Antic etc.) here and there, but I
am optimistic.




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
Daniel
12/21/2005 10:58:57 PM
in article pan.2005.12.21.22.17.16.32245@charter.net, Ronald J. Hall wrote
on 12/21/05 5:17 PM:

> Still waiting for these threads to quit being posted to
> comp.sys.atari.8bit!
> 
> I can only assume at this point, that C64 owners and Spectrum owners, in
> these threads, are damn fools and don't know how to stop crossposting.

Same here.
 
> (I deliberately crossposted to make sure this point is getting across.
> Something that I very much don't do normally)

I keep killing entire threads, and they keep renaming them.   ;-P

-- 
FreeMiNT    http://sparemint.atariforge.net/sparemint/ [Free your mind...]
Atari Team  http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30472
L. Pursell  http://www.bright.net/~gfabasic/ [AtarIRC, GFA-Basic, Hades060]


0
lp
12/21/2005 11:02:09 PM
Tarquin Mills wrote:

>In message <zlGpf.1277$1Y4.98060@news20.bellglobal.com>
>          Axell <Axell@nosp.no.no.no> wrote:
>  
>
>>The Starglider wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Do remember that the article only covers from a US perspective. If 
>>>a UK/Europe perspective was conducted, the chart would be VERY 
>>>different in the 8-bit era.
>>>      
>>>
>># of Doorstops vs country (relative percentage - commodore)
>>    
>>
>[snip]
>  
>
>>I guess that you can turn place mats and doorstops into something 
>>usefully makes for ingenuity.   Take pride!
>>    
>>
>
>From the C=64 v Speccy Flame War FAQ
>http://www.speccyverse.me.uk/comp/accus/spectrum/
>
>Q1.1 The ZX Spectrum can be used as a door stop?
> 1.2 Did the ZX Spectrum normally use REM statements to store machine code?
>A1. People who say this are thinking of the ZX81 or (TS1000 which is a
>    ZX81 clone) these are not Spectrums. While the ZX81 may be wedge
>    shaped it will definitely not fit under a door.  
>  
>
A1.1  -  It depends on where you are located.  If you have a house with 
central heat, a spectrum fits quite nicely under the 3/4" gap under the 
door.   The rubber keys make a nice grip; my alternative is my 10 pound 
72Mb Miniscribe hard drive.

A1.2  -  If  you are conscious of your doorstop's feelings, I suppose 
you could program it to make you feel good about yourself by referring 
back through machine code to the REM statement..  But I don't think that 
is relevant unless the FAQ reader is insecure.


< the rest snipped as it was not directly quoted as a question from the FAQ>
0
Axell1 (8)
12/21/2005 11:29:45 PM
Peter van Merkerk wrote:

> > 
> > Yes, the C64 has a higher resolution mode - largly unusable for
> > anything advanced like gaming.
> 
> The high resolution mode of C64 has the same limitations as the only
> graphics mode the spectrum supports. So I guess you are really saying
> that the spectrum is largely unusable for anything advanced like
> gaming.

But it can do 3D Games faster!

> 
> > Yes, the Speccy default attribute display can only show 2 colours
> > per 8x8 block, but has been proved to be overcome with little
> > trouble and no additional hardware.
> 
> But not full screen, and it keeps the CPU so busy it can do little
> else.
> 
> > Yes, the C64 has sprites, but so does the spectrum, regardless of
> > hardware or software.

Shapes.

> 
> I have yet to see a colorful spectrum game were the "sprites" didn't
> suffer from color bleeding.
> 

Better color bleeding than money-bleeding.

> > yes, the 48k Spectrum only had a BEEPer for the sound, but has been
> > programmed to perform 5 channel sound.
> 
> That is another way to keep the CPU busy to make you ears bleed.
> 
> > There are a multitude of peripherals for the ZX range, including
> > Disc drive systems that blew away every C64 disc system around.
> 
> So you are expert on C64 disk drive system too! So how fast were
> those Sinclair compatible drives systems compared to C64 parallel
> disk drive systems (which could read the contents of an entire disk
> in just a few seconds)?
> 

Pfffrhhh.

Ha!

What? The Atari and the C64 does not have the slightest chance against
a z80 I/O.

> > there was also video
> > digitizers, light pens and guns, mice, joysticks, networking, and
> > countless others I can't be bothered to list here.
> 
> That doesn't set the ZX Spectrum apart from other systems, does it?
> 
> > Only 2 models of Spectrum had rubber keys, the 16 and 48k models.
> > Every model since then had proper keys.
>

Fortunately.
 
> Later models didn't have rubber keys, but that doesn't mean that they
> had proper keys.

I could use a PC/AT Keyboard too! Even better than any other 8bit
Keyboard, indeed. 5bucks? and some more for the parts to connect it to
the ZX-BUS.

> 
> > Commodore BASIC was very lacking and in stock BASIC could not
> > perfom graphical functions with simple commands like PLOT and DRAW.
> > Even changing colours or producing sound in BASIC was a task for
> > the average user on the C64.

No comment.

> 
> Ok, the BASIC of the C64 was written for a computer that Commodore
> put 5 years before on the market. But real men don't use BASIC
> anyway. And for wimps that want insist on using BASIC there are
> plenty of BASIC extensions with BEEP, PLOT, LINE, CIRCLE and god
> knows what else. Simon's BASIC even got a COLOUR (yes COLOUR, not
> COLOR!) command, if that doesn't win over I don't what does ;-)

Cl.

:-)


We use Border. Paper, Ink and Bright (Flash). Makes nice 15 Colour
Hi-Res. Basic though.
Some user can do more, of course. Assembler is not a C64 Domain, though
you should know about :-) etc.

> 
> > Both models could access BBS systems.
> > 
> > The C64 SID chip is more capable than the AY (See? When I'm not
> > flamebaiting, I am honest!), but preference is down to the user and
> > I perfer the sound of the AY.
> 

MIDI IN/OUT - 3.54MHz Z80 available!

> Good for you, but the original spectrum didn't have an AY sound chip.
> At the time first spectrum with an AY sound chip came on the market
> (Spectrum 128 IIRC?) it had to compete with the C128, which had a
> faster processor and a Z80, much faster disk drive, a decent BASIC,
> and even better graphic capabilities.
> 
> > The number of titles is huge on the C64, but I do believe that it's
> > bigger on the Spectrum.
> 
> Difficult to say, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the other way
> around. But for both systems there are more than plenty of titles
> available, so who cares anyway?
> 
> > Anyone feel free to make corrections to the list, but I feel you
> > Clockmeister will be finding it hard to pick holes in it, since you
> > have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> You can argue as much as you like, but when you put both systems side
> by side and run de best game or demo available for each system, it
> isn't hard to tell which one is the more capable one. Of course that
> doesn't mean that you cannot have a lot fun with a ZX Spectrum too.


Not fun. Mystic, Magic, Excitment, Pleasure and Power.

Have I ever mentioned the perfect finish of the speccy-design?
I use to polish the metal-parts with B2000 (a perfect cart-wax), makes
56780 gaming more freeminded, as I know the politur protects the
varnish from human sweat.




Kind Regards,

Daniel Mandic


P.S.: Is it not cute?
0
Daniel
12/22/2005 12:08:51 AM
"lp" <GfA@MiNT.Net> wrote in message news:BFCF4921.21821%GfA@MiNT.Net...
> in article pan.2005.12.21.22.17.16.32245@charter.net, Ronald J. Hall wrote
> on 12/21/05 5:17 PM:
>
>> Still waiting for these threads to quit being posted to
>> comp.sys.atari.8bit!
>>
>> I can only assume at this point, that C64 owners and Spectrum owners, in
>> these threads, are damn fools and don't know how to stop crossposting.
>
> Same here.
>
>> (I deliberately crossposted to make sure this point is getting across.
>> Something that I very much don't do normally)
>
> I keep killing entire threads, and they keep renaming them.   ;-P

These threads are nothing more than a geriatric dick waving contest. These 
machines were outdated 20 years ago, but that has nothing to do with why I 
keep my Atari around. It's the machine I gew up with. It was my first 
computer. That's all the reason I need to keep playing around with it. :)

>
> -- 
> FreeMiNT    http://sparemint.atariforge.net/sparemint/ [Free your mind...]
> Atari Team  http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30472
> L. Pursell  http://www.bright.net/~gfabasic/ [AtarIRC, GFA-Basic, 
> Hades060]
>
>
-- 
David Bowden
The Undead Mechanic.

AIM & Yahoo: UndeadMechanic

SPAM PROOF EMAIL ADDRESS: same as yahoo/AIM *AT* comcast *DOT* net 


0
David
12/22/2005 1:15:32 AM
"silverdr" wrote ...

> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>
>> They were cheaper than the 1541...
>> Hell, the 1541 cost more than the c64 itself!
>> (IIRC)
>
> It costed about the same as the 64 at the time of 1985: around DEM 599,-
> AFAIR.

Since my memory may be a little rusty also, I got out a June 1985 issue of 
Compute!'s Gazette.  Computer Centers of America had the following prices 
(rounded to nearest US dollar).

C=64 Computer $145
C=1541 Disk Drive $170
C=1702 Monitor $175
C=801 Printer $150
C=CN-2 Cassette $60

The soon to be released C=128 was $280

-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!


0
Sam
12/22/2005 2:53:30 AM
Tarquin Mills wrote:
<snip>
> Like Starglider I am still waiting for Whetstone, Dhrystone 2.1 and
> any other benchmark results for the C=64 (especially interesting that
> you think it cannot be beaten by the Spectrum). Atari 800 owners have
> yet to submit a single result!!!!
>
> Table still stands at:
>                 BogoMips  Dhrystone  Whetstones
>                   in C    1.1 in C      MIPS
>                           Vax Mips    in BASIC (interpreted)
> PC XT           0.02      0.19-0.23    0.0015
> ZX-Spectrum     0.0154     ??????      0.00052
> C=64            0.0033     0.0205       ?????
> Atari 800       ????????  ?????????  ??????????
>
> The fastest computer so far is the Sinclair ZX Spectrum.
> The annual contest between the C=64 and Spectrum can be decided by
> an agreed scoring system of how good each computer was. Once this is
> done other computers can be scored as well.
>

Where's the code at? I assume, since we aren't talking asm here, that
we all need to run standardized code, at least within the limits of our
compilers/interpreters?

Seen code for BogoMips on the Sinclair group, downloaded it, have it
stuck somewhere on here, but if you can point to all just so I can make
sure that I'm wasting my time necessarily (instead of wasting my time
unnecessarily). Not that it makes any difference...

0
anoneds
12/22/2005 4:52:47 AM
Ronald J. Hall wrote:


> I can only assume at this point, that C64 owners and Spectrum owners, in
> these threads, are damn fools and don't know how to stop crossposting.
> 
> (I deliberately crossposted to make sure this point is getting across.
> Something that I very much don't do normally)
> 

It seems C64 owners and Spectrum owners cant stop arguing about this
irrelevant crap.

Last crosspost I promise!
0
Simon
12/22/2005 6:34:07 AM
Daniel Mandic wrote:
> What? The Atari and the C64 does not have the slightest chance against
> a z80 I/O.

Sorry, that's... what's the word... oh yes, *bollocks*.  The C64's I/O could 
be sluggish if software accelleration wasn't used (and it usually was) but 
for transfer speeds the Atari's SIO bus could lightly toast *both* machines 
and eat them as a snack.

Unless you mean the actual CPU power, in which case a 1.7MHz 6502 is only 
marginally slower than a 3.5MHz Z80a when the cycle times of the commands 
are taken into consideration and the Atari has the ANTIC hardware helping 
out, assorted character-based screen modes like the C64 (in fact, they're a 
bit faster because the screen RAM is only 960 bytes long for most modes and 
480 for the really quick ones) and hardware sprites.

> Have I ever mentioned the perfect finish of the speccy-design?
> I use to polish the metal-parts with B2000 (a perfect cart-wax), makes
> 56780 gaming more freeminded, as I know the politur protects the
> varnish from human sweat.

Someone's feeding the output of a Markov chainer into the thread, aren't 
they...?
-- 
     ______________________________  _________________________________
    /                             /\/  ___/     /  ___/  /     /  ___/\
   / Website:  www.cosine.org.uk / /  /\_/  /  /__   /  /  /  /  __/\\/
  / ICQ: 44373717 IRC: TMR{C0S} / /  /__/  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /\
/_____________________________/ /_____/_____/_____/__/__/__/_____/ /
\_____________________________\/\_____\_____\_____\__\__\__\_____\/TMR
0
Jason
12/22/2005 10:29:32 AM
spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

> I care not for your poxy american dollar.
> What was the exchange rate back in the 80s?
> 2:1 or something?

About $2.50 Eastern Caribbean for US$1. Or did you mean marks? ozzie
dollars? (I think it was about 1:1, the days of US$1.20 for A$1 were
the 60's and early 70's, the days of the falling A$ exchange rate was
later in the 80's).

No wait, since you are talking about the Spectrum, you must be from
Europe, but outside the largest European country.  Francs? Lira?

> How much did the commode cost there?
> How much did the 1541 cost?

The Commodore cost about $600, the 1541 about $300, and I do not think
the Spectrum was available, so cost was effectively infinite.

> Someone's already stated in this thread that the commodore TAPE player co=
st
> something stupid like =A350, so you can imagine your puny dollar prices o=
f,
> say, $350 were probably translated 1:1 here.

The price, of course, came down and kept coming down, and since the
moving parts were in the 1541, I would not be surprised if at some time
the keyboard and drive were about the same price.  My last Commodore
system was that same C64 with a 1581 drive, monochrome monitor and
daisywheel printer, after my C128D suffered from fried processor
syndrome, so I wouldn't have any idea about the relative price
comparisons from the mid to late 80's.

0
agila61
12/22/2005 10:30:05 AM
agila61@netscape.net did eloquently scribble:
> 
> 
> 
> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> 
>> I care not for your poxy american dollar.
>> What was the exchange rate back in the 80s?
>> 2:1 or something?
> 
> About $2.50 Eastern Caribbean for US$1. Or did you mean marks? ozzie
> dollars? (I think it was about 1:1, the days of US$1.20 for A$1 were
> the 60's and early 70's, the days of the falling A$ exchange rate was
> later in the 80's).
> 
> No wait, since you are talking about the Spectrum, you must be from
> Europe, but outside the largest European country.  Francs? Lira?

Don't you even know how to read an e-mail address?
I'll give you a clue shall I? .co.uk
I wonder where that could POSSIBLY be.
 
>> How much did the commode cost there?
>> How much did the 1541 cost?
> 
> The Commodore cost about $600, the 1541 about $300, and I do not think
> the Spectrum was available, so cost was effectively infinite.

Here, the 1541 cost more than the machine itself.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |   Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a    |
|                          | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally  coded for a 4 bit |
|            in            |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|     Computer Science     |        can't stand 1 bit of competition.       |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/22/2005 12:14:54 PM
spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

> Don't you even know how to read an e-mail address?
> I'll give you a clue shall I? .co.uk
> I wonder where that could POSSIBLY be.

Must be one of those second tier European countries.  Prolly one of the
fringe ones that don't have enough surviving industry to bother
adopting the Euro.

No, seriously, if you're a spectrum fan, extremely short odds you are a
pommie (though I guess you could be Scottish or Irish or Welsh).  Its
basically a British computer, while the C64 was strongest in
continental Europe, North America and Australasia.  AFAIR those Z80
machines (forget name, several firms brought out compatible machines)
were there biggest home computers in Japan in the early 80's, but that
was a long time ago.

> > The Commodore cost about $600, the 1541 about $300, and I do not think
> > the Spectrum was available, so cost was effectively infinite.

> Here, the 1541 cost more than the machine itself.

WHEN?  On introduction, in the mid 80's, in the late eighties, in the
early nineties?  The system was in production for more than a decade,
and I seriously doubt that the price ratio was stable for the whole
time.

0
agila61
12/22/2005 12:33:16 PM
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 agila61@netscape.net wrote:

> No, seriously, if you're a spectrum fan, extremely short odds you are a
> pommie (though I guess you could be Scottish or Irish or Welsh).  Its
> basically a British computer, while the C64 was strongest in
> continental Europe, North America and Australasia.  AFAIR those Z80
> machines (forget name, several firms brought out compatible machines)
> were there biggest home computers in Japan in the early 80's, but that
> was a long time ago.

MSX.

-uso.
0
Lyrical
12/22/2005 12:48:12 PM
Lyrical Nanoha wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 agila61@netscape.net wrote:

> > ... AFAIR those Z80
> > machines (forget name, several firms brought out compatible machines)
> > were there biggest home computers in Japan in the early 80's, but that
> > was a long time ago.

> MSX.

Yeah, MSX.

Actually, if I had got my $1,000 the previous year, I might have tried
to get a Spectrum, since the Microdrive seemed cool to me when I read
about it in a home computer magazine ... and of course, the VIC-20 was
not that impressive a machine (ducks, puts on flame proof shirt).  But
the money turned up shortly after the C64 was released, and it was much
easier to get your hands on a C64 than a Spectrum.

I was still using the same machine ten years later to write papers in
graduate school.  Considering the relationship of Sir Clive to Amstrad,
perhaps its a coincidence that my first PC was an Amstrad, with a
monocrhome flip up LCD monitor.  However while an 800Kb 3.5" disk was
massive space for a C64, a 720K 3.5" disk was awfully cramped for a PC
.... it was a massive relief to get an external 20Mb Parallel Port hard
drive.

0
agila61
12/22/2005 12:58:19 PM
"agila61" <agila61@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1135254796.492589.113290@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

> > > The Commodore cost about $600, the 1541 about $300, and I do not think
> > > the Spectrum was available, so cost was effectively infinite.
> 
> > Here, the 1541 cost more than the machine itself.
> 
> WHEN?  On introduction, in the mid 80's, in the late eighties, in the
> early nineties?  

Always.

> The system was in production for more than a decade,
> and I seriously doubt that the price ratio was stable for the whole
> time.

It did. Go check the image scans of any random 1993 issue of Zzap64 if
you don't believe me.




-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
0
Nick
12/22/2005 2:13:20 PM
"agila61" <agila61@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1135254796.492589.113290@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> 
> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> 
> > > The Commodore cost about $600, the 1541 about $300, and I do not think
> > > the Spectrum was available, so cost was effectively infinite.
> 
> > Here, the 1541 cost more than the machine itself.
> 
> WHEN?  On introduction, in the mid 80's, in the late eighties, in the
> early nineties?  The system was in production for more than a decade,
> and I seriously doubt that the price ratio was stable for the whole
> time.

Ever since the major price cut in 1984, the disk drive was always more
expensive than the actual machine, even in 199.

I just checked a few random issues at zzap64.co.uk to confirm that.


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
0
Nick
12/22/2005 2:52:51 PM
"agila61" <agila61@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1135254796.492589.113290@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> 
> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> 
> > > The Commodore cost about $600, the 1541 about $300, and I do not think
> > > the Spectrum was available, so cost was effectively infinite.
> 
> > Here, the 1541 cost more than the machine itself.
> 
> WHEN?  On introduction, in the mid 80's, in the late eighties, in the
> early nineties?  The system was in production for more than a decade,
> and I seriously doubt that the price ratio was stable for the whole
> time.

Ever since the major price cut in 1984, the disk drive was always more
expensive than the actual machine, even in 1993.

I just checked a few random issues at zzap64.co.uk to confirm that.


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
0
Nick
12/22/2005 2:53:30 PM
Jason wrote:

> Daniel Mandic wrote:
> > What? The Atari and the C64 does not have the slightest chance
> > against a z80 I/O.
> 
> Sorry, that's... what's the word... oh yes, bollocks.  The C64's I/O
> could be sluggish if software accelleration wasn't used (and it
> usually was) but for transfer speeds the Atari's SIO bus could
> lightly toast both machines and eat them as a snack.
> 

Yes yes. I remember that 'my ATARI has 1.79MHz and not 1MHz' thematic
very well. I dare to say that the C64 is making more nice Graphics than
the ATARI. Although both are clunky at block graphic... one makes slim
and the other the typical broad one. etc...

> Unless you mean the actual CPU power, in which case a 1.7MHz 6502 is
> only marginally slower than a 3.5MHz Z80a when the cycle times of the
> commands are taken into consideration and the Atari has the ANTIC
> hardware helping out, assorted character-based screen modes like the
> C64 (in fact, they're a bit faster because the screen RAM is only 960
> bytes long for most modes and 480 for the really quick ones) and
> hardware sprites.
> 

Well, let�s get back to raw digital performance.

That�s the same if you would like to compare a "AMD Athlon2000 with
onboard shared-memory GfX, and let�s say a KT800pro Chipset" to a
"iP-III/550 with a PNY QuadraFX4000 AGP3.0 Universal" and say the P3
have a faster I/O. Of course, the slower P3 makes better
hardware-accelerated graphics (OpenGL and Co.), more colors and
smoother but could never get the Athlon and the rest of the system in
raw performance, except graphics (but also not in all instances, 2D
etc..).

> > Have I ever mentioned the perfect finish of the speccy-design?
> > I use to polish the metal-parts with B2000 (a perfect cart-wax),
> > makes 56780 gaming more freeminded, as I know the politur protects
> > the varnish from human sweat.
> 
> Someone's feeding the output of a Markov chainer into the thread,
> aren't they...?





Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
Daniel
12/22/2005 3:23:12 PM
spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

[...]

> You want TZX, there are even programs that will play the tzx to the audio
> port so you can load directly into the spectrum from your pc.
> (or save to tape) playtzx being the main one, I believe.

I see. Do I understand correctly that the TZX is the most faithful 
representation of the actual tape recording (rather than what it 
contains) then?

> 
>>Why not? If you use real hardware rather than emulator?
> 
> 
> Because WOS has a very large archives of tzx files and they can be loaded
> into the real hardware with the above method.

OK. But what I want is to use the compressed audio for that purpose. Can 
I assume that there is something like tzx2aiff or tzx2wav or some other, 
similar program easily available?
0
silverdr
12/22/2005 4:47:41 PM
Sam Gillett wrote:

> 
> "Nick Humphries" wrote ...
> > 
> > In the UK, the C= tape deck was indeed more expensive than standard
> > tape recorders, which was annoying as it masked the true cost of
> > the C64, unless it was bundled.
> 
> A UK-centric view.  The reason the C64, and accessories for it were
> so expensive in the UK is quite simple really.  Not only did the
> Queen knight Sir Clive, she protected his brain-farts by imposing
> stiff import duties on competitive products.


You hadn't have Indian Brain-Farts for a long time. All what�s
remaining is hate and ingnorance.

The Speccy is an Computer, made by English. That�s experience. The only
finished computer, indeed. You don�t see it in the first... honestly I
need many many years to believe what I have accepted at that time the
Sinclair Spectrum48K with 8Games was out!

Not to mention that the Z80 is still an actual CPU. That points to the
brave man who designed even more then Digital Machines.



Be Quiet with your incapable insults and don�t insult a Highlevel
Wizard with your uncapable electronic-knowledge.





Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic


P.S.: But now I am able to use the (finished) capabilities, you go with
your standard but don�t think you can can compare in CSS with your
Joystick, multicolor, Supersound eperience. Just look at a Speccy and
see how you can do!
0
Daniel
12/22/2005 4:53:51 PM
The Starglider wrote:
[...]
>>
>>Well, depends how you define "SLOOOOOOW". The C2N I (still) have 
>>transfers reliably about 0.5 KiB/s I don't know the exact numbers for 
>>the Speccy but remembering the load times my Spectrum friends were 
>>required to wait, I guesstimate it was about the same or perhaps even 
>>slower. Do you have the numbers at hand?
> 
> IIRC correctly, the default baud rate of the spectrum load/save routines was at
> 1500. Approximately a 48k program would load in about 3.5 minutes (give or take,

That actually confirms what was my impression from many years ago that 
Spectrum load times were even somewhat longer than the most popular tape 
format on the 64. I guess there weren't many tape speeder loaders (due 
to limited reliability of the audio method) that would load much faster?

> did depend on the speed the tape player you had - I had a sony that was
> noticably faster than another one I had many years ago).

I guess either you're kidding or you mean that tapes recorded on another 
recorder were loading faster on yours Sony? I can't imagine otherwise 
how a choice of _audio_ recorder could influence the transfer speed...
0
silverdr
12/22/2005 4:57:57 PM
agila61@netscape.net wrote:

>>Here, the 1541 cost more than the machine itself.
> 
> 
> WHEN?  On introduction, in the mid 80's, in the late eighties, in the
> early nineties?  The system was in production for more than a decade,
> and I seriously doubt that the price ratio was stable for the whole
> time.

Originally (on introduction) the 1541 was more expensive than the 64 
itself but it changed over time and first it got to be more or less the 
same (around mid-late-eighties), later on it was (slightly!) cheaper 
AFAIR. I think it was similar around the globe but dunno about the UK, 
which might be an exception...

0
silverdr
12/22/2005 5:03:12 PM
"silverdr" <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote in message news:43aad8ab$1@news.inet.com.pl...
> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > You want TZX, there are even programs that will play the tzx to the audio
> > port so you can load directly into the spectrum from your pc.
> > (or save to tape) playtzx being the main one, I believe.
>
> I see. Do I understand correctly that the TZX is the most faithful
> representation of the actual tape recording (rather than what it
> contains) then?
>
> >
> >>Why not? If you use real hardware rather than emulator?
> >
> >
> > Because WOS has a very large archives of tzx files and they can be loaded
> > into the real hardware with the above method.
>
> OK. But what I want is to use the compressed audio for that purpose. Can
> I assume that there is something like tzx2aiff or tzx2wav or some other,
> similar program easily available?


http://gleck.emuunlim.com/tzxplayer/


0
Colin
12/22/2005 5:04:07 PM
"silverdr" <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote in message
news:43aadc4f$1@news.inet.com.pl

> Originally (on introduction) the 1541 was more expensive than the 64 
> itself but it changed over time and first it got to be more or less the 
> same (around mid-late-eighties), later on it was (slightly!) cheaper 
> AFAIR. I think it was similar around the globe but dunno about the UK, 
> which might be an exception...

At launch in 1983 in the UK the C64 was 345 quid and the disk drive was
300 quid.

Yikes.


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
0
Nick
12/22/2005 5:08:48 PM
Soni tempori elseu romani yeof helsforo nisson ol sefini ill des Thu, 22 Dec
2005 17:57:57 +0100, sefini jorgo geanyet des mani yeof do comp.sys.sinclair,
yawatina tan reek esk silverdr <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> fornis do marikano
es bono tan el:

>> did depend on the speed the tape player you had - I had a sony that was
>> noticably faster than another one I had many years ago).
>
>I guess either you're kidding or you mean that tapes recorded on another 
>recorder were loading faster on yours Sony? I can't imagine otherwise 
>how a choice of _audio_ recorder could influence the transfer speed...

I found that if I played a tape with the play button held half-way in (so that
if it were an audio tape it'd sound like chipmunks), I could load many games
in about two thirds of the time it'd normally take.  Even some speed-load
games could be coaxed into an even faster load (the turboload version of Sir
Lancelot, for example). 

deKay
-- 
 + Lofi Gaming: www.lofi-gaming.org.uk  [Gamertag: deKay 01]
 |- Gaming Diary: www.lofi-gaming.org.uk/diary/  
 |- My computer runs at 3.5MHz and I'm proud of that
 |- CSS Crap Games Comp 2005: http://www.lofi-gaming.org.uk/speccy/cgc2005/
0
deKay
12/22/2005 5:22:01 PM
silverdr wrote:

another one I had many years ago).
> 
> I guess either you're kidding or you mean that tapes recorded on
> another recorder were loading faster on yours Sony? I can't imagine
> otherwise how a choice of audio recorder could influence the transfer
> speed...


Do you believe yourself what you are writing?

An Analog to Digital converter is not a Digital to digital converter.
If the input may not vary then you would not be able to load at all. It
depends how much the A/D converter is tolerating.

A/D or D/A. Both is imprecise.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
Daniel
12/22/2005 5:55:07 PM
silverdr <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> did eloquently scribble:
>> IIRC correctly, the default baud rate of the spectrum load/save routines was at
>> 1500. Approximately a 48k program would load in about 3.5 minutes (give or take,
> 
> That actually confirms what was my impression from many years ago that 
> Spectrum load times were even somewhat longer than the most popular tape 
> format on the 64. I guess there weren't many tape speeder loaders (due 
> to limited reliability of the audio method) that would load much faster?

He said default.
We had shedloads of fastloaders, bleeploaders, alkatraz loaders,
hyperloaders, etc. Yes, some of the faster ones were unreliable and ended up
with the user resorting to a screwdriver on the azimouth to get the tape
player as finely tuned as possible, but you could get a reliable decent
speed without that. (it was only the ones that went just a tad too far...)

Many of us acquired the skill to be able to azimouth tweak by ear quite
easily. 
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
|            in            |  suck is probably the day they start making     |
|     Computer science     |  vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge            |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/22/2005 6:02:23 PM
silverdr <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> did eloquently scribble:
> 
> 
> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> You want TZX, there are even programs that will play the tzx to the audio
>> port so you can load directly into the spectrum from your pc.
>> (or save to tape) playtzx being the main one, I believe.
> 
> I see. Do I understand correctly that the TZX is the most faithful 
> representation of the actual tape recording (rather than what it 
> contains) then?

Pretty much, yeah.
 
>> 
>>>Why not? If you use real hardware rather than emulator?
>> 
>> 
>> Because WOS has a very large archives of tzx files and they can be loaded
>> into the real hardware with the above method.
> 
> OK. But what I want is to use the compressed audio for that purpose. Can 
> I assume that there is something like tzx2aiff or tzx2wav or some other, 
> similar program easily available?

There're a couple... tzx2wav and tape2wav
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
|            in            |  suck is probably the day they start making     |
|     Computer science     |  vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge            |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/22/2005 6:13:03 PM
Colin wrote:

[...]

>>>Because WOS has a very large archives of tzx files and they can be loaded
>>>into the real hardware with the above method.
>>
>>OK. But what I want is to use the compressed audio for that purpose. Can
>>I assume that there is something like tzx2aiff or tzx2wav or some other,
>>similar program easily available?
> 
> http://gleck.emuunlim.com/tzxplayer/
> 

No Windows around here (no kidding)... something non-Windows-only? A 
GPL'd command line tool would do.
0
silverdr
12/22/2005 6:58:52 PM
spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> Many of us acquired the skill to be able to azimouth tweak by ear quite
> easily. 

Same with the C64, except i can do the adjustments by *eye* still, working 
from fastloader stripes. =-)
-- 
     ______________________________  _________________________________
    /                             /\/  ___/     /  ___/  /     /  ___/\
   / Website:  www.cosine.org.uk / /  /\_/  /  /__   /  /  /  /  __/\\/
  / ICQ: 44373717 IRC: TMR{C0S} / /  /__/  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /\
/_____________________________/ /_____/_____/_____/__/__/__/_____/ /
\_____________________________\/\_____\_____\_____\__\__\__\_____\/TMR
0
Jason
12/22/2005 7:07:36 PM
spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>>>IIRC correctly, the default baud rate of the spectrum load/save routines was at
>>>1500. Approximately a 48k program would load in about 3.5 minutes (give or take,
>>
>>That actually confirms what was my impression from many years ago that 
>>Spectrum load times were even somewhat longer than the most popular tape 
>>format on the 64. I guess there weren't many tape speeder loaders (due 
>>to limited reliability of the audio method) that would load much faster?
> 
> He said default.
> We had shedloads of fastloaders, bleeploaders, alkatraz loaders,
> hyperloaders, etc. 

What was the fastest real and reliable transfer speed of those?
0
silverdr
12/22/2005 7:08:31 PM
deKay wrote:

> 
> I found that if I played a tape with the play button held half-way in (so that
> if it were an audio tape it'd sound like chipmunks), I could load many games
> in about two thirds of the time it'd normally take.  Even some speed-load
> games could be coaxed into an even faster load (the turboload version of Sir
> Lancelot, for example). 
> 
Funny - you were probably driving the tape with the right reel rather 
than the capstan... strange if the Speccy tolerated that high deviation.
0
silverdr (234)
12/22/2005 7:10:04 PM
Daniel Mandic wrote:

> another one I had many years ago).
> 
>>I guess either you're kidding or you mean that tapes recorded on
>>another recorder were loading faster on yours Sony? I can't imagine
>>otherwise how a choice of audio recorder could influence the transfer
>>speed...
> 
> Do you believe yourself what you are writing?
> 
> An Analog to Digital converter is not a Digital to digital converter.
> If the input may not vary then you would not be able to load at all. It
> depends how much the A/D converter is tolerating.
> 
> A/D or D/A. Both is imprecise.

Do you really know what you're babbling about?
0
silverdr
12/22/2005 7:11:23 PM
silverdr <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> did eloquently scribble:
> 
> 
> Colin wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>>Because WOS has a very large archives of tzx files and they can be loaded
>>>>into the real hardware with the above method.
>>>
>>>OK. But what I want is to use the compressed audio for that purpose. Can
>>>I assume that there is something like tzx2aiff or tzx2wav or some other,
>>>similar program easily available?
>> 
>> http://gleck.emuunlim.com/tzxplayer/
>> 
> 
> No Windows around here (no kidding)... something non-Windows-only? A 
> GPL'd command line tool would do.

playtzx (as mentioned earlier) can output to audio device, voc file or .au
file formats. (Yes, it's for unix/linux)
I just compiled it and it works fine.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |   Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a    |
|                          | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally  coded for a 4 bit |
|            in            |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|     Computer Science     |        can't stand 1 bit of competition.       |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/22/2005 7:11:24 PM
spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>>OK. But what I want is to use the compressed audio for that purpose. Can 
>>I assume that there is something like tzx2aiff or tzx2wav or some other, 
>>similar program easily available?
> 
> 
> There're a couple... tzx2wav and tape2wav

huh, even guessed the name ;-) i Googled it up quickly but it seems that 
there are only windows dependent solution ATM :-( OK. TNX anyway.
0
silverdr
12/22/2005 7:20:42 PM
Clockmeister wrote:
This is kind of boring but at this point I'll make this one post on 
these subjects, because i have personal experience in these areas.

 >>> 4. BBSs.
 >>
 >>
 >> The ZX Spectrum can access and run BBSs, however BBSs were not that
 >> important to most people.
 >>
 >
 >
 > Poor excuses, BBS's were very popular at one time when there was no 
internet and the C64 was a popular system to run them. The C64 was also 
popular in robotics and amateur radio. None of those niches was fed by 
the lowly, boring and unimaginative ZX.


I ran a BBS on a Spectrum (Micron) for a short while, it then moved to a 
QL (Qbox) for several years (Fidonet compatable too) and then later to a 
PC.   In total my BBS ran from 1988 to 1997 or thereabouts, during this 
time it was always mainly a sinclair supporting BBS.

The ZX81 and the Spectrum were used for packet radio, slowscan TV and 
morse decoders.   I've got some Dutch Packet software for the Spectrum 
here somewhere.

I used both the ZX81 and the spectrum for robotics, and even controlling 
my first CNC machine.  That would of been sometime in the 80's.   I've 
got a ZX81 converted to a crude DEVOish drum machine, and also homebuilt 
MIDI interfaces.   So these ares are not just the realm of the C64.

I'm not going to even say one machine is better than the other, My only 
experience of Commodore machines was a 4032 PET in the early 80's.   But 
it does seem to me you are just arguing for the sake of it.

I dont much like the 6502 though, the Z80 on the otherhand I'm quite 
fond of, and not just because it was used in the ZX81 and Spectrum.  I 
have designed and built quite a number of Z80 based systems for embedded 
use.  The FACT that the Z80 is still available in many forms even today 
proves its still a very viable processor.   Is the 6502 or any other 
derivatives still available?

Wayne.....
0
Wayne
12/22/2005 8:01:14 PM
spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>>>>OK. But what I want is to use the compressed audio for that purpose. Can
>>>>I assume that there is something like tzx2aiff or tzx2wav or some other,
>>>>similar program easily available?
>>>
>>>http://gleck.emuunlim.com/tzxplayer/
>>>
>>
>>No Windows around here (no kidding)... something non-Windows-only? A 
>>GPL'd command line tool would do.
> 
> 
> playtzx (as mentioned earlier) can output to audio device, voc file or .au
> file formats.

Ah, OK. The descriptions didn't let me to this.

> (Yes, it's for unix/linux)
> I just compiled it and it works fine.

Just downloaded and compiled. Seems to work fine. TNX!
0
silverdr (234)
12/22/2005 8:15:36 PM
Wayne Weedon wrote:

> I dont much like the 6502 though,  the Z80 on the otherhand I'm quite
> fond of, and not just because it was used in the ZX81 and Spectrum. 
It's an interesting device, not my preference, but I can see how it 
would interest someone.

> I have designed and built quite a number of Z80 based systems for embedded 
> use. 
You will find that the same is true of the 6502.  In fact, given the 
recent explosion of NES-ON-A-CHIP units out there, the 6502 and its 
derivatives may just be the most prolific.

> The FACT that the Z80 is still available in many forms even today 
> proves its still a very viable processor.    Is the 6502 or any other
> derivatives still available?
http://www.westerndesigncenter.com/wdc/ for starters.
0
Six
12/22/2005 8:40:39 PM
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:57:57 +0100, silverdr <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote:

>The Starglider wrote:
>[...]
>>>
>>>Well, depends how you define "SLOOOOOOW". The C2N I (still) have 
>>>transfers reliably about 0.5 KiB/s I don't know the exact numbers for 
>>>the Speccy but remembering the load times my Spectrum friends were 
>>>required to wait, I guesstimate it was about the same or perhaps even 
>>>slower. Do you have the numbers at hand?
>> 
>> IIRC correctly, the default baud rate of the spectrum load/save routines was at
>> 1500. Approximately a 48k program would load in about 3.5 minutes (give or take,
>
>That actually confirms what was my impression from many years ago that 
>Spectrum load times were even somewhat longer than the most popular tape 
>format on the 64. I guess there weren't many tape speeder loaders (due 
>to limited reliability of the audio method) that would load much faster?

Oh there were plenty of speed loaders, some of them really pushing it for
reliability IMHO. I was just quoting the default. After a couple of years
though, speedloaders was way more the norm than default speed loaders.

the longest loader I know of (and this is for the 128k version of the game) is
ironically Starglider, and that takes 12 minutes. There doesn't seem to be any
major compression involved there, and it's at default speeds.

Another 128k game (off the top of my head) that did use speed loading was Combat
School, and that took about 6.5 minutes.

>
>> did depend on the speed the tape player you had - I had a sony that was
>> noticably faster than another one I had many years ago).
>
>I guess either you're kidding or you mean that tapes recorded on another 
>recorder were loading faster on yours Sony? I can't imagine otherwise 
>how a choice of _audio_ recorder could influence the transfer speed...

Well, tape speeds are determined by the motor, and I can only assume that the
motor was a bit knackered in my Sony.

Still, no games failed to load with it, and it did take less time! :)

-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____
0
The
12/22/2005 9:17:31 PM
>>>>> "an" == anoneds@netscape net <anoneds@netscape.net> writes:

an> Where's the code at? I assume, since we aren't talking asm here,
an> that we all need to run standardized code, at least within the
an> limits of our compilers/interpreters?

So it's a compiler benchmark?

-- 
    ___          .     .  .         .       . +  .         .      o   
  _|___|_   +   .  +     .     +         .  Per Olofsson, arkadspelare
    o-o    .      .     .   o         +          MagerValp@cling.gu.se
     -       +            +    .     http://www.cling.gu.se/~cl3polof/
0
MagerValp
12/22/2005 9:33:46 PM
silverdr wrote:
> Daniel Mandic wrote:
> 
>> another one I had many years ago).
>>
>>> I guess either you're kidding or you mean that tapes recorded on
>>> another recorder were loading faster on yours Sony? I can't imagine
>>> otherwise how a choice of audio recorder could influence the transfer
>>> speed...
>>
>>
>> Do you believe yourself what you are writing?
>>
>> An Analog to Digital converter is not a Digital to digital converter.
>> If the input may not vary then you would not be able to load at all. It
>> depends how much the A/D converter is tolerating.
>>
>> A/D or D/A. Both is imprecise.
> 
> Do you really know what you're babbling about?

Is that a question?

Daniel Mandic appears to be the comp.sys.sinclair version of Rick 
Balkins. If so, I do feel sorry for comp.sys.sinclair.

0
Peter
12/22/2005 9:38:30 PM
Peter van Merkerk wrote:
> silverdr wrote:
> 
>> Daniel Mandic wrote:
>>
>>> another one I had many years ago).
>>>
>>>> I guess either you're kidding or you mean that tapes recorded on
>>>> another recorder were loading faster on yours Sony? I can't imagine
>>>> otherwise how a choice of audio recorder could influence the transfer
>>>> speed...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you believe yourself what you are writing?
>>>
>>> An Analog to Digital converter is not a Digital to digital converter.
>>> If the input may not vary then you would not be able to load at all. It
>>> depends how much the A/D converter is tolerating.
>>>
>>> A/D or D/A. Both is imprecise.
>>
>>
>> Do you really know what you're babbling about?
> 
> 
> Is that a question?
> 
> Daniel Mandic appears to be the comp.sys.sinclair version of Rick 
> Balkins. If so, I do feel sorry for comp.sys.sinclair.
> 

He only seems to post in these cross-posted flame wars. I feel sorry for 
you guys - you've got him just as much as we do.

In fact, I suspect that he's a comp.sys.cbm agent, sent to tarnish the 
reputations of all Spectrum users.
0
W
12/22/2005 9:47:16 PM
W Marsh wrote:
> In fact, I suspect that he's a comp.sys.cbm agent, sent to tarnish the 
> reputations of all Spectrum users.

No, i *swear* we're not that twisted...  well, i might be that this lot 
aren't. =-)
-- 
     ______________________________  _________________________________
    /                             /\/  ___/     /  ___/  /     /  ___/\
   / Website:  www.cosine.org.uk / /  /\_/  /  /__   /  /  /  /  __/\\/
  / ICQ: 44373717 IRC: TMR{C0S} / /  /__/  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /\
/_____________________________/ /_____/_____/_____/__/__/__/_____/ /
\_____________________________\/\_____\_____\_____\__\__\__\_____\/TMR
0
Jason
12/22/2005 10:38:02 PM
In message <1135227167.582640.13200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Anoneds wrote:
> Tarquin Mills wrote:
> <snip>
> > Like Starglider I am still waiting for Whetstone, Dhrystone 2.1 and
> > any other benchmark results for the C=64 (especially interesting that
> > you think it cannot be beaten by the Spectrum). Atari 800 owners have
> > yet to submit a single result!!!!
> >
> > Table still stands at:
> >                 BogoMips  Dhrystone  Whetstones
> >                   in C    1.1 in C      MIPS
> >                           Vax Mips    in BASIC (interpreted)
> > PC XT           0.02      0.19-0.23    0.0015
> > ZX-Spectrum     0.0154     ??????      0.00052
> > C=64            0.0033     0.0205       ?????
> > Atari 800       ????????  ?????????  ??????????
> >
> > The fastest computer so far is the Sinclair ZX Spectrum.
> > The annual contest between the C=64 and Spectrum can be decided by
> > an agreed scoring system of how good each computer was. Once this is
> > done other computers can be scored as well.
> >
> Where's the code at? I assume, since we aren't talking asm here, that
> we all need to run standardized code, at least within the limits of our
> compilers/interpreters?
> 
> Seen code for BogoMips on the Sinclair group, downloaded it, have it
> stuck somewhere on here, but if you can point to all just so I can make
> sure that I'm wasting my time necessarily (instead of wasting my time
> unnecessarily). Not that it makes any difference...

The URI for the source is 
http://www.speccyverse.me.uk/comp/accus/spectrum/64vZX.zip
The ZX BASIC version of Whetstone used in the official figures is not 
available, though I could produce a new version.  
 
-- 
Changing MicrosOFT into Micros and OFT (Office of Fair Trading)
http://www.petitiononline.com/oftsucks/  Make the OFT investigate MS Petition
Reboot Movement (An Anti-Wintel Campaign)
http://www.speccyverse.me.uk/comp/reboot/ 
0
Tarquin
12/22/2005 10:42:12 PM
Jason wrote:
> W Marsh wrote:
> 
>> In fact, I suspect that he's a comp.sys.cbm agent, sent to tarnish the 
>> reputations of all Spectrum users.
> 
> 
> No, i *swear* we're not that twisted...  well, i might be that this lot 
> aren't. =-)

Oh, Mr. Cosine Guy - while you're here, I'd just like to say how much I 
admire your group's demos. Most of them are impressive even in static 
screenshot form. Keep it up!
0
W
12/22/2005 11:03:10 PM
W Marsh wrote:
> Oh, Mr. Cosine Guy - while you're here, I'd just like to say how much I 
> admire your group's demos. Most of them are impressive even in static 
> screenshot form. Keep it up!

[Blush] aww, that was nice... we're actually doing a lot of game work at the 
moment, C64, Atari 8-bit, Plus/4, Spectrum... any 8-bit that grabs our fancy 
t'be honest! =-)
-- 
     ______________________________  _________________________________
    /                             /\/  ___/     /  ___/  /     /  ___/\
   / Website:  www.cosine.org.uk / /  /\_/  /  /__   /  /  /  /  __/\\/
  / ICQ: 44373717 IRC: TMR{C0S} / /  /__/  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /\
/_____________________________/ /_____/_____/_____/__/__/__/_____/ /
\_____________________________\/\_____\_____\_____\__\__\__\_____\/TMR
0
Jason
12/23/2005 2:12:05 AM
Darren Salt wrote:

> 
> Er... Virtual Acorn or Red Squirrel should be adequate, assuming
> Windows (although I recall seeing something recently about a VA port
> to Mac OS X).  For Linux and other *nix-type systems, there's arcem.
> 
>   <url: http://www.virtualacorn.co.uk/index2.htm>
>   <url: http://www.redsquirrel.fsnet.co.uk/home/home.html>
>   <url: http://arcem.sourceforge.net/>
> 
> Questions about these, where not answered by an FAQ list or search
> engine, should go to one of the comp.sys.acorn groups; probably .misc.


Thanks for that.

Getting the ROMs was already difficult. But I have no clue how to find
!System, !Boot and !Scrap. FTP at Acorn is password protected :-(

Can�t I start with an ADF-File alone? Like the Amiga, just to watch a
Demo and listen to that mysterious soundgenerator.
Or do you now a *-command to boot from floppy?



Info is scarce and very specific. Actual System, yes?



Although, I would like to see it in Action. Don�t worry I will not
resell my Virtual-Acorn Archimedes ;-.)





Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
12/23/2005 2:30:39 AM
Daniel Mandic wrote:

> 
> Info is scarce and very specific. Actual System, yes?
> 
> 

I have 3.1 and 3.7 Roms. I hope I do not miss something with the A440
Os3.1 emulated, compared to the A3000.
0
12/23/2005 2:48:26 AM
Tarquin Mills wrote:
> Like Starglider I am still waiting for Whetstone, Dhrystone 2.1 and 
> any other benchmark results for the C=64 (especially interesting that
> you think it cannot be beaten by the Spectrum). Atari 800 owners have
> yet to submit a single result!!!! 

i think it's because they've got more sense... i've removed the cross post 
from this reply.

> The fastest computer so far is the Sinclair ZX Spectrum.
> The annual contest between the C=64 and Spectrum can be decided by
> an agreed scoring system of how good each computer was. Once this is 
> done other computers can be scored as well.

Sorry, this is probably the *worst* way to compare two computers.  Ever.  It 
can only prove either the speed of the CPU alone or, more likely since the 
test routines are in C, the speed of the  code that the compiler kicks out. 
  The already existing cycle comparisons written up during a previous 
iteration of this discussion give a *far* better indication of the relative 
speeds of the CPUs but that still says *nothing* as regards which machine is 
the faster overall.
-- 
     ______________________________  _________________________________
    /                             /\/  ___/     /  ___/  /     /  ___/\
   / Website:  www.cosine.org.uk / /  /\_/  /  /__   /  /  /  /  __/\\/
  / ICQ: 44373717 IRC: TMR{C0S} / /  /__/  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /\
/_____________________________/ /_____/_____/_____/__/__/__/_____/ /
\_____________________________\/\_____\_____\_____\__\__\__\_____\/TMR
0
Jason
12/23/2005 2:57:35 AM
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Wayne Weedon wrote:

> I dont much like the 6502 though, the Z80 on the otherhand I'm quite fond of, 
> and not just because it was used in the ZX81 and Spectrum.  I have designed 
> and built quite a number of Z80 based systems for embedded use.  The FACT 
> that the Z80 is still available in many forms even today proves its still a 
> very viable processor.   Is the 6502 or any other derivatives still 
> available?

Now, I rather prefer the '02 to the Z80.

I know there are still 6502 derivatives being sold, the 65C02 and 65C816 
from Western Design Center, and they're working on the 65T32, the 
long-awaited 32-bit successor to the 65816...

-uso.
0
Lyrical
12/23/2005 4:24:33 AM
Tarquin Mills wrote:
> In message <1135227167.582640.13200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> Anoneds wrote:
> 
>>Tarquin Mills wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>Like Starglider I am still waiting for Whetstone, Dhrystone 2.1 and
>>>any other benchmark results for the C=64 (especially interesting that
>>>you think it cannot be beaten by the Spectrum). Atari 800 owners have
>>>yet to submit a single result!!!!
>>>
>>>Table still stands at:
>>>                BogoMips  Dhrystone  Whetstones
>>>                  in C    1.1 in C      MIPS
>>>                          Vax Mips    in BASIC (interpreted)
>>>PC XT           0.02      0.19-0.23    0.0015
>>>ZX-Spectrum     0.0154     ??????      0.00052
>>>C=64            0.0033     0.0205       ?????
>>>Atari 800       ????????  ?????????  ??????????
>>>
>>>The fastest computer so far is the Sinclair ZX Spectrum.
>>>The annual contest between the C=64 and Spectrum can be decided by
>>>an agreed scoring system of how good each computer was. Once this is
>>>done other computers can be scored as well.
>>>
>>
>>Where's the code at? I assume, since we aren't talking asm here, that
>>we all need to run standardized code, at least within the limits of our
>>compilers/interpreters?
>>
>>Seen code for BogoMips on the Sinclair group, downloaded it, have it
>>stuck somewhere on here, but if you can point to all just so I can make
>>sure that I'm wasting my time necessarily (instead of wasting my time
>>unnecessarily). Not that it makes any difference...
> 
> 
> The URI for the source is 
> http://www.speccyverse.me.uk/comp/accus/spectrum/64vZX.zip
> The ZX BASIC version of Whetstone used in the official figures is not 
> available, though I could produce a new version.  

This part of the BogoMips code is rather interesting:

/*
  * This is a chronic cheat! The code is completely different and runs
  * many times quicker..<ahem>
  *
  * We could just forget it really!
  */

#ifdef Z80_DELAY
static void delay(long loops)
{
#asm
..del_loop
	call	l_declong
	ld	a,h
	or	l
	or	e
	or	d
	jp	nz,del_loop
#endasm
}
#endif

With the current BogoMips code 6502 based systems have to do with a C 
implementation of the delay() function. So it is really a 6502 
C-compiler test against hand crafted Z80 assembly code, in other words a 
rather meaningless comparision. I wonder what the scores would be if a 
6502 assembly implementation of the delay() function is used.

0
Peter
12/23/2005 10:20:29 AM
The Starglider wrote:

>>>>Well, depends how you define "SLOOOOOOW". The C2N I (still) have 
>>>>transfers reliably about 0.5 KiB/s I don't know the exact numbers for 
>>>>the Speccy but remembering the load times my Spectrum friends were 
>>>>required to wait, I guesstimate it was about the same or perhaps even 
>>>>slower. Do you have the numbers at hand?
>>>
>>>IIRC correctly, the default baud rate of the spectrum load/save routines was at
>>>1500. Approximately a 48k program would load in about 3.5 minutes (give or take,
>>
>>That actually confirms what was my impression from many years ago that 
>>Spectrum load times were even somewhat longer than the most popular tape 
>>format on the 64. I guess there weren't many tape speeder loaders (due 
>>to limited reliability of the audio method) that would load much faster?
> 
> 
> Oh there were plenty of speed loaders,

The keyword was "much" faster - like e.g. five times or so although two 
three times is already something, taking into account that the original 
speed wasn't so low.

> some of them really pushing it for
> reliability IMHO. I was just quoting the default. After a couple of years
> though, speedloaders was way more the norm than default speed loaders.
> 
> the longest loader I know of (and this is for the 128k version of the game) is
> ironically Starglider, and that takes 12 minutes. There doesn't seem to be any
> major compression involved there, and it's at default speeds.
> 
> Another 128k game (off the top of my head) that did use speed loading was Combat
> School, and that took about 6.5 minutes.

OK. So the fast loader required 6.5 minutes to load a 128KiB (assuming 
that it had to load the full 128KiB - which probably wasn't true) and I 
just measured 34KiB of a game file loaded in 75secs, using the most 
popular and highly reliable tape format on the 64. That would translate 
into about 4.7 minutes for _full_ 128KiB. Does that really mean the 64's 
tape was "SLOOOOOOW" when compared to the Spectrum?

0
silverdr
12/23/2005 10:44:30 AM
"silverdr" <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote in message
news:43abd50b$1@news.inet.com.pl

> > Another 128k game (off the top of my head) that did use speed loading was Combat
> > School, and that took about 6.5 minutes.
> 
> OK. So the fast loader required 6.5 minutes to load a 128KiB (assuming 
> that it had to load the full 128KiB - which probably wasn't true) and I 
> just measured 34KiB of a game file loaded in 75secs, using the most 
> popular and highly reliable tape format on the 64. That would translate 
> into about 4.7 minutes for _full_ 128KiB. Does that really mean the 64's 
> tape was "SLOOOOOOW" when compared to the Spectrum?

You're not comparing like for like.

Generate one block of data, time it, and see how it goes.


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
0
Nick
12/23/2005 11:10:09 AM
I thought the C64 had a 300baud tape connection and spectrum tapes
where recorded at ~1500baud?  Since a bit is 8bits on both machines
isn't this a direct comparison?

sparkes

0
stephen
12/23/2005 11:27:58 AM
stephen.par...@gmail.com wrote:
> I thought the C64 had a 300baud tape connection and spectrum tapes
> where recorded at ~1500baud?  Since a bit is 8bits on both machines
> isn't this a direct comparison?

s/bit /byte /g

0
stephen
12/23/2005 11:32:10 AM
"stephen.parkes" <stephen.parkes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135337278.705159.254410@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> I thought the C64 had a 300baud tape connection and spectrum tapes
> where recorded at ~1500baud?  Since a bit is 8bits on both machines
> isn't this a direct comparison?

Yes, making the Spectrum far quicker at loading raw data.

However, if you were to introduce the various fast loaders into the mix,
then you really need to do your timings using the exact same raw data
from the start.


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
0
Nick
12/23/2005 11:35:08 AM
stephen.parkes@gmail.com wrote:
> I thought the C64 had a 300baud tape connection and spectrum tapes
> where recorded at ~1500baud?  Since a bit is 8bits on both machines
> isn't this a direct comparison?

The =speed is governed in both cases, that's not as fast as the link can 
actually run at and some C64 tape fastloaders claim 8 to 10 times the 
transfer rate with a good reliability record.  Part of the problem in the 
C64's case is Commodore's over-cautious nature (yet again) because the stock 
tape system saves *two* copies of each file for verification rather than 
using more sensible checksums, recode that bit alone and it's a significant 
change in speed.  One of the fastest doesn't have a name that i'm aware 
(http://tapes.c64.no/ just calls it the Martech loader) and is used on the 
original and Mastertronic re-releases of Crazy Comets; the entire load, from 
pressing play on tape to the Hubbard soundtrack starting, takes about one 
minute and ten seconds.
-- 
     ______________________________  _________________________________
    /                             /\/  ___/     /  ___/  /     /  ___/\
   / Website:  www.cosine.org.uk / /  /\_/  /  /__   /  /  /  /  __/\\/
  / ICQ: 44373717 IRC: TMR{C0S} / /  /__/  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /\
/_____________________________/ /_____/_____/_____/__/__/__/_____/ /
\_____________________________\/\_____\_____\_____\__\__\__\_____\/TMR
0
Jason
12/23/2005 12:21:32 PM
Peter van Merkerk wrote:
> Tarquin Mills wrote:
> > In message <1135227167.582640.13200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > Anoneds wrote:
> >
> >>Tarquin Mills wrote:
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>Like Starglider I am still waiting for Whetstone, Dhrystone 2.1 and
> >>>any other benchmark results for the C=64 (especially interesting that
> >>>you think it cannot be beaten by the Spectrum). Atari 800 owners have
> >>>yet to submit a single result!!!!
> >>>
> >>>Table still stands at:
> >>>                BogoMips  Dhrystone  Whetstones
> >>>                  in C    1.1 in C      MIPS
> >>>                          Vax Mips    in BASIC (interpreted)
> >>>PC XT           0.02      0.19-0.23    0.0015
> >>>ZX-Spectrum     0.0154     ??????      0.00052
> >>>C=64            0.0033     0.0205       ?????
> >>>Atari 800       ????????  ?????????  ??????????
> >>>
> >>>The fastest computer so far is the Sinclair ZX Spectrum.
> >>>The annual contest between the C=64 and Spectrum can be decided by
> >>>an agreed scoring system of how good each computer was. Once this is
> >>>done other computers can be scored as well.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Where's the code at? I assume, since we aren't talking asm here, that
> >>we all need to run standardized code, at least within the limits of our
> >>compilers/interpreters?
> >>
> >>Seen code for BogoMips on the Sinclair group, downloaded it, have it
> >>stuck somewhere on here, but if you can point to all just so I can make
> >>sure that I'm wasting my time necessarily (instead of wasting my time
> >>unnecessarily). Not that it makes any difference...
> >
> >
> > The URI for the source is
> > http://www.speccyverse.me.uk/comp/accus/spectrum/64vZX.zip
> > The ZX BASIC version of Whetstone used in the official figures is not
> > available, though I could produce a new version.
>
> This part of the BogoMips code is rather interesting:
>
> /*
>   * This is a chronic cheat! The code is completely different and runs
>   * many times quicker..<ahem>
>   *
>   * We could just forget it really!
>   */
>
> #ifdef Z80_DELAY
> static void delay(long loops)
> {
> #asm
> .del_loop
> 	call	l_declong
> 	ld	a,h
> 	or	l
> 	or	e
> 	or	d
> 	jp	nz,del_loop
> #endasm
> }
> #endif
>
> With the current BogoMips code 6502 based systems have to do with a C
> implementation of the delay() function. So it is really a 6502
> C-compiler test against hand crafted Z80 assembly code, in other words a
> rather meaningless comparision. I wonder what the scores would be if a
> 6502 assembly implementation of the delay() function is used.

I dunno, in looking over the code, if it is compiled as written (there
is no #define Z80_DELAY), it will use the "portable version" as that is
devined at top of source...

Take a look at it, it looks like even Linux is tuned to use an asm
version with the proper define "CLASSIC_BOGOMIPS" (if that is what that
crud evaluates to, guessing based on the 'asm' and the 'ax'). So
apparently, we all need to add an asm version to replace the portable
version for each microprocessor we run it on!

Here is the code (it ain't as long as most messages on alt.lang.asm ;):

/*
 *                Standalone BogoMips program
 *
 * Based on code Linux kernel code in init/main.c and
 * include/linux/delay.h
 *
 * For more information on interpreting the results, see the BogoMIPS
 * Mini-HOWTO document.
 *
 * version: 1.3
 *  author: Jeff Tranter (Jeff_Tranter@Mitel.COM)
 *
 * djm 20/3/2000
 * Made a little bit more relevent for 8 bit machines in the printing
 * stage...should be right!
 */

#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>

#define PORTABLE_BOGOMIPS

#ifdef CLASSIC_BOGOMIPS
/* the original code from the Linux kernel */
static __inline__ void delay(int loops)
{
  __asm__(".align 2,0x90\n1:\tdecl %0\n\tjns 1b": :"a" (loops):"ax");
}
#endif

#ifdef QNX_BOGOMIPS
/* version for QNX C compiler */
void delay(int loops);
#pragma aux delay = \
     "l1:"       \
     "dec eax"   \
     "jns l1"    \
     parm nomemory [eax] modify exact nomemory [eax];
#endif

#ifdef PORTABLE_BOGOMIPS
/* portable version */
static void delay(long loops)
{
  long i;
  for (i = loops; i != 0 ; i--)
    ;
}
#endif

/*
 * This is a chronic cheat! The code is completely different and runs
 * many times quicker..<ahem>
 *
 * We could just forget it really!
 */

#ifdef Z80_DELAY
static void delay(long loops)
{
#asm
..del_loop
	call	l_declong
	ld	a,h
	or	l
	or	e
	or	d
	jp	nz,del_loop
#endasm
}
#endif


int
main(void)
{
  unsigned long loops_per_sec = 1;
  unsigned long ticks;
  unsigned long bogo;
  unsigned long sub;

  printf("Calibrating delay loop.. ");
  fflush(stdout);

  while ((loops_per_sec <<= 1)) {
    ticks = clock();
    delay(loops_per_sec);
    ticks = clock() - ticks;
    if (ticks >= CLOCKS_PER_SEC) {
      loops_per_sec = (loops_per_sec / ticks) * CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
      bogo = loops_per_sec/500000L;
      sub = loops_per_sec/5000L;
      sub %=100;
      printf("ok - %lu.%s%lu BogoMips\n",
			bogo,
			(sub<10)?"0":"",
			sub
		);
      printf("loops_per_sec=%lu\n",loops_per_sec);
      return 0;
    }
  }
  printf("failed\n");
  return -1;
}

0
anoneds
12/23/2005 1:59:06 PM
Nick Humphries wrote:

> 
>>>Another 128k game (off the top of my head) that did use speed loading was Combat
>>>School, and that took about 6.5 minutes.
>>
>>OK. So the fast loader required 6.5 minutes to load a 128KiB (assuming 
>>that it had to load the full 128KiB - which probably wasn't true) and I 
>>just measured 34KiB of a game file loaded in 75secs, using the most 
>>popular and highly reliable tape format on the 64. That would translate 
>>into about 4.7 minutes for _full_ 128KiB. Does that really mean the 64's 
>>tape was "SLOOOOOOW" when compared to the Spectrum?
> 
> 
> You're not comparing like for like.
> 
> Generate one block of data, time it, and see how it goes.
> 

I don't get it. I compare loading a game with loadng a game so what's 
the problem?
0
silverdr
12/23/2005 2:14:54 PM
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, silverdr wrote:

> Nick Humphries wrote:

>> You're not comparing like for like.
>> 
>> Generate one block of data, time it, and see how it goes.
>
> I don't get it. I compare loading a game with loadng a game so what's the 
> problem?

Because they're the same only in name. If you want to compare loading 
speeds then you need to know the size of the data being loaded and the 
time it took to load, and you need it either as one block of data or split 
up into the same number of blocks, otherwise other factors come into play, 
like the size of the empty gaps between blocks of data on the tape, the 
overhead of closing one block of data and opening another, etc, etc.

Saying "the C128 version of Combat School loaded faster than the Spectrum 
128 version, therefore C128 tape loading is faster" is silly as they're 
two different sets of data with two different arrangements of data on the 
tape, and that's even before taking into account HOW each block of data 
is stored on the tape.

So, go grab a data file, preferably something realistic like an image, 
somthing that won't compress to nothing like a text file, then save that 
to tape on a C= and Spectrum using any loader you want, THEN do the 
comparison. Otherwise you're just sticking your finger in the wind and 
saying what you like the sound of.

-- 
Nick Humphries, via OBD
Your Sinclair Rock'n'Roll Years - http://www.ysrnry.co.uk
YSRnRY documentary - http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/tvprog/
The Tipshop - http://www.the-tipshop.co.uk/

0
Nick
12/23/2005 2:35:17 PM
Nick Humphries, via obd wrote:

>>> You're not comparing like for like.
>>>
>>> Generate one block of data, time it, and see how it goes.
>>
>> I don't get it. I compare loading a game with loadng a game so what's 
>> the problem?
> 
> Because they're the same only in name. If you want to compare loading 
> speeds then you need to know the size of the data being loaded and the 
> time it took to load,

Isn't that what I wrote? I don't know exactly what was the data size of 
the game in question on the Spectrum but I do know what's the exact size 
on the 64. Therefore with this I even gave a handicap to the 64 by 
assuming that the data loaded by the Spectrum was full 128KiB.

> and you need it either as one block of data or 
> split up into the same number of blocks, otherwise other factors come 
> into play, like the size of the empty gaps between blocks of data on the 
> tape, the overhead of closing one block of data and opening another, 
> etc, etc.

Well, the most popular tape format used by the 64 was to store the whole 
prg as a single file / single block of data. This was the most efficient 
way so why to use other? OK. I know what the difference is and I agree 
that for scientific comparison there should be more scientific methods 
employed. But...

> 
> Saying "the C128 version of Combat School loaded faster than the 
> Spectrum 128 version, therefore C128 tape loading is faster" is silly as 
> they're two different sets of data with two different arrangements of 
> data on the tape, and that's even before taking into account HOW each 
> block of data is stored on the tape.

.... but if you read my posts on that, you will notice that I never said 
which one was faster, right? What I wrote was a question that can be 
paraphrased as: If a 64 can load 128KiB in under five minutes using a 
most commonly used tape loader (which it can) does that really mean that 
its tape transfer abilities can be described as "SLOOOOOOW" when 
compared to what Spectrum is capable of?

> 
> So, go grab a data file, preferably something realistic like an image, 
> somthing that won't compress to nothing like a text file,

Why? Does it matter? Do the Spectrum tape routines do compression on the 
fly?

> then save that 
> to tape on a C= and Spectrum using any loader you want, THEN do the 
> comparison. Otherwise you're just sticking your finger in the wind and 
> saying what you like the sound of.
> 

No I am not. I just gave the specs on the most common tape format on the 
64 and am still waiting for the answer from Starglider if that can 
seriously be called "SLOOOOOOW" (when compared to the Speccy) - one of 
the couple of those uncomfortable answers I didn't get.
0
silverdr
12/23/2005 4:50:29 PM
Nick Humphries wrote:

> 
> Yes, making the Spectrum far quicker at loading raw data.
> 

What is "raw data" in this context?

> However, if you were to introduce the various fast loaders into the mix,
> then you really need to do your timings using the exact same raw data
> from the start.

Why? Do they compress on the fly? Do they take significantly different 
amount of time to load 0s and 1s? Or?
0
silverdr
12/23/2005 5:16:05 PM
silverdr  writes
>Nick Humphries, via obd wrote:

>>  So, go grab a data file, preferably something realistic like an 
>>image,  somthing that won't compress to nothing like a text file,
>
>Why? Does it matter? Do the Spectrum tape routines do compression on 
>the fly?

They don't - although that may have been a good idea. I think that 
Commodore and Sinclair produced two reliable tape systems under 
circumstances that were far from ideal. Programs saved to and loaded 
from the same tape recorder would be more reliable than commercial 
offerings although the quality of the latter improved greatly.

There is always a playoff between speed and reliability and as both 
Sinclair and Commodore had two better systems in the pipeline a reliable 
tape format was preferable to a faster one.

In July of this year I had a short article on ZX Spectrum loading 
printed in the UK Daily Mail and although this newspaper has a 
circulation of 2.5 million it is mainly available in the UK so I 
reproduce it here -

Q. Playing on my ZX Spectrum recently, I began to wonder how the games 
load. Does the computer somehow translate the strange high pitched 
sounds recorded on the game cassettes?

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

A. Further to an earlier answer, the binary digits are recorded on tape 
as a period of sound followed by a similar period of sound off. A binary 
1 uses a period twice as long as a binary 0. The ZX Spectrum measures 
the gaps between the changes in sound to reproduce the bits that make up 
a byte of game code. It takes 2:08 minutes to load/save a 32K block of 
zeros but 4:16 minutes to load/save a 32K block of 255s (all binary 1).
Game code typically contains a mixture of bytes so, as the previous 
reply stated, a 32K block will take about 3 minutes.

Happy Christmas one and all.

-- 
Geoff Wearmouth
0
Geoff
12/23/2005 5:50:43 PM
anoneds@netscape.net wrote:
>>With the current BogoMips code 6502 based systems have to do with a C
>>implementation of the delay() function. So it is really a 6502
>>C-compiler test against hand crafted Z80 assembly code, in other words a
>>rather meaningless comparision. I wonder what the scores would be if a
>>6502 assembly implementation of the delay() function is used.
> 
> I dunno, in looking over the code, if it is compiled as written (there
> is no #define Z80_DELAY), it will use the "portable version" as that is
> devined at top of source...
> 
> Take a look at it, it looks like even Linux is tuned to use an asm
> version with the proper define "CLASSIC_BOGOMIPS" (if that is what that
> crud evaluates to, guessing based on the 'asm' and the 'ax'). So
> apparently, we all need to add an asm version to replace the portable
> version for each microprocessor we run it on!

Agreed; BogoMips is based on the assumption that each iteration of the 
delay loop takes two instructions. This isn't true for the Z80 assembly 
version, and is most certainly not true for the C compiled 6502 version.

With CC65 (a C compiler for 6502 based systems), the C64 gets a score of 
0.0036 BogoMips. In other words according to this test a C64 executes 
only 3600 instructions per second. The 6502 may be slow, but not that 
slow. The code CC65 generates for the delay() function is quite 
horrible. The 6502 not ideal for compiled languages, and strugles with 
long data types.

My 6502 coding skills are a bit rusty (at has been at least 15 years 
now). But when I replace the C version with a 6502 assembly version (the 
code below can be compiled with CC65), the C64 version achieves a score 
of 0.36 BogoMips (100 times better than the C version). I expect the Z80 
version can be improved too; a Z80@3.5MHz should be quite a bit faster 
than a 6502@1MHz. However BogoMips remains a rather pointless test.

static void delay(long loops)
{
   asm("ldy #3");
   asm("lda (sp),y");
   asm("sta ptr1+1");
   asm("dey");
   asm("lda (sp),y");
   asm("sta ptr1");
   asm("dey");
   asm("lda (sp),y");
   asm("tax");
   asm("dey");
   asm("lda (sp),y");
   asm("tay");

   asm("beq %g", L2);
L1a:
   asm("dey");
   asm("bne %g", L1a);

L2:
   asm("cpx #$00");
   asm("beq %g", L3);
L2a:
   asm("dex");
   asm("jmp %g", L1a);

L3:
   asm("lda ptr1");
   asm("beq %g", L4);
L3a:
   asm("dec ptr1");
   asm("jmp %g", L2a);

L4:
   asm("lda ptr1+1");
   asm("beq %g", end);
   asm("dec ptr1+1");
   asm("jmp %g", L3a);

end:
}
0
Peter
12/23/2005 6:07:11 PM
Geoff Wearmouth wrote:

> 
>>>  So, go grab a data file, preferably something realistic like an 
>>> image,  somthing that won't compress to nothing like a text file,
>>
>>
>> Why? Does it matter? Do the Spectrum tape routines do compression on 
>> the fly?
> 

[...]

> A. Further to an earlier answer, the binary digits are recorded on tape 
> as a period of sound followed by a similar period of sound off. A binary 
> 1 uses a period twice as long as a binary 0. The ZX Spectrum measures 
> the gaps between the changes in sound to reproduce the bits that make up 
> a byte of game code. It takes 2:08 minutes to load/save a 32K block of 
> zeros but 4:16 minutes to load/save a 32K block of 255s (all binary 1).
> Game code typically contains a mixture of bytes so, as the previous 
> reply stated, a 32K block will take about 3 minutes.

This is rather an answer to my other post where I asked if there is a 
significant difference on the spectrum between tape transferring 1s and 
0s but not to the question why shouldn't one use a text file for test.

> 
> Happy Christmas one and all.
> 

Merry one.
0
silverdr
12/23/2005 6:16:16 PM
silverdr writes

>This is rather an answer to my other post where I asked if there is a 
>significant difference on the spectrum between tape transferring 1s and 
>0s but not to the question why shouldn't one use a text file for test.

Yes I remember seeing that in Google but I could not find it among these 
450 other posts :-)

Perhaps I should have started a new thread but tolerance to cross-posts 
is at an all time low and I notice that the anagram troll is lurking in 
comp.sys.cbm.

But the answer is yes - zeros load/save twice as fast.

How does the c64 fare. Is it the same regardless of the byte/bit being 
saved?

>Merry one.

God bless us every one!

Peace in com.sys.*

-- 
Geoff Wearmouth
0
Geoff
12/23/2005 6:34:41 PM
Peter van Merkerk wrote:
<snip>
> However BogoMips remains a rather pointless test.

After a little testing this morning, I'm inclined to waste no more time
on it.

Compiled for my 450 mhz PII on Fedora Core 2, it gave 118. The one with
this release gave 884...

so the name isn't all that misleading, but it would be a waste of time
(to try porting to a machine with a weak small-C compiler, on my part,
or to use a C compiler that produces non-optimal code, thus becoming a
test of compilers like Magervalp stated some messages back).

It is bad enough that I don't do any PRODUCTIVE programming anymore,
but finally I am growing tired of non-productive stuff like this!

0
anoneds
12/23/2005 6:48:51 PM
I demand that silverdr may or may not have written...

> Nick Humphries wrote:
>> Yes, making the Spectrum far quicker at loading raw data.

> What is "raw data" in this context?

Something written to tape via the SAVE command or the corresponding ROM
routines would fit.

>> However, if you were to introduce the various fast loaders into the mix,
>> then you really need to do your timings using the exact same raw data from
>> the start.

> Why? Do they compress on the fly?

Decompress, surely :-)

Some limited RLE could be done while loading, subject to data rate and
polling requirements. Decompression would otherwise be done after the data
block is loaded.

> Do they take significantly different amount of time to load 0s and 1s? Or?

Yes: a 1 takes twice the time of a 0.

-- 
| Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk
| RISC OS,    | Northumberland | s zap,tartarus,org
| Linux       | Toon Army      | @
|   Kill all extremists!

A project not worth doing at all is not worth doing well.
0
Darren
12/23/2005 8:54:50 PM
I demand that Daniel Mandic may or may not have written...

> Darren Salt wrote:
>> Er... Virtual Acorn or Red Squirrel should be adequate, assuming Windows
>> (although I recall seeing something recently about a VA port to Mac OS X).
>> For Linux and other *nix-type systems, there's arcem.

>>   <url: http://www.virtualacorn.co.uk/index2.htm>
>>   <url: http://www.redsquirrel.fsnet.co.uk/home/home.html>
>>   <url: http://arcem.sourceforge.net/>

>> Questions about these, where not answered by an FAQ list or search engine,
>> should go to one of the comp.sys.acorn groups; probably .misc.

> Thanks for that.

> Getting the ROMs was already difficult. But I have no clue how to find
> !System, !Boot and !Scrap. FTP at Acorn is password protected :-(

<URL:http://acorn.riscos.com/riscos/releases/UniBoot/>

> Can't I start with an ADF-File alone?

Probably...

> Like the Amiga, just to watch a Demo and listen to that mysterious
> soundgenerator. Or do you now a *-command to boot from floppy?

On a real system, to have it automatically boot from floppy:
  *Configure FileSystem ADFS
  *Configure Drive 0
  *Configure Boot

Make sure that the disk is inserted and has a file or application named
!Boot.

  *Dir ADFS::0.$
  *Opt 4 2

Similar instructions apply for booting from hard disk.

> Info is scarce and very specific.

Like the above? ;-)

> Actual System, yes?

The machine from which I sent this is your actual lesser spotted Acorn
hardware...

> Although, I would like to see it in Action. Don't worry I will not resell
> my Virtual-Acorn Archimedes ;-)

:-)

-- 
| Darren Salt | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | nr. Ashington,
| RISC OS,    | s zap,tartarus,org            | Northumberland
| Linux       | @                             | Toon Army
|   Let's keep the pound sterling

"Intel" isn't even halfway to intelligence.
0
news64 (1253)
12/23/2005 9:06:29 PM
I demand that Daniel Mandic may or may not have written...

> Daniel Mandic wrote:
>> Info is scarce and very specific. Actual System, yes?

> I have 3.1 and 3.7 Roms. I hope I do not miss something with the A440 Os3.1
> emulated, compared to the A3000.

Not really, though you need Risc PC or A7000 emulation to be able to use RISC
OS 3.70.

BTW, is that 3.10 or 3.11?

-- 
| Darren Salt | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | nr. Ashington,
| RISC OS,    | s zap,tartarus,org            | Northumberland
| Linux       | @                             | Toon Army
|   I don't ask for much, just untold riches...

Nothing is skinnier than nothing.
0
news64 (1253)
12/23/2005 9:15:35 PM
Darren Salt wrote:


> 
> BTW, is that 3.10 or 3.11?


I have no clue. Sometimes it�s refered to 3.11 and then 3.10 :-)
Probably the same.


Yes, A7000 is working with that filelink you gave me.




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
12/24/2005 1:15:39 AM
Darren Salt wrote:


> 
> <url: http://acorn.riscos.com/riscos/releases/UniBoot/>
> 

Thank you very much for your efforts.

I already tried the Emulator... RiscOS3.7   wow!

> On a real system, to have it automatically boot from floppy:
>   *Configure FileSystem ADFS
>   *Configure Drive 0
>   *Configure Boot
> 
> Make sure that the disk is inserted and has a file or application
> named !Boot.
> 
>   *Dir ADFS::0.$
>   *Opt 4 2
> 
> Similar instructions apply for booting from hard disk.
> 

Oh, well. It�s possible to start it now from the workbench (:0), as it
is suggested everywhere.

> > Info is scarce and very specific.
> 
> Like the above? ;-)
> 

No, but nothing to find for absolute beginners. It is written in the
standard-manual, of course. Maybe I should have searched for a manual
;-)
 
> > Actual System, yes?
> 
> The machine from which I sent this is your actual lesser spotted Acorn
> hardware...
> 

Well, this machine reminds me well to the AMIGA, though it is more
powerful and actual. RiscOS5 etc.
Emulating it is a shame :-) I reach here 15Mips with a P1083, but far
away from the real stuff (crashing, jerking...). Sound seems to be
emulated correctly, so far (it�s 3 or 4 O�clock a.m.).

> > Although, I would like to see it in Action. Don't worry I will not
> > resell my Virtual-Acorn Archimedes ;-)
> 
> :-)

The Ultimate Collection (220MB) is on it�s way :-) 
I will watch trough that a whit, and will like to tell you once more
how the Sound is doing.





Kind Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
12/24/2005 1:36:05 AM

> From: Tarquin Mills <accus@use.net>
> Organization: NTL
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.sinclair,comp.sys.cbm,comp.sys.atari.8bit
> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:16:16 GMT
> Subject: Re: The C=64 rules or does it?
> 
> In message <zlGpf.1277$1Y4.98060@news20.bellglobal.com>
> Axell <Axell@nosp.no.no.no> wrote:
>> The Starglider wrote:
>>> Do remember that the article only covers from a US perspective. If
>>> a UK/Europe perspective was conducted, the chart would be VERY
>>> different in the 8-bit era.
>> 
>> # of Doorstops vs country (relative percentage - commodore)
> [snip]
>> I guess that you can turn place mats and doorstops into something
>> usefully makes for ingenuity.   Take pride!
> 
> From the C=64 v Speccy Flame War FAQ
> http://www.speccyverse.me.uk/comp/accus/spectrum/
> 
> Q1.1 The ZX Spectrum can be used as a door stop?
> 1.2 Did the ZX Spectrum normally use REM statements to store machine code?
> A1. People who say this are thinking of the ZX81 or (TS1000 which is a
> ZX81 clone) these are not Spectrums. While the ZX81 may be wedge
> shaped it will definitely not fit under a door.
> 
> Software base for the ZX Spectrum
> 9968 WoS archive minus type-ins, demos, compilations, covertapes
> +1592 MIA
> +1707 demos 
> +3513 magazine type-ins (from TTFN, includes ZX81 etc)
> +Timex (50+)
> +books type-ins (500+)
> +other magazines (fanzines, non-UK etc) type-ins
> +cover tape programs, disczines
> +PD libraries (1000+)
> +CP/M (10,000+)
> +hacked software
> +other operating systems software and emulators
> +compatible programs (Pascal, Forth, BASIC, Basicode, C etc)
> +misc
> -duplicates
> ========
> Total >30000 (easily)
> 
> There are over 4000 piece of music for downloading, and many graphic screens
> as well.
> 
> The floppy disk drive speed of the MB-02 is 40-50KBs according to the
> manufacturer 8bc.
> 
> The DTV uses a Kempston style stick which created the standard for joystick
> interfaces for the ZX Spectrum, why does it not use a Commodore joystick
> or are they the same. The best interface for playing games is a keyboard
> and the range of game styles must be limited by only having a joystick as the
> input method. JSW was easier to control on keyboard than joystick.
> 
> Like Starglider I am still waiting for Whetstone, Dhrystone 2.1 and
> any other benchmark results for the C=64 (especially interesting that
> you think it cannot be beaten by the Spectrum). Atari 800 owners have
> yet to submit a single result!!!!
> 
> Table still stands at:
> BogoMips  Dhrystone  Whetstones
> in C    1.1 in C      MIPS
> Vax Mips    in BASIC (interpreted)
> PC XT           0.02      0.19-0.23    0.0015
> ZX-Spectrum     0.0154     ??????      0.00052
> C=64            0.0033     0.0205       ?????
> Atari 800       ????????  ?????????  ??????????
> 
> The fastest computer so far is the Sinclair ZX Spectrum.
> The annual contest between the C=64 and Spectrum can be decided by
> an agreed scoring system of how good each computer was. Once this is
> done other computers can be scored as well.
> 
> -- 
> Changing MicrosOFT into Micros and OFT (Office of Fair Trading)
> http://www.petitiononline.com/oftsucks/  Make the OFT investigate MS Petition
> Reboot Movement (An Anti-Wintel Campaign)
> http://www.speccyverse.me.uk/comp/reboot/

Technical specifications aside, the Commodore 64 was one of the ugliest
8-bit computers ever produced.  Personally, I was partial to the aesthetic
style of the Atari XL series computers.  The Commodore Vic-20 and 64
computers were really ugly in that retro DEC meets the eighties kind of way.
The later 64C and 128 models were a huge improvement as far as physical form
factor went.  The 1541 disk drive looked to seventies disco era.  The Atari
400 and 800 computers wer not much better, but the XL line did have a rather
appealing nouveau industrial look.  The later XE line blended sleek design
with that wonderful "cheap tramiel crap" look of the mid-eighties.

The TI 99/4a was something that only a true geek could love.  And the Timex
Sinclair?  Well, let's just flip that page in the personal computer jistory
books.  Oh, let's not forget the Tandy offerings?  Those insanely priced
paperweights had all the appeal of a techno-nympho...  You knew you were
getting screwed if you were contemplating one of those dinosaurs.

Anyway... To each their own...

0
You
12/24/2005 1:48:33 AM

> From: "David Bowden" <nospam@spamsux.org>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.8bit
> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:15:32 -0600
> Subject: Re: The C=64 rules or does it?
> 
> 
> "lp" <GfA@MiNT.Net> wrote in message news:BFCF4921.21821%GfA@MiNT.Net...
>> in article pan.2005.12.21.22.17.16.32245@charter.net, Ronald J. Hall wrote
>> on 12/21/05 5:17 PM:
>> 
>>> Still waiting for these threads to quit being posted to
>>> comp.sys.atari.8bit!
>>> 
>>> I can only assume at this point, that C64 owners and Spectrum owners, in
>>> these threads, are damn fools and don't know how to stop crossposting.
>> 
>> Same here.
>> 
>>> (I deliberately crossposted to make sure this point is getting across.
>>> Something that I very much don't do normally)
>> 
>> I keep killing entire threads, and they keep renaming them.   ;-P
> 
> These threads are nothing more than a geriatric dick waving contest. These
> machines were outdated 20 years ago, but that has nothing to do with why I
> keep my Atari around. It's the machine I gew up with. It was my first
> computer. That's all the reason I need to keep playing around with it. :)
> 


Glad you came in and waved your dick.  Gee, does this qualify as a party
now?  A dick waving party...  Gotta love it!   Hey, where's the beer and
popcorn?



>> 
>> -- 
>> FreeMiNT    http://sparemint.atariforge.net/sparemint/ [Free your mind...]
>> Atari Team  http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30472
>> L. Pursell  http://www.bright.net/~gfabasic/ [AtarIRC, GFA-Basic,
>> Hades060]
>> 
>> 
> -- 
> David Bowden
> The Undead Mechanic.
> 
> AIM & Yahoo: UndeadMechanic
> 
> SPAM PROOF EMAIL ADDRESS: same as yahoo/AIM *AT* comcast *DOT* net
> 
> 

0
You
12/24/2005 1:54:29 AM
<anoneds@netscape.net> wrote ...
>
> Peter van Merkerk wrote:
> <snip>
>> However BogoMips remains a rather pointless test.
>
> After a little testing this morning, I'm inclined to waste no more time
> on it.

I think I'm beginning to understand what BogoMIP's are.  Someone shortened
Bogus MIP's to BoguMIP's, but made a typo and it became BogoMIP's.

Yes, it is a useless measure.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!



0
Sam
12/24/2005 6:55:24 AM
"You" wrote ...
>
> Technical specifications aside, the Commodore 64 was one of the ugliest
> 8-bit computers ever produced.

That is largely a matter of taste.  A lot of people found the supermodel
Twiggy attractive.  Personally, I saw her as sort of ugly.

Although I think the later C64c was better looking, I think the
breadbox C64 also looked OK.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!




0
Sam
12/24/2005 6:55:24 AM
Geoff Wearmouth wrote:

>
> But the answer is yes - zeros load/save twice as fast.
>

By Christmas Day I should have finished my speed loader which will
allow all games to save to tape using between zero and a couple of
seconds flat by use of an ingeniuous, if slightly lossy, compression
algorthim.

First you round each bit down then run length encode the resulting file
to a 64bit int (to allow for future expansion, let nobody tell me I
don't think of the future), simply save the resulting file to tape as
normal.

Not sure when the speed loader will be finished but early April is
looking good.

sparkes
merry middle of winter to all in the northern hemisphere, and jammy
bastards to everyone else.

0
stephen
12/24/2005 11:03:48 AM
Peter van Merkerk wrote:
> I expect the Z80
> version can be improved too; a Z80@3.5MHz should be quite a bit faster
> than a 6502@1MHz. However BogoMips remains a rather pointless test.
>

That's what the Bogo stands for ;-)

Although it's an interesting exercise I think the people who pointed
out bogomips would be a good benchmark where taking the piss, the
spectrum will make the c64 look like a pocket calculator using cpu
benchmarks.

That said the spectrum still rules and you knows it :-P

sparkes

0
sparkes
12/24/2005 11:10:10 AM
sparkes wrote:
> That said the spectrum still rules and you knows it :-P

[Bzzzzzt] wrong answer. =-)
-- 
     ______________________________  _________________________________
    /                             /\/  ___/     /  ___/  /     /  ___/\
   / Website:  www.cosine.org.uk / /  /\_/  /  /__   /  /  /  /  __/\\/
  / ICQ: 44373717 IRC: TMR{C0S} / /  /__/  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /\
/_____________________________/ /_____/_____/_____/__/__/__/_____/ /
\_____________________________\/\_____\_____\_____\__\__\__\_____\/TMR
0
Jason
12/24/2005 11:55:55 AM
Geoff Wearmouth wrote:

>> This is rather an answer to my other post where I asked if there is a 
>> significant difference on the spectrum between tape transferring 1s 
>> and 0s but not to the question why shouldn't one use a text file for 
>> test.
> 
> 
> Yes I remember seeing that in Google but I could not find it among these 
> 450 other posts :-)
> 
> Perhaps I should have started a new thread but tolerance to cross-posts 
> is at an all time low and I notice that the anagram troll is lurking in 
> comp.sys.cbm.
> 
> But the answer is yes - zeros load/save twice as fast.
> 
> How does the c64 fare. Is it the same regardless of the byte/bit being 
> saved?

No. As long as we use similar (in principle) technique the 0s and 1s 
can't be of the same length but the difference in the most common format 
is not 100%. It's rather that 0s are about 1/3rd faster than 1s.
0
silverdr
12/24/2005 1:15:53 PM
I demand that Daniel Mandic may or may not have written...

> Darren Salt wrote:
>> BTW, is that 3.10 or 3.11?

> I have no clue. Sometimes it�s refered to 3.11 and then 3.10 :-) Probably
> the same.

Not quite - 3.10 has a couple of bugs which are fixed in 3.11.

> Yes, A7000 is working with that filelink you gave me.

This is good :-)

-- 
| Darren Salt | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | nr. Ashington,
| RISC OS,    | s zap,tartarus,org            | Northumberland
| Linux       | @                             | Toon Army
|   Is your newsreader well behaved? <URL:http://www.gnksa.org/>

Nothing cures insomnia like the realisation that it's time to get up.
0
news64 (1253)
12/24/2005 5:33:35 PM
Darren Salt wrote:

> I demand that Daniel Mandic may or may not have written...
> 
> > Darren Salt wrote:
> >> BTW, is that 3.10 or 3.11?
> 
> > I have no clue. Sometimes it�s refered to 3.11 and then 3.10 :-)
> > Probably the same.
> 
> Not quite - 3.10 has a couple of bugs which are fixed in 3.11.
> 
> > Yes, A7000 is working with that filelink you gave me.
> 
> This is good :-)


I have changed back to A5000 and 3.1. (obviously can the A7000 work
with 3,1!?) I am working with the uniboot you gave me. The Compilation
is already here and does also have some OS-Folders named in RedSquirrel
Style. But none of them are working.

Who cares... your file works prefectly. Thanks again.



At least some adf are working....
The timing of the Acorn is wonderful. The Starting Beep is History! The
Sound is much better than I suggested.

Graphics are Arcade-Quality. And more.



I don�t know what force drove me to the C= AMIGA 500 at that time. The
A3000 was too much for me, obviously... You need to be trained in Music
just to listen, not to mention the multivoice-capabilities and the
sonor Bass.


Acorn!  Cambridge. Great Machine!





Kind Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
12/24/2005 6:22:04 PM

> From: "Sam Gillett" <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.sinclair,comp.sys.cbm,comp.sys.atari.8bit
> Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 06:55:24 GMT
> Subject: Re: The C=64 rules or does it?
> 
> 
> "You" wrote ...
>> 
>> Technical specifications aside, the Commodore 64 was one of the ugliest
>> 8-bit computers ever produced.
> 
> That is largely a matter of taste.  A lot of people found the supermodel
> Twiggy attractive.  Personally, I saw her as sort of ugly.
> 
> Although I think the later C64c was better looking, I think the
> breadbox C64 also looked OK.
> -- 

So we don't totally disagree; I think the 64c was a much better looking
machine than the 64. ;)   As for the supermodel Twiggy, I have no idea who
he/she is...  I'm guessing that my ignorance of this "supermodel" is largely
due to the fact that she *is*, as you say, sort of ugly.  Of course, this is
just conjecture on my part.

I also agree that perceptions of what is attarctive or unattractive is,
entirely subjective.

So what does it all boil down to?  Choices!  It's really all about
choices...  and that, in essence, is what makes the C64, Atari8, TRS80,
etcetera, etcetera, so attractive as a whole.  We are not forced to use
computers that we think are ugly; I chose an Atari8 because I thought the
C64 was ugly.

How fitting that I should be talking about choices at such a time in
Canadian history.  We are currently in the middle of a federal election
campaign here in Canada.   Elections, as you know, are all about choices.
We, as a people, insist on having choices.  Sometimes we can be satisfied
with just one alternative, and sometimes we need several alternatives.

I choose...   Those are probably my two favourite words.   I choose!   As a
kid I used those words quite frequently.  My parents attempted to put me in
boy scouts, and I chose otherwise.  Growing up, many people insisted that I
needed a girlfriend, but I chose otherwise.

I choose...  Yes, the Commodore 64 was vastly more popular in this neck of
the woods, but I chose otherwise.  I chose the Atari 800XL.  No one is ever
going to convince that I made the wrong choice.  No one is ever going to
convince me that I should regret my choice.

It's election time in Canada, and I'm, once again, ready to choose!

0
You
12/24/2005 7:32:52 PM
You wrote:

> I choose...   Those are probably my two favourite words.   I choose!   As

You chose to be a sad election tracking homo virgin with an Atari 800 who
cant tie a knot?

wow. :D

ps. For all Americans, this is known as humour. Move along, nothing here for
you....
0
Simon
12/25/2005 12:25:28 AM
Andrew Owen wrote:

> me an email if any programmers amongst you are interested (that
> includes anyone prepared to work on the Speccy version). All I can
> say at this point is it's a top-down RPG.


Well, and why to you take an AY-3-8912 and not the AY-3-8910 for
'Chloe'? Is there no use for the second 8bit I/O!?
Is 272K enough for an extensive RPG? (deep magic-system)


Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
0
12/25/2005 5:19:34 AM
stephen.parkes@gmail.com did eloquently scribble:
> 
> 
> 
> stephen.par...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I thought the C64 had a 300baud tape connection and spectrum tapes
>> where recorded at ~1500baud?  Since a bit is 8bits on both machines
>> isn't this a direct comparison?
> 
> s/bit /byte /g
> 

Also baud != bits per second 
Although bits per second and baud were equal in speccy tape loading.
But it doesn't need to be.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |   Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a    |
|                          | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally  coded for a 4 bit |
|            in            |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|     Computer Science     |        can't stand 1 bit of competition.       |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1
12/27/2005 7:39:33 PM
Reply: