Why was the C64 ever invented?
The Starglider
loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming experience
totally awful!
--
****************The Starglider***************** CHANGE d.c.u PART OF
* E-Mail:starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk * ADDRESS TO:
* Web site:http://www.thespian.demon.co.uk * demon.co.uk
* ADE VS. THE SPACESHIP: AN ONGOING SAGA! * TO REPLY.
* AT:www.thespian.demon.co.uk/effects.htm * _WW_
* "FANTASTIC! MARVELLOUS!" - David Darling * /_ _\
*********************************************** | O O |
___________________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo___________
David L
The Starglider <starg...@thespian.d.c.u> wrote in message
news:iZTbsGA3...@thespian.demon.co.uk...
> It truly was the most ugly, annoying piece of crap ever made. Long
> loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming experience
> totally awful!
Obviously someone was short of a breeze block?
ZeDeX82
it had no colour clash and great sound. The demo scene started on the C64
and then carried on the the amiga. You could buy a real disk drive that used
standard floppies. The commodore was probably the best 8-bit computer ever.
Well that was all a load of bolloxs. All it was there for was to make the
Speccy look great.
--
ZeDeX82
] >--- Why not visit The Speccy Zone and test your Speccy Knowledge --- < [
http://www.zedex82.redhotant.com/
"David L" <dave...@theoffice.net.spamtrap> wrote in message
news:wA4Y4.1679$fq2.2...@nnrp4.clara.net...
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> The Starglider <starg...@thespian.d.c.u> wrote in message
> news:iZTbsGA3...@thespian.demon.co.uk...
>> It truly was the most ugly, annoying piece of crap ever made. Long
>> loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming experience
>> totally awful!
> Obviously someone was short of a breeze block?
Come on now people. We *ALL* know the yanks have no concept of taste...
That's why they just lurved the Vic 20 and then the Vic 20 + (Commode 64).
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.12 GCS>$ d-(dpu) s+/- a C++ US++ P L/L+ E-- W+ N++ o+ K PS+ w-- M+/++ |
|PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ X+/X++ R+ tv+ b+ DI+ D+ G e++ h/h+ !r!| Space for hire |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Kaiser
>It truly was the most ugly, annoying piece of crap ever made. Long
>loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming experience
>totally awful!
You again. And your reason for starting *yet another* Spectrum vs. C64
flame war is what, this time?
Drop the subject. It's been beaten to death.
--
Cameron Kaiser * cka...@stockholm.ptloma.edu * posting with a Commodore 128
personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/
** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
** http://www.armory.com/~spectre/cwi/ **
The Starglider
<cka...@stockholm.ptloma.edu> writes
>The Starglider <starg...@thespian.d.c.u> writes:
>
>>It truly was the most ugly, annoying piece of crap ever made. Long
>>loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming experience
>>totally awful!
>
>You again. And your reason for starting *yet another* Spectrum vs. C64
>flame war is what, this time?
>
>Drop the subject. It's been beaten to death.
>
worthless existence.
Oh, and because of the fools who pushed me over the edge with all the
test message postings!
Andrew Owen
> In article <AW9Y4.25904$Ms1.1...@zombie.newscene.com>, Cameron Kaiser
> <cka...@stockholm.ptloma.edu> writes
>> The Starglider <starg...@thespian.d.c.u> writes:
>>
>>> It truly was the most ugly, annoying piece of crap ever made. Long
>>> loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming experience
>>> totally awful!
>>
>> You again. And your reason for starting *yet another* Spectrum vs. C64
>> flame war is what, this time?
>>
>> Drop the subject. It's been beaten to death.
>>
> Because I have yet to hear an argument that validates the C64's
> worthless existence.
It used the SID chip made by MOStech, enabling them to be produced in
greater numbers, eventually leading to the SIDstation - a great bit of kit.
or...
Without the C64 there would have been no challenge to Spectrum programmers
to stretch the system to its limits. A lot of good games on the Spectrum are
the result of programmers thinkin 'what cool thing can I put in this game
that the C64 will never be able to handle'. And the BBC was never going to
give the Speccy a run for its money at its inflated price.
> Oh, and because of the fools who pushed me over the edge with all the
> test message postings!
Can't you set your newsreader to block posts with 'test' in the subject line
(or would is it some kind of addiction)?
--
Andrew Owen
ZX Spectrum SE Technical Reference: http://www.brandnewco.org/se/
MaX
> flame war is what, this time?
Personally, whenever any flame war starts on any group, I throw the
initiators and threads like this in my killfile immediately, filtering out
their posts, and I don't have to see anything written by them again.
Reacting to their posts just makes them happy. Ignore them or filter them
out, and
they'll get mad for a while because nobody will be replying to them, and
then they'll
usually stop, because there will be no audience for them to show off to.
So... /me put <starg...@thespian.d.c.u> --> my_k/f
Equin0x
> ... set your newsreader to block posts with 'test' in the subject line
Like "GreaTEST game of all time"?
Or "Need help with TEST Match from CRL"?
Heh.
Eq.
--
Equin0x
> Come on now people. We *ALL* know the yanks have no concept of taste...
> That's why they just lurved the Vic 20 and then the Vic 20 + (Commode 64).
Anyone fancy a trip to alt.nuke.the-usa?
I hear their tea and crumpets are second to none...
Eq.
--
Jason Petersen
computers. Do they have hardware sprites, hi resolution graphics, a decent
cpu, ect. All I know is that they had a rubber keyboard.
Jason
"The Starglider" <starg...@thespian.d.c.u> wrote in message
news:iZTbsGA3...@thespian.demon.co.uk...
Andrew Owen
> Having never seen one, I would like more information about the Spectrum
> computers. Do they have hardware sprites, hi resolution graphics, a decent
> cpu, ect. All I know is that they had a rubber keyboard.
Yes, ha ha, very funny. The Speccy has got higher resolution graphics and a
better CPU than the C64, and they don't all have rubber keyboards.
Andrew Owen
in its ROM even if the BASIC was utterly useless.
/|ndy |<avanagh
May 2000 09:17:37 +0100), sefini jorgo geanyet des mani yeof do
comp.sys.sinclair, yawatina tan reek esk ZeDeX82 fornis do marikano es bono
tan el:
>How can you say the C64 was rubbish. It had a fully moving, proper keyboard,
>it had no colour clash and great sound. The demo scene started on the C64
>and then carried on the the amiga. You could buy a real disk drive that used
>standard floppies. The commodore was probably the best 8-bit computer ever.
>
>Well that was all a load of bolloxs. All it was there for was to make the
>Speccy look great.
I just want to point out, that I didn't start it this year. Honest.
Oh, and the Speccy had a disk drive that took standard (3 1/2 inch)
floppies.
/|ndy|<
--
-- /|ndy's Lo-Fi Gaming --
ABCS FAQ * Emu Newbies * Museum * Pocket Review * Speccy
-- http://andyk.spedia.net/ | Last update: 21/05/00 --
Fave game this week: Sensible Soccer - AMIGA
"Holy black hole!... I feel like a wet noodle!"
"í'm GÖNnA TH®Öw ýÖú ÎnTÖ NE×t tUë§dâý, HElLúVA Fâ$t!"
Nat Cross
Wouldn't 'plonk' be quicker to type? There again, wouldn't PLOT x,y be
quicker to type, too, than a series of 'quick' calculations followed by
a number of POKEs? Is this a case of users becoming more like their
computers? The truth must be told!
Nathan
--
YS3 - It's not that bad, really.
http://www.ys3.co.uk/
Nat Cross
>
> Who declared that the C64 was strictly a gaming computer? Most owners
> used it for other purposes as well.
But you still have those loading times. If you wanted to load *anything*
you'd have to wait so long your clothes go out of fashion (or in my
case, come back into fashion again).
Joseph Rose
> Soni tempori elseu romani yeof helsforo nisson ol sefini ill des (ko Sun, 28
> May 2000 09:17:37 +0100), sefini jorgo geanyet des mani yeof do
> comp.sys.sinclair, yawatina tan reek esk ZeDeX82 fornis do marikano es bono
> tan el:
> >How can you say the C64 was rubbish. It had a fully moving, proper keyboard,
> >it had no colour clash and great sound. The demo scene started on the C64
> >and then carried on the the amiga. You could buy a real disk drive that used
> >standard floppies. The commodore was probably the best 8-bit computer ever.
> >
> >Well that was all a load of bolloxs. All it was there for was to make the
> >Speccy look great.
>
> I just want to point out, that I didn't start it this year. Honest.
>
> Oh, and the Speccy had a disk drive that took standard (3 1/2 inch)
> floppies.
>
The C64/128 had a 1581 disk drive. *It* took 800k DD 3.5" floppies.
Joseph Rose
> Who ever declared that the C64 was strictly for gaming?
>
Apparently most of the major cracking groups and C64 internet sites, because I can't
find a high-quality database, word-processing or drawing app anywhere on the
internet. I found Print Master, Art Studio and GEOS somewhere (maybe on some personal
web pages), but everything's mostly freeware--decent, but freeware-quality.
>
> --Jason
>
> The Starglider wrote:
> >
> > It truly was the most ugly, annoying piece of crap ever made. Long
> > loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming experience
> > totally awful!
> >
Andrew Owen
> Jason Valentine wrote:
>
>> Who ever declared that the C64 was strictly for gaming?
>>
>
> Apparently most of the major cracking groups and C64 internet sites, because I
> can't
> find a high-quality database, word-processing or drawing app anywhere on the
> internet. I found Print Master, Art Studio and GEOS somewhere (maybe on some
> personal
> web pages), but everything's mostly freeware--decent, but freeware-quality.
Are you using an emulator? If so surely there must be a C128 version with
Z80 emulation. Then you can run vast amounts of CP/M software, including
professional spreadsheets, databases etc. If not, don't blame me. I'm a just
a Z80 hacker.
-Andrew
Simon
> It truly was the most ugly, annoying piece of crap ever made. Long
> loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming experience
> totally awful!
>
as opposed to..........?
Matthew Montchalin
language, but not with cpm?
Joseph Rose
> Jason Valentine wrote:
> >
> > Who declared that the C64 was strictly a gaming computer? Most owners
> > used it for other purposes as well.
>
> But you still have those loading times. If you wanted to load *anything*
> you'd have to wait so long your clothes go out of fashion (or in my
> case, come back into fashion again).
>
Get a fast-loader.
- The daisy-chain data transfer rate of the C64 was almost fast--load times
could have been much faster. According to a CBM history page on Area64 as I
remember, when the Vic-20 was being made, the company that produced the
computer-to-drive connections for the PET died, and Commodore had to produce
a new data-transfer connection. They decided to create a serial interface
producable by any company and have the VIC-20's VIA chips convert the signal
to bytes directly usable by the CPU. Unfortunately, a bug in the VIA's
shift register, which aids the conversion, was caught a little too
late--production of the Vic-20's hardware has already started, and fixing
the bug would require the already-produced VIA's to be dumped, escalating
the Vic's prices and wasting plenty of resources. So, C= had to transfer
the work to the CPU and slow down the data transfer. By the time the C64
was being produced, the hardware already produced for the Vic-20 had to be
taken into account--don't remember why--so even though the C64's CIAs didn't
have the bug, C= had to use the VIC-20's drive->computer data-transfer
methods, and since the Vic-II graphics chip in the C64 had to stop the CPU
at times to access some graphics data in memory (sprite bitmap info and
screen character info in text mode) (The CPU and VIC-II in the C64 shared
the bus and accessed it in one-then-the-other fashion at ~2MHz.), the data
transfers had to be slowed down a bit more to prevent data-loss during the
CPU override (NAME???). If that VIA bug was caught a little earlier, maybe
loading times would be much faster. Someone verify this information on
Area64-forgot the URL.
- The fast-loaders aforementioned are programs that accelerate the boot
process by intercepting and replacing the load routines in the C64's and
C1541 disk drive's ROMs. They often come in cartridge form and sometimes as
a total internal ROM replacement. They often blank the screen to give the
CPU the full time, and probably send a whole sector at a time and/or use the
originally-planned conversion hardware. Some games include their own
fast-loading routines. These fast-loaders may interfere with certain
programs--usually games--but speed up other heavy-disk access programs
significantly.
White Flame (aka David Holz)
> > Oh, and the Speccy had a disk drive that took standard (3 1/2 inch)
> > floppies.
>
> The C64/128 had a 1581 disk drive. *It* took 800k DD 3.5" floppies.
My C64/128 has a FD2000 drive, which takes HD (1.6MB) 3.5" floppies. :)
Can't get much more industry-standard than that!
--
White Flame (aka David Holz)
http://fly.to/theflame
Joseph Rose
> on 28/5/00 11:36 pm, Joseph Rose wrote:
>
> > Jason Valentine wrote:
> >
> >> Who ever declared that the C64 was strictly for gaming?
> >>
> >
> > Apparently most of the major cracking groups and C64 internet sites, because I
> > can't
> > find a high-quality database, word-processing or drawing app anywhere on the
> > internet. I found Print Master, Art Studio and GEOS somewhere (maybe on some
> > personal
> > web pages), but everything's mostly freeware--decent, but freeware-quality.
>
> Are you using an emulator? If so surely there must be a C128 version with
Yes: CCS64 and Vice 1.3 Win32 and DOS. ^^^ Where?
>
> Z80 emulation. Then you can run vast amounts of CP/M software, including
>
> professional spreadsheets, databases etc. If not, don't blame me. I'm a just
> a Z80 hacker.
I'd prefer Commodore, but where can I get them?
>
>
> -Andrew
White Flame (aka David Holz)
> It truly was the most ugly, annoying piece of crap ever made. Long
> loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming experience
> totally awful!
Woohoo! Another flamewar! :) Now let's all spew crap onto the
newsgroups so that people reading these in places where you pay per
minute for internet access, will have their phone bill tripled because
they're downloading 15megs of messages per day!
Joseph Rose
> It truly was the most ugly, annoying piece of crap ever made. Long
> loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming experience
> totally awful!
>
BLOCKY GRAPHICS:
A program that uses the C64's multi-color graphics mode wisely is not necessarily
'blocky.' Isn't 'blocky' a characteristic of any computer/program that uses
character graphics (NES, SNES, 80's-to-early-90's PC games, even some Amiga games)?
There's some blockiness in any computer or program that uses many quantized image
blocks in gridlike fashion to produce a game scene. There are a few C64 adventure
games (The Incredible Hulk, for instance) that draw a scene using the drawing tools
of any drawing program (line, rectangle, circle, poly, fill, etc.). Any program
that draws a scene that way is unlikely to appear 'blocky.'
Joseph Rose
sounds, playability and fun of the games and the functionality, usefulness,
ease-of-use and UIs of the applications. Then, compare the abilities, functionality
and ease-of-use of the Speccy and the C64 themselves. Until then, it's all useless
dribble. :-P :-*
The Starglider wrote:
> It truly was the most ugly, annoying piece of crap ever made. Long
> loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming experience
> totally awful!
>
Joseph Rose
The Starglider wrote:
> It truly was the most ugly, annoying piece of crap ever made. Long
^^^ Not the 64C!
^^^ Not very.
>
> loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming
^^^ fast-loader! ^^^ Didn't bother me!
> experience
> totally awful!
^^^ Not as I remember it!
>
>
> --
> ****************The Starglider***************** CHANGE d.c.u PART OF
> * E-Mail:starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk * ADDRESS TO:
> * Web site:http://www.thespian.demon.co.uk * demon.co.uk
> * ADE VS. THE SPACESHIP: AN ONGOING SAGA! * TO REPLY.
> * AT:www.thespian.demon.co.uk/effects.htm * _WW_
> * "FANTASTIC! MARVELLOUS!" - David Darling * /_ _\
> *********************************************** | O O |
> ___________________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo___________
I have [had] a PC-based Spectrum ZX emulator. It was hard to use, and I couldn't
figure out how to run the games. I couldn't find too many games anyway.
Decimal Cat
"The Starglider" <starg...@thespian.d.c.u> wrote in message
news:iZTbsGA3...@thespian.demon.co.uk...
> totally awful!
>
Because for one thing, you're totally wrong. But as a fallback argument, I
must say that most everyone in this newsgroup probably spent countless hours
playing the games on it as a kid. We had great times with it, and no matter
what idiotic trolls like you say, we still love the damn thing. I can't tell
you how many hours I wasted playing the C64 games as a kid (and might I
mention to the people in c.s.c, my first c64 lasted about 8 years.. prolly a
record) and I loved every minute of it. So, even if you were right about
this, we don't care. We love the C64. There's the past.
Now the present.
I don't know much about the sinclair, but I don't see you getting online
with a sinclair. Or clocking yours at 20mhz. Or plugging RAM expanders in to
make it have a total 16mb memory. Or playing Mp3s with one (Okay, so a
commodore can't do this yet, but I personally know somebody who's working on
a hardware device to play mp3s on one. With a turbo-232 rs232 interface and
a superCPU the C64 can transfer data at speeds of (I think) 115200bps.
It's not only that. Plug a SCSI hard drive into your sinclair.
I can't think of anything else off the top of my head right now.
--Decimal Cat
White Flame (aka David Holz)
> Basic is useless whichever machine you use!
Hey, for all the evil they've done in this world, Microsoft's QuickBASIC
is still a very fine IDE. Oh well, SQUISH 'EM ANYWAY, USA GOV'T!!
MUHAHAHAH! >:-)
Simon
> > computers. Do they have hardware sprites, hi resolution graphics, a
decent
> > cpu, ect. All I know is that they had a rubber keyboard.
>
> Yes, ha ha, very funny. The Speccy has got higher resolution graphics and
a
> better CPU than the C64, and they don't all have rubber keyboards.
higher resolution? are you sure?
AFAIK a C64 in hi-res mode and a Speccy have the same resolution, but the
c64 has the advantage a larger amount of usable screen space, double the
pallette (virtually indistinguishable 'bright' colours don't count) and in
lo-res mode 4 colours per character (more if you use tricks such as fli).
take a look at:
http://www.classicgaming.com/area64/gallery/clogy.htm
show me some screenshots from a spectrum with quality rivaling those (and if
you take a further look around the site there are many more of a similar
quality).
Also, I'm no great coder, but as for your arguement about processing power,
I'm wondering how much CPU time is saved on a c64 by hardware sprites and
scrolling? does a couple of extra mhz really count for much in this
situation?
and I haven't even mentioned the SID chip yet! :)
I've owned both machines and I don't consider Spectrum's bad by any means,
but when it's used to it's potential, IMO the C64 wins hands down. It's
also much more fun to use which is why I _still_ own and use a 64, but not
my speccie.
Simon
> Mind you, as a Spectrum user I have to say the C64 probably had fewer bugs
J Langmead
> The Starglider wrote:
>> It truly was the most ugly, annoying piece of crap ever made. Long
>> loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming experience
>> totally awful!
>
> Woohoo! Another flamewar! :) Now let's all spew crap onto the
> newsgroups so that people reading these in places where you pay per
> minute for internet access, will have their phone bill tripled because
> they're downloading 15megs of messages per day!
Yes, but it's important that this flamewar is resurrected every so often so
that new visitors to the newsgroup don't miss out on all the fun and games.
Simon
> > Who declared that the C64 was strictly a gaming computer? Most owners
> > used it for other purposes as well.
>
> But you still have those loading times. If you wanted to load *anything*
> you'd have to wait so long your clothes go out of fashion (or in my
> case, come back into fashion again).
>
nah, you just need a decent fastload cart and you're program will load in
around 10 seconds (generally less). After that, there'll generally be a
fastload that kicks in to load anything else.
J Langmead
> Get the best *true* C64 and Speccy games and applications and compare the
> graphics,
> sounds, playability and fun of the games and the functionality, usefulness,
> ease-of-use and UIs of the applications. Then, compare the abilities,
> functionality
> and ease-of-use of the Speccy and the C64 themselves.
Independent world-class scientists around the globe have run a series of
detailed tests and experiments over the last fifteen years testing EVERY
aspect of the hardware and software of both machines. A warehouse full of
reports and documents regarding the findings has finally been unveiled. The
scientists recently were brought together for a two year meeting to sum up
the evidence and eventually announced the following startling conclusion to
the world:
The C64 is crap.
Matthew Westcott
comp.sys.sinclair (and comp.sys.cbm). Which was nice.
>My C64/128 has a FD2000 drive, which takes HD (1.6MB) 3.5" floppies. :)
>Can't get much more industry-standard than that!
>
But the MB-02 interface for the Spectrum gets 1.8Mb onto a disc :-)
--
Matthew Westcott
http://www.demo.eu.org/ - the home of the Spectrum demo scene
-------------------------------------------------------------
| "And there's a restaurant we should check out, |
| where the other nightmare people like to go" |
Equin0x
> loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming experience
> totally awful!
*yawn*
> Because for one thing, you're totally wrong. But as a fallback argument, I
> must say that most everyone in this newsgroup probably spent countless hours
> [...]
> this, we don't care. We love the C64. There's the past.
*yawn*
Anyone up for a game of Army Moves?
Eq.
--
RaYzor
>
> My C64/128 has a FD2000 drive, which takes HD (1.6MB) 3.5" floppies. :)
> Can't get much more industry-standard than that!
>
Heh .. I'd get one of those if it weren't for CMD's ridiculous prices. They
told me its $179.00 plus shipping for a FD 2000. A f'n floppy drive. I
LOVE my Commodore stuff, but thats insane.
CMD : Todays Commodore Technology at Prices Considered Insulting 15 Years
Ago.
Bwaahahaha
RaYzor
Matthew W. Miller
>The Starglider <starg...@thespian.d.c.u> writes:
>>It truly was the most ugly, annoying blah blah blah yakkity shmakkity
>You again. And your reason for starting *yet another* Spectrum vs. C64
>flame war is what, this time?
Overimbibed on Irn-Bru, I suspect. "Made in Scotland, from girders and
flame warriors."
--
Matthew W. Miller -- ma...@infinet.com
J. Robertson
<starg...@thespian.d.c.u> wrote:
>It truly was the most ugly, annoying piece of crap ever made. Long
>loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming experience
>totally awful!
Nicest description of a Sinclair Spectrum I've ever heard!
Jason
Siponen Antti
>
>
>> It truly was the most ugly, annoying piece of crap ever made. Long
>> loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming experience
>> totally awful!
>>
>
>
Well, to the absolutely brillant piece of a kit named Spectrum naturally!
It is that time of year again, don't you see?
Antti Siponen
The Starglider
<j...@jil.freeisp.co.uk> writes
>>> It truly was the most ugly, annoying piece of crap ever made. Long
>>> loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming experience
>>> totally awful!
>>
>> newsgroups so that people reading these in places where you pay per
>> minute for internet access, will have their phone bill tripled because
>> they're downloading 15megs of messages per day!
>
>Yes, but it's important that this flamewar is resurrected every so often so
>that new visitors to the newsgroup don't miss out on all the fun and games.
>
Still doesn't mean the Commode 64 was any good though!
The Starglider
writes
>
>Because for one thing, you're totally wrong. But as a fallback argument, I
>must say that most everyone in this newsgroup probably spent countless hours
>what idiotic trolls like you say, we still love the damn thing. I can't tell
>you how many hours I wasted playing the C64 games as a kid (and might I
>mention to the people in c.s.c, my first c64 lasted about 8 years.. prolly a
>record) and I loved every minute of it. So, even if you were right about
>
>
>I don't know much about the sinclair, but I don't see you getting online
>with a sinclair. Or clocking yours at 20mhz. Or plugging RAM expanders in to
>make it have a total 16mb memory. Or playing Mp3s with one (Okay, so a
>commodore can't do this yet, but I personally know somebody who's working on
>a hardware device to play mp3s on one. With a turbo-232 rs232 interface and
>a superCPU the C64 can transfer data at speeds of (I think) 115200bps.
>
>It's not only that. Plug a SCSI hard drive into your sinclair.
>
>I can't think of anything else off the top of my head right now.
>
(From the Commode users):
1. The Commode 64 is crap.
2. But... but... the SID chip! The hardware sprites!
3. But It's still crap.
4. But I can plug X,Y and Z into it! It has more colours! It now runs at
20Mhz!
5. You don't get it. It's always been crap, and always will be.
...the next bit you'll argue is that it sold waaaaaay more than the
Spectrum in the world.
Face it, the Commode 64 was ugly, damned difficult to program and
regardless of the hardware assistance you had, the software was simply
dire!
The Starglider
<jor...@pop.gis.net> writes
>
>I have [had] a PC-based Spectrum ZX emulator. It was hard to use, and I
>couldn't
>figure out how to run the games. I couldn't find too many games anyway.
>
Brix
Holz) says...
> Joseph Rose wrote:
> > > Oh, and the Speccy had a disk drive that took standard (3 1/2 inch)
> > > floppies.
> >
> > The C64/128 had a 1581 disk drive. *It* took 800k DD 3.5" floppies.
>
> Can't get much more industry-standard than that!
Hm..
If I will ever be a lucky owner of a CMD SCSI-Interface I will hook up an
IOmega ZIPdrive to my C64...
It is sooo cool.
Any Questions Sir Sinclair?
-Wanja-
Andrew Owen
> Do you know if there is a newsgroup that deals with Z80 assembly
> language, but not with cpm?
AFAIK there is no newsgroup that deals with Z80 assembly language but not
CP/M.
The two best resources for Z80 programming on the net are Thomas Scherer's
Z80 support page and www.ti-calc.org. You can get the link to the Z80 page
and other useful Z80 stuff off the links section at World of Spectrum:
www.void.jump.org.
If you're still stuck, email me.
Andrew Owen
>> Are you using an emulator? If so surely there must be a C128 version with
>
> Yes: CCS64 and Vice 1.3 Win32 and DOS. ^^^ Where?
I don't know. I'm just a Z80 hacker.
>> professional spreadsheets, databases etc. If not, don't blame me. I'm a just
>> a Z80 hacker.
>
> I'd prefer Commodore, but where can I get them?
Check out the faq on comp.os.cpm for plenty of good links.
Andrew Owen
> Now the present.
>
> I don't know much about the sinclair, but I don't see you getting online
> with a sinclair. Or clocking yours at 20mhz. Or plugging RAM expanders in to
> make it have a total 16mb memory. Or playing Mp3s with one (Okay, so a
> commodore can't do this yet, but I personally know somebody who's working on
> a hardware device to play mp3s on one. With a turbo-232 rs232 interface and
> a superCPU the C64 can transfer data at speeds of (I think) 115200bps.
>
> It's not only that. Plug a SCSI hard drive into your sinclair.
>
> I can't think of anything else off the top of my head right now.
Check the sig my friend.
Andrew Owen
>> Yes, ha ha, very funny. The Speccy has got higher resolution graphics and
>> a better CPU than the C64, and they don't all have rubber keyboards.
>
> higher resolution? are you sure?
> AFAIK a C64 in hi-res mode and a Speccy have the same resolution, but the
> c64 has the advantage a larger amount of usable screen space, double the
> pallette (virtually indistinguishable 'bright' colours don't count) and in
> lo-res mode 4 colours per character (more if you use tricks such as fli).
Bright colours are distinguishable (they are about 20% brighter). Well,
until I looked at http://www.classicgaming.com/area64/gallery/clogy.htm
I was of the impression that the Speccy had higher resolution graphics. But
you have to admit, most games on the C64 don't play in that mode.
> show me some screenshots from a spectrum with quality rivaling those.
Check out the party results at www.demo.eu.org to see exactly what the
Spectrum can do. Maybe it's not better but it's different. Did I mention
that I don't actually care which machine is better.
> and I haven't even mentioned the SID chip yet! :)
A nice chip I agree, but to be honest the sound it produces isn't a great
deal better than the AY-3-8912 used in the Spectrum 128. And if you want to
bring up the Spectrum's beeper, I've done some quit good psuedo
three-channel stuff on it myself.
> I've owned both machines and I don't consider Spectrum's bad by any means,
> but when it's used to it's potential, IMO the C64 wins hands down. It's
> also much more fun to use which is why I _still_ own and use a 64, but not
> my speccie.
I think the Spectrum is a machine that appeals to harware hackers while the
C64 probably appeals more to software hackers (the demo scene etc). I never
owned a C64 but when I got an Atari ST some of the best demos were by people
from the C64 scene. On the other hand, most of the best games were from
people who had been Spectrum programmers.
Andrew Owen
> Basic is useless whichever machine you use!
Not necessarily. I agree, you won't get the best out of the machine without
using assembly language, but if the task is non-cpu intensive then BASIC is
a viable solution. On the other hand I think the fact that Visual BASIC is
being used to develop serious applications is dreadful.
Andrew Owen
> Hm..
> If I will ever be a lucky owner of a CMD SCSI-Interface I will hook up an
> IOmega ZIPdrive to my C64...
> It is sooo cool.
> Any Questions Sir Sinclair?
Expensive solution though. Couldn't you build your own IDE interface
instead. The schematics to do this on the Speccy are on the web so it
shouldn't be that difficult.
Simon Haynes
> Not necessarily. I agree, you won't get the best out of the machine
without
> using assembly language, but if the task is non-cpu intensive then BASIC
is
> a viable solution. On the other hand I think the fact that Visual BASIC is
> being used to develop serious applications is dreadful.
Hmm. At least the object code is compiled with the Visual C compiler behind
the scenes. Should make you happier.
I like VB, anyway. I used it to write a multi-user accounts prog for work,
and I have to work with the people who use it. They like it - it's been
custom-written to match exactly what they want to do in the most efficient
way possible.
Cheers,
Simon
Johan Fitié
wrote:
>> show me some screenshots from a spectrum with quality rivaling those.
>Check out the party results at www.demo.eu.org to see exactly what the
>Spectrum can do. Maybe it's not better but it's different. Did I mention
>that I don't actually care which machine is better.
he asked for 'quality rivaling those'...
hmm.. how come I'm not impressed..
one of the best speccy pics I found over there (demo.eu.org) is
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/demotopia/reviews/DOLITTLE.gif
oh.. and I should quote something on the page where I found that pic..
they call this a 'high-res screenshot' :)
compare that to a random c64 demo pic, like for example:
http://www.classicgaming.com/area64/gallery/bopc/pic220.gif
..or..
http://www.classicgaming.com/area64/gallery/ifli.gif
and.. well.. need I say more about the gfx possibilities?
Spectrum: 0 - C64: 1
/J
--
Johan Fitie'
[ ICQ UIN: 28546439 ] [ Phone: +31-(0)6-23.660.661 ]
[ Contact info: www.fitie.com ] [ URL: www.cb64.com ]
Johan Fitié
>
>Expensive solution though. Couldn't you build your own IDE interface
>instead. The schematics to do this on the Speccy are on the web so it
>shouldn't be that difficult.
Info for an IDE interface for the C64 can be found here:
for a pic, see:
http://www.volny.cz/dundera/devel.html
:)
Johan Fitié
wrote:
>on 29/5/00 2:39 am, Simon wrote:
>
>> Basic is useless whichever machine you use!
>
>Not necessarily. I agree, you won't get the best out of the machine without
>using assembly language, but if the task is non-cpu intensive then BASIC is
>a viable solution.
Same here!
I like basic for making a quick, small program.
Quick and easy.
>On the other hand I think the fact that Visual BASIC is
>being used to develop serious applications is dreadful.
hehe!
yeah.. basic should not be used for 'real' programs,
just for small programs you use yourself..
..but! Great programs _CAN_ be made with basic though!
/Johan
Johan Fitié
>until I looked at http://www.classicgaming.com/area64/gallery/clogy.htm
>I was of the impression that the Speccy had higher resolution graphics. But
>you have to admit, most games on the C64 don't play in that mode.
True.. but at least it's capable of it.
/J
Niall Tracey
: Basic is useless whichever machine you use!
Not true. BBC BASIC (BBC Micro, Acorn Electron, Archimedes, RISC PC, Z88) is a
beautiful language that runs perfectly, particularly on an ARM based computer -
the full interpreter fits in the code cache, allowing it to run at blinding
speeds (for an interpreted language).
--
Niall 'Titch' Tracey, Harp-man
Revelation Edinburgh - http://www.ed.ac.uk/~reved
Revelation National - http://www.rev.org.uk
Edinburgh CD featuring the sounds of Titch Tracey coming soon.
Nat Cross
>
> Nat Cross wrote:
>
> > Jason Valentine wrote:
> > >
> > > Who declared that the C64 was strictly a gaming computer? Most owners
> > > used it for other purposes as well.
> >
> > But you still have those loading times. If you wanted to load *anything*
> > you'd have to wait so long your clothes go out of fashion (or in my
> > case, come back into fashion again).
> >
>
>
(Snip explanation as to why the C64 takes the length of time for the BBC
to show an entire series of 'The X-Files' to load absolutely anything)
Interesting, and a little more detail into the story I already knew (the
C64 is crap because it's VIC-20 compatible, and the VIC-20 was crap),
but surely missing the point? Compatibility is not an excuse.
>
> - The fast-loaders aforementioned are programs that accelerate the boot
> process by intercepting and replacing the load routines in the C64's and
> C1541 disk drive's ROMs. They often come in cartridge form and sometimes as
> a total internal ROM replacement. They often blank the screen to give the
> CPU the full time, and probably send a whole sector at a time and/or use the
> originally-planned conversion hardware. Some games include their own
> fast-loading routines. These fast-loaders may interfere with certain
> programs--usually games--but speed up other heavy-disk access programs
> significantly.
That's a lot of hassle to go through, which'll be why my C64 is sitting
in a cupboard under the Atari 2600 and the VIC-20. (I quite liked the
VIC-20, because it's got a nice screen font and start-up colours, and
you can resize the screen. Crap once you try to actually do anything, of
course, but you can't have everything.) Why not two ROM routines? Why
not a simple system variable to set or unset VIC-20 compatibility?
Nathan
--
YS3 - It's not that bad, really.
http://www.ys3.co.uk/
Niall Tracey
: on 28/5/00 8:32 pm, Jason Petersen wrote:
: > Having never seen one, I would like more information about the Spectrum
: > computers. Do they have
1) hardware sprites,
2) hi resolution graphics,
3) a decent cpu, ect.
4) All I know is that they had a rubber keyboard.
: Yes, ha ha, very funny. The Speccy has got higher resolution graphics and a
: better CPU than the C64, and they don't all have rubber keyboards.
Oy! No need to be rude. Jason was asking for *information* on the speccy,
not trying to be in any way derisory. Looks like you've been in too many
of these flame wars, Andrew. You're getting paranoid in your old age...
Anyway, to answer Jason's points (which have actually already been
answered elsewhere, for the most part):
1) Hardware sprites - No.
The speccy uses a bit mapped screen, not even character blocks.
This is the system's major speed bottleneck.
2) High resolution.
The speccy has only one screen mode, which is equivalent to the C64's
hi-res mode, with two colours per 8x8 pixel block.
The annual argument goes along the lines of:
css: The C64 was blocky.
csc: The spectrum wasn't colourful enough
css: But at least it had a decent resolution.
csc: Same as the C64.
css: Then how come all your games are so blocky?
csc: Because people *preferred* multicolour games to two-tone.
css: We don't...
csc: We do...
css: We don't...
csc: We do...
css: But your games are blocky...
ad nauseum...
Face it people - it's a matter of personal taste.
3) CPU - The Z80, as seen in the C128.
3.80 MHz, less efficient cycle usage than the 6502 series.
Execution rate for standard code is just about the same.
The Z80, though, has in-built 16-bit arithmetic, which is one
heck of an advantage for number crunching.
4) Rubber keyboard.
Later versions had annoying flappy solid keys.
After Amstrad bought Sinclair, they shoved on a proper keyboard.
Hope that clears things up a bit, Jason.
Niall Tracey
: It's not only that. Plug a SCSI hard drive into your sinclair.
I don't think I'll bother:
http://www.spectrumplus3e.redhotant.com/
IDE drives as native disk drives for the Spectrum +3
IDE drives are cheaper, and the interface consists of:
40-pin IDC connector
Spectrum edge connector
74LS10 chip
BC327 transistor
100K resistor
and some PROMs,
as opposed to some walloping great lump of custom electronics from
CMD that I personally can't afford.
Niall Tracey
: Independent world-class scientists around the globe have run a series of
: detailed tests and experiments over the last fifteen years testing EVERY
: aspect of the hardware and software of both machines. A warehouse full of
: reports and documents regarding the findings has finally been unveiled. The
: scientists recently were brought together for a two year meeting to sum up
: the evidence and eventually announced the following startling conclusion to
: the world:
: The C64 is crap.
No, I'm afraid you're quite wrong. It was the infinite
monkeys/typewriter experiment. The wee chimp from the PG Tips
advert was halfway through typing the Tempest, when the monkey
next to him battered the words "The C64 is crap" onto his
keyboard.
Sadly, this wasn't just a typewriter, but a computer terminal.
The resulting text was sent via trn to comp.sys.cbm and
comp.sys.sinclair.
And thus was history made.
Niall Tracey
: >> Any Questions Sir Sinclair?
: >
: >Expensive solution though. Couldn't you build your own IDE interface
: >instead. The schematics to do this on the Speccy are on the web so it
: >shouldn't be that difficult.
Sadly, the C64's ROM IO support is utterly crap, so programmers have
had to work around a whole heap of problems (as explained elsewhere
with fastloaders). This means that fully compatible drives have to
be extremely complicated, dealing with every possible input.
Hence:
: Info for an IDE interface for the C64 can be found here:
: http://www.volny.cz/dundera/
A custom cartridge device that is not compatible with most games
(patches for some are available from the site) which is too
complicated to make yourself, and the CMD HD series, which
has a custom SCSI controller that emulates 1541 drives, 1571
drives and 1581 drives seperately, IIRC.
The Spectrum is a much simpler piece of kit than the C64.
Russ Juckes
<white...@geocities.com> scribed:
>The Starglider wrote:
>> It truly was the most ugly, annoying piece of crap ever made. Long
>> loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming experience
>> totally awful!
>
>Woohoo! Another flamewar! :) Now let's all spew crap onto the
>newsgroups so that people reading these in places where you pay per
>minute for internet access, will have their phone bill tripled because
>they're downloading 15megs of messages per day!
What I like about these flamewars is that it's a bit like a family
reunion, where the two sides of the family don't really get along.
Here I am, merrily deleting the messages without bothering to read
them, when I spot the name "White Flame" and think to myself; "aha -
I remember that name from the last two flamefests - he was quite
entertaining and worth reading"
And I see he doesn't let me down, by posting (insofar as I've not
really read any others,) the only sensible observation we're likely to
see.
I haven't seen a post from Fungus, or Steve Judd yet though.
Outta here,
Russ Juckes - Atari Jaguar, Jamma Cabinet & Sinclair ZX Spectrum Owner
--
"Do you *really* want to play?" http://www.raiden.demon.co.uk
Joe Forster/STA
newsgroup, just to start bashing the Spectrum. Go back to your
own newsgroup and keep bashing the C64 there. I won't be there
reading your crap messages and wasting my time skipping them...
You can boast among your stupid friends with this but you won't
impress _me_.
Not to mention, I never wanted to take part in such a war anyway
because _I_, unlike you, don't think that the other party's
machine is crap! Grow up!
Joe Forster/STA
s...@c64.org
(a C64 fan who always liked Spectrum-to-C64 conversions because
of their cute graphics, yes, you read that one right!)
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Andrew Owen
> : Yes, ha ha, very funny. The Speccy has got higher resolution graphics and a
> : better CPU than the C64, and they don't all have rubber keyboards.
>
> Oy! No need to be rude. Jason was asking for *information* on the speccy,
> not trying to be in any way derisory. Looks like you've been in too many
> of these flame wars, Andrew. You're getting paranoid in your old age...
I come to flame wars armed with marshmallows and halon gas (in case things
get too out of hand). I've always been paranoid and I'm far too old. :)
-Andrew
Jim Butterfield
: Mind you, as a Spectrum user I have to say the C64 probably had fewer bugs
: in its ROM even if the BASIC was utterly useless.
(A little off-topic ... )
During the early '80s, Commodore USA had a "trade in your computer" offer:
Bring in any computer, any make, any condition, and get $100 off a new
C64. At that time, the Sinclair Spectrum was selling in the $65-$85
price range.
A lot of purchasers went out and bought a new Spectrum, and turned it in
(still in the shrink-wrap) as their trade-in. Commodore employees at
West Chester told me that there were a suprising number of these
received. They all went into the dumpster, of course, since Commodore
had no use for them. But it's curious to think of Commodore being
involved in boosting Spectrum sales!
But here's the kicker: the president of a local computer club told me
that his members would sneak in to the Commodore area late at
night and retrieve these computers from the dumpster. The next day, club
members would trade them in again! It seems that Commodore paid that
trade-in many times for the same machines!
--Jim
No inference implied here as to which machine(s) are superior. If you
love your computer, whatever the make, then it's your personal best machine.
Andrew Owen
> During the early '80s, Commodore USA had a "trade in your computer" offer:
> Bring in any computer, any make, any condition, and get $100 off a new
> C64. At that time, the Sinclair Spectrum was selling in the $65-$85
> price range.
>
> A lot of purchasers went out and bought a new Spectrum, and turned it in
> (still in the shrink-wrap) as their trade-in. Commodore employees at
> West Chester told me that there were a suprising number of these
> received. They all went into the dumpster, of course, since Commodore
> had no use for them. But it's curious to think of Commodore being
> involved in boosting Spectrum sales!
>
> But here's the kicker: the president of a local computer club told me
> that his members would sneak in to the Commodore area late at
> night and retrieve these computers from the dumpster. The next day, club
> members would trade them in again! It seems that Commodore paid that
> trade-in many times for the same machines!
Hmm, are you sure they were the Sinclair flavour, not the Timex-Sinclair
ones with their improved hardware (I'd hate to think of TS2068s being thrown
away).
-Andrew
The Starglider
Forster/STA <s...@c64.org> writes
>Dear Starglider, in short: fuck off! I haven't gone to _your_
>newsgroup, just to start bashing the Spectrum. Go back to your
>own newsgroup and keep bashing the C64 there. I won't be there
>reading your crap messages and wasting my time skipping them...
>You can boast among your stupid friends with this but you won't
>impress _me_.
>
>Not to mention, I never wanted to take part in such a war anyway
>because _I_, unlike you, don't think that the other party's
>machine is crap! Grow up!
>
retro feel of a good old Speccy Vs. C64 argument.
Enjoy it! I always do.
The Starglider
<Chris...@Remove.This.StudServ.Stud.Uni-Hannover.DE.Invalid> writes
>On Mon, 29 May 2000 08:50:05 +0100, The Starglider
><starg...@thespian.d.c.u> wrote:
>
>>Face it, the Commode 64 was ugly, damned difficult to program and
>
>Ha, ha... If that's what the average Spectrum user already considers
>"damned difficult", it's no wonder they were never able to produce
>complex software at all :-) !
>
>Thread killfiltered.
>
Like that would stop me!
The Starglider
Forster/STA <s...@c64.org> writes
>Starglider, I pity you... If you enjoy pissing people off then I
>suggest that you contact your local psychiatrist! Beware, though,
>of the people who might try to put your coat onto you the other
>way around... (Chris, any more wise sayings? :-) )
This quote really makes no sense at all! Either the coat will have to be
done up from behind, or the coat will be inside out. How should that
worry me?
Niall? Give him some pointers about coats please!
...definitely not getting my coat, and not planning on going anywhere.
Christian Link
<starg...@thespian.d.c.u> wrote:
>Face it, the Commode 64 was ugly, damned difficult to program and
Ha, ha... If that's what the average Spectrum user already considers
"damned difficult", it's no wonder they were never able to produce
complex software at all :-) !
Thread killfiltered.
Chris
Alvin Albrecht
Spectrum sales were negligible in the US. What Jim's thinking
of is the Spectrum's predecessor: the TS1000 (zx81). Near the
end of the TS1000's life, Commdore offered a trade-in and many
people took advantage of it. I don't think it impacted on
TS1000 sales too much as it had already sold more than a million
before that offer was made. Anyone looking to buy a C64 would
be crazy not to take up that offer especially since TS1000s
went for as low as $25 where I lived.
Alvin
Michael Bruhn
wrote:
>
>"The Starglider" <starg...@thespian.d.c.u> wrote in message
>news:iZTbsGA3...@thespian.demon.co.uk...
>> It truly was the most ugly, annoying piece of crap ever made. Long
>> loading times and blocky graphics just made the whole gaming experience
>> totally awful!
>>
>
>Because for one thing, you're totally wrong. But as a fallback argument, I
>must say that most everyone in this newsgroup probably spent countless hours
>playing the games on it as a kid. We had great times with it, and no matter
>what idiotic trolls like you say, we still love the damn thing. I can't tell
>you how many hours I wasted playing the C64 games as a kid (and might I
There you see. For you Crappy64 users it was a waste of time playing
games, for us Speccy freaks it wasn't. Your words :-)
To everybody out there, if you want a big laugh, try and play Bomb
Jack or Cobra on the Crappy64. You'll laugh (cry) for days.
Bye.
--
Michael Bruhn
E-Mail: fra...@image.dk
Editor Of The Spectrum Fanzine 'Desert Island Disks'
Homepage (Desert Island Disks): http://www.image.dk/~frankie/
Address: Petersborg 23, 6200 Aabenraa, Denmark
Simon
> > AFAIK a C64 in hi-res mode and a Speccy have the same resolution, but
the
> > c64 has the advantage a larger amount of usable screen space, double the
> > pallette (virtually indistinguishable 'bright' colours don't count) and
in
> > lo-res mode 4 colours per character (more if you use tricks such as
fli).
yeah ok, but that's the overall pallette isn't as broad as the c64.
Speaking from the point of view as a graphician, 16 colours isn't a lot and
the c64's range is IMO the more useful.
>Well,
> until I looked at http://www.classicgaming.com/area64/gallery/clogy.htm
> I was of the impression that the Speccy had higher resolution graphics.
But
> you have to admit, most games on the C64 don't play in that mode.
true, but they _could've_ had identical grachics to spectrum games (and
without colour clash) but c64 users and developers generally preffered to
use more colours at the expense of resolution.
> > show me some screenshots from a spectrum with quality rivaling those.
> Check out the party results at www.demo.eu.org to see exactly what the
> Spectrum can do. Maybe it's not better but it's different.
but it could all be ported onto a c64 and look virtually identical (bar a
few different colour values), the same can't be said the other way around.
That site was pretty interesting though, I'm gonna check it out some more
later. I downloaded some speccy demos a while ago and was pretty impressed
by them.
>Did I mention
> that I don't actually care which machine is better.
well neither do I really, as I already said I quite like the spectrum, but i
haven't had a speccy versus c64 arguement for years now! :) and it was a
spectrum guy who came to comp.sys.cbm with blatant flame-bait!
> > and I haven't even mentioned the SID chip yet! :)
> A nice chip I agree, but to be honest the sound it produces isn't a great
> deal better than the AY-3-8912 used in the Spectrum 128. And if you want
to
> bring up the Spectrum's beeper, I've done some quit good psuedo
> three-channel stuff on it myself.
again I was fairly impressed with some recent spectrum music I've heard,
though for me it doesn't rival the might of the SID.
> I think the Spectrum is a machine that appeals to harware hackers while
the
> C64 probably appeals more to software hackers (the demo scene etc). I
never
> owned a C64 but when I got an Atari ST some of the best demos were by
people
> from the C64 scene. On the other hand, most of the best games were from
> people who had been Spectrum programmers.
well i think the scene is certainly the most popular past-time of a lot of
c64 users and demos is certainly the main thing that's kept me interested
for so long, though i've realised since i started hanging around the
newgroups that there are lots of c64 users who're also into the hardware
side of things, so i dunno..... you may be right though.
Andrew Owen
>>> received. They all went into the dumpster, of course, since Commodore
>>> had no use for them. But it's curious to think of Commodore being
>>> involved in boosting Spectrum sales!
>> Hmm, are you sure they were the Sinclair flavour, not the Timex-Sinclair
>> ones with their improved hardware (I'd hate to think of TS2068s being thrown
>> away).
>
> Spectrum sales were negligible in the US. What Jim's thinking
> of is the Spectrum's predecessor: the TS1000 (zx81). Near the
> end of the TS1000's life, Commdore offered a trade-in and many
> people took advantage of it. I don't think it impacted on
> TS1000 sales too much as it had already sold more than a million
> before that offer was made. Anyone looking to buy a C64 would
> be crazy not to take up that offer especially since TS1000s
> went for as low as $25 where I lived.
Bet they wished they'd kept them instead now, having seen the prices this
old crap fetches on eBay! :)
-Andrew
J Langmead
> To everybody out there, if you want a big laugh, try and play Bomb
> Jack or Cobra on the Crappy64. You'll laugh (cry) for days.
I tried but they wouldn't load.
Joseph Rose
> In article <3931CA2A...@pop.gis.net>, Joseph Rose
> <jor...@pop.gis.net> writes
> >
> >I have [had] a PC-based Spectrum ZX emulator. It was hard to use, and I
> >couldn't
> >figure out how to run the games. I couldn't find too many games anyway.
> >
> That *WoS* a joke, right?
1. Where can I get the games?
and...
2. How do I use the BASIC? I'm not used to the single-keypress style and don't
know how to write strings, load programs, use the functions, etc.
I love the C64, but I want other computer emulators, too. The C64 has 16 *good*
colors, but I'd like to see 32, or 256.
Andrew Owen
>> Bright colours are distinguishable (they are about 20% brighter).
> yeah ok, but that's the overall pallette isn't as broad as the c64.
> Speaking from the point of view as a graphician, 16 colours isn't a lot and
> the c64's range is IMO the more useful.
I agree the Spectrum's palette could do with improvement, but I'm currently
working on a setup that will give 32 colours on screen from a palette of
4,096 while maintaining 100% compatibility with old software titles.
[hi-res]
> true, but they _could've_ had identical grachics to spectrum games (and
> without colour clash) but c64 users and developers generally preffered to
> use more colours at the expense of resolution.
Didn't the hi-res screen mode take up snot loads of memory as well?
[nice speccy screens]
> but it could all be ported onto a c64 and look virtually identical (bar a
> few different colour values), the same can't be said the other way around.
I think the only screen mode where the Spectrum wins over the C64 has got to
be wire-frame graphics, where it was a smidge faster.
[who cares which is better (no-one)]
> well neither do I really, as I already said I quite like the spectrum, but i
> haven't had a speccy versus c64 arguement for years now! :) and it was a
> spectrum guy who came to comp.sys.cbm with blatant flame-bait!
I'm of the opinion that if a computer doesn't have a single MicroSoft logo
on it, it must be of some use to someone (and vice versa).
[SID]
> again I was fairly impressed with some recent spectrum music I've heard,
> though for me it doesn't rival the might of the SID.
The main advantage of the SID is that it has analogue stuff going on there
while the AY can only manage a digital simulation.
By the way, I would welcome comments from C64 users on my spex for an
enhanced ZX Spectrum. It's nice to get an unbiased opinion. :)
--
Andrew Owen
ZX Spectrum SE Technical Reference: http://www.brandnewco.org/se/
Simon
> he asked for 'quality rivaling those'...
>
> hmm.. how come I'm not impressed..
> one of the best speccy pics I found over there (demo.eu.org) is
>
> http://web.ukonline.co.uk/demotopia/reviews/DOLITTLE.gif
and that looks wired to me, though it's a little hard to tell when you can't
zoom in to see the pixels exactly.
> oh.. and I should quote something on the page where I found that pic..
> they call this a 'high-res screenshot' :)
>
> compare that to a random c64 demo pic, like for example:
>
> http://www.classicgaming.com/area64/gallery/bopc/pic220.gif
> ..or..
> http://www.classicgaming.com/area64/gallery/ifli.gif
>
> and.. well.. need I say more about the gfx possibilities?
>
hehe....i like the term 'random' pic ;)
I was going to link some of Valsary's gfx as well, but I thought they'd have
enough to digest with the Crest stuff and I shouldn't make the spectrum look
too bad! :)
Joseph Rose
Simon wrote:
> >
> > he asked for 'quality rivaling those'...
> >
> > hmm.. how come I'm not impressed..
> > one of the best speccy pics I found over there (demo.eu.org) is
> >
> > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/demotopia/reviews/DOLITTLE.gif
>
> and that looks wired to me, though it's a little hard to tell when you can't
> zoom in to see the pixels exactly.
Monochrome graphics with pattern dithers? The C64 could easily do this. The
yellow would be a little brighter, though. :-)
>
>
> > oh.. and I should quote something on the page where I found that pic..
> > they call this a 'high-res screenshot' :)
> >
> > compare that to a random c64 demo pic, like for example:
> >
> > http://www.classicgaming.com/area64/gallery/bopc/pic220.gif
Ugly! But it still shows markedly superior graphics over the Spectrum. My
Commie did that! I'm proud! =))
Okay... remove the word "still"!
>
> > ..or..
> > http://www.classicgaming.com/area64/gallery/ifli.gif
> >
> > and.. well.. need I say more about the gfx possibilities?
> >
Same quote as above.
>
>
> hehe....i like the term 'random' pic ;)
Yeah. :-) I didn't know a picture chosen at random could look so good.
>
>
> I was going to link some of Valsary's gfx as well, but I thought they'd have
> enough to digest with the Crest stuff and I shouldn't make the spectrum look
> too bad! :)
Too late!
Jason Petersen
news:8gtk91$qnv$3...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
>
> Hope that clears things up a bit, Jason.
Yes, thanks very much! They (Spectrums) sound like interesting computers.
Were they ever introduced in the States?
Jason
Joseph Rose
> On Mon, 29 May 2000 11:27:03 +0100, Andrew Owen <ao...@brandnewco.org>
> wrote:
>
> >on 29/5/00 2:39 am, Simon wrote:
> >
> >> Basic is useless whichever machine you use!
> >
> >Not necessarily. I agree, you won't get the best out of the machine without
> >using assembly language, but if the task is non-cpu intensive then BASIC is
> >a viable solution.
>
> Same here!
>
> I like basic for making a quick, small program.
>
> Quick and easy.
I generally used to write most small test and calculation programs in BASIC.
Asm and C are more useful for heavy graphics/sound, number-crunching and low- to
mid-level hardware and other interface, though.
>
>
> >On the other hand I think the fact that Visual BASIC is
> >being used to develop serious applications is dreadful.
>
> hehe!
> yeah.. basic should not be used for 'real' programs,
> just for small programs you use yourself..
> ..but! Great programs _CAN_ be made with basic though!
An interpreter BASIC with self-reprogramming abilities for its programs would be
useful for AI, especially with and interface protocol and other parts of the
program written in C++ and asm.
>
>
> /Johan
> --
> Johan Fitie'
>
> [ ICQ UIN: 28546439 ] [ Phone: +31-(0)6-23.660.661 ]
> [ Contact info: www.fitie.com ] [ URL: www.cb64.com ]
. == -|-=-
|\_/| ; ----/ -= -
/ .-=| \[/ - -=|-\=--=
| ..-==\ --==+==-- --=-|=|- -=
/ .---==\ /[\ =- /==-==-
/ ..---===\ ; =-|- -\--
--__----__--- . | - |
```` ` / \
Alan Maxwell
Cameron Kaiser wrote in message ...
>Drop the subject. It's been beaten to death.
Like all C64s should be?
<coat retrieval mode engaged>
Alan
--
Remove SPAMOFF to reply
"Oh, the nobility of the almost human porpoise!"
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: By replying to this message, you hereby
acknowledge that the ZX Spectrum game "Robocop" was too hard.
Chris Millett
<jor...@pop.gis.net> writes
>The C64/128 had a 1581 disk drive. *It* took 800k DD 3.5" floppies.
I once saw (heard) a program which played "Daisy daisy" by grating the
heads somehow on a 1581 disk drive.
It sounded much better than anything the C64 could produce!
--
Chris Millett
Matthew Westcott
nice.
>hmm.. how come I'm not impressed..
>one of the best speccy pics I found over there (demo.eu.org) is
>
> http://web.ukonline.co.uk/demotopia/reviews/DOLITTLE.gif
>
>oh.. and I should quote something on the page where I found that pic..
>they call this a 'high-res screenshot' :)
Okay, a few points:
1. It goes on to say '(it will only look pretty lo-fi on this page)'.
2. Which incidentally refers to the page on Crashed magazine (a paper one) from
which the review was taken, and IIRC didn't actually use a picture of that part
at all, but I suppose it applies here.
3. The original pic is interlaced - I took that picture as a simple screen
grab, so it's only showing half of the interlace, IYSWIM. I suspect that first
lot of C64 pictures are also interlaced, and they've had some sort of jiggery-
pokery done to show the full effect.
4. *And* I squished the picture to 3/4 size to fit the design of the page
better.
So not really a fair comparison, then... I'd suggest
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/demotopia/parties/F2E3G.gif as more representative.
--
Matthew Westcott
http://www.demo.eu.org/ - the home of the Spectrum demo scene
-------------------------------------------------------------
| "Hats off to the new age hairstyle made of bones |
| Hats off to the use of hats as megaphones" |
Andrew Owen
> The Starglider wrote:
>> That *WoS* a joke, right?
> 1. Where can I get the games?
At WoS (World of Spectrum) www.void.jump.org/
> and...
>
> 2. How do I use the BASIC? I'm not used to the single-keypress style and
> don't know how to write strings, load programs, use the functions, etc.
Plenty of programs are stored as snapshots so you load them via the
emulator. Most tape based stuff will load on the 128 machine so you just
select 'Tape Loader' from the menu by pressing ENTER (RETURN). Most
emulators have a list of the KEYWORDS but to load all you need to do is type
J <CTRL-P> <CTRL-P> or J <ALT-P> <ALT-P> depending on your emulator which
should print LOAD "" and then press ENTER.
If you plan to program the machine, use 128 mode, then you don't have to
worry about keywords because it doesn't use them.
> I love the C64, but I want other computer emulators, too. The C64 has 16
> *good* colors, but I'd like to see 32, or 256.
Well, I have my project to get more colours on a Spectrum, why don't you
start one for the C64.
Matthew Westcott
nice.
>take a look at:
>http://www.classicgaming.com/area64/gallery/clogy.htm
Aha! I've just found the page
<http://www.classicgaming.com/area64/gallery/gfxmodes.htm> which basically
explains that most of these nice screen modes are only any good for still
pictures. I notice that all the pages I've looked at seem to sidestep the issue
of what the C64's physical screen resolution actually is, without all these
interlacing tricks ;-)
Anyway, is it just me, or do most of these pictures have a funny radioactive
green glow to them?
--
Matthew Westcott
http://www.demo.eu.org/ - the home of the Spectrum demo scene
------------------------------------------------------------------
| "A man came up to me and said, 'I'd like to change your mind |
| by hitting it with a rock,' he said, 'though I am not unkind'" |
Brix
> on 29/5/00 10:40 am, Brix wrote:
>
> > Hm..
> > If I will ever be a lucky owner of a CMD SCSI-Interface I will hook up an
> > IOmega ZIPdrive to my C64...
> > It is sooo cool.
> > Any Questions Sir Sinclair?
>
> Expensive solution though. Couldn't you build your own IDE interface
> instead. The schematics to do this on the Speccy are on the web so it
> shouldn't be that difficult.
I could do that too.. there are schematics for the c64 too, but SCSI is
way cooler. And CMD's Controllersoftware is very cute.
-Wanja-
Brix
> > show me some screenshots from a spectrum with quality rivaling those.
> Check out the party results at www.demo.eu.org to see exactly what the
> Spectrum can do. Maybe it's not better but it's different. Did I mention
> that I don't actually care which machine is better.
To me those Screenshots look like very, very oldstyle C64 demos..
-Wanja-
Brix
> Johan Fitié (j...@NOSPAM.fairlight.to) wrote:
> : >> Any Questions Sir Sinclair?
> : >
> : >Expensive solution though. Couldn't you build your own IDE interface
> : >instead. The schematics to do this on the Speccy are on the web so it
> : >shouldn't be that difficult.
>
> had to work around a whole heap of problems (as explained elsewhere
> with fastloaders). This means that fully compatible drives have to
> be extremely complicated, dealing with every possible input.
The CMD devices are extremely compatible. No problem.
So your "utterly crap" statement is total crap.
> The Spectrum is a much simpler piece of kit than the C64.
You certainly have not very much knowledge of the C64.
-Wanja-
Brix
>
> hmm.. how come I'm not impressed..
> one of the best speccy pics I found over there (demo.eu.org) is
[snip]
Te doom-demo screenshot look interesting, that's all.
Is it animation or realtime?
-Wanja-
Joseph Rose
decompressed and played some games quickly, and found that they--at least the ones I
played (Captain America, Blockbuster, Jetpack, an adventure game I forget the name--It
was in a .ZIP "10 Great Games.ZIP.")--have ugly graphics, Apple II-style sound and
hard controls. They were all snapshot images, so they loaded quickly. Beyond that,
quality suffered. The adventure game was slow and inefficient in its drawing of the
screen and had poor split-screen technology in which the picture was scrolled off the
screen along with the text. Some C= adv. games I have were as inefficient in screen
redraws or even text-only, but I remember some adv. games with cool pictures, fast
redraw or full multi-color bitmap images (Incredible Hulk, Spider-man adventure and
one from which I only remember fleeting images) and good split-screen with graphics on
top and true text with scrolling on bottom. I couldn't get past the opening screen of
Capt' America, but that screen was kind of dark and low-quality. I had some
difficulty with Jet-pack, but the actual game scene was kind of blaze, with poor
colors. Blockbuster had Apple II-style beep-and-buzz sound and horrible graphics and
was downright annoying. If there is no better game or application, then the C64 is
pretty close to the prize.
Joseph Rose wrote:
> The Starglider wrote:
>
> > In article <3931CA2A...@pop.gis.net>, Joseph Rose
> > <jor...@pop.gis.net> writes
> > >
> > >I have [had] a PC-based Spectrum ZX emulator. It was hard to use, and I
> > >couldn't
> > >figure out how to run the games. I couldn't find too many games anyway.
> > >
> > That *WoS* a joke, right?
>
> 1. Where can I get the games?
>
> and...
>
> 2. How do I use the BASIC? I'm not used to the single-keypress style and don't
> know how to write strings, load programs, use the functions, etc.
>
> I love the C64, but I want other computer emulators, too. The C64 has 16 *good*
> colors, but I'd like to see 32, or 256.
>
> >
Joseph Rose
> In article <3931A085...@pop.gis.net>, Joseph Rose
> <jor...@pop.gis.net> writes
> >The C64/128 had a 1581 disk drive. *It* took 800k DD 3.5" floppies.
>
> I once saw (heard) a program which played "Daisy daisy" by grating the
> heads somehow on a 1581 disk drive.
>
> It sounded much better than anything the C64 could produce!
Try the HVSID C64 Music collection. Over 11,000 tunes for the C64 SID
chip and emulators. Then, come back and repeat that quote, with
examples. BTW, I've heard digital and voice samples played on an original
C64 and C64C, and my CCS64 emulators.
>
>
> --
> Chris Millett
Joseph Rose
> So not really a fair comparison, then... I'd suggest
> http://web.ukonline.co.uk/demotopia/parties/F2E3G.gif as more representative.
Pretty nice. The C64 probably could do something similar in hi-res mode at a
slightly higher resolution and with brighter colors. Upon closer examination, it
has the same color distortions it would have on a C64 in hi-res mode, and similar
colors as are available on a C64. It could probably easily be ported to a C64
image with no loss of information, except perhaps extra gray borders on each side
to center the image and better do the smaller horizontal resolution of the Speccy.
>
>
> --
> Matthew Westcott
> http://www.demo.eu.org/ - the home of the Spectrum demo scene
Darren Salt
nia...@dai.ed.ac.uk (Niall Tracey) wrote:
> Simon (simon56...@btinternet.com) wrote:
>> Basic is useless whichever machine you use!
> Not true. BBC BASIC (BBC Micro, Acorn Electron, Archimedes, RISC PC,
A7000, A7000+, RiscStation machines, Mico,
> Z88) is a beautiful language that runs perfectly, particularly on an ARM
> based computer
This is true...
> - the full interpreter fits in the code cache, allowing it to run at
> blinding speeds (for an interpreted language).
Not quite. Enough of the most commonly used bits fit in the cache; this is
sufficient to provide said speed.
--
| Darren Salt anti-UCE | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | nr. Ashington,
| Spec+3, Risc PC, A3010 | s zap,uk,eu,org ** anti-UBE | Northumberland
| BBC M128, Linux PC | @ retrospec,co,uk | Toon Army
| Down with the Mackems!
To iterate is human; to recurse, divine.
Andrew Owen
Playable, real-time demo, coded in the former eastern block. There are also
several playable demos of Mortal Kombat, one of which has high-res colour.
Joseph Rose
> On Monday, The Starglider wrote:
>
> > The annual C64's are Crap thread always follow the same old worn life
> > (From the Commode users):
> >
> > 1. The Commode 64 is crap. 2. But... but... the SID chip! The hardware
> > sprites! 3. But It's still crap.
> > 4. But I can plug X,Y and Z into it! It has more colours! It now runs
> > at 20Mhz!
> > 5. You don't get it. It's always been crap, and always will be.
>
> Exactly. The Wintel PC beats them both hands down, but it's still crap.
> Crapness is an inherent state of existence, independent of hardware
> specs.
Then *what* makes the C64 so bad? It *is* 8-bit, and as such, is going to
be limited, but consider it within those limits. If a particular 16-bit
computer can't do as much as a particular 8-bit computer, then the former
shouldn't even exist. This debate should compare the two computers under
the premise that they *are* 8-bit, and be treated under that assumption.
*Any* 8-bit computer is going to suck in comparison to later 16-bit
computers, not just the C64. So, if the Commodore is going to be labeled
thusly, it must be labeled in context.
>
>
> > Face it, the Commode 64 was ugly, damned difficult to program and
> > regardless of the hardware assistance you had, the software was simply
> > dire!
>
> Doesn't really matter, 'cos it was just crap.
>
> --
> Duncan Snowden.
>
> R Tape loading error, 1430:2
Joseph Rose
Simon wrote:
> > Aha! I've just found the page
> > <http://www.classicgaming.com/area64/gallery/gfxmodes.htm> which basically
> > explains that most of these nice screen modes are only any good for still
> > pictures.
>
> I never said they would be useful in games, it's just an example of c64
> graphics used to their full potential. even without those sorts of tricks,
> a c64's graphics capabilities are still more impressive than a spectrums'.
> I remember my mate raving on about how brilliant the graphics in the
> spectrum conversion of r-type were and how your sinclair had given it some
> huge mark, but they weren't a patch on the c64 version which didn't cause
> much of a stir.
>
> >I notice that all the pages I've looked at seem to sidestep the issue
> > of what the C64's physical screen resolution actually is, without all
> these
> > interlacing tricks ;-)
>
> in standrd hi-res mode the c64's resolution is 320x200 with 2 cols per 8x8
> character
> in standrad lo-res it's 160x200 (double width pixels) with 4 cols per 4x8
> character. The c64's pixels are slightly higher than they are wide which
> helps consolidate for this somewhat (something that still isn't feautred in
> any emulator, which is partly why the graphics look considerably chunkier)
It can be featured in a DOS-based emulator with a custom screen mode, and is in
CCS64 DOS.
>
>
> neither of these require any programming tricks to be achieved, simply a
> poke command to change between the two.
>
> the first one can do graphics virtually identical to a spectrum (barring
> some different colour values) BUT also has the advantage of being able to
> have up to 8 sprites (many more using multiplexing) of a different colour
> with no clash! Because of this, even games where all the gfx has been
> ported over directly often look better than the originals. However I still
> think that when used well, multicolour mode is vastly superior to this mode.
That was a *very* productive statement! :-D ;-)
Of course, a direct conversion from another platform *always* is of a lesser
quality than a *true* platform game. I have some C64 games which are
*obviously* Apple II games (Conan, Tass Times in Tonetown) and some which could
easily have been converted from Spectrum ZX (Dizzy and others, which I don't
recall). If you have a good eye, you can always tell a port from another
platform.
>
>
> > Anyway, is it just me, or do most of these pictures have a funny
> radioactive
> > green glow to them?
>
> sorry????
Chris Young
wibbled on for an age:
No, you have to wait a bit longer.
Chris
--
+-------------------------------------------+
| Unsatisfactory Software - "because it is" |
| http://www.unsatisfactory.freeserve.co.uk |
| Your Sinclair: A Celebration |
+-- http://www.ysac.cjb.net/ --ICQ:28784166-+
FANTASTIC! FANTASTIC! ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT! ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!
Chris Young
wibbled on for an age:
> I'm of the opinion that if a computer doesn't have a single MicroSoft logo
> on it, it must be of some use to someone (and vice versa).
Hmm... wasn't the C64's BASIC written by them?
Chris
--
+-------------------------------------------+
| Unsatisfactory Software - "because it is" |
| http://www.unsatisfactory.freeserve.co.uk |
| Your Sinclair: A Celebration |
+-- http://www.ysac.cjb.net/ --ICQ:28784166-+
EXCELLENT! AMAZING! ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT! ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!