The TI 99/4A is much better than the C64!
Pablo Rena
The Ti 99/4A is faster, has better sound and much better graphics.
Forget the C64 and get a TI 99/4A, fast !
Rick Balkins
"Pablo Rena" <celt_...@yahoo.com.mx> wrote in message
news:50a97d4f.04053...@posting.google.com...
> Texas Instruments made much better computers than Commodore.
>
> The Ti 99/4A is faster, has better sound and much better graphics.
>
> Forget the C64 and get a TI 99/4A, fast !
Pablo - don't start a flame WAR. I do have 4 TI-99/4A and I may agree with
technical factors but I don't think there is a need to incite flame. Thank
You.
I support TMS9900 based systems and 65xx systems. (If you know what I mean -
I support TI and Commodore comps.)
I like them both.
Yeah - I even have a PEB and a PCB board for a USB/SM card for the TI. Just
need to pick up some components.
Sam Gillett
"Rick Balkins" <rickbalki...@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote ...
[snip]
Why reply to such an obvious troll? (use my excuse... you were out of your
mind for 5 minutes!)
--
Best regards,
Sam Gillett
Out of my mind. Back in 5 minutes!
Rick Balkins
Yes - I was out of my mind for (I don't know how many minutes).
"Sam Gillett" <samgille...@diespammermsn.com> wrote in message
news:eCzuc.16629$g15....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Jonathan Herr
"Rick Balkins" <rickbalki...@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote in
message news:10bld0e...@corp.supernews.com...
*snip*
Me myself i pretty much like most old systems (Apple2, Tandy, Commodore) and
i will not discriminate.
*flame guard on* i know i know, it's just that i am interested in ALL types
of old computers *flame guard off*
> I support TMS9900 based systems and 65xx systems. (If you know what I
mean -
> I support TI and Commodore comps.)
>
> I like them both.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/04
JEB AT
--
=== John E. Bielak ===
www.Questarian.com
"Pablo Rena" <celt_...@yahoo.com.mx> wrote in message
news:50a97d4f.04053...@posting.google.com...
Peter de Vroomen
Yep, too bad that there were only 15 or so programs for it. But these all
surpassed any C64 programs. For instance, TI Invaders was MUCH MORE like the
original arcade game of 1978 than any Space Invaders clone on the C64.
PeterV
Paul Rosenzweig
> news:50a97d4f.04053...@posting.google.com...
> > Texas Instruments made much better computers than Commodore.
> >
> > The Ti 99/4A is faster, has better sound and much better graphics.
> >
> > Forget the C64 and get a TI 99/4A, fast !
>
> Pablo - don't start a flame WAR. I do have 4 TI-99/4A
> and I may agree with technical factors but I don't
> think there is a need to incite flame. Thank You.
Most of the time, when ever there are different selections that can
be made in the computer world, each selection has features that are
not shared by the others. This is the case when you can choose
between either a TI 99/4A or a C64. When they were in the department
stores, TI BASIC was said to be even more sluggish than C= BASIC.
I tested their computational precision by evaluating 4*atn(1) (pi)
on each. IIRC, the TI's result was correct to more decimal digits.
Sam Gillett
"Paul Rosenzweig" <r_u_...@mybluelight.com> wrote ...
> Most of the time, when ever there are different selections that can
> be made in the computer world, each selection has features that are
> not shared by the others. This is the case when you can choose
> between either a TI 99/4A or a C64. When they were in the department
> stores, TI BASIC was said to be even more sluggish than C= BASIC.
> I tested their computational precision by evaluating 4*atn(1) (pi)
> on each. IIRC, the TI's result was correct to more decimal digits.
Back in the 80's a multi-platform magazine, Home Computing I think, published
a type in Basic program that would create an amortization chart for a loan.
They noted that some Basics were more accurate than others. IIRC, the TI99
was at the top, with the C64 and TRC-80 (or maybe it was Atari) tied for
second place. At the bottom was the IBM PC.
--
Best regards,
Sam Gillett
Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!
Ben Yates
Yep. Too bad that JEB and PeterV are both complete gits!
Both stupid enough to reply to a troll. Perhaps they are
troll-assistants? Considering their slanted, uneducated opinion of the
TI, which had 100's of programs and still is used by hundreds.
Cylon
i...@comcast.com:
> Too bad the things ended up as door stops.... :)
I don't know about that. When I bought one as a kid, I had my dad take it
back to K-mart for a refund and then I got my C-64 instead. I found that
there wasn't all that much going on in the TI-99 scene back in those days.
At the same time my childhood pal living a few houses over would be doing
all sorts of stuff on his c64, and everyone in school was talking of C64,
not the TI99. The only thing I ever did on that TI when I had it, was to
type in a long program from the pages of some computer magazine, so I could
play a cheezy game. From my perspective, the C64 was a way better system
than the TI 99/4A ever was.
Jonathan Herr
thousands...
"Ben Yates" <ano...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:8c160850.04060...@posting.google.com...
> Yep. Too bad that JEB and PeterV are both complete gits!
>
> Both stupid enough to reply to a troll. Perhaps they are
> troll-assistants? Considering their slanted, uneducated opinion of the
> TI, which had 100's of programs and still is used by hundreds.
Ben Yates
I'm not here to argue which is better, history has shown the C64 has
more fans...
But the 99/4 came out 5 years before the C64... the 99/4A a good 2-3
years before, so they really aren't comparable... It'd be like
comparing an Amiga to a C64... Oh wait, you all do that...
I had two friends. One had a TI and an Apple II clone (Franklin). The
other had an Apple II clone (Syscom). I had a TI. Once I got "Tunnels
of Doom", can you guess which one of our houses we spent most of our
time at?
That would be mine...
Ben
Ben Yates
> Well the commodore has had THOUSANDS of programs, and is still used by
> thousands...
>
> "Ben Yates" <ano...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:8c160850.04060...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Yep. Too bad that JEB and PeterV are both complete gits!
> >
> > Both stupid enough to reply to a troll. Perhaps they are
> > troll-assistants? Considering their slanted, uneducated opinion of the
> > TI, which had 100's of programs and still is used by hundreds.
>
>
I said "had", referring to then. If you were to count "Now", I'm sure
it would be thousands of programs, albeit it the "hundreds" refers to
the 500+ on the TI Yahoo! group, and there are a few disenchanted who
don't join that group...
Ben
Peter de Vroomen
You should not take words so seriously, I was around when the TI was in the
shops.
But the TI99/4a did have a lot of flaws. Here's a nice page:
http://perso.club-internet.fr/pytheas/english/TI99_history.html
I'm Dutch. Maybe some 250 TI99/4a's have reached us overhere, while there
were thousands and thousands of C64's.
Look, the C64 made it because it had loads of memory and was easy to proram.
The TI99/4a had 256 bytes! Ok, it also had 16Kb of video memory, which you
could partly use for your own program. But that was SLOW because it had to
be shared between the VDP and the CPU. And then... The VDP is 8-bits wide,
so the nice and fast 16-bit processor had to share the video memory AND have
to access it 8-bits at a time! Come on, what were the TI people thinking?
'The computer L@@KS nice, so people will buy it anyway'???
The thing was unprogrammable, you allmost needed a computer-degree to
program the TI99/4a. You needed to plan your program, which is Ok for
computer buffs, but not for hobbyists who want to go just that little
further than BASIC.
Every half-wit could program the C64. And that's why the C64 made it and the
TI99/4a didn't, even while the C64's BASIC was trash.
The TI99/4a people forgot the KISS principle (or maybe it wasn't documented
yet and they were the first to encounter it): Keep It Simple, Stupid.
No need to call each other names over it, the facts are there, it's history.
I do agree that it is not necessary to rub it in.
PeterV
Peter de Vroomen
> I tested their computational precision by evaluating 4*atn(1) (pi)
> on each. IIRC, the TI's result was correct to more decimal digits.
That's all very nice for when the computer is used by scientists. But TI
sold the TI99/4a as a homecomputer. They never should have done that. They
went head-on with Commodore, while their computer was simply not what a
hobbyist needs/wants.
The TI99/4a was a beatiful machine, and it had an even more beautiful
expansion rack. But people who would have bought the TI99/4a didn't have the
money for the expansion rack.
Had TI made a much cheaper expansion pack for the TI99/4a, or simply a
plug-in memory pack upping the memory to 48Kb, then it could well have blown
the C64 away.
Anyway, TI reclaimed much of their losses through the MSX computer. It used
the same VDP as the TI99/4a :).
PeterV
Paul Rosenzweig
> > I tested their computational precision by evaluating 4*atn(1) (pi)
> > on each. IIRC, the TI's result was correct to more decimal digits.
>
> That's all very nice for when the computer is used by scientists.
At the time, I was under the mistaken impression that computers were
intended for computation. With 20 / 20 hindsite, the assignment of
computers as the name of these devices was also a mistake. I lacked
imagination when I got out of grad school with research that required
counting blocks under the bell shaped curve in the complex plane.
CTS286
Koen De Brabander
Peter de Vroomen
> > > on each. IIRC, the TI's result was correct to more decimal digits.
> >
> > That's all very nice for when the computer is used by scientists.
>
> At the time, I was under the mistaken impression that computers were
> intended for computation. With 20 / 20 hindsite, the assignment of
> computers as the name of these devices was also a mistake. I lacked
> imagination when I got out of grad school with research that required
> counting blocks under the bell shaped curve in the complex plane.
The TI99/4a computer was meant to be an entertainment machine by their
marketing. Look at the ads, they allmost all show the TI99/4a running a game
or educational software, and some business graphs. Scientists and
mathematicians still used CP/M machines, Apple II's or were buying the new
IBM PC (1978) because that came with Microsoft's excellent BASIC (which was
at least as precise as TI's). The first TI99/4a I ever saw was running TI
Invaders in the shop. I remember ads with pictures of the whole family
sitting around the TI99/4a.
Just as we don't agree on what the computer was meant to be, the designers
of the machine and the marketing people had totally different ideas on what
the computer should have been. It is a sign of how bad TI's marketing people
communicated with the design people and vice-versa.
All games, most educational software and certainly most business software
just don't need such precision. What they DO need is lots of memory. The
money spent on making such a good BASIC could have better been spent on
adding extra memory.
Now, Runge-Kutta integration does indeed need speed and precision, but the
TI99/4a was certainly not the only computer delivering it (I already
mentioned the Apple II and the IBM PC 5150).
TI would have done better if they had made two different designs for
different markets. They could easily have done that. Tandy had already shown
the way with their Model 1 and 3 for home users and their other models for
business users. Apple already went a little further than that. They invented
the Language Card in which you could load a language of choice, with your
precision and speed of choice. Of course the Apple II was much too expensive
for most home users.
Now, one last word. I am not flaming, it's YOUR perception of my post. What
I do know is that you apparently don't have an open enough mind to discuss
the strengths and weaknesses of each computer. Why can't we discuss the
differences, what's the problem with that? If I were really flaming, would I
have written so many arguments? So please, open your mind, get out of the
past. The TI99/4a is dead, the C64 is dead, the VIC20 is dead. Are you
really so lame as to fight over some corpse?
Maybe I should add that I am Dutch and don't allways use the right choice of
words. It's because English is my second language (Dutch being my first and
German my third (ahem, coincidence)), not because I lack intelligence.
PeterV
Ben Yates
> The TI99/4a was a beatiful machine, and it had an even more beautiful
> expansion rack. But people who would have bought the TI99/4a didn't have the
> money for the expansion rack.
>
> Had TI made a much cheaper expansion pack for the TI99/4a, or simply a
> plug-in memory pack upping the memory to 48Kb, then it could well have blown
> the C64 away.
Once again, proving your knowledge...
The original TI memory expansion WAS a separate module that plugged into the side.
And given that the C64 was 5 years away... it didn't make any difference.
Ben
Ben Yates
> > Yep. Too bad that JEB and PeterV are both complete gits!
>
> You should not take words so seriously, I was around when the TI was in the
> shops.
>
> But the TI99/4a did have a lot of flaws. Here's a nice page:
>
> http://perso.club-internet.fr/pytheas/english/TI99_history.html
>
> I'm Dutch. Maybe some 250 TI99/4a's have reached us overhere, while there
> were thousands and thousands of C64's.
TI's marketing department and problems with video/power have something
to do with this. Their distribution outside the country was always
poor.
>
> Look, the C64 made it because it had loads of memory and was easy to proram.
>
> The TI99/4a had 256 bytes! Ok, it also had 16Kb of video memory, which you
> could partly use for your own program. But that was SLOW because it had to
> be shared between the VDP and the CPU. And then... The VDP is 8-bits wide,
> so the nice and fast 16-bit processor had to share the video memory AND have
> to access it 8-bits at a time! Come on, what were the TI people thinking?
> 'The computer L@@KS nice, so people will buy it anyway'???
The computer was designed prior to 1979, when it appeared. The 16k was
large back in this era of 1-4k computers. The Apple had 16k or 48k at
the time, and the TI was designed with 32k mapped as expansion RAM.
The 256 bytes was enough for the GPL Interpreter, which was in a 6k
GROM.
>
> The thing was unprogrammable, you allmost needed a computer-degree to
> program the TI99/4a. You needed to plan your program, which is Ok for
> computer buffs, but not for hobbyists who want to go just that little
> further than BASIC.
No, it was easy. You didn't need to poke/peek addresses to write a
program. It had nice editing facilities, TRACE, BREAK, line
number/renumbering
>
> Every half-wit could program the C64. And that's why the C64 made it and the
> TI99/4a didn't, even while the C64's BASIC was trash.
I don't follow this argument. I think it was because the uP was more
familiar. And hobbyists love familiarity (the 990 is a strange CPU).
And the home market, the 99/4 was targeted for, wasn't quite ready.
Matthew Montchalin
|Subject: Re: The TI 99/4A is much better than the C64!
|
|C64 seems like a much more supported system then and now.
How many symbolic assemblers ever got written for the TI 99/41
anyway?
Sam Gillett
"Matthew Montchalin" <mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote ...
The number of BBS programs available for a system is a better measure of a
systems viability. There were only eight BBS programs for the TI-99/4 and
TI-99/4A. The C64, on the other hand had over 60 BBS programs available.
Larry Anderson
You mean that computer with a "16 bit" processor running on an 8-bit bus,
the one with the lame graphics hardware configuration making the machine
even slower yet?
or that non CBM computer with the lame cross posting uers?
Yeah, TI made better computers, that's why it sold so well compared to the
64. :-/
Larry
Kelli Halliburton
> The TI99/4a computer was meant to be an entertainment machine by their
> marketing. Look at the ads, they allmost all show the TI99/4a running
> a game or educational software, and some business graphs. Scientists
> and mathematicians still used CP/M machines, Apple II's or were
> buying the new IBM PC (1978) because that came with Microsoft's
buying the new IBM PC (1981) because that came with Microsoft's
Note correction.
Rick Balkins
I generally won't compare a system in that way. The viability may be a
factor of multiple things. There was 2.5 Million 99/4A computers produced
from 1981-1983 or 1984. The C64 was in production for continued years which
part of its success was derived from the software boom of the 1986-1991 time
which was sparked with Nintendo and Commodore 64 was the remaining contender
in the 8 bit marke besides Apple II. The issue was significantly different
issues. Now I have a IIGS. (Just working out the keyboard matters.)
Well, if TI fought it out or at least fought its way through for survival -
TI would had had a boom if they didn't drop it in 1984. If they just rode it
out. - TI would have fought well with the IIGS. (Especially if they upgraded
the VDP package and up the speed and stripped out the double interpreting
necessity). Heck - the TI-99/8 would have fought with the IIGS. Or simply
introduced a TI-99/16 which would have sported the 9998 VDP. Part of the
problem landed in the software crash of 1984/1985 which was when most of the
contenders dropped like flies. Commodore did its game in the price war and
if TI decided not to fight in terms of price and kept in the mid-range.
Taking on the PC straight on early. They could have won and hit IBM PC
platform right on. Besides - the TI-99/4A technology was based on
minicomputer technology of their TM990 Minicomputer line which did have
TMS9900 processor.
All TI really needed to do was aim at the business computer market.
Targeting the business/education/"serious" home user who uses a computer for
serious use.
The TI technology is from the get go a VERY powerful technology which would
have been technically the first "super-micro". It would have been a market
that would have sustained it. Viability does nevertheless depends on which
market you aim the technology to and the time. TI simply abandon the
technology.
"Sam Gillett" <samgille...@diespammermsn.com> wrote in message
news:Ecawc.1957$po3....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
Rick Balkins
Minicomputer and the TMS9900 was designed well before they decided it for
use in a microcomputer. They designed the core technology for a
minicomputer. Hence its VERY radical CPU design compared to typical CPUs for
microcomputer. The TM990 had a far more powerful OS than MS-DOS at the time.
Remember DX-10 and DNOS ???? Given they put enough RAM in the system and
all - they could have put the DX-10 or DNOS OS onto the TI-99/X line of
computers. Not to mention the TI-99/4A traditional boot environment which
could have switched between modes. For example - they could have switch
between the BASIC and the DX-10 or DNOS or the cartridge. Whatever, it is
just modding the main menu.
TI's main mistake was going into the ultra-low market with the C= because
the main cost was mainly this - the TI has more chip components than the
VIC-20. MORE Chip components = MORE cost.
BTW: the 990 was the minicomputer and the TMS9900 was the CPU which replaced
the older TM990 CPU boards with a single-chip version of that board in the
TM990/10 mini-computer.
The TI-99/4A used the very same CPU as their minicomputer counterpart. The
slowness was not the CPU but the double-interpreting BASIC to GPL to ML
process instead of BASIC to ML direct which would have been faster than the
C64 despite the multiplexing to 16KB 8-Bit memory via the VDP. Of course by
1986 - they could have up the VDP into a 16 Bit VDP connected to 16-Bit RAM.
They could have even expanded the address bus/registers in the VDP to a
24-BIT address. This was something TI had the capabilities of doing but TI
decided to stick with their strong market "calculators".
"Ben Yates" <ano...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:8c160850.04060...@posting.google.com...
> "Peter de Vroomen" <pet...@ditweghaluh.jaytown.com> wrote in message
news:<40bf58b8$0$566$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>...
> TI's marketing department and problems with video/power have something
> to do with this. Their distribution outside the country was always
> poor.
>
> The computer was designed prior to 1979, when it appeared. The 16k was
> large back in this era of 1-4k computers. The Apple had 16k or 48k at
> the time, and the TI was designed with 32k mapped as expansion RAM.
> The 256 bytes was enough for the GPL Interpreter, which was in a 6k
> GROM.
>
> No, it was easy. You didn't need to poke/peek addresses to write a
> program. It had nice editing facilities, TRACE, BREAK, line
> number/renumbering
> I don't follow this argument. I think it was because the uP was more
Tom Lake
> the main cost was mainly this - the TI has more chip components than the
> VIC-20. MORE Chip components = MORE cost.
I think their main mistake was the "upgrade" that only allowed TI-licensed
cartridges to run.
That GRU mod (if I remember what it was called correctly) was in the beige
models rather
than the black/silver ones. We developers decided to write for other
systems because we
either couldn't afford TI's royalties or were just unwilling to pay to run
our software on
arrogant TI's machines.
Another factor was that, to develop assembly language programs, you could
use a stock
C64 with tape drive. To do so on the TI, you had to have memory expansion,
a disk drive
and the PEB to hold the cards. Sure there was the Mini-Memory cart but it
was so limited
as to be useless for developers.
Tom Lake
Rick Balkins
"Tom Lake" <tl...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:j%hwc.53147$j24....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> I think their main mistake was the "upgrade" that only allowed TI-licensed
> cartridges to run.
> That GRU mod (if I remember what it was called correctly) was in the beige
> models rather
> than the black/silver ones. We developers decided to write for other
> systems because we
> either couldn't afford TI's royalties or were just unwilling to pay to run
> our software on
> arrogant TI's machines.
>
> Another factor was that, to develop assembly language programs, you could
> use a stock
> C64 with tape drive. To do so on the TI, you had to have memory
expansion,
> a disk drive
> and the PEB to hold the cards. Sure there was the Mini-Memory cart but it
> was so limited
> as to be useless for developers.
Well nowadays, we can get by that. We can make a tape drive that sports its
own memory and I/O. Actually, - do something similar to C= "intellegent disk
drives". Then you can bank the tape drive to it. In fact the ROM to drive
the drive would have been on the drive itself. In fact - there is ABSOLUTELY
no reason why tape drives can't be intellegent like the disk drives and be
on a TI.
Of course, this was an issue then. Though - this is not the limit of the TI.
It could do a whole lot more than people generally expect and I know that it
could do alot more. In cases, we could have used 65c02 from WDC for the
Drive Controller main CPU if we wanted to.
All of these options are something that was known then but I think issues of
patent would have made it trouble to use the 65xx. Use a TMS9900 instead.
Then again our drives would have been 16-Bit drives. Hmmm.....
Sam Gillett
"Rick Balkins" <rickbalki...@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote ...
> Well, if TI fought it out or at least fought its way through for survival -
> TI would had had a boom if they didn't drop it in 1984. If they just rode
> it out.
Perhaps TI was not interested in riding it out. From what I know of TI,
things like calculators and home computers were sort of like a hobby to TI.
Their _real_ business in the 1970's, 1980's and into the mid 90's was
military hardware, and parts for military hardware.
For example, TI was very far ahead of Intel, IBM, and Motorola in
microprocessor technology in the late 70's. In 1979, another contractor was
using 16 Mhz, 16-bit TI processors that operated with reliability in a 200+
degree Fahrenheit environment. I won't say what the equipment was, because,
as far as I know, that is still classified information.
I would not be surprised if TI broke the Gigahertz barrier around 1990.
However, as I had no "need to know" I can't really confirm that. ;-)
Yes, boys and girls, although some of Reagan's Star Wars projects were only
"smoke and mirrors" designed to drive the USSR into bankruptcy, some of the
Star Wars projects were real.