The C64 was crap!
Andy Kavanagh
There weren't _any_ decent games. And the graphics were crap. And it
was cream.
[ First Blood! ]
P.S. CSS> Sorry, but I _had_ to do it... We've not had a war in such a
long time :)
Andy.
--
A.Kav...@uea.ac.uk * http://www.uea.ac.uk/~w9643451/
Last Update: 21st September 1998
"Weird is merely something that other people suffer from"
Derek Jolly
>
>It WAAAAAAAS, it really WAAAAAAAAAAAAS!
>
>There weren't _any_ decent games. And the graphics were crap. And it
>was cream.
>
>[ First Blood! ]
>
>P.S. CSS> Sorry, but I _had_ to do it... We've not had a war in such a
>long time :)
Yeah, this NG's been a bit quiet recently. Should be fun. :)
--
Derek Jolly (jol...@xtetraworld.com) (Remove the 'x' for e-mail)
V is for virtue, so I ain't going to hurt you,
E is for even if you want me to. - Nick Cave
Andrew Cadley
Andy Kavanagh wrote in message ...
:It WAAAAAAAS, it really WAAAAAAAAAAAAS!
:
:There weren't _any_ decent games. And the graphics were crap. And it
:was cream.
No, the speccy was crap. It didn't have that lovely "streamlined" basic. It
gave you commands for everything you might need and it was faster. I mean,
who needs speed when you can have eight very low-res little sprites.
As for the CPC...
AndyC
David Murray
> There weren't _any_ decent games. And the graphics were crap. And it
> was cream.
>
This reminds me of the arguments I used to have with this guy in
junior-high! He had an Apple IIe! He thought it was totally superior! I
think he had 128K and that was the whole premise of his arguments. Didn't
matter about the fact that BOTH machines used the same processor, the C64
has infinetly better graphics and sound... Plus.. I don't know anybody who
liked the outward design of the Apple series! They were the ugliest things
I'd ever seen next to a PET! I think I'd rather use a VIC20 for my only
computer than an Apple! Oh.. and never mind the difference in price for
and Apple and a Commodore back in those days! Or.. Maybe that is why he
thought his was better, because it costs more, kinda like those Curtis
Mathis customers! hahahahaha
--DavidM
Derek Jolly
>
>
>was cream.
>
>
>P.S. CSS> Sorry, but I _had_ to do it... We've not had a war in such a
>long time :)
Yay!!
The C64 was much better than the Spectrum.
The C64 had a much better processor, the Z80's shite.
Vector graphics on the Spectrum were bollocks.
The C64's BASIC was hugely better. The Spectrum's was garbage.
The C64's loading times were much quicker than the Spectrum's
spongy rubbish.
The Spectrum's memory was only 48K, cack.
C64 RULEZ ! SPECTRUM SUCKZ !
By all accounts I should get 103 flames to this message. ;)
(c.s.s. regulars should know where this comes from).
lo...@my.sig
: Andy Kavanagh wrote in message ...
: :It WAAAAAAAS, it really WAAAAAAAAAAAAS!
: :
: :There weren't _any_ decent games. And the graphics were crap. And it
: :was cream.
: No, the speccy was crap. It didn't have that lovely "streamlined" basic.
LOL! Nice one. Translated this means "Remove all functions and procedures
that might actually be of use, such as the PRINT AT command...."
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5...@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk| |
| Andrew Halliwell | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| Finalist in:- | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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>e++ h/h+ !r!| Space for hire |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lo...@my.sig
: Oh my God! Andy Kavanagh killed Kenny! You b*****d!
:>
:>It WAAAAAAAS, it really WAAAAAAAAAAAAS!
:>
:>There weren't _any_ decent games. And the graphics were crap. And it
:>was cream.
:>
:>
:>P.S. CSS> Sorry, but I _had_ to do it... We've not had a war in such a
:>long time :)
: Yeah, this NG's been a bit quiet recently. Should be fun. :)
Errrr....
I might be being a little silly here, but how can we have another war if we
don't x-post to their group?
Or are the evil trecherous cbm spies lurking in the bushes????
AAA! THERE'S ONE! >*Babababababbang*< GOT'IM!
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5...@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk| "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| Finalist in:- | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
Derek Jolly
<snip>
>Errrr....
>I might be being a little silly here, but how can we have another war if we
>don't x-post to their group?
That was just an aside to the members of this group. I crossposted the
important one afterwards. :)
Cameron Kaiser
>No, the speccy was crap. It didn't have that lovely "streamlined" basic. It
>gave you commands for everything you might need and it was faster. I mean,
>who needs speed when you can have eight very low-res little sprites.
Oh no. Not the 64 vs. Spectrum flame war part II!
Remembering the last time,
--
-------------- The Commodore 64 lives: http://computerworkshops.home.ml.org/ --
Cameron Kaiser (posting with a Commodore 128) | "When in doubt, take a pawn."
cdkaiser@concentricMUNGEnet | -- Mission: Impossible
-- personal page: http://calvin.ptloma.edu/~spectre/ ------ CBMSF Unit $EA31 --
Martijn van Buul
> C64 RULEZ ! SPECTRUM SUCKZ !
Do we really have to go through this _again_ ? We've had that last year,
right?
(Allthough I don't disagree with Mr. Jolly in the first place.)
PS: Is there a spectrum emulator for a C64? *sigh*
--
Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/
Martijn van Buul, mart...@mud.stack.nl, tij...@outerspace.imaginary.com
Pienjo on #c-64 and #dohd (when I'm in the mood)
Tijntje@OuterSpace - 131.155.141.166 3333
Cameron Kaiser
>PS: Is there a spectrum emulator for a C64? *sigh*
Yep. :-)
Graham Thornton
>
> liked the outward design of the Apple series! They were the ugliest things
> I'd ever seen next to a PET! I think I'd rather use a VIC20 for my only
> computer than an Apple! Oh.. and never mind the difference in price for
Hey! - leave the VIC-20 out of this! - that was a cool machine - much
better
than the 64. The text display was much easier to read, the disk
interface
was faster, the modulator was separate so easier to replace, the
cartridges
were easier to handle, and only 1.5K of the machine's memory was taken
by
the operating system compared to 26K on the 64. And don't forget that
professional-looking cream case - so much more impressive that the beige
64.
> and Apple and a Commodore back in those days! Or.. Maybe that is why he
> thought his was better, because it costs more, kinda like those Curtis
> Mathis customers! hahahahaha
Like they say - charge enough for anything and it will pass for class -
just look at Acura motor cars :)
Graham
</Sarcasm>
Jamie Percival
<a.p.c...@uea.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Andy Kavanagh wrote in message ...
>:It WAAAAAAAS, it really WAAAAAAAAAAAAS!
>:
>:There weren't _any_ decent games. And the graphics were crap. And it
>:was cream.
The Amiga was cream. That was agood bachine.
>
>
>No, the speccy was crap. It didn't have that lovely "streamlined" basic. It
>gave you commands for everything you might need and it was faster. I mean,
>who needs speed when you can have eight very low-res little sprites.
They were cool.
Stephen Judd
Andy Kavanagh <w964...@cpca6.uea.ac.uk> wrote:
>It WAAAAAAAS, it really WAAAAAAAAAAAAS!
>
>There weren't _any_ decent games. And the graphics were crap. And it
>was cream.
If you truly wish to relive the experience of being thouroughly beaten
and humiliated, you can always visit
http://stratus.esam.nwu.edu/~judd/fridge/speccy/
While I've no doubt that a few, shall we say, intellectually challenged
individuals will pick up a torch and expound on advanced spectrum
features such as BASIC and speedy tape drives, a casual perusal of the
64 newsgroup suggests that its members are more occupied these days with
matters such as the best way to design a web browser, new optimized
C compilers, and the future directions of the 64. While I'm confident that
the Ian Colliers and other astute folks are still active on c.s.sinclair,
I will hazard a guess that the above post results from boredom with endless
discussions of cheapie British tape games from high school.
evetS-
Although I am not reading news, feel free to email sjudd (@) nwu.edu
to contact me.
Jamie Percival
<cdka...@delete.these.four.words.concentric.net> wrote:
>"Andrew Cadley" <a.p.c...@uea.ac.uk> writes:
>
>>No, the speccy was crap. It didn't have that lovely "streamlined" basic. It
>>gave you commands for everything you might need and it was faster. I mean,
>>who needs speed when you can have eight very low-res little sprites.
>
>Oh no. Not the 64 vs. Spectrum flame war part II!
>
>Remembering the last time,
I'm new here. I suppose I should be fortuneate that I missed the last
one. Still, the C64 sucks like a hungry baby. Yes, you can have all
*16* colours on screen at once, if you decide to stick with about
180x120 resolution.
Disk loading was absolutely chronic. It usually took about 2 minutes
to load games that were about 20K in size. Loading off tape was a
disaster. It was like waiting for a vasectomy and twice as painful.
The lack of audio signal meant that you couldn't hear where the game
was. All you had was a piddly crap counter thing which either started
jamming, or the belt snapped. The need for a specially made datasette
meant that you couldn't hook it up to your hi-fi for better sound
quality.
The whole thing was big, bulky and UGLY. The Spectrum could quite
literally be carried around in a shoebox.
----------------------------------------------------
VISIT SPECHELL: http://www.arcticfox.freeserve.co.uk
ICQ: 16528499
----------------------------------------------------
To respond personally, remove the nospam.
Markus Brenner
>I'm new here. I suppose I should be fortuneate that I missed the last
>one. Still, the C64 sucks like a hungry baby. Yes, you can have all
>*16* colours on screen at once, if you decide to stick with about
>180x120 resolution.
ooh, if you try to feed some more flaim bait into a pointless thread at least
get your facts right. The low resolution screen of a C64 is 160x200 pixels.
And there are tricks for hires/colors.
>Disk loading was absolutely chronic. It usually took about 2 minutes
>to load games that were about 20K in size.
If you didn't use one of the fast loaders which were quite common. There are
software ones (Hypra Load, Fload) as well as hardware solutions (Speeddos,
Dolphin Dos.... Jiffy Dos).
>Loading off tape was a
>disaster. It was like waiting for a vasectomy and twice as painful.
Again, the first program I got for my C64 was TurboTape.
>The lack of audio signal meant that you couldn't hear where the game
>was. All you had was a piddly crap counter thing which either started
>jamming, or the belt snapped. The need for a specially made datasette
>meant that you couldn't hook it up to your hi-fi for better sound
>quality.
I wonder why you need sound quality on a digital data type. Beats me.
>The whole thing was big, bulky and UGLY. The Spectrum could quite
>literally be carried around in a shoebox.
Yep. It made a fine doorstop.
(umh. well. have to play some Fort Apocalypse now .... :)
cheers,
-markus
----
Markus Brenner -==(UDIC)==- no matter how - how hard you try
\\// in your own life, and through the years
Minstrel Dragon (\/) with every up - must come a down
\/ enjoy the laughter and the tears
of happiness (Roger Taylor)
Lord High Mucketty-muck of the UDIC Greybeards (tm)
email: bre...@biochem.mpg.de * WWW: http://www.biochem.mpg.de/~brenner/
Martijn van Buul
But then again.. IMHO, that last flamewar between c.s.c and
c.s.s did have one positive aspect: I guess both groups ended up having
_some_ form of respect for the other. The same goes for that discussion
between comp.sys.cbm and comp.sys.atari.8-bit.
I personally don't like people saying things about my beloved commodore
that aren't quite true. I suppose that people from c.s.s feel the same
bout their Spectrum. I respect that. But I'd like some form of respect
back.
It occurred to me that Jamie Percival wrote in comp.sys.cbm:
> On 21 Oct 1998 07:23:51 PDT, Cameron Kaiser
> <cdka...@delete.these.four.words.concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >Oh no. Not the 64 vs. Spectrum flame war part II!
> >
> >Remembering the last time,
>
> I'm new here. I suppose I should be fortuneate that I missed the last
> one.
No. I think you should feel sorry you missed the last one. Stephen
Judd has a nice collection of posts concerning this topic. Many of them
were utter flame, but other were quite interesting.
> Still, the C64 sucks like a hungry baby. Yes, you can have all
> *16* colours on screen at once, if you decide to stick with about
> 180x120 resolution.
Definately not true. Matter-of-factly, it doesn't sound like _any_
C-64 resultion at all.
The C64 had a 320x200 resolution in 'monochrome' (Monochrome being
within an 8x8 pixel block), 160x200 in multi-colour.
Even the 'monochrome' mode had the possibility of displaying all
16 colours on one line.
I just won't start about things like FLI, interlacing and that
fabulous thing called raster-interrupts.
>
> Disk loading was absolutely chronic. It usually took about 2 minutes
> to load games that were about 20K in size. i
Granted, the original loading routines sucked. But, without changing
any hardware at all, I've seen transmission rates of about the tenfold
of your figure.
Now if just change the C64-kernal and the drive's DOS, even better rates
can be accomplished.
> Loading off tape was a
> disaster. It was like waiting for a vasectomy and twice as painful.
> The lack of audio signal meant that you couldn't hear where the game
> was. All you had was a piddly crap counter thing which either started
> jamming, or the belt snapped. The need for a specially made datasette
> meant that you couldn't hook it up to your hi-fi for better sound
> quality.
The Commodore datasette was quite costly, agreed. But! It did 'rescue'
us from tedious things like adjusting the volume and tone-controls to
a particular setting.
Those tapedrives just worked.
>
> The whole thing was big, bulky and UGLY. The Spectrum could quite
> literally be carried around in a shoebox.
Yes, but then again, the Spectrum had a bloody crappy keyboard.
And 'ugly' is a very personal thing.
dpence
I got online..I'd never even heard of a spectrum...and well I downloaded an
emulator and a few games....wow...reminded me of an Atari2600 blocky graphics and
the sound was ummm for lack of a better word...cheap..LOL..sorry but even the
Vic-20 looked better...
The Starglider
The C64 didn't even had 64K of usable RAM!
--
**************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
* NVG UPDATES:n...@thespian.demon.co.uk * TO REPLY.
* ICQ Number:1773852 * _WW_
* WWPAGER:http://wwp.mirabilis.com/1773852 * /_ _\
******************************************** | O O |
___________________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo___________
The Starglider
Jolly <jol...@xtetraworld.com> writes
>Yay!!
>
>The C64 was much better than the Spectrum.
>The C64 had a much better processor, the Z80's shite.
>Vector graphics on the Spectrum were bollocks.
>The C64's BASIC was hugely better. The Spectrum's was garbage.
>The C64's loading times were much quicker than the Spectrum's
>spongy rubbish.
>The Spectrum's memory was only 48K, cack.
>
>
>(c.s.s. regulars should know where this comes from).
carp.
The Starglider
<ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> writes
>
> evetS-
>
Hey, your name is backwards!
A bit like the C64 I suppose.
(ooh! That was a good 'un!)
Martijn van Buul
> Here's the killer:
*sigh*
>
> The C64 didn't even had 64K of usable RAM!
I can write to it.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum: It's RAM.
It's useable.
And it's definately usefull.
Martijn van Buul
> <ju...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> writes
> >
> > evetS-
> >
> Hey, your name is backwards!
>
> A bit like the C64 I suppose.
What's backwards about a C64.
>
> (ooh! That was a good 'un!)
Hardly.
Jamie Percival
<cdka...@delete.these.four.words.concentric.net> deighted us all in
comp.sys.sinclair with another bout of ASCII diarrhoea:
>mart...@stack.nl (Martijn van Buul) writes:
>
>>PS: Is there a spectrum emulator for a C64? *sigh*
>
>Yep. :-)
>
It's by Whitby computers. It's basically not very good. It doesn't
handle machine code, so you can only use Basic. Mind you, it loads
(and saves?) programmes via the datasette, which impressed me.
David Ledbury
>emulator and a few games....wow...reminded me of an Atari2600 blocky graphics and
Blocky graphics? Have you seen the C64 atempts at 3D graphics?
(c) 1998 David Ledbury, Silly sausage productions....
Use outside of this newsgroup is actually quite sad really, as
in all honest it's not really worth repeating elsewhere ;)
Cameron Kaiser
>A bit like the C64 I suppose.
Man, I knew I cleaned my killfile out too early. Can we drop this issue,
please, like now? The last time, almost a meg of spool space was wasted on
this thread and little was accomplished or new information gleaned except
that certain people molest children, and certain others don't have a father.
Yes, very helpful, and certainly furthers the cause of both systems. >:-(
Jason
> It WAAAAAAAS, it really WAAAAAAAAAAAAS!
> There weren't _any_ decent games.
[Jason sighs and shoves IO into pause]
Sorry, what was the question again?
> And the graphics were crap.
Okay, do I need to re-post my challenge or do all the Speccy folks who
couldn't do it remember it from last time...?
> And it was cream.
Only the later models, the early ones are beige...
> [ First Blood! ]
What have an Australian C64 development team got to do with it...?!
> P.S. CSS> Sorry, but I _had_ to do it... We've not had a war in such
> a long time :)
Also to CSS: Don't look at *us*, he started it!
--
Jason =-)
_______________________________________________________________________
TMR / / / / / / / /\
/ /__/ / / /__/ / / / /__/ Email: t...@cosine.demon.co.uk / /
/ /\_/ / /__ / / / / __// Cosine Homepage: / /
/ /__/ / / / / / / / / / http://www.cosine.demon.co.uk / /
/_____/_____/_____/__/__/__/_____/_____________________________________/ /
\_____\_____\_____\__\__\__\_____\_____________________________________\/
Jason
> Oh no. Not the 64 vs. Spectrum flame war part II!
> Remembering the last time,
Jamie Percival:
> I'm new here. I suppose I should be fortuneate that I missed the last
> one.
Oh I dunno, it gets quite funny later on when the Speccy users realise
that the C64 can display just about anything the Speccy can but not vice
versa. And when we get to the bit about comparable frame rates and
everyone realises C64 users are assuming 50FPS as standard it's nearly
hysterical...
Anyone for a game of Uridium...?
> Still, the C64 sucks like a hungry baby. Yes, you can have all
> *16* colours on screen at once, if you decide to stick with about
> 180x120 resolution.
Oh goody, somebody was actually stupid enough to post figures...
Right, the mode you're referring to is multicolour mode, which is
actually 160x200 but we also have a 320x200 monocolour mode which will
do exactly the same as a Speccy, but with a wider and higher screen with
all sixteen colours (I have a few C64 pictures that are enhanced and
expanded from Speccy ones if you want 'em). It's also fairly easy to
take the screen out into the side borders, *not* just by splitting
colours, but actually having a picture that is 368x200 pixels in size.
(Which reminds me, somebody claimed the Speccy could put stuff in it's
side borders, but I've seen a fair few demos now and none of them seem
to do more than split the colours, anybody want to recommend?)
Then we get onto the *enhanced* screen modes. First off is AHires which
is also 320x200 but has three colours per attribute rather than two. So
that's wider than the Spectrum, higher, the same pixel resolution and
with more colour. Next up is Flexible Line Interlace (F.L.I.) which is
148x200 and allows for sixteen colours per attribute (two independent
ones on each raster line, a background colour which can be split every
raster line and a colour attribute).
A.F.L.I. (Advanced F.L.I.) is 296x200 pixels, attribute squares are one
pixel high and eight wide and it can display all sixteen colours in a
single attribute square. So that's *still* more pixels across and down
than the Speccy with more colours. Just imagine rainbow processing but
with a bigger screen than the Speccy actually has...
There's also I.F.L.I. (Interlaced F.L.I.) which is 296x200 (horizontally
interlaced) with similar colour control to F.L.I. as well as the option
to blend colours.
And I haven't even mentioned S.H.F., S.H.I.F. or S.H.I.F. XL ('cos I
can't remember the exact specs off the top of my head).
Oh, and apart from AHires and the S.H... variants which require sprites
to assist the graphics mode, there have been examples of all of these
modes running sprites. Large sprites.
> Disk loading was absolutely chronic. It usually took about 2 minutes
> to load games that were about 20K in size. Loading off tape was a
> disaster.
Crazy Comets from tape in under a minute versus Street Fighter 2 on the
Speccy, which appears to come on a C120...
> The need for a specially made datasette meant that you couldn't hook
> it up to your hi-fi for better sound quality.
[Looks at the C128D and C64 connected to a 100 watt per channel amp and
looks back bemused]
Why would you *want* to improve the quality of your loading noises...?!
Now, if we're talking actually running the output of the sound chip
through an amp, there's a *perfectly* serviceable monitor port on the
back of the machine to do *that*...
> The whole thing was big, bulky and UGLY.
Anyone else thinking "pot" and "kettle" here? And this from a rubber
fetishist... =-)
> The Spectrum could quite literally be carried around in a shoebox.
My VIC-20 is a lot smaller and easier to transport than my PC, is it a
better machine? Are you really that desperate for a reason to attack
the C64 here...? You'll be doing the old "only eight sprites" [1] or
"39K of RAM" [2] rubbish soon, won't you [yawn]...
[1] Maximum number of sprites I've seen on screen during a game: 58 done
by Turrican 2. Maximum in a demo was 144 in Krestage by Crest.
[2] 39K of BASIC RAM, but it's easy to get over 48K of space for data by
loading it under the BASIC ROM and onwards. The BASIC program has to
finish at $A000 but all the RAM from there to $FFFA *can* be used for
graphics or data. So that's 56K. And machine code programmers can
quite happily use almost the entire RAM.
Andrew Cadley
Stephen Judd wrote in message <70l52e$8...@news.acns.nwu.edu>...
:In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.98102...@cpcw1.uea.ac.uk>,
:Andy Kavanagh <w964...@cpca6.uea.ac.uk> wrote:
:If you truly wish to relive the experience of being thouroughly beaten
:and humiliated, you can always visit
Hmmm, apparently this is some new definition of the term beaten and
humilated which is completely the opposite of the ordinary one.
:While I've no doubt that a few, shall we say, intellectually challenged
:individuals will pick up a torch and expound on advanced spectrum
:features such as BASIC and speedy tape drives, a casual perusal of the
:64 newsgroup suggests that its members are more occupied these days with
:matters such as the best way to design a web browser, new optimized
:C compilers, and the future directions of the 64. While I'm confident that
:the Ian Colliers and other astute folks are still active on c.s.sinclair,
:I will hazard a guess that the above post results from boredom with endless
:discussions of cheapie British tape games from high school.
A casual perusal of the 64 newsgroup seems to contain long discussions about
cheapie tape games from high school and discussion on whether, if you
replace all the chips inside it, you can still call it a C64. As for the web
browser, it seems to be all talk and no action.
Anyway, how can we possibbly be bored on c.s.s, we've been far to busy
playing Doom, Worms, UFO and Dune 2, any of these appeared on the 64 yet?
;-)
AndyC
: evetS-
lw54840
> Here's the killer:
> The C64 didn't even had 64K of usable RAM!
Was it supposed to?
Peter G.
>
> It occurred to me that The Starglider wrote in comp.sys.cbm:
> *sigh*
> >
I believe thats have not had I have bad grammar but not that bad...most
of the time.
> I can read from it.
> I can write to it.
>
> Quod Erat Demonstrandum: It's RAM.
>
> It's useable.
>
> And it's definately usefull.
And for you Non-Latin or Ancient Geometry(Q.E.D.)
Translated: I have demonstrated
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter G.<syt...@webzone.net.nospam>
Rana's Vintage Computers--http://www.bigdog.tulsa.ok.us/
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marko Mäkelä
Derek> The C64's BASIC was hugely better. The Spectrum's was garbage.
The C64's BASIC was made by Microsoft: try e.g. ?0+""+-0 and it'll crash.
What about the Spectrum's BASIC? I only used it once on the ZX48 (or
was it ZX16). The commands had to be input by pressing some weird key
combinations. "Commands can be typed with one key," said the
advertisement back then, but it didn't say that "commands MUST be
typed with those key combinations".
Marko
Stuart Brady
>C64 RULEZ ! SPECTRUM SUCKZ !
>By all accounts I should get 103 flames to this message. ;)
>(c.s.s. regulars should know where this comes from).
AAS (Advanced Advocacy Simulator). I got 105 flames from the same
message...
--
/*
* <b>Stuart Brady:</b> spam > nospam.demon.co.uk/dev/null
* mail > wholehog.demon.co.uk
* Manic Miner homepage: http://www.wholehog.demon.co.uk/stu
*/
The Starglider
<t...@cosine.demon.co.uk> writes
>Cameron:
>> Oh no. Not the 64 vs. Spectrum flame war part II!
>
>> Remembering the last time,
>
>Jamie Percival:
>> I'm new here. I suppose I should be fortuneate that I missed the last
>> one.
>
>Oh I dunno, it gets quite funny later on when the Speccy users realise
>that the C64 can display just about anything the Speccy can but not vice
>versa. And when we get to the bit about comparable frame rates and
>everyone realises C64 users are assuming 50FPS as standard it's nearly
>hysterical...
>
>Anyone for a game of Uridium...?
that it was 24.
The Starglider
<t...@cosine.demon.co.uk> writes
>Andy Kavanagh:
>> It WAAAAAAAS, it really WAAAAAAAAAAAAS!
>
>> There weren't _any_ decent games.
>
>[Jason sighs and shoves IO into pause]
>Sorry, what was the question again?
>
>> And the graphics were crap.
>
>Okay, do I need to re-post my challenge or do all the Speccy folks who
>couldn't do it remember it from last time...?
CSS:Your Commode was crap at 3D games.
CSC:What about Mercenary? Or Elite.
CSS:The spectrum versions had faster framerates due to the Z80
processor, which was faster at doing the maths.
CSC: <Long pause while they think about that one>
But at least Elite had a cool tune when the docking computer was on.
>
>> And it was cream.
>
>Only the later models, the early ones are beige...
Eurgh! That's just as bad!
The Starglider
<mart...@stack.nl> writes
>The C64 had a 320x200 resolution in 'monochrome' (Monochrome being
>within an 8x8 pixel block), 160x200 in multi-colour.
>
>Even the 'monochrome' mode had the possibility of displaying all
>16 colours on one line.
>
>I just won't start about things like FLI, interlacing and that
>fabulous thing called raster-interrupts.
to speed with those going!
>> The whole thing was big, bulky and UGLY. The Spectrum could quite
>> literally be carried around in a shoebox.
>
>And 'ugly' is a very personal thing.
>
thing was safe due to the keyboard!
Clockmeister
> >Only the later models, the early ones are beige...
> Eurgh! That's just as bad!
>
Or a pocket calculator, and about as usefull as one.
Peter Karlsson
>It's by Whitby computers. It's basically not very good. It doesn't
>handle machine code, so you can only use Basic. Mind you, it loads
>(and saves?) programmes via the datasette, which impressed me.
Can it load Spectrum tapes via the datasette?
I've only loaded/saved programs to/from disk with it, haven't tried tapes.
--
\\//
Peter - http://nafmo.home.ml.org/ http://perkele.coyote.org:8080/
Bored of spam? Try Fidonet. http://www.fidonet.org/ http://www.fidonet.pp.se/
Damien Guard
>professional-looking cream case - so much more impressive that the beige
>64.
Everybody knows *REAL* computers come in any colour. As long as it's black.
[)amien
Damien Guard
>>And 'ugly' is a very personal thing.
>But at least if we threw our speccy's because of a frustrating game, the
>thing was safe due to the keyboard!
Not to mention the fact it stood up so well to Hypersports and other
key-tapping games.... and didn't give you blisters!
It's difficult to work out which side some people are on in this war...
[)amien
Derek Jolly
>>
>>The C64 was much better than the Spectrum.
>>The C64 had a much better processor, the Z80's shite.
>>Vector graphics on the Spectrum were bollocks.
>>spongy rubbish.
>>The Spectrum's memory was only 48K, cack.
>>
>>
>>By all accounts I should get 103 flames to this message. ;)
>>(c.s.s. regulars should know where this comes from).
>carp.
Damn. Obviously my Advanced Advocacy Simulator's out of date now.
I'll have to update it for next years CSSCGC (if we do one).
--
Derek Jolly (jol...@xtetraworld.com) (Remove the 'x' for e-mail)
V is for virtue, so I ain't going to hurt you,
E is for even if you want me to. - Nick Cave
Harcon
>
> >
> > Disk loading was absolutely chronic. It usually took about 2 minutes
> Granted, the original loading routines sucked. But, without changing
> any hardware at all, I've seen transmission rates of about the tenfold
> of your figure.
>
So you say you have seen 200k in 2 mins? thats 100k per min which is
near enough 1.67k a sec(1.66667 for the exact). If a c64 loaded at 1.67k
a sec then why was there a bloody aweful loading time? Most games would
have been loaded in less time than you could eat a bag of crisps.
Martijn van Buul
> The Starglider <starg...@thespian.d.c.u> writes:
>
> >A bit like the C64 I suppose.
>
> Man, I knew I cleaned my killfile out too early. Can we drop this issue,
> please, like now?
popped up in the discussion.
Let's end it before that happens again..
Robert van der Veeke
Martijn van Buul <mart...@stack.nl> schreef in artikel
<slrn72tshh....@mud.stack.nl>...
> It occurred to me that Cameron Kaiser wrote in comp.sys.cbm:
> > The Starglider <starg...@thespian.d.c.u> writes:
> >
> > >A bit like the C64 I suppose.
> >
> > Man, I knew I cleaned my killfile out too early. Can we drop this
issue,
> > please, like now?
> Good idea. Somehow, during that last flamewar, World War II suddenly
> popped up in the discussion.
>
> Let's end it before that happens again..
Yeah, lets call Holbrook, the oposing forces must have withdrawn to their
own enclaves by 7.00 saturday morning the 24th of oct. other wise
air-strikes will follow. I mean it, honest :) err..
--
Robert van der Veeke
[rjvveeke at caiw dot nl]
- Remove the pin to email -
Currently listening to : Fire Bomber - Life Fire !!!
Peter Karlsson
>The C64 didn't even had 64K of usable RAM!
Okay, so it's two bytes that aren't usable as RAM (the processor port and
data direction register). That makes 65534 bytes of usable RAM.
Andrew Cadley
Jason wrote in message <3X0i6PA4...@cosine.demon.co.uk>...
:Andy Kavanagh:
:Okay, do I need to re-post my challenge or do all the Speccy folks who
:couldn't do it remember it from last time...?
Which challenge was that then? I've just re-read most of the last flamewar
but their seem to be more challenges there than you could shake a stick at.
:)
AndyC
Andrew Cadley
Peter G. wrote in message <362E7...@webzone.net>...
:Martijn van Buul wrote:
:> > The C64 didn't even had 64K of usable RAM!
There is nothing wrong with the grammer in the above sentence...
:I believe thats have not had I have bad grammar but not that bad...most
:of the time.
But I'm buggered if I can figure out what that is supposed to mean. ;)
AndyC
geoff...@m-systems.com
>
> was cream.
>
> [ First Blood! ]
>
A recent survey showed that people who think that the C64 is better than the
spectrum are mostly drug addicts and have a below average IQ.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Harcon
Err, umm I think that was the challange. Make more challanges than c64
had colours methinks
Chris Young
wrote:
>Then we get onto the *enhanced* screen modes.
Wow... enhanced?
>And I haven't even mentioned S.H.F., S.H.I.F. or S.H.I.F. XL ('cos I
>can't remember the exact specs off the top of my head).
If you're going to argue, at least bother to do research into the
subject.
>> Disk loading was absolutely chronic. It usually took about 2 minutes
>> to load games that were about 20K in size. Loading off tape was a
>> disaster.
>
>Crazy Comets from tape in under a minute versus Street Fighter 2 on the
>Speccy, which appears to come on a C120...
I don't think it's entirely fair to compare two entirely different
games. Crazy Comets was probably a quickloader (or whatever they call
them). "Normal" tape loading on a C64 could take up to 30 minutes
IIRC.
>> The need for a specially made datasette meant that you couldn't hook
>> it up to your hi-fi for better sound quality.
>
>[Looks at the C128D and C64 connected to a 100 watt per channel amp and
>looks back bemused]
>
>Why would you *want* to improve the quality of your loading noises...?!
I have no idea, but if you listen to Speccy SCREEN$ loading, it can be
quite tuneful. Better than the C64, anyway.
>Now, if we're talking actually running the output of the sound chip
>through an amp, there's a *perfectly* serviceable monitor port on the
>back of the machine to do *that*...
As there is on the back of the 128K Speccies.
>My VIC-20 is a lot smaller and easier to transport than my PC, is it a
>better machine?
Is the PC running Windows? Then, yes, even the VIC-20 is better (at
least you can run a Vic with less than 8Mb RAM)
>Are you really that desperate for a reason to attack
>the C64 here...? You'll be doing the old "only eight sprites" [1] or
>"39K of RAM" [2] rubbish soon, won't you [yawn]...
No.
Anyway, the Speccy had better magazines - such as the rather excellent
Your Sinclair (see my sig)
Chris
--
"The funniest website in the entire history of the world"
Your Sinclair: A Celebration @ http://www.bigfoot.com/~ysac/
Unsatisfactory Software
http://www.unsatisfactory.freeserve.co.uk/
Got a problem? Ask Auntie Madge!
http://www.bigfoot.com/~ysac/askmadge.html
Chris Young
ja...@hartlepoolman.freeserve.co.uk.nospam (Jamie Percival) wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:22:32 +0100, "Andrew Cadley"
><a.p.c...@uea.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>Andy Kavanagh wrote in message ...
>>:It WAAAAAAAS, it really WAAAAAAAAAAAAS!
>>:
>>:There weren't _any_ decent games. And the graphics were crap. And it
>>:was cream.
>
>The Amiga was cream. That was agood bachine.
The CDTV was black. It was crap (or was it just the marketing which
was crap?)
Chris Young
wrote:
>By all accounts I should get 103 flames to this message. ;)
I'm not sure of the accuracy of the simulation, as you appear to have
got, er, none actually.
>(c.s.s. regulars should know where this comes from).
Yes.
Derek Jolly
O-Level English
---------------
Question 1) Punctuate the following sentence correctly.
I believe thats have not had I have bad grammar but not that bad...most
of the time.
:)
Chris Young
I would just like to mention the CDTV again. And the CD-i. And most
consoles.
Chris Young
<Marko....@HUT.FI> wrote:
>What about the Spectrum's BASIC? I only used it once on the ZX48 (or
>was it ZX16). The commands had to be input by pressing some weird key
>combinations. "Commands can be typed with one key," said the
>advertisement back then, but it didn't say that "commands MUST be
>typed with those key combinations".
Yes, but at least you could hold a book full of tediously long BASIC
programs in one hand, and only need one hand to type it in quickly.
Chris Young
<dam...@envytech.diespamdie.co.uk> wrote:
>It's difficult to work out which side some people are on in this war...
You're right. I think I must've accidently sided with the C64 team on
at least a couple of occasions.
Harcon
>
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.98102...@cpcw1.uea.ac.uk>,
> Andy Kavanagh <w964...@cpca6.uea.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > There weren't _any_ decent games. And the graphics were crap. And it
> > was cream.
> >
> >
>
> A recent survey showed that people who think that the C64 is better than the
> spectrum are mostly drug addicts and have a below average IQ.
>
And not only that, but they evolved into Amiga owners :D
*ducks for cover*
Derek Jolly
<snip>
>Yes, but at least you could hold a book full of tediously long BASIC
>programs in one hand, and only need one hand to type it in quickly.
...unless you needed extended mode. Caps+Symbol Shift with one
hand? Ouch.
Chris Young
wrote:
>Oh my God! Chris Young killed Kenny! You b*****d!
I did not. That is a blatent lie.
><snip>
>>Yes, but at least you could hold a book full of tediously long BASIC
>>programs in one hand, and only need one hand to type it in quickly.
>
>...unless you needed extended mode. Caps+Symbol Shift with one
>hand? Ouch.
Oh yeah. Er... (quickly thinks of way to get out of this)
I was referring to the 48K+
Chris Young
wrote:
Actually, if you look at the number of Amiga owners on c.s.s., I think
you'll find that statement is false.
Well, I suppose you need to look at the number on c.s.c. as well.
Martijn van Buul
> A recent survey showed that people who think that the C64 is better than the
> spectrum are mostly drug addicts and have a below average IQ.
I just KNEW it should get to such flames.
I just didn't expect them to arrive this soon.
Local H/BCI/PSW/SYS
362e18b3...@news.freeserve.co.uk...
>
>I'm new here. I suppose I should be fortuneate that I missed the last
>one. Still, the C64 sucks like a hungry baby. Yes, you can have all
>*16* colours on screen at once, if you decide to stick with about
>180x120 resolution.
>
Those who are proficient at coding 6510ASM and manipulating the VIC-II can
get 96x1?? (somebody post the correct values pls!) with every color (and no
double-width pixels).
>Disk loading was absolutely chronic. It usually took about 2 minutes
>to load games that were about 20K in size.
>
Super Snapshot, Epyx Fastload, JiffyDOS, SpeedDOS, Dolphin DOS, need I go
on? Upwards of 25x normal loading speed, even faster with SpeedDOS/Dolphin
DOS since they used a parallel cable.
>Loading off tape was a
>disaster. It was like waiting for a vasectomy and twice as painful.
>The lack of audio signal meant that you couldn't hear where the game
>was. All you had was a piddly crap counter thing which either started
>jamming, or the belt snapped. The need for a specially made datasette
>meant that you couldn't hook it up to your hi-fi for better sound
>quality.
>
That's why you write down where on the tape everything is according to the
counter, which you should do whether you can hear the audio or not. The need
for a specially made datasette meant that it was a whole lot more reliable
than a standard cassette player.
>The whole thing was big, bulky and UGLY. The Spectrum could quite
>literally be carried around in a shoebox.
>
Ever seen a C64C/C128? Not big, not bulky, and certainly not ugly.
--
Local H/BCI/PSW/SYS
loc...@SPAMSUXintermediatn.SPAMSUXnet
Remove the 'SPAMSUX' to reply
-------------------------------------
Commodore 64 - Doing it 8 bits at a time!
Local H/BCI/PSW/SYS
EA4CaUAE...@thespian.demon.co.uk...
>Here's the killer:
>
>The C64 didn't even had 64K of usable RAM!
>
access normally were locations $00 and $01. And you could even access them
through a quirk in the VIC-II.
Jamie Percival
<pe...@perkele.coyote.org> deighted us all in comp.sys.sinclair with
another bout of ASCII diarrhoea:
>Jamie Percival:
>
>>It's by Whitby computers. It's basically not very good. It doesn't
>>handle machine code, so you can only use Basic. Mind you, it loads
>>(and saves?) programmes via the datasette, which impressed me.
>
>Can it load Spectrum tapes via the datasette?
>
Yup. I tried it with this basic program I had. Pretty fast too, but
that's probably becuase it couldn't handle machine code.
----------------------------------------------------
VISIT SPECHELL: http://www.arcticfox.freeserve.co.uk
ICQ: 16528499
----------------------------------------------------
To respond personally, remove the nospam.
Jamie Percival
<gerr...@tnet.com.au> deighted us all in comp.sys.sinclair with
another bout of ASCII diarrhoea:
>> >
>> >Only the later models, the early ones are beige...
>> Eurgh! That's just as bad!
>>
>The Spectrum looked like a smashed crab.
Sorry? You mean pink? Reddish grey for the meat? Orange for the shell?
No.
>Or a pocket calculator, and about as usefull as one.
At least ours was portable. I carried my Speccy with all of the
necessary leads and accessories in an extremely small carrier bag. As
for the C64, with the Datasette, powerpack (about the size of
Manchester), huge machine, I'd have to use a skip of some kind.
Chris Young
ja...@hartlepoolman.freeserve.co.uk.nospam (Jamie Percival) wrote:
>for the C64, with the Datasette, powerpack (about the size of
>Manchester), huge machine, I'd have to use a skip of some kind.
Well, you could have left it there.
lo...@my.sig
: On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:22:32 +0100, "Andrew Cadley"
: <a.p.c...@uea.ac.uk> wrote:
:>
:>Andy Kavanagh wrote in message ...
:>:It WAAAAAAAS, it really WAAAAAAAAAAAAS!
:>:
:>:There weren't _any_ decent games. And the graphics were crap. And it
:>:was cream.
: The Amiga was cream. That was agood bachine.
But the Amiga wasn't designed by Commode.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5...@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk| "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| Finalist in:- | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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>e++ h/h+ !r!| Space for hire |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Kaiser
>> A recent survey showed that people who think that the C64 is better than the
>> spectrum are mostly drug addicts and have a below average IQ.
>*sigh VERY deeply*
>I just KNEW it should get to such flames.
>I just didn't expect them to arrive this soon.
Optimist.
--
-------------- The Commodore 64 lives: http://computerworkshops.home.ml.org/ --
Cameron Kaiser (posting with a Commodore 128) | "When in doubt, take a pawn."
cdkaiser@concentricMUNGEnet | -- Mission: Impossible
-- personal page: http://calvin.ptloma.edu/~spectre/ ------ CBMSF Unit $EA31 --
Rochus Wessels
> It WAAAAAAAS, it really WAAAAAAAAAAAAS!
> There weren't _any_ decent games. And the graphics were crap. And it
> was cream.
You put this in a <em>CBM</em> Newsgroup? :)
<blink>BAD IDEA!</blink>
Andrew Cadley
Chris Young wrote in message <362f21fa...@news.ukonline.co.uk>...
:On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 09:06:42 +0100, "Damien Guard"
:<dam...@envytech.diespamdie.co.uk> wrote:
:
:>It's difficult to work out which side some people are on in this war...
:
:You're right. I think I must've accidently sided with the C64 team on
:at least a couple of occasions.
Stealth tatics. Agree with a 64 owner, then baffle them by suddenly agreeing
with a speccy owner as well. :)
Personally, I'm on the CPC side anyway...
AndyC
Derek Jolly
>
>
Commonly referred to as "the fence" I believe. :)
Marko Mäkelä
Chris> Yes, but at least you could hold a book full of tediously long
Chris> BASIC programs in one hand, and only need one hand to type it
Chris> in quickly.
What I meant to ask was whether the Spectrum BASIC was made by
Microsoft. Most 8-bitters I know have the BASIC from M$, but I don't
know about the Spectrum.
BTW, wouldn't it be easier to have the book next to you and type the
program in with your both hands at a rate of 300 characters per
minute? How fast can one type with Spectrum's rubber keyboard?
Marko
Derek Jolly
>
>>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Young <unsatis...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>
>Chris> Yes, but at least you could hold a book full of tediously long
>Chris> BASIC programs in one hand, and only need one hand to type it
>Chris> in quickly.
>
>What I meant to ask was whether the Spectrum BASIC was made by
>Microsoft. Most 8-bitters I know have the BASIC from M$, but I don't
>know about the Spectrum.
Nope. The Speccy's BASIC was nothing to do with Microsoft. I can't
remember if it was developed in-house at Sinclair or not (probably
not). Any other CSS'ers know the details? My mind's gone.
>BTW, wouldn't it be easier to have the book next to you and type the
>program in with your both hands at a rate of 300 characters per
>minute? How fast can one type with Spectrum's rubber keyboard?
Pretty fast. Once you've got used to the layout of the keyboard
you can get a pretty quick typing rate (remember you get a whole
word for each keypress).
Robert van der Veeke
Marko Mäkelä <Marko....@HUT.FI> schreef in artikel
<7laf2oi...@siphon.hut.fi>...
> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Young <unsatis...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>
> Chris> Yes, but at least you could hold a book full of tediously long
> Chris> BASIC programs in one hand, and only need one hand to type it
> Chris> in quickly.
>
> What I meant to ask was whether the Spectrum BASIC was made by
> Microsoft. Most 8-bitters I know have the BASIC from M$, but I don't
> know about the Spectrum.
Ooops, did you type Spectrum Basic by Microsoft? Imagine what the world
would look like with 4 or 5 functions on each key on your PC-keyboard.
> BTW, wouldn't it be easier to have the book next to you and type the
> program in with your both hands at a rate of 300 characters per
> minute? How fast can one type with Spectrum's rubber keyboard?
300 characters would only be possible if you are a rather good typist, and
then still only raw-data or programs listings, I doubt it if everyone (Both
C64 and Spectrum) would make 300 characters per minute when they are really
programming.
--
Robert van der Veeke
[rjvveeke at caiw dot nl] - Remove the pin to email -
Currently listening to : Fire Bomber - Life Fire !!!
* who at best can do about 120 to 130 chars per min. *
Marko Mäkelä
Derek> Pretty fast. Once you've got used to the layout of the
Derek> keyboard you can get a pretty quick typing rate (remember you
Derek> get a whole word for each keypress).
I mean raw typing speed, when writing normal English text. Well, you
can write English using a programming language (see the International
Obfuscated C Coding Contest entry from 1990 made by Brian Westley,
<URL:ftp://ftp.uu.net/pub/ioccc/1990/westley.c>), but the BASIC
keywords are not very useful for writing letters. :-)
Marko
Clockmeister
Harcon <ik...@cs.strath.ac.uk> wrote in article
<362F2767...@cs.strath.ac.uk>...
> geoff...@m-systems.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.98102...@cpcw1.uea.ac.uk>,
> > Andy Kavanagh <w964...@cpca6.uea.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > It WAAAAAAAS, it really WAAAAAAAAAAAAS!
> > >
> > > There weren't _any_ decent games. And the graphics were crap. And
it
> > > was cream.
> > >
> > > [ First Blood! ]
> > >
> >
> > A recent survey showed that people who think that the C64 is better
than the
> > spectrum are mostly drug addicts and have a below average IQ.
> >
>
> And not only that, but they evolved into Amiga owners :D
> *ducks for cover*
>
And what did Speccy owners turn into?...
Oh, yes, that's right... Nothing.
The C64 is the biggest selling home computer ever. The figures speak for
themselves.
Remaining C64 users... Quite a few
Remaining Spectrum users... 3 (give or take a couple)
Anyone who suggests that the spactrum (not a typo) was superior to the C64
must be a dreaming. Next you'll be thinking that the spactrum was superior
to the Amstrad CPC464 and Tandy Colour Computer II.
Sheez...
C'mon guys, just admit the fact that the spactrum sucked. You couldn't even
practice typing on the damn thing, unlike the C64 which had a real
keyboard.
Regards,
Clockmeister.
Canuss
Andrew Cadley <a.p.c...@uea.ac.uk> wrote in article
<70ll18$h...@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>...
>
> Anyway, how can we possibbly be bored on c.s.s, we've been far to busy
> playing Doom, Worms, UFO and Dune 2, any of these appeared on the 64 yet?
Does anyone really give a flying fuck?
Derek Jolly
>
Ah, for that you'd need one of the Amstrad Spectrums, either the
+2, +2A or +3. They all had proper keyboards. You couldn't
exactly touch-type on a rubber keyboard.
lo...@my.sig
: And what did Speccy owners turn into?...
: Oh, yes, that's right... Nothing.
Apart from all the game programmers, etc.
Apart from all the people who STARTED to program on the speccy, and then
went on to make loadsamoney.
Codemasters is still a large gaming company after all these years, for
example, and they started on the speccy.
: The C64 is the biggest selling home computer ever. The figures speak for
: themselves.
Not... In britain, where it counts.
: Remaining C64 users... Quite a few
: Remaining Spectrum users... 3 (give or take a couple)
LOL!
: Anyone who suggests that the spactrum
Is that the best you can come up with?
Mind you, Commode is soo obvious for a derogatory term.
(not a typo) was superior to the C64
: must be a dreaming. Next you'll be thinking that the spactrum was superior
: to the Amstrad CPC464 and Tandy Colour Computer II.
TANDY COLOUR COMPUTER??? That was one of the biggest piles of SHITE ever.
: Sheez...
: C'mon guys, just admit the fact that the spactrum sucked. You couldn't even
: practice typing on the damn thing, unlike the C64 which had a real
: keyboard.
That was the only thing the Commode had GOING for it.
OK, that and more colour and sound.
Andrew Cadley
lo...@my.sig wrote in message <70nah2$hv2$3...@cfs2.kis.keele.ac.uk>...
:But the Amiga wasn't designed by Commode.
The C64 wasn't *designed* period. It was just kinda thrown together, a bit
like Frankenstein, IMO.
AndyC
dpence
lo...@my.sig wrote:
> In the sacred domain of comp.sys.sinclair didst Jamie Percival <ja...@hartlepoolman.freeserve.co.uk.nospam> eloquently scribe:
> : On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:22:32 +0100, "Andrew Cadley"
> : <a.p.c...@uea.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> :>
> :>Andy Kavanagh wrote in message ...
> :>:It WAAAAAAAS, it really WAAAAAAAAAAAAS!
> :>:
> :>:There weren't _any_ decent games. And the graphics were crap. And it
> :>:was cream.
>
> : The Amiga was cream. That was agood bachine.
>
> But the Amiga wasn't designed by Commode.
> --
What actually it was...the graphics and sound system were developed by Amiga..but the actually designed finished product was
Commodores
Christopher A. King
> That was the only thing the Commode had GOING for it.
> OK, that and more colour and sound.
Starting to sound more and more like the "What have the Romans ever
done for us?" scene in "Monty Python's Life Of Brian"...
C.K.
Rev. Jihad Frenzy
>
> : Anyone who suggests that the spactrum
>
> Is that the best you can come up with?
> Mind you, Commode is soo obvious for a derogatory term.
>
OK, henceforth and forever, the OFFICIAL derogatory term for the Spectrum
shall be:
The Speculum.
(Look it up)
--
Rev. Jihad Frenzy
"Gadzooks!", quoth I, "But here's a saucy bawd!"
I, Libertine
by Fredrick R. Ewing
<A HREF="http://www.gis.net/~cht"/A>
Andrew Cadley
Derek Jolly wrote in message
<909067585.24488.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
:Oh my God! Andrew Cadley killed Kenny! You b*****d!
:>Personally, I'm on the CPC side anyway...
:
:Commonly referred to as "the fence" I believe. :)
Can't lose sitting here though. Fast processor like the speccy, disc drives
that are faster than the tape deck and better graphics than either of the
other two.
AndyC
Martijn van Buul
> mart...@stack.nl (Martijn van Buul) writes:
> >*sigh VERY deeply*
> >I just KNEW it should get to such flames.
> >I just didn't expect them to arrive this soon.
>
> Optimist.
Humankind might even include Spectrum-adepts.
Mattias Hansson
> >
> > >
> > > Disk loading was absolutely chronic. It usually took about 2 minutes
> > Granted, the original loading routines sucked. But, without changing
> > any hardware at all, I've seen transmission rates of about the tenfold
> > of your figure.
> >
>
> So you say you have seen 200k in 2 mins? thats 100k per min which is
> near enough 1.67k a sec(1.66667 for the exact). If a c64 loaded at 1.67k
> a sec then why was there a bloody aweful loading time? Most games would
> have been loaded in less time than you could eat a bag of crisps.
I've been using commodore since 1989 and in my opinion the best turbo
I've used is called "30X" I belive It's almost faster than the turbo in the
"Action Replay" cartridges, but than again u MUST have an original
1541 och 1571 (and no fakes) for it to work .... But that turbo is totally
amazing and NO hardware modifications necessary ... To load a really
big game (> 200 blocks (1 block = 255 bytes)) tok shorter time than
it would take for you to just munch up a handful of those crisps!!!
(and I can post 30X if someone want it)
//Mattias H
Mattias Hansson
> The Starglider:
>
> >The C64 didn't even had 64K of usable RAM!
>
> Okay, so it's two bytes that aren't usable as RAM (the processor port and
> data direction register). That makes 65534 bytes of usable RAM.
Yes but to switch in the highest bank of RAM $E000-$FFFF you must
tell the processor the pointers of the interrupts at $FFFA-$FFFF so
that the machine won't crash if a interrupt occurs ... (well off course
you can disable IRQ, NMI is harder but it's also possible) ...
But One thing is SURE!! : you can Easily without any special programming
(other than bankswitching and that is basic stuff) use more than
65000 Bytes of ram when writing ANY application and than we've also
leaved the stack totally free ....
Speccy fans : NO HOMECOMPUTER BEAT THAT back when the
C64 was first released ....
//Mattias H
Clockmeister
lo...@my.sig wrote in article <70nl9l$nc7$5...@cfs2.kis.keele.ac.uk>...
> In the sacred domain of comp.sys.sinclair didst Clockmeister
<gerr...@tnet.com.au> eloquently scribe:
> : And what did Speccy owners turn into?...
> : Oh, yes, that's right... Nothing.
>
> Apart from all the game programmers, etc.
> Apart from all the people who STARTED to program on the speccy, and then
> went on to make loadsamoney.
> Codemasters is still a large gaming company after all these years, for
> example, and they started on the speccy.
>
> : The C64 is the biggest selling home computer ever. The figures speak
for
> : themselves.
>
> Not... In britain, where it counts.
LOL! (bit pompous isn't it?)
> : Remaining C64 users... Quite a few
> : Remaining Spectrum users... 3 (give or take a couple)
>
> LOL!
Nevertheless, a fact.
> : Anyone who suggests that the spactrum
>
> Is that the best you can come up with?
> Mind you, Commode is soo obvious for a derogatory term.
Hmmm, I'll think of a better one...
> (not a typo) was superior to the C64
> : must be a dreaming. Next you'll be thinking that the spactrum was
superior
> : to the Amstrad CPC464 and Tandy Colour Computer II.
>
> TANDY COLOUR COMPUTER??? That was one of the biggest piles of SHITE ever.
But still better then the Spectrum...
>
> : Sheez...
>
> : C'mon guys, just admit the fact that the spactrum sucked. You couldn't
even
> : practice typing on the damn thing, unlike the C64 which had a real
> : keyboard.
>
> That was the only thing the Commode had GOING for it.
> OK, that and more colour and sound.
> --
Add to that more RAM, better peripheral support and software support...
And the Speccy had a better BASIC, but we all know real programmers program
in assembler anyway, so it doesn't matter a shit.
.
Regards,
Clockmeister.
Mattias Hansson
That's true.... you can call it the "god mutation" or whatever ... but no
other
homecomputer has ever been expanded to the limits as the commie ...
I mean : Don't you think the Commodore staff would have shit themselves
if they where able to see a demo like "Mathematica" when they just finished
the first C64 ? ... I'm sure ... some demos on the C64 shows effects that
would
be even hard to do on an Amiga or PC ....
//Mattias H
Marko Mäkelä
>> : Anyone who suggests that the spactrum
>>
>> Is that the best you can come up with? Mind you, Commode is soo
>> obvious for a derogatory term.
cht> OK, henceforth and forever, the OFFICIAL derogatory term for the
cht> Spectrum shall be:
cht> The Speculum.
Could anybody explain these words for those of us who do not speak
English as the first language? I'm too lazy to use the Webster.
Marko
Jason Simpson
> I mean : Don't you think the Commodore staff would have shit
> themselves if they where able to see a demo like "Mathematica"
> when they just finished the first C64 ? ... I'm sure ... some
> demos on the C64 shows effects that would be even hard to do
> on an Amiga or PC ....
Is there an NTSC fixed version of Mathematica?
-jrs
--
_____________________________________________________________________
Jason Simpson | Evolution of a geek: TI99/4A>C64>C128>A500>A2000>...
ja...@xio.com | ...A3000/25>486SLC2>BL486/75>6x86/166>K6/300>C128DCR!
Clockmeister
dpence <dpe...@kih.net> wrote in article <362F8F94...@kih.net>...
>
>
> lo...@my.sig wrote:
>
> > In the sacred domain of comp.sys.sinclair didst Jamie Percival
<ja...@hartlepoolman.freeserve.co.uk.nospam> eloquently scribe:
> > : On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:22:32 +0100, "Andrew Cadley"
> > : <a.p.c...@uea.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > :>
> > :>Andy Kavanagh wrote in message ...
> > :>:It WAAAAAAAS, it really WAAAAAAAAAAAAS!
> > :>:
> > :>:There weren't _any_ decent games. And the graphics were crap. And
it
> > :>:was cream.
> >
> > : The Amiga was cream. That was agood bachine.
> >
> > But the Amiga wasn't designed by Commode.
> > --
>
> What actually it was...the graphics and sound system were developed by
Amiga..but the actually designed finished product was
> Commodores
Actually, Amiga was practically finished the Amiga when C= stepped in and
bought it. The original A1000 was totally designed by Jay Miner & co at
Amiga, but was actually intended to be released as the A2000 ultimately
was. C= in their wisdom saw no need for the expansion capabilities and
even sold the first Amigas with only 128Kb of RAM.
That was impractical, as the machine had a hard time multitasking with so
little RAM.
Jay & co insisted that the Amiga should come out with at least 512Kb so C=
bowed to the pressure and provided the extra 128Kb by ways of the ExRAM
connector on the front of the Amiga.
Commodore only developed the custom chipset to incorporate all the
functions of individual chips in the prototype Amigas. This is clearly
evident in the A1000, where not all the custom chips are present. The
missing functions were incorporated by using individual chips.
C= did design the Amigas after the A1000, but based on the early
specifications.
My 2c.
Clockmeister.
The Starglider
<mattias...@swipnet.se> writes
--
**************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
* NVG UPDATES:n...@thespian.demon.co.uk * TO REPLY.
* ICQ Number:1773852 * _WW_
* WWPAGER:http://wwp.mirabilis.com/1773852 * /_ _\
******************************************** | O O |
___________________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo___________
The Starglider
<gerr...@tnet.com.au> writes
>The C64 is the biggest selling home computer ever. The figures speak for
>themselves.
Yeah right!
</sarcasm mode>
>
>Remaining C64 users... Quite a few
>Remaining Spectrum users... 3 (give or take a couple)
programmed and well used?
The Starglider
<gerr...@tnet.com.au> writes
>
>
>lo...@my.sig wrote in article <70nl9l$nc7$5...@cfs2.kis.keele.ac.uk>...
>> In the sacred domain of comp.sys.sinclair didst Clockmeister
><gerr...@tnet.com.au> eloquently scribe:
>> : And what did Speccy owners turn into?...
>> : Oh, yes, that's right... Nothing.
>>
>> Apart from all the game programmers, etc.
>> Apart from all the people who STARTED to program on the speccy, and then
>> went on to make loadsamoney.
>> Codemasters is still a large gaming company after all these years, for
>> example, and they started on the speccy.
>>
>for
>> : themselves.
>>
>
>LOL! (bit pompous isn't it?)
>
>> : Remaining Spectrum users... 3 (give or take a couple)
>>
>
>Nevertheless, a fact.
Where the fuck did you get these *facts*? Got evidence to back this up?
>
>> : Anyone who suggests that the spactrum
>>
>> Is that the best you can come up with?
>> Mind you, Commode is soo obvious for a derogatory term.
>
shite.
>
>> (not a typo) was superior to the C64
>> : must be a dreaming. Next you'll be thinking that the spactrum was
>superior
>> : to the Amstrad CPC464 and Tandy Colour Computer II.
>>
>> TANDY COLOUR COMPUTER??? That was one of the biggest piles of SHITE ever.
>
>But still better then the Spectrum...
>
>>
>> : Sheez...
>>
>> : C'mon guys, just admit the fact that the spactrum sucked. You couldn't
>even
>> : practice typing on the damn thing, unlike the C64 which had a real
>> : keyboard.
>>
>> That was the only thing the Commode had GOING for it.
>> OK, that and more colour and sound.
>> --
>Add to that more RAM, better peripheral support and software support...
>
>
>And the Speccy had a better BASIC, but we all know real programmers program
>in assembler anyway, so it doesn't matter a shit.
a hell of a lot faster than the thing you had in yours.
(Now waiting for the typical hardware crap - sprites, scrolling etc...)
The Starglider
<roc...@uni-muenster.de> writes
>Andy Kavanagh <w964...@cpca6.uea.ac.uk> writes:
>> It WAAAAAAAS, it really WAAAAAAAAAAAAS!
>> There weren't _any_ decent games. And the graphics were crap. And it
>> was cream.
>
>
> <blink>BAD IDEA!</blink>
>
Hmmmm, real spectrum users can use HTML code properly!
Clockmeister
Mattias Hansson <mattias...@swipnet.se> wrote in article
<362F7F0B...@swipnet.se>...
> Andrew Cadley wrote:
>
> > lo...@my.sig wrote in message <70nah2$hv2$3...@cfs2.kis.keele.ac.uk>...
> >
> > :But the Amiga wasn't designed by Commode.
> >
> > The C64 wasn't *designed* period. It was just kinda thrown together, a
bit
> > like Frankenstein, IMO.
> >
> > AndyC
>
> That's true.... you can call it the "god mutation" or whatever ... but
no
> other
> homecomputer has ever been expanded to the limits as the commie ...
>
> I mean : Don't you think the Commodore staff would have shit themselves
> if they where able to see a demo like "Mathematica" when they just
finished
> the first C64 ? ... I'm sure ... some demos on the C64 shows effects that
> would
> be even hard to do on an Amiga or PC ....
PC I would believe, but Amiga?
The Amiga is still the killer demo machine.
>
> //Mattias H
>
>
>
Andrew Cadley
Clockmeister wrote in message <01bdfdd7$2d3b5120$6d5e0fcb@default>...
:
:
:Harcon <ik...@cs.strath.ac.uk> wrote in article
:<362F2767...@cs.strath.ac.uk>...
:> geoff...@m-systems.com wrote:
:> >
:> > In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.98102...@cpcw1.uea.ac.uk>,
:> > Andy Kavanagh <w964...@cpca6.uea.ac.uk> wrote:
:And what did Speccy owners turn into?...
:Oh, yes, that's right... Nothing.
I think a large majority of games programmers might argue there...
:The C64 is the biggest selling home computer ever. The figures speak for
:themselves.
Which figures? There are still thousands of active "speccy" owners is places
like eastern Europe working on clons, which you probably aren't counting.
:Anyone who suggests that the spactrum (not a typo) was superior to the C64
Spactrum? Is that the best you could do?
:must be a dreaming. Next you'll be thinking that the spactrum was superior
:to the Amstrad CPC464 and Tandy Colour Computer II.
Crivens. Next you'll be suggesting that a crumblydoor (not a typo) was
superior to an Amstrad CPC464 (Ah what a comfortable fence I'm sitting on)
or even a Lego brick.
:C'mon guys, just admit the fact that the spactrum sucked. You couldn't even
:practice typing on the damn thing, unlike the C64 which had a real
:keyboard.
The 64 had a shite keyboard, the Speccy one was brilliant. Especially during
those late night programming sessions. If ran out of coffee, at least you
had a soft place to rest your head. ;-)
AndyC
Jamie Percival
all in comp.sys.sinclair with another bout of ASCII diarrhoea:
>In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.98102...@cpcw1.uea.ac.uk>,
> Andy Kavanagh <w964...@cpca6.uea.ac.uk> wrote:
>> It WAAAAAAAS, it really WAAAAAAAAAAAAS!
>>
>> There weren't _any_ decent games. And the graphics were crap. And it
>> was cream.
>>
>> [ First Blood! ]
>>
>
>A recent survey showed that people who think that the C64 is better than the
>spectrum are mostly drug addicts and have a below average IQ.
OK, I'll crack the joke. "Wow, I didn't know Richard Bacon had a
C64!!!"
I'll be in the shower.
----------------------------------------------------
VISIT SPECHELL: http://www.arcticfox.freeserve.co.uk
ICQ: 16528499
----------------------------------------------------
To respond personally, remove the nospam.
Jamie Percival
deighted us all in comp.sys.sinclair with another bout of ASCII
diarrhoea:
{snip}
>Does anyone really give a flying fuck?
Eagles do, they mate during flight. And as for this thread, there's
been 93 replies, and I haven't learned a single thing. Except the C64
is crap and the Speccy is cool. Period. And now I'm off to fill my
killfile.
*plonk*