From: Jacob on 22 Nov 2006 11:00
In article <18fd34-6g1.ln1(a)ridcully.ntlworld.com>, spike1(a)freenet.co.uk
> Meanwhile, across the pond an excentric inventor called clive was producing
> the most inexpensive computer ever conceived and making it available to the
> public, thus singlehandedly kicking off the home computer boom.
You mean the ZX80 and not Science of Cambridge's MK14, I presume? -If so
Sinclair kicked off the home computer boom about three years after
Commodore fielded PET-2001, Radio Shack fielded TRS-80 and Apple fielded
the Apple II?!
1977 seem (imho) to be when the home computer boomed.
On a personal note; my grand mother used ZX Spectrum until the early
90's (at that time I had my Amiga 1200), she was fond of her Sinclair
and I don't see why she shouldn't be.
From: spike1 on 22 Nov 2006 12:29
Jacob <canis_vulpes(a)hotmail.com> did eloquently scribble:
> In article <18fd34-6g1.ln1(a)ridcully.ntlworld.com>, spike1(a)freenet.co.uk
>> Meanwhile, across the pond an excentric inventor called clive was producing
>> the most inexpensive computer ever conceived and making it available to the
>> public, thus singlehandedly kicking off the home computer boom.
> You mean the ZX80 and not Science of Cambridge's MK14, I presume?
> -If so
> Sinclair kicked off the home computer boom about three years after
> Commodore fielded PET-2001, Radio Shack fielded TRS-80 and Apple fielded
> the Apple II?!
> 1977 seem (imho) to be when the home computer boomed.
Oh, yeah, like they were really affordable as home computers.
"excuse me, I'd like to take out a mortgage, I want to buy a home computer"
> On a personal note; my grand mother used ZX Spectrum until the early
> 90's (at that time I had my Amiga 1200), she was fond of her Sinclair
> and I don't see why she shouldn't be.
Quite right too.
| spike1(a)freenet.co.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
From: Adam on 22 Nov 2006 12:30
> Indeed. While the commode didn't even have PRINT AT, let alone PLOT, DRAW,
> BEEP, etc. Sinclair's even had a much more sensible string splitting regime.
> Left$ right$ mid$???? pah, who needs them when you can split any string with
> the same command. A$(TO 5), A$(3 TO), A$(2 TO 5)
Aye, I remember that, lol, that was present on the ZX81 too actually
> Did the commode actually HAVE interrupt commands, error trapping and ON?
No, the Amstrad CPC did though, much underrated BASIC in those
machines, it was even better than BBC Basic in some respects (although
not many respects, lol)
> > If I remember rightly the commodore had no provision to save a block of
> > code from basic either, at least on the spectrum it was as simple as
> > SAVE "foo" CODE 32768,2048
> LOL! didn't know that.
> So, you couldn't even do a little machine code and save it to tape?
> Without storing it in a REM routine, like you had to do with the ZX81?
you could use machine code to save a basic program that happened to
have a load of code after it but all programs were basic programs
(which is why most of them are like 10 SYS 2061 - Basic program starts
at 2048 so enough space for the line containing the SYS command then
the actual block of code) - The disk system also suffered from this
'feature', the only filetypes were PRG (Basic program) and SEQ
> Mind you, that's hardly a surprise, considering the commode 64 ROM was the
> same as the VIC20 ROM, talk about cheapskates. All they did was change
> default screen colours and the copyright message at boot up.
Well, those were probably defined by the kernal anyway, it wouldn't
surprise me at all to find the BASIC ROM was unchanged, I might blow a
Vic 20 BASIC rom at some point and try it in one of my C64s to see if
it works, I'm curious now -.o
> > True, although the Yamaha 8912 in the 128 machines came close o.0
> Cue the commode's user's standard response "No it didn't, it didn't even
> have filters"
Oh well, still better than Beep -.o, Do you know there are cards for
the PC now that allow the use of a real SID chip for sidplaying and C64
emulation? that's going a bit far IMHO, my PocketPC can play SID files
just fine with the sound hardware it comes with.
> > Except you need more instructions to do anything useful on that
> > processor (not to mention you have a reasonable number of registers on
> > the Z80, some of which have more than 8 bits!)
> Cue the standard commode response "Ah, but we had zero page so we had lots
> of memory addresses that were as fast as registers"
Well, quite, but you can't copy a block of memory with four
instructions, zero page or not :>
> (Awww, am I spoiling it for you by pre-empting you?)
Not for me, for him perhaps -.o;
>> Oh yes, so you had to spend 40 quid on an action replay to get it to
>> load at a reasonable speeed. lovely! (and I did!, still got it too, I
>> think the enhancement disk was another tenner as well although I can't
>> really remember now)
> What a con, eh?
> You spend 350 quid on a computer which needs an add on to load quickly...
> Then you spend another 400 quid on a disk drive and need to spend more money
> on THAT to get it to work faster than the tape.
Hai, I actually got my C64 for £40 from a schoolfriend after he broke
the keyboard, then just repaired it, 1541 was free and likewise broken
(6522 failure (and god, those chips failed a lot! the 48K ULA was super
reliable in comparison)), the only thing I actually bought new /was/
the action replay, think I was using a composite TRS-80 monitor too, I
know it was green... Wasn't very old at the time, lol
Just got another +3 off ebay for 15 quid actually, I'm quite happy,
sadly the original one with the audio fault but I suppose you can't
have everything -.o;
Mine is hacked to death (Internal MF3, 3,5" B:, +3e roms, drive swapper
(the only way to get the MF3 to read/write to 3.5" disks)) - Going to
add a simple 8bit IDE interface and a 2.5" drive once I find a bit of
stripboard to built the interface on -
http://www.1984.org.uk/pogo/plus3m3done.jpg <- Not particularly neat,
it'll be better when it's done, lol. Case is a bit battered but I have
had it since I was 12 (31 now) so it's not /that/ bad...
http://www.1984.org.uk/pogo/bbcinternal.jpg <- Now /there/ is a real
65xx based machine! I'd like to see you get all that inside a C64, rofl
(to be exact, 1770 upgrade board, Sidewise Sideways ROM board, GoMMC
with 512MB of storage and a small mod to take s-video out to the 1084
http://www.1984.org.uk/pogo/c128-64hdd.jpg <- ~cough~ (note the extreme
measures required to get a decent amount of storage on that machine IE:
a whole extra machine, 64HDD is good software, I paid for it, but
still, a solution like the above would be preferable if it were
possible (and I don't mean a board hanging out the cartridge port
Hmm, seem to have drifted off topic here somewhat, oh well -.o;
From: zeem on 22 Nov 2006 14:20
Chris Young wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2006 07:26:47 -0800 da kidz on comp.sys.sinclair were rappin'
> to MC Paul Rosenzweig:
Reclaim the dictionary! We invented those words!
From: Steve Farrell on 22 Nov 2006 17:12
Sam Gillett wrote:
> Go hide in the corner while you check sales figures. After you learn that
> the C64 sold MILLIONS more than all of Sir Clive's computers combined you may
> come out of the corner.
Windows XP has sold millions too. Does that mean it's the best