From: Robert van der Veeke on
Sam Gillett wrote:
> <spike1(a)freenet.co.uk> wrote ...
>
>>Indeed. While the commode didn't even have PRINT AT, let alone PLOT, DRAW,
>>BEEP, etc.
>
>
> Later in your post you indicate that you are not comparing your Rectrum ZX81
> to the Commodore 64, but rather your Rectrum 128. Therefore, the Commodore
> 128 and BASIC 7.0 will now enter stage left. (BTW, when you become sensible
> enough quit referring to the Commodore a commode, I will stop calling the
> Spectrum a Rectrum.) :-)

> BASIC 7.0 does not have a PLOT command. However, as I remember, the Sinclair
> PLOT command just places a little square box (about 4 pixels by 4 pixels), or
> a series of little square boxes, on the screen. The same effect can be had
> in BASIC 7.0 by using the BOX command with the paint option set to fill the
> box with the color of ones choice. The BOX command gives the programmer
> control over the size, shape, and rotation of the rectangle, as well as
> whether or not to fill it with color.

4x4 pixels? That's a zx81 mate!, and it did not actually plot a true
pixel but printed a character on the screen. But then you are comparing
a ZX81 to a Commodore 128, that's not even like comparing apples to pears.

--
Robert van der Veeke
(Remove the pin to Email)
Currently listening to: Ben Hur - Miklos Rozsa

So... if she weighs the same... as a duck... then she's made of wood.
"And, therefore...?" ... A WITCH!
From: Tom Lake on

"Matthew Westcott" <gasman(a)raww.org> wrote in message
news:4slcadF10e3omU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> spike1(a)freenet.co.uk wrote:
>
>> 60 bytes per second X 8 (8 bits in a byte) = 2400 bits per second.

60 * 8 = 480.
>
> *cough*

Maybe he meant characters rather than bytes. In a lot of data transmission
formats, it takes 10 bits to transmit one character so 60 chars/sec would be
600 bps.

Tom Lake

From: spike1 on
Robert van der Veeke <rjvveeke(a)caiw-pull_the_pin-.nl> did eloquently scribble:
> 4x4 pixels? That's a zx81 mate!, and it did not actually plot a true
> pixel but printed a character on the screen. But then you are comparing
> a ZX81 to a Commodore 128, that's not even like comparing apples to pears.

Indeed. More like comparing mice to elephants.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spike1(a)freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: spike1 on
Matthew Westcott <gasman(a)raww.org> did eloquently scribble:
> spike1(a)freenet.co.uk wrote:

>> 60 bytes per second X 8 (8 bits in a byte) = 2400 bits per second.

> *cough*

Quite. I was going off my previous god knows where I got it from
calculations from last night. :)

I wasn't drunk, but it was late and I was obviously verrrrr, verrrr tired.

Looks like it's gonna be one of those days.
:)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spike1(a)freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DanSolo on
spike1(a)freenet.co.uk wrote:
> Feature by feature, the spectrum would by then only lack hardware sprites
> (woopydoo). But it would GAIN on the microdrive.

I think more important than the sprites, the Spec could really have
done with a couple of more bytes for pixel colour. A real crippler. Is
there any example of a Spectrum game that couldn't be matched or
bettered graphicwise on the C64? (and consider Head Over Heels while
writing your reply).
So everything that you could see or hear from the C64 was better,
obviously if you could bloody poke it into doing the thing.