Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #157616 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-25 17:26 +0300 |
| Last post | 2016-01-30 20:36 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 381 — 58 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
DEC and The Americans RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-01-25 17:26 +0300
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-25 15:45 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 10:53 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-26 13:56 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 04:48 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans terry-groups@glaver.org - 2016-01-26 14:14 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-26 17:21 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-27 15:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-25 10:58 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-25 16:17 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-25 11:47 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-01-25 16:47 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-25 17:41 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2016-01-25 19:25 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-01-25 16:15 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-25 13:17 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-26 08:20 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-26 11:32 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:23 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:20 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2016-01-27 19:40 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Yeechang Lee <ylee@columbia.edu> - 2016-01-27 22:40 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-25 15:07 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-25 19:34 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-25 19:38 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-25 23:55 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:32 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 19:31 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-27 21:10 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 11:49 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-28 15:33 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 19:00 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 19:23 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 00:48 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 21:02 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 07:32 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-28 15:32 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 19:03 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 19:23 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 20:58 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-29 10:40 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:11 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-29 23:21 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 03:45 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 09:25 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-01 17:45 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-01 21:29 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 00:33 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-02 03:04 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 15:42 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-02 18:40 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:39 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:43 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 22:35 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-03 23:59 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-04 11:24 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 10:51 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 05:12 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-04 19:29 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-04 11:26 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-05 02:51 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-05 10:45 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-05 10:47 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-05 10:21 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Dave Pitts <dpitts@cozx.com> - 2016-02-06 08:06 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-06 10:02 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-06 19:20 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Clark G <clarkm.geimsler@ieeemmm.org> - 2016-02-16 04:41 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Dave Pitts <dpitts@cozx.com> - 2016-02-17 07:45 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-06 19:18 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans terry-groups@glaver.org - 2016-02-05 20:35 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-05 23:12 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans terry-groups@glaver.org - 2016-02-06 01:34 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-06 07:39 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 14:02 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-08 10:01 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 19:36 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-08 11:45 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-08 19:14 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-06 22:35 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 18:19 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-06 22:45 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 08:08 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-07 07:09 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-07 19:57 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-07 07:09 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-05 19:05 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-05 21:32 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-06 22:49 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 21:18 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-02 02:59 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 15:38 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:43 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 18:58 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-27 03:46 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 06:14 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-27 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-26 13:56 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:26 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-26 17:57 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-01-26 14:35 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-26 14:53 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-26 09:58 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 11:05 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-26 11:41 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 12:38 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-26 15:26 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 19:25 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 18:38 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 07:54 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-26 11:36 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:39 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> - 2016-01-26 21:16 +0200
Re: DEC and The Americans "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2016-01-28 10:07 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 05:48 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-26 13:56 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:43 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-27 15:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-02-03 00:36 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-02 18:42 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-03 14:25 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:58 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-04 15:14 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 05:01 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-05 14:41 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 04:42 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-06 14:35 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-06 11:45 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-06 18:09 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-06 15:49 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-07 05:33 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-07 15:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-07 11:12 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-07 11:42 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-07 20:06 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 06:06 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-07 15:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-07 09:52 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 11:56 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 12:33 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 16:34 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 04:08 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 06:10 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-04 13:42 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-04 14:23 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-05 14:41 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-05 14:32 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-05 13:05 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-06 10:34 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-05 13:08 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-05 15:34 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-06 14:35 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-06 14:45 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-07 15:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 04:05 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-02-07 17:27 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-02-07 17:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-07 12:07 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-08 21:07 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-07 19:56 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 13:53 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-08 19:11 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 13:49 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 16:43 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-06 13:18 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-06 20:08 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 14:22 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-06 20:52 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-07 07:09 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-06 16:38 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-06 20:09 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 18:36 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-07 06:18 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 08:10 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-07 19:57 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-07 19:24 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-07 15:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-07 09:45 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 04:16 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-08 17:19 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 12:22 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-09 11:16 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-09 13:55 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 11:49 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-08 16:11 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 17:47 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-09 14:21 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 04:01 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-06 16:13 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-07 15:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 03:49 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-07 12:12 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 18:26 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-07 15:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 11:09 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 03:56 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 13:59 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-08 14:38 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-02-08 15:56 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-09 14:21 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-08 19:17 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-08 17:19 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-09 14:21 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 02:03 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-09 15:09 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-09 17:27 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-02-09 10:36 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-09 15:07 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-02-08 19:08 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-09 14:21 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-09 15:10 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-10 12:46 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 02:52 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-11 13:30 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-11 14:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-11 11:20 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 04:58 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 13:57 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-11 21:22 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-11 17:07 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 17:11 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-11 15:32 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-11 17:56 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-11 22:36 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-12 00:35 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:47 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 05:04 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-12 04:22 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans davidmylastname@acm.org (David Griffith) - 2016-02-12 23:19 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:42 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:32 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-16 15:58 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-11 22:39 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 15:35 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans terry-groups@glaver.org - 2016-02-11 17:47 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-11 22:39 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-12 12:22 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-12 07:23 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-12 14:50 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Clark G <clarkm.geimsler@ieeemmm.org> - 2016-02-16 01:39 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-12 04:17 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:50 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-13 08:48 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-13 16:54 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 19:06 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-14 03:50 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-14 14:11 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 07:35 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-15 10:37 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 05:09 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-15 17:05 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 18:07 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-14 19:35 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-15 10:33 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 17:58 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-15 03:08 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-15 08:21 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-14 10:07 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-14 16:25 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-14 21:43 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-14 22:07 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-15 21:27 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 00:36 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 03:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 21:25 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 09:40 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 15:04 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 14:57 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-16 09:09 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2016-02-17 01:08 +0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 18:55 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-14 15:24 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 04:48 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-14 21:40 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 11:42 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-15 10:29 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-15 06:02 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-14 17:22 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 18:13 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-15 21:27 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-15 23:45 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 00:16 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-15 21:00 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 03:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-16 09:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-16 15:29 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-13 16:47 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 18:54 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-13 22:05 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-12 13:40 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:54 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-13 16:27 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-13 18:05 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans roger.ivie@gmail.com - 2016-02-13 11:18 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-02-15 22:19 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-15 23:47 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 04:44 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-12 13:40 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 05:18 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-09 18:42 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-10 12:46 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-08 21:09 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Warren Adams <adamswa@hiwaay.net> - 2016-02-08 17:00 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-09 03:18 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-08 08:14 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 16:46 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-02-08 16:50 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-02-08 19:13 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 11:26 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-08 18:26 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 17:26 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-08 16:16 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-09 14:21 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 02:05 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-09 15:49 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-09 15:07 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-09 15:47 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 19:01 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-10 12:46 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-10 07:34 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-11 04:30 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-11 13:30 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 04:40 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-12 04:03 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-12 13:40 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-12 15:51 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-11 14:09 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-11 18:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 13:59 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-12 08:13 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-12 12:42 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-12 04:46 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-12 12:20 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-12 04:33 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-01-25 17:27 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-25 11:18 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-25 10:24 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 06:14 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 17:53 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 10:40 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 05:40 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 19:12 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-01-26 14:22 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-26 16:20 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-26 11:36 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 18:37 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-27 03:58 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 06:16 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-27 15:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-27 18:14 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 18:34 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Evan Koblentz <ekoblentz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 09:03 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Evan Koblentz <ekoblentz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 09:07 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-27 17:31 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-01-28 10:17 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-28 07:26 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 11:36 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-28 10:31 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 19:23 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-29 14:07 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 20:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-29 21:11 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 19:30 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-01-29 21:20 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 12:48 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 11:17 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:09 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:40 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-01 14:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-01 16:03 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-01 17:11 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans bleep@compy.0-0 (Colonel Bleep) - 2016-01-30 07:07 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 09:43 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 20:36 +0000
Page 3 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 20 Next page →
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 10:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnamgd8.18v.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #158088 |
On 2016-01-29, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, Peter Flass wrote: > >> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: >>> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message >>> news:1808a3ce-8759-457d-9a03-30e4b15c520b@googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>> [snip...] [snip...] >>>> [snip...] >>>> >>>> I think bitsavers has some books full of BASIC games, although it is just >>>> the listing, which would have to be typed in. >>>> > Then of course, some magazines came with cassette tapes. But those worked > best for computer specific magazines since you could just load and run the > program. Then later floppy disks, and even later CDROMs. The real domain > of the latter were the British computer magazines, "coverdisks", they > still exist so you can get a copy of Linux Format for about $20 Canadian > and get a DVD full of the Linux distributions featured in the issue. > > Then some magazines stopped publishing program listings, you were supposed > to get the listing online. Which makes the associated articles kind of > useless decades later, you can't even look at the program listing unless > you made a point of retrieving it back then. > > Then the magazines stopped printing software articles (as they'd stopped > printing hardware construction articles sometime before), so you were just > a consumer. There was a magazine called Computer Shopper (_Not_ the us one), printed on poor quality paper, but it had articles on almost all computers available at that time. One of the founders had previously been prosecuted, not convicted, , on pornography charges. The ads got bigger, the articles got smaller. The usual sad end, but I think it is still on sale. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 19:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8h2fh$nea$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158088 |
"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1601282048520.16051@darkstar.example.org... > > [snip...] [snip...] > [snip...] > > Various magazines came up with some loader that you had to type in first, > and then type in the programs in that loader. The high point was that > they'd include some error correcting or parity, so you knew if a line of > numbers had been entered properly. I thought some magazines had some > scheme for BASIC programs, but this can't be what those used. > There was a magazine in the 80s called "Compute!" that had checksums on the right of each line of BASIC program. There was a machine language program you had to load (after typing it in) that would checksum the line of BASIC you typed... and print the checksum in the upper right corner IIRC. So you would know immediately if you made a mistake typing in the line of BASIC. https://archive.org/details/compute-magazine The same company had a Commodore-only magazine called "Compute's! Gazette"with the same arrangment for typing in BASIC listings. There was another similar system for typing in machine language programs in hex. https://archive.org/details/compute-gazette In later years, Compute! magazine became an advertising rag just like BYTE did. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 23:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601292317450.18366@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #158204 |
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016, Charles Richmond wrote: > "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message > news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1601282048520.16051@darkstar.example.org... >> >> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] >> >> Various magazines came up with some loader that you had to type in first, >> and then type in the programs in that loader. The high point was that >> they'd include some error correcting or parity, so you knew if a line of >> numbers had been entered properly. I thought some magazines had some >> scheme for BASIC programs, but this can't be what those used. >> > > There was a magazine in the 80s called "Compute!" that had checksums on the > right of each line of BASIC program. There was a machine language program > you had to load (after typing it in) that would checksum the line of BASIC > you typed... and print the checksum in the upper right corner IIRC. So you > would know immediately if you made a mistake typing in the line of BASIC. > > https://archive.org/details/compute-magazine > > The same company had a Commodore-only magazine called "Compute's! > Gazette"with the same arrangment for typing in BASIC listings. There was > another similar system for typing in machine language programs in hex. > > https://archive.org/details/compute-gazette > > In later years, Compute! magazine became an advertising rag just like BYTE > did. > Thanks. Compute! was one of the magazines I was thinking of, but I couldn't remember exactly what they did. It was only the machine language programs I was really interested in, so I couldn't remember how they worked that. Wasn't Compute! for Commodore computers, or did it consider itself a more general 6502 magazine? I can't remember that either, I did buy some issues, and I know as time evolved it became a more and more generic magazine. Jim Butterfield once had an article for a better monitor for the Commodore 64, and it used bits of the Apple II monitor if I recall properly. I think that was one thing I was tempted to adapt to my OSI Superboard, but I can't remember if I did, or why I didn't (whichever the case was). Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 03:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a9781efb-dfec-45d9-a5c5-3aa9fcf72c91@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #158228 |
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 9:16:51 PM UTC-7, Michael Black wrote: > Wasn't Compute! for Commodore computers, or did it consider itself a more > general 6502 magazine? It included programs or versions of programs for the IBM PCjr as well, for example. Compute's Gazette was for the C-64, and they may have had an Atari magazine as well, but Compute! was more general than even just for the 6502. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 09:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <bflpabpr0bvceo2j3cait5o9sj7te3ugef@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #158228 |
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 23:21:26 -0500, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >On Fri, 29 Jan 2016, Charles Richmond wrote: > >> "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message >> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1601282048520.16051@darkstar.example.org... >>> >>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] >>> >>> Various magazines came up with some loader that you had to type in first, >>> and then type in the programs in that loader. The high point was that >>> they'd include some error correcting or parity, so you knew if a line of >>> numbers had been entered properly. I thought some magazines had some >>> scheme for BASIC programs, but this can't be what those used. >>> >> >> There was a magazine in the 80s called "Compute!" that had checksums on the >> right of each line of BASIC program. There was a machine language program >> you had to load (after typing it in) that would checksum the line of BASIC >> you typed... and print the checksum in the upper right corner IIRC. So you >> would know immediately if you made a mistake typing in the line of BASIC. >> >> https://archive.org/details/compute-magazine >> >> The same company had a Commodore-only magazine called "Compute's! >> Gazette"with the same arrangment for typing in BASIC listings. There was >> another similar system for typing in machine language programs in hex. >> >> https://archive.org/details/compute-gazette >> >> In later years, Compute! magazine became an advertising rag just like BYTE >> did. >> >Thanks. Compute! was one of the magazines I was thinking of, but I >couldn't remember exactly what they did. It was only the machine language >programs I was really interested in, so I couldn't remember how they >worked that. > >Wasn't Compute! for Commodore computers, or did it consider itself a more >general 6502 magazine? I can't remember that either, I did buy some >issues, and I know as time evolved it became a more and more generic >magazine. Compute ! had an Amiga version. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 17:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8oqha$31s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158228 |
"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1601292317450.18366@darkstar.example.org... > > [snip...] [snip...] > [snip...] > > Thanks. Compute! was one of the magazines I was thinking of, but I > couldn't remember exactly what they did. It was only the machine language > programs I was really interested in, so I couldn't remember how they > worked that. > > Wasn't Compute! for Commodore computers, or did it consider itself a more > general 6502 magazine? I can't remember that either, I did buy some > issues, and I know as time evolved it became a more and more generic > magazine. > Early issues of Compute! magazine may have been Commodore-centric, but this magazine mainly published game programs written in some version of BASIC. If the program was written for TI 99/4A BASIC, for example, the main listing would be followed several smaller listings... of lines of the BASIC program that had to be changed for a Commodore 64, an Atari 800, and a few other BASIC dialects. Compute! also published wire-bound paperback books for specific things and these were *mostly* for the Commodore 64, although I think I had one book they published for the Atari ST. > Jim Butterfield once had an article for a better monitor for the Commodore > 64, and it used bits of the Apple II monitor if I recall properly. I > think that was one thing I was tempted to adapt to my OSI Superboard, but > I can't remember if I did, or why I didn't (whichever the case was). > Butterfield was a super programmer for 6502 machines!!! (And I'm sure you know that he was a Canadian.) I remember assembling a program (from "Commodore" magazine I think it was) that Butterfield wrote... to play music with the C64 music chip. You coded the sheet music in a certain notation and the C64 could play that piece of music. The program came with Pachelbel's "Canon in D" already encoded. There was a machine language monitor referred to as "the wedge"... which was commonly used by C64 programmers. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 21:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1602012120200.24262@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #158570 |
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, Charles Richmond wrote: > "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message > news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1601292317450.18366@darkstar.example.org... >> >> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] >> >> Thanks. Compute! was one of the magazines I was thinking of, but I >> couldn't remember exactly what they did. It was only the machine language >> programs I was really interested in, so I couldn't remember how they worked >> that. >> >> Wasn't Compute! for Commodore computers, or did it consider itself a more >> general 6502 magazine? I can't remember that either, I did buy some >> issues, and I know as time evolved it became a more and more generic >> magazine. >> > > Early issues of Compute! magazine may have been Commodore-centric, but this > magazine mainly published game programs written in some version of BASIC. If > the program was written for TI 99/4A BASIC, for example, the main listing > would be followed several smaller listings... of lines of the BASIC program > that had to be changed for a Commodore 64, an Atari 800, and a few other > BASIC dialects. > > Compute! also published wire-bound paperback books for specific things and > these were *mostly* for the Commodore 64, although I think I had one book > they published for the Atari ST. > It's hard to keep track, since the computers did change over time. I thought it was 6502 centric, and then changed with the times. I know it looked very different later than early. SOmewhere someone posted a URL to a page at archive.org that had a whole lot of computer magazines (and maybe badly done, since there are a lot of different titles, and then the page starts listing, with photos, the specific issues. But I was looking there the other day, and they had issues of Compute! and Micro 65 (which was specific to the 6502 until the 6809 came along), the magazine for 6800 systems that started out when SWTP was the only game in town, early issues of Micro Cornucopia which wsa a fairly esoteric magazine. ALl the popular ones, though I don't think it's a complete set of each. So it's worth going there and doing a search for a favorite old home computer magazine, it might pop up there. >> Jim Butterfield once had an article for a better monitor for the Commodore >> 64, and it used bits of the Apple II monitor if I recall properly. I think >> that was one thing I was tempted to adapt to my OSI Superboard, but I can't >> remember if I did, or why I didn't (whichever the case was). >> > > Butterfield was a super programmer for 6502 machines!!! (And I'm sure you > know that he was a Canadian.) I remember assembling a program (from > "Commodore" magazine I think it was) that Butterfield wrote... to play music > with the C64 music chip. You coded the sheet music in a certain notation and > the C64 could play that piece of music. The program came with Pachelbel's > "Canon in D" already encoded. > TV Ontario (kind of like PBS, but for the province of Ontario only) early on had a computer show with a couple of comedians, one playing the inept beginner, the other playing the "expert" (since she'd already gone through the same path). But they'd have real experts on, and Jim Butterfield would appear every so often. I read in one of the magazines that he was a partner in a bar in Toronto, the important point being that it had a "computer bartender", so perhaps his buy into the bar was setting that up. > There was a machine language monitor referred to as "the wedge"... which was > commonly used by C64 programmers. > I thought "the wedge" was a scheme to add things to the floppy disk controller. There was a place where it would fit in where it could then jump to some other memory so you could add commands and such. Or maybe it was a general thing to add commands to BASIC. I never had a C64, so anything I picked up was in passing, and it's now long enough ago that I've forgotten details. Though I'm sure if I wanted to program in 6502, it would all come back fast. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 00:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8pif9$tan$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158586 |
"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1602012120200.24262@darkstar.example.org... > On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, Charles Richmond wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > >> Early issues of Compute! magazine may have been Commodore-centric, but >> this magazine mainly published game programs written in some version of >> BASIC. If the program was written for TI 99/4A BASIC, for example, the >> main listing would be followed several smaller listings... of lines of >> the BASIC program that had to be changed for a Commodore 64, an Atari >> 800, and a few other BASIC dialects. >> >> Compute! also published wire-bound paperback books for specific things >> and these were *mostly* for the Commodore 64, although I think I had one >> book they published for the Atari ST. >> > It's hard to keep track, since the computers did change over time. I > thought it was 6502 centric, and then changed with the times. I know it > looked very different later than early. > ISTM that you are thinking of the *last* few years of Compute! magazine. It became an advertising rag just like BYTE did. In the 1980s, Compute! published a lot of BASIC listings for the Atari 800, C64, and TI 99/4A. These were *not* all 6502 machines. > > [snip...] [snip...] > [snip...] > >> There was a machine language monitor referred to as "the wedge"... which >> was commonly used by C64 programmers. >> > I thought "the wedge" was a scheme to add things to the floppy disk > controller. There was a place where it would fit in where it could then > jump to some other memory so you could add commands and such. Or maybe it > was a general thing to add commands to BASIC. > Hmmm... I think you are right about "the wedge". However, there *is* a machine langauge monitor for the C64 and ISTM that it would do disassembly like the Apple II machine language monitor. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 03:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1602020301150.24578@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #158591 |
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Charles Richmond wrote: > "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message > news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1602012120200.24262@darkstar.example.org... >> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, Charles Richmond wrote: >> >> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] >> >>> Early issues of Compute! magazine may have been Commodore-centric, but >>> this magazine mainly published game programs written in some version of >>> BASIC. If the program was written for TI 99/4A BASIC, for example, the >>> main listing would be followed several smaller listings... of lines of the >>> BASIC program that had to be changed for a Commodore 64, an Atari 800, and >>> a few other BASIC dialects. >>> >>> Compute! also published wire-bound paperback books for specific things and >>> these were *mostly* for the Commodore 64, although I think I had one book >>> they published for the Atari ST. >>> >> It's hard to keep track, since the computers did change over time. I >> thought it was 6502 centric, and then changed with the times. I know it >> looked very different later than early. >> > > ISTM that you are thinking of the *last* few years of Compute! magazine. It > became an advertising rag just like BYTE did. In the 1980s, Compute! > published a lot of BASIC listings for the Atari 800, C64, and TI 99/4A. These > were *not* all 6502 machines. > BUt not if you go back far enough. I recall, and wikipedia confirms, that originally it was for 6502 computers. It even had a place for the single board 6502 computers like the KIM-1 and the OSI Superboard. Maybe things changed faster than I remember. Wikiepdia details the changes, but not dates. I didn't get my OSI Superboard till the fall of 1981, so much of Compute! wouldn't have appealed to me before that, but I do remember typing in a program from Compute! for longer line lengths on the video. But I don't remember when the TI-99/4 appeared, it had to be after a change in policy, which of course eventually meant they didn't care about the 6502. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 15:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8r7nf$7dg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158599 |
"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1602020301150.24578@darkstar.example.org... > On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Charles Richmond wrote: > >> "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message >> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1602012120200.24262@darkstar.example.org... >>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, Charles Richmond wrote: >>> >>> [snip...] [snip...] >>> [snip...] >>> >>>> Early issues of Compute! magazine may have been Commodore-centric, but >>>> this magazine mainly published game programs written in some version of >>>> BASIC. If the program was written for TI 99/4A BASIC, for example, the >>>> main listing would be followed several smaller listings... of lines of >>>> the BASIC program that had to be changed for a Commodore 64, an Atari >>>> 800, and a few other BASIC dialects. >>>> >>>> Compute! also published wire-bound paperback books for specific things >>>> and these were *mostly* for the Commodore 64, although I think I had >>>> one book they published for the Atari ST. >>>> >>> It's hard to keep track, since the computers did change over time. I >>> thought it was 6502 centric, and then changed with the times. I know it >>> looked very different later than early. >>> >> >> ISTM that you are thinking of the *last* few years of Compute! magazine. >> It became an advertising rag just like BYTE did. In the 1980s, Compute! >> published a lot of BASIC listings for the Atari 800, C64, and TI 99/4A. >> These were *not* all 6502 machines. >> > BUt not if you go back far enough. I recall, and wikipedia confirms, that > originally it was for 6502 computers. It even had a place for the single > board 6502 computers like the KIM-1 and the OSI Superboard. > > Maybe things changed faster than I remember. Wikiepdia details the > changes, but not dates. I didn't get my OSI Superboard till the fall of > 1981, so much of Compute! wouldn't have appealed to me before that, but I > do remember typing in a program from Compute! for longer line lengths on > the video. > > But I don't remember when the TI-99/4 appeared, it had to be after a > change in policy, which of course eventually meant they didn't care about > the 6502. > Apparently you are right about the *early* Compute! being 6052-centric. The magazine started in 1979, but by 1983 the magazine was multi-platform. The computer TI-99/4A was available in 1978, but the magazine must have picked up supporting the TI around 1983. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute! -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 18:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2d038db7-e611-4090-ae43-849e93aa55b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #158642 |
On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 2:42:51 PM UTC-7, Charles Richmond wrote: > Apparently you are right about the *early* Compute! being 6052-centric. I was surprised to find that it was the _later_ Compute! that looked like OMNI and was probably also owned by Penthouse. Usually, magazines evolve in the opposite direction. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 12:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1602031233380.27112@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #158666 |
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Quadibloc wrote: > On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 2:42:51 PM UTC-7, Charles Richmond wrote: > >> Apparently you are right about the *early* Compute! being 6052-centric. > > I was surprised to find that it was the _later_ Compute! that looked > like OMNI and was probably also owned by Penthouse. Usually, magazines > evolve in the opposite direction. > Realy? There were a lot of small computer magazines launched, and it seemed to buck a trend, many were "independent". Creative COmputing wasn't from one of the traditional magazine companies. There were at least two magazines for the Radio Shack Color Computer that were from companies that didn't publish other magazines (and of course one from Wayne Green, who did have multiple magazines but had only "73" when he started Byte). Then there was that wave about 1984, where magazines were being bought up by the Big Publishers. That in itself wouldn't have been bad, but often they were soon closed down. One of those Color Computer magazines went that way, Creative Computing didn't last long after it was bought up (I can't remember by who). Byte was "independent" until bought by McGraw Hill, I'm sure there were others looking for a way into the market. Omni buying Compute! does seem odd, especially because it came later. On the other hand, I was going to say Omni spun-off, but I guess it wsa the music magazine "Spin", which was started by Bob Gucioni's son. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 12:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1602031241050.27112@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #158642 |
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Charles Richmond wrote: > "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message > news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1602020301150.24578@darkstar.example.org... >> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Charles Richmond wrote: >> >>> "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message >>> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1602012120200.24262@darkstar.example.org... >>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, Charles Richmond wrote: >>>> >>>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] >>>> >>>>> Early issues of Compute! magazine may have been Commodore-centric, but >>>>> this magazine mainly published game programs written in some version of >>>>> BASIC. If the program was written for TI 99/4A BASIC, for example, the >>>>> main listing would be followed several smaller listings... of lines of >>>>> the BASIC program that had to be changed for a Commodore 64, an Atari >>>>> 800, and a few other BASIC dialects. >>>>> >>>>> Compute! also published wire-bound paperback books for specific things >>>>> and these were *mostly* for the Commodore 64, although I think I had one >>>>> book they published for the Atari ST. >>>>> >>>> It's hard to keep track, since the computers did change over time. I >>>> thought it was 6502 centric, and then changed with the times. I know it >>>> looked very different later than early. >>>> >>> >>> ISTM that you are thinking of the *last* few years of Compute! magazine. >>> It became an advertising rag just like BYTE did. In the 1980s, Compute! >>> published a lot of BASIC listings for the Atari 800, C64, and TI 99/4A. >>> These were *not* all 6502 machines. >>> >> BUt not if you go back far enough. I recall, and wikipedia confirms, that >> originally it was for 6502 computers. It even had a place for the single >> board 6502 computers like the KIM-1 and the OSI Superboard. >> >> Maybe things changed faster than I remember. Wikiepdia details the >> changes, but not dates. I didn't get my OSI Superboard till the fall of >> 1981, so much of Compute! wouldn't have appealed to me before that, but I >> do remember typing in a program from Compute! for longer line lengths on >> the video. >> >> But I don't remember when the TI-99/4 appeared, it had to be after a change >> in policy, which of course eventually meant they didn't care about the >> 6502. >> > > Apparently you are right about the *early* Compute! being 6052-centric. The > magazine started in 1979, but by 1983 the magazine was multi-platform. The > computer TI-99/4A was available in 1978, but the magazine must have picked up > supporting the TI around 1983. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute! > It's just a few years, but makes the difference. I can't remember how frequently I read it, but I know after a certain point there wasn't much in there for me, and when I got a Radio Shack Color Computer in 1984 there'd be less interest for me. Wasn't the TI-99/4 mostly a failure (well there were hardcore users) until TI dropped the price, either because they were dropping it, or at least thinking about it? I remember them when they were cheap, that seemed to bring a lot of attention to the computer. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 22:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7l5bbtvtv810ql4q32i101i7qsifsdnq6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #158710 |
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:43:18 -0500, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Charles Richmond wrote: > >> "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message >> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1602020301150.24578@darkstar.example.org... >>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Charles Richmond wrote: >>> >>>> "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message >>>> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1602012120200.24262@darkstar.example.org... >>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, Charles Richmond wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] >>>>> >>>>>> Early issues of Compute! magazine may have been Commodore-centric, but >>>>>> this magazine mainly published game programs written in some version of >>>>>> BASIC. If the program was written for TI 99/4A BASIC, for example, the >>>>>> main listing would be followed several smaller listings... of lines of >>>>>> the BASIC program that had to be changed for a Commodore 64, an Atari >>>>>> 800, and a few other BASIC dialects. >>>>>> >>>>>> Compute! also published wire-bound paperback books for specific things >>>>>> and these were *mostly* for the Commodore 64, although I think I had one >>>>>> book they published for the Atari ST. >>>>>> >>>>> It's hard to keep track, since the computers did change over time. I >>>>> thought it was 6502 centric, and then changed with the times. I know it >>>>> looked very different later than early. >>>>> >>>> >>>> ISTM that you are thinking of the *last* few years of Compute! magazine. >>>> It became an advertising rag just like BYTE did. In the 1980s, Compute! >>>> published a lot of BASIC listings for the Atari 800, C64, and TI 99/4A. >>>> These were *not* all 6502 machines. >>>> >>> BUt not if you go back far enough. I recall, and wikipedia confirms, that >>> originally it was for 6502 computers. It even had a place for the single >>> board 6502 computers like the KIM-1 and the OSI Superboard. >>> >>> Maybe things changed faster than I remember. Wikiepdia details the >>> changes, but not dates. I didn't get my OSI Superboard till the fall of >>> 1981, so much of Compute! wouldn't have appealed to me before that, but I >>> do remember typing in a program from Compute! for longer line lengths on >>> the video. >>> >>> But I don't remember when the TI-99/4 appeared, it had to be after a change >>> in policy, which of course eventually meant they didn't care about the >>> 6502. >>> >> >> Apparently you are right about the *early* Compute! being 6052-centric. The >> magazine started in 1979, but by 1983 the magazine was multi-platform. The >> computer TI-99/4A was available in 1978, but the magazine must have picked up >> supporting the TI around 1983. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute! >> >It's just a few years, but makes the difference. I can't remember how >frequently I read it, but I know after a certain point there wasn't much >in there for me, and when I got a Radio Shack Color Computer in >1984 there'd be less interest for me. > >Wasn't the TI-99/4 mostly a failure (well there were hardcore users) >until TI dropped the price, either because they were dropping it, or at >least thinking about it? I remember them when they were cheap, that >seemed to bring a lot of attention to the computer. > > Michael Supposedly the TI 99/4A came out due to 120VAC getting to the keyboard in the TI 99/4 version. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 23:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87fux9j9ra.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #158779 |
JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes: > Supposedly the TI 99/4A came out due to 120VAC getting to the keyboard > in the TI 99/4 version. While it's not *impossible*, I seriously doubt that, since the bulk power supply was an external brick. The /4A came out because the /4 keyboard was atrociously awful. They took that opportunity to use a later version of the 9918 that included "more nifty stuff" The biggest problem, in my arrogant opinion, is that the machine had 128 words (256 bytes) of memory on the CPU bus. The rest of the memory was connected to the VDP. Now, while the 9900 had some nifty instructions to make accessing the VDP memory reasonably transparent, it was S ... L ... O ... W ... ( two writes and two reads, IIRC - each taking roughly 4 uS ) --NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 06:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <445150836.476283620.944237.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158786 |
Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: > JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes: >> Supposedly the TI 99/4A came out due to 120VAC getting to the keyboard >> in the TI 99/4 version. > > While it's not *impossible*, I seriously doubt that, since the bulk > power supply was an external brick. > > The /4A came out because the /4 keyboard was atrociously awful. They > took that opportunity to use a later version of the 9918 that included > "more nifty stuff" > > The biggest problem, in my arrogant opinion, is that the machine had 128 > words (256 bytes) of memory on the CPU bus. The rest of the memory was > connected to the VDP. Now, while the 9900 had some nifty instructions > to make accessing the VDP memory reasonably transparent, it was > S ... L ... O ... W ... ( two writes and two reads, IIRC - each taking > roughly 4 uS ) > I thought that at the time and for the price it was a nice machine. I enjoyed playing with the tile graphics. IIRC it started out costing around $1000, but soon dropped into the $200 range or lower. The one think I hated about it was the cassette interface, although floppy disks weren't common then and hard disks were unaffordable. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 11:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1602041123210.28905@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #158797 |
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Peter Flass wrote: > Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: >> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes: >>> Supposedly the TI 99/4A came out due to 120VAC getting to the keyboard >>> in the TI 99/4 version. >> >> While it's not *impossible*, I seriously doubt that, since the bulk >> power supply was an external brick. >> >> The /4A came out because the /4 keyboard was atrociously awful. They >> took that opportunity to use a later version of the 9918 that included >> "more nifty stuff" >> >> The biggest problem, in my arrogant opinion, is that the machine had 128 >> words (256 bytes) of memory on the CPU bus. The rest of the memory was >> connected to the VDP. Now, while the 9900 had some nifty instructions >> to make accessing the VDP memory reasonably transparent, it was >> S ... L ... O ... W ... ( two writes and two reads, IIRC - each taking >> roughly 4 uS ) >> > > I thought that at the time and for the price it was a nice machine. I > enjoyed playing with the tile graphics. IIRC it started out costing around > $1000, but soon dropped into the $200 range or lower. The one think I > hated about it was the cassette interface, although floppy disks weren't > common then and hard disks were unaffordable. > Wasn't some of the original cost because it came packaged with a color monitor? Nominally useful at the time since few had a monitor around (or a tv set with input jacks) but it put the initial price quite high. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 10:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <153211489.476300819.398399.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158815 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Peter Flass wrote: > >> Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: >>> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes: >>>> Supposedly the TI 99/4A came out due to 120VAC getting to the keyboard >>>> in the TI 99/4 version. >>> >>> While it's not *impossible*, I seriously doubt that, since the bulk >>> power supply was an external brick. >>> >>> The /4A came out because the /4 keyboard was atrociously awful. They >>> took that opportunity to use a later version of the 9918 that included >>> "more nifty stuff" >>> >>> The biggest problem, in my arrogant opinion, is that the machine had 128 >>> words (256 bytes) of memory on the CPU bus. The rest of the memory was >>> connected to the VDP. Now, while the 9900 had some nifty instructions >>> to make accessing the VDP memory reasonably transparent, it was >>> S ... L ... O ... W ... ( two writes and two reads, IIRC - each taking >>> roughly 4 uS ) >>> >> >> I thought that at the time and for the price it was a nice machine. I >> enjoyed playing with the tile graphics. IIRC it started out costing around >> $1000, but soon dropped into the $200 range or lower. The one think I >> hated about it was the cassette interface, although floppy disks weren't >> common then and hard disks were unaffordable. >> > Wasn't some of the original cost because it came packaged with a color > monitor? Nominally useful at the time since few had a monitor around (or > a tv set with input jacks) but it put the initial price quite high. That I don't recall. I know they sold few at the higher price and lots at the lower. I forget how it attached to the TV. It's amazing to me that TVs have almost become disposable these days. Around $100 for a 32inch (just right for a bedroom) is astonishing. Buying a TV used to be something to be carefully considered, now it's an impulse buy. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 05:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhhik6Fq4ibU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #158832 |
"Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:153211489.476300819.398399.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org... > Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >> On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Peter Flass wrote: >> >>> Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: >>>> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> Supposedly the TI 99/4A came out due to 120VAC getting to the keyboard >>>>> in the TI 99/4 version. >>>> >>>> While it's not *impossible*, I seriously doubt that, since the bulk >>>> power supply was an external brick. >>>> >>>> The /4A came out because the /4 keyboard was atrociously awful. They >>>> took that opportunity to use a later version of the 9918 that included >>>> "more nifty stuff" >>>> >>>> The biggest problem, in my arrogant opinion, is that the machine had >>>> 128 >>>> words (256 bytes) of memory on the CPU bus. The rest of the memory was >>>> connected to the VDP. Now, while the 9900 had some nifty instructions >>>> to make accessing the VDP memory reasonably transparent, it was >>>> S ... L ... O ... W ... ( two writes and two reads, IIRC - each taking >>>> roughly 4 uS ) >>>> >>> >>> I thought that at the time and for the price it was a nice machine. I >>> enjoyed playing with the tile graphics. IIRC it started out costing >>> around >>> $1000, but soon dropped into the $200 range or lower. The one think I >>> hated about it was the cassette interface, although floppy disks weren't >>> common then and hard disks were unaffordable. >>> >> Wasn't some of the original cost because it came packaged with a color >> monitor? Nominally useful at the time since few had a monitor around (or >> a tv set with input jacks) but it put the initial price quite high. > > That I don't recall. I know they sold few at the higher price and lots at > the lower. I forget how it attached to the TV. > > It's amazing to me that TVs have almost become disposable these days. > Around $100 for a 32inch (just right for a bedroom) is astonishing. > Buying > a TV used to be something to be carefully considered, now it's an impulse > buy. And you can't even give away the older glass TVs, no one wants them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 19:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n908r201cag@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #158832 |
On 2016-02-04, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > It's amazing to me that TVs have almost become disposable these days. > Around $100 for a 32inch (just right for a bedroom) is astonishing. Buying > a TV used to be something to be carefully considered, now it's an impulse > buy. Not only that, sizes are taken for granted that we could hardly have dreamed of not too long ago. We had a couple of 27-inch CRTs back in the day, and it was taken for granted that you'd spend $700 for something that luxurious. And now, for not a lot more, we have a 60-inch screen in the living room. (Naturally, I hooked up its own computer to it - xscreensaver looks _wonderful_, and games are a lot of fun). -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web