Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.cbm |
| Subject | Re: The C64 is crap! |
| Date | 2016-01-14 13:39 +1300 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <140120161339057335%YourName@YourISP.com> (permalink) |
| References | <130120161317370350%YourName@YourISP.com> <548573327@f18.n116.z1.fidonet.org> <130120161817149914%YourName@YourISP.com> <87ziw95b4b.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
In article <87ziw95b4b.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
<janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> wrote:
> Your Name wrote on 13. January 2016:
> >
> > A friend of mine had the crappy Sinclair toys (a ZX81 and then a
> > Spectrum) while I had real computers (VIC20 and C64).
>
> You got to love the attribute clashing [1] ("bleeding" or how you call
> it). Couldn't get this on a Commodore, even if wanted to pay for it. ;-)
>
> > Sinclair's toys were stupidly small, had disgusting "keyboards", and
> > were ridiculously silly to "program" - you *had* to use the silly
> > keycodes press to write your BASIC program, which in one case meant
> > pushing three keys to get something like the "If" statement. :-\
>
> Wasn't there a certain key to press that it would print the key you
> actually type on the screen?
Possibly - I really couldn't be bothered playing with the crappy things
long enough to find out / remember. The commands were printed on the
"keys" themselves though.
> > Sinclair only sold so many because they were cheap ... cheap and nasty.
>
> My guess too.
>
> [1] Although https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_clash mentions the
> Commodore 64 also had the problem I cannot remember having seen this.
Back to comp.sys.cbm | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
The C64 is crap! "Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o> - 2016-01-12 22:28 +0100
Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-13 13:17 +1300
Re: The C64 is crap! removemefirst.Robert.Wolfe@f18.n116.z1.fidonet.org (Robert Wolfe) - 2016-01-12 20:33 +1200
Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-13 18:17 +1300
Re: The C64 is crap! Andreas Kohlbach <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2016-01-13 18:10 -0500
Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-14 13:39 +1300
Re: The C64 is crap! Andreas Kohlbach <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2016-01-14 17:24 -0500
Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-15 13:11 +1300
Re: The C64 is crap! aowen10@mail.bbk.ac.uk - 2016-01-15 08:58 -0800
Re: The C64 is crap! Andreas Kohlbach <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2016-01-15 16:05 -0500
Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-16 12:35 +1300
Re: The C64 is crap! AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> - 2016-01-13 07:32 +0000
Re: The C64 is crap! "Brian-Gaff" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-01-14 08:36 +0000
Re: The C64 is crap! Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-01-13 10:09 +0100
Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-14 13:42 +1300
Re: The C64 is crap! "Brian-Gaff" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-01-14 08:37 +0000
Re: The C64 is crap! Harry Potter <rose.joseph12@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 03:44 -0800
Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-14 10:33 +1300
Re: The C64 is crap! Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2016-01-14 06:10 +0800
Re: The C64 is crap! "Brian-Gaff" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-01-14 08:35 +0000
Re: The C64 is crap! Guesser <alistair@zxnet.co.uk> - 2016-01-14 15:24 +0000
Re: The C64 is crap! Jan van den Broek <fortytwo@xs4all.nl> - 2016-01-21 22:31 +0100
Re: The C64 is crap! Andreas Kohlbach <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2016-01-21 18:05 -0500
Re: The C64 is crap! removemefirst.Drew.Klenotic@f1701.n2215.z1.fidonet.org (Drew Klenotic) - 2016-01-22 20:42 +1200
Re: The C64 is crap! Andreas Kohlbach <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2016-01-23 15:21 -0500
Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-24 10:06 +1300
Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-24 10:08 +1300
Re: The C64 is crap! Andreas Kohlbach <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2016-01-24 18:10 -0500
Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-25 14:09 +1300
Re: The C64 is crap! Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2016-01-30 02:33 +0100
Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-30 18:16 +1300
Re: The C64 is crap! Andreas Kohlbach <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2016-01-30 14:54 -0500
Re: The C64 is crap! Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2016-02-01 10:36 +0200
Re: The C64 is crap! removemefirst.Drew.Klenotic@f1701.n2215.z1.fidonet.org (Drew Klenotic) - 2016-01-26 19:45 +1200
Re: The C64 is crap! removemefirst.Drew.Klenotic@f1701.n2215.z1.fidonet.org (Drew Klenotic) - 2016-01-26 19:38 +1200
Re: The C64 is crap! Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2016-01-29 23:12 +0100
Re: The C64 is crap! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-01-30 12:39 +1300
Re: The C64 is junk! nospam.Ed.Vance@f1.n770.z1437.fidonet.org (Ed Vance) - 2016-02-18 10:23 +1200
Re: The C64 is junk! Andreas Kohlbach <febr.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2016-02-19 15:57 -0500
The C64 is crap! Terry Raymond <traymond20@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 14:19 -0800
csiph-web