Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.cbm > #6724

Re: The C64 is crap!

Show all headers | View raw

In article <87pox2h7t5.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
<janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> wrote:
> Your Name wrote on 14. January 2016:
> > In article <87vb6v241c.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
> > <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> wrote:
> >> Your Name wrote on 13. January 2016:
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >> 
> >> Yep, I once saw it. I was amazed when I visited the UK in 1986 with other
> >> students and saw the kids of the host family had one. Had no idea why
> >> words are printed on the keys.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Yep. It wasn't possible to simply type "I" and "F" for the IF
> > statement, you were *forced* to press Shift-Function-M (or whatever the
> > key combination was). That silliness and the ridiculously bad
> > "keyboards" (flat membrane keyboards on the ZX80 and ZX81, and small
> > rubberised keys on the Spectrum) made trying to program the toys a task
> > in futility and stupidity.
> 
> Although I would think that somebody who got used to this is then faster
> writing code than with a "real keyboard".

The hopelessly bad keyboards would likely have worn out well before
anyone got used to the quirkyness of the programming ... assuming they
simply hadn't given up already.



> The problem when the Sinclair series (the QL was already a bomb) died out
> a few years later their users had no choice but to get a real keyboard on
> a future computer, they would have to learn to for example type "load"
> instead of just "j".

Only for a little while. Most "programming" these days is done with
silly point-n-click interfaces and/or "Object Oriented" coding (which
basically means stacking blocks of someone else's code together like
computerised Lego).

Back to comp.sys.cbm | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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