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 | 2016-01-25 14:09 +1300 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <250120161409109334%YourName@YourISP.com> (permalink) |
| References | <8760ymwn1k.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> <711111296@f1701.n2215.z1.fidonet.org> <87mvrwm4i0.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> <240120161008159860%YourName@YourISP.com> <87k2myvak4.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
In article <87k2myvak4.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> wrote: > Your Name wrote on 23. January 2016: > > In article <87mvrwm4i0.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach > > <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> wrote: > >> > >> Learning about "new" (old in fact) home computers from the 70s and 80s > >> many could in fact "auto boot". Too bad the Commodore 64 was not among > >> them. > > > > Of course it probably depends on what "Atari" you're talking about too. > > To be fair, the 8-bit family (400, 800) of Atari > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_8-bit_family>. > > AFAIK even the Apple II (1977) could autoboot from floppy. That was 5 > years before the Commodore 64 was introduced. In that time frame of the > late 70s to mid 80s, 5 years are generations. > > Because my first computer was a Commodore 64 booting manually was just > the way it was supposed to be. Never dealt with other home computers > until much later. For example I saw the first Amiga in 1986. That was the > first computer I knew being able to autoboot. > > > The C64 did have the ability to "auto-run" from a cartridge plugged in. > > But others could autoboot when just a floppy was inserted prior power-on. Yes, but the floppy drive was expensive, so most originally only had tape drives ... auto-booting from tape would have been exceedingly silly. Also, the Apple II loads at least some part of the system software from the disk, whereas the C64 could be booted and used without anything extra. I don't know about the Atari 400 / 800 - I never bothered with them since they were crap, although nowhere near as useless as Sinclair's garbage toys.
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