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

Groups > comp.sys.cbm > #6702 > unrolled thread

The C64 is crap!

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.cbm

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#6702 — The C64 is crap!

The Spectrum has much better graphics and better games! 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#6703

In article <n73r6p$rkd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Harald Habenichts <po@p.o>
wrote:
> 
> The Spectrum has much better graphics and better games! 

Yep, definitely ... in Complete Opposite World.  :-\

In the real world, all Sinclair's boxes were simply useless little
toys. Meanwhile Commodore and Apple sold real computers.

I saw yesterday something about Sinclair now trying to sell a new
"Spectrum" which is even more useless than the original - it's a crappy
little games console (with built-in games) that has about five keys on
it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6704

>> The Spectrum has much better graphics and better games!

 YN> Yep, definitely ... in Complete Opposite World.  :-\

 YN> In the real world, all Sinclair's boxes were simply useless
 YN> little
 YN> toys. Meanwhile Commodore and Apple sold real computers.

...and they were on the market for much longer, too, with their 8-bit machines 
as far as I cant remember.  Plus, you never saw a C64 or Apple ][ being sold at 
stores like FRED's :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6705

In article <548573327@f18.n116.z1.fidonet.org>, Robert Wolfe
<removemefirst.Robert.Wolfe@f18.n116.z1.fidonet.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> The Spectrum has much better graphics and better games!
> 
>  YN> Yep, definitely ... in Complete Opposite World.  :-\
> 
>  YN> In the real world, all Sinclair's boxes were simply useless
>  YN> little toys. Meanwhile Commodore and Apple sold real computers.
> 
> ...and they were on the market for much longer, too, with their 8-bit
> machines as far as I cant remember.  Plus, you never saw a C64 or Apple ][ 
> being sold at stores like FRED's :)

A friend of mine had the crappy Sinclair toys (a ZX81 and then a
Spectrum) while I had real computers (VIC20 and C64).

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.  :-\

Sinclair only sold so many because they were cheap ... cheap and nasty.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6712

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?

> 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.
-- 
Andreas

I use a Unix based operating system, which means I get laid almost as often
as I have to reboot my computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6713

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6720

Your Name wrote on 13. January 2016:
>
> In article <87ziw95b4b.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
> <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.

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.

Making the Commodore 64 floppy disks I brought with me [1] to swap some
software obsolete. *g*

And while I am nowadays more interested in vintage computers I never
owned, I emulate Spectrum, ZX81 and others on the PC. Had to find myself
a manual of what keys to press on the Specci to just issue the load
command for example. I think it's a "j", how intuitive.

[1] I never thought before about the customs at the border could be a
    problem. But just when they pulled us out to inspect our bus and
    luggage I realized that might have not been a good idea. Luckily
    they didn't found the floppies. :-)
-- 
Andreas

I use a Unix based operating system, which means I get laid almost as often
as I have to reboot my computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6721

In article <87vb6v241c.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
<janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> wrote:
> Your Name wrote on 13. January 2016:
> > In article <87ziw95b4b.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
> > <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> wrote:
> >> 
> >> 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.
> 
> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6722

On Friday, 15 January 2016 00:10:52 UTC, Your Name  wrote:
> In article <87vb6v241c.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
> <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> wrote:
> > Your Name wrote on 13. January 2016:
> > > In article <87ziw95b4b.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
> > > <janrat.9.ankman@spamgourmet.net> wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> 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.
> > 
> > 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.

The keywords system made a kind of sense on the ZX80. As the series went on and the number of keywords increased it made less and less sense until finally in 1985  Sinclair put out a version of BASIC that works the way every other BASIC does. And yes, it wasn't until Amstrad bought the company in 1986 that there was a Spectrum with anything resembling a usable keyboard. And although Timex put out a licensed clone with an AY chip in it in 1983, the main series didn't get a dedicated sound chip until 1985. And no, it wasn't a patch on the SID. And the lack of a single standard disk system meant the Spectrum pretty much missed out on whole genres of games like the Ultima series. However, if you take the time to appreciate it, it has its own charm. In many respects the Spectrum is the British equivalent of the original Apple][. It's also what I grew up with so it's what I program. But I have a lot of time for the C64 and I'm following developments on Lawless Legends with interest. http://www.lawlesslegends.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6723

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 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".
-- 
Andreas

I use a Unix based operating system, which means I get laid almost as often
as I have to reboot my computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6724

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).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6706

On 12/01/2016 21:28, Harald Habenichts wrote:
> The Spectrum has much better graphics and better games!

Is it 1983 again?
I'd better hurry up of I will be late for school.....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6716

I was working on  Rapier missile systems back then.
 Brian

-- 
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is  active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"AndyW" <Andy@nojunqmail.com> wrote in message 
news:s4nly.1251889$CU2.203066@fx35.am4...
> On 12/01/2016 21:28, Harald Habenichts wrote:
>> The Spectrum has much better graphics and better games!
>
> Is it 1983 again?
> I'd better hurry up of I will be late for school.....
>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6707

"Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o> wrote:
>The Spectrum has much better graphics and better games! 
>

Just a service posting. This is a troll well-known in de.*. He gets
less and less response in de.* and so he expands his area of work into
the international groups.

Easily detectable with Outlook Express 2180 or 5931.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6714

In article <n75489$pvh$1@news1.tnib.de>, Marc Haber
<mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
> "Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o> wrote:
> > 
> >The Spectrum has much better graphics and better games! 
> 
> Just a service posting. This is a troll well-known in de.*. He gets
> less and less response in de.* and so he expands his area of work into
> the international groups.
> 
> Easily detectable with Outlook Express 2180 or 5931.
> 
> Greetings
> Marc

A pretty pathetic troll since comp.sys.sinclair is likely dead, while
comp.sys.cbm is still fairly active ... which again proves the point
that the Commodore machines were much much better.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6717

I know that people who talk to themselves on Usenet are very odd you know... 
Yes I know.
 Glad you agree.
 Brian

-- 
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is  active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"Marc Haber" <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote in message 
news:n75489$pvh$1@news1.tnib.de...
> "Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o> wrote:
>>The Spectrum has much better graphics and better games!
>>
>
> Just a service posting. This is a troll well-known in de.*. He gets
> less and less response in de.* and so he expands his area of work into
> the international groups.
>
> Easily detectable with Outlook Express 2180 or 5931.
>
> Greetings
> Marc
> -- 
> -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please 
> !! -----
> Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
> Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
> http://www.zugschlus.de/
> Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6708

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:29:01 PM UTC-5, Harald Habenichts wrote:
> The Spectrum has much better graphics and better games!

At one time, I tried several 8-bit emulators and found that the Commodore series were the best and the Apple 2 series were the second best.  Basically, they had better games and functionality.  :)  Just my opinion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6710

In article <5d7bd6a5-079c-40de-99e5-897eb64873d4@googlegroups.com>,
Harry Potter <rose.joseph12@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:29:01 PM UTC-5, Harald Habenichts wrote:
> > 
> > The Spectrum has much better graphics and better games!
> 
> At one time, I tried several 8-bit emulators and found that the Commodore
> series were the best and the Apple 2 series were the second best.  Basically,
> they had better games and functionality.  :)  Just my opinion.

A lot of the games were the same since they were often released as both
Sinclair and Commodore versions (and sometimes Apple versions), but the
Commodore versions were usually more playable than the Sinclair toy
crap due to the fact of Commodore computers having a real keyboard and
a variety of joysticks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6711

On 13/01/2016 5:28 AM, Harald Habenichts wrote:
> The Spectrum has much better graphics and better games!
>
>


Sinclair only ever produced cheap rubbish and only the Dunning-Kruger 
affected owners were mentally incompetent enough to think they were even 
real computers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6715

It does not work any more, you have to be far more inventive if you want to 
get some kind of anger response.
 Did you ever try the Mattel Aquarius? Wonderful keyboard on that one.
 Brian

-- 
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is  active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"Harald Habenichts" <po@p.o> wrote in message 
news:n73r6p$rkd$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> The Spectrum has much better graphics and better games!
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.cbm

csiph-web