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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #59695 > unrolled thread

Kids react to old computers

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-26 09:55 -0700
    Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2014-05-26 19:25 +0200
    Re: Kids react to old computers Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2014-05-26 19:02 +0100
      Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-27 08:53 +1200
        Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-26 13:59 -0700
          Re: Kids react to old computers Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-05-27 01:18 -0700
        Re: Kids react to old computers jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2014-05-28 13:53 +1200
          Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2014-05-28 08:30 +0200
            Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-28 19:01 +1200
            Re: Kids react to old computers jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2014-05-28 19:34 +1200
              Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2014-05-28 10:06 +0200
                Re: Kids react to old computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-28 09:06 +0000
                  Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2014-05-28 12:30 +0200
              Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-29 08:58 +1200
                Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2014-06-03 16:59 +0200
                  Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-04 09:24 +1200
                    Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2014-06-04 08:50 +0200
                      Re: Kids react to old computers David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2014-06-04 08:11 +0100
                      Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-04 19:19 +1200
                        Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2014-06-04 14:39 +0200
                          Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-05 09:33 +1200
                            Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2014-06-05 09:05 +0200
                Re: Kids react to old computers Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-07-07 09:06 -0400
                  Re: Kids react to old computers Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-07-07 14:04 -0700
                    Re: Kids react to old computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-08 00:17 +0000
                      Re: Kids react to old computers Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2014-07-08 14:36 -0600
                        Re: Kids react to old computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-09 01:12 +0000
                          Re: Kids react to old computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-08 21:22 -0400
                            Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-09 13:40 +1200
                              Re: Kids react to old computers Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2014-07-09 15:13 -0600
                                Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-10 09:34 +1200
                            Re: Kids react to old computers Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2014-07-09 08:03 -0600
                              Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-10 09:18 +1200
                        Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-09 13:42 +1200
                    Re: Kids react to old computers Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-07-07 22:43 -0400
                  Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-08 09:17 +1200
                    Re: Kids react to old computers Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-07-07 22:44 -0400
                      Re: Kids react to old computers "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-07-08 13:59 +1000
                      Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-08 16:10 +1200
    Re: Kids react to old computers Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2014-05-26 19:05 +0100
      Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-26 13:53 -0700
        Re: Kids react to old computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-05-26 17:23 -0400
          Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-26 18:09 -0700
            Re: Kids react to old computers Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-05-27 01:19 -0700
        Re: Kids react to old computers Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2014-05-26 22:23 +0100
          Re: Kids react to old computers bknight@conramp.net - 2014-05-26 16:48 -0500
            Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-26 15:10 -0700
          Re: Kids react to old computers dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-05-27 08:43 +1000
          Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-26 18:08 -0700
            Re: Kids react to old computers Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2014-05-27 13:31 +0100
          Re: Kids react to old computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-27 05:14 +0000
          Re: Kids react to old computers "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2014-05-27 17:04 -0400
            Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-27 15:38 -0700
            Re: Kids react to old computers Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2014-05-27 23:58 +0100
    Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-26 12:14 -0700
      Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-05-26 13:49 -0700
        Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-26 14:12 -0700
        Re: Kids react to old computers Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-05-26 17:57 -0700
          Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-05-26 18:07 -0700
            Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-26 18:39 -0700
              Re: Kids react to old computers Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-05-26 20:20 -0700
            Re: Kids react to old computers Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-07-07 22:23 -0400
              Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-07-07 20:13 -0700
              Re: Kids react to old computers Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-07-07 20:31 -0700
                Re: Kids react to old computers "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2014-07-14 17:45 -0400
                  Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-15 10:19 -0700
      Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-26 18:19 -0400
        Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-26 17:24 -0700
          Re: Kids react to old computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-05-26 22:16 -0400
            Re: Kids react to old computers Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-27 08:41 +0100
          Re: Kids react to old computers TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2014-05-26 21:48 -0500
        Re: Kids react to old computers mortman <mortn@comcast.net> - 2014-05-26 21:12 -0400
        Re: Kids react to old computers Recliner <recliner2-news@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-05-26 21:00 -0500
          Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-26 19:35 -0700
          Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-27 16:08 +1200
            Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-26 22:00 -0700
            Re: Kids react to old computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-05-27 18:06 -0400
              Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-27 18:16 -0700
          Re: Kids react to old computers erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-05-27 10:22 -0500
            Re: Kids react to old computers Harry Mudd <Agent001@Section-31.org> - 2014-06-04 22:48 -0400
          Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-27 12:39 -0400
            Re: Kids react to old computers Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-05-27 16:13 -0400
              Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-28 09:02 +1200
                Re: Kids react to old computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-05-27 18:15 -0400
                  Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-28 17:10 +1200
                    Re: Kids react to old computers Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2014-05-28 15:44 +0000
                      Re: Kids react to old computers Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-05-31 07:47 -0700
                Re: Kids react to old computers Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-05-28 00:41 -0400
                  Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-27 21:50 -0700
                  Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-28 18:11 +1200
      Re: Kids react to old computers erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-05-27 10:20 -0500
    Re: Kids react to old computers Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-05-27 01:17 -0700
    Re: Kids react to old computers erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-05-27 10:18 -0500
      Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-27 09:17 -0700
      Re: Kids react to old computers Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-05-27 09:36 -0700
        Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-27 09:47 -0700
          Re: Kids react to old computers Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-05-27 12:27 -0700
    Re: Kids react to old computers Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-27 16:40 -0400
      Re: Kids react to old computers Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-05-28 00:25 -0400
        Re: Kids react to old computers Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-31 11:12 -0400
          Re: Kids react to old computers Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2014-06-01 14:45 +0000
            Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-02 09:24 +1200
              Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-02 14:45 +1200
    Re: Kids react to old computers Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-01 19:42 +0200
      Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-01 14:01 -0400
        Re: Kids react to old computers Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-02 09:01 +0200
          Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-02 11:29 -0400
            Re: Kids react to old computers Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 06:14 +0200
              Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-06 01:33 -0400
                Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-05 23:22 -0700
                  Re: Kids react to old computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-06 02:36 -0400
                    Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-06 02:41 -0400
                      Re: Kids react to old computers Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 13:21 +0200
                        Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-07 10:13 -0400
                    Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-06 00:00 -0700
                    Re: Kids react to old computers Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 13:20 +0200
                      Re: Kids react to old computers "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-08 11:52 +1000
                        Re: Kids react to old computers Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-08 04:08 +0000
                          Re: Kids react to old computers "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 07:48 +1000
                        Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-07 23:43 -0700
                          Re: Kids react to old computers "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-08 19:36 +1000
                            Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-08 03:09 -0700
                              Re: Kids react to old computers "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 07:15 +1000
                      Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-07 10:13 -0400
                Re: Kids react to old computers Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 13:18 +0200
                  Re: Kids react to old computers Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-07 18:03 +0100
                    Re: Kids react to old computers News <News@Group.Post> - 2014-06-07 14:08 -0400
                  Re: Kids react to old computers "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-08 11:51 +1000
                  Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-07 13:46 -0400
              Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-06 18:36 +1200
        Re: Kids react to old computers "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 13:51 +1000
      Re: Kids react to old computers Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-06-01 21:54 -0400
    Re: Kids react to old computers Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-07-07 09:05 -0400
      Re: Kids react to old computers Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-07-09 06:58 -0700
        Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-07-09 07:01 -0700
          Re: Kids react to old computers Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-07-09 07:02 -0700
            Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-09 12:24 -0400
            Re: Kids react to old computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-09 18:00 +0000
            Re: Kids react to old computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-09 16:01 -0400
              Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-09 16:21 -0400
              Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-09 13:40 -0700
      Re: Kids react to old computers Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-07-09 07:04 -0700

Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#60171

In article <lmn41t$91e$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>
wrote:
> Am 04.06.2014 09:19, schrieb Your Name:
> > In article <lmmfjt$f8q$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd
> > <invalid@eyd.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Am 03.06.2014 23:24, schrieb Your Name:
> >>> In article <lmknrq$ibn$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd
> >>> <invalid@eyd.de> wrote:
> >>>> Am 28.05.2014 22:58, schrieb Your Name:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <1lmdffk.yb292zewl08dN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
> >>>>> Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Though I was almost always an Apple II guy (what my
> >>>>>> schools had, and then Macs), so most of my experience with
> >>>>>> other old platforms is later on running them in emulation
> >>>>>> on Macs and WinPCs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I often feel I missed some of the most exciting parts of
> >>>>>> early home computing history *wistful sigh* :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yep, I had Apple II at school, Macs at university, Commodore
> >>>>> Vic20 / C64 / Amiga at home, and now a Mac at home.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I wouldn't worry about missing the "exciting parts of early
> >>>>> home computing history". Apart from Commodore and perhaps the
> >>>>> BBC / Archimedes, most of the early computers makes were
> >>>>> simply rubbish.
> >>>>
> >>>> I beg to differ! Compared to an Apple 2 especially the
> >>>> Commodore 64 (and even more so the VIC-20) was a video game
> >>>> console with a keyboard, but hardly a computer.
> >>>
> >>> The C64 in particular was a real computer,
> >>
> >> That's arguable, I for my part won't agree beyond a certain point.
> >>
> >>> but the hopeless management at Commodore failed to market it
> >>> properly, as they did even worse a few years later with the Amiga
> >>> and flushed themselves down the toilet. There were many small
> >>> businesses, farmers, etc. using C64 and even VIC20 as a computer,
> >>> but it's main popularity was as a home computer thanks to the
> >>> games.
> >>
> >> There were business back then running their software on every
> >> available computer - but in my eyes that won't make those machines
> >> 'business computers'...
> >
> > I never said it was a "business computer", just a "real computer".
> > :-)
> 
> However you argued around businesses... ;-)

I said people used it for business / work, which makes it a real
computer.



> >>>>> I had friends with TRS-80, various Sinclair toys, Atari, etc.
> >>>>> and they were all inferior machines. The Atari TOS was awful
> >>>>> for a supposedly superior machine, it was barely better than
> >>>>> using the C64 GUI with a joystick, which was horrible
> >>>>> enough.
> >>>>
> >>>> You compare Atari TOS with a GUI (on whichever machine)?
> >>>> That's like comparing an Apple ][ with a Macintosh... For your
> >>>> information: TOS was the basic OS for the Atari ST series, and
> >>>> it was text/command-based. However, it was hardly ever used
> >>>> directly, instead all the (needed) functions were available via
> >>>> the graphical UI GEM (being developed by Digital Research). And
> >>>> GEM was actually a match for the Macintosh OS of that time (and
> >>>> definitively much better than any Windows version prior to
> >>>> Windows 3, some might even argue for everything before Win95),
> >>>> though certainly not as refined in some aspects. Comparing GEM
> >>>> (+TOS) on an Atari ST with the GUIs available for the C64 is
> >>>> like comparing a Porsche 911 with a Volkswagen Beetle: Both
> >>>> will get you from A to B, but in a much different way... ;-)
> >>>
> >>> I did mean GEM on the Atari ST ... and yes it was slow, ugly,
> >>> clunky, unsuable crap,
> >>
> >> I used my Atari ST for quite some years, and I can't follow you on
> >> any of your claims.
> >
> > Ah weel, you should have bought a real computer and seen what a real
> > OS was like.  ;-)
> 
> That's why I bought the Atari, and was very happy with it! Leaving the
> Mac outside (way outside my financial possibilities at that time), the
> Atari ST was from my point of view the best computer you could buy at
> that time. Not perfect, but very good. :-)
> 
> Your views may differ though... ;-)

The Mac was (and still is) the only real choice, but for those of us at
home needing a chaeper computer, the Amiga was the second-best choice.
The Atari ST was popular with musicians due to the MIDI interface, but
was a in a long-way-back third place, just ahead of Windoze boxes.

I actually had the best of both of the top two choices - I was one of a
few people who helped the creator test the Amiga's Mac emulator, AMax.



> >>> just like the C64 GUI (GEOS), and not even remotely comparable to
> >>> the Macintosh's OS (the Apple II GS on the other hand is a bit of
> >>> a different story). At least the C64's GEOS had an excuse since
> >>> it was controlled for most people using a joystick.
> >>
> >> You keep comparing 8bit machines with GUIs with 16bit machines with
> >> GUIs - quite unfair in my eyes...
> >
> > That's because the Atari ST's GUI was awful!
> 
> Sounds really like you were (are) one of the Amiga fraction, that
> couldn't stand that the Atari was selling so much better... ;-)

The Atari wasn't selling better. Like Nintendo today, it was in last
place.

These days the Atari is dead. The Amiga is still going, sort of, with
even newer versions of the Amiga OS.  :-)
(Although the last plans I read for the "Amiga" was an idiotic set-top
TV box which has about as much to do with Commodore's computer as a an
onion running NASA.)



> >>> Windows 3 was just abysmal garbage as well,
> >>
> >> It was not good (certainly not for today's usability standards),
> >> but you could use it to get real things done. BTDT.
> >
> > You could use DOS to get things done, but that was horrible as well.
> 
> Actually I even used Apple DOS 3.3 (on an Apple //e) to get things
> done... ;-)

Sorry, I meant PC DOS.




> >>> Windows 95 was the real start of that OS
> >>
> >> It was a new UI paradigm (actually they basically copied the
> >> general ideas from the Mac), but the technical basis was still DOS
> >> and (lots of) Win 3.1... But I agree, it was the first Windows
> >> version that was actually fun to use... :-)
> >
> > No version of Windoze is "fun to use" - they're all horrible.
> 
> For me Win 95/98, Win XP and Win 7 are quite ok to use, with rest
> falling behind (some more, some less)...



> > Windows 95 was simply that first version that was even remotely
> > usable, and as you said, it's because they tried to copy the Mac
> > which already had the best OS.
> 
> I can't say too much about the qualities of the Macintosh OS back then,
> but at least for the UI part I agree. :-)

The Mac has had the bascially the same highly-usable OS since the
original Mac, although Mac OS X made a bit of a backwards step in the
early versions (and it looks like it might be going backwards again
with Ives in control).

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

#60222

Am 04.06.2014 23:33, schrieb Your Name:
> In article <lmn41t$91e$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>
> wrote:
>> Am 04.06.2014 09:19, schrieb Your Name:
>>> In article <lmmfjt$f8q$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd
>>> <invalid@eyd.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 03.06.2014 23:24, schrieb Your Name:
>>>>> In article <lmknrq$ibn$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd
>>>>> <invalid@eyd.de> wrote:
>>>>>> Am 28.05.2014 22:58, schrieb Your Name:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <1lmdffk.yb292zewl08dN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
>>>>>>> Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Though I was almost always an Apple II guy (what my
>>>>>>>> schools had, and then Macs), so most of my experience with
>>>>>>>> other old platforms is later on running them in emulation
>>>>>>>> on Macs and WinPCs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I often feel I missed some of the most exciting parts of
>>>>>>>> early home computing history *wistful sigh* :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep, I had Apple II at school, Macs at university, Commodore
>>>>>>> Vic20 / C64 / Amiga at home, and now a Mac at home.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wouldn't worry about missing the "exciting parts of early
>>>>>>> home computing history". Apart from Commodore and perhaps the
>>>>>>> BBC / Archimedes, most of the early computers makes were
>>>>>>> simply rubbish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I beg to differ! Compared to an Apple 2 especially the
>>>>>> Commodore 64 (and even more so the VIC-20) was a video game
>>>>>> console with a keyboard, but hardly a computer.
>>>>>
>>>>> The C64 in particular was a real computer,
>>>>
>>>> That's arguable, I for my part won't agree beyond a certain point.
>>>>
>>>>> but the hopeless management at Commodore failed to market it
>>>>> properly, as they did even worse a few years later with the Amiga
>>>>> and flushed themselves down the toilet. There were many small
>>>>> businesses, farmers, etc. using C64 and even VIC20 as a computer,
>>>>> but it's main popularity was as a home computer thanks to the
>>>>> games.
>>>>
>>>> There were business back then running their software on every
>>>> available computer - but in my eyes that won't make those machines
>>>> 'business computers'...
>>>
>>> I never said it was a "business computer", just a "real computer".
>>> :-)
>>
>> However you argued around businesses... ;-)
>
> I said people used it for business / work, which makes it a real
> computer.

Hm, as a studied computer scientist I might find your definition running 
a bit short... ;-)

>>>>>>> I had friends with TRS-80, various Sinclair toys, Atari, etc.
>>>>>>> and they were all inferior machines. The Atari TOS was awful
>>>>>>> for a supposedly superior machine, it was barely better than
>>>>>>> using the C64 GUI with a joystick, which was horrible
>>>>>>> enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You compare Atari TOS with a GUI (on whichever machine)?
>>>>>> That's like comparing an Apple ][ with a Macintosh... For your
>>>>>> information: TOS was the basic OS for the Atari ST series, and
>>>>>> it was text/command-based. However, it was hardly ever used
>>>>>> directly, instead all the (needed) functions were available via
>>>>>> the graphical UI GEM (being developed by Digital Research). And
>>>>>> GEM was actually a match for the Macintosh OS of that time (and
>>>>>> definitively much better than any Windows version prior to
>>>>>> Windows 3, some might even argue for everything before Win95),
>>>>>> though certainly not as refined in some aspects. Comparing GEM
>>>>>> (+TOS) on an Atari ST with the GUIs available for the C64 is
>>>>>> like comparing a Porsche 911 with a Volkswagen Beetle: Both
>>>>>> will get you from A to B, but in a much different way... ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I did mean GEM on the Atari ST ... and yes it was slow, ugly,
>>>>> clunky, unsuable crap,
>>>>
>>>> I used my Atari ST for quite some years, and I can't follow you on
>>>> any of your claims.
>>>
>>> Ah weel, you should have bought a real computer and seen what a real
>>> OS was like.  ;-)
>>
>> That's why I bought the Atari, and was very happy with it! Leaving the
>> Mac outside (way outside my financial possibilities at that time), the
>> Atari ST was from my point of view the best computer you could buy at
>> that time. Not perfect, but very good. :-)
>>
>> Your views may differ though... ;-)
>
> The Mac was (and still is) the only real choice, but for those of us at
> home needing a chaeper computer, the Amiga was the second-best choice.

Definitively not! The Atari was the second-best choice! :-) BTDT. I (and 
some friends of mine) used Atari STs, while other friends had Amigas. 
They were better for games (only that the Atari was capable of the first 
networked games, thanks to the MIDI ports), but in general I would've 
always chosen the Atari ST over any comparable Amiga. For my use cases, 
that is... ;-)

> The Atari ST was popular with musicians due to the MIDI interface, but
> was a in a long-way-back third place, just ahead of Windoze boxes.

Dream on! Though over time Commodore sold some more Amigas, here in 
Europe (and in particular here in Germany) the Amiga was certainly known 
as the better game machine (which in the end was what it was originally 
designed for), but the Atari was preferred by those who rather wanted 
get things done with their computer. And not only musicians used it, the 
ST e.g. was highly responsible for the break-through of desktop 
publishing for endusers. The SM124 monitor was about the best 
(monochrome) screen available for (affordable) personal computers at the 
time and at par with the screens Apple used (perhaps smaller, but much 
cheaper).

> I actually had the best of both of the top two choices - I was one of a
> few people who helped the creator test the Amiga's Mac emulator, AMax.

I certainly don't argue about the hardware of the Amiga, used under a 
good OS it was certainly ok. But the Amiga OS I never got the hang of... 
And for MacOS, that could be run on the Atari just as well... :-)

>>>>> just like the C64 GUI (GEOS), and not even remotely comparable to
>>>>> the Macintosh's OS (the Apple II GS on the other hand is a bit of
>>>>> a different story). At least the C64's GEOS had an excuse since
>>>>> it was controlled for most people using a joystick.
>>>>
>>>> You keep comparing 8bit machines with GUIs with 16bit machines with
>>>> GUIs - quite unfair in my eyes...
>>>
>>> That's because the Atari ST's GUI was awful!
>>
>> Sounds really like you were (are) one of the Amiga fraction, that
>> couldn't stand that the Atari was selling so much better... ;-)
>
> The Atari wasn't selling better. Like Nintendo today, it was in last
> place.

It did over here in Europe/Germany. Total numbers (just looked them up) 
though have the Amiga in front, I agree.

> These days the Atari is dead. The Amiga is still going, sort of, with
> even newer versions of the Amiga OS.  :-)

Well, there are enthusiasts working still on newer versions of Atari TTs 
(I understand), but let's stay realistic: Both lines of computers are 
dead as a dodo, and only some enthusiasts try to prove otherwise. 
However they will get nowhere with that, not in economical terms. Times 
have changed... ;-)

> (Although the last plans I read for the "Amiga" was an idiotic set-top
> TV box which has about as much to do with Commodore's computer as a an
> onion running NASA.)
>
>
>
>>>>> Windows 3 was just abysmal garbage as well,
>>>>
>>>> It was not good (certainly not for today's usability standards),
>>>> but you could use it to get real things done. BTDT.
>>>
>>> You could use DOS to get things done, but that was horrible as well.
>>
>> Actually I even used Apple DOS 3.3 (on an Apple //e) to get things
>> done... ;-)
>
> Sorry, I meant PC DOS.

I know, I just wanted to make the point that with basically every OS one 
get (some) things done... ;-)

Best regards,

Michael

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

#62047

In article <290520140858229166%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> The Atari TOS was awful for a supposedly
> superior machine, it was barely better than using the C64 GUI with a
> joystick, which was horrible enough.

I had a friend with a C64 and it took 45 minutes to load Donkey Kong.

-- 
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

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

#62059

On 2014-07-07 13:06:19 +0000, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> said:

> In article <290520140858229166%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> 
>> The Atari TOS was awful for a supposedly
>> superior machine, it was barely better than using the C64 GUI with a
>> joystick, which was horrible enough.
> 
> I had a friend with a C64 and it took 45 minutes to load Donkey Kong.

It sounds as if he was using the data cassette. Why didn't he have the 
Donkey Kong ROM?
I remember when they first came out with a dual floppy drive for the 
C64, that changed the C64 I/O speed conciderably.

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

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

#62068

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> was all, like: 
 --> 	 Mon, 7 Jul 2014 14:04:28 -0700 <2014070714042810404-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>
> On 2014-07-07 13:06:19 +0000, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> said:

>> In article <290520140858229166%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> The Atari TOS was awful for a supposedly
>>> superior machine, it was barely better than using the C64 GUI with a
>>> joystick, which was horrible enough.
>> 
>> I had a friend with a C64 and it took 45 minutes to load Donkey Kong.

> It sounds as if he was using the data cassette. Why didn't he have the 
> Donkey Kong ROM?
> I remember when they first came out with a dual floppy drive for the 
> C64, that changed the C64 I/O speed conciderably.

Only in comparison to the data cassette. The C64 disk was the slowest
floppy disk drive I ever used, even slower than the floppy disk for the
Atari 800.

-- 
Silence filled the University in the same way that air fills a hole.
Night spread across the Disk like plum jam, or possibly blackberry
preserve. But there would be a morning. There would always be another
morning. --Sourcery

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

#62083

At 08 Jul 2014 00:17:25 +0000 Lewis wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}
me.com> was all, like: 
>  --> 	 Mon, 7 Jul 2014 14:04:28 -0700 <2014070714042810404-
savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>
> > On 2014-07-07 13:06:19 +0000, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> said:
> 
> >> In article <290520140858229166%YourName@YourISP.com>,
> >>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> The Atari TOS was awful for a supposedly
> >>> superior machine, it was barely better than using the C64 GUI with a
> >>> joystick, which was horrible enough.
> >> 
> >> I had a friend with a C64 and it took 45 minutes to load Donkey Kong.
> 
> > It sounds as if he was using the data cassette. Why didn't he have
the 
> > Donkey Kong ROM?
> > I remember when they first came out with a dual floppy drive for the 
> > C64, that changed the C64 I/O speed conciderably.
> 
> Only in comparison to the data cassette. The C64 disk was the slowest
> floppy disk drive I ever used, even slower than the floppy disk for the
> Atari 800.

The C64's disk drive was slower than other computer's cassette drives!

Commodore's cassette drive ran at a horrific 50 baud, and the disk drive
was 300. As a comparison, the TRS-80 cassette drive was 1500 baud, IIRC.

We used to joke we could type the BASIC programs from magazines into a
C64 almost as fast as we could load them from tape.

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

#62097

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> was all, like: 
 --> 	 Tue, 08 Jul 2014 14:36:13 -0600 <lpg1ce$vf6$1@dont-email.me>
> At 08 Jul 2014 00:17:25 +0000 Lewis wrote:
>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}
> me.com> was all, like: 
>>  --> 	 Mon, 7 Jul 2014 14:04:28 -0700 <2014070714042810404-
> savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>
>> > On 2014-07-07 13:06:19 +0000, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> said:
>> 
>> >> In article <290520140858229166%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>> >>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >>> The Atari TOS was awful for a supposedly
>> >>> superior machine, it was barely better than using the C64 GUI with a
>> >>> joystick, which was horrible enough.
>> >> 
>> >> I had a friend with a C64 and it took 45 minutes to load Donkey Kong.
>> 
>> > It sounds as if he was using the data cassette. Why didn't he have
> the 
>> > Donkey Kong ROM?
>> > I remember when they first came out with a dual floppy drive for the 
>> > C64, that changed the C64 I/O speed conciderably.
>> 
>> Only in comparison to the data cassette. The C64 disk was the slowest
>> floppy disk drive I ever used, even slower than the floppy disk for the
>> Atari 800.

> The C64's disk drive was slower than other computer's cassette drives!

Yes, certainly slower than the Apple //'s casette. Not sure about the
Atari one.

> Commodore's cassette drive ran at a horrific 50 baud, and the disk drive
> was 300. As a comparison, the TRS-80 cassette drive was 1500 baud, IIRC.

> We used to joke we could type the BASIC programs from magazines into a
> C64 almost as fast as we could load them from tape.

50 baud is about 8 wmp, so you'd have to be a very poor typist to not be
bale to beat the crap out of the C64 cassette.

-- 
It was not, it could not be real. But in the roaring air he knew that
it was, for all who needed to believe, and in a belief so strong that
truth was not the same as fact... he knew that for now, and yesterday,
and tomorrow, both the thing, and the whole of the thing.

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

#62098

Soemone wrote:
>> Commodore's cassette drive ran at a horrific 50 baud, and the disk drive
>> was 300. As a comparison, the TRS-80 cassette drive was 1500 baud, IIRC.


But this doesn't take into account how many times you had to try to load
your program, and the time it took for casette to run before it got to
the recorded program. (what we could sonider the "seek time" measured in
many seconds).


Both  50 and 1500 baud recordings would likely have a seek time that was
way longer than the actual recording. And if the 50 baud one was more
reliable, then perhaps it would be faster on average.

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

#62099

In article <53bc996f$0$50625$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Soemone wrote:
> >>
> >> Commodore's cassette drive ran at a horrific 50 baud, and the disk drive
> >> was 300. As a comparison, the TRS-80 cassette drive was 1500 baud, IIRC.
> 
> But this doesn't take into account how many times you had to try to load
> your program, and the time it took for casette to run before it got to
> the recorded program. (what we could sonider the "seek time" measured in
> many seconds).
> 
> Both  50 and 1500 baud recordings would likely have a seek time that was
> way longer than the actual recording. And if the 50 baud one was more
> reliable, then perhaps it would be faster on average.

The Commodore cassette drive was actually 50 *bytes* per second (around
300 baud) and the floppy drive was 300-400 bytes per second. There were
"fast loaders" and "turbo loaders" which loaded faster though, and some
third-party drives were faster.

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

#62117

At 09 Jul 2014 13:40:21 +1200 Your Name wrote:
> In article <53bc996f$0$50625$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > Soemone wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Commodore's cassette drive ran at a horrific 50 baud, and the disk
drive
> > >> was 300. As a comparison, the TRS-80 cassette drive was 1500 baud,
IIRC.
> > 
> > But this doesn't take into account how many times you had to try to
load
> > your program, and the time it took for casette to run before it got to
> > the recorded program. (what we could sonider the "seek time" measured
in
> > many seconds).
> > 
> > Both  50 and 1500 baud recordings would likely have a seek time that
was
> > way longer than the actual recording. And if the 50 baud one was more
> > reliable, then perhaps it would be faster on average.
> 
> The Commodore cassette drive was actually 50 *bytes* per second (around
> 300 baud) and the floppy drive was 300-400 bytes per second. There were
> "fast loaders" and "turbo loaders" which loaded faster though, and some
> third-party drives were faster.

Thanks- I stand corrected.  I never actually had a Commodore "Datasette"
myself, thankfully, I bought a disk drive with mine; I caught a "package
deal" with the C64, the disk drive and a Commodore dot-matrix printer for
$500 US, but a good buddy of mine had the Datasette drive. I remember 15-
20 minute load times for some of the commercial games he had.  He used to
joke you really had to want to a play game pretty badly to load it up via
cassette.  (He was already frustrated enough by the Datasette's
performance to upgrade to a disk drive, but he still had a pile of
cassette-based software he occasionally liked to run, and understandably
didn't want to re-purchase in disk format!)

No such thing as "casual gaming" in those days!  ;)

 

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

#62119

In article <lpkb9k$h60$1@dont-email.me>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

> At 09 Jul 2014 13:40:21 +1200 Your Name wrote:
> > In article <53bc996f$0$50625$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> > Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > > Soemone wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Commodore's cassette drive ran at a horrific 50 baud, and the
> > > >> disk drive was 300. As a comparison, the TRS-80 cassette drive 
> > > >> was 1500 baud, IIRC.
> > > 
> > > But this doesn't take into account how many times you had to try to
> > > load your program, and the time it took for casette to run before it
> > > got to the recorded program. (what we could sonider the "seek time"
> > > measured in many seconds).
> > > 
> > > Both  50 and 1500 baud recordings would likely have a seek time that
> > > was way longer than the actual recording. And if the 50 baud one was
> > > more reliable, then perhaps it would be faster on average.
> > 
> > The Commodore cassette drive was actually 50 *bytes* per second (around
> > 300 baud) and the floppy drive was 300-400 bytes per second. There were
> > "fast loaders" and "turbo loaders" which loaded faster though, and some
> > third-party drives were faster.
> 
> Thanks- I stand corrected.  I never actually had a Commodore "Datasette"
> myself, thankfully, I bought a disk drive with mine; I caught a "package
> deal" with the C64, the disk drive and a Commodore dot-matrix printer for
> $500 US, but a good buddy of mine had the Datasette drive. I remember 15-
> 20 minute load times for some of the commercial games he had.  He used to
> joke you really had to want to a play game pretty badly to load it up via
> cassette.  (He was already frustrated enough by the Datasette's
> performance to upgrade to a disk drive, but he still had a pile of
> cassette-based software he occasionally liked to run, and understandably
> didn't want to re-purchase in disk format!)
> 
> No such thing as "casual gaming" in those days!  ;)

I can't rememebr if they were availabel fr the VIC20, but you didn't
re-purchase it ... you used a "freeze" cartridge to dump the RAM
content to a easily loadable file, usually compressed and therefore
faster to load (although you then had to wait a little for it to
uncompress). They were also useful to get past some of the useless
garbage like loading screens or in some cases alter memmory values to
cheat, like turning off sprite collision detection for example.  :-)

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

#62109

At 08 Jul 2014 21:22:54 -0400 JF Mezei wrote:
> Soemone wrote:
> >> Commodore's cassette drive ran at a horrific 50 baud, and the disk
drive
> >> was 300. As a comparison, the TRS-80 cassette drive was 1500 baud,
IIRC.
> 
> 
> But this doesn't take into account how many times you had to try to load
> your program, and the time it took for casette to run before it got to
> the recorded program. (what we could sonider the "seek time" measured in
> many seconds).
> 
> 
> Both  50 and 1500 baud recordings would likely have a seek time that was
> way longer than the actual recording. And if the 50 baud one was more
> reliable, then perhaps it would be faster on average.


Having lived back then and usded both, no.  Under no circumstance was
Commodore's 50 baud tape drive faster than my TI-99 or TRS-80's.

Given the relatively low cost of cassettes themselves, I typically
avoided the seek time issue by only storing 1 program per tape.

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

#62118

In article <lpji3l$q4c$1@dont-email.me>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

> At 08 Jul 2014 21:22:54 -0400 JF Mezei wrote:
> > Soemone wrote:
> > >> Commodore's cassette drive ran at a horrific 50 baud, and the disk
> > >> drive was 300. As a comparison, the TRS-80 cassette drive was 1500 
> > >> baud, IIRC.
> > 
> > 
> > But this doesn't take into account how many times you had to try to load
> > your program, and the time it took for casette to run before it got to
> > the recorded program. (what we could sonider the "seek time" measured in
> > many seconds).
> > 
> > 
> > Both  50 and 1500 baud recordings would likely have a seek time that was
> > way longer than the actual recording. And if the 50 baud one was more
> > reliable, then perhaps it would be faster on average.
> 
> 
> Having lived back then and usded both, no.  Under no circumstance was
> Commodore's 50 baud tape drive faster than my TI-99 or TRS-80's.
> 
> Given the relatively low cost of cassettes themselves, I typically
> avoided the seek time issue by only storing 1 program per tape.

For the rare non-commercial tapes we had, we used to use our brains and
write the counter number onto the casstte box insert ... then the "seek
time" is dramatically shortened by using fast forward rather than
playing through piles of unwanted tape.  :-)

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

#62100

In article <lpg1ce$vf6$1@dont-email.me>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> At 08 Jul 2014 00:17:25 +0000 Lewis wrote:
> > Okay, so one time? In band camp? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}
> me.com> was all, like: 
> >  -->     Mon, 7 Jul 2014 14:04:28 -0700 <2014070714042810404-
> savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>
> > > On 2014-07-07 13:06:19 +0000, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> said:
> > >> In article <290520140858229166%YourName@YourISP.com>,
> > >>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > >> 
> > >>> The Atari TOS was awful for a supposedly
> > >>> superior machine, it was barely better than using the C64 GUI with a
> > >>> joystick, which was horrible enough.
> > >> 
> > >> I had a friend with a C64 and it took 45 minutes to load Donkey Kong.
> > 
> > > It sounds as if he was using the data cassette. Why didn't he have
> the 
> > > Donkey Kong ROM?
> > > I remember when they first came out with a dual floppy drive for the 
> > > C64, that changed the C64 I/O speed conciderably.
> > 
> > Only in comparison to the data cassette. The C64 disk was the slowest
> > floppy disk drive I ever used, even slower than the floppy disk for the
> > Atari 800.
> 
> The C64's disk drive was slower than other computer's cassette drives!
> 
> Commodore's cassette drive ran at a horrific 50 baud, and the disk drive
> was 300. As a comparison, the TRS-80 cassette drive was 1500 baud, IIRC.
> 
> We used to joke we could type the BASIC programs from magazines into a
> C64 almost as fast as we could load them from tape.

Most people were simply more patient back then ... these days most
people can't even be bothered waiting a minute or two for their
computer to boot, so leave it on 24-7.   :-\

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

#62075

In article <2014070714042810404-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > I had a friend with a C64 and it took 45 minutes to load Donkey Kong.
> 
> It sounds as if he was using the data cassette. Why didn't he have the 
> Donkey Kong ROM?

Yes, he loaded from cassette. That I don't know and he probably 
wouldn't remember. 

> I remember when they first came out with a dual floppy drive for the 
> C64, that changed the C64 I/O speed conciderably.

Certainly.

-- 
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

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

#62061

In article <proto-85B58D.09061907072014@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell
<proto@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <290520140858229166%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > 
> > The Atari TOS was awful for a supposedly
> > superior machine, it was barely better than using the C64 GUI with a
> > joystick, which was horrible enough.
> 
> I had a friend with a C64 and it took 45 minutes to load Donkey Kong.

That would be from tape. Use the disk version in a disk drive and it
would load faster.

Castle Wolfenstein (the original, not the much later silly 3D-erised
nonsense) used to take about five minutes to load on the Apple ][ from
disk ... sometimes you then got killed after three minutes playing and
have to wait for it to load all over again. (Thank goodness for the
Turbo Boost mode on the Apple ][ emulator!)

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

#62076

In article <080720140917079698%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> That would be from tape. Use the disk version in a disk drive and it
> would load faster.

Disk drives in those days cost serious money. 

> 
> Castle Wolfenstein (the original, not the much later silly 3D-erised
> nonsense) used to take about five minutes to load on the Apple ][ from
> disk ... sometimes you then got killed after three minutes playing and
> have to wait for it to load all over again. (Thank goodness for the
> Turbo Boost mode on the Apple ][ emulator!)

-- 
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

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

#62079

Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote 
> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote
 
>> That would be from tape. Use the disk version 
>> in a disk drive and it would load faster.
> 
> Disk drives in those days cost serious money. 

Same price as the C64 itself. 

>> Castle Wolfenstein (the original, not the much later silly 3D-erised
>> nonsense) used to take about five minutes to load on the Apple ][ from
>> disk ... sometimes you then got killed after three minutes playing and
>> have to wait for it to load all over again. (Thank goodness for the
>> Turbo Boost mode on the Apple ][ emulator!)
 

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

#62080

In article <proto-A3ED91.22441807072014@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell
<proto@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <080720140917079698%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > 
> > That would be from tape. Use the disk version in a disk drive and it
> > would load faster.
> 
> Disk drives in those days cost serious money. 

We had a VIC20 with cassette tape and cartridges, then upgraded to a
C64 with cassette tape and cartridges, and not long after that added a
compatible floppy disk drive from another manufacturer rather than
Commodore's more expensive one.

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

#59698

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> They're using an Apple ][, but would have had essentially the same
> reaction if it had been a Commodore PET or TRS-80.
>
> -- Michelle
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF7EpEnglgk
>

Those USA kids have very little historical perspective. In fact, they're 
rather like the adults. :-)

I wonder how they'd react to a passage from the histories of Suetonius, 
where he explains how Emperor Nero found some new water organs and 
pledged to have them installed in all the theatres.

Ed

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

Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web