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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #62047 > unrolled thread

Re: Kids react to old computers

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#62047 — Re: Kids react to old computers

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] | [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] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web