Jump to content
Have You Played Atari Today?
2600|5200|7800|Lynx|Jaguar|Forums|Store  

JamesD

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    8,998

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Posts posted by JamesD

  1. Posted

    16 hours ago, Keatah said:

    One other brief note. The Apple II seems to have been used by a lot of engineering-minded professionals back in the day. Likely moreso than any other contemporary micro. Some of those dudes are still around today in one capacity or another.

    ...

    Apple probably had the engineering/science lead over other 8 bits for several reasons.
    The introduction of 80 column cards made the Apple II more business/science capable.
    Visicalc made a lot of the plain math or statistical calculations via computer possible.
    The Apple language system brought Pascal & Fortran to desktop machines.

    Prior to the introduction of personal computers, most computer access was via paid time sharing.
    Suddenly researchers/scientists could have a computer on their desk that would be paid for in a few months or even weeks for what they would pay for access to a timeshare system,
    and they could run programs that might cost more to run on a timeshare system than their entire budget for a one time cost of the machine.
    I had a part time job as a "computer technician" at the university I attended, and part of my job was arranging the disposal of old machines.
    The university disposal place was filled with CP/M systems donated by TeleVideo, as well as Apples, Osborn 1s, etc...
     

    • Like 1

  2. Posted

    18 hours ago, fimbulvetr said:

    I don’t know where cheap C64s are anymore. The price on them, at least ones available to me in Canada, have gone crazy lately. Atari is a cheaper option from what I can find.  I may get a The C64 Maxi when they start shipping in November, as for US$130 it seems to be an excellent all-in-one 8bit with new hardware, and a lot less than what it would take for me to get even a basic C64 setup.

     

    Since I first commented I picked up a CoCo 3 for a surprisingly good price, and I will amend my previous assessment. I found the CoCo 2 lacklustre, but the 3 with a $20 512k ram upgrade and a CoCo SDC is a fantastic computer with a much better game library. Highly recommended.  

    Yeah, what is a good deal usually depends on what you have to pay for the computer, and eBay is usually not the place to find a good deal.
    Accessory prices for CoCo upgrades used to be high, but competition has changed that in recent years.
    People also said the C128 was expensive, but Commodore made around 7 million of them.  That's as many as there were Apple II's, so there should be plenty of deals out there.

    There has been some speculation that Commodore didn't sell as many machines as they said.
    Bill Herd even mentioned this in a VCF East video recently.  He said he chose not to believe that (or something like that), but I was left with the impression he suspected that to be true.
    This is a guy that previously stated that shipped sometimes meant sitting in a trailer in the Commodore parking lot, so Commodore wasn't exactly against fudging the numbers.
    Even if Commodore only made 20 million C64s, and half ended up in landfills, that still leaves more than any other machine.
    Like every other 8/16 bit machine, there are probably fans that have dozens of them in their garage, and they will only pop up once they die and the kids are trying to figure out what to do with them.
    In one such post, someone had 20+ Amiga 2000s that were in dad's garage.
     

  4. Posted · Edited by JamesD

    21 hours ago, bluejay said:

    I think the VIC-20 would also make an okay first computer. It's an horrible computer if you think about it, but the thing is, everything about the VIC-20 is just so fun! It's a happy computer. The Miata of the retro computer world. Underpowered, yet easy to use with great aftermarket support and super fun to use. It would make a great first computer and nothing else, especially if you don't have a ton of money to spend. A VIC-20 with a C2N Datasette along with the original manual would be brutally minimalistic, simple, and cheap option to go. A handful of cartridge games won't hurt either.

    'THE VIC20' is coming October 23rd (it's not showing it the US Amazon store, so UK only at first?). 
    It's like 'THE C64'     but the primary machine is the VIC, and the 2nd machine is the C64.

    The 'Realms of Quest' games for the VIC look pretty cool. (I don't think that's included with THE VIC20)

    • Like 3

  5. Posted

    17 hours ago, potatohead said:

    There is a case for it all ending up with peeks and pokes for those wanting more than the BASIC allows for.

     

    The BBC got this right with meaningful inline assembly.

     

    Apple has a line assembler and monitor, the three of which can be used to develop sophisticated programs, though the process is a bit more convoluted.

     

    On C64, it is hard core.  Hand assemble, or run one to get object code.  Then proceed. 

     

    Back in the day, on the Apple, I would assemble to a spare page, sometimes test with the monitor, then BSAVE.

     

    In the main program, BLOAD, then CALL, or hook into Applesoft via &.  I never did the latter, but results are good when others do.

     

    Here is a double low res library done that way:

     

    http://www.golombeck.eu/index.php?id=48&L=1

     

    The C128 came back with a similar environment.  Seems like it would be fun to use.  I never have.

     

     

    The Plus/4 includes a monitor, and I think it has an assembler.
    The Alice supposedly took advantage of the unused 8K of space reserved for ROM in the MC-10 memory map to add a built in assembler & monitor.
    If you want to learn assembly, it could certainly help back in the day, but I have to think that 99% of people that bought these machines never used that feature,
    and the ROM space might have been used for something else more people would have used.
    An assembler written it BASIC would probably be easier than the built in ones.
    Now there are better cross development tools and emulators that let you step through the code while you can still see what is on the computer's screen, and you can set breakpoints for when certain events happen.
    The VMC-10 emulator has one of the best built in debuggers I've seen, and it gives you the same features in circuit emulators I've used for embedded system development. 
    The next closest emulator when it comes to the debugger is Altirra for the Atari.
    If you can find an emulator for the machine you want to program with the same features, I'd say that is the best way to get started in assembly.
    It's not the retro experience, but I think people will find it to be much less frustrating, and they will be more productive.
    If you can't find a system specific emulator with such a debugger, you can use M.A.M.E.
    M.A.M.E. isn't exactly the friendliest emulator, but it supports a lot of machines, and it has a decent debugger.
    If you wanted a 6502 system that is easy to learn on, the Acorn Atom might be the easiest, but the debugger in the emulator isn't as good
     

  7. Posted

    15 hours ago, JamesD said:

    ...
    The BASIC is almost identical to COLOR BASIC on the TRS-80 COLOR COMPUTER (the 8K non-extended version of BASIC), and it only lacks a few commands
    of the TRS-80 Model I/III's LEVEL II BASIC (PRINT USING, CSAVEM, ELSE, ???) but otherwise it can do pretty much everything they can do short of certain file I/O.
    You can run most MC-10 BASIC code on a CoCo.  If you avoid the Extended BASIC commands, and ELSE, CoCo programs run on the MC-10.
    There is a RAM expansion that includes a new ROM with Extended BASIC commands, so you have greater compatibility with the CoCo.
    It's called MCX-128, and you can load & save programs from a PC over the serial port.  It's similar to Drivewire for the CoCo, and PyDriveWire will talk to either machine.

    The MC-10 BASIC is actually slightly faster than the CoCo version in benchmarks if you don't use the high speed POKE on the CoCo. 
    Not sure on machine language, it's close.  It's more the coder than the CPU, but I give the 6809 the advantage if the programmer knows it well. 
    ...
     

    Just a few hours after I posted this, the author/designer of the MCX-128 RAM expansion & MCX-BASIC posted a teaser of an SD interface for the MC-10
    https://mcxwares.blogspot.com/?fbclid=IwAR1kmzNWN9-3tZHI_lNhwG_EIs4FMGO3GZuoVFqzBfC-0xerH3pBc0Pf9rI

  9. Posted

    3 hours ago, potatohead said:

    Interesting!  The C64 should take a small hit due to screen DMA and refresh, both of which are transparent to the Apple 6502.

     

    They use essentially the same clock too.  1.024Mhz on Apple, 1.023 on C64.  Must be Applesoft needing 5 to 7 percent more cycles, on some operations, or  ??

     

    Right now, I have a //e setup where running something can be pretty easy.  

     

    That's what was published in Creative Computing.  There is a related thread on Atariage, you can find the code in it. 
    Don't use the A=A*A optimization mentioned.  The MC-10 ROM I'm working on would run the benchmark in 42 seconds with that optimization. 
    After I replace the LOG function with a faster one, it might come close to that anyway.
     

  11. Posted

    52 minutes ago, bluejay said:

    I guess so.

    But still, I don't imagine the MC-10 would be a good BASIC computer. Is it particularly capable/fast compared to regular CoCo BASIC? Does it have good documentation? How does it compare to Apple BASIC in terms of speed, capability, and documentation?

    The keyboard is evil, I just picked mine up and I have to squeeze my fingers together to get them on the keys, but I have big hands.  An 8 year old might love it.
    If you wired up a new keyboard for it (someone used a CoCo 1 keyboard on a ribbon cable) then it wouldn't be bad.

    The BASIC is almost identical to COLOR BASIC on the TRS-80 COLOR COMPUTER (the 8K non-extended version of BASIC), and it only lacks a few commands
    of the TRS-80 Model I/III's LEVEL II BASIC (PRINT USING, CSAVEM, ELSE, ???) but otherwise it can do pretty much everything they can do short of certain file I/O.
    You can run most MC-10 BASIC code on a CoCo.  If you avoid the Extended BASIC commands, and ELSE, CoCo programs run on the MC-10.
    There is a RAM expansion that includes a new ROM with Extended BASIC commands, so you have greater compatibility with the CoCo.
    It's called MCX-128, and you can load & save programs from a PC over the serial port.  It's similar to Drivewire for the CoCo, and PyDriveWire will talk to either machine.

    The MC-10 BASIC is actually slightly faster than the CoCo version in benchmarks if you don't use the high speed POKE on the CoCo. 
    Not sure on machine language, it's close.  It's more the coder than the CPU, but I give the 6809 the advantage if the programmer knows it well. 

    The manual that comes with the MC-10 is small.  It has all the commands, and examples, but it's not what I'd call special.
    You can use the CoCo's 'GETTING STARTED WITH COLOR BASIC' manual which is excellent, you just ignore the parts that are CoCo specific. 

    When compared to the Apple II or C64, which is faster depends on what you run.
    The MC-10 & CoCo math libraries use a slightly higher precision in certain calculations, which makes them slower at math.
    Ahl's benchmark was 1:53 for the Apple II & C64, 1:59 for the MC-10, but the accuracy of the calculations were higher on the MC-10.  That benchmark uses a lot of square & square root math.
    Other programs I've run like the Solitaire Solver show the MC-10 to be noticeably faster than the Apple II, which beat the C64. 
    But that's emulators and I'd like to verify the accuracy vs real hardware.   It's faster, just not sure how much.
    Since the random number generation is different, you have to run benchmarks a long time to account for differences in what decks are dealt on the Solitaire Solver.
    As I mentioned before, moving some subroutines to the top might help the 6502 machines. 
    8 bit registers do not deal well with linked lists, and BASIC lines are in a linked list.

    I mentioned details about the MC-10 BASIC replacement I'm working on in a previous post.
    The Apple II doesn't even come close to that.

    • Like 3

  12. Posted

    48 minutes ago, potatohead said:

    Many machines with a simple cassette can be a good experience if they want to program it.  Or play a few games.  The EU saw a lot of cassette use for economic and some political realities.  Seems valid to experience today.

     

    Apples have aa audio game server that is cool.  Literally call up a page, pick game, plug into Apple, press play, and the game is loaded, ready to go.  I used this.  Works great.

     

    So, the MC10 would fit into that list.  A Model 100 would too.  Having loaned mine (Model 100) out a time or two for this exact case, I can tell you the people got something out of it.  They did stuff like guess my number, or make a program to calculate something, or tell jokes, or draw on a screen.

     

    Seems to me the quality of BASIC part of this whole discussion ended up doing an implied MC10 recommendation because it has a good, and fast BASIC.  Nothing wrong with that.

     

    When games enter the mix, people need carts, or a disk, or looooooong cassette wait times, or, or, or... availability and costs on all that vary somewhat and can vary widely too.

     

    One thing I see fall out of this discussion is whether someone has a fellow retro traveler or group in the mix.

     

    If that is not in the mix, no brainer easy, popular stuff will make a lot of sense.

     

    Where that is in the mix, a whole lot will depend on who has what and knows what.  A much wider range of gear will make just as much sense.

     

     

    I didn't mean to imply anything, just pointing out the MC-10 doesn't totally suck.  It is a computer, and it's probably faster than machines that filled a room in the 50s. 
    People have made use of it, so good for them.  If someone wants to try it now, have at it.

    People I see wanting to start out usually already have a machine.
    They found it at a yard sale, in the attic of their parent's house, a garage, thrift store, or whatever.  Most of these are on facebook.
    They want to know what they can do with it, stuff they need for it, where can I find manuals...
    On discord I've seen a few people asking about how to do stuff in BASIC, others asking about assembly, etc...
    Many of the assembly group are former owners that always wanted to learn.
     

  13. Posted

    19 hours ago, Arnuphis said:

    Also the MiSTer is a great option for someone looking for a retro experience with limited space. It's more expensive than the Pi option but its true FPGA machine experience and supports many platforms. Gonna check out that Atari kit though. Woodgrain case...

    FPGA's lack the slight lag that some of the options like The C64 Mini had.  THE C64 improved on this.  Someone measured the lag difference on their youtube channel.  The 8 bit guy maybe?
    Emulation may can be cycle accurate from the machine side, and still not quite perfect on the user side.

  14. Posted

    15 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

    And? For the 8 points we more or less settled on what the most logical choices were. Then somebody (can't recall who), went on a posting spree about BASIC and obscure computers.

    Why do we need to agree?  It's about people's opinions in the first place. 
    You have argued with everyone that disagreed with you.
    Logical depends on the criteria.  Yeah, the OP had a list, but out of that what is most important will be different for different people.

    As for l̶o̶s̶e̶r̶ obscure computers.
    Someone else suggested the MC-10, I repeatedly said I didn't recommend it. 
    Someone mocked that choice as silly (you Bill) so I pointed out it has a better BASIC than the C64, it's faster than the 6502 machines you list depending on what you want to do,
    and I said the 6803 might be good to learn assembly on, but I suggested using the emulator.
    I also pointed out the price difference between the MC-10 & C64 in 1983 because... not everyone is fabulously wealthy.
    Pretty sure I responded to someone else's comment joking about the Aquarius.  You replied before I did so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    How dare I assume some people might want to program in BASIC (which IS on the list), and they might want to know what they are in for.
    I posted the code so people can decide for themselves if it's good enough.  I even suggested options to improve the C64.
    You said C64 BASIC was good enough because (paraphrasing) hey, look how many people used it.
    (everyone used punch cards at one time, did that mean those were good enough?)
    If it's not important to them, they can ignore it, if it is important, they can take my suggestions into account.
    FWIW, the C64 code I based my circle example on didn't work either.  If I want to fix it, I have to look up what all those POKEs do, and figure out which one they screwed up.

    My recommendation wasn't exactly based on what you said was important.
    Buying any brand of old machine carries the risk of having to repair the machine before you can get started.
    Then you need to buy certain accessories.
    Look at that woman's video I shared.  She's buying a power supply, monitor, etc... before she can even turn it on.
    I don't see everyone opening up an Apple II power supply to replace the filter caps, a CoCo to replace a PIA, or a C64 to replace a bad PLA.
    With the old machines, you have to buy some sort of disk drive emulator, and possibly cables to hook up the machine.
    With the C64 you buy a fast loader cart to speed up the disk interface, but it can't be in the machine at the same time as Simon's BASIC if you want to try that.
    So you install Jiffydos instead.
    The list goes on, and every machine has some thing that has to be dealt with.
    That's not "I know absolutely nothing" beginner stuff unless you want to do that sort of thing.
    If I have to make a recommendation without asking the person any questions, I have to consider some of the audience doesn't want to fuss with any of that.
    THE C64 is a no brainer to get started.  You don't even have to type commands to load a game, and it includes a keyboard so you don't have to worry about differences there. 
    There isn't anything like it for any other machine, so it's not like I could pick a version for the Apple II, Atari, or CoCo.
    The Retro Pi gives you a similar capability, and it's more flexible though some assembly is required.  You will have to deal with the keyboard differences.
    Microcenter make's it slightly easier by giving you a kit with everything but a keyboard, and I figured some people would get a kick out of the "wood grain finish" on the case.

  16. Posted

    1 hour ago, Keatah said:

    Maybe all this should be as simple as going with what was popular at the time. The exact same hardware now as was back in the day. Start there and upgrade. I mean that's the genuine way. We didn't have none-a this fancy flash storage devices and stuff back in the day.

    If exact same hardware as back in the day is important.
    Let someone start with a C64 & cassette, then upgrade to disk, and then get a Fast Loader cart.
    You haven't lived until you can start loading, can go fix coffee, and get back in time to see it finish.  :D
    If you want them to have the original experience, that's it.

    • Haha 1

  17. Posted

    1 hour ago, potatohead said:

    Interesting observation!  It does jump out at you like that.  Never thought about it before.  Wonder if people using VIC's have a similar response.  I like coding on the Tandy CoCo's.  Always felt kind of techy and serious...  

     

    Plus, 6809?  Bring it.  Love that chip, and James has made me realize I would like the 6803 too.

    Nothing jumps out at you quite like zombie apocalypse green! :P

    • Like 1

  18. Posted

    5 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

    That was kind of the earlier point, right? We more or less settled on C-64, Atari 8-bit, and Apple II for the computers that best fit the 8 categories for those in North America. While it's natural to give one or another the edge, if you're at that level, there's no wrong answer. Any of the three work.

    Why is anyone's opinion a wrong answer?
    Why is your opinion the right answer?

    As far as your top three go, if that's the only choice, AND someone is interested in BASIC, I'd reverse the order.
    Apple II, Atari 8 bit, C64.
     

    • Like 1

  19. Posted

    It looks like Microcenter is selling an Atari Pi kit that includes 100+ licensed Atari games on an SD card for $75.
    It includes the Pi, woodgrain case, power, HDMI cable, and a controller.
    Someone could have a Retro Pi setup for under $100 with keyboard if they don't mind what it takes to set it up.
    There are SD card images for Atari 8 bit, Apple II, C64, CoCo, etc... to use it as any of those machines.
    "THE C64" has the advantage of the look & keyboard like a C64, but if someone wants to explore without getting a bunch of machines it might be a good option.
     

  20. Posted

    The Aquarius was a pretty good computer... for 1977.  That can be said for a lot of "loser computers".
    To someone out there that "loser computer" probably started them down a road that lead to them to a long career in computers.

    This video came up in my youtube playlist today.
    Her experience getting started with an old machine is a pretty good example of why I suggested "THE C64" rather than the original hardware.
    There's less to deal with getting started.

     

    • Like 1

  21. Posted

    37 minutes ago, phoenixdownita said:

    I don't know what to say, sometimes it is rabbit day for me (pellets, pellets and more pellets), other days Montezuma's revenge (doesn't really matter I've never been to Mexico), then there's the day of the dingleberry, humans are a miserable race, only consolation is that I've seen my cat having a few issues of her own ("consolation" being a very very generous term because when she scrapes her butt into the carpet to get "the cat version of a dingleberry" sorted out I'm the one to clean the streaks ... glorious day awaits after that!!!)

     

    Programming under the wrong management chain is like that, you know it's going to be crappy, but that's about it.

     

    Note: I've been sipping me some Rum, so if the mods feel like "cleaning up" I would understand.

    Drink more rum... please

  22. Posted · Edited by JamesD

    2 hours ago, potatohead said:

    6803, but I digress.

     

    I get the impression everyone knows best what everyone else should get out of retrocomputing!  Come on, laugh.  It's funny.  OF COURSE we all go for what we know and enjoy.  OF COURSE.

     

     

    It actually wasn't about the 6809 vs 6803 mistake.
    It was how far out of my way I went to repeatedly point out I didn't recommend the MC-10, only to have one reply after another from people address recommending that machine.

    As far as recommendations go there might be one exception.
    If you want to learn assembly, the 6803 is one of the easier to learn CPUs.
    The 16 bit support makes a lot of things easier than the 6502, and you don't have to worry about all the special cases of what instruction works with what register on the Z80.
    The code is very easy to port to the 6809, but you don't have to worry about some of the special cases where you can use or not use features on the 6809.
    When I port between these CPUs, I often port to the 6803 first, then other CPUs because it's just easier to do it that way.
    *edit*
    Note that you can do this with an emulator, VMC10 is quite good and includes an excellent debugger that lets you step through the code using the assembler's .lst output
    This lets you see the comments, labels, etc...
     

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    23 minutes ago, phoenixdownita said:

    As we all know there are 3 variables at play:

    1) scope

    2) quality

    3) time

     

    you get to choose 2, the 3rd comes out of your choices.

     

    Or, in a much more direct way:

    Even when you take a crap you hardly get to decide shape (aside mostly tubular), color (mostly brown-ish but I've seen me going Pantone™ at times) and smell (from "did I do anything" to "please someone call 911, my nose is under attack"), with proper nutrition you may get ahold of a couple.

    Totally tubular will forever have a new meaning for me.

    • Haha 1

  24. Posted

    11 minutes ago, potatohead said:

    BASIC is also for people to get good use out of the computer.  Most things don't need to be fast.  Games are the hard case, obviously.

     

    I know a guy who made a lot of money writing business apps in the Basic that came with most PC's.  I made a little windowing system for him.  One could be looking at reports, or inputting data, and it would pop up and display something and or take input and go away.  The whole works was text, monochrome display.  Those programs saved people a lot of time.  Was enlightening to see at the time when I was still beginning.

     

    Having seen that, I came to realize BASIC is good for capturing knowledge and or automating some things.  One of the first things I did in BASIC that I went on to use over and over was sheet metal layout calculations.  One could measure a little, input some numbers and get back exactly what was needed to make the part, given material, tooling and other variables.  Did it on my Apple, then ported it to a little pocket computer I had.  The folding one.  Used it for years.  

     

    On my Atari, I produced a basic inventory system for a guy down the road.  Was simple, but saved him a ton of time.  Everything fit on one floppy disk.  He could just copy for the month, file it away and continue...

     

    Right now, if I were working in a shop, my Model 100 would be killer!  Lasts forever on a set of batteries, has graphics, a respectable Basic, and it would not take long to go through and put programs together to get whatever it is done, quick, old school, right.  That little pocket computer ended up making me a ton of money.  Later on, I wrote those same utilities inside a CAD system.  Not only would it do the math, but it would generate the entities needed for CNC processing.  Sold a bunch of those for a couple hundred a pop.  Got my first 386 that way.  Basic mapped right over to the simple language built into the CAD software.  All the skills mapped over, leaving me with some math to sort out.  Late 80's, early 90's.

     

    That "Cosmic Aliens" effort is respectable!  That's using GET AND PUT, isn't it?  I always thought that functionality was pretty great.  A lot can be done with it.

     

     

    The account manager program I wrote on the TRS-80 Model III for the high school could easily have been mistaken for all assembly.
    The Model III let you set a scrolling area by changing a BASIC variable in RAM.  That made the header always stay on the screen while it scrolled down.
    I embedded machine code to do the reverse scroll, and the thing just flew up and down when you used the arrow keys looking for an account. 
    Then you could select an account with enter, make changes, and the total was updated accordingly.
    I wish I had a copy of that, it was pretty cool. 

    A local gas company had a BASIC program that ran on an 8 bit computer.  It made calculations as to how many gallons were in any of the different tanks they had at the facility.
    That stayed in use till they sold out to another company a little over 10 years ago.
    BASIC can be quite useful for certain applications.

  25. Posted

    Okay, look... I don't HATE the C64 BASIC.
    But if I want a beginner to get interested in programming, it's not going to be my choice.
    When I was in high school, a younger brother of a friend wanted to show me something he'd done on his computer.
    He drew a turkey on the screen with his computer.
    You'd have though it was the Mona Lisa by the way he talked about the program he wrote.
    So I stop by, he loads a program, and runs it. 
    It's sort of a stick figure turkey made of lines and circles. 
    But that wasn't the important part.
    This 7 or 8 year old had drawn it out on graph paper, and had written the program himself. 
    It was probably the first graphics program he had ever written, and seeing the excitement on his face was the coolest thing ever.
    He was exstatic when I smiled and told him "That's awesome!  Good Job!"
    I just don't see that moment happening with C64 BASIC. 
    Simons BASIC or BASIC 3.5, yeah.  Just not what comes with the machine.

    • Like 1
AtariAge
Forums
Store
General
Follow AtariAge

Copyright ©1998-2021 AtariAge

×
×
  • Create New...