JamesD

October 7, 2020

13 minutes ago, phoenixdownita said:

Yes, but in the end as always:
"if you want to go fast you go alone
if you want to go far you go together"

And yes, modern days have made people lazier, but there's still plenty that are actually ready to listen if you put the effort to find a way to talk to them. Obviously you can explain it to them but you cannot understand it for them, still it is worth the effort even when it leads to nothing.
My mom thought I was lazy because I wouldn't go anywhere without a bike, then a motor-bike, she used to walk a lot when she was young and poorer than she managed to lift us out of, nowadays if there's no wikipedia/intellisense etc... people have a mental block and think "it can't be done" ... it's also partially the fault of the industry that does not care try that hard to teach, it is what it is, I feel blessed to work surrounded by so many people much smarter than me both younger and older, and when I can share some of my knowledge even if at a certain point some tricks just cease to be relevant (no modern C compilers don't need to be "hinted" by ++i vs i++vs i+=1 etc..., we're in 64bits land and the OS memory does no longer have the highest bit address set to 1 like the 32bits "of old").

Other than that one programmer, we were a good team.
It was one of these:
"Give me an estimate of how long this will take"
"If we work 50 hours per week, and a couple weekends, it will take 4 weeks"
"I'll get you at least 4 weeks"
...
"you have 3 1/2 weeks starting 1/2 week ago"
It just wasn't possible.

October 7, 2020

8 minutes ago, phoenixdownita said:

The sad realization is that no BASIC available on 8bits allows you to get any close to the games you'd try to reproduce.

The 80s was the time of twitchy arcade games and BASIC just did not cut the mustard. You can barely scrape the barrel.

...

So even if BASIC did get me interested in programming, that's really all it did for me. As I said earlier I had the chance to try for an extended amount of time both an 800xl and a ZX-Spectrum but did not fell I missed out on either with my combo C-64 and MSX ... they are both valid option to start on.

...

The endless rewriting, optimizing, tricks... aaaaaand it's still slow.
I wrote some BUSINESS stuff in BASIC. It's not bad at that because you don't need instant results.
It can also be good for adventures, simulations, etc...
Really, BASIC was sort of created as an introduction into programming, and to make programming accessible to more people.
If it got you interested in programming, it did it's job.

BASIC isn't completely useless for games, but it's clearly not on the level of assembly.
I shared this before, but for BASIC it's not bad, and I gave him some code to speed it up a little more.
The CoCo interpreter can be sped up similar to the MC-10, so with that, this would run about 10% faster.
That wouldn't be too bad, but a BASIC compiler would make it a lot faster.
I wish this didn't have the dubbed in music.

October 7, 2020

1 minute ago, potatohead said:

This.

And yeah, that's me. Just started typing stuff in and off I went! A group of us growing up did, and we all ended up with nice careers related to computing. I would argue the other thing one gets out of an experience like the 8 bitters offered was how to learn how to learn.

It's all there, and at a scope and scale understandable by mere mortals too.

Having some graphics support helps a lot. People can plot output, see math play out, all sorts of things. It's one of the things that makes a BASIC nice. And it doesn't take much. Even just two colors is plenty.

Self sufficiency!
There are so many programmers that are helpless!
I remember one that every member of the team was ready to kill.
We were on a short deadline with no time to help someone else, and they were like <in pouty childish voice> "I don't know how to do this, and nobody will help me, and ..." <continues for several minutes>
Programmers that learned on their own don't expect people to help them, if they don't know something, they look it up. If they still have a problem, THEN they ask about it.
Don't get me wrong, I try to mentor other programmers. I remember what my first job was like. 1 part "I got this", 1 part "what if I don't got this?"
But when you are putting in 60 hours a week, you don't have time to help someone else, and they weren't even trying to figure it out on their own...

October 7, 2020

14 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

Some of my friends did become professional programmers. I didn't as I didn't have the mathematical abilities. However, I don't see how using BASIC had much to do with a person's future success as a coder. It's a beginner language and one that typically isn't structured in a way that helps learning better, more advanced languages. Even then there were those who frowned upon learning BASIC at all because of the "bad habits" it encouraged. And of course, eventually it stopped coming standard with computers.

...

FWIW, math ability beyond algebra isn't required for most coding jobs, and being good at math isn't necessarily an indicator that someone will be a good coder.
Lot's of math is required for a CS degree though. I have a theory that started to fill math classes.

Learning BASIC doesn't make someone a better coder, and as a language it leaves a lot to be desired.
The bad habits thing was mostly started by a professor ranting about GOTO, and other professors refuted his claims, but guess which one everyone heard about.
What really makes good coders, is starting programming young.
It's like music, sports, or whatever. If you start the kid young, they will be better at it.
The brain builds more pathways while it's still forming to do what the kid spends time doing.
The BASIC interpreter, the instant on environment, the hardware simplicity, etc... makes it easier to get started.
You can sit down with a book, type in the examples, and instantly see the results when you type RUN.

October 7, 2020

6 hours ago, Hwlngmad said:

Again, wasn't trying to put down the MC-10 too much, which perhaps I did a little. My apologies on that. However, while the MC-10 is seemingly an interesting a fun computer, it just isn't something that I would recommend over something like a C64, A8, Apple II, ZX Spectrum, or even a CoCo to a newb getting into the game. It just doesn't really play into the OP guidance and directive. Just my opinion on that. Finally, yes, the 6809 was a very good (and I think underrated) chip.

I get the distinct impression that people cannot read.

October 7, 2020

4 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

While it's true that when the MC-10 was released in November 1983 at $120, and that was around the same price as a VIC-20 and TI-99/4a - both better choices themselves (more expandable, more software, etc.) even though they were both on their respective ways out - it was actually not that far off in price from a C-64. The C-64 was available for less than $300 and available for as low as $200 by that time. And if you added in the MC-10's 16K RAM pack, which retailed for $50 (bringing the MC-10 to $170), you were only about $70 cheaper than a 16K CoCo, which again, was a better, more versatile, and fully supported computer. That's why the MC-10 was DOA and why Tandy pulled the plug so fast, discontinuing the MC-10 in 1984. The price wars were already in full swing and the MC-10 was meant to compete with a different class of systems at a different price point.

And you don't have to like my opinions, but I'll always tell you why I feel the way I do.

I just said the MC-10 was close to the price of a VIC-20, so why are you telling me it's about the price of a VIC-20?
The TI-99/4A has some interesting BASIC features for setting up sprites, but I wouldn't suggest it to anyone.
And you were talking CoCo or C64 which were more expensive.

vs the C64 which is what you have been pushing...
$300 - $120 is $180 difference in 1983 dollars. That's around $470 in today's money.
The *average* car started around $7000 at that time.
Does a family spend money on a computer their kid might only play games on, do they save it towards a car for them, or maybe college?

When I was in college, I knew someone that received an MC-10 for Christmas. She didn't even have a cassette cable or recorder.
Her parents didn't buy it for her to play games, and she wasn't interested in games.
She was using it to learn BASIC, and about computers in general.
I doubt she ever used BASIC for much, but she was working through examples from a book.
Getting a C64 instead of an MC-10 wouldn't have made any difference other than price.

It's not your opinion I dislike, it's your insistence that your opinion is somehow right, and other people's is wrong.
Then you tell people their opinion is "silly", belittle someone's argument with comments like "loser computer", etc..
You also speak as if you are expert enough to know if C64 BASIC is good enough, but haven't even shown you know anything about it.

This is a work in progress, and it's not quite working, but this is close to how the circle code should look on C64 BASIC.
I copied the C64 specific code from a web page.
It's in lowercase to get around the PET ASCII issue when posted into YAPE.
This is what people claim is "good enough" for a beginner.

0 poke 53280,0 : rem set the frame color

1 base=8192:for i=base to base+7999:poke i,0:next:rem clear the screen

2 poke 53272,peek(53272) or 8:rem set bitmap memory at 8192 ($2000)
3 poke 53265,peek(53265) or 32:rem enter bitmap mode

4 PRINT CHR$(147);

5 i = .022
7 x=64/6:c=7 
8 y = 32 / 2

9 rem bottom left of circle
10 for h = 0 to 1 step i
20 v=(1-h)*.66
30 x=x+h:y=y+v
40 gosub 400:rem set(x,y,c)
50 next h

55 rem bottom right
60 for h = 1 to 0 step -i
70 v=(-1*.66)+(h*.66)
80 x=x+h:y=y+v
90 gosub 400:rem set(x,y,c)
100 next h

110 rem top right
120 for h = 0 to -1 step -i
130 v=(-1*.66)-(h*.66)
140 x=x+h:y=y+v
150 gosub 400:rem set(x,y,c)
160 next h

170 rem top left
180 for h = -1 to 0 step i
190 v=(1-abs(h))*.66
200 x=x+h:y=y+v
210 gosub 400:rem set(x,y,c)
220 next h

230 rem wait for keypress
240 get k$:if k$="" then 240

250 rem return to text mode
260 poke 53280,14:poke 53281,6:poke 646,14:end

270 end

399 rem plot pixel
400 mem=base+int(y/8)*320+int(x/8)*8+(y and 7)
401 px=c-(x and c)
402 poke mem,peek(mem) or 2^px
403 return

October 6, 2020

1 hour ago, Mr SQL said:

X2 all excellent points - phoenixdownita has brought up a related point that is missed from some of the comments:

Yes we are, that was a big part of the home computer revolution as an extension of Dartmouth "programming for everyone" teaching concept; learning BASIC was what you were supposed to do with a home computer in those pioneering times, not just play games on it.

A good BASIC with a smaller memory footprint is more challenging to the intellect and more expressive code is developed, this is part of the outcome we've observed from the 80's BASIC experiment and from the Dartmouth experiments earlier.

You and your friends all participated in this experiment but would have more likely to have become better programmers and done less gaming if you received systems with a good BASIC and smaller memory footprint.

There are colorful semi-graphics that multiply the bit-plane for free in the VDG present in the MC-10, it's the same graphics chip from the Color computer and semi-graphics are a big part of the retro experience, check out this Atari looking Defender clone using the VDG.

These programs can be ported to the MC-10 fairly easily like the Dragon due to the similar architecture and many have been:

Guardian uses a semi-graphics mode that may not be fully supported in the MC-10 hardware out of the box, and it might not be possible without the SAM.
Not sure what mode it's using.

October 6, 2020

46 minutes ago, OLD CS1 said:

I admit a little envy over some of the commands available in BASIC 4.0 before the C64. Other than groking the RAM banking scheme, I found BASIC 7 of the Commodore 128 to smooth over the short-comings of BASIC on the C64. Though by then I was well into 6502 and leaving BASIC behind.

One of the biggest benefits of the C64 and BASIC 2.0 is how easily it can be extended. Again, there were plenty of type-in extensions in different magazines for DOS commands, sound, graphics, programmable F-keys, etc. Plus commercial extensions (cartridge or disk, I have a Graphics BASIC by HES around here somewhere,) and the like available for download on BBSes, Q-Link, and other on-line services.

I know nothing of the MC-10 other than what I have read here; I never even heard of it until this thread. Thus, I cannot argue comparison but I can advocate for the C64, giving both strengths and weaknesses.

Microsoft BASIC has several hooks to make it easy to extend on all the machines I've looked at the code for.

The MC-10 is called a doorstop by the CoCo community, so when I say it has a better BASIC than the C64, it's not flattering.

And for the dozenth time, no I'm not recommending the MC-10. (just adding that so someone doesn't claim I am again)

October 6, 2020

2 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

That was the point I made earlier, though. The MC-10 ended up not being much cheaper than a Commodore 64 or CoCo 2 by the time it came out, which was one of many reasons why it crashed and burned and why Tandy pulled the plug on it so fast (We devote some pages to it in CoCo: The Colorful History of Tandy's Underdog Computer).

And sorry, but it's a silly argument to give a kid a limited machine that they'll quickly outgrow just so they can avoid doing other things on it like gaming. Back in the day, all of my friends and I did plenty of gaming on our respective computers (Apple IIe, C-64, Atari 800XL, TI-99/4a, VIC-20, etc.), but always supplemented that with all kinds of other things like word processing, BBSing, programming, etc. I mean, that's what you did on computers back then.

And several of my friends back in the day did end up getting other computers first because they were cheap (like the Aquarius), but ended up getting something else like a C-64 (almost always) anyway because they were missing out on so much (not to mention it's what a lot of their friends had). Saving $50 - $75 to start is just not worth it when you have such a low ceiling for growth.

The MC-10 was approaching the price of the VIC-20 in 1983, not the C64.
It's a silly argument in your opinion, and like always, somehow nobody's opinion is as good as yours.

October 6, 2020

6 hours ago, Hwlngmad said:

The MC-10 is a fascinating and seems like a fun little computer to mess around with. But, all things considered, it positively gets its a$$ handed to it by the C64, A8, Apple II and ZX Spectrum. Sure, there is fun to be had with the machine, but considering the OP's 8 categories, the C64 is a slam dunk, with the other right behind it. Not trying to bury the MC-10 or anything, but it is not a computer that really anyone would really, seriously recommend for a person just getting into retro computing. My apologies, I just don't see it for that machine and/or others off the cuff like the C16, Commodore Plus/4, or other failed platforms over those with plenty of games, SD card solutions, a functional and workable BASIC, and plenty of options within the computing line. Again, not trying to put down other machines, but there are some (like the C64, A8, and others) that really stand above many others in terms of recommendability.

Again, I'm not suggesting the MC-10, just pointing out your statement isn't totally accurate based on my experience.

Getting it's ass handed to it depends on what you want to do.
A gaming wonder out of the box it isn't, and if you want to fly multi-color sprites around the screen while playing ear splitting chip tunes, then yes, it will get it's a** handed to it.
Graphics or sound hardware wise the MC-10 is pretty simple, and the graphics are even cut down for the 6847.
You would need to install a hardware mod to do some of the things I talk about here.
Sound is accomplished like the Apple II & original Spectrum.

As I said above, the MC-10 beat the C64 running the BASIC Solitaire Solver program by quite a bit.
The Apple II beat the C64 & the MC-10 beat the Apple II by 12%(? I think) so it was a noticeable difference.
The Solitaire Solver was the only BASIC program I tested using the factory BASIC vs the other machines, all other tests were using my BASIC.
With my BASIC the MC-10 beats the C64 running Solitaire Solver by 155%!
When doing a 3D plot, it's even worse thanks to the hardware multiply.
Ahl's benchmark dropped from 6 seconds slower than the C64 & Apple vs the factory BASIC (1:53 vs 1:59... MICROCOLOR BASIC's math lib is 6800 code),

to almost 50 seconds faster after the first math library rewrite.
The list of machine results for Ahl's Benchmark shows the MC-10 at about 30 seconds behind the IBM PC & Amiga, and I haven't rewritten the slow LOG yet.
Sorting tests, prime number generation, fractals, factorials, you name it, the MC-10 wins easily against the C64, & Apple II.
Atari BASIC can be a PITA to port to, but you'd need one of it's BASIC rewrites to win anything. It's pretty fast with the new ones.
Speccy BASIC is horribly slow so I don't even bother with that.

This is the CoCo 3 running in double speed mode vs the MC-10.
The CoCo 3 will mop the floor with the machines you listed for this.
My BASIC is now even faster than when I recorded this, and once the LOG is rewritten, the MC-10 might even win.
I need to get busy on the hi-res graphics support. I've already written pixel setting an line drawing code for it in the past.

I have several other projects I've been working on, and the 6803 beats the 6502 in every one.
*edit*
The editor chopped off the rest of my message.
64 column text done in graphics. Every version has changed since this, read the description for the video on youtube:

October 6, 2020

2 hours ago, Mr SQL said:

Very cool you have an MC-10 in your collection Bill, this is a fun computer that was well designed for it's form factor.

I would envision a new user having fun exploring the friendly quickstart guide and the BASIC manual and writing cool programs like James just did here in the previous post.

I did see creative people exploring the C64 and writing all manner of programs for it bitd but it didn't encourage efficient coding for having too much memory - here's a quote paraphrased from Lonnie Falk, the editor of the Rainbow to illustrate this issue:

When we upgraded to 16K we had so much room our BASIC programs were no longer as well designed

Lonnie was a friend and business partner as well and he hit the nail right on the head -

Spaghetti code and lack of structure was more due to the growing memory space available to BASIC as best illustrated by the C64.

I think that if I traveled back 35 years in time and gave Marty McFly a 4K MC-10 or Bally Home Computer or the 2K ZX-81 then he would grow up to become a most excellent programmer like @JamesD and if I gave him the C64 he might also but it would much be harder because he would be learning inefficient coding practices with all that RAM.

A good question for this threads perspective is weather folks would make the same recommendation in 1984 to help Marty get familiar with home computers and learn about computing as to help him learn about retro computing Today?

...

Back in the early 80s, computers weren't as cheap as they are now, so I might tell someone to get their 8 year old started on an MC-10 due to price.
That's especially true given the difference in cost of living.
Let's face it, you don't know if the kid is going to like programming, and I'd actually suggest NOT getting them a game machine if you wanted them to spend time learning about computers rather than just playing games.
But that's just me.
But now... as I said before, if you want to go that route, you are better off with a CoCo.

When I was young, I knew some of the tricks for making programs smaller, and faster.
I learned by optimizing other people's code.
When I upgraded my RAM from 16K to 64K (32K available to BASIC), my coding style didn't really change.
I was still trying to cram everything into as small a space as possible, just more of it.
Some people's coding style might have gotten sloppy, but anyone pushing the capability of the machine knew better.

October 6, 2020

4 hours ago, phoenixdownita said:
https://ia802805.us.archive.org/15/items/SimonsBASIC/Simons_BASIC.pdf

it has a CIRCLE command ... yes it's not part of BASIC 2.0 but it's not that you can't find Simons' BASIC easily for C64:

Section 6-10
10 HIRES 0,1
20 CIRCLE 160,100,52,40,1
30 PAUSE
40 NRM

RESULT: black circle is drawn in the centre of the screen. After five
seconds, the normal screen is displayed.

Well, since I said that C64 BASIC sucks, not Simon's BASIC, you are avoiding the point.
If you want to play that game, here is MCX-BASIC for the MC-10.
The circle command can also draw partial circles or even ellipses. It's the same syntax as EXTENDED COLOR BASIC on the CoCo.

10 PMODE 2:PCLS
20 CIRCLE(64,32),25
30 IF INKEY$=""THEN30
40 END

October 5, 2020

4 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

All I will say in regards to the MC-10 discussion here is that I continue to find it endlessly amusing that it's being recommended for anything at all, let alone as a better BASIC programming computer than the C-64. There's truly fans for anything and everything out there.

On a side note, I do have an affection for "loser" vintage computers, i.e., ones that sold extremely poorly, were on the market for a very short time, are functionally limited, etc., so it's definitely not all about how good a
...

I continue to find it endlessly amusing you thing the C64 BASIC is good.
Here is the code to draw a circle on the MC-10.
The main code is here, all one of you C64 supporters have to do is port it so we can see how superior C64 BASIC is.
Don't worry about the scale, or correcting for the shape of the pixels, just get it to work.
Please, show us how much better the C64 BASIC is than a loser computer as the MC-10.

4 CLS0
5 I = .022
7 X=64/6:C=8
8 Y = 32 / 2
9 REM BOTTOM LEFT OF CIRCLE
10 FOR H = 0 TO 1 STEP I
20 V=(1-H)*.66
30 X=X+H:Y=Y+V
40 SET(X,Y,C)
50 NEXT H
55 REM BOTTOM RIGHT
60 FOR H = 1 TO 0 STEP -I
70 V=(-1*.66)+(H*.66)
80 X=X+H:Y=Y+V
90 SET(X,Y,C)
100 NEXT H
110 REM TOP RIGHT
120 FOR H = 0 TO -1 STEP -I
130 V=(-1*.66)-(H*.66)
140 X=X+H:Y=Y+V
150 SET(X,Y,C)
160 NEXT H
170 REM TOP LEFT
180 FOR H = -1 TO 0 STEP I
190 V=(1-ABS(H))*.66
200 X=X+H:Y=Y+V
210 SET(X,Y,C)
220 NEXT H

4 hours ago, Arnuphis said:

I thought this threat was being 'filibusted' by some Tandy fanatics for a moment there (MC-10 are you kidding me? lol) so glad to see normality being resumed. So to sum up it's C64/Atari 800xl/Apple II (or Spectrum if you are in Europe) as the best choice for someone looking for their first foray into retro computing based on the OP parameters. You can argue all day about the merits of this or that but it has to be one of the 'big three' as the gateway drug. End of discussion.

Now if they get bitten by the bug and are looking for a second machine then of course any of the others suggested could be a candidate depending on what they are looking for.

Only one person suggested the MC-10, and as he stated, it was due to simplicity. That hardly qualifies as "Tandy fanatics".
You are resorting to ad hominem attacks because we say that C64 BASIC sucks and you can't prove otherwise because it's true.

And again, you have your opinion, and he has his.
Why do you get to say you are right and he is wrong?
I don't agree with him either, but he has a right to say his opinion without being accused of being a fanatic.

October 5, 2020

16 hours ago, Mr SQL said:

I programmed a type-in game for the C64 in BASIC and I did have to use pokes for the sound but what some people may not realize is that it's a rich Microsoft BASIC implementation that is excellent with MD Array support and advanced BASIC features, it just does not have any extensions for graphics and sound commands because it's the same BASIC from the Commodore PET.

I wrote a lot of games for the CoCo in BASIC and Machine Language and utilities like disk editor and a Bulletin Board System with it's even more advanced Microsoft Extended BASIC implementation.

The C64 is powerful enough to run real applications like this too but I would recommend the CoCo over the C64 for someone new to retro computing who wants to write games in BASIC; specifically the 4K MC-10 incarnation from 1983, look what Jim Gerrie is doing with it:

The program I ported to the Apple II, Plus/4, and C64 was a slightly optimized version of one of Jim's programs,
which itself was a port that may have originated from one of the other machines.
He doesn't even remember which machine it came from.
I was using it to benchmark with.

The MC-10 is certainly a challenge for one's programming ability, and if the C64's BASIC is okay, the MC-10's certainly is since it has more features...
but I'm not sure I'd suggest the machine.
You can do the same thing with COLOR BASIC on the CoCo, a CoCo 1/2 might be cheaper, and it has the high speed POKE.
A CoCo would offer more hardware upgrades, and with Extended BASIC, you have more advanced options once you've worked your way through the COLOR BASIC manual.

FWIW, the MC-10 RAM size is 4K, the BASIC is 8K in case that wasn't clear from @Mr SQL's post.

As far as the MC-10 goes... it's keys feel kinda like a modern laptop, and it might be big enough for a pre-teen, but not most adults.
My fingers have to touch each other to type on it.
If the keyboard had been the size of the TI-99/2 keyboard, then it would be pretty usable as a basic microcomputer.
There are people that added a better keyboard, and used it for several years.
I've even heard claims it was used for word processing, but... with what program?
If the hi-res graphics had been hooked up, it certainly could have displayed full upper & lower case text like many CoCo 1/2 programs used,
and the 6803 would have been more than fast enough. (there is a mod to do that)
There's supposedly a decent terminal program for the MC-10, but I haven't used it.

FWIW, MICROCOLOR BASIC was faster at running the "Solitaire Solver" program I ported than any of the 6502 machines.
You can see the results for my BASIC vs C64 below, but I'm waiting for someone to run the C64 version on real hardware to confirm the speed is accurate.
This was after running the program all night on the two machines.
Skip to 1:40 to see the difference in number of games of solitaire each machine solved overnight.

I may try modifying the program so the main subroutines are at the top, and rerunning it.
Searching through the linked list looking for line numbers kills the 6502.
The code is something like 3 times the size of the 6803 code.
16 bit support, and using indexing with fixed 8 bit offsets works better for this type of thing.
That's definitely something Motorola got right.

*edit*
The TI-99/2 keyboard is about the same size as the 99/4A keyboard, but with flat rubbery keys, but that would be more how the MC-10 COULD have been.

October 4, 2020

1 hour ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Neither are you, or anyone else.

What I can say is that from my observations you seem to be hell-bent on flogging as many dead horses as possible into dust. Just take a deep breath and step back for a moment. Getting into the same pointless platform holy wars we dealt with 30 to 40 years ago doesn't do a damn thing to help someone trying to figure out which of those platforms they should start out with.

FFS, if a dyed-in-the-wool Atari fanatic like me can say, "yup, get a C64," you can also step back and be objective.

I don't care if the CoCo wins some computer war. That was lost 30+ years ago.
I DO think it's a better option than other people give it credit for.
I personally prefer it to the C64, but I'm not a huge gamer. I don't even game on the CoCo much.
I DID evangelize the CoCo 3 when it sounded like people were intentionally trying to exclude it.
I said MULTIPLE TIMES that I agreed if someone just wants to game, the C64 and Atari are the best options.
I've suggested a C128 as an alternative to a C64 if you want to program because the BASIC is better, and I suggested trying a BASIC 3.5 extension for the C64.
I made suggestions for a better version of Atari BASIC if someone gets an Atari.
When I talked about BASICs in my first post, I gave an assessment of what? A dozen machines?
I'm pretty sure I said several machines have good Extended BASICs.
I DO think the C64 may be the worst choice if someone wants to program in BASIC.

You even quoted me out of context! The bold face text clearly ignores my next sentence, and you act as if I didn't say you have your opinion and I have mine.
Why? Because I think the C64 BASIC sucks and won't shut up about it?

Tell you what, for the sake of peace... here is my recommendation.
I'd suggest "The C64". It's $130 Pre-order on Amazon, to be released Nov 5th.
Just hook it to your TV with an HDMI cable, no worrying about old hardware or add on devices, it should have a warranty, it has built in games with an easy selection system, you can load your own programs, boot to BASIC, it comes with a joystick, and it even emulates a VIC 20.
You get the 8 bit experience with the least muss or fuss in a single purchase.
If they don't like it or get sick of it, ebay it, sell it at a yard sale, give it away, or whatever.
I don't care if they take it out and shoot it, or blend it for a youtube video, just don't do that to the original hardware.

People still have the option of emulation where you can game or program on any machine you want.
If you want to game on THE C64, and program another machine... you can.

FWIW, I don't write code on for any of these old machines directly on the hardware.
It's edited on the PC, then pasted into an emulator, or transferred to a disk image.

October 4, 2020

7 minutes ago, Bill Loguidice said:

Yet you can still do pretty much anything with it. It's a full-screen editor and there's something to be said for what you can do with the various PEEKs and POKEs. It's not the best, not the fastest, doesn't take up the smallest memory footprint, but it does function as a viable BASIC. It's incredibly well-document and well-supported. And of course, like any other 8-bit computer worth its salt, countless other programming languages are available for it as well. So no, it doesn't really lack in this area, but if you want to dock it a few points for its BASIC, by all means, do so. It still doesn't change its overall ranking in any way.

Other languages weren't mentioned in the original post, but BASIC was, and we are making a recommendation for a beginner.
Several BASICs have a full screen editor, so that's not exactly a unique feature.
The TRS-80s are one of the few machines that use an EDIT command, and require learning how to move through a line, delete characters, insert, append, etc...
It's not as easy as a full screen editor, but you can fit more code on a line, so it's a trade off.

It's not that hard really. D = delete I=insert etc... but it is definitely something else to learn.

It still doesn't change YOUR overall ranking in any way.
You aren't king here, you don't get to decide your opinion is right, and other people's opinion is wrong.
You have your ranking, and I have mine.
I'd ask them what they want to do before recommending a system.
If they just say game... then I'd back your suggestion.
If they say learn how to program... see my first post in this thread.

2 hours ago, desiv said:

I totally don't understand the fear of POKE statements...

As someone who did most of my intro to BASIC on the Vic20/C64, I don't ever remember thinking "OH NO, I have to POKE"..

I remember seeing examples using POKEs and doing that....

I don't remember talking to any of my friends about Commodore BASIC programming and hearing them complain about POKEs and PEEKs.

I'm not saying having native commands for graphics and sound would have been bad. I am only saying that having to use POKEs didn't seem like a problem; just an alternate way of doing things. Some people liked those things and we had things like Simon's BASIC as a result. But most people didn't use Simon's BASIC or things like that because we didn't think POKEs and PEEKs were any big deal or hardship at all.

Fear has nothing to do with it. It's about simplicity, easy to follow code, code size, how easy it is to learn, etc...

How many of your friends with Commodores had ever programmed in any other BASIC?
Go look at the Fedora plot thread from a few years ago.
I ported the code to several machines I'd never programmed before in a short amount of time, and that was possible because I didn't have to learn the hardware, or POKE my way around.
A few weeks ago I ported a program from the MC-10 (also works on the CoCo) to the Apple II, Plus/4, and C64 to do some benchmarks.
Guess which port required the most research. It wasn't that difficult, but then I'm not a beginner either.

Which leads to the following example of why I criticize C64 BASIC.
Here is the syntax for CoCo, Plus/4 & C128, Atari BASIC (if I read the manual right), Applesoft II, and C64 to print to a specific location on the screen.
[email protected]#
CHAR,#,#,"":PRINT
POSITION#,#:PRINT
VTAB(#):HTAB(#):PRINT
POKE214,#:POKE211,#:SYS58732:PRINT

Even the Sinclair ZX-80 BASIC which fits in 4K can print to a specific location on the screen without POKEs, and system calls.
PRINT AT #,#
It doesn't get much simpler than printing to the screen.

We can show the code to set up a graphics screen and draw some lines if you want to continue arguing about how the C64 BASIC doesn't suck, and POKEs are just fine.

Yeah, if you only want to play existing games, the C64 and Atari are best, I already agreed to that, but the original post does mention BASIC.
If you want a beginner to try BASIC, which BASIC is most likely to make them quit?
Keep in mind, they aren't you, and may not be as technically inclined.
If all you expect them to do is type something like the following program, the C64 is fine, but so is any BASIC. That's setting the bar pretty low.
10 PRINT"MY NAME IS BILLY!":GOTO 10

At least recognize that using some sort of BASIC add on would be beneficial to a beginner instead of blindly evangelizing what is probably the most primitive BASIC of any machine made since 1979 besides the VIC-20.

October 3, 2020

The Amiga is a problem when it comes to the BASIC category.
AmigaBASIC didn't run on systems with expanded RAM. Something about Microsoft not using 32 bit code.
You can compile the code with the AbsoftBASIC compiler (I think that was the compiler) and it would work fine, but it's an additional complexity.

The BASIC itself is quite powerful. You can call system libraries to do most of the stuff you'd do from another language.
My ex partner wrote several commercial programs in it, and compiled them for release. The results were very professional.
I wrote a library that loaded IFF ILBM pictures, and 8SVX sounds so any BASIC program could load title screens, backgrounds, play sampled sounds, etc...
If someone wanted to go with the Amiga, I could probably provide the library, and sample BASIC code if my A3000 will fire up.

October 3, 2020

1 minute ago, Bill Loguidice said:

Suck is relative, my friend. They get the job done and you can do amazing stuff with the bog standard C-64 BASIC. It's not a limitation in any way for the vast majority of people, particularly someone casually getting into retro computing.

The C-128 is great and has an improved BASIC, yes, and doesn't cost that much more all things considered, but like a CoCo 3, you have to do more stuff to it to make sure you can take advantage of all of its modes and software options instead of using it like its predecessor systems.

Suck as in good for 1976... except other BASICs from that time let you set the screen position to print to without resorting to POKEs and ROM calls
There... fixed it

October 3, 2020

23 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

So maybe it's safe to say, overall, based on the OPs requirements:

North America Tier 1:

1 - C-64
2 - Atari 8-bit
3 - Apple II

UK and other parts of Europe Tier 1:

1 - C-64
2 - ZX Spectrum
3 - Amstrad CPC

I also think one thing we shouldn't really overlook with the C-64 is that it's basically one model of computer you have to think about (outside of different cosmetic variations). With the Atari 8-bit, Apple II, ZX Spectrum, CPC, etc., there can be a minefield of models and memory configurations to sort through and figure out which one to get, and varying degrees of compatibility at times. That relative homogeny on the C-64 side was certainly one factor in its success back in the day. The C-64 you bought in 1982 could be the same C-64 that you can still use today with 98% of the software released.

FWIW, the original post does list BASIC, and your top two suck in that category.
But since you insist...

If you want to learn programming for the C64, you can make your life easier with Simon's BASIC.
It's non-standard, the added commands are largely unique to it so getting your code working on another machine would be more difficult, and to even let someone else run it would require them to have the cart as well.
If you can afford a C128, it includes the BASIC enhancements that were added to the Plus/4, but afford is the key word. It also offers some capabilities the C64 doesn't have though.
And finally, there is a BASIC 3.5 extension for the C64. It appears to add the same commands to the C64, but the original article is written in German, and I've never used it.
I think it loads from disk based on what I've read, so you could include it with any program that uses it, and other people wouldn't have to buy a cart.
The code should also be more easily ported to run directly on a Plus/4 or C128.

Atari BASIC isn't horrible, but it has some quirks.
The biggest possibly being how it treats strings, and it can make porting to/from Microsoft BASIC challenge.
I suggest getting an O.S.S. BASIC XE cart. It's faster, it adds additional commands, and should make learning or porting code easier.
Turbo BASIC XE (XL?) is an option that doesn't require a cart, and many people swear by it.

October 1, 2020

3 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

So you're saying the exercise is pointless? Without constraints, I agree that it is. What's the point of a list hundreds or thousands of titles long? My opinion is that it would be easier and arguably more interesting to see what commercially released exclusive games were available during a platform's original commercial lifespan, which, for the majority of these older platforms leaves us off at the early 90s.

I also agree that something clearly derivative - let's use the CoCo as an example again - like Donkey King (Donkey Kong) or Sailor Man (Popeye) - clearly don't count as original, exclusive titles to the CoCo, even though they technically are by one definition. It seems pretty clear to me.

Without constraints, you have a glut of junk, but I'm not sure we'll agree what the constraints should be.

If you limit it to commercial games, any free game someone wrote, no matter how amazing, is excluded, and most of the titles I listed for the CoCo were commercial.

Perhaps commercial quality, which leaves it up to the poster to decide what games that applies to.

If you limit it to into the early 90s, you leave off some amazing titles on every platform.
Some of the best games ever to make it to the Oric, Plus/4, CoCo, Atari, etc... all come after that time.
Not all are exclusives, or aren't knock offs, but games like Space 1999, Pets Rescue, Digger III, Yoomp!, etc... all come from later.
Gate Crasher for the CoCo 3 was from 1999. At that time, some people were probably still using their CoCos.

I think I read the word "notable". I'm not sure how I'd define that in terms of exclusive computer games.
Worthy of playing?

Direct knock offs of other games should be excluded for sure, because no matter what you call Donkey Kong, Pacman, etc... they are still pretty much the same.
There is some grey area where games have similarities, but clearly play differently.
When it comes to Donkey Kong Remixed, it would be a different arcade machine if it were in the arcades, so I'm not sure how I'd treat it. It's definitely not on any other platform.

In the end, you kinda have to leave it up to the posters because different people like different games, and some of us have barely seen the top 10 games on a platform let alone hundreds of possible exclusives.

October 1, 2020

2 hours ago, potatohead said:

Totally. I do write on older computers, and it's because the experience tends to color the writing in a way I find enjoyable and creative. I do use my Model 100 as a calculator, quick bang it out tool at times. That's because I wrote the programs back then, and they still do the job today. I do not do that often.

Most are going to want to game.

Some will want to do electronics type stuff.

Re: Apple and $$$

http://www.applerescueofdenver.com/products-page/computers-apple-ii/apple-iie-platinum-w-extended-keyboard/

They have consistently sold pretty great machines at a reasonable cost. Recommended. $150 gets you an //e platinum with the basics ready to go.

Re: For the longer haul:

Apple by a mile, especially the Plus. New boards are being made, and it's a very open design. Will be fixable for a long time.

Re: Disks vs emulation

If you have floppy disks, ADT is amazing! Love it. I have a CFFA and am more or less hooked. If I had to choose, I would take anything that I can put an SD or USB thumb drive in because CiderPress is also amazing, and how I get writing off an Apple for use elsewhere.

For composite, 90's era CRT's are really good. If you open the back and have a little know how, or can get hold of someone who does, most of those sets can be tweaked into pretty damn good performance.

If you can get a good 128K IIe platinum for $150, that's a pretty good deal, but it looks like the remaining units from that link have yellowing bad enough to call it severe, or even refer to it as orange.
I notice they sell IIc machines for $120, so that could be a cheap option.

6 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

I'd argue that you're looking at a bigger investment optimizing a CoCo 3 setup than you are optimizing an Apple IIe setup. I wouldn't necessarily recommend a CoCo over an Apple II either. I like and own quite a bit of stuff for both platforms, but the Apple II series has much more software and is cheaper to set up a system with a monitor, a few disk drives, and other add-ons. You'd really have to have a reason for wanting a CoCo 3 in my opinion. It's just not a tier 1 retro computer in the usual way we might classify such things, e.g., community size, resource size, available hardware and accessories, available software, etc.

For a good CoCo 3 setup, at minimum, I'd recommend a CoCo 3, 512K memory expansion, an RGB monitor or converter (and an ability to switch to a composite signal for artifacting; I'm lucky in that I can use my Commodore 1084S and have both RGB and composite inputs active at the same time), joystick, a Multi Pak Interface, and a CoCo SDC.

For a good Apple IIe setup, at minimum, I'd recommend 128K of memory (either comes with or expanded), some type of composite display, a 3.5mm audio cable, and a joystick. It's easy enough to add 1 or 2 disk drives, and, to evolve beyond the 3.5mm audio cable to stream software, some type of flash drive.

Of course, if you're focused on games, the CoCo 3 almost always has better graphics for native CoCo 3 software. For CoCo 1/2 software, it's pretty much a wash. The big difference of course is that the Apple II has a massive library that contains all the top software from back in the day, something the CoCo series can't claim.

The best answer is if you're really into classic computing and gaming, explore (and own) multiple platforms. If you're more casual, probably start with emulation to see what catches your interest and then start to dip your toes into simple setups with the real hardware (which I'll be the first to say can be costly and a challenge to maintain/keep running at times - plus there's ALWAYS something more to buy).

Looking at costs...

The IIc, IIc Plus, and IIGS do not have the cassette audio jacks, so that isn't an option with those machines, but they have built in serial, and the first 2 have built in drives so it's not such a big deal.
The IIGS has a built in disk controller, but you'll need a drive emulator for it, or use a serial drive.
If you get a cheap IIe without the 128K RAM upgrade, the RAM upgrade will set you back around $15 shipped from ebay.
An 8GB board is $35 shipped if you have a reason to buy one.
If you want to use a drive emulator with the II, II+, IIe you'll need a disk controller. Those are $20 & up on ebay.
As we mentioned, drive emulators were $50(I think) on the low end to $140 on the high end. It was something like that.
I'm not a fan of using old CRT TVs or composite monitors. You can find a 19" LCD at a yard sale for under $40, and a new 32" TV can be had under $100 at Walmart.
Just be sure the model TV you use works with old computers.
I have a Magnavox that doesn't, and there are more out there that don't. Know which ones to look for when you shop around.
All my newer TVs work, it seems most of the problems were earlier LCD TVs, but I can't guarantee that.
If you stick to 16:9 units, they will probably work *if* they have composite input.

CoCo 3 upgrades will run you as follows:
CoCoSDC is $70 with case
Boyson Tech 512K RAM upgrade $20. The 2MB board kits are $50(?) but most people would want to pay for installation.
The Switch-a-roo RGB to SCART cable is $40, and the SCART to HDMI adapters start at $30.
Then hook it to a TV with HDMI inputs. You'll also want composite input for the artifact colors from older games.
Those prices are plus shipping... so around $160 + shipping for the upgrades to have a stand alone 512K system you can hook to an HDMI TV.
It's definitely a higher price for the add ons, but not by a huge amount.

Ultimately, what kind of deal you get on the computer is going to be the biggest difference in price.

October 1, 2020

14 hours ago, desiv said:

Not quite sure what you are saying there..

If you thought what Bill and I were implying was that the Apple II would connect to the internet by itself and then somehow download the game via audio... then.. yeah.. that's not how that works...

You do need a "host computer" (I kind of thought that was a given) although that can be a PC or phone or tablet. Just about anything that can get to the site and has an audio jack.

But with any host device (I use my Android phone), I select a game I want to play, I type LOAD on the Apple II, I hit play on my phone, the game loads, and I can then play the game. That feels like the game loading directly from that site to me...

I didn't need any floppy/hard drive emulators to buy. No serial cables (Null, which version, etc) to buy. No figuring out why the latest version of Java doesn't like the USB serial adapter I have. Just an audio cable (3.5mm), of which I still have several.

Apple Game Server Online doesn't support serial, but it was inspired by a Java program that was serial. Apple II Game Server. Which is kind of still out there (in that you can still find it), but it's java is so old, it doesn't want to work with modern javas.

Also, ADTPro supports serial and audio both.

It wasn't a statement about what you or Bill were saying, I was saying ADTPro didn't let you load direct from the game server website.
Yes, I'd forgotten ADTPro supports audio.
And serial connections aren't that hard to get set up.

Some USB serial adapters have a driver issue because they are knock offs of someone else's product, and the manufacturer found a way to break the clones in the driver.
Not saying that's what your issue is, but it might be.
It's good to look at reviews, and what people have already gotten to work on a setup like this before you buy a USB to RS-232 adapter for sure.

October 1, 2020

The title doesn't specify when the exclusive games were created.
When it comes to home brews, you can find games from every decade since the 80s.
Exactly where do you cut it off date wise?
I think excluding titles is a bit arbitrary no matter how or when you do it.

The problem with exclusives is that so many games have similarities or borrowed elements from other games.
Even the CoCo which wasn't known as a gaming stronghold has over 1000 titles we have dumps of, and that doesn't include more obscure titles.
Who wants to go through a 1000+ titles to find exclusives only to have someone inform you half the list you come up with came from somewhere else?

CoCo exclusive titles including games starting with #s through Ci****.
I make no claims as to how good these are since I haven't played most of them, some are text adventures, several are just D&D games, and several are in BASIC.
Yes, they are going to range in quality from total suckage, to excellent, and everywhere in between. Half or more probably fit into the suckage category but they are exclusives.
FWIW, the inevitable BS replies saying this or that don't count are probably why you don't have people posting long lists of exclusives for every computer.
3D Space Wars
666 The Haunted House
A Warlocks Revenge
Across the Rubicon
Adventure In Mythology
Adventure in Wonderland
Adventure Trilogy
Aldaron
A Mazing World of Malcom Mortar
Androne
Apples
Arena of Skill
Atom
Barbarossa

Basic Dungeons and Dragons

Battle for Tunis
Battle Hymn - The Battle of Gettysburg

Battle of the Bulge

Beyond the Cimeeon Moon
Blackbeard's Island

Bomber Command

Bomb Threat
Boris the Bold
Bumpers

Buried Buxx
Caladuril: Flame of Light
Catacomb
Cave Hunter
Cave Walker
Caves of the Unwashed Heathen
Champion
Chambers
Chatwin Manor

CINCPAC - Battle of Midway

City War
Civil War

October 1, 2020

36 minutes ago, Bill Loguidice said:

Yeah, but it uses the original arcade code, remixed or not, and it's a modern homebrew. I just don't see how it fits the definition of a significant exclusive if it's the original Donkey Kong with remixed levels. Including a game like that just makes finding (and defining) true exclusives even messier. It is super impressive, of course, but this is not about most impressive games (original or homebrew) by system.

Are you suggesting any remixes or games built on an existing game engine be excluded from exclusives?

October 1, 2020

36 minutes ago, Bill Loguidice said:

As was stated, an Apple IIe can be worth the nominal investment of a few hundred bucks if you can get one with 128K. The video output is standard composite that can work on almost any compatible display, and it's very easy to get all kinds of add-ons and accessories (many of them relatively inexpensive). You can even simply plug in a 3.5mm cable from your smartphone, tablet, or PC and easily and quickly load software straight from a website. While it's a shame the CFFA3000 is no longer available, there are plenty of other options these days, including ones that play WOZ disk images, which are EXACT duplicates of the original disks, unlike the typical cracked ROMs. It really is a great option if you don't mind often subpar audio-visuals in comparison to something like a C-64 or Atari 8-bit.

An Apple IIGS is OK, but it's a next level of cost and commitment if you want to use it as anything other than a straight up Apple II.

Okay, just to be clear... a "few hundred bucks" is okay to buy an Apple IIe... but not a CoCo 3 setup?
I realize the asking prices for CoCo 3's currently listed on ebay are nuts, but if you ask on a facebook CoCo group you can probably pick one up for a much more reasonable price.
Some of the CoCo hoarders have dozens of CoCos they might be willing to let go of.

FWIW, ADTPro can be bootstrapped via a Super Serial Card, and you can use virtual serial drives on your modern computer.
The Super Serial Card is built in to the IIGS, IIc Plus, IIc, Laser 128, etc... so a cassette interface isn't required for similar functionality.
No, you can't load games direct from the website, and you need a host computer, but it's still a cheap way to start without a drive.

FWIW, you can load software on any CoCo in a similar manner using Drivewire. This explains it in detail.
https://classiccomputingandelectronics.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/drivewire-4-and-coco3-in-action/
PyDrivewire supports the CoCo, and also supports the MCX BASIC serial drive setup on the MC-10.

Seems odd to me that ADTPro uses the serial port, and the Apple Game server doesn't... or vice versa for that matter.
It also seems odd that there isn't a version of drivewire that uses the cassette interface, so you don't need 2 cables.

Sign In

Profiles

Member Map

Forums

Blogs

Gallery

Calendar

Store

Posts posted by JamesD