JamesD
-
Content Count
8,998 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by JamesD
-
-
37 minutes ago, zzip said:I wouldn't even put the 130XE in this category. Besides extra-memory and a chip to manage it, it had no new features over the rest of the 8-bit line.
The C128 had enhancements at least.
The IIgs is a better example of interim machine, but it was priced outside this $200-1000 realm
But the fact that Apple crippled the IIgs to make sure it wouldn't cannibalize sales I think shows the answer to why these companies didn't make better interim computers.
Coco 3 is probably the best example of an interim machine. Maybe it's because Tandy's 16-bit machine the Tandy 1000 was playing in the clone market and wasn't as proprietary as the others?
The Tandy 1000 group supposedly tried to get the CoCo line discontinued, and pointed out how much better the 1000 version of Rampage looked in a meeting!
Except it turned out that they pointed to the CoCo 3 screen which was the better looking version and that insured the CoCo was still manufactured a couple more years.
When the CoCo was discontinued, they supposedly destroyed all the design documents, etc... to make sure the decision was final.
Someone from the 1000 group no doubt.
5 minutes ago, Bill Loguidice said:I've always argued that the C-64 had the best combination of features, performance, and price point, so there was really no need for more low end 8-bit competition. Once a minimum quality level is reached (in this case, good graphics and sound and 64K memory), that's good enough for most people. That was reached with the C-64 upon its release, followed soon enough by a killer price point that the competition had a hard time matching. Once the software was in place, it was game over for everyone else on the low end (or relied on 8-bit technology) who wasn't already established.
In terms of a mid-range solution, I don't think there was really much of a market for one. This was not a time that you could do much more with a computer offering between what a C-64 could do and what the higher end platforms like the Macintosh, ST, Amiga, and PC could do. And as you stated, there were pseudo in-betweeners like the C-128 and CoCo 3, as sort of super 8-bits, but they really were just meant to extend already established platforms. So, if anything, those were the mid-range solutions for the small percentage of users who wanted a bit more punch and/or a way to further extend their original 8-bit investments. And frankly, by the time something like the Amiga 500 hit, the higher end platforms suddenly became surprisingly price competitive with something like a similarly decked out CoCo 3 (with "required" disk drive, monitor, and RAM expansion to use its extra features) as just one example. So really, the higher end platforms came down to mid-point pricing after just a handful of years themselves.The TS-1000 sold a million machines in a year.
The only thing it had going for it is price. It probably would have sold more if stores hadn't gotten so many returns from defective machines they stopped carrying them.
The C64 had quality issues at first too.
Watch some of Bill Herd's speeches. Other Commodore employees would steal chips out of machines he was working on to repair their own machines.
He had to put tubes of chips on his desk to stop that.
Based on that, I'd say price was the main issue, and things like quality were an afterthought.
Beyond price, I'd have to say games were the #1 thing people did with their computers.
People might buy a word processor, or Print Master, but they came back over and over for games.
Suggesting people somehow chose a machine by features is probably overrating most customer's knowledge.
I saw a lot of customers pass through my partner's computer store, and for every person that knew anything about computers, there were a hundred that knew nothing.We'd hear "So and so said this", "I want to get what the schools have", "this magazine says", "it has to run this", "it has to be IBM", etc...
The people that said "it has to run this" often didn't even know what that software did, someone just told them they needed to be able to run it.
I almost never heard anyone say anything about the hardware beyond "I need a hard drive", "I need a printer", or "I have to dial in to the university computer".
They certainly weren't asking about quality, performance, etc... and any decision made based on that was indirect via a friend that knows computers, or a buyer's guide.
If performance was an issue, they just knew more MHz was better.
Oddly enough, a lot of people had never even heard of Commodore or Amiga was, so I'm pretty sure they didn't know what a C64 was.
Everyone knew who Radio Shack, Apple, and IBM were.
From what I could tell, people didn't want to know about computers, they only got one because they thought they had to.
I think the reason a lot of people use tablets instead of computers now, is people still don't want to know about computers.
They see a tablet as an appliance, but a computer somehow has the expectation it requires you know something special.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, wierd_w said:You are mistaking my statement (which was for 8bit micros in general), for being specific to CoCos.
The TI99 for instance, piped the sound of the tape through by default, and was painful slow.
EEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, that would be horrible!
But hey, TI supported dual cassette drives if you had the right cable. -
2 minutes ago, wierd_w said:The problems are (often) noise, and speed (especially without a fast loader).
Many old 8bit micros would pipe the modulated tape sound out through the speakers. This was useful to know if the tape was janked up, not playing, etc--- but was not pleasing to the ears.
Additionally, modern gamers are very spoiled when it comes to loading times. You have to get them acclimated to the loading times, and other warts of the ages of yore--- not throw them straight to the wolves.
If you wanted to pipe the cassette sound through the speakers, why didn't you type AUDIO ON ?
It's part of the BASIC.
The CoCo cassette operates at 1500 baud, it's not exactly a machine that attracted fast loaders.
The C64 is excruciating without one, as it's tape is around 300 baud, and the Atari is around 600 baud.
If you had a disk drive, the CoCo uses a parallel interface, and doesn't need a fast loader.
Really, nobody should be using cassette on the CoCo these days.
The CoCoSDC is $58 for the board, a little more with case.
You can also use high speed serial at 115200 (or higher) using Drive Wire to talk to a PC program that serves up disk images.
Drive wire has been around since... the early 90s? Possibly late 80s?
The Glenside IDE interface has been around since the first half of the 90s.
-
27 minutes ago, Keatah said:It would seem others are recommending their favorites or what the prospective purchaser had back in the day.
Getting what you had as a kid is great if you want to relive your childhood.
But if you wanted to play a game that was never on your machine, maybe try something else?
And the best machines for games aren't necessarily the best for BASIC.
If you want to game, the C64 and Atari are the top choices for size of game library.
If you want to program in BASIC, I'd pass on them.
The Sinclair Spectrum also has a big game library.
So, it's great for games, but if you want to program in BASIC?
The BASIC is capable but slow, maybe slower than Atari BASIC slow, and if you get one, I'd get a later machine where you can type commands out, and there is a sound chip.
I'd probably only suggest it if you had one as a kid. You also have to worry about PAL video if you wanted one in North America.
One of the best things I can suggest with programming, is edit the code on a modern PC, then load it into an emulator.
Once it seems to be far enough along, test on real hardware.-
1
-
-
Line Feed is Return, no idea what Here is was for
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, bluejay said:The CoCo 2 or a keyboard modded CoCo 1 are very reasonable computers for their prices. A good working setup with proper cables seem to go for less than $100, at least the last time I've checked. I would have definitely chosen the CoCo 2 64k over the C64 if it weren't for the game library! The RF modulator inside the thing is horrible and from what I've gathered a composite mod for the CoCo 2 is rather complicated. Dealing with RF is a complete pain in the rear, but if you're willing to fiddle with the thing a bit it's not THAT bad. However, the CoCo doesn't have that many mainstream games because Radio Shack was an idiot. It has a hidden gems, and I'm almost sure a lot of people with CoCos as their first retro computers will fall in love with it despite its downsides, people who are expecting to find classic mainstream games will be pretty disappointed.
CoCo 3s are too expensive. They seem to go for $300+, and for that price, you could buy the much better Commodore 128.
I totally forgot about the CoCoSDC! But then again, not that many CoCo software came on disk; at least not interesting ones.
I have to agree, CoCo's extended BASIC is one of my favorite versions of BASIC. The text using RF video, especially on a small 9" CRT like the one I use, can be a bit hard to read, and the keyboard isn't the best, but the BASIC is very capable and easy to learn with the original manuals the computer came with. Radio Shack apparently sold a BASIC learning binder thingies for the CoCos at one point; my CoCo 2 came with one. They aren't all that helpful but are certainly very interesting.
AAAAAAND there's the cassette interface. This would be the primary method of loading and saving programs(that is, unless you have the expensive floppy drive or a CoCoSDC) and god is it unreliable. This is actually one of the main reasons I quit using my CoCo so much; because it wouldn't load or save whatever I did on it very well, and I'd end up losing my code or progress in Dungeons of Daggorath so often. Very frustrating.
But all in all, I'd say if you have a very limited budget the Color Computer line is a very affordable, nice retro computer for the beginner.
A composite mod for the CoCo 2 can be purchased for $50 shipped.
The CoCoSDC can be purchased from the same site or BoysonTech
https://thezippsterzone.com/video-adapters/
https://boysontech.com/
Cassette unreliable? It was one of the most reliable out there.
The small cassette cable wires needed repaired on a regular basis, but that wasn't the computer's fault.
I never had a problem with the Radio Shack cassette deck once the TONE knob was set to... 8?
And by never I mean as long as I didn't screw up and save after typing the high speed POKE without slowing it back down first.
There was set of parameters for the tape timing you could POKE into RAM to load a tape accidentally saved at the higher speed in an issue of Rainbow, but I'd moved on by then so I never tried it.
I had pretty good success with a cheap Panasonic tape deck too, but it clearly wasn't as good. I still got by with it for some time.
IF you get a CoCo...
I would suggest a CoCo 2 from when the main chips were still fully socketed.
Probably get one of the last ones that were fully socketed if you can find what model number that is.
The last ones made require desoldering chips if you want to do certain repairs or drop in a 6309 CPU.
If the Color Computer badge says Tandy, it's one of the last ones. It should have a 6847 that can display lower case characters though so... tradeoff?
I suggest a CoCo 2 because it's sure to work with the high speed POKE, and after the very first one they had decent keyboards.
They are easier to upgrade to 64K, and should come with Extended Color BASIC if you get a 64K one.
16K units might not have the Extended Color BASIC ROM, but you can probably get Extended BASIC from the Zippsterzone but I think you'll have to ask.
White CoCo 1's, and the later silver 1's aren't bad, the high speed POKE should work, and the 64K upgrade isn't bad if it's required... but you don't get the better keyboard.
Some early CoCo 1's may need a capacitor(s) removed to use the high speed POKE, they are difficult to upgrade the RAM, etc... so an F board is best if you get one.
The later ones have the Radio Shack Color Computer badge centered above the keyboard.
You can buy a CoCoVGA to hook the machine to a VGA monitor, and it can add some new features. It gives a beautiful display output.
The CoCo 3's have jumped in price due to all the recent upgrades available, and the new games.
Mine has a 2MB RAM board, larger are on the way, and a GIME chip replacement that lets it run at a higher speed, adds more video modes, etc..
The CoCo machines get several new games a year now.
Some are CoCo 3 only, and those are really good, but there are ones for the original machines too.
Several new games have actually been released in the last month. Digger III, Omnistar, Rally-SG, and a decent BASIC game, Cosmic Aliens.
A Poker Squares game came out last month, 3D Monster Maze in July, Bomb Threat, Gunstar, Timber Man, a cart with a Hunt the Wumpas patterned after the TI-99 version, Farfall (spelling?), Knight Lore on cart, Digger II, and around 100 game ports via Arcade Game Designer last year.
A guy is working on moving some of the old disk games to cart, so we may see a bunch of those appear ready to put on a multicart.
Just the single load stuff at the moment, but he may get more sophisticated in time.
It's a busy time in CoCo land.-
1
-
-
That is a bare keyboard that you have to wire up to go with anything. It works with nothing as is.
*edit*
Technically, it works with anything if you wire up the key matrix properly for a given machine -
One nice thing about that... you get to design the key matrix however you want
-
30 minutes ago, Caterpiggle said:There you go ! Just tiny metal pins below the key caps. Yes, 2 pins each. At least can you tell me which terminals using that kind "unique" keyboard style ?
Those look like solder connections.
I've never seen a circuitboardless keytronc, but if you pull a keycap (carefully) I'm still betting it has a little piece of foam with some foil glued to it.
-
My title got dropped... oops
If you want to program in BASIC! Here are my observations!
Games... see the above post
I'd stick with a computer running a version of Microsoft EXTENDED BASIC simply because it's easy to port to/from most machines.
EXTENDED BASIC usually means at least some graphics support, better versions support more advance graphics commands, and sound.
The CoCo would be my first choice. At least the CoCo 2, a CoCo 3 if you can afford it.
CoCo's have the CoCoSDC drive interface. You can just copy files to an SD card from the PC.
EXTENDED COLOR BASIC, and GW BASIC are almost identical.
It is probably the most complete Extended BASIC on any 8 bit I've seen.
Applesoft II is an extended BASIC, though "extended" is limited mostly to setting the graphics mode and drawing lines.
I'd get the IIGS, IIc Plus, or Laser 128EX due to their faster clock speeds.
The Plus/4, and C128 have very good EXTENDED BASICs, which are mostly the same as each other.
The C128 has the advantage of supporting C64 software, and a 2MHz mode if you can take advantage of it, and CP/M support.
If you want to run big programs that use a large amount of data, the Plus/4 is a beast in that respect... but it has a smaller software base.
The Plus/4 BASIC is also slow because it has to constantly bank switch between ROM and RAM to support more RAM than other machines.
One example where the Plus/4 shines, is a guy cranking out 3D wireframe images of objects where the data wouldn't fit in other machines, and it looks really neat.
I wouldn't recommend the Plus/4 for someone's only machine, but maybe a 2nd or 3rd if you collect.
Atari BASIC is an extended BASIC, but it's very different, it's slow, and it doesn't have typical string array support so I don't recommend it.
It has a fast modern BASIC replacement if you get the hang of it though.
The TI-99/4A supports ANSI BASIC. It has some interesting features, but it's horribly slow, harder to port to, and pretty restricted IMHO.
The ORIC Atmos has an Extended BASIC that even has advanced sound commands (for BASIC anyway).
It's a little slower than the other 1MHz 6502 machines from what I've seen.
I hate everything Sinclair I've tried due to the BASIC keyword entry system, but some models let you type out commands.
It's a bit different than Microsoft BASIC, and it's slow, but the Spectrum's BASIC is an Extended BASIC.
Amstrad has some machines with an excellent Extended BASIC.
At least the list of commands looks good. Locomotive BASIC?
No idea which machine to get, but it looks like a decent option in PAL video land, probably the later model the better.
BBC Micro's BASIC is fast, other than that I don't know much about it. The only stuff I looked at was a bit different syntax wise.
VIC20. Commodore PET BASIC running on a machine supporting 22 characters per line, limited RAM, and no extended BASIC commands.
I'd pass.
C64. Commodore PET BASIC running on a 1982 machine with no extended BASIC commands from the factory.
But hey, you can PEEK and POKE to your heart's desire to access everything.
C64 fans will be quick to say there's Simon's BASIC, but it's a bit non-standard.
Just be aware that anything you write using Simon's BASIC requires anyone that runs your program to have Simon's BASIC as well.
It wouldn't me my choice, but as you can already see, it has it's fans.
To be fair, I've only ported one program to the C64.
I ported a program from the MC-10 (which would run as is on the CoCo), to the Apple II, Plus/4, and C64. (I've used the Apple & Plus/4 before)
I had to change how the random number routine was called for every machine, and had to change commands to locate the cursor on the screen for the Apple & Plus/4
The C64 required me to POKE the screen X Y position into RAM and make ROM calls.
Guess which port took the longest?
Of the 6502 machines, the Apple IIe was fastest, followed by the C64, followed by the Plus/4, though the Plus/4 BASIC benchmarks well at math.
The MC-10 (referred to as a doorstop by the CoCo community) was faster than all the 1MHz 6502 machines, and the MC-10 BASIC is poorly optimized for it's CPU.
If you really need speed, there are also BASIC compilers for most machines.
-
1
-
-
On 9/12/2020 at 3:45 PM, Caterpiggle said:No foam or foil contacts , nothing. Just bare plastic. Keytronic may be but which terminals or computers that using the exactly same keyboard above. It does not even have flat ribbon cable, nothing.
No circuit board? That's really weird
-
Lately? Not really, it's usually just hard work, and experience.
One time does really stand out.
When I was in my 20s, there was a piece of code I wrote for a project that nobody on the team had the slightest idea how to do.
We had to get some software (network switch simulators) to work together that was exhibiting what everyone thought was random behavior.
After putting off this piece of code as long as I could (2 a.m. a few nights before it was due), I wrote some code based on a complex mathematical relationship that worked.When I showed it to the team they were like... how... the... hell... did you get that from this random data?
There's no way I can describe it other than I just saw it. Divine inspiration maybe?-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:...
I'm tired of the sames things over and over, Windows XXXX with problems because no one is forcing Microsofts hand, HP and Dell near monopoly, peripherals dominated by a few companies, internal design and motherboard designs also by the same handful of companies.
...
Ugh... right now my brother can't install the latest drivers for his graphics card because some Microsoft api (probably .net) failed to update.
He has practically the same setup I do, the only real difference, is that his graphics card is an 8GB card, and I cheaped out with the 4GB version of the same card to wait for the new cards being released this year.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, zzip said:Print shop always seemed so limited to me. I wanted a desktop publishing program that gave me full control over what I printed.
but I suppose it would be hard to created those ugly-ass banners in a DTP program that Printshop was known for.
Print Shop was great for "Welcome Home <insert name here>" or "Happy Birthday!" banners.
You had a lot of canned graphics objects you could use to quickly create something.
Importing someone's photo to go on the banner was not something they did back then.
Funny thing, we carried Deluxe Print which did pretty much the same stuff, and even offered color, but nope... "my friend said it has to have Print Shop".
*edit*
You have to wonder if that "friend" knew the Amiga didn't have Print Shop to begin with, but just wanted them to buy the same kind of computer they had.-
1
-
-
It depends on the machine and the game.
Some interpreters are faster than others, and some games require real time response to user input (arcade games) but others may not (RPG, adventure, simulation...).
From what I've seen of the internals of Microsoft BASIC, it was designed to be easy to port., but it wasn't exactly written for speed.
On a 1MHz (or less) CPU it can be a bit sluggish.
On 1.77MHz or faster system, it's not so bad, and I'd guess it's not bad on many 3.5MHz or faster Z80s.
BBC BASIC on the BBC Micro (2MHz) is supposed to be pretty fast.
How you write the code also helps determine how fast your game is.
Someone recently released a BASIC arcade game, and I sent him a modified version that ran...
maybe 5%(more?) faster with less than an hour's work, and the changes were pretty simple using a modern editor.
-
Okay, the quote feature only grabs the first section of text, who thought that was a good idea
QuoteThis has been discussed in other threads but the ibm pc was slow and lacking on many levels. Starting with choice of cpu which intel won by default because nobody else could deliver chips. The motorola 68000 was the natural choice but only intel could deliver chips at the time. IBM settled for a slow cpu with segmented memory addressing. That may have contributed to the slow evolution of its software including its single task operating system that users suffered through for more than a decade.
Regarding intel, they finally got it right with the 386 but the 64-bit architecture we use today isn't even theirs, licensed from amd.
Regarding the 6502, when you're selling your product at rock bottom prices there's no money for r&d. Without r&d there's no future.
...
intel had a 2nd source supplier, AMD, and that was part of the contract.
I think Motorola could deliver chips, but I don't think the 68000 had a 2nd source yet.
As for the 6502...
You have to remember that MOS was purchased by Commodore.
Jack Tramiel was more of a sales guy than a technology guy.
He really only pushed for development of CPUs that reduce part counts, and as a result, costs.
The 6510 had 6 additional I/O lines.
If Commodore had wanted, they could have had a serial UART and/or timer built in.
Rockwell had 65C02 microcontrollers that included more built in hardware, a hardware multiply, etc...
Sadly their regular 65C02 didn't include the multiply.
WDC still has CPUs & microcontrollers based on the 65C02 and 65816, but they haven't done anything else.
-
2
-
-
20 hours ago, potatohead said:Really @JamesD said that, but I'm not gonna fight the forum spiffy quote system right now.
Seriously! That decision was a very poor one in hindsight. The Tandy scene, maybe Coco 3 in particular, would have looked very different. That little machine is very powerful. Deserved much better software than it generally saw.
You have to wonder how many people didn't buy Radio Shack because it didn't run some program that could be run on anything.
A potato could run Print Shop, but I actually had people refuse to buy an Amiga because it didn't run Print Shop.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Caterpiggle said:Thank you for your search and found the match number 275-1422 but it is still NOT match what I have it. Please look at the photo below. There you go. The box front generic keyboard is not match to that black keyboard. So I want to know which exactly terminals that are using the very same keyboard below.
Does it have the foam & foil contacts under keys? That would be Keytronic in a nutshell.
-
Microsoft BASIC might be easier to port since it was designed for that.
Source is available
https://www.pagetable.com/?p=774
Nice to see a Flex like OS for the 6502. The OS is well suited to the 6502.
I've been itching to create a version for the 6803... minus the evil 6800 memory map.
There was a 6502 machine shown at a Computer Show back around 1977.
I think it's briefly mentioned in MICRO.
It was supposed to have a CP/M like OS. I don't think it ever went into production.
-
-
Looks like a keytronic
-
On 9/9/2020 at 8:15 AM, Hwlngmad said:Yep, the Apple IIe had a truly amazing long run in public schools into the 90s when they were replaced by Macs and/or PC clones. Still, its a bit perplexing why companies didn't try to bridge the gap between say an Apple IIe or C64 to an Atari ST and/or Amiga. Either way, this big evolutionary step is what help PC clones really take off in the U.S.
Just a couple things, though I'm not 100% sure what you mean by bridging the gap.
I'm taking this as introducing a machine somewhere in between.
Apple introduced the IIGS, and Jobs went out of his way to neuter it so it couldn't compete with the Mac.
It was bridging the gap, but it was expensive, and the new software base was much smaller.
Most people simply ran Apple II software.
If it had run at 4-8MHz, I think the GUI would have run much better, but then fewer people would buy a Mac.
Amiga development took place at a different company that was purchased by Commodore, so they didn't really have much notice to create something in between.
There was GEOS to add a windowed OS and apps though.
They probably should have introduced an improved C64 upgrade with 2MHz, 128K, and additional colors instead of the TED series,
but I'm not sure the Amiga deal was in the works yet, so it's not like it would have been an intentional gap filler.
The Atari ST was completely developed from scratched after Jack took over.
Again, no development time for some intermediate 8 bit, though they did give the 120XE more RAM... and a worse keyboard.
If you meant something like a 68008 machine... it would have had some appeal on price, but the performance wouldn't be that great.
It's already a 32 bit oriented instruction set on a 16 bit buss, so 68000 code isn't nearly as compact as 8 bit instruction sets.
Code would run quite slow on the 68008, and you still need the same amount of RAM to run the software, so it's not saving much.-
1
-
-
I wasn't attacking your plotting skills, but I'll reword it for you.
Either the data for the graph you plotted is wrong, or the data for the graph I shared is wrong.
They can't both be right.
I just copied the stuff, I didn't create it.
So which is correct?
I also shared this:
"In 1982, Apple Computer is the first personal computer manufacturer to hit the $1 billion mark for annual sales."
Would it make sense for that to happen in a bad computer sales year?
Have you ever heard of a computer sales crash of 1982?
So the comment about reported sales for 1982 must be wrong. It was probably only for one machine or something.-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, JamesD said:There is no dip in the graphs I posted around 1982, so your graph has to be wrong or the graph I shared has to be wrong.
If your hypothesis is correct, then sales should ramp up again after the lull in sales is over. They don't.
So why the jump in sales from 1982-1983?
This is when the computer price war started.
In 82 you had the intro of the C64, TS-1000, IBM PC, ZX-Spectrum, etc... so a whole series of more capable or cheaper machines to drive new sales.
The VIC20, Color Computer, TI-99/4A, Atari, etc... all had price drops to compete with cheaper machines in time for the Christmas sales season thanks to the new competition.
And I think that's right about the time people were saying you had to get your kids a computer to prepare for the future.
Little did they know that largely involved arguing on the internet.2 minutes ago, wongojack said:No, I decided you can't even be bothered to read your own post turned into a visualization, so why talk about it anymore.
Read the line again
-
1
-
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
What computer would you recommend for people who are just getting into the hobby of retro computing?
in Classic Computing Discussion
Posted
The Dragon has the same hardware as a CoCo 1/2, and the same BASIC.
So what I said about the CoCo, is pretty much true of the Dragon.
Regular floppy drives for the Dragon are really rare, so you'll probably have to buy a disk emulator.
There were several other CoCo clones around the world. Some in Brazil, Mexico...