2600problems
-
Content Count
234 -
Joined
Posts posted by 2600problems
-
-
ArcadeShopper, if you have a problem with my post, then please say so. claiming i'm a troll just shows you're in uneducated idiot, an 8 bit blip in our 64 bit world.
-
thank you. its nice to see that some people are still nice in the world
-
1
-
-
very funny. anyways, why am i receiving so much hate? all i did was question TI's decisions. yes, i was a bit mean spirited, and i apologize but how does this make me a troll. seriously? unless you can positively prove i am being unreasonable or in anyway hard to deal with, i will hear none of it. all i wanted to know was those 3 things, even if i worded it, somewhat...stupidly.
but really, let up with the insults
-
...this is why i rarely post. because people just can't be nice and civil when someone expresses their views. well, you win.
-
the TI-99/4A was an odd computer, i'll admit that much, the BASIC was slow and it's original intent was for math, not games. that's not why I wrote this.
I need to understand 3 things:
1. why the hell did TI try to enter the computer market without realizing most computers were for games, not math or writing?
2. (and I am going to receive flak from someone out there) why in the unholy name of god did they release such a slow version of BASIC? now granted, Commodore's BASIC isn't any better, but still.
3. this connects to number 1, how were they expecting to market the 99/4A when people wanted Good games, good graphics and a fair price?
surely, it fills 1 of those requirements, but still, the sound is below average and the BASIC is also below par. it makes Commodore's basic look godly.
thoughts
(also someone fix the backwards text bug, it's driving me nuts)
-
a wonderful little game. did you use BASIC or an assembly routine?
-
(yes i'm using comic sans, big deal) i personally see the 4A as an odd computer. it had no licensed games for the system, slow basic and it's graphics were slightly better than the ZX spectrum. maybe i'm wrong but, how did TI expect to market this when:
a. the Vic-20 was already out
b. it had no system specific games or had (poorly made) clones
c. it looked like a miniature 1950's mainframe computer
d. it's Basic language was very, very slow
opinions?
-
1
-
-
Hal is an IBM computer so he should be vulnerable to this logic bomb.
"this sentence is false"
bye bye HAL
-
OCR? anyway, I typed it in exactly and got an illegal function call in 140
-
is the MSX compatible with Turbo assembler or DASM?
-
okay well maybe you guys can help me. i tried running a program from archive.com for the MSX and got an illegal function call, despite the fact that it was written that way in the book.
well I can't find it right now but it was something like s1$=s1+chrs(val(b) or something like that
-
-
(note to admin: please fix backwards text issue)
if I were a consumer in 1980, what would be a good computer for me to buy:
1. the MSX
2. the BBC micro
3. the Commodore 128/amiga
4.Coleco Adam
and why
-
why is it that the MSX is so hard to program for? the c64 and even the Atari 8 bit computers all have a sort of sound or play function. here you need to enter some obscure or arcane bit of code to even get sound, not to mention its Basic being worse than the C64. no draw commands for graphics and worse, there's no downloadable Basic roms for the machine, just games.
-
here's my theory for the Atari 8 bit: someone saw the c64's horrible basic and decided to 1 up them, then the BBC shat all over them when it released the bbc micro in the UK. Cue Atari writing games for the c64 and vice versa in a (fruitless) attempt to dethrone the BBC micro.
its absolute crap that falls flat on its ass, but hey, at least I tried.
-
point taken. anyway, how does the BBC micro stack up?
-
let me elaborate so we don't go off track.
1. keep with the computers mentioned in the post
2. keep your posts short.
3. it's Micro, not Nicro
-
why is it that whenever I type, all my text goes in backwards? anyway, its micro, not nicro
-
okay, i stand corrected. now that my jaw's off the floor, i have a question: is Starfighter's using a separate video processor or is it using scan lines to give the illusion of 3D
-
the MSX destroying the c64? not that i believe it can't be done but, do you have proof?
-
1
-
-
i see your point. its no use beating a dead horse.
-
let me guess: its been decided before, been done already or been done to death. or maybe you'll come up with another excuse. well?
-
apologies for that, I should've said hundreds. at least you and me agree on one thing
-
maybe its just nostalgia blinding me, but why does the At Games Sega genesis system sound like crap? I can forgive the fact that the graphics are blurrier but the music (and the fact that you can't play other carts without side effects) makes me wonder why they made it in the first place. now, i'm not denying the fact that this is an okay system, but with thousands of other retro consoles to choose from, why would someone buy this? and for the life of me, why are the backs of the controllers screwed shut? they're hard enough to open already! add to that the lack of genesis favorites such as Road Rash and Forgotten worlds and you've got a questionable "budget" system.
thoughts?
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
the TI-99/4a computer: an oddity
in TI-99/4A Computers
Posted
another thing I found that surprised me is the BASIC language. I think out of all computers, this is the best version for beginner's. while it may be slow, its easy t learn, a bit redundant (just look at the graphics routines) but still better than commodore and slightly easier than the Apple II. I have yet to find any dedicated graphics commands however.
also, what does for next nesting error mean? I ran into that while I was programming a square routine.