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

Keatah

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    25,396

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Posts posted by Keatah

  3. Posted

    I got to reading "How to build a computer controlled robot." from Tod Loofbourrow when I was a kid. It was a modern-day battlebot-sized thing that looked like it could be the bottom, base, of a small 6-Million-Dollar-Man "Venus Probe". It used a car battery and KIM-1. Would have weighed a ton and cost millions. That's how I envisioned my version back then.

     

    But cost and gathering supplies at that young age was impossible without parental support. And therefore I never did anything, except read the book and learn the concepts.

  4. Posted

    Having done an "Apple manual spree" recently it's time to think about what's next.. Turn my attention to online scans and disk images, both adding to and uploading from my existing pile-o-shit? Thought about starting up with Apple ///, again? Had some hardware in the past, traded most of it because I felt it was 2nd rate. Still have a few bits and pieces and 2 consoles. It all fits a large Rubbermaid.

     

    The only reason I would get involved with the /// was because I enjoyed it vicariously through catalogs when I was a kid. No significant hands-on experience with the machine.

     

    So what'yall think?

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

  5. Posted · Edited by Keatah

    I remember Apple II's being sold by semi-specialty shops. These shops, like Computerland, Data-Domain, Compu-Shop, or Northbrook Computers also sold things like the late-model S-100 systems and NorthStar desk systems. CP/M systems too. Probably had some Sols on display. TI was often marketed in those too. Not much different from the RadioShack computer centers, just smaller and more diverse.

     

    Specialty shop or not, there were many of them within driving distance. Surprised to see them live from the late-70's into the mid-80's as they weren't busy. Not like a Gamestop or other botique shop of today.

  6. Posted

    1 hour ago, jhd said:

    Speaking for the area where I grew-up, there was a serious lack of distribution. I knew only one person with an Atari ST, and no one with an Amiga. There was one local shop that sold/supported the ST and (to the best of my knowledge) no place that sold the Amiga.

    About the same here. That was the 3rd most offputting factor in owning and Amiga. They just didn't penetrate the general market. Not like the Apple II or PC did.

     

    There were 2 possibly 3 shops in driving distance that had Amiga & stuff. But for Apple II there were 3 places within BMX distance alone. Getting in the car gave me a choice of as much as 10 stores! And when PCs got underway in earnest there were so many I couldn't even keep track!

  7. Posted

    While I'm sure they had 16-bit educational software, the vast majority would be 8 bit. Especially that torrent of MECC stuff. The only way to classify the IIgs is 8/16 hybrid. Bastardized for sure.

     

    I think the president of MECC is currently (or has been recently) engaged in preserving all the software they did. Hundreds of titles are on Asimov, and there's a more coming.

  8. Posted

    Make sense. A computer is typically a one-on-one experience. And the multimedia capabilities of the first 8-bit machines paled in comparison to a vibrant teacher with colored chalk.

     

    BTW, anyone notice a lack of 16 bit machines in schools? Oh there may have been a MAC or two here and there. But the Amiga and Atari ST were mostly absent. To me it's always been TRS-80, C=, Apple, and then PC.

     

    Were the Atari ST and Amiga too delicate? Too much focused on games? Take up too much desk space?

     

  9. Posted · Edited by Keatah

    Over the last several days picked up about 12 or so Apple II manuals published by Apple. The glossy cover ones with spiral bounding. Been eyeing filling out my documentation cache for some time, but just now came across copies in excellent condition for cheap.

     

    There's more to go. But I won't overpay, like $80, for them. Early on in the dot-com era I just might have. But not today. Back then this sort of stuff was destined for landfill, today it's enthusiast material. Not collector's material, but enthusiast material.

     

    Anyhow, when I look out over the vast swath of Apple II material I accumulated, I'm happy to be away from the high-pressure gotta-buy-it-NOW or forever miss out on it type mentality. No pressure spending hours and days searching for one item that may be in shoddy shape while being overpriced.

    • Like 3
    • Haha 1

  11. Posted

    I suppose it's pertinent to ask/determine the end goal of a preservation effort.

     

    Consider an arbitrary vintage 486 system being preserved for the way it was, the manufacturing techniques, the weight, the time it takes to start up, the noises the drives make, and so on. Well, then, you better be sure you're sticking with all original parts. There'll be no SSD/Flash boot devices, there will be the original fans, the original CPU. Can't ever replace the CPU with FPGA or emulation. It would immediately fail the construction/manufacturing aspect. A future technician studying the faux FPGA CPU replacement in it would learn absolutely nothing about a socketed 168 pin 486 chip. What its construction was like, how it had gold-plated pins, how much heat it generated.. An so on

     

    To take it further, if all the original cards and motherboard were removed and replaced with a NUC running PC-EM, it would fail even harder. Only a shell would remain, and the technician would learn even less.

     

    Now consider a museum goer looking to see the system in operation. The case would be buttoned up, there could be an original motherboard in it, or it could be that NUC with PC-EM. The visitor wouldn't know. Either configuration would give said visitor a great experience in seeing how most software of the day looked and operated. The visitor interaction would be the same, indistinguishable except maybe like for booting. This is good enough for the vast majority of patrons. Perhaps even preferable because it would be 10x more reliable and the visitor could recreate the experience at home.

     

    It's like that Space-a-Shuttle example. None of ships have operable engines, they were replaced with look-alike models. Many other under-the-skin modifications have been made - making the ships no longer flightworthy (not that that matters).

     

    Most of the SR-71s have their wings band-sawed right where the engine nacelles meet the wings. Definitely not flying again. To a museum patron it's unknown. To a someone looking to do a structural test or study that exact spot, instant fail. Not that that would happen either. Just say'n.

  12. Posted · Edited by Keatah

    It really is. No small thanks in part because they don't remain state of the art for any appreciable length of time. Besides. I prefer one that hasn't been dropped (on the floor). Read that as 2nd hand.

     

    People complain less about expensive hardware because it is a physical thing they can actually purchase. A physical thing that takes resources to build - like Intel's processors. Costs them just under 1,000 gallons of water to make once chip. A graphics card will play many games. A software program is only one software program.

     

    And people automatically believe there are huge economies of scale and other amplifications in favor of the software developer. Just do your work once and publish it. The dough rolls in without further ado.

    • Like 1

  20. Posted

    Yes it feels, looks, and sounds sticky & tacky. Slow even.

     

    Lax programming encouraged by the extra functionality of custom chips. A custom chip feature can't be optimal for every use case, but a custom written program routine can be. Chip features set in silicon and can't be adapted to the moment, whereas a program can. And I don't believe the programmer(s) put in the necessary effort from the ground up. Relied on those inbuilt features too much.

     

    I would guess that a buttery-smooth Asteroids version could be made for the 8-bit machines.. It was done on the Apple II several times and it doesn't even have a graphics chip to begin with.

     

    And there's the Asteroids emulator for the 8-bit. It struggles to play fast and smooth. But it's somewhat better. And it uses the arcade roms. Such an emulator on a 6502 is a technical achievement if nothing else.

  21. Posted

    The thing with the VCS is that it does so much with so little. The console hardware is simplistic. A cut-down 6502/6507, 128bytes RAM, no ROM, and limited signals to the cartridge port. It's basically the ROM interacting with the processor and scratch-pad-sized memory. Nothing else to get in the way.

     

    Many challenges in VCS games come from speed and reaction times. The VCS'es bare-metal programming style is good at enforcing a solid 30 or 60 FPS. Everything is based around the CRT's electron beam scanning left to right. No slowdowns like framebuffer based computers - where programmers always push the limit of what the processor can do at expense of smoothness in gameplay. This extends to ARM games too.

     

     

     

     

    • Like 1

  22. Posted

    2 hours ago, wongojack said:

    It makes me feel good to participate and talk to people who are so open and ready to share not only their finished work but their techniques and tools to get that work done.  For that reason, I wasn't really interested in being a patron for Circus Convoy (at least not at the $100 to get the rom).  I prefer the interactions here over simply being a software user.

    Wait a minute! This Circus Convoy costs $100 for just the ROM. Holy moly! My original assumption about past developers riding high on laurels and coattails is correct after all. Unless I'm missing something?

    • Like 3

  24. Posted

    Never thought it important to have the bus = cpu speed. I mean sure there were some performance advantages and such, but it was untenable long-term.

     

    I used to be a flunky for clock speed. Thankfully that stopped with the Pentium IV. Worst processor in the Intel lineup. Especially with the early requirements (thanks to legal agreements) that RAMBUS be used exclusively. Also untenable long-term.

     

    Today I don't even look at processor specifications beyond the Generation number, like 8th gen or 11th gen. I'll consider the sub-branding like i7 or i9 and take solace that later and higher is better.

AtariAge
Forums
Store
General
Follow AtariAge

Copyright ©1998-2021 AtariAge

×
×
  • Create New...