What computer would you recommend for people who are just getting into the hobby of retro computing?

[+OLD CS1]

6 hours ago, youxia said:

About C64's Basic: it's a common knowledge it was the worst amongst the competition, at least when it comes to the ease of use, which is what this topic is about after all.

If you count the TI-99/4A out of the competition bucket.  Seriously, TI-99/4A's native built-in console BASIC suuuuuuucks: only one statement/command per line, slow AF  (as the kids would say) due to being double-interpreted, only about 10k or so of memory, no direct access to memory a-la POKE/PEEK, no assembly language available.  It is functional and has rudimentary sound, the ability to define characters for graphics, and file processing similar to pretty much any other BASIC.

 

Otherwise, I am not sure about this "common knowledge" thing you mention.  C64's BASIC is fast, has plenty of graphics characters and colors available.  Now, it will not do sound or graphics with native commands (needs POKEs,) but it can be expanded using myriad wedges available in magazines or cartridges of the era, most of which are still available today.  It is not terrible and I wrote many BASIC utilities and games (some which used POKE ::clutches pearls:: for ML and graphics though I usually saved that to disk to be loaded later.)

[Bill Loguidice]

Agree with desiv and we DO have parameters based on the OP's post. It'd be pretty hard to recommend the CoCo over the C-64 or several of the other options mentioned. If we change the requirements, the CoCo might rank higher (or any other computer for that matter). 

 

And again, the C-64 or any other computer is not the end all, be all. Every one of these computers has serious limitations, gotchas, or quirks. I think we all acknowledge that. With that said, it's hard to argue against one of the best selling, best supported, well-featured retro computers of all time. One of them has to win the OP's query and I think the non-unamious consensus is the C-64 is a clear front runner. 

[+x=usr(1536)]

1 hour ago, JamesD said:

You aren't king here, you don't get to decide your opinion is right, and other people's opinion is wrong.

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.

[JamesD]

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.
 

[youxia]

6 hours ago, desiv said:

I'll bypass the more condescending parts of your post and just say that, in my opinion, this is about appealing to beginners..

They don't generally use a bunch of different BASICs and look for the best.

The use the one they have, if it is simple enough for them to use and they enjoy it.

For us, Commodore BASIC was simple, easy to understand, and easy to learn.  And we enjoyed it and it started many of us happily on our way with computers.

 

You feel differently, and that is fine.

 

If it's really about appealing to beginners, then why do you insist the C64 Basic is also stellar in this category, when it clearly isn't, as demonstrated in JamesD's example? I mean, anybody can claim they enjoyed it back in the day on their favourite machine and found it simple & easy but it's clearly showing bias. I've enjoyed gaming on my ZX Spectrum very much too, but I'm not going to claim its fx capabilities are so great.

And wasn't getting extensions and whatnots to improve it supposed to be "gotchas"?

 

No, it does not change the overall ranking (or at least its #1 position) but I would've thought this thread is about a bit more than just a simple list. We've all already agreed on C64, but it does not have to be accompanied by heaps of factually incorrect statements this thread is full of.

[Mr SQL]

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 Usotsuki]

The Apple ]['s FPBASIC was probably even easier to extend than the C64's because there was a defined hook through which to do it - the & vector.  And a lot of software utilized it.  One of my programs used it to support a TMS9918 video card. (I was trying to extend it to be able to use a V9938 as an 80-column card, but ran into issues.)

[Keatah]

11 hours ago, bluejay said:

I've come up with a new category: Documentation.

Apple computers, although not all that great in other categories compared to other computers, have amazing documentation that explains every bit of the computer in detail. With an Apple II with the original manuals, one would be able to learn everything from typing to programming in machine language!

I've been touting the advantages of good documentation for years now. Specifically using the 800+ pages that came with the Apple II+ and a DISK II. Also Apple's early peripherals like the serial card or parallel card received the same treatment.

16 hours ago, desiv said:

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

It's not so much a fear of the command or how it works or the theory behind a softswitch, but rather an annoyance of having to have a chart that lists the hundreds of available actions. At least that's how it was for me.

 

Even in languages like Applesoft BASIC, when I used Peek/Poke I would usually include a REM statement describing the command or subroutine. That took care of the future readability problem.

 

 

[desiv]

6 hours ago, youxia said:

If it's really about appealing to beginners, then why do you insist the C64 Basic is also stellar in this category, when it clearly isn't,

I never said or even implied that it was stellar, or the best, or in the top X even.

In fact, I have specifically said it wasn't.

(sigh)

I only said it was good enough to be enjoyable and not a deterrent in any way.

A lot of us loved it.

Doesn't mean it was good.

Would we have enjoyed the others more, sure... But it was more than good enough for us to enjoy, which I think was part of the point of the OP.

I hope everyone enjoys this thread...

Have a great day..

[+OLD CS1]

So much of this takes me back to the home computer religious flame wars of the 80s.

[youxia]

 

43 minutes ago, desiv said:

(sigh)

 

Indeed. One minute Amiga's "crap" composite is a stumbling block, but in the next C64's questionable Basic is no problem at all. And when this odd logic is pointed out, you bristle up. Can't really argue with that - literally.

27 minutes ago, OLD CS1 said:

So much of this takes me back to the home computer religious flame wars of the 80s.

It's an interesting instance of a "religious flame war", in which all participants actually agree on one choice. However, when those who want to discuss flaws in that choice are patronized, it indeed starts resembling a cultist narrative, perhaps not in the way you meant it though.

 

Those who claim "objectivity" in this thread can't really pretend they do not realise the C64 as #1 only works in this hypothetical scenario, because we don't know anything about the target audience. In reality, questions would be asked, because some people might be interested in making quality music, dislike 8-bit gfx, concentrate on writing programs in BASIC, or have some other specific angles. In these instances C64 is not automatically the  first choice and trying to stiffle the discussion about it is rather lame.

 

In fact, these jibes wore me out as well, so I'll leave you guys to it - just hoping that any actual prospective first timer who may be perusing this thread will not take these opinions at face value. Especially ones not regarding the C64 itself (it is a fine machine after all), but the heavy clangers dropped about the other micros.

[+OLD CS1]

33 minutes ago, youxia said:

It's an interesting instance of a "religious flame war", in which all participants actually agree on one choice. However, when those who want to discuss flaws in that choice are patronized, it indeed starts resembling a cultist narrative, perhaps not in the way you meant it though.

While, no, not "all participants [in this thread] actually agree" and this discussion is rather spirited as points, my comment was just an over-all observation; the comment stands on its own.

 

Irrespective, I would likely choose the Commodore 64 or an Atari 8-bit.  The C64 was the computer for which I left the TI-99/4A back in the day (I think I went over this already, but nonetheless,) because it and accessories were readily available in retail and second-hand markets, and I was able to walk into a store up until some point in the 90s and buy software off-the-shelf.  I was able to afford everything on my lawn-mowing and paper route money.  Today, parts, support, modern peripherals, and software are still easy to be had within a very lively set of communities.  While not my favorite and with limited experience from the era, I also notice the same for the Atari 8-bit.

[bluejay]

5 hours ago, Keatah said:

I've been touting the advantages of good documentation for years now. Specifically using the 800+ pages that came with the Apple II+ and a DISK II. Also Apple's early peripherals like the serial card or parallel card received the same treatment.

As an Apple //e user, I have to agree Apple had the best manuals.  Although not as much as the earlier Apple ][ line computers, my //e came with hundreds of pages worth of manuals for the computer, ProDOS, 80 column card, monitor, and disk drive. Although not related it also came with "A Personal Guide to Personal Computers" which teaches you how to pick the best computer. It's ultimately just an Apple ad in guide form. It even says, "Plain and simple, we want you to buy an Apple computer." Yeah.

 

Anyways, my point is that Apple had amazing manuals. If you never read one, it's basically a Commodore manual except on steroids.

[Bill Loguidice]

2 hours ago, youxia said:

 

Those who claim "objectivity" in this thread can't really pretend they do not realise the C64 as #1 only works in this hypothetical scenario, because we don't know anything about the target audience. In reality, questions would be asked, because some people might be interested in making quality music, dislike 8-bit gfx, concentrate on writing programs in BASIC, or have some other specific angles. In these instances C64 is not automatically the  first choice and trying to stiffle the discussion about it is rather lame.

 

What? Here are the OP's original requirements:

Quote

I'll divide this up to 8 categories.

1. Price. These retro computers can end up quite expensive, sometimes well above the budget a newbie to world of retro computing would be willing to pay.

2. Game library. Most people who want to get into retro computers are most likely going to want to play games.

3. Ease of file transfers to/from modern devices. It is quite a hassle to deal with old cassettes and floppies, so modern forms of file transferring would be handy.

4. Powerfulness(or whatever you call it) of the computer. A computer has to be powerful to be able to run fun games.

5. Ease of use. Who would want to use a computer that requires you to be a rocket scientist to operate?

6. Reliability. Newbies are probably not capable of repairing a broken computer. It can't just randomly blow up.

7. Video output. RF sucks.

8. BASIC. Some people might want to mess with a bit of BASIC. A horrible version of it won't do.

 

Keep in mind the computer has to be from the 80s.

That's why the C-64 was chosen. It easily meets points 1 - 8. Other computers do a good job of meeting most or all of those points in their own way, with some missing out on a few of the big ones like #2 and #4. While the C-64 is a great choice for 1 - 8, it certainly doesn't have to be the only choice. I wouldn't hesitate, for instance, to recommend an Atari 8-bit or Apple II to a person in the US. I'd have a few concerns with some other platforms, however, if categories 1 - 8 were what the person laid out as requirements.

And it's been said multiple times that none of these computers are perfect and all have notable flaws and challenges, including the C-64. It's a side effect of the hobby and can be frustrating regardless of what platform or platforms you end up using (the hardware and software is many decades old after all). But to answer the OP's question, it's very hard to argue against the C-64. That's all. 

 

We can point out flaws all day with all of these computers and then some people can throw in some truly baffling choices like an MC-10, which has only RF output, a horrible keyboard, and only 4K of RAM standard, as well as a dearth of software, as a good choice for a BASIC programming computer. To each their own, but I can say from experience I'd be really hard pressed to recommend an MC-10 to anyone for much of anything. I still have an MC-10 as a sideshow in my CoCo/Dragon collection and it's not something I'd remotely wish on a casual person looking to program in BASIC. 

[Mr SQL]

1 hour ago, Bill Loguidice said:

I can say from experience I'd be really hard pressed to recommend an MC-10 to anyone for much of anything. I still have an MC-10 as a sideshow in my CoCo/Dragon collection and it's not something I'd remotely wish on a casual person looking to program in BASIC. 

 

1 hour ago, Bill Loguidice said:

We can point out flaws all day with all of these computers and then some people can throw in some truly baffling choices like an MC-10, which has only RF output, a horrible keyboard, and only 4K of RAM standard, as well as a dearth of software, as a good choice for a BASIC programming computer.

 

Maybe not so baffling:

 

The MC-10 has a great keyboard you can actually use in it's form factor, far easier to type on than the ZX-80 and Atari 400 membrane keyboards. I actually wrote programs for this machine bitd as well as the other color computers and it's documentation and total package impressed me as very well geared for the beginner. The manual and the quick start guide are well written and easy for anyone to follow, otherwise I would recommend a CoCo like James.

 

The MC-10 has big 32x16 all capital letters that are easier on the eyes than the C64 and a better Microsoft BASIC, between standard and extended. I liked the display on the machine better then and now. The C64 has a much better full screen editor but the MC-10 keeps it simple requiring you to retype a line if you make a mistake.

 

For simple file transfers it's easy to connect a standard cassette player or an ipod to load files today, not as easy with the C64 as my UIEC requires I know how to load "Bootloader",8,1 and then RUN it to get a menu up like the flashcarts for my other gaming consoles - that's what I use my C64 for - as a gaming console for classics and new homebrews D-Pac Defender and PowerGlove with it's awesome SID tune, and for listening to the 40,000 chiptune high voltage SID collection on a real 6581 R2 SID with it's analog filters still intact  

 

That's also what I'd recommend the C64 for, but for a beginner with that list of requirements who wants easy access to a library (and all of the home computers have relatively good libraries because they've been around for a long time) without cryptic commands and additional semi-compatible loading hardware the MC-10 easily edges out the C64. The file transfer time is around the same at 1500 baud compared to 1900 baud for the 1541/UIEC emulation.

 

The MC-10 is a better introductory computer in my opinion from having used them -

 

I'm working on a classic Disk BASIC for the Atari 2600 using the SuperCharger that more resembles the BASIC on the MC-10 with simple a load command and indexed file system which was possible with the cassette, the seek mechanism exposed to BASIC like with the ADAM's indexed high speed tape drive. Multicolor graphics plot commands are available like on the MC-10 with no poke commands required for games written with the BASIC, but they could be.

 

So having programmed on it then and been impressed by it, and writing a BASIC modeled after it now I would highly recommend it.

 

I could write a fun game in 10 lines with the MC-10 and Jim Geirre does exactly that - I compete with Jim regularly in the annual BASIC programming contest. There are some entries from the C64 scene, but when it comes to BASIC we generally trounce them soundly. The A8 BASIC programmers like @vitocoare the real competition creating BASIC games far cooler and more graphical and colorful than the C64's!

 

I would also recommend SuperCharger BASIC for the Atari 2600 for these reasons, particularly the programming contest scene - here's the quickstart guide that was influenced by the MC-10's quickstart guide you saw in the video:

BASIC_Programming_Quickstart_guide.pdf    

 

And here are a few examples of simple 10 line games and 4K BASIC games possible on the Atari 2600 for folks to try out, not a lot of memory is needed in BASIC to have fun!    

 

[Bill Loguidice]

As an MC-10 owner I'm not convinced in the slightest and still wouldn't think of recommending that computer to just about anyone, but I'm impressed by your enthusiasm for it Mr SQL. I don't think I've known anyone that into that computer other than perhaps Jim Gerrie (and I'm not even sure he's sung its praises anywhere near what you have).

[Mr SQL]

45 minutes ago, Bill Loguidice said:

As an MC-10 owner I'm not convinced in the slightest and still wouldn't think of recommending that computer to just about anyone, but I'm impressed by your enthusiasm for it Mr SQL. I don't think I've known anyone that into that computer other than perhaps Jim Gerrie (and I'm not even sure he's sung its praises anywhere near what you have).

It's not just the MC-10, simple 4K BASIC computers that are well put together are considered by myself and many who create IDE's, platforms and languages Today to be a better model for learning because of their simplicity. 

 

The Small BASIC paradigm initiative was driven by this past simplicity - you don't realize it because you're a retro computing expert and a connoisseur in addition to having experienced the technology directly as a child. The C64 was definitely part of the influencing paradigm as evidenced by the fact that it can run the simple BASIC type-ins from the science text books of the 80's and compete in the retro 10 liner contests, but it does not shine like the MC-10 in those contests. People who had one simply prefer it for being a better gaming machine.

 

Some fun trivia on the MC-10, because it had a more powerful processor than it's contemporaries it saw popular incarnations overseas including an expanded model similar to the CoCo III. Here's the Alice version looking like it was created by Atari Kee-Games:

 

[JamesD]

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.
 

Edited October 5, 2020 by JamesD

[phoenixdownita]

I was in the EU region up until 2000 or whereabouts, in the 80s I had access to an SC-3000, then a C64, a ZX-spectrum, an 800-xl and an MSX.

The only stable duo I kept around were the C64 and the MSX (in my case a Philips VG8020).

The C64 BASIC is bad for everything related to graphics and sound, yes you can peek/poke directly the HW but it takes a whole lot of energy to get something going, in that regard I did use Simon's BASIC and loved it exactly because it made sound and graphics accessible.

BASIC 3.5 on a C16/Plus-4 is also decent but I would not recommend either of those, BASIC 7.0 on C128 is yet another step up but even that is not something I'd recommend due to the scarcity of native SW you'll end up using it as a C64 anyway.

 

On the MSX camp the BASIC is very capable wrt sound ( https://www.msx.org/wiki/SOUND ) and graphics ( https://www.msx.org/wiki/DRAW ) and you can put it to good use, Konami games are very good on the platform but even in Europe only some countries had a good coverage ... 

 

I don't have much memories around the stock BASIC on the 800xl (I do remember having to fiddle with XIO from time to time but that's about it, I used to borrow a friend's one occasionally).

I didn't like the ZX Spectrum auto-complete setup, very very unsettling to me.

 

I've never seen a TI99/4a or a CoCo in my life (even if I heard of the Dragon32/64) so I won't comment on that. CPC464 and 664 were available but not very successful in my country so no comment on those either.

And I always considered the Apple II too expensive back in the days to even care it existed.

 

Suggesting the MC-10 is borderline criminal, so depending on where you are located and what you really care about wrt BASIC then Apple II, C64, MSX and likely Atari 800xl all should be decent machines (some with the help of "extended" BASIC as it may be).

Given they all have decent emulators (even online https://virtualconsoles.com/online-emulators/ and https://webmsx.org/  but there's more) take them for a spin without real HW and see what you like/don't like.

Depending on what you want to be doing in BASIC, you may get away with very little.

 

BASIC per se (excluding Audio/Video support) is pretty barebone, most audio/video and even peripheral support is pretty custom to each and every home computer anyway ... but I can tell you it is nice to have sound/graphics support just so you can draw circles, squares, fill an area, play a bang etc...etc...

[English Invader]

3 hours ago, phoenixdownita said:

Given they all have decent emulators (even online https://virtualconsoles.com/online-emulators/ and https://webmsx.org/  but there's more) take them for a spin without real HW and see what you like/don't like.

Depending on what you want to be doing in BASIC, you may get away with very little.

 

I'm not sure that emulation is reliable for information about the hardware.  I found the ZX Spectrum very usable in emulation - different story when it came to the hardware.  Any emulation experimentation should be supplemented by extensive research about the hardware before purchasing.

 

I think most people are going to go with what their heart tells them - it's an emotional hobby and if you don't feel attached to a system then what's the point?  I came into the hobby because I wanted a VIC-20 and if someone had told me to get a C64 because it had a better games library or a BBC Micro because it had a better version of BASIC I wouldn't have listened.  I found those other systems later when I was ready for them.

 

The Beeb is my most recent acquisition and I've become far more immersed in the system than I ever expected to be.  I'm enjoying the BASIC, I'm enjoying the upgrades and I'm enjoying the games.  I don't think this system is coming off my computer desk for a very long time.

 

[Mr SQL]

8 hours ago, phoenixdownita said:

Suggesting the MC-10 is borderline criminal, so depending on where you are located and what you really care about wrt BASIC

Suggesting the C64 seems like suggesting the Nintendo Disk BASIC system; this review by Classic Game Room is strikingly similar to most nostalgic C64 system reviews where players play and copy games on disk with no mention of BASIC Programming:

 

I think the NES was effectively designed to be a C64 clone with comparatively bad sound.

8 hours ago, phoenixdownita said:

BASIC per se (excluding Audio/Video support) is pretty barebone, most audio/video and even peripheral support is pretty custom to each and every home computer anyway ... but I can tell you it is nice to have sound/graphics support just so you can draw circles, squares, fill an area, play a bang etc...etc...

I agree and those are some reasons the MC-10 still beats the C64 in the BASIC programming competitions and in James demos. 

 

[Bill Loguidice]

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 computer actually is or how much software support it has, etc.. Although I swore to myself that I wouldn't go back down the collection rabbit hole after selling off most of my original collection several years back now, I have acquired a few such "loser" computers again for various reasons, including wanting to explore these unusual beasts (and also, at times, because they're easy extensions of existing stuff I already have and can leverage existing hardware and accessories, e.g., the MC-10 with CoCo/Dragon stuff, or the Plus/4 with C-64/VIC-20/128 stuff). While I had all of these before, with a more manageable collection now, I, in theory, should have more time to spend with them (frankly, that's still been hit or miss given my work schedule). While I list my current holdings here, more or less, the list of these also-ran computers (that wouldn't be considered tier 2 or even tier 3 systems in many cases, especially from a US standpoint) I currently have is as follows:

 

Bally Astrocade (pushing it I know, but I do like to torture myself once in a while programming on it - its keypad entry makes even the worst computer keyboards seem like a dream)
Commodore Plus/4
Enterprise 64
Mattel Aquarius
Mattel Intellivision ECS
MC-10
Panasonic JR-200U
Tomy Tutor
 

They're all fun in their own way and they all have their super fans and at least communities, but none I would ever recommend as a first retro computer for someone.

[Arnuphis]

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.

 

 

[JamesD]

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.

[Arnuphis]

Someone got triggered.