Jump to content
IGNORED

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


bluejay

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, JamesD said:

I continue to find it endlessly amusing you thing the C64 BASIC is good.

C-64 BASIC is fine, period. It's a functional BASIC. That's the point and has always been the point. Is it the best BASIC? Nope. No one is remotely arguing that. Does the MC-10 have the best BASIC? Nope. Is the MC-10 BASIC better than the C-64's BASIC in some ways? You bet. Is the MC-10 BASIC hobbled by being attached to the limited computing hardware it's on? You bet, but then every platform has its limitations.

 

And since when is programming in BASIC some weird flex? It's available on 99% of the home computers ever produced, save for outliers like the VideoBrain. The vast majority of users wouldn't care or notice what specific limitations were on their particular flavor of BASIC. They just program in BASIC before deciding that's enough for them or moving onto more advanced languages. And for that matter, most computers, even the MC-10, have BASIC extensions available for them one way or another that do a lot of the grunt work, especially when it comes to graphics and sound. The C-64 has dozens of those options, if not more (I have several such great options for the C-64, Apple II, etc., and of course the MCX-128 for the MC-10). And what about BASIC compilers? Does the MC-10 have those? Not really sure as I don't seriously program on the MC-10 (just for fun; I'm no programmer and never really was). I know the C-64, Apple II, etc., have them. Different options too. So what exactly is the point we're getting at here? That's there a whole cadre of mythical BASIC programmers who want an easy version of the language out there who want nothing else out of a computer and don't mind the MC-10's other limitations like RF output, suspect keyboard, and no storage options other than serial or an audio/cassette cable?

 

Anyway, I'm not here to pick on the MC-10. It is what it is. It was meant as a budget computer, a better Timex Sinclair 1000, that released too late to make a difference, when computers like the C-64 and Tandy's own CoCo 2 were already dropping dramatically in price and there was no reason to get a lesser computer. It's an historical footnote, among many. There's no shame in that. There's still people out there who can appreciate it for what it is. I don't even recall why it came up in the first place in a discussion based around the OP's 8 categories.

Edited by Bill Loguidice
Changed "Anyone" to "Anyway" in the last paragraph.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, JamesD said:

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

 

 

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.

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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 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 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

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? :) 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr SQL said:

....

 

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? :) 

 

 

 

C'mon now, I don't even know where to begin, I wonder if you ever suggest one should run a marathon with the arms tied behind the back so than when she fells (and she will) she can smack her face to the ground, that'll teach her to maintain proper balance, wouldn't it?

First those home computers were single purpose (no multitasking), so do with RAM as you please, if it makes your development faster and performances are where you need them to be so be it, go waste around, you already paid for it, it uses the same power as if you let it untouched, if you can fit what you need spare no bytes.

Second we are not making a first time user of an 80s computer a master programmer in BASIC (any BASIC), he doesn't need to, he may not want to, he actually just doesn't care yet (once he does he can learn "the tricks", until then more memory allows him to largely ignore them, and with good reasons).
Third, it is BASIC, a language that was invented as an introduction to programming, it's inefficient, doesn't really matter what tricks you use with it, it can obviously be beat by assembly (and disguising assembly as DATA statement and POKE + "SYS/CALL" [for the systems that have them] is at the same level as BASIC2.0). 

The example above to draw a CIRCLE is not very friendly, it's better than the C64 BASIC 2.0 (because that has NO support for gfx/sound) but worse than Simons' BASIC, MSX-BASIC, ZX-Spectrum etc.... but hey, the OP can try the MC-10 on the web ( http://mc-10.com/ ) and maybe he likes it and decides to go with it (link to the manual https://colorcomputerarchive.com/repo/MC-10/Documents/Manuals/Hardware/MC-10 Operation and Language Reference Manual/MC-10 Operation and Language Reference Manual (Tandy).pdf ) .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, JamesD said:


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

 

It doesn't suck, it simply has no support for sound and gfx.

 

The rest works as expected, you can use the PETSCII semigraphics characters for some games (card games, simple tile maps) .... you can create text adventures etc...  the MC-10 has a better default BASIC but it is 2020 and all of that is largely irrelevant as the OP can find all the extensions he may want.

Could Commodore have shipped a better BASIC? Absolutely (and they did 2Y later with the BASIC3.5) .... did it matter? nope!!! Were there alternatives? yup!!!!

Not dissing the MC-10, just it's not "the machine" to recommend for what the OP hinted at.

 

If it was all about BASIC I'd suggest BBC BASIC over an RPi (Zero even) with RiscOS:

http://www.riscos.com/support/developers/bbcbasic/index.html

http://www.riscos.com/support/users/userguide3/book3b/book3_9.html
(lots of BASIC goodness and proper inline assembly support in glorious HDMI and modern keyboard/mouse .... can't beat that, but 80's feeling ... not so much [well RiscOS got its name in 89 so technically ;-) ], still I'd recommend that setup for BASIC nirvana).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JamesD said:

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.

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JamesD said:

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. 

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

 

49 minutes ago, phoenixdownita said:

Second we are not making a first time user of an 80s computer a master programmer in BASIC

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.

8 minutes ago, Bill Loguidice said:

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. 

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.

12 minutes ago, Bill Loguidice said:

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.

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:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mr SQL said:

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

"Second we are not making a first time user of an 80s computer a master programmer in BASIC"

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.

 

 

NO, we are not, he just needs to get a feel for it not become a professional BASIC programmer.
Even bitd you'd move away from BASIC and try to learn assembly, BASIC was merely a stepping stone to get you interested not the end goal, for the most part there was no need to become a "master" of it, you could if you wanted to but in no way it was necessary (I am not sure assembly programmers all became Spinjitsu masters of BASIC). 

 

It was cheap, already existed, was ported widely for the 8bits of the time and was easily licensed (thanks to Microsoft no less) .... it had an immediate mode so it could work as the base interface to the machine, but that's pretty much it ... it served the purpose well, it was not the goal on itself.


If you pick up a professional developer career then you need to master one or more languages, but as a hobby ... it was fun to copy from magazines, adapt here and there while learning a few things and sometimes try something new but eventually (especially in the gfx dept) you always stumbled in its limitations way before you hit the ones intrinsic to the machine it was running on ... and it was slow.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, phoenixdownita said:

Could Commodore have shipped a better BASIC? Absolutely (and they did 2Y later with the BASIC3.5) .... did it matter? nope!!! Were there alternatives? yup!!!!

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, phoenixdownita said:

NO, we are not, he just needs to get a feel for it not become a professional BASIC programmer.
Even bitd you'd move away from BASIC and try to learn assembly, BASIC was merely a stepping stone to get you interested not the end goal, for the most part there was no need to become a "master" of it, you could if you wanted to but in no way it was necessary (I am not sure assembly programmers all became Spinjitsu masters of BASIC). 

 

It was cheap, already existed, was ported widely for the 8bits of the time and was easily licensed (thanks to Microsoft no less) .... it had an immediate mode so it could work as the base interface to the machine, but that's pretty much it ... it served the purpose well, it was not the goal on itself.


If you pick up a professional developer career then you need to master one or more languages, but as a hobby ... it was fun to copy from magazines, adapt here and there while learning a few things and sometimes try something new but eventually (especially in the gfx dept) you always stumbled in its limitations way before you hit the ones intrinsic to the machine it was running on ... and it was slow.

 

Disagree,  retro computing was all about BASIC like the introduction in the manual for the Interact illustrates - an obscure 4K Computer I just saw on this thread here which I might possibly also recommend. 

 

There are really only two retro languages, BASIC and Assembly, though there were some interesting attempts at other high level languages on home computers such as Logo, Forth and Pascal none of them gained the traction of BASIC.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mr SQL said:

Disagree,  retro computing was all about BASIC like the introduction in the manual for the Interact illustrates - an obscure 4K Computer I just saw on this thread here which I might possibly also recommend. 

 

...

 

Let me get this straight ... you'd possibly recommend an obscure computer you just saw and have never used before ... yeah why not, sometimes "surreal does it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

 

Edited by JamesD
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Edited by JamesD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

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

Limited machines offer limited choices.  You all saw what happened with Batari Basic, didn't you?

 

Boom!  Tons of people, myself included, knocking out stupid, fun, silly, and some pretty great games.

 

Back in the day, many kids did this.  We used to have a regular show n tell.  People playing each others silly games.  This was really fun, and definitely part of the retro experience.

 

The basics with support for graphics and sound definitely would have not sucked.  The ones lacking it?  

 

Depends on what people were doing.

 

This thread assumes gaming.  And that is entirely fair.  However, the question was, "What computer would YOU reccomend?"

 

I said I would talk to the person and then go from there.

 

Somehow, and this is so true of almost everyone so don't take it personally, it turned into a BEST discussion.  And that is where the fun is!  No worries, right?

 

So, if someone wants that make goofy, fun games experience, they definitely need one of the machines that makes doing that fun and that makes it accessible.

 

Carmack put his kid on an Apple 2, or whatever computer John got going on, and did that for some fun with his kid, and so his kid got to see the roots of it all, and have some perspective.

 

Doing that is all kinds of good, just as gaming is.

 

Back in the day, I thought the C64 Basic sucked.  I also thought the docs were exemplary.  All in all, one could open that box and get it done.

 

An Atari was pretty good, but the docs were lacking, and opening the box didn't get someone near as far, though books and the magazines at the grocery store (some perspective right there, amirite?) helped.

 

An Apple?  The good stuff was in the box there too.  

 

CoCo machines were fast and their BASIC, particularly Extended Basic, were great too.  Good manuals, and schematics, just like an Apple!

 

It is OK to say the C64 Basic sucked.  It did!  Overall, Commodore compensated with good docs and the machine itself had great features.  

 

The Apple, CoCo machines has better BASIC, and not as many cool features.  One can say Sound on an Apple, sans a little 6502 routine, was clicks and farts.  Nice ROM though.  At least one had a mini assembler and monitor to develop, debug, save, load and call it from Basic right in the box.  Too bad about that one bit sound and funky hi-res screen, right?

 

Ok, I think point made.  Have fun guys!  I am, and I actually have a little one coming up soon.

 

This thread has been fun.  I realize I am not going to do games starting out.  I am going to use the computer with her, same as I got.  Bring games in a little at a time.

 

Definitely INFOCOM ones.  Oregon Trail.  Other MECC stuff.

 

But to start?

 

"Back in the day, we told our computers what we wanted..."

 

BASIC it is.  Maybe I will get another round of show n tell goofy, fun gameplay.  

 

And on that note, a little kid starring out telling that computer what to do?

 

The only thing that matters is they do tell it something.  An MC 10 can light that spark same as a C64, Apple, TI, whatever can.

 

Of course, she is going to learn about open, fixing shit, and lots of other basics I use in my life and that my own kids got taught.  Grand kids are just round 2!

 

I won't care what she does.  Only that she gets a taste of that perspective.  For many, that is going to be what retro is about and it is more than games.  Even if it is just a little tiny bit more.

 

Maybe that means BASIC on a tablet too.  Hmmm....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and even the Vic 20 version is better.

 

 

You can bang on and on about how the BASIC is 'better' but again that is one out of eight parameters that the OP requested. So big deal. It doesn't take a genius to see a machine from 1986 with a faster processor is going to outperform one from 1982. Still does not make that machine the best choice for a first retro computer for someone looking to try one out who has never had one before. Stick to the OP list and stop going off on a tangent.

 

To recap: They want to have fun (Game Library was a criteria remember?), Powerful enough to run games was another criteria. Sprites? Good Sound Chip? Hardware Scrolling?, Good Video output (No RF), good price. Ease of Use? Ease of file transfers? The answer is staring you in the face. It likely has a Commodore or Atari logo stamped on it. Plus any situation or problem that arises, there are such large user bases today that someone has probably been through it and the fix will be fast.

 

Plus the other posts on this thread about how someone should be made to suffer on a crippled 4k machine because any more would spoil them as a future programmer? Good lord. That's certainly going to make the average person eager to get started!

 

For the record, I wrote all kinds of programs on my Vic-20. The BASIC never held me back. In fact working with memory addresses helped me get a better understanding of how the machine worked and made the step into assembly much easier. It may have been crude. It may have been slower, but it was good enough for a beginner to play around on and that fits the criteria. And like many others have stated, you can slap in an extender cart if you wanted fancy stuff done quickly.

 

I think the BBC Master, C128 and Camputers Lynx were the finest 8 bit machines ever produced but even I would not automatically recommend them as the first one to get. Maybe the C-128 but there were less of them produced than the C64 and unless you plan to use the extra features, you will probably just be typing 'Go 64' a lot.

Edited by Arnuphis
spelling
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re 6803:  Nice work!

 

It is true that everyone dis not become a master at BASIC.  But we expose people to stuff to find out who does!

 

In my peer group, back in the day, several of us "got it" and wrote a lot of useful programs.  Once that happened on one machine, the general ability to do it on another one came along for the ride.  See where that leads today?

 

Today, when people go back to look at retro, sales numbers don't matter.  And if we are showing or helping someone enjoy retro, getting into it, maybe doing things we remember, are good at is all part of this.  

 

Games can matter, but only to a point.  Apps can matter too.  "How were things done?"  "Why?" are valuable.  So is the overall experience.  Cassette?  Definitely worth a go, and some of these machines have great cassette features.  Others don't.  Disks?  Yup, same deal.

 

Maybe just an idea of how far and fast we have come is worth it?

 

I have done that for a few on my Apple.  They approach it, see a USB cable and some disks...  what did making a spell checked, formatted document look like?

 

Then...  1Mhz ?!? 

 

(Lol, then I show off a few, then over 10...)

 

People get all sorts of stuff from a retro experience.  The times I have been asked to, or it just comes up, have always surprised me.  Young people, for example, are so damn far away from this stuff compared to us!  The differences we see a huge might not even register for them.  Seriously!  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last time I used Basic was some time in the early 80s, typing in programs from a magazine into a ti99. I dont remember any of it except a few simple commands, and my grasp of it was never that great back in the day. I’ve been considering getting into it recently, so this and the best Basic threads got my attention.

 

As one data point, there is no way I would consider starting with a C64 in 2020 just based on the whole peek/poke thing. I am considering Atari or CoCo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, JamesD said:

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.
 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...