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

[Bill Loguidice]

10 hours ago, Mr SQL said:

 

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.

 

 

 

Some of my friends did become professional programmers. I didn't as I didn't have the mathematical abilities. However, I don't see how using BASIC had much to do with a person's future success as a coder. It's a beginner language and one that typically isn't structured in a way that helps learning better, more advanced languages. Even then there were those who frowned upon learning BASIC at all because of the "bad habits" it encouraged. And of course, eventually it stopped coming standard with computers. 

 

And come on, my Apple II, Atari, and Commodore friends would have been better off playing fewer games and programming more? What does that even mean? As kids we had lots of time. You're not going to be particularly well-rounded if all you can do is program all day on your computer rather than doing other stuff with it. And goodness knows gaming and "sharing" back then led to its own type of knowledge.

 

And I love how the C-64's BASIC is being painted as the scourge of the BASIC language world by some in this thread. The tens of thousands of BASIC programs weren't coded under duress (and people continue to do impressive stuff with it to this day). It was perfectly functional and easily extendable. Using Peeks, Pokes, mixing in machine language, etc., worked fine. You could do some impressive stuff in a few lines of code like just about any BASIC.

 

And about 38K of free BASIC memory is somehow too generous and we should limit people to less than 4K to teach them to be efficient? What? Everything had to be efficient on old computers. We always came up against limitations back then regardless of what the machine was, be it a ZX81 or an Amiga 2000. 

[Hwlngmad]

12 hours ago, JamesD said:

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:

 

Again, wasn't trying to put down the MC-10 too much, which perhaps I did a little.  My apologies on that.  However, while the MC-10 is seemingly an interesting a fun computer, it just isn't something that I would recommend over something like a C64, A8, Apple II, ZX Spectrum, or even a CoCo to a newb getting into the game.  It just doesn't really play into the OP guidance and directive.  Just my opinion on that.  Finally, yes, the 6809 was a very good (and I think underrated) chip. 

[Hwlngmad]

3 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

 

And I love how the C-64's BASIC is being painted as the scourge of the BASIC language world by some in this thread. The tens of thousands of BASIC programs weren't coded under duress (and people continue to do impressive stuff with it to this day). It was perfectly functional and easily extendable. Using Peeks, Pokes, mixing in machine language, etc., worked fine. You could do some impressive stuff in a few lines of code like just about any BASIC.

The BASIC on the C64, or even Vic-20, wasn't as horrendous as what people make it out to be.  Now, was it great, not particularly, no.  However, was and is it useful, yes.  I, too, don't get the haterade being thrown at the C64's BASIC.  Granted, other machines had better BASIC, no doubt.  But, come on, it is not totally useless and/or functional either.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Hwlngmad

[potatohead]

Well technically, "sucks" can include useful and functional.  Just saying...   lol

 

IMHO, a lot of it comes down to C64 BASIC is basically PET BASIC.  Nothing wrong with PET Basic, when it's on a PET.

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by potatohead

[pacman000]

6 hours ago, Hwlngmad said:

The BASIC on the C64, or even Vic-20, wasn't as horrendous as what people make it out to be.  Now, was it great, not particularly, no.  However, was and is it useful, yes.  I, too, don't get the haterade being thrown at the C64's BASIC.  Granted, other machines had better BASIC, no doubt.  But, come on, it is not totally useless and/or functional either.

And Jack Tramiel didn’t have to marry Microsoft to get it.

[JamesD]

4 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

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.

I just said the MC-10 was close to the price of a VIC-20, so why are you telling me it's about the price of a VIC-20?
The TI-99/4A has some interesting BASIC features for setting up sprites, but I wouldn't suggest it to anyone.
And you were talking CoCo or C64 which were more expensive.

vs the C64 which is what you have been pushing...
$300 - $120 is $180 difference in 1983 dollars.  That's around $470 in today's money. 
The *average* car started around $7000 at that time.
Does a family spend money on a computer their kid might only play games on, do they save it towards a car for them, or maybe college?

When I was in college, I knew someone that received an MC-10 for Christmas.  She didn't even have a cassette cable or recorder. 
Her parents didn't buy it for her to play games, and she wasn't interested in games.
She was using it to learn BASIC, and about computers in general. 
I doubt she ever used BASIC for much, but she was working through examples from a book.
Getting a C64 instead of an MC-10 wouldn't have made any difference other than price.

It's not your opinion I dislike, it's your insistence that your opinion is somehow right, and other people's is wrong.
Then you tell people their opinion is "silly", belittle someone's argument with comments like "loser computer", etc..
You also speak as if you are expert enough to know if C64 BASIC is good enough, but haven't even shown you know anything about it.

This is a work in progress, and it's not quite working, but this is close to how the circle code should look on C64 BASIC.
I copied the C64 specific code from a web page.
It's in lowercase to get around the PET ASCII issue when posted into YAPE.
This is what people claim is "good enough" for a beginner.

0 poke 53280,0 : rem set the frame color

1 base=8192:for i=base to base+7999:poke i,0:next:rem clear the screen

2 poke 53272,peek(53272) or 8:rem set bitmap memory at 8192 ($2000)
3 poke 53265,peek(53265) or 32:rem enter bitmap mode

4 PRINT CHR$(147);

5 i = .022
7 x=64/6:c=7 
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 gosub 400:rem 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 gosub 400:rem 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 gosub 400:rem 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 gosub 400:rem set(x,y,c)
220 next h

230 rem wait for keypress
240 get k$:if k$="" then 240

250 rem return to text mode
260 poke 53280,14:poke 53281,6:poke 646,14:end

270 end

399 rem plot pixel
400 mem=base+int(y/8)*320+int(x/8)*8+(y and 7)
401 px=c-(x and c)
402 poke mem,peek(mem) or 2^px
403 return

 

[JamesD]

6 hours ago, Hwlngmad said:

Again, wasn't trying to put down the MC-10 too much, which perhaps I did a little.  My apologies on that.  However, while the MC-10 is seemingly an interesting a fun computer, it just isn't something that I would recommend over something like a C64, A8, Apple II, ZX Spectrum, or even a CoCo to a newb getting into the game.  It just doesn't really play into the OP guidance and directive.  Just my opinion on that.  Finally, yes, the 6809 was a very good (and I think underrated) chip. 

I get the distinct impression that people cannot read.

[Bill Loguidice]

Keep going on your BASIC crusade, JamesD. It's going great!

[Arnuphis]

3 minutes ago, Bill Loguidice said:

Keep going on your BASIC crusade, JamesD. It's going great!

Yes because BASIC is the only thing you should consider for a computer... Ever! Besides, not like there is much else going on with the platform. 

[potatohead]

Back in the day, there were users, and there were programmers. The users ran applications played games and that sort of thing. The programmers really did care about basic what was in the ROM and all that stuff.  They also got into the machine details too.

 

People wanting to learn about computers, definitely value those things, and definitely benefited from them.

 

I think the basic discussion today is entirely relevant, because if someone wants to explore that part of the Retro experience, learn in that way, nothing's changed.

 

Which by the way, speaks to talking to someone before recommending first retro computer.

 

 

 

 

[+x=usr(1536)]

JamesD's posts make me glad that I can't bring myself to care as much as he apparently does about various dialects of BASIC.

 

I will absolutely admit that he's done a fine job of sucking the enjoyment out of what was an otherwise entertaining thread, however.

 

Thanks, @JamesD.  It's the folks like you who truly make this hobby what it is.

Edited October 7, 2020 by x=usr(1536)

[The Usotsuki]

3 hours ago, potatohead said:

Well technically, "sucks" can include useful and functional.  Just saying...   lol

 

IMHO, a lot of it comes down to C64 BASIC is basically PET BASIC.  Nothing wrong with PET Basic, when it's on a PET.

 

IIRC, it literally *is* PET BASIC.

 

The biggest issue with C64 BASIC is there's no specific support for the hardware.  Apart from that, it's competent enough.

[JamesD]

14 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

 

Some of my friends did become professional programmers. I didn't as I didn't have the mathematical abilities. However, I don't see how using BASIC had much to do with a person's future success as a coder. It's a beginner language and one that typically isn't structured in a way that helps learning better, more advanced languages. Even then there were those who frowned upon learning BASIC at all because of the "bad habits" it encouraged. And of course, eventually it stopped coming standard with computers. 

...

FWIW, math ability beyond algebra isn't required for most coding jobs, and being good at math isn't necessarily an indicator that someone will be a good coder.
Lot's of math is required for a CS degree though.  I have a theory that started to fill math classes.

Learning BASIC doesn't make someone a better coder, and as a language it leaves a lot to be desired.
The bad habits thing was mostly started by a professor ranting about GOTO, and other professors refuted his claims, but guess which one everyone heard about.
What really makes good coders, is starting programming young. 
It's like music, sports, or whatever.  If you start the kid young, they will be better at it.
The brain builds more pathways while it's still forming to do what the kid spends time doing.
The BASIC interpreter, the instant on environment, the hardware simplicity, etc...  makes it easier to get started.
You can sit down with a book, type in the examples, and instantly see the results when you type RUN.
 

[potatohead]

2 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

I will absolutely admit that he's done a fine job of sucking the enjoyment out of what was an otherwise entertaining thread, however.

Well, I will absolutely admit I enjoyed the entire discussion, BASIC and all.  

 

1 hour ago, The Usotsuki said:

IIRC, it literally *is* PET BASIC.

Indeed!  

 

And that kind of sucks on a C64.  Many of us noted that back in the day.  I did.  Literally, first time I hopped on a C64, "WTF is this?  Where is the good stuff?"  Then did what everyone else did, started peeking and poking around to explore the hardware.

 

These impressions also vary widely.  Depends on what you got started with.  For me, it was a few programs on a TRS-80, then basically tons of learning and programming on an Apple 2.  That had monitor, line assembler and a solid BASIC.  Going to the Atari, was like "you gotta buy it?"  Pay again for an assembler, or write one?  (I sucked it up and bought MAC/65)  Around that time, I also spent time on a CoCo and was frankly, impressed!  That's a very fun computer if you are into programming one.  Landing on the C64 BASIC was kind of "Meh"  

 

Someone coming from a VIC-20, or maybe TRS-80, wouldn't think twice!  C64 has special stuff, and you peek and poke at it.  Cool.  

 

This is all entertaining when we realize it's days gone by and just fun to discuss.  That's where I'm at on it.  No worries here.

 

[potatohead]

7 minutes ago, JamesD said:

You can sit down with a book, type in the examples, and instantly see the results when you type RUN.

This.

 

And yeah, that's me.  Just started typing stuff in and off I went!  A group of us growing up did, and we all ended up with nice careers related to computing.  I would argue the other thing one gets out of an experience like the 8 bitters offered was how to learn how to learn.

 

It's all there, and at a scope and scale understandable by mere mortals too.

 

Having some graphics support helps a lot.  People can plot output, see math play out, all sorts of things.  It's one of the things that makes a BASIC nice.  And it doesn't take much.  Even just two colors is plenty.  

[potatohead]

5 hours ago, JamesD said:

12 hours ago, Hwlngmad said:

6809 was a very good (and I think underrated) chip. 

I get the distinct impression that people cannot read.

6803, but I digress.

 

I get the impression everyone knows best what everyone else should get out of retrocomputing!  Come on, laugh.  It's funny.  OF COURSE we all go for what we know and enjoy.  OF COURSE.

 

 

[JamesD]

1 minute ago, potatohead said:

This.

 

And yeah, that's me.  Just started typing stuff in and off I went!  A group of us growing up did, and we all ended up with nice careers related to computing.  I would argue the other thing one gets out of an experience like the 8 bitters offered was how to learn how to learn.

 

It's all there, and at a scope and scale understandable by mere mortals too.

 

Having some graphics support helps a lot.  People can plot output, see math play out, all sorts of things.  It's one of the things that makes a BASIC nice.  And it doesn't take much.  Even just two colors is plenty.  

Self sufficiency!
There are so many programmers that are helpless!  
I remember one that every member of the team was ready to kill.
We were on a short deadline with no time to help someone else, and they were like <in pouty childish voice> "I don't know how to do this, and nobody will help me, and ..." <continues for several minutes>
Programmers that learned on their own don't expect people to help them, if they don't know something, they look it up.  If they still have a problem, THEN they ask about it.
Don't get me wrong, I try to mentor other programmers.  I remember what my first job was like.  1 part "I got this", 1 part "what if I don't got this?"
But when you are putting in 60 hours a week, you don't have time to help someone else, and they weren't even trying to figure it out on their own...

[phoenixdownita]

The sad realization is that no BASIC available on 8bits allows you to get any close to the games you'd try to reproduce.

The 80s was the time of twitchy arcade games and BASIC just did not cut the mustard. You can barely scrape the barrel.

 

My first home computer was a Sega SC3000 because the store clerk convinced my parents because "SEGA" .... the games were not too bad and the BASIC cart was alright, within 2mo we returned it and got a C64 and was surprised BASIC did not require a cart, never regretted the swap, and yes the fact that its BASIC 2.0 did not allow me to program gfx or music kind of let me with a little bad taste in my mouth, but eventually I bought Simons' BASIC and I made peace with it as it really didn't make the difference I expected it to make.

 

One day I was at a friend's house, he had an MSX and he coded in BASIC a little gfx adventure, literally just 3 "rooms" coded via line, circle, fill etc... in the second "room" he had this "sun" rising from the center screen (just a circle with increasing radius being traced) and I was mesmerized by it (that's when I really wanted Simons' BASIC), I tried to reproduce it but Simons' BASIC wasn't as fast (but neither so slow to be unbearable) ... not that it mattered because even the MSX BASIC wasn't that fast (as the radius grew you could see the border being drawn) ... in the end I wanted to try to simulate a tunnel ... aka 2 "rising suns" one delayed by a certain amount of steps ... and boy oh boy was it slow. I bought an actual MSX and enjoyed greatly the Konami games and a few others, tried my little tunnel idea and it was slow still.

 

In the end even with gfx and music support BASIC was in large part a missed promise in a way, it was functional and it worked as a basic machine interface (pun intended), but you could not really make the kind of games you'd see around .... it wasn't until the time of STOS and later AMOS that one can use "BASIC" and actually, realistically build those games. GFABasic and Omicron BASIC on the Atari ST were also extremely fast but by that time I was learning compiled languages (it was the late 80s and Turbo Pascal was the "teaching" language at school) on a PC-XT and using my home Amiga to play and learn some rudimentary script (startup-sequence anyone?!?!).

 

So even if BASIC did get me interested in programming, that's really all it did for me. As I said earlier I had the chance to try for an extended amount of time both an 800xl and a ZX-Spectrum but did not fell I missed out on either with my combo C-64 and MSX ... they are all valid options to start on.

 

 

VisualBasic rekindled the spirit of "BASIC" in the mid 90 when everyone was a GUI programmer thanks to it .... nowadays I feel the place of BASIC has been taken by Python (and I don't like it any more than I ended up liking BASIC, which is more of a necessary evil ... it gets the job done ... slowly).

 

What the C64 really missed was a proper monitor/inline-assembly, in the end you needed it and DATA/POKE/PEEK were a pale surrogate, that BBC BASIC got it right (and so much more, but I still would not recommend a BBC model B unless you are a child of the UK, then you absolutely should).

[phoenixdownita]

35 minutes ago, JamesD said:

Self sufficiency!
There are so many programmers that are helpless!  
....
But when you are putting in 60 hours a week, you don't have time to help someone else, and they weren't even trying to figure it out on their own...

Yes, but in the end as always:
"if you want to go fast you go alone
if you want to go far you go together"

 

And yes, modern days have made people lazier, but there's still plenty that are actually ready to listen if you put the effort to find a way to talk to them. Obviously you can explain it to them but you cannot understand it for them, still it is worth the effort even when it leads to "not much".
My mom thought I was lazy because I wouldn't go anywhere without a bike, then a motor-bike, she used to walk a lot when she was young and poorer than she managed to lift us out of, nowadays if there's no wikipedia/intellisense etc... people have a mental block and think "it can't be done" ... it's also partially the fault of the industry that does not try that hard to teach to "fill the gap", it is what it is, I feel blessed to work surrounded by so many people much smarter than me both younger and older, and when I can share some of my knowledge even if at a certain point some tricks just cease to be relevant (no, really, modern C compilers don't need to be "hinted" by ++i vs i++ vs i+=1 etc..., we're in 64bits land and the OS memory does no longer have the highest bit address set to 1 like the 32bits "of old", even Java has a built-in for LeadingZeroCount so you can have a int(log_base2) pronto etc... etc....).

[potatohead]

17 minutes ago, JamesD said:

1 part "what if I don't got this?"

LOL

 

That still bothers me.  I am not a professional programmer, though I have written a lot of programs on a wide variety of systems.  Just took a software project, because Covid and work remote and keep options open...  

 

It's nice to have friends.  They will tell me, "write something" and then call me.    Perfect.  Making sure I continue in the same spirit.  Good.

 

But yes, given time the learn how to learn dynamic will pay off.  Just keep after it!  And it's not just programming!  That whole era, cars, computers, electronics...  If a person wants to, they can just jump in and go.  Very high value.  I wouldn't trade it for anything.  

 

 

[potatohead]

22 minutes ago, JamesD said:

and they weren't even trying to figure it out on their own...

This too, right?

 

Credit always given.  That's how I play it.  When someone gets after it, however ugly, yeah.  I'm down to help, if I can.  Worth it.  

[JamesD]

8 minutes ago, phoenixdownita said:

The sad realization is that no BASIC available on 8bits allows you to get any close to the games you'd try to reproduce.

The 80s was the time of twitchy arcade games and BASIC just did not cut the mustard. You can barely scrape the barrel.

...

So even if BASIC did get me interested in programming, that's really all it did for me. As I said earlier I had the chance to try for an extended amount of time both an 800xl and a ZX-Spectrum but did not fell I missed out on either with my combo C-64 and MSX ... they are both valid option to start on.

...

The endless rewriting, optimizing, tricks... aaaaaand it's still slow. 
I wrote some BUSINESS stuff in BASIC.  It's not bad at that because you don't need instant results.
It can also be good for adventures, simulations, etc...
Really, BASIC was sort of created as an introduction into programming, and to make programming accessible to more people.
If it got you interested in programming, it did it's job.

BASIC isn't completely useless for games, but it's clearly not on the level of assembly.
I shared this before, but for BASIC it's not bad, and I gave him some code to speed it up a little more.
The CoCo interpreter can be sped up similar to the MC-10, so with that, this would run about 10% faster. 
That wouldn't be too bad, but a BASIC compiler would make it a lot faster.
I wish this didn't have the dubbed in music. 

 

[JamesD]

13 minutes ago, phoenixdownita said:

Yes, but in the end as always:
"if you want to go fast you go alone
if you want to go far you go together"

 

And yes, modern days have made people lazier, but there's still plenty that are actually ready to listen if you put the effort to find a way to talk to them. Obviously you can explain it to them but you cannot understand it for them, still it is worth the effort even when it leads to nothing.
My mom thought I was lazy because I wouldn't go anywhere without a bike, then a motor-bike, she used to walk a lot when she was young and poorer than she managed to lift us out of, nowadays if there's no wikipedia/intellisense etc... people have a mental block and think "it can't be done" ... it's also partially the fault of the industry that does not care try that hard to teach, it is what it is, I feel blessed to work surrounded by so many people much smarter than me both younger and older, and when I can share some of my knowledge even if at a certain point some tricks just cease to be relevant (no modern C compilers don't need to be "hinted" by ++i vs i++vs i+=1 etc..., we're in 64bits land and the OS memory does no longer have the highest bit address set to 1 like the 32bits "of old").

Other than that one programmer, we were a good team.
It was one of these:
"Give me an estimate of how long this will take" 
"If we work 50 hours per week, and a couple weekends, it will take 4 weeks"
"I'll get you at least 4 weeks"
...
"you have 3 1/2 weeks starting 1/2 week ago"
It just wasn't possible.

[potatohead]

BASIC is also for people to get good use out of the computer.  Most things don't need to be fast.  Games are the hard case, obviously.

 

I know a guy who made a lot of money writing business apps in the Basic that came with most PC's.  I made a little windowing system for him.  One could be looking at reports, or inputting data, and it would pop up and display something and or take input and go away.  The whole works was text, monochrome display.  Those programs saved people a lot of time.  Was enlightening to see at the time when I was still beginning.

 

Having seen that, I came to realize BASIC is good for capturing knowledge and or automating some things.  One of the first things I did in BASIC that I went on to use over and over was sheet metal layout calculations.  One could measure a little, input some numbers and get back exactly what was needed to make the part, given material, tooling and other variables.  Did it on my Apple, then ported it to a little pocket computer I had.  The folding one.  Used it for years.  

 

On my Atari, I produced a basic inventory system for a guy down the road.  Was simple, but saved him a ton of time.  Everything fit on one floppy disk.  He could just copy for the month, file it away and continue...

 

Right now, if I were working in a shop, my Model 100 would be killer!  Lasts forever on a set of batteries, has graphics, a respectable Basic, and it would not take long to go through and put programs together to get whatever it is done, quick, old school, right.  That little pocket computer ended up making me a ton of money.  Later on, I wrote those same utilities inside a CAD system.  Not only would it do the math, but it would generate the entities needed for CNC processing.  Sold a bunch of those for a couple hundred a pop.  Got my first 386 that way.  Basic mapped right over to the simple language built into the CAD software.  All the skills mapped over, leaving me with some math to sort out.  Late 80's, early 90's.

 

That "Cosmic Aliens" effort is respectable!  That's using GET AND PUT, isn't it?  I always thought that functionality was pretty great.  A lot can be done with it.

 

 

[phoenixdownita]

19 minutes ago, JamesD said:

Other than that one programmer, we were a good team.
It was one of these:
"Give me an estimate of how long this will take" 
"If we work 50 hours per week, and a couple weekends, it will take 4 weeks"
"I'll get you at least 4 weeks"
...
"you have 3 1/2 weeks starting 1/2 week ago"
It just wasn't possible.

As we all know there are 3 variables at play:

1) scope

2) quality

3) time

 

you get to choose 2, the 3rd comes out of your choices.

 

Or, in a much more direct way:

Even when you take a crap you hardly get to decide shape (aside mostly tubular), color (mostly brown-ish but I've seen me going Pantone™ at times) and smell (from "did I do anything" to "please someone call 911, my nose is under attack"), with proper nutrition you may get ahold of a couple.