In message <ts571q$114o1$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:42:02 on Fri, 10 Feb
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 06:10:05 +0000
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <ts387r$no0j$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:50:04 on Thu, 9 Feb
>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>Oh come come. Did the CPC have an composite out, RS423, analogue input port,
>>>and optional econet port? Plus the BBC had proper ports for the printer and
>>>floppy disk, not just el-cheapo Sinclair style motherboard output
>>>tracks which
>>
>>>were just asking to be shorted out.
>>
>>Econet was a flop, as even their fanzine sites admit; and while it had a
>
>Probably ahead of its time.
>
>>diversity of built-in ports the question was: did they give value for
>>money if shipped to everyone whether they needed them or not? How many
>>home users actually required things like an analogue input.
>
>How many home Amstrad users really needed a monitor when they probably had a
>perfectly good TV they could have used?

The child didn't, only the family had one (in the living room). It was
avoiding the need to crawl around to connect that up, then monopolise,
which was one of the main the attractions of the CPC concept.

>And if the monitor died they were a bit stuffed using a non amstrad
>replacement due to the built in RGB connector cable.

The RGB connector was cunningly designed to be <<drum roll>> compatible
with the BBC micro. So whatever BBC micro users would have (and often
they cost more than a whole CPC) would be fine. On the other hand, the
failure of the monitor was very unusual. Like the 14" colour TV it was
based on, they tended to last for years.

>Presumably there were seperate RF modulators available but thats more
>money to spend.
>
>>Of course, The BBC micro didn't have a built-in cassette player (later a
>>floppy), or a bundled monitor (so a CPC composite video port was moot).
>
>And when the 464 cassette deck went wonky you couldn't easily swap it for
>another one.

On one hand they didn't often go wrong [not least because it had a
robust digital - not analogue - recording format]; on the other hand
fitting a new one was simple - just unscrew the base (ordinary screws),
then again a few ordinary screws and a simple electrical connector. No
soldering required (to coin a phrase).

>>Talking of the floppy add-on, that was designed and ready in time for
>>the press launch at Easter, ahead of the keyboard unit being in the
>
>I electrocuted myself one of your external floppy drives because genius
>decided it should have a live internal chassis! Who the feck designed that?

Don't believe you.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 06:59:19 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <ts571q$114o1$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:42:02 on Fri, 10 Feb
>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>How many home Amstrad users really needed a monitor when they probably had a
>>perfectly good TV they could have used?
>
>The child didn't, only the family had one (in the living room). It was
>avoiding the need to crawl around to connect that up, then monopolise,
>which was one of the main the attractions of the CPC concept.

Worked for almost every other home micro and console at the time.

>failure of the monitor was very unusual. Like the 14" colour TV it was
>based on, they tended to last for years.

I thought you said it was a "digital" monitor.

>>And when the 464 cassette deck went wonky you couldn't easily swap it for
>>another one.
>
>On one hand they didn't often go wrong [not least because it had a
>robust digital - not analogue - recording format]; on the other hand
>fitting a new one was simple - just unscrew the base (ordinary screws),
>then again a few ordinary screws and a simple electrical connector. No
>soldering required (to coin a phrase).

Oh very simple for a kid. Far easier than just plugging in a different
cassette deck.

>>I electrocuted myself one of your external floppy drives because genius
>>decided it should have a live internal chassis! Who the feck designed that?
>
>Don't believe you.

That doesn't surprise me as you seem to think Amstrad hardware was borderline
perfect.

It happened.

On 10/02/2023 15:56, Charles Ellson wrote:
> Crews' families are not inevitably located in the same place :-

The SSBNs are at sea for long periods so read that many of the families
only live in the Faslane area when the boat is there.

On 10/02/2023 17:07, Sam Wilson wrote:
> There’s a whole complex up there: Coulport, Faslane, Glen Douglas, Loch
> Striven. It’s a sort-of shame that the Scottish Government is so
> definitively anti-nuclear - we could make a good living from leasing those
> bases back to rUK.

Yes, that is a very large number of jobs that would be lost.

I doubt that the UK government would want to lease them from a hostile
Scottish regime.

On 11/02/2023 10:08, MB wrote:
> On 10/02/2023 15:56, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> Crews' families are not inevitably located in the same place :-
>
>
> The SSBNs are at sea for long periods so read that many of the families
> only live in the Faslane area when the boat is there.

The people who do live there are not the boat crews and their families
but the base personnel. I am sure that to them the wilds of the west of
Scotland must be quite different to Portsmouth or Plymouth.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <nepcuhle25u188541dnksfut4l7n34sed1@4ax.com>, at 15:56:01 on
Fri, 10 Feb 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

>>there are costs involved.
>>
>>Many government jobs were moved out of London to spread Civil Service
>>jobs around the country even if it cost more to do so. These will now
>>have to move into England and Wales so it only seems reasonable that
>>Scotland should pay.
>>
>What makes you think that the civil servants based in Scotland are
>dealing significantly with English rather than Scottish business?
>
>"Currently, 10 percent of all UK civil servants work in Scotland,"
>[https://www.civil-service-careers.gov.uk/scotland/]
>which suggests that there is not a disproportionate allocation when
>dealing with overall figures.

They (there's quango staff too) won't be working on exclusively Scottish
projects, any more than English civil servants deal only with English
ones.

In effect "devolving everything" would mean some Scottish workers lose
part of their role working on UK-wide things, and new Scottish workers
would need to paid for to deal with matters newly-devolved that used to
be handled by E&W based civil servants.

Because of the dis-economies of scale involved, it's almost certain to
mean greater overall cost (for one or both nations).
--
Roland Perry

In message <ts5lqd$12o25$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:05 on Fri, 10 Feb
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ts2stm$mb67$3@dont-email.me>, at 13:36:54 on Thu, 9 Feb
>> 2023, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>> On 09/02/2023 12:00, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>> [1] Yes, it’s taken a while and it’s not finished yet. I
>>>>don’t see any
>>>> reason for it to come to that extreme. Maybe Czechia and Slovakia would be
>>>> a better example but I don’t know what the relationship is
>>>>currently like.
>>>> I probably wouldn’t want to use Yugoslavia as a model.
>>>
>>> There was a report on recently on the anniversary of the Czechia /
>>> Slovakia split and it was said to have been very amicable.
>>>
>>> I think the danger if there is partition of Scotland is from the
>>> Scottish side. I can't see any official restrictions from England
>>> though I think that with all the bitterness there has been from the
>>> SNP, people might avoid Scottish products in the shops like some avoid
>>> anything from Southern Ireland.
>>>
>>> Hopefully the SNP might collapse or at least they might move back from
>>> wanting partition. Sturgeon does seem to be Dead (Wo)Man Walking.
>>>
>>> I do hope that if they do go ahead then they should pay the full cost.
>>> It is going to be expensive to split many functions that have been
>>> combined and shared for years.
>>
>> Just like the UK is having to recreate many functions that we once
>> shared with the EU. The medicines approvals agency was the first to get
>> some exposure, but probably only because the EU one used to be located
>> in the UK and had to relocate to the mainland. Taking its revenue stream
>> with them of course.
>>
>>> So the whole cost of that should be paid by Scotland.
>>
>> The British public is paying for Brexit.
>
>You’re agreeing the Scotland should pay the upfront costs, or that it would
>end up facing the same kind of consequential costs that the UK is currently
>shouldering?

Both. The former is like the UK's Divorce Payment (much swept under the
carpet, but round £35bn is latest estimate - quick, someone paint
*that* on the side of a bus); the latter the consequence of having to
build some new (to Scotland) government departments and agencies from
scratch.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ts3ijc$p0q1$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:46:52 on Thu, 9 Feb
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>> The first user to buy *my* phone, was me. Looking at the photos I took,
>> I'm reminded that the first outing was as a teller on Saturday May 8th
>> 2021 [second day, after the Thursday vote; PCC and Mayor, on the Friday
>> we counted the councillors], as a plane buff you can perhaps identify
>> the location:
>>
>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Election_2021.jpg
>
>something with the word Concorde on it, but I don’t think it’s a Concorde

That's where you'd be wrong. It was the hardest bit to get in frame,
because it only just fits between other stuff in the sight-line, and we
weren't allowed to wander around to get a better framing.

>and there’s a missile I don’t recognise at the far left.

Out of shot to the left is a Polaris missile, which is much fatter.
--
Roland Perry

On 08/02/2023 16:21, MB wrote:
> On 02/02/2023 12:06, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> And then a Shetlandic speaker threw a spanner in the works.
>
>
> I have mentioned before, some friends' children would something go into
> really thick Buchan if they wanted to annoy you!
>
> Years ago I worked around Aberdeen several times and people would often
> ask if I could understand the but I never had any problem.

Round here children talk in Welsh when they don't want adults to know
what they're talking about.

In message <mfcqZfemL45jFArA@perry.uk>, at 11:58:30 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>In message <ts3ijc$p0q1$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:46:52 on Thu, 9 Feb
>2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> The first user to buy *my* phone, was me. Looking at the photos I took,
>>> I'm reminded that the first outing was as a teller on Saturday May 8th
>>> 2021 [second day, after the Thursday vote; PCC and Mayor, on the Friday
>>> we counted the councillors], as a plane buff you can perhaps identify
>>> the location:
>>>
>>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Election_2021.jpg
>>
>>something with the word Concorde on it, but I don’t think it’s a Concorde
>
>That's where you'd be wrong. It was the hardest bit to get in frame,
>because it only just fits between other stuff in the sight-line, and we
>weren't allowed to wander around to get a better framing.
>
>>and there’s a missile I don’t recognise at the far left.
>
>Out of shot to the left is a Polaris missile, which is much fatter.

And talking of being out of shot, I spent much of the time sitting at a
table looking like the one very bottom left (but the year before, and I
don't think the fighter plane was there)...

<https://www.scambs.gov.uk/elections-results-from-south-cambridgeshire-
district-council/>

Got roped in because I knew someone who was working for SCDC at the
time, and they were very short of volunteers, not least because of all
the Covid restrictions (and we weren't allowed any food and drink
inside, for reasons I never fully understood; it was a case of "bring a
picnic, but you have to eat it standing in the wind and rain in the car
park").
--
Roland Perry

Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 08/02/2023 16:21, MB wrote:
>> On 02/02/2023 12:06, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>> And then a Shetlandic speaker threw a spanner in the works.
>>
>>
>> I have mentioned before, some friends' children would something go into
>> really thick Buchan if they wanted to annoy you!
>>
>> Years ago I worked around Aberdeen several times and people would often
>> ask if I could understand the but I never had any problem.
>
> Round here children talk in Welsh when they don't want adults to know
> what they're talking about.
>

That doesn't necessarily work so well in North and Mid Wales as it does in
South Wales ;)

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <ts7pcg$1cps4$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:07:12 on Sat, 11 Feb
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 06:59:19 +0000
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <ts571q$114o1$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:42:02 on Fri, 10 Feb
>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>How many home Amstrad users really needed a monitor when they probably had a
>>>perfectly good TV they could have used?
>>
>>The child didn't, only the family had one (in the living room). It was
>>avoiding the need to crawl around to connect that up, then monopolise,
>>which was one of the main the attractions of the CPC concept.
>
>Worked for almost every other home micro and console at the time.

Only for the people for whom it worked. The rest Dad said "Over my dead
body".

>>failure of the monitor was very unusual. Like the 14" colour TV it was
>>based on, they tended to last for years.
>
>I thought you said it was a "digital" monitor.

Yes, and 99% of the insides was the same as that TV.

>>>And when the 464 cassette deck went wonky you couldn't easily swap it for
>>>another one.
>>
>>On one hand they didn't often go wrong [not least because it had a
>>robust digital - not analogue - recording format]; on the other hand
>>fitting a new one was simple - just unscrew the base (ordinary screws),
>>then again a few ordinary screws and a simple electrical connector. No
>>soldering required (to coin a phrase).
>
>Oh very simple for a kid. Far easier than just plugging in a different
>cassette deck.

How many kids would even have a selection of crummy audio cassette
players to try?

>>>I electrocuted myself one of your external floppy drives because genius
>>>decided it should have a live internal chassis! Who the feck designed that?
>>
>>Don't believe you.
>
>That doesn't surprise me as you seem to think Amstrad hardware was borderline
>perfect.

Not at all. I've always said it was extremely good value for money.

If you paid twice as much you might get something a little better, but
on balance people who didn't have twice as much money were happy with
what they got.

--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 15:34:23 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <ts7pcg$1cps4$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:07:12 on Sat, 11 Feb
>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>Worked for almost every other home micro and console at the time.
>
>Only for the people for whom it worked. The rest Dad said "Over my dead
>body".

Certainly there was barganing when I wanted to use my ZX81 :)

>>>failure of the monitor was very unusual. Like the 14" colour TV it was
>>>based on, they tended to last for years.
>>
>>I thought you said it was a "digital" monitor.
>
>Yes, and 99% of the insides was the same as that TV.

I doubt many early 80s portables were digital inside except for maybe a
teletext decoder but they were generally reserved for bigger sets.

>>Oh very simple for a kid. Far easier than just plugging in a different
>>cassette deck.
>
>How many kids would even have a selection of crummy audio cassette
>players to try?

None. But mum and dad might.

>>That doesn't surprise me as you seem to think Amstrad hardware was borderline
>>perfect.
>
>Not at all. I've always said it was extremely good value for money.

Yes, it was. But it had its flaws too.

>If you paid twice as much you might get something a little better, but
>on balance people who didn't have twice as much money were happy with
>what they got.

Admittedly 3 years after the CPC, but in 1987 you could get an Amiga for
500 quid which was considerably more than a "little better". It blew every
other home computer other than the ST out of the water.

Incidentaly, what was the deal with the GX4000? Why did Sugar think anyone
would buy a console version of the CPC?

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <ts571q$114o1$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:42:02 on Fri, 10 Feb
> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 06:10:05 +0000
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ts387r$no0j$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:50:04 on Thu, 9 Feb
>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> Oh come come. Did the CPC have an composite out, RS423, analogue input port,
>>>> and optional econet port? Plus the BBC had proper ports for the printer and
>>>> floppy disk, not just el-cheapo Sinclair style motherboard output
>>>> tracks which
>>>
>>>> were just asking to be shorted out.
>>>
>>> Econet was a flop, as even their fanzine sites admit; and while it had a
>>
>> Probably ahead of its time.
>>
>>> diversity of built-in ports the question was: did they give value for
>>> money if shipped to everyone whether they needed them or not? How many
>>> home users actually required things like an analogue input.
>>
>> How many home Amstrad users really needed a monitor when they probably had a
>> perfectly good TV they could have used?
>
> The child didn't, only the family had one (in the living room). It was
> avoiding the need to crawl around to connect that up, then monopolise,
> which was one of the main the attractions of the CPC concept.
>
>> And if the monitor died they were a bit stuffed using a non amstrad
>> replacement due to the built in RGB connector cable.
>
> The RGB connector was cunningly designed to be <<drum roll>> compatible
> with the BBC micro. So whatever BBC micro users would have (and often
> they cost more than a whole CPC) would be fine. On the other hand, the
> failure of the monitor was very unusual. Like the 14" colour TV it was
> based on, they tended to last for years.

And being based on a colour TV they would have been relatively low quality,
both in the tube and dot pitch and in the driving electronics which likely
had a sharp low pass filter at around 5 MHz. That made high contrast
pixel-based images such as text not as sharp as they might have been. I
remember hitting this issue when looking at processing ultrasound images at
around the time the BBC came out, and looking for suitable monitors for
both text and image work: “Oh, look, the popularity of home computers means
there are cheap monitors!” “Oh, they’re cheap because they’re based on
colour TV tubes…”

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 08/02/2023 16:21, MB wrote:
>>> On 02/02/2023 12:06, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>> And then a Shetlandic speaker threw a spanner in the works.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have mentioned before, some friends' children would something go into
>>> really thick Buchan if they wanted to annoy you!
>>>
>>> Years ago I worked around Aberdeen several times and people would often
>>> ask if I could understand the but I never had any problem.
>>
>> Round here children talk in Welsh when they don't want adults to know
>> what they're talking about.
>>
>
> That doesn't necessarily work so well in North and Mid Wales as it does in
> South Wales ;)

West Wales, really - anywhere west of Gorseinon, said my friend from
Gorseinon.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 08/02/2023 16:21, MB wrote:
>>>> On 02/02/2023 12:06, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>> And then a Shetlandic speaker threw a spanner in the works.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have mentioned before, some friends' children would something go into
>>>> really thick Buchan if they wanted to annoy you!
>>>>
>>>> Years ago I worked around Aberdeen several times and people would often
>>>> ask if I could understand the but I never had any problem.
>>>
>>> Round here children talk in Welsh when they don't want adults to know
>>> what they're talking about.
>>>
>>
>> That doesn't necessarily work so well in North and Mid Wales as it does in
>> South Wales ;)
>
> West Wales, really - anywhere west of Gorseinon, said my friend from
> Gorseinon.

Looking back that was a really unintelligible comment. I meant it wouldn’t
work in West Wales either.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 08/02/2023 16:21, MB wrote:
>>>>> On 02/02/2023 12:06, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> And then a Shetlandic speaker threw a spanner in the works.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have mentioned before, some friends' children would something go into
>>>>> really thick Buchan if they wanted to annoy you!
>>>>>
>>>>> Years ago I worked around Aberdeen several times and people would often
>>>>> ask if I could understand the but I never had any problem.
>>>>
>>>> Round here children talk in Welsh when they don't want adults to know
>>>> what they're talking about.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That doesn't necessarily work so well in North and Mid Wales as it does in
>>> South Wales ;)
>>
>> West Wales, really - anywhere west of Gorseinon, said my friend from
>> Gorseinon.
>
> Looking back that was a really unintelligible comment. I meant it wouldn’t
> work in West Wales either.
>

Last year I stayed in Tenby with friends - very English-speaking. But one
day we drove 36 miles to the National Wool Museum
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/woJU9mdiGZgJ6SFY6>, and the ladies working in the
cafe were speaking Welsh to each other.

When I wrote my post, I was thinking more about Llandudno and the
surrounding area, where I grew up. My parents spoke no Welsh, but I learned
it in school; my sister and her husband both can speak Welsh but it's not
the language of the household. My niece is learning Welsh at school. I dare
say that their household isn't unusual - anyone of a certain age who went
to school in the area will have learned Welsh.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <ts8n8e$1fuge$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:37:02 on Sat, 11 Feb
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ts571q$114o1$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:42:02 on Fri, 10 Feb
>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 06:10:05 +0000
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ts387r$no0j$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:50:04 on Thu, 9 Feb
>>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> Oh come come. Did the CPC have an composite out, RS423, analogue
>>>>>input port,
>>>>> and optional econet port? Plus the BBC had proper ports for the
>>>>>printer and
>>>>> floppy disk, not just el-cheapo Sinclair style motherboard output
>>>>> tracks which
>>>>
>>>>> were just asking to be shorted out.
>>>>
>>>> Econet was a flop, as even their fanzine sites admit; and while it had a
>>>
>>> Probably ahead of its time.
>>>
>>>> diversity of built-in ports the question was: did they give value for
>>>> money if shipped to everyone whether they needed them or not? How many
>>>> home users actually required things like an analogue input.
>>>
>>> How many home Amstrad users really needed a monitor when they probably had a
>>> perfectly good TV they could have used?
>>
>> The child didn't, only the family had one (in the living room). It was
>> avoiding the need to crawl around to connect that up, then monopolise,
>> which was one of the main the attractions of the CPC concept.
>>
>>> And if the monitor died they were a bit stuffed using a non amstrad
>>> replacement due to the built in RGB connector cable.
>>
>> The RGB connector was cunningly designed to be <<drum roll>> compatible
>> with the BBC micro. So whatever BBC micro users would have (and often
>> they cost more than a whole CPC) would be fine. On the other hand, the
>> failure of the monitor was very unusual. Like the 14" colour TV it was
>> based on, they tended to last for years.
>
>And being based on a colour TV they would have been relatively low quality,
>both in the tube and dot pitch and in the driving electronics which likely
>had a sharp low pass filter at around 5 MHz. That made high contrast
>pixel-based images such as text not as sharp as they might have been.

>I
>remember hitting this issue when looking at processing ultrasound images at
>around the time the BBC came out, and looking for suitable monitors for
>both text and image work: “Oh, look, the popularity of home computers means
>there are cheap monitors!” “Oh, they’re cheap because they’re
>based on
>colour TV tubes…”
>
>Sam
>

--
Roland Perry

In message <ts8n8e$1fuge$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:37:02 on Sat, 11 Feb
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ts571q$114o1$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:42:02 on Fri, 10 Feb
>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 06:10:05 +0000
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ts387r$no0j$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:50:04 on Thu, 9 Feb
>>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> Oh come come. Did the CPC have an composite out, RS423, analogue
>>>>>input port, and optional econet port? Plus the BBC had proper
>>>>>ports for the printer and floppy disk, not just el-cheapo Sinclair
>>>>>style motherboard output tracks which were just asking to be shorted out.
>>>>
>>>> Econet was a flop, as even their fanzine sites admit; and while it had a
>>>
>>> Probably ahead of its time.
>>>
>>>> diversity of built-in ports the question was: did they give value for
>>>> money if shipped to everyone whether they needed them or not? How many
>>>> home users actually required things like an analogue input.
>>>
>>> How many home Amstrad users really needed a monitor when they probably had a
>>> perfectly good TV they could have used?
>>
>> The child didn't, only the family had one (in the living room). It was
>> avoiding the need to crawl around to connect that up, then monopolise,
>> which was one of the main the attractions of the CPC concept.
>>
>>> And if the monitor died they were a bit stuffed using a non amstrad
>>> replacement due to the built in RGB connector cable.
>>
>> The RGB connector was cunningly designed to be <<drum roll>> compatible
>> with the BBC micro. So whatever BBC micro users would have (and often
>> they cost more than a whole CPC) would be fine. On the other hand, the
>> failure of the monitor was very unusual. Like the 14" colour TV it was
>> based on, they tended to last for years.
>
>And being based on a colour TV they would have been relatively low quality,
>both in the tube and dot pitch and in the driving electronics which likely
>had a sharp low pass filter at around 5 MHz. That made high contrast
>pixel-based images such as text not as sharp as they might have been.

If you wanted sharper, then buy a "professional" monitor. Only £200
perhaps (£600 in today's money). In any event a dedicated RGB monitor
is always going to be sharper than the same size TV driven via a UHF
modulator.

>I remember hitting this issue when looking at processing ultrasound
>images at around the time the BBC came out, and looking for suitable
>monitors for both text and image work: “Oh, look, the popularity of
>home computers means there are cheap monitors!” “Oh, they’re
>cheap because they’re based on colour TV tubes…”

At home I had an extremely expensive Sony "separates" TV system (27"
Profeel). The tuner and Teletext decoder were in set-top boxes and the
idea was you could upgrade just those, if some new features became
popular.

Unfortunately they never did produce v2 of those set-top boxes. If
they'd had a picture-in-picture one, I would probably have bought it.

However, the monitor lasted about 20yrs (with 3rd party SCART set-top
boxes), and I only got rid of it because it was a bit big and heavy by
modern standards. Having skipped the temptation to get a Plasma
flatscreen, I eventually bought a big LCD in around 2005, which itself
lasted until two years ago. Now I have a 55" OLED.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <ts8n8e$1fuge$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:37:02 on Sat, 11 Feb
> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ts571q$114o1$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:42:02 on Fri, 10 Feb
>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 06:10:05 +0000
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <ts387r$no0j$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:50:04 on Thu, 9 Feb
>>>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>> Oh come come. Did the CPC have an composite out, RS423, analogue
>>>>>> input port, and optional econet port? Plus the BBC had proper
>>>>>> ports for the printer and floppy disk, not just el-cheapo Sinclair
>>>>>> style motherboard output tracks which were just asking to be shorted out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Econet was a flop, as even their fanzine sites admit; and while it had a
>>>>
>>>> Probably ahead of its time.
>>>>
>>>>> diversity of built-in ports the question was: did they give value for
>>>>> money if shipped to everyone whether they needed them or not? How many
>>>>> home users actually required things like an analogue input.
>>>>
>>>> How many home Amstrad users really needed a monitor when they probably had a
>>>> perfectly good TV they could have used?
>>>
>>> The child didn't, only the family had one (in the living room). It was
>>> avoiding the need to crawl around to connect that up, then monopolise,
>>> which was one of the main the attractions of the CPC concept.
>>>
>>>> And if the monitor died they were a bit stuffed using a non amstrad
>>>> replacement due to the built in RGB connector cable.
>>>
>>> The RGB connector was cunningly designed to be <<drum roll>> compatible
>>> with the BBC micro. So whatever BBC micro users would have (and often
>>> they cost more than a whole CPC) would be fine. On the other hand, the
>>> failure of the monitor was very unusual. Like the 14" colour TV it was
>>> based on, they tended to last for years.
>>
>> And being based on a colour TV they would have been relatively low quality,
>> both in the tube and dot pitch and in the driving electronics which likely
>> had a sharp low pass filter at around 5 MHz. That made high contrast
>> pixel-based images such as text not as sharp as they might have been.
>
> If you wanted sharper, then buy a "professional" monitor. Only £200
> perhaps (£600 in today's money). In any event a dedicated RGB monitor
> is always going to be sharper than the same size TV driven via a UHF
> modulator.
>
>> I remember hitting this issue when looking at processing ultrasound
>> images at around the time the BBC came out, and looking for suitable
>> monitors for both text and image work: “Oh, look, the popularity of
>> home computers means there are cheap monitors!” “Oh, they’re
>> cheap because they’re based on colour TV tubes…”
>
> At home I had an extremely expensive Sony "separates" TV system (27"
> Profeel). The tuner and Teletext decoder were in set-top boxes and the
> idea was you could upgrade just those, if some new features became
> popular.

Snap! I bought one of those, too.

>
> Unfortunately they never did produce v2 of those set-top boxes. If
> they'd had a picture-in-picture one, I would probably have bought it.

Yes, I too was disappointed that they never followed up with upgraded
components.

>
> However, the monitor lasted about 20yrs (with 3rd party SCART set-top
> boxes), and I only got rid of it because it was a bit big and heavy by
> modern standards.

Mine failed on me disappointingly quickly, so I replaced it with a 29"
Toshiba conventional telly, which worked perfectly till I replaced it with
a 46" flat screen Samsung with 3D features. Like most people, I didn't take
to 3D TV, and hated the powered, paired glasses you had to wear. I soon
abandoned that feature, and, in any case, 3D TV wasn't broadcast for long
in the UK.

> Having skipped the temptation to get a Plasma
> flatscreen, I eventually bought a big LCD in around 2005, which itself
> lasted until two years ago. Now I have a 55" OLED.

Yup, I'm at that size too, now.

On 12/02/2023 09:46, Recliner wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ts8n8e$1fuge$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:37:02 on Sat, 11 Feb
>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ts571q$114o1$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:42:02 on Fri, 10 Feb
>>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 06:10:05 +0000
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ts387r$no0j$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:50:04 on Thu, 9 Feb
>>>>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>> Oh come come. Did the CPC have an composite out, RS423, analogue
>>>>>>> input port, and optional econet port? Plus the BBC had proper
>>>>>>> ports for the printer and floppy disk, not just el-cheapo Sinclair
>>>>>>> style motherboard output tracks which were just asking to be shorted out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Econet was a flop, as even their fanzine sites admit; and while it had a
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably ahead of its time.
>>>>>
>>>>>> diversity of built-in ports the question was: did they give value for
>>>>>> money if shipped to everyone whether they needed them or not? How many
>>>>>> home users actually required things like an analogue input.
>>>>>
>>>>> How many home Amstrad users really needed a monitor when they probably had a
>>>>> perfectly good TV they could have used?
>>>>
>>>> The child didn't, only the family had one (in the living room). It was
>>>> avoiding the need to crawl around to connect that up, then monopolise,
>>>> which was one of the main the attractions of the CPC concept.
>>>>
>>>>> And if the monitor died they were a bit stuffed using a non amstrad
>>>>> replacement due to the built in RGB connector cable.
>>>>
>>>> The RGB connector was cunningly designed to be <<drum roll>> compatible
>>>> with the BBC micro. So whatever BBC micro users would have (and often
>>>> they cost more than a whole CPC) would be fine. On the other hand, the
>>>> failure of the monitor was very unusual. Like the 14" colour TV it was
>>>> based on, they tended to last for years.
>>>
>>> And being based on a colour TV they would have been relatively low quality,
>>> both in the tube and dot pitch and in the driving electronics which likely
>>> had a sharp low pass filter at around 5 MHz. That made high contrast
>>> pixel-based images such as text not as sharp as they might have been.
>>
>> If you wanted sharper, then buy a "professional" monitor. Only £200
>> perhaps (£600 in today's money). In any event a dedicated RGB monitor
>> is always going to be sharper than the same size TV driven via a UHF
>> modulator.
>>
>>> I remember hitting this issue when looking at processing ultrasound
>>> images at around the time the BBC came out, and looking for suitable
>>> monitors for both text and image work: “Oh, look, the popularity of
>>> home computers means there are cheap monitors!” “Oh, they’re
>>> cheap because they’re based on colour TV tubes…”
>>
>> At home I had an extremely expensive Sony "separates" TV system (27"
>> Profeel). The tuner and Teletext decoder were in set-top boxes and the
>> idea was you could upgrade just those, if some new features became
>> popular.
>
> Snap! I bought one of those, too.
>
>>
>> Unfortunately they never did produce v2 of those set-top boxes. If
>> they'd had a picture-in-picture one, I would probably have bought it.
>
> Yes, I too was disappointed that they never followed up with upgraded
> components.
>
>>
>> However, the monitor lasted about 20yrs (with 3rd party SCART set-top
>> boxes), and I only got rid of it because it was a bit big and heavy by
>> modern standards.
>
> Mine failed on me disappointingly quickly, so I replaced it with a 29"
> Toshiba conventional telly, which worked perfectly till I replaced it with
> a 46" flat screen Samsung with 3D features. Like most people, I didn't take
> to 3D TV, and hated the powered, paired glasses you had to wear. I soon
> abandoned that feature, and, in any case, 3D TV wasn't broadcast for long
> in the UK.
>

3D goes in roughly 30 year cycles,[1] so expect it to come back into
fashion in about 20 years or so.

[1] 30 years is about the time for a new generation of whizz-kids to
forget how crap it was and decide it is the next must-have. This has
been going on since the 19th century.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 12/02/2023 09:46, Recliner wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ts8n8e$1fuge$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:37:02 on Sat, 11 Feb
>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <ts571q$114o1$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:42:02 on Fri, 10 Feb
>>>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 06:10:05 +0000
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <ts387r$no0j$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:50:04 on Thu, 9 Feb
>>>>>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>> Oh come come. Did the CPC have an composite out, RS423, analogue
>>>>>>>> input port, and optional econet port? Plus the BBC had proper
>>>>>>>> ports for the printer and floppy disk, not just el-cheapo Sinclair
>>>>>>>> style motherboard output tracks which were just asking to be shorted out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Econet was a flop, as even their fanzine sites admit; and while it had a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably ahead of its time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diversity of built-in ports the question was: did they give value for
>>>>>>> money if shipped to everyone whether they needed them or not? How many
>>>>>>> home users actually required things like an analogue input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many home Amstrad users really needed a monitor when they probably had a
>>>>>> perfectly good TV they could have used?
>>>>>
>>>>> The child didn't, only the family had one (in the living room). It was
>>>>> avoiding the need to crawl around to connect that up, then monopolise,
>>>>> which was one of the main the attractions of the CPC concept.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And if the monitor died they were a bit stuffed using a non amstrad
>>>>>> replacement due to the built in RGB connector cable.
>>>>>
>>>>> The RGB connector was cunningly designed to be <<drum roll>> compatible
>>>>> with the BBC micro. So whatever BBC micro users would have (and often
>>>>> they cost more than a whole CPC) would be fine. On the other hand, the
>>>>> failure of the monitor was very unusual. Like the 14" colour TV it was
>>>>> based on, they tended to last for years.
>>>>
>>>> And being based on a colour TV they would have been relatively low quality,
>>>> both in the tube and dot pitch and in the driving electronics which likely
>>>> had a sharp low pass filter at around 5 MHz. That made high contrast
>>>> pixel-based images such as text not as sharp as they might have been.
>>>
>>> If you wanted sharper, then buy a "professional" monitor. Only £200
>>> perhaps (£600 in today's money). In any event a dedicated RGB monitor
>>> is always going to be sharper than the same size TV driven via a UHF
>>> modulator.
>>>
>>>> I remember hitting this issue when looking at processing ultrasound
>>>> images at around the time the BBC came out, and looking for suitable
>>>> monitors for both text and image work: “Oh, look, the popularity of
>>>> home computers means there are cheap monitors!” “Oh, they’re
>>>> cheap because they’re based on colour TV tubes…”
>>>
>>> At home I had an extremely expensive Sony "separates" TV system (27"
>>> Profeel). The tuner and Teletext decoder were in set-top boxes and the
>>> idea was you could upgrade just those, if some new features became
>>> popular.
>>
>> Snap! I bought one of those, too.
>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately they never did produce v2 of those set-top boxes. If
>>> they'd had a picture-in-picture one, I would probably have bought it.
>>
>> Yes, I too was disappointed that they never followed up with upgraded
>> components.
>>
>>>
>>> However, the monitor lasted about 20yrs (with 3rd party SCART set-top
>>> boxes), and I only got rid of it because it was a bit big and heavy by
>>> modern standards.
>>
>> Mine failed on me disappointingly quickly, so I replaced it with a 29"
>> Toshiba conventional telly, which worked perfectly till I replaced it with
>> a 46" flat screen Samsung with 3D features. Like most people, I didn't take
>> to 3D TV, and hated the powered, paired glasses you had to wear. I soon
>> abandoned that feature, and, in any case, 3D TV wasn't broadcast for long
>> in the UK.
>>
>
> 3D goes in roughly 30 year cycles,[1] so expect it to come back into
> fashion in about 20 years or so.
>
> [1] 30 years is about the time for a new generation of whizz-kids to
> forget how crap it was and decide it is the next must-have. This has
> been going on since the 19th century.

Like wars, then.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 12/02/2023 09:46, Recliner wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ts8n8e$1fuge$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:37:02 on Sat, 11 Feb
>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <ts571q$114o1$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:42:02 on Fri, 10 Feb
>>>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 06:10:05 +0000
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <ts387r$no0j$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:50:04 on Thu, 9 Feb
>>>>>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>> Oh come come. Did the CPC have an composite out, RS423, analogue
>>>>>>>> input port, and optional econet port? Plus the BBC had proper
>>>>>>>> ports for the printer and floppy disk, not just el-cheapo Sinclair
>>>>>>>> style motherboard output tracks which were just asking to be shorted out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Econet was a flop, as even their fanzine sites admit; and while it had a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably ahead of its time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diversity of built-in ports the question was: did they give value for
>>>>>>> money if shipped to everyone whether they needed them or not? How many
>>>>>>> home users actually required things like an analogue input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many home Amstrad users really needed a monitor when they probably had a
>>>>>> perfectly good TV they could have used?
>>>>>
>>>>> The child didn't, only the family had one (in the living room). It was
>>>>> avoiding the need to crawl around to connect that up, then monopolise,
>>>>> which was one of the main the attractions of the CPC concept.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And if the monitor died they were a bit stuffed using a non amstrad
>>>>>> replacement due to the built in RGB connector cable.
>>>>>
>>>>> The RGB connector was cunningly designed to be <<drum roll>> compatible
>>>>> with the BBC micro. So whatever BBC micro users would have (and often
>>>>> they cost more than a whole CPC) would be fine. On the other hand, the
>>>>> failure of the monitor was very unusual. Like the 14" colour TV it was
>>>>> based on, they tended to last for years.
>>>>
>>>> And being based on a colour TV they would have been relatively low quality,
>>>> both in the tube and dot pitch and in the driving electronics which likely
>>>> had a sharp low pass filter at around 5 MHz. That made high contrast
>>>> pixel-based images such as text not as sharp as they might have been.
>>>
>>> If you wanted sharper, then buy a "professional" monitor. Only £200
>>> perhaps (£600 in today's money). In any event a dedicated RGB monitor
>>> is always going to be sharper than the same size TV driven via a UHF
>>> modulator.
>>>
>>>> I remember hitting this issue when looking at processing ultrasound
>>>> images at around the time the BBC came out, and looking for suitable
>>>> monitors for both text and image work: “Oh, look, the popularity of
>>>> home computers means there are cheap monitors!” “Oh, they’re
>>>> cheap because they’re based on colour TV tubes…”
>>>
>>> At home I had an extremely expensive Sony "separates" TV system (27"
>>> Profeel). The tuner and Teletext decoder were in set-top boxes and the
>>> idea was you could upgrade just those, if some new features became
>>> popular.
>>
>> Snap! I bought one of those, too.
>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately they never did produce v2 of those set-top boxes. If
>>> they'd had a picture-in-picture one, I would probably have bought it.
>>
>> Yes, I too was disappointed that they never followed up with upgraded
>> components.
>>
>>>
>>> However, the monitor lasted about 20yrs (with 3rd party SCART set-top
>>> boxes), and I only got rid of it because it was a bit big and heavy by
>>> modern standards.
>>
>> Mine failed on me disappointingly quickly, so I replaced it with a 29"
>> Toshiba conventional telly, which worked perfectly till I replaced it with
>> a 46" flat screen Samsung with 3D features. Like most people, I didn't take
>> to 3D TV, and hated the powered, paired glasses you had to wear. I soon
>> abandoned that feature, and, in any case, 3D TV wasn't broadcast for long
>> in the UK.
>>
>
> 3D goes in roughly 30 year cycles,[1] so expect it to come back into
> fashion in about 20 years or so.

I've not tried the VR headsets that Zuckerberg thinks we'll all soon be
wearing — do they present a 3D simulated view of the Metaverse?

>
> [1] 30 years is about the time for a new generation of whizz-kids to
> forget how crap it was and decide it is the next must-have. This has
> been going on since the 19th century.

Perhaps the cycle has accelerated this time round, thanks to VR?

On 12/02/2023 10:08, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 12/02/2023 09:46, Recliner wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ts8n8e$1fuge$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:37:02 on Sat, 11 Feb
>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ts571q$114o1$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:42:02 on Fri, 10 Feb
>>>>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 06:10:05 +0000
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <ts387r$no0j$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:50:04 on Thu, 9 Feb
>>>>>>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Oh come come. Did the CPC have an composite out, RS423, analogue
>>>>>>>>> input port, and optional econet port? Plus the BBC had proper
>>>>>>>>> ports for the printer and floppy disk, not just el-cheapo Sinclair
>>>>>>>>> style motherboard output tracks which were just asking to be shorted out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Econet was a flop, as even their fanzine sites admit; and while it had a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Probably ahead of its time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diversity of built-in ports the question was: did they give value for
>>>>>>>> money if shipped to everyone whether they needed them or not? How many
>>>>>>>> home users actually required things like an analogue input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How many home Amstrad users really needed a monitor when they probably had a
>>>>>>> perfectly good TV they could have used?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The child didn't, only the family had one (in the living room). It was
>>>>>> avoiding the need to crawl around to connect that up, then monopolise,
>>>>>> which was one of the main the attractions of the CPC concept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if the monitor died they were a bit stuffed using a non amstrad
>>>>>>> replacement due to the built in RGB connector cable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The RGB connector was cunningly designed to be <<drum roll>> compatible
>>>>>> with the BBC micro. So whatever BBC micro users would have (and often
>>>>>> they cost more than a whole CPC) would be fine. On the other hand, the
>>>>>> failure of the monitor was very unusual. Like the 14" colour TV it was
>>>>>> based on, they tended to last for years.
>>>>>
>>>>> And being based on a colour TV they would have been relatively low quality,
>>>>> both in the tube and dot pitch and in the driving electronics which likely
>>>>> had a sharp low pass filter at around 5 MHz. That made high contrast
>>>>> pixel-based images such as text not as sharp as they might have been.
>>>>
>>>> If you wanted sharper, then buy a "professional" monitor. Only £200
>>>> perhaps (£600 in today's money). In any event a dedicated RGB monitor
>>>> is always going to be sharper than the same size TV driven via a UHF
>>>> modulator.
>>>>
>>>>> I remember hitting this issue when looking at processing ultrasound
>>>>> images at around the time the BBC came out, and looking for suitable
>>>>> monitors for both text and image work: “Oh, look, the popularity of
>>>>> home computers means there are cheap monitors!” “Oh, they’re
>>>>> cheap because they’re based on colour TV tubes…”
>>>>
>>>> At home I had an extremely expensive Sony "separates" TV system (27"
>>>> Profeel). The tuner and Teletext decoder were in set-top boxes and the
>>>> idea was you could upgrade just those, if some new features became
>>>> popular.
>>>
>>> Snap! I bought one of those, too.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately they never did produce v2 of those set-top boxes. If
>>>> they'd had a picture-in-picture one, I would probably have bought it.
>>>
>>> Yes, I too was disappointed that they never followed up with upgraded
>>> components.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, the monitor lasted about 20yrs (with 3rd party SCART set-top
>>>> boxes), and I only got rid of it because it was a bit big and heavy by
>>>> modern standards.
>>>
>>> Mine failed on me disappointingly quickly, so I replaced it with a 29"
>>> Toshiba conventional telly, which worked perfectly till I replaced it with
>>> a 46" flat screen Samsung with 3D features. Like most people, I didn't take
>>> to 3D TV, and hated the powered, paired glasses you had to wear. I soon
>>> abandoned that feature, and, in any case, 3D TV wasn't broadcast for long
>>> in the UK.
>>>
>>
>> 3D goes in roughly 30 year cycles,[1] so expect it to come back into
>> fashion in about 20 years or so.
>>
>> [1] 30 years is about the time for a new generation of whizz-kids to
>> forget how crap it was and decide it is the next must-have. This has
>> been going on since the 19th century.
>
> Like wars, then.
>

That's too accurate to be funny!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 12/02/2023 10:12, Recliner wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 12/02/2023 09:46, Recliner wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ts8n8e$1fuge$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:37:02 on Sat, 11 Feb
>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ts571q$114o1$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:42:02 on Fri, 10 Feb
>>>>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 06:10:05 +0000
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <ts387r$no0j$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:50:04 on Thu, 9 Feb
>>>>>>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Oh come come. Did the CPC have an composite out, RS423, analogue
>>>>>>>>> input port, and optional econet port? Plus the BBC had proper
>>>>>>>>> ports for the printer and floppy disk, not just el-cheapo Sinclair
>>>>>>>>> style motherboard output tracks which were just asking to be shorted out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Econet was a flop, as even their fanzine sites admit; and while it had a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Probably ahead of its time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diversity of built-in ports the question was: did they give value for
>>>>>>>> money if shipped to everyone whether they needed them or not? How many
>>>>>>>> home users actually required things like an analogue input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How many home Amstrad users really needed a monitor when they probably had a
>>>>>>> perfectly good TV they could have used?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The child didn't, only the family had one (in the living room). It was
>>>>>> avoiding the need to crawl around to connect that up, then monopolise,
>>>>>> which was one of the main the attractions of the CPC concept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if the monitor died they were a bit stuffed using a non amstrad
>>>>>>> replacement due to the built in RGB connector cable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The RGB connector was cunningly designed to be <<drum roll>> compatible
>>>>>> with the BBC micro. So whatever BBC micro users would have (and often
>>>>>> they cost more than a whole CPC) would be fine. On the other hand, the
>>>>>> failure of the monitor was very unusual. Like the 14" colour TV it was
>>>>>> based on, they tended to last for years.
>>>>>
>>>>> And being based on a colour TV they would have been relatively low quality,
>>>>> both in the tube and dot pitch and in the driving electronics which likely
>>>>> had a sharp low pass filter at around 5 MHz. That made high contrast
>>>>> pixel-based images such as text not as sharp as they might have been.
>>>>
>>>> If you wanted sharper, then buy a "professional" monitor. Only £200
>>>> perhaps (£600 in today's money). In any event a dedicated RGB monitor
>>>> is always going to be sharper than the same size TV driven via a UHF
>>>> modulator.
>>>>
>>>>> I remember hitting this issue when looking at processing ultrasound
>>>>> images at around the time the BBC came out, and looking for suitable
>>>>> monitors for both text and image work: “Oh, look, the popularity of
>>>>> home computers means there are cheap monitors!” “Oh, they’re
>>>>> cheap because they’re based on colour TV tubes…”
>>>>
>>>> At home I had an extremely expensive Sony "separates" TV system (27"
>>>> Profeel). The tuner and Teletext decoder were in set-top boxes and the
>>>> idea was you could upgrade just those, if some new features became
>>>> popular.
>>>
>>> Snap! I bought one of those, too.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately they never did produce v2 of those set-top boxes. If
>>>> they'd had a picture-in-picture one, I would probably have bought it.
>>>
>>> Yes, I too was disappointed that they never followed up with upgraded
>>> components.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, the monitor lasted about 20yrs (with 3rd party SCART set-top
>>>> boxes), and I only got rid of it because it was a bit big and heavy by
>>>> modern standards.
>>>
>>> Mine failed on me disappointingly quickly, so I replaced it with a 29"
>>> Toshiba conventional telly, which worked perfectly till I replaced it with
>>> a 46" flat screen Samsung with 3D features. Like most people, I didn't take
>>> to 3D TV, and hated the powered, paired glasses you had to wear. I soon
>>> abandoned that feature, and, in any case, 3D TV wasn't broadcast for long
>>> in the UK.
>>>
>>
>> 3D goes in roughly 30 year cycles,[1] so expect it to come back into
>> fashion in about 20 years or so.
>
> I've not tried the VR headsets that Zuckerberg thinks we'll all soon be
> wearing — do they present a 3D simulated view of the Metaverse?
>
>>
>> [1] 30 years is about the time for a new generation of whizz-kids to
>> forget how crap it was and decide it is the next must-have. This has
>> been going on since the 19th century.
>
> Perhaps the cycle has accelerated this time round, thanks to VR?
>

VR has the same problem as conventional 3D, the headset. Has a certain
very limited application which will always appeal to a niche audience
but the restrictions imposed will militate against widespread acceptance.

For instance I can see Anna donning a VR headset for an enhanced route
learning exercise.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.