On 4/10/2021 2:40 pm, News 2021 wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:11:10 +1100, Xeno scribed:
>
>
>>> Its still there in the quoting, fuckwit.
>>
>> NOT MY CLAIM
>
> Gee, 9 replies to WodBot saying the same thing.
> I told you it was futile.
> The only think it elucidated is that he was one of the
> "ibm is the only real computer" fan bois.
> Shame all the minis ran rings around it.
> IME,any ibm fanboi/gril needed copious hand holding.
>
> I wonder why, with such (alleged) great computer skills, SydU gave him
> the bums rush,
>
I think that you may be confusing him with phil allison, an easy mistake.

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Chris Baird wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64
>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>> must have been butchered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems (that were
>>>>>>>>>>>> rarely
>>>>>>>>>>>> referred to as mainframes..)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but compared to all
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> toys since, they're big guys.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, the 11s never were.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The PDP11 at the college was always classed as a *minicomputer*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep, nothing even remotely like a mainframe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It was a mere 16 bit machine in the usual vertical rack mount, not
>>>>>>>>> particularly powerful, but it had lots of *das blinkenlights*.
>>>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The LSI 11s had no vertical rack mount and no *das blinkenlights*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, it looked very much like this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Pdp-11-40.jpg/250px-Pdp-11-40.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks like das blinkenlights to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the LSI 11s didn’t look anything like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s a PDP11, it’s what the unit at the college looked like,
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant to the fact that plenty of 11s weren't
>>>> rack mounted and didn’t have any blinken lights.
>>>>
>>>>> it’s what fits my memory recall of it. I never had much
>>>>> to do with it beyond accessing it via a terminal.
>>>>
>>>> Whereas I was personally responsible for all the 11s and
>>>> Vaxes we had, bought them, installed them, ran them,
>>>> maintained them, had one of my own, at home etc etc etc.
>>>>
>>>> And lots of other DEC minis before them, including an
>>>> 8S, the serial one, which I designed and built a driver
>>>> for a tek sampling oscilloscope which measured fluorescent
>>>> decay at sub nanosecond levels. That’s what the MSc
>>>> thesis was about. With the data from that crunched
>>>> on the IBM 360/50 mainframe.
>>>>
>>>> And the PDP9 which we did our own 9/15 interface
>>>> for and added the mag tape to with our own mag
>>>> tape controller, the design of which we stole
>>>> from DEC and did our own copy of using TTL on wire
>>>> wrap sockets on a drawer full of wire wrap sockets.
>>>>
>>>> And which we did our own multi user OS for, using
>>>> the same basic idea as TSX for the 11 which came later.
>>>>
>>>> Whereas you still don’t have a fucking clue about
>>>> the vast range of formats that 11s came in.
>>>>
>>>>> Same as when I accessed the mainframe at Footscray
>>>>> Institute, never even got to see that machine but accessed it
>>>>> on a daily basis via the line printer terminal in our department.
>>>>
>>>> I personally ran an IBM 360/50 in the evenings myself.
>>
>>> The 360/50 wasn't exactly a tower of power,
>>
>> Irrelevant to what was being discussed.
>>
>>> by the 1980s it was reduced to being the controller for the 3890
>>> document sorter (IBM never threw anything away, old kit and failures
>>> re-appeared as parts of other machines) and was eventually replaced in
>>> that role by a PC.
>>
>>> Even in its heyday, it was outclassed by CDC gear.
>>
>> Irrelevant to what was being discussed.
>>
>>>>>> The logic cards were in the side of a VT100 terminal,
>>>>>> renamed the VT103, no vertical rack mount at all,
>>>>>> let alone any blinken lights.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT100#Variants
>>
>>
> OK so you don't want to talk about it

It has no relevance to anything.

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
> News 2021 wrote
>> Xeno wrote
>>
>>
>>>> Its still there in the quoting, fuckwit.
>>>
>>> NOT MY CLAIM
>>
>> Gee, 9 replies to WodBot saying the same thing.
>> I told you it was futile.
>> The only think it elucidated is that he was one of the
>> "ibm is the only real computer" fan bois.
>> Shame all the minis ran rings around it.
>> IME,any ibm fanboi/gril needed copious hand holding.
>>
>> I wonder why, with such (alleged) great computer skills, SydU gave him
>> the bums rush,
>>
> I think that you may be confusing him with phil allison

Nope, Filthy is a dole bludger.

On 7/10/2021 1:28 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris Baird wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must have been butchered.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems (that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> were rarely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> referred to as mainframes..)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but compared to
>>>>>>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>>>>>>> toys since, they're big guys.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, the 11s never were.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The PDP11 at the college was always classed as a *minicomputer*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yep, nothing even remotely like a mainframe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It was a mere 16 bit machine in the usual vertical rack mount,
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> particularly powerful, but it had lots of *das blinkenlights*.
>>>>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The LSI 11s had no vertical rack mount and no *das blinkenlights*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, it looked very much like this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Pdp-11-40.jpg/250px-Pdp-11-40.jpg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looks like das blinkenlights to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the LSI 11s didn’t look anything like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It’s a PDP11, it’s what the unit at the college looked like,
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant to the fact that plenty of 11s weren't
>>>>> rack mounted and didn’t have any blinken lights.
>>>>>
>>>>>> it’s what fits my memory recall of it. I never had much
>>>>>> to do with it beyond accessing it via a terminal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas I was personally responsible for all the 11s and
>>>>> Vaxes we had, bought them, installed them, ran them,
>>>>> maintained them, had one of my own, at home etc etc etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> And lots of other DEC minis before them, including an
>>>>> 8S, the serial one, which I designed and built a driver
>>>>> for a tek sampling oscilloscope which measured fluorescent
>>>>> decay at sub nanosecond levels. That’s what the MSc
>>>>> thesis was about. With the data from that crunched
>>>>> on the IBM 360/50 mainframe.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the PDP9 which we did our own 9/15 interface
>>>>> for and added the mag tape to with our own mag
>>>>> tape controller, the design of which we stole
>>>>> from DEC and did our own copy of using TTL on wire
>>>>> wrap sockets on a drawer full of wire wrap sockets.
>>>>>
>>>>> And which we did our own multi user OS for, using
>>>>> the same basic idea as TSX for the 11 which came later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas you still don’t have a fucking clue about
>>>>> the vast range of formats that 11s came in.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Same as when I accessed the mainframe at Footscray
>>>>>> Institute, never even got to see that machine but accessed it
>>>>>> on a daily basis via the line printer terminal in our department.
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally ran an IBM 360/50 in the evenings myself.
>>>
>>>> The 360/50 wasn't exactly a tower of power,
>>>
>>> Irrelevant to what was being discussed.
>>>
>>>> by the 1980s it was reduced to being the controller for the 3890
>>>> document sorter (IBM never threw anything away, old kit and failures
>>>> re-appeared as parts of other machines) and was eventually replaced
>>>> in that role by a PC.
>>>
>>>> Even in its heyday, it was outclassed by CDC gear.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant to what was being discussed.
>>>
>>>>>>> The logic cards were in the side of a VT100 terminal,
>>>>>>> renamed the VT103, no vertical rack mount at all,
>>>>>>> let alone any blinken lights.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT100#Variants
>>>
>>>
>> OK so you don't want to talk about it
>
> It has no relevance to anything.
>
>
You brought the subject of the 360/50 up.

On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 10:34:51 +1000, keithr0 scribed:

> On 4/10/2021 2:40 pm, News 2021 wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:11:10 +1100, Xeno scribed:
>>
>>
>>>> Its still there in the quoting, fuckwit.
>>>
>>> NOT MY CLAIM
>>
>> Gee, 9 replies to WodBot saying the same thing.
>> I told you it was futile.
>> The only think it elucidated is that he was one of the "ibm is the only
>> real computer" fan bois.
>> Shame all the minis ran rings around it.
>> IME,any ibm fanboi/gril needed copious hand holding.
>>
>> I wonder why, with such (alleged) great computer skills, SydU gave him
>> the bums rush,
>>
> I think that you may be confusing him with phil allison, an easy
> mistake.

No. WodBot is infamous.
He was infamous before the internet came to Australia.
WodBot gained a netkooks page and has continued the exact same behaviour.

PA attributes other background to a "Rod Speed", but I've never
reconciled that idea.

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris Baird wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must have been butchered.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems (that were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rarely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referred to as mainframes..)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but compared to all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> toys since, they're big guys.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, the 11s never were.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The PDP11 at the college was always classed as a *minicomputer*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yep, nothing even remotely like a mainframe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It was a mere 16 bit machine in the usual vertical rack mount,
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> particularly powerful, but it had lots of *das blinkenlights*.
>>>>>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The LSI 11s had no vertical rack mount and no *das blinkenlights*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, it looked very much like this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Pdp-11-40.jpg/250px-Pdp-11-40.jpg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Looks like das blinkenlights to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the LSI 11s didn’t look anything like that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It’s a PDP11, it’s what the unit at the college looked like,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant to the fact that plenty of 11s weren't
>>>>>> rack mounted and didn’t have any blinken lights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it’s what fits my memory recall of it. I never had much
>>>>>>> to do with it beyond accessing it via a terminal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whereas I was personally responsible for all the 11s and
>>>>>> Vaxes we had, bought them, installed them, ran them,
>>>>>> maintained them, had one of my own, at home etc etc etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And lots of other DEC minis before them, including an
>>>>>> 8S, the serial one, which I designed and built a driver
>>>>>> for a tek sampling oscilloscope which measured fluorescent
>>>>>> decay at sub nanosecond levels. That’s what the MSc
>>>>>> thesis was about. With the data from that crunched
>>>>>> on the IBM 360/50 mainframe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the PDP9 which we did our own 9/15 interface
>>>>>> for and added the mag tape to with our own mag
>>>>>> tape controller, the design of which we stole
>>>>>> from DEC and did our own copy of using TTL on wire
>>>>>> wrap sockets on a drawer full of wire wrap sockets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And which we did our own multi user OS for, using
>>>>>> the same basic idea as TSX for the 11 which came later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whereas you still don’t have a fucking clue about
>>>>>> the vast range of formats that 11s came in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Same as when I accessed the mainframe at Footscray
>>>>>>> Institute, never even got to see that machine but accessed it
>>>>>>> on a daily basis via the line printer terminal in our department.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally ran an IBM 360/50 in the evenings myself.
>>>>
>>>>> The 360/50 wasn't exactly a tower of power,
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant to what was being discussed.
>>>>
>>>>> by the 1980s it was reduced to being the controller for the 3890
>>>>> document sorter (IBM never threw anything away, old kit and failures
>>>>> re-appeared as parts of other machines) and was eventually replaced in
>>>>> that role by a PC.
>>>>
>>>>> Even in its heyday, it was outclassed by CDC gear.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant to what was being discussed.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> The logic cards were in the side of a VT100 terminal,
>>>>>>>> renamed the VT103, no vertical rack mount at all,
>>>>>>>> let alone any blinken lights.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT100#Variants
>>>>
>>>>
>>> OK so you don't want to talk about it
>>
>> It has no relevance to anything.
>>
>>
> You brought the subject of the 360/50 up.

Only in the context of knowing a hell of a lot
more about computers than that fool does.

News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
> keithr0 wrote
>> News 2021 wrote
>>> Xeno wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Its still there in the quoting, fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>> NOT MY CLAIM
>>>
>>> Gee, 9 replies to WodBot saying the same thing.
>>> I told you it was futile.
>>> The only think it elucidated is that he was one of the "ibm is the only
>>> real computer" fan bois.
>>> Shame all the minis ran rings around it.
>>> IME,any ibm fanboi/gril needed copious hand holding.
>>>
>>> I wonder why, with such (alleged) great computer skills, SydU gave him
>>> the bums rush,
>>>
>> I think that you may be confusing him with phil allison, an easy
>> mistake.
>
> No. WodBot is infamous.
> He was infamous before the internet came to Australia.
> WodBot gained a netkooks page and has continued the exact same behaviour.
>
>
> PA attributes other background to a "Rod Speed",
> but I've never reconciled that idea.

And both of you two clowns have never managed to work
out that I have never lived in Sydney or close as an adult.

On 7/10/21 6:52 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>> keithr0 wrote
>>> News 2021 wrote
>>>> Xeno wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> Its still there in the quoting, fuckwit.
>>>>>
>>>>> NOT MY CLAIM
>>>>
>>>> Gee, 9 replies to WodBot saying the same thing.
>>>> I told you it was futile.
>>>> The only think it elucidated is that he was one of the "ibm is the only
>>>> real computer" fan bois.
>>>> Shame all the minis ran rings around it.
>>>> IME,any ibm fanboi/gril needed copious hand holding.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder why, with such (alleged) great computer skills, SydU gave him
>>>> the bums rush,
>>>>
>>> I think that you may be confusing him with phil allison, an easy
>>> mistake.
>>
>> No. WodBot is infamous.
>> He was infamous before the internet came to Australia.
>> WodBot gained a netkooks page and has continued the exact same behaviour.
>>
>>
>> PA attributes other background to a "Rod Speed", but I've never
>> reconciled that idea.
>
> And both of you two clowns have never managed to work out that I have
> never lived in Sydney or close as an adult.

Were you ever an adult?

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 19:49:17 +1100, Xeno scribed:

> On 7/10/21 6:52 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>> keithr0 wrote
>>>> News 2021 wrote
>>>>> Xeno wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its still there in the quoting, fuckwit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NOT MY CLAIM
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee, 9 replies to WodBot saying the same thing.
>>>>> I told you it was futile.
>>>>> The only think it elucidated is that he was one of the "ibm is the
>>>>> only real computer" fan bois.
>>>>> Shame all the minis ran rings around it.
>>>>> IME,any ibm fanboi/gril needed copious hand holding.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder why, with such (alleged) great computer skills, SydU gave
>>>>> him the bums rush,
>>>>>
>>>> I think that you may be confusing him with phil allison, an easy
>>>> mistake.
>>>
>>> No. WodBot is infamous.
>>> He was infamous before the internet came to Australia.
>>> WodBot gained a netkooks page and has continued the exact same
>>> behaviour.
>>>
>>>
>>> PA attributes other background to a "Rod Speed", but I've never
>>> reconciled that idea.
>>
>> And both of you two clowns have never managed to work out that I have
>> never lived in Sydney or close as an adult.

Lol, you're exactly like the WodBot wodbot that did.

Give us a potted history.
>
> Were you ever an adult?

Maybe chronologically, but definitely not socially.

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>> keithr0 wrote
>>>> News 2021 wrote
>>>>> Xeno wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its still there in the quoting, fuckwit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NOT MY CLAIM
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee, 9 replies to WodBot saying the same thing.
>>>>> I told you it was futile.
>>>>> The only think it elucidated is that he was one of the "ibm is the
>>>>> only
>>>>> real computer" fan bois.
>>>>> Shame all the minis ran rings around it.
>>>>> IME,any ibm fanboi/gril needed copious hand holding.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder why, with such (alleged) great computer skills, SydU gave him
>>>>> the bums rush,
>>>>>
>>>> I think that you may be confusing him with phil allison, an easy
>>>> mistake.
>>>
>>> No. WodBot is infamous.
>>> He was infamous before the internet came to Australia.
>>> WodBot gained a netkooks page and has continued the exact same
>>> behaviour.
>>>
>>>
>>> PA attributes other background to a "Rod Speed", but I've never
>>> reconciled that idea.
>>
>> And both of you two clowns have never managed to work out that I have
>> never lived in Sydney or close as an adult.
>
> Were you ever an adult?

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.

Get one to help you before posting again, if anyone is
actually stupid enough to let you anywhere near one.

News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
> Xeno wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>> keithr0 wrote
>>>>> News 2021 wrote
>>>>>> Xeno wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Its still there in the quoting, fuckwit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NOT MY CLAIM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gee, 9 replies to WodBot saying the same thing.
>>>>>> I told you it was futile.
>>>>>> The only think it elucidated is that he was one of the "ibm is the
>>>>>> only real computer" fan bois.
>>>>>> Shame all the minis ran rings around it.
>>>>>> IME,any ibm fanboi/gril needed copious hand holding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder why, with such (alleged) great computer skills, SydU gave
>>>>>> him the bums rush,
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think that you may be confusing him with phil allison, an easy
>>>>> mistake.
>>>>
>>>> No. WodBot is infamous.
>>>> He was infamous before the internet came to Australia.
>>>> WodBot gained a netkooks page and has continued the exact same
>>>> behaviour.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PA attributes other background to a "Rod Speed", but I've never
>>>> reconciled that idea.
>>>
>>> And both of you two clowns have never managed to work out that I have
>>> never lived in Sydney or close as an adult.
> Lol, you're exactly like the WodBot wodbot that did.

Nope, never did. That was always your pig ignorant stupidity.

Almost as bad as Filthy.
> Give us a potted history.

Already did.

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 06:25:57 +1100, John Brown posted:-

> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
> > Xeno wrote
> >> Rod Speed wrote
> >>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
> >>>> keithr0 wrote
> >>>>> News 2021 wrote
> >>>>>> Xeno wrote
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Its still there in the quoting, fuckwit.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> NOT MY CLAIM
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Gee, 9 replies to WodBot saying the same thing.
> >>>>>> I told you it was futile.
> >>>>>> The only think it elucidated is that he was one of the "ibm is
> >>>>>> the only real computer" fan bois.
> >>>>>> Shame all the minis ran rings around it.
> >>>>>> IME,any ibm fanboi/gril needed copious hand holding.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I wonder why, with such (alleged) great computer skills, SydU
> >>>>>> gave him the bums rush,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I think that you may be confusing him with phil allison, an easy
> >>>>> mistake.
> >>>>
> >>>> No. WodBot is infamous.
> >>>> He was infamous before the internet came to Australia.
> >>>> WodBot gained a netkooks page and has continued the exact same
> >>>> behaviour.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> PA attributes other background to a "Rod Speed", but I've never
> >>>> reconciled that idea.
> >>>
> >>> And both of you two clowns have never managed to work out that I
> >>> have never lived in Sydney or close as an adult.
>
> > Lol, you're exactly like the WodBot wodbot that did.
>
> Nope, never did. That was always your pig ignorant stupidity.
>
> Almost as bad as Filthy.
>
> > Give us a potted history.
>
> Already did.
>

New nym, Roddles?

On 1/10/2021 12:29 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>> On 30/09/2021 4:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 30/09/2021 9:59 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 30/09/2021 10:41 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 29/09/2021 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/09/2021 3:54 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 26/09/2021 12:12 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote
>>>>>>>>>> On 24/09/2021 8:04 am, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/09/2021 9:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/09/2021 2:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sir Clive Sinclair, the visionary pioneer of computing for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the British masses and creator of the legendary ZX
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spectrum, has died at the age of 81. His legacy is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> British tech scene as we know it today.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Born in leafy Richmond, Surrey, at the height of the Battle
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Britain in July 1940, he came to epitomise the early era
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of British computing through his company Sinclair Research
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ltd and its iconic Spectrum product line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fondly remembered by a generation of modern-day British
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tech and computing leaders, the ZX Spectrum was named for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its colour output, a rarity in the mostly monochrome days
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 1982.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Commodore 64 was released in 1982 and shat on the ZX
>>>>>>>>>>>> Spectrum from a very great height in every possible way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What was better about it ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Better graphics, vastly better sound, a real keyboard, better
>>>>>>>>>> storage (disk drives) options, expansion options and hardware
>>>>>>>>>> and software support.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only thing "better" about the ZX is cost, but not really
>>>>>>>>>> as you only got some half baked toy instead of a real computer
>>>>>>>>>> when you bought a ZX.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And a better cpu, a Z80 rather than a cheap and nasty 6502, it
>>>>>>>>> also launched a bunch of programmers rather than a bunch of
>>>>>>>>> gamers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The C64 launched plenty of programmers who mostly moved on to
>>>>>>>> the Amiga.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing to move onto with the ZX
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ROTFL the ZX had a Z80 CPU that is still used to this day in
>>>>>> various guises,
>>>>>
>>>>> I know, I bought some not long ago.
>>>>>
>>>>>   the C64 had a 6510 which was a complete dead end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So why does Mouser stock current production 6502's and it's
>>>>> derivatives?
>>>>> Your ignorance is showing again Keef.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not only was the Spectrum a cheap toy with shit sound, with a
>>>>>>> horrible unusable keyboard, poor display and with deadly slow
>>>>>>> BASIC performance compared to the C64, and of course laughingly
>>>>>>> bad peripherals - it was also a complete dead end.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not so C= computers which indeed launched generations of
>>>>>>> programmers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll bet that more than 95% of C64 users never did more than plug
>>>>>> in game cartridges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlikely given the massive amount of software, utilities and
>>>>> programming tools compared to the ZX. Who do you think programmed
>>>>> all those ML programs, games and demos back then and even now?
>>>>
>>>> Mainly professional software companies. Most users used it as a
>>>> games console.
>>>>
>>>>> *Nobody* programmed on that horrible ZX keyboard, it was only ever
>>>>> a toy for playing bad ports of games written for and on other
>>>>> computers that had real keyboards, real viable storage solutions,
>>>>> real expansion options and real users.
>>>>
>>>> The comments on various forum where real programmers post, would
>>>> argue with that,
>>>
>>> You clearly don't hang out in forums where "real" programmers post
>>> them or you wouldn't be so pig ignorant.
>>>
>>>
>>> it seems that a lot of IT professionals of a certain age got
>>>> their start with the ZX.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And most didn't, with many more getting their start on a C= computer.
>>>
>>>> Very few C64s ever had expansions attached,
>>>
>>> There were and still are countless expansions still being developed
>>> and produced. Again, your ignorance is on full display.
>>
>> Countless? You have to be joking.
>>
>>>   most ended up in cupboards
>>>> when better machines came along.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ZX's went in the cupboard as soon as the C64 came along and if you
>>> really wanted a Z80 you could buy a Commodore 128 with enhanced
>>> BASIC, 80 column display and with 128K but which also had a Z80, ran
>>> CP/M and was also 100% C64 compatible.
>>
>> The Commodore 128 didn't exactly set the world on fire, it was a day
>> late and a dollar short.
>>
>>>>> The ZX was cheap and nasty but if you were poor it was better than
>>>>> nothing. That's it's only virtue.
>>>>
>>>> It certainly was cheap and nasty, but it enabled a lot of kids to
>>>> buy on out of they pocket money.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So did the VIC-20 and it would give them a better start.
>>
>> Just a games console.
>
> Wrong, as always.

Yep and especially when compared to the ZX which didn't even have a
fucking keyboard you could actually type on.

On 1/10/2021 6:56 am, Max wrote:
> On 1/10/2021 1:39 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>> On 29/09/2021 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> I'll bet that more than 95% of C64 users never did more than plug in
>>>> game cartridges.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unlikely given the massive amount of software, utilities and programming
>>> tools compared to the ZX. Who do you think programmed all those ML
>>> programs, games and demos back then and even now?
>>
>>    Anecdote: In The Netherlands - and possibly other countries - the
>> production line of the Philips shavers was controlled by C64 systems.
>> The programming was done in some superset of C.
>>
>>    I had to convert the functionality to our HP 9000 Series 300 HP-UX
>> (UNIX) systems and I had a very, very hard time offering a similar
>> functionality in our C language. I had to resort to some fancy footwork
>> with pointers to pointers and let the C-preprocessor (cpp) do some magic
>> to make it look as if our C language had similar functionality as the
>> one they had on the C64. It still makes my head spin! :-)
>>
>
> I thought the C64 has Basic.

It has, but it also had the ability to switch out almost every aspect of
the kernal and basic and give you a full access 64K, the expansion port,
user port, joystick ports (including an A/D converter) to run whatever
you wanted - whether it be a custom OS or one of the many programming
languages available.

The C64 was very versatile and a real computer, unlike toys like the ZX
that relied on the Z80 to play it's games on and was far less efficient
and slower because of it.

On 1/10/2021 9:01 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 1/10/2021 8:56 am, Max wrote:
>> On 1/10/2021 1:39 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>>> On 29/09/2021 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> I'll bet that more than 95% of C64 users never did more than plug in
>>>>> game cartridges.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unlikely given the massive amount of software, utilities and
>>>> programming
>>>> tools compared to the ZX. Who do you think programmed all those ML
>>>> programs, games and demos back then and even now?
>>>
>>>    Anecdote: In The Netherlands - and possibly other countries - the
>>> production line of the Philips shavers was controlled by C64 systems.
>>> The programming was done in some superset of C.
>>>
>>>    I had to convert the functionality to our HP 9000 Series 300 HP-UX
>>> (UNIX) systems and I had a very, very hard time offering a similar
>>> functionality in our C language. I had to resort to some fancy footwork
>>> with pointers to pointers and let the C-preprocessor (cpp) do some magic
>>> to make it look as if our C language had similar functionality as the
>>> one they had on the C64. It still makes my head spin! :-)
>>>
>>
>> I thought the C64 has Basic.
>
>
> yes both the Vic20 and C64 retail versions for domestic use were
> programmable in basic. don't know what the ones Frank was using were, or
> how they could be programmed in C.
>

They were stock units that could be used in other ways using other
languages.
BASIC was just the in-built option.

On 1/10/2021 11:05 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>> On 1/10/2021 1:39 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>>> On 29/09/2021 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> I'll bet that more than 95% of C64 users never did more than plug in
>>>>> game cartridges.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unlikely given the massive amount of software, utilities and programming
>>>> tools compared to the ZX. Who do you think programmed all those ML
>>>> programs, games and demos back then and even now?
>>>
>>> Anecdote: In The Netherlands - and possibly other countries - the
>>> production line of the Philips shavers was controlled by C64 systems.
>>> The programming was done in some superset of C.
>>>
>>> I had to convert the functionality to our HP 9000 Series 300 HP-UX
>>> (UNIX) systems and I had a very, very hard time offering a similar
>>> functionality in our C language. I had to resort to some fancy footwork
>>> with pointers to pointers and let the C-preprocessor (cpp) do some magic
>>> to make it look as if our C language had similar functionality as the
>>> one they had on the C64. It still makes my head spin! :-)
>>>
>>
>> I thought the C64 has Basic.
>
> All these 'hobby' computers had BASIC in ROM, but you could also load
> other software - such as editors, compilers, assemblers, loaders, etc. -
> into RAM, which enables programming in other languages, such as
> assembler, C, etc..
>
> I used these kind of things on MSX (1 and 2) computers, another kind
> of 'hobby' computer.
>

They were all proper home computers in their time.

On 8/10/21 2:26 pm, Mountain Magpie wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 06:25:57 +1100, John Brown posted:-
>
>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>> Xeno wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> keithr0 wrote
>>>>>>> News 2021 wrote
>>>>>>>> Xeno wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Its still there in the quoting, fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NOT MY CLAIM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gee, 9 replies to WodBot saying the same thing.
>>>>>>>> I told you it was futile.
>>>>>>>> The only think it elucidated is that he was one of the "ibm is
>>>>>>>> the only real computer" fan bois.
>>>>>>>> Shame all the minis ran rings around it.
>>>>>>>> IME,any ibm fanboi/gril needed copious hand holding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder why, with such (alleged) great computer skills, SydU
>>>>>>>> gave him the bums rush,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that you may be confusing him with phil allison, an easy
>>>>>>> mistake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. WodBot is infamous.
>>>>>> He was infamous before the internet came to Australia.
>>>>>> WodBot gained a netkooks page and has continued the exact same
>>>>>> behaviour.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PA attributes other background to a "Rod Speed", but I've never
>>>>>> reconciled that idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> And both of you two clowns have never managed to work out that I
>>>>> have never lived in Sydney or close as an adult.
>>
>>> Lol, you're exactly like the WodBot wodbot that did.
>>
>> Nope, never did. That was always your pig ignorant stupidity.
>>
>> Almost as bad as Filthy.
>>
>>> Give us a potted history.
>>
>> Already did.
>>
>
> New nym, Roddles?
>
He does it so often it's become habit forming for him.

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 15:55:33 +1100, Xeno posted:-

> On 8/10/21 2:26 pm, Mountain Magpie wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 06:25:57 +1100, John Brown posted:-
> >
> >> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
> >>> Xeno wrote
> >>>> Rod Speed wrote
> >>>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
> >>>>>> keithr0 wrote
> >>>>>>> News 2021 wrote
> >>>>>>>> Xeno wrote
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Its still there in the quoting, fuckwit.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> NOT MY CLAIM
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Gee, 9 replies to WodBot saying the same thing.
> >>>>>>>> I told you it was futile.
> >>>>>>>> The only think it elucidated is that he was one of the "ibm
> >>>>>>>> is the only real computer" fan bois.
> >>>>>>>> Shame all the minis ran rings around it.
> >>>>>>>> IME,any ibm fanboi/gril needed copious hand holding.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I wonder why, with such (alleged) great computer skills, SydU
> >>>>>>>> gave him the bums rush,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think that you may be confusing him with phil allison, an
> >>>>>>> easy mistake.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No. WodBot is infamous.
> >>>>>> He was infamous before the internet came to Australia.
> >>>>>> WodBot gained a netkooks page and has continued the exact same
> >>>>>> behaviour.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> PA attributes other background to a "Rod Speed", but I've never
> >>>>>> reconciled that idea.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And both of you two clowns have never managed to work out that I
> >>>>> have never lived in Sydney or close as an adult.
> >>
> >>> Lol, you're exactly like the WodBot wodbot that did.
> >>
> >> Nope, never did. That was always your pig ignorant stupidity.
> >>
> >> Almost as bad as Filthy.
> >>
> >>> Give us a potted history.
> >>
> >> Already did.
> >>
> >
> > New nym, Roddles?
> >
> He does it so often it's become habit forming for him.

Time I changed mine again as well LOL
>

On 8/10/21 6:42 pm, Mountain Magpie wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 15:55:33 +1100, Xeno posted:-
>
>> On 8/10/21 2:26 pm, Mountain Magpie wrote:
>>> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 06:25:57 +1100, John Brown posted:-
>>>
>>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Xeno wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>> keithr0 wrote
>>>>>>>>> News 2021 wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Xeno wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Its still there in the quoting, fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> NOT MY CLAIM
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gee, 9 replies to WodBot saying the same thing.
>>>>>>>>>> I told you it was futile.
>>>>>>>>>> The only think it elucidated is that he was one of the "ibm
>>>>>>>>>> is the only real computer" fan bois.
>>>>>>>>>> Shame all the minis ran rings around it.
>>>>>>>>>> IME,any ibm fanboi/gril needed copious hand holding.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I wonder why, with such (alleged) great computer skills, SydU
>>>>>>>>>> gave him the bums rush,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think that you may be confusing him with phil allison, an
>>>>>>>>> easy mistake.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. WodBot is infamous.
>>>>>>>> He was infamous before the internet came to Australia.
>>>>>>>> WodBot gained a netkooks page and has continued the exact same
>>>>>>>> behaviour.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PA attributes other background to a "Rod Speed", but I've never
>>>>>>>> reconciled that idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And both of you two clowns have never managed to work out that I
>>>>>>> have never lived in Sydney or close as an adult.
>>>>
>>>>> Lol, you're exactly like the WodBot wodbot that did.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, never did. That was always your pig ignorant stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> Almost as bad as Filthy.
>>>>
>>>>> Give us a potted history.
>>>>
>>>> Already did.
>>>>
>>>
>>> New nym, Roddles?
>>>
>> He does it so often it's become habit forming for him.
>
> Time I changed mine again as well LOL
>>
>
Damn, I'm on the same nick since ~2007.

My habit is *not* changing my nick. ;-)

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
> On 1/10/2021 11:05 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
> >> On 1/10/2021 1:39 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 29/09/2021 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>>> I'll bet that more than 95% of C64 users never did more than plug in
> >>>>> game cartridges.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unlikely given the massive amount of software, utilities and programming
> >>>> tools compared to the ZX. Who do you think programmed all those ML
> >>>> programs, games and demos back then and even now?
> >>>
> >>> Anecdote: In The Netherlands - and possibly other countries - the
> >>> production line of the Philips shavers was controlled by C64 systems.
> >>> The programming was done in some superset of C.
> >>>
> >>> I had to convert the functionality to our HP 9000 Series 300 HP-UX
> >>> (UNIX) systems and I had a very, very hard time offering a similar
> >>> functionality in our C language. I had to resort to some fancy footwork
> >>> with pointers to pointers and let the C-preprocessor (cpp) do some magic
> >>> to make it look as if our C language had similar functionality as the
> >>> one they had on the C64. It still makes my head spin! :-)
> >>
> >> I thought the C64 has Basic.
> >
> > All these 'hobby' computers had BASIC in ROM, but you could also load
> > other software - such as editors, compilers, assemblers, loaders, etc. -
> > into RAM, which enables programming in other languages, such as
> > assembler, C, etc..
> >
> > I used these kind of things on MSX (1 and 2) computers, another kind
> > of 'hobby' computer.
>
> They were all proper home computers in their time.

Indeed they were. They could play games, but also could run loads of
other software, including things like wordprocessors, spreadsheets,
databases and other 'home office' and small business software. My Sony
MSX 2 computer with diskette drive even came standard with much of this
software. I of course used loads of editors, assemblers, debuggers,
etc.! :-)

On 8/10/2021 10:36 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>> On 1/10/2021 11:05 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/2021 1:39 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/09/2021 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> I'll bet that more than 95% of C64 users never did more than plug in
>>>>>>> game cartridges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlikely given the massive amount of software, utilities and programming
>>>>>> tools compared to the ZX. Who do you think programmed all those ML
>>>>>> programs, games and demos back then and even now?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anecdote: In The Netherlands - and possibly other countries - the
>>>>> production line of the Philips shavers was controlled by C64 systems.
>>>>> The programming was done in some superset of C.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had to convert the functionality to our HP 9000 Series 300 HP-UX
>>>>> (UNIX) systems and I had a very, very hard time offering a similar
>>>>> functionality in our C language. I had to resort to some fancy footwork
>>>>> with pointers to pointers and let the C-preprocessor (cpp) do some magic
>>>>> to make it look as if our C language had similar functionality as the
>>>>> one they had on the C64. It still makes my head spin! :-)
>>>>
>>>> I thought the C64 has Basic.
>>>
>>> All these 'hobby' computers had BASIC in ROM, but you could also load
>>> other software - such as editors, compilers, assemblers, loaders, etc. -
>>> into RAM, which enables programming in other languages, such as
>>> assembler, C, etc..
>>>
>>> I used these kind of things on MSX (1 and 2) computers, another kind
>>> of 'hobby' computer.
>>
>> They were all proper home computers in their time.
>
> Indeed they were. They could play games, but also could run loads of
> other software, including things like wordprocessors, spreadsheets,
> databases and other 'home office' and small business software. My Sony
> MSX 2 computer with diskette drive even came standard with much of this
> software. I of course used loads of editors, assemblers, debuggers,
> etc.! :-)
>
My Fujitsu Micro-8 had 2 68B09s (one as a graphics co-processor) and
came with dual 5.25" disks, a bunch of software and could even run a
dialect of Unix. I taught myself C on it, but it was a world way from
the C64.

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
> Frank Slootweg wrote
>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2021 11:05 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/10/2021 1:39 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/09/2021 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> I'll bet that more than 95% of C64 users never did more than plug
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> game cartridges.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unlikely given the massive amount of software, utilities and
>>>>>>> programming
>>>>>>> tools compared to the ZX. Who do you think programmed all those ML
>>>>>>> programs, games and demos back then and even now?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anecdote: In The Netherlands - and possibly other countries -
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> production line of the Philips shavers was controlled by C64 systems.
>>>>>> The programming was done in some superset of C.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had to convert the functionality to our HP 9000 Series 300
>>>>>> HP-UX
>>>>>> (UNIX) systems and I had a very, very hard time offering a similar
>>>>>> functionality in our C language. I had to resort to some fancy
>>>>>> footwork
>>>>>> with pointers to pointers and let the C-preprocessor (cpp) do some
>>>>>> magic
>>>>>> to make it look as if our C language had similar functionality as the
>>>>>> one they had on the C64. It still makes my head spin! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought the C64 has Basic.
>>>>
>>>> All these 'hobby' computers had BASIC in ROM, but you could also
>>>> load
>>>> other software - such as editors, compilers, assemblers, loaders,
>>>> etc. -
>>>> into RAM, which enables programming in other languages, such as
>>>> assembler, C, etc..
>>>>
>>>> I used these kind of things on MSX (1 and 2) computers, another
>>>> kind
>>>> of 'hobby' computer.
>>>
>>> They were all proper home computers in their time.
>>
>> Indeed they were. They could play games, but also could run loads of
>> other software, including things like wordprocessors, spreadsheets,
>> databases and other 'home office' and small business software. My Sony
>> MSX 2 computer with diskette drive even came standard with much of this
>> software. I of course used loads of editors, assemblers, debuggers,
>> etc.! :-)
>>
> My Fujitsu Micro-8 had 2 68B09s (one as a graphics co-processor) and came
> with dual 5.25" disks, a bunch of software and could even run a dialect of
> Unix. I taught myself C on it, but it was a world way from the C64.

That’s why Commodore had the PET which left both of them for dead.

On 9/10/2021 3:01 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>> Frank Slootweg wrote
>>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/2021 11:05 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/10/2021 1:39 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 29/09/2021 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> I'll bet that more than 95% of C64 users never did more than
>>>>>>>>> plug in
>>>>>>>>> game cartridges.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unlikely given the massive amount of software, utilities and
>>>>>>>> programming
>>>>>>>> tools compared to the ZX. Who do you think programmed all those ML
>>>>>>>> programs, games and demos back then and even now?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      Anecdote: In The Netherlands - and possibly other countries
>>>>>>> - the
>>>>>>> production line of the Philips shavers was controlled by C64
>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>> The programming was done in some superset of C.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      I had to convert the functionality to our HP 9000 Series 300
>>>>>>> HP-UX
>>>>>>> (UNIX) systems and I had a very, very hard time offering a similar
>>>>>>> functionality in our C language. I had to resort to some fancy
>>>>>>> footwork
>>>>>>> with pointers to pointers and let the C-preprocessor (cpp) do
>>>>>>> some magic
>>>>>>> to make it look as if our C language had similar functionality as
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> one they had on the C64. It still makes my head spin! :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought the C64 has Basic.
>>>>>
>>>>>     All these 'hobby' computers had BASIC in ROM, but you could
>>>>> also load
>>>>> other software - such as editors, compilers, assemblers, loaders,
>>>>> etc. -
>>>>> into RAM, which enables programming in other languages, such as
>>>>> assembler, C, etc..
>>>>>
>>>>>     I used these kind of things on MSX (1 and 2) computers, another
>>>>> kind
>>>>> of 'hobby' computer.
>>>>
>>>> They were all proper home computers in their time.
>>>
>>>    Indeed they were. They could play games, but also could run loads of
>>> other software, including things like wordprocessors, spreadsheets,
>>> databases and other 'home office' and small business software. My Sony
>>> MSX 2 computer with diskette drive even came standard with much of this
>>> software. I of course used loads of editors, assemblers, debuggers,
>>> etc.! :-)
>>>
>> My Fujitsu Micro-8 had 2 68B09s (one as a graphics co-processor) and
>> came with dual 5.25" disks, a bunch of software and could even run a
>> dialect of Unix. I taught myself C on it, but it was a world way from
>> the C64.
>
> That’s why Commodore had the PET which left both of them for dead.

Left what for dead?

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>> Frank Slootweg wrote
>>>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/10/2021 11:05 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/10/2021 1:39 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 29/09/2021 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet that more than 95% of C64 users never did more than plug
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> game cartridges.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unlikely given the massive amount of software, utilities and
>>>>>>>>> programming
>>>>>>>>> tools compared to the ZX. Who do you think programmed all those ML
>>>>>>>>> programs, games and demos back then and even now?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anecdote: In The Netherlands - and possibly other countries -
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> production line of the Philips shavers was controlled by C64
>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>> The programming was done in some superset of C.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I had to convert the functionality to our HP 9000 Series 300
>>>>>>>> HP-UX
>>>>>>>> (UNIX) systems and I had a very, very hard time offering a similar
>>>>>>>> functionality in our C language. I had to resort to some fancy
>>>>>>>> footwork
>>>>>>>> with pointers to pointers and let the C-preprocessor (cpp) do some
>>>>>>>> magic
>>>>>>>> to make it look as if our C language had similar functionality as
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> one they had on the C64. It still makes my head spin! :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought the C64 has Basic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All these 'hobby' computers had BASIC in ROM, but you could also
>>>>>> load
>>>>>> other software - such as editors, compilers, assemblers, loaders,
>>>>>> etc. -
>>>>>> into RAM, which enables programming in other languages, such as
>>>>>> assembler, C, etc..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I used these kind of things on MSX (1 and 2) computers, another
>>>>>> kind
>>>>>> of 'hobby' computer.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were all proper home computers in their time.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed they were. They could play games, but also could run loads of
>>>> other software, including things like wordprocessors, spreadsheets,
>>>> databases and other 'home office' and small business software. My Sony
>>>> MSX 2 computer with diskette drive even came standard with much of this
>>>> software. I of course used loads of editors, assemblers, debuggers,
>>>> etc.! :-)
>>>>
>>> My Fujitsu Micro-8 had 2 68B09s (one as a graphics co-processor) and
>>> came with dual 5.25" disks, a bunch of software and could even run a
>>> dialect of Unix. I taught myself C on it, but it was a world way from
>>> the C64.
>>
>> That’s why Commodore had the PET which left both of them for dead.
>
> Left what for dead?

Both of those, as I said.

On 9/10/2021 6:34 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>>> Frank Slootweg wrote
>>>>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/10/2021 11:05 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/10/2021 1:39 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 29/09/2021 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet that more than 95% of C64 users never did more than
>>>>>>>>>>> plug in
>>>>>>>>>>> game cartridges.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unlikely given the massive amount of software, utilities and
>>>>>>>>>> programming
>>>>>>>>>> tools compared to the ZX. Who do you think programmed all
>>>>>>>>>> those ML
>>>>>>>>>> programs, games and demos back then and even now?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      Anecdote: In The Netherlands - and possibly other
>>>>>>>>> countries - the
>>>>>>>>> production line of the Philips shavers was controlled by C64
>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>> The programming was done in some superset of C.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      I had to convert the functionality to our HP 9000 Series
>>>>>>>>> 300 HP-UX
>>>>>>>>> (UNIX) systems and I had a very, very hard time offering a similar
>>>>>>>>> functionality in our C language. I had to resort to some fancy
>>>>>>>>> footwork
>>>>>>>>> with pointers to pointers and let the C-preprocessor (cpp) do
>>>>>>>>> some magic
>>>>>>>>> to make it look as if our C language had similar functionality
>>>>>>>>> as the
>>>>>>>>> one they had on the C64. It still makes my head spin! :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I thought the C64 has Basic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     All these 'hobby' computers had BASIC in ROM, but you could
>>>>>>> also load
>>>>>>> other software - such as editors, compilers, assemblers, loaders,
>>>>>>> etc. -
>>>>>>> into RAM, which enables programming in other languages, such as
>>>>>>> assembler, C, etc..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I used these kind of things on MSX (1 and 2) computers,
>>>>>>> another kind
>>>>>>> of 'hobby' computer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were all proper home computers in their time.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Indeed they were. They could play games, but also could run
>>>>> loads of
>>>>> other software, including things like wordprocessors, spreadsheets,
>>>>> databases and other 'home office' and small business software. My Sony
>>>>> MSX 2 computer with diskette drive even came standard with much of
>>>>> this
>>>>> software. I of course used loads of editors, assemblers, debuggers,
>>>>> etc.! :-)
>>>>>
>>>> My Fujitsu Micro-8 had 2 68B09s (one as a graphics co-processor) and
>>>> came with dual 5.25" disks, a bunch of software and could even run a
>>>> dialect of Unix. I taught myself C on it, but it was a world way
>>>> from the C64.
>>>
>>> That’s why Commodore had the PET which left both of them for dead.
>>
>> Left what for dead?
>
> Both of those, as I said.

And how would you know? You wouldn't know a Micro-8 if it was shoved up
your arse.