On 9/10/2021 5:30 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> 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.

He'd think it was just another piece of shit that deserved to be flushed.

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
> 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?

Because I have use the Commodore stuff for years, fuckwit.

> You wouldn't know a Micro-8 if it was shoved up your arse.

There you go, face down in the mud, as always.
And its trivial to check its specs anyway, fuckwit.

On 10/10/2021 1:41 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>> 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?
>
> Because I have use the Commodore stuff for years, fuckwit.
>

Do you still have a PET?

Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>> 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?
>>
>> Because I have use the Commodore stuff for years, fuckwit.

> Do you still have a PET?

Not anymore, that was at work. A lab machine controller.

On 3/10/2021 12:37 pm, 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.
>

How many lines of code?

> 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 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
>
>

On 10/10/2021 3:41 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>> 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?
>
> Because I have use the Commodore stuff for years, fuckwit.

But you've never seen a Mico-8 so you've no idea how to compare the two.
Here's a clue - the Micro-8 ate the C64 for breakfast.

>> You wouldn't know a Micro-8 if it was shoved up your arse.
>
> There you go, face down in the mud, as always.
> And its trivial to check its specs anyway, fuckwit.

Thanks for proving that you have no fucking 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
>>>>>> 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?
>>
>> Because I have use the Commodore stuff for years, fuckwit.

> But you've never seen a Mico-8

There you go, face down in the mud, as always.

> so you've no idea how to compare the two.

More mindless bullshit, your trademark.

> Here's a clue - the Micro-8 ate the C64 for breakfast.

More mindless bullshit, your trademark.

>>> You wouldn't know a Micro-8 if it was shoved up your arse.
>>
>> There you go, face down in the mud, as always.
>> And its trivial to check its specs anyway, fuckwit.
>
> Thanks for proving that you have no fucking idea.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

On 11/10/2021 2:04 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Because I have use the Commodore stuff for years, fuckwit.
>
>> Do you still have a PET?
>
> Not anymore, that was at work. A lab machine controller.

If you know of one going, I'd be interested. I would love one to add to
my collection.

Max <max@val.morgan> 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.

> How many lines of code?

Cant remember, assembler on the 8, decent sized deck of cards, fortran on
the IBM.

>> 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 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

On 11/10/2021 10:10 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Because I have use the Commodore stuff for years, fuckwit.
>
>> But you've never seen a Mico-8
>
> There you go, face down in the mud, as always.
>
>> so you've no idea how to compare the two.
>
> More mindless bullshit, your trademark.
>
>> Here's a clue - the Micro-8 ate the C64 for breakfast.
>
> More mindless bullshit, your trademark.
>
>>>> You wouldn't know a Micro-8 if it was shoved up your arse.
>>>
>>> There you go, face down in the mud, as always.
>>> And its trivial to check its specs anyway, fuckwit.
>>
>> Thanks for proving that you have no fucking idea.
>
> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

Oh dear, rod's out of ideas and reverting to his stock phrases.

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> Because I have use the Commodore stuff for years, fuckwit.
>>
>>> But you've never seen a Mico-8
>>
>> There you go, face down in the mud, as always.
>>
>>> so you've no idea how to compare the two.
>>
>> More mindless bullshit, your trademark.
>>
>>> Here's a clue - the Micro-8 ate the C64 for breakfast.
>>
>> More mindless bullshit, your trademark.
>>
>>>>> You wouldn't know a Micro-8 if it was shoved up your arse.
>>>>
>>>> There you go, face down in the mud, as always.
>>>> And its trivial to check its specs anyway, fuckwit.
>>>
>>> Thanks for proving that you have no fucking idea.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

On 14/10/2021 2:32 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because I have use the Commodore stuff for years, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>> But you've never seen a Mico-8
>>>
>>> There you go, face down in the mud, as always.
>>>
>>>> so you've no idea how to compare the two.
>>>
>>> More mindless bullshit, your trademark.
>>>
>>>> Here's a clue - the Micro-8 ate the C64 for breakfast.
>>>
>>> More mindless bullshit, your trademark.
>>>
>>>>>> You wouldn't know a Micro-8 if it was shoved up your arse.
>>>>>
>>>>> There you go, face down in the mud, as always.
>>>>> And its trivial to check its specs anyway, fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for proving that you have no fucking idea.
>
> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>
Q.E.D.

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because I have use the Commodore stuff for years, fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>>> But you've never seen a Mico-8
>>>>
>>>> There you go, face down in the mud, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> so you've no idea how to compare the two.
>>>>
>>>> More mindless bullshit, your trademark.
>>>>
>>>>> Here's a clue - the Micro-8 ate the C64 for breakfast.
>>>>
>>>> More mindless bullshit, your trademark.
>>>>
>>>>>>> You wouldn't know a Micro-8 if it was shoved up your arse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There you go, face down in the mud, as always.
>>>>>> And its trivial to check its specs anyway, fuckwit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for proving that you have no fucking idea.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

On 30/09/2021 2:42 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 29/9/21 9:02 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 29/09/2021 3:35 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 26/09/2021 9:14 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 26/09/2021 2:12 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> what was the one that Dick Smith sold called?
>>>
>>> Sold a bunch of different computers. The Wizzard which was a rebadged
>>> Creativision, 6502 based with a TMS9928 video chip. The VZ200 and
>>> VZ300 which were Z80 based with a MC6847 VDG, the CAT, Sorcerer,
>>> System 80 (TRS-80 clone, also Z80). Aquarius briefly.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it had some sort
>>>> of cat name, like cougar or something
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> I guess it was the CAT I was thinking of
>>
> The only two in the above list I am not aware of was the CAT and the
> Aquarius. Seems they were just badge engineered (read: inferior) clones
> so no small wonder they didn't attract my attention.

The Aquarius was a Mattel original and an entry level system, but not a
very good one compared to others available. The CAT wasn't really Apple
compatible until you plugged a cartridge on so that wasn't a "clone" either.

I was pretty firmly
> entrenched into the Zilog space by 83-84 and, IIRC, running CP/M. By the
> mid 80s I was running 4 MHz Ampro Littleboards with twin DSDD 800k
> floppy drives and SCSI hard drives. The HDD interface on my first Ampro
> Littleboard was actually SASI, predecessor to SCSI. The final HDD I used
> on an Ampro was a Tandon 30 Meg Linear Voice coil Actuator drive, one of
> the fastest steppers around in that era. CP/M 2.2 couldn't handle a
> drive greater than 8 meg so I had to divide that 30 Meg drive up into 4
> x 7.5Meg drives and allocate each partition to it's own *User Area*. The
> Drive, a 5.25" Full Height, was encased in it's own enclosure with a
> linear power supply, it weighed a ton. They called those old drives
> *door stops* and for very good reason.
>