The Spectrum is a computer for GIRLS !!!
in [Commodore]
|
From: Patrick de Zeester on 26 Nov 2006 07:07 spike1(a)freenet.co.uk wrote: > Patrick de Zeester <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> did eloquently scribble: >>> The utter flop that was the commodore 16 perhaps? >>> (God knows what they were thinking when they released that) > >> Not only God, Commodore thought they released something which was >> supposed to compete with the Spectrum! > > Aye, but they did it... what, 2 years after the spectrum? > And it only came with 16k of RAM when no-one in 1984 or 5 was bothering to > buy 16k spectrums anymore. > > Of course, it was doomed to failure before it was even released because of > that. Not to mention its incompatibility with the vic and c64, meaning no > games when the spectrum had a 2 or 3 year head start and a massive back > catalogue. Believe it or not, but that is the way it is. Well at least according to the book "On the edge, The Spectacular Rise and Fall of Commodore", and a video floating somewhere on the net with Bill Herd and Dave Haynie (two former Commodore engineers).
From: DanSolo on 26 Nov 2006 13:39 Dunny wrote: > In news:1164001833.178416.67160(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, > Ed Zagmoon <spartan_isle(a)yahoo.com> typed: > > > Conclusion : If you are a Spectrum user, you must be a girl. > > If you think that you're a man, please double-check the > > thing between your legs, you CAN'T be a man. > > They even tested the theory on WOS: > > http://www.worldofspectrum.org/hcc2006/index2.html#theory > > :-) > > D. Wow, you've proven the opposite. No girl would ever actually TOUCH a Sinclair machine!
From: Sam Gillett on 26 Nov 2006 18:56 "Daniel Mandic" wrote ... > Sam Gillett wrote: > >> The later C64's had a different case design, but still had the same >> keyboard layout, the same amount of RAM, the same ports, etc., etc. > > everyone knows, only the brown madie in W-Germany, VC-20 tundered, > lame Basic, almost 400/800 Graphics and the MOS-6581 outfitted commode > is a real Breadbin. I can think of only two things that might explain your post. 1. You are insane. 2. You are very high on drugs. -- Best regards, Sam Gillett It looks like your gene pool could use a filter!
From: pacman_6502 on 26 Nov 2006 19:10 On Nov 22, 8:03 pm, Anders Carlsson <anders.carls...(a)sfks.se> wrote: >Well.. it depends on which address the file was stored from. As far > as I know, the (only?) method to obtain auto-start is to load a file > into the low 1K - perhaps one of the Kernel vectors - and when the > load routine returns to Basic, your routine happens to be executed > and you can continue the loading process. You could also place your auto-start loader under the kernal ROM. You just have to set up your loader so that the IRQ vectors are over-writen with the starting address of your loader, and then wrapping around the 64K boundry and over-write the memory banking register also. When the memory banking register gets set with a value to bank out the kernal ROM, the next IRQ with pass control to your loader routine.
From: spike1 on 26 Nov 2006 19:13
Sam Gillett <samgillettnospam(a)diespammermsn.com> did eloquently scribble: > "Daniel Mandic" wrote ... >> Sam Gillett wrote: >> >>> The later C64's had a different case design, but still had the same >>> keyboard layout, the same amount of RAM, the same ports, etc., etc. >> >> everyone knows, only the brown madie in W-Germany, VC-20 tundered, >> lame Basic, almost 400/800 Graphics and the MOS-6581 outfitted commode >> is a real Breadbin. > I can think of only two things that might explain your post. > 1. You are insane. > 2. You are very high on drugs. So... we finally have some common ground. :) -- ______________________________________________________________________________ | spike1(a)freenet.co.uk | | |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't | | in | suck is probably the day they start making | | Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |