The Spectrum is a computer for GIRLS !!!
in [Commodore]
|
From: Sam Gillett on 18 Dec 2006 23:25 <spike1(a)freenet.co.uk> wrote ... > agila61(a)netscape.net did eloquently scribble: > >> And you should take great care when cross posting inside jokes from CSS >> on CSC. CSC is a very clean group. It is, for example, singularly >> uncontaminated with humour. > > Whereas we're completely hatstand over here and almost all our posts > contain it. > > CSC must be duller than the mind of the author of commodore 64 basic. Yes, Sinclair BASIC is full of humor. Sinclair BASIC is just a joke! I had much rather have a nice dull BASIC, like that of the C64. At least it is a real BASIC and not just a joke. :-) -- Best regards, Sam Gillett I saw Sir Clive making crop circles, But they turned out square!! As big a joke as his BASIC!
From: spike1 on 19 Dec 2006 04:44 Sam Gillett <samgillettnospam(a)diespammermsn.com> did eloquently scribble: > <spike1(a)freenet.co.uk> wrote ... >> agila61(a)netscape.net did eloquently scribble: >> >>> And you should take great care when cross posting inside jokes from CSS >>> on CSC. CSC is a very clean group. It is, for example, singularly >>> uncontaminated with humour. >> >> Whereas we're completely hatstand over here and almost all our posts >> contain it. >> >> CSC must be duller than the mind of the author of commodore 64 basic. > Yes, Sinclair BASIC is full of humor. Sinclair BASIC is just a joke! > I had much rather have a nice dull BASIC, like that of the C64. At least it > is a real BASIC and not just a joke. :-) Hmmm, a basic without even a the simplest of features... How did you do print at again? control character strings and string splitting to get to the correct position wasn't it? And you call sinclair basic a joke. Thought he said CSC contained no humour? Certainly contains traces of nut. -- | |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack| | spike1(a)freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you| | |can't move, with no hope of rescue. | |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been | | in |good to you so far... | | Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
From: Sam Gillett on 19 Dec 2006 17:57 <spike1(a)freenet.co.uk> wrote ... > > Thought he said CSC contained no humour? Certainly contains traces of nut. CSC may contain traces. CSS is full to overflowing! ;-) -- Best regards, Sam Gillett Why is the third hand on a watch called the second hand?
From: DanSolo on 20 Dec 2006 10:00 If you look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_128 you'll see that Commodore "owned" (as the kids say) the Z80 processor. Although surely 64+48 is 112???? I don't remember ever wanting to "print at". Do you really play games written in BASIC? Then even 3.5Mhz isn't very fast.... Acorrding to http://www.bu22.com/databases.php and WOS, the C64 beats the ZX on software titles (and don't start on about quality, both platforms have their chamber of horrors) by about 3 to 1. Why would this ? If the Spec is so easy to program on, wouldn't everybody would have been writing games for it?
From: spike1 on 20 Dec 2006 10:34
DanSolo <daniel.otoole(a)ucd.ie> did eloquently scribble: > If you look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_128 you'll see > that Commodore "owned" (as the kids say) the Z80 processor. Although > surely 64+48 is 112???? How could commodore "OWN" the z80 when it was clocked at the same speed as the 6510 in the commodore 128? The main argument you lot have for the 65xx family is that the instructions are less clock cycle hungry and thus, the programs run at a comparable speed on the 64 as the spectrum. But with the 128, the z80 must've been crawling. > I don't remember ever wanting to "print at". Do you really play games > written in BASIC? Then even 3.5Mhz isn't very fast.... > Acorrding to http://www.bu22.com/databases.php and WOS, the C64 beats > the ZX on software titles (and don't start on about quality, both > platforms have their chamber of horrors) by about 3 to 1. You had the entire north american sub-continent to produce software. We had Great britain and a few bits of europe. (Which also brings in the language problem) > Why would > this ? If the Spec is so easy to program on, wouldn't everybody would > have been writing games for it? Did everybody write games for the 64? No. So why should the spectrum be expected to be used for writing games by everyone who owned them? -- ______________________________________________________________________________ | spike1(a)freenet.co.uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" | |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| | | in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control | | Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |