Re: Steve Jobs demos Macintosh in 1984

Woody <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Woody <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Woody <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Woody <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Woody <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]

But aside from that, you are setting up an invalid comparison as far as
I can tell - you cite the most sophisticated telescope of its day,
created centuries after the first telescope, and you do so as if it is
in some way comparable to the first effort in a new field.

So are you saying that a transducer was invented in 1920 and no-one used
it for anything for 42 years?

Neither, of course.

Read the links I provided, please, read what I wrote, and stop being
absurd.

Why do I bother when you distort what I say, ignore the information
links I give you, and just stick to your tiny little world in which no
new information may enter in case it disturbs your cosy view of the
world?

Can you *** off with the abuse and try to keep a civil tounge in your
head for a change please?

Yes, well, you need to look at your own faults before you get snotty
with me, sunshine.

Can you please stop annoying the hell out of me by deliberately
distorting what I say so you can come up with stupidly invalid
objections to perfectly sensible points just for the sake of `winning'
an argument.

I find it annoying and upsetting.

Rather than doing that, could you please stick to the facts, stick to
what I actually write, and stop making up total fucking nonsense,
please?

And also drop the fucking hypocrisy: I've not been any more fucking
insulting to you than you are to me on a routine basis. What's the
fucking matter with you? You can certainly deal out the fucking abuse.
I'm sick of you being bloody obnoxious and awkward to me and then
getting all hot under the collar and hoity-toity just because I object
to your deeply objectionable behaviour.

1) Stop hurling fucking abuse at me.
2) Stop annoying the fucking hell out of me, as outlined above.

You are often very insulting to me, Woody - but you never seem to give a
damn about insulting or upsetting me, do you? And you're fucking
horribly thin-skinned when it comes to perceiving insults yourself.

I'd call you a touchy fucking hypocrite, on the basis of your behaviour
as I have observed it. What's the matter with you?

The first singing computer was 1962 - apparently. The technology
required to make such a thing existed in 1948, just about. All the
parts were there in 1948, if anyone had thought to put them together.

I dont believe that is true.

So what? You've made no attempt to find out about the technology,
you're just relying on `what you think you already know'.

I already know about transducers thanks, so yes.

But you've made no attempt to find out about what I've pointed you at so
I have to say that I think you know *** about 'em.

I took the trouble to point you at vocoder information. You have chosen
to ignore it. Learn, damnit! Learn about vocoders and you will see
that I am right.

ok, I read the page and it is considerably less than I already know
(other than names - I know the technology, not the celebs). is there
something in particular I was supposed to gain from that?

A bit of a clue?

Have you bothered do to so yet? Please don't make any further comment
until you've learnt something, please.

I have read it but I didn't learn anything. In fact I would say it was
rather light on information as it didn't cover much about modern
vocoding which we use every day in mobile phones.

But that has nothing whatever to do with the history of the subject,
which is the matter under discussion.


I don't believe you could have done what
they did in 1962 in 1948, there just wasn't the memory for it.

So what?

I said that the technology to make a singing computer existed in 1948,
just about.

Now engage your brain and think again.

For sure not much computer memory had been made in 1948 - but it could
have been.

Could it? A war had just finished and resources were very scarce.

The required resources were in fact plentiful because *a war had just
finished*. You really ought to think more clearly about these things.

(of course, you had to know the right people to get hold of the
plentiful war surplus kit - but the Manchester computer project had a
bloke from the TRE and he did)

They could have strapped on more mag drums with the greatest of ease,
for example. The first one was made out of scrap metal found lying
around at the university, given a nickel plating at a place that
specialised in doing motorcycle parts.

CRT memory is a lot less bother than mercury delay line memory, once
you've tweaked the rig to work.

I
assume you mean technically it could have been made if it was the one
research of human kind, but it wasn't.

No, I mean that since they'd put all that effort into making a bloody
computer despite all the shortages, it wouldn't have been hard to
interface it to a vocoder *had they thought of doing so and thought it
would be useful*.

All they needed to do was make more mag drums, more
Williams-Kilburn storage tubes. And it wouldn't have taken a huge lot
more than they had to start with to make a singing computer back then.
It doesn't, not if you use a vocoder.

How would the vocoder make it simpler in this case? OK, if they were
using modern vocoder methods that weren't created then, but not analog
vocoding.

You need to store less data to run a vocoder than you do to synthesize
speech using a `sample and reconstruct' technique.

But of course you don't know how vocoders work, so you didn't know that.

Except I do know how they work. You seem rather clueless though.,

At least I'm not as rude as you are.

btw, I've seen no evidence that you understand anything about vocoders.
Perhaps you would care to prove me wrong? You seem totally ignorant of
them, almost as much as you are ignorant of decent polite behaviour.

(The original computer, the 1948 Manchester Baby, *could* have been used
to draw pictures - using the CRT that mirrored the memory.

Yes, far easier than singing.

That is not the point.

If it is not the point, why did you bring it up?

The point is that there were things that could have been done back then
that were not done.

It is a very simple point, but I've noticed that you often have trouble
understanding simple points like that for some reason to do with the
weakness of your mind, I expect.

The fact that it would have been easy to write pictures on the CRT
memory of those early computers and the fact that they did not is a side
issue.

And in any case, I suspect that persuading it to
sing /using a vocoder/ would require less tricky programming than
drawing interesting pictures on screen under software control, given
that the `screen' was a reflection of RAM contents.

ok, can you explain how then as I would imagine it was very tricky. Can
you explain how using 1948 technology you would do it other than your
suspicions?

<surprised> Why the hell should I jump at your orders, especially given
your appallingly rude behaviour towards me?

How about you try to explain what difficulties there might have been in
persuading a computer to sign (albeit crudely) using 1948 tech?

I can't see any fundamental problems at all - aside from the fact that
it wouldn't have occurred to anyone to try it, and even if it had, they
probably wouldn't have done because they had more important things to do
with computers than play around like that with them.

I think the problem is that you have no idea how a vocoder works.

I think the problem is that you seem to have very little clue how either
a 1948 computer, memory or a vocoder works.

If that's how it seems, I have to say that you're clueless about what I
know and just as clueless about all those things yourself.

But I am happy to admit I am wrong if you can demonstrate a grasp of any
of the technology to the point where it can be used other than an
armwaving 'yes, use a vocoder, that will solve everything'

I get the idea that you know nothing about the technology concerned.
You certainly know nothing about what I understand, and you are willing
to expose not only your ignorance but your low manners by expressing
yourself in a rather upsettingly rude fashion which I object to very
strongly.

In short, you're behaving like a total *** and I object very strongly.

But shall we get on with this?

I did tell you that I've had the Manchester Baby demonstrated to me at a
private viewing by the man who ran the project to rebuild it. You
should have paid attention to that point.

The Manchester Baby used Williams-Kilburn tubes for storage. They work
by using a CRT with the electron gun adjusted to run at an energy such
that it knocks electrons off the phosphor coating on the front of the
tube. It's an insulating surface, so the charge hangs around for a bit.

To read data, you write to a `data spot'. If the charge on that spot
changes - i.e., there was no data there - this change is detected
capacitively by a metal plate covering the front of the CRT. The data
is read by loooking at the signal from that plate. Can you guess which
way the spike goes? I could tell you, but let's just test your
understanding of the mechanism.

Can you answer the question, or are you too ignorant of basic
electronics to be able to work it out? Come on, let's see you.

So reading a Williams-Kilburn tube is a destructive process. The next
step is to ensure that memory bit is restored to its correct state, if
needed - that is, erase it if it was uncharged before reading.

To erase a memory bit one uses either a defocussed beam or a short line
next to the memory dot - either way, this liberates electrons that'll be
attracted to the positively charged memory dot. The focus-defocus
method (as it was called by the man in charge) was the later, more
sophisticated method.

Perhaps you could apologise for you appallingly insulting remarks above?
And maybe you could do the next bit and prove to me that you've got a
clue about how a 1948 computer works. I know very well - how about you?
You seem to have no idea.

You describe some other aspect of the Manchester Baby's operation -
let's see if you have the faintest clue. I know how it works - I bet
you don't.

Do you get my point now?

I got your point straight away,

Since you don't know how a vocoder works, you still haven't got it.

I am just disagreeing with it. It *was*
impressive.

Be as emphatic as you like: I see no reason to be that impressed. What
do *YOU* think was impressive about it?

The fact that it is hard.

But that's bull***. Why make such an obviously false statement?

The processes are straightforward. It just requires capacity from the
machinery, that's all.

With the equipment of the day I would have
found it hard to do, which lets face it means you would find it
impossible.

Let's face it, you're just being nastily rude. I think your hypocrisy
is beyond belief. Are you going to apologise?

What makes you think you're so superior to me? I have to tell you that
I'd find it *easier* to do such a job than you because I'm more clued up
than you are. Neither of us knows much about valve tech, but I've got a
very good idea of how to specify the jobs that need to be done and I
could look up how to do it and then do it. Well, if I were uncracked,
that is - if I were in the state I was in 15 years ago, let's say.

It's all very straightforward, it really is. You can't see that so of
course you'd fail but I wouldn't (even now I might be able to do it if I
kept myself away from ignorant, rude, and upsetting wankers like you).

People doing things I find hard to do, I find impressive when they do.

But this particular job ain't hard.

I
know it is a simple thing, but I do. People impress me all the time with
the things they can do.

<shrug> I understand all about how to encode analogue into digital -
fully understand, in ways that are beyond your brain - which is more
concerned with shouting me down and insulting me than anything else at
the moment, so it seems. I fully understand the process of digital to
analogue encoding, too.

I have implemented such encoding. Both ways.

I have built myself a software programmable digital electronic computer
from chips, to a design of my own.

I have built subsystems required by CPUs from discrete components - not
logic chips, but transistors and diodes and resistors and capacitors
(the caps were mostly used for smoothing and decoupling).

I've made memory the same way.

I once even made myself a crude loudspeaker transducer, just for the
hell of it.

Clearly, your claim that I could not make a computer sing is total
nonsense. Are you going to apologise for your grotesque and gratuitous
personal insults above, based as they were on your usual ignorance and
small-minded bigotry?

Or are you going to get all hypocritically huffy and hoity-toity again?
Woody, the man who can dish out any insult but gets all upset when
anyone insults him back. You total fucking wanker, you.

No, that doesn't mean it was impossible to do in 1961 or
maybe 1960, but that doesn't make it any less impressive.

Tell me why you are impressed by the feat.

Just did.

Not in terms that made a lot of sense.

I know that you want to
shout and shout and shout that it's impressive until no-one else dares
to contradict you, but how about you try some *reasoning*, based on
addressing the facts that I've pointed out to you. And then explain you
reasoning.

Just did. I don't do the shouting like you,

I beg your pardon? You're being upsettingly insulting again, coming out
with more bull*** insults. I've not been shouting. You've been doing
a lot of just telling me that you're right and ignoring all the facts
that I've brought up and ignoring the facts on the Web pages too.

my reasoning is much more
simple.

Yes, you're a twat and you think you know it all and you're just going
to carry on sneering at me no matter what I write.

I find your attitude very upsetting, which is why I react as I do. Your
behaviour is totally out of order as far as I'm concerned.

You haven't pointed any *facts* out to me,

<shrug> The facts are that the job in hand is not hard, and that the
technological components required to do the job existed in 1948.

I've pointed out those facts to you. Your response has been little more
than ill-mannered sneering. Of course you will get even more angry and
shouty and much ruder in response to this complaint of mine about your
manners, thus proving that I'm accurate when I call you an ill-mannered
bigoted slob.

you pointed to a basic
vocoder page on a wiki site,

Yes, just in case you'd not heard of the gadgets. Just to give you a
clue. That's all I was doing with that. If you want more, you can ***
off as far as I'm concerned because you've been so rude and upsetting to
me.

said that solves every problem (without
explaining how) and assume that for some reason I didn't understand
school level vocoding.

<shrug> But you don't understand the tech, you've made that perfectly
clear. All you want to do is sneer at me and insult me.

I find this upsetting. Stop it, you ignorant ***.

Before you do that, please learn about vocoders.

Tell you what, you try that as you seem to know nothing.

I know about 'em; I think the problem is your degree of ignorance of the
technology and your preference for hurling upsetting personal insults at
me rather than dealing with the technical issues to hand.

The fact that someone got a computer to sing
14 years later is not particularly impressive.

OK, we will have to disagree there then as I find it impressive. Far
more impressive than the Mac in 1984 or the bbc in 1980 for example.

Yes, but that's only because you're technologically ignorant

hahaha - coming from you that is the funniest thing I have heard! you
can't even make the technology you have work!

Oh aye? What, exactly?

By the way:

I'm sick of your insulting sneering, you total fucking wanker.

Are you going to apologise for this outburst of gratuitous abusiveness?

I find it upsetting. What do you have to say?

I'd like to point out that all the technology I use I use because it
works. I'm much better than you at dealing with almost all technology.

I'd not trust *you* to strip and rebuild a motorcycle. I've done that
to lots of motorcycles. You think I can't get the tech I've got to
work? The proof that you're wrong is the fact that I've ridden it for
tens of thousands of miles.

[snip]

I had a synthesiser and I
could program it. OK, my synth wasn't the most advanced but it worked
well and I made music with it (and an old reel to reel tape recorder).

Like I said, no idea about the state of the art stuff. Teenagers with
synths in their bedrooms didn't have a clue about the state of the art.

What a load of crap. Teenagers with an interest in things have more of a
clue of the state of the art than most other people, in fact, mostly an
obsession.

What a load of crap. You've got no fucking evidence for that claim at
all and you're just being bloody fucking rude for the fucking hell of
it, you ignorant, rude ***.

If you think that's unfair of me, *prove it*.

I won't take your word for anything.

btw, I find your obnoxious rudeness very upsetting and I'd like you to
stop being so fucking rude and start being decent and civilised. I
don't suppose you will.

You can dish it out, but you can't take it, I've noticed. If I'm even
slightly rude to you, you go ballistic. But you think it's fine for you
to be horribly rude to me, don't you, you hypocritical little ***.

Why such strong language? Because your sneering insults have upset me
that much and you deserve a punch in the mouth.

The BBC Micro was inspiring for music when you did that - as I
showed with one of the links I provided.

Well, yes, anything was inspiring if you connect it to the right
things. However, there was no particularly decent BBC software for
music,

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc_micro#Use_in_the_entertainment_industr
y>

indicates otherwise.

No, it indicates there was some software, it doesn't indicate there was
anything decent.

Point is, it was used /professionally/ - that implies it was better than
what teenagers played with in their bedrooms.

No it doesn't. Many things used professionally are worse than things
teenagers have in their bedrooms. Just becasue something is used
professionally doesn't mean it has to be the best thing going.

So you say. Now demonstrate your point with credible examples, if you
can. If not, stop being ridiculous.

It may indicate it cost more although not always.

Why ignore that crucial point?

Because it is flawed.

In which case, you should point out the flaws instead of ignoring the
point or just claiming that it's flawed. You're just being awkward.

If it's flawed, explain the details. I'm certainly not going to assume
you're right just because you've made an unsubstatiated claim that flies
in the face of all the hard facts that I know on the subject.

Probably not a lot of hope for a ZX81, no matter what you did
with it...

Well, if you connected it to the same equipment and gave it some
memory, I don't see why it should be that much of a problem.

You want problems? Okay: connecting a ZX81 to `the same equipment and
some memory' meant plugging everything in via the one wobbly edge
connector on the back. This did not provide for reliability.

if you were going to add it on, you could solder it.

But if you do that, you have the problem of not being able to unplug it
conveniently.

Why would you need to? I soldered things to mine and never had a need to
unplug it.

<shrug> Okay, so you don't want to understand. I won't waste my time
on this point any further.

To permit a ZX81 to use the same stuff as a BBC Micro, you'd have to
implement the same interfaces, since the ZX81 had none beyond the system
bus exposed at the back, a UHF modulator for video output, and a
cassette port.

but it had the system bus, the ultimate interface.

<sigh> And the least convenient of the lot.

Why is convenience an issue all of a sudden?

That degree of convenience is one of the important aspects of the
technical superiority of the BBC Micro over the competition.

I'd rather be able to plug things in and use them via the OS than have
to build extra circuitry and then work out my own software interface to
it.

Sure, you could spend money and buy a third party interface for a
Spectrum, and with a bit of fiddling around you could congratulate
yourself if you managed to get it to do something, but you were sure to
run into trouble if you started to plug more than one thing into the
system bus connector at the back, weren't you?

The BBC Micro had the
system bus available externally so you can't argue that the Sinclair
machines had anything the Beeb did not.

Yes it did. It had a means to access the non-maskable interrupt and take
control of the machine.

Huh? I know of no reason - unless you were using a disc drive - not to
use NMI on a BBC Micro. But you didn't need to use NMI to take control
of the machine, surely? Just write in assembly and tell the OS to go
away. And there's always IRQ (or whatever the maskable interrupt was).

Okay, it's been 20+ years since I've considered such matters and I might
have missed a point here. Tell me if I have.

If not, I'd say you've introduced a total red herring, and you're being
a bit silly and clutching at straws.

But that bus was rarely needed
because of the shed-load of other interfaces that was provided.

The spectrum had a lot of interfaces available for it.

But you had to buy them as plug-in extras, with all the problems that
causes.

I prefered the BBC to the spectrum - I had both. The BBC was easier to
use for programming and basic interfaces.

The BBC was easier to use for highly sophisticated interfaces, too. And
for graphics. And for everything, really. At least you admit the
technological superiority of the BBC Micro in one department.

Doing so would not be trivial - I don't see any way a
Beeb Tube interface could have been added to a ZX81, for example.

Why would you want to?

For the obvious reasons, obviously.

What a daft answer, when someone asks what a tube interface was for and
you say its obvious?

In the general case, yes; in the case of *you* in particular, no.

You're just asking that question to be obnoxious; you know exactly what
the answer is and I'm not playing your silly childish game.

I had a bbc, I never used the tube interface.

So?

What sort of a question is that?
You add a second CPU so that you can do things faster, or do things that
otherwise cannot be done. You want CP/M on a Beeb? No worries, plug in
a Z80. You want to develop Archimedes software before the first Arc has
been built? No worries, plug in an ARM (Acorn did that, and sold 'em to
the public). You want a super-fast normal Beeb? No worries, plug in a
6502 (common). You want to play with a 68000? No worries, plug one in.
And I did know a chap who had in fact done that.

I know a chap with a PPC in an amiga as a second processor. Doesn't mean
that most people want to do it, or ever did.

But it's bloody hard to do that, isn't it? It's dead easy to do with a
BBC Micro because they were designed to work that way. The original CPU
handled all I/O and all housekeeping, leaving the second CPU free to put
all its cycles into user tasks. Warp speed microcomputing, that's what
you got.

If you wanted to run CP/M on a machine it was probably cheaper to get a
CP/M machine.

So you say - but the Torch was apparently quite a popular rig, a BBC
Micro with Z80 second CPU and a HDD attached. There must have been a
reason for that. It was certainly /faster/ than any other Z80 micro
around.

Want to play with a 68000, by an ST - also probably
cheaper.

Except that they were all slower and didn't have the interfaces and
other fancy hardware that the BBC Micro had. And it's cheaper to buy a
second CPU to add to an existing BBC Micro than to buy a whole new
computer.

No, you had a full z80 system bus and interface lines, which gave you
everything you wanted in an easy to use form.

This is some kind of joke, yes?

No.

It must be, because it's not convenient to use the system bus. It is in
fact utterly useless unless you build extra circuitry.

`Everything you wanted in an easy to use form'. Yeah, right. So you
can just plug your analoge joystick and light pen and disc drive and
printer and network and second CPU et al into the system bus and it all
just works *AND* you've got interfaces to spare because you've got the
hardware and software required to make it work all just there, somehow
appearing by magic?

No, but you could do it cheaper than you could do it on the beeb.

Not at all, because the Spectrum was incapable of doing what the BBC
Micro could do in so many ways.

Not
without an awful lot of work; the Beeb needed a custom chip for that job
(designed by Steve Furber, who gave it a nasty race condition that could
be triggered by odd operation, the silly sod).

The beeb had much older technology (more of) with a better operating
system.

Huh? No, the Beeb was technologically more advanced than all other 8
bit micros ever.

What, because you say so? What are its techological advances then?

It was faster and more flexible and more adaptable than all the rest.
Simple enough, wouldn't you say? The BBC Micro worked better, faster,
more conveniently, more flexibly: that is what it had over all others.

The BBC Micro did this by the use of a more advanced internal
/architecture/. Of course it had some fancy chips inside it, but it was
the advanced architecture that was its main advantage. The Sinclair
ZX80-Spectrum had a very primitive architecture, for all that Sinclair
used programmable array logic to replace a lot of lower level
integration glue logic as used in the ZX80.

The Beeb had lots of neat tricks inside the case to make it go faster -
a double-speed bus at some point so that the CPU and screen display
stuff didn't get in each other's way, a modern serial port (RS423, same
standard document as RS422, the modern form of RS232), a Tube interface
for a second CPU, OS and hardware support for networking, the list goes
on and on.

The BBC Micro also had something like a proper OS with proper API calls,
making life a lot easier for the programmer, too. Far in advance of the
Sinclair ZX00-Spectrum.

The Sinclair QL - ah, if you want to talk about *that* gadget, you'd
have more than a few points.

Are you mad, or what? What technological advances do you think the
Spectrum had over the BBC Micro? I'm intrigued.

The processor? The integrated logic array chips.

Well, the BBC Micro had a more advanced CPU than the Z80 in the Sinclair
machines, and the Beeb had a ULA and at least one other custom chip (the
Tube interface), but I don't see how you can use that to demonstrate
that the Sinclair machines were more advanced.

The Spectrum wasn't much more than a more highly intergrated version of
the ZX80 with a few minor enhancements over the ZX81 (the mark 1 `more
highly integrated ZX80').

Don't get me wrong: I like those Sinclair machines, but they can't be
compared to the BBC Micro in any way other than `lesser in all respects
bar cheapness'. For sure you got a bit more RAM to use in the Speccy -
so what? That didn't make much practical difference, given the other
advantages of the BBC Micro.

For example, when you can have all your application code in a 16K paged
ROM, you might as well have 48K RAM available. A Speccy had to load
application code into RAM, yes?

The BBC was an old
processor and standard TTL logic chips.

It's the architecture that was more advanced: I'm not talking about the
components. But you're wrong in any case. Yes I do have the circuit
diagram. Of course there was a lot of TTL glue logic - what of it? You
need that when you're designing with a 6502; the Z80's companion chipset
is designed so you don't need to use any glue logic to pin the parts
together. That was just a consequence of the choice of the faster and
more advanced 6502 for the BBC Micro rather than the clunky old
fashioned Z80 - which, however, had the fancy companion chipset to go
along with it.

None of that has anything to do with the two system architectures.

You know little about the circuitry of BBC Micros. Nor about the
history of microprocessors. You should go away and learn. I'll not
bother providing you with links this time because you hardly ever bother
reading the ones that I supply.

The Z80 was based on old hat 8080 tech, while the 6502 was a brash new
design aimed at undercutting the 8080 with a faster CPU. Anyone who
knows anything about the history of microprocessors knows that.

I don't understand why someone as ignorant as you is so strident in his
opinions.

There was no techological
advance brought in by the BBC.

That is utter nonsense. You know nothing about BBC Micros and you've
demonstrated that you refuse to learn. I can tell this because I've
already mentioned some technical innovations inside the BBC Micro.

The parts that you make the machine out of don't have much to do with
the function of the whole system. It was the system design of the BBC
Micro that made it work better than all the competition, and that in
itself is a technological advance. The parts it was made from were all
/appropriate/ tech - put together to create a whole that worked better
than all the competition.

The ZX Spectrum, on the other hand, was little more than a ZX80 with a
floating point Basic, proper keyboard, and crude colour graphics - made
with a higher degree of integration than the ZX80 in order to reduce
costs.

The BBC Micro had a ULA and at least one other custom chip (the Tube
interface), but I don't see how you can use that to demonstrate that the
Sinclair machines were more advanced.

The ZX80-Spectrum were designed down to a price; the BBC Micro was
designed to a particular performance spec.

The BBC Micro had a built-in assembler, something like a proper OS, and
even had structured programming commands built into its Basic.

The Z80 is based on the 8080 line, derived from the world's first
microprocessor - they don't get a lot more primitive than that.

The 6502 CPU was more advanced than the Z80: it was designed to overcome
the high price problem of the 8080 and was a lot more efficient - faster
processing at a lower clock speed, not to mention very low cost. It
also had a bit of pipelining (so I'm told).

The BBC Micro had a Tube interface to permit the use of a second
processor. The BBC Micro had an RS423 interface - the updated version
of RS232C.

It goes on like this. You obviously don't know anything much about the
tech of these machines. The architecture of the Beeb was in any case
far more advanced than that of the Sinclair ZX80/81/Spectrum series
(there is little difference between them) regardless of the components
it was built from.

Even then, you'd be missing the far greater processing speed of the BBC
Micro and also the support hardware that sat back of the interfaces and
did a lot of the work to run things.

I think you are reading that wrong, the zx81 has a far greater
processing speed to the bbc micro.

Erm, you're totally wrong.

Because you say so?

<shrug> So I should believe your claims, which fly in the face of all
the evidence I've ever seen? I should believe just your say-so? I
don't think so.

If you have any *evidence* that the Sinclair machines were faster, do
tell. But I know that they're not from what I've seen myself. You're
just talking through your hat.

I've got a BBC Micro and I've got a ZX81. I had both in 1982 (possibly
1981; well, the ZX81 turned up in that year for sure) and I've got both
now. I like them both a lot.

The ZX81 is a pathetic sluggard by comparison to the BBC Micro.

So you have done benchmarks have you??

Have you? What did you find? Why ask me?

I don't have to have run tests myself, do I? Reading the magazines was
enough.

But yes, I've run a BBC Micro side-by-side with a ZX81 AND done the same
with a ZX Spectrum, doing the same jobs, yes. I've seen the Beeb
annihilate both Sinclair machines on speed. There is quite simply no
comparison. And yes of course I ran the bloody ZX81 in fast mode. I
can't recall much about using the Spectrum - I never owned one myself.

Even if I'd not done that, the magazine benchmarks all backed up what I
saw myself.

What about your tests? What did they show? What tests did you do,
exactly? I tried various things using Basic - loops repeating `jobs
that I did' many times.

What were *YOUR* test results, eh?

Remember that the 6502 was a proto-RISC CPU and didn't have the clumsy
four-clock-tick machine cycle implemented in the Z80. 6502s were cheap
and they were very fast for their clock speed, compared to the
competition.

Okay, so maybe the 6502 instruction set was a bit funky round the edges
- so? It's still a blinder of a CPU and you can work round the
`missing' instructions without any bother.

I have programmed both. I don't know what your 'Proto-risc CPU' means -
I haven't heard it before,

Not surprising, given your level of ignorance of this technology.

but if you mean a precursor to risc, then
they both are, as instructions hadn't got complex enough to reduce them!

The Z80 is clearly a CISC CPU. If you would care to claim otherwise,
talk to me about its LDDR instruction. Just that one.

Okay, if you soldered your add-ons in place, that'd work okay and people
did do that. But I could get my ZX81 to crash quite reliably without
any hardware wobble problems being involved - the `OS' and/or Basic was
buggy as far as I could tell. Could have been some sort of hardware
fault, I suppose.

And the spectrum
probably had better music software than the BBC did.

Why claim that? I don't see any reason to make an assumption like that.
BBC Micros had greater potential all round than Spectrums.

So? who is talking about potential? I am talking about music software.

<shrug> So who used a Spectrum for professional music?

Who knows - I am not as interested in celebrities as you must be,

I find this insult very upsetting, and I find it just as upsetting that
you've decided to ignore the valid point I've just made. So in response
to your appallingly upsetting rudeness, I have this to say to you:

*** off with the insults, Woody. Why do you get off on being so
fucking obnoxious? How about apologising, eh?

I've come
across a Beeb being used for professional music.

I haven't.

But I've provided you with the pointer to such an example. That means
you've not read it - you're just sticking with your tiny mind's small
store of existing `knowledge' and refusing to admit that there might be
something in the world that you do not know.

That ends the argument
unless you can come up with references to people using Speccies for
proper professional work, not just 6th form college rock bands.

Because you say so?

No, because there is good reason to think that BBC Micros got used for
professional music and Speccies did not.

In any case `because I say so' has to be a better reason than because
*you* say so.

You're the one expecting me to believe your say-so that Speccies were
better at music work than Beebs. I've seen no evidence for that at all,
and evidence to the contrary.

All I have is your say so that Speccies were `the music machine of
choice' and your say so is worth bugger all as far as I can tell.

I provide a link to back up my ideas, and all you can do is get
insulting. *** you. And that's perfectly reasonable, given how
obnoxious and insulting your behaviour has become.

Yeah, yeah, go on, throw another hoity-toity wobbly, why don't you. Or
you could always admit that you've got a personality flaw which makes
you get insulting any time someone challenges your claims, and another
personality flaw which means you refuse to accept your ideas might be
wrong, makes you close your mind to other possibilities, makes you
refuse to look at information which might upset your view of the world,
and so on.

Of course I expect that you'll respond to my valid, rational criticisms
of your behaviour with more abuse - I'd expect nothing else from you.

But I can tell you this: your behaviour is beyond the pale as far as I'm
concerned.

I'd assume
that Beebs had better music software myself.

You can assume what you want, I owned both.

You don't seem to have known much about what was available, though.

I certainly don't know everything available. As you know these groups
using professional bbc music software can you point me to it, and I am
happy to go and learn.

You are doing your usual obnoxious trick of twisting what I said into
something other than what I said. Please stop behaving like such a
tosser, Woody. I'm not playing. I've given you the pointer that you
require. As you know, I made no reference to `these groups' as you do.

I don't understand how you can complain about *me* being obnoxious,
given your vile behaviour towards me. I just react to your vile
behaviour - shame you're too thin-skinned to take the *** you dish out
yourself.

After all, it was easier
to connect them to external hardware and they had all-round better
abilities at everything. Spectrums were technically inferior to BBC
Micros in all respects, bar none[1].

Apart from speed, memory and expandability

Huh? Are you completely mental? Lost *all* your marbles?

Speed and expandabilty of the BBC Micro are hugely greater than that of
the Spectrum. The Speccy's an unexpandable slug by comparison - the
superiority of the speed and expandability of the BBC Micro over the
Spectrum is so vast that the comparison is absurd.

Clearly not.

Clearly you're talking ***. Stop being so damned obnoxious - it's your
degree of rudeness, of straightforward nasty obnoxious behaviour, is why
I'm reacting as I am.

You are appallingly rude, Woody, and you need to sort yourself out.

In both cases, it's like comparing a Morris Marina (it's okay, it'll get
you there) with a Mercedes (it's nice, it'll get you there quickly and
in style and comfort).

Can you stop using analogies, we aren't allowed to use them when talking
to you about things (as then you 'don't understand them').

But you tell me that analogies make good sense to you, so your objection
is either a sign of insanity on your part, or a sign of you just being
awkward and obnoxious for the hell of it.

I use analogies to explain things to you because you tell me that you
like them. Now you tell me that I shouldn't do that because I don't
understand 'em. That makes no sense to me.

Can you explain the sanity behind your reasoning here, if indeed there
is any?

I think that you're just being awkward for the sake of being awkward - a
one of your nasty tricks to upset me more. And it's working. I find
your behaviour quite unbearable at times.

Now let's look at memory. This is more complex. By the end, BBC Micros
were coming with 128K memory fitted as standard (32K ROM, 96K RAM),
while Speccies only had 64K memory fitted at the end of development (16K
ROM, 48K RAM).

Althoguh the speccies could access all of them.

BBC Micros could access all their addressable space too, of course -
plus the paged ROMs, which were standard equipment to extend that
addressable space way beyond the 64K limit that Spectrums had.

Both machines could use 64K addressable memory space.

The BBC Micro Model B came with all 64K fully populated - and could have
more paged ROMs added, giving access to vast memory (4 16K ROMs max with
standard hardware, 15 or 16 ROMs max with a simple plug-in card that
fits inside the case. Yeah, I should look up the ROM limit but I can't
be bothered).

The BBC Micro could have a plug-in card added giving paged RAM, thus
permitting the machine to store screen data in `shadow RAM', leaving all
32K of system RAM for the user (and OS, but not screen).

This meant you could have super graphics *and* big programs.

I don't think anyone did ever sell anything like that for Speccys.

Because noone needed to. The BBC for most people could barely muster 20k
of memory, whereas the spectrum had 48k - 6k screen & 2k system, so
double the memory.

But you're not telling the truth, are you?

Most people had 32K RAM in their BBC Micros. With 1K used for the
screen and 3.5K (exactly) used for the OS (no disc), you had 27.5K RAM
free for user programs.

Which turned out to be plenty useful enough for most things. The
advanced tape storage meant that even without a disc drive, you could
use tape to extend the range of things you could do without having to
worry about the tape problems that afflicted Spectrums and other micros
equipped with lesser tape storage facilities. A BBC Micro would happily
re-read a block of data off tape if there were reading problems;
Sinclair machines had to get the whole lot in one go. All because the
BBC Micro had a technically much more advanced approach to its cassette
tape storage system than all the competition.

Of course you could use other screen modes - either the standard ones,
or you could create your own. The Spectrum had much poorer quality
graphics than the BBC Micro, of course. And poorer sound.

Beebs had the hardware and OS required to make it really, really easy to
add shadow RAM, and it was a commonplace fitment for BBC Micros in
normal use.

The BBC Micro Mk 2 (Master series) had shadow RAM as standard, so I
recall.

I know nothing about the master or beyond. By then the 16 bit machines
were available and technology outside educational establishments moved
on.

<shrug> Beyond the Master series was the Archimedes, a 32 bit RISC
computer far in advance of pretty much everything else available at the
time.

It was developed using BBC Micros. The Arc software was all written
using BBC Micros - with ARM CPUs fitted via the Tube interface.

[snip]

[1] Although yes, you could have 48K RAM available in one page to a
Spectrum but only 32K RAM available in one page on a Beeb.

of which you couldn't use 32K in one go.

No, you get it all in one go. What are you on about? Of course the OS
used a bit of RAM as it does on all computers.

So how can you use all of it - switch the screen off? use the system?

Huh? The entire addressable space is accessible, is what I meant, of
course.

The Spectrum had the problem that because it used its single memory page
for everything, you had to put your screen display inside that 48K.

That isn't a problem.

So it's not a problem to use for screen display a signficant chunk of
your very limited RAM if you're using a Spectrum, but it is a problem if
you do the same thing on a BBC Micro? Hmm...

Can you explain how that works?

Shadow RAM on a BBC Micro (optional extra for early models, standard
fitment for the Master series) meant that you didn't have to put up with
most of your available RAM being used for screen display if you had a
BBC Micro.

you still needed your memory for the screen, and it still had to be
accessible.

Yes, it's stuck in paged RAM, entirely seperate to main system RAM. No
overlap, no problems. The BBC Micro's technically highly advanced
internal bus meant that this worked without any speed penalty. The
Spectrum was not as techincally advanced and so could not operate the
same way.

So if you wanted to make a screen with a similar colour and
resolution to the spectrum you needed to devote 20k of your 32k to it.
If you have shadow ram over your rom, you have less space for your
application.

Not at all. The shadow RAM for the screen is paged in only when needed,
on the `off' ticks. I forget the exact hardware details, but the Beeb
had a double-speed bus to accelerate screen display as standard.

The shadow RAM gave you more space for screen display, and that could be
used without taking up address space used for anything else, and without
slowing anything down (that last bit `AIUI', 'cos I'm not 100% sure,
just pretty damned sure 'cos if it had meant a slow-down, it would have
been a *BIG* slow-down and I'm sure I'd've noticed).

So the BBC Micro might only have let the user see 32K RAM at one time,
but the user actually had more *usuable* RAM available than on a Speccy,
in the final development.

Huh? you lost the ability to add? the spectrum screen is 6k, so the
spectrum has over 40k available to the user *at all times*.

Oh - I had assumed that the Spectrum had proper high-resolution
graphics. I hadn't realised that the graphics were such poor quality.

Even without paged RAM, you could use Mode 7 display on a BBC Micro and
reduce video RAM consumption to 1K.

Yay - great graphics.

Teletext - it exists to give great text, but you have to put up with
lumpy graphics. The Spectrum couldn't approach the text display quality
of the BBC Micro in Mode 7. No eight bit micro could approach the
Beeb's text display quality.

Then you could get to just 10k less than a spectrum.

That makes no sense at all.

If you are going to use paged ram on a beeb you could have used it on a
spectrum, and as the processor was much faster, you wouldn't lose as
much.

Erm, what? Totally wrong on all counts.

The BBC Micro was built to use paged ROMs, and so it was easy to use
that existing hardware and OS support for paged memory to add paged RAM
hardware inside the case - which was a standard fitment in the BBC
Master series (the BBC Micro Mk 2)

Again, not refering to the master series, this is about the BBC. or we
would have to bring in the spectrum 128 etc.

This is about the BBC Micro. The BBC Master is a BBC Micro - the beefed
up Mark 2 version. I met one at university.

and a standard add-on widely
purchased and just plugged in to the BBC Micro. No such add-on existed
for the Spectrum that I know of.

well, I had paged rom, but not ram. In fact it was slightly less memory
I had as I had the disk interface, so lucky to clear 10k of memory free.

6.25K for OS RAM. 1K for screen. That leaves 24.75K for user
activities.

Can't you count?

The Spectrum had no support for paged memory in either hardware or
software. Nor did it have the room inside the case. Paged RAM was
common in BBC Micros and was a factory fitment from the Mk 2; I've never
heard of anyone using paged RAM (or paged ROMs) in a Spectrum.

Well, if you are insisting on using the master as well,

<shrug> You made particular claims which were not true. I explained
the truth of the situation, that's all.

If you're going to insist on making bull*** claims, what do you expect
me to do? Just sit by and let your bull*** go unchallenged? Of course
not!

how about the
spectrum 128? that used paged ram.

I didn't know about that one.

A 4MHz Z80 is no faster than a 2MHz 6502 (I reckon maybe a bit slower
unless you use the mirror registers)

Mirror registers? Can you describe these 'mirror registers' on the z80
for me please?

What is there to say? Some people call them alternate registers.
They're in all the standard diagrams of the Z80 architecture that I've
got. Anyone who knows anything about Z80s knows about them.

Look up the function of the assembler command EXX, for example.

Or LD r,r'

I'm amazed at your level of ignorance of the Z80, given how stridently
you've been expressing yourself.

I have never heard of mirror registers and have studied the architecture
of both the 6502 and z80.

So you didn't study very hard. The 6502 only had one set of registers.
The Z80 did not - you seem to be very ignorant of the technical details
of these two particular 8 bit microprocessors.

In fact I think I probably have the
manufacturers manuals for both processors (unless I threw them out).

<shrug> You should have read them, then.

, and the BBC Micro's architecture
was much faster than any other 8 bit micro. ISTR a double rate clock so
that doing the video stuff didn't slow down processing, or something
like that. There were other things, too - do you want me to go into
them? The 6522s and so on...

Feel free, go into them.

<shrug> No point, you're not interested in understanding. I'm sick of
your sniping and insults and sneering. I really shouldn't have written
this reply at all, given how upset it's made me because of your
appalling rudeness and arrogance and generally deeply nasty behaviour.

Oh, I know, you'll get all snotty and rude and nasty because I've had
the gall to criticise you. Well, you can just *** off and die as far
as I'm concerned - you've behaved like a *** and someone ought to tell
you.

Agreed that the spectrum had a problem in its lower 16k of ram having to
share with the screen.

Explain the detail, please. If you can.

6502s are very efficient CPUs - check out their timings compared to the
Z80. The Z80 has a clumsy four-tick machine cycle its got to run
through to execute anything. 6502s get things done at least twice as
fast, clock tick for clock tick, so a 2MHz 6502 can beat a 4MHz Z80 (and
does, when the one is in a BBC Micro and the other is in a Sinclair
box).

You could also add a second CPU to a BBC Micro and get a warp speed 8
bit micro. The Spectrum didn't have the interface to permit that to be
done conveniently. So no-one did it, while lots of people added second
CPUs to BBC Micros.

'Lots of people'? I never knew anyone with one. can you define lots?

<shrug> It was common enough amongst people I knew. That's what I
mean. What do I care about what you claim about the people you say you
knew? Nothing, of course.

Let's face it, you know *** about old micros. Stop trying to pretend
otherwise.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
.