Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

OT: English Class

Expand Messages
  • joshbensadon
    Right, misplaced and of course it s cheque for money and check for a test, but that s in Canada. In the USA or is it US? or just States ? they spell
    Message 1 of 29 , Sep 10, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Right, "misplaced" and of course it's "cheque" for money and "check" for a test, but that's in Canada. In the USA or is it US? or just "States"? they spell money cheques either way. Perhaps it varies state to state?

      But I get your point and will admit that English was never my best class.

      PS. It might be funny to send someone a "check" (as in a check mark aka tick) through the mail, then claim a language mistake.

      That reminds me of the telemarketers that call asking if I want my ducts cleaned. I often tell them I have no ducks, to which they respond "no... ducts!". I then repeat, "that's right, no ducks" and hang up on them.





      --- In midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Dromgoole" <drummy@...> wrote:
      >
      > Ha "Because Dennis and I miss placed this as last"
      > "miss placed"
      > Please send a new check or is it cheque.
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "joshbensadon" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      > To: <midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 5:29 PM
      > Subject: [midatlanticretro] Re: Lunch Quiz - Which micro was fastest?
      >
      >
      > > --- In midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com, system@ wrote:
      > >> I'd always assumed it was wholly due to it being a Radio Shack product.
      > >
      > > Yes.
      > >
      > >> BTW, it's should be its and nickname is one word.
      > >
      > > Ahh, right. it's = it is. And nickname is one word, I was just writing as
      > > the words came to mind. Thanks for pointing that out, it annoys me when I
      > > read badly written messages too. There's one guy on another group that always
      > > uses the word "no" for "know". eg, Do you no how annoying that can be?
      > >
      > > PS. My spell cheque is in the mail.
      > >
      > >
      >
    • B. Degnan
      The winner is no one. An almost tie for first: 1. Apple II 2. TRS 80 Model 1 distantly followed by: 3. Commodore 64 4. Atari 800 The Apple II and TRS 80
      Message 2 of 29 , Sep 10, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        The winner is no one.

        An almost tie for first:
        1. Apple II
        2. TRS 80 Model 1
        distantly followed by:
        3. Commodore 64
        4. Atari 800

        The Apple II and TRS 80 Model 1 (26-1006) finished within 10 seconds of
        each other. Four or five minutes later the Commodore 64 finished 3rd
        followed 30 seconds later by the Atari 800.

        Josh got two on his 2nd guess, but that does not count.

        Anyone who'd bet a 6502 against the Z80 better have a good reason for it.

        If I was guessing I'd have to admit I'd have picked the trs 80 to be first,
        followed by the C64 and then the Apple II.

        Bill


        -------- Original Message --------
        > From: "joshbensadon" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 6:17 PM
        > To: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [midatlanticretro] Re: Lunch Quiz - Which micro was fastest?
        >
        > My guesses were the same as Dennis', but with attached reasons.
        > Now, based on Neil and Bob both having one right and on the fun idea that
        the 6502 might be faster than Z80, let me guess again (for the sport).
        >
        > I will guess:
        > Apple Fastest (6502 power) (Neils right answer?)
        > C64 (6502 power) (Bob's right answer?)
        > TRS-80 (Because Dennis and I miss placed this as last)
        > Atari (Process of elimination)
        >
        > Cheers,
        > Josh
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • B. Degnan
        Yes, that s in an article I scanned on vintagecomputer.net comparing BASICs, or an advertisement. OSI has the fastest BASIC of it s day, but we did not have
        Message 3 of 29 , Sep 10, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes, that's in an article I scanned on vintagecomputer.net comparing
          BASICs, or an advertisement. OSI has the fastest BASIC of it's day, but we
          did not have that one plugged in.
          bd

          -------- Original Message --------
          > From: "Bill Dromgoole" <drummy@...>
          > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 5:52 PM
          > To: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [midatlanticretro] Lunch Quiz - Which micro was fastest?
          >
          > I think the Apple and the commodore were the fastest because they use
          6502
          > processors.
          > I remember Ohio Scientific always bragging about the fastest BASIC.
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "B. Degnan" <billdeg@...>
          > To: <midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:26 AM
          > Subject: [midatlanticretro] Lunch Quiz - Which micro was fastest?
          >
          >
          > > Sunday at InfoAge's MARCH micro exhibit we entered the following code
          into
          > > for micros and ran them at the same time to see which would finish
          soonest.
          > > This is a BASIC interpreter test, not raw processing power test.
          > >
          > > 10 for k = 1 to 10000
          > > 20 print k
          > > 30 next k
          > > 40 print "done!"
          > >
          > > Guess the correct order to finish. People present during the test are
          > > disqualified from answering or commenting. Each was a "stock" version
          > >
          > > 1) Apple II (rev 2)
          > > 2) TRS 80 Model 1
          > > 3) Atari 800
          > > 4) Commodore 64
          > >
          > > Winner to be announced.
          > >
          > > Clue - of the 4, the first 2 finished almost simultaneously, the other
          two
          > > finished a few minutes later almost simultaneously.
          > >
          > > Bill
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > ------------------------------------
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
        • Mike
          My guess is the C64 and Apple 2 came out on top. However, an A2 running integer basic would beat both, and an Apple 1 would beat the Apple 2 by a little bit.
          Message 4 of 29 , Sep 10, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            My guess is the C64 and Apple 2 came out on top. However, an A2 running integer basic would beat both, and an Apple 1 would beat the Apple 2 by a little bit.

            Mike W.

            --- In midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com, "dfnr2" <dfnr2@...> wrote:
            >
            > I believe OSI BASIC was faster for floating point operations than some other 6502 basic versions like PET and Apple due to it's smaller representation of floating point ("6-digit BASIC"), due to the 8K space constraint. Here's an excellent website describing the 6502 BASIC variants, all derived from the same code base:
            >
            > http://www.pagetable.com/?p=46
            >
            > Dave
            >
            > --- In midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Dromgoole" <drummy@> wrote:
            > >
            > > I think the Apple and the commodore were the fastest because they use 6502
            > > processors.
            > > I remember Ohio Scientific always bragging about the fastest BASIC.
            > >
            > >
            > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > From: "B. Degnan" <billdeg@>
            > > To: <midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com>
            > > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:26 AM
            > > Subject: [midatlanticretro] Lunch Quiz - Which micro was fastest?
            > >
            > >
            > > > Sunday at InfoAge's MARCH micro exhibit we entered the following code into
            > > > for micros and ran them at the same time to see which would finish soonest.
            > > > This is a BASIC interpreter test, not raw processing power test.
            > > >
            > > > 10 for k = 1 to 10000
            > > > 20 print k
            > > > 30 next k
            > > > 40 print "done!"
            > > >
            > > > Guess the correct order to finish. People present during the test are
            > > > disqualified from answering or commenting. Each was a "stock" version
            > > >
            > > > 1) Apple II (rev 2)
            > > > 2) TRS 80 Model 1
            > > > 3) Atari 800
            > > > 4) Commodore 64
            > > >
            > > > Winner to be announced.
            > > >
            > > > Clue - of the 4, the first 2 finished almost simultaneously, the other two
            > > > finished a few minutes later almost simultaneously.
            > > >
            > > > Bill
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > ------------------------------------
            > > >
            > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • joshbensadon
            ... Now, how did you count that Bob got one right? PS. I love the Z80 and know it s an amazing little processor, but why can t the 6502 come close enough to
            Message 5 of 29 , Sep 10, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com, "B. Degnan" <billdeg@...> wrote:
              >
              > The winner is no one.
              >
              > An almost tie for first:
              > 1. Apple II
              > 2. TRS 80 Model 1
              > distantly followed by:
              > 3. Commodore 64
              > 4. Atari 800
              >


              Now, how did you count that Bob got one right?

              PS. I love the Z80 and know it's an amazing little processor, but why can't the 6502 come close enough to bet on?
            • joshbensadon
              ... PS. Thanks Bill for a fun exercise in guessing and comparing!
              Message 6 of 29 , Sep 10, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com, "B. Degnan" <billdeg@...> wrote:
                >
                > The winner is no one.
                >
                > An almost tie for first:
                > 1. Apple II
                > 2. TRS 80 Model 1
                > distantly followed by:
                > 3. Commodore 64
                > 4. Atari 800



                PS. Thanks Bill for a fun exercise in guessing and comparing!
              • Bob Flanders
                A couple of things would be interesting... 1. The same tests in assembly. 2. The same tests w/o print ... I/O could be the slow part. Thanks for the quiz, Mr.
                Message 7 of 29 , Sep 10, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  A couple of things would be interesting...

                  1. The same tests in assembly.
                  2. The same tests w/o print ... I/O could be the slow part.

                  Thanks for the quiz, Mr. D!

                  On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:22 PM, joshbensadon <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                   

                  --- In midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com, "B. Degnan" <billdeg@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > The winner is no one.
                  >
                  > An almost tie for first:
                  > 1. Apple II
                  > 2. TRS 80 Model 1
                  > distantly followed by:
                  > 3. Commodore 64
                  > 4. Atari 800

                  PS. Thanks Bill for a fun exercise in guessing and comparing!


                • B. Degnan
                  It was just for fun. It s not every day that you have these 4 micros set up for testing, whatever you want like that. I took my son to InfoAge for the first
                  Message 8 of 29 , Sep 10, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    It was just for fun. It's not every day that you have these 4 micros set
                    up for testing, whatever you want like that. I took my son to InfoAge for
                    the first time, he got to help program the computers for the test. That's
                    one of the great things about this club.

                    Anyway, maybe next we'll pit the Wang mini against the IBM 5100.

                    Bill


                    >
                    > A couple of things would be interesting...
                    >
                    > 1. The same tests in assembly.
                    > 2. The same tests w/o print ... I/O could be the slow part.
                    >
                    > Thanks for the quiz, Mr. D!
                    >
                    > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:22 PM, joshbensadon
                    <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>wrote:
                    >
                    > > **
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com, "B. Degnan" <billdeg@...>
                    wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > The winner is no one.
                    > > >
                    > > > An almost tie for first:
                    > > > 1. Apple II
                    > > > 2. TRS 80 Model 1
                    > > > distantly followed by:
                    > > > 3. Commodore 64
                    > > > 4. Atari 800
                    > >
                    > > PS. Thanks Bill for a fun exercise in guessing and comparing!
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                  • Matt Patoray
                    It is an interesting exercise, I am going to have to run that on the 3 small micros I have currently running. TI-99/4a standard and extended basic Commodore
                    Message 9 of 29 , Sep 10, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      It is an interesting exercise,

                      I am going to have to run that on the 3 small micros I have currently running.

                      TI-99/4a standard and extended basic
                      Commodore 128 in C-128 and C-64 modes
                      Apple IIgs Rom 01

                      And maybe also on the PC-6300 in GW basic if u can get it to read the boot disc...

                      Matt


                      Sent from my iPhone

                      On Sep 10, 2012, at 9:25 PM, "B. Degnan" <billdeg@...> wrote:

                       

                      It was just for fun. It's not every day that you have these 4 micros set
                      up for testing, whatever you want like that. I took my son to InfoAge for
                      the first time, he got to help program the computers for the test. That's
                      one of the great things about this club.

                      Anyway, maybe next we'll pit the Wang mini against the IBM 5100.

                      Bill

                      >
                      > A couple of things would be interesting...
                      >
                      > 1. The same tests in assembly.
                      > 2. The same tests w/o print ... I/O could be the slow part.
                      >
                      > Thanks for the quiz, Mr. D!
                      >
                      > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:22 PM, joshbensadon
                      <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>wrote:
                      >
                      > > **
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com, "B. Degnan" <billdeg@...>
                      wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > The winner is no one.
                      > > >
                      > > > An almost tie for first:
                      > > > 1. Apple II
                      > > > 2. TRS 80 Model 1
                      > > > distantly followed by:
                      > > > 3. Commodore 64
                      > > > 4. Atari 800
                      > >
                      > > PS. Thanks Bill for a fun exercise in guessing and comparing!
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >

                    • B. Degnan
                      I used to bring to my computer history class the same program - miner 2049 er and run it on the Commodore 64, TI 99, Atari 800 so that we could compare and
                      Message 10 of 29 , Sep 10, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I used to bring to my computer history class the same program - miner
                        2049'er and run it on the Commodore 64, TI 99, Atari 800 so that we could
                        compare and contrast in class the differences, talk about porting games and
                        what was involved, memory maps, etc. The students always liked this
                        class.
                        Bill

                        -------- Original Message --------
                        > From: "Matt Patoray" <mspatoray@...>
                        > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 10:11 PM
                        > To: "midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com"
                        <midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com>
                        > Subject: Re: [midatlanticretro] Re: Lunch Quiz - Which micro was
                        fastest?
                        >
                        > It is an interesting exercise,
                        >
                        > I am going to have to run that on the 3 small micros I have currently
                        running.
                        >
                        > TI-99/4a standard and extended basic
                        > Commodore 128 in C-128 and C-64 modes
                        > Apple IIgs Rom 01
                        >
                        > And maybe also on the PC-6300 in GW basic if u can get it to read the
                        boot disc...
                        >
                        > Matt
                        >
                        >
                        > Sent from my iPhone
                        >
                        > On Sep 10, 2012, at 9:25 PM, "B. Degnan" <billdeg@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > > It was just for fun. It's not every day that you have these 4 micros
                        set
                        > > up for testing, whatever you want like that. I took my son to InfoAge
                        for
                        > > the first time, he got to help program the computers for the test.
                        That's
                        > > one of the great things about this club.
                        > >
                        > > Anyway, maybe next we'll pit the Wang mini against the IBM 5100.
                        > >
                        > > Bill
                        > >
                        > > >
                        > > > A couple of things would be interesting...
                        > > >
                        > > > 1. The same tests in assembly.
                        > > > 2. The same tests w/o print ... I/O could be the slow part.
                        > > >
                        > > > Thanks for the quiz, Mr. D!
                        > > >
                        > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:22 PM, joshbensadon
                        > > <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > > **
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > --- In midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com, "B. Degnan" <billdeg@...>

                        > > wrote:
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > The winner is no one.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > An almost tie for first:
                        > > > > > 1. Apple II
                        > > > > > 2. TRS 80 Model 1
                        > > > > > distantly followed by:
                        > > > > > 3. Commodore 64
                        > > > > > 4. Atari 800
                        > > > >
                        > > > > PS. Thanks Bill for a fun exercise in guessing and comparing!
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > >
                        > >
                      • system@great-escape.tmesis.com
                        ... Methinks you d have a difficult time getting Z80 assembly to run on the 65xx based systems and vice versa. This is the problem with benchmarking. Apples
                        Message 11 of 29 , Sep 11, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Bob Flanders <bob.flanders@...> writes:

                          >A couple of things would be interesting...
                          >
                          >1. The same tests in assembly.

                          Methinks you'd have a difficult time getting Z80 assembly to run
                          on the 65xx based systems and vice versa.

                          This is the problem with benchmarking. Apples (not the computer)
                          and oranges are difficult to objectively quantify.



                          >2. The same tests w/o print ... I/O could
                          >be the slow part.

                          I was going to comment on the I/O part of this "test" yesterday.

                          How about some long computation with output of a single result.
                          A Simpson approximation of some integral might be a good choice
                          as it can be implemented with simple BASIC functions and loops.
                        • Bill Sudbrink
                          ... One of the standard tests, used when these computers were new, was the Sieve of Eratosthenes. Byte magazine had standard implementations to be used by
                          Message 12 of 29 , Sep 11, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            system@... wrote:
                            > Methinks you'd have a difficult time getting Z80 assembly to run
                            > on the 65xx based systems and vice versa.
                            >
                            > This is the problem with benchmarking. Apples (not the computer)
                            > and oranges are difficult to objectively quantify.
                            >
                            > How about some long computation with output of a single result.
                            > A Simpson approximation of some integral might be a good choice
                            > as it can be implemented with simple BASIC functions and loops.

                            One of the standard tests, used when these computers were new,
                            was the Sieve of Eratosthenes. Byte magazine had standard
                            implementations to be used by reviewers.

                            Bill S.
                          • system@great-escape.tmesis.com
                            ... Can you select how many primes to evaluate? There are many prime numbers early on, so the I/O *might* still influence the results but over the long haul
                            Message 13 of 29 , Sep 11, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              "Bill Sudbrink" <wh.sudbrink@...> writes:

                              >--JQzJZxmfAFxUXs-ci7zgoXKCYK7-PUO964EMz1Z Content-Type: text/plain;
                              >charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
                              >
                              >system@... wrote: > Methinks you'd have a difficult
                              >time getting Z80 assembly to run > on the 65xx based systems and vice
                              >versa. > > This is the problem with benchmarking. Apples (not the
                              >computer) > and oranges are difficult to objectively quantify. > > How
                              >about some long computation with output of a single result. > A Simpson
                              >approximation of some integral might be a good choice > as it can be
                              >implemented with simple BASIC functions and loops.
                              >
                              >One of the standard tests, used when these computers were new, was the
                              >Sieve of Eratosthenes. Byte magazine had standard implementations to be
                              >used by reviewers.

                              Can you select how many primes to evaluate? There are many prime numbers
                              early on, so the I/O *might* still influence the results but over the long
                              haul it may be a better beater for benchmarking.
                            • B. Degnan
                              ... Sounds great. Go ahead and do it next time you re at InfoAge. Set up the program in advance so you only have to type it in on all four computers so that
                              Message 14 of 29 , Sep 11, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                >
                                > Bob Flanders <bob.flanders@...> writes:
                                >
                                > >A couple of things would be interesting...
                                > >
                                > >1. The same tests in assembly.
                                >
                                > Methinks you'd have a difficult time getting Z80 assembly to run
                                > on the 65xx based systems and vice versa.
                                >
                                > This is the problem with benchmarking. Apples (not the computer)
                                > and oranges are difficult to objectively quantify.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > >2. The same tests w/o print ... I/O could
                                > >be the slow part.
                                >
                                > I was going to comment on the I/O part of this "test" yesterday.
                                >
                                > How about some long computation with output of a single result.
                                > A Simpson approximation of some integral might be a good choice
                                > as it can be implemented with simple BASIC functions and loops.
                                >

                                Sounds great. Go ahead and do it next time you're at InfoAge. Set up the
                                program in advance so you only have to type it in on all four computers so
                                that they can be executed at the same time. Leave a printout in the room
                                so we can repeat the test in the future, or add to it.

                                Bill
                              • system@great-escape.tmesis.com
                                ... I ve not written much BASIC. The only BASIC that I ever wrote was on my Sharp EL5500 which I acquired at the end of graduate school. If there s a BASIC
                                Message 15 of 29 , Sep 11, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  "B. Degnan" <billdeg@...> writes:

                                  >> > Bob Flanders <bob.flanders@...> writes: > > >A couple of
                                  >things would be interesting... > > > >1. The same tests in assembly. > >
                                  >Methinks you'd have a difficult time getting Z80 assembly to run > on
                                  >the 65xx based systems and vice versa. > > This is the problem with
                                  >benchmarking. Apples (not the computer) > and oranges are difficult to
                                  >objectively quantify. > > > > >2. The same tests w/o print ... I/O could
                                  >> >be the slow part. > > I was going to comment on the I/O part of this
                                  >"test" yesterday. > > How about some long computation with output of a
                                  >single result. > A Simpson approximation of some integral might be a
                                  >good choice > as it can be implemented with simple BASIC functions and
                                  >loops. >
                                  >
                                  >Sounds great. Go ahead and do it next time you're at InfoAge. Set up
                                  >the program in advance so you only have to type it in on all four
                                  >computers so that they can be executed at the same time. Leave a
                                  >printout in the room so we can repeat the test in the future, or add to
                                  >it.

                                  I've not written much BASIC. The only BASIC that I ever wrote was on my
                                  Sharp EL5500 which I acquired at the end of graduate school. If there's
                                  a BASIC LRM for each of these systems so that a program could be written
                                  to accomodate the available syntax for all, I might do what you've asked.
                                  As a BS/MSEE, I wrote Fortran and assembler, but never any BASIC save for
                                  that EL5500.
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.