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

Re: [Tomy Tutor ] I want Tetris on the Tomy Tutor!

Expand Messages
  • David S. Brain
    Biggest problem with Tetris on the Tomy Tutor - speed...my wish list for the Tomy is an editor/assembler to tap into that speedy TMS9995 processor. But the
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 5, 2002
      Biggest problem with Tetris on the Tomy Tutor - speed...my wish list for
      the Tomy is an editor/assembler to tap into that speedy TMS9995
      processor. But the Tomy does kick the TI-99's butt in BASIC, so Tetris
      is a possibility. Like you point out, if it can be done on the
      Aquarius, it can be done on the Tomy.

      Here's a project for someone (emucompboy?), come up with some good
      benchmarks for testing the relative speeds of BASIC on various
      computers. Aren't you all curious to see how various systems stack up?

      Davey B.

      swap_and_shop wrote:
      >
      > And by God, someday I shall have it! It has been done on the
      > Mattel Aquarius, so I it ought to be done on the Tomy Tutor!
      >
      > There are so many projects I want to work on, and so little time!
      >
      > Mike
    • emucompboy
      Such things have been around for years. I remember Compute! magazine had one. I tried it on the various computers I had, and the Aquarius beat the heck out
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 5, 2002
        Such things have been around for years. I remember Compute! magazine
        had one. I tried it on the various computers I had, and the Aquarius
        beat the heck out of all my 8-bits, and beat the heck out of all the
        8-bits that Compute! magazine listed.

        It was a calculation-based benchmark, and as you probably know, the
        Aquarius BASIC uses fewer bytes for a floating point number and
        therefore has less accuracy than most BASICs. (The TI 99/4A and the
        Tomy Tutor are very accurate, as good as your calculator, I bet.
        They also store floating point in a very strange "radix 100" format,
        which is probably better for printing than it is for calculating).

        I have also seen "print speed" based benchmarks. The CoCo wins that
        one. It's hardly fair, though. The CoCo screen is only 512 bytes,
        while, say, the Commodore 64's is 2000 (1000 for video matrix and
        1000 for color nybs).

        BYTE magazine reported "dhrystones" when discussing speed. Give a
        good search for that (note the unusual spelling), on google.com.

        Me? When testing the timing of my emulators (and they have to match
        fairly well, for the speaker clicker frequency to sound right), I run
        a few tests like these (this is data for the NTSC VZ200):

        new
        forj=0to10000:next
        18.09 sec

        new
        printlog(sin(2))
        -.095083

        new
        forj=0to1000:a=log(sin(2)):next
        45.76 sec

        new
        cls
        cls:forj=0to1000:printj:next
        50.12 sec

        --- In tomytutor@y..., "David S. Brain" <dsbrain@n...> wrote:
        > Here's a project for someone (emucompboy?), come up with some good
        > benchmarks for testing the relative speeds of BASIC on various
        > computers. Aren't you all curious to see how various systems stack
        up?
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.