 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/28/09 14:00, Warp wrote:
> David H. Burns<dhb### [at] cherokeetel net> wrote:
>> Another *really* impressive piece of software. It won't run on an XP
>> machine, of course.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOSBox
I'll give this a try one day, but am not sure you can get the quality
that you could with DOS. If it can, I'll definitely play with it.
xfractint is full of deficiencies.
--
Why is the person who invests all your money called a broker?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
>>> I had (in fact have) a ZX-80, am I now more or less lucky?
>> A lot more. Especially if you still have it!:)
>
> I do, but the plastic is a bit broken in places, but that shows it was
> used. If you want a picture to prove it, you have to wait until I
> reorganize my room, it is behind a door that I can only open when I
> dismantle my desk (that I designed such that it is easy). I estimate
> that that will happen before this thread evaporates.
I wonder if it still works. It's a treasure anyway. This thread is like
a good theory:
it continues to mutate but never quite dies out until a change of fad.:)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> >>> I had (in fact have) a ZX-80, am I now more or less lucky?
....
> I wonder if it still works.
I'd guess so.
I recently revisited the old Amstrad CPCs we obtained over time (one for my dad,
one for my brother, one for me, and later one just for the sake of it :)), to
find that they were all still in perfect order - except for all the disc
drives. Replacing the drive belt got one back alive, and I expect the others to
respond positively to that treatment as well.
Ah well, one of the monitors' VSync was a bit unstable, too; and I really don't
expect to still be able to read *too* many of those disks :}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> you could do a "GOTO xyz" where xyz was a variable.
>
> What, ON GOTO and ON GOSUB weren't good enough for you? :-)
What, no COMEFROM?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> you could do a "GOTO xyz" where xyz was a variable.
>
> What, ON GOTO and ON GOSUB weren't good enough for you? :-)
What, no COMEFROM?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Visual Basic, too, might not have gained such popularity, had it not been
> chosen as the scripting language for the most popular office package. And
> who would be talking about JavaScript, had it not been the first scripting
> language to be integrated in a web browser?
>
> (And who would ever have heard of POV-Ray SDL if it wasn't bundled with
> the POV-Ray raytracer? ;))
And who would have ever heard of Ruby if someone hadn't made a web framework
with it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I've always wondered why people think C is good for writing kernel-level
> code, as the only facility in C that actually deals with the sorts of
> things you do in a kernel is "volatile".
http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I've always wondered why people think C is good for writing kernel-level
> code, as the only facility in C that actually deals with the sorts of
> things you do in a kernel is "volatile".
http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I've always wondered why people think C is good for writing kernel-level
> code, as the only facility in C that actually deals with the sorts of
> things you do in a kernel is "volatile".
http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I've always wondered why people think C is good for writing kernel-level
>> code, as the only facility in C that actually deals with the sorts of
>> things you do in a kernel is "volatile".
>
>
http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
Argh! Stupid newsreader segfaulting right before saving the message list,
then on restart thinking the message wasn't sent yet and sending it again.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
