- Welcome to CPCWiki forum.
The ultimate Amstrad CPC community!
News:
Printed Amstrad Addict magazine announced, check it out here!
Recent posts
#1
I believe other companies will continue to produce it.
#2
General Discussion - Introductions / Re: C64 Vs Speccy: Which one d...
Last post by ZorrO - Today at 19:45@andycadley - You are wrong about colors in 320x200 in C64. There is a whole byte for colors in the letter. 4 bits for background and 4 bits for pen. And ZX has 3 bits for background and 3 bits for pen. For example, it cannot use light and dark green in one letter, but C64 can. It's 160x200, in C64 we have 4 colors per letter, including one common to the entire screen. This allows you to flash whole screen by modifying one byte, which ZX cannot do. And ZX does not have option to use 4 colors per letter.
CPC doesn't have CIRCLE command, who cares? FOR DRAW SIN COS NEXT draws circle faster than the CIRCLE command in ZX.
It is similar with the lack of PLOT and DRAW commands in C64. One line of BASIC with FOR POKE NEXT draws vertical and horizontal lines faster than ZX. And diagonal lines are only a bit slower than ZX.
In my opinion it's not true C64 Basic is suck, and Simon's Basic not make Basic better. More useful is few short command in Final cartridge, and even better Black Box. Most important difference is C64 Basic is almost twice faster than ZX Basic, with that you can do everything easier.
There is nothing better in ZX compare to C64. Only sentimental reasons make people like ZX.
CPC doesn't have CIRCLE command, who cares? FOR DRAW SIN COS NEXT draws circle faster than the CIRCLE command in ZX.
It is similar with the lack of PLOT and DRAW commands in C64. One line of BASIC with FOR POKE NEXT draws vertical and horizontal lines faster than ZX. And diagonal lines are only a bit slower than ZX.
In my opinion it's not true C64 Basic is suck, and Simon's Basic not make Basic better. More useful is few short command in Final cartridge, and even better Black Box. Most important difference is C64 Basic is almost twice faster than ZX Basic, with that you can do everything easier.
There is nothing better in ZX compare to C64. Only sentimental reasons make people like ZX.
#3
D
General Discussion - Introductions / Re: C64 Vs Speccy: Which one d...
Last post by djaybee - Today at 19:43My wife and I are both into retrocomputing, and she recently asked me, if I were coding games back then, and if I could only code each game for a single 8-bit machine, which machines would be in my mix over time.
The Apple II starts the list in 1977. Since neither the TRS-80 nor the PET can do graphics, that's an easy choice.
In 1979, the Atari 800. It's got sprites, sound, a variety of useful graphics modes, support for split screen, hardware scrolling. I'm not convinced that the Apple II keeps much of an edge for any use cases other than some very specific niches.
In 1982, I add the C64 in the mix, its sprites are a major upgrade from the Atari, and its graphics modes allow for quite some tricks, such that it's awesome for platformers and for tile-based games. The Atari remains firmly in place for anything that requires a true bitmap framebuffer or hardware scrolling.
The MSX in 1983 opens other possibilities, its graphics chip is quite narrow such that it's very good at what it does well but falls apart quickly in other situations, it's in no way a generalist but I think it can do games that would have been surprisingly difficult up to that point.
In 1984, I'm adding the CPC, for games that need the specifics of its graphics modes, and are OK with the performance cost involved. E.g. 3D racing games. Oddly enough, while I feel that there are few domains where the CPC stands out far ahead of the other machines, I also feel that it's got fewer weaknesses and that there are few 8-bit games that can't be reasonably done on a CPC, and it's the first 8-bit machine that makes me feel that way.
In 1985, the MSX2 pretty much replaces everything in 8-bit, but the Amiga makes 8-bit obsolete. From here, the 8-bit world remains centered on MSX. In 1990, the MSX TurboR is incredibly advanced compared to the CPC Plus.
Note that the ZX Spectrum never makes my list, there's too little that it can do at the time that's out of reach of both the Atari 800 and the C64. Same about the BBC Micro, or the Thomson TO/MO series, or the VIC-20, or the IBM PC against their respective competition at the time, they're all too little too late in my book.
The Apple II starts the list in 1977. Since neither the TRS-80 nor the PET can do graphics, that's an easy choice.
In 1979, the Atari 800. It's got sprites, sound, a variety of useful graphics modes, support for split screen, hardware scrolling. I'm not convinced that the Apple II keeps much of an edge for any use cases other than some very specific niches.
In 1982, I add the C64 in the mix, its sprites are a major upgrade from the Atari, and its graphics modes allow for quite some tricks, such that it's awesome for platformers and for tile-based games. The Atari remains firmly in place for anything that requires a true bitmap framebuffer or hardware scrolling.
The MSX in 1983 opens other possibilities, its graphics chip is quite narrow such that it's very good at what it does well but falls apart quickly in other situations, it's in no way a generalist but I think it can do games that would have been surprisingly difficult up to that point.
In 1984, I'm adding the CPC, for games that need the specifics of its graphics modes, and are OK with the performance cost involved. E.g. 3D racing games. Oddly enough, while I feel that there are few domains where the CPC stands out far ahead of the other machines, I also feel that it's got fewer weaknesses and that there are few 8-bit games that can't be reasonably done on a CPC, and it's the first 8-bit machine that makes me feel that way.
In 1985, the MSX2 pretty much replaces everything in 8-bit, but the Amiga makes 8-bit obsolete. From here, the 8-bit world remains centered on MSX. In 1990, the MSX TurboR is incredibly advanced compared to the CPC Plus.
Note that the ZX Spectrum never makes my list, there's too little that it can do at the time that's out of reach of both the Atari 800 and the C64. Same about the BBC Micro, or the Thomson TO/MO series, or the VIC-20, or the IBM PC against their respective competition at the time, they're all too little too late in my book.
#4
prices may skyrocket soon
#5
https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/ZiLOG/Z84C0020PEG?qs=ahrryRM2ahtaw12qdP6z5A%3D%3D
End of Life.
I bought 2 pcs
End of Life.
I bought 2 pcs
#6
Just found out about this https://www.mouser.com/PCN/Littelfuse_PCN_Z84C00.pdf today .. Zilog is retiring the Z80 after 48 years.. so if you wanna make that Amstrad CPC accelerator, better get on with it pronto 
#7
Yup! End of an era...
d_kef
You cannot view this attachment.
d_kef
You cannot view this attachment.
#8
General Discussion - Introductions / Re: Why 80 Columns? Very inter...
Last post by ZorrO - Today at 18:34A typical typewriter since Second War could place 48 lines of 80 characters on a page. So, professional computers displayed half of paper page, plus a line with options.
Even today, electricity bills, telephone bills or bank statements have 48 lines.
Even today, electricity bills, telephone bills or bank statements have 48 lines.
#9
General Discussion - Introductions / Re: New owner.. old user and p...
Last post by Solo Kazuki - Today at 18:25Quote from: Anthony Flack on Yesterday at 07:33The Joycart is a neat idea.JoyCart is perfect when You have many hardware platforms (like me) and want one joy for them.
#10
Have you played Pinball Dream on CPC? See how it works inside. It's best not to copy anything. 
What should people programming for the Atari 2600 say? 128+256 bytes RAM
What should people programming for the Atari 2600 say? 128+256 bytes RAM