Looking for something else I ran across this:
https://twitter.com/lord_sugar/status/1487691867563118592?lang=en-GB
I don't use Twitter or any other social media but the link allowed me to see the start of an interesting "chat"......
The M in Lord Alan Sugar stands for manners.
Dear Lord 😂
Sooooo let me get this straight.
Sugar made one comment about not being able to understand the Scouse accent (understandable in some circumstances to be fair, hell there are some Irish accents in certain counties here that are difficult to make out), and some Scouse hack journalist took offence to this and used his rag to take a pot shot at Sugar in return.
Brian, you brought a knife to a gunfight. Good luck to you.
Just managed to read the whole thread tweet by tweet (stupid Twitter). Silly article and the whole thing escalated pretty quickly. However this takes the cake: "Yeah, if only I'd made computers that were a byword for tat".
Yup, he doesn't know what he's talking about.
To be fair, there was a valid point there in terms of tat.
By 1987, the amount of corner cutting replacing cheaper parts started generating incompatibilities (CRTC 2 on the CPC range, and don't get me started on the Amstrad range of Spectrums and the chopping and changing of ULA's amongst other things). So for a company that were known for producing rubbish stereos and televisions only adds fuel to the fire from a historical point of view.
But to ignore the success of the Amstrad not just in the UK and Ireland, but also France, Spain and Germany to fuel your agenda is just stupid. Personally, I find listening the likes of the Spice Girls and Mariah Carey about as pleasurable as a root canal without an anaestethic! But they sold millions of albums, so success is success.
Well honestly, back then and as an end user, I hadn't the slightest idea about CRTs and ULAs, even reading monthly publications (general and CPC related) so I'm not sure how this affected perception...
Where did the CRTC2 generate incompatibilities except for demos?
Given that the MC6845 (the actual CRTC2) was the original Motorola chip (designed by Hitachi) and the other types are clones, that should not have made any difference, regardless of price.
Quote from: MaV on 21:59, 03 May 22Where did the CRTC2 generate incompatibilities except for demos?
Given that the MC6845 (the actual CRTC2) was the original Motorola chip (designed by Hitachi) and the other types are clones, that should not have made any difference, regardless of price.
Try playing Smash TV on a CRTC2 machine and you'll change your tune. I'm sure there are other examples but that springs to mind.
Quote from: Shaun M. Neary on 23:19, 03 May 22Try playing Smash TV on a CRTC2 machine and you'll change your tune
Smash TV came out in 1991, much later than the CRTC2 was used. I would say then it's the software vendor who is to blame to use (undocumented?) features and not testing them properly.
I also never heard anything about incompatibilities regarding the CRTC while I owned my first CPC. I guess this came up later, when people had gained enough skills to exploit undocumented/unexpected hardware features.
But regarding quality, I don't see why the CRTC2 was a bad choice.
No, I think he meant that the introduction of incompatible versions contributed to a reputation of 'tat', not that the 2 was a bad thing per se. But I really don't think that was the case anyhow.
Quote from: Gryzor on 08:52, 04 May 22No, I think he meant that the introduction of incompatible versions contributed to a reputation of 'tat', not that the 2 was a bad thing per se. But I really don't think that was the case anyhow.
I was never aware of any issues. I had an early 464 and then a 6128 and read Amstrad action avidly and didn't become aware of differences until coming to this forum.
Quote from: Gryzor on 08:52, 04 May 22No, I think he meant that the introduction of incompatible versions contributed to a reputation of 'tat', not that the 2 was a bad thing per se. But I really don't think that was the case anyhow.
In that case I would mention the CPC+ drives which - while being 5v only - were not completely compatible with the original 3" drives. Writing a disk on one did not guarantee that it could be read by the other type (CPC to CPC+ was ok, CPC+ to CPC hardly worked).
This falls squarely into the same problems with hardware like the Spectrum's ULA's as Shaun mentioned.
Or the whole Spectrum 3 sound problems that were explained in another thread recently in this forum.
Eh, that's a valid point but how many did it affect?
Not enough that it warranted a class action lawsuit. :D
It was a nuisance as soon as I had a plus system and still used real disks. The number cannot have been small because it affected all those who "exchanged" programs by copying disks in the late 80s.
So, just a handful ;D
Quote from: MaV on 13:14, 04 May 22were not completely compatible with the original 3" drives.
This is totally new to me. I also never had any issues on my Plus and 6128 and I'm pretty sure I did also write to disk with the Plus.
What's the reason for the incompatibility?
Er what?
First time I've heard of this.
We used three 6128 Plus machines for disc copying between 92 and 94 (95?) and didn't have this problem. Our customers used upgraded 464's with disc drives, 664's, 6128's and 6128 Plus computers and not one disc was returned due to this.
Well, my 6128+ (French edition) has this problem. I talked about this with MacDeath (I think) and he confirmed this, and I think another French guy also, I can't remember, perhaps in Coutances. Mind you that was 10+ years ago, and I never gave it another thought until now. Additionally I seem to recall a French article.
Also:
(https://c.tenor.com/sCPu7BCDDM4AAAAC/im-not-crazy-liam-neeson.gif)
It's FUD, I'm telling you, coming from those pesky Speccy owners.