Sprinter

Hello Oleg! Quoting your msg of Wed 01 Apr 98 18:23 to All:

>>I agree with you about the rest. By the way, imho there is already such a computer - Sprinter
>>or am I
>>wrong?

TO> Sorry!?! This is not SPEC! And I was talking about SPEC!!!

What is this? By analogy: 286 is a pc, and a stump is also a pc.
Or is a stump no longer a pc?
Then Scorp is not a Speck either! And Pro is not Speck either. And even
Pentagon 512 is not Spec. Spec is 48k + tape. Everything else is
clones.
Sprinter is Spectrum compatible + advanced features that can be easily disabled. The real
Spectrum. More precisely, a set of Spectrums in one bottle. Or something
with a plasticine architecture, from which you can mold whatever your heart desires.
If you want to know, I have a Scorp 256, which is much less
compatible with anything (except itself) than the Sprinter. The ROM
there is specifically shoveled and the crookedness of encoders with
the #FD port is not taken into account.
The Sprinter can work 1:1 like the Pentagon. But Scorp cannot (of course, if without GMX).
This means that Sprinter is more compatible with the original than Scorp. From
what follows that Scorp is not Spectrum??? The conclusion is false, therefore the statement that “Sprinter is not a Spectrum” is wrong.
Convinced?

Jason.

Powered by ScorpionZS256turbo+/SMUC/HDD'IDE130Mb/FDD'800/
/CMOS/Covox/ATkbd/Mouse/CDOS...

Once I was in a museum and there, on an old, old stone, an ancient man carved that
Monday April 06, 1998 right at 20:41, Walerij Kozhevnikov (500:95/462.18)
written by Tarasov Oleg:

WK> what follows that Scorp is not Spectrum??? The conclusion is false,
WK> therefore the statement that “Sprinter is not a Spectrum” is wrong.
WK> Convinced?

Sprinter - rulezzz!!!

WK> Jason.

Wiz zE BeSt WisHeZ 2 U!
-=JoCkeR/OmEga HaCkErS Grp/1998year=-

WK> What is this? By analogy: 286 is a pc, and a stump is also a pc.
WK> Or is a stump no longer a pc?

A stump? It’s no longer a good idea...
You can’t even imagine _how_much_ the hardware has changed there.
Attempts to directly program a keyboard controller, floppy drive
or a sophisticated video card fail, the ROM is replaced, in general
mountains of documentation go to waste...
This is one of the main reasons why software for IBM is so cumbersome.
Programmers have to support dozens of incompatible ones clones of machines, crookedly made and poorly documented. Do you want the same
for the Spectrum? :(

WK> Then Scorp is not Speck either! And Pro is not Speck either. And even
WK> Pentagon 512 is not Speck. Spec is 48k + tape. Everything else is
WK> clones.

This is called continuing the thought to the point of absurdity. But there is also
a grain of truth in this...

Sincerely George

>
> WK> What is this? By analogy: 286 is a pc, and a stump is also a pc.
> WK> Or is a stump no longer a pc?
>
> A stump? It's no longer a good idea...
>You can't even imagine _how much_ the hardware has changed there.
>Attempts to directly program a keyboard controller, floppy drive
or a sophisticated video card fail, the ROM is replaced, in general
>mountains of documentation are wasted...
> This is one of the main reasons why software for IBM is so cumbersome.
>Programmers have to support dozens of incompatible clones of
machines, crookedly made and poorly documented. Do you want the same for the Spectrum? :(

WK>> Then Scorp is not Speck either! And Pro is not Speck either. And even
WK>> Pentagon 512 is not Spec. Spec is 48k + tape. Everything else is
WK>> clones.

EO> Oh! One person finally got to the truth that was drummed into everyone by me!
What truth?! What are you doing? Spec 48k + tape is a spec, of course, but also Scorp -
spec and Pro - spec and Pentagon 512 is also a spec. And it is precisely you who are far from the truth
claiming that this is not so.

EO> Peace to you, sage!
Hmm, rather not a sage, but a lost soul requiring insight! ;)

EO> Evgeny

EO> -+- I’d like a machine gun right now...
I’d rather have a tank! :)