13 Jan
2012
13 Jan
'12
5:39 a.m.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 01/12/2012 01:11 AM, Lance Lyon wrote:
I was just razzing Liam since he hates it so much. I have very little
experience with or knowledge of Commodore BASIC.
The revised SIDs are technically correct and behave according to spec.
The earlier ones, while being buggy, their "dirt" gave them a sort of
desirable warmth.
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Are
there any other hardware differences that you're aware of? Does
it run the same SUPER AWESOME AMAZINGLY ADVANCED BASIC (sorry Liam, I
couldn't resist! ;)) that the "ordinary" 64 runs?
"Super Awesome" is not exactly how'd I'd describe BASIC 2.0 .......
Major difference is with the SID chip - the new
SIDs aren't as good as the
older ones (sound-wise). The PC board is also mostly all surface mount and
with a reduced chip count. Apart from that, largely the same as the old
breadboxes.
Ahh, gotcha. Thank you for the info.
I wonder why they downgraded the SID chip. Cost reasons?