22 Feb
2014
22 Feb
'14
1:36 p.m.
I'm not sure how many on this list are interested in cheap home computers
of the early 1980's but anyway...my crowded collection space is now even
more challenged! Nice to have an example of this one though.
Here is how I got it:
http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/blog/2014-02-22-ti99_4a-reconstituting.…
and here is how I've described it on the collections page:
http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/collection/ti99-4a.htm
Terry (Tez)
22 Feb
22 Feb
2:58 p.m.
My first computer was a 99/4
It used to overheat.
On 22 Feb 2014 21:47, "Terry Stewart" <terry at webweavers.co.nz> wrote:
I'm not sure how many on this list are interested
in cheap home computers
of the early 1980's but anyway...my crowded collection space is now even
more challenged! Nice to have an example of this one though.
Here is how I got it:
http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/blog/2014-02-22-ti99_4a-reconstituting.…
and here is how I've described it on the collections page:
http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/collection/ti99-4a.htm
Terry (Tez)
5:25 p.m.
A number of early home computers liked to overheat.
More than two or three cards plugged-in the Apple II? Get a fan now, or
it's only a matter of time.. they even ran hot as-shipped.
My original VIC-20 ran frightfully hot, as did its power supply - just as
did the C-64 which replaced it. Both were run with a large muffin fan
positioned close behind the rear panel, which seemed to help a lot - both
machines have large slots in the rear, centred on the top plane of the
motherboard.
I'm not sure why this is, it's as if the manufacturers never actually
tested these machines under real-world operating conditions.
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 4:58 PM, John Many Jars <
john at yoyodyne-propulsion.net> wrote:
My first computer was a 99/4
It used to overheat.
On 22 Feb 2014 21:47, "Terry Stewart" <terry at webweavers.co.nz> wrote:
I'm not sure how many on this list are
interested in cheap home computers
of the early 1980's but anyway...my crowded collection space is now even
more challenged! Nice to have an example of this one though.
Here is how I got it:
http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/blog/2014-02-22-ti99_4a-reconstituting.…
and here is how I've described it on the collections page:
http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/collection/ti99-4a.htm
Terry (Tez)
23 Feb
23 Feb
6:01 a.m.
The TI 99/4 never to my experience have a heat problem.
They are over 20 years old so caps will fail along with
other parts.
When it comes to heat S100 crates were masters. TEI made a box that
actually had a cooling path. Most the PS or some other structure blocked
most of the air flow. When you consider 56K of ram then was 208 2102s
plus all the bus interface and CPU, DIS and IO cards (at elast 10 often 12
cards) warm was what the room became when it had been running for
a while.
Allison
On 02/22/2014 08:25 PM, drlegendre . wrote:
A number of early home computers liked to overheat.
More than two or three cards plugged-in the Apple II? Get a fan now, or
it's only a matter of time.. they even ran hot as-shipped.
My original VIC-20 ran frightfully hot, as did its power supply - just as
did the C-64 which replaced it. Both were run with a large muffin fan
positioned close behind the rear panel, which seemed to help a lot - both
machines have large slots in the rear, centred on the top plane of the
motherboard.
I'm not sure why this is, it's as if the manufacturers never actually
tested these machines under real-world operating conditions.
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 4:58 PM, John Many Jars <
john at yoyodyne-propulsion.net> wrote:
> My first computer was a 99/4
> It used to overheat.
> On 22 Feb 2014 21:47, "Terry Stewart" <terry at webweavers.co.nz>
wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure how many on this list are interested in cheap home computers
>> of the early 1980's but anyway...my crowded collection space is now even
>> more challenged! Nice to have an example of this one though.
>>
>> Here is how I got it:
>>
>>
> http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/blog/2014-02-22-ti99_4a-reconstituting.…
>> and here is how I've described it on the collections page:
>> http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/collection/ti99-4a.htm
>>
>> Terry (Tez)
>>
3 Mar
3 Mar
12:40 p.m.
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 07:25:21PM -0600, drlegendre . wrote:
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 19:25:21 -0600
From: "drlegendre ." <drlegendre at gmail.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: TI-99/4A acquisition
A number of early home computers liked to overheat.
More than two or three cards plugged-in the Apple II? Get a fan now, or
it's only a matter of time.. they even ran hot as-shipped.
My original VIC-20 ran frightfully hot, as did its power supply - just as
did the C-64 which replaced it. Both were run with a large muffin fan
positioned close behind the rear panel, which seemed to help a lot - both
machines have large slots in the rear, centred on the top plane of the
motherboard.
I'm not sure why this is, it's as if the manufacturers never actually
tested these machines under real-world operating conditions.
So true...
One of the first things I do w/ any Vic-20/C64 is remove that piece of
cardboard "RF shield". Kills what little airflow there may be. At some
point I should put some heat sinks on the chips that tend to run a bit hot
(VIC, PLA, etc).
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 4:58 PM, John Many Jars <
john at yoyodyne-propulsion.net> wrote:
> My first computer was a 99/4
> It used to overheat.
> On 22 Feb 2014 21:47, "Terry Stewart" <terry at webweavers.co.nz>
wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure how many on this list are interested in cheap home computers
> > of the early 1980's but anyway...my crowded collection space is now even
> > more challenged! Nice to have an example of this one though.
That's about all I'm interested in, the 8 and 16 bit computers from late 70s
to mid 80s, so I'm all ears. :)
The TI99/4a is one of my favorites, nice score. Some great games on that
system. Parsec and Hunt the Wumpus are my favorites.
~brian
> >
> > Here is how I got it:
> >
> >
> http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/blog/2014-02-22-ti99_4a-reconstituting.…
> >
> > and here is how I've described it on the collections page:
> > http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/collection/ti99-4a.htm
> >
> > Terry (Tez)
> >
>
--
.------------------------------------------------,------.
| Brian Sturk - http://www.briansturk.com / C/C++ | .> )\,^a__
|-------------------------. bsturk%comcast.net | Python |( _ _)/ /-."~
| Linux/BSD/OSX/Windows `--------------------`-------| `( )_ )/
`------------------------------------------------------ |_<_s_<_s
22 Feb
22 Feb
3:34 p.m.
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Terry Stewart <terry at webweavers.co.nz> wrote:
I'm not sure how many on this list are interested
in cheap home computers
of the early 1980's but anyway...my crowded collection space is now even
more challenged! Nice to have an example of this one though.
Well I'm sure interested. My first computer was the TI-99/4A. Loved
it, except for the sensitive cartridge interface and those damn TI
joysticks!
You've got to get a working TI Invaders cart!
Jim
3:56 p.m.
On 22 February 2014 23:34, Jim Carpenter <jim at deitygraveyard.com> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Terry Stewart
<terry at webweavers.co.nz> wrote:
Don't'forget Parsec and Alpiner "Oh... Shi(f)t!"
I'm not sure how many on this list are
interested in cheap home computers
of the early 1980's but anyway...my crowded collection space is now even
more challenged! Nice to have an example of this one though.
Well I'm sure interested. My first computer was the TI-99/4A. Loved
it, except for the sensitive cartridge interface and those damn TI
joysticks!
You've got to get a working TI Invaders cart! 
3:57 p.m.
On Feb 22, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Jim Carpenter wrote:
Well I'm sure interested. My first computer was the TI-99/4A. Loved
it, except for the sensitive cartridge interface and those damn TI
joysticks!
You've got to get a working TI Invaders cart!
...and Munch Man, and Parsec, and Alpiner, and....
there were a ton of good cartridge games on that sucker. The TI was our first
"real" computer after a Timex Sinclair 1000 as a kid.
And of course don't forget the Speech Synthesizer.
5:05 p.m.
You've got to get a working TI Invaders cart!
Working on it...
...and Munch Man, and Parsec, and Alpiner, and....
Yes, I've got Munch Man. Thank for the other two recommends.
And of course don't forget the Speech Synthesizer.
Yes, got that too (-:
I definitely need some more carts though.
Terry (Tez)
23 Feb
23 Feb
4:37 a.m.
On 22 February 2014 21:36, Terry Stewart <terry at webweavers.co.nz> wrote:
and here is how I've described it on the
collections page:
http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/collection/ti99-4a.htm
Nice articles and an impressive restoration!
I am not sure I've got the details right, but the significance of the
weird CPU of the TI99/4a might be worthy of a mention.
AIUI it was a low-end (single-chip?) version of an existing CPU, which
TI also used in much larger machines, right up to minicomputers.
Possibly the 99/4a's version was the first VLSI version or something.
(So a comparison with the PowerPC chip there - a single-chip
implementation of the IBM POWER architecture, an expensive multi-chip
UNIX server/workstation processor.) Also arguably bears comparison
with the BK Elektronica - that Soviet home-micro PDP-11.
But yes, as you say, the first 16-bit home micro - but very slow, in
fact slower than most 8-bits of its time period. AIUI part of the
reason for this is that the 99/4a CPU has no registers of its own,
uniquely among microprocessors - the registers are kept in main RAM,
meaning very slow bus accesses for /everything./
--
Liam Proven * Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk * GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com * Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 * Cell: +44 7939-087884
5:07 a.m.
The one I got came from a TV studio (TSW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_South_West) it came uncased in
a cardboard box, they had apparently used it for some local show and
had uncased it to fit into the set somehow. Not switched it on yet.
Dave Caroline
On 23/02/2014, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 February 2014 21:36, Terry Stewart <terry at
webweavers.co.nz> wrote:
and here is how I've described it on the
collections page:
http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/collection/ti99-4a.htm
Nice articles and an impressive restoration!
I am not sure I've got the details right, but the significance of the
weird CPU of the TI99/4a might be worthy of a mention.
AIUI it was a low-end (single-chip?) version of an existing CPU, which
TI also used in much larger machines, right up to minicomputers.
Possibly the 99/4a's version was the first VLSI version or something.
(So a comparison with the PowerPC chip there - a single-chip
implementation of the IBM POWER architecture, an expensive multi-chip
UNIX server/workstation processor.) Also arguably bears comparison
with the BK Elektronica - that Soviet home-micro PDP-11.
But yes, as you say, the first 16-bit home micro - but very slow, in
fact slower than most 8-bits of its time period. AIUI part of the
reason for this is that the 99/4a CPU has no registers of its own,
uniquely among microprocessors - the registers are kept in main RAM,
meaning very slow bus accesses for /everything./
--
Liam Proven * Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk * GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com * Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 * Cell: +44 7939-087884
5:22 a.m.
On Feb 23, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
But yes, as you say, the first 16-bit home micro - but
very slow, in
fact slower than most 8-bits of its time period. AIUI part of the
reason for this is that the 99/4a CPU has no registers of its own,
uniquely among microprocessors - the registers are kept in main RAM,
meaning very slow bus accesses for /everything./
That's part of the problem, yes, but not the only factor. It was a 16-bit CPU but the
designers of the system hobbled it with an 8-bit data bus. On top of this as you say the
only internal register it had was the workspace pointer register (and I think maybe the
PC? not sure about that), and then all the working registers were in system RAM...of which
it had a ridiculously small amount of... like < 512 bytes or so IIRC. All program
information was pulled off of GROMs (a special type of serial ROM in cartridge) and any
user programs on unexpanded systems was stored in video RAM.
5:34 a.m.
On 23 February 2014 13:22, Geoff Oltmans <oltmansg at gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 23, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
Urgh. What a kludgey design!
--
Liam Proven * Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk * GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com * Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 * Cell: +44 7939-087884
But yes, as you say, the first 16-bit home micro
- but very slow, in
fact slower than most 8-bits of its time period. AIUI part of the
reason for this is that the 99/4a CPU has no registers of its own,
uniquely among microprocessors - the registers are kept in main RAM,
meaning very slow bus accesses for /everything./
That's part of the problem, yes, but not the only factor. It was a 16-bit CPU but the
designers of the system hobbled it with an 8-bit data bus. On top of this as you say the
only internal register it had was the workspace pointer register (and I think maybe the
PC? not sure about that), and then all the working registers were in system RAM...of which
it had a ridiculously small amount of... like < 512 bytes or so IIRC. All program
information was pulled off of GROMs (a special type of serial ROM in cartridge) and any
user programs on unexpanded systems was stored in video RAM.
5:59 a.m.
And it met with commensurate success. In other words, the C-64 (perhaps
even the VIC) trounced it to pieces..
Back in those days, there were essentially two camps of home compy users:
The C-64 / Apple or perhaps Atari folks (most of us) who had an interest in
computing for the sake and pure thrill of it - and the 'serious' users with
CP/M machines such as Osborne, Kaypro, Epson, TRS-80 or even the dread
IBM-PC / XT with its crazy MS-DOS deal.
Seriously. The enthusiast camp was quite different from the "serious" camp.
The two rarely crossed paths, at least in those days.
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
On 23 February 2014 13:22, Geoff Oltmans <oltmansg
at gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 23, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
16-bit CPU
but the designers of the system hobbled it with an 8-bit data
bus. On top of this as you say the only internal register it had was the
workspace pointer register (and I think maybe the PC? not sure about that),
and then all the working registers were in system RAM...of which it had a
ridiculously small amount of... like < 512 bytes or so IIRC. All program
information was pulled off of GROMs (a special type of serial ROM in
cartridge) and any user programs on unexpanded systems was stored in video
RAM.
Urgh. What a kludgey design!
--
Liam Proven * Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk * GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com * Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 * Cell: +44 7939-087884
But yes, as you say, the first 16-bit home micro
- but very slow, in
fact slower than most 8-bits of its time period. AIUI part of the
reason for this is that the 99/4a CPU has no registers of its own,
uniquely among microprocessors - the registers are kept in main RAM,
meaning very slow bus accesses for /everything./
That's part of the problem, yes, but not the only factor. It was a
11:59 a.m.
On 02/23/2014 08:59 AM, drlegendre . wrote:
And it met with commensurate success. In other words,
the C-64 (perhaps
even the VIC) trounced it to pieces..
Back in those days, there were essentially two camps of home compy users:
The C-64 / Apple or perhaps Atari folks (most of us) who had an interest in
computing for the sake and pure thrill of it - and the 'serious' users with
CP/M machines such as Osborne, Kaypro, Epson, TRS-80 or even the dread
IBM-PC / XT with its crazy MS-DOS deal.
Your forgot the S100 users CP/M, CDOS,
Cromix, NS*DOS.
Seriously. The enthusiast camp was quite different
from the "serious" camp.
The two rarely crossed paths, at least in those days.
These days maybe then [early then pre PC] it was a survival thing and
you would see
clubs with members having anything from a EVK6800, Kim-1 or S100
altair/imsai
through PDP-8 or a long list of others.
Later it would fragment into TRS80, Apple][, S100 CP/M or NS*dos, SWTP 6800
and then the Commie [Commodore] camps emerged.
The dividing line was distinct as the CPU and the operating software was
a partition.
the CP/M guys were more hardware diverse of the lot as any 8080/8085/z80
ran it
if there was disk and at least 16K ram starting at 0000h (trash80 had
Rom, video
and keyboard IO in the bottom). That meant the CP/M crowd were not married
to a physical system or vendor. Their evolution and longevity were
different
as a result. Oddly CP/M is one of the few in the bunch that can be
ported to a
currently available Z80 of some flavor, a CF or SD and a bios created to
mate
it all. Most of the rest are tied to specific hardware and interfaces.
The Osborne, Kaypro, Ampro Epson was later in the post PC era.
Some I came in contact with or had up to the intro of the IBM PC...
Systems:
PDP-8
*Altair
IMSAI
*North*star Horizon
*Netronics 8800, an 8085 based board expandable to s100 levels
Apple][
*TRS80 (the first!)
Heath H-11 (LSI-11 is heath clothing).
Boards (SBCs):
*National SC/MP
*RCA COSMAC
*IMSAI IMP 8035 based
*Technico SSS Ti9900 based
*Motorola EVK-6800-D1
*Kim-1
* means I actually have one that I bought in that time frame.
I'm sure I missed a few
Most of the LICA and related clubs would see all, we sure did.
Allison
11:35 a.m.
On 02/23/2014 08:22 AM, Geoff Oltmans wrote:
On Feb 23, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
Yes, the workspace concept was not super fast but context switch was
fast and the general
addressing scheme of the CPU was very good. Imagine in 1978 having
16x16 registers
and most (save for 2) were general purpose. Blame the implementation
not the processor.
The TI99/4 suffered from narrowing the bus and storing it in a serial
oriented byte wide
system where a program jump required sending a new pointer to the start
of a routine
and I might add the code was NOT in native assembler but in an
interpreted form.
That general 16<>8bit thing cost speed (two wait states per word
transfered) and the
9900 was a word oriented machine for code.
I have a machine that I hacked to replace the 6810 (128x8 rams) for
61256 parts (32Kx8a)
and hack my own code into it. In mine the Vram is strictly for video
use. The result is much
better but a totally incompatable machine from what it was. Still its
fun to play with.
The rest of mine are dusty at best but otherwise near pristine. Still
fun to play Parsec
as I kept a 13" old style pre-digital color set for that.
Allison
But yes, as you say, the first 16-bit home micro
- but very slow, in
fact slower than most 8-bits of its time period. AIUI part of the
reason for this is that the 99/4a CPU has no registers of its own,
uniquely among microprocessors - the registers are kept in main RAM,
meaning very slow bus accesses for /everything./
That's part of the problem,
yes, but not the only factor. It was a 16-bit CPU but the designers of the system hobbled
it with an 8-bit data bus. On top of this as you say the only internal register it had was
the workspace pointer register (and I think maybe the PC? not sure about that), and then
all the working registers were in system RAM...of which it had a ridiculously small amount
of... like < 512 bytes or so IIRC. All program information was pulled off of GROMs (a
special type of serial ROM in cartridge) and any user programs on unexpanded systems was
stored in video RAM.
11:59 a.m.
On 02/23/2014 11:35 AM, allison wrote:
The TI99/4 suffered from narrowing the bus and storing
it in a
serial oriented byte wide system where a program jump required
sending a new pointer to the start of a routine and I might add the
code was NOT in native assembler but in an interpreted form.
I've long thought that the strangling of the bus done on the TI 99/4
home PC was quite possibly motivated by TI's not wanting to compete with
its own 990 series of computers. The cost of a TI 990/4 was
considerably higher than a 99/4, even though both use the same MPU.
I find the I2L versions of the 9900 far more interesting as far as chips
go. They were used quite often in military gear, not as devices offered
to the general unwashed. In a similar way, one did not see the
Fairchild 9940 in much general audience gear.
--Chuck
4:31 p.m.
(discussion so far...)
Good comments guys. I'm learning a lot (not that I can understand all of
it, but you know what I mean).
I read somewhere that TI wasn't very forthcoming about giving users a lot
of technical information on the hardware for hardware/software hackers
(hackers in the original sense of the word) to make their machine sing.
This in contrast to, say, Apple with the Apple II. Is this a fair comment?
Someone in another forum I inhabit mentioned the fact that the TI BASIC
doesn't have any PEEKS or POKE commands to allow manipulation at a lower
level than BASIC allows. I checked and sure enough they are right. If I
follow the discussion correctly, the CPU works very differently from the
more conventional 6502, Z80 or 8088 etc. so they may not have any use
anyway?
I'm assuming the TI-99/4A had Editor/Assemblers available though, for those
who wanted to program in what would be a very different type of assembly
code. I guess some people must have done it, otherwise we wouldn't have
all those good TI-99/4A games?!
Terry (Tez)
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2014 11:35 AM, allison wrote:
The TI99/4 suffered from narrowing the bus and storing it in a
serial oriented byte wide system where a program
jump required
sending a new pointer to the start of a routine and I might add the
code was NOT in native assembler but in an interpreted form.
I've long thought that the strangling of the bus done on the TI 99/4 home
PC was quite possibly motivated by TI's not wanting to compete with its own
990 series of computers. The cost of a TI 990/4 was considerably higher
than a 99/4, even though both use the same MPU.
I find the I2L versions of the 9900 far more interesting as far as chips
go. They were used quite often in military gear, not as devices offered to
the general unwashed. In a similar way, one did not see the Fairchild 9940
in much general audience gear.
--Chuck
4:59 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Terry Stewart <terry at webweavers.co.nz> wrote:
I'm assuming the TI-99/4A had Editor/Assemblers available though, for those
who wanted to program in what would be a very different type of assembly
code. I guess some people must have done it, otherwise we wouldn't have
all those good TI-99/4A games?!
Some quick references:
http://www.mainbyte.com/ti99/software/s_carts/editor.html
ftp://ftp.whtech.com/programming/Assembler/Editor%20Assembler%20manual/Edit…
ftp://ftp.whtech.com/programming/Assembler/IntroToALForTheTIHomeComputer.pdf
7:18 p.m.
Some quick references:.....
..........
Well, that answers some of the questions. Thanks!
Terry (Tez)
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Glen Slick <glen.slick at gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Terry Stewart
<terry at webweavers.co.nz>
wrote:
I'm assuming the TI-99/4A had Editor/Assemblers available though, for
those
who wanted to program in what would be a very
different type of assembly
code. I guess some people must have done it, otherwise we wouldn't have
all those good TI-99/4A games?!
Some quick references:
http://www.mainbyte.com/ti99/software/s_carts/editor.html
ftp://ftp.whtech.com/programming/Assembler/Editor%20Assembler%20manual/Edit…
ftp://ftp.whtech.com/programming/Assembler/IntroToALForTheTIHomeComputer.pdf
24 Feb
24 Feb
5:42 a.m.
My memories of this system, as a 13 year old kid, was that it was best
used as a doorstop.
Now, I'm not criticising anyone who has one, or collects one. Heck, I
wish I still had mine... I could use a door stop or two.
Basically, my dad bought the wrong thing. It cost about 1/2 what an
Apple //+ would have cost, and was about 1/8 as useful. You couldn't
develop any BASIC programs that ran faster than an utter crawl (and I
wasn't too bad when I was 13) and to do anything in assembler required
spending at least a much as a //+ on extra hardware.. the expansion
box, a disk drive, more RAM, etc.
If you were lucky, it might overheat and set fire to your house. Then
you could claim the insurance money.
On 24 February 2014 00:59, Glen Slick <glen.slick at gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Terry Stewart
<terry at webweavers.co.nz> wrote:
--
Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems: "The Future Begins Tomorrow"
Visit us at: http://www.yoyodyne-propulsion.net
--------
"Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way "
I'm assuming the TI-99/4A had Editor/Assemblers available though, for those
who wanted to program in what would be a very different type of assembly
code. I guess some people must have done it, otherwise we wouldn't have
all those good TI-99/4A games?!
Some quick references:
http://www.mainbyte.com/ti99/software/s_carts/editor.html
ftp://ftp.whtech.com/programming/Assembler/Editor%20Assembler%20manual/Edit…
ftp://ftp.whtech.com/programming/Assembler/IntroToALForTheTIHomeComputer.pdf
2:04 p.m.
On 02/24/2014 08:42 AM, John Many Jars wrote:
My memories of this system, as a 13 year old kid, was
that it was best
used as a doorstop.
Now, I'm not criticising anyone who has one, or collects one. Heck, I
wish I still had mine... I could use a door stop or two.
Basically, my dad bought the wrong thing. It cost about 1/2 what an
Apple //+ would have cost, and was about 1/8 as useful. You couldn't
develop any BASIC programs that ran faster than an utter crawl (and I
wasn't too bad when I was 13) and to do anything in assembler required
spending at least a much as a //+ on extra hardware.. the expansion
box, a disk drive, more RAM, etc.
If you were lucky, it might overheat and set fire to your house. Then
you could claim the insurance money.
The console never ran hot. I have three plus one I modded.
The brick on a rope however had a faulty or incorrect fuse or no thermal
protection
and could cause a fire if the transformer inside failed, though mine
never got
particularly warm. I opened mine and added a thermal protector.
As to being slow, seriously it was. It was also very late into the
market and silly
expensive for the performance it offered. I bought mine (first one)
during the
great sellout and it was far cheaper or maybe closer to the right price.
As a collectable, they were like house files. But they did represent a
moment
in computer history. It was a good example of late and bad marketing.
IT was
a stellar example of putting a muzzle on what was a very good cpu to
save a buck
in hardware. One has to remember at that time 16Kx8 of DRam was about
$26 OEM
cost never mind supporting hardware so the hardware was cheap till it hurt.
I see it not unlike the original TRS80 with its bus noise and keybounce,
or the Commi PET
with the horrid chicklet keyboard to name a few other notable goofs.
Allison
3:05 p.m.
On 24 February 2014 22:04, allison <ajp166 at verizon.net> wrote:
The console never ran hot. I have three plus one I
modded.
Mine did... if you left it on for a few hours random characters
started popping up on the screen and the unit started to become
erratic. I could have been misinterpreting this as "overheating"... I
also had a plain 99/4 with the chicklet keyboard. They might have
fixed that problem in the A model, whatever it was.
As to being slow, seriously it was. It was also very late into the
market and silly
expensive for the performance it offered. I bought mine (first one)
during the
great sellout and it was far cheaper or maybe closer to the right price.
Yeah. for $100 it was a perfectly acceptable toy. For ten times that
amount, an obscene rip-off.
As a collectable, they were like house files. But
they did represent a
moment
in computer history. It was a good example of late and bad marketing.
IT was
a stellar example of putting a muzzle on what was a very good cpu to
save a buck
in hardware. One has to remember at that time 16Kx8 of DRam was about
$26 OEM
cost never mind supporting hardware so the hardware was cheap till it hurt.
Absolutely. I was used to messing around with my friends Apple //.
You could mess about with the machine more or less directly, write
things in part or entirely in assembler for speed, etc.
The TI BASIC was just painfully slow, and they completely locked you
out of the rest of the system. There was no way around it without
spending tons of money. Essentially, you had a very expensive
cartridge game system with a keyboard.
I see it not unlike the original TRS80 with its bus
noise and keybounce,
or the Commi PET
with the horrid chicklet keyboard to name a few other notable goofs.
I just wanted an Apple. I redoubled my whining and eventually got
one. What a brat!
--
Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems: "The Future Begins Tomorrow"
Visit us at: http://www.yoyodyne-propulsion.net
--------
"Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way "
3:51 p.m.
On Feb 24, 2014, at 6:11 PM, "John Many
Jars" <john at yoyodyne-propulsion.net> wrote:
I picked this link up from Jimmy Maher's article on the home computer wars.
The article below is from Texas Monthly April 1984, it's a fairly in depth look at the
TI-99 failure.
(I'd run this thru a shortner, but I don't like the obfuscation)
http://books.google.no/books?id=DSsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&…
On 24 February 2014 22:04, allison <ajp166 at
verizon.net> wrote:
The console never ran hot. I have three plus one I modded.
Mine did... if you left it on for a few hours random characters
started popping up on the screen and the unit started to become
erratic. I could have been misinterpreting this as "overheating"... I
also had a plain 99/4 with the chicklet keyboard. They might have
fixed that problem in the A model, whatever it was.
As to being slow, seriously it was. It was also very late into the
market and silly
expensive for the performance it offered. I bought mine (first one)
during the
great sellout and it was far cheaper or maybe closer to the right price.
Yeah. for $100 it was a perfectly acceptable toy. For ten times that
amount, an obscene rip-off.
As a collectable, they were like house files.
But they did represent a
moment
in computer history. It was a good example of late and bad marketing.
IT was
a stellar example of putting a muzzle on what was a very good cpu to
save a buck
in hardware. One has to remember at that time 16Kx8 of DRam was about
$26 OEM
cost never mind supporting hardware so the hardware was cheap till it hurt.
Absolutely. I was used to messing around with my friends Apple //.
You could mess about with the machine more or less directly, write
things in part or entirely in assembler for speed, etc.
The TI BASIC was just painfully slow, and they completely locked you
out of the rest of the system. There was no way around it without
spending tons of money. Essentially, you had a very expensive
cartridge game system with a keyboard.
> I see it not unlike the original TRS80 with its bus noise and keybounce,
>
25 Feb
25 Feb
3:19 a.m.
On 02/24/2014 06:51 PM, BE Arnold wrote:
Worth a read.
Allison
> On Feb 24, 2014, at 6:11 PM, "John Many
Jars" <john at yoyodyne-propulsion.net> wrote:
>
>> On 24 February 2014 22:04, allison <ajp166 at verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> The console never ran hot. I have three plus one I modded.
> Mine did... if you left it on for a few hours random characters
> started popping up on the screen and the unit started to become
> erratic. I could have been misinterpreting this as "overheating"... I
> also had a plain 99/4 with the chicklet keyboard. They might have
> fixed that problem in the A model, whatever it was.
>
The non a with the crappy keyboard was problematic. They had more stuff in
the can and did little to remove the heat plus they used slower moto
6810 ram.
There were other issues. Price of being the early adopter sometimes.
The 4/a had a better keyboard and I never saw the issues you speak of.
>> As to being slow, seriously it was. It was
also very late into the
>> market and silly
>> expensive for the performance it offered. I bought mine (first one)
>> during the
>> great sellout and it was far cheaper or maybe closer to the right price.
> Yeah. for $100 it was a perfectly acceptable toy. For ten times that
> amount, an obscene rip-off.
>
>> As a collectable, they were like house files. But they did represent a
>> moment
>> in computer history. It was a good example of late and bad marketing.
>> IT was
>> a stellar example of putting a muzzle on what was a very good cpu to
>> save a buck
>> in hardware. One has to remember at that time 16Kx8 of DRam was about
>> $26 OEM
>> cost never mind supporting hardware so the hardware was cheap till it hurt.
> Absolutely. I was used to messing around with my friends Apple //.
> You could mess about with the machine more or less directly, write
> things in part or entirely in assembler for speed, etc.
Thats what different
is.
> The TI BASIC was just painfully slow, and they
completely locked you
> out of the rest of the system. There was no way around it without
> spending tons of money. Essentially, you had a very expensive
> cartridge game system with a keyboard.
It was no question. The big sell off
got me all that dirt cheap.
> I see it
not unlike the original TRS80 with its bus noise and keybounce,
>
I picked this link up from Jimmy Maher's article on the home computer
wars.
The article below is from Texas Monthly April 1984, it's a fairly in depth look at
the TI-99 failure.
(I'd run this thru a shortner, but I don't like the obfuscation)
http://books.google.no/books?id=DSsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&…
23 Feb
23 Feb
11:25 a.m.
On 02/23/2014 07:37 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
On 22 February 2014 21:36, Terry Stewart <terry at
webweavers.co.nz> wrote:
It was slow not so much due to workspace but the fact that it ran code from
the 16K window that was video ram. That process was terminally slow.
It effectively stored interpreted code in video ram. Local ram was very
small,
512 words.
Having used the 9900 chip and also having a Technico super starter board
I can say it was as fast a many of the 8 bitter of the day (1978-79).
The 16 bit
architecture was very rich and had much better addressing modes.
The 99/4a was a unusual beast in that there was a lot of software but a
total failure.
and here is how I've described it on the
collections page:
http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/collection/ti99-4a.htm
Nice articles and an
impressive restoration!
I am not sure I've got the details right, but the significance of the
weird CPU of the TI99/4a might be worthy of a mention.
AIUI it was a low-end (single-chip?) version of an existing CPU, which
TI also used in much larger machines, right up to minicomputers.
Possibly the 99/4a's version was the first VLSI version or something.
(So a comparison with the PowerPC chip there - a single-chip
implementation of the IBM POWER architecture, an expensive multi-chip
UNIX server/workstation processor.) Also arguably bears comparison
with the BK Elektronica - that Soviet home-micro PDP-11.
But yes, as you say, the first 16-bit home micro - but very slow, in
fact slower than most 8-bits of its time period. AIUI part of the
reason for this is that the 99/4a CPU has no registers of its own,
uniquely among microprocessors - the registers are kept in main RAM,
meaning very slow bus accesses for /everything./
From the user standpoint practical use was hard as the
truncated keyboard
was not suitable for convenient word processing or other tasks
and the
32 or
40 char screen while colorful was not suitable for practical tasks. For
games
it was ok. All three versions I have use the same CPU the TI9900 in
the 64 pin
format.
Allison
5:56 a.m.
On 02/22/2014 04:36 PM, Terry Stewart wrote:
I'm not sure how many on this list are interested
in cheap home computers
of the early 1980's but anyway...my crowded collection space is now even
more challenged! Nice to have an example of this one though.
Here is how I got it:
http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/blog/2014-02-22-ti99_4a-reconstituting.…
and here is how I've described it on the collections page:
http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/collection/ti99-4a.htm
Terry (Tez)
I have three including one white unit and a complete set of all the carts
and the expansion with ram and disk. plus all of the software.
It was not my first. it was more like my 10th.
Allison
3730
days inactive
3739
days old
26 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
abs＠absd.org -
ajp166＠verizon.net -
bearnold＠outlook.com -
bsturk＠comcast.net -
cclist＠sydex.com -
dave.thearchivist＠gmail.com -
drlegendre＠gmail.com -
glen.slick＠gmail.com -
jim＠deitygraveyard.com -
john＠yoyodyne-propulsion.net -
lproven＠gmail.com -
oltmansg＠gmail.com -
terry＠webweavers.co.nz