Slashdot Mirror


30 Years of the BBC Micro

Alioth writes "The BBC has an article on the BBC Microcomputer, designed and manufactured by Acorn Computers for the BBC's Computer Literacy project. It is now 30 years since the first BBC Micro came out — a machine with a 2 MHz 6502 — remarkably fast for its day; the Commodore machines at the time only ran at 1MHz. While most U.S. readers will never have heard of the BBC Micro, the BBC's Computer Literacy project has had a huge impact worldwide since the ARM (originally meaning 'Acorn Risc Machine') was designed for the follow-on version of the BBC Micro, the Archimedes, also sold under the BBC Microcomputer label by Acorn. The original ARM CPU was specified in just over 800 lines of BBC BASIC. The ARM CPU now outsells all other CPU architectures put together. The BBC Micro has arguably been the most influential 8 bit computer the world had thanks to its success creating the seed for the ARM, even if the 'Beeb' was not well known outside of the UK."

208 comments

  1. jaded by masternerdguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People used to get excited when a CPU clock was measured in MEGAHERTZ! Now we're jaded...

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    1. Re:jaded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha, people used to get excited when the total memory of a home computer was measured in kilobytes. ^_^
      Commodore Vic 20 : 3583 Bytes free for programming.
      Definitely another era.

    2. Re:jaded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But there were far more megahertz than we'll get in gigahertz! You'll never get a 150GHz machine...

    3. Re:jaded by syousef · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People used to get excited when a CPU clock was measured in MEGAHERTZ! Now we're jaded...

      The fucking things did not run a GUI that emulated transparent glass. They could process video or images that we use today etc. People use to get excited about ASCII art and how clever that was. Today you can see pictures Hubble has taken in intricate detail, and instead of playing ASCII strip poker people are viewing HD porn instantly.

      When home computers were new anything they could do was a marvel. Now we've seen what more processing power can do. We have a lot of bloat. We also have a lot of functionality that is taken for granted. You have to remember that international direct dialing was considered a wonder when the BBC microcomputer was introduced. ("What, you mean no operator connects you!?")

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    4. Re:jaded by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not to worry! Thanks to the power of javascript and web2.0, you can again await the day when we'll be able to push a 6502 into the realm of the megahertz!

      (Please note, above linked project is actually pretty fucking cool: "In the summer of 2009, working from a single 6502, we exposed the silicon die, photographed its surface at high resolution and also photographed its substrate. Using these two highly detailed aligned photographs, we created vector polygon models of each of the chip's physical components - about 20,000 of them in total for the 6502. These components form circuits in a few simple ways according to how they contact each other, so by intersecting our polygons, we were able to create a complete digital model and transistor-level simulation of the chip.

      This model is very accurate and can run classic 6502 programs, including Atari games. By rendering our polygons with colors corresponding to their 'high' or 'low' logic state, we can show, visually, exactly how the chip operates: how it reads data and instructions from memory, how its registers and internal busses operate, and how toggling a single input pin (the 'clock') on and off drives the entire chip to step through a program and get things done."

      It is, however, the case that this might not be the fastest way to execute 6502 instructions...)

    5. Re:jaded by joshuac · · Score: 3, Funny

      But there were far more megahertz than we'll get in gigahertz! You'll never get a 150GHz machine...

      I'm with you totally...that's like well more than an order of magnitude faster than what we commonly have now, it would take huge advancements in technology to get there...heck, that would make the totally advanced and awesomely powerful computers we have these days feel like pocket calculators. Never'll happen ;)

    6. Re:jaded by broomer · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can do better...

      Sinclair ZX 81 with 1KB total memory.
      I do not recall how many bytes were free for programming, but 30 lines of BASIC was about the biggest before going out of memory.

    7. Re:jaded by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      Shut. Your. Ass. I'd read about proper, component-level emulation, but I had no idea people had actually done it on anything more sophisticated then a calculator. Incredible.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    8. Re:jaded by JockTroll · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ha! Loserboy nerd, try to program on the MITS Altair 8800! No fancy keyboard or VDUs, real jocks enter their programs by throwing switches and read the output on blinking lights!

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    9. Re:jaded by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

      I do not recall how many bytes were free for programming

      It varied...

      The screen display came out of the 1K of RAM but it only used as much RAM as was needed. There was a special 'end of line' character to mark the end of each screen line. A blank line only needed one byte (the end of line char). A line with 'Hello, world!' on it would need 14 bytes. A screenfull of text needed 768 bytes.

      Many programs went to extremes to save RAM. There was a 1K chess program which displayed the moves as five chars at top of the screen, eg. 'E2E4+'. You had to use a real chess board to follow the game.

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:jaded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      For the biggest geekfest ever, get the BBC series which accompanied the launch of the BBC micro. Truly brilliant!

      http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6314602/Making_The_Most_Of_The_Micro

    11. Re:jaded by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      The BBC also did a nice dramatisation of the early days os home computers called Micro Men (apologies - no torrent link but I'm sure someone else will find one).

    12. Re:jaded by operagost · · Score: 1

      Wow. Maybe someday we'll be able to completely simulate an Apple III, including dropping it on the desktop to reseat the chips when they overheat.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    13. Re:jaded by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      With the availability of GPS and/or accelerometers, and their exposure to the browser, on a number of contemporary platforms, I don't see why not...

    14. Re:jaded by pz · · Score: 1

      Thanks to the power of javascript and web2.0, you can again await the day when we'll be able to push a 6502 into the realm of the megahertz! [visual6502.org]

      That is one of the coolest projects I have ever seen! I wish we had had something like that when I was taking intro to digital design.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    15. Re:jaded by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      I really think that's the issue when people talk about computers of yore, its not that we now have 3.8Gh quad-core chips with megabytes of RAM as cache that appear to perform the tasks we set them with less user responsiveness than the old computers, I think its because in the old days, you got the chance to be clever to make it work. Today's computers are built up with layer after layer of bloat that is designed to make it easier to code, but really makes the overall experience for the end user less than optimal. (and many would say, not as easy to code as you'd expect anyway, just reducing the need to actually sit down and learn how the things work).

      Though maybe we just want more responsive computers and don't care too much about the glass effect titlebar that I don't even notice anymore.

    16. Re:jaded by Miamicanes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which means we go back to the same strategies we did in the 80s and early 90s -- coprocessors. Or, put another way, multiple cores, stacked GPUs, DMA, hardware DSPs. And (gasp), the Second Coming of CISC.

      At the end of the day, RISC was a way to get cheaper megahertz (and later, gigahertz). Now that we've largely maxed out clock speed to the point where it's almost counterproductive, CISC is just about the only place we have left to go. Instead of wasting 50 cycles loading values into registers. operating on those registers, evaluating the outcome, and branching based upon it, you can have complex variable-length opcodes that use billions of transistors and have sinful amounts of silicon dedicated to niche operations that would have been absurd to even contemplate 25 years ago with far fewer clock cycles.

      There's a reason why a 16MHz 68000 can still run circles around a 100MHz ARM, and why a 1GHz Pentium-M beats a 1GHz Atom or Arm to a bloody pulp -- the CISC chips get more done behind the scenes with every public clock cycle. The fact that behind the curtain, they're secretly executing chains of RISC instructions with private, semi-asynchronous clocks as fast as they can & just presenting the public facade of a CISC architecture responding to a system-wide clock is a quibble. The point is that every time the public system clock ticks, they're getting WAY more done than a conventional RISC architecture could ever fantasize about. In effect, a modern AMD64 (or Core2) CPU is like a container full of virtual, disposable/pooled RISC processors that get instantiated to execute a single public opcode while privately dancing to the beat of their own drummer.

    17. Re:jaded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We actually had a SOL where I used to work, it made the first ever graphics for laser shows. They went all out and spent a bundle upgrading to 32KB of RAM and dual 8" floppies. It was later replaced with original IBM PCs running QNX back in the 80's.

    18. Re:jaded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the 16K expansion cartridge.

    19. Re:jaded by Narishma · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you're lumping Atoms with ARMs. Just because they're slow (for some definitions of slow) doesn't mean they're RISC processors.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
    20. Re:jaded by raddude99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are very sadly deluded if you think that a 16Mhz 68000 could run circles around a 100Mhz ARM. Saying something that stupid means your whole argument collapses. I was a big Amiga fan back in the day, but I would never dream of saying that an Amiga with its 7Mhz 68000 could perform faster than a basic Acorn Archimedes with its 8Mhz Arm 2. Load up any 3d game that was common to both platforms (Zarch/Virus) and watch them side by side. The Amiga loses (The Amiga wins in 2d games though because of its powerful blitter :-) ). Also the Atom is a CISC chip and saying that one CISC chip (Pentium-M) can beat another (Atom) to a bloody pulp has other implications. Surely then, one RISC chip can beat another to a bloody pulp and they do. The rest of your so-called argument is also flawed. You think that CISC is good because the instructions are complicated and they can do more. Unfortunately it's these complications that make it harder to do what chip designers have been resorting to these past few years, that is coaxing CPU's to run more than one instruction at a time. Even you should be able to understand that this is easier to do if the instructions are simpler.

    21. Re:jaded by Alioth · · Score: 1

      You're not quite correct: it's actually a 16MHz ARM that runs circles around a 100MHz 68000. The ARM is *astonishingly* faster than the 68K.

    22. Re:jaded by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I'm programming microcontrollers, I STILL measure ram in kilobytes and clocks in megahertz!

      You insensitive clods!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re:jaded by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I still do that. It doesn't reset the chips anymore, but it still does wonders for my anger over that (censored) machine.

      Some things never change.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    24. Re:jaded by hey! · · Score: 1

      When I started, there were still guys around who worked on computers in the 1950s. They used to talk about how they thought they'd got the world by the balls when they got their hands on an IBM 1401 with it's 4K of RAM.

      Once I sat next to an old dude at a professional banquet, and it turned out he'd started working on very early computers during the Korean War. He told me about when his department got an IBM 701 (which would have made it around 1953 or so). He cracked a grin and said (I swear to God), "Yep, that was a stored program jobbie!"

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    25. Re:jaded by xaxa · · Score: 1

      For the biggest geekfest ever, get the BBC series which accompanied the launch of the BBC micro. Truly brilliant!

      http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6314602/Making_The_Most_Of_The_Micro

      Does that link work for you? I get a 404 when I click "Download this torrent", I'm wondering if my ISP has done something awful since I last tried using TPB...

    26. Re:jaded by sconeu · · Score: 2

      The problem with a 150GHz machine is propagation delay.

      A nanosecond is rougly 1 foot (30cm). .01ns (100GHz) is roughly 1/8 inch or 3mm.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    27. Re:jaded by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      OK, I got interrupted halfway through the post, and accidentally made it look like I was attributing 100% to the CPU alone. The full argument I intended to make was that if you compare a 16MHz 680x0-ish PalmOS phone circa 2002 to any ~100MHz Windows Mobile phone circa 2003 or 2004, the PalmOS phone will almost always "feel" faster, because the PalmOS phone used separate peripherals for everything, but the nominally-faster WinMo phone tried to use the CPU for everything. It's the combination of CISC (enabling 16MHz to go farther and do more) and coprocessors (spreading around the workload) that makes the difference. I started making a two-part argument, then forgot to make the second half. The inclusion of the Atom in examples was just a brain fart ;-)

      Personally, I think the ultimate endgame of RISC-vs-CISC will be along the lines of being able to program your own custom CISC opcodes using RISC-like microcode, so every program (or at least every program with OS-level access to the underlying CPU) can have its own hyper-optimized instruction set whose microcode gets executed (more or less) asynchronously to the main system clock (ie, the main clock fires it off and determines when it checks for the result, but what happens in between is up to the local virtual clock). Trying to make it work for userspace apps in a shared runtime environment (like Windows) will be an absolute nightmare in terms of both arbitration and security. but I think it's the direction x86 CPUs are eventually going to drift just because there aren't many other directions where they can go that will enable them to keep up their historical levels of exponential performance growth.

    28. Re:jaded by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      At the end of the day, RISC was a way to get cheaper megahertz (and later, gigahertz).

      No, RISC was a way of preforming an instruction in less cycles. More MIPS, not more MHz.

      There's a reason why a 16MHz 68000 can still run circles around a 100MHz ARM

      It can't. Back then a common benchmark was the Dhrystone benchmark. It took a 20Mhz 68020 to match an 8Mhz ARM.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_second

      And of course not only is RISC faster for a given clock speed, it also consumes less power. Which is the reason ARM is the most popular CPU now.

    29. Re:jaded by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hey you spoiled kids, I had a VIC20 (you need to use caps, we didn't have no lowers back then ya know!) and ya know what? It was fun! Sure the datasette was flaky and if you didn't watch it your little sister would take the cassette that you had saved your three days worth of heavy programming onto and record culture club on it (That left scars) but where else could you get new games and programs out of magazines and have everyone who had a computer be as geeky as you?

      While everyone waxes on about the old days there are some things however I do NOT miss, like the prices of RAM. Back then a 4Mb stick cost more than a fricking car! As I sit here with 8Gb in my netbook, another 8Gb in my desktop, where even my $50 graphics card has 800 stream processors and 512Mb of RAM on its own? Yeah I really don't want to go back to counting each byte and having to PEEK and POKE and GOTO every chance I could just to squeeze a few more bytes in there.

      So congrats to all those Brits with their Beebs, I hear it was like us and our VICs, If you want to date yourself just compare your first machines to what you have now and boy won't you feel old. I could fit my VIC AND my first FIVE PCs into the speed and memory of my $50 GPU and have cycles left over. And the first 5 of my PCs could have their entire hard drives dumped to my $14 flash stick and still have room for every program I had ever written for the VIC...wow...yay excess?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    30. Re:jaded by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      Sure you will. It will just be from several mutli-core CPUs per machine and not just from a single-socketed CPU.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    31. Re:jaded by joshuac · · Score: 1

      Dude, you realize I was kidding about trends in overall CPU performance, right? Hence the "funny" moderation. I don't think anyone here seriously thinks we're approaching Bremermann's Limit and things just can't get faster.

      Perhaps it "whooshed" you?

      behind the curtain, they're secretly executing chains of RISC instructions with private, semi-asynchronous clocks as fast as they can & just presenting the public facade of a CISC architecture responding to a system-wide clock...

      I like your description though...I always suspected there was something unwholesome and conspiratorial about CISC processing.

    32. Re:jaded by fatphil · · Score: 1

      "There's a reason why a 16MHz 68000 can still run circles around a 100MHz ARM"

      The reason is that you're on extremely powerful hallucinogenics. Show us the Dhrystones...

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    33. Re:jaded by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It was always stupid to measure computer performance in megahertz or clock cycles. Other silly measurements get used but megahertz is one of the worst (a prof once used to say that MIPS stood for Meaningless Indicator of Processor Speed). Clock speed is only useful when comparing the same architecture; ie, comparing 386 to 386. It's less useful to compare say 386 to 486. And it becomes absurd to compare architectures that are extremely different (is there a pipeline, how many clock cycles for an basic load/add/store, what about memory speeds, etc).

    34. Re:jaded by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      You don't waste cycles getting values into registers, you do that in parallel. CISC will only make sense compared to RISC once you've gotten a lot more concurrency. Even then it will essentially still use RISC as the underlying microcode.

      It was never about "cheaper megahertz" because hertz is the stupidest measure of computer speed.

      CISC was always worse than equivalent technology RISC, especially with the older classic stuff that were just painfully bad designs in terms of concurrency. The first supercomputers were essentially RISC in most ways. A microcoded 68000 is not faster than an ARM with the same internal clock rate, 68000 was a nice chip in many ways but it was clearly old school CISC with time and space wasted in instruction set decoding and non-pipelined micro cycles.

      Remember every time one of your oddly named "public cycles" ticks you have many micro cycles behind the scenes and you can't just throw those away with handwaving. Even your Pentium-M is actually a RISC underneath, it just translates the eternally backwards compatible x86 into an internal RISC like format and executes that. Even Intel knows that CISC vs RISC is a non-argument today. The world has moved on; it's taken as a given today that processors are vastly faster than memory, that caches are a good thing, that compilers can optimize better than humans, that concurrency is desirable even for the average customer, etc.

    35. Re:jaded by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      There really isn't a CISC-vs-RISC endgame. The competition is over. The only thing that CISC buys you with your model is more compact code. But code compactness is not the big deal it used to be except on smaller embedded systems or simple CPU designs. The RISC architectures of ARM and MIPS solve that problem on the embedded side by using optional 16-bit instruction sets, and the embedded world has plenty of 16-bit RISC architectures for when you don't need a 32-bit processor. In the higher end Intel solves a lot of the problems by maintaining CISC instruction set and translating to internal RISC. The classical CISC really no longer exists anymore in a significant way, the newer chips that people still call CISC are not comparable to the classic VAX or 68000 anymore.

      CISC and RISC distinctions were not about complexity of instruction sets except superficially!

      "Main system clock" is sort of a side show as it's not the limiting factor. If you've got a complex instruction set that has 1GHz "main" clock but its processor needs 8Ghz then that faster clock is the one that's going to be the limiting factor of a single processor's speed.

      You are right though that the future will be with concurrency and parallelism.

    36. Re:jaded by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Even MIPS is a bit meaningless. One ARM instruction does much less than one VAX instruction. So a better measurement is in operations. Benchmarks help with this as they're not focused on actual instructions but on a higher level program that does something useful. Ie, how long does it take to multiply a couple of arrays of floating point numbers, how long does it take to compare two strings, how long does it take to respond to an exception and service a device's registers, etc.

    37. Re:jaded by syousef · · Score: 1

      Today's computers are built up with layer after layer of bloat that is designed to make it easier to code, but really makes the overall experience for the end user less than optimal.

      Haha today's computers are easier to code are they? Pull the other one. It's the design patterns, endless layers of libraries and APIs that make coding a simple business app today a nightmare. Take J2EE for instance. No really take the damn thing!!! I for one blame that stupid Gang of 4 book. Over-engineer for infinite flexibility you will never use. Throw patterns and layers at the problem, then wonder why it's a mess. KISS is dead.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    38. Re:jaded by Centurix · · Score: 1

      I remember building my ZX81.

      Then ringing them up when it didn't work. Got a replacement CPU.

      Only after that was I shown the magic screen refresh and the true power of Sir Clive Sinclair.

      --
      Task Mangler
    39. Re:jaded by Centurix · · Score: 1

      Wait, you're talking ZX81. Mine was the ZX80...

      --
      Task Mangler
    40. Re:jaded by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. That's why I quoted the Dhrystone benchmark rather than MIPS in countering his claim.

    41. Re:jaded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm programming microcontrollers, and measure RAM in *bytes*. The smallest I've used is the PIC10F200, with 16 bytes of RAM and 128 words of flash (at a push, you can set the timer prescaler to the max and repurpose the timer as a 17th byte of (very) temporary storage). The low-end PICs (10/12/16-series) have at most 1K of "address space" (4 banks of 256 bytes each), and a good chunk of that is taken up with peripherals and unused space. It isn't until you get to the 18-series that you can start measuring RAM in KiB.

    42. Re:jaded by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      in the old days, you got the chance to be clever to make it work.

      More like, you had to be clever (or at least interested) just to make it work. But that's no good for a mass market appliance. If you still had to know how to strip down a car engine and rebuild it in order to drive, only a few hobbyists (and rich people who could afford a chauffeur/mechanic) would own cars.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    43. Re:jaded by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I was about to post something similar. Microcontrollers running in the low MHz range are common even today, and in fact sometimes we run then right down at 32 kilohertz to reduce power consumption in battery powered devices.

      In a way the current situation with micros is similar to how CPUs were in the 80s. You have the older architectures, often 8502 based, with masses of existing software. Actually you can still buy 8502 based micros. Anyway, then you have the PIC, which is a bit like the Z80. Common and popular but with a crappy architecture and poor performance. On the other hand you have Atmel's AVR lineup which is RISC and very efficient, if occasionally buggy. The holy war between AVR and PIC camps is as bad as vi vs. emacs.

      And now we have ARM too, running in the sub 100MHz range. Just to be clear ARM was originally a CPU designed for computers, where as microcontrollers are complete systems on a single chip with a large number of peripherals built in. Until recently it was difficult to manufacture cheap 32 bit microcontrollers and keep the cost down, but now ARM is becoming increasingly popular where before you would have used an 8 bit micro.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    44. Re:jaded by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      no, you're getting the difference between being a car mechanic and a car driver confused. What I'm saying is that to be a car mechanic, you need to know the nuts and bolts of a car, not have the simplified 'plug the laptop into the car's diagnostic chip, still don't understand what's wrong with it, so just charge the customer for an entirely new component in the hope that fixes it' (yes, I have a modern car and have had some dealings with the manufacturer's dealer's service).

      Now in the very early years of driving you needed to know how to fix the primitive engine and perhaps you've got a point comparing the old cars with ancient computers, but I'd say that comparison applies to older mainframe/mini computers where the hardware circuits were almost the computer code, not quite with 8-bit microcomputers of my youth.

    45. Re:jaded by Beliskner · · Score: 1

      When I got my first floppy drive when I was 10 (before hard disks) I took that five and a quarter inch disk and put my fingers on the finger recess and put the disk in the drive. After a few days of trying I realised that the finger recess was the area where the magnetic media was exposed (five and a quarter inch disks have an exposed magnetic media unlike three and a half inch disks which have a shutter). My first disk in my life I had ruined, I cried for hours

      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
  2. 6502 assembly by leastsquares · · Score: 4, Informative

    Programming with 6502 assembly... all of us cool kids were doing that back in those days.

    1. Re:6502 assembly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. Well actually I had an Acorn Electron, which was the slower and less capable version. But I started 6502 with an Acorn Atom. This was the first home PC Acorn produced (a relative worked for them). 6K of RAM!

    2. Re:6502 assembly by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      Sez you...the cool kids in my neighborhood were programming their Sinclair ZX81 (which apparently was sold in the U.S. as the Timex Sinclair 1000) in Z80 assembly. B registers, C registers, (and pairing them as BC) D, E, F (paired with A as AF if I remember correctly?) H, L, IX, IY, etc.

      Then we got the Commodore 64 and I had only three registers to play with (can't remember what their names were). I felt like I'd taken several steps backwards.

    3. Re:6502 assembly by Alioth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What the 6502 in the C64 (and the BBC Micro, under discussion) had which most people who started asm on the Z80 missed was the zero page. Effectively, using the zero page you had 256 registers. Zero page operations on the 6502 were as fast as register operations on the Z80. While I'm much more proficient at Z80 asm than 6502, I really appreciate the very straightforward and uncomplicated - but powerful - design of the 6502.

    4. Re:6502 assembly by fatphil · · Score: 1

      F wasn't a general purpose register, it was the flags register.

      Commodore64 was 6510 or other 6502 variant, I think, and had A, X, and Y registers - accumulator and 2 index registers. However, it had zero page RAM which gave you almost 256 registers.

      All from memory...

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  3. And still going strong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The most remarkable thing about the BBC is that they're still going running production code.

    I had the good fortune of working with (or rather, near) one of these systems a few years ago. When I asked why they hadn't upgraded the machine in nearly 3 decades the head of the system simply responded; "It still works."

    1. Re:And still going strong by ledow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ah, someone with brains. If it still works, why would you change it (concerns about suitable replacement being timely aside as that's a separate issue).

      BBC's were great for all sorts of things. Working in school IT departments I often find them, and sometimes I find "old" staff there who tell me how they used them for EEPROM reading/programming, and other interfacing that today's school machines hardly do any more with specialist adaptors.

      They even ran the Teletext service in the UK (they actually have a "Teletext" video mode on them) and all sorts. It was a programmable, extendable computer that did what was necessary and no more.

      Oh for those days again. Here's hoping that Raspberry Pi thing takes off.

    2. Re:And still going strong by DaveGod · · Score: 1

      Probably still 20 sitting in my old highschool with pupils having to code in COMAL.

    3. Re:And still going strong by makomk · · Score: 2

      Of course, Teletext is pretty much dead in the UK now, replaced by shiny MHEG-based digital text services. The BBC ended up having to add Teletext-style page numbers to their replacement for it though - there was just such an incredible amount of demand from people that preferred that method of navigation.

    4. Re:And still going strong by jimicus · · Score: 1

      With a system that old you can get away with taking that approach - with today's fascination with having everything somehow connected over the Internet, you simply don't have the luxury of being able to say "It works. Why change it?"

    5. Re:And still going strong by plut4rch · · Score: 2

      Similar experience! My department still has one connected up to one of our small radio telescopes used for teaching undergrads - they never replaced it because it never stopped working.

      --
      An intriguing solution to a problem that should never have existed in the first place...
    6. Re:And still going strong by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      Ick, yes. Our teacher actually wrote the manual for COMAL. I think it just has too many letters, the L on the end is redundant.

    7. Re:And still going strong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One of our control systems is a beeb. It's been quietly cutting out components since 1986 or so. The amount of control ports and interfaces bundled with it is amazing, and they are very easy to program. It would be a right pain in the arse to replace.

  4. My first computer experience by aclarke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The first computer I ever used was a BBC Micro. It was around 1986 in a small private boarding school in the middle of the bush in Zambia. We were over an hour's drive from the nearest telephone. The school got one or two of these computers just before I left, and somehow they got me hooked on computers.

    The only command I still remember was that you had to type "CHAIN" to run something. I've been curiours about that command ever since, but a quick Google search leads me to believe that it "chained" the LOAD and RUN commands together.

    1. Re:My first computer experience by prettything · · Score: 1

      the micro was my introduction to basic: my first "hello world" soon followed by my first hack [on a zx spectrum]: manic miner: unlimited lives :) yay!

      --
      bring bak the ponies!!
    2. Re:My first computer experience by BeardedChimp · · Score: 1

      It was also the first computer I ever used. It was 1991, I was 5 years old and was absolutely amazed by Podd. Podd can pop was my favourite.

    3. Re:My first computer experience by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      There was a shortcut (control shift escape? Something like that - a few keys all on the left side of the keyboard) that would launch the first program on the disk or tape (depending on which was connected). You only needed to use chain for disks containing multiple programs.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:My first computer experience by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Shift-Break.

      BOOO-BOOP

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:My first computer experience by adri · · Score: 2

      "CHAIN" in BASIC dialects tended to be a "merge in the code into the running state." Ie, it wouldn't delete the current variable set.

      It's how you got around RAM limitations - you broke your code up into separate source files, and just "swapped" in bits of BASIC code as you needed them.

      Then there's "CHAIN MERGE" (at least on the Amstrad CPC), which merges in code into running state -and- code. So you could say reserve lines 10000-65500 for "chained" code, and just do this:

      100 CHAIN MERGE "sub.bas", 10000, DELETE 10000-65000 .. which IIRC would do this.

    6. Re:My first computer experience by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      The BBC Micro let you put the BASIC code anywhere in RAM to execute it.

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:My first computer experience by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Ah, thank you. I realised after I'd posted that the user manual was about 1.5m away from me, but I was too lazy to look it up.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:My first computer experience by plut4rch · · Score: 1

      It was also my first computer - sort of. An Acorn Electron anyway, which was basically a Micro for people without bottomless pockets. Fond memories of playing Elite and trying to learn BASIC! Sadly the Electron is long gone but I think I still have the novella that came with Elite knocking about somewhere. Started up an emulator a few years ago. First thing that came to mind was 'CHAIN'! It's weird how some things stick in your mind.

      --
      An intriguing solution to a problem that should never have existed in the first place...
    9. Re:My first computer experience by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1
    10. Re:My first computer experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here, have a link.

    11. Re:My first computer experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a shortcut (control shift escape? Something like that - a few keys all on the left side of the keyboard) that would launch the first program on the disk or tape (depending on which was connected). You only needed to use chain for disks containing multiple programs.

      it was shift-break

  5. Hell yeah BBC Micro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember using that in a physics class to watch a satellite in geosync orbit! It had edges and everything!

    To a bigger, better and even brighter future for ARM.

    1. Re:Hell yeah BBC Micro by xaxa · · Score: 1

      My chemistry teacher had a BBC Micro sitting in the corner of the lab. I never saw it used, until near the end of the final term when I was 18 (2004). He ran a simulation of the electron cloud round a hydrogen atom, and admitted that he only used the machine once per year for this purpose.

      My dad was a school IT teacher in the 1990s and early 2000s, so there were always lots of Acorn machines for me to play on. BBC Micros were old by then, but I remember an Archimedes A310 (A320?) which was borrowed from school -- it was too expensive to buy. Later, my parents bought an A3000, then an A4000. Unusually, my dad came to IT from the design/art side, rather than business/science. That meant the stuff he borrowed from school over the holidays (to learn) was much more interesting. We digitised some home videos using an A5000, must have been about 1992-3.

      I tried to learn as much as I could, but there really wasn't anyone who could teach me, and not even anyone who knew where to start. It's a shame we didn't get Internet access until about 1996 (by then on a PC).

    2. Re:Hell yeah BBC Micro by jimicus · · Score: 1

      My chemistry teacher had a BBC Micro sitting in the corner of the lab. I never saw it used, until near the end of the final term when I was 18 (2004). He ran a simulation of the electron cloud round a hydrogen atom, and admitted that he only used the machine once per year for this purpose.

      What is it with chemistry teachers not being able to find elegant demonstrations of ideas outside of the BBC Micro? My own chemistry teacher did something similar, as did a chemistry teacher in a school I worked at for a year.

    3. Re:Hell yeah BBC Micro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember an Archimedes A310 (A320?) which was borrowed from school

      That must have been the A310.

      The Archimedes (1987) model numbers were A305 (512 Kb) , A310 (1 Mb), A420 (2 Mb) & A440 (4 Mb).

      The A305 & A310 were BBC branded (red function keys), the A420 (which existed in the catalog, but I doubt that it really existed) & A440 were Acorn branded (grey function keys). All these machines used the RISC OS (originally Arthur) operating System.

      Later, Acorn dropped both the Archimedes & BBC brands and released A3000 etc... and still later RISC PC, all with RISC OS.

      The R140 was an Acorn UNIX workstation (RISC iX) in 1989.

  6. my first programming cpu! by babai101 · · Score: 2

    Back in 1998 when I was in the 5th standard my school provided us some very old bbc micros to learn basic. It was small (no separate cpu cabinet ) and was efficient for all that it could do.

  7. How times have changed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could just do all that in the cloud now.

  8. Oh the fun we had... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Still remember the day we 'replaced' (in software) the BBC BASIC with a Welsh language version on all the machines in the school lab... And the things we could do with Econet, which really wasn't the most secure networking scheme in the world.

  9. Memories by Spad · · Score: 1

    I still have fond memories of spending my school days playing Granny's Garden on the BBC Micro; that game was bloody hard when you were 8.

    1. Re:Memories by pbhj · · Score: 1

      Did you have "An L Adventure" too?

      Do you remember using Yeknod to knock a wall down ...

    2. Re:Memories by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      The BBC easily had the best versions of early 80's arcade games - Defender, Asteroids, Scramble, Pacman. Nothing on any other machine could touch them.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Memories by jregel · · Score: 1

      "L" was the game that first got me hooked with computers. I played that game through to completion on one of our school's BBC micros, even though it involved doing so during break times, lunch and after school. I was very fortunate to have a maths teacher that was really into the BBC and knew what could be done with computers. We had an Econet network, fileserver and a computer room that we could spend our breaks in.

      The OS and built in BASIC in the BBC are extremely elegant: functions, procedures, a VDU driver that treated the screen as 1280x1024 logical units, so graphics plotting worked, regardless of the physical screen resolution, multiple filesystems, support for additional languages, the ability to peek and poke from with BASIC as well as the amazing built-in assembler. The hardware could be upgraded beyond anything the other 8bit micros of the day could due to a huge number of I/O ports. I remember being very confused when I got my first PC and QBASIC was the only bundled language. It all felt so primitive compared with the elegance of Acorn's 8bit range.

      I've still got a mint condition BBC Master with an internal second processor (offload the program to the co-pro and use the base machine for I/O duties only). Very tempted to add a Retroclinic Datacentre so I can plug in USB sticks and run software from there.

      The BBC micro, in the hands of a good teacher, was a machine that shaped lives. I'm in IT because my maths teacher "got it" and passed on his enthusiasm.

    4. Re:Memories by unenviabletask · · Score: 1

      Awesome! At my school we got to play it if you were good all week. I was about 8 too. Great memories.

      --
      This sig is encrypted
  10. Remarkably fast my ass by johnmat · · Score: 1

    2 MHz was not all that remarkably fast for its today - the competing ZX Spectrum ran at 3.5 MHz. Although to be fair the 6502 does more per cycle than the Z80.

    1. Re:Remarkably fast my ass by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the Z80 could use 16-bit data words. 16-bit multiply to give a 32-bit product was a hell of a faffy job on the 6502.

    2. Re:Remarkably fast my ass by tibit · · Score: 1

      Multiplication is done largely the same on Z80 and 6502. You need additions and perhaps table lookups. The length of the product can be abstracted out in a loop if you want a generic multiprecision multiplication. If your multiplication is long enough, you will save cycles by using FFT that uses many shorter multiplies that take less time than a naive long one. The only major difference is that Z80 has 16 bit add/subtract. That's what you nebulously refer to by saying "Z80 could use 16 bit data words". Well, on a 6502, 16 bit addition is a whooping two instructions instead of one, so I don't see the problem, really.

      Zilog's newer offerings are better here: eZ8 (an upgrade to Z8) offers 8x8->16 unsigned multiply, and ZNEO offers 32x32->64 multiply.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    3. Re:Remarkably fast my ass by Alioth · · Score: 5, Informative

      The BBC Micro at 2MHz was considerably faster than the Spectrum at 3.5MHz. The Z80 is a CPU that I like (I still write Z80 assembler, indeed I'm much more proficient at Z80 than 6502 and I've designed and made an ethernet card for the ZX Spectrum fairly recently as a fun retro project). However, we have to consider this. The fastest 6502 instruction executes in 2 T-states, most execute in 3 T-states, and the slowest take 7 T-states. The fastest Z80 instruction takes 4 T-states and the slowest over 20 T-states. The 6502 therefore has better interrupt latency (that monster 23 T-state index register instruction on the Z80 can't be interrupted).

      The other thing the 6502 has going for it is the very fast zero page instructions, which are tantamount to giving you 256 extra registers.

      The competing ZX Spectrum also had contended memory. Thanks to the 6502's predictable memory cycle when compared to the Z80, the BBC Micro designers could interleave screen memory access with CPU access, so no memory is contended. The Spectrum has to pause the processor while the ULA accesses the screen memory, meaning anything in the lower 16K of RAM takes a noticable performance penalty (and you can't use the lowest 16K for anything timing critical that must run while the ULA is reading the frame buffer).

      Don't get me wrong, I love the Speccy, it's probably my favorite 8 bit (and I own several!) - it did an awful lot for very little money, it was immense value for money - but the BBC Micro was at the time had excellent performance.

    4. Re:Remarkably fast my ass by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Well, on a 6502, 16 bit addition is a whooping two instructions instead of one, so I don't see the problem, really.

      Ah, but it's not as simple as that. You've got to fetch four bytes separately from memory, which takes longer than two word fetches.

      The clock speed doesn't tell the whole story, though, because the 6502 used a split-phase clock. So, a single machine cycle takes two clock states - the fetch occurs on the leading phase and the execute on the lagging phase. Theoretically a 2MHz 6502 is rattling through instructions at roughly the same rate as a 4MHz Z80.

    5. Re:Remarkably fast my ass by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      The BBC Micro at 2MHz was considerably faster than the Spectrum at 3.5MHz.

      True, but it had far more screen RAM to update so it mostly evened out for games. The Beeb had slightly fancier graphics hardware though (eg. hardware screen scroll) and if you could leverage that you could do things that the Spectrum had no hope of doing.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:Remarkably fast my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      6502 zero page accesses were fast - done in 2 cycles.

      Also here I believe is how to do a 16-bit add, adding a 16-bit value in memory location V1 to a 16-bit value in memory location V2, and storing the result in memory location V3. Seven instructions, including the required "CLC".
      CLC ;clear carry
      LDA V2 ;same thing with high bytes
      ADC >V2
      STA >V3

    7. Re:Remarkably fast my ass by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      Although to be fair the 6502 does more per cycle than the Z80.

      Yeah - the 6502 vs. Z80 debate was very much parallel to the later RISC vs. CISC debate. No great surprise that the 6502 was a major inspiration behind the ARM.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    8. Re:Remarkably fast my ass by Larryish · · Score: 0

      Elite FTW!!!

      Oolite too!

    9. Re:Remarkably fast my ass by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      2 MHz was not all that remarkably fast for its today - the competing ZX Spectrum ran at 3.5 MHz. Although to be fair the 6502 does more per cycle than the Z80.

      As others have pointed out, you can't compare 6502 clock speeds with Z80 clock speeds - Z80s had always been clocked at ~70% faster than comparable 6502 systems.

      Most previous 6502 systems - PET, Apple II etc. - had 1MHz clocks. According to Wikipedia, the C64 only had a ~1MHz clock (regional variations).

      The 6502 second processor for the BBC ran at 3MHz. Smokin'!

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  11. 30 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    30 years ago, I had an Apple ][ + _ That was my 3rd computer
    The first was a TRS80 in 79

  12. I learned on one by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Aged 7, my school had three BBC Model Bs and one BBC Master. The head teacher gave us one half-hour lesson each week on whatever he felt like teaching at the time. Sometimes it was classics, for a few weeks it was programming. He taught us BASIC and Logo on a BBC B connected to a big TV. In break times and after school, we could reserve one of the machines to use, if we were the first to request it. I spent a lot of time ages 7 to 11 writing little programs on them. At home I got an 8086 PC and learned PL/M86 and C.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  13. Elite! Ahh happy days by Ivecowarrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Changing the screen mode 3/4 of the way down each screen refresh. Programming while counting every clock cycle - fantastic. I still wonder where all the resources are wasted in current software. I still say FRAK! when the need arises. Nobody knows what I'm talking about :(

    1. Re:Elite! Ahh happy days by alanw · · Score: 1

      I still say FRAK! when the need arises. Nobody knows what I'm talking about :(

      I know. I can even hum the tune. No yo-yo, though.

    2. Re:Elite! Ahh happy days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DO dooo do DO dooo do DO dooo do do do do do DUH duuuh duh DUH duuuh duh DU duuuh duh
      DINGLE INGLE DING DING

      FRAK!

    3. Re:Elite! Ahh happy days by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I still wonder where all the resources are wasted in current software.

      I occasionally wonder what sort of performance we'd see out of modern PCs if anybody was loopy enough to go into the sort of detail as Braben & Bell.

    4. Re:Elite! Ahh happy days by sqldr · · Score: 1

      You don't need to count clock cycles. You just bind some code to the horizontal blank interrupt. Doesn't waste any cpu at all :-)

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
  14. First computer I ever trashed. by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 4, Funny

    We used to have a room full of them at school and we soon discovered if you rubbed your feet on the carpet and then pushed your locker key in between the keys to the exposed circuit board... they stopped working.

    The irony is I later in life wound up maintaining student labs for a university and had to put up with "dickheads" like I forgot I used to be...

    1. Re:First computer I ever trashed. by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Hey , don't feel bad , we all did something similar :)

      I remember in electronics classes being told the TTL chips could only handle 5 volts. And they gave us power supplies which went up to 25V. I mean seriously, what did they EXPECT a bunch of teenagers would do?? "Hey, nice bang, cool smoke effects! Lets try a some capacitors now!"

    2. Re:First computer I ever trashed. by tibit · · Score: 1

      Karma is a bitch ;) Alas, I think many of us can relate :)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    3. Re:First computer I ever trashed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *FX247,76
      *FX201,1

  15. Acorn Atom by trevc · · Score: 1

    My first computer was an Acorn Atom - the forerunner to the BBC Micro. I still have some books I purchased then on 6502 Assembly language. Reminds me how old I am.....

    1. Re:Acorn Atom by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      my first computer was an Acorn Atom.. in fact I still have it in a box on my wardrobe.. I might just see if it works.

      Crazy thing about it was that my dad built it for me, not like todayÃs computers where 'building a rig' means slotting cards into slots on a PCB. Dad soldered the chips and other electronics into place directly on the PCB.

      It had a whole 1 Mb of RAM. Happy days!

      oh yes, get off my lawn.

    2. Re:Acorn Atom by Tapewolf · · Score: 1

      my first computer was an Acorn Atom..

      It had a whole 1 Mb of RAM.

      Beg pardon, but did you mean 1KB? A megabyte was minicomputer memory when the Atom was current... Even 128K (if you meant megabit) was incredibly expensive in 1980 or whenever it was...

    3. Re:Acorn Atom by sdjimmy · · Score: 1

      Probably 1K and not 1M. I know I expanded mine to 6K and then overclocked it to 2Mhz by adding a hardware switch. Interference when drawing on the screen was bad, but twice the speed was awesome. They had a *really* crappy colour add on card (£29, if I remember correctly) which I stopped using after the initial joy of having a colour display. I remember soldering bits and pieces on the kitchen table at home\

    4. Re:Acorn Atom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - I still remember that one. It was my first computer having a ASCII keyboard.

      Before that I had the Super-Elf (1802 processor) that was programmable with a key matrix ranging from 1 to F (hexadecimal) and a few control switches. It had about 256 bits of memory. Great powerful little processor board at that time, especially if you take in consideration it was even capable of outputting some (very rough, black and white) computer graphics on a monitor.

      And before that one I had a self-build "computer" (better named - processing unit) made out of TTL 7400 family components. The whole thing was programmed with simple on-off switches. It was one of the most (relatively) expensive projects I ever build. Especially if you take in consideration I had to pay it with money made by delivering newspapers, and the SN7400 series where not cheap in those days...

      Brings back good memories...

    5. Re:Acorn Atom by mountaineer76 · · Score: 1

      if that Atom is still boxed and working it's worth around about £200 now!

    6. Re:Acorn Atom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still have mine as well, along with a few books. The base model (at least in Canada, there may have been other models in the UK that we never saw) actually had 2K of RAM, and could be expanded on board to 12K. But some of that was used for the graphics as well (you couldn't even do the hi-res graphics modes without the 12K). You could also plug in a couple of 4K roms - one which added floating point support to the basic, and another which, IIRC was a simple word processor.

      The slick thing about it was that you could embed assembler in the middle of a BASIC program and have it assemble and execute automatically when you ran the program. Made it really easy to code the UI bits (such as they were) in BASIC, and the performance critical bits in assembler. I learned a _lot_ about 6502 assembly language on that machine, which stood me in good stead when I eventually upgraded to an Apple II.

    7. Re:Acorn Atom by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      yes, serves me right for browsing /. on the phone.

      1 kilobyte. (actually it has 2Kb, but we upgraded it to the 12kb top spec).

  16. A9 load immediate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Er no, we use to hand write machine code. A9 loaded the accumulate immediately with the value... which is 169 in decimal, since some of us had to enter the machine code in decimal.

    Funny isn't it?

    I'm using a phone where I'm rendering a 3d world just to set the time zones, yet it was in my lifetime that these computers began.

    1. Re:A9 load immediate by maroberts · · Score: 2

      I wrote a 6502 disassembler/monitor thus removing the need for such shenanigans.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    2. Re:A9 load immediate by KenSeymour · · Score: 1

      I used hand assembled machine code on my Apple ][ Plus until a magazine published an in place assembler in Basic for the Commodore.
      I typed it in, modified the addresses, and stored it to cassette tape. I then implemented "life" cellular automata and went door to door until someone hired me.
      At that job, I met Lance Leventhal, author of my 6502 Assembly Language Programming. I still have the book.

      If I wanted to go back, I would burn a soft-core 6502 into an FPGA and run code on it. I had more time to do those things
      when I was 17.

      --
      "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
    3. Re:A9 load immediate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of my first useful programs was written in 6502ML on an Apple IIe - an image processing thing with about 8 functions. I used it it my independent study in Computer Art - ca. 1982.

      Wasn't the Amiga loosely based on the Archimedes?

    4. Re:A9 load immediate by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Didn't the BBC BASIC include an assembler? I'm sure I could just type assembler without loading any additional software apart from a small BASIC wrapper.

    5. Re:A9 load immediate by ais523 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, you just had to write your ASM inside square brackets as if it were a BASIC program, and it was assembled into memory. (But the [ and ] rendered as arrows in the default text-only graphics mode.)

      --
      (1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
    6. Re:A9 load immediate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it did. That and the useful network programming guides made it really easy to masquerade another machines token on the school network, or write to a network sniffer. The best I saw was a TSR that sniffed in the background and would scroll usernames and passwords across the bottom of the screen when the user pressed F1. It was my first introduction to the concept that multiple userspace programs could be run concurrently. That was where I also learned about the perils of unencrypted networks and plaintext passwords on the wire, when another kid gleefully announced my 10 digit password to the surrounding world. I was annoyed and embarrassed, although not so much that my network credentials were exposed as by the idea that someone might realise that they were two 5 digit local exchange phone numbers and work out that they corresponded to 2 girls that I had crushes on. Some things in geekdom never change.

    7. Re:A9 load immediate by raddude99 · · Score: 1

      No, The Amiga came out over a year before the Archimedes

    8. Re:A9 load immediate by fatphil · · Score: 1

      But the Beeb came with a built-in assembler!

      C9 = ret, I'll never forget that. However, that was speccy, not the beeb.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    9. Re:A9 load immediate by maroberts · · Score: 1

      But the Beeb came with a built-in assembler!

      It did, but an assembler is no good for debugging

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    10. Re:A9 load immediate by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Then don't write bugs! ;-p

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    11. Re:A9 load immediate by kabz · · Score: 1

      Hee hee. I thought your sig was ATOM BASIC at first, but alas, Intercal right?

      --
      -- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
    12. Re:A9 load immediate by ais523 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. (I think the trick of running words together like that comes from BASIC, though; or at least, that's the first place I saw it.) The same line in BASIC would be rather simpler.

      --
      (1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
  17. A lot of us Americans did play Elite, though by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Elite, developed for the BBC Micro and published by the same company that made the Micro, did get a lot of attention here in the U.S. (it was ported to all the major platforms). It was one of the first big universe sandbox games, and modern games like EvE Online are still influenced by it.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:A lot of us Americans did play Elite, though by tudsworth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And there's now an Open Source remake/re-imagining, OOlite. I'd post a link, but I'm at work and I'm sure you can all use your search engine or package manager of choice to obtain it.

    2. Re:A lot of us Americans did play Elite, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your package manager of choice will probably install OOlite version 1.65 (which is several years old). You'll want version 1.75 - even if 1.75 is in "beta", but the beta is more stable than the "stable" release. Also check out the OOlite expansion packs.

  18. Comparison to Apple][, Atari 800, C64? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

    Can anyone familiar with the BBC Micro give a comparison to the contemporary 6502 computers from the States?

    Was the Beeb available before the Apple ][ ? Was it more or less expensive in the UK?

    I get the feeling that the BBC Micro enjoyed a kind of tax protected status, the way American made pickup trucks do in the US.

    1. Re:Comparison to Apple][, Atari 800, C64? by robthebloke · · Score: 2
    2. Re:Comparison to Apple][, Atari 800, C64? by benbean · · Score: 2

      It was roughly contemporary to the Commodore 64 and Atari 800/800XL micros. More expensive than both of those, but cheaper than an Apple II, which were very expensive in the UK. The Apple II predated it by about 4 years if I recall. My impression at the time was that the Sinclair ZX Spectrum (Timex Sinclair in the US) was far more popular in the UK, along with the C64. The BBC was common in schools, but less common at home, mostly due to a dearth of games and pricing. A cheaper version, Electron, was released later to combat this, but too late.

      --
      It's a Unix system - I know this.
    3. Re:Comparison to Apple][, Atari 800, C64? by itsdapead · · Score: 5, Informative

      Was the Beeb available before the Apple ][ ? Was it more or less expensive in the UK?

      I get the feeling that the BBC Micro enjoyed a kind of tax protected status, the way American made pickup trucks do in the US.

      The BBC came quite a while after the Apple II - if you've been following the 30th Birthday announcements, its actually younger than the IBM PC (...of course, the IBM was eye-wateringly expensive for a few years, until the Clone Wars began).

      I've programmed both and, generally, the BBC was considerably more powerful than the Apple.

      It had a (much) better BASIC with 'structured programming' facilities (Repeat/Until loops, multiline if/then/else named procedures), a built-in 6502 assembler (so you could use BASIC as a macro language) and neat indirection facilities for working with bytes/words/strings in memory. Unusually for "home" computers of the time it had a 'proper' operating system, quite separate from BASIC - the BASIC ROM lived in a paged memory space alongside applications such as wordprocessors and other utility ROMs such as the disc filing system (popular BBC expansions included extra ROM sockets for applications or 'sideways RAM' for use as a RAMdisk or to let you develop your own ROMs).

      The graphics were much better (but with a caveat) than the competition - 160x256 in 8 colours, 320x256 in 4 colours or a TV-tousing 640x256 in monochrome. Also, those colour modes were fully bit-mapped c.f. the attribute-based solutions on other systems (where you could e.g. only have 2 colours in each 8x8 cell, or on the Apple where you could only plot white by plotting a magenta pixel next to a green pixel). There was a proper palette system (so you could do fast animation by palette switching - only TTL though so its always the same 8 colours) and 'hardware' scrolling by tweaking the memory mapping (which could also pull tricks like changing display mode half-way down the screen, as used in Elite). The caveat was that the RAM was shared between data and video - so the higher modes used 20K out of your 32K. Although aftermarket upgrades appeared that added a 20K page to replace the video RAM (which worked seamlessly provided that the application used the correct OS calls rather than poking things directly) Acorn took their own sweet time before building that feature into later models.

      It also had a shedload of internal hardware: a Teletext-compatible character generator chip for low-memory, high-quality TV friendly 40 col text & block graphics (without eating your RAM); a 'proper' sound generator chip; analogue inputs (not audio frequency, but great for proper joysticks and school science experiments) and a 'user port' which made about half of a 6522 VIA chip available for digital I/O, a serial port, parallel port, proprietary expansion port & vacant sockets on-board for a floppy controller and 'econet' LAN... Plus a really decent keyboard (the kind with discrete key-switches for each key). Then there was Acorn's 'Tube' interface, which allowed you to hang off a 'second processor': i.e. a headless 6502, Z80 or (later) 32016-based computer that used the BBC as an I/O processor. (Of course, the really interesting one was the ARM second processor, but AFAIK that was never publicly available).

      The Apple's advantages were (a) software base (but the BBC accumulated quite a big software base in the UK) and (b) internal expansion (the BBC had lots of expansion potential but it was either via external interfaces or slightly kludey piggyback boards). I think there were more options for upgrading an Apple 2 to '64K clean' RAM configuration.

      However, If you got the BBC 6502 second processor (a 4MHz 6502 with 64k RAM, with the original BBC handling all the I/O) then anything else with 8 bits (and quite a few things with 16) could eat your dust... unfortunately the price of that hampered adoption and, hence, software support (although you could play the definitive version of Elite).

      The BBC B cost ~£400 - but

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    4. Re:Comparison to Apple][, Atari 800, C64? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Cool - I remember something about Atari Jaguar being much more widespread in the UK than the US, but, then, today I can't even put my finger on what exactly the Jaguar was - I had an 800, plus a couple of 400s when they dropped to clearance price ($99 or less..), and then one of the Atari 16 bit machines that finally died when its internal floppy drive belt stretched out (OS was always loaded from floppy, so....)

    5. Re:Comparison to Apple][, Atari 800, C64? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the history - I spent a week in London a few years after my Atari 800 got retired to the attic, and I got the distinct impression that things were "different" on that side of the pond with respect to hobby computers.

    6. Re:Comparison to Apple][, Atari 800, C64? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      a shitty "64" bit failed video game console a freaking decade after the fact

  19. Britain rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Just that. Britain rocks! Full stop.
    Britain as in GREAT Britain.

    1. Re:Britain rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, let's just overlook the American CPU powering the thing...

    2. Re:Britain rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ARM is british.

    3. Re:Britain rocks by zevans · · Score: 1

      The 6502 was very American.

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
  20. The BASIC interpreter was well written by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    So even though the CPU was underpowered by the mid 80s the programs written in Basic could still blitz a lot of other faster machines Basic programs. Also it had procedures which most (all?) other home computer basics lacked. Mind you, Amstrad Basic had high level interrupts which allowed a sort of early threading along the lines of

    EVERY GOSUB

    or something like that.

    That was seriously cool.

  21. Archimedes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bought an Archimedes 305 of the first batch in 1987. It came with an ARM2 which ran 4MHz when reading ROM and 8MHz when reading/writing RAM. It had 512Kb of RAM memory, which seemed like a lot to me (my previous computer had 48Kb), but after 2 weeks I already upgraded to 1Mb because the 512Kb was unworkable. I later upgraded to 4 megs, which involved desoldering the original RAM chips. I also bought the PC/8086 emulator (PDF), which could run MS/DOS software at PC/XT speed (in the PC/AT era). I used the emulator to compile Modula2 programs and when I had to open a WordPerfect 5.1 file. In those days, ARM was running circles around Intel.

    1. Re:Archimedes by drunkahol · · Score: 1

      My mate had one of those Archimedes - red function keys if I remember?

      I still had an Acorn Electron - but I had the Plus-3 disk drive and Plus-1 cartridge interface. Rendering the initial Mandelbrot set took me 8.5 hours. His machine then managed it in 15 seconds. Man was I gutted.

  22. I remember these from my primary school by iB1 · · Score: 2

    I remember we had three of these on trollies in my primary school - two had colour monitors, and one had a black and white monitor. Somehow I managed to network/schmooze/brown nose my way into becoming a "computer mover" when I was in the 5th year with two of my friends. We were tasked with moving the computers first thing on a Monday morning into a new classroom, who would then have it for a week. We'd plug it in, turn it on and load up the correct disk that the teacher wanted to use. I think that's where my love of computers came from right there. They were really good computers for their time. I gather that they were expensive, which is why they didn't find their way into many homes. However, a generation of British children did indeed grow up using them.

    1. Re:I remember these from my primary school by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I was "computer monitor" for a while. I think I started in year 3 (!), probably because my dad was the IT teacher at the secondary school. Being one of the few lockable, window-free rooms, I was allowed to wheel the computers into/out of the toilets (two in the boys', two in the girls'.)

      I once found a "games" disc for the RM Nimbus 186, and after trying it was "banned" from using the computer until the next time the teacher needed it, and realised she'd forgotten how to set it up. Another time one of the "naughty boys" was using the computer. He called over the teacher, who called me over, and demonstrated that typing "S-H-I-T" brought up the help. I somehow got the blame for that, I don't remember how.

      I remember in year four showing the teacher that it wasn't necessary to press "return" at the end of every line in the word processor. And, if you didn't, then the text rewrapped automatically if you added a word! Amazing.

      The school had an Acorn 3010, but only two or three children knew how to use it, and none of the teachers. I was never asked to wheel it into a classroom. I think it was bought with Tesco Computers for Schools vouchers. About once a year I'd be asked to use it with a "visitor", who would watch me and take notes. I didn't realise it then, but I think they were probably OFSTED inspectors.

  23. Elite on the BBC Micro by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What Braben and Bell did to get this running on the BBC makes for pretty interesting reading.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_(video_game)#Technical_innovations

    1. Re:Elite on the BBC Micro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh.. I don't know that I'd call it a technical innovation per se; Carol Shaw did something similar on River Raid for the Atari 2600.

    2. Re:Elite on the BBC Micro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The only similarity between River Raid and Elite is that the world was generated procedurally from a seed.

      But Elite had other innovations: it was 3D wire-frame (River Raid was 2D sprites) and it used 2 different screen modes (monochrome hi-res for the spaceships on top and color low-res for the radar at the bottom) at the same time.

    3. Re:Elite on the BBC Micro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It pales compared to what was done to make Exile work.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile_%281988_video_game%29

      Particle effects, physical simulation, AI bad guys, an enormous map that could never have fitted into RAM (I did the calculations once, before I knew about procedural generation) - on the 32k machines you had to play on a small section of the screen because the RAM was needed for other things. No HUD of any kind - any status/info had to be relayed via beeps and boops.

      The only way it could do all that and let you save your game was by crashing the entire computer, leaving you to reset and reload back to the main menu.

  24. Re:BBC by Alioth · · Score: 2

    No, it's not at all related to the Ohio Scientific. The only thing they have in common is they are both 6502-based.

  25. A BBC Micro Emulator for Android... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... in case anyone's interested in such a thing.

    It's called Beebdroid, and you can get it at https://market.android.com/details?id=com.littlefluffytoys.beebdroid

  26. People used to get excited when they'd HAVE a cpu by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

    Fact is the man in the street didn't have a computer in his home (not a single one, regardless what type), perhaps not even heard about it or understanding what it is.

    And suddenly there were these affordable machines that you could buy, discover how they work, program, play games on, plan your finances with, etc, etc. That novelty aspect was way bigger attraction than just MHz's or graphical / sound capabilities (if any!).

    Remember this was a time the first single-chip microprocessor (Intel 4004) was hardly a decade old, and the internet was just a military/academic network that no-one in the street had ever heard of.

    Of course once the homecomputer market was created, it became a matter of "mine is bigger than yours" & picking one system over the other because it had nicer/more games.

  27. Citadel by Tapewolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Aside from Elite, one of the classic games for the BBC was Citadel. I'm still amazed how it managed to fit about 100 screens worth of platform adventure game into 12k of memory without touching the disk after it had loaded. IIRC it ran in mode 2 - which took 20k out of the available 32k memory. I think they only used part of the screen and used the rest for storage with some weird trick to make it invisible. The Electron version (see link) couldn't do the hiding trick somehow.

    The BBC version also spoke to you when the menu program loaded up, and to this day I think of it as "Seeta-toddle", which gives you some idea of the audio quality.

    For those who are curious, there is a wikipedia entry here: Citadel (video game).

    1. Re:Citadel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Electron saved £200 on the retail price of the BBC-B by having a single large (for the 80s) gate array chip handling the screen etc. The BBC-B had a dedicated 6845 CRTC (cathode ray tube controller) chip which meant it could do hardware accelerated sideways scrolling etc. The palette-blanking trick would have worked on the Electron, but the timings were hard to deal with as the "high resolution" modes the gate array would stall the processor for up to 40us out of every 64us to read the video memory...

      Citadel also had speech synthesis on the BBC.

      Sigh. The Electron WAS £200 cheaper though. Fond memories...

  28. Speaking of apple by goombah99 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    In the late 1980s Apple Computer and VLSI Technology started working with Acorn on the second generation of the ARM core. So once again Apple is there. It's getting like the black obelisk on 2001. Pick anything and apple may not have invented it but they did shape what it became.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Speaking of apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it all sounds so cool if you just forget to mention that DEC and [b]Intel[/b] etc. did also their thing...

      Apple, DEC, Intel, Marvell: ARM6, StrongARM, XScale

  29. Re:People used to get excited when they'd HAVE a c by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    The BBC was expensive. It cost £400, back in the early '80s. It was an amazingly powerful machine in comparison to most home computers, but also much more expensive, so even the man on the street who did have a computer didn't usually have a BBC. The government gave schools extra funding to buy machines that had a certain feature list, and the BBC was about the only machine that qualified when this was launched, which accounted for a lot of the sales.

    The BBC came with (for the time) high resolution vector graphics, a teletext display mode, easy to use analogue input and digital I/O, a BASIC dialect with full support for structured programming, a built-in assembler, and even things like a coprocessor port. In comparison with other 8-bit systems, it really was impressive.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  30. Another (longer) article at The Register by alanw · · Score: 3, Informative
  31. Early lessons in how not to hack.. by dotbot · · Score: 1

    In about 92, a couple of friends at school wrote a BASIC program to fake the login screens on the BBCs to grab the login details. I had a copy because I was curious how it all worked. Still got busted. A year later everything went Mac.

    1. Re:Early lessons in how not to hack.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did you go to school because that sounds *REALLY* familiar.

    2. Re:Early lessons in how not to hack.. by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Where did you go to school because that sounds *REALLY* familiar.

      I think similar things happened everywhere, no?

      I was a victim of someone else's "hack" twice at secondary school, although on PCs. The first time it was a Word document made to look like the login dialogue, the second time a very small VB application.

      I helped my dad set up a new network at his school one summer (well, mostly messed about -- they had internet!). I was told that school's administrator password, "changeme", which it turned out was the default password that the local educational IT supplier used. It worked well at my school for over a year -- I knew enough not to change anything that would be noticed, but I increased my quota. It lasted until I told a friend, who promptly changed the password...

  32. Commodore -- no, not even quite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Vic-20 ran at 1 MHz, but the C=64 actually ran at 800 KHz; I no longer remember why (one of the on-board chips, maybe?), but it had to be stepped down. So, yes, the chip was 1 MHz, but the reality was 20% less.

  33. Re:BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? On the basis that it's old and built round the 6502?

  34. Even nicer 6502 simulation: by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

    By rendering our polygons with colors corresponding to their 'high' or 'low' logic state, we can show, visually, exactly how the chip operates: how it reads data and instructions from memory, how its registers and internal busses operate, and how toggling a single input pin (the 'clock') on and off drives the entire chip to step through a program and get things done.

    Wonderful and amazing stuff... but what would be even more wonderful & amazing: visually show how the effect of signal changes propagates through the chips' logic, as a function of time.

    That is: not do 1 step, see colors update to reflect new state, repeat quickly to simulate running cpu. But rather: flip input signals, watch how some transistors respond first, then some internal bus(ses?) follow, then how registers are updated, and some outputs change as result of changed internal state. I'd expect that would create organic-like patterns flashing across the chip's surface, showing where 'early responders' are located, etc.

  35. I've still got mine ... by Grindalf · · Score: 0

    This was the third computer that I learned to program (others were the 380z and ZX Spectrum), both the 6502 assembler and included B.A.S.I.C. went like a rocket on this “Micro.”

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
    1. Re:I've still got mine ... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I think BBC Basic was the third for me too.

      I recall it was quite a bit different than the BASIC used by other computers at the time.

      All sorts of weird peeks and pokes for doing things with the graphics that you had to "magic-number" in.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  36. Owner of three ARM computers here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was young, my Mum used get these at home as she was a primary school teacher. We first had a BBC micro, which I used to play a game where I was the town mayor and had to make various budget decisions. We also had logo, and a turtle, and I used to have great fun programming it to draw patterns on the carpet. Then we upgraded to an Acorn 3000 running RISC OS, and pretty soon afterwards I remember getting an A7000, which was the daddy, and I used to play Zarch and steal software off my school using a floppy disk.

  37. Difference Engine by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

    I grew up programming advanced Java routines on a difference engine. Your BBC Micro and your ZX81 have nout on me.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  38. Nobody wants a GUI that emulates glass by Viol8 · · Score: 2

    Ones the eye candy novelty factor has worn off which takes, ooh , 3 minutes , no one cares one way or the other. All it does is waste energy by forcing the GPU to do pointless calculations. You couldn't have picked a worse example to explain why computers are better today.

    1. Re:Nobody wants a GUI that emulates glass by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      That depends. If I'm in a first person shooter, I most certainly do want a good emulation of glass in the windows. If I'm using a loope in an application, then I certainly do want a good emulation of a glass magnifer. And in a GUI, if you want to indicate that a button is clickable, it's best to give it some kind of 3D effect so it looks like a physical button. And a glass effect can be part of that.

      But I assume you're talking about glass borders around windows on the Windows OS. In which case I agree. But that's just bad taste on Microsoft's part - it's not an indication that we don't benefit from the powerful PCs we have now.

    2. Re:Nobody wants a GUI that emulates glass by syousef · · Score: 1

      Ones the eye candy novelty factor has worn off which takes, ooh , 3 minutes , no one cares one way or the other. All it does is waste energy by forcing the GPU to do pointless calculations. You couldn't have picked a worse example to explain why computers are better today.

      I WISH that were true. I turn all that crap off. But others spend hundreds of dollars because shiny means more advanced to them :(

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  39. Memory Lane by Tom · · Score: 1

    What a trip down memory lane... I still remember that I wanted an Archimedes back then, but couldn't afford it. For its time, it was an incredible machine... *sigh*

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  40. Eck, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The "It just works" meme, huh?

    While sometimes that's the proof of a well designed system, it can also be the sign of a super cheap company that doesn't take technology seriously.

    Take a look at Fry's electronics. They have more technology than you can shake a stick at inside the store. But all of their systems telnet into some mainframe or another and run an ancient text based interface. Which, if it works is okay. But it really doesn't. Forget a field in a form? Too bad, you'll have to figure out which one you missed and re-enter all of the information, while the customer and everyone else in line waits. That's efficiency!

  41. Current ARM is about the Apple Newton by Kagato · · Score: 1

    The current ARM has little to do with the BBC micro. Apple purchased a stake in Acorn with the goal of getting them to FAB a low powered CPU to power the Newton. While the Newton was never a success as a device, the technology and patents that resulted from the project set ARM on it's current trajectory. In a round-about way the Newton did save Apple. At it's darkest hour the sale of Apple's holding in Arm netted $800m in hard cold cash when Apple needed it most. Without the Newton Apple wouldn't be what it is today and neither would Arm Holdings.

    1. Re:Current ARM is about the Apple Newton by Alioth · · Score: 1

      And if it weren't for Acorn, the ARM would never have existed for Apple to put in $800M in hard cold cash. The ARM project started in 1983, years before Apple or anyone else for that matter even knew of the project. The BBC Micro was the seed, the ARM's original purpose was to put in the next BBC Micro (the Acorn Archimedes).

      Apple saved the ARM, and the ARM saved Apple, it went both ways :-)

    2. Re:Current ARM is about the Apple Newton by itsdapead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The current ARM has little to do with the BBC micro. Apple purchased a stake in Acorn with the goal of getting them to FAB a low powered CPU to power the Newton.

      ...except that if the 6502 BBC micro hadn't happened, Acorn wouldn't have developed the ARM2/3 to use in the next gen BBC Micro and there wouldn't have been anything for Apple to buy in to. It may have evolved since then, but Apple sure as hell didn't invent the ARM.

      The first ARM-based machines were the ARM2-powered Acorn Archimedes range, released in 1987, the entry level model of which was still branded as "BBC Micro". At the time, they kicked sand in the face of 80286-based machines. The Newton didn't appear until much later.

      Cheekily, in 1994, Apple touted their new PowerPC-based Macs as the first RISC-based personal computers.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    3. Re:Current ARM is about the Apple Newton by Kagato · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point. ARM clearly lost to x86 in terms of the PC and I think it's fair to contend that they would have become a footnote in computing if not for the capabilities they developed while working with Apple. Specifically the reason arm continues it success today is because the Newton needed ultra-low (for it's time) power consumption. Apple spent almost 5 years working with ARM on that processor before releasing the Newton with the ARM6. I think it's fair to say there are bits of the BBC Micro technology in millions of devices today, but I think you also have to consider that if Apple had joined up with a different manufacturer they may have ended up the spot ARM is in today.

    4. Re:Current ARM is about the Apple Newton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arm was always a low power CPU, so it could be used in a plastic package, and I am of the understanding (albeit anecdotal) that the basic design has remain largely unchanged since the arm 2 days.

      Why do people feel the need to attribute ever single computing success to the invisible hand of Jobs?

    5. Re:Current ARM is about the Apple Newton by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point. ARM clearly lost to x86 in terms of the PC and I think it's fair to contend that they would have become a footnote in computing if not for the capabilities they developed while working with Apple

      I'm not sure what you're trying to prove - nobody is disputing that Apple's investment in ARM was important, but Apple didn't magically transform the ARM into a low-power chip: it was low-power from birth because it achieved better performance than an x86 with a fraction of the number of transistors and Acorn had already developed a static logic version (one of Newton's requirements) of the ARM2 for handheld devices.

      ARM would be just as much a footnote if they'd relied on Newton for their continued success.

      That's why ARM have the advantage now - their system is low power from the ground up, while Intel are desperately trying to re-engineer the more complex x86 architecture for low power applications.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  42. We had those at my primary school by jonwil · · Score: 1

    At least I think they were BBCs. I remember they had this special hard plastic yellow thing that went in the floppy drive (a 3.5" IIRC) to keep it from being damaged when the machine was moved or something.

    1. Re:We had those at my primary school by jimicus · · Score: 1

      You didn't have BBCs if they had a 3.5" floppy drive - they almost invariably had 5.25" floppy drives.

    2. Re:We had those at my primary school by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Further searching suggests they may have been the later BBC Master (some models of which came with a 3.5" drive)
      I distinctly remember "Granny's Garden" (and of the machines Granny's Garden was ported to, only the BBC family even HAD the internal 3.5" drive I remember)

  43. My introduction to computers was through BBC Micro by devilsandy · · Score: 1

    I was 9 years old ( 1989) when my school (INDIA) introduced computers . I learned the LOGO and BASIC in couple of years. I spent numerous hours after school and on weekends so that I could have the computer to myself as opposed to being shared between three students during regular class hours. I asked my dad to buy one and I kinda remember him saying that costs something like a few months of his salary.

  44. The Commodore 128 could run at 2MHz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A simple build-in command: FAST
    would put the Commodore 128 into 2MHz mode.

    1. Re:The Commodore 128 could run at 2MHz by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately there were very few programs that could use that, as it was a different CPU than the C64. (It had two CPUs for backwards compatibility with the C64, I used mine mostly in C64 mode.)

    2. Re:The Commodore 128 could run at 2MHz by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      Fast used the z80, and very few programs used it, there were 2 cpu's in the 128, a 1mhz 6502 and a Z80 for cpm support (though why I dont know by the time the 128 came out cpm was a old skeleton covered in cobwebs, maybe to make the commie into something people would see as a more serious computer and less of a video game console with disk and keyboard, which was a very common perception in dem days)

  45. YouTube, if nothing else by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 2

    I loved Micro Men. The Beeb show absolutely no interest in releasing it on DVD, but it's on YouTube. I'm getting really fucking tired of waiting for banner ads to load on YouTube, but if you want to see it, start here.

    Some of the original people have cameos, like Sophie Wilson as the exasperated barmaid toward the end.

    ...laura

  46. Great memories ! by wimg · · Score: 2

    Great memories with this computer. And it was so far ahead of all competitors : even the predecessor of the Acorn BBC B (the Electron) already had 2Mhz and 32KB RAM and was networkable using a thing called Econet.
    The BBC B+ could be expanded up to 128KByte and had a second processor (we're talking 1986 !!!!), teletext-reader, lightpen that allowed you to draw by using a pen on your screen (think tablet !) and so on.
    And then Archimedes with its 32-bit RISC CPU came in 1987 (!), doing 4 MIPS and offering a Windowed operating system that booted from EEPROM instantly (switch it on and it's there).

    Any mobile device with an ARM chip (think Android, tablets, Blackberry, etc.) is based on the architecture that was spawned in the 80s by Acorn (ARM = Acorn Risc Machine).
    I'm glad and privileged to have worked with those great devices !

    1. Re:Great memories ! by s7uar7 · · Score: 1

      You've got that the wrong way round - the Electron came after the BBC Model B (and Master) but didn't really catch on.

    2. Re:Great memories ! by wimg · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right !

  47. Doesn't work here either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get the TPB page, but clicking on the .torrent link gives a 404. And I'm 100% certain my ISP isn't doing any funny stuff.

  48. If you really wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're curious about performance of modern machines when no restrictions of OS are respected, check out the demo scene. There are 4k competitions where a demo has to be at most 4096 bytes long. There are even 256 bytes competitions but they are somewhat less spectacular, even if they have both 3D graphics and sound, amazingly.

    Really, check it out: cdak by Quite and orange

  49. Apple had TWO ARM Apple ][ projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first was started in 1986 by Jean Louis Gasse codenamed "Mobius". The second was in the Apple II group.
    Apple's connection with the ARM goes way, way back.

    1. Re:Apple had TWO ARM Apple ][ projects by sqldr · · Score: 1

      FOR ONCE, could you fanboys just appreciate some technology without finding some way to draw attention to your religion?

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
  50. Re:People used to get excited when they'd HAVE a c by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

    well at £400 plus say £200 for a monitor - was dirt cheap when a color text terminal was £2000 - where i worked another guy and i lobbied to get a BBC micro as a cheap color terminal - they eventually did this and used to to font end a pdp11 based system that measured temps on a huge hydraulic model of hongkong harbor (the largest ever in the world which used 1/3 of our total lab space)

    When some people from the PRC came to look at the model - they where excited and apparently spent the next day scouring the shops round Bedford /Milton Keynes for BBC micros to take back in the diplomatic bag.

  51. Remarkably fast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was 2MHz 'remarkably fast' in 1981?

    The IBM OC, laucnhed on August 12, 1981, ran on a 4.77 MHz Intel 8088.

    BTW and FWIW, Alan Turing's design for the ACE, completed (the design) in December 1945, specified a 1 MHz clock...

    1. Re:Remarkably fast? by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      It was fast for a home computer at the time.

      The 8088 was a 16-bit processor too (albeit talking to the outside world via an 8-bit data bus, much like the 386SX being 32-bit internally but with a 16-bit data bus and 24 bit address bus) where 6502 and similar CPUs used in the beebs (and some other like Commodore's home machines at the time) was 8-bit, so it could do a lot more with each of those clock cycles.

      But that IBM PC would have set you back a heck of a lot more money. It wasn't a personal computer in the sense of being one anyone expected you to have at home, IBM were using "personal computer" here in the sense of having your own computer at your desk at work.

  52. Sex Invaders by calzakk · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember Sex Invaders for the BBC? I think it was in the public domain, not something you'd find in a shop.

    It was like Space Invaders, but the aliens were actually women's legs opening and closing, and the player controlled a penis shooting up at them!

  53. The BBC micro was known in India ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was my first computer. And I am sure it played a small role in my joining the computer industry. Just like the Amiga stories I hear from my colleagues.

  54. Film advice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a very nice film based on the story of sinclair vs. acorn called "Micromen"

  55. Magic Mushrooms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i have one bbc micro still works wasted a lot of time
    playing magic mushrooms and making levels when i was 4-5

  56. ARM by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

    And here I always thought ARM processors where built to fight the CORE.