<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 10:44:12 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <v3u3fit1ca8240ieba1ropa6r6m6ule8u7@4ax.com>, at 15:44:15 on
>>> Fri, 1 Sep 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 13:56:01 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 14:02:40 +0100
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> programmes from different channels simultaneously, or delete programmes
>>>>>> selectively as you viewed them. And, of course,
>>>>>> they didn't have an EPG.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't there some system that had a barcode next to each program in
>>>>> Radio Times etc that certain models of video could read via their
>>>>> remote control and it would set recording automatically?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps, I'm not sure. What I used were the long numbers next to each
>>>> programme in the TV listings. Typing that in set the channel and times.
>>>
>>> But they weren't all *long* numbers. They had a cunning algorithm which
>>> assigned the most popular programmes a short number, and they got
>>> progressively longer as their popularity decreased.
>>
>> Yes, that's true. It was a clever system, subsequently obsoleted by EPGs. I
>> wonder if something similar is used in other contexts, or was it invented
>> purely for this application?
>
> Its the theory behind a lot of compression algorithms, eg Huffman. Shorter
> substitution tokens for the more common repeated data, longer ones for less
> common.

OK, that makes sense. Not being a soaps-watcher, I probably didn't benefit
from the shorter numbers!

In message <ucv338$cqh9$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:34:16 on Sat, 2 Sep
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 09:36:52 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>>surprisingly complex (optimised for doing word processing) I wasn't sure
>
>Optimised how?

Roller-RAM, which as a self proclaimed IT guru you'll know all about.

But for others, it means you can scroll the whole screen by changing one
byte in the video controller.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ucl216$2aapl$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:14:46 on Tue, 29 Aug
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 07:15:56 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <ucigq5$1p1dk$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:08:37 on Mon, 28 Aug
>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>The CPCs weren't only games machines either. So why couldn't there be more
>>>cross compatability?
>>
>>There was, in the CP/M. And I don't think many people would have found
>>that their Spectrum Apps would run on a QL, or their BBC Micro Apps on
>>an Archemedes, or their C64 apps on an Amiga.
>
>Except unlike the above examples the CPC and the PCW had the same CPU so no
>reason text based programs couldn't have run on both. Obviously graphics would
>be a non starter but any sound calls could be converted to a bleep or simply
>ignored.

Same CPU doesn't mean same video architecture. The CPC was entirely a
bit-mapped screen, so if you wanted to do text then firmware was needed
to generate the character matrices. Some Z80 computers used ROM-based
character generators, so all in the hardware. The PCW was halfway in
between, with in effect a RAM-based character generator, which you could
load with whatever was your local character set.

>>>Yes, native format.
>>
>>Haven't found the manual yet, but the disc formats we supported were
>>native CPC, native PCW and IBM-XT compatible. And I find it hard to
>>believe we didn't arrange for the PCW to read native-CPC floppies.
>
>I tried it, didn't work. Maybe there was some issue with the machine/floppies.
>
>>>It couldn't run all of them, I tried. It could only run the poverty spec
>>>version of Logo on CPM 2.2, not the full fat version that came with CPM 3
>>>which was bundled with the CPC.
>>
>>Logo requires a bit-graphic screen, and the PCW was a character-matrix
>>screen. So I can understand why that one isolated example wouldn't port
>>across.
>
>Except the PCW came with a version of Logo as well as Basic (naturally not
>the same one as on the CPC, that would have been too simple).

I don't recall the PCW Logo, but it would be possible to load the
character generator with bit maps of turtles in various orientations,
rather than alpha numerics. Totally different to a fully bit-mapped
screen.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ucl1jd$2a8ej$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:07:26 on Tue, 29 Aug
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 07:02:56 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <ucih20$1p2mt$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:12:48 on Mon, 28 Aug
>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>Exactly. And no one bought an original IBM PC for anything other than office
>>>tasks.
>>
>>Apart from running Flight Simulator, or as my Arnold contractors did:
>
>Must have been an interesting simulator. Probably not much better graphically
>than the one on the ZX81.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnwmowdUayc

>>>Ditto the PCW so Kewneys suggestion he'd recommend it as a general
>>>computer seems iffy to me.
>>
>>What people mainly wanted was a Word Processor to write that one novel
>>everyone is supposed to have inside them, or letters of complaint to
>>failing suppliers. But also a lot of Vicars composing their sermon. If
>>you were a small business, also doing your invoicing/payroll using CP/M
>>apps from people like Sage.
>
>Well maybe, but for general purpose use there were better options.

Better as in almost as capable for ten times the price? Or something
else.

>>>Didn't stop Amstrad designed and trying to flog the GX4000 dead horse. Even
>>>Sugar should have realised it would be totally outclassed in the console
>>>market at that time.
>>
>>That's the 8-bit snobbery again. But the GX4000 was a rare example of a
>>machine we were nagged to death by customers to produce, and reluctantly
>
>Which customers? I doubt it was the punter on the street. I assume you mean
>retail chains and wholesalers?

One of the innovations I brought into the company was listening to end
users, and not just hearing things at second hand from retailers, or
third hand from wholesalers. That's quite separate from having the
original idea, but helps finesse that idea to something which succeeds.

>>eventually did. It didn't appear until 1990, a whole six years after the
>>CPC464.
>
>And well outclassed.

An Audi A6 outclasses a pushbike, but the latter are still quite
popular.

>>(because it was a bit more complicated technically than other staff
>>could easily get their head around).
>
>Any info on it?

It was a scheme where the data in the ROM wasn't presented to the CPU in
the clear, but was scrambled (encryption-lite). So if you wanted to make
knock-off cartridges you also had to have the scrambler chip to put
inside the cartridge, which the patent-protected manufacturer only sold
to people with white hats. And as far as I'm aware no pirates managed to
reverse-engineer, let alone find a silicon foundry to make them.

And if they had, they'd have been taken to court by lunchtime (to
"encourage the others").
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 07:11:55 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <ucv338$cqh9$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:34:16 on Sat, 2 Sep
>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 09:36:52 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>>surprisingly complex (optimised for doing word processing) I wasn't sure
>>
>>Optimised how?
>
>Roller-RAM, which as a self proclaimed IT guru you'll know all about.

Not only have I not heard of it but neither has google.

>But for others, it means you can scroll the whole screen by changing one
>byte in the video controller.

You mean you change the start location on a circular buffer? Hardly cutting
edge stuff.

On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 07:41:43 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <ucl1jd$2a8ej$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:07:26 on Tue, 29 Aug
>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 07:02:56 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <ucih20$1p2mt$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:12:48 on Mon, 28 Aug
>>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>Exactly. And no one bought an original IBM PC for anything other than office
>
>>>>tasks.
>>>
>>>Apart from running Flight Simulator, or as my Arnold contractors did:
>>
>>Must have been an interesting simulator. Probably not much better graphically
>>than the one on the ZX81.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnwmowdUayc

Ok, better than the zx81, slightly worse than the Spectrum.

>>Well maybe, but for general purpose use there were better options.
>
>Better as in almost as capable for ten times the price? Or something
>else.

Can't remember the price of the Amiga but it certainly wasn't 10 times the
price of the PCW.

>>Which customers? I doubt it was the punter on the street. I assume you mean
>>retail chains and wholesalers?
>
>One of the innovations I brought into the company was listening to end
>users, and not just hearing things at second hand from retailers, or
>third hand from wholesalers. That's quite separate from having the

So how did you do that, phone them up?

>>>eventually did. It didn't appear until 1990, a whole six years after the
>>>CPC464.
>>
>>And well outclassed.
>
>An Audi A6 outclasses a pushbike, but the latter are still quite
>popular.

That analogy only works if the pushbike costs almost the same as the audi.

>It was a scheme where the data in the ROM wasn't presented to the CPU in
>the clear, but was scrambled (encryption-lite). So if you wanted to make
>knock-off cartridges you also had to have the scrambler chip to put
>inside the cartridge, which the patent-protected manufacturer only sold
>to people with white hats. And as far as I'm aware no pirates managed to
>reverse-engineer, let alone find a silicon foundry to make them.
>
>And if they had, they'd have been taken to court by lunchtime (to
>"encourage the others").

Good luck with that back in the 80s when there was barely any IT relevant
laws never mind a DCMA equivalent. The court would have told you to jog on.

In message <ud45nm$1ca1r$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:59 on Mon, 4 Sep
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 07:11:55 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <ucv338$cqh9$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:34:16 on Sat, 2 Sep
>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 09:36:52 +0100
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>surprisingly complex (optimised for doing word processing) I wasn't sure
>>>
>>>Optimised how?
>>
>>Roller-RAM, which as a self proclaimed IT guru you'll know all about.
>
>Not only have I not heard of it but neither has google.

It's not an infallible source of information, it seems.

>>But for others, it means you can scroll the whole screen by changing one
>>byte in the video controller.
>
>You mean you change the start location on a circular buffer?

Not quite. Every line of text is pointed to, and you can scroll the
screen, swap lines over, and so on, just by rewriting two or more of
those pointers. Very much faster than having to re-write a whole
bit-mapped display.

>Hardly cutting edge stuff.

I don't know any other implementations, so yes it was.
--
Roland Perry

On Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <ud45nm$1ca1r$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:59 on Mon, 4 Sep
> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>> On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 07:11:55 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ucv338$cqh9$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:34:16 on Sat, 2 Sep
>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 09:36:52 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> surprisingly complex (optimised for doing word processing) I wasn't
>>>>> sure
>>>>
>>>> Optimised how?
>>>
>>> Roller-RAM, which as a self proclaimed IT guru you'll know all about.
>>
>> Not only have I not heard of it but neither has google.
>
> It's not an infallible source of information, it seems.
>
>>> But for others, it means you can scroll the whole screen by changing one
>>> byte in the video controller.
>>
>> You mean you change the start location on a circular buffer?
>
> Not quite. Every line of text is pointed to, and you can scroll the
> screen, swap lines over, and so on, just by rewriting two or more of
> those pointers. Very much faster than having to re-write a whole
> bit-mapped display.

I doubt that "roller RAM" existed as a physically different type of RAM
chip. It sounds like someone's pet-name for a scheme with a custom
CRTC-type device which understands the pointers to rows of text when
scanning and rasterising the memory contents to screen?

On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 07:02:41 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <ud45nm$1ca1r$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:59 on Mon, 4 Sep
>>You mean you change the start location on a circular buffer?
>
>Not quite. Every line of text is pointed to, and you can scroll the
>screen, swap lines over, and so on, just by rewriting two or more of
>those pointers. Very much faster than having to re-write a whole
>bit-mapped display.

So IOW the screen memory and word pro buffer memory were one and the same?
That could get messy.

In message <klo4baFecgmU3@mid.individual.net>, at 08:40:27 on Tue, 5 Sep
2023, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> remarked:
>On Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message <ud45nm$1ca1r$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:59 on Mon, 4 Sep
>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 07:11:55 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ucv338$cqh9$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:34:16 on Sat, 2 Sep
>>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 09:36:52 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> surprisingly complex (optimised for doing word processing) I
>>>>>>wasn't sure
>>>>>
>>>>> Optimised how?
>>>>
>>>> Roller-RAM, which as a self proclaimed IT guru you'll know all about.
>>>
>>> Not only have I not heard of it but neither has google.
>> It's not an infallible source of information, it seems.
>>
>>>> But for others, it means you can scroll the whole screen by
>>>>changing one
>>>> byte in the video controller.
>>>
>>> You mean you change the start location on a circular buffer?
>> Not quite. Every line of text is pointed to, and you can scroll the
>>screen, swap lines over, and so on, just by rewriting two or more of
>>those pointers. Very much faster than having to re-write a whole
>>bit-mapped display.
>
>I doubt that "roller RAM" existed as a physically different type of RAM
>chip.

iirc it was a set of registers inside the custom chip.

>It sounds like someone's pet-name for a scheme with a custom CRTC-type
>device which understands the pointers to rows of text when scanning and
>rasterising the memory contents to screen?

My recollection is the name is a reference to those roller blackboards,
where you can scroll the whole of the text simultaneously.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ud6ope$1taok$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:27:26 on Tue, 5 Sep
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 07:02:41 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <ud45nm$1ca1r$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:59 on Mon, 4 Sep

>>>You mean you change the start location on a circular buffer?
>>
>>Not quite. Every line of text is pointed to, and you can scroll the
>>screen, swap lines over, and so on, just by rewriting two or more of
>>those pointers. Very much faster than having to re-write a whole
>>bit-mapped display.
>
>So IOW the screen memory and word pro buffer memory were one and the same?

Not sure I understand the reference to 'buffer'.

>That could get messy.

The objective was to have as much of the work as possible done in
hardware, rather than have the Z80 spend all its time moving pixels
around.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ud468c$1ccgu$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:58:52 on Mon, 4 Sep
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 07:41:43 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <ucl1jd$2a8ej$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:07:26 on Tue, 29 Aug
>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 07:02:56 +0100
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <ucih20$1p2mt$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:12:48 on Mon, 28 Aug
>>>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>Exactly. And no one bought an original IBM PC for anything other
>>>>>than office
>>
>>>>>tasks.
>>>>
>>>>Apart from running Flight Simulator, or as my Arnold contractors did:
>>>
>>>Must have been an interesting simulator. Probably not much better graphically
>>>than the one on the ZX81.
>>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnwmowdUayc
>
>Ok, better than the zx81, slightly worse than the Spectrum.
>
>>>Well maybe, but for general purpose use there were better options.
>>
>>Better as in almost as capable for ten times the price? Or something
>>else.
>
>Can't remember the price of the Amiga but it certainly wasn't 10 times the
>price of the PCW.

It's the IBM PC which was 10x the price of the PCW. And don't forget the
24pin printer.

>>>Which customers? I doubt it was the punter on the street. I assume you mean
>>>retail chains and wholesalers?
>>
>>One of the innovations I brought into the company was listening to end
>>users, and not just hearing things at second hand from retailers, or
>>third hand from wholesalers. That's quite separate from having the
>
>So how did you do that, phone them up?

Mainly by reading the correspondence they sent in, either to the
technical helpdesk, but also the User Magazine. Then there was going out
and meeting them at shows (there were some Amstrad specific ones, as
well as the more generic).

>>>>eventually did. It didn't appear until 1990, a whole six years after the
>>>>CPC464.
>>>
>>>And well outclassed.
>>
>>An Audi A6 outclasses a pushbike, but the latter are still quite
>>popular.
>
>That analogy only works if the pushbike costs almost the same as the audi.

What were the relative prices of Amiga and GX4000?

>>It was a scheme where the data in the ROM wasn't presented to the CPU in
>>the clear, but was scrambled (encryption-lite). So if you wanted to make
>>knock-off cartridges you also had to have the scrambler chip to put
>>inside the cartridge, which the patent-protected manufacturer only sold
>>to people with white hats. And as far as I'm aware no pirates managed to
>>reverse-engineer, let alone find a silicon foundry to make them.
>>
>>And if they had, they'd have been taken to court by lunchtime (to
>>"encourage the others").
>
>Good luck with that back in the 80s when there was barely any IT relevant
>laws never mind a DCMA equivalent. The court would have told you to jog on.

Patent law. Also copyright of the designs. DMCA only applies to
users posting material online, anyway. IBM was very successful in
slowing the spread of PC-Clones, by keeping a firm grip on the ROM BIOS,
for example.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 11:30:37 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <ud6ope$1taok$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:27:26 on Tue, 5 Sep
>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 07:02:41 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <ud45nm$1ca1r$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:59 on Mon, 4 Sep
>
>>>>You mean you change the start location on a circular buffer?
>>>
>>>Not quite. Every line of text is pointed to, and you can scroll the
>>>screen, swap lines over, and so on, just by rewriting two or more of
>>>those pointers. Very much faster than having to re-write a whole
>>>bit-mapped display.
>>
>>So IOW the screen memory and word pro buffer memory were one and the same?
>
>Not sure I understand the reference to 'buffer'.

Where the WP program stored the text it was working on.

>>That could get messy.
>
>The objective was to have as much of the work as possible done in
>hardware, rather than have the Z80 spend all its time moving pixels
>around.

Dumb terminals solved that problem in the 1970s so I don't see how your
hardware is anything special.

On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 12:33:21 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <ud468c$1ccgu$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:58:52 on Mon, 4 Sep
>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>Can't remember the price of the Amiga but it certainly wasn't 10 times the
>>price of the PCW.
>
>It's the IBM PC which was 10x the price of the PCW. And don't forget the
>24pin printer.

Why buy a PC when the Amiga (or ST) did everything you needed plus had damn
good games and sound.

>>So how did you do that, phone them up?
>
>Mainly by reading the correspondence they sent in, either to the

People never write in to say how wonderful something is, its always complaints,
so its a non representative sample of users.

>>That analogy only works if the pushbike costs almost the same as the audi.
>
>What were the relative prices of Amiga and GX4000?

Don't know, 5:1? Audi to bike is 100:1 if not more.

>>Good luck with that back in the 80s when there was barely any IT relevant
>>laws never mind a DCMA equivalent. The court would have told you to jog on.
>
>Patent law. Also copyright of the designs. DMCA only applies to

You can't patent algorithms or sotfware in the UK and as for design , unless
they made identical copies of your hardware there's nothing you could have done.

>users posting material online, anyway. IBM was very successful in
>slowing the spread of PC-Clones, by keeping a firm grip on the ROM BIOS,
>for example.

Yeah, that worked well. See above. Compaq anyone?

In message <ud7j6g$21o30$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:58:08 on Tue, 5 Sep
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 12:33:21 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <ud468c$1ccgu$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:58:52 on Mon, 4 Sep
>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>Can't remember the price of the Amiga but it certainly wasn't 10 times the
>>>price of the PCW.
>>
>>It's the IBM PC which was 10x the price of the PCW. And don't forget the
>>24pin printer.
>
>Why buy a PC when the Amiga (or ST) did everything you needed plus had damn
>good games and sound.

Because what you needed was a word processor, not a games machine. And a
company buying Amigas for the typing pool would be a laughing stock.

>>>So how did you do that, phone them up?
>>
>>Mainly by reading the correspondence they sent in, either to the
>
>People never write in to say how wonderful something is, its always complaints,
>so its a non representative sample of users.

Is this a competition where you trying to get thing you post wrong?

>>>That analogy only works if the pushbike costs almost the same as the audi.
>>
>>What were the relative prices of Amiga and GX4000?
>
>Don't know, 5:1? Audi to bike is 100:1 if not more.

5:1 is a good enough price ratio that it's very attractive for other
than the independently wealthy.

>>>Good luck with that back in the 80s when there was barely any IT relevant
>>>laws never mind a DCMA equivalent. The court would have told you to jog on.
>>
>>Patent law. Also copyright of the designs. DMCA only applies to
>
>You can't patent algorithms or sotfware in the UK and as for design , unless
>they made identical copies of your hardware there's nothing you could
>have done.

Do try to keep up! You'd need a a chip identical to the copy-protection
one.

>>users posting material online, anyway. IBM was very successful in
>>slowing the spread of PC-Clones, by keeping a firm grip on the ROM BIOS,
>>for example.
>
>Yeah, that worked well. See above. Compaq anyone?

I meant that only organisations with deep pockets could enter the
market.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ud7itn$21mhd$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:27 on Tue, 5 Sep
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 11:30:37 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <ud6ope$1taok$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:27:26 on Tue, 5 Sep
>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 07:02:41 +0100
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <ud45nm$1ca1r$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:59 on Mon, 4 Sep
>>
>>>>>You mean you change the start location on a circular buffer?
>>>>
>>>>Not quite. Every line of text is pointed to, and you can scroll the
>>>>screen, swap lines over, and so on, just by rewriting two or more of
>>>>those pointers. Very much faster than having to re-write a whole
>>>>bit-mapped display.
>>>
>>>So IOW the screen memory and word pro buffer memory were one and the same?
>>
>>Not sure I understand the reference to 'buffer'.
>
>Where the WP program stored the text it was working on.

That was stored as effectively ASCII with embedded formatting codes for
thing like font style, size, bold/underlining etc.

>>>That could get messy.
>>
>>The objective was to have as much of the work as possible done in
>>hardware, rather than have the Z80 spend all its time moving pixels
>>around.
>
>Dumb terminals solved that problem in the 1970s so I don't see how your
>hardware is anything special.

Dumb terminals don't do things like cut and paste paragraphs halfway
down the page.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

> Andy Burns remarked:
>
>> I doubt that "roller RAM" existed as a physically different type of
>> RAM chip.
>
> iirc it was a set of registers inside the custom chip.

yes that sounds reasonable, a kind of souped-up 6845

>> It sounds like someone's pet-name for a scheme with a custom CRTC-type
>> device which understands the pointers to rows of text when scanning
>> and rasterising the memory contents to screen?
>
> My recollection is the name is a reference to those roller blackboards,
> where you can scroll the whole of the text simultaneously.

ok.

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:rZ+wCw9BIx9kFAnm@perry.uk...
>
> It's the IBM PC which was 10x the price of the PCW. And don't forget the
> 24pin printer.
>

Er I think you mean the 9 pin printer.

At the time a 24 pin printer would probably have cost
as much as a whole PCW

Nevertheless, straight out of the, box just connect it up
and you're printing pound signs straight away. Who needs
15 extra pins ?

bb

In message <v2mdnWc2kqCXKmX5nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
18:29:44 on Wed, 6 Sep 2023, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
>
>"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
>news:rZ+wCw9BIx9kFAnm@perry.uk...
>>
>> It's the IBM PC which was 10x the price of the PCW. And don't forget the
>> 24pin printer.
>
>Er I think you mean the 9 pin printer.

If you were slumming it, but the PCW did 24pin quality (as well as
'draft' in 8 pin).

>At the time a 24 pin printer would probably have cost
>as much as a whole PCW

Well spotted. And that expensive 24pin printer (I had a Centronics one
just for LOLs) had more chips inside than the whole PCW and bundled
printer.

>Nevertheless, straight out of the, box just connect it up
>and you're printing pound signs straight away. Who needs
>15 extra pins ?

If you are writing a letter to someone (remember, the PCW was a
typewriter replacement) then 8pin quality really isn't sufficient.

I think one of the more complex characters we supported was the
Icelandic Thorn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)

Some people didn't think 24pin was good enough though, and so we did a
version 2 with a daisywheel printer, which required changing from one
character set to another, as well as one typeface to another. A dot
matrix printer is more versatile.

Sales volumes were disappointingly low, probably because most people
were happy with the dot matrix, and just wanted the warm glow of "if we
needed daisywheel quality, there's a machine we could buy" a bit like
rural bus services where people lobby to have them in place, but don't
ever use them.

Meanwhile, despite some lack of Google-Fu exhibited here, I've just
found a reference to Roller-RAM:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_list

The Amstrad PCW family contains a Display List function called the 'Roller
RAM'. This is a 512-byte RAM area consisting of 256 16-bit vectors into RAM,
one for each line of the 720 × 256 pixel display. Each vector identifies the
location of 90 bytes of monochrome pixels that hold the line's 720 pixel
states. The 90 bytes of 8 pixel states are actually spaced at 8-byte intervals,
so there are 7 unused bytes between each byte of pixel data. This suits how the
text-orientated PCW constructs a typical screen buffer in RAM, where the first
character's 8 rows are stored in the first 8 bytes, the second character's rows
in the next 8 bytes and so on. The Roller RAM was implemented to speed up
display scrolling as it would have been unacceptably slow for its 3.4 MHz Z80
to move up the 23 KB display buffer 'by hand' i.e. in software. The Roller RAM
starting entry used at the beginning of a screen refresh is controlled by a
Z80-writable I/O register. Therefore, the screen can be scrolled simply by
changing this I/O register.

--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 17:54:08 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <ud7j6g$21o30$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:58:08 on Tue, 5 Sep
>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>Why buy a PC when the Amiga (or ST) did everything you needed plus had damn
>>good games and sound.
>
>Because what you needed was a word processor, not a games machine. And a
>company buying Amigas for the typing pool would be a laughing stock.

You've never used an Amiga have you.

>>People never write in to say how wonderful something is, its always
>complaints,
>>so its a non representative sample of users.
>
>Is this a competition where you trying to get thing you post wrong?

So you had a lot of fan mail then?

>5:1 is a good enough price ratio that it's very attractive for other
>than the independently wealthy.

Some things are a false economy.

>>You can't patent algorithms or sotfware in the UK and as for design , unless
>>they made identical copies of your hardware there's nothing you could
>>have done.
>
>Do try to keep up! You'd need a a chip identical to the copy-protection
>one.

I'm sure thats what IBM thought about their BIOS when they took Compaq to
court. Turned out it was a clean room implementation so they lost the case.

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:ym1AtzZ0GX+kFAfB@perry.uk...
> In message <v2mdnWc2kqCXKmX5nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 18:29:44 on Wed, 6 Sep 2023, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
>>
>>"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
>>news:rZ+wCw9BIx9kFAnm@perry.uk...
>>>
>>> It's the IBM PC which was 10x the price of the PCW. And don't forget the
>>> 24pin printer.
>>
>>Er I think you mean the 9 pin printer.
>
> If you were slumming it, but the PCW did 24pin quality (as well as 'draft'
> in 8 pin).
>
>>At the time a 24 pin printer would probably have cost
>>as much as a whole PCW
>
> Well spotted. And that expensive 24pin printer (I had a Centronics one
> just for LOLs) had more chips inside than the whole PCW and bundled
> printer.
>
>>Nevertheless, straight out of the, box just connect it up
>>and you're printing pound signs straight away. Who needs
>>15 extra pins ?
>
> If you are writing a letter to someone (remember, the PCW was a typewriter
> replacement) then 8pin quality really isn't sufficient.
>
> I think one of the more complex characters we supported was the Icelandic
> Thorn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)
>
> Some people didn't think 24pin was good enough though, and so we did a
> version 2 with a daisywheel printer, which required changing from one
> character set to another, as well as one typeface to another. A dot matrix
> printer is more versatile.
>
> Sales volumes were disappointingly low, probably because most people were
> happy with the dot matrix, and just wanted the warm glow of "if we needed
> daisywheel quality, there's a machine we could buy" a bit like rural bus
> services where people lobby to have them in place, but don't ever use
> them.
>
> Meanwhile, despite some lack of Google-Fu exhibited here, I've just found
> a reference to Roller-RAM:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_list
>
> The Amstrad PCW family contains a Display List function called the 'Roller
> RAM'. This is a 512-byte RAM area consisting of 256 16-bit vectors into
> RAM,
> one for each line of the 720 � 256 pixel display. Each vector identifies
> the
> location of 90 bytes of monochrome pixels that hold the line's 720 pixel
> states. The 90 bytes of 8 pixel states are actually spaced at 8-byte
> intervals,
> so there are 7 unused bytes between each byte of pixel data. This suits
> how the
> text-orientated PCW constructs a typical screen buffer in RAM, where the
> first
> character's 8 rows are stored in the first 8 bytes, the second character's
> rows
> in the next 8 bytes and so on. The Roller RAM was implemented to speed up
> display scrolling as it would have been unacceptably slow for its 3.4 MHz
> Z80
> to move up the 23 KB display buffer 'by hand' i.e. in software. The Roller
> RAM
> starting entry used at the beginning of a screen refresh is controlled by
> a
> Z80-writable I/O register. Therefore, the screen can be scrolled simply by
> changing this I/O register.
>

Jolly well done! The truth finally emerges !

However, (and there often is a "however") try as I might, I'm unable to
find a single mention of an "8" pin dot matrix printer anywhere, as you
mention above. It's all 9 pin and 24 pin. Now from what I know of Sugar
it wouldn't surprse me at all to learn, he'd bought up whole warehouses
full of otherwise totally obsolete and unsalable "8" pin dot matrix printers
at say 20p a pop. But again, there's no mention of these fabled 8 pin
printers anywhere.

bb

In message <udc2k7$2u5gl$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:46:00 on Thu, 7 Sep
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 17:54:08 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <ud7j6g$21o30$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:58:08 on Tue, 5 Sep
>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>Why buy a PC when the Amiga (or ST) did everything you needed plus had damn
>>>good games and sound.
>>
>>Because what you needed was a word processor, not a games machine. And a
>>company buying Amigas for the typing pool would be a laughing stock.
>
>You've never used an Amiga have you.

What I have or have not done is irrelevant (and as it happens I worked
with one of its designers for a year). I'm not the person who would be
laughing stock, it's the buyer for the typing pool.

Wrong posting pt1.

>>>People never write in to say how wonderful something is, its always
>>complaints,

>>>so its a non representative sample of users.
>>
>>Is this a competition where you trying to get thing you post wrong?
>
>So you had a lot of fan mail then?

Yes, especially to the User Magazine. But I was more interested in
people writing to customer services saying "I find this or that a bit
difficult to understand", so I'd want to fix either the thing, or the
user manual.

Wrong posting pt2

>>5:1 is a good enough price ratio that it's very attractive for other
>>than the independently wealthy.
>
>Some things are a false economy.

But not the PCW.

Wrong posting pt3.

>>>You can't patent algorithms or sotfware in the UK and as for design , unless
>>>they made identical copies of your hardware there's nothing you could
>>>have done.
>>
>>Do try to keep up! You'd need a a chip identical to the copy-protection
>>one.
>
>I'm sure thats what IBM thought about their BIOS when they took Compaq to
>court. Turned out it was a clean room implementation so they lost the case.

Only Compaq, not hundreds of other people, had deep enough pockets to
commission clan room BIOS. That was sufficient of a delaying tactic. But
I said that already.

Wrong posting pt4.

4/4, congratulations!
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 12:42:35 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <udc2k7$2u5gl$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:46:00 on Thu, 7 Sep
>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>Because what you needed was a word processor, not a games machine. And a
>>>company buying Amigas for the typing pool would be a laughing stock.
>>
>>You've never used an Amiga have you.
>
>What I have or have not done is irrelevant (and as it happens I worked

So "no".

>with one of its designers for a year). I'm not the person who would be

So what?

>laughing stock, it's the buyer for the typing pool.
>
>Wrong posting pt1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_productivity_software

If you think its just a games machine then clearly you stopped paying
attention to the computer market around the time you left amstrad and became
a paid waffler for a living.

FWIW with the Video Toaster card it was a staple of video production, CGI
and TV stations for a decade. Word processing it could do in its sleep.

>>Some things are a false economy.
>
>But not the PCW.

If we're talking about Kewneys comment about using it as a general purpose
computer - which was this discussion - then yes, it is. If all you need is
a WP then no problem.

>>I'm sure thats what IBM thought about their BIOS when they took Compaq to
>>court. Turned out it was a clean room implementation so they lost the case.
>
>Only Compaq, not hundreds of other people, had deep enough pockets to
>commission clan room BIOS. That was sufficient of a delaying tactic. But
>I said that already.

Most cartridge protection systems were cracked. If the GX4000 had shifted a
few million units yours would have been too.

In message <uq2dnUVUlLw3e2f5nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
10:17:28 on Fri, 8 Sep 2023, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
>
>"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
>news:ym1AtzZ0GX+kFAfB@perry.uk...
>> In message <v2mdnWc2kqCXKmX5nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>> 18:29:44 on Wed, 6 Sep 2023, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:rZ+wCw9BIx9kFAnm@perry.uk...
>>>>
>>>> It's the IBM PC which was 10x the price of the PCW. And don't forget the
>>>> 24pin printer.
>>>
>>>Er I think you mean the 9 pin printer.
>>
>> If you were slumming it, but the PCW did 24pin quality (as well as 'draft'
>> in 8 pin).
>>
>>>At the time a 24 pin printer would probably have cost
>>>as much as a whole PCW
>>
>> Well spotted. And that expensive 24pin printer (I had a Centronics one
>> just for LOLs) had more chips inside than the whole PCW and bundled
>> printer.
>>
>>>Nevertheless, straight out of the, box just connect it up
>>>and you're printing pound signs straight away. Who needs
>>>15 extra pins ?
>>
>> If you are writing a letter to someone (remember, the PCW was a typewriter
>> replacement) then 8pin quality really isn't sufficient.
>>
>> I think one of the more complex characters we supported was the Icelandic
>> Thorn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)
>>
>> Some people didn't think 24pin was good enough though, and so we did a
>> version 2 with a daisywheel printer, which required changing from one
>> character set to another, as well as one typeface to another. A dot matrix
>> printer is more versatile.
>>
>> Sales volumes were disappointingly low, probably because most people were
>> happy with the dot matrix, and just wanted the warm glow of "if we needed
>> daisywheel quality, there's a machine we could buy" a bit like rural bus
>> services where people lobby to have them in place, but don't ever use
>> them.
>>
>> Meanwhile, despite some lack of Google-Fu exhibited here, I've just found
>> a reference to Roller-RAM:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_list
>>
>> The Amstrad PCW family contains a Display List function called the
>>'Roller RAM'. This is a 512-byte RAM area consisting of 256 16-bit
>>vectors into RAM, one for each line of the 720 × 256 pixel display.
>>Each vector identifies the location of 90 bytes of monochrome pixels
>>that hold the line's 720 pixel states. The 90 bytes of 8 pixel states
>>are actually spaced at 8-byte intervals, so there are 7 unused bytes
>>between each byte of pixel data. This suits how the text-orientated
>>PCW constructs a typical screen buffer in RAM, where the first
>>character's 8 rows are stored in the first 8 bytes, the second
>>character's rows in the next 8 bytes and so on. The Roller RAM was
>>implemented to speed up display scrolling as it would have been
>>unacceptably slow for its 3.4 MHz Z80 to move up the 23 KB display
>>buffer 'by hand' i.e. in software. The Roller RAM starting entry
>>used at the beginning of a screen refresh is controlled by a
>>Z80-writable I/O register. Therefore, the screen can be scrolled
>>simply by changing this I/O register.
>
>Jolly well done! The truth finally emerges !
>
>However, (and there often is a "however") try as I might, I'm unable to
>find a single mention of an "8" pin dot matrix printer anywhere, as you
>mention above. It's all 9 pin and 24 pin. Now from what I know of Sugar
>it wouldn't surprse me at all to learn, he'd bought up whole warehouses
>full of otherwise totally obsolete and unsalable "8" pin dot matrix printers
>at say 20p a pop. But again, there's no mention of these fabled 8 pin
>printers anywhere.

The printer mechanisms, however many pins they had, like the FDDs,
were all manufactured specifically for Amstrad. The idea that there
was a warehouse with 8 million obsolete/unsaleable ones is beyond
preposterous.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 16:28:37 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>The printer mechanisms, however many pins they had, like the FDDs,
>were all manufactured specifically for Amstrad. The idea that there
>was a warehouse with 8 million obsolete/unsaleable ones is beyond
>preposterous.

I bet there was a warehouse of 3 inch disks and drives that nobody except
amstrad wanted towards the end of the 80s.