Best introductory system

[BassGuitari]

 

It's about what a TRS-80 Model I has but with color.

That is certainly more than the C64 BASIC has for graphics, but the lack of floating point is even more limiting for anything beyond games.

 

I assume you mean Level I BASIC on the TRS-80?

 

Woz wrote Integer BASIC with games in mind, though, didn't he? IIRC it was sometimes even known as "Game BASIC."

[JamesD]

I assume you mean Level I BASIC on the TRS-80?

 

Woz wrote Integer BASIC with games in mind, though, didn't he? IIRC it was sometimes even known as "Game BASIC."

Yes

[TheTIGuy]

A CoCo (1st model preferably) Or an Apple ][. I love my TI-99/4a, but it is a PITA to program, and while the base system and carts are cheap, the almost essential (meaning i can't afford one =P ) PEB is not cheap, and shipping is a killer. Go with a CoCo (1?), an Apple ][, or an Atari 8-bit and you won't be disappointed! Also, the Apple has a composite video output jack, making it one of the simplest computers to set up, ever.

...

While i love my TI, i would trade it for an Apple ][ in a heartbeat.

Edited August 5, 2017 by TheTIGuy

[TemplarXB]

This is a great thread. I've been having this itch to play with original vintage hardware since about a year or so back when I tried to fire up my C128, which unfortunately wouldn't boot.

 

I think for me it comes down to being able to really get to the metal on the simpler systems and the hobby aspect of dragging old tech far beyond what is was planned to do.

 

After being unable to get the C128 working (or the 1571 drive using a Zoom Floopy to my PC) I decided to try a new system. This thread, especially Keetah's post, guided me to the Atari. I just recently got an 800XL along with a Lotharek SIO2SD. It's fantastic. I just figured out how to use the SIO2SD to load up a DOS system and save BASIC programs to a blank disk image.

 

So thanks, and hopefully this helps a few more people get into a vintage system.

[TheTIGuy]

An old IBM PC if you have the budget, some model of the Apple ][ for a medium budget, and if you are broke (Like me =P), the TI.

NOTE: The TI is a bit of a last resort. the tape cables are hard to build, keys tend to fall of the keyboard (They tend to not wanna work anyway, the Mitsumi keyboards.) To get anything beyond basic BASIC with slow execution and rather poor tape saves (against an apple ][), you have to buy the kinda expensive and pain to ship PEB (or extended BASIC cart(s) for the latter.) if you have a good budget, the TI can be great, but by that point you can get an apple. frankly, if you have a tiny bit more to spend on then a TI, but not enough for an apple, a c64 wouldn't be too bad.

Edited September 16, 2017 by TheTIGuy

[Keatah]

A followup, has the OP revisited this thread?

 

---

 

Some minor observations:

 

It's pretty much a non-extended BASIC, and has fewer features than Microsoft BASIC even if you ignore math.

I haven't written anything in it, but if I remember right, the graphics commands are all for the lo-res mode.

It's about what a TRS-80 Model I has but with color.
That is certainly more than the C64 BASIC has for graphics, but the lack of floating point is even more limiting for anything beyond games.
*I think* it was more limited in string handling, and I'm not sure if it supported multi-dimensional arrays.
I haven't looked at any Integer BASIC code in 30+ years though.

While you can use custom fonts, PEEK and POKE graphics, or even add USR functions for graphics on the C64, you can't integrate floating point into Integer BASIC.
At least I haven't seen it done. I managed to squeeze ELSE into a "full" MC-10 ROM so I won't say it's impossible.

In theory, you can simulate decimals by storing numbers as 10x or 100x greater, or represent the decimal portion as a separate integer, but no matter how you look at it, it's awkward, requires additional code, not simple, and the slower code defeats the purpose of using Integer BASIC in the first place.
But it is faster than Applesoft BASIC.

It would be interesting to see how it compares to the Acorn Atom BASIC as far as speed goes.

Given the limited library of software for Integer BASIC, I'd say that backs up rating it in "The rest" category, and even behind the other machines.
That doesn't mean it's horrible, just that it has a lot of limitations.
If you want to turn out a lo-res game as your first programming project, it might be the right tool for the job.
Keep in mind you can compile Applesoft II if you really want a fast program, so speed isn't as much of a concern as it was when Integer BASIC was written.

 

An annoying limitation I disliked in Integer Basic was the 32767 limitation. No variable could be higher than that. You can simulate bigger numbers with 2 variables, or floating point with even more. But by the time programming became more widespread for the hobbyist, Applesoft Basic came out.

 

The graphics commands like COLOR, PLOT, GR, in Integer Basic only work in low-res mode - that's right. But Hi-Res pages are available for you to write to. You can call routines to draw shapes and dots and whatever have you. To get "full native interpreted commands" like HPLOT for drawing directly, x,y style, you'd need to wait for Applesoft again.

 

There are plenty of Integer Basic Hi-Res games, my favs being Apple Bowl, and Moto-Cross. Among others.

 

I remember we used to have contests between compilers, I'd come home from school and find myself buried in the finer points of whether TASC or EINSTEIN was faster.

 

I suppose for max speed, you can use Beagle Bros. COMPACT, to concatenate lines and simplify variables and then run it through a compiler, then run it at unlimited speed on Emulator Applewin.

 

 

Woz wrote Integer BASIC with games in mind, though, didn't he? IIRC it was sometimes even known as "Game BASIC."

 

Yes. While I don't know ALL the history behind Integer Basic, they did need something to put in ROM and make the system usable for something.

[JamesD]

A followup, has the OP revisited this thread?

 

---

 

Some minor observations:

 

 

An annoying limitation I disliked in Integer Basic was the 32767 limitation. No variable could be higher than that. You can simulate bigger numbers with 2 variables, or floating point with even more. But by the time programming became more widespread for the hobbyist, Applesoft Basic came out.

 

The graphics commands like COLOR, PLOT, GR, in Integer Basic only work in low-res mode - that's right. But Hi-Res pages are available for you to write to. You can call routines to draw shapes and dots and whatever have you. To get "full native interpreted commands" like HPLOT for drawing directly, x,y style, you'd need to wait for Applesoft again.

 

There are plenty of Integer Basic Hi-Res games, my favs being Apple Bowl, and Moto-Cross. Among others.

 

I remember we used to have contests between compilers, I'd come home from school and find myself buried in the finer points of whether TASC or EINSTEIN was faster.

 

I suppose for max speed, you can use Beagle Bros. COMPACT, to concatenate lines and simplify variables and then run it through a compiler, then run it at unlimited speed on Emulator Applewin.

 

 

 

Yes. While I don't know ALL the history behind Integer Basic, they did need something to put in ROM and make the system usable for something.

I'm pretty sure you don't need to COMPACT lines if you are compiling the program. That's just so the interpreter will run faster.

I suppose it would also speed up the compiler slightly since it would have less to parse, but it shouldn't improve the executable

As a general rule, if you are using a compiler, you might as well make the code more readable because extra text isn't going to slow down the final program.

I can't remember which compiler is fastest for what I've written. Maybe Einstein... but I'm not sure.

Beagle(?) offered support of a couple floating point boards, so it would have been the king for math if you had one of those boards.

 

Yes, it was more important to have a BASIC, than a good BASIC in the early days.

TRS-80 LEVEL I BASIC might even be a better example, but Level II was much quicker to follow than Applesoft.

Lets face it, Commodore got away with having a limited BASIC in the C64.

If it had come with a BASIC more like the Plus/4, I think it would have sold even better.

Just think how much time could have been saved, and how much paper in magazines if the C64 had come with an Extended BASIC.

Edited September 17, 2017 by JamesD

[Keatah]

ftp://ftp.apple.asimov.com/../pub/apple_II/documentation/applications/beagle_brothers/Beagle_Bros-D-Code.pdf

..talks about how COMPACT works. You're right it may or may not produce speedups when compiled, but it certainly helped with the BBS when it was getting quite large and before Extra-K came out. It also had a nice placebo effect, and we always used it.

 

I was unaware of any compilers using a math-co. The documentation for Beagle Compiler and TASC both don't mention anything. So it would have to be Einstein or Hayden Compiler.

 

I think TASC was just a bit faster than Einstein, but Einstein was more aesthetically pleasing and easier to use - to a kid still in grade school. So I used that most often.

[JamesD]

It's definitely the Beagle Compiler. V3.2
http://compgroups.net/comp.sys.apple2/beagle-basic-compiler-fastmath-fpe/1519046

[Osgeld]

there's lots of good suggestions in here, I will put 2 cents on the apple II cause I grew up with them and have owned them off and on thoughout the years, they are a pain in the ass to program anything game like. you have to fake the sound, figure out wonky graphics maps and to get anything to run at a decent speed its going to have to be compiled (and even compiled basic is quite slow compared to compiled C) or asm

 

but once you get past all that its fun in a sadistic way, cause its only you the ram, and the CPU what can you do with it?

 

right now I am an atari man lol

Edited September 17, 2017 by Osgeld