Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!uunet!cbmvax!cbmehq!cbmger!peterk From: peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Z machine et al Message-ID: <673@cbmger.UUCP> Date: 28 Dec 90 16:09:03 GMT References: <1029.2772FECD@weyr.FIDONET.ORG> <1990Dec23.084244.17796@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <1990Dec28.001940.25138@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Reply-To: peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) Organization: Commodore Bueromaschinen GmbH, West Germany Lines: 26 In article <1990Dec28.001940.25138@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > >Not too sure it is fair to characterize the Pet as slow; Oh, I LOVE my old 8032. Running BASIC, it's not so much slower than a normal Amiga with AmigaBasic. >On the other hand, dumping text to the screen from BASIC was painfully >slow, even for those days. Perhaps that is where the perception of a >slow BASIC arose. Hmm, but there was another issue with screen output on the PETs, which I miss on all the current computers like Amiga or PCs: the cursor control characters that worked blindingly fast when used in a PRINT statement. I had a demo using simple PRINTs with whole text lines shooting in from the left or right, just by issuing proper insert or delete control chars. There the benefit of a memory mapped simpe character screen storage was VERY apparent. Simply stated: I can't do this in a similar way on the Amiga! (But in another way it works: with graphical GET and PUT, but that's another story.) -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk