The legendary Guy Kewney who was the intended interviewee for a BBC program back in May 2006, but due to a misidentification by a receptionist, a bewildered Congolese business studies, Guy Goma, was ushered into the TV studio live on TV. He was actually there to be interviewed for a job, but he did his best when grilled on the subject of Apple Inc being sued by the Beatle's Apple Corp. A legendary TV moment which can be found on line. However, the puzzled Guy Goma did predict that most people would download their music over the Internet during that interview by Karen Bowerman. Oh, and Tony Bastable was referenced in a song by Half Man Half Biscuit in 1985.
Commodore Plus/4 could do the same and way faster and easier, arrived to the market at 1984. It has all the gfx routines, fills and in 121 colors, also mixed gfx/text screen (little similar to C=128 capabilities). 60KB free RAM together with the BASIC (BBC had much less, CPC had more). I tried those circle routines with math, and they are at least 3x slower than the built-in routine (I tried to compile it, but still just the same speed :-) ). Sound-wise it was little better than QL, but much less than CPC or BBC. BBC BASIC was a little more advanced in some ways, like long variable names, In fact Plus/4 had one of the fastest 8bit processor of the time (faster than the Z80 at 3.5MHz), but worked at full speed only at the border, due to shared memory concept (=wait stages on the screen area). Full potential could be rached by switching off the screen, like on C128. The continuous RAM/ROM switches did not help too to gain speed (in BASIC). Certainly BBC could get some CPU upgrades made it super fast compared to C+4. The biggest drawback of the Plus/4 was the low horizontal resolution (max 320 pixels), and the missing 80 char mode, made it almost useless for word processing, despite the built-in "office" package (that was also rather limited in functions). Later on some software based 80 and 64 char modes were created, and they were quite readable even at this low resolution (not on normal RF TV), so I can say it was a lost chance to create a small office home PC. As an amateur young graphician, really enjoyed the lot of colors, but really the converted pictures show the C+4 full potential. Certainly raster tricks (FLI) helps to reduce the attribute limitation of the machine. I made one slideshow several years ago with the help of IstvanV's converter. plus4world.powweb.com/software/VDC_Challenge There are some smart programmers who able to create even better routines with interlace. This one is from Larry, almost Amiga quality picture. Quite nice from a 8 bit computer launched in 1984. plus4world.powweb.com/software/Dreamtime_2K18
@@MMSZolie get, you liked the Plus/4. But it didn't have the capabilities of the C64, the built in apps were terrible and the TED chip had a habit of burning itself out. The graphics commands are a function of the supplied language ROM. Most computers had alternative versions with more commands and faster routines, both 1st and 3rd party. CBM used Microsoft Basic, with all it's limitations, just a better version than the abysmal one they used in the PET, VIC20 and C64. The machine itself wasn't that fast, nor graphically capable, nor was it particularly cheap. It was a commercial failure, like it's TED based siblings. Atari 8 bits could put 128 colours on screen at once... in 1979. 256 colours could be done with a few major limitations. Plenty of machines could match the Plus/4
Here’s a good discussion thread about it, very interesting retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/15570/were-there-really-any-cost-savings-in-sinclair-ql-because-of-it-being-8-bit-desi
@@ClassicReplay It has occurred to me since posting this comment and reading the thread that of course the IBM PC originally used an 8088, which was an 8086 with... an 8 bit databus. And for much the same reason, it reduced motherboard complexity and made the machine cheaper.
Based on the amount of programs and peripherals available, which in turn tend to be linked to the time a system has been on the market. His Hush Puppies were quite securely affixed to his feet. Of course, things are very, very different today but back then, it made sense.
By his rationale, a better but newer computer will be marked down considerably. To make that section out of 22 to give the BBC the clear win was ludicrous. No doubt this was aired on BBC TV🤔
The PCW benchmarks were always a bit silly. One of the machines being tested has 4x as much memory as one of the others but no credit was given for that. One of them has a pre-emptive multi-tasking operating system but was given no credit for that. Only the speed, but not the features, of BASIC interpreters were considered by those benchmarks.
I know, it was awful, so many parents would have watched and listened intently to this and probably made an incorrect decision. I personally went for the Amstrad as a kid, did my home work and found that it suited my interest and needs better than the others. If it wasn’t for the software round, I think the Amstrad would have won, but again, they didn’t fully examine what the OS offered and which gave the better ease of use.
@@ClassicReplay I was interested in writing 68k assembler and in the OS so I bought a ql. Actually two of them to use the networking. No part of this review was useful to me, not then either (I saw it on TV). All the were fine art the time, but really they were in three different categories and it made no sense to compare like that.
I completely agree, if anything as a young boy the show just baffled me with waffle. I think the QL failed because of the storage media, should have gone with 3” or 3.5” disk with a backwards compatibility mode for previous Sinclair software on the ZX Spectrum. I remember playing QL Vroom and Stone Raider on the QL as a kid, the graphics were now in colour over the original ZX Spectrum, but somehow the sound wasn’t as good. It did look futuristic though, very sleek and easy to type on.
@@ClassicReplay I got the 464. It was competing with the BBC and the Commodore 64 (I don't recall why Apple wasn't considered). In the end my parents and I thought the bundled screen and tape drive wasn't merely greater value, but neater, less flailing cables, built for purpose... and the monitor offered better quality than the affordable alternative of a poor small TV. Mine didn't come with the 12 tape software pack sadly - only one pretty poor demo tape. That said I always admired my friend's Beeb and envied some of the C64 games too. Within 18 months I'd got a job and bought a 6128, with green screen, the disc drive being the big draw...
@@ClassicReplay For myself, I started my interest in computers with the Beeb at primary school. Fantastic machine, versatile, great keyboard, and built like a cold war tank (so could definitely handle schoolkids), but otherwise unobtainium on a limited household budget. It's memory limitations when the more demanding graphics modes were used didn't help. Then in 1985, for my 11th birthday, just before secondary school, Mum brought me an Amstrad CPC 464 with colour monitor (the original proper tall key model, before Amstrad started cheaping out on it's design) from my local Dixons. The BASIC and up front expandability wasn't as good as the Beeb's, but there were more colours to choose from, more memory to play with, and you could add many of the things the BBC had on later as you actually needed them. It also was a great looking machine too, matt black with splashes of bright '80s colour, and line art on the cassette deck, not boring beige. I mostly played games, but did a bit of programming as well.
Quite interesting, but he Is glossing over how the QL’s BEEP command actually works: BEEP sound BEEP activates the inbuilt sound functions on the QL. BEEP can accept a variable number of parameters to give various levels of control over the sound produced. The minimum specification requires only a duration and pitch to be specified. BEEP used with no parameters will kill any sound being generated. syntax: duration:= numeric_expression {range -32768..32767} pitch:= numeric_expression {range 0..255} grad_x:= numeric_expression {range -32768..32767} grad_y:= numeric_expression {range -8..7} wrap:= numeric_expression {range 0..15} fuzzy:= numeric_expression {range 0..15} random:= numeric_expressian {range 0..15} BEEP [ duration, pitch [,pitch_2, grad_x, grad_y [, wrap [, fuzzy [, random ]]]]] duration specifies the duration of the sound in units of 72 microseconds. A duration of zero will run the sound until terminated by another BEEP command. pitch specifies the pitch of the sound.A pitch of 1 is high and 255 is low. pitch_2 specifies an second pitch level between which the sound will 'bounce' grad_x defines the time interval between pitch steps. grad_y defines the size of each step, grad_x and grad_y control the rate at which the pitch bounces between levels. wrap will force the sound to wrap around the specified number of times. If wrap is equal to 15 the sound will wrap around forever: fuzzy defines the amount of fuzziness to be added to the sound. random defines the amount of randomness to be added to the sound.
Good morning friends. I do not agree with the note for programms in Amstrad. Amstrad had the full package that was developed for Spectrum with the advantage of the CPC itself like the hability to "type the commands in basic" and or the keyboard itself. Alan Michael Sugar was very smart in making the CPC series based on Z80 which had massive software developed for. I do not know when this video was made, but, for shure, I do not think the quotation for the Amstrad in the available programs is fair. On the other end QL ... How can the mathematical be worst that CPC or BBC ?? So far I remember QL was based in 680008 processor which was allready 32 bits processor ( allthough for reasons that I do not understand Clive limited the 68000 to the 680008 which sacrificed speed. Never understood why ) ... Even with the limitation of the 008 in the 68000 processor it should be faster than Zilog Z80 ou BBC 6502 ( if I am not mistaken )
Now, after buying myself a CPC and a Beeb, I can hardly find this benchmark of any use (now or back then). Those three are utterly different beasts based on vastly diverging technologies and design philosophies. *CPC 464 is a toy.* It looks like a toy, and works like a toy. It may teach you something, but only as an edutainment toy. *Beeb is a serious machine.* It looks serious, it feels serious (especially in 80-comumn mode), it has disassembly instructions on the back, and comes with serious software. Even games there were made by physics professors! *QL is weird.* Even as a collector, I can't imagine, why I'd want that thing! I guess even back in the day nobody else could either. It could've been only popular with the enthusiasts, who desired a cheap 68k SDK. Why in tarnation, were these machines compared based on the speed of rendering the Mark of the Beast???
You’ve completely misjudged the Amstrad. It too features an 80 column display, several modes and came with Digital Research CPM software. You could upgrade the RAM to 4mb, the most I ever got up to was 512k. You could add a 3” disk drive, later a 3.5” disk. You could use word processors, spreadsheets you name it. The Oliver Twins used it a development platform for their early Dizzy games and then ported to the ZX Spectrum. If you want to see its graphical capabilities, look up Pinball Dreams. In fact the Amstrad won in every department apart from available peripherals and software. Punished because it’s the newer computer. It won!
@@ClassicReplay You are talking of CPC 6128. I failed to find any of those capabilities inside my 646. There may have been hacks to make the system into a dedicated SDK (like Oliver Twins did), but that required soldering components and re-flashing ROMs. If we allow modifications, with enough now-how and money, one could launch CPM on almost any other computer: BBC, Spectrum, Dragon, MSX2...
@volo870 As we saw in the benchmark, the CPC still comes out on top, no amount of tinkering will change that. To add support external floppies you plugged in and expansion card, the snappily named DDI-1. This contained a 765 disc drive controller and a ROM that extended Locomotive BASIC with AMSDOS.The CPC 664, 6128 and the 6128plus all had the AMSDOS ROM built into the mainboard.
@@ClassicReplay I used the BBC Micro at my Middle School in 1982/3 and I had a ZX Spectrum 48K at home. I first used the CPC 464 at a school friend's house and was impressed, and in 1987 I finally got one of my own. At the time I remember seeing it as a superior machine to the BBC Micro and it was. It was also the most reliable computer I have ever owned, even to this day in 2023, and it was used solidly for hours every day for four years, and then occasionally after that until 1993.
@@volo870 You can easily turn a CPC 464 into a 6512 nowadays, internally, for like 25€. The heart of the computer, the Z80 and gate array stay the same, and deliver the core qualities. I don't know why you call the BEEP serious and the CPC464 a toy, I see it more as the CPC is built using serious mass production in Taiwan, where the Beep is build ny hand on a cash register production line in England: it was forever having the prototype feel. Solid, but a complete non-design....
I wonder what the basic program they had is? Also I wonder how much the QL was held back with it's 8bit memory and peripherals? Noticeably absent is the Sinclair Spectrum and the Commodore 64. Having only recently discovered the niche 80's UK micros it seems that TV media (BBC) has an incredible Acorn bias.
I believe this was an ITV programme, not a BBC one. At that time, the always cheap ZX Spectrum really was incredibly cheap, far cheaper than any of these. The C64 was absent, but it would have lost big time in this comparison. It had a relatively slow CPU running at 0.9 MHz, and amazingly, it's BASIC had absolutely no commands for graphics or sound. The BBC had worked with the government to teach computing principles and programming in UK schools (and homes) through a series of innovative TV programmes and a new school curriculum. A tender was put out for a government subsidised computer that would provide a standard for schools and colleges etc. It would be called the BBC Micro. Acorn won that contract, although originally it had been envisaged that the Grundy 'Newbrain' would be chosen... but Grundy couldn't deliver it on time. So yes, the BBC had a vested interest in promoting "their" computer. Like today's Raspberry Pi, it inspired the creation of a great many products and projects. But it's also what directly inspired the creation of the Raspberry Pi in the first place.
@@AndrewHelgeCox They pre-announced it even before they had a working prototype and when they did get it into production there was an added part which had to be incorporated into a dongle, for the first production run. Deliveries announced for 28 days turned into months, then not long after launching it at £399, the reduced it to £199. Poor old Clive - like a 1980s Starmer he believed if he said something often enough and wished it to happen it WOULD happen - but of course, it didn't.
Sadly most people don't understand how the Acorn BBC Micro won to become the BBC Micro and then the specs cut down so in reality it would have lost ! The BBC was able to have certain things because it had a guaranteed amount of sales so was able to be cheaper than if it was just competing in the open market. Sinclair had to at least match the BBC Micro on price otherwise it would never have sold at all which meant a cheapo keyboard etc. The QL was a a multi-tasking OS, had more real memory expandable up to 896k no page flipping. Someone creating benchmarks can easily tailor them to suit Z80 or 6502 over 68XXX and vice verse of course. I am not saying the BBC Micro was rubbish, it was certainly better than the Amstrad. If Sinclair had of used a better quality keyboard and used tape drives this might of helped it, but Sinclair thought that tapes didn't seem a business type item but later CST created a floppy disk interface but they only did this because people didn't like the unreliable microdrives even though they were quite fast when they worked. Ironically dropping the microdrives and supplying a better keyboard could have changed history but that the advantage of hindsight. Another small snippet of info for people that might be interested, a consortium tried to by the rights to the Sinclair QL from Amstrad but Amstrad didn't want any future competition from them. This consortium which included the person who created the OS QDOS as it was called wanted to create a true 68K PC with 64K colours on screen this would have competed with the Atari ST and Amiga which again might have made things more difficult for either of them. 68K was superior to X86 but Intel had better manufacturing capabilities so was able to beat Motorola that way rather than with better logical instructions and CPU design which they have continued to do so until AMD used TSMC !
For the BBC Computer Literacy Project the fight was between the Acorn Proton and the Sinclair ZX Spectrum. The QL wasn't around at that point. The only area where the Proton was lacking from the BBC's requirements was it couldn't run CPM - solved by Acorn Second Processor boxes. The QL's keyboard was Sinclair's better keyboard - remember the ZX Spectrum had rubber keys.The biggest problem with the QL is that it was launched before it was ready.
@@malcolmhutchison Sadly launching after its truly ready would have meant losing even quicker because of Atari ST etc. Remember the Atari launched booting some of its stuff from floppy because it wasn't truly ready. From the information I have gleaned it was a forgone selection for the Acorn Machine to become the BBC Computer obviously some wheels were greased to help this along especially since the 64k of colours etc and other specs removed which won them the race just to being chosen ! Once you have guaranteed sales with numbers suddenly production costs dramatically will reduce because suppliers will be eager to supply you. The QL has a truly multi-tasking OS 128k of ram expandable to 896k with a certain RAM card upgrade remember this was truly contiguous memory and not paged memory ! I would have loved to have seen Sinclair have released the QL with a floppy disk interface for external Floppy drives like the Atari had and that surely would have swung the BBC to choosing the QL but that didn't happen :(
@@ClassicReplay 3.5" would have been better, 3" was non standard as shown by history as it never became dominant and was chosen by Amstrad for whatever reason.
Not just Amstrad, quite a few including Nintendo. Also Amstrad sold almost 10 million computers with 3” drives, so hardly non standard 37 years ago. 3” would have kept costs down and they were very reliable.
The QL was obviously much faster, but their choice of running basic programs skewed it. QL basic was similar to the BBC basic, but rushed. The graphics modes of the BBC should have been considered as a plus. The software package included with QL was of a professional grade that I didn’t experience on any 8bit computer, it was excellent. The micro drives were fast but so unreliable, that you always needed backup of everything.
You have to put the release of the QL in to the context of the home computer market of the time. 8 bit machines were dominant, none of the major player's machines had any concept of a multitasking OS, either preemptive or cooperative. Such things were new and unknown to the majority of home users... they might reasonably ask what tasks they would be doing that required such a thing? Nowadays we are used to it and take it for granted. But Windows and MacOS didn't get proper multitasking for a further decade after the QLs release.
Let me Google that for you 😊 Post Office Telecommunications's Viewdata technology, was an interactive videotex system developed during the late 1970s and commercially launched in 1979. It achieved a maximum of 90,000 subscribers in the UK and was eventually sold by BT in 1994.
This kind of scoring approach isn’t very useful. The best machine depends on what you want to do with it. For me, the beeb was a country mile ahead of the other two, but there were a few occasions I envied the amstrad.
@@ClassicReplay well, the beeb did have more software and hardware options tbf, except for games. Agree that most of the metrics are BS though, including some that favour the amstrad.
@@ClassicReplay there are some areas where loco or bbc basic are better than the other but bbc is much better integrated, supported, faster in most cases, and frankly the beeb had a keyboard you'd actually want to use for coding for any length of time. Locomotive software developed the basic for the beeb's z80 copro expansion. Their rushed attempt took inspiration from (ie copied) bbc basic. It wasn't an evolution of it by the same people as you're inferring.
@dna9838 BBC was hamstrung by its lack of colours and zero sprite facility. Only 8K RAM is available on the BBC in high-res mode. Look at Vespertino and Pinball Dreams on the Amstrad, impossible on the BBC.
Considering it was a newcomer at the time of this video, it was already scoring pretty highly compared to the others. Amstrad eventually went on to buy out Sinclair, which pretty much says it all really.
As a fan of Acorn and Sinclair computers, it's a bit annoying, but the CPC was a very good machine for 1984. Not at all like Amstrad's reputation. If they'd have sold it with a modulator without the bloody monitor they could have sold it for considerably less and done better, but just the fact that it held its own as a viable format for software & games for years against the market dominating Spectrum and C64 says a lot. The 6128 was better again - disk drive, RAM and a proper keyboard (a lot better than the beeb), but again overpriced, mostly due to the monitor.
They could not do the gfx nor the sound test on C64. Rather complicated in BASIC with all those POKE and PEEK commands. Actually C64 could use a better BASIC, but unfortunately Jack Tramiel chose to save cost on BASIC licence. Commodore Plus/4 (came in 1984) had a much more advanced BASIC 3.5, knows almost everything the BBC knew (from 1981...)
The C64 had a useless BASIC, with no graphics or sound commands, and a very slow CPU running at only 0.9MHz. It also had the slowest disk drives known to man (each with it's own 6502 CPU inside!). The custom chips made it a great games and music machine, but it didn't have the incredible expansion capabilities of the BBC, the "fast" storage of the QL or the dedicated monitor of the CPC. A lot of other computers could have been included, there were so many to choose from. 😁
The legendary Guy Kewney who was the intended interviewee for a BBC program back in May 2006, but due to a misidentification by a receptionist, a bewildered Congolese business studies, Guy Goma, was ushered into the TV studio live on TV. He was actually there to be interviewed for a job, but he did his best when grilled on the subject of Apple Inc being sued by the Beatle's Apple Corp. A legendary TV moment which can be found on line. However, the puzzled Guy Goma did predict that most people would download their music over the Internet during that interview by Karen Bowerman.
Oh, and Tony Bastable was referenced in a song by Half Man Half Biscuit in 1985.
A inverted pentagram for the graphic test....I wonder why that was used.
I reckon the guy doing the test is a freemason or worse 😉
@@williamtopping Clearly lizards
Quite interesting, but I have to disagree: I'd give them all "6" for the pentagram routine.
Commodore Plus/4 could do the same and way faster and easier, arrived to the market at 1984. It has all the gfx routines, fills and in 121 colors, also mixed gfx/text screen (little similar to C=128 capabilities). 60KB free RAM together with the BASIC (BBC had much less, CPC had more). I tried those circle routines with math, and they are at least 3x slower than the built-in routine (I tried to compile it, but still just the same speed :-) ). Sound-wise it was little better than QL, but much less than CPC or BBC. BBC BASIC was a little more advanced in some ways, like long variable names,
In fact Plus/4 had one of the fastest 8bit processor of the time (faster than the Z80 at 3.5MHz), but worked at full speed only at the border, due to shared memory concept (=wait stages on the screen area). Full potential could be rached by switching off the screen, like on C128. The continuous RAM/ROM switches did not help too to gain speed (in BASIC). Certainly BBC could get some CPU upgrades made it super fast compared to C+4.
The biggest drawback of the Plus/4 was the low horizontal resolution (max 320 pixels), and the missing 80 char mode, made it almost useless for word processing, despite the built-in "office" package (that was also rather limited in functions). Later on some software based 80 and 64 char modes were created, and they were quite readable even at this low resolution (not on normal RF TV), so I can say it was a lost chance to create a small office home PC.
As an amateur young graphician, really enjoyed the lot of colors, but really the converted pictures show the C+4 full potential. Certainly raster tricks (FLI) helps to reduce the attribute limitation of the machine.
I made one slideshow several years ago with the help of IstvanV's converter.
plus4world.powweb.com/software/VDC_Challenge
There are some smart programmers who able to create even better routines with interlace. This one is from Larry, almost Amiga quality picture. Quite nice from a 8 bit computer launched in 1984.
plus4world.powweb.com/software/Dreamtime_2K18
@@MMSZolie get, you liked the Plus/4. But it didn't have the capabilities of the C64, the built in apps were terrible and the TED chip had a habit of burning itself out. The graphics commands are a function of the supplied language ROM. Most computers had alternative versions with more commands and faster routines, both 1st and 3rd party. CBM used Microsoft Basic, with all it's limitations, just a better version than the abysmal one they used in the PET, VIC20 and C64. The machine itself wasn't that fast, nor graphically capable, nor was it particularly cheap. It was a commercial failure, like it's TED based siblings. Atari 8 bits could put 128 colours on screen at once... in 1979. 256 colours could be done with a few major limitations. Plenty of machines could match the Plus/4
😂
This is remarkable quality
I'm shocked, I expected the QL's 68k cpu to blow away the others in the maths test. Strange
I know, I thought it failed because of poor marketing and the deal with Alan Sugar, not because it was less powerful.
@@ClassicReplay It was crippled by using the 68008, which has an 8 bit data bus, as Sinclair cut far too many corners with the design.
Here’s a good discussion thread about it, very interesting retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/15570/were-there-really-any-cost-savings-in-sinclair-ql-because-of-it-being-8-bit-desi
I’ve done a similar test using a prime number test and the CPC wins
@@ClassicReplay It has occurred to me since posting this comment and reading the thread that of course the IBM PC originally used an 8088, which was an 8086 with... an 8 bit databus. And for much the same reason, it reduced motherboard complexity and made the machine cheaper.
Love stuff like this!! Excellent Video.
Maybe the first unboxing video ever! 🙂 BTW... where is the C64?
At that point, in nearly every kids bedroom 😉
@@ClassicReplay And they went Bankrupt
A score based upon the amount of time it's been on the market. Dude's off his bloomin Hush Puppies.
Crazy times 🤣
Based on the amount of programs and peripherals available, which in turn tend to be linked to the time a system has been on the market. His Hush Puppies were quite securely affixed to his feet. Of course, things are very, very different today but back then, it made sense.
By his rationale, a better but newer computer will be marked down considerably. To make that section out of 22 to give the BBC the clear win was ludicrous. No doubt this was aired on BBC TV🤔
@MrGCHC and they charge us for it
The PCW benchmarks were always a bit silly. One of the machines being tested has 4x as much memory as one of the others but no credit was given for that. One of them has a pre-emptive multi-tasking operating system but was given no credit for that. Only the speed, but not the features, of BASIC interpreters were considered by those benchmarks.
I know, it was awful, so many parents would have watched and listened intently to this and probably made an incorrect decision. I personally went for the Amstrad as a kid, did my home work and found that it suited my interest and needs better than the others. If it wasn’t for the software round, I think the Amstrad would have won, but again, they didn’t fully examine what the OS offered and which gave the better ease of use.
@@ClassicReplay I was interested in writing 68k assembler and in the OS so I bought a ql. Actually two of them to use the networking. No part of this review was useful to me, not then either (I saw it on TV).
All the were fine art the time, but really they were in three different categories and it made no sense to compare like that.
I completely agree, if anything as a young boy the show just baffled me with waffle. I think the QL failed because of the storage media, should have gone with 3” or 3.5” disk with a backwards compatibility mode for previous Sinclair software on the ZX Spectrum. I remember playing QL Vroom and Stone Raider on the QL as a kid, the graphics were now in colour over the original ZX Spectrum, but somehow the sound wasn’t as good. It did look futuristic though, very sleek and easy to type on.
@@ClassicReplay I got the 464. It was competing with the BBC and the Commodore 64 (I don't recall why Apple wasn't considered). In the end my parents and I thought the bundled screen and tape drive wasn't merely greater value, but neater, less flailing cables, built for purpose... and the monitor offered better quality than the affordable alternative of a poor small TV. Mine didn't come with the 12 tape software pack sadly - only one pretty poor demo tape. That said I always admired my friend's Beeb and envied some of the C64 games too. Within 18 months I'd got a job and bought a 6128, with green screen, the disc drive being the big draw...
@@ClassicReplay For myself, I started my interest in computers with the Beeb at primary school. Fantastic machine, versatile, great keyboard, and built like a cold war tank (so could definitely handle schoolkids), but otherwise unobtainium on a limited household budget. It's memory limitations when the more demanding graphics modes were used didn't help.
Then in 1985, for my 11th birthday, just before secondary school, Mum brought me an Amstrad CPC 464 with colour monitor (the original proper tall key model, before Amstrad started cheaping out on it's design) from my local Dixons. The BASIC and up front expandability wasn't as good as the Beeb's, but there were more colours to choose from, more memory to play with, and you could add many of the things the BBC had on later as you actually needed them. It also was a great looking machine too, matt black with splashes of bright '80s colour, and line art on the cassette deck, not boring beige.
I mostly played games, but did a bit of programming as well.
Quite interesting, but he Is glossing over how the QL’s BEEP command actually works:
BEEP
sound
BEEP activates the inbuilt sound functions on the QL. BEEP can accept a variable number of parameters to give various levels of control over the sound produced. The minimum specification requires only a duration and pitch to be specified. BEEP used with no parameters will kill any
sound being generated.
syntax: duration:= numeric_expression {range -32768..32767}
pitch:= numeric_expression {range 0..255}
grad_x:= numeric_expression {range -32768..32767}
grad_y:= numeric_expression {range -8..7}
wrap:= numeric_expression {range 0..15}
fuzzy:= numeric_expression {range 0..15}
random:= numeric_expressian {range 0..15}
BEEP [ duration, pitch
[,pitch_2, grad_x, grad_y
[, wrap
[, fuzzy
[, random ]]]]]
duration specifies the duration of the sound in units of 72 microseconds. A duration of zero will run the sound until terminated by another BEEP command.
pitch specifies the pitch of the sound.A pitch of 1 is high and 255 is low.
pitch_2 specifies an second pitch level between which the sound will 'bounce'
grad_x defines the time interval between pitch steps.
grad_y defines the size of each step, grad_x and grad_y control the rate at which the pitch bounces between levels.
wrap will force the sound to wrap around the specified number of times. If wrap is equal to 15 the sound will wrap around forever:
fuzzy defines the amount of fuzziness to be added to the sound.
random defines the amount of randomness to be added to the sound.
Good morning friends. I do not agree with the note for programms in Amstrad. Amstrad had the full package that was developed for Spectrum with the advantage of the CPC itself like the hability to "type the commands in basic" and or the keyboard itself. Alan Michael Sugar was very smart in making the CPC series based on Z80 which had massive software developed for. I do not know when this video was made, but, for shure, I do not think the quotation for the Amstrad in the available programs is fair. On the other end QL ... How can the mathematical be worst that CPC or BBC ?? So far I remember QL was based in 680008 processor which was allready 32 bits processor ( allthough for reasons that I do not understand Clive limited the 68000 to the 680008 which sacrificed speed. Never understood why ) ... Even with the limitation of the 008 in the 68000 processor it should be faster than Zilog Z80 ou BBC 6502 ( if I am not mistaken )
Now, after buying myself a CPC and a Beeb, I can hardly find this benchmark of any use (now or back then). Those three are utterly different beasts based on vastly diverging technologies and design philosophies.
*CPC 464 is a toy.* It looks like a toy, and works like a toy. It may teach you something, but only as an edutainment toy.
*Beeb is a serious machine.* It looks serious, it feels serious (especially in 80-comumn mode), it has disassembly instructions on the back, and comes with serious software. Even games there were made by physics professors!
*QL is weird.* Even as a collector, I can't imagine, why I'd want that thing! I guess even back in the day nobody else could either. It could've been only popular with the enthusiasts, who desired a cheap 68k SDK.
Why in tarnation, were these machines compared based on the speed of rendering the Mark of the Beast???
You’ve completely misjudged the Amstrad. It too features an 80 column display, several modes and came with Digital Research CPM software. You could upgrade the RAM to 4mb, the most I ever got up to was 512k. You could add a 3” disk drive, later a 3.5” disk. You could use word processors, spreadsheets you name it. The Oliver Twins used it a development platform for their early Dizzy games and then ported to the ZX Spectrum. If you want to see its graphical capabilities, look up Pinball Dreams. In fact the Amstrad won in every department apart from available peripherals and software. Punished because it’s the newer computer. It won!
@@ClassicReplay You are talking of CPC 6128. I failed to find any of those capabilities inside my 646. There may have been hacks to make the system into a dedicated SDK (like Oliver Twins did), but that required soldering components and re-flashing ROMs.
If we allow modifications, with enough now-how and money, one could launch CPM on almost any other computer: BBC, Spectrum, Dragon, MSX2...
@volo870 As we saw in the benchmark, the CPC still comes out on top, no amount of tinkering will change that. To add support external floppies you plugged in and expansion card, the snappily named DDI-1. This contained a 765 disc drive controller and a ROM that extended Locomotive BASIC with AMSDOS.The CPC 664, 6128 and the 6128plus all had the AMSDOS ROM built into the mainboard.
@@ClassicReplay I used the BBC Micro at my Middle School in 1982/3 and I had a ZX Spectrum 48K at home. I first used the CPC 464 at a school friend's house and was impressed, and in 1987 I finally got one of my own. At the time I remember seeing it as a superior machine to the BBC Micro and it was. It was also the most reliable computer I have ever owned, even to this day in 2023, and it was used solidly for hours every day for four years, and then occasionally after that until 1993.
@@volo870 You can easily turn a CPC 464 into a 6512 nowadays, internally, for like 25€. The heart of the computer, the Z80 and gate array stay the same, and deliver the core qualities. I don't know why you call the BEEP serious and the CPC464 a toy, I see it more as the CPC is built using serious mass production in Taiwan, where the Beep is build ny hand on a cash register production line in England: it was forever having the prototype feel. Solid, but a complete non-design....
I wonder what the basic program they had is? Also I wonder how much the QL was held back with it's 8bit memory and peripherals? Noticeably absent is the Sinclair Spectrum and the Commodore 64. Having only recently discovered the niche 80's UK micros it seems that TV media (BBC) has an incredible Acorn bias.
I think the poor storage choice held back the QL. Should have gone with 3" or 3.5" floppy
QL had the most memory. 128k. BBC 32k. CPC 64k.
@@ClassicReplay Didn't they also botch the launch with supply issues or a recall or something denting confidence?
I believe this was an ITV programme, not a BBC one. At that time, the always cheap ZX Spectrum really was incredibly cheap, far cheaper than any of these. The C64 was absent, but it would have lost big time in this comparison. It had a relatively slow CPU running at 0.9 MHz, and amazingly, it's BASIC had absolutely no commands for graphics or sound. The BBC had worked with the government to teach computing principles and programming in UK schools (and homes) through a series of innovative TV programmes and a new school curriculum. A tender was put out for a government subsidised computer that would provide a standard for schools and colleges etc. It would be called the BBC Micro. Acorn won that contract, although originally it had been envisaged that the Grundy 'Newbrain' would be chosen... but Grundy couldn't deliver it on time. So yes, the BBC had a vested interest in promoting "their" computer. Like today's Raspberry Pi, it inspired the creation of a great many products and projects. But it's also what directly inspired the creation of the Raspberry Pi in the first place.
@@AndrewHelgeCox They pre-announced it even before they had a working prototype and when they did get it into production there was an added part which had to be incorporated into a dongle, for the first production run. Deliveries announced for 28 days turned into months, then not long after launching it at £399, the reduced it to £199. Poor old Clive - like a 1980s Starmer he believed if he said something often enough and wished it to happen it WOULD happen - but of course, it didn't.
They were still putting their evil symbolism into programs even back then.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Sadly most people don't understand how the Acorn BBC Micro won to become the BBC Micro and then the specs cut down so in reality it would have lost ! The BBC was able to have certain things because it had a guaranteed amount of sales so was able to be cheaper than if it was just competing in the open market. Sinclair had to at least match the BBC Micro on price otherwise it would never have sold at all which meant a cheapo keyboard etc. The QL was a a multi-tasking OS, had more real memory expandable up to 896k no page flipping. Someone creating benchmarks can easily tailor them to suit Z80 or 6502 over 68XXX and vice verse of course. I am not saying the BBC Micro was rubbish, it was certainly better than the Amstrad. If Sinclair had of used a better quality keyboard and used tape drives this might of helped it, but Sinclair thought that tapes didn't seem a business type item but later CST created a floppy disk interface but they only did this because people didn't like the unreliable microdrives even though they were quite fast when they worked. Ironically dropping the microdrives and supplying a better keyboard could have changed history but that the advantage of hindsight. Another small snippet of info for people that might be interested, a consortium tried to by the rights to the Sinclair QL from Amstrad but Amstrad didn't want any future competition from them. This consortium which included the person who created the OS QDOS as it was called wanted to create a true 68K PC with 64K colours on screen this would have competed with the Atari ST and Amiga which again might have made things more difficult for either of them. 68K was superior to X86 but Intel had better manufacturing capabilities so was able to beat Motorola that way rather than with better logical instructions and CPU design which they have continued to do so until AMD used TSMC !
For the BBC Computer Literacy Project the fight was between the Acorn Proton and the Sinclair ZX Spectrum. The QL wasn't around at that point. The only area where the Proton was lacking from the BBC's requirements was it couldn't run CPM - solved by Acorn Second Processor boxes. The QL's keyboard was Sinclair's better keyboard - remember the ZX Spectrum had rubber keys.The biggest problem with the QL is that it was launched before it was ready.
Don’t forget the terrible media it came with. Should have used a 3” disk drive
@@malcolmhutchison Sadly launching after its truly ready would have meant losing even quicker because of Atari ST etc. Remember the Atari launched booting some of its stuff from floppy because it wasn't truly ready. From the information I have gleaned it was a forgone selection for the Acorn Machine to become the BBC Computer obviously some wheels were greased to help this along especially since the 64k of colours etc and other specs removed which won them the race just to being chosen ! Once you have guaranteed sales with numbers suddenly production costs dramatically will reduce because suppliers will be eager to supply you. The QL has a truly multi-tasking OS 128k of ram expandable to 896k with a certain RAM card upgrade remember this was truly contiguous memory and not paged memory ! I would have loved to have seen Sinclair have released the QL with a floppy disk interface for external Floppy drives like the Atari had and that surely would have swung the BBC to choosing the QL but that didn't happen :(
@@ClassicReplay 3.5" would have been better, 3" was non standard as shown by history as it never became dominant and was chosen by Amstrad for whatever reason.
Not just Amstrad, quite a few including Nintendo. Also Amstrad sold almost 10 million computers with 3” drives, so hardly non standard 37 years ago. 3” would have kept costs down and they were very reliable.
Circle? What about multitasking capabilities?
The patron saint of Llandudno… who? Tony Bastable
The QL was obviously much faster, but their choice of running basic programs skewed it. QL basic was similar to the BBC basic, but rushed. The graphics modes of the BBC should have been considered as a plus. The software package included with QL was of a professional grade that I didn’t experience on any 8bit computer, it was excellent. The micro drives were fast but so unreliable, that you always needed backup of everything.
Imagine if they’d have released with a 1024 colour pallet and 3” disk drive 😯
You have to put the release of the QL in to the context of the home computer market of the time. 8 bit machines were dominant, none of the major player's machines had any concept of a multitasking OS, either preemptive or cooperative. Such things were new and unknown to the majority of home users... they might reasonably ask what tasks they would be doing that required such a thing? Nowadays we are used to it and take it for granted. But Windows and MacOS didn't get proper multitasking for a further decade after the QLs release.
The Amstrad!
Could someone please enlighten me what the heck was Prestel (spelling?) and how did it work?
Let me Google that for you 😊 Post Office Telecommunications's Viewdata technology, was an interactive videotex system developed during the late 1970s and commercially launched in 1979. It achieved a maximum of 90,000 subscribers in the UK and was eventually sold by BT in 1994.
This kind of scoring approach isn’t very useful. The best machine depends on what you want to do with it. For me, the beeb was a country mile ahead of the other two, but there were a few occasions I envied the amstrad.
The Amstrad was ahead on every test 🤷🏻♂️ But then they pull out this BS stat on available software and then the beeb wins 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@ClassicReplay well, the beeb did have more software and hardware options tbf, except for games. Agree that most of the metrics are BS though, including some that favour the amstrad.
The Amstrad was the superior machine. It had a better basic. The guys from Acorn, locomotive software wrote it 🤣
@@ClassicReplay there are some areas where loco or bbc basic are better than the other but bbc is much better integrated, supported, faster in most cases, and frankly the beeb had a keyboard you'd actually want to use for coding for any length of time. Locomotive software developed the basic for the beeb's z80 copro expansion. Their rushed attempt took inspiration from (ie copied) bbc basic. It wasn't an evolution of it by the same people as you're inferring.
@dna9838 BBC was hamstrung by its lack of colours and zero sprite facility. Only 8K RAM is available on the BBC in high-res mode. Look at Vespertino and Pinball Dreams on the Amstrad, impossible on the BBC.
The AMSTRAD wins.. on price
Considering it was a newcomer at the time of this video, it was already scoring pretty highly compared to the others. Amstrad eventually went on to buy out Sinclair, which pretty much says it all really.
As a fan of Acorn and Sinclair computers, it's a bit annoying, but the CPC was a very good machine for 1984. Not at all like Amstrad's reputation. If they'd have sold it with a modulator without the bloody monitor they could have sold it for considerably less and done better, but just the fact that it held its own as a viable format for software & games for years against the market dominating Spectrum and C64 says a lot.
The 6128 was better again - disk drive, RAM and a proper keyboard (a lot better than the beeb), but again overpriced, mostly due to the monitor.
Should of had the Commodore 64 in there , cracking machine .
They did it the month before, it was a weekly show
They could not do the gfx nor the sound test on C64. Rather complicated in BASIC with all those POKE and PEEK commands.
Actually C64 could use a better BASIC, but unfortunately Jack Tramiel chose to save cost on BASIC licence. Commodore Plus/4 (came in 1984) had a much more advanced BASIC 3.5, knows almost everything the BBC knew (from 1981...)
The C64 had a useless BASIC, with no graphics or sound commands, and a very slow CPU running at only 0.9MHz. It also had the slowest disk drives known to man (each with it's own 6502 CPU inside!). The custom chips made it a great games and music machine, but it didn't have the incredible expansion capabilities of the BBC, the "fast" storage of the QL or the dedicated monitor of the CPC. A lot of other computers could have been included, there were so many to choose from. 😁
A really pathetic comparison, damned clueless even. The BBC Master 128 cost MORE than the 520ST lol
Corruption