Atari.Org
Click Here
HomeNewsServicesForumsSupport

Talk Atari

Atari.Org Forums


16/32-Bit

8-Bits

Classics

Emulation

Jaguar

Lynx

Classic Consoles Forum 8-Bits Forum 16/32 Forum
Emulation Forum Jaguar Forum Lynx Forum
 
 Subject: RE: Why?
Author: Mill (ppp-189-59.20-151.libero.it)
Date:   11-07-2001 18:57

In my opinion, Star Trek is easy to program (also in machine language) and is a very powerful machine indeed.
Maybe Star Trek counts so many fans due to another reason: it started in 1985/86, when other machines had names like MSX or C-64 or VIC-20, but they all were almost a toy, compared to Star Trek. The core of the ST (ST = Star Trek for those who did not read the reply by Anders Eriksson) is powerful still nowadays: if you digit at the DOS prompt the magic word "debug" and press "enter" and then the sequence "r" (enter) "d" (enter) and "q" (enter), you will notice that the 32-bit memory addresses are a couple of TWO 16-bit registers (DS and IP) so those machines look like a man who wants to dig with a spoon instead of using an escavator... Well, if that man runs fast (nowadays some run up to 1.5 Ghz) he succeeds in a short... but he cannot be took as an example of efficiency... in fact, 16 bit are 64 KB, 32 bit are 4 GB... with Star Trek you could theoretically load a movie in RAM !! (even if, practically, you can address only 24 bits - 16 MB)
Apple MacIntosh is nearly a standard in publishing thanx to its memory addressing capabilities! So, Star Trek is nowadays still the best computer architecture in the world !!

Mill

 Topics Author  Date
  Why? new The Redeemer 11-07-2001 11:54 
   RE: Why? new Anders Eriksson 11-07-2001 12:31 
   RE: Why? new scott 11-07-2001 13:04 
    RE: Why? new The Redeemer 11-08-2001 11:55 
     RE: Why? new scott 11-09-2001 09:12 
   RE: Why? new MikeyB 11-07-2001 13:51 
    RE: Why? new Shane 11-07-2001 14:53 
     RE: Why? new Fat Rakoon 11-07-2001 20:15 
      RE: Why? new Jan Thomas 11-07-2001 20:19 
      RE: Why? new shalroth 11-08-2001 11:55 
       RE: Why? new The Redeemer 11-08-2001 12:04 
        RE: Why? new Shalroth 11-08-2001 23:55 
      RE: Why? new The Redeemer 11-08-2001 12:01 
       RE: Why? new Fat Rakoon 11-08-2001 19:52 
   RE: Why? new ggn 11-07-2001 14:51 
    RE: Why? new Jan Thomas 11-07-2001 15:04 
    RE: Why? new Fat Rakoon 11-07-2001 20:18 
     RE: Why? new scott 11-08-2001 10:01 
      RE: Why? new Fat Rakoon 11-08-2001 19:54 
       RE: Why? new scott 11-09-2001 09:17 
   RE: Why? new Joshua Kaijankoski 11-07-2001 15:10 
    RE: Why? new The Redeemer 11-08-2001 12:08 
     RE: Why? new Fat Rakoon 11-08-2001 19:55 
   RE: Why?... WHO! new TC_Steve 11-07-2001 15:25 
    RE: Why?... WHO! new scott 11-08-2001 10:06 
     RE: Why?... WHO! new shalroth 11-08-2001 12:06 
      RE: Why?... WHO! new Fat Rakoon 11-08-2001 20:04 
       RE: Why?... WHO! new Shalroth 11-08-2001 23:57 
        RE: Why?... WHO! new Fat Rakoon 11-09-2001 03:02 
         RE: Why?... WHO! new shalroth 11-09-2001 15:30 
       RE: Why?... WHO! new scott 11-09-2001 09:22 
    RE: Why?... WHO! new shalroth 11-08-2001 11:59 
   RE: Why? new gabberkid 11-07-2001 15:50 
   RE: Why?  Mill 11-07-2001 18:57 
    Quite So! new The Redeemer 11-08-2001 12:12 
    RE: Why? new Fat Rakoon 11-08-2001 20:06 
     RE: Why? new Gingerwilly17 11-10-2001 00:10 

 Reply To This Message
 Your Name:
 Your Email:
 Subject:
 Human verification:   What's this?
               _    __     _ _     
 _ __  ___ _ _| |_ / _|___| (_)___ 
| '_ \/ _ \ '_|  _|  _/ _ \ | / _ \
| .__/\___/_|  \__|_| \___/_|_\___/
|_|                                
    



Copyright © 1997-2024 Atari.Org 
Atari is registered trademark of Infogrames