Musical potential of the NEXT.

This section is for discussing everything about Next hardware and latest updates.
User avatar
Black_Cat
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:11 pm
Location: Saint Petersburg, Russia Today
Contact:

Re: Musical potential of the NEXT.

Post by Black_Cat » Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:56 pm

SevenFFF wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:46 am
This is what I told him, and he said I didn’t have the ability to communicate or understand. I’m being charitable, and putting it down to language differences.
Your problem is that You're trying to give expert opinions in an area where you can't even use the terminology correctly.

User avatar
varmfskii
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:13 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM USA

Re: Musical potential of the NEXT.

Post by varmfskii » Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:21 pm

I don't know how the terms are used in Russian, but in the west, by native speakers of English the brand/manufacturer is a critical element in determining whether something is a clone or not. The Apple ][+ is not an extended clone of the Apple ][ precisely because it was made by Apple. Altwasser is an engineer who worked for Sinclair Research then Amstrad from 1981 to 1992.
Backer #2741 - TS2068, Byte, ZX Evolution

User avatar
varmfskii
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:13 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM USA

Re: Musical potential of the NEXT.

Post by varmfskii » Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:44 pm

As for developed by Sinclair or not, there is Sinclair Research Ltd. and Sir Clive Sinclair. Conceivably, one could be referring to either one. Now in this context, one would assume that you were referring to Sinclair Research Ltd. Richard Altwasser was an employee, so however much he contributed to the design does not change the fact that it was developed by Sinclair (the company). You claim otherwise indicates either, you are unaware of the meaning coming from the English usage or you are deliberately going contrary to this to be a troll.
Backer #2741 - TS2068, Byte, ZX Evolution

User avatar
SevenFFF
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:30 pm
Location: USA

Re: Musical potential of the NEXT.

Post by SevenFFF » Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:07 pm

He doesn’t seem to be very aware of English idioms, so it could be either. It’s quite amusing, in light of the nonsense he’s spouting and the way he projects that onto everyone but himself.

I wouldn’t bother too much arguing with him, as he’ll keep it up indefinitely. As long as the misapprehensions are corrected for the benefit of other people reading the threads he’s waded into, wondering WTF is going on. And make sure any genuine questions he has are answered.
Robin Verhagen-Guest
SevenFFF / Threetwosevensixseven / colonel32
NXtel Spectron 2084blog

User avatar
Black_Cat
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:11 pm
Location: Saint Petersburg, Russia Today
Contact:

Re: Musical potential of the NEXT.

Post by Black_Cat » Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:54 pm

varmfskii wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:21 pm
I don't know how the terms are used in Russian, but in the west, by native speakers of English the brand/manufacturer is a critical element in determining whether something is a clone or not. The Apple ][+ is not an extended clone of the Apple ][ precisely because it was made by Apple. Altwasser is an engineer who worked for Sinclair Research then Amstrad from 1981 to 1992.
That's why the development of ZX Spectrum in the West lags behind exUSSR developments for decades. :) In the West, there is still confusion between commercial labels and technical specifications. The marketoid thinking of the consumer society has clearly replaced the ability to think logically in the West. It's hopeless, you don't have to go on.

User avatar
varmfskii
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:13 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM USA

Re: Musical potential of the NEXT.

Post by varmfskii » Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:37 pm

Black_Cat: Can you see out your bellybutton?
Backer #2741 - TS2068, Byte, ZX Evolution

seedy1812
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 11:31 am

Re: Musical potential of the NEXT.

Post by seedy1812 » Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:32 pm

Black_Cat wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:49 pm
seedy1812 wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:54 pm
Black_Cat wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:38 am
At the moment, all exUSSR expansion devices are designed mainly for the NemoBus bus, which is the only correct evolution of the ZXBus interface of the original ZX Spectrum.
Strong words and I guess you have evidence to back this up.
Indeed! The main proof is the fact that both for the original ZX Spectrum, which was developed by Altwasser (and not Sinclair, as people who do not know the history of this computer believe), and for exUSSR clones using NemoBus, all 64k I / o port address space is available. Therefore, devices that use NemoBus are not limited in the selection of I / o port addresses, while in clones such as ZX Spectrum 128/+2, ZX Spectrum +2a,b/+3, ZX Spectrum Next, where the external expansion interface is implemented incorrectly, this is impossible, because this can cause a port conflict. That is why, and not for some other reason, clones such as ZX Spectrum 128/+2, ZX Spectrum +2a,b/+3, ZX Spectrum Next can not use exUSSR peripherals created for the NemoBus bus - this can lead to a conflict of I / o ports, while with the original ZX Spectrum, which developed by Altwasser, there will be no conflicts.
seedy1812 wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:54 pm
Surely all changes which Sinclair made are the official evolution of the ZXBus.
This is a typical misconception in the West, among those who do not know the history of ZX Spectrum. Sinclair did not and could not make any changes, because he had no technical education, and did not understand anything in the development of hardware and software of computers.
seedy1812 wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:54 pm
Looking at the docs ( BC IG #7 Стандартизация ZX BUS интерфейсов и шин_R20180525.txt ) which i got via (https://zx.clan.su/forum/7-82-1)

If I read this right the the Next cannot use NemoBus v.0.9-v.1.1 peripherals as instead of the standard expansion bus with a length of 28 it was expanded to 31.
No, that's the wrong conclusion. Mismatch in the number of contacts and signals can be corrected with the adapter. As I said above, the main reason is that clones such as ZX Spectrum 128/+2, ZX Spectrum +2a,b/+3, ZX Spectrum Next do not have the means to resolve I / o port conflicts, while in exUSSR clones that use the NemoBus bus, this tool is available.
This has made laugh by you thinking the word Sinclair relates to Sir Clive Sinclair. The hubris of the man to stamp his name onto the top of all the spectrum computers.

Sinclair
Zx spectrum

It does not say Sinclair Research just Sinclair.
Everybody knows and calls the company by Sinclair just as when they talk about the man they add his first name

So you say to use the Nemo bus a zx spectrum has to use an adapter. It sounds like the nemo bus is not a direct implentation of zx spectrum by design by Eastern hardware designers.

Stefan123
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:38 pm

Re: Musical potential of the NEXT.

Post by Stefan123 » Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:44 pm

Black_Cat, you use a home-cooked definition of what a computer clone is. A clone of a computer is an implementation of a certain computer by a company/individual other than the IP owner of the original computer. A computer clone naturally strives to be compatible with software and hardware peripherals for the original computer. A clone can be legal or illegal. A legal clone is one where the company has a license from the original IP owner to manufacture and sell the computer. An illegal clone is one where the company/individual does not have a license from the original IP owner to manufacture and sell the computer and typically involves reverse-engineering or illegal copying of hardware elements.

The Sinclair ZX Spectrum 128K/+2/+3 were not clones! They were improved versions of Sinclair ZX Spectrum 48K made by the IP owner Sinclair Research / Amstrad and were, to a large extent, software compatible with ZX Spectrum 48K and supported many (but not all) of its hardware peripherals. An example of a legal ZX Spectrum clone is the officially licensed Timex Sinclair 2068 by Timex Computer Corporation. Examples of illegal ZX Spectrum clones are the various clones made in former USSR, Eastern Europe and Brazil.

You seem to freely mix up Sinclair the company (Sinclair Research) with Sinclair the person (Clive Sinclair) where it suits your purpose. Sinclair the company designed the ZX Spectrum 48K and not one individual. Richard Altwasser was the lead hardware designer and mainly responsible for the ULA. The ZX Spectrum 48K ROM and BASIC was designed by Steve Vickers. Rick Dickinson designed the beautiful case. In addition to these famous individuals, there were for sure other less known employees at Sinclair Research that helped with the design of the ZX Spectrum.

The idea of the ZX Spectrum Next is to create an enhanced version of the ZX Spectrum that, to a large extent, could have been made in the late 80s by Sinclair Research / Amstrad if they had invested in the evolution of the ZX Spectrum series. SpecNext Ltd has an official license from the current IP owner of the ZX Spectrum (Sky BSB) to use the brand and the ZX Spectrum ROMs.

The main appeal of the Spectrum Next to most folks is a modern device that is able to run both the classic ZX Spectrum 48K/128K/+2/+3 games and new games specifically developed for the Spectrum Next. They are not worried about if the Spectrum Next bus is not compatible with your idea of what constitutes the "correct" ZX Spectrum bus. In addition to this, there are many, both new and old, software developers that want to write games and other software for the Next because they think its fun. Why don't you join us and contribute with constructive ideas or create software for the Next instead of complaining about and bad-mouthing it?

User avatar
Black_Cat
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:11 pm
Location: Saint Petersburg, Russia Today
Contact:

Re: Musical potential of the NEXT.

Post by Black_Cat » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:12 am

seedy1812 wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:32 pm
This has made laugh by you thinking the word Sinclair relates to Sir Clive Sinclair. The hubris of the man to stamp his name onto the top of all the spectrum computers.

Sinclair
Zx spectrum

It does not say Sinclair Research just Sinclair.
Everybody knows and calls the company by Sinclair just as when they talk about the man they add his first name
Yes, there are cultural differences. In the USSR ZX Spectrum Community, in the 80s, 90s the inscription "SINCLAIR" was used as the name of the computer along with "ZX Spectrum", while very often this inscription was written with the error "SINCLER". Subsequently, the use of "SINCLAIR" to refer to the computer has become a bad form and a sign of low cultural level. The name "Sinclair" has never been used to refer to the company, such a reduction is not accepted, but only in relation to Clive Sinclair himself. The company name is always written either as "Sinclair Research" or "Sinclair Research Ltd". There are also serious differences in relation to Clive Sinclair himself. In the West the attitude with enthusiastic piety as if it is Santa Claus is accepted. In our country, this attitude is considered a sign of low culture associated with ignorance of the history of ZX Spectrum. In the USSR ZX Spectrum Community, the norm is the attitude to Clive Sinclair as an illiterate, selfish asshole who foolishly disposed of the computer in his hands, which in the hands of Steve Jobs, and not such mediocrity as Sinclair, could well become the British analogue of the American "Apple". Agree that our view of Clive Sinclair is more realistic. On the contrary, the attitude to the true developers of ZX Spectrum - Richard Altwasser, Steve Vickers, and Rick Dickinson, in our community the most respectful.
seedy1812 wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:32 pm
So you say to use the Nemo bus a zx spectrum has to use an adapter. It sounds like the nemo bus is not a direct implentation of zx spectrum by design by Eastern hardware designers.
Structurally, the NemoBus bus was created in the likeness of the ISA8 bus. Agree that it is more logical if the slot is on the motherboard and not on the external device, and on the external device is the edge connector. This design is more reliable and compact, it was certainly a step forward in the development of bus architecture. It is quite natural that NemoBus devices cannot be connected to the ZXBus without a mechanical adapter. But this possibility was not originally planned. The correct solution is to use a bus extender connected to the ZXBus interface. It is both compact and reliable.
Last edited by Black_Cat on Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:13 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Black_Cat
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:11 pm
Location: Saint Petersburg, Russia Today
Contact:

Re: Musical potential of the NEXT.

Post by Black_Cat » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:25 am

Stefan123 wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:44 pm
Black_Cat, you use a home-cooked definition of what a computer clone is.
Our approach to development is pragmatism and logic. Therefore, the definition of the term "clone" should serve the development, not the maintenance of useless marketoid dogmas. We divide all computers into 4 groups: the original, a clone, a software-compatible computer to some extent, and computers that have nothing to do with the original. The original is a ZX Spectrum developed by Altwasser. A clone is a computer that uses the standard ZX Spectrum ROM, compatible with the ZX Spectrum screen memory distribution, and is an evolution of the original architecture. For example, this group includes ZX Spectrum 128/+2, ZX Spectrum +2a,b/+3, Timex Computer 2048. A spectrum-compatible computer is a computer that is to some extent compatible programmatically with the ZX Spectrum, but architecturally is not its evolution. This group includes computers Timex Sinclair 2068, Timex Computer 2068, SamCoupe. The ZX80, ZX81 and other Sinclair Research computers in our classification have nothing to do with the ZX Spectrum.
This is the only correct, scientific classification that allows us to move forward, not to stand in one place for 30 years. The sooner You realize this, the sooner you will be able to overcome the stagnation in development.
Stefan123 wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:44 pm
The idea of the ZX Spectrum Next is to create an enhanced version of the ZX Spectrum that, to a large extent, could have been made in the late 80s by Sinclair Research / Amstrad if they had invested in the evolution of the ZX Spectrum series. SpecNext Ltd has an official license from the current IP owner of the ZX Spectrum (Sky BSB) to use the brand and the ZX Spectrum ROMs.
From the point of view of development of architecture ZX Spectrum, ZX Spectrum Next is nothing more than untalented attempt of the evolution of the architecture of the ZX-Uno.

Post Reply