Talk:ZX Spectrum

message: ""The Z80 processor used in the Spectrum has a 16-bit address bus, which means only 64 KB of memory can be directly addressed. To facilitate the extra 80 KB of RAM the designers used bank switching so the new memory would be available as eight pages of 16 KB at the top of the address space. The same technique was used to page between the new 16 KB editor ROM and the original 16 KB BASIC ROM at the bottom of the address space""
It is the 8 bit processor which limits the amount of memory which can be addressed, not the address bus, which can be latched (as in the IBM PC).  And I'm fairly sure because of the kernal and the way the pins on the Z80 are tied up, only 48 kB can be accessed in the Spectrum.  I believe the extra memory on the +2 is accessed by paging in 16 kB at a time and swapping the original contents out "high" above 48K, using the offset addressing method available on the Z80.101.178.163.92 (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, the RAM starts at address 16384 (decimal).  There were some add-ons for the earlier Spectrums that allowed the ROM to be bypassed, effectively swapping in the contents of a programmable aftermarket chip.  Presumably that's also how the Hobbit managed to use 64K RAM without breaking compatibility. Pastychomper (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memory 

message: I've archived threads from this page, it's been 10 years, I thought it was about time. Have archived anything over 2 years or where the discussion had been closed. - X201 (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page archiving 

message: "In 1981, Sinclair Research had spent just over £5 on advertising, whereas after the launch of the ZX Spectrum it was projected that they would invest more than £10 million"
Now I know I saw at least one full page newspaper ad for the ZX81, so I'm finding it improbable, even taking into account inflation, that the advertising budget was that low. Indeed, Sir Clive Sinclair's main selling method until the ZX81 and Spectrum was through magazine ads. So £5 seems... low? I mean, that wouldn't even have gotten you a classified ad in the back of Private Eye in 1981.
At the same time, I don't know what the true figure is. If it was a typo and meant to be £5M, then it seems like £10M the next year isn't the big deal the rest of the paragraph seems to imply it was.
Anyone know the right numbers? 2601:584:300:345E:7D19:F07E:F0C3:ABAC (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I suspect this is a mistake but don't know what the true figure is 

message: The PC is easily the most sold microcomputer. Commodore 64 second. Maybe Amstrad PCW third with 8 million sold. 178.74.0.136 (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Spectrum is not the second most sold microcomputer 

message: Two statements in the article seem inconsistent. 
"Ultimately, the Spectrum was released as six different models"
"Amstrad's acquisition of the brand name saw the release of three ZX Spectrum models throughout the late 1980s"
I think the first statement possibly refers to the 16k, 48k, 48k+ 128k, +2 and +3.
I think the second statement possibly refers to the +2, +3 and +2A.
If we consider the +2A as a distinct model, should the first statement say that there were seven models altogether? 147.161.166.255 (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right, there is nothing to refute the +2A being a model in its own right. I've amended the statement in the lead. ♦ JAGUAR  12:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency of "models"? 

message: It's fair to say the current state of the Unofficial clones section is a bit of a cluster.
It's more difficult to say exactly when that part of the article went off the rails. Perhaps one arbitrarily chosen derailment point might be this edit, which might have "broken the window" by someone adding an example clone – and doubtlessly many people have fond memories of their clone in particular, along with a home bias towards clones in their respective country. Over time, this subsection has devolved, with repeated additions of parenthetical inclusions inside parenthetical inclusions, and when attempts were made to resolve some of these stylistic problems, the cleanup made things worse, by disassociating enumerated example clones from the country in question. Many of these edits very distinctly appear to have been introduced by ordinary people from those respective countries, people with apparently somewhat limited proficiency when it comes to English grammar and style – no offence. I'm not saying this to knock any particular editor, country, clone, or country's Speccy clone market. I would agree, if these kinds of machines were "big in Japan" (or whatever the country), that's relevant. But I don't quite dare to tread, don't quite dare to come in and cut ad-hoc norms and conventions from whole cloth here – I'm just the editor who points at the silly section and says, "That's starkers." Somehow people are going to have to form some consensus as to how to refer to the possibly transnational phenomenon of Speccy clones in certain parts of the world, whether and how to reference individual countries, and whether and how to reference individual clone models – and how to do all that while maintaining some sort of coherency and consistency in style, grammar and general readability. If you can tackle that and not make things worse, where over time so many others have done just that, then kudos. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look on these edjits, ye Mighty, and despair!