Talk:Sinclair ZX Spectrum/Archive 1

message: I'm sure I'm mistaken but i thought the vertical resolution was 176 not 192
: It is definately 192 not 176. ADSR6581 13:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
:You're probably just thinking about the main 22 lines of text (22 × 8 = 176), but there were a couple extra lines at the bottom where error messages appeared. By the way, please sign your posts.  --Goblin ›talk 14:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Screen resolution

message: Just found an old Chess game cassette for the ZX Spectrum. Does anyone have more information on the format data is encoded on the ZX Spectrum tapes? --Abdull 23:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are specific to the Sinclair Spectrum and can only by successfully loaded by emulators.  Check out [] archive to see if it has already been archived - if so it will be available in a digital format already for use with emulators.  If not, get in touch with somebody on the forums to see about getting it archived for prosperity. DamienG 00:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info on cassette 

message: :Spanish courts decreed all computers with 64 kB RAM or less must support the Spanish alphabet (including ñ) and show messages in Spanish.
"64kB or less"? That's surprising. I would have expected it to be "64kB or more". Can someone confirm the entry and explain why? --Malcohol 10:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was indeed <64 kB. There was even an Amstrad CPC 472 with 72 kB RAM, but only 64 kB was used, to circumvent the law. And it was originally not an absolute, but a tax on all computers with 64 kB or less which was not localized to Spanish. According to  the law was later changed to include all computers. --Frodet 18:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish law 

message: The External links section is getting seriously in need of pruning. I suggest we keep the World of Spectrum, comp.sys.sinclair FAQ, Planet Sinclair, ZXF and the ROM disassembly and chuck the rest. Any views? Cheers --Pak21 13:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. --StuartBrady 15:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I took the lilberty to prune some of the more obvious. There are some left not on the list above.... --Frodet 20:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I just wanted to thank whoever was responsible for this bit of text in the article: "Many ZX Spectrum users and enthusiasts have a historic rivalry with groups of Commodore 64 users, which is prevalent even today. Typically this manifests itself in flame wars on Usenet, where each side argues about which computer they believe is best, showing strong loyalties to their favourite machines. Despite the irrelevance of the two machines in the modern market, these arguments often break down into uncivilized acts of verbal abuse." - Beautifully phrased and gave me a great laugh. --bodnotbod 00:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you editor(s)

message: I just reverted the change to the permissions section, basically for two reasons:
# While a non-trivial number of developers have given their permission, this is largely irrelevant as it is the publishers who still own the copyrights, and very few of those have given permission; see eg .
# In general, the permissions have not been given to "download sites": they have been given to one site only, World of Spectrum, the only site which actively searches for copyright holders and asks for their permission.
Disclaimer: I am a minor maintainer of World of Spectrum. Cheers --Pak21 18:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the permission is irrelevant at all. The copyrights may remain with the publishers but the permissions given are highly significant given the difficulty of obtaining much of this software these days, not least because of the impact on the abandonware scene. While I grant that many permissions are only for WoS, the practice of obtaining explicit permission is increasingly common these days (Back2Roots used to do it for Amiga games). Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  08:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permissions, etc 

message: Great article!  I was wondering if it would be more prudent to say that the speccy + form factor was later adopted in the QL design.  I only say this because the Spectrum + came before the QL.  Thanks!
: No it didn't - the QL was launched in January 1984, the ZX Spectrum+ in October 1984 - see the Sinclair Research Ltd article. - Letdorf 09:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  QL-style enclosure? 

message: The clones section mentions that "several clones are still in production, such as the Sprinter (which is linked)" - but when you go to the Sprinter article it says production has finished.
Maybe someone who knows what a ZX Spectrum is could update that with some verifiable information about when the Sprinter was last in production?
I would edit but I don't have anything verifiable to include...
--Garrie 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clones