Talk:Amstrad CPC

message: Suggestion - Can we add a bit on the addition of added Firmware.
My 6128 was always using PROTEXT? from Arnor? and a bank of other ROM based software Victuallers 11:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firmware

message: The following text was submitted to the article by an anonymous contributor, but was subsequently moved over here due to its rather "unencyclopedic" form---as it stands now, it smacks somewhat like a newsgroup posting (nothing wrong with that per se; it just doesn't fit in a wkp article, looking like that).
CPC and other small Computers of this time
trying a subjective ;-) & short run on that item you got the following:
* it was simple said better then most of Sinclair's computers, lacking even the microdrives, having a good keyboard and you haven't so much hardware bugs. Well, they are earlier in the market. 
* it compares well with the Commodore C64, better BASIC on the CPC, but there're no sprites
* it was quite cheaper than the early IBM PC, but lacking it's modularity and future.  
* it was cheaper than the early Apple Macintosh, which have a GUI, but to less memory
* it was worse than the later Atari ST and Amiga, in speed and 3.5" drives
In those days you've to wait for hours calculating a single mandelbrot, hoping to have a Gray some day ... :-) As the Commodore, the CPC was a well done homecomputer, made for working and writing programs, for playing, sometimes. It was brave one, surviving nowadays in emulators and old, but working electronical history.
Regarding the first of the items above, I observe that the "better than"-argument, as far as it's relevant, follows partly from the difference in release dates* of the machines (as the contributor indeed indicates), and that the keyboard should be given more attention in the article than is now present.
(* due to the time interval's progress of electronics, falling prices of components, and Amstrad's advantage of not having to do very pioneering work in home computers)
As for the second point above, which is generally correct, the main features of Locomotive BASIC on the CPC, compared to the Spectrum's Sinclair BASIC and the C64's Commodore BASIC should perhaps be more clearly noted in the article.
The three remaining items is not particularly relevant, I think, since the 16-bit machines listed were not direct competitors to the CPC (or the Spectrum or the C64, for that matter, although some CBM adverts of the early 80s actually listed the original IBM PC as an expensive alternative to the C64).
All in all, however, I think the section offered a reminder of several points to be improved in the present article. --Wernher 21:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How good's your German? There's something about the style of the bulleted list and the paragraph after it that suggests a native German-speaker, to me. PeteVerdon 01:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well it happened, Garfield the game, Dynamic Duo and Kentilla for C64 all worked on my CPC, no other game I found worked though.. :), but I didnt have that big a collection of C64 games to try. UnlimitedAccess 21:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure those games weren't actually stored in "dual format" tapes?
Some developers/publishers had, in fact, marketed "multi-format" games with the same game for e.g. C64 and Amstrad CPC on one tape, but on different sides, with little success. I mean, even the BASIC dialects of the two machines aren't compatible, let alone the hardware... EpiVictor 23:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Possitive, Kentilla was a text adventure game and I have it for both the C64 and the CPC464 version and both work on my CPC... If they were duel format, they are unlabeled as such.UnlimitedAccess 02:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Garfield very well could of been duel format because it appeared tempremental and only worked some of the time.. perhaps it was luck when i picked the CPC side or not.UnlimitedAccess 02:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the cases can only be two: since Kentilla was a text adventure game, as long at didn't use any sound or ghraphics, it could probably have been written entirely in BASIC and rely on ASCII saving for loading and running on both machines (like some sort of "portable software", if you prefer). The other option would be of course making a small BASIC loader (written so its compatible with both machines) and then the loader discerns what machine its running on and executes the proper machine code located in an external file or in the DATA portion of the BASIC file (with POKE's, PEEK's, etc. ). This has of course the disadvantage of taking up double space for each game, so it can only wotk with simple programs.
Most probably, your games were either twin format or, in the case of the text adventure, written in very clean basic. This can be verified with an emultor, at any time...EpiVictor 17:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison section moved from article

message: Was it? RS232 is an 8-pin connection: I remember the printer port to be an edge-connector style of thing, much like the expansion connector, but I may be wrong.
:It looks to me as though it wasn't. The French variant of Wikipedia states for the 646 that "On regrettera notamment l'absence d'interface RS232" and the comp.sys.amstrad.8bit FAQ (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/amstrad8bit-faq/) states in answer 3.4 "Neither the CPC nor the PCW have a RS 232"
::RS232 is a serial standard. The CPC's printer port was a Centronics-ish parallel port, an edge connector on the mainboard. As I recall looking at the manual, it actually only provided 7-bit support (for some reason the MSB was connected to ground). This caused me great bother when I tried to get it to provide graphical print-out on an old EPSON 9-pin printer because it couldn't send a complete ESC/P command set.
:::Amstrad released an RS-232 add-on, which plugged into the back. As said, the printer port was a parallel one with the 8th bit zeroed. I think the 8th bit of that IO port was used for something else.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovingboth (talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  RS232 printer connector 

message: As well as Gryzor and Turrican, there's a game I remember which was only available on the CPC and from a programming point of view it blew everything away. I think it was called Helter Skelter and the guy who developed it also wrote for CPC User as "The Hairy Hacker". The game was so complex that when run from tape, it actually had to overwrite some of the base O/S to give it enough space to run.
I'm not adding it as I'm not 100% sure this is the correct name, but if someone can confirm then this definitely deserves to go in as an example.
IainP (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a review and screenshot of the game, but seriously neither the screenshot nor the review look very promising :-( It looks like it's yelling "I'M A SPECTRUM PORT!", "quite a contrast to the gorgeous loading screen and the cute and catchy music" as the review says. This other review is in german, but the CPC screenshots from the game look spectrumesque :-( EpiVictor 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just played the game...well it's nothing exceptional, and nothing seems to indicate a "complex programming". The graphics are basic, the music is catchy and the frame rate suffers a lot...now I don't have the "sk1llz" to check if it does indeed overwrite the tape OS while loading (BTW, the basic program modules are within the 64K limit) but else it's NOT an "exceptional game", under any point of view EpiVictor 22:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exceptional games 

message: From the article: "CPC titles rarely featured smooth scrolling or sprite handling due to programming complexities". Now, I suppose the smooth scrolling is a fair enough point, but sprite handling? Sprites are everywhere in CPC games. It may not be hardware sprite handling, but I don't think that makes a difference.Cpc464 13:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "smooth" adjective refers to both "scrolling" and "sprite handling", it doesn't mean that the Amstrad CPC titles didn't have ANY scrolling or sprites. If you find the phrase confusing as it is...well...rephrase it :-) EpiVictor 16:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I really don't think these sorts of comparisons are helpful. It's difficult to know whether they are biased... and sometimes bigger numbers aren't everything. (Consider, for example, the quality of a machine's BASIC implementation... how do you measure that fairly?) --StuartBrady (Talk) 22:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As for the claim the CPC had a faster CPU, the clock rate isn't everything (we see that even today).  A 1 MHz 6502 was very fast, a Z80 at the same speed would have been much slower.  Anyways, I agree with StuartBrady about the comparsion stuff not being very helpful.  85.19.140.9 17:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison 

message: I've cleaned up the text as much as I can, but I can't find anything out about this machine. If nobody can find any sources for this, I think it will have to go. --StuartBrady (Talk) 12:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From its description it seems more like a "general purpose 8-bit computer" like the Sprinter, whose main purpose is ZX-Spectrum hardware emulation but is (should be?) flexible enough to emulate other Z80 based systems. EpiVictor 15:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: However, following and translating the provided link, it seems that this "Patisonic" firm has produced only a ZX Spectrum clone, and an unspecified 64-K machine with 4-channel digital sound output...but no mentions to an "Aleste 520 EX" machine or anything suggesting they designed and built a "Super CPC". EpiVictor 15:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aleste 520EX 

message: The games quality on the CPC could be quite variable but when it was good it was exceptional. Also, for certain styles of games the CPC was by far and away the best 8-bit mainstream platform, ie 3D isometric and vector orientated titles. The CPC even had a filled polygon game in the shape of Starstrike 2 and looked like an early ST or Amiga title. The disc version of Starglider also pushed the early 16-bit titles in frame rate and smoothness and was probably the most sophisticated wireframe game of the day. 
The CPC versions of Knightlore, Alien 8, Head Over Heels & Batman ran at higher resolution and with more colour and no colour clash than compared to the Spectrum versions which are ususally used as the example platform for these particular titles. In particular the CPC version of Fairlight was significantly better graphically than the Spectrum version.
There was always a question mark on the scrolling ability of the CPC but when programmed intelligently it could be superb as shown in the port of Uridium which was arguably better than the C64 version. As previously mentioned the quality of the French software in perticular was very high with the likes of Get Dexter and Doomsday Blues. The audio side of these games as well also pushed the AY soundchip very hard into passable even for a C64 comparison. Though the SID chip in the C64 was a much better sound chip when coded for well the CPC sound chip could give a good account of itself and some excellent pieces of music were written for it. 
Games that should not be forgotten as excellent (quality conversions from other formats or arcade conversions) and sometimes groundbreaking titles on the CPC included: Starglider, Rescue On Fractalus, The Eidolon, Yie Ar King Fu, Little Computer People, Starstrike 2, Mercenary, Elite, Kong Strikes Back, Bruce Lee, The Sentinel, Starquake, Dun Darach, Marpsort, Tir Na Nog, Sweevo's World, Knightlore, Alien 8, Head Over Heels, Batman, Bobsleigh, Combat Lynx, Project Future, Dan Dare, Uridium, Bounder, Trailblazer, Sorcery, Exolon, Frost Byte, Barry McGuigan's Boxing, Fairlight, Xeno, Revolution, Spindizzy, Tempest, Wizball, Cauldron, Cauldron 2, Barbarian, Get Dexter, Doomsday Blues, Starion, Highway Encounter, Alien Highway, Turbo Esprit, Deep Strike, Tau Ceti, The Academy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.8.248.2 (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, none said the CPC didn't have good games (and the screenshots used are mostly from what would be considered "the good ones" for the CPC). On the other hand, as an ex-Amstrad user, I had my fair amount of Amsoft titles shoved into my face, and for each title I was proud (or at least not ashame) of showing to a C64 or Spectrum user, there were 3 or 4 that had no reason to exist, if not as a bad joke. EpiVictor 23:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Of the games on the list, Sorcery in particular is worth looking at. The graphics will, of course, look extremely poor today, but for its time they were truly beautiful and lively.--Peter Knutsen 10:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Games quality 

message: This has now been removed twice.  I believe it to be valid information - and hardly overly negative.  Any comments? Tim (Xevious) 09:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing it all is too drastic, but perhaps there should be some sourcing at least for the technical parts (e.g. scrolling, lack of attribute clash, perhaps a few comparative screenshots between similarly priced, same age games with extremely different coding quality). EpiVictor 10:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem with sourced statements going back in. I'm very much opposed to a general philosophy that articles have to contain criticism sections, especially when said sections are populated by chatty commentary created on the spot by editors. That's not how we're meant to write articles. Chris Cunningham 10:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: The comparison section is largely biased towards the CPC and seems to be written by people without deeper knowledge of the other platforms. I rewrote the comparison with the C64 somewhat, but the whole section is in need of a rehaul, really. 80.217.170.104 08:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I always considered Locomotive BASIC to be one of the CPC's strong points, certainly compared to the chronic C64 BASIC. I've certainly never heard it described as "primitive" before, and a statement like that definitly needs to be referenced. But I'm just going to remove that bit rather than waste my time looking for a reference I won't find. :) Miremare 23:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it turns out that the article isn't referring to the CPC's BASIC after all, it's talking about the C64 in that paragraph! I've clarified it though. Miremare 00:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison again

message: I am not sure that the removal of the sections on the relationship with its main competitors  and on the programming of the audio and video chips  has improved the article. While I agree that they need more sources, I can't see how the term "fancruft" applies here. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. There is no need for any "my machine's better than yours" statements. The sections were unreferenced, non-neutral, and detailed programming tricks of little interest to non-fans - fancruft. I have re-organised the article and added some, much needed, references with the view of adding more in the near future. Nreive (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removals 

message: Nitpicking I know, but I think the sound chip used in the later Amstrad CPCs made in Taiwan used a Yamaha chip of the family used in the Spectrum 128k and the Atari ST.
[ For any reading this who may wonder, the CPC had neither hardware scrolling of any type nor hardware sprites.  It relied on pure 'cubes' to move the screen memory around.203.26.122.12 (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound chip 

message: Weren't the German versions of this machine named "Schneider"? Article should make some mention of this. How did the German machine differ from the British one? 2fort5r (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I introduced a new section for the Schneider brand of CPC models, "Schneider CPC" already redirects to the article. TBH, I found it quite difficult to place the section because, compared to other home computer line articles (e.g., for the ZX Spectrum or the Amiga line), the Amstrad CPC article is rather poorly structured. I hope the new section is in the right place, but ultimately I feel that the article needs a structural overhaul. --Takimata (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schneider 

message: I would like to know more about the devlopment history of the CPC. Did it have any antecedants or did the design team start from scratch? Who were the design team - were they Amstrad people or part of some other company? 2fort5r (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development 

message: www.cpczone.net is very slow and often inaccessible altogether. Is this situation permanent? I would like to link game articles to it but that's not practical in these circumstances. 2fort5r (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this the site has been taken over by hackers and is downloading malware onto visiting browsers. 2fort5r (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: www.cpczone.net

message: With the Nov 1 revisions, the weasel wording has been removed and source requests have been fulfilled. I still feel that the article could need some additional work (more detailed description of the model history, better structure for hardware and extension, perhaps a section on development), and I'll get to that as soon as I find some free time. But can we get at least rid of the ugly weasel word and source request tags now? What do you think? --Takimata (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as the requests have been fulfilled, I removed the respective tags. --Takimata (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words, source requests 

message: I started reworking the page, starting with expanding and, in some places, correct the plus range section. I plan to significantly expand the model history (separate sections for CPC464, CPC664, CPC6128) and add a section on development. I'm not sure what to do with the GX4000 section, tho, seeing as there is a dedicated article on the machine I am inclined to leave it with a smaller paragraph here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takimata (talk • contribs) 23:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page rework ... GX4000? 

message: I haven't got time at the moment, but it would be nice to add some information regarding the other peripherals available for the CPC. Off the top of my head:
* Amstrad light pen
* Amstrad TV tuner for the colour monitor
* Romantic Robot Multiface II
* Dk'Tronics 64k expansion
* Dk'Tronics mouse expansion (came with Advanced OCP Art Studio)
* Dk'Tronics silicon disc
Does anyone fancy having a go? Cpc464 (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already compiled a pretty extensive list, but I'm not sure how to best go about it. Faced with WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I'm currently researching ways to integrate an overview of peripherals without having a lengthy list of extensions, peripherals, and accessories that is only marginally relevant to the topic. Any suggestions? How are other (top-rated) articles dealing with it?  --Takimata (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peripherals 

message: shiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. [with the wire accent].  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.57.11 (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than "you" in the Wikipedia context means "we", and you are always free to make improvements: Please elaborate. This is the Amstrad CPC page, and the 464 is one of the CPC models. The article is lacking some detail for the original models yet, but what exactly are you missing? --Takimata (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  are you serious? you don't have an article for the 464 with the tape? 

message: I believe the 3" drives were in fact manufacturer by [Panasonic (evidence)] and not Hitachi after all.
Does anyone have evidence of Hitachi?  (I contacted them in the 80's when my drive failed after reading Hitachi were the manufacturer in an 8-bit ZX Spectrum magazine and they claimed not to know anything about 3" drives)
DamienG (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the floppy disk article, the 3" floppy was a joint venture between Maxell, Hitachi, and Matsushita, so there may have been various manufacturers. Miremare 18:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  3" drive manufacturer actually Panasonic 

message: I feel I should not let this edit uncommented, especially to the editor, Manbemel. I get that you are proud of, I assume, the recent acquisition of an MP-1 adapter, I do. But I'm sorry, your "Amstrad with MP-1 plugged to TV set.jpg" is a really, really, really bad and haphazardly edited image that offers little to no additional information to the CPC464 image we already have on top of the article--especially when left uncommented like in your edit. Also, I removed the MP-x paragraph in "Extension" not out of malice but because it is redundant. There is already a description of this first-party accessory in "Video", and your paragraph just describes its function again--albeit in far more words. However, I took your picture, sized it down, and put it next to the respective paragraph in "Video". Takimata (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, I own that module since 1985, it's not a recent acquisition at all, therefore I'm not and I do not need to be proud of anything at all. Secondly, the image serves its purpose, which is to show the module in action, something unavailable in Commons prior to the upload of that image. If you don't like the aesthetic composition of the image (you're entitled to do so, even though it is something secondary, a bad image is always better than the absence of an image at all), remember: it's a Commons image. You can download it, fix it yourself they way you see appropriate and upload it again. Feel free to do so if you think you can improve the image. Finally, those rude manners were completely unnecessary and quite offensive. I uploaded that picture to make it available in Commons without expecting anything in return, I was not expecting a reward or honor, but the least someone would expect was some respect for the work of doing it, regardless of their subjective opinion about it. Next time, please, try to use less bitter words when qualifying somebody's work, since you can unintentionally hurt someone's feelings.--Manbemel (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I realize I came across as mean-spirited, which certainly was not my intention. I apologize. I hope you can still see the reasoning beneath my poor choice of words. --Takimata (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edit of June 27th, 2012 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Amstrad CPC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720221414/http://amstrad.cpc.free.fr/article.php?sid=38 to http://amstrad.cpc.free.fr/article.php?sid=38
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080510131526/http://web.ukonline.co.uk/cliff.lawson/cpchomec.htm to http://web.ukonline.co.uk/cliff.lawson/cpchomec.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Lacking a German entry I looked it up here in the English WP, without further success...
Maybe someone still has a manual and can describe correctly how it worked?
While having it used massively (and maybe could from the spine if I had a CPC464 under my fingertips) I can't resemble it to put it in words in any good way, Mideal (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy Cursor: Redirect here, but no explanation? 

message: Could the author of the words "...is an unauthorized and unofficial clone of the Amstrad CPC..." in the KC compact section of this article please provide evidence for this claim? Or is it this typical Wikipedia-Kind of making their own history by heroize all from the "west" and blame or degrade all of the "east" as fraud? 79.204.211.7 (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not "author the words", but I removed them. You are correct in criticizing the lack of sources for the claim, as self-evident as it is considering common practice at the time. The accusation that it originates from an "anti Eastern German" bias is uncalled for, though. Takimata (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof needed