On 01/15/2015 04:09 PM, Rob Eaglestone wrote: > @C64 and Basic 2.0. It's a pity it didn't have Basic 4. But I guess it > didn't matter too much. Yeah... The C64 should have come out with what they shipped the 264 series with. Gerrit > I suppose someone may have created a Basic 4 C64 ROM for emulators such > as VICE? > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Ted Johnson <ejohnson.ed@gmail.com > <mailto:ejohnson.ed@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Check this out also http://minows.net/ > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Martin Hoffmann-Vetter > <martinHV@arcor.de <mailto:martinHV@arcor.de>> wrote: > > >> this might be interesting for you guys: > >> http://www.davidviner.com/cbm9.html > > > > That is BASIC 4.0. This seems to be BASIC 1: > > http://www.pagetable.com/?p=774 > > No, the C64 Basic is BASIC 2.0, but it has some patches from > BASIC 4.0. So > the C64 BASIC must be a downgrade of BASIC 4.0. Basic 1.0 is > only used in > the first PET! > > Martin > > > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list > > > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2015-01-15 16:00:42
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.