Beiträge von Richard Hallas

Zitat von Snoopy

For using BBC BASIC you only need a browser!

BBC BASIC online

I know! Yet another good example of how widespread, accessible and popular it is – all good reasons for porting it to the MEGA65!

Zitat von ubik

Zitat von Richard Hallas

I regret not being able to help more directly on a technical level, but if I can manage to facilitate something through some polite negotiations, that would be a lot better than nothing!

Regarding that... do you by any chance have a contact who knows about 8-bit BBC BASIC licensing? I know the 32bit ARM variant is open sourced, but so far I didn't manage to find out if that license applies to 8 bit BBC BASIC as well.

(a little bit of background: I'd love to see BBC BASIC running natively on the MEGA65 platform. And since – despite all my lobbying and pleas and reasoning – no one seems interested, I guess I'll have to do it myself Porting the BBC core so that it runs on the FPGA surely is nice and all, but it doesn't bring the MEGA65 platform forward. We need this stuff running on the MEGA65 natively, and it's definitely doable. So I'd like to do it. But first I have to know if it's legally ok to do so. There's nothing worse than spending months and months of work, only to have it screwed up by some lawyer...)

Well, I for one am definitely on your side, then! I heartily agree about BBC BASIC; it'd be a fantastic asset to the MEGA65, and I'm not sure I see the attraction for starting again from scratch with a brand-new version of BASIC when such a good one as BBC BASIC exists. Not to mention that BBC BASIC is so well established and widely used. And, of course, in its original guise it has an inline 6502 assembler which should in theory be mega-useful on the MEGA65…!

Anyway, to answer your question… to the best of my knowledge, the rights are owned by Richard Russell, who wrote the Windows, MS-DOS, Z80 and SDL versions of BBC BASIC. He also, I believe, now has some sort of Android app-maker based on BBC BASIC. And he also ran a BBC BASIC support group at one time (I don't know whether it's still on the go). I've never had personal contact with him, but his name has come up many a time and if anyone can help you in this excellent venture, it'll surely be him. I'd hope he'll prove approachable and helpful.

His website is here:

Richard T. Russell's site: BBCBASIC.co.uk

He's still selling BBC BASIC for Windows as a commercial product (£30), but he provides many other versions on his site for free, and there are still some obscure versions you can download from there (such as one for Tatung Einstein). You can get a version for CP/M for free, too.

It's worth also mentioning that third parties have already been allowed to create their own versions too… in particular, there's a version of BBC BASIC for the ZX Spectrum by Jonathan Graham Harston which can be found here. It includes Spectrum-specific adaptations. Indeed, I'd heard on the grapevine that someone had even been working on a version for the ZX Spectrum Next, though I've no idea about its status.

Anyway, Richard Russell is definitely your starting-point, and based on what I know I'm reasonably optimistic about your chances. (Famous last words…!) Good luck.

Zitat von adtbm

So i am really sorry, if i may have sounded a bit harsh, that was definetely not my intention.

Absolutely no apology needed – I completely understand your position.

As for approaching David Banks and asking him myself… yes, I'd already wondered about doing so, but I thought I should wait for your response first because I don't want to tread on anyone's toes or complicate matters. However, now that I know you're happy for me to make an approach, I will indeed do so.

I regret not being able to help more directly on a technical level, but if I can manage to facilitate something through some polite negotiations, that would be a lot better than nothing!

Zitat von FeralChild

Richard Hallas

It would certainly be possible to hide line numbers (with dummy numbers) from the user this way or another, but you would need a specialized editor, it wouldn’t be possible to use the CBM-like command line. Quite some work, though, to make it a sane tool.

That's why I reacted positively to @M. J.'s suggestion of a built-in text editor. Such a tool could be relatively simple but still a very good BASIC editor; it'd obviously just need to do the specialised job of tokenising/detokenising BASIC programs. But when editing them, it could default to not showing line numbers at all (unless the user turned them on). And when retokenising the BASIC, it would effectively do a 'renumber' operation so that it's another thing not to have to worry about.

Thus, listing the program at the CBM command line you'd still get a normal listing with line numbers as you'd expect, but in the editor you'd edit the content without needing to see any line numbers at all.

For what it's worth, that's how it works on RISC OS. You can go to the command line and enter BASIC, list programs and see their line numbers as you'd expect. But edit those same programs in a desktop multitasking general-purpose text editor and you don't see any line numbers at all (unless you choose to). It's a good way to work. Even a quite simple text editor is usually much preferable to editing BASIC at a command line.

Hi adtbm,

Thanks for the response. And I'm sorry if I was seeming to push. That wasn't my intention; I was just interested to know whether anyone was actually thinking about this or not. And forgive me – I'm not really familiar with how the team is structured. There was previously talk of 'the team' porting particular cores, so I wasn't sure to what extent it was 'official' or volunteer efforts (or a mixture).

As to the "Are you interested?" question at the end…! I honestly wish I had the expertise to do the job myself, but unfortunately I simply don't.

Just an observation: no-one has responded to the idea in my previous message about porting BBC Micro/Master cores to the MEGA65.

I'm wondering whether this is being given any consideration… or did I simply write too much in my last message? Maybe people skimmed the initial Spectrum bit and didn't get as far as the BBC stuff at the end!

Zitat von M. J.

Write a (tiny) text editor and put that into rom. (You gonna need it anyway.)

Absolutely – taking this approach would make it much easier to write BASIC without line numbers, and discourage the use of GOTO/GOSUB in favour of writing better structured code.

Zitat von FeralChild

But I do not intend to drop line numbers - I would like to stay reasonably compatible with BASIC 2.0 even in M65 native mode.

Couldn't line numbers at least be made optional? I.e. there if you really want them but absolutely unnecessary if you don't?

This is the way BBC BASIC works in its 32-bit versions (i.e. on RISC OS). There, you can write your BASIC programs entirely without line numbers, and it's standard practice not to use them – though you can if you really must. But you'll be hard pressed to find any BBC BASIC program on RISC OS with a GOTO or GOSUB in it. In fact, a sizeable proportion of multitasking RISC OS desktop applications are actually written in BASIC. The language is so fast on RISC OS that in most cases it's on a par with compiled C code, for example, and the structuring is also so good that you can write neat and modular desktop applications, and you simply don't need ugly GOTO/GOSUBs.

Anyway, my point is that NOT using line number encourages better programming practices. Certainly, you should keep them for backwards compatibility etc., but I'd encourage being able to have them turned off by default. Any good modern version of BASIC really shouldn't need GOTO/GOSUB and line numbers at all.

Hi adtbm,

Thanks very much indeed for this detailed response, which is far more than I was expecting! I really appreciate it, and hearing about your reasoning.

For what it's worth, although obviously I'm disappointed by the official "no" answer, I actually agree with most of the things you say, and I can certainly understand your position. But I'd just like to respond to a few points, for completeness.

First of all, I have indeed been contacted by a team member (one who I knew already, and who I know to be exceptionally knowledgeable), and he explained to me that the situation regarding the licensing/open source status was less clear cut than I had thought. When I wrote my previous post I was unaware of this: the Next team have said all along that the whole Spectrum Next platform was intended from the outset to be fully open source, and in recent times I was under the impression that everything had been released in that way already. However, I'm no legal expert, and it seems there are certain considerations that make things less straightforward than I'd imagined. That's a shame, but… I can certainly see things from your point of view.

Now, with regard to some specifics that you mention:

• I completely agree that the ZX-Uno is an excellent core to have, and certainly the next best option after the Next in terms of features.

• As you say, the main thing you lose from the Next is its new features, and the ability to run software written specifically for the Next. This is already a bit of a shame, and will of course become more so in future as more new software appears for the Next, as we hope it will (just as we hope for new software that takes advantage of the MEGA65). But at present this is indeed a minor concern.

• In fact, your ZX-Uno port – so I'm told in private – does not include support for the ZX Spectrum +3 (the model with the disk drive). So that'll be a shortcoming on the MEGA65. In reality it's of little consquence, and is considerably less important than the omission of the Next features, I think, because there's so little software exclusively for the +3. The main loss will be support for +3 disk image files, as some of them are far more convenient to use than tapes – notably for multi-load games. But this is a very minor loss.

• Concerning Russian clones… in fact, there's been some basic provision for them in the Spectrum Next for a long time, and I think it's always been something they've intended to support when other more important things were done. I'm aware that there's a new system distribution due out any day now (version 1.4 – we're currently on 1.3.2), and I believe that the 1.4 software will go a lot further in terms of Russian clone support. I've also been told in the past that support for the TRD disk formats (widely used by the Russian Spectrum community) will also be added in future, though I don't know if it's coming with System 1.4. Anyway, the point is that work continues on the Spectrum Next software, as you'd expect, and I do anticipate that support for the Russian machines will arrive in due course.

Anyway, these points are just to set the record straight! I really appreciate your detailed response, and actually I'm extremely happy that the ZX-Uno core is to be included. Obviously I'd personally like a Next option too, but I completely concur with your position that the ZX-Uno is an excellent choice that caters for the vast majority of Spectrum software out there. (The Next just has some unique features and an overall much nicer user interface.)

While on the subject of alternative cores, I'm delighted to hear that you have firm plans to release other open-source cores on the MEGA65, and I very much look forward to seeing them. I wonder if you'd consider another request, though…?

I'd personally really love to see ports of the cores for my other favourite platform, namely the Acorn machines. (Well, the 8-bit ones, obviously! The 32-bit Archimedes would be rather too demanding…!)

There are already some really excellent cores for the Acorn Atom, BBC Model B and BBC Master series machines. They've already been ported to the Spectrum Next, and the BBC Micro and Master cores (the ones of greatest interest) are particularly impressive, as they include optional Tube-based 65C102 second processors and all sorts of other built-in optional extras for the BBC series (including enhanced ULA producing more colours and new screen modes, Hybrid Music 5000 music synthesiser peripheral, mouse and SD card support and even a BBC SID chip option!). They're really fantastic cores – the best I've seen on the Spectrum Next, anyway.

The BBC cores have been ported to the Spectrum Next by David Banks ('hoglet67'), who's a very active developer of innovative hardware and software for the BBC series, and is readily available on the stardot.org.uk forums. His work has transformed the platform in recent years. (E.g. He designed the PiTube Direct, which allows you to fit a Raspberry Pi to a BBC and use the Pi as *any* of Acorn's series of second processors. And he's done much else too.) His BBC cores for Spectrum Next are available (with source code) here:

• Hoglet67's BBC FPGA cores for Spectrum Next

These cores do work superbly on the Spectrum Next… but the main shortcoming is the keyboard. It's a great keyboard for a Spectrum, but there simply aren't enough keys to provide good, comfortable support for the BBC's keyboard. In that respect, the MEGA65 would be a *much* better fit for the BBC hardware.

Additionally, the BBC was a fantastic platform, and one of the longest-lived of all the 8-bit platforms (it was still in widespread use up to the mid-90s). And, of course, it has BBC BASIC, arguably the best ever version of the BASIC programming language. Along with the Spectrum core, Acorn support is what I'd most like to see on the MEGA65 personally. Incidentally, the Master Compact came with a 3.5" disk drive, so if the BBC Master core includes Compact support (and I'm not sure if it does…), it would be able to use Acorn ADFS floppies directly, which would be handy.

I don't know what the situation is with regard to the source being open/licensing etc., but if you feel this is worth pursuing I'm sure it'd be easy to find out. Also, David Banks seems very approachable and helpful if you need his input…

Thanks again for considering my input, and for your helpful responses.

I've just spotted this announcement, having just read Paul's latest blog post about supporting other cores on the MEGA65, and the ZX Spectrum in particular.

Having the ZX Uno ported to the MEGA65 is absolutely fantastic news – and I really commend Sy2002 for doing this excellent work. Thanks very much for doing this!

However, given that this has happened, I would really urge someone – Sy2002 again, perhaps? – to port the ZX Spectrum Next to the MEGA65. This really would be the ultimate Spectrum core to have. I imagine that lots of people here know about the Spectrum Next already, since it's the closest Sinclair-based equivalent to the MEGA65, but for those who don't… the Spectrum Next represents a continuation/development of the Sinclair 8-bit platform on modern FPGA-based hardware. Like the MEGA65, it too can run other cores to simulate other systems.

The Spectrum Next is better than other Spectrum clones because it has its own new hardware features and new system software, which is really nicely presented and easy to use and yet remains entirely backwards-compatible with existing Spectrum models. So it's effectively a superset of all other Spectrum models. (There are still one or two small missing features, like full support for Russian Spectrum clones and TRD disk format support within 'Next mode'… but those things are, I believe, coming, and you can already use them in a 'personality' other than the native Next mode.)

Anyway, in addition to being 100% Spectrum compatible, the Next provides many extra features including new screen modes of up to 640x256 resolution (up from 256x192), a 512-colour palette (up from 15 colours), attribute clash-free graphics, 128 hardware sprites (the standard Spectrum has none), three AY8912 sound chips (the Spectrum 128 has one, the original 48K Spectrum none)… and MANY really nice built-in extras. And its OS is hugely more capable than that of any previous Spectrum model (it's been expanded beyond recognition), yet it remains backwards compatible. Just as one small example, the Next has a lovely inbuilt file browser that works in a similar way to the esxDOS browser that comes on the ZX Uno, except that the Next browser supports both long filenames and mixed-case filenames, which esxDOS still doesn't (and which make a huge difference to usability). Plus, it simply looks a lot nicer!

The entire Spectrum Next system is open source, and there's already both an official Spectrum Next core to run on the ZX Uno, and an entire new official clone machine in the form of the N-GO: see https://ultimatemister.com/pro…ext-official-clone-board/.

Indeed, the N-GO has been highly praised and is said to be actually slightly better than the official Spectrum Next, because not only is it 100% compatible, but it has some minor hardware advantages and also has official out-of-the-box support for a ZX Uno personality, too. So an N-GO is both a ZX Uno and a ZX Spectrum Next all in one, for a very attractive price.

Anyway, the main point is that the Spectrum Next is an open source platform and its developers are keen to see it appear on other computers, whether they be new clones like the N-GO or other FPGA-based alternatives like the ZX Uno.

Finally, as well as supporting the entire library of Spectrum software, there's now a decent amount of new software being written specifically for the Spectrum Next, taking advantage of at least some of its new features. For example, the very first commercial game announced for the MEGA65, Stefan Bylund's The Curse of Rabenstein, came out for the Spectrum Next as part of the game's initial release, complete with identical graphics to the Amiga version. (And the Magnetic Scrolls adventures have already been ported with lovely Amiga graphics and high-resolution text.) But there's loads of action games too.

Notably, the video used to demonstrate this new ZX Uno port on MEGA65 uses the newly released Delta's Shadow game to show off the working Spectrum. But, interestingly, there's a much better version of that game – the developers' definitive version – which has been greatly enhanced for the Spectrum Next.

So, the Next would be the perfect Spectrum core for running on the MEGA65. It's the most complete and capable option available, and it's also open source – all very much in the spirit of the MEGA65. I'd absolutely love to see it ported, if only to take advantage of the MEGA65's wonderful keyboard. (The authentic Spectrum Next also has a very nice keyboard, actually – far better than any actual Sinclair machine – but it's still a laptop-style membrane keyboard, not the super-high-quality heavy-duty mechanical keyboard of the MEGA65.)

So, I don't mean to diminish in any way the wonderful work that's been done here, to bring the ZX Uno to the MEGA65. It's a fantastic development that I'm really pleased to see. But the absolute icing on the cake would be a port of the Spectrum Next, because that's the latest and greatest (and fully backwards compatible) state of Spectrum development, with its own growing library of new software, and it would be a perfect match with the MEGA65 hardware.

Zitat von bubbob42

And for me (with the C64 being my first machine back in the day) it feels exactly like that. Had a totally different experience with the Spectrum Next - great machine, but not my thing.

I always feel slightly sad when I read something like that, simply because it comes across as a missed opportunity. (I don't mean this as a criticism of bubbob42; it's just a general observation.)

I spent two summers in, I think, 1979/80 having my first introduction to computers on a Commodore PET 2001 – which I absolutely loved – that was borrowed from my uncle's work. But then I actually grew up on Sinclair and Acorn machines (ZX81, Spectrum, BBC Model B, Spectrum 128, BBC Master 128) – all of which were wonderful. Every platform was very different and each had its individual strengths and weaknesses, and I loved all of them in different ways.

So, for me, the Spectrum Next and MEGA65 are an absolute delight. My level of technical knowledge varies between the platforms, but I've written programs (in at least BASIC) on all of them and know at least something about all three. So I'd just like to say: appreciate each machine for what it is! There's room for all of them, and there's potential – especially with today's powerful technology and reprogrammable FPGAs etc. – to use multiple systems on a single machine and thus make life even more interesting. (E.g. the Spectrum Next has alternative cores that allow it to become an Acorn Atom, BBC Model B or BBC Master… among many others.)

So let's not dismiss anything as "not my thing", as there's always a great opportunity to learn to appreciate something new. Maybe the feelings of nostalgia are hard to recapture on a foreign system – I'm lucky because I can get those feelings from all three platforms I've mentioned – but even without the nostalgia factor, other old computers are still fascinating to learn about with the benefit of hindsight (not to mention seeing their versions of software that you enjoyed on your 'own' systems).

By the way, for all the Commodore owners who say the Spectrum was rubbish… don't believe them! It simply isn't true; the Spectrum was a fantastic machine (my personal favourite 8-bit overall). All the 'successful' platforms from the 80s had their good and bad points, so accept the different machines for what they are and enjoy them. I couldn't be happier that the 8-bit Sinclair and Commodore machines have been enjoying a bit of a revival in recent years. I just wish it would happen for Acorn, too! People should appreciate them all for the wonderful things they are. Besides, the more retro machines you get to know, the better you appreciate them all.

End of long, boring aside…!

Zitat von adtbm

but i am against a tweaking of both versions into one. that doesn't feel right.

Again, I don't think anyone's actually suggested that, have they?

Even if they have, I don't think it'd even be possible, let alone make sense. They're too different. You'd essentially need to completely rewrite one BASIC to turn it into the other before that could happen!

Also, as I noted before, BBC BASIC is already pretty flexible in terms of being able to offer (at least potential) cross-platform support. It could be made to support the MEGA65's features without dramatically altering its syntax, but if it proved necessary to substantially rewrite it to support those new features, then it wouldn't really be BBC BASIC anymore, and it'd lose some of its advantages of portability.

Anyway, I'm merely supporting the suggestion that having BBC BASIC as an alternative language would be a nice idea. It'd be great if it could be built in as an optional alternative (as that would give it the maximum flexibility), but I'm absolutely not advocating either replacing Commodore BASIC with it or making it the default. If that were done, it would no longer really be a Commodore machine, and the backwards compatibility provided by Commodore BASIC is clearly essential.

Zitat von Snoopy

Zitat von LGB-Z

I think for the C65 feeling, and in general Commodore, it must be BASIC 10 (even if it's a well expanded bug fixed etc version in the future).

I agree!

BASIC 10 is of course the default language. Don't forget the millions of existing BASIC 10 programs that would then no longer run without BASIC 10 in ROM.

I don't think anyone's been advocating anything else, have they? Certainly I haven't. There's really no doubt that BBC BASIC is a superior BASIC to Commodore BASIC 10, but that doesn't mean it'd be a good idea to replace Commodore BASIC as the default. On the contrary, that'd make the MEGA65 a very different machine. It'd be a great alternative and would provide many benefits, but it shouldn't usurp the machine's own default language.

Zitat von ubik

Commodore had a very thorough internal document about the state of their implementation of BASIC and what should be done to improve things.

This is all very interesting, and it would be great to see such work go into enhancing BASIC 10 – in a backwards-compatible way – in line with the work that Commodore evidently planned to do itself. That would be very much in keeping with this whole project, in fact. The default language that comes in this machine really should be the latest and best version of Commodore BASIC, ideally improved along the lines that Commodore itself was planning and with the ability to access the new features of the new machine.

But this is a different issue to the question of porting an alternative language, namely BBC BASIC. If it could be done at all, then it would be particularly wonderful to be able to actually built it into ROM as an alternative to Commodore BASIC; I don't know whether that's technically feasible or not.

Either way, see my previous post just above. BBC BASIC is an absolutely superb language – fabulously well structured and flexible – and if a good port were made of it for the MEGA65 it'd turn it into a programmer's dream machine.

Zitat von Snoopy

Is there a reason why it should be BBC BASIC or is it just an example of a "more modern BASIC"?

I think BBC BASIC is key here, because:

• it's exceptionally good (really, far better than any of the other alternatives from its era);
• it's very widespread, meaning that there's a lot of software out there, written in BBC BASIC, that could be ported easily;
• there are already versions of BBC BASIC for many different systems and architectures (including 6502, Z80 and ARM);
• BBC BASIC's graphics, sound and I/O commands are inherently very flexible and largely platform-independent; and
• because of these considerations, there are already very many people who know this language intimately.

Also:

• BBC BASIC also has its own inline assembler, by which machine code routines can be intermingled with BASIC very easily (or, indeed, you can write entire machine code programs with all the advantages of the BASIC editor). Since the BBC Micro series and the Commodore 8-bit machines were both 6502-based, porting the inline assembler as part of the project would make particularly good sense.

Having it available on the MEGA65 would widen the machine's appeal to users who would otherwise be less interested in a Commodore system – not least because Commodore was notorious for having, shall we say (to be kind), not a particularly nice version of BASIC built in. I don't want to offend any fans of Commodore BASIC, but BBC BASIC really is an awful lot better.

Zitat von Snoopy

If you already have the chance, you could also develop a "new" BASIC from scratch, which offers the possibilities of the C65/MEGA65 with maximum convenience. Then you would have the advantage that you can specify exactly what you want.

But… doesn't that (or shouldn't that) describe the version of BASIC that's built into the MEGA65? I'd have thought so…

Look at what's happened 'over the fence' on the Spectrum Next (which is very much in the same class as the MEGA65, but for Sinclair fans). The Sinclair Spectrum already had a very good version of BASIC, but for the Next one particularly talented and industrious developer has (among many other things) VASTLY extended Sinclair BASIC both to expand its features as a language and to fully cover all the new capabilities of the hardware. He's done an amazing job, and it's exactly what that machine needs: the ability to continue running all the BASIC programs that have been written for it, but also to allow users to take advantage of the full facilities of the system with new commands.

For existing Commodore fans, who will surely comprise the large majority of MEGA65 users, the machine's inbuilt BASIC should ideally be something equivalent: i.e. familiar Commodore BASIC that runs old software, but updated to provide access to the new features of the machine.

However, if an alternative version of BASIC were to be provided for the machine, then it only really makes sense if there are compelling reasons to port the alternative across. In the case of BBC BASIC, I think there are indeed such compelling reasons. Aside from its extremely high quality and widespread adoption on multiple systems, its flexible graphics commands in particular should offer some cross-platform compatibility for at least basic graphical features. (Sound and interfacing too, in fact.) Of course, extending its existing features and maybe adding new commands to support the specifics of the MEGA65 wouldn't be exactly trivial, but it would be FAR less work than writing a whole new version of BASIC from scratch.

And, quite honestly, I can't see the appeal of writing a new BASIC from scratch anyway. Why bother? To do it well would be an immense amount of work and I don't see many people making much use of it, because it'd just be another incompatible BASIC variant with no existing users or software to back it up. (And it'd also require comprehensive documentation and lengthy, in-depth bug-testing.)

However, porting BBC BASIC would bring to the table one of the best versions of the language ever devised – not to mention its very welcome inline 6502 assembler features – along with potentially significant extra user interest and loads of software to adapt easily to the new machine. And whilst I don't downplay the amount of work needed to port it, I can see plenty of justification for doing so. Supporting the MEGA65's powerful features may require a fair amount of extra work on the language, BUT… perhaps not as much as you might imagine. BBC BASIC was always pretty well future-proofed, and its I/O syntax is very flexible.

Don't forget, it wasn't just the default language of the 8-bit BBC Micro; it was also the default language of the 32-bit Archimedes and its successors (albeit in an enhanced later version). The Archimedes had incomparably better graphics and sound capabilities than the BBC Micro, yet its version of BASIC was backwards-compatible, which made porting BBC software very easy (indeed, much of it ran without alteration if you didn't want to use the features of the newer machine). The language syntax was flexible enough to cope with the newer machines' features, and I'm sure that a bit of careful planning could make it sensibly adaptable to a machine like the MEGA65 in most ways, too.

Zitat von adtbm

What mouse adapter are you using ? because i am using for testing the Micromys V4 (PS/2 to C64)

This is the one I found on eBay. I assumed it'd work, since it's for the Amiga and the MEGA65 is supposedly compatible with Amiga mice (and it does indeed work with the Amiga tank mouse I got subsequently):

eBay link

However, it didn't work with the mouse I tried. Maybe the problem was with the mouse, of course. I should probably test it with other mice.

Thank you both for that very useful feedback. I'll investigate further…

Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere – but I've had a hunt around and not found the info I'm looking for. (Though I think I've seen previous references which I'm now unable to find…)

Basically, I'd like to know about the status of mouse support on the MEGA65. I've tried a couple of things without much success.

I'm aware that the configuration utility (that you can get to by holding down Alt on power-on) supports a mouse, as there's a visible pointer on the screen and references to Amiga mouse support on the first page of configuration options. And, of course, there's GEOS supplied by default, which requires mouse support.

First of all, I got myself a little converter that's supposed to convert a regular USB mouse into an Amiga-compatible one. I tried that and it simply didn't work at all. The mouse received power but did nothing on the MEGA65.

I'm sure I read somewhere, though, that the Amiga 'tank mouse' is supposed to work with the MEGA65, and I found a cheap one on eBay, so I sent for it and I've just tried it.

The results are mixed, but it all seems rather strange:

1. If I plug the tank mouse into joystick port 1, then for some reason it prevents me from being able to cancel the machine's auto-boot: it's as though the Run/Stop key simply isn't recognised with the mouse plugged into port 1.

However, if I enter the configuration utility, the mouse does allow me to move the pointer around the screen. Unfortunately, clicking the two buttons seems to do nothing, so I still have to use the keyboard to adjust options.

2. If I plug the tank mouse into joystick port 2, then Run/Stop works again to cancel auto-boot, and everything seems normal. However, I can't otherwise get the mouse to do anything in port 2, and it doesn't move the pointer in the configuration utility.

So, I'd just be interested to know what the state of play is with regard to mouse support. Thanks.

Zitat von JesperGravgaard

POKE 54810,2

This has the advantage that is can be added to AUTOBOOT.C65 for automatic setting on BOOT.

Very handy tip, thanks.

Zitat von mega65

It might be a while before we can fix this. What might come sooner, is a mechanism to have one of the dipswitches on the mainboard enable/disable the audio.

Sounds like an excellent shorter-term solution. Most people won't be wanting to swap monitors all the time.