This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
ZX Spectrum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "ZX Spectrum" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
ZX Spectrum has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
To-do list for ZX Spectrum:
Priority 1 (top) |
This article was nominated for merging with Attribute clash on 8 November 2015. The result of the discussion was not merge. |
|
|||
""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)
In the case of ZX Spectrum 48K it is actually 16 kB ROM and 48 kB RAM = 64 kB. They are occupying entire 64 kB address space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.43.227.182 ( talk) 04:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Sinclair ZX Spectrum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
-- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 23:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
"new software titles continue to be released – over 40 were released in 2019." I don't think this is representative of the actual success of the Spectrum. The software released in 2019 are part of the retro craze, which is seperate from the longevity of the product itself. And the word "software" is misleading. Are people still using the Spectrum for office work or business applications? How many of these are games? 80.98.184.139 ( talk) 21:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the Next is a (mostly? fully?) Spectrum-compatible machine with added capabilities. The same is true of the Hobbit and the Sam Coupe, both of which were sold while the Spectrum still had a market beyond retro enthusiasts. I take the anon editor's point that the QL wasn't much of a successor since several Spectra were released after it, but it was at least intended by Sinclair to be one, which isn't true of any of the others. How about we remove the "successor" heading altogether? Pastychomper ( talk) 12:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
another editor to weight[sic] in- so I have. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 17:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Would it make sense to update the page to use IEC units (KiB, MiB, GiB) instead of legacy units (KB, MB, GB)? HenrikB ( talk) 09:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The article contains too much information. It is confusing. Too much is duplicated, or it belongs to other articles. I'm going to work on trimming down the article, removing redundant and unnecessary information, and on moving the information into other pages. 80.80.52.211 ( talk) 09:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
In the discussions during previous two months, two more major issues have surfaced, so I'm just highlighting those issues here. These are only my opinions, and only advisory at this moment:
(At the end of "Firmware" section)
The preferred unit for the tape speed should be B/s.
The approximations given for casette tape speed are incorrect. The signal "0" takes 2×855 T-states, while "1" uses 2× 1710 T-states. From those values, the exact bitrate can be computed. I'm going to consider that this trivial computation is allowed by WP:CALC.
I'm going to find the sources for the T-cycle timings, and them I'm going to re-compute it into B/s. The biggest problem is finding sources, but I do have them somewhere. I'm just writing this as an overview of what needs to be done to improve the article. Z80Spectrum ( talk) 10:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
"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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: PresN ( talk · contribs) 23:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Claiming this review; I'll start posting comments soon. --
Pres
N
23:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
"The machine was the brainchild of"- oddly informal
"in some parts of Europe as the Timex Computer 2048.", but the infobox just says Spain in 1985. Sounds like at minimum that should be changed to EU in 1985, unless you want to get more specific about the countries.
"Sinclair resolved to make his own products obsolete before his rivals developed the products that would do so, thus seeking to make the technology as cheap as possible."- not following how wanting to make a computer better than the ZX80/81 leads to making the Spectrum (or is it computers in general?) cheap.
"Architecture from the ZX80 and ZX81 were recycled"- tense issue, but also more clear as "parts of the designs of the ZX80 and ZX81 were reused
"According to Sinclair, the team had the concept of using..."- so... did they do so or just "have the concept"? And what does it mean in practical terms to combine the video and audio RAM?
(Edit: I quoted prices from wrong years (1981 instead of 1982); corrected)
"Much of the code was written by"- given this is a computer, the code for what? You start talking about the interpreter next, but without the context of how early 80s computers worked (e.g. that you loaded in programs that the computer ran, without a fancy operating system GUI), this is really hard for a reader to follow.
"the ZX Spectrum was, as quoted by Sinclair's marketing manager, essentially a "ZX81 with colour".- given that you just talked a little about the changes and go on to spend another big paragraph talking about hardware changes, this sentence seems out of place. Overall, these two paragraphs jump around between hardware changes from the ZX81 and how the software works, with this line in the middle; it would read smoother if you reorder the sentences so it's "these were the changes made, but ultimately it was a ZX81 with some changes made to support colour. The operating software for the machine to run programs was written by Vickers. It handled color like X. It took up 7kb of the system's total 16kb of memory." (also note that 16kb was the minimum/default memory amount, since there was a 48kb version at launch)
Much of the code was written by- I think that you have nailed the problem there: the article is missing an entire section describing how the Spctrum was operated in practice. I think that some sections from the article on ZX81 can be reused for this purpose. However, this will further expand the article, so I propose splitting the history section into another article.
the ZX Spectrum was, as quoted by Sinclair's marketing manager, essentially a "ZX81 with colour- the problem here is the following: from a perspective of initial concept of ZX Spectrum, it was a "ZX81 with color". That's what Clive Sinclair wanted, and that has been cited everywhere. However, the end-design, by engineer Altwasser, is much more than that. Alwasser has obviously put a lot of sweat into the design, even whan working under the extreme time pressure that was obviously imposed by Clive Sinclair. To cut it short, the end design is much more than just "ZX81 with color", and in that sense the sentence is misleading. Z80Spectrum ( talk) 16:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The paragraph that starts with "A divergence of perspectives between Nine Tiles- the development of the firmware ended when the ROM was full, and development time had also 'run out'. It was essentially the BASIC from ZX81, plus floating point math (demanded by Clive Sinclair), additional graphics routines and a few extras (new cassete tape routines). I don't know how should that be interpreted in the article as somebody's 'win'. Perhaps it's more towards Sinclair's viewpoint. Z80Spectrum ( talk) 16:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
"With the arrival of the more inexpensive Issue 2 motherboard, production rapidly increased."- this is the first mention of "Issue 2"; what is that? Also the first mention of a motherboard, so link and maybe namedrop earlier in the article. And why did a cheaper motherboard mean they could suddenly produce so many more units a month, or was it just that they increased production when they launched a second version?
" in due part to saturation of home computers such as the ZX Spectrum."- to clarify, is this trying to say that the UK market was into microcomputers instead of game consoles, so the crash of the game console market didn't affect the UK industry the same way?
"The Spectrum+ retained the identical technical specifications as the original Spectrum."- you already said it was just a rebranded Spectrum, so this sentence can be cut.
With the arrival of the more inexpensive Issue 2 motherboard, production rapidly increased- 'Issue 2' is the version of the motherboard. There were multiple revisions of the motherboard, because ZX Soectrum was initially full of hardware bugs. That means many Spectrums were malfunctioning when tested brand new out from the factory line. New motherboard issues fixed those problems. It also makes the production cheaper, by not creating a huge pile of malfunctioning products. Z80Spectrum ( talk) 17:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
"Despite the continued domination of home computer market with the ZX Spectrum"- needs a "the" before home, but also the whole phrase is odd- "despite his success, he hoped to repeat his success"? Also we just spent 2 paragraphs talking about how by 1985 things weren't going well, so it's a little jarring to jump back to them being dominant.
I'm going to take a break here, and pick back up with the rest of the article later. -- Pres N 21:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Jaguar: Poke. -- Pres N 01:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay, this long-running review has gotten a bit messy. I've gone through and made tweaks to the sections above, so we're on to "Hardware" and below. -- Pres N 01:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
"where a desired colour of a specific pixel could not necessarily be selected."-> "where a desired colour of a specific pixel could not be selected, but only the colour attributes of an 8x8 block." (Since this is a restatement ("In practical terms"), you should re-emphasize the 8x8 block concept.)
"It is controlled by a single EAR bit, located on port 0xFE."Waaaay too overdetailed. This is an article in a generalist encyclopedia; specific bit names and port numbers are too much. This extraneous detail is then repeated in the next sentence for some reason.
"An "Issue 1" ZX Spectrum can be distinguished from later models"- there were only 3 issues, right? Or at least that's all that's mentioned in Development, so this can state "can be distinguished from Issue 2 or 3 models" to be clear. Also, if you don't solve it in Development, this first paragraph should explicitly state how many issues there were, since it talks about the first.
"Within the original iterations of the 16 and 48K models, an internal speaker with severely restricted capabilities served as the audio output. This speaker, capable of producing just one note at a time"- this was already discussed above in "Sound"
"outsold the rubber-key model 2:1"- ugh, "two to one", please.
"RAM disc commands save !"name""- the specific command used is meaningless to 99.9% of readers
"Sinclair unveiled the ZX Spectrum 128 at The May Fair Hotel's Crystal Rooms in London"- the preceding sentence said it was presented at SIMO '85, so how could it be "unveiled" later? Also, when is later?
" it has no internal speaker, being produced from the television speaker instead."- " it has no internal speaker, and can only produce sound from the television speaker."
"The ZX Spectrum +2 used a power supply..."- don't do one-sentence paragraphs. Integrate this into the first ZX Spectrum +2 paragraph with the rest of the hardware.
@ PresN: while I am burned out, this GAN has given me Stockholm Syndrome since I can't believe it's the end! Is it the end? I have addressed all your comments now. I deleted the 'community' subsection since it mainly consisted of repetitive factoids, and I didn't feel inclined to source it. I moved one of its sentences to the legacy section, and cleaned it up somewhat. Standardising all the refs will take time, but like you say it's not an actual requirement for GA and will certainly be done if (more likely when) I take this to FAC. This has been a monumental project for me, among the most challenging articles I've written for Wikipedia. I sincerely thank you for your patience over the months and keenly await your response, if you think it's ready. ♦ JAG UAR 22:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
The leading paragraph currently claims:
In addition to being one of the most influential computers ever made, the Spectrum is also one of the bestselling models of computer ever with over five million units sold.
Those are some overarching and grandiose statements. I would like them sourced, but @
User:Chaheel Riens said (
[12]) that they are supported by the body of the article. However, I cannot find the support in the rest of the article.
Also relevant might be
MOS:LEAD, which says As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should [...] be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead.
So, MOS is ambiguous, but it does require the lead to be supported by sources. So, where are those reliable sources that support the quite grandiose claims of the leading paragraph? I'm also pinging @
User:Jaguar who recently edited the leading paragraph.
Z80Spectrum (
talk)
22:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should [...] be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead.The lede is supported by sources because the lede summarises the article body which contains the required sources and references, as well as more detail on the subject. The lede should not be used to introduce new material that has no mention in the main body. Some contentious articles will have sources in the lede, but that's not a requirement.
[I]t remained popular in developing countries like the ex-Eastern Bloc into the 21st century- which is unsupported by the rest of the article. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 23:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
In addition to being one of the most influential computers ever made, the Spectrum is also one of the bestselling models of computer ever with over five million units sold.
Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.Tatto it onto your eyelids, because this you will encounter all the time.
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.
prove that the source is not a reliable sourceWell, make sure to closely read what WP:RS has to say. You might save yourself some effort by raising your concerns at WP:RSN. If they say it's ok, then you have done all the due diligence anyone can ask of you.
re-wordWell, "not insisting" does not sound like your satisfied. What's your concern there, if I may ask?
compromiseMy intervening edits mooted this. Let me know if you still see issues. Paradoctor ( talk) 05:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
interestingengineering dot com/innovation/9-of-the-best-selling-computers-of-all-timeand all inline references to it have to be removed from the article.
An inline reference is neededThat is incorrect. The claim is not in contention, and per MOS:LEADCITE,
the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article [...] should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. So the decisive point is what the consensus here is. We have you in favor, and three naysayers, all experienced editors. This situation permits only two interpretations: either there is consensus, then it is clearly against. Or if, for the sake of discussion, one reads this as WP:NOCONSENSUS. In that case, we
retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Which is the one without ref.
examine some policies in more detail [...] dispute the reliability of the source at Reliable Sources NoticeboardI'm happy to hear that. That's the Wikipedian spirit. :) Make sure to refer to WP:RS in your arguments, these people are scary.
I liked the phrase "computer model" better than just "computer"Feel free to change it, then. I prefer the shorter version, but I can see your point.
made the lead paragraph worseBelieve it or not, I understand your frustration. Like Churchill said, "democracy is the worst form of government" Winston Churchill Paradoctor ( talk) 08:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material
one of the most influential computers ever madefrom the first article paragraph. Therefore, an inline citation must be provided.
I now challenge the phraseThat was never an option in this particular case for you. You are the one who copied the statement to the lead, and later copied the ref there. It is obvious that your challenge is not about disbelieving the claim, but about you trying to get your way. What you're doing here right now is called WP:POINTY behavior, and puts you on a short track back to ANI. The only option for you that is in line with policy is to attempt to change, through WP:dispute resolution, the current consensus not to duplicate that ref in the lead.
I have been deceived. Stow it. Accusing us of deceiving you in this way is unacceptable. If you believe we have said something false, you point to evidence, quoting and linking to the relevant WP:DIFFs. That is something we can discuss. Making unsubstantiated accusations, OTOH, is WP:UNCIVIL, and will put you on a short track to being not merely WP:BLOCKed, but WP:BANned.
I now challenge the phrase...objection, your honor! Just no.
I liked the phrase "computer model" better than just "computer". I disagree; it's a word that adds no value. VQuakr ( talk) 16:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Z80Spectrum, you additionally need to back off with variations of the phrase it was probably an honest mistake on their part, so at this moment I'm willing to just forget it.
I've seen you use this and similar phrases to imply that you're correct and the person you're interacting with is wrong, but you'll be magnanimous about it. As with practically everything else you're doing right now - this is borderline
insulting, and is just one more spade digging your hole.
Staying germane to the point (although it's getting harder and harder to see the point) - I am against the term "computer models", because it's inaccurate. "model(s)" implies a specific version - or "model", if you will - of the ZX Spectrum range, rather than the entire range, and the 5 million refers to all models bunched together. Also - as per VQuakr, it's duplication and unnecessary duplication which is unnecessary. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 17:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
imply that you're correct and the person you're interacting with is wrong, but you'll be magnanimous about itI think the word you're looking for is condescending. ;) Paradoctor ( talk) 17:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
You are the one who copied the statement to the lead.
So the decisive point is what the consensus here is. We have you in favor, and three naysayers, all experienced editors. This situation permits only two interpretations: either there is consensus, then it is clearly against. Or if, for the sake of discussion, one reads this as WP:NOCONSENSUS.
the one reads this as WP:NOCONSENSUS. In that case, we retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Which is the one without ref.
As already discussed above, we generally avoid in-line citation clutter in the lead except for cases where WP:BLP is a factor or for direct quotes, things like that.
This is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument that you should know better than to propose by now. Yes, many articles have unnecessary citations in the lead. Many articles have no citations at all, or are written in a non-neutral point of view, or violate guidelines or policies in many other ways. It is not in the slightest deceptive to point out a guideline, even if some articles do not adhere to it. VQuakr did not say that no articles have citations in the lead, they said thatThis is the VQuakr 's statement that I find slightly deceptive (when looking at other articles, I see many inline citations in the leading section, which is somewhat contrary to what VQuakr says here)
— User:Z80Spectrum 19:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
we generally avoid in-line citation clutter in the lead, which is exactly what the MOS says. CodeTalker ( talk) 20:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
It was not me who added the disputed sentence to the lead.
Or if, for the sake of discussion, one reads this as WP:NOCONSENSUS. [emphasis added]
It's hard to keep track of all the objectionsCan't help you there. Par for the course when you argue against clear consensus. Paradoctor ( talk) 19:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Paradoctor is implying that the "consensus" is the same as "local consensus"I'm not implying, I'm saying. That is because, and I have already told you this, MOS:LEADCITE says
the presence of citations in the lead [...] should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. That means first and foremost local consensus. This does in no way exclude wider consensus arrived at in the course of dispute resolution. If you desire that, go ahead. Until such time, local consensus decides. Paradoctor ( talk) 20:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
he implies that WP:V can be subverted by status-quoUh, you left the track there. I have no idea what that is even supposed to mean. As regards your quote, you seem to ignore the links to applicable policy I amply provide you with.
When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.
don't understand the "pings"Then don't use them. Just write "Paradoctor:". There is no need to link to my page, it's found in every single of my signatures. Paradoctor ( talk) 20:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
As I have said, I still consider those to be honest mistakes, provided in good faith.
comment on content, not the contributor
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)
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)
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
15:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
DigitalIceAge ( talk) 02:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC).
The ZX Spectrum may have been Britain's best-selling computer. ― Panamitsu (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
This was sort of discussed in the DYK nomination above, but the sales of this computer are somewhat inflated in the prose. The only source for it being "one of the best selling computers ever" in the article is this article, which seems to have arbitrarily picked nine popular computers from the '80s (or thereabouts) and designated them "9 of the Best Selling Computers of All Time". I'm also not sure that this is a reliable source. For two of them, the number of units sold is "Unknown"! I find the claim that the ZX Spectrum is "one of the best selling computers ever" hard to believe, even though it's already an exceptionally vague statement.
Counterexamples: The modern Mac sells several million units a quarter [17]. ThinkPads (arguably of many different models) have sold over 200 million units [18]. Compared to this, is it really warranted to call the Spectrum "one of the best selling computers ever"?
Suggestion: Reword lead to "one of the best selling computers of the 1980s", or the DYK hook of "one of the best selling British computers". The current version is a stretch. Toadspike [Talk] 11:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
ZX Spectrum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "ZX Spectrum" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ZX Spectrum has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
To-do list for ZX Spectrum:
Priority 1 (top) |
This article was nominated for merging with Attribute clash on 8 November 2015. The result of the discussion was not merge. |
|
|||
""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)
In the case of ZX Spectrum 48K it is actually 16 kB ROM and 48 kB RAM = 64 kB. They are occupying entire 64 kB address space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.43.227.182 ( talk) 04:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Sinclair ZX Spectrum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
-- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 23:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
"new software titles continue to be released – over 40 were released in 2019." I don't think this is representative of the actual success of the Spectrum. The software released in 2019 are part of the retro craze, which is seperate from the longevity of the product itself. And the word "software" is misleading. Are people still using the Spectrum for office work or business applications? How many of these are games? 80.98.184.139 ( talk) 21:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the Next is a (mostly? fully?) Spectrum-compatible machine with added capabilities. The same is true of the Hobbit and the Sam Coupe, both of which were sold while the Spectrum still had a market beyond retro enthusiasts. I take the anon editor's point that the QL wasn't much of a successor since several Spectra were released after it, but it was at least intended by Sinclair to be one, which isn't true of any of the others. How about we remove the "successor" heading altogether? Pastychomper ( talk) 12:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
another editor to weight[sic] in- so I have. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 17:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Would it make sense to update the page to use IEC units (KiB, MiB, GiB) instead of legacy units (KB, MB, GB)? HenrikB ( talk) 09:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The article contains too much information. It is confusing. Too much is duplicated, or it belongs to other articles. I'm going to work on trimming down the article, removing redundant and unnecessary information, and on moving the information into other pages. 80.80.52.211 ( talk) 09:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
In the discussions during previous two months, two more major issues have surfaced, so I'm just highlighting those issues here. These are only my opinions, and only advisory at this moment:
(At the end of "Firmware" section)
The preferred unit for the tape speed should be B/s.
The approximations given for casette tape speed are incorrect. The signal "0" takes 2×855 T-states, while "1" uses 2× 1710 T-states. From those values, the exact bitrate can be computed. I'm going to consider that this trivial computation is allowed by WP:CALC.
I'm going to find the sources for the T-cycle timings, and them I'm going to re-compute it into B/s. The biggest problem is finding sources, but I do have them somewhere. I'm just writing this as an overview of what needs to be done to improve the article. Z80Spectrum ( talk) 10:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
"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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: PresN ( talk · contribs) 23:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Claiming this review; I'll start posting comments soon. --
Pres
N
23:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
"The machine was the brainchild of"- oddly informal
"in some parts of Europe as the Timex Computer 2048.", but the infobox just says Spain in 1985. Sounds like at minimum that should be changed to EU in 1985, unless you want to get more specific about the countries.
"Sinclair resolved to make his own products obsolete before his rivals developed the products that would do so, thus seeking to make the technology as cheap as possible."- not following how wanting to make a computer better than the ZX80/81 leads to making the Spectrum (or is it computers in general?) cheap.
"Architecture from the ZX80 and ZX81 were recycled"- tense issue, but also more clear as "parts of the designs of the ZX80 and ZX81 were reused
"According to Sinclair, the team had the concept of using..."- so... did they do so or just "have the concept"? And what does it mean in practical terms to combine the video and audio RAM?
(Edit: I quoted prices from wrong years (1981 instead of 1982); corrected)
"Much of the code was written by"- given this is a computer, the code for what? You start talking about the interpreter next, but without the context of how early 80s computers worked (e.g. that you loaded in programs that the computer ran, without a fancy operating system GUI), this is really hard for a reader to follow.
"the ZX Spectrum was, as quoted by Sinclair's marketing manager, essentially a "ZX81 with colour".- given that you just talked a little about the changes and go on to spend another big paragraph talking about hardware changes, this sentence seems out of place. Overall, these two paragraphs jump around between hardware changes from the ZX81 and how the software works, with this line in the middle; it would read smoother if you reorder the sentences so it's "these were the changes made, but ultimately it was a ZX81 with some changes made to support colour. The operating software for the machine to run programs was written by Vickers. It handled color like X. It took up 7kb of the system's total 16kb of memory." (also note that 16kb was the minimum/default memory amount, since there was a 48kb version at launch)
Much of the code was written by- I think that you have nailed the problem there: the article is missing an entire section describing how the Spctrum was operated in practice. I think that some sections from the article on ZX81 can be reused for this purpose. However, this will further expand the article, so I propose splitting the history section into another article.
the ZX Spectrum was, as quoted by Sinclair's marketing manager, essentially a "ZX81 with colour- the problem here is the following: from a perspective of initial concept of ZX Spectrum, it was a "ZX81 with color". That's what Clive Sinclair wanted, and that has been cited everywhere. However, the end-design, by engineer Altwasser, is much more than that. Alwasser has obviously put a lot of sweat into the design, even whan working under the extreme time pressure that was obviously imposed by Clive Sinclair. To cut it short, the end design is much more than just "ZX81 with color", and in that sense the sentence is misleading. Z80Spectrum ( talk) 16:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The paragraph that starts with "A divergence of perspectives between Nine Tiles- the development of the firmware ended when the ROM was full, and development time had also 'run out'. It was essentially the BASIC from ZX81, plus floating point math (demanded by Clive Sinclair), additional graphics routines and a few extras (new cassete tape routines). I don't know how should that be interpreted in the article as somebody's 'win'. Perhaps it's more towards Sinclair's viewpoint. Z80Spectrum ( talk) 16:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
"With the arrival of the more inexpensive Issue 2 motherboard, production rapidly increased."- this is the first mention of "Issue 2"; what is that? Also the first mention of a motherboard, so link and maybe namedrop earlier in the article. And why did a cheaper motherboard mean they could suddenly produce so many more units a month, or was it just that they increased production when they launched a second version?
" in due part to saturation of home computers such as the ZX Spectrum."- to clarify, is this trying to say that the UK market was into microcomputers instead of game consoles, so the crash of the game console market didn't affect the UK industry the same way?
"The Spectrum+ retained the identical technical specifications as the original Spectrum."- you already said it was just a rebranded Spectrum, so this sentence can be cut.
With the arrival of the more inexpensive Issue 2 motherboard, production rapidly increased- 'Issue 2' is the version of the motherboard. There were multiple revisions of the motherboard, because ZX Soectrum was initially full of hardware bugs. That means many Spectrums were malfunctioning when tested brand new out from the factory line. New motherboard issues fixed those problems. It also makes the production cheaper, by not creating a huge pile of malfunctioning products. Z80Spectrum ( talk) 17:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
"Despite the continued domination of home computer market with the ZX Spectrum"- needs a "the" before home, but also the whole phrase is odd- "despite his success, he hoped to repeat his success"? Also we just spent 2 paragraphs talking about how by 1985 things weren't going well, so it's a little jarring to jump back to them being dominant.
I'm going to take a break here, and pick back up with the rest of the article later. -- Pres N 21:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Jaguar: Poke. -- Pres N 01:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay, this long-running review has gotten a bit messy. I've gone through and made tweaks to the sections above, so we're on to "Hardware" and below. -- Pres N 01:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
"where a desired colour of a specific pixel could not necessarily be selected."-> "where a desired colour of a specific pixel could not be selected, but only the colour attributes of an 8x8 block." (Since this is a restatement ("In practical terms"), you should re-emphasize the 8x8 block concept.)
"It is controlled by a single EAR bit, located on port 0xFE."Waaaay too overdetailed. This is an article in a generalist encyclopedia; specific bit names and port numbers are too much. This extraneous detail is then repeated in the next sentence for some reason.
"An "Issue 1" ZX Spectrum can be distinguished from later models"- there were only 3 issues, right? Or at least that's all that's mentioned in Development, so this can state "can be distinguished from Issue 2 or 3 models" to be clear. Also, if you don't solve it in Development, this first paragraph should explicitly state how many issues there were, since it talks about the first.
"Within the original iterations of the 16 and 48K models, an internal speaker with severely restricted capabilities served as the audio output. This speaker, capable of producing just one note at a time"- this was already discussed above in "Sound"
"outsold the rubber-key model 2:1"- ugh, "two to one", please.
"RAM disc commands save !"name""- the specific command used is meaningless to 99.9% of readers
"Sinclair unveiled the ZX Spectrum 128 at The May Fair Hotel's Crystal Rooms in London"- the preceding sentence said it was presented at SIMO '85, so how could it be "unveiled" later? Also, when is later?
" it has no internal speaker, being produced from the television speaker instead."- " it has no internal speaker, and can only produce sound from the television speaker."
"The ZX Spectrum +2 used a power supply..."- don't do one-sentence paragraphs. Integrate this into the first ZX Spectrum +2 paragraph with the rest of the hardware.
@ PresN: while I am burned out, this GAN has given me Stockholm Syndrome since I can't believe it's the end! Is it the end? I have addressed all your comments now. I deleted the 'community' subsection since it mainly consisted of repetitive factoids, and I didn't feel inclined to source it. I moved one of its sentences to the legacy section, and cleaned it up somewhat. Standardising all the refs will take time, but like you say it's not an actual requirement for GA and will certainly be done if (more likely when) I take this to FAC. This has been a monumental project for me, among the most challenging articles I've written for Wikipedia. I sincerely thank you for your patience over the months and keenly await your response, if you think it's ready. ♦ JAG UAR 22:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
The leading paragraph currently claims:
In addition to being one of the most influential computers ever made, the Spectrum is also one of the bestselling models of computer ever with over five million units sold.
Those are some overarching and grandiose statements. I would like them sourced, but @
User:Chaheel Riens said (
[12]) that they are supported by the body of the article. However, I cannot find the support in the rest of the article.
Also relevant might be
MOS:LEAD, which says As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should [...] be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead.
So, MOS is ambiguous, but it does require the lead to be supported by sources. So, where are those reliable sources that support the quite grandiose claims of the leading paragraph? I'm also pinging @
User:Jaguar who recently edited the leading paragraph.
Z80Spectrum (
talk)
22:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should [...] be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead.The lede is supported by sources because the lede summarises the article body which contains the required sources and references, as well as more detail on the subject. The lede should not be used to introduce new material that has no mention in the main body. Some contentious articles will have sources in the lede, but that's not a requirement.
[I]t remained popular in developing countries like the ex-Eastern Bloc into the 21st century- which is unsupported by the rest of the article. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 23:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
In addition to being one of the most influential computers ever made, the Spectrum is also one of the bestselling models of computer ever with over five million units sold.
Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.Tatto it onto your eyelids, because this you will encounter all the time.
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.
prove that the source is not a reliable sourceWell, make sure to closely read what WP:RS has to say. You might save yourself some effort by raising your concerns at WP:RSN. If they say it's ok, then you have done all the due diligence anyone can ask of you.
re-wordWell, "not insisting" does not sound like your satisfied. What's your concern there, if I may ask?
compromiseMy intervening edits mooted this. Let me know if you still see issues. Paradoctor ( talk) 05:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
interestingengineering dot com/innovation/9-of-the-best-selling-computers-of-all-timeand all inline references to it have to be removed from the article.
An inline reference is neededThat is incorrect. The claim is not in contention, and per MOS:LEADCITE,
the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article [...] should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. So the decisive point is what the consensus here is. We have you in favor, and three naysayers, all experienced editors. This situation permits only two interpretations: either there is consensus, then it is clearly against. Or if, for the sake of discussion, one reads this as WP:NOCONSENSUS. In that case, we
retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Which is the one without ref.
examine some policies in more detail [...] dispute the reliability of the source at Reliable Sources NoticeboardI'm happy to hear that. That's the Wikipedian spirit. :) Make sure to refer to WP:RS in your arguments, these people are scary.
I liked the phrase "computer model" better than just "computer"Feel free to change it, then. I prefer the shorter version, but I can see your point.
made the lead paragraph worseBelieve it or not, I understand your frustration. Like Churchill said, "democracy is the worst form of government" Winston Churchill Paradoctor ( talk) 08:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material
one of the most influential computers ever madefrom the first article paragraph. Therefore, an inline citation must be provided.
I now challenge the phraseThat was never an option in this particular case for you. You are the one who copied the statement to the lead, and later copied the ref there. It is obvious that your challenge is not about disbelieving the claim, but about you trying to get your way. What you're doing here right now is called WP:POINTY behavior, and puts you on a short track back to ANI. The only option for you that is in line with policy is to attempt to change, through WP:dispute resolution, the current consensus not to duplicate that ref in the lead.
I have been deceived. Stow it. Accusing us of deceiving you in this way is unacceptable. If you believe we have said something false, you point to evidence, quoting and linking to the relevant WP:DIFFs. That is something we can discuss. Making unsubstantiated accusations, OTOH, is WP:UNCIVIL, and will put you on a short track to being not merely WP:BLOCKed, but WP:BANned.
I now challenge the phrase...objection, your honor! Just no.
I liked the phrase "computer model" better than just "computer". I disagree; it's a word that adds no value. VQuakr ( talk) 16:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Z80Spectrum, you additionally need to back off with variations of the phrase it was probably an honest mistake on their part, so at this moment I'm willing to just forget it.
I've seen you use this and similar phrases to imply that you're correct and the person you're interacting with is wrong, but you'll be magnanimous about it. As with practically everything else you're doing right now - this is borderline
insulting, and is just one more spade digging your hole.
Staying germane to the point (although it's getting harder and harder to see the point) - I am against the term "computer models", because it's inaccurate. "model(s)" implies a specific version - or "model", if you will - of the ZX Spectrum range, rather than the entire range, and the 5 million refers to all models bunched together. Also - as per VQuakr, it's duplication and unnecessary duplication which is unnecessary. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 17:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
imply that you're correct and the person you're interacting with is wrong, but you'll be magnanimous about itI think the word you're looking for is condescending. ;) Paradoctor ( talk) 17:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
You are the one who copied the statement to the lead.
So the decisive point is what the consensus here is. We have you in favor, and three naysayers, all experienced editors. This situation permits only two interpretations: either there is consensus, then it is clearly against. Or if, for the sake of discussion, one reads this as WP:NOCONSENSUS.
the one reads this as WP:NOCONSENSUS. In that case, we retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Which is the one without ref.
As already discussed above, we generally avoid in-line citation clutter in the lead except for cases where WP:BLP is a factor or for direct quotes, things like that.
This is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument that you should know better than to propose by now. Yes, many articles have unnecessary citations in the lead. Many articles have no citations at all, or are written in a non-neutral point of view, or violate guidelines or policies in many other ways. It is not in the slightest deceptive to point out a guideline, even if some articles do not adhere to it. VQuakr did not say that no articles have citations in the lead, they said thatThis is the VQuakr 's statement that I find slightly deceptive (when looking at other articles, I see many inline citations in the leading section, which is somewhat contrary to what VQuakr says here)
— User:Z80Spectrum 19:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
we generally avoid in-line citation clutter in the lead, which is exactly what the MOS says. CodeTalker ( talk) 20:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
It was not me who added the disputed sentence to the lead.
Or if, for the sake of discussion, one reads this as WP:NOCONSENSUS. [emphasis added]
It's hard to keep track of all the objectionsCan't help you there. Par for the course when you argue against clear consensus. Paradoctor ( talk) 19:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Paradoctor is implying that the "consensus" is the same as "local consensus"I'm not implying, I'm saying. That is because, and I have already told you this, MOS:LEADCITE says
the presence of citations in the lead [...] should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. That means first and foremost local consensus. This does in no way exclude wider consensus arrived at in the course of dispute resolution. If you desire that, go ahead. Until such time, local consensus decides. Paradoctor ( talk) 20:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
he implies that WP:V can be subverted by status-quoUh, you left the track there. I have no idea what that is even supposed to mean. As regards your quote, you seem to ignore the links to applicable policy I amply provide you with.
When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.
don't understand the "pings"Then don't use them. Just write "Paradoctor:". There is no need to link to my page, it's found in every single of my signatures. Paradoctor ( talk) 20:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
As I have said, I still consider those to be honest mistakes, provided in good faith.
comment on content, not the contributor
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)
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)
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
15:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
DigitalIceAge ( talk) 02:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC).
The ZX Spectrum may have been Britain's best-selling computer. ― Panamitsu (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
This was sort of discussed in the DYK nomination above, but the sales of this computer are somewhat inflated in the prose. The only source for it being "one of the best selling computers ever" in the article is this article, which seems to have arbitrarily picked nine popular computers from the '80s (or thereabouts) and designated them "9 of the Best Selling Computers of All Time". I'm also not sure that this is a reliable source. For two of them, the number of units sold is "Unknown"! I find the claim that the ZX Spectrum is "one of the best selling computers ever" hard to believe, even though it's already an exceptionally vague statement.
Counterexamples: The modern Mac sells several million units a quarter [17]. ThinkPads (arguably of many different models) have sold over 200 million units [18]. Compared to this, is it really warranted to call the Spectrum "one of the best selling computers ever"?
Suggestion: Reword lead to "one of the best selling computers of the 1980s", or the DYK hook of "one of the best selling British computers". The current version is a stretch. Toadspike [Talk] 11:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)