Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;

Comparisons with Commodore 64

Could it be outlined why some features of the Spectrum graphic modes get compared to the Commodore 64, while others do not? Is the Commodore 64 some kind of baseline? Do reliable sources make this comparison? In the Spectrum's home market, the Commodore 64 was outsold through most of the 80s by the Spectrum, Vic20 and BBC b, so what is it that makes this comparison relevant? Thanks. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Europe, both C-64 and ZX Spectrum were about equally popular. There are some differences from one country to another, they were both present in many countries at the same time.

A fact is that C-64 is micro-computer with the highest sales in 1980's.

For those two reasons, C-64 and ZX Spectrum do often get compared. Comparisons are all over the today's Internet, it is easy to find them on Google.

So, yes, C-64 is a common baseline for comparison, and, yes, other sources do make the same comparison.

Also, many readers want to know what are the differences between those two. Even after 40 years, people are still seeking information on the comparison. Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is also interesting for the readers of the article to see two different engineering perspectives compared.

It is interesting to provide answers to questions like: in what ways was ZX Spectrum unique; how was it different from the rest; how it compares to the market leader. Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to do it technically and more in-depth, then I would have mentined in the article that C-64 has an 8 KiB framebuffer, while ZX Spec has 6.8 KiB framebuffer. Those two are very close, with a slight advantage to C-64.

Then, C-64 has sprites and scrolling, but Spectrum has a slightly faster CPU.

Well, overall, for games and graphics, C-64 certainly beats ZX Spectrum, in my opinion, but I would never mention that in the article.

However, ZX Spectrum beats C-64 in other ways: A more "capable" CPU (it is just slightly faster, but Z80 is much more modern than 6502 with regards to style of programming, stack and registers).

Also ZX Spectrum's BASIC is better than C-64 Microsoft 2.0 BASIC, in my opinion.

Better not to mention any of that in the article, in my opinion. Z80Spectrum (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is a comparison based on facty only, like framebuffer size, it is still better to not mention it, because dry facts cannot tell the whole story.

The story of differences should be based mostly on the differences in electronic design and concept. Even then, only the most important differences in the design and concept should be mentioned in the article, because you can't have the entire article turned into an A vs B comparison. Z80Spectrum (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, for example, I find the shared graphics memory vs. discrete graphics memory a very interesting comparison, because we still have exactly the same situation in our computers today. Z80Spectrum (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying to myself here to temporarily stop the archiving of this section by ClueBot III. Z80Spectrum (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research on this article

There are a lot of problems with this article that are down to it becoming somewhere for people, who no doubt are very knowledgeable on the subject, to publish their knowledge and opinions. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research or unpublished opinions by unidentified contributers of unverifiable authority and expertese. As a encyclopedia, it should only contain what has already been published by reliable sources. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to differentiate "original research" and unsourced (but true) statements.

"Original research" is a narrower term than "unsourced statements". If a statement is unsourced, it might be just a reflection of some well-known fact that is hard to find an explicit reference to.

Such a situation is far better than the situation of most articles on Wikipedia, which contain obviously false but sourced statements. Then you get big fights.

I am of the opinion that the best course of developing an article is to first add statements that are obviously true. That can be done by an expert or by a group of experts. Then, later, sources for those statements can be found.

Therefore, we should first make a good attempt to find the missing references for the unsourced statements. It might not be easy, it might take some time. Z80Spectrum (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z80Spectrum Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't make any such distinction, and that is not how Wikipedia works. The criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia is not interested in what self-proclaimed experts can contribute themselves, but in what they can identify and select from within reliable sources. Otherwise articles could be filled with what well meaning, but wrong, people believed was right, and not what recognised authorities and experts have already published. If no good sources can be found, then the question must be "is this notable and suitable for Wikipedia"? To which the answer is usually no. Remember, this is an encyclopaedia, not a technical manual. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is fine, but the real question is: how much time to allow for the good sources "to be found", as you say? Z80Spectrum (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying to myself here to temporarily stop the archiving of this section by ClueBot III. Z80Spectrum (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule of thumb, if you can't find sources of information for facts, it probably means that it's not important information to include in the encyclopedia. For example, the fact "User Ritchie333 wrote a utility in Z80 machine code to load any Speedlock game, decrypt it, and return a pointer to the start of the executable code" is true (well, you'll just have to trust me that it is), but without multiple sources mentioning it, it's not going in any article.

I appreciate though, for topics that pre-date the internet explosion, lots of important information is published in long out-of-print media that is hard to access, and that is a problem. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to 2nd the observation that this article needs a hard scrub for its original research issues. For example, there are a bunch of images that note they are a "Simulation of ZX Spectrum graphics output". Is that a simulation the editor did? If so, those images should not be in the article. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split Proposal

In my opinion, the article should be split into two, because it is extremely confusing as it is. One article should be titled "ZX Spectrum Basic Graphics Mode", and the second article "ZX Spectrum Non-Basic Graphics Modes" (note: the split is not related to the BASIC programming language). The first article should contain everything up to the "Hicolour 8x1" section.

This second article can contain the descriptions of both the graphics modes of the ZX Spectrum's successors, and the various software-assisted modes, and other quirks that were used to enhance the output image. 02:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Posted on behalf of Z80Spectrum per their request at [1]. VQuakr (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also: at the time when my proposal was originally made, the section Dithering and Blur was in the top half of the article. So, I believe that the "Dithering and Blur" should go into the first half of the split ("ZX Spectrum Basic Graphics Mode").

I'm also unsure about the title of the first part. Perhaps a better title would be "ZX Spectrum Standard Graphics Mode". Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is already a quite overly detailed subarticle from ZX Spectrum, and at 3400 words of prose is it not approaching the "too long" region of WP:SIZERULE. The concern about it being confusing is better addressed by pruning, editing, and otherwise improving the article. In any case, the substantial issues with sourcing and original research should be addressed before they are propagated into an article split. Personally I am unconvinced that much of the emulated or otherwise kludged "non-basic modes" merit mention anywhere in Wikipedia, but that's beyond the scope of this split discussion. I would likely support a move to the more generalist ZX Spectrum graphics, but again that's beyond the scope of this discussion I think. VQuakr (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The pages and "see also" sections of comparable computers of the era, such as the Commodore VIC-20 and the Atari 400/800 series, do not have separate pages for the graphics mode, character set or specifications of the memory. Splitting the page up will just add more pages about the technical side of the ZX Spectrum that aren't exactly necessary. Keep this page as is. GarethBaloney (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Page is too small for a size split, and I see no case for a WP:CONTENTSPLIT. If the article is confusing, and a split is really the only remedy to make it not confusing, then the same effect can be achieved by creating two sections ZX Spectrum graphic modes § Basic modes and ZX Spectrum graphic modes § Advanced modes, or somesuch. Paradoctor (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archives (Index)
1