On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 10:48:31 + Stuart Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 01:46:52AM +0100, Thomas Harte wrote:
>
>
> Somebody was showing me this at uni a while back, and my immediate
> thought was "hmm, this would make a SAM port a lot easier." I would need
> to read
Well, i second that, im always glad to see new stuff on the sam. Im trying
to finish off a few bits, and those who are reading Sam Revival will soon
see where its all heading.
Lets see what other people have done, you never know, even if your stuck,
people are always willing to help out and sugge
Great T-Shirt, shame about the ironing skills!
Luke
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 January 2003 23:57
To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no
Subject: Just curious
Its amazing what bits of old Sam stuff ive kept - How many people still have
one of these rare
LOL :D - yer - its been sitting in a drawer for about 10 years.
A.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Luke Trevorrow
Sent: 13 January 2003 10:00
To: 'sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no'
Subject: RE: Just curious
Great T-Shirt, shame about the ironing skill
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 12:35:40 - "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was apparently the Amstrad packaging - and if memory serves me right, Bob
> managed to sort some sort of deal out in regards to buying lots of Amstrad
> boxed disc versions - in return for the license of a SAM version an
>> I think Ian is a bit paranoid about his work David B may be easier to
>> agree - unless someone wanted to do a Bob deal with them :)
>
>Actaully, it's the other way around (in my experience).
Yup its definately the other way around if you ask me. (although not as bad
as Geoff Crammond)
A.
From: "Frode Tenneboe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Elite port
> Incidentally, does anybody have the SAM version? Seeing that Ian
> Bell has published the other versions, the SAM version can't
> be that much different copyright-wise? Or does anybody object?
I have a boxed copy at home somewher
> From : Andrew Collier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date : Sun, 12 Jan 2003 17:01:15 +
>I don't quite see what you're getting at with your descriptions above...
>
>However, the way I see it; every byte that you clear costs time. The
>ideal situation is when you're only clearing bytes which were used
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:58:42 +0100 Thomas Harte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The idea was probably rubbish anyway. Would it instead be smart to use a
> faintly dirty
> rectange approach, but to continually draw to the same buffer using simple
> palette
> effects to advance the frame (so you can
