Talk:Jupiter Ace

Architecture

Wasn't the Jupiter ACE identical in hardware to the ZX81, but for the ROM contents?

---

I think this was true of the board architecture, though not for the case and keyboard.
(btw. I still possess a Jupiter ACE, but it hasn't been used for over 20 years). DFH 18:51:30, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

---

The architecture is not the same, so neither the actual hardware.

Reference to Sinclair Derivatives at the end of the article is completely erroneous.

Only the keyboard electronics is similar. The whole machine is absolutely different though it belongs to the same class of home computers as many others do amd are not considered clones. It cannot be compared with the ZX-80 ou ZX-81... neither with the Spectrum machine whatever the version. The only link is that both designers worked at Sinclair Research wich does not reflect the reality of this computer. No relation does exist that could (eventually) demand a license from Sinclair Research.

Actually not true that only the keyboard electronics is similar. I have an extension board for mine that allowed me to use my ZX81 16K rampack on a Jupiter Ace. I also had some success with the ZX printer. The architecture was very similar. Sirfurboy (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The ROM is completely different, as it uses FORTH instead of BASIC. Besides that it has only 1K for programming (like the ZX81) plus the Video System (which the ZX-81 didn't had). This was 1KB as screen bank plus 1KB as chars definitions bank. The total giving the misleading total of 3K. It could receive expansion RAM packs up to 48K. Adding the 1k internal this gives 49K of user RAM. The ZX-81 shared his 1K with video data severely which was a severe limitation forcing the usage of a RAM extension to be useful.

However more evolved programs can be made in this 1K because the FORTH implementation occupies less space than BASIC (Up to 4x Smaller)... it is also faster than basic (Up to 10x faster) making it a wonderful piece of hardware for embedded systems. This extra value of 1K in the ACE against the ZX-81 may have been an argument to sell the ACE with 1K instead of 4k. By then the competition was fierce and money talked higher. Not having the projected 4K didn't help, as the window of opportunity was closing. Actually it may have been the reason to it's dead.

I had implemented a Conway's LIFE program using the full screen as matrix and still had plenty space to spare. And it was fast: a screen would be updated in a second and a half. This would have been impossible on a ZX-81... and hard on a Spectrum. I believe this says it all.

But that was not the ACE limit. Soon changed the inner routine (it was the bottleneck) to machine code. The ACE's Forth made that job easy, so it become real-time... And I had to create a delay between screens to enjoy the evolution.

That was the ACE !!!

Lovely machine! The down part: it should had been made with the initial 4k programming space as standard (it was ready to them by design) instead of 1K. Even so the above testimony refers solely to the off-the-box 1K programing space and still not fully used, in this example. Imagine what could have been done with 4K. It would have been, hopefully, an enormous success in Education and Industry (if allowed). However (to me) it was an existing flaw, non economical related, in the manufacturing of the keyboard: Keys tend to bump when pressed. Keys were too high.

I found a worse keyboard problem: Mine become inoperative with dead keys. It was easily solved though, but at that time, to me, it was fatal.

Reason: Loss of conductiveness due to usage and posterior cleaning attempts that revealed to be destructive (do NOT EVER clean the rubber contacts, just clean the metals). Some Keys stopped working and that was the end of it for some years.

Solution: As I found, too much later, this was easily corrected with a small drop of conductive ink, one in each needing contact rubber. It become as good as new, if not better.

[Dutra de Lacerda]

---

P.S. - After this comments I've studied the ZX-81 architecture and may state with absolute confidence that the ACE has nothing to be related to the ZX-81 further that having a B/W display:

- The ACE is a Z80 running at full speed, with a full 1K user RAM PLUS a dedicated (independent) Video circuit with 2 blocks of Video RAM.

- The ZX-81 (to my surprise) is basically a Z80 controlled VIDEO Board (!) modified to use the Z80 for computing in it's spare time.

Explanation: In the TOP and bottom Black portions of screen displaying, the Z80 CPU is not needed for Video and is directed to run the BASIC language, but only then! (this means only about 25% of the time against 75% controlling the Video). This makes it a very weard machine based on an hack that impressed Mr. Sinclair enough to beat his money to build the ZX-80 ... and later reduce it's electronics to the cheaper ZX-81 version. Not an educated bet (the ZX-80) but history shows how lucky he was even with such major error. The time and price where right for Sinclair.

= The ACE, by contrast, is a very clean computer where everything makes sense (with exception of the 2 of the five 74LS367 chips present where a chip hack is used to avoid extra chips - This chip hack should not be confused with the architectural hack of the ZX-80/81). Associating the ACE with a simplified Spectrum, in it's architecture, would be more close to reality.

I believe the question is now fully answered.

[Dutra de Lacerda]

---

Problems with this article - image copyright especially

I think there are a few problems with this article as it now stands:

• I don't think the all-caps "ACE" in the article name is sensible. I have two magazine adverts in front of me, and in both cases the form used by Jupiter Cantab in the body of the text is simply "Jupiter Ace". The "ACE" version is used only for the "big splash text". Also, I have a Jupiter Ace manual, and once again the spelling used everywhere except the front cover is "Ace". Therefore, I suggest this article be moved to Jupiter Ace.

Please do so. That is not an important subject, but consistency is.

• The text doesn't read much like an encyclopedia article; it looks more like a fan page. I'm a fan of the Ace myself (I used to have two!) but I don't think the tone is appropriate for Wikipedia. Certainly, we need to be more careful about WP:NPOV and avoid expressing opinions about how good it was unless we have third-party citations.

Guilty! Please advise, pointing the sentences would help to find references. Tried to be impartial. Everything can be referenced. My references to the simplicity of the hardware, for example are based in my study of it while studying others, that you won find anywhere until I write it down in a book to be published. Until then, there are few people that may give it's testimony.

However I was criticized for the opposite. Apparent fan comparisons may be actually known comparisons from BASIC and Forth. And the comparisons of hardware are correction to previous comparisons with Sinclair computers already there, Personally I don't think that should be done, but is seems people are always making those, so I tried to give them a correct perspective. There's no similarity whatsoever, but mistakes should be eliminated. There are a lot of nuisances in the ACE, only it was hard to elaborate without destroying the whole page readability and small size. Would like to discuss that when you find convenient. This was my first experience at the wikipedia and it was hard work, but certainly there's room for improvement.

• The English could do with tidying up: it reads as though some parts have been written by someone who is not a native English speaker. This is a minor problem, and I'll try to do some copyediting when I have time.

Thank you. I try to get feedback from users in the ACE forum but the comments were to the data and form, not the grammar. So I wouldn't know.

Many adaptations have been done, trying to retain the original, until I found that the original text was borrowed from the ACE Resource Intro.

I'm not English born, as you noticed; the Page is complete; I've done my best; Now It's up to you. Please feel free to correct it, whenever you find convenient.

.

A needed feedback: I got a notice about the so called Portuguese page (my native language) which I've checked:

Someone made corrections to it, and some were removed, because they were not Brazilian language, claimed to be the accepted language,,,

By Brazilian is meant some Spanish terms introduced by magazines.

Other modifications have been against correct data. It is now assumed that the ACE has no sound(!) because the reference to sound was not referenced and the controller didn't knew the ACE, but still he believed he could make changes without verifications. I do not know if that is standard procedure but it was most disruptive to the needed rigor. Editing by someone with no knowledge of a theme, I mean.

So I'll not do the natural thing: I will not translate this Page to Portuguese, as Portuguese speaking are not allowed in Portuguese Pages for not speaking Brazilian, stated as the rule and meaning a lot of Spanish words and Spanish grammar, Don't ask me, it's there! And it's nuts! Not a nice place to do any contribution so I will not even try. Personally I do not believe anyone will be able to correct that situation. I just left a note, pointing the situation created, as you have done with me, Only in a much serious matter. I don't think I'll ever participate in a wikipedia page again, and I know of some needing corrections, the TEA cipher for example.

However, most of all:

• We have some serious problems with the copyright status of images, to the extent that I am removing some immediately. The most obvious example is Image:Jupiter ACE Full(advertise).jpg, the image used in the infobox up until now, which has at least three problems with it. Firstly, the anti-US ranting in the "Description" field is totally inappropriate; secondly, the idea that "Historical, public, available" makes an image free for our purposes; and thirdly, the incorrect use of a copyright tag intended for things like photographs of paintings.

There you got me wrong. Got me wrong maybe because the USA powers make it the most (you-know-what) country in the world and you may be sensitive to that, which is absolutely natural. However...

What you got was someone pissed-off (if I may use the term) with all the US legal mombo-jombo imposed to the rest of the world. Imagine a reverse situation,,. didn't it lead to the tea revolt that was the beginning of independence?

Why not use the UK law if the ACE is from UK?... Or Australian law if a product is from Australia? As is, it may sound very imperial to most people.

I could continue but I think you got the point... The USA law is not valid in the UK... Doesn't make sense when used to ACE related pictures, and a lot of other subjects... Is the USA going to invade the UK? Just joking... in accordance with the "are you, outside the USA, in accordance with USA law ?" message sent. Is it for cowboy culture, or is it because of the huge amount of lawyers in that country? Forgive me if it sounds rude, but that is what gets out so I had to pose the question. It is not for answering, it is just for reflection.

• The ANTI stuff you pointed reminded me one past experience I would like to share: I had worked with IBM products... And had a problem with some services and a sales-person (as you all them now). Actually it was a woman, which makes no difference here, just recalling. She had goals to achieve and my company wasn't interested... As I recall her the previous problems created by the local IBM... Well: I got to know latter by an insider that there was a file on me without my knowledge (something illegal here, very illegal) introduced in the local IBM (probably stored elsewhere) where I was stated as anti-IBM. I was further informed that I would never got a job again anywhere IBM computers were used. What chocked me the most, besides the non-sense of the accusation (to cover the seller's failure) was the term Anti-IBM. It was like IBM was an Ideal, a flag, a religion. I know they own part of Amazonia... paid just like Alaska was... but even so...
• Something you must know, because you seem to be from USA, and flooded with propaganda you do not notice: What most of the world feels about the USA (to some more informed it also includes the UK) is not about the USA at all... it is about the NAZI-like behavior of some powers inside USA when acting outside it's borders. This is specially true now the USSR is gone - There's no more need to show moral superiority, anything can go! But I will rephrase: It is NOT about the USA as country, but what SOME powers do in the name of the USA. This in disregard of it's constitution (being killed), it's spirit, and everything you have learned to love. - Only many people doesn't notice the difference, specially in the USA. It's convenient!
• Personally I have permanent donations given to USA institutions that are tax deductible... in the USA... Not here! That should say more than "I friends in the USA", Actually I do have American friends: from Argentina to Canada, (and by strange coincidence this includes the USA <G>). People love and suffer the same way everywhere. So it's not those 5% people the other 95% regret. (Be aware of the inside propaganda).

• But I do have the right to feel ANTI-Something! I've just not decided yet! It's a question of feelings, not actions. And you should respect that! I would. Actions is a complete different matter. They should not be confused: persecutions always start with that confusion.

Please remove this after reading... It's not the proper place after it's purpose being achieved.

Further contacts should be more practical now some things have been clarified.

Thanks for your kindness. I suppose I'll never know if it is natural, but I felt it that way.

Factor-h (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Loganberry (Talk) 23:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Updated thoughts on the article

I think Factor-h's work on this article is valuable. In particular, the increased number of inline references is welcome. I don't think the bold words look right, though: for example, "Jupiter ACE's designers intended to deliver FORTH" in the lead para should not have "designers" bolded. I'm still looking through old magazines and hope to be able to contribute more fairly soon. Loganberry (Talk) 23:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Done other simplifications to the INTRO... it should keep only what can be digested quickly.

References: Done! Do not loose your time searching, I knew were they were. Just check them to confirm their acceptability.

Removed reference to the Z80 clone by NEC as spurious... everybody use them, itś irrelevant.

The Spectrum I checked used one by what seems to be SLS, made in Italy, under license from who?

Everybody followed lot prices, like today, as long as reliability and consistence are maintained.

Factor-h (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean that there was anything wrong with your references, but rather that I hope to be able to add to the article in the future. I'm not going to do any significant editing until you've finished your current work, though, since that would make things confusing. Loganberry (Talk) 16:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

<G> Don't worry ... I got it right. :)

I'm just not sure about the relevance of the 2 last paragraphs in FIRMWARE... about the architectural distribution of the Z80 address space. Would like your opinion. Also: I had a quick look last night, and found some English sentence building errors I'm unable to find now.

I think it is time for a swap in the writing of this one. A different look on the subject would be wealthy.

A small comment: The parenthesis in the intro about the ACE being in CAPS in the manual... As a reader I feel that outside of the description of the little beast... This is my feedback as a Reader.

I do hope to be now free from this, It was enjoyable and I learned some new things, and recalled some old. Not talking about the ACE, though.

The child is now yours. To feed and clean, Hope it may be as rewarding as it was to me. Feel free to ask references you may find missing, I'll get them more easily than you would. Just point them as reference needed... I just cannot promise an immediate response... I need some rest.

Regards, Factor-h (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, nobody "owns" a Wikipedia article, so all (good-faith) editing from all editors is welcomed, but I will see what I can do. I have some other commitments at the moment, so this article will have to wait a little while, but it's on my "to do" list. Thanks again for all your hard work. Loganberry (Talk) 23:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I removed this paragraph again:

It must be understood that with ACE's Forth, 1 KB was equivalent to 2 KB (on average) in Sinclair computers, used here as reference.

It was a real limit nonetheless. Notice that an initial 4 KB (in design) would be the equivalent of about 8 KB in Sinclair BASIC. With the designed 4 KB, though the final price would be slightly more expensive, the ACE would have been much more useful and attractive starting right from the base model.

As basically personal opinion/original research, not to mention some minor issues with tone.

1. Why must it be understood?
2. Where is the on average come from (i.e. which source did such a comparison and came up with this average?). A little context is also missing comparing 1k with 1k of Z80 machine code would likely be the same on both.
3. What is "slightly more expensive"? As a relative cost and without knowing the market factors at the time this again seems to just be a personal opinion. Where is the contemporary documentation indicating this?
4. Who says it would have been more attractive? This seems purely the opinion of whoever added it. I certainly remember the ACE on release and it certainly wouldn't have changed it's attractiveness to me in any way shape or form. Of course that is personal opinion so also couldn't be added.

--82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The section on education seems similarly largely peacock terms and opinion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

New image for vlist?

I found the photograph of the screen barely legible, so I created the same screen image from an emulator and placed it here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jupiter_Ace_vlist_png.png I would have changed it myself but I don't yet know how to change images in Wikipedia. If some one here thinks the emulator screenshot would be an improvement, feel free to change it. SpareHeadOne 22:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Overflowing with undue mentions

Any specs, are short references to relevant data. Using ASCII or a Cyrillic set is not a specification for a computer, but an environmental characteristic. (Maybe deserving a separate article, not to be repeated in all where it may be mentioned.)

It's appendix information, the uses of ASCII, and the differences it contains. Being used by a a different computer is not a surprise, nor relevant. Near all micros not using cyrillic used ASCII-97. If in extreme need to mark that obvious and near universal fact, please present the reference to the ASCII-1967 page to be considered a variation of it. Factor-h (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

---

What does "an environmental characteristic" mean? The Ace did not just use ASCII, it used an extended ASCII (as was common). The way it extended the ASCII was deliberately chosen, as an act by the designers, to follow the ZX, rather than one of the other computers of the time. You might as well delete its use of the Z80 as "undue" or "environmental". The term "undue" in particular means nothing, it is merely a pejorative term that you have used to deliberately bias a discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of character set description

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4] (deleted again, even after discussion was requested)

Factor-h, why are you repeatedly deleting the description of the character set?

Apart from being a basic thing to mention anyway, it it also significant that this computer had followed the ZX Spectrum lead (which was far from standard behaviour for computers of this period) in how the ASCII set was extended. Because of the developer's past involvement with Sinclair, they had deliberately chosen to follow the ZX set, not any of the other extended ASCIIs in use at the time. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Quite the opposite: Why asking what was deliberately ignored?.

Several times this page was disturbed (vandalized?), even if in a small manner. THUS reverted to it's original state.

Several times the REASONS WHY they were reversed where in its summaries. Then silently, but insistently, re-trashed without communication.

Yet, reasons for removal were never refuted.

For fast reference: a char-set DOES NOT deserves a special mention in a specification to a computer, nor it deserves the reading and space consuming reference. There are Megabytes of information on ANY item... NOT relevant here. Also, promoting a personal preference is no way to improve this media. Nor it validates arbitrary actions. Making accusations first... may very well be the only vandalizing action here.

Bad arguments: This item not being the general char-set, nor a keyboard, nor a Spectrum, nor any other... not even a 'follow up' as stated (except on the use of a similar but not equivalent expansion slot) but a computer made by people WHO previously designed the Spectrum, united to design a DIFFERENT computer (as it's developers have expressed). More similar to what a ZX-80/81 SHOULD have been (we might add).

In short

The situation being the opposite of the one presented, and a protection against entropy effects. Thus, it was (is) TO BE RESTORED to the point BEFORE this situation was 'pushed'.

Please do not insist... (reasons not to, above as usual) Factor-h (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• DO NOT describe other editors with different opinions to yours as "vandalizing" the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do not push data not relevant to a section, nor opinions that cannot be proved, nor information not related to an item. You have been informed, you have ignored the information given, and have made accusations only reflecting your own which to "mark a point". Such is not the purpose of this item page. This was a re-incidence. A third time will force a formal complaint against those actions. You have been fairly warned. Sign: Factor-h (not logged)79.168.135.176 (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A Third Opinion has been requested. Unfortunately, I can't provide a reasoned third opinion with respect to alternate concepts of what the article content should be and with respect to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, because I don't understand the position of the other one-and-one-half participants.

It appears that User: Factor-h, sometimes logged out, is deleting material inserted by User:Andy Dingley, and is providing an incomprehensible answer when asked why.

It appears. Quite so.

Fact is article information was placed in a box reserved for short information.

Fact is that information was opinative, beside absolutely non related with the box.

Fact is every reversal was documented, while the pseudo-information was not.

Fact is ever redo was insisted for several times without explanation.

Unless and until Factor-h will explain, civilly and concisely, in grammatical English, why they have deleted the material, my opinion is that the material should be included. Sometimes character sets are relevant to an article about a computer. If Factor-h thinks that it isn't relevant in this case, they should explain why it isn't, in grammatical English, without threats. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Fact is those reasons are present in every undo, even repeated in late observations.

Fact is this maintainer was accused to wikipedia and received a warning, prior to warn that person.

User:Factor-h is strongly advised to read the boomerang essay and then cease and desist from threats to report Andy Dingley to admins, because the only conduct issues that I see are is the yelling of "vandalism" to "win" a conduct dispute. Factor-h is also advised to remember to log in before editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Fact is all effort have been made to invert the situation while this maintainer is trying to keep calm an wait for the need to leave a mark on wikipedia articles has passed. It's not this maintainer need, with a proved mark of sharing good data on one particular item).

Fact is the person in question already has an history of UNDO without explanations. And that may be the problem.

So. would like to ask from where comes the request for a third party, unable but placing a mark suggesting incorrect behaviour (also not investigating it). All this to place in this items page the erronious information that using ASCII means being based on the Spectrum (ZX-81 included we might add)

Meanwhile, possibly related to the rant was created, disambiguation of a sentence considered ambiguous was undone, ambiguity restored. Will that mean new rants as the one seen here? So near in time, it's natural to expect so, the action suggest it to be so.

Such actions, repeated, need to be documented. And truly examined instead of just statements to build a 'looks-like'.

For similar reasons this maintainer has abandoned maintenance for near 10 years. Wikipedia is full of so called 'editors' not being casual editors but simply folks needing to feel important. For that reason wikipedia will continue to fail and being considered an unreliable source with the exception of some pages.

Your's Factor-h, but signing whenever it's due.

Fair well

I'm one of the few who do not need wikipedia. This page being under attack, again.

Wikipedia never did found a way to distinguish contributers only taking face value of wannabees and pretentious claims or 'eared' and 'published' opinions and fashions. - Many (some say most) pages are views imposed in exchange of a profit. (ex: Big Pharma related) - Many other pages are just dogmatic vies with no relation with reality. (ex: rant to "Loyd Pye") - Many other pages have absolutely incorrect data. (ex: "Tape drives", presenting completely erroneous simplistic views and refusing to correct its information)

As stated, I do not 'need' WP as many 'editors' do... Its fair to say WP needed me to 90% to the presentation of its content, so the reverse should be true. There's life outside WP, and it's to fear who its on all too much time.

Sometimes I was even 'forced' to a compromise, as with erroneous benchmark values, not to disturb beliefs (consensus was needed, not facts) of another machine fans. Even some data placed here, by this contributer turned maintainer, was disturbing to fans of the item here documented.

After those and other undue situations, I've abandoned contributing for 10 years. Returned a few years ago. Only contributing to this page making it one of the exceptions. Today, WP favors active editors, not correct ones. It runs for size, not correctness. Thus...

A big goodbye to all that contributed with good data I would not place here, and to all who supported its build to what it become until a few hours ago. No one needs WP: The world needs correctness and good will, specially in a world of tricks and stratagems. I won't even place a charge as was done to me (I warned I would). That would not solve the main problem WP and the world has: How to distinguish.

Factor-h, aka DuLac (on a foreign computer and without patience to play games) 79.168.135.176 (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been there. I'm very sorry and hope you reconsidered. I did, but fully understand why you might notCuvtixo (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Trim and tidy

I've done a pretty extensive "trim and tidy" over the last couple of days, but I'm no expert of the Jupiter Ace and it's possible that while I've probably improved the English, I may have mangled some of the facts. Please check, and fix as required! - (If you can understand the "ACE's Forth" section then please have a go at tidying up the writing there too).Snori (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

kB/KB

This entire article was using "kB" to indicate memory sizes, which is factually wrong, since kB is defined as 1000 bytes. Computers of this era used 1024-byte kilobytes, so all storage references have been corrected to "KB".Sirfurboy (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Sales

I have to think the template of "original research" is more vandalism by the people citations, of which the latest is 2016, literally over 6 years ago. Original research is appropriate for sections with NO citations!

"What is an Ace". Archived from the original on 2012-06-17. Retrieved 2008-09-24.
"Jupiter Ace Resource Site - Your Computer Review, November 1982". Retrieved 2013-04-27.
"Jupiter Ace Software Index". Archived from the original on 2007-05-23. Retrieved 2014-10-05.
"Jupiter Ace Resource Site - Letter - Ace Goes Back To School in Popular Computing Weekly 11 November 1982". Retrieved 2013-04-27.
"The Jupiter Ace is 30 - Page 5 • The Register". Retrieved 2013-04-27.

Cuvtixo (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)