 | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Maurice Hilarius
|
| | | With regards to your message at 01:30 AM 01-01-99 GMT, Brett Carver. Where you stated: (...) It boils down to this: If you want to build a _very_ simple 'bot, then this set and the RCX are fine. If you want it to be complex enough to accomplish much (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Brett Carver
|
| | | | | (...) I agree with most of what was said (especially the idea of a library of ideas which has been started on a couple different web sites). But... (...) I don't agree that the effort is a "waste". Personally, I've had a LOT of fun working on the (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —John Donaldson
|
| | | | | | The work being done with the RCX, reminds me of the old days when we had Apple II, PET's, C64, and the Tandy COCO1/2/3. We were always figuring out how to get more out of those computers and software tricks. I remember at one Tandy COCO trade show, (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Maurice Hilarius
|
| | | | With regards to your message at 07:06 AM 01-01-99 GMT, Brett Carver. Where you stated: (...) Sorry, I wasn't meaning to be critical! I was remembering back to very earley computer days. Back then I remember the great excirement about coming up with (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
