Re: [stella] Does this look right? (clock)

Subject: Re: [stella] Does this look right? (clock)
From: crackers@xxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 03:46:11 -0400 (EDT)
In article , you wrote:
>In article <3433CF1E.559C41E8@xxxxxxx>, you wrote:
>>Erik Mooney wrote:
>>> I recently set a record by having Windows 95 running for 92 hours straight
>>> without crashing... wonder what the record is for a 2600 :)  Most virtual
>>> pets get 1-3 months per "life".. could the 2600 approach that?
>>Since these things are so popular, and Crackers' version will look much
>>better and potentially have more going on than the keychain variety, it
>>might be reasonable for some giga-fanatic to dedicate a cheap, used TV
>>(and even a UPS!) to try and run his game for a period of *years*.  To
>>help encourage longevity contests, some sort of encryption scheme that
>>verifies how long the creature truly lived could be added.
>I was planning to have the pets live for a maximum of 256 days since that
>would be the easiest to code. But I suppose I could give them an unlimited
>lifespan with a counter of somesort and people could see how long they could
>keep them alive for.
>I found that after day four with my keychain pet I was praying for the damn
>thing to take ill and die. ;) I was just getting sick of cleaning up
>virtual poop all the time. The thing poops more than my baby,
>I was also thinking of having a 2-week lifespan mode too and somebody else
>suggested a one day lifespan mode where everything is accelerated greatly.
>"Damnit! I just cleaned up your business 20 nanoseconds ago!"
>                                  CRACKERS
>                      (Virtual pooper scooper from hell!!!!)


Accordionist - Wethifl Musician - Atari 2600 Collector | /\/\
*NEW CrAB URL* ***| \^^/
Bira Bira Devotee - FES Member - Samurai Pizza Cats Fan| =\/=

Archives updated once/day at
Unsubscribing and other info at

Current Thread