I’m testing only on Linux. I am surprised at the huge difference in time from leaving off the variable name in the NEXT. I posted a reference SPDCHK program (in the other thread) so we can all be talking about the same test. Essentially, it is doing:
PRINT TIME$: FOR T=1 TO 3535: NEXT: PRINT TIME$ Note: I was doing a lot of tests and got tired of waiting 30 seconds, so I shortened the loop to count to 3535, which takes almost precisely 10 seconds on a stock Tandy 200. I don’t expect super accuracy, just something so that people can design games in BASIC on the Virtual T and know it’ll be roughly the same experience on the actual hardware. Speaking of emulators: Has anyone else tried out the MAME emulation of the Model T computers? It is still quite rough (for example, the screen looks terrible compared to the actual hardware) but its timing does seem to be accurate. Or rather, its “in game” version of the timing is right — if I use “PRINT TIME$” as my stopwatch, counting to 3535 the MAME emulated Tandy 200 thinks it takes ten seconds, however it seems to take longer on my wall clock. —b9 On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 2:33 PM John R. Hogerhuis <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah I agree. Between Linux and Windows difference it's likely a bug > unrelated to I/o waits > > -- John. >
