HP 2000 system requirements (was Re: Request for Armed Guard highway escort (HP2100))

Eric wrote... I did say "I believe", ie subjective opinion. I'm familiar with C, E, and Access from personal experience using them in high school. In my own experience, C was "twitchy". E was rock solid. E gives up features like "Print Using" and "execute" I seem to recall, and E didn't support group libraries and such... but E was perfectly usable and stable as heck. Of course, YMMV Well, it is fairly plausible that a hobbyist can get 2000E running on "modern" stuff like a 21MX/E or F. You aren't going to get A or B running easily, unless someone knows where a working HP drum memory device and working fixed head disc are. I can't imagine there's any of those around, and A/B required them, so , not very likely. Matter of fact, didn't C or F require a fixed head drive? I think one of them did anyways, and there are likely none of those devices to be found. In addition, the A and B versions are cute, but lack some of the basic features one would want that are in the E version. E was a modern implementation of BASIC, unlike the A/B, and wasn't all that different from the Access systems except for a few statements that many people like. That is also true of 2000E One backed up 2000E quite handily using disc-up and copy loader commands. That I know for sure, and I THINK you could do a sleep/hib to disk? But, more to the point, all I was saying is, C/C'/F require two cpu's. For many hobbists, finding one cpu is hard enough, let alone two, and the interconnect kit, etc. etc. I was just saying that the E version is perfectly usable, and doesn't require gobs of hardware like the C/C'/F, and Access versions do. Jay West