3 Aug
2012
3 Aug
'12
1:20 p.m.
Time Magazine sets the record straight on the microcomputer history forgot,
the TRS-80 Model 1 <http://techland.time.com/2012/08/03/trs-80/>.
I'm pleased to see my Dick Smith System 80 site linked to the article.
One mistake though. You needed at least 32k for disk operations on a
TRS-80 Model 1, not 16k (-:
Tez
4 Aug
4 Aug
10:30 a.m.
Time Magazine sets the record straight on the microcomputer history forgot,
the TRS-80 Model 1 <http://techland.time.com/2012/08/03/trs-80/>.
I'm pleased to see my Dick Smith System 80 site linked to the article.
One mistake though. You needed at least 32k for disk operations on a
TRS-80 Model 1, not 16k (-:
Did you? You nee3ded an expansio nitnerface to prvide the disk
controller and that unit had sockets for up to 32K more RAM (so a 32K or
48K machine total), but I thought TRS-DOS would boot in 16K. OF course
user memeory was then so limited that almost nothign would run.
When I upgrded to disks I filled all the sockets in the EI (4116s were
relatively cheap by then) so I never tried it with anythiog other than 48K.
-tony
11:53 a.m.
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Tony Duell wrote:
Yes, you could run TRSDOS with only 16K RAM. TRSDOS took about
4.2K, and the Disk BASIC extension took about 5.8K. From a Radio
Shack catalog, at "http://www.trs-80.com/trs80-models-model1.htm".
==== start excerpt ====
"Professional" 16K System
$2,384.00
Consists of:
* 16K Level II Complete System
* Expansion Interface
* Mini-Disk System
* Quick Printer Cable
* System Desk
Mini-disk for expanded language, fast data handling, and
approximately 49,900 bytes of user disk storage space. Quick
Printer provides 80-column hard copy and program listings.
System Desk holds the entire system with plenty of work
space left over.
==== end excerpt ====
--Ernest
Time Magazine sets the record straight on the microcomputer history forgot,
the TRS-80 Model 1 <http://techland.time.com/2012/08/03/trs-80/>.
I'm pleased to see my Dick Smith System 80 site linked to the article.
One mistake though. You needed at least 32k for disk operations on a
TRS-80 Model 1, not 16k (-:
Did you? You nee3ded an expansio nitnerface to prvide the disk
controller and that unit had sockets for up to 32K more RAM (so a 32K or
48K machine total), but I thought TRS-DOS would boot in 16K. OF course
user memeory was then so limited that almost nothign would run.
When I upgrded to disks I filled all the sockets in the EI (4116s were
relatively cheap by then) so I never tried it with anythiog other than 48K.
-tony
2:21 p.m.
> One mistake though. You needed at least 32k for
disk operations on a
> TRS-80 Model 1, not 16k (-:
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Tony Duell wrote:
When I upgrded to disks I filled all the sockets in
the EI (4116s were
relatively cheap by then) so I never tried it with anythiog other than 48K.
Although it was theoretically possible to run TRS-DOS 2.0 and 2.1 in 16K,
[would Micro-DOS, APR-DOS, DOS-PLUS, NEWDOS, VVTOS, L-DOS fit in 16K?],
there are no confirmed reliable reports of anybody ever doing so.
Well, except for people who paid RS prices for their 4116s, and how
reliable are they?
2:43 p.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
Although it was theoretically possible to run TRS-DOS
2.0 and 2.1 in
16K, [would Micro-DOS, APR-DOS, DOS-PLUS, NEWDOS, VVTOS, L-DOS fit in
16K?], there are no confirmed reliable reports of anybody ever doing
so. Well, except for people who paid RS prices for their 4116s, and
how reliable are they?
Most if not all of the operating systems that were intended to be
capable of running software for Model I TRS-DOS 2.x were capable of
running on a 16K machine, because they had to confine themselves to
basically the same memory footprint as TRS-DOS for compatibility. To
squeeze in the added functionality, they used more overlays, and in some
cases reduced the size of the resident code to make the overlay area
slightly larger.
Some of the operating systems had optional features that would use high
memory. Those may or may not work on 16K or 32K systems.
6:53 p.m.
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Eric Smith wrote:
Most if not all of the operating systems that were
intended to be
capable of running software for Model I TRS-DOS 2.x were capable of
running on a 16K machine, because they had to confine themselves to
basically the same memory footprint as TRS-DOS for compatibility. To
squeeze in the added functionality, they used more overlays, and in some
cases reduced the size of the resident code to make the overlay area
slightly larger.
FMG (relocated CP/M) would probably not have enough TPA to launch DDT
7:35 p.m.
On 08/04/2012 09:53 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Eric Smith wrote:
CP/M2 would use 5.5K for the CCP and BDOS, Likely less than 2K for the
BIOS and DDT needs 7K.
Since CP/M allows for overlaying the CCP you get 2K right there for use
at no real cost.
You would be left with very little free space for an application
(about 3-4K) but TRSDOS would
not be any better off with only 16K. Due to the 16K offset
applications were not portable
to the relocated CP/M unless reassembled or recompiled.
With 32K both become usable.
The TRS80 was unusual in that the first 16K was eaten up by LII basic
(12K), Video memory (1K)
and memory mapped keyboard (256 addresses) with many phantoms (minimally
decoded addresses)
in that first 16K. That limited the system to 48K of ram and would
later lead to bank switching
the first 16K with mapped ram.
Allison
Most if not all of the operating systems that
were intended to be
capable of running software for Model I TRS-DOS 2.x were capable of
running on a 16K machine, because they had to confine themselves to
basically the same memory footprint as TRS-DOS for compatibility. To
squeeze in the added functionality, they used more overlays, and in some
cases reduced the size of the resident code to make the overlay area
slightly larger.
FMG (relocated CP/M) would probably not have enough TPA to launch
DDT
4522
days inactive
4524
days old
6 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
ajp166＠verizon.net -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
eallen＠owt.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
terry＠webweavers.co.nz