23 Apr
2002
23 Apr
'02
4:46 p.m.
Hi Richard,
were not great, but at least they were adequate.
Frankly, if one
considers the competition, the Commodore people picked the video
toy market to
play in rather than the home computer market, because they
couldn't compete
with Apple and Radio Shack, though they attempted to compete with
RS' low-end.
So just what is it that classifies the C64 as a "toy" computer ? When
it was released, it was far more capable than the existant Apples,
Ataris & Radio Shacks (& a damn sight cheaper too).
Indeed, out of all the machines then in production, which one still in
use now is still capable of (more or less) doing what modern machines
can ?
cheers,
Lance
----------------
Powered by telstra.com
23 Apr
23 Apr
8:52 p.m.
I haven't looked at the insides of the COCO2 I've got sitting here, but I
don't see any place for a FDD or a HDD. Are there serial ports anywhere that
I can use? How much R/W memory does it have? How do you expand it to do
something useful?
... see what I mean? You have to do so much to the thing that RS sells you
that it takes up a whole tabletop just to get to what's in the PC's box, and
if you compare the price of a typical PC Clone available the same year the
COCO2 was offered, how do they compare in price, avaialble software base, etc?
The worst you have to do with a PC, PDP11, or whatever computer you buy, is
plug in what you want to use.
With the COCO, you're better off starting from a wirewrap panel and a bucket
of parts, since the video on the COCO is not "up to snuff," i.e. 80x24
characters-capable. It uses that ridiculous 6847, IIRC, and even at 32
characters (or was it 40), it's pretty shabby. The other RS stuff wasn't much
better with its unconventional 64x16. They foisted that ridiculous format off
on the public to save a buck on display ram. <sigh>
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "blacklord" <blacklord(a)telstra.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
Hi Richard,
were not great, but at least they were adequate.
Frankly, if one
considers the competition, the Commodore people picked the video
toy market to
play in rather than the home computer market, because they
couldn't compete
with Apple and Radio Shack, though they attempted to compete with
RS' low-end.
So just what is it that classifies the C64 as a "toy" computer ? When
it was released, it was far more capable than the existant Apples,
Ataris & Radio Shacks (& a damn sight cheaper too).
Indeed, out of all the machines then in production, which one still in
use now is still capable of (more or less) doing what modern machines
can ?
cheers,
Lance
----------------
Powered by telstra.com
10:17 p.m.
Richard Erlacher wrote:
With the COCO, you're better off starting from a
wirewrap panel and a bucket
of parts, since the video on the COCO is not "up to snuff," i.e. 80x24
characters-capable. It uses that ridiculous 6847, IIRC, and even at 32
characters (or was it 40), it's pretty shabby. The other RS stuff wasn't much
better with its unconventional 64x16. They foisted that ridiculous format off
on the public to save a buck on display ram. <sigh>
Nope -- the original coco was 4 or 16 K of ram. The PC had a real
display (monochrome).
The CGA was a piece of crap!
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
11:55 p.m.
Careful now, Ben ... I believe I remember what the 6847 is. It only supported
one character display format. While I agree that the CGA is a piece of crap,
as is any display with fewer than 768 pixels horizontally and 512 vertically
on an NTSC frame, and also including CGA, Herc, and EGA, the 6847 couldn't
manage more than its 256x192 pixels, in what ... 4 colors if you include
black? The entire system timing was heavily dependent on the 6847 and that
peculiar 74LS768 or whatever ( sequential address multiplexer ) without which
they couldn't have built the thing in the size they did.
I developed hardware and firmware for the 6809 enough to know it was a decent
enough CPU, though it paid dearly in performance for the seldom-used
enhancements that its instruction set supported.
Now, what do you mean by a "real" display?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Franchuk" <bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
Richard Erlacher wrote:
> With the COCO, you're better off starting from a wirewrap panel and a
bucket
> of parts, since the video on the COCO is not
"up to snuff," i.e. 80x24
> characters-capable. It uses that ridiculous 6847, IIRC, and even at 32
> characters (or was it 40), it's pretty shabby. The other RS stuff wasn't
much
> better with its unconventional 64x16. They
foisted that ridiculous format
off
on the public
to save a buck on display ram. <sigh>
Nope -- the original coco was 4 or 16 K of ram. The PC had a real
display (monochrome).
The CGA was a piece of crap!
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
24 Apr
24 Apr
12:23 a.m.
Richard Relater wrote:
Careful now, Ben ... I believe I remember what the
6847 is. It only supported
one character display format. While I agree that the CGA is a piece of crap,
as is any display with fewer than 768 pixels horizontally and 512 vertically
on an NTSC frame, and also including CGA, Herc, and EGA, the 6847 couldn't
manage more than its 256x192 pixels, in what ... 4 colors if you include
black? The entire system timing was heavily dependent on the 6847 and that
peculiar 74LS768 or whatever ( sequential address multiplexer ) without which
they couldn't have built the thing in the size they did.
I run 640x480 where does that fit?? I got a few targa boards kicking
around here
512 x 512 NTSC - 15 bit color.
640 x 200 would give you minimal 80x24 screen with 8x8 bit characters --
nice for playing games if you have a definable character set. I think
the
C64 had this.
What I ment by real display 1) real keyboard 2) real video 80 x 24 upper
and LOWER case too.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
5:37 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 386 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020424/b7276868/at…
5:26 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2918 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020424/ab0d39ef/at…
10:28 p.m.
Did they punt the 6847+SAM in the COCO3?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
bucket
>
> I haven't looked at the insides of the COCO2 I've got sitting here, but I
> don't see any place for a FDD or a HDD. Are there serial ports anywhere
that
On the right hand side of the main PCB is an edge connector, officially
called the 'cartridge port'. Although originally designed for ROM
software cartridges, it's essentially the 6809 system bus, and you can
connect an FDC or HDC here (both were sold by Radio Shack, BTW)
As for serial ports, there's a bit-banger built into the machine (it's
the 4 pin DIN socket on the back of the PCB). As a bitbanger, it's best
used for output only (to drive a serial printer, for example), but I used
OS-9 as a 2 user system with a 300 baud terminal connected there for a bit.
More reasonably, you'd connect an 6850 or 6551 to the cartridge
connector. There was a Radio Shack cartridge to do this (also containing
a dumb terminal emulator in ROM). Hardware hackers built multiple serial
port cartridges, particularly if they ran OS-9 seriously.
There's also a think called a Multi-Pak interface that connects up to 4
cartridges at the same time. It was common to use one of these to connect
an FDC, HDC and serial cartridge to the CoCo.
you
I can use? How much R/W memory does it have?
How do you expand it to do
CoCo 1 : 4K, 16K, 32K (or 64K with simple mods)
CoCo 2 : 16K or 64K
CoCo 3 : 128K or 512K
> something useful?
>
> ... see what I mean? You have to do so much to the thing that RS sells > that it takes up a whole tabletop just to get to
what's in the PC's box,
and
Well, the fact you can buy it in sections is actually an advantage if you
can't afford it all at once. I bought the CoCo first, then the disk drive
and OS-9 about 6 months later. And I then built my own multi-pak
backplane and serial ports.
And it's not impossible to repackage the CoCo into a PC-clone case.
Plenty of people did.
> The worst you have to do with a PC, PDP11, or whatever computer you buy,
is
plug in what
you want to use.
Ditto with the CoCo if you bought all the Radio Shack hardware you
needed. Just plug the multi-pak into the CoCo, then plug in a disk
controller and serial port, etc.
I ran OS-9 on my CoCo for many years. It was the first multiuser system I
owned, and I learnt a heck of a lot from it. And it cost me a lot less
than any PC clone at the time.
>
> With the COCO, you're better off starting from a wirewrap panel and a
of parts,
since the video on the COCO is not "up to snuff," i.e. 80x24
characters-capable. It uses that ridiculous 6847, IIRC, and even at 32
To be honest, I'd rather use OS-9 on a 6809 from a teletype than (say)
MS-DOS on an 8088 and a 80*24 video display. Video performance is not
something I care too much about on a _computer. In any case firstly you
could use an exernal video terminal with the CoCo under OS-9, And
secondly the CoCo 3 has an 80*25 text mode.
-tony
11:01 p.m.
Richard Erlacher wrote:
> > I can use? How much R/W memory does it
have? How do you expand it to do
>
> CoCo 1 : 4K, 16K, 32K (or 64K with simple mods)
> CoCo 2 : 16K or 64K
> CoCo 3 : 128K or 512K
Well modern Coco Hackers have got several meg on the
coco 3
and ide drives and real serial ports too.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
25 Apr
25 Apr
8:49 a.m.
I've never doubted that one could add things, given the will to do so. I'm
curious, however, what came with it when it was new?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Franchuk" <bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
Richard Erlacher wrote:
> > > I can use? How much R/W memory does it have? How do you expand it to
do
>
> CoCo 1 : 4K, 16K, 32K (or 64K with simple mods)
> CoCo 2 : 16K or 64K
> CoCo 3 : 128K or 512K
Well modern Coco Hackers have got several meg on the
coco 3
and ide drives and real serial ports too.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
3:30 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 933 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020425/f8b7986a/at…
24 Apr
24 Apr
6:12 a.m.
New subject: C64 features (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
> were not great, but at least they were adequate.
Frankly, if one
> considers the competition, the Commodore people picked the video
> toy market to play in rather than the home computer market,
> because they couldn't compete with Apple and Radio Shack,
> though they attempted to compete with RS' low-end.
So just what is it that classifies the C64 as a
"toy" computer ? When
it was released, it was far more capable than the existant Apples,
Ataris & Radio Shacks (& a damn sight cheaper too).
Hold your breath Commo Boy (I just feel 20 years younger :).
THe 8 Bit ataries where quite superior compared to the C64.
Not only softwarewise, where the C64 was som hardware with a
not realy adapted Basic from a total different computer, but
also hardwarewise. After all, the Amiga is nothing else than
a souped up 8 Bit Atari. AGNUS/DENISE is a staight foreward
port of the ANTIC/GTIA architecture. And didn't even the
PAULA include the serial port like Ataris POKEY ? Of couse,
both where made by the same developers.
I don't want to put the C64 down, but as with any Tramiel
product it was a lousy thing - not hte best hardware and
shiddy software.
Still it's amazing what programmes could get out of that
hardware. The same is true for the Atari ST. Basicly a
real weak (or better simple) product (Did someone say
Tramiel ?), but programmes got superior results ... Just
remember Xenon and Xenon II from the Bitmap Brothers. A
game outpassing all Amiga games at the same time, and done
without the (no doubt) superiour AMIGA graphic hardware.
Indeed, out of all the machines then in production,
which one still in
use now is still capable of (more or less) doing what modern machines
can ?
Apple II ?
If we stay with 8 Bit Computers, the A2 is maybe the most modern
one. You'll get everything including Nhernet card is just hack
for a few dozend owners, 'cause then I'etwork with standard cards.
Don't come up with the C64, where a Etll bring the ZX 81 up. THis
baby got anything from Hard disks to Network ... As late add ons.
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 3.0 am 27./28. April 2002 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
4:04 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 829 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020424/678524e8/at…
10:24 p.m.
I keep coming back to the distinction between what the systems in question did
as shipped by the mfg, vs. what they COULD be persuaded to do with the
application of appropriate pressure.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
So just what
is it that classifies the C64 as a "toy" computer ? When
it was released, it was far more capable than the existant Apples,
Ataris & Radio Shacks (& a damn sight cheaper too).
Hmmm... Define 'far more capable'... While not wishing to flame the C64,
and while I certainly don't belive it was a 'toy computer', the Radio
Shack CoCo could run a multi-tasking (and even multi-user) operating
system with a good structured BASIC, a very nice Pascal compiler and a
not-too-bad C compiler. I've never seen a C64 do that (but I might well
be missing something -- I'll admit I was not really a Commodore person
back then).
Indeed, out of all the machines then in production, which one still in
use now is still capable of (more or less) doing what modern machines
can ?
Hmmm.... PERQ 2?
-tony
25 Apr
25 Apr
3:25 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 748 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020425/18f75744/at…
6:11 p.m.
... when was that, Tony? How long after the original CoCo was sold before
the whole "shootin' match" could be bought at the RS?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
My point in this case is that a long time went by between when RS put out the
"toy" version, the "original," and when the other hardware/etc. was
complete,
just as did the folks from Commodore, Atari, and others, all of whom were
primarily in the toy market. Once it became apparent that money could be made
by selling add-ons for their toys, they did that. Commodore, among others,
made it very difficult to use conventional hardware, but that didn't stop them
>
> I keep coming back to the distinction between what the systems in question
did
as shipped by
the mfg, vs. what they COULD be persuaded to do with the
application of appropriate pressure.
I don't know what planet you're from, but back here on Earth, Radio Shack
sold the CoCo, a disk drive for the CoCo, OS-9 configured for the CoCo
and all the languages I mentioned.
In other words, this was _exaxtly_ what the manufacturer said you could
do with it. Buy the CoCo. Buy the disk drive _from the same company_. Buy
OS-9 _from the same company agains_. Plug it all together, type in one
command ('DOS' IIRC) and you were running a real operating system. It did
not necessarily involve any 3rd party hardware or home hacking.
from pushing their own stuff. As I've mentioned
before, Commodore tried to
prevent folks from using conventional
(Centronics-interfaced) printers, so a
guy here in Denver made millions on an adapter from the silly GPIB version
they supported to an Epson-compatible interface. The Commodore folks behaved
just as toy vendors in other areas did, limiting their toys to be used as they
intended. I know DEC did that to some extent, but their prices clearly
defined their products as being outside the toy market.
Dick
10:30 p.m.
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
... when was that, Tony? How long after the original
CoCo was sold before
the whole "shootin' match" could be bought at the RS?
Around here, the controller and drive were pretty much right away, but
OS-9 as an alternative to the Microsoft Stand-Alone BASIC was more than a
year later.
8292
days inactive
8294
days old
16 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
blacklord＠telstra.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de