[Coco] If the Commodore can do it!

[Mark McDougall]

jdaggett at gate.net wrote:

> My impressions are that for the Coco there is this issue of which do you
>  develop for,  the OS9  users or the RSDOS users or both? My understnding
>  that the Commodore does not have this type of conflict in their user
> base.

You make a good point, but the bottom line is the size of the user base.

Sadly, the two microcomputers that I grew up with (TRS-80 Model I & Coco) 
have relatively small enthusiast followings these days which does tend to 
stifle any medium-to-large scale (cooperative) development efforts. There's 
also very little incentive for a developer to produce a "commercial" product.

The C64 OTOH, has a large user base to this day, rivaled perhaps only by the 
Apple II. As you correctly surmise, the C64 DOS existed in the ROM of the 
disk drive itself and, aside from the various turbo loaders, AFAIK there was 
  no significant third-party DOS incompatible with the former.

The Apple II has devotees split between DOS 3.3 and ProDOS, similar to the 
Coco dilemma, but with a much larger user base, it's less of a problem. 
Similarly, IIUC there are two (incompatible) 3rd party Ethernet cards 
available for the A2, although it may be the case (now) that one is dominant.

> Obviously the OS9 userbase would benefit more from a TCP/IP. There has 
> always been this compatability conflict that has plagued the Coco for
> years.

Agreed. However for me, I'd find myself mucking about with TRS-80 stuff more 
frequently if there was something equivalent to the Apple II CFFA (compact 
flash adapter). It might just be me, but the idea of carrying around my 
entire TRS-80 software collection on a compact flash card (or equivalent) in 
my pocket - that I can run on a *real* TRS-80 or (FPGA) hardware emulation - 
has a certain appeal.

Regards,

-- 
|              Mark McDougall                | "Electrical Engineers do it
|  <http://members.iinet.net.au/~msmcdoug>   |   with less resistance!"