[Coco] CoCoNet beta release

[richec]

On Saturday 02 January 2010 14:48:24 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 02 January 2010, Roger Taylor wrote:
> >At 01:34 AM 1/2/2010, you wrote:
> >>Bob Devries wrote:
> >>>DLOAD is a part of the original EXTENDED COLOR BASIC ROM, and is
> >>>not part of OS-9/NitrOS-9.
> >>>
> >>>Having said that, I'm sure it's possible to create a new and better
> >>>version od the DLOAD built-in command.
> >>
> >>You're right, the DLOAD command is available on any CoCo 1 and 2
> >>with ECB, and there are patches to completely restore it on the CoCo
> >>3. But if you're after a "better" DLOAD, why don't you use DriveWire
> >>or CoCoNet? Those systems will provide you with virtual disk drives
> >>hosted on a PC over a 115 or 230 kbps serial connection. If you have
> >>such a system, why, then, would you need DLOAD, which only allows
> >>you to load (not save) programs from a host at 4800 bps max. (9600
> >>bps on a CoCo 3)?
> >>
> >>My interest in the DLOAD command stems from the fact that it could
> >>be used to bootstrap DriveWire (and perhaps CoCoNet, but it seems
> >>unlikely at this point). All you would need to get started is a
> >>serial cable... and a PC, of course. To serve this purpose, DLOAD
> >>doesn't need to be improved, it just needs to work. For historic
> >>reasons, DLOAD was killed on the CoCo 3, but if you cast a magic
> >>spell (2 POKEs and 2 EXECs) upon the little beast, she will recover
> >>the ability to speak with a DLOAD server. That's all. If you think
> >>about it, this is hardly any more work than entering the date and
> >>time every time you boot that old IBM PC 5150, or your username and
> >>password on other systems.
> >
> >I was doing exactly what you're doing now, a few years ago or
> >more.  I remember having some of the same conversations and debates.
> >
> >If you keep on the path I did, eventually, you'll get mad at Mark
> >Hawkins and the gang for screwing up a way to take a bare CoCo 3
> >running software from over a 2 or 3-wire cable.  :)
> 
> If I can be so audacious as to mention it, I have wondered if they were
>  more concerned with getting their trio image into it than with preserving
>  functionality.  OTOH, that might have been the shacks way of trying to get
>  everybody over to the pc.  Us peons will likely never really know though.
> 
Do you mean us "peedons" 8-)