[Coco] PopStar Pilot blog offline

[Brian Blake]

On 2/24/2015 3:37 AM, Nick Marentes wrote:
>
>
> I wish to thank those who have helped me in the past and in 
> particular, I wish to thank Robert Gault for always supporting my 
> projects and offering helpful and unrelenting advice of which I am 
> greatly appreciative.
>
> Nick Marentes
>

Now that I'm at my computer, and not on my phone, I'll respond a little 
more in depth. This is the thing that really torques my screws about the 
CoCo community. People who have been actively working on projects 
getting crapped on by others who have done nothing recently, or at all. 
While I typically agree with the KISS theory of product design, there's 
something to be said for folks willing to throw out suggestions on ways 
to improve hardware. If you're making a piece of replacement hardware, 
the first step should be to get a working prototype, or maybe a few, 
'then ask what can I do to improve or add functionality?' There's 
nothing wrong with that. And when you get right down to the nitty gritty 
of it, the person doing the development has all final say what he or she 
wants in the device being developed.

Problems definitely arise from is design by committee, though. At first 
people like the idea of a replacement piece of hardware. When other 
possibilities are being mentioned, they sound like good ideas, until the 
realization hits that these improvements would delay release of the 
'product', not to mention the software to utilize said improvements. I 
used the term product lightly since, and let's be honest here, the 
number of unit sold MIGHT be around 500 for any given product - and 
that's being very generous since there's roughly 500 people on the list 
and not everyone buys what's being developed anyhow. So, 500 is a hell 
of a number for ANY hobbiest to build and sell. I'm pretty sure the 
CoCoSDC didn't sell that many units, and I have serious doubts an MPI - 
clone or improved version - would sell that many either.

My main gripe isn't with the developers or dreamers, though. The guys 
like Darren, Ed, Mark, Boisy, Luis, Robert and others have my utmost 
respect for their skills and willingness to contribute to something that 
is basically a hobby - nobody is going to get rich developing new 
hardware or software for the CoCo. However, the attitude mentioned in my 
previous message comes from but a few people who like to bring up their 
glory days while telling other people just why their ideas and wishes 
aren't good ones. While there may be some merit to what's been said in 
opposition to an MPI with added functionality, the condescending tone in 
which it was said was flat out rude and boiled down to this: 'you don't 
know what you're talking about, I did this in the past, and by the way, 
I don't want what you're suggesting.'

If you're not working on the product, you've got no real business 
shooting down somebody's suggestions simply because it's not what you 
want! If the person designing it does or doesn't want to add to it, it's 
on them. It's been discussed many times about the CoCo's short comings 
in the sound department, and the desire for an integrated sound option 
for the CoCo (in the CoCoSDC v2 and now in the MPI). And now, one of the 
people who could have used said option in his games has thrown in the 
towel, not only on a promising game, but, on the CoCo in general. I'm a 
betting man, and I'd bet this talk about the MPI is at least part of the 
reason why.

Congratulations...





-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tandy Color Computer <http://www.tandycoco.com>
Tandy CoCo Forum <http://www.tandycoco.com/forum>