[Coco] The COCO vs The Apple II

[didier derny]

I don't think it was so poorly designed, I used both a an Apple with Dos 3.2.1
And a commodore 8096 with a 8050/8250  around 500k/1Mb)

I hated the Disk II no capacity, too many errors, software lost

With the 8050 or 8250 a lot of space disk easily copied once a day without any external software
Yes it was a bit sluggish but trying to find the right program in 5 or 10 floppies...

It is true that I'm not sure that this architecture was so adapted for low end machines..

A 1540/1541 is just a reduced 4040

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Coco [mailto:coco-bounces at maltedmedia.com] De la part de Tony Cappellini
Envoyé : dimanche 11 janvier 2015 19:43
À : CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts
Objet : Re: [Coco] The COCO vs The Apple II

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 06:56:19 -0500
From: Al Hartman <alhartman6 at optonline.net>
To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Subject: Re: [Coco] The COCO vs The Apple II
Message-ID: <E29150ABEF474ECB8DCD1D859DF30D39 at Inspiron15>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8;
        reply-type=original

>>I have JiffyDOS in my C64 and 1541 Drive which speeds it up quite a bit.

The thing that bugs me about the 154x drives for the C64s is that they were designed poorly- as a peripheral.

There is a lot of hardware in each drive- which you must pay for with each one that you buy. This is absolutely unnecessary, as can be seen with the Coco's simple controller, and plain floppy drives.

Even with all of that hardware & FW in the 154x drives, they were sinfully slow, which led to the 3rd party add-ons to help speed them up.

I never touched the TI nor Atari system, so I have no idea what their storage systems are like.

--
Coco mailing list
Coco at maltedmedia.com
https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco