TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)

[Warren Wolfe]

On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 13:35 -0600, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:


> The apple was a flop, yes.  The Commodore also was a flop.  Just look at the
> numbers.  The apple was a flop because it was marketed as entertainment and
> drawing pictures (which it excelled at) while the TRS-80 was a scientific
> machine that crunched numbers.  Yes, today the tables are reversed, but back
> then, those of us who were into computers (I had been in computers since
> 1960 on the IBM 7070) were looking for computing power for serious work.
> The Apple was just not that.  The Commodore didnt make it because it was
> under powered and again was marketed toward using it for games not serious
> work.


    Both the Apple and Commodore were hardly flops.  They did what they
were designed to do, and made a bunch of money for their respective
owners.  I'm not sure I understand how you are defining "success" and
"flop" here.  The Apple, additionally, had the exciting market-making
feature of an open bus, allowing others to make products for the
machine.  This was later adopted by IBM.



> I still have several of all three and at the time I would use my
> TRS-80 whenever I was programming.  The others were FUN machines made for
> children while the TRS-80 was capable of programming in BASIC, FORTRAN,
> NLOS, FORTH and Assembly to name only the languages that I had  enabled on
> my machine.


    "Enabled?"  Uh, it APPEARS that you don't understand the concept.
Languages are LOADED on a machine, they're not there waiting to be
"enabled" and then used -- other than the BASIC in ROM on several
machines, the IBM included.  Any language could be implemented on either
the Apple or the Commodore, and a wide variety WERE implemented -- I'll
leave it to the outraged fans of both camps to provide a detailed
list...



>   AND the DOS in the TRS-80 was miles ahead of the others and was
> accessible.  When IBM came out with their machine I wished they had licensed
> TRS-DOS and then developed that instead of starting with their own.  Yes
> IBMs DOS went on to outstrip TRS-DOS, but just think how much faster the
> development would have been if they had started with the solid base that
> TRS-DOS had set down.


    IBM licensed MS-DOS from Microsoft, and CP/M-86 from Digital
Research, and did NOT develop their own Operating System until OS/2,
which was essentially stillborn.  And, since MS-DOS was simply an XLATed
hot copy of CP/M-80 with a couple of changes, IBM computers essentially
ran by the grace of CP/M, one way or the other.  While TRS-DOS wasn't
actively bad, it was highly clumsy, and did odd things for some speed
which tied it to specific hardware altogether too tightly, such as
sticking the directory of a diskette in the middle tracks of the
diskette.  That kind of kludge doesn't translate well to a move to hard
drives, and other large media.  TRS-DOS also took advantage of hardware
specifics of the TRS line of computers, as I understand it, which would
have made it more difficult to port to other-company machines.  Of
course, had the goal been to have TRS-DOS succeed, rather than the
TRS-80 line of computers, these issues could have been addressed.

    But, when it comes to early "solid base" operating systems, nothing
beats CP/M.  And, since the IBM went in what amounted to the CP/M
direction, this worked out well for them.



> Today I use Linux...an offshoot of the Apple....which is far superior to
> Windows and their "pretend" DOS.  But it wasn't back then.


    I write this on a Linux machine, and I love the operating system.
Linux is a work-alike of UNIX, developed by Bell Labs (K&R).  The Apple
OS-X is a licensed variant of UNIX.  Linux is NOT an offshoot of Apple.
I also own several Macs, and I have to say that I did not find the older
Mac OS stuff to be as stable as was claimed.  What I found was that Mac
owners (more often hobbyists) tended to hide the fact when their
computer crashed, whereas PC owners (more often businessmen) tended to
gripe about their computer crashing.  This gave, as I see it, an
erroneous impression of much greater stability for the Mac.  I think it
WAS more stable, but not by the nearly infinite margin portrayed by many
Mac enthusiasts.  I liked the simplicity and intuitive nature of the
Mac.  On the other hand, I detested the idea that they refused to put in
a command line interpreter because it wasn't part of "the vision."
Bugger that, I have work to do.  Make it easy for me, don't force me
into your vision...



> We have to look at the market and environment of the late 70s when we start
> comparing systems.  Today the market is different and the systems are
> different.  We cant compare apples to oranges.


    Sure we can.  Most apples are red, and have a smooth, thin skin.
Oranges reflect light at a higher frequency, and have bumpier, thicker
skins.



            Peace,

            Warren E. Wolfe
            wizard at voyager.net