Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk wrote: heard that the CRT sold for the Model I had some safety concerns? I think that was just a rebadged RCA TV set with the tuner section removed? Yes Although I think that it is likely that Tandy bought them before a tuner was put in, rather

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: CP/M ran on the Model I and the Model III.  CP/M was a very adaptable OS. CP/M required RAM where the TRS80 Model 1 and 3 had ROM. An unmodified TRS80 (model 1 or model 3) could not run unmodified CP/M. FMG? marketed a relocated CP/M for

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

> On Apr 27, 2018, at 9:08 AM, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk > wrote: > > Don't get me wrong. Like you I learned a lot due to all the variety of > differing machines that were available in the market early on. From a > business perspective I don't think it made a lot of

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:53 PM, Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > I see that the actual fragmentation is about how each and everyone got in > touch with computers, personal or mainframe or whatever! Me, I was in > junior high and usually understood

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 8:06 AM, geneb via cctalk wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > > Then they upgraded the model 1 to reduce the cords and cables, and made >> the Model 3. I don't know whether the resemblance to the Northstar >> Dimension was

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

Excuse my long post, but I get excited whenever I can talk about the Model 16. :) I will expound a bit on what was already mentioned. The Model 16 was an engineering marvel. It was released in 1982 in the same form factor as the venerable Model II. It was essentially an upgraded Model II.

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: Then they upgraded the model 1 to reduce the cords and cables, and made the Model 3. I don't know whether the resemblance to the Northstar Dimension was deliberate. I think the primary driver for the Model III was that the Model I would no

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

On 04/26/2018 10:00 PM, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> D'ya mean like an automobile company making more than one model? Surely >> there is no need for Toyota to make both a Corolla AND a Camry!

RE: TRS-80 Fragmentation

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, W2HX via cctalk wrote: All that "fragmentation" to me was wonderful. Different models, different capabilities it was magical! There are two different interpretations of "fragmentation". Both are implicitly negative. "Any color you want, as long as it is black" (1909) saves

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

Glen Slick via cctalk wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 8:23 PM, Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk wrote: Interesting. HP made ISA card versions of early (or actually, pre-) HP9000-300 that were designated as "Basic Language Processors", hosting a 68000 and having GPIB

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

W2HX via cctalk wrote: The first personal computer I ever came in contact with was the TRS-80 Model 1 (Level II) at a friend of my father's in Long Island around 1979. I learned to program basic at his house and practiced during the summer at my junior high school that had a few Model 1's for

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 8:23 PM, Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk wrote: > > Interesting. HP made ISA card versions of early (or actually, pre-) > HP9000-300 that were designated as "Basic Language Processors", hosting a > 68000 and having GPIB I/O. Interesting beasts.

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, 15:59 Bill Gunshannon via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: I believe the Z-80 was subordinate to the M68K. In high-level conceptual term, maybe, depending on the software. In term of the actual capabilities of the hardware, the Z80 was

RE: TRS-80 Fragmentation

The first personal computer I ever came in contact with was the TRS-80 Model 1 (Level II) at a friend of my father's in Long Island around 1979. I learned to program basic at his house and practiced during the summer at my junior high school that had a few Model 1's for kids to work with. The

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > D'ya mean like an automobile company making more than one model? Surely > there is no need for Toyota to make both a Corolla AND a Camry! > > Hmm... not really sure about that comparison. After all, it's

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

TRS-80 Model II and 16, 68k based "business" machines The Models II and 12 were Z80 based machines. The models 16 and 6000 were the same Z80 based machines with 68k subsystems added via additional cards to allow them to run Xenix. On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Geoff Oltmans via cctalk wrote: D'oh! I

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

I believe the Z-80 was subordinate to the M68K. On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: In high-level conceptual term, maybe, depending on the software. In term of the actual capabilities of the hardware, the Z80 was firmly in control of _everything_ in the machine, including control

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, 15:59 Bill Gunshannon via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > I believe the Z-80 was subordinate to the M68K. In high-level conceptual term, maybe, depending on the software. In term of the actual capabilities of the hardware, the Z80 was firmly in control of

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk wrote: common architecture. Do you think that if they had, say, revised and extended the Model I system to color/80 column that the rest would have been mostly redundant? D'ya mean like an automobile company making more than one model? Surely

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

> On Apr 26, 2018, at 4:51 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk > wrote: > > >> On Apr 26, 2018, at 14:25, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk >> wrote: >> >> TRS-80 Model II and 16, 68k based "business" machines > > The Models II and 12 were Z80 based

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

I do have a workslate!   Odd   portable...  Thin we  have a printer too  for it? Ed#  www.smecc.org    In a message dated 4/26/2018 2:56:41 PM US Mountain Standard Time, cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:   > > TRS-80 Model 100, 102, 200 (rebadged Kyoceras) On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Ed Sharpe via cctalk

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

On 04/26/2018 05:58 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > > On 04/26/2018 05:51 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote: >>> On Apr 26, 2018, at 14:25, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk >>> wrote: >>> >>> TRS-80 Model II and 16, 68k based "business" machines >> The Models II and 12

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

On 04/26/2018 05:51 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote: >> On Apr 26, 2018, at 14:25, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk >> wrote: >> >> TRS-80 Model II and 16, 68k based "business" machines > The Models II and 12 were Z80 based machines. The models 16 and 6000 were the > same

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

> TRS-80 Model 100, 102, 200 (rebadged Kyoceras) On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Ed Sharpe via cctalk wrote: But... i have   yet  to see a  Kyocera...   Ed# NEC 8201, Olivetti M10 were more of the Kyoto Ceramics machines. NEC was about 3/8" thicker, but had much more expansion capability. 8085, 8x40

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

> On Apr 26, 2018, at 14:25, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk > wrote: > > TRS-80 Model II and 16, 68k based "business" machines The Models II and 12 were Z80 based machines. The models 16 and 6000 were the same Z80 based machines with 68k subsystems added via additional

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

But... i have   yet  to see a  Kyocera...   Ed#   In a message dated 4/26/2018 2:25:47 PM US Mountain Standard Time, cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:   TRS-80 Model 100, 102, 200 (rebadged Kyoceras)

TRS-80 Fragmentation

It is obvious that the TRS-80 line of computers suffered severe fragmentation with differing architectures: TRS-80 Model I, III, and 4(P) are all obviously of a mostly compatible architecture. TRS-80 Model II and 16, 68k based "business" machines TRS-80 CoCo I, II, III (Dragon) TRS-80 PC-x,