Talk:TRS-80 Color Computer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Important, when editing, add your comments to the bottom of the wiki. Don't replace this entrie page with your comments.

Contents

[edit] Microware vs. Microsoft ROM

Microware may have licensed their BASIC from Microsoft, but the copyright notice at start-up of a baseline CoCo system clearly says Microware. Ducker

Only on the CoCo 3. And only when you let the Microware code patch the Microsoft code. For all versions of the CoCo 1 and 2 Tandy licensed the code from Microsoft (like it says in the startup screen). On the CoCo 3 is says "licensed from Microsoft and Microware". Microware only wrote patches.
tim lindner <tlindner@ix.netcom.com>
Sorry, no. I've had three different CoCo's, a grey chicklet keyboard 16K 1, a 32k 2, and a 128k 3. All of them had the microware startup. I had this debate many times in high school with people who at that time thought Microsoft was the only BASIC around. It is possible that there were varient ROMs, of course, and I never did have the straight COLOR-BASIC, always EXTENDED COLOR-BASIC, so that also may be part of where this comes from. Even the Disk basic was from microware. And I have never had to apply any patches to any varient. Ducker
You are mistaken. Microware never wrote the BASIC in the ROM in the Color Computer. Microsoft did. Let us look at some screen shots I just took with the MESS emulator (which I work on) and verified ROM dums:
This first is what appears on a Color BASIC 1.0 screen:
Image:ColorBasic10.png
Of course this says copyright by Tandy, but that is when Tandy had more power than Microsoft. If you issue a 'CLS(9)' command you'll get:
Image:CLS9.png
Since there is no ninth color, Microsoft decided to clear the screen and print their company name at the top of the screen. Why would Microware do this?
Next is Extended Color BASIC 1.1:
Image:ExtendedColorBasic11.png
Notice now how it says that the software was licensed from Microsoft. Not much room for dissagreement here.
Next: Disk Extended Color Basic:
Image:DiskExtendedColorBasic10.png
Again, no Microware.
Now for the CoCo 3. This might explain you faulty memory:
Image:Coco3.png
By this time (1985) Microsoft had no interest in extending Color BASIC to support the extra functionality of the CoCo 3, so in desperation Tandy asked Microware to write a patch that would be applied on start-up on the computer. Tandy's lawyers thought this would be the safest way to extend Color BASIC and not violate their agreement with Microsoft to not modify the Color BASIC ROM.
Here is a USENET Google link from a man who worked for Tandy during the time the CoCo 3 was being developed.
tim lindner, tlindner@mess.org
Conceded, as I unfortunately only have my memories and a CoCo3 buried in storage somewhere to match against your screenshots. But I would like to make note of the fact that your CoCo3 screenshot won't match what I've got, since it's for Disk ECB 2.1, which I didn't have. I bought my DiskECB Cart when I bought the CoCo2. So the only screenshots I could muster would be for the CoCo3 on its own, or for that same CoCo3 + DiskECB v1.? (not sure of the exact version, but I vaguely remember it being something other than 1.0).
Beyond any of that, I'm also wondering about the possibility of differing ROM versions, perhaps due to different manufacturing locations/times. Another point: Something that had annoyed me for a while w/ regard to the CoCo3 is that I had gotten a copy of the service manual, but it unfortunately didn't cover the exact model of main-board that I had (and there were actual differences); That combined with the fact that I was never able to get that three muskateers picture easter egg discussed in that google link, makes me think that there might be another versioning issue at work here. Guess this means I'll have to find and drag out my CoCo3 of storage, groan ;).
One last detail: If you want to sign things just use three tildes ~~~. Adding a fourth tilde will add a datestamp.
Ducker 09:27, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
So would you like to make the changes or should I? :)
Tlindner 05:42, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Considering that I still disagree, I suggest it would be better if you did. ;)
Ducker 10:06, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Microware may have licensed their BASIC from Microsoft, but the copyright notice at start-up of a baseline CoCo system clearly says Microware. Ducker (copied from above)
With rare exceptions, most all of the 8 bit basics in use were produced by a generator that Microsoft used to produce a ROM Basic (the 8080 versions were hand coded, and used for the 8080 and the Z-80).
From: 209.121.162.180
This is exactly why I had been involved in the debatess I described above. Ducker
I'm sorry, but *nowhere* on the baseline Color Computer is Microware mentioned at all. Only on the last model produced, were the *patches* recognised as being done by Microware. Indeed, if you typed CLS9 on a stock Colour Computer, the word MICROSOFT was printed.
From: 202.47.51.63

Tim Linder is completely correct about the source of Basic in a Color Computer. I am a long time user of Color Computers 1&3 and the only Basic written by Microware is Basic09 which was supplied as part of the OS-9 system. OS-9 by Microware was made available to the Color Computer as an enhancement software package.

There are no major differences in Basic going from Disk Basic 1.0 to 1.1 or 2.0 and 2.1. This just indicates changes in the disk ROM (.0 .1) and whether the Basic is for the Coco1 or Coco2. As Tim stated, Microware patched the ROM Basic to add commands for the Coco3 which added Microware's name to the copyright notice. Robert Gault <robert.gault@att.net>

Not that it is needed, but Tim Linder and Robert Gault are correct. The ROM was by Microsoft and patched by Microware. The result was buggy -- I remember it crashed if it hit an unrecognized token in a program listing. I'm not knocking Microware; that it worked at all was pretty amazing. --Steven Fisher 20:19:20, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

[edit] Bit-banger

I'm not sure it's fair calling the bit-banger an example of a cost tradeoff. As I recall, it was eventually discovered that the serial port had been designed to send an interrupt on incoming data, but had a diode wired backwards (or something like that) which disabled the functionality. Likewise, the hi-res interface was an after-market hack. If the serial port had worked, it might been made to connect that way instead. --Steven Fisher 20:16:22, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

What hi-res interface? The hi-res joystick interface designed by Steve Bjork? It was a Tandy/Radio Shack produced product, but there was another one for the CoCoMax graphics program (and a few others) that were after market, but Tandy certainly had one that plugged into a joystick and cassette port. --Allen Huffman 16:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
No such diode exists in the schematic, but generating a random interrupt when a zero bit is detected is pointless, as there would be no timing indicating that bit's position in the data stream. You may be thinking of the "Diode fix" that corrects multiple interrupt detection when using the RS232-pak. The bit-banger is absolutely a cheap solution to providing serial communications with only a couple of PIA pins instead of a UART chip. However a serial port-attached hi-res joystick interface would make printing pictures from CoCoMAX pretty hard! --Lamune 17:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emulators

Should we add an emulator section? There's Jeff Vavasour's CoCo 2 & CoCo 3 emulators as well as MESS and Virtual CoCo for the Mac. --Thoric 19:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, someone can use my CoCo wiki as a starting point for anything useful for expanding this one. --Allen Huffman 16:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections / additions

[poke 65492 (2) poke 65487 (3) if i recall] these pokes actually increased the clock speed

Don't have time to correct this at the moment, but all CoCos (1/2/3) were about to run at higher speeds (high speed poke). The CoCo 1/2 could operate safely at double rom speed, but double ram speed would cause corrupted video (and possibly corrupted memory). The CoCo 3 could operate safely at double ram speed. It should be noted that standard RS-DOS disk I/O operations would be corrupted if they were done in double speed as timings were affected. Some third party enhanced DECB ROM replacements corrected this problem.

Also, there was a final revision of the CoCo2 before the CoCo3 was released. It had a newer revision of the ECB ROM, and also supported true lower-case characters in the 32x16 text mode as it had a MC6847T1 VDG chip while the older models had a MC6847 VDG chip. --Thoric 16:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the CoCo2s that were labled "Tandy" instead of "TRS-80" had lowercase. Is this totally true across the board? Were any non-Tandy labeled CoCo2s capable of lowercase? I don't think so, but this is a good place to discuss it. There were also some KoCo (Korean made) that had a Basic 1.2 or 1.3 or 1.4 or something (anyone recall?) which was just to support a slightly different hardware for the PIA or something. There was a Rainbow Magazine article discussing all the types of CoCo 2s many years ago, which would be good to use for reference. I think it was a Marty Goodman article. --Allen Huffman 16:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The "Tandy" nameplate is not necessarily an indicator that the CoCo in question contains the MC6847T1. I had one TRS-80 named machine with a T1- though it could have been a case of a lid-swap. There are indeed many "Tandy" labeled machines that do not contain the T1- I had probably about 10 in my collection before selling them off. The only true indicator is if there is a "B" suffix on the part number; example, 26-3127B. Also, BASIC 1.3 was the final released version. I'm pretty sure that all the comments listed above are properly addressed by the article including the "high speed poke". --Lamune 17:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The article states: "Commodore and Atari BASIC users had two commands for graphics and sound available to them: PEEK and POKE!". This is only half-true, since Atari BASIC did have many powerful commands that could be used for creating graphics and sound directly. However, Commodore BASIC did not have any of these, to the best of my knowledge. --81.215.232.165

  • Go ahead and correct it. I would do it, but I know nothing Commodore or Atari and would probably just take it out. In general, this article needs a cleanup with fewer comparisons and a more NPOV. The CoCo was cool, of that there's little doubt, but this shouldn't be quite so much a fan page. --Steven Fisher 06:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prototype CoCo 3/GIME cloning

This section is really fascinating- does anyone know where the process of the reverse engineering is going on? I'd like to help the effort if I can. Maybe if there's more info on the board itself, that would be interesting to see too. --Lamune 17:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I possess the prototype CoCo 3's but there is no status to report. The group I want to work on them wants to finish a project before this one. A CoCo specific wiki where the project will be discussed is at http://www.coco25.com --Allen Huffman 07:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9 colors

As I recall, the VDG actually displayed 11 colors: the basic nine, plus a dark green and a dark red. To see what I mean if you have a coco, type poke 1024,32. That's color #10. To get color #11, you need to enter the series of pokes to change to amber display mode. Note that this will NOT work on most emulators; the VDG implementation there is not perfect. I also don't think it works on a CoCo 3. --Steven Fisher 15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retail price

What were the retail prices of the Color I & II? What was the cost of peripherals? What computers were they competeing against? --Navstar 17:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure of the actual retail price

I paid 99$ for my first coco 2 with 64k of ram I paid 299$ for my first 156k single sided floppy drive with a radio shack controller I paid 149$ for my first multi-pack interface I paid 99$ for a modem 1 I paid 24.99$ for a pair of joysticks the ROM cartridges averaged 29.99$ os9 lv1 cost me 79.99 os9 lv2 cost 79.99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.7.175 (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Chicket keyboard" on Coco Model I

I had to look up the definition of "Chicket keyboard" here, I found that it does not describe the KB of the early model I's aptly, the keys ?may? have used chicket-like mechanisms but were topped with hard plastic, eg they were horrible, (I say this fairly as I still love my old coco though) and much nastier than the soft keys of a kb like Sega's SC3000 for any lenght of typing, the Model I KB I describe is shown in the article in the first image, the terminal prototype that was to become to Coco line...

[edit] Contiki operating system and web browser for coco

Someone named James Dessart is attempting to port Contiki over to the Coco, which includes a web browser. [1] I'm not sure where to note that in the article.

[edit] Fortran and Cobol compilers

I'm pretty sure I saw a Fortran compiler and a Cobol compiler for OS-9 (by Microware) at a Radio Shack Computer Center a long time ago. I went back later but they were gone. Am I just imagining this or were these really available? Where are they now? I can't find any record of them. Beyond the classroom 06:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Microware did indeed have a FORTRAN 77 compiler for OS-9/6809. I don't believe it was ever on the shelves at Radio Shack, but perhaps it could be special ordered? Jejones3141 (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current Development

I guess we need a section discussing how the CoCo exists today, with the CoCoFests and new hardware and software products. I'll start one. --Allen Huffman

[edit] OS9 Divide

This perceived requirement of total backwards compatibility killed off at least one attempt to improve on the CoCo--Frank Hogg's "Tomcat" TC-9 fizzled out while Chris Burke was attempting to make it simulate all the details of CoCo hardware--and probably killed them all; if there were an archive of the CompuServe OS-9 SIG messages, Kevin Darling's cri de coeur directed to DECB users with the subject line "You're Killing the CoCo!" would be a useful link.

This single sentence very awkward; particularly so in the second half, which I had to re-read four times to understand correctly. I'm not qualified to try and rephrase this, because when I was a CoCo user, I was 10-14 years old, so I don't know anything about this. All the same, someone should try to rework this section and make it a little more reader-friendly. - Tenmiles 03:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Trash-80"

The CoCo was never called a "Trash-80". It was a derogatory moniker for Radio Shack's Z80 based systems. Tlindner 02:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


I beg to differ i affectionately called them that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.7.175 (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ--I had a Z80 based Model I Level II, and Trash-80 was VERY much a derogotory name for the unit. ("Them there's fightin' words!") However, as far back as I can recall, the Color Computer was always termed CoCo, and in fact there was a magazine dedicated to the unit called "Hot CoCo." Matthewcrandall9 (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I beg to differ with Matthew Crandall9. The Colour Computer may have always been officially termed the CoCo, but at least in Australia it was also affectionately called the 'Trash-80' .. at least in my neck of the woods.

I'm sure it was technically incorrect, but that doesn't mean that the phrase was never used. It may be a cultural difference - for example, in Australia 'bastard' can be an affectionate term rather than an insult.

However, it was certainly used as a non-derogotory name for the CoCo in at least some places.

150.101.206.3 (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-POV dispute

Several statements are those of heavily-biased opinion and not as fact. I have made several corrections but there is more left to do. --KJRehberg (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced Article notice

This article, while containing many facts known in popular CoCo culture of which I was a part, does not cite references for such facts. An encyclopedia must cite arbitrary facts. Please help us fix this article by reviewing the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. --KJRehberg (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[2] has a lot of information, but that site probably wouldn't qualify as a "reliable source". It does mention things like press releasees and magazine issues. They might be hard to come by, given the age involved. Libraries might have copies of the magazines, at least a journal cite might be possible. Maybe verification can be made using those. Another possibility is [3], but that still requires some sort of verification. Yngvarr 12:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Alas, while ideally such citations should exist, it's going to be very hard indeed to find references for hobbyist-driven activity that occurred long after the Tandy Color Computer was of any mainstream interest. Are there even archives of The RAINBOW magazine, much less Nine-Times and other short-lived, small-run publications? Jejones3141 (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)