There certainly were a few vendors whose systems were as much off-center as
the N*. Just take a look at Vector Graphics' systems, for example. I once
owned a couple of those, with their memory-mapped video refresh memory.
They were another box which didn't have enough TPA to run the output
generated from, say, the MT+ Pascal compiler in a unit with a contiguous 64k
RAM.
As I wrote before, the problems went away with the later releases of various
compilers, but while prejudices are easy to acquire, they're difficult to
eliminate.
N* had their own version of a DOS, IIRC, and perhaps that's what made their
management believe they didn't need to offer an efficient and
CP/M-compatible product. Myself, I could never recommend a system which
didn't read/write the standard distribution media for is native OS.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Allison J Parent <allisonp_at_world.std.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, October 31, 1999 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: Northstar Horizon
><Well . . . here we go . . . the fact that N* memory mapped their FDC was
on
><thing that clearly would fall in the MISTAKE category. What the reason fo
><the existence of the smaller TPA resulting from memory mapping anything is
>
>the TPA bit was something I could care less about. The memory mapped
>design was functional, not pretty. Of course the first controller I'd
>built was IOmapped not for more space but because it was easier to decode
>8bits rather than 16. Was it the right way for them, not really but it
>worked. there were plenty of other memory mapped designs that were not
>nearly as nice. It's the way it was right or wrong. So happens I have
>two and one replaced my altair. It was a damm sight better and reliable
>depite two lightiing hits. The only design fault I sought to fix was
>the lack of storage denisty, 80k per drive was far from enough. The later
>controller and software was an improvement but hard sector was a problem
>as it was not even remotely portable. The processor card and the IO on
>the backplane was however very nicely done. Like many I used third party
>ram mostly because I'd alreay had 32k of SEALS 8k static from the altair.
>I still do not ahve NS* ram for the odler box, I'd put in a Compupro
>Ram-16 back in '84 to get rid of the six 8k static and a 16k static.
>Such is the evolution of just one system.
>
><of no relevance. It was a justification for SOME of us, me included, to
><draw a line through their products whenever they appeared in a list. Of
><course their price would have been another.
>
>It was their price that made them attractive. Least on the east coast.
>Some systems like CCS I'd never seen until a few years ago. Others were
>a bit rich price wise or questionable vendors.
>
>Allison
>
Received on Sun Oct 31 1999 - 23:52:22 GMT