The local N* users must have figured that out eventually. One of them got
together with the guy who owned the Champion software outfit and started a
users group for the "superbrain" computer which was a complete system
packaged in what looked like a desktop terminal. I know that at least this
one guy still had his N* after that.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: allisonp_at_world.std.com <allisonp_at_world.std.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Thursday, September 02, 1999 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Best CP/M machine?
>> >From what I remember, the Northstar was probably the most widely hated
>> "system" around in these parts. There was a local company which produced
an
>> apparently quite nice accounting package (Champion???) which wouldn't run
on
>> their most popular model, the "Horizon" because it had an 8K ROM which
>> reduced their TPA under CP/M to the point where this package wouldn't run
>> properly.
>
>NS* system wasn't the problem it was the MPS-A floppy system, It looked
>like 20 of ram/rom at 0E800h through 0EFFFh, It was memory mapped. There
>was only 256 bytes of actual rom. This generally meant for CPM users that
>the upper 4k of ram was unused.
>
>The fix was simple, CCP and BDOS ending 256bytes belove the controller
>and tweek the jump table for 0F000h. Then you put the BIOS above the
>FDC in ram. Works well and you end up with a 56-58k system.
>
>> The CompuPro combinations fit in the same category, i.e. the ones who
loved
>> 'em loved 'em, and the rest of us didn't. The owner of that company had
the
>> practice of having his people design circuits whith whatever he'd bought
for
>> cheap this week, and that meant that sometimes they were good, and
sometimes
>> they weren't. His boards often suffered from compatibility problems,
even
>> with other boards of his own manufacture. It was, to be sure, spotty.
>
>Stating that is nice but I have about 25-30 of those boards (all the
>interfacer models, RAM16/17/20/21/22/23, DISK1A, DISK3, system support,
>8/16 cpu, CPU-Z, MPX-1, Mdrive, two crates) NONE support your view. This
>may not be true for older boards (I'll bet the early ones were poor).
>
>I know they were considered reliable as they were pulled from 10 s100
>crates that were used here before PCs replaced them. They ran CHAMPION,
>DBASE, BTRIVE and a few other familiar names using Concurrent-dos on the
>8/16 cards.
>
>> S-100 systems, in general, can't be viewed in the same way as, say, a
>> single-board machine, because there is too much potential variation in
its
>> configuration to define it in a specific way. Some manufacturers sold
board
>> sets, about which they were willing to make certain claims about
>> performance, etc, but most of them just wanted to ship their boards and
let
>> the headaches fall where they may.
>
>They clearly werent PLUG and PLAY. Then again it was an industry wide
>issue. The only way out was a one vendor box or do you own system
>integration <at your own risk>.
>
>
>> Computer stores, notably ComputerLand, quite popular in the late
'70's-early
>> '80's, tended to sell board sets from Cromemco, Vector, and occasionally
>> NorthStar because the mfg would stand behind the sets they pushed. The
>> Cromemco board sets were often displayed in a desk-enclosure with
integral
>> (vertically mounted) Persci (very fast, voice-coil-driven) floppy drives,
>> into which it was very easy to drop a paper clip or something.
Businesses
>> tended to buy these because they were sold under a single aegis as
opposed
>> to letting someone "integrate" a system for them. The theory was that
there
>> was less risk that way.
>
>Certainly true to my experience on the east coast, the real problem was
>the inductry was so volitile that Fly-by-night computer was often common.
>and getting support for those older combines was at best iffy. From 1975
>through 1980 most every vendor we knew as the "originators" of the
>industry either went under or changed names/product multiple times trying
>to adapt to the changes that were going on. From 1980 on it only got
>worse!
>
>However, this is not a CPM problem.
>
>Allison
>
>
Received on Fri Sep 03 1999 - 16:01:09 BST