> That's one main difference between the CoCo and the Dragon. The other is
> rather more annoying. While the BASICs are compatible as the Ascii
> source level, the tokens used for each keyword are different on the 2
> machines (!). So you can't CSAVE a program on a CoCo and CLOAD it into a
> dragon and expect it to work. I have no idea why it was done this way --
> IMHO it's stupid.
A CoCo-nut (hah, that's actually pretty funny ;-) I used to know said it was
for legal reasons or something like that. I think Radio Shack got cold feet
about having a European competitor.
I was never fond of the CoCo 1/2 or the MC-10, but I really liked the CoCo 3.
I used to assist an elementary school teacher who had a network of CoCo 2s
that I wrote educational software for (he used my fractional division tutor
for years ;-). The CoCo 3 had the only disk drive in the class, so he got
one of the Radio Shack network-over-cassette-port rotary switches and we
loaded the program on all the CoCo 2s by turning the switch and typing CLOAD
on the appropriate machine.
I thought the CoCo 3 had a lot going for it. Its graphics were much, much
better than its ancestors and I liked CoCo BASIC. Perhaps I'll have to get
one of my own now. :-)
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser_at_stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- W. von Braun
Received on Sat May 05 2001 - 14:46:50 BST