C64 vs. CoCo Rant...

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Tue Apr 23 20:45:52 2002

see below, plz.

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Merchberger" <zmerch_at_30below.com>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 3:10 PM
Subject: C64 vs. CoCo Rant...


> Rumor has it that Richard Erlacher may have mentioned these words:
> >Well, what I know is that my kids had a C64 before they were both in
> >elementary school and had outgrown it by the time they were 10. I didn't
> make
> >that choice, having been divorced from their mother, but it was apparent to
> >her that they needed something more capable. They had PC/AT's when they
were
> >10. Those were not great, but at least they were adequate. Frankly, if
one
> >considers the competition, the Commodore people picked the video toy
> market to
> >play in rather than the home computer market, because they couldn't compete
> >with Apple and Radio Shack, though they attempted to compete with RS'
> low-end.
> >That low-end, e.g. COCO wasn't much to compete with.
>
I didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't a CAPABLE setup, as was the Com64/128,
etc, but it wasn't terribly effective as shipped. The Commies were fine if
equipped with more or less "standard" hardware, and the software to use it,
which was NOT what they came with, but which could be added. The COCO also
was quite capable after considerable modification. The reason I say this is
that I was a long-time CP/M user by the time the C-128 showed up in my kids'
weekend bag, and I saw lots of Commodores with stuff lying all over a
hollow-core door in more than one basement. Likewise, though this one I've
got here now is the first I ever saw, I've heard about what you CAN do with a
COCO. RS didn't see it that way, however.

The typical user, as with typical MAC and PC users, don't really want to open
the box (if you've ever gotten into one of 'em, you'll know why) and cutting
the foil on a PCB is enough to make the typical user, who paid what they cost
back then, cringe.

BTW, I've got a COCO2 in its cardboard original box, which I'll hapily send to
anyone willing to pay the postage for $3 + freight.

>
> Huh?
>
> Not sure if I'm reading you right, but you make it sound as if the CoCo
> wasn't a very powerful computer - *if* that's the case, let me assure you
> just how wrong you are.
>
> When I got my first 386 (sx-16 Mhz, admittedly) I couldn't believe about
> the _lack of power_ it had, and relegated it to playing games because I
> could get more work done, faster, on my CoCo3 with 512K & only a floppy
> drive with OS-9 than my PC was with a 66Meg RLL drive, 2Megs of RAM, 512K
> of VGA RAM & HD floppy... running M$ *anything*. For another 4 *years* my
> CoCo was still my main work machine, until I got a 486DX66 EISA Dell
> machine on "perma-loan" from my employer of the time to do AutoCAD on.
>
> I *don't* want to get into a urinating match over Commie-lovers as to C64
> vs. CoCo and all that; and yes I have Atari's too - I've prolly heard it
> all. They *all* had their strong & weak points, but I think a lot of folks
> here will agree with me: the CoCo was a damn powerful machine for it's day,
> and the 6809 CPU has a *lot* of followers (altho the 6309 is something I
> *still* drool over... ;-)...
>
> > All these were capable
> >if you were determined to make them into what they weren't, but if you
wanted
> >a home computer, you were better off buying something that was already a
> >computer.
>
> Honestly, I worked on the XT's when they were out and couldn't believe how
> slow they were... and things hadn't improved that much by the time 386's
> hit the scene - makes me wish I'd stuck that $1800 I spent on my
> Intel-based VGA grafix Nintendo in the bank instead... or at least used the
> difference for a HD for my CoCo and bank the rest.
>
I've never had to pay that much for a computer ... at least not lately, as, in
the last 20 years, unless directed to do so by a client. I agree, after some
time of using a fast (8 MHz) Z80 running CP/M, I really didn't need the long
wait through POST and the subsequent sluggishness of the typical PC. That's
why I didn't own one until there were '186-based XT's. Since I was used to
the presence of a hard disk, I started with a 12 MHz 80186 with a full bank of
RAM and a 30 MB hard disk. That was almost tolerable, but still not
appreciably faster running DBASE or Wordstar.
>
> Altho, something tells me you'd be dissatisfied with a Cray... Or did
> someone urinate on your Wheaties this morning???
>
Nothing quite so serious. I didn't like the CRAY stuff much either. Besides,
it didn't run Windows ...
>
> Roger "Merch" Merchberger
> --
> Roger "Merch" Merchberger --- sysadmin, Iceberg Computers
> Recycling is good, right??? Ok, so I'll recycle an old .sig.
>
> If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
> disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
>
>
Received on Tue Apr 23 2002 - 20:45:52 BST