HP 2000 system requirements (was Re: Request for Armed Guard highway escort (HP2100))

From: Jay West <jwest_at_classiccmp.org>
Date: Tue Feb 4 16:03:00 2003

Eric wrote...
> I strongly disagree. 2000C, 2000C', and 2000F are *much* better than
> 2000E.
I did say "I believe", ie subjective opinion. I'm familiar with C, E, and
Access from personal experience using them in high school. In my own
experience, C was "twitchy". E was rock solid. E gives up features like
"Print Using" and "execute" I seem to recall, and E didn't support group
libraries and such... but E was perfectly usable and stable as heck. Of
course, YMMV

> > and only requires one CPU,
>
> True. IIRC, one of the earlier systems, 2000A or 2000B, also only
> required one CPU, but there's probably no reason to prefer that over
> 2000E.
Well, it is fairly plausible that a hobbyist can get 2000E running on
"modern" stuff like a 21MX/E or F. You aren't going to get A or B running
easily, unless someone knows where a working HP drum memory device and
working fixed head disc are. I can't imagine there's any of those around,
and A/B required them, so , not very likely. Matter of fact, didn't C or F
require a fixed head drive? I think one of them did anyways, and there are
likely none of those devices to be found. In addition, the A and B versions
are cute, but lack some of the basic features one would want that are in the
E version. E was a modern implementation of BASIC, unlike the A/B, and
wasn't all that different from the Access systems except for a few
statements that many people like.

> 2000C/C'/F don't require special IOP firmware either. Only 2000 Access
> needs that.
>
> 2000C/C'/F don't require a tape drive, though they can support it as
> an option.'
That is also true of 2000E

> Of course, if you want to SLEEP or HIBERNATE the system
> for backup, you'd better have one.
One backed up 2000E quite handily using disc-up and copy loader commands.
That I know for sure, and I THINK you could do a sleep/hib to disk?

But, more to the point, all I was saying is, C/C'/F require two cpu's. For
many hobbists, finding one cpu is hard enough, let alone two, and the
interconnect kit, etc. etc. I was just saying that the E version is
perfectly usable, and doesn't require gobs of hardware like the C/C'/F, and
Access versions do.

Jay West
Received on Tue Feb 04 2003 - 16:03:00 GMT