Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!okstate.UUCP!uokvax.UUCP!emjej
From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.trs-80
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <38800006@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Jun-86 14:27:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uokvax.38800006
Posted: Tue Jun  3 14:27:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Jun-86 05:19:52 EDT
References: <401@ccird1.UUCP>
Lines: 29
Nf-ID: #R:ccird1.UUCP:401:uokvax.UUCP:38800006:000:1476
Nf-From: uokvax.UUCP!emjej    Jun  3 13:27:00 1986


/* Written  6:02 pm  May  6, 1986 by rb@ccird1.UUCP in net.micro.trs-80 */
>Appearantly, there are some Tandy people reading this net
>over here, but missing some of the glorious fumes in net.micro.6809!
>Since about 85% of the traffic over there concerns hopes, speculation,
>and ideas for current and future Tandy products, it would be nice
>to get some information directly from the source.

Agreed.  IBM computers are garbage, no matter whose label is on them,
and if Tandy keeps dragging its feet it will find the CoCo users abandoning
them for an ST or Amiga with OS-9.  (On the other hand, maybe Tandy doesn't
care.)  I wonder whether anybody at Tandy knows enough computer history to
realize that once IBM has everybody imitating it and thus siphons off
most of the software talent from developing applications for anything
reasonable, IBM puts the screws to the clone-makers by introducing incom-
patibilities.

>On the down side, Tandy seems bent on sticking with the MS-DOS
>standards, with little attempt to improve the compatibility
>situation.  This wouldn't be so bad if MS-DOS were really a
>standard, complete with all the bells and whistles, but only
>the text portion is truly standard.

True, but people salivate whenever they hear the phrase "IBM-compatible."
(A friend of mine and I once considered taking out a *Computer Shopper*
ad for printer paper, advertising it as "IBM-compatible paper.")

					James Jones
/* End of text from net.micro.trs-80 */