Re: **** Ch.A.O.S. ****

[shoppa@almach.caltech.edu (Timothy D. Shoppa)]

In article <RrEjbV5.woodzy@delphi.com>, Jeffrey Wood <woodzy@delphi.com> writes...

[Well, what is below isn't *exactly* what Jeffrey Wood
writes.  The original had lines around 220 characters long,
as well as dozesn of embedded escape sequences that wreak
havoc with a true DEC VT100.  I've taken excerpts of the
original post, removed the hazardous control sequences, and
reformatted the text, adding some of my comments, and have
crossposted the result to alt.folklore.computers and
comp.os.cpm (this was originally found in comp.sys.apple2). -TDS] 

> Hi, and welcome to Ch.A.O.S. Country.  Welcome to the
> revolution. The Cheyenne Area Orphaned Systems, or
> Ch.A.O.S., is a club devoted solely for the preservation of
> classic non-IBM systems, such as ours,

So those of us who have classic IBM hardware dating from
the minicomputer era are not welcome to participate.  
Wonderful.

> and for the defeat of
> Microsoft.

So this means that if I join your group, I won't be able
to use Microsoft Basic on my CP/M machines?  Or Microsoft
Applesoft Basic inside my Apple II?  Wonderful.

>  If we wanted IB M compatability, we would have
> abandoned our systems long ago.

When I bought my first floppy drive system in 1977, a 
very major factor was compatibility with the IBM 3740
standard for 8" SSSD floppies.  I want this compatibility
still, and am not going to abandon these floppy drives
and their controllers because they are often the
only way to interchange media between early micros. 

> Those of us who do have
> IBMs, but still use our classics, only bought them out of
> necessity, such as for work or school.This is not
> a political organization.

It may not be a political organization, but you certainly
hold some extremist, poorly informed, and short-sighted 
opinions, just like many political organizations do.

>  We do not hold any specific r
> ight wing or left wing political views.  We do believe in
> fair competition and Microsoft is NOT fair.  We spent all
> that time and money on our respective systems because the
> performed the task or tasks we bought them for.  Wether it
> be for gaming, educat ion, office, or whatever, our classic
> systems performed upto our expectations, and in some cases,
> beyond the original design.  Why should we abandoned
> everything we put into our systems?

I'll have to agree with you that there is no reason you
should abandon your system, but what does Microsoft have
to do with all this?  Are they forcing you to abandon your
system?  Microsoft, as a matter of fact, wrote many of the
tools I use daily on my CP/M systems.  I see your post as
advocating that I abandon these useful tools!

> I have been
> working on the designs of two programs that I feel wou ld
> unite all of our systems, yet retain the sovereignty or
> flavor of each individual system:1.  A terminal
> shell with game maker to allow two or more non-compatable
> systems to play games over the modem or in a mini-network. 
> Of course, standard protoco ls will have to be set between
> computers to ensure game play.  But, graphics between two
> different systems wont have to be the same because screen
> data wont be sent, just tiny info packets.  The games would
> take full advantage of the graphics and sound c apabilities
> of each individual system.  The games would be played as
> close to real time as possible.

Wonderful.  I can just see trying to play flight simulator
in real time on the Hex keypad and seven-segment displays
of my KIM-1.  Fabulous.

> 2.  A DEVICE
> OPERATING SYSTEM (DOS) desgined on a bi-level format:  The
> primary level is a whole new computer that provides
> cross-platform compatability  between our classic systems. 
> The computer will be based on the PowerPC.  This will allow
> each classic system to be enhanced to that of at least a
> 486.  Without losing much compatability with the existing
> sytems.  Full compatability is not guaranteed be cause of
> the new enhancements to each individual operating system. 
> But, at least you wont have to abandon your whole classic
> system!  The secondary level is a whole new disk operating
> system for the original classic.  This will allow direct
> disk access communication between ALL systems.  Yes, even
> IBM.  Just imagine, a C64 computer operating system with 38k
> free RAM, can now have as much as 3.75 Meg free RAM on a 4
> Meg System!  This is directly accessable without
> bankswitching or even use as a RAMDISK!   Just imagine the
> fresh, new applications that can be developed that retained
> the original C64s flavor.  No, this is not limited to the
> C64, but to all classic systems, such as the Atari, Tandy
> CoCo, VIC20 (YES!), Apple, etc.All of our classic
> systems  have their own uniqueness, their own
> distinctiveness. That is why we refused to follow the
> industry or marketing trends.  This would allow us to
> preserve our systems and at the same time develop a
> cross-platform industry standard.  Who says we have to
> follow the Microsoft standard?

But many of the systems you've named above *already* 
followed Microsoft standard.  At the very least, many Tandy
systems and all Apple II+'s and IIe's shipped with a
version of Microsoft Basic.  

>  Lets follow a standard,
> sure, but we should also be allowed to keep our systems we
> have devoted so much time and energy
> into!Cheyenne Area Orphaned Systems c/o
> Jeffrey Wood813 Covered Wagon DriveCheyenne,
> Wyoming  820 07-1671

I'm not a huge fan of current Microsoft products myself, but
I am making a plea that your organization's "official"
postings at least have the following:

1.  Coherence and readability across a wide range of platforms.
Embedded escape sequences which lock and/or reset DEC 
VT-series terminals, which are widely emulated, are not
appreciated in postings.

2.  Some minimal technical knowledge about the extent to
which Microsoft software is already embedded in the firmware
of many of the systems which you are advocating as a way of
"defeating" Microsft. 

Tim. (shoppa@altair.krl.caltech.edu)