7GMADISO@vu-vlsi.UUCP (12/19/87)
A point of order: It is considered to be in extremely poor
taste to use the term 'Trash-80' or 'TrashDOS'. I will concede
that the early versions of TRSDOS weren't anything to rave
about, but we in the TRS-80 user community have taken this
B.S. from people (predominantly CrApple (:-) users...) for
over 10 years now, and it's time to call a HALT.
---- George Madison
--------------------
''Your logic is impeccable, Captain; we are in grave danger.''
-- Mr. Spock ('The Changeling')
''Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.''
-- Groucho Marx
''Shut off that light, Stella; I won't be looked at in this
merciless glare!''
-- Donald (from 'Brothers')
--------------------
BITNET: 7gmadiso@pomona
UUCP: psuvax1!pomona.bitnet!7gmadisodpz@athos.rutgers.edu (David P. Zimmerman) (12/22/87)
In article <1250@vu-vlsi.UUCP> cbmvax!uunet!mcvax!POMONA.bitnet!7GMADISO@vu-vlsi.UUCP writes: > A point of order: It is considered to be in extremely poor taste to > use the term 'Trash-80' or 'TrashDOS'. By you, perhaps. Not by me. What's the big deal? I've had 6-7 TRS-80 computers over the last 5 years, and the terms TRaSh-80 and TRaShDOS have never bothered me. It's almost become a term of endearment, if not nostalgia. It's like someone laughing at a Countach :-). dpz -- Internet: dpz@rutgers.edu UUCP: rutgers!dpz Bitnet: zimmerman@zodiac
conklin@eecae.UUCP (Terry Conklin) (12/23/87)
Indeed, George is correct. The reference "trashdos" is highly inaccurate, since A.) FEW Mod I/III owners use real RS-TRSDOS and B.) Most TRSDOS replacements (notably Multidos, Newdos80, etc.) were terribly sophisticated and were very much more advanced than for example PC-DOS 3.0 (3.3 is getting pretty involved in it's own right.) TRS-DOS (even the original!) Provides for multitasking through interrupt service tables, variable length records, and mainframe-style multiple-level multiple password protection for files. Very useful features, none of which are in other micro doses. (Not counting Amiga's.) Execute only runtime protection even extended into BASIC programs, which would not list or run. (EITHER from DOS or BASIC.)
wcf@psuhcx (William C. Fenner) (12/24/87)
In article <485@athos.rutgers.edu> dpz@athos.rutgers.edu (David P. Zimmerman) writes: >In article <1250@vu-vlsi.UUCP> cbmvax!uunet!mcvax!POMONA.bitnet!7GMADISO@vu-vlsi.UUCP writes: > >> A point of order: It is considered to be in extremely poor taste to >> use the term 'Trash-80' or 'TrashDOS'. > >By you, perhaps. Not by me. What's the big deal? I've had 6-7 >TRS-80 computers over the last 5 years, and the terms TRaSh-80 and >TRaShDOS have never bothered me. It's almost become a term of >endearment, if not nostalgia. It's like someone laughing at a >Countach :-). Not to me. I always hated it when people call my computer a Trash-80, and I still do. I have never used that term in reference to my equipment, and never shall. I'm proud of my ol' model I! It's been running a BBS for the past 4 years and hasn't had any major troubles. It's a faithful word processor and has helped me through countless term papers, etc. Although I have caved in and am getting an IBM compatible in the near future, I plan on still using my TRS-80. I'm not going to throw it out until it stops working. __ _ _ _____ Bill Fenner WCF @ PSUHCX.BITNET / ) // // / ' wcf @ hcx.psu.edu /--< o // // ,-/-, _ ____ ____ _ __ /___/_<_</_</_ (_/ </_/ / <_/ / <_</_/ (_